GARG, J. - (1.) THIS criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed by the accused petitioner against the judgment dated 7. 6. 1999 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Bhilwara in Cr. Revision No. 84/96 (105/91) by which he rejected the revision petition filed by the accused petitioner and upheld the order dated 20. 3. 191 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gangapur in Criminal Case No. 582/88 by which the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the accused petitioner for the offence under Sections 147, 149, 435, 453 and 477 IPC pertaining to FIR No. 248/88 Police Station Gangapur District Bhilwara and prayed that both the orders passed by the courts below be quashed.
(2.) IT arises in the following circumstances:- On 11. 10. 1988, one Bhagwati Lal lodged a report in the Police Station Gangapur against nine persons stating inter-alia that he has taken some premises on rent from Agarwal Samaj of Gangapur in which he was running his office for the last thirty years. IT was further stated in the report that some dispute regarding disconnection of electricity was going on in the Court of S. D. M. and yesterday night, after reaching procession of Agrasen Maharaj in Narsingh Chowk, certain youngsters came at his office and thereafter, broke the locks and the material was taken out of the shop and it was put into fire. IT was further stated in the report that he was sitting on the shop of Jugal Panwala. On this report, the police registered the case and chalked out regular FIR No. 248/88 for the offence under Sections 147, 435 and 453 IPC and started investigation. After usual investigation, police submitted challan against nine persons in the court of Magistrate on 30. 11. 1986. It may be stated here that police did not find case against the present accused petitioner and one Balu Ram, though their names were mentioned in the FIR and hence, challan was not filed against them. It may also be stated here that police found case against two other persons though their names were not found in the FIR and hence, against them, challan was filed. On 30. 11. 1988, the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the nine persons mentioned in the charge-sheet for the offence under Sec. 147, 149, 435, 453, 477 IPC. On the same day i. e. on 30. 11. 1988, an application was moved by the complainant with the prayer that cognizance be also taken against present accused petitioner and one Baluram as there was sufficient material against them and the police papers clearly showed prima facie case against them, but the police did not file challan against them. On this application, the learned Magistrate passed order on 30. 11. 1988 that it may be tagged with the file. It may be mentioned here that a criminal misc. petition no. 1/89 Bhagwati Lal vs. The State of Rajasthan was also filed in this court by the complainant, but the same was dismissed as not pressed on 6. 7. 1989 and the learned counsel for the complainant states that it was dismissed as not pressed, because no order was passed by the learned Magistrate on his application dated 30. 11. 1988. On 20. 3. 1991 when the arguments on charge were being heard by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gangapur, the said application, which was filed by the complainant on 30. 11. 1988, came for consideration and the learned Magistrate, after perusing the police papers and going through the statements recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr. P. C. , came to the conclusion that prima facie case is established against these two persons, namely, present accused petitioner Suresh Chandra and one Balu Ram for committing offence under Sections 147, 149, 435, 453, 477 IPC and thus, he took cognizance against them for the said offences vide order dated 20. 3. 1991. Aggrieved from the said order dated 20. 3. 1991 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gangapura, both present accused petitioner Suresh Chandra and Balu Ram preferred criminal revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara, which was transferred to the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Bhilwara and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Bhilwara through his judgment dated 7. 6. 1999 rejected the revision petition of the present accused petitioner, but allowed the revision of accused Balu Ram. Aggrieved from the said judgment dated 7. 6. 1999 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Bhilwara, this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed by the present accused petitioner. In this petition, the following submissions have been made by the learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioner:- (1) That since the cognizance for the said offences had already been taken by the learned Magistrate on 30. 11. 1988 against 9 persons mentioned in the charge-sheet, therefore, cognizance, which was taken by the impugned order dated 20. 3. 1991 against the present accused petitioner, could not have been taken and the course, which was open to the learned Magistrate was to wait till some material witnesses in Court were examined, in other words, recourse should have been taken under the provisions of Section 319 Cr. P. C. (2) That the order dated 20. 3. 1991 passed by the learned Magistrate is further illegal for the reason that it was passed in clear contravention of principles of natural justice as before passing it, no opportunity of hearing was given to the accused petitioner. Hence, it was prayed that this petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. be allowed and both impugned orders passed by the courts below be quashed and set aside. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 and the learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned orders passed by both the courts below. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for both the sides and perused the material available on record. Before proceeding further, it may be stated here that during the course of arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioner first submitted that after filing of challan, the learned Magistrate was ceased of the matter and he cannot take cognizance against some other accused till the stage of the provisions of Section 319 Cr. P. C. comes, but later on, he changed his argument by saying that the learned Magistrate has power to take cognizance even against those accused, those names are not mentioned in the charge-sheet submitted by the police, but on the same day when the challan is filed and after filing of the charge-sheet, the learned Magistrate cannot take cognizance except in circumstances as provided in Section 319 Cr. P. C. and, therefore, in this case, since challan was filed on 30. 11. 1988 and on that day, cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate against nine persons and no cognizance was taken against the present accused petitioner and, therefore, subsequent taking of cognizance against the present accused petitioner is illegal.
(3.) THE pertinent question that arises for determination in this case is whether the learned Magistrate after passing the order taking cognizance of the offence and issuing process to the accused persons named in the charge-sheet filed by the police has any power to issue process to other accused persons not named in the charge-sheet to face trial. Before proceedings further, something should be said about the word `cognizance'. The word `cognizance' has no esoteric or mystic significance in criminal law or procedure. it merely means to become aware of and, when used with reference to a court or Judge, to take notice of judicially. Taking cognizance does not involve any formal action; or indeed action of any kind, but occurs as soon as a Magistrate, as such, applies his mind to the suspected commission of an offence. It is impossible to attempt to define what is meant by `taking cognizance', and as to when cognizance is taken of an offence which depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Cognizance is taken of offence and not of offenders. ;