- (1.) THIS miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated June 22, 1990, passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi, by which the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 420, 408 and 120-B I. P. C.
(2.) DURING investigation relating to CR. No. 13/1977, 21/1977 and 40 1977, relating to Police Station, Barlot, for the offences under Sections 457 and 380 I. P. C, gold ornaments weighing 350 grams and silver ingot weighing 33 kg. 20 grams were recovered and their seizure memos were prepared. The seized gold ornaments and silver ingot were sent to the concerned Court on August 2, 1978, through Police Constable Kapoor Chand. When these articles were opened in the Court then in place of gold ornaments and silver ingot, copper was found in the packets, which were seized at the relevant time. The learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi before whom these articles were produced, did not accept the packet and wrote a letter to the Superintendent of Police, Sirohi in this regard. The matter was taken-up by the police as well as by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate. The learned Magistrate initiated an inquiry under Section 340 Cr. P. C. and after completing the inquiry, the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioner along-with other persons. It is against this order dated June 22, 1990, taking cognizance that the petitioner has preferred this miscellaneous petition for quashing the order taking cognizance. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was a goldsmith and the recoveries were made by Bhagwan Das and not by the petitioner and, therefore, taking cognizance against the petitioner under Sections 420,408 and 120-B I. P. C. is wholly without jurisdiction. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Magistrate did not follow the procedure provided under Section 340 Cr. P. C. He has, also, submitted that the offences under Sections 420, 408 and 120-B I. P. C. do not fall within the purview of Section 195 (1) (b) Cr. P. C. and, therefore, the cognizance taken against the petitioner was wholly unfounded. The learned counsel for the petitioner, lastly, submitted that neither any complaint was filed against the petitioner nor was any F. l. R. . registered against him and, therefore, no cognizance should have been taken against the petitioner. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the order passed by the learned Magistrate. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. After perusal of the case file and after going through the order-sheets, I do not find any illegality committed by the learned Magistrate in following the procedure as provided under Section 340 Cr. P. C. The procedure has correctly been observed by the learned Magistrate. So far as filing of the complaint or the registration of the F. l. R. is concerned, that is to be required to be followed only in the cases when the case falls within the purview of Section 195 (1) (b) Cr. P. C. and not in any other case. . Admittedly the offences under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B I. P. C. do not fall within the purview of Section 195 (1) (b) Cr. P. C. and as such the Court is not debarred to take cognizance against the accused under Section 190 (1) (c) if the Court, upon its own knowledge, if it prima facie comes to the conclusion that such offences have been committed. In the interest of justice, the Court, on its own motion, if it comes to its knowledge that any offence has been committed, can take cognizance of the case.
(3.) THE order taking cognizance is an ex-parte order and at the time of taking cognizance, the Court has only to see : whether from the complaint, the evidence of the witnesses and the documents on record, any prima facie case to proceed against the accused is made-out. If there is a prima facie case to proceed-with against the accused then the Court can take cognizance. Prima facie evidence means the evidence that is sufficient to establish a fact or to raise a presumption of the truth of the fact unless controverted. If the petitioner, against whom the cognizance has been taken, has any valid defence available to him then that can be decided by the trial Court at the appropriate stage. THE petitioner may agitate his grievance and raise his objections before the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate will consider all those objections raised by the petitioner and if after considering the objections raised by the petitioner the learned Magistrate is of the opinion that no case is made-out against the petitioner then at the time of framing the charge, he may discharge the accused even, but the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate cannot be interfered with or quashed by this Court in its revisional powers at this stage. THE powers under section 482 Cr. P. C. cannot be lightly used against the order taking cognizance and quashing the proceeding when a prima facie case has been made-out against the petitioner. In the result, I do not find any merit in the miscellaneous petition and the same is hereby dismissed. .;