SARRAF, J. - (1.) THE brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this misc. petition filed under Section 482 Cr. P. C. are that on filing of a challan by the police station Vishvakarama, Jaipur against the accused Kalyan Singh and Rajendra Sharma under sections 287, 338 IPC an order of taking cognizance was passed by the Magistrate on 5. 11. 1997. THEreafter APP filed an application on 7. 1. 1998 stating therein that the company and its owner are equally responsible and, therefore, cognizance be taken against the petitioners also. After hearing the parties the Magistrate by order dated 23. 2. 1998 took cognizance against the petitioners of the offence under Sections 287 and 338 IPC and issued bailable warrants against them. THE petitioners then filed an application under Section 204 Cr. P. C. for recalling the above order which was dismissed by the Magistrate by order dated 14. 11. 2000. THE petitioners filed a revision petition against the above order which was dismissed by order dated 5. 3. 2002 passed by Special Judge (counterfeiting coin cases), Jaipur City, Jaipur in criminal revision No. 38/2000. Aggrieved by the above order the petitioners have filed this misc. petition.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners and learned public prosecutor. Learned public counsel for the petitioners submits that after taking cognizance on 5. 11. 1997 the Magistrate could not take second cognizance by order dated 23. 2. 1998 as after taking cognizance for the first time the Magistrate could only proceed under Section 319 Cr. P. C. He has placed reliance on 2004 (13) SCC 11, 2006 (1) RLR 7, 1998 (7) SCC 149 and 1999 Cr. L. R. (Raj.) 301. Section 190 Cr. P. C. inter alia provides that the Magistrate may take cognizance of an offence upon a police report of such facts which constitute an offence. After taking cognizance of the offence the Magistrate under Section 204 Cr. P. C. is empowered to issue process to the accused. At the stage of issuing of process it is for the Magistrate to decide whether process should be issued against the persons named in the charge sheet and also not named therein. For that purpose he is required to consider the first information report and the statements recorded by the police officer and other documents tendered along with charge sheet. Under Section 173 (2) Cr. P. C. the Magistrate is entitled to take cognizance of an offence under Section 190 (1) (b) Cr. P. C. by independently applying his mind to the facts emerging from the investigation even if the police report is to the effect that no case is made out against a particular person. At this stage there is no question of application of Section 319 Cr. P. C. The Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence and not the offender. Once the takes cognizance of an offence it is his duty to find out who the offenders really are and once he comes to the conclusion that apart from the persons sent up by the police some other persons are involved it is his duty to proceed against those persons. The summoning of an additional accused is part of the proceeding initiated by his taking cognizance of an offence. Section 319 Cr. P. C. would come into operation in the course of any inquiry into or trial of an offence. In inquiry as contemplated under Section 2 (g) Cr. P. C. not the trial had started. The Magistrate was clearly exercising his jurisdiction under Section 190 Cr. P. C. while issuing process against the petitioners. There is no bar under Section 190 Cr. P. C. that once the process is issued against some accused, on the next date, the Magistrate cannot issued process for some other person against whom there is some material on record but his name is not included as an accused in the charge-sheet. The above view finds support from AIR 2001 SC 2747.
(3.) FOR the reasons stated above I am of the opinion that the trial Court is competent to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law. There is no merit in the petition. The petition stands dismissed accordingly. . ;