P.N.BAKSHI, J. - (1.)A theft took place at the house of Jagannath in the night between 19/20th June, 1974. He lodged a first information report at police station Farah under Section 379, I.P.C. on June 23; 1974. The accused were not nominated in the report. Sub ­sequently Than Singh was arrested in connection with this offence on June 20, 1974. Shyam Singh surrendered in court on August 16, 1974. It appears that after completing the investigation, police submitted the charge -sheet of Than Singh in court on August 9, 1974. Subsequently the charge -sheet of Shiyam Singh was also sent to the court on September 2, 1974. It appears that the papers summoning Than Singh were placed before the Magistrate on Sep ­tember 2, 1974. On that date he ordered for preparation of copies. The Ahalmad of the court then sent the charge -sheet and the relevant papers to the copying section on June 3, 1974. He received back the papers along with the copies on November 25, 1974. It also appears that after the receipt of the charge -sheet against Shyam Singh, the papers in connection therewith were placed before the Magistrate on Janu ­ary 6, 1975, on which date he ordered that the case of Shyam Singh be amal ­gamated with that of Than Singh The case kept on pending before the magis ­trate. It appears that on September 21, 1977 the copies were received in court and on that date the Magisrtrate passed an order summoning the accused on November 8, 1977. An objection was filed before the Magistrate concern ­ed, an behalf of the accused on Septem ­ber 28, 1978 that since the order sum ­moning this accused was passed by the Magistrate on September 21, 1977, while the period of limitation for the offence in question had already expired on June 20, 1977, the Magistrate had no jurisdic ­tion to take cognizance of the offence. It was, therefore, prayed that the case be dismissed and the accused be dis ­charged. This objection did not find favour with the Magistrate. It was dismissed on December 6, 1978, hence this revision.
(2.)I have heard the learned counsel for the parties in detail and Wave also perused the impugned order and the record of the case. Several cases have been cited before me. In all these cases cognizance Wad been taken on the basis of a complaint by the Magistrate under Section 190(1) (a), Cr.P.C. in any case the decision in these cases will throw light upon the legal question in ­volved in this case. In Superintendent and Remembran ­cer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Abani Kumar Banerjee (A.I.R. 1950 Cal. 437), it Was been observed as follows: -
"What is taking cognizance has not been defined in the Criminal Proce ­dure Code and I have no desire to at ­tempt to define it. It seems to me clear, however, that before it can be said that any Magistrate has taken cognizance of any offence under Sec ­tion 190 (1) (a), Criminal Procedure Code he must not only have applied his mind to the contents of the petition, but he must Wave done so for the purpose of proceeding in a particular way as indicated in the subsequent provisions of this chapter."

The Calcutta case has been approved by the Supreme Court in R. R. Chari v. State of U. P. (A.I.R. 1951 S.C. 207.) and thereafter in Narayandas Bhagwandas Madhavdas v. State of West Bengal (A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 1118) and finally in Gopal Das Sindhi and others v. State of Assam and another (A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 986). In Nirmal Lal etc. v. State of West Bengal (A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 2639.), the Magistrate had directed investiga ­tion under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court held that this did not amount to taking cognizance of an of ­fence. In the latest decision of the Sup ­reme Court reported in Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy and others v. Narain Reddy and others (A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 1972.), their lordships while dealing with the ques ­tion of cognizance under Section 190 (1), Cr.P. C. have observed as follows: -

"Whether the Magistrate has or has not taken cognizance of the of ­fence will depend upon the circum ­stances of the particular case includ ­ing the mode in which the case is sought to be instituted and the nature of the preliminary action if any taken by thle Magistrate."

(3.)APPLYING the above principle in the instant case, the petition appears to be that the charge -sheet and the relevant papers were put up before the Magis ­trate on Sept. 2, 1974. On the form of list of documents, I find that an order had been passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on September 2, 1974 direct ­ing preparation of copies.