S.RSUKUMAR v. S. SUNAAD RAGHURAM

infirmities can be allowed even in respect of complaints - If the amendment sought to be made relates to a simple infirmity which is curable by means of a formal amendment and by allowing such amendment, no prejudice could be caused to the other side, the Court may permit such an B amendment to be made - Magistrate allowed the amendment application mainly on the ground that no cognizance was taken of the complaint before the disposal of amendment application and no prejudice would have caused to the appellant - High Court rightly refused to interfere with the order of Magistrate. C ss.200, 202, 203, 204 - Procedure to be followed by Magistrate for taking cognizance of offence - Discussed. o Taking cognizance of offence - Held: Means the magistrate must have judicially applied the mind to the contents of the complaint and indicates that magistrate takes judicial notice of the offence .. E Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. Section 200 Cr.P.C. provides for the procedure for Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint. The language in Section 200 Cr.P.C. "a F Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any ... " clearly suggests that for taking cognizance of an offence on complaint, the Court shall examine the complainant upon oath. The object of G examination of the complainant is to find out whether the complaint is justifiable or is vexatious. Merely. because the complainant was examined that does not mean that the Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence. Taking cognizance of an offence means the H Magistrate must have judicially applied the mind to the S. R. SUKUMAR v. S. SUNAAD RAGHURAM 1107 contents of the complaint and indicates that Magistrate A takes judicial notice of an offence. Mere presentation of the complaint and receipt of the same in the court does not mean that the Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence. [Paras 8, 9] [1113-H; 1114-A-D] Narsingh Das Tapadia vs. Goverdhan Oas Partani &Anr. AIR 2000 SC 2946: 2000 (3) Suppl. SCR 171 ; Subramanian Swamy vs. Manmohan Singh & Anr. (2012) 3 sec 64: 2012 (3) SCR 52 - relied on. 8 C

#2. Under Section 200 Cr.P.C. normally three courses are available to the Magistrate. The Magistrate can either issue summons to the accused or order an inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. or dismiss the o complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. Upon consideration of the statement of complainant and the material adduced at that stage if the Magistrate is satisfied that there are sufficient grounds to proceed, he can proceed to issue process under Section 204 Cr.P.C. E "Cognizance" therefore has a reference to the application of judicial mind by the Magistrate in connection with the commission of an offence and not merely to a Magistrate learning that some offence had been committed. [Paras 10, 11] [1114-G-H; 1115-A-B, F] F S.K. Sinha, ChiefEnforcementOfficerv. Videocon International Ltd. and Ors. (2008) 2 SCC 492: 2008 (2) SCR 36; R.R. Chari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 1951 SCR 312; Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal Ii. Abani Kumar Banerjee AIR 1950 Cal. 437; Jamuna Singh & Ors. v. Bhadai Sah, (1964) 5 SCR 37; Nirmaljit Singh Hoon v. State of West G H 1108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 9 S.C.R. A B