R.R. Chari v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Facts

The accused, a public servant, was prosecuted for offences including criminal breach of trust and corruption. A question arose as to when the Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offence, which was material to whether the requisite sanction to prosecute had been obtained in time. The case turned on identifying the precise point at which cognizance was taken.

Issues

• What constitutes 'taking cognizance of an offence' under S190(1)?
• Does ordering a police investigation or issuing a search warrant amount to taking cognizance?

Arguments

The accused argued cognizance had been taken at an earlier stage so that the sanction was defective. The prosecution argued that cognizance is taken only when the Magistrate applies his mind to proceed against the accused under Chapter XV, which occurred after sanction.

Held

The Supreme Court held that 'taking cognizance' is not defined in the Code but occurs when a Magistrate applies his mind to the contents of a complaint, police report or information for the purpose of proceeding under the subsequent provisions (now Chapter XV). Where the Magistrate applies his mind for some other purpose, such as ordering investigation under S156(3) or issuing a search warrant, he has not taken cognizance. Cognizance is therefore a matter of the purpose for which the judicial mind is applied, not any formal act.

Ratio decidendi

A Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence under S190(1) only when he applies his judicial mind to the offence with a view to proceeding under the procedural chapter; applying his mind merely to direct investigation or issue process for investigation is not taking cognizance.

Significance

The foundational and most-cited authority defining 'taking cognizance', the threshold concept governing the entire scheme of S190. Followed in Narayandas, Tula Ram, Lakshminarayana and countless later decisions, and it draws the crucial line between S156(3) and S190.

Related