APHC010328142023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 581 OF 2023 Revision filed under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C, against the Impugned Cognizance Order passed in C.C. No. 349/2022 dated 28-06-2022 of Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Banaganapalli. Between: Uppu Venkata Narayana, S/o Chinna Venkaiah, Aged 42 yrs, R/at Nallakunta , S.R.Nagar, Nallapadu Road Guntur Town on the file ...REVISION PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through the SI, of Police Kolimigundia PS Rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Amaravathi. Vadde Sankar, S/o Vadde Venkatesham, Aged 48 yrs , Kammavaripalli Village Kolimigundia Mandal , Kurnool District. 1. 2. ...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT lA NO: 2 OF 2023 Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be praying that in the circumstances t pleased to pass an Order to stay of all the further proceedings in C.C. No. , 349/2022 on the fiie of Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Banaganapalli ; ^against the petitioner/Accused including of his of the main CrI R.C. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI R SIVA SAI SWARUP Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : NO REPRESENTATION The Court made the following ORDER : r as appearance pending disposal c APHC010328142023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 581/2023 Between; 1. UPPU VENKATA NARAYANA, S/0 CHINNA VENKAIAH, AGED 42 YRS R/AT NALLAKUNTA , S.R.NAGAR, NALLAPADU ROAD GUNTUR TOWN ...PETITIONER AND 1 .THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH THE SI, OF POLICE KOLIMIGUNDLA PS RER, BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR COU RT AT AMARAVATHI. HIGH 2.VADDE SANKAR, S/0 VADDE VENKATESHAM, AGED 48 YRS , KAMMAVARIPALLJ VILLAGE KOLIMIGUNDLA MANDAL , KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.RSIVASAI SWARUP Counsel for the Respondent(S); 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: .J 2 ORDER: A memo is filed serving notice on the Respondent No.2 along with postal endorsement. This Court also i - cause served notice on the Respondent an endorsement addressee refused. No.2, but it was returned with No representation for Respondent No.2 2. 3. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, dated 28.06.2022 took offence. Banaganapalli in its order cognizance against accused, but not against the 4. In this regard, it is apposite and profitabie to refer the decisions Hon’ble Apex Court in Mona Panwar of the V. High Court of Judicature Ailahabad', wherein at para Nos.19 & 20 it is heid as under- ... te w,(nesses as nnentioned in Section 200 of the cJesTlo ascehn^ hether there is or not sufficient ground for proceeding further. of must the on a ' (2011) 3 see 496 * 3. 5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Chief Enforcement Officer v. Videocon International Ltd.^, at para Nos. 19 & 20 it is held as under: “19. The expression “cognizance" has not been defined in the Code. But the word (cognizance) is of indefinite import. It has no esoteric or mystic significance in criminal law. It merely means “become aware of’ and when used with reference to a court or a Judge, it connotes "to take notice of judicially”. It indicates the point when a court or a Magistrate takes judicial notice of an offence with a view to initiating proceedings in respect of such offence said to have been committed by someone. 20. "Taking cognizance” does not involve any formal action of any kind. It occurs as soon as a Magistrate applies his mind to the suspected commission of an offence. Cognizance is taken prior to commencement of criminal proceedings. Taking of cognizance is thus a sine gua non or condition precedent for holding a valid trial. Cognizance is taken of an offence and not of an offender. Whether or not a Magistrate has taken cognizance of an offence depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and no rule of universal application can be laid down as to when a Magistrate can be said to have taken cognizance. ” The Hon’ble Apex Court in Fakhruddin Ahmad v. State of 6. Uttaranchal^, at para Nos.13 & 14, it is held as under: “13. The next incidental question is as to what is meant by the expression "taking cognizance of an offence’’ by a Magistrate within the contemplation of Section 190 of the Code? 14. The expression "cognizance” is not defined in the Code but is a word of indefinite import. As observed by this Court In Ajit Kumar Palit v. State of W.B. [AIR 1963 SC 765 : 1963 Supp (1) SCR 953] : (AIR p. 770, para 19) “19. ... The word ‘cognizance’ has no esoteric or mystic significance in criminal law or procedure. It merely means— become aware of and when used with reference to a court or Judge, to take notice ofjudicially.” Approving the observations of the Calcutta High Court in Emperor V. Sourindra Mohan Chuckerbutty [ILR (1910) 37 Cal 412] (at ILR p. 416), the Court said that "taking cognizance does not involve any formal action, or indeed action of any kind, but occurs as soon as a Magistrate, as such, applies his mind to the suspected commission of an offence. ”’’ The Hon’ble Apex Court Mona Panwar, Chief Enforcement Officer & Fakhruddin Ahmad in categorical terms held that cognizance shall be taken against an offence but not against the offender. That apart, no reasons, at 7. 2 (2008) 2 see 492 "(2008) 17 see 157 4 H, least brief reasons were assigned for taking cognizance. The order is a cryptic one and it is like filling up blanks. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI'*, at para-No.58 in categorical terms held that at least brief reasons have to be assigned for taking cognizance against an offence. In the instant case, no reasons, let alone brief reasons were assigned. Therefore, the order dated 28.06.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Banaganapalli is liable to be interfered and set aside. The learned Magistrate is directed to pass an order afresh by thoroughly perusing the record and pass a reasoned order. 8. 9. 10. 11. With these observations and directions, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. "*(2015) 4 see 609 SD/- V.DIWAKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE eOPY// SEeTION OFFieER To, 1. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Banaganapalli, Kurnool District 2. The Station House Officer, Kolimigundia PS , Kurnool District 3. One CC to Sri. R Siva Sai Swarup Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Amaravathi [OUT] 5. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Amaravathi 6. Two CD Copies Pradesh at Pradesh at stu TAC HIGH COURT DATED:14/08/2025 ORDER CRLRC NO. 581 OF 2023 5 17SEP2(C5 ^ . Currant sociion ^ disposing of the criminal revision case