Allahabad High Court
Prahlad Jaiswal vs State Of U.P. And Another on 23 February, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 72 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 41233 of 2022 Applicant :- Prahlad Jaiswal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Kumar Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma, J.
Learned counsel for the applicant has filed supplementary affidavit which is taken on record.
Heard Sri Sudhanshu Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vijay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
This application has been filed by the applicant for quashing the impugned charge sheet dated 18.10.2016 (Dispatched on 12.11.2016) under Section 272 I.P.C and 60 U.P. excise Act and Cognizance and summoning order dated 01.11.2018 passed in Case No. 3497 of 2018 (State of U.P. Vs. Prahalad Jaiswal) alongwith entire further proceedings of the aforesaid case pending in the Court of A..J.M. Kasaya, Kushinagar, arising out of Case Crime No. 0465/2016 Section 272 I.P.C and 60 U.P. Excise Act.
Learned counsel for the applicant contends that order dared 01st November, 2001 has been passed on printed proforma, which is against the provisions of law, hence the cognizance order is liable to set aside on this ground alone.
Learned counsel for the applicant has also argued relying on the citation M/s Pepsico India Holdings (Pvt.) Limited and another Vs. State of U.P. & others, that no cognizance could be take and no charge can be framed under Section 272 I.P.C. At the time of passing the order, the learned trial court had also to consider as to whether cognizance may be taken under section 272 I.P.C alongwith Section 60 of the Excise Act.
However, learned counsel for the opposite parties has argued that as the cognizance order has been passed on a printed proforma this alone cannot be a ground for setting aside the cognizance order.
So far as the argument that the cognizance has been taken on a printed proforma is concerned, although it has been held by this Court in the case of Megh Nath Gupta & another Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2008 (62) ACC 826 that the Magistrate is not required to pass detailed reasoned order at the time of taking cognizance on the charge-sheet, but it does not mean that order of taking cognizance can be passed by filling up the blanks on printed proforma. At the time of passing any judicial order including the order taking cognizance on the charge-sheet, the court is required to apply its judicial mind and even the order of taking cognizance cannot be passed in mechanical manner. Hon'ble Apex Court in Harischandra Prasad Mani and others Vs. State of Jharkhand and another, (2007) 15 SCC 494; Fakhruddin Ahmad Vs. State of Uttaranchal and another, (2008) 17 SCC 157; and Ankit Vs. State of U.P. and others, U.P. Criminal Report 2009 (3) 427 has established that if the order on printed proforma is passed it establishes that the Magistrate concerned has not applied his mind to the evidence on record in order to take cognizance of the offence concerned.
In the present case also the cognizance order has been passed by the Magistrate concerned on a printed proforma just by putting his initial on the order which clearly shows that the Magistrate concerned has not applied his judicial mind and has not gone through the material collected by the Investigating Officer against the applicant in the case.
The result is that the order impugned dated 01.11.2018, which has been passed by filling the blanks on the printed proforma is illegal, incorrect and improper, which cannot be sustained. Hence, the cognizance order dated 01.11.2018is liable to be quashed.
The cognizance order dated 01.11.2018 is hereby quashed. The lower court is directed to pass a fresh order regarding cognizance as per law.
The application under Section 482 Cr.PC is disposed of accordingly.
Order Date :- 23.2.2023 Vinod.