Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"C.5. Cognizance order and non-application of mind
76. The counsel for the appellant has contended that the order of the Special Judge taking cognizance has not sufficiently demonstrated application of mind to the material placed before him. To substantiate this contention, the appellant relied on the decisions in Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate [Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749: 1998 SCC (Cri) 1400], Fakhruddin Ahmad v. State of Uttaranchal [Fakhruddin Ahmad v. State of Uttaranchal, (2008) 17 SCC 157: (2010) 4 SCC (Cri) 478] , Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda [Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda, (2015) 12 SCC 420: (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 124], Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI [Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI, (2015) 4 SCC 609: (2015) 2 SCC (Cri) 687] and Ravindranatha Bajpe v. Mangalore Special Economic Zone Ltd. [Ravindranatha Bajpe v. Mangalore Special Economic Zone Ltd., (2022) 15 SCC 430: 2021 SCC OnLine SC 806] The respondent argued that this Court 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1140 has made a distinction on application of mind by the Judge for the purpose of taking cognizance based on a police report on the one hand and a private complaint under Section 200CrPC on the other, and that the requirement of a demonstrable application of mind in the latter case is higher. For this purpose, the counsel relied on this Court's decisions in Bhushan Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Bhushan Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 5 SCC 424:
(2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 872] and State of Gujarat v. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta [State of Gujarat v. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta, (2019) 20 SCC 5 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 876].

77. The decision of this Court in Pepsi Foods [Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749 :

1998 SCC (Cri) 1400] , arose out of the institution of a complaint filed against the appellants under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1964. The allegation in the complaint was that the appellants sold a bottle of beverage which was adulterated. After recording primary evidence, the Magistrate passed orders summoning the appellants. The appellants instituted proceedings before the High Court under Section 482CrPC for quashing the summoning order and the proceedings. It was in this backdrop, that while adverting to the procedure envisaged in Chapter XV CrPC more particularly the provisions of Section 200, D.P. Wadhwa, J. speaking for a two-Judge Bench held : (SCC p. 755, para 12) "12. ... One of the modes by which a court can take cognizance of an offence is on filing of a complaint containing facts which constitutes such offence. A Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses, and also by the Magistrate (Sections 190 and 200 of the Code)."

78. Having noticed that proceeding had been initiated on the basis of a complaint, this Court held: (Pepsi Foods case [Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749: 1998 SCC (Cri) 1400], SCC p. 760, para 28) "28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused."

79. On the facts, the Court in Pepsi Foods case [Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749:

1998 SCC (Cri) 1400] held that the allegations against the appellants did not establish any offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and there was no basis in the complaint to make such allegation. Setting aside the order of the High Court, this Court accordingly quashed the complaint. The genesis of the decision in Pepsi Foods case [Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749: 1998 SCC (Cri) 1400] is founded on a complaint made to the Magistrate upon which steps had been initiated pursuant to the provision of Section 200 CrPC.