Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5.27. All of the Accused, including the Petitioners, reside beyond the jurisdiction of the Learned Trial Court. Therefore, the Impugned Order is ex facie illegal and is liable to be set aside since the same has been passed without conducting the mandatory enquiry as per Section 202 of the Cr.P.C.

6. C.Nageshwarappa, learned HCGP on the other hand would submit that: Whether the Petitioner is a manufacturer or not, the fact that the Petitioner owns market place Snapdeal is sufficient to prosecute the Petitioner for any offence or violation committed by any seller on the platform. 6.1. That the order of cognisance dated 8.6.2020 passed by the Magistrate is proper and correct. The Magistrate cannot be expected to write a detailed order. His prima facie satisfaction is sufficient for the purpose of taking cognizance, as also for issuance of summons. The order dated 8.6.2020 satisfies both the requirements and therefore, is not required to be interfered with. 6.2. In relation to the e-commerce transaction since the transaction occurs across the country, it cannot be expected for a purchaser of a product in one part of the country to proceed against the e-commerce website only where it is registered and therefore, the Mysore Court where the item was ordered and delivered could exercise jurisdiction. The Mysore Court where the transaction has occurred would have jurisdiction. 6.3. The fact of whether accused No.2 is registered outside the State of Karnataka or outside the jurisdiction of the Magistrate, as also whether accused Nos.3 and 4 are residing outside the jurisdiction of the Magistrate is not relevant for the reason that the transaction has occurred within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate at Mysore. Therefore, there is no requirement to hold an enquiry under Section 202(2) of Cr.P.C.

"Persued entire records.

Pursuant to which Cognisance is taken as against accused for the offence p/u/s 27(b)(ii) of Drugs & Cosmetics Act. Office is hereby directed to register same as C.C. in register No.III.

Issuance summons to accused through R.P.A.D, if P/S, P/c along with other particular d/furn.

Await & call on by 01/09/2020."

9.11. Applying the above requirement to the order passed by the Magistrate, it can be ex facie seen that the order of the Magistrate does not satisfy the requirement of arriving at a prima facie conclusion to take cognisance and issue process let alone to the accused residing outside the Jurisdiction of the said Magistrate. 9.12. There has to be an application of mind by the Court taking Cognisance that prima facie or exfacie the offences are made out on reading of the Complaint filed. A perusal of the impugned order dated 8.6.2020 referred in the case that the Magistrate has perused the entire records pursuant to which he has taken Cognisance as against the accused for offences punishable under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. This order, in my considered opinion would not establish any application of mind on the part of the Magistrate inasmuch as there is no appreciation of the offence, the role of each of the accused and how they are alleged to have committed the offence as regards which Cognisance is said to have been taken. 9.13. The same in my considered opinion would not satisfy the requirement of law. The Court taking Cognisance while taking Cognisance under Section 190 of Cr.P.C. is required to apply its mind follow the process and procedure prescribed under Section 204 of the Cr. P.C. and pass a sufficiently reasoned order indicating such application of mind, the reasons for coming to a conclusion that prima facie there exists material to indicate that the offence alleged against the Accused is indeed committed by such accused.

vs- State of Karnataka [Crl.P. No.100964/2020 DD 11.09.2020]. 10.13. I answer Point No. (iii) and (iv) by holding that :

10.14. When the accused is having an office, branch office, corporate office, sales office or the like within the Jurisdiction of the Magistrate where the offence has been committed and or continues to be committed, there would be no requirement for any enquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. It would, however, be required for the Magistrate to in the order of issuance of summons/process record as to why the enquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C is not being held. 10.15. In the event of accused being an individual, if the said accused has a temporary residence within the Jurisdiction of the Magistrate, again merely because he does not have a permanent residence, there is no enquiry which is required to be conducted under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. It would, however, be required for the Magistrate to in the order of issuance of summons/process record as to why the enquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C is not being held. 10.16. When the accused has no presence within the Jurisdiction of the Magistrate where the offence has been committed, then it would be mandatory for an enquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C to be held. 10.17. In the event of accused being aggrieved by the issuance of Summons, the said accused immediately on receipt of the Summons and/or on appearance before the Magistrate is required to make out his grievance before the Magistrate and/or by petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. If there is any delay, in such challenge and/or if challenge has not made within reasonable time, the accused would not be entitled to raise the grievance that the procedure under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. has not been followed on account of delay and latches.

16.2. When the accused is having an office, branch office, corporate office, sales office or the like within the Jurisdiction of the Magistrate where the offence has been committed and or continues to be committed, there would be no requirement for any enquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. It would, however, be required for the Magistrate to in the order of issuance of summons/process record as to why the enquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C is not being held. 16.3. In the event of accused being an individual, if the said accused has a temporary residence within the Jurisdiction of the Magistrate, again merely because he does not have a permanent residence, there is no enquiry which is required to be conducted under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. It would, however, be required for the Magistrate to in the order of issuance of summons/process record as to why the enquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C is not being held. 16.4. When the accused has no presence within the Jurisdiction of the Magistrate where the offence has been committed, then it would be mandatory for an enquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C to be held. 16.5. In the event of accused being aggrieved by the issuance of Summons, the said accused immediately on receipt of the Summons and/or on appearance before the Magistrate is required to make out his grievance before the Magistrate Court and/or by petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. If there is any delay, in such challenge and/or if challenge has not made within reasonable time, the accused would not be entitled to raise the grievance that the procedure under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. has not been followed on account of delay and latches. 16.6. Only a Court in which the accused has a presence, like registered office, branch office, corporate office or the like could exercise Jurisdiction as regards an offence relating to an e-commerce transaction.