Chandigarh Judicial Academy

Experts Corner
“Cognizance of Offences”

Sh. Pradeep Mehta

Faculty Member, Chandigarh Judicial Academy cum
Joint Director, Prosecution (Retd.)
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. What is Cognizance.

2. Taking of Cognizance.

3. Cognizance is of offence not offender.

4. Cognizance of offence by magistrate.

5. Important points on Cognizance.

6. Making over of cases to Magistrates.

7. Cognizance of offence by Court of Sessions.

8. Cognizance taken by a magistrate not empowered.

9. Limitation on power to take Cognizance of offences.

10. Cognizance under special enactments.

a. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

b. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

c. The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

d. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

e. Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

11. Limitation for taking Cognizance.

12. Computing the period of limitation u/s 468 CrPC.

13. Conclusion.
 Criminal law serves the purpose of maintaining law and order
by providing predictability. It protects individual rights. Criminal law
makes it possible to resolve conflicts and disputes between quarreling
citizens. It provides a peaceful, orderly way to handle grievances. It also
provides protection, to society from criminals, who inflict harms to others.
For this there are penal laws which prohibit doing of certain acts by
declaring those as offences and punishable with penalty. To put in other
words, Criminal law deals with offences and helps to protect the society
from falling into the state of anarchy.
This part of law is substantive law but for implementing it
someone is to be authorized who can punish the guilty by adopting
certain specified procedure. This aspect is dealt with by other part of law
i.e. procedural law.
Procedural law provides machinery for the implementation of
substantive criminal law. In absence of procedural laws, the substantive
laws are of no use. Without it no one will be able to know the way how
the offenders will be prosecuted and by whom. In fact both the laws are
complementary to each other. The procedural law is contained in Code
of Criminal Procedure 1973.
The main objective of criminal procedure is to provide a fair trial
to the accused by taking into consideration the principles of natural
justice and to carry out the spirit of Article 22 of the Constitution. There
are various processes that need to be followed to administer justice. It
includes pre-trial procedure and procedures for various trials. Trial
procedure is initiated by taking cognizance of offence and then by
beginning of proceedings and finally arriving a decision by following the
procedure laid in the code.
What is Cognizance:
The word cognizance has its origin from the old French term
―connaissance‖ which means ―recognition, wisdom, knowledge,
familiarity‖ and also from the word ―conoistre‖ which means ―to know‖. It
is also derived from the Latin word ―cognosis‖ where the con means to
―with‖ and ―gnosis‖ means ―to know‖.
The word ‗Cognizance‘ has not been defined in the criminal
procedure code, but the meaning of cognizance is derived from the
number of precedents and judicial pronouncements. The dictionary
meaning of cognizance is ―taking account of‖, ―taking note of‖, ―to gain
knowledge about‖, ―to have knowledge regarding something‖.
Lexicon Webster's Dictionary, (1988) defines the word
cognizance as, "The range of mental observation or awareness, the fact

1
of being aware, knowledge, (Law) the powers given to a Court to deal
with a given matter, jurisdiction."
The meaning of Cognizance given in Black's Law Dictionary,
reads as under, Cognizance:- Jurisdiction, or the exercise of jurisdiction,
or power to try and determine causes; judicial examination of a matter,
or power and authority to make it.
‗‗Cognizance‘‘ in general means ‗knowledge‘ or ‗notice‘, and
‗taking cognizance of offence‘ means taking notice, or becoming aware
of the alleged commission of an offence. The court will have to take
cognizance of the offence before it could proceed with the conduct of the
trial. Taking cognizance does not involve any kind of formal action but
occurs as soon a magistrate applies his mind to the suspected
commission of an offence for the purpose of legal proceedings. So,
taking cognizance is the application of judicial mind.
In Ajit Kumar Palit v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1963 SC
765, Supreme Court has held :
.....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 of Judge, to take notice
of judicially..
In Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh, (2012) 3 SCC
64. Apex Court has observed that
―…. though, the term `cognizance' has not been defined either
in the 1988 Act or the Cr.P.C, the same has acquired a definite
meaning and connotation from various judicial precedents. In
legal parlance cognizance is "taking judicial notice by the court
of law, possessing jurisdiction, on a cause or matter presented
before it so as to decide whether there is any basis for initiating
proceedings and determination of the cause or matter
judicially.‖
The word ―cognizance‖ indicates the point when a Magistrate or
a Judge first takes judicial notice of an offence, State of W.B. v. Mohd.
Khalid, (1995) 1 SCC 684. ―Cognizance‖ means ―jurisdiction‖ or ―the
exercise of jurisdiction‖ or ―power to try and determine causes‖. In
common parlance it means taking notice of, State of
Maharashtra v. Budhikota Subbarao, (1993) 3 SCC 33.
Chapter XIV from Sections 190 to 199, of Code of Criminal
Procedure deals with Conditions requisite for Initiation of Proceedings.
Taking Cognizance of:

2
 The intention of starting a judicial proceeding with respect to an
offence or taking steps to see whether there is a basis for starting the
judicial proceeding by the court is taking cognizance. It is trite that before
taking cognizance that court should satisfy that ingredients of the
offence charged are, there or not. Chapter XIV, Cr.P.C. deals with,
―taking the cognizance of offences‖. Section 190 and 193 talks about the
mode for taking the cognizance by courts of magistrates and court of
sessions whereas the power empowered is not absolute; it also puts
certain restrictions given under Section 195 to 197 of the Code.
In R.R. Chari v. State of U.P., AIR 1951 SC 207 the Hon'ble
Apex Court held 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 offence."
It was further held that
―Before it can be said that any Magistrate has taken cognizance
of any offence under S.190 he must have applied his mind to
the offence for the purpose of proceeding in a particular way as
indicated in the subsequent provisions of Chapter.
Taking cognizance of an offence is the first and foremost step
towards trial. Cognizance literally means knowledge or notice,
and taking cognizance of offence means taking notice, or
becoming aware of the alleged commission of an offence.
Obviously, the judicial officer will have to take cognizance of the
offence before he could proceed to conduct a trial
A Magistrate takes cognizance when he applies his mind or
takes judicial notice of an offence with a view to initiating
proceedings in respect of offence which is said to have been
committed. It bears repetition to state that taking cognizance is
entirely an act of the Magistrate.‖
In Darshan Singh Ram Kishan v. State of Maharashtra,
(1971) 2 SCC 654, the Hon'ble Apex Court held 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 for the purpose of proceeding to take subsequent steps
towards inquiry and trial‖.
(See also Kishun Singh & Ors. V. State of Bihar (1993) 2
SCC 16 and Anil Saran v. State of Bihar, (1995) 6 SCC 142)

3
Not Taking of Cognizance :
When the magistrate applies his mind, not for the purpose of
proceeding under the subsequent sections of this chapter, but to take
action of some other kind e.g., ordering investigation under Section
156(3), or issuing a search warrant for the purpose of the investigation,
he cannot be said to have taken cognizance of the offence.
This principle of law got approval of a three member bench of
Supreme Court in R.R. Chari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1951 SC
207, wherein it was held that that the initiation of the proceedings
against a person commences on the cognizance of the offence by the
Magistrate, under one of the three contingencies, mentioned in Section
190 Cr.P.C. But when the Magistrate applies his mind not for the
purpose of proceeding under the subsequent sections of the Chapter but
for taking action of some other kind, e.g. ordering investigation u/s
156(3), or issuing a search warrant for the purpose of the investigation,
he cannot be said to have taken cognizance of the offence‖.
Tula Ram v. Kishore Singh, (1977) 4 SCC 459, the Hon'ble
Apex Court held that
―…..However, when a Magistrate applies his mind not for the
purpose of proceeding under chapter XIV, but for taking action
of some other kind, for example, ordering investigation under
Section 156(3), or issuing a search warrant for the purpose of
investigation, he cannot be said to have taken cognizance of
the offence‖.
Narayandas Bhagwandas Madhavdas vs. West Bengal,
AIR 1959 Supreme Court 1118 (V 46 C 150) the Hon'ble Apex Court
held that
―….. Issuing of a search warrant for the purpose of an
investigation or of a warrant of arrest for that purpose cannot
by themselves be regarded as acts by which cognizance is
taken of an offence.‖
Cognizance is of Offence and not of Offender:
On going through the schemes of Sec.190 and 204 Cr.P.C. one
finds that Sec.190 speaks of cognizance of offence and Sec. 204 comes
into force, if magistrate after taking the cognizance of offence finds
sufficient ground for proceeding further by issuance of processes.
In Sonu Gupta v. Deepak Gupta, (2015) 3 SCC 424, Hon‘ble
Supreme Court held, ‗It is also well settled that cognizance is taken of
the offence and not the offender. Hence at the stage of framing of
charge an individual accused may seek discharge, if he or she can show
4
that the materials are absolutely insufficient for framing of charge against
that particular accused. But such exercise is required only at a later
stage, as indicated above and not at the stage of taking cognizance and
summoning the accused on the basis of prima facie case‘.
State of W.B. and Another vs. Mohd. Khalid and Another
(1995) 1 Supreme Court Cases 684 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that
―Section 190 of the Code talks of cognizance of offences by Magistrates.
This expression has not been defined in the Code. In its broad and literal
sense, it means taking notice of an offence. This would include the
intention of initiating judicial proceedings against the offender in respect
of that offence or taking steps to see whether there is any basis for
initiating judicial proceedings or for other purposes. The word
'cognizance' indicates the point when a Magistrate or a Judge first takes
judicial notice of an offence. It is entirely a different thing from initiation of
proceedings; rather it is the condition precedent to the initiation of
proceedings by the Magistrate or the Judge. Cognizance is taken of
cases and not of persons. It has, thus, reference to the hearing and
determination of the case in connection with an offence‖.
Cognizance of Offences by Magistrate:
Code provides taking of cognizance by any Magistrate of the
first class and any magistrate of the second class specially empowered
in this behalf vide sec. 190. Sec.190(1) says; Cognizance of offences by
Magistrates.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, any
Magistrate of the first class, and any Magistrate of the second class
specially empowered in this behalf under sub-section (2), may take
cognizance of any offence
(a) Upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such
offence;
(b) Upon a police report of such facts;
(c) Upon information received from any person other than a
police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such
offence has been committed.
In most cases magistrates take cognizance either under
clause(a) upon a complaint or under clause(b) upon the report of a
police officer.
A magistrate taking cognizance of an offence under clause(c)
i.e. upon information received from any person other than a Police
officer, or upon the Magistrate's own knowledge or suspicion he must,
before any evidence is taken, inform the accused person that he is
entitled to have the case tried by another Court, and if the accused

5
objects to being tried by such magistrate, the case must be transferred
to the another magistrate as specified by the chief judicial magistrate.
(section 191).

A. Clause (a)- 'Upon receiving a complaint:

The term complaint has been defined in S.2(d) as meaning:
‗Any allegation made orally or in writing to a magistrate, with a view to
his taking action under this code that some person, whether known or
unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police
report.‘
Explanation appended to it says that ‗A report made by a police
officer in a case which disclose, after investigation, the commission of a
non cognizable offence shall be deemed to be a complaint; and the
police officer by whom such report is made shall be deemed to be the
complainant‘. If at the commencement of the investigation the police
officer is led to believe that the case involved the commission of a
cognizable offence or if there is a doubt about it and investigation
establishes only commission of a non- cognizable offence. If at the
commencement of the investigation it is apparent that the case involved
only commission of a non-cognizable offense, the report followed by the
investigation cannot be treated as a complaint under S.2(d) of the Code.
When a report is made only with regard to the commission of non-
cognizable offence then in that case the police is not authorised to
investigate the case unless after entering the substance of the
information in a book kept in this behalf in the police station the
information is referred to the magistrate and the investigation shall not
take place unless the orders have been given by the magistrate having
the power to try the case to do so. – Section 155 Cr.P.C.
From this it emerges that complaint may be oral or in writing; no
prescribed form of words is necessary; all that is necessary is that facts,
which prima facie constitute an offence, should be brought to the notice
of Magistrate by the complainant. As a general rule, any person having
knowledge of the commission of the offence may set the law in motion
as a complaint, even though he is not personally interested or affected
by the offence mentioned in the complaint.
For taking Cognizance on Complaints the court is to act in
accordance with the procedure laid down in Chapter XV which deals
with ‗Complaints to Magistrates‘. It is from Section200 to 203 which are
dealing with;
200. Examination of complainant

6
 201. Procedure by Magistrate not competent to take cognizance
of the case.
202. Postponement of issue of process.
203. Dismissal of complaint
The procedure laid down in this chapter is to be meticulously
followed.
Once the process under chapter XIV and XV is followed after
initiation of proceedings under section 190 (the three ways mentioned
therein) the stage is reached mentioned in Sec 204 of Chapter XVI
which deals with ‗Issue of Processes.‘
Sec.204(1) says - (1) If in the opinion of a Magistrate taking
cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding, and
the case appears to be
(a) a summons-case, he shall issue his summons for the
attendance of the accused, or
(b) a warrant-case, he may issue a warrant, or, if he thinks fit, a
summons, for causing the accused to be brought or to appear
at a certain time before such Magistrate or (if he has no
jurisdiction himself) some other Magistrate having jurisdiction.
In Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda,
(2015) 12 SCC 420, Hon‘ble Supreme Court held as under:
―The extensive reference to the case law would clearly show
that cognizance of an offence on complaint is taken for the
purpose of issuing process to the accused. Since it is a process
of taking judicial notice of certain facts which constitute an
offence, there has to be application of mind as to whether the
allegations in the complaint, when considered along with the
statements recorded or the inquiry conducted thereon, would
constitute violation of law so as to call a person to appear
before the criminal court. It is not a mechanical process or
matter of course.
As per the law laid down by Apex Court, ‗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. The
application of mind has to be indicated by disclosure of mind on the
satisfaction….. To be summoned/to appear before the Criminal Court as
an accused is a serious matter affecting one's dignity and reputation in
the society. In taking recourse to such a serious matter in summoning
the accused in a case filed on a complaint otherwise than on a police

7
report, there has to be application of mind as to whether the allegations
in the complaint constitute essential ingredients of the offence and
whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the
accused.- Birla Corporation Limited v. Adventz Investments and
Holdings Limited & Others, AIR 2019 SC 2390.
In summoning the accused, it is not necessary for the
Magistrate to examine the merits and demerits of the case and whether
the materials collected is adequate for supporting the conviction. The
court is not required to evaluate the evidence and its merits. The
standard to be adopted for summoning the accused under Section
204 Cr.P.C., 1973 is not the same at the time of framing the charge. For
issuance of summons under Section 204 Cr.P.C., 1973 the expression
used is "there is sufficient ground for proceeding....."; whereas for
framing the charges, the expression used in Sections 240 and 246 IPC
is "there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an
offence..... ". At the stage of taking cognizance of the offence based
upon a police report and for issuance of summons under Section
204 Cr.P.C., 1973 detailed enquiry regarding the merits and demerits of
the case is not required. The fact that after investigation of the case, the
police has filed charge sheet along with the materials thereon may be
considered as sufficient ground for proceeding for issuance of summons
under Section 204 Cr.P.C.,1973.–State of Gujarat v. Afroz Mohammed
Hasanfatta, AIR 2019 SC 2499
Magistrate Order to Police for Investigation under
Sec.156(3) and under Sec. 202 (1) – Legality:
In Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy v. Narayana Reddy,
(1976) 3 SCC 252, a three Judges bench of Supreme Court held,
Section 156(3) occurs in Chapter XII, under the caption: "Information to
the Police and their powers to investigate"; while section 202 is in
Chapter XV which bears the heading "of complaints to Magistrates". The
power it order police investigation under section 156(3) is different from
the power to direct investigation conferred by section 202(1). The two
operate in distinct spheres at different stages. The first is exercisable at
the pre cognizance stage, the second at the post-cognizance stage
when the Magistrate is in seisin of the case. 'That is to say in the case of
a complaint regarding the commission of a cognizable offence, the
power under section 156(3) can be invoked by the Magistrate before he
takes cognizance of the offence under section 190(1)(a). But if he once
takes such cognizance and embarks upon the procedure embodied in
Chapter XV, he is not competent to switch back to the pre-cognizance
stage and avail of section 156(3). It may be noted further that an order
made under sub-section (3) of section 156, is in the nature of a
8
peremptory reminder or intimation to the police to exercise their plenary
powers of investigation under section 156(1). Such an investigation
embraces the entire continuous process which begins with the collection
of evidence under section 156 and ends with a report or chargesheet
under section 173. On the other hand section 202 comes in at a stage
when some evidence has been collected by the Magistrate in
proceedings under Chapter XV, but the same is deemed insufficient to
take a decision as to the next step in the prescribed procedure. In such a
situation, the Magistrate is empowered under section 202 to direct within
the limits circumscribed by that section, an investigation "for the purpose
of deciding whether or not here is sufficient ground for proceeding ".
Thus the object of an investigation under section 202 is not to initiate a
fresh case on police report but to assist the Magistrate in completing
proceedings already instituted upon a complaint before him.
B. Clause (b) Upon Police Report;
The expression ‗police report‘ has been defined by section
2(r) as meaning ―a report by a police officer to a magistrate under
section 173(2)‖ i.e., the report forwarded by the police after the
completion of investigation.
When cognizance is taken on a police report, it must be as
defined in section 2(r) and one forwarded by a police officer to a
magistrate under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. and it is for the magistrate to
decide whether the police report is complete. His power cannot be
controlled by the investigating agency.
On receiving police report magistrate may take cognizance of
the offense under section 190(1)(b) and straightaway issue process.
This he may do irrespective of the view expressed by the police in their
report whether an offense has been made out or not. The magistrate has
not to proceed mechanically in agreeing with the opinion formed by the
police, but has to apply his mind and pursue the papers placed before
him. He has to apply his mind to all the details embodied in the police
report and to other documents and papers submitted along with the
report. The law is well-settled that even if the investigating authority is of
the view that no case has been made out against an accused, the
Magistrate can apply his mind independently to the materials contained
in the police report and take cognizance thereupon in exercise of his
powers under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C - Uma Shankar Singh vs. State
of Bihar & Anr. (2010) 9 SCC 479.

Thus the magistrate is not bound by the conclusion drawn by

the police. He can take cognizance of an offense under section
9
190(1)(b) on the basis of the police report despite they might have
recommended that there was not sufficient ground to proceed further.
C. Upon information received from any person other than a
police officer, or upon his own knowledge:
The expression ―the information received from any person other
than a police officer‖ clearly means only such information as does not
constitute a complaint or a police report. It applies only to cases where
the private individual who is injured or aggrieved or someone on his part
does not come forward to make a formal complaint. It is a provision of
law enabling a public official to take care that justice may be vindicated
notwithstanding that the persons individually aggrieved are unwilling and
unable to prosecute.
In the same way, a Magistrate can also take cognizance of an
offence without any complaint only when it has come to his knowledge
that such offence has been committed. Magistrate can proceed under
this Clause if he has reason to believe the commission of crime, but is
unable to proceed in the ordinary way owing to the absence of any
complaint or police report about it.
Hence the proper use of the power conferred by this provision
is to proceed under it when the magistrate has reason to believe the
commission of a crime, but is unable to proceed in ordinary way owing to
absence of any complaint or police report about it. Therefore the word
‗knowledge‘ as used in the clause (c) should be interpreted rather
liberally so as to sub serve the real object of the provision. It has been
opined that if a magistrate takes action under section 190(1)(c) without
having jurisdiction then such trial would be vitiated.
In Jamuna Singh v. Bhadai Shah, AIR 1964 SC 1541,
Hon‘ble Supreme Court held that, The Code does not contain any
definition of the words "institution of a case". It is clear however and
indeed not disputed that a case can be said to be instituted in a Court
only when the Court takes cognizance of the offence alleged
therein. Section 190(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure contains the
provision for cognizance of offences by Magistrates. It provides for three
ways in which such cognizance can be taken. The first is on receiving a
complaint of facts which constitute such offence; the second is on a
report in writing of such facts - that is, facts constituting the offence
made by any police officer; the third is upon information received from
any person other than a police officer or upon the Magistrate's own
knowledge or suspicion that such offence has been committed. Section
193 provides for cognizance of offences being taken by Courts of
Sessions on commitment to it by a Magistrate duly empowered in that

10
behalf. Section 194 provides for cognizance being taken by High Court
of offences upon a commitment made to it in the manner provided in the
Code.
An examination of these provisions makes it clear that when a
Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence upon receiving a complaint of
facts which constitute such offence a case is instituted in the
Magistrate's Court and such a case is one instituted on a complaint.
Again, when a Magistrate takes cognizance of any offence upon a report
in writing of such facts made by any police officer it is a case instituted in
the Magistrate's Court on a police report.
In Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy v. Narayana
Reddy, (1976) 3 SCC 252, a three Judges bench of Hon‘ble Supreme
Court hold that,
What is meant by "taking cognizance of an offence" by the
Magistrate within the contemplation of Section 190. This expression has
not been defined in the Code. But from the scheme of the Code, the
content and marginal heading of Section 190 and the caption of Chapter
XIV under which Sections 190 to 199 occur, it is clear that a case can be
said to be instituted in a Court only when the Court takes cognizance of
the offence alleged therein. The ways in which such cognizance can be
taken are set out in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 190 (1). Whether
the Magistrate has or has not taken cognizance of the offence will
depend on the circumstances of the particular case including the mode
in which the case is sought to be instituted, and the nature of the
preliminary action, if any, taken by the Magistrate.
Section 190(2) provides that The Chief Judicial Magistrate may
specially empower any magistrate of the second class as mentioned to
take cognizance of such offences as are within his competence to
inquire into or try.
Important Points on Cognizance:
To sum up following points can be culled out from above
discussion.
i) It does not involve any formal action of any kind;
ii) It occurs as soon as the Magistrate applies his mind to the
suspected commission of an offence;
iii) It is before the commencement of criminal proceedings;
iv) It is necessary step for holding a valid trial;
v) Cognizance is of an offence and not an offender; Whether the
Magistrate has taken cognizance of an offence or not depends
11
 on the facts and circumstances of each case, as no particular
form is necessary
vi) It implies judicious application of mind to the averments in the
complaints under sec. 190 ;
vii) It requires consideration as whether there is sufficient ground
for proceeding further in a direction for taking action under
subsequent provisions or Chapter XV ;
viii) If there is sufficient ground for proceedings, then the Magistrate
can issue the process under Sec. 204 Cr.P.C.
ix) A report of police that no case is made out can be rejected and
magistrate can take cognizance or order further investigation
under Sec 173 (8) Cr.P.C.
Transfer on the Application of the Accused:
Section 191 which is based on principle of fair trial that a
complainant cannot be a judge, allows the transfer of a case, by Chief
Judicial Magistrate, when instituted under sec.190(1)(c) Upon
information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon
his own knowledge, on application of transfer by accused, and is as
under;
191. Transfer on application of the accused.—When a
Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence under clause (c) of
sub-section (1) of section 190, the accused shall, before any
evidence is taken, be informed that he is entitled to have the
case inquired into or tried by another Magistrate, and if the
accused or any of the accused, if there be more than one,
objects to further proceedings before the Magistrate taking
cognizance, the case shall be transferred to such other
Magistrate as may be specified by the Chief Judicial Magistrate
in this behalf.

Making over of cases to Magistrates

Section 192 which deals with makeover of cases to
Magistrates, provides that a Chief Judicial Magistrate can make over the
case for inquiry or trial to any competent Magistrate subordinate to him.
Furthermore Chief Judicial Magistrate can give general or specific order
to any first-class magistrate to make over the case for inquiry or trial to
another competent Judicial Magistrate. This is with the object of
distribution of work where there is more than one Judicial Magistrate.
12
 Section 192 reads as:
Making over of cases to Magistrates — (1) Any Chief Judicial
Magistrate may, after taking cognizance of an offence, make
over the case for inquiry or trial to any competent Magistrate
subordinate to him.
(2) Any Magistrate of the first class empowered in this behalf by
the Chief Judicial Magistrate may, after taking cognizance of an
offence, make over the case for inquiry or trial to such other
competent Magistrate as the Chief Judicial Magistrate may, by
general or special order, specify, and thereupon such
Magistrate may hold the inquiry or trial.

In Anil Saran vs. State of Bihar and Another, AIR 1996 SC

204, Hon‘ble Supreme Court has held that
Sub-section (1) of Section 192 has conferred a special power
on the Chief Judicial Magistrate, as, normally, the Magistrate taking
cognizance of an offence, has to proceed himself further as enjoined
by the Code. But, an exception has been made in the case of Chief
Judicial Magistrate, may be because he has some administrative
functions also to perform. A Magistrate who receives the case on
transfer and takes cognizance would not become incompetent to do so
merely because the sanction of transfer of the case to his file is not in
accordance with law. The power to take cognizance has been conferred
on a Magistrate by section 190(1) of the Code, and he would not be
denuded of this power because the case has come to his file pursuant to
some illegal order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The former would be
exercising his power of taking cognizance even in such a case, because
of his having received a complaint constituting the offence. It would not
be material, for this purpose, as to how he came to receive the complaint
- directly or on transfer from the Chief Judicial Magistrate.

Cognizance of offences by Courts of Session

Section 193 provides as:
Cognizance of offences by Courts of Session - Except as
otherwise expressly provided by this Code or by any other law
for the time being in force, no Court of Session shall take
cognizance of any offence as a Court of original jurisdiction

13
 unless the case has been committed to it by a Magistrate under
this Code.
Whereas section 194 provides that Additional and Assistant
Sessions Judges to try cases made over to them - Additional Sessions
Judge or Assistant Sessions Judge shall try such cases as the Sessions
Judge of the division may, by general or special order, make over to him
for trial or as the High Court may, by special order, direct him to try.
Cognizance taken by a Magistrate not empowered
If any magistrate not empowered to take cognizance of an
offense under S. 190(1)(a) and 190(1)(b), does erroneously in good faith
take cognizance of an offense, his proceeding shall not be set aside
merely on the ground of his not being empowered.
Purshottam Jethanand v. State of Kutch, AIR 1954 SC 700
the Hon‘ble Apex Court held that
“If a magistrate takes cognizance of an offense and proceeds
with a trial though he is not empowered in that behalf and
convicts the accused, the accused cannot avail himself of the
defect and cannot demand that his conviction be set aside
merely on the ground of such irregularity, unless there is
something on the record to show that the magistrate had
assumed the power, not erroneously and in good faith, but
purposely having knowledge that he did not have any such
power‖.
On the other hand, if a magistrate who is not empowered to
take cognizance of an offense takes cognizance upon information
received or upon his own knowledge under S.190(1)(c) his proceeding
shall be void and of no effect. In such a case it is immaterial whether he
was acting erroneously in good faith or otherwise.

Limitations on Power to take Cognizance of Offences:

In Vishwa Mitter vs. O.P. Poddar AIR 1984 SC 5, The Hon‘ble
Apex Court held that
―As a rule, any person can set a criminal court in motion. Any
person having knowledge of the commission of an offence may
set the law in motion by a complaint, even though he is not
personally interested or affected by the offence. The exceptions
to this rule are contained in sec 195-198‖.
Section 195-199 are exception to the general rule contained in
section 190 regarding taking cognizance of an offence. In these cases
14
the cognizance can be taken by the court in which the institution is there
in accordance with section 190 of Cr.P.C subject to fulfillment of the
conditions mentioned in these sections.
The analysis of section 195-199 will bring out the following
points:
A) Prosecutions for contempt of the lawful authority of
public servants: Sec 195 deals with (i) Prosecution for
contempt of lawful authority of public servants, (ii) for
offences against public justice and (iii) for offences relating
to documents given in evidence.
(i) 195(1)(a) Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority
of public servants: Accordingly taking of cognizance
by the court is barred for the offences punishable
under section 172 to 188 except on the complaint of
the public servant concerned or any other public
servant to whom he is subordinate administratively.
This probably is for saving the accused from vexatious
prosecution by private complainant.

This section is mandatory and private prosecution in

respect of the said offences is totally barred except on
the complaint in writing of the concerned public
servants.

(ii) 195(1)(b) For offences against public justice : Under

this subsection no court can take cognizance of an
offence under sections 193 to 196, 199, 200, 205 to
211 and 228 IPC or criminal conspiracy or abetment
for such offences, when such offence has been
committed in relation to any proceedings in court
except upon a complaint in writing of the court or an
officer so authorized by the court in writing.

The controversy prevailed on the issue as to what is

meant by ‗in relation to any proceedings in court‘. This
was particularly with regard to the document which
was forged and then produced in court. Whether the
bar will prevail in such cases or not?

Hon‘ble Supreme Court in case I.S. Marwaha and

Anr. vs. Meenakshi Marwaha and Anr., (2005) 2
RCR Crl. 178 has held that in such a situation the

15
 aggrieved party can file a complaint and bar under
section 195(1) (b) is not to apply.

(iii) 195(1)(b)(ii) for offences relating to documents given

in evidence : This sub section places a bar on the
cognizance for the offences under section 463, 471,
475 and 476 IPC if such offence has been committed
in respect of a document produced in any proceedings
in any court or any criminal conspiracy for such
offence except on the complaint in writing of the court.
B) Prosecution for offences against the State: Section 196
Cr.P.C. deals with prosecution for offences against the state
and for criminal conspiracy to commit such offence.
According to section 196(1)(a) a bar has been created on
taking the cognizance by the court when an offence has
been committed under Chapter VI IPC section 153A, 295A
or sub section 1 of Section 505 IPC or a criminal conspiracy
or abetment for an offence except with the previous
sanction of central or state government.
As per section 196(1A) Cr.P.C, the cognizance under
section 153(b) or 505(2) & (3) IPC or criminal conspiracy for
such offence cannot be taken by the court except with the
previous sanction of the central or state government or of
district magistrate.
196(2): According to this section no court is to take
cognizance of any criminal conspiracy which is punishable
under section 120B IPC unless the state government or the
district magistrate had consented in writing to the initiation
of the writing but this will not be applicable to a criminal
conspiracy to commit an offence which is punishable with
death imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a
term of two years or more.
C) Prosecution of Judges and Public Servants: Section 197
provides that if case is to be initiated against judges and
public servants mentioned therein, the court cannot take
cognizance without the compliance to the formalities
required under the provision.
197(1): According to this section if any act has been done
while acting in discharge of official duty or purported
discharge of such duty by a public servant, who is not
removable except with the sanction of the government,
16
 court cannot take the cognizance of an offence except the
previous sanction of the central or the state government, as
the case may be.
197(2): This protection has been extended to the members
of the armed forces of the Union for the kind of acts
mentioned above and while acting or purporting to act in
discharge of official duty, cognizance against them cannot
be taken except with the previous sanction of the central
government.
197(3): State governments have also been authorized to
extend the protection as envisaged in 197(2) to the
members of the forces charged with maintenance of public
order, as they so direct by notification and court cannot take
cognizance against them except with the previous sanction
of state government concern.
D) Prosecution for Offences against Marriage: Section 198
lays down that Court will not take cognizance to offences
punishable under Chapter XX (of offences related to
marriage) of Indian Penal Code unless a complaint is made
by the victim or aggrieved person. Certain situations have
been contemplated by the section which warrants as who
can be the complainant in those situations and
authorizations. In all these cases the courts are barred to
take the cognizance except on complaint as provided in this
section.
198A: The court is also barred to take the cognizance of an
offence under section 498A IPC except on a police report
which from the facts discloses such offence or upon a
complaint made by aggrieved person by the said offence.
However in the case of complaint by aggrieved person her
father, mother, brother, sister etc. have been authorized to
make a complaint with the leave of court.
198B: For the offence under section 376(B) IPC, where the
persons are in marital relationship, the cognizance by the
court is barred except upon prima facie satisfaction of the
facts disclosed in the complaint by wife against husband.
E) Prosecution for defamation: Section 199 says that taking
cognizance of offences punishable under Chapter XXI of
I.P.C is barred except on a complaint of person aggrieved.

17
 This section makes a very important provision in favour of
the complainants who cannot file the complaint due to
reasons mentioned in the section like age, sickness,
infirmity, lunacy etc. or a woman who due to customs is not
to appear in public, some person on their behalf with the
leave of the court can file such complaint on his or her
behlalf.
Limitation of six months has also been provided by sub
section (5) which further bars taking the cognizance by the
court of sessions if the same is not filed within this period
from the date of the offence.
Cognizance under Special Enactments
Section 4 of Code of Criminal Procedure needs a reference to
understand cognizance under special enactments. It says:
―4. Trial of offences under the Indian Penal Code and other laws-
(1) All offences under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) shall be
investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with
according to the provisions hereinafter contained.
(2) All offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired
into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the same
provisions, but subject to any enactment for the time being in force
regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into,
trying or otherwise dealing with such offences.‖
On going through this provision one comes to the conclusion that
when it is an offence under some Special Act then trying of the offence
under that legislation will be according to the provision with regard to
cognizance under that Act. Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Gancula Ashok
and Anr vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2000 SC 740, has
observed that when a Special Court is empowered to take cognizance
under the Act in question, in view of section 197 Cr.P.C. committal order
is must unless it is made clear in the special enactment that committal
order is not required or there will be direct institution in the court of
special judge.

Some of the legislations in which the special courts have been

empowered to take the cognizance directly are given below:
1. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
In this Act, under section 36 there is a provision regarding the
constitution of Special Courts and accordingly, the Central

18
Government may, by notification in the official Gazette
constitute as many Special Courts as may be felt necessary for
such area.
According to section 36 (2) Special Court shall consist of a
single judge who shall be appointed by the Government with the
concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court.
According to sub section (3) a person shall not be qualified for a
judge of special court unless he is, immediately before such
appointment, a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions
Judge.
Section 36(A)(1) which is with regard to offences triable by
Special Courts says that notwithstanding anything contained in
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) –
(a) All offences under this Act which are punishable with
imprisonment for a term of more than three years shall be
triable only by the Special Court constituted for the area in
which the offence has been committed or where there are
more Special Courts than one for which area, by such one of
them as may be specified in this behalf by the Government;
The combined reading of sub section (b) and (c) of this
section speaks of the fact that how the accused suspected of
commission of an offence will be forwarded to a magistrate
for a custody under section 167 of the Cr.P.C. and what are
the limitations on the authority of the magistrate to remand
such accused in police or judicial custody. Further according
to these provisions he has to be referred to the special court
having jurisdiction on forwarding of the accused before him
and if according to him the further detention is unnecessary
he will forward such accused to the special court having
jurisdiction.
Regarding taking of cognizance by the Special Court, section
36(A)(1)(d) says, that a Special Court may, upon perusal of
police report of the facts constituting an offence under this
Act or upon complaint made by an officer of the Central
Government or a State Government authorized in his behalf,
take cognizance of that offence without the accused being
committed to it for trial.
A combined reading of the above leads us to the conclusion
that under the NDPS Act, a Special Judge is to take
cognizance under cases where the punishment is for more

19
 than three years, is to take the cognizance without the
accused having been committed to it as per section 193 of
Cr.P.C.
It is relevant to mention that the action under section 167 on
the first date is to be taken by the magistrate, where the
accused is so forwarded to him and his detention has been
authorized by such magistrate, then subsequently after the
expiry of that period or at any time before the expiry period of
that detention the special judge can exercise in relation to
such person same power with the magistrate can exercise
under section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
(It is to be taken note of that it is not taking of the cognizance
in the case.)

2. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

The cases under this Act are also triable by the court of special
judges. Section 4 of the Act says:

Sec.4. Cases triable by special Judges -

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or in any other law
for the time being in force, the offences specified in sub-
section (1) of section 3 shall be tried by Special Judges
only.

(2) Every offence specified in sub-section (1) of section 3 shall

be tried by the Special Judge for the area within which it
was committed, or, as the case may be, by the special
Judge appointed for the case, or where there are more
special Judges than one for such area, by such one of
them as may be specified in this behalf by the Central
Government.

(3) When trying any case, a special Judge may also try any
offence, other than an offence specified in section 3, with
which the accused may, under the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), be charged at the same trial.

(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), a Special Judge

20
 shall, as far as practicable, hold the trial of an offence on
day-to-day basis.
What procedure is to be adopted to take the cognizance of
the case under this Act has been envisaged in section 5 of the
Act?

Sec.5. Procedure and Powers of Special Judge -

(1) A special Judge may take cognizance of offences without
the accused being committed to him for trial and, in trying
the accused persons, shall follow the procedure prescribed
by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), for
the trial of warrant cases by Magistrates.
(2) A special Judge may, with a view to obtaining the evidence
of any person supposed to have been directly or indirectly
concerned in, or privy to, an offence, tender a pardon to
such person on condition of his making a full and true
disclosure of the whole circumstances within his
knowledge relating to the offence and to every other
person concerned, whether as principal or abettor, in the
commission thereof and any pardon so tendered shall, for
the purposes of sub-sections (1) to (5) of section 308 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), be
deemed to have been tendered under section 307 of that
Code.
(3) Save as provided in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the
provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of
1974), shall, so far as they are not inconsistent with this
Act, apply to the proceedings before a special Judge; and
for the purposes of the said provisions, the Court of the
special Judge shall be deemed to be a Court of Session
and the person conducting a prosecution before a special
Judge shall be deemed to be a public prosecutor.
(4) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the
provisions contained in sub-section (3), the provisions of
sections 326 and 475 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (2 of 1974), shall, so far as may be, apply to the
proceedings before a special Judge and for the purposes
of the said provisions, a special Judge shall be deemed to
be a Magistrate.

21
 (5) A special Judge may pass upon any person convicted by
him any sentence authorised by law for the punishment of
the offence of which such person is convicted.
(6) A special Judge, while trying an offence punishable under
this Act, shall exercise all the powers and functions
exercisable by a District Judge under the Criminal Law
Amendment Ordinance, 1944 (Ordinance 38 of 1944).
From the above it transpires that under this Act a special
judge has the power to take cognizance in a case against the
accused without having the committal order of the magistrate as
per section 193 of Cr.P.C. The institution of the case is direct and
the challan / complaint under this Act are to be directly put in the
court of special judge concerned. The position of the special judge
is sui generous as in sub section (4) he is deemed to have been a
magistrate and in sub section 6 he is to exercise the powers of
district judge. Apart from it certain powers have been given to the
special judges under this Act to try the cases summarily as per
section 6 of the Act.
As per section 19 of the Act a bar on cognizance has also
been placed on the court. No court can take the cognizance
against any public servant for an offence which he has committed
while holding this position except without the sanction of the
competent authority. The protection is available even to the public
servants who have retired or have demitted the office in any
manner. (Under the amended provision of 2018)

Cognizance on Complaints under P.C. Act

Prior to the amendment of the Act in 2018 regarding
cognizance on complaints, nothing was mentioned in the
legislation. However by the indent of authorities given by Hon‘ble
Supreme Court the law as stood at that time is as follows. The
complainant was to be moved the complaint in the court of the
Special Judge after taking the necessary sanction from the
competent authority by making a request that he want to file the
complaint against the alleged perpetrator of the crime under P.C.
Act and as such the sanction may be accorded to prosecute him.
Without accompanying the sanction the complaint was held to be
not maintainable. Reference here can be made to the law laid
down in Anil Kumar vs. M.K. Ayyappa, (2013) 10 SCC 705 is to
the effect that since the question of sanction is of paramount
importance for protecting a public servant who has acted in good
22
faith while performing his duty. In order that the public servant may
not be unnecessarily harassed on a complaint of an unscrupulous
person, it is obligatory on the part of the executive authority to
protect him….. If the law requires sanction, and the court proceeds
against a public servant without sanction, the public servant has a
right to raise the issue of jurisdiction as the entire action may be
rendered void ab-initio.
Once it is noticed that there was no previous sanction, as already
indicated in various judgments referred to hereinabove, the
Magistrate cannot order investigation against a public servant
while invoking powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The above
legal position, as already indicated, has been clearly spelt out in
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Paras Nath Singh, (2009) 6 SCC 372.
This view was followed in L. Narayana Swamy vs. State of
Karnataka and Ors, 2016 (8) SCALE 560 wherein it was held by
the Hon‘ble Supreme Court that Having regard to the ratio of State
of U.P. vs. Paras Nath Singh (2009) 6 SCC 372 and Subramaniam
Swamy‘s Case (2012) 3 SCC 64 that the word cognizance has
wider connotation and not merely confined to taking of cognizance
of the offence it has been held that order directing further
investigation u/s 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. on the complaint under
Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be passed in the absence of
valid sanction.
The amendment carried out in 2018 has changed the entire
scenario with regard to the filing of the complaints by the private
individuals for corruption against public servants. It is now
mentioned in Section 19 of the Act that no request can be made by
a person other than the police officer or other law enforcement
authority, to the appropriate government or competent authority for
the previous sanction of such Government or authority for taking
cognizance by the court of any of the offences under section 7, 11,
13 and 15, unless
(i) such person has filed a complaint in a competent court about
the alleged offences for which the public servant is sought to
be prosecuted; and
(ii) the court has not dismissed the complaint under section 203
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and directed the
complainant to obtain the sanction for prosecution against
the public servant for further proceeding.
It has been provided further that in the case of request from
the person other than a police officer or an officer of an
23
 investigation agency or other law enforcement authority, the
appropriate Government or competent authority shall not accord
sanction to prosecute a public servant without providing an
opportunity of being heard to the concerned public servant. The
appropriate government or the competent authority is to make
every endeavor to convey the decision on such proposal within a
period of three months from the date of its receipt.
3. The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989
In this Act the special courts and exclusive special courts
which were constituted under section 14 of the Act were to take
the cognizance of the offences under this Act. Prior to the
amendment which came into force on 26th January 2016, the old
section 14 which was for the constitution of special courts read as
under :
―Sec.14. Special Court — For the purpose of providing for
speedy trial, the State Government shall, with the
concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court, by
notification in the Official Gazette, specify for each district a
Court of Session to be a Special Court to try the offences
under this Act.‖
Interpreting this section in case Gancula Ashok and Anr vs.
State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2000 SC 740, the apex court has
held in no uncertain terms that a committal order by the
concerned magistrate was a condition precedent for taking the
cognizance of offence under this Act by the special court, due to
the reason that the Act has not specifically mentioned that
cognizance can be taken by the special court without having any
commitment order in the case.
It is apposite that now the legal scenario has undergone a
change by virtue of the amendment carried out in January 2016 by
substituting this section with the new section which provides as:
―Sec.14.(1) For the purpose of providing for speedy trial, the
State Government shall, with the concurrence of the Chief
Justice of the High Court, by notification in the Official
Gazette, establish an Exclusive Special Court for one or
more Districts:
Provided that in Districts where less number of cases under
this Act is recorded, the State Government shall, with the
concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court, by

24
 notification in the Official Gazette, specify for such Districts,
the Court of Session to be a Special Court to try the offences
under this Act: Provided further that the Courts so
established or specified shall have power to directly take
cognizance of offences under this Act.
(2) It shall be the duty of the State Government to establish
adequate number of Courts to ensure that cases under this
Act are disposed of within a period of two months, as far as
possible.
(3) In every trial in the Special Court or the Exclusive Special
Court, the proceedings shall be continued from day-to-day
until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined,
unless the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court finds
the adjournment of the same beyond the following day to be
necessary for reasons to be recorded in writing: Provided
that when the trial relates to an offence under this Act, the
trial shall, as far as possible, be completed within a period of
two months from the date of filing of the charge sheet.‖.
Thus now the special court or exclusive special court
can take cognizance against the accused directly without any
committal order of the magistrate. Further as per the section
the case is to be disposed of within a period of two months
as much as practicable after taking the cognizance.
4. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
This is also a special legislation to protect children from
sexual assault and harassment, pornography and provide for
establishment of special courts for trial of such offences and
connected or incidental thereto.
Section 28 provides that there will be designated special
court for trial of offences under this Act which reads as :
Section 28 - Designation of Special Courts
(1) For the purposes of providing a speedy trial, the State
Government shall in consultation with the Chief Justice
of the High Court, by notification in the Official Gazette,
designate for each district, a Court of Session to be a
Special Court to try the offences under the Act:
Provided that if a Court of Session is notified as a
children's court under the Commissions for Protection of
Child Rights Act, 2005(4 of 2006) or a Special Court
designated for similar purposes under any other law for
25
 the time being in force, then, such court shall be deemed
to be a Special Court under this section.
(2) While trying an offence under this Act, a Special Court
shall also try an offence other than the offence referred
to in sub-section (1), with which the accused may, under
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(2 of 1974), be
charged at the same trial.
(3) The Special Court constituted under this Act,
notwithstanding anything in the Information Technology
Act, 2000 (21 of 2000), shall have jurisdiction to try
offences under section 67B of that Act in so far as it
relates to publication or transmission of sexually explicit
material depicting children in any act, or conduct or
manner or facilitates abuse of children online.
Regarding the cognizance taken by the special court of
the offences under the Act section 33 (1) deals with the
cognizance to be taken by the court.
Section 33 Procedure and powers of Special Court
(1) A Special Court may take cognizance of any offence,
without the accused being committed to it for trial, upon
receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such
offence, or upon a police report of such facts.

Accordingly the court of Sessions Judge, notified as

special court under the Act under section 28 will take the
cognizance of the offences mentioned in the Act and the
special court can take cognizance without the accused being
committed to it for trial. The institution is to be direct into the
court of special judge under POCSO. Further sub section (9)
of section 33 provides that subject to the provisions of this
Act the special court under this Act will have all the powers of
Court of Sessions and trial of the offences is to take place as
if the court of special judge were a court of session. The trial
should be conducted as far as practical in accordance with
the procedure prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure
for the trial before the Sessions Judge.

5. Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002

This Act was enacted to fight against the criminal offence of

legalizing the income/profits from an illegal source enabling

26
the Government or the public authority to confiscate the
property earned from the illegally gained proceeds.

The Act provides for the constitution of Special Courts for the
trial of offences under it. Section 44 deals with special courts
which states as:
Sec.44. Offences triable by Special Courts.

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),-

(a) an offence punishable under section 4 and any

scheduled offence connected to the offence under that
section shall be triable by the Special Court constituted
for the area in which the offence has been committed:

Provided that the Special Court, trying a scheduled

offence before the commencement of this Act, shall
continue to try such scheduled offence; or;

(b) a Special Court may, upon a complaint made by an

authority authorised in this behalf under this Act take
cognizance of offence under section 3, without the
accused being committed to it for trial;

Provided that after conclusion of investigation, if no

offence of money-laundering is made out requiring filing
of such complaint, the said authority shall submit a
closure report before the Special Court; or

(c) if the court which has taken cognizance of the scheduled

offence is other than the Special Court which has taken
cognizance of the complaint of the offence of money-
laundering under sub-clause (b), it shall, on an
application by the authority authorised to file a complaint
under this Act, commit the case relating to the scheduled
offence to the Special Court and the Special Court shall,
on receipt of such case proceed to deal with it from the
stage at which it is committed.

(d) a Special Court while trying the scheduled offence or the

offence of money-laundering shall hold trial in
accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal

27
 Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) as it applies to a trial before
a Court of Session.

Explanation - For the removal of doubts, it is clarified

that, (i) the jurisdiction of the Special Court while dealing
with the offence under this Act, during investigation,
enquiry or trial under this Act, shall not be dependent
upon any orders passed in respect of the scheduled
offence, and the trial of both sets of offences by the
same court shall not be construed as joint trial;

This section stipulates in an unambiguous term that the

accused is to be tried by the special court under this act
without being committed to it. However section 64 places a
bar on the cognizance by the special court except with the
previous sanction of the Central Government for this
purpose.

Limitation for taking Cognizance:

Above all the principles which we have discussed for taking the
cognizance of the offences by the court the factum of limitation is one of
the basic principle which governs cognizance.
In Assistant Collector Bombay vs. L.R. Melwani, AIR 1970 SC
962, Hon‘ble Supreme Court has held that the question of delay in filing
a complaint may be a circumstance to be taken into consideration in
arriving at the final verdict. But by itself it affords no ground for
dismissing the complaint.
However, on basis of the recommendations of 42nd Law
Commission of India CHAPTER XXXVI was added in Cr.P.C. in 1973
under the head limitation for taking cognizance for certain offences
consisting of sections 467-473. This limitation has been provided only for
the offences which are punishable with imprisonment upto three years
whereas no limitation has been provided for any other offence.
Section 467 defines as to the period of limitation. The frame of the
chapter from section 468 to 473 includes regarding the bar to take
cognizance after the lapse of period of limitation, as to when the period
of limitation will commence, how to compute the period of limitation, what
periods are to be excluded in certain cases and when the period of
limitation for taking cognizance can be extended. It also speaks of the
law with regard to limitation in continuing offence.

28
Computing the period of limitation u/s 468
There was a lot of controversy as to from which date the period of
limitation is to be computed i.e. whether from the institution of
complaint/prosecution or the date on which the magistrate takes
cognizance of the offence. But as of now the same has been set at rest
by the Constitutional Bench of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Sarah
Mathew vs. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases by its Director,
2014(2) SCC 62. Accordingly, for the purpose of computing the period of
limitation u/s 468 Cr.P.C the relevant date is the date of filing of the
complaint or institution of prosecution, and not the date on which the
Magistrate takes cognizance.
Conclusion:
The word ‗Cognizance‘ is not defined in the Criminal
Procedure Code. Basically, it means applying the Judicial mind to a
suspected commission of the offence. Chapter XIV of Cr.P.C deals with
‗Conditions Requisite for Initiation of Proceeding‘ and Chapter XV of
Cr.P.C deals with ‗Complaints to Magistrates‘. Taking of cognizance
does not postulate any specific order or stage after or before which it is
to be said that cognizance has been taken. Rather it is to be gathered
from the facts at which stage after the filing of the challan or complaint or
information covered under section 190 for taking cognizance, the
magistrate has decided to move in a particular direction for taking further
steps under Chapter XIV and XV so as to finally arrive to section 204
under Chapter XVI.

-----

29