Magistrate's cognizance depends on sufficiency of police material, while delay condonation needs notice and reasons.

Condonation of delay affecting prosecution cannot be granted ex parte: notice to the affected party and recorded reasons are required, and the matter must be reconsidered afresh after hearing both sides. On cognizance, the Magistrate's power under the Code depends on the sufficiency of the material placed before him, not on the investigating agency's description of its report as incomplete or on a request for a supplementary charge-sheet. A police report under Section 173(2) enables cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) where the material is adequate, so the label attached by police does not control jurisdiction. Cognizance could not be quashed on the ground of an incomplete report.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the delay in launching the prosecution could be condoned behind the accused's back without notice and reasons; (ii) whether the Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to take cognizance because the police report was treated as incomplete and a supplementary charge-sheet was sought.

Issue (i): Whether the delay in launching the prosecution could be condoned behind the accused's back without notice and reasons.

Analysis: Condonation of delay affecting the prosecution could not be granted without hearing the affected and without recording reasons. The High Court was correct in holding that such an order could not stand when passed ex parte. At the same time, the proper course after setting aside that part of the order would have been to remit the matter for fresh consideration of the delay application after notice to both sides.

Conclusion: The condonation of delay was unsustainable and had to be reconsidered afresh after hearing both sides.

Issue (ii): Whether the Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to take cognizance because the police report was treated as incomplete and a supplementary charge-sheet was sought.

Analysis: Under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the police are required to forward the report and supporting material to enable the Magistrate to decide whether cognizance should be taken. Section 190(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 empowers the Magistrate to take cognizance on a police report if the material is sufficient. The label put by the investigating agency on its report does not control the Magistrate's jurisdiction. The mere request for further investigation or a supplementary charge-sheet did not invalidate cognizance already taken on the material placed before the Magistrate.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in quashing cognizance on the ground that the report was incomplete.

Final Conclusion: The order was set aside only to the extent that it had annulled cognizance, while the question of condonation of delay was remitted to the Magistrate for fresh decision according to law.

Ratio Decidendi: The Magistrate's power to take cognizance depends on the sufficiency of the material placed before him under the Code, and is not controlled by the investigating agency's label or by a pending request for further investigation; procedural fairness also requires notice and reasons before condoning delay affecting prosecution.

---