TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offence of criminal conspiracy so as to attract the requirement of consent under Section 196A(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.
Analysis: The charge-sheet placed before the Magistrate did not allege criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It referred to offences of forgery, impersonation, and abetment, and the Magistrate initially applied his mind to those offences when acting on the police report under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Cognizance is taken when the Magistrate first applies his mind to the offence disclosed in the report, not when he later frames an altered or more appropriate charge on the same materials. The materials before the Magistrate did not prima facie disclose a conspiracy charge, and the witness statements did not show any agreement to forge the passport. The later framing of a charge under Section 120B did not convert the earlier cognizance into cognizance of conspiracy.
Conclusion: Section 196A(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 did not apply, and no prior consent was necessary.
Final Conclusion: The committal order was upheld because the Magistrate had not taken cognizance of criminal conspiracy, and the appeal therefore failed.
Ratio Decidendi: For the purpose of a statutory bar on cognizance requiring prior consent, the decisive question is whether the police report or complaint prima facie disclosed the barred offence itself; a later framing of a different charge on the same materials does not retrospectively make the earlier cognizance one of that barred offence.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
