Cognizance requires some material linking the accused to the offence; mere suspicion cannot justify summons.

Criminal process cannot be initiated on mere suspicion; at the stage of cognizance, the court need not require proof beyond reasonable doubt, but there must be some material connecting the accused with the alleged offence. Where the complaint had already been investigated, the final report was accepted, and no substantive evidence linked the accused to the offence, the order taking cognizance and issuing summons was unsustainable and was quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order taking cognizance and issuing summons was sustainable in the absence of material implicating the accused.

Analysis: The complaint had earlier been investigated, the final report had been accepted, and the later cognizance order was passed without any substantive material connecting the accused with the alleged offence. At the stage of cognizance, proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required, but there must be some material on which the court can act. Mere suspicion, conjecture, or surmise cannot justify issuance of process. The record did not disclose any evidence of poisoning or any other material showing guilt of the accused.

Conclusion: The order taking cognizance and issuing summons was unsustainable and was rightly quashed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, and the impugned order of cognizance was set aside for want of material justifying criminal against the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi: Criminal process cannot be initiated or continued on mere suspicion; at least some material implicating the accused must exist before cognizance is taken.

---