Cognizance of the offence lets a Magistrate summon an unnamed accused when record materials show prima facie involvement.

Cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) of the Code is of the offence, not merely of the offender, so a Magistrate is not restricted to persons named in the police report or shown in column (2) of the charge-sheet. If the materials on record, including a statement under Section 164, disclose prima facie involvement of another person, the Magistrate may summon that person at the stage of cognizance without waiting for Section 319 proceedings. The absence of that person's name in the FIR or earlier statement does not by itself prevent such action. On this reasoning, the Magistrate's power to summon the appellant was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on a police report under Section 190(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can summon a person not named as an accused in the police report and not shown in column (2) of the report, on the basis of materials on record including a statement under Section 164 of the Code.

Analysis: Cognizance is of the offence and not of the offender. The Magistrate, when taking cognizance on a police report, is not confined only to the persons sent up by the police or to those named in column (2) of the charge-sheet. The settled position, drawn from the line of authorities considered, is that if materials placed before the Magistrate disclose prima facie involvement of another person, the Magistrate may summon that person at the stage of cognizance without waiting for the stage under Section 319 of the Code. The statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code was a permissible material for that purpose, and the absence of the appellant's name in the FIR or initial statement did not bar the Magistrate from acting upon the later material.

Conclusion: The Magistrate had jurisdiction to summon the appellant under Section 190(1)(b) of the Code, and the challenge to that order failed.

---