Cognizance can be inferred from a composite Magistrate order taking process on a prima facie complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

In a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act, cognizance may be inferred where the Magistrate considers the complaint, affidavit in lieu of sworn statement, and documents together, finds a prima facie offence, and issues process in the same composite order. The absence of an express recital that cognizance was taken before recording the complainant's statement does not by itself vitiate the proceedings when the order shows application of mind and a decision to proceed. The quashing challenge therefore failed and the petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Magistrate's order taking cognizance and issuing summons in the complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act was liable to be quashed on the ground that the sworn statement was recorded before express mention of cognizance.

Analysis: The order showed that the complaint, affidavit in lieu of sworn statement, and documents were placed together before the Magistrate, who perused them and recorded that they prima facie disclosed the offence and that there was sufficient material to proceed. In that situation, cognizance could be inferred from the order and the sequence adopted by the Magistrate. The Court held that the absence of an express recital of cognizance at an earlier stage did not by itself vitiate the proceedings, and that recording cognizance in the same composite order and issuing process was not illegal.

Conclusion: The challenge to the cognizance order failed and the petition for quashing was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Magistrate, on a complaint and accompanying affidavit and documents, applies mind, finds a prima facie offence, and takes cognizance in the same order issuing process, the proceeding is not vitiated merely because the order does not expressly state that cognizance was taken before recording the complainant's statement.

---