Special Judge cognizance does not require mandatory complainant examination before process where a written complaint discloses scheduled offences.

Allotment of a scheduled-offence case to a Special Judge confers jurisdiction to try the case and is treated as cognizance for that purpose. The special statutory scheme requiring cognizance in the manner provided by Section 190(1)(a) and (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 does not incorporate Section 200 or complaint procedures applicable to Magistrates. A Special Judge may examine the complainant, but prior examination is not mandatory where a scrutinised written complaint discloses offences against identified persons. Cognizance and process issued without such examination remain valid and do not vitiate the trial.

---

---

Issues: Whether a Special Judge, after governmental allotment of a scheduled-offence case, was required to examine the complainant under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 before taking cognizance on a written complaint and issuing process.

Analysis: Allotment of a case involving scheduled offences vests the Special Judge with jurisdiction to try it and is equivalent to cognizance for that purpose. The 1960 amendment requiring cognizance in the manner provided by Section 190(1)(a) and (b) did not incorporate Section 200 or the provisions governing complaints to Magistrates. Section 200 operates after cognizance by a Magistrate and does not mandatorily apply to a Special Judge under the special statutory scheme. Examination of the complainant remains permissible but is not compulsory where the written complaint, upon scrutiny, discloses offences against identified persons.

Conclusion: Cognizance and issuance of process without prior examination of the complainant under Section 200 were valid; the trial was not vitiated.

---