[Sections 190 and 191, Cr.P.C.]
Negative police report: Magistrate in spite of police report under section 169, Cr.P.C. taking cognizance and proceeding to examine complainant and his witnesses without asking accused under section 191, Cr.P.C. whether he would like to be tried by some other Court and framing charge despite accused's refusal to be tried by him. Proceedings quashed as illegal. 1973 P.Cr.LJ 385. The State v. Rais Ahmed. (FC) 1953 FC 145 Abdus Sattar Molla.
Sections 173, 190 and 191, Cr.P.C.: Cognizance of offence taken by a Magistrate on the basis of a negative police report under section 173, Cr.P.C. cognizance is under clause (b) and not (c) of section 190 (1), provisions of section 191, Cr.P.C. not attracted, (SC) 1969 SCMR 271 Noor Muhammad etc. v. Muhammad Nawaz; 48 Cr.LJ 774 Muhammad Nawaz v. Crown.
Person named in column No. 2 of police challan when proceeded against by Magistrate he takes cognizance under section 190(1) (c), Cr.P.C. Therefore, the Magistrate should transfer the case to another Court under section 191, Cr.P.C. PLD 1967 Lah. 1045 In re. Muhammad Ashraf.
Sections 190 (1) (b) and 173, Cr.P.C. Irrespective of the opinion of the Investigating Police Officer, Magistrate could take cognizance if upon material before him he finds prima facie case made out against accused. (SC) 1972 SCMR 335 Muhammad Akbar. PLD 1967 SC 425. Falak Sher.
Cognizance under section 190 (1) (a): When a complaint is made before a Magistrate he takes cognizance under clause (a) and not (c) even though he may not say so. 1911 PR 11 Girdhari Lal v. Emperor.
The principle is that when a Magistrate takes cognizance under section 190 (1) (b) on a police report he takes cognizance of the offence and not merely of a particular person charged in the report as an offender. He can, therefore, issue process against other persons also who appear to him on the basis of the report and other material placed before him when he has taken cognizance of the case, to be concerned in the commission of the offence. When he does so he does not act under clause (c). Therefore, section 191 is not applicable. (FB) 26 Cr.PLJ 181 Mahrab v. Crown; 31 Cr.LJ 55 Lal Bihari.
When objection to be taken under section 191, Cr.P.C.: If the accused wants to be tried by another Court, he must express his objection before any evidence is taken. 1894 P.R. 29 Murad.
Taking cognizance is not confined only to the offence but also relates to the offender. (FC) PLD 1953 FC 145. Abdus Sattar Molla v. Crown.
Cognizance of offence restricted to the accused. Section 193 shows that save when otherwise expressly provided by the code or other law, the cognizance taken by a Court of Sessions is not merely cognizance of the offence but is restricted to the accused in respect of whom an order of commitment has been made by a competent magistrate. AIR 1942 Sindh 161. Mir Khan v. Emp.
Cognizance when case not sent up to Sessions Court. by magistrate. Held, the Sessions Judge could not take cognizance of the case u/S. 193 (1), Cr.P.C. when the magistrate did not send up the case to his Court u/S. 190 (3) of Cr.P.C. PLJ 1977 Lah. 136. Muhammad Aslam etc. v. Natho Bibi. = PLD 1977 Lah. 535.
Name in Column No. 2 of Challan as an innocent person, such accused originally named in F.I.R. but not challaned by police. Trial Magistrate not empowered under clause (c) of section 190, Cr.P.C. Proceedings initiated against such accused on basis of statements of prosecution witnesses, held ab initio void. PLD 1953 FC 145. Abdus Sattar Molla v. Crown.
Column No. 2 Summoning of accused. When the case is sent upto the Sessions Judge by the magistrate, the Sessions Judge is competent to summon the accused named in column No. 2 even though the Magistrate did not summon them. (DB) 1979 P.Cr.LJ 1078. Muhammad Hanif etc.
Cognizance by Sessions Court direct. Principle that Magistrate taken cognizance of offence and not accused alone and have within his competence to summon accused not challaned is now equally applicable to the Court of Session. (DB) 1979 P.Cr.LJ 1078. Muhammad Hanif etc. PLJ 1978 Cr.C. (Lah.) 487. Muhammad Ishaq.
Cognizance of cases tried by Sessions Court is taken by the Magistrate only for purpose of ascertaining whether the case is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. He takes cognizance of the case as whole and sends up the case to the Court of Sessions and not certain accused persons only whether placed in column No. 2 or 3. (SC) NLR 1985 Cr. 1. Raja Khushbakht-ur-Rehman etc. PLD 1990 Kar. 267 Haji Ghulam Hussain.
No Court of law can refuse to entertain a case or an application in a case at the level of its office. Upon presentation it is the obligation of the office to place the case or the application for order before the concerned judge whose duty is to pass lawful order. PLD 1991 Kar 205, Zahur-ud-Din v. Haji Hassan referred. (D.B) PLD 1996 Kar 493 Nazir Ahmed = PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Kar.) 1751.
Non-cognizable offences do not become cognizable merely because the Federal Investigation Agency can inquire into or investigate such offences. (D.B) PLD Lah. 250, Amjad Hussain.