CREF Finance Ltd. v Shree Shanthi Homes (P) Ltd.

• A complaint was filed under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Magistrate issued process against the accused company and its directors.
• One director argued that since the complaint did not specifically attribute a role to him, the Magistrate could not have validly taken cognizance against him.
• The question was whether cognizance must be individually taken against each accused.

1. Whether a Magistrate takes cognizance of an "offence" or of an "offender."
2. At what point is cognizance said to be taken?

• A Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence and not of an offender. The focus is on the nature of the act alleged, not the identity of the accused.
• Cognizance is taken when the Magistrate applies his mind to the allegations in the complaint or police report to take judicial notice of the offence.
• Issuance of process is a step subsequent to taking cognizance and is distinct from it.
• The identity of accused persons comes into play at the stage of process, not at the stage of cognizance.
• Under S.228 BNSS (S.190 CrPC), the Magistrate takes cognizance upon receiving a complaint, police report, or information from any person.

"Taking cognizance" is a judicial act of applying mind to the suspected commission of an offence. It is an offence-centric concept: the Magistrate first recognizes that a cognizable offence appears to have been committed, and then proceeds against specific persons.