Courts take cognisance of the offence, not of the offenders. Therefore, it is not necessary for a court to afford an opportunity of hearing before issuing summons to an accused named in a supplementary chargesheet if cognisance had already been taken at the time of filing of main chargesheet by the investigating agency, the Madras High Court has held.
A Division Bench of Justices S.M. Subramaniam and Mohamed Shaffiq ruled so while dismissing a criminal revision case filed by businessman Rahul Surana. He had filed the revision against his inclusion as the 42nd accused by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) in a money laundering case registered on the basis of a ₹1,301 crore bank loan misappropriation case booked by the CBI.
The judges agreed with ED Special Public Prosecutor N. Ramesh that taking cognisance of the same offence on multiple occasions would render the judicial process redundant and result in delay in justice delivery process. Once cognisance of an offence had been taken by a court, any further supplementary prosecution complaint must be considered to be flowing from the main complaint, they said.
Authoring the verdict, Justice Subramaniam said, cognisance essentially means that the judge concerned should have applied his/her judicial mind and be satisfied prima facie that the allegations in the complaint, if proved, would constitute an offence. In the present case, cognisance was taken in 2022 when the main chargesheet was filed and hence taking cognisance afresh in 2024 does not arise, he added.
When it was brought to the notice of the Division Bench that the trial court had specifically mentioned in 2024 that it was taking cognisance of the complaint against the revision petitioner, the judges said, such a written observation by the trial court, in its docket order, could only be considered as an error that could be ignored and need not be given much credence.
“This cannot be construed as a material or substantive error. It is a mere curable error of expression. This curable error can neither go to the extent of vitiating the entire proceedings nor can it result in miscarriage of justice… Hence, the language of the impugned (under challenge) order does not show any irregularity and so the objection raised by the petitioner at this stage cannot be entertained.” the Bench wrote.
It also stated that the trial court could not be expected to write lengthy orders before issuing summons to the accused after the filing of every other supplementary chargesheet and that it was sufficient to pass a brief order. “When the intent of the order is issuance of process based on the complaint, there does not arise a need for an elaborate or reasoned order,” the judges said.
Published – November 20, 2025 12:17 am IST
