This raises the following secondary question: What is meant by “knowledge of a crime” by a judge when reviewing section 190? This expression has not been defined in the code. However, it is clear from the scheme of the Code, the content and paragraph of article 190 and the title of chapter XIV, under which articles 190 to 199 appear, that a case can be classified as being brought before a court only if the Court takes note of the alleged offence therein. The manner in which this knowledge can be obtained is set out in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Article 190(1). Whether or not the court has taken note of the infringement depends on the circumstances of the case, including the manner in which the case is to be brought and the nature of the preliminary ruling it may take. On the whole, when the judge applies his considerations for the purposes of the procedure provided for in Article 200 and subsequent articles of Chapter XV of the 1973 Code upon receipt of a complaint, he should have taken note of the offence within the meaning of Article 190 (1) (a). If, instead of proceeding in accordance with Chapter XV, he has taken measures of a different nature in the exercise of his discretion, such as the issuance of a search warrant for the purposes of the investigation or the investigation order by the police pursuant to Article 156(3), he cannot be presumed to have taken note of a criminal offence. [see also M.L. Sethi v. R.P. Kapur & Anr., (1967) 1 SCR The power, authority and capacity of a judge to decide a particular legal question. A judge`s decision to take note of or deal with a case.

In simple terms, the word cognition can be defined as cognition means the exercise of judicial discretion to pursue the case. If a judge who is not empowered to take note of a criminal offence under point (a) of Article 190(1) and point (b) of Article 190(1) mistakenly acknowledges a criminal offence in good faith, his or her case cannot be quashed solely because it is not authorised. The word “knowledge” has no esoteric or mystical meaning in criminal law or procedural procedure. It simply means “to acquaint themselves with” and, when used in respect of a court or judge, “to take note of it in a court” [Ajit Kumar Palit v. State of W.B. (AIR 1963 SC 765). Purshottam Jethanand v. Kutch State [9]: If a judge takes note of a crime and proceeds to trial even if he is not authorized on that behalf and convicts the defendant, the defendant cannot invoke the default and cannot demand that his conviction be quashed solely on the basis of such an irregularity, unless: there is something in the record that shows that the judge has taken power. Not by mistake and in good faith, but knowing on purpose that he had no such power. On the other hand, when a judge who is not authorized to take note of a crime becomes aware of the information received or of his own knowledge. 190 Article 1(c) of its procedure is null and void. In such a case, it does not matter whether he acted in good faith or otherwise by mistake.

The authority, authority and ability of a judge to decide a particular legal issue. A judge`s decision to take note of or deal with a case. What is recognizable to a judge falls within his or her area of competence. A justice of the peace, for example, would have no knowledge of a major criminal case. 204. Procedural question.- (1) If, in the opinion of a judge who takes note of a criminal offence, there is sufficient reason for a trial and appears to be the case, no hearing may take note of an offence as a court of first instance, unless the case has been committed by a judge under section 193 of the Code. If an offence can only be tried by a hearing in accordance with p. 26 in conjunction with the first timetable, the judge who takes note of such an offence is required to bring the case before the Court of Session for hearing after the completion of certain preliminary formalities. Sometimes CJM and ADJ positions are filled by a single person. In such a case, the WJC was required to take note of the economic crimes and negotiate them. It was held that p. 193 was not applicable in the present case.

For the proper division of labour in the Court of Justice and for reasons of administrative convenience, provision has been made for an additional sitting judge or a deputy session judge to hear cases which the division`s session judge may refer to him for trial by general or special order, or, as the Supreme Court can do, instruct it on special orders, try it under p. 194 of the Code. “It is generally accepted that when a judge receives a complaint, he is not obliged to take note of it if the facts alleged in the complaint reveal the commission of a criminal offence.