Jan - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

24 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012Government, the plaint or the writtenstatement shall be signed by such personas the Government may by general orspecial order appoint in that behalf andshall be verified by any person whom theGovernment may so appoint."8. In view of above, we are of theview that since the petitioner-appellantfiled the writ petition claiming salaryfrom the State exchequer, therefore, heought to have impleaded the State as aparty and in the absence of the State as aparty in the writ petition, the writ petitionitself was not maintainable.We, therefore, do not find any reasonto differ with the view taken by the learnedSingle Judge. The appeal is, accordingly,dismissed.9. At this stage, learned counsel forthe appellant submits that the amount ofG.P.F. and other dues payable to theappellant are still lying with theDepartment. He further submits that thereis apprehension of initiation of aproceeding for recovery of the amount ofsalary already paid by the respondents.However, the aforesaid apprehension hasnot been substantiated by bringing anymaterial on record. Besides that, in theevent, if such proceedings are initiated,that will be a fresh cause of action and itwill always be open to the appellant toapproach the appropriate Courtchallenging such action/order but thatcannot be a basis to interfere with theorder of the learned Single Judge.10. The appeal, therefore, beingwithout merit, is dismissed.---------REVISIONAL JURISDICTIONCRIMINAL SIDEDATED: ALLAHABAD 31.01.2012BEFORETHE HON'BLE ASHOK SRIVASTAVA,J.Criminal Revision No. - 260 of 2012Kailash SinghState of U.P.VersusCounsel for the Petitioner:Sri Pankaj Kumar MishraCounsel for the Respondents:Pankaj Kumar MishraGovt. Advocate...Petitioner...RespondentsCriminal Revision-against order takingcognizance-without going throughcase diary-expression “cognizance”means “became aware” or to takenotice judicially-in view of law laiddown by Apex Court in Dy. ChiefController Export-import case-a detailreasoned discussion not requiredrevisiondismissed.Held: Para 4In the instant case, fact wise, law aslaid down in Dy. Chief Controller ofImports and Exports (supra) squarelyapplies. From perusal of the orderimpugned herein it does not transpirethat before taking cognizance of thecase and passing an order thereon theMagistrate had not seen the case diaryor the charge sheet. It is needless tosay that while taking cognizance of anoffence no detailed order is requiredto be passed by the Magistrate.Case law discussed:2011-ADJ-5-690; 2009 AIR Jhar-1-355;2003 (46) ACC 686 SC; 2000 (40) ACC 441SC; 2011 (73) ACC 750 (Alld./Lko.); (2008)2 SCC 492