@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
The Court
1. Petitioner is the accused in these cases facing prosecution for the offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The grievance of the petitioner is that there is no application of mind on the part of the learned Magistrate in taking cognizance because the order relating to taking cognizance is commonly typed in all the cases and sworn statement is recorded in readily typed formats with blanks filled up. However, undesirable the practice of filling up of blanks in respect of sworn statement may be, I am of the opinion that taking all the circumstances together, in these cases, there is definitely application of mind. Learned Magistrate has got the relevant order portion relating to taking up of cognizance typed, and, therefrom it is absolutely clear that he has noted about the complainant being present, about the cognizance being taken, about recording sworn statement, and then posting it for further orders. It is on the next date that he has written a considered order as to how there is sufficient ground for proceeding to issue process u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The manner in which the cases are dealt with would make it absolutely clear that there was application of mind by the learned Magistrate. Sri Desai for the learned Counsel for the petitioner referred to a decision of this Court in
2. Once again, the practice of recording of sworn statement by filling up blanks in the already typed formats is severely deprecated. Learned Magistrates are directed to immediately stop this practice.
3. Petitions are dismissed.
