NALSAR UNIVERSITY OF LAW

CRIMINAL LAW II

CASE COMMENT
S.R. SUKUMAR vs. S. SUNAAD RAGHURAM
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 844 OF 2015

SUBMITTED BY:
VEDANT DIKSHIT
ROLL NO. 2014-71
B.A. LL.B.(Hons.) IVth SEMESTER

SUBMITTED TO:
Dr. BALAKRISHNA REDDY

S.R. SUKUMAR VS. S. SUNAAD RAGHURAM, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 844 OF 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................3
II. CASE DESCRIPTION.............................................................................................................4
II.1. Parties...................................................................................................................................4
II.2. Facts of the Case...................................................................................................................4
II.3. Issues Raised........................................................................................................................5
II.4. Contentions of the Parties.....................................................................................................5
II.5. Judgement/Verdict................................................................................................................5
III. ANALYSIS...............................................................................................................................6
1.

A marvellous presentation of Judicial Creativity and Activism...........................................6

2.

Jurisprudential Aspect (Analysis) of the case.......................................................................7

IV. CONCLUSION......................................................................................................................11

CRIMINAL LAW II

S.R. SUKUMAR VS. S. SUNAAD RAGHURAM, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 844 OF 2015

I. INTRODUCTION
Society moves two steps ahead the states law. So to meet the ends of the justice it is required
that law, especially the procedural law, keep moulding according to the need of the society.
However, it is also equally crucial that it remain attached to its inherent jurisprudential
principles. Judiciary plays a significant role in this process, on one hand it keeps law attached to
its roots and on other moulds it according to the needs of the society.
Why this case; In this case, a similar approach has been taken by the judiciary where
they have maintained a perfect balance between the jurisprudential principles and the
requirements of the society. Second, this case presented a subtle distinction between the words,
cognizance, taking cognizance and judicial mind in the context of CrPC, which makes this case
jurisprudentially important and worth deep analysis. Third, before this case, the position of the
law relating to the amendment of the complaint was highly uncertain. Some High Courts use to
allow in case of small legal infirmity. However, there was no authoritative deeper insight on the
issue. This case thus serves as a landmark on the issue. It is due to the reasons mentioned above;
the researcher has taken to the exclusion of other.
Primary Object and Limitations: To present how the judiciary marvellously maintained
a balance between jurisprudential theory and current requirements of society and carved out the
principle on which an amendment to a complaint can be made. Second, to present the broader
picture of the subtle jurisprudential distinction that has been done in this case. The researcher has
referred Ramanatha Aiyer, Code of Criminal Procedure, Scholarly Articles and Case laws by
various courts.
Chapterization; The case comment presented is divided into four parts by the researcher.
The first part consists of the Introduction. The Second part describes the brief summary of the
case. It includes the facts of the case, issues raised, the contention made by the party and finally
the verdict of the court. Part three of the paper deal with the in-depth analysis of the case and
forms the core of the document. It analysis the case, both from the practical eye view as well as
the jurisprudential eye view. Finally, part four concludes the paper.
CRIMINAL LAW II

S.R. SUKUMAR VS. S. SUNAAD RAGHURAM, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 844 OF 2015

II. CASE DESCRIPTION

The facts of the case, issues concerned, contention of the parties and the final Judgement of the
Supreme Court are discussed as follow;

II.1. Parties
1. The original petitioner/current respondent is S. Sunaad Raghuram.
2. The original respondent/current appellant is S. R Sukumar and Smt. H.R. Leelavathi.

II.2. Facts of the Case

1. Appellants mother Smt. H.R. Leelavathi married the respondents father late Shri S.G.
Raghuram. Appellant was the son of Smt. H.R. Leelavathi from her first husband whereas the
Respondent was the son of the Shri S.G. Raghuram from his first wife.
2. On May 09, 2007 respondent filed a complaint under Section 200 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, against appellant alleging that they committed an offence, punishable under
section 120-B, 499 and 500 of Indian Penal Code. The primary contention was that the
appellant is wrongly using the name of respondents father as if he is appellants natural
father thus imparting a bad name on his fathers character.
3. On May 18, 2007, and, later on, May 23, 2007, the respondents statement was recorded.
However on May 24, he filed an application for amendment of the complaint, pleading
insertion of additional facts. These new facts stated that appellant has written a poem in
which respondent is portrayed as Villon, to malign his character intentionally.
4. The trial court allowed the amendment and took the cognizance of the offence.
5. Aggrieved by the order of the trial court, the appellant approached High Court of Karnataka,
pleading that there is no provision in Cr.P.C to amend the complaint. High Court dismissed
the appeal stating that magistrate took the cognizance of the case before the date of allowing
the amendment. Therefore, no prejudice is caused to the appellant.1
6. Aggrieved by the orders of the High Court, the appellant filed the leave petition, which was
granted by the Supreme Court. This Judgment was delivered by Justice R. Banumathi and
Justice T.S Thakur on July 02 2015.
1 S.R. Sukumar vs. S. Sunaad Raghuram, Criminal Appeal no. 5077/2007.

CRIMINAL LAW II

S.R. SUKUMAR VS. S. SUNAAD RAGHURAM, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 844 OF 2015

II.3. Issues Raised

1. Whether the complaint filed under Section 200 can be amended even if there is no provision
for it in the CrPC.
2. Whether the recording of the statement (issues of the process) amounts to taking cognizance.
If not, what is the difference

II.4. Contentions of the Parties

1. Appellants Contention: The main contention of the appellant were; (i) There is no
provision for amendment of complaint in CrPC. Hence, the magistrate erred in law by
allowing the amendment. (ii) Magistrate took cognizance twice first on 18/05/2007, before
amendment and later on 21/06/2016 after allowing the amendment.
2. Respondents Contention: The main contention of the respondent were; (i) There is
provision neither for amendment nor a bar on the amendment of the complaint, thus in the
interest of justice court can allow such amendment. (ii) Magistrate just examined the
complaint on 18/05/2007, and the respondent petitioned for amendment during the enquiry.
Cognizance was taken no 21/06/2007 after the magistrate granted the amendment in the
complaint.

II.5. Judgement/Verdict
1. The Supreme Court upheld the order of the High Court stating that, although there is no
provision for amendment of complaint in CrPC if the magistrate has not taken cognizance
and the amendment would neither cause prejudice to other party nor change the nature of
complaint it can be granted.
2. The cognizance is different from taking cognizance. Hence, there was no cognizance taken,
the amendment allowed, appeal dismissed.

III. ANALYSIS

The researcher, in this case, has analyzed the following issues and has presented a detailed
argumentative discussion under following heads;
CRIMINAL LAW II

S.R. SUKUMAR VS. S. SUNAAD RAGHURAM, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 844 OF 2015

1.
2.
1.

A marvellous presentation of judicial creativity and judicial activism.

Jurisprudential aspect (analysis) of the case.

A marvellous presentation of Judicial Creativity and Activism

It has been rightly pointed out by the Honourable Supreme Court that there exists no provision in
the CrPC that allows or forbids the amendment to a complaint. Although there were judicial
interpretations according to which, if the amendment in the complaint is to cure a simple legal
infirmity, it may be allowed2 but till now, there was no firm and in-depth, authoritative insight on
the issue. However, the court, in this case, after perceiving the jurisprudential history of the
section and the practical requirements of the society, laid down the conditions on which an
amendment to the complaint made under Section 200 may be granted. These conditions are as
follow;
a. The magistrate should not have applied his judicial mind to the contents of the complaint.
b. The amendment must not cause any prejudice to the other party.
c. The amendment must not be of such a nature that can change the nature of the complaint.

JUDICIAL MIND
NOT APPLIED
BY MAGISTRATE

NO PREJUDICE
TO THE OTHER
PARTY

NATURE OF
COMPLAINT
NOT CHANGED

AMENDMENT TO
COMPLAINT MAY
BE GRANTED

If the amendment petition, fulfils all the three requirements then the amendment to the
complaint may be granted by the magistrate.
It is submitted that, by laying these tests the Supreme Court did not keep the base for
granting an amendment to the complaint confined to the degree of change but extended it to the
nature of the change. As a result, now not just a minor legal infirmity like misspelt name of the
parties, incorrect address, etc., can be altered but also a substantial change, until the time it
does not change the nature of the complaint can be made. Thus, the judiciary amalgamated the
jurisprudential theory with the practical requirements and carved out these balanced conditions.

2 U.P. Pollution Control Board vs. Modi Distillery and Ors., (1987) 3 SCC 684.

CRIMINAL LAW II

S.R. SUKUMAR VS. S. SUNAAD RAGHURAM, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 844 OF 2015

Thus, this carving out a new approach with balanced principles is in itself is a great example of
judicial creativity and activism.

2.Jurisprudential Aspect (Analysis) of the case

(i) Amalgamation of Legislative Intention and the Judicial Objective
The CrPC does not have any section to amend a complaint, but in this case, the judiciary carved
certain conditions on which the amendment to a complaint can be granted. This step of the
judiciary, of evolving a principle which is not in the code is in itself revolutionary. So at this
juncture, it is a point of analysis that what the judicial objective behind the judgement is. Also,
how the amalgamation of the legislative intent behind not providing such provision and the
judicial objective behind providing so, has led to the development of the conditions, which
maintain a balance between the legislative intent and the judicial objective.
The possible legislative intent behind not providing the provision could be mainly due to
two reasons as follows; (i) such an act of amendment may be prejudicial to the other party. (ii)
Once the magistrate has applied his judicial mind, the framing of additional charges may hamper
the process of the justice.3 However, the recent judgement has brought certain relaxations and
held that if certain conditions are fulfilled, an amendment to a complaint may be allowed. The
primary judicial objective behind providing such a relaxation is to avoid the unnecessary
multiplicity of the case and save the time of the court.4
According to a report, there are still 33.3 million cases pending in the courts across the
nation, and it would take at least ten years to dispose of these cases. 5 In such a case, if the
judiciary had given a strict interpretation, and amendments in the complaint would have not
3 Nellaiappan vs Samuvel, Crl.OP.Nos.8863 of 2005.
4

Para 19, S.R. Sukumar vs. S. S. Raghuram, Criminal Appeal no. 844 of 2015.

5 Justice has a mountain to climb, of 31.3 million pending cases, Hindustan Times, New Delhi, Sep 04,
2014, http://www.hindustantimes.com/india/justice-has-a-mountain-to-climb-of-31-3-million-pendingcases/story-UXyvpGBIxb915KUXdyaTVM.html, Last Accessed January 27, 2016

CRIMINAL LAW II

S.R. SUKUMAR VS. S. SUNAAD RAGHURAM, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 844 OF 2015

granted, it would just increase the pendency of the cases and waste the time of the court. The
object of the code of the criminal procedure is not to hamper the judicial process by the
technicalities but to facilitate justice.6 Moreover, the 41st Law Reform Commission report, which
lay the base of the CrPC, suggests one of the main objectives behind replacing the Code of
Criminal procedure of 1868 with the act of 1973 was to procure a procedure so as to abate the
backlog of the cases and save the precious time of the court. 7 However, this approach has its
counter side as well. It has been a long-held judicial principle that thousand accused may be
acquitted, but one innocent must not be convicted. 8 So, along with the speedy justice and
depletion of the multiplicity of the case it is also equally necessary that people suffer no
prejudice, in a swift process to chase justice,
Hence, a balance between the process of speedy trial and a non-prejudicial trial has to be
maintained. The court, in this case, has laid down certain condition to prevent the multiplicity of
the cases but has also kept into account that the other parties suffer no prejudice. It is submitted
that these conditions are comprehensive and maintains a perfect balance between the process of
speedy trial and a non-prejudicial trial. Hence, this case represents a perfect amalgamation of
legislative intent and judicial objective.

(ii) The establishment of the golden triangle of cognizance, judicial mind and taking cognizance
The second important jurisprudential aspect of this case is the relation which has been
established by the Supreme Court between Cognizance, Judicial mind, and Taking cognizance.
The court has in-depth discussed the difference between cognizance and taking cognizance.
What is cognizance? Supreme Court in the case, Ajit Kumar Palit v. State of West
Bengal,9 held that the word cognizance means become aware of and when used concerning a

AIR 1933 Punj 242

7 P. Ramanatha Aiyer, Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, 7th ed, (Modern Publication, 2003), pg. 14
8

Id

CRIMINAL LAW II

S.R. SUKUMAR VS. S. SUNAAD RAGHURAM, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 844 OF 2015

court or judge. to take notice judicially. 10 Thus, the word cognizance means the point when
the magistrate first takes the judicial notice of the complaint.
What is taking cognizance? Supreme Court in the case, Tula Ram v. Kishore Singh11
held that taking cognizance does not involve any formal action or indeed action of any kind. It
occurs as soon as a magistrate, as such applies his judicial mind to the suspected commission of
an offence for the purpose of proceeding to take subsequent steps towards injury or trial.12
What does a judicial mind means? As Justice R. Reghupati describes, Judicial
mind means, exercising discretion, with the intelligible differentia and by weighing the cause in
judicial scales having regard to the facts and circumstances peculiar to each single case. 13 It
involves making a thorough assessment of the allegations by coming into grip with the facts
presented and bringing into focus the law on the subject and applying the facts to the law and
thereafter arriving at a conclusion by a process of reasoning and evidencing that all relevant facts
have been taken note of and properly analysed in the light of the law applicable.14
These three definitions seem overlapping with each other. However, it is submitted that
the Supreme Court, in this case, has drawn a clear distinction between them and has established
a triangular link between the three on their applicability in the code of criminal procedure 1973.
TAKING COGNIZANCE

10 Id
11 Tula Ram v. Kishore Singh, (1977) 4 SCC 459.
12 Id
13`Justice Reghupati, Cognizance, a birds eye view, https://ipc498a.wordpress.com/2011/11/20/justiceregupathy explains-what-cognizance-means/, Last Accessed January 27, 2016.
14 Id

CRIMINAL LAW II

S.R. SUKUMAR VS. S. SUNAAD RAGHURAM, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 844 OF 2015

COGNIZANCE

APPLYING JUDICIAL MIND

Although the judges, in this case, have excellently drawn a distinction between
cognizance and taking cognizance and have perfectly linked them with judicial mind but have
failed to explain what is judicial mind. It is submitted that the fundamental essential to make
mere cognizance of taking cognizance, which symbolizes the beginning of the proceeding, is
judicial mind. Hence, it should have been explained more aptly and in-depth.
In this case, the distinction between cognizance and taking cognizance has been
clearly highlighted out on its application in the CrPC. As established by this case, if a magistrate
just notes the complaint, what it is about, hear the statement of the complainant, etc., it would not
amount to taking cognizance but he being merely being cognizant of the issue. However if the
magistrate, applies his judicial mind and either (i) postpone to the issue under section 202 (ii)
dismiss it under section 203 or (iii) summons the other party under section 204 of the CrPC. At
this stage, the magistrate is said to have applied his judicial mind and has taken cognizance.
Thus, this case remarkably specifies the presentation of the notion of judicial mind within the
framework of CrPC.

CRIMINAL LAW II

10

S.R. SUKUMAR VS. S. SUNAAD RAGHURAM, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 844 OF 2015

IV. CONCLUSION
From the Statutes referred, articles studied, reports analyzed, the case cited and the research done
by the researcher the researcher has reached on following conclusions.
There exists a subtle jurisprudential distinction between cognizance and taking
cognizance. A mere notice or cognizance of the complaint does not amount taking cognizance
until the magistrate has not applied his judicial mind to the complaint. Application of judicial
mind in the context of CrPC means the decision by the magistrate whether the summons should
be issued; complaint should be postponed or dismissed. Further, an amendment to the complaint
may be allowed provided that magistrate has not taken cognizance of the offence, and the
amendment would not cause prejudice to the other party or change the nature of the complaint.
Thus, this judgement in itself is a marvellous example of judicial creativity and activism.
Thus, this judgment is an amalgamation of the legislative intent of not causing prejudice
to any party and judicial objective of saving the time of the court. In the modern nation, where
3.13 million cases are pending such progressive judgement, where the judges showcase their
judicial creativity to address the practical problems of the society are needed. It is one of the
luminous judgments which have the depth of jurisprudence as well as the insight of the
practicality.
Thus, the judicial activism attached to jurisprudential roots is the way by which the stream of
law can be kept floating, and the pristine water of justice can be ensured to all.

CRIMINAL LAW II

11