( 1 ) THIS is a reference under S. 48 Crpc by the learned Sessions Judge, belgaum, recommending to reverse the order of the learned Judicial magistrate, First Class, Athni and to direct him to issue process to, four persons, viz. , (1) Pandit Shrimant Patil (2) Balappa Shrimant Patil (3) Keshav shrimant Patil and (4) Kallappa Chougule, to answer a charge of murder and rioting. ( 2 ) THE facts that have given rise to this reference are these: In respect of an incident that happened on 16-11-3965 at 2 P. M. in the land belonging to kallappa Kadappa Desai, called 'kamat Hola', on the complaint of Narayan rajba Patil, a case: was registered in Crime No. 80/65 against 19 persons including the four persons mentioned earlier for offences under Ss. 147, 148, 149 and 302 read with S. 34 IPC. In respect of the same incident, on the complaint of Ramu Annappa Patil, another case was registered in crime No. 79/65 against 14 persons, including Narayan Rajba Patil for similar offences. After due investigation, charge sheets were filed in these two cases. In the charge sheet, the four persons mentioned above were; not included as accused persons, but instead some others were included and the final charge sheet disclosed 21 persons. It is unnecessary to consider the number of persons charge-sheeted in the other case. Crime No. 79 was registered at 4 P. M. whereas Crime No 80 was registered at 5-30 P. M. by the Sub-Inspector of Police Athni. In these two cases there, were three deaths in all and a number of persons on both sides had been injured. At about 9 or 9-30 P. M. the Circle Inspector of Policy took up further investigation of these two cases and after due investigation, filed two, charge sheets on 10-1-1966. ( 3 ) ON 17-2-1966, Narayan Rajba Patil filed the present application through his Advocate, alleging that the Circle Inspector of Police had not investigated into this case properly and that he had taken sides with the other party with the result he had omitted to include the persons mentioned above in the charge-sheet. He further alleged that he. , at the earliestmoment, mentioned the names of these persons as persons who also committed the offences along with others and with a, view to help them, the investigating Officer had created false evidence in their favour. He further alleged that he. , at the earliestmoment, mentioned the names of these persons as persons who also committed the offences along with others and with a, view to help them, the investigating Officer had created false evidence in their favour. ( 4 ) HE, therefore prayed that process be issued to these four persons for being tried along with the other accused persons The four persons appeared through their Advocate and opposed the application on various grounds The learned magistrate, after considering the material before him, came to the conclusion that there was no truth in the allegation made by Narayan Rajba, Patil, and accordingly dismissed the application. Aggrieved by this decision, narayan Rajba Patil preferred a revision petition in the Court of the sessions Judge at Belgaum, who, by his order, referred the matter to, this court According to the learned Sessions Judge, the order of the learned magistrate could not be sustained inasmuch as on the material available in the case he should have issued process to the said four persons. ( 5 ) MR. Krishnaswamy Rao, the learned Counsel for Narayan Rajba patil, in support of the order of reference, urged that the learned Magistrate had powers to issue process to the said four persons He also contended that there was sufficient material on record to hold that these four persons were involved in the commission of the offence along with the other accused persons and the learned Magistrate, without properly assessing the material placed before him, has rejected the application He therefore, urged that this is a fit case; in the interest of justice, that the Magistrate should be directed to issue process against the four persons sub-section (1) of Sec 190 of the Crpc reads as under : it is clear from this sub-section that when a Magistrate acts under any of the clauses of this sub-section, he takes cognizance of an offence. The expression " takes cognizance of an offence " cannot be equated to take cognizance of an offender and the normal rule is that when a Magistrate takes cognizant cf an offence he takes cognizance of the case as a whole. As such he gets seized of the whole case and there appears to be no bar to his issuing process against all persons who appear to be involved in the offence. As such he gets seized of the whole case and there appears to be no bar to his issuing process against all persons who appear to be involved in the offence. The contention that when Magistrate takes cognizance under clause (b) of the above sub-section upon a report made by a Police Officer he is restricted to issuing process only to the persons challaned by the police is not warranted by the language of the sub-section. See the decision in Fatta v. State , AIR. 1964 Punj. 351. . " Generally when a Magistrate has taken cognizance of an offence and proceeds with the trial of the, case, it is his duty to proceed to deal with 'the evidence brought before him and to see that justice is done in regard to any person who might be proved by the evidence to be concerned in that offence. Hs is entitled to proceed against persons other than those against whom the complaint was filed if they appear to be involved in the offence. The ordinary rule is that when a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence he takes cognizance of the case 33 a whole, and is empowered to summon all persons against whom there appears to be any reason for their prosecution even though then names are not mentioned for this purpose in the petition of complaint". ( 6 ) FROM the principle, stated above, it is clear that the, Magistrate can proceed to take action against persons, even though not challanned by the police, if there is evidence, that some, qther persons were, involved in the offence. There is no legal impediment in the way of the Magitrate, passing an order for summoning such persons even though the police had not challanned. In the instant case, although the complaint was made against the four persons, alleging that they along with others, committed murder and rioting, the polce after due investigation, omitted these four persona while charge-sheeting the others. Narayan Rajba Patil has stated in his application that the police, with a, view to, help these persons, have concocted evidence to show that they were not present at the time of the offence and therefore, taking into consideration the earliest complaint made by him, the Court should have proceeded to issue process to these persons. Narayan Rajba Patil has stated in his application that the police, with a, view to, help these persons, have concocted evidence to show that they were not present at the time of the offence and therefore, taking into consideration the earliest complaint made by him, the Court should have proceeded to issue process to these persons. The learned Magistrate, after considering the allegations made in the application and also the material placed by the investigating agency in the case, wag of the view that there was no substance in the allegations made by narayan Rajba Patil that the police had taken sides. He was also of the view that there was no material worth-considering to hold that these four persons were also involved in the commission of the offence. As a matter of fact, except making an application, Narayan Rajba Patil did not place any other material before the Magistrate to persuade him to come to the conclusion that these four persons also were involved in the, commission of the offence. A perusal of the case diary and the relevant papers connected with this case go to show that thes 'four persons were not present at the time of the offence. ( 7 ) IN cases where allegations are made by aggrieved persons, it is generally not the function of the police to play the role of the Judge and pro' nounce their verdict on the true, or false nature of the allegation. Where the allegations made could be supported by positive evidence, the police am bound to send up" the accused for trial. But instances are not wanting where there is a tendency to implicate innocent persons along with the guilty whenever an occasion arises in that respect. In such circumstances, the investigating agency must proceed cautiously and try to find out the truth and only proceed to act on the truth. If the investigating agency is put on restraint in this behalf, I have no doubt, the interests of the public would suffer. It is possible to visualise that on false allegation, if 'the investigating agencv is to act upon, there would be untold misery and innocent persons are likely to be harrassed. The investigation agency must ;exercise its discretion towards the, ends of justice and in cases where the allegations are false or insufficient, they should not proceed to involve persons as a matter of course. The investigation agency must ;exercise its discretion towards the, ends of justice and in cases where the allegations are false or insufficient, they should not proceed to involve persons as a matter of course. In this case I am satisfied that the investigating 'officer, on material placed before him and collected by him, was satisfied that the four persons were falsely involved by Narayan Rajba Patil and therefore, he was correct In omitting these persons while placing the charge sheet. The learned Magistrate, haying taken into consideration all the material available in the case, was justified in rejecting the, application filed by Narayan Rajba Patil. In this view, the reference made by the learned sessions Judge cannot be accepted and accordingly it is rejected. The papers will be sent back immediately as large number of persons are in jail. Reference rejected. --- *** --- .