JUDGMENT : K.P. Mohapatra, J. - This revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khurda, taking cognizance of several offences including one u/s 302 I.P.C. against the Petitioner. 2. Prosecution case in short is that on 21.9.1980 between 6 and 10 a.m. at village Mallipur a large number of accused persons including the Petitioner being armed with deadly weapons, such as, Lethi Bhali, Kunta etc. formed an unlawful assembly, entered into the houses of several persons, damaged not only houses, but also household articles, committed theft of valuables from the houses and assaulted several persons some of whom were severely and grievously injured. One of them named Basanta Rana succumbed to the injuries in Khurda hospital on the next day, F.I.R. was lodged at Khurda Police Station on the date of occurrence itself and investigation commenced. During investigation, several witnesses were examined and as a result of the investigation, a charge-sheet was prepared and signed by the investigating officer on 5. 9 1981 in which the name of the Petitioner was mentioned as one of several accused persons, but it was not sent to the court immediately. On 12.12.1981 and 21.3.1982 the Deputy Inspector General of Police (C.I.D.), Cuttack, inspected the spot and supervised the case in the presence of the investigating officers and tested several witnesses. On 9.4.1982 the investigating officer wrote out a petition addressed to the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate. Khurda, and stated therein to delete the name of' the Petitioner from the charge-sheet. The charge-sheet was submitted on 18.5.1982 on which date cognizance of offences was taken. On 1.6.1982 the Petitioner filed a petition for deletion of his name from the charge-sheet. On 28.6.1982 the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate considered the petitions made by the investigating officer, as well as the Petitioner, for deletion of the name of the latter from the charge-sheet, but rejected them. Thereupon the Petitioner filed Criminal Revision No. 139 of 1982 in the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Puri, challenging the order of cognizance, After hearing both parties, the learned Sessions Judge by order dated 17.12.1982 allowed the same and quashed the proceedings against the Petitioner. Thereupon the Petitioner filed Criminal Revision No. 139 of 1982 in the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Puri, challenging the order of cognizance, After hearing both parties, the learned Sessions Judge by order dated 17.12.1982 allowed the same and quashed the proceedings against the Petitioner. The wife of deceased Basanta Rana felt aggrieved by the aforesaid order and moved this Court in Criminal Revision No. 10 of 1983 which came up for hearing before learned Judge, who by order dated 30.4.1984 allowed the same, set aside the order of the learned Sessions Judge, as well as the order of cognizance, and remanded the proceeding to trial court for reconsideration regarding taking of cognizance of offences against the Petitioner. After the order of remand, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate heard the parties, re-examined the matter and found that there was a prima facie case against the Petitioner for several allied offences including Section 302 I.P.C., and so he again took cognizance of the said offences against him. This order dated 13.9.1984 has again been challenged in this criminal revision. 3. Mr. B.M. Patnaik, learned Counsel, urged that the Petitioner, a retired Additional District Magistrate was living in the village and was doing social work. Being an old man he was incapable of committing any of the offences in respect of which cognizance has been taken, A section of the villagers were antagonistic towards him and so he was falsely roped in along with the other accused persons on account of village party faction. There are no materials so as to take cognizance of any of the offences much less the offence u/s 302 I.P.C. against him. Mr. Ranjit Mohanty, learned Counsel for apposite party No. 2, on the other hand urged that there being prima facie materials against the Petitioner for his participation in the alleged offences, there is no warrant for interference with the impugned order of cognizance. 4. Law is well settled that at the stage of cognizance the Magistrate is required to consider whether there are sufficient materials on record to take cognizance of offence or offences and issue process against the accused and after his appearance to proceed further in order to investigate into the truth or otherwise of allegations and charges made against him. 4. Law is well settled that at the stage of cognizance the Magistrate is required to consider whether there are sufficient materials on record to take cognizance of offence or offences and issue process against the accused and after his appearance to proceed further in order to investigate into the truth or otherwise of allegations and charges made against him. At the stage of cognizance, however, the Court is not required to enter into a detailed discussion of the merits or demerits at the case so as to find out if the allegations and the charges are true or not It is nevertheless desirable for the court to see that innocent persons are not roped in so as to suffer the rigour of a trial with the sword of Democles hanging on his head, merely because some of the witnesses make bald statements implicating him in criminal offences. It is also settled law that the Magistrate taking cognizance of offences should not act as an automation and believe and swallow what a few witnesses state about a person having been involved in a criminal offence, but has to apply his judicial mind and test the materials on record with eagle eyes so as to discern The complicity or otherwise of the person concerned. For this purpose, he is bound to give free play to his sense of criticism Unless this course is adopted at the initial stage of a criminal case, it is very likely that innocent persons would be involved in criminal cases, may be falsely and without any basis. It is also to be borne in mind that unless this salutary caution is exercised crafty litigants will be encouraged to implicate innocent persons or their rivals in criminal cases by setting up a few band followers to speak against such persons. Keeping the above principle in the background it is necessary to scrutinise the materials available on record so as to find out if there was a prima facie case against the Petitioner so as to take cognizance of offences including the one u/s 302 I.P.C. 5. Krushna Chandra Des lodged F.I.R. on 21.9.1980 and gave statement on the same day. He stated that the Petitioner gave direction to others to drag him from the house and damage the roof of the house. Krushna Chandra Des lodged F.I.R. on 21.9.1980 and gave statement on the same day. He stated that the Petitioner gave direction to others to drag him from the house and damage the roof of the house. On 15.11.1980 he further stated that the Petitioner had nothing in his hands but instigated others Rukmini Das, Malati Sahu, Kamini Bahera, Dosei Behera and Gandei Dei were examined on 21.9.1980, but they did not implicate the Petitioner in any manner. They were also examined on 16.11.1980 along with Chandramani Sethi, Sobha Sethi, Padmabati Sethi, Ketaki Sethi and Ganga Behera but none of them implicated the Petitioner in the incident. Laxmi Dei was examined on 22.9.1980 end 16.11.1990. She spoke nothing against the Petitioner. Jaganath Das and Rabindra Kumar Das were examined on 23.9.1980 and 13.10.1980. On the earlier occasion they did not implicate the Petitioner in the occurrence, whereas, on the later occasion they stated that the Petitioner had instigated the other accused persons, Abhiram Sahu, Laxmidhar Mishra and Bhagban Sethi were examined on 27.9.1980 they stated that the Petitioner had instigated the other accused persons. Chandra Dei was examined on 29.9.1980. She stated that she was assaulted under the instigation of the Petitioner. Gangadhar Behera was examined on 13.10.1880 but he spoke nothing against the Petitioner. Malati Rana, widow of the deceased was examined on 13.10.1980. She stated that the Petitioner had instigated the other accused persons at the time of the occurrence. Bhagaban Sethi and Rabindra Kumar Das were again examined on 15.11.1980. They stated nothing against the Petitioner. On 17.11.1980 Paricha Dei end Gandu alias Satrughan Sethi were examined. While the former did not speak anything against the Petitioner, the latter stated that he instigated the other accused persons. On 16.11.1980 Malati Rana, widow of the decassed was again examined and she stated that the Petitioner instigated the other accused persons by saying that the deceased should be assaulted, but should not be killed on 18.11.1980 Anadi Samantrai, Naba Kishore Jaysingh and Rashmi Ranjan Misra were examined. While the first two persons stated that although the Petitioner was unarmed, he asked the other accused persons to assault the deceased, but not to kill him whereas, the last person did not implicata the Petitioner in any manner. On 19.11.1980 Prahallad Behera and Parsuram Behera were examined, but they did not speak anything against the Petitioner. While the first two persons stated that although the Petitioner was unarmed, he asked the other accused persons to assault the deceased, but not to kill him whereas, the last person did not implicata the Petitioner in any manner. On 19.11.1980 Prahallad Behera and Parsuram Behera were examined, but they did not speak anything against the Petitioner. On the same day Krushna Chandra Sahu was examined and he stated that the Petitioner asked the other accused persons to assault the deceased, but not to kill him. On 25.11.1980 Radhashyam Brahma was examined. He stated that the Petitioner instigated the other accused persons. Malati Bewa (Rana), widow of the deceased, Anadi Samantrai, Naba Kishore Jaysingh, Prahallad Sehera and Krushna Chandra Sahu were also examined u/s 164 of the Code in October and December, 1980. All of them stated that the Petitioner instigated the other accused persons by saying, "assault deceased Basanta Rana but do not kill him altogether". 6. An analysis of, the statements of the important occurrence witnesses cited in the charge-sheet will reveal that at the first stage, immediately after the occurrence, most of them including the women folk of victims of assault and loot did not implicate the Petitioner in any manner. At the second stage; as the investigation progressed, some of them stated that the Petitioner being present instigated the other accused persons. At the third stage, when the investigation was about to be closed, some of the witnesses made positive statements to the effect that the Petitioner asked the other accused persons to assault the deceased but not to kill him altogether. None of them had stated about this fact at the earlier two stages. In view of the materials on record and for the reasons stated above, we are convinced that as investigation progressed, attempt was made, which also succeeded, in order to implicate the Petitioner at least as an abetter, although as a matter of fact, materials are singularly inadequate to establish a prima facie case in respect of any of the offences, much less one u/s 302 I.P.C., against him. Again we repeat that the court cannot deal with a case of serious nature such as murder, like an automation and, make a superficial approach without proper application of judicial mind. Again we repeat that the court cannot deal with a case of serious nature such as murder, like an automation and, make a superficial approach without proper application of judicial mind. We may go so far as to say that at the stage of cognisance, though statements and evidence should not be sifted and no attempt should be made to find out by a thorough criticism if allegations against a person, are true or not, yet for the purpose of taking cognizance and no more, the court is bound to apply strict standards of test just to find out if the materials are sufficient to make out a prima facie case of offence (S) against him. Unless such standards are adopted and always kept in mind, innocent persons are likely to suffer the agony of long, drawn criminal proceedings entailing heavy expenditure and loss of peace in mind and disturbance of amity in society. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the criminal revision is allowed and the impugned order of cognizance so far as it relates to the Petitioner is set aside The lower court records may be sent back; forthwith so that committal proceeding and trial should be closed within a period of six months at the latest. Final Result : Allowed