Honble SINGH, J. – Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor and perused the record. (2). This petition has been preferred against the order dated 13th June, 1990 passed by the learned Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act, Sirohi, by which the learned Special Judge took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 3/7, Essential commodities Act, while rejecting the final report submitted by the Police and issued process against the petitioners under Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code for having committed offence punishable under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. (3). The facts relevant for the disposal of this petition may be summarised be- low. On 13th April, 1989 the Enforcement Inspector inspected the shop of Somaram. The shop was being run in the name of Patel Kirana. On the shop there was the Board showing the stock and a price-list and in Column No. 4 of the Board it was shown that gram was in stock. Some bags were also found in the shop and on inquiry it was told to the Enforcement Inspector that there was gram in it. On further checking it was found that there was 65 bags of gram which were in a room shown as Room No. 3 in the site plan. At the time of inspection Soma Ram revealed that shop No. 3 in which bags of gram were found was leased to M/s Suresh Kumar Shanker Lal and 65 bags of gram found at the time of inspection had been placed in that shop by M/s Suresh Kumar Shankerlal. The information mentioned above was given by Soma Ram in writing to the Enforcement Inspector. Seizure memo and a memo of inspection were prepared. Total weight of gram contained 65 bags was about 64 quintals and 36 kg. On 18th April, 1989 premises as well as the godown of M/s Suresh Kumar Shankerlal who was holding licence No. 3/83-84, was also inspected by the Enforcement Inspector and it was found that the quantity of gram as entered in the register was actually present in the stock excluding 65 bags of gram found in the shop of soma Ram. On 18th April, 1989 premises as well as the godown of M/s Suresh Kumar Shankerlal who was holding licence No. 3/83-84, was also inspected by the Enforcement Inspector and it was found that the quantity of gram as entered in the register was actually present in the stock excluding 65 bags of gram found in the shop of soma Ram. Shri Jainarayan Kachawaha Enforcement Inspector submitted a report in writing before the Station House Officer of Police Station Rodida alleging therein that Soma Ram who was the owner of Patel Kirana Store, situated at Swaroopganj was not authorised to keep in his possession 65 bags of gram and he had violated Clause 3 of the Order (imposing Restrictions) on possession etc., of gram. It was also stated in the complaint that as per written in- formation given by Soma Ram 65 bags of gram belonged to M/s. Suresh Kumar Shankerlal. The Enforcement Inspector, therefore, alleged that M/s Suresh Kumar Shankerlal who were licence holders violated Clause 2 of Form (C) issued under Rajasthan Trade Articles Order, 1980. On the basis of report submitted by the Enforcement Inspector the Police started the investigation and after investigation the Police Officer submitted a final report stating therein that no offence was committed by any one because 65 bags of gram belonged to Tej Singh who was a cultivator. The learned Special Judge on perusing the final report and the documents attached thereto came to the conclusion that the opinion formed by the Investigating Officer was not justified as the story that the premises were rented to Shri Tej Singh and 65 bags of gram were placed there by Tej Singh was an after thought. (4). The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the observations made by the learned Special Judge about the opinion formed by the Investigating Officer are not justified because Soma Ram in whose shop 65 bags of gram were found has resiled from written statement and he has actually furnished an affidavit in which he stated that the premises in question were given to Tej Singh son of Shri Jhujhar Singh, by caste Rajput resident of Sagwara on rent on 2nd April, 1989, and 65 bags of gram which were lying in the shop belonged to Shri Tej Singh. A copy of the rent-note (Kirayanama) was also obtained by the Police Officer during investi- gation. A copy of the rent-note (Kirayanama) was also obtained by the Police Officer during investi- gation. This document purports to have been signed by Tej Singh and it also bears thumb impression of Shri Sita Ram. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that above named person moved an application under Section 6(A) of the Essential Commodities Act before the District Magistrate, Sirohi, for release of 65 bags of gram to him and that application has already been allowed by the District Magistrate, Sirohi. The learned Public Prosecutor has tried to support the order passed by the learned Special Judge. (5). I have carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case. No doubt cognizance under Section 190 Sub-section (1) Clause (b) of the Criminal Procedure Code can be taken on a final report submitted under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the Magistrate/Judge who is empowered to taken cognizance under Section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not bound to act according to the opinion formed by the Investigating Officer because the opinion formed by the Investigating Officer is not relevant for the purpose of a Judicial inquiry or trial. It is also well established that cognizance under Section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code is taken of the offence and not of the offender and after taking cognizance the Magistrate/Judge has to find out by conducting a judicial inquiry of some kind to find out who the offenders are and if there be sufficient ground to proceed against any offender then to proceed against the offender under Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Even before taking cognizance under Section 190 Sub-section (1) Clause (a), (b) or (c) of the Criminal Procedure Code the Magistrate has to apply his judicial mind to find out whether the allegations contained in complaint or Police Report or any other communication made to him within the meaning of Section 190 Sub- section (1) Clause (c) of the Criminal Pro- cedure Code are or they are not true and if in the opinion of the Magistrate the allegation is not true then there would be no justification for taking cognizance because "allegation" simplicitor is not a `fact for the purpose of Section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In other words, the first step to be taken by the Court in such cases, it to find out whether the allegations contained in the complaint or the Police Report constitute any offence or not. If they dont constitute any offence there is no question of taking cognizance of any offence. On the other hand, if allegations be such as to constitute any offence of which cognizance can be taken by the Magistrate or the Judge, the Magistrate should consider whether any inquiry by the Court under Sections 200 and 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the cases of complaint should be commenced or the case should be sent to the Police for investigation under Section 156 Sub-section (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. In cases, investigated by the Police when a report under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code is submitted, on perusing the report submitted by the Police the Magistrate has to find out whether he should direct further investigation under Section 156 (3), if there be justification for doing so, or proceed to take cognizance under Section 190 (1) Clause (b) of the Criminal Procedure Code or refuse to take cognizance. (6). If cognizance of the offence is taken on the police report it is necessary for the Magistrate to find out whether the allegations contained in the Police Report are prima facie established by the evidence, whether the evidence is direct or it is circumstantial. Unless the Magistrate is satisfied that the allegations do constitute an offence of which he can take cognizance and that such allegations are true, he would not be justified in taking cognizance under Section 190 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. In Abhinandan Jha vs. Dinesh Mishra (1) it has been held by their Lordship of the Supreme Court that taking cognizance under Section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code is a judicial function and the Magistrate may decline to take cognizance on the ground that there is no sufficient evidence to justify of taking any cognizance. After taking cognizance the second step to be taken by the Magistrate/Judge is to find out who the offenders are. After taking cognizance the second step to be taken by the Magistrate/Judge is to find out who the offenders are. It has been held by the Sup- reme Court in Raghuvansh Dubey vs. State of Bihar (2), that after taking cognizance of the offence it is the duty of the Magistrate to find out who the offenders are and if he finds that some persons other than those named as accused in the police report are also involved in the offence then he should proceed against them. For the purpose of proceeding against any person under Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code there must be sufficient ground to proceed against him. The sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused have been referred to as charging the accused with an offence, in the form of warrant of arrest prescribed under the Criminal Procedure Code. The initiative in levelling a charge against the arrested person in case instituted on private complaint or on police report is that of the com- plainant or of the police officer but the responsibility in issuing process against an accused person under Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code is of the Magistrate/Judge who issued process against him. This is why in the warrant of arrest the expression "stands charged" has been used. It is for the purpose of discharging the duty of finding out if there are sufficient grounds to proceed against any person that a judicial scrutiny of the material brought to the notice of the Magistrate or Judge becomes essential. (7). The Judicial inquiry which is to be done need not necessarily involve recording of the statements of the witnesses. The perusal of the documents collected by the police and submitted before the report under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code and applying judicial mind to them also amounts to conducting a judicial inquiry for the purpose of section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code. There are thus three safeguards before any person can be ordered to be brought before the Court of law as an accused, the first is that the allegations must constitute an offence, secondly, the allegations must be shown to be true so that they may be called "facts" for the purpose of Section 190 (1) Clause (a), (b) and (c) of the Criminal Procedure Code. False allegations cannot be called "facts" for the purpose of Section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In other words, the allegations should be shown to be prima facie true before cognizance of Section 190 (1) Clause (a), (b) and (c) of the Criminal Procedure Code and it must be found out by application of judicial mind whether there is or is not sufficient ground to proceed against any person and as pointed out earlier in this regard the initiative may be of the complainant or of the Police Officer but the responsibility of proceeding against the person accused of an offence is primarily of the Court. Therefore, it is not as if the Court in the matter of proceeding against an accused under Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code is bound to act on the report or opinion formed by the Police Officer. Above mentioned three safeguards are essential for the purpose of protecting the lives and liberties of the citizens. It is well known that when a citizen is made an accused and is involved in a case he faces the threat of being arrested either with or without a warrant by the Police or under the warrant issued by the Court and in the case of non-bailable offences there is no guarantee that he would be released on bail and in case he is not released on bail his liberty is deprived by remand to custody. Normally he has to defend himself against his arrest as well as the charge for which he is arrested and this all consumes not only precious time which is one of the rarest commodity for any human being, it also places a very heavy burden of his purse. Right of the citizen to live in peace should be considered as one of his fundamental rights and this right needs that situation of peace must prevail as far as may be possible in the surroundings in which he has to live and act, so that he may not be unnecessarily called upon to exercise his right to be defended. The object of fundamental right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution would be frustrated if life and personal liberty is allowed to be attacked without genuine necessity and frequent exercise of right to be defended becomes necessary day in and day out. (8). The object of fundamental right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution would be frustrated if life and personal liberty is allowed to be attacked without genuine necessity and frequent exercise of right to be defended becomes necessary day in and day out. (8). The above mentioned three safeguards in relation to taking of cognizance under Section 190 (1) Clause (a), (b) and (c) of the Criminal Procedure Code and the issue of process under Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code are thus necessary for the purpose of striking a balance between the need of protecting the lives and liberties of the citizens and the need of exercising a vigilance upon the commission of offence by empowering the police and the Courts to do the needful so that a peaceful society may be created. If personal liberty of the citizens is not an absolute right, the rights of those who have been given certain powers to invade the rights of citizens are also not absolute rights. (9). Whenever any safeguard is intended to strike a balance between rival rights, in my humble opinion it would be proper to realise that such a provision cannot be stretched either way beyond a certain extent because if it is stretched beyond a certain extent on either side it would start leaning on one side or the other and the balance which is sought to be created by such provision would be lost. The word "sufficient ground to proceed" as used in Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code will have to be interpreted in this light. In the instant case the premises from which 65 bags of gram were recovered was evidently not in possession of the petitioners. At the time of inspection, the petitioners and his servants were not present. Patel Kirana shop whose stock board showing the stock of the day and the price-list of the shop in front of Room No. 1 belonged to Soma Ram. The complaint shows that the Enforcement Inspector himself was not very much convinced about the written version given by Soma Ram. He, therefore, made allegations against Soma Ram to the effect that he had violated the law by keeping more than 10 quintals of gram in his possession. The complaint shows that the Enforcement Inspector himself was not very much convinced about the written version given by Soma Ram. He, therefore, made allegations against Soma Ram to the effect that he had violated the law by keeping more than 10 quintals of gram in his possession. The written version of Soma Ram that the 65 bags of gram were placed in the Shop No. 3 by Suresh Kumar Shankerlal is not true because in his affidavit he has said that the Shop No. 3 was in possession of Tej Singh a cultivator who had executed a rent-note in the name of land-lord Sita Ram and 65 bags of gram which were found at the time of inspection actually belong to Tej Singh. In the circumstances of the case it was the duty of the learned Special Judge to find out if the allegations made out any offence at all and if so whether there was evidence to treat the allegations as facts for the purpose of Section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code it was his duty to find out by application of judicial mind whether there were or there were not sufficient grounds to proceed against the petitioners or any other person. As pointed out earlier the responsibility in the matter of issue of process under Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code is primarily of the Magistrate though the initiative may be of the complainant or of the Police. And since the responsibility is of the Magistrate, he must be satisfied that he has good reason to issue process against the person. It was, therefore, necessary that the Special Judge to apply his judicial mind to the question whether there was or there was not any sufficient ground to proceed against the petitioners. Since in a criminal prosecution the prosecution must stand upon its own legs, it was the duty of the learned Special Judge to find out whether the prosecution evidence available on record made out any case for proceeding against the petitioners for offence punishable under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act. In view of the affidavit of Soma Ram and the rent-note executed by Tej Singh in favour of land-lord Sita Ram it cannot be said that the written information given by the Soma Ram at the time of inspection to the Enforcement Inspector contained any gain of truth. In view of the affidavit of Soma Ram and the rent-note executed by Tej Singh in favour of land-lord Sita Ram it cannot be said that the written information given by the Soma Ram at the time of inspection to the Enforcement Inspector contained any gain of truth. In other words in this case there was absolutely no grounds for proceeding against the petitioners much less any sufficient grounds to proceed against them. On this ground this petition deserves to be accepted under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It may also be pointed out at this stage that it is highly doubtful whether the learned Special Judge could at all exercise powers under Section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the case. (10). It is not disputed that the learned Special Judge was holding an appointment as a Sessions Judge, and while acting as Special Judge Essential Commodities he was exercising powers of Sessions Judge. In view of Section 193 of the Criminal Procedure Code a Sessions Judge cannot take direct cognizance of an offence unless the case is duly committed to his Court by the Magistrate. However, in view of the reasons given above it is not necessary to finally decide at this point in this petition. The order dated 13th June, 1990 passed by the Special Judge Essential Commodities Act, Sirohi, in Criminal Regulation Case No. 60/89 State vs. Suresh Kumar Shankerlal deserves to be quashed and is hereby quashed. The learned Session Judge has put the date 14th June, 1990 below his signature which appears to be a case of slip of pen. This order will be given effect to not withstanding that the learned Sessions Judge has put 14th June, 1990 below his signature.