JUDGMENT A. B. Mukherjee, J. : The revisional application arises out of an order dt. 18.1.96 passed by the Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta in Case NO.C 107 of 96. 2. The present petitioner along with nine others filed a petition against the present respondent and two others alleging offence under s. 418/420/ 511 I.P.C. The case in short was that the respondent No.1 and 2 being the President and secretary of the CAB are required to look after the promotion of play in the country. In connection with the prestigious cricket match namely the WILLS WORLD CUP CRICKET, 1996 being organised in India, tickets are required to be sold to the public at large for their benefit and as such State Government exempted the tickets from all Tax whatsoever. An advertisement appeared in the Bengali Daily Newspaper, "Ananda Bazar Patrika" on 25.12.95 to the effect that the purchasers to the Visa Card issued by the Citi Bank would receive free tickets. It is contended that this supply of free tickets to the applicants of Citi Bank Visa Card amounts to black marketing of tax exempted tickets and consequently public at large are being cheated and deprived of the availability of the tickets. The Citi Bank has dishonestly entered into some sort of agreement with the CAB to cheat the public. Consequently, there was some public response adversely against this offer. Accordingly, the petition was filed with the prayer for sending the same to police for treating it as FIR under s. 156(3) Cr.P.C. 3. The Ld. C.M.M, Calcutta by order dated 19.1.96 dismissed the complaint. The relevant order runs as follows: "Perused the petition of complaint. Petition of complaint does not prima facie disclose any offence under s. 418/420/511 IPC. Hence, the petition of complaint is dismissed." 4. This order has been challenged alleging that it was incumbent for the Magistrate to proceed in accordance with law on receiving of the petition of complaint. He would either proceed in accordance with s. 200 Cr.P.C. and section subsequent thereto or he has to exercise power under s. 156(3) Cr.P.C. It has been contended that the dismissal of a complaint can be made in accordance with the procedure as mentioned in s. 203 Cr.P.C. As the Ld.C.M.M. has not followed said procedure the revisional application has been filed. 5. Mr. 5. Mr. Sanyal, appearing for the petitioner has taken me through the different provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code namely, s. 190(1A), s. 200, s. 202, s. 203, s. 204 Cr.P.C. in support of his contention that it was incumbent for the Ld. C.M.M. to take cognizance of the complaint and thereafter to examine the complainant and other witnesses in accordance with s. 200 Cr.P.C. It is argued that in the event of non-satisfaction about the complainant's case, he could proceed under s. 202 Cr.P.C. In case he did not find any prima facie material then he has to dismiss the complaint under s. 203 by means of a reasoned order. It has been argued that the Ld. C.M.M. in the matter of taking cognizance cannot apply his mind so much so as to come to a finding whether the petition in fact comes within the definition of "complaint" as mentioned in s. 2(d) Cr.P.C. It has even been contended by Mr. Sanyal, the Ld. Advocate that in case a petition is in the proper proforma of a complaint the Magistrate is bound to take cognizance of the same, to examine the complainant and witnesses and thereafter he may either dismiss the same under s. 203 Cr.P.C. or issue process under s. 204 Cr.P.C. In order to substantiate his view point he has referred to a number of decisions including a decision reported in AIR 1977 SC 2401 in support of his contention that the powers are to be exercised by a Magistrate before whom a petition of complaint is filed have been mentioned in the said decision and there is no other way but to choose one or the other mode as mentioned therein. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Balai Chandra Ray, the Ld. Advocate appearing for O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 has drawn my attention to the prayer contained in the said petition wherein the petitioners prayed for sending the petition to the police for treating it as an FIR under s. 156(3) Cr.P.C. It has been contended by Mr. Ray that in terms of s. 156 (3) Cr.P.C. the Magistrate cannot send each and every petition to the police for treating the same as FIR. Ray that in terms of s. 156 (3) Cr.P.C. the Magistrate cannot send each and every petition to the police for treating the same as FIR. He has taken me through Cr.P.C. of which sub-s. 1 states the power of an Officer-in-Charge of Police Station to investigate into a cognizable case of which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of said station would have power to enquire into or try under provisions of Chapter XIII. He has also drawn my attention to the sub-s. 3 of the said section which says that any Magistrate empowered under S. 190 may order such investigation as abovementioned (emphasis supplied). He has argued that only when a petition discloses offence or offences of the nature as .mentioned in s.156(1) Cr.P.C. that is only when facts mentioned therein disclose one or more cognizable offences, such a petition can be sent to the Police Station under s.156(3) Cr.P.C. He has argued that in the present case petition filed before the Ld. C.M.M. does not disclose any cognizable offence and as such the Magistrate could not possibly send it to the police under S. 156(3) Cr.P.C. 7. This argument has been met by the Ld. Advocate appearing for the petitioner by stating that inspite of the prayer of sending the petition of complaint to police under S. 156(3) Cr.P.C. being mentioned in the said petition the Magistrate is quite competent to take cognizance of the same and to proceed in accordance with S. 200 Cr.P.C. and other provisions subsequent thereto. It is true that the discretion of the Ld. Magistrate before whom a petition alleging commission of cognizable offence is filed is not fettered by mentioning of s. 156(3) Cr.P.C. In a fit case the Ld. Magistrate inspite of such prayer may take cognizance and proceed in accordance with s. 200 Cr.P.C. 8. The Ld. Advocate appearing for the State Mr. R. P. Bhattacharyya has taken me to the definition of word "Offence" appearing in s. 2(1) Cr.P.C. An offence as per the said sub-so means any act or omission made punishable by any law for the time being in force and includes any act in respect of which a complaint may be made under s. 20 of the Cattle Trespass Act. He also relies on the definition of complaint as mentioned in s. 2(a) of the Cr. He also relies on the definition of complaint as mentioned in s. 2(a) of the Cr. P.C. which also says that there must be some allegations contained in the petition if it is in writing before the Magistrate with a view to taking action under the Code that some person whether known or unknown has committed an offence. In other words it is his contention that the petition filed before the Ld. C.M.M., Calcutta does not disclose any offence and as such the Ld. C.M.M. was neither in a position to send the same to the Police for treating it as FIR under s. 156(3) Cr.P.C. or to take cognizance of the same and proceed in accordance with s. 200 Cr.P.C. 9. Some other objection has also been raised on behalf of O.P. No.1 and 2 stating that no of complainants in the said petition were more than one and as such it is not known as to who would have deposed as complainant in the event of cognizance being taken in accordance with S. 200 Cr.P.C. This objection in my opinion is not of much significance though ordinarily in a complaint the number of the complainant is generally one. Nevertheless, there is nothing in law to prevent more than one person being the complainant before the Magistrate. 10. I have given my care full consideration to the submissions of the Ld. Advocate representing different sides and I have also carefully perused decision relied on by Ld. Advocate representing the petitioner. But I do not find anything in the said decision in support of the contention to Mr. Sanyal, the Ld. Advocate to the effect that whenever a petition is in the shape of a regular complaint as it is generally filed in Court, the Magistrate is bound to take cognizance and to proceed in accordance with law. His contention that the Magistrate before whom a petition is filed is precluded from applying his mind to the contents of the said petition before deciding whether he would take cognizance or not, in my opinion is not the ratio decidendi of the decision quoted by him. On the other hand it has been laid down therein that the Magistrate cannot act in a mechanical manner whenever a petition stated to be a complaint is filed before him. To quote the relevant portion of the said decision. On the other hand it has been laid down therein that the Magistrate cannot act in a mechanical manner whenever a petition stated to be a complaint is filed before him. To quote the relevant portion of the said decision. "It seems to us that there is no special charm or any magical formula in the expression "taking cognizance" which merely means judicial application of the mind of the Magistrate to the facts mentioned in the complaint with a view to taking further action. Thus, what s. 190 contemplates is that the Magistrate takes cognizance once he makes himself fully conscious and aware of the allegations made in the complaint and decides to examine or test the validity of the said allegations". Therefore, this decision does not subscribe the view of Ld. Advocate that Magistrate is precluded from perusing the petition with a view to making himself fully conscious and being aware of allegations made in the complaint. Therefore, he is to apply his mind to the facts averred in the said petition in order to decide his course of action. In fact, each and every petition filed before a Magistrate cannot satisfy the test of a complaint as defined in s. 2(d) of the Cr.P.C. In order to be a complaint the statement whether verbal or written must disclose that some known or unknown persons has committed an offence. And in order to be an offence the act or omission in question must be punishable by any law for the time being in force. Therefore, if the petition filed before a Magistrate does not disclose an offence the Magistrate cannot treat the same petition as a complaint and as such he cannot also take cognizance of the same under s. 190(1a) Cr.P.C. The said section categorically says that Magistrate is to take cognizance of an offence upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence. Therefore, the facts be pleaded in the said petition must constitute an offence otherwise the Magistrate cannot take cognizance under s. 190(1a) Cr.P.C. 11. There is no dispute that once cognizance is taken by the Magistrate he has no other discretion but to proceed in accordance with s. 200 and subsequent provisions before taking the final course otherwise under s. 203 or under s. 204 Cr.P.C. The Ld. There is no dispute that once cognizance is taken by the Magistrate he has no other discretion but to proceed in accordance with s. 200 and subsequent provisions before taking the final course otherwise under s. 203 or under s. 204 Cr.P.C. The Ld. Advocate for the O.P. No.1 and 2 has taken me through the petition as filed before the Ld. C.M.M., Calcutta which on application of mind does not disclose any offence not to speak of cognizable offence. Therefore, the Magistrate could neither take cognizance of the same nor send the same to the Police for treating it as an FIR as pleaded by the petitioners of the petition. 12. It is true, that the Ld. C.M.M. has used the word "complaint" in his order dated 19.1.96. It has been contended by Mr. Rayon behalf of the CAB that this word has been loosely used by the Ld. C.M.M., and in my opinion he has rightly argued as such. The said petition cannot obviously be treated as complaint since it does not disclose any offence. 13. In the result, I do not find any merit in the revisional application which IS accordingly dismissed. Revisional application dismissed.