JUDGMENT 1. -Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to accept notice. He be supplied with copy of paper book. 2. This petition is directed against the notice issued in pursuance of order dated 2.8.1997 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kuchaman City and the order, dated 15.7.1998 whereby he took cognizance against the petitioner under section 29 of the Police Act. 3. Mr. Vyas points out that the Magistrate who had issued show cause notice to the petitioner has himself taken cognizance under section 29 of the Police Act on 15.7.1998, which, he argues, is illegal. Relying on the case of Uma Kant Bhatt v. State of Raj., 1992 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 491 he submits that the cognizance should be quashed. 4. The relevant facts are that the Judicial Magistrate noticed negligence of the petitioner in the service of summons in a case. He, therefore, issued notice to the petitioner for showing cause as to why he should not be punished under section 29 of the Police Act. Though the notice was served on the petitioner yet observing that the notice had also been sent to the Supdt. of Police, the learned Magistrate took cognizance on 15.7.1998 against the petitioner. 5. This Court in the case of Uma Kant Bhatt v. State (supra) has observed that a person having direct interest in the subject-matter of the enquiry, cannot take part in adjudicating upon it. The legislature in its wisdom has provided in Section 352 Cr.P.C. that except as provided in Sections 344, 345, 349 & 350, no Judge of a Criminal Court or Magistrate shall try any person for any offence referred to in Section 195, when such offence is committed before himself or in contempt of his authority, or is brought under his notice as such Judge or Magistrate in the course of a judicial proceeding. In the instant case once the Magistrate had issued show cause notice and the petitioner did not appear before him and the proper course was that he filed criminal complaint against the petitioner on the general principles that the same person cannot be prosecutor and Judge in a matter. It was not permissible for him to take cognizance and proceed with the trial as has been held in the case of Uma Kant Bhatt (supra). 6. Consequently, the petition succeeds. The impugned order dated 15.7.1998 taking cognizance against the petitioner is quashed. It was not permissible for him to take cognizance and proceed with the trial as has been held in the case of Uma Kant Bhatt (supra). 6. Consequently, the petition succeeds. The impugned order dated 15.7.1998 taking cognizance against the petitioner is quashed. This order will not prevent the Magistrate to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.Orders accordingly. *******