Judgment 1. Heard Mr. Banerjee, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Mahto leaned counsel for the State. 2. Pursuant to order dated 5-3-1998 lower court records alongwith case diary have been received. 3. In this case the order dated 11-8-1997 passed by Sri O.P. Rai, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hazaribagh has been impugned, by reason of which the prayer made by the petitioners for their discharge has been rejected. 4. Short fact of the case is that the officer-in-charge of Ramgarh Police Station, on receiving a secret information out theft of cable, raided the house of the petitioners on 12-2-1994. On raid no cable was found from the premises of the petitioners but some jewelleries were found kept in a different bundles. It is alleged that the petitioners could not show, any document in relation to those jewelleries. Merely on this, the police presumed that these jewelleries were stolen articles and thus seized those jewelleries and registered a case under Sec. 414, IPC against the 3, petitioners. "Cognizance was taken under Secs. 414 and 384 of the Code, and when the petitioners moved the Magistrate with prayer to discharge on the ground that: a case-diary does not reveal any complicity of the petitioners in respect of the said cable the prayer has been rejected. 5. From the impugned order, it appears that the learned Magistrate has completely forgotten the well establishment of law that while considering a prayer for discharge he should not rely merely on the submission made on behalf of the prosecution he is bound to go through the case-diary, cautiously before coming to the conclusion that a specific-case has been made out against the accused. 6. In the instant case admittedly the F. I. R. was lodged under Sec. 379, IPC in respect of alleged theft of cable. There is nothing on record to show that any theft case was registered even against unknown In respect of theft of jewelleries for which the premises of the petitioners went raided by the police. Even assuming that in course of investigation of the case of theft of table the police raided the house, of the petitioner but admittedly no cable was found and the petitioners being money-lenders and income tax payee were found in possession of some jewelleries kept in some bundles. Even assuming that in course of investigation of the case of theft of table the police raided the house, of the petitioner but admittedly no cable was found and the petitioners being money-lenders and income tax payee were found in possession of some jewelleries kept in some bundles. The Magistrate should have appreciated as to how those jewelleries could have been /Seized by the police without any case being registered. Having some Jewelleries and ornaments in a family is a common feature. Only if the documents are not produced immediately in respect of these ornaments, it cannot be presumed that those were stolen properties. Moreover there is no denial of the fact that subsequently those seized articles were released in favour of the petitioners, which establish the owner ship of the petitioners. 7. Mr. Mahto after going through the case-diary, fairly submitted that in the whole case-diary there is no allegation against the petitioners that they were involved in any theft case either in respect of the aforesaid cable or the jewelleries. 8. The learned Magistrate has only referred paragraph 6 of the case diary which merely reveals that the police raided the premises of the petitioners in respect of a case under Sec. 379 Of the Code and during raid when the petitioners could not give satisfactorily reply, those jewellery were seized. The Magistrate has come to a positive finding that during that raid cable were not recovered. Earlier the Magistrate might have taken cognizance under Sec. 414 read with Sec. 384 of the Code but in my view, that was an initial stage and before taking cognizance of Magistrate is required to be prima facie satisfied about the offence alleged. But at the stage of framing of charge the Magistrate is required to apply his mind to the statements of the witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer to come to a finding as to whether there was at least suspicion that the accused have committed an offence. It is true that meticulous examination of police paper is not required but invagistrate must apply his judicial mind to the facts of the case. In the instant case, in my view, the Magistrate has failed to discharge his duty and completely erred in exercise in its jurisdiction. 9. In the result, this application is allowed and the order taking "cognizance dated 11-8-1997 is quashed. In the instant case, in my view, the Magistrate has failed to discharge his duty and completely erred in exercise in its jurisdiction. 9. In the result, this application is allowed and the order taking "cognizance dated 11-8-1997 is quashed. The matter is remitted to the Magistrate for considering afresh on the basis of case-diary and in accordance with law. It is needless to say that while deciding afresh the parties will be given reasonable opportunity of being heard.