JUDGMENT : 1. This petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the criminal proceeding and the order taking cognizance dated 30.03.2016 passed in R.A.No.656 of 2015, arising out of RPF/POST/TATA Case No.1350 of 2015 by the learned Railway Judicial Magistrate, Chakardharpur whereby he has been pleased to take cognizance of the offence under section 143 of the Railway Act against the petitioner, pending in the court of learned Railway Judicial Magistrate, Chakardharpur. 3. The case has been lodged stating that on 20.08.2015 at about 15.20 hours, one Vikram Singh, S.I./RPF/CIB/TATA along with other officers and staff of RPF/CIB/TATA conducted a raid in the premises of SHERAWALI Jugsalai Ticket Counter at Naya Bazar, Jugsalai, Jamshedpur. During the course of search cum raid, one person was found selling tickets at the counter. On checking the shop, 6 e/Live Tatkal Tickets, 45 E-tickets, one Mobile Phone, one visiting card and cash Rs.6100/- were found from there. All the tickets were made on the personal user ID of the said person who disclosed his name as Sudhakar Sah i.e. the petitioner. On demand, he failed to produce any legal authority in support of making tickets on his personal used I.D. Thereafter all the articles were duly seized in presence of available witnesses, seizure list was prepared and he was arrested under section 179 of the Railway Act for committing the offences under section 143 of the said Act. Thereafter the arrested person i.e. the petitioner Sudhakar Sah, along with all the relevant documents was forwarded to the court of the learned Railway Magistrate, Chakradharpur at Chaibasa on 21.08.2015 for taking legal action against him, with the prayer that the arrested person may not be released on bail because his name and address was yet to be verified. Thus the accused was remanded to Judicial Custody on 21.08.2015. 4. Mr. P.S. Dayal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the cognizance order is cryptic one and there is no finding as to what are the materials against the petitioner for proceeding under that section of the said Act. Thus the accused was remanded to Judicial Custody on 21.08.2015. 4. Mr. P.S. Dayal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the cognizance order is cryptic one and there is no finding as to what are the materials against the petitioner for proceeding under that section of the said Act. He further submits that the licence was granted to the petitioner which is at page 71 of the brief and inspite of that cognizance has been taken. 5. Mr. Ankur Anand, the learned vice counsel to Mr. Mahesh Tewari, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.No.2 submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order and certain tickets were recovered from the possession of the petitioner. 6. Mr. Sahay, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order. 7. The Court has perused the impugned order dated 30.03.2016 which is the cognizance order. It appears that in the cognizance order the learned court only by way of stating that he has perused the materials on record has taken cognizance under section 143 of the Railway Act against the petitioner and in the cognizance order the date of appearance has been put in a blank space, by way of writing the order of cognizance and the date of appearance and it appears that this order is passed on a format and that is why there is no application of judicial mind by the learned Magistrate. The word “cognizance” is not defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the case of “S.K. Sinha, Chief Enforcement Officer Vs. Videocon International Ltd. & Others, reported in (2008) 2 SCC 492 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para-19 has held as follows:- “19. The expression ‘cognizance’ has not been defined in the Code. But the word (cognizance) is of indefinite import. It has no esoteric or mystic significance in criminal law. It merely means ‘become aware of’ and when used with reference to a court or a Judge, it cannot ‘to take notice of judicially’. It indicates the point when a court or a Magistrate takes judicial notice of an offence with a view to initiating proceedings in respect of such offence said to have been committed by someone.” 8. It merely means ‘become aware of’ and when used with reference to a court or a Judge, it cannot ‘to take notice of judicially’. It indicates the point when a court or a Magistrate takes judicial notice of an offence with a view to initiating proceedings in respect of such offence said to have been committed by someone.” 8. At the stage of taking cognizance it is only to be seen as to whether any offence is made out or not. At this stage the court is not to go into the merit of the case made out by the police in the charge sheet or in the complaint. Nor at this stage the success of the case is to be weighed by a detail order. The duty of the Magistrate is limited at this stage. It is clear that it is not necessary to pass a detail order giving detail reasons while taking cognizance. The order taking cognizance should only reflect application of judicial mind. If the Magistrate after going through the complaint petition and the statements of the other witnesses or after going through the FIR, case diary and charge sheet or the complaint, as the case may be comes to a conclusion that the offence is made out, he is bound to take cognizance of the offence. The order should reflect application of judicial mind to the extent that from the FIR, the case diary or complaint, offence is made out. 9. In the case in hand, the learned Court by way of filling up the blank space has taken the cognizance. Prima facie, what are the materials against the petitioner is not disclosed in the cognizance order which is one of the mandate of law. Accordingly, order taking cognizance dated 30.03.2016 passed in R.A.No.656 of 2015, arising out of RPF/POST/TATA Case No.1350 of 2015 by the learned Railway Judicial Magistrate, Chakardharpur pending in the court of learned Railway Judicial Magistrate, Chakardharpur is set aside. 10. The matter is remitted back to the concerned court to pass fresh order on the point of cognizance. 11. I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.