ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State. 2. In this case, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 06.08.2014 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj, in G.C. Case No. 20 of 2014 (Trial No.1465 of 2014), by which the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 52 and 53 of the Bihar Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1981. 3. It has been submitted by Ms. Riya Giri, learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order is bad in law as the same has been passed in a pre-written format in which the learned Magistrate has only filled up the blanks and written ‘cognizance’ and ‘personal’. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of this Court passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 34891 of 2013 (Nokia Semens Network India Pvt. Ltd and Anr. vs. The State of Bihar and Ors.). 5. Learned counsel for the State has opposed this application. 6. I have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the impugned order. I find force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners. She has rightly submitted that the impugned order has been passed without application of mind in a mechanical manner as the learned Magistrate has simply filled-up the blanks on a pre-prepared format. This Court is of the opinion that such an order is not permissible in law. 7. For the reasons, as stated above, the impugned order dated 06.08.2014 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj, in G.C. Case No. 20 of 2014 (Trial No.1465 of 2014) is hereby set aside. 8. The matter is remanded to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj, for passing order afresh after perusing the allegations made in the complaint. Such an order must be passed within a month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this application is allowed.