Rubber stamp cognizance by Magistrates, who take cognizance through routine and mechanical orders, has drawn the concern of the Telangana High Court. It has set aside more than 500 such cognizance orders since January 2026 and has directed the State Judicial Academy to train judicial officers.
Hyderabad: Recording that it has set aside more than 500 cognizance orders since January 2026, the Telangana High Court has set aside a Magistrate’s order that took cognizance “against the accused” rather than of the offence, and has issued institutional directions to curb Magistrates taking cognizance “by using rubber stamps” without recording prima facie satisfaction [Sri Koduru Pitcheswara Rao v. State of Telangana and Seven Others].
Justice J. Sreenivas Rao disposed of the criminal petition filed by the de facto complainant by an order dated October 29, 2026, directing the Magistrate to take cognizance afresh in accordance with law.
A pattern the Court could not ignore
Going beyond the individual case, the Court recorded its concern at the recurring pattern:
“This Court has been consistently coming across several matters wherein the learned Magistrates are taking cognizance of offences without recording the prima facie satisfaction against the accused for the offences by using rubber stamps… Since January 2026, this Court has set aside more than 500 cognizance orders.”
Each time such orders are set aside, the Court noted, proceedings restart from the threshold, including fresh summons, which consumes judicial time and delays cases for both accused and victims. It also recorded an instance where, even after remand, a Magistrate again took cognizance without application of mind and, at that stage itself, concluded that the accused had committed the offence.
The order under challenge
On the complaint of Koduru Pitcheswara Rao, Gachibowli Police Station, Cyberabad registered Crime No. 1887 of 2025 on August 25, 2025 against seven accused under Section 109 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The section was later altered to Section 122(2) of the BNS. After examining 25 witnesses, the Investigating Officer filed a final report on July 31, 2026 before the X Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally.
From the certified copy of the final report, the High Court noted that the Magistrate “took cognizance of the offence under Section 122(2) of the BNS against accused Nos.1 to 7 and issued summons even without mentioning the date when he took cognizance.” The matter is posted to March 4, 2027 for summons.
Counsel for the complainant, VSRMV Prasad Sanaka, argued that if the trial proceeded on a defective cognizance order and the accused were later convicted, they could challenge its validity, forcing the complainant into further rounds of litigation. Additional Public Prosecutor Jithendar Rao Veeramalla fairly conceded that the Magistrate ought to have taken cognizance of the offence and not against the accused.
Cognizance is of the offence, not the offender
The Court relied on Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI, Fakhruddin Ahmad v. State of Uttaranchal, GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust v. India Infoline Limited and Chief Enforcement Officer v. Videocon International Limited to reiterate that cognizance is taken of the offence and not of the offender, and that summoning requires a reasoned order reflecting application of mind. It held:
“The act of issuing process for summoning an accused to face a criminal trial is a serious issue and such orders directing the issuance of summons to a person to face criminal trial cannot be passed on the basis of cryptic orders and it should be an order reflecting due application of mind by the Presiding Officer while taking cognizance and issuing summons.”
The directions
The Registrar (Judicial-I) has been directed to send a copy of the order to all Principal District and Sessions Judges, who must in turn communicate it to all Magistrates in their jurisdictions. A copy will also go to the Director of the Telangana State Judicial Academy, Secunderabad, to organise training on the requirements for taking cognizance and recording independent prima facie satisfaction. The Court said:
“The object of these directions is not merely to rectify the procedural defects arising in individual cases but also to ensure that such errors do not recur, thereby preventing unnecessary litigation, reducing the burden on the High Court, safeguarding the interests of the accused and victims.”
Why the order matters
The order restates a settled rule of criminal procedure: cognizance is taken of an offence after the Magistrate applies judicial mind to the material, and a pre-printed stamp or cryptic docket entry does not meet that standard. It is notable that the challenge came from the complainant, who sought a correct order at the outset to avoid a later collapse of the trial.
By putting a number on the problem and routing its directions through District Judges and the Judicial Academy, the High Court has treated mechanical cognizance as a systemic issue for the subordinate judiciary rather than a series of isolated errors.
Case Title: Sri Koduru Pitcheswara Rao v. The State of Telangana and Seven Others
Case No.: Criminal Petition No. 17909 of 2026
Bench: Justice J. Sreenivas Rao, High Court for the State of Telangana
Date of Order: October 29, 2026
Appearances: Advocate VSRMV Prasad Sanaka for the petitioner; Additional Public Prosecutor Jithendar Rao Veeramalla for the State