aforesaid, the law mandates that the Magistrate shall himself examine upon oath the Complainant and the witnesses present before him. In the present case, that requirement has not been fulfilled at all. The Verification Statement was a prepared document by the Advocate and cannot, therefore, be said to be version of the Complainant or he having deposed before the Magistrate at pre-cognizance stage. If any authority is required, we can usefully refer to the exposition of this Court in the case of Amarnath Baijnath Gupta & anr. V/s. M/s. Mohini Organics Pvt. Ltd. & anr. Reported in 2009 ALL MR (Cri) 184 which takes the view that recording of statement by the Magistrate cannot be done mechanically as an empty formality. The order to be passed by the Magistrate for issuing process is the outcome of satisfaction of the Magistrate about the prima-facie case made out by the Complainant regarding the alleged offence. That being the position in law, the Magistrate is obliged to administer oath himself to the Complainant and the witness present who intend to depose at pre-cognizance stage. The prepared statement cannot be taken on record mechanically unless the Magistrate was to be satisfied about the correctness of the said version and was to record that fact in the judicial proceedings. It is noticed in the present case that the Roznama makes no mention of the fact that such statement was produced and that the contents thereof were restated by the witness before the Magistrate so that the same could be taken on record. Significantly, in the present case it is common ground that the
