1. Jurisdiction is a defense for the accused to raise at the stage of appearance in the trial court. In the absence of material on record indicating the trial court was incompetent, the revisional court cannot presume a colorable exercise of jurisdiction. Uplifting jurisdictional objections at this stage requires specific raised applications and contrary material. 2. The competence of a complainant under competent authority to file a complaint is a matter of record satisfaction for the Magistrate. Unless the record shows clear incompetence, this objection cannot be decided at the revisional stage, although it can be raised before the trial court to rule out preliminary jurisdiction under Section 7 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Scheme Act, 2019. 3. While Section 4/22 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Scheme Act, 2019 mandates cognizance, the Magistrate must apply his mind to the principles laid down in *State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal*. The order must reflect that the Magistrate has examined the allegations and prima facie evidence. However, detailed reasons are not required at this stage. 4. At the stage of cognizance under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C., the revisional court deals with the legality and not factual details of the proceeding. It cannot travel into the role of the accused or verify the correctness of averments regarding their appointment. 5. An order of cognizance can be set aside only where allegations disclose no case, are patently absurd, exercise of discretion is capricious, or the complaint suffers fundamental legal defects. Here, the trial court's reasoned order on record indicates satisfaction of the requirements, warranting dismissal of the revision petitions.