DEENA JOHNSON Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the given facts and circumstances, notice to respondent No.2 is dispensed with.

(2.) Heard the learned Counsel for both parties.

(3.) The petitioners are charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 295(A), 298 and 114 r/w. Section 34 of IPC. The learned Magistrate on receipt of the charge sheet took cognizance and issued process against the petitioners. The petitioners filed application under Section 239 r/w. Sections 190 and 196 of Cr.P.C. challenging the cognizance taken in the matter on the ground that the previous sanction under Sections 195 and 196 (1A) of Cr.P.C. was not obtained to prosecute them. The application having been rejected by the Magistrate, they took the matter in revision before the Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Court though appreciated the contentions of the petitioners held that the order of issuing summons against the accused without the sanction of the Government is illegal, however, on noticing that the sanction is obtained later, held that the Magistrate can take fresh cognizance on the basis of the sanction order for prosecuting the accused and the accused persons are not entitled for discharge. The operative portion of the revision Court reads thus: