PRAKASH GOPALKRISHNA HEGDE Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the above two petitions, the question raised by the petitioners is that the XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, though having jurisdiction to deal with the cases of the petitioners has directed them to approach the competent Court constituted by virtue of Notification dated: 17.03.2016 investing the jurisdiction in favour of the Principal District and Sessions Judge of all the Districts in respect of the offences under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act (for short 'MMRD Act').

(2.) Sofar as it relates to Crl.P.No.4333/2016 the petitioners have approached the Court for relaxation of the condition in the bail order passed by the same Court, in Cr.Misc. No.2568/2016, in connection with Cr.No.26/2015 for the offences under Sections 379, 409, 420, 447, 468, 471 r/w 120B IPC, Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of P.C.Act 1988. In Crl.RP No.802/2016, the petitioner has approached the said Court for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in Cr.Misc No.3884/2016, in connection with Cr.No.1/2016 for the offences under Sections 464, 465 & 420 of IPC and also under Section 7 of Prevention & Corruption Act. The learned Judge has infact directed the petitioner to approach the competent Court ie., the Principal District and Sessions Judge constituted as a Special Court under the Notification dated 17.03.2016.

(3.) Two notifications are relied upon by the learned Judge for the purpose of passing the above said order.