K S MALLIKARJUNA PRASANNA Vs. LEO EARTH MOVERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for both sides. Since identical questions of law are involved in all these petitions they were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. In all these cases, the complainant as well as the accused are common. These petitions are filed under Section 482 Cr. PC challenging the orders of the Magistrate taking cognizance after recording the sworn statements of the complainant and ordering process against the accused for offence under Section 138 of the negotiable Instruments Act.

(2.) SRI Kulkarni, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended before me that the learned Magistrate has committed a grave mistake in taking cognizance of the offences after recording the sworn statement of the accused and he should have taken cognizance of the offences before the examination of the complainant under section 200 Cr. PC.

(3.) PER contra, Sri Subhash B. Adi, learned Counsel for the respondent contended before me that even if the Magistrate has taken cognizance after recording the sworn statement of the complainant it would not vitiate the trial and on the facts and circumstances of the case, it may be inferred that the learned magistrate has taken cognizance after recording the sworn statement of the complainant.