NANJAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Petition No.4046/2019 is filed by accused No.11, Criminal Petition No.1721/2019 filed by accused No. 15, Criminal Petition No.4196/2019 filed by accused No.31, Criminal Petition No.4048/2019 filed by accused No.23 and Criminal Petition No.4047/2019 is filed by accused No.25, challenging the order passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara in Spl.C. No. 56/2017 dated 12.06.2017 in taking cognizance and issuing process against the above said accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 11, 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d)(ii) (iii) r/w. 13(2) of PC Act, 1988 and Section 23 of Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Act 1999 and Sections 420, 465, 468, 406, 409, 477(A), 120(B) of IPC.

(2.) The order dated 12.06.2017 in Spl.C.No.56/2017 in taking cognizance of the offence is challenged mainly on the ground that the Presiding officer, before taking cognizance, has not applied his mind. After registration of the case formally by CAO/CMO put up the case before the Judge and thereafter, the same was made over to the Principal District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Ramanagar and thereafter mechanically summons were issued to accused Nos. 1 to 6 and 8 to 33 vide order dated 12.06.2017. The same is called in question before this Court.

(3.) It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that it is the CAO/CMO who has put up the entire order sheet including the opinion expressed for taking cognizance and thereafter registered as a Special Case and after registration, the same was placed before the Principal District and Sessions Judge for further orders of issuance of summons. Therefore, the learned District and Sessions Judge has not applied his mind to the entire charge-sheet papers and taken cognizance but subsequently he only issued summons mechanically on the basis of the orders put up by the CAO/CMO.