PRABHAKANT Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these two applications u/s 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioners are assailing the legality and validity of summoning/cognizance orders passed by the respective courts below summoning the accused-applicants u/s 3(2)A of the Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984. Since there is common legal question involved in both the petitions that cognizance orders passed by the respective Magistrates are not sustainable in the eyes of law as the same have been passed on a printed proforma without applying its judicial application of mind. Therefore, under these circumstances, both these petitions are being decided by this common judgment.

(2.) Heard S/Shri Anurag Dubey and Nitin Sharma, learned counsel for the respective applicants; S/Shri Satendra Tiwari, Faraz Kazmi and Ajay Kumar Sharma, learned Additional Government Advocates. Perused the entire record of the case.

(3.) To appreciate the controversy involved it is imperative to give a bird's eye view to the factual aspects of the issue and respective proceedings.