9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of the proceedings initiated by the Presiding Officer, Special Court for Economic Offences in two criminal cases. 2. Compliance with Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding the issue of summons. Analysis: 1. The judgment involves two criminal petitions seeking to quash proceedings initiated by the Presiding Officer of the Special Court for Economic Offences in Bangalore. The respondent had filed complaints against the petitioners under Sections 85(a) and 85(g) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. The Presiding Officer had ordered the registration of the cases and issuance of summons to the petitioners based on the complaints. The petitioners challenged these orders through the criminal petitions. 2. The court scrutinized the order passed by the Presiding Officer and found that it was done in a printed proforma, with only the dates filled in and the Presiding Officer's initials. The court emphasized the importance of compliance with Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which mandates that the Magistrate should issue summons only if there are sufficient grounds for proceeding. The court noted that the Magistrate must apply their mind to the material before them to form an opinion on proceeding further. In this case, the use of a printed proforma indicated a lack of application of mind by the Presiding Officer, failing to meet the requirements of Section 204. 3. The court held that passing orders in a mechanical manner without proper consideration of the material before the Magistrate is unacceptable. Such orders do not fulfill the legal standards set by Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Consequently, the court allowed the criminal petitions, setting aside the orders to issue summons and remitting the cases back to the Special Court for Economic Offences in Bangalore. The court directed the Special Court to proceed in accordance with Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code and ensure proper application of mind before further action. Additionally, the court ordered the records of both cases to be sent to the lower court promptly.
|
