K. Natarajan, J.

The petitioners in Crl.R.P.No.642/2012 are accused Nos.4 and 5, the petitioner in Crl.R.P.No.679/2012 is accused No.1 and the petitioner in Crl.R.P.No.669/2012 is accused No.2 before the Trial Court in Spl.C.C.No.234/2009.

2. These petitioners have challenged the legality, propriety and correctness of the order passed by the XLVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for C.B.I cases, Bengaluru on the application filed by them under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which came to be dismissed on 05.06.2012.

3. For the sake of convenience, the rank of the parties before the Trial Court is retained.

4. The respondent-CBI filed the charge sheet against accused persons 1, 2, 4 and 5 (A3 is not before the Court) for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (hereinafter referred as "P.C. Act").

5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners and the Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-CBI.

6. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution is that accused No.2-N.M.Theerthe Gowda, who is the Secretary of Dr. Radhakrishna Teachers Educational Institution, Devanahalli, Bengaluru(Rural), Bengaluru made three applications before M/s. NCTE (National Council for Teacher Education), SRC (Southern Regional Committee) for grant of recognition to conduct B.Ed, D.Ed and CP.Ed., courses. The Southern Regional Committee rejected the applications on 23.09.2005. Accused No.2 preferred three appeals to the Appellate Authority, Delhi. Accused No.1-Thakur being the acting Chairman of the Appellate Authority had appointed accused Nos.3 to 5 as a subcommittee to inspect the institution run by accused No.2 and to submit the report. Accordingly, accused Nos.3 to 5 have inspected the institution and gave report by recommending for granting of recognition to start the D.Ed course, even though, there was no physical infrastructure available at the institute run by accused No.2. Based upon the report, accused No.1 recommended and accorded recognition for D.Ed course to the institution run by accused No.2 and in turn, accused No.2 admitted the students by collecting huge amount. It is further alleged that, accused No.2 also created three fake fixed deposit receipts for Rs.15,00,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Lakh only) and presented to the NCTE, SRC for obtaining the recognition and accused Nos.1 and 3 to 5 in conspiracy with accused No.2 granted the recognition to start D.Ed course to the institution of accused No.2 without having proper infrastructure. The CBI Officer suo-moto registered a case in R.C.No.21(A)/2008 against the accused and after the investigation, filed the charge sheet against all the accused persons for the offences as stated supra.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner in Revision Petition No.679/2012 who is appearing for accused No.1 argued that accused No.2 filed applications for conducting three courses, all the applications were came to be rejected and he has preferred an appeals to the NCTE, Delhi. The chairman of the NCTE appointed inspection committees. The first committee gave report for rejection of the application, later a second committee has been appointed. In fact, the second committee recommended for D.Ed course on 02.09.2005. However, the appeal has been remitted back to the Southern Regional Committee, but the Southern Regional Committee again rejected the applications on 18.10.2005. Again appeal came to be filed before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority appointed the inspection committee consisting of three members i.e., CWs.64 to 66. They have inspected and gave report on 29.11.2005. The same was placed before accused No.1 for rejecting the appeal and the matter was placed before the Appellate Authority and in the meeting, all three appeals were rejected. Later, accused No.1 said to be the member and Vice-Chairman