ORDER :

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.

4. In this connection, the learned counsel has relied upon an unreported ruling of this Court in Criminal Petition No. 6054/2010 disposed of on 27.08.2013 (Sri N. Dharam Singh vs. State of Karnataka), wherein this Court has observed at paragraph 7 thus:

"Taking cognizance of an offence and registering a criminal case against a citizen is an important judicial function of a Magistrate, which has got the effect of encroaching upon the liberty of a citizen. Such action on behalf of a Magistrate should be preceded by a clear application of mind to the facts of the case and a decision has to be taken as to sections to law for which the citizen is sought to be summoned to appear in a criminal case. It cannot be mechanical work of a clerk or a CMO of the Court. In that view of the matter, the order dated 29.07.2009 passed by the learned Magistrate leaves much to be desired and it cannot be termed as a judicial order, which has the effect of encroaching upon the liberty of a citizen."

In another decision reported in M/s. Vijaya Bank and Another vs. State by the Labour Enforcement Officer, ILR 2000 Kar. 4773 this Court has held thus:

"Taking cognizance of an offence being a judicial act after application of mind, Magistrate should not use "printed pro forma" in which even the words "cognizance is taken" are also printed or typed."

5. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent Sri Ashwin S. Halady seriously argued before the Court that it is only a procedural irregularity that occurred in the order sheet. Instead of the Principal District and Sessions Judge signing the first page of the order, he has signed the second page after the words "a case has been registered and put up in the case". Therefore, the entire order, if it is read, it discloses the application of mind by the learned District and Sessions Judge and thereafter issuance of process against the accused persons. The said procedural irregularity, if it does not amount to illegality, no