Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: section 407 in Sri M R Sampangiramaiah vs State Of Karnataka on 30 August, 2013Matching Fragments
The parties to these petitions except in Criminal Petition No.97/2013 being common and since common questions of fact and law arises for consideration, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2) Criminal Petition Nos. 91/2013 to 97/2013 are filed under Section 407(1) of Cr.P.C. seeking transfer of C.C. Nos. 22698/2011, 7713/2012, 30941/2011, 7715/2012, 7716/2012, 7717/2012 and 26739/2011, which are pending before different courts, to the court of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore where in C.C.No.5577/2012 is pending, while Criminal Petition No.4605/2012 is filed seeking to quash the prosecution launched against the petitioner therein, in C.C. 5577/2012 on the file of the IV-ACMM, Bangalore, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 471 & 506 of IPC.
7) Subsequently, the investigation of the case was taken-over by CCB and after completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be laid in C.C. No.5577/2012, before the IV-ACMM, Bangalore.
8) Sri. M.R.Sampangiramaiah has filed petitions under Section 407 of Cr.P.C. seeking transfer of prosecutions launched against him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act, before the Court of IV-ACMM, Bangalore, where the case in C.C. No.5577/2012 is pending, for a simultaneous trial and disposal by one and the same Presiding Officer inter alia on the grounds that, though in stricter sense, the cases may not be termed as cross cases or counter cases, the subject matter of the prosecution launched for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and the allegations made in the charge sheet filed in C.C. No.5577/2013 relate to one and the same transaction and the facts sought to be projected by him in C.C.No.5577/2013 are in the nature of defence in the prosecution launched against him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, and to avoid any conflicting decision, it is just and necessary that all these cases have to be tried by one and same Presiding Officer.