IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.1020 of 2009 SRI D.N.REDDY @ NAVEEN REDDY & ANR Versus THE UNION OF INDIA THRU.REGIS. For the petitioners : Shri AnilChandra, Adv. For the opp. Party : Shri Binayd Kumar Pandey ----------- 4. 19.7.2010 Heard. Without going into the factual or legal merit of the petition the Court is simply constrained to set aside the order impugned which was passed on 7.2.2002 by the Special Judge, Economic Offences, Patna, in Complaint Case No. 42( C) of 2002. As may appear from the order of the court below itself, the order was typed from before and there were some relevant spaces left for filling up some informations. The offences were appearing in the typed format from before and while signing the order the Judge appears striking off a couple of sections so as to leaving a couple of them on record under which the petitioners were being summoned. The manner in which the order appears passed and further finding that it was already in a printed format with quite some space left for being filled up as to what was the gist of the allegation, which is completely against the law, indicates complete lack of judicial mind on summoning the accused. The court below may be doing good to itself if it consults the decision of the Supreme Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. & anr. Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors. reported in 2 (1998)5 S.C.C. 749 in which the Supreme Court was highlighting the importance of not passing cognizance order in all criminal cases and was further pointing out that what was its ultimate effect on the liberty of the citizens. The manner in which the order was passed, it is fit to set aside and the same is hereby set aside by allowing the petition. However, the court below shall be free to apply its mind, but for that it shall hear the petitioners because they had a defence that on the date the offence was allegedly committed, they were not the authorized Officers required under law to file the annual return. Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)