ORDER : Heard Mr. P.P. N. Roy, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Rohit Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State-opposite party. 3. This petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- “For quashing part of the order dated 18.07.2016 passed in R.C. Case No. 02(A)/2013 (D) by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I., cum XIth Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad whereby the learned court below has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 120(B) read with Section 420,468,471 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the petitioner and one Gopal Thakur. The case is pending in the court of learned Special Judge, C.B.I. cum XIth Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad. It is further prayed to quash the entire criminal prosecution pending against the petitioner vide R.C. Case No. 02(A)/2013(D) pending in the court of learned Special Judge, C.B.I., cum XIth Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad.” 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the final report after investigation, so far as the petitioner is concerned, it was specifically stated that the criminal culpabilities against the petitioner, (the then Deputy Manager {Maintenance}) could not be established, hence he was not charge sheeted. However departmental action for his lapses was already initiated against him by the concerned department. Learned counsel submits that in spite of aforesaid the learned court below has taken cognizance against the petitioner vide impugned order dated 18.07.2016 and the said order taking cognizance is ex-facie a non-speaking order. Learned counsel submits that the law is well settled that while considering the final form in connection with the person who has not been charge-sheeted, the learned court below is under a legal obligation to assign reasons as to why the court is taking cognizance against such person. He further submits that although there is no such legal bar for taking cognizance against the person who has not been charge sheeted, but the order taking cognizance against such person should be a reasoned order. He further submits that although there is no such legal bar for taking cognizance against the person who has not been charge sheeted, but the order taking cognizance against such person should be a reasoned order. Learned senior counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case reported in (2012) 2 SCC 188 (Nupur Talwar vs. Central Bureau of Investigation Delhi and Another) and he has referred to para 16, 17, 19, 21 and 22 of the judgment to submit that the Magistrate has to apply his mind at the time of taking cognizance. It has also been held that at the stage of Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate is required to exercise sound judicial discretion and apply his mind to the facts and materials before him and while doing so, the Magistrate is not bound by the opinion of the investigating officer and he is competent to exercise his discretion irrespective of the views expressed by the police in its report and may prima facie find out whether an offence has been made out or not and also find prima facie, as to whether there are reasons for issuance of process and whether the ingredients of the offence are available on record. Learned counsel submits that this judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme court has been followed by this Court in Cr. M. P. No. 1100 of 2011 dated 01.05.2015 and Cr. M.P. No. 2654 of 2014 dated 06.05.2015 and also in the judgment reported in (2015)2 JBCJ 225 (Jagdish Pandit vs. State of Jharkhand and Anr.) para 4,5 and 7. Learned counsel submits that considering this aspect of the matter, the order taking cognizance is fit to be set aside and the matter should be remitted to the learned court below for passing a speaking order on the point of cognizance. Learned counsel has also referred to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694 (Siddhram Satlingappa vs. State of Maharashtra) to submit that the judgments passed by a co-ordinate Benches of this court is binding on this court. 5. Learned counsel has also referred to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694 (Siddhram Satlingappa vs. State of Maharashtra) to submit that the judgments passed by a co-ordinate Benches of this court is binding on this court. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party on the other hand opposes the prayer and submits that the order dated 18.07.2016 refers to the reasons mentioned in earlier order dated 17.01.2015 which has not been filed by the petitioner and it appears from the impugned order that the cognizance has been taken in the light of the order dated 17.01.2015. It appears from the order dated 18.07.2016 that on 17.01.2015 the cognizance was taken against other co-accused persons but so far as present petitioner is concerned matter was deferred for want of sanction. Learned counsel submits that order dated 17.01.2015 is an integral part of the order dated 18.07.2016 because in the impugned order, the learned court below has clearly mentioned that cognizance against the petitioner is being taken in the light of the order dated 17.01.2015. He submits that accordingly the order dated 17.01.2015 having not been filed by the petitioner it cannot be said on the basis of materials available in this case that the learned court below has not applied its mind at the stage of order taking cognizance. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties this court finds that vide order dated 13.08.2019 a report was called for from the learned court below as to when the sanction order was received and the trial court was also directed to send a copy of the sanction order and pursuant to such order, the sanction order for prosecution of the petitioner has been sent to this court by the learned trial court. From perusal of the sanction order it appears that sanction for prosecution was granted by the sanctioning authority on 8.02.2016 which was seen by the learned court below on 18.07.2016. 7. This court finds that the petitioner was not charge sheeted for the criminal prosecution by mentioning as follows:- “The criminal culpabilities against Sh. Praveen Chand, the then Dy. Manager (Maintenance) could not be established during the course of investigation, hence he is not being charge sheeted. However, departmental action for his lapses, has already been initiated against him by the concerned department.” 8. Praveen Chand, the then Dy. Manager (Maintenance) could not be established during the course of investigation, hence he is not being charge sheeted. However, departmental action for his lapses, has already been initiated against him by the concerned department.” 8. The order dated 18.07.2016 is quoted hereinbelow for ready reference:- “Perused the case record. It appears on perusal that, vide order dated 17.01.2015 cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 120B read with Sections 420,468,471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the PC Act was taken against the none accused persons, but in absence of sanction order cognizance was not taken against the accused persons namely Pravin Chand and Gopal Thakur. Today, sanction order in view of the provision under Section 19(i) (c) of the P.C. Act in respect of the accused persons Pravin Chand and Gopal Thakur have been submitted by the CBI. Accordingly, in the light of the order dated 17.01.2015, I take cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 120B read with 420, 468, 471 of the IPC and section 13(2) read with 13(1) (d) of the PC Act against the accused persons namely Pravin Chand and Gopal Thakur. Accused Pravin Chand is on bail. As such, issue summons upon the accused Gopal Thakur only. Put up the file on the date fixed i.e. 29/07/2016 for the appearance of the accused persons.” 9. From perusal of the order dated 18.07.2016 by which cognizance has been taken against the petitioner it has been clearly recorded that vide order dated 17.01.2015 cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 120B read with Section 420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was taken against nine accused persons but in absence of sanction order, cognizance was not taken interalia against the petitioner. The order taking cognizance further reflects that sanction order for prosecution of the petitioner has been received and the learned court below has recorded that in the light of the order dated 17.01.2015 the court is pleased to take cognizance of the offence under the aforesaid Sections interalia against the petitioner. 10. The petitioner has not enclosed the order dated 17.01.2015 for the perusal and consideration by this court and has submitted that impugned order dated 18.07.2016 is non-speaking order. 10. The petitioner has not enclosed the order dated 17.01.2015 for the perusal and consideration by this court and has submitted that impugned order dated 18.07.2016 is non-speaking order. This court is of the considered view that impugned order dated 18.07.16 has to be read with order dated 17.01.15 and by merely referring to order dated 18.07.2016 it cannot be said that order taking cognizance is a non-speaking order. Accordingly, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the present case. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances this petition is dismissed. 11. Pending I.A., if any, stands dismissed as not pressed. 12. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 13. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX. Petition dismissed.