Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.36291 of 2011 (2) dt.14-12-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.36291 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Balrup Das son of Late Raghuni Das, Retired Joint Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, R/o-East Ashok Nagar, P.S.-Patrakarnagar, Distt.-Patna .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Additional Director, General Cabinet, Vigilance Investigation Department, Government of Bihar, Patna .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jagnnath Singh, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 2 14-12-2012 Heard the parties. In this case, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 3rd September 2011 passed by the Special Judge-I (Vigilance), Patna in Special Case No. 12/2006 arising from Vigilance P.S. Case No. 14/2006 for offence [STATUTE] (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The counsel for the petitioner submits that after the submission of the charge sheet, the Police has filed a petition to allow the Investigating Agency to investigate further to ascertain assets which were required to be added have been left out. The counsel for the petitioner submits that there cannot be two trials for offence arising from the same set of the fact, instead of filing the charge sheets at two times, the Investigating Agency ought to have completed the investigation only then it should have filed complete charge sheet on the basis of material collected by the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.36291 of 2011 (2) dt.14-12-2012 Investigating Agency and as such taking cognizance without completion of investigation is completely illegal. He has further submitted that the petitioner on superannuation received Rs. 39,000,00/- (Thirty-nine lakhs) as a superannuation benefit whereas Investigating Agency has shown Rs. 10,000,00/- (Ten lakhs) disproportionate property belies the story of disproportionate asset. He has further submitted that when he received Rs. 39,000,00/- (Thirty- nine lakhs) as a superannuation benefit then the question of Rs. 10,000,00/- (Ten lakhs) being disproportionate does not arise and whole proceeding is vitiated. The counsel for the Vigilance has submitted that the prosecution has a right to go for further investigation and filed an application in the Court [STATUTE] (8) Cr. P.C. for further investigation which was allowed. It has further been submitted that court below rightly has taken cognizance, as the court below was satisfied with the facts constituting prima facie case against the petitioner. This Court does not find error in the order of cognizance. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. So far the power of [STATUTE] (8) Cr. P.C. is concerned, the power is there that cannot be said that the Prosecution Agency has no power for further investigation and the petitioner will have a liberty to raise all points before the court below at the appropriate stage. Mahesh/- (Shivaji Pandey, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 173

Statute Text:
Section 173 of the Indian Penal Code. Preventing the service or The affixing of any summons of notice, or the removal of it when it has been affixed, or preventing a reclamation. Whoever in any manner intentionally prevents the serving on himself, or on any other person, of any summons, notice or order proceeding from any public servant legally competent, such public servant, to issue such summons, notice or order, or intentionally prevents the lawful affixing to any place of any such summons, notice or order, or intentionally removes any such summons, notice or order from any place to which it is lawfully affixed, or intentionally prevents the lawful making of any proclamation, under the authority of any public servant legally competent, as such public servant, to direct such proclamation to be made, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both; or, if the summons, notice, order or proclamation is to attend in person or by agent, or to produce a document in a Court of Justice, with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.