IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.21836 of 2011 ANIL KUMAR, S/O SRI BHARMDEV RAM, R/O VILLAGE- SUNDAR, P.S.- DEWATH, DISTRICT- GOPALGANJ ………….Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. MR. RAMDEO RAM, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RURAL WORKS DEPARTMENT, DIVISION, BUXAR, DISTRICT- BUXAR. …………..Opposite Parties ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. N.K. Malhotra, Sr. Adv. : Mr. Ranjan Kr. Adv. For the State : Shyam Bihari Singh ----------- 2. 12.07.2011 This application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 13.01.2011 passed in G.R. Case No. 776 of 2008, Tr. No. 2266 of 2011, which is the order taking cognizance against various accused persons including the petitioner, who is accused no. 4, in relation to the offences alleged to have been committed under Section 467, 468, 471, 472, 409, 406, 420 I.P.C. At the very outset, learned senior counsel Mr. N.K. Malhotra appearing for the petitioner, a Junior Engineer in Rural Works Department, Buxar, submits that the order taking cognizance has been passed without due application of judicial mind and is liable to be quashed. He refers to Section 197 Cr.P.C. which in clear terms mandates that no court shall take cognizance against public servants except with the previous sanction of the competent authority. He further buttresses his submissions by pointing out that in any event no loss has been caused to the State inasmuch as even the final payments for the work done have yet to be paid to the contractor under the terms of the agreement. The contractor is liable to maintain the roads constructed by him for a period of 5 years after its completion. On the jurisdictional ground itself, learned counsel for the State very fairly states with reference to the sanction order dated 9.3.2010 as contained in page 20 of the petition that no sanction appears to have been accorded in respect of the present petitioner and that sanction appears to have been accorded only in respect of the accused nos. 1, 2 and 3. He is also not in a position to show that any sanction has subsequently been obtained during the period 9.3.2010 to 13.01.2011 being the date when cognizance was taken. In the above view of the matter and the circumstances of the case, it is clear that Section 197 Cr.P.C. operates as a legal bar against cognizance being taken against the petitioner as the pre-condition of prior sanction has not been satisfied in this case. The impugned cognizance order dated 13.01.2011 is accordingly quashed. Fahad. ( Vikash Jain, J. )