IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.614 of 2010 SANJAY KUMAR SON OF LATE PHULDEV PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MALDAH, P.S. BARBIGHA, DISTRICT- SHEIKHPURA Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH Vigilance 2. SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF BIHAR LAW DEPARTMENT, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA 3. THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF BIHAR REGISTRATION, EXCISE PROHIBITON DEPARTMENT BIHAR, PATNA ----- FOR THE PETITIONER : MR. AWADHESH KR. MISHRA, ADVOCATE FOR THE VIGILANCE : MR. RAMAKANT SHARMA, SENIOR ADVOCATE SPECIAL P.P. VIGILANCE FOR THE STATE : MR. VIKASH KUMAR, ADVOCATE ASSISTANT COUNSEL TO ADVOCATE GENERAL ******** 2 07.02.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, learned Senior Counsel and the Special P.P. (Vigilance). Petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 7th October, 2009 sanctioning his prosecution vide Vigilance P.S. Case No. 69 of 2009 registered on 12.06.2009 for the alleged offences under sections 7/13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Petitioner assails the aforesaid order no. 4012/J Patna Dated 7th October, 2009, as contained in Annexure-5, primarily on two grounds. Firstly, the impugned order is the outcome of non-application of mind since no material was placed before the authority sanctioning the prosecution of the petitioner, and secondly, the petitioner, at the material time was an Excise Superintendent, the sanction for his prosecution must be passed by an authority competent to remove him from service and it should be communicated through his parent department. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the Vigilance on the other hand submits that on perusal of the order contained in Annexure-5 it appears that all the relevant materials collected against the petitioner were placed before the State Government for sanction, and as such, it can not be said that the order of sanction was passed in absence of the relevant materials. Secondly, it is submitted that the order of sanction for prosecution of the petitioner was passed by the State Government under the orders of the Governor of Bihar which was communicated with the signature of the Secretary, Department of Law, Govt. of Bihar, and as such, the order cannot be faulted in law. Considering the rival submissions of the parties and on perusal of the impugned order as contained in Annexure-5, it appears that the relevant materials in support of the prosecution of the petitioner were placed in the file of the Excise Department in its File No. 1/Pari 3-20-271/2009 and upon consideration of such material the State Government came to the view that prima facie case for prosecution of the petitioner for the alleged offence is made out, accordingly as such sanctioned the prosecution of the petitioner. The order was issued under the signature of the Secretary, Department of Law, Govt. of Bihar, however the order is of the State Government. In my view, the order can not be faulted. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the writ application and the same accordingly stands dismissed. Manish/- ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)