IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.13171 of 2010 RAM ISHWAR RAI, S/o Late Subedar Rai, R/o Village-Tar, P.S.-Agiyaon, District- Bhojpur (Ara). Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH CABINET VIGILENCE DEPTT. 2. Sukurwariya Gareri @ Sukathi Kunwar, W/o Late Nagina Gareri, R/o Village+Post-Kajariyan, P.S.-Rajpur, District-Buxar. ----------- 04. 24.01.2011 The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 20.10.2009 passed in Special Case No. 63 of 2009 arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 87 of 2009 by which Special Judge, Vigilance-I, Patna has taken cognizance under Section 409 IPC and Sections 7/13 read with 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. On 03.08.2009 one Sukarwariya Devi complained before the Chief Minister that the Gram Sewak and JPS (JSS) were demanding Rs. 10,000/- as bribe money for handing over her Pass-book of Gramin Bank. Her complaint was verified by a member of the Vigilance Department on 18.08.2009 who supported the allegation that the petitioner Ram Ishwar Rai had demanded an additional amount of Rs. 6,000/- apart from Rs. 4,000/- already paid for handing over the Pass-book. When the complainant was examined during investigation she stated that the petitioner, Ram Ishwar Rai had demanded an illegal gratification. A number of other beneficiaries also complained that the petitioner being the Panchayat Secretary had demanded an illegal gratification. During investigation when the official residence of the petitioner who was residing with the co- accused, Satish Kumar Mishra, the JSS was raided and from the same house a box was recovered from there which 2 contained a number of Pass-books, some letters and cash. The petitioner had produced the said box himself and it was he who signed the seizure-list and was asked to explain the presence of such a large number of Pass-books which corroborated the allegations of the beneficiaries but could furnish no satisfactory reply. On the basis of these allegations a case was instituted under Section 409 IPC and Sections 7/13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. It has been contended by the petitioner that the informant developed her case during inquiry and has stated that she had given Rs. 4,000/- to the petitioner one year back as an illegal gratification but there is no cogent proof about the same. The further submission is that apart from demand having been made by the petitioner there is no acceptance and, therefore, he is not liable for prosecution under the provision of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The next submission is that the incriminating articles had been recovered from Kishan Bhawan which was not the residence of the petitioner and it has specifically been asserted that the petitioner was the co-resident of the official quarters with Satish Kumar Mishra, the Junior Statistical Supervisor whose case has been quashed by this Court by order dated 24.01.2011. The counsel for the petitioner also contends that cognizance was bad since on the date of cognizance no sanction had been obtained by the prosecution. The counsel for the Vigilance submits that no sanction was required for taking cognizance under Section 409 IPC and later in fact the sanction was granted by the authorities 3 for his prosecution under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act which came a day after the order of cognizance. On going through the documents filed herein, I find that even though the complainant had complained against the petitioner and co-accused JSS of demanding illegal gratification and thus stalling the benefit to which she was rightly entitled but during investigation she gave a written statement before the concerned authority confining her allegation only to the petitioner. The seizure-list also reveals that it was the petitioner who had produced the box from where incriminating articles had been recovered including the pass-books and it was he who had been asked to explain the presence of the incriminating articles as also that he was the signatory of the seizure-list. It also appears that on the very next date of the order of cognizance sanction for prosecution had been received by the court below. In view of such, the order of cognizance calls for no interference on facts as also for the reason that cognizance is taken of the offence and not a particular Section. The application is dismissed. Vikash/- (Anjana Prakash, J.)