IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.12307 of 2008 RAJ KISHORE PRASAD YADAV, SON OF LATE SHATRUGHAN PRASAD YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SUKHASAN, P.S. MURLIGANJ, DISTRICT MADHEPURA. AT PRESENT PROFESSOR COLONY, WARD NO. 1, P.S. + DISTRICT MADHEPURA, THE THEN EXAMINATION CONTROLLER, B.N. MANDAL UNIVERSITY, LALLU NAGAR, MADHEPURA. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE VIGILANCE INVESTIGATION BUREAU, 6 CIRCULAR ROAD, PATNA, BIHAR. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OPPOSITE PARTY ******** 3 10.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the Vigilance Department. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of cognizance dated 10.8.2007, passed in Special Case No. 06 of 2002/03 of 2000. The allegation against the petitioner who was the Controller of Examination at the relevant time is that he accepted the fees and forms of the students of the year 1987- 88, 1988-89, 1989-90 and 1990-91. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said fees and forms have been accepted in lieu of the direction of this Court passed in CWJC No. 5275 of 1993. On 27.5.1993, this Court passed the following order: Heard learned counsel for the 2 parties. The respondent B.N. Mandal University, Madhepura is directed to accept fees and forms of the students of the Training college in question and if the date of ensuing examination is fixed, then the students will be allowed to appear at the examination but the result will not be published & will be subject to the final order in the writ application.” The allegation aforesaid is not restricted to accepting fees and forms rather the allegation is that by virtue of misutilizing the order of this Court, fees and forms of several persons have been accepted and they have been granted certificates showing them as students who succeeded in the examination. These questions are questions of facts and have to be adjudicated after looking into the materials on record. For the purposes of taking cognizance, the Court has to examine whether a prima facie case was made out. In my opinion, there is no illegality with the order impugned. This application is thus, dismissed. The 3 petitioner would always have the liberty to take whatever legal steps available to him in this case during the pendency of the trial. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)