IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15662 of 2009 BIPIN, S/O SHIV NARAYAN SHARMA, R/O QR.NO.-404, NIRMALA KUNJ APARTMENT, ROAD NO. 03 (MAHESH NAGAR AREA), P.S- PATLIPUTRA, DISTT- PATNA. ……..PETITIONER. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ANIMAL HUSBANDARY AND FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR, FISHERIES, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FISHEREIS, TIRHUT DIVISION, MUZAFFARPUR. 5. THE DISTRICT FISHERIES OFFICER-CUM-CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI. 6. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CABINET (VIGILANCE) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 7. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL, CABINET (VIGILANCE) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 8. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE, PATNA. 9. THE LAW SECRETARY-CUM-LEGAL REMEMBRANCER, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. …RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Chakrapani, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Mohan Kumar Singh, A.C. to S.C.I For the Vigilance : Mr. C.M.Chaurasia, Special. P.P. ---------- O R D E R 06/ 09-09-2010 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging order of the Govt. of Bihar (Law Department) issued vide memo no.4946 dated 28.12.2006 (Annexure-5) under the signature of the Principal Secretary, Cabinet (Vigilance) Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna (respondent no.6) according sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to prosecute the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 7, - 2 - 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity) and for other ancillary reliefs. 2. The matter relates to settlement of 20 Jalkars of Chhaura Dano Block in the district of East Champaran which were admittedly settled on 09.10.2006 by the petitioner, who was then posted as District Fisheriers Officer, East Champaran at Motihari, in favour of 3 Jalkar Societies out of which two Societies were run by members of one family, namely uncle and nephew, whereas the third Society was run by another person. Against the aforesaid settlement the said nephew Jitendra Kumar filed Appeal No.17 of 2006 before the Director, Fisheries (respondent no.3) claiming that all the 20 Jalkars should have been settled with him. Uncle of the said appellant supported him and vide order dated 13.06.2007, the Director, Fisheries allowed the said appeal and all the 20 Jalkars were given to the Society of aforesaid nephew Jitendra Kumar. Against the said appellate order, the third society filed CWJC no.10713 of 2007 and after considering the matter and hearing the parties, this court vide order dated 24.04.2008 allowed the writ case, quashed the order of the appellate authority dated 13.06.2007 and affirmed the order of settlement passed by the petitioner on 09.10.2006. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that after the aforesaid order of the High Court, Sanjay Kumar, Secretary of one of the said Fisheries Cooperative Society applied - 3 - for accepting his deposit for the Jalkars allotted to his Society and on the same date the petitioner directed his office to receive the revenue from the said Sanjay Kumar and give him receipt and accordingly on 30.10.2006 the said Sanjay Kumar deposited the revenue in the office for which receipt was also issued to him. It was also claimed that on the very next day, i.e. 31.10.2006, the petitioner was forcibly picked up from his residence at Motihari, whereas the investigating agency completed paper formalities at Patna with respect to the allegations that the petitioner demanded bribe from the said Sanjay Kumar for issuing receipts and for giving orders for Bandobasti. It was further claimed that there was no nexus between the demand made by the petitioner and its purposes as the demand was allegedly made much after the settlement was made by the petitioner in favour of the said Sanjay Kumar, but in spite of the aforesaid fact, the authorities concerned granted sanction to prosecute the petitioner without there being any evidence, except the F.I.R. and chargesheet, before it, only on the dictates of the investigating agency. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further averred that the petitioner had sent letter dated 30.10.2006 (Annexure-1) to the aforesaid Sanjay Kumar stating that the name of Smt. Devi is mentioned as group leader in Form-I which was submitted before the settlement, but subsequently formal Patta submitted by him was in the name of Radhika Devi which was clearly wrong and hence Sri Sanjay Kumar was directed to produce the formal Patta - 4 - in the name of Smt. Devi. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon Annexure-2 series (at page-27) which was verification report issued by the Officer Incharge, Vigilance Police Station, Patna as well as Annexure-2 series (at page-36) which was pre-trap memorandum claiming that although members of raiding parties were 9 +7 and witnesses were 4, totalling 20, but the signatures are only of 12 persons and out of them one signature of Sri A.K.Verma at the end of photo copy is missing from the original file. He further claimed that in post trap memorandum (Annexure- 2 series) (at page-33) again the signature of Sri A.K.Verma is absent from the original file. It is also stated that the complainant Sanjay Kumar was not present either in the pre-trap or in the post trap memorandum, although it was necessary for the purpose of proving ‘giving and taking of money’. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that letter dated 18.12.2006 (Annexure-4) written by the Additional Director General of Police, Cabinet (Vigilance) Department, Govt. of Bihar to the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna clearly showed that the Vigilance Department was forcing the authorities to give sanction although vide letter dated 18.12.2006, the petitioner stated everything in writing to the Department of Fisheries, realizing which the Department was not giving any sanction. It was also stated that the impugned sanction was given - 5 - by the Law Secretary and not by the disciplinary authority, namely Principal Secretary of the Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Development. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also averred that there were only 4 witnesses and a forensic report against the petitioner, out of whom three witnesses belonged to the family of the complainant, whereas the fourth witness was Binda Mukhia who was the husband of Radhika Devi who was an entrusted person as is clear from Annexure-1. It is stated that Forensic Report supporting the vigilance was also not reliable as the laboratory had specifically stated that the person giving the report was not competent and had been absconding. It was also argued by the petitioner that the most important material was the file regarding settlement but no one looked into it and even the case diary was not placed before the sanctioning authority and hence the aforesaid sanction cannot be said to legal or proper. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon two decisions of the Apex Court in case of Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (1997) 7 SCC 622, and in case of Mohd. Iqbal Ahmad Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in (1979) 4 SCC 172. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents- Vigilance Department stated that the writ was not maintainable at this stage as all the points raised by the petitioner have to be looked into at the trial stage. It was further stated that - 6 - Vigilance Department never forced sanctioning authority, rather it merely requested as would be clear from Annexure-A series to the counter affidavit. It was further stated that the impugned order dated 28.12.2006 (Annexure-5) itself clearly showed that before passing the order of sanction the entire material had been shown to the sanctioning authority and the authority passing the said order was quite competent to pass such orders. He further stated that Section 19 of the Act provided enough authority for granting sanction in such circumstances. 9. Learned counsel for the State of Bihar and its authorities, including the sanctioning authority, supported the averments made by learned counsel for the Vigilance Department and stated that the authority granting sanction vide order dated 28.12.2006 (Annexure-5) was quite competent to pass such order. 10. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case, it is quite apparent that according to provisions of law, the authorities which had issued sanction vide impugned order dated 28.12.2006 (Annexure-5) was quite competent to pass such orders as per the provisions of law. Furthermore, the said impugned order clearly shows that it has been passed in accordance with law after considering all the materials produced by the authority concerned and the Vigilance Department never forced the authority concerned to grant sanction, rather it merely placed the materials requesting for an appropriate order in this regard. - 7 - 11. This court further finds that although learned counsel for the petitioner has raised very intricate issues of facts, but the said matter cannot be gone into by this court at this stage as they are the matter which can only be looked at the trial stage. Furthermore, giving any observation or any finding with respect thereto will only bias the trial one way or the other, hence, this court must refrain itself from entering into such disputed questions of facts which are to be decided in the trial on the basis of materials available on record. In that view of the matter, the aforesaid two decisions in case of Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan (supra) and in case of Mohd. Iqbal Ahmad (supra) cited by learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable. 12. In the facts and circumstances of this case, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of sanction, nor does it find any justification to interfere in the matter at this stage. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)