IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.2530 of 2010 PREM KUMAR, SON OF LATE BABU BHAGWAN PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PAIGA, P.S. BHALDI, DISTRICT SARAN AT PRESENT RESIDENT OF SAKET BIHAR, MITRA MANDAL COLONY, POLICE COLONY, POLICE STATION PHULWARI SHARIF, DISTRICT PATNA, PRESENTLY POSTED AS SUPERINTENDENT OF JAIL, SITAMARHI. ---- PETITIONER Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH VIGILANCE, PATNA. ---- OPPOSITE PARTY ----------- 2 22.4.2010 Heard the parties. Learned counsel has raised several points in this application. The allegation is that the petitioner who is a Jail Superintendent of Sitamarhi is said to have taken Rs. 1,00,000/- as bribe. The bribe money was found in his ‘Varanda’ at his house. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits firstly, that there are certain inherent anomalies in the case filed on behalf of the Vigilance which are as follows: (a) That there is no complaint or Sanha No. 27 dated 5.11.2006 which is the basis of preparation of the post trap memorandum as well as the pre trap memorandum. (b) That the seizure list prepared as the pre trap memorandum would show that currency notes and the persons who have signed at the stage of pre trap is a photo copy and produced as the post trap memorandum, which would be apparent from the fact that even the 2 gappings of the denominations of the notes which have been seized are exactly the same, which indicates that in fact no separate seizure list was prepared. (c) The independent witnesses are closely related to the complainant. (d) The order of sanction has not been issued by the correct authority under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is submitted that the grounds (a) to (d) go to the very root of the matter and the Court taking cognizance should prima facie apply its mind to see that the legal procedure for conducting trap has been followed or there is no complaint against the petitioner before taking cognizance against the petitioner to face trial. This Court at present will only consider the order of sanction. The sanction order has been issued vide memo no. 345 dated 25.1.2007. It has been stated that after considering the allegations, the Secretary, Law Department award sanction for offences alleged to have been committed under Section 7/13(2) read with Section 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act specifically states that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 7 and 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been 3 committed by a public servant except with the previous sanction of the person who is the competent authority to remove the person from his office. It is submitted that the sanction order is not by the competent authority and is not under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and as such it ought to be quashed. Considering the submissions aforesaid, this Court quashes the order dated 3.2.2007, passed in Special Case No. 36 of 2006 by Special Judge (Vigilance) P.C. Act, North Bihar, Muzaffarpur as it lacks sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act by the proper sanctioning authority. This order is also covered by an order passed in Cr. Misc. No. 26345 of 2008 disposed of on 22.12.2009. The Vigilance Department will be at liberty to seek a fresh order of sanction is so advised. This application is thus disposed of. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)