IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.17052 of 2007 1. SHEO CHANDRA PASWAN(DRIVER-D.M.T.) SON OF LATE RAM PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KACHRA PAR, POLICE STATION MOKAMA, DISTRICT- PATNA. 2. MANOJ KUMAR (GUARD D.M.T.) SON OF INDRADEO PRASAD RESIDENT OF VILLAGE LANKA COLONY, POLICE STATION KHAGAUL, DISTRICT- PATNA. 3. MD. IMAM BAKSH (ASSISTANT DRIVER) SON OF MD. ISMILE KHAN RESIDENT OF VILLAE KHALASI MOHALLA, POLICE STATION JHAJHA, DISTRICT- JAMUI. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR For the petitioners : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha no. 2, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Mayanand Jha, APP. ----------- 9 04.08.2010 Heard both sides. Petitioners are facing charge punishable under Sections 304A, 337 and 338 of Indian Penal Code and diverse sections of the Indian Railway Act. They are aggrieved by the order dated 17.2.2007 passed by learned F.T.C.-IV, Jamui in Sessions Trial No. 130 of 2005 (State versus Om Prakash Gupta and Ors.). By this order, the application filed under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of the petitioners has been considered and rejected. Learned Trial Court has found that there is/are more than adequate materials on record justifying framing of charge. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while assailing the impugned order, submits that Section 180F of the Indian Railway Act bars cognizance. It is the contention of the petitioners that if the cognizance itself is bad in law then how the criminal proceeding can proceed. Learned court below has taken 2 a view that the order taking cognizance passed in the present case was never challenged by the petitioners on any ground whatsoever. So far as application of Section 180F of the Indian Railway Act is concerned, it has been observed that the facts/allegations made in the present case are not covered by the provisions of Section 180F of the Indian Railway Act. Learned counsel for the State on the other hands, submits that it is by now settled law that if it appears to the court at any stage of the proceeding that sanction is/was necessary, the Court may stop there and call upon the prosecution to produce sanction of the appropriate authority. It is the contention of the learned A.P.P. that in the present case, it has already been found that Section 180F of the Indian Railway Act is not applicable. After having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and after going through the materials on record, this Court finds that the order impugned cannot be said to be patently illegal justifying interference. There is no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )