IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.38212 of 2010 1. NARAYAN MISHRA, SON OF LATE SHRI KRISHNA CHANDRA MISHRA 2. SMT. KANCHAN MISHRA, WIFE OF SHRI NARAYAN MISHRA 3. SHRI SATYABRAT MISHRA, SON OF SHRI NARAYAN MISHRA 4. SMT. POOJA MISHRA, WIFE OF SHRI SATYABRAT MISHRA 5. SHRI SUBRAT MISHRA, SON OF SHRI NARAYAN MISHRA 6. SMT. RITA PANDEY MISHRA, WIFE OF SHRI SUBRAT MISHRA ALL RESIDENTS OF 36, VED NAGAR, RUKANPURA, P.S. RUPASPUR, DISTT. PATNA. – 14. ----- PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, BIHAR. 2. THE VIGILANCE COMMISSIONER (CABINET VIGILANCE), GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR 3. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, SPECIAL VIGILANCE UNIT, BIHAR, PATNA. ------ OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- 2. 10.03.2011 Heard the parties. The petitioners have sought quashing of the order dated 16.9.2010 passed by the Special Court, Vigilance-II, Patna, in Special Case No. 6 of 2007 by which the court below has taken cognizance in the matter. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was a Public Servant at that time of occurrence as also on the date the First Information Report was instituted and, therefore, sanction was essential under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The further submission is that the petitioners No. 2 to 6 were relatives of petitioner No. 1 and they were not Public Servant and, therefore, there was no question of any offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act having been committed by them. The further submission is 2 that there is no evidence that they had abetted or were in conspiracy with the main accused and, therefore, the charge sheet under Section 109 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code is baseless. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Vigilance submits that on the date cognizance was taken, the petitioner No. 1 had superannuated and, therefore, there would not be question of any requirement of sanction against him. Further submission is that the question as to whether the petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 were in conspiracy with the petitioner No. 1 or that they had abetted the petitioner No. 1 in his misdeeds, are questions of fact which can only be properly adjudicated at the stage of trial. In view of such, finding no merit in the application, the same is dismissed. S.Ali ( Anjana Prakash, J.)