IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.32158 of 2009 BIRENDRA PRASAD SHRIVASTAVA,SON OF LATE RAM PRASAD SRIVASTAVA, RESIDENT OF WEST BORING CANAL ROAD, PRAGATI PATH, PS SHRI KRISHNAPUR, DISTRICT PATNA – PETITIONER. Versus STATE OF BIHAR THRU.VIG. ----------- 5 19.1.2010 This application has been filed for quashing the order, dated 14.11.2007 passed by the Special Judge, Vigilance I, Patna in Special Case No. 13/1998 whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for the offences under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner has been made accused on the ground that he possesses disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.9 lakhs. The main grievance of the petitioner is that despite the fact that he has given explanation to show his income to indicate how he obtained the assets, the Vigilance Department has not considered the same and submitted charge sheet on 23.10.2007 although the F.I.R. was instituted on 2.7.1998. The main points raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the interest of bank accounts of his son and wife have been clubbed together and included in the income of the petitioner and further that the explanation given regarding the cost of construction of his house has not been considered by the Vigilance Department before submitting the charge sheet. The petitioner has also raised the point that the inventory has been produced in court after four years which is not permissible under the law and raises doubt with respect to correctness of the said inventory. 2 Learned counsel submits that all these aspects are apparent from the documents on record which are part of the case diary and as such the same ought to have been considered by the Vigilance Department before submission of the charge sheet. In my view, all these aspects of the matter should be examined in detail by the court at the stage of framing of the charge in this case and a reasoned order should be passed. At this stage it is submitted that the petitioner by now is 68 years of age. He has donated one kidney to his daughter who subsequently died. As such I think this case should be taken up on priority basis in the court below. This application is, thus, disposed of with the aforesaid observation. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)