IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.47130 of 2007 DR.M.K.SHARMA @ DR.MUKESH KUMAR SHARMA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 3/ 30/01/2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State as also for the O.P. No.2. The petitioner, who is stated to be the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, is aggrieved by the order of cognizance dated 8.6.2007 in Complaint Case No.1490C/07 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna under Sections- 420, 467, 468, 469, 507 and 120B of I.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a plain reading of the complaint, as it is, reveals acts of alleged irregularities in preparation of the seniority list for grant of saw mill licences in contravention of the principles as suggested by the Central Empowered Committee and affirmed by the Supreme Court. There are no allegations in the complaint of the petitioner having acted beyond his authority and competence for personal gain or conspiracy as a government servant. The order of cognizance is, therefore, vitiated in absence of necessary sanction under Section-197 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the O.P. No. strenuously 2 sought to persuade this Court that the complaint does allege forgery. Forgery has its own connotation and this Court may not interfere with the proceedings in the complaint case at this stage to decipher the same. The issue of sanction is a matter which can be considered at any stage of the trial. The prosecution should not be stalled on that score at the initial stage. The entire complaint case relates in its allegations to the petitioner in discharge of his official duties. The basis of the claim is ‘violation of the guidelines laid down by Central Empowered Committee affirmed by the Supreme Court for grant of license for saw mills’. It is in context of this violation of the guidelines that the word ‘forgery’ has been loosely used by the petitioner. What the petitioner really meant by forgery is qualified by his own pleadings at paragraph- 21 of the complaint that the principles for deciphering those eligible had been violated. There are no allegations even suggestive of acts by the petitioner beyond his official status and designation by misuse of the same so as to hold that he was not entitled to the benefit of Section-197 Cr.P.C. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the complete bar under Section-197 of Cr.P.C. prohibiting cognizance except with previous sanction for acts done 3 in course of duties, this Court finds it difficult to allow the continuance of the complaint in its present form. The order of cognizance dated 8.6.2007 is accordingly quashed. If sanction for cognizance is available on a subsequent date, a completely different issue may arise and for which this Court refrains from making any comments at this stage. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)