IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.680 of 2010 SANJAY KUMAR SON OF LATE PHULDEV PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MALDAH, P.S. BARBIGHA, DISTRICT- SHEIKHPURA Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH Vigilance 2. SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF BIHAR LAW DEPARTMENT, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA 3. THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF BIHAR REGISTRATION, EXCISE PROHIBITON DEPARTMENT BIHAR, PATNA ----- FOR THE PETITIONER : MR. AWADHESH KR. MISHRA, ADVOCATE FOR THE VIGILANCE : MR. RAMAKANT SHARMA, SENIOR ADVOCATE SPECIAL P.P. VIGILANCE FOR THE STATE : MR. VIKASH KUMAR, ADVOCATE ASSISTANT COUNSEL TO ADVOCATE GENERAL ******** 2 07.02.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, learned Senior Counsel and the Special P.P. (Vigilance). Petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 7th October, 2009 sanctioning the prosecution of the petitioner in Vigilance P.S. Case No. 86 of 2009 registered on 19.08.2009 for the alleged offence under sections 13(2) read with section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Learned counsel for the petitioner assails the aforesaid order no. 5025/J Patna Dated 10th December, 2009, as contained in Annexure-5, primarily on two grounds. Firstly, the impugned order is the outcome of non-application of mind since no material was placed before the authority sanctioning the prosecution of the petitioner, and secondly, the petitioner, who was an Excise Superintendent at the material time, the sanction for his prosecution must be passed by an authority competent to remove him from service and it should be communicated through his parent department. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned order is virtually a non-speaking order, more so, the relevant materials were not placed before the authority before sanction could be granted. In this connection, learned counsel has referred to the decision in the case of Prakash Singh Badal Vs. The State of Punjab, reported in 2007 (1) PLJR, 291 (SC). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that so far as the alleged disproportionate income is concerned, the same has not been properly appreciated by the sanctioning authority as the petitioner had explained that the same was derived from other sources i.e. business of his wife and other relatives which were explained in their respective income tax returns. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the Vigilance on the other hand submits that on perusal of the order contained in Annexure-5 it appears that all the relevant materials collected against the petitioner were placed before the State Government for sanction, and as such, it can not be said that the order of sanction was passed in absence of the relevant materials. Secondly, it is submitted that the order of sanction for prosecution of the petitioner was passed by the State Government under the orders of the Governor of Bihar which was communicated through the signature of the Secretary, Department of Law, Govt. of Bihar, and as such, the order cannot be faulted in law. It is further submitted that so far as proposition of law is concerned, it is not in dispute but mere perusal of the order it would appear that the relevant materials and the evidences which were collected were all placed before the competent authority and the State Government thereafter took the decision to grant sanction for the prosecution of the petitioner which was issued as per the order no. 5025/J Patna dated 10th December, 2009 under the signature of the Secretary, Department of Law, Govt. of Bihar. Learned counsel submits that the submission of the petitioner with regard to the disproportionate income is by way of defense which may be considered in accordance with law at the appropriate stage of the trial. Considering the rival submissions of the parties and on perusal of the impugned order as contained in Annexure-5, it appears that the relevant materials which were placed in the file of the Excise Department in its File No. 1/Pari 3-20-271/2009 and upon consideration of such material the State Government came to the view that prima facie case for prosecution of the petitioner for the alleged offence is made out, and as such, accordingly sanctioned the prosecution of the petitioner. The order was issued under the signature of the Secretary, Department of Law, Govt. of Bihar, however the order is of the State Government. As such, in my view, the order can not be faulted. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the writ application and the same is accordingly dismissed. Manish/- ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)