IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.977 of 2008 RAM LAKHAN PRASAD SINGH . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 13. 27.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State as also Mr. Bipin Kumar Sinha, Standing Counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) The petitioner through this writ application has assailed the order contained in Memo No. 3364 dated 16th of July 2008, ( annexure- 4) granting sanction for his prosecution under Section 420, 467, 468, 477, 477A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(c) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. Submission of the petitioner is that the order granting sanction for prosecution of the petitioner is bad in law as it is discriminatory in nature for the reasons that no sanction was accorded in respect of other two co-accused persons, namely, Rajiv Lochan and Mohan Kumar Sharkar, whereas in the case of the petitioner, sanction has been accorded as per aforesaid Annexure – 4 and as such the same deserves to be struck down on this ground alone. Besides, it is further submitted that the CBI was entrusted to investigate the alleged illegal withdrawals from the Treasury for the 2 financial year 1994 -1995 and 1995-1996 which would be appearing on perusal of the first information report, as contained in Annexure -1 and as such, since the petitioner had functioned as a Treasury Officer much prior to the aforesaid two financial years the investigation could not be extended to that period and that too only on two dates. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State as also the CBI submits that on perusal of the first information report, it would appear that the CBI was entrusted to make the investigation of the illegal withdrawals from the treasury as quoted in the first information report, and the report of the Regional Director, Animal Husbandry was also enclosed in the said first information report which related to the alleged withdrawals for the period 1994-1995 and 1995-1996. It is further submitted that sanction accorded for prosecuting the petitioner cannot be said to be illegal for the reason that in case of other two accused persons sanction has not been accorded. The sanction order has to be considered on its own merits. Moreover, it is submitted that as regards according sanction in favour of the accused persons, namely, Rajiv Lochan and Mohan Kumar Sharkar, their case is under consideration with the concerned department. 3 Considering the submissions of the parties and on perusal of their respective pleadings , it appears that the sanction for prosecution of the petitioner has been accorded as per the aforesaid Memo No. 3364 dated 16th of July 2008 as contained in Annexure- 4, whereas on perusal of the same, it would appear that upon considering the materials placed, the competent authority found that the case is fit for grant of the sanction as required under the law for the prosecution of the petitioner for the alleged offence. As regards, the grievance that the petitioner has been singled out whereas two other accused persons, namely, Rajiv Lochan and Mohan Kumar Sharkar were not accorded sanction, in the opinion of the court, that cannot be a ground for assailing the order of sanction accorded in favour of the petitioner. The prosecution of the petitioner is to be on the basis of the materials available against the petitioner, and as such, it cannot be a valid ground for assailing the order of sanction of the petitioner that other two accused persons were not granted sanction for prosecution. Moreover, on perusal of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, it appears that the matter is under consideration before the competent authority with regard to the grant of sanction for prosecution of the aforesaid two accused persons, 4 namely, Rajiv Lochan and Mohan Kumar Sharkar. In this view of the above, I do not find any merit in the writ application and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, it will be open for the petitioner to raise all his rights and contentions, if any, available to him under the law at the appropriate stage in the court below during the trial. Jagdish/ ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)