IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.26086 of 2010 BISHNU NARAYAN SINGH S/O LATE SAGAR SINGH, R/O VILLAGE NAWADA BEN, P.S. UDAWANT NAGAR, DIST. BHOJPUR (BIHAR), AT PRESENT ADDRESS Q. NO.1, PESU CAMPUS, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA 1 …. PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DEPARTMENT OF VIGILANCE THROUGH ITS INSPECTOR GENERAL, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA …… RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2. 3.3.2011 The petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated 7.7.2010 passed by the Special Judge, Vigilance (Trap), Patna in Special case No.64 of 2009 arising out of Vigilance P.S. case No.89 of 2009, by which he has refused to discharge the petitioner. It has been submitted that the petitioner being an employee of the Bihar State Electricity Board was immune from prosecution by the Vigilance department in view of a notification dated 2.11.1985 issued by the Governor of Bihar. The further submission is that there is no recovery from his possession per se and complainant’s hands were not checked before the trap was laid which was essential for proper investigation. The further submission is that the court did not consider the materials on record and passed the order in a cryptic manner refusing to discharge the petitioner, which was illegal. In support of this argument the petitioner has laid stress on a decision cited in 2011(1) P.L.J.R. 33 (SC) wherein it has been held that the trial court should not act as a post office at the stage of charge. - 2 - However, I am not convinced with the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner for the simple reason that it is totally illogical to assume that the employees of the Electricity Department would form a class within a class and be immune from any prosecution in view of the notification of the Governor which has been obviously issued in a different context altogether. Moreover the factual aspects of the case about the money not having been recovered from the petitioner or that the complainant’s hands had not been checked before the trap was laid are factual in nature which can be only adjudicated at the stage of trial. Lastly no doubt the trial court was bound to consider the materials against the petitioners at the stage of charge but it was not duty bound to pass a lengthy order to demonstrate his application of mind. Moreover this court in exercise of its jurisdiction u/s.482 Cr.P.C. feels it’s bounden duty to examine the materials itself even if there has been non-application of mind by the court below. Considering the aforesaid, I find no merit in the application. The same is dismissed. Narendra/ ( Anjana Prakash, J. )