IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.14703 of 2008 AKHILESH KUMAR SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR THRU. VIGILANCE. ----------- 3 03.05.2010. The petitioner prays for quashing order dated 26.6.2007, whereby cognizance of the offence under sections 7,13(ii) read with section 13(i)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988 has been taken by the Special Judge, Vigilance I, Patna in Vigilance Special case no. 29 of 2007, arising out of Vigilance case no. 55 of 2007. The petitioner has challenged cognizance order on the ground that it is based on sanction accorded by the Chairman, Nagar Parishad, Masaurhi, Patna who is not competent in law to grant sanction for prosecution of a Tax Daroga of Municipality. He submits that Tax Daroga comes under category C of the Municipal Act and as per section 38 of Bihar Municipal Act, 2007, it is the Chief Municipal officer who would be competent to accord sanction. Leaned counsel has relied upon following decisions of the Court in support of his contention:- (1) State Inspector of Police Vs. Visakhapatnam Kari, reported in SCC 2006(7) 172 (2) B.A. Mohandas Vs. State of Kerla, reported in SCC 2003 (9) 504 (3) State of Karnataka Vs. Aneerjan, reported in SCC (11) 273. Learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance Department submits that prosecution of petitioner is valid. Furthermore, in case the chairman, Nagar Parishad is found not authorized to accord sanction, prosecution can obtain fresh sanction order for prosecuting the petitioner. It is needless to say that a delinquent cannot be prosecuted under P.C. Act on basis of sanction accorded by an authority who is not competent under the relevant law to accord sanction. As per Section 38C - 2 - of Bihar Municipal Act, 2007, the Chief Municipal Officer is the competent authority to sanction prosecution. In the back drop of the aforesaid factual matrix, I observe that the Chairman, Nagar Parishad, Masaurhi is not authorized to grant sanction for prosecuting a Tax Daroga. Thus the consequential order taking cognizance under Prevention of Corruption Act on basis of invalid sanction order would also be bad. In the result, I set aside the impugned order dated 26.6.2007 taking cognizance under sections 7, 13(ii) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988, passed in Vigilance Special Case no. 29 of 2007. The setting aside of cognizance order would not preclude the prosecution from getting proper and valid sanction order for prosecuting the petitioner. The instant application is allowed to the extent mentioned above. Shashi. (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)