IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.2426 of 2010 SHAMBHU KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 2. 5.7.2010 After having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the allegation that in collusion with the other accused persons the petitioner passed an order mutating the name of another raiyat in respect of the land belonging to the complainant, the Court is of the view that the order taking cognizance could not be said to be bad, specially, in the light of the fact that for passing the order the petitioner claimed having perused the report of the local Mukhiya and Sarpanch which is not required by the Executive Instructions. It is too well known to be pointed out that if an act is committed by misusing the official position, prosecution for the same shall never require any sanction of the State Government. After the decision of the Supreme Court in Bakshish Singh Brar Vs. Smt. Gurmej Kaur & anr. reported in A.I.R. 1988 S.C.,257 it is now well known that question of sanction could be agitated from stage to stage of the trial. The petition is dismissed. Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)