IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.10429 of 2008 Baidya Nath Panda S/o late Ram Krishna Panda, resident of Rajrappa House, P.S. Bariatu, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand -- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Inspector General of Police, C.I.D.Patna 3. The Secretary, Department of Personal and Administrative Reforms, Bihar, Patna. --- Opp.Parties. For the Petitioner : Mr. Kamal Nayan Chaubey, Sr. Advocate. For the State : Mr. Mayanand Jha, APP ----------- 04 06.07.2010 Heard both sides. Petitioner has impugned the order dated 07.12.2007, passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Biraul, at Benipur, whereby cognizance has been taken under diverse Sections of the Penal Code including Sections 409 and 420 of the Penal Code. In relation to certain fraudulent withdrawals of money from the treasury in connection with execution of Government scheme(s) and thereby misappropriation of the Government fund committed in the year 1985, an F.I.R. seems to have been lodged against a set of accused persons who were working in different capacities in the District Rural Development Agency Darbhanga. Petitioner was posted as the District Magistrate and was, thus, functioning as the Chairman of the aforesaid Authority. It appears, from time to time the police submitted charge sheets in the case against various accused persons whereafter cognizance was taken. The police ultimately submitted supplementary charge sheet on 2 16.12.2007, whereby petitioner was also found prima facie involved in commission of crime, and he was thus sent up for trial. It appears from the record that sanction was obtained by the State Government in terms of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned Magistrate, on a consideration of the materials placed before it, has recorded a finding that there is/are sufficient material on record justifying taking cognizance. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present enmeshment of the petitioner after 16/17 years of his retirement from service is malicious. It is next submitted that the sanction, in the present case, has to be accorded by the Central Government. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, supported the impugned order. It is contended that learned Magistrate has perused the materials on record and after recording his satisfaction has passed the impugned order which does not require interference at this stage. Having considered the submissions advanced by the parties and after going through the materials available on record including the impugned order, this Court is satisfied that the learned Magistrate has not committed any illegality in exercise of its jurisdiction conferred under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There is no merit in this application. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)