IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.7167 of 2008 NAGA RAM, SON OF LATE MAHADEO RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE & P.O.- BHITBHARWA, P.S.- GOPALGANJ, DISTRICT- GOPALGANJ. ----- PETITIONER Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CABINET VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT, INVESTIGATION BUREAU,6, CIRCULAR ROAD, PATNA. ----- OPPOSITE PARTY ----------- 6 30.7.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner has challenged the order of cognizance under Section 7/8/13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the prosecution is malafide and the person who is behind the entire prosecution is a man against whom the petitioner has taken action departmentally. The second ground on which the petitioner challenges the order of cognizance is that the order of sanction is the photo copy of the original and further it is submitted that the order of sanction does not contain reasons which would disclose to the Court the ground on which the sanctioning 2 authority found it improper to proceed with the prosecution by granting sanction. Mr. Rakesh Kumar counsel appearing on behalf of the Vigilance Department draws the Court’s attention to Section 19 and Clause (3) of Section 19 which reads as follows:- (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),- (a) no finding, sentence or order passed by a Special Judge shall be reversed or altered by a Court in appeal, confirmation or revision on the ground of the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in, the sanction required under sub-section (1), unless in the opinion of that Court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby. It is submitted that even if it is assumed for the moment, but not admitted that the sanctioning authority has not given sufficient reasons for issuing the order of sanction, the Court has found that a prima facie case has been made out against the petitioner under the Sections aforesaid and has taken cognizance of the offence on the basis of the materials. Considering all aspects of the matter, this Court finds that in view of 3 Section 19 Sub Section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the fact that the cognizance has been taken by the Court below after coming to a conclusion that there is a prima facie case against the petitioner, no ground for interference is made out in the order taking cognizance. The application is thus dismissed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)