IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.17477 of 2010 ACHAL KUMAR RANA son of Ramdeo Rana, resident of village- Bhatolia, P.S. Meenapur, District- Muzaffarpur, presently posted as Circle Inspector, Sasaram Block in the district of Rohtas …Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH its Cabinet Vigilance Department, Vigilance Investigation Bureau, 6, Circular Road, Patna …Opposite Party ----------- 2/ 02.02.2011 Heard the parties. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 22.04.2006 passed in Special Case No. 21 of 2002 by the Special Judge, Vigilance, Patna, by which he has taken cognizance under sections 420, 465, 466, 467, 471, 477-A, 201, 109, 120-B Indian Penal Code and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution case is that two NGOs under the name of Green Earth and Sanvedna were made operational by the accused persons in which huge amount of illegal money were parked. The petitioner happens to be the Joint Secretary of one of the NGO, whereas, he was Treasurer of other one for a short while. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ashok Kumar Singh, who was the main accused and alleged to have collected the illegal money and parked the same in the NGO, has been exonerated of the charge by this court. It has been submitted that that the prosecution of one Shrawan Kumar, who was the Secretary for a short while and one Devendra Kumar Singh have been quashed by this court vide separate orders and the petitioner’s case is also similarly placed. 2 On other hand, counsel for the Vigilance submits that prosecution of co-accused Ashok Kumar Singh was quashed for technical reasons because there was no sanction from the State of Jharkhand where he was transferred in his regard. It is further submitted that the orders of Sharvan Kumar and Devendra Kumar Singh, which have been annexed in the present application, reveal that their cases were considered on merits and since no cogent material was found against these petitioners, therefore, this court had set aside their prosecution. It is next submitted that there is enough material warranting trial of the petitioner. In my view, since the petitioner was the custodian of admittedly ill gotten money, his role cannot be lightly brushed aside. Therefore, seeing no merit in the application, the same is dismissed. However, the Vigilance Department is directed to take stringent steps for putting other co-accused on trial who have been let off for technical reasons. JA/- (Anjana Prakash,J.)