IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.46438 of 2007 SUBHASH CHANDRA SINGH, SON OF RADHA KANT PRASAD SINGH, PROFESSOR, A.N.S. COLLEGE, BARH, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT CONGRESS MAIDAN, BARH, P.S.- BARH DISTRICT- PATNA, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-SUBHAS DEODHI, P.S.- SINGHIA, DISTRICT- SAMASTIPUR. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. RADHA RAMAN PRASAD SINGH, SON OF LATE JUGAL KISHORE PRASAD SINGH, VILLAGE- DAHAUR, P.S.- BARH, DISTRICT- PATNA, AT PRESENT LIVING AT CONGRESS MAIDAN, BARH, P.S.- BARH, DISTRICT- PATNA. ----------- 5 19.03.2010 Heard Mr. Ramakant Sharma for the petitioner and Mr. Najmul Hoda for opposite party no. 2. Petitioner questions the order dated 7.3.2003 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Barh in Complaint Case no. 52(C) of 2003 whereby cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 427, 500, 504, 341, 447, 323 and 120B of Indian Penal Code has been taken. The aforesaid order was assailed by the petitioner by filing Cr. Revision no. 382 of 2003 in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge-III Barh. On consideration of the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, the revisional court, by an order dated 26.7.2005, rejected the said revision application. The petitioner is, therefore, aggrieved by the aforesaid order as well affirming the initial order passed by the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the offences. It appears from the revisional order that two issues were raised before the revisional court. Firstly, it was challenged 2 on the ground that sanction was necessary in the case as the petitioner and some of the accused persons were the government servants. Secondly, it was submitted that the learned Magistrate has committed illegality in not examining all the witnesses before recording a finding that a prima facie case has been made out against the accused persons named in the complaint. Learned Revisional Court has considered those aspects of the matter and has recorded a finding that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the sanction, if any, at the stage of taking cognizance was not at all mandatory/necessary. Dealing with the second aspect of the matter, it has been found and held that the complainant was examined on S.A. and after perusal of the complainant on solemn affirmation, it was found that a prima facie case is made out. Learned counsel for the petitioner, with reference to the allegations contained in the complaint, made a submission that no case is made out from the bare reading of the complaint. No such case appears to have been put up while assailing the order in revision before the revisional court. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party submits that the allegations contained in the complaint do make out a case justifying trial. It is next submitted that the order of the learned revisional court cannot be said to be perverse in view of the reasons assigned therein. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this court finds no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. 3 Petitioner, of course, has liberty to raise all these issues at appropriate stage. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )