IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.45303 of 2007 1. Prabhu Nath Yadav, Gram Sewak, Mirpur Gram Panchayat Raj, son of Shri Shankar Yadav, resident of village- Charwa Ka Tola, P.S.- Rasulpur, District- Saran. 2. Malti Devi, Mukhiya, Mrirpur Gram Panchayat Raj, wife of Shri Upendra Prasad, resident of village- Jilakabad, Tahal Tola, P. S.- Garakha, District- Saran. … Petitioners. Versus 1. State Of Bihar 2. Anil Kumar, son of Shri Mishri Lal Rai, resident of village- Mirpur Juara, P. O.- Jilabad, P. S. – Garakha, District- Saran. … Opposite parties. --------- For the petitioner : Mr. Madhav Prasad Yadav, Adv. For the State : Mr. Ajay Mishra ( A.P.P.) For the opposite party no. 2 : Mr. Najimul Hoda, Adv. ----------- 3. 29.03.2010 Heard counsel for the parties. The order taking cognizance for offence under Section 167 of the Indian Penal Code is sought to be assailed by the petitioners on the ground that complainant, opposite party no. 2 in fact was not eligible for appointment on the post of Panchayat Shikshak. In order to substantiate this aspect counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a policy decision and circular of the Director, Primary Education dated 13.4.2007 (Annexure- 5). First of all, at the stage of order taking cognizance court has only to see prima facie case against 2 the accused, On a bare perusal of the complaint petition it is evident that there is a definite allegation against the petitioner constituting the offence under Section 167 I.P.C. Additionally, this Court would not find any merit on the reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioners on the circular in question inasmuch as the same was issued in the year 2007 whereas occurrence in question is said to have been taken place in the year 2005 itself. Next submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that since two persons who were examined in course of enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. had in fact stated that demand of illegal gratification was actually made by the husband of petitioner no. 2., Mukhiya, who had not been made accused and therefore the order taking cognizance cannot be sustained can also not be accepted inasmuch as the court has always the power to summon any other person for facing trial even at a later stage in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C.. Finally, the effort of learned counsel for the petitioners that no offence under Section 167 of the Indian Penal Code is made out on a reading of the complaint petition, in the facts and circumstances of this case also 3 does not seem to be correct. In this regard, a bare perusal of the statement made by the complainant in his solemn affirmation would itself go to show that there is a specific allegation against the petitioners that they have changed the merit list in which earlier the name of complainant and others had figured. Such allegation therefore would definitely attract the ingredients of Section 167 of the Indian Penal Code. Considering all these aspects, this Court would find no merit in this application and accordingly, the same is dismissed. However, trial court is directed to ensure that trial of this case be completed within a period of one year from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)