IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.135 of 2006 SUDARSHAN RAM Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 7. 21.1.2010. Heard Mr. Chakrapani, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma learned Assisting counsel to AAG-3 and Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar for the Accountant General. This review petition has been filed for review of the order dated 2.12.2005 passed in C.W.J.C.No.249 of 2001. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the finding of the Court to the effect that ‘admittedly the petitioner is facing criminal prosecution’, is an error apparent on the face of the record in view of the statement made in para-6 of the writ petition and reiterated in para-5 of the review petition. He, thus, submits that there was no admission on the part of the petitioner. Learned counsel, with reference to the provisions of Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, submits that a criminal prosecution will be deemed to have been initiated from the date on which a complaint is made or a chare- sheet is submitted and that the order under review has been passed simply on the basis of 2 the statement in para-4 of the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition mentioning therein that two criminal cases had been instituted against the petitioner. He thus submits that simple institution of criminal cases does not satisfy the preconditions laid down in rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules and in that view of the matter the finding of the Court while disposing of the writ petition, is an error apparent on the face of record. Be that as it may, in my opinion, the issues raised by the petitioner are issues that may be raised in appeal but cannot be gone into by this Court in its review jurisdiction. In that view of the matter, the review petition is dismissed. ahk (Jyoti Saran,J.)