IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.80569 of 2024 Arising out of PS. Case No.-7 Year-2000 Thana- VIGILANCE District- Patna ====================================================== Nand Kumar Singh, aged about 79 years (Male), S/o Late Gopal Prasad Singh R/O 34 A Patliputra Colony, P.S- Patliputra, Distt.- Patna-800013. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Vigilance Bureau, Bihar, Patna through Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Bihar Patna. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jitendra Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Abhishek, Advocate Mrs. Priya Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Meena Singh, APP For the Vigilance : Mr. Anil Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 31-07-2025 Heard Mr. Jitendra Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner assisted by Mr. Abhishek and Mrs. Priya Sinha, learned counsels, Mr. Anil Singh, learned counsel for the Vigilance and Mrs. Meena Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. Petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 19.09.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Muzaffarpur by which the learned trial Court has rejected the discharge/acquittal petition filed by the petitioner in view of absence of proper sanction as provided under Section 197 of the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80569 of 2024 dt.31-07-2025 2/16 Code of Criminal Procedure Code read with Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in connection with Special Case No. 94 of 2002 arising out of Vigilance Case No. 7 of 2000 dated 28.0.2000 registered under Sections 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 477A, 120B, 109 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 3. The prosecution case is to the effect that the informant filed an application dated 25.02.2000 addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Department, Muzaffarpur Range alleging therein that on the basis of direction of the Additional Director General Vigilance Bureau, Patna contained in Letter No. 507 dated 28.12.1999 he conducted an inquiry and found that General Manager of Lauriya Sugar Mill, in connivance with other accused persons has misappropriated the amount of 998 bags of sugar in the month of September, 1990 by selling the sugar in the name of forged purchasers by using forged vouchers. It is further alleged that between 21.09.1990 to 28.09.1990 the Lauriya Sugar Mill sold 997 bags of sugar to M/s Gopal & Company, Gola Road, Muzaffarpur and M/s Lok Nath, Chhoti Ramna, Bettiah for Rs. 8,00,088/- but in preliminary inquiry it has come to the knowledge that both the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80569 of 2024 dt.31-07-2025 3/16 firms are forged having no valid license. It is also alleged that on the basis of complaint an internal inquiry was conducted by the Department in which the inquiry committee has also submitted report in favour of accused persons and as such he requested for institution of a case against the accused persons for proper investigation. 4. Mr. Jitendra Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and the present case is based on a false and concocted story. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Govt. of Bihar was the appointing authority which is the competent authority to grant sanction for prosecution against the petitioner because only that department is competent to remove the petitioner from his Office since he was Class-I Officer of Bihar Administrative Service and retired on 31.01.2004 from the post of Joint Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department whereas the Law Department, Govt. of Bihar has granted sanction for prosecution against the petitioner vide Memo No. 2883 dated 17.06.2008 issued by the Secretary of the Law Department and, therefore, in absence of valid sanction required under the Cr.P.C. read with the P.C. Act the trial Court is not Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80569 of 2024 dt.31-07-2025 4/16 competent to proceed against the petitioner by taking cognizance. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner was appointed by the Appointment Department (Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department), Govt. of Bihar and as such in view of Article 311 of the Constitution of India he can only be removed by his Appointing Authority. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has also drawn attention of this Court towards the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Nanjappa vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2015(4) SCC 186 in which it has been held that the grant of valid sanction is essential for taking cognizance against the public servant. 5. Mr. Anil Singh, learned counsel for the Vigilance Department as well as Mrs. Meena Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has opposed the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the Vigilance Department submits that the Law Department, Govt. of Bihar is competent to grant sanction against the petitioner in view of Rule 53 of the Executive Business Rules, 1979 as well as the competent authority has accorded sanction for prosecution against the accused Nand Kumar Singh (Petitioner) by the then Administrative Head Bihar State Corporation Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80569 of 2024 dt.31-07-2025 5/16 Limited, Patna vide Memo No. 2883 dated 17.06.2008. Learned counsel for the Vigilance Department further submits that the Investigating Officer submitted Charge Sheet Number 243 of 2007 dated 19.11.2007 against the Petitioner-accused and sixteen other co-accused persons under Sections 109, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 477A, 120(B) and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 before the Special Court (Vigilance), Muzaffarpur. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court took cognizance vide order dated 23.07.2014 against the accused petitioner and others under Sections 109, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 477A, 120(B0 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Learned counsel for the Vigilance Department next submits that the case is at the stage of final argument, therefore, the judgment rendered in the case of Nanjappa (supra) is irrelevant and does not support the petitioner's case. It is lastly submitted by learned counsel for the Vigilance Department that the accused Petitioner along with other co-accused persons have approached this Court vide Cr. Misc. No. 79039 of 2023 for quashing of the order dated 04.09.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80569 of 2024 dt.31-07-2025 6/16 Muzaffarpur whereby the learned Trial Court has allowed the petition filed on behalf of the prosecution under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. in which Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 31.01.2024 has observed in paragraph 8 as under:- "8. that the quashing application is disposed of with a direction to the learned Trial Court to conclude the trial expeditiously and preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. " 6. Learned counsel for the Vigilance Department has referred the relevant Rules 32¼d½ and 53(1)¼x½ of Rules of Executive Business Rules, Government of Bihar, 1979, the same has been brought by means of counter affidavit annexing as Annexure-R/1 as well as Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which are as under:- "32¼d½ fuEufyf[kr ekeys] izHkkjh ea=h }kjk fopkfjr gks tkus ds ckn fdUrq vkns'k fudkyus ds iwoZ lac) foHkkx ds iz/kku lfpo@lfpo eq[; lfpo ds ekQZr eq[;ea=h ds lkeus miLFkkfir djsaxs& (i) vuqPNsn 161 ds vuqlkj naM dh {kerk] izfryEcu] fojke ;k NwV ds vFkok naMkns'k ds fuyEcu] NwV ;k y?kqdj.k ds izLrkoA (ii) uhfr lEcU/kh iz'u mBkus okys ekeys vkSj iz'kklfud egRo ds ekeys tks r`rh; vuqlwph ds vUrxZr u gksa; (iii) jkT; dh 'kkafr&lqO;oLFkk dks izHkkfor djus ;k dj ldus okys ekeys ; (iv) vuqlwfpr tkfr;ksa] vuqlwfpr tu&tkfr;ksa vkSj vU; fiNM+s oxksZa ds fgrksa ij izHkko Mkyus ;k Mky ldus okys ekeys ; Patna High Court CR. MISC. MISC. No.80569 of 2024 dt.31-07-2025 7/16 (v) Hkkjr ljdkj] fdlh vU; jkT; ljdkj mPpre U;k;ky; ;k mPp U;k;ky; ds lkFk jkT; ljdkj ds lEcU/k ij izHkko Mkyus okys ekeys ; (vi) fcuk fopkj.k O;fDr;ksa ds fujks/k ds fy;s vuqPNsn 22¼4½¼d½ ds v/khu lykgdkj cksMZ dk xBu (vii) fu;e 22(2)(i) ls lEcfU/kr ekeys ds vykok jkT; lsokvksa ds vU; inkf/kdkfj;ksa dks fuyafcr djus vFkok mUgsa fuUnu] n{krk ij jksd] osru o`f) ;k izksUufr dh jksd ;k iafDr P;wfr dk naM nsus dk izLrkoA (viii) vf[ky Hkkjrh; lsok vkSj fu;e 22(2)(ii) ls lEcfU/kr ekeys ds vykok jkT; lsokvksa ds inkf/kdkfj;ksa dh pkfjf=;ksa esa vfHkfyf[kr izfrdwy vH;qfDr;ksa dks :i Hksfnr ;k viyksfir djus dk izLrkoA (ix) foHkkxk/;{kksa dh fu;qfDr ;k foHkkxk/;{kksa ds inksa ij izksUufr dk izLrko& (i) Hkkjrh; iz'kklfud lsok ,oa Hkkjrh; vkj{kh lsok ds lqij Vkbe ,oa ojh; osrueku ds inkf/kdkjh ,oa bu lsokvksa ds mPprj osrueku ikusokys inkf/kdkfj;ksa ds lEcU/k esa izLrko ; ,oa (ii) eaf=eaMy lfpoky; dh ladYi la[;k 3918] fnukad 25 vDVwcj] 1980 ds vuqlkj fofHkUu foHkkxksa ds fy;s xfBr LFkkiuk lfefr dh vuq'kalk lfgr mi;qZDr mi&fu;e (iv)(i) esa mfYyf[kr inkf/kdkfj;ksa ds vfrfjDr foHkkxh; lfpo] fo'ks"k lfpo] vij lfpo] foHkkxk/;{k ,oa vU; inkf/kdkjh] ftuds osrueku dk vf/kdre osru 5]000 :0 ;k blls vf/kd gks] ds lEcU/k esa izLrkoA (x) fuokZpu vk;ksx dk dksbZ i= [kkldj LVkQ dh t:jr ds lEcU/k esa vkSj ml ij izLrkfor dkjZokbZA (xi) vf[ky Hkkjrh; lsokvksa ds inkf/kdkfj;ksa dks ns; osru] HkRrs ;k isa'ku ij izHkko Mkyus okys izLrko& (xii) jkT;iky dh futh LFkkiuk vkSj jktHkou lEcU/kh ekeysA (xiii) ,sls ekeys tks vuqlwfpr {ks=ksa esa laln ;k jkT; fo/kku&eaMy ds vf/kfu;e ykxw djus rFkk mu {ks=ksa esa 'kkafr vkSj lq'kklu ds fy;s fofu;e cukus ls lEcfU/kr gks] (xiv) bu fu;eksa ls dksbZ Hkh fopyu] tks eq[; lfpo ;k fdlh foHkkxh; iz/kku lfpoA lfpo dh tkudkjh esa vk;sA (xv) yksd&fuf/k ds xcu] nqfoZfu;ksx ;k gj.k ds ,sls lHkh ekeys] tgka 10]000 ¼nl gtkj½ :Ik;s ls vf/kd dh Patna High Court CR. MISC. MISC. No.80569 of 2024 dt.31-07-2025 8/16 jde vUrxZzLr gks] eq[;ea=h ds le{k j[ksa tk;saxs; mlls de jde okys ekeys foHkkx ds izHkkjh ea=h ds le{k j[ks tk;saxsA (xvi) ijke'kZnkr` lfefr] fudk;] fuxe] i"kZn bR;kfn dk xBu ; (xvii) 4]150 ¼pkj gtkj ,d lkS ipkl½ :i;s rd ds vf/kdre osru ikus okys inksa ij yksd&lsok vk;ksx dh vuq'kalk ds vk/kkj ij fu;qfDr ,oa izksUufr ds ekeysA (xviii) fdlh ekeys dh uhfr lEcU/kh ;k iz'kklfud egRo dk gksus ;k u gksus ds iz'uA (xix) fu;e 53¼1½ ^x^ ds varxZr lHkh izdkj dh vuq'kalk gSA 53.(i) lHkh iz'kklh foHkkx] fuEu ckrksa ds laca/k esa fof/k ¼U;k;½ foHkkx ¼fof/k ijke'khZ½ ls ijke'kZ djsaxs& ¼d½ ifjfu;e] vf/kfu;e] fofu;e vkSj ifjfu;e] fu;e] vkns'k rFkk vf/klwpuk dk vUo; ¼vFkZ yxkuk½ ¼[k½ fdlh ekeys ls mn~Hkwr lkekU; fof/k fl)kUr rFkk ¼x½ fdlh iz'kklh foHkkx dh izsj.kk ls dksbZ vfHk;kstu pyk;k ;k mBk;k tkukA fVIi.kh& vfHk;kstu laca/kh Lohd`R;kns'k fof/k ¼U;k;½ foHkkx }kjk gh fuxZr fd;k tk;xkA (2),sls gjsd funsZ'k ds lkFk ekeys ds rF;ksa dk vkSj ftl ckr ;k ftu ckrksa ij fof/k ¼U;k;½ foHkkx dh lykg okafNr gks] ml ckr ;k mu ckrksa dk Bhd&Bkd fooj.k Hkstk tk;xkA (emphasis supplied) "19. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution.---- (1) No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under [Sections 7, 11, 13 and 15] alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction [save as otherwise provided in the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013],— (a) in the case of a person [who is employed, or as the case may be, was at the time of Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80569 of 2024 dt.31-07-2025 9/16 commission of the alleged offence employed] in connection with the affairs of the Union and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Central Government, of that Government; (b) in the case of a person [who is employed, or as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed] in connection with the affairs of a State and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the State Government, of that Government; (c) in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office. [Provided that no request can be made, by a person other than a police officer or an officer of an investigation agency or other law enforcement authority, to the appropriate Government or competent authority, as the case may be, for the previous sanction of such Government or authority for taking cognizance by the court of any of the offences specified in this sub-section, unless— (i) such person has filed a complaint in a competent court about the alleged offences for which the public servant is sought to be prosecuted; and (ii) the court has not dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) and directed the complainant to obtain the sanction for prosecution against the public servant for further proceeding: Provided further that in the case of request from the person other than a police officer or an officer of an investigation agency or other law enforcement authority, the appropriate Government or competent authority shall not accord sanction to prosecute a public servant without providing an opportunity of being heard to the concerned public servant: Provided also that the appropriate Government or any competent authority shall, after the receipt of the proposal requiring sanction for prosecution of a public servant under this sub- section, endeavour to convey the decision on such Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80569 of 2024 dt.31-07-2025 10/16 proposal within a period of three months from the date of its receipt: Provided also that in case where, for the purpose of grant of sanction for prosecution, legal consultation is required, such period may, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, be extended by a further period of one month: Provided also that the Central Government may, for the purpose of sanction for prosecution of a public servant, prescribe such guidelines as it considers necessary. Explanation.—For the purposes of sub- section (1), the expression “public servant” includes such person— (a) who has ceased to hold the office during which the offence is alleged to have been committed; or (b) who has ceased to hold the office during which the offence is alleged to have been committed and is holding an office other than the office during which the offence is alleged to have been committed.] (2) Where for any reason whatsoever any doubt arises as to whether the previous sanction as required under sub-section (1) should be given by the Central Government or the State Government or any other authority, such sanction shall be given by that Government or authority which would have been competent to remove the public servant from his office at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed. (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; (b) no court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction granted by the authority, Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80569 of 2024 dt.31-07-2025 11/16 unless it is satisfied that such error, omission or irregularity has resulted in a failure of justice; (c) no court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on any other ground and no court shall exercise the powers of revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any inquiry, trial, appeal or other proceedings. (4) In determining under sub-section (3) whether the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in, such sanction has occasioned or resulted in a failure of justice the court shall have regard to the fact whether the objection could and should have been raised at any earlier stage in the proceedings. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (a) error includes competency of the authority to grant sanction; (b) a sanction required for prosecution includes reference to any requirement that the prosecution shall be at the instance of a specified authority or with the sanction of a specified person or any requirement of a similar nature. 7. Mr. Anil Singh, learned counsel for the Vigilance Department has also referred several judgments which are as under:- (i) The State of Punjab vs. Hari Kesh reported in AIR 2025 SC 729, the relevant para 8 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:- "8. In the instant case, it appears that the petition for quashing of Sanction Order was filed by the respondent after the trial court framed the charge and commenced the trial, rather after the prosecution examined five witnesses. It is pertinent to note that whether the Sanction has been granted by the competent authority Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80569 of 2024 dt.31-07-2025 12/16 or not, would be a matter of evidence. Further, as per the Explanation to sub- section (4), for the purpose of Section 19, error includes "competency of the authority to grant Sanction." Therefore, in view of the settled legal position, the High Court should not have quashed the Sanction Order and the consequent proceedings, unless it was satisfied that the failure of justice had occurred by such error or irregularity or invalidity. There is not a whisper in the impugned order about any failure of justice having occurred on account of the impugned Sanction Order. The High Court also should not have entertained the petition for quashing the Sanction Order when the prosecution had already examined seven witnesses." (ii) State Rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Chennai City-I, Department vs. G. Easwaran reported in AIR 2025 SC 1848, the relevant paras 13 and 14 are as under:- "13. Similar view was taken in Director, Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ashok Kumar Aswal, where it was held that: "15. All the above apart, time and again, this Court has laid down that the validity of a sanction order, if one exists, has be to be tested on the touchstone of the prejudice to the accused which is essentially a question of fact and, therefore, should be left to be determined in the course of the trial and not in the exercise of jurisdiction either under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in a proceeding under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution." (emphasis supplied) Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80569 of 2024 dt.31-07-2025 13/16 14. Thus, there is no doubt that the High Court committed an error in quashing the prosecution on the ground that the sanction to prosecute is illegal and invalid. In conclusion, we find that the objections raised in the revision petition against the Special Court's order dismissing the discharge application were identical to the grounds raised in the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., from which the present appeal arises. Second, apart from being congruent and overlapping, the respondent could not demonstrate any material change in facts and circumstances between the dismissal of the revision petition by the High Court and the filing of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Third, the validity of the sanction can always be examined during the course of the trial and the problems due to the typographical error as alleged by the State could have been explained by producing the file at the time of trial. Fourth, it is settled that a mere delay in the grant of sanction for prosecuting a public authority is not a ground to quash a criminal case." (iii) Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal reported in (2014) 14 SCC 295, the relevant para 59 reads as under:- "59. Undoubtedly, the stage of examining the validity of sanction is during the trial and we do not propose to say that the validity should be examined during the stage of inquiry or at pre-trial stage." Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80569 of 2024 dt.31-07-2025 14/16 (iv) State of Madhya Pradesh v. Virender Kumar Tripathi reported in (2009) 15 SCC 533 , the relevant Para 8 reads as under:- "8. So far as the defect in sanction aspect is concerned, the circular on which the High Court has placed reliance needs to be noted. The Circular in question is dated 9-2- 1988 the relevant portion reads as follows: “The Government also decided that before giving approval of prosecutions, the Principal Secretary, Law and Legal Department will obtain the advice of department concerned.” A bare perusal of the paragraph shows that before giving approval for prosecution, advice of the department concerned was necessary. The question arises whether the absence of advice renders the sanction inoperative. Undisputedly, the sanction has been given by the Department of Law and Legislative Affairs. The State Government had granted approval of the prosecution. As noted above, the sanction was granted in the name of the Governor of the State by the Additional Secretary, Department of Law and Legislative Affairs. The advice at the most is an interdepartmental matter." 9. Considering the aforesaid submissions and legal proposition cited by learned respective counsels for the parties and the settled position of law, I am of the view that there is only one point which is required to be considered; (i) Whether sanction has been granted by the competent authority or not? Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80569 of 2024 dt.31-07-2025 15/16 10. In view of the aforesaid legal and factual submissions and also taking note of the aforesaid legal propositions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, Prima facie, I find that the the sanction has been granted by the Secretary of the Law Department vide Memo No. 2883 dated 17.06.2008 who is the competent authority in view of Rules 32¼d½ and 53(1)¼x½ of Executive Business Rules, Government of Bihar, 1979 as well as the sanction has already been accorded before the cognizance order dated 23.07.2014. I am also of the view that the case is at the final stage of argument as such it will not be proper to interfere the case in hand at the stage of final argument. I am also of the view that these are the disputed questions of facts and based on documents, which could have been brought during trial by way of supporting documents. 11. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the order dated 19.09.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Muzaffarpur by which the learned trial Court has rejected the discharge/acquittal petition filed by the petitioner on the ground of absence of proper sanction as provided under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code read with Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in connection with Special Case No. 94 of 2002 arising out of Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80569 of 2024 dt.31-07-2025 16/16 Vigilance Case No. 7 of 2000 dated 28.0.2000 registered under Sections 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 477A, 120B, 109 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 12. Accordingly, the present quashing application stands dismissed. 13. However, the present order will not prejudice the learned trial Court in conclusion of the trial. Further, the trial Court is directed to comply with the observation made by a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court on 31.01.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 79039 of 2023. 14. It is made clear that the observations, if any, made in this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial. Vikash/- (Sourendra Pandey, J) AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date Transmission Date