The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Special Judge's actions in proceeding with the complaint without a valid sanction order for prosecuting public servants charged with acts of corruption were illegal and unsustainable.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State, learned counsel for the Vigilance Investigation Bureau and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.

2. In the present application preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’), the petitioner has made two prayers. His first prayer is for quashing the order dated 18.05.2015 passed by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance-II, Patna in Special Case No. 08 of 2014 arising out of Complaint Case No. 8951(C) of 2013 by which after perusing the case record and enquiry report sent by the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and after recording that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner and two others named in the complaint, namely, Lal Dhari Chaudhary, the then Revenue Karamchari, Baliya, Begusarai, Dr. S.S. Asfaque and Nehal Akhtar (petitioner), the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Investigation Bureau has been directed to register an FIR and investigate the same on the basis of the complaint. The second prayer of the petitioner is to quash the First Information Report of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 103 of 2015 dated 09.12.2015 arising out of Special Case No. 08 of 2014/22 of 2015 registered under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 420, 201, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

3. The facts giving rise to this case, in brief, are that one Abdul Alim son of Kaji Salim filed a complaint case in the court of Special Judge, Vigilance-II, Patna on 16.01.2014, vide Special Case No. 08 of 2014, alleging therein that his grand father, namely, Kaji Md. Muslim was the owner of the land measuring 19 bighas, 13 kathas and 4 dhurs vide Tauzi no.665, Thana no. 627. His name stood recorded in the revenue register, rent receipt was granted in his favour and he was coming in peaceful possession. The accused nos.4 and 5, namely, Dr. S.S. Asfaque and Nehal Akhtar with an intention to grab the aforesaid land of the complainant created a forged and fabricated sale deed no. 5620 dated 02.12.1957 vide page no.113 to 118, book no. 1 and volume no. 36, which was produced before the authority concerned with intention to use as genuine knowing very well that the same was forged one. When the complainant came to know about the forgery of the aforesaid accused persons, he applied for certified copy of the same and when the same was supplied, he became aware of the fact that the vendor and the vendee were different persons. He further alleged that the aforestated accused persons in conspiracy with accused nos. 1, 2 and 3, namely, Fateh Faiyaj, the then Circle Officer, Balia, Begusarai, Shailendra Kumar Singh, the then Circle Inspector of Balia, Begusarai and Lal Dhari Chaudhary, the then Revenue Clerk of Circle Office, Balia, Begusarai forged and fabricated the sale deed dated 02.12.1957 and in place of name of his ancestor they got the name of father of accused nos.4 and 5 registered by making interpolation in the revenue record. He alleged that the accused nos. 1 to 3 being public servants issued rent receipt in favour of accused nos. 4 and 5 after taking illegal gratification.

4. After instituting the complaint, the Special Judge made an enquiry from the complainant and heard the submissions of the advocate representing him and vide order dated 16.01.2014, the date on which the complaint was filed, the learned Special Judge sent a copy of the same to the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Investigation Bureau for investigation and report and adjourned the case to 15.02.2014. Since then, the case was adjourned to different dates awaiting the investigation report, which was submitted in the court on 12.02.2015, the date on which the learned Special Judge perused the investigation report and directed for keeping the same on record. Thereafter, on 25.02.2015, he fixed 12.03.2015 as the date for hearing the counsel for the complainant on the investigation report. On