Bibek Chaudhuri, J.—Heard learned Advocate for the petitioners as well as learned APP for the State.

2. The instant criminal case under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the accused persons/petitioners praying for quashing of Complaint Case No. C2-1/2018 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi and order dated 23rd May, 2018, passed against the petitioners, under Section 53 of the Bihar Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1981 (hereinafter described as Cane Act for short).

3. The learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that the order of cognizance taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi was complete abuse of the process of the Court because of the fact that the petitioners being the Managing Director and other Directors of Riga Sugar Company Limited can not be prosecuted for their act, purported to be done in course of day to day business of the Company without impleading the Company as one of the accused in the petition of complaint. Secondly, it is contended by the learned Advocate for the petitioners that the petition of complaint is barred under the law as no sanction order was obtained by the complainant before filing the complaint.

4. Case of the prosecution in brief is that for the crushing season 2017-18, the Riga Sugar Company Limited purchased 17,03,634.73 quintals of sugarcane at the consideration price of Rs. 46,38,45,475.00/-. The said amount was to be paid by 7th February, 2018. However, the Company paid an amount of Rs. 3,09,07,355.00/- up to 7th February, 2018 and remaining amount of Rs. 43,29,38,120.00/- remains due. In terms of Section 43-2(1) of the Cane Act, cane price is to be paid within 14 days of supply and for delayed payment interest is to be paid. Non payment of money, attracts offences under Section 52 of the Cane Act, 1981. Non payment of price of cane purchased by the Company attracted offence under Section 52 of the Cane Act. The Company and accused persons were repeatedly requested to make payment of the remaining money, but they have not paid the said money and committed offence in violation of Section 13 (8) and (9) of the Cane Act.

5. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors., reported in 1992 (Suppl.) 1 SCC 335 held that a prosecution is liable to be quashed:—

“where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.”

6. The learned Advocate on behalf of the petitioners refers to a decision passed by a Coordinate Bench on 1st March, 2024 in the case of C.L. Shukla vs. State of Bihar and Another, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Pat 856 that the:—

“grant of sanction for prosecution of any public servant is a solemn and sacrosanct act. It is not intended to be empty and automatic formality. The Sanctioning Authority is required to pass sanction order with all sincerity keeping in mind the public interest and protection available to the public servants. The prosecution is required to provide all the relevant facts/material collected during investigation which constitute the alleged offence. Thereafter, the Sanctioning Authority is required to consider such facts/material to reach satisfaction whether the Accused has prima facie committed the alleged offence. The sanction order must ex facie reflect production of all relevant materials by the prosecution to the Sanctioning Authority and application of mind by the Sanctioning Authority to the facts and circumstances produced before him. The order must be speaking in nature. If it transpires from the sanction order that all the relevant facts/material was not produced before the Sanctioning Authority or the Sanctioning Authority has not applied his mind