The lack of evidence connecting the petitioner to the alleged offences, his exoneration in the departmental proceeding, and the refusal of the Central Government to grant sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act were central to the court's decision.

D.N. Upadhyay, J.

Heard the parties.

2. This Cr.M.P. has been filed for quashing the order dated 10.02.2015 by which the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Hazaribagh has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 109, 409, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Special Case No. 9(A)/1995 [Vigilance P.S. Case No. 16 of 1995] and the entire criminal prosecution arising out of said case as against the petitioner.

3. The prosecution case as it appears from the First Information Report is that between the financial years 1988 – 89, 1989 – 90 and 1990 – 91, bungling, forgery and misappropriation of the property had taken place in purchase of pesticides – Aldrine Dust and Aldrex 30. There was direction by the Forest and Environmental Department, then Government of Bihar to purchase pesticides and for that different Forest Divisions within the State were authorised. It was detected that M/s. Krishi Vikas Bhandar, Manpur, Gaya, M/s. Gramin Vikas Kendra, Sadar Bazar, Chaibasa and M/s. Allied Agro Chemicals Industries, Deoghar had furnished tender and succeeded to obtain supply order and realised the amount from the concerned Department. As a matter of fact no such Firm named above were in existence and it were represented by false and fictitious persons. Shri Kamlesh Kumar, Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Patna had lodged a voluminous F.I.R.

4. In the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, the petitioner is concerned with the purchase made by Hazaribgh Afforestation Division. Due to involvement of petitioner and other accused, the Government has sustained loss of Rs.12,23,000/- against the purchase of pesticides alleged to have been made by Hazaribagh Afforestation Division and name of concerned Firm is M/s. Gramin Vikas Kendra, Sadar Bazar, Chaibasa.

5. Since case of the petitioner is limited to the extent of purchases made by Hazaribagh Afforestation Division and the Firm M/s. Gramin Vikas Kendra, Sadar Bazar, Chaibasa, I do not feel it desirable to reproduce the entire prosecution case as it appears in the written report.

6. The petitioner was an I.F.S. Officer and he was attached with the Hazaribagh Afforestation Division. In the year 1988, the petitioner along with others committed bungling by facilitating monetary benefits to accused Arun Kumar Murarka alleged to be proprietor of a fake and non existing firm -M/s. Gramin Vikas Kendra, Sadar Bazar, Chaibasa. The Vigilance Department found that the petitioner was a Member of the Purchase Committee in the year 1987 – 88 and he along with other Government officials, in connivance with the proprietor of said fake firm, flouted the prescribed Rules by accepting and signing the comparative tender chart and also by approving the lowest rate submitted by said fake firm and, thereby, siphoning the revenue and caused wrongful loss to the Forest and Environment Department/ State Exchequer.

7. On the basis of detailed written report lodged by the then Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Patna, Vigilance P.S. Case No. 16 of 1995 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 201, 109, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 5(2), 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 corresponding to Sections 13(2), 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered.

8. The investigation was carried out and sanction for prosecution granted by the State Government was obtained vide order dated 05.10.2004. For obtaining sanction for prosecution of the petitioner under Prevention of Corruption Act, relevant documents and evidences were forwarded to the Central Government. The Central Government, Ministry of Environment and Forest, after examining the documents, evidence and records, refused to grant sanction against the petitioner. Thereafter, the S.P., Vigilance, has given opinion and suggested to submit final form against the petitioner but the D.I.G. Vigilance, State of Jharkhand did not agree with the sugges