JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Bhanu Kumar alongwith Ms. Bharti Kumari, the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Rajiv Sinha, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India alongwith Mr. Niraj Verma, the learned counsel appearing for the Union of India.

3. Heard Mr. T.N. Verma, learned counsel appearing for the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ranchi.

4. Heard Mr. Jai Prakash, learned Additional Advocate General-I alongwith Mr. Yogesh Modi, learned counsel appearing for the State of Jharkhand.

5. This petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

(a) For quashing the Order No. 15/J dated 15.04.2015 in connection with Vigilance Special Case No. 66 of 2010 corresponding to Vigilance P.S. Case No. 49 of 2010 issued by the Principal Secretary-cum-Legal Remembrancer, Law (Justice) Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi by which sanction for prosecution of the petitioner under Sections 420, 120B, 467, 468, 471, 109, 409 and 406 of IPC has been granted under Section 197(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. which, according to the petitioner, is without proper application of mind.

(b) For quashing the Order No. 15011/4/2015-AVU dated 08.02.2018 issued by the Under Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change, Vigilance Division, New Delhi by which sanction for prosecution of the petitioner under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120(B), 109 of IPC and Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(D) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has been granted under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which, according to the petitioner, is without proper application of mind.

(c) For quashing the order taking cognizance dated 26.02.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge (A.C.B.), Ranchi in Vigilance (Special) Case No. 66(A)/2010 corresponding to Vigilance P.S. Case No. 49 of 2010.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted as under:

(i) One order dated 09.09.2010 (Annexure-1) was passed by this Court in a Public Interest Litigation being W.P.(PIL) No. 4597 of 2009 with W.P.(PIL) No. 2772 of 2009 wherein, inter alia, liberty was given to the petitioners of the said case to file First Information Report with the police station and this very order forms the basis of initiation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, although the petitioner was not impleaded as a party respondent in the said case.

(ii) One Bhola Nath Singh had filed a written complaint before the Director General, Vigilance, State of Jharkhand, Ranchi for lodging First Information Report against four persons in which the petitioner was named as accused no. 4 in the capacity of the then Director, Sports pertaining to conduct of 34th National Games at Ranchi. However, the informant i.e. Bhola Nath Singh had mentioned in the written information dated 27.09.2010 (Annexure-4) that it is apparent from the facts stated therein that the accused nos. 1 to 3 have resorted to several acts of misappropriation, defalcation and embezzlement of public funds and in turn, trying to shift their liability upon the then Chief Minister, Sports Minister and Director, Sports. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that accordingly it was crystal clear that although the petitioner was named as accused no. 4, but he had no role in the alleged act of misappropriation, defalcation and embezzlement of public fund.

(iii) It is the specific grievance of the petitioner that although the petitioner was not impleaded as respondent in the said Public Interest Litigation, still without any preliminary enquiry conducted against the petitioner, an F.I.R. (Annexure-5) was lodged vide Vigilance P.S. Case No. 49/2010 dated 06.10.2010 under Sections 420, 120B, 467, 468, 471, 109, 409, 406 of Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against four persons including the petitioner. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that surprisingly in the written information, the name of the petitioner