IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.73025 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-24 Year-2014 Thana- VIGILANCE District- Patna ======================================================

Nand Kishor Singh Son Of Late Awadh Bihari Singh Resident Of Village-

Singhra, P.S.- Konch, District- Gaya.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Vigilance Department Bihar

2. Director General of Police, Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. Bihar

3. The Superintendent -cum-S.H.O. Vigilance, P.S.-Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Bihar, Patna. Bihar

4. Principal Secretary, Finance Department Old Secretariat, Government of Bihar. Bihar

5. Secretary, Law Department, Old Secretariat, Government of Bihar,Patna.

Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pratap Sharma For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Arvind Kumar ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER

4 27-01-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Vigilance.

2. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 14.06.2019 passed by learned Special Judge Vigilance-1, Patna whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken u/s 7/13 (2) alongwith section 13 (1) (D) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and u/s 420/466/468/477 (A) of Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the petitioner, along with his co-official Anand Kumar, allegedly demanded a bribe for passing various bills (Bill No. 56/2013-14, 57/2013- 14, and 18/2013-14), which pertained to the arrears of salary of one Sushila Kumari, a teacher at Rajkiya Prathmik Vidyalaya, Sachai. The complaint was filed by Sri Ram Pravesh Singh and the FIR was lodged against the petitioner and others on 27.03.2014 under Sections 7, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d)

of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is quite innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case only with a purpose for pressurizing the treasury staff because the original informant is treasury messenger of Kurtha Block. He further submits that the aforesaid bill was submitted on 28.02.2014 before Arwal treasury by original informant Sri Ram Pravesh Singh on 28.02.2014. The aforesaid bill was returned by Arwal Treasury on some objection on 03.03.2014 in accordance with Treasury rules. The aforesaid bill was deposited on 29.03.2014 in Arwal Treasury by original informant by removing the defects with messenger's register itself.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on 26.06.2015, the District Magistrate of Arwal informed the Finance Department that the FIR against the petitioner appears to be false and requested guidance from the Finance Department on the matter. According to information provided by the Vigilance Department under the Right to Information Act (RTI) in letters dated 06.05.2014, 20.05.2014, and 06.06.2014, Bills No. 56/57/58 for the year 2013-14 were in the custody of the Vigilance Department. He further submits that despite the lack of any evidence and without considering the material available in the case, the prosecution sanction order was issued on 02.02.2016 through memo No.12.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on 19.04.2018, the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, wrote a letter to the Investigating Officer (I.O.) of the case, instructing them to take custody of the original Bills No. 56/57/58-2013-14 so that charges could be substantiated against the petitioner. On 04.09.2018, the Accountant General of Bihar issued a direction to the Treasury Officer of Arwal to hand over the aforementioned bills. He further submits that despite the absence of any evidence or material to support the charges, the respondents proceeded to sanction the prosecution against the petitioner through an order dated