D.N.PRASAD, J. - (1.) THIS application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") whereby and whereunder Shri N.K. Srivastava, the learned Special Judge, C.B.I. (A.H.D.), Ranchi took cognizance of the offences under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471, 477A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the accused persons including the petitioner.
(2.) THE first information report was lodged by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) alleging therein that there has been fraudulent withdrawal of Government money under deep conspiracy committed by the accused persons including the petitioner along with the private suppliers of the materials which have never been supplied resulting misappropriation of Rs. 1,05,13,827/ - after withdrawing the money by submitting fake bills. Counter -affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the CBI refuting the statements made in the application. It is stated that the petitioner has already retired from service in the year 1998 and the petitioner being a non -gazetted employee, no sanction is required against him. It is further submitted that the petitioner was indulged in deep conspiracy with the accused - suppliers/firms and passed fake bills of the articles, which have never been purchased/ supplied to the Animal Husbandry Department (A.H.D.) and thus knowingly violated the provisions of Bihar Treasury Code (the Treasury Code) and the Financial Rules (the Rules) resulting withdrawal of a huge amount totaling Rs. 60,17,019.23 paise by the petitioner. It has also been mentioned that the petitioner checked total 147 bills of various accused/suppliers out of which 131 bills amounting to Rs. 60,17,019.23 paise found to the false.
(3.) MR . Rajesh Shankar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the learned Court below committed error in taking cognizance of the offence without applying his judicial mind as the petitioner was an Assistant in the Ranchi Treasury and there has been no violation of any provisions of the Treasury Code or any other Financial Rules. It is further argued that Rule 144 of the Treasury Code states about the general instruction regarding preparation of the bills which does not authorize a Treasury Officer to refuse passing of bill if it is in proper form. So there was no responsibility whatsoever on the part of the petitioner for refusing the bills submitted by the suppliers as those bills are said to be in order. It is also submitted that the Treasury is only explainable or accountable to the Accountant General of the State. It is further argued that the petitioner being a Government official and there is a pre - condition that the trial Court should not take cognizance of the offences made against him without previous sanction and in the instant case, no sanction has been obtained, but even then, the learned Court below took cognizance of the offence by violating the mandatory provision of Section 197 of the Code. The learned counsel also relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay, AIR 1984 SC 684.;