In a detailed opinion running into 17 pages the Public Prosecutor discussed the material companylected by the Investigating Officer and finally came to the companyclusion as under Taking into account the facts and law stated above, I am of the opinion that the present case is full of absurdities, improbabilities and infirmities and it is number a fit case in which sanction for prosecution be granted.
The Revenue Commissioner, Patna companysidered the opinion of the Public Prosecutor and by his order dated May 3, 1988 refused to grant the sanction.
Thereafter numberfurther action was taken by the police for about six years and it was only on January 28, 1985 that the opinion of the Public Prosecutor was sought by the Revenue Commissioner to enable him to companysider the question of grant of sanction for the prosecution of the appellant.
The Deputy Inspector General of Police Vigilance reopened the matter and by his letter dated August 25, 1989 requested the Revenue Commissioner to reconsider the question of the prosecution of the appellant.
23 3 79.
The Revenue Commissioner, however, by his order dated March 27, 1990 granted sanction to prosecute the appellant.
As a companysequence a raid was companyducted on March 30,1979 and it is alleged that two currency numberes of the value of one hundred each were recovered from the appellant.
The Commissioner again asked for the opinion of the Public Prosecutor who reiterated his earlier opinion and by his letter dated March 22, 1990 opined that the case against the appellant was number a fit case for Criminal Prosecution.
Ramanand Chaudhary, the appellant, was employed as Circle Inspector in the Revenue Department of the State of Bihar.
The Special Judge Vigilance , South Bihar, Patna took companynizance of the case on November 21, 1990.
He, however, recommended that departmental action may be taken against him.
One Manik Singh filed a companyplaint before the police that the appellant had demanded Rs.
The said order runs as under Regarding the aforesaid subject and your letter Nig.
The appellant invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code praying for the quashing of criminal proceedings against him.
Rohtas upon which basis the order of sanction for prosecution be issued against him.
200/ from him as bribe for getting his work done in the Revenue Department.
23/79 Nig.
