ORDER 1. Heard the parties. 2. Petitioner, Sharavan Kumar, has filed this application for quashing the order taking cognizance, dated 22.4.2006, passed in Special Case No. 21 of 2002 arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No.7 of 2002 by Special Judge, Vigilance, Patna, for offences under Sections 420, 465, 466, 467,471, 477A, 201,109 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. On the complaint of a Member of Legislative Assembly, vigilance enquiry was initiated against Ashok Kumar Singh, I.A.S., the then Managing Director, Bihar State Financial Corporation, on certain allegations. This enquiry was entrusted to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance. The enquiry was conducted to allegations of defalcation of money, appointing his relative as an Advocate and payment of heavy legai fee to him, illegally sanctioning lacs and crores as loan, helping scamesters of Animal Husbandry Department and creating two organizations, namely, "Samvedna" and "Green Earth India" for raising donations from loanee, entrepreneurs as well as acquiring various immovable properties at different places. This enquiry continued for a prolonged period. Ashok Kumar Singh, who was expecting his promotion and deputation at Centre, was anxious for conclusion of enquiry. Petitioner, who was an Advocate, was engaged as a lawyer for filing a writ petition for a direction for conclusion of the vigilance enquiry. Writ application was disposed of with a direction to conclude enquiry within a time schedule. It was not concluded within the time scheduled, as such, petition for contempt was filed. Show cause was filed by the Director General of Police, Vigilance, alongwith the report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance. The Vigilance Commissioner gave an undertaking to complete the enquiry within six months. In spite of undertaking the enquiry continued endlessly. Finally Vigilance P.S. Case No.7 of 2002 was instituted on 20.8.2002 on the report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance. In the first information report, petitioner was also made an accused. Allegation against the petitioner is related to his appointment by the Board of Directors of the Bihar State Financial Corporation as Advocate of the Bihar State Financial Corporation and his functioning as the Secretary of the N.G.O., "Green Earth India". 4. In paragraph 15 of the first information report, specific allegation has been made against the petitioner, which is that he was the Secretary of "Green Earth India". 4. In paragraph 15 of the first information report, specific allegation has been made against the petitioner, which is that he was the Secretary of "Green Earth India". When enquiry was made from him by the investigating officer regarding "Green Earth India" and "Samvedna" as well as asked to produce documents relating to these two organizations, he refused to make any statement and replied that since he is defending the case of Ashok Kumar Singh at Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi as well as Patna High Court, he will not reveal anything. After disposal of L.P.A. No. 281 of 2000 at Jharkhand High Court, again Sharavan Kumar (petitioner) was approached and he replied that during investigation, legally he cannot be compelled to make any statement. Further, it has been alleged that in course of investigation it transpired that Sharavan Kumar was also an Advocate of the Bihar State Financial Corporation. He was appointed Advocate of the Bihar State Financial Corporation during the working period of Ashok Kumar Sinqh in the light of the resolution of the Board of Directors, like other two Advocates, Mr. P.K. Shahi and Arshad Alam.12.5.1994 to 19.6.1998 Ashok Kumar singh was posted as the Managing Director of the Bihar State Financial Corporation and Sharavan Kumar was appointed as Advocate on 26.9.1994. In between 1994 to 1998 Sharavan Kumar was paid Rs. 2,35,460/- as his fee and till 27.3.2002 total Rs. 6,93,200/- was paid to him as his fee. Huge amount was withdrawn from saving bank account number 5174 of. "Green Earth India" under the signature of Sharavan Kumar. Investigation also revealed that Sharavan Kumar was connected with both "Green Earth India and "Samvedna" organizations. Money which was deposited in the accounts of these two organizations were not utilized to meet the object of the organizations, but, it was invested and deposited in fixed deposits for earning interests as well as for personal benefits of Ashok Kumar Singh and other members of the two organizations. 5. On the basis of such allegations charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner and cognizance has been taken by the impugned order. 6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the first information report has been lodged primarily against Ashok Kumar Singh. All allegations revolve around him only, but, till the date charg-sheet has not been submitted against him. 5. On the basis of such allegations charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner and cognizance has been taken by the impugned order. 6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the first information report has been lodged primarily against Ashok Kumar Singh. All allegations revolve around him only, but, till the date charg-sheet has not been submitted against him. The charge-sheet has been submitted against all other persons, but, Ashok Kumar Singh, for whose acts and omissions the vigilance case has been initiated. The charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner minus Ashok Kumar Singh illegally, on the basis of such charge-sheet, cognizance has been taken against him though in the first information report as well as in the charge-sheet there is no evidence for making out prima facie any offence against the petitioner. 7. There is no charge of pecuniary personal advantage against the petitioner. Nowhere it has been alleged that petitioner either induced any of the loanee, entrepreneur or the industrialist to deposit any amount in the account of the organizations. There is no allegation that the donations and contributions deposited by individuals in the accounts of organization, have been misappropriated or defalcated by the petitioner. Simple allegation is that cheques were issued with the signature of the petitioner for withdrawal of money which have been invested in fixed deposits or in other modes of investments. The money were deposited in the name of organizations itself and not in the name of the petitioner or his family members. Those deposited money have not been misutilized The money, deposited was not a Government money and the contributors of such money have not made any complaint. So far the petitioner is concerned, offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)( d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is not made out against him. Still he has been implicated by the vigilance just to humiliate him and to give a death blow to his career. 8. It has also been submitted that another allegation against the petitioner was that he was appointed as an Advocate of the Bihar State Financial Corporation during the working period of Ashok Kumar Singh is completely baseless allegation. Still he has been implicated by the vigilance just to humiliate him and to give a death blow to his career. 8. It has also been submitted that another allegation against the petitioner was that he was appointed as an Advocate of the Bihar State Financial Corporation during the working period of Ashok Kumar Singh is completely baseless allegation. Petitioner on account of his 21 years long experience at bar and also having specific experience for working in the Board and Corporation, was engaged in the year 1994 by the Board of the Bihar State Financial Corporation, as an Advocate in addition to three Advocates at the same rate of fee as payable to other Advocates. Such baseless and unfounded allegation do not make out a prima facie case under the Prevention of Corruption Act or offence under the Indian Penal Code. 9. Counsel for the petitioner submits that to bring the case under the ambit of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code not only cheating simplicitor, but also dishonest inducement to person sought to be deceived to deliver any property is required. There is no allegation against the petitioner either of cheating anyone or inducing anyone to deliver any property. So far offences under Sections 465, 466 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code are concerned, there is no allegation that the petitioner has forged any documents or cheated anyone on the basis of such forged document. For making out an offence under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code, there must be an allegation that fraudulent document has been dishonestly used as genuine having knowledge that it is forged document, there is no such allegation against the petitioner. Similarly, there is no allegation against the petitioner for prima facie making out an offence under Section 477A of the Indian Penal Code. For making out an offence under Section 477A, the person must wilfully and with intent to defraud, destroy, alter, mutilate or falsify any book, paper, writing, valuable security or account which belongs to or is in possession of his employer or has been received by him for or on behalf of his employer. Petitioner was not an employee of main accused, Ashok Kumar Singh, and he has neither destroyed, altered' or falsi, fied any paper or valuable security, there is no such allegation. Petitioner was not an employee of main accused, Ashok Kumar Singh, and he has neither destroyed, altered' or falsi, fied any paper or valuable security, there is no such allegation. For making out an offence under Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, there must be allegation that a public servant (i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantages; or (ii) by abusing his position as public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantages; or (iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest. Admittedly, petitioner is not a public servant and there is no allegation that he obtained any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means either for himself or for any other person. For a short period petitioner was the Secretary. During this period, he never made any attempt to raise donations for organizations. The money which was deposited in the fund of the organizations remained in the name of those organizations. It was never used for personal benefit of the petitioner. In this circumstance, with the aid of Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code it cannot be said that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner for the alleged offences. 10. The counsel appearing for the Vigilance has submitted that petitioner was the Advocate of Ashok Kumar Singh. He has conducted his cases in different High Courts and the Supreme Court which indicates his close intimacy with Ashok Kumar Singh. Petitioner was Secretary of one of the organizations which was created by Ashok Kumar Singh in conspiracy with others for collecting illegal money by corrupt means and misusing his public office. Such illegal collected money was withdrawn with the signature of the petitioner. Instead of spending such illegally collected money for the aims and objects of the organizations it was invested and deposited for multiplying the same and earning interest. This shows that the petitioner was, part of the conspiracy. He co-operated and assisted Ashok Kumar Singh in investing the illegally acquired money. A prima facie case is made out against the petitioner for the offences alleged specially when cognizance has been taken also under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 11. This shows that the petitioner was, part of the conspiracy. He co-operated and assisted Ashok Kumar Singh in investing the illegally acquired money. A prima facie case is made out against the petitioner for the offences alleged specially when cognizance has been taken also under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 11. On perusal of entire material, it is apparent that the petitioner being an Advocate of Ashok Kumar Singh has given him legal advice, legal opinion and legal help. Anyone, even the criminal, if approaches an Advocate for legal help that cannot be denied to such person as everyone has fundamental right to defend himself in the Court of law. Simply because the petitioner has given legal help to Ashok Kumar Singh, who is the main accused and around whom entire allegations revolves, it cannot be said that petitioner was the part of conspiracy. Admittedly, petitioner is not a Government servant. He was an Advocate of Bihar State Financial Corporation, but, in that capacity it cannot be said that he was a Government servant. If, petitioner did not make any statement against his client during investigation it cannot be said to be an offence. This is fully covered under the professional ethics under the Advocates Act and it cannot be termed as an offence. Besides non-co-operation in the investigation as well as being Secretary of the organization "Green Earth India" for a limited period, there is no other allegation against the petitioner. So far the appointment of the petitioner, as an Advocate of the Bihar State Financial Corporation, is concerned, it is mentioned in the first information report itself that there was a resolution of the Board of Directors for his appointment. Professional fee, paid to him, cannot be suspected as a part of conspiracy considering the fact that similar fee was paid to other Advocates of the Bihar State Financial Corporation. 12. Merely on the basis of suspicion howsoever strong it may be one cannot be made an accused taking aid of Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. To make out an offence of criminal conspiracy there must be some material to show that there was an agreement between the persons for doing same illegal act by illegal means and also that besides agreement some more act was done by the parties in pursuance of it. To make out an offence of criminal conspiracy there must be some material to show that there was an agreement between the persons for doing same illegal act by illegal means and also that besides agreement some more act was done by the parties in pursuance of it. In order to show that there was an agreement, there must be some evidence of meeting of mind. I find that in the present case none of the ingredients are present to rope the petitioner for offence under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 13. For the facts, stated above, the order of cognizance is bad. The order, dated 22.4.2006, passed in Special Case No.21 of 2002 arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 7 of 2002 by the Special Judge, Vigilance, Patna, is quashed. 14. Accordingly, this application is allowed.