Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 6.10.2005 passed by the Special Judge (Vigilance) North Bihar, Muzaffarpur in Special Case No. 14/2005 arising out of Khanpur PS. Case No. 64/ 2005 by which he has taken cognizance of the offences under Sec. 420 IPC and Sections 7 and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the petitioner and another accused person. 3. The petitioner is Mukhiya of Shobhan Gram Panchayat and the case was lodged against him and another co-accused Shashi Bhushan Mahto who was Ward Member of Ward No. 5 of the Gram Panchayat with respect to illegality committed by them under Indira Aawas Yojana, namely, that they had taken as bribe an amount of Rs. 5,000/- from each of the beneficiaries of the said scheme. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted in the matter and thereafter cognizance has been taken by the learned Special Judge under the aforesaid provisions. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat would be a public servant whose case is squarely covered by the provisions of Sec. 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and thus no cognizance could have been taken against him under Section 7 of the said Act without there being sanction accorded by the competent authority. He submits that the admitted position is that no sanction at all was accorded in his case and the cognizance has been taken without such sanction which is wholly illegal. With respect to Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, it is submitted that the same does not apply to a public servant rather to a person who induces a public servant to commit illegal act and with respect to Sec. 420 IPC it is submitted that the Special Judge, Vigilance has no jurisdiction to take cognizance under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code only if the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act are not attracted to the case. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard refers to an earlier order dated 27.4.2006 (Annexure-3) passed by this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 12370/2006 filed by co-accused Shashi Bhushan Kumar alias Shashi Bhushan Mahto in which this Court after considering the entire issues has quashed the impugned order dated 6.10.2005 as against the said co-accused- petitioner of that case. 6. Misc. No. 12370/2006 filed by co-accused Shashi Bhushan Kumar alias Shashi Bhushan Mahto in which this Court after considering the entire issues has quashed the impugned order dated 6.10.2005 as against the said co-accused- petitioner of that case. 6. Learned counsel for the Vigilance, on the other hand, sought to support the impugned order on the basis of various provisions like Sec. 19(3)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. However, the said provision has no application to a case where the cognizance itself has been taken without any sanction at all and does not apply to the present matter where there is a statutory bar to the Court for taking cognizance without a previous sanction with respect to the accused concerned. Learned counsel for the Vigilance was also unable to point out any decision which is contrary to what has been held by this Court in its order dated 27.4.2006 with respect to the said co-accused. 7. In the aforesaid circumstances, the application is allowed and the impugned order dated 6.10.2005 is quashed.