JUDGEMENT 1. This application has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding arising out of Vigilance Case No. Spl. 21 of 2002 and the First Information Report No. 7 of 2002 registered under Section 13(1)(d) & 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. On the complaint of a member of Legislative Assembly, a vigilance enquiry was instituted against Ashok Kumar Singh, I.A.S., the then Managing Director, Bihar State Financial Corporation, Patna. The enquiry was conducted against Ashok Kumar Singh with respect to allegation of defalcation of money, appointing his relatives as advocates and payment of heavy legal fee, illegally sanctioning lacs and crores as loan, helping scampsters of Animal Husbandry Department and creating two organizations namely "Samvedna" and Green Earth India for raising donations from loanee entrepreneurs as well as acquiring different movable and immovable properties at different places. On preliminary investigation, report was submitted on 25.3.1998 to the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department for taking a decision in the matter. After the submission of the report, the investigation was directed with respect to three items. The allegation connected with Lokesh Man Wine Industries, Digha, Green Earth India, Patna and Samvedna, Patna the two Non-Government Organizations and disproportionate earnings with respect to Ashok Kumar Singh. 3. The petitioner is only connected with Samvedna as he was the Secretary of Samvedna for a few months. At the time when the petitioner was the Secretary of Samvedna Sri Ran Vijay Kumar was the President. 4. A detailed enquiry was conducted on the basis of which the petitioner has been made accused, which runs into seventy pages. On perusal of the enquiry report, it would be apparent that virtually there is no allegation against this petitioner. The role of this petitioner is that he had issued a cheque in favour of the victims of Bhagalpur riot to the tone of Rs. 10,000/- which has been found to be correct and there is no allegation that the petitioner had misused and misutilized the sum of Rs. 10,000/-. In this case apart from the petitioner, Ashok Kumar Singh, Shravan Kumar, Advocate, Ran Vijay Kumar have been made accused. 5. 10,000/- which has been found to be correct and there is no allegation that the petitioner had misused and misutilized the sum of Rs. 10,000/-. In this case apart from the petitioner, Ashok Kumar Singh, Shravan Kumar, Advocate, Ran Vijay Kumar have been made accused. 5. The order granting sanction indicates that the allegation against the petitioner is that since the petitioner is the brother-in-law of Ashok Kumar Singh, he has been made the Secretary and states specifically that "the State Vigilance Bureau, Bihar has further alleged that Sri D.K. Singh and others also indulged in criminal destruction of evidence in the ongoing investigations by erasing their names in the documents pertaining to the registration of the N.G.O, Samvedna which also proved beyond any shadow of doubt by the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) in its report. The facts on the basis of enquiry by the State Vigilance Bureau, Bihar indicates that Sri D.K. Singh signed a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- on 14.11.1995 for Samvedna, to prove that he was actively engaged in the N.G.O." and on the basis of the aforesaid allegations the petitioner has been made accused. 6. As stated above the enquiry report shows that petitioner had made payments to the persons involved in Bhagalpur riots and his defence was accepted by the Vigilance Department. As far as allegations of destructions of documents etc. are concerned, the investigation report at no place has specified that the petitioner was involved in making entries in the registration department or that he was involved in destruction of evidence. 7. Counsel for the Vigilance Department also was not able to point out that from the investigation report that the petitioner was involved in destruction of evidence. There is a vague allegation that someone had tempered with the file in the Registration Department and the name of Sri Ashok Kumar Singh as President has been removed from the said file. Apart from this vague allegation, there is no other allegation against the petitioner. The investigation report also does not show that the petitioner is said to be involved in taking or receiving donations from business houses. He has not granted loan to any person nor can he said to be involved in the functioning of the State Finance Corporation, Patna. 8. The investigation report also does not show that the petitioner is said to be involved in taking or receiving donations from business houses. He has not granted loan to any person nor can he said to be involved in the functioning of the State Finance Corporation, Patna. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the basis of the investigation in fact there are no allegation against the petitioner of having done any act which would constitute an offence under the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the case of other co-accused have been quashed by this Court. Annexure-3 is the order of this Court passed in Cri. Misc. No. 37242 of 2005 dated 21.6.2006 in which the petitioner was Sri Ran Vijay Kumar, a senior Professor and member of the Patna College. The allegation against Sri Ran Vijay Kumar is that he was substituted as President of Samvedna and Green Earth India instead of Ashok Kumar Singh and it is further alleged that he was in conspiracy with Mr. Singh. The cognizance taken against Ran Vijay Kumar was quashed on the ground that no offence was made out against the petitioner and on the ground that there was no valid order of sanction against the petitioner Ran Vijay Kumar. 9. The main accused Ashok Kumar Singh filed Cri.W.J.C. No. 352 of 2002 for quashing of the F.I.R. The writ application was disposed of on 7.5.2007 quashing the proceedings against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had been allocated to the State of Jharkhand after the creation of the State of Jharkhand and there was no valid order from the State of Jharkhand to proceed in this case. I may state here that it has been stated at paragraph 13 that the State Government has filed S.L.A. No. 6016 of 2007 against the judgment dated 7.5.2007 and interim stay has been granted in favour of the State Vigilance Department. 10. Shravan Kumar, another co-accused has filed Cri. Misc. No. 26045 of 2006 for quashing the order of cognizance dated 22.4.2006 which has been allowed by this Court. The case of other co-accused persons against whom the allegations are of a serious nature as compared to the present petitioner stands quashed by different orders of the High Court. 11. 10. Shravan Kumar, another co-accused has filed Cri. Misc. No. 26045 of 2006 for quashing the order of cognizance dated 22.4.2006 which has been allowed by this Court. The case of other co-accused persons against whom the allegations are of a serious nature as compared to the present petitioner stands quashed by different orders of the High Court. 11. In the background as discussed above, the Court finds that there are no facts to show that the petitioner has committed any offence under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 or under Sections 420/465/466/467/471 /477-A/201/109 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 12. In the result I quash the Vigilance P.S. Case No. Spl. 21 of 2002 arising out of First Information Report No. 7 of 2002 pending before the Special Judge, Vigilance, Patna as far as it concerns the petitioner. This application is allowed.