JUDGEMENT 1. The petitioner seeks quashing of the entire proceeding including the order dated 20.10.2009 passed in Special Case No. 63 of 2009 arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 87 of 2009 by which the Special Judge, Vigilance (Trap), Patna has taken cognizance under Section 409 IPC. 2. On 3.8.2009 one Sukarwariya Devi complained before the Chief Minister that the Gram Sewak and JPS (JSS) were demanding Rs. 10,000/- as bribe money for handing over her Pass Book of Gramin Bank. Her complaint was verified by a member of the Vigilance Deptt. on 18.8.2009 who supported that co-accused Ram Ishwar Rai had demanded an additional amount of Rs. 6,000/- apart from Rs. 4,000/- already paid for handing over the Pass Book. When the complainant was examined during investigation she stated that the said Ram Ishwar Rai demanded illegal gratification. A number of other beneficiaries also complained that Panchayat Secretary, Ram Ishwar Rai had demanded illegal gratification. During investigation when the official residence of the Gram Panchayat Sevak who was residing with the petitioner was raided, from the same house a box was recovered containing a number of Pass Books, some letters and cash. The co-accused Ram Ishwar Rai signed on the seizure list and was asked to explain the presence of such a large number of Pass-books which corroborated the allegations of the beneficiaries but could furnish no satisfactory reply. On the basis of these allegations a case was instituted under Section 409 IPC and Sections 7/13 (2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. 3. The counsel for the petitioner submits that since no sanction was taken for prosecuting the petitioner who was the Junior Statistical Supervisor, Rajpur Block no cognizance was taken under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the case was proceeding under Section 409 IPC in the Court of Special Judge, Vigilance (Trap) which was unjustified since no cognizance had been taken under the Prevention of Corruption Act. He further points out that in the First Information Report the role of the petitioner has been mentioned towards the end stating therein that the petitioner as the Junior Statistical Supervisor had entered false facts in the application of the complainant without meeting her personally and on the basis of hearsay. However, the document which is part of First Information Report reveals otherwise. However, the document which is part of First Information Report reveals otherwise. The supporting document reveals all the details have been entered by Umesh Paswan, the Amin who had made an inquiry in the matter as to whether the complainant was entitled to benefits of the Indira Awas Yojna. The petitioner asserts that there was no provision for a personal hearing of the complainant and, therefore, the allegation against him in the First Information Report that he approved the report without personal hearing of the complainant is unjustified. Further, the allegation that the petitioner had approved the report on hearsay is also incorrect since when he did so he had relied on the report of the Amin who had annexed documents. Moreover, it is stated in the First Information Report itself that subsequently the complainant was included to BPL list and was given the benefits of the Indira Awas Yojna. Therefore, now as the allegation stands it is merely that the benefit of the Indira Awas Yojna had been denied to the complainant for about a year. 4. It has been submitted that in view of the allegations as they stand now no offence would be made out against the petitioner under Section 409 IPC since there is no ingredients of misappropriating any property by the petitioner. As per the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, it has been submitted that even though the complainant had initially complained generally that the JSS and Gram Sewak had demanded gratification but the very same complainant during investigation gave a written statement on 13.8.2009 confining her allegations only to the co-accused, Gram Sewak, Ram Ishwar Rai. 5. The contention of the petitioner is that under the circumstances no offence whatsoever much less under Section 409 IPC would be made out since there is no material in support of the same. As for the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act the complainant even though had initially complained generally that the petitioner and the Gram Panchayat Sevak had demanded a bribe of Rs. 10,000/- but during inquiry she gave a written statement on 19.8.2009 confining her allegations to the co-accused, Ram Ishwar Rai. 6. As for the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act the complainant even though had initially complained generally that the petitioner and the Gram Panchayat Sevak had demanded a bribe of Rs. 10,000/- but during inquiry she gave a written statement on 19.8.2009 confining her allegations to the co-accused, Ram Ishwar Rai. 6. Having gone through the documents annexed hereof undoubtedly the complainant had made an allegation against the JPS (JSS) petitioner and the Gram Sewak that they had demanded bribe but subsequently she only alleged such a demand by the co-accused, Ram Ishwar Rai. It also appears that when the official residence of the petitioner and the co-accused, Ram Ishwar Rai was raided from the box of Ram Ishwar Rai a number of pass-books and cash money were recovered which were produced by co-accused Ram Ishwar Rai as per the seizure-list. The seizure-list also reveals that it was he who was asked to explain about the recovery of the incriminating articles and thus even though the petitioner could have been the joint occupier of the official residence evidently the incriminating articles were recovered from the possession of the co-accused, Ram Ishwar Rai. The supporting document which is the basis of the First Information Report only reveals that he had merely approved the report of the Amin and it was not part of his duty to either examine the claimant personally nor physically verifiy the entries made by the Amin. Moreover now as the allegation stands, it appears that the only allegation the petitioner is of having stalled a benefit for about a year which may be a blameworthy conduct but would not make out a case punishable u/s 409 IPC or under the P.C. Act. 7. Under the circumstances, in my view, no offence whatsoever is made out against the petitioner and the prosecution of the petitioner in the Special Case No. 63 of 2009 arising out of Vigilance Case No. 87 of 2009 pending before the Special Judge, Vigilance (Trap) is, hereby, quashed to the extent of the petitioner. 8. The application is allowed.