Order One Kumar Binod had tiled a complaint, vide Complaint Case No.1 of 2009 on 20.1.2009 before the Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi against four accused persons including Bhanu Pratap Sahi, the then Minister in the State of Jharkhand alleging therein that all the accused persons amassed properties disproportionate to their known source of income. The Special Judge on receiving the complaint sent it before the Vigilance Police Station for its institution and investigation. Accordingly, Vigilance P.S. Case No.9 of 2009 was registered which was even investigated upon. 2. However, this court passed an order in W.P.(PIL) No. 4700 of 2008 on 4.8.2008 directing the C.B.I. to take the matter for further investigation. Pursuant to that, the C.B.I. having registered the case as R.C. No. 5(A)/2010-AHD-Ranchi under Sections 406, 409, 420, 423, 424, 465, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 7,10, 11 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act took up the matter for further investigation. 3. The C.B.I. having completed investigation submitted charge-sheet on 22.12.2011 against the named accused persons as well as others including this petitioner, who happens to be nephew of the then Minister Bhanu Pratap Sahi alleging therein that during investigation it got transpired that this petitioner and other nephew of Mr. Bhanu Pratap Sahi are the Directors of M/s Angesh Trading Co. Ltd. and M/s Sonanchal Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. which companies were initially taken over by the efforts made by Ajay Singh, a close friend of Mr. Bhanu Pratap Sahi. Investment of Rs. 6,06,35,000/- crores was infused in those two companies by way of investments from three companies of one Atul Jalan in exchange of cash to the tune of Rs. 5,68,35,000/-, remaining amount of Rs. 38 lakhs came from M/s Magis Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. of Delhi which company was being run by one Ankur Mittal. Both Atul Jalan and Ankur Mittal had recovered their monies by showing selling of the shares to various companies but it was found that the money had been arranged from the grain merchants who had admitted that they had just given cheques in lieu of cash given to them and even Atul in his statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has admitted this fact. 4. 4. The court on filing of the chargesheet took cognizance of the offence under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the petitioner, vide its order dated 3.1.2012 which is under challenge. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that what has emerged from the allegation made against this petitioner is that after the acquisition of those companies, the petitioner came into picture whereby he was made one of the Directors of those two companies and under the circumstances, the petitioner can never be said to have abetted the main culprit to invest the ill-gotten money in the aforesaid two companies and thereby it can be said that charge-sheet has wrongly been submitted by the C.B.I. against the petitioner. 6. In this respect, it was submitted that one would be liable for an offence as an abettor in terms of Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code when act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment; meaning thereby that abetment has to be preceded the commission of actual offence, i.e. to say that offence is committed in furtherance of abetment but no such case is there of the C.B.I. that the principal accused committed offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in consequence of the abetment made by the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel in support of his submission has referred to a decision rendered in a case of Kulwant Singh & Kulbansh Singh vs. State of Bihar [(2007)XV SCC 670] and also in a case of Rajbabu and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2008)XVII SCC 526]. 8. Under the circumstances, it was submitted that the order taking cognizance is fit to be quashed. 9. As against this, Mr. Khan, learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I. submitted that two companies, namely, M/s Sonanchal Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Angesh Trading Co. Ltd. were formed by the main accused Mr. Bhanu Pratap Sahi by ill-gotten money in which this petitioner is one of the Director who had purchased 5000 shares of each of the companies @ Rs. 10/- per share, though he has no capability to do so. Ltd. were formed by the main accused Mr. Bhanu Pratap Sahi by ill-gotten money in which this petitioner is one of the Director who had purchased 5000 shares of each of the companies @ Rs. 10/- per share, though he has no capability to do so. He having been made one of the Directors in both the companies purchased properties in the name of the companies and as such, the petitioner is liable to be prosecuted alongwith the main culprit by virtue of the provision as contained in Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. 10. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, it does appear that on the one hand, it is the stand of the C.B.I. that the petitioner at the relevant point of time being a student had no capability of investing money in purchasing 5000 shares of each of the Companies and thereby act of abetment appears to be apparent whereas on the other hand, the stand of the petitioner is that the petitioner being Director of the companies came into picture after formation of the companies and thereby the petitioner cannot be said to have abetted the main culprit to invest ill-gotten money in the companies which submission at this stage cannot be accepted in view of the submission made on behalf of the C.B.I. indicating therein about the role being played by the petitioner from very beginning and also in view of Explanation-II to Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code which does stipulate that offence can be abetted either prior to its commission or at the time of commission of that act. Therefore, this issue requires to be gone into at the stage of trial. 11. Further it be stated that it has been well founded proposition that nonpublic servant can be tried for commission of offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act with aid of Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. 12. In this regard, I may refer to a decision rendered in a case of P. Nallammal Vs. State [2000(1) SLJ SC 320] wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that it is true that Section 10 deals with the case of abetment of offences defined under Sections 8 and 9 and it is also true that Section 12 specifically deals with the case of abetment of offences under Sections 7 and 11. State [2000(1) SLJ SC 320] wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that it is true that Section 10 deals with the case of abetment of offences defined under Sections 8 and 9 and it is also true that Section 12 specifically deals with the case of abetment of offences under Sections 7 and 11. But that is no ground to hold that the Prevention of Corruption Act does not contemplate abetment of any of the offences specified in Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 13. Thus, I do not find any illegality with the order taking cognizance and hence, it never warrants to be interfered with by this Court. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed.