ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance. 2. This application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 14 of 1994 (Special Case No. 8 of 1994), including the order dated 18.7.2008, passed by learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder, cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 417, 477-A, 406, 409, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, has been taken against the petitioner and others. 3. Mr. Chandrajit Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that gist of the allegation upon which the petitioner is being prosecuted, is that when three persons came ort transfer from Primary Health Centre, Vishrampur, Palamau for give joining in the office of the In-charge, Primary Health Centre, Khunti and placed L.P.C. transfer order as well as joining letter, In-charge, Primary Health Centre, Khunti, asked this petitioner to take dictation of the letter to be written to the In-charge of the earlier place of posting of those three persons, namely Lal Babu Prasad, Uma Shankar Prasad and Jagat Narayan Prasad at Primary Health Centre, Vishrampur, Palamau, Leprosy Research Training Institute, Brambay, Ranchi and also Deputy Directorate, Infectious disease, Bihar, Patna, respectively for its verification as to whether these three persons have been appointed there or not. However, it is said that instead of sending those letters to the concerned Office, as aforesaid, those letters were handed over by the In-charge, Primary Health Centre, Khunti to those persons, who had come to join over there. On the basis of the aforesaid documents, those three persons came with the verification report, showing that these persons were worked on the previous place of posting, their joining was accepted. But subsequently, when it got transpired that on the forged letters, those three persons had taken joining at Primary Health Centre, Khunti, a case was registered by Vigilance Department as Vigilance P.S. Case No. 14 of 1994 (Special Case No. 8 of 1994) for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 417, 477-A, 406, 409, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 4. The matter was taken up for investigation. 4. The matter was taken up for investigation. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted, upon which cognizance of the offences as aforesaid, was taken vide order dated 18.7.2008, which is under challenge. 5. Mr. Chandrajit Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that what has emerged from the case of the prosecution, the petitioner has simply taken dictation of a letter supposed to be sent to the authorities, where those three persons had claimed to have posted. Apart from that no role has been played by this petitioner in the entire episode. Still charge-sheet was submitted upon which cognizance of the offences, as aforesaid was taken, though there was no culpability on the part of this petitioner. However, it was submitted that sanction, sought earlier, at two occasions, were refused and on 3rd occasion, without there being any material, sanction was accorded by the Civil Surgeon under the direction of Director in Chief, Health Services, Jharkhand, which vitiate the entire prosecution case, as such kind of order granting sanction for prosecution, is quite bad and is fit to be set aside, in view of the decision rendered in the case of Omkar Sharma and other vs. State of H.P. & other, reported in 2003 Cr LJ 10124 and also in a case of Devendra Kumar Singh vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in 2012 (2) East Cr C 663 (Jhr). 6. As against this, Mr. T.N. Verma, learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance submits that it is the case of the prosecution that when three persons came to the Office of the In-charge Primary Health Centre, Khunti for giving joining on the post of Non-Medical Assistant as well as Vigilance Inspector, claiming to have been relieved for earlier place of posting, letters are said to have been typed at the instance of In-Charge, Primary Health Centre, Khunti for sending it before the authorities where those three persons had been posted earlier but that letters were never sent under the post, rather In-Charge Primary Health Centre, Khunti handed over those letters to those three persons and subsequently those three persons brought it verification report showing that they were posted at previous place of posting as had been claimed. Subsequently, when the case was lodged, it was found that those letters, said to be verification report were forged and on that basis though three persons had given joining at Primary Health Centre, Khunti and under such circumstances, there appears to be connivance of all the accused persons including the petitioner and therefore order taking cognizance never warrants to be quashed. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 8. It be recorded that submission advanced on behalf of the Vigilance that there was connivance on the part of this petitioner also but from the fact what comes out is that this petitioner had simply taken dictation of In-Charge, Primary Health Centre, Khunti, for having verification report from earlier place of posting, which those three persons had claimed. 9. Since the petitioner being Computer Data Operator (Sangnak) had obeyed the order of the superior and did not do anything more in the matter, therefore, I am at lost, as to how, the petitioner has gone in connivance with the other accused persons. 10. It be stated that it is the case of the prosecution that after the letters were drafted the said letters were handed over by the In-charge, Primary Health Centre, Khunti to those three persons, it was not the petitioner, who had handed over those three letters to them and therefore, in absence of any further material, showing connivance of this petitioner in any manner with other accused persons, the petitioner cannot be said to have committed any offence whatsoever either of cheating, forgery or even offence under the Prevention of Corruption of Act. 11. That apart, a plea has been taken on behalf of the petitioner that earlier on two occasions, when sanction was sought to be granted, which was refused by the controlling authority twice; first on 20.5.2004; and on 18.7.2005, but sanction for prosecution was granted vide order as contained in Memo No. 2097 dated 14.6.2008 from which, it would appear that sanction for prosecution has been granted, simply in the light of a letter of the Director in Chief. Though there was no fresh• material for reviewing of the earlier order, under which, sanction had been refused and thereby, order granting sanction gets vitiated, in view of the decision rendered in the cases of Omkar Sharma and Devendra Kumar Singh (supra). 12. Though there was no fresh• material for reviewing of the earlier order, under which, sanction had been refused and thereby, order granting sanction gets vitiated, in view of the decision rendered in the cases of Omkar Sharma and Devendra Kumar Singh (supra). 12. In such event, entire criminal proceeding of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 14 of 1994 (Special Case No. 8 of 1994) including the order dated 18.7.2008 taking cognizance, is hereby quashed. 13. In the result, this application stands allowed. Appeal allowed.