ORDER The petitioner filed Complaint Case No.1535(C) of 2010 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna against Sri Nitish Kumar, the Chief Minister, Government of Bihar, Patna; Sri Sushil Kumar Modi, the then Deputy Chief Minister-cum-Finance Minister, Govt. of Bihar, Patna; Sri Anup Mukherji, the then Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna; Sri R.C.P.Singh, the then Principal Secretary to Chief Minister; Sri N.Vijayalakshmi, the then Excise Commissioner, Excise Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna; Sri S. Sidhartha, the then Secretary to the Chief Minister, Govt. of Bihar, Patna; Colone Balender and Bottlers (India) Pvt. Ltd., Patna and its proprietor; M/S K.D. Liquor Pvt. Ltd. and its proprietor; M/S Spicy Beverage Pvt. Ltd., Patna City and its proprietor; Rawti International and its proprietor, the then Finance Commissioner, Govt. of Bihar, Patna; Sri Jitendra Kumar Sinha, the then District Magistrate, Patna and the District Magistrate, Kaimur for the offences under sections 119, 191, 193, 467, 468, 471, 469, 420, 120B, 406 and 409 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code on 5.6.2010. 2. In the aforesaid complaint, it has been alleged that the petitioner, who is a social worker was shocked to know the contents of the newspaper Danik Jagran published on 12th February, 2010 relating to scam of rupees five hundred crores to one thousand crores in the Excise Department causing huge loss to the Government of Bihar. The said news was based on an interview of Sri Jamshed Ashraf, the then Excise Minister, Government of Bihar. The petitioner has alleged several acts of omission and commission against the persons named in the complaint. 3. During pendency of the complaint petition before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, the petitioner filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying therein for the following reliefs:- “(A) For directing the respondent concerned to register a F.I.R. for investigation by CBI relating to the Excise Scam of Rs.500-1000 Crores on the basis of material available in Complaint Case No. 1535(C)/2010 and Comptroller and Auditor General report for the financial year Ist April, 2008 to 31st March, 2009 which reveals non-settlement of the Excise shops resulted into loss of Revenue of Rs. 118.80 Crores for the financial year Ist of July, 2007 to 31st March, 2009 and others revenue loss in crores and crores under the heading of delayed settlement of Excise shops, non-settlement of Excise Shops after consideration and short lifting of minimum guaranteed quantity. (B) For directing the State Government for recommending investigation by CBI under Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 after instituting F.I.R. on the basis of which Central Government handover investigation by CBI under Delhi Police Establishment Act relating to Excise Scam amounting of Rs.500-1000 crores on the basis of material available in Complaint Case No. 1535 (C)/2010 and Comptroller and Auditor General report for the financial year 1st April, 2008 to 31st March, 2009 as contained in annexure-3. (C) Also for commanding the respondents to recover the amount Rs.500-1000 Crore which has been misappropriated and defalcated by the person concerned and responsible authority who have committed criminal negligence and criminal misconduct resulting loss of revenue in Excise Department of the State of Bihar. (D) And also for necessary order, direction, relief for which the petitioner is entitled in the eye of law and as well as facts of the case.” 4. In paragraph 2, the substantial questions of law which are sought to be raised in the writ petition are as follows:- “(a) Whether the authority of the State Government are justified in not recommending to the Central Government for Investigation of Excise scam revealed by Sri Jamshed Ashraf, Incharge Excise Minister on the Comptroller and Auditor General report for the financial year 1st April 2008 to 31st March 2009 as contained in Annexure-3 by CBI after lodging F.I.R. ? (b) Whether CBI is justified in not suo moto lodging F.I.R. relating to the Excise Scam on the basis of the material which was revealed by Sri Jamshed Ashraf, the then Excise Minister and Comptroller and Auditor General report and material are available on the record in the complaint Case No. 1535(C)/2010 ? (c) Whether the authority concerned State Government and Central Government both are justified in not taking appropriate steps in realizing the government revenue which has been caused loss by the action of the persons concerned? (c) Whether the authority concerned State Government and Central Government both are justified in not taking appropriate steps in realizing the government revenue which has been caused loss by the action of the persons concerned? (d) Whether the action of the respondents concerned in not recommending/ registering F.I.R. and taking appropriate action for recovery of the revenue loss in the Excise Department is not an act of arbitrariness, mala fide and bad in law?” 5. It would be relevant to mention here that during pendency of the writ petition, the aforesaid complaint filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna on 16th June, 2011 under section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”). Feeling aggrieved by the order passed on 16th June, 2011 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Complaint Case No. 1535 (C)/2010, the petitioner preferred revision under section 397 of the Code bearing Cr. Revision No. 556 of 2011 in the court of Sessions Judge, Patna. The learned Sessions Judge, Patna transferred the said revision application to the court of Additional Sessions Judge-II, Patna. After hearing the parties, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patna dismissed the revision application filed on behalf of the petitioner vide order dated 10th October, 2012. 6. After dismissal of the revision, the petitioner filed an interlocutory application being I.A. No.1944 of 2012 in the present writ petition for adding two more reliefs to the writ petition, i.e., for quashing the order dated 16.06.2011 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Complaint Case No. 1535(C) of 2010 whereby the complaint petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed and also for quashing the order dated 10th October, 2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Patna in Cr. Revision No. 556 of 2011 whereby revision application filed by the petitioner challenging the aforesaid order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna was dismissed. 7. Mr. Dinu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations made in the complaint disclosed commission of a cognizable offence. The huge loss caused to the State exchequer and the position commanded by the persons involved in the offence warrant an impartial and committed investigation by an independent investigating agency like the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as “the CBI”). The huge loss caused to the State exchequer and the position commanded by the persons involved in the offence warrant an impartial and committed investigation by an independent investigating agency like the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as “the CBI”). He submitted that recovery of loss of revenue is not possible in a criminal case and as such the petitioner is justified in filing the present writ petition during pendency of the complaint case. He further submitted that there is large scale corruption in the Excise Department and when the Minister Incharge highlighted the same, he became victim of humiliation by the officials of the Department. He raised his voice in press and electronic media and highlighted about the high handedness of corrupt officials posted in the Excise Department but no action was taken by the State government against the officials concerned. Learned counsel further contended that liquor policies, grant of privileges, relaxation made in the policies and price fixation of liquor were made in order to cause loss to the Government exchequer with vested interest. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Principal Additional Advocate General, Bihar, Patna submitted that the writ petition is devoid of any merit. According to him, the petitioner has filed the writ petition with ulterior motive. He submitted that several writ petitions containing the same issue as raised by the petitioner were filed before this court by different persons in the nature of public interest litigation and all those writ petitions were dismissed by different Division Benches of this Court. In support of his contention, he has produced copy of the order dated 19th April, 2010 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 6657 of 2010; order dated 13.01.2010 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 675 of 2010; order dated 08.04.2010 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 5287 of 2010; order dated 03.03.2010 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3093 of 2010 and the order dated 03.03.2010 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3442 of 2010. 9. Mr. Bipin Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the CBI also opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner seeking investigation of the offence alleged by the CBI. 10. Having heard the parties at length and perused the records, I find that the petitioner filed Complaint Case No. 1535 (C) of 2010 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna on 5th June, 2010. 10. Having heard the parties at length and perused the records, I find that the petitioner filed Complaint Case No. 1535 (C) of 2010 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna on 5th June, 2010. During pendency of the complaint case, he filed present writ petition on 18.05.2011 making prayer to direct the respondents to register an FIR for investigation by the CBI on the basis of materials available in Complaint Case No. 1535 (C) of 2010. 11. It is well known that a criminal case can be launched either by filing a complaint before the court of competent jurisdiction under sections 190 and 200 of the Code or by filing a report in respect of a cognizable offence in the police station under section 154 of the Code. In the present case, the petitioner chose to file complaint before the Magistrate in the matter. While the complaint was still under inquiry, in my view, seeking the nature of relief as prayed for in the present writ petition by the petitioner was not justified. The petitioner ought not to have drawn parallel proceedings, one before the Magistrate and the other before this court. However, I do not intend to dismiss the present writ petition on this score alone. 12. The petitioner has brought on record his statement recorded on oath under section 200 of the Code in the aforesaid complaint case. The statement of four witnesses examined in course of inquiry held in the complaint has also been brought on record. 13. In order to appreciate the submissions made on behalf of the parties, I have perused the evidence collected in course of inquiry of the complaint case. I find that in his statement on oath, the petitioner stated that on 12th February, 2010 he read local Hindi daily “Dainik Jagran”. According to him, the whistle blower, Mr. Jamshed Ashraf, the Minister Incharge of Excise Department was asked to step down from his ministerial berth by the Chief Minister. He stated that he met the Minister Incharge who told him that a large scale scam had taken place in the Excise Department. In reply to Courts question, the petitioner stated that he was acquainted with the Minister Incharge from before. He stated that he met the Minister Incharge who told him that a large scale scam had taken place in the Excise Department. In reply to Courts question, the petitioner stated that he was acquainted with the Minister Incharge from before. He further stated that he had submitted an application to the Chief Minister requesting for the CBI investigation into the alleged scam but the Chief Minister did not oblige him. On perusing the statement of the petitioner, I find that the petitioner is a hearsay witness. He gathered knowledge about the alleged scam from the Minister Incharge Jamshed Ashraf, who has been made witness no.5 in the complaint case. The other four witnesses examined in course of inquiry under section 202 of the Code stated that they came to know about the alleged offence from the petitioner/complainant and the newspaper report. 14. Thus, apparently, as noted above, the complainant had no personal knowledge about the alleged scam. The other inquiry witnesses also came to know about the alleged offence from the petitioner and the newspaper report. These facts demonstrate that the entire complaint was based on vague allegations made on the basis of hearsay evidence. 15. It would be pertinent to note here that Mr. Jamshed Ashraf, a witness named in the complaint, was not examined before the Magistrate in course of inquiry. The petitioner had filed an application under section 311 of the Code for summoning him to be examined as a complaint witness which prayer was dismissed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna vide order dated 17th February, 2011. I further find that in course of inquiry in the complaint case no document was exhibited on behalf of the petitioner. 16. I, thus, find that an absolutely vague allegation on the basis of some hearsay evidence has been made by the petitioner/complainant and his witnesses in the complaint case. After an inquiry into the allegations as contained in the complaint, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna after giving particulars of the evidence produced in support of complaint went on to observe that the complaint was filed as public interest litigation on the basis of hearsay evidence. He further held that no prima facie evidence was found against any of the persons named in the complaint and, thus, dismissed the same under section 203 of the Code. He further held that no prima facie evidence was found against any of the persons named in the complaint and, thus, dismissed the same under section 203 of the Code. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna has mentioned the reasons which, in his opinion, justified dismissal of the complaint without issue of process. The petitioner then invoked the Revisional jurisdiction of the learned Sessions Judge, Patna. The Revisional court after looking into the evidence collected in course of inquiry and the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, came to a conclusion that the order of dismissal of the complaint under section 203 of the Code was proper. 17. I find that the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna dismissing the complaint under section 203 of the Code has been made on judicially sound grounds. The evidence led in support of the complaint shows that essential ingredients of the offence alleged are either missing or vaguely stated on the basis of hearsay evidence. The complaint lacks bona fide. Apparently, it seems to be motivated with personal bias. There are patent absurdities in the evidence led and, thus, no illegality can be found in the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner under section 203 of the Code. 18. In Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and others since reported in (1998)5 SCC 749 the Supreme Court observed that the criminal law cannot be set in motion by a complainant by examining himself and two witnesses, who may dance to the tune of the complainant. Their lordships observed that before issuing the process of summoning a person to face trial, a Magistrate is required to look into the nature of the allegations, the evidence and its character whether oral or documentary. The Magistrate is required to see everything and has to take part into the proceedings before issuing the process or summoning the accused. In the present matter, the said observations made by the Supreme Court have correctly been applied by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate while passing the order. For the same reason no fault can be found with the order passed by the Revisional court. 19. In the present matter, the said observations made by the Supreme Court have correctly been applied by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate while passing the order. For the same reason no fault can be found with the order passed by the Revisional court. 19. I am also of the view that the Revisional order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Patna could not have been challenged before this court by invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of statutory bar prescribed under section 397(3) of the Code. 20. In this regard, it would be relevant to quote section 397 of the Code, which reads as under:- “Section 397. Calling for records to exercise powers of revision.-(1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding. Sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record. Explanation.-All Magistrates, whether Executive or Judicial, and whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purposes of this sub-section and of Section 398. (2) The powers of revision conferred by sub-section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding. (3) If an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them.” 21. Ordinarily, when a revision has been barred under section 397(3) of the Code, the complainant cannot be allowed to take recourse to revision before the High Court under section 397(1) of the Code as it is prohibited under section 397(3) of the Code. Ordinarily, when a revision has been barred under section 397(3) of the Code, the complainant cannot be allowed to take recourse to revision before the High Court under section 397(1) of the Code as it is prohibited under section 397(3) of the Code. In my view, bar of sub section (3) of section 397 of the Code is, therefore, effectively attracted in the present case and the bar could not be circumvented by invoking jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 22. The petitioner having availed of the remedy of revision under section 397 of the Code is not entitled to maintain the present writ petition so far as the reliefs, as prayed for in the interlocutory application, are concerned. 23. I have perused the orders passed by this court in other writ petitions as noted above preferred by different persons in more or less identical matters. In C.W.J.C. No.675 of 2010, the petitioners, namely, Humlog Trust through its convener Mukesh Kumar Dinkar and Mukesh Kumar Dinkar in his personal capacity, had prayed for inquiry into the process of grant and allotment of tender for manufacture and sale of country liquor by order of allotment dated 21st June, 2009. A Division Bench of this court vide order dated 13th January, 2010 dismissed the writ petition holding the same to be without merit and also cautioned the petitioners to understand the purport of public interest before knocking at the doors of the court. Similarly, C.W.J.C. No. 3442 of 2010 filed by one Arvind Kumar Sharma in the same subject matter was also dismissed as withdrawn by a Division Bench of this court. Another writ petition being C.W.J.C. No.6657 of 2010 filed by Prabhat Kumar Sinha and Dr. Shambhu Sharan Shrivastava in the nature of public interest litigation demanding inquiry into the liquor sourcing policy dated 15th September, 2006-07 formulated by the Bihar State Beverage Corporation Limited fixing an incidental overheads in place of transportation handling, insurance, administrative charges of establishment, import/export fee, central sales tax etc. Shambhu Sharan Shrivastava in the nature of public interest litigation demanding inquiry into the liquor sourcing policy dated 15th September, 2006-07 formulated by the Bihar State Beverage Corporation Limited fixing an incidental overheads in place of transportation handling, insurance, administrative charges of establishment, import/export fee, central sales tax etc. and also into the process of finalization and allotment of tenders to various parties who applied for manufacture and sale of IMFL as well as into the act of permitting the parties to sale six lakhs quintal of molasses to the parties outside Bihar at a lower rate and subsequently buying back the same at higher price for manufacturing sprit by local manufacturers was dismissed by a Division Bench of this court vide order dated 19.4.2010. In the aforesaid order, the Division Bench in paragraph nos. 21 and 22 observed as under.:- “21. Ordinarily, so saying, we would have proceeded to record our formal conclusion of dismissal of the writ petition but as has been stated earlier, this kind of policy has been challenged in number of cases on some ground or other, despite judgments delivered by this court. A legitimate response is expected from the public spirited persons specially who are qualified persons and members and ex-members from Bihar Legislative Council. If they have not been able to bring up a cause which can really protect the poor strata of the people or an environmental problem or a matter relating to the real public interest, they should not endeavour to convert non-cause to a cause. We would have imposed exemplary costs but we are disposed to think that the petitioners possibly have speculated in the realm of possibility that the present lis has some kind of public interest. Hence, we refrain from doing so.” “22. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed without any order as to costs.” 24. As stated, hereinabove, the complaint filed by the petitioner lacks bona fide. Several persons have approached this court by filing public interest litigations in the same subject matter seeking more or less identical reliefs but all those applications were dismissed by different Division Benches. In such background of the facts, the prayer of the petitioner for directing the respondent concerned to register an FIR for investigation by the CBI relating to the alleged scam carries no weight. 25. In such background of the facts, the prayer of the petitioner for directing the respondent concerned to register an FIR for investigation by the CBI relating to the alleged scam carries no weight. 25. In State of West Bengal and others vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and others since reported in (2010)3 SCC 571 , a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court considered at length the power of High Court to direct investigation by the CBI into a cognizable offence alleged to have been committed within the territorial jurisdiction of a State and while taking the view that the High Court has wide powers under Article 226 of the Constitution cautioned that the courts must bear in mind certain self imposed limitations. 26. For the sake of convenience, paragraph 70 of the decision of the Constitution Bench in State of West Bengal and others vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (supra), is extracted hereinbelow.:- “70. Before parting with the case, we deem it necessary to emphasise that despite wide powers conferred by Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, while passing an order, the Courts must bear in mind certain self-imposed limitations on the exercise of these constitutional powers. The very plentitude of the power under the said articles requires great caution in its exercise. Insofar as the question of issuing a direction to CBI to conduct investigation in a case is concerned, although no inflexible guidelines can be laid down to decide whether or not such power should be exercised but time and again it has been reiterated that such an order is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because a party has levelled some allegations against the local police. This extraordinary power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instil confidence in investigations or where the incident may have national and international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights. Otherwise CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases and with limited resources, may find it difficult to properly investigate even serious cases and in the process lose its credibility and purpose with unsatisfactory investigations”. 27. Otherwise CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases and with limited resources, may find it difficult to properly investigate even serious cases and in the process lose its credibility and purpose with unsatisfactory investigations”. 27. It would be apparent from the opinion of the Constitution Bench, quoted above, that the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to direct investigation by the CBI is to be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations and an order directing the CBI to conduct investigation is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because a party has levelled some vague allegations on the basis of newspaper report or hearsay evidence. 28. Taking into consideration the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Honble Supreme Court and facts of the present case, I am of the considered opinion that though the petitioner claims himself to be a watchdog of public money and thus wants a CBI investigation in view of alleged scam in public affairs but the facts narrated, hereinabove, show that the allegations are not only absurd but are also attended with personal bias and mala fide. 29. When the petitioner failed to make out even a prima facie case before the Magistrate, he has launched a frontal attack on the entire governance system of the State by filing a frivolous writ petition. In his desperate attempt, the petitioner is blaming everyone while highlighting imaginary loss caused to the State exchequer in order to get an order for the CBI investigation into the matter. 30. For the reasons assigned, hereinabove, the writ petition and I.A. No. 1944 of 2012, being devoid of any merit, are hereby dismissed.