Page 1
--1– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
D I S T R I C T : R A N C H I
In the Court of A.J.C-I-cum Spl. Judge -VII, CBI (AHD Scam),
RANCHI
Present:- Shiv Pal Singh A.J.C-I-cum Spl. Judge -VII, CBI (AHD Scam), Ranchi
Place - Ranchi dated: 19 th day of March, 2018
R.C. Case No. 38 (A) /1996 - Pat
STATE (through C.B.I )
………..Prosecution
Versus
1. Adhip Chandra Chaudhary, S/o- Late Narayan Chandra
Chaudhary, aged about 74 Years, R/o- AC /149, Salt lake
City, P.S – Bidhan Nagar North, District – North 24
Pargana (West Bengal), (Retired ).
2. Ajeet Kumar Verma, S/o- Late Bipin Bihari Verma, aged
about 75 Years, R/o- 17M/1 Powerterres, Kolkatta, P.S –
Garia hat, District – South 24 Pargana, Kolkatta.
(Business).
3. Arun Kumar Singh, S/o- Late Yugal Kishore Singh, aged
about 53 Years, R/o- Bhattacharya Colony, Deoghar, P.S. -
Deoghar, District – Deoghar (Teacher in Private ).
4. Beck Julius, S/o- Late Saiman Beck, aged about 75 Years,
R/o- 1662B/2 Ashok Nagar, Harmu, Ranchi P.S.- Argora,
District – Ranchi. (Retired I.A.S)
5. Benu Jha, W/o- Sri Vinod Kumar Jha, aged about 50 Years,
R/o- Maheshpur, P.S – Basant Rai, District – Godda.
(House Wife).
6. Bimal Kant Das, S/o- Late Jitendra Nath Das, aged about
74 Years, R/o- Dakhram, P.S. - Bahera, District –
Darbhanga, Present Address :- Lokaha, P.S – Lokaha,
District – Madhubani. (Retired T.V.O )
7. Dhruv Bhagat, S/o- Late Nathuni Bhagat, aged about 66
Page 2
--2– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
Years, R/o- 108 Bhartiya Colony, Sahebganj, P.S –
Sahebganj, District – Sahebganj. (unemployed).
8. Gopi Nath Das, S/o- Late Birendra Mohan Das, aged
about 60 Years R/o- Shree Ram Para, Dumka, P.S. -
Dumka, District – Dumka (Jharkhand). (Compounder )
9. Jagannath Mishra, S/o- Late Ravi Nandan Mishra, aged
about 82 Years, R/o- 113/77, Post Office Road Shashtri
Nagar, P.S – Shashtri Nagar, District – Patna
( Teaching/Politician).
10. Jagdish Sharma, S/o- Late Kamta Sharma, aged about
68 Years, R/o- Korra, P.S – Ghoshi, District – Jahanabad
(Bihar), Present :- Kankarbag,P.S – Kankarbag, District –
Patna, (Politics & Agriculture).
11. Krishna Kumar Prasad, S/o- Late Nand Kishore Prasad,
aged about 63 Years, R/o- Chaudhrain Chak, P.S – Bargh,
District – Patna, Present Address :- Govardhan Dham,
P.S. - Deoghar, District – Deoghar (Retired Veterinary
Doctor).
12. Lal Mohan Prasad, S/o- Late Puneet Prasad, aged about
85 Years, R/o- Rahil, P.S – Ekangarsarai, District –
Nalanda. (Agriculture).
13. Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav, S/o- Late Kundan Rai,
aged about 70 Years, R/o- Phulwaria, P.S. - Phulwaria,
District – Gopalganj, (Bihar), (Politician).
14. Mahesh Prasad, S/o- Late Shobh Nath, aged about 76
Years, R/o- 24 I.A.S Colony, Kidwaipuri, P.S – Kotwali,
District – Patna.(Retired I.A.S).
15. Manoranjan Prasad, S/o- Late Braj Kumar Prasad, aged
about 73 Years, R/o- 180 Manasmarg, P.S – Patliputra,
District – Patna – 13. (Retired from AHD).
16. Mehar Chandra Subarno, S/o- Late Kailash Chandra
Subarno, aged about 85 Years, R/o- Road No. 5 Ashok
Nagar, Ranchi, P.S – Argora, District – Ranchi. (Retired
from service).
17. Mohindar Singh Bedi, S/o- Sri Ujagar Singh Bedi, R/o-
Kohart Enclave, Peetampur, P.S. - Peetampur, District –
Page 3
--3– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
New Delhi. (Business).
18. Nand Kishore Prasad, S/o- Late Saryug Rai, aged about
65 Years, R/o- Mohanpur, P.S – Karakat, District –
Rohtash. (Retired from A.H.D).
19. Naresh Prasad, S/o- Sri Chetavan Prasad, aged about 52
Years, R/o- Machhua Toli, P.S – Kadamkuan, District –
Patna – 4. (Poultry business).
20. Om Prakash Diwakar, S/o- Late Mudrika Ram, aged
about 68 Years, R/o- New bypass road Harmu Chak P.S –
Beur, District – Patna. (Retired from A.H.D).
21. Pankaj Mohan Bhui, S/o- Late Pashupati Bhui, aged
about 77 Years, R/o- Haripur, P.S – Jarmundi, District –
Dumka. (Retired Accountant in Office of R.D (A.H.D),
Dumka.
22. Phool Chand Singh, S/o- Late Rambali Singh, aged
about 79 Years, R/o- Adarsh Colony, P.S – Shashtri Nagar,
District – Patna (Retired I.A.S).
23. Pitamber Jha, S/o- Late Ram Sunder Jha, aged about 51
Years, R/o- Rajput Mohalla, P.S – Giridih (Town), District –
Giridih. (Suspended Doctor).
24. Radha Mohan Mandal, S/o- Late Chhedi Mandal, aged
about 67 Years, R/o- Bakharpur, P.S – Peerpaiti, District –
Bhagalpur, Present Address :- Shanti Nagar, P.S –
Jiruabari, District – Sahebganj. (Retired from AHD).
25. Raj Kumar Sharma @ Raja Ram Joshi, S/o- Late Ram
Kisun Joshi, aged about 61 Years, R/o- Bara Plasi, P.S –
Jama, District – Dumka (Agriculture).
26. Raghu Nandan Prasad, S/o- Late Ram Chandra Mahto,
aged about 70 Years, R/o- Hutu Chak, P.S – Barbigha,
District – Shekhpura, Present Address :- Adivasi Colony,
Guljarbag, Patna. (Retired from AHD).
27. Rajendra Kumar Bagaria, S/o- Sri Satya Narain Bagaria,
aged about 43 Years, R/o- Harin Danga Bazar, P.S –
Pakur, District – Pakur (Private Service)
28. Ravindra Kumar Rana, S/o- Late Ganesh Prasad Yadav,
aged about 70 Years, R/o- Narayanpur, P.S – Bhawany
Page 4
--4– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
(Vishpur), District – Bhagalpur (Bihar), (Social Worker,
Agriculture & Politics)
29. Shardendu Kumar Das, S/o- Late Dhirendra Kumar Das,
aged about 68 Years, R/o- Grand State, P.S. - Dumka
Town, District – Dumka. (Retired from Treasury, Dumka).
30. Saraswati Chandra, W/o- Sri Mahendra Prasad, aged
about 50 Years, R/o- Rahil, P.S – Ekangarsarai, District –
Nalanda (Bihar) (House Wife).
31. Vidya Sagar Nishad, S/o- Late Darwari Nishad, aged
about 86 Years, R/o- Kusari, P.S – Gogari, District –
Khagaria (Bihar), (Retired Politician).
…… Accused Persons
Charged : 120B, r/w 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 477-A of
I.P.C and Section 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1)(c) & (d) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Counsel for the C.B.I :- Sri Rakesh Prasad & Others.
………………..(Ld. Sr. P.P.)
1.Counsel for the Accused Nos.1,4,5,8,16 & 24:- Mr. Sanjeev Chandra 2. Counsel for the Accused Nos. 2, 12, 30 & 31:- Mr. N.N.
Tiwary, 3. Counsel for the Accused No. 3 :- Mr. Bharat Mahto, 4. Counsel for the Accused Nos. 6,14,18,20,21,26,29 :- Mr. Sanjay
Kumar, 5. Counsel for the Accused No.7 :- Mr. Anil Kanth, 6. Counsel for the Accused No. 10 :- Mr. B.B. Rai, 7. Counsel for the Accused No. 9 :- Mr. Rakesh Kumar
Jha, 8. Counsel for the Accused No. 11 :- Mr. Anil Kumar
Singh, 9. Counsel for the Accused No.13 : - Mr. Chitranjan Sinha & Mr. Prabhat Kumar, 10.Counsel for the Accused Nos. 15, 17 & 23 :- Mr. Akhileshwar Prasad,
11.Counsel for the Accused No. 19 :- Mr. Vishnu Sharma, 12.Counsel for the Accused No. 22 :- Mr. Raj Kumar Sahay,
13. Counsel for the Accused No. 27 :- Mr. K.P. Sharma, 14.Counsel for the Accused No. 28 :- Mr. Prabhat Kumar,
15.Counsel for the Accused No. 25 :- Mr. Ajay Mishra,
Page 5
--5– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
Judgment
1. That is on 17.05.2005 alleged charge framed U/s- 420 of I.P.C and
punishable U/s- 13(2) r/w 13 (1) (c) & (d) of P.C Act, 1988 separately against
accused persons namely (1). Adhip Chandra Chaudhary, (2). Beck Julius,
(3). Dhruv Bhagat, (4). Jagannath Mishra, (5). Jagdish Sharma, (6). Lalu
Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav, (7). Mahesh Prasad, (8). Mehar Chandra
Subarno, (9). Phool Chand Singh, (10). Ravindra Kumar Rana, and (11).
Vidya Sagar Nishad which read over and explained in Hindi in detail. Above
accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried in the court.
2. Further on 17.05.2005 alleged charges framed U/s- 420, 467, 468,
471 of I.P.C separately against accused persons namely (1).Ajeet Kumar
Verma, (2). Arun Kumar Singh, (3). Smt. Benu Jha, (4). Gopi Nath Das,
(5). Lal Mohan Prasad, (6). Mohinder Singh Bedi, (7). Naresh Prasad, (8).
Raj Kumar Sharma @ Raja Ram Sharma, (9). Rajendra Kumar Bageria
and (10). Smt. Saraswati Chandra. Above charge read over and explained in
Hindi in detailed from which above accused persons pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried in the court.
3. Further on 17.05.2005 alleged charges framed U/s- 420, 467, 468,
471, 477(A) of I.P.C and U/s- 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1)(c) & (d) of P.C. Act
separately against accused persons namely (1). Bimal Kant Das, (2). Krishan
Kumar Prasad, (3). Manoranjan Prasad, (4). Nand Kishore Prasad, (5).
Om Prakash Diwakar, (6). Pankaj Mohan Bhui, (7). Pitamber Jha, (8).
Raghunandan Prasad, (9). Radha Mohan Mandal, (10). Shardendu
Kumar Das. Above charge read over and explained in Hindi in detailed from
which above accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried in the
court.
4. Further on 17.05.2005 alleged charges U/s- 120(B) r/w 409, 420,
467, 468, 471, 477(A) of I.P.C and U/s- 13(2) r/w section 13 (1), (c) & (d) of
P.C Act framed collectively against accused 1. Adhip Chandra Chaudhary, 2.
Ajeet Kumar Verma, 3. Arun Kumar Singh, 4. Beck Julius, 5. Smt. Benu Jha,
6. Bimal Kant Das, 7. Dhruv Bhagat, 8. Gopi Nath Das, 9. Jagannath Mishra,
10. Jagdish Sharma, 11. Krishna Kumar Prasad, 12. Lal Mohan Prasad, 13.
Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav, 14. Mahesh Prasad, 15. Manoranjan Prasad,
16. Mehar Chandra Subarno, 17. Mohindar Singh Bedi, 18. Nand Kishore
Prasad, 19. Naresh Prasad, 20. Om Prakash Diwakar, 21. Pankaj Mohan Bhui,
22. Phool Chand Singh, 23. Pitamber Jha, 24. Radha Mohan Mandal, 25. Raj
Page 6
--6– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
Kumar Sharma @ Raja Ram Joshi, 26. Raghu Nandan Prasad, 27. Rajendra
Kumar Bagaria, 28. Ravindra Kumar Rana, 29. Shardendu Kumar Das, 30.
Saraswati Chandra and 31. Vidya Sagar Nishad. Above charge read over and
explained in Hindi in detailed from which above accused persons pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried in the court.
5. That is after submission of charge-sheet two accused persons namely
Rameshwar Chaudhary and Dr. Sayeed granted pardon U/s- 306 of Cr.P.C. The
criminal proceedings against accused Sripati Narayan Dubey, the then
Commissioner, Dumka have been quashed vide order dated 18.03.2011 passed
in W.P. Cr. No. 183/2008 and 14 accused persons namely (1). Brij Bhushan
Prasad, the then Budget Officer, (2). Bhola Ram Tufani, the then Minister,
(3). Chandra Deo Prasad Verma, the then Minister, (4). Chhathoo Prasad,
the then Treasury Officer, (5). Kalika Prasad Sinha, the then Accountant, (6).
K. Arumugam, the then Secretary, (7). Mahendra Prasad, the then Proprietor
of M/s. B.R. Pharma, (8). Pramod Kumar Jaiswal, the then Proprietor of M/s.
Bhagat & Co., (9). Raghvendra Kumar. Das, the then Administrative Officer,
(10). Rajendra Singh, the then Veterinary Officer, (11). Ram Raj Ram, the
then Director, (12). Satya Narayan Singh, the then Veterinary Officer, (13).
Shyam Bihari Sinha, the then Joint Director, and (14). Wasimuddin, the then
Veterinary Officer died during trial. Presently only 31 accused persons facing
the trial in the court whose name are 1. Adhip Chandra Chaudhary, 2. Ajeet
Kumar Verma, 3. Arun Kumar Singh, 4. Beck Julius, 5. Smt. Benu Jha, 6.
Bimal Kant Das, 7. Dhruv Bhagat, 8. Gopi Nath Das, 9. Jagannath Mishra, 10.
Jagdish Sharma, 11. Krishna Kumar Prasad, 12. Lal Mohan Prasad, 13. Lalu
Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav, 14. Mahesh Prasad, 15. Manoranjan Prasad, 16.
Mehar Chandra Subarno, 17. Mohendar Singh Bedi, 18. Nand Kishore Prasad,
19. Naresh Prasad, 20. Om Prakash Diwakar, 21. Pankaj Mohan Bhui, 22.
Phool Chand Singh, 23. Pitamber Jha, 24. Radha Mohan Mandal, 25. Raj
Kumar Sharma @ Raja Ram Joshi, 26. Raghu Nandan Prasad, 27. Rajendra
Kumar Bagaria, 28. Ravindra Kumar Rana, 29. Shardendu Kumar Das, 30.
Saraswati Chandra and 31. Vidya Sagar Nishad.
6. The brief of case is that informant namely Brij Kishore Pathak,
Deputy Collector, Dumka send a written application letter no. 326 /Go. dated
02.02.1996 to P.S incharge Dumka Town in which written that in the direction
of D.C , Dumka, they inspected Regional Director, AHD Office, Dumka
relating to irregularity on 31.01.1996. During inspection it is found that the
Regional Director, AHD, Om Prakash Diwakar do not came in office since
Page 7
--7– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
many months and Head Clerk Rameshwar Chaudhary also absent since
18.01.1996, Accountant Pankaj Mohan Bhui absent since 25.01.1996.
Inspection conducted in the presence of Dr. Parshuram Verma, Assistant
Director, AHD, Sri Uday Kumar Singh - Stenographer, Sri Kamla Kishore
Dubey – Assistant Accountant and Chaukidar, Peon, Nigh-guard also present.
Present person narrated that allotment order have brought by Om Prakash
Diwakar, Regional Director, AHD from Patna and found that in December –
1995 and January – 1996 they withdrew in head of medicine Rs. 3,02,18,659/-,
head of transporting annual Feed Rs. 55,73,635/- and the head of instrument
article Rs. 18,46,559/- withdrawn from Dumka Treasury but any allotment
register, Cash book, Store Register was not found in office. Further found that
Regional Director, AHD, Dumka in financial year 1995 – 96 in head 2403 non-
plan allotted only Rs. 1,50,000/- for hospital medicines and establishment vide
letter 7559 dated 30.12.1995 but in two months money withdrawn Rs.
3,76,38,853/- illegally. During inspection, it is also found that no any store
found in that office. Radha Pharmacy, Dumka paid in December – 1995 and
January – 1996 Rs. 20,45,450/- but in inspection found that no any Radha
Pharmacy Dumka have any document in relating to supply. In similar way
illegally money withdrawn by the Regional Director, AHD, Dumka which paid
in favour of M/s. Laxmi Enterprise, Main Road, Godda in two months
December – 1995 and January – 1996 Rs. 65,47,630/- but during inquiry no
such type of firm exist in Godda. The Regional Director, AHD, Dumka
illegally withdrew and paid in transportation of annual feed Rs. 55,73,635/- in
favour of two transport agency viz Krishna Road Transportation, Pakur and Raj
Kumar Sharma Transportation, Asansol. In preliminary inquiry the Truck
Number found wrong. Further written that the Regional Director, AHD,
Dumka have power to pass bill upto amount Rs. 50,000/- so maximum bill
pass between Rs. 49,000/- to 50,000/- and Rs. 5,00,000/- paid through 9 to 10
bills and pray that registered a case against liable persons and firms in
relevant sections – 120(B), 409, 467, 468, 471, 473, 474, 477(A) of I.P.C.
7. In the light of written information petition no. 326/go. Dated
02.02.1996 informant Brij Kishore Pathak, Deputy Collector, Dumka, Dumka
P.S Case No. 16/1996 dated 02.02.1996 U/s- 409, 467, 468, 471, 473, 474,
477(A)/120 (B)/109 of I.P.C was registered and S.I Ram Prit Prasad was
authorized to investigate in this case.
8. In the light of Hon'ble High Court, Patna judgment dated 11.03.1996
in CWJC No. 1617/1996, 1642/96, 1656/96, 459/96(R), 541/96(R), 602/96 ®,
Page 8
--8– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
675/96 ® and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the Judgment dated
19.03.1996 in SLP (Civil) No. 5811/96 etc, the C.B.I to take up and investigate
all criminal cases registered by state police in the State of Bihar in respect to
the fraudulent withdrawals / encashments of Government money from Animal
Husbandry Department, Government of Bihar. One such case was registered by
Dumka Town , police station Case No. 16/1996 dated 02.02.1996 which is
taken over by Central Bureau of Investigation, re-registered Crime No. R.C –
38(A)/1996 registered U/s- 409, 467, 468, 471, 473, 474, 477A,120(B(, 109 of
I.P.C and Sec. 13 (2) r/w Section – 13(1), (c) and (d) of P.C Act, 1988 against
(1). Sri Om Prakash Diwakar, Regional Director, Animal Husbandry Office,
Dumka, Bihar, (2). Sri Rameshwar Prasad Chaudhary, Head Assistant,
Regional Director, Animal Husbandry, Dumka, (3). Sri Pankaj Mohan Bhui,
Accountant, O/o- Regional Director, Animal Husbandry, Dumka, (4). Other
Unknown Officers/officials of the Office of Regional Director, Animal
Husbandry, Dumka, (5). M/s. Radha Pharmacy, Dumka, and (6). M/s.
Lakshmi Enterprise, Main Road, Godda & others unknown. The charge of
investigation was handed over to D.N. Biswas, Dy. S.P/CBI/SPE/ACB,
Calcutta, who after investigation submitted charge-sheet no. 05 dated
11.05.2000, in the court. The result of investigation has revealed that during
1988 – 96 the accused shown in Annexure – I and others unknown had entered
into a criminal conspiracy and agreed to do or cause to done illegal act or acts
which are not legal by illegal means at Dumka, Patna and other places of Bihar.
In pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy during December – 1995 and
January – 1996 and amount of Rs. 3,42,37,000./- was illegally withdrawn by
the Regional Director, AHD, Santhal Pargana Region, Dumka under the major
head 2403 from Dumka Treasury. Above money withdrawn without supplying /
transporting the medicines / materials concerned, fraudulently withdrew a sum
of Rs. 3,13,41,451/- out of the sum of Rs. 3,42,37,601/- drawn by R.D AHD,
Dumka and consequence wrongful loss was caused to the Government of Bihar
and wrongful gain to themselves and other co-accused persons. It is also
revealed during investigation that for financial year 1995 -96 for R.D, AHD,
Santhal Pargana, Dumka was allotted only Rs. 1,50,000/- for purchase
medicine etc but in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy, 24 fake allotment
letters for Rs. 12,47,00,000/- Approximately were fraudulently and dishonestly
got issued to Dr. Om Prakash Diwakar as drawing and disbursing Officer for
making payment to the co-accused suppliers / transporters against their fake
supply / transport bills for feed, fodder, medicines, and instrument etc during
Page 9
--9– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
the financial year 1995 – 96. It is also disclosed that accused persons
distributed the amount so received fraudulently and dishonestly amongst the
co-conspirator in a ratio of 20 % of the bill amount for suppliers and the
balance 80 % for the AHD Officials, Government Officers, Ministers, Chief
Minister and other politicians for their respective roles in the conspiracy. The
list of accused shown in Annexure – I of the charge sheet which is as follows :-
(1). O.P. Diwakar, (2). Rameshwar Prasad Chaudhary, (3). Pankaj Mohan
Bhui, (4). Gopi Nath Das, (5). Benu Jha, (6). Md. Sayeed, (7). Nand Kishore
Prasad, (8). Raghunandan Prasad, (9). Rajendra Singh, (10). Md. Wassimuddin,
(11). Bimal Kant Das, (12). Radha Mohan Mandal, (13). Manoranjan Prasad,
(14). Pitamber Jha, (15). Krishna Kumar Prasad, (16). Raj Kumar Sharma,
(17). Rajendra Kumar Bagaria, (18). Arun Kumar Singh, (19). Ajeet Kumar
Verma, (20). Mahendra Prasad, (21). Lal Mohan Prasad, (22). Naresh Prasad,
(23). Pramod Kumar Jaiswal, (24). Mahinder Singh Bedi, (25). Saty Narayan
Singh, (26). Chhathoo Prasad, (27). Kalika Prasad Singh, (28). Saradendu
Kumar Das, (29). Ram Raj Ram, (30). Brij Bhushan Prasad, (31). Raghvendra
Kumar Das, (32). Beck Julius, (33). Mahesh Prasad, (34). Phool Chand Singh,
(35). Bhola Ram Tufani, (36). Chandra Deo Prasad Verma, (37). Vidya Sagar
Nishad, (38). Jagdish Sharma, (39). Jagannath Mishra, (40). Dhruv Bhagat,
(41). Lalu Prasad, (42). K. Arumugam, (43). Shyam Bihari Sinha, (44). Adhip
Chandra Chaudhary, (45). Mehar Chandra Subarno, (46). Ravindra Kumar
Rana (47). Sripati Narayan Dubey and (48). Smt. Saraswati Chandra.
9. That is after perusal of case diary and all Annexures as documents
produced with charge-sheet, court found prima facie case against named
accused in Annexure – I of charge-sheet and took cognizance U/s- 120 (B) r/w
Section – 420, 409, 467, 468, 471, 477(A) of the I.P.C and U/s- 13 (2) r/w
Section 13 (1) (c) & (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
10. During trial case of accused Sripati Narayan Dubey, the then
Commissioner, Santhal Pargana, Dumka was quashed by the Hon'ble
Jharkhand High Court, so his name named struck off from prosecution. Two
accused persons namely Rameshwar Prasad Chaudhary and Md. Sayeed
granted pardon during trial so their prosecution also abeyance and presently
show-cause was issued that why not withdrawn the grant pardon U/s- 306 of
Cr.P.C due to unnecessary taken benefit in collusion with C.B.I. It is also
transpires that during trial accused persons namely (1). Rajendra Singh, (2).
Md. Wassimuddin, (3). Mahendra Prasad, (4). Saty Narayan Singh, (5).
Chhathoo Prasad, (6). Kalika Prasad Sinha, (7) Ram Raj Ram, (8). Brij
Page 10
--10– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
Bhushan Prasad, (9). Raghvendra Kumar Das, (10). Bhola Ram Tufani, (11).
Chandra Deo Prasad Verma, (12). K. Arumugam, and (13). Shyam Bihari
Sinha and have been died so their trial dropped. It is also transpires that
accused Pramod Kumar Jaiswal record split up and he plead guilty. Presently
remaining 31 accused persons namely 1. Adhip Chandra Chaudhary, 2. Ajeet
Kumar Verma, 3. Arun Kumar Singh, 4. Beck Julius, 5. Smt. Benu Jha, 6.
Bimal Kant Das, 7. Dhruv Bhagat, 8. Gopi Nath Das, 9. Jagannath Mishra, 10.
Jagdish Sharma, 11. Krishna Kumar Prasad, 12. Lal Mohan Prasad, 13. Lalu
Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav, 14. Mahesh Prasad, 15. Manoranjan Prasad, 16.
Mehar Chandra Subarno, 17. Mohindar Singh Bedi, 18. Nand Kishore Prasad,
19. Naresh Prasad, 20. Om Prakash Diwakar, 21. Pankaj Mohan Bhui, 22.
Phool Chand Singh, 23. Pitamber Jha, 24. Radha Mohan Mandal, 25. Raj
Kumar Sharma @ Raja Ram Joshi, 26. Raghu Nandan Prasad, 27. Rajendra
Kumar Bagaria, 28. Ravindra Kumar Rana, 29. Shardendu Kumar Das, 30.
Saraswati Chandra and 31. Vidya Sagar Nishad are facing the trial.
11. It is also transpires that prosecution out of 339 charge-sheeted
witnesses, examined only 245 witnesses in the court who are follows and
proved following exhibits in examination-in-chief :-
PW Nos. Name of P.Ws Gist of Evidence Exhibits ProvedP.W.1 Sambhoo Nath
SurBranch Manager, SBI, Pakur.
Seizure of Account Opening form of
A/c. No. 376 and seizure memo, M/s.
Krishna Road Carrier of accused R.K.
Bagaria.
1
P.W.2 Sukumar SarkarAccountant,SBI, Pakur.
Account Opening form, Specimen
signature Card, ledger, request letter to
close the account, debit vouchers, 14
demand drafts, 19 cheques of current
account number 376 of M/s. Krishna
Road Carrier of accused R.K. Bagaria.
2, 3, 4,5,6, 7 to 7/13,
8, 8/1 to 8/10, 9 to
9/18, 10 to 10/26,
P.W.3 Arun Kr Roy ChoudharyDeputy Manager,State Bank of India, Godda
Seizure of Account Opening Form,
Ledger sheets, 14 bank drafts, 9 pay in
slips of M/s. Laxmi Enterprises,
Godda, Sushil Jha is the introducer and
Smt. Beni Jha is the proprietor of the
firm.
2/1, 3/1, 7/14 to
7/27, 8/11 to 8/19,
1/1,
P.W.4 Sri Krishna ChoudharyBranch Manager,
Seizure of the documents of M/s.
Laxmi Enterprises, Godda.
1 /2
Page 11
--11– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
SBI GoddaP.W.5 Suresh Chandra
JhaAccountant,SBI, Godda
Identification of signatures of Smt.
Benu Jha and her relation with Shri
Sushil Jha and Binod Jha as family
members from the same village under
Godda District.
2/1, 11 to 11/3.
P.W.6 Sureshwar BanerjeeSenior Manager,Oriental Bank of Commerce, Bhawanipur Branch, Kolkata
Seizure of Account opening form,
Ledger, vouchers, cheques of M/s.
Little Oak Pharmaceuticals, Kolkatta,
Ajit Kumar Verma as Proprietor had
operated the account.
1/3, 2/2, 3/2, 12,
8/20,, 8/21 to 8/23,
9/19 to 9/37, 10/27,
13
P.W.7 Madhu Sudhan SahaAccountant,State Bank of India,Kotasur Branch of Birbhum District Bengal.
Raj Kumar Sharma had opened a
current account number SIB 39 at SBI
to deposit 06 bank drafts issued by
SBI, Dumka.
2/3, 14, 3/3, 8/24 to
8/29, 7/28 to 7/33
P.W.8 Ashish Kr RoyAGM, SBI, Asansol
Seizure of documents from SBI
Asansol relating to current A/c. Of Raj
Kumar Sharma @ Rajendra Sharma @
Raja Ram Joshi
1 /4
P.W.9 Arun Kr. SahaDeputy Manager, SBI,Main Branch Asansol
The witness identified accused Raj
Kumar Sharma who operated the Bank
Account 9B/45 wherein 02 drafts of
SBI Dumka were encashed.
2/4, 3 /4, 15, 8/30,
8/31, 7/34 to 7/35,
9/38 to 9/41,
P.W.10 Kashi Nath SharmaHead Assistant, SBI,Main Branch Asansol
The witness also identified accused Raj
Kumar Sharma who operated the Bank
Account 9B/45 wherein 02 drafts of
SBI Dumka were encashed.
8/30, 831, 9/38 to
9/41, 2/4
P.W.11 Bhoot Nath MandalDeputy Manager,SBI, Asansol
Operation of the bank accounts of Raj
Kumar Sharma at SBI, Asansol.
8/30, 8/31
P.W.12 Suresh ChandarChief Manager, SBI,Deoghar
Seizure of 04 bank drafts from SBI,
Deoghar.
1/5
P.W.13 Anant PrasadBranch Manager, UCO Bank, Deoghar0
Seizure of A/c Opening form, Ledger,
deposit slips of Vishwakarma Agency,
Deoghar opened jointly by Arun
1/6, 2/5, 15/1, 8/32
to 8/34, 7/36 to
7/39, 9/42, to 9/44
Page 12
--12– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
Kumar and Shiv Raj Ram as partners.
P.W.14
Shyam Sundar SharmaChief Cashier, UCO Bank,Deoghar
Viswakarma Agency is a partnership
firm of Arun Kumar and Shiv Raj Ram.
8/32 to 8/34.
---P.W.15 Amit Lal
BanerjeeBranch Manager, United Bank of India, Dover Lane, Kolkata
Current Account of M/s. Little Oak
Proprietorship firm of Ajit Kumar
Verma, Account opening form, ledger,
specimen Signature Card, Cheques,
2/6, 3/5, 15/2, 9/45
to 9/75, 8/35 to
8/38, 10/28, 7/40,
1/7.
P.W.16 Rajendra Lal SharmaDriver of Truck No. BR12H-2108
Not transported fodder in October and
November 1995. The Truck was under
repair in a garage at Dumka.
--
P.W.17 Dinannath KelankaOwner of Truck BRL-9651
Not transported fodder from Ranchi to
Dumka. The truck was engaged in
transportation of salt and cement
during the period.
--
P.W.18 Md. JamirDriver of the Truck No. BRL-9651
Not transported fodder from Ranchi to
Dumka. The Truck was engaged in
transportation of salt and cement
during the period.
--
P.W.19 Gopal MandalOwner of garage Viswakarma Auto Centre, Dumka
The truck number BR12-2108 was
under repair in his garage during
October and November – 1995.
16, 17, 1/8,
P.W.20 Sheo Kr MeharaOwner of Truck No. BR-12H-9411
Not transported fodder from Ranchi to
Dumka. The truck was engaged in
transportation of salt and cement
during the period.
Mark- X, , X/1,
P.W.21 Bindeshwari PrasadDTO, Dumka
Verification of the registration number
of vehicles shown used for
transportation of fodder.
18, , X/2.
P.W.22 Setal Prasad MandalDriver of Truck No. BRL-5541
The truck was used for transportation
of cement, stone cheeps and iron rod of
Deoghar during the period.
Mark – X/3
P.W.23 Ajay Kr MahantaOwner of Bus No. BR-12-4575
The vehicle is a bus used as public
transport from Jasidih to Tarapith.
Never transported fodder Ranchi to
Pakur and Sahebganj.
Mark - X/4
P.W.24 P. Venkatsar M/s. Concept Pharmaceuticals had 19, 19/1 & 19/2,
Page 13
--13– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
Senior Manager Distribution, M/s Concept Pharmaceuticals, Mumbai.
depot at Patna till 1995, M/s. Mukesh
Pharma SR Enterprises, Patna and
Gauri Distributor, Bhagalpur did not
purchase veterinary medicines from his
company during the period.
19/3 & 19/4, 11/3 to
11/34, X/5,
P.W. 25 Harihar PrasadBlock Development Officer, Jama
BDO, Jama was shown for
transportation of fodder by the accused
transporter.
20, 21, 21/1, 21/2,
1/9.
P.W. 26 Dilip Kr AgarwalOwner of Truck No. BRL-2675
Never transported feed / fodder from
Ranchi to Sahebganj during the period.
The truck was transporting wheat from
FCI Depot Jasidih to Dumka. P.W. 27 Kaml Nain
Owner of Truck No. RJ14G-2236
Never transported feed / fodder from
Ranchi to Sahebganj during the period.
P.W.28 Ramesh Chand SainiOwner of Truck No. RJ14G-1374
Never transported feed/fodder from
Ranchi to Dumka or any place in Bihar.
P.W.29 Nathu Lal Owner of Truck No. RJ14G-2284
Never transported feed / fodder from
Ranchi to Dumka or any place in Bihar.
---P.W.30 Anand Kr
GutgutiaIntroducer of the Bank A/c of M/s Krishna Road Carrier at SBI Pakur Branch
Identified Rajendra Kumar Bagaria as
owner of M/s. Krishna Road Carrier,
Pakur.
10 to 10/26
P.W.31 Sisir Kr MandolIntroducer of the Bank A/c of Raj Kumar Sharma at SBI Kotosur Branch
Identified Raj Kumar Sharma as
Proprietor of M/s. Raj Kumar Sharma
as introducer of his Bank Account at
SBI Kotasur Branch.
2/3
P.W.32 Ram Swaroop Yadav Owner of the Truck No. RJ14G-3903
Did not transport materials of AHD
from Rajmahal to Taljhari during
October – 1995.
---
P.W.33 Ram Naryan MandolDTO, Dhanbad
Nature of vehicles as : -
Vehicle No. Nature
BPR-7167 Moped
18/1, 18/2, 1/10, 22
to 22/6
Page 14
--14– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
BPR-7667 Moped
BHG-9160 Jeep
BHG-9160
Motorcycle
BR 17B-6988 Car.
BR17B-6355 Trekkar. P.W.34 Chiman Lal
NagpalOwner of Truck No. RJ 14G 3243 and RJ 14G 3245
Never transported consignment of
AHD Bihar during October – 1995.
---
P.W.35 Md. RamzanOwner of Truck No. RJ 14G 2345
Never transported consignment of
AHD Bihar during October – 1995.
---
P.W. 36 Chhote LalOwner of Truck No. RJ 14G 1325
Never transported consignment of
AHD Bihar during October 1995
---
P.W.37 Mahadeo Prasad DasOffice Assistant of Regional Director, AHD, Dumka
Dr. O.P.Dwikar was Regional Director
from June 1994. Regional Director
Dumka had no hospital or discrepancy
under his control.
05 bills of SR Enterprises passed by
O.P.Dwikar. Dr. Sayeed as SVO had
certified received and stock entries on
50 vouchers by Dr. Sayeed.
15 CNC bills of Radha Pharmacy
passed by O.P.Dwikar, Dr. Sayeed as
SVO had certified received and stock
entries on 40 vouchers.
15 CNC bills of Laxmi Enterprises
passed by O.P.Dwikar, Dr. Nand
Kishore Prasad as AIO, Dr. Raghu
Nandan Prasad as AD Poultry had
certified received and stock entries on
131 vouchers.
11 CNC bills of M/s Raj Kumar
Sharma Asansol passed by O.P.Dwikar,
Dr. Bimal Kant Das, TVO and Dr.
23, 23/1, 24, 25 to
25/4, 26 to 26/49,
25/5 to 25/19, 26/50,
to 26/90, 25/20 to
25/34, 26/91 to
26/221, 26/222 to
26/296, 26/297 to
26/354, 26/355 to
26/394, 26/395 to
26/454, 26/455 to
26/464, 25/70 to
25/72, 26/465 to
26/494, 25/23 to
25/78, 26/495 to
26/554, 25/79 to
25/84, 26/555 to
26/612, 25/85 to
25/88, 26/613 to
26/652, 25/89 to
25/93, 26/653 to
26/700, 25/94 to
Page 15
--15– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
Wassimuddin had certified
transportation on 75 vouchers.
14 CNC bills of Krishna Road Carrier,
Pakur. Dr. Bimal Kant Das, TVO and
Dr. Wassimuddin had certified
transportation on 58 vouchers.
4 CNC bills of Little Oak,Kolkata
passed by O.P.Dwikar and receipt
certified by Dr. Rajendra Singh on 40
vouchers.
6 CNC bills of Viswakarma Agency
passed by O.P.Dwikar and receipt
certified by Dr. Wassimuddin on 10
vouchers, Dr.Bimal Kant Das on 10
vouchers and Dr. Krishan Kumar
Prasad on 40 vouchers.
3 CNC bills of B.R. Pharma passed by
O.P.Dwikar. Receipt certified by Dr.
Satyanarayan Singh on 30 vouchers.
6 CNC bills of Mukesh Enterprise
passed by O.P.Dwikar. Receipt
certified by Dr. Rajendra Singh on 60
vouchers.
6 CNC bills of R.K.Agency Patna
passed by O.P.Dwikar. Receipt
certified by Dr. Rajendra Singh on 58
vouchers.
4 CNC bills of Vyapar Kuttir passed by
O.P.Dwikar. Receipt certified by Dr.
Pitamber Jha and Dr. Manoranjan
Prasad on 40 vouchers.
5 CNC bills of Bhagat & Company
passed by O.P.Dwikar. Receipt
certified by Dr. Bimal Kant Das and
Dr. Wassimuddin on 48 vouchers.
4 CNC bills of Semex Cryogenics
passed by O.P.Dwikar. Receipt
25/97, 26/701 to
26/737, 25/98 to
25/102.
Page 16
--16– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
certified by Dr. Raghunandan Prasad
on 37 vouchers.
5 CNC bills of B.R. Pharma passed by
O.P.Dwikar.
P.W.38 Sukhendra Chandra TalpatraManager Service Branch,SBI, Kolkata
Seizure of 04 bank drafts of M/s Little
Oak Pharmaceuticals.
1/11, 7/41 to 7/44.
P.W.39 Chandeshwar ChoudhryDTO, Patna
The vehicles mentioned on
transportation bills on Vespa Scooter,
TVS Moped, Rajdoot Motorcycle,
Govt. Jeep, State Transport Bus,
Chetak Scooter, Maruti Car, Yamaha
Motorcycle, Maxi also scooter of
Judicial Magistrate Patna besides few
trucks.
18/3,
P.W. 40 Saneet Kumar MandalBranch Manager, SBI,Kotasur
Seizure of documents of M/s Raj
Kumar Sharma from SBI, Kotasur
1/12, X,
P.W. 41 Vijay Prasad Sahof Raj Kishore Market, Shivpur Godda
Sushil Jha had a shop of cold drinks
besides his shop in the said market.
Name of the shop was Bharti
Enterprises. He had no medicine shop
in Godda. P.W. 42 Chain Raj Jain
Owner of Truck No. RJ 14G 0311
Never transported feed / fodder from
Ranchi to Rajmahal during the period.
P.W.43 Uday Pratap Singhof Raj Kishore Market, Shivpur Godda
No shop in the name of Laxmi
Enterprises of Sunil Kumar Jha was
functional at Raj Kishore Market,
Godda during the period.P.W.44 Mithilesh
KumarSecretary to His Excellency Governor of Bihar
Sanction for prosecution of Shri Lalu
Prasad, Dr. Jagannath Mishra,
Vidyasagar Nisad, Chandra Dev Prasad
Verma, Bhola Ram Tufani, K.
Arumugam, Mahesh Prasad, Beck
Julious, S.N.Dubey, Phool Chand
27, 27/1, 27/2, 27/3,
27/4, 27/5, 27/6,
Page 17
--17– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
Singh, Braj Bhushan Prasad, Dr. Ram
Raj Ram, Dr. O.P.Diwakar,
Raghevndra Kishore Das, Dr. Sayeed,
Dr. Wassimuddin, Dr. Manoranjan
Prasad, Dr. Nand Kishore Prasad, Dr.
Raghunandan Prasad, Dr. Bimal Kant
Das, Dr. Radh Mohan Mandal, Dr.
Pitamber Jha, Dr. Krishan Kumar
Prasad, Dr. Satyendra Singh,
Rameshwar Chaudhary, Chattu Prasad
and Shardendu Kumar Das issued at
the instruction of Shri Binod Chandra
Pandey His Excellency Governor of
Bihar. P.W. 45 Raghvendra
Kishore DasAdministrative Officer,Diretorate AHD, Patna
Efforts of Shri Lalu Prasad, Dr.
R.K.Rana and S.B.Sinha for elevation
of Dr. Ram Raj Ram to the Post of
Director since July 1989.
Fabrication of allotment letters.
Payments made to Lalu Prasad for
favour.
False report by Jagdish Sharma on
objections by Audit.
Seizure of huge cash at Ranchi Airport.
Payment for stay on transfer of Dr.
B.N.Sharma from Chaibasa, Extension
in service after retirement to Dr.
S.B.Sinha, payments for managing
questions raised in legislature
regarding fraudulent payments etc.
Payment for Air ticket of accused Lalu
Prasad and others by T.M.Prasad and
A, A/1 A/2 Mark –
XXX/3,
Page 18
--18– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
S.B.Sinha through J.P.Verma.P.W.46 Santosh Kumar
Introducer of the bank account of M/s Vyapar Kutir.
The witness identified accused Naresh
Prasad Proprietor of M/s Vyapar Kutir
as he had introduced him for opening
current account of M/s Vyapar Kutir at
Allahabad Bank, Ashok Nagar Branch,
Kankarbag, Patna.
X,
P.W.47 Jasminder SinghPartner o M/s Saluja Trading Company
Rakesh Mehra purchased Air
Conditioner Ambassador Car BR14B-
4320 from Ashko Auto Mobile Main
Road, Ranchi in October 1995 in the
name of Naresh Kumar Jain.
P.W.48 T.K. ChatterjeeChief Manager, SBI, Dumka
Seizure of 71 bank draft purchase
application for payments to the accused
suppliers and transporters from the
account of District Treasury Dumka.
1/13,
P.W.49 DayanandAssistant Commissioner,Sales Tax, Patna.
Seizure of Annual Return Files of M/s
S.R. Enterprises of Smt. Sarswati
Chandra, M/s R.K. Agency of Lal
Mohan Prasad, M/s B.R.Pharma of
Mahendra Prasad
28, 29, 30 to 30/2,
30/3 to 30/5, 1 /4,
P.W.50 P.C ThakurClerk, DAHO, Godda
Identified signatures of accused
O.P.Diwakar, Regional Director,
Dumka on 103 CNC bills and 738
vouchers of accused suppliers and
transporters.
P.W. 51 Shayam Lal MarandiClerk on typistDAHO, Deoghar
Identified signatures for receipt of
consignment by accused Dr. Pitamber
Jha and accused Dr. Manoranjan
Prasad.
Identified signatures for receipt of
consignment by accused Dr. Krishan
Kumar Prasad.
---
P.W. 52 Md. SahahabuddinClerk of SAHO, Sahebganj
Animal feed not received in the office
of SAHO, Sahebganj.
P.W. 53 Bal Krisna GuptaProp. of M/s B.K. Surgical
Introduced the current account of M/s
S.R.Enterprises of Smt. Sarswati
Chandra wife of Mahendra Prasad.
31,
Page 19
--19– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
Enterprises, Patna
Mahendra Prasad was introduced to
him by accused Tripurari Mohan
Prasad in his office at Patna. P.W.54 Sheoji Ojha
Deputy Manager,SBI, Main Branch Patna
Payments for 04 bank drafts of Mukesh
Enterprises, 05 bank drafts of
R.K.Agency, 04 bank drafts of
S.R.Enterprises, 04 bank drafts of B.R.
Pharma by SBI, Dumka through
current account of Mukesh Enterprises
at SBI, Main Branch, Patna. Accused
Lal Mohan Prasad is proprietor of M/s
Mukesh Enterprises, Patna
7/41 to 7/44, 8/39 to
8/40, 7/45 to 7/49,
8/41 to 8/42, 7/50 to
7/53, 8/43 to 8/45,
7/54 to 7/57, 8/46 to
8/47, 2/7.
P.W.55 Dr. Md SayeedStaff Verification Officer,Office of Regional Director, AHD, Dumka
O.P.Diwakar functioned as Regional
Director of AHD, Dumka from
27.06.1994 to February 1996.
Prepared supply orders for veterinary
medicines and instruments without
indent at the instruction of
O.P.Diwakar.
Accused Diwakar obtained fake receipt
certificates on the bills of suppliers
from his subordinate DAHO, SAHO,
Asst. Director Poultary, AIO, BAHO
for preparation of consolidated bills to
withdraw money from Dumka
Treasury.
No cattle or piggery firm were
functional under RD, AHD, Dumka
during the period.
S.N.Dubey, Divisional Commissioner
inspected Dumka Treasury and during
inspection demanded details of illegal
withdrawals made during 1991-92,
---
Page 20
--20– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
1992-93 and 1993-94.
Dr. Sesh Muni Ram was intitally upset
but subsequently re-reconcile and
informed the witness that he has
negotiated with commissioner Dumka
on condition that he would pay 5
percent of the allotment and
withdrawals.
In the month of May 1994 accused
S.N.Dubey, Commissioner, Dumka
issued order to treasury officer Dumka
to pass purchase bills of AHD for Rs. 5
Lakhs and above.
At the time of his transfer, Dr. Sesh
Muni Ram informed this witness that
he has introduced his successor Dr.
O.P.Diwakar to Shri S.N.Dubey,
Commissioner Dumka and also
informed about payment @ 5 percent
of the allotment.
Dr. O.P.Diwakar also subsequently
informed him that he has to pay 4 to 5
percent of the payments drawn against
purchase bills of AHD, Dumka to Shri
S.N.Dubey Commissioner.
This witness was also given 1 percent
of the payments on purchase bills. He
had to oblige Dr. Diwakar by giving
receipt certificates and making stock
entries of the medicines / materials
shown supplied on the bills.
Dr. Diwakar also informed that Shri
Page 21
--21– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
Chandra Dev Prasad Verma, Minister is
his man, Dr. Ravindra Kumar Rana is
his friend, Dr. Ram Raj Ram, Director
would do whatever he would ask which
includes his suspension and transfer.
Dr. Diwakar obtained false certificate
of receipt of material on suppliers bill
from him and other sub ordinate
officers under pressure for drawing
money from Dumka Treasury.
Dr. Diwakar informed this witness that
he obtained allotment letters from
accused Dr. S.B.Sinha or through his
men Mahendra Prasad supplier.
Payments were drawn from Dumka
Treasury during the period of
O.P.Diwakar without receipt of any
instruments or medicines and or
against meager supply of materials.
Dr. Diwakar has passed all the bills for
the period from December 1995 and
January 1996 for payments.
Supply orders for supply worth Rs. 20
Lakhs only have been prepared during
the period and rest of the bills were
passed without any supply orders.
The witness stayed in hotel Yuvraj at
Doranda Ranchi with Dr. Diwakar
during August 1994. Payment for the
stay was made by owner of M/s Bhagat
& Company Ranchi.
Page 22
--22– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
Dr. Diwakar used to collect all the
documents relating to such payments
from him on the pretext that these
documents would be given to PAC.
The documents included:-
1. Dispatch Registers relating to
purchase.
2. Receipt Registers relating to
purchase.
3. Stock Registers of medicines and
instruments.
4. Stock Register of animal feed and
fodder.
5. Guard files containing false receipts
of medicines and instruments obtained
from sub ordinate officer.
6. All files relating to purchase.
Dr. Jagdish Sharma, Chairman PAC
used to call Dr. Diwakar to his
residence at Patna and for getting the
aforesaid records received by PAC, Dr.
Diwakar used to make illegal payments
to accused Jagdish Sharma.
During election of Bihar Legislative
Assembly in the year 1995, Dr.
Ravindra Kumar Rana summoned Dr.
Diwakar as he was given ticket to
contest from Gopalpur constituency for
obtaining election expenses.
Dr. Diwakar had visited the residence
of accused Dr. R.K.Rana with cash of
Rs. 10 Lakhs in a briefcase.
Page 23
--23– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
He delivered the briefcase to Dr. Rana
in his presence. The witness
accompanied Dr. Diwakar to the
residence of accused Dr. R.K.Rana for
delivery of cash.
Dr. Rana asked for more money from
Diwakar in his presence. Subsequently
Dr. Diwakar informed that he had to
spent Rs. 30 Lakhs for election
expenses of Dr. R.K.Rana.
Dr. Diwakar informed this witness that
Chanrdev Prasad Verma, Minister has
also demanded Rs. 10 Lakhs from him
as Minister is also contesting election
from the constituency of Dr. Diwakar.
Dr. Diwakar also informed that he has
been posted as Regional Director,
Dumka with additional charge of
Regional Director Bhagalpur and
Purnia also and simultaneously was
given charge of DAHO, Godda,
Bhagaglpur and Katihar by the same
Minister and it was therefore, his duty
to help him.
Dr. Diwakar asked the witness to count
Rs. 7 Lakhs in his house and keep them
in a suitcase in his presence. Dr.
Diwakar with the suitcase when to the
residence of Minister with this witness
at Kankarbagh Housing Colony, Patna
and delivered this suitcase to the
Minister in his presence. The Minister
demanded more money from Dr.
Diwakar in his presence. Subsequently
Page 24
--24– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
Dr. Diwakar informed that he paid
another Rs. 8 Lakhs to the Minister for
his election expenses.
On the date of counting, this witness
was with Dr. Diwakar who informed
that he had to spend Rs. 1.5 Crores on
politicians for their election expenses
during 1995. Dr. Diwakar also
informed that these politicians have
also taken money from Dr. S.B.Sinha
who distributed money at the
instruction of Dr. R.K.Rana. Dr.
Diwakar informed that he has been
assured posting as RD, Ranchi and
after that he would replace Dr.
S.B.Sinha for such withdrawals and
payments from treasuries.
On 22.01.1996, Dr. Diwakar called him
to his residence at Patna. Dr. Diwakar
was upset. He informed that Finance
Commissioner, V.S.Dubey has
discovered the case of illegal
withdrawals of AHD. He has also
obtained reports from the office of AG,
Ranchi. He had informed Dr. R.K.Rana
who is close to Lalu Prasad and he had
also taken appointment for meeting of
Dr. Diwakar with Lalu Prasad on the
same date but for meeting with Lalu
Prasad he would require more money
as Lalu Prasad does not properly
without money. Dr. Diwakar called him
to his bedroom and took out a VIP
suitcase and asked him to verify if Rs.
20 Lakhs is kept in the suitcase. After
Page 25
--25– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
verification the witness informed that
Rs. 20 Lakhs is available in the
suitcase. Dr. Diwakar in his Maruti Car
with a suitcase when to the residence
of Chief Minister at 1 Anne Marg with
him. At the gate of 1 Anne Marg aksed
Dr. Diwakar for his identity, Dr.
Diwakar informed that he is the men of
Dr. R.K.Rana and thereafter he was
allowed entry in the residence of Lalu
Prasad. Dr. Diwakar went inside the
residence of Lalu Prasad with the
suitcase containing Rs. 20 Lakhs and
the witness was on the Maruti Vehicle
of Dr. Diwakar in the corridor inside
the campus of the residence of Shri
Lalu Prasad. After some time Dr.
Diwakar returned empty handed to the
vehicle and informed this witness
about the delivery of cash to Lalu
Prasad and also about the assurance
given to him to scuttle the enquiry
regarding withdrawals from Dumka
Treasury.
The witness has been taken as
approver in this case. P.W.56 K.L. Das
BAHO LittiparaAccused Dr. Bimal Kant Das
functioned as TVO and accused Dr.
Wassimuddin functioned as DAHO at
Sahebganj during the period. In the
year 1995 no veterinary medicine or
animal feed was received by him at
Littipara. He had also not seen feed
being uploaded from Truck at Littipara.
P.W. 57 Maheshwar Accused Dr. Krishan Kumar Prasad has ---
Page 26
--26– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
Ram Accountant in the office of DAHO, Deoghar
certified receipt of veterinary
medicines on the vouchers of
Viswakarma Agency. No supply order
number is mentioned on any of the
voucher. These bills have been passed
by Regional Director, Dumka. P.W. 58 Pulak
MukherjeePartner of M/s Treatment Home Product, Kolkata
M/s Treatment Home Product, Kolkata
manufactured medicines on loan
license for M/s Little Oak
Pharmaceuticals, Kolkata. All the
medicines manufactured and shown
supplied by M/s Little Oak
Pharmaceuticals were for human
consumptions.
X/6, 1/15
P.W. 59 Jit Mohan PalChief Manager, SBI, Main Branch, Patna
Seizure of Bank drafts from SBI, Patna
of M/s Vyapar Kutir and other supply
firms.
1/16, 7/58.
P.W. 60 Tripurari SharanDeputy Manager, SBI, Main Branch, Patna
Deposit of bank drafts at SBI Patna.
P.W. 61 Janardhan PrasadHead Clerk in the office of DAHO, Sahebganj
Accused Dr. Bimal Kant Das and
accused Dr. Wassimuddin have
certified transportation of animal feed
to Sahebganj on the bills of M/s
Krishna Road Carrier, Pakur and M/s
Raj Kumar Sharma, Asansol. They
have also certified receipt of veterinary
medicines on the bills of Viswakarma
Agency and M/s Bhagat & Co. Ranchi.
No indent was placed for the said
transportation or supply from his office
to RD, Dumka. He had also not seen
transportation of fodder at Sahebganj
during the period.
---
P.W. 62 Kishore Kr SharmaOwner of Truck
The truck never transported any
consignment of AHD in the year 1995
Page 27
--27– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
No. RJ08-G-00341
in the state of Bihar.
P.W. 63 Dr. Bibhuti Nath ThakurAssistant Poultary Officer in the office of DAHO, Deoghar
Receipt of consignment of bills
certified by Dr. Pitamber Jha, TVO,
Deoghar.
P.W. 64 Ranjit Kumar Mandal Assistant in the office of Civil Surgeon Dumka
Seizure of Drug License Register of the
office of Civil Surgeon, Dumka.
32, 32/1, 1/16,
P.W.65 Paresh AcharyaAccountant of M/s Treatment Home Products
M/s Treatment Home Products
manufactured only medicines for
human consumptions on behalf of M/s
Little Oak Pharmaceuticals, Kolkata.
33,
P.W. 66 Laxman PrasadBDO, Littipara
No animal feed or veterinary medicines
supplied to Littipara Block during
1995-96.P.W. 67 Uday Kant Jha
Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax, Dumka
Seizure of books of account and
vouchers of M/s Radha Pharamacy,
Dumka relating to supply of veterinary
medicines to RD, AHD, Dumka.
34, 35 to 35/2, 35/3,
36 to 36/9, 37 to
37/14, 38 to 38/929,
39, 40, 41, 42, 1/17
& 1/18P.W. 68 Bhupinder
Singh Owner of Truck No. 14G-2842
The truck never transported any
consignment to Rajmahal, Taljhari and
Littipara from Ranchi during October
1995.P.W. 69 Anirudh Prasad
YadavOffice Clerk of DAHO, Godda
Identified the signature of Dr.
Satyanarayan Singh on the invoices of
R.K.Agency, Patna, Signature of Radha
Mohan Mandal on the invoices of M/s
Little Oak Pharmaceuticals, Kolkata.P.W.70 Priti Pal Saini
Owner of Truck No. RJ-02-G-1635
The truck did not transport any
consignment in Bihar.
P.W. 71 Dr. Ram Narayan Ram Veterinary Surgeon, Godda
Identified signatures of Satya Narayan
Singh and Radha Mohan Mandal on
the invoices of M/s B.R.Pharma, M/s
R.K.Agency, M/s Little Oak
Pharmaceuticals.
Page 28
--28– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
P.W. 72 Mahesh Chand Owner of Truck No. RJ-02G-1421
The truck did not transport any
consignment from Ranchi to Littipara.
P.W.73 Ibney HassanAssistant Commissioner, Sale Tax, Godda
M/s Bharti Enterprises and M/s Laxmi
Enterprises were not registered with
Sale Tax Godda for supply of
veterinary medicines. Misleading
registration number on bills of M/s
Laxmi Enterprises mentioned.
18/4
P.W. 74 Hari Narayan Meena Owner of Truk No. RJ-29G-0136
The truck did not transport any
consignment from Ranchi to Littipara.
43
P.W. 75 Naresh Jha Assistant Commissioner, Sale Tax, Deoghar
M/s Viswakarma Agency, Deoghar
though registered but as filed returns
disclosing zero sale during the period.
18/5,
P.W. 76 Pramod Kumar BhagatVillager and neighbour of accused Dhruv Bhagat
Got transfer of ownership of A.C.
Ambassador Car – BR 14D -4320 from
Naresh Jain of Ranchi to himself at the
instruction of Dhruv Bhagat without
making any payment.
XXX
P.W. 77 Vijay Kumar MishraChief Manager, SBI, Patna
Seizure of bank documents of Mukesh
Enterprises, Patna
1/19
P.W. 78 Purusottam Mishra Drug Inspector, Dumka
M/s Laxmi Enterprises, Godda was
issued Drug License on 18.12.1995
from his office.
X/7,
P.W. 79 Jayram Prasad VermaTraffice Superintendent,Indian Airline, Kolkata
Tripurari Mohan Prasad purchased Air
Tickets of Dr. S.B.Sinha, Dr.
S.K.Singh, K. Arumugam, Mahesh
Prasad and several politicians.
Subsequently Air Tickets of Dr.
S.B.Sinha, Dr. S.K.Singh, Dr.
R.K.Rana, R.K.Das, Beck Julious, K.
Arumugam and K.N.Jha were also
booked through him. In the year 1993-
94 Dr. R.K.Rana purchased Air Tickets
of Lalu Prasad sometimes on payment
44, 21/3 to 21/10
Page 29
--29– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
and sometimes on credit. Subsequently
payment for the Air Tickets purchased
on credit were made by Dr. S.B.Sinha
or by his son Rajesh who was also a
supplier of AHD. His statement was
recorded by the court under section 164
Cr.P.C and also by Income Tax Officer
on the aforesaid line. P.W. 80 Ram Chandra
Keshri Drug Licensing Authority Dumka
Seizure of documents relating to issue
of Drug License from his office to
medicine vendors.
1/20
P.W. 81 Ajay SinghAccount Assistant, Astor Hotel, Kolkata
Seizure of documents from the hotel by
the IO.
1/21
P.W.82 Laxmi Narayan GhoshDeputy Manager, Astor Hotel, Kolkata
Seizure of documents relating to
payments made for stay in the hotel.
1/22
P.W. 83 Navin kumar Tax Consultant, Patna
Seizure of cash books, sales register
and ledger of Vyapar Kutir, Patna
35/4 & 35/5, 36/10,
45, 46,, 1/23
P.W. 84 Shakti Pada KunduFinance Manager of Hotel Astor, Kolkata
Payment for stay of accused
M.C.Subarno from 07.08.93 to
09.08.93 and from 02.10.94 to
04.10.94 was made by Dr. Ajit Kumar
Verma Proprietor of M/s Little Oak
Pharmaceuticals of Kolkata. Also Beck
Julius stayed in the hotel from 03.06.95
to 04.06.95 for which payments were
made by M/s Little Oak
Pharmaceuticals, Kolkata
47, 48, 49, 50 to
50/2, 51, 47/1, 48/1
49/1, 50/3 to 50/5,
X/8, 47/2, 48/2, 50/6
to 50/8, 51/1, 47/3,
50/9 to 50/14, 48/3
& 48/4, 51/1, 47/4,
50/15 to 50/17 , 49/2
& 51/3, 50/18
to
50/20 51/4, A &
A/1,P.W. 85 Amarjeet Singh
Owner of Truck No. RJ-14G- 0998
The truck did not transport any
consignment in Bihar during the
period.
P.W.86 B.K.ChoudheryBranch Manager, M/s Alembic, Patna
No supply orders issued to M/s
Alembic by R.D.AHD, Dumka during
1995. Furnished details of veterinary
18/6, 18/7
Page 30
--30– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
medicines on requisition of CBI. P.W. 87 Rajesh Kumar
Owner of Truck No. RJ-26G- 0054
The truck did not transport any
consignment from Rajmahal to Taljhari
during October 1995.P.W.88 Prabhu Lal
GujjarOwner of Truck No. RJ-26G-0005
The truck did not transport any
consignment from Rajmahal to Taljhari
during October 1995.
P.W. 89 Deo Karan RegarOwner of Truck No. RJ-26G-0269
The truck did not transport any
consignment from Rajmahal to Taljhari
during October 1995.
P.W. 90 Ram Chandra RaiDriver of M/s Guide Travels, Kolkata
Vehicle of Guide Travel was taken on
hire for pick and drop of the daughter
of A.C.Chaudhary from his residence
to School and beck.P.W. 91 Jayant Banerjee
Partner of Guide Travel, Kolkata
Dr. Ajit Kumar Verma proprietor of
M/s Little Oak used to pay for booking
of cars used by A.C.Chaudhary.
1/24, 1/25,
P.W.92 Ranjit Singh Travel Agent of Guide Travel, Kolkata
Dr. Ajit Kumar Verma proprietor of
M/s Little Oak used to pay for booking
of cars used by A.C.Chaudhary.
52 to 52/4, 52/5 to
52/9, 52/10 to
52/15 , 52/16 to
52/17, 52/18 , 52/19
to 52/47 ,
52/48 to 52/71,
52/72 to 52/78,
52/79 to 52/98 ,
52/99 to 52/139,
52/140 to 52/156,
52/157 to 52/160,
52/161 to 52/174 ,
52/175 to 52/179,
52/80 to 52/181, 53
to 53/7, 54 to 54/51,
54/52 9/76 to 9/80,
55 to 55/4, 55/5 to
55/11, 55/12 to
55/13 55/14, 56 to
56/6,
Page 31
--31– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
P.W.93 Pankaj Kumar,Family friend of Dr. Ajit Kumar Verma
Dr. Ajit Kumar Verma proprietor of
M/s Little Oak Pharmaceuticals has
sent Rs. 14 Lakhs to Dr. O.P.Diwakar
through him. He delivered bag
containing Rs. 14 Lakhs to
O.P.Diwakar at his residence at
Gardani Bag, Patna. Dr. Verma was his
family friend and had made him
Director of M/s Vee Pee Impex, M/s
Little Oak Agro Kolkata with other
parties associated with AHD. And also
seizure of documents from his
premises.
57, X/1
P.W.94 Prem Kr Dubey,Stamp Clerk of Dumka Treasury
Identified the signatures of accused
Chathu Prasad, Treasury Officer,
Kalika Prasad Sinha Accountant and
Shardendu Kumar Das Assitant of
Dumka Treasury on tainted bills. Also
seizure of bills from Shri P N Mishra
than Treasury Officer.
P.W.95 Priyesh Kundan Prasad, Clerk of AD Poultary Dumka.
Receipt on vouchers enclosed with 12
CNC bills were certified by Dr.
Raghunandan Prasad, Asst. Director,
Poultry Dumka.
Materials shown receipt were not taken
into stock register maintained for the
purpose.
58 to 58/1
P.W.96 Mahendra Pd. Ram, Live stock Assistant of KVO Dumka.
No lubricant was received in the office
of KVO Dumka during 1995-96.
P.W. 97 Kamal Kishore Dubey, Statistics Assistant of RD AHD, Dumka.
85 Bank Draft purchase applications
were prepared in the writing of
Rameshwar Choudhary, Head Clerk
and signed by Dr. O P Diwakar,
Regional Director.
10/29 to 10/113
P.W.98 Shayam Chandra Mishra, Clerk of M/s Little Oak
The witness had prepared all the
invoices of M/s Little Oak
Pharmaceuticals, Kolkata in his writing
59, X/9, X/10,
Page 32
--32– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
Pharmaceuticals, Kolkata.
at the instruction of accused Dr. A. K.
Verma his employer but no medicines
mentioned in those invoices were
supplied. Dr. A.K. Verma sent 31
Lakhs rupees to Dr. O.P. Diwakar in
January 1996 in two installments of Rs.
15 Lakhs and Rs. 16 Lakhs through
this witness who delivered cash
consignments to Dr. Diwakar at his
Gardani Bag residence of Patna P.W.99 Keshari Kishor
Srivastava, Joint Director Statistics, AHD, Patna.
Proved the files containing list of
veterinary medicine suppliers approved
by the Government and also the order
of financial power of Regional Director
to pass bills upto Rs. 15,000/-. Also
identified his statement recorded under
section 164 Cr. PC.
60, 60/1, 61 , 44/1,
60/2
P.W.100 Parshuram Prasad Verma, Assistant Director, AHD, Dumka.
Seizure of documents form the office
of RD, AHD, Dumka. The witness also
confirmed initial verification about
passed bills and allotment letters by
Shri Braj Kishor Pathak, Deputy
Collector, Dumka in January, 1996.
1/27
P.W.101 Mangal Pd. Yadav, Assistant of , Dumka Treasury, Dumka
Proved initial scrutiny of tainted bills
by accused Sardendu Kumar Das,
Assistant of Dumka Treasury.
---
P.W.102 Braj Ksihore Pathak, Employee of M/s Bhagat and Co. Ranchi.
Proved his statement recorded under
section 164 Cr. PC.
44/2
P.W.103 Nathmal Sharma, Head Cashier, SBI, Main Branch, Asansol.
Introduction of the account opening
form current account No. 9B/45 of M/s
Raj Kumar Sharma proprietorship
concerned of Rajendra Prasad Sharma. P.W.104 Shiv Kumar Lal,
Typist of AHD, Patna.
Identified signature of accused Braj
Bhushan Prasad Budget Officer on 24
allotment letters used for making
alleged payments from Dumka
63 to 63/23
Page 33
--33– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
Treasury. P.W.105 Dineshwar
Pathak, Typist of AHD, Patna.
Identified signature of accused Braj
Bhushan Prasad Budget Officer on 24
allotment letters used for making
alleged payments from Dumka
Treasury. P.W.106 Mda Abdullah,
Head Typist of AHD, Patna.
The 24 allotment letters were not
prepared at AHD directorate Patna as
the do not contain the signatures of
Typist and comparer which is practice
in his office. P.W.107 Ashok Kumar
Mishra, Assistant of SBI, Dumka
Accused Gopi Nath Das received cash
payment for 15 bills of M/s Radha
Pharmacy, Dumka from SBI, Dumka.
P.W.108 Shiv Karan, Owner of Truck No. RJ-01G-0650
This Truck did not transport
consignment of AHD, Bihar in the
month of November, 1995. P.W.109 Dr. Shashi
Kumar Singh, Artificial Insemination Officer, FSB, Ranchi.
Rishi Bhushan Prasad Typist of
Regional Director Ranchi used to Type
allotment letters at the instruction of
Dr. S.B. Sinha. Dr. Sinha used to call
Braj Bhushan Budget Officer to Room
No. 101 of Hotel Patliputra Ashoka at
Patna and used to obtain the signature
of Budget Officer on such allotment
letters. Sometimes Mahendra Prasad
was sent to be residence of Budget
Officer for obtaining his signatures on
such allotment letters.
Dr. S.B. Sinha used to make regular
payments to Dr. R.K. Rana as he was
very close to accused Lalu Prasad. Dr.
Rana used to help Dr. S.B. Sinha on
account of his contact with Lalu Prasad
on AHD matters. Dr. S.B. Sinha also
used to make payments to Shri Vidya
Sagar Nisad and Bhola Ram Tuphani
both ministers from time to time. Dr.
68, 69 t0 69/10
Page 34
--34– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
Sinha had also sent Rs. 50 Thousand to
Shri Vidya Sagar Nisad and Rs. 20
Thousand to Shri Tuphani through him
in the year 1993. The witness went
from Ranchi to Patna by Aeroplane at
Patna Airport he was received by
Maruti Car sent by Tripurari Mohan
Prasad. From Airport he went to the
residence of Shri Nisad at Rajbanshi
Nagar, Patna were Shri Nisad called
him to his bedroom and accepted
packet containing 50 thousand sent by
Dr. S.B. Sinha. Thereafter he went to
the residence of Shri Tuphani at Baili
Road, Patna. The PA asked this witness
to meet Shri Tuphani where, he
delivered Rs. 20 thousand and Shri
Tuphani accepted the cash. Later on,
Dr. R. K. Rana came to know about
such payments made through this
witness and Dr. Rana advised S.B.
Sinha to make payment personally. In
1993-94, Dr. Sesh Muni Ram
introduced Beck Julius to Dr. S.B.
Sinha. Once, this witness accompanied
Dr. S.B. Sinha and Sesh Muni Ram to
circuit house, Patna where Beck Julius
was staying. Both Dr. Sinha and Dr.
Ram went to the room of Shri Beck
Julius and after sometime they returned
with one packet. On being asked, Dr.
Sinha replied Shri Julius does not take
whiskey and therefor the bottle of
whiskey was returned but he accepted
the cash. Later on, Shri Beck Julius
shifted to his Government
accommodation in veterinary college
Page 35
--35– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
campus, where this witness
accompanied Dr. S.B. Sinha for
delivery of cash in suitcase on several
occasions. Later on, when Chandra
Deo Prasad Verma became minister,
Dr. S.B. Sinha also used to make
payments to him in presence of this
witness. By the end of year 1993 once
he accompanied Dr. S.B. Sinha to the
residence of Dr. Jagannath Mishra,
then leader of opposition with a
suitcase containing Rs. 5 Lakhs for
delivery to Dr. Mishra. The cash of Rs.
5 Lakhs at Patna was arranged by
Tripurari Mohan Prasad and payment
was made in his presence for obtaining
signature of Dr. Mishra on letter of
recommendation for extension in
service of Dr. Sinha after his
retirement. In the year 1992 Dr. Sinha
came to Delhi with Depesh Chandak
with one crore rupees and stayed in
hotal Hayat Regency. Dr. R.K. Rana
was already staying in the said hotel.
Late in the evening Dr. Rana and Dr.
S.B. Sinha with the money went to
Bihar Bhawan and on return, informed
that payment was made to Lalu Prasad.
This witness had seen Dr. S.B. Sinha
with Lalu Prasad at the residence of Dr.
R.K. Rana at Patna and on second
occasion, he had seen them in the
marriage function of the daughter of
Dr. Ram Raj Ram. This witness had
also seen Mukul Kapoor, PA of Lalu
Prasad accepting money from Dr. S.B.
Sinha at Ranchi. He had also seen
Page 36
--36– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
payments being made to Jagdish
Sharma by Lalu Prasad. P.W.110 Braj Kishore
Pathak, Deputy Collector, Dumka
Shri Anjani Kumar Singh, Deputy
Commissioner had asked this witness
to conduct enquiry on alleged illegal
withdrawal by AHD, Dumka in the
office of RD, AHD, Dumka and also at
Dumka Treasury. After he submitted
his report, Shri A.K. Singh, DC asked
him to lodge FIR at Dumka Town PS.
He identified the complaint on basis of
which case No. 16/96 was registered at
Dumka Town PS on 02.02.96.
64,
P.W.111 Anjani Kumar Sinha, Tax Practitioner, Patna
He has prepared the books of accounts
and returns of Mukesh Enterprises at
the requisition of Mahendra Prasad.
65,
P.W.112 Peter Murmu, Clerk of SBI, Dumka
This witness had made cash payments
to Gopi Nath Das against 5 bills passed
for payment by RD, Dumka.
66 to 66/4, 67 to
67/4
P.W.113 Sita Ram Meena, Owner of Truck No. RJ-14-G-1253
This Truck did not transport
consignment of AHD in Bihar during
the period. P.W.114 Uday Kumar
Singh, Steno of RD, AHD, Dumka
From June 1994 Dr. O.P. Diwakar
functioned as Regional Director,
Rameshwar Choudhary functioned as
Head Clerk and Pankaj Mohan Bhui
functioned as Accountant in the office
of RD, Dumka. He had never seen
veterinary medicine and or fodder
being received in the office during
1995. P.W.115 Brajesh Kumar
Roy, Assistant in the office of AHD secretriat, Patna
Identified the signature of Dr. Ram Raj
Ram on the approved list of veterinary
medicines on files of secretariat.
60/3, 60/4
P.W.116 Phool Jha (Hostile), Administrative Officer of PAC, Patna
Jagdish Sharma, as Chairman of PAC
during visit to Ranchi and Dumka had
authorized this witness to collect
documents of AHD Ranchi and Dumka
90, X
Page 37
--37– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
in the year 1993 and 1994 respectively
after large scale irregularities noticed.
He had obtained those documents after
giving proper receipt to be office where
from the documents were taken to
Patna as it was not possible to conduct
enquiry in the circuit house. He also
admitted to have received documents
of RD, Dumka in the year 1995 when
Dhruv Bhagat was the chairman of
PAC but denied rest of the contents of
his statement recorded under section
164 Cr. PC. On 28.01.1997. P.W.117 Ms. Aparajita
Gangaopadhya, Employee of Hotal Park, Kolkata.
Seizure of documents regarding
booking of banquet room in the name
of M/s Little Oak Agro on 18.01.1996.
1/28, X/11, X/12 &
X/13
P.W.118 Ram Yatan Singh, Section Officer of AHD, Patna.
Proved the file relating to stay of
transfer of Dr. B.N. Sharma by Lalu
Prasad in June, 1993.
60/4, 70
P.W.119 Richard Thranton, Principal of Bishop Boys School, Namkum Ranchi.
Procedure for filling up of school
admission forms at Bishop School,
Namkum.
P.W. 120 Ram Swaroop Sharma, Owner on Truck No. RJ-20G-0982.
The Truck did not transport
consignment between Rajmahal and
Taljhari during October, 1995 and also
the Truck never was sent to Bihar. P.W. 121 Surya Kant
Prasad, Tour Operator, Ranchi.
He had filled in the school admission
forms of Miss Ragini, Rohini and
Chanda all daughters of Lalu Prasad at
instruction of Md. Sayeed of Ranchi. P.W.122 Smt. Netali
Jacob, Principal of Bishop Girls School, Namkum Ranchi.
Proved the school admission forms of
Miss. Hema and Dhanu, both daughters
of Lalu Prasad. In the school admission
form of Ragini and Rohini, Dr. S.B.
Sinha of Ranchi has been maintained
as local guardian
X/17, X/18, X/14,
X/15, X/16, X/19.
Page 38
--38– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
P.W. 123 Smt. Channawate Natrajan, PA to Principal of Bishop Girls School, Namkum Ranchi.
Identified the admission form of Miss.
Hema, Dhanu, Rohini, Ragini and
Chanda all daughters of Lalu Prasad in
the school.
P.W. 124 Indu Bhushan Pathak, Addl. Secretary of AHD, Patna.
Received complaint regarding illegal
withdrawals of AHD in July, 1993 from
CVC. The complaint was perused by
Shri Mahesh Prasad Secretary and
minister Bhola Ram Tuphani.
70/1 , 71 to 71/2, A, A/1,
P.W. 125 Subhash Ramrao Kumthekar, Vice President of M/s Workhard, Mumbai.
Radha Pharmacy, Dumka was not the
authorized stockist of his company.
18/8, 18/9, 71/3, 71/4, X/20, 71/5 to
71/9
P.W.126 Anjani Kumar Singh, Addl. Secretary, Finance, Govt. of Bihar during 1992-93.
On 07.06.93 Shri Lalu Prasad presided
over meeting to discuss withdrawals
made from treasuries during March. All
Secretaries, District Magistrates, and
Treasury Officers including the witness
and others were present in the meeting.
The witness also deposed as Deputy
Commissioner Dumka on 17.08.93 he
had passed order that bills of above
rupees one lakh be placed before him
when two bills of AHD were sent to
him by the District Treasury seeking
his approval for payment.
70/2, 70/10, A (H)`
P.W. 127 Ram Briksha Mishra, Assistant Director Statistics, AHD, Patna.
Identified signature of Dr. Ram Raj
Ram on guest registration form. Also
identified letter dated 24.06.94 of Dr.
Jagdish Sharma addressed to the
secretary AHD that matters relating to
financial irregularities of Santhal
Pargana and South Chhotanagpur
Range of AHD is being enquired into
by PAC and therefore, enquiry by other
71/11,
Page 39
--39– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
agencies were not required. The letter
of Jagdish Sharma is available at page
192 of the file and report of Shiv Balak
Choudhary is at page 162. P.W. 128 Stm. Poonam
Singh, Wife of Prem Prakash Singh.
She is known to Shri Lalu Prasad has
his cousin Ashok Kumar Singh was his
friend since JP agitation. She use to
visit Bishop Scott School to see the
daughters of Shri Lalu Prasad in year
1993. Subsequently Sub-Inspector of
state excise department, Shri Sanjay
Kumar and his wife Smt. Meera used
to visit the school to see the daughters
of Lalu Prasad.
--
P.W.129 Krishna Pandit, Postman of Patna secretriat Post office.
Proved the list of registered letters
dated 23.03.94. registered letter No.
2646 was delivered to Shri Mani
Chand Lal Srivastava, Clerk posted in
the office of secretary AHD Patna.
72
P.W. 130 Nagina Thakur, Group-D employee of Lohia Nagar, Post office, Patna.
On 16.11.94 and 06.06.95 this witness
has delivered letters No. 3956 and
letter No. 721 to Shri Mani Chand Lal
Srivastava, Clerk posted in the office of
secretary AHD Patna.
72/1 & 72/2
P.W.131 Arjun Kumar Prasad Yadav, Registrar from Personnel & Administration reform, Ranchi.
Proved circular regarding retirement
after attaining the age fixed for
superannuation.
66 , 73
P.W. 132 Vijay Kumar, Manager, Speed Post Customer care, Patna, R.M.S.
Proved the file on enquiry relating to
disposal of registered letter from Patna
secretariat to AHD Patna.
71/12, 71/13,60/4
P.W.133 Arun Kumar Singh, Deputy Superintendent Govt. Press Gaya.
Seizure of 3rd report of Nivedan Samiti
of Bihar Legislative Assembly and its
draft on 20.11.96
1/29, 74
P.W.134 Gangadhar Giri, Section Officer, Welfare Deptt. Govt. of Bihar.
Proved the file on preparation and
approval of reply to the starred
question of C. S. Munda in Bihar
60/5
Page 40
--40– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
Legislative Council. The question
related to withdrawal from Ranchi
Treasury. The reply was also approved
by Shri P.C. Singh. P.W. 135 Binod Kumar,
Assistant working in Chief Minister’s Secretariate, Patna, Bihar.
Approval of question relating to
withdrawal of 83 crores rupees from
Ranchi Treasury by AHD published in
Nav Bharat Times on 17.06.93 of C.S.
Munda raised in council by Minister
incharge AHD Shri Jagdanand Singh.
Also reply of starred question of Shri
Parmeshwar in the council. The
question related to several additional
charges given to Dr. O.P. Diwakar RD,
AHD, Dumka.
Also question of Shri Nilambar
Chaudhary in the council. The question
related to excess withdrawal of Rs. 73
crores despite ban on withdrawal but
no reply was sent as Minister objected.
Also question of Shri Uday Narayan
Ray in the council. The question
related to withdrawal of Rs. 236 and
312 crores despite budget of AHD
during 1991-92 and 1992-93 was Rs.
48 and Rs. 55 respectively but no reply
was sent.
Also question of Shri Nilambar
Chaudhary in the council. The question
related to the action to be taken against
AHD Maffia for misappropriation and
also for lodging criminal cases against
them.
Also reply to the question of Shri Lalit
Oraon, MP in Loksabha. The question
related to the action to be taken against
60/5, 60/6, 60/7,
60/8, 60/9, 60/10,
60/11.
Page 41
--41– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
large-scale misappropriation of
government fund by public servants
and suppliers of AHD.
Also question of Shri Shatrughan
Prasad Singh in the council. The
question related to seeking details of
veterinary medicines purchased during
1994-95 by AHD.
P.W.136 Lalan Dubey,
Section Officer, AHD, Patna
UN-starred question raised in Rajya
Sabha regarding mismanagement of
plans in Chotanagpur Region. Reply to
the question was sent to the
Government of Union by Shri Beck
Julious denied the allegation.
60/12.
P.W. 137 Permendra Narayan Mishra, Treasury Officer, Dumka
Seizure of payment schedule 2403 and
order book of Dumka Treasury for the
period of alleged occurrence.
1/30 & 1/31, 75, 76,
P.W. 138 Dr. Amiyo Kumar Chakarvorty, Chief Executive Officer of M/s Birhans Laboratry, Pune.
Reply sent on behalf of M/s Brihans
Laboratory regarding veterinary
medicines shown supplied to RD
Dumka for the alleged payments.
18/10, 18/11, 71/14,
1/32
P.W. 139 Tapan Kumar Chakravorty, Treasury Officer, Dumka
Seizure of Guard File of Dumka
Treasury containing circulars and
instructions of finance department
perused by Shri Chathu Prasad,
Treasury Officer, Dumka during the
period of alleged transaction. The
instruction of finance department was
only 8 % of the annual budget should
be spent in a month.
1/33, 77 & 77/1
P.W. 140 Gauri Shankar Banerjee, Employee of Little Oak Pharmacuetical, Kolkata
Dr. Ajit Kumar Verma Prop. of M/s
Little Oak used to pay for the
accommodation and transportation of
Dr.B.N.Sharma, DAHO, Chaibasa and
also for Dr. R.K.Rana whenever they
Page 42
--42– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
visited Kolkata. Dr. Ajit Verma also
paid for the electrical items such as
pipes, geyser, fan etc. for the house of
Shri A.C.Choudhary, Commissioner,
Income Tax. The house of Shri
A.C.Choudhary was under repair
during the period. P.W. 141 Laleshwar
Yadav, Pvt. Truck Driver of S.K.Mehra of Ranchi.
During 1995 the driver transported
Ambassador Car no. BR-14D-4320
from the residence of Dr. S.B.Sinha at
Ranchi to Patna. The said Car was
handed to Shri Tripurari Mohan Prasad
at Patna. P.W. 142 Birendra Prasad
Ambastha, Assistant in the office of AHD, Directorate, Patna.
The file contain letter of Shri Jagdish
Sharma received on 27.06.1994
intimating the secretary Shri Julius that
PAC is enquiring the allegation of
financial irregularities and
misappropriation by Dr. Shesh Muni
Ram, RD, Dumka. The file also
contains enquiry into the allegation by
Shri Bachhu Prasad and Dr. Shiv Balak
Chaudhary of AHD, Directorate. Also
correspondence of Shri Tulsi Singh
Minister seeking information about
allocation and allotment to difference
range of AHD during last three years.
The information was sought with
reference to news published on
15.07.1994 regarding misappropriation
of Rs. 50 lacs in Times of India.
60/13,
P.W.143 Dr. Oswald Anthony, Dental Surgan of Bihar State Health Services.
Dr.O.P.Diwakar used to stay in his
house at Gardanibagh, Patna from 1992
to 1996 on payment of rental. The
witness also identified Dr. Diwakar
who was present in the Court. P.W. 144 Ramesh Kumar
Oraon, Section The witness identified the order of Shri
S.N.Dubey then Divisional
71/15, 60/14
Page 43
--43– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
Officer in the office of Divisional Commissioner, Dumka
Commissioner, Dumka on the
application dated 31.05.1994 of RD,
AHD, Dumka wherein it was
mentioned that the Treasury Officer,
would be able to pass the bills of AHD
for Rs.5 lakhs and above.P.W. 145 Arun Kumar
Raina, Joint Director, Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India, New Delhi.
Memorandum sent to 10th Finance
Commission on receipt and
expenditure of the Govt. of Bihar,
disclosing expenditure of AHD as :-
Financial Year-Expenditure in Rs.
1990-91 72.29 crores
1992-93 143.25 crores
1991-92 117.60 crores
1993-94 62.41crores (est.)
1994-95 169.45 crores
Forecast
1995-96 242.06 crores
1996-97 285.65 crores
1997-98 337.04 crores
1998-99 397.71 crores
1999-00 469.30 crores
10/24, 60/15, XX/8,
X/21, C, B. 64/IX,
71/16
P.W. 146 Paramjit Singh Hoda, Store Officer of Wockhardt Ltd. Aurangabad.
Veterinary medicines manufactured by
the company were sold in the State of
Bihar through its C & F Agent M/s
Tridos Laboratory Ltd., Patna only.
1/34, 60/16, 60/17
P.W. 147 Atam Prakash Manglani, Chief Accountant in Hotel Marina G-59, Cannaught Place, New Delhi.
Vijay Malik paid for stay of
Dr.B.N.Sharma, Tripurari Mohan
Prasad and others in Hotel Marina of
New Delhi during the period of alleged
transaction.
71/17, 71/18, 78,
X/22, 50/21, 78/1,
50/22, 78/2, 50/23,
78/3, X/23, 79 to
79/2, 80P.W. 148 Dipankar
Banerjee, Business of Hotel & Restaurant, Hotel Ashoka near Dumdum Airport.
Dr. Ajit Kumar Verma paid for stay of
Ram Raj Ram in Hotel Airport Ashok
in Kolkata on 12th Feb. 1995.
50/24, X/24, X/25,
71/19
Page 44
--44– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
P.W. 149 Ajit Kumar Srivastava, Personal Secretary to the Secretary Finance, Govt. of Bihar.
During 1992-93, Dr. Shyam Bihari
Sinha used to ascertain the figures of
expenditure of AHD available in
finance department from this witness.
He had sent the figures of expenditures
of AHD to Shri Tulsi Singh, Minister.
Sometimes Dr. S.B.Sinha used to call
him to Hotel Patliputra for information
as sometimes used to ascertain the
figures over phone. P.W. 150 Shashi Kumar
Sinha, Key Village officer, Dumka
Seizure of three registers maintained
for details of artificial insemination at
Dumka. No AI Lubricant was received
in his office at Dumka during 1993 to
1996.
1/35, 81 to 81/2.
P.W. 151 Subroto Basak, Regional Manager in B.S. Marketing Agency, Kolkata
Seizure of invoices relating of supply
of veterinary medicines to Shri
Shudhanshu Jaiswal of M/s Tridoss
Lab , Patna.
18/12, 71/19 to
71/230.
P.W. 152 Prashanto Kumar Ghosh, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Hoogly.
Proved the faxed message dated
16.12.95 of Shri A.C.Choudhary
addressed to Shri K.K.Deb Verman
then CIP, Chief Commissioner, Income
Tax, Kolkata regarding transfer of IT
file of S.B.Sinha and Rama Sinha from
Ranchi.
82,71/231, 18/13
P.W. 153 Paramvir Singh, Truck Owner, Truck No. RJ-14G-3647.
The Truck did not transport
consignments of AHD from Ranchi to
Littipara from 05.11.95 to 07.11.1995.
---
P.W. 154 Ramesh Chandra Chopra, Truck Owner, Truck No. RJ-14G-0465.
The Truct did not transport any
material from Rajmahal to Taljhari
from 25.10.95 to 28.10.95 or any other
consignment of Animal Husbandry in
the State of Bihar.
P.W. 155 Rajendra Prasad Kureel, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range, Ranchi.
Proved the letter no.737 dated 13.12.95
with application of Dr.S.B.Sinha and
his wife Smt. Rama Sinha for transfer
of assessment record from Ranchi to
18/14, 18/15, 18/16,
A,
Page 45
--45– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
CIT, West Bengal, Kolkata. The said
letter was sent to CIT, Kolkata by Shri
A.C.Choudhary seeking no abjection to
transfer of assessment records. PW.156 Albinus Tirkey,
Deputy Commissioner, Income Tax, 51 Aikar bhawan, Mumbai.
No objection to transfer the assessment
record was received in the office of
Shri A.C.Choudhary at Ranchi on
08.01.1996 and Shri A.C.Choudhary
passed order for transfer of assessment
record on 31.01.1996.
18/14, 18/15,
71/232,18/16, 18/17
P.W.157 Basuki Nath Mandal, Jeep Driver from Jama Block, Dumka.
The Jeep was under the control of
BDO, Jama and it has not transported
any material of AHD.
P.W.158 Rajendra Dubey, Vice President in MDLR Air Lines, Gurguon.
Identified letter dated 14.07.97 with
enclosures containing call details of
Usha Phone, Mobile No. 9834000112
and 9834000111. These mobile phone
were given to Shri P.R.Sinha, Secretary
to the then Chief Minister at the time
the mobile phone was launched in
Bihar free of cost.
18/18, 18/19, 18/20.
P.W.159 Henry Anthony, Inspector of Police, Spl. Branch C.I.D. Bihar, Patna.
Dr. O.P.Diwakar of Regional Director,
AHD used to stay in the house of his
elder brother on rental basis from
September 1992 to Jan 1997. P.W.160 Rahul Singh,
Partner of M/s Indus Travel, Ranchi.
Payments for the Air Tickets for
V.S.Nishad, R.K.Rana, Vidya Bhushan,
K.N.Jha, Ram Raj Ram, R.K.Das,
M.C.Subarno, K.M.Prasad were made
by Mr. Sayeed, through Shri Suraj
Employee of Jilan Transport, Ranchi.P.W.161 Mirza Md.
Fahim, Under Secretary of Chief Minister’s Secretariate, Patna.
Maintained file movement register in
CM Secretariat at Patna. The file on
irregularities of distribution of animals
in the office of RD, AHD, Ranchi was
received through Chief Secretary on
12.11.1990 and the file was sent back.
84
P.W.162 Miss. Jayanti Purchase of Air Tickets for Dr. Ram 85, 85/1 to 85/4,
Page 46
--46– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
Jha, Employee of M/s Raj Shree Tour and Travel Agency, Bailley Road, Patna.
Raj Ram, Lalu Prasad, Dr. R.K.Rana,
Miss. Hema, Miss. Chanda, Miss.
Rohini, Miss.Raj Laxmi, Miss. Misa,
Miss. Ragini, Miss. Dhannu, Master
Tej Pratap and Master Tarun of Sahara
Airlines from this travel Agency.
85/5 to 85/785/8 to
85/18, 85/19 to
85/21, 85/22, X/26
to X/27, 86
P.W.163 Dharam Raj Pandey, Registrar from Finance Department, Govt. of Bihar.
The witness objected to the proposal of
extension in service after retirement of
accused Dr.S.B. Sinha and R.K.Das.
88, 88/1
P.W.164 Ramanand Prasad Singh, Upper Division Clerk in the Accounts Section of Chief Minister’s Secretariate, Bihar.
The file of Animal Husbandry, Ranchi
regarding irregularities in distribution
of animals was received in CM,
Secretariat on 14.11.1990. Shri Lalu
Prasad, Chief Minister of Bihar as on
14.11.1990.
84/1
P.W. 165 Suresh Chandra Choudhry, Assistant in the C.M.S. Secretariate, Bihar Patna.
File on audit objection in respect of
AHD, Ranchi was received in CM,
Secretariat on 15.11.1990 and the file
was sent back to Secretary, AHD on
09.04.1991.
84/2,
P.W.166 Ajit Kumar, Assistant Manager-cum Accountant in Union Branch of India, Deoghar Branch.
This witness has aid Rs. 1 lakh to Shri
Naresh Kumar Jain on 18.03.1996
against a cheque presented by him at
Union Bank of India, Kantatoli Branch,
Ranchi.
X/28, X/29
P.W.167 Ravi Shankar Kumar Sinha, Under secretary in Home Spl. Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
Identified letter dated 05.12.1993 of
Dr. Jagannath Mishra leader of
opposition for extension of service of
Dr. S.B.Sinha after retirement and also
endorsement of Shri Lalu Prasad to
Shri Chandradeo Prasad Verma with
instruction to place the letter on file for
extension in service and instruction of
the minister to Director dated
07.12.1993 to sent the file.
70/3
P.W.168 Anil Kumar Receipt of five containing complaint of 89, 89/1, 89/2.
Page 47
--47– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
Mehta, Private Assistnat, AHD, Patna.
Ram Saran Yadav, Member Loksabha
in the O/o Secretary, AHD on
15.10.1993 and the said file was sent to
the minister AHD on 16.10.1993. Also
receipt of appropriation account of
1994-95 of 2403 from AHD, Bihar in
his office. P.W.169 Paresh Ghoshal,
Transport Business.
The witness had issued a cheque of Rs.
1 lakh in favour of Rajesh Chawra for
repayment of loan taken from Naresh
Jain as Naresh Jain was also
maintaining account in Union Bank,
Kantatoli in the name of Rajesh
Chawra. P.W.170 Ravindra
Kumar, Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal Cuttack.
Regarding warrants issued by the
competent officers of Income Tax,
Ranchi to search the premises of
accused officers and suppliers in the
year 1993. Corresponding panchnama
and also appraisal reports.
90 to 90/22, 90/23 to
90/28, 90/29 to
90/42, 90/43 to
90/50, 90/51 to
90/57, 90/58 to
90/61, 91, 91/1,
91/2, 91/3, 91/4,
91/5, 91/6, 91/7,
91/8, 91/9, 91/10,
91/11, 91/12, 91/13,
91/14, 92 to 92/7, P.W.171 Shree Deo
Singh, of Indus Travel, Ranchi.
Purchase of Air Ticket for Sajal
Chakraborty payment was made by
Vijay Malik, purchase of Air Ticket for
Radha Nandan Jha, O.P.Diwakar,
K.Armugam and his wife, B.Prasad,
S.B.Sinha, S.K. Singh and others
payment made by Md. Sayeed.
71/233, 71/234,,
71/235, 71/236,
71/237, 71/238,
71/239, 71/240,
P.W/172 Balvindar Singh, Travel Agent, Delhi
Vijay Malik paid for the taxi booked
for the guests who arrived from Ranchi
and Patna.
93
P.W.173 Saiyad Hasan Javri, Officer of Union Bank of
Naresh Kumar Jain deposited Rs.1 lakh
in his account at Union Bank,
18/21, 8/48, 9/77,
18/22
Page 48
--48– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
India. Kantatoli.P.W.174 Shiv Kumar
Patwari, Transporter, Dumka.
Anant Kumar Gutgutiya is related to
him. He has no transport agency. M/s
Viswakarma Agency partnership firm
of Shiv Raj Ram and Arun Kumar
Singh. Shiv Raj Ram was the father of
Dr. Sheshmuni Ram, Regional
Director, AHD, Dumka. Rs.40 lakhs
was paid to Shri S.N.Dubey, Additional
Dumka in his presence at Jasidih
Railway Station while Shri Dubey was
on the train from Kolkata to New Delhi
in the year 1994 for getting the limit of
billed amount to be passed from
Dumka Treasury enhanced.
71/241 & 71/242
P.W.175 Arun Kumar Maitra, Chemist of M/s Little Oak, Pharacuetical, Kolkata
Seizure of production and raw material
registers of M/s Treatment Home
Products, Kolkata
1/36,
P.W.176 Ram Kishore, Owner of Truck No. RJ-14-G-0144
The truck was not taken on hire for
transportation in Bihar during 1995.
P.W.177 Rajveer Singh Saluja, Businessman, Ranchi.
Dipesh Chandak, Md. Sayeed, Vijay
Kr. Malik and Rakesh Mehra had
purchased vehicles through his
company at Ranchi. Rakesh Mehra
purchase one AC Ambassador Car
from M/s Ashoka Automobiles Pvt.
Limited. P.W.178 Surendra Kumar
Jalan, Businessman, Kolkata.
Dipesh Chandak arranged for purchase
of gold bonds from RBI, Kolkata in the
names of Dr.S.B.Sinha and his family
members under Gold Bond Immunity
Scheme, 1993.
94 to 94/18, 95 to
95/18, 96 to /96/13,
97 to 97/47, 98 to
98/18,
P.W.179 Shankar Prasad, Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad, Gujarat.
Proved order passed for registration of
Fodder Scam Cases by the Govt. of
Bihar at the initiative of Shri
V.S.Dubey, then Secretary, Finance of
18/181, 18/182,
18/183, 18/184,
18/185, 18/186,
18/187, 26/102 &
Page 49
--49– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
the Govt. of Bihar.
During 1995-96 Dhruv Bhagat was the
Chairman of PAC and Shri Beck Julius
was the secretary of AHD.
Enquiry conducted by the witness in
January 1996 for withdrawals made in
excess of allocated budget in AHD.
During the meeting with Chief
Minister of Lalu Prasad on 31.01.1996
the witness alongwith others of
Finance Department were present for
proposal to register FIR on information
relating to withdrawals without
allocated budget by AHD.
26/103, 18/188,
18/189, 18/190,
18/191 & 18/192,
( D, D/1, D/2, D/3
with objection), E,
D/4, D/5 to D/10,
D/11 to D/14, D/15,
F, D/16, D/17, D/18
P.W.180 S.P.Keshaw, Departmental Commissioner of Enquiry, Govt. of Bihar.
Process for preparation and approval of
budget of the Govt. Department.
Role and responsibility of Finance
Minister in preparation of budget.
Non Plan Budget of 2403 and file on
vote on account for the financial year
1994-95.
Cash Regulation File
60/18 to 60/32,
P.W.181 Umesh Kumar Sinha, Manager, Marketing, Karnatka Antibiotics, Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Bangalore
Information on veterinary medicines of
M/s Karnatka Antibiotics shown
supplied to R.D, AHD, Dumka.
18/29
P.W.182 Ramesh Prasad Singh, Asst. Budget Officer, Finance Department, Govt. of Bihar
Reports of RBI on available balance
sent to the Accountant General and also
to the Finance Department of Bihar. In
case of over draft the amount is
adjusted within a weeks time.
60/33, 60/34 &
60/35
P.W.183 Arun Kumar Sinha, Chief Accounts Officer, BSNL, Hazaribagh
Proved print outs containing STD call
details of Land Line Number 501500
of Ranchi, Land Line Number 307832
of Md. Sayeed of Ranchi and also of
the other numbers of accused
95 to 95/6, 96, 96/1,
97, 98, 99 to 99/9,
66/10 & 66/11.
Page 50
--50– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
S.B.Sinha, Dayanand Prasad Kashyap
for the period of occurrence. P.W.184 Dr. Ram Raje
Bijay Singh Patil, Assistant Manager, Wockhardt Veterinary Ltd., Mumbai
Information on veterinary medicines
manufactured distributed on shown
supplied to RD, AHD, Dumka during
the period of occurrence.
18/30, 18/31
P.W.185 Amitav, Addl. Director, Financial Intelligence Unit, Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India
Statement of J.P.Verma and his son
Rajesh Verma recorded under Income
Tax Act.
100 & 100/1
P.W.186 Manoj Kumar Ray, Manager, Marketing Service of M/s Glaxo India Company, Mumbai
Information on veterinary medicines
manufactured distributed on shown
supplied to RD, AHD, Dumka during
the period of occurrence.
18/32
P.W.187 Arvind Kumar Chugh, Member of Revenue Board of Jharkhand
Budget File of Finance Department
with objection that Department has
furnished no reason for increase,
therefore no consideration can be
given.
60/36
P.W.188 Pravir Kumar. Basu, Upper Secretary to Department of Agriculture, Govt. of India
Budget Estimate File of AHD for the
year 1990-91.
60/37
P.W. 189 Sandeep Vohra, Employee of Hotel Hayat Regency, New Delhi
Dr. R.K.Rana stayed in Hotel Hayat
Regency, Delhi on 5th and 6th June of
1992 in Room No. 376.
Room No. 508 and 517 booked by
Dipesh Chandak from 11.01.93 to
14.01.93.
Dr. R.K.Rana and family stayed in the
hotel from 23.11.95 to 27.11.95.
102, 101/a, 102/a &
102/b, 103, 103/a &
103/b,
P.W.190 Vijay Yadav, Factory Manager of Brihans
Information of batch number of
veterinary medicines of this company
shown supplied to AHD, Dumka
18/33
Page 51
--51– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
Laboratory, Pune.
during the period of alleged
occurrence. P.W.191 Rajendra Vijay,
DTO, Ajmer Information on details of vehicle
registered with DTO, Ajmer shown
engaged in transportation of feed of
AHD, Dumka.
18/34
P.W.192 Ram Jeevan Singh, Minister AHD, Bihar
Note on Letter of Deputy Accountant
General dated 05.04.90 addressed to
Shri M.C.Subarno, Regional
Development Commissioner, Ranchi
with a copy to Secretary, AHD, Patna
regarding irregularity of payment of
transport bills.
Letter of Shri Ashok Chaudhary to Shri
K.N.Jha, Regional Director, AHD,
Ranchi seeking report on said letter of
DAG and reply that the transport
numbers of trucks on the transportation
bills of M/s Satyendra Construction has
been inadvertently mentioned on the
bills as the numbers are not of trucks.
Report of Dr. Ram Raj Ram, Director
confirming distribution of cattle as true
during field investigation conducted by
him personally.
K.Arumugam, Secretary, AHD also
endorsed the verification report of
Director.
The witness as Minister gave a detailed
note on 18.08.1990 to Lalu Prasad,
Chief Minister for investigation into
the allegation by CBI.
Chief Minister did not discuss and
Department of the Minister was
changed.
60/38
P.W.193 Chandra Kishore Mishra, Director, AHD,
Information on allotment to RD, AHD,
Dumka during 1995-96 for purchase of
18/35, 18/36,
Page 52
--52– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
Patna veterinary medicines and instruments. P.W.194 Ram Karan Jat,
DTO, Bundi, Rajasthan
Information on details of vehicle
registered with DTO, Ajmer shown
engaged in transportation of feed of
AHD, Dumka.
18/37,
P.W.195 Sohan Lal Gopal, Transporter, Truck No. RJ 14G-3717, Rajasthan
The truck was not engaged in
transportation of AHD in the year
1995.
P.W.196 Rameshwar Prasad Choudhary, Head Assistant of RD, AHD Dumka.
Prepared fake allotment and sub
allotment letters as and when asked by
Dr. Sesh Muni Ram, RD. The amount
in the allotment letter used to be very
high. The allotment letters were
obtained from Dr. S.B.Sinha. Regional
Director also asked him when senior
officers are certifying receipt of
materials on bills, he should not
suspect, he has to process the bills for
payment. After transfer of Sesh Muni
Ram in June 1994, Dr. O.P.Diwakar
also followed the same line. Dr.
Diwakar threatened him to transfer as
he is close to Dr. R.K.Rana. Dr.
Diwakar used to keep the passed bills
and allotment letters, stock register in
his custody. He had obtained receipt of
documents relating to illegal payments
of RD, Dumka from Dr. O.P.Diwakar.
104
P.W.197 Kul Prakash Srivastava, SO, Food Supply Commerece Department, Govt. of Bihar
Report of Chief Controller of Accounts
dated 16.09.96
1/37, X/3
P.W.198 Ramesh Nanda Sahay, Under Secretary, Bihar State Information Commission,
Information on civil deposit in case
alloted fund being lapsed.
Page 53
--53– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
Patna P.W.199 Stephen Lucas,
retired under Secretary Finance Department, Govt. of Bihar
Budget files of AHD contains actual
expenditure for the year 1991-92,
1992-93 , 1993-94 and 1994-95
mentioned in the files and also files
disclosing surrender of funds at the
close of every financial year during the
period of alleged occurrence.
60/39, 60/40, 60/41,
60/42, 60/43, 60/44,
60/45, 60/46, 60/47,
60/48
P.W.200 Bidhu, Bhushan Dewedi, Inspector of Police, State Vigilance Bureau, Patna
Based on information published in
local news paper regarding illegal
payments made by AHD, Ranchi in the
name of fake supplies, he submitted
information to the DG, Vigilance. Then
DG, Vigilance expressed his inability
to process the information as this
witness mentioned the name of Lalu
Prasad, Chief Minister as leader of the
gang responsible of the illegal
withdrawals. Subsequently he
submitted another petition all the same
information on the basis of which
complain file was opened in the
Vigilance Department.
18/38 & 18/39,
18/40
P.W.201 Chandrabali ThakurMember of Nevedan Samitee of Bihar Legislative Assembly, Patna
Proved the report of Nevedan No.
1160/85 on Animal Husbandry
Department as Member. The report
recommended strict action such as
enquiry and transfer of the officers of
south vihar responsible for illegal
payments. The file contains signature
of Dr. Jagannath Mishra also.
60/50, 60/51
P.W.202 Gopalji SrivastavaSection Officer of Bihar Bhawan at New Delhi.
Proved the report regarding stay of
accused politicians in Bihar Bhawan at
New Delhi during the period 1990 to
1996.
60/52, 60/53
P.W.203 Shailendra KumarSecreteriate Assistant, Patna
Proved the files containing questions
raised in Legislative Assembly
regarding illegal payments and replies
60/54 to 60/67,
Page 54
--54– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
sent by the AHD to the Legislative
Council. On some occasions replies
were not sent also. P.W.204 Hari Narayan
MeenaOwner of Truck No. RJ-14G- 3512
The truck was never engaged in
transportation of materials for AHD
Bihar.
P.W.205 Bal Krishna Ram Under Secretary to the Govt. of Bihar, Finance Department, Patna
Files of surrender of fund at the close
of financial year by AHD to the
Finance Department.
X/31, X/32 & X/33
P.W.206 Alok VermaSupervisor of Cattle Feed Factory of Dr. Ajit Kumar Verma at Rohtas
Seizure of the registers of M/s
Treatment Home Products, Kolkata in
his presence.
1/39, 58/2, 58/3 &
58/4
P.W.207 Bakshi Vijyanand SinhaRelative of Dr. Ajit Kumar Verma
On 15th January 1996 M/s Little Oak
Agro Limited a new company was
launched by Dr. Ajit Verma for export
in presence of Dr. S.B.Sinha at
Kolkata.P.W.208 Neel
Maheshwaran Manager of M/s Concept Pharmaceuticals, Thane, Mumbai
Details of production, distribution and
sale of veterinary medicines of this
company during the period of alleged
occurrence.
18/41, 18/42
P.W.209 Prasanjit BaruwaAssistant Manager, Finance of Hotel Hayat Regency Kolkata.
Proved stay of Dr. R.K.Rana in the
hotel Taj Bengal. Booking and payment
for the stay was made by Dipesh
Chandak.
50/25, 50/26, 78/4,
X/34 to X/37, 50/27
to 50/32, 78/5 to
78/12,78/13 to
78/24, 78/25 &
78/26.P.W.210 Ram Swarath
Prasad Singh, Deputy Secretary of Bihar Legislative Council
Questions on illegal payments made by
AHD and replies and assurance given
by the Government in the Legislative
Council.
18/43, X/38, 18/44
to 18/46, , 18/47 &
18/48, 60/68, 60/69,
60/70, 18/49 to
18/51P.W.211 Vivek Kumar
Section Officer of Finance
Reports received from Reserve Bank of
India in the Finance Department
60/71, 60/72, 60/73
Page 55
--55– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
regarding withdrawals made from the
treasuries every month during the
period of occurrence.P.W.212 Jayant Kumar
JaiswalProprietor of M/s Rajshree Tour & Travels, Patna
Issued Air Tickets of Sahara Airlines of
Shri Lalu Prasad and his family
members.
P.W.213 Phuleshwar Paswan Budget Officer of Finance Department, Patna
Proved the budget files of AHD 2403
for the year 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-
94, 1994-95 and also budget speech of
Shri Lalu Prasad printed in book form.
In the budget speech of the year 1996-
97 mentioned about the fraudulent
payments of AHD in the State of Bihar.
Also files on receipt of CAG reports in
the Finance Department of the
Government.
60/74 to 60/138,
60/139 to 60/144,
X/39 & X/40, 18/52
P.W.214 Krishna Mohan Prasad,Joint Secretary posted in CM Secreteriate, Patna
The Vigilance File BS 23/94 was
received in CM secretariat on
05.07.1994 from the office of Chief
Secretary. The file was not seen by the
Chief Minister and sent back on
29.03.1995. The Vigilance File related
to complaint of AHD. The file was
again received in CM secretariat on
24.05.1995 and was returned on
02.02.1996 with order of Chief
Minister Lalu Prasad.
60/149,
P.W.215 P.K.SujuGeneral Manager, Hotel Taj, Kolkata
Rooms booked by Dipesh Chandak for
stay of co-conspirators in the hotel in
the 1st week of December 1994.
78/27 to 78/39,
79/13 to 79/15
P.W.216 Sayed Tanvir AhmedProprietor of M/s Patliputra Travel, Patna
Air Tickets purchased through
J.P.Verma for co-conspirators during
the period of occurrence.
85/23 to 85/179
P.W.217 Dipesh ChandakProprietor of Badri Narayan & Company, Kolkata
Payments released against non supply
of materials were distributed among
officers making payments and
Page 56
--56– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
suppliers receiving payments @ ratio
of 80:20.
Dr. S.B.Sinha, Dr. O.P.Diwakar, Dr.
Ram Raj Ram, Dr. R.K.Rana, Dr.
Jagdish Sharma, Lalu Prasad and Dr.
Jagannath Mishra received illegal
payments from Dr. S.B.Sinha for the
protection and patronage given to co-
conspirators on several occasions when
the matter came to fore and enquiry to
the matter was proposed.
T.M.Prasad was the fund manager of
fraudulent payments at Patna and Vijay
Malik was the fund manager at Delhi.
Paid for the accommodation of co-
conspirators in hotel Taj Bengal,
Kolkata when Dr. S.B.Sinha was on his
way to Australia for Kidney transplant. P.W.218 Shiv Kumar
Manager Patliputra Travels, Patna
Sale and purchase of Air Tickets for
co-conspirators through J.P.Verma and
also by Shri Mahendra Prasad of
B.R.Pharma. Also sold Air Tickets of
Sahara Airlines through Raj Shree Tour
& Travels.
106 to 106/08
P.W.219 S.R. Mazumdar DSP, CBI, Kolkata
Conducted part investigation, seized
documents and examined witnesses.
1/40, 1/43
P.W.220 Devanand SinhaAssistant Posted in the AHD Directorate Patna
Correspondence of Shri Beck Julius,
Secretary with AG, Bihar on fraudulent
payments
60/150
P.W.221 Tilak Raj Gouri, Under Secretary of Finance Department of Government of Bihar
Seizure of files of 5 year plan of the
Government of Bihar. The file
mentioned actual expenditures of AHD
as under:-
Financial
Year
Amount
Spent
(In Rupees)1985-86 22.48 Crores
1/44, 107 to 107/2
Page 57
--57– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
1986-87 25.16 Crores1987-88 28.10 Crores1988-89 32.04 Crores1989-90 44.01 Crores1991-92 117.60 Crores1992-93 141.54 Crores1993-94 188.01 Crores1994-95 237.85 Crores
P.W.222 Anil Kumar Inspector CBI, Dhanbad
Conducted part investigation with
regard to bank accounts of M/s Seemex
Cryogenics, Delhi and fraudulent
payments encashed in the said account
1/45, 1/46,
P.W.223 Sudhir Prasad Additional Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Proved the files of Divisional
Commissioner, Ranchi regarding
correspondence on IT raids on
premises of suppliers and officers of
AHD in the year 1993
X/41, 18/53, 60/151
& 60/152
P.W.224 Tarkeshwar NathSection Officer, AHD, Ranchi
Misleading dispatch numbers posted in
fake allotment letters and files on
surrender of funds and correspondence
with Finance Department and AG
Bihar.
60/153 to 60/158,
108 to 108/77,
108/78 to 108/81,
18/54 & 18/55,
60/159 to 60/180,P.W.225 Chandra
Prakash SahayDeputy Secretary,Govt. of Bihar, Patna
Correspondence of PAC with
Directorate AHD for allotment files
and expenditure reports of AHD
received from various offices. Records
were shown received by PAC but the
same were allowed to be retained in the
Directorate. Budget files of AHD
disclosing allotment orders dispatched
to the office of DAHO and RD of AHD
in the state since 1991-92 to 1995-96
109, 110 to 110/4,
60/181 to 60/185,
70/4 to 70/13
P.W.126 R.N.TiwariJudicial Magistrate, Dhanbad
Statement of Phool Jha, Administrative
Officer of PAC recorded under section
164 Cr.P.C on 28.01.1997.
44/4
P.W.227 Tapas MukherjeeJudicial Magistrate, Kolkata
Statement of J.P.Verma, Traffic
Superintendent of Indian Airlines
recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C on
20.05.2003.
44/5
P.W.228 Surendra Nath Bhatnagar
Report sent by Govt. of Bihar to 10th
Page 58
--58– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
Deputy Director, Finance Department, Govt. of India
Finance Commission disclosing
fraudulent expenses as actual
expenditure of AHD in the year 1994.P.W.229 Sandeep Garg
Additional Director,Income Tax, Delhi
Sanction for prosecution of
A.C.Chaudhary, Commissioner Income
Tax, Ranchi.
27/7
P.W.230 Umesh KumarInspector, CBI, Sepcial Crime Branch, Kolkata
Conducted part investigation at Girls
College, Ajmer regarding payment of
school fees for the daughter of Shri
Lalu Prasad.P.W.231 Roop Singh
Owner of Truck No. RJ-14G-3097
The truck did not transport any
consignment of AHD during the year
1995P.W.232 Dhirendra Nath
BiswasDy SP, CBI, Kolkata and Investigating officer of the case
Withdrawal of Rupees 31341451/-
against actual allotment of Rs.
150000/- during December 1995 and
January 1996.
No scheme for free distribution of feed
in Santhal Paragana Range of Animal
Husbandry.
Seizure of documents, Requisitions
issued to various authority during
investigation.
1/47, 1/48, 1/49,
1/50, 1/51, 1/52,
1/53, 1/54, 1/55,
1/56, 1/57, 1/58,
1/59, 1/60, 1/61,
1/62, 1/63, 1/64,
1/65, 1/66, 1/67,
1/68, 1/69, 1/70,
1/71, 1/72, 1/73,
174, 1/75, 1/76,
1/77, 1/78, 1/79,
1/80, 111, 111/1,
18/56, 18/57, 82/1,
X/42, X/43, X/44,
82/2, X/45, X/46,
18/58 to 18/143
1/81, 1/82, 1/83,
X/47, 112, X/48,
X/49, P.W.233 Dr. Shiv Balak
ChaudharyJoint Director, AHD, Patna
Veterinary medicines, instruments and
fodder were required to be purchased
on the basis of decisions taken by the
Central Purchase Committee.
Complaint files against Dr. Ram Raj
60/186 to 60/191
Page 59
--59– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
Ram, Dr. Krishan Mohan Prasad,
Budget File, File on Assembly question
and also file on correspondence with
AG. P.W.234 Ranjeet Singh
Assistant Manager, SBI Main Branch, Patna
Smt. Sarswati Chandra is the proprietor
of M/s S.R. Enterprises and credit of
draft for Rs. 499900/- in the account of
M/s R.K.Agency, Patna.
7/58
P.W.235 Dr. Surjeet SinghAdvocate, Patna High Court
Resiled from his statement as
complainant on the question raised by
Shri Lalit Oraon, Member Lok Sabha
regarding illegal payment made by
AHD.P.W.236 Suresh Kumar
Jain of Purlia Road, Ranchi
Purchased two bank drafts out of cash
payments made by Rakesh Mehra in
the name of Naresh Kumar Jain.
7/59 to 7/62, 7/63 to
7/66
P.W/237 Layak SinghInspector, CBI, Dhanbad since retired.
Conduted part investigation at the
premises of veterinary medicine
manufacturing companies to verify the
batch numbers, supply orders and
payments, if any, made.P.W.238 Nawal Kishore
PrasadSecretary of Bihar Legislative Council, Patna
Letter sent to SP, CBI, Patna regarding
questions raised in the council on AHD
matters.
X/50
P.W.239 Hiralal RamRoutine Clerk of AHD, Patna
Accused Braj Bhushan Prasad, Budget
Officer, used to obtain dispatch number
of Directorate.P.W.240 Arbind Kumar
MehtaSenior Personnel Assistant to the
Principal Accountant General, Ranchi
Proved letters sent to the Govt. of
Bihar for treasury accounts in the
office of Accountant General, Ranchi
1/84, 60/186 to
60/188
P.W.241 Shiv Kumar SinghAccountant of the office of DAHO,
No feed was received from the office
of RD, AHD, Dumka or dispatch feed
to Dumka from Chaibasa.
Page 60
--60– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
ChaibasaP.W.242 V.G.S.
BhatnagarGovt. Examiner of Questioned documents, Kolkata
Proved opinion on signatures of
accused Dhurv Bhagat with reference
to specimen signatures sent to GEQD,
Kolkata for examination and opinion.
113, 113/1, 113/2,
113/2
P.W.243 Ravi Shankar Kumar SinhaSection Officer of AHD, Secreteriat, Patna
Identified his notes for extension in
service after retirement of Dr.
S.B.Sinha, Regional Joint Director on
the recommendation of Dr. Jagannath
Mishra and endorsement made by the
Chief Minister of the said letter. Also
identified the order passed by accused
Lalu Prasad for grant of extension in
service for one year.
A
P.W.244 Surya Kant Prasad SurajEmployee of Md. Sayeed proprietor of M/s Jilan Roadways, Ranchi
Identified his writings on the school
admission forms of Ragini, Rohani,
Acharya and Chanda all daughters of
accused Lalu Prasad in Bishop
Westscot Girls School, Ranchi.
X/14, X/15, X/16
P.W.245 Ajay Kumar JhaAdditional SP, CBI, EOW, Ranchi
Scrutiny report of bills for the alleged
transactions prepared by Shri
D.N.Biswas, IO of the case.
114, 114/1, 114/2,
114/3, 114/4, X/51
12. That during trial prosecution submitted the following documents
which were admitted as exhibits. The details follows as under:-
Sl. No. Exhibit Nos. Descriptions
01. Exhibit. 1 :- Seizure memo dated 13.05.1996 (Two pages)
02. Exhibit 1/1 :- Seizure Memo dated 10.06.1996.
03. Exhibit. 1 /2 :- Seizure memo dated 24.04.1996
04. Exhibit :- 1/3 :- Seizure Memo dated 28.06.1996.
05 Exhibit. 1 /4 :-Seizure Memo dated 26.06.1996
06. Exhibit. 1/5 :- Seizure Memo dated 07.06.1996.
07. Exhibit. 1/6 :- Seizure Memo dated 07.06.1996.
08. Exhibit. 1/7 :- Seizure memo (4 pages).
09. Exhibit. 1/8 :- Seizure memo dated 09.06.1996.
Page 61
--61– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
10. Exhibit. 1/9 :- Seizure memo dated 08.06.1996.
11. Exhibit. 1/10 :- Seizure memo dated 12.05.1997.
12. Exhibit. 1/11 :- Seizure Memo dated 31.05.1996.
13. Exhibit. 1/12 :- Seizure memo dated 26.04.1996.
14. Exhibit. 1/13 :- Seizure memo dated 22.04.1996 (carbon copy).
15. Exhibit. 1/14 :- Seizure memo dated 17.09.1996.
16. Exhibit. 1/15 :- Seizure memo dated 07.11.1996.
17. Exhibit. 1/16 :- Seizure memo dated 6.06.1996.
18. Exhibit. 1/17 and 1/18 :- Seizure memo.
19. Exhibit. 1/19 :- Seizure memo dated 17.09.1996.
20. Exhibit. 1/20 :- Seizure memo.
21. Exhibit.1/21 :- Seizure memo dated 14.11.1996.
22. Exhibit. 1/22 :- Seizure memo dated 08.11.1996.
23. Exhibit.1/23 :- Seizure Memo dated 28.09.1996 in 05 pages.
24. Exhibit. 1/24 :- Seizure Memo dated 06.11.1996 in 7 pages.
25. Exhibit. 1/25 :- Seizure memo dated 25.12.1996.
26. Exhibit. 1/26 :- Seizure Memo dated 16.04.1996 in 06 pages.
27. Exhibit. 1/27 :- Seizure Memo dated 21.04.1996.
28. Exhibit. 1/28 :- Seizure Memo dated 13.02.1997.
29. Exhibit. 1/29 :- Seizure memo.
30. Exhibit. 1/30 to 1/31 :- Seizure Memos dated 23.04.1996 and
25.04.1996.
31. Exhibit. 1/32 :- Seizure memo dated 13.05.1997.
32. Exhibit.1/33 :- Seizure memo dated 26.07.1999.
33. Exhibit. 1/34 :- Seizure memo dated 07.05.1997 with Zimanama.
34. Exhibit.1/35 :- Seizure memo dated 06.01.1997.
35. Exhibit. 1/36 :- Seizure memo dated 07.10.1996.
36. Exhibit. 1/37 :- Seizure list.
37. Exhibit 1/38 :- Carbon copy of seizure list dated 29.12.1996.
38. Exhibit. 1/39 :- Seizure memo dated 07.10.1996.
39. Exhibit. 1/40 to 1/43 :- Seizure memo (certified copy of Ext. 3/179 to 3/182
of R.C. 20(A)/96.
40. Exhibit. 1/44 :- Certified copy of Seizure list of R.C. 20(A)/96
(Ext.3/105).
41. Exhibit. 1/45 :- Seizure memo dated 25.04.97.
42. Exhibit. 1/46 :- Seizure memo dated 02.05.1997 (04 sheet).
43. Exhibit. 1/47 :- Seizure list dated 07.06.1996.
44. Exhibit. 1/48 :- Seizure list dated 07.06.1996.
Page 62
--62– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
45. Exhibit. 1/49 :- Seizure list dated 28.09.1996.
46. Exhibit. 1/50 :- Seizure memo dated 26.06.1996.
47. Exhibit. 1/51 :- Seizure memo dated 06.01.1997.
48. Exhibit. 1/52 :- Seizure memo dated 06.12.1996.
49. Exhibit. 1/53 :- Seizure memo dated 22.04.1996. (02 pages).
50. Exhibit.1/54 :- Seizure memo dated 10.06.1996.
51. Exhibit. 1/55 :- Seizure memo dated 14.10.1996
52. Exhibit. 1/56 :- Seizure memo dated 19.061996.
53. Exhibit. 1/57 :- Seizure memo dated 13.11.1996.
54. Exhibit. 1/58 :- Seizure memo dated 17.04.1997.
55. Exhibit.1/59 :- Seizure memo dated 24.11.1997
56. Exhibit.1/60 :- Seizure memo dated 25.11.1997.
57. Exhibit.1/61 :- Seizure memo dated 03.07.1997.
58. Exhibit.1/62 :- Seizure memo dated 05.05.1997.
59. Exhibit.1/63 :- Seizure memo dated 06.01.1997.
60. Exhibit.1/64 :- Seizure memo dated 06.01.1997.
61. Exhibit.1/65 :- Seizure memo dated 16.11.1996.
62. Exhibit.1/66 :- Seizure memo dated 15.10.1996.
63. Exhibit.1/67 :- Seizure memo dated 21.11.1997. (02 sheet).
64. Exhibit. 1/68 :- Seizure memo dated 10.09.1996.
65. Exhibit. 1/69 :- Seizure memo dated 30.09.1996.
66. Exhibit. 1/70 :- Seizure memo dated 17.09.1996.
67. Exhibit.1/71 :- Seizure memo dated 12.09.1996.
68. Exhibit.1/72 :- Seizure memo dated 10.01.1997 in 03 pages.
69. Exhibit.1/73 :- Seizure memo dated 23.12.1996.
70. Exhibit.1/74 :- Seizure memo dated 21.04.1996.
71. Exhibit.1/75 :- Seizure memo dated 23.11.1997.
72. Exhibit.1/76 :- Seizure memo dated 22.01.1997.
73. Exhibit.1/77 :- Seizure memo dated 15.05.1996.
74. Exhibit.1/78 :- Seizure memo dated 30.09.1996.
75. Exhibit.1/79 :- Seizure memo dated 07.10.1996 (carbon copy).
76. Exhibit.1/80 :- Receipt Memo dated 14.05.1996.
77. Exhibit. 1/81 :- Carbon copy of Seizure memo dated 23.04.1996.
78. Exhibit.1/82 :- Carbon copy of Seizure memo dated 25.04.1996.
79. Exhibit.1/83 :- Carbon copy of Seizure memo dated 16.04.1996.
80. Exhibit. 1/84 :- Seizure memo.
81. Exhibit.2 :- Account opening form cum specimen signature of current
Page 63
--63– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
account no. 376 of S.B.I Pakur Bazar Branch.
82. Exhibit. 2/1 :- Account Opening Form of account No. 40519 dated
11.11.1995.
83. Exhibit. 2/2 :- Account Opening Form of Account No. 2552 dated
10.10.1995.
84. Exhibit. 2/3 :- Account Opening form of Account No. SIB 0 39 dated
21.12.1995.
85. Exhibit. 2/4 :- Account Opening Form of Account No. 9B/45.
86. Exhibit. 2/5 :- Account Opening form of Account No. 1640 dated
24.06.1993.
87. Exhibit. 2/6 :- Account Opening form dated 12.11.1992.
88. Exhibit. 2/7 :- Account Opening Form of M/s. Mukesh Pharma,
Patna.
89. Exhibit.3 :- Original ledger of A/c No. 376 in two sheets.
90. Exhibit 3/1 :- Original ledger of Account No. 40519 in two sheets.
91. Exhibit. 3/2 :- Original ledger of Account No. 2552 in one sheet only.
92. Exhibit.3/3 :- Original ledger of Account No. SIB – 39 in two sheets .
93. Exhibit. 3 /4 :- Original ledger of Account No. 9B/45.
94. Exhibit. 3/5 :- Original ledge of current Account no. 34.
95. Exhibit. 4 :- Request letter of Rajendra Kumar Bagria for closing A/c
No. 376.
96. Exhibit. 5 :- Balance confirmation cum closer certificate of A/c No.
376.
97. Exhibit. 6 : - Debit voucher of S.B.I dated 26.02.1996.
98. Exhibit 7 to 7/13 :- Demand Draft (14).
99. Exhibit. 7/14 to 7/27 :- Demand Draft (14).
100. Exhibit. 7/28 to 7/33 :- Demand Drafts (6).
101. Exhibit. 7/34 to 7/35 :- Demand Draft (2).
102. Exhibit. 7/36 to 7/39 :- Demand Draft (4).
103. Exhibit. 7/40 :- Demand Draft dated 16.03.1996.
104. Exhibit. 7/41 to 7/44 :- Bank Draft (4) of M/s. Mukesh Enterprises,
Patna.
105. Exhibit. 7/45 to 7/49 :- Bank Drafts of M/s. R.K. Agency, Patna.
106. Exhibit. 7/50 to 7/53 :- Bank Draft of M/s. S.R Enterprises, Patna.
107. Exhibit. 7/54 to 7/57 :- Bank Draft of M/s. B.R. Pharma, Patna.
108. Exhibit. 7/58 :- Demand Draft dated 26.12.1995.
109. Exhibit. 7/59 to 7/62 :- Bank Draft Application.
Page 64
--64– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
110. Exhibit. 7/63 to 7/66 :- Bank Draft.
111. Exhibit. 8 :- Current Account pay in slip dated 09.11.1995.
112. Exhibit. 8/1 to 8/10 :- Pay in slip (10).
113. Exhibit 8/11 to 8/19 :- Pay in Slip (9).
114. Exhibit. 8/20 :- Pay in Slip (1).
115. Exhibit. 8/21 to 8/23 :- Pay in Slip (3) dated 17.10.1995, 27.10.1995
& 31.01.1996.
116. Exhibit 8/24 to 8/29 :- Pay in Slip (6).
117. Exhibit. 8/30 :- Pay in Slip dated 18.01.1996 (1).
118. Exhibit.8/31 :- Pay in Slip dated 31.01.1996.
119. Exhibit. 8/32 to 8/34 :- Pay in Slip (3).
120. Exhibit. 8/35 to 8/38 :- Pay in Slip dated 08.04.96, 08.12.95, 21.03.96
and 27.03.1996 (4).
121. Exhibit. 8/39 to 8/40 :- Pay-in-slip of M/s. Mukesh Pharma, Patna
122. Exhibit.8/41 to 8/42 :- Pay-in-slip of M/s. R.K. Agency, Patna.
123. Exhibit. 8/43 to 8/45 :- Pay-in-slip of M/s. S.R. Enterprises, Patna.
124. Exhibit. 8/46 to 8/47 :- Pay-in-slip of M/s. B.R. Pharma, Patna.
125. Exhibit. 8/48 :- Pay-in-slip dated 15.03.1996.
126. Exhibit. 9 to 9/18 :- Cheque (19).
127. Exhibit. 9/19 to 9/37 :- Cheques (19).
128. Exhibit. 9/38 to 9/41 :- Cheques (4).
129. Exhibit. 9/42 to 9/44 :- Cheques (3).
130. Exhibit. 9/45 to 9/75 :- Cheques (31) current A/c. No. 34.
131. Exhibit. 9/76 to 9/80 :- 05 Cheques.
132. Exhibit. 9/77 :- One Cheque dated 16.10.1995.
133. Exhibit. 10 to 10/26 :- Draft Application Form ( 27).
134. Exhibit. 10/27 :- Draft Application Form.
135. Exhibit. 10/28 :- Draft Application form dated 16.03.1996.
136. Exhibit. 10/29 to 10/113 :- 85 Bank Draft Application.
137. Exhibit. 11 to 11/2 :- Signature of Smt. Benu Jha on Ext.2/1.
138. Exhibit. 11/3 :- Signature of Smt. Benu Jha on Ext. 3/1.
139. Exhibits. 11/3 to 11/34 Signature
140. Exhibit. 12 :- Request letter dated 28.02.1996.
141. Exhibit. 13 :- Draft dated 05.02.1996.
142. Exhibit. 14 :- Application dated 21.12.1995.
143. Exhibit. 15 :- Statement of Account.
144. Exhibit. 15/1 :- Statement of Account.
Page 65
--65– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
145. Exhibit. 15/2 :- Statement of Account (ledger).
146. Exhibit. 16 :- Entire Register.
147. Exhibit. 17 :- Cash memo.
148. Exhibit. 18 :- Letter dated 16.05.1996, Dumka (DTO) -05 pages.
149. Exhibit. 18/1 :- Letter dated 27.06.1996 in writing of Chitranjan
Prasad.
150. Exhibit. 18/2 :- Letter No. 270 dated 14.08.1996.
151. Exhibit. 18/3 :- Letter Memo no. 2801 dated 14.09.1996.
152. Exhibit. 18/4 :- Letter dated 10.06.1996.
153 Exhibit. 18/5 :- Letter dated 13.06.1996.
154. Exhibit. 18/6 :- Letter dated 09.09.1996 in two sets.
155. Exhibit. 18/7 :- Letter dated 09.09.1996.
156. Exhibit. 18/8 :- Letter dated 27.09.1996.
157. Exhibit. 18/9 :- letter dated 18.10.1996.
158. Exhibit.18/10 :- Letter dated 29.08.1996 in 3 pages.
159. Exhibit. 18/11 :- Letter dated 13.05.1997 with 13 enclosures.
160. Exhibit. 18/12 :- Letter dated 12.05.1997.
161. Exhibit. 18/13 :- Letter dated 29.12.1997.
162. Exhibit. 18/14 :- Letter dated 13.12.1995 with two page enclosure.
163. Exhibit. 18/15 :- Letter dated 15.12.1995.
164. Exhibit. 18/16 :- Letter dated 31.01.1996.
165. Exhibit. 18/17 :- Letter dated 17.12.1996.
166. Exhibit. 18/18 :- Letter dated 14.07.1998 with enclosure 07 pages.
167. Exhibit. 18/19 :- Letter dated 12.07.1997 total page 16 pages.
168. Exhibit. 18/20 :- Letter with enclosures 23 pages.
169. Exhibit. 18/21 :- Letter dated 26.11.1998.
170. Exhibit. 18/22 :- Letter dated 20.12.1996 one sheet.
171. Exhibit. 18/23 :- Letter in 11 Sheet.
172. Exhibit. 18/24 : - Letter dated 30.01.1996.
173. Exhibit. 18/25 :- Letter dated 19.09.1996 (1) Sheets.
174. Exhibit. 18/26 :- Letter No. 102/FC (1) Sheet.
175. Exhibit. 18/27 :- Letter dated 01.02.1996 (01 Sheet).
176. Exhibit. 18/28 :- Letter dated 01.02.1996 (01 Sheet).
177. Exhibit. 18/29 :- Letter dated 13.02.1997 One sheet.
178. Exhibit. 18/30 :- Letter dated 03.12.1996 along with annexure.
179. Exhibit. 18/31 :- Letter dated 26.09.1996.
180. Exhibit. 18/32 :- Letter dated 23.09.1996 (01 sheet ).
Page 66
--66– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
181. Exhibit. 18/33 :- Letter dated 15.02.1997.
182. Exhibit. 18/34 :- Letter dated 03.07.1996 (03 sheets)
183. Exhibit 18/35 :- Letter No. 1794 dated 21.03.1997 (03 sheets)
184. Exhibit. 18/36 :- Letter No. 167 dated 17.02.1997 (04 Sheets)
185. Exhibit. 18/37 :- Letter dated 05.07.1996.
186. Exhibit. 18/38 :- Certified copy of Informatve Petition (letter)
187. Exhibit. 18/39 :- Certified copy of letter dated 10.03.1993.
188. Exhibit. 18/40 :- Carbon copy of letter dated 24.05.1992.
189. Exhibit. 18/41 & 18/42 :- Two letters.
190. Exhibit. 18/43 :- Certified copy of letter of Ext. 18/269.
191. Exhibit. 18/44 to 18/46 :- Certified copy of letter of Ext. 18/270 to
18/272.
192. Exhibit.18/47 and 18/48 :- Certified copy of letter of Ext. 18/273 &
18/274.
192. Exhibit. 18/49 to 18/54 :- Certified copies of letter of Ext. 18/275 to
18/277.
193. Exhibit. 18/52 :- Certified copy Ext. 18/301 of R.C. 20(A)/96.
194. Exhibit. 18/53 :- Certified copy of letter dated 17.03.1997 of R.C.
20(A)/96 (18/286).
195. Exhibit. 18/54 & 18/55 :- Certified copy of Ext. 18/159 to 18/160 of
R.C. 20(A)/96 (Letter ).
196. Exhibit. 18/56 :- Letter dated 13.05.1996.
197. Exhibit. 18/57 :- Letter (Fax) dated 27.09.1996 (03 pages).
198. Exhibit.18/58 :- Letter dated 23.04.1996.
199. Exhibit. 18/59 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 06.05.1996
200. Exhibit. 18/60 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 06.05.1996
201. Exhibit. 18/61:- Carbon copy of Letter dated 06.05.1996
202. Exhibit. 18/62 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 06.05.1996
203. Exhibit. 18/63 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 06.05.1996
204 Exhibit. 18/64 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 06.05.1996
205. Exhibit. 18/65 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 06.05.1996 ( 02 sheets).
206. Exhibit. 18/66 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 06.05.1996
207. Exhibit. 18/67 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 06.05.1996 (02 sheets).
208. Exhibit. 18/68 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 10.02.1997 (02 sheets).
209. Exhibit. 18/69 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 04.06.1996
210. Exhibit. 18/70 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 10.02.1997
211. Exhibit. 18/71 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 25.06.1996
Page 67
--67– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
212. Exhibit. 18/72 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 06.05.1996
213. Exhibit. 18/73 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 06.05.1996
214. Exhibit. 18/74 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 06.05.1996 ( 02 sheets )
215. Exhibit. 18/75 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 06.05.1996
216. Exhibit. 18/76 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 23.04.1997
217. Exhibit. 18/77 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 14.08.1996 (02 sheets).
218. Exhibit. 18/78 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 23.04.1997
219. Exhibit. 18/79 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 23.04.1997
220. Exhibit. 18/80 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 20.07.1999
221. Exhibit. 18/81 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 20.07.1999
222. Exhibit. 18/82 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 10.09.1996
223. Exhibit. 18/83 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 02.12.1996
224. Exhibit. 18/84 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 14.11.1996 ( 02 sheets).
225. Exhibit. 18/85 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 14.11.1996
226. Exhibit. 18/86 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 14.08.1996
227. Exhibit. 18/87 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 14.08.1996
228. Exhibit. 18/88 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 10.02.1997
229. Exhibit. 18/89 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 10.02.1997
230. Exhibit. 18/90 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 11.05.1996
231. Exhibit. 18/91 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 30.09.1996
232. Exhibit. 18/92 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 14.08.1996
233. Exhibit. 18/93 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 14.05.1997
234. Exhibit. 18/94 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 17.04.1996 (03 sheets).
235. Exhibit. 18/95 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 17.09.1996
236. Exhibit. 18/96 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 30.09.1996
237. Exhibit. 18/97 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 03.05.1997
238. Exhibit. 18/98 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 16.04.1996
239. Exhibit. 18/99 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 16.04.1996
240. Exhibit. 18/100 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 07.06.1996
241. Exhibit. 18/101 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 07.06.1996
242. Exhibit. 18/102 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 10.06.1996
243. Exhibit. 18/103 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 15.11.1996
244. Exhibit. 18/104 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 24.12.1996
245. Exhibit. 18/105 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 03.12.1996
246. Exhibit. 18/106 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 03.12.1996
247. Exhibit. 18/107 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 01.10.1996
248. Exhibit. 18/108 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 17.09.1996
Page 68
--68– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
249. Exhibit. 18/109 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 17.09.1996
250. Exhibit. 18/110 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 17.09.1996
251. Exhibit. 18/111 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 17.04.1996
252. Exhibit. 18/112 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 14.08.1996
253. Exhibit. 18/113 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 14.08.1996
254. Exhibit. 18/114 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 10.09.1996
255. Exhibit. 18/115 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 04.10.1996
256. Exhibit. 18/116 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 14.10.1996
257. Exhibit. 18/117 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 14.10.1996
258. Exhibit. 18/118 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 08.05.1997
259. Exhibit. 18/119 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 08.05.1997
260. Exhibit. 18/120 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 14.05.1997
261. Exhibit. 18/121 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 14.05.1997
262. Exhibit. 18/122 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 06.02.1997
263. Exhibit. 18/123 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 07.02.1997 ( 02
sheets).
264. Exhibit. 18/124 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 06.05.1996 (04
sheets).
265. Exhibit. 18/125 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 06.01.1997
266. Exhibit. 18/126 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 23.04.1997
267. Exhibit. 18/127 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 06.01.1997
268. Exhibit. 18/128 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 24.10.1997
269. Exhibit. 18/129 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 02.12.1996
270. Exhibit. 18/130 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 06.05.1996
271. Exhibit. 18/131 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 10.02.1997
272. Exhibit. 18/132 :- Letter No. 8662 dated 27.08.1996.
273. Exhibit.18/133 :- Letter PT/ARD
274. Exhibit.18/134 :- Letter dated 17.12.1996 (05 sheets).
275. Exhibit.18/135 :- Letter dated 18.04.1996 (03 sheets)
276. Exhibit.18/136 :- Letter dated23.11.1996 along with enclosure 33
sheets.
277. Exhibit.18/137 :- Letter dated 13.11.1996 along with enclosure in 6
sheets.
278. Exhibit. 18/138 :- Letter dated 03.04.1997 along with enclosure in
03 sheets.
279. Exhibit.18/139 :- Letter dated 16.11.1996 along with enclusure in 2
sheets.
Page 69
--69– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
280. Exhibit.18/140 to 18/143 :- Four letters related to Bank respectively
281. Exhibit. 19 to 19/4 :- Letter dated 05.10.1996, 21.02.1997,
24.07.1996, 25.04.1997 and
30.04.1997 related by medicine.
281. Exhibit.20 :- Log Book.
282. Exhibit. 21 to 21/2 :- Signature on entries of Log Book dated
22.10.1995 to 24.10.1995.
283. Exhibit. 21/3 to 21/10 :- Signature of witnesses in statement given
before income tax authority.
284. Exhibit. 22 to 22/6 :- Seven Register Dhanbad, some Register are
torn condition detail mention in order sheet
dated 21.11.1995.
285. Exhibit. 23 :- Memo No. 830 dated 05.07.1994
286. Exhibit. 23/1 :- Specimen signature memo no. 308 (M dated
31.08.1995.
287. Exhibit. 24 :- Treasury Messenger book dated 23.07.1986 to
02.01.1990
288. Exhibit. 25 to 25/4 :- C.N.C Bill (5), M/s. S.R. Enterprises, Patna.
289. Exhibit. 25/5 to 25/19 :- C.N.C Bills (15), M/s. Radha Pharmacy.
290. Exhibit. 25/20 to 25/34 :- C.N.C Bills (15), Laxmi Enterprises.
291. Exhibit. 25/35 to 25/45 :- C.N.C Bills of M/s. Transporter Raj Kumar
Sharma.
292. Exhibit. 25/46 to 25/59 :- C.N.C Bills of Krishna Road Carrier.
293. Exhibits. 25/60 to 25/63 :- C.N.C Bills (4), M/s. Little Oak.
294. Exhibit. 25/64 to 25/69 :- C.N.C Bills (6), M/s. Vishwakarma
Agency.
295. Exhibit. 25/70 to 25/72 :- C.N.C Bills (3) of M.R. Pharma.
296. Exhibits. 25/73 to 25/78 :- C.N.C Bills (6) of Mukesh Enterprises,
Patna.
297. Exhibit. 25/79 to 25/84 :- C.N.C Bills (6), M/s. R.K. Agency.
298. Exhibits.25/85 to 25/88 :- C.N.C Bills (4) of Vyapar Kuttir.
299. Exhibit. 25/89 to 25/93 :- C.N.C Bills (5) of Bagat & Co.
300. Exhibit. 25/94 to 25/97 :- C.N.C Bills (4) of Semex Cryogenics.
301. Exhibit. 25/98 to 25/102 :- C.N.C Bills (5).
302. Exhibit. 26 to 26/49 :- Vouchers, M/s. S.R. Enterprises, Patna.
303. Exhibit. 26/50 to 26/90 :- Vouchers (41), Radha Pharmacy.
304. Exhibit. 26/91 to 26/221 :- Vouchers (131), Laxmi Enterprises.
Page 70
--70– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
305. Exhibit. 26/222 to 26/296 :- Vouchers ( 75), Transporters Raj Kumar
Sharma.
306. Exhibit. 26/297 to 26/354 :- Vouchers (58) Krishna Road Carrier.
307. Exhibit. 26/355 to 26/394 :- Vouchers ( 40), M/s. Little Oak
Pharmaceuticals.
308. Exhibits . 26/395 to 26/454 :- Vouchers ( 60) M/s. Vishwakarama
Agency.
309. Exhibit. 26/455 to 26/464 :- Vouchers (10) M/s. Vishwakarma
Agency.
310. Exhibits. 26/465 to 26/494 :- Vouchers (30) of M/s. B.R. Pharma.
311. Exhibits. 26/495 to 26/554 :- Vouchers (60) Mukesh Enterprises,
Patna.
312. Exhibits. 26/555 to 26/612 :- Vouchers (58) M/s. R.K. Agency.
313. Exhibits. 26/613 to 26/652 :- Vouchers (40) of Vyapar Kuttir.
314. Exhibit. 26/653 to 26/700 :- Vouchers (48) of Bhagat & Co.
315. Exhibit. 26/701 to 26/737 :- Vouchers (37) Semex Cryogenic.
316. Exhibit. 27 :- Sanction order in 16 pages against the accused Lalu
Prasad Yadav.
317. Exhibit. 27/1 :- Sanction order in 9 pages (Jagannath Mishra).
318. Exhibit. 27/2 :- Sanction order in 12 pages (Vidya Sagar Nishar, C.
Verma and Bhola Ram Tufani).
319. Exhibit. 27/3 :- Sanction order in 15 pages against K. Arumugam,
Mahesh Prasad, Beck Julius, Sripati Narayan Dubey,
& Phool Chand Singh.
320. Exhibit. 27/4 :- Sanction order in 24 pages against the accused of
Braj Bhushan Prasad, Dr. Ram Raj Ram, Dr. O.P
Diwakar, R.K. Das, Dr. Md. Sayeed, Dr. Md.
Wassimuddin, Dr. Manoranjan Prasad, Dr. Nand
Kishore Prasad, Dr. Raghunandan Prasad, Dr. Bimal
Kant Das, Radha Mohan Mandal, Dr. Pitember Jha,
Dr. Krishna Kumar
Prasad, Dr. Sateyndra Singh, Rameshwar Praad Choudhary,
Chhatu Prasad and Sardendu Kumar Das.
321. Exhibit. 27/5 :- Sanction order in seven pages against the accused
M.C. Subarno.
322. Exhibit. 27/6 Sanction order in 11 pages against the accused Jagdish
Sharma and Dhruv Bhagat.
Page 71
--71– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
323. Exhibit. 27/7 :- Sanction order.
324. Exhibit. 28 :- Annual Return of Sale Tax of M/s. S.R. Enterprises.
325. Exhibit. 29 :- Note sheet of Sale Tax from 02.03.1996 to 13.05.1996.
326. Exhibit. 30 to 30/2 :- Quarterly Return of Sale Tax of M/s. R.K.
Agency.
327. Exhibit. 30/3 to 30/5 :- Quarterly Return of M/s. B.R Pharma.
328. Exhibit. 31 :- Carbon copy of Account Opening Form of M/s. S.R.
Enterprises, Patna.
329. Exhibit. 32 :- C.M Office Register.
329. Exhibit. 32/1 :- Entry Register S.N. 24 & 25.
330. Exhibit. 33 :- Production and Manufacturing Register of Little Oak
Pharmaceuticals.
331. Exhibit. 34 :- Inspection report dated 01.02.1996 in 3 pages of M/s.
Radha Pharmacy.
332. Exhibit. 35 to 35/2 :- Case Book and ledger Register during the
period 94- 95 & 2 (95-96).
333. Exhibit. 35/3 :- Case Book Register during the period of 95 – 96.
334. Exhibit. 35/4 to 35/5 :- 02 cash Book Register during the period 94 –
95, 95 – 96 M/s. Vayapar Kutir.
335. Exhibit. 36 to 36/9 :- 10 Parties by ledger M/s. Radha Pharmacy.
336. Exhibit. 36/10 :- Ledger Book of M/s. Vyapar Kutir
337. Exhibit. 37 to 37/14 :- 15 case memo bill Book of M/s. Radha
Pharmacy some Register is torn (carbon copy).
338. Exhibit. 38 to 38/929 :- Miscellaneous documents papers.
339. Exhibit. 39 :- B.S.T Certificate.
340. Exhibits. 40 :- C.S.T Certificate in respect
341. Exhibit. 41 :- C.S.T & B.S.T Returns.
342. Exhibit.42 :- Order sheet of Sale Tax Office, Dumka in respect of
M/s. Radha Pharmacy.
343. Exhibit. 43 :- Transport Receipt.
344. Exhibit. 44 :- Statement U/s- 164 of Cr.P.C in R.C. No. 20(A)/1996.
345. Exhibit.44/1 :- Statement U/s- 164 of Cr.P.C.
346. Exhibit. 44/2 :- Statement U/s- 164 of Cr.P.C.
347. Exhibit. 44/3 :- Signature of witness given in U/s- 164 of Cr.P.C.
348. Exhibit.44/4 :- Statement U/s- 164 of Cr.P.C of Fool Jha.
349. Exhibit. 44/5 :- Certified copy of statement of Jai Ram Prasad Verma
as Ext. 51/23 of R.C. 20 (A)/96.
Page 72
--72– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
350. Exhibit. 45 :- Sale Register of M/s. Vyapar Kutir.
351. Exhibit. 46 :- Purchase Register of M/s. Vyapar Kutir.
352. Exhibit. 47 :- Customer arrival card.
353. Exhibit. 47/1 :- Customer Arrival Card.
354. Exhibit. 47/2 :- Customer Arrival Card.
355. Exhibit. 47/3 :- Guest Arrival Card.
356. Exhibit. 47/4 :- Guest Arrival Card.
357. Exhibit. 47/5 :- Guest Arrival Card.
358. Exhibit. 48 :- Room Card.
359. Exhibit. 48/1 :- Room Booking Card.
360. Exhibit. 48/2 :- Room Booking Card.
361. Exhibit. 48/3 to 48/4 :- Room Card.
362. Exhibit. 48/5 :- Room Card.
363. Exhibit. 49 :- Hotel Payment receipt.
364. Exhibit. 49/1 :- Carbon copy of Hotel Payment receipt (torn)
365. Exhibit. 49/2 :- Hotel Payment receipt.
366. Exhibit. 50 to 50/2 :- Carbon copy of 3 Hotel Bills.
367. Exhibit. 50/3 to 50/5 :- 03 Carbon copy of Room's Telephone
Charges bills.
368. Exhibit. 50/6 to 50/8 :- 03 Carbon Copy of Room and Telephone
Charges bills.
369. Exhibit. 50/9 to 50/14 :- Room and Telephone Charges bills.
370. Exhibit. 50/15 to 50/17 :- Room and telephone charges bills.
371. Exhibit. 50/18 to 50/20 :- Telephone charges bills.
372. Exhibit. 50/21 :- Carbon copy of Hotel Payment bill.
373. Exhibit. 50/22 :- Carbon copy of Hotel Payment bill.
374. Exhibit. 50/23 :- Hotel Bill.
375. Exhibit. 50/24 :- Carbon copy of Hotel bill of Hotel Airport.
376. Exhibit. 50/25 & 50/26 :- Previous Ext. of R.C. 20(A)/96 Ext. 22/57
and 22/58.
377. Exhibit. 50/27 to 50/32 : - Ext. 22/60 to 22/65 of R.C 20(A)/96.
378. Exhibit. :- 51 :- Guest Departure Slip.
379. Exhibit. 51/1 :- Guest Departure Slip.
380. Exhibit. 51/2 :- Departure Slip.
381. Exhibit. 51/3 :- Departure Slip.
382. Exhibit. 51/4 :- Guest Departure Slip.
383. Exhibit. 52 to 52/181 :- Booking Registers of M/s. Guide and Travels
Page 73
--73– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
certain pages.
384. Exhibit. 53 to 53/7 :- 08 Bills of M/s. Guide Travels.
385. Exhibits. 54 to 54/51 :- 52 Vouchers of M/s. Guide Travels.
386. Exhibit. 54/52 :- 1 Voucher.
387. Exhibit. 55 to 55/14 :- Cash Book Registers of M/s. Guide Travels
certain pages.
388. Exhibit. 56 to 56/6 :- Bill Register of M/s. Guide Travels certain
pages.
389. Exhibit. 57 :- Search list dated 29.10.1996 in 5 pages.
390. Exhibit. 58 to 58/1 :- Stock Register of the office of Assistant
Director Poultry, Dumka.
391. Exhibit. 58/2 to 58/4 :- Register and attendance Register.
392. Exhibit. 59 :- Signature on Guest Registration Form.
393. Exhibit. 60 :- File 3 P.S (1) 1055/91
394. Exhibit. 60/1 :- File 3 P S (I) 1055/91 & 3 PS (1) 1011/92.
395. Exhibit. 60/2 :- File 3 PS (1) 1011/92.
396. Exhibit. 60/3 :- File R F into 3 PS (I) 1016/95, File 3 P.S (I) 1013/93.
397. Exhibit. 60/4 :- File No. 145/93, File CR6/FM – 226 (PT) 96 – 97.
398. Exhibit. 60/5 :- File 1 F 22.
399. Exhibit. 60/6 :- File 15 P (2) 701/96.
400. Exhibit. 60/7 :- File 15 P (2) 1023/95.
401. Exhibit. 60/8 :- File 15 P (2) 164/96.
402. Exhibit. 60/9 :- File 15 P (2) 102/93.
403. Exhibit. 60/10 :- File 15 P (2) 306/95.
404. Exhibit. 60/11 :- File.
405. Exhibit. 60/12 :- File.
406. Exhibit. 60/13 :- File.
407. Exhibit. 60/14 :- File No. XVI 7/93.
408. Exhibit. 60/15 :- File 10 F 4 (4) 92.
409. Exhibit. 60/16 :- File
410. Exhibit. 60/17 :- File.
411. Exhibit. 60/18 :- Certified copy of File.
412. Exhibit. 60/19 to 60/32 :- 14 Certified copies of File.
413. Exhibit. 60/33 to 60/35 :- 03 File (Certified copies).
414. Exhibit. 60/36 :- Certified copy of file Ext. 38/383 of R.C. 20 (A)/96.
415. Exhibit. 60/37 :- Certified copy of file in Ext. 38/375 of R.C 20 (A) /
1996.
Page 74
--74– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
416. Exhibit. 60/39 to 60/44 :- Six certified copies of files of R.C.
20(A)/96.
417. Exhibit. 60/45 to 60/49 :- Five certified copies of file of R.C. No.
20(A)/1996.
418. Exhibit. 60/50 :- Certified copy of Ext. 89 of R.C. 20(A)/96.
419. Exhibit. 60/51 :- Certified copy of Ext. 38/339 of R.C 20(A)/96.
410. Exhibit.60/52 and 60/53 :- Certified copy of Ext. 18/303 and 18/304
of R.C 20 (A)/1996.
411. Exhibit. 60/54 to 60/67 :- Certified copy of Ext. 38/317 to 38/330 of
R.C. 20(A)/96.
412. Exhibit. 60/68 to 60/70 :- Certified copies of file of Ext. 38/305 to
38/307 of R.C 20(A)/96.
413. Exhibit. 60/71 to 60/73 :- Certified copies of file of R.C. 20 (A)/96 in
Ext. no. 38/308 to 38/310.
414. Exhibit. 60/74 to 60/138 :- Certified copy of Ext. 38/378 to 38/442 of
R.C. 20(A)/96.
415. Exhibit. 60/139 to 60/144 : Certified copies of Ext. 105 to 105/5 of
R.C. 20(A)/96.
416. Exhibit. 60/149 :- Certified copy of Ext 38/314 of R.C. No. 20(A)/96
Pate (File).
417. Exhibit. 60/150 :- Certified copy of file i.e. Ext. 38/283 of R.C. 20
(A) /96.
418. Exhibit. 60/151 to 60/152 :- Certified copy of file of R.C 20 (A)/96
i.e. Ext. 38/312 and 38/313.
419. Exhibit. 60/153 to 60/158 :- Certified copy of Ext. 38 to 38/50 of
R.C. 20 (A)/96 (File).
420. Exhibit. 60/159 to 60/180 :- Certified copy of Ext. 38/6 to 38/27 of
R.C. 20(A)/96 (File).
421. Exhibit. 60/181 to 60/185 :- Certified copy of file I.e Ext. 60/28 to
60/32 of R.C. 20(A)/96.
422. Exhibit. 60/186 to 60/191 :- Certified copy of Ext. 38/466 to 38/471
of R.C Case No. 20(A)/1996.
423. Exhibit. 61 :- Gudgt.
424. Exhibit. 63 to 63/23:-24 Allotment letters (certified copy substituted).
425. Exhibit. 64 :- Complain dated 02.02.1996 in 5 pages.
426. Exhibit. 65 :- Registration processing B.S.T & C.S.T Form
Page 75
--75– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
M/s.Mukesh Enterprises.
427. Exhibit. 66 to 66/4 :- Endorsement on signature in C.N.C Bills in Ext.
25/15 to 25/19.
428. Exhibit. 66/6 to 66/7 :- Endorsement.
429. Exhibit. 66/8 :- Endorsement in 03 sheet.
430. Exhibit. 66/9 :- Endorsement in 04 Sheet.
431. Exhibit. 66/10 :- Certified copy of Signature of P.W. 187.
432. Exhibit. 66/11 :- Certified copy of Signature of Abhay Kumar Singh.
433. Exhibit. 67 to 67/4 :- Signature of accused Gopi Nath Das in C.N.C
Bill and in Ext. 25/15 to 25/19.
434. Exhibit. 68 :- Application dated 30.06.1998.
435. Exhibit. 69 to 69/10 :- Signature of S.K. Singh, P.W.109 in his
statement recorded U/s- 164 of Cr.P.C.
436. Exhibit. 70 :- Note Sheet and signature of witness P.W. 118.
437. Exhibit. 70/1 :- Note Sheet.
438. Exhibit. 70/2 :- Note Sheet.
439. Exhibit. 70/3 :- Certified copy of Note Sheet dated 08.05.1994,
(Ext.30 R.C. 39 (A) / 1996).
440. Exhibit. 70/4 to 70/13 :- Certified copy Note sheets and endorsed i.e.
18/163 to 18/172 of R.C. No. 20 (A)/96.
441. Exhibit. 71 to 71/2 :- Signatures.
442. Exhibit. 71/3 to 71/9 :- Signatures.
443. Exhibit. 71/10 :- Signature in Note Sheet.
444. Exhibit. 71/11 :- Signature of Dr. Ram Raj Ram.
445. Exhibit. 71/12 :- Signature.
446. Exhibit. 71/13 :- Signature.
447. Exhibit.71/14 :- Signature of V.A. Jadhav in letter dated 15.02.1997.
448. Exhibit. 71/15 :- Signature and Writing.
449. Exhibit. 71/16 :- Signature of S.K. Bhattacharya.
450. Exhibit. 71/17 :- Signature in Receipt memo dated 20.02.1997.
451. Exhibit. 71/18 :- Signature in Receipt Memo dated 07.10.96.
452. Exhibit. 71/19 :- Signature in seizure memo dated 04.02.97.
453. Exhibit. 71/19 to 71/230 :- Signature of Sudhanshu Jaiswal in
company invoices in 212 pages.
Page 76
--76– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
454. Exhibit. 71/231 :- Signature and writing in Fax message.
455. Exhibit. 71/232 :- Endorsement and signature in letter dated
29.12.1995.
456. Exhibit. 71/233 :- Endorsement in Ext. 03/1 (Entry dated 08.12.1993.
457. Exhibit. 71/234 :- Endorsement in Ext. 83/2 Entry dated 23.09.1994.
458. Exhibit. 71/235 :- Endorsement in Ext. 83/2 Entry dated 18.10.1994.
459. Exhibit. 71/236 :- Endorsement in Ext. 83/2 (Entry dated 20.10.1994.
460. Exhibit. 71/237 :- Five Endorsement in Ext. 83/2 entry dated
23.10.1994.
461. Exhibit. 71/238 :- Endorsement in Ext. 83/2, entry dated 27.11.1994.
462. Exhibit. 71/239 :- Endorsement in Ext. 83/4 (Entry dated 01.03.1994.
463. Exhibit. 71/240 :- Endorsement in Ext. 83/4 Entry dated 06.03.1994.
464. Exhibit. 71/241 & 71/242 :- Certified copy of endorsement and
Signature Ext. 30/1 and 30/2 of R.C. 39 (A)/96.
465. Exhibit. 72 :- List of carbon copy of Registered letter.
466. Exhibit. 72/1 to 72/2 :- List of Carbon copy of Registered letter.
467. Exhibit. 73 :- Circular.
468. Exhibit. 74 :- Report of Neweydan Samitee.
469. Exhibit. 75 :- Certified to be true copy of Payment schedule 2403.
470. Exhibit. 76 :- Office order Register.
471. Exhibit. 77 to 77/1 :- 2 Guard File (Ext. 77 to 77/1 ).
472. Exhibit. 78 :- Guest Registration Card.
473. Exhibit. 78/1 :- Guest Registration Card.
474. Exhibit. 78/2 :- Carbon copy of Guest Registration Card.
475. Exhibit. 78/3 :- Guest Registration Card.
476. Exhibit. 78/4 :- Ext. 22/59 of R.C. 20(A)/96.
477. Exhibit. 78/5 to 78/26 :- Ext. 22/60 to 22/87 of R.C. 20(A)/96.
478. Exhibit. 78/27 to 78/39 :- Certified copies of Guest Registered as Ext.
19 to 19/12 in R.C No. 20 (A)/96.
479. Exhibit. 79 to 79/2 :- Arrival and departure visitors Registers of M/s.
Hotel Marina.
480. Exhibits. 79/3 to 79/5 :- Certified copy of Ext. 20 to 20/3 in R.C. 20
(A)/96 (Arrival Departure Card).
481. Exhibit. 80 : - Carbon copy of bill receipt.
482. Exhibit. 81 to 81/2 :- 3 Veterinary Registers.
483. Exhibit. 82 :- Fax dated 16.12.1995 (torn).
Page 77
--77– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
484. Exhibit.82/1 :- Fax Message (06 pages)
485. Exhibit. 82/2 :- Fax Message (04 page)
486. Exhibit. 83 :- One Sales Register of page – 46 (torn).
487. Exhibit. 83/1 :- Sales Register.
488. Exhibit. 83/2 :- Sale Register page 1 to 4.
489. Exhibit. 83/3 : - Booking and Sales Register (torn).
490. Exhibit. 83/4 :- Booking Register from 01.03.1994 to 31.05.1994.
491. Exhibit. 84 : - Daily Diary Register (C.M Secretariate Register ).
492. Exhibit. 84/1 :- Entry of diary of C.M Secretaruate.
493. Exhibit. 84/2 :- Entry of Diary of C.M Secretariate.
494. Exhibit. 85 to 85/22 :- 22 Air Ticekt Sahara Airlines.
495. Exhibit. 85/23 to 85/179 :- Certified copy of Ext. 71/119 to 71/275
(Air Ticket)
496. Exhibit. 86 :- Stock Register Travel Agency for Ticket.
497. Exhibit. 87 :- Incoming Ticket Payment Register.
498. Exhibit. 88 :- Noting.
499. Exhibit. 88/1 :- Noting.
500. Exhibit. 89 :- Daily Diary Register AHD Secretariat Register.
501. Exhibit. 89/1 :- Daily Diary Register AHD Secretariat Register
502. Exhibit. 89/2 :- Daily Diary Register AHD Secretariat Register.
503. Exhibit. 90 to 90/22 :- 23 Warrant of Authorization under section –
132 Income-Tax.
504. Exhibit. 90/23 to 90/28 :- Warrant of Authorization under section 132
Income-Tax.
505. Exhibit. 90/29 to 90/42 :- Warrant of Authorization under Section –
132 Income-Tax.
506. Exhibit. 90/43 to 90/50 :- Warrant of Authorization under Section –
132 Income-Tax.
507. Exhibit. 90/51 to 90/57 :- Warrant of Authorization under Section
132 Income-Tax.
508. Exhibit. 90/58 to 90/61 :- Warrant of Authorization under Section –
132 of Income-Tax.
509. Exhibit. 91 to 91/1 :- Panchanama with enclosures. (Total 10 sheets).
510. Exhibit. 91/2 :- Panchnama along with 5 Page enclosures.
511. Exhibit. 91/3 :- Panchanama dated 12.10.1993.
512. Exhibit. 91/4 :- Panchanama dated 12.10.1993 along with 02 pages
enclosures.
Page 78
--78– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
513. Exhibit. 91/5 :- Panchnama dated 01.02.1993 along with 4 page
enclosure.
514. Exhibit.91/6 :- Panchanama dated 12.11.1993 along with one page
enclosure.
515. Exhibit. 91/7 :- Panchanama dated 12.11.1993 along with one page
enclosure.
516. Exhibit. 91/8 :- Panchanama dated 12.11.1993 with one page
enclosure.
517. Exhibit. 91/9 :- Panchanama dated 12.11.1993 with one page
enclosure.
518. Exhibit. 91/10 :- Panchnama dated 12.10.1993 with two page
enclosure.
519. Exhibit. 91/11 :- Panchnama dated 12.11.1993 with two page
enclosure.
520. Exhibit. 91/12 :- Panchananma dated 01.02.1993 along with six
sheets enclosure.
521. Exhibit. 91/13 :- Panchnama dated 30.09.1993.
522. Exhibit. 91/14 :- Panchanama dated 01.02.1993 along with 17 Sheets
enclosure.
523. Exhibit. 92 to 92/7 :- 08 Appraisal Report.
524. Exhibit. 93 :- Certified copy of Witness Balvinder Singh
recorded in R.C.20 (A) / 1996 Pat – in page 04 pages.
525. Exhibit. 94 to 94/18 :- 19 Certified copy of Gold Bond
Application.
526. Exhibit. 95 to 95/18 :- 19 certified copy of Nomination form.
527. Exhibit. 96 to 96/13 :- 14 Certified copies Receipt of Gold.
528. Exhibit. 97 to 97/47 :- 48 certified copies of Gold Bond.
529. Exhibit. 98 to 98/18 :- 19 certified receiving of Gold Bond.
530. Exhibit. 95 to 95/6 :- Certified copy of telephone print out.
531. Exhibit. 96 to 96/1 :- Certified copy of Payment Details.
532. Exhibit. 97 :- Certified copy of Subscriber Record.
533. Exhibit. 98 :- Certified copy of Daily Collection list.
534. Exhibit. 99 to 99/9 :- Certified copy of Telephones bills.
535. Exhibit. 100 to 100/1 :- Certified copy of Statement of Sri J.P Verma
and Rajesh Verma.
536. Exhibit. 101 :- Hotel Register Hyat Regency, Delhi.
537. Exhibit. 101/a :- Hotel Register.
538. Exhibit. 102 :- Entries Sr. No. 376.
Page 79
--79– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
539. Exhibit. 102/a and 102/b :- Entries of Room No. 508 and 517 of Ext.
101/a.
540. Exhibit. 103 to 103/a and 103/b :- 03 Registration Card of Hotel
Hayat.
541. Exhibit. 104 :- Receipt dated 28.01.1996.
542. Exhibit. 105 :- Certified copy of Vigilance file.
543. Exhibit. 106 to 106/8 :- Certified copies of Ext. 106/6 to 106/14.
544. Exhibit. 107 to 107/2 :- Certified copy of forecast of Financial
Resources of R.C 20(A)/96 (89 to 89/2).
545. Exhibit. 108 to 108/77 :- Certified copy of Ext. 26/23 to 26/100 of
R.C.- 20(A)/96.
546. Exhibit. 108/78 to 108/81 :- Certified copy of Ext. 39 to 39/5 of R.C.
20(A)/96 (File).
547. Exhibit. 109 :- Certified copy of list of file i.e. 40 of R.C. No.
20(A)/96.
548. Exhibit. 110 to 110/4 :- Certified copies of Ext. 41 to 41/4 of R.C. 20
(A)/96.
549. Exhibit. 111 :- Zimananma dated 13.05.1997.
550. Exhibit. 111/1 :- Zimananama dated 07.10.1996.
551. Exhibit.112 :- Payment details of Citi Bank through credits card of
Ajit Kumar Verma.
552. Exhibit. 113 :- GEQD Letter no. 8160 dated 31.10.1996 (02 sheets).
553. Exhibit. 113/1 :- Carbon copy of GEQD letter
554. Exhibit.113/2 :- GEQD dated 21.11.1196
555. Exhibit.113/3 :- Opinion.
556. Exhibit. 114 :- Chart (08 sheet)
557. Exhibit.114/1 :- Chart (04)
558. Exhibit. 114/2 :- Chart (18)
559. Exhibit. 114/3 :- Chart (17)
560. Exhibit.114/4 :- Chart (01)
561. Exhibit. A :- Letter dated 24.12.1995 and File No. 1 Stha (1) 208/93.
562. Exhibit.A/1 :- File No. 12 P.Pa.M.NI – Ko (1) 111/94.
563. Exhibit. A/2 :- File No. P.Pa – San Prag (Go)-01/93.
564. Exhibit .A/3 :- File No. 1/stha (1)/1072/85 Part.
565. Marked ‘X’ for identification :- Photocopy of letter No. 1744 dated
23.12.94 & Photocopy of account opening form of Allahabad Bank
& Photocopy of challan dated 27.10.1995.
Page 80
--80– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
566. Marked X/1 for identification :- Paper seized by P.W.93 &
Photocopy of Registration certificate
567. Marked X/2 :- Photocopy of confidential letter (03 page)
568. Marked X/3 :- Transport Challan
569. Marked X/4 :- Photocopy of Owner Book.
570. Marked X/5 :- Photocopy of Fax dated 02.12.1996.
571. Marked X/6 :- Photocopy of Agreement paper.
572. Marked X/7 :- Photocopy of letter 23.11.1996.
573. Marked X/8 :- Guest Departure Slip (torn).
574. Marked X/9 :- Signature and writing.
575. Marked X/10:- U/s- 164 of Cr.P.C Statement.
576. Marked X/11 to X/13 :- Payment receipt 2.
577. Marked X/14 to X/16 :- Photocopy of attested Admission Form of
Bishop Westcott Girls School.
578. Marked X/17 to X/18 :- Photocopy of attested Admission form of
Bishop West Girls School.
579. Marked X/19 :- Photocopy of attested Admission form of Bishop
West Girls School.
580. Marked X/20 :- Letter dated 16.05.1997.
581. Marked X/21 :- Memorandum and forecast.
582. Marked X/22 :- Guest Registration Card.
583. Marked X/23 :- Carbon copy of Hotel bill.
584. Marked X/24 :- Charge slip of CITI Bank.
585. Marked X/25 :- Seizure memo dated 04.02.1997.
586. Marked X/26 & X/27 :- Two Air-tickets of Sahara.
587. Marked X/28 & X/29 :- Account Opening Form & Ledge true copy.
588. Marked X/30 :- Account Opening form (P.W.194)
589. Marked X/31 to X/33 :- Certified copy of XX/731, XX/732 &
XX/733 of R.C. 68(A)/96.
590. Marked X/34 to X/37 :- Certified copy of XX/744 to XX/747 of R.C.
20(A)/1996.
591. Marked X/38 :- Certified copy of letter (XX/727) of R.C. 20 (A)/96.
592. Marked X/39 & X/40 :- Certified copy of XX/748 & XX/749 of R.C.
20 (A)/96.
593. Marked X/41 :- Certified copy of letter of R.C. 20 (A)/96 (Ext.
XX/735.
Page 81
--81– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
594. Marked X/42 :- Photocopy of letter dated 26.09.1996.
595. Marked X/43 :- Photocopy of letter dated 27.09.1996
596. Marked X/44 :- Photocopy of letter dated 23.9.96.
597. Marked X/45 :- Photocopy of letter dated 04.11.1998.
598. Marked X/46 :- Photocopy of letter dated 29.11.1996.
599. Marked X/47 :- Photocopy of calls details – 57 pages.
600. Marked X/48 :- photocopy of letter (03 sheets).
601. Marked X/49 :- Photocopy of letter no. 27.09.1996.
602. Marked X/50 :- Letter
603. Marked X/51 :- Pleader complain dated 15.05.1995 (24 sheet)
13. That is prosecution evidence are closed and U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C the
statement of accused persons namely 1. Adhip Chandra Chaudhary, 2. Ajeet
Kumar Verma, 3. Arun Kumar Singh, 4. Beck Julius, 5. Smt. Benu Jha, 6.
Bimal Kant Das, 7. Dhruv Bhagat, 8. Gopi Nath Das, 9. Jagannath Mishra, 10.
Jagdish Sharma, 11. Krishna Kumar Prasad, 12. Lal Mohan Prasad, 13. Lalu
Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav, 14. Mahesh Prasad, 15. Manoranjan Prasad, 16.
Mehar Chandra Subarno, 17. Mohindar Singh Bedi, 18. Nand Kishore Prasad,
19. Naresh Prasad, 20. Om Prakash Diwakar, 21. Pankaj Mohan Bhui, 22.
Phool Chand Singh, 23. Pitamber Jha, 24. Radha Mohan Mandal, 25. Raj
Kumar Sharma @ Raja Ram Joshi, 26. Raghu Nandan Prasad, 27. Rajendra
Kumar Bagaria, 28. Ravindra Kumar Rana, 29. Shardendu Kumar Das, 30.
Saraswati Chandra and 31. Vidya Sagar Nishad recorded on different dates in
the court. Accused Lalu Prasad and Ravindra Kumar Rana submitted written
statement U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C, which is also enclosure. All above accused
persons deny from alleged charges and evidences and pleaded innocent.
Accused also claimed to adduce defence evidence.
14. That is defence side examined only one witness namely Rajendra
Kumar Bagaria, who is accused also in this case after permission U/s- 315 of
Cr.P.C.
15. That during trial accused persons submitted the following documents
which were admitted as exhibits. The details follows as under:-
On behalf of Accused Rajendra Kumar Bagaria :-
Exhibit. I :- Certified copy of Deposition of P.W.30 namely Anand
Kumar Gutgutia
Exhibit. I/1 :- Certified copy of P.W.02 Sukumar in R.C. 38(A)/96.
Exhibit. I/2 :- Letter dated 24.04.2004 along with A/d.
Exhibit. I/3 :- Letter dated 13.08.2016.
Page 82
--82– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
Exhibit. I/4 :- Two Postal receipt.
Exhibit. I/5 :- Photocopy copy of seizure list.
On behalf of Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav :-
Exhibit. A :- File No. 01/93 (Certified)
Exhibit.B :- Report of Finance Commission.
Exhibit. C :- Certified copy of Judgment in R.C. 05 (A)/98
Exhibit. C/1 :- Certified copy of D.W. 22 namely A.P Durai in R.C.
20 (A)/96.
Exhibit. C/2 :- Certified copy of All D.W. 1 to 16 in R.C. 64(A)/96.
Exhibit. C/3 :- Certified copy of D.W. No. 31 of R.C. 20 (A)/96.
Exhibit. C/4 :- Certified copy of Deposition of P.W.465 of R.C. 47
(A) / 1996.
On behalf of Accused Dr. A.K. Verma :-
Exhibits. A and A/1 :- Signature.
On behalf of Accused Manoranjan Prasad :-
Exhibit. A :- Xerox copy of seizure memo dated 12.09.1996 under
signature of D.N. Bishwas along with Xerox
copy of letter no. 638 dated 07.10.1995. and
letter no. 711 dated 20.11.95 from the D.A.H.O,
Deoghar to the then Regional Director, Dumka.
On behalf of Accused Beck Julius :-
Exhibit. A :- Certified copy of P.W. 344 namely Dr. Shiv Balak
Chaudhary in R.C. 20 (A)/96.
Exhibit. A/1 :- Certified copy of defence witness No. 03 in R.C.
20(A)/96.
Exhibit. A/2 :- Certified copy of order dated 31.01.1996 (Income Tax,
Ranchi)
On behalf of Accused Jagdish Sharma :-
Exhibit. B :- Certified copy of Ext. R/33 in R.C. 20 (A)/96 Ext. J in
R.C. 64 (A)/96 (combined).
Exhibit.B/1 :- Certified copy of Ext. H in R.C. 34 (A)/96, Ext. J in
R.C. 64 9A)/96 (combined).
Exhibit.B/2 :- Certified copy of Ext. J in R.C. 34 (A)/96 and Ext.
R/37 in R.C. 20 (A)/96, Ext. G/ 2 in R.C. 68
(A)/96.
Exhibit.B/3 :- Certified copy of Ext.1 in R.C. 34(A)/96, Ext. R/31 in
R.C. 20(A)/96, Ext. J/3 in R.C. 64 (A)/96 are
Page 83
--83– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
combindly.
Exhibit. B/4 :- Certified copy of Ext. R/34 in R.C 20(A)/96, Ext. J/4
in R.C 64(A)/96 and Ext. G/4 in R.C 68(A)/96 are
combindly.
Exhibit. B/5 :- Certified copy of Ext. R/38 in R.C. 20(A)/96, Ext. N
in R.C 34(A)/96 and Ext. J/5 in R.C. 649(A)/96 are
combindly.
Exhibit.B/6 :- Certified copy of Ext. R/36 in R.C. 20(A)/96, Ext. J/6
in R.C 64 (A)/96 and Ext. G/6 in R.C 68 (A)/96 are
combindly.
Exhibit. B/7 :- Certified copy of Ext. R/39 in R.C. 20(A)/96, Ext. K
in R.C. 34 (A)/96 and Ext. J/7 in R.C. 64 (A)/96 are
combindly.
Exhibit. B/8 :- Certified copy of Ext. R/17 in R.C. 20(A)/96, Ext. J/8
in R.C. 64f(A)/96 are combindly.
Exhibit. B/9 :- Certified copy of Ext. R/18 in R.C. 20 (A)/96, Ext. J/9
in R.C. 64(A)/96 are combindly.
Exhibit.B/10 :- Certified copy of Ext. R/19 in R.C. 20(A)/96, Ext.
J/10 in R.C. 64 (A)/96 are combindly.
Exhibit. B/11 :- Certified copy of individual charge of Jagdish
Sharma in R.C. 20(A)/96.
Exhibit. B/12 :- Certified copy of statement U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C.
Exhibit. B/13 :- Certified copy of P.W. 55 Dr. Shashi Kumar Singh in
R.C. 63(A)/96, Spl. 64/96
Exhibit. B/14 :- Notification 07/95 – 222 dated 09.05.1995.
On behalf of Accused Arun Kumar Singh :-
Exhibit. D :- Certified copy of Instrument of Partnership between
A.K. Singh and Shiv Raj Ram Ext. E.
Exhibit. D/1 :- Certified copy of deposition of P.W. 165 of R.C. 45
(A)/96.
Exhibit. D/2 :- Certified copy of deposition of P.W. 45 of R.C.
41(A)/96.
On behalf of Accused R.K. Rana :-
Exhibit. E :- Certified copy of Judgment in R.C. 22(A)/96.
Exhibit. F :- Certified copy of deposition of P.W. 11 in R.C. 45
(A)/96.
On behalf of Accused Phool Chand Singh :-
Page 84
--84– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
Exhibit. G :- Certified copy of Ext. D – D/3 and Ext. F of R.C.
20(A)/96.
Exhibit. G/1 :- Certified copy of file no. M 34/94 noting marked as
Ext. D/10 of R.C. 20 (A)/96.
Exhibit. G/2 :- Certified copy of cash file marked as Ext. D/11 of
R.C. 20 (A)/96.
Exhibit. G/3 :- Certified copy of Viniyog Lakra marked as Ext. E, E/1
and E/2 of R.C. 209A)/96.
Exhibit. G/4 :- Certified copy of comments of Government of Bihar.
On behalf of Accused Jagannath Mishra :-
Exhibit. H :- Photocopy of documents i.e. Notification in memo no.
8384 dated 23.12.1989.
16. Now question before the court is that whether the alleged charges
against each of the accused persons have been proved beyond reasonable doubt
successfully by the prosecution or not ?
F I N D I N G S
17. During argument both sides learned lawyer present in the court. On
behalf of defence learned lawyer submitted in favour of his clients, on behalf
of supplier accused. Ld. Lawyer submitted that they received supply order
from office of R.D, (AHD), Dumka in pursuance of supply order they supply
the required medicines and Animal Feed / Articles in that office. The employee
office of R.D (AHD), Dumka granted receipt in favour of supplier accused. In
the light of supply receipts, supplier accused prepared and submitted vouchers
for payment against supply. Later on bill prepared according to submitted
vouchers and bill passed after scrutiny in due course from Dumka Treasury.
Supplier Firms received draft payments and deposited the same in current
account of their firm. So there is no any illegality or criminal misappropriation
of public money. Further submitted that accused Dr. Md. Sayeed and accused
Rameshwar Chaudhary bargain with C.B.I. In collusion with C.B.I, they
deposed against other co-accused. They referrered a ruling in the case of Piara
Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (1969) 3 SCR 236 :-
“ An accomplice is undoubtedly a competent witness under the
Indian Evidence Act. There can be, however, no doubt that the very fact that he
has participated in the commission of the offence introduces a serious taint in
his evidence and Courts are naturally reluctant to act on such tainted evidence
unless it is corroborated in material particulars by other independent evidence.
Page 85
--85– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
“ It is well settled that the appreciation of approver's evidence has to
satisfy a double test. His evidence must show that he is reliable witness and
that is a test which is common to all the witnesses. If this test is satisfied the
second test which still remains to be applied is that the approver's evidence
must receive sufficient corroboration.
18. On behalf of accused Arun Kumar Singh, the Ld. Lawyer Mr.
Bharat Mahto filed written argument U/s- 314 of Cr.P.C and submitted that the
accused petitioner was not the Proprietor of M/s. Vishwarkarma Agency and
was simply partner of the same of which the main partner was Sri Sheo Raj
Ram, the father of Shesh Muni Ram, and that all the works of the said firm was
looked after by Shesh Muni Ram, Regional Director, Dumka and that he used
to prepare vouchers as per direction of said Shesh Muni Ram and used to hand
over the same to him and that he had not received any payment and that he
used to be paid Rs. 1500/-, 2000/- monthly by Shesh Muni Ram. Further
submitted that the accused petitioner done all the writing works on the
directions of said Shesh Muni Ram and his son Pankaj who used to get the bills
passed, used to receive the drafts, and used to deposit the same in the account
of the firm and withdraw the same under the signature of the accused petitioner
on the concern cheques. The P.W.165 Sanjeev Chaudhary in R.C – 45A/96
clearly support in para – 2 of his deposition and submitted that on the basis of
above evidence on record absolutely no charge as alleged, stands proved
against the petitioner and requested that in the ends of Justice acquitted the
accused petitioner.
19. On behalf of accused Beck Julius, Ld. Lawyer Mr. Sanjeev Chandra
filed written argument U/s- 314 of Cr.P.C and submitted that the accused
petitioner was the then Secretary AHD, Bihar and the case is related with so-
called Fodder Scam in connection with “Office of Regional Director, Animal
Husbandry Department, Dumka. Further submitted that the allegation in brief
is that during the financial year December – 1995 to January – 1996 the Public
Servants of R.D Office, Animal Husbandry Department, Dumka, Officers /
officials of Treasury Office, Dumka and the other supplier firms entered into a
criminal conspiracy amongst themselves and in pursuance thereof cheated the
government of Bihar on the basis of false and forged budget allotment letters
and suppliers bills. Further submitted that the petitioner / accused is not named
in the FIR either as an accused or as suspect, although the FIR was lodged after
a through inquiry but after about 4 years of the FIR, the prosecution files a
charge-sheet against the petitioner and others on 11.05.2000 without proper
Page 86
--86– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
investigation, and the reason behind it was that the aforesaid case is based upon
voluminous documents and unfortunately the I.O of the case did not go through
the voluminous documents, or may be, he did not understand the contents of
the documents and in haste filed wrong charge-sheet. Ld. Lawyer submitted
that the petitioner joined as Secretary as AHD, on 08.05.1994 who is over all
official head of the department as per rule – 8 of the Rule of Executive
Business but in respect to “Expenditure control (for Budget head 2403)” the
Director AHD is the Head of Department & controlling officer. The Bihar
Budge Manual Rule – 61 provides a list of officers responsible for the
preparation of various portion of the budget. So, it is the responsibilities of
Head of the Department and Controlling Officer to have control over budgetary
and financial matter of the department. The then A.G., A & E Sri Pramod
Kumar the most important and authoritative prosecution witness stated in para
– 30 that major head 2403 release the fund by controlling authority who was
director AHD. The requisition letter issued by D.D.Os, the Director has power
to accept or reject and the petitioner was not the head of department. It is also
submitted that it is settled law that the DAHO has to submit monthly
expenditure report to the AHD Directorate through the Regional Director by
the 07th of each month, as per 475 of Bihar Financial Rule Vol – 1. These
reports are complied at the Directorate level along with the allocation made
and if there is any discrepancy, further action is taken against the concerned
DDO about the overdrawal of funds under the respective heads. Quarterly
expenditure statement is to sent to the AG Bihar. As per rule 70 of Bihar
Treasury Code Vol – 1 also it is mandatory for the treasury to send monthly
account to the AG Bihar for compilation and final settlement of the account
whether the withdrawal is genuine, excess or fraudulent, through audit. Further
submitted that till the financial year 1995 – 96 the AG Bihar never gave any
report that withdrawal under 2403 head is fraudulent or ungenuine or make any
objection rather the AG recommended to be adjusted / regularized under legal
provisions of the constitution of the said withdrawal your honour may peruse
Ext. to in this secretary, AHD to accept the withdrawal as genuine. Further
submitted that there was no alarming about excess withdrawals at all because
no objection either from A.G, or D.C was ever received during financial year
from 1992 – 95. Further submitted that Sri Shankar Prasad and Sri V.S. Dubey
and other architects of the budget were posted in the Finance department in
higher rank for the long time and if they carried out their duties perfectly
excess withdrawal could not have been taken place or could not have continue.
Page 87
--87– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
Lastly prayed that it is legal compulsion for the Secretary to accept
withdrawals in the Printed Budget as genuine, true and normal. So accused is
innocent and given the benefit of doubt in his favour.
20. On behalf of accused Jagdish Sharma, Ld. Lawyer Mr. B.B. Rai
files written argument U/s- 314 of Cr.P.C and submitted that accused has
denied and rebutted all incriminating materials brought on record against him
statement U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C. Further submitted that accused was Chairman of
the Public Account Committee from April – 1992 to January – 1995 and instant
case relates to period commencing from December – 1995 to January – 1996
and the accused was succeeded by Sri Dhruv Bhagat, as Chairman of PAC after
the expiry of tenure of accused in January – 1995. The out come of the
criminal conspiracy is alleged to have been the withdrawal of Rs. 3,13,41,451/-
from Dumka Treasury on account of forged and fabricated bills for the supply
of Fodder / feed and medicines. The general and vague allegation made by
some approver/accomplice that the scam asters had paid some amount on some
date, without specifying amount or date of payment or place of payment is
meaningless. The allegation U/s- 13 (2) r/w 13 (1)(c) & (d) of P.C Act is
misleading. The investigation Bureau of the Cabinet Vigilance Department of
the Government of Bihar had already registered, Patna Vigilance P.S. Case No.
34/1990, in which, the Dumka Division made payment on the basis of forged
and fabricated bills without purchase or supply of fodder / feed and veterinary
medicines . The Vigilance Department dropped that part of the allegation.
Accused R.K. Das P.W. 45 of this case was also one of the F.I.R named
accused but he managed to get the case close and also against many higher
officers like Ram Raj Ram, the then Director and further submitted that it was
obvious that the then Government in power deliberately shut their eyes over
the scam. In the year 1991 when Sri Ramjatan Sinha was the Chairman of the
PAC. The question were raised on the floor of the assembly. Sri Lalu Prasad,
the then Chief Minister made statement on the floor that the matter was being
inquired into by the PAC chaired by Ram Jatan Sinha. It goes to show that the
government was determined not to get the matter inquired by any authority
which was not a part of the assembly. Further submitted that accused
discharged his duties with due devotion and absolute integrity throughout as
Chairman of the PAC as well as a member of Bihar Legislative Assembly and
alleged that he falsely implicated in this case by his political rivals and persons
hostile and inimical to him and his family member to damage his political
career. This case registered by informant Brij Kishore Pathak, Deputy
Page 88
--88– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
Collector, Dumka Bihar after during inquiry in which six persons / firm were
named as accused in Dumka P.S. Case No. 16/1996 dated 02.02.1996. The
C.B.I under the order of Hon'ble High Court, Patna registered R.C. Case No.
38A/96 dated 11.04.1996. The first of all accused arrested in R.C. Case No.
32A/1996 for the first time but during investigation of that case nothing
incriminating could be brought out and accused was not sent up for trial in
R.C. Case No. 32A/1996. But innocently remain in jail more than five months.
In that period accused was not remanded in R.C Case No. 38A/1996. Accused
was not remanded in R.C. Case No. 38A/1996 till 02.07.1997. They rely the
case law of P.V. Narshimha Rao Vs. State (C.B.I/SPE) reported in 1998 (4)
Supreme page – 1 AIR – 1998 SC page – 2120. Further submitted that except
the approvers R.K. Das , Dipesh Chandak, Rameshwar Prasad Chaudhary,
Shashi Kumar Singh, Jai Ram Prasad Verma and Chandra Prakash Sahay none
of the prosecution witness have stated anything adverse against accused
Jagdish Sharma and submitted that approvers an accomplices have made false
statement only to save their own skin and an accomplice is unworthy of credit
unless corroborated in material particulars. Finally submitted that an accused
should not be convicted on the basis of the uncorroborated testimony of
approver unless corroborated by any independent witnesses on materials points
and accused may be given the benefit of doubt in the ends of Justice.
21. On behalf of accused Jagannath Mishra, Ld. Senior Lawyer Mr.
Kanhaiya Prasad Singh, High Court, Patna appeared with Junior lawyer Mr.
Rakesh Jha files written argument and submitted that prosecution side
produced two co-accused after grant of pardon. Accused Dr. Md. Sayeed and
Rameshwar Chaudhary both support the prosecution story after bargaining
benefit in their favour. They rely AIR – 1975 SC, Page no. 856 and approver is
a most unworthy friend if at all, and he , having bargained for his immunity,
must prove his worthiness for credibility in court. This test is fulfilled. Further
submitted that ordinarily an approver's statement has to corroborated in
material particulars bridging closely the distance between the crime and the
criminal. Certain clinching features of involvement disclosed by an approver
appertaining directly to an accused, if reliable, by the touch stone of other
independent credible evidence, would give the needed assurance for
acceptance of his testimony on which a conviction may be based.
22. Another ruling produced AIR – 1979 SC – 1761 and submitted that
the law is well settled that the Court looks with some amount of suspicion on
the evidence of an accomplice witness which is a tainted evidence and even
Page 89
--89– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
Section 133 of the Evidence Act clearly provides that the evidence of an
accomplice witness should not be accepted unless corroborated. At the same
time, it must be remembered that corroboration must be in respect to material
particulars and not with respect to each and every item. It is a rule of prudence
which the courts have followed for satisfying the test of the reliability of an
approver and has now been crystallized into a rule of law. It is equally well
settled that one tainted evidence cannot corroborate an other tainted evidence
because if this is allowed to be done then the very necessity of corroboration is
frustrated.
23. On behalf of accused Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav, the Ld.
Lawyer Mr. Chitranjan Prasad and Mr. Prabhat Kumar filed written argument
U/s- 314 of Cr.P.C and submitted that accused falsely implicated in this Fodder
Scam Case due to political rivalry and submitted that it is the duty of court to
scrutinize those allegations with care so that court may be in a position to judge
whether the onus lies upon those who made allegations on the part of the
authority has discharged their burden on proving it and in that case prosecution
has to dispute allegation of malafide like in a case whether the defence has
taken a defence of alibi than prosecution has to disprove it.
24. The Ld. Lawyer on behalf of accused Lalu Prasad Yadav referred
Durai Commission Report and evidence of A.P Durai in R.C. 20(A)/1996 and
referred the certified copy of evidence Brig. R. P. Nutial in R.C. 64A/1996.
They submitted that Durai Commission of was instituted by Central
Government, as at a high level meeting taken by the Prime Minister on
31.07.1997 evening, regarding an enquiry to be instituted into the conduct of
C.B.I Officers who sought assistance of the Army, for execution of arrest
warrant against Sri Lalu Prasad Yadav, former Chief Minister of Bihar and the
DOPT has ordered Sri A.P. Dorai, the then Director C.R.P.F to make an
enquiry. Further A.P Durai was directed not to enquire the conduct of the
Judges.
25. The learned lawyer press on the statement of Durai Commission that
by D.I.G , CBI is relevant as Dr. U.N. Biswas, Joint Director, C.B.I under
whose supervision all investigation was made, left Patna on 25.07.1997, in the
evening, in disgust of receiving the knowledge of stay of arrest by Hon'ble
Supreme Court. Further the Dorai Commission has indicated Dr. U.N. Biswas
as in Page – 80 of Report :- “Over a period of time Joint Director, C.B.I has
displayed his obsession with arrest of Lalu Prasad Yadav, as he has been saying
“ I don't want to arrest insignificant person.”. The Joint Director, East CBI has
Page 90
--90– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
told his over phone with Sri Kaumudi, S.P that the warrant of arrest should be
executed on the same day otherwise Lalu Prasad Yadav might escape. The
episode of 30.07.1997 has really shown the biasness of Dr. U.N Biswas
obsession to arrest Lalu Prasad Yadav, by hook or by crook, either to humiliate
him or to eliminate him. Further, the Dorai Commission Report at Page – 80
shows :- “ (c). Dr. Biswas was also making indiscreet remarks to the Press,
projecting its own image, embarrassing his Director and disclose details of
investigation with the Press commenting on the evidence collected
prejudicating case of the accused”. Some examples are given in the report
Defence Exhibit. D Regarding Sri Biswas, the Dorai Commission on his
recommendation :- “ The single traumatic episode has shown how the
uncontrolled segment of a central organization can set Central – State relation
on collision course. Further submitted that recommended state of functioning
of Joint Director, East Calcutta and his Sub-ordinates in relation to
investigation in AHD cases, without taking his head quarter in confidence
would give an impression that is why primacy of Director of C.B.I was
reasserted to bring back professionalism and discipline among officers
concerned. Officers accepting non-professional tendency use C.B.I as a
platform for personal ambition should be identified in time by the Director and
repatriated from the C.B.I. Further submitted that then come the episode dated
30.07.1997 when in the morning at 5:00 A.M, C.B.I Officer went to the
resident of a Judge, monitoring the investigation (Although the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has directed that after charge sheet the matter will be between
the CBI and the Trial Judge ) thereafter went to Danapur on false pretext to
seek a platoon of Army at 8 A.M to arrest the petitioner, which was denied by
Army, which resulted in this above said enquiry. Further submitted that two
FAX Message, which is Annexure – 3 and Annexure – 4 at Page 56 – 57 is
quoted here-in-below which will show the intention of C.B.I Joint Director,
East to malign or for whatever purpose U.N. Biswas wanted to execute NBW
through Army, on false pretext. It is relevant to mention here that the trial court
“Issued NBW to 30 accused on 24.07.1997 but till 30.07.1997 none of the
Warrant of Arrest or any process was executed by the C.B.I except trying to
arrest Lalu Prasad with the help of Army, in the morning of 30.07.1997,
knowing fully well that he will surrender on 30.07.1997 (vide order-sheet dated
30.07.1997), C.B.I requisitioned army at 8 A.M on 30.07.1997. Further
submitted that on his direction the Chief Secretary was informed at 1 A.M at
night of 30.06.1997 regarding arrest of Lalu Prasad by C.B.I. All arrangements
Page 91
--91– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
were made by D.W Sunil Kumar by surrounding the house of present Chief
Minister with R.P.F persons and further to avoid problems the C.B.I was given
all the helps as his evidence from the letters of the Chief Secretary and
evidence of defence. The sky would not have fallen within 24 hours if Lalu
Prasad would not have been arrested on 30.07.1997 before 11 A.M. Thereafter
at 8 A.M on 30.07.1997 a letter was sent, by V.S.K Koumudi, S.P CBI to
Commandant, Army Danapur that as per oral direction issued by Hon'ble Patna
High Court this is to request made for favour of provide immediately Army
Contingent, comprising of at least I Company to assist C.B.I Party to execute
the NBW against Sri Lalu Prasad Yadav, the Former Chief Minister of Bihar.
26. Further submitted on behalf of Lalu Prasad Yadav the learned lawyer
that not only that the conduct of Mr. U.N Biswas is clear from the letter of Sri
B.P Verma, the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar to Home Secretary that
Sri U.N Biswas (Letter dated 30.07.1997) D and Sri Kumar Saxena's Letter
DG, IG of Police Bihar to Sri B.P Verma dated 30.07.1997, Letter of Sri
Krishna Choudhary DIG Headquarter dated 29.07.1997; Letter of Sri K.B
Singh B.M.P – 5 Pat dated 01.08.1997 (all part of exhibit D) : Letter of Jail
Superintendent Sp. Jail BMP – 5 dated 01.08.1997 clearly shows that U.N
Biswas tried to enter the jail premises where Lalu Prasad was kept, without any
valid papers and on 31.07.1997 Mr. U.N. Biswas on the date of “Bihar Band”
wanted to move around Patna to create problem for the Government of Bihar.
Further submitted that all these acts are reported in Dorai Commission report,
which shows malicious attitude of the C.B.I under the leadership of Dr. U.N
Biswas, the Joint Director, C.B.I, AHD, Patna under whose leadership the
entire AHD Scam was investigated. Further submitted that not only, the CBI
after arrest of Lalu Prasad registered another case of Disproportionate Asset
against Lalu Prasad on 19.08.1998. This case was filed with an ulterior motive
in which charge-sheet is also submitted against Smt. Rabri Devi, the then Chief
Minister of Bihar and wife of Lalu Prasad. In this case the payment of Rs.
40,500/- through Bank Draft in Mayo College was added in the expenditure of
Sri Lalu Prasad and the Air Tickets were included in the expenses of Sri Lalu
Prasad, which is a subject matter of this case. This case was numbered as R.C.
5A/98 i.e. Spl. 05/98 and the Trial Court vide a Judgment and order dated
18.12.2006 Lalu Prasad and Rabri Devi. Lastly submitted that the petitioner
would like to place reliance on a case I.e AIR 1956 SC 415 para – 15 – 20
which relied on 1950 AC – 458. According to the above mentioned two cases
resjudicata in criminal trial acquittal of accused in certain charge verdict
Page 92
--92– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
binding in all subsequent proceeding. The effect of verdict of acquittal
pronounced by a competent Court on a lawful charge and after a lawful trial is
not completely stated by saying the person acquitted, cannot be tried again for
the same offence. To that it must be added that the verdict is binding and
conclusive in all subsequent proceeding between the parties to the adjudication.
In D.A Cases was made out may that whatever stated of approver regards
payment to the accused is false. The findings are binding in all subsequent
proceedings between the parties. Lastly submitted that the benefit of doubt may
be exercised in the favour of the accused.
27. On behalf of accused Mahesh Prasad, the learned lawyer Mr.
Sanjay Kumar filed written argument U/s- 314 of Cr.P.C and submitted that
accused being a public servant employed as Secretary, Animal Husbandry and
Fisheries Department, Government of Bihar, Patna during the period from
September – 1992 to May – 1994 and falsely implicated in this case. The
learned lawyer submitted that accused Mahesh Prasad always adhered to
provision of rules and regulations of the government accused objected the
extension of Dr. Girija Nandan Sharma against whom a police case was
pending and did not agree in the proposal of extension of services of Dr,
Indrabhan Prasad for two years because Dr. Prasad had already availed the
extension for 1 ½ years earlier and submitted that the position of this accused is
same as co-accused Beck Julius in the matter of Budgetary control and
financial matters are concerned under Bihar Financial Rules, Bihar Budget
Manual and Bihar Service Code the Director AHD has been declared as HOD
and controlling officer of the Department. The Secretary of the department is
the administrative head of the department as per rules of Executive business.
The Director directly send the budget proposal to the Finance Department and
finance department had dire communication and the Secretary has no role to
play and submitted that there was nothing on record against this
petitioner/accused and pray that accused may be provide the benefit of doubt in
the ends of Justice because he was transferred from department on dated
07.05.1994 and no any role later on in AHD Department.
28. On the behalf of accused Manoranjan Prasad, the learned lawyer
Mr. Akhileshwar Prasad filed written argument U/s- 314 of Cr.P.C and
submitted that accused was not named in the F.I.R, criminal liability has been
fastened on the accused Dr. Manoranjan Prasad merely for counter-signing the
signatures of the T.V.O (M) on the certificate issued by him. Further submitted
that it was the Statutory duty of the accused Dr. Manoranjan Prasad to
Page 93
--93– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
physically verify the receipt of each and every consignment of medicine and
then only to Counter-sign the signature of the TVO (M) on the receipts. Ld.
Lawyer rely a case Sridhar Prasad, S/o- Sri Ram Vs. The State of Bihar
through the CBI as reported in 2011 (3) PLJR – 199 – para , 2, 3, 5, 11 and 12.
Further submitted that no criminal liability can be fastened upon him and he is
entitled to the protection of Section – 114 (e) and (f) of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872.
29. On the behalf of accused Mohinder Singh Bedi, the learned lawyer
Mr. Akhileshwar Prasad filed written argument U/s- 314 of Cr.P.C and
submitted that accused Mohinder Singh Bedi had been running a firm in the
name and Style of M/s. Semex Cryogenics, New Delhi manufactured Al
equipments. The firm was registered with Sale Tax and Income Tax. M/s.
Semex Cryogenics was duly approved by the ministry of agriculture and had
been supplying the products to various states in India. The firm was also
approved by the Central Purchase Committee of Animal Husbandry
Department Government of Bihar. The firm had never submitted bill of feed
and medicine to R.D , Dumka rather the firm only supplied Al equipments.
Merely on the basis of bills submitted by the firm after supply the Al
equipments, the C.B.I has made him as an accused in this case. The charge
leveld against accused U/s- 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C is not proved against this
accused and there is neither any oral nor documentary evidences to suggest that
accused Mohinder Singh Bedi had played any such agreement with any of the
co-accused persons to defraud the government or any person and pray that the
accused deserves to be acquitted of the charges framed in the instant case in the
ends of Justice.
30. On the behalf of accused Phul Chand Singh, the learned lawyer
Mr. Raj Kumar Sahay filed written argument U/s- 314 of Cr.P.C and submitted
that accused was Finance Commissioner, Government of Bihar from January –
1992 to February – 1994. The accused was not named in the F.I.R registered by
State of Bihar but the C.B.I made him accused in the charge-sheet dated
11.05.2000. It is pertinent that the alleged fraudulent withdrawal from Dumka
Treasury pertained to the period December – 1995 to January – 1996. The
accused was not the Finance Commissioner, Bihar during that period, S.N.
Sinha and Sri V.S Dubey were Finance Commissioner, Bihar at the time of
occurrence. This accused was not a party to criminal conspiracy in creation of
false allotment letters, creation of false supply orders, creation and submission
of false supply bills, creation of false contingent bill falsely certifying the
Page 94
--94– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
receipt of materials, dishonestly passing the contingent bills for payments from
Dumka Treasury. Further submitted that the provision of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 is not attracted against this accused. Due to division of
work budget files were not coming to the Finance Commissioner's level, it was
disposed of at the level of Additional Finance Commissioner. It is also
pertinent that every single voucher generated in the government Treasuries
ultimately finds its way to the Office of the Accountant General, it is
thoroughly scrutinized and classified there and entered under the proper head
of account, the A.G Office had opportunity to see, month after month,
hundreds and thousands of vouchers of the AHD, it should have been possible
for that office to take cognizance of all the deficiencies and omission – A.G
never pointed out that the withdrawals from AHD were fraudulent in nature,
this appellant had no knowledge of fraudulent withdrawal and pray that
accused is innocent so provide the benefit of doubt in the ends of Justice.
31. On the behalf of accused Pitamber Jha, the learned lawyer Mr.
Akhileshwar Prasad filed written argument U/s- 314 of Cr.P.C and submitted
that accused Pitamber Jha in this case being T.V.O, Deoghar acknowledged
receipt of medicines against the bills of Vyapar Kutir Patna for which he gave
fake certificate on the bills of Vyapar Kutir Ranchi which counter-signed by the
DAHO, Doghar, Dr. Manoranja Prasad and Dr. Manoranjan Prasad the DAHO,
Deoghar se3nt the bills to the R.D's Office Dumka, Dr. O.P Diwakar the R.D
Dumka pased the bills of Vyapar Kutir Patna for payment of Rs. 4,99,900/-.
Further submitted that Pitamber Jha first time posted in Deoghar, Jule – 1995
and he was not aware of the functioning of the R.D Office, Dumka and DAHO
Office, Deoghar. Accused grant receipt in the bills of Vyapar Kutir Ranchi
under pressure. Accused Pitamber Jha examined as P.W.22 in R.C No.
64A/1996 and also examined U/s- 164 of Cr.P.C in which stated that under
pressure issued the receipt of medicine and pray that after considering
circumstances provide the benefit of doubt in favour of accused.
32. On behalf of accused Rajednra Kumar Bagaria, the learned
lawyer Mr. Krishna Prasad Sharma filed written argument U/s- 314 of Cr.P.C
and submitted that investigating agency falsely implicated the accused in this
case being the Proprietor of M/s. Krishna Road Career. The real fact is that one
Anand Kumar Gutgutia asked petitioner to work under him as his employee to
look after his business of whole-sale of Nirma detergent powder and Cake etc
in the name of M/s. Anand Traders. Iin November 1995 in the direction of
Anand Kumar Gutgutia petitioner opened an account in the name of Krishna
Page 95
--95– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
Road Career in the State Bank of India, Pakur Bazar Branch. Petitioner follow
the direction of Anand Gutgutia and opened account no. 376 dated 09.11.1995,
the opening form filled in writing and pen by Anand Kumar Gutgutia. 27 Bank
Draft application form for issue draft M/s. Alfa Marketing Enterprises, A/c No.
2269, Kallupur Commercial Co-operative Bank Ltd., Ashram Road, applicant
are Narendra Kumar and Anand Kumar Gutgutia. It is also relevant that
Krishna Road Career written instead of Krishna Goods Career, Goods struck
off but no initial. Lastly submitted that no single pie used by petitioner/accused
and actual fraud committed by Anand Kumar Gutgutia but in collusion of C.B.I
he save himself and innocent accused Ranjendra Kumar Bagaria facing the
trial, who deserve the privilege of doubt in his favour.
33. On behalf of accused Ravindra Kumar Rana, the learned lawyer
Mr. Prabhat Kumar filed written argument U/s- 314 of Cr.P.C and submitted
that Town P.S. Case No. 16/1996 dated 02.02.1996 take over by C.B.I and
registered R.C. No. 38A/1996 dated 11.04.1996. Petitioner/accused is not
named in the F.I.R but falsely implicated in charge-sheet dated 11.05.2000.
Accused never entered into criminal conspiracy with anyone to commit any
offence. Accused was never posted in Chhotanagpur and Santhal Paragana.
During his entire service in AHD. At the time of occurrence accused R.K. Rana
was MLA and no any relevant evidence against accused. Approver accused
Md. Sayeed and another approver Rameshwar Kumar Chaudhary deposition is
not reliable. R.K. Rana is family friend of co-accused Lalu Prasad, accused
helped in admission of Lalu Prasad Yadav's daughter in the year 1992 in which
shows accused as uncle and rely two judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court reported in AIR 1975 SC 856 and AIR 1979 SC 1761. In which held
that “an accomplish (approver) is a unworthy of credit unless he is
corroborated in material particular”. Other witnesses stated that R.K. Rana stay
in Hotel Taj but no clear what is the Full Form of R.K and pray that accused
never indulge in criminal conspiracy and entitled the privilege of doubt in this
case.
34. On behalf of prosecution, Ld. Special P.P C.B.I Mr. Rakesh Prasad
submitted short story of case that such heavy withdrawals an Amount of Rs.
3,76,38,853/- in December – 1995 and January – 1996 were made against a
meagre amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- allotted in favour of Regional Director, AHD,
Santhal Pargana Region, Dumka for the financial year 1995 – 96 towards
purchase of medicines etc. In pursuance of the criminal conspiracy the accused
Page 96
--96– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
suppliers firms without supplying /transporting the medicines/materials
concerned fraudulently withdrew a sum of Rs. 3,13,41,451/- out of sum of Rs.
3,42,37,601/- drawn by the R.D, AHD, Santhal Pargana Region, Dumka and
wrongful loss caused to the Government of Bihar and wrongful gain to co-
accused persons. Further submitted that in order to cover up the said unlawful
withdrawals out of fake allotments the accused officials in connivance with
each other issued fictitious supply orders to accused suppliers, obtained their
bills and procured false acknowledgement for the receipt of supplies of
materials and thus falsified records to show the purported procurement and
receipt of supplies. Further submitted that in pursuance of the said criminal
conspiracy, part of the defraud amount had been expended for extending
hospitality to politicians and Government functionaries by way of providing
free air journeys, hotel expenses and other illegal payments for protection, and
patronage to co-conspirators. Further submitted that Rule – 479 of Bihar
Financial Rules, Vol-I stipulates that before money an be spent two conditions
must be fulfilled – (1). it must be sanctioned by the competent authority and
funds must have been appropriated for it. The Bihar Financial Rules also lay
down that Government will not approve of any expenditure in excess of the
budget provision unless sanction to incurring expenditure has been obtained
previously.
35. Further submitted that the excesses expenditure in Animal Husbandry
Department of Bihar dealing with the major head 2403 for the years 1988 – 89
to 1995 – 96 was as below :-
Year Budget (Original plus Supplementary)
Expenditure (Rupees in Crore)
Excess Percentage
1988-89 36.77 42.90 6.13 17
1989-90 42.80 51.45 8.65 20
1990-91 54.92 84.21 29.29 53
1991-92 59.10 129.82 70.72 120
1992-93 66.93 154.70 87.77 131
1993-94 74.14 199.17 125.03 169
1994-95 74.40 245.01 170.61 229
1995-96 82.12 228.61 (Provisional)
146.49 178
Page 97
--97– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
Further submitted that a deep routed conspiracy, pursuant to which
crores of rupees over and above the budgeted provision of Animal Husbandry
Department were withdrawn fraudulently and systematically year after year by
AHD Officials in collusion with the suppliers/transporters, Government
officials, politicians of different political parties, ministers concerned and the
then Chief Minster of the State of Bihar. Although the Finance Department
received the CAG report for the year 1988-89 to 1994-95 disclosing the details
of AHD grant, expenditure and excess payment of AHD which were seen by
accused Lalu Prasad as Finance Minister of the State of Bihar. The file
received in the finance department on 16.11.1993 and seen by the Finance
Minister-cum-Chief Minister on dated 18.12.1993. Which shows that Finance
Minster Lalu Prasad was aware of the actual grants, actual expenditure and
excess expenditure over and above the budget provisions of AHD which were
continuing from the year 1988 – 89 onwards. Lalu Prasad Chief Minister –
cum- Finance Minister approved the draft memorandum presented to 10th
Finance Commision on forecast of resources of Revenue Account for the
period 1995 to 2000 on 26.05.1994 and memorandum reflected actual
expenditure pertaining to the major head 2403 of AHD for the last three years
but Lalu Prasad did not cause any inquiry to ascertain the cause of excess cum
fraudulent withdrawal made by AHD. Lalu Prasad, the then Chief Minister
gave a false assurance on the floor of the Legislative Council that the matter
would be got enquired by CBI and if necessary by U.N.O after submission of
report by PAC . The PAC inquiry report was also not tabled on the floor of the
house and no police inquiry was made into the matter.
36. The Vigilance Case No. 34/1990 was registered following a
preliminary inquiry conducted in the Vigilance Investigation Bureau. The F.I.R
of the case, certain allegations were levelled against some members of Central
Purchase Committee. In the last part of the F.I.R the fraudulent activities of
AHD Officials and AHD Mafioso prevalent in AHD, Ranchi and Patna were
also mentioned. No investigation into the allegation levelled in the last part of
the F.I.R of Vigilance Case No. 34/90 was made.
37. On behalf of prosecution learned Special P.P submitted that in
response to the Short Notice question NO.2 dated 25.06.1993 raised by Sri
Sushil Kumar Modi, MLA, based on newspaper report published in a local
Hindi newspaper dated 01.06.1993 regarding alleged withdrawal of Rs. 1200
Crores from the treasuries in spite of a ban imposed by the government of
Bihar. The then Chief Minister Lalu Prasad gave an assurance on 08.07.1993
Page 98
--98– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
on the floor of the Legislative Assembly that he would try to find out the truth
about newspaper report on large withdrawal from the treasuries. He also
assured to submit the exact figure and details of the manner in which the
money was spent. However, the assurance was not complied with by said Sri
Lalu Prasad and his willful inaction resulted in perpetuation of the fraud and
lastly submitted that all prosecution witnesses as well as approver witnesses
fully support the criminal conspiracies between politicians AHD Officials and
Suppliers, Fake Vouchers and Fake Allotment on record and pray that accused
may be held guilty after proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence
as on record and convicted accordingly.
38. In the light of advance argument on behalf of both sides the legal
position of charges discuss as follows :-
39. Section 120 (B) of I.P.C deals with criminal conspiracy the entire
case of the prosecution hinges around a general and common conspiracy
hatched among the accused persons. The essential ingredients being (a) and
agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence (b) in doing so
the accused either di or caused to be done (I) an illegal act or (ii) an act, which
is not itself is illegal by illegal means, (c) such an act done or caused to be
done by the offence punishable under the IPC (d) if the act so done was not an
offence than overt act had been done by one or more parties to such an
agreement in pursuance thereof. It has been found that it is wrong to think that
every one of the conspirator must have taken active part in the commission of
each or every one of the conspiratorial act. The offence of criminal conspiracy
consists of meeting of minds of two or more persons for agreeing to do or
causing to be done an illegal act or an act by illegal means, and in the
performance of the act in terms thereof. In pursuant to the criminal conspiracy
the conspirators commit several offences than all of them will be liable for the
offences, even if some of them had not actively participated in the commission
of the offence. It has been found in case reported as Suman Sood Vs. State of
Rajasthan (2007) 5 SCC – 634, Criminal conspiracy can be drawn from
surrounding circumstances since normally no direct evidence is available. It
has been found in leading case of Kehar Singh Vs. State (1988) 3 SCC – 609
that in the agreement which in the eye of law amounts to conspiracy may be
proved by direct evidence or may be inferred from acts and conduct of the
parties. There is no difference between the mode of proof of the offence of the
conspiracy and it may be established by direct evidence or by circumstantial
evidence. It has been found that it is not necessary that each conspirator should
Page 99
--99– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
have been in communication with every other. It has been formulated by
several decisions that A criminal conspiracy is an agreement by two or
more persons to do or caused to be done an illegal Act or an Act which is
not done by illegal means. The agreement is the gist of the offence. In
order to constitute a single general conspiracy there must be a common
design and common intention of all to work in furtherance of the common
design. Each conspirator plays his separates part in one integrated and
united effort to achieve the common purpose. Each one is aware that he
has a part to play in general conspiracy though he may not know all its
secrets or the means by which the common purpose is to be accomplished.
The evil scheme may be promoted by a few, so one may drop out and some
may join at a later stage, but the conspiracy continues until it is broken
up., The conspiracy may develop in successive stages. There may be
general plan to accomplish the common design by such means as may
from time to time be found expedient. New techniques may be invented
and new means may be devised for advancement of common plan. A
general conspiracy must be distinguished from a number of separate
conspiracies having a similar general purpose, where different ground of
persons cooperate towards their separate aims without an privities with
each other, each combination constitutes a separate conspiracy. The
common intention of the conspirator then is a work for the furtherance of
the common design of his ground only. Md. Hussain Umar Kochand Vrs.
K.S. Dalip Singhji (1969) 3 SCC – 429. It has been found that a person can
conspire to commit a statutory offence which is absolutely prohibited without
having any knowledge of the existence of the statutory prohibition.
40. To record conviction under Section 120 -B, it is necessary to find the
accused guilty of criminal conspiracy as defined in Section 120-A of I.P.C,
which reads as under :-
120-A. Definition of criminal conspiracy – When two or more
persons agree to do, or cause to be done -
(1). an illegal act, or
(2). an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an
agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy :
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an
offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the
agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance
thereof.
Page 100
--100– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
Explanation – It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate
object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object.
41. Though, the meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing/or
causing to be done an illegal act or an act by illegal means is a sine qua non of
the criminal conspiracy, yet in the very nature of the offence which is shrouded
with secrecy, no direct evidence of the common intention of the conspirators
can normally be produced before the Court. Having regard to the nature of the
offence, such a meeting of minds of the conspirators has to be inferred from the
circumstances proved by the prosecution, if such an inference is possible.
42. In Sardar Sardul Singh Caveeshar Vs. State of Maharashtra
(1964) 2 SCR 387, it was stated “The essence of conspiracy is, therefore, that
there should be an agreement between persons to do one or other of the acts
described in the section. The said agreement may be proved by direct evidence
or may be inferred from acts and conduct of the parties”
43. In Shivnarayan Laxminarayan Joshi & Ors. Vs. State of
Maharashtra (1980) 2 SCC 465, it was observed :”It is manifest that a
conspiracy is always hatched in secrecy and it is impossible to adduce direct
evidence of the same. The offence can be only proved largely from the
inferences drawn from acts or illegal omission committed by the conspirators
in pursuance of a common design which has been amply proved by the
prosecution.”. In Mohammad Usman Mohammed Hussain Maniyar & Ors.
Vs. State of Maharashtra (1981) 2 SCC – 443, Hon'ble Court pointed
out :-
44. “For an offence under Section 120-B, the prosecution need not
necessarily prove that the perpetrators expressly agreed to do and / or caused to
be done the illegal act; the agreement may be proved by necessary implication.
In this case, the fact that the appellants were possessing and selling explosive
substances without a valid license for a pretty long time leads to the inference
that they agreed to do an/or caused to be done the said illegal act, for, without
such an agreement the act could not have been done for such a long time.” In
State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Krishan Lal Pradhan & Ors. (1987) 2 SCC
– 17, it was observed : “In the opinion of Special Judge every one of the
conspirators must have taken active part in the commission of each and every
one of the conspiratorial acts and only then the offence of conspiracy will be
made out. Such a view is clearly wrong. The offence of criminal conspiracy
consists in a meeting of minds of two or more persons for agreeing to do or
causing to be done an illegal act or an act by illegal means, and the
Page 101
--101– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
performance of an act in terms thereof. If pursuant to the criminal conspiracy
the conspirators commit several offences, then all of them will be liable for the
offences even if some of them had not actively participated in the commission
of the offences.” In State of Maharashtra & Ors. Vs. Somnath Thapa &
Ors. (1996) 4 SCC 659, a three-judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court after
elaborate discussions of the various judgments of the Court, concluded thus :
45. “To establish a charge of conspiracy knowledge about indulgence in
either an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means is necessary. In some cases,
intent of unlawful use being made of the goods or services in question my be
inferred from the knowledge itself. This apart, the prosecution has not to
establish that a particular unlawful use was intended, so long as the goods or
service in question could not be put to any lawful use. Finally, when the
ultimate offence consists of a chain of actions, it would not be necessary for
the prosecution to establish, to bring home the charge of conspiracy, that each
of the conspirators had the knowledge of what the collaborator would do, so
long as it is known that the collaborator would put the goods or service to an
unlawful use. “ From a survey of cases, referred to above, the following
position emerges : In reaching the stage of meeting of minds, two or more
persons share information about doing an illegal act or a legal act by illegally
means. This is the first stage where each is said to have knowledge of a plan
for committing an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means. Among those
sharing the information some or all may form an intention to do an illegal act
or a legal act by illegal means. Those who do form the requisite intention
would be parties to the agreement and would be conspirators but those who
drop out cannot be roped in as collaborators on the basis of mere knowledge
unless they commit acts or omissions from which a guilty common intention
can be inferred. It is not necessary that all the conspirators should participate
from inception to the need of the conspiracy; some may join the conspiracy
after the time when such intention was first entertained by any one of them and
some others may quit from the conspiracy. All of them cannot but be treated as
conspirators. Where in pursuance of the agreement the conspirators commit
offences individually or adopt illegal means to do a legal act which has a nexus
to the object of conspiracy, all all of them will be liable for such offences even
if some of them have not actively participated in the commission of those
offences. The agreements, sine qua non of conspiracy, may be proved either by
direct evidence which is rarely available in such cases or it may be inferred
from utterances, writings, acts, omissions and conduct of the parties to the
Page 102
--102– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
conspiracy which is usually done. In view of Section 10 of the Evidence Act
anything said, done or written by those who enlist their support to the object of
conspiracy and those who join later or make their exit before completion of the
object in furtherance of their common intention will be relevant facts to prove
that each one of them can justiciable be treated as a conspirator. Section 10 of
the Evidence Act recognizes the principle of agency and it reads as follows :
“10. Things said or done by conspirator in reference to common design –
Where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have
conspired together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, anything said,
done or written by any one of such persons in reference to their common
intention, after the time when such intention was first entertained by any one of
them, is a relevant fact as against each of the persons believed to be so cons
pirating, as well for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy as
for the purpose of showing that any such person was a party to it. “To apply
this provisions, it has to be shown that (1) there is reasonable ground to believe
that two or more persons have conspired together; and (2) the conspiracy is to
commit an offence or an actionable wrong. If these two requirements are
satisfied then anything said, done or written by any one of such persons after
the time when such intention was entertained by any one of them in furtherance
of their common intention, is a relevant fact against each of the persons
believed to be so conspiring as well as for the purpose of proving the existence
of conspiracy and also for the purpose of showing that any such persons is a
party to it.
46. Section – 409 of I.P.C deals with the Criminal Breach of Trust by
Public Servant, or by banker merchant or agent. In order to sustain a conviction
the prosecution is required to prove (I) accused, a public servant was entrusted
with property or which he was duty bound to account for, and (ii) the accused
has misappropriated the said property. The prosecution is not required to prove,
nor it is possible to prove in every case, in what precise manner the accused
had dealt with or appropriated with that property. It has been held that when
entrustment is provided giving a false account of its use is generally considered
to be a strong circumstances against the accused rather on proof of entrustment
it is for the accused to discharge the burden that the entrustment has been
carried out as accepted and the obligation has been discharged (2007) 1 SCC –
623.
47. Section – 420 of I.P.C deals with cheating and dishonestly inducing
delivery or property. The elements which are required to be proved :- a.
Page 103
--103– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
Cheating, b. dishonest, inducement to deliver property or to make, alter or
destroy an valuable security or anything which is sealed or signed or is capable
of being converted into a valuable security and c. mens-rea of the accused at
the time of making inducement. It has been held in N. Devindrappa Vs. State
(2007) 5 SCC – 228 that the issuance of bogus receipts by the accused given to
the complainant amounts to cheating since property includes money, hence
offence under Section 420 IPC is made out.
48. Section – 465 of I.P.C deals with punishment for forgery, the term
forgery has been defined U/s- 463 or the I.P.C, the essential ingredients being –
(a) the accused prepared a false documents, (b) with false meaning of the
written instruments for the purpose of fraud or deceit, (c) the documents was
prepared dishonestly or fraudulently (d) it was done with the intention of
causing wrongful gain to someone and wrongful loss to other. It has been held
in Ram Narayan Vs. CBI (2003) SCC – 641 that the false document must be
made with an intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any clas of
public or to any community. The expression “an intent to defraud” mean
something more than mere deceit. The object of deceit is required to be
considered i.e. conduct coupled with intention to deceive or thereby to inure
others.
49. Section – 467 of I.P.C deals with forgery of valuable security, will
etc. In order to constitute the offence it must be proved that the documents in
question is the false documents within the meaning of Section – 464 IPC and
that it was forged by the accused with an intention as defined U/s- 463 IPC. It
has been held that for the purpose for convicting the accused U/s- 467 IPC r/w
Section – 471, it has to be shown that the accused either knew or has reason to
believe that the document was forged.
50. Section – 468 of I.P.C is with regard to forgery for the purpose of
cheating, the necessary constituent for the offence being – (a) a forgery in
respect of the documents etc, (b) the intention of forgery being for the purpose
of cheating, (c) there should be forgery with particular intent. It has been found
that the intention of the cheating is sine-qua-non to constitute the offence.
51. Section – 471 of I.P.C, Using as genuine a forged document - the
essential ingredients for the offence being – (a) the accused fraudulently or
dishonestly used a document or electronic record as genuine, (b) the accused
knew or had reason to believe that the documents were the forged one. Then
term knowledge used in the Section “is an awareness and the part of the
person concerned indicating his state of mind”, A.S. Krishnan Vs. State
Page 104
--104– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
(2004) 11 SCC – 576. The term reason to believe is another fact of the state
of mind, but it is not weak as ‘suspicion’ or ‘doubt’ and mere seeing cannot be
equated to be believed in fact reason to believe is a higher level of the stand of
the mind, though knowledge is slightly on a higher plane than reason to
believe. It has been found that to constitute the offence two requirements
namely “knowledge” or “reason to believe” must be proved in the sense that
they are deducible from the various attaining circumstances of the case, though
such circumstances need not necessarily be capable or absolute conviction or
inference, but they are sufficient to cause to believe by chain of probable
reasoning leading to the conclusion or inference about the nature of the thing.
52. Section – 477 A of I.P.C, deals with falsification of accounts, in
order to bring home the offence under this section the prosecution is required
to establish three points (1) at the material time the accused was a clerk,
government servant etc (2) that acting such he destroyed/altered/mutilated or
falsified any book, paper, account etc which belong to or is in possession of his
employer or has been received by him and on behalf of his employer, (3) that
the accused acted willfully and with intent to defraud. The term, “intent to
defraud” contains two elements, viz. Deceit and injury. A person is said to
deceive another when by practicing “suggestion falsi” or ‘suppression veri’ or
both, he intentionally induces another person to believe a thing to be true
which he knows to be false, or does not believe to be true – AIR, 1976 SC –
2140. Any act done to conceal a past act which itself has been done dishonestly
or fraudulently is done with intent to defraud.
53. Prevention of Corruption Act – In this case the accused persons
have been charged under Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 also. This Act was
intended to make effective provision for the prevention of bribe and corruption
rampant amongst the public servant. It is a social legislation defined to curb
illegal activities of the public servants and is designed to be liberally construed
so as to advance its object. The object of the Act was considered in State of
Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ram Singh 2000 Cr.L.J 1401 (S.C). The term public
servant has been given a wider meaning for the purpose of Prevention of
Corruption Act, altogether 12 categories of persons have been brought to give
it a wider sense, it is wider than that given U/s- 21 of the I.P.C (2002) S.C –
1772, it was held that even an outsider may be prosecuted under the Act, when
a person commits an offence punishable under Act. Private individual, who are
found grabbing public funds in conspiracy with an active connivance of public
servants, are also liable for corrupt activities under the Prevention of
Page 105
--105– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
Corruption Act and the private individuals also cannot escape liability of the
charge under the provisions of the Act. It has been found that the sum and
substance of the offence U/s- 409 of the I.P.C and the offence U/s- 13 (1) (c) of
the Act are one and the same i.e. misappropriation of a property entrusted to a
public servant. It was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court as reported in AIR 1971
S.C 1910 that a public servant dishonestly allowing any other persons to
convert to his own use property which is entrusted to the public servant will be
covered within the meaning of the offence of misconduct in his duties under
this Act. Let me say that to prove misappropriation, it is not necessary or
possible in every case to prove in what precise manner the accused persons has
dealt with or appropriated the goods. The question is one of intention and not a
matter of direct proof, but giving a false account of what he has done with the
goods received by him may be treated, a strong circumstance against the
accused persons. Thus, if the entrustment is proved and the accused was under
duty to account for it, it is for him to explain the loss. It is not the law of this
country that the prosecution has to eliminate all possible defences or
circumstances which may exonerate him. If these facts are within the
knowledge of the accused then he has to prove them, of course the prosecution
has to establish a prima-facie case in the first instance. The Hon’ble Apex
Court while hearing several Criminal Appeals(2004, SCC, Cri, 1,244) in this
case itself observed that the main charge in this case relates to Prevention Of
Corruption Act, in respect of separate ad distinct acts ie. the monies siphoned
out of different treasuries at different time, hence the case cannot be
amalgamated. Their Lordship had taken notice of the provisions contained in
Section – 13 (1)(c) and 13 (1) (d) and observed that the hub of the act
envisaged in first of those offences is “dishonestly and fraudulently
misappropriates”. Similarly the hinge of the act envisaged in the second section
is “obtains” for himself or for any other person, any valuable thing or
pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means. The above acts were
completed in the present cases when the money has gone out of the
treasures and reached the hands of any of the persons involved. It has been
found that the criminal conspiracies in the cases are allied offene of the offence
under P.C Act. It has been found that so far the offences under Section 13 (1)(c)
and Section 13 (1)(d) are concerned the places where the offences were
committed could easily be identified as the place where the treasuries
concerned was situated from where money goes; C.B.I Vs. Braj Bhushan
Prasad 2001 Cr. L.J 4683 (SC). The Hon’ble Court has given guideline for
Page 106
--106– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
adopting the evidence of one case to another case in order to save the accused
from hearing same evidence again and again.
54. Section – 13 of the Act deals with Criminal misconduct by a public
servants.
Section – 13 (1)(c) of P.C Act is attracted if the accused dishonestly
or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use any
property entrusted to him or under his control as a public servant or allows any
other persons to do so.
55. Section – 13 (1)(d) of P.C Act is attracted if the accused (I) by
corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person valuable
thing or pecuniary advantage or (ii) by abusing his position as a public servant,
obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary
advantage or (iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any
person valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest. The
offence is punishable U/s- 13 (2) of the Act.
56. The offence under Prevention of Corruption Act, the term
“gratification” has been used. The word gratification is not defined in the Act
hence, literal meaning has to be taken, in the Oxford Advance Learner’s
Dictionary the word gratification is shown to have the meaning “to give
pleasure or satisfaction to” hence, acceptance of something to the pleasure or
the satisfaction of the recipient is gratification – State of A.P Vrs. C. Uma
Maheswara Rao AIR 2004 S.C. - 2024.
57. Section – 13 (2) r/w 13(1) (c) & (d) of Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 – deals with Criminal Misconduct by a Public Servant, Section 8 &
9 of the Act deals with taking gratification, in order, by corrupt or illegal
means, to influence with public servant – is punishable with imprisonment for
term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to seven years
and shall also be liable to fine.
58. Let me say that in this case some technical jargons will be used by
me which may not be common to a common man. I have caution to explain the
technical terms before using them in the judgment. It is case of the prosecution
that officers of the AHD both at the District and Secretarial levels in collusion
of treasury officers and others with the blessings and support of the
governments systematically drew huge sums of money in excess of grant i.e.
the financial sanction against fake allotment letters, vouchers etc, from
Consolidated Fund of the State. It has been argued that it may be a case of
excess withdrawal but it is not a case of fraudulent withdrawal. Their Lordship
Page 107
--107– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
while making monitoring in this case had taken notice of the constitutional
provisions relating to the state financing applicable to the states. The Articles to
be taken in notice are Articles 202 to 206, 266 and 267. Article – 202 provides
for laying down for a statement of the estimated receipts and expenditure
called “Annual Financial Statements”, in common parlance known as the
Budget, in respect of every financial year before the houses of the State
Legislature. Article – 203 provides that estimates in respect of non-charged
expenditure i.e items other than mentioned in Articles – 202 shall be submitted
in the form of demands in the Legislative Assembly. After the assembly gives its
assents to the estimates, i.e. to say grants are made under Article – 203,
appropriation bill is introduced under Articles – 204 for the appropriation of
money out of the consolidated fund of the state to meet the grants (with respect
to non charged expenditure) and the charged expenditure i.e expenditure
charged to the consolidated fund of the state under Article – 202 (3). Articles –
205 lays down that if the amount authorized under the appropriation bill to be
spent for a particular service for the current financial year is found to be
insufficient for the purposes of that year or when a need arises during the
current financial year for supplementary or additional expenditure upon some
new service not provided in budget; or if the money spent on any service
during a financial year exceeds the amount granted for that service, another
statement showing the estimated amounts of that expenditure is required to be
presented to the Assembly. In that situation the procedure as said by Articles –
202 to 204 is required to be followed. Articles – 206 provides for Vote of
Accounts and exceptional grant where a full fledged budget cannot be
presented, the Assembly is empowered to make a grant in advance in respect of
estimated expenditure for a part of financial year pending appropriation bill as
per Article – 203 and 204. The Assembly is also empowered to make a grant to
meet an unexpected demand when on account of the magnitude or the
indefinite character of the service the demand cannot be stated with the details
ordinarily given in the budget and exceptional grant.
59. Article – 266 provides for creation of consolidated fund of the state –
it lays down that all revenues received by the government of state, all loans
raised by that government by the issue of treasury bills, loans or wages and
means, advances and all money received by that government in payment of
loans shall form one consolidated fund called the consolidated fund of the
state.
60. Article – 267 provides for contingency fund for each state as the
Page 108
--108– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
legislature of that state may establish by law comprising of such sums as may
be determined by such law, to be placed at the disposal of the Governor of the
State “ to enable advances to be made by him out of such fund for the purpose
of meeting unforeseen expenditure pending authorization of such expenditure
by the legislature of the state by law under Article – 205 or Articles – 206.
Thus an expenditure by the state may be either from the consolidated fund or
contingency fund. Ordinarily consolidated funds is to be used and the fund
from the contingency fund is supposed to meet a temporary measure and
unforeseen expenditure.
61. In this case role of Treasury Officer (T.O), and the responsibility of
the Drawing and Disbursing Officer (DDO) has to be discussed for better
appreciation of the judgment. As per Rule – 43 of Bihar Treasure Code Vol. - 1;
the Collector is the General in-Charge of the Treasury. He shall be immediately
responsible to the Government for its general working. A duty has been given
to him to inform the Accountant General, Finance Department or other
concerned Authorities for any defalcation or loss of public money, stamps etc.
A duty has been cast upon the Treasury Officer to satisfy himself and the A.G
that the claim produced in the Treasury is valid and also to ensure that the
payees have received the sum charged. Rule 144 provides instruction with
regard to preparation and forms of bill and the caution which the Treasury is
supposed to exercise. Rule 190 lists irregularities which are treated to be
sufficiently serious to necessitate disciplinary action. In this case a general term
Contingency and Contingency bill has been used. The term contingency means
and includes all incidental and other expenses which are incurred for the
management of an office as an office or for technical working of the
Department. Rule – 293 of the Code has differentiated counter-signed
contingency and fully vouched contingencies. Fully vouched contingencies are
charges which require neither special sanction nor counter signature, but may
be incurred by the Head of the Office on his own authority subject to the
necessity of accounting for them. These may be passed on Fully Vouched Bills,
without counter signature.
62. Rule 305 of the Code lays down responsibility of Drawing and
Disbursing Officer it reads as – Every public officer should exercise the same
vigilance in respect of expenditure incurred from Gov revenues, as a person of
ordinary prudence would exercise in spending his own money. The drawing
officer is responsible for seeing (1) that vouchers are prepared according to
rules, (2) that the money is either required for immediate disbursement or has
Page 109
--109– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
already been paid from the permanent advance, (3) that the expenditure is
within the available appropriation, (4) that all steps have been taken with a
view to obtain an additional appropriation, if the original appropriation has
either been exceeded or is likely to be exceeded, and (5) that the case of
contract contingencies, the proposed expenditure does not cause any excess
over the amount fixed for these contingencies.
NOTE – When a payee’s receipt sent in support of an item of
contingent expenditure does not show the full details of the item for which it
purports to be a receipts, such details unless they have been given on the
contingent bill itself, should be given in the payee’s receipt by the drawing
officer concerned at the time the receipt is attached to the contingent bill or is
otherwise sent to the audit office.
63 In this regard Rule – 305 and Rule – 305 A of Bihar Financial Rule
have also been gone through by me, where-under the duty and responsibility of
the drawing and disbursing officer has been given. The crux of the point is
“Every public officer should exercise the same vigilance in respect of
expenditure incurred from Government revenues, as a person or ordinary
prudence would exercise in spending his own money”.
64. The prosecution alleged that accused person fraudulently prepared
the fake vouchers and withdraw money from treasury after passing the CNC
bills. The term fraudulently has been discussed that fraudulently means there
must be deception, actual or intended, any injury or risk of injury, though not to
any particular persons. There must be advantages in one side and
corresponding to loss to other. Existence of criminal intention is sufficient to
cause wrongful gain to burn and and wrongful loss to another – It is not
necessary that wrongful gain or loss should be casually caused. The gist of
term lies in the criminal intend to commit fraud which , when not obvious,
must be clearly and conclusively established. A leading case reported in AIR
1954 SC – 322 has been held that where a document bearing a certain date
were brought into existence on a subsequent date, the accused was guilty or
forgery. The accused taken consistent plea of defence that it is a case of excess
withdrawal and not of fraudulent withdrawal. The term excess has not been
defined in the I.P.C or any other criminal law. The Oxford dictionary defines
excess as follows :- (1) Exceeding, (2). Amount by which one thing exceeds
another. (3). A. Over stepping of accepted limits of moderation, esp. In eating
or drinking. B. Immoderate behaviour, (4) Part of an insurance claimed to be
paid by the insured – attrib. Adj. Usu. 1. That exceeds a limited or prescribed
Page 110
--110– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
amount, 2. Required as extra payment (excess postage) in (or to ) excess
exceeding the proper amount of degree : in excess of more than, exceeding.
Advance Learner's Dictionary defines excess as more than is expected or
proper
65. In the light of oral argument as advanced on behalf of defence as well
as on behalf of prosecution side, the detailed discussion in respect of accused
persons in the following way :-
66. Accused Adhip Chandra Chaudhary stated in recorded statement
U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C that he was Income Tax Commissioner posted in Ranchi
since May-1994 to December-1996. Accused deny to criminal conspiracy with
AHD. Accused also deny to send AHD Scam, accused income return from
Ranchi Area to Calcutta Area and accepted the financial and other benefit from
accused of AHD Scam. Accused fully deny criminal conspiracy with accused
of AHD Scam and illegal withdrawal to wrongful loss of Government
Revenue. Accused stated innocent himself and alleged that CBI falsely
implicated him in this case.
67. On behalf of prosecution it is submitted that accused Adhip Chandra
Chaudhary was working as Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi during the
period 1994 to 1996. Accused S.B. Sinha managed the officials of the Income
Tax Department including accused Adhip Chandra Chaudhary through accused
Dipesh Chandok. Accused A.C. Chaudhary helped the AHD Officials and
suppliers by stopping raids against them . Accused also helped them in their
assessment. Accused Chuadhary was over enthusiastic in transferring the
assessment record of AHD scamster accused S.B. Sinha and his wife to
Calcutta I.T Jurisdiction and accordingly the letter was sent by speed post and
the same was also faxed to Calcutta I.T Office. In the petition of accused S.B.
Sinha and Mrs. Rama Sinha. It was falsely mentioned that they have shifted
permanently to Calcutta. Accused A.C Chaudhary did not care to make inquiry
into the stand taken by the petitioner on receipt of the no objection certificate
from the office of C.I.T -4 Calcutta. Accused A.C Chaudhary issued the orders
for transferring the assessment record of AHD Scamster S.B. Sinha and his
wife to Calcutta I.T Jurisdiction. Accused Dipesh Chandak gave accused A.C .
Chaudhary Rs. 05 Lakh in 1994 on the instructions of the King-pin S.B. Sinha.
Accused A.K Verma Proprietor of M/s Little Oak Pharmaceuticals was
arranging tickets for the travel of accused A.C. Chaudhary from Calcutta to
Ranchi and also providing private cars to him at Calcutta. The car advance
booking registers of the guide contains the name of accused A.C. Chaudhary
Page 111
--111– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
and his residential address on many dates from 1994 to 1996. One car of the
guide was almost regularly booked for the use of the daughter of accused A.C.
Chaudhary. In support of above allegation the prosecution side examined
prosecution witnesses and documents exhibited in the court during trial.
68. Prosecution produced and examined many witnesses in the court.
P.W. No. 170 Ravindra Kumar, Commissioner of Income-Tax Appeal Cuttack
stated regarding warrant issued to search premises of accused S.B. Sinha
situated at Ranchi. P.W. 217 Proprietor of Badri Narayan & Co. Kolkatta,
Dipesh Chandok stated regarding payments released against non-supply of
materials. P.W. 229 Sandip Garg, Additional Director Income-Tax, Delhi
regarding Sanction for prosecution of A.C. Chaudhary which Ext. 27/7. P.W.
152, 156 stated related Ext. 82, 18/13, 18/14, 18/15, 18/16, 18/17 but the
charge relating larger conspiracy with O.P Diwakar, Regional Director, AHD,
Dumka and other co-conspirator of this case and illegally / fraudulently and
dishonestly withdrawn Rs. 03,76,38,853/- from Dumka Treasury is not proved
beyond reasonable doubt because this accused appointed in Income-Tax
Department. The address of one accused Shyam Bihar Sinha from Ranchi to
Calcutta is not a offence but it is a clerical mistake. The mistake immediately
reform and jurisdiction of accused S.B. Sinha relating to Income-Tax Area
again change from Calcutta to Ranchi and there is no any evidence relating to
hospitality provide to accused Adhip Chandra Chaudhary and no any evidence
to liquidated the Income-Tax raids conducted on the premises of co-conspirator
at Ranchi in year 1992 – 93 and 1993 – 94. Accused deny to use car provided
by co-accused.
69. So after considering all facts and circumstances, court found that
prosecution sides do not able to prove alleged charges against accused person
successfully beyond reasonable doubt and benefit of doubt provide to accused
Adhip Chandra Chaudhary in the ends of Justice. Accused in the light of above
discussion held innocent from above alleged charges U/s- 120(B) r/w Section
420, 467, 468, 471, 477A of I.P.C and U/s- 13(2) r/w Sec- 13 (i)(c) & (d) of
Prevention of Corruption Act.
70. Accused Ajit Kumar Verma stated in statement U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C
that he was the owner of M/s. Little Oak Pharmaceuticals, Kolkatta. Further
stated that firm supply of Veterinary medicines in the office of Regional
Director, AHD, Dumka and he submitted vouchers in pursuance of 41 vouchers
bill prepared and received draft Rs. 19,92,820/- which is genuine and fully
deny active participation in criminal conspiracy.
Page 112
--112– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
71. On behalf of State Ld. Special P.P CBI submitted that prosecution
witnesses fully supported the prosecution story. The vehicles by which shows
in vouchers supply the medicine is fake. Further submitted that in furtherance
of criminal conspiracy the employee of AHD, Office issued fake receiving in
respect of supply medicine. Further in furtherance of criminal conspiracy bill
prepared by the employee of AHD Office and pass in furtherance from Dumka
Treasury in support examined P.Ws. 6, 15, 37, 38, 48, 55, 58, 90, 91, 92, 93,
97, 98, 175 and 232 fully supported the prosecution story. On behalf of
prosecution side file documentary evidences Exhibits - 1/3, 2/2, 3/2, 12, 8/20 –
8/23, 9/19 – 9/37, 10/27, 13, 2/6, 3/5, 15/2, 9/45 to 9/75m 8/35 to 8/38, 10/28,
7/40, 1/7, 25/73 to 25/78, 26.495 to 26/554, 1/11, 7/41 to 7/44, 1/13, 10/29 to
10/113, 26/355 to 26/394, 1/24, 1/25, 52 to 52/181, 53 to 53/7, 54 to 54/51,
9/76 to 9/80, 55 to 55/14, 56 & 57, 1/15, 33 &1/36. From perusal of oral and
documentary evidences, it is clear that accused Ajit Kumar Verma in close
contact with employee of R.D, AHD, Santhal Pargana, Dumka Office. Accused
submitted forged and fabricated vouchers without supplying medicine and it is
also transpires that R.D, AHD, Dumka Office employee issued receiving of
supply in collusion with accused. Further transpires that 41 fake invoices
relating to supply of veterinary medicines passed by the Regional Director,
AHD, Santhal Pargana Dumka. In furtherance of criminal conspiracy Treasury
Dumka is also pass the bill submitted from R.D, AHD, Dumka Office. The
Owner of M/s. Little Oak Pharmaceuticals, Kolkatta Mr. Ajit Kumar Verma
received fraudulent payment of Rs. 19,92,820/- . After perusal of all oral and
documentary evidences, court found that prosecution successfully proved
alleged charges against accused Ajit Kumar Verma beyond reasonable doubt.
72. Accused Arun Kumar Singh statement recorded U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C
on 14.11.2017 in which accepted that he was partner of M/s. Vishawkarma
Agency, Deoghar. Further stated that main partner was father of Regional
Director, Shesh Muni Ram named Shiv Raj Ram. Accused deny to received Rs.
19,98,800/- and stated that he was monthly paid employee of Shesh Muni Ram.
Accused Arun Kumar Singh also accepted in question no. 4 that he submitted
more than 70 vouchers to Shesh Muni Ram and further accepted that he follow
the order of Shesh Muni Ram and prepared false vouchers. Accused pleaded
innocent and deny to receive any fraudulent payment.
73. On behalf of prosecution agency examined P.Ws. - 12, 13, 14, 37, 48,
55, 75, 97 & 232 witnesses in the court during trial. And filed Exhibits, 1/5,
Page 113
--113– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
1/6, 1/13, 2/5, 7/36 to 7/39, 8/32 to 8/34, 9/42 to 9/44, 10/29 to 10/113, 18/5,
25/79 to 25/84, 26/555 to 26/612. After perusal of oral and documentary
evidence, it is clear that accused frankly accepted and disclosed in statement
U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C that he prepared false and fabricated vouchers and
submitted / hand over to Shesh Muni Ram. Later on Shesh Muni Ram prepared
bill and in furtherance of criminal conspiracy bill pass through Dumka
Treasury and received illegal payment. In this way, illegal loss / criminal
misappropriation of government money, in furtherance of criminal conspiracy
committed by this accused. Hence, court found that prosecution side
successfully proved alleged charges beyond reasonable doubt against accused
Arun Kumar Singh.
74. Accused Beck Julius stated in statement U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C on
14.11.2017 that he was functioned as Secretary of Animal Husbandry
Department since 08.05.1994 to June – 1997 in the capacity of the Secretary
AHD and Fisheries Department. Accused clearly deny to participate in criminal
conspiracy with co-accused Om Prakash Diwakar and other accused. Accused
denied to facilitate fraudulent payment of Rs. 03,76,38,853/- from Dumka
Treasury and also deny to extending hospitalities to the members of the alleged
criminal conspiracy. Accused deny to receive undue illegal gratification and
pecuniary advantages of yourself and also for co-conspirator Lalu Prasad to
scuttle the investigation / enquiry, whenever the matter relating to alleged
fraudulent payment came to fore. Accused deny to furnish false reply relating
to excess withdrawal in respect the question raised by Sri Nilamber Chaudhary,
MLC in 122 Session and also deny to the criminal conspiracy in furnishing and
misleading reply to the question raised by Sri Lalit Oraon, M.P, Lok Sabha and
deny to furnish falsified account of AHD to the Finance Department and
reflecting surrender of grants despite heavy expenses incurred by the AHD.
Accused deny to take proper action against those persons, who disclosed in
letter dated 08.06.1995 and 29.12.1995 by the A.G., Bihar and Finance
Department letter no. 24.10.1995 and 20.12.1995 informed. Accused clearly
deny to visit Calcutta between 1992 – 96. Accused also deny to taken Air-
tickets from any other co-accused and pleaded innocent.
75. On behalf of prosecution examined P.Ws – 44, 45, 79, 81, 82, 84,
109, 135, 136, 185, 220, 224, 225, 227 and filed following documentary
evidences Exhibits. - 1/21, 1/22, 27 to 27/6, 38/270, 38/271, 38/277, 38/278,
38/276, 38/281, 38/282 (Exhibits RC – 20(A)/96 44, 44/5, 47 to 47/5, 48 to
48/4, 49 to 49/2, 50 to 50/18, 51 to 51/3, 60/5 to 60/11 60/150, 60/153 to
Page 114
--114– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
60/180, 68, 69 to 69/10, 70/4 to 70/13, 100 & 100/1, 108 to 108/77, 18/159 &
18/160, 109, 110 to 110/4
76. In the light of advance argument on behalf of both sides perused the
oral and documentary evidences, it is clear that P.W.,55 Md. Sayeed and P.W.
196 Rameshwar Prasad Chaudhary, both are approver, so they stated about the
false receiving of supply and false bill prepared and passed by D.D.O,
Regional Director, AHD, Santhal Pargana, Dumka with the collusion of
Treasury, Dumka Officer. P.W. 217 Dipesh Chandok stated in the chief in
examination that he provide illegal gratifications to accused persons. P.W. 232
D.N. Viswas and P.W. 245 Ajay Kumar Jha both are part I.O of this case but
nothing was seized which shows connection of this accused Beck Julius in
criminal conspiracy of this case. From perusal of documentary evidences, it is
clear that Director, AHD, Patna is sole responsible for planning and budget
provide to Regional Director, of AHD. The Director of AHD, the then Ram Raj
Ram received statement from the office of Regional Director of AHD from
State and provide it to Financial Secretary. The Financial Secretary with
advance approval of Finance Minister prepared budget and put in the floor of
Legislative Assembly. So it is clear that the Secretary of AHD according to
Bihar Financial Rule is not responsible for financial matter. The Secretary of
AHD is head of administration. In the light of advance argument on behalf of
both sides and after proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidences,
court found that Secretary of AHD is not responsible for excess/illegal
withdrawal from Dumka Treasury. The A.G send audit report to financial
secretary Director of AHD in relating to excess withdrawal from Dumka
Treasury but never send to secretary of AHD office Patna. Court found that
prosecution agency is not proved alleged charges against accused Beck Julius
beyond all reasonable doubt. The benefit of doubt in the ends of Justice may be
provide to accused Beck Julius in this case and pass a reasonable order later on
part of judgment.
77. Accused Smt. Benu Jha stated in statement U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C that
she was house wife and living in Maheshpur. In question number – 2 accepted
that she was owner of M/s. Laxmi Enterprises, Godda. Further accepted in
question NO. 3 she never received fraudulent payment of Rs. 64,96,700/- from
Dumka Treasury during financial year 1995 -96. Accused also deny to submit
fraudulently and dishonestly 131 numbers of fake bills showing supply of
veterinary medicines to the Office of R.D. AHD, Santhal Pargana range,
Page 115
--115– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
Dumka. She clearly accepted in answer of question no. 5 that M/s. Laxmi
Enterprises, Godda was neither the supplier of veterinary medicines approved
by then government of Bihar nor any of the approved supplier authorize to
supply veterinary medicine on their behalf. The firm only was registered and
no any office anywhere. She also answered in question no. 6 that she never
submitted any vouchers of supply because she never made supply from firm
M/s. Laxmi Enterprises, Godda. Accused clearly deny to receive fraudulent
payments against fake bills and distributed among the co-conspirator and
pleaded innocent.
78. On behalf of prosecution examined P.Ws – 3, 4, 5, 37, 41, 43, 48, 55,
73, 78, 97, & 232 and filed following documentary evidences Exhibits. - 1/1,
1 /2, 2/1, 3/1, 7/14 to 7/27, 8/11 to 8/19, 10/29 to 10/113, 11 to 11/3, 18/4,
25/35 to 25/45, 26/222 to 26/296.
79. In the light of advance argument on behalf of both the sides defence
as well as prosecution and perused the oral and documentary evidences as
brought on the record on behalf of both the sides. P.W.245, Ajay Kumar Jha I.O
of the case clearly accepted that accused is unable to read anything but only
made signature Benu Jha. Perusal of submitted vouchers from M/s. Laxmi
Enterprises, Godda, it is clear that vouchers are not in the writing of accused
Benu Jha. Accused husband Vinod Kumar Jha and brother-in-law Sushil
Kumar Jha prepared the vouchers and submitted in the office of Regional
Director, AHD, Dumka. Accused Sushil Kumar Jha pleaded guilty and
convicted by the court previously who already died during the custody. I.O of
this case not made accused her husband Vinod Kumar Jha but P.W examined
from bank clearly deposed that Benu Jha open the account in the name of M/s.
Laxmi Enterprises, Godda. In cross-examination it is also accept that he cannot
say whether Benu Jha came physically in the bank branch before the manager
or not. From perusal of oral and documentary evidences, court found that a
fake firm registered in the name of M/s Laxmi Enterprise, Godda, which never
supply medicines in the office of Regional Director, AHD, Dumka but in
furtherance of criminal conspiracy Sushil Kumar Jha submitted fake vouchers
in the department and Md. Sayeed and others employee of R.D. AHD, Dumka
office granted receiving receipt in favour of supplier and other co-accused
prepared bill which passed from Dumka Treasury in illegal way and criminal
misappropriated money up to Rs. 64,96,700/- from Dumka Treasury in the
financial year 1995 – 96 and illegal loss committed against government of
Bihar.
Page 116
--116– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
80. After perusal of all oral and documentary evidence brought on record
on behalf of both sides and argument advanced in the court. The court found
that prosecution side do not prove alleged charge against accused Benu Jha
beyond reasonable doubt successfully. I.O left the name of real accused and
made her accused in formal way, who is an illiterate lady and living in a village
– Maheshpur, District – Godda, so in the ends of justice the benefit of doubt
may be provide to accused Benu Jha and appropriate order pass later on part of
the judgment.
81. Accused Bimal Kant Das stated in statement U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C that
he was T.V.O (Mobile) Sahebganj AHD, Dumka during 1995 – 96. Accused
answered in response of question no. 3 that he had given receiving certificate
in favour of M/s. Krishna Road, Career is not remembering but he issued
receiving certificate to M/s. Vishavkarma Agency, Deoghar and deny to
facilitate co-conspirator for making fraudulent payments resulting in wrongful
loss of Rs. 03,76,38,853/- to Bihar Government Revenue. Accused expressed
ignorance relating to list of suppliers approved by Central Purchase Committee
of the Government and he deny to issue receiving in respect of supply
veterinary medicine which were neither manufactured nor marketed in the
erstwhile State of Bihar. Accused also deny to issue receiving from the office
of AHD, Dumka to PAC for inquiry and pleaded not to be guilt and claimed to
be innocent.
82. On behalf of prosecution examined P.Ws – 37, 55, 56, 61 & 232 and
filed following documentary evidences Exhibits. - 25/35 to 25/45, 25/46 to
25/59, 25/60 to 25/63, 25/64 to 25/69, 25/89 to 25/93, 26/222 to 26/296,
26/297 to 26/354, 26/355 to 26/394, 26/395 to 26/454, 26/653 to 26/700.
83. In the light of advance argument on behalf of both parties, learned
defence lawyer as well as Spl. P.P and perusal of oral and documentary
evidences as brought on the record. Exhibit in series 25 and 26 clearly shows
that accused Bimal Kant Das falsely certified the receipt of veterinary
medicines and also certified the transportation bills of the private parties and
thereby facilitated the alleged fraudulent payments from Dumka Treasury
during the period of alleged occurrence. Accused Arun Kumar Singh, who was
the partner of M/s. Vishavkarma Agency, Deoghar clearly explain in question
no. 7 that more than 70 false vouchers were handed over to Shesh Muni Ram
and further explain in question no. 3 that without supply medicine they
prepared the vouchers and hand over to Shesh Muni Ram and got payment Rs.
2000/- per month from Shesh Muni Ram. So it is clear that prosecution
Page 117
--117– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
successfully proved alleged charges against this accused Bimal Kant Das that
he issued receipt in favour of supplier without receiving the supply medicines
beyond reasonable doubt successfully and court after perusal of oral and all
documentary evidences safely found that the benefit of doubt cannot be
provide in favour of accused Bimal Kant Das in the ends of Justice and further
order passed in the later part of judgment in this case.
84. Dhruv Bhagat accused stated in statement U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C on
22.11.2017 that he was chairman of PAC during 1995 – 96 and deny active
participation to the criminal conspiracy with Dr. O.P Diwakar, Regional
Director AHD, Dumka and other co-conspirator of this case. Further deny
fraudulently and dishonestly withdrawal from District Treasury, Dumka up to
amount of Rs. 03,76,38,853/-. Accused deny to extending hospitalities to the
members of alleged criminal conspiracy who defrauded Dumka, Treasury.
Accused deny to write letter dated 20.01.1996 to the Finance Commissioner of
Government of Bihar to stop inquiry regarding alleged withdrawals by the
AHD and hand over the connecting documents to PAC. Further deny to write a
letter dated 24.01.1996 to the then Chief Minister Lalu Prasad and clearly deny
to make inquiry into any fraud or misappropriation unless entrusted to PAC by
the Hon'ble Speaker of House. Accused also deny to accept one A.C.
Ambassador car as illegal gratification from co-conspirator Dr. S.B. Sinha and
claimed to be innocent and pleaded that both above letter dated 20.01.1996 and
24.01.1996 are forged letters which prepared by the prosecution to implicate
falsely accused in this case.
85. On behalf of prosecution examined P.Ws – 45, 47,55, 76, 116, 166,
179, 173, 177, 196, 225, 226, 236, 242 and filed following documentary
evidences Exhibits. - 7/59 to 7/66, 9/76, 9/77, 8/48, 18/21, 18/181 to 18/192,
26/102, 26/103, 44/4, 70/4 to 70/13, 104, 109, 110 to 110/4, 113 to 113/3, D-1
to D-18.
86. Perused the oral and documentary evidences, court found that
accused was Chairman of PAC of Legislative Assembly during February –
1995 to February – 1996, it is true that PAC Committee inquire only those
matters which hand over from Chairman of Assembly. On behalf of
prosecution produced letter dated 20.01.1996 and 24.01.1996 but in the light of
above letters Finance Commissioner of Government of Bihar and the then
Chief Minister Lalu Prasad do not act upon . Further allegation that accused
Dhruv Bhagat obtained one A.C Ambassador Car from co-conspirator S.B.
Sinha but no ownership brought on the record. P.W.55 and P.W. 196
Page 118
--118– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
Rameshwar Prasad Chaudhary both are approver and their statement is not
corroborated from circumstantial evidences or by independent documentary
evidences. P.W.245 and P.W. 232 examined in the court as part investigating
officers. Above both witnesses never try to brought the ownership relating to
A.C Ambassador Car. Further perusal of records, it is clear that accused Dhruv
Bhagat is elected member of MLA, Bihar during period 1995 to 2000 and no
any evidence on behalf of prosecution side brought on the record that Dhruv
Bhagat involved in criminal conspiracy through which fraudulently prepared
forged allotment letters and the Regional Director, AHD, Dumka withdrawn
money on the basis of forged vouchers. Other two witnesses Dipesh Chandok
and Shiv Kumar Patwari stated in chief in examination that accused received
illegal gratification but not any evidence in support on the record. P.W.116
Phool Jha examined on behalf of prosecution side working as Secretary of PAC
and nothing stated against accused Dhruv Bhagat.
87. In the light of above discussion and perusal of oral and documentary
evidences, court found that prosecution side do not prove successfully alleged
charges beyond reasonable doubt against accused Dhruv Bhagat. In the ends of
Justice, court found that accused may be provide the benefit of doubt who
facing the trial up to more than 21 years.
88. Accused Gopi Nath Das stated in statement U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C dated
16.11.2017 that he was owner of M/s. Radha Pharmacy, Dumka and he
received payment of Rs. 20,45,450/- from Dumka Treasury during the year
1995-96. After supplying veterinary medicine to the Regional Director, AHD,
Santhal Pargana, Dumka and submitted vouchers. Further stated that his firm
was recognized and authorized in Bihar Government to supply medicine.
Accused further stated that he received medicine from C.N.F, Patna and supply
the same in the department and he is not a member of criminal conspiracy and
fraudulently received the money illegal withdrawn from Dumka treasury and
further pleaded to be innocent.
89. On behalf of prosecution examined P.Ws – 37, 48, 55, 97, 107 & 232
and filed following documentary evidences Exhibits. - 10/29 to 10/113, 25/20
to 25/34, 26/91 to 26/221, 1/3, 25/5 to 25/19 & 26/50 to 26/90.
90. In the light of advance argument on behalf of both sides made by
learned lawyer and perusal of records it is transpires that accused admittedly
Proprietor of M/s. Radha Pharmacy, Dumka which received fraudulent
payment of Rs. 20,45,450/- through 40 fake and forge invoices relating to
supply of veterinary medicine because the transporting vehicles registration
Page 119
--119– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
number is forged. The witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution side
P.W.37, 44, 55, 97, 107, 232 and 245 fully support the prosecution story and
relevant document which exhibited on behalf of prosecution side clearly shows
the accused active participation in criminal conspiracy in the Fodder Scam
Case.
91. After perusal of all oral and documentary evidences, court found that
prosecution side successfully proved alleged charges against accused person
Gopi Nath Das beyond reasonable doubt successfully, so the benefit of doubt in
the ends of Justice cannot be provide to the accused Gopi Nath Das and
appropriate order pass in the later part of the judgment.
92. Accused Jagannath Mishra, aged about 82 years stated in
statement U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C on 11.12.2017 that he was three time Chief
Minister of Bihar, first time 1975 till April – 1977, second time 08th June –
1982 to 13th April – 1983 and third time 06th December – 1989 to 10th March –
1990. Later on leader of Opposition two times in which March – 1990 to
March – 1994 in Bihar Legislative Assembly and totally denied to participate
in criminal conspiracy and fraudulently / dishonestly withdrawn Rs.
03,76,38,853/- from Dumka District Treasury. Accused also deny to receive
illegal payment and extending hospitalities to the members of the alleged
criminal conspiracy. Accused deny criminal conspiracy and fraudulent payment
when report of Dy. Accountant General (I & W) in the year 1990 recommended
the inquiry to be conducted by co-conspirator M.C. Subarno, the Regional
Development Commissioner, Ranchi. Accused deny to advise as leader of
Opposition and recommended the co-conspirator Lalu Prasad to confine the
investigation of Vigilance Case No. 34/1990 against the members of Central
Purchase Committee only. Accused deny to know personally Dr. S.B. Sinha
and obtaining illegal gratification from co-conspirator M.S. Bedi in the end
pleaded innocent from all above alleged charges against him.
93. On behalf of prosecution examined P.Ws – 45, 109, 167, 192, 243
and filed following documentary evidences Exhibits. - 38/270, 38/271, 38/276,
38/277, 38/278, 38/281, 38/282, 60/38, 68, 69 to 69/10, A.
94. From perusal of oral and documentary evidence as brought on the
record and advance argument by learned lawyer on behalf of both sides, the
court found after discussion that accused as leader of Opposition in Bihar
Legislative Assembly recommended for extension in service of Dr. S.B. Sinha,
after his retirement on 05.12.1993. The extension of S.B. Sinha extended up to
one year by the then Chief Minister Lalu Prasad. It is also pertinent that
Page 120
--120– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
accused Jagannath Mishra wrote letter in pursuant to Chief Minister Lalu
Prasad on 23.08.1990 in which suggested that to confine the investigation of
Vigilance Case No. 34/1990 only against members of Central Purchase
Committee and not against investigation the officers of AHD, Ranchi. One
another letter dated 15.11.1990 written by this accused to the then Chief
Minister Lalu Prasad that the inquiry on audit report be enterested to Regional
Development Commissioner, M.C. Subarno. In support on behalf of
prosecution five witnesses P.Ws. 45, 167, 243, 109 and 192 and some relevant
document as on record.
95. From perusal of record court found that the role of the accused has
not been mentioned specifically by the I.O. The prosecution witness P.W. 45
R.K. Das deposed against this accused but perusal of Vigilance Case No.
34/1990 it is clear that this witness R.K. Das already accused, who provide
protection U/s- 306 of Cr.p.C with collusion of C.B.I. The statement of
approver not corroborated by independent / circumstantial evidences, so in the
light of Hon'ble Apex Court verdict reported in AIR 1975 SC 856, Ravinder
Singh Vrs. State of Harayana, AIR 1979 SC 1761 Chonampara Chellapan
Vrs. State of Kerela.
96. It is also pertinent from perusal of record that the period of
occurrence is December – 1995 and January – 1996 and accused had written
letter on 23.08.1990, 15.11.1990 and 05.12.1993 when accused was in position
of leader of Opposition in Bihar Legislative Assembly all above three letters
written to the then Chief Minister -cum-Finance Minster of Bihar Government
Lalu Prasad Yadav. Accused was not in power to compel the then Chief
Minister – cum- Finance Minister. It was option of Chief Minister -cum-
Finance Minster that he act upon on the recommendation of this accused
Jagannath Mishra or have powered to reject the recommendation and throw the
letter in dustbin. So it is clear that in larger conspiracy which clearly expose in
Vigilance Case No. 34/1990, accused Lalu Prasad Yadav was in power as Chief
Minister -cum- Finance Minster, who with the help of Vigilance restrain the
investigation relating to fraudulent withdrawal in AHD Department and
constitute a larger conspiracy with co-accused R.K. Das, Ram Raj Ram, Shyam
Bihari Sinha and others co-accused of Fodder Scam.
97. In the light of above observation and proper appreciation of oral and
documentary evidences on the record, court found that prosecution side do not
prove alleged charges against accused Jagannath Mishra successfully beyond
reasonable doubt. In the ends of Justice, the benefit of doubt may be exercised
Page 121
--121– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
in the favour of accused Jagannath Mishra. The proper order pass in the later
part of this judgment.
98. Accused Jagdish Sharma is about 68 years on 20.11.2017 stated in
his statement U/s- 313 Cr.P.C that he was PAC Chairman between the period
April 1992 to December – 1994 and deny as Chairman of PAC in December –
1995 to January – 1996 when the Regional Director, AHD, Dumka with co-
conspirator of this case fraudulently and dishonestly withdrawn the payment of
Rs. 03,76,38,853/- from the District Treasury, Dumka and deny to extending
hospitalities to the members of the alleged criminal conspiracy and deny to
receive books of account from tainted treasuries on the false pretext of inquiry
in to the fraudulent payments without actually receiving and clearly deny and
further deny being Chairman of Public Account Committee at the time of
occurrence. He further disclosed in answer question no.9 that he wrote a letter
to Chief Minister Lalu Yadav that no parallel inquiry should be conducted as
PAC is already conducting on inquiry and further disclosed in answer no. 10
that it was the after decision of PAC and he wrote letter as Chairman of PAC.
Accused totally denied to obtained, undue pecuniary advantage and illegal
gratification and pleaded that he was totally innocent in this case.
99. On behalf of prosecution examined P.W.s – 45, 109, 127, 217, 224,
225 & 226 and filed following documentary evidences Exhibits. - 18/159 &
18/160, 38/270, 38/271, 38/277, 38/278, 38/281, 38/282, 44/4, 59, 60/153 to
60/180, 68, 69 to 69/10, 70/4 to 70/13, 108 to 108/77, 109, 110 to 110/4.
100. In the light of above advance discussion on behalf of both parties as
put before court by learned lawyer and perused the oral and documentary
evidences it is transpired that accused Jagdish Sharma was chairman of PAC
Committee for certain period and inquired only those matter which is hand
over by Speaker of Legislative Assembly . On behalf of prosecution examined
approver Md. Sayeed and others who support the prosecution story but
circumstantial evidences do not support the version of prosecution story.
Accused never created false receipt of the vouchers and books of account. In
the month of June – 1994 he wrote letters to the Secretary and also to the Chief
Minister that no enquiry should conducted into the allegation with regard to
fraudulent payments. The statement of approver is not reliable because they are
already involve in criminal conspiracy.
101. On behalf of accused Jagdish Sharma an affidavit was filed relating
to document and proceeding of PAC Committee. The proceeding of Legislative
Assembly Bihar letter no. 193 / 10.07.91, a letter to Secretary AHD
Page 122
--122– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
Department by which all documents relating to Fodder Scam was called by Dy.
Secretary, Bihar Vidhan Sabha and all documents relating to Animal
Department put up before committee. Further shows letter no. 299 dated
03.10.1991 by which he seek the list who were benefited to Animal Feed and
Fodder Transportation. Further letter no. 29 & 8 that AHD department provide
all documents within 15 days of receiving the information and another file in
relating to Legislative Assembly. The PAC Committee constitute by Legislative
Assembly Chairman and the member of all parties include in the PAC
Committee and Chairman of the PAC Committee wrote a letter relating to
fodder scam. The Chairman of Legislative Assembly passed the tour
programme of PAC. It is clear from perusal of oral and documentary evidences
that Chairman of PAC Committee wrote a letter to Chief Minister / Leader of
Assembly that provide all relevant document of AHD Department which can
scrutinize by the PAC member. In this respect court found that Chairman of
PAC Jagdish Sharma made a bonafide attempt to inspect AHD department
documents and submit report to the Chairman of Legislative Assembly for
discussion. The co-conspirator who got the benefit of U/s-306 of Cr.P.C
deposed against this accused that accused received extended gratification and
other costly item from the co-conspirator of AHD Department but such
evidence is not believable in the light of many judgment pronounced by the
Hon'ble Court and similarly the document of AHD Department received by
Secretary of PAC Phool Jha who appointed by the Chairman of Legislative
Assembly to cooperate the PAC Member when they are on tour. Phool Jha
examined as P.W. 116. The statement of other approver co-accused found not
reliable because they do not support by documentary evidences.
102. After considering all facts and oral evidences present on the record,
court found that the accused being a Chairman of PAC play the role on the
request of all PAC members and not individual capacity. Hence, in conclusive
way court found that prosecution side do not prove alleged charges beyond
reasonable doubt successfully and benefit of doubt may be exercised in the
favour of accused, in the ends of Justice. And detailed order pass in the later
part of this judgment.
103. Accused Krishna Kumar Prasad stated in statement U/s- 313 of
Cr.P.C that he was posted as T.V.O, Jasidih during 01.01.1995 to 15.04.1996.
He denied to receive Veterinary medicines shown to supply by M/s.
Vishavkarma Agency and others falsely and facilitated co-conspirator for
making fraudulent payment of Rs. 03,76,38,853/- from Dumka Treasury and
Page 123
--123– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
pleaded innocent. .
104. On behalf of prosecution examined P.W.s – 37, 55, 57 & 232 and
filed following documentary evidences Exhibits. - 25/60 to 25/63, 26/355 to
26/394.
105. In the light of oral and documentary evidences as brought on the
record and consideration of oral argument advanced on behalf of both parties
learned lawyer during argument in the court. Exhibit. 25/60 to 25/63, 26/355 to
26/394 are receipt in signature of accused Krishna Kumar Prasad, which
falsely certified the transportation bills of the private parties and facilitated the
fraudulent payment from Dumka Treasury during December – 1995 and
January – 1996.
106. After perusal of all above oral and documentary evidence, court
found that prosecution side successfully proved the alleged charges beyond
reasonable doubt and accused Krishna Kumar Prasad is not entitled to found
benefit of doubt in this case so appropriate order pass in the later part of the
judgment.
107. Accused Lal Mohan Prasad stated in statement U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C
on 20.11.2017 that he was not owner of M/s. R.K. Agency and M/s. Mukesh
Enterprises, Patna but his son Mahendra Prasad knew everything about above
firms who died. Similarly, when asked that you in criminal conspiracy with co-
conspirator Dr. O.P Diwakar, received fraudulently payment of Rs. 54,95,030/-
from Dumka Treasury during year 1995 – 96, accused denied and stated that
his son Mahendra Prasad knew everything. He do not submit any vouchers and
do not know about M/s. R.K. Agency and M/s. Mukesh Enterprises, Patna and
lastly pleaded that he was innocent.
108. On behalf of prosecution examined P.W.s – 24, 37, 48, 54, 55, 97,
232 and filed following documentary evidences Exhibits. - 1/13, 2/7, 7/41 to
7/44, 7/45 to 7/49, 7/50 to 7/53, 7/54 to 7/57, 8/39 to 8/40, 8/41 to 8/42, 8/43
to 8/45, 8/46 to 8/47, 10/29 to 10/113, 11/3 to 11/34, 19 to 19/4,, 25/89 to
25/93, 26/653 to 26/700,
109. After perusal of oral and documentary evidence, I find that accused
is illiterate and he only made signature. It is pertinent that Mahendra Prasad
was the servant of S.B. Sinha another co-accused. Mahendra Prasad registered
two firms M/s. Mukesh Enterprises, Patna and M/s. R.K. Agency, Patna. The
forged vouchers prepared and submitted by Mahendra Prasad and 118 fake
vouchers submitted in Regional Director, Santhal Pargana AHD, Dumka. The
payment also received by Mahendra Prasad. I.O examined as P.W. 245, who
Page 124
--124– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
clearly accepted in his cross-examination that accused Saraswati Chandra and
Lal Mohan Prasad both are dummy owner of M/s. R.K. Agency, Patna and
M/s. Mukesh Enterprises, Patna. No any registered office of above agency and
neither supply medicine in the AHD, Department, Dumka, behind whole
episode is Mahendra Prasad, who already died and no any piece of evidence
against accused Lal Mohan Prasad. So in the light of above detail discussion
court found that prosecution side do not prove alleged charges beyond the
reasonable doubt in the court. Hence, benefit of doubt provide to accused Lal
Mohan Prasad in the ends of Justice and proper order pass in the later part of
judgment.
110. Accused Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav stated in statement
U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C that he is by profession politician and he was Chief
Minister and Finance Minister of Bihar State from since March – 1992 to July
– 1997. Accused totally denied criminal conspiracy with O.P. Diwakar
Regional Director, AHD, Dumka and other co-conspirator and fraudulent
payment of Rs. 03,76,38,853/- withdrawn from Dumka Treasury. Accused
totally denied criminal conspiracy part of the amount defrauded from Dumka
Treasury by making illegal payment. Accused answered in corresponding
question no. 6 that CAG report for the financial year 1988 - 89 to 1994 – 95
mentioned details of Sanction grant, expenditure and excess payments made by
AHD of Bihar do not submit to the finance department of Bihar but send to the
Governor of State, which produce in Cabinet. Later on put in the floor of
Legislative Assembly and later on submitted PAC for inquiry and report and
accept that excess expenditure / payments of Animal Husbandry Department
added in 10th Finance Commission. In respect of MESO Programme the grant
provide from Central Government, in which, irregularities was found up to Rs.
26,500/- but no any action taken in this respect. Further stated that Ramjivan
Singh do not disclose clearly and Kamla Prasad Chief Secretary was authorized
to inquire because State Vigilance was not ready to investigate and deny the
matter of excess withdrawal from Animal Husbandry Department not discuss
in the floor. Accused deny the fraudulent withdrawal and active part of criminal
conspiracy. Accused totally deny the relation with Om Prakash Diwakar, Dr.
R.K. Rana and Dr. Shyam Bihari Sinha. Accused deny about the knowledge of
the fraudulent payment of Rs. 5.56 lacs from Chaibasa Treasury, noticed on
07.06.1993. Accused accept in question no. 5 and answered that he received
four fraudulent vouchers who related with Deoghar Treasury and fake
allotment letter were brought on notice at 13.06.1994 and that vouchers handed
Page 125
--125– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
over to Vigilance Director for inquiry and Vigilance Case No. 34/1990
registered and pleaded that he was totally innocent and NDA Government
falsely implicated him in this case.
111. On behalf of prosecution examined P.W.s – 45, 55, 128, 135, 162,
167, 179, 182, 199, 200, 212, 213, 214, 217, 218 & 221 and filed following
documentary evidences Exhibits. - 1/38, 1/44, 18/40, 18/40, 18/52, 18/181 to
18/192, 26/102, 26/103, 47/40 & 47/41, 60/5 to 60/11, 60/33 to 60/35, 60/39 to
60/48, 60/74 to 60/144, 60/49, 70/3, 85 to 85/22, 86 to 89, 106 to 106/8, D-1 to
D-18, E.
112. Heard in detailed on behalf of both sides in advance and perused the
records it transpires that accused remain in capacity of Chief Minister as well
as Finance Minister during March – 1990 to July – 1997. And CAG report of
financial year 1988 – 89 to 1994 – 95 disclosed excess expenditure. The
accused in furtherance of criminal conspiracy do not take action against other
co-accused as a Finance Minster and accused approved the report being sent to
10th Finance Commission in May – 1994 and the report disclosed the figure of
fraudulent payments of AHD. Approver witness clearly disclosed that Shyam
Bihari Sinha was in close relation with Lalu Prasad who collected and paid
money to Lalu Prasad. Lalu Prasad provide protection to Shyam Bihari Sinha
and others. The Finance Minister / Chief Minister received information from
the office of Accountant General, Ranchi that payments for transportation of
Animals on cars, scooters, motor cycle have been made to the office of
Regional Director, Ranchi but no action was taken to investigate the
information. On the contrary, the proposal of Cabinet Minister dated
18.08.1990 that do not investigate on the pretext of inquiry done by PAC and
no inquiry was conducted until the Hon'ble High Court / Hon'ble Supreme
Court ordered for F.I.R and investigation by C.B.I. From perusal of records it is
clear that Lalu Prasad had knowledge regarding fraudulent withdrawals of
money from many treasuries including during December – 1995 and January –
1996 from Dumka Treasury. The relevant time Finance Secretary V.S. Dubey
and Regional Director, AHD, Dumka provided protection to co-accused which
shows a greater conspiracy in Finance Department headed by this accused Lalu
Prasad. Lalu Prasad, Chief Minister – cum- Finance Minister remain long time
and he never hand over charge of Finance Department to any other Minister.
The Vigilance I.G, D.P. Ojha who later on got promotion as D.G.P, Bihar never
took interest in Vigilance Case No. 34/1990. P.W.200 Vidhu Bhushan Dwevedi
clearly stated on oath that D.P Ojha was in close contact with accused Lalu
Page 126
--126– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
Prasad and others and they compelled to this witness for deleting the name of
accused Lalu Prasad in the petition. Lalu Prasad although taken oath of Indian
Constitution but never maintained the sanctity of oath. Accused Lalu Prasad
extended the service of co-accused R.K. Das, Shyam Bihari Sinha. S.B. Sinha
according to law superannuated on 31.12.1993 but he granted extension of
service retrospective effect which is against the Rules and Regulations.
Accused Lalu Prasad wrote a letter in favour of Ram Raj Ram co-accused who
appointed as Director of AHD, Bihar. The Hon'ble Patna High Court quashed
the appointment of Ram Raj Ram and ordered to maintain seniority of Radhe
Shyam Sharma but accused Lalu Prasad elected as Chief Minister of Bihar in
March – 1990 never implemented the order of Hon'ble High Court, Patna and
helped Ram Raj Ram to file a Writ Petition in Hon'ble Supreme Court and
manage any how status quo in favour of Ram Raj Ram and that petition remain
pending in the Hon'ble Supreme Court till 1996. During 1990 to 1996 in the
leadership of accused Lalu Prasad Yadav. Other co-accused withdrew money
fraudulently from many District Treasuries in Santhal Pargana including,
Dumka Treasury. The Finance Secretary appointed such type of person who
followed the oral direction of accused Lalu Prasad so no any Finance Secretary
dare to disclose the Fodder Scam which was continuous till 1996. Accused
claim that he ordered to F.I.R against those persons who fraudulently
withdrawn money from District Treasuries is totally excuse to show honestly
on his part in last hour of Fodder Scam. The accused Lalu Prasad who born in a
poor family, when entered in politics he started to flow the river of corruption
in every field including AHD, Department. The State Government employee
do not pay remuneration, regularly they compel to do work on half pay
monthly payments. Accused earn a lot of money from illegal sources and made
a Regional Party of whose all in all is Lalu Prasad Yadav. In pursuance of
Hon'ble Court’s order accused Lalu Prasad left the Chair of Chief Minister in
favour of his wife Rabri Devi. On the basis of politics accused created hurdle
in disposal of criminal cases which remain pending up to 20 years and accused
enjoyed politics power. Although charge-sheet submitted on 11.05.2000 in the
court but accused Lalu Yadav elected as M.P and became Railway Minister of
Central Government. Whereas the condition at the time of bail impose by the
Hon'ble Court is that without prior permission of trial court the accused do not
go beyond Bihar State. The CAG report of year 1988 – 89 grant Rs. 36.77
Crores excess reported Rs. 6.13 Crores in percentage 17 % more expenditure
over budget provisions. Finance Department received the CAG report on
Page 127
--127– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
16.11.1993 which was seen by Finance Minister / Chief Minister on
18.12.1993 and similarly report of financial year 1989 – 90, 20 % more seen
on 19.07.1994, Financial year 1990 – 91, 53 % more over budget provision
seen on 05.06.1995, Financial Year – 1991 – 92, 120 % more over budget
provision received in Finance Department on 17.01.1995 and seen by Finance
Minister -cum- Chief Minister on 04.06.1995, Financial Year – 1992 – 93 –
131 % more over budget provision expenditure received in Finance
Department on 22.05.1995 and seen by the Chief Minister – Finance Minister
on 10.06.1995. Financial Year 1993 – 94 – 169 % excess withdrawal over
budget provision, CAG report received on 27.09.1995 in Finance Department
and seen by Chief Minister – cum- Finance Minister on 26.11.1995. and lastly
for Financial Year 1994 – 95 excess withdrawal 229 % more over budget
provision received in Finance Department on 15.06.1996 and seen by Chief
Minister – cum- Finance Minister on 21.06.1996 which shows that Finance
Minister Lalu Prasad was aware of the actual grants, actual expenditure and
excess expenditure over and above the budget provision of AHD since
December – 1993 and Lalu Prasad did not deliberately take any steps to inquire
or stop the astronomical excess expenditure prevalent in AHD. Lalu Prasad
approved the draft memorandum presented to 10th Finance Commission on
forecast of resources of Revenue Account for the period 1995 – 2000 on
26.05.1994. The memorandum reflected actual expenditure pertaining to the
major head 2403 of AHD for the last three years i.e., 1990 – 91 (Rs. 72.29
Crores), 1991 – 92 (Rs. 117.60 Crores), and 1992 – 93 (Rs. 143.25 crores).
113. In response to the call attention motion question no. 10 dated
18.03.1991 of Sri Kripa Nath Pathak and Shatrudhan Prasad Singh both MLC
on subject of serious irregularities and fraudulent withdrawals by R.D, AHD,
Ranchi a draft reply was approved. Accused Lalu Prasad, the then Chief
Minister gave a false assurance on floor of the Legislative Council that matter
would be got enquired by CBI and if necessary by U.N.O, after submission of
report by PAC. No investigation into the allegations levelled in the last part of
the FIR of Vigilance Case No. 34/1990 was made, when the Scam had broken
out this investigated portion of FIR of Vigilance Case No. 34/1990.
114. In the perusal of all oral and documentary evidences as on record,
court found that accused Lalu Prasad Yadav play center role in criminal
misappropriation of Government money withdrawn from many District
Treasuries. Accused provide protection to co-accused of criminal conspiracy,
who fraudulently withdrawn money from District Treasuries in collusion of
Page 128
--128– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
Treasury Officers, R.D, AHD, the then Dy. Collector, AHD employee and
suppliers in AHD Department. In the above discussion court found that
prosecution side successfully proved alleged charges against accused Lalu
Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav beyond reasonable doubt. In the ends of Justice
no benefit of doubt exercised in the favour of accused and appropriate order
pass in the later part of this judgment.
115. Accused Mahesh Prasad stated in statement U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C on
22.11.2017 that he was functioned as Secretary of Animal Husbandry
Department since 22.09.1992 to 07.05.1994 in the capacity of the Secretary
AHD and Fisheries Department. Accused clearly deny to participate in criminal
conspiracy with co-accused Om Prakash Diwakar and other accused. Accused
denied to facilitate fraudulent payment of Rs. 03,76,38,853/- from Dumka
Treasury and also deny to extending hospitalities to the members of the alleged
criminal conspiracy. Accused deny to receive undue illegal gratification and
pecuniary advantages of yourself and also for co-conspirator Lalu Prasad to
scuttle the investigation / enquiry, whenever the matter relating to alleged
fraudulent payment came to fore. Accused deny to furnish false employee
relating to excess withdrawal in respect the question raised by Sri Nilamber
Chaudhary, MLC in 122 Session and also deny to the criminal conspiracy in
furnishing and misleading reply to the question raised by Sri Lalit Oraon, M.P,
Lok Sabha and deny to furnish falsified account of AHD to the Finance
Department and reflecting surrender of grants despite heavy expenses incurred
by the AHD. Accused deny to taken proper action against those persons, who
disclosed in letter dated 08.06.1995 and 29.12.1995 by the A.G., Bihar and
Finance Department letter no. 24.10.1995 and 20.12.1995 informed. Accused
clearly deny to visit Calcutta between 1992 – 96. Accused also deny to taken
Air-tickets from any other co-accused and pleaded innocent.
116. On behalf of prosecution examined P.W.s – 45, 109, 124, 129, 130,
131, 133, 201, 224 & 225 and filed following documentary evidences Exhibits.
- 1/29, 18/159 & 18/160, 60, 60/50 & 60/51, 60/153 to 60/180, 68, 69 to 69/10,
70/1, 70/4 to 70/13, 71 to 71/2, 72/1 & 72/2, 73, 74, 108 to 108/77, 109, 110 to
110/4 .
117. In the light of advance argument on behalf of both sides perused the
oral and documentary evidences, it is clear that P.W.,55 Md. Sayeed and P.W.
196 Rameshwar Prasad Chaudhary both are approver, so they stated about the
false receiving of supply and false bill prepared and passed by D.D.O,
Regional Director, AHD, Santhal Pargana, Dumka with the collusion of
Page 129
--129– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
Treasury, Dumka Officer. P.W. 217 Dipesh Chandok stated in the chief in
examination that he provide illegal gratifications to accused persons but P.W.
232 D.N. Vishwas and P.W. 245 Ajay Kumar Jha both are part I.O of this case
stated that nothing seized which shows connection of this accused Mahesh
Prasad in criminal conspiracy of this case. From perusal of documentary
evidences, it is clear that Director, AHD, Patna is sole responsible for planning
and budget provide to Regional Director, of AHD. The Director of AHD, the
then Ram Raj Ram received statement from the office of Regional Director of
AHD from State and provided to Financial Secretary. The Financial Secretary
with advance approval of Finance Minister prepared budget and put in the floor
of Legislative Assembly. So it is clear that the Secretary of AHD according to
Bihar Financial Rule is not responsible for financial matter. The Secretary of
AHD is head of administration. In the light of advance argument on behalf of
both sides and proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidences, court
found that Secretary of AHD is not responsible for excess/illegal payment from
Dumka Treasury. The A.G send audit report to financial secretary Director of
AHD in relating to excess withdrawal from Dumka Treasury but never send to
secretary of AHD office Patna. Court found that prosecution agency is not
proved alleged charges against accused Mahesh Prasad beyond reasonable
doubt. The benefit of doubt in the ends of Justice may be provide to accused
Mahesh Prasad in this case and pass a reasonable order later on part of
judgment.
118. Accused Manoranjan Prasad stated in statement U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C
in which disclosed that he was functioned as DAHO, Deoghar during 1995 –
96 and deny to participate in criminal conspiracy with othre co-conspirator of
this case and also deny to fraudulently and dishonestly certified receipt of
Veterinary medicines shown to have been supplied by M/s. Viyapar Kutir and
others. He further deny to facilitated co-conspirator for making fraudulent
payments, resulting in wrongful loss of Rs. 03,76,38,853/- to government
exchequer from Dumka Treasury.
119. On behalf of prosecution examined P.W.s – 37, 55 & 232 and filed
following documentary evidences Exhibits. - 25/89 to 25/93, 26/653 to 27/700.
120. In the light of advance argument on behalf of both sides and after
perusal of oral and documentary evidences as on record, court found that
exhibits – 25/89 to 25/93 and 26/653 to 26/700 shows that accused granted
receipt in favour of suppliers without supplying the medicines, which shows
that accused Manoranjan Prasad participate in criminal conspiracy and counter-
Page 130
--130– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
signed the receipt of veterinary medicine on bills of the private parties M/s.
Viyapar Kutir and others and thereby facilitated that alleged fraudulent
payments from Dumka Treasuries during the period of alleged occurrence.
After perusal of all above oral and documentary evidences court found that
prosecution side successfully proved above alleged charges against accused
person beyond reasonable doubt and no any reason to doubt about alleged
charges in the ends of Justice. The relevant order passed in the relevant portion
of the judgment.
121. Accused Mehar Chandra Subarno stated in statement U/s- 313 of
Cr.P.C on 22.11.2017 that he was the Regional Development Commissioner of
South Chhotanagpur Region , Ranchi during the period 1989 to 1991. Accused
denied to participate in criminal conspiracy with Dr. O.P Diwakar, Regional
Director, AHD, Dumka and other co-conspirators of this case and he further
denial in conspiracy to withdrawn fraudulently and dishonestly from District
Treasury, Dumka up to Rs. 03,76,38,853/- in December – 1995 and January –
1996. Accused also deny to receive letter report dated 05.04.1990 from Sri P.S.
Iyer, Dy. Accountant General ( I & W) in relating to information regarding
fraudulent payment in AHD and pleaded as innocent.
122. On behalf of prosecution examined P.W.s – 45, 84, 160 & 192 and
filed following documentary evidences Exhibits. - 38/270, 38/271, 38/276,
38/277, 38/278, 38/281, 38/282, 47 to 47/5, 48 to 48/4, 49 to 49/2, 50 to 50/18,
50/18, 51 to 51/3, 60/38, 83, 83/1, 83/2, 83/3.
123. In the light of advance argument on behalf of both sides learned
lawyer submitted in the court and perusal of oral and documentary evidences
as brought on record on behalf of both sides. Court found that offence
committed in December – 1995 and January – 1996 in which fraudulently
withdrawn money from Dumka Treasury whereas the accused the Regional
Development Commissioner in the Ranchi range and not in Santhal Pargana
Range where Dumka Treasury situated. The allegation that accused obtained
illegal gratification for the undue favours to co-conspirators is not clear, the
approver who examined in the court is not reliable because they deposed in
pretext to save himself from prosecution. After considering all facts and
circumstances as on record, court found that prosecution side do not prove
above alleged charges against accused Mehar Chandra Subarno beyond
reasonable doubt successfully. Further the court found that in the ends of
Justice the benefit of doubt may be provided to the accused person Mehar
Chandra Subarno in this case. The order pass in proper place of judgment in
Page 131
--131– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
later part.
124. Accused Mohindra Singh Bedi stated in statement U/s- 313 of
Cr.P.C that he was owner of M/s. Semex Cryogenics, Delhi. Accused deny to
participate in criminal conspiracy with co-conspirator Dr. O.P Diwakar and
others. Accused further deny to receive fraudulent payments of Rs. 13,45,464/-
from Dumka Treasury during the year 1995 – 96. Accused disclosed that he
received payments after supply articles in AHD and he do not submit forge
vouchers. Further stated that he received order to supply. M/s. Semex
Cryogenics, Delhi is approved by the then Central Purchase Committee and not
approved from Government of Bihar to supply of AI instruments and lastly
stated that he is innocent and falsely implicated in this case.
125. On behalf of prosecution examined P.Ws – 37, 48, 55, 96, 97 & 232
and filed following documentary evidences Exhibits. - 1/13, 10/29 to 10/113,
25/98 to 25/102, 26/701 to 26/737.
126. From perusal of oral and documentary evidences as brought on the
record and advance argument as put up by learned lawyer on behalf of both
sides. Court found that the Exhibits vouchers submitted on behalf of M/s.
Semex Cryogenics, Delhi do not prove the means of supply. I.O D.N. Vishwas
and Ajay Kumar Jha examined in the court, both stated that accused Mohinder
Singh Bedi in close contact of co-conspirator Shyam Bihari Sinha. Accused
submitted false and forge manufactured vouchers in AHD and consequently in
pursuance of criminal conspiracy fraudulently withdrawn money from Dumka
Treasury in account of M/s. Semex Cryogenics, Delhi. After perusal of all oral
and documentary evidences as on record, court found that prosecution side
successfully proved that accused submitted 37 fake invoices relating to supply
of AI instruments and lubricants. Prosecution side successfully proved alleged
charges against accused Mohinder Singh Bedi beyond reasonable doubt and
there is no doubt in favour of accused Mohinder Singh Bedi. The appropriate
order pass in the appropriate place of judgment of this case.
127. Accused Nand Kishore Prasad stated in statement U/s- 313 of
Cr.P.C that he was functioned as artificial insemination officer of AHD, Dumka
during 1995 – 96. Further stated that he issued certify of receiving veterinary
medicine on oral order of Regional Director, Dumka whereas he was not
authorize to receive. Accused deny to participate in criminal conspiracy and
defrauded amount from Dumka Treasury were used for making illegal
payments and extending hospitalities to the members of alleged criminal
conspiracy. Accused further stated in answer of question no. 10 that he
Page 132
--132– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
received feed and fodder of Animals which send from Ranchi AHD Store to
Dumka to AHD Store and pleaded innocent in this case.
128. On behalf of prosecution examined P.W.s – 37, 55 & 232 and filed
following documentary evidences Exhibits. - 25/35 to 25/45, 26/222 to 26/296.
129. From perusal of oral and documentary evidences as on record, court
found that the receiving exhibits no. 25/35 to 25/45 and 26/222 to 26/296
falsely certified the receipt of lubricants and AI equipments. On the basis of
false certificate, the supplier submit forge vouchers and Regional Director,
AHD, Dumka Shesh Muni Ram on the basis of false certificate prepared bill
and passed. In this way, accused facilitate suppliers to withdrawn fraudulently
and dishonestly a total Sum of Rs. 03,13,41,451/- from Dumka Treasury. P.W.
232 and 245 clearly stated that without supplying medicines / Fodder accused
issued falsed certificate in respect of supply. In the light of above observation
as discussed, court found that prosecution side successfully proved above
alleged charges against accused Nand Kishore Prasad beyond reasonable
doubt. On behalf of defence no any documentary or oral evidence proved in the
court which can create doubt in respect of alleged charges. Hence, court found
that accused do not deserve the privilege of doubt in the ends of Justice. Order
pass in the later part of judgment.
130. Accused Naresh Prasad stated in statement U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C that
he was owner of M/s. Viyapar Kutir, Patna on paper but real owner was Dr.
Manoj Kumar Srivastava. Accused deny to participate in criminal conspiracy
with co-conspirator Dr. O.P. Diwakar and others. Accused also deny to receive
fraudulent payments of Rs. 04,99,900/- from Dumka Treasury but further
stated that money deposit in the bank account of his firm and this accused sign
the cheque and hand over to Dr. Manoj Kumar Srivastava. Accused found Rs.
5,000/- or some time Rs. 10,000/- from Manoj Srivastava when sign the cheque
or draft by this accused. Accused disclosed that he is approver witness in R.C
No. 45 (A)/1996 and pleaded that he was innocent he never deposit any supply
vouchers in AHD Office.
131. On behalf of prosecution examined P.W.s – 37, 46, 48, 55, 97 & 232
and filed following documentary evidences Exhibits. -1/13, 10/29 to 10/113,
25/93, 25/94 to 25/97, 26/653 to 26/700.
132. In the light of above oral and documentary evidence as brought on
the record on behalf of the both sides, court found that accused is the owner of
M/s. Viyapar Kutir, Patna and he received Rs. 04,99,900/- on the basis of 40
Page 133
--133– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
fake invoices relating to supply of veterinary medicines submitted to Regional
Director, AHD, Dumka. Oral evidence deposed P.W. 37, 48, 55, 97, 46 and 232
who clearly stated in the chief in examination that Naresh Prasad owner of
M/s. Viyapar Kutir, Patna and accused is the owner of M/s. Viyapar Kutir,
Patna the draft deposit in the account of M/s. Viyapar Kutir so this plea is not
reliable that Dr. Manoj Kumar Srivastava paid him Rs. 5,000/- or Rs. 10,000/-
when any draft deposit in the firm account. Accused enjoy the money which
withdrawn dishonestly from the Dumka Treasury in December – 1995 and
January – 1996. In the light of above discussion court found that prosecution
side successfully proved the above alleged charges against this accused beyond
reasonable doubt and court further found that accused do not deserve the
benefit of doubt in this case. Hence, order pass in other part of the judgment.
133. Accused Om Prakash Diwakar - in statement U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C
accused Om Prakash Diwakar stated that he was the Regional Director of
AHD, Santhal Pargna Range, Dumka during 1995 – 96 and he deny to pass a
forge bill in pursuance of criminal conspiracy with other co-conspirator. He
also deny to fraudulently and dishonestly passed 96 fake bills as D.D.O up to
amount Rs. 03,76,38,853/- from Dumka Treasury in December – 1995 and
January – 1996. Accused totally deny conspiracy to prepare forged allotment
letters. Accused disclosed in his statement that the supply of medicine certified
by doctors, on the basis of certified he passed the bill. He also deny to pass bill
dishonestly split up in accordance with the financial power vested to him. He
deny in corresponding question no. 10 that he do not purchase any medicine /
articles from his office. He further disclosed that articles or medicine purchase
from the office of Patna Director and payment is also done by the Director.
Accused also deny the animal feed transported from Ranchi AHD Store to
Dumka AHD Store and no any bill pass of transportation. Accused also deny to
issue receipt relating to documents when PAC came to enquire in AHD Office
Dumka and pleaded totally innocent from above alleged charges.
134. On behalf of prosecution examined P.W.s – 37, 48, 55, 93, 97, 99,
110, 116, & 232 and filed following documentary evidences Exhibits. - 1/13,
10/29 to 10/113, 23, 23/1, 24, 25 to 25/4, 25/5 to 25/19, 25/20 to 25/34, 25/35
to 25/45, 25/46 to 25/59, 25/60 to 25/63, , 25/70 to 25/72, 25/73 to 25/78,
25/79 to 25/84, 25/85 to 25/88, 25/89 to 25/93, 25/94 to 25/97, 25/98 to
25/102, 26 to 26/49, 26/50 to 26/90, 26/91 to 26/221, 26/222 to 26/296, 26/297
to 26/354, 26/355 to 26/394, 26/395 to 26/464, 26/465 to 26/494, 26/495 to
26/554, 26/555 to 26/612, 26/613 to 26/652, 26/653 to 26/700, 26/701 to
Page 134
--134– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
26/737, 44/1, 56, 57, 60, 60/1, 61, 64.
135. In the light of documentary and oral evidences as on record, court
found that accused was posted as Director AHD, Dumka, who passed the bill
and send to Treasury. Accused as the Regional Director, Dumka passed the
fake bills of veterinary medicines, lubricants and also passed fake
transportation bills of cattle feed and fodder in addition to the purchase of such
materials by all the five district Animal Husbandry Officer for use of such
materials. Accused in furtherance of criminal conspiracy causing wrongful loss
of Rs. 03,13,41,451/- the State Exchequer . The P.Ws 232 and 245 fully
supported the prosecution story. It is pertinent that the criminal conspiracy of
O.P Diwakar, AHD, Dumka had given illegal gratification of lakhs of rupees
and Sri Chandradeo Prasad Verma rewarded for posting him as R.D, AHD,
Dumka. Accused succeeded in office, Shesh Muni Ram who already in contact
with co-accused Shyam Bihari Sinha. When this accused was posted in the
office of R.D, AHD, Dumka he started the same manner as dishonestly and
fraudulently Ex-Regional Director follow the way in relating to supply.
Accused withdrawn fraudulently Rs. 03,13,41,451/- illegally withdrawn from
State Exchequer and wrongfully gain to himself and for others co-conspirators.
From perusal of records, it is transpired that a bill relating to such medicines
which never manufactured in the laboratory but AHD Employee granted false
receipts in favour of suppliers. The then Dy. Collector Brij Kishore Pathak
conduct inquiry on the direction of D.C - A.K. Singh found that O.P. Diwakar
withdrawn Rs. 03,13,41,451/- in month December – 1995 and January – 1996.
P.W. No. 110 Brij Kishore Pathak deposed in the court that Regional Director
withdrawn fraudulently without receiving the medicines and feeds, although
the supplier stated that they supplied the medicines and received payments
from Dumka Treasury cannot be rely because the vehicles is two -wheeler and
three-wheeler and government vehicles. The firm who submitted the vouchers
of supply are never exist on land they only establish on paper.
136. In the light of above appreciation of all oral and documentary
evidences, court found that this fellow accused Dr. Om Prakash Diwakar a
higher officer in Santhal Pargana Region as Regional Director, Dumka took
part in criminal conspiracy and helped in passing bill from Dumka Treasury.
Accused had knowledge about forged allotment letters but he used as genuine
and looted money from government exchequer. In the light of above
discussion, court found that prosecution side successfully proved alleged
charges against this accused and there is no any doubt the criminal
Page 135
--135– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
misappropriation of money and hospitality in favour of other co-accused. Court
passed order in the later part of judgment accordingly.
137. Accused Pankaj Mohan Bhui stated in statement U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C
that he was Accountant in office of Regional Director of AHD, Santhal
Pargana, Dumka during 1995 – 96. Accused deny to participate in criminal
conspiracy with other co-conspirators of this case. Further deny fraudulently
payment of Rs. 03,76,38,853/- from Dumka Treasury whose 96 bills verified
by this accused. He further disclosed that Head-clerk Rameshwar Prasad
Chaudhary worked as Accountant and this accused manage in office
corresponding works. Accused also deny to extending hospitalities to the
members of alleged criminal conspiracy. Accused deny inquiry from PAC
member and pleaded as innocent in this case.
138. On behalf of prosecution examined P.Ws – 37, 55, 93, 99 & 232 and
filed following documentary evidences Exhibits. - 23, 23/1, 24, 25 to 25/4,
25/5 to 25/19, 25/20 to 25/34, 25/35 to 25/45, 25/46 to 25/59, 25/60 to 25/63,
25/70 to 25/72, 25/73 to 25/78, 25/79 to 25/84, 25/85 to 25/88, 25/89 to 25/93,
25/94 to 25/97, 25/98 to 25/102, 26 to 26/49, 26/50 to 26/90, 26/91 to 26/221,
26/222 to 26/296, 26/297 to 26/354, 26/355 to 26/394, 26/395 to 26/464,
26/465 to 26/494, 26/495 to 26/554, 26/555 to 26/612, 26/613 to 26/652,
26/653 to 26/700, 26/701 to 26/737, 56, 57, 60, 60/1, 61.
139. From perusal of oral and documentary evidences, court found that
accused was posted as Accountant in the Office of R.D, AHD, Dumka. Further
reveal that accused supplier and transporters to facilitate alleged fraudulent
payments from Dumka Treasury. Accused posted in the Dumka, R.D, AHD,
Santhal Pargana Office as Accountant but according to accused he maintain
corresponding and accountant work conducted by Head-clerk Rameshwar
Choudhary. Accused is government employee and he accepted that he
scrutinize the bill, so this accused in furtherance of criminal conspiracy took
active part so there is no any reason to shift the real liability from one person to
another person. So in the light of oral and documentary evidences, court found
that Dy. Collector Brij Kishore Pathak rightly conducted the inquiry in the
office of R.D., AHD, Dumka and found that the vouchers submitted by those
firms which never existed in virtual world and this accused in furtherance of
criminal conspiracy facilitate to other co-conspirators and fraudulently
withdrawn money from Dumka Treasury, so court found that prosecution side
successfully proved alleged charges against accused Pankaj Mohan Bhui
beyond reasonable doubt and there is no scope to provide the benefit of doubt.
Page 136
--136– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
The order pass in later part of judgment in proper place.
140. Accused Phool Chand Singh stated in statement U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C
that he was functioned as Finance Commissioner of the Government of Bihar
from 1992 to 1994 and subsequently functioned as Development
Commissioner during 1995 – 96. Accused deny to constitute a criminal
conspiracy with Dr. O.P. Diwakar Regional Director, AHD, Dumka and other
co-conspirators. Accused deny to fraudulently and dishonestly facilitated
fraudulent payment of Rs. 03,76,38,853/- from Dumka Treasury. Accused
disclosed that CAG report for financial year 1988 – 89 to 1994 – 95 mentioned
details of Sanction grant, expenditure and excess payments made by Animal
Husbandry Department of Bihar. In pursuant of criminal conspiracy, the
Finance Secretary do not take step to stop excess / fraudulent withdrawal from
Dumka Treasury. Accused deny to ignore the R.B.I statements sent to t he
Finance Department which mentioned heavy withdrawals by AHD and this
accused facilitated alleged withdrawals from Dumka Treasury. Accused
disclosed that a specific meeting was held on 07.06.1993, in which, accused
did not initiate about any action. The Finance Department of the government of
Bihar prepared forecast of resources for 10th Finance Commission in May –
1994 about none plan expenditure including expenditure of Animal Husbandry
Department. Accused pleaded innocent but court found that prosecution side
successfully proved the role of this accused to participate in criminal
conspiracy and provide hospitality to other co-accused. Accused posted in
Finance Department, who prepared the Annual Budget and put up before
Finance Minister, later on passed from Cabinet for Financial Year expenditure.
Accused deliberately do not take action against co-conspirators and facilitate to
withdrawn fraudulently from Dumka Treasury and supplier received and
deposited money in their firm account without supplying the materials.
Accused was an active member of criminal conspiracy and was in direct touch
with other co-accused Lalu Prasad Yadav the then Finance Minister -cum-
Chief Minister. Accused do not dare to deny the illegal fraudulently withdrawal
from many treasuries. Accused received CAG report which shows that excess
withdrawal was in ascending order. This accused hand over the charge in
August – 1995 to successor Vijay Shankar Dubey. In pursuant of larger
conspiracy this accused is liable for fraudulently withdrawn money in
December – 1995 and January – 1996. Accused remain posted as Finance
Secretary under the Finance Minister, who managed the financial position of
state and liable to maintain discipline in respect of financial position of state.
Page 137
--137– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
141. On behalf of prosecution examined P.W.s – 179, 180, 182, 199 & 221
and filed following documentary evidences Exhibits. - 1/44, 18/181 to 18/192,
26/102, 26/103, 38/349, 60/18 to 60/32, 60/33 to 60/35, 60/39 to 60/48, 107 to
107/2, D-1 to D – 18, E.
142. The Finance Commissioner had information from the report being
sent to 10th Finance Commission in the month os May – 1994. The reports
disclosed the figures of fraudulent payments of AHD that were prima facie far
in excess of the voted grant and thereby was a party to the alleged criminal
conspiracy which aided and abetted the alleged fraudulent payments from
Dumka Treasury. Accused facilitated the alleged fraudulent payment from
Dumka Treasury. Accused as public servant obtained pecuniary advantage
from the members of conspiracy at the cost of State Exchequer.
143. From perusal of oral and documentary evidences, court found that
prosecution side successfully proved with the help of oral and documentary
evidence, the alleged charges against accused Phool Chand Singh beyond
reasonable doubt and accused do not deserve the benefit of doubt in the ends of
Justice. Court pass order in later part of judgment accordingly.
144. Accused Pitamber Jha stated in statement U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C that he
was functioned as T.V.O (Mobile) Deoghar during financial year 1995 – 96. It
is his first posting in July – 1995. Further accused deny in pursuant to criminal
conspiracy with other co-conspirators of this case. Accused further deny to
grant receipt certificate of veterinary medicines which supplied by M/s.
Viyapar Kutir and others and facilitated co-conspirator to withdrawn
fraudulently Rs. 03,76,38,853/- from government exchequer. Accused deny to
extending hospitalities to the members of the alleged criminal conspiracy.
Accused deny to have knowledge about fraudulent withdrawals and pleaded as
innocent.
145. On behalf of prosecution examined P.Ws – 37, 55 & 232 and filed
following documentary evidences Exhibits. - 25/89 to 25/93, 26/653 to 26/700.
146. In the light of advance argument on behalf of both sides. The Ld.
Lawyer throw light on oral and documentary evidences. After perusal of
records court found that accused accepted that he issued receipt without
supplying material from the firm M/s. Viyapar Kutir and others. Exhibits
clearly shows that accused made signature on the certificate and do not brought
this matter before any legal authority. This accused became a part of criminal
conspiracy which running since 1990 on a big stage, co-conspirators who
posted in different capacities organized a gang of Scamsters and fraudulently
Page 138
--138– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
withdrawn money from many treasuries of the state. Particularly, this accused
Pitamber Jha granted very few certificate but no any excuse on the part of
accused that why he issued the receipt without receiving the supply. After
perusal of records court found that prosecution sides successfully able to prove
alleged charges against this accused beyond reasonable doubt and accused has
no cogent reason that why he granted receipts without receiving the supply in
the office of R.D. AHD, Santhal Pargana Range, Dumka. The proper order
passed in later part of this judgment.
147. Accused Radha Mohan Mandal stated in statement U/s- 313 of
Cr.P.C that he was functioned as Sub-Divisional AHD Officer, Godda during
1995 – 96. He disclosed that after receiving medicine supply he granted
receiving certificate in favour of supplier and deny to facilitate co-conspirators
for making fraudulent payments resulting in wrongful loss of Rs.
03,76,38,853/- to government exchequer. Accused granted certificate of
receiving in favour of supplier M/s. Little Oak Pharmaceuticals & Others and
clearly deny to participate in criminal conspiracy. Accused clearly deny the
knowledge of fake allotment letters and repeatedly disclosed that he gave
receiving certificate in favour of supplier after receiving supply of medicines
and no any criminal conspiracy to pass bill. Accused admitted that he do not
place order for supply of medicines. Accused deny to issue false receipt
regarding transfer of documents relating to alleged fraudulent document from
the office of AHD, Dumka to PAC and claimed to be innocent.
148. On behalf of prosecution examined P.Ws – 37, 55, 71 & 232 and filed
following documentary evidences Exhibits. - 26/465 to 26/494, 26/564 to
26/584, 26/605 to 26/612, 26/355 to 26/374.
149. In the light of advance argument by learned lawyer on behalf of both
parties and perusal of oral and documentary evidences as on record. Court
found that Radha Mohan Mandal as Sub-Divisional Animal Husbandry Officer
falsely certified the receipt of veterinary medicines on the bills of the private
parties and thereby facilitated the alleged fraudulent payments from Dumka
Treasury during December 1995 and January – 1996. Exhibit. 26 series clearly
shows that accused granted receiving certificate in respect of supply whereas
no any supply was in real sense. P.W.232 D.N. Vishwas, P.W. 245 Ajay Kumar
Jha fully support the prosecution story. P.W. 30 Anand Kumar Gutgutia and
P.W. 174 Shiv Kumar Patwari deposed that no transport in real sense but they
prepared vouchers in respect of supply, which is false. So after perusal of all
oral and documentary evidences, court found that prosecution side successfully
Page 139
--139– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
proved alleged charges against accused and accused do not deserve the
privilege of doubt in his favour. The proper order pass in later part of
judgment.
150. Accused Raghu Nandan Prasad stated in statement U/s- 313 of
Cr.P.C that he was functioned as Assistant Director Paultry, AHD, Dumkar
during 1988 to 1998. He further disclosed that he granted receiving certificate
in favour of suppliers M/s. Semex Cryogenics, M/s. Laxmi Enterprises and
Others. Accused deny to involve in criminal conspiracy and facilitated co-
conspirator for making fraudulent payments up to Rs.03,76,38,853/- from
government exchequer. He deny as taken part in active criminal conspiracy and
defrauded Dumka Treasury and deny to extending hospitalities to the members
of alleged criminal conspiracy. Accused totally deny the knowledge of false
allotment. Accused show unknownness regarding the authorized supplier and
further press that he granted receiving certificate, in which, supply received by
him. Accused disclosed in response of question no. 8 that on the direction of
Shesh Muni Ram he granted receipt in favour of supplier. He clearly deposed
that he never hand over any record to PAC and pleaded innocent.
151. On behalf of prosecution examined P.Ws – 37, 55, 95 & 232 and filed
following documentary evidences Exhibits. - 25/25 to 25/29, 25/31 to 25/34,
25/67, 25/95 to 25/97, 26/131 to 26/160, 26/171 to 26/221, 26/425 to 26/444,
26/701 to 26/737, 58, 58/1.
152. Kept advance argument of learned lawyer in mind and perused the
records it is transpired that Dr. Raghu Nandan Prasad, Assistant Director
Poultry , Dumka falsely certified the receipt of veterinary medicines on the
bills of private party and thereby facilitated the alleged fraudulent payments
from Dumk. Documentary exhibits shows that the vehicles whose registration
number written in supply vouchers were fake. P.W. 174 Shiv Kumar Patwari
and P.W. 30 Anand Kumar Gutgutia clearly stated that they submitted the
vouchers of transportation without any reason and the bill passed in favour of
accused firm account. P.W. 37, 55, 95 and 232 fully supported the prosecution
story.
153. After perusal of records and proper appreciation of oral evidences,
court found that prosecution side successfully proved alleged charges against
accused person. This accused Dr. Raghu Nandan Prasad was never authorized
to receive supply medicines and other item and grant the certificate in favour of
owner of supply firms. It shows that accused took active part in criminal
conspiracy and facilitated the fraudulent payments from Dumka Treasury in
Page 140
--140– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
December – 1995 to January – 1996. Accused is totally liable and conclusive
way, court found that prosecution side successfully proved alleged charges
against Raghu Nandan Prasad and there is no scope to prove benefit of doubt in
the favour of accused. The proper order pass in the later of judgment.
154. Accused Raj Kumar Sharma @ Raja Ram Joshi stated in
statement U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C that he was not owner of M/s. Raj Kumar Sharma
and his name is Raja Ram Joshi. Accused deny in participation of criminal
conspiracy with co-conspirator Dr. O.P. Diwakar and other and deny to receive
fraudulent payments of Rs. 29,10,952/- from District Treasury. Accused deny
to submit 75 fake bills showing transportation of 44,100 Quintals of Fodder
from Stores of AHD, Ranchi to the store of Sahebganj, Pakur and other
districts under the Regional Director Animal Husbandry, Santhal Pargana
Range, Dumka. He deny the knowledge that Regional Director of AHD,
Dumka had power to pass vouchers upto Rs. 15,000/- and pleaded to be
innocent.
155. On behalf of prosecution examined P.Ws – 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16 to 23,
26 to 29, 30, 31, 32 to 36, 37, 39, 40, 42, 48, 55, 56, 62, 66, 68, 70, 72, 74, 85,
87 to 89, 97, 103, 108, 113, 153, 154, 191, 192, 194, 195 & 232 and filed
following documentary evidences Exhibits. - 1 /4, 1/12, 1/13, 2/3, 2/4, 3/3,
7/34 to 7/35, 8/24 to 8/29, 8/30, 8/31, 9/38 to 9/41, 10 to 10/26, 10/29 to
10/113, 25/60 to 25/63, 26/297 to 26/354, 26/355 to 26/394 .
156. From perusal of oral and documentary evidences as on record, court
found the accused as owner of M/s. R.K. Sharma, Dumka received fraudulent
payments of Rs. 29,10,952/- during the period of alleged occurrence on the
basis of 75 fake and forged invoices relating to transportation of cattle, feed
and fodder. I.O D.N. Vishwas examined as P.W. 232 and part I.O Ajay Kumar
Jha examined P.W. 245 clearly disclosed that no any animal firm was in the
Santhal Pargana Region but Raja Ram Joshi in fake names registered a
company and submitted forged vouchers in the office R.D, AHD, Dumka. The
payments through drafts paid in the account of M/s. R.K. Sharma. So it is clear
that accused actively participated in criminal conspiracy of fodder scam and
also submitted a forge vouchers in relating to caws and bull supply in Santhal
Pargana Region. In conclusive way, court found that prosecution side
successfully proved alleged charges against the accused Raj Kumar Sharma @
Raja Ram Joshi beyond reasonable doubt and no scope to get benefit of doubt
in favour of accused. In the ends of Justice the detail order pass in later part of
judgment.
Page 141
--141– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
157. Accused Rajendra Kumar Bagaria stated in statement U/s- 313 of
Cr.P.C that he was not owner of M/s. Krishna Road Careers, Pakur. Further
stated that real owner of above firm was Anand Kumar Gutgutia and he was
only employed in firm of Anand Traders on the basis of payments. Accused
deny to receive payments of Rs. 26,58,285/- which fraudulently withdrawn
from District Treasury Dumka during the year 1995 – 96 and actually
payments received by Anand Kumar Gutgutia. Accused deny to submit 58
forged vouchers showing transportation of 49,200 Quintal of fodder from the
stores of AHD, Ranchi to the stores of AHD Sahebganj, Pakur and other
districts under administrative control of R.D, AHD, Santhal Pargana Range,
Dumka. Accused totally deny relating to poultry firms and cattle, transportation
in Santhal Pargana Range. Accused deny to participate in criminal conspiracy
with other co-conspirators and pleaded innocent in this case.
158. On behalf of prosecution examined P.Ws – 1, 2, 16 to 23, 26 to 29,
32 to 36, 37, 39, 42, 48, 55, 56, 62, 66, 68, 70, 72, 74, 85, 87 to 89, 97, 108,
113, 153, 154, 191, 192, 194, 195 & 232 and filed following documentary
evidences Exhibits. - 1, 1/13, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 to 7/13, 8, 8/1 to 8/10, 9 to 9/18, 10
to 10/26, 10/29 to 10/113, 25/70 to 25/72, 26/395 to 26/464.
159. After perusal of oral and documentary evidences as on record, court
found that P.W. 30 Anand Kumar Gutgutia examined in the court who clearly
accepted that the account of firm M/s. Krishna Road Career, Pakur open in the
name of Rajendra Kumar Bagaria but the form fulfilled and introduced by
Anand Kumar Gutgutia. The fake vouchers also in the writing of Anand Kumar
Gutgutia and money transferred in the account of S.B.I, Branch, Pakur. Later
on money transferred in the account of Anand Kumar Gutgutia and prepared
draft at the address of Ahmadabad ( Gujarat) firms which supplied the Nirma
and soap powder to Anand Firms. P.W. 232 D.N. Vishwas and P.W. 245 Ajay
Kumar Jha is also accepted in cross-examination that Rajendra Kumar Bagaria
is employee of Anand Gutgutia firms and account statement also shows that
within two months Anand Gutgutia issued Rs. 26 Lacs draft in favour of Anand
Firms, which shows that Rajendra Kumar Bagaria authorize to Anand Kumar
Gutgutia and signed on the draft and cheque relating to account in his name. In
this way after proper appropriation of evidences as on record, court found that
accused taken part in criminal conspiracy with co-conspirator Anand Kumar
Gutgutia and fraudulently withdrawn money from Dumka Treasury during
December – 1995 and January – 1996. In the light of above discussion court
found that prosecution side successfully proved alleged charges against
Page 142
--142– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
accused Rajendra Kumar Bagaria beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the proper
order pass in the later part of judgment.
160. Accused Ravindra Kumar Rana stated in statement U/s- 313 of
Cr.P.C that he was Veterinary Officer till December – 1994, later on he become
Member of Legislative Assembly Bihar since March – 1995. Accused deny to
take active participation in criminal conspiracy with Dr. O.P Diwakar, R.D,
Dumka and other Co-conspirators of this case and also deny to fraudulently
and dishonestly facilitated fraudulent payments of Rs. 03,76,38,853/- from
District Treasury, Dumka. Accused deny to receive undue illegal gratification
and pecuniary advantage of yourself and also for co-conspirator Lalu Prasad.
Accused deny to receive huge pecuniary gain from co-conspirator Dr. Shyam
Bihari Sinha at Hotel, Taj, Kolkatta and also deny to availed hospitalities as
illegal gain for providing protection and patronage to co-conspirators and
pleaded innocent.
161. On behalf of prosecution examined P.W.s – 55, 109, 215, 216, 217,
218 and filed following documentary evidences Exhibits. - 68, 69 to 69/10,
71/119 to 71/275, 78/27 to 78/39, 79/13 to 79/15, 106 to 106/8.
162. From perusal of oral and documentary evidences, it is clear that the
accused was employed in AHD but never posted in South Bihar and Santhal
Pargana Range. Accused have interest in association of veterinary doctors, so
he had interest in transfer posting of colleagues. P.W. 55 Md. Sayeed and P.W.
174 Shiv Kumar Patwari stated that Shyam Bihari Sinha provide illegal
gratification to accused Ravindra Kumar Rana and through Ravindra Kumar
Rana to Lalu Prasad. Both above witnesses are approver so their statement are
not reliable in absence of circumstantial evidences in support. Exhibits shows
that accused R.K. Rana received illegal gratification in Taj Hotel, Kolkatta but
no any conclusive prove that R.K. Rana present in Taj Hotel, Kolkatta was
Ravindra Kumar Rana. No any document shows that accused favour / provide
protection of co-conspirator in this case. On the basis of relationship between
R.K. Rana and Lalu Prasad it cannot draw attention that accused R.K. Rana
involved in larger criminal conspiracy and fraudulently withdrawn money from
many treasuries. No any oral or documentary evidences shows that accused
involved in the fraudulent payments in December – 1995 and January – 1996
from Dumka Treasury. Accused resigned from service in December – 1994 and
take participation in State election and became MLA in March – 1995. On the
basis of oral and documentary evidences, as on record, court found that
prosecution side do not prove alleged charges against accused person beyond
Page 143
--143– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
reasonable doubt successfully and benefit of doubt in the ends of Justice may
be provide in the favour of accused Ravindra Kumar Rana. The proper order
pass in the later on part of judgment.
163. Accused Shardendu Kumar Das stated in statement U/s- 313 of
Cr.P.C that he was functioned as Assistant at Treasury, Dumka during 1995 –
96. Further disclosed that he scrutinize 96 bills of office of R.D, AHD, Dumka
and made signature on those bills. On the basis of 96 bills fraudulent payments
resulting in wrongful loss of Rs. 03,76,38,853/- to government exchequer but
accused deny to take part in criminal conspiracy and illegal payments from
Dumka treasury. Accused also deny to extending hospitalities to the members
of alleged criminal conspiracy. Accused pleased innocence.
164. On behalf of prosecution examined P.Ws – 94 & 101 and filed
following documentary evidences Exhibits. - 1/26, 25 to 25/97, 25/99.
165. After perusal of oral and documentary evidence as brought on record
it is clear that accused was scrutiny clerk in Dumka Treasury. Accused made
signature on 96 bills that they are in order. The bills split up and passed by the
Regional Director, Dumka for payments to the accused supplier and
transporters. So in this way accused facilitated fraudulent payments from
Dumka Treasury for pecuniary gain during the period of December – 1995 and
January – 1996. From perusal of record it is also transpired that accused do not
act as vigilant employee who can stop the fraudulent payments from Dumka
Treasury. It is draw that accused Sardendu Kumar Das is participating in larger
criminal conspiracy who fraudulently withdrawn money from many treasuries
after submitting bill by AHD. In the light of above discussion court found that
prosecution side successfully proved the alleged charges against accused
Shardendu Kumar Das beyond reasonable doubt successfully. Hence, accused
found guilty whose order pass in later part of this judgment.
166. Accused Smt. Sarswati Chandra stated in statement U/s- 313 of
Cr.P.C that she was house wife of late Mahendra Prasad. She disclose that she
do not know that she is the owner of M/s. S.R. Enterprises, Patna but
everything was known to her husband Mahendra Prasad. She deny to
participate in criminal conspiracy with co-conspirator Dr. O.P. Diwakar and
other and received fraudulent payments Rs. 24,99,722/- from Dumka treasury
during 1995 -96. Accused deny to submit 50 numbers of fake vouchers and bill
showing supply of medicines to the R.D, AHD, Dumka. She deny about the
knowledge of fraudulent withdrawal and pleaded to be innocent.
167. On behalf of prosecution examined P.Ws – 37, 55, 60, 232 & 234 and
Page 144
--144– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
filed following documentary evidences Exhibits. - 7/58, 8/39 to 8/47, 25 to
25/4, 26 to 26/49.
168. From perusal of oral and documentary evidences as on record, court
found that P.W. 245 I.O Ajay Kumar Jha clearly accepted in cross-examination
that Saraswati Chandra have no any knowledge relating to firm S.R.
Enterprises, Patna she is owner of firm S.R. Enterprises on paper. The real
culprit was her husband Mahendra Prasad who managed and received
fraudulently payments of Rs. 24,99,720/. P.W. 245 Ajay Kumar Jha clearly
accepted that non participation of accused Saraswati Chandra in business
activities she do not made accused in R.C. 20 (A)/96 but her husband
Mahendra Prasad was accused in that case. But why he made accused
Sarasawati Chandra in R.C. 38 (A)/96 cannot given reasonable answer from
Ajay Kumar Jha. Hence, after considering all facts and circumstances, court
found that prosecution side do not prove alleged charges against accused
Saraswati Chandra beyond reasonable doubt successfully. Court found in the
ends of Justice to provide the benefit of doubt to the accused Saraswati
Chandra in this case. Hence, proper order passed in the later part of the
judgments.
169. Accused Vidya Sagar Nishad stated in statement U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C
that age about 86 years and he was Minister of the government of Bihar for
AHD during the period 1992 – 93 and he deny to participate in criminal
conspiracy with Dr. O.P. Diwakar, R.D, AHD, Dumka and other co-conspirator
of this case, he also deny to conspirate and fraudulently withdrawn Rs.
03,76,38,853/- from Dumka Treasury in December – 1995 and January – 1996.
Accused deny to extending hospitalities to the members of criminal conspiracy
and deny to receive illegal gratification from S.B. Sinha. In the ends pleaded
innocent in this case.
170. On behalf of prosecution examined P.Ws – 45, 109, 192 & 203 and
filed following documentary evidences Exhibits. - 38/270, 38/271, 38/276,
38/277, 38/278, 38/281, 38/282, 60/38, 60/54 to 60/67, 68, 69 to 69/10.
171. From perusal of oral and documentary evidences as on record
brought on behalf of both sides, it is clear that the period of Minister in AHD is
1992 – 93 whereas the period of fraudulently withdrawal is financial year 1995
– 96. Whereas Finance Minister -cum-Chief Minister was Lalu Prasad Yadav.
The matter relating to finance is put up by finance secretary before Finance
Minister and not before AHD Minister. After perusal of records it is found that
this accused do not involve directly in criminal conspiracy with Finance
Page 145
--145– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
Minister and others co-conspirators. P.W. 55 Md. Sayeed and P.W. 174 Shiv
Kumar Patwari stated to provide illegal gratification to accused Vidya Sagar
Nishad but above both witness granted pardon U/s- 306 of Cr.P.C so their
statement cannot be reliable in the absence of independent corroboration. In the
light of above discussion the court found that the prosecution side do not prove
alleged charges against accused Vidya Sagar Nishad successfully beyond
reasonable doubt. Hence, in the ends of Justice accused deserve the benefit of
doubt. So the relevant order pass in the later part of judgment.
172. After perusal of records, court found that both documentary as well
as oral evidences are sufficient on record to prove that an amount of Rs.
03,76,38,853/- had been drawn during financial year 1995 – 96 by the accused
Dr. Om Prakash Diwakar in connivance with other accused Dr. Md. Sayeed,
Dr. Bimal Kant Das, Dr. Krishna Kumar Prasad, Dr. Manoranjan Prasad, Dr.
Nand Kishore Prasad, Dr. Pitamber Jha, Dr. Radha Mohan Mandal, Dr. Raghu
Nandan Prasad and suppliers Raja Ram Joshi, Rajendra Kumar Bagaria and
others. For this purpose the aforesaid accused persons created false and
fabricated documents like allotment letter supply orders, bills and feed
distribution files. The treasury officers and employee facilitated such
fraudulent withdrawals and quietly observed that the bills are not being passed
in accordance with law/Rules/Regulations and obtained pecuniary advantages
in return. Similarly, the accused bureaucrats Phool Chand Singh the Finance
Secretary of Bihar government despite having knowledge of fraudulent
withdrawal in AHD but deliberately did not initiate any action to look into the
matter to prevent the criminal misappropriation of State Government money.
Politicians namely Lalu Prasad Yadav his willfully omissions and commissions
have contributed to this plunder. The accused persons have invariably availed
pecuniary gains and hospitality from the AHD officials and suppliers. It has
been established by the prosecution that fund from government exchequer had
been drawn on the basis of fake bills, fake allotment orders and supply orders.
The fund so drawn had been encashed by the accused suppliers in their
accounts at different places. The amount drawn was far in excess of the
amounts allotted for the purposes. Fabrication of records to show consumption
of materials shown to have been purchased also proves the meeting of minds
from officials at District level to Directorate levels. Pecuniary advantages /
gains from suppliers to AHD officials/bureaucrats and politicians have also
been established. On the confirmation of fraudulent withdrawal to the tune of
Rs. 03,76,38,853/- from District Treasury Dumka during the financial year
Page 146
--146– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
1995 – 96. In fact, it had been almost a precedent for last several year to ignore
such alarming informations either through the sources of RBI and AG Office or
through the sources of legislative and Vigilance Department. The government
preferred to keep quiet and did not initiate any action on one pretext or the
other. It has been submitted that the prosecution has proved its case through a
consistent evidence and the chain of circumstantial evidences has been
established to prove the angle of criminal-conspiracy. Due to this meeting of
mind they had forgotten the provisions of law, constitutional provisions,
service law and the government failed to enquire into the matter of criminal
negligence and take drastic steps to prevent the ongoing loot. The prosecution
has proved meeting of minds and conspiracy among Finance Minister, Finance
Secretary and AHD Officials of Bihar by a chain of circumstantial evidences.
The malafide intention of the Chief Minister/ Finance Minister nothing else
when Chief Minister ordered for registration of a case SR 34/90, received
information from AG Office regarding fraudulent payments to the transporter
by AHD, Ranchi. Meeting of Treasury Officers, on 07.06.1993. The matter
could have been stopped at an early stage, instead of taking an concrete step Sri
Lalu Prasad kept on justifying the action and inaction of the AHD Officials and
other bureaucrats and thereby aided and abetted the offence.
173. In view of the discussion above made remaining 19 accused persons
are found guilty and being convicted for the offence U/s- 120B IPC to be r/w
Section – 420, 409, 467, 468, 471, 477A of the I.P.C and Politician,
Government Employee also held guilty U/s- 13 (2) r/w Sec- 13 (1)(c) & (d) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and order sentence in following way :-
Order
174. The considered view of the court is that the involvement of the
following accused namely (1). Adhip Chandra Chaudhary, (2). Beck Julius (3).
Smt. Benu Jha, (4). Dhruv Bhagat, (5). Jagannath Mishra, (6). Jagdish Sharma,
(7). Lal Mohan Prasad, (8). Mahesh Prasad, (9). Mehar Chandra Subarno, (10).
Ravindra Kumar Rana, (11). Saraswati Chandra and (12). Vidya Sagar Nishad
in alleged offences and roles played for which they have been charged jointly
as well as separately is not proved and established beyond shadow of
reasonable doubt, for lack of substantiate evidence. Therefore, they are not
found guilty and are acquitted of the joint charges U/s- 120 B r/w – 420, 467,
468, 471 and 477A of the I.P.C and Politicians, Government employee also
acquitted U/s- 13 (2) r/w 13 (I) (c) (d) of the P.C Act.
175. Accused persons namely (1). Adhip Chandra Chaudhary, (2). Smt.
Page 147
--147– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
Benu Jha, (3). Dhruv Bhagat, (4). Jagannath Mishra, (5). Lal Mohan Prasad,
(6). Mahesh Prasad, (7). Mehar Chandra Subarno, (8). Saraswati Chandra and
(9). Vidya Sagar Nishad, who have been acquitted, are on bail, consequently
they are discharged from their respective bail bonds liabilities and are set at
liberty in this case. Accused persons namely (1). Beck Julius, (2). Jagdish
Sharma, (3). Ravindra Kumar Rana are in judicial custody. O.C is directed to
issue release order at once.
176. In the light of above discussion made separately for each of the
remaining accused facing trial in the instant case. The considered view of the
court is that the prosecution has been able to proved and established the joint as
well as separate respective charges beyond reasonable doubt against the
following accused namely 1. Ajeet Kumar Verma, 2. Arun Kumar Singh, 3.
Bimal Kant Das, 4. Gopi Nath Das, 5. Krishna Kumar Prasad, 6. Lalu Prasad
@ Lalu Prasad Yadav, 7. Manoranjan Prasad, 8. Mohinder Singh Bedi, 9. Nand
Kishore Prasad, 10. Naresh Prasad, 11. Om Prakash Diwakar, 12. Pankaj
Mohan Bhui, 13. Phool Chand Singh, 14. Pitamber Jha, 15. Radha Mohan
Mandal, 16. Raj Kumar Sharma @ Raja Ram Joshi, (17). Raghu Nandan
Prasad, (18). Rajendra Kumar Bagaria and (19). Shardendu Kumar Das are
held jointly guilty for the offences U/s- 120B r/w Section 420, 467, 468, 471,
477A of the I.P.C and Politicians, Government Employee accused also held
guilty separately U/s- 13 (2) r/w Section – 13 (i)(c) (d) of P.C Act and are
convicted as such.
177. The above named the accused who have been found guilty and
convicted for the offences in the manner referred here-in-above are on bail.
Consequently upon their conviction bail bonds of the accused persons 1. Ajeet
Kumar Verma, 2. Arun Kumar Singh, 3. Bimal Kant Das, 4. Gopi Nath Das, 5.
Krishna Kumar Prasad, 6. Manoranjan Prasad, 7. Mohinder Singh Bedi, 8.
Nand Kishore Prasad, 9. Naresh Prasad, 10. Om Prakash Diwakar, 11. Pankaj
Mohan Bhui, 12. Pitamber Jha, 13. Radha Mohan Mandal, 14. Raj Kumar
Sharma @ Raja Ram Joshi, (15). Raghu Nandan Prasad, (16). Rajendra Kumar
Bagaria and (17). Shardendu Kumar Das hereby cancelled and they are taken
into judicial custody. O.C directed to issue custody warrant. Accused Lalu
Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav and Phool Chand Singh are in judicial custody,
they remand back.
178. That is during trial 13 charge-sheeted accused persons have been
died. They are as (1). B.B. Prasad (Budget Officer), (2). Bhola Ram Tufani
(Minister), (3). Chandra Deo Prasad Verma (Minister), (4). Chhathoo Prasad
Page 148
--148– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
(Treasury Officer), (5). Kalika Prasad Sinha (Accountant), (6). K. Arumugam
(Secretary), (7).Mahendra Prasad, (Prop. Of M/s. B.R. Pharma), (8).
Raghavendra Kumar Das (Administrative Officer), (9). Rajendra Singh
(Veterinary Officer), (10). Ram Raj Ram (Director), (11). S.N. Singh
(Veterinary Officer), (12). Shyam Bihari Sinha ( Joint Director) and (13).
Wasimuddin (Veterinary Officer). Above aforesaid accused persons trial drop
due to death but civil liabilities cannot be died or discharged. Hence, C.B.I is
directed to inform to E.D for enquire and seized / confiscated unproportionate
movable and immovable property of above died accused persons, which
acquired since January – 1990 and later on. The C.B.I also directed to take
proper step according to law and enquire and seized / confiscated
unproportionate movable and immovable property of above died accused
persons.
179. This judgment is pronounced today 19th day of March – 2018 in open
court by me. The case is fixed for hearing on the point of sentence on
21.03.2018, 22.03.2018 and 23.03.2018 on everyday six accused in
Alphabetical form. O.C is directed to issue custody warrant till next fixed date.
(Dictated and Corrected by me )
sd/- sd/-
(Shiv Pal Singh) (Shiv Pal Singh)A.J.C-I-cum-Spl. Judge-VII, A.J.C-I-cum-Spl. Judge-VII,C.B.I (AHD Scam), Ranch. C.B.I (AHD Scam), Ranchi. Dated :- 19.03.2018 Dated :- 19.03.2018
Page 149
--149– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
Point of Sentence 24.03.2018 :- On call both the sides, learned lawyers present in the court for
hearing on the point of sentence. On behalf of accused namely 1.
Ajeet Kumar Verma, 2. Arun Kumar Singh, 3. Bimal Kant Das, 4.
Gopi Nath Das, 5. Krishna Kumar Prasad, 6. Lalu Prasad @ Lalu
Prasad Yadav, 7. Manoranjan Prasad, 8. Mohinder Singh Bedi, 9.
Nand Kishore Prasad, 10. Naresh Prasad, 11. Om Prakash Diwakar,
12. Pankaj Mohan Bhui, 13. Phool Chand Singh, 14. Pitamber Jha,
15. Radha Mohan Mandal, 16. Raj Kumar Sharma @ Raja Ram
Joshi, (17). Raghu Nandan Prasad, (18). Rajendra Kumar Bagaria
and (19). Shardendu Kumar Das are held jointly guilty for the
offences U/s- 120B r/w Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A of the
I.P.C and Politicians, Government Employee accused also held
guilty separately U/s- 13 (2) r/w Section – 13 (i)(c) (d) of P.C Act
are convicted, who are present in the court, who already held guilty
on 19.03.2018.
On behalf of accused Ajeet Kumar Verma, his
learned lawyer Mr. Sanjeev Chandra submitted that accused facing
trial up to more than 20 years. He is old person and senior citizen
and pray that court may take lenient view in favour of accused Ajeet
Kumar Verma.
On behalf of prosecution learned Spl. P.P of C.B.I Mr.
Rakesh Prasad submitted that accused hold guilty that he prepared
fake vouchers without supplying the veterinary medicines in
furtherance of criminal conspiracy with other co-accused, so do not
deserve the privilege of leniency in his favour and pray that
maximum punishment may be awarded to the accused.
Heard in detail on behalf of both sides learned lawyer
and consider all facts and circumstances as brought on the record.
Accused held guilty U/s- 120 (B) r/w Section – 420, 467, 468, 471,
477(A) of the I.P.C, so accused awarded punishment of R.I 3 and ½
years (Three and Half Years) and fine of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Fifteen
Page 150
--150– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
Lakhs), in default of payment of fine, he further serve nine months
punishment separately. During trial accused Ajeet Kumar Verma
remain in judicial custody, which may be adjusted according to law
in conviction.
On behalf of accused Arun Kumar Singh, his
learned lawyer Mr. Sanjeev Chandra submitted that that accused
facing trial up to more than 20 years. He is young and unemployed
person, who in influence of Shesh Muni Ram prepared fake
vouchers and pray that court may take lenient view in favour of
accused Arun Kumar Singh.
On behalf of prosecution learned Spl. P.P of C.B.I Mr.
Rakesh Prasad submitted that accused hold guilty that he prepared
fake vouchers without supplying the veterinary medicines in
furtherance of criminal conspiracy with other co-accused. Accused
is a educated person and he availed to misuse themselves, so he do
not deserve the privilege of leniency in his favour and pray that
maximum punishment may be awarded to the accused.
Heard in detail on behalf of both sides learned lawyer
and consider all facts and circumstances as brought on the record.
Accused held guilty U/s- 120 (B) r/w Section – 420, 467, 468, 471,
477(A) of the I.P.C, so accused awarded punishment of R.I 3 and ½
years (Three and Half Years) and fine of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Fifteen
Lakhs), in default of payment of fine, he further serve S.I 1 year
(One year) punishment separately. During trial accused Arun Kumar
Singh remain in judicial custody, which may be adjusted according
to law in conviction.
On behalf of accused Bimal Kant Das, his learned
lawyer Mr. Sanjeev Chandra submitted that he was posted T.V.O
(Mobile), Sahebganj, AHD, Dumka during the occurrence. He
issued receipt in favour of transporter M/s. Krishna Road Career
and Raj Kumar Sharma and also issued receipt in favour of M/s.
Vishawakarma Agency, the supply of veterinary medicines in
pressure of higher officers of AHD, Department. Accused serfering
last more than 20 years. He is old person. He is also suffering from
Page 151
--151– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
many diseases. Ld. lawyer pray that in the ends of Justice, the
accused deserve the privilege of leniency in his favour.
On behalf of prosecution, learned P.P submitted that
accused created bogus / false certificate. On the basis of bogus
certificate R.D, AHD, Santhal Pargana Dumka passed bills and
commit illegal loss to the state revenue and pray that accused
played active part in criminal conspiracy with other co-accused. So
do not deserve the privilege of leniency and pray that accused may
be awarded maximum punishment according to law.
Heard in detail on behalf of both sides and consider all
facts and circumstances as submitted by the parties Ld laywer. In
the ends of Justice the following sentence is passed. Accused Bimal
Kant Das hold guilty U/s- 120B r/w Section – 420, 467, 468, 471,
477(A) of I.P.C awarded punishment R.I 3 and ½ Years (Three and
Half years) and fine Rs. 15,00,000/- (Fifteen Lakhs), in default of
payment of fine further serve sentence S. I nine month one year
separately. As held guilty U/s- 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1)(c) & (d) of
P.C. Act awarded R.I 3 and ½ Years (Three and Half years) and fine
Rs. 15,00,000/- (Fifteen Lakhs), in default of payment of fine
further serve sentence S.I nine months separately. During trial
accused Bimal Kant Das remain in judicial custody which may be
adjusted according to law in conviction but both sentences accused
served in consecutive manner not in concurrent way.
On behalf of accused Gopi Nath Das, his learned
lawyer Mr. Sanjeev Chandra submitted that accused Gopi Nath Das
facing the trial since last 20 years. Accused was Owner of M/s.
Radha Pharmacy and presently he is only bread earner of his
family. Accused is running a small medical shop and pray that
accused deserve the lenient view in his favour.
On behalf of prosecution learned Spl. P.P of C.B.I Mr.
Rakesh Prasad submitted that accused hold guilty that he prepared
fake vouchers without supplying the medicines in furtherance of
criminal conspiracy with other co-accused, so do not deserve the
privilege of leniency in his favour and pray that maximum
punishment may be awarded to the accused.
Page 152
--152– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
Heard in detail on behalf of both sides learned lawyer
and consider all facts and circumstances as brought on the record.
Accused held guilty U/s- 120 (B) r/w Section – 420, 467, 468, 471,
477(A) of the I.P.C, so accused awarded punishment of R.I 3 ½
Years (Three and Half Years) and fine of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Fifteen
Lakhs), in default of payment of fine, he further serve S.I Nine
months punishment separately. During trial accused Gopi Nath Das
remain in judicial custody, which may be adjusted according to law
in conviction.
On behalf of accused Krishna Kumar Prasad, his
learned lawyer Mr. Anil Kumar Singh submitted that he was posted
as T.V.O, Jasidih during the occurrence and pray that accused is a
retired old person. He is also suffering from many diseases and
further pray that in the ends of Justice the accused deserve the
privilege of leniency in his favour.
On behalf of prosecution, learned P.P submitted that
accused created bogus / false certificate. On the basis of bogus
certificate R.D, Ahd, Dumka passed bill and commit illegal loss to
the state revenue and pray that accused played active part in
criminal conspiracy with other co-accused. So do not deserve the
privilege of leniency and pray that accused may be awarded
maximum punishment according to law.
Heard in detail on behalf of both sides and consider all
facts and circumstances as submitted by the parties. In the ends of
Justice the following sentence is passed. Accused Krishna Kumar
Prasad hold guilty U/s- 120B r/w Section – 420, 467, 468, 471,
477(A) of I.P.C awarded punishment R.I 3 ½ Years ( Three and Half
Years) and fine Rs. 15,00,000/- (Fifteen Lakhs) in default of
payment of fine further serve sentence S.I nine months separately.
As held guilty U/s- 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1)(c)(d) of P.C. Act
awarded R. I 3 ½ Years ( Three and Half Years) and fine Rs.
15,00,000/- (Fifteen Lakhs) in default of payment of fine further
serve sentence S.I nine months separately.. During trial accused
Krishna Kumar Prasad remain in judicial custody which may be
Page 153
--153– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
adjusted according to law in conviction. The sentences run in the
consecutive way not concurrently.
On behalf of accused Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad
Yadav, his learned lawyer Mr. Prabhat Kumar appeared in the court
and submitted that accused Lalu Prasad has been held guilty on
19.03.2018 in connection with R.C. Case No. 38(A)/96 arising out
of Dumka Treasury. Further submitted that it is very pertinent to
mention here that Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav is aged about
70 years and has been diagnosed with several health issues. On
27.08.2014 Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav has undergone Aortic
Valve Replacement (AVR) with 21 mm Magna Ease Aortic Tissue
Valve and ascending aortoplasty with closure of patent foramen
ovale at Asian Heart Institute and Research Centre Pvt. Ltd in
Mumbai. The Medical Board of Asian Heart Institute and Research
Centre Pvt. Ltd has advised Lalu Prasad Yadav @ Lalu Yadav to do
spirometry and deep breathing exercises, maintain good personnel
hygiene including dental hygiene, check lipid profile and blood
sugar on regular basis etc followed by medicines. It is also
submitted that if the patient of Aortic Valve Replacement (AVR) is
not taking proper care then there is a risk of experiencing
complication especially in case of older people. It is a high risk of
wound infection, lung infections, bladder infections, heart valve
infections, excessive bleeding (which may lead to another
operation), blood clots, strokes or Transient Ischaemic Attack
(TIA), irregular heart beat problems, kidney problems. Lalu Prasad
Yadav @ Lalu Yadav has been diagnosed with diabetes and has
been advised for regular blood test, balanced diet, regular exercises
followed by in taking of 18 different types of medicines. The raised
blood sugar levels can cause wide range of serious health issue; the
body either does not make enough insulin or cannot use what it has
effectively. Glucose and Blood Sugar is the main power source of
human body it comes from the food intake. Further stated that
diabetes can damage large blood vessel, causing macro vascular
disease, damages small blood vessels, causes heart attack, stroke,
damages nerves (which can cause pain and numbness in toes, feet,
legs, arms), a high blood sugar levels damages blood vessel and
Page 154
--154– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
kidney, causes gastroparesis, diabetic foot, damages eyes skin, heart
etc. Lalu Prasad Yadav @ Lalu Yadav has under gone blood test and
the report suggests that the creatinine level, HbA1C-DCCT,
glucose-random, e-AG is all in higher sides. It is also submitted
that if proper due care is not taken then Lalu Prasad Yadav @ Lalu
Yadav will be affected with severe health hazards which cannot be
cured if due precautions are not taken. Further submitted that it has
come to notice Lalu Prasad Yadav @ Lalu Yadav is not keeping
well and has also been diagnosed with diabetic foot and due care is
not taken in case of diabetic foot (nail bed) then it may lead to
imputation of fingers. The report suggests that Lalu Prasad Yadav
@ Lalu Yadav has a problem of water retention which may severely
affect the kidneys. Further submitted that State of Jharkhand as well
as Birsa Munda Central Jail, Hotwar, Ranchi does not have any
super medical facilities as well as infrastructure and if anything
absurd happens to accused, he will not be given proper medical
facilities . In support diseases learned lawyer submitted the relevant
paper in the court and at present he is in RIMS for his treatment and
doctors have advised for AIIMS, New Delhi for better treatment. In
the end requested to the court that in the above circumstances of
this case it would be justified an extremely short and lenient view
may kindly be taken in the favour the accused.
On behalf of prosecution, learned Spl. P.P of C.B.I Mr.
Rakesh Prasad highly opposed the submission of learned lawyer
and submitted that the accused Lalu Prasad Yadav is a fit person
who remain active 24 hours to organize Rally against government .
Recently, on 27.08.2017 they organized a Mega Show in Gandhi
Maidan, Patna and they emerge as a head of all opposition parties
and try to pull leg of State Government as well as Central
Government. Mr. Lalu Prasad Yadav is a custodian of public money
after elected Chief Minister of State, in their period the public
money was looted by criminals and officers do not dare to oppose
the oral order of this accused and further prayed that this accused is
habitual offender and already convicted in previous three cases
relating to Fodder Scam and pray that the accused may be awarded
rigorous punishment accordingly to law.
Page 155
--155– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
Heard in detail on behalf of both sides, learned lawyer
and perused the filed documents. After considering all the facts and
circumstances, the following sentence order is pass as held guilty
U/s- 120 B r/w 420, 467, 468, 471, 477(A) of I.P.C, sentence
awarded R.I of 7 years (Seven Years) and fine Rs. 30,00,000/-
(Thirty Lakhs), in default of payment of fine he further serve
punishment of S.I one year separately and held guilty U/s- 13 (2)
r/w Section – 13 (i)(c)(d) of P.C. Act awarded sentence R.I of 7
years (Seven Years) and fine Rs. 30,00,000/- (Thirty Lakhs), in
default of payment of fine he further serve punishment of S.I one
year separately. During trial accused Lalu Prasad Yadav @ Lalu
Yadav remain in judicial custody, which may be adjusted according
to law in conviction. The sentences run in the consecutive way not
concurrently.
On behalf of accused Manoranjan Prasad, his
learned lawyer Mr. Akhileshwar Prasad submitted that he was
posted as DAHO, Deoghar during the occurrence and pray that
accused is a retired old person. He is also suffering from many
diseases and further pray that in the ends of Justice the accused
deserve the privilege of leniency in his favour.
On behalf of prosecution, learned P.P submitted that
accused created bogus / false certificate. On the basis of bogus
certificate R.D, AHD, Dumka passed bill and committed illegal loss
to the state revenue and prayed that accused played active part in
criminal conspiracy with other co-accused. So do not deserve the
privilege of leniency and prayed that accused may be awarded
maximum punishment according to law.
Heard in detail on behalf of both sides and consider all
facts and circumstances as submitted by the parties. In the ends of
Justice the following sentence is passed. Accused Manoranjan
Prasad held guilty U/s- 120B r/w Section – 420, 467, 468, 471,
477(A) of I.P.C awarded punishment of R.I 3 ½ Years ( Three and
Half Years) and fine Rs. 15,00,000/- (Fifteen Lakhs) in default of
payment of fine further serve sentence S.I nine months separately.
As held guilty U/s- 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1)(c)(d) of P.C. Act
Page 156
--156– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
awarded R.I 3 ½ Years ( Three and Half Years) and fine Rs.
15,00,000/- (Fifteen Lakhs) in default of payment of fine further
serve sentence S.I nine months separately.. During trial accused
Manoranjan Prasad remain in judicial custody which may be
adjusted according to law in conviction. The sentences run in the
consecutive way not concurrently.
On behalf of accused Mohinder Singh Bedi, his
learned lawyer Mr. Akhileshwar Prasad submitted that accused
Mohinder Singh Bedi facing the trial since last 20 years. Accused
was Owner of M/s. Semex Cryogenics Agency, Delhi and he is
suffering from very ailment and prayed that accused deserve the
lenient view in his favour.
On behalf of prosecution learned Spl. P.P of C.B.I Mr.
Rakesh Prasad submitted that accused held guilty that he prepared
fake vouchers without supplying AI Instruments and Lubricants in
furtherance of criminal conspiracy with other co-accused, so do not
deserve the privilege of leniency in his favour as he is already
convicted in other Fodder Scam Cases and prayed that maximum
punishment may be awarded to the accused.
Heard in detail on behalf of both sides learned lawyer
and consider all facts and circumstances as brought on the record.
Accused held guilty U/s- 120 (B) r/w Section – 420, 467, 468, 471,
477(A) of the I.P.C, so accused awarded punishment of R.I 3 ½
Years (Three and Half Years) and fine of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Fifteen
Lakhs), in default of payment of fine, he further serve S.I Nine
months punishment separately. During trial accused Mohinder
Singh Bedi remain in judicial custody, which may be adjusted
according to law in conviction.
On behalf of accused Nand Kishore Prasad, his learned
lawyer Mr. Sanjay Kumar submitted that he was posted as A.I.O,
Dumka during the occurrence and pray that accused is a retired old
person. He is also suffering from many diseases and further prayed
that in the ends of Justice the accused deserve the privilege of
leniency in his favour.
Page 157
--157– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
On behalf of prosecution, learned P.P submitted that
accused created bogus / false certificate. On the basis of bogus
certificate R.D, AHD, Dumka passed bill and committed illegal loss
to the state revenue and pray that accused played active part in
criminal conspiracy with other co-accused. The accused has been
convicted previously in Fodder Scam Cases, so do not deserve the
privilege of leniency and pray that accused may be awarded
maximum punishment according to law.
Heard in detail on behalf of both sides and consider all
facts and circumstances as submitted by the parties. In the ends of
Justice the following sentence is passed. Accused Nand Kishore
Prasad held guilty U/s- 120B r/w Section – 420, 467, 468, 471,
477(A) of I.P.C awarded punishment R.I 3 ½ Years ( Three and Half
Years) and fine Rs. 15,00,000/- (Fifteen Lakhs) in default of
payment of fine further serve sentence S.I nine months separately.
As held guilty U/s- 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1)(c)(d) of P.C. Act
awarded R.I 3 ½ Years ( Three and Half Years) and fine Rs.
15,00,000/- (Fifteen Lakhs) in default of payment of fine further
serve sentence S.I nine months separately.. During trial accused
Nand Kishore Prasad remain in judicial custody which may be
adjusted according to law in conviction. The sentences run in the
consecutive way not concurrently.
On behalf of accused Naresh Prasad, his learned lawyer Mr.
Sanjay Kumar submitted that accused Naresh Prasad facing the trial
since last 20 years. Accused was Owner of M/s. Viyapar Kuttir,
Patna and presently he is only bread earner of his family. Accused
was running a small medical shop and prayed that accused deserve
the lenient view in his favour.
On behalf of prosecution learned Spl. P.P of C.B.I Mr.
Rakesh Prasad submitted that accused held guilty that he prepared
fake vouchers without supplying the medicines in furtherance of
criminal conspiracy with other co-accused, accused has been
convicted earlier in Fodder Scam Case, so do not deserve the
privilege of leniency in his favour and pray that maximum
punishment may be awarded to the accused.
Page 158
--158– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
Heard in detail on behalf of both sides learned lawyer
and consider all facts and circumstances as brought on the record.
Accused held guilty U/s- 120 (B) r/w Section – 420, 467, 468, 471,
477(A) of the I.P.C, so accused awarded punishment of R.I 3 ½
Years (Three and Half Years) and fine of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Fifteen
Lakhs), in default of payment of fine, he further serve S.I Nine
months punishment separately. During trial accused Naresh Prasad
remain in judicial custody, which may be adjusted according to law
in conviction.
On behalf of accused Om Prakash Diwakar, his learned
lawyer Mr. Sanjay Kumar submitted that that he was posted as R.D,
AHD, Dumka during the occurrence and pray that accused is a
retired old person. He is also suffering from many diseases and
further prayed that in the ends of Justice the accused deserve the
privilege of leniency in his favour.
On behalf of prosecution, learned P.P submitted that
accused passed bills on the basis of false and fabricated bills and
committed illegal loss to the state revenue and prayed that accused
played active part in criminal conspiracy with other co-accused.
Accused has already been convicted in other Fodder Scam Cases
including D.A Cases, so do not deserve the privilege of leniency
and prayed that accused may be awarded maximum punishment
according to law.
Heard in detail on behalf of both sides and consider all
facts and circumstances as submitted by the parties. In the ends of
Justice the following sentence is passed. Accused Om Prakash
Diwakar held guilty U/s- 120B r/w Section – 420, 467, 468, 471,
477(A) of I.P.C awarded punishment of R.I 07 Years ( Seven Years)
and fine Rs. 30,00,000/- (Thirty Lakhs) in default of payment of
fine further serve sentence S.I one year separately. As held guilty
U/s- 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1)(c)(d) of P.C. Act awarded R.I 07
Years ( Seven Years) and fine Rs. 30,00,000/- (Thirty Lakhs) in
default of payment of fine further serve sentence S.I one year
separately.. During trial accused Om Prakash Diwakar remain in
judicial custody which may be adjusted according to law in
Page 159
--159– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
conviction. The sentences run in the consecutive way and not
concurrently.
On behalf of accused Pankaj Mohan Bhui, his learned
lawyer Mr. Sanjay Kumar submitted that he was posted as
Accountant, in R.D, AHD, Office Dumka during the occurrence and
pray that accused is a retired old person. He is also suffering from
many diseases and further pray that in the ends of Justice the
accused deserve the privilege of leniency in his favour.
On behalf of prosecution, learned P.P submitted that
accused prepared processed split up bills. On the basis of said bills e
R.D, AHD, Dumka passed bills and committed illegal loss to the
state revenue and prayed that accused played active part in criminal
conspiracy with other co-accused. So do not deserve the privilege of
leniency and prayed that accused may be awarded maximum
punishment according to law.
Heard in detail on behalf of both sides and consider all
facts and circumstances as submitted by the parties. In the ends of
Justice the following sentence is passed. Accused Pankaj Mohan
Bhui held guilty U/s- 120B r/w Section – 420, 467, 468, 471,
477(A) of I.P.C awarded punishment of R.I 3 ½ Years ( Three and
Half Years) and fine Rs. 15,00,000/- (Fifteen Lakhs) in default of
payment of fine further serve sentence S.I nine months separately.
As held guilty U/s- 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1)(c)(d) of P.C. Act
awarded R.I 3 ½ Years ( Three and Half Years) and fine Rs.
15,00,000/- (Fifteen Lakhs) in default of payment of fine further
serve sentence S.I nine months separately.. During trial accused
Pankaj Mohan Bhui remain in judicial custody which may be
adjusted according to law in conviction. The sentences run in the
consecutive way and not concurrently.
On behalf of accused Phool Chand Singh, his learned
lawyer Mr. Raj Kumar Sahay submitted that he is law abiding
citizen having highest Regards for the Law of the Land as well as
the court and petitioner is retired IAS Officer from Secretary level
and aged about 79 years, he is diabetic patient, and also suffering
Page 160
--160– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
from hypertension. In support submitted medical prescription and
prayed that he deserve the lenient view in his favour.
On behalf of prosecution, learned Spl. P.P of C.B.I Sri
Rakesh Prasad submitted that it is admitted fact that Phool Chand
Singh Sr. IAS Officer being Finance Secretary not performed his
duty but it is admitted fact that he is senior citizen and prayed that
he does not deserve privilege of lenient view in his favour as he has
been convicted previously in Fodder Scam Case and he may be
convicted according to law as provide in the above alleged charges
against accused person.
Heard in detail on behalf of both sides, learned lawyer
and consider all relevant facts as brought on behalf of both sides. It
is transpired that accused is retired I.A.S. Officer. It is also admitted
fact that accused facing trial since 1996. So after considering all
relevant facts and material as available on record, in the ends of
Justice the following conviction awarded U/s- 120 (B) r/w Section –
420, 467, 468, 471, 477 (A) of I.P.C and R.I 3 ½ years (Three and
half years) conviction and fine of Rs. 15,00,000/- ( Fifteen Lakhs
rupees ). In default of payment of fine further served the conviction
of S.I nine months separately. Accused for the offence of U/s- 13 (2)
r/w 13 (i)(c)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act to R.I 3 ½ years
(Three and half years) conviction and fine of Rs. 15,00,000/-
( Fifteen Lakhs rupees ). In default of payment of fine further
served the conviction of S.I nine months separately. During trial
accused Phool Chand Singh remain in judicial custody, which may
be adjusted according to law in conviction.
On behalf of accused Pitamber Jha, his learned
lawyer Mr. Akhileshwar Prasad submitted that he was posted as
T.V.O (Mobile), Deoghar during the occurrence and prayed that
accused is at present suspended employee and this is his first
offence and not convicted previously and further prayed that in the
ends of Justice the accused deserve the privilege of leniency in his
favour.
On behalf of prosecution, learned P.P submitted that
accused created bogus / false certificate. On the basis of bogus
Page 161
--161– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
certificate R.D, AHD, Dumka passed bill and committed illegal loss
to the state revenue and pray that accused played active part in
criminal conspiracy with other co-accused, so do not deserve the
privilege of leniency and prayed that accused may be awarded
maximum punishment according to law.
Heard in detail on behalf of both sides and consider all
facts and circumstances as submitted by the parties. In the ends of
Justice the following sentence is passed. Accused Pitamber Jha held
guilty U/s- 120B r/w Section – 420, 467, 468, 471, 477(A) of I.P.C
awarded punishment of R.I 3 ½ Years ( Three and Half Years) and
fine Rs. 15,00,000/- (Fifteen Lakhs) in default of payment of fine
further serve sentence S.I nine months separately. As held guilty
U/s- 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1)(c)(d) of P.C. Act awarded R.I 3 ½
Years ( Three and Half Years) and fine Rs. 15,00,000/- (Fifteen
Lakhs) in default of payment of fine further serve sentence S.I nine
months separately.. During trial accused Pitamber Jha remain in
judicial custody which may be adjusted according to law in
conviction. The sentences run in the consecutive way and not
concurrently.
On behalf of accused Radha Mohan Mandal, his learned
lawyer Mr. Sanjeev Chandra submitted that he was posted as Sub-
Divisional, A.H.O, Dumka during the occurrence and prayed that
accused is a retired old person. He is facing the trial last 20 years
and further prayed that in the ends of Justice the accused deserve
the privilege of leniency in his favour.
On behalf of prosecution, learned P.P submitted that
accused created bogus / false certificate. On the basis of bogus
certificate R.D, AHD, Dumka passed bill and committed illegal loss
to the state revenue and pray that accused played active part in
criminal conspiracy with other co-accused, so do not deserve the
privilege of leniency and prayed that accused may be awarded
maximum punishment according to law.
Heard in detail on behalf of both sides and consider all
facts and circumstances as submitted by the parties. In the ends of
Justice the following sentence is passed. Accused Radha Mohan
Page 162
--162– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
Mandal held guilty U/s- 120B r/w Section – 420, 467, 468, 471,
477(A) of I.P.C awarded punishment of R.I 3 ½ Years ( Three and
Half Years) and fine Rs. 15,00,000/- (Fifteen Lakhs) in default of
payment of fine further serve sentence S.I nine months separately.
As held guilty U/s- 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1)(c)(d) of P.C. Act
awarded R.I 3 ½ Years ( Three and Half Years) and fine Rs.
15,00,000/- (Fifteen Lakhs) in default of payment of fine further
serve sentence S.I nine months separately.. During trial accused
Radha Mohan Mandal remain in judicial custody which may be
adjusted according to law in conviction. The sentences run in the
consecutive way and not concurrently.
On behalf of accused Raj Kumar Sharma @ Raja
Ram Joshi, his learned lawyer Mr. Ajay Mishra submitted that
accused is senior citizen and his role is very limited in this case, he
only provide transport certificate of supply materials on which basis
the bill prepared and pass from Dumka Treasury. Further submitted
that accused's mother is very old and his son namely Roshan Joshi
has met with an accident leading to severe head injuries and is still
unstable, rather his conditions are getting and from worse and pray
that the court may graciously be pleased to take a lenient view
keeping in view the circumstances and be pleased impose a
minimum sentence to the convict.
On behalf of prosecution, learned P.P submitted that
accused role in this case although limited but accused provide
fictitious number of vehicles as Scooter, Motor cycle, Ambassador
by which the supply materials shown to be delivered in the AHD
Department and further submitted and he has been previously
convicted in other Fodder Scam Case so he does not deserve any
leniency and pray that court may award maximum sentence.
Heard in detail on behalf of both sides and consider all
facts and circumstances as available on the record. The accused
awarded sentence in the following way for alleged charges U/s-
120B r/w Section – 420, 467, 468, 471, 477(A) of I.P.C awarded
punishment R.I 3 and ½ years (Three and half years) and fine Rs.
15,00,000/- (Fifteen Lakhs) in default of payment of fine further
serve sentence S.I nine months separately. During trial accused Raj
Page 163
--163– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
Kumar Sharma @ Raja Ram Joshi remain in judicial custody
which may be adjusted according to law in conviction.
On behalf of accused Raghu Nandan Prasad, his learned
lawyer Mr. Akhileshwar Prasad submitted that he was posted as
Assistant Director Poultry, Dumka during the occurrence. He has
given false certificate to suppliers for veterinary medicine supply
and prayed that accused is a retired old person. He is facing the trial
last 20 years and further prayed that in the ends of Justice the
accused deserve the privilege of leniency in his favour.
On behalf of prosecution, learned P.P submitted that
accused without authority issued false receiving certificate to
supplier. On which the bills prepared and passed by R.D, AHD,
Dumka and committed illegal loss to the State Government., so do
not deserve the privilege of leniency and prayed that accused may
be awarded maximum punishment according to law.
Heard in detail on behalf of both sides and consider all
facts and circumstances as submitted by the parties. In the ends of
Justice the following sentence is passed. Accused Raghu Nandan
Prasad held guilty U/s- 120B r/w Section – 420, 467, 468, 471,
477(A) of I.P.C awarded punishment of R.I 3 ½ Years ( Three and
Half Years) and fine Rs. 15,00,000/- (Fifteen Lakhs) in default of
payment of fine further serve sentence S.I nine months separately.
As held guilty U/s- 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1)(c)(d) of P.C. Act
awarded R.I 3 ½ Years ( Three and Half Years) and fine Rs.
15,00,000/- (Fifteen Lakhs) in default of payment of fine further
serve sentence S.I nine months separately.. During trial accused
Raghu Nandan Prasad remain in judicial custody which may be
adjusted according to law in conviction. The sentences run in the
consecutive way and not concurrently.
On behalf of accused Rajendra Kumar Bagaria
Prasad, his learned lawyer Mr.K.P. Sharma submitted that his role
is very limited in this case, he only provide transport certificate of
supply materials on which basis the bill prepared and pass from
Dumka Treasury. That it is a first offence of the accused and pray
that the court may graciously be pleased to take a lenient view
Page 164
--164– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
keeping in view the circumstances and be pleased to impose
minimum sentence to the convict and lenient view may kindly be
taken.
On behalf of prosecution, learned P.P submitted that
accused submitted fake invoices in relating to transportation of
cattle feed and submitted to R.D, AHD, Dumka and thereby loss of
government revenue and so he does not deserve any leniency and
prayed that court may award maximum sentence.
Heard in detail on behalf of both sides and consider all facts
and circumstances as available on the record. The accused awarded
sentence in the following way for alleged charges U/s- 120B r/w
Section – 420, 467, 468, 471, 477(A) of I.P.C awarded punishment
R.I 3 and ½ years (Three and half years) and fine Rs. 15,00,000/-
(Fifteen Lakhs) in default of payment of fine further serve sentence
S.I nine months separately. During trial accused Rajendra Kumar
Bagaria remain in judicial custody which may be adjusted
according to law in conviction.
On behalf of accused Sardendura Kumar Das, his
learned lawyer submitted that he was posted as Assistant, District
Treasury, Dumka during the occurrence and he committed no
offence and he only obeyed the order of Senior Officer. Hence,
lenient view may kindly be taken. He has not convicted previously.
On behalf of prosecution, learned P.P submitted that
accused processed split up bill passed by R.D, Dumka and
committed illegally loss to the State Government Revenue., so do
not deserve the privilege of leniency and prayed that accused may
be awarded maximum punishment according to law.
Heard in detail on behalf of both sides and consider all
facts and circumstances as submitted by the parties. In the ends of
Justice the following sentence is passed. Accused Sardendu Kumar
Das held guilty U/s- 120B r/w Section – 420, 467, 468, 471, 477(A)
of I.P.C awarded punishment of R.I 3 ½ Years ( Three and Half
Years) and fine Rs. 15,00,000/- (Fifteen Lakhs) in default of
payment of fine further serve sentence S.I nine months separately.
As held guilty U/s- 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1)(c)(d) of P.C. Act
Page 165
--165– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat
awarded R.I 3 ½ Years ( Three and Half Years) and fine Rs.
15,00,000/- (Fifteen Lakhs) in default of payment of fine further
serve sentence S.I nine months separately.. During trial accused
Sardendu Kumar Das, remain in judicial custody which may be
adjusted according to law in conviction. The sentences run in the
consecutive way and not concurrently.
It is also order pass that the ill-gotten properties (Movable or
immovable ) acquired by the aforesaid convicts accused persons
after 01.01.1990 must be confiscated / seized in the favour of State
Government. Hence, C.B.I directed to inform to E.D to enquire and
seized / confiscated unproportionate movable or immovable
properties of above convict accused persons and the C.B.I also
directed to take proper step according to law or enquire and seized /
confiscated unproportionate movable or immovable of the above
convicted accused persons in the favour of State Government
according to law.
(Dictated by me ) (Corrected by me)
sd/- sd/-
(Shiv Pal Singh) (Shiv Pal Singh)A.J.C-I-cum-Spl. Judge-VII, A.J.C-I-cum-Spl. Judge-VII,
C.B.I (AHD Scam), Ranch. C.B.I (AHD Scam), Ranchi.
Dated :- 24.03.2018 Dated : - 24.03.2018