Download - Bar & Bench () Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav, S/o- Late Kundan Rai, aged about 70 Years, R/o ... Krishna Kumar Prasad, 12. Lal Mohan Prasad, 13. Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav

--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

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)

--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 –


--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


--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,


--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


--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



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


--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 ®,


--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


--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


--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





Mehar Chandra Subarno, 17. Mohindar Singh Bedi, 18. Nand Kishore Prasad,





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


--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


--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


Dumka. The Truck was engaged in


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


Dumka. The truck was engaged in


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,


--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


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


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


--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


AHD Bihar during October – 1995.

---

P.W. 36 Chhote LalOwner of Truck No. RJ 14G 1325


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


--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


vouchers.

6 CNC bills of R.K.Agency Patna



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


certified by Dr. Bimal Kant Das and

Dr. Wassimuddin on 48 vouchers.

4 CNC bills of Semex Cryogenics


25/97, 26/701 to

26/737, 25/98 to

25/102.


--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


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,


--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,


--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,


--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,

---


--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


--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.


--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.


--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


--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


--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 ---


--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


--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.


--28– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

P.W. 72 Mahesh Chand Owner of Truck No. RJ-02G-1421


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


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


--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


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


--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


consignment from Rajmahal to Taljhari

during October 1995.P.W.88 Prabhu Lal

GujjarOwner of Truck No. RJ-26G-0005



during October 1995.

P.W. 89 Deo Karan RegarOwner of Truck No. RJ-26G-0269



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


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,


--31– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

P.W.93 Pankaj Kumar,Family friend of Dr. Ajit Kumar Verma


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,


--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


--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


--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


--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


--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


--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.


--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,


--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


--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.


--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


--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


--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


--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,


--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,


--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.


--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


--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 &


--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.


--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


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


--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,


--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.


--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,


--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


--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


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


--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


--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


--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


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


--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.


--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.


08. Exhibit. 1/7 :- Seizure memo (4 pages).

09. Exhibit. 1/8 :- Seizure memo dated 09.06.1996.


--61– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat





14. Exhibit. 1/13 :- Seizure memo dated 22.04.1996 (carbon copy).




18. Exhibit. 1/17 and 1/18 :- Seizure memo.


20. Exhibit. 1/20 :- Seizure memo.

21. Exhibit.1/21 :- Seizure memo dated 14.11.1996.


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.


26. Exhibit. 1/26 :- Seizure Memo dated 16.04.1996 in 06 pages.




30. Exhibit. 1/30 to 1/31 :- Seizure Memos dated 23.04.1996 and

25.04.1996.



33. Exhibit. 1/34 :- Seizure memo dated 07.05.1997 with Zimanama.



36. Exhibit. 1/37 :- Seizure list.

37. Exhibit 1/38 :- Carbon copy of seizure list dated 29.12.1996.


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).


42. Exhibit. 1/46 :- Seizure memo dated 02.05.1997 (04 sheet).

43. Exhibit. 1/47 :- Seizure list dated 07.06.1996.



--62– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat





49. Exhibit. 1/53 :- Seizure memo dated 22.04.1996. (02 pages).


51. Exhibit. 1/55 :- Seizure memo dated 14.10.1996

52. Exhibit. 1/56 :- Seizure memo dated 19.061996.



55. Exhibit.1/59 :- Seizure memo dated 24.11.1997








63. Exhibit.1/67 :- Seizure memo dated 21.11.1997. (02 sheet).





68. Exhibit.1/72 :- Seizure memo dated 10.01.1997 in 03 pages.







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.


81. Exhibit.2 :- Account opening form cum specimen signature of current


--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).



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.


--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).



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.


--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.



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.



162. Exhibit. 18/14 :- Letter dated 13.12.1995 with two page enclosure.




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.


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.


180. Exhibit. 18/32 :- Letter dated 23.09.1996 (01 sheet ).


--66– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat


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)


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 ).


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


201. Exhibit. 18/61:- 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).


207. Exhibit. 18/67 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 06.05.1996 (02 sheets).






--67– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat



214. Exhibit. 18/74 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 06.05.1996 ( 02 sheets )










224. Exhibit. 18/84 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 14.11.1996 ( 02 sheets).


























--68– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat















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).








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.


--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.


--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.


--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.


--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.



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


--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.


--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.


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).


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


--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.


--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.



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.



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).


--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.


132 Income-Tax.

507. Exhibit. 90/51 to 90/57 :- Warrant of Authorization under Section

132 Income-Tax.


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.


--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.


--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.


--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.


--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




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





Mehar Chandra Subarno, 17. Mohindar Singh Bedi, 18. Nand Kishore Prasad,





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.


--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


--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 :-


--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.


--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


--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.


--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


--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


--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


--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


--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


--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


--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


--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


--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


--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


--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


--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


--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.


--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


--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


--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.


--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


--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


--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


--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


--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


--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


--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


--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


--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.


--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,


--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


--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,


--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.


--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


--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


--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


--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


--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


--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


--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


--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


--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


--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.


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


--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


--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


--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.


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


--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-


--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


--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


--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


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


--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


--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


--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.


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.


--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.


--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


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


--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


--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


--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 .


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.


--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


--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.


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


--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.



--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.


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


--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


--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.


--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


--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


--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


--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.



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.




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


--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.



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.


--152– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat




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


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.



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.


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


--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


--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.


--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.



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




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




--156– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

awarded R.I 3 ½ Years ( Three and Half Years) and fine Rs.



Manoranjan Prasad remain in judicial custody which may be



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.


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








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.


--157– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat




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




Justice the following sentence is passed. Accused Nand Kishore


477(A) of I.P.C awarded punishment R.I 3 ½ Years ( Three and Half







Nand Kishore Prasad remain in judicial custody which may be



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.


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



--158– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat







months punishment separately. During trial accused Naresh Prasad


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.


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.



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


--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 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.



Justice the following sentence is passed. Accused Pankaj Mohan

Bhui held guilty U/s- 120B r/w Section – 420, 467, 468, 471,








Pankaj Mohan Bhui remain in judicial custody which may be


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


--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.




--161– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat








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.










Justice the following sentence is passed. Accused Radha Mohan


--162– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

Mandal held guilty U/s- 120B r/w Section – 420, 467, 468, 471,








Radha Mohan Mandal remain in judicial custody which may be



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.


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.


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.


serve sentence S.I nine months separately. During trial accused Raj


--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 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




Justice the following sentence is passed. Accused Raghu Nandan









Raghu Nandan Prasad remain in judicial custody which may be



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


--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.


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.


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




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





--165– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat




Sardendu Kumar Das, remain in judicial custody which may be



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


Download - Bar & Bench () Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav, S/o- Late Kundan Rai, aged about 70 Years, R/o ... Krishna Kumar Prasad, 12. Lal Mohan Prasad, 13. Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav

Top Related