1

District- Ranchi In the Court of Additional Judicial Commissioner- VII-cum-Special Judge (AHD), C.B.I.-I, Ranchi

Ranchi, dated 24th day of January, 2018

Present:- Swarn Shanker Prasad, Addl. Judl. Commissioner VII -cum-Special Judge (AHD), CBI-I, Ranchi.

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/ 19 96

State (through CBI) ...... Prosecution

Versus

1. Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav, S/o late Kundan Rai, the then Chief Minister & Finance Minister, Govt. of Bihar 2. Dr. Jagarnath Mishra, S/o late Ravi Nandan Mishra, Member of Parliament 3. Jagdish Sharma, S/o late Kanta Sharma, the then Chairman, Public Accounts Committee, Bihar Vidhan Sabha, Patna 4. Dhruv Bhagat, S/o late Nathuni Prasad, Member of Bihar Legislative Assembly. 5. Vidya Sagar Nishad, S/o late Darwari Prasad Mandal, Minister of Labour Govt. of Bihar, Patna 6. Dr. Ravindra Kumar Rana, S/o late Ganesh Prasad Yadav, MLA, Rashtriya Janta Dal 7. Phool Chand Singh, S/o Ram Bali Singh, Development Commissioner (Retd.) 8. Mahesh Prasad, S/o late Subodh Nath, Secretary, Science & Technology, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 9. Sajal Chakraborty, S/o late C.R. Chakraborty, the then Dy. Commissioner. 10.Dr. Ram Prakash Ram, S/o Jag Narain Prasad, the then DAHO,

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 2

Chaibasa. 11.Silas Tirkey, S/o Marcus Tirkey, Treasury Officer, Chaibasa. 12.Dr. Arjun Sharma, S/o Ram Sewak Sharma, Asstt. Poultry Officer, Chaibasa. 13.Dr. Mukesh Kumar Srivastava, S/o Sri Bipin Bihar Srivastava, Asstt. Poultry Officer, Chaibasa. 14.Dr. Braj Nandan Sharma, S/o late Satyana Narayan Thakur, DAHO, Ranchi 15.Sunil Kumar Sinha, S/o Sri Basishta Narain Prasad Sinha, Proprietor of M/s Shree Baba Chemicals, Patna. 16.Bimal Kumar Agarwal, S/o Mahdo Prasad Agarwal, Proprietor of M/s Roop Supply Co., Ranchi. 17.Harish Kumar, S/o Sri Monoharlal, Partner of M/s Asian Breeders, Palam Village, New Delhi. 18.Smt. Madhu Mehta, W/o Sri Rajan Mehta, Partner of M/s Asian Breeders, Palam Village, New Delhi. 19. Mohindra Singh Bedi, S/o Sri Ujagar Singh Bedi, Proprietor of M/s Semex Cryogenics, New Delhi. 20.Dr. A.K. Verma, S/o Bipin Bihari Verma, Proprietor of M/s Little Oak Pharmaceuticals, Kolkata. 21.Smt. Seema Kumar, W/o Sri Sharad Kumar, Partner of M/s Q-Max Lab, Nasik. 22.Ravi Sinha, S/o late Dr. Shayam Bihari Sinha, Director of M/s Agnil Medichem (india) Pvt. Ltd., Ranchi. 23.Smt. Bimla Sharma, W/o late Harish Khandelwal, Partner of M/s A.B. Sales, Ranchi. 24.Sudeo Rana, S/o Rana Prithvi Nath Sharma, Partner of M/s Swarna Rekha Medical Agency, Ranchi. 25. Subhasish Deb, S/o Sri Dinesh Ranjan Deb, Proprietor of M/s Shree Ram Enterprises, Jamshedpur. 26.Smt. Chanchala Sinha, W/o Sri Ravindra Prasad, Proprietor of M/s Magdh Chemical Corporation, Patna. 27.Devendra Kumar Roy, S/o Sri Laxmi Roy, Proprietor M/s Swastik Drug Agency, Jamshedpur.

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 3

28.Prakash Kumar Lal, S/o Sri Rajendra Kumar Lal, Proprietor of M/s Medicine House, Bhagalpur. 29.Samir Walia, S/o late Saranjeet Singh Walia, Proprietor of M/s Care & Cure, Ranchi. 30.Bijayaeshwari Prasad Sinha, S/o late Akhori Basant Kumar Lal, Partner of M/s Ekta Veterinary Works, Ranchi. 31.Ramautar Sharma, S/o Murarilal sharma, Proprietor of M/s Tirupati Agency, Patna. 32.Jyoti Kumar Jha, S/o Nan Kishor Jha, M/s Seva Medical Agency, Godda. 33.Sidharth Kumar, S/o Sri Gori Shankar Prasad, Partner of M/s Birsa Live Stock Feed & Additives, Ranchi. 34.Mrs. Anita Prasad, D/o late Suraj Dev Narayan Prasad Sinha, Partner of M/s Medivet & Partner of M/s Birsa Live Stock Feed and Additives, Ranchi. 35. Smt. Nirmala Prasad, W/o Dr. Gouri Shankar Prasad, Partner of M/s Medivet, Ranchi and M/s Birsa Live Stock Feeds & Additives. 36.Sharad Kumar, S/o Sri Gouri Shankar Prasad, Partner of M/s Medivet & Partner of M/s Q-Max. 37.Srinath Singh, S/o late Chandradeep Singh, Proprietor of M/s S.N. Singh & Brothers. 38.Ram Nandan Singh, S/o late Madhu Sudhan Singh, Proprietor of M/s Agrovate Sales & Services, Ranchi. 39.Dayanand Prasad Kashyap, S/o late Naresh Sahu, Partner of M/s Baishnow Enterprises, Ranchi. 40.Md. Zahid Hussain, S/o Md. Kamaluddin Hussain, Proprietor of M/s Bihar Cattle Food Agency, Muzzafarpur. 41.Ravi Kumar Sinha, @ Ravinandan Sinha, S/o Sri Gourangeshwar Pd. Singh, Proprietor of M/s A. Traders, Patna. 42.Sanjay Sinha, S/o Dr. N.P. Sinha, Proprietor of M/s Sanjay Sinha, Hinoo Main Road, Ranchi. 43. Jag Mohan Lal Kakkar, S/o late Hari Ram Kakkar, Partner of M/s Navketan Enterprises, Ranchi. 44.Rajesh Mehra, S/o Sri Satyendra Kumar Mehra, Partner of M/s

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 4

Veekey Commercial, Ranchi. 45.Mahendra Kumar Kundan, S/o Sri Dhani Ram Kundan, Proprietor of M/s Krishna Traders, Ranchi. 46.Vijay Kumar Mallick, S/o late Inderlal Mallick, Proprietor of M/s Mallick Enterprises, Delhi. 47.Umesh Dubey, S/o late Kalhat Dubey, Proprietor of M/s Jai Bhandar, Aurangabad. 48.Satendera Kumar Mehra, S/o late Trilok Nath Mehara, Proprietor of M/s Satendra Construction Company, Ranchi. 49.Suresh Dubey, S/o late Kalhat Dubey, Shivaji Path, Patna. 50.Sushil Kumar, S/o Bashist Narain Sinha, Proprietor M/s Bihar Surgico & Partner of M/s Manas Sales Corporation, Patna. 51.Dr. Tripurari Mohan Prasad, S/o Bashist Narain Sinha, Proprietor M/s Bihar Surgico & Partner of M/s Manas Sales Corporation, Patna. 52.Md. Ekram, S/o Md. Adbul Rau, Partner of M/s Chhotanagpur Cattle Food Supply Company, Ranchi. 53.Md. Hussain, S/o Md. Adbul Rauf, Partner of M/s Chhotanagpur Cattle Food Supply Company, Ranchi. 54.Md. Sayeed, S/o Md. Adbul Rauf, Partner of M/s Chhotanagpur Cattle Food Supply Company, Ranchi. 55.Dr. Krishna Mohan Prasad, S/o late Maheshwari Prasad, Assistant Director (Planning), AHD. 56.Dr. Kirti Narayan Jha, S/o late Dhaneshwar Jha, Retired Regional Director, Sought Chhotanagpur Range, AHD, Ranchi...... Accused persons

U/s- 120-B/420/467/468/471/409/477(A) IPC. R/w section 13(1)(c) & (d) 13(2) of the P.C. Act

Counsel for the Prosecution :- Sri B.M.P.. Singh, Spl. P.P., CBI, Ranchi Counsel for the Defence :- Sri C.K. Sinha, Advocate. Sri Prabhat Kumar, Advocate, Sri Sunil Kumar Sinha, Advocate Sri Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 5

Sri Avinash Kumar Sinha, Advocate Sri Sanjeev Kumar Chandra, Advocate Sri Raj Kumar Sahay, Advocate Sri B.B. Roy, Advocate Sri N.K. Tiwary, Advocate Sri R.K. Jha, Advocate

JUDGMENT

1. The accused persons named above have been facing trial for the offence punishable U/s 120-B r/w Section 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477-A of the Indian Penal Code r/w Section 13(2) 13(1)(c) & (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Besides that the accused persons have been separately charged specifying their role and involvement in the scam. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that nine writ petitions were filed in public interest by individual and organizations seeking direction to C.B.I. inquiry and investigation of Fodder Scam Cases of Bihar. The Hon'ble High Court, Patna passed direction on 11.03.1996 - “I would, accordingly, direct the Central Bureau of Investigation through its Director to enquire and scrutinize all cases of excess drawls and expenditure in the department of Animal Husbandry in the State of Bihar during the period 1977-1978 to 1995-1996 and lodge cases where the drawals are found to be fraudulent in character and take the investigation in those cases to its logical end as early as possible preferably, within four months. The investigation by the State Police in cases already instituted shall remain suspended in the mean time”. “I would also direct the Income Tax Department through the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax …...... possess unaccountable wealth and property and take the proceedings to their logical conclusions. The State Government shall provide all necessary facility to both the C.B.I. and the Income Tax Department in discharge of their duties pursuant to this order”. The aforesaid order of the Hon'ble High Court, Patna was challenged by the State Government of Bihar vide Civil Appeal No. 5177/1996. The Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the order of Hon'ble Patna High Court with modification, reads as, “there is no gain saying that all persons involved in

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 6 these offences need to be identified. Not only all the aforementioned persons but also all other persons involved need to be dealt with according to law. This modification shall be made”. C.B.I. lodged the present case as per direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court on 21.08.1996 U/s 120-B/420/467/468/477-A IPC r/w section 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988 on the basis of source information. After that several directions were given by order of the Hon'ble High Court, Patna and Hon'ble Supreme Court such as Civil Appeal No. 5178-83 of 1996, C.W.J.C. No. 1617 of 1996, petition for S.L.P. to Appeal No. 3802/1998. The brief allegation is that Dr. Pandey C.P. Sharma, the then District Animal Husbandry Officer, Chaibasa in criminal conspiracy with Dr. M.K. Srivastava, Assistant Director (Poultry), Chaibasa, Dr. G.P. Tripathy, M.V.O., Chaibasa, Dr. D. Dorai, Manager, Government Cattle Farm, Saraikela, Silas Tirkey, Treasury Officer, Chaibasa along with number of suppliers fraudulently withdrew an amount of Rs. 376279883/- during the year 1992-1993 on the basis of false / fake bills of suppliers. Such withdrawals were made against a meagre amount of few lakhs of rupees actually allotted by the department of Animal Husbandry. The feed, fodder, medicines and instruments claimed to have been purchased were neither required nor purchased from the accused suppliers. The investigating agency was of the view that the accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy and agreed to do or caused to be done illegal act or acts which are not legal by illegal means at Chaibasa and other places of Jharkhand. The accused withdrew Rs. 376279883/- during year 1992-1993 from Chaibasa Treasury for purported purchase of feed, fodder, medicines and instruments for Animal Husbandry Departments against the contingency bills, which were neither required nor supplied in the quantities falsely shown to have been supplied. In pursuance of the criminal conspiracy payment were made fraudulently to accused suppliers, already mentioned above for either no supply or grossly short supply of materials causing wrongful loss to the then Government of Bihar and corresponding wrongful gain to the accused persons. It also came into knowledge that Rs. 66.93 crores was provided to the entire Animal Husbandry Department of the erstwhile state of Bihar as budgetary grant for the year 1992-1993, whereas expenses incurred during the period were to the tune of Rs. 154.70 crores. It also came into the knowledge during investigation that during year 1992-1993 DAHO, Chaibasa was allotted an

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 7 amount of Rs. 7.10 Lakhs only for purchase of feed, fodder, medicines and instruments but under criminal conspiracy, 67 fake allotment letters amounting Rs. 325946750/- were manufactured at Ranchi by officials of AHD namely late Shayam Bihari Sinha, K.N. Jha, K.M. Prasad and these fake allotment letters were signed by the then budget and Accounts Officer B.B. Prasad at Patna. The accused utilized the fake allotment letters and withdrew amount through Chaibasa Treasury under a conspiracy during year 1992-1993. The amount withdrawn were distributed among the accused persons in ratio of 20% of the billed amount for the suppliers and 80% for the AHD Officials, Government Officers, Ministers, Chief Ministers and other politicians for their respective roles in the conspiracy. The AHD Officials issued fictitious supply orders to accused suppliers, obtained their false bills and procured false acknowledgment authenticating the receipt of the consignments of materials and thus falsified records to show the purported procurement and receipt of supplies. The AHD Officials and suppliers decided to give a part of defrauded amount in return to protection and patronage extended by accused politicians and senior bureaucrats by way of providing free air journey, hotel expenses and other illegal gratification. There were two Regional Directorates in South Bihar. One at Chotanagpur Range, Ranchi having jurisdiction over the Revenue Districts of Ranchi, Gumla, Lohardaga, Palamau, West Singhbhoom (Chaibasa) and East Singhbhoom (Jamshedpur). The other Regional Directorate was North Chotanagpur Range, Hazaribagh having jurisdiction over the Revenue Districts of Hazaribagh, Dhanbad and Giridih. The C.B.I. submitted charge sheet against the accused persons for the offence punishable U/s 120-B r/w Section 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477-A IPC r/w section 13(2) 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with order of sanction for prosecution in respect of accused public servant. Cognizance was taken accordingly. First charge sheet was submitted against 75 accused persons. Later on supplementary charge sheet was filed against accused late Rajo Singh. During pendency of trial accused Chandradeo Prasad Verma, Bhola Ram Toofani, K. Arumugam, Dr. Ram Raj Ram, Dr. Shayam Bihari Sinha, Braj Bhushan Prasad, Dr. Pandey C.P. Sharma, Dr. Duraj Durai, Dr. Gaya Prasad Tripathy, Chandra Shekhar Dubey, Dr. Ranjeet Kumar Mishra, Surendra Nath Sinha, Smt. Shakuntala Sinha and Rajo Singh died. Accused Phool Singh was declared absconder. Accused Shailesh Prasad

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 8

Singh, Dipesh Chandak and Raghvendra Kumar Das were made approvers. During pendency of trial accused Sushil Kumar Jha and Pramod Kumar Jaiswal pleaded guilty and they have already been convicted. 3. Charge were framed and explained over vide order dated 25.04.2005 against the accused persons named above for the offence punishable U/s 120-B r/w section 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477-A of the Indian Penal Code r/w Section 13(2) 13(1)(c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Charges have been framed against public servant and suppliers and separate charge against each of the accused was framed and kept in the file, they denied the contents of charge and claimed to be tried. 4. The point of determination is that whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts? FINDINGS 5. The prosecution has produced altogether 203 witnesses. P.W.1 is Dinesh Chandak. He has deposed that he was one of the accused in this case and he has been granted conditional pardon. He has been supplying wheat bran to different offices of Regional Director, Animal Husbandry Department from 1975 on credit basis. He used to deal with Dr. Bipin Prasad and Dr. C.B. Dubey. His payment was due. He contacted Dr. Bipin Prasad. He told that Dr. Vidhya Bhushan the Piggery Development Officer, Ranchi was asking for commission to release the payment and adviced him to contact with Dr. Shyam Bihari Sinha. He met with Dr. Shyam Bihari Sinha. He came in contact with the key persons of the AHD Department. He paid Rs. 5,000/- to Dr. Shyam Bihari Sinha to increase the supply of broken wheat. He started to supply yellow maize and Ground Nut Cake through his firm namely M/s Maheshwari Brothers, Ranchi and did business of Yellow Maize with various offices of the AHD Department. He received Rs. 20 Lakhs approximately. He started new proprietorship in the year 1985 in the name of M/s Maheshwari Feeds Trading Company, Kolkatta and supplied various offices of AHD Department under Regional Director, Ranchi in the year 1984-85 to 1989-90 and received payment to the tune around 5.85 crores. Some of the supplies were genuine and he paid 15% of the said amount received to Dr. S.B. Sinha and other officials of AHD. There were various bills raised by him on the AHD Department were fake, bogus and fraudulent. He paid 70% of the said amount

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 9 to Dr. S.B. Sinha and other officials of the AHD Department on his instructions namely Dr. Bipin Prasad, Dr. C.B. Dubey, Dr. Vidhya Bhushan, Dr. Capt. J.P. Verma, Dr. Kashi Nath Singh and Dr. Gauri Shankar Prasad etc. Dr. Shyam Bihari Sinha told him that amount received from him were distributed in AHD Department for smooth payment to him. He also told him that the amount received from suppliers was also paid to bureaucrats, politicians, blackmailers etc. He did business in the name of Ankit Industries and received few lakhs from the AHD Department. He did business of fake transportation in the name of M/s R.K. Transport, Ranchi and raised various bills of transportation charges of yellow maize to various offices of the AHD Department under R.D., Ranchi and received payment to the tune of Rs. 15 Lakhs approximately without doing any transportation. The bills raised by him were fake, bogus and fraudulent. He paid 80% of the said amount to Dr. S.B. Sinha and other officials of AHD on instruction of Dr. S.B. Sinha. In the year 1985 he started business in the name of M/s Laxmi Trading Company, Ranchi in the name of his associate staff and raised bills for crushing charges of yellow maize on the various offices of AHD Department under R.D. Ranchi and received payment to the tune of around Rs. 50 Lakhs from the AHD Department. Some of the bills were genuine for which he paid 15% of the said amount to Dr. S.B. Sinha and other officials of AHD Department on his instructions and paid 70% of the amount received for fake crushing charges. He has been supplying wheat bran to the different offices of AHD through M/s Central Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Limited, Ranchi. The total supply to the AHD Department under R.D., Ranchi was to the tune Rs. 5 Lakhs per year till the year 1990-91. From the year 1990-91 to 1993-94 he raised some fake, bogus and fraudulent bills of wheat bran to the various offices of Ranchi AHD without making any supply to the tune of few lakhs yearly. He paid 80% of the said amount received by raising fake bills to Dr. S.B. Sinha and other officials of the AHD on his instructions. He started a new firm in the name of M/s Quality Chemical Suppliers, Ranchi and raised various bills of lab instruments and glassware items on the various offices of the AHD Department under R.D, Ranchi. He received payment and paid 20% of the amount to Dr. S.B. Sinha and other officials of AHD Department. He raised fake bills without supplying to the department and received payment against fake bills. He paid 80% of the said amount received by raising fake bills from the AHD Department

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 10 to Dr. S.B. Sinha and other officials. He continued to supply yellow maize through his firm M/s Quality Chemical Suppliers to the various offices of AHD Department under R.D., Ranchi in the year 1992-93 and received payment to the tune of Rs. 3.38 crores. The bills were fake, bogus and fraudulent. He paid 80% of the said amount to Dr. S.B. Sinha and other officials of AHD Department namely Dr. Shakti Shankar Verma, Dr. Nalani Ranjan Prasad Sinha, Dr. C.B. Dubey, Dr. Shyam Lal Sharma, Dr. J. Bhengraj, Dr. Ravindra Singh, Dr. Birsa Oraon, Dr. Gauri Shankar Prasad, Dr. Krishna Mohan Prasad, Dr. K.N. Jha, Dr. B.N. Sharma, Dr. Pandey C.P. Sharma and others. He started business in the year 1989 in the name of Sri Badri Narayan and Company at Silliguri at Kolkatta and raised various bills of yellow maize on the various offices of AHD Department under R.D., Ranchi namely Piggery Development Officer, Ranchi, General Manager Milk Supply-cum-Dairy Firm, Ranchi, DAHO, Ranchi, DAHO, Chaibasa, DAHO, Jamshedpur from year 1989-90 to 1994-95 and received payments to the tune Rs. 93 crores approximately most of the bills were fake bogus and fraudulent and no supply of yellow maize was ever made. He paid 80% of said amount to Dr. S.B. Sinha and other officials of AHD. He stated some of the names to whom he paid money namely Dr. Nalani Ranjan Prasad Sinha, Dr. Shakti Shankar Verma, Dr. C.B. Dubey, Dr. J. Bhengraj, Dr. Shyam Lal Sharma, Dr. Ravindra Singh, Dr. Birsa Oraon, Dr. Vidhya Bhushan, Dr. Krishna Mohan Prasad, Dr. B.N. Sharma, Dr. Pandey C.P. Sharma, Dr. Gauri Shankar Prasad, Dr. Shashi Kumar Singh, Dr. H.S. Verma, Dr. Sidheshwar Prasad, Dr. Ramesh Rai and staffs of AHD Department such as Bada Babu and Chhota Babu etc. Dr. S.B. Sinha was very close to him and he told him that 30% of the amount received from different suppliers against payment on the basis of bogus and fraudulent bills was paid to the Drawing and Disbursing Officer concern, 5% each to the concern Treasury Officers, 5% to the Budget Officers, Patna along with his Subordinates, 5% to the concern R.D., 5% to the Officers and staff of the office of the R.D., Ranchi. Balance 30% was shared between Dr. S.B. Sinha and Dr. Krishna Mohan Prasad after deducting the expenses incurred in paying of Senior Politicians, Blackmailers, Bureaucrats etc. He revealed all these facts and produced many relevant documents before C.B.I. Officials. He showed so called sales of yellow maize to the various offices of AHD under R.D., Ranchi by trucks from Silliguri Office to the various

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 11 godowns and offices of the AHD Department in the account of M/s Shree Badri Narayan and Company. The consignment papers issued by him showing supplies of yellow maize do not contain signatures and stamps of the officials of check post namely Bagdogra and Dalkhola Check Post. A road permit or Form- D of the Sales Tax Department, Bihar in favour of consignor or the consignee was required. He obtained Form-D from the Sales Tax Department, Ranchi on requisition of the AHD Department, Ranchi but Form-D was not used by him because actual supply was not done, so Form-D issued by the Sales Tax Department were in his possession and the same were produced by him before CBI. He maintained his books of account of Sri Badri Narayan and Company and shown to have supplied the so called purchased yellow maize from the so called farmers. He showed that the so called farmers used to come with truck loaded with so called yellow maize to his godowns at Silliguri and he dispatched the so called trucks from Silliguri to the various offices of the AHD Department under R.D., Ranchi and shown to have issued Hundies to the so called farmers. The names of the so called farmers shown in his Hundies were fake and bogus. The unsigned copies were kept by him because there was no farmers and he produced the Hundies before CBI. The Truck number shown by him on segment papers and delivery challans were fake and bogus. Actually the truck numbers which were noted down by him were given by the staff who was posted on the national highway by him to note down the truck number of the truck passing through on the highway. The truck number shown by him do not have even the permits to enter into the State of Bihar. He had shown that the driver of the so called trucks had signed papers showing receipt of advance paper towards freight by him but actually no such trucks were engaged and the papers showing advance payment to the said trucks were unsigned and lying with him which were produced before CBI Officials. He shown that the said trucks were procured from two participation company namely North Bengal Transport Company and Sought Bihar Transport Company at Silliguri which were fake and bogus and no such transport company ever existed at Silliguri. He had shown to have transported more than 250 to 650 trucks load of yellow maize from Silliguri to the different offices of AHD under R.D., Ranchi. He has further stated that the officials of AHD shown to have received the so called yellow maize in less amount for which weight bridge was required but it was not supplied and it

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 12 might be weighted manually but it was not possible because 150 trucks were allegedly unloaded. He raised fake bills of M/s Quality Chemical for glassware items on the different offices of AHD. It was shown that glassware items were purchased from local market manufactured by reputed company such as Borocil but huge quantity of glassware items in open market could not be purchased. Form-D of Sales Tax Department was required for transportation of yellow maize which was not obtained. Like that fake bills raised regarding supply of wheat bran which is by product of Roller Flour Mill. He shown that he purchased the so called wheat bran but from where the purchase was done. The vouchers from manufacturer was not available. He revealed all the facts and working of fake and fraudulent method adopted by the supplier and officials of AHD Department. CBI seized Rs. 1.3 crores from his residential office address at Kolkatta. He used huge amount for hospitality of the officials of AHD and their family members as on Air fares, Hotel Expenditure and Shopping etc. During the scam he paid around Rs. 40 crores to Dr. S.B. Sinha, around Rs. 15 crores to Dr. Krishna Mohan Prasad, around Rs. 50 Lakhs to Dr. Shakti Shankar Verma, Dr. Nanlani Ranjan Prasad Sinha, around Rs. 70 Lakhs to Dr. J. Bhengraj, around Rs. 2 crores to Dr. B.N. Sharma, around Rs. 1.75 crores to Dr. C.B. Dubey, around Rs. 1.5 crores to Dr. Gauri Shankar Prasad, around Rs. 55 Lakhs to Dr. Ram Prakash Ram, around Rs. 50 Lakhs to Dr. Ravindra Singh and Rs. 1 crores to Dr. Shashi Kumar Singh. He paid also to Dr. Vidya Bhushan, Dr. Birsa Oraon, Dr. Sidheshwar Prasad, Dr. Pandey C.P. Sharma, Dr. H.S. Verma and Dr. Ramesh Rai etc. In the month of April 1992 Dr. S.B. Sinha called him at the official residence of Dr. Shashi Kumar Singh at Buti Road, Ranchi and asked him to lift Rs. 6 crores lying in suitcase because income tax raid was done. He lifted the same. After that he became more reliable for them and they started to keep more money derived out from fake and fraudulent withdrawal. They started to keep the fraudulent money in possession with other suppliers namely Vijay Mallik, M.S. Bedi at Delhi, Mr. Tripurari Mohan Prasad and Mahendra Prasad at Patna, Mr. Md. Sayeed at Ranchi. He made arrangement for trip to Madras for treatment of S.B. Sinha in the year 1992 and Mr. Prakash Sahay, Dr. Vidya Bhushan, Mr. R.K. Das and Mr. P.M. Prasad also went there. He arranged their stay at Hotel Chola Sherton. He paid for Air fares, Hotel Expenses and Medical Expenses. He paid Rs. 23 Lakhs to Mr. Gopal

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 13

Bandhopadhyay in the month of April / May 1995 and Rs. 8.5 Lakhs again for purchase of land. The land was purchased in the name of Ganesh Dubey. Receiving of Rs. 8.5 Lakhs by Gopal Bandhopadhayay was produced by him. He paid Rs. 25 Lakhs to Mr. Arun Ladia related with film industry on behalf of Dr. S.B. Sinha. He procured gold and arranged for gold bonds in the name of the family members of Dr. S.B. Sinha namely Alok Kumar Sinha, Mrs. Ritu Sinha, Master Abhi Sinha, Mr. P.S. Dayal, Mrs. S. Dayal, Master P.S. Dayal, Mr. Prakash Sahay, Mrs. R. Sahay, Ms. P. Sahay and Master N. Sahay. He procured gold from M/s Jalan, Kolkatta and obtained gold bonds. The address shown on the forms of gold bonds was the family office address of this witness. He paid Rs. 1.40 crores to Mr. Jalan against the purchase of Gold and Rs. 40,000/- for his commission. The gold bonds were seized by the CBI. He converted Rs. 8.5 crores of Dr. S.B. Sinha into white through three companies namely M/s Narang Distributors, M/s Raimcome Commercial Pvt. Limited and M/s Tarmark Consultants Pvt. Limited. Family members of Dr. S.B. Sinha were made Directors in the said company. He produced all the related documents before CBI. He purchased property in the name of family members of Dr. S.B. Sinha and Dr. Krishna Mohan Prasad at Kolkatta. He produced documents relating with the purchase. He arranged dollars for Renal Transplantation of Dr. S.B. Sinha at Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Australia. On the occasion of departures of Dr. S.B. Sinha to Australia for Renal Transplantation so many officials and suppliers of AHD Department came to Kolkatta on 08.12.1994 and stayed in Hotel Taj Bengal, Kolkatta. They were Mr. Ram Raj Ram, Mr. Girish Prasad, Dr. Manoj Kumar, Mr. R.K. Das, Dr. S.B. Sinha and his family members, Dr. Shashi Kumar Singh, Dr. Krishna Mohan Prasad, Dr. Gauri Shankar Prasad, Dr. B.N. Sharma, Dr. Arjun Sharma, Dr. Tripathi, Dr. M. Srivastava, Dr. C.B. Dubey, Dr. Shakti Shankar Verma , Dr. J Bhegnraj, Dr. Ravindra Singh, Dr. Birsa Oraon, Dr. H.S. Verma, Dr. Ramesh Rai, Dr. R.K. Rana, Mrs. Patra, Mr. Tripurari Mohan Prasad, Md. Sayeed and many other officials and suppliers. The documents related with Hotel Taj Bengal were seized by CBI. He has stated also that on 09.12.1994 a meeting of AHD Officials held in Hotel Taj Benga. The other officials of AHD said to Mr. S.B. Sinha that accounts should be settled before his departure to Australia. S.B. Sinha directed this witness Dinesh Chandal to pay Rs. 50 Lakhs to Dr. B.N. Sharma, Rs. 50 Lakhs to Dr. C.B.

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 14

Dubey, Rs. 25 Lakhs to Dr. Ravindra Sigh, Rs. 1 crores to Dr. Shashi Kumar Singh and Rs. 2 crores to Dr. Krishna Mohan Prasad. He paid the amount accordingly at the night of 09.12.2014. He had withdrawn the amount from his account no. 1836, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Park Street Branch, Kolkatta in the name of Sri Badri Narayan and Company. He had arranged stay of Dr. C.B. Sinha and his family Dr. Krishna Mohan Prasad and his family at Hotel Hyatt Regency, Delhi. He purchased jewelery for them from Mehra Sons Jewelery, Cannaught Place, New Delhi. He installed telephone connection in the residence of S.B. Sinha at Ranchi in the name of Ravikant Mohta. Telephone bills were paid by him. Due to ill health Dr. S.B. Sinha handed over the responsibility of accountancy of fake and fraudulent business to Dr. Krishna Mohan Prasad. Dr. Krishna Mohan Prasad was not fair in dealing with his associates and again the responsibility was taken by Dr. S.B. Sinha. Income Tax Department seized a paper containing details of money taken from suppliers and distributed among AHD Officials from the possession of Dipesh Chandal in the year 1992. This witness Dipesh Chandal managed transfer of Sri A.C. Chaudhary from Madras to Ranchi as Commissioner of Income Tax through Mr. Shiva Swamy because the officials of AHD were afraid from Income Tax Department, Ranchi. He had brought Rs. 1.5 crores which was to be given to Dr. S.B. Sinha but the matter became known to the Anti Social Elements and a dacoity was committed in the house of this witness in the evening of 4.12.1992. The Drawing and Disbursing Officers of various offices of AHD Department used to come with requisition letter for allotment of funds under various scheme of AHD before Dr. S.B. Sinha and Dr. Krishna Mohan Prasad. They were Dr. K.N. Jha, Dr. Vidya Bhushan, Dr. Srivastava, Dr. J. Bhengraj, Dr. Shyam Lal Sharma, Dr. C.B. Dubey, Dr. Kashi Nath Singh, Dr. Gauri Shankar Prasad, Dr. Ram Prakash Ram, Dr. Pandey C.P. Sharma, Dr. B.N. Sharma. After receiving requisitions Dr. S.B. Sinha / Dr. Krishna Mohan Prasad used to handover the said requisition letters to Mr. S.N. Sahu, a Head Clerk posted in the office of R.D., AHD Department, Ranchi with instructions to get allotment letter typed on behalf of the Budget Officer, AHD Department, Patna. S.N. Sahu used to get prepared allotment letters on behalf of Budget Officers through Mr. Rishi Bhushan a typist posted at R.D. Office, AHD, Ranchi. Dr. S.B. Sinha / Dr. Krishna Mohan Prasad used to collect the fake allotment letters and carry the

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 15 same to Patna and these letters were signed by Nityanand Singh and after his retirement by Brij Bhushan Prasad through R.K. Das or Dr. Shashi Kumar Singh or Mr. Mahendra Prasad. The Budget Officers were paid 5 % of the amount withdrawn from the various Treasury of the Government of Bihar. Mr. Brij Bhushan Prasad and Mr. Nityanand Singh signed fake allotment letters even in presence of this witness. Dispatch numbers were arranged by Mr. R.K. Das and others. Bills were prepared by the office of Drawing and Disbursing Officers of AHD Department and were presented before Treasury Officers. The Treasury Officers were also well aware of the fake and forged allotment. The Treasury Officers were given 5 % of the amount of bills. The bills were presented before the bank and drafts were prepared in favour of the suppliers. The bank drafts were given back to Dr. S.B. Sinha and Dr. Krishna Mohan Prasad. They used to note down the amount of payment and thereafter handed over the same to the concerned suppliers. As per directions of either Dr. S.B. Sinha or Dr. Krishna Mohan Prasad, the suppliers of AHD Department used to meet reserved Veterinary Officers. They were Dr. Ramesh Rai, Dr. Gopal Sukla, Dr. Sidheshwar Prasad, Dr. H.S. Verma. The quantity of orders were placed as per instructions of Dr. S.B. Sinha or Dr. Krishna Mohan Prasad. The requisition raised by various offices of AHD were sent to Dr. S.B. Sinha / Dr. Krishna Mohan Prasad. Dr. Krishna Mohan Prasad, Assistant Director, Planning, R.D., Ranchi used to write down note sheet giving justification for the purchase of the said items and file was put up before Dr. S.B. Sinha. After Dr. S.B. Sinha other officers became R.J.D. and they used to forward the file to Regional Director, Ranchi. Dr. K.N. Jha was posted as Regional Director, Ranchi. Fake supply were shown and challans were delivered to Junior Officers. They used to maintain stock registers. They were Dr. Rajendra Goswamy, B.N. Srivastava, Gaya Tripathi, Arjun Sharma, Mukesh Srivastava, Mr. Daroie, Mr. Birsa Oraon, Dr. Ravindra Singh, Dr. S.S. Verma and Dr. Nalani Ranjan Prasad Sinha. They used to give certificate on the said fake and bogus bills certifying to have received the materials. The bills came to the Accounts Department through proper channel for release of the payments and bills were presented before concern Treasury. Accordingly bank drafts were prepared already stated earlier. The suppliers used to withdraw the money from their bank account and pay 80% of the said amount received from AHD to Dr. S.B. Sinha or to any other

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 16 officials of AHD as per instruction of Dr. S.B. Sinha. All the officials in AHD Department were posted and transferred as per the desire of Dr. S.B. Sinha. Senior Bureaucrats Secretaries concerned with the AHD Department were also posted as per desire of Dr. S.B. Sinha with the help of Senior Politicians. Mr. Mahesh Prasad, Mr. Phool Chand Singh, Mr. Juluious Beck and Mr. K. Arunmugum were very close to Dr. S.B. Sinha. Mr. Rajeev Kumar and Mr. Sajal Chakraborty were D.C., Ranchi and Chaibasa respectively as per desire of Dr. S.B. Sinha. Md. Sayeed used to look after the interest of Mr. Rajeev Kumar. Dr. B.N. Sharma used to look after the interest of Mr. Sajal Chakraborty. He saw Mr. Sajal Chakraborty in Hotel Hyatt Regency, Delhi when he came to meet Dr. S.B. Sinha. He saw him also in the residence of Dr. S.B. Sinha at Ranchi. Dr. S.B. Sinha told him that he knew Mr. Lalu Prasad Yadav long before he came Chief Minister of Bihar and he used to pay him regularly directly or through Dr. R.K. Rana. Dr. R.K. Rana was very close to Dr. S.B. Sinha and he was very close to Mr. Lalu Prasad Yadav also. Dr. S.B. Sinha gave Rs. 5 Lakhs to Mr. Lalu Prasad Yadav in the year 1990 to manage some M.L.A. In the year 1992 Dr. S.B. Sinha told him to manage Rs. 1 crore. He managed the amount and came to Hotel Patliputra Ashok, Patna where Dr. S.B. Sinha was stayed and he along with Dr. S.B. Sinha, Dr. Shashi Kumar Singh and Dr. R.K. Rana went Delhi by Air Flight. The money was handed over to R.K. Rana. Dr. S.B. Sinha told him that the money was to be paid to Lalu Prasad Yadav. In the month of January, 1993 he came to Delhi with Dr. S.B. Sinha and stayed at Hotel Hyatt Regency, Delhi where telephone call was received by Dr. S.B. Sinha and he proceeded to Bihar Bhawan to meet with Lalu Prasad Yadav. Dr. S.B. Sinha came back around 11.00 O'Clock in the night and instructed Mr. Vijay Mallick, a supplier of the AHD Department to come next day with Rs. 1 crore which was to be paid to Mr. Prem Gupta. Dr. S.B. Sinha told him that Prem Gupta used to handle the Finance of Lalu Prasad Yadav. On 08.12.1994 Dr. R.K. Rana went Kolkatta when Dr. S.B. Sinha was to go to Australia for Renal Transplantation and said to Dr. S.B. Sinha that what arrangement was made for Rs. 15 Crores which was promised by him to Lalu Prasad Yadav. Dr. S.B. Sinha told him that the said amount would be delivered to him by Dr. Krishna Mohan Prasad. Later on Dr. S.B. Sinha told him that Rs. 15 Crores had already been given to Dr. R.K. Rana in installments during December, 1994 to January, 1995. On 22.01.1996 this

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 17 witness was staying with Dr. S.B. Sinha in his house situated at Sarpriya Vihar, Haus Khas, New Delhi. Two telephone connections were installed in that house bearing no. 6968393 and 6969289. At 11.00 O' Clock in the night the telephone rang. The witness received telephone and asked about on the other side. It was Mr. Ramai Ram. He told him that Bada Sahab wanted to talk with Dr. S.B. Sinha. Dr. S.B. Sinha talked on telephone. He told him that Mr. Lalu Prasad Yadav was on other side and he told him that an enquiry had been ordered into the matters of illegal affairs of AHD Departments. Mr. Mukund Prasad had also a telephonic talk with Dr. S.B. Sinha and he confirmed the above information. Dr. S.B. Sinha met with Lalu Prasad Yadav on 27.01.1996 and he was assured by him that enquiry would be confined only to the financial year 1995-1996. He promised Lalu Prasad Yadav to pay Rs. 10 crores for this favour. Dr. S.B. Sinha told this witness to arrange Rs. 1 crore. This witness shown his inability and arranged only Rs. 50 Lakhs and delivered the same to Mr. Mahendra Prasad at Patna. The witness was very happy because he had already left business in the department of AHD in February, 1995. Dr. S.B. Sinha was also happy because he has already retired in December, 1994. Dr. S.B. Sinha told this witness that Rs. 10 crores had been paid by Mr. Mahendra Prasad and Tripurari Mohan Prasad to Dr. R.K. Rana. The matter came before the Hon'ble High Court, Patna and there was hue and cry in the media. Lalu Prasad Yadav ordered enquiry into the affairs of AHD Department for the previous financial years also. First F.I.R. was lodged in Doranda P.S., Ranchi on 17.02.1996. Dr. S.B. Sinha told this witness that he paid Rs. 55 crores to Rs. 60 crores approximately to Lalu Prasad Yadav from time to time either directly or through Dr. R.K. Rana or through Mr. Prem Gupta. Dr. S.B. Sinha used to pay handsome amount to the other politicians such as Dr. Jagarnath Mishra. Supplier M.S. Bedi had come to Australia to see Dr. S.B. Sinha during his treatment there where he was told to pay Rs. 50 Lakhs to Dr. Jagarnath Mishra. M.S. Bedi paid the amount to Dr. Jagarnath Mishra and informed Dr. S.B. Sinha in Australia on telephone in presence of this witness. Dr. S.B. Sinha received telephonic call of Dr. Jagarnath Mishra in Australia and acknowledged receiving of Rs. 50 Lakhs. When the Fodder Scam came into light, he gave Rs. 25 Lakhs to Dr. Jagarnath Mishra through Ganesh Dubey in the month of February, 1996. Dr. S.B. Sinha used to pay money to other politicians namely Chandra Deo Prasad Verma,

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 18

Rajo Singh, Bhola Ram Toofani, Maulana Azami and Ranjan Yadav. He has already stated these facts in his statement U/s 164 of the Cr.P.C. and 306 Cr.P.C. Income Tax raids were done on suppliers and officials of AHD in the year 1992 which worried the scammers and it was managed to had an enquiry by the public accounts committee of the Bihar Assembly through its Chairman. Mr. Ram Jatan Sinha was first Chairman of PAC. Dr. S.B. Sinha managed him and he did not do anything in his enquiry in the affairs of AHD Department. Mr. Jagdish Sharma became next Chairman of PAC and he was also managed by Dr. S.B. Sinha. He met with Jagdish Sharma and obliged him monetarily. Jagdish Sharma ordered to seized the documents of AHD Department regarding the scam, so that it may be said that the documents of AHD had already been seized by PAC and it could not be made available to others. Mr. Phul Jha issued seizure list of the document without seizure of the documents. It became a common phenomena. After Jagdish Sharma the next Chairman of PAC was Dhruv Bhagat and he was also managed monetarily. Mr. Phul Jha became afraid after breaking the news of scam and he met with Dr. S.B. Sinha in Delhi. He requested him to give directions to various officials of AHD to give a receiving that the seized books of accounts have already been returned back. Dr. S.B. Sinha assured him and receiving were issued by different offices of AHD stating that the seized documents have already been returned. The fraudulent withdrawal was very low at initial stage but as soon as the matter leaked, politicians, bureaucrats and blackmailers started to threatened Dr. S.B. Sinha and he was forced to increase the fraudulent amount to shut the mouth of these peoples. After retirement of Dr. S.B. Sinha this witness adviced him to stop himself from the scam because he has also been frustrated by the pressure of all these things. Dr. S.B. Sinha became ready to stop his indulgence but bureaucrats senior politicians, blackmailers anti social media persons were giving threat to him to expose the same. Dr. S.B. Sinha became helpless and continued to look after and manage the affairs of AHD even after his retirement in the month of December, 1994. He produced 63 bills of M/s Sri Badri Narayan and Company which were signed by his staff Damodar Prasad on his behalf or on behalf of the firm. This guard file was maintained by accounts department of District Animal Husbandry Officer, Chaibasa. He identified the signature of his staff Damodar Prasad and said that the bills were prepared by him on computer.

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 19

The concerned order copies attached with the file were the office copy issued by R.D. Office, Ranchi containing orders of R.D. Office, Ranchi. Bills were raised against the order of R.D. Office, Ranchi. The guard file contains 122 pages marked as exhibit-1. He identified 46 bills of his firms signed by him kept in guard file which contains supply order of R.D. Ranchi. There were 91 pages in guard file. The guard file was marked as exhibit-1/1. Another guard file containing 43 bills of his firm which were signed by him and his staff Damodar Prasad along with supply orders were identified. This guard file contains 86 pages. Guard file was marked exhibit-1/2. Another guard file containing 13 bills signed by Damodar Prasad with supply order having 25 pages were identified by him and marked as exhibit-1/3. Another guard file containing 58 bills of his firm were identified by him. Two bills were signed by him and 56 bills were signed by Damodar Prasad. The guard file contains supply order also. There were 115 pages marked as exhibit-1/4. Similarly another guard file containing 49 bills of his firm signed by him attached with supply orders were identified by him. This file contains 101 pages and marked as exhibit-1/5. The other file containing 197 pages, having 98 bills signed by this witness supported with supply orders were identified and marked as exhibit-1/6. Other file containing 79 bills of his firm signed by him and attached with supply order having 157 pages were identified and marked as exhibit-1/7. The file containing 20 bills signed by him and attached with supply orders were identified by him. This file contains 39 pages. The file was marked as exhibit-1/8. The other file containing 64 bills of his firm and signed by Damodar Prasad attached with supply orders were identified by him. This file contains 128 pages. This file was marked as exhibit- 1/9. A bunch of 16 bills of his firm signed by him attached with supply orders were identified by him. This bunch contains 32 pages and the entire bunch was marked as exhibit-1/10. Similarly 13 guard files containing bills and orders having 21 pages, 163 pages, 157 pages, 68 pages, 38 pages, 128 pages, 193 pages, 177 pages, 54 pages, 156 pages, 138 pages, 138 pages and 186 pages of his firm Badri Narayan & Company were produced which were identified by him and these 13 files were marked as exhibit-1/11 to 1/23 respectively. 15 guard files containing 117 bills which supply orders having 237 pages, 65 bills attached with supply orders having 180 pages, 4 bills attached with supply orders having 201 pages, 48 bills attached with supply orders having 121

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 20 pages, 37 bills attached with supply orders having 82 pages, 74 bills attached with supply orders having 142 pages, 100 bills attached with supply orders having 198 pages, 85 bills attached with supply orders having 196 pages, 24 bills attached with supply orders having 120 pages, 2 bills attached with supply orders having 85 pages, 14 bills attached with supply orders having 40 pages, 58 bills attached with supply orders having 116 pages, 41 bills attached with supply orders having 81 pages, 40 bills attached with supply orders having 80 pages, 6 bills attached with supply orders having 72 pages of the firm of Badri Narayan & Company were identified by him having signature of Damodar Prasad. These 15 files were marked as exhibit-1/24 to 1/38 respectively. The other file containing 70 bills attached with supply orders having 142 pages of his firm were identified by him among which 15 bills were signed by him and 55 bills were signed by Damodar Prasad. This file was marked as exhibit-1/39. Other file containing 67 bills attached with supply orders having 201 pages of his firm were identified by him amongst them, one bill was signed by him and others were signed by Damodar Prasad. This filed was marked as exhibit-1/40. The guard file containing 97 bills attached with supply orders having 193 pages of his firm were identified by him. Out of these 97 bills, 43 bills were signed by him and 54 bills were signed by Damodar Prasad. This file was marked as exhibit-1/41. The guard file containing 79 bills attached with supply orders having 162 pages of his firm were identified by him. Amongst them 47 bills were signed by him and 32 bills were signed Damodar Prasad. This file was marked as exhibit-1/42. The other file containing 95 bills with supply orders having 187 pages of his firm were identified by him amongst them 28 bills were signed by him and 67 bills were signed by Damodar Prasad. This file was marked as exhibit-1/43. The other file containing 77 bills with supply orders having 158 pages of his firm were identified by him, amongst them 37 bills were signed by him and 40 bills were signed by Damodar Prasad. This file was marked as exhibit-1/44. The other file containing 40 bills with supply orders having 138 pages of his firm were identified by him, amongst them 33 bills were signed by him and 7 bills were signed by Damodar Prasad. This file was marked as exhibit-1/45. Other file containing 62 bills with supply orders having 114 pages of his firm were identified by him, amongst them 1 bill was signed by him and 62 bills were signed by Damodar Prasad. This file was marked as exhibit-1/46.

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 21

Another file containing 70 bills with respective supply orders having 144 pages of his firm were identified amongst them 59 bills were signed by him and 11 bills were signed by Damodar Prasad. This file was marked as exhibit-1/47. Similarly other 8 files containing 19 bills with respective supply orders having 38 pages of his firm, 20 bills with respective supply orders having 40 pages of his firm, 20 bills with respective supply orders having 39 pages, 19 bills with supply orders having 38 pages, 20 bills with respective supply orders having 39 pages, 18 bills with respective supply orders having 37 pages, 12 bills with respective supply orders having 21 pages were identified by him. All the bills belong to his firm and these files were marked as exhibit-1/48 to 1/55 respectively. The other file containing 16 bills with their supply orders having 106 pages of his firm Quality Chemical Suppliers, Neori Vikas, Ranchi signed by Damodar Prasad were identified by him. This file was marked as exhibit-1/56. Other file containing 20 bills with respective supply orders having 40 pages of his firm Quality Chemical Suppliers signed by Damodar Prasad were identified by him. This file was marked as exhibit-1/57. He further stated that all the bills marked as exhibits were false and no supply was done to the AHD Department. The above bills were passed for payment by the concern DAHO, Chaibasa and he received payments for the aforesaid bills raised by him. The payment was done by demand draft in favour of his companies payable at Kolkatta issued by State Bank of India, Chaibasa duly passed by Treasury Officer, Chaibasa. The amount was deposited in his firm Sri Badri Narayan and Company bearing Account No. 1836 in Oriental Bank of Commerce, Park Street Branch, Kolkatta. He identified 149 demand drafts which contain his signature and seal of his firm. All the demand drafts were marked as exhibit-2 to 2/148. He identified to other demand drafts issued by S.B.I., Chaibasa in favour of M/s Quality Chemical Suppliers payable at S.B.I., Service Branch, Kolkatta. He deposited these two demand drafts in his Bank Account with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Park Street, Kolkatta. Both the demand drafts contain his signature and seal of his firm marked as exhibit-2/149 and 2/150. The amount was credited in his account and he withdrawn the amount from his bank account. He paid 80 % of the amount which was received by him to Dr. S.B. Sinha and others on instruction of S.B. Sinha. He has deposed in his cross examination that his petition for grant of pardon in R.C. 54/1996 was rejected by the court of Sri A.K.

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 22

Sen Gupta, Special Judge, CBI, Rachi and he preferred petition against that order to the Hon'ble High Court, Jharkhand and also to the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was dismissed. Tripurari Mohan Prasad, Sunil Kumar Sinha and Sushil Kumar Sinha had no concern with his business and firm. The seizure list prepared by CBI was not provided to him by CBI before to be approver of this case. He did not produce any document related with Tripurari Mohan Prasad. He did not see day to day movement of files in AHD Department or in Patna Secretariate. He did not produce any document regarding stay of Tripurari Mohan Prasad at Hotel and no document relating with talk between Tripurari Mohan Prasad and Dr. S.B. Sinha have been produced by him when S.B. Sinha was getting treated in Australia. He was proprietor of Badri Narayan & Company. His father was Director of M/s Central Roller Flour Miss Pvt. Limited, Tatisilway and he was Managing Director of that meal. There were so many share holders of that meal. Annual return were filed on behalf of the company before Registrar in the signature of the Directors but all the Directors of that company has not been made accused in this case. M/s Chhotanagpur Industrial Pvt. Limited, M/s Bihar Steel Products, M/s Ankit Industrial Gas Pvt. Limited, M/s Veena Textile and so many other meals and firms were in the names of his relative or in his name. M/s Laxmi Trading Company is registered in the name of his staff Rajesh Kumar. M/s Quality Chemical was registered in his name along with his brother. The accounts of the firms stated by the defence counsel were not given to the court by him before being him approver of this case. The documents were not produced before him by the CBI. He has deposed as witness in R.C. Case No. 5(A)/1996. His petition to be approver in R.C. Case No. 54(A)/1996 was rejected by the court and this fact was not stated before the court in the present case. He did not see the files of Phool Chand Singh and Mahesh Prasad. He did not know about the movement of transfer and posting files of AHD Departments. He did not see all the allotment letter, requisition letter, supply orders and contingent bills of the AHD Departments. He did not know about the process of passing of bills. He did not know about the Treasury Code. He did not see audit report regarding the department of AHD. He could not say names of all the accused persons of this case, neither he could say about the specific role of each of the accused persons in the scam. He did not know the financial year for which the present case has been filed and the actual

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 23 amount of scam. He gave his statement related with R.C. Case No. 54(A)/1996 also. No case for in appropriate asset has either been filed against him or against his relative. He did not produce any paper regarding the income of Maheshwari Feed Trading Company. R.K. Transport is registered in the name of Rajesh Kumar who was his staff and his statement has not been got supported by Rajesh Kumar. Laxmi Trading Company was looked after by Rajesh Kumar. The company received Rs. 50 Lakhs but CBI did not take statement of Rajesh Kumar. The statement of Sales Tax, Income Tax, Stock Register, Books of Accounts and Supply Register of M/s Central Roller Flour Mill, Ranchi were maintained in a computer which was seized by CBI. Whenever requirement of wheat corn was raised, he used to take material from other private flour mills . He earned Rs. 43 Lakhs from Quality Chemical Supply, Ranchi from 1985 to 1989 but he does not contain any paper in this regard. His brother Ritesh Chandak was also partner of this firm. He was proprietor of Badri Narayan & Company but he could not produce any paper in this regard claiming that he was sole proprietor of this firm. He has given statement in R.C. Case No. 20(A)/ 1996 as approver while Dr. S.B. Sinha was alive and the same statement has been given in this case also. He has no document regarding treatment of Dr. S.B. Sinha at Madras in the year 1988. He did not file bill of expenditure incurred by him in medical treatment of Dr. S.B. Sinha in his Income Tax Return of 1988. The statement of withdrawal from his account maintained in Oriental Bank of Commerce, Kolkatta bearing Account No. 1836 can be explained only after perusal of the statement but the ledger of that account was not shown to him in the court. The bill of Hotel Bengal Kolkatta was obtained but he could not remember whether that bill was given to CBI or not. Case of FERA and FEMA was registered against him as per the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. His passport was seized by CBI. His statement was based on document and as per his knowledge. Exhibit-1 series contain materials of non supplier articles. He could not remember about the live stock remaining at different offices of AHD Units. He gave money to Dr. K.M. Prasad in presence of his son. He never met accused Lalu Prasad. No payment was given to Lalu Prasad in his presence. He never seen Dr. R.K. Rana with Lalu Prasad. He did not see delivery of cash to Lalu Prasad by Dr. R.K. Rana. He neither heard nor saw demand of money from Lalu Prasad. He had no telephonic talk with accused Lalu Prasad. He

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 24 never met with Ramai Ram and Prem Gupta. The statement regarding payment of Rs. 15 crores to Lalu Prasad in the year 1994 by Dr. R.K. Rana does not contain any documentary proof. The payment was not done in his presence. He was not present in the meeting dated 27.01.1996. He did not see the file of Bihar Government relating with AHD Department. He did not know that a meeting was called on 30.01.1996 by the then Chief Minister, Govt. of Bihar regarding fraudulent withdrawal of AHD Department. He did not know about the decision taken in the meeting dated 30.01.1996. PIL bearing No. CWJC 1656/1995 ® and other analogous petitions were filed in the Hon'ble High Court, Patna for investigation of Fodder Scam by CBI. CBI took his statement U/s 161 of the Cr.P.C. when he was in custody. He was approver in R.C Case No. 20(A)/1996 and R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996. He refused the suggestion of the defence counsel that he did not give his statement such as that after the hue and cry by the Media and others, the matter was taken up by the Hon'ble Patna High Court and Mr. Lalu Prasad Yadav ordered enquiry into the affairs of AHD for the previous financial year. He had business under AHD Department, R.D., Ranchi during 1975 to 1995. His family members were partner or Director of his company but CBI did not involve them in any case. He does not maintain personal diary. Income Tax Department had lodged a case against him. His statement U/s 164 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded by Judicial Magistrate in R.C. Case No. 20(A)/1996. He did not know how many members were in Lok Lekha Samiti in the year 1992-93. He did not see any order of Lok Lekha Samiti till 1996. He did not see any report of Lok Lekha Samiti. He did not meet with Jagdish Sharma. He could not say that how many seizure list were prepared by Phool Jha for different offices of AHD Department. He did not know about physical verification of AHD Department by Lok Lekha Samiti during year 1992- 93. He did not know about the procedure of constitution of different committees by Bihar Legislative Assembly. He did not know when accused Jagdish Sharma became president of Lok Lekha Samiti. Dr. B.N. Sharma was posted at AHD Department, Chaibasa in January, 1993. He does not contain any documentary proof regarding stay of Dr. B.N. Sharma in Hotel Taj Bengal. He did not meet with Dr. Jagarnath Mishra and never paid him money. When Dr. S.B. Sinha had a talk with Mr. M.S. Bedi, he was present near

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 25

Dr. S.B. Sinha and he heard the conversation between them. No money was given to Sajal Chakraborty in his presence. He could not say actual date when Dr. S.B. Sinha met with Sajal Chakraborty in Hotel Heyyat Regency, Delhi. Dr. Ram Prakash Ram was at the post of DAHO, Chaibasa in November and December, 1992. No bill of his firm was produced before Dr. Ram Prakash Ram for payment. There was oral instruction of Dr. S.B. Sinha to pay money to Dr. Ram Prakash Ram. P.W.2 is Brajendra Prasad Singh. He has deposed that he was owner of a truck bearing Registration No. BHB – 8222. During the year 1992-93 his truck used to carry articles of F.C.I. from Chutia. During that period his truck was not in condition to run to Chaibasa. He has deposed in his cross examination that his truck was running under his command and it was not given to any transporter. No document regarding his truck was filed in the court. P.W.3 is Kanhaiya Singh. He has deposed that he is owner of truck bearing Registration No. BHB – 4569. He has purchased the truck in the year 1995 and it remained in his possession till the date of his statement. His truck used to carry cement from godowns to Railway Station, Ranchi. His truck never went Chaibasa. His truck was never used for transportation of articles of AHD Department during the years 1985 to 1995. He has deposed in his cross examination that he could not produce any document in support of his statement. P.W.4 is Suresh Kumar Jain. He has deposed that he is working under M/s Ratan Lal Tara Chand Firm from 1986. Truck No. BEN – 1521 was registered in the name of his firm. The truck used to carry coal from Khelari to Jhikpani during the year 1991 to 1993. He was transport incharge of his firm during the period. During the years 1991 to 1993 that truck never carried any article of Chhotanagpur Cattle Feed Supply Company, Rachi and never transported the article to Chaibasa. He has deposed in his cross examination that he is not the owner of Truck Bearing No. BEN-1521. No document was produced before C.B.I. nor any document has been submitted in the court by his firm. P.W.5 is Om Prakash Lal. He has deposed that he is owner of Ambassador Car bearing no. BHB – 5454. His car never carried any articles to

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 26

Chaibasa. The car was being used for his personal need. He has deposed in his cross examination that the investigating agency perused his owner book. P.W.6 is Jivtesh Kumar. He has deposed that he is owner of a truck bearing Registration No. BIL / 6663. During years 1991 to 1993 his truck was running to Bombay and Ichhapur. During this period his truck never went to Chaibasa. He has deposed in his cross examination that CBI looked into the papers of the truck. There is no document of his truck before the court. His truck carried articles of FCI. P.W.7 is Gupteshwar Singh. He has deposed that during the years 1991 to 1993 he was running a business of Bricks and Bhatta. The trucks bearing No. BHB / 8655, BR-14A/3255, BR-14G/8355, BR-14G/8755 and BHN / 8555 were running in his business to carry Bricks, Sand and Coal. These trucks never carried articles of Chhotanagpur Cattle Feed Supply to Chaibasa. He has deposed in his cross examination that there was permit for whole state of Bihar. He does not know whether his driver used to carry other article after his designated work. P.W.8 is Keshav Lal. He is owner of a truck bearing No. PBY / 7711. He purchased this truck in the year 1989 and handed over to A/1 Lines Transport, Ranchi. This truck never carried article of Chhotanagpur Cattle and Feed Supply. He has deposed in his cross examination that he does not contain any document regarding running of his truck. He does not know where his truck was sent by the transport agency. P.W.9 is Birendra Singh. He has deposed that he knew Keshav Lal. His truck bearing no. BPY / 7711 was running in his transport agency namely A/1 Transport during the years 1990-1993. The vehicles run from Ranchi to Kolkatta during this period. His agency never transported article to Chaibasa. He has deposed in his cross examination that he is owner of A/1 Road Lines. He does not contain any paper regarding the running of trucks of his agency. P.W.10 is Sunil Kumar Dubey. He has deposed that there was a truck in his name during the years 1991 to 1993 which was being looked after by his father. As per his knowledge his truck never run at local. His truck was running to Orissa. He has deposed in his cross examination that he does not contain any paper regarding running of his truck.

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 27

P.W.11 is Vijay Kumar Dhanuka. He was owner of a truck bearing no. BIN / 2848 during years 1991 to 1993. The said truck was being used for transportation of coal from CCL to HEC, Ranchi. He does not know Chhotanagpur Cattle Feed Supply Company. His truck never transported article for AHD Department, Chaibasa. He has deposed in his cross examination that he does not contain any record of running of his truck. He did not produce any paper before CBI. P.W.12 is Jagjit Rai. He has deposed that he was posted at the post of Manager of Punjab National Bank, Amba Villa Branch, Aurangabad in the year 1998. CBI took some documents from his bank in the year 1998. Seizure list was prepared in this regard by Sri O.P. Sharma, Inspector, CBI which contains his signature along with signature of O.P. Sharma. The document was marked as exhibit-3. He produced account opening form of Current Account No. 119 in the name of M/s Jay Bhandar. The proprietor of the firm was Umesh Dubey. It was a photo copy certified by him and his signature was marked as exhibit-4. He produced photo copy of statement of account of Current Account No. 119 which was marked as X for identification. He produced original pay-in-slip. Two drafts were deposited by this pay-in-slip in Current Account No. 119 which contains signature of Manager D. Nayak. The signature was marked as exhibit-5. These two drafts were marked as exhibit-2/151 & 2/152. Two original draft purchase forms in the name of Umesh Dubey were produced which were passed by the Officer of his bank namely Madan Lal. His signatures were marked as exhibit-6 & 6/1. Two cheques were identified by him which were given for obtaining drafts on the basis of exhibit-6 & 6/1. These cheques were marked as exhibit-7 & 7/1. The statement of account of Current Account No. 119 in four pages were certified by him and marked as exhibit-8. He has deposed in his cross examination that the Current Account No. 119 was opened as per banking law and no signature was put in his presence at the time of opening the said account. P.W.13 is Vijay Shankar Mishra. He is Manager, Punjab National Bank. He has deposed that in the year 1998 he was posted at Punjab Notational Bank, Punaichak Branch, Patna. Officer of C.B.I. seized some documents from his branch and a seizure memo was prepared on 21.04.1998. It was prepared by Dy. S.P., C.B.I. Sri Ramesh which contains his signature

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 28 along with signature of this witness marked as exhibit-3/1. He produced opening form of Current Account No. 29 in the name of A Trading. The proprietor of the firm was Ravi Kumar Sinha. The photo copy of opening form was certified by him. His signature was marked as exhibit-4/1. He produced photo copy of specimen signature card of Current Account No. 29 certified by him. His signature was marked as exhibit-4/2. Photo copy of five pay-in-slips duly certified by him were produced which contains his signature. Some instruments were deposited in Current Account No. 29 through these pay-in- slips marked as exhibit-4/3 to 4/7. Four drafts of State Bank of India, Chaibasa Branch in the name of A Trader were produced which were deposited in the Branch of this witness. These drafts were marked as exhibit-2/153 to 2/156. Photo copy of ledger of Current Account No. 29 in three pages duly certified by him was filed and marked as exhibit-8/1. He has deposed in his cross examination that original documents are not in his knowledge. Exhibit-8/1 shows that payments were given to different persons. P.W.14 is Surendra Mohan Prasad. He is Manager of Oriental Bank of Commerce. He has deposed that in the year 1998 he was posted at Oriental Bank of Commerce, Kutchari Branch, Ranchi at the post of Branch Manager. C.B.I. seized some documents from his branch and prepared seizure memo. Seizure memo was prepared by Dy. S.P., C.B.I. Sri M. Ramesh in his writing and signature. The seizure memo contains his signature also. The seizure memo was marked as exhibit-3/2. He produced photo copy of Account Opening Form of Current Account No. 929 duly certified by him. The proprietor of the firm was Pramod Kumar Jaiswal. Signature of the witness on the firm was marked as exhibit-4/8. The certified copy of specimen signature of Current Account No. 929 was produced. The witness identified his signature which is marked as exhibit-4/9. Certified copies of four pay-in-slips were produced from which different drafts were deposited in Current Account No. 929 marked as exhibit-4/10 to 4/13. Four drafts of S.B.I. Branch, Chaibasa were produced. All the drafts were in favour of Bhagat & Company. These drafts were marked as exhibit-2/157 to 2/160. The certified copy of draft purchase application of Bhagat & Company was produced which contains the signature of the witness and marked as exhibit-4/14. The certified copy of cheque attached with draft purchase application was produced in signature of this witness and marked as

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 29 exhibit-4/15. The certified copy of statement of account of Current Account No. 929 in two pages were produced in signature of this witness and marked as exhibit-8/2. The defence declined to cross examine him. P.W.15 is Abhijit Bhattacharya. He is Dy. Manager of State Bank of India. He has deposed that in the year 1998 he was posted at S.B.I. Branch, Ashok Nagar, Ranchi at the post of Accountant. C.B.I. seized some paper from his Branch and seizure list was prepared on 17.03.1998 in the writing and signature of Dy. S.P., C.B.I. Sri M. Ramesh. The seizure list contains signature of this witness also, the same was marked as exhibit-3/3. Photo copy of Account Opening Form of Current Account No. 104 in the name of Manisha Enterprises, Ranchi was produced. The proprietor of the firm was Chandrashekhar Dubey. The photo copy was marked as exhibit-X/1. Six drafts of S.B.I., Chaibasa in favour of Manisha Enterprises payable at Ranchi were produced. The amount was deposited in Current Account No. 104 and the amount was encashed. These drafts were marked as exhibit-2/161 to 2/166. Photo copy of statement of account of Current Account No. 104 in four pages was marked as exhibit-X/2 for identification. The seizure list prepared by Sri M. Ramesh on 29.04.1998 in his writing and signature along with signature of this witness was marked as exhibit-3/4. The account opening form-cum-specimen signature card of Current Account No. 173 in the name of Swarn Rekha Medical Agency was produced. The form was duly certified by this witness. The proprietor of the firm was S. Rana. It was marked as exhibit-4/17. The draft issued by S.B.I. Branch, Chaibasa in favour of M/s Swarn Rekha Medical Agency, Ranchi was identified and marked as exhibit-2/167. The photo copy of pay-in-slip from which exhibit 2/167 was deposited in Current Accoun t No. 173 was marked as exhibit-4/18. Certified copy of statement of account of Current Account No. 173 in two pages was marked as exhibit-8/3. The seizure memo prepared by Dy. S.P., M. Ramesh of C.B.I. dated 20.06.1997 was marked as exhibit-3/5. Account opening form-cum-specimen signature card of Current Account No. 153 in the name of M/s Vaishnav Enterprises, Ranchi was marked as exhibit X/3. It was a partnership firm in the names of D.P. Kashyap, Baldeo Kumar Shah and Kalashdharni Kashyap. Three pay-in-slips through which drafts were deposited in Current Account No. 153 were marked as exhibit-4/19 to 4/21. Ninety nine drafts in favour of Vaishnav Enterprises were marked as

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 30 exhibit- 2/168 to 2/171. Statement of account of Current Account No. 153 was marked as exhibit-8/4. He has deposed in his cross examination that Current Account No. 153 was not opened in his presence. Exhibit 4/21, 4/19 and 4/20 does not contain dates. Exhibit-8/4 does not contain date. The documents of Current Account No. 153 were not prepared in his presence. Drafts were not prepared in his presence. Account No. 104 was not opened in his presence. Original copy of statement of account has not been produced before the court. The exhibit does not contain signature of independent witness. P.W.16 is Satyendra Prasad. He has deposed that in the year 1998, he was Assistant Manager, Central Bank of India, Lalpur Branch, Ranchi. C.B.I. seized some papers of bank and prepared seizure memo on 17.03.1998. Memo was prepared by Dy. S.P., M. Ramesh. Seizure list was marked as exhibit-3/6. Photo copy of opening form of Current Account No. 818 in the name of Bhagat & Company, Ranchi was in the name of Pramod Kumar Jaiswal. The signature of R.N. Jha, Senior Manager, Central Bank of India, Lalpur Branch was marked as exhibit-4/22. Specimen signature card certified by R.N. Jha was marked as exhibit-4/23. Photo copy of the pay-in-slip of Bhagat & Company was marked as exhibit-X/4 through which money was deposited in Current Account No. 818. Draft purchase application of Bhagat & Company were marked for identification as X/5 to X/8. The draft in favour of Bhagat & Company was marked as exhibit-2/179. The accused Pramod Kumar Jaiswal refuse to cross examine this witness. P.W.17 is Arun Kumar Singh. He has deposed that in 1998 he was posted at Bank of Baroda, Bhagalpur Branch. He was called by C.B.I. with some documents. These documents were seized on 25.03.1998. Seizure memo was prepared by M. Ramesh and contains signature of M. Ramesh and this witness which is marked as exhibit-3/7. Photo copy of Account Opening Form of Current Account No. 590 in the name of Shakti Pharma Distributor contains his signature marked as exhibit-4/24. The firm was in the name of Satyendra Singh. Two pay-in-slips which contains signature of passing officers of Bank Ramashraya Prasad Singh and K.M. Singh were marked as exhibit-5/1 & 5/2. Four drafts were deposited through exhibits 5/1 & 5/2 in the account of Shakti Pharma bearing Current Account No. 590 marked as exhibit-2/180 to 2/183. Certified copy of statement of account of Current Account No. 590 was marked

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 31 as exhibit-8/5. The accused refused to cross examine this witness. P.W.18 is Sadruddin Ahmad. He has deposed that during 1997 to 2002 he was posted at Oriental Bank of Commerce, Patna. C.B.I. had seized certified copy of statement of account of Tirupati Patna. It was certified by him. The document was marked as exhibit-8/6. He has deposed in his cross examination that the statement of account does not show that the proprietor of firm was Ramawatar Sharma. P.W.19 is Saroj Kanti Dev. He has deposed that in the year 1998 he was posted at Oriental Bank of India, Jugsalai Branch, Jamshedpur. C.B.I. seized some documents from his bank and prepared seizure memo on 10.03.1998. It was prepared by Sri M. Ramesh and contains signature of M. Ramesh and this witness. It was marked as exhibit-3/8. Photo copy of Account Opening Form of Current Account No. 348 in the name of Swastik Drug Agency, Jamshedpur was duly certified by him and marked as exhibit-4/25. The proprietor of the firm was Devendra Kumar Rai. Two pay-in-slips through which instruments were deposited in Current Account No. 348 were marked as exhibit- 5/3 & 5/4. The draft deposited in Current Account No. 348 was marked as exhibit-2/184. The cheque issued from Account No. 348 was honoured and marked as exhibit-7/2. The statement of account of Account No. 348 in ten pages was marked as exhibit-8/7. He has deposed in his cross examination that the transaction made in the account of Swastik Drug Agency was as per banking law. P.W.20 is Pravin Chakarwarti. He has deposed that in the year 1998 he was posted at Union Bank of India, Ranchi. He brought some papers of bank to C.B.I. were it was seized on 20.04.1998 and seizure memo was prepared by Sri M. Ramesh which contains signature of the seizing officer and this witness marked as exhibit-3/9. The bank opening form of Current Account No. 21075 is in the name of Krishna Traders, Ranchi. The proprietor of the firm is Mahendra Kumar Kundan. The document contain a schedule also. The document was marked as exhibit-4/26. The certified copy of specimen signature card of Current Account No. 21075 was marked as exhibit-4/27. Nine pay-in- slips were marked as exhibit-5/5 to 5/13 instruments were deposited through these pay-in-slips in a Current Account No. 21075. Nine drafts deposited through these pay-in-slips in favour of Krishna Traders were marked as Exhibit-

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 32

2/185 to 2/193. Statement of account in four pages duly certified by him was marked as exhibit-8/8. No one turned up to cross examine him and he was discharged. P.W.21 is Birendra Prasad Poddar. He has deposed that in the year 1998, he was posted at Allahabad Bank, Begusarai Branch. He has proved Account Opening Form of Current Account No. 202/11 in the name of Indian Laboratories Pvt. Limited, Patna. The Directors of the firm were Ranjit Kumar Mishra, Shiv Anand, Baspa Jati, Ashok Kaikar, Ashok Chandra Dutta and Ashwani Kumar Anand. It was duly certified by Assistant Manager, Gorakh Nath. His signature was marked as exhibit-4/28. Certified copy of specimen signature card was marked as exhibit-4/29. The certified copy of resolution passed by Board of Directors of Indian Laboratories is marked as exhibit-4/30. The certified copy of memorandum of the said company in eight pages was marked as exhibit-4/31. Three original pay-in-slips of Indian Laboratories Limited were marked as exhibit-5/14 to 5/16. Three drafts of State Bank of India, Chaibasa in favour of Indian Laboratories Pvt. Limited were marked as exhibit-2/194 to 2/196. The certified copy of statement of account of Indian Laboratories Pvt. Limited was marked as exhibit-8/9. He has deposed in his cross examination that the certified copy do not contain date. The certified copies do not contain word “compared”. P.W.22 is Luis Pasheal Ekka. He has deposed that in the year 1998, he was posted at Union Bank of India, Doranda Branch, Ranchi. C.B.I. seized some papers from the bank and prepared seizure memo on 10.03.1998 in the writing of M. Ramesh which contains signature of M. Ramesh and this witness marked as exhibit-3/10. Ten original pay-in-slips were marked as exhibit-5/17 to 5/26. Different instruments were deposited through these pay-in- slips in current account no. 29008. Seven bank drafts of S.B.I., Chaibasa in favour of Satyendra Construction Company, Ranchi were deposited in Current Account No. 29008. These drafts were marked as exhibit-2/197 to 2/203. Four pay-in-slips in favour Satyendra Construction Company were marked as exhibit- 2/27 to 5/30 but it should be read as exhibit-5/27 to 5/30 because pay-in-slips has been given series of exhibit-5. Four cheques of Current Account No. 29008 of Satyendra Construction Company were marked as exhibit-7/3 to 7/6. Four original draft purchased forms of Satyendra Construction Company were

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 33 marked as exhibit-6/2 to 6/5. Four cheques were issued for purchase of these drafts and marked as exhibit-7/7 to 7/10. The certified copy of statement of account of Current Account No. 29008 was marked as exhibit-8/10. He has deposed in his cross examination that transaction of Satyendra Construction Company was done as per banking rules. P.W.23 is Suresh Singh. He has deposed that truck bearing no. BR-14H/9101 was in the name of his wife Kamla Devi. He used to look after that truck. It had got National Permit and it was running from Ranchi to Mumbai. It remained in his possession from 1991 to 1996. The truck never carried articles of Chotanagpur Food Supply Company, Ranchi. He has deposed in his cross examination that he had given papers of owner book permit of the truck to the C.B.I. but during his evidence papers and seizure memo were not produced before him. He does not contain log book of the truck. He does not remember names of all the driver of his truck. P.W.24 is Devi Prasad Banerjee. He has deposed that he had a motorcycle bearing no. BH-R/9020 which remained in his possession from 1980-81 to 1986-87. No transportation was done from his motorcycle for the articles of Manas Sales Corporation. He has deposed in his cross examination that C.B.I. did not show any paper of Manas Sales Corporation. He could not say engine number and chasses number of the motorcycle. P.W.25 is Rajesh Sharan. He has deposed that he was posted at S.B.I. Branch, Kokar from 25.08.1980 to 1997. He identified Account Opening- cum-Specimen Signature Form of Current Account No. C5 / 45 in the name of Krishna Trading, Ranchi which is marked as exhibit-9. It was a partnership firm. The proprietor of the firm was Mahendra Kumar Kundan. He identified original pay-in-slip through which a draft bearing no. 922590 dated 13.03.1993 was deposited. The pay-in-slip was marked as exhibit-5/31 and draft was marked as exhibit-2/204. Four cheques issued from Account No. C5/45 were marked as exhibit-7/12 to 7/18. The certified copy of statement of account in signature of A.K. Banerjee was produced. Signature was marked as exhibit-8/11. He has deposed in his cross examination that the transaction of the firm was done as per banking rules. P.W.26 is Yogendra Paswan. He has deposed that in the year 1998 he was posted at Ranchi at post of District Transport Officer. He gave

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 34 some information in writing to C.B.I. regarding registration of vehicles. The information was given as per memo no. 153 dated 18.02.1998. Forwarding letter was given in his signature which contains 15 sheets of enclosures prepared by his office. Each page contains his signature. The entire document was marked as exhibit-10. He has deposed in his cross examination that a series of registration bears 9999 registration numbers. Registration number may be surrendered and in rare case surrendered registration number is re- issued. C.B.I. did not seized register from his office. Some registration numbers were given by C.B.I. and his office gave details about that registration numbers. The pages of exhibit-10 has been written in pen and some pages have been typed by computer. P.W.27 is Satyendra Singh. He has deposed that truck no. BIR/4821 was registered in the name of his elder brother late Laxman Singh. The truck came into his possession in the year 1989. The truck was looked after by this witness and it was running in local area of Dhanbad. The truck never came either Ranchi or Chaibasa. He has deposed in his cross examination that he cannot say details of movement of that truck during 1989 to 1997. P.W.28 is Maksood Alam. He has deposed that he had purchased a truck bearing No. BPJ-7466 in the year 1987 which was running from Ranchi to Bombay. Truck was purchased in the year 1987. After 1992 it was running from Ranchi to Raipur. He never send any article to Chaibasa from his truck. He does not know Chhotanagpur Food Cattle Supply Company. He has deposed in this cross examination that he has no paper of truck at present. He had produced papers before C.B.I. He has no record of running of his truck. P.W.29 is Prafool Kumar Chaudhary. He has deposed that in the year 1998, he was posted at S.B.I., Exhibition Road Branch, Patna. C.B.I. seized some papers from the bank and seizure list memo was prepared by Sri M. Ramesh on 09.03.1998. The seizure list contains his signature along with signature of M. Ramesh marked as exhibit-3/11. The certified copy of account opening form of Account No. 112 in the name of M/s Inter Pharmaceuticals (India) Pvt. Limited. The Managing Director was Surendra Nath Sinha and Smt. Shakuntala Sinha was its Chairman. It was marked as exhibit-4/32. The certified copy of statement of account of Current Account No. 112 was marked as exhibit-8/12. The letter no. 816-97-98 dated 08.03.1998 was typed by him and

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 35 sent to Sri M. Ramesh, Dy. S.P., C.B.I., Dhanbad. The letter contains signature of Chief Manager Sri Gautam Banerjee. It was marked as exhibit-10/1. The certified copy of two pay-in-slips was produced. Signature of certification were marked as exhibit-4/33 and 4/34. One other certified copy of pay-in-slip was also produced and certification signature was marked as exhibit-4/35. Two cheques of S.B.I., Chaibasa in favour of the said Pharmaceuticals were produced and marked as exhibits-2/204 & 2/205. Five cheques of Current Account No. 112 having signature of Smt. Shakuntala Sinha and three cheques in the signature of Surendra Nath Sinha were marked as exhibit-7/19 to 7/23. He has deposed in his cross examination that Current Account No. 112 was being operated by both persons namely Surendra Natha Sinha and Shakuntala Sinha. Rs. 1,00,000/- cash credit was given to the said account after verification of financial status. M/s Inter Pharmaceuticals (India) Pvt. Limited was a manufacturing unit. The account of the company was satisfactory. P.W.30 is Kanhaiya Kumar Khandalwar. He has deposed that a Scooter bearing No. BHJ / 6982 was purchased in the year 1983 in the name of his elder brother Sushil Kumar Khandalwar. He sold that scooter after four years. He has deposed in his cross examination that he did not know that the registration number of his scooter was given to any truck. P.W.31 is Laxmi Narayan Sharma. He has deposed that he has been working in Josi Transport from 1968. A truck bearing no. BHH / 5101 was running in his company from 1988 to 1998. The truck belong to Vijay Sharma. It was running from Ranchi to Kolkatta. That truck never went Chaibasa carrying articles of AHD Department. He does not know Vaishnav Enterprises, Ranchi. He has deposed in his cross examination that he does not know names of all the partners of company except Ratan Josi. The head office of company is in Kolkatta and branches of the company are situated at Ranchi and Chaibasa. He does not contain any record of running of the truck. He does not know the movement of this truck on 15.12.1996. P.W.32 is Pradeep Shankar Ghosh. He has deposed that he was posted at Allahabad Bank, Tatisilwai from January, 1998 to June, 2001. Some papers were shown to him at C.B.I. Office, Dhanbad. He has identified letter no. Tatisilwai / ALTD/308/97 dated 26.07.1997 addressed to Dy. S.P., C.B.I., Dhanbad which contains signature of the then Manager of the Bank. It was

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 36 marked as exhibit-10/2. The list of vouchers of Medivet Firm in the writing and signature of Manager D.K. Singh was identified and marked as exhibit-11. The second list of vouchers in the writing of Ashish Kumar, Officer of Allahabad Bank having signature of D.K. Sinha was marked as exhibit-11/1. The certified copy of Account Opening Form of Current Account No. 471 in the name of M/s Medivet Firm was marked for identification as X/8. It was a partnership firm and partners were Sharad Kumar, Nirmala Prasad and Anita Prasad. Photo copy of signature card of that account was marked for identification as X/9. The certified copy of statement of account of Current Account No. 471 in two pages duly certified by Manager D.K. Singh was marked as exhibit-8/13. Five drafts of State Bank of India, Chaibasa in favour of M/s Medivet Firm were produced and marked as exhibit-2/206 to 2/210. The original draft application form were produced marked as exhibit-6/6. The cheque attached with draft application issued by M/s Medivet was marked as exhibit-7/24. The letter of Allahabad Bank bearing no. 171 dated 07.05.1992 in the writing of D.K. Singh was marked as exhibit-10/3. Six Credit Advice Slips issued in favour of Medivet Firm and credited in the account of Medivet were marked as exhibit-12 to 12/5. Four draft application form were marked as exhibit-6/7 to 6/10. Other five draft application were marked as exhibit-6/11 to 6/15. Three original pay-in-slips were marked as exhibit-5/32 to 5/34. Thirty cheques of M/s Medivet were marked as exhibit-7/25 to 7/54. All the cheques were honoured. The opening account form of Current Account No. 451 were marked for identification as X/10 and signature card of that firm was marked for identification as X/12. It was a partnership firm in the name of Sidharth Prasad, Nirmala Prasad, Amit Prasad and Sharad Prasad. Certified copy of statement of account of Current Account No. 451 was marked as exhibit-8/54. Nine original pay-in-slips of Birsa Food & Poultry Farm were marked as exhibit-5/35 to 5/43. Seven credit advice sent from Allahabad Bank, Ranchi to Tatisilwai Branch were marked as exhibit-12/6 to 12/12. Three draft purchase applications of Birsa Live Stock Food were marked as exhibit-6/16 to 6/18. One pay-in-slip of Birsa Live Stock was marked as exhibit-5/44. Three drafts of S.B.I., Chaibasa in favour of Birsa Live Stock were marked as exhibit- 2/211 to 2/213. Six cheques of Birsa Live Stock were marked as exhibit-7/55 to 7/60. The cheques were honoured. He has deposed in his cross examination that all the transactions made in the account of M/s Medivet and Birsa Live

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 37

Stock Feed were done as per banking law. P.W.33 is Rana Ram Equbal Singh. He has deposed that a Jeep bearing No. BEN / 6151 was registered in the name of his younger brother Rana Pratap Singh. It was a private Jeep and no article was carried by this Jeep for Chhotanagpur Cattle Food Supply. He has deposed in his cross examination that C.B.I. had examined him but his younger brother was not examined. P.W.34 is Rajendra Kumar Jha. He has deposed that in the year 1998 he was posted at Canera Bank, Bhagalpur Branch. He brought some papers and letter to C.B.I. Office, Dhanad. The letter bears no. CA/AHD/MET HOUSE/CBI/DHANBAD/80/98 dated 05.03.1998. The letter was in the writing and signature of Mr. Rangnathan. It was marked as exhibit-10/4. The four draft application forms of medicine house duly certified by Mr. Rangnathan were marked as exhibits-4/36 to 4/39. Two pay-in-slips of medicine house for current account no. 1492 duly certified by Mr. Rangnathan were marked as exhibit-4/40 to 4/41. Twelve photo copies of cheques of Current Account No. 1492 duly certified by Rangnathan were produced. A draft of S.B.I., Chaibasa in favour of medicine house dated 22.02.1993 was credited in favour of M/s Medicine House, Bhagalpur. The draft was marked as exhibit-2/214. Three drafts issued by S.B.I., Chaibasa in favour of Sri Gauri Distributors, Bhagalpur were marked as exhibit-2/215 to 2/217. He has deposed in his cross examination that he does not know the writing of the person on in pay-in-slips. No objection was raised regarding payment of the draft by any competent authority. P.W.35 is Amar Nath Tiwary. He has deposed that in the year 1997 he was posted at S.B.I. Rajbansi Nagar Branch, Patna. Some papers were seized by M. Ramesh, C.B.I., Dy. S.P. and memo was prepared on 13.05.1997. Memo contains signature of both of them marked as exhibit-3/12. Original pay-in-slip of M/s A. Trader for Current Account No. 30107 was produced marked as exhibit-5/45. A draft bearing no. 922490 was deposited through that pay-in-slips for Rs. 8,88,480/-. Eleven cheques of Current Account No. 30107 were marked as exhibit-7/61 to 7/71. He has deposed in his cross examination that transactions were done as per banking rule. P.W.36 is Prakash Chandra Garmaik. He has deposed that he was posted at Allahabad Bank, Doranda Branch from 1991 to 1996. C.B.I.

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 38 seized some papers from his bank and two seizure lists were prepared. First seizure was prepared on 05.07.1997 by Layak Singh, Inspector, C.B.I. in three pages which contains signature of this witness and signature of Layak Singh and witness S. Mishra marked as exhibit-3/13. Second seizure list was prepared on 15.04.1998 by Layak Sigh and contains signature of both of them marked as exhibit-3/14. Seven original pay-in-slips for different instruments in favour of Current Account No. 194 by Sanjay Sinha were deposited marked as exhibit-5/46 to 5/52. Two transfer vouchers having signature of Sanjay Sinha for Current Account No. 194 were put marked as exhibit-13 & 13/1. Sixty-one cheques of Current Account No. 194 from M/s Sanjay Sinha were produced and marked as exhibits-7/61 to 7/121. Eight certified copy of cheques of Current Account No. 194 having signature of Sanjay Sinha were produced and signatures were marked as exhibit-4/54 to 4/61. Three original drafts of S.B.I., Chaibasa in favour of Sanjay Sinha were deposited in Current Account No. 194 and it were marked as exhibit-2/218 to 2/220. He has deposed in his cross examination that Sanjay Sinha did not sign on cheques in his presence. P.W.37 is Anant Kumar Singh. He has deposed that in the year 1997 he was posted at S.B.I. Patna Main Branch. C.B.I. seized some papers from his bank and prepared memo on 10.04.1997 in three pages. The seizure list was signed by this witness along with Inspector Layak Singh marked as exhibit-3/15. He proved draft issued by S.B.I., Chaibasa in favour of M/s Mastrin Pharmaceuticals, Magudh Enterprises, M/s Tirupati Agency, Sri Baba Chemical, M/s A. Traders, M/s Manas Sales Corporation, M/s Bihar Surgico Medico and M/s Samerpan Veterinary, Patna. These drafts were marked as exhibits-2/221 to 2/302. He has deposed in his cross examination that he did not know from whom these drafts were deposited in bank. The instrument used in depositing these drafts were not present in the court. P.W.38 is Prem Shankar Das. He has deposed that in the year 1998 he was posted at State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur Ranchi. C.B.I. seized some papers from his bank. He proved three original pay-in-slips marked as exhibit-5/53 to 5/55. Different instruments were deposited in Account No. SIB/239 for Tirupati Agency, Ranchi. He proved a draft issued by S.B.I., Chaibasa in favour of M/s Tirupati Agency, Rachi bearing Account No. SIB/239, marked as exhibit-2/303. He proved thirteen cheques of Tirupati Agency, Ranchi

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 39 of Account No. SIB/239 marked as exhibits-7/122 to 7/134. He has deposed in his cross examination that he did not see any document related with M/s Tirupati Agency. He could not say about the writing of pay-in-slip and cheques. These instrument were not signed in his presence. P.W.39 is Shiv Prasad Baraik. He has deposed that in the year 1998 he was posted at Central Bank of India, Sakchi Branch, Jamshedpur. C.B.I. took some papers from his bank and prepared seizure memo on 11.03.1998. Seizure memo was prepared by Dy. S.P. Sri M. Ramesh which contains his signature along with signature of this witness, marked as exhibit- 3/16. Letter No. SKC/CAD/97-98/11 dated 17.03.1998 was written by him in his writing and signature marked as exhibit-10/5. Account Opening Form of Current Account No. 1148 of Shree Ram Enterprises, duly certified by him was produced. His signature was marked as exhibit-4/62. Three original pay-in-slips were marked as exhibit-5/56 to 5/58. Different instruments were deposited through these pay-in-slips in Current Account No. 1148. Original draft purchase application of Shree Ram Enterprises was produced, marked as exhibit-6/19. Cheque was deposited with draft purchase application. Cheque was marked as exhibit-7/135. Three drafts of S.B.I., Chaibasa in favour of Shree Ram Enterprises, Sakchi, Jamshedpur of Account No. 1148 were marked as exhibit- 2/304 to 2/306. Four cheques of Current Account No. 1148 were marked as exhibit-7/136 to 7/139. Certified copy of statement of account of Current Account No. 1148 was produced. It was certified by the witness and it was marked as exhibit-8/15. He has deposed in his cross examination that ledger of the concerned bank account is kept in the bank. There is some overwriting on exhibit-10/5 but there is no initial for overwriting. P.W.40 is Satyadeo Rai. He has deposed that a truck bearing no. BR-17H / 6715 was registered in the name of his son. The truck was being used for transportation of coal. No other article was carried from his truck. He has deposed in his cross examination that he could not say the details of running of truck. C.B.I. did not took statement of his running truck. P.W.41 is Sunil Kumar Sachdeva. He has deposed that in the year 1998 he was posted at Bank of Marahastra, Delhi. C.B.I. seized some papers from his bank and prepared memo o 21.03.1998. Seizure list was prepared in the writing and signature of Layak Singh and contains signature of

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 40 this witness also marked as exhibit-3/17. Three documents duly certified by him were marked as exhibit-4/63 to 4/65. He has deposed in his cross examination that seizure memo does not contain signature of any independent witnesses. P.W.42 is Sugam Chand Jain. He has deposed that he is employee of Punjab National Bank, Roshan Aara Branch, Delhi. C.B.I. seized documents from his bank and prepared seizure memo on 05.07.1997. He identified signature of Gulsan Lal Dhingra on seizure list, marked as exhibit- 4/66. He identified another signature of Gulsan Lal Dhingra on seizure memo marked as exhibit-4/67. Certified copy of Account Opening Form of Account No. 1292 of Mallick Enterprises was marked as exhibit-4/68. It was a partnership firm and partners were Smt. Lila and Smt. Sheela. Certified copy of specimen signature card of Current Account No. 1292 was marked as exhibit-4/69. Certified copy of Account Opening Form of Mallick Enterprises for Current Account No. 1292 was marked as exhibit-4/70. It was filed after dissolution of partnership firm and proprietor was Vijay Kumar Mallick. Photo copy of specimen signature card of account no. 1292 was marked for identification as X/12. Partnership dissolution deed duly certified was marked as exhibit-4/71 from which Smt. Lila and Smt. Sheela separated from Mallick Enterprises. Certified copy of partnership deed was marked as exhibit-4/72. Certified copy of 24 pay-in-slips were marked as exhibit-4/73 to 4/94. Different instruments were deposited in the account of Mallick Enterprises through these pay-in-slips. Certified copy of sixty one cheques of Current Account No. 1292 were marked as exhibit-4/95 to 4/155. Twelve drafts issued from S.B.I., Chaibasa were marked as exhibit-2/307 to 2/318. The amount of the draft were deposited in the account of Mallick Enterprises. Certified copy of statement of account in twenty one sheets of Current Account No. 1292 was marked as exhibit-8/16. He has deposed in his cross examination that transactions were made as per banking law. P.W.43 is Sukhendra Chandra Talapada. He has deposed that in the year 1997 he was posted at S.B.I., Kolkatta Branch where some documents were seized by C.B.I. and seizure list was prepared on 26.06.1997 by Inspector Anila Kumar in his writing and signature and contains signature of this witness also marked as exhibit-3/18. He perused exhibit-2 to 2/150 and told that these drafts were deposited in his bank and they were credited. His cross examination

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 41 was declined. P.W.44 is Bisundeo Naryan Singh. He has deposed that he is owner of Truck No. 13-IN-9556. He had purchased the truck in the year 1984. His truck was running from Ranchi to Ichhapur till 1995. His truck never went Ranchi. He did not know Chotanagpur Cattle Feed Company. He has deposed in his cross examination that he did not know the places where his truck went during years 1990 to 1995. He does not contain record of running of his truck. His statement was not taken by C.B.I. P.W.45 is Dr. Satish Chandra Srivastava. He has deposed that he was posted at Phizer Limited, Patna from September, 1995 to July, 1998. Distribution office of Phizer Limited was situated at Patna for Veterinary Medicines in the year 1992-93 and its products were Terramycin Tablet and Terramycin Injection. Banmith Bolos Tablet and Terramycin Lignite were also produced in his factory. Banmith solution, Rumenton Tablet, Prisdodin Fluke and Norexn Fort medicines were also made in his factory. He has deposed in his cross examination that during investigation C.B.I. did not seized any document from him. P.W.46 is Azad Narayan Ojha. He has deposed that in the year 1997 he was posted at S.B.I., Doranda Branch, Ranchi from where C.B.I. seized some documents and seizure list was prepared by Inspector Layak Singh in his writing and signature on 19.07.1997 which contains signature of this witness also. Seizure list in two pages was marked as exhibit-3/19. The other seizure list dated 20.06.1997 prepared by Dy. M. Ramesh in his writing and signature was produced which contain signature of this witness also. The seizure list was marked as exhibit-3/20. Third seizure list dated 03.11.1997 in the writing of A.K. Jha, Inspector C.B.I. in his writing and signature was produced which contain signature of this witness also and marked as exhibit- 3/21. The account opening form-cum-specimen signature card of current account no. 301135 was marked as exhibit-9/1. The account was opened as Proprietor Firm being Proprietor Umesh Dubey in the name of M/s Jay Bhandar and Suppliers. The ledger sheet of Current Account No. 301135 (certified copy) was marked as exhibit-8/17. The account opening form-cum-specimen signature card of Current Account No. 301161 of M/s Sanjay Sinha duly certified by him was marked as exhibit-4/156. The Proprietor of the firm was

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 42

Sanjay Sinha. The certified copy of Current Account No. 301161 of ledger sheet in three pages was marked as exhibit-8/18. The account opening form-cum- signature card of Current Account No. 301147 of M/s Bhagat and Company was marked as exhibit-4/157. The proprietor of the firm was Pramod Kumar Jaiswal. The certified copy of ledger sheet of Current Account No. 301147 was marked as exhibit-8/19. The account opening form-cum-specimen signature card of Current Account No. 301032 of Vickey Commercial Traders, Ranchi was marked as exhibit-4/158. It was a partnership firm and partners were Kailash Mehra and Rajesh Mehra. The certified copy of partnership deed relating to Current Account No. 301032 was duly certified and it was marked as exhibit- 4/159. The certified copy of ledger sheet of Current Account No. 301132 was marked as exhibit-8/20. The account opening form-cum-specimen signature card of Current Account No. 301200 of Manisha Enterprises, Ranchi was marked as exhibit-4/160. It was a proprietorship firm and proprietor was Chandrashekhar Dubey. The ledger sheet of that Current Account was marked as exhibit-8/21. The certified copy of ledger sheet of Ekta Veterinary Work, Ranchi bearing Account No. 30272 was marked as exhibit-8/22. Two pay-in- slips were marked as exhibit-5/59 and 5/60. Instruments were deposited through these pay-in-slips in Current Account No. 30966. Six cheques of Account No. 30966 were marked as exhibit-7/140 to 7/145. Six pay-in-slips were marked as exhibit-5/61 to 5/66. Different instruments were deposited through these pay-in-slips in Account No. 301057. Thirty two cheques of S.B.I., Doranda Branch of Account No. 301057 were marked as exhibit-7/146 to 7/177. Fourteen pay-in-slips were marked as exhibit-5/67 to 5/80. Different instruments were deposited in Account No. 30272 of Ekta Veterinary through these pay-in- slips. Twenty Four cheques of S.B.I., Doranda Branch of Account No. 30272 were marked as exhibit-7/178 to 7/201. Four pay-in-slips were marked as exhibit-5/81 to 5/84. Different instruments were deposited in Account No. 301101 through these pay-in-slips. Eighteen cheques of S.B.I., Doranda Branch of Account No. 301101 were marked as exhibit-7/202 to 7/219. Five pay-in-slips were marked as exhibit-5/85 to 5/89. Different instruments were deposited through these pay-in-slips in Account No. 301032. Thirty cheques of S.B.I., Doranda Branch of Account No. 31032 were marked as exhibit-7/220 to 7/249. Nine pay-in-slips were marked as exhibit-5/90 to 5/98. Different instruments

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 43 were deposited through these pay-in-slips in Account No. 301109. Seventeen cheques of S.B.I., Doranda Branch of Account No. 301109 were marked as exhibit-7/250 to 7/266. He has deposed in his cross examination that original copy of exhibit No. 4/156 is not present before him. The exhibit was signed by Sanjay Sinha. Transaction in Account No. 301032 were done as per banking law and no objection was raised during transaction. His certification on partnership firm deed does not contain declaration of its correctness. The transaction done in Account No. 30966 were as per banking law. There is no document except pay-in-slips and cheques regarding Account No. 30966. P.W.47 is Deodas Goswami. He has deposed that he knew Chotanagpur Veterinary Enterprises. The proprietor of this firm is Suresh Dubey. He had been preparing bills for that firm as per direction of Suresh Dubey. Bills were prepared in the name of DAHO, Chaibasa. Bills were prepared in triplicate and it were signed by Suresh Dubey. He proved thirty five carbon copy of bills having signatures of Suresh Dubey marked as exhibit-14 to 14/34. These bills were prepared by him in carbon copies. Other fifty bills were also identified by him. These bills were prepared by him and contained signature of Suresh Dubey. These were marked as exhibit-14/35 to 14/84. One hundred ten bills were identified by him, which were prepared by him and contained signature of Suresh Dubey. These bills were marked as exhibits- 14/85 to 14/194. He has proved money receipt of Chotanagpur Veterinary Enterprises prepared by him and signed by Suresh Dubey, marked as exhibit- 15. Three money receipts dated 18.10.1992 were written by this witness and signed by Suresh Dubey marked as exhibit-15/1, 15/2 and 15/3. The bills were prepared by this witness but he could not say whether supply was done or not against the bill. He has deposed in his cross examination that he did not know the location of godown of the firm of Suresh Dubey. He did not know from where the articles were purchased. P.W.48 is Md. Faiwaz. He has deposed that vehicle no. BPY/4379 was registered in his name and remained in his possession till 1995. The vehicle was running from Ranchi to Mumbai. He did not know Manisha Enterprises his vehicle never transported article of Manisha Enterprises in the year 1992-93. He has deposed in his cross examination he did not contain log book of the vehicle. The driver of the vehicle was Md. Sirazool. He had already

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 44 died before two or three years. P.W.49 is Raghvendra Kishore Das. His statement recorded in R.C. 20(A)/1996 was adopted in this court. He has stated that he was appointed at the post of Assistant in the Department of Animal Husbandry in the year 1960 and he was promoted to the Post of Section Officer in the year 1984. He was transferred to the Department of Vigilance, Animal Husbandry in the year 1990 at the post of Administrative Officer and he was superannuated from that post in the month of February, 1995. He was given extension of service for one year from March, 1994 to February, 1995. Dr. J.B. Sinha, Joint Director, Animal Husbandry, Ranchi managed a letter from Dr. Jagdish Sharma, the then President, Public Accounts Committee in the name of the then Chief Minister, Government of Bihar for extension of his service and the then Chief Minister, Government of Bihar Lalu Prasad extended his service. He is well versed with the files and procedure of Animal Husbandry Department. He knew the Senior Officers of Animal Husbandry. Dr. Shyam Bihari Sinha met him in the year 1978 when he had come to directorate. He told him that he was closed with Ministers Sri Radha Nandan Jha, Sri Ram Jaipal Singh Yadav, Sri Tej Narayan Yadav and Sri Ram Chandra Singh Yadav and on the basis of his relations with them he got stayed his transfer by the order of the then Chief Minister, Government of Bihar Sri Karpoori Thakur. This witness was transferred to Budget Section in the year 1979-80 and Dr. Shyam Bihari Sinha managed to get more allotment for Ranchi Division with the help of the then Minister Sri Tej Narayan Yadav and Sri Ram Chandra Singh Yadav. At that time there was a procedure that relief department used to allot fund to Animal Husbandry Department and from where funds were distributed to different offices of Animal Husbandry Department but Dr. S.B. Sinha obtained allotment directly for Ranchi Division. Regional Director Dr. P. Lakra became annoyed from that procedure and a clash arose between Dr. P. Lakra and Dr. S.B. Sinha. Dr. S.B. Sinha managed transfer of Dr. P. Lakra and later on P. Lakra was suspended. During that period Dr. Shyam Bihari Sinha became dominant in the department. MESO plan was introduced in Bihar State in the year 1977-78. The India Government used to transfer money to the Development Commissioner, Ranchi in this plan and the Government of Bihar used to allot its share to Regional Director, Animal Husbandry. More allotments

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 45 were given to Ranchi Division in comparison with other divisions. During year 1983 the then Director Animal Husbandry Dr. A.K. Prasad was at his verge of retirement. Dr. S.B. Sinha wanted to see Dr. B.P.S.R. Singh and Director Animal Husbandry but his name was being opposed by the Secretary of the Department. Dr. Shyam Bihari Sinha gave Rs. 20 Lakhs to the then Chief Minister Dr. Jagarnath Mishra through the then M.P. Sri M.M. Mishra and Dr. B.P.S.R. Singh was made Director of Animal Husbandry Department. Dr. S.B. Sinha used to keep his money in custody of supplier Tripurari Mohan Prasad. He used to visit Patna and used to distribute money among ministers. He was habitual to told the entire episode in the department. Dr. B.P.S.R. Singh cut the allotment of several divisions and allotted more fund to Ranchi Regional Office. After retirement of Dr. B.P.S.R. Singh in the year 1985. Dr. S.B. Sinha gave Rs. 15 Lakhs to the Minister of the Department Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh and the then Chief Minister, Government of Bihar, late Chandrashekhar Singh and succeeded to make Dr. Hari Sharan Singh as Director of the Department. Dr. S.B. Sinha wanted much and more allotment and he was not satisfied with the maximum allotment in favour of Ranchi Region. In this circumstance a plan of Rs. 4 or 5 crores were made and maximum allotment was given to Ranchi Division. Dr. S.B. Sinha used to distribute money among the politicians through Sri Radha Nandan Jha and money was given to Nagendra Jha, Lalu Prasad Yadav and others. Whenever any question was raised by the members of legislation regarding Animal Husbandry Department, Dr. S.B. Sinha used to give him money and the question was withdrawn by that member. Sri Shiv Chandra Jha, the then Speaker, Bihar Legislative Assembly changed the rule and the members were not allowed to withdraw their question raised before Legislative Assembly. Dr. S.B. Sinha development his contact and as soon as the question was raised it was revealed upon Dr. S.B. Sinha. He used to manage the members from who question was raised and the members after obtaining money from Dr. S.B. Sinha showed his satisfaction over the question. Dr. R.K. Rana became employed in the Department of AHD in 1979. He had been residing in the campus of Bihar Animal College Hospital, Patna where Lalu Prasad had also been living. Dr. S.B. Sinha came in contact with Dr. R.K. Rana and later on friendship grown among Dr. R.K. Rana, Dr. S.B. Sinha and Lalu Prasad Yadav. In the year 1989 Dr. Ram Raj Ram was joint Director in the

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 46

Department. After retirement of Dr. Hari Sharan Sinha, the accused S.B. Sinha started effort for posting of Ram Raj Ram at the post of Director, AHD. Dr. Ram Raj Ram had also been living in the campus of Medical College Hospital. Dr. S.B. Sinha and Dr. Rana used to prepare letters and obtained signature of Chief Secretary and the then Chief Minister. Dr. Ram Raj Ram became Additional Director of AHD Department and he had been officiating the post of Director, AHD. Dr. Sharma challenge the appointment of Dr. Ram Raj Ram and got stay order of the Hon'ble High Court. Dr. Ram Raj Ram preferred S.L.P. before the Supreme Court against the order of the Hon'ble High Court and Ram Raj Ram won the case from the Supreme Court in the year 1996. Dr. R.K. Rana became General Secretary of the Association of Veterinary Doctor, Bihar. Dr. S.B. Sinha came in director contact with high politicians and he was unable to satisfy the politicians through actual allotment and he started to get forced allotment letters in the year 1988-89. He used to prepare fake allotment letters and obtained signature of Budget Officer Krishna Mohan Prasad Sinha and after him by Nityanand Kumar Singh. The District Animal Husbandry Hospital and Regional Director started preparing forged bills on the basis forged allotment letters and payments were done without obtaining actual supply of the material. The suppliers used to pay 75% to 80% of the received amount to the Drawing Disbursing Officer Shyam Bihari Sinha used to distribute money amongst officers of the Department, employees, public leaders and blackmailers. In the year 1990 Janta Dal Party came into majority and Sri Raghunath Jha, Sri Ram Sundar Das and Lalu Prasad Yadav were claimant of the leader of Janta Dal. Dr. S.B. Sinha came to Patna and called this witness where three or four persons were sitting. After sometime he saw that Lalu Prasad Yadav, Dr. R.K. Rana and Dr. S.B. Sinha came out from the bed room of Dr. S.B. Sinha. Lalu Prasad Yadav and Dr. R.K. Rana were possessing a polythene bag containing cash. Dr. S.B. Sinha told him that he had given Rs. 5 Lakhs to Lalu Prasad Yadav. An audit was done by the A.G., Bihar in the Animal Husbandry Department, Ranchi and it was found that there was defect in transportation of feed of the cattle. A letter was given to Regional Development Commissioner, Ranchi but the same was send to the Secretary of the Department. Later on the President of Public Accounts Fund Sri Ramjatan Singh called that letter. Dr. S.B. Sinha gave money to Dr. Ramjatna Sinha and he kept pending enquiry in

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 47 this regard till he was president of P.A.C. Dr. Ram Raj Ram enquired the matter and reported that there was no bungling in transportation of cattle. The file was sent to the Minister AHD Department. The Minister send that file to Lalu Prasad Yadav with recommendation for investigation by C.B.I. The Chief Secretary gave his opinion that he added talk with Director, C.B.I. and he showed inability to investigate the matter. He recommended for Vigilance Enquiry or C.I.D. Enquiry. The file was kept pending in the Office of Chief Minister. Question was raised by the member of Legislative Council, Bihar Sri Kirpa Nath Pathak and Lalu Prasad Yadav appeared Legislative Council and submitted that the matter had been sent for enquiry from P.A.C. After Ram Jatan Sinha and Dr. Jagdish Sharma became president of P.A.C. He was also an Animal Husbandry Doctor. He had relinquished his post from the A.H.D. Department. There was good relation between Dr. S.B. Sinha and Dr. Sharma. Dr. S.B. Sinha used to give money to Dr. Sharma. Dr. Sharma reported that there was bugling in transportation. Some anomalies were found regarding symbol of truck and the concerned contractor was ordered to be debarred. The matter was not placed before Bihar Legislative Assembly. A case bearing no. 34/1990 was registered in Vigilance P.S. against the employees of A.H.D. Department and suppliers Surendra Natha Sinha in which this witness was also made accused. It was requested in F.I.R. that officer of Ranchi Animal Husbandry Department should be enquired. Dr. S.B. Sinha obtained a letter from Jagarnath Mishra, addressed to Lalu Prasad Yadav requesting to confine the enquiry related with the members of purchase committee and suppliers. Charge sheet was submitted against members of Purchase Committee and Suppliers. Brajbhushan Prasad was Accounts Officer in the department. He was eager to get employment of his son. Dr. S.B. Sinha took him in his grip and obtained his signature on fake allotment letters. The eldest son of Brajbhushan Prasad was appointed at the post of clerk in Jamshedpur. Dr. S.B. Sinha instructed this witness to get signature of Brajbhushan Prasad on fake allotment letters but this witness cautioned him. Dr. S.B. Sinha told him that there was no one to damage him. This witness obtained signature of Brajbhushan Prasad on some fake allotment letters. Dr. S.B. Sinha used to manage back dates for issuance of fake allotment letters. After disposal of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 34/1990 Dr. R.K. Rana started to pressurize Dr. S.B. Sinha for more money.

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 48

During election of Parliament in 1991 Dr. S.B. Sinha gave him four or five big boxes full of currency. That money was brought to Delhi by Dr. R.K. Rana. Dr. Rana demanded more money. Dr. S.B. Sinha, Dipesh Chanda and Dr. Shashi Kumar Singh came to Delhi with 10 or 12 boxes containing currency and stayed at Hotel Heyat. Dr. Rana was participating this money with Lalu Prasad Yadav. He purchased a piece of land in Patna and constructed house. There were 4 or 5 vehicles to Dr. R.K. Rana. Dipesh Chanda had given him a Contesa Car. Dr. Rana used to visit the house of this witness and this witness also visited his house. This witness met a person in the house of Dr. Rana he was representative of Gurmit Affairs. Dr. Rana had obtained currency of dollars from Gurmit Affairs and gave him Rs. 10 Lakhs in his presence. A news was published in the year 1992 and the then Joint Secretary Indu Bhushan Pathak requested the Secretary Sri Armugam for enquiry but he replied in the file that the matter has already been sent for enquiry by P.A.C. The Department of Income Tax discovered Rs. 1 Crore in the year 1992-93 from Ranchi Airport and matter was enquired by Dr. Ram Raj Ram. He gave his report that it was money of supplier Vijay Kumar Mallick and no Government Officer was involved in this. In the month of June 1992 Dr. B.N. Sharma, District Animal Husbandry, Chaibasa drawn Rs. 50 Lakhs in one day from Chaibasa Treasury. Dr. B.N. Sharma was transferred from Chaibasa. After 10 or 15 days the member of legislature Sri Rajo Singh send a letter to the then Chief Minister Lalu Prasad for stay of transfer of Dr. B.N. Sharma. Lalu Prasad Yadav stayed his transfer and order was passed by the Department accordingly. The Minister of the Department requested the Chief Minister for enquiry in the matter of withdrawal of Rs. 50 Lakhs but Lalu Prasad gave his noting that the matter was being enquired by P.A.C. In the year 1993 the Union of Fourth Grade Employee of Deoghar filed a complaint against Dr. Shesh Muni Ram regarding fake withdrawal and illegal appointment. Their demand was unheard. They send a reminder to the Minister AHD. He constituted a committee to enquire regarding fake withdrawal. The members of committee were Bachhu Prasad, Dy. Secretary, AHD and Dr. Shivbalak Choudhary, Joint Director, AHD but order for constitution of the committee was not issued. The committee did not visit Deoghar. The committee was not informed about allotment to the Department of Deoghar AHD. The Fourth Grade Employees Union filed a reminder to the then

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 49

Chief Minister. The then Chief Minister told that it will be enquired by Vigilance Department. Bachhu Prasad again wrote for information regarding allotment given to Deoghar AHD Department but it was not received. The committee came to Deoghar. Dr. Shivbalak Choudhary submitted his independent report and Bachhu Prasad did not file his report. The report of Shivbalak Choudhary was called by Secretary, Department of AHD Bek Julius and he kept the file with him. No action was taken. Dr. Jagdish Sharma, President of P.A.C. wrote a letter that till the enquiry by P.A.C. no other enquiry was required. There was good relationship between Bek Julius and Dr. Shesh Muni Ram. When Bek Julius became Secretary of Department of AHD, Dr. S.B. Sinha called Dr. Shesh Muni Ram, Deoghar and visited house of Bek Julius. In the year 1996 investigation of Fodder Scam was taken by CBI and C.B.I. produced report of Dr. Shivbalak Choudhary. There were so many quarries in his report but these quarries could not be meet out because the file was kept by Secretary, Department of AHD. The file was marked as exhibit-38/281. The file was kept by the Secretary from 23.07.1994 to 26.02.1996. Dr. S.B. Sinha was to be retired in the month of December, 1993. He told Dr. R.K. Rana for extension of his service. Dr. R.K. Rana told him to get recommendation of any public leader. Dr. S.B. Sinha obtained recommendation letter of Dr. Jagarnath Mishra in which he had recommended for extension of service of Dr. S.B. Sinha for two years. The Chief Minister gave him extension of one year but order of his extension of service issued from the Department after his retirement. This witness was going to be retired in the month of February, 1994. He was not wanting any extension of service but Dr. R.K. Rana and Dr. S.B. Sinha got a letter from Dr. Jagdish Sharma in which extension of service of this witness was requested. Government order was issued for extension of his service. A letter from P.A.C. was received by the Office of Director, AHD requesting to handover all letters of allotment. The Sectional Officer of P.A.C. Sri Phool Jha came to Directorate, AHD Department and demanded files of allotment. The files of allotment were collected. Phool Jha gave receiving of files of allotment but he left all these files on the table of this witness. The President, P.A.C. Dr. Jagdish Sharma visited the office of Directorate. This witness requested him to take the files of allotment but Jagdish Sharma told him to keep the same with him. Dr. S.B. Sinha used to pay money to Ministers, Chief Minister and other political leader

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 50 such as Dr. Jagarnath Mishra, Rajo Singh, Tulsi Singh, Suraj Mandal etc. to keep curtain over the Scam. Dr. S.B. Sinha send money to the Secretary Mahesh prasad and this witness handed over money to Mahesh Prasad in the year 1992 to 1994. He gave him sometime Rs. 3 Lakhs and sometime Rs. 5 Lakh. During December 1993 to January, 1994 Dr. S.B. Sinha gave Rs. 7 Lakhs to this witness to hand it over Mahesh Prasad. This witness gave him only Rs. 5 Lakh and retained Rs. 2 Lakh for his use. Dr. S.B. Sinha used to give money to Phool Chandra Singh through K.K. Srivastava to get his help because cash flow regulation has been introduced in Ranchi Treasury and Doranda Treasury. He used to manage Air Tickets for Departmental Officers, Politicians, Ministers and their family members. Money was paid for that by Dr. S.B. Sinha or Tripurari Mohan Prasad. The employee of Indian Airlines Sri J.P. Verma used to help in this matter. File No.4-Pa. Sa. (Confidential) 1/93 was marked as exhibit-38/282. His cross examination was adopted from R.C. 20(A)/1996. Accused Vijay Kumar Mallick, Mahendra Kumar Kundan, Arjun Sharma, Samir Walia, Jahid Hussain and Sajal Chakraborty refused to cross examine him. Cross examination on behalf of accused Lalu Prasad Yadav was adopted from R.C. 20(A)/1996. He has deposed in his cross examination that he has given statement U/s 164 of the Cr.P.C. in R.C. Case No. 24(A)/1996 and R.C. 22(A)/1996. His statement as approver was taken in R.C. 64(A)/1996. His statement was taken by C.B.I. also. He was tortured by C.B.I. He never met with Lalu Prasad Yadav. He never see any transaction of money. He has deposed in R.C. 25(A)/1996 that he did not see receiving of payment but he has stated in R.C. 25(A)/1996 that he did not say that he did not see any transaction of payment but it was related only to Officers concern. Dr. S.B. Sinha had told him that he had given Rs. 5 Lakhs to Lalu Prasad Yadav. He had stated in his statement U/s 164 of the Cr.P.C. that Dr. S.B. Sinha used to say that he had given money to Sri Nitish Kumar also through R.K. Rana. An order was passed from the office of Chief Minister that any order received on telephone or bufsheet of the Chief Minister should be kept in the file and proper order should be taken thereafter. Exhibit-38/271 is a file related with stay order of transfer of Sri B.N. Sharma. The Secretary had ordered in this file to obtain order of the then Chief Minister but this file was not sent to the Chief Minister. Exhibit-38/277 is a file of transfer from which 113 officers were transferred but this file was not

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 51 sent to the then Chief Minister. Exhibit-38/282 is a file related with Meeting of D.C., D.M., Treasury Officer and Secretary but this file was never dealt by him, however this file has been proved by him. He did not know the facts related with exhibit-38/282 it appears from exhibit-38/282 that excess payment was done by Chaibasa Treasury and the Secretary had given note to send this file before the then Chief Minister but it was not sent. The reply of question raised in Legislative Assembly, Bihar regarding Kirpa Nath Pathak was prepared by him but he did not know that he prepared reply was presented before the assembly or not. He did not know that President of P.A.C. used to be the leader of opposition party. P.A.C. had submitted report which is kept in exhibit-38/278 where Regional Director was found innocent by P.A.C. Report was sent to Auditor General and it was accepted there. Exhibit-38/278 contains advice of Chief Secretary in which it was stated that he had a talk with Director, C.B.I. and he showed inability to investigate the case. The matter was enquired by C.I.D. He had not written in this file that the then Chief Minister intervened in the enquiry of C.I.D. He was accused in Vigilance P.S. Case No. 34/1990. Exhibit- 38/278 is a file which was sent before the then Chief Minister on 18.08.1990, 14.11.1990 and 25.03.1991. He did not know that there is political rivalry between Dr. Jagarnath Mishra and Lalu Prasad Yadav. The file marked as exhibit-38/270 contains matter of extension of service of Dr. S.B. Sinha which was dealt by this witness being employee of Vigilance Cell of AHD Department and he had given note that no matter of Vigilance Departmental Enquiry or case against Shyam Bihari Sinha was pending. Lalu Prasad Yadav gave him extension of service for one year. After order of the Hon'ble High Court Gradation List was not prepared in AHD Department. Dr. Ram Raj Ram filed Contempt Petition before the Hon'ble Court, thereafter Government file Gradation List in which Dr. Ram Raj Ram was no.1. He was made incharge Director of AHD on the basis of Gradation List. The matter was agitated before Hon'ble Supreme Court but the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court was passed after retirement of Dr. R.S. Sharma. Dr. Ram Raj Ram was made Director In- charge of AHD Department by the order of Minister Sri Dikeshwar Ram. The file marked as exhibit-38/281 was never sent before the Chief Minister. Dr. S.B. Sinha and Dr. Ram Raj Ram was not accused in Vigilance P.S. Case No. 34/1990. He did not see the case diary and contains of Vigilance Case No.

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 52

34/1990. He perused file of exhibit-38/270 and stated that application for extension of service of Dr. S.B. Sinha was filed on 04.12.1993, the letter of Dr. Jagarnath Mishra is dated 05.12.1993 it was presented before Dy. Director on 08.12.1993, order of Dy. Director was passed on 09.12.1993. The Director passed order on 14.12.1993 and the State Minister passed order on 18.12.1993. It was sent to Secretariate of Chief Minister on 30.12.1993. He did not know that service extension was given to Dr. N. Sharma, Dr. Jalal Ahmad and Dr. Indrabhan Prasad and other I.A.S. Officers and I.P.S. Officers. Exhibit- 38/281 is a file related with agitation of Class-IV employees of AHD Department in which illegal withdrawal done by Shesh Muni Ram was raised and it was decided that after obtaining report of the members of the committee namely Bachu Prasad and Shivbalak Choudhary, steps would be taken. He did not know that Lalu Prasad had directed the Chief Secretary to lodge Vigilance Case against Shesh Muni Ram. The report of Shivbalak Choudhary came before him. Sometimes he gave issue number on fake allotment letter. Till 1995 copy of allotment letter was not given to the concern Treasury and Lalu Prasad passed order in the year 1996 to give copy of allotment letters to the concern Treasury also. There was no residential house of S.B. Sinha in Patna. Money to Lalu Prasad Yadav was given and the packet of currency fell down in his presence. He did not know that Lalu Prasad Yadav had order to lodge 40 cases regarding the Scam of AHD Department. He has deposed during cross examination on behalf of Dr. R.K. Rana and Dr. Jagarnath Mishra that Dr. S.B. Sinha had told him that Rs. 20 Lakhs was given to the Chief Minister to make Dr. Vishwapati Sitaram Singh as Director. But money was not given in his presence. The recommendation of any political leader is not binding upon the Officer of the Department. Only recommendation of Dr. Jagarnath Mishra was received regarding extension of service of Dr. S.B. Sinha. All clearance were given on the basis of recommendation of Dr. Jagarnath Mishra. He has deposed during cross examination on behalf of accused Jagdish Sharma that the recommendation of any political leader is considered by the Senior Officers of the Department and they take decision as per merit. File of his extension of service was also considered through different departments and it was approved by the Cabinet also but personal he was not eager for extension of service. He does not know working of Legislative Assembly. During inspection of P.A.C. in

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 53 the years 1990-91 to 1996 he was not present either in Dumka or Ranchi Jagdish Sharma became member of Legislative Assembly in the year 1971-72. Cross examination on behalf of accused Tripurari Mohan Prasad. He has deposed further that he has been charged sheeted in other cases of C.B.I. but C.B.I. did not disclose him about submission of charge sheet against him. In the year 1997 C.B.I. called him for enquiry and brought him to court from where he was arrested. Some persons told him that C.B.I. committed torture to the persons but C.B.I. never tortured me. His ancestral property is situated in District – Madhubani. He wanted to sale that property but C.B.I. did not allow him to sell that property. Work of M/s Mastrin Pharma, Samerpan Veterinary Enterprises, Shree Baba Chemicals and Mans Sale Corporation were done by Tripurari Mohan Prasad. Sunil Kumar Sinha and Sushil Kumar had no concern with this. He never visited Chaibasa. He does not contain any document to substantiate his oral statement. The rates approved by Central Purchase Committee was circulated to all the Offices of Veterinary Department. Cross examinations on behalf of accused Mahesh Prasad and Phool Chand Singh. He has deposed further that at the time of extension of service of Dr. S.B. Sinha, Lalu Prasad was Chief Minister and had taken portfolio of Finance Ministry and Ministry of Personnel Affairs. Exhibit-38/281 was file of extension of service of Dr. S.B. Sinha which came before Mahesh Prasad on 24.03.1994. Mahesh Prasad had given note in the file marked as exhibit-38/271 dated 22.07.1993 that consent of Chief Minister was required. Mahesh Prasad had given note in file marked as exhibit-38/282 that the Minister should have enquired the matter of excess withdrawal. He had requested the Finance Secretary to disallow the proposal of service extension of S.B. Sinha. A letter was issued regarding information of withdrawal of Rs. 50.56 Lakhs from Chaibasa Treasury. Again reminder was sent. The office of AHD informed him on 16.11.1993 that the file has been taken by P.A.C. His file of service extension was not processed by Mahesh Prasad. He had not seen three storied building of Mahesh Prasad. Cross examination on behalf of Dr. R.K. Rana. He has further deposed that he did not know about the case lodged by Dilip Kumar Jha. He was not accused in R.C. Case No. 20(A)/1996. He has asked about the facts related with promotion of Dr. Ram Raj Ram which has already been deposed by this witness and has been noted down earlier. He has stated about Vigilance Case No. 34/1990

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 54 which has also been asked by the counsel of difference accused persons and has been noted down earlier. He has asked questions about the file related with agitation of Grade-IV employee of Deoghar Veterinary. The answer was already told by him. His attention has been drawn on his statement recorded U/s 164 of the Cr.P.C. Cross examination on behalf of accused Dr. K.N. Jha. He has stated further that he did not know about the process of file of the office of Director Animal Husbandry Department. The file is prepared by Junior Officer and after his noting it is put before Senior Officer. P.W.50 is Ranjeet Kumar Verma. He has deposed that in the year 1998 he was posted at S.B.I. Branch, Muzaffarpur. He has proved seizure list marked as exhibit-3/22. He has proved bank draft prepared in favour of M/s Bihar Cattle Feed Agency, Muzaffarpur, it was marked as exhibit-2/319. He has deposed in his cross examination that seizure memo does not contain signature of any independent witness. P.W.51 is Sachidanand Sinha. He has deposed that in the year 1998 he was posted at S.B.I. Branch, Muzaffarpur. He has proved three documents marked as exhibit-3/23, 4/161 and 8/23. He has deposed in his cross examination that original copy of exhibit-3/23 is available in his bank. D.K. Mazumdar is not a gazetted officer. P.W.52 is Sapan Kanti Guha. He has deposed that in the year 1997 he was posted at S.B.I. Service Branch, Kolkatta. He has proved some documents marked as exhibit-3/24 and exhibits-2/320 to 2/327. His cross examination was declined. P.W.53 is Rameshwar Choudhary. He has deposed that in the year 1998 he was posted at Sukhdeonagar Branch, Central Bank of India. He has proved exhibit-3/25, 4/162, 4/163, 8/24, 2/328. He has deposed in his cross examination that no endorsement of certification was given by the attesting officer. P.W.54 is Gautam Kumar Sarkar. He has deposed that in the year 1997 he was posted at Main Branch S.B.I., Bhagalpur. He has proved documents marked as exhibit-3/26 and 2/329. He has been declined from cross examination. P.W.55 is Tiwari Satyanarain Prasad. He has deposed that in the year 1997 he was posted at S.B.I. Bhagalpur. He has identified exhibit-3/26,

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 55

2/229 to 2/337. He has been declined from cross examination. P.W.56 is Raj Kumar Kedia. He has deposed that he was owner of Raj Kumar & Company, Upper Bazar, Ranchi. He was known to Jagmohan Lal Kakkar and his firm Navketan Enterprises, Ranchi. He supplied him materials during year 1989 to 1992. Jagmohan Lal introduced him with Mahabir Prasad. He had been paying sales tax etc. His bill was marked as exhibit-X/13. He was known to Rajesh Mehra and his firm V.K. Commercial Traders, Doranda, Ranchi. He has been issuing bills to him. He has been paying sales tax. He has been declared hostile. His attention was drawn on his statement taken by C.B.I. He has deposed in his cross examination that he issued bills against supply. He proved 77 I.C forms issued in favour of M/s Navketan Enterprises marked as exhibit-A. He has proved 14 I.C. forms in favour of B.K. Commercial Traders marked as exhibit-A/1. P.W.57 is Surendra Nath Maldaiyat. He has deposed that he was posted at United Bank of India, Bhagalpur Branch in the year 1998. He has proved exhibit-3/27, exhibit-4/164, exhibit-4/165, exhibit-4/166 to 4/179 and exhibit-8/25. Cross examination of this witness was declined on behalf of accused Shailesh Prasad Singh because he was made approver in this case. P.W.58 is Sushil Kumar Bhatia. He has deposed that he was authorized dealer of Borocil Glass Wares. He did not receive any supply order during 1990 to 1996 from AHD Department. He did not have business dealing with New India Enterprises, M/s Mangla Enterprises, M/s Raman Surgico Medico Agency and M/s Samarpan Veterinary Enterprises during 1990 to 1996. He had informed about it through letter to C.B.I. Photo copy of letter was marked as exhibit-X/14. He has deposed in his cross examination that he did not file any tender of AHD Department P.W.59 is Samir Kumar Ghosh. He has deposed that in the year 1997 he was posted at United Bank of India, Ranchi Branch. He has proved exhibit-10/6, 3/28, 4/175, 4/176, 4/177, 8/26, 4/178 to 4/180 and 8/27. He has deposed in his cross examination that no transaction was done by him in this account. Transaction was done as per bank rules. P.W.60 is K. Unnikrishnan. He has deposed that in the year 1997 he was posted at S.B.I., Dorandra Branch. He has proved exhibit-3/29, exhibit- 7/267 to 7/271 and exhibit-8/28. He has deposed in his cross examination that

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 56 accused Sushil Kumar Jha has already pleaded his guilt and hence his cross examination was refused. P.W.61 is Gufran Ahmed. He has deposed that in the year 1998 he was posted at Punjab national Bank, Boring Road Branch, Patna. He has proved exhibit-3/30. He has deposed in his cross examination that he did not know who was looking work of Magudh Chemical Works. Draft was deposited in the account of Chanchala Sinha. P.W.62 is Ashim Kumar Sarkar. He has deposed that in the year 1997 he was posted at S.B.I. Branch, Doranda. He has proved exhibit-3/31 and 3/32. He has further proved exhibit-9/2 and 10/7. Photocopy of partnership deed was marked as exhibit-X/15. He has proved exhibit-5/99 to 5/117. He has proved cheques marked as exhibit-7/272 to 7/364. He has proved exhibit-8/29 and exhibit-4/181. Exhibit-4/181 is related with partnership letter and proved by him. He has proved exhibit-4/183 and exhibit-8/30. He has proved exhibit- 4/184, 8/31, 4/185, 4/186, 4/187, 8/32. He has proved original pay-in-slips marked as exhibit-5/118 to 5/124. He has proved cheques marked as exhibit- 7/365 to 7/384. He has deposed in his cross examination done by Suresh Dubey, Sanjay Sinha, Rajesh Kumar and Md. Sayeed that no objection was done by bank or any other person related with the exhibits proved by him. He deposed after perusal exhibit-X/15 that the exhibit contains that the account shall be operated by Md. Sayeed. No objection was done during operation of account of Md. Sayeed. He was not posted on 31.12.1993 in Doranda Branch. The operation of account was done as per banking law. P.W.63 is Vinay Kumar Mishra. He has deposed that during 1997 to 1998 he was posted at the post of Area Executive, Hindustan Antibiotic, Patna. He has proved copy of letter marked for identification X/16 and X/17. The letter was sent by his company to the Dy. S.P., C.B.I. and the letter was marked as exhibit-10/8. He get some document to C.B.I. He has proved exhibit- 3/33, 4/188 to 4/202. He has deposed further that during 1992 to 1993 his company did not receive any supply order from AHD Offices of Bihar Government. Bihar Surgico Medico Company, Patna was his authorized dealer during 1992-93. He has deposed during his cross examination done by the counsel of accused Tripurari Mohan Prasad and others that he did not see supply given to Surgico Medico Agency prior to 1996. The details can be said

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 57 by his office situated at Patna and details of transactions may be perused from Register of S.D.L. Orders are maintained in record but it was not given to C.B.I. Rates of medicines was approved by Veterinary Department. He did not know that Bihar Surgico Medico was authorized by his company to supply medicine to the Veterinary Departments of Bihar. He did not know that during 1990 to 1995 his company was not supplying medicine to the Veterinary Department and it was supplied by stockist. One stockist can sell medicine to other stockists. P.W.64 is Anjan Sinha. He has deposed that he was posted at D.S. Enterprises (CNF of Pfizer India Limited) in 1998 and proved exhibit-3/34. He proved letter dated 15.12.1997 with enclosures marked as exhibit-10/9. His company did not receive any supply order from AHD Office, Government of Bihar during 1992-93. During this period M/s Tirupati Agency, Patna was not stockist or supplier of his company. He has deposed in his cross examination that anyone may purchase product of his company from open market. He did not obtain list of stockist from his company. He could not remember that M/s Agrovate Ranchi was approved wholesaler of Pfizer Company. P.W.65 is Darshan Lal Sahni. He has deposed that in the year 1997 he was posted at S.B.I., Parliament Street Branch, New Delhi. He has proved exhibit-3/35 and drafts marked as exhibit-2/338 to 2/341. He has deposed in his cross examination that payments were done as per banking rules. P.W.66 is Nirmal Kumar Bajaj. He has deposed that in the year 1997-98 he was posted in Canara Bank where some documents were seized by C.B.I. He has proved exhibit-3/36 and 3/37. He has proved pay-in-slips related with current account no. 3188 marked as exhibit-5/125 and he proved also cheques marked as exhibit-7/385. He has proved exhibit-4/203, 4/204 and 8/33. He has deposed in his cross examination that operations of the account were done as per banking law. P.W.67 is K. Daniel. He has deposed that in the year 1997 he was posted in Ranbaxy Company at Patna. He identified letter marked as exhibit- X/18 and exhibit-10/10. He has deposed in his cross examination that Samarpan Veterinary purchased huge quantity of Limason 30 ml. In the year 1992. P.W.68 is Chandra Shekhar Mishra. He has deposed that in the

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 58 year 1998 he was posted at S.B.I., Main Branch, Patna. He has proved exhibit- 3/38. He has proved pay-in-slips regarding current account no. 3457 marked as exhibit-5/126 to 5/151. He proved cheques marked as exhibit-7/386 to 7/418. He has proved exhibits-5/152 to 5/172 and exhibits-7/419 to 7/442. Other pay- in-slips are marked as exhibits-5/173 to 5/219. The other cheques are marked as exhibit-7/443 to 7/525. Again he proved pay-in-slips marked as exhibits- 5/220 to 5/259 and cheques marked as exhibit-7/526 to 7/595. He proved accounts opening form, copy of resolution, statement of account of Mastrine Pharmaceuticals marked as exhibit-4/205, 4/206, 4/207 and 8/34. He has proved documents related with Samarpan Veterinary Enterprises marked as exhibit-4/208 and 8/35. He has proved documents of Manas Sales Corporation marked as exhibit-4/209 and 8/36. He has proved documents of Bihar Surgico Medico Agency marked as exhibits-4/210 and 8/37. He has deposed in his cross examination that no transaction in the accounts related with these exhibits were done in his presence. P.W.69 is Vijay Krishna Nanda. He has deposed that in the year 1997 he was posted in Karnataka Antibiotic. He identified letter marked as exhibit-X/19. His company gave information to C.B.I. through letter. His signature was marked as exhibit-4/211, 4/212 and 4/213. He has deposed in his cross examination that Shree Baba Chemicals was authorized dealer / stockist of his company for animal medicine. Exhibit-X/19 contains names of Generic Medicine and Branded medicine. Exhibit-4/212 also contains names of Generic and Branded medicines. Adrorat Sales and Service, Ranchi was his authorized stockist during year 1992-93 for animal medicine and his company was authorized to supply product to Bihar Government. Photo copy of letter was marked for identification as Y. P.W.70 is Pradeep Kumar Das Gupta. He has deposed that he was posted at S.B.I., Chaibasa from December, 1995 to August, 1998. The draft application form contains name and amount along with signature of Disbursing Officer and it is paid after approver. He proved 15 draft application forms of Little Oak Pharmaceuticals, Kolkatta marked as exhibit-6/20 to 6/34. He proved twelve draft application form of Mallick Enterprises marked as exhibit-6/35 to 6/46. He proved thirty five draft application forms of Chhotanagpur Cattle Feed marked as exhibit-6/47 to 6/81. He proved 23 bank draft application forms of

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 59

Bihar Surgico Medico marked as exhibit-6/82 to 6/104. He proved seven draft application forms of Satyendra Construction marked as exhibit-6/105 to 6/111. He proved three draft application forms of M/s Sanjay Sinha marked as exhibit- 6/112 to 6/114. He proved draft application forms of Sri Baba Chemicals marked as exhibit-6/115 to 6/126. He proved eleven bank draft application forms of Samarpan Veterinary Enterprises marked as exhibit-6/127 to 6/137. He proved four bank draft application forms of M/s G. Max Laboratories, Nasik marked as exhibit-6/138 to 6/141. He proved three bank draft application forms of M/s Semex Cryogenics marked as exhibit-6/142 to 6/144. He proved three bank draft application of Gauri Distributor, Bhagalpur marked as exhibit-6/145 to 6/147. He proved two bank draft application of Gauri Distributor, Ranchi marked as exhibit-6/148 to 6/149. He proved three bank draft application forms of Sri Ram Enterprises, Jamshedpur marked as exhibit-6/150 to 6/152. He proved two bank draft application forms of M/s Jai Bhadur Supplier, Aurangabad marked as exhibit-6/153 to 6/154. He proved four bank draft application forms of Inter Pharmaceuticals marked as exhibit-6/155 to 6/158. He proved thirteen bank draft application forms of M/s A. Traders, Patna marked as exhibit-6/159 to 6/171. He proved twenty one bank draft application forms of M/s Vaishno Enterprises, Ranchi marked as exhibit-6/172 to 6/192. He proved twelve bank draft application forms of M/s Navketan Enterprises, Ranchi marked as exhibit- 6/193 to 6/204. He proved eight bank draft application form of M/s Medivet Ranchi marked as exhibit-6/205 to 6/212. He proved three draft application forms of Birsa Feed and Live marked as exhibit-6/213 to 6/215. He proved ten bank draft application forms of Krishna Traders, Ranchi marked as exhibit-6/216 to 6/225. He proved twelve draft application forms of Shakti Pharma Distributor, Bhagalpur marked as exhibit-6/226 to 6/237. He proved two bank draft application forms of M/s Indian Laboratories, Patna marked as exhibit-6/238 to 6/239. He proved one draft application form of M/s Indian Laboratories, New Delhi marked as exhibit-6/240. He proved seven bank draft application forms of Manisha Enterprises, Ranchi marked as exhibit-6/241 to 6/247. He proved 152 bank draft application forms of M/s Badri Naryan & Company, Kolkatta marked as exhibit-6/248 to 6/399. He proved four draft application forms of M/s Magudh Agency, Patna marked as exhibit-6/400 to 6/403. He proved seven draft application form of M/s Care and Cure, Ranchi marked as exhibit-6/404 to

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 60

6/410. He proved two draft application forms of Swastic Drug Agency, Jamshedpur marked as exhibit-6/411 to 6/412. He proved two bank draft application forms of M/s S.S. Enterprises, East Champaran marked as exhibit- 6/413 to 6/414. He proved five draft application forms of Agrorati Sales & Service marked as exhibit-6/415 to 6/419. He proved three draft application forms of M/s Quality Chemical Suppliers, Patna marked as exhibit-6/420 to 6/422. He proved eleven draft application forms of M/s Bhagat & Company, Ranchi marked as exhibit-6/423 to 6/433. He proved two draft application forms of M/s Angil Medicam Pvt. Limited, New Delhi marked as exhibit-6/434 to 6/435. He prove thrity five draft application forms of M/s Manas Sales Corporation, Patna marked as exhibit-6/436 to 6/470. He proved six draft application form of M/s Vickey Commercial Traders, Ranchi marked as exhibit-6/471 to 6/476. He proved three draft application forms of M/s Tirupati Agency, Patna marked as exhibit-6/477 to 6/479. He proved one draft application form of M/s Tirupati Agency, Ranchi marked as exhibit-6/480. He proved seventeen draft application forms of M/s Chhotanagpur Veterinary Enterprises, Ranchi marked as exhibit- 6/481 to 6/497. He proved one draft application form of Bihar Cattle Feed Agency, Muzaffarpur marked as exhibit-6/498. He proved draft application form of M/s Swarnrekha Agency, Ranchi marked as exhibit-6/499. He proved draft application form of Roop Supply Company, Ranchi marked as exhibit-6/500. He proved draft application form of M/s A.B. Sales, Ranchi marked as exhibit- 6/501. He proved draft application form of M/s Ekta Works, Ranchi marked as exhibit-6/502. He proved draft application form of M/s Ajay Pharmacy, Ranchi marked as exhibit-6/503. He proved draft application form of M/s Asian Trader, New Delhi marked as exhibit-6/504. He proved draft application form of Medicine House, Bhagalpur marked as exhibit-6/505. He proved draft application form of Mastrine Pharmaceuticals, Patna marked as exhibit-6/506. He has deposed in his cross examination that all the drafts were prepared as per banking law. P.W.71 is Bidya Bhusan Thakkar. He has deposed that he was posted at Prahladpur Branch, Oriental Bank of Commerce in the year 1997. He proved exhibit-10/11 and 10/12. He proved account opening form of Semex Cryogenics, Delhi marked as exhibit-9/3 and 9/4. He proved specimen signature card marked as exhibit-16. He proved pay-in-slips marked as exhibit-

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 61

5/260 to 5/264. He proved eight cheques marked as exhibit-7/596 to 7/603. He proved statement of account marked as exhibit-8/38. He has deposed in his cross examination that transactions were done as per banking law. P.W.72 is Prem Kumar. He has deposed that in the year 1992-93 his Kishan Chemicals Factory was running and his mother was one of its partner. The factory was producing pesticides and B.H.C. Powder. During 1992- 93 he did not supply his products to AHD Department, Government of Bihar. He proved exhibit-3/39. He proved carbon copy of four bills issued to Magudh Chemicals marked as exhibit-14/195 to 14/198. His signatures on photo copy of road permit were marked as exhibit-4/2014 to 4/217. Letter written by Magudh Chemical Corporation requiring truck number containing his signature was produced. His signature was marked as exhibit-4/218. He has deposed in his cross examination that he did not know that Magudh Chemical Works, Patna was approved Government supplier. He did not supply directly to AHD. He could not remember about the payment given to his company by Magudh Chemical. P.W.73 is T. Gopal Krishnan. He has deposed that during 1988 to 2000 he was employee in Suprabhat Pharma, Patna. It is a CNF of Sarabhai Chemicals. He proved exhibit-3/40. His signatures on invoices were marked as exhibit-4/219 to 4/224. Written statement of company was marked as exhibit- 4/225. He has deposed in his cross examination that he was not employee of Sarabhai Chemicals. Ekta Veterinary, Ranchi was authorized stockist of Sarabhai Chemicals. Exhibit-4/225 was prepared from registers of his company. He was looking works of distribution of Sarabhai Pharmaceuticals. P..W.74 is Jitendra Khara. He has deposed that he is partner of Khara Chemical & Compound. His company is stockist / dealer of Borocil Glass Ware since 15 years. His company did not received any supply order of Borocil Glass Ware from Government of Bihar, AHD Offices. He has deposed in his cross examination he could not say the name to whom his product was sold. P.W.75 is Pramod Kumar Bhagat. His statement has been adopted from R.C. 64(A)/1996 in the light of Hon'ble Supreme Court in which he has stated that accused Dhruv Bhagat was known to him. He was elected M.L.A. from Rajmahal Constituency. He has said to trace out address of Naresh Kumar Jain. He received telephone call of Naresh Kumar Jain. He came to

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 62 meet with him. As per direction of Dhruv Bhagat the said Naresh Kumar Jain transferred A/c Ambassador Car in his favour without taking money. That car was being used by Dhruv Bhagat and by him also. He has deposed in his cross examination that car is still with him. An agreement held on 06.06.1996 between him and Dhruv Bhagat and he got Rs. 40,000/- from Dhruv Bhagat which was given to Naresh Kumar Jain. Dhruv Bhagat gave him money in installment. His cross examination was declined. P.W.76 is Sushil Kumar Bhatia. He has deposed that his company Lindsay Sports remained authorized dealer of Borocil Company for last 30 years. He had no business with M/s New India Enterprises, Ranchi, Mangla Enterprises, Ranchi, M/s Raman Medico Surgico, Patna and M/s Samarpan Veterinary, Patna from 1990 to 1996. He did not receive any order from AHD Offices for supply of Borocil Product. Borocil Company does not sell his product except through authorized dealer. He identified a letter marked as exhibit-X/20. He has deposed in his cross examination done on behalf of Tripurari Mohan Prasad that registers were maintained against sale. There are so many authorized dealers of Borocil Company. P.W.77 is Chandra Prakash Sahai. His statement has been adopted from R.C. 20(A)/1996 in the light of order of Hon'ble Supreme Court. He has deposed that he was posted in Budget Section of Animal Husbandry Department from 1991 to 1993 and he remained Sectional Officer in AHD from 1993 to February, 1995. He has proved documents of File No. 2BT(1) 1013/93 of Directorate, AHD. He has produced letter of P.A.C. dated 05.01.1994. Signature of Indra Raman Upadhayay, Dr. Ram Raj Ram and signature of this witness were marked exhibit from which file of budget from 1986 to 1993-94 was called. He proved noting of Tarkeshwar having signature of Tarkeshwar Prasad, Brajbhushan Prasad (Budget Officer), Dr. Ram Raj Ram and this witness. A list of files were prepared by Tarkeshwar Prasad. It contains signature of Phool Jha. The list was marked exhibit. Phool Jha did not carry away these files and kept these file with Sri R.K. Ram. He produced five files of Budget estimate from 1990-91 to 1994-95 and marked as exhibits. The exhibits contain his office note. He identified signature and writing of Dr. Ram Raj Ram marked as exhibit. Copy of budget estimate of 1990-91 was marked as exhibit. He proved noting of Budget Estimate File 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94 and

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 63

1994-95. Exhibits numbers were put after submission of certifying copy of the documents and kept in record. The serial number of exhibits are maintained separately in the present judgment with a table of list of exhibits. He has deposed in his cross examination that he endorsed files of 1993-94 to 1996-97 Budget Officer. The list of files was prepared on 04.03.1994. P.A.C. is the highest body for financial matters. He has deposed further that he could not say the names of Budget and Accounts Officer from 1990 to 1991 to 1994 to 1995. P.W.78 is Dr. Sashi Kumar Singh. is witness no 199 in RC Case No. 20A/96 and his evidence has been adopted in this case in view of order of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. In this connection Prosecution and Ld Defence council filed petition to adopt the said witness and the same was allowed by the then Ld. Spl. Judge CBI on 24/01/17. In his examination in chief he deposed that he was a veterinary doctor posted as RD AHD during period 1984 to 94. During that period he came into contact with Dr. Shyam Bihari Sinha he used to accompany him during his visit to various places. He further disclosed that Dr. Shyam Bihari Sinha was having very high connections with senior politicians bureaucrats and others. They used to stay at Patna in hotel and B.B. Prasad budget officer was called there who was putting his signature on the allotment letters prepared by Dr. Shyam Bihari Sinha himself. He has further stated that Dr. Shyam Bihari Sinha was having very proximate relationship with R.K.Rana and through him Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav used to take money. The Ministers of AHD namely Vidya Sagar Nishad, Bhola Ram Toofani and Chandradeo Pd. Verma were also introduced by R.K.Rana. He claims to be an eye witness that ministers were paid money by Dr. Shyam Bihari Sinha. It has been state that Tripurari Mohan Prasad was providing vehicles for them and the packet of money was delivered to Bhola Ram Toofani by himself . It has been stated that in the period 1993-94 money was given to Beck Julius by Dr. Shyam Bihari Sinha in his presence similarly packet of money was given to Dr. Jagarnath Mishra and the fund was being raised by Dr. Shyam Bihari Sinha from different big suppliers like Vijay Kumar Mallick and others. It has been stated that accused Lalu Prasad and his P.A were taking money from Shyam Bihari Sinha, he used to meet Jagdish Sharma the then chairman to the PAC. He gave Rs. 1 Lakhs to him. Later on money was given to Jagdish Sharma through Mahendra Prasad. His application

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 64 in his writing and signature was marked as exhibit-10/13. His statement U/s 164 of the Cr.P.C. having his signature on each page were marked as exhibit-4/226 to 4/236. He has deposed in his cross examination that he could not say registration number of the vehicle provided by Tripurari Mohan Prasad. He could not say about the application of Insulin on human body. He had not informed any senior officer regarding defalcation being done in the department. He has no documentary proof for giving money to Bhola Ram Toofani and Vidya Sagar Nishad. He did not meet with Lalu Prasad Yadav. No money was given in his presence to Lalu Prasad Yadav. He has no agreement with Shyam Bihari Sinha. He did not count the money which was given to Dr. Jagarnath Mishra. The money was in 100 rupees currency. He had no personal relation with Jagdish Sharma. He did not know about native village and property of Dr. R.K. Rana. A meeting of P.A.C was held on 08.06.1993 in Ranchi in which bufsheet was sent by Dr. K.N. Jha for direction to subordinate officers to hand over files to P.A.C. P.W.79 is Lal Mohanlal Rastogi. He has deposed that he was partner of M/ Gopal Wet Industry, Patna and his company was CNF of M/s India Immunological, Haidrabad from 1985 to 1994. C.B.I. seized some documents from his company. He has proved document marked as exhibit-3/41. He proved a letter dated 26.02.1998 marked as exhibit-10/14. Consignment letter through articles were sent to M/s A.B. Sales, Ranchi was marked as exhibit-17. Invoice of Indian Immunological was marked as exhibit-8. He did not send his product of AHD Offices of Chotanagpur but materials were sold to AHD Offices. He has deposed in his cross examination that payment receipt by his firm was maintained in a register. P.W.80 is Binay Kumar Singh. He has deposed that he was owner of truck bearing No. BPL / 8282. He has proved document marked as exhibit- 3/42, 4/238, 4/239, 4/240 and 4/241. His truck was not in movement from 01.04.1992 to 31.03.1993. He did not know Gauri Distributor, Bhagalpur and M/s Seva Medical Agency, Godda. He has deposed in his cross examination that C.B.I. did not seize R.C. book of his truck. P.W.81 is Manil Kumar Verma. He has deposed that during 1998 he was posted at S.B.I., Rajapur Branch, Patna. He has proved document marked as exhibit-3/43 and 9/5 (Account opening form). He has proved pay-in-

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 65 slips of Current Account No. 591 marked as exhibit-5/265 to 5/267. He has proved cheques marked as exhibit-7/604 to 7/606. He has proved statement of account of Current Account No. 591 marked as exhibit-8/39. He was refused to cross examination. P.W.82 is Vijay Kumar Mishra. He has deposed that in the year 1998 he was posted at S.B.I. Main Branch, Patna. He has proved document marked as exhibit-3/44. He has proved account opening form of Current Account No. 2048 of Baba Chemicals marked as exhibit-9/6 and specimen signature card marked as exhibit-4/242. He has proved pay-in-slips of that account marked as exhibit-5/268 to 5/278. He has proved statement of account of that current account marked as exhibit-8/40. He has deposed in his cross examination that transaction in the account was not done in his presence. P.W.83 is Dinesh Chandra Choudhry. He has deposed that he was posted at Allahabad Bank, Ranchi in the year 1997. He has proved document marked as exhibit-3/45, 3/46, 3/47 & 3/48. He has proved letter dated 08.05.1997 marked as exhibit-10/15 and letter dated 30.04.1997 marked as exhibit-10/16. He has proved account opening form of Current Account No. 459 of M/s Medivet, Ranchi marked as exhibit-9/7. He has proved specimen signature card of that account marked as exhibit-16/1. He proved pay-in-slips of United Industrial Bank Limited which merge into Allahabad Bank, marked as exhibit-5/279 to 5/288. He proved four cheques marked as exhibit-7/607 to 7/610. Partnership deed (certify) marked as exhibit-4/243. Statement of account of that current account was marked as exhibit-8/41. Account opening form of Account No. 480 of Birsa Live Stock was marked as exhibit-4/244. Specimen signature card of Current Account No. 480 was marked as exhibit-4/245. Statement of account of that Current Account was marked as exhibit-8/42. He has deposed in his cross examination that transaction was done as per banking rules. P.W.84 is Ranjit Singh. His statement was adopted from R.C. 20(A)/1996. He had deposed before the court that he knew the Guide Travel Agency where he worked from 1990 to 1996. He had stated about manner of booking of Taxis. Taxis were being booked by a person on telephone. The name and address of that person was maintained in a register with the name of driver. He knew Dr. Ajit Kumar Verma, the owner of M/s Little Oak Pharmaceuticals. He

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 66 was his customer. He produced booking register. The entries of dated 26.11.1992 to 02.02.1993 were marked as exhibits-19 to 19/2. He proved entries of that register of page no. 26, 41, 45 and 46 marked as exhibits-19/3 to 19/7. He proved entries of January, 1994 to 04.05.1994. Different pages and serials were marked exhibit as exhibits-19/8 to 19/13. Page 15 Sl. No.4 and Sl. No. 8 were marked as exhibit-19/14. Page 20 Sl. No. 9 was marked as exhibit- 19/15. The booking registered dated 03.05.1994 to 19.10.1994 page 16 Sl. No.5, Page 18 Sl. No. 6, Page 29 Sl. No.8, Page 22 Sl. No. 10, page 23 Sl. No.12, page 30 Sl. No. 10, Page 32 Sl. No.6, Page 35 Sl. No.2, Page 39 Sl. No.4, Page 40, Sl. No. 14, Page 42, Sl. No. 14, Page 43 Sl. No. 18, Page 45 Sl. No.11, Page 46 Sl. No.8, Page 47 Sl. No.13, Page 48 Sl. No.4, Page 55 Sl. No. 15, Page 50 Sl. No.11, Page 22 Sl. No. 8, Page 53 Sl. No.4, Page 50 Sl. No. 8, Page 56 Sl. No.9, Page 57 Sl. No.7, Page 59 Sl. No. 5, Page 60 Sl. No.2, Page 61 Sl. No.3 and Page 63 Sl. No.9 were marked as exhibits-19/16 to 19/40. Other pages and Sl. Nos. were marked as exhibit-19/41 to 19/63. Other exhibits of the register are exhibit No. 19/64 to 19/69. Pages of booking register from 67 onwards with serial number were marked as exhibits-19/70 to 19/89. Booking register dated 01.04.1995 to 31.12.1995 were produced and different pages with serial numbers were marked as exhibits-19/90 to 19/128. Other exhibits of the same register were marked as exhibit-19/129 to 19/146. Booking register dated 01.01.1996 to 03.11.1996 with page and serial number were marked as exhibits-19/147 to 19/165. Booking register from 01.02.1993 to 05.06.1993 with pages and serial number were marked as exhibit-19/166 to 19/167. Eight bills for Little Oak Pharmaceuticals of different dates were marked as exhibit-20 to 20/7. 53 vouchers were marked as exhibits-21 to 21/52. Five cheques were marked as exhibit-7/611 to 7/615. Cash book of Guiide Travel Agency dated 16.12.1993 to 31.03.1994 were marked as exhibit-22 to 22/4. Cash book dated 01.04.1995 to 03.10.1995 were marked as exhibit-22/5 to 22/11. Cash book showing entries bearing Sl. No.25 to 30 dated 04.10.1995 to 23.03.1996 were marked as exhibit-22/12 to 22/13. Cash book dated 01.01.1996 to 23.07.1996 page 177 was marked as exhibit-22/14. Bill register dated 04.04.1994 to 31.03.1995 from page 33 to 39 were marked as exhibit-23 to 23/6. He has deposed in his cross examination that he left job of Guide Travel in 1996. Booking register does not contain name of Travel Agency. He does not know

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 67

P.K. Sahay, Dr. Manoj Srivastava and Dr. Rana. He does not know V.K. Srivastava and D.R. Sharma. The bill register contains case no. R.C. 64(A)/1996, R.C. 38(A)/1996 (P) and R.C. 58(A)/1996 (P). He does not know name of partners of Travel Agency. His agency was not audited. P.W.85 is Arun Kumar Mishra. He has deposed that he was an employee of Concept Pharmaceuticals from 1987 to 2006 at Patna. He proved letter dated 13.06.1997 marked for identification X/21. He identified letter dated 23.01.1998 marked as X/22. His company gave information to C.B.I. through a letter with enclosures marked as exhibit-4/246. Revised price list was marked for identification X/23. Information regarding supply of Salco Prim 5 x 4 was marked as exhibit-4/247. Invoice was marked as exhibit-4/248. His company did not get any supply order from AHD Department, Government of Bihar in the year 1992-93. He has deposed in his cross examination that C.B.I. did not seize sale register of his company. There was stockist of his company. P.W.86 is Nand Lal Singh. He has deposed that he was posted as Sales Tax Officer, Ward No. 73, New Delhi in the year 1998. C.B.I. has seized documents from his office and memo was prepared. He proved exhibit-3/49. He proved file containing 22 sheets marked as exhibit-1/58. These are related with M/s Mallick Enterprises. It was not liable for Sales Tax. He has deposed in his cross examination that exhibit-3/49 does not contain signature of witness. P.W.87 is Nirmal Kumar Jain. He has deposed that he was employee of Animal Research Center, Jaipur from 1974 to 2003. C.B.I. got information from his office which was given through letter dated 13.06.1997 with annexure marked for identification X/24. His company replied C.B.I. vide letter dated 29.06.1997 with annexure marked as exhibit-10/17. Letter dated 29.09.1997 of his company was marked as exhibit-10/18. His company did not get any supply order from A.H.D. Office. Seizure memos having signature of Sandeep Jain and others were produced and marked as exhibit-3/50 to 3/51. He has deposed in his cross examination that he was not authorized to prepare invoice bills and dispatched the articles. Medicine Charmala 100 gm. was not purchased by Samarpan Veterinary. Original invoice bills have already been seized by C.B.I. Sonex was purchased by Samarpan Veterinary. P.W.88 is Dr. Hriday Shankar Sinha. He has deposed that during 1992-93 he was posted at Regional Animal Husbandry Department, Ranchi. Dr.

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 68

Krishna Mohan Prasad, Dr. Shyam Bihari Sinha and Dr. K.N. Jha were also posted there at different posts. His duty was to prepare supply order and present before Assistant Director, Planning, Joint Director and Director. His duty was to perform works assigned by them. Gopal Prasad Shukla, Gyenendra Kumar Srivastava, Ramesh Rai and Anand Kishore Srivastava were also assigned work of preparation of supply order. Requirements were send by different offices in the office upon which noting was given by Regional Director and supply order was issued as per file initiated and approved by Assistant Director, Joint Director and Director. Order were issued to approved medicine manufacturing company. The local suppliers made the supply. His statement was recorded U/s 164 of the Cr.P.C. His statement was marked as exhibit-24. Supply orders were made in three or four copies, one copy was given to supplier, one copy was given to D.T.O's, and one copy was kept in office. He produced file of R.D. Office related with AHD, Chaibasa for year 1992-93 from which order was placed by Regional Director, K.N. Jha to M/s Angel Medicine, Delhi. It was marked as exhibit-25. The file went through Assistant Director, Planning, Dr. Krishna Mohan Prasad and others namely Dr. Shyam Bihar Sinha and Dr. K.N. Jha. The file related with supply order of Mineral Mixture, DAHO, Chaibasa for the year 1992-93 was proved as exhibit-25/1. This file went through Dr. Krishna Mohan prasad, Dr. Shyam Bihari Sinha and Dr. K.N. Jha. Order was placed to M/s Vaishnav Enterprises, Ranchi. Other file related with DAHO, Chaibasa for supply of Mineral Mixture was marked as exhibit-25/2. The file went through same persons and supply order was placed to Vaishnav Enterprises. The photo copy of file Yellow Maize was marked for identification X/25. The file of DAHO for supply order of dust of face the year 1992-93 was marked as exhibit-25/3. This file went through Dr. K.N. Prasad, Dr. Shyam Bihari Sinha and Dr. K.N. Jha. Other file for the year 1992-93 for supply of Groundnut was marked as exhibit-25/4. This file also went through the same persons. The file of DAHO, Chaibasa for supply of medicines to anyone hospitals for the year 1992-93 was marked as exhibit-25/5. This file went through the above named accused persons and supply orders were placed to M/s Indian Laboratories, New Delhi. The file of DAHO, Chaibasa for supply orders of medicine for the year 1992-93 was marked as exhibit-25/6. The file processed through the same persons and order was placed to M/s Mastrin

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 69

Pharmaceuticals, Bombay. The file of DAHO, Chaibasa for the year 1992-93 for supply of Yellow Maize was marked as exhibit-25/7. The order processed through the same accused persons noted above. Order was placed to M/s Chotanagpur Cattle Feed Supply Corporation, Ranchi. The file of DAHO, Chaibasa for the year 1992-93 for supply of Yellow Maize was marked as exhibit-25/8. It went through the same persons and supply order was given to M/s Chotanagpur Cattle Feed Supply Corporation. He has proved files of DAHO, Chaibasa marked as exhibit-25/9, 25/10, 25/11, 25/12, 25/13, 25/14 and 25/15. Through these files supply orders were given to M/s Badri Naryan & Company, M/s Manas Sales, M/s Jay Bahadur & Company, M/s Mastrin Pharmaceuticals, M/s Hindustan Antibiotic, and M/s Karnataka Antibiotic. The guard file of DAHO, Chaibasa of the year 1992-93 was marked as exhibit-1/58 through which supply order was given to Chotanagpur Veterinary Enterprises. Guard file of DAHO, Chaibasa having supply order to M/s A. Traders was marked as exhibit-1/59. Guard file of DAHO, Chaibasa having supply orders to M/s Chotanagpur Veterinary Enterprises was marked as exhibit-1/60. Guard file of DAHO, Chaibasa containing supply orders of M/s Chotanagpur Veterinary Enterprises was marked as exhibit-1/61. He has deposed in his cross examination that original copy of indent was kept at R.D. Office, Ranchi. Supply orders are genuine. Animal Husbandry Departments were in need of medicines. The file contain signatures of competent officers. So many schemes were running for maintenance of animals. Under the program of MESO. Bull distribution and poultry distribution were done. Fodder was needed for animals. There was a technical cell in R.D. Office. At the time of his statement U/s 164 of the Cr.P.C. and advocate was present before the Judicial Magistrate. A meeting was held in every month in R.D. Office and the participants were free to raise any matter. He was senior then Dr. Ramesh Rai and Dr. Krishna Mohan Prasad in gradation list. He is not accused in any case. P.W.89 is Amrendra Kumar Jha. He has deposed that he is partner of Novelty Medical Agency, Patna. His firm was authorized dealer of Borocil Glass Wares. He did not have business with M/s New Iindia Enterprises, M/s Mangala Enterprises, M/s Raman Surgico Medico and M/s Samarpan Veterinary from 1990 to 1995 and no supply order was received from Veterinary Department. He has deposed in his cross examination that the product of

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 70

Borocil Glass Wares may be purchased from open market. P.W.90 is Gopal Prasad Sukla. He has deposed that he was posted in the office of Regional Director, Ranchi from 1969 to 2004 he remain posted there in the year 1992-93. His duty was to collect letters received from different offices and prepared correspondence and supply orders in connection with Mahamari during these years Dr. K.N. Jha was Director of the department. Dr. S.B. Sinha was Regional Joint Director and Dr. K.M. Prasad was Assistant Director, Planning. Dr. H.S. Sinha, Dr. G.K. Srivastava, Dr. S.K. Singh were also posted there and they were assigned work of preparation of supply orders. There was a practice in a office that Dr. K.N. Jha used to call Animal Husbandry Officers at his residence and supply orders were made as per his dictation. Assistant Director, Planning Dr. K.M. Prasad, Regional Joint Director Dr. S.B. Sinha used to put their noting and after approval of the Director supply orders were prepared. Sometimes indents were received and sometime supply orders were issued without indent. The process of issuance of supply order depended upon requirement. His statement U/s 164 of the Cr.P.C. was taken. His application in his writing and signature was marked as exhibit-26 and his statement U/s 164 of the Cr.P.C. was marked as exhibit-24/1. He proved file of DAHO, Chaibasa related with orders given to M/s Inter Pharmaceuticals (India) Pvt. Limited marked as exhibit-25/16. He proved file of DAHO, Chaibasa from which supply orders were given to M/s Alambic Chemical, M/s Pfizer Limited and M/s Concept Pharma and M/s Wokhard Veterinary marked as exhibit- 25/17. File of R.D. Office, Ranchi related with DAHO, Chaibasa was marked as exhibit-25/18 from which supply order was given to Gimax Pharmaceuticals Limited. File of supply of Crushed Yellow Maize of R.D. Office, Ranchi related with DAHO, Chaibasa was marked as exhibit-25/19 from which supply order was placed to Quality Chemical Suppliers. File of R.D. Office, Ranchi related with DAHO, Chaibasa was marked as exhibit-25/20 from which supply order was given to M/s Chotanagpur Cattle & Feed Supply Company. Other file was marked as exhibit-25/21 from which supply order was given to Little Oak Pharmaceuticals. File for supply of medicines was marked as exhibit-25/22 & 25/23 from which supply orders were given to Little Oak Pharmaceuticals and Badri Narayan & Company. File for supply of Yellow Maize was marked as exhibit-25/24 from which supply order was given to Badri Narayan & Company.

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 71

File for supply of Yellow Maize was marked as exhibit-25/25 from which supply order was given to Badri Narayan & Company. File for supply of yellow maize was marked as exhibit-25/26 from which supply order was given to M/s Badri Narayan & Company. File for supply of yellow maize was marked as exhibit- 25/27 from which supply order was given to M/s Badri Narayan & Company. File for supply of medicines was marked as exhibit-25/28 from which supply order was given to M/s Mastrin Pharmaceuticals. File for supply of yellow maize was marked as exhibit-25/29 from which supply order was given to M/s Badri Narayan & Company. File for supply of yellow maize was marked as exhibit- 25/30 from which supply order was given to M/s Badri Narayan & Company. File for supply of Feed & Medicines was marked as exhibit-25/31 from which supply order was given to M/s Little Oak Pharmaceuticals. File for supply of yellow maize was marked as exhibit-25/32 from which supply order was given to M/s Badri Narayan & Company. All supply orders were prepared as per order of Dr. S.B. Sinha, Dr. K.M. Prasad and Dr. K.N. Jha. He has deposed in his cross examination that Dr. Ramesh Ray, Dr. Hirdaya Shankar Singh, Dr. G.K. Srivastava and Dr. Shashi Kumar Singh were posted with him in Technical Cell of the Department. Minutes of the meeting was prepared but minutes was not produced before the court. His statement U/s 164 of the Cr.P.C. was taken. He has not written on the file that he put his note as per oral direction. Exhibit-25/18 & 25/19 do not contain opinion of Dr. K.M. Prasad. Peon book and dispatch register were not produced in the court. Rate of medicines were fixed by Directorate, AHD and medicines were purchased through Central Purchase Committee. Scheme of MESO was passed by R.D.C., Chotanagpur. He came to know about the scam in the year 1996. The Secretary of Animal Husbandry Department was authorized to appoint and dismiss him. He is not accused in any case. Supply orders were prepared in course of official business. It is not duty of supplier to obtain indent and other papers. P.W.91 is Sunil Kumar Bhatia. He has deposed that he is partner of Lindsay Sports Shop. He is dealer of Glass Ware, Chemical and Sports. He dealt in articles of Borocil in the year 1993-94 but he did not receive any supply order from AHD Department during this year. He has deposed in his cross examination that C.B.I. did not inspect his sale and purchase record. The record of sale and purchase is not present in the court.

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 72

P.W.92 is Narendra Kumar Jha. He has deposed that he was Distributor of Borocil Glass Ware in Bihar from 1980 to 1997. Borocil produces lab equipments. Borocil Glass Ware had no business with M/s New India Enterprises, Ranchi, M/s Mangla Enterprises, Ranchi, M/s Ram Surgico Medio, Patna and M/s Samarpan Veterinary Enterprises from 1990 to 1996. No supply was given to AHD Offices by Borocil Glass Ware to the AHD Offices during 1990 to 1996. He has deposed in his cross examination that he did not appoint stockist of Borocil. They used to maintain payment record. P.W.93 is Krishna Pandit. He has deposed that in the year 1994 he was posted at Secretariate Post Office, Patna at the post of Postman. Registered letters are delivered after preparation of list in carbon copy. Original copy is kept in the post office and they obtained receiving on carbon copy at the time of delivery of registered letters. The copy is submitted in the post office. He proved list of carbon copy dated 21.03.1994 through which 9 registered letters were delivered in the Animal Husbandry Office marked as exhibit-27. He has deposed in his cross examination that there were 10 postmen to deliver post of Secretariate. P.W.94 is Nagina Thakur. He had deposed that he was postman in Secretariate Post Office during 1994-95. He delivered two registered letters on 16.11.1994 in the office of Animal Husbandry. The carbon copy of receiving of Chandu Lal Srivastava were marked as exhibit-27/1 & 27/2. He has deposed in his cross examination that the list does not contain his signature. The copy was seized by C.B.I. P.W.95 is Gyani Ram Jain. He has deposed that he had been doing business of Food Grains in the year 1992-93 under the name of M/s G.R. Trading Company. Bishan Swaroop had a relation of business with him. He used to give bills after getting commission. He had been giving him bills in favour of Mallick Enterprises but he did not supply article to Mallick Enterprises. The owner of Mallick Enterprises used to give him cheque and after deduction of his commission he used to return his money. He could not remember total number of bills given to Mallick Enterprises. He has deposed in his cross examination that his firm was a partnership firm. He had been looking his account himself. He could not say the total amount received from Mallick Enterprises. C.B.I. never visited his godown.

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 73

P.W.96 is Bijay Kumar Gupta. He has deposed that he is owner of Bijay Kumar Gupta & Company. His company dealt with supply of Cattle Feed from 1989 to 2000. Bishan Swaroop used to take Cattle Feed from him and he used to give him bills. Bills were prepared in the name of Mallick Enterprises but he did not supply article to him. Only bills were given to him on commission. Bishan Swaroop used to give him cheques and after deducting his commission, he used to return the remaining amount. C.B.I. seized documents from his office and prepared memo which is marked as exhibit-3/51. The details of cheque prepared by him was marked as exhibit-3/52. C.B.I. prepared another memo of seizure marked as exhibit-3/53. He has deposed in his cross examination that transaction was done from 01.04.1992 to 31.03.1993. He used to supply article to Bishan Swaroop. P.W.97 is Dr. Amiyo Kumar Chakraborty. He has deposed that in 1997 he was employeed in Prihans Laboratories, Kolkatta. C.B.I. obtained some information which was given through letter dated 23.06.1997 which was marked as exhibit-10/19 and letter dated 16.08.1997 was marked as exhibit- 10/20. Cross examination of this witness has been declined. P.W.98 is Umesh Kumar Sinha. He has deposed that in the year 1997-98 he was posted in Karnataka Antibiotic Limited, Patna. Some information was given to C.B.I. through letter dated 25.06.1997, 30.01.1998, 24.01.1998 and 16.02.1998 which are marked as exhibit-10/21, 10/22, 10/23 & 10/24. He has deposed in his cross examination that Shree Baba Chemicals was authorized by his company to supply medicines of animal. His company did not supply to the department of Animal Husbandry directly. His company was paid through cheques or draft. Accounts were maintained. C.B.I. seized invoices of his company. There is no control of inter stockist sales and purchase. P.W.99 is Rambali Jha. He has deposed that during years 1992-93 he was posted at Saraikela in the office of Animal Husbandry at the post of clerk. At that time Manager of Cattle Farm was Dr. Dubraj Dorai. This witness was store clerk also. He was assigned with works of receiving articles such as feeds for animals and distribute the same as per the order of Manager. Crushed yellow maize and other articles were given to animals. 4 Kg. feed was given to small animal and 6 Kg. Feed was given to big animals. Salt G.N.C. were given

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 74 to cows. In the year 1992-93 Mustar Iol, Gur and Besans were not received in his office. At that time 220 to 230 animals were present in cattle farm. Materials was received either by Dubraj Dorai or by this witness. He does not know name of the supplier. He has deposed in his cross examination that there was store room for feed of animal at Saraikela. Other accused persons declined to cross examination. P.W.100 is Jitendra Prasad. He has deposed that in the year 1997 he was posted at Allahabad Bank, Bistupur Branch. Police seized some papers from his bank and prepared seizure memo on 02.09.1997 which was marked as exhibit-3/55. He proved current account opening form of Current Account No. 4/202 in the name of Indian Laboratories Pvt. Limited, Patna. He proved names of Directors namely Ranjeet Kumar Mishra, Shiva Nand, Ashoka, Ashok Chandra Dutta and Ashwani Kumar Bhagat. The document was marked as exhibit-9/8. The memorandum and articles of association of Indian Laboratories was marked as exhibit-28 (with objection). The resolution of Indian Laboratories was marked as exhibit-29. Certificate of incorporation of Indian Laboratories was marked as exhibit-30. Specimen signature card was marked as exhibit- 16/2. Statement of account was marked as exhibit-8/43. Original pay-in-slip was marked as exhibit-5/16. Collection advices were marked as exhibit-31 & 31/1. Draft purchase applications were marked as exhibits-6/507 to 6/522. Twenty eight cheques of Indian Laboratories were marked as exhibits-7/616 to 7/644. He has deposed in his cross examination that exhibit-3/54 is a photo copy and it has not been certified. P.W.101 is Naresh Kumar Singh. He has deposed that in the year 1998 he was posted in Punjab National Bank, Argora Colony Branch. C.B.I. seized some documents from his bank and prepared memo marked as exhibit- 3/66. Current Account Opening Form of Account No. 726 in the name of Vaisnav Enterprises was marked as exhibit-16/3. Statement of account of that account number was marked as exhibit-8/44. Two original pay-in-slips were marked as exhibit-5/17 & 5/18. The current account opening form of account no. 759 was marked as exhibit-9/10. The specimen signature card of that account was marked as exhibit-16/4. Partnership deed of that account was marked as exhibit-32. Six pay-in-slips were marked as exhibit-5/19 to 5/24. Statement of account of that account was marked as exhibit-8/45. The account opening form

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 75 of current account no. 647 in the name of Vickey Commercial was marked as exhibit-9/11. The specimen signature card of that account was marked as exhibit-16/5. Three pay-in-slips related with current account no. 647 were marked as exhibit-5/25 to 5/27. Statement of account of that account was marked as exhibit-8/46. He has deposed in his cross examination that all the transactions were genuine. Exhibit-16/4 is photo copy of specimen card. P.W.102 is Ajit Kumar Srivastava. He has deposed that he was posted in Animal Husbandry Department from 1979 to 1989. Dr. S.B. Sinha was known to him. In the year 1992-93 he came into the Department of Finance in the year 1992-93. He was Private Secretary of Finance Commissioner. Dr. S.B. Sinha was eager to obtain cash flow order. Tripurari Mohan Prasad had been collecting these orders as per instructions of Dr. S.B. Sinha. He was a supplier. Figure of expenditure were being sent to his department from the office of Accountant General. Dr. S.B. Sinha wanted figure of his department and he used to give the same. The figure was given directly to S.B. Sinha or it was informed on telephone. Dr. S.B. Sinha used to call him at Hotel Patliputra where he saw Dr. Ram Raj Ram, Dr. R.K. Rana, Dr. Shashi Bhushan Singh and Mahendra Prasad. Phuleshwar Paswan is known to him. He was posted in Budget Section of Finance Department. Bufsheet of Minister had come requiring statement of A.G. Dr. S.B. Sinha instructed Phuleshwar Paswan to keep low the figure of Animal Husbandry Department but Phuleshwar Paswan was not ready. He has deposed in his cross examination that he was not made accused. No file was taken from him by C.B.I. He did not obtain permission to visit Hotel Patliputra. P.W.103 is Miss. Jayanti Jha. She has deposed that she was employee in Raj Shree Tool & Travel Agency, Patna till October, 1995. He proved Ticket of Sahara Airlines in the name of Mr. S. Yadav marked as exhibit- 33. She proved four tickets of Sahara Airlines dated 20.06.1995 in the name of Mr. Biswas, Mr. P.K. Ray, Mr. Mukul Prasad and Mr. Lalu Prasad. The tickets were marked as exhibit-33/1 to 33/4. She proved three tickets of Sahara India Airlines dated 21.06.1995 in the name of Mr. Mukul Prasad, Mr. T.R. Ray and Mr. S. Biswas marked as exhibit-33/5 to 33/7. She proved eleven Air Tickets of Sahara India Airlines dated 17.10.1995 in the name of S.N. Biswas, Dr. R.K. Rana, Miss. Hema, Miss. Chanda, Miss. Rohani, Miss. Raj Laxmi, Master Tej

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 76

Pratap, Miss. Misha, Miss. Ragni, Miss. Dhano and Master Tarun marked as exhibits-33/8 to 33/18. She proved three tickets of Sahara Airlines dated 21.06.1995, 01.10.1995 and 21.06.1995 in the names of R.C.A. Jain, Naresh Yadav and Mr. Lalu Prasad (C.M.) marked as exhibits-33/19 to 33/21. She proved one ticket of Sahara Airlines dated 16.06.1995 in the name of R.R. Ram marked as exhibit-33/22. She proved two air tickets of Sahara Airlines dated 04.12.1995 on 16.11.1995 in the names of Dr. R.R. Ram and Mr. K.K. Srivastava marked as exhibit for identification X & X/1. She proved stock register of Raj Shree Tour and Travels dated 01.06.1995 to 12.02.1997 marked as exhibit-34. She proved register of incoming ticket payment of Raj Shree Tour & Travel Agency dated 25.11.1995 to 10.12.1996 marked as exhibit-34/1. She has deposed in her cross examination that order of ticket booking was noted down by other employee. The registers marked as exhibit-34 & 34/1 were not field up by her. P.W.104 is Dutta V. Joshi. He has deposed that in the year 1998 he was posted at Bank of Baroda, Ranchi. C.B.I. seized some documents and prepared memo marked as exhibit-3/57. The account opening-cum-signature card of Current Account No. 461 of M/s Q. Max Laboratory was marked as exhibit-9/12. The Director of the firm was Mr. Sharad Kumar and Sima Sharad Kumar. He proved three items marked as exhibit-10/25 to 10/27. He proved thirteen draft purchase forms of M/s Q. Max Laboratory marked as exhibit-6/523 to 6/535. Statement of account was marked as exhibit-8/47. Statement of account of Current Account No. 121 was marked as exhibit-8/48. He has deposed in his cross examination that at the time when these documents were operated he was not posted there. P.W.105 is Kul Prakash Srivastava. He has deposed that in the year 1997 he was posted in the Department of Finance, Government of Bihar. C.B.I. seized some documents and prepared seizure memo on 14.02.1997 which was marked as exhibit-3/58. He identified bufsheet dated 16.09.1996 marked for identification as X/2. He has deposed in his cross examination that exhibit-3/58 is related with document but those documents were not produced before him in the court. P.W.106 is Prasanna Kumar Panigrahi. He has deposed that as per order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court the statement of witnesses dated

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 77

16.03.2007 in R.C. 22(A)/1996 was adopted. He has deposed further that he was posted at C.B.I., Ranchi from 1992 to 2001 at the post of Inspector. He was I.O. of R.C. Case No. 24(A)/1996 during his investigation he became known that Dayanand Prasad Kashyap was partner of the firm namely M/s Vaisnav Enterprises, Subhash Chowk, Khunti, District – Ranchi. During investigation of that case he took statement of M.C. Sahu, Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax, Ranchi and he told him that M/s Vaisnav Enterprises was registered in the office of Sales Tax for business of Alopathic Medicines. The firm did not show any sale of Mineral & Mixture in his tax return. He took statement of Junior Engineer, Electricity Board, Khunti namely K.K. Singh, Lineman Basudeo Prasad and they told that no electricity connection was obtained for industrial unit at Khunti. There was no manufacturing unit in Khunti. He took statement of Rajesh Kumar, owner of shop situated at Subhash Chowk, Khunti. He told that there was no manufacturing unit in the name of Vaisnav Enterprises near Subhash Chowk, Khunti. This witness visited the place but did not find unit of Vaisnav Enterprises. He has deposed in his cross examination that he did not investigate R.C. Case No. 22(A)/1996. The case of R.C. 24(A)/1996 is different. M/s Vaisnav Enterprises was a partnership firm. There were other partners excluding Dayanand Kashyap. He did not enquire the matter from the office of Industrial Department. He did not know that unit of Vaisnav Enterprises was situated at Ashok Nagar, Ranchi. Vaisnav Enterprises was registered in the office of Sales Tax. He did not take statement of S.D.O., Electricity. During search of house of Dayanand Kashyap he was present there. P.W.107 is Bidhu Bhushan Duwedy. His examination in chief and cross examination has been adopted from R.C. 20(A)/1996 in the light of order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He has deposed that during his service as Police Officer in Vigilance Department, Ranchi, he got information from Newspaper and other sources about seizure of huge amount from the officers and suppliers of Animal Husbandry Department. He informed his Senior Officers in writing on 24.05.1992. The I.G. Vigilance Sri G. Narayan told him that he had put names of two Chief Ministers Sri Bhagwat Jha Azad and Sri Lalu Prasad which might cause trouble to this witness and his Seniors and suggested him to place another representation omitting names of these two Chief Ministers. He put up second representation on 27.05.1992. The report dated 24.05.1992 was

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 78 prepared in duplicate. The carbon copy of his report was marked as exhibit. The file of Vigilance bearing No. BH-38/92 contains his report dated 27.05.1992 against the Officers of AHD. The file was marked as exhibit. His reported dated 27.05.1992 was also marked as exhibit. His report contains names of Gauri Shankar Prasad, his wife Nirmala Prasad, his daughter Anita Prasad, supplier Md. Samim, his nephew Sanaul, K.N. Jha, Shyam Bihari Sinha, Krishna Mohan Prasad, C.S. Dubey and his family members, J.S. Kakar, Sanjay Sinha, R.S. Sharma, A.K. Yadav, P. Sinha, S. Rahman, R. Ahmad, T.S. Dubey, P.K. Durai, wife of Krishna Mohan Prasad, his son Rajesh Prasad, Kamlesh Kumar and other members. Mr. G. Narayan told him orally that the file be kept in Patna because if it was sent to Ranchi there would be no result. File was kept pending for a long time. G. Narayan retired on 31.05.1992. Sri D.P. Ojha took charge of I.G. Vigilance and this witness reminded him about his report. He gave him his report dated 10.03.1993 upon which he became annoyed. He threatened him that he would ruin him because he had put name of the Chief Minister. He collected paper cuttings and presented his report prepared in duplicate on 10.03.1993 marked as exhibit. When his report was not heard he gave his report to Lokayut, Bihar, Patna on 05.03.1994. Carbon copy of the report was marked as exhibit. He was transferred from Ranchi to Patna. He was harassed thereafter. Dy. S.P. C.I.D. seized some papers from him and prepared seizure list on 22.11.1996 which contains his signature marked as exhibit. During cross examinations so many questions has been raised regarding his family life, departmental disobedience and other things. He did not know that during investigation of Fodder Scam, statement of G. Narayan was taken by department of Vigilance and by C.B.I. also. His report was taken by C.B.I. P.W.108 is Miss. Natalia Jacob. His examination-in-chief and cross examination has been adopted from R.C. 20(A)/1996. She has deposed that she is a teacher in Bishop Westcott Girls School, Ranchi. She had been Acting Principal of that school from 1996 to 1998. C.B.I. seized some documents from his school on 19.12.1996 and memo were prepared marked as exhibit-3/58. Certified copy of admission form of Bishop Wescott Girls School, Namkum, Ranchi related with Miss. Hema, daughter of Lalu Prasad was marked as exhibit-35. Certified copy of admission form of Miss. Dhannu, D/o Lalu Prasad was marked as exhibit-35/1. Certified copy of admission form of

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 79

Miss. Ragni, D/o Lalu Prasad was marked as exhibit-35/2. Dr. S.B. Sinha was made local guardian of Miss. Ragni. Certified copy of admission form of Miss. Rohini Acharya, D/o Lalu Prasad was also produced in which Dr. S.B. Sinha was made local guardian. Admission forms of Miss. Chanda, D/o Lalu Prasad dated 07.05.1992 and 24.07.1993 were marked as exhibit-91/4 & 91/5. Dr. S.B. Sinha was made local guardian of Miss. Chanda. Extract copy of visitors register was marked for identification as X/3. She has deposed in her cross examination that she was not present at the time of admission of daughters of Lalu Prasad. The registers mentioned in seizure list was not produced before her. P.W.109 is Stephan Lucas. His examination-in-chief and cross examination has been adopted from R.C. 20(A)/1996. He has deposed that he had been in service of Government of Bihar, Department of Finance from 1963 to 2002. He proved file BTE 106/94 (Non planning) bearing head no. 2403 of the year 1995-96. The file contains actual expenditure from 1991 to 1994. The actual expenditure of 1991-92 was Rs. 117 crores, 60 lakhs and thirteen. The expenditure of 1992-93 is Rs. 33 crores, 24 lakhs and 60 thousand. The expenditure of year 1993-94 is Rs. 91 crores, 24 lakhs and 68 thousand. File was marked as exhibit-36. File No. SRF 45/95 (Non planning) of head 2403 was marked as exhibit-36/1. Third file bearing no. SRF 78/94 was marked as exhibit-36/2. File No. SRF 77/95 was marked as exhibit-36/3. File No. SRF 10/93 was marked as exhibit-36/4. File No. BT 61/93 was marked as exhibit- 36/5. File No. Aa Ppa – 8/95 was marked as exhibit-36/6. File No. BTE 114/94 was marked as exhibit-36/7. File No. BTE 113/94 was marked as exhibit-36/8. File No. BCF 186/93 was marked as exhibit-36/9. File No. 6 (Ka)(1) was marked as exhibit-36/10. He has deposed in his cross examination that exhibit-36 was not presented before accused Phool Chand Singh. He has deposed also that exhibit-36/1, 36/2, 36/3, 36/4 and 36/5 were not put up before accused Phool Chand Singh. None of these files were presented before the then Finance Minister. P.W.110 is Dharamraj Singh. His examination-in-chief and cross examination has been adopted from R.C. 20(A)/1996. He identified the files from which service of Dr. Shyam Bihari Sinha was extended. He put his note on this file being Sectional Head of Finance Department. He put his dissent note.

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 80

He identified file from which extension of service was granted to R.K. Das. The file contains note of this witness and was put up before Joint Secretary. He has deposed in his cross examination that file of service extension comes in the Department of Finance. Extension of service of Shyam Bihari Sinha was approved by Cabinet. Accused Phool Chand Sinha retired on 11.04.1994. He did not know whether files of extension of service was sent to Mahesh Prasad or not. Mahesh Prasad raised query about the cadre of R.K. Das and after meeting out his query he sent the file to the Department of Finance. The file initiated from Assistant and after approval of Minister and Director Ram Raj Ram, the file came before Sudhir Prasad and he endorsed it to the Department of Finance. P.W.111 is Sushanto Kumar Das Gupta. His examination-in-chief and cross examination has been adopted from R.C. 20(A)/1996. He has deposed that he was employee of Sahara India Airlines from 1991 to 1995. The document dated 22.10.1995 of Flight No. S/2-015A containing details of flight from Delhi to Patna was marked as exhibit-37. The list contains names of Miss. Ragni, Miss. Raj Laxmi, Miss. Misha, Master Tarun, Miss. Rohini, Miss. Dhano and Master Tej Pratap. The flight handling before of flight no. S/2-015A dated 22.10.1995 was marked as exhibit-37/1. The handling report contains special information that the Chief Minister L.P. Yadav was there. Document for special handling of V.I.P. of Flight No. S/2-015A dated 22.10.1995 was marked as exhibit-37/2. The V.I.Ps were Mr. L.P. Yadav and R. Gupta. The document of Flight No. S/2-015 dated 20.10.1995 was marked as exhibit-37/3. He has deposed in his cross examination that the document does not speak about actual travel done by the passenger. P.W.112 is Prasenjit Barma. His examination-in-chief and cross examination has been adopted from R.C. 20(A)/1996. He has deposed that he was employee of Hotel Taj, Bengal from 1992-1999. He presented two bills in the name of R.K. Rana marked as exhibit-38 & 38/1. The registration card in the name of R.K. Rana was marked as exhibit-38/2. Registration forms in the name of R.K. Rana were mark for identification as XX/26 to XX/29. Six bills of Hotel Taj Bengal in the name of D. Chandak were marked as exhibit-38/3 to 38/8. Eight registration cards in the name of D. Chandak was marked as exhibit-38/9. The clearance cards in the name of Pratik Plastics were marked as exhibit-

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 81

38/17 to 38/28. Two registration cards in the name of Anuj Enterprises were marked as exhibit-38/29 & 38/30. He has deposed in his cross examination that exhibit-38, 38/1 & 38/2 were not prepared by him. P.W.113 is Suresh Chandra Choudhary. His examination-in-chief and cross examination has been adopted from R.C. 20(A)/1996. He has deposed that during 1990-91 he was posted in the office of Secretariat of the Chief Minister at the post Routine Clerk. He proved entry no. 7280 dated 15.11.1990 of register of incoming files in the Secretariat of Chief Minister marked as exhibit-39. The entry was regarding the file of Animal Husbandry Department about Audit of the department. He has deposed in his cross examination that he could not say that this file was presented before the then Chief Minister. P.W.114 is Ramanand Prasad Singh. His examination-in-chief and cross examination has been adopted from R.C. 20(A)/1996. He has deposed that during 1990-91 he was posted in the office of Chief Minister's Secretariat at the Post of Routine Clerk. He proved entries dated 27.10.1990 to 07.12.1990 of diary no. 7172 marked as exhibit-39/1. The top note of that diary is related with file of Animal Husbandry about irregularity of distribution of cattle's. During the period Lalu Prasad was the Chief Minister of Bihar. He has deposed in his cross examination that the file was sent for perusal by the Chief Minister. P.W.115 is Shailendra Kumar. His examination-in-chief and cross examination has been adopted from R.C. 20(A)/1996. He has deposed that he was posted in Directorate of Animal Husbandry Department from 1990 to 2002 at the post of Assistant. The question raised in Legislative Assembly in connection with Department of Animal Husbandry were answered in the department and files were opened in this regard. He produced one file of 1990, one file of 1991, three files of 1992, two files of 1993, one file of 1994, two files of 1995 and four files of 1996. These files were marked as exhibit-36/13 to 36/26. Questions were asked regarding irregularities being done in the department and allegations were made against officers of the department. He has deposed in his cross examination that he looked into exhibit-36/13 and deposed that at the time Mahesh Prasad not Secretary of Animal Husbandry Department. File is initiated from the label of Assistant and comes to the table of Directorate. Thereafter, it is sent to Additional Secretary. The files were not dealt

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 82 by him. He looked into exhibit-36/15 and deposed that page 7 & 8 contains noting of Sri Indu Bhushan Pathak the then Secretary. One order is of Mahesh Prasad in which direction was given to obtain reply of show cause from the delinquent. Answer of the question was prepared by Assistant. Questions regarding material was answered by the office concerned. Exhibit-36/13 contains order of Minister on page-4 that Dr. Shivshankar Tiwary, Assistant Project Officer of District Village Development, Chaibasa should be suspended. During the period Bek Julius he was posted at the same post. C.B.I. did not arrest him. P.W.116 is Mahangu Lal Azad. His examination-in-chief and cross examination has been adopted from R.C. 20(A)/1996. He has deposed that during 1991 to 1998 he was posted at the post of Sectional Officer in the Department of Secretariat-cum-Directorate of Animal Husbandry Department. He dealt exhibit-36/14, 36/17 and 36/20. Page 1 of exhibit-14 contains his noting. Exhibit-36/17 page 1 contains his noting and exhibit-36/20 also contains his noting. He has deposed in his cross examination that exhibit-36/14 & 36/17 are not of the period of Mahesh Prasad. The file of reply of the questions runs as per Departmental Procedure after dealing it by Assistant, the file is put up before Senior Officer and after approval draft is prepared. P.W.117 is Surendra Kumar Jalan. His examination-in-chief and cross examination has been adopted from R.C. 20(A)/1996. He has deposed that he is businessman of Gold and his firm is Jalan Jewelers in Kolkatta. He is proprietor of the firm. Dipesh Chandak was his customer. He came into his contact because he was his customer. He knew his writing and signature. Chandak approached him for purchase of Gold bond in 1993. He helped him for commission and obtained Rs. 43,000/- or Rs. 50,000/- as commission. His employees put signature in the form of Gold Bond as representative of Dipesh Chandak. Mahendra Kumar Jalan is his brother and Bineet Kumar Jalan is his nephew. He identified signatures of his employee Om Prakash Tiwary on exhibit-40/1, 40/3, 40/7, 40/8, 40/10, 40/12, 40/15 and 40/17. He identified signatures of his employees on exhibit-40/18 & 40/19. He identified signatures of Dipesh Chandak on exhibits-40, 40/2, 40/4, 40/5, 40/6, 40/9, 40/11, 40/13, 40/14 and 40/16. He did not know personally the applicants of Gold Bond. He has deposed in his cross examination that there was license for business of

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 83

Gold under Gold Control Act. He did not so amount of commission obtained from Dipesh Chandak in his Income Tax Return. P.W.118 is Birendra Prasad Ambhastha. His examination-in-chief and cross examination has been adopted from R.C. 20(A)/1996. He has deposed that he was Assistant in AHD, Vigilance Cell. He produced 15 files relating with period 1987 to 1996 in which charges of corruption, irregularities, defalcations were brought against employees and other persons related with Ranchi Region. These files were marked as exhibit-36/27 to 36/41. He proved file relating with removal of estoppel of Finance by Treasury marked as exhibit- 36/42. Tour diary of Ram Raj Ram from October, 1989 to 1995 was marked as exhibit-36/43. File of appointment of Dr. Ram Raj Ram at the post of Director was marked as exhibit-36/44. The file relating with transfer of Dr. J.P. Verma was marked as exhibit-36/45. He has deposed in his cross examination that he did not know about the treasury related with these files. He dealt five files. None of the files was put up before the Chief Minister. Dr. Ram Raj Ram was appointed to officiate works of Director, AHD as per order of the High Court. Exhibit-36/28 was not put up before the Chief Minister. He cannot say movement of files which was not dealt by him. The file is related with irregularity regarding vaccination of Animals done by Dr. Ram Raj Ram and K.K. Srivastava. The Chief Secretary ordered to obtain representation of the person concerned. Both of them gave their reply and Secretary, AHD Mahesh Prasad sent it to the Department of Vigilance. The Director and Joint Director, AHD informed that enquiry by Vigilance was closed. P.W.119 is Dr. Dukhit Ram. His examination-in-chief and cross examination has been adopted from R.C. 20(A)/1996 He has deposed that he was posted as K.V.O. and at another post in the Department of Animal Husbandry. During his tenure at Chakradharpur, the DAHO, Chaibasa had not transferred any feed, fodder, medicines and instruments to him and no such transfer was made to him while he was posted at Khunti & Ranchi. The instrument for artificial insemination was not supplied to him. He has deposed in his cross examination that during the year 1994-95 he was posted at Khunti. P.W.120 is Anil Kumar Mehta. His examination-in-chief and cross examination has been adopted from R.C. 20(A)/1996. He has deposed that he was posted as P.A. to Secretary, Animal Husbandry from 1992 onwards. He had

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 84 produced file movement register dated 16.12.1992 to 30.10.1993 marked as exhibit-39/2. The entry no. 1801 is related with complain against Animal Husbandry Department by the Member of Parliament Sri Ram Sharan Yadav. The file was put up before Additional Secretary and Secretary of the Department and thereafter it was put up before the State Minister on 16.10.1993. He proved movement register dated 21.02.1995 to 30.12.1995 marked as exhibit-39/3. The register of receipt letter from 27.06.1993 to 01.12.1995 was marked as exhibit-39/4. He has deposed in his cross examination that he did not know about the noting of file. File runs from lower label to upper label. He mostly spent his service period with Mahesh Prasad. P.W.121 is Gyanendra Kumar Srivastava. He has deposed that he came in the service on 05.12.1972 in the Department of Animal Husbandry. He remained as movable Animal Husbandry Officer from 12.08.1992 to 12.07.1993. He was at the post of Assistant Piggery Development Officer, Ranchi from 13.07.1993 to 31.05.1996. He was Assistant Director, Planning from 01.06.1993 to 31.08.1996. He used to prepare supply order with the help of Dr. Hirday Shankar, Dr. K.K. Srivastava and Dr. Shukla. After preparation of file it was put up before Dr. Krishna Mohan Prasad and Dr. Shyam Bihari Sinha, later on file was put up before Regional Director. File was initiated by the order of Regional Director K.N. Jha. He used to call him in his chamber in presence of Dr. Shyam Bihari Sinha and Dr. K.M. Prasad. Dr. Shyam Bihari Sinha used to call him at his residence also and used to order for preparation of supply order. It appeared to him that excess supply orders were issued against the requirement. It was informed to Dr. Shyam Bihari Sinha and K.N. Jha but Dr. Shyam Bihari Sinha, Dr. K.M. Prasad and Dr. K.N. Jha forced them to issue supply orders. He proved file containing 60 supply orders issued to Sarabhai Chemicals and Glaxo India marked as exhibit-25/33. The supply orders was prepared as per order of Dr. K.N. Jha. He proved file containing supply orders to Karnakata Antibiotics, Pfizer Limited, Patna, Wock Hartt Veterinary, Madras, Glaxo India Limited and others. The file was initiated by him and approved by K.M. Prasad, Dr. Shyam Bihari Sinha and Dr. K.N. Jha. Supply orders contains signature of K.N. Jha marked as exhibit-25/34. He proved file in connection with supply of medicines which was initiated by him and was presented before Dr. K.M. Prasad. It was signed by K.N. Jha marked as exhibit-25/35. File containing

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 85

80 supply orders to Pfizer Limited was marked as exhibit-25/36. File containing 50 supply orders given to Sarabhai Chemicals, Glaxo India and Pfizer Limited was marked as exhibit-25/37. File containing 61 supply orders to M/s Sanjay Sinha and 36 supply orders given to M/s Krishna Traders were marked as exhibit-25/38 and 25/39. Two files containing 20 supply orders to Sarabhai Chemicals and 50 supply orders given to M/s Glaxo Laboratories were marked as exhibit-25/40 & 25/41. File containing 29 supply orders was marked as exhibit-25/42. Exhibits-25/33 to 25/42 were prepared under direction of Dr. Krishna Mohan Prasad, Dr. Shyam Bihari Sinha and Dr. K.N. Jha. They dictated this witness to prepare these supply orders with quantity and price. The supply orders were prepared by this witness along with Dr. Hirday Shankar Sinha, Dr. Gopal Prasad Sukla and Dr. A.K. Srivastava. The guard file containing five supply orders to Brihans Limited, Wock Hardt Laboratory and supply orders given to Cadila Laboratory, Alembic, Patna were marked as exhibit-41 to 41/40. 16 supply orders given to Mastrin Pharmaceuticals were marked as exhibit- 41/41 to 41/56. One guard file was marked for identification as X/29. The guard file containing supply order and bills related with M/s Manas Sales Corporation were marked as exhibit-41/57 to 41/100 and the guard file was marked for identification as X/29. The file containing 54 supply order and bills given to Manas Sales, Patna was proved. Guard file was marked for identification as X/30. The supply order given to Manas Sales, Patna were marked as exhibit- 41/101 to 41/113. Other supply orders prepared by Sushil Dutta were marked as exhibit-41/114 to 41/154. 27 supply orders kept in guard file were produced. Guard file was marked for identification as X/31 and supply orders related with M/s Navketan Enterprises were marked as exhibits-41/155 to 41/181. 14 supply orders kept in a file which bills were produced. The file was marked for identification as X/32 and supply orders given to Hindustan Antibiotics and Karnataka Antibiotic were marked as exhibit-41/182 to 41/193. The file containing supply orders and supply bills related with M/s Hindustan Ciba containing bills of Surgico Medico were marked as exhibit-41/196 to 41/265. File was marked for identification as X/33. File containing 20 supply order and bills related with M/s Inter Pharmaceuticals (India) Pvt. Limited were marked as exhibit-41/266 to 41/285. 40 supply bills related with M/s Care and Cure, Ranchi and Ram Enterprises are included in the above exhibits. The file was marked as

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 86

X/34 for identification. 35 supply orders given to M/s Q. Max Laboratory were marked as exhibit-41/286 to 41/320. The bills were given by Baba Chemicals, Bihar Surgico, Patna and Samarpan Veterinary Enterprises. 14 supply orders given to Hindustan Antibiotics and Mastrin Pharmaceuticals were marked as exhibit-41/321 to 41/334. The supply order contains 15 supply bills of M/s Bihar Surgico Medico, 83 supply bills of Bhagat & Company. The guard file was marked for identification as X/37. The guard file containing 30 supply orders given to M/s Concept, Patna, Wock Hardt Veterinary, M/s Alembic, Mastrin Pharmaceuticals and Vaisnav Enterprises were marked as exhibit-41/335 to 41/364. The supply orders contain suppliers bill of M/s Bihar Surgico Medico, Baba Chemical Works, M/s Vaisnav Enterprises, M/s Inter Pharmaceuticals (India) Pvt. Limited, Medicine House and Shaktri Pharmaceuticals. The guard file was marked exhibit for identification as X/37. Another guard file marked for identification as X/38 contains 21 supply orders and supply bills of M/s Little Oak and Birsa Live Stop Feeds were marked as exhibit-41/365 to 41/385. Guard file containing 50 supply orders to Vaisnav Enterprises with suppliers bills were marked as exhibit-41/386 to 41/435. Guard file containing 42 supply orders given to Mastrin Pharmaceuticals and M/s Hindustan Antibiotics were marked as exhibit-41/436 to 41/469. Eight supply orders of M/s Glaxo Laboratories were marked as exhibit-41/470 to 41/ 477. The supply orders contain bills of Bihar Surgico and Little Oak. The guard files were marked for identification as X/39 and X/40. Another guard file marked for identification as X/41 contains 92 supply orders given to Chotanagpur Cattle Food Supply were marked as exhibit-41/478 to 41/569. Next guard file was marked for identification as X/42 with contains 9 supply orders given to Engel Medican were marked as exhibit-41/570 to 41/578. It contains supply bills of M/s Bhagat & Company and Engel Medican. Guard file marked as X/43 contains 13 supply orders given to Vaisnav Enterprises marked as exhibit-41/579 to 41/591. There are thirteen supply bills also in the file. Guard file marked for identification X/44 contains 81 supply orders given to Navketan Enterprises were marked as exhibit-41/592 to 41/672. It contains 81 suppliers bill. Guard file marked X/45 for identification contains 98 supply orders given to Indian Laboratory, 18 supply orders given to M/s Mastrin Pharmaceuticals were marked as exhibit-41/673 to 41/770. it contains 100 bills of suppliers. Guard file marked X/46 for

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 87 identification contains 100 supply orders given to Vaisnav Enterprises were marked as exhibit-41/771 to 41/870. It contains bills of suppliers. He has proved supply orders given to Vaisnav Enterprises was marked as exhibit-41/871 to 41/919. He has proved so many supply orders and bills given to different suppliers with bills and they have been marked as exhibit. In the series of 41 and it comes up to Exhibit-41/6244. Supply orders were prepared as per verbal order. All the files were related with DAHO, Chaibasa and guard files have been marked for identification in series-X. He has deposed in his cross examination that there was no indent register in R.D. Office. Feed, Fodder and Animals were distributed without any cost under the scheme of MESO. Medicines were also given free of cost. Tender was done in Patna. He did not deal the file of tender. Supply orders containing initial of the person was prepared by that person. Last signature was done by Regional Director. C.B.I. took his statement and approached him more than 60 times. He is not accused in this case. There was posting of peons in R.D. Office. He is not technical expert. He refused the suggestion put by the counsel of accused K.N. Jha. There was no role of suppliers in preparation of orders. No objection was raised by A.G. Monthly meeting of doctors held in the office of Regional Director. Guard file were not seized in his presence. No complain was done regarding non supply by the suppliers. There were cattle farm, Poultry Farm and Piggery Farm and Feeds, Fodder and Medicines were required for them. The documents proved by him related with Chotanagpur Cattle Feed Supply are related with the period when he was T.V.O. on deputation to Ranchi. He was member of Technical Cell. The file proved by him were not seized from his possession. He could not say whether any supply was done or not against the orders of supply. He never informed the authority of Vigilance Department about these facts. He was approver in R.C. 47(A)/1996, R.C. 49(A)/1996 and R.C. 50(A)/1996. P.W.122 is Sushil Kumar Mangla. He has deposed that he was posted at the post of Superintendent, Department of Custom in New Delhi during 1996 to 1998. Birla Textile Mills, Range No. 31, Delhi and Shastri Nagar, Delhi-52 was under his range. If a firm is registered his sale should be more than Rs. 30 Lakhs and it is required by the firm to file RT.-12 monthly return. The firm should be manufacturing firm. A declaration file is required to be submitted in the month of April regarding manufacturing. The manufacturing of

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 88 artificial insemination instrument comes under the Central Excise Act and duty is required to be paid. The register 335-D contains names of registered firm. He proved letter dated 12.09.1998 given by his department and marked as exhibit- 10/30. It was informed through the letter that there was no declaration file of M/s Q. Max Cryogenics. Shastri Nagar, Delhi in his office nor it was registered in his office. He has deposed in his cross examination that he did not which of the equipment was supplied by Mahendra Singh Bedi. He did not visit the factory of Mahendra Singh. The register of 335-D is not in the court. P.W.123 is Gopal Ji Srivastava. His examination-in-chief and cross examination has been adopted from R.C. 20(A)/1996. He has deposed that he was posted at Bihar Bhawan, New Delhi at the post of Sectional Officer from 1989 to 1999. He proved a letter dated 22.02.1997 marked as exhibit- 10/31. He proved letter dated 13.08.1996 marked as exhibit-10/32. Both letters were sent to C.B.I. He has deposed in his cross examination that the letter does not contain dates. He denied suggestion given by the learned advocate of accused Jagdish Sharma. P.W.124 is Ravindra Kumar. His examination-in-chief and cross examination has been adopted from R.C. 20(A)/1996. He has deposed that he was posted as Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax in Head Office from 1991 to May, 1992 at Ranchi and remain here from 1992 to 1994 at the post of Director Investigation, Income Tax. The work of Assistant Director, Income Tax is search and process of Income Tax Cases after verification of the matter. During search panchnama is prepared in three copies. During his posting at Ranchi search was done in connection with Officers of Animal Husbandry Department and its suppliers. He proved 23 warrants marked as exhibit-42 to 42/22. He proved another six search warrants marked as exhibit-42/23 to 42/28. Another 14 warrants, 8 warrants, 7 warrants and 4 warrants were proved marked as exhibit-14/29 to 14/61. Each of the warrant contains name of the person. He proved panchnama containing memo of seized articles marked as exhibit-43. It is related with accused K.M. Prasad. Panchnama dated 01.02.1993 related with K.M. Prasad was marked as exhibit-43/1. Panchnama dated 01.02.1993 related with Abhishek Kumar was marked as exhibit-43/2. Panchnama dated 12.10.1993 related with Lilawati Kashyap and Kalsamini Kashyap was marked as exhibit-43/3. Panchnama dated 12.10.1993 was

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 89 marked as exhibit-43/4. Panchnama dated 01.02.1993 related with Smt. Nirmala, W/o Dr. R. Kumar was marked as exhibit-43/5. Panchnama dated 12.11.1993 related with B.P. Kashyap and others was marked as exhibit-43/6. Panchnama dated 12.11.1993 related with M/s K.A.S. Construction was marked as exhibit-43/7. Panchnama dated 12.11.1993 related with B.P. Kashyap was marked as exhibit-43/8. He has proved several panchnamas related with B.P. Kashyap, R.K. Singh and Sanjay Sinha were proved by him marked as exhibit- 43/9 to 43/14. Appraisal report related with K.M. Prasad, M/s Vaisnav Enterprises, Vijay Mallick, Sanjay Sinha and R.K. Singh were marked as exhibit-44 to 44/7. He has deposed in his cross examination that he could not say how much tax was imposed upon K.M. Prasad. Vaisnav Enterprises is a partnership firm. P.W.125 is Girish Chand Mishra. His examination-in-chief and cross examination has been adopted from R.C. 20(A)/1996. He has deposed that he was posted in the office of B.S.N.L. Office, Ranchi in the year 1998. He provided details of telephone number to C.B.I. on 24.12.1998 with forwarding letter marked as exhibit-10/33. He has deposed in his cross examination that the details does not contain name of customers and location. P.W.126 is Pravin Kumar Basu. His examination-in-chief and cross examination has been adopted from R.C. 20(A)/1996. He has deposed that during 1990-91 he was Joint Secretary and Additional Secretary in the department of Finance, Government of Bihar. He proved file no. BTE 55/90 of 1991-92 (Non Planning) related with head no. 2403 marked as exhibit-36/46. He has deposed in cross examination that there were enhancement of budget in salary head and other items. It does not appear that the file was put up before Finance Minister or before Chief Minister. The file was dealt by his junior officers as per Secretariat Rules. P.W.127 is Anjani Kumar Singh. His examination-in-chief and cross examination has been adopted from R.C. 20(A)/1996. He has deposed that he was at the post of Additional Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Bihar from 1992 to 1993. He was additionally posted at the post of Director, Treasury. He was designated with work of transfer, posting and promotion of staffs. During Chief Minister-ship of Lalu Prasad Yadav a meeting was held in June, 1993 under the Chairmanship of Lalu Prasas Yadav on the

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 90 point of excess withdrawal from treasury. He had participated in the meeting along with the Chief Minister, Chief Secretary, Finance Secretary, Secretaries of different departments, District Magistrates, Treasury Officers and some important Ministers. Huge excess withdrawal was done in March, 1993 from different treasuries and meeting was called to review the matter. Report was obtained from Chaibasa Treasury also. Report dated 05.05.1993 of Chaibasa Treasury was received in the department of Finance and marked as exhibit- 36/46. The report contains withdrawals of department of Animal Husbandry. The then Dy. Commissioner, Chaibasa, Sajal Chakraborty had participated in the meeting and it was decided in the meeting that the District Magistrate would look into the matter of excess withdrawal. Sajal Chakraborty had stated in the meeting that no excess withdrawal was done in his District. He has deposed in his cross examination that he could not say that exhibit-36/46 was put up before the Finance Commissioner. During 1994-96 he was at the post of Dy. Commissioner, Dumka and he did not sale monthly bill of treasury to the Accountant General. He did not inspect the treasury, Dumka as per Treasury Code. The Finance Commissioner, Phool Chand Singh directed all the District Magistrate vide his order dated 09.06.1993 to deposit the amount which was not incurred. He was not made accused in any case related with Dumka Treasury. No minutes of meeting dated 07.06.1993 was prepared. Normally heavy withdrawal are done in the month of March. Chief Minister Lalu Prasad gave three directions in the meeting – (1) Whether withdrawal was done as per cash flow restrictions imposed by Finance Department, (2) Amount which cannot be spent in the same Financial year should be deposited in Civil Account and (3) Some skins of Welfare Department, Science Technology Department and Industry Department were discussed in detail and concerned authority were asked to verify withdrawals and its work. In the year 1996 details of annual allotment was not send to any Dy. Collectors. There was no clue to trace excess withdrawal. Withdrawal done from Chaibasa Treasury was less than other treasuries. Minutes of the meeting was not prepared. He could not say actual figure drawn in the year 1993-94, 1994-95 & 1995-96. Newspapers had published news of heavy withdrawal in the month of March on the basis of allegation brought by Dr. Jagarnath Mishra. P.W.128 is Mahesh Kumar. He has deposed that in the year 1991

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 91 he was Proprietor of M/s Kedar Nath – Sanjay Kumar & Company. He used to sale food grains and other articles. He knew Bishan Swaroop, owner of Bake Bihari Traders. Bishan Swaroop contacted him in the year 1991 to obtain G.N.C. bills without taking supply in the name of Mallick Enterprises. He gave him bills on commission without actual supply. He used to give him cheque and he returned the amount after deducting his commission. He has deposed in his cross examination that C.B.I. seized ledger and bills from his office. P.W.129 Ishwar Jain. He has deposed that his firm was known as Food Rice Trading Company. It work from 1992 to 1998. He knew Bishan Swaroop, his son Sushil and his accountant Anand. He obtained bills from him in the name of Mallick Enterprises. He did not supply any item to him. He used to give him cheque and after deduction of his commission he returned the remaining amount to him. C.B.I. seized some document from him and prepared memo which is marked as exhibit-3/59. Two documents were seized by C.B.I. from his office which have been marked as exhibit-8/49 & 8/50. He has deposed in his cross examination that C.B.I. took his statement. He could not say the amount and quantity of bill. P.W.130 is Ram Niwas Jain. He has deposed that during 1991-92 he was commission agent and name of his firm was M/s Paras Nath Traders, Naya Bazar, Delhi. He knew Bishan Swaroop. He obtained bills from him and gave him commission. He did not supply him any material. C.B.I. seized some papers from him and prepared memo marked as exhibit-3/60. C.B.I. seized two papers also marked as exhibit-8/51 and 8/52. He has deposed in his cross examination that C.B.I. seized his ledger and bills book. He could not say the actual amount and quantity mentioned in bills. He could not say the amount received by Bishan Swaroop. P.W.131 is Dushyant Kumar. He has deposed that he had been service in Delhi Government from 1965 to 2006. He was posted in Sales Tax Department from 1993 to 1998. Ward No. 9 was under his jurisdiction. C.B.I. seized some documents and prepared seizure memo on 02.06.1997 marked as exhibit-3/61. Another seizure memo was prepared on 21.08.1997 marked as exhibit-3/62. File report of Indian Laboratories from 1984 to 1991 was marked as exhibit-1/59. File of assessment order for 1992-93 was marked as exhibit- 1/60. He has deposed in his cross examination that these files were not deal by

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 92 him. P.W.132 is Naresh Kumar Jain. His examination-in-chief and cross examination has been adopted from R.C. 20(A)/1996. Deposition adopted in R.C. Case No. 64(A)/1996 receipt of Ashok Automobiles, Ranchi dated 14.10.1995 was marked as exhibit-XX/738 for identification. Four signatures on registration form of Ambassador Car was marked as exhibit-100. Tax Token was marked as exhibit-101. Sale certificate dated 16.10.1995 was marked as exhibit-XX/739 for identification. Insurance paper dated 07.10.1995 was marked exhibit for identification as XX/740. Form No. 22 (Pollution Certificate) dated 16.10.1995 was marked exhibit as XX/741 for identification. Form 29 & 30 were marked as exhibit-100/2 & 100/3. Challan of the vehicle dated 02.03.1996 was marked for identification as XX/742. Two affidavits dated 02.03.1996 were marked as exhibit-100/4 & 100/5. He has deposed that he was employee of M/s Shagun in the year 1992. His owner was Rakesh Mehra. Satyendra Kumar Mehra was supplier in Animal Husbandry Department. He said him to purchase an Ambassador Car for which he gave money. He deposited the money from his bank account. The registration no. of the vehicle was BR-14D/4320. He put signature on bank transfer deal. Pramod Kumar Bhagat contacted him 1996. He had a top with Dhruv Bhagat and he transferred the vehicle in favour of Pramod Kumar Bhagat. No money was given by Pramod Kumar Bhagat. He has deposed in his cross examination that he has no proof that money was given to him by Rakesh Mehra. P.W.133 is Ranjit Singh. He has deposed that he was posted in Bank of India in the year 1998 in Club Side Branch. C.B.I. has collected some papers from his bank. He prove account opening form of M/s Jilan Roadways. The Proprietor was Md. Sayeed. It is marked as exhibit-9/13. Statement of account was marked as exhibit-8/53. He has deposed in his cross examination that transaction was done as per banking law. P.W.134 is Rahul Singh. His examination-in-chief and cross examination has been adopted from R.C. 20(A)/1996. He has deposed that he was partner of M/s Indian Travel International Hotel Ashoka, Ranchi from 1992- 95. His travel agency was authorized agent of Airline. Register containing booking in the year 1992 was marked as exhibit-21/182. Entry No. 230 dated 31.05.1992 is in the name of V. Nishad booked by Jilan Transport. Entry No.

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 93

624 & 625 dated 14.07.1992 is in the name of R.K. Rana and ticket was booked by Jilan Roadways. Sl. No. 1908 dated 04.11.1992 in the name of B. Bhushan was booked by Jilan Roadways. Another booking register was marked as exhibit-21/183. Entry dated 18.01.1994 was done in the name of B. Bhushan. Entry dated 19.01.1994 in the name of K.N. Jha was booked by Jilan. Page No. 79 of that register shows booking in the name of B.N. Sharma. Another booking register of 1994 was marked as exhibit-21/184. The entries dated 29.09.1994, 19.10.1994, 17.11.1994 and 08.12.1994 show names of J. Sharma, R.K. Rana and Ram Raj. The tickets were booked by Master Sahab @ Md. Sayeed. The booking register of 1995 was marked as exhibit-21/185 and tickets were booked by Master Sahab in the names of Ram Raj Ram, R.K. Das, R.K. Rana, K.K. Srivastava and Ajit Kumar Sinha. Ticket was booked by D.P. Kashyap in the name of Mr. M.C. Subarno. On 01.11.1995 ticket was booked by K.M. Prasad in the name of Mr. M.C. Subarno. Vijay Mallick booked ticket on 01.12.1995 in the name of K.N. Jha. He has deposed in his cross examination that he was authorized agent of Indian Airlines. Tickets were booked on phone. He did not know about actual travel done by the passenger. They did not require identity proof for booking ticket. So many persons might be having name Ram Raj Ram. He could say the full name of V. Nishad. He did not know personally B. Bhushan and V. Nishad. P.W.135 is Shiv Kumar Singh. He has deposed that he was posted in AHD Department from 1974 to 2008. He was posted at Chaibasa from 07.01.1974 to 31.10.1991. He again came to Chaibasa AHD Office in October, 1993 and remained there till 2008. He worked with Dr. Pandey C.P. Sharma, Dr. B.N. Sharma, Dr. Ram Prakash Ram, Dr. M.K. Srivastava, Dr. Gaya Prasad Tripathi and Dr. Arjun Sharma in Chaibasa. He identified their writings and signatures. He proved 62 suppliers bills of M/s Badri Narayan, containing in exhibit-1 which were signed by Dr. Arjun Sharma and Dr. Pandey C.P. Sharma. He proved 45 supplier bills of M/s Badri Narayan & Company kept in exhibit-1/1. The materials were received by Dr. Arjun Sharma and passed by Dr. B.N. Sharma. He proved 43 supplier bills kept in exhibit-1/2 of M/s Badri Narayan & Company. Materials were received by Dr. Arjun Sharma and bills were passed by Dr. Pandey C.P. Sharma. He proved 13 supplier bills kept in exhibit-1/3. He proved 58 supplier bills kept in exhibit-1/4. He proved 49 supplier bills kept in

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 94 exhibit-1/5. He proved 98 supplier bills kept in exhibit-1/6, these bills were passed by Pandey C.P. Sharma and materials were received by Dr. Arjun Sharma. He identified 72 supplier bills kept in exhibit-1/7. He identified 20 supplier bills kept in exhibit-1/8. He identified 65 supplier bills kept in exhibit-1/9. These bills were passed by B.N. Sharma and Pandey C.P. Sharma. The materials were received by Dr. Arjun Sharma. He proved 31 suppliers bills kept in exhibit-1/11, 88 supplier bills kept in exhibit-1/12, 96 supplier bills kept in exhibit-1/13, 32 supplier bills kept in exhibit-1/14, bills kept in exhibit-1/15, 63 supplier bills kept in exhibit-1/16, 96 supplier bills kept in exhibit-1/17, 91 supplier bills kept in exhibit-1/18, 26 supplier bills kept in exhibit-1/19, 87 supplier bills kept in exhibit-1/20, 69 supplier bills kept in exhibit-1/22, 92 supplier bills kept in exhibit-1/23, 21 supplier bills kept in exhibit-1/21, 118 supplier bills kept in exhibit-1/24, 104 supplier bills kept in exhibit-1/25, 99 supplier bills kept in exhibit-1/26, 72 supplier bills kept in exhibit-1/27, 44 supplier bills kept in exhibit-1/28, 74 supplier bills kept in exhibit-1/29, 99 supplier bills kept in exhibit-1/30, 26 supplier bills kept in exhibit-1/31, 60 supplier bills kept in exhibit-1/32, 83 supplier bills kept in exhibit-1/33, 26 supplier bills kept in exhibit-1/34, 58 supplier bills kept in exhibit-1/35, 81 supplier bills kept in exhibit-1/36, 40 supplier bills kept in exhibit-1/37, 37 supplier bills kept in exhibit-1/38, 72 supplier bills kept in exhibit-1/39, 99 supplier bills kept in exhibit-1/40, 97 supply orders kept in exhibit-1/41, 82 supplier bills kept in exhibit-1/42, 95 supplier bills kept in exhibit-1/43, 77 supplier bills kept in exhibit-1/44, 99 supplier bills kept in exhibit-1/45, 62 supplier bills kept in exhibit-1/46, 74 supplier bills kept in exhibit-1/47, 78 supplier bills kept in exhibit-1/48, 11 supplier bills kept in exhibit-1/49, 20 supplier bills kept in exhibit-1/50, 20 supplier bills kept in exhibit-1/51, 19 supplier bills kept in exhibit-1/52, 20 supplier bills kept in exhibit-1/53, 18 supplier bills kept in exhibit-1/54, 12 supplier bills kept in exhibit-1/55. He identified signatures of Dr. Arjun Sharma, Dr. Pandey C.P. Sharma, Dr. B.N. Sharma, Dr. Ram Prakash Ram and Dr. Dubraj Durai present on the above bills. He has identified 99 supplier bills kept in exhibit-X/48, 13 supplier bills kept in exhibit-X/43. Actually he has proved all supplier bills kept in the exhibits already marked exhibited during the evidence of P.W.1 Dipesh Chanda. He has identified signatures of the Officers of AHD who were posted at Animal

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 95

Husbandry Department, Chaibasa. The bills were maintained in DAHO, Chaibasa in official course of business. He has deposed in his cross examination that the files produced before him were not prepared during his posting at Chaibasa. He was not posted at Chaibasa in the year 1992-93. The bills were not the copy of treasuries. He did not visit any godown of Animal Husbandry Department. He identified signatures of the persons because he had worked with them. P.W.136 is Keshri Kishore Srivastava. His examination-in-chief and cross examination has been adopted from R.C. 20(A)/1996. He has deposed that he was in-charge of purchase in the Department of Animal Husbandry from 1991 to 1993. He dealt file of purchase of this period. A tender held for purchase of instrument in the year 1992, thereafter no tender was done. He proved file of purchase for the year 1991 marked as exhibit-36/47. The second part of the same file containing tender form was marked as exhibit- 36/48. Third file in connection with publication of tender was also produced. The Gazette Notification no. 2-BT2-507/77 Pa. Paa - 3697 dated 25.03.1977 was marked as exhibit-10/30. DAHO was authorized to pass bill upto Rs. 5,000/- and Regional Director was authorized to pass bill upto Rs. 15,000/-. His statement U/s 164 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded. His statement was marked as exhibit-24/1. He has deposed in his cross examination that he had put his note in the file. Approver was taken from centralized purchase committee. The proceeding of Vigilance Department is attached with the file. Earnest money and sample were submitted with tender form. Tender was done before his joining in office. The file was sent to the Chief Minister and Minister of the Department. The noting of Chief Secretary was approved by the then Chief Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav. C.B.I. did not produce other documents. He did not say about any document U/s 164 of the Cr.P.C. P.W.137 is Vijay Shankar Dubey. His examination-in-chief and cross examination has been adopted from R.C. 20(A)/1996. He has deposed that he was Finance Commissioner in Government of Bihar from 27.07.1995 to 17.06.1998. There were two Additional Commissioner in his Department namely Sri Shankar Prasad and Sri S. Vijay Raghwan. Lalu Prasad Yadav was Finance Minister at that time. Sri S.N. Sinha was predecessor of this witness. He forwarded letter to S.P. which is kept in file of Finance Department No. 329/96.

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 96

The Fodder Scam came into his knowledge on 22.01.1996. It came into his knowledge after scrutiny of Civil Account of November, 1995 received from A.G., Bihar. Total allocation to the Department of Animal Husbandry for the year 1995-1996 was Rs. 72 crores and Rs. 116 crores had already been drawn till November, 1995. Rs. 55 crores was drawn in the month of October, 1995. The estimated expenditure for a month was Rs. 7 to 8 crores and exorbitant expenditure was done. Information was sent to all District Magistrates by S. Vijay Raghwan on 19.01.1996. The letter was marked as exhibit. Another letter was sent for follow of action on 22.01.1996. It was directed to seized vouchers and prepare photo copies of vouchers. They were directed also to compare the bills in A.G. Office Treasury wise. He directed all District Magistrates to enquired the matter from Treasury Officer, Ranchi. The D.C., Ranchi informed him that during October to December, 1995 Rs. 30 crores was drawn from Ranchi District. He enquired the matter and it came into his knowledge that only Rs. 3 crores was allotted for these expenditure for one year for the whole state. He informed the Chief Secretary, Bihar vide his letter dated 24.01.1996. His letter was marked as exhibit. Sri Man Singh enquired the matter and submitted his report on 27.01.1996 which has also been marked as exhibit. He handed over vouchers to Sri Shankar Prasad Singh to analyze them. He gave a note which was forwarded to Chief Secretary on 30.01.1996. The note is kept in page no. 30 to 36 and marked as exhibit. The defalcation had revealed. The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar send the matter to the Chief Minister of Bihar on 30.01.1996. The noting of Phool Chand Singh Development Commissioner was marked as exhibit. The Chief Minister passed order as per advice of this witness to lodge cases D.D.O. wise. District Magistrates were directed to lodge cases. Sri Vijay Raghwan was sent with a team on 31.01.1996 for lodging cases. A letter for action taken before was written. Two letters were marked as exhibit. A meeting was held in his Chamber on 06.11.1995 in presence of Sri Vijay Raghwan and Bek Julius. Order was passed to enquire in the matter. The Secretary of Animal Husbandry demanded Treasury wise expenditure from A.G. which had already been marked as exhibit. At that time Bhola Ram Tufani was Minister of Animal Husbandry Department. Bhola Ram Tofani wrote a letter to Financial Coordination Committee to continue preparation of budget for the year 1996-97. He proved letter No. 8/FC dated 22.01.1997 and file of Finance (Audit)

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 97

Department. He has deposed in his cross examination that the matter was placed before the then Chief Minister and his approval was taken. He had directed on three points which is shown in file. Lalu Prasad passed order that some excess expenditure was done in other departments also and it was ordered to take action in this regard also. The Chief Minister wanted to know that whether cases were lodged or not. If cases were not lodged reminder was ordered to be sent and insure lodging of F.I.R. Cases were handed over the C.B.I. as per order of Government of Bihar. Budgets for each and every departments of Government of Bihar is prepared as per budget manual. It contains expected expenditure for next two years and it is presented before the assembly by the Minister of Finance and appropriation act is also introduced in the same session, thereafter expenditure is done. Appropriation of budget is sent to Director Animal Husbandry and the Director sends it to D.T.Os but it is not known to him. Bills are sent to Treasury with allotment letter and after passing from treasury it is sent to the bank. The Treasury Officer sends monthly statement with vouchers to the A.G, Bihar. It is not in his knowledge that the annual report of C.A.G. related with Government of Bihar for financial year 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94 and May, 1995 to September, 1995 was sent. The A.G. did not write about any fraudulent withdrawal. A.G. has reported about excess withdrawal by different departments and directed the Government of Bihar to appropriate the excess withdrawal. The report of C.A.G. for 1994-95 was received in the Department of Finance in the month of June, 1996. At that time Fodder Scam had revealed. C.A.G. first time reported about fraudulent withdrawal in the year 1996. He has stated before C.B.I. that Chief Minister was pleased to order that concern department should direct the enquiry officers under them to deposit the embezzled amount within seven days if not already deposited. A.G. has reported in May, 1995 or June, 1995 that fraudulent withdrawal was done in the department of Animal Husbandry. A file was produced before him and he admitted that the file relating with Civil Report for appropriation of bills 1992-93 was produced before him and it was adviced to obtain approval of the then Chief Minister so that the same might be put up before the Assembly. The Finance Department had got no right to enquire the matter of excess withdrawal pointed out by A.G. The report of A.G. Bihar of 1991-92 was marked as exhibit. He has not adviced to enquire into the matter

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 98 of excess withdrawal in the file of appropriation of budget. He had adviced that all the employees of Animal Husbandry Department, Chotanagpur be transferred but Phool Chand Singh adviced that District Animal Husbandry Officers of six Districts might be put under suspension and others should not be put under suspension. Phool Chand Singh adviced that case should be handed over to either Vigilance Department or to Police after ascertainment of the offence. A high level committed was constituted by the Chief Minister for Ranchi, Chaibasa, Jamshedpur, Gumla, Lohardaga, Dumka and Deoghar to enquiry and assist the District Magistrates. Rigorous enquiry was handed over to District Magistrate, Chaibasa and other District Magistrates. P.W.138 is Brandon Claudyus. His examination-in-chief and cross examination has been adopted from R.C. 20(A)/1996. He has deposed that he worked in Singapur Airlines Limited from 1986 to February, 1997. The passenger manifest of Singapur Airlines Flight No. SQ-015 dated 09.10.1994 from Kolkatta to Singapur contains names of the passengers. It contains names of Dayal P.S., Dayal S., Sinha S.N., Sinha R, Sinha A.K., Sinha S.B., Sinha R, Sahay P.K., Singh S.K., Chandak A, Chandak D. The passenger manifest was seized by C.B.I. on 14.12.1996. The original copy was marked as exhibit. His cross examination has been declined. P.W.139 is Dev Singh. His examination-in-chief and cross examination has been adopted from R.C. 20(A)/1996. He has deposed that he knew the firm M/s Indus Travels which belong to his brothers Rahul Singh and Rajnish Singh. Air Ticket and Rail Ticket were booked from this firm and the firm provided Taxi also. The first was authorized for booking of tickets of Indian Airlines. The names of passengers were maintained in a register with other informations. The two registers were marked as exhibit-19/168 and 19/169. Entry dated 08.12.1993 contains name of Sajal Chakraborty and journey was done on 09.12.1993. The entry was marked as exhibit-19/170. Entry dated 23.09.1994 contains name of Sajal Chakraborty and it was booked by Vijay Mallick. Entry was marked as exhibit-19/171. Entry dated 18.10.1994 contains name of Radha Nandan Jha and it was booked by Master Sahab @ Md. Sayeed. Entry was marked as exhibit-19/172. Entry dated 20.10.1994 contains name of O.P. Diwakar and it was booked by Md. Sayeed marked as exhibit- 19/173. Entry dated 22.10.1994 contain names of K. Arumugam, Smt. S.

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 99

Arumugam, B. Prasad, S.B. Sinha, S.K. Singh and C.B. Dubey. Tickets were booked for traveling dated 23.10.1994. The entries were marked as exhibit- 19/174. The entry dated 27.11.1994 contains name of K.M. Jha and it was booked by Md. Sayeed marked as exhibit-19/175. Register of Air Ticket booking of Indus Travel dated 01.03.1994 to 31.05.1994 was marked as exhibit-19/176. The entry dated 02.03.1994 contain names of P.K. Sahay, S.B. Sinha and Md. Sayeed. The ticket were booked by Jilan Transport. The entries were marked as exhibit-19/177. The entry dated 06.03.1994 contains name of Sajal Chakraborty and it was booked by Ajay Sharma marked as exhibit-19/178. He has deposed in his cross examination that some pages of the registers were torn somewhere over writing was done. Entries were done either by this witness or by his brother Rahul. His firm does not enquire about the genuineness of the names of passengers. It is difficult to say that by whom the money had paid, either by the actual passenger or by the firm, who had booked ticket and paid the fair of ticket. The register contains name of S. Chakraborty and he might be Sajal Chakraborty. Money was paid by Sajal Chakraborty. Anyone can book ticket from his firm after payment. P.W.140 is Shiv Kumar Patwari. His examination-in-chief and cross examination has been adopted from R.C. 20(A)/1996. He has deposed that he is resident of Dumka. He had purchased a truck taking after loan from S.B.I., Dumka in the year 1980 Dr. Syman Kujur became Animal Husbandry Officer, Dumka and tender was invited for transportation. He also filed tender. His truck was used for transportation in the office of Animal Husbandry from 1980 to 1984. In the year 1984 Dr. Raj Kishore Prasad became Animal Husbandry Officer. Transportation charge amounting to Rs. 2,00,000/- was not paid by him to this witness. After him Parimal Chakraborty became Regional Director, Dumka and animals were distributed to the public under MESO Scheme. In the year 1991 Dr. Shesh Muni Ram became Regional Director. Dr. Parimal Chakraborty introduced him to Dr. Shesh Muni Ram. He told him to carry his house hold articles from Muzaffarpur to Dumka. He carried his house hold articles from Muzaffarpur to Dumka. Dr. Shesh Muni Ram took some eatables from him for which payment was not done by him. Dr. Shesh Muni Ram told him to adjust expenditure done upon him in the bills of office expenditure. His old bills were not clear. He requested him to clear his old bills.

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 100

Dr. Shesh Muni Ram paid his old bills after taking 20% of the bill amount. Shesh Muni Ram told him to produce some false bills. He produced false bills upon which he paid 20% amount of the false bills and rest 80% amount was kept by him. In the year 1992 Chicken's were sent to the house of Bek Julius by Shesh Muni Ram. He gave the article to the wife of Bek Julius. In the year 1992 Bek Julius was transferred to Hazaribagh and his house hold articles were transported from Dumka to Hazaribagh in two trucks by this witness on the request of Dr. Shesh Muni Ram. Only Rs. 3,000/- was given by Dr. Shesh Muni Ram in lieu of Rs. 30,000/-. Once Dr. Shesh Muni Ram told him to move with him, he had already containing Rs. 7.5 Lakhs . Both of them came to the residence of Commissioner Dr. S.N. Dubey. Dr. Shesh Muni Ram gave money to him. He gave Rs. 10 Lakhs to the Commissioner S.N. Dubey at Platform No. 2 Jasidih. First time it was currency of Rs. 500 and second time it was currency of Rs. 100. Shesh Muni Ram prepared a note on 31.05.1994 and obtained signature of the Commissioner in which direction was given to Treasury Officer to relax the cash flow. The note sheet was marked as exhibits. He has deposed in his cross examination that he started business of transport before 25 to 30 years. At that time he had four trucks. He had filed income tax return. He was supplier of Animal Husbandry Department. He worked with three Regional Directors of Animal Husbandry, Dumka. His trucks were used in transportation of Fodder and Medicine. There was sweet relationship between Shesh Muni Ram and him. There were 15 bundles of currency of Rs. 500. He did not count total number of rupees. He had worked in the department of P.H.D. also. His statement was not recorded U/s 164 of the Cr.P.C. P.W.141 is Fuleshwar Paswan. His examination-in-chief and cross examination has been adopted from R.C. 20(A)/1996. He has deposed that on 01.08.1994 he was at the post of Budget Officer-cum-Dy. Secretary, Government of Bihar. The work of Budget Officer is to direct the controlling officers of the department to submit estimated expenditure as per Budget Manual and after preparation of file his duty is to put up the file before Finance Commissioner and Additional Finance Commissioner. After that book of budget is prepared and it is put before the Assembly. He produced 13 files related with the department of Animal Husbandry. File No. BT 106/92 related with major head 2403 of A.H. Department for the year 1992-93 and revised estimate of

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 101

1993-94 was produced. File No. BT 125/91 related with non planning budget 1992-93, BTE 55/91 related with non planning budget 1991-92 and revised budget 1992-93, BTE 110/92 related with proposed budget 1992-93 and revised budget 1993-94, BTE 109/92, BTE 35/90, BTE 55/89, BTE 55/89 (Part), BTE 55/90, BTE 55/89, BTE 55/91, BTE 113/93 and BTE 114/93 were produced. All the files were related with Animal Husbandry Department. Only one file is related with Department of Finance. These files have been marked as exhibits. Mentioned in list of exhibits. File No. BT 164/90 is related with the department of Finance which contains order of the then Chief Minister / Finance Minister. Copy of budget speech of 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994- 95 and 1996-97 were produced. These speeches were given by the Chief Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav. It has been marked as exhibits. The budget speech of 1996-97 contains fact about embezzlement done in the department of Animal Husbandry through fraudulent allotment letters and bills. The file prepared in connection with budget speech of 1990-91 was marked as exhibit. He proved file of Finance Department, Government of India, Budget Division related with Bihar Budget 1995-96 (supplementary grant 1994-95) . It has been marked as exhibits. He produced three files related with Lekha Anudan marked as exhibits. File No. BTE 55/89 was marked as exhibits. Three skelton files related with Animal Husbandry Department for Central Sponsored Schemes were marked as exhibits. Three files related with Animal Husbandry Department were marked as exhibits. Statics related with Animal Husbandry Department kept in three files were marked as exhibits. He became to know that excess withdrawal was done by Department of Animal Husbandry even then fund was surrendered by the Department in the year 1990-91. Rs. 10 crores was surrendered in the year 1991-92 and Rs. 14 crores was surrendered in the year 1992-93. He proved file no. BCF 43/94 regarding advance given to the Animal Husbandry Department. He stated about the provision of consolidated fund. Excess withdrawal means withdrawal more than allocated fund. He proved file no. BSG 15/95 marked as exhibits. He explained provision of cash regulation and produced 9 files related with it marked as exhibits. He has produced other files also which have been marked as exhibits. These files are related with Assembly questions allocation of fund correspondence with treasury and A.G., Bihar. Exhibit marks were not given at the time of adoption of evidence of this witness and the C.B.I. made

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 102 available the certified copy of exhibits of R.C. 20(A)/1996 and it has been marked later on. Exhibits have been mentioned in list of exhibits. He has deposed in his cross examination that he could not remember that file of budget of any department was sent to Phool Chand Singh. There were two Additional Finance Commissioner under the Finance Commissioner. They were posted to assist the Finance Commissioner. Budget was prepared in budget section. Preparation of budget begins from the level of Assistant. Planned budget is approved by Budget Officer and non plan budget is required to be approved by the Finance Commissioner. Before 1996 A.G., Bihar had not pointed out about any fraudulent withdrawal in the department of Animal Husbandry. A meeting was held on 06.01.1996 by Public Accounts Committee regarding reports of A.G., Bihar for the year 1977-78 to 1979-90 to regularize the excess withdrawal. Information was given to the Departments. Statement of account received from R.B.I. was not prepared as per budget head wise. R.B.I. used to sent daily account and the figure was noted down in a register. Monthly account was received from Office of A.G. He did not know about cash flow regulation. He pointed out that some files were disposed at his level and some file was disposed at the level of Additional Finance Commissioner. 40 cases were lodged in the month of February, 1996 by the order of the then Chief Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav. He did not known that those 40 cases were handed over to C.B.I. by the order of Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court. Civil report of A.G., Bihar for 1994-95 was received in the office of Government on 10.05.1996 and it was put up before the Chief Minister with a note of the then Finance Commissioner Sri V.S. Dubey. If A.G. Bihar would had reported about fraudulent withdrawal, the State Government would have reported criminal cases. Report of C.A.G. was received in the office of Bihar Government at late stages. Report of A.G. was sent after 3 or 4 years. His attention was drawn on the direction given by C.M. to the District Magistrates. The C.M. had directed to take steps to control over draft. The then C.M. Lalu Prasad has stated in Financial speech about defalcation being done in the department of Animal Husbandry. As soon as it became in his knowledge he took every steps against the culprits. P.A.C. has got only power of recommendation. Three points were raised by P.A.C. Treasuries were asked to reply the points raised by P.A.C. These points were how much fund was released from the treasuries during

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 103

1992-93 and how much fund was deposited in civil account. The present status of report submitted by treasury and some treasuries had reported that excess withdrawal was done from different departments. Employee of Finance Department and A.G., Bihar are deputed in P.A.C. on regular basis. P.W.142 is Prakash Keshav. His examination-in-chief and cross examination has been adopted from R.C. 20(A)/1996. He has deposed that he was posted in the Department of Finance at different posts during 1989-90 and 1993-95. He remained at the post of Additional Finance Secretary, thereafter this post was divided into A.F.C. Expenditure and A.F.C. Resource. Sri Shankar Prasad became A.F.C. Expenditure. He remained A.F.C. Resource till August, 1995. A.F.C. Resource is assigned with the works of sanction of planning and allocation of fund. At the time of preparation of budget, estimates are called from Controlling Officer of different departments. Budget is prepared for planning works and non planning works. After estimation of budget it is sent for approval of the Hon'ble Governor and thereafter money bill is presented before the Assembly. After approval from the Assembly, allocation of fund is given to the departments. If more allotment is required for any scheme, a meeting is held with the Finance Minister and memorandum is prepared for presentation before the Cabinet of Ministers. After approval of Cabinet of Minister the proposal is put before the Assembly. Normally enhanced allocation is given from planning budget. There are 50 to 100 major heads and also there are minor heads and sub heads. He explained the process of allocation of fund to the departments concerned. At the time of preparation of budget the provisions of budget manual and secretariat instructions are considered. It is supposed that Finance Minister knows the Micro details to give a concrete shape of the budget. He proved file no. BTE 106/93 related with Major Head 2403 of Animal Husbandry Department for the year 1994-95 marked as exhibit-38/49. It was approved by him. Before approval of allocation of fund to the department at the time of preparation of budget, it is required to peruse the actual expenditure of last three years of the concerned department. Exhibit-38/49 does not contain actual expenditure of last three years. Vote on account is a political decision and there is no role of the officers in vote on account. Vote on account is brought for two months or for three months but there is no prescribed period for that. He proved file no. BSG 81/93 for the year 1994-95 marked as exhibit-

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 104

38/50. It contains allocation of fund for Animal Husbandry Department. Cash regulation is a system under which directions are given to the Drawing and Disbursing Authority of the departments to control the liquidity of the State Government. He proved file no. M-4-56/93 related with cash regulation for the year 1994 marked as exhibit-36/51. He proved file no. M-4-11/94 related with withdrawal from Treasury after direction of cash regulation bearing fax message no. 585 dated 08.02.1994 marked as exhibit-36/52. He proved file no. M-4- 54/93 containing miscellaneous correspondence marked as exhibit-36/53. He proved file no. BSG/94 related with 1994-95 for vote of account marked as exhibit-36/54. He proved file no. BT-115/94 related with revised estimate of budget marked as exhibit-36/55. He proved file no. BSG-02/95 related with process of passing budget of 1995-96 which has been marked as exhibit-36/56. He proved file no. M-4-13/94 related with cash regulation marked as exhibit- 36/57. Another file of cash regulation M-4-14/94 was marked as exhibit-36/58. File of correspondence with Reserve Bank is marked as exhibit-36/59. File No. M-4-45/93 related with cash regulation was marked as exhibit-36/60. Another file related with cash regulation was marked as exhibit-36/61. Exhibit-36/62 and exhibit-36/63 were also marked. These files were also related with cash regulation. He has deposed in his cross examination that the files produced by him and marked exhibited do not indicate any fraudulent withdrawal in the department of Animal Husbandry. Fraudulent withdrawal was done on the basis of fraudulent allotment letter. Cash regulation was ordered in the condition of over draft. Cash regulation was brought in the last of financial year. Order of cash regulation was issued after obtaining of required expenditure of concern department. Excess withdrawal was done in some departments and amendment was done in budget accordingly. C.A.G. reported excess withdrawal in every year and it was done by 6 or 7 departments. C.A.G. advice to regulate the excess withdrawal during 1993-94 account was sent by C.A.G. and thereafter C.A.G. send accounts of three years together. Minister of each and every department is head of that department and if depends upon him to decentralize his father. Policy matter is decided by the Minister and it is supposed that the concern Minister could allocate budget in non planning works after edipping budget of concern department. Guideline of Finance Minister indicates silent features of the budget and it is mostly concern with deficit of

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 105 budget. The Finance Minister takes approval of the Chief Minister and the cabinet. Main budget is passed in the month of July and before that vote of account is done. In the regime of Lalu Prasad Ministerial Committee was constituted. During year 1994-95 file of AHD relating with major head 2403 was not put up before Chief Minister. Phool Chand Singh was holding Additional Charge of Land Reforms Commissioner. File of current year of budget estimate was put up with file of last year. He used to check file randomly. No one plan budget estimate plan was approved by Additional Finance Commissioner and it has got practice. File of excess withdrawal is normally sent to Public Accounts Committee to get advice of regularization of the amount. The report of C.A.G. indicates irregularities in purchase and other things. The then Chief Secretary send him yellow letter on 18.02.1994 and file was endorsed to his subordinates but he could not remember about follow of action. Excess withdrawal is not a proved matter of fraudulent withdrawal. Reserve Bank has granted limitation of excess withdrawal to the State Government. P.W.143 is Ramjivan Singh. His examination-in-chief and cross examination has been adopted from R.C. 20(A)/1996. He has deposed that in the year 1990 he was elected as Member of Legislative Assembly, Bihar and took oath of Minister. He was Cabinet Minister of Agricultural, AHD, Fishery and Cooperative. He proved file no. 124/92 related with Audit of the documents of Animal Husbandry Department marked as exhibit-36/64. Exhibit-36/64 contains letter of Dy. Accountant General about irregularities done in purchase of animals and its distribution. A letter was given to Regional Director, Sri K.N. Jha by the Secretary Ashok Kumar Choudhary directing him to enquire this matter. K.N. Jha replied through letter that report of Assistant Director, AHD was attached with and kept in the file. Letter No. 6490 dated 31.08.1990 is related with transportation of animals by M/s Satyendra Construction Company, Ranchi and it was found that the registration number of vehicles used in transportation were not registration number of trucks. Satyendra Construction replied that actual transportation was done, but symbol was wrongly entered. The Assistant Director, AHD was satisfied with his explanation. Noting of Assistant Director was put up before Ram Raj Ram and he endorsed the report to the Secretary, AHD who accepted the report of Assistant Director. Note sheet was drawn by Secretary, AHD namely K. Arumugam to enquire this matter from the

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 106 beneficiary. Ram Raj Ram reported that he enquired the matter from the beneficiaries of all Districts except District – Sahebganj and it was found that cattle's were distributed among the beneficiaries. K. Arumugam became satisfied with this report and file was presented before this witness. He was not satisfied with the report and he adviced to the Chief Minister for investigation from C.B.I. His note is dated 18.08.1990. Mr. Lalu Prasad did not discussed with him on this matter and the file did not return fback rom Lalu Prasad Yadav. He was replaced from the post of Minister of Animal Husbandry Department on 06.12.1990. He has deposed in his cross examination that scheme of MESO was brought by Government of India and allocation of file was given by Government of India. Bill of M/s Satyendra Construction Company was for an amount of Rs. 26,504/-. Objection was raised on symbol of 8 trucks. The file was sent to the Chief Minister on 18.08.1990. He perused the file in court and deposed that the file was looked into by the Chief Minister on 29.10.1990. He sought advice to the then Chief Secretary Sri Kamla Prasad. He gave advice that at first matter would be enquired and criminal case would be lodged thereafter. He also stated that he had a talk with Director, C.B.I. and he made an opinion on the basis of discussion with Director C.B.I. that C.B.I. was not eager to investigate the matter of state. He further adviced enquiry from Vigilance Department. The Chief Minister approved the advice of the Chief Secretary. Public account committee and Assurance committee are statutory bodies. The entire file was not prepared before him. P.W.144 is Biplav Sen Gupta. His examination-in-chief and cross examination has been adopted from R.C. 20(A)/1996. He has deposed that he is partner of M/s Treatment Home Product. His firm produces Alopathic Medicine for human being. Dr. Ajit Kumar Verma is known to him. He is partner of M/s Little Oak Pharmaceuticals. It was agreed that Mr. Ajit Kumar Verma would produce medicine in his firm on loan license basis. The agreement paper was marked as exhibits. M/s Little Oak Pharmaceuticals use to prepare medicine for human being in his company. The letter sent by C.B.I. to his company was marked as exhibit-10/31. He replied the letter which is marked as exhibit-10/32. Seizure memo prepared on 10.11.1996 which was marked as exhibit-3/63. He has deposed in his cross examination that his firm was registered in the year 1945. The proprietor of firm was Dr. Vijay Lal Ganguli. He

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 107 did not know the names of retired partners of his firm. His firm has been producing medicines of Analgesic Antipairatic, Antibiotics and Protein tonic. He did not know about Little Oak Company. C.B.I. had raided his company. P.W.145 is Rustam Ali. His examination-in-chief and cross examination has been adopted from R.C. 20(A)/1996. He has deposed that he was an employee in Mobile Telephone Company in June, 1997. He received a letter from C.B.I. and endorsed it. His endorsement was marked as exhibit- 10/33. C.B.I. demanded call details of three mobile phone numbers. He obtained call details and send it to the Inspector of C.B.I. His report was marked as exhibit-10/34. He received another letter of C.B.I. with demanded call details of other numbers. He submitted his report marked as exhibit-10/35. He has deposed in his cross examination that mobile number 9834001041 was registered in the name of Raghvendra Sharma. SIM Card No. 9834001736 was registered in the name of Arun Kumar. SIM Card No. 9834001749 was registered in the name of Ravi Chauhan. The name of person against SIM Card No. 9834000111 and 9834000112 was issued is not available in his record. The call details does not indicate the person with whom talk was done. P.W.146 is Dr. Sarat Chandra Tugnait. He has deposed that in the year 1998 he was posted in Novartis India. Previously the company was known as Siba Geigy Limited. C.B.I. was obtained some information from him which was given through letter dated 30.03.1998 in six pages with annexures marked as exhibit-10/36. He has deposed in his cross examination that Surgico Medico was his stockist and it was authorized to supply and received payment. It is wrong to say that as per direction of C.B.I. he reported to C.B.I. about short quantity. P.W.147 is Anil Singh. His examination-in-chief and cross examination has been adopted from R.C. 20(A)/1996. He has deposed that he was part I.O. in R.C. Case No. 22(A)/1996. He had written a letter to J.V.G. Finance Limited. The Finance Company gave him some information through letter bearing Letter No. JVG/Z.0/Pat./97/1763 dated 07.12.1997. The letter contains annexure in three pages marked as exhibit-10/37. He has deposed in his cross examination that he did not seized document related with account of Mahesh Prasad. P.W.148 is Arun Kumar Singh. His examination-in-chief and cross

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 108 examination has been adopted from R.C. 20(A)/1996. He has deposed that he was an employee in Secretariat Press, Patna from 17.08.1989 to 14.08.2002. C.B.I. received third report of Nivedan Samittee of Bihar Legislative Assembly. Seizure memo was prepared on 20.11.1996, which was marked as exhibits and third printed report was also marked as exhibits. His cross examination has been declined. P.W.149 is Sailesh Prasad Singh. His examination-in-chief and cross examination has been adopted from R.C. 20(A)/1996. He has deposed that he was an employee in Jasidih Colloge, Deohar in the year 1988. He had not been getting salary from the college. Arun Kumar Singh came into his contact. He was son of District Animal Husbandry Officer, Deohar namely Jugal Kishore Singh. Through him, Arun Kumar Singh and this witness have been got few supply orders. In the year 1990 Jugal Kishore Singh introduced him with Dr. Brij Nandan Sharma. Dr. Brij Nandan Sharma took his help in negotiation of marriage of his daughter. His daughter was married with a person resident of Thana – Bihpur. He had helped in that marriage. He came closure with Dr. Sharma. In the year 1990-91 meeting of District Animal Husbandry Officer of Ranchi and Dumka Range was organized in Deoghar, in which Dr. K.N. Prasad, Dr. K.N. Jha, Dr. Ramesh Ray and Dr. Shesh Muni Ram had participated. His service was given by Dr. K.N. Prasad. He became happy from service rendered to him and he said to meet him at his residence. He send him, to meet with Dr. Gauri Shankar Prasad. He went there and where he was said to submit bill of RS. 5 Lakhs against supply. This witness showed his hesitation because no supply was done. He met with Dr. B.N. Sharma and told him about all these happenings. Dr. Sharma brought bill book of Usha Sharma and money receipt of the firm. He learnt prepare of forged bill from Dr. B.N. Sharma. He handed over forged bill of Rs. 5 Lakhs. Dr. Prasad said him to come to his office. He prepared bill of Rs. 5 Lakhs. Bill was presented before treasury and after passing the bill it was brought before S.B.I. Doranda Branch, Ranchi where Manager Madho Singh gave Rs. 4,99,000/- to the witness. He gave Rs. 4,50,000/- to Dr. Prasad. He said him to give Rs. 8,000/- to the Accountant of Animal Husbandry Department, Ranchi. This witness gave Rs. 8,000/- to the accountant. He came to Dr. Sharma and gave him Rs. 40,000/-. Dr. Sharma retained Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- was given to this witness. Dr. B.N.

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 109

Sharma introduced him with Dr. S.B. Sinha and others. Dr. B.N. Sharma was Animal Husbandry Officer of Palamu. After retirement of Pandey C.P. Sharma, he was transferred to the post of DAHO, Chaibasa. Account of Usha Pharma was opened in Union Bank of India, Ranchi. He received cheque. Dr. Sharma obtained signatures of this witness on all the leaves of cheque and retained the same with him. He registered a firm in the name of Shakti Pharma Distributors, Bhagalpur as per advice of B.N. Sharma. The firm was opened in the name of Satish Singh and Satyendra Singh. Its account was opened in Canara Bank, Ranchi, United Bank of India, Bhagalpur and Bank of Baroda, Bhagalpur. Dr. Sharma took all the cheques after getting his signatures on the cheques. In the year 1992 Dr. K.N. Prasad said him to produce two bills of Rs. 10 Lakhs each. He presented the bills as per direction. Rs. 15 Lakhs was received by him through draft which was handed over to Dr. K.N. Prasad. P.A. C. committee visited Chaibasa in the month of April, 1993 when Rs. 50 Lakhs was drawn by B.N. Sharma from Chaibasa Treasury. Dr. B.N. Sharma was transferred to Goriya Karwan Firm, Hazaribagh. Dr. Sharma and Radha Babu contacted Rajo Singh, M.L.A. in his house situated at Baily Road, Patna. Rajo Babu called him after four hours. He gave Rs. 2 Lakhs to Rajo Babu. After four hours again came to the house of Rajo Babu. He gave a letter to B.N. Sharma upon which transfer order of B.N. Sharma was stayed by Lalu Prasad, the then Chief Minister. Dr. S.B. Sinha manage to issue stay of transfer order of Dr. B.N. Sharma from the office of Animal Husbandry Department. Radha Babu came Ranchi after 10 or 15 days. It was said that Rs. 20 Lakhs had incurred by him in connection with obtaining stay order of transfer of Dr. B.N. Sharma. Dr. S.B. Sinha gave Rs. 20 Lakhs to Radha Babu. On the next day Radha Babu took this witness and gave Rs. 8 Lakhs to Rajo Babu. Radha Babu was running a firm in the name of Sharad Associate. His work was to make the black money of AHD Scam into white money. Dr. Sharma and Radha Babu purchased Hotel Marina, Frazer Road, Patna. A construction company in the name of Ceho Hotels and Construction Pvt. Limited was registered and this witness was made Director of this company. Another company Sourabh Follownizer Pvt. Limited was opened and this witness was made Director of this firm also. The bills of Shakti Pharma was produced and marked as exhibit-61 to 74. The receipt was also produced. The bills of Shakti Pharma Distributor and supply orders dated

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 110

24.09.1992 were marked as exhibit-61/76 to 61/79. He proved draft and its receipt and other bills also. He has deposed in his cross examination that he did not see any of the accused of this case transacting money in his office. He did not see the movement of file in Directorate of Animal Husbandry Department. He was made approver. He was made accused in 14 cases of Fodder Scam. He did not know actual allotment given to the Department of Animal Husbandry. He did not know Jagdish Sharma personally. He came into contact with Rajo Singh through Radha Raman Prasad Sinha. He did not know wife of P.K. Jaiswal and Mahendra Prasad. Bills of Shakti Pharma was prepared by him. The material was not supplied against the bill. P.W.150 is Tilak Raj Gauri. His examination-in-chief and cross examination has been adopted from R.C. 20(A)/1996. He has deposed that in 1997 he was Under Secretary in the Department of Finance, Government of Bihar, Patna. C.B.I. seized some papers from his office and prepared memo which is marked as exhibit. The document was related with Annual Plan of 1992-93. Actual expenditure of the Department of Animal Husbandry in the year 1985-86 was shown as Rs. 22.48 crores. Rs. 25.16 crores, Rs. 28.10 crores, Rs. 32.04 crores and Rs. 44.01 crores was expenditure during year 1986-87, 1987-88, 1988-89, and 1989-90 by the department of Animal Husbandry. The five year plan forecast was produced and marked as exhibits. The actual expenditure was 117.60 crores and 78.73 crores in the year 1991-92 and 1992- 93. The budget estimate for the year 1992-93 was Rs. 53.73 crores. The actual expenditure in the year 1992-93 was Rs. 141.54 crores and Rs. 188.01 crores in the year 1993-94 and Rs. 237.85 crores was in the year 1994-95. These have been marked as exhibits. He has deposed in his cross examination that file was initiated at the level of Assistant and through proper channel it was sent ahead. The document produced today was not prepared by him. P.W.151 is Ganga Dhar Giri. His examination-in-chief and cross examination has been adopted from R.C. 20(A)/1996. He has deposed that during the year 1993 he was posted in Directorate of Treasury under the department of Finance, Government of Bihar. His work was to initiate file of Parliamentary Affairs. He has deposed in his cross examination that he had initiated file regarding questions raised by Chatrapati Munda. He had not mentioned amount drawn by department concerned.

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 111

P.W.152 is Ravi Shankar Kumar Sinha. His examination-in-chief and cross examination has been adopted from R.C. 20(A)/1996. He has deposed that the file containing recommendation letter of Dr. Jagarnath Mishra addressed to Lalu Prasad Yadav, the then Chief Minister, Government of Bihar was dealt in a file by him. The letter contains signature of Dr. Jagarnath Mishra dated 05.12.1993. The Chief Minister directed the Minister of AHD to produce file for extension of service and the Minister of AHD Sri Chandradeo Prasad Verma directed the Director of AHD to send the file. He identified his signature and writing. Noting was marked as exhibit. He has deposed in his cross examination that when the file was dealt by him, he was posted in the department of Animal Husbandry. Files are initiated from the Department of Establishment. He had noted that extension of service of Dr. S.B. Sinha may be given for two years because neither departmental proceeding nor any criminal case was pending against him. The Government empowered to extent service period of any employee upto two years under Rule 73 of Bihar Service Code. The extension is treated as re-employment and department of Finance raises objection on the matter of purchase done by the person after his re- employment. The recommendation of politician leaders is optional for the State Government. P.W.153 is Ramyatan Singh. His examination-in-chief and cross examination has been adopted from R.C. 20(A)/1996. He has deposed that the exhibits marked in R.C. 20(A)/1996 bearing exhibit no. 38/271 is a file which was initiated by him. Raju Singh had written a letter to the Chief Minister, Government of Bihar to stay the transfer of Braj Nandan Sharma and the Chief Minister recommended to stay the transfer of Braj Nandan Sharma. The letter contains signature of Lalu Prasad Yadav. He had noted down in the file that allegation of defalcation was brought against B.N. Sharma and the matter was sent to P.H.D. After his noting the file was sent to R.K. Das. He has further deposed in his cross examination that transfer of Class-I & Class-II Officers are considered in the month of June and December. Transfer is considered by the Establishment Committee and the file of establishment committee does not go to the Chief Minister. He did not know that transfer order of B.N. Sharma was not put up before the Chief Minister. He had given his note that some irregular withdrawal was reported against him in Local Newspaper but he did not know

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 112 the genuineness of news published in the Newspaper. This file was not put up before the Chief Minister, but the file contains noting that order might be taken from the Chief Minister. This file was not put before the Chief Minister and it was kept hidden by R.K. Das. The then Secretary Mahesh Prasad had adviced to take order of the then Chief Minister. He had given note regarding Dr. S.B. Sinha that neither any departmental proceeding nor any enquiry was pending against him. P.W.154 is Jayant Kumar Jaiswal. His examination-in-chief and cross examination has been adopted from R.C. 20(A)/1996. He has deposed that he was Proprietor of Rajshree Tour & Travel Agency. He was dealing also with M/s Patliputra Travel Agency. He proved exhibit-33/22, exhibit-34 and exhibit-34/1. He was dealing with Sahara Airlines, Air India and he was providing air tickets to the passengers. He has deposed in his cross examination that there is no documentary proof of being him agent of Sahara Airlines or N.E.P.C. At that time identity proof was not demanded during traveling. P.W.155 is Atam Prakash Mangalani. His examination-in-chief and cross examination has been adopted from R.C. 20(A)/1996. He has deposed that he was D.G.M., Finance of Hotel Marina. He has proved seizure list prepared by C.B.I. and Guest Registration Card in the name of T.M. Prasad. The room was booked by accused Vijay Kumar Mallick. He proved guest registration card in the name of K.K. Srivastava and room was booked by Vijay Kumar Mallick. He has proved guest register card of B.N. Singh, arrival and departure visitors registers. He has deposed in his cross examination that his hotel does not maintain identity proof of guests. The exhibits contains endorsement such as Mallick and party. It does not contain any specific name. P.W.156 is Shakti Pada Choudhary. He has deposed that he was Sale Tax Officer, New Delhi during years 1995 to 1998. Ward No. 61 was under his jurisdiction. He proved seizure list prepared by C.B.I. marked as exhibit-3/66 and a file marked as exhibit-36/65 and 36/66. Both the files were related with Asian Breeders. He has deposed in his cross examination that Sale Tax was deposited by Asian Breeders as her his assessment orders and there was no irregularity on part of Asian Breeders. P.W.157 is Chandrawati Natarajan. She has deposed that C.B.I.

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 113 seized some documents from Bishop Wescott School on 11.02.1997 and prepared seizure memo marked as exhibit-3/67. She has deposed in her cross examination that seizure memo does not contain column of pocket expenditure. P.W.158 is R.I. Thorton. He has deposed that he was Principal of Bishop Wescott School, Ranchi. The admission form of the school is filled up by the guardian of students. The admission form contains a column regarding information of local guardian. He has deposed in his cross examination that only boys are students of his school. P.W.159 is Arun Kumar Raina. He is retired Joint Director of Finance Department. During 10th Finance Commission he was Dy. Director. Report of 10th Finance Commission was submitted in the month of December, 1994. Expenditure is divided into plan and non plan. Non plan expenditure includes pay and salaries of employees. File of 10th Finance Commission was marked as exhibit-36/76. The booklet contains non plan expenditure from 1990 to 1992-93. Estimated expenditure of 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96 to 1999- 2000. The booklet was marked as exhibit-36/77. The receipt memo containing signature of S.K. Bhatnagar, was marked as exhibit-4/2. He has deposed in his cross examination that term of reference of commissioner is in three pages. The report of 10th Finance Commission was marked as exhibit-B on behalf of defence. Exhibit-36/77 does not contain forwarding letter. P.W.160 is Saiyad Tanbir Ahmed. He is owner of Patliputra Travel Agency. The agency was doing business for booking of Air Ticket. He proved 157 carbon copies of Air Ticket marked as exhibit-33/23 to 33/179. The tickets were given as per direction of J.P. Verma. He has deposed in his cross examination that during this period, Lalu Prasad Yadav was Chief Minister of Bihar. Three tickets were issued in the name of Lalu Prasad, the then Chief Minister. Payment was given from the Secretariat of Chief Minister. It does not appear that payment was done by J.P. Verma. P.W.161 is Suryakanta Prasad Suraj. He is an advocate at Ranchi in High Court of Jharkhand. He has deposed that accused Md. Sayeed was known to him. He was doing business of transport from 1987 to 2002. His office was situated at Madhuvan Main Road, Ranchi which was the property of Md. Sayeed. He identified admission forms of Bishop Wescott Girls School, Namkum, Ranchi. These admission forms are in the names of Ragni, Rohani

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 114

Acharya and Chanda. They were daughter's of Lalu Prasad. The column were filled by him as per direction of Md. Sayeed. These admission forms were marked earlier as exhibit-35/2, 35/3 & 35/4. He has deposed in his cross examination that it has not been written that he filled the column as per direction of Md. Sayeed. He never met with Lalu Prasad Yadav or his daughters. P.W.162 is Smt. Poonam Singh. She deposed that she knew Lalu Prasad and his daughters Rohani, Ragni and Hema. They were students of Bishop Wescott Girls School, Namkum, Ranchi. She used to visit Bishop Wescott Girls School to meet with daughter's of Lalu Prasad. She lastly met with them in the year 1993. She has deposed in her cross examination that she did not pay fee for daughters of Lalu Prasad Yadav. P.W.163 is Vivek Kumar. He was Sectional Officer in the department of Road Construction, Bihar, Patna. Till 31.07.2008, he was Assistant in the Department of Finance. Expenditure Report of R.B.I. was received in his office and after compilation of the report he used to process it to his seniors. The file bearing BT 61/93 of year 1994-1995 and file BT 61/93 for the year 1993-1994 were marked as exhibit-36/67 and 36/68. He has deposed in his cross examination that he did not give any analysis on exhibit-36/67 and 36/68. P.W.164 is Arvind Kumar Chugh. He is Secretary, Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Government of India. He has deposed that he was Secretary, Department of Finance of Bihar Government from October, 1990 to July, 1993. He has proved file No. BTE 35/90 related with head no. 2403 marked as exhibit-36/69. There was a noting that department has furnished no reason for increase therefore no consideration can be given. He has deposed in his cross examination that he has already deposed in R.C. 20(A)/1996. P.W.165 is Krishna Mohan Prasad. He is retired Special Secretary, Planning, Government of Bihar. He has deposed that he was Joint Secretary in the Secretariat of Chief Minister from June, 1993 to April, 1995. The files which were received in the Secretariat of Chief Minister used to pass through him and they were placed before the Chief Minister. He put file no. BS 23/94 marked as exhibit-36/70. File was received in the Secretariat of Chief Minister on 05.07.1994. The Chief Secretary endorsed the file to the Chief Minister. The file was returned back without perusal of the Chief Minister. The

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 115 file was kept with the Chief Minister for one year. He has deposed in his cross examination that the Chief Minister ordered in that file to conclude vigilance enquiry within one month. P.W.166 is Vijay Kumar. He has deposed that in the year 1996 he was posted at Patna at the post of Postal Inspector. C.B.I. seized some papers and prepared memo. The memos were marked as exhibit-3/68 and 3/69. He identified file no. CR-6/FM-226(Pt.)/96-97 which is marked as exhibit-36/71. He has deposed in his cross examination that he had already deposed in R.C. 20(A)/1996. P.W.167 is Dinesh Prasad. He has deposed that during 1996 he was posted at Chaibasa at the post of Assistant Engineer, Building Division, Chaibasa. He was ordered to measure Poultry Farm and Dairy Farm. He measured Poultry Farm and Dairy Farm of Chaibasa and Saraikela and submitted his report in his writing and signature. The reports were marked as exhibit-46 & 46/1. The forwarding letter contains his signatures marked as exhibit-46/2 & 46/3. The map of store of T.V.O., Chaibasa was marked as exhibit-47. The forwarding letter of map was marked as exhibit-47/1. He has deposed in his cross examination that he is a train Surveyor. There is no written order for measurement. The map is not dependent on scale. P.W.168 is Santosh Kumar Verma. He is retired Junior Engineer. He has deposed that on 05.09.1996 he visited Government Dairy Farm in the village – Pitarbela, District – Saraikela with Assistant Engineer Dinesh Prasad and measured capacity of dairy farm. Report was prepared with forwarding letter. He has deposed in his cross examination that he had taken training of survey . There was two godowns of AHD Department in Saraikela District. P.W.169 is Bharteshwar Narayan Lal Das. He is retired Accountant of Chaibasa Treasury. He has deposed that during 1992-93 he was posted at Chaibasa Treasury and accused Silas Tirkey was Treasury Officer. Bills of concerned departments were received by Assistant of the Treasury and it is put up before the Accountant. After perusal of bills he used to send it back to the Assistant from where the bills were presented before Treasury Officer. Advice was prepared in duplicate. He identified 94 pages of treasury advices from 04.09.1992 to 20.03.1993. Except one, all treasury advices are in signature of Silas Tirkey. The whole treasury advices are marked as exhibit-48.

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 116

He has deposed in his cross examination that Audit of Chaibasa Treasury was done but it was not done during his posting at Chaibasa. P.W.170 is Devanand Sinha. He has deposed that he was Assistant in Budget Section in the department of Animal Husbandry from September, 1995 to 2001. The total allocation of budget in the year 1992 of AHD, Chaibasa was Rs. 7,10,000/-. No budget proposal was received from DAHO, Chaibasa in the year 1992-93 by AHD Secretariat. He has deposed in his cross examination that he was posted with Bek Julias for one year. Allocation of budget is done by Finance Department. P.W.171 is Bhuwan Chandra Joshi. He is Receptionist of Akshat Palace, New Delhi. It is a two star hotel. He proved four visitor registers of hotel marked as exhibit-49 to 49/3. He proved 9 bill books marked as exhibit-49/4 to 49/12. He identified entry register of hotel Shobati marked as exhibit-49/13. He proved two bill books of Hotel Shobati marked as exhibits-49/14 to 49/15. Exhibit-49/4 to 49/15 contains name of Vijay Mallick. Vijay Mallick and Mallick is one person. He has deposed in his cross examination that he did not know Vijay Mallick. P.W.172 is Shayam Chandra Mishra. He has deposed that he was employee of M/s Little Oak Pharmaceuticals from 1986 to 1996. Human and Animal Medicines were manufactured there. The owner of firm was Dr. Ajit Kumar Verma. Dr. Alok Kumar Verma was his younger brother. He brought him Ranchi and he introduced him with Dr. Gaya Prasad, Dr. C.P. Pandey and Dr. Arjun Sharma. He used to prepare bills of Little Oak Pharmaceuticals. He proved 97 bills of Little Oak Pharmaceuticals passed by Dr. C.P. Sharma and Gaya Prasad Tripathi. The guard file was marked as exhibit-1/126. The guard file containing 98 bills of Oak Pharmaceuticals was marked as exhibit-1/127. There should be transport numbers on bill but it was not put because actual transportation was not done. He identified drafts already marked as exhibit- 2/320 to 2/327 in favour of M/s Little Oak Pharmaceuticals. He has deposed in his cross examination that raw materials were supplied to treatment home by Little Oak Pharmaceuticals. C.B.I. seized registers from both the companies. He never worked with Dr. C.P. Pandey and Dr. Gaya Prasad Tripathi. P.W.173 is Shayam Shankar Dubey. He was Dy. Secretary in the department of Finance, Government of Bihar from 1994 to 1999. C.B.I. seized

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 117 two files from his office and prepared seizure list. Seizure list was marked as exhibit-3/70. He identified file No. M4-43/92 of Department of Finance. A noting on 27.04.1993 was given in the file to get approval of Phool Chand Singh. A letter was issued to all District Magistrates, Treasury Officers seeking information from them. The file was marked as exhibit-36/73. Guard file of March, 1992 to 17.03.1996 was marked as exhibit-1/128, it contains a wireless massage dated 08.06.1993 approved by Phool Chand Singh asking information about bill passed and payment made during March, 1993. He has deposed in his cross examination that he has already deposed in R.C. 20(A)/1996. Junior Officers give noting to assist their senior. The file of routine matters does not go to the Secretary of Finance. He did not know about excess withdrawal. P.W.174 is Indu Bhushan Pathak. He has deposed that he was Joint Secretary in the Department of AHD, Government of Bihar till July, 1996. He proved file of Vigilance Cell, AHD 160/93 marked as exhibit-36/72. Sri Ram Sharan Yadav, M.P. had made complaint against the Department of Animal Husbandry. The file contains letter of Sri Pradeep Kaul Jalali, Director, Central Vigilance Commission, Government of India. The complaint letter was addressed to Secretary AHD. Director AHD was authorized to enquire the matter. The proposal was approved by Minister Bhola Ram Tufani. He has deposed in his cross examination that C.B.I. did not tell him about the place from where that file was seized. P.W.175 is Arvind Kumar Mehta. He has deposed that he was posted at the post of Senior Personal Assistant of A.G., Bihar till 1997. He has already deposed in R.C. 64(A)/1996. C.B.I. seized some documents from his possession on 05.03.1997. The seizure memo was marked as exhibit-3/71. These were three files related with Treasury Accounts. Certified copies of three files were marked as exhibit-36/73 to 36/75. He has deposed in his cross examination that Treasury Accounts are sent directly to office of A.G. These papers were not audited in his presence. Defects in accounts and bills are raised in red ink and the same are brought to the notice of Government and Treasury Officer. Exhibit-36/74 contains paper cutting at page 48 which indicates that the Accountant General met with Lalu Prasad Yadav and told him that accounts of the year 1994-95 was complete. No fraudulent withdrawal was reported by A.G., Bihar.

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 118

P.W.176 is Kamlesh Kumar. He is retired S.P., Patna. He was Special S.P. in the department of Vigilance. He produced file of Vigilance Case No. 34/1990 maintained in four parts marked as exhibit-36/78 to 36/81. He produced file No. BS 38/92 relating with allegations against the Officers of Animal Husbandry Department marked as exhibit-36/82. He produced 17 complaint petitions signed by the former D.G. Sri G. Narayan marked as exhibit- 50 to 50/16. Forwarding letter sent with the original complaint petition were produced and marked as exhibit-50/17 to 50/33. In the year 1992 seven complaint petitions were filed against Officers of A.H.D. Original complaint petition was sent back to the mother department and forwarding letters having signature of Sri G. Narayan were produced and marked as exhibit-50/34 to 50/40. Like that 21 complaint petitions were filed in Vigilance Department against the Officers of AHD. The forwarding letters of Vigilance Department were produced and marked as exhibit-50/41 to 50/61. In the year 1993 thirty complaint petitions were filed against the Officers of AHD and forwarding letter of D.G. were presented before the court marked as exhibit-50/62 to 50/91. In the year 1994 twenty two complaint petitions were filed and forwarding letter were marked as exhibit-50/92 to 50/113. In the year 1995 nine complaint petitions were filed and forwarding letters were marked as exhibit-50/114 to 50/122. Four complaint petitions were filed in the year 1996 and forwarding letters signed by the then D.G. Sri D.P. Ojha were marked as exhibit-50/123 to 50/126. Two complaint petitions were filed in the year 1997 and forwarding letters were marked as exhibit-50/127 to 50/128. He produced thirty eight files of Vigilance Department related with allegations against Officers of Animal Husbandry Departments. These files were marked as exhibit-50/129 to 50/166. Five files related with clearance of Vigilance were marked as exhibit-50/167 to 50/171. One another file for vigilance clearance was marked as exhibit-50/172. File of Office of Vigilance Commissioner regarding allegation against Officer of AHD was marked as exhibit-50/173. Complaint petition given to Secretary, AHD was given and its copy was given to D.G., Vigilance. That copy with endorsement of D.G., Vigilance was marked as exhibit-50/174. Complaint petitions were entered into a register kept in the department of Vigilance. Thirteen entry registers of Department of Vigilance were produced and marked as exhibit-51 to 51/12. He has deposed in his cross examination that in the year

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 119

1996 a file was opened in Department of Vigilance regarding excess withdrawal in the department of Animal Husbandry. C.B.I. did not file charge sheet against any of the employee of Vigilance Department. Vigilance Case No. 34/1990 was related with irregular purchase in the year 1986. Charge sheet was filed in that case against nine accused persons. Four accused persons were exonerated. After registration of Vigilance Case No. 34/1990 the file never went before Lalu Prasad Yadav. His attention was drawn on a letter dated 27.03.1992 related with Informatory Petition. P.W.177 is M. Ramesh. He has deposed that he had been working in C.B.I. on deputation from November 1985 to October, 2002. During attachment of his service in C.B.I. he investigated R.C. 68(A)/1996. He took statements of witnesses U/s 161 of the Cr.P.C. He found that the total storage capacity available in Government Cattle Farm at Saraikela Poultry Farm and DAHO, Chaibasa was 3242 quintals only. There were 202 cattles and 3490 birds. During investigation he issued many letters to different departments. 33 letters were produced and marked as exhibit-10/38 to 10/70. He proved five seizure memos marked as exhibit-3/72 to 3/76. Dr. Arjun Sharma, Dr. G.P. Tripathi and Dr. Dubraj Durai received feed, fodder and medicines in huge quantity, which were excess than required quantity. Accused Silas Tirkey, Treasury Officer, Chaibasa allowed excess payment to the tune of Rs. 36 crores as against the budget allotment Rs. 7.1 lakhs. Accused Sajal Chakraborty was the D.C., Chaibasa on 21.07.1992 and he allowed excess payment than the allotment of Rs. 7.1 lakhs. In November, 1992 and February, 1993 Rs. 17 crores were passed in six instances bills. Investigation revealed that total annual requirement of feed / fodder was 6007 quintals for the year 1992-93. Investigation further revealed that various suppliers had shown excess and huge quantity of fodder / feed supply. He has given detail of supplied quantity of different items which comes to 838781 quintals. Dr. Arjun Sharma and Dr. G.P. Tripathi received the materials and Dr. C.P. Sharma passed bills for Rs. 20.66 crores, Dr. B.N. Sharma passed bills for Rs. 7.08 crores, Dr. Ram Prakash Ram passed bills for Rs. 20.36 Lakhs. The total amount of bill already passed comes to Rs. 27.94 crores. He has deposed in his cross examination that he collected documents from Q-Max Laboratories. He took statement of partners of Medivet. Small industries were exempted from Central Excise in the year 1992-93 but he

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 120 was not aware about this fact. He examined witnesses from Central Excise. He investigated the bills. DAHO, Chaibasa did not charge Central Excise Duties. Copy of allotment letters were sent to T.O. A manufacturing company of drug is required to preserve raw material. He did not know that prior to 1996, copy of allotment letter was sent to the D.C. Prior to 21.07.1992 Mrs. Rajbala Verma was D.C., Chaibasa. When Mr. Chakraborty joined nine months delay had already occurred in sending treasury statement to the A.G. He could not verify the actual stock physically. Mr. Mehra was given supply orders for Rs. 50,000/-. Supplier had no role in preparation of supply orders. P.W.178 is A.K. Sinha. His examination-in-chief and cross examination has been adopted from R.C. 20(A)/1996. He was Senior Accounts Officer in the Office of G.M. Telephone. He proved print out of telephone no. 501500 marked as exhibit-54. The print out of telephone no. 307832 in the name of Md. Sayeed is marked as exhibit-54/1. He produced subscriber card of telephone no. 306505, 502555 and 205907. They were in the names of Shyam Bihari Sinha, Dayanand Prasad Kaschyap and Saket Kumar. These were marked as exhibit-54/2 to 54/5. He produced computer print of subscriber card no. 501500 marked as exhibit-54/6. Telephone no. 501435 was converted into 501500 on 19.11.1994. Payment details of the bill was marked as exhibit-55. Original subscriber record of telephone no. 501435 was marked as exhibit-56. The old no. 501435 was converted into 501500 and its payment details was marked as exhibit-55/1. The daily correction list in computer copies was marked as exhibit-57. Counter foil of telephone no. 501435 and 501500 were marked as exhibit-58 to 58/9. The details of counter foil prepared by this witness was marked as exhibit-59. The letter dated 16.01.1997 was produced before the court. He has deposed in his cross examination that he could not say whom had received these print outs. He told the names of subscriber after perusal of documents. P.W.179 is Dr. Shivbalak Choudhary. His examination-in-chief and cross examination has been adopted from R.C. 20(A)/1996. He has deposed that he was Director, AHD from September, 2000 to 19 th August, 2002. After suspension of Dr. Ram Raj Ram dated 17.02.1996 file of Vigilance had been coming before him. There was a centeral purchase committee from 1993 to 1996, its head was Secretary AHD and members were one candidate from

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 121

Industrial Department, one candidate from Vigilance Department and one candidate from AHD Department. Tenders were invited. Allotments were granted by Director, AHD. He produced file No. 1/89 related with appointment of Mr. Ram Raj Ram marked as exhibit-36/83. File No. AH.Con.(2)-0107/79 related with complaint against Dr. Ram Raj Ram was marked as exhibit-36/84. File No. AH.Con.(2)-127/79 related with complaint against Dr. Krishana Mohan Prasad was marked as exhibit-36/85. File No. 2 vt.(2) 2014/95 related with telegrams of A.G., Ranchi was marked as exhibit-36/86. File No. 15P(1) 401/93 related with allegation against Director, AHD was marked as exhibit-36/87. File No. 9 Le (1) 124/96 was marked as exhibit-36/88. He has proved details of Birds and requirement of Feeds during 1992-93 at Saraikela marked as exhibit- 10/176. He proved letter No. 717 dated 04.02.1997 marked as exhibit-10/177. He has deposed in his cross examination that Secretary was assisted by Assistant, Sectional Officer, Special Secretary and Director. Answer of questions raised in Assembly was prepared by the Department. C.B.I. seized many documents from his office. Medicines were provided by the Government for treatment of cattle. Exhibit-36/83 to 36/88 were not initiated by him. Appointment of Ram Raj Ram was done as per order passed by Hon'ble Patna High Court. He did not know that R.C. 42(A)/1996 was closed by C.B.I. P.W.180 is Manoj Kumar Sharma. He is part I.O. of R.C. 68(A)/1996. During investigation he took statement of seven witnesses. Seizure memo dated 05.02.1997 was marked as exhibit-3/85. He has deposed in his cross examination that Dipesh Chandak was partner and Director of many companies. He did not see annual return of his companies. He did not obtain his income chart. He had arrested Dipesh Chandak. P.W.181 is Layak Singh. He assisted the main I.O. M. Ramesh. He seized documents as per direction of Sri M. Ramesh and prepared seizure memos. Seizure list dated 15.05.1998 was marked as exhibit-3/86. He seized pay-in-slips from Allahabad Bank and prepared memo marked as exhibit-3/87. He took two documents on 05.04.1997 and prepared memo marked as exhibit- 3/88. He took documents from Manager, Kenera Bank and prepared memo marked as exhibit-3/89. He took documents from Satyadeo Rai and prepared memo marked as exhibit-3/90. He took documents from A.P. Sinha, Chief Manager, S.B.I., Ranchi and prepared memo marked as exhibit-3/91. He

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 122 documents of Truck bearing No. BHV-1011 and prepared seizure list. He took documents from Radhe Shayam and prepared seizure list marked as exhibit- 3/92. He took document from Chandra Mohan Patil and prepared memo marked as exhibit-3/93. He took document from Suresh Prasad Gupta regarding truck no. BEN - 9421 and prepared memo marked as exhibit-3/94. He took document from Dy. Manager, S.,B.I. and prepared memo marked as exhibit-3/95. He took documents from Union Bank of India and prepared memo marked as exhibit-3/96. He took document from Allahabad Bank and prepared memo marked as exhibit-3/97. He took document from N.B. Jetly and prepared document marked as exhibit-3/98. He took document from Manager, S.B.I., New Delhi. Ram Swaroop Jee had seized documents from Allahabad Bank and prepared memo marked as exhibit-3/99. He has deposed in his cross examination that he informed only the I.O. about seizure. He did not examine the genuineness of document. P.W.182 is Dr. Captain Mahendra Prasad Sah. He has deposed that he remain Regional Director, AHD, South Chotanagpur from February, 1996 to January, 1999. He knew Dr. B.N. Sharma and Dr. C.P. Sharma. Government Cattle Breeding Farm, Saraikela and Government Poultry Farm, Chaibasa was under control of DAHO, Chaibasa. He was D.D.O. of DAHO, Chaibasa. He was authorized to allot fund and prepared bill as per requirement. Funds were allocated by Director. Regional Director was authorized to pay only Rs. 15,000/- for Feed and Fodder. Order for veterinary medicines was given as per approved rate by Central Purchase Committee. He was duty bound to look after Sub-Divisional Office. He was not authorized to transfer feed / fodder to other District. The S.V.O. and M.V.O. were member of Technical Cell. He has deposed in his cross examination that there was no role of DAHO in connection with allocation of fund. Treatment register contains name of medicine and owner of Animal. Animal hardly vest medicines. There is no column of wastage in treatment register. No complaint was received in his office regarding treatment of animal. The doctors did not file any complaint regarding any force against them. Mineral mixtures of high quality were given to animals. P.W.183 is Ashok Kakar. He has deposed that he knew Ranjeet Kumar Mishra, Sanjay Mishra, Ashwani Anand and Ashok Chandra Dutta. He was Director of M/s Indian Laboratory Pvt. Limited, New Delhi. The company

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 123 was making medicines for human. There was no branch of this company at Patna. The exhibit-4/29 does not contain his signature. Signature upon exhibit- 4/30 is not signature of this witness. He has deposed in his cross examination that he was none Executive Director of the company. His brother-in-law is Siwanand Basappa Jatti. He did not know whether he is accused in this case or not. He was Active Director of this company. P.W.184 is Ramayan Pandey. He is retired Secretary of Department of Law and legal remembrance of Government of Jharkhand. He granted sanction against the then Dy. Commissioner Sajal Chakraborty on 11.08.2001. Sanction oder was marked as exhibit-52. His cross examination was declined. P.W.185 is Jivan Kumar Sinha. He is retired I.A.S. During 1999 to 2005 he was posted at Secretariat of Governor. Prosecution sanction was asked by D.I.G. of C.B.I. against accused Lalu Prasad, Dr. Jagarnath Mishra, Chandradeo Prasad Verma, Vidyasagar Nishad, Phool Chand Singh, Mahesh Prasad and K. Arumugam. The Hon'ble Governor approved the proposal sanction and accordingly sanction order was prepared by this witness as per his dictation marked as exhibit-53. Sanction order against Lalu Prasad was prepared on 28.11.2001 and sanction order against others were also prepared on the same day and sanction orders were marked as exhibit in series of exhibit-52. The Hon'ble Governor have authorized him after application of his mind on the matter. He has deposed in his cross examination that he got promotion in the cadre of I.A.S. from the cadre of Jharkhand Administrative Service. At the time of granting sanction order file of Finance Department and file of Animal Husbandry Department were not attached. The matters of state are considered under the provisions of rules of executive business by the Hon'ble Governor. He works with aid and advice of Ministers. He did not know about the provision of delicate power. P.W.186 is Ramnath Prasad. He has deposed that in the year 2001 he was posted in the Department of Law, Government of Bihar at the post of typist. Sri Rajendra Prasad was Law Secretary of Bihar at that time. He proved sanction order issued against Krishna Mohan Prasad, Kriti Narayan Jha, Braj Bhushan Prasad, Raghvendra Kishore Lal and Silas Tirkey. These were marked as exhibit-52/7 to 52/11. He has deposed in his cross examination that

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 124 he did not know about the papers perused by Sri Rajendra Prasad before granting sanction order. P.W.187 is Vidyadhar Prasad Pandey. He has deposed that in the year 1998 he was posted at Civil Court, Dhanbad at the post of Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad. He took statement of witnesses Subodh Chandra Verma, Dr. Hirdya Shankar Sinha, Raj Kumar Kediya, Rajbali and Sundi U/s 164 of the Cr.P.C. The statement of the witnesses were marked in series of exhibit-34. He has deposed in his cross examination that he recorded statement of witnesses as per order of Special Judge, C.B.I. P.W.188 is Sadanand Singh. He has deposed that he remain Speaker of Bihar Legislative Assembly from 09.02.2000 to June, 2005. He granted sanction order against Jagdish Sharma and Dr. R.K. Rana marked as exhibit in series of exhibit-52. He granted sanction order being satisfied from the fact. He granted sanction order against Rajo Singh also. He has deposed in his cross examination that he did not know under which provision sanction is granted. Jagdish Sharma was Chairman of P.A.C. from 1988 to 1996. There is Rules of P.A.C. P.W.189 is Anjani Kumar Verma. He has deposed that during 1997-98 he was posted at Dhanbad as Judicial Magistrate 1st Class. He recorded statement of accused Sushil Kumar Jha U/s 164 of the Cr.P.C. marked as exhibit-24/7. He recorded statement of Tarkeshwar Narayan Lal Das U/s 164 of the Cr.P.C. as a witness. He recorded statement of witness Sahdeo Prasad U/s 164 of the Cr.P.C., both were marked as exhibits-24/8 & 24/9. His cross examination was declined. P.W.190 is Brahmdeo Singh. He has deposed that in the year 1999 he was posted as Sub Divisional Engineer (Vigilance) in Telephone Department, Ranchi. He is one of the member of search team of C.B.I. A search was done in the residence of Dr. Shayam Bihari Sinha on 13.05.1999 and search list was prepared. Search list was marked as exhibit-3/101. His cross examination was declined. P.W.191 is Samir Rai. He has deposed that he was Cashier in United Bank of India in the year 1999. He was one of the member of search team of C.B.I. who searched the residence of Alok Kumar Sinha and a search list was prepared on 14.05.1999 marked as exhibit-3/102. His cross

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 125 examination has been declined. P.W.192 is Kapil Kumar. He has deposed that he was one of the member of search team of C.B.I. The team prepared a search list. He identified exhibit-3/102. His cross examination was declined. P.W.193 is Saiyad Md. Hasib. He has deposed that he was one of the member of search team of C.B.I. Search was done in the residence of Dr. Sinha. He identified exhibit-3/102. He has deposed in his cross examination that original copy of search list is not in his knowledge. P.W.194 is Digbijay Bahadur Singh. He has deposed that he was Dy. S.P., C.B.I., Ranchi from 1994 to 2000. He partly investigated R.C. 68(A)/1996 and submitted case diary to the I.O. D.N. Biswas as per order of S.P., C.B.I., Ranchi. He took statement of three witnesses. Their statements were taken in R.C. Case No. 46/1996. He prepared a seizure list marked as exhibit-3/103. He has deposed in his cross examination that seizure memo was prepared in the office of C.B.I., Ranchi. P.W.195 is Jai Ram Prasad. He has deposed that in the year 1998 he was posted as Joint Director, Planning in the Department of Animal Husbandry. He identified his three signatures on exhibit-10/176. His signatures were marked as exhibit-10/176/1, 10/176/2 and 10/176/3. He has deposed in his cross examination that the present case is related with the occurrence happened in the year 1996. P.W.196 is Binod Kumar. His examination-in-chief and cross examination has been adopted from R.C. 20(A)/1996. He had been working as Assistant in Animal Husbandry Department, Bihar. He brought a file relating with question raised in the house by the member of house Sri Chatrapati Sahi Munda regarding excess withdrawal on the basis of news published. The file containing star question raised by Sri Parmeshwar, M.L.C. The answer was prepared by the department and approved by accused Bhola Ram Toofani. The file bearing no. Ko. Le. E 69/93 was marked as exhibit-60. The file no. 15(B)(2) 701/46 was brought related with star question raised by Parmeshwar was marked as exhibit-60/1. File No. 15(P)(2) 1023/95 related with question raised by Sri Nilambar Choudhary was marked as exhibit-60/2. The file no. 15(P)(2) 104/96 related with question raised by Sri Uday Narayan Rai was marked as exhibit-60/3. The file no. 15(P)(1) 102/92 related with question raised by Sri

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 126

Nilambar Choudhary was marked as exhibit-60/4. The file no. 15(P)(2) 106/95 related with question raised by Sri Lalit Oraon was marked as exhibit-60/5. File No. 15(P) (2) 10.10 / 95 related with question raised by Sri Satrudhan Prasad Singh was marked as exhibit-60/6. He has deposed in his cross examination that exhibit-60/4 was not dealt by him and others file had also not been dealt by him. Some of the files were dealt by him. He did not know about star question. The answer was prepared by Animal Husbandry Department. P.W.197 is Anil Kumar Das. He has deposed that he was posted in Chaibasa Treasury till 31.03.1993. He used to bring accounts of Chaibasa Treasury to the Office of A.G., Patna with forwarding letter. Seventeen carbon copies of forwarding letter signed by accused Silas Tirkey was marked as exhibit-10/179 to 10/195. He obtained receiving from the A.G. Office which was produced and marked for identification as X/107 to X/119. He has deposed in his cross examination that accounts was brought once in a month. P.W.198 is Jai Ram Prasad Verma. His examination-in-chief and cross examination has been adopted from R.C. 20(A)/1996. He has deposed that he was Traffic Superintendent in Indian Airlines, Kolkatta. During 1977 to 1994 he was posted at the post of Traffic Superintendent and Senior Traffic Superintendent at Patna. His wife is Shiv Kumari and Rajesh Verma and Kamlesh Verma are his sons. Accused Tripurari Mohan Prasad used to purchase Air Ticket. Besides him Shayam Bihar Sinha, S.K. Singh, R.K. Das, K. Arumugam, Mahesh Prasad used to purchase Air Ticket for politicians. Tripurari Mohan Prasad introduced him Dr. Shayam Bihari Sinha. He requested him to provide job to his son Rajesh Verma. He suggested to become a supplier of medicine. Rajesh Verma started business in the name of J.P. Enterprises. S.B. Sinha used to say him personally or on telephone for Air Ticket in favour of S.K. Singh, R.K. Rana, R.K. Das, Bek Julias, K. Arumugam, D.S. Mukhopadhayay and K.N. Jha. Dr. R.K. Rana obtained Air Ticket of Lalu Prasad during year 1993-94. He facilitated air tickets on credit through Patliputra Travels, Sah Travels, Vikramshila Travels and Sangh Mitra Travels. Payments were done either by Shayam Bihari Sinha or by Rajesh Verma. His statement U/s 164 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded. His statement was taken by the Officer of Income Tax Department also. He has deposed in his cross examination that he was authorized to issue ticket to obtain air ticket filled up form with address is

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 127 required. There is no documentary proof for obtaining tickets as per proposal of Dr. Shayam Bihari Sinha and others. He did not know that air ticket for Lalu Prasad was obtained by P.K. Sinha. Two percent commission is given to employees of Indian Airlines on purchase of air ticket for order. His son and wife are accused in the case of Fodder Scam. There was Helicopter and Airoplane of Government of Bihar. He was not sitting at ticket counter usually. There is no documentary proof regarding ticket obtained in the name of Mahesh Prasad and others. Bek Julias never personally obtained ticket from him. He did not know accused Jagdish Sharma personally. One shop of medicine situated at Patna, was in the name of his wife Smt. Shiv Kumari Devi. S.K. Enterprises and J.P. Enterprises used to sale veterinary medicines. His wife is illiterate and her work was being looked after by her son. P.W.199 is Ajay Kumar Jha. He has deposed that in the year 1996 he was posted at the post of Inspector, C.B.I., Dhanbad. Investigation of R.C. 68(A)/96 was given to him. The F.I.R. typed by Mahendra Prasad and signed by Javed Ahmad marked as exhibit-62. Information were asked from A.G. Office, Ranchi regarding details of purchase of animal medicines and related articles. The letter with annexures were marked as exhibit-62/1. Documents were seized from Chaibasa Collectariat marked as exhibit-3/104. The seizure list dated 17.04.1999 was marked as exhibit-3/105. Seizure list dated 11.03.1997 was marked as exhibit-3/106. Letter dated 25.04.1997 was marked as exhibit- 10/196. Seizure list dated 09.08.1998 is marked as exhibit-3/107. Two seizure lists dated 31.12.1998 were marked as exhibits-3/108 & 3/109. Letter dated 20.04.1996 was marked as exhibit-10/197 through which information was called from Animal Husbandry Department, Chaibasa regarding purchase of Feed, Fodder, Medicine and Apparatus. Seizure list dated 18.08.1997 was marked as exhibit-3/110. Seizure list dated 11.03.1998 was marked as exhibit-3/111. Seizure list dated 27.08.1997 was marked as exhibit-3/112. Seizure list dated 05.03.1997 was marked as exhibit-3/113. Seizure list dated 20.06.1997 was marked as exhibit-3/114. Seizure list dated 13.05.1997 was marked as exhibit- 3/115. Seizure list dated 04.09.1996 was marked as exhibit-3/116. Seizure list dated 01.09.1996 was marked as exhibit-3/117. Seizure list dated 08.08.1996 was marked as exhibit-3/118. Seizure list dated 04.09.1996 was marked as exhibit-3/119. The letters bearing letter No. 64/18 dated 07.10.998, 16/14 dated

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 128

07.10.1998 and 65/52 dated 13.10.1998 were sent to Government Examiner of questioned document, Kolkatta. These were marked as exhibits-10/198, 10/199 and 10/200. Opinion of Dy. Government Examiner of question document, V.G.S. Bhatnagar was obtained marked as exhibit-63/1 and 63/2. Letter dated 20.11.1997 is marked as exhibit-10/201. Reply dated 04.06.1999 was marked as exhibit-10/202. Seizure list dated 05.02.1997 was marked as exhibit-3/120. Letter dated 30.08.1996 is marked as exhibit-10/203. Letter dated 02.01.1997 was marked as exhibit-10/204. Letter dated 18.07.1997 was marked as exhibit- 10/205. Memo of Animal Husbandry Department was marked as exhibit-10/206. Evaluation report dated 13.05.1999 is marked as exhibit-64. He has deposed further that he remained I.O. of this case till 05.11.1996 after transfer of Sri M. Ramesh the I.O. of this case became Sri Dhirendra Nath Biswas. As per order of the then Director General Dr. U.N. Biswas, he submitted charge sheet in this case against 75 accused persons. The charge sheet was marked as exhibit-65. He has deposed in his cross examination that the present case was lodged by the C.B.I. itself. R.C. 19(A)/1996, R.C. 20(A)/1996, R.C. 49(A)/1996, R.C. 40(A)/1996, R.C. 51(A)/1996 and R.C. 66(A)/1996 are also related with Chaibasa Treasury. He had submitted charge sheet in R.C. 20(A)/1996 also. He did not specially investigate accused Sushil Kumar Sinha and Tripurari Prasad. During his preliminary investigation he obtained carbon copies of bills from Chaibasa Treasury related with Animal Husbandry Department for the year 1992-93. He made correspondent with several banks to obtain necessary documents. The other partners of A.B. Sales were Smt. Alka Srivastava, Smt. Vimla Sharma and Harish Khandelwal. Harish Khandelwal has been operating this firm. He did not know that Vimla Sharma was ousted from that firm. Mr. Khandelwal had already committed suicide. He did not visit premises of M/s Sanjay Sinha Enterprises, nor he inspected his sales tax documents or income tax documents. He did not record statement of Ram Prakash Ram in the present case. He had seized bills signed by Ram Prakash Ram and duly passed by Chaibasa Treasury. Supply order was signed by Regional Director Dr. Kriti Narayan Jha. The allotment letters seized in this case are signed by Budget-cum-Accounts Officer, Directorate of Animal Husbandry, Patna namely Braj Bhushan Prasad. His signature is genuine. He did not record statement of Chandrashekhar Dubey. He had seized carbon copies of bills of Manisha

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 129

Enterprises. He did not seize any paper related with joint bank account of Sudeo Rana and Madan Mohan Pathak. He had seen the bank draft and other documents of that firm at the time of filing charge sheet. F.I.R. in this case was lodged by Sri Javed Ahmad the then S.P., C.B.I., Patna on source information. He did not know that permission was taken from the Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court before lodging this case. Four cases were lodged in connection with Chaibasa Treasury and separate charge sheets were filed for that. There are similar evidence in R.C. 20(A)/1996 and R.C. 68(A)/1996 against Jagdish Sharma. There was allegation against him that he obstructed enquiry of the scam of AHD. He did not find evidence that there was any relative of Jagdish Sharma was involved in this case as supplier of A.H.D. There was no role of Jagdish Sharma in the process of passing bills or in preparation of bills Before him Ram Jatan Sinha was president of P.A.C. Matters were raised by Kirpa Nath Pathak and Shatrudhan Prasad Singh and the then Chief Minister Lalu Prasad replied on 21.03.1991 in presence of Ram Jatan Sinha that after obtaining report of P.A.C. it would be considered that whether case should be lodged in C.B.I. or in any other agency. Ram Jatan Sinha did not submit any report. Jagdish Sharma begun his period in April, 1992. He submitted his report for the period 1985 to 1990. R.K. Das was an accused of this case. He was given pardon and he was made approver. Dipesh Chandak was also made approver. P.A.C. is a committee constituted by Legislative Assembly. He did not take statement of members of P.A.C. He did not take statement of Speaker of the Assembly. The role of Dr. R.K. Rana regarding receiving of payment from Chaibasa Treasury did not come. Before lodging present cases in C.B.I., cases had already been lodged in different police stations. Directions were given by Hon'ble High Court, Ranchi and Hon'ble Supreme Court. He did not know that at the time of filing charge sheet in this case, Lalu Prasad Yadav was member of Rajya Sabha. The Vice President of India is competent to remove member of Rajya Sabha. He did not obtain sanction order from the Vice President of India. He did not investigate on the point of role of A.G. in R.C. 20(A)/1996. None of the employee of A.G. has been made accused in this case. He did not know that any of the I.O. of C.B.I. found involvement of any employee of A.G. in the present case. He obtained forged bills from the office of A.G. Main I.O. of this case is Sri D.N. Biswas. Case

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 130 against Lalu Yadav and his wife Smt. Rabari Devi was filed for Disproportionate Amount property but both of them have acquitted. He had heard that in R.C. 20(A)/1996 help of Army was requested but Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court stayed arrest of Lalu Prasad and later on stay order was vacated. Lalu Prasad surrendered in R.C. 20(A)/1996 before the court on 30.07.1997. He had heard that an enquiry was done by commission of A.P. Dorai regarding request for help of Army. He did not investigate on the matter of involvement of Sri Nitish Kumar, Sri Ram Jatan Sinha, Sri Shiva Nand Tiwary and others because there was no specific role of them in the present case. There are forty common witnesses in R.C. 20(A)/1996 and R.C. 68(A)/1996. He did not know that retired C.B.I. S.P. Sri Ram Chandra Choudhary had filed a case in Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court for extension of his service which was rejected. Main point of this case is withdrawal on the basis of fake allotment letter. None of the bills contain signature of Arumugam. Statement of withdrawal from the deposit of State Government is reported to the Finance Department of State as well as A.G. also in monthly statement. Phool Chand Singh was made accused in R.C. 20(A)/1996. He remained Finance Commissioner for approx two years. Files of cash flow and budget were dealt by late S.N. Sinha and Vijay Shankar Dubey also. Materials of R.C. 20(A)/1996 has been brought in this case also. The allegation against Dr. Jagarnath Mishra in R.C. 20(A)/1996 and in present case are similar. Sushil Jha had stated before him that he is whole and sole responsible for the work of Seva Medical Agency, Laxmi Enterprises and Bharti Enterprises. M/s Treatment Home use to product human medicines. He submitted charge sheet in this case on 12.12.2001. He refused the suggestion of defence counsel that he has falsely implicated the accused persons. P.W.200 is D.P. Khatri. He has deposed that he has proved sanction order dated 15.10.2001 against K. Argumugam marked as exhibit- 52/12. He has deposed in his cross examination that it is wrong to say that sanction order was issued in mechanical way. P.W.201 is V.G.S. Bhatnagar. He has deposed that he is handwriting expert and examiner of Forensic documents. During 1998 he was working as Deputy G.E.Q.D. in the Office of G.E.Q.D., Kolkatta. The documents of this case were received in his office from S.P., C.B.I., Dhanbad for

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 131 examination and report. The original letter of C.B.I., Dhanbad dated 07.10.1998 along with Annexure-I, II & III with his endorsement and signature was produced before the court. He produced forwarding letter with diary no. 6078 dated 08.10.1998. The whole has been marked collectively as exhibit-66. He examined all the original documents after thorough and careful examination of disputed signatures and their comparison with the specimen signature, he was of the opinion that signature marked as Q-1 to Q-12 were done by same and one person. He was also of the opinion that the specimen signature marked S- 111 to S-118 related with Ravi Kumar Sinha marked Q-13 to Q-30 are of individual handwriting. The signature marked by him as S-29 to S-148 supplied by C.B.I. related with Tripurari Mohan Prasad was writing of one an individual person. He verified signature of Ajit Kumar Verma, Devendra Kumar Rai and found their signature as genuine. He prepared his report marked as exhibit- 66/1. The report was forwarded to S.P., C.B.I., Dhanbad vide letter no. DXC 117/98/2420 dated 30.11.1998 marked as exhibit-66/2. The detail reasons for his opinion prepared were filed in four sheets marked as exhibit-66/3. As per order of Sayeed Ahmad case was allotted to him. Signature of Sayeed Ahmad was marked as exhibit-10/207. The detail reasons for his report is marked as exhibit-66/4. The different report for different persons were handed over to him and he has proved forwarding letter and report separately which were marked as exhibit-66/5, 66/6, 66/7 and 66/8. He has deposed in his cross examination that Mr. I.S. Rao has already died but other persons who were signed on documents are alive. These signature have not been signed in his presence. Specimen signature was not obtained in his presence. The enlarge documents are seen only to sophisticated instrument. Photo copies are not used for examination. Specimen signatures were marked taken before him. Some relevant papers of his office have been brought to the court. No notice or summons was sent to the accused persons from his office to obtained their specimen signature. A rough observation is done before final observation. Conclusion is mentioned in final report. P.W.202 is D.N. Biswas. He has deposed that he was attached with Fodder Scam cases from April, 1996 to December, 2001. He was authorized to investigate on the point of larger conspiracy. He obtained statement of witnesses from other cases and he took the documents of other

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 132 case in the present case. He adopted statement of witnesses from R.C. 20(A)/1996, R.C. 64(A)/1996, R.C. 63(A)/1996 and R.C. 1994/1996. He adopted statement of some witnesses from R.C. 38(A)/1996 and R.C. 47(A)/1996. Documents pertaining to the statement given by the persons were also adopted in the present case. In pursuance of the disclosure statement of Dr. S.B. Sinha searches were conducted in his residence on 13.05.1999. During search Rs. 19 Lakhs, Rs. 15 Lakhs 500 hundred, Rs. 1 crore, Rs. 7 Lakh 50 thousand, Rs. 36 Lakhs, Rs. 16 Lakhs and Rs. 2 Lakhs 20 thousand along with jeweleries were recovered. Another search was conducted on 14.05.1999 in the chamber of Alakh Kumar Sinha, S/o S.B. Sinha. Rs. 33 Lakh 80 thousand was seized. The seized amount mentioned in the search list were kept in the current account S.B.I., I.S.M. Branch, Dhanbad under the designation of S.P., Dhanbad with a condition that the C.B.I. will keep this amount intact position. The jewelry mentioned in Sl.No. 9 of the seizure list dated 13.05.1999 was kept in sealed cover in S.B.I. Main Branch, Dhanbad being locker no. 181 for safe custody. He handed over further investigation of the case to Sri A.K. Jha. He found this case different from R.C. 20(A)/1996. He has deposed in his cross examination that he adopted statement and documents from different cases in respect of larger conspiracy. Some of the accused are common in R.C. 20(A)/1996 and present case. In context of the larger conspiracy some of the documents are common and some of the witnesses are common. He could not recollect that any death of animal had caused due to feed, fodder and medicine. He did not make investigation in respect of feed, fodder and medicines. P.W.203 is Bir Kunwar Singh. He has deposed that he was Inspector in C.B.I. in the year 2003. He filed supplementary charge sheet against Rajo Singh, the then M.L.A. of Bihar Legislative Assembly. He filed charge sheet no. 3/2003 dated 07.06.2003 as per order of Sri R.C. Choudhary, the then S.P., AHD, Ranchi. The charge sheet contains a forwarding letter no. 1837 dated 07.06.2003 marked as exhibit-10/208. He identified exhibit-52/10 which is sanction order issued by Sri Sadanand Singh. Now Rajo Singh has already died. He has deposed in his cross examination that he has filed only supplementary charge sheet against late Rajo Singh. He did not investigate against Sajal Chakraborty. He did not filed original charge sheet. His investigation is related only with accused late Rajo Singh.

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 133

6. The following exhibits have been marked on behalf of prosecution.

PW Name of PWs Gist of the Ext. No. No. statement 1 Shri Dipesh Chandak Payment for bogus 1 to 1/57 & (Approver) bills, Non supply, 2 to 2/150 Fabrication of allotment letters, Distribution of fraudulent payments among co- conspirators Public Servants and suppliers at ratio of 80 and 20 percent. Also pay offs to co-conspirators such as Dr. B.N.Sharma, Dr. S.B.Sinha, Dr, K.M.Prasad, Dr. Ram Raj Ram, Dr. Jagannath Mishra, Lalu Prasad, Sajal Chakarvorty, Mahesh Prasad, R.K.Das and others. Concealment of records supporting fraudulent payments at LRS, Ranchi and furnishing false reports to the authorities that records have been given to PAC for enquiry. 2 Shri Brajendra Pd. Singh Truck No. BHB 8222 was never sent to Chaibasa from Ranchi during 1992-93. 3 Shri Kanhaiya Singh Truck No. BHB 4569 was never sent to Chaibasa from Ranchi during 1992-93.

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 134

4 Shri Suresh Kumar Jain Truck No. BEN 1521 was not hired by M/s Chottanagpur Cattle Feed, Ranchi for transportation to Chaibasa during 1992- 93. 5 Shri Om Prakash Lal Truck No. BHB 5454 is Ambasdor Car. 6 Shri Jivitesh Kumar Truck No. BIL 6663 was never sent to Chaibasa from Ranchi during 1992-93. 7 Shri Gupteshwar Singh Truck No. BHB 8655, BR14A 3255, BR14Y 8355, BR14Y 8755 and BHN 8555 was never sent to Chaibasa from Ranchi during 1992-93 for transporting materials of M/s Chottanagpur Cattle Feed. 8 Shri Keshv Lal Truck No. BPY 7711 was not hired by M/s Chottanagpur Cattle Feed for transporting material to Chaibasa during 1992-93. 9 Shri Virendra Singh Truck No. BPY 7711 was not hired by M/s Chottanagpur Cattle Feed for transporting material to Chaibasa during 1992-93. 10 Shri Sunil Kumar Dubey He has not provided his truck for transportation from Ranchi to Chaibasa. 11 Shri Vijay Kumar Dhanuka Truck No. BIL 2848 was not hired by Chottanagpur Cattle Feed for transportation from

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 135

Ranchi to Chaibasa during 1992-93. 12 Shri Jagjit Rai Umesh Dubey as 3, 4, 5, 6, 6/1, proprietor of M/s Jai 7, 7/1, 8 and Bhandar & Supply has 2/151 and encashed two bank 2/152. drafts in current account number 119 at PNB Amba, District Aurngabad, Bihar. 13 Shri Vijay Shankar Mishra Ravi Kumar Sinha as 4/1 to 4/7 and proprietor of M/s A. 8/1 Traders, Patna has encashed four bank drafts in current account number 29 at PNB Punaichak, Patna. 14 Shri Surendra Mohan Prasad Pramod Kumar Jaiswal 3/2, 4/8 to as proprietor of M/s 4/15, 2/157 to Bhagat & Co. Ranchi 2/160 and 8/2 has encashed four bank drafts in current account number 929 at Oriented Bank of Commerce, Kutchery Road, Ranchi. 15 Shri Abhjit Bhattacharya Chandra Sekhar 3/3, 2/161 to Dubey as proprietor of 2/178, 3/5, M/s Manisha 4/19 to 4/21, Enterprises, Ranchi, 8/3 & 8/4 Sudeo Rana as proprietor of M/s Swaran Rekha Medical Agency, Ranchi and Dayanand Kashyap, Baldeo Kumar Sahu and Kalash Mani Kashyap as partners of M/s Vaishnaw Enterprises, Ranchi have encashed bank drafts in current account number 104, 173 and 153 at SBI

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 136

Ashok Nagar Branch, Ranchi. 16 Shri Satyendra Prasad Pramod Kumar Jaiswal 4/22 and as proprietor of M/s 2/179 Bhagat & Co. Ranchi has encashed bank drafts in current account number 818 at Central Bank of India, Lalpur Branch, Ranchi. 17 Shri Arun Kumar Singh Sailesh Prasad Singh 3/7, 4/24, 5/1 as proprietor of M/s and 5/2, Shakti Pharma 2/180 to Distributors, 2/183 and 8/5 Bhagalpur has taken payments for bank drafts in current account number 590 at Bank of Baroda, Bhagalpur. 18 Md. Sadruddin Ahmed Ramavtar Sharma as 8/6 proprietor of M/s Tirupati Agency Patna has taken payments in current account number 952 at Oriental Bank of Commerce, Patna. 19 Shri Saroj Kanti Dev Devendra Kumar Rai 5/3, 5/4, as proprietor of M/s 2/184, 8/7 Swastik Drug Agency, and 7/2 Jamshedpur had taken payment of bank drafts in current account number 348 at Central Bank of India, Jamshedpur. 20 Shri Praveen Chakraborty Mahendra Kumar 3/9, 4/26, Kundan as proprietor 4/27, 5/5 to of M/s Krishna Traders, 5/13, 2/185 to Ranchi had taken 2/193 and 8/8 payment of bank drafts in current

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 137

account number 21075 at Union Bank of India, Ranchi. 21 Shri Birendra Pd. Poddar Ranjit Kumar Mishra 4/28 to 4/31, as Director of M/s 5/14 to 5/16, Indian Lab had taken 2/194 to payment of bank 2/196 and 8/9 drafts in current account number 202/4 at Allahabad Bank Patna. 22 Luis Paschal Ekka Satyendra Kumar 3/10, 5/17 to Mehra as Proprietor of 5/26, 2/197 to M/s Satyendra 2/203, 5/27 to Construction 5/30, 7/3 to Company, Ranchi had 7/6, 6/2 to taken payment of 6/5, 7/7 to bank drafts in current 7/11 and 8/10 account number 29008 at Union Bank of India, Ranchi. 23 Shri Suresh Singh Truck No. BR14H 9101 has not transported material for M/s Chottanagpur Cattle Feed Supply & Company, Ranchi during 1992-93 24 Shri Devi Prasad Banerjee Truck No. BHR 9020 is motercycle and has not transported materials for Manas Sales Corporation duirng 1992-93. 25 Shri Rajesh Saran Mahendra Kumar 9, 5/31, Kundan as proprietor 2/204, 7/12 to of M/s Krishna Traders, 7/18 and 8/11 Ranchi had taken payment of bank drafts in current account number C5/45 at SBI, Kokar, Ranchi. 26 Shri Yogendra Paswan Details of owners of 10 truck furnished by

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 138

District Transport Office, Ranchi. 27 Shri Satyendra Singh Truck No. BIR 4821 has not transported materials from Ranchi to Chaibasa during 1992-93. 28 Md. Maksud Alam Truck No. BPY 7466 has not transported material for M/s Chottanagpur Cattle Feed Supply & Company, Ranchi during 1992-93 29 Shri Prafulla Kumar Surendra Nath Sinha 4/32 to 4/35, Choudhary as Managing Director 2/204 to of M/s Inter 2/205 Pharmaceuticals India Pvt. Ltd had taken payments for the bank drafts in current account number 112 at SBI, Exhibition Road, Branch, Patna. 30 Shri Kanhaiya Kumar BHG 6982 is a scooter. Khandelwal 31 Shri Lakshmi Narayan Sharma Truck No. BHH 5101 was not hired for transportation by M/s Baishnaw Enterprises during 1992-93. 32 Shri Pradeep Shankar Ghosh Shri Sarad Kumar, 10/2, 11, 11/1 Smt. Nirmala Prasasd and X/8, 8/13, and Smt. Anita Prasad 2/206 to all partners of M/s 2/210, 6/6, Medivet and M/s Birsa 7/24, 10/3, 12 Live Stock Feed and to 12/5, 6/11 Additives have taken to 6/15, 5/32 payments for bank to 5/34, 5/35 drafts in current to 5/45, 12/6 account number 471 to 12/12, 6/16 & 451 at Allahabad to 6/18, 5/44, Bank, Tatisilway, 2/211 to Ranchi. 2/213, 7/55 to

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 139

7/60 33 Shri Rana Ram Singh Truck No. BEN 6151 has not transported material for M/s Chottanagpur Cattle Feed to Chaibasa. 34 Shri Rajendra Kumar Jha Payment of drafts in 4/36 to 4/41, the current account 2/214 to number 1492 of 2/217 Medicine House Bhagalpur and in the account of M/s Gauri Distributor, Bhagalpur. 35 Shri Amarnath Tiwari Payment of drafts in 3/12, 5/45, the current account 7/61 to 7/71 number 30107 of M/s A. Traders at SBI, Rajwansi Nagar, Patna. 36 Shri Prakash Chandra Garnaik Payment of drafts in 3/13, 3/14, the current account 5/46 to 5/52, number 194 of M/s 13 and 13/1, Sanjay Sinha at 7/61 to 7/121, Allahabad Bank, 4/54 to 4/61, Doranda. 2/218 to 2/220 37 Shri Anant Kumar Sen Draft issued by SBI, 2/221 to Chaibasa in favour of 2/302 M/s Mastrin Pharamaecuticals, Magadh Enterprises, Tirupati Agency, Shri Baba Chemical, A. Traders, Manas Sales Corporation , Bihar Surgico Medico Agency and Samarpan Veterinary all of Patna. 38 Shri Prem Shankar Das Payment of draft in 5/53 to 5/55, the current account 2/303, 7/122 number SIB/239 of M/s to 7/134 Tirupati Agency at SBI, Bikaner and Jaipur, Ranchi

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 140

39 Shri Shiv Prasad Baraik Payment of drafts in 3/16, 10/5, current account 4/62, 5/56 to number 1148 of Sri 5/58, 6/19, Ram Enterprises of 7/135 to Subhasish Dev at 7/139, 2/304 Central Bank of India, to 2/306, 8/15 Sakchi, Jamshedpur. & 10/5 40 Shri Satyadev Rai Truck No. BR17H 6715 was not used for transporting materials to Chaibasa in 1992- 93. 41 Shri Sunil Kumar Sachdeva Seizure of bank drafts 3/17, 4/63 to from Bank of 4/65 Maharastra, CP, New Delhi. 42 Shri Sugam Chand Jain Payment of bank 4/67 to 4/95, drafts in current 2/307 to account number 1292 2/318, 8/16 of Malik Enterprises, Delhi of Bijay Kumar Malik at PNB, Roshan Ara Branch, Delhi 43 Shri Sukendra Chandra Seizure of Bank drafts 3/18, 2 to Talapadda issued by SBI, 2/150 Chaibasa payable at Kolkata. 44 Shri Vishnudeo Narayan Singh Truk No. BIN 9556 was not hired by M/s Chottanagpur Cattle Feed for transportation of materials to Chaibasa. 45 Dr. Satish Chandra Srivastava No supply orders placed for purchase of veterinary medicines by AHD Chaibasa during 1992-93. 46 Shri Ajad Narayan Ojha Current A/c No. 3/19 to 3/21, 301135, 301147, 8/17 to 8/22 301032, 30966, and 4/156 to 30272, 301200 and 4/160, 5/59, 301161 maintained by 5/98, 7/220 to S/Shri Umesh Dubey, 7/266

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 141

Pramod Kumar Jaiswal, Rakesh Mehra, C.S.Dubey, B.P.Sinha, A.K.Verma and Shri Sanjay Sinha in the names of M/s Jai Bhandar & Supply, M/s Bhagat & Co., M/s Veeky Commercial, M/s Manisha Enterprises, M/s Little Oak Pharmacueticals and M/s Sanjay Sinha respectively at SBI, Doranda, Ranchi 47 Shri Devdas Goswami Preparation of bills for 14 to 14/194, M/s Chottanagpur 15 to 15/3 Veterinary Enterprises of Suresh Dubey 48 Md. Faiyaz Truck No. BPY 4379 was not hired by Manisha Enterprises for transporting material from Ranchi to Chaibasa during 1992-93 49 Shri Raghvendra Kishore Das Efforts of Shri Lalu 01/93-38/282, Prasad, Dr. R.K.Rana 38/271, and S.B.Sinha for 38/277, elevation of Dr. Ram 38/278, Raj Ram to the Post of 34/90, Director since July 38/276, 1989, fabrication of 38/277, allotment letters, 38/281, 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

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 142

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 S.B.Sinha through J.P.Verma. 50 Shri Ranjit Kumar Verma Seizure of bank draft 3/22, 2/319 from SBI, Muzzafarpur of M/s Bihar Cattle Food Agency, Muzzafarpur. 51 Shri Sachiddanad Sinha Payment of bank draft 4/161, 3/23, in the current A/c 8/23 No.44227 of M/s Bihar Cattle Feed Agency of Zaheed Hussain at SBI, Muzzafarpur. 52 Shri Sapan Kanti Guha Seizure of 08 Bank 3/24, 2/320 to darfts of M/s Little Oak 2/327 from SBI, Service Branch, Kolkata. 53 Shri Rameshwar Choudhary Receipt of payments 3/25, 4/162, of bank drafts in 4/163, 2/328, current A/c No. 233 of 8/24 M/s Roop Supply Company, Ranchi of Bimal Kumar Agarwal at Central Bank of India Sukhdeo Nagar, Ratu Road, Ranchi. 54 Shri Gautam Kumar Sarkar Seizure of 09 bank 3/26, 2/329 to drafts favouring M/s 2/337 Shakti Pharma Distributors, Bhagalpur from SBI, Main Branch, Bhagalpur.

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 143

55 Shri Tiwari Satyanarayan Seizure of 09 bank 3/26, 2/329 to Prasad drafts favouring M/s 2/337 Shakti Pharma Distributors, Bhagalpur from SBI, Main Branch, Bhagalpur. 56 Shri Raj Kumar Kedia False bill raised in the name of Naveketan Enterprises and Veekey Commercial for sale of Ground Nut Cake. 57 Shri Surendra Nath Maldaiyat Seizure of vouchers, 4/164 to account opening form 4/179 and and statement of 3/27, 8/25 accounts of M/s Shakti Pharma, Bhagalpur from Uninted Bank of India, Bhagalpur. 58 Shri Sushil Kumar Bhatia No borosil glass materials sold to M/s New India Enterprises, M/s Raman Surgico Medico Agency and M/s Samarpan Veterinary during 1990-96. 59 Shri Samir Kumar Ghosh Payment of bank 3/28, 4/175 to drafts in the current 4/179, 8/26, A/c No. 36708 of M/s 8/27 Ekta Veterinary Works Ranchi of Shri B.P.Sinha at United Bank of India, Ranchi. 60 Shri K. Unnikrishanan Seizure of cheques 3/29, 7/267 to from SBI, Doranda, 7/271 and Ranchi. 8/28 61 Gufran Ahmed Seizure of documents 3/30 relating to account of M/s Magadh Chemical Works of Smt. Chanchala Sinha, Patna from Punjab

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 144

National Bank, Boring Road, Patna. 62 Shri Asim Kumar Sarkar Seizure of account 3/32, 9/2, opening forms, 10/7, 5/99 to cheques, deposti slips 5/124, 7/272 and statement of to 7/384, accounts of current 4/181 to A/c No. 301106 & 4/187, 8/30, 301124 of M/s 8/32 Chottanagapur Cattle Feed Supply Company, Ranchi, A/c No. 9/301161 of M/s Sanjay Sinha, A/c No. 301032 of M/s Veekey Commercial Traders, Ranchi. 63 Shri Vinay Kumar Mishra No supply orders to 10/8, 4/188 to M/s Hindustan 4/202 Antibiotics was issued for supply of veterinary medicines to DAHO, Chaibasa during 1992-93. 64 Shri Anjan Sinha No supply orders to 3/34, 10/9, M/s Pfizer India Limited was issued for supply of veterinary medicines to DAHO, Chaibasa during 1992- 93. 65 Shri Darshan Lal Sahni Seizure of bank drafts 3/35 of M/s Semex Cryogenics and M/s Asian Breeders, Delhi from SBI Service Branch, Delhi. 66 Shri Nirmal Kumar Bajaj Receipt of payment in 3/37, 7/385, the current A/c No. 4/203, 4/204, 3188 of M/s Asian 8/33, 5/125 Breeders at Canara Bank, Rajori Garden, Delhi. 67 Shri K. Daniel No supply orders to 10/10

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 145

M/s Ranbaxy was issued for supply of veterinary medicines to DAHO, Chaibasa during 1992-93. 68 Shri Chandrashekhar Mishra Seizure of document 3/38, 5/126 to of current A/c No. 5/259, 7/386 2178 of M/s Mastrin to 7/595, 8/34 Pharma, current A/c to 8/36, 4/205 No. 407 of M/s Manas to 4/208, Sales Corporation, current A/c No. 107 of M/s Samarpan Veterinary and current A/c No. 457 of M/s Bihar Surgico Medico Agency, Patna at SBI, Main Branch, Patna. 69 Shri Vijay Krishna Nanda No supply orders to 4/213, 4/212 M/s Karnataka Antibiotics was issued for supply of veterinary medicines to DAHO, Chaibasa during 1992-93. 70 Shri Pradip Kumar Das Gupta Seizure of bank draft 6/20 to 6/506 purchase application from State Bank of India, Chaibasa prepared and submitted by DAHO, Chaibasa during 1992- 93 in the names of 48 suppliers. 71 Shri Vidya Bhushan Thakur Seizure of documents 10/11, 10/12, of current A/c No. 193 9/3, 9/4, 16, and 152 of M/s Semex 5/260 to Cryogenics Delhi of 5/264, 7/596 Shri M.S.Bedi from to 7/603, 8/38 Orintal Bank of Commerce, Delhi. 72 Shri Prem Kumar BHC powder not 3/39, 4/195 to supplied to AHD and 4/218 also to M/s Magadh Chemical

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 146

Corporation , Patna during 1992-93. 73 Shri T. Gopal Krishnan No supply orders to 4/219 to M/s Sharabhai 4/225 and Chemicals was issued 3/40 for supply of veterinary medicines to DAHO, Chaibasa during 1992-93. 74 Shri Jitendra Khara No supply orders to M/s Khara Chemical and Compound was issued for supply of Borocil Glass ware to DAHO, Chaibasa during 1992-93. 75 Shri Pramod Kumar Bhagat Air condition Amabasdor Car No. BR14D 4320 was taken from Shri Naresh Kumar Jain for Dhurv Bhagat. 76 Shri Sushil Kumar Bhatia No borosil glass materials sold to M/s New India Enterprises, M/s Raman Surgico Medico Agency and M/s Samarpan Veterinary during 1990-96. 77 Shri Chandra Prakash Sahay False receipts for 67 to 67/20 handing over budget files to PAC was prepared at the instruction of Ram Raj Ram, Dirctor but files were retained in Alimarah of Directorate with section officer Dr. R.K.Rana. 78 Dr. Shashi Kumar Singh Cash payments to Shri Vidya Sagar Nisadh, Bhola Ram Toofani, Beck Julious, R.K.Rana, Jagdish Sharma and others by Dr. S.B.Sinha for protection and patronage for not

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 147

causing enquiry into alleged payments from treasury. 79 Shri Lal Mohan Lal Rastogi Not supplied 17, 18 medicines of Indian Immunological Hyderabad to DAHO, Chaibasa during 1992- 93. 80 Shri Binay Kumar Singh Not transported 4/239 to materials for Seva 4/241 Medical Agency and Gauri Distributor to Chaiabasa during 1992-93 from Truck No. BPL 8282 81 Shri Manil Kr. Verma Receipt of payment in 3/43, 9/5, the current A/c No. 5/267, 7/604 591 of Magadh to 7/606 and Agency Patna of Shri 8/39 Rakesh Kumar at SBI, Rajapur Branch, Patna. 82 Shri Vijay Kumar Mishra Receipt of payment in 3/44, 9/6, the current A/c No. 4/242, 5/268 2048 of Shri Baba to 5/278, 8/40 Chemical Works, Patna of Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha at SBI, C&I Division, Main Branch Patna. 83 Shri Dinesh Chandra Receipt of payment in 3/45 to 3/48, Choudhary current A/c No. 459 of 10/15 to M/s Medivat of Sarad 10/16, 9/7, Kumar, Smt. Nirmala 16/1, 5/279 to Prasad and Smt. Anita 5/288, 7/607 Prasad partners at to 7/610, Allahabad Bank, 4/243, 8/41, Ranchi. 4/244, 8/42 84 Shri Ranjit Singh Vehicles booked by 22 to 22/14, accused A.K.Verma of 23 to 23/6 Little Oak for Shri A.C.Chaudhary through guide travels. 85 Shri Arun Kumar Mishra No order placed for 4/246 to supply of veterinary 4/248 medicines to DAHO, Chaibasa during 1992- 93 on M/s Concept Pharmaceuticals, Mumbai. Some of the

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 148

medicine shown supplied were not manufactured by his company. 86 Nand Lal Singh Sale Tax files of Malik 3/49, 1/58 Enterprises, Delhi. 87 Nirmal Kumar Jain No order placed for 10/17, 10/18, supply of veterinary 3/50, 3/51 medicines to DAHO, Chaibasa during 1992- 93 on M/s Animal Research Centre, Jaipur. 88 Dr. Hriday Shankar Sinha Split supply orders 24, 25, 25/1 were prepared at to 25/15, 1/58 instruction of Dr. to 1/61 K.M.Prasad, Dr. K.N.Jha and others for supply of feed to DAHO Chaibasa during 1992-93. 89 Amarendra Kumar Jha Borocil Glass products were not supplied by him to DAHO, Chaibasa during 1992- 93. 90 Gopal Prasad Shukla False supply orders 26, 24/1, were prepared for 25/16 to supply of veterinary 25/32 medicines from the office of R.D, Ranchi for supply to DAHO, Chaibasa during 1992- 93. The veterinary medicines manufacturing company denied to have received any supply orders or payments from AHD. 91 Sunil Kumar No order for supply of Borocil Glass ware placed by DAHO, Chaibasa during 1992- 93. 92 Narendra Kumar Jha No order for supply of Borocil Glass ware placed by DAHO, Chaibasa during 1992- 93.

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 149

93 Krishna Prasad Registered letters of 27 AG, Bihar were delivered to the office of secretary AHD. 94 Nagina Thakur Registered letters of 27/1, 27/2 AG, Bihar were delivered to the office of secretary AHD. 95 Gyani Ram Jain Prepared false bills for Malik Enterprises on commission without supplying ground nut cake. 96 Bijay Kumar Gupta Prepared false bills for 3/52, 3/53 Malik Enterprises on commission without supplying ground nut cake. 97 Amiyo Kumar Chakraborty No supply orders 10/19, 10/20 placed on M/s Brihance Lab, Kolkata for supply of veterinary medicines by DAHO, Chaibasa during 1992-93. 98 Umesh Kumar Sinha No supply orders 10/21 to placed on M/s 10/24 Karanataka Antibiotic, Banglore for supply of veterinary medicines by DAHO, Chaibasa during 1992-93. 99 Rambali Jha 230 cattles in cattle form at Saraikela, Mustard Oil, Besan, Molasses etc never received in the store. Cattle feed in much lesser quantity were supplied to animals. 100 Jitendra Prasad Payments taken by 3/54, 3/55, Shri Ranjeet Mishra in 9/8, 28, 29, current A/c No. 4/202 16/2, 5/16, at Allahabad Bank, 6/507 to Patliputra Colony, 6/522, 7/616 Patna. to 7/644

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 150

101 Naresh Kumar Singh Payment in the 3/66, 16/3, current A/c No. 726 of 8/44 to 8/46, M/s Baishnaw 5/14, 5/27, Enterprises 9/10 to 9/11, partnership firm of 16/4, 16/5, Dayanand Prasad 32 Kashyap, Smt. Kalashmani Kashyap and B.K.Sahu, current A/c No. 759 of M/s Navketan Enterprises partnership firm of Shri Jagmohan Lal Kakkar and Smt. Jyoti Kakkar, current A/c No. 647 of Veekay Commercial Traders of Smt. Kailash Mehra and Rajesh Mehra at Punjab National Bank, Argora Branch, Ranchi. 102 Ajit Kumar Srivastava Dr. S.B.Sinha used to obtain figures of expenditure of AHD received from the office of Accountant General personally or through Tripurari Mohan Prasad.On some occasions, he has visited Hotel Patliputra to supply the figures of expenditure to Dr. S.B.Sinha. In the hotel Patliputra he used to find Dr. Ram Raj Ram, Dr. R.K.Rana, Dr. Sashi Kumar Singh in the room of Dr. S.B.Sinha. He had acess to such information, as he was private secretary to the finance commissioner during 1992-93. 103 Miss Jayanti Jha Purchase of Air tickets 33 to 33/32, of Lalu Prasad, Mukul 34, 34/1 Prasad, P.K.Rai and

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 151

Biswas, P.R.Rai, Mr. M.S.Biswas, S.N.Biswas, R.K.Rana, Hema, Chanda, Rohani, Rajlaxmi, Tejpratap, Dhanu and Tarun of Sahara Airlines from M/s Rajshree Tour & Travel Agency, Bali Road, Patna. 104 Dutta V. Joshi Transactions in current 3/57, 9/12, A/c No. 461of M/s Q- 10/25 to Max Lab Pvt. Ltd. at 10/27, 6/523 Bank of Baroda, to 6/535, Ranchi, Shri Sharad 8/47, 8/48 Kumar and Smt. Seema Sharad Kumar are Directors of M/s Q- Max Lab. 105 Kul Prakash Srivastava Seizure of copy of the 3/58, X/2 buff sheet sent by Chief Controler of Accounts to Additional Finance Commissioner. 106 P.K.Panigrahi Non existence of the manufacturing unit of mineral mixture without salt in the name of M/s Baishnaw Enterprises at Subash Chowk, Khunti during the relevant period. 107 Bidhu Bhushan Dwedi Submitted a report to 68 to 68/4 DG, Vigilance against fraudulent payments made from treasuries to the contractors of AHD on 25.05.92 and also on 27.05.92. Involvement of Dr. K.N.Jha, Dr. S.B.Sinha, Dr. K.M.Prasad, Dr. C.B.Dubey, Contractor S.K.Mehra, Jagmohan Lal Kakkar, Sanjay Sinha and others were mentioned in the reports submitted.

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 152

108 Miss N. Jacob Dr. S.B.Sinha was 3/58, 35, shown as local 35/1, 35/2, guardian of Miss 91/4, 91/5 Ragani, Miss Rohani and Miss Chanda all daughters of Lalu Prasad in the school admission form of Bishop Westcott Girls School, Namkum, Ranchi as on 22.04.93. 109 Stephan Lucus In the budget file 36 to 36/10 figures of actual expenditure of AHD non plan were mentioned as under:- FY Actual Expenditure in Rs. 1991-92 117,60,13000/- 1992-93 143,24,60000/- 1993-94 191,24,68000/- The SRF files disclose surrender of following amounts:- FY Amounts surrendered 1993-94 Rs. 41,60,925/- 1994-95 Rs. 13,88,23,125/- 1995-96 Rs. 46,538/- 110 Dharmaraj Pandey Finance department 36/11, 36/12, objected to the 10/28, 10/29 proposal of extension in service of accused Dr. S.B.Sinha and accused R.K.Das. 111 Susanto Kumar Das Gupta Miss Ragini, Miss 37, 37/1 to Rajlaxmi, Miss Rohani, 37/3 Miss Dhunu, Tarun and Tejpratap had traveled by flight No. S2-15 of Sahara Airlines on 22.10.1995 from Delhi to Patna. 112 Prasanjeet Barooah Rooms in hotel Taj 38 to 38/30 Bengal at Kolkata were booked by

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 153

accused Dipesh Chandak in the name of Dr. R.K.Rana and others. Also payments for the booking were made by Dipesh Chandak. 113 Suresh Chandra Choudhary File containing audit 39 objection of the office of Regional Director AHD, Ranchi was received in CM secretriate on15.11.90. 114 Ramanand Prasad Singh File containing audit 39 objection of the office of Regional Director AHD, Ranchi was received in CM secretriate on15.11.90. 115 Shailendra Kumar Files containing 36/13 to questiones raised in 36/26 Bihar Legislative Assembly and Council on fraudulent payments of AHD and misleading replies denining any fraud preapred and sent by AHD Directorate to the council during 1990-1995. 116 Mahangu Lal Azad Aforesaid files 36/11 to prepared by him. 36/20 117 Surendra Kumar Jalan Gold purchased by 40/1 to 40/16 Dipesh Chandak in the year 1993 and sent to RBI for purchase of gold bonds from RBI, Kolkata. 118 Birendra Pd. Ambastha Complaint files 36/27 to maintained in the 36/45 Vigilance Cell of the Directorate of AHD, Patna from 1987 to 1996. Complaints with allegations relating to the fraudulent payments against the

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 154

accused public servants of AHD were in the knowledge of AHD Directorate during the period of alleged offences. 119 Dr. Dukhit Ram Feed, fodder were not received on transfer from Ranchi to Chaibasa and vis a versa. Also equipments for artificial insemination were not supplied by DAHO, Chaibasa during 1992-93. 120 Anil Kumar Mehta Complaint of Ram 39/2, 39/3, Saran Yadav, Member 39/4 Lok Sabha alleging fraudulent payments in AHD and involvement of Dr. S.B.Sinha was received in the office of secretary AHD on 16.10.93 and the said file was also sent to State Minister of AHD. 121 Dr.Gyanendra Kumar Supply orders for 25/33 to Srivastava purchase of huge 25/46, 41 to quantities of feed, 41/6244, 1/4 veterinary medicine to 1/57 and instruments were prepared without indents to be supplied to DAHO, Chaibasa during 1992-93 at the recommendation of Dr. K.M.Prasad, Dr. S.B.Sinha and under the signature of Dr. K.N.Jha of AHD, Ranchi. 122 Shri Sushil Kumar Mangla Manufacturing 10/30 company of M/s Seemex Cryogenic of Sastri Nagar, Delhi was not registered with Central Excise, Delhi. Manufacturing

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 155

unit of artificial insemination of instruments having more than Rs. 30 lacs sale are supposed to be registered. 123 Shri Gopal Ji Srivastava Details of stay at Bihar 10/31, 10/32 Bhawan in respect of accused Jagdish Sharma and others during the period of alleged offence. 124 Shri Ravindra Kumar Details of IT raids, 42 to 42/61, appraisals and 43/1 to 43/14, assesment of accused 44 to 44/7 K.M.Prasad, D.P.Kashap, Sanjay Sinha and others during the period 1992 to 1994. 125 Shri Girish Chand Mishra Call details of land line 10/33 numbers of accused S.B.Sinha and others of Ranchi for the period of alleged offences. 126 Shri Pravin Kumar Basu Budget estimate files 36/46 of AHD for the year 1991-92. 127 Shri Anjani Kumar Singh Meeting to review 36/45 excess withdrawal from treasury March 1993 was held in June 1993 in which excess withdrawal from Chaibasa treasury by AHD was questioned by Shri Lalu Prasad. Shri Sajal Chakarvorty, DC, Chaibasa justified the withdrawals as per rule. 128 Shri Mahesh Kumar Furnished false bills for supply of ground nut cake in the name of Mallik Enterprises, Delhi on commission. 129 Shri Ishwar Jain Furnished false bills 3/59 for supply of ground nut cake in the name

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 156

of Mallik Enterprises, Delhi on commission. 130 Shri Ram Niwas Jain Furnished false bills 3/60 for supply of ground nut cake in the name of Mallik Enterprises, Delhi on commission. 131 Shri Dushyant Kumar In the sale tax return 3/61, 3/62, file maintained at sale 1/59 tax department, Delhi, M/s Indian Lab, Delhi has shown nill sale tax during the year 1992- 93. 132 Shri Naresh Kumar Jain Registration, Sale & 100 to 100/5 Insurance Certificate of Amabsdor Car given to accused Dhurv Bhagat by accused S.B.Sinha and Rajesh Mehra in the year 1995. 133 Shri Ranjit Singh Bank Account of M/s 9/13, 8/53 Jilan Roadways of accused Md. Sayeed maintained at Bank of India, Club Side, Branch, Ranchi. 134 Shri Rahul Singh Payment for the Air 21/182 to tickets in the name of 21/185 Dr. K.N.Jha, B.Bhushan, V.Nisadh, Jagdish Sharma, R.K.Rana, Ram Raj Ram, R.K.Das, D.P.Kashyap, M.C.Subarno, Vijay Mallik, K.M.Prasad have been made from the account of M/s Jilian Roadways of accused Md. Sayeed @ Master Saheb of Ranchi. 135 Shri Sheo Kumar Singh Fake bills of M/s Badri 1 to 1/125 Narayan & Company, M/s Chottanagpur Cattle Feed Supply Company, M/s Navketan Enterprises,

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 157

M/s Veekey Commercial Traders, M/s S.N.Singh & Brothers, M/s Vaishnav Enterprises, M/s Bhagat & Company, M/s Angil Medicom, M/s Samarpan Veterinary Enterprises, M/s Bihar Surgico Medico Agency, M/s Indian Lab, M/s Little Oak Pharmacecuticals, M/s Birsa Live Feed and Additive, M/s Manas Sales Corporation, M/s Q- Max Lab, M/s Shri Baba Chemical, M/s Shakti Pharma Distributors, M/s Krishna Traders, M/s A.Traders, M/s Satyendra Construction Company, M/s Mallik Enterprises, M/s Medivat, M/s Ekta Veterinary Works, M/s Seva Medical Agency, M/s Care & Cure, M/s Manisha Enterprises M/s Semex Cryogenics, M/s Asian Breeders and others were passed by Dr. B.N.Sharma, Dr. Ram Prakash Ram and Late Dr. C.P.Sharma. Materials were shown received and taken in stock by Late Dr. G.P.Tripathi, Dr. Arjun Sharma, Late Dr. D.Dorai. 136 Shri Kesheri Kishor Srivastava List of suppliers of 36/47, 36/48, veterinary medicines 10/30, 24/1 was approved by the Chief Minister and Finance Minister in the

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 158

year 1991. DAHO was authorised to pass bills for purchase of feed, fodder and medicines upto Rs. 5000/- and Regional Director was authorised to pass bills upto Rs. 15000/- in terms of order of the government. 137 Shri Vijay Shankar Dubey Noticed huge excess 70 to 70/67 withdrawals from the civil accounts of AHD sent by AG and order for enquiry. 138 Shri Brandon Claudyus Flight manifest of Singapore Airlines from Kolkata to Singapore dated 09.12.94 disclosing names of Dr. S.B.Sinha and his family members and Chandak. 139 Shri Shrideo Singh Purchase of Airtickets 19/168 and from Indus Travel 19/178 Ranchi for Sajal Chakarvorty, Bijay Mallik, O.P.Diwakar, K.Aru Mugam, Dr. K.N.Jha for which payments made by Md. Sayeed. 140 Sheo Kumar Patwari Feeds not transported from AHD, Ranchi to AHD, Dumka during 1992-93. 141 Phuleshwar Paswan Budget estimates and 70 to 70/67 Revised budget of AHD from 1991 to 1996 (BT 125/91, 110/92, 113/93, 114/93, 55/89, 55/91) 142 Shri Prakash Keshav Preparation of budget 36/49 to and regulation on 36/62 expenditure imposed by Govt. 143 Shri Ram Jiwan Singh Recommended for CBI 36/64 enquiry into the

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 159

payment on receipt of test audit report from AG, Ranchi. The enquiry was subsequently made over to PAC and was shifted from AHD to other department as cabinet minister. V.S.Nisad was made cabinet minister of AHD. 144 Shri Biplab Sengupta Medicine shown 10/31, 45, supplied by M/s Little Oak Pharmacueticals, Kolkata are human medicines. 145 Shri Rustam Ali Accused R.K.Rana, 10/33 to Jagdish Sharma and 10/35 others used Usha make Mobile Phones for communicating while lodged in Beur Jail at Patna to others. 146 Dr. Sarat Chandra Tugunait Supply orders not 10/36 received by M/s Ciba Geigy Limited from AHD Ranchi during 1992-93. 147 Shri Anil Singh Details of investment 10/37 with JVG Finance Limited. 148 Shri Arun Kumar Singh Seizure of reports of 72 to 72/3 Niwedan Sametee of Vidhan Sabha. 149 Shri Shailesh Prasad Singh Non supply, Distribution of fraudulent payment at the ratio of 80:20 between officers and suppliers. Payments Rs. 10 lacs paid to Rajo Singh for securing stay on transfer of accused B.N.Sharma from Chaibasa in June 1993 following enquiry on allegation of fraudulent

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 160

withdrawals of Rs. 50 lacs from Chaibasa treasury in March 1993. The stay order on transfer was passed by co-accused Lalu Prasad. 150 Shri Tilak Raj Gauri Variation in allocated 72 to 72/3 budget and expenditure of AHD from 1985-86 to 1993- 94 and also fraudulent expenditures were shown in the forecast of 5 year plan prepared in Finance Department in the year 1993-94. 151 Shri Gangadhar Giri Prepared replies for questions raised in legislature on behalf of Finance Department. The replies were approved by Senior Officers. Replied to the question by Chatarpati Munda was prepared by him. 152 Shri Ravi Shankar Kumar File for extension of 73 to 73/1 Sinha service after retirement of Dr. S.B.Sinha on recommendation of Dr. Jagannath Mishra was prepared by him on 05.12.93. 153 Shri Ram Jatan Singh Order on stay of 74 to 74/1 transfer of Dr. B.N.Sharma was passed by Shri Lalu Prasad on the letter of Shri Rajo Singh dated 15.07.93. He mentioned in the file that Dr. Sharma was transferred on administrative grounds following allegation of

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 161

fraudulent withdrawals of Rs. 50 lacs from Chaibasa Treasury in March 1993. 154 Shri Jayant Kumar Jaiswal Air tickets of Sahar 33 to 33/22, Airlines issued by M/s 34, 34/1 Rajshri Tour & Travels, Patna. 155 Shri Atam Prakash Manglani Stay of T.M.Prasad and 75 to 75/13 Umesh Singh in hotel Marina, New Delhi payment made by accused Bijay Mallik. 156 Shri S.P.Choudhary Sale Tax file of Asian 36/65, & Breeders, Delhi of 36/66 Smt. Madhu Mehta and Harish Kumar both partners 157 Smt. Chandrawati Natrajan Seizure of school 3/67 admission forms 158 Shri R.I.Thorton Purpose of writing names of local guardians on admission forms to contact them in case of emergency. 159 Shri Arun Kumar Raina Report of 10th Finance 36/77 & 4/249 Commission on distribution of sharing in Central Taxes and duties among states and also aids to state for 5 years. 160 Shri Sayed Tanwir Ahmed Air tickets in the 33 t o 33/179 names of accused persons sold from Patliputra Travel Agency to J.P.Verma. 161 Shri Suryakant Prasad Suraj Mentioned the name 35/2 to 35/4 of Md. Illias as referee on the school admission form of Ragini, Rohani and Chanda all daughters of Lalu Prasad at Bishopcott School, Ranchi on being asked by Md. Sayeed of Ranchi.

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 162

162 Smt. Poonam Singh Rohani, Ragini and Hema all daughters of Lalu Prasad studied at Bishopcott School, Ranchi during 1993. 163 Shri Vivek Kumar Reports of RBI on 36/67, 36/68 payments made from different treasuries were compiled in finance department of Govt. of Bihar. (BT 6193) 164 Shri A.K.Chugh Revised budget for 36/69 1991-92 and budget estimate for 1992-93. AHD has not furnished enhancement of budget. 165 Shri Krishna Mohan Prasad Vigilance file BS – 2394 received in CM secreteriate on 05.07.94. The file was endorsed to Chief Minister by Shri A.K. Basak then Chief Secretary. The file was cleared by Chief Minister on 02.02.96. 166 Shri Vijay Kumar File on enquiry of 3/68 & 3/69, complain regarding 36/61, 36/71 delivery of 3 registered letters of AG to secretary AHD by postmen Nagina Thakur and Krishna Pandit. 167 Shri Dinesh Prasad Measurement of store 46 to 46/3 of polutry farm of Chaibasa and cattle forms Saraikela both under control of DAHO, Chaibasa. 168 Shri Santosh Kumar Verma Measurement of store 46 to 46/3 of polutry farms of Chaibasa and cattle forms Saraikela both under control of DAHO, Chaibasa. 169 Shri Bharteshwar Narayan Lal Treasury advice for 48 Das payment was

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 163

prepared at Chaibasa treasury under orders of Shri Silas Tirkey, treasury officer, Chaibasa. 170 Shri Deva Nand Sinha Allotment for purchase of feed and medicine to DAHO, Chaibasa during 1992-93 was Rs. 7,10,000/-. Rs. 247500/- was for purchase of materials, Rs. 450000/- for purchase of feed and fodder and Rs. 12500/- for purchase of machine and equipments. 171 Shri Bhuwan Chandra Joshi Payments for stay of 49 to 49/15 co-conspirators at hotel Akshay Palace and Sobti, Delhi were made by accused Bijay Mallik. 172 Shri Shyam Chandra Mishra Feed suplements with 1/126, 1/127, false batch number 2/320 to were mentioned in the 2/327 bills of M/s Little Oak. The materials shown supplied were prepared on loan licence from M/s Treatment Home Products. Bills to DAHO, Chaibasa and other offices were delivered by him on behalf of M/s Little Oak. 173 Shri Shyam Shankar Dubey Correspondence 3/70, 36/71, seeking justification of 7/128 expenditure incurred during March 1993 from all the District Magistrate of the state at the instruction of Lalu Prasad available in the file number M 4/92 and also in the guard file.

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 164

174 Shri Indu Bhushan Pathak Complaint on 36/72 fraudulent payments received from Shri Ram Saran Yadav, MP, Lok Sabha was received in the office of secretary from CVC. The complaint file was shown to Shri Mahesh Prasad, secretary and Late Bhola Ram Tufani and Late Chandradev Prasad Verma both ministers of AHD in the year 1993. 175 Shri Arvind Kumar Mehta Correspondence made 3/71, 36/73 to by AG with finance 36/75 department seeking treasury accounts for preparation of accounts of the state govt. 176 Shri Kamelesh Kumar Complaint files 36/78 to relating to fraudulent 36/82, 50 to payments in AHD 50/16, (1990), received in the state 50/17 to vigilance head quarter 50/33 (1991), of the govt. from 1990 50/41 to to 1997. Vigilance 50/61 (1992), clearance issued to 50/62 to the officers of AHD by 50/91 (1993), Vigilance Department 50/92 to for promotion. Only 50/113 one case 34/90 (1994), relating to fraudulent 50/114 to payments in AHD was 50/122 investigated by State (1995), Vigilance from 1990 to 50/123 to 1996. 50/126(1996), 50/127 & 50/128 (1997), 50/129 to 50/166, 50/167 to 50/171, 50/174, 51 to 51/12 177 Shri M. Ramesh Investigation of the 10/38 to case from March 1997 10/70, 3/72 to

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 165

to March 1999. 3/76, 10/154 to 10/174 178 Shri A.K.Sinha Call details of land line 54, 54/1 to No. 501500 and 54/5, 55, 56, 501435 of S.B.Sinha 55/1, 57, 58 at Ranchi and land to 58/9, 59, line number 307832 of 18/255, 63 to Md. Sayeed of Ranchi 63/6, 65, 66 and of accused Dayanand Kashyap, Sanjay Sinha and others. 179 Shri Sheobalak Choudhary Files on posting of Dr. 36/83 to Ram Raj Ram 36/88, 36/12, complain of Dr. 36/11, K.M.Prasad and file on 10/176, question raised in 10/177 legislative assembly and other files relating to fraudulent payments. Details of requirement of feed and fodder in the poultary and cattle farm under DAHO, Chaibasa during 1992- 93 and letter of secretary on verification of allotment letters sent to DAHO, Chaibasa during 1992-93 for purchase of feed, fodder, veterinary medicines, instruments and equipments. 180 Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma Investigated the case 3/85 from 15.11.96 to 03.03.97. 181 Shri Layak Singh Conducted part 3/86 to 3/99 investigation in this case. 182 Shri Captain Mahendra Prasad Cattle farm at Sah Saraikela and Poultary farm at Chaibasa were under administrative control of DAHO, Chaibasa. DAHO was to purchase feed,

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 166

fodder, medicine and insturments from list of suppliers approved by Central Purchase Committee of the Government at approved rate and payments also were to be made to those suppliers. 183 Shri Ashok Kaikar M/s Indian Lab, Delhi 4/29, 4/30 manufactured human medicines and had no office at Patna. 184 Shri Ramayan Pandey Sanction for 52 prosecution against accused Sajal Chakarvorty issued by State Government. 185 Shri Jeevan Kumar Sinha Sanction for 53 proseuction against accused Lalu Prasad, Jagannath Mishra, Chandra Dev Prasad Verma, Vidhysagar Nisad, Phool Chand Singh, Mahesh Prasad issued under the orders of His Excellency, Governer of Bihar. 186 Shri Ram Nath Prasad Sanction for 52/7 to 52/9 prosecution against accused Dr. K.M.Prasad, Dr. K.N.Jha, Braj Bhushan Prasad and Silas Tirkey. 187 Shri Vidyadhar Pandey Recorded statement of 34 Subodh Chandra Verma on 01.05.98, Hirdaysankar Sinha on 23.03.98, Raj Kumar Kedia, Shri Ram Sundi and Shri Ram Bali Jha on 24.03.98 under section 164 Cr.P.C. 188 Shri Sadanand Singh Sanction for 52/10, 52/11 prosection against accused Rajo Singh.

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 167

189 Shri Anjani Kumar Verma Recorded statement of 24/7 to 24/9 accused Sushil Kumar Jha. 190 Shri Bramaha Dev Singh Seizure of cash and 3/101 incriminating documents from the residence of accused Late S.B.Sinha at Ranchi on 13.05.99. 191 Shri Sameer Rai Seizure of cash and 3/102 incriminating documents from the residence of Alok Kumar Sinha S/o accused Late S.B.Sinha at Ranchi on 14.05.99. 192 Shri Kapil Kumar Seizure of cash and 3/102 incriminating documents from the residence of Alok Kumar Sinha S/o accused Late S.B.Sinha at Ranchi on 14.05.99. 193 Shri Saiyad Hasib Seizure of cash and 3/102 incriminating documents from the residence of Alok Kumar Sinha S/o accused Late S.B.Sinha at Ranchi on 14.05.99. 194 Shri D.B.Singh Seizure of documents 3/103 from office of RD, Ranchi in RC46(A)/96 susbsequently transferred to this case during investigation. 195 Shri Jai Ram Prasad Furnished details of 10/176/1 to cattles and poultaries 10/176/3 in the farms under control of DAHO, Chaibasa during 1992- 93. 196 Shri Binod Kumar Questions on 60, 60/1 to fraudulent payments 60/6 raised in legislature and misleading replies

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 168

sent by department to such questions. 197 Shri Anil Kumar Das Monthly accounts of Chaibasa treasury sent to the office of AG. 198 Shri Jai Ram Pd. Verma Purchased Airtickets 61 as and when asked by Dr. S.B.Sinha for co- conspirators. His statement recorded by Magistrates during investigation. 199 Shri A.K.Jha Registration of FIR at 62, 62/1, CBI, Patna and 3/104 to submission of 3/120, 10/196 chargesheet. to 10/205, 63 Requistion for to 63/2, 64, vouchers to AG, 65 Ranchi. 200 Shri D.P.Khatri Sanction for 52/12 prosecution against K.Arumugam, Sajal Chakarvorty and Mahesh Prasad issued on behalf of His Excellency President of India. 201 Shri V.G.S. Bhatnagar Opinion on question 66 to 66/8 signature by the handwriting expert as required by the IOs. 202 Shri D.N.Biswas Investigation during from March 1999 to Decemeber 2001. 203 Shri B.K.Singh Submitted Supplementary chargesheet against Rajo Singh.

SI.No. Description Exhibit No 1. Guard Files 1 2. Bank Drafts 2 3. Seizure Memo 3 4. Signatures 4 5. Pay in slips 5

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 169

6. Draft application form 6 7. Cheques 7 8. Statement of Account 8 9. Account opening form 9 10. Letter 10 11. List 11 12. Credit Advice List 12 13. Transfer voucher bank 13 14. Suppliers bills 14 15. Money receipts 15 16. Specimen signature only 16 17. Consighnment 17 18. Invoices 18 19. File 36 20. Passenger menifest of Sahara India Airlines 37 21. Bills of Hotel & Registration 38 22. File movement register 39 23. Application for gold bond 40 24. Supply orders 41 25. Warrant of authorization of Income Tax 42 26. Panchnama 43 27. Apprisal report 44 28. Agreement 45 29. Godwan measurement 46 30. Sketch of mep 47 31. Treasury Advice 48 32. Hotel Register & Bill Books 49 33. Copy of complain petition of vigilance 50 34. Register of vigilance 51 35. Sanction 52 36. Forwarding letter 53 37. ftyk Ik’kqikyu dk;kZy; pkbcklk dk o"kZ 1992&93 dk vkiwfrZ 1 vkns’k la[;k layXu ,d xkMZ QkbZyA

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 170

38. Guard file of the O/o DAHO Chaibasa 1/1 containing supply orders & bills. 39. One guard file of the O/o DAHO Chaibasa 1/2 92-93 containing supply orders and bills. 40. One guard file of the O/o DAHO Chaibasa 1/3 containing supply orders and bills. 41. One guard file of the O/o DAHO Chaibasa 1/4 containing supply orders and bills. 42. One guard file of the O/o DAHO Chaibasa 1/5 containing supply orders and bills. 43. One guard file of the O/o DAHO Chaibasa 1/6 92-93 containing supply orders and bills. 44. One guard file of the O/o DAHO Chaibasa 1/7 92-93 containing supply orders and bills. 45. One guard file of the O/o DAHO Chaibasa 1/8 92-93 containing supply orders and bills. 46. One guard file of the O/o DAHO Chaibasa 1/9 92-93 containing supply orders and bills. 47. One bunch of bills & supply orders issued 1/10 to M/s Badri Narayan & Co. 48. 13 guard files of the office of DAHO 1/11 to 1/23 Chaibasa containing bills and supply orders. 49. 15 guard files of the office of DAHO 1/24 to 1/38 Chaibasa containing bills and supply orders. 50. One guard file of the O/o DAHO Chaibasa 1/39 92-93 containing supply orders and bills. 51. One guard file of the O/o DAHO Chaibasa 1/40 92-93 containing supply orders and bills. 52. One guard file of the O/o DAHO Chaibasa 1/41 92-93 containing supply orders and bills. 53. One guard file of the O/o DAHO Chaibasa 1/42 92-93 containing supply orders and bills. 54. One guard file of the O/o DAHO Chaibasa 1/43 92-93 containing supply orders and bills. 55. One guard file of the O/o DAHO Chaibasa 1/44 92-93 containing supply orders and bills. 56. One guard file of the O/o DAHO Chaibasa 1/45 92-93 containing supply orders and bills. 57. One guard file of the O/o DAHO Chaibasa 1/46 92-93 containing supply orders and bills. 58. One guard file of the O/o DAHO Chaibasa 1/47 92-93 containing supply orders and bills. 59. One guard file of the O/o DAHO Chaibasa 1/48 + 1/55 92-93 containing supply orders and bills.

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 171

60. One guard file of the O/o DAHO Chaibasa 1/56 92-93 containing supply orders and bills. 61. One guard file of the O/o DAHO Chaibasa 1/57 92-93 containing supply orders and bills of M/s Quality Chemical. 62. 149 Bank drafts of SBI Chaibasa in favour 2 to 2/148 of Shri Badri Narayan & Co., Kolkata. 63. 02 Bank drafts of Chaibasa in favour of M/s 2/149 to 2/150 Quality Chemical Supply. 64. Seizure memo dated 26.03.98 by which 3 documents seized by Shri O.P.Sharma, CBI from Jagjit Rai. 65. Signature of Jagjit Rai on xerox copy of 4 account opening form of M/s Jai Bhandar & Co. in PNB. 66. Xerox copy of specimen signature and C/A Marked X for 119 of Jai Bhandar & Co. in PNB. identification 67. Pay in slip dated 16.10.92 PNB by which 5 deposited in A/c of M/s Jai Bhandar & Co. 68. 02 Bank drafts 922131 & 922132 of SBI 2/151 & 2/152 Chaibasa issued in favour of M/s Jai Bhandar & Co. 69. 02 draft applications form of PNB by which 6 to 6/1 drafts issued to form of Umesh Dubey. 70. 02 cheques of PNB issued through of M/s 7 to 7/1 Jai Bhandar. 71. Certified copy of statement of M/s Jai 8 Bhandar. 72. Seizure memo dated 21.04.98 by which 3/1 documents seized by Shri Ramesh, DSP, CBI. 73. Signature of V.S.Mishra xerox copy of A/c 4/1 opening form of M/s A Traders. 74. Signature of V.S.Mishra xerox copy of 4/2 specimen signature of above account of M/s A. Traders. 75. Signature of V.S.Mishra xerox copy of pay 4/3 to 4/7 in slip of pass by which of M/s A.Traders. 76. 04 Bank drafts of SBI Chaibasa issued in 2/153 to 2/156 favour of M/s A.Traders. 77. Certified xerox copy of statement of A/c in 8/1 PNB of M/s A.Traders. 78. Seizure memo dated 11.03.98 by which 3/2 documents seized by M.Ramesh DSP, CBI. 79. Signature of PW S.M.Prasad and xerox 4/8 copy of A/c opening form of M/s Bhagat &

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 172

Co. 80. Signature of PW S.M.Prasad and xerox 4/9 copy of specimen signature. 81. Signature of PW S.M.Prasad and four xerox 4/10 to 4/13 copy of pay in slip of OBC which amount deposited in account. 82. 04 Bank draft of SBI Chaibasa issued in 2/157 to 2/160 favour of M/s Bhagat & Co. 83. Signature of PW S.M.Prasad xerox copy of 4/14 draft application passed by Manager. 84. Signature of PW S.M.Prasad and xerox 4/15 copy of cheque issued by A/c 929 of Bhagat & Co. 85. Certified xerox copy of the statement of 8/2 A/c No. 929 of M/s Bhagat & Co in OBC. 86. Seizure Memo dated 17.03.98 by which 8/3 document seized by Shri M.Ramesh, DSP from Abhijit Bhatacharya. 87. Copy of the A/c opening form of A/c No. X/1 104 of Manisha Enterprises. 88. 06 Bank drafts of 869 Chaibasa issued in 2/161 to 2/166 favour of M/s Manisha Enterprises, Ranchi. 89. Copy of the statement of Current A/c No. X/2 104 of Manisha Enterprises. 90. Seizure Memo dated 02.04.98 by which 3/4 document seized by Shri M.Ramesh, DSP from Abhijit Bhatacharya. 91. Seignature of A.Bhatacharya on xerox copy 4/17 of A/c opening form cum specimen signature card of A/c No. 173 of Swarn Rekha Medical Agency. 92. Bank draft of SBI, Chaibasa in favour of 2/167 Swarn Rekha Medical Agency. 93. Signature of PW A.Bhatacharya on xerox 4/18 copy of Pay in slip by which amount deposited in A/c No. 173 of Swarn Rekha Medical Agency. 94. Certifiex xerox copy of statement of A/c 8/3 No. 173 of Swarn Rekha Medical Agency, Ranchi. 95. Seizure Memo dated 20.06.97 by which 3/5 document seized by Shri M.Ramesh, DSP from Abhijit Bhatacharya. 96. Xerox copy of signature cum A/c opening X/3 form of Baishnav Enterprises, Ranchi.

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 173

97. Signature of PW A.Bhatacharya on xerox 4/19 to 4/21 copy of Pay in slip of SBI by which amount deposited in A/c No. 153 of Baishnav Enterprises, Ranchi. 98. 11 Bank draft of SBI, Chaibasa issued in 2/168 to 2/178 favour of M/s Baishnav Enterprises, Ranchi. 99. Certifiex xerox copy of the statement of 8/4 A/c No. 153 of Baishnav Enterprises, Ranchi. 100. Seizure Memo dated 17.03.98 by which 3/6 documents seized by Shri M.Ramesh, DSP from S.Prasad. 101. Seignature of R.Jha on copy of A/c opening 4/22 form of A/c No. 818 of M/s Bhagat & Co. Central Bank, Ranchi. 102. Seignature of R.Jha on xerox copy of A/c 4/23 opening form and specimen signature card of above account. 103. Xerox copy of pay in slip dated 18.12.92 of X/4 SBI by which amount deposited in A/c No. 818. 104. Xerox copy of pay in slip of Central Bank X/5 prepared by Bhagat & Co. 105. Bank draft 922294 of SBI Chaibasa issued 2/179 in favour of M/s Bhagat & Co. 106. Seizure memo dated 25.03.88 by which 3/7 documents seized by M.Ramesh, DSP. 107. Certified xerox copy of statement of A/c 8/5 from ledger from 09.10.92 to 29.01.96. 108. Seignature of A.K.Singh, Branch Manager 4/24 on the xerox copy of pay in slip by which amount deposited for opening of account. 109. Four Bank drafts of SBI issued in favour of 2/180 to 2/183 Shakti Pharma, Bhagalpur. 110. Pay in slip dated 22.03.93 and 10.03.93 of 5/1 & 5/2 Bank of Baroda, Bhagalpur by which amount deposited by Shakti Pharma, Bhagalpur. 111. Certified xerox copy of statement of 8/6 Account of current A/c No. 962 of Triputi Agency in OBC. 112. Seizure memo dated 10.03.98 by which 3/8 document seized by Shri M. Ramesh, DSP, CBI from S.K.Deb. 113. Signature of PW S.K.Deb on xerox copy of 4/25

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 174

account opening form of A/c No. 348 of Swastik Drug Agency in Central Bank of India. 114. Two Pay in slips of Central Bank of India by 5/3 & 5/4 which amount deposited in current account number 348 of Swastik Drug Agency. 115. One Bank draft of SBI, Chaibasa bearing 2/184 number 922176 dated 03.11.92 for Rs. 199715/- in favour of M/s Swastik Drug Agency. 116. One cheque of Central Bank of India issued 7/2 through A/c No. 348 of Swastik Drug Agency. 117. Certified xerox copy of statement of A/c 8/7 No. 348 of Swastik Drug Agency. 118. Seizure memo by which documents seized 3/9 by Shri M.Ramesh, DSP, CBI from Prabeer Chakarvorty. 119. Signature of Prabeer Chakarvorty on xerox 4/26 copy of A/c No. 21075 of M/s Krishna Traders in Union Bank of India. 120. Signature of PW Prabeer Chakarvorty on 4/27 xerox copy of specimen signature card of the above account. 121. 9 Pay in slips of Union Bank of India by 5/5 to 5/13 which amounts deposited in A/c No. 21075 of M/s Krishna Traders. 122. 9 Demand drafts of SBI, Chaibasa in favour 2/185 to 2/193 of M/s Krishna Traders in Union Bank of India. 123. Certified xerox copy of the statement of 8/8 A/c No. 21075 of M/s Krishna Traders in Union Bank of India. 124. Signature of S.Singh on xerox copy of A/c 4/28 opening form of A/c of M/s Indian Lab Pvt. Ltd in Allahabad Bank. 125. Signature of S.Singh on xerox copy of 4/29 specimen signature card of above account . 126. Signature of S.Singh on xerox copy of 4/30 Extract of minutes of Indian Lab Limited. 127. Signature of S.Singh on xerox copy 4/31 Memorandum of Article and Association of Indian Lab.

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 175

128. Three Pay in slip of Allahabad Bank by 5/14 to 5/16 which amounts deposited in account of M/s Indian Lab 129. Three Bank draft of SBI, Chaibasa issued in 2/194 to 2/196 favour of M/s Indian Lab Pvt. Ltd. 130. Certified xerox copy of the statement of 8/9 Account of M/s Indian Lab Pvt. Ltd of Allahabad Bank. 131. Seizure memo dated 10.03.98 by which 3/10 documents seized by Shri M.Ramesh, DSP, CBI from Louis Pascal Ekka. 132. 10 Pay in slips of Union Bank of India by 5/17 to 5/26 which amounts deposited in A/c No. 29008 of Satyendra Construction Co. 133. Seven Bank drafts of SBI, Chaibasa issued 2/197 to 2/203 in favour of M/s Satyendra Construction Co. 134. Four Pay in slips of Union Bank of India by 5/27 to 5/30 which amount deposited in account of M/s Satyendra Construction Co. 135. Four cheques of Union Bank of India issued 7/3 to 7/6 through account of M/s Satyendra Construction Co. 136. Four Draft application of Union Bank of 6/2 to 6/5 India issued by M/s Satyendra Construction Co. 137. Four cheques of Union Bank of India issued 7/7 to 7/10 through A/c No. 29008 of Satyendra Construction Co. 138. One cheque of Union Bank of India issued 7/11 through A/c No. 29008 of Satyendra Construction Co. 139. Certified xerox copy of statement of A/c 8/10 No. 29008 of Satyendra Construction Co. 140. A/c opening form cum signature card of a/c 9 of CA/5/45 of Krishna Trader in SBI. 141. Pay in slip of SBI by which amount 5/39 deposited in account 5/45 of Krishna Trader. 142. One Bank draft of SBI, Chaibasa in favour 6/204 of M/s Krishna Traders. 143. Six cheques of SBI issued through 7/12 to 7/18 accounts of Krishna Traders. 144. One certified xerox copy of statement of 8/11 Account of Current A/c No. 5/45 of Krishna

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 176

Traders in SBI. 145. Letter No. 153 dated 18.02.98 of DTO, 10 Ranchi to CBI, Inspector. 146. Seizure memo dated 09.03.98 by which 3/11 documents seized by Shri M.Ramesh, DSP, CBI from P.K.Chaudhary. 147. Seignature of Gautam Banerjee on 4/32 certified xerox copy of account opening form of M/s Inter Pharma, Patna current account number 112. 148. Certified xerox copy of statement of 8/12 account number C/A112 in SBI of Inter Pharma, Patna. 149. Letter No. 816/97-98 dated 10.03.98 of 10/1 SBI, Exhibition Road, Patna to CBI. 150. Seignature of Gautam Banerjee on xerox 4/33 to 4/35 copy of pay in slip by which amounts deposited in C/A/112 of Inter Pharma, Patna. 151. Two bank drafts of SBI, Chaibasa issued in 2/204 to 2/205 favour of Inter Pharma, Patna. 152. Five cheques of SBI Exhibition Road, Patna 7/19 to 7/23 issued by A/c No. 112 of Inter Pharma, Panta. 153. Letter in Tatisilway, AHD 308/97 dated 10/2 26.07.97 of Allahabad Bank to DSP, CBI. 154. List of vouchers of Medivet of Allahabad 11 Bank. 155. List of vouchers prepared by Allahabad 11/1 Bank. 156. Xerox copy of A/c opening form of account X/8 number 471 of M/s Medivet in Allahabad Bank. 157. Xerox copy of specimen signature card of X/9 above account. 158. Certified xerox copy of statement of 8/13 account of account number 471 of M/s Medivet in Allahabad Bank. 159. Five Bank drafts of SBI, Chaibasa issued in 2/206 to 2/210 favour of M/s Medivet. 160. Draft application dated 09.05.92 issued in 6/6 favour of M/s G.N.Distributor, Delhi. 161. Cheque No. 363888 dated 09.05.92 issued 7/24 by M/s Medivet for Rs. 200500/-. 162. Letter No. 171 dated 07.05.92 of Allahabad 10/3

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 177

Bank issued in favour of M/s Medivet, Doranda from Allahabad Bank. 163. Six credit advice list of Allahabad Bank for 12 to 12/5 M/s Medivet. 164. Four draft applications of Allahabad Bank. 6/7 to 6/10 165. Five draft application of Allahabad Bank 6/11 to 6/15 presented by M/s Medivet. 166. Three Pay in slips of Allahabad Bank by 5/32 to 5/34 which amount deposited in account of Medivet. 167. 30 Cheques of Allahabad Bank issued by 7/25 to 7/54 Medivet. 168. Xerox copy of Account opening form of X/10 account number 451 of M/s Birsa Live Stock Feed and Additives in Allahabad Bank. 169. Xerox copy of specimen signature card of X/11 the above account. 170. Certified xerox copy of statement of 8/14 account number 451. 171. Nine Pay in slips of Allahabad Bank by 5/35 to 5/43 which amount deposited in account of M/s Birsa Live Stock Feed and Additives . 172. Seven credit advice list of Allahabad Bank. 12/6 to 12/12 173. Three draft application of Allahabad Bank. 6/16 to 6/18 174. One pay in slip dated 25.11.92 of 5/44 Allahabad Bank by which amount deposited in account of M/s Birsa Live Stock Feed and Additives . 175. Three Bank drafts of SBI, Chaibasa issued 2/211 to 2/213 in favour of M/s Birsa Live Stock Feed and Additives . 176. Six cheqeus of Allahabad Bank issued by 7/55 to 7/60 M/s Birsa Live Stock Feed and Additives . 177. Letter No. CA/AHD/ Med 10/4 House/CBI/Dhanbad/ 80/98 dated 05.03.98 of Canara Bank to M.Ramesh, DSP, CBI. 178. Signature of four xerox copy of draft 4/36 to 4/39 application of Canara Bank. 179. Signature of Mr. Ragnathan on certified 4/40 to 4/41 xerox copy of credit slips of Canara Bank. 180. Signature of Mr. Ragnathan on 12 certified 4/42 to 4/53 photocopies of cheques of Canara Bank issued by Medicine House.

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 178

181. One Bank draft of SBI, Chaiabasa issued in 2/214 favour of M/s Medicine House. 182. Three Bank draft of SBI, Chaibasa issued in 2/215 to 2/217 favour of M/s Gauri Distributors. 183. Seizure Memo dated 28.08.96 by which 3/12 documents seized by M.Ramesh, DSP, CBI from A.N.Tiwari. 184. One pay in slip dated 15.02.93 of SBI by 5/45 which amount deposited in account number 30107 of M/s A.Traders. 185. Eleven cheques of SBI issued by A.Traders. 7/61 to 7/71 186. Seizure Memo dated 05.07.97 by which 3/13 document seized by Layak Singh from P.C. Ganaik. 187. Seizure Memo dated 15.04.98 by which 3/14 document seized by Layak Singh from P.C. Ganaik. 188. Seven pay in slips of Allahabad Bank by 5/46 to 5/52 which amount deposited in account of M/s Sanjay Sinha & Co. 189. Two transfer voucher of Allahabad Bank by 13 & 13/1 which amount transferred in account of M/s Sanjay Sinha. 190. 61 Cheques of Allahabad Bank issued by 7/61 to 7/121 account of M/s Sanjay Sinha. 191. Signature of PW P.C.Ganaik on photocopies 4/54 to 4/61 of eight cheques of Allahabad Bank issued by M/s Sanjay Sinha. 192. Three Bank draft of SBI, Chaibasa issued in 2/218 to 2/220 favour of M/s Sanjay Sinha. 193. Seizure Memo by which document seized 3/15 by Shri Layak Singh, Inspector, CBI. 194. 88 Bank drafts of SBI, Chaibasa isued in 2/221 to 2/302 favour of different firms . 195. Three pay in slips of State Bank of Bikaner 5/53 to 5/55 & Jaipur by which amount deposited in account of M/s Tirupati Agency. 196. One bank draft of SBI Chaibasa issued in 2/303 favour of M/s Tirupati Agency. 197. 13 Cheques of State Bank of Bikaner & 7/122 to 7/134 Jaipur issued from the account of M/s Tirupati Agency. 198. Seizure Memo dated 11.03.98 by which 3/16 document seized by M.Ramesh, DSP, CBI from S.P.Barik.

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 179

199. Letter No. 8CC2AD/97-98-11 dated 10/5 17.03.98 of Central Bank of India to M.Ramesh, DSP, CBI. 200. Signature of PW on certified copy of A/c 4/62 opening form of account number 1148 of M/s Sriram Etnerprises. 201. Three pay in slips of Central Bank by which 5/56 to 5/58 amount deposited in account of M/s Sriram Enterprises. 202. One Bank draft application form of Central 6/19 Bank. 203. One cheque of Central Bank issued by 7/135 Sriram Enterprises. 204. Three Bank drafts of SBI, Chaibasa issued 2/304 to 2/306 in favour of Sriram Enterprises. 205. Four cheques of Central Bank issued by 7/136 to 7/139 Sriram Enterprises. 206. Certified phtocopy of statement of account 8/15 1148 of Sriram Enterprises. 207. Seizure Memo dated 28.08.96 by which 3/17 documents seized by Shri Layak Singh, Inspector, CBI. 208. Signature of PW 41 on certified photocopy 4/63 to 4/65 of letter of Indian Laboratory. 209. Signature of Gulshan Lal Dhingra on 4/66 seizure memo dated 07.05.97. 210. Signature of Gulshan Lal Dhingra on 4/67 seizure memo dated 05.05. 211. Signature of Gulshan Lal Dhingra on 4/68 photocopy of account oepning form of account number 1292. 212. Signature of Gulshan Lal Dhingra on 4/69 photocopy of specimen signature card of the above account. 213. Signature of Gulshan Lal Dhingra on 4/70 photocopy of account opening form of A/c No. 1292 of Malik Enterprises. 214. Photocopy of specimen signature card of X/12 A/c No. 1292 of Malik Enterprises. 215. Signature of Gulshan Lal Dhingra on 4/71 photocopy of partnership disolution deed of M/s Malik Enterprises, Delhi. 216. Signature of Gulshan Lal Dhingra on 4/72 certified photocopy of partnership deed of Malik Enterprises.

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 180

217. Signature of Gulshan Lal Dhingra on 24 4/73 to 4/94 pay in slips of PNB by which amount deposited in A/c No. 1292 of Malik Enterprises. 218. Signature of Gulshan Lal Dhingra on 61 4/95 to 4/155 cheques of PNB issued from Bank A/c No. 1292 of Malik Enterprises. 219. 12 Bank drafts of SBI, Chaibasa issued in 2/307 to 2/318 favour of Malik Enterprises. 220. Certified photocopies of statement of 8/16 account number 1292 of Malik Enterprises with PNB. 221. Seizure Memo dated 26.06.97 by which 3/18 document seized by Anil Kumar, Inspector, CBI. 222. Seizure Memo dated 19.07.97 by which 3/19 document seized by Layak Singh, Inspector, CBI from A.N.Ojha. 223. Seizure Memo dated 20.06.97 by which 3/20 document seized by M.Ramesh, DSP, CBI from A.N.Ojha. 224. Seizure Memo dated 03.11.97 by which 3/21 document seized by A.K.Jha, Inspector, CBI from A.N.Ojha. 225. A/c opening cum specimen signature card 9/1 of A/c No. 301135 of M/s Jai Bhandar & Supply with SBI Doranda. 226. Certified copy of statement of account of 8/17 A/c No. 301135 of M/s Jai Bhandar & Supply with SBI, Doranda. 227. Signature of PW A.N.Ojha on certified 4/156 photocopy of A/c opening form of account number 301161 of M/s Sanjay Sinha with SBI, Doranda. 228. Certified photocopy of A/c No. 301161 of 8/18 M/s Sanjay Sinha with SBI. 229. Signature of PW A.N.Ojha on certified 4/157 photocopy of A/c opening form of account number 301147 of M/s Bhagat & Co. with SBI, Doranda. 230. Certified photo copy of statement of 8/19 account of A/c No. 301147 of M/s Bhagat & Co. with SBI, Doranda. 231. Signature of PW A.N.Ojha on certified 4/158 photocopy of A/c opening form of account

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 181

number 301032 of M/s V.K. Commericial Traders with SBI, Doranda. 232. Signature of PW A.N.Ojha on certified 4/159 photocopy of partnership deed of M/s V.K. Commericial Traders 233. Certified photocopy of ledger sheets of A/c 8/20 No. 301032 with SBI, Doranda. 234. Signature of PW A.N.Ojha on certified 4/160 photocopy of A/c opening form of account number 301200 of M/s Manisha Enterprises with SBI, Doranda. 235. Certified photocopy of ledger sheet of A/c 8/21 No. 301200 of M/s Manisha Enterprises with SBI, Doranda. 236. Certified photocopy of ledger sheets of M/s 8/22 Ekta Veterinary Works of A/c No. 30272 with SBI, Doranda. 237. Two pay in slips of SBI Doranda by which 5/59 & 5/60 amount deposited in account number 30966 of M/s Little Oak Pharmaceuticals. 238. Six cheques of SBI Doranda issued from 7/140 to 7/145 A/c No. 30966 of M/s Little Oak Pharmaceuticals. 239. Six pay in slips of SBI Doranda by which 5/61 to 5/66 amount deposited in A/c No. 301057 of M/s Arke Enterprises. 240. 32 cheques of SBI Doranda issued from A/c 7/146 to 7/177 No. 301057 of Arke Enterprises. 241. 14 pay in slips of SBI Doranda by which 5/67 to 5/80 amount deposited in A/c No. 30272 of Ekta Veterinary. 242. 24 cheques of SBI, Doranda issued by M/s 7/178 to 7/201 Ekta Veterinary account number 30272. 243. 04 pay in slips of SBI, Doranda by which 5/81 to 5/84 amount deposited in A/c No. 301101 of M/s Chotanagpur Veterinary Enterprises. 244. 18 cheques of SBI, Doranda issued from 7/202 to 7/219 A/c No. 301101 of M/s Chotanagpur Veterinary Enterprises. 245. 05 pay in slips of SBI Doranda by which 5/85 to 5/89 amount deposited in A/c No. 301032 of V.K.Commercial Trading. 246. 30 cheques of SBI Doranda issued from A/c 7/220 to 7/249 No. 301032 of M/s V.K.Commercial Trading. 247. 09 pay in slips of SBI, Doranda by which 5/90 to 5/98

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 182

amount deposited in A/c No. 301104 of M/s Satyendra Construction. 248. 17 cheques of SBI Doranda issued from A/c 7/250 to 7/266 No. 301104 of M/s Satyendra Construction. 249. 35 supply bills of M/s Chotanagpur 14 to 14/34 Veterinary Enterprises. 250. 50 supply bills of M/s Chotanagpur 14/35 to 14/84 Veterinary Enterprises. 251. 110 supply bills of M/s Chotanagpur 14/85 to 14/194 Veterinary Enterprises. 252. Money receipt of M/s Chotanagpur 15 Veterinary Enterprises. 253. 03 money receipt of M/s Chotanagpur 15/1 to 15/3 Veterinary Enterprises. 254. Seizure Memo dated 11.04.98 by which 3/22 document seized by Shri Layak Singh from R.K.Verma. 255. Bank draft No. 922275 dated 21.12.92 of 2/319 SBI Chaibasa in favour of M/s Bihar Cattle Feed Supply Agency. 256. Seizure Memo dated 11.04.98 by which 3/23 document seized by Shri Layak Singh, Inspector, CBI from Shri S.N.Sinha. 257. Signature of Shri D.K.Mazumdar on 4/161 certified photocopy of A/c opening form of account number 44227 of M/s Bihar Cattle Feed Supply Agency with SBI. 258. Certified photocopy of statement of 8/23 account of A/c No. 44227 of M/s Bihar Cattle Feed Supply Agency with SBI. 259. Seizure Memo dated 18.08.97 by which 3/24 document seized by M.Ramesh, DSP from S.K.Sinha. 260. 08 Bank drafts of SBI, Chaibasa issued in 2/320 to 2/327 favour of M/s Little Oak Pharmaceuticals, Kolkata. 261. Seizure Memo dated 16.04.98 by which 3/25 document seized by Shri Layak Singh, Inspector CBI from R.Chaudhary. 262. Signature of PW R. Chaudhary on certified 4/162 photocopy of A/c opening form of A/c No. 233 of M/s Roop Supply Co. with Central Bank. 263. Signature of PW R. Chaudhary on certified 4/167 photocopy of specimen signature card of

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 183

the above account. 264. Certified photocopy of statement of A/c No. 8/24 233 of M/s Roop Supply Co. with Central Bank. 265. One Bank draft No. 922565 dated 23.02.93 2/328 of SBI, Chaibasa in favour of M/s Roop Supply Co. 266. Seizure Memo dated 09.04.97 by which 3/26 document seized by Layak Singh, Inspector,CBI. 267. 09 Bank draft of SBI Chaibasa issued in 3/329 to 3/337 favour of M/s Shakti Pharma Distributors. 268. 01 bunch of photocopy of bills of Rajkumar X/13 & Co. 269. Seizure Memo dated 28.08.96 by which 3/27 document seized by Shri Layak Singh, Inspector, CBI from PW Maldhiyar. 270. Signature of PW S.N.Maldhiyar on certified 4/164 photocopy of A/c opening form. 271. Signature of PW S.N.Maldhiyar on certified 4/165 photocopy specimen signature card of A/c No. 351. 272. Signature of PW S.N.Maldhiyar on 09 4/166 to 4/174 certified photocopy of pay in slips of United Bank by which amount deposited in above account. 273. Certified photo copy of statement of 8/25 account number 351 with United Bank of India. 274. Photo copy of letter dated 07.11.97 of M/s X/14 Lindsay Sports to SS Rawat, Inspector, CBI. 275. Carbon copy of the letter dated 29.04.97 10/6 of M.Ramesh, DSP, CBI to Chief Manager, United Bank of India, Ranchi. 276. Seizure Memo dated 29.04.97 by which 3/28 document seized by M.Ramesh DSP, CBI. 277. Signature of PW S.K.Ghosh on certified 4/175 & 4/176 photo copy of A/c opening form and specimen signature card of A/c No. 3670 with United Bank of India. 278. Signature of PW S.K.Ghosh on certified 4/177 photo copy of pay in slips for deposit in A/c No. 3670 of Ekta Veterinary Works. 279. Certified photo copy of statement of 8/26 account 26704 of Ekta Veterinary Works

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 184

with United Bank of India. 280. Signature of Malay Banerjee on certified 4/178 & 4/179 photo copy of account 4046 and specimen signature with United Bank of India. 281. Signature of Malay Banerjee on certified 4/180 photo copy of partnership deed of M/s Quality Chemical Supplies. 282. Certified photo copy of statement of 8/27 account of A/c No. 4046 with United Bank of India. 283. Seizure Memo dated 20.06.97 by which 3/29 document seized by M.Ramesh, DSP, CBI from K.Unnikrishnan. 284. 05 Cheques of SBI issued from A/c No. 7/267 to 7/271 33290 of Sushil Kumar Jha. 285. Certified photo copy of statement of 8/28 account number 33290 of Sushil Kumar Jha with SBI. 286. Seizure Memo dated 07.03.98 by which 3/30 documents seized by M.Ramesh, DSP, CBI. 287. Seizure Memo dated 30.04.97 by which 3/31 documents seized by M.Ramesh, DSP, CBI from Asim Kumar Sarkar. 288. Seizure Memo dated 19.06.97 by which 3/32 documents seized by M.Ramesh, DSP, CBI from Asim Kumar Sarkar. 289. Account opening form of A/c No. 301106 of 9/2 M/s Chotanagpur Cattle Food Supply Co. 290. Partnership deed of M/s Chotanagpur 10/7 Cattle Food Supply Co., Ranchi. 291. Photo copy of partnership deed of M/s X/15 Chotanagpur Cattle Food Supply Co., Ranchi. 292. 19 pay in slips for deposit in A/c No. 5/99 to 5/117 301106 of M/s Chotanagpur Cattle Food Supply Co., Ranchi. 293. 93 Cheques of SBI issued from A/c No. 7/272 to 7/364 301106 of M/s Chotanagpur Cattle Food Supply Co., Ranchi. 294. Certified photo copy of statement of 8/29 account number 301106 of M/s Chotanagpur Cattle Food Supply Co., Ranchi. 295. Signature of A.K.Sarkar on certified copy of 4/181 A/c opening form of A/c No. 301124 with

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 185

SBI. 296. Signature of A.K.Sarkar on certified copy of 4/182 partnership deed of M/s Chotanagpur Cattle Food Supply Co., Ranchi. 297. Signature of A.K.Sarkar on certified copy of 4/183 partnership deed of M/s Chotanagpur Cattle Food Supply Co., Ranchi. 298. Certified photo copy of statement of 8/30 account number 301124 with SBI. 299. Signature of A.K.Sarkar on certified photo 4/184 copy of A/c opening form of A/c No. 301161 of M/s Sanjay Sinha with SBI. 300. Certified photo copy of statement of 8/31 account number 301161 with SBI. 301. Signature of A.K.Sarkar on certified photo 4/185 copy of A/c opening form of M/s Veekay Commercial with SBI. 302. Signature of PW A.K.Sarkar on certified 4/186 photo copy of partnership deed of M/s Veekay Commercial with SBI. 303. Signature of PW A.K.Sarkar on certified 4/187 photo copy of tax clearance certificate. 304. Certified photo copy of statement of 8/32 account number 301032 with SBI. 305. 07 pay in slips for deposit in A/c No. 5/118 to 5/124 301101 of M/s Chotanagpur Veterinary Enterprises. 306. 20 cheques of SBI issued from A/c No. 7/365 to 7/384 301101 of M/s Chotanagpur Veterinary Enterprises. 307. Copy of letter number 3877/3/68A/96-Pat X/16 dated 13.06.97 of CBI to Hindustan Antibiotics. 308. Copy of letter number 5207/3/68A/96-Pat X/17 dated 23.01.98 of CBI to Hindustan Antibiotics. 309. Letter No. DM/PTN/CBI/A-V/1250 dated 10/8 06.03.98 of Hindustan Antibiotics to CBI. 310. Seizure Memo dated 08.03.98 for seizure 3/33 of documents by Shri M.Ramesh, DSP from V.K.Mishra. 311. Signature of certified copy of invoices of 4/188 to 4/202 Hindustan Antibiotics to M/s Bihar Surgico Medico Agency.

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 186

312. Seizure Memo dated 28.08.96 by which 3/34 document seized by Shri Layak Singh, Inspector, CBI. 313. Letter dated 15.12.97 of M/s Pfizer Limited 10/9 to Dr. A.C.Arora with annexures invoices. 314. Seizure Memo dated 27.03.97 by which 3/35 documents seized by Shri Anil Kumar, Inspector, CBI from D.L.Sahani. 315. 04 Bank drafts of SBI Chaibasa issued in 2/338 to 2/341 favour of M/s Semex Cryoganics. 316. Seizure Memo dated 02.05.97 for seizure 3/36 of documents by Shri Layak Singh, Inspector CBI from N.K.Bajaj. 317. Seizure Memo dated 21.03.98 for seizure 3/37 of documents by Shri Layak Singh, Inspector CBI from N.K.Bajaj. 318. Pay in slips of Canara Bank for deposit in 5/125 A/c No. 3188 of Asian Breeders. 319. Cheque of Canara Bank issued from A/c 7/385 No. 3188 of Asian Breeders. 320. Signature on certifed photo copy of cheque 4/203 to 4/204 of Canara Bank issued from A/c No. 3188 of Asian Breeders. 321. Certified photo copy of statement of A/c 8/33 No. 3188 of Asian Breeders with Canara Bank. 322. Letter No. PB3728/97 dated 26.11.97 of 10/10 Ranbaxy to CBI. 323. Seizure Memo dated 02.03.98 for seizure 3/38 of documents by Shri Layak Singh, Inspector, CBI from C.S.Mishra. 324. 26 pay in slips of SBI for deposit in account 5/126 to 5/151 of M/s Bihar Surgico Medico Agency, Patna. 325. 33 Cheques of SBI issued from A/c No. 457 7/386 to 7/418 of M/s Bihar Surgico Medico Agency, Patna. 326. 21 pay in slips for deposit in A/c No. 178 of 5/152 to 5/172 M/s Mastrin Pharmaceuticals. 327. 24 cheques of SBI issued from A/c No. 178 7/419 to 7/442 of M/s Mastrin Pharmaceuticals. 328. 47 pay in slips of SBI for deposit in A/c No. 5/173 to 5/219 407 of Manas Sales Corporation, Patna. 329. 83 Cheques of SBI issued from A/c No. 407 7/443 to 7/525 of Manas Sales Corporation, Patna. 330. 40 pay in slips for deposit in A/c No. 170 of 5/220 to 5/259 M/s Samarpan Veterinary Enterprises,

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 187

Patna. 331. 63 cheques of SBI issued from A/c No. 170 7/526 to 7/595 of M/s Samarpan Veterinary Enterprises, Patna. 332. Signature of PW on certified photo copy of 4/205 account. 333. Signature of PW on certified photo copy of 4/206 Mastrin Pharmaceuticals. 334. Signature of PW on certified photo copy of 4/207 Mastrin Pharmaceuticals. 335. Certified photo copy of the statement of 8/34 A/c No. 178 of Mastrin Pharmaceuticals with SBI. 336. Signature of PW on certified photo copy of 4/208 the statement of A/c of Samarpan Veriterinary Enterprises with SBI. 337. Certified photo copy of the statement of 8/35 A/c No. 736 Samarpan Veriterinary Enterprises with SBI. 338. Signature of PW on certified photo copy of 4/209 A/c opening form of A/c No. 407 of Manas Sales Corporation. 339. Certified photo copy of the statement of 8/36 Manas Sales Corporation with SBI. 340. Signature of PW on certified photo copy of 4/210 A/c opening form of Bihar Surgico Medico Agency with SBI. 341. Certified photo copy of the statement of 8/37 A/c No. 457 of Bihar Surgico Medico Agency, Patna. 342. Copy of letter No. 3872 dated 13.06.97 of X/19 SP, CBI to Chief Marketing Manager, Karanataka Antibiotic Limited. 343. Signature of B.K.Nanda on attested copy of 4/211 letter dated 27.08.96 of Karanataka Antibiotic Limited to SP, CBI. 344. Signature of B.K.Nanda on attested copy of 4/212 letter dated 31.03.97 of Karanataka Antibiotic Limited to SP, CBI. 345. Signature of B.K.Nanda on attested copy of 4/213 letter dated 25.06.7 of Karanataka Antibiotic Limited to SP, CBI, Dhanbad. 346. 15 Bank draft application form of SBI 6/20 to 6/34 prepared by DAHO, Chaibasa in favour of M/s Little Oak Pharmaceuticals.

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 188

347. 12 Bank draft application form of SBI 6/35 to 6/46 prepared by DAHO, Chaibasa in favour of M/s Malik Enterprises. 348. 35 Bank draft application form of SBI 6/47 to 6/81 prepared by DAHO, Chaibasa in favour of M/s Chotanagapur Cattle Feed Suply Co. 349. 23 Bank draft application form of SBI 6/82 to 6/104 prepared by DAHO, Chaibasa in favour of M/s Bihar Surgico Medico Agency. 350. 07 Bank draft application form of SBI 6/105 to 6/111 prepared by DAHO, Chaibasa in favour of M/s Satyendra Construction Company. 351. 03 Bank draft application form of SBI 6/112 to 6/114 prepared by DAHO, Chaibasa in favour of M/s Sanja Sinha. 352. 12 Bank draft application form of SBI 6/115 to 6/126 prepared by DAHO, Chaibasa in favour of M/s Baba Chemical Works. 353. 11 Bank draft application form of SBI 6/127 to 6/137 prepared by DAHO, Chaibasa in favour of M/s Samarpan Veterinary. 354. 04 Bank draft application form of SBI 6/138 to 6/141 prepared by DAHO, Chaibasa in favour of M/s Q Max Lab Nasik. 355. 03 Bank draft application form of SBI 6/142 to 6/144 prepared by DAHO, Chaibasa in favour of M/s Semex Cryogenics. 356. 03 Bank draft application form of SBI 6/145 to 6/147 prepared by DAHO, Chaibasa in favour of M/s Gauri Distributors, Bhagalpur. 357. 02 Bank draft application form of SBI 6/148 to 6/149 prepared by DAHO, Chaibasa in favour of M/s Gauri Distributors, Bhagalpur. 358. 03 Bank draft application form of SBI 6/150 to 6/152 prepared by DAHO, Chaibasa in favour of M/s Sri Ram Enterprises, Jamshedpur. 359. 02 Bank draft application form of SBI 6/153 to 6/154 prepared by DAHO, Chaibasa in favour of M/s Jai Bhandar & Supply, Aurangabad. 360. 04 Bank draft application form of SBI 6/155 to 6/158 prepared by DAHO, Chaibasa in favour of M/s Inter Pharmaceuticals, Patna. 361. 13 Bank draft application form of SBI 6/159 to 6/171 prepared by DAHO, Chaibasa in favour of M/s A.Traders, Patna.

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 189

362. 21 Bank draft application form of SBI 6/172 to 6/192 prepared by DAHO, Chaibasa in favour of M/s Baishnav Enterprises. 363. 12 Bank draft application form of SBI 6/193 to 6/204 prepared by DAHO, Chaibasa in favour of M/s Navketan Enterprises. 364. 08 Bank draft application form of SBI 6/205 to 6/212 prepared by DAHO, Chaibasa in favour of M/s Medivet. 365. 03 Bank draft application form of SBI 6/213 to 6/215 prepared by DAHO, Chaibasa in favour of M/s Birsa Live Stock Feed & Additives. 366. 10 Bank draft application form of SBI 6/216 to 6/225 prepared by DAHO, Chaibasa in favour of M/s Krishna Traders, Ranchi. 367. 12 Bank draft application form of SBI 6/226 to 6/237 prepared by DAHO, Chaibasa in favour of M/s Shakti Pharma Distributors. 368. 02 Bank draft application form of SBI 6/238 to 6/239 prepared by DAHO, Chaibasa in favour of M/s Indian Laboratory, Patna. 369. 01 Bank draft application form of SBI 6/240 prepared by DAHO, Chaibasa in favour of M/s Indian Laboratory, Delhi. 370. 07 Bank draft application form of SBI 6/241 to 6/247 prepared by DAHO, Chaibasa in favour of M/s Manisha Enterprises, Ranchi. 371. 152 Bank draft application form of SBI 6/248 to 6/399 prepared by DAHO, Chaibasa in favour of M/s Badri Narayan & Co. 372. 04 Bank draft application form of SBI 6/400 to 6/403 prepared by DAHO, Chaibasa in favour of M/s Magadh Chemicals, Patna . 373. 07 Bank draft application form of SBI 6/404 to 6/410 prepared by DAHO, Chaibasa in favour of M/s Care & Cure, Ranchi. 374. 02 Bank draft application form of SBI 6/411 to 6/412 prepared by DAHO, Chaibasa in favour of M/s Swastik Drug Agency, Jamshedpur. 375. 02 Bank draft application form of SBI 6/413 to 6/414 prepared by DAHO, Chaibasa in favour of M/s S.N.Enterprises. 376. 05 Bank draft application form of SBI 6/415 to 419 prepared by DAHO, Chaibasa in favour of M/s Agro Vet Sales.

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 190

377. 03 Bank draft application form of SBI 6/420 to 6/422 prepared by DAHO, Chaibasa in favour of M/s Quality Chemical Corporation. 378. 11 Bank draft application form of SBI 6/423 to 6/433 prepared by DAHO, Chaibasa in favour of M/s Bhagat & Co. 379. 02 Bank draft application form of SBI 6/434 to 6/435 prepared by DAHO, Chaibasa in favour of M/s Angil Medichem, Delhi. 380. 35 Bank draft application form of SBI 6/436 to 6/470 prepared by DAHO, Chaibasa in favour of M/s Manas Sales Corporation, Patna. 381. 06 Bank draft application form of SBI 6/471 to 6/476 prepared by DAHO, Chaibasa in favour of M/s V.K.Commercial. 382. 03 Bank draft application form of SBI 6/477 to 6/479 prepared by DAHO, Chaibasa in favour of M/s Tirupati Agency, Patna. 383. 01 Bank draft application form of SBI 6/480 prepared by DAHO, Chaibasa in favour of M/s Tirupati Agency, Ranchi. 384. 17 Bank draft application form of SBI 6/481 to 6/497 prepared by DAHO, Chaibasa in favour of M/s Chotanagpur Veterinary Enterprises. 385. 01 Bank draft application form of SBI 6/498 prepared by DAHO, Chaibasa in favour of M/s Bihar Cattle Food, Muzzafarpur. 386. 01 Bank draft application form of SBI 6/499 prepared by DAHO, Chaibasa in favour of M/s Swarnreka Medical Agency, Ranchi. 387. 01 Bank draft application form of SBI 6/500 prepared by DAHO, Chaibasa in favour of M/s Roop Supply Company, Ranchi. 388. 01 Bank draft application form of SBI 501 prepared by DAHO, Chaibasa in favour of M/s A B Sales, Ranchi. 389. 01 Bank draft application form of SBI 6/502 prepared by DAHO, Chaibasa in favour of M/s Ekta Veterinary, Ranchi. 390. 04 Bank draft application form of SBI 6/503 prepared by DAHO, Chaibasa in favour of M/s Ajay Pharmacy, Ranchi. 391. 01 Bank draft application form of SBI 6/504 prepared by DAHO, Chaibasa in favour of M/s Assian Breeder, Delhi.

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 191

392. 01 Bank draft application form of SBI 6/505 prepared by DAHO, Chaibasa in favour of M/s Medicine House, Bhagalpur. 393. 01 Bank draft application form of SBI 6/506 prepared by DAHO, Chaibasa in favour of M/s Mastrin Pharmacueticals, Patna. 394. Letter dated 01.05.97 of Layak Singh, 10/11 Inspector to Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce. 395. Receipt Memo date 01.05.97 of Layak 10/12 Singh, Insepctor, CBI. 396. A/c opening form of A/c No. 193 of Semex 9/3 Cryogenics with Oriental Bank of Commerce. 397. A/c opening form of A/c No. 152 of Semex 9/4 Cryogenics with Oriental Bank of Commerce. 398. Specimen signature card of account with 16 Oriental Bank of Commerce. 399. 05 Pay in slips of OBC for amount 5/260 to 5/264 deposited in account of M/s Semex Cryogenics. 400. 08 Cheques of OBC issued from account of 7/596 to 7/603 M/s Semex Cryogenics, Delhi. 401. Certified copy of the statement of A/c No. 8/98 193 of Semex Cryogenics with OBC. 402. Seizure Memo dated 04.04.98 of Layak 3/39 Singh, Inspector, CBI. 403. 04 Carbon copies of supply bills of Magadh 14/195 to 14/198 Chemical Works. 404. Signature of PW Prem Kumar on four 4/214 to 4/217 carbon copy of form 9 C. 405. Signature of PW Prem Kumar on letter 4/218 dated 19.03.96 of Magadh Chemical Works. 406. Seizure Memo dated 16.03.98 of 3/40 M.Ramesh, DSP, CBI. 407. Signature of Gopal Krishna on certified 4/219 to 4/224 copy of invoices of Suprabath Pharmaceuticals. 408. Signature of Gopal Krishna on list prepared 4/225 by Suprabath Pharmaceuticals. 409. Photo copy of letter dated 07.11.97 of X/20 Lindsay Sports to CBI. 410. Requisition dated 30.06.98 of Dr. Sashi 10/13

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 192

Kumar Singh to Special Judge,Dhanbad for RC20 Ex 85, 26/333 recording statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. to 26/343 dated 05.01.2006 1. Signature of Dr. S.K.Singh on statement u/s 4/226 to 4/236 164 Cr.P.C. 2. Seizure Memo dated 25.02.98. 3/41 3. Letter of CBI, Dhanbad dated 26.02.98. 10/14 4. Consignment of note of Allied Carriers. 17 5. Invoice of Indian Immunologicals 18 6. Seizur Memo dated 07.07.97 of Layak 3/42 Singh. 7. Signature of Binay Kumar Singh dated 4/238 to 4/241 7.7.97 on photo copy of form CFRA application of Truck No. BPN 8282. 8. Seizure Memo dated 06.05.98. 3/43 9. 03 Pay in slips of SBI from amount 5/265 to 5/267 deposited by Magadh Agency, Patna. 10. 03 Cheques of SBI issued from account of 7/604 to 7/606 Magadh Agency, Patna. 11. Certified copy of statement of account of 8/39 Magadh Agency, Patna. 12. Account opening form of A/c No. 591 of 9/05 Magadh Agency, Patna. 13. Seizure Memo dated 15.05.98 of 3/44 M.Ramesh, DSP. 14. Current account opening form of A/c No. 9/6 2048 of Baba Chemical Works, Patna. 15. Signature on photo copy of specimen 4/242 signature card of Sunil Kumar Sinha. 16. 11 Pay in slips of SBI, Patna for deposit in 5/268 to 5/278 account of Baba Chemical Works. 17. Certified copy of SBI A/c No. 2048 of Baba 8/40 Chemical Works. 18. Seizure Memo dated 08.05.97, 08.07.97, 3/45 to 3/48 18.06.97 and 20.08.97 of M.Rameshs, DSP, CBI. 19. Letter No. M/R/3/68(A)/96-Pat dated 10/15 08.07.95 of CBI. 20. Carbon copy of letter No. 68/96 dated 10/16 30.04.97. 21. Original A/c opening form of current A/c 9/07 No. 459 of Medivet, Ranchi. 22. Specimen signature card of current A/c No. 16/1 459.

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 193

23. 10 Pay in slip of United Industrial Bank 5/279 to 5/288 Limited for deposit in A/c of Medivet. 24. 04 Cheques of United Industrial Bank 7/607 to 7/610 Limited of A/c of Medivet. 25. Signature of D.C.Chaudhary on partnership 4/243 deed. 26. Statement of current A/c No. 459 of 8/41 Medivet. 27. Signature of D.C.Chaudhary on A/c 4/244 opening form of current A/c No. 480 of Birsa Live Stock. 28. Copy of specimen signature card of current 4/245 A/c No. 480. 29. Copy of statement of A/c of current A/c No. 8/42 480. 30. Booking register of Guide Travels. 19/16 to 19/167 31. 08 bills of Guide Travels given to Little Oak. 20 to 20/7 32. 53 Car duty vouchers of Guide Travels. 21 to 21/52 33. 05 Cheques of State Bank of Bikaner of 7/611 to 7/615 Jaipur for cheques issued by A.K.Verma in favour of Guide Travel. 34. Cash Book of Guide Travel. 22 to 22/14 35. Page No. 33 to 39 of bill register of Guide 23 to 23/6 Travel Kolkata. 36. 01 file of Sale Tax Delhi. 1/58 37. Letter No. 38/96 of CBI, Dhanbad to X/24 Marketing Manager of Animal Research Centre, Jaipur. 38. Reply of Animal Research Centre to CBI. 10/17 39. Reply of Animal Research Centre to CBI. 10/18 40. Seizure Memo dated 28.08.96 of Layak 3/49 to 3/50 Singh, CBI. 41. Letter No. 3879 of CBI to Concept X/21 & X/22 Pharmacueticals, Patna. 42. Signature on letter of Concept 4/246 Pharmacueticals dated 28.11.98. 43. Photo copy of AHD price list. X/23 44. Signature of Shri R.K.Bibhakar on letter of 4/247 Concept Pharmacueticals. 45. Photo copy of invoices of Concept 4/248 Pharmacueticals. 46. Seizure Memo dated 20.03.98 of Layak 3/49

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 194

Singh, CBI. 47. Statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C of Dr. H.S.Sinha. 24 48. One file containing supply order of RD, 25 Ranchi. 21 pages 49. One file containing supply order of RD, 25/1 Ranchi. 41 pages 50. One file containing supply order of RD, 25/2 Ranchi. 51 pages 51. One file containing supply order of RD, X/25 Ranchi. 48 pages 52. One file containing supply order of RD, 25/3 Ranchi. 05 pages 53. One file containing supply order of RD, 25/4 Ranchi. 21 pages 54. One file containing supply order of RD, 25/5 Ranchi. 31 pages 55. One file containing supply order of RD, 25/6 Ranchi. 78 pages 56. One file containing supply order of RD, 25/7 Ranchi. 41 pages 57. One file containing supply order of RD, 25/8 Ranchi. 61 pages 58. One file containing supply order of RD, 25/9 Ranchi. 18 pages 59. One file containing supply order of RD, 25/10 Ranchi. 51 pages 60. One file containing supply order of RD, 25/11 Ranchi. 51 pages 61. One file containing supply order of RD, 25/12 Ranchi. 51 pages 62. One file containing supply order of RD, 25/13 Ranchi. 51 pages 63. One file containing supply order of RD, 25/14 Ranchi. 27 pages 64. One file containing supply order of RD, 25/15 Ranchi. 23 pages 65. Application of Dr. G.S.Shukla dated 26 21.04.98 for statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. 66. Statement of G.S.Shukla u/s 164 Cr.P.C 24/1 dated 21.04.98 67. One file containing supply order of RD, 25/16 Ranchi regarding supply of medicines to DAHO, Chaibasa. 21 pages 68. One file containing supply order of RD, 25/17 Ranchi regarding supply of medicines to

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 195

DAHO, Chaibasa. 11 pages 69. One file containing supply order of RD, 25/18 Ranchi regarding supply of medicines to DAHO, Chaibasa. 51 pages 70. One file containing supply order of RD, 25/19 Ranchi regarding supply of medicines to DAHO, Chaibasa. 71. One file containing supply order of RD, 25/20 Ranchi regarding supply of medicines to DAHO, Chaibasa. 63 pages 72. One file containing supply order of RD, 25/21 Ranchi regarding supply of maiz to DAHO, Chaibasa. 61 pages 73. One file containing supply order of RD, 25/22 Ranchi regarding supply of maiz to DAHO, Chaibasa. 42 pages 74. One file containing supply order of RD, 25/23 Ranchi regarding supply of maiz to DAHO, Chaibasa. 50 pages 75. One file containing supply order of RD, 25/24 Ranchi regarding supply of maiz to DAHO, Chaibasa. 52 pages 76. One file containing supply order of RD, 25/25 Ranchi regarding supply of maiz to DAHO, Chaibasa. 51 pages 77. One file containing supply order of RD, 25/26 Ranchi regarding supply of maiz to DAHO, Chaibasa. 51 pages 78. One file containing supply order of RD, 25/27 Ranchi regarding supply of maiz to DAHO, Chaibasa. 50 pages 79. One file containing supply order of RD, 25/28 Ranchi regarding supply of maiz to DAHO, Chaibasa. 34 pages 80. One file containing supply order of RD, 25/29 Ranchi regarding supply of maiz to DAHO, Chaibasa. 51 pages 81. One file containing supply order of RD, 25/30 Ranchi regarding supply of maiz to DAHO, Chaibasa. 51 pages 82. One file containing supply order of RD, 25/31 Ranchi regarding supply of maiz to DAHO, Chaibasa. 41 pages 83. One file containing supply order of RD, 25/32 Ranchi regarding supply of maiz to DAHO,

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 196

Chaibasa. 50 pages 84. Carbon copy of list of letter. 27 85. Carbon copy of list of register post dated 27/1 18.11.94. 86. Carbon copy of list of register post dated 27/2 06.06.95. 87. Seizure Memo dated 17.03.98 of Layak 3/51 Singh. 88. Details of cheques issued by Vijay Malik to 3/52 Vijay Kumar Gupta & Company. 89. Seizure Memo dated 20.03.98 of Layak 3/53 Singh. 90. Letter of Brihans Lab dated 23.06.97 to 10/19 CBI. 91. Letter of Brihans Lab dated 16.08.97 to 10/20 CBI. 92. Letter of Karnataka Antibiotic dated 10/21 28.01.98 to CBI. 93. Letter of Karnataka Antibiotic dated 10/22 25.06.97 to CBI. 94. Letter of Karnataka Antibiotic dated 10/23 24.01.98 to CBI. 95. Letter of Karnataka Antibiotic dated 10/24 16.02.98 to CBI. 96. Statement of account of Indian Lab. 8/43 97. Resolution of Indian Lab. 29 98. Pay in slip of Indian Lab. 5/16 99. Collection advice of Allahabad Bank of 31 & 31/1 Indian Lab. 100. Certificate of incorporation of Indian Lab. 30 101. Seizure Memo dated 02.09.97 of Layak 3/54 Singh for seizure from Allahabad Bank, Patna. 102. Specimen Signature card of Ranjit Kumar 16/2 Mishra. 103. Draft application form of Indian Lab. 6/507 to 6/522 104. Account opening form of Indian Lab. 9/8 105. Seizure Memo dated 02.09.97 of Layak 3/55 Singh. 106. Memorandum and Article of Association of 28 Indian Lab Ltd. 107. Cheque of Allahabad Bank issued from A/c 7/616 to 7/644

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 197

of Indian Lab. 108. Seizure Memo of O.P.Sharma. 3/56 109. A/c opening form of Baishnav Enterprises. 9/9 110. Specimen signature card of B.K.Sahu and 16/3 Kalash Mani Kashyap of Baishnav Enterprises. 111. Statement of A/c of Baishnav Enterprises. 8/44 112. Pay in slip of Baishnav Enterprises. 5/17 & 5/18 113. A/c opening form of Navketan Enterprises. 9/10 114. Specimen signature card of Navketan 16/4 Enterprises. 115. Partnership deed of Navketan Enterprises. 32 116. Pay in slip of Navketan Enterprises. 5/19 to 5/24 117. Statement of A/c of Navketan Enterprises. 8/45 118. A/c opening form of current A/c No. 647 of 9/11 Veeky Commercial Traders. 119. Specimen Signature Card of Veeky 16/5 Commercial Traders. 120. Pay in slip of Veeky Commercial Traders. 5/25 ot 5/27 121. Statement of Account of Veeky 8/46 Commercial Traders. 122. Air Ticket of Sahara Airlines issued by 33 to 33/22 Rajshree Travel Patna. 123. Stock register of Rajshree Travel Patna. 34 124. Incoming register of Rajshree Travel Patna. 34/1 125. Seizure Memo dated 18.03.98 of 3/57 M.Ramesh. 126. A/c opening form of Q Max Lab at BOB, 9/12 Nasik. 127. Letter of Q Max to BOB, Nasik. 10/25 to 10/27 128. Draft application of Q Max. 6/523 to 6/535 129. Statement of A/c of Q Max. 8/47 130. Statement of current A/c No. 121 of Q Max. 8/48 131. Seizure Memo dated 14.02.97 of 3/58 N.M.Singh. 132. Certified copy of admission form of Hema 35 daughter of Lalu. 133. Certified copy of admission form of Dhanu 35/1 daughter of Lalu.

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 198

134. Certified copy of admission form of Ragini 35/2 daughter of Lalu. 135. Certified copy of admission form of Rohini 35/3 daughter of Lalu. 136. 02 certified copy of admission form of 35/4 & 35/5 Chanda daughter of Lalu. 137. Seizure Memo dated 19.12.96 of A.K.Jha. 3/58 138. File BT 106/94 of Non Plan Budget of AHD. 36 38/364 139. File SRF 45/95 2403 95-96 non plan. 36/1 38/365 140. File SRF 78/94 2403 94-95 non plan. 36/2 38/366 141. File SRF 77/95 2403 94-95 non plan. 36/3 38/367 142. File SRF 10/93 2403 93-94 non plan. 36/4 38/368 143. File BT 61/93 of RBI, Nagpur 95-96. 36/5 38/369 144. File 8 of 95 of RBI for advances. 36/6 38/270 145. File BTE 114/94 of Central Plan 94-95 36/7 38/271 146. File BTE 113/94 2403 95-96. 36/8 147. File BSF 186/93 2403 on advances from 36/9 contingent fund. 148. File 2403 AH non plan 91-92. 36/10 149. Offince note of Dharam Raj Pandey on 10/28 & 36/11 page 5 to page 9 of 38/270 and 36/11 of RC68(A)/96-Pat 150. Office note of 30.03.94 of Dharam Raj 10/29 & 36/12 Pandey on page 4 of 38/272 and 36/12 of RC68(A)/96-Pat 151. 02 files of AHD Patna 1002 of 94 and 3069 36/11 & 36/12 of 94. 38/270 and 38/272 152. Passenger Manifest of Sahara Airlines . 37 153. Fake Flight handling report of Sahara 37/1 Airlines. 154. Special handling for VIP of Sahara Airlines. 37/2 155. Passenger Manifest of Sahara Airlines . 37/3 156. Bill of Hotel Taj of R.K. Rana. 38 to 38/1 157. Registration card of Hotel Taj of R.K.Rana. 38/2

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 199

158. 06 bills of Hotel Taj in the name of Dipesh 38/3 to 38/8 Chandak. 159. Registation card of Hotel Taj of Dipesh 38/9 to 38/16 Chandak. 160. Registation card of Hotel Taj in the name of 38/17 to 38/28 Pratik Plastic. 161. Registation card of Hotel Taj in the name of 38/29 to 38/30 Ancy Enterprises. 162. Registation card of Hotel Taj. X/26 & X/27 163. AHD file 116/90. 39 164. Register dated 12.11.90. 39/1 165. 14 files of Legislative Assembly on AHD. 36/13 to 36/26 38/317 to 38/330 166. 15 files of comlaint on AHD. 38/391 to 36/27 to 36/41 38/348 167. File No. 3 P.S (6) 1007/93 for removing ban 36/42 from treasury. 168. File related to tour of Ram Raj Ram. 36/43 169. Files regarding appointment of Dr. Ram as 36/44 Director 136/89 170. AH establishment (1) 1050/87. 36/45 171. File movement register of AHD secretary 39/2 16.12.92 to 30.10.93. 172. File movement register of AHD 02.01.95 to 39/3 30.12.95. 173. Letter recipt register of AHD 27.06.95 to 39/4 01.12.95. 174. Provisional receipt of RBI, Kolkata. 40 175. Gold application of RBI CA 333. 40/1 176. Provisional receipt of RBI, Kolkata. 40/2 177. Application of Gold Bond filed by R.Sinha. 40/3 178. Provisional receipt. 40/4 179. Provisional receipt. 40/5 180. Provisional receipt dated 13.05.93 40/6 181. Application in RBI Act for Gold Bond. 40/7 182. Application for RBI Gold Bond. 40/8 183. Provisional receipt dated 26.04.2003. 40/9 184. Application form number 408 for Gold 40/10 Bond.

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 200

185. Provisional receipt of RBI, Kolkata. 40/11 186. Application in RBI 1166 for Gold Bond. 40/12 187. Provisional receipt dated 22.05.93 for Gold 40/13 receiving. 188. Provisional receipt of Gold. 40/14 189. Application on 1352 for Gold Bond. 40/15 190. Provisional receipt of Gold. 40/16 191. Application in RBI 1353 for Gold Bond. 40/17 192. Application in RBI of 1961 of Gold Bond. 40/18 193. Application in RBI of 829 for Gold Bond. 40/19 194. Supply order for medicines to AHD 25/33 to 25/34 Chaibasa. 195. Supply order for medicines to AHD 25/35 to 25/37 Chaibasa. 196. Supply order for medicines to AHD 25/38 to 25/39 Chaibasa. 197. Supply order for medicines to AHD 25/40 to 25/41 Chaibasa. 198. Supply order for medicines to AHD 25/42 Chaibasa. 199. 41 supply orders to Wockdart, Cadila, 41 to 41/40 Alembic and Glaxo. 200. 16 supply orders of Mastrin 41/41 to 41/56 Pharmacuticals. 201. Guard File. X/28 202. Guard file of Chaibasa. X/29 203. 24 supply orders of Manas Sales. 41/57 to 41/100 204. Guard file of Chaibasa. X/30 205. 15 supply orders of Manas Sales. 40/101 to 40/113 206. 41 supply orders of Manas Sales. 41/114 to 41/154 207. Guard file of supply orders. X/31 208. 27 supply orders of Navketan and Badri 41/155 to 41/181 Narayan. 209. Guard file of supply orders. X/32 210. 19 supply orders of Karanataka Antibiotics 41/182 to 41/195 and Hindustan Anitibiotic. 211. Guard file of supply orders. X/33 212. 70 supply orders of Hindustan Ciba. 41/196 to 41/265

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 201

213. Guard files of AHD on supply orders. X/34 214. 20 supply orders of Inter Pharmacuticals. 41/266 to 41/285 215. 35 supply orders for supply of medicines. 41/286 to 41/320 216. Guard file on 35 supply orders. X/35 217. 14 supply orders of Hindustan Antibiotic & 41/321 to 41/334 others. 218. Guard file on supply orders. X/36 219. 30 supply orders in Guard file. 41/335 to 41/364 220. Guard file of supply orders. X/37 221. Guard file of supply orders. X/38 222. 21 supply orders of Little Oak. 41/365 to 41/385 223. Guard file of supply orders of Baishnav X/39 Enterprises. 224. 50 supply orders of Baishnav Enterprises. 41/386 to 41/435 225. Guard file of supply orders. X/40 226. 26 supply order of Mastrin 41/436 to 41/461 Pharmaceuticals. 227. 08 supply orders of Hindustan Antibiotics 41/462 to 41/469 228. 08 supply orders of Glaxo. 41/470 to 41/477 229. 92 supply orders of Chotanagpur Cattle X/41 Feed. 230. Supply orders of Chotanagpur Cattle Feed. 41/478 to 41/569 231. Guard file of supply orders of Angil X/42 Medichem. 232. 09 supply order of Angil Medichem 41/570 to 41/578 233. 13 supply orders of Baishnav Enterprises 41/579 to 41/591 234. Guard File of DAHO, Sarikela. X/44 235. 81 supply orders of Navketan Enterprises. 41/592 to 41/672 236. Guard File of 98 supply orders. X/45 237. 60 supply orders of Inter Pharma and 41/673 to 41/770 Mastrin Pharma. 238. Guard File of DAHO, Chaibasa. X/46 239. 100 supply order of Baishnev Enterprises, 41/771 to 41/870 Khunti. 240. Guard File of DAHO, Chaibasa. X/47 241. 49 supply order of Baishnev Enterprises, 41/871 to 919 Khunti.

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 202

242. Guard File of DAHO, Chaibasa. X/48 243. 18 supply orders of Samarpan Veterinary. 41/920 to 41/937 244. Guard File of DAHO, Chaibasa. X/49 245. 92 supply order in guard file. 41/938 to 41/1029 246. Guard file of supply orders. X/50 247. 50 supply orders. 41/1030 to 41/1117 248. Guard file of supply orders. X/51 249. 51 supply orders. 41/1118 to 41/1128 250. Guard file of supply orders. X/52 251. Supply orders. 41/1129 to 41/1138 252. Guard file of supply orders. X/53 253. Supply orders. 41/1139 to 41/1217 254. File on supply of medicines in Chaibas. 25/43 to 25/44 255. Guard file of supply orders. X/54 256. 30 supply orders. 41/1218 to 41/1247 257. 85 supply orders. X/55 258. 85 supply orders in guide file. 41/1248 to 41/1332 259. Guard file of supply orders. X/56 260. Supply orders of Samarpan Veterinary. 41/1333 to 41/1342 261. Guard file with 62 supply orders. X/57 262. 62 supply orders of Wockdart & Pfizer. 41/1343 to 41/1404 263. Letter No. 6/Misc.R-31/97-98/1423 dated 10/30 02.12.98 of Central Exercise Range – 31, Delhi. 264. Guard file of supply orders. X/58 265. 40 supply orders of Semex Cryogenics and 41/1405 to 41/1444 Asian Breeders. 266. Guard file of DAHO, Chaibasa. X/59 267. 36 supply orders of Krishna Traders. 41/1445 to 41/1480 268. Letter No. 126 dated 21.02.97 of Bihar 10/31 Bhawan Delhi. 269. Letter No. 629 dated 13.08.96 of Bihar 10/32 Bhawan Delhi. 270. Warrant u/s 132 of IT Act signed by 42 to 42/22 Tarkeshwar Prasad.

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 203

271. 06 warrant signed by Shri N.K.Jain. 42/23 to 42/28 272. Warrant u/s 132 of IT Act signed by 42/29 to 42/42 R.Sharma. 273. Warrant signed by Shri N.K.Jain. 42/43 to 42/50 274. Warrant signed by Shri S.C.Singh. 42/51 to 42/57 275. Warrant signed by Shri P.P.Lal. 42/58 to 42/61 276. 15 Panchnama. 43 to 43/14 277. 08 appraisal reports of K.M.Prasad, 44 to 44/7 Baishnav Enterprises, Sanjay Sinha, Bijay Malik and M/s Medivet. 278. Guard file of supply orders. X/60 279. 10 supply order of Chottanagpur Cattle 41/1481 to 41/1490 Feed. 280. Guard File of DAHO, Chaibasa. X/61 281. 11 supply orders of Samarpan Veterinary. 41/1491 to 41/1501 282. Guard File of DAHO, Chaibasa. X/62 283. 61 supply orders of Satyendra 41/1502 to 41/1562 Construction. 284. Guard File of DAHO, Chaibasa. X/63 285. 35 supply orders of Krishan Traders. 41/1563 to 41/1595 286. Guard File of DAHO, Chaibasa. X/64 287. 64 supply orders of Krishan Traders. 41/1596 to 41/1659 288. Guard File of DAHO, Chaibasa. X/65 289. 66 supply order of Chottanagpur Cattle 41/1660 to 41/1725 Feed 290. Guard File of DAHO, Chaibasa. X/66 291. 40 supply orders of Pfizer & Glaxo. 41/1726 to 41/1765 292. Guard File of DAHO, Chaibasa. X/67 293. Supply orders of Satyendra Construction. 41/1766 to 41/1825 294. Guard File of DAHO, Chaibasa. X/68 295. 33 supply orders of A.Traders. 41/1826 to 41/1858 296. Guard File of DAHO, Chaibasa. X/69 297. 60 supply orders of Little Oak 41/1859 to 41/1918 Pharmaceuticals. 298. Guard File of DAHO, Chaibasa. X/70 299. 85 supply orders of A.Trader. 41/1919 to 41/1926

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 204

300. Guard File of DAHO, Chaibasa. X/71 301. 60 supply orders of different companies. 41/1927 to 41/1986 302. Guard File of DAHO, Chaibasa. X/72 303. 61 supply orders. 41/1487 to 41/2097 304. Guard File of DAHO, Chaibasa. X/73 305. 60 supply orders. 41/2098 to 41/2157 306. Guard File of GCF, Sarikela for supply of X/74 maize. 307. 60 supply orders for supply of yellow 41/2158 to 41/2217 maize. 308. Guard File of GCF, Sarikela for supply of X/75 GNC. 309. 31 supply orders. 41/2218 to 41/2254 310. Guard File of DAHO, Chaibasa. X/76 311. 74 supply orders. 41/2255 to 41/2328 312. Guard file for supply of GNC to Sarikela. X/77 313. 95 supply orders of Mallik Enterprises 41/2329 to 41/2423 Delhi. 314. Guard File of DAHO, Chaibasa on supply of X/78 instruments. 315. 10 supply orders of Samarpan Veterinary 41/2424 to 41/2433 Enterprises, Patna. 316. Guard File of DAHO, Chaibasa. X/79 317. 94 supply orders of Manas Sales, Patna. 41/2434 to 41/2527 318. Guard File of DAHO, Chaibasa. X/80 319. 61 supply orders of Manas Sales, Patna. 41/2528 to 2588 320. Guard File of DAHO, Chaibasa for supply of X/81 maize. 321. 32 supply orders of Manas Sales, Patna. 41/2589 to 41/2620 322. Guard File of DAHO, Chaibasa. X/82 323. 61 supply orders of Jai Bhandar & 41/2621 to 41/2681 Chottanagpur Cattle Feed. 324. Guard File of DAHO, Chaibasa. X/83 325. 21 supply orders of Pfizer, Patna. 41/2682 to 41/2702 326. Guard File of DAHO, Chaibasa. X/84 327. 09 supply orders of Chottanagpur Cattle 41/2703 to 41/2711 Feed.

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 205

328. Guard File of DAHO, Chaibasa. X/85 329. 34 supply orders of Q Max and Shakti 41/2712 to 41/2745 Pharma. 330. Guard File of DAHO, Chaibasa. X/86 331. 50 supply orders of Glaxo, Karnataka 41/2746 to 41/2795 Antibiotic and Baif. 332. Guard File of DAHO, Chaibasa. X/87 333. 20 supply orders of Samarpan Veterinary. 41/2796 to 41/2815 334. Guard File of DAHO, Chaibasa. X/88 335. 14 supply order. 41/2816 to 41/2829 336. Guard File of DAHO, Chaibasa. X/89 337. 09 supply orders of Wockdarth. 41/2830 to 41/2832 338. Photo copy of supply orders by Sideshwar X 90 to X 95 Prasad. 339. Guard File of DAHO, Chaibasa. X 96 340. Supply orders of Chottanagpur Cattle Feed. 41/2833 to 41/2846 341. 08 supply orders. 41/2847 to 41/2854 342. Guard File of DAHO, Chaibasa. X 97 343. 25 supply orders of Mallik Enterprises. 41/2855 to 41/2879 344. Guard File of DAHO, Chaibasa. X/98 345. 13 supply orders of A.Traders. 41/2880 to 41/2891 346. Guard File of DAHO, Chaibasa. X/99 347. 34 supply orders of A.Traders & 41/2892 to 41/2925 Chottanagpur Veterinary. 348. Guard File of DAHO, Chaibasa. X/100 349. 10 supply orders of Satyendra 41/2926 to 41/2935 Construction. 350. Letter of GM Department of comunication. 10/33 351. Adopted from PW 294 A.K.Basu of RC20. 36/46 352. Guard File of DAHO, Chaibasa. X/101 353. Supply orders of Badrinarayan. 41/2936 to 41/2971 354. Guard File of DAHO, Chaibasa. X/102 355. 100 supply orders of Krishan Traders. 41/2972 to 41/3071 356. File on supply of medicine in Chaiabasa 25/45 District. 357. File on supply of medicine in Chaiabasa 25/46

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 206

District. 358. Guard File of DAHO, Chaibasa. X/103 359. 50 Supply orders . 41/3072 to 41/3121 360. 03 photo copies of supply orders. X/104 to X/106 361. 63 supply orders of Badri Narayan. On 41/3122 to 41/3184 exhibit 1 362. 13 supply orders of Badri Narayan. On 41/3185 to 41/3197 exhibit 1/1 363. 32 supply orders of Badri Narayan. On 41/3198 to 41/3229 exhibit 1/1 364. 43 supply orders of Badri Narayan. On 41/3230 to 41/3272 exhibit 1/2 365. 11 supply orders on exhibit 1/3. 41/3273 to 41/3284 366. 46 supply orders on exhibit 1/4. 41/3285 to 41/3342 367. 49 supply orders on exhibit 1/5. 41/3343 to 41/3391 368. 96 supply orders on exhibit 1/6. 41/3392 to 41/3486 369. 78 supply orders on exhibit 1/7. 41/3487 to 41/3564 370. 09 supply orders on exhibit 1/8. 41/3565 to 41/3583 371. Supply orders on exhibit 1/9 41/3584 to 41/3647 372. 16 supply orders on exhibit 1/10. 41/3648 to 41/3663 373. 05 supply orders on exhibit 1/11. 41/3664 to 41/3668 374. 75 supply orders on exhibit 1/12. 41/3669 to 41/3743 375. 56 supply orders on exhibit 1/13. 41/3744 to 41/3799 376. 36 supply orders on exhibit 1/14. 41/3800 to 41/3835 377. 18 supply orders on exhibit 1/15. 41/3836 to 41/3853 378. 64 supply orders on exhibit 1/16. 41/3854 to 41/3917 379. Supply orders on exhibit 1/17. 41/3918 to 41/4013 380. 82 supply orders on exhibit 1/18. 41/4014 to 41/4095 381. 26 supply orders on exhibit 1/19. 41/4096 to 41/4121 382. 86 supply orders on exhibit 1/20. 41/4122 to 41/4207 383. 63 supply orders on exhibit 1/21. 41/4208 to 41/4270 384. 69 supply orders on exhibit 1/22. 41/4271 to 41/4339 385. 89 supply orders on exhibit 1/23. 41/4340 to 41/4428 386. 119 supply orders on exhibit 1/24. 41/4429 to 41/4547

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 207

387. 77 supply orders on exhibit 1/25. 41/4548 to 41/4624 388. 100 supply orders on exhibit 1/26. 41/4625 to 41/4724 389. 49 supply orders on exhibit 1/27. 41/4725 to 41/4773 390. 37 supply orders on exhibit 1/28. 41/4774 to 41/4810 391. 67 supply orders on exhibit 1/29. 41/4811 to 41/4877 392. 99 supply orders on exhibit 1/30. 41/4878 to 41/4976 393. 85 supply orders on exhibit 1/31. 41/4977 to 41/5061 394. 60 supply orders on exhibit 1/32 41/5062 to 41/5121 395. 02 supply orders on exhibit 1/33. 41/5122 to 41/5123 396. 14 supply orders on exhibit 1/34. 41/5124 to 41/5137 397. 58 supply orders on exhibit 1/35. 41/5138 to 41/5195 398. 79 supply orders on exhibit 1/36. 41/5196 to 41/5275 399. 40 supply orders on exhibit 1/37. 41/5276 to 41/5315 400. 38 supply orders on exhibit 1/38. 41/5316 to 41/5353 401. 69 supply orders on exhibit 1/39. 41/5354 to 41/5422 402. 99 supply orders on exhibit 1/40. 41/5423 to 41/5522 403. 97 supply orders on exhibit 1/41 41/5523 to 41/5619 404. 81 supply orders on exhibit 1/42. 41/5620 to 41/5699 405. 94 supply orders on exhibit 1/43. 41/5700 to 41/5793 406. 71 supply orders on exhibit 1/44. 41/5794 to 41/5864 407. 40 supply orders on exhibit 1/45. 41/5865 to 41/5904 408. 62 supply orders on exhibit 1/46. 41/5905 to 41/5966 409. 70 supply orders on exhibit 1/47. 41/5967 to 41/6036 410. 19 supply orders on exhibit 1/48. 41/6037 to 41/6055 411. 11 supply orders on exhibit 1/49. 41/6056 to 41/6066 412. 20 supply orders on exhibit 1/50. 41/6067 to 41/6086 413. 19 supply orders on exhibit 1/51. 41/6087 to 41/6105 414. 19 supply orders on exhibit 1/52. 41/6106 to 41/6124 415. 19 supply orders on exhibit 1/53. 41/6125 to 41/6143 416. 19 supply orders on exhibit 1/54. 41/6144 to 41/6162 417. 19 supply orders on exhibit 1/55. 41/6163 to 41/6171 418. 53 supply orders on exhibit 1/56. 41/6172 to 41/6224

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 208

419. 20 supply orders on exhibit 1/57. 41/6225 to 41/6244 420. Exhibit 38/269 of RC20 Finance Audit File 36/46 No. 480/92 PW 127. 421. Seizure Memo dated 17.03.98 of Goyal 3/59 Rice Trading, Delhi. 422. Seizure Memo dated 17.03.98 of Iswar Jain. 8/49 to 8/50 423. Seizure Memo dated 17.03.98 of Iswar Jain. 3/60 424. Statement of A/c of M/s Paras Nath 8/51 to 8/52 Traders. 425. Seizure Memo dated 02.06.97 of Sale Tax, 3/61 Delhi. 426. Seizure Memo dated 21.08.97 of Sale Tax, 3/62 Delhi. 427. 02 files of Sale Tax, Delhi. 1/59 to 1/60 428. Account opening form of Md. Sayeed in the 9/13 name of Jalan Roadways. 429. Statement of A/c of Jalan Roadways. 8/53 430. File No. 3 PS (1) 1055/91. 38/284 of RC20, 36/47 PW 136. 431. Additional File 3 PS (1) 1055/91 38/285 of 36/48 RC 20, PW 136 432. Certified copy of letter 3PS(1) 106/97 AH 10/30 2848 dated 23.06.96. 433. Statement of K.K.Srivastava u/s 164 Cr.P.C 24/1 434. Exhibit X/48, X/45, X/43, X/46, X/41, X/44, 1/61 to 1/70 X/50, X/48 and X/49 supply bills. 435. Exhibit X/34, X/36, X/38, X/39, X/29, X/31, 1/71 to 1/82 X/32, X/33, X/35, X/37, X/40 and X/30 supply bills 436. Exhibit X/54, X/56, X/65 supply bills. 1/83 to 1/85 437. Exhibit X/83, X/55 and X/85 supply bills. 1/86 to 1/88 438. Exhibit X/52, X/60, X/64, X/67, X/68, X/84, 1/89 to 1/97 X/70, X/82, X/81 supply bills. 439. Exhibit X/61, X/69, X/88, X/86, X/87, X/87, 1/98 to 1/106 X/51, X/56, X/57 supply bills. 440. Exhibit X/63, X/80, X/79, X/76, X/75, X/72, 1/107 to 1/113 X/98 supply bills. 441. Exhibit X/74, X/97, X/101, X/62, X/59, X/77 1/114 to 119 supply bills. 442. Exhibit X/58, X/78, X/71, X/73, X/28 and 1/120 to 1/125 X/66 supply bills. 443. Booking register if Indus Travel. PW of 171 19/168 to 19/169

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 209

of RC38 and PW 139 of RC68. 444. Booking register 19/168. 19/170 445. Booking register 19/169. 19/171 446. Booking register 19/164. 19/172 447. Entry of O.P.Diwakar. 19/173 448. Entery in the name of S.K.Singh & 19/174 C.B.Dubey in register 19/169. 449. Entery in the name of K.N.Jha in register 19/175 19/169. 450. Booking register of Indus Travel. 19/176 451. Entery in the name of Sayeed in register 19/177 19/176. 452. Entery in the name of Sajal Chakarvorty in 19/178 register 19/176. 453. BTE 106/93. Revised budget of AHD 93-94. 36/49 38/349 of RC20 454. File BSG 81/93 on vote of account 94-95. 36/50 38/350 of RC20 455. File BSG 81/93 on vote of account 94-95. 36/51 38/351 of RC20 456. File M-4-11/94 regarding ban on 36/52 withdrawal. 38/352 of RC20 457. File M-4-54/93. 38/353of RC20 36/53 458. File on appropriation ordinance 94-95. 36/54 38/354 of RC20 459. BT 115/94 of budget section. 36/55 38/355 of RC20 460. BSG 2/95 of budget section 36/56 38/356 of RC20 461. File M-4/13/94 on cash regulation 36/57 38/357 of RC20 462. File M-4/14/94 of Finance Department. 36/58 38/358 of RC20 463. File 01/93 of budget section ways and 36/59 means. 38/359 of RC20 464. File M-4/49/93 on cash regulation. 36/60 38/360 of RC20 465. File M-4/50/93 on cash regulation. 36/61 38/361 of RC20 466. File M-4/25/94-25/95 on cash regulation. 36/62 38/362 of RC20 467. File M-4/29/95 on cash regulation. 36/63 38/363 of RC20

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 210

468. File 124/92 of AHD. PW 183 of RC 20 36/64 469. Agreement of Little Oak with treatment 45 Home. PW 144 470. Letter of CBI dated 07.11.96. 10/31 471. Reply to the letter by B.Sen. Gupta. 10/32 472. Seizure dated 10.11.96 of Sandeep Ghosh. 3/63 473. Letter of CBI to Usha Phone. 10/33 474. Letter dated 24.06.97 of Rustam Ali to 10/34 Nagendra Prasad. 475. Letter dated 05.07.97 of Rustam Ali to 10/35 Nagendra Prasad. 476. Letter of Novartis to CBI dated 30.03.98. 10/36 477. Letter of JVG Financial dated 10.12.97. 10/37 478. To be adopted from PW 226 of RC20 3/103 & 89 479. Supplier bills of Shakti Pharma Distirbutor. 14/199 480. To be adopted from statement of PW 150 Tilak Raj Gauri. 481. To be adopted from statement of PW 152 Ravi Shankar. 482. Seizure Memo of M.Ramesh dated 3/66 20.08.97. 483. File of Asian Breeders on Sale Tax. 36/65 484. File of Asian Breeders on Sale Tax. 36/66 485. Seizure list dated 11.02.97 of A.K.Jha on 3/67 school forms. 486. Air Ticket of Patliputra Agency. 33/23 to 33/179 487. File of Budge section on RBI. 36/67 488. File of RBI. 36/68 489. BTE 35/90 on budget of AHD 1991-92 and 36/69 92-93. 490. BS 23/94 of Vigilance Department. 36/70 491. Seizure Memo dated 30.11.96 and 3/68 to 3/69 03.12.96. 26/323 and 26/324 492. File No. CR6/FM-226/96-97. Exhibit 36/71 38/278A 493. Reports on measurement of Gowdan. 46 & 46/1 494. Forwarding letter of reports on 46/2 & 46/3 measurement. 495. Sketch map of gowdan. 47

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 211

496. Forwarding letter of DS, Chaibasa with 47/1 map of gowdan. 497. Treasury advice. 48 498. Register of hotel Akshay Place. 49 to 49/3 499. Bills of hotel. 49/4 to 49/12 500. Register of hotel Shobti. 49/13 501. Bills of hotel Shobti. 49/14 to 49/15 502. Guard file of Little Oak with 79 bills. 1/26 503. Guard file of Little Oak with 98 bills. 1/27 504. Seizure memo of SS Dubey of Finance 3/70 Department. 505. File M-4-43/92 of Finance Department. 36/71 506. Guard file of Finance Department. 1/128 507. File No. 107/93. 36/72 508. Seizure memo of D.N.Biswas. 3/71 509. 03 files of AG seized from A.K.Mehta. 36/73 to 36/75 510. File of 10th Finance Commission. 36/76 511. Booklet on Forecast & Revenue Account 36/77 512. Seizure of Anil Kumar dated 17.02.97. 4/249 513. Files of Vigilance Department – 04 36/78 to 36/81 volumes. 514. File BS 38/92. 36/82 515. 92 complaint petitions. 50 to 50/91 516. 83 complaint petitions. 50/92 to 50/174 517. 13 register of Vigilance Department. 51 to 51/12 518. 33 letters of M.Ramesh. 10/38 to 10/70 519. 12 letters of S.P.Dhanbad. 10/71 to 10/82 520. 05 Seizure list of M.Ramesh. 3/72 to 3/76 521. 13 letters to medicine companies. 10/83 to 10/95 522. 08 seizure list dated 30.04.97, 24.07.97, 3/77 to 3/84 21.08.97, 21.04.98, 23.08.97 and 08.10.98. 523. 42 letters sent to different banks by 10/96 to 10/137 M.Ramesh. 524. 15 letters sent to DTO by M.Ramesh. 10/138 to 10/152

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 212

525. Letter of Wockdart to CBI. 10/153 526. Reply from Glaxo, Indian Immunological, 10/154 to 10/167 CIBA, BIAF, Cadila, Winsun Lab and Healer Lab. 527. Letter to GQED for examination of 10/168 to 10/170 documents and opinion. 528. Letter to licencing authority and sale tax. 10/171 to 10/173 529. Letter No. 843 dated 04.07.97 received 10/174 from DTO, Ranchi. 530. Letter No. 217 dated 06.03.97 from Animal 10/175 Husbandry Chaibasa. 531. Letter 961 dated 21.03.98 of Deputy 10/176 Secretary to M.Ramesh. 532. Letter No. 717 dated 04.02.97 of Secretary 10/177 to CBI. 533. File No. 1/89 on appointment of Ram Raj 36/83 Ram. 534. File No. AH-107/79 on complaint against 36/84 Ram Raj Ram. 535. File No. AH-127/79 complaint against 36/85 K.M.Prasad. 536. File No. 2BT2- 2014/95 regarding 36/86 verification of account 94-95. 537. File No. 15P-401/93 of Duti Pahan 36/87 (1480/92) 538. File No. 9Le-124/96 on DO letter No. 217 36/88 dated 06.08.96 of AG. 539. Seizure Memo dated 05.02.97. 3/85 540. Seizure Memo dated 15.05.98. 3/86 541. Photo copy of seizure memo dated X/105 18.07.97. 542. Seizure Memo dated 13.04.98. 3/87 543. Seizure Memo dated 05.04.97. 3/88 544. Seizure Memo dated 09.04.97. 3/89 545. Seizure Memo dated 31.07.97. 3/90 546. Seizure Memo dated 03.07.97. 3/91 547. Seizure Memo dated 09.07.97. 3/92 548. Seizure Memo dated 05.07.97. 3/93 549. Seizure Memo dated 05.07.97. 3/94 550. Seizure Memo dated 18.08.98. 3/95

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 213

551. Seizure Memo dated 30.05.98. 3/96 552. Seizure Memo dated 10.09.98. 3/97 553. Seizure Memo dated 04.09.98. 3/98 554. Seizure Memo dated 07.05.97. 3/99 555. Seizure Memo dated 01.06.97. 3/100 556. Sanction order. 52 557. Forwarding letter number 235/GS dated 53 28.11.2001. 558. Sanction for prosecution of accused Lalu 52/1 Prasad. 559. Sanction for prosecution of accused 52/2 Jagannath Mishra. 560. Sanction for prosecution of accused C.D.P. 52/3 Verma. 561. Sanction for prosecution of accused 52/4 V.S.Nishad. 562. Sanction for prosecution of accused 52/5 P.C.Singh. 563. Sanction for prosecution of accused 52/6 Mahesh Prasad and K. Arumugam. 564. Statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C of S.C.Verma, 24/2 to 24/6 H.S.Sinha, R.K.Kedia, R.B.Jha and S.R.Sundi. 565. Sanction order dated 10.10.2001 of 52/7 accused Mukesh, Dubraj Dorai, Arjun Sharma, Ram Raj Ram, B.N.Sharma and Ram Prakash Ram. (3520) 566. Sanction order against accused B.B.Prasad 52/8 and R.K.Das dated 10.10.2001. (3521) 567. Sanction order against accused Silas Tirkey 52/9 dated 08.10.12 (3496) 568. Sanction order against accused Jagdish 52/10 Sharma dated 10.01.2002. 569. Sanction order against accused Raju Singh 52/11 dated 04.04.2003. 570. Statement of accuse u/s 164 Cr.P.C dated 24/7 03.06.97. 571. Statement of B.N.L.Das u/s 164 Cr.P.C 24/8 dated 17.03.98. 572. Statement of Sahdeo Prasad u/s 164 Cr.P.C 24/9 dated 17.03.98. 573. CC of computer print out of telephone 54 number 501500. RC20

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 214

574. CC of computer print out of subscription 54/1 card of phone number 307832. RC20 575. CC of computer print out of telephone 54/2 to 54/5 number 306505, 502 555, 205907, 502555. RC20 576. CC of computer print out of telephone 54/6 number 501500. RC20 577. Particulars of payment of telephone 55 to 55/1 number 501435 corresponding to telephone 501500 578. Original Subscription card of telephone 56 501435. 579. CC of daily collection list. 57 580. CC of 10 counter foils of telephone bill of 58 to 58/9 telephone number 501435. 581. CC of original counter foils of telephone 59 bill. 582. Letter of PA/C telephone department 10/128 Dhanbad dated 10.01.97. 583. Seizure memo dated 13.05.99. 3/101 584. Seizure memo dated 14.05.99. 3/102 585. Seizure memo dated 20.06.96. 3/103 586. Signature on enclosure. 10/176-1 to 10/176- 3 587. CC of file number 69/93. 60 588. CC of file number 15P(2)701/46 60/1 589. CC of file number 15P(2)1023/95 60/2 590. CC of file number 15P(2)104/96 60/3 591. CC of file number 15P(1)102/92 60/4 592. CC of file number 15P(2)106/95 60/5 593. CC of file number 15P(2)1010/95 60/6 594. Forwarding letter of Chaibasa treasury to 10/170 to 10/195 AG office, Ranchi. 595. Acknowledgement receipt of AG. X/107 to 119 596. Statement of J.P.Verma recorded on 61 14.10.96. 597. FIR 62 598. Letter of AG No. 4472 with annexure 33 62/1 sheets. 599. Seizure list dated 26.04.99. 3/104

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 215

600. Seizure list dated 17.04.99. 3/105 601. Seizure list dated 11.03.97. 3/106 602. Letter of DC Sale Tax dated 25.04.97 10/196 603. Seizure list dated 09.08.98 3/107 604. Seizure list dated 31.12.98. 3/108 605. Letter dated 26.11.96. 3/109 606. Letter dated 26.11.96. 10/197 607. Seizure list dated 18.08.97 3/110 608. Seizure list dated 11.03.98 3/111 609. Seizure list dated 27.08.97 3/112 610. Seizure list dated 05.03.97. 3/113 611. Seizure list dated 20.06.97 3/114 612. Seizure list dated 13.05.97 3/115 613. Seizure list dated 04.09.96 3/116 614. Seizure list dated 01.09.96 3/117 615. Receipt memo. 3/118 616. Seizure list dated 04.09.96 3/119 617. Letter dated 07.10.98. 10/198 618. Letter dated 07.01.98. 10/199 619. Letter dated 07.10.98. 10/200 620. Letter dated 02.01.97 10/201 621. Letter dated 04.06.99 10/202 622. Opinion letter dated 10.12.98. 63 623. Opinion letter dated 18.12.98 63/1 624. Opinion letter dated 18.12.98 63/2 625. Seizure list dated 05.02.97 3/120 626. Letter dated 30.08.96 10/203 627. Letter dated 30.08.96 and 02.01.97 10/204 628. Letter dated 15.07.97 10/205 629. Seizure list dated 11.03.97 10/206 630. Valuation report of Diamond ornaments. 64 631. Chargesheet with annexure 65

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 216

632. Sanction order dated 15.10.2001 52/12 633. Forwarding letter 66 634. Opinion letter 66/1 635. Forwarding letter 66/2 636. Reasons for opinion 66/3 637. Forwarding letter dated 07.10.98 10/207 638. Reasons for opinion No. DXC-117 (1)98 66/4 dated 30.11.98 639. Forwarding letter dated 13.10.98 66/5 640. Reasons for opinion No. DXC-117(II)98 66/6 dated 30.11.98 641. Forwarding letter dated 01.04.99 66/7 642. Reasons for opinion dated 30.11.98 66/8 643. Forwarding letter dated 20.04.99 63/3 644. Photo copy of seizure list. X/120 to X/121 645. Letter No. 1837 dated 07.06.2003 and 10/208 chargesheet number 3/3 dated 07.06.03. 646. Seizure list dated 26.04.99. 3/121 647. Seizure list dated 24.04.99. 3/122 648. Letter of Chaibasa Treasury. 3/123 to 3/127 649. Monthly Income and Expenditure of 3/128 Chaibasa Treasury of 92-93. 650. Debit scroll of Chaibasa Treasury. 3/129 651. Bill book of AHD Chaibasa 1992-93 in two 3/130 to 3/131 volumes. 652. Letter of AHD Chaibasa to AG. 3/132 653. Letter of Chaibasa Treasury. X/108 to X/112 654. 22 CNC register of DAHO Chaibasa for the 1/126 to 1/147 year 1992-93 655. Letter dated 05.01.94 67 656. Office note dated 04.03.94 67/1 657. Initial of Tarkeshwar Sahay 67/2 658. Note of Ram Raj Ram 67/3 659. 05 files on budget of AHD Department for 67/4 to 67/8 the year 1991-1995 660. Office note of Dayanand Singh, K.M.Prasad 67/9 and Ram Raj Ram

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 217

661. Budget estimate 1990-91 67/10 662. Noting of budget estimate in 1991-92 of 67/11 exhibit 67/5 663. Budget estimate in exhibit 67/5 67/12 664. Budget files of AHD 67/13 to 67/14 665. Budget estimate 67/15 666. Noting in budget file 67/16 667. Budget estimate 67/17 668. Noting in budget files 67/18 to 67/19 669. Budget estimate 67/20 670. Report dated 24.05.92 68 671. Paper cutting 68/1 to 68/2 672. Carbon copy of letter dated 05.03.94 68/3 673. Signature on seizure list 68/4 674. Letter No. 142/FC 69 675. Fax Memory 61/1 676. Noting 69/2 677. Signature 69/3 678. Signature report 69/4 679. Noting 69/5 680. Noting 69/6 681. Order of Lalu Prasad 69/7 682. Analysis 69/8 683. Letter 69/9 to 69/11 684. Letter 69/12 685. File 69/3 686. Files 70 to 70/61 687. Budget speech 70/62 to 70/67 688. Seizure Memo 71 689. Last Report 71/1 690. Seizure list 72 691. F Financial report forecast 72/1 to 72/3 692. File 73

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 218

693. Noting 73/1 694. File 74 695. Noting 74/1 696. Seizure list 75 to 75/1 697. Land of Hotel Marina 75/2 to 75/5 698. Bills of Hotel Marina 75/6 to 75/8 699. Register of Hotel Marina 75/4 to 75/11 700. Bills of Hotel Marina 75/12 to 75/13

7. The accused persons entered into defence and altogether 23 witnesses have been examined on behalf of defence. D.W.1 is Md. Janiul has been produced on behalf of accused Lalu Prasad Yadav. He has deposed that he had been in service of Bihar Legislative Assembly and he is known to the procedure of Legislative Assembly. Questions raised before the house may be categorized into three categories – (1) Question of short notice, (2) Star question and (3) Non star question. Question raised under short notice is related with important public cause. Star questions is important for public and non star questions are related with analytical answer. The Secretariat of house, distinguishes the questions into admissible and inadmissible categories. Admissible questions are sent to the concerned department for answer. Question on short notice and start question are replied by the concerned Minister in the house. The question which was not answered is mentioned in a book with its answer. He has deposed in his cross examination that during 1990 to 1995 he was Under Secretary in Legislative Assembly. Admissibility of question is determined as per rule 78 to 96 of Rules of Legislative Assembly, Bihar. Star question may be asked before 14 days, question of short notice may be asked before seven days and non star question may be asked at any time. He cannot remember the matters during the period 1990 to 1995. D.W.2 is Gunjan Kumar. He has deposed on behalf of accused Lalu Prasad Yadav that he was employeed in Arya Travels from 1985 to November, 1994 and later on he joined Sahara Airlines in the month of December, 1994. Presently he is employee of Go Airlines. During 1990 to 1997 Air Ticket for Lalu Jee was taken from authorized travel agent and boarding

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 219 pass was issued to Protocol Officer of the Secretariat. He used to travel within Bihar from Airoplane of State Government. In those days identify proof was not mandatory for air travel. He has deposed in his cross examination that he could not say the date of journey. He has no document in support of his statement. D.W.3 is Ram Panni Singh. He has deposed on behalf of accused Lalu Prasad Yadav that residence of the then Chief Minister Sri Lalu Prasad Yadav and Smt. Rabari Devi was situated at 1, Ane Marg, Patna. They had been residing there from 1997 to 2005. Holi, Chhat, Makarsakranti and Eftar Party were celebrated at his residence. The gate of his residence remained open for public during these days. He also used to participate on that occasions. He has deposed in his cross examination that he could not say the actual date of Holi or any other festival which occured during years 1990 to 2017. Festivals are celebrated in his own house also but Lalu Prasad never visited his house. D.W.4 is Shashi Bhushan Sharma. He has deposed on behalf of accused Lalu Prasad Yadav that in the year 1997 he was posted at Secretariat Sub Division of Police at the post of Dy. S.P. The residence of the Chief Minister was within his jurisdiction. He was directed to bring station diary of Secretariat Police Station from 24.07.1997 to 31.07.1997 but the present Officer-in-Charge did not provide him the required station diary. On 25.07.1997 Additional Police Force was deputed at the residence of Lalu Prasad to control Law and Order. He was also present there. At about 2.15 P.M. order of the Hon'ble High Court was received about stay of arrest order of Lalu Prasad. He surrendered before the court on 30.07.1997. They had provided police security to the employees of C.B.I. A case of Fodder Scam was lodged in his police station which was handed over to C.B.I. as per order of Superior Officers. He has deposed in his cross examination that he became in service in 1975 at the post of Sub Inspector. He has no documentary proof that he was Dy. S.P. in the year 1997. He did not see the order of Supreme Court. D.W.5 is Syed Kamal Hasan. He has deposed on behalf of accused Lalu Prasad that he was Officer-in-Charge of Secretariat Police Station in 1997. The residence of Chief Minister was within his jurisdiction. C.B.I. did not give him arrest warrant of Lalu Prasad in July, 1997 nor assistance was asked by them. Lalu Prasad surrendered in the court on 30.07.1997. C.B.I. requested help of Army to arrest Lalu Prasad Yadav on 30.07.1997 which was refused by

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 220 the Army. He has deposed in his cross examination that he has no documentary proof for being Officer-in-Charge of Secretariat P.S. in 1997. Lalu Prasad surrendered in Civil Court. He had personal knowledge that C.B.I. requested Army to help them. D.W.6 is Rajendra Khan. He has deposed on behalf of accused Lalu Prasad Yadav that he remained in service of Bihar Legislative Assembly and he knew the procedure of Legislative Council of Bihar. When question is asked in Legislative assembly, it is sent to the concerned department and answer from that department is obtained to put before the house. If the person who had asked question, is not present in the house, the question remains unanswered. Some questions are rejected by the Speaker. Compilation of question and its answer is done at the end of year and the compiled copy is kept in the library of Assembly. The Chief Minister may authorize a person to answer on his behalf. He has deposed in his cross examination that he was related with the procedure of Legislative Assembly. D.W.7 is Harish Kumar Khanna. He is an accused of this case and he has deposed U/s 315 of the Cr.P.C. that he was made partner in Asian Breeders. Rajan Mehta was whole and sole of Asian Breeder. There are 13 cases against him excluding the present case. 12 cases were brought against Rajan Mehta. In this case Rajan Mehta has not been made accused. He was partner of the firm till 31.03.1992, after that firm was dissolved. The certified copy of resolution of deed was filed and marked as exhibit-B. On 01.04.1992 second partnership deed was prepared in which Madhu Mehta was made active partner and he remained sleeping partner. Certified copy of partnership deed was marked as exhibit-B/1. His bail was granted by Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.C. 20(A)/1996. Certified copy of order of bail was marked as exhibit-B/2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court considered him as a sleeping partner. The Hon'ble High Court granted him bail in R.C. 66(A)/1996 considering him sleeping partner. The certified copy of bail order was marked as exhibit-B/3. Certified copy of bail order passed in R.C. 51(A)/1996 was marked as exhibit-B/4. C.B.I. had filed the petition in R.C. 20(A)/1996 stating that works of Asian Breeder was done by Rajan Mehta. He filed photo copy of that petition. He has deposed in his cross examination that he had been convicted in 8 or 9 cases of Fodder Scam. He did not know about his share in the firm.

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 221

D.W.8 is Mukesh Nath Thakur. He deposed on behalf of accused Ravi Sinha that Ravi Sinha was Director of M/s Angel Medichem India Pvt. Limited. In the year 1992 he became Managing Director of that firm. This witness was manufacturing chemist of that firm from 1990 to 2001. C.B.I. had sent a letter with questionnaire which was replied by the company. His company had supplied medicines namely Neutrivin & Calviton to DAHO, Chaibasa. M/s Janta Veterinary, Ranchi was his distributor. The receiving of the official of C.B.I. bearing letter No. 3867 dated 13.06.1997 was marked as exhibit-C and reply received by M. Ramesh was marked as exhibit-C/1. He produced file related with supply of medicines to DAHO, Chaibasa in the year 1992-93 containing lorry receipt, weight of truck, gate pass no. certified by Central Excise Department. The file was marked as exhibit-C/2. He was acquitted in R.C. 49(A)/1996. Certified copy of judgment was filed. He was not sent up in R.C. 52(A)/1996. He has deposed in his cross examination that now he is running Restaurant. He has got degree of Apprentice In-chemist. He knew Shayam Bihari Sinha, father of accused Ravi Sinha. D.W.9 is Sunil Kumar. He deposed on behalf of accused Lalu Prasad Yadav that he is an IPS. On 25.07.1997 he was S.S.P., Patna. At that time Sri Lalu Prasad was C.M. of Bihar C.B.I. never endorsed him arrest warrant of Lalu Prasad on 25th July or after that. On that day at late night D.G.P., Bihar endorsed him two warrants. He came to the residence of C.M. where proper security arrangement was done. One Officer of C.B.I. was standing outside. There was crowd. He got information about the stay order of warrant in morning. Lalu Jee surrendered on 30th of month. Durai Commission was constituted on 08.08.1997. He has deposed in his cross examination that when he became S.S.P., Patna, Lalu Prasad was Incharge of Home Minister. He got arrest warrant of Lalu Prasad from D.G.P. at about 10.30 P.M. D.W.10 is Mukul Prasad. He deposed on behalf of accused Lalu Prasad Yadav that he was an I.A.S. He was Secretary, Planning and Principal Secretary to Chief Minister from 1990 to 1997. He became Chief Secretary of Bihar in the year 2000. Extension of service is granted to employee of Bihar Government as per Rule 73 or 75 of Bihar Service Code. The State Government is empowered to extend six months service tenure of an employee after retirement of the employee under Rule 73 of Service Code and extension

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 222 of one year of service may be granted under Rule 75 of Service Code. Service extension was given to Kamla Prasad, A.K. Basak, Gajendra Naryan, A.K. Choudhary, D.N. Sahay, Balmiki Sharma, Morish Kiro and Mr. Kujur. They were either I.A.S. or I.P.S. Extension of service was also given to Gorakh Prasad, Umesh Prasad Singh, P.K. Khare, M.M. Prasad, Dr. Bisnudeo Prasad and S.K. Sinha. They were I.A.S., Engineer of Civil Aviation and Employee of Health Department. Like that Dr. Indra Bhan Prasad and Dr. P.S. Prasad of AHD were given extension of service. The names stated by him are not accused of Fodder Scam. He has deposed in his cross examination that service extension is given as per rules of service code. He cannot remember provisions of Executive Business Rules. D.W.11 is Girish Mohan Thakur. He deposed on behalf of accused Lalu Prasad Yadav that he produced list of persons whom were given extension of service marked as exhibit-D. He has deposed in his cross examination that the original file could not be traced. He did not know the basis of preparation of this list. D.W.12 is Ejaj Hussain. He deposed on behalf of accused Lalu Prasad Yadav that he was Advocate of Lalu Prasad Yadav in R.C. 5(A)/1998. In that case Smt. Rabari Devi was also accused. He filed certified copy of charge sheet with annexure marked as exhibit-D/1. He filed certified copy of judgment of R.C. 5(A)/1998 in which Lalu Prasad Yadav and Smt. Rabari Devi were acquitted and the judgment was confirmed upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He has deposed in his cross examination that in this case Lalu Prasad Yadav was arrested and was produced before the court where problem was created and the matter was reported to the Hon'ble High Court. D.W.13 is Bijay Shankar. He deposed on behalf of accused Lalu Prasad Yadav that he brought file of departmental proceeding of Bidhu Bhushan Dubedy with forwarding letter. Only the letter was marked as exhibit-D/3. It appears that there was no file of departmental proceeding of Bidhu Bhushan Dubedy. He has deposed in his cross examination that the file asked from the counsel of Lalu Prasad Yadav were not related with the departmental proceeding of Bidhu Bhushan Dubedy. D.W.14 is Sarad Kumar. He is accused no. 30. He has deposed that he was Managing Director of Q-Max Laboratories. His wife Seema Kumar

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 223 was Director of his firm. Two Directors are necessary for a firm, so he made his wife Director of his firm. His company had been manufacturing medicines of human and animals. He had been possessing all powers of the firm being Managing Director. He supplied medicine to Animal Husbandry Department in the year 1992-1993. The process of supply was done by him and by his employees. There was no role of his wife. C.B.I. seized some documents of his firm and gave copy of seizure which was produced and marked as exhibit-F. He was made accused in other cases also. His wife Seema Kumar was not accused in any other case. He has deposed in his cross examination that his father was District Animal Husbandry Officer. There were two firms in his name. His mother Nirmala Prasad was partner of Medivet. He has been convicted in four or five cases. His mother has also been convicted. There was joint account of his wife with him but she did not issue any cheque. His whole family is involved in cases of Fodder Scam. D.W.15 is Satya Prakash Ram Tripathi. He deposed on behalf of accused Lalu Prasad Yadav that he brought file no. 245/65/97-AVD dated 01.08.1997 which is report of enquiry commission of Sri A.P. Durai. It is marked as exhibit-D/4. He brought page 58 to 94 of that report. He has deposed in his cross examination that he did not know personally about that report. D.W.16 is Mahesh Prasad. He is accused. He has deposed that he was Secretary of Animal Husbandry Department, Government of Bihar from September, 1992 to 7th May, 1994. A seizure and search list was prepared at his residence on 10.06.1997 and articles were seized. A release petition regarding the seized articles was filed on 21.05.2005 in case of R.C. 20(A)/1996. Order was passed by the learned court on 02.06.2005. These documents were marked as exhibit-I, I/1, I/2 & I/3. C.B.I. gave him two letters written by D.G., Vigilance, Bihar in connection with supply of police paper. Copy of these letters were filed and kept with record. He has deposed in his cross examination that Secretary is not head of the department. He is supposed to work as per executive business rules. As per Rule 472 and 473 of Bihar Financial Rule, Director of Animal Husbandry Department was head of the department and he was responsible to do needful as per Financial Rules. D.W.17 is Sajal Chakraborty. He has deposed that I am accused of this case. I joined the West Singhbhum District in June, 1992 and I was

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 224

Transferred out on 10.05.1995. I am the only Deputy Commissioner who has been charge sheeted. According to page 1 and 2 of the Report of Comptroller and Auditor General of India (end of the year 31 March 1996) No.2 Civil Volume-II which has been annexed to the Charge sheet of RC 20A/96 at serial no.170 and exhibited in this case as defence exhibit- A/6 as per acceptance of learned Spl. P.P., CBI, Ranchi. The following were the withdrawals during 1993- 1994, 1994-1995 and 1995-1996. Years District/Trea suries 1993-1994 1994-1995 1995-1996 (Rs. In Crore) (Rs. In Crore) (Rs. In Crore) Ranchi Ranchi 14.68 10.50 6.90 No. of 457 286 123 Vouchers 11883 10679 9207 No. of Sub- Vrs. Doranda 69.60 108.64 42.94 No. of 1339 1488 551 Vouchers 48968 53061 34,741 No. of Sub- Vrs. Total 84.28 119.14 49.84 (Ranchi+Dor anda) West Singhbhum Chaibasa 37.15 37.82 64.82 No. of 529 380 697 Vouchers 34789 16896 57,967 No. of Sub- Vrs. East Singhbhum Jamshedpur 2.18 7.79 19.24 No. of 158 432 425 Vouchers 2121 5339 17,072 No. of Sub- Vrs. Dumka Dumka 6.38 13.48 12.05 No. of 438 556 404 Vouchers 5782 9274 14,604 No. of Sub- Vrs.

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 225

Gumla Gumla 0.58 2.80 15.54 No. of 82 100 216 Vouchers 875 1301 3632 No. of Sub- Vrs. Patna Patna .18 0.21 0.04 No. of 138 120 48 Vouchers 279 351 62 No. of Sub- Vrs. Total 130.75 181.24 161.53 No. of 3141 3362 2464 Vouchers 104697 96901 1,34,285 No. of Sub- Vrs. Total No. of Vrs. 8967 No. of Sub-Vrs. 335883

It is remarkable that the volume of withdrawals were far in excess of mine in the same period at Ranchi. The budget is divided into various heads of accounts relating to various types of expenditure to be incurred under the control of different departments of the State government. The HOD is also the financial controlling officer for the heads of accounts applicable to his department. The HOD in his capacity as controlling officer appoints with government concurrence a number of Drawing And Disbursing Officers (DDOs) for particular heads and sub head of accounts. These gazetted officers are under his administrative and financial control. The DDOs are authorized to draw money under the head/heads of account for which they have been authorized from the treasury and disburse the same. The allotment figure is also communicated to the AG office so that it known the fund allotment position to each DDO. Whenever the DDOs need to draw money from the treasury themselves or to make payments to contractors/suppliers etc. Related to their respective departments, they submit a bill to the treasury. Before the scam took place there was no system to notify the Treasury Officer of the allotment figures. In the bill the DDOs had to fill in the amount and other particulars of the allotment against which they were submitting the bill. The treasury officer has power to pass bills under Rule 180 of the Treasury Code. If

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 226 he found that the bill shows all information required then he passed it. There was no communication to the DMs or TOs of the allotment given to various DDOs before the scam. The system of communicating the allotment to the DMs and TOs began in February 1996 only after the scam had wreaked its damage. However, three control systems were envisaged to keep a check that withdrawals by DDOs did not exceed their respective allotments. Check No. 1 was that the DDOs had to submit a monthly statement of all treasury withdrawals made by them to their respective controlling officers, the HODs of the respective administrative departments. The HODs were supposed to review these statements every month. Check No.2 the Accounts for every month was supposed to be forwarded to the Accountant General Offices on the first date of the following month by the District Administration. This is in accordance with rule 49 of the treasury Code. If the Collector was in the Head Quarter and in a position to work he would sign the accounts himself. Otherwise under Rule 49-A the next senior officer would sign the forwarding note. Every month the account have to be reconciled between Head of the Dept. (Financial Controlling Officer) and the Accountant General’s office. The Bihar Financial Rules and the Treasury Code fixed the responsibility of the conciliation of account between the head of the Dept. and the Accountant General, Primarily the Accountant General. The D.D.Os where not sending their monthly withdrawal figure to their H.O.Ds for years together. Therefore, The H.O.Ds where not doing monthly reviewing of the withdrawal made by the D.D.Os under their control. On the other hand the account from the treasury was going more than a year late from most treasuries. My District was an exception. I was sending my treasury accounts promptly. Even then there is no indication that audit against allotment was been done by the A.G. against the monthly accounts of the treasury being sent by my district (West Singhbhum). When I joined the District in June 1992 the accounts of treasury were going twelve months late. I concentrated on reducing the delay and progressively did so. The accounts within a year were going either on time or in two months delay. Rule 180 of the Treasury Code gives a standing delegation to the treasury officer to pass any bill independently. As far as the treasury is concerned, they developed active nexus with the A.H.D Mafia and connived in the massive fraudulent withdrawals far in excess of the actual allotments. The

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 227

Bihar Budget Manual says that if the A.G or the H.O.D detects excess withdrawal they are to refer the matter for the consideration of the Public Accounts Committee. The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) examines the excess withdrawal and if they find such excess to be justified then the amount is adjusted in the supplementary budget. I have never received any information from the Accountant General’s Office about excess withdrawal or fraudulent withdrawal based on the monthly accounts forwarded by my District during my entire tenure of posting at Chaibasa. Rs. 50.56 Lacs in one day in the month of march. The C.M. asked the Secretary, A.H.D Department to find out for what purpose this amount had been withdrawn. On my return to Chaibasa I looked for Dr. B.N.Sharma the then D.A.H.O. Chaibasa so that he could give me the details of the said withdrawals. I was told that he was on leave as his father was ill. When I asked for the details from the other officers of the Animal Husbandry Department posted in Chaibasa they told me that all their papers and records of last three years had been seized by the public accounts committee a few days back. Subsequently, I contacted Shri Mahesh Prasad the then Secretary A.H.D and solicited his help in this matter. Shri Mahesh Prasad told me that a request letter was being sent by either the C.M. or the A.H.D Minister to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee to either return the seized papers or to make them available for inspection. Shri Mahesh Prasad told me that the A.H.D was itself very serious about the matter as Hon’ble C.M needed to briefed at the earliest. He told me that I will also be kept in the loop once the records are received. After about a fortnight I again contacted Shri Mahesh Prasad who assured me that the records were expected back within the next couple of days . He again assured me that I will be informed as soon as the papers are received back from the Public Accounts Committee. In the mean time Dr. B.N.Sharma continued to remain absent from Chiabasa. During the period of my posting most of the monthly treasury accounts were being forwarded to the office of the Accountant General under the signature of the Additional Deputy Commissioner. This is permissible under Rule 49 (A) of the Treasury Code. I have also personally signed a few of the monthly accounts though I do not remember exactly how many. He has deposed in his cross examination that from June, 1992 to June, 1995 I was posted at Chaibasa as Dy. Commissioner. I was not over all incharge of all the

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 228 departments including Animal Husbandry Department, apart from 20 point programe. A Deputy Commissioner remains District Treasury Officer. Rule 49 of the Treasury Code speaks that the accounts of treasury is to be forwarded to the office of A.G. on the first day of following months. Rule 49(A) speaks that in absence of D.C. from his headquarter or in his disability to discharge his work, the accounts should be forwarded under the signature of the next Senior Officer of the headquarter and in his absence the T.O. himself is liable to forward the account with his endorsement regarding absence of Superior Officers. I have already stated about allocation of budget as per Bihar Budget Manual, Bihar Financial Rules and Treasury Code. Bills are passed as per the subject of Rules of Treasury Code. The occurrence is old and I am unable to recall whether I was present on going days when the monthly accounts of treasury were sent to A.G., Bihar. As I remember A.D.C. Headquarter was authorized to forward the monthly accounts of Treasury to avoid the delay in submission of monthly account. There was no malafide intention to authorized the A.D.C. for the purpose of submission of monthly account and it is wrong to say that I was knowing that fraudulent withdrawal were being made by the A.H.D., Chaibasa. I do not know Sushil Kumar Jha represented as supplier of AHD, Chaibasa. It is also incorrect to say that Sushil Kumar Jha had been residing in my residence at Chaibasa and he never received any illegal payment with my assistance from Ranchi, Chaibasa and Doranda Treasury during my posting as Dy. Commissioner, Chaibasa or Ranchi. It is also incorrect to say that I was fully aware about the fraudulent and excess withdrawal from Chaibasa Treasury. I came to know in the meeting which held under the Chairmanship the then Chief Minister, Bihar that Rs. 50.56 Lakhs was withdrawn in one day by accused B.N. Sharma in the month of March but there was no discussion whatsoever of fraudulent withdrawals. It may be verified by the deposition of Anjani Kumar Singh. The meeting was convened regarding tendency of departments to carry out heavy withdrawals in the month of March to prevent lacs of fund known in public march loot. Dr. B.N. Sharma was known to me being Animal Husbandry Officer, Chaibasa but I did not know Dr. S.B. Sinha. It is incorrect to say that any supplier of AHD installed or gave laptop to me or gave me the same at my residence through B.N. Sharma. It is incorrect to say that I have deposed false as defence

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 229 witness. D.W.18 is Brigadier R.P. Nautiyal. He deposed on behalf of accused Lalu Prasad Yadav that in the year 1996 September, I was posted at Danapur at the post of Commandant Bihar Regimental Centre, Danapur. There was Bihar and Orissa Sub Area Commander, Danapur, Brigadier Sri Malhotra. On 30th July, 1997 as I remember Brigadier Malhotra was on leave and I was officiating his post. At about 8.00 A.M. I received call of Sri Malhotra that there were two C.B.I. personnel at his house and they had brought a requisition for Army help for arrest of Sri Lalu Prasad Yadav. I said to Mr. Malhotra to send both of them to the office of the Sub Area Commander Office, Danapur. I told Carnal General Staff to receive the C.B.I. Personnels, I informed the matter to my Command headquarter, Lukhnow and army headquarter, Delhi regarding the matter. When they came to my office and then the requisition was shown to me after perusing the requisition. I informed the C.B.I. Personnel namely Mr. Biswas and Mr. Rakesh Kumar, as per instruction laid down. Aid to Civil Authority the army can only be requisitioned through the State Government through the Chief Secretary or the District Magistrate and it is only for three purposes - for natural calamities, in case of maintenance of essential services and to control deterioration of law and order. The same was told to C.B.I. personnel, they told this was as per oral direction of the Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.N. Jha, thereafter they gave me telephone number of the Hon’ble Justice. I range of the Hon’ble Justice and asked them, if he had given any oral direction to C.B.I. to requisition the Army for arresting Sri Lalu Prasad. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice informed me that he had not given any direction and he had told the C.B.I. if they wanted they could requisition. Just to confirm the oral direction I again requested to confirm if any oral direction was given to C.B.I. He again stated no. Then CBI requested me to contact DIG, CBI Mr. Kaul and again I explained to Mr. Kaul about the provisions of Army but he requested me to reply the matter in writing. The same day I gave written reply to him containing the provisions. Certified copy of D/4 was produced before the witness and he identified the same. The original copy has already been submitted by the defence which has already been marked as exhibit on behalf of the defence. I have already been examined in R.C. Case No. 20(A)/1996 on 19 th July, 2012. The letters and part report of Dorai Commission was presented before me. The

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 230 requisition for Assistance to execute non bailable warrant of arrest was also produced before me during my examination on that date. He has deposed in his cross examination that I was knowing about the Fodder Scam through the newspapers. I could not remember that these cases were registered as per direction of Hon’ble High Court or Hon’ble Supreme Court because I was knowing the fact through newspaper and after a lapse of time I could not recollect the same. It is incorrect to say that I am suppressing the fact. I cannot recollect that Fodder Scam case was monitored by Hon’ble High Court. After perusing the requisition today it can be said that the Fodder Scam case was being monitored by the Hon’ble High Court. I did not contact Mr. Justice Mukhopadhyay because I did not had his telephone number. This is normal procedure that whenever Brigadier Bihar and Orissa Sub Area Commander went on leave charge was handed over to me. It was not required to inform Mr. Malhotra about the matters happened thereafter. I did not meet Mr. A.P. Dorai. He never requisitioned me. At that time Mrs. Rabari Devi was Chief Minister. It is in correct to say that I have not placed the true fact. D.W.19 is Anindya Kumar. He deposed on behalf of accused Dr. D.P. Sinha that he was employeed in Ekta Veterinary Works, Ranchi from 1990 to 1996. Medicines were supplied from the firms to Government Hospitals, Ranchi, Chaibasa and Lohardaga. Ekta Veterinary was stockist of so many companies. He produced certified copy of letter marked as exhibit-J. Certified copy of letter of Sarabhai Company was marked as exhibit-J/1. Certified copy of letter of Okhad Company, certified copy of letter of Cadila Company, certified copy of letter of Hext Company, certified copy of letter May and Baker Company and certified copy of letter of Concept Pharmaceuticals were produced and marked as exhibit-J/2 to J/7. Certified copy of seizure-cum-production list filed in R.C. 24(A)/1996 was produced and marked as exhibit-J/8. He has deposed in his cross examination that presently he is working in a medicine shop. The owner of Ekta Veterinary is Dr. B.P. Sinha. D.W.20 is Jay Prakash Narayan Yadav. He deposed on behalf of accused Lalu Prasad Yadav that he became M.L.A. of Bihar Legislative Assembly in the year 1980. During 1995 to 2000 he was member of Legislative Assembly, Bihar and became Cabinet Minister of Bihar. Proposal of sanction order against Lalu Prasad was not sent to Cabinet of Ministers of Bihar by the

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 231

Hon'ble Governor, Government of Bihar. The Governor is not competent to take any decision without any aid and counsel of the Cabinet. He has deposed in his cross examination that head of the Cabinet is Chief Minister. When the sanction was granted Lalu Prasad Yadav was Chief Minister of Bihar. He cannot remember any matter against the Chief Minister which came before the Cabinet. D.W.21 is Karu Ram. He deposed on behalf of accused Lalu Prasad Yadav that in the year 1995 he was O.S.D. at Bihar Bhawan, New Delhi. At that time Sri Lalu Prasad was Chief Minister of Bihar. Smt. Rabari Devi was his wife. She gave him Rs. 81,000/- to get two bank drafts of Rs. 40,500/- each in favour of Mayo Girls College, Ajmer. She had given additional money to be incurred on commission. The Branch Manager of Canera Bank told him that a person can get only one bank draft. He came back to his office and gave money to Dr. R.K. Rana for preparation of one bank draft, accordingly two bank drafts were made on behalf of Hema and Chanda. He was local guardian of these two girls. He has deposed in his cross examination that he cannot remember the actual date when Smt. Rabari Devi gave him Rs. 81,000/-. He cannot remember amount of commission. D.W.22 is Richard Amrendra Biswas. He deposed on behalf of accused Lalu Prasad Yadav that he was Chief Security Officer of Lalu Prasad in the year 1994. The tour programme of Chief Minister is sent to Special Branch, concerned D.M. and S.P. of the District. Lalu Prasad had been given Z Plus Security. Most of the time he accompanied the Chief Minister during his tours. He has deposed in his cross examination that he cannot remember tour programs of the Chief Minister. D.W.23 is Dhruva Prasad Ojha. He deposed on behalf of accused Lalu Prasad Yadav that he was S.P., Vigilance, Patna from 1977 to 1980. He became D.I.G., Vigilance and remained at that post from 1987 to 1989. He remained D.I.G., I.G., Additional D.G. Vigilance and D.G. Vigilance from 1990 to 2001. He became D.G. of Police, Bihar in July, 2001 and got his retirement from that post in November, 2003. He had filed a written report in the court in R.C. 20(A)/1996 which was filed and marked as exhibit-D/7. He was controlling officer of Vigilance Case No. 34/1990. A preliminary enquiry was done in Vigilance Case No. 34/1990 and kept in the file No. DG 2/87. Vigilance Case

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 232

No. 34/1990 was registered on the application of Sri Rameshwar Paswan, M.L.A., Bihar Legislative Assembly. Application was given to the then Chief Minister Sri Bindeshwari Dubey who endorsed the application and ordered for Vigilance Enquiry. Rameshwar Paswan handed over the application to D.G., Vigilance Sri N.N. Singh. After transfer of Sri N.N. Singh, Sri Harihar Singh became D.G., Vigilance and enquiry was started on application of Sri Rameshwar Paswan. Rameshwar Paswan had complained against Central Purchase Committee of Government of Bihar related with purchase for Animal Husbandry Department. Purchase was not done from authorized dealer rather these were purchased from a medicine shop and Rs. 2 crores was paid. The enquiry officer Sri P.N. Sinha submitted his report. The Special Executive Magistrate Sri Imtiyaz Hussain was authorized on this behalf and he submitted his report that Rs. 7 Lakhs was defalcated. As per recommendation of Sri Imtiyaz Ahmad permission was sought from the Highest Authority for lodging case. The then C.M. Sri Lalu Prasad Yadav approved the proposal and directed to lodge case. F.I.R. was lodged and Vigilance Case No. 34/1990 was registered. The I.O. Bimlesh Kumar Singh added an Additional Para no. 6 on the basis of confidential information that corruption was found at different levels in the department of Animal Husbandry. As per order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court before filing any criminal case against a public officer preliminary enquiry was essential. On that basis the additional para added by Sri Bimlesh Kumar Singh was deleted. Charge sheet was filed in Vigilance Case No. 34/1990. Sri Lalu Prasad Yadav never affected the Vigilance Case No. 34/1990. He never affected Vigilance Case No. 23/1994 also. He has deposed in his cross examination that exhibit-D/7 is not original copy but it is notarized copy. C.B.I. had recommended against him for lapses in Vigilance Case No. 34/1990. C.B.I. had brought allegation against him that during investigation he received two documents but it was wrong because the then Chief Minister had endorsed these letters to Vigilance Commissioner and he got these letters directly from the Chief Minister. These two letters were written by Dr. Jagarnath Mishra to Lalu Prasad Yadav. Dr. Jagarnath Mishra had attached letter of M.L.A. of his party requesting to concentrate the enquiry against the member of Central Purchase Committee and not against the person who had purchased the articles. He had requested also not to take action against the officers of Animal

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 233

Husbandry Department. The I.O. did not consider the letter of Dr. Jagarnath Mishra because he had already taken decision in the same line. He could not remember the facts of Vigilance Case No. 23/1994. 8. Following exhibits have been marked on behalf of defence.

SI.N Name of the documents Exhibit No. For accused o. 1. Income statement from April A Sajal Chakarborty 1990 to February 1996. 2. Copy of judgement dated A/1 Sajal Chakarborty 03.08.12 passed in Criminal Appeal SJ 979/08 3. Copy of deposition of Lal A/2 Sajal Chakarborty Shyam Charan Nath Sahdeo recorded in RC51(A)/96 4. Copy of deposition of Rajeev A/3 Sajal Chakarborty Kumar recorded in RC32(A)/96 5. Copy of deposition of Amit A/4 Sajal Chakarborty Khare recorded in RC20(A)/96 6. Copy of Supplementary A/5 Sajal Chakarborty Affidavit filed by CBI in Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP 298/13 7. Resolution Deed B Harish Kumar Khanna 8. Partnership Deed B/1 Harish Kumar Khanna 9. Bail order of Hon’ble Supreme B/2 Harish Kumar Khanna Court dated 24.04.98 10. Bail order dated 01.10.14 of B/3 Harish Kumar Khanna Hon’ble High Court. 11. Bail order dated 22.08.2008 of B/4 Harish Kumar Khanna Hon’ble High Court. 12. Letter No. 3867 dated 13.06.97 C Ravi Sinha of CBI 13. Letter dated 24.06.97 C/1 Ravi Sinha 14. Invoice No. 240/92-93 to C/2 Ravi Sinha 250/92-93 15. FIR of RC52(A)/96 C/3 Ravi Sinha 16. Chargesheet of RC52(A)/96 C/4 Ravi Sinha 17. Judgement of RC49(A)/96 C/5 Ravi Sinha 18. Extension list of police service D Lalu Prasad 19. Copy of chargesheet of D/1 Lalu Prasad RC05(A)/98 20. Certified copy of judgement of D/2 Lalu Prasad RC05(A)/98 21. Letter No. 2193 dated 10.08.17 D/3 Lalu Prasad

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 234

22. Report of Durai Commission D/4 Lalu Prasad 23. Depositions D/5 Lalu Prasad 24. File Number D/31 D/6 Lalu Prasad 25. Written report D/7 Lalu Prasad 26. Remark on file No. 18/94 D/8 Lalu Prasad 27. Signature of A.K.Basak and Lalu D/9 Lalu Prasad Prasad dated 27.01.96 on file 28. Remark of V.S.Dubey D/10 Lalu Prasad 29. Signature of V.S.Dubey on file D/11 Lalu Prasad 2/95 30. Remark of S.Vijay Raghvan D/12 Lalu Prasad 31. Remark on page 4T dated D/13 Lalu Prasad 02.06.95 32. Remark of above file D/14 Lalu Prasad 33. Remark of file number 4/95 D/15 Lalu Prasad 34. Remark of above file at page 2 D/16 Lalu Prasad & 3 35. Remark of above file at page D/17 Lalu Prasad 10 dated 09.12.95 36. Remarks of page 3(T) dated D/18 Lalu Prasad 24.11.95 37. Remarkd of S.Vijay Raghvan D/19 Lalu Prasad 38. CC of PW 102 of Shankar D/20 Lalu Prasad Prasad of RC20(A)/96 39. CC of order dated 25.07.97 to D/21 Lalu Prasad 31.07.97 of RC 20(A)/96 40. CC of FIR of RC41(A)/96 D/22 Lalu Prasad

41. Certified copy of judgement of E Madhu Mehta RC23(A)/96 42. Seizure Memo F Sarad Kumar 43. List of members of PAC from G Jagdish Sharma 1982 to 1995 44. House proceeding of Bihar G/1 Jagdish Sharma Legislative Council dated 18.03.91 to 22.03.91 45. Letter No. 1744 dated 23.12.94 G/2 Jagdish Sharma 46. PAC file dated 30.12.93 G/3 Jagdish Sharma 47. House proceeding of Bihar G/4 Jagdish Sharma Legislative Council dated 21.03.91 48. Report of High Power G/5 Jagdish Sharma Committee dated 26.08.93 49. Letter No. 277 dated 15.03.93 G/6 Jagdish Sharma 50. Bihar Legislative Council Govt. G/7 Jagdish Sharma Finance Report dated 21.07.93.

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 235

51. Certified copy of order sheet G/8 Jagdish Sharma 52. Certified copy of FIR G/9 Jagdish Sharma 53. Certified copy of Chargesheet G/10 Jagdish Sharma 54. Certified copy of Charge G/11 Jagdish Sharma framed in RC20(A)/96 55. Certified copy of statement G/12 Jagdish Sharma recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C in RC20(A)/96 56. Certified copy of deposition of G/13 Jagdish Sharma RC64(A)/96-Pat 57. Certified copy of deposition of H Dayanand Pd. Pahlu Mahto Kashyap 58. Deposition of Gopal Behata H/1 Dayanand Pd. Kashyap 59. Deposition of Ismaiel Ansari H/2 Dayanand Pd. Kashyap 60. Deposition of Sahanabaz Rizbi H/3 Dayanand Pd. Kashyap 61. Petition dated 21.05.2005 in I Mahesh Prasad RC20(A)/96 62. Reply dated 30.05.2005 of the I/1 Mahesh Prasad petition in RC20(A)/96 63. Order passed in RC20(A)/96 I/2 Mahesh Prasad dated 02.06.2005 64. Search list dated 10.06.97 I/3 Mahesh Prasad 65. Certified copy of letter of Fizer J B.P.Sinha in RC02(A)/01 66. CC of letter of Sarabai J/1 B.P.Sinha Company 67. CC of letter of Cadila Company J/2 B.P.Sinha 68. CC of letter of Hexat Company J/3 B.P.Sinha 69. CC of letter of May & Baker J/4 B.P.Sinha Company 70. CC of letter of Concept Pharma J/5 B.P.Sinha 71. CC of letter of Phonepoulence J/6 B.P.Sinha Company 72. CC of letter of Wockdarth J/7 B.P.Sinha Company 73. CC of seizure cum production J/8 B.P.Sinha list of RC24(A)/96 74. Memo No. 8384 dated 23.12.89 K Jagannath Mishra 75. CS of Vigilance case No. 3490 K/1 Jagannath Mishra 76. Statement dated 22.11.90 and K/2 Jagannath Mishra 08.07.93 77. List of date of proceeding 1993 K/3 Jagannath Mishra 78. Notification number 10669 K/4 Jagannath Mishra dated 03.12.87 79. Notification number 5963 K/5 Jagannath Mishra

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 236

dated 31.07.89 80. Notification number 377 dated K/6 Jagannath Mishra 19.01.90 81. Notification dated 07.08.91 K/7 Jagannath Mishra 82. Notification Memo Number 305 K/8 Jagannath Mishra dated 15.06.92 83. Vetan aur Bhatta Vidheyak K/9 Jagannath Mishra 1995 84. Records of India Historical K/10 Jagannath Mishra Record Commission 85. Order dated 31.08.92 of CWJC K/11 Jagannath Mishra No. 5455, Order dated 16.09.91 of CWJC No. 1301 of Hon’ble Patna High Court 86. Notification number 6258 K/12 Jagannath Mishra dated 25.08.90 87. Counter affidavit filed by CBI in K/13 Jagannath Mishra SLP No. 2322 – 23 of 98 in Apex Court 88. Account of the year 1991-1992 L Phool Chand Singh 89. Account of the year 1992-1993 L/1 Phool Chand Singh 90. Account of the year 1993-1994 L/2 Phool Chand Singh 91. CC of judgement of RC22(A)/96 M R.K.Rana 92. CC of charge framed in N B.N.Sharma RC20(A)/96 93. CC of statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C N/1 B.N.Sharma in RC20(A)/96 94. CC of judgement of RC57(A)/96 O Ramawatar Sharma 95. CC of exhibit H/3 of RC52(A)/96 O/1 Ramawatar Sharma 96. CC of exhibit H/6 of RC52(A)/96 O/2 Ramawatar Sharma 97. CC of exhibit D/3 of RC41(A)/96 O/3 Ramawatar Sharma 98. CC of exhibit H/10 of O/4 Ramawatar Sharma RC52(A)/96 99. CC of exhibit E/1 of RC41(A)/96 O/5 Ramawatar Sharma 100. CC of exhibit H/7 of RC52(A)/96 O/6 Ramawatar Sharma 101. CC of judgement of RC03(A)/01 O/7 Ramawatar Sharma 102. CC of judgement of RC24(A)/96 O/8 Ramawatar Sharma 103. CC of exhibit H/4 of RC52(A)/96 O/9 Ramawatar Sharma

9. It appears that during examination of prosecution witnesses their attention were drawn on some documents and the documents were marked as exhibit on behalf of defence. These are Exhibit-A - Bunch of forms of sale marked on 20.07.1997, Exhibit-A/1 – Bunch of 77 marked on 20.07.1997, Exhibit Y for identification marked on 16.11.1997, Exhibit-B – Report of the 10 th Finance Commission 1995-2000 marked on 24.08.2011. These exhibits may create confusion, hence their number are changed and they are read as P, Q &

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 237

R in place of A, A/1 & B. 10. As per order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court statement of witnesses have been adopted from different cases of Fodder Scam. Besides that statement of witnesses have been taken in the present case U/s 164 of the Cr.P.C. (1) Subodh Chandra Verma, (2) Dr. Hirdya Shankar Sinha, (3) Raj Kumar Kedia, (4) Ram Bali Jha, (5) Sushil Kumar Jha, (6) Bharteshwar Narayan Lal Das, (7) Sahdeo Prasad, (8) Gyanendra Kumar Srivastava and (9) Dr. Gopal Prasad Sukla gave statement U/s 164 of the Cr.P.C. The statement of Dr. Gayanendra Kumar Srivastava U/s 164 of the Cr.P.C. has not been marked as exhibit but it appears that his statement was recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate on 21.04.1998. The statement of Dr. Gayanendra Prasad recorded as per his request letter dated 21.04.1998. The entire file was sent to the Special Judge, C.B.I., Patna from Sri Ram Nath Ram Mahto, Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad in his official capacity with a forwarding letter bearing no. 81/98 dated 24.04.1998. 11. Heard the learned advocate of the accused Lalu Prasad Yadav. He has filed written argument which is kept in the record. He has relied upon ruling reported in AIR 2011 Supreme Court, 760 on the point of Evidence Act – Hearsay evidence – Evidentiary value – Hearsay evidence is excluded on the ground that it is always desirable, in the interest of justice, to get the person, whose statement is relied upon, into court for his examination in the regular way, in order that many possible sources of inaccuracy and untrustworthiness can be brought to light an exposed, if they exist, by the test of cross examination. The phrase “hearsay evidence” is not used in the evidence act because it is inaccurate and vague. (Para-21). The sayings and doings of third person are, as a rule, irrelevant, so that no proof of them can be admitted. Every act done or spoken which is relevant on any ground must be proved by someone who saw it with his own eyes and heard it with his own ears. (para-19). Thus statement of witnesses based on information received from others is inadmissible. (para-22) AIR 1982 Supreme Court 673 Para 10 – The word hearsay is used in various senses. Sometimes it means whatever a person is heard to say ; sometimes it means whatever a person declares on information given by

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 238 someone else. (1997) 6 Supreme Court cases 171 para 10 & 11 – The oral evidence must, in all cases whatever, be direct ; i.e. to say – if it refers to a fact which could be seen it must be the evidence of a witness who says he saw it. In the instant case the fact could be seen were that Khurshid was kidnapped, that the appellants kidnapped him and that he was kidnapped in the Car No. DDB-5067 and therefore P.W.4 was the only person who was legally competent to testify about these facts. AIR 1984 Supreme Court 1622 Para 142 – As these circumstances were not put to the appellant in his statement U/s 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code they must be completely excluded from consideration because the appellant did not have any chance to the explain them. He has further stated that this view was confirmed in (2006) 12 SCC 306. He submitted further that evidence relating to question no. 8 of 313 of the Cr.P.C. is related with witness Birendra Kumar Thakur but he has not been examined in this case and file was not filed in this case. 2005 Supreme Court cases (Cri) 1 M.P. Special Police Establishment Vs. State of M.P. and others. Constitution of India – Art. 163 – Independent / Discretionary powers of Governor under – Grant of sanction for prosecution of Ministers – Power of Governor to act independently of or contrary to advice of Council of Ministers – Though normally Governor is required to act on aid and advice of Council of Ministers and not in his discretion, held, there may be situations where exercise of such discretion by himself may be proper – Following situations envisaged : (i) where bias is inherent and / or manifest in the advice, or (ii) in those rare situations where on facts bias becomes apparent, or (iii) where decision of Council of Ministers is shown to be irrational and based on non-consideration of relevant factors, or (iv) if Council of Ministers disables or disentitles itself, or (v) where as a matter of properiety Governor may have to act in his own discretion – Cautioned that if in such situations Governor cannot act in his own discretion there would be a complete breakdown of the rule of law and democracy itself will be at stake inasmuch as it would then be open for Governments to refuse sanction in spite of overwhelming material

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 239 showing that a prima facie case is made out – Clarified however that Governor would not be sitting in appeal over decision of Council of Ministers – Duty of Council of Ministers when considering grant of sanction for prosecution – Held, is to act fairly and reasonably, not only within four corners of the statute but also for effectuating the purpose and object for which the statute has been enacted – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 -S. 197. He further submitted that C.B.I. was bias and malicious against the Chief Minister. As soon as the accused Lalu Prasad Yadav became known to the fact of Fodder Scam, he called a meeting on 31.01.1996. The meeting was held in two phases and four directions were passed by the then C.M. - (1) The employees of AHD be suspended who were involved in encashment of bills, presenting bills and receiving amount, (2) Employees of Treasury involved in this be suspended, (3) Officers of the Treasury be transferred and (4) Criminal cases be lodged within one week after collection of evidence. On the same day second meeting was held and it was ordered to lodge cases D.D.O. wise. The controller and Auditor General never pointed out fraudulent withdrawal. He drawn attention on evidence of P.W.1 Fuleshwar Paswan, para 58 & 77, P.W.49 para-116, P.W.141 para-54, P.W.102 para-34 & 40. At first Finance Commissioner Sri V.S. Dubey (P.W.137) got knowledge of Fodder Scam. The prosecution adopted the evidence of other AHD cases and photo copy of documents cannot be taken as exhibit in the present case. He has explained it in page 32 to 34 of his written statement. He has pointed out about defective F.I.R. and charge explained in page 31 & 32 of his written statement. The C.B.I. brought allegation that through 10th Finance Commission the accused got knowledge of fraudulent withdrawal in the AHD but no question was put U/s 313 of the Cr.P.C. in this connection. He has argued on the questions put U/s 313 of the Cr.P.C. It was asked from the accused that he had knowledge of excess payment. C.A.G. started to send report from 1993 which was sent to the Governor and from there it came to Chief Minister, from where it has to be sent to public accounts committee. P.A.C. is constituted by the Speaker. In that report there is no assertion of fraudulent withdrawals and the report shows over expenditure shall be re-appropriated. He referred article 151 of the Indian Constitution. P.W.175 Arvind Kumar Mehta proved C.A.G. report of 1994-1995

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 240 which was received in the month of June, 1996 after the cases were registered. The C.B.I. mislead the court by placing a charge at page 26 of the charge sheet, which shows the date of receipt of C.A.G. reports and the date seen by the petitioner in P.A.C. files. P.A.C. is framed U/s 233 and 237 under Bihar Vidhan Sabha Rules and Speaker of the house selects members of P.A.C. It is a constitutional body and the selected members of P.A.C. select their Chairman. This accused had no role in appointment of P.A.C. As per rule of Vidhan Sabha P.A.C. Chairman cannot be chosen from ruling party. Many files of AHD pertaining to questions asked in the house has been produced in the court and marked as exhibits. The contents of the file have not been proved by any witness who dealt with the files and these cannot be treated as evidence U/s 77 and 78 of the Evidence Act or U/s 292 of the Cr.P.C. The question raised by Sushil Kumar Modi was not related with AHD and it was related to withdrawal of about Rs.1200 crores in the month of March, 1993 from different Treasury of Bihar. Some questions were put in the Lok Sabha about AHD of which replies were sent, as such these are irrelevant. P.W.141 Fuleshwar Paswan stated before the court that in about four years of my posting from 1990 to 1994 after looking into these files, I could not know that fraudulent withdrawal has been made in AHD. He drawn attention on the statement of P.W.142 Sri Prakash Kesav. He raised question on the point of issuance of prosecution sanction and submitted that sanction was accorded on 12.12.2001 when the accused was a Member of Rajya Sabha. Sanction was not accorded by the Governor in consultation with the Cabinet nor signed by him. As per article 166 of the Indian Constitution it can only be signed by the Governor and the power cannot be delegated. The grant of sanction is not an ideal formality but it is solemn and sacrosanct act which afford protection to Government Servant against frivolous prosecution. Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. expresses the competent authority to be the State Government. The Governor cannot mean the State Government. He has cited rulings on this point. He has drawn attention on paragraph 10,11,12,13,15 & 17 of P.W.185 Jeevan Kumar Sinha. He drawn attention on the law of conspiracy and submitted that criminal responsibility for a conspiracy requires more than a merely passive attitude towards an existing conspiracy, knowledge of conspiracy does not prove participating in the conspiracy. He has discussed the evidence of Dr. Shashi Kumar Singh (P.W.78), R.K. Das (P.W.49),

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 241

Sushil Prasad Singh (P.W.149), Dipesh Chandak (P.W.1), J.P. Verma (P.W.198) and A.K. Jha (P.W.199) and submitted that their evidence in the court has been contradicted when confronted with the concerned files. The evidence of approver / accomplish must pass the twin test reliability and corroboration from independent source. The evidence of one approver cannot corroborate the evidence of another approver. He submitted further that Dr. S.B. Sinha died and his statement cannot be admissible except U/s 32 of the Evidence Act. He had filed a ruling on this point – (2013) 8 Supreme Court Cases 781. 12. Heard the learned advocate of the accused Dr. Jagarnath Mishra. He submitted that the prosecution failed to explain the evidence to prove the charges leveled against the accused. Charges have been framed under the different sections of Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption Act with respect to withdrawal of Rs. 376279883/-. There is no evidence to connect the present accused for withdrawal of alleged amount. No role has been shown to have been played by the present accused for alleged fraudulent withdrawal of the said amount. The present accused has filed S.L.P. (Cri) No. 2322 – 23 of 1998 in which C.B.I. had filed a counter affidavit sworn by Mr. B.S.K. Kaumudi, Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. in which para-8 was relevant. He had stated in that para that the role played by the petitioner who was M.L.A. at that time, is not of fordging any document or direct action resulting in withdrawal of amount. While examining him U/s 313 of the Cr.P.C. question was asked pertaining to three letters allegedly written by this accused. There is no evidence brought on record by the prosecution to substantiate the allegation. The letters have not been brought on record as evidence by the prosecution. The statement of R.K. Das (P.W.49) with regard to scuttling of enquiry of Vigilance Case No. 34/1990, it is submitted that statement of P.W.49 has not been corroborated by any other piece of evidence on record. Allegation has been brought that accused K.N. Jha was Samdhi of Dr. Jagarnath Mishra but neither oral nor documentary evidence has been brought on record to substantiate the aforesaid allegation. The alleged letter dated 05.12.1993 related with recommendation for extension of service of accused late Dr. S.B. Sinha, the statement of P.W.152 Sri Ravi Shankar Kumar Sinha is relevant. He has stated in para-4 that there was neither departmental inquiry nor judicial proceeding, pending against Dr. S.B. Sinha. That witness has also stated in para-7 that accepting of recommendation made by any one

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 242 depends on the authority concerned. The statement of R.K. Das (P.W.49) regarding extension of service of Dr. S.B. Sinha is hearsay evidence and has not been corroborated. Dr. Ram Raj Ram was given promotion vide notification no. 5930 dated 31.07.1989 but at that time the present accused was not the Chief Minister of Bihar. When the present accused became Chief Minister of Bihar he recalled the above notification on 19.01.1990 and demoted Dr. Ram Raj Ram. He has relied upon rulings AIR 1975 Supreme Court 856 An 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, firstly, if the story he relates involves him in the crime and appears intrinsically to be a natural and probable catalogue of events that had taken place. The story if given of minute details according with reality is likely to save it from being rejected brevi manu. Secondly, once that hurdle is crossed, the story given by an approver so far as the accused on trial is concerned, must implicate him in such a manner as to give rise to a conclusion of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In a rare case, taking into consideration all the factors, circumstances and situations governing a particular case, conviction based on the uncorroborated evidence of an approver confidently held to be true and reliable by the Court may be permissible. Ordinarily, however, an approver's statement has to be 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 touchstone of other independent credible evidence, would give the needed assurance for acceptance of his testimony on which a conviction may be based. There is an issue estoppel, if it appears by record of itself or as explained by proper evidence, that the point was determined in favour of a prisoner in a previous criminal trial which is brought in issue on a second criminal trial of the same prisoner. There must be a prior proceeding determined against the State necessarily involving an issue which again arises in a subsequent proceeding by the State against the same prisoner 77 CLR 511 (518), Rel. on. AIR 1979 Supreme Court 1761

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 243

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 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 however minor or insignificant it may be. Actually the requirement of corroboration 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 another tainted evidence because if this is allowed to be done then the very necessity of corroboration is frustrated. Lastly he submitted that absence of the alleged three letters admissibility of evidence on this point contradicts provision of section 60 of the Evidence Act. He has filed written argument which is kept in the record. 13. Heard the learned counsel for the accused Vidya Sagar Nishad. He has submitted that the question put U/s 313 of the Cr.P.C. has been denied by this accused . This petitioner had no knowledge about the allotment letter and about the process of withdrawal of amount. No file was put up before him regarding transfer of Dr. B.N. Sharma. The file was initiated by the Assistant of Animal Husbandry Department. Dr. B.N. Sharma was transferred to Chaibasa from Goriya Karma by establishment committee. The Secretary wrote that B.N. Sharma was transferred from Goriya Karma on administrative ground and as such in the light of order of the C.M. a notification be issued. The file was put up before him and the present accused signed on it on 26.07.1993 without any comment. The final order was to be passed by the C.M., Bihar. The prosecution did not produce evidence of conspiracy on the part of this accused. There is no evidence of creation of false supply orders, submission of false supply bills and justifying false purchase. No action was taken to provide protection and patronage to co-accused. There is no evidence of meeting of minds. The transfer file of Dr. B.N. Sharma was decided by the then Chief Minister. There is no evidence available in the record to show that any property was purchased in the family members of present accused. The prosecution failed to prove that

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 244 any embezzled amount was transferred in the bank account of this petitioner. Sanction order for prosecution obtained by prosecution is not proper. No Air Ticket was provided to the present accused and there is no evidence on this point. He has filed written argument which is kept in the record. 14. Heard the learned counsel for the accused Jagdish Sharma. He submitted that charges have been leveled due to political rivalry. His rivals who had lost in battle of ballots had conspired to humiliate and drag him in a criminal case. He had got constitutional protection Under Article 194 & 212 of the Indian Constitution being Chairman of P.A.C. of the Bihar Legislative Assembly. He was answerable to the house of the legislature only. He had referred case law P.V. Narsimha Rao Vs. State (CBI) reported in 1998 but copy of ruling has not been furnished. He did not held any office in the Animal Husbandry Department or in any other office of the Government. He was not answerable to any Civil Court. There is no allegation of creation of allotment letters, forged supply order, false supply order, forged contingent bill certifying the receipt of material, passing the false contingent bill. He was not competent to take any action against fraudulent withdrawal of funds. It is settled law as per section 114 of the Evidence Act (Illustration B) that accomplish is unworthy of credit witness unless corroborated. One accomplish cannot corroborate the other accomplish. P.W.49 R.K. Das is a self condemned culprit. He has admitted in para 154 that he was charge sheeted accused in more than twelve cases. The approvers have failed in first test of their reliability. They have failed also in second test that their evidence are not corroborated by any independent witness. There is no evidence to prove that the present accused had ever stayed at any hotel at the cost of any of the Scam Aster. So many persons were let off without any action. P.W.199 Sri A.K. Jha has stated in para 58 that he did not peruse the proceeding book of the P.A.C. nor he did examine any of the twenty two members of the P.A.C. during investigation. The copy of audit report was not obtained during investigation. He has filed book of rules of P.A.C. The Chief Minister had suggested for a thorough inquiry on each point even physical verification if necessary. Exhibit-G/5 may be perused regarding the explanation of delay in P.A.C. Inquiry. Delay was due to non cooperation of controlling officers. P.A.C was not one member committee. There were twenty two members in the committee. A co-rum was necessary. There is a violation of

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 245 article of 208(1) of the Constitution of India on the part of the Constitution. He referred Rule 201 of P.A.C. Rules. He has filed written argument. Some case lodged has been cited in his written report but the same has not been filed. He has filed written argument which is kept in the record. 15. Heard the learned counsel for the accused Dhruv Bhagat. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that Dhruv Bhagat was convicted in R.C. 33(A)/1996 for Rigorous Imprisonment for five years and he was again convicted in R.C. 20(A)/1996 for Rigorous Imprisonment for three years. The same charges has been brought in the present case on the similar evidences. The case of the present accused is covered by Section 300 of Cr.P.C. He has filed photo copy of judgment of R.C. 33(A)/1996 and R.C. 20(A)/1996. 16. Heard the learned counsel for the accused Dr. R.K. Rana. He has filed written argument also. He submitted that the accused petitioner was not named as an accused in F.I.R. The charges framed against him are vague and did not specified any overt or covert act on the part of Dr. R.K. Rana in the allotment of funds, creation allotment letter, creation of forged supply order, passing the false contingent bills. The bills were presented in the District and Sub Divisional Treasury in collusion with staff and officials of treasury. The main accused managed to get conditional pardon with the help of investigating agency. The evidence of P.W.49 R.K. Das could not stand on the test of his cross examination. His evidence has not been corroborated. The other approvers have also failed in cross examination. P.W.134 Rahul Singh produced document but the register does not disclose the name of Dr. R.K. Rana with his parentage and address. P.W.103, P.W. 111 and P.W.160 did not say that any air ticket was purchased by Dr. R.K. Rana or actual traveling was done by this accused. The present accused have been convicted in three cases and appeals are pending before the Hon'ble High Court. 17. Heard the learned counsel for the accused Sajal Chakraborty. The accused himself has also argued. He took plea that three cases were lodged against him. Dipesh Chandak was common witness in all cases. The rule of estoppel is applicable in his case. The principle behind rule of estoppel is that a person can be prosecuted for different offences and different trial may be done but evidence of same character is barred by estoppel. He has filed written notes of argument and relied upon rulings

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 246

Manipur Administration Vs. Thok Chom, Bira Singh AIR 1965 Supreme Court 87 - This decision was rendered in 1948. The matter was the subject of consideration by this High Court of Australia after the decision in Sambasivam case in Mraz v. Queen. The question concerned the validity of a conviction for rape after the accused had been acquitted on the charge of murdering the woman during the commission of the act. In an unanimous judgment by which the appeal of the accused was allowed, the Court said “The crown is as much precluded by an estoppel by judgment in criminal proceedings as is a subject in civil proceedings …. The law which gives effect to issue estoppels is not concerned with the correctness or incorrectness of the finding which amounts to an estoppel, still less with the process of reasoning by which the finding was reached in fact.... It is enough that an issue or issues have been distinctly raised or found. Once that is done, then, so long as to finding stands, if there be any subsequent litigation between the same parties, no allegations legally inconsistent with the finding may be made by one of them against the other”. (2013) 9 SCC 245 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – S. 482 – Abuse of process of court – Prosecution on basis of wholly untenable complaint – Quashment of – Present criminal complaint filed by R-1 against appellant, alleging offence under S. 3(1)(viii) of Scs and Sts Act [pertaining to institution of false, malicious or vexatious criminal proceedings against member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe] – Since the issue involved in present criminal complaint had already been dealt with in an earlier criminal contempt case filed before High Court by R-1 himself, held, there was no justification to launch instant criminal prosecution on said basis afresh – This was an instance of issue estoppel (see Short note B) – Hence, instant complaint was liable to be quashed – Judgment of High Court reusing to quash the same, set aside. Jeth Surangbhai Vs. State of Gujrat, AIR 1984 Case No. 112 of 1990 Mansa Hembram Vs. State of Bihar in which Section 60 of the Evidence Act have been discussed. AIR 1979 Chonampara Chellapan Vs. State of Kerla Supreme Court –

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 247

On the point of conspiracy. AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1579, Dagdu & others Vs. State of Maharastra – On the point of conspiracy. AIR 1988 Supreme Court 1883 Kehar Singh & others Vs. State (Delhi Administration) – On the point of conspiracy. This section, as the opening words indicate will come into play only when the court is certified that there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, i.e. to say, there should be a prima-facie evidence that a person was a party to the conspiracy before his acts can be used against his co-conspirators. AIR 1980 Supreme Court 1382 – Criminal – Criminal conspiracy – Sections 120A, 120B, 201, 409, 411 , 414 and 435 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 – film named 'kissa kursee ka' was produced and applied for certificate – film was full of satire – three members of Central Board of Film Censors agreed to give certificate after drastic cut but Chairman dissented with opinion of his colleagues – matter came to Central Government and producer of film directed to deposit print of film with Films Division Auditorium – print deposited and entry made by librarian- cum-projectionist – appellant No.1 became information minister and banned film – all prints seized – appellant No.1 and appellant No.2 alleged to have conspired to destroy print of film took in custody – appellants convicted under Section 120B read with Sections 409, 411, 414 and 435 – it is well settled law that to prove criminal conspiracy there must be direct or circumstantial evidence to show there was agreement between two or more persons to commit crime – connection between appellants unproved – ban on film was not decided by appellant No.1 alone – decision banning film was taken in knowledge of other officials of information ministry – prosecution failed to prove case of conspiracy – held, conviction not sustainable. Criminal – Ultra vires – Special Courts Act, 1979 and Articles 14 & 21 of Constitution of India – Appellants challenged validity of Special Courts Act in view of provisions of Articles 14 and 21 – contended that clubbing of accused persons for offences committed during emergency with those alleged to be guilty of crimes

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 248 pertaining to period before and after the emergency had violated constitutional guarantee under Article 14 – The main object of Act was to provide speedy trial of certain class of offences – Article 14 prohibits hostile discrimination and riot reasonable classification for purpose of legislation – Act does not suffer from any infirmity and the classification made by it is reasonable when it puts into class a particular set of persons having special characteristic which distinguish them from others who are left out of that class – Reasonable classification of a particular set of persons those holding high public and political offices was consistent with the object of statute which is a rational one – Held, no violation of Article 14 or 21 – Appeal dismissed. He has drawn attention on Bihar Finance Rules 78 & 79, B.B.M. Rules 52 to 96 and Bihar Financial Rule 473. He has filed judgment of Criminal Appeal No. 394 of 2017. He prepared chart of C.A.G. comparing fund used by different districts against allotment. He submitted further that before the scam took place there was no system to notify the Treasury Officer of the allotment figure. There was no provision on those days for the treasury check the authenticity of the allotment submitted by the D.D.O. Even the State Bank of India did not have an idea of the allotment. The Bihar Budget Procedure also gives a procedure to deal with the cases of detected excess withdrawal. When the A.G. or the Controlling Officer himself detects a withdrawal beyond the allotment, they are to bring the excess withdrawal to the knowledge of the public accounts committee of the State Legislature. The P.A.C. was to examine and decide whether the excess withdrawal was justified or not. The District Administration have nothing to do with the allotments given to local AHD. The utilization or mis-utilization of the AHD funds was also in their internal ambit. The pitch for the excess withdrawals was already set up by the gradual decay of the system. There was practice prevalent in treasuries that quarterly inspection of treasury the then by Collector but in days when the Bihar & Orissa Treasury Manual was written the treasuries actually stored cash and currency. Once the treasuries became non banking in nature no cash was kept in the treasury any longer, therefore, there was no necessity to carry out this quarterly inspection. He has filed written statement, kept in the record. 18. Heard the learned counsel for the accused Phul Chand Singh. He

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 249 submitted that accused Phul Chand Singh was Finance Commissioner, Government of Bihar from January, 1992 to February, 1994. The Finance Commissioner is responsible for preparation of statement of estimated revenue and expenditure to be laid down before the legislature. As per Sectiom 132 of Bihar Budget Manual the Administrative and Finance Department should, in checking the estimates apply unrelentingly the proved and well tried check of average of previous actual which should be employeed in conjunction with such known or reasonable foreseeable facts as may modify that average. The Finance Department makes arrangement for convening the public accounts committee for dealing with their reports on the appropriation and audit reports. The Finance Minister and Finance Commissioner have the responsibility to manage finances of the State. There was access to the printed budget of the Government of Bihar containing information about actuals of AHD. No one initiated any step to identify the reason attributable to colossan excess withdrawals by AHD. On 18.02.1994 the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar gave order to Sri Phul Chand Singh to identify treasuries responsible for excess withdrawal and to initiate departmental action. There are similar allegations in R.C. 20(A)/1996 and in the present case against accused Phul Chand Singh. The evidence of P.W.49 R.K. Das, P.W.1 Dipesh Chandak, P.W. 149 Shailesh Prasad Singh and P.W.78 Dr. Shashi Kumar Singh are self contradictory and during cross examination they falsified their own statement. There is no evidence in this case that the accused Phul Chand Singh was given illegal gratification relating to alleged fraudulent withdrawal from Chaibasa Treasury during the relevant period nor there is any evidence that he connived with other accused persons. Phul Chand Singh was not the head of department or controlling officer of the AH.D. The Accountant General had opportunity to see vouchers of AHD and that office had opportunity to take cognizance of deficiencies and omission. A.G. never pointed out that withdrawals from AHD were fraudulent in nature. This accused never gave patronage to fraudulent withdrawals nor conspired with anyone. He pointed out para-29, 32 and 33 of witness Sri V.S. Dubey. The accused Phul Chand Singh raised objection on the file of extension of service of Dr. S.B. Sinha and R.K. Das. The statement of P.W.49 R.K. Das has not been corroborated by any independent witness. In the department of Finance there was distribution of work and file of budget was not

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 250 coming to the Finance Commissioner. He was burdened with additional work of Land Reforms Commissioner and it has been admitted by P.W.142 Sri S.P. Kesav. The enquiry regarding excess withdrawal was required to be made by public accounts committee and the Finance Department had no jurisdiction for making such inquiry vide Rules 127 of the Bihar Budget Manual. He drawn attention that withdrawal of Rs. 50.56 Lakhs by accused Dr. B.N. Sharma was brought to the knowledge of Chief Minister and Secretary, Animal Husbandry Department was directed to make inquiry. This petitioner was not required to take any step. He has submitted detailed notes of argument with Xerox copy of exhibit-E/4 of R.C. 20(A)/1996 it is comments of the State Government of Bihar on the inspection report of C.A.G. on the excess fraudulent drawls by Animal Husbandry Department during the period 1993 -1994 to 1995 -1996. 19. Heard the learned counsel for the accused Mahesh Prasad. He has filed detailed written argument which is kept in the record. He submitted that accused Mahesh Prasad is innocent. He has performed his duty as Government Servant diligently. So far the letter of Mr. Ram Saran Yadav the then M.P. is concerned, the Sanlekh enclosed with the letter of Ram Saran Yadav was unsigned and no inquiry report was enclosed with it. The allegation without its proper inquiry report is wrong and erroneous as per Government instructions contained in letter no. 16512 dated 05.12.1980. Although the memo was unsigned and did not require any action as per Government instructions but in order to know the fact the accused Mahesh Prasad endorsed the proposal of Mr. Indu Bhushan Pathak to Minister / State Minister for approval on 15.10.1993. P.W.174 Indu Bhushan Pathak stated in para-5 about the fact and procedure of Secretariat. The said file was neither seized from the personal possession of accused Mahesh Prasad. He was not the Secretary of AHD at the time of seizure of the said file in 1996. The I.O. P.W.199 stated during cross examination that file of Central Vigilance Commissioner was not seized from possession of the accused Mahesh Prasad. The same fact was stated by P.W.179 Shiv Balak Choudhary. It was duty of Director, AHD to have day to day control over budgetary and financial matters of the department. The definition of HOD has been described in Rule 2(XIII) of Bihar Financial Rules. He has relied on rulings reported in (2016) 10 SCC 519. Proof – Suspicion – Held, suspicion, however grave, cannot take the

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 251 place of proof – Prosecution in order to succeed on a criminal charge, cannot afford to lodge its case in the realm of “may be true” but has to essentially elevate it to the grade of “must be true”. (2015) 10 SCC 152 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Ss. 7, 1391)(d)(i) and (ii) r/w S. 13(2) – Illegal gratification – Trap case – Proof of demand – Necessity of , for conviction – Demand not proved as complainant had died before the trial – Evidence of other witnesses not sufficient to prove demand, though recovery proved – Benefit of doubt extended to appellant. - Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto, reiterated, would not be sufficient to bring home the charge under Ss. 7 and 13 of 1988 Act – Conviction reversed. (2016) 12 SCC 273 Public Accountability, Vigilance and Prevention of Corruption – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – S. 13(2) r/w S. 13(1)(d) – Allegation on accused under S. 13(1)(d)(ii) of committing criminal misconduct by abusing his position as public servant in obtaining pecuniary advantage for himself – No evidence led, as to what kind of pecuniary advantage was obtained by accused – Mandatory ingredients to implicate him under S. 13(1)(d)(ii), not proved – Charge not established beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction reverse. C.K. Jaffer Sharief Vs. State through C.B.I. Supreme Court. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 13(1)(d) – The four persons accompanying the Minister assisted him in performing certain tasks as Minister – Allegation of obtaining any pecuniary advantage by any corrupt or illegal means or by abuse of the position of the appellant as a public servant not tenable – Dishonest intention being the core of the provision, the same not attracted instantly. (Para 17) Surendra Kumar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand (Jharkhand High Court) Criminal Law – Public Accountability, Vigilance and Prevention of Corruption – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Ss. 7 13(i)(d) r/w S. 13(2) – Illegal gratification – Proof – It is proved that there was voluntary

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 252 conscious acceptance of money – For processing papers relating to employment – Held, there is no further burden cast on the prosecution to prove by direct evidence demand or motive – There is no case of appellant that money in dispute was received by him – As the amount which he was legally entitled to receive or collect from complainant – Or that incident in question did not occur – Twin mandatory requirement of Ss. 7 and 13 – Demand of gratification and recovery has been consistently proved by prosecution – Conviction of accused confirmed – However, on the fact of the nature of accusations and the age of appellant – Who after twenty years of protracted trial – Is more than sixty years – Sentence of imprisonment awarded reduced to period already undergone by him. 20. Heard the learned counsel for the accused Dr. Ram Prakash Ram. He submitted that accused Ram Prakash Ram was made in-charge Officer holding post of District Animal Husbandry Officer, Chaibasa for a short period i.e. between November, 1992 to December, 1992. He worked only at Chaibasa for One month and 17days. He had no power to issue any allotment letter. The materials were received prior to his taking charge of DAHO, Chaibasa on the basis of supply orders. During performance of his duty, few contingent bills were presented before him which was based on bonafide receiving given by a Gazetted Officer and further having a written instruction of the Regional Director, Ranchi. He signed the contingent bills as per instruction of his controlling officer, the Regional Director, Ranchi. He did not issue any requisition for any supply. His predecessor had issued supply orders to the supplier. The supplier supplied the material and only upon verification he countersigned the bills. During his period no money was withdrawan from Chaibasa Treasury. He explained the meaning of counter signature. As per Ox- ford English dictionary countersigned means to add a signature to a document all ready signed by other or a mark used for identification. He referred case of S.P. Bhatnagar Vs. State of Maharastra AIR 1979 Supreme Court 826 – Counter signature of the bill as per the prevailing practice is not indicating of verification and only indicated that there is no reason to doubt the correctness of a figure. It is also indicative of the fact that the Senior Officials repose unflinching and blind faith in the honesty of their subordinate.

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 253

Bharat Bhushan Goyal Vs. State (Madras High Court) – Counter signing a bill always do not point an accused to be part of a conspiracy. It is a mere administrative duty discharged by the officer in course of his official duty, during the relevant point of time. Counter signature by an authority is only a token of check exercised by him. The counter signing authority need not physically check the goods since the job of physically checking the goods is supposed to be done by other authorized officials. He further submitted that Dr. Ram did the act of counter signature in good faith, keeping in view that respective bill are verified and certificate issued by the concerned officials are true and genuine. 21. Heard the learned counsel for the accused Dr. Braj Nandan Sharma. He submitted that all government works are planned as per the existing practice of the department and taking care of the laws, bylaws and directions. If such practice of the government official is considered conspiracy, then it would be crystal clear that everything which runs in a planned scheme is conspiracy. Requirement of materials were raised keeping the health of livestock in view. The emphasis of the department was much upon the generation of revenue for the Government and subsequently taking care of the poor section of the society. Large quantities of materials were stored in temporary sheds and pottery sheds. Even open space was used many times to store the fodder. The volume of material as to godown capacity is only a technical gargons. It is pertinent to mention here that not a single alleged allotment letter on basis of which the money was withdrawal is exhibited or brought on record. It is quite surprising that no budget and account officer is involved in this case even though prosecution has tried to make out a criminal conspiracy case and tried to build the entire case on it. It would be mockery of a judicial trial to look into other facts before establishing the pivot of the entire alleged case. He has filed written argument and relied upon rulings report in (1999) 7 SC 280 – Evidence Act, 1872 – S. 45 – Expert – Who is – Nature of role of – Principles for judging the credibility of evidence of an expert and when his testimony to be admitted – Assessment of productivity of apple orchard – District Horticulture Officer produced as an expert witness – He had no scientific study or research in assessing the productivity of apple

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 254 crop – Held, his testimony cannot be given the label of expert evidence – Words and phrases - “Expert witness”- Criminal Trial – Witnesses – Expert witnesses Penal Code, 1860 – Ss. 120-B and 420 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 – S. 5(2) read with S. 120-B IPC – Criminal conspiracy – Policy decision of Government to purchase diseased apples and destroy the same – Allegation against public servants engaged in procurement and destruction of the fruits and the growers concerned that they prepared false records showing inflated quantities of scabbed apple and thereby caused loss to the government exchequer – Absence of proof of conspiracy – Allegation that quantity of scabbed apple stated to have been purchased from the accused growers could not have been produced in their orchards sought to be established by an expert whose evidence found incredible – Held, in the circumstances High Court rightly acquitted the accused persons. 1996 SCC (Cri) 1205 – Penal Code, 1860 – Ss. 120-B, 420/34, 477-A/34 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 – S. 5(2) & (1)(d) – Menserea – Commission of fraud, irregularities and illegalities in execution of jungle clearance work contract by govt. engineers and contractors in conspiracy by fabricating documents to show that the work had been executed and payments made to contractors when in fact no work had been performed – Prosecution case regarding, based on circumstantial evidence – Though accused acted in violation of Financial Code and Govt. circulars / instructions but dishonest intention absent – Held on facts, though action raised strong suspicion but circumstances put forward by prosecution not so clinching us to conclusively prove the charges against the accused – Courts below erred in convincing them on the basis of conjectures and surmises and to have drawn inference by wrongly placing the burden of proof on the accused – Evidence Act, 1872, Ss.3 and 101. 1995 Supp (3) SCC 333 – On the point of conspiracy. 2000 Cri. L.J. 4102 (Himachal Pradesh) – On the point of Prevention of Corruption Act Section 13. Both of the accused persons have filed written argument which is kept in the record.

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 255

22. The accused Jag Mohan Lal Kakar, Md. Sayeed, Ravi Sinha, Samir Walia, Mukesh Kumar Srivastava, Jyoti Kumar Jha, Srinath Singh, Sunil Kumar Sinha, Sushil Kumar and Tripurari Mohan Prasad have filed written statement which is kept in the record. The suppliers took defence that they were not knowing about the allotment and requirement of the department of Animal Husbandry. They supplied the material which were received by competent authority and they received payment against genuine supply. The Officer of the Animal Husbandry Department to same defence already taken by Dr. Braj Nandan Sharma. It has been argued on behalf Bimla Sharma that she was not named in the F.I.R. There were three partners of M/s A.B. Sales namely Alka Srivastava, Harish Khandelwal and Bimla Sharma. Harish Khandelwal committed suicide during investigation of the case on 06.06.1997. Alka Srivastava was not made accused in this case. She never signed on any bill or cheque. She is house wife. 23. Heard the learned Special P.P. of C.B.I. he submitted that P.W.2 to P.W.11 deposed that their vehicles did not transport articles of suppliers. P.W.23, P.W.24, P.W.26, P.W.27, P.W.28, P.W.29, P.W.31, P.W.33, P.W.44, P.W.48 and P.W.80 are transporters. They have deposed that their trucks were not used by the accused of this case. P.W.5 has deposed before the court that his vehicle was Ambassador Car which cannot be used for transportation of articles, P.W.24 has deposed that his vehicle was motorcycle. P.W.29 stated that he had Scooter. P.W.33 stated that he had Jeep. The vehicles used by the transporters and material received by the Officers of Animal Husbandry Department, Chaibasa raises a circumstance under which embezzlement was done under a large conspiracy. He further pointed out that P.W.56, P.W.58, P.W.63, P.W.64, P.W.67, P.W.69, P.W.75, P.W.73, P.W.76, P.W.79, P.W.85, P.W.86, P.W.87, P.W.89, P.W.91, P.W.92, P.W.95, P.W.96, P.W.129, P.W.130, P.W.97, P.W.98, P.W.99, P.W.119, P.W.122, P.W.146, P.W.167, P.W.168 and P.W.177 have stated about either non supply or short supply. The suppliers received payments against fake supply and on the basis of their bills and contingent bills that has been proved by the witnesses P.W.12 to P.W.22, P.W.25, P.W.30, P.W.32, P.W.34, P.W.35, P.W.36, P.W.37, P.W.38, P.W.39, P.W.42, P.W.43, P.W.46, P.W.50 to P.W.54, P.W.57, P.W.59, P.W.60, P.W.62, P.W.65, P.W.66, P.W.68, P.W.70, P.W.71, P.W.81, P.W.82, P.W.83, P.W.100,

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 256

P.W.101, P.W.104 and P.W.133. P.W.88, P.W.90, P.W.121 & P.W.177. The P.W.1, P.W.47 and P.W.135 have proved bills presented by the suppliers. The learned Special P.P. drawn attention on the statement of witnesses indicating the particular accused persons of this case and submitted that P.W.77, P.W.78, P.W.103, P.W.107, P.W.108, P.W.109, P.W.111, P.W.113, P.W.114, P.W.115, P.W.118, P.W.120, P.W.126, P.W.127, P.W.121, P.W.137, P.W.141, P.W.142, P.W.143, P.W.148, P.W.149, P.W.150, P.W.152, P.W.153, P.W.154, P.W.158, P.W.159, P.W.160, P.W.161, P.W.163, P.W.165, P.W.166, P.W.173, P.W.174, P.W.175, P.W.176, P.W.178, P.W.179, P.W.185, P.W.196, P.W.198 and P.W.199 have stated the involvement of accused Lalu Prasad in the present case either directly or indirectly. He further submitted that P.W.115, P.W.116, P.W.120, P.W.126, P.W.127, P.W.118, P.W.137, P.W.141, P.W.142, P.W.143, P.W.150, P.W.153, P.W.159, P.W.160, P.W.174, P.W.179, P.W.185, P.W.176, P.W.178, P.W.199 and P.W.200 have stated against accused Mahesh Prasad. He pointed out that P.W.105, P.W.109, P.W.110, P.W.115, P.W.116, P.W.126, P.W.127, P.W.137, P.W.141, P.W.142, P.W.150, P.W.159, P.W.163, P.W.169, P.W.173, P.W.174, P.W.175, P.W.179, P.W.185, P.W.196 and P.W.199 have stated against the accused Phul Chand Singh. P.W.75 & P.W.132 have stated against accused Dhruv Bhagat. P.W.119, P.W.127, P.W.134, P.W.149, P.W.153, P.W.155, P.W.167, P.W.170, P.W.182 and P.W.199 have stated against accused B.N. Sharma. P.W.134 and P.W.139 have stated against accused Vijay Kumar Mallick. He drawn attention on the statement of witnesses taken U/s 164 of the Cr.P.C. and submitted that the case of the prosecution has been framed under the facts and circumstance. The prosecution has taken best efforts to procure documents and present the related witness before the court. There was some legal technicalities because the matter was related with Legislative Assembly and there was some legal implication and limitation before the Investigating Agency, even then best efforts were taken to procure the relevant documents. The Hon'ble Supreme Court permitted the parties of this case to adopt document and evidence already taken in other cases of Fodder Scam. This matter was challenged by the accused persons at different levels and this point has already been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The learned counsel for the accused Lalu Prasad Yadav agitated this point again before this court which was rejected by this court and matter was challenged before the Hon'ble

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 257

High Court, Jharkhand, Ranchi. The accused lost his plea at there also. The accused raised another point related with charge already framed and explained over. His application was rejected by this court and the order of this Court got finality for the purpose of adjudication of the present case. He further submitted that the case of prosecution is mostly dependent upon the circumstantial evidence. The entire machinery of government was united on the point of embezzlement and the Hon'ble High Court of judicature Patna was pleased to monitor the investigation of the cases of Fodder Scam. He has relied upon some rulings State of Tamil Nadu Vs. T. Thulasingam Supreme Court decided on 13.05.1994 – Criminal – approver – Sections 120B, 467 and 471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 – accused were charged under Section 120B read with Section 467 and 471 – Trial Court convicted all accused on strength of evidence of approvers and on basis of documentary evidence – conviction challenged – High Court acquitted accused against all charges – seven approvers on record corroborating each other's evidence – High Court was not justified in disbelieving approvers – findings recorded by High Court set aside – findings of Trial Court restored – appeal allowed. Rameshwar vs. The State of Rajasthan Supreme Court decided on 20.12.1951 – Corroboration of evidence – Sections 8, 114, 133 and 157 of Indian Evidence Act – Whether testimony of complainant in rape cases requires corroboration required – raped woman is not accomplice – in such cases rule regarding advisability of corroboration should be present to mind of judge – he may dispense with corroboration in particular circumstances of case if it is safe to do so – corroboration not essential for conviction in every case – as matter of prudence rule of corroboration ought to be kept in mind – in cases where corroboration is required it is not necessary that there ought to be independent confirmation of every material circumstances – all that is required is that there should be some additional evidence rendering complainant's evidence probable – corroboration must come from independent source – independent evidence must reasonably connect accused with crime thereby confirming complainant's testimony – corroboration need not be direct evidence that accused committed crime – circumstantial evidence of

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 258 accused's connection with crime would be sufficient corroboration. Haroon Haji Abdulla Vs. State of Maharashtra Supreme Court decided on 14.12.1967 – Criminal – evidence of accomplices – Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 164 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 and Sections 30, 32 (3), 114, 133 and 157 of Evidence Act, 1872 – appellant from batch of eighteen persons tried jointly by Chief Presidency Magistrate for smuggling – some of them were acquitted – appellant alone moved to High Court where appeal dismissed – obtained special leave under Article 136 of Constitution – preferred appeal – contended his conviction based really on uncorroborated testimony of accomplice - Section 133 provides that accomplice is competent witness against accused person – conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds upon uncorroborated testimony of accomplice. Lachhi Ram vs. State of Punjab Supreme Court decided on 02.09.1966 – The case discussed the tests to be conducted to verify the evidence of approver as per the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – The Court ruled that the test means that the Court should find that there is nothing inherently improbable in the evidence given by the approver and that there is no finding that the approver had given false evidence. State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru Supreme Court decided on 04.08.2005 – Confessional statement of accused A not reliable because of violation of safeguards envisaged under Sections 32 and 52 of P.O.T.A. - However, circumstantial evidence reliable – Circumstances that he knew deceased / killed terrorists, frequent telephonic contacts which A had established with one M, mobile instruments being freely exchanged between A, deceased terrorist M and other terrorists, recovery of mobile instrument used by A from one of deceased terrorists on date of incident, discovery of abodes or hideouts of killed terrorists and recovery of various incriminating articles therefrom as well as identification of certain shops from where A and one or other deceased terrorist purchased various items used for preparation of explosives, etc., accused A leading Investigating Officer to various places from where incriminating articles found in premises and at scene of offence purchased, recovery of laptop

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 259 from truck in which A and S travelled on being pointed out by them being highly incriminating circumstance against them as laptop used by deceased terrorists contemporaneous to date of incident – Establishing that appellant A was associated with deceased terrorists in almost every act done by them – A was party to conspiracy and played active part – A rightly convicted under Sections 120B/302 and 121. Samunder Singh & Ors. Vs. State Calcutta High Court decided on 24.05.1963 – Criminal – corroboration – Sections 120B, 395 and 396 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 – appeal against conviction – evidence of approver received substantial and independent corroboration as to crime and persons involved in crime – evidence of association confirms approver's testimony of meetings and conferences – evidence of overt acts established that appellant guilty of dacoity with murder – four persons with another accused conspired to commit dacoity – held, appellants rightly convicted under Sections 120B, 395 and 396. K. Hashim Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Supreme Court decided on 17.11.2004 – Section 133 of the Evidence Act, 1872, expressly provides that an accomplice is a competent witness and the conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds on an uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. In other words, this section renders admissible such uncorroborated testimony. But this section has to be read along with Section 114, Illustration (b). The latter section empowers the Court to presume the existence of certain facts and the illustration elucidates what the Court may presume and makes clear by means of examples as to what facts the Court shall have regard in considering whether or not maxims illustrated apply to a given case. Illustration (b) in express terms says that accomplice is unworthy of credit unless he is corroborated in material particulars. The statute permits the conviction of an accused on the basis of uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice but the rule of prudence embodied in illustration (b) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act strikes a note of warning cautioning the Court that an accomplice does not generally deserve to be believed unless corroborated in material particulars. In other words, the rule is that the necessity of corroboration is a matter of prudence except when it is safe to dispense with such

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 260 corroboration. Although section 114, illustration (b) provides that the court may presume that the evidence of an accomplice is unworthy of credit unless corroborated, “may” is not must and no decision of Court can make it must. The court is not obliged to hold that he is unworthy of credit. It ultimately depends upon the court's view as to the credibility of evidnece tendered by an accomplice. Though the conviction of an accused on the testimony of an accomplice cannot be said to be illegal, yet the courts will, as a matter of practice, not accept the evidence of such a witness without corroboration in material particulars. All that is required is that there must be some additional evidence rendering it probable that the story of the accomplice (or complainant) is true and that it is reasonably safe to act upon it. Md. Khalid Vs. State of West Bengal decided on 03.09.2002 by the Supreme Court of India para -29ere trustworthy evidence establishing all links of circumstantial evidence is available the confession of a co- accused as to conspiracy even without corroborative evidence can be taken into consideration. Dhanabal and Anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu decided on 13.12.1979 by the Supreme Court of India – Criminal – murder – Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 164 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 – appeal against conviction under section 302 – evidence proved that accused no.1 with 'veecharuval' cut deceased on her right neck – instigation attributed by prosecution to accused no.2 not found in evidence of prosecution witnesses – accused no.2 entitled to benefit of doubt – statement of witnesses under Section 164 treated as substantive evidence in law – no cogent reason to interfere with conviction and sentence of accused no.1 – conviction and sentence of accused no.2 liable to be set aside – appeal partly allowed. Suman Sood @ Kamal Jeet Kaur vs. State of Rajasthan decided on 14.05.2007 by Supreme Court of India – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 365, 364, 343/120B and 346/120B – Kidnapping, etc. - Conviction and sentence – Whether sustainable? - Held, “Yes” - Rajendra Mirdha S/o Ram Niwas Mirdha, Chairman of Joint Parliament Committee kidnapped –

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 261

So that R.N. Mirdha may exercise his influence for release of Bhullar, member of Khalistan Liberation Front – Neither trial court nor High Court committed either error of fact or error of law in convicting Daya A Singh – proved beyond doubt that accused committed offences for which he had been convicted and sentenced. (2) Indian Penal code, 1860 – Section 365 / 120B, 343/120B and 346/120B – Conspiracy and kidnapping etc. - Conviction of Suman Sood and imposition of sentence on her – Whether justified? - Held , “yes” - Though there is no direct evidence to show that Suman Sood was party to conspiracy in kidnapping of Rajendra Mirdha – And detaining him at house in queestion – Still inference as to conspiracy can be drawn from surrounding circumstances – Since no direct evidence of conspiracy available – Hence, inference drawn by both courts below as to criminal conspiracy by her – Cannot be held ill-founded-She was all throughout keeping watch on victim – She used to give food and medicine, etc. since victim not keeping good health – Both courts below right in convicting Suman Sood for offences under Section 365/120B, 343/120B and 346/120B – No ground to interfere. (3) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 364A/120B – Conspiracy for kidnapping for ransom – Acquittal of Suman Sood by trial court – But conviction by High Court – Whether justified? - Held, “no” - No evidence at all, direct or indirect, to connect Suman Sood with kidnapping Rajendra Mirdha for ransom – Nothing to show that Suman Sood was member of Khalistan Liberation Front – No evidence to show that she was even knowing Bhullar or was interested in his release – No iota of evidence to connect her with ransom and alleged demand of accused Daya Singh for release of Bhullar – Trial court rightly acquitted Suman Sood by giving benefit of doubt – High Court committed error in setting aside acquittal of Suman Sood. (4) Extradition Act, 1962 – Section 21 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 365 and 364A – Extradition – Prosecution – Extradition Treaty of 1931 between U.S.A. and Great Britain – Still holds field, is subsisting and is operative – Extradition decree of U.S. granting extradition of Daya Singh and Suman Sood for various offences alleged to have been committed by them – Section 364A, IPC. Explicitly mentioned therein – Though Section 365 IPC not mentioned in extradition order of Suman Sood – Yet Section

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 262

364A IPC included therein – Hence, if accused charged for higher offence – He can be convicted for lesser offence – Offence under Section 365, IPC is lesser offence than section 364A, IPC. - Since extradition of Suman Sood allowed for higher offence under Section 364A – Her prosecution and trial for lesser offence under Section 365 – Cannot be held to be without authority of law. 24. Finding s on the point of implication of accused suppliers . Heard both the sides and perused the record. It appears that Rs. 376279883/- was withdrawn from Chaibasa Treasury during 1992-93 on the basis of fake bills against a small amount of few lacs. The amount was withdrawn under the major head 2403 from Chaibasa Treasury for purported purchase of feed, fodder, medicines and instruments etc. for Animal Husbandry Department against the contingency bills. It appears also that Rs. 7.10 Lacs was allotted to DAHO, Chaibasa for the financial year 1992-93 for purchase of feed, fodder, medicines and instruments but huge amount was withdrawn through 67 fake allotment letters. Witness no. 2 Brajendra Prasad Singh has deposed that his truck never transported articles to DAHO, Chaibasa during finance year 1992-93. P.W.3 to P.W.11 has stated on the same line. P.W.23 Suresh Singh has stated that his truck was running from Ranchi to Mumbai from 1991 to 1996. His truck did not carry articles of Chotanagpur Food Supply Company. P.W.24 submitted that vehicle bearing Registration No. BHR / 9020 was a motorcycle and articles of Manas Sales Corporation was not carried from his motorcycle. P.W.26 Yogendra Paswan has proved details of registration number of vehicle with name of owner of the vehicle. P.W.27 deposed that his truck never carried any article to Chaibasa. P.W.28 deposed that he did not know Chotanagpur Food & Fodder Supply Company. P.W.30 deposed that his vehicle bearing Registration No. BHJ / 6982 was an Escotter. P.W.31 deposed that vehicle No. BHH / 5101 was running to Ranchi Kolkatta. A series of witnesses stated that either their vehicles were not used by the suppliers of AHD or their vehicles did not carry articles to Chaibasa. Some of the vehicles were escotter and motorcycle. P.W.5, P.W.24 & 29 deposed that their vehicle was Ambassador Car, Motorcycle and Escotter. P.W.56 Raj Kumar Kedia deposed in para-3 that purchaser (Navketan Enterprises) used to pay him only the amount of commission. They had not been taking articles from him. P.W.58

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 263 deposed that he was supplier of Borocil Glass Ware and he never supplied any article to Animal Husbandry Department. He had no business with M/s New India Enterprises, Pandra, Ranchi, M/s Mangla Enterprises, Ranchi, M/s Raman Surgico Medico Agency, Patna and M/s Samarpan Veterinary Enterprises, Patna. P.W.63 deposed that his company Hindustan Antibiotic did not supply any article to the department of Animal Husbandry. P.W.64 is representative of Pfyzer India Limited and he deposed that his company did not get any supply order from the department of Animal Husbandry during year 1992-93. M/s Tirupati Agency was not authorized dealer of Pfyzer Limited. P.W.12 Jagjit Roy and other witnesses such as P.W.13, P.W.14, P.W.15, P.W.16, P.W.17, P.W.18, P.W.19, P.W.20, P.W.21 and P.W.22 are employees of Nationalized Bank and they have proved that suppliers / accused of this case had been maintaining accounts in their bank and transactions were done by them. The P.W.25, P.W.30 and P.W.32 and other witnesses have also stated these facts. P.W.88 Dr. Hirdaya Shankar Sinha is retired Animal Husbandry Officer and he had deposed that requisitions from different Animal Husbandry Offices were sent to the Office of Regional Director. Files were initiated by this witness along with Gopal Prasad Sukla, Gyanendra Kumar Srivastava, Ramesh Roy and Anand Kishore Srivastava. Supply orders were issued after approval of the proposal by the Regional Director. Supply orders were addressed to approved medicine manufacturing company and the suppliers used to collect these supply orders. Supply orders were made in triplicate. He has proved so many files and supply orders. The files were put up before Dr. Krishana Mohan Prasad, Dr. Shayam Bihari Sinha and Dr. K.N. Jha. Perused the series of exhibit-25. It appears that supply order was issued by the signature of Regional Director, Ranchi and suppliers were ordered to furnish articles / medicines mentioned in the supply order to the DAHO, Chaibasa with direction to furnish bills in duplicate. P.W.90 Gopal Prasad Sukla has also proved series of exhibit-25. P.W.121 Gyanendra Kumar Srivastava has also proved the same thing and he is the witness on the point of supply orders. P.W.1 Dipesh Chandak has proved bills. P.W.47 Devash Goswami has proved bills of Chotanagpur Veterinary Enterprises and money receipt of Chatanagpur Veterinary Enterprises. He was an employee of Chotanagpur Veterinary Enterprises. P.W.12 Jagjit Roy deposed that Umesh Dubey was proprietor of M/s Jai Bhandar and Supplier and he encashed two

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 264 bank drafts in Current Account No. 119 at Punjab National Bank, Amba, District – Aurangabad, Bihar. P.W.13 Vijay Shankar Mishra proved that Ravi Kumar Sinha proprietor of M/s A. Trader encashed four bank drafts in Current Account No. 29 at Punjab National Bank, Punaichak, Patna. P.W.14 Surendra Mohan Prasad deposed that Pramod Kumar Jaiswal was proprietor of M/s Bhagat & Company, Ranchi and he encashed four bank drafts in Current Account No. 929 at Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ranchi. Encashment of drafts by Chandra Shekhar Dubey, proprietor of M/s Manisha Enterprises, Ranchi, Sudeo Rana proprietor of M/s Swarn Rekha Medical Agency, Ranchi and Dayanand Kashyap, Baldeo Sahu, Kalash Mani Kashyap partners of M/s Vaishnav Enterprises, Ranchi have been proved by P.W.15 Abhijeet Bhattacharya. Pramod Kumar Jaiswal is proprietor of M/s Bhagat & Company, Ranchi. He encashed draft and it has been proved by P.W.16 Satyendra Prasad. P.W.17 Arun Kumar Singh proved that proprietor of M/s Shakti Pharma Distributors, Bhagalpur is Sailesh Prasad Singh and he encashed Bank Draft. Accused Ramawatar Sharma is proprietor of M/s Tirupati Agency and he also encashed payment proved by Md. Sadruddin Ahmad. Accused Devendra Kumar Roy is proprietor of M/s Swastik Drug Agency and evidence has been proved by P.W.19 Saroj Kanti Dev. Mahendra Kumar Kundan is proprietor of M/s Krishana Traders, Ranjeet Kumar Mishra is Director of M/s Indian Lab, Satyendra Kumar Mehra is proprietor of M/s Satyendra Construction Company and their transactions have been proved by P.W.20, P.W.21 & P.W.22 namely Praveen Chakraborty, Birendra Prasad Poddar and Luis Paschal Ekka. Mahendra Kumar Kundan is proprietor of M/s Krishana Traders, Ranchi, Surendra Nath Sinha is Managing Director of M/s Inter Pharmaceuticals India Pvt. Limited. They received payment through drafts which have been proved by P.W.25 Rajesh Sharan and P.W.29 Praful Kumar Choudhary respectively. Accused Sharad Kumar, Smt. Nirmala Prasad and Smt. Anita Prasad are partners of M/s Medivet and M/s Birsa Live Stock both the firms received payment in Current Account No. 471 and 451 at Allahabad Bank, Tatisilway, Ranchi which has been proved by P.W.32 Pradeep Shankar Ghosh. Payments were given to Medicine House, Bhagalpur and M/s Gauri Distributor, Bhagalpur and it has been proved by P.W.34 Amarnath Tiwary. Accused Ravi Kumar Sinha is proprietor of A. Traders and payment was received in Current Account No. 30107 at S.B.I., Rajbansi

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 265

Nagar, Patna. It has been proved by P.W.35 Amar Nath Tiwary. P.W.37 Anant Kumar Singh proved that drafts were enachsed in the accounts of M/s Mastrin Pharmaceuticals, Magudh Enterprises, Tirupati Agency, Shree Baba Chemicals, A. Traders, Manas Sales Corporation, Bihar Surgico Medico Agency and Samarpan Veterinary. It appears that witnesses have proved that payments were given to the suppliers of fodder scam through drafts which were encashed in their respective bank accounts. All the suppliers have admitted in their statement U/s 313 of the Cr.P.C. that they received respective amount through bank draft. Each of the suppliers took plea that amount was received against genuine supply. The admitted position of allotment is that during 1992-93 DAHO, Chaibasa was alloted an amount of Rs. 7.10 Lacs only for purchase of feed, fodder, medicines and instruments etc. but Rs. 325946750/- was received from different suppliers. It cannot be imagine that the fund incurred against the supply was brought by any legal means. It may easily be presumed that there was no supply or short supply. Accused supplier Harish Kumar Khanna, Ravi Sinha, Sharad Kumar and Dr. G.P. Sinha entered into defence and produced witness. Harish Kumar Khanna deposed under Section 315 of the Cr.P.C. that he was partner of Asian Breeders till 31.03.1992 thereafter partnership deed was dissolved on 01.04.1992 another partnership deed was prepared and Madhu Mehta became active partner of Asian Breeder. Accused Ravi Sinha produced D.W.8 Mukesh Nath Thakur. Accused Ravi Sinha admitted in his statement U/s 313 of the Cr.P.C. that Rs. 975670/- was received during period 1992-1993 from DAHO, Chaibasa against supply of medicines / feed supplements. The amount received by him is huge. The prosecution has filed judgment passed in R.C. 39(A)/1996 dated 12.06.2008 and drawn attention on page 61 of the judgment in which. P.W.91 Dipak Kumar has stated that because of manipulation in the registers of the firm M/s Angil Medichem Pvt. Limited, New Delhi, accused Ravi Sinha had not been charge sheeted in R.C. 23(A)/1996 and R.C. 52(A)/1996. Accused Md. Ekram and Harish Kumar stated in their statement U/s 313 of the Cr.P.C. that they were sleeping partners. Accused Seema Kumar is wife of accused Sharad Kumar. She had stated in her statement U/s 313 of the Cr.P.C. that she was Director of Q-Max Lab. Her husband was Managing Director of the firm and all the works were done by him on her behalf. She was a simple house wife. Accused Sidharth Kumar is son of

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 266

Gauri Shankar Prasad. His father was Animal Husbandry Doctor. It appears that he was partner of M/s Birsa Live Stock Feed & Additives and Medivet. He has stated also that during the period he was student. The period of case is 1992- 1993 and he has stated tht he is aged about 42 years, meaning that at the time of occurrence he was major. Accused Anita Prasad is D/o Surajdeo Narayan Prasad Sinha. She is partner of M/s Birsa Live Stock Feed & Additives. Accused Mahendra Singh Bedi had received Rs. 1291210/- and it has been admitted in his statement U/s 313 of the Cr.P.C. Dr. Tripurari Mohan Prasad was proprietor of M/s Bihar Surgico and partner of M/s Manas Sales Corporation. He was Managing Director of Mastrin Pharmaceuticals and Caretaker of Baba Chemicals and Samarpan Veterinary. Accused Smt. Nirmala Prasad is wife of Dr. Gauri Shankar Prasad. Accused Sunil Kumar Sinha stated that he did not receive payment because the firm was being looked after by his elder brother Tripurari Mohan Prasad. Accused Jyoti Kumar Jha took plea that Seva Medical Agency was opened by his brother late Sushil Kumar Jha and he had been looking after the business. Sushil Kumar Jha died in December, 2015. He used to take signature of the present accused on cheques and other papers. He did not receive money. Accused Sudeo Rana took plea that Madan Pathak had been operating the account of firm M/s Swarn Rekha Medicial Agency, Ranchi and he did not put signature on any paper. Accused Chanchala Sinha stated that she was house wife. Accused Ramawtar Sharma stated that he was not proprietor of M/s Tirupati Agency. Actually his uncle Rajendra Sharma @ Sudarshan Sharma was proprietor of M/s Tirupati Agency and Rajendra Sharma was known as R. Sharma and S.K. Sharma. He was acquitted in R.C. 31(A)/1996, R.C. 57(A)/1996 and R.C. 24(A)/1996. He was made prosecution witness in R.C. 03(A)/2001 related with Fodder Scam. Accused Smt. Bimla Sharma stated that her husband late Harish Khandelwal had been looking work of M/s A.B. Sales, Ranchi and she did not know anything. She only signed on partnership deed. Now the plea of defence is being considered as per evidence in the record. Md. Sadruddin Ahmad is P.W.18. He was Manager of Central Bank of Commerce, Patna Branch. He has proved statement of Current Account No. 952 of Tirupati Agency. He has deposed in his cross examination that it does not appear that Ramawtar Sharma was partner of that firm. P.W.32 Pradeep

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 267

Shankar Ghosh have deposed that he was employee of Allahabad Bank. He produced papers of Account No. C/A 471 in the name of M/s Medivet. The partners of the firm are Sharad Kumar, Nirmala Prasad and Anita Prasad. Perused the exhibits from which it appears that there is declaration of partnership in Allahabad Bank stating that the bank shall be entitled to regard Sidharth Kumar, Anita Prasad, Nirmala Prasad and Sharad Kumar as partners of the firm Birsa Live Stock Feeds & Additives. P.W.104 has proved exhibits- 3/57, 9/12, 10/25 to 10/27, 6/523 to 6/535, 8/47 & 8/48 which indicate transaction in Current Account No. 461 of M/s Q-Max Lab. Pvt. Limited at Bank of Baroda, Ranchi. P.W.167 Dinesh Prasad and P.W.168 Santosh Kumar Verma stated that they visited store of Poultry Farm, Chaibasa and Cattle Farm, Saraikela, both under control of Chaibasa. P.W.45 Dr. Satish Chandra Srivastava deposed that no supply order was placed for purchase of veterinary medicines by AHD, Chaibasa during 1992-93. P.W.56 Raj Kumar Kedia stated that false bills were raised in the name of Navketan Enterprises and Vickey Commercial for sale of Ground Nut Cake. P.W.58 Sushil Kumar Bhatia stated that no Borocil Glass ware was sold to M/s New India Enterprises, M/s Ram Surgico Medico Agency and M/s Samarpan Veterinary during 1990 to 1996. P.W.67 K. Daniel deposed that no supply order to M/s Ranbaxy was issued for supply of veterinary medicines to DAHO, Chaibasa during 1992-93. P.W.69 Vijay Krishan Nanda deposed that no supply order to M/s Karnataka Antibiotics was issued for supply of veterinary medicines to DAHO, Chaibasa during 1992- 93. P.W.72 Prem Kumar deposed that BHC Powder was not supplied either to AHD or M/s Magudh Chemical Corporation, Patna during 1992-93. P.W.73 T. Gopal Krishanan stated that no supply order was placed to M/s Sarabhai Chemicals for supply of veterinary medicines to DAHO, Chaibasa during 1992- 93. P.W.74 Jitendra Khara deposed that no supply order to M/s Khara Chemicals was issued for supply of Borocil Glass Ware to DAHO, Chaibasa during 1992-93. P.W.76 Sushil Kumar Bhatia deposed that no Borocil Glass materials was sold to M/s New India Enterprises, M/s Raman Surgico Medico Agency and M/s Samarpan Veterinary during years 1990 to 1996. P.W.79 Mohan Lal Rastogi deposed that no supply of medicine was given by Indian Immunological, Haidrabad to DAHO, Chaibasa during 1992-93. P.W.85 Arun Kumar Mishra deposed that no order was placed for supply of veterinary

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 268 medicines to DAHO, Chaibasa during 1992-93 on M/s Concept Pharmaceuticals, Mumbai. Some of the medicines shown as supplied were not manufactured by his company. P.W.87 Nirmal Kumar Jain deposed that no order was placed for supply of veterinary medicines to DAHO, Chaibasa during 1992-93 on M/s Animal Research Center, Jaipur. P.W.89 Amrendra Kumar Jha deposed that Borocil Glass Products were not supplied by him to DAHO, Chaibasa during 1992-93. P.W.91 Sunil Kumar deposed that no order for supply of Borocil Glass Ware was placed by DAHO, Chaibasa during 1992-93. Almost same has been stated by P.W.92 Narendra Kumar Jha. P.W.95 Gyani Ram Jain deposed that he prepared false bills for Mallick Enterprises on commission without supplying Ground Nut Cake. P.W.96 Vijay Kumar Gupta deposed that he prepared false bills for Mallick Enterprises on commission without supplying Ground Nut Cake. P.W.97 Amiyo Kumar Chakraborty deposed that no supply order was placed on M/s Brihance Lab., Kolkatta for supply of veterinary medicines by DAHO, Chaibasa during 1992-93. P.W.98 Umesh Kumar Sinha deposed that no supply order was placed on M/s Karnataka Antibiotic, Banglore for supply of veterinary medicines by DAHO, Chaibasa. P.W.99 Ram Bali Jha deposed that there were 230 cattle's in Cattle Farm at Saraikela. He never received Mustered Oil, Besan and Molasses in the store, even Cattle Feed was supplied in much lessor quantity. Finding s on the point of implication of Officers of Animal Husbandry Department. It appears from the evidence that Dr. Pandey C.P. Sharma was District Animal Husbandry Officer, Chaibasa from April, 1992 to October, 1992 but he has already expired. Dr. B.N. Sharma was District Animal Husbandry Officer, Chaibasa from January, 1993 to March, 1993 and he had been working as Drawing and Disbursing Officer during that period. Dr. M.K. Srivastava was In-charge of Poultry Farm, Chaibasa and it was his duty to certify the receipt of all materials consigned to Poultry Farm. Dr. Dubraj Dorai was Manager of Cattle Farm, Saraikela during this period and his duty was to receive all consignments of feed, medicines and instruments meant for Government Cattle Farm, Saraikela. Dr. Gaya Prasad Tripathi was Mobile Veterinary Officer, Chaibasa during 1992-93 and he was responsible to render necessary assistance to DAHO primarily in containing epidemics. Besides that it was also his duty to

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 269 receive the consignment of medicine and instruments on behalf of DAHO and to distribute the same amongst the field officers of the department as per need. Dr. Arjun Sharma was Assistant Poultry Officer and he was responsible for assisting DAHO, Chaibasa in the matter relating to poultry development of the District. He received the consignments of feed, medicines and instruments on behalf of DAHO, Chaibasa. Dr. K.N. Jha was Regional Director, Ranchi during 1992-93 he was responsible to exercise administrative control over the region, to place supply orders on the suppliers, to accord sanction of the amount required for honouring the bills of the supplier, order placed on and to authorise the Drawing and Disbursing Officers to draw the sanctioned amount and to appropriate for the purpose specified. He was also responsible to monitor the distribution of feed, fodder, medicines and instruments and coordinate with AHD Headquarters. He was responsible to ensure the submission of indents received from field formations before AHD Headquarters for the preparation of budget estimates. Dr. B.N. Sharma has stated in his statement U/s 313 of the Cr.P.C. that allotments were given by Government. It contained original signature of Budget Officer. He did not pay amount against any fake bill and bills were genuine. He did not deny the approval of contingent bills and submitted that it is a matter of record. He has stated that all the papers were given in Bank Drafts. He has stated in his statement U/s 313 of the Cr.P.C. during his posting at Chaibasa he did not receive anything and nothing was issued by him. Accused Dubraj Dorai and Gaya Prasad Tripathi have already died. Accused Dr. Arjun Sharma has deposed that he was subordinate to DAHO, Chaibasa and he obeyed his instructions being his junior. He denied the allegation of issuance of false certificate and stated that they distributed the articles immediately and did not store. Accused Dr. K.N. Jha stated in his statement U/s 313 of the Cr.P.C. that he did not enter into criminal conspiracy and Dr. Jagarnath Mishra was his Samdhi. P.W.56 Raj Kumar Kedia deposed about preparation of false bills. P.W.58 Sushil Kumar Bhatia deposed about non supply of Borocil Glass Ware. P.W.63 deposed that no veterinary medicines was supplied by M/s Hindustan Antibiotics. P.W.64 Anjan Sinha deposed that no supply order was given to M/s Pfyzer India Limited by DAHO, Chaibasa. P.W.67 K. Danel deposed that no supply order was given to Ranbaxy to supply veterinary medicines. P.W.63, P.W.64 & P.W.67 have proved documents marked as exhibit-10/8, 4/188 to

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 270

4/202, 3/34, 10/09 & 10/10. P.W.69 stated that no order was placed to M/s Karnataka Antibiotics for supply of veterinary medicines. He has proved documents marked as exhibit-4/212 & 4/213. P.W.72 Prem Kumar deposed that B.H.C. Powder was not supplied to Magudh Chemical Corporation. He has proved documents marked as exhibit-3/39 and 4/195 to 4/218. P.W.73 T. Gopal Krishanan stated that M/s Sarabhai Chemicals did not supply veterinary medicines to DAHO, Chaibasa. He has proved documents marked as exhibit- 4/219 to 4/225 and 3/40. P.W.74, P.W.76 and P.W.79 and stated about non supply of materials. P.W.85 and P.W.87 also stated that no supply order was placed for veterinary medicines. They have proved documents marked as exhibit-4/246 to 4/248, 10/17, 10/18, 3/50 and 3/51. Accused Dr. K.N. Jha stated his ignorance about preparation of contingent bills. P.W.88 Dr. Hirday Shankar Sinha deposed that split supply orders were prepared at instructions of Dr. K.M. Prasad, Dr. K.N. Jha and others for supply of feed to DAHO, Chaibasa. He has proved documents marked as exhibit-24, 25, 25/1 to 25/15, 1/58 to 1/61. P.W.90 Gopal Prasad Sukla deposed that false supply orders were prepared for supply of veterinary medicines from the office of Regional Director, Ranchi for supply to DAHO, Chaibasa during 1992-93. The veterinary medicines manufacturing company denied to have received any supply orders or payments from AHD. He has proved documents marked as exhibit-26, 24/1 and 25/16 to 25/32. P.W.95 Gyani Ram Jain deposed that he prepared false bills for Mallick Enterprises on commission. P.W.96 Vijay Kumar Gupta also deposed like same. P.W.97 and P.W.98 deposed about non supply of medicines. They have proved document marked as exhibit-10/19, 10/20 and 10/21 to 10/24. P.W.99 Ram Bali Jha deposed that he did not receive Mustered Oil, Besan and Molasses. He has stated that only 230 cattles were kept at Saraikela Cattle Farms. P.W.119 Dr. Dukhit Ram stated that feed and fodder were not received on transfer from Ranchi to Chaibasa and vice-versa. He also stated that equipments for artificial insemination were not supplied by DAHO, Chaibasa during 1992-93. P.W.121 Dr. Gyanendra Kumar Srivastava deposed that supply orders for purchase of huge quantities of feed, veterinary medicine and instruments were prepared without indents to be supplied to DAHO, Chaibasa during 1992-93 at the recommendation of Dr.K.M. Prasad and Dr. S.B. Sinha under the signature of Dr. K.N. Jha. He has proved documents marked as exhibit-25/33 to 25/46,

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 271 exhibit-41 to 41/6244 and 1 / 4 to 1/57. P.W.122 Sushil Kumar Mangla deposed that manufacturing company of M/s Seemex Cryogenic of Shastri Nagar, Delhi was not registered with Central Excise, Delhi being manufacturing unit of artificial insemination of instruments having more than Rs. 30 Lakhs sale whereas it is supposed to be registered. He has proved documents marked as exhibit-10/30. Exhibit-36/45 reveals that meeting to review of excess withdrawal from treasury in March, 1993 was held in the month of June, 1993 in which excess withdrawal from Chaibasa Treasury from the department of Animal Husbandry was questioned. Accused Sajal Chakraborty, D.C., Chaibasa justified the withdrawal as per rule. P.W.128, P.W.129 & P.W.130 stated about preparation of false bills. P.W.135 Shiv Kumar Singh proved so many bills which were found false, these are exhibits- 1 to 1/25. P.W.137 Vijay Shankar Dubey noticed huge excess withdrawal from the Civil Accounts of AHD. He has proved documents marked as exhibit-69 to 69/13. P.W.141 Fuleshwar Paswan has proved exhibit-70 to 70/67 about the budget estimates. P.W.144 Biplav Sen Gupta deposed that medicine shown supplied by M/s Little Oak Pharmaceuticals, Kolkatta are human medicines. He has proved documents marked as exhibit-10/31 & 45. P.W.149 Shailesh Prasad Singh deposed about non supply of material and distribution of fraudulent payment at the ratio of 80 : 20 between Officers and Suppliers. P.W.172 Shayam Chandra Mishra deposed that feed supplements with false batch number were mentioned in the bills of M/s Little Oak. The material shown supplied were prepared on loan license from M/s Treatment Home Products. Finding s on the point of implication of I.A.S. Officers & Treasury Officer. Accused Sajal Chakraborty is member of I.A.S. He was Dy. Commissioner, Chaibasa from 1992 to 1995. He was general in-charge of the treasury and responsible to the Government for its general administration and working. He was responsible for cash balance, stamp, opium and other government property and the immediate detection of any irregular practice on the part of the subordinates. He was responsible to send immediate notice to the A.G., Finance Department and other concerned authorities if any defalcation or loss of public money was found. He broke the rules of treasury code. Accused Mahesh Prasad was Secretary of Animal Husbandry Department,

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 272

Government of Bihar. The matters related with department of Animal Husbandry were to be routed to the Minister through him. He violated Bihar Financial Rules. Accused Phool Chand Singh was Finance Commissioner of Government of Bihar. He was responsible for preparation of statement of estimated revenue and expenditure. Charges against him was that he violated Rules of Bihar Budget Manual. Accused Silas Tirkey was Treasury Officer, Chaibasa. He was immediate officer of treasury. He was answerable to A.G. & R.B.I. His duty was to refer disputed claims to A.G. The Indian Administrative Service was established as an instrument of federalism, serving as an intermediary between States and the Central Government. It analyses its early development and the changes that have taken place in the Indian Society that have had an impact on the I.A.S. and its role in the Indian Federal System. After independence issues related to relationship between State and Central Government were considered and considering the preservence of unity among diversity, the cadre of I.A.S. was considered. The decision to build on a unified administrative system was advanced by the then Home Minister late Vallabhbhai Patel. He argued in favour of giving the Civil Service experience at Centre as well as the Districts. This position came to known as the “Still frame”. These individuals were believed to provide the nation with an All India Outlook. The members of the service were viewed as generalists who could assume a diverse array of responsibilities over their carriers and could move around the country from various state assignments to the nation's capital. It is clear that questions related to the I.A.S. are not separable from Broader issues involving changes that have taken place in the political process, economy and the society in general. The great political thinker Plato has thought about ideal king.Alexander was disciple of Aristotle. He cold not be proved as “gdeal king” as sketched in the famous book of Plato, “The Republic”. But the great thinker Chankyaorkoutilya proved himself as the best secrtary of the king. Perhaps cadre of All India Services were made keeping the achievement Koutilya. Accused Sajal Chakraborty was D.C., Chaibasa, accused Mahesh Prasad was Secretary, AHD, Government of Bihar and accused Phool Chand Singh was Finance Commissioner,

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 273

Government of Bihar. The present case is related with fraudulent withdrawal of Rs. 376279883 from Chaibasa Treasury, while Silas Tirkey was Treasury Officer, Chaibasa, Sajal Chakraborty was D.C., Chaibasa, Mahesh Prasad was Secretary, AHD, Government of Bihar and Phool Singh was Finance Commissioner, Government of Bihar. Fraudulent withdrawal was done under conspiracy of officials of A.H.D. and others. P.W.1 Dipesh Chandak has stated about payment on bogus bills, non supply, fabrication of allotment letters, distribution of fraudulent payment among co-conspirators, public servants and suppliers at ratio of 80 & 20 percent. He has proved documents marked as exhibit-1 to 1/57 and 2 to 2/150. P.W.49 R.K. Das is approver of this case. P.W.1 was also approver of this case. P.W.49 has stated about efforts taken by accused Lalu Prasad Yadav, Dr. R.K. Rana and Dr. S.B. Sinha for promotion of Dr. Ram Raj Ram to the post of Director. He has stated about fabrication of allotment letters payments made to Lalu Prasad for favour, false report by Jagdish Sharma on objections of audit team. He has stated about seizure of huge cash at Ranchi Airport, payment for stay of transfer of Dr. B.N. Sharma from Chaibasa. He has stated about extension of service of Dr. S.B. Sinha after his retirement and payment given to manage questions raised in legislature regarding fraudulent payment. He has stated about payment for Air Ticket of accused Lalu Prasad and others by T.M. Prasad and S.B. Sinha through J.P. Verma. He has proved documents marked as exhibits-1/93 to 38/282, 38/271, 38/277, 38/278, 38/276, 38/281, 38/277 and 34/90. P.W.78 Shashi Kumar Singh stated about cash payments to accused Vidya Sagar Nishad, Bhola Ram Toofani, Beck Julias, R.K. Rana, Jagdish Sharma and others by Dr. S.B. Sinha for protection and patronage. P.W.93 Krishna Prasad stated that registered letters of A.G., Bihar were delivered to the office of Secretary, AHD marked as exhibit-27. P.W.94 Nagina Thakur has also stated about registered letters of A.G., Bihar, delivered to the office of Secretary, AHD. He has proved documents marked as exhibit-27/1 & 27/2. P.W.102 Ajit Kumar Srivastava stated that Dr. S.B. Sinha used to obtain figures of expenditure of AHD received from the office of Accountant General either personally or through Tripurari Mohan Prasad. On some occasions, he had visited Hotel Patliputra to supply the figures of expenditure to Dr. S.B. Sinha. He saw Dr. Ram Raj Ram, Dr. R.K. Rana and Dr.

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 274

Shashi Kumar Singh in the room of hotel occupied by Dr. S.B. Sinha. He had access to such information as he was Private Secretary to the Finance Commissioner during 1992-93. P.W.107 Bidhu Bhushan Dwedy stated that he had submitted a report to D.G. Vigilance against fraudulent payments being done in the department of Animal Husbandry. He had found involvement of Dr. K.N. Jha, Dr. S.B. Sinha, Dr. K.M. Prasad, Dr. C.B. Dubey, Contractor S.K. Mehra, Jagmohan Lal Kakar, Sanjay Sinha and others. He had submitted his report. Documents were marked as exhibit-68 to 68/4. P.W.109 Stephan Lucus stated that in the budget file figures of actual expenditure of AHD non plan were mentioned and he stated also that the SRF files discloses surrender of fund by the Animal Husbandry Department. He proved document marked as exhibit-36 to 36/10. P.W.10 Dharam Raj Pandey. P.W.113 Suresh Chandra Choudhary and P.W.114 Ramanand Prasad Singh presented sequence of circumstance. P.W.120 Anil Kumar Mehta submitted that complaint of Ram Saran Yadav, Member of Lok Sabha gave information about fraudulent payment in AHD and involvement of Dr. S.B. Sinha was received in the Office of Secretary, AHD on 16.10.1993 and the said file was also sent to the State Minister of AHD. He has proved documents marked as exhibit-39/2, 39/3 and 39/4. P.W.126 Praveen Kumar Basu stated about budget estimate files of AHD for the period 1991-92. He has proved document marked as exhibit-36/46. P.W.127 Anjani Kumar Singh proved document marked as exhibit-36/45 and the matter of excess withdrawal from Chaibasa Treasury was stated by him. P.W.137 Vijay Shankar Dubey stated about the procedure of Secretariat and procedure of the office of Secretaries of the Department of Animal Husbandry or Finance. He noticed huge excess withdrawal. P.W.142 Prakash Keshav stated about preparation of budget and regulation on expenditure imposed by government. P.W.150 Tilak Raj Gauri stated about variation in allocated budget and expenditure of AHD from 1985-86 to 1993-94 and stated also about fraudulent expenditure shown in the forecast of five year plan prepared in Finance Department in the year 1993- 94. P.W.166 Vijay Kumar stated about file of enquiry of complain regarding delivery of three registered letters of A.G. to Secretary, AHD by postman Nagina Thakur and Krishana Pandit. P.W.169 Bharteshwar Narayan Lal Das stated that treasury advice for payment was prepared as Chaibasa Treasury under orders of accused Silas Tirkey, Treasury Offficer, Chaibasa. P.W.174 Indu Bhushan

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 275

Pathak stated that letter of Sri Ram Saran Yadav, M.P. Lok Sabha was received in the office of Secretary from C.B.C. The complaint file was shown to accused Mahesh Prasad and others. Sanction report for prosecution of the accused persons have already been proved. P.W.199 A.K. Jha stated about registration of F.I.R. and requisition for vouchers to A.G. Office. Statement of Bharteshwar Narayan Lal Das has been recorded U/s 164 of the Cr.P.C. and marked as exhibit-24/8. He was Accountant in Chaibasa Treasury. He has stated that bill of more than Rs. 50 Lakhs was presented by the department of AHD, Chaibasa in Treasury, Chaibasa. On some days the amount was more than Rs. 1 crore. The Assistant Sahdeo Prasad told him that excess withdrawal was being done by DAHO, Chaibasa. He told the matter to accused Silas Tirkey. He raised the matter again and again one Personal Assistant of the then D.C. accused Sajal Chakraborty was also sitting there, his name was Madan Sen Gupta. He was pressurizing the employees of Treasury. Madan Sen Gupta P.A. of D.C., Chaibasa used to visit Chamber of Silas Tirkey and he had been pressurizing him to pass the bills of DAHO, Chaibasa. Sahdeo Prasad has stated under Section 164 of the Cr. P.C. that excess withdrawal of DAHO, Chaibasa was noticed by him and he brought the matter under the notice of Sri B.N.L. Das. He told about the matter to accused Silas Tirkey. The Treasury Officer told him that the D.C. Sajal Chakraborty instructed him through his P.A. Mandan Sen Gupta to pass the bills of DAHO, Chaibasa. His statement has been marked as exhibit- 24/9. Accused Mahesh Prasad appeared as defence witness no.16. He has deposed in his cross examination that as Secretary he was empowered to intervene in the file. Accused Sajal Chakraborty appeared as defence witness no.17 and he stated in para-12 that even the State Bank of India did have an idea of allotment. There was no communication to D.Ms or T.Os of the allotment given to various D.D.Os before the scam. D.W.23 Dhruv Prasad Ojha is retired D.G.P., Bihar. He has deposed that he was controlling officer of Vigilance Case No. 34/90. That case was lodged on the complain of Sri Rameshwar Paswan, M.L.A. Bihar Legislative Assembly dated 16.06.1987. He gave his complain in writing to the then Chief Minister Sri Bindeshwar Dubey. The Chief Minister ordered for Vigilance Enquiry and handed over the complain to Sri N.N. Singh the then D.G., Vigilance. N.N. Singh was transferred and Sri Harihar Singh became D.G., Vigilance, Bihar. Enquiry was started as per his order. Complain

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 276 was against Central Purchase Committee, AHD, Bihar. Items such as Contrast Microscope, generator sets, Kirloskar Pumps were purchased from M/s Inter Pharmaceuticals (India) Pvt. Limited for Patna. Payment for more than Rs. 2 crores was given. It was found that Rs. 7 Laksh was defalcated in purchase of the items. Before starting investigation in that case the I.O. had added para-6 on the basis of confidential information that there was allegation of corrupt practices in the department of Animal Husbandry at different levels but no enquiry was done. Finding s on the point of implication of Politicians. P.W.1 Dipesh Chandak stated in his statement that Dr. S.B. Sinha told him that the money received by Dr. S.B. Sinha from various suppliers was also paid by him to senior bureaucrats, politicians, blackmailers etc. who on turn used to work in close nexus with Dr. S.B. Sinha and Officials of the AHD. He has stated that on the eve of departure of Dr. S.B. Sinha to Australia for his Renal Transplantation Operation in Australia, a large number of officials and suppliers had come to Kolkatta on the evening of 08.12.1994 and stayed at Hotel Taj Bengal. He has stated in para-46 that I have made and seen Mr. Sajal Chakraborty in the hotel room of Hayat Regency. He has stated in para-48 that Dr. S.B. Sinha kept meeting Mr. Lalu Prasad Yadav after becoming him Chief Minister of Bihar and used to oblige Mr. Lalu Prasad Yadav monetarily through Dr. R.K. Rana. He stated about payment of Rs. 1 crore to Lalu Prasad Yadav through R.K. Rana in para-49. He has stated in para-50 also about Dr. R.K. Rana and Lalu Prasad Yadav. P.W.49 R.K. Das stated in para-6 that S.B. Sinha gave Rs. 20 Lakhs to Dr. Jagarnath Mishra. He has deposed in para-9 that S.B. Sinha used to pay money to accused Lalu Prasad Yadav and others. He has stated about role of Lalu Prasad Yadav in promotion of Dr. Ram Raj Ram. He has stated in para-13 that he saw Lalu Prasad Yadav, Dr. R.K. Rana coming out from the bedroom of Dr. S.B. Sinha. Both of them were containing polythene bag. Dr. S.B. Sinha told him that he gave Rs. 5 Lakhs to Lalu Prasad Yadav. He stated in para-14 that member of Legislative Counsel Sri Kirpa Nath Pathak raised question about corrupt practice in the department of Animal Husbandry and the Chief Minister replied him that matter was being looked into by Public Accounts Committee. He said about false report by Jagdish Sharma, stay of transfer of Dr. B.N. Sharma from Chaibasa and Extension of Service of Dr. S.B.

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 277

Sinha. P.W.93 & P.W.94 are Krishana Prasad and Nagina Thakur, both are postmen. They stated and proved documents of post office from which it appeared that registered letters of A.G., Bihar were delivered to the office of Secretary, AHD. P.W.103 Miss. Jayanti Jha stated that Air Tickets were purchased in the name of Lalu Prasad, Mukul Prasad, P.K. Rai, Dr. R.K. Rana, Hema, Chanda, Rohani, Raj Laxmi, Tej Pratap, Dhanu and Tarun. P.W.105 Kul Bhushan Prakash Srivastava proved copy of bufsheet sent by Chief Controller of Accounts to Additional Finance Commissioner. P.W.108 Miss. N. Jacob proved document marked as exhibit-3/58, 35, 31/1, 35/2, 91/4 and 91/5. It appears that Dr. S.B. Sinha was shown as local guardian of Miss. Ragani, Miss. Rohani and Miss. Chanda who are daughters of Lalu Prasad. P.W.112 Prasanjeet Barooah proved documents marked as exhibit-38 to 38/30 and it appears that rooms in Hotel Taj Bengal at Kolkatta were booked by accused Dipesh Chandak in the name of Dr. R.K. Rana and others. Payment was also made by Dipesh Chandak. P.W.115 Shailendra Kumar has proved files of AHD related with questions raised in the Assembly marked as exhibit-36/13 to 36/26. Misleading reply was given by the concerned persons regarding fraudulent withdrawal. P.W.118 Birendra Prasad Ambastha proved documents marked as exhibit-36/27 to 36/45 from which it appears that complaints with allegation relating to the fraudulent payments against the accused public servants of AHD were in the knowledge of AHD Director. P.W.120 Anil Kumar Mehta has proved file containing complaint of Ram Saran Yadav, Member Lok Sabha alleging fraudulent payment in AHD. The file is related with matters dated 16.12.1992 to 30.10.1993. The file was sent to Additional Secretary on 15.10.1993 and thereafter it was sent to State Minister through Secretary on 16.10.1993. It appears also that the file was kept in the Cell of Secretariat AHD from 21.02.1995 to 30.12.1995. P.W.123 Gopal Jee Srivastava proved exhibit-10/31 & 10/32 and it appears that Jagdish Sharma stayed at Bihar Bhawan during the period of alleged offence. P.W.125 Girish Chandra Mishra proved exhibit-10/33 and it appears that S.B. Sinha and others had telephonic call with other co- accused persons. P.W.132 Naresh Kumar Jain proved document marked as exhibit-100 to 100/5 and it appears that registration, sale and insurance certificate of Ambassador Car given to accused Dhruv Bhagat by accused S.B. Sinha was done by Rajesh Mehra. P.W.134 Rahul Singh proved exhibit-21/182

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 278 to 21/185 and it appears that payment for the air tickets in the name of Dr. K.N. Jha, Vidya Sagar Nishad, Jagdish Sharma, Dr. R.K. Rana and Dr. K.M. Prasad were made from the account of M/s Jilian Roadways owned by accused Md. Sayeed @ Master Sahab. P.W.136 Keshari Kishore Srivastava proved documents marked as exhibit-36/47, 36/48, 10/30 and 24/1 deposed that list of suppliers of veterinary medicines was approved by the Chief Minister and Finance Minister in the year 1991. DAHO was authorized to pass bills for purchase of Feed, Fodder and Medicines upto Rs. 5,000/- and Regional Director was authorized to pass bills upto Rs. 15,000/- in terms of order of the Government. P.W.143 Ram Jeevan Singh proved exhibit-36/64 and it appears that his recommendation for C.B.I. enquiry was subsequently made over to P.A.C. and latter on it was shifted from AHD to other department. P.W.149 Shailesh Prasad Singh stated that Rs. 10 Lakhs was paid to Rajo Singh for securing stay on transfer of accused B.N. Sharma from Chaibasa in June, 1993 following enquiry of allegation of fraudulent withdrawal of Rs. 50 Lakhs from Chaibasa Treasury in March, 1993. The stay order of transfer was passed by accused Lalu Prasad Yadav. P.W.150 Tilak Raj Gauri proved document marked as exhibit-72 to 72/3 and he stated that variation in allocated budget and expenditure of AHD from 1985-86 to 1993-94 and fraudulent expenditures were shown in the forecast of five year plan prepared in Finance Department in the year 1993-94. P.W.151 Ganga Dhar Giri deposed that reply of question of Sri Chatrapati Munda was prepared by him. P.W.152 Ravi Shankar Kumar Sinha proved document marked as exhibit-73 to 73/1 and submitted that file for extension of service of Dr. S.B. Sinha was prepared by him on recommendation of Dr. Jagarnath Mishra on 05.12.1993. P.W.153 Ram Jatan Singh stated that order on stay of transfer of Dr. B.N. Sharma was passed by Lalu Prasad on the letter of Rajo Singh dated 15.07.1993. P.W.157 Smt. Chandrawati Natrajan proved exhibit-3/67. The seizure of school admission form of daughter of Lalu Prasad from Bishop Wescott Girls School, Ranchi was marked as exhibit. P.W.161 Suryakant Prasad Suraj stated that the name of Md. Illias as referee on school admission form of Ragni, Rohani and Chanda, all daughter of Lalu Prasad at Bishop Westcott Girls School, Ranchi was mentioned on being asked by Md. Sayeed of Ranchi. P.W.165 Krishana Mohan Prasad stated that Vigilance File BS-2394 was received in C.M. Secretariat on 05.07.1994. The file

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 279 was endorsed to Chief Minister by Sri A.K. Basak. The file was cleared by Chief Minister on 02.02.1996. P.W.176 Kamlesh Kumar stated about complaint files relating to fraudulent payments in AHD received in the State Vigilance Headquarter of the Government of Bihar from 1990 to 1997. He stated also that Vigilance Clearance was issued to the Officers of AHD on only one case bearing no. 34/90. P.W.178 A.K. Sinha proved call details between accused S.B. Sinha, Md. Sayeed, Dayanand Kashyap, Sanjay Sinha and others. Exhibit- 36/31 which was taken from R.C. 20(A)/1996 is a letter written by Regional Director, AHD, Ranchi to Director, AHD, Bihar, Patna dated 11.06.1993 bearing letter no. 7343. The Regional Director has stated in the letter that as per order of President of P.A.C. all documents related with payment from March, 1993 from the Department of AHD were handed over to P.A.C. and its receiving has already been obtained from P.A.C. File No. 124/92 contained in exhibit-36/64 bears a report of P.A.C. where it was found that cattle transported truck did not bear registration numbers of truck. The accused Jagdish Sharma entered into defence and produced file marked as exhibit-G/1 which is house proceeding of Bihar Legislative Counsel regarding calling motion dated 18.03.1991 and 22.03.1991. The respected member Sri Kirpa Nath Pathak raised matter of corrupt practices in Regional Office, AHD, Ranchi from 1980 to 1989 amounting defalcation of Rs. 30 crores. The Minister of AHD Vidya Sagar Nishad replied that the Chief Minister would reply himself on 22nd day of month. Exhibit-G/4 is document related with question and answers of Bihar Legislative Assembly dated 21.03.1991 in which it has been stated that respected member Dr. Jagarnath Mishra wrote letter that objection raised by A.G., Bihar should be enquired by Regional Director, AHD. The respected member Lalu Prasad Yadav replied, to restrain from contradiction and enquiry was given to P.A.C. 25. Now the relevant sections are being dealt. Section 120-B – (1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence. (2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 280 imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both. Conspiracy is to be treated as a continuing offence and whoever is a party to the conspiracy during the period for which he is charged is liable under this section. Any person associating himself with the conspirator shall be held liable as co-conspirator. Generally a statement of accused U/s 313 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be used against co-accused but U/s 10 of Evidence Act the statement can be utilized against co-accused if the court is satisfied that there is reasonable ground that they have conspired together to commit the offence or actionable wrong. Section 10 of the Evidence Act reads as :- 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 conspiring, as well for the purpose of providing the existence of the conspiracy as for the purpose of showing that any such person was a party to it. Illustration Reasonable ground exists for believing that A has joined in a conspiracy to wage war against the Government of India. Section 420 – Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property – Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. Essential Ingredients – An offence under Section 420 has following essentials : (i) There must be deception i.e. the accused must have deceived someone; (ii) That by the said deception. The accused must induce a person. (a) to deliver any property; or (b) to make, alter or destroy the whole or part of the valuable security

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 281

or any thing which is signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable property. Section 467 – Forgery of valuable security, will, etc. - Whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. Ingredients of offence – The essential ingredients of the offence under section 467 are as follows : (1) Accused committed forgery; (2) He did so by preparation of a forged document in the manner provided in sections 463 and 464 Section 468 – Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document [or electronic record] forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. Section 471 – Using as genuine a forged document – Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document. Essential ingredients – An offence under this section has following ingredients : (i) Fraudulent or dishonest use of a document as genuine; (ii) The person using it must have knowledge or reason to believe that the document is a forged one. Section 477-A – Whoever, being a clerk, officer or servant, or employed or acting in the capacity of a clerk, officer or servant, willfully, and with intent to defraud, destroys, alters, mutilates or falsifies any book, [electronic record], paper, writing, valuable security or account which belongs to or is in the

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 282 possession of his employer, or has been received by him for or on behalf of his employer, or willfully, and with intent to defraud, makes or abets the making of any false entry in, or omits or alters or abets the omission or alteration of any material particular from or in, any such book, [electronic record] paper, writing, valuable security or account, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both. Explanation – It shall be sufficient in any charge under this section to allege a general intent to defraud without naming any particular person intended to be defrauded or specifying any particular sum of money intended to be the subject of the fraud, or any particular day on which the offence was committed. Essential ingredients – An offence under this section has following essentials : (1) The person coming within its purview must be a clerk, an officer, or a servant, or acting in the capacity of a clerk, an officer, or a servant; (2) He must willfully and with intent to defraud - (i) destroy, alter, mutilate, or falsify, any book, paper, writing, valuable security, or account which (a) belongs to or is in the possession of his employer; (b) has been received by him for or on behalf of his employer; (ii) make or abet the making of any false entry in or omit or alter or abet the omission or alteration of any material particular from or in any such book, paper, writing, valuable security or account. Section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Criminal misconduct by a public servant – (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct, - (a) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person for himself or for any other person any gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward, such as, is mentioned in Sec. 7 : or (b) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain for himself or for any other person, any valuable thing without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate from any person whom he knows to have been, or to be, or to be likely to be concerned in

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 283 any proceeding or business transacted or about to be transacted by him, or having any connection with the official functions of himself or of any public servant to whom he is subordinate, or from any person whom he knows to be interested in or related to the person so concerned; or (c) if he 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 person so to do, or (d) if he, - (i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage ; or (ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage ; or (iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest ; or (e) if he or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account, of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income. Explanation – For the purposes of this section, “known sources of income” means income received from any lawful source and such receipt has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to a public servant. (2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than one year but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. Some of the accused persons took plea that either they have been convicted in the cases of Fodder Scam on the same set of evidence or they have been facing trial in others cases of Fodder Scam. The Hon'ble Supreme Court did not give them benefit U/s 300 of the Cr.P.C. Judgments of Courts of Justice are declared relevant when they fall within one or other of sections 40 to 43, otherwise they will be held irrelevant unless they can be brought under any other provisions of the Evidence Act or some other Act. A judgment other than a judgment referred to in Sections 40 to 42 may be admissible to prove that a right was asserted or denied U/s 13 or to explain or introduce facts in issue or to

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 284 explain the history of the case. Some accused persons filed photo copies of judgment delivered in cases of Fodder Scam. U/s 40 the existence of a judgment, decree or order is a relevant fact, if by law, it has the effect of preventing any court from taking cognizance of a suit or holding trial. In civil cases it becomes applicable usually when a specific statutory provision precludes the court from trying a suit. The record of a court consists of two parts, which may be denominated respectively the substantive and judicial portions. Judgment is kept in the judicial portion of the record. Therefore, such a judgment is only res inter lios judicata with respect to any third person who was neither party nor privy to the proceedings in which it was pronounced and hence the rule does not bind. A judgment in personam or inter partes operates as an estoppel against parties and privies and judgment in rem is a judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction determining the status of a person or thing or the disposition of a thing as defined in Halsbury. Section 42 of the Evidence Act – Relevancy and effect of judgments, orders or decrees, other than those mentioned in section 41 – Judgments, orders or decrees, other than those mentioned in section 41, are relevant if they relate to matters of a public nature relevant to the enquiry; but such judgments, orders or decrees are not conclusive proof of that which they state. Illustration A sues B for trespass on his land, B alleges the existence of public right of way over the land, which A denies. The existence of a decree in favour of the defendant, in a suit by A against C for a tresspass on the same land, in which C alleged the existence of the same right of way, is relevant, but it is not conclusive proof that the right of way exists. Under this section judgments relating to matters of a public nature are declared relevant whether between the same parties or not. Section 40 admits as evidence all judgments inter partes which could operate as res- judicata in a second suit and Section 42 is a document whereby a declaration of legal right is adjudicated as per law. Most of the accused persons took plea that evidence of approvers cannot be used against the accused persons unless it has been corroborated by other

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 285 witnesses but not by other approver witness. They have filed rulings on that point. As per Section 133 of the Evidence Act – Accomplice – An accomplice shall be a competent witness against an accused person ; and a conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. The present section deals with the law relating to the accomplice evidence without making any distinction between an accomplice who is or is not an approver. This section has two parts. The first part says that an accomplice shall be a competent witness. The second part lays down that conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. As Section 118 lays down that all persons are competent witnesses except those who suffer from disqualification of an intellectual character. There is practically no bar to accept an accomplice as a competent witness. Of course the necessity for laying down the law of accomplice in clear terms was perhaps felt in view of illustration (b) to Section 114 which says that an accomplice is unworthy of credit unless he is corroborated in material particulars. There is certain amount of disharmony between the two provisions and the present duality creates complications in practice. In fact it would be impossible to get sufficient evidence of many heinous and diabolical crimes unless one of the participants volunteers to disclose the incident. The learned Special P.P. (C.B.I.) submitted during his argument that there is series of evidences and there is clear cut circumstantial evidence. Corroboration is needed when the court finds that the declaration is not wholly reliable and a material an integral portion of the version of the witness about the entire occurrence is untrue, the court may in view of the circumstances of the case consider it unsafe to convict the accused on the basis of declaration alone without corroboration. I would like to write lord reading which he said in the case of Baskervilie in the year 1916 - “There is no doubt that the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice is admissible in law but it has long been a rule of practice at common law for the judge to warn the jury of the danger of convicting a prisoner on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice and in the discretion of the judge, to advice them not to convict upon such evidence, but the judge should point out to the jury that it is within their legal province to convict upon such unconfirmed evidence”.

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 286

In Stathan v Stathan (1929 P 13), Lord Handworth MR upon a review of different authorities deduced the following three propositions : (1) That the evidence of an accomplice is not accepted without corroboration ; (2) that a conviction may be questioned in an appeal court where a trial judge had omitted to caution a jury against convicting on the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice; (3) that the corroboration must be found in some material particular tending to show that the accused had committed the acts charged. The evidence must also be such as affected that accused by connecting him or tending to connect him with the crime. Later, the House of Lords enunciated the following propositions in Davices v D.P.P. [1954 AC 378 : (1954) 1 All ER 507] “First proposition : In a criminal trial where a person who is an accomplice gives evidence on behalf of the prosecution, it is the duty of the judge to warn the jury that although they may convict upon his evidence, it is dangerous to do so unless it is corroborated. Second proposition : This rule, although a rule of practice, now has the force of a rule of law. Third proposition : Where the judge tends to warn the jury in accordance with this rule, the conviction will be quashed, even if in fact there be ample corroboration of the evidence of the accomplice, unless the appellate court can apply the proviso to section 4(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907” Now it is high time for this case to discuss the principle of circumstantial evidence. Before coming to the main point I want to put some lines of poetess Amrita Preetam fdlh us balku dh Nkrh esa las/k yxk;h gSA ml pksj ds fu’kku gj xyh ds gj eksM+ ij gSA exj dksbZ dqN cksyrk ugha flQZ tathj esa ca/ks dqŸks dh rjg dksbZ&dksbZ uT; HkkSadrh gSA – in circumstantial evidence one or more facts cannot be decisive but all facts taken together or conclusive to establish guilt. The observation of Pollock CB “It has been said that circumstantial evidence is to be considered as a chain, and each piece of evidence as a link in the chain, but that is not so, for then, if any

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 287 one link break, the chain would fall. It is more like the case of a rope comprised of several cords. One strand of the cord might be insufficient to sustain the weight, but three stranded together may be quite of sufficient strength. Thus it may be in circumstantial evidence – there may be a combination of circumstances, no one of which would create a reasonable conviction or more than a mere suspicion; but the three taken together may create a conclusion of guilt with as much certainty as human affairs can require or admit of”. Best observes ; “The inference may be drawn from one evidentiary fact, or from a combination - Although perhaps not very accurately, termed a chain of evidentiary facts. Again, the facts from which the inference is drawn may be either themselves proved to the satisfaction of the tribunal, or they may be merely consequences, necessary or probable, as the case may be, of other facts thus proved”. Direct evidence may be defined as the testimony of a witness to the existence or non existence of the fact or facts in issue and circumstantial evidence revolves around the testimony of witness to the existence or non existence of facts which usually attend or in the ordinary course of events render probable the existence or non existence of facts in issue. Witness may lie but circumstances do not. Circumstantial evidence is a conclusion derived from circumstances by the United Aid of experience and reason. It appears that so many cases were instituted regarding the scam committed in the department of Animal Husbandry. There is a group of accused persons. They are accused in each and every case, however some other accused persons have been introduced in a particular case. It appears that there was a group who had been committing fraudulent withdrawal and they were taking advantage of loo-phole of the system. When the salary of Class-I employee was approximate Rs. 5,000/- at that time, Chaibasa Treasury was passing bills of DAHO, Chaibasa even for Rs. 1 crore in a day. The Accountant and Assistant of the Treasury were surprised about the amount of withdrawals being done by DAHO, Chaibasa but the controlling officer were relaxed. Once it was detected by the A.G., Bihar that cattles were transported by the vehicle using registration number of motorcycle and escooter but the Regional Director, AHD, Ranchi gave certificate that no defalcation or corrupt practices were done. Vigilance Case No. 34/90 was lodged and I.O. of the case added a para when

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 288 he found that corrupt practices were rampant in the department of Animal Husbandry but it was not needed by the concerned authority to enquire in the matter. A Sub Inspector of Department of Vigilance namely Bidhu Bhushan Dwedi (P.W.107) raised the matter of corrupt practices in the Department of A.H.D. but the D.G.P. of Vigilance was afraid that he was indicating finger on the big figures. Exhibits-36/27 to 36/45 indicate that complaints were filed in Vigilance Cell, Patna regarding allegations relating to fraudulent payments against the accused and Public Servant of AHD. Sri Ramjeevan Singh M.P. recommended for C.B.I. Enquiry about the fraudulent withdrawal of AHD but his file was kept hidden and plea was taken that without preliminary enquiry no case against a public officer can be lodged. It is very surprising that preliminary enquiry was not needed by the top bureaucrats and politicians. In lieu of preliminary enquiry it was needed to enquire the matter by P.A.C. The scam was being protected by the provisions of Constitution. We have found in the case of Neera Radia that a group was influencing the different authorities. Author of the renowned novel ‘ The God Father” has written a line Balzac, which reads as,’Behind every great fortune there is a crime’. We also know that pressure group works in democracy to influence and get their agenda done through a lobby. In the present case a lobby was found by politicians, bureaucrats, officers of AHD and suppliers. We know also that lobbies do not intend to capture power or nominate candidates for election. It works as – (1) by stimulating gross route pressure on the various branches of government, (2) Metting with Legislators and Administrators (3) Making use of Legislative Committees (4) Logrolling and effecting alliances with mutual assistance for other groups (5) Seeking the intervention of the court's if possible. H.A. Bone mentions that pressure groups and lobbies carry on strong and widespread publicity and propaganda in favour of certain causes and in order to pressurized government to pass the necessary legislation. The great political thinker Harold Laski had thought about qualities of a judge and he in tribute to justice Holmes described the

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 289

Hallmarks of a great judge. A great judge, he said, must be a great man. He must have a full sense of the seamless web of life, a grasp of the endless tradition from which we cannot escape. He must be capable of stern logic, and yet refuse to sacrifice to logic the hopes and fears and wants of men. He must be able to catch a glimpse of the ultimate in the immediate, of the universal in the particular. He must be statesman as well as jurist, thinker as well as lawyer. What he is doing is to shape the categories through which life must flow, and he must have a constant sense of the greatness of his task. It appears that a system was running in favour of the scammers. The witnesses examined U/s 164 of the Cr.P.C. who were employees of Treasury, Chaibasa stated that on the occasion of Holi and Durga Puja the high Officials of AHD visited Treasury, Chaibasa and gave money to each and every employee of Chaibasa Treasury. They were being rewarded for smooth disposal of their bills. It is said that plane language needs no interpretation. The popular maxin reads as – accessorium sequitur princpale – meaning that subordinate follows the principal. The scam was from top to bottom. The learned counsel for the accused persons have raised questions on sanctioning order. The notification of D.O.P. & T. was amended by adding some more guidelines with regards to Resolution of Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, bearing No. 24/7/1964-ADV-I dated 11.02.1964 Act No.45 of 2003, on the matter of grant or refusal of sanction for prosecution of a public servant. The notification is T.O.P. & T.O.M. No. 134/2/85-AVD-I dated 17.10.1986 and Cabinet Secretariats Notification No. CD-828/86 dated 30.09.1986 – The Central Bureau of Investigation recommended prosecution of persons only in those in which they find sufficient justification for the same as a result of the investigation conducted by them. There are adequate internal controls within the CBI to ensure that a recommendation to prosecute is taken only after a very careful examination of all the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, any decision not to accord sanction for prosecution in such cases should, therefore, be for very valid reasons. 2.2 The following guidelines may be kept in view while dealing with cases of sanction of prosecution: (i) in case in which the sanction for prosecution is required to be accorded in the name of the President, the Central Vigilance Commission will advice the

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 290

Ministry / Department concerned and it would be for the Ministry / Department to consider the advice of the C.V.C. and to take a decision as to whether or not the prosecution should be sanctioned; (ii) In case in which an authority other than the President is competent to sanction prosecution, and that authority does not propose to accord such sanction, it is required to report the case to the Central Vigilance Commission and take further action after considering the Central Vigilance Commissions advice, vide para (v)(b) of the Central Vigilance Commissions letter No. 9/1/64- DP, dated 13th April, 1964; (iii) In a case falling under (I) above, if the Central Vigilance Commission advices grant of sanction for prosecution but the Ministry / Department concerned proposes not to accept such advice, the case should be referred to this Department for a final decision; (iv) In case falling under (ii) above, if the Central Bureau of Investigation has sought sanction for prosecution and the Central Vigilance Commission has recommended grant of sanction and yet, the competent authority proposes not to grant sanction, the case should be referred to this Department for a final decision; (v) Where two or more Government servants belonging to different Ministries / departments or under the control of different cadre controlling authorities are involved, the CBI will seek sanction from the respective Ministries / Departments or the respective competent authorities in accordance with the procedure laid down in the above paragraphs. Where sanction is granted in the case of one of the Government servants but sanction is refused in the case of the other or others, the C.B.I. will refer the case to the Department for resolution of the conflict, if any, and for a final decision”. The learned counsel for the accused Lalu Prasad Yadav objected the order of prosecution. It has been stated that the Hon'ble Governor is bound to Act on advice of Council of Ministers and he did not sign the prosecution report. Article 163 defines the role of Governor with Council of Ministers – (1) There shall be a Council of Ministers with the Chief Minister as the head to aid and advice the Governor in the exercise of his functions, except in so far as he is by or under this Constitution required to exercise his functions or any of them in his discretion.

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 291

(2) If any question arises whether any matter is or is not a matter as respects which the Governor is by or under this Constitution required to act in his discretion, the decision of the Governor in his discretion shall be final, and the validity of anything done by the Governor shall not be called in question on the ground that he ought or ought not to have acted in his discretion. (3) The question whether any, and if so what, advice was tendered by Ministers to the Governor shall not be inquired into in any court. The word discretion has been used in Article 163 of the Indian Constitution. The function of Governor is two folds. He acts as representative of the Central Government and he works as Head of the Executive of the State. There are some occasions where advice of Council of Ministers is not needed such as Recommendation for President Rule. In the case of Manzoor Ali Khan Vs. Union of India and others (2015) 2 SCC 33 – para -6 deals with the procedure and circumstances of granting sanction. It has been stated that grant of sanction is an Administrative Act. The purpose is to protect the public servant from harassment from frivolous or vexatious prosecution and not to shield the corrupt. The question of giving opportunity to the public servant at that stage does not arise. The sanctioning authority has only to see whether the facts would prima-facie constitute the offence. If any ambiguity is found even after passing order on sanction of prosecution, the government is empowered U/s 321 of the Cr.P.C. to withdraw the case. I would like to cote some lines from the book Constitutional Law of India, a critical commentary Fourth Edition by H.M. Seervai, Vol.2 page 2073 & 2074 “In Bombay v. Purushottam Jog Naik it was held that an order which stated that it was by order of the Governor, was “expressed to be in the name of the Governor” and the order substantially complied with Article 166(1). In P. Joseph John v. Trav. - Cochin, Pangarkar's Case was relied on and it was held that the impugned show-cause notice had substantially complied with Article 166. Similarly, in Ram Chander Singh v. Punjab it was held that an order signed by an Under Secretary and expressed to be in the name of the Government of Punjab substantially complied with the requirements of Article 166(1). However, in Ghaio Mall & Sons v. Delhi, Pangarkar's Case was held inapplicable because it proceeded on the basis that an order had been made by an appropriate authority and the infirmity in the form expressing it did not vitiate

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 292 the order, but in the present case, it was not shown that the appropriate authority had made the order. In P.K. Kunju v. State a Commission of Inquiry had been appointed by an order signed by a Special Secretary to Government, “by order of the Governor”. In the course of the hearing, no such order could be produced. However, it was contended that the order had been passed by the Chief Minister who was competent to pass it. The court held that it was not clear that the order had been passed by the Chief Minister; for no order, signed by the Chief Minister “by order of the Governor”, was produced. As it was not shown that the order was issued by a competent person in the name of the Governor, the notification was held to be invalid. In R. Chitralekha v. Mysore the Sup. Ct. said that Pangarkar's Case and Ghaio Mall's Case had settled the law that Article 166 was directory and not mandatory and if it was not complied with “it can be established as …. a fact that the impugned order was issued by the State Government or the Governor”. In another case, it has been held by the Sup. Ct. that the satisfaction required by ss. 4 & 6 of the W.B. Development and Planning Act, 1948 was not the personal satisfaction of the Governor, but was the satisfaction of the person authorized to deal with the matter according to the rules of business made by the Governor. In Ananda v. Madras it was held that Art. 77(2) (which referred to orders and other instruments made and executed in the name of the President) was wide enough to include the Presidential Order dated 3 Nov. 1962, and issued under Art. 359(1). As that Order complied with Art. 77(2) it could not be challenged as invalid on the ground that Art. 77 did not apply. In D.C. Das v. Union it was held that under Art. 53(1) the President can exercise his executive power either directly or through officers subordinate to him. However, the act must be done in accordance with the Constitution. Consequently, when the President, instead of acting directly, acted through subordinate officers, their action must be expressed to be taken in the name of the President as required by Art. 77(1) and must also comply with Art. 77(2). In D.S. Sharma v. Union it was held that assuming that in making rules under Art. 309 the President acted not as the head of the government but as a persona designate the President's Order must be authenticated in the manner provided by Art. 77(2) because there was no other provision in the Constitution providing for the authentication of the President's Order. In Administrator, Z.P. v. W.B. it was held that where an appeal was decided by the Secretary, Panchayat

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 293

Department, and he passed an order signed by him as such Secretary, and not on behalf of the State Government, the order could not be said to have been passed by the State Govt. Such an order must be made by or on behalf of the Governor and not by the Secretary of the Panchayat Department, for, under Arts. 154 and 166 the executive power of the State could be exercised either by the Governor, or by officers designated and notified in that behalf by the Governor. In Jagatjit Cotton Mills v. State it was held that a Governor's notification expressed in the Governor's name and duly authenticated could not be challenged as invalid on the ground that the file containing the notification was not signed either by the Minister or on the authority and on behalf of the Governor”. The case cited Manzoor Ali Khan (2015) 2 SCC 33. The Hon'ble Supreme Court relied the judgment of Subramaniam Swamy v. Manmohan Singh & others reported in (2012) 3 SCC 64, Where it was observed that the judiciary accepts a responsibility for the maintenance of the Rule of Law that embraces a willingness to oversee executive action and to refuse to countenance behaviour that threatens either basic human rights or the rule of law. Sir Ivor Jennings was of the view that if the rule of law is a synonym for law an order, most states have achieved it, and it is a universally recognized principle. It was considered necessary to extend the notion and ambit of the rule of law. It seized to be only a rule among citizens and became also a rule among rulers. Fundamentally it requires a limitation of power and most states have sought to attain it by written Constitutions, for such a Constitution is fundamental law which limits by express rules the powers of the various governing body and thus substitutes Constitutional Government for absolutism. It implies also a separation of powers, since the confusion of powers in one authority is dictatorship or absolutism, which, according to liberal ideas, is potential tyranny. The plea raised by the learned counsel of accused Lalu Prasad Yadav is against the rule of law as stated an analyzed also by Sir Ivor Jennings in his celebrated book “the law and the Constitution”. The accused Jagdish Sharma took plea that he was Chairman of Public Accounts Committee and he has got immunity under the Provisions of Constitution. He has filed rules of Bihar Legislative Assembly made under Article 208 of the Indian Constitution. Article 208 & 209 are as :-

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 294

208 Rules of procedure – (1) A house of Legislature of a State may make rules for regulating, subject to the provisions of this Constitution, its procedure and the conduct of its business. (2) Until rules are made under clause (1), the rules of procedure and standing orders in force immediately before the commencement of this Constitution with respect to the Legislature for the corresponding Province shall have effect in relation to the Legislature of the State subject to such modifications and adaptations as may be made therein by the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, or the Chairman of the Legislative Council, as the case may be. (3) In a State having a Legislative Council the Governor, after consultation with the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and the Chairman of the Legislative Council, may make rules as to the procedure with respect to communications between the two Houses. 209 Regulation by law of procedure in the Legislature of the State in relation to financial business – The legislature of a State may, for the purpose of the timely completion of financial business, regulate by law the procedure of, and the conduct of business in, the House or Houses of the Legislature of the State in relation to any financial matter or to any Bill for the appropriation of moneys out of the Consolidated Fund of the State, and, if and so far as any provision of any law so made is inconsistent with any rule made by the House or either House of the Legislature of the State under clause (1) of article 208 or with any rule or standing order having effect in relation to the Legislature of the State under clause (2) of that article, such provision shall prevail. Chapter 15 of Rules of Procedure of Bihar Legislative Assembly deals committees of Legislative Assembly, Bihar. Rule 185 says that committee means and includes the committee of Legislative Assembly defined in Rule 2 of Bihar Legislative Rules of Procedure. As per Rule 201 the committee shall not consider any matter or complain which has not been given to the committee by the Bihar Legislative Assembly or by the Speaker of the Assembly. It has been stated by the prosecution as well as accused persons that the then Chief Minister send the matter of AHD Scam for enquiry by Public Accounts Committee. But no order of the Speaker of Bihar Legislative Assembly passed under Rule 201 of Bihar Legislative Rules of procedure has been filed. As per

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 295

Rule 235 of Bihar Legislative Assembly rule of procedure the report of C.A.G. is send to Public Accounts Committee. As per Rule 237 Public Accounts Committee considers the report of C.A.G. and the Public Accounts Committee performs its duty under Rule 238 of Bihar Legislative Assembly Rules of Procedure. Everywhere it has been stated that Public Accounts Committee was enquiring the matter of allegation related with AHD but the duty of Public Accounts Committee is limited to the report of C.A.G. It appears that the assurance given by accused Lalu Prasad has not been supported by order of the then Speaker of Bihar Legislative Assembly nor P.A.C. was competent consider the matter which was not related with Rule 237 of Rules of Procedure of Bihar Legislative Assembly. It has been stated by the Ld. Council of accused lalu Prasad Yadav that report of C.A.G was received after lodging of the present case. Meaning that P.A.C was not competent to look into the matter during the period 1992-93. The scenario is quite clear, the P.A.C was not authorized by the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly Under Rule 201 to enquire the matter of DAHO, Chaibasa for the period 1992-93 nor report of C.A.G was received for the period 1992-93 but the documents were seized by P.A.C and the then Chief Minister was assuring the Assembly to wait the report of P.A.C. Latter on the then Chief Minister directed the high official to lodge cases DDOS wise. The freedom and immunities of the Members of Legislature has been discussed under Article 194 of the Indian Constitution. Article 194. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution and to the rules and standing orders regulating the procedure of the Legislature, there shall be freedom of speech in the Legislature of every State. (2) No member of the Legislature of a State shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in the Legislature or any committee thereof, and no person shall be so liable in respect of the publication by or under the authority of a House of such a Legislature of any report, paper, votes, or proceedings. (3) In other respects the powers, privileges and immunities of a House of the Legislature of a State, and of the members and the committees of a House of such Legislature, shall be such as may from time to time be defined by the Legislature by law, and, until so defined, [shall be those of that House, and of its members and committees, immediately before the coming into force

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 296 of section 26 of the Constitution (Forth-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978] (4) The provisions of clauses (1), (2) and (3) shall apply in relation to persons who by virtue of this Constitution have the right to speak in, and otherwise to take part in proceedings of, a House of the Legislature of a State or any committee thereof as they apply in relation to members of that Legislature. The Constitution gives immunity to the Members of Legislative Assembly that no action in a court of law lies for violation of any of the statement given in the Legislature. He will be completely immune from any legal proceedings even if his speech violates the fundamental right of any other person and no action in a court may be taken for contempt of court, defamation etc. The remedy against such utterances is the power in the hands of the speaker to prevent or to take action against the violation of these provisions. The accused Jagdish Sharma failed to prove his defence U/s 106 of the Evidence Act. The learned counsel for the accused Dr. Jagarnath Mishra took plea U/s 60 of the Evidence Act. 60. Oral evidence may be direct. - Oral evidence must, in all cases whatever, be direct, that is to say, - If it refers to a fact which could be seen, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he saw it; if it refers to a fact which could be heard, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he heard it; if it refers to a fact which could be perceived by any other sense or in any other manner, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he perceived it by that sense or in that manner; if it refers to an opinion or to the grounds on which that opinion is held, it must be the evidence of the person who holds that opinion on those grounds : Provided that the opinions of experts expressed in any treatise commonly offered for sale, and the grounds on which such opinions are held, may be proved by the production of such treatises if the author is dead or cannot be found, or has become incapable of giving evidence or cannot be called as a witness without an amount of delay or expense which the Court regards as unreasonable :

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 297

Provided also that, if oral evidence refers to the existence or condition of any material thing other than a document, the Court may, if it thinks fit, require the production of such material thing for its inspection. So many documents have been filed by the prosecution. The admitted fact is that accused Jagarnath Mishra was member of Bihar Legislative Assembly. During his tenure as member of Bihar Legislative Assembly he remained Chief Minister of Bihar and opposition leader in the Bihar Legislative Assembly. He has admitted in his statement U/s 313 of the Cr.P.C. that he was former Chief Minister of Bihar and Leader of Opposition in the Bihar Legislative Assembly. He has stated in his statement that he wrote so many letters as public leader without being interested in the matter. The approvers have stated against accused Jagarnath Mishra. Accused K.N. Jha was Regional Director, AHD, Ranchi and he has stated in his statement U/s 313 of the Cr.P.C. that Dr. Jagarnath Mishra was his Samdhi. P.W.115 Shailendra Kumar has proved documents marked as exhibit-36/13 to 36/26. These are files containing questions raised in Bihar Legislative Assembly and Council on fraudulent payments of AHD and misleading replies denying any fraud prepared and sent by AHD Directorate to the Council during 1990 to 1995. The accused Jagdish Sharma has filed proceedings of Assembly along with questions raised in Bihar Legislative Assembly and Council on fraudulent payments which have also been marked exhibit. P.W.152 Ravi Shankar Kumar Sinha has proved document marked as exhibit-73 & 73/1. He has deposed that file for extension of service after retirement of Dr. S.B. Sinha on recommendation of Dr. Jagarnath Mishra was prepared by him on 05.12.1993. The principle of Section 60 of Evidence Act are :- (i) a fact which could be seen, the evidence must be of a witness who says he saw it; (ii) a fact which could be heard, the evidence must be of a witness who says he heard it; (iii) a fact which could be perceived by any other sense or manner, the evidence must be of a witness who says he perceived it by that sense or that manner; (iv) an opinion, or the grounds on which that opinion is held, the evidence must be of a person who holds that opinion on those

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 298

grounds. Section 60 of the Evidence Act based on the cardinal rule that best evidence available must always be given. It excludes hearsay evidence. The requirement here is that a declaration by the witness is needed that he perceived the fact by his own senses to which he testified. In the case of Pratap Singh, AIR 1964 Supreme Court 72 – Attitude sought to be proved for the conversation was held admissible. It appears from the evidence brought by the prosecution that files were prepared in Secretariat and conversation in the Legislative Assembly, Bihar was prepared by the department concerned. As per Section 63 of the Evidence Act in the unavoidable absence of the best or primary evidence of the documents, the court will accept what is known as secondary evidence. Secondary evidence is evidence which suggests on the face of it that other and better evidence exists. Halsburry Law Conspiracy - England describes conspiracy – Conspiracy consists in the agreement of two or more persons to do an unlawful act, or to do a lawful act by unlawful means. It is an indication offence at common law, the punishment for which is imprisonment or fine or both in the discretion of the Court. The essence of the offence of conspiracy is the fact of combination by agreement. The agreement may be express or implied, or in part express and in part implied. The conspiracy arises and the offence is committed as soon as the agreement is made; and the offence continues to be committed so longs as the combination persists, that is until the conspiratorial agreement is terminated by completion of its performance or by abandonment or frustration or however, it may be. The actus reus in a conspiracy is the agreement to execute the illegal conduct, not the execution of it. It is not enough that two or more persons pursued the same unlawful object at the same time or in the same place; it is necessary to show a meeting of minds, a consensus to effect an unlawful purpose. It is not, however, necessary that each conspirator should have been in communication with every other. In America, the concept of criminal conspiracy is no different. In American Jurisprudence, 2nd Edn., Vol.16, page 129, the following definition of conspiracy is given: “A conspiracy is said to be an agreement between two or more persons to

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 299 accomplish together a criminal or unlawful act or to achieve by criminal or unlawful means an act not in itself criminal or unlawful …. The unlawful agreement and not its accomplishment is the gist or essence of the crime of conspiracy”. Dr. Hari Singh Gour in his book commentary on Penal Law of India, writes about 120-B “In order to constitute a single general conspiracy there must be a common design. Each conspirator plays his separate part in one integrated and united effort to achieve the common purpose. Each one is aware that he has a part to play in a 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, some 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.” In case of Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) Supreme Court was of the view that “Generally, a conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and it may be difficult to adduce direct evidence of the same. The prosecution will often rely on evidence of acts of various parties to infer that they were done in reference to their common intention. The prosecution will also more often rely upon circumstantial evidence. The conspiracy can be undoubtedly proved by such evidence direct or circumstantial. But the Court must enquire whether the two persons are independently pursuing the same and or they have come together to the pursuit of the unlawful object. The former does not render them conspirators, but the latter is. It is, however, essential that the offence of conspiracy required some kind of physical manifestation of agreement. The express agreement, however, need not be proved. Nor actual meeting of two persons is necessary. Nor it is necessary to prove the actual words of communication. The evidence as to transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful design may be sufficient. The elements of a criminal conspiracy have been stated to be; (a) an object to be accomplished, (b) a plan or scheme embodying means to accomplish that object, (c) an agreement or understanding between two or

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 300 more of the accused persons whereby, they become definitely committed to co- operate for the accomplishment of the object by the means embodied in the agreement, or by any effectual means, (d) in the jurisdiction where the statute required an overt act. The essence of a criminal conspiracy is the unlawful combination and ordinarily the offence is complete when the combination is framed. While considering the case of Khalid v. State of West Bengal reported in (2002) 7 SCC 334 the Hon'ble Apex Court took the view of Coleridge, J. while summing up the case to Jury in Regina v. Murphy 1837 173 ER 502 states : “I am bound to tell you, that although the common design is the root of the charge, it is not necessary to prove that these two parties came together and actually agreed in terms to have this common design and to pursue it by common means, and so to carry it into execution. This is not necessary, because in many cases of the most clearly established conspiracies there are no means of proving any such thing and neither law nor common sense requires that it should be proved. If you find that these two persons pursued by their acts the same object, often by the same means, one performing one part of an act, so as to complete it, with a view to the attainment of the object which they were pursuing, you will be at liberty to draw the conclusion that they have been engaged in a conspiracy to effect that object. The question you have to ask yourselves is, had they this common design, and did they pursue it by these common means the design being unlawful”. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the view in the case of Ajay Agrawal v. Union of India 1993 Cr. L.J. 2516 “If is not necessary that each conspirator must know all the details of the scheme nor be a participant at every stage. It is necessary that they should agree for design or object of the conspiracy. Conspiracy is conceived as having three elements; (1) agreement; (2) between two or more persons by whom the agreement is effected; and (3) a criminal object, which may be either the ultimate aim of the agreement, or may constitute the means, or one of the means by which that aim is to be accomplished. It is immaterial whether this is found in the ultimate objects. The common law definition of 'criminal conspiracy' was stated first by Lord Denman in Jones' case that an indictment for

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 301 conspiracy must “charge a conspiracy to do an unlawful act by unlawful means” and was elaborated by Willies, J. on behalf of the judges while referring that question to the House of Lords in Mulcahy v. Reg and House of Lords in unanimous decision reiterated in Quinn v. Leathem: During appreciation of evidence statement of accused persons taken U/s 313 of the Cr.P.C. has been kept in view. Section 10 of the Evidence Act say that where there is a reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired to commit an offence, 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 anyone of them, is a relevant fact as against each of the persons believed to be so conspiring 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. The illustration attached to the section shows that once a reasonable ground to believe that several persons have conspired to commit an offence exists, the acts and declarations of a particular person in reference to the common intention, are relevant facts although that person may not so much as even know of the existence of many others engaged in the conspiracy or were utter strangers to him. Presumption - Professor Cross Cuotes Morgan, says – Every writer of sufficient intelligence to appreciate the difficulties of the subject matter has approached the topic of presumption with a sense of hopelessness and has left it with a feeling of despair. Best defines it as – the term presumption in its largest and most comprehensive signification, may be defined to be an inference, affirmative or dis-affirmative of the truth or false hood of a doubtful fact or proposition, drawn by process of probable reasoning from something proved or taken for granted. Presumption is used in two senses, in the first place a presumption sometimes means nothing more than a conclusion which must be drawn until the contrary is proved, second it denotes a conclusion that a fact exists which may or must be drawn if some other fact is proved or admitted. The difference between the two uses of the term depends on the presence or absence of a fact which can constitute the basis of the presumption in question. Phipson says – Presumption are devices whereby the courts are entitled to pronounce on an issue notwithstanding that there is no evidence or insufficient evidence about it.

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 302

Presumptions are of three times (1) Permissive presumption or presumption of fact. (2) Compelling presumption or presumptions of law. (3) Irrebuttable presumptions of law or conclusive proof. 26. In the present case presumption of fact is that during 1992-1993 DAHO, Chaibasa was allotted an amount of Rs. 7.10 Lakhs only for purchase of feed, fodder, medicines and instruments. DAHO, Chaibasa drawn Rs. 376279883 during 1992-93 under the Major Head 2403 from Chaibasa Treasury. The suppliers stated that they received amount against genuine supply. The Officers of Animal Husbandry Department issued certificates of receiving of the materials supplied by the suppliers. Some of the stockists and manufacturer of medicines deposed that they did not supply to the department of Animal Husbandry. Store rooms were verified by Engineers. Corrupt practices were reported by different sources and the matters of corrupt practices were kept hidden by this way or that way. The entire scenario gave a presumption that offences were committed by the accused persons under conspiracy. The accused persons entered into defence. Some of the accused persons produced documents and witnesses. 27. All together 56 accused persons have been facing trial. Some of the accused persons are Suppliers, some of the accused persons are Bureaucrats, Politicians and Officers of AHD. Accused Dr. Ram Prakash Ram was District Animal Husbandry Officer from November, 1992 to December, 1992. He has stated that during discharge of his duty he signed on some contingent bills except that he did not do anything. During his posting at Chaibasa he was officiating the post of District Animal Husbandry Officer, Chaibasa. He signed contingent bills as per instruction of his Controlling Officer. During his period no money was withdrawn from Chaibasa Treasury. The learned advocate of the accused explained the meaning of counter signature. Accused Madhu Mehta took plea that she is a lady. She is wife of Rajan Mehta. She was partner of M/s Asian Breeders. Rs. 990900/- was received by Asian Breeders. Accused Seema Kumar is also a lady. She is wife of Sarad Kumar. She was Director of Q-Max Lab. Her husband Sarad Kumar is also an accused in this case. He has stated as D.W.14. He has deposed that two persons were required to open a firm under the Company Act and he made his wife Seema Kumar as Director of the

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 303 firm. He was Managing Director of the firm and he took entire liability of the firm as defence witness. Accused Sidharth Kumar took plea that at the time of scam he was student. Accused Miss. Anita Prasad took plea that she is partner of M/s Birsa Live Stock Feed & Additives, Ranchi and partner of M/s Medivet also. She has also stated that she did not know anything and she is innocent. Accused Sushil Kumar stated that he was partner of Manas Sales Corporation but business of the firm was being dealt by Tripurari Mohan Prasad. He was proprietor of M/s Bihar Surgico Medico Agency also. Accused Smt. Nirmala Prasad is wife of Dr. Gauri Shankar Prasad. She took plea that whatever was received on behalf of M/s Medivt and M/s Birsa Live Stock, the person responsible was Bishwanath Prasad but no evidence has been brought regarding the responsibility of Bishwanath Prasad. Accused Anita Prasad and Smt. Nirmala Prasad both are related with M/s Birsa Live Stock and M/s Medivet. Accused Sunil Kumar Sinha stated that he was proprietor of M/s Baba Chemicals, Patna but he did not receive payment because the firm was being looked after by Tripurari Mohan Prasad. Accused Jyoti Kumar Jha stated that M/s Seva Medical Agency was opened by his brother late Sushil Kumar Jha. The business was looked after by him. He died in December, 2015. His brother used to take signature on blank cheques and other papers. He did not receive any amount. He was monthly paid member of family of his brother. Accused Sudeo Rana was partner of M/s Swarn Rekha Medical Agency, Ranchi. He has stated that actually Madan Pathak operated account of the firm and he is innocent. He did not put signature on any paper. Accused Chanchala Sinha is proprietor of M/s Magudh Chemical Corporation. She is wife of Ravindra Prasad. She stated that she is simple house wife and someone implicated her. Accused Ramawtar Sharma took plea that he was not proprietor of M/s Tirupati Agency. Actually his uncle Rajendra Sharma @ Sudarshan Sharma was proprietor of M/s Tirupati Agency. He was known as R. Sharma and S.K. Sharma also. He has been acquitted in R.C. 31(A)/1996, R.C. 57(A)/1996 and R.C. 24(A)/1996. He was made prosecution witness in R.C. 03(A)/2001. Accused Bimla Sharma is wife of late Harish Khandelwal. She was partner of M/s A.B. Sales, Ranchi. She took plea that her husband had been looking after business of the firm. She did not know anything. She only singed on partnership deed. It has been stated on her behalf that her husband committed suicide as

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 304 soon as he was trapped in the case of Fodder Scam. Accused Dr. Mukesh Kumar Srivastava was posted as Additional Director (Poultry), Chaibasa during period 1992-93. He has taken plea that he did not withdraw any amount and he did not issue any certificate. No supply was done during his period. He did not receive anything during his period. The prosecution brought evidence against the firms and suppliers. There were members of firm. It is understood that female does not part actively in the business of supply materials. The famous book “The second sex” is a book by the French existentialist simone de Beauvoir, in which the author discusses the treatment of women through out history. Some of the accused persons took defence of good faith. Good faith has been defined in Section 52 IPC and in Section 3(22) of General Clauses Act. Definition in Indian Penal Code is negative and General Clauses Act defines good faith as; “a thing shall be deemed to be done in good faith where it is in fact done honestly, whether it is done negligently or not. Honest intention, free from taint of fraud or fraudulent design is a constant element of the connotation of good faith”. 28. Considering the facts discussed above, accused Seema Kumar, Ramawtar Sharma, Smt. Bimla Sharma, Dr. Ram Prakash Ram, Sudeo Rana and Dr. Mukesh Kumar Srivastava are acquitted on the basis of doubt. The other accused persons namely Lalu Prasad Yadav, Dr. Jagarnath Mishra, Jagdish Sharma, Dhruv Bhagat, Vidya Sagar Nishad, Dr. Ravindra Kumar Rana, Phool Chand Singh, Mahesh Prasad, Sajal Chakraborty, Silas Tirkey, Dr. Arjun Sharma, Dr. Braj Nandan Sharma Dr. Krishan Mohan Prasad and Dr. Kriti Narayan Jha are held guilty for the offence punishable U/s 120-B r/w Section 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 477-A of the Indian Penal Code r/w section 13(2) & 13(1)(c) & (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Accused Silas Tirkey, Dr. Arjun Sharma, Dr. Braj Nandan Sharma, Dr. Krishan Mohan Prasad and Dr. Kriti Narayan Jha are held guilty for the offence punishable U/s 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 477-A of the Indian Penal Code r/w Section 13(1)(c) & (d) & 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Accused Sunil Kumar Sinha, Bimal Kumar Agarwal, Harish Kumar, Smt. Madhu Mehta, Mohindra Singh Bedi, Dr. A.K. Verma, Ravi Sinha,

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 305

Subhashish Deo, Smt. Chanchala Sinha, Devendra Kumar Rai, Prakash Kumar Lal, Samir Walia, Bijayaeshwari Prasad Sinha, Jyoti Kumar Jha, Sidhrath Kumar, Mrs. Anita Prasad, Smt. Nirmala Prasad, Sarad Kumar, Srinath Singh, Ram Nandan Singh, Dayanand Prasad Kashyap, Md. Zahid Hussain, Ravi Kumar Sinha, Sanjay Sinha, Jag Mohan Lal Kakar, Rajesh Mehra, Mahendra Kumar Kundan, Vijay Kumar Mallick, Umesh Dubey, Satyendra Kumar Mehra, Suresh Dubey, Sushil Kumar, Dr. Tripurari Mohan Prasad, Md. Ekram, Md. Hussain and Md. Sayeed are held guilty for the offence punishable U/s 120B/420, 120-B/467, 120-B/468 & 120-B/471 of the Indian Penal Code. Bail bonds of all the accused persons are hereby canceled and they are taken in judicial custody. 29. Petition of Income Tax Department dated 12.12.2014 has already been disposed of vide order dated 28.09.2015 in which Rs. 2.48 crores seized from the house of late Dr. S.B. Sinha on 14.05.1999 was released in favour of Government of Jharkhand vide order dated 28.09.2015 and the matter is subjudice before the Hon'ble High Court. (Dictated and corrected by me)

(Swarn Shanker Prasad) (Swarn Shanker Prasad) Addl. Judl. Commissioner-VII Addl. Judl. Commissioner-VII -cum-Special Judge-I, CBI (AHD) -cum-Special Judge-I, CBI (AHD) Ranchi Ranchi

Later on 24.01.2018 Some of the learned counsels for accused persons submitted that lenient view may be taken against the convicts because some are suffering from physical disability, old age and other problems. Even in the case of R.C. 20(A)/1996 this view was taken and some accused persons were sentenced for imprisonment upto three years only. The learned advocate of Ravi Sinha filed a ruling reported in (2015) 8 SCC 395 whereby conviction of appellant was reduced to four years on the ground of old age. Document of medical prescription and reports have been submitted on behalf of convict B.N. Sharma. Reports of medical prescription of convict R.K. Rana and his wife have been submitted. Written submission report

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 306 along with medical prescription of convict Lalu Prasad Yadav has been filed. It has been stated that one valve of heart has been replaced at Bombay. He is patient of diabetes and there are several other complications. Medical prescription on behalf of convict Vijay Kumar Mallick have been filed. He is patient of heart. Bypass surgery has been done. Medical prescription has been filed on behalf of convict Jagarnnath Mishra and it has been stated that he is suffering from various disease. The learned advocate of convict Jagdish Sharma, submitted that his client is suffering from problem of Thyroid, Uric acid, Diabetes, Glaucoma, Blood Pressure and Heart related problem. His treatment is being done at AIMS, Delhi. Learned Advocate of convict Vijay Kumar Mehra submitted that his client is suffering from problem of Urology. The learned advocate of convict Phool Chand Singh submitted that his client is a retired IAS. He remained law abiding person through out his carrier and he is Senior Citizen. On behalf of convict Md. Sayeed, his medical prescription has been submitted and it was submitted that he was suffering from knee problem. The learned advocate of convict Chanchala Sinha submitted that marriage of her daughter is to be performed on 12.02.2018. On behalf of convict Kriti Narayan Jha it has been submitted that he is suffering from so many ailments. He is aged about 83 years. The learned advocate of convict Dr. B.P. Sinha submitted that his client cannot move due to fracture of leg. He has submitted photograph of the convict. Medical report of convict Mrs. Madhu Mehta has been filed. Medical prescription on behalf of convict Zahid Hussain has been filed. He is suffering from Neuro problem. He had already suffered from brain hemorrhage. Medical prescription on behalf of convict Anita Prasad has been filed. Medical prescription on behalf of convict Dhruv Bhagat has been filed. Medical prescription on behalf of convict Dr. Krishan Mohan Prasad has also been filed. The general submission on behalf of the learned advocate of the convicts is that the accused of this case already suffered for 21 years during trial. They have been made accused in so many cases on the same evidence. The learned counsels of politicians and bureaucrats submitted that their clients have been held guilty on the basis of conspiracy. The convict Dhruv Bhagat himself submitted that he was neither member of Legislative Assembly nor participant of any political party from 1990 – 1995. Heard the learned Special P.P., C.B.I. He cited some rulings:- 1. AIR 1991 Supreme Court 1463 – Criminal – approver – Sections 114 and

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 307

133 of Evidence Act, 1872 and Sections 235 and 236 of Cr.P.C., 1973 – appellant charged with inducing young boys and murdering them after receiving valuable items from them – appellants contended establishment of corpus delicti as necessary ingredient for conviction – fact of death of deceased has to be proved like any other fact and tracing or recovery of deceased body is not at all essential ingredient – evidence of approver found to be reliable and sufficiently corroborated as contemplated by combined reading of Sections 114 and 133 – doctrine of benefit of doubt in determining quantum of sentence material only when Court finds conviction necessary consequence of evidence adduced – no infirmity in sentence recorded by Trial Court. 2. (1994) 2 SCC 220 – Murder – Sections 302 & 376 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 – conviction for murder challenged – conviction based on circumstantial evidence – motive of crime proved – appellant's articles recovered from scene of occurrence – wrist watch of deceased seized from appellant – visit of appellant to scene of occurrence also proved – appellant committed heinous crime of rape and murder – death sentence awarded to appellant upheld. 3. AIR 2003 Supreme Court 2748 – Criminal – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 120-B, 403, 405, 409, 420, 467 & 471 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 13 – Special Court (Trial of Offenses Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 – Scam in securities market – popularly associated with Harshad Mehta – Funds of PSU (Maruti Udyog Limited) obtained under the pretence that the funds were being drawn for purchasing securities from UCO Bank but were diverted to the account of A-5 (Harshad Mehta) – Charges of cheating, criminal breach of trust, forgery, abuse of public offices and dishonest misappropriation of public fund levied against five accused involving officials of MUL, UCO Bank and ANZ Grindlays Bank (namely A-1 Promod Kumar Manocha, Dy. Manager MUL, A-2 Ambuj Jain, Senior Executive Maruti, A-3 Vinayak Narayan Deosthali, Assistant Manager UCO Bank, A-4 Ram Narain Poply, Officer of ANZ Grindlays Bank and A-5 Harshad Mehta, Broker) – Series of transactions entered into involving crores of rupees – Accused Maruti employees misrepresenting to the management of MUL and accused Bank employees forging documents to secure release of huge surplus funds from Maruiti – Prime beneficiary being Harshad Mehta – Receipt and payment were for fixed period and at an agreed rate of interest – Receipt and payments made as per agreement – Units of UTI

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 308 given as security in some transactions and in other transactions Bank Receipts were issued – Commission and Brokerage were duly received and the transactions were squared on fixed dates – No audit objections (neither internal nor external) either at the MUL or at UCO Bank – None of accused gained from the transactions other than Harshad Mehta – Special court acquitting one of the accused and convicted others – Convicted accused preferred appeal against their conviction and Central Bureau of Investigation against acquittal – In the meanwhile main accused Harshad Mehta died and on application of his wife appeal proceedings continued against him – Out of five transactions three transactions took place prior to the commencement of the SCAMN Act – Whether charges of criminal conspiracy established – Whether special court justified in acquitting one accused and convicting other four – In view of the detailed examination of evidence prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused – In the result appeal filed by A-1, A-3, A-4 and A-5 are allowed and they are acquitted of the charges faced in the trial and the criminal appeal filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation against the acquittal of A-2 stands dismissed. 4. (2004) 9 SCC 319 – M. Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P., (2001) 1 SCC 691, applied. In C.I. Emden v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1960 SC 548 and V.D. Jhangan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1968 (3) SCR 736, it was observed that if any money is received and no convincing, credible and acceptable explanation is offered by the accused as to how it came to be received by him, the presumption under section 4 of the Act is available. When the receipt is admitted, it is for the accused to prove as to how the presumption is not available as perforce the presumption arises and becomes operative. He summed up his submission with the words that proper sentencing is the demand of society and wish of the Hon'ble Superior Courts have reflected in several rulings. Crime has been defined by Sanmond which is an act harmful to the society as whole although its immediate victim may be an individual. The object of penology is to protect the society against the criminals by inflicting punishment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court is of the view of proper sentences. The classical principles of sentencing may be summed up in four words – Retribution, Deterrence, Prevention and Rehabilitation. It appears that there was distribution between suppliers and officers of AHD. The suppliers retained 20% of the amount

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 309 and 80% of the amount was paid to the Officers of AHD. They distributed these amounts among the Bureaucrats, Politicians and Blackmailers. Some of the suppliers were running partnership firms. They involved all the family members. Keeping in view the suppliers who have been held guilty may be kept into categories of females and males and next criteria may be, the benefit taken by them.

Sl. No. Name of the accused Sentence to undergo (R.I.) 1. Madhu Mehta convicted for offence U/s 120-B/420 IPC R.I. of Three punishable U/s 120-B/420, 120-B/467, 120- (03) Years with a fine of Rs. B/468 & 120-B/471 IPC 50,000/- in default of payment of fine S.I. for six months. U/s 120-B/467 IPC R.I. of Three (03) Years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default of payment of fine S.I. for one month. U/s 120-B/468 IPC R.I. of Three (03) Years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default of payment of fine S.I. for one month. U/s 120-B/471 IPC R.I. of Three (03) Years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default of payment of fine S.I. for one month. All the sentences shall run concurrently and the period undergone shall be set off. 2. Smt. Chanchala Sinha convicted for offence U/s 120-B/420 IPC R.I. of Three punishable U/s 120-B/420, 120-B/467, 120- (03) Years with a fine of Rs. B/468 & 120-B/471 IPC 50,000/- in default of payment of fine S.I. for six months. U/s 120-B/467 IPC R.I. of Three (03) Years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default of payment of fine S.I. for one month. U/s 120-B/468 IPC R.I. of Three (03) Years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default of payment of fine S.I. for one month. U/s 120-B/471 IPC R.I. of Three (03) Years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default of payment of fine S.I. for one month. All the sentences shall run concurrently and the period undergone shall be set off. 3. Mrs. Anita Prasad convicted for offence U/s 120-B/420 IPC R.I. of Three punishable U/s 120-B/420, 120-B/467, 120- (03) Years with a fine of Rs. B/468 & 120-B/471 IPC 50,000/- in default of payment of fine S.I. for six months. U/s 120-B/467 IPC R.I. of Three

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 310

(03) Years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default of payment of fine S.I. for one month. U/s 120-B/468 IPC R.I. of Three (03) Years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default of payment of fine S.I. for one month. U/s 120-B/471 IPC R.I. of Three (03) Years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default of payment of fine S.I. for one month. All the sentences shall run concurrently and the period undergone shall be set off. 4. Smt. Nirmala Prasad convicted for offence U/s 120-B/420 IPC R.I. of Three punishable U/s 120-B/420, 120-B/467, 120- (03) Years with a fine of Rs. B/468 & 120-B/471 IPC 50,000/- in default of payment of fine S.I. for six months. U/s 120-B/467 IPC R.I. of Three (03) Years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default of payment of fine S.I. for one month. U/s 120-B/468 IPC R.I. of Three (03) Years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default of payment of fine S.I. for one month. U/s 120-B/471 IPC R.I. of Three (03) Years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default of payment of fine S.I. for one month. All the sentences shall run concurrently and the period undergone shall be set off. 5. Sidharth Kumar convicted for offence U/s 120-B/420 IPC R.I. of Three punishable U/s 120-B/420, 120-B/467, 120- (03) Years with a fine of Rs. B/468 & 120-B/471 IPC 50,000/- in default of payment of fine S.I. for six months. U/s 120-B/467 IPC R.I. of Three (03) Years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default of payment of fine S.I. for one month. U/s 120-B/468 IPC R.I. of Three (03) Years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default of payment of fine S.I. for one month. U/s 120-B/471 IPC R.I. of Three (03) Years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default of payment of fine S.I. for one month. All the sentences shall run concurrently and the period undergone shall be set off. 6. Sushil Kumar convicted for offence U/s 120-B/420 IPC R.I. of Three punishable U/s 120-B/420, 120-B/467, 120- (03) Years with a fine of Rs.

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 311

B/468 & 120-B/471 IPC 50,000/- in default of payment of fine S.I. for six months. U/s 120-B/467 IPC R.I. of Three (03) Years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default of payment of fine S.I. for one month. U/s 120-B/468 IPC R.I. of Three (03) Years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default of payment of fine S.I. for one month. U/s 120-B/471 IPC R.I. of Three (03) Years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default of payment of fine S.I. for one month. All the sentences shall run concurrently and the period undergone shall be set off. 7. Jyoti Kumar Jha convicted for offence U/s 120-B/420 IPC R.I. of Three punishable U/s 120-B/420, 120-B/467, 120- (03) Years with a fine of Rs. B/468 & 120-B/471 IPC 50,000/- in default of payment of fine S.I. for six months. U/s 120-B/467 IPC R.I. of Three (03) Years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default of payment of fine S.I. for one month. U/s 120-B/468 IPC R.I. of Three (03) Years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default of payment of fine S.I. for one month. U/s 120-B/471 IPC R.I. of Three (03) Years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default of payment of fine S.I. for one month. All the sentences shall run concurrently and the period undergone shall be set off.

8. Dhruv Bhagat convicted for offence U/s 120-B r/w Section 409, 420, punishable U/s 120-B r/w Section 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 477-A IPC R.I. of 467, 468, 471 & 477-A IPC r/w section 13(2) Three (03) Years and fine of Rs. of PC Act 50,000/- in default of payment of fine S.I. of three (03) months. U/s 13(2) of P.C. Act R.I. of Three (03) Years and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in default of payment of fine S.I. of three (03) months. All the sentences shall run concurrently and the period undergone shall be set off. 9. Vidya Sagar Nishad convicted for offence U/s 120-B r/w Section 409, 420, punishable U/s 120-B r/w Section 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 477-A IPC R.I. of 467, 468, 471 & 477-A IPC r/w section 13(2) Three (03) Years and fine of Rs. of PC Act 50,000/- in default of payment of fine S.I. of three (03) months.

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 312

U/s 13(2) of P.C. Act R.I. of Three (03) Years and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in default of payment of fine S.I. of three (03) months. All the sentences shall run concurrently and the period undergone shall be set off. 10. Lalu Prasad Yadav convicted for offence U/s 120-B r/w Section 409, 420, punishable U/s 120-B r/w Section 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 477-A IPC R.I. of 467, 468, 471 & 477-A IPC r/w section 13(2) Five (05) Years and fine of Rs. of PC Act 5,00,000/- in default of payment of fine S.I. of one (01) year. U/s 13(2) of P.C. Act R.I. of Five (05) Years and fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- in default of payment of fine S.I. of One (01) year All the sentences shall run concurrently and the period undergone shall be set off. 11. Dr. Jagarnath Mishra convicted for offence U/s 120-B r/w Section 409, 420, punishable U/s 120-B r/w Section 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 477-A IPC R.I. of 467, 468, 471 & 477-A IPC r/w section 13(2) Five (05) Years and fine of Rs. of PC Act 5,00,000/- in default of payment of fine S.I. of one (01) year. U/s 13(2) of P.C. Act R.I. of Five (05) Years and fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- in default of payment of fine S.I. of One (01) year All the sentences shall run concurrently and the period undergone shall be set off. 12. Jagdish Sharma convicted for offence U/s 120-B r/w Section 409, 420, punishable U/s 120-B r/w Section 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 477-A IPC R.I. of 467, 468, 471 & 477-A IPC r/w section 13(2) Five (05) Years and fine of Rs. of PC Act 5,00,000/- in default of payment of fine S.I. of one (01) year. U/s 13(2) of P.C. Act R.I. of Five (05) Years and fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- in default of payment of fine S.I. of One (01) year All the sentences shall run concurrently and the period undergone shall be set off. 13. Dr. Ravindra Kumar Rana convicted for U/s 120-B r/w Section 409, 420, offence punishable U/s 120-B r/w Section 409, 467, 468, 471 & 477-A IPC R.I. of 420, 467, 468, 471 & 477-A IPC r/w section Five (05) Years and fine of Rs. 13(2) of PC Act 5,00,000/- in default of payment of fine S.I. of one (01) year. U/s 13(2) of P.C. Act R.I. of Five (05) Years and fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- in default of payment of fine S.I. of One (01) year All the sentences shall run

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 313

concurrently and the period undergone shall be set off. 14. Phool Chand Singh convicted for offence U/s 120-B r/w Section 409, 420, punishable U/s 120-B r/w Section 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 477-A IPC R.I. of 467, 468, 471 & 477-A IPC r/w section 13(2) Four (04) Years and fine of Rs. of PC Act 1,00,000/- in default of payment of fine S.I. of three (03) months. U/s 13(2) of P.C. Act R.I. of Four (04) Years and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in default of payment of fine S.I. of Three (03) months. All the sentences shall run concurrently and the period undergone shall be set off. 15. Mahesh Prasad convicted for offence U/s 120-B r/w Section 409, 420, punishable U/s 120-B r/w Section 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 477-A IPC R.I. of 467, 468, 471 & 477-A IPC r/w section 13(2) Four (04) Years and fine of Rs. of PC Act 1,00,000/- in default of payment of fine S.I. of three (03) months. U/s 13(2) of P.C. Act R.I. of Four (04) Years and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in default of payment of fine S.I. of Three (03) months. All the sentences shall run concurrently and the period undergone shall be set off. 16. Sajal Chakraborty convicted for offence U/s 120-B r/w Section 409, 420, punishable U/s 120-B r/w Section 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 477-A IPC R.I. of 467, 468, 471 & 477-A IPC r/w section 13(2) Four (04) Years and fine of Rs. of PC Act 1,00,000/- in default of payment of fine S.I. of three (03) months. U/s 13(2) of P.C. Act R.I. of Four (04) Years and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in default of payment of fine S.I. of Three (03) months. All the sentences shall run concurrently and the period undergone shall be set off. 17. Silas Tirkey convicted for offence punishable U/s 120-B r/w Section 409, 420, U/s 120-B r/w Section 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 467, 468, 471 & 477-A IPC R.I. of & 477-A IPC r/w section 13(2) of PC Act & Five (05) Years and fine of Rs. separately U/s 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 477- 5,00,000/- in default of payment of A IPC & U/s 13(2) of P.C. Act. fine S.I. of one (01) year. U/s 13(2) of P.C. Act R.I. of Five (05) Years and fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- in default of payment of fine S.I. of One (01) year U/s 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 477-A IPC R.I. of Three (03) Years in each section and fine of Rs. 25,000/- under each section. He is sentenced for R.I. for Three (03) Years U/s 13(2) of P.C. Act and

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 314

fine of Rs. 50,000/- in default of payment of fine S.I. of three (03) months for each default. All the sentences shall run concurrently and the period undergone shall be set off. 18. Dr. Arjun Sharma convicted for offence U/s 120-B r/w Section 409, 420, punishable U/s 120-B r/w Section 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 477-A IPC R.I. of 467, 468, 471 & 477-A IPC r/w section 13(2) Five (05) Years and fine of Rs. of PC Act & separately U/s 409, 420, 467, 5,00,000/- in default of payment of 468, 471 & 477-A IPC & U/s 13(2) of P.C. fine S.I. of one (01) year. Act. U/s 13(2) of P.C. Act R.I. of Five (05) Years and fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- in default of payment of fine S.I. of One (01) year U/s 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 477-A IPC R.I. of Three (03) Years in each section and fine of Rs. 25,000/- under each section. He is sentenced for R.I. for Three (03) Years U/s 13(2) of P.C. Act and fine of Rs. 50,000/- in default of payment of fine S.I. of three (03) months for each default. All the sentences shall run concurrently and the period undergone shall be set off. 19. Dr. Braj Nandan Sharma convicted for offence U/s 120-B r/w Section 409, 420, punishable U/s 120-B r/w Section 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 477-A IPC R.I. of 467, 468, 471 & 477-A IPC r/w section 13(2) Five (05) Years and fine of Rs. of PC Act & separately U/s 409, 420, 467, 10,00,000/- in default of payment 468, 471 & 477-A IPC & U/s 13(2) of P.C. of fine S.I. of one (01) year. Act. U/s 13(2) of P.C. Act R.I. of Five (05) Years and fine of Rs. 10,00,000/- in default of payment of fine S.I. of One (01) year U/s 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 477-A IPC R.I. of Three (03) Years in each section and fine of Rs. 25,000/- under each section. He is sentenced for R.I. for Three (03) Years U/s 13(2) of P.C. Act and fine of Rs. 50,000/- in default of payment of fine S.I. of three (03) months for each default. All the sentences shall run concurrently and the period undergone shall be set off. 20. Dr. Krishan Mohan Prasad convicted for U/s 120-B r/w Section 409, 420, offence punishable U/s 120-B r/w Section 409, 467, 468, 471 & 477-A IPC R.I. of 420, 467, 468, 471 & 477-A IPC r/w section Five (05) Years and fine of Rs. 13(2) of PC Act & separately U/s 409, 420, 10,00,000/- in default of payment 467, 468, 471 & 477-A IPC & U/s 13(2) of of fine S.I. of one (01) year. P.C. Act. U/s 13(2) of P.C. Act R.I. of Five

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 315

(05) Years and fine of Rs. 10,00,000/- in default of payment of fine S.I. of One (01) year U/s 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 477-A IPC R.I. of Three (03) Years in each section and fine of Rs. 25,000/- under each section. He is sentenced for R.I. for Three (03) Years U/s 13(2) of P.C. Act and fine of Rs. 50,000/- in default of payment of fine S.I. of three (03) months for each default. All the sentences shall run concurrently and the period undergone shall be set off. 21. Dr. Kriti Narayan Jha convicted for offence U/s 120-B r/w Section 409, 420, punishable U/s 120-B r/w Section 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 477-A IPC R.I. of 467, 468, 471 & 477-A IPC r/w section 13(2) Five (05) Years and fine of Rs. of PC Act & separately U/s 409, 420, 467, 10,00,000/- in default of payment 468, 471 & 477-A IPC & U/s 13(2) of P.C. of fine S.I. of one (01) year. Act. U/s 13(2) of P.C. Act R.I. of Five (05) Years and fine of Rs. 10,00,000/- in default of payment of fine S.I. of One (01) year U/s 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 477-A IPC R.I. of Three (03) Years in each section and fine of Rs. 25,000/- under each section. He is sentenced for R.I. for Three (03) Years U/s 13(2) of P.C. Act and fine of Rs. 50,000/- in default of payment of fine S.I. of three (03) months for each default. All the sentences shall run concurrently and the period undergone shall be set off.

22. Sunil Kumar Sinha convicted for offence U/s 120-B/420 IPC R.I. of Five punishable U/s 120-B/420, 120-B/467, 120- (05) Years with fine of Rs. B/468 and 120-B/471 IPC 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/467 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/468 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/471 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. All the sentences shall run

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 316

concurrently and the period undergone shall be set off. 23. Bimal Kumar Agrawal convicted for offence U/s 120-B/420 IPC R.I. of Five punishable U/s 120-B/420, 120-B/467, 120- (05) Years with fine of Rs. B/468 and 120-B/471 IPC 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/467 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/468 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/471 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. All the sentences shall run concurrently and the period undergone shall be set off. 24. Harish Kumar convicted for offence U/s 120-B/420 IPC R.I. of Five punishable U/s 120-B/420, 120-B/467, 120- (05) Years with fine of Rs. B/468 and 120-B/471 IPC 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/467 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/468 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/471 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. All the sentences shall run concurrently and the period undergone shall be set off. 25. Mohindra Singh Bedi convicted for offence U/s 120-B/420 IPC R.I. of Five punishable U/s 120-B/420, 120-B/467, 120- (05) Years with fine of Rs. B/468 and 120-B/471 IPC 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/467 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/468 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/471 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs.

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 317

25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. All the sentences shall run concurrently and the period undergone shall be set off. 26. Ravi Sinha convicted for offence punishable U/s 120-B/420 IPC R.I. of Five U/s 120-B/420, 120-B/467, 120-B/468 and (05) Years with fine of Rs. 120-B/471 IPC 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/467 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/468 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/471 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. All the sentences shall run concurrently and the period undergone shall be set off. 27. Subhashish Deo convicted for offence U/s 120-B/420 IPC R.I. of Five punishable U/s 120-B/420, 120-B/467, 120- (05) Years with fine of Rs. B/468 and 120-B/471 IPC 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/467 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/468 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/471 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. All the sentences shall run concurrently and the period undergone shall be set off. 28. Devendra Kumar Rai convicted for offence U/s 120-B/420 IPC R.I. of Five punishable U/s 120-B/420, 120-B/467, 120- (05) Years with fine of Rs. B/468 and 120-B/471 IPC 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/467 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/468 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 318

of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/471 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. All the sentences shall run concurrently and the period undergone shall be set off. 29. Prakash Kumar Lal convicted for offence U/s 120-B/420 IPC R.I. of Five punishable U/s 120-B/420, 120-B/467, 120- (05) Years with fine of Rs. B/468 and 120-B/471 IPC 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/467 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/468 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/471 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. All the sentences shall run concurrently and the period undergone shall be set off. 30. Samir Walia convicted for offence punishable U/s 120-B/420 IPC R.I. of Five U/s 120-B/420, 120-B/467, 120-B/468 and (05) Years with fine of Rs. 120-B/471 IPC 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/467 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/468 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/471 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. All the sentences shall run concurrently and the period undergone shall be set off. 31. Bijayaeshwari Prasad Sinha convicted for U/s 120-B/420 IPC R.I. of Five offence punishable U/s 120-B/420, 120-B/467, (05) Years with fine of Rs. 120-B/468 and 120-B/471 IPC 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/467 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months.

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 319

U/s 120-B/468 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/471 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. All the sentences shall run concurrently and the period undergone shall be set off. 32. Sarad Kumar convicted for offence punishable U/s 120-B/420 IPC R.I. of Five U/s 120-B/420, 120-B/467, 120-B/468 and (05) Years with fine of Rs. 120-B/471 IPC 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/467 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/468 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/471 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. All the sentences shall run concurrently and the period undergone shall be set off. 33. Srinath Singh convicted for offence punishable U/s 120-B/420 IPC R.I. of Three U/s 120-B/420, 120-B/467, 120-B/468 and (03) Years with fine of Rs. 120-B/471 IPC 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/467 IPC R.I. of Three (03) Years with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/468 IPC R.I. of Three (03) Years with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/471 IPC R.I. of Three (03) Years with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. All the sentences shall run concurrently and the period undergone shall be set off. 34. Ram Nandan Singh convicted for offence U/s 120-B/420 IPC R.I. of Five punishable U/s 120-B/420, 120-B/467, 120- (05) Years with fine of Rs. B/468 and 120-B/471 IPC 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/467 IPC R.I. of Five

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 320

(05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/468 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/471 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. All the sentences shall run concurrently and the period undergone shall be set off. 35. Dayanand Prasad Kashyap convicted for U/s 120-B/420 IPC R.I. of Five offence punishable U/s 120-B/420, 120-B/467, (05) Years with fine of Rs. 120-B/468 and 120-B/471 IPC 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/467 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/468 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/471 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. All the sentences shall run concurrently and the period undergone shall be set off. 36. Zahid Hussain convicted for offence U/s 120-B/420 IPC R.I. of Five punishable U/s 120-B/420, 120-B/467, 120- (05) Years with fine of Rs. B/468 and 120-B/471 IPC 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/467 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/468 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/471 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. All the sentences shall run concurrently and the period undergone shall be set off. 37. Ravi Kumar Sinha convicted for offence U/s 120-B/420 IPC R.I. of Five punishable U/s 120-B/420, 120-B/467, 120- (05) Years with fine of Rs.

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 321

B/468 and 120-B/471 IPC 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/467 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/468 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/471 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. All the sentences shall run concurrently and the period undergone shall be set off. 38. Sanjay Sinha convicted for offence punishable U/s 120-B/420 IPC R.I. of Five U/s 120-B/420, 120-B/467, 120-B/468 and (05) Years with fine of Rs. 120-B/471 IPC 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/467 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/468 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/471 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. All the sentences shall run concurrently and the period undergone shall be set off.

39. Jag Mohan Lal Kakkar convicted for offence U/s 120-B/420 IPC R.I. of Five punishable U/s 120-B/420, 120-B/467, 120- (05) Years with fine of Rs. B/468 and 120-B/471 IPC 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/467 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/468 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/471 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. All the sentences shall run

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 322

concurrently and the period undergone shall be set off. 40. Rajesh Mehra convicted for offence U/s 120-B/420 IPC R.I. of Five punishable U/s 120-B/420, 120-B/467, 120- (05) Years with fine of Rs. B/468 and 120-B/471 IPC 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/467 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/468 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/471 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. All the sentences shall run concurrently and the period undergone shall be set off. 41. Mahendra Kumar Kundan convicted for U/s 120-B/420 IPC R.I. of Five offence punishable U/s 120-B/420, 120-B/467, (05) Years with fine of Rs. 120-B/468 and 120-B/471 IPC 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/467 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/468 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/471 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. All the sentences shall run concurrently and the period undergone shall be set off. 42. Vijay Kumar Mallick convicted for offence U/s 120-B/420 IPC R.I. of Five punishable U/s 120-B/420, 120-B/467, 120- (05) Years with fine of Rs. B/468 and 120-B/471 IPC 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/467 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/468 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/471 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs.

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 323

25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. All the sentences shall run concurrently and the period undergone shall be set off. 43. Umesh Dubey convicted for offence U/s 120-B/420 IPC R.I. of Five punishable U/s 120-B/420, 120-B/467, 120- (05) Years with fine of Rs. B/468 and 120-B/471 IPC 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/467 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/468 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/471 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. All the sentences shall run concurrently and the period undergone shall be set off. 44. Satyendra Kumar Mehra convicted for offence U/s 120-B/420 IPC R.I. of Five punishable U/s 120-B/420, 120-B/467, 120- (05) Years with fine of Rs. B/468 and 120-B/471 IPC 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/467 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/468 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/471 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. All the sentences shall run concurrently and the period undergone shall be set off. 45. Suresh Dubey convicted for offence U/s 120-B/420 IPC R.I. of Five punishable U/s 120-B/420, 120-B/467, 120- (05) Years with fine of Rs. B/468 and 120-B/471 IPC 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/467 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/468 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 324

of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/471 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. All the sentences shall run concurrently and the period undergone shall be set off. 46. Dr. Tripurari Mohan Prasad convicted for U/s 120-B/420 IPC R.I. of Five offence punishable U/s 120-B/420, 120-B/467, (05) Years with fine of Rs. 120-B/468 and 120-B/471 IPC 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/467 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/468 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/471 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. All the sentences shall run concurrently and the period undergone shall be set off. 47. Md. Ekram convicted for offence punishable U/s 120-B/420 IPC R.I. of Five U/s 120-B/420, 120-B/467, 120-B/468 and (05) Years with fine of Rs. 120-B/471 IPC 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/467 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/468 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/471 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. All the sentences shall run concurrently and the period undergone shall be set off. 48. Md. Hussain convicted for offence punishable U/s 120-B/420 IPC R.I. of Five U/s 120-B/420, 120-B/467, 120-B/468 and (05) Years with fine of Rs. 120-B/471 IPC 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/467 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months.

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 325

U/s 120-B/468 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/471 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. All the sentences shall run concurrently and the period undergone shall be set off. 49. Md. Sayeed convicted for offence punishable U/s 120-B/420 IPC R.I. of Five U/s 120-B/420, 120-B/467, 120-B/468 and (05) Years with fine of Rs. 120-B/471 IPC 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/467 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/468 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/471 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. All the sentences shall run concurrently and the period undergone shall be set off. 50. Dr. A.K. Verma convicted for offence U/s 120-B/420 IPC R.I. of Five punishable U/s 120-B/420, 120-B/467, 120- (05) Years with fine of Rs. B/468 and 120-B/471 IPC 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/467 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/468 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120-B/471 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. All the sentences shall run concurrently and the period undergone shall be set off.

Dictated and corrected by me)

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 326

Sd/- Sd/- (Swarn Shanker Prasad) (Swarn Shanker Prasad) Addl. Judl. Commissioner-VII Addl. Judl. Commissioner-VII -cum-Special Judge-I, CBI (AHD) -cum-Special Judge-I, CBI (AHD) Ranchi Ranchi

R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996