--1– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

D I S T R I C T : R A N C H I In the Court of A.J.C-I-cum Spl. Judge -VII, CBI (AHD Scam), RANCHI Present:- Shiv Pal Singh A.J.C-I-cum Spl. Judge -VII, CBI (AHD Scam), Ranchi

Place - Ranchi dated: 19 th day of March, 2018

R.C. Case No. 38 (A) /1996 - Pat

STATE (through C.B.I )

………..Prosecution Versus 1. Adhip Chandra Chaudhary, S/o- Late Narayan Chandra Chaudhary, aged about 74 Years, R/o- AC /149, Salt lake City, P.S – Bidhan Nagar North, District – North 24 Pargana (West Bengal), (Retired ). 2. Ajeet Kumar Verma, S/o- Late Bipin Bihari Verma, aged about 75 Years, R/o- 17M/1 Powerterres, Kolkatta, P.S – Garia hat, District – South 24 Pargana, Kolkatta. (Business). 3. Arun Kumar Singh, S/o- Late Yugal Kishore Singh, aged about 53 Years, R/o- Bhattacharya Colony, Deoghar, P.S. - Deoghar, District – Deoghar (Teacher in Private ). 4. Beck Julius, S/o- Late Saiman Beck, aged about 75 Years, R/o- 1662B/2 Ashok Nagar, Harmu, Ranchi P.S.- Argora, District – Ranchi. (Retired I.A.S) 5. Benu Jha, W/o- Sri Vinod Kumar Jha, aged about 50 Years, R/o- Maheshpur, P.S – Basant Rai, District – Godda. (House Wife). 6. Bimal Kant Das, S/o- Late Jitendra Nath Das, aged about 74 Years, R/o- Dakhram, P.S. - Bahera, District – Darbhanga, Present Address :- Lokaha, P.S – Lokaha, District – Madhubani. (Retired T.V.O )

7. Dhruv Bhagat, S/o- Late Nathuni Bhagat, aged about 66 --2– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

Years, R/o- 108 Bhartiya Colony, Sahebganj, P.S – Sahebganj, District – Sahebganj. (unemployed). 8. Gopi Nath Das, S/o- Late Birendra Mohan Das, aged about 60 Years R/o- Shree Ram Para, Dumka, P.S. - Dumka, District – Dumka (Jharkhand). (Compounder ) 9. Jagannath Mishra, S/o- Late Ravi Nandan Mishra, aged about 82 Years, R/o- 113/77, Post Office Road Shashtri Nagar, P.S – Shashtri Nagar, District – Patna ( Teaching/Politician). 10. Jagdish Sharma, S/o- Late Kamta Sharma, aged about 68 Years, R/o- Korra, P.S – Ghoshi, District – Jahanabad (Bihar), Present :- Kankarbag,P.S – Kankarbag, District – Patna, (Politics & Agriculture). 11. Krishna Kumar Prasad, S/o- Late Nand Kishore Prasad, aged about 63 Years, R/o- Chaudhrain Chak, P.S – Bargh, District – Patna, Present Address :- Govardhan Dham, P.S. - Deoghar, District – Deoghar (Retired Veterinary Doctor). 12. Lal Mohan Prasad, S/o- Late Puneet Prasad, aged about 85 Years, R/o- Rahil, P.S – Ekangarsarai, District – Nalanda. (Agriculture). 13. Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav, S/o- Late Kundan Rai, aged about 70 Years, R/o- Phulwaria, P.S. - Phulwaria, District – Gopalganj, (Bihar), (Politician). 14. Mahesh Prasad, S/o- Late Shobh Nath, aged about 76 Years, R/o- 24 I.A.S Colony, Kidwaipuri, P.S – Kotwali, District – Patna.(Retired I.A.S). 15. Manoranjan Prasad, S/o- Late Braj Kumar Prasad, aged about 73 Years, R/o- 180 Manasmarg, P.S – Patliputra, District – Patna – 13. (Retired from AHD). 16. Mehar Chandra Subarno, S/o- Late Kailash Chandra Subarno, aged about 85 Years, R/o- Road No. 5 Ashok Nagar, Ranchi, P.S – Argora, District – Ranchi. (Retired from service). 17. Mohindar Singh Bedi, S/o- Sri Ujagar Singh Bedi, R/o- Kohart Enclave, Peetampur, P.S. - Peetampur, District – --3– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

New Delhi. (Business). 18. Nand Kishore Prasad, S/o- Late Saryug Rai, aged about 65 Years, R/o- Mohanpur, P.S – Karakat, District – Rohtash. (Retired from A.H.D). 19. Naresh Prasad, S/o- Sri Chetavan Prasad, aged about 52 Years, R/o- Machhua Toli, P.S – Kadamkuan, District – Patna – 4. (Poultry business). 20. Om Prakash Diwakar, S/o- Late Mudrika Ram, aged about 68 Years, R/o- New bypass road Harmu Chak P.S – Beur, District – Patna. (Retired from A.H.D). 21. Pankaj Mohan Bhui, S/o- Late Pashupati Bhui, aged about 77 Years, R/o- Haripur, P.S – Jarmundi, District – Dumka. (Retired Accountant in Office of R.D (A.H.D), Dumka. 22. Phool Chand Singh, S/o- Late Rambali Singh, aged about 79 Years, R/o- Adarsh Colony, P.S – Shashtri Nagar, District – Patna (Retired I.A.S). 23. Pitamber Jha, S/o- Late Ram Sunder Jha, aged about 51 Years, R/o- Rajput Mohalla, P.S – Giridih (Town), District – Giridih. (Suspended Doctor). 24. Radha Mohan Mandal, S/o- Late Chhedi Mandal, aged about 67 Years, R/o- Bakharpur, P.S – Peerpaiti, District – Bhagalpur, Present Address :- Shanti Nagar, P.S – Jiruabari, District – Sahebganj. (Retired from AHD). 25. Raj Kumar Sharma @ Raja Ram Joshi, S/o- Late Ram Kisun Joshi, aged about 61 Years, R/o- Bara Plasi, P.S – Jama, District – Dumka (Agriculture). 26. Raghu Nandan Prasad, S/o- Late Ram Chandra Mahto, aged about 70 Years, R/o- Hutu Chak, P.S – Barbigha, District – Shekhpura, Present Address :- Adivasi Colony, Guljarbag, Patna. (Retired from AHD). 27. Rajendra Kumar Bagaria, S/o- Sri Satya Narain Bagaria, aged about 43 Years, R/o- Harin Danga Bazar, P.S – Pakur, District – Pakur (Private Service) 28. Ravindra Kumar Rana, S/o- Late Ganesh Prasad Yadav, aged about 70 Years, R/o- Narayanpur, P.S – Bhawany --4– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

(Vishpur), District – Bhagalpur (Bihar), (Social Worker, Agriculture & Politics) 29. Shardendu Kumar Das, S/o- Late Dhirendra Kumar Das, aged about 68 Years, R/o- Grand State, P.S. - Dumka Town, District – Dumka. (Retired from Treasury, Dumka). 30. Saraswati Chandra, W/o- Sri Mahendra Prasad, aged about 50 Years, R/o- Rahil, P.S – Ekangarsarai, District – Nalanda (Bihar) (House Wife). 31. Vidya Sagar Nishad, S/o- Late Darwari Nishad, aged about 86 Years, R/o- Kusari, P.S – Gogari, District – Khagaria (Bihar), (Retired Politician). …… Accused Persons Charged : 120B, r/w 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 477-A of I.P.C and Section 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1)(c) & (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Counsel for the C.B.I :- Sri Rakesh Prasad & Others. ………………..(Ld. Sr. P.P.)

1.Counsel for the Accused Nos.1,4,5,8,16 & 24:- Mr. Sanjeev Chandra 2. Counsel for the Accused Nos. 2, 12, 30 & 31:- Mr. N.N. Tiwary, 3. Counsel for the Accused No. 3 :- Mr. Bharat Mahto, 4. Counsel for the Accused Nos. 6,14,18,20,21,26,29 :- Mr. Sanjay Kumar, 5. Counsel for the Accused No.7 :- Mr. Anil Kanth, 6. Counsel for the Accused No. 10 :- Mr. B.B. Rai, 7. Counsel for the Accused No. 9 :- Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jha, 8. Counsel for the Accused No. 11 :- Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, 9. Counsel for the Accused No.13 : - Mr. Chitranjan Sinha & Mr. Prabhat Kumar,

10.Counsel for the Accused Nos. 15, 17 & 23 :- Mr. Akhileshwar Prasad, 11.Counsel for the Accused No. 19 :- Mr. Vishnu Sharma, 12.Counsel for the Accused No. 22 :- Mr. Raj Kumar Sahay, 13. Counsel for the Accused No. 27 :- Mr. K.P. Sharma, 14.Counsel for the Accused No. 28 :- Mr. Prabhat Kumar, 15.Counsel for the Accused No. 25 :- Mr. Ajay Mishra,

--5– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

Judgment

1. That is on 17.05.2005 alleged charge framed U/s- 420 of I.P.C and punishable U/s- 13(2) r/w 13 (1) (c) & (d) of P.C Act, 1988 separately against accused persons namely (1). Adhip Chandra Chaudhary, (2). Beck Julius, (3). Dhruv Bhagat, (4). Jagannath Mishra, (5). Jagdish Sharma, (6). Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav, (7). Mahesh Prasad, (8). Mehar Chandra Subarno, (9). Phool Chand Singh, (10). Ravindra Kumar Rana, and (11). Vidya Sagar Nishad which read over and explained in Hindi in detail. Above accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried in the court. 2. Further on 17.05.2005 alleged charges framed U/s- 420, 467, 468, 471 of I.P.C separately against accused persons namely (1).Ajeet Kumar Verma, (2). Arun Kumar Singh, (3). Smt. Benu Jha, (4). Gopi Nath Das, (5). Lal Mohan Prasad, (6). Mohinder Singh Bedi, (7). Naresh Prasad, (8). Raj Kumar Sharma @ Raja Ram Sharma, (9). Rajendra Kumar Bageria and (10). Smt. Saraswati Chandra. Above charge read over and explained in Hindi in detailed from which above accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried in the court. 3. Further on 17.05.2005 alleged charges framed U/s- 420, 467, 468, 471, 477(A) of I.P.C and U/s- 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1)(c) & (d) of P.C. Act separately against accused persons namely (1). Bimal Kant Das, (2). Krishan Kumar Prasad, (3). Manoranjan Prasad, (4). Nand Kishore Prasad, (5). Om Prakash Diwakar, (6). Pankaj Mohan Bhui, (7). Pitamber Jha, (8). Raghunandan Prasad, (9). Radha Mohan Mandal, (10). Shardendu Kumar Das. Above charge read over and explained in Hindi in detailed from which above accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried in the court. 4. Further on 17.05.2005 alleged charges U/s- 120(B) r/w 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477(A) of I.P.C and U/s- 13(2) r/w section 13 (1), (c) & (d) of P.C Act framed collectively against accused 1. Adhip Chandra Chaudhary, 2. Ajeet Kumar Verma, 3. Arun Kumar Singh, 4. Beck Julius, 5. Smt. Benu Jha, 6. Bimal Kant Das, 7. Dhruv Bhagat, 8. Gopi Nath Das, 9. Jagannath Mishra, 10. Jagdish Sharma, 11. Krishna Kumar Prasad, 12. Lal Mohan Prasad, 13. Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav, 14. Mahesh Prasad, 15. Manoranjan Prasad, 16. Mehar Chandra Subarno, 17. Mohindar Singh Bedi, 18. Nand Kishore Prasad, 19. Naresh Prasad, 20. Om Prakash Diwakar, 21. Pankaj Mohan Bhui, 22. Phool Chand Singh, 23. Pitamber Jha, 24. Radha Mohan Mandal, 25. Raj --6– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

Kumar Sharma @ Raja Ram Joshi, 26. Raghu Nandan Prasad, 27. Rajendra Kumar Bagaria, 28. Ravindra Kumar Rana, 29. Shardendu Kumar Das, 30. Saraswati Chandra and 31. Vidya Sagar Nishad. Above charge read over and explained in Hindi in detailed from which above accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried in the court. 5. That is after submission of charge-sheet two accused persons namely Rameshwar Chaudhary and Dr. Sayeed granted pardon U/s- 306 of Cr.P.C. The criminal proceedings against accused Sripati Narayan Dubey, the then Commissioner, Dumka have been quashed vide order dated 18.03.2011 passed in W.P. Cr. No. 183/2008 and 14 accused persons namely (1). Brij Bhushan Prasad, the then Budget Officer, (2). Bhola Ram Tufani, the then Minister, (3). Chandra Deo Prasad Verma, the then Minister, (4). Chhathoo Prasad, the then Treasury Officer, (5). Kalika Prasad Sinha, the then Accountant, (6). K. Arumugam, the then Secretary, (7). Mahendra Prasad, the then Proprietor of M/s. B.R. Pharma, (8). Pramod Kumar Jaiswal, the then Proprietor of M/s. Bhagat & Co., (9). Raghvendra Kumar. Das, the then Administrative Officer, (10). Rajendra Singh, the then Veterinary Officer, (11). Ram Raj Ram, the then Director, (12). Satya Narayan Singh, the then Veterinary Officer, (13). Shyam Bihari Sinha, the then Joint Director, and (14). Wasimuddin, the then Veterinary Officer died during trial. Presently only 31 accused persons facing the trial in the court whose name are 1. Adhip Chandra Chaudhary, 2. Ajeet Kumar Verma, 3. Arun Kumar Singh, 4. Beck Julius, 5. Smt. Benu Jha, 6. Bimal Kant Das, 7. Dhruv Bhagat, 8. Gopi Nath Das, 9. Jagannath Mishra, 10. Jagdish Sharma, 11. Krishna Kumar Prasad, 12. Lal Mohan Prasad, 13. Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav, 14. Mahesh Prasad, 15. Manoranjan Prasad, 16. Mehar Chandra Subarno, 17. Mohendar Singh Bedi, 18. Nand Kishore Prasad, 19. Naresh Prasad, 20. Om Prakash Diwakar, 21. Pankaj Mohan Bhui, 22. Phool Chand Singh, 23. Pitamber Jha, 24. Radha Mohan Mandal, 25. Raj Kumar Sharma @ Raja Ram Joshi, 26. Raghu Nandan Prasad, 27. Rajendra Kumar Bagaria, 28. Ravindra Kumar Rana, 29. Shardendu Kumar Das, 30. Saraswati Chandra and 31. Vidya Sagar Nishad. 6. The brief of case is that informant namely Brij Kishore Pathak, Deputy Collector, Dumka send a written application letter no. 326 /Go. dated 02.02.1996 to P.S incharge Dumka Town in which written that in the direction of D.C , Dumka, they inspected Regional Director, AHD Office, Dumka relating to irregularity on 31.01.1996. During inspection it is found that the Regional Director, AHD, Om Prakash Diwakar do not came in office since --7– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

many months and Head Clerk Rameshwar Chaudhary also absent since 18.01.1996, Accountant Pankaj Mohan Bhui absent since 25.01.1996. Inspection conducted in the presence of Dr. Parshuram Verma, Assistant Director, AHD, Sri Uday Kumar Singh - Stenographer, Sri Kamla Kishore Dubey – Assistant Accountant and Chaukidar, Peon, Nigh-guard also present. Present person narrated that allotment order have brought by Om Prakash Diwakar, Regional Director, AHD from Patna and found that in December – 1995 and January – 1996 they withdrew in head of medicine Rs. 3,02,18,659/-, head of transporting annual Feed Rs. 55,73,635/- and the head of instrument article Rs. 18,46,559/- withdrawn from Dumka Treasury but any allotment register, Cash book, Store Register was not found in office. Further found that Regional Director, AHD, Dumka in financial year 1995 – 96 in head 2403 non- plan allotted only Rs. 1,50,000/- for hospital medicines and establishment vide letter 7559 dated 30.12.1995 but in two months money withdrawn Rs. 3,76,38,853/- illegally. During inspection, it is also found that no any store found in that office. Radha Pharmacy, Dumka paid in December – 1995 and January – 1996 Rs. 20,45,450/- but in inspection found that no any Radha Pharmacy Dumka have any document in relating to supply. In similar way illegally money withdrawn by the Regional Director, AHD, Dumka which paid in favour of M/s. Laxmi Enterprise, Main Road, Godda in two months December – 1995 and January – 1996 Rs. 65,47,630/- but during inquiry no such type of firm exist in Godda. The Regional Director, AHD, Dumka illegally withdrew and paid in transportation of annual feed Rs. 55,73,635/- in favour of two transport agency viz Krishna Road Transportation, Pakur and Raj Kumar Sharma Transportation, Asansol. In preliminary inquiry the Truck Number found wrong. Further written that the Regional Director, AHD, Dumka have power to pass bill upto amount Rs. 50,000/- so maximum bill pass between Rs. 49,000/- to 50,000/- and Rs. 5,00,000/- paid through 9 to 10 bills and pray that registered a case against liable persons and firms in relevant sections – 120(B), 409, 467, 468, 471, 473, 474, 477(A) of I.P.C. 7. In the light of written information petition no. 326/go. Dated 02.02.1996 informant Brij Kishore Pathak, Deputy Collector, Dumka, Dumka P.S Case No. 16/1996 dated 02.02.1996 U/s- 409, 467, 468, 471, 473, 474, 477(A)/120 (B)/109 of I.P.C was registered and S.I Ram Prit Prasad was authorized to investigate in this case. 8. In the light of Hon'ble High Court, Patna judgment dated 11.03.1996 in CWJC No. 1617/1996, 1642/96, 1656/96, 459/96(R), 541/96(R), 602/96 ®, --8– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

675/96 ® and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the Judgment dated 19.03.1996 in SLP (Civil) No. 5811/96 etc, the C.B.I to take up and investigate all criminal cases registered by state police in the State of Bihar in respect to the fraudulent withdrawals / encashments of Government money from Animal Husbandry Department, Government of Bihar. One such case was registered by Dumka Town , police station Case No. 16/1996 dated 02.02.1996 which is taken over by Central Bureau of Investigation, re-registered Crime No. R.C – 38(A)/1996 registered U/s- 409, 467, 468, 471, 473, 474, 477A,120(B(, 109 of I.P.C and Sec. 13 (2) r/w Section – 13(1), (c) and (d) of P.C Act, 1988 against (1). Sri Om Prakash Diwakar, Regional Director, Animal Husbandry Office, Dumka, Bihar, (2). Sri Rameshwar Prasad Chaudhary, Head Assistant, Regional Director, Animal Husbandry, Dumka, (3). Sri Pankaj Mohan Bhui, Accountant, O/o- Regional Director, Animal Husbandry, Dumka, (4). Other Unknown Officers/officials of the Office of Regional Director, Animal Husbandry, Dumka, (5). M/s. Radha Pharmacy, Dumka, and (6). M/s. Lakshmi Enterprise, Main Road, Godda & others unknown. The charge of investigation was handed over to D.N. Biswas, Dy. S.P/CBI/SPE/ACB, Calcutta, who after investigation submitted charge-sheet no. 05 dated 11.05.2000, in the court. The result of investigation has revealed that during 1988 – 96 the accused shown in Annexure – I and others unknown had entered into a criminal conspiracy and agreed to do or cause to done illegal act or acts which are not legal by illegal means at Dumka, Patna and other places of Bihar. In pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy during December – 1995 and January – 1996 and amount of Rs. 3,42,37,000./- was illegally withdrawn by the Regional Director, AHD, Santhal Pargana Region, Dumka under the major head 2403 from Dumka Treasury. Above money withdrawn without supplying / transporting the medicines / materials concerned, fraudulently withdrew a sum of Rs. 3,13,41,451/- out of the sum of Rs. 3,42,37,601/- drawn by R.D AHD, Dumka and consequence wrongful loss was caused to the Government of Bihar and wrongful gain to themselves and other co-accused persons. It is also revealed during investigation that for financial year 1995 -96 for R.D, AHD, Santhal Pargana, Dumka was allotted only Rs. 1,50,000/- for purchase medicine etc but in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy, 24 fake allotment letters for Rs. 12,47,00,000/- Approximately were fraudulently and dishonestly got issued to Dr. Om Prakash Diwakar as drawing and disbursing Officer for making payment to the co-accused suppliers / transporters against their fake supply / transport bills for feed, fodder, medicines, and instrument etc during --9– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

the financial year 1995 – 96. It is also disclosed that accused persons distributed the amount so received fraudulently and dishonestly amongst the co-conspirator in a ratio of 20 % of the bill amount for suppliers and the balance 80 % for the AHD Officials, Government Officers, Ministers, Chief Minister and other politicians for their respective roles in the conspiracy. The list of accused shown in Annexure – I of the charge sheet which is as follows :- (1). O.P. Diwakar, (2). Rameshwar Prasad Chaudhary, (3). Pankaj Mohan Bhui, (4). Gopi Nath Das, (5). Benu Jha, (6). Md. Sayeed, (7). Nand Kishore Prasad, (8). Raghunandan Prasad, (9). Rajendra Singh, (10). Md. Wassimuddin, (11). Bimal Kant Das, (12). Radha Mohan Mandal, (13). Manoranjan Prasad, (14). Pitamber Jha, (15). Krishna Kumar Prasad, (16). Raj Kumar Sharma, (17). Rajendra Kumar Bagaria, (18). Arun Kumar Singh, (19). Ajeet Kumar Verma, (20). Mahendra Prasad, (21). Lal Mohan Prasad, (22). Naresh Prasad, (23). Pramod Kumar Jaiswal, (24). Mahinder Singh Bedi, (25). Saty Narayan Singh, (26). Chhathoo Prasad, (27). Kalika Prasad Singh, (28). Saradendu Kumar Das, (29). Ram Raj Ram, (30). Brij Bhushan Prasad, (31). Raghvendra Kumar Das, (32). Beck Julius, (33). Mahesh Prasad, (34). Phool Chand Singh, (35). Bhola Ram Tufani, (36). Chandra Deo Prasad Verma, (37). Vidya Sagar Nishad, (38). Jagdish Sharma, (39). Jagannath Mishra, (40). Dhruv Bhagat, (41). Lalu Prasad, (42). K. Arumugam, (43). Shyam Bihari Sinha, (44). Adhip Chandra Chaudhary, (45). Mehar Chandra Subarno, (46). Ravindra Kumar Rana (47). Sripati Narayan Dubey and (48). Smt. Saraswati Chandra. 9. That is after perusal of case diary and all Annexures as documents produced with charge-sheet, court found prima facie case against named accused in Annexure – I of charge-sheet and took cognizance U/s- 120 (B) r/w Section – 420, 409, 467, 468, 471, 477(A) of the I.P.C and U/s- 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (c) & (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 10. During trial case of accused Sripati Narayan Dubey, the then Commissioner, Santhal Pargana, Dumka was quashed by the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court, so his name named struck off from prosecution. Two accused persons namely Rameshwar Prasad Chaudhary and Md. Sayeed granted pardon during trial so their prosecution also abeyance and presently show-cause was issued that why not withdrawn the grant pardon U/s- 306 of Cr.P.C due to unnecessary taken benefit in collusion with C.B.I. It is also transpires that during trial accused persons namely (1). Rajendra Singh, (2). Md. Wassimuddin, (3). Mahendra Prasad, (4). Saty Narayan Singh, (5). Chhathoo Prasad, (6). Kalika Prasad Sinha, (7) Ram Raj Ram, (8). Brij --10– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

Bhushan Prasad, (9). Raghvendra Kumar Das, (10). Bhola Ram Tufani, (11). Chandra Deo Prasad Verma, (12). K. Arumugam, and (13). Shyam Bihari Sinha and have been died so their trial dropped. It is also transpires that accused Pramod Kumar Jaiswal record split up and he plead guilty. Presently remaining 31 accused persons namely 1. Adhip Chandra Chaudhary, 2. Ajeet Kumar Verma, 3. Arun Kumar Singh, 4. Beck Julius, 5. Smt. Benu Jha, 6. Bimal Kant Das, 7. Dhruv Bhagat, 8. Gopi Nath Das, 9. Jagannath Mishra, 10. Jagdish Sharma, 11. Krishna Kumar Prasad, 12. Lal Mohan Prasad, 13. Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav, 14. Mahesh Prasad, 15. Manoranjan Prasad, 16. Mehar Chandra Subarno, 17. Mohindar Singh Bedi, 18. Nand Kishore Prasad, 19. Naresh Prasad, 20. Om Prakash Diwakar, 21. Pankaj Mohan Bhui, 22. Phool Chand Singh, 23. Pitamber Jha, 24. Radha Mohan Mandal, 25. Raj Kumar Sharma @ Raja Ram Joshi, 26. Raghu Nandan Prasad, 27. Rajendra Kumar Bagaria, 28. Ravindra Kumar Rana, 29. Shardendu Kumar Das, 30. Saraswati Chandra and 31. Vidya Sagar Nishad are facing the trial. 11. It is also transpires that prosecution out of 339 charge-sheeted witnesses, examined only 245 witnesses in the court who are follows and proved following exhibits in examination-in-chief :- PW Nos. Name of P.Ws Gist of Evidence Exhibits Proved P.W.1 Sambhoo Nath Seizure of Account Opening form of 1 Sur A/c. No. 376 and seizure memo, M/s. Branch Manager, Krishna Road Carrier of accused R.K. SBI, Pakur. Bagaria. P.W.2 Sukumar Sarkar Account Opening form, Specimen 2, 3, 4,5,6, 7 to 7/13, Accountant, signature Card, ledger, request letter to 8, 8/1 to 8/10, 9 to SBI, Pakur. close the account, debit vouchers, 14 9/18, 10 to 10/26, demand drafts, 19 cheques of current account number 376 of M/s. Krishna Road Carrier of accused R.K. Bagaria. P.W.3 Arun Kr Roy Seizure of Account Opening Form, 2/1, 3/1, 7/14 to Choudhary Ledger sheets, 14 bank drafts, 9 pay in 7/27, 8/11 to 8/19, Deputy Manager, slips of M/s. Laxmi Enterprises, 1/1, State Bank of Godda, Sushil Jha is the introducer and India, Godda Smt. Beni Jha is the proprietor of the firm. P.W.4 Sri Krishna Seizure of the documents of M/s. 1 /2 Choudhary Laxmi Enterprises, Godda. Branch Manager, --11– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

SBI Godda P.W.5 Suresh Chandra Identification of signatures of Smt. 2/1, 11 to 11/3. Jha Benu Jha and her relation with Shri Accountant, SBI, Godda Sushil Jha and Binod Jha as family members from the same village under Godda District. P.W.6 Sureshwar Seizure of Account opening form, 1/3, 2/2, 3/2, 12, Banerjee Ledger, vouchers, cheques of M/s. 8/20,, 8/21 to 8/23, Senior Manager, Oriental Bank of Little Oak Pharmaceuticals, Kolkatta, 9/19 to 9/37, 10/27, Commerce, Ajit Kumar Verma as Proprietor had 13 Bhawanipur Branch, Kolkata operated the account. P.W.7 Madhu Sudhan Raj Kumar Sharma had opened a 2/3, 14, 3/3, 8/24 to Saha current account number SIB 39 at SBI 8/29, 7/28 to 7/33 Accountant, State Bank of to deposit 06 bank drafts issued by India, SBI, Dumka. Kotasur Branch of Birbhum District Bengal. P.W.8 Ashish Kr Roy Seizure of documents from SBI 1 /4 AGM, SBI, Asansol relating to current A/c. Of Raj Asansol Kumar Sharma @ Rajendra Sharma @ Raja Ram Joshi P.W.9 Arun Kr. Saha The witness identified accused Raj 2/4, 3 /4, 15, 8/30, Deputy Kumar Sharma who operated the Bank 8/31, 7/34 to 7/35, Manager, SBI, Main Branch Account 9B/45 wherein 02 drafts of 9/38 to 9/41, Asansol SBI Dumka were encashed. P.W.10 Kashi Nath The witness also identified accused Raj 8/30, 831, 9/38 to Sharma Kumar Sharma who operated the Bank 9/41, 2/4 Head Assistant, SBI, Account 9B/45 wherein 02 drafts of Main Branch SBI Dumka were encashed. Asansol

P.W.11 Bhoot Nath Operation of the bank accounts of Raj 8/30, 8/31 Mandal Kumar Sharma at SBI, Asansol. Deputy Manager, SBI, Asansol P.W.12 Suresh Chandar Seizure of 04 bank drafts from SBI, 1/5 Chief Manager, Deoghar. SBI, Deoghar P.W.13 Anant Prasad Seizure of A/c Opening form, Ledger, 1/6, 2/5, 15/1, 8/32 Branch deposit slips of Vishwakarma Agency, to 8/34, 7/36 to Manager, UCO Bank, Deoghar0 Deoghar opened jointly by Arun 7/39, 9/42, to 9/44 --12– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

Kumar and Shiv Raj Ram as partners. Shyam Sundar Viswakarma Agency is a partnership 8/32 to 8/34. Sharma P.W.14 firm of Arun Kumar and Shiv Raj Ram. Chief Cashier, UCO Bank, Deoghar --- P.W.15 Amit Lal Current Account of M/s. Little Oak 2/6, 3/5, 15/2, 9/45 Banerjee Proprietorship firm of Ajit Kumar to 9/75, 8/35 to Branch Manager, United Verma, Account opening form, ledger, 8/38, 10/28, 7/40, Bank of India, specimen Signature Card, Cheques, 1/7. Dover Lane, Kolkata P.W.16 Rajendra Lal Not transported fodder in October and -- Sharma November 1995. The Truck was under Driver of Truck No. BR12H- repair in a garage at Dumka. 2108 P.W.17 Dinannath Not transported fodder from Ranchi to -- Kelanka Dumka. The truck was engaged in Owner of Truck BRL-9651 transportation of salt and cement during the period. P.W.18 Md. Jamir Not transported fodder from Ranchi to -- Driver of the Dumka. The Truck was engaged in Truck No. BRL- 9651 transportation of salt and cement during the period. P.W.19 Gopal Mandal The truck number BR12-2108 was 16, 17, 1/8, Owner of garage under repair in his garage during Viswakarma Auto Centre, October and November – 1995. Dumka P.W.20 Sheo Kr Mehara Not transported fodder from Ranchi to Mark- X, , X/1, Owner of Truck Dumka. The truck was engaged in No. BR-12H- 9411 transportation of salt and cement during the period. P.W.21 Bindeshwari Verification of the registration number 18, , X/2. Prasad of vehicles shown used for DTO, Dumka transportation of fodder. P.W.22 Setal Prasad The truck was used for transportation Mark – X/3 Mandal of cement, stone cheeps and iron rod of Driver of Truck No. BRL-5541 Deoghar during the period. P.W.23 Ajay Kr The vehicle is a bus used as public Mark - X/4 Mahanta transport from Jasidih to Tarapith. Owner of Bus No. BR-12-4575 Never transported fodder Ranchi to Pakur and Sahebganj. P.W.24 P. Venkatsar M/s. Concept Pharmaceuticals had 19, 19/1 & 19/2, --13– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

Senior Manager depot at Patna till 1995, M/s. Mukesh 19/3 & 19/4, 11/3 to Distribution, Pharma SR Enterprises, Patna and 11/34, X/5, M/s Concept Pharmaceuticals Gauri Distributor, Bhagalpur did not , Mumbai. purchase veterinary medicines from his company during the period. P.W. 25 Harihar Prasad BDO, Jama was shown for 20, 21, 21/1, 21/2, Block transportation of fodder by the accused 1/9. Development Officer, Jama transporter. P.W. 26 Dilip Kr Never transported feed / fodder from Agarwal Ranchi to Sahebganj during the period. Owner of Truck No. BRL-2675 The truck was transporting wheat from FCI Depot Jasidih to Dumka. P.W. 27 Kaml Nain Never transported feed / fodder from Owner of Truck Ranchi to Sahebganj during the period. No. RJ14G- 2236 P.W.28 Ramesh Chand Never transported feed/fodder from Saini Ranchi to Dumka or any place in Bihar. Owner of Truck No. RJ14G- 1374 P.W.29 Nathu Lal Never transported feed / fodder from Owner of Truck Ranchi to Dumka or any place in Bihar. No. RJ14G- 2284

--- P.W.30 Anand Kr Identified Rajendra Kumar Bagaria as 10 to 10/26 Gutgutia owner of M/s. Krishna Road Carrier, Introducer of the Bank A/c of M/s Pakur. Krishna Road Carrier at SBI Pakur Branch P.W.31 Sisir Kr Mandol Identified Raj Kumar Sharma as 2/3 Introducer of the Proprietor of M/s. Raj Kumar Sharma Bank A/c of Raj Kumar Sharma as introducer of his Bank Account at at SBI Kotosur SBI Kotasur Branch. Branch P.W.32 Ram Swaroop Did not transport materials of AHD --- Yadav from Rajmahal to Taljhari during Owner of the Truck No. October – 1995. RJ14G-3903 P.W.33 Ram Naryan Nature of vehicles as : - 18/1, 18/2, 1/10, 22 Mandol Vehicle No. Nature to 22/6 DTO, Dhanbad BPR-7167 Moped --14– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

BPR-7667 Moped BHG-9160 Jeep BHG-9160 Motorcycle BR 17B-6988 Car. BR17B-6355 Trekkar. P.W.34 Chiman Lal Never transported consignment of --- Nagpal AHD Bihar during October – 1995. Owner of Truck No. RJ 14G 3243 and RJ 14G 3245 P.W.35 Md. Ramzan Never transported consignment of --- Owner of Truck AHD Bihar during October – 1995. No. RJ 14G 2345 P.W. 36 Chhote Lal Never transported consignment of --- Owner of Truck AHD Bihar during October 1995 No. RJ 14G 1325 P.W.37 Mahadeo Prasad Dr. O.P.Dwikar was Regional Director 23, 23/1, 24, 25 to Das from June 1994. Regional Director 25/4, 26 to 26/49, Office Assistant of Regional Dumka had no hospital or discrepancy 25/5 to 25/19, 26/50, Director, AHD, under his control. to 26/90, 25/20 to Dumka 05 bills of SR Enterprises passed by 25/34, 26/91 to O.P.Dwikar. Dr. Sayeed as SVO had 26/221, 26/222 to certified received and stock entries on 26/296, 26/297 to 50 vouchers by Dr. Sayeed. 26/354, 26/355 to 15 CNC bills of Radha Pharmacy 26/394, 26/395 to passed by O.P.Dwikar, Dr. Sayeed as 26/454, 26/455 to SVO had certified received and stock 26/464, 25/70 to entries on 40 vouchers. 25/72, 26/465 to 15 CNC bills of Laxmi Enterprises 26/494, 25/23 to passed by O.P.Dwikar, Dr. Nand 25/78, 26/495 to Kishore Prasad as AIO, Dr. Raghu 26/554, 25/79 to Nandan Prasad as AD Poultry had 25/84, 26/555 to certified received and stock entries on 26/612, 25/85 to 131 vouchers. 25/88, 26/613 to 11 CNC bills of M/s Raj Kumar 26/652, 25/89 to Sharma Asansol passed by O.P.Dwikar, 25/93, 26/653 to Dr. Bimal Kant Das, TVO and Dr. 26/700, 25/94 to --15– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

Wassimuddin had certified 25/97, 26/701 to transportation on 75 vouchers. 26/737, 25/98 to 14 CNC bills of Krishna Road Carrier, 25/102. Pakur. Dr. Bimal Kant Das, TVO and Dr. Wassimuddin had certified transportation on 58 vouchers. 4 CNC bills of Little Oak,Kolkata passed by O.P.Dwikar and receipt certified by Dr. Rajendra Singh on 40 vouchers. 6 CNC bills of Viswakarma Agency passed by O.P.Dwikar and receipt certified by Dr. Wassimuddin on 10 vouchers, Dr.Bimal Kant Das on 10 vouchers and Dr. Krishan Kumar Prasad on 40 vouchers. 3 CNC bills of B.R. Pharma passed by O.P.Dwikar. Receipt certified by Dr. Satyanarayan Singh on 30 vouchers. 6 CNC bills of Mukesh Enterprise passed by O.P.Dwikar. Receipt certified by Dr. Rajendra Singh on 60 vouchers. 6 CNC bills of R.K.Agency Patna passed by O.P.Dwikar. Receipt certified by Dr. Rajendra Singh on 58 vouchers. 4 CNC bills of Vyapar Kuttir passed by O.P.Dwikar. Receipt certified by Dr. Pitamber Jha and Dr. Manoranjan Prasad on 40 vouchers. 5 CNC bills of Bhagat & Company passed by O.P.Dwikar. Receipt certified by Dr. Bimal Kant Das and Dr. Wassimuddin on 48 vouchers. 4 CNC bills of Semex Cryogenics passed by O.P.Dwikar. Receipt --16– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

certified by Dr. Raghunandan Prasad on 37 vouchers. 5 CNC bills of B.R. Pharma passed by O.P.Dwikar.

P.W.38 Sukhendra Seizure of 04 bank drafts of M/s Little 1/11, 7/41 to 7/44. Chandra Oak Pharmaceuticals. Talpatra Manager Service Branch, SBI, Kolkata P.W.39 Chandeshwar The vehicles mentioned on 18/3, Choudhry transportation bills on Vespa Scooter, DTO, Patna TVS Moped, Rajdoot Motorcycle, Govt. Jeep, State Transport Bus, Chetak Scooter, Maruti Car, Yamaha Motorcycle, Maxi also scooter of Judicial Magistrate Patna besides few trucks. P.W. 40 Saneet Kumar Seizure of documents of M/s Raj 1/12, X, Mandal Kumar Sharma from SBI, Kotasur Branch Manager, SBI, Kotasur P.W. 41 Vijay Prasad Sushil Jha had a shop of cold drinks Sah besides his shop in the said market. of Raj Kishore Market, Shivpur Name of the shop was Bharti Godda Enterprises. He had no medicine shop in Godda. P.W. 42 Chain Raj Jain Never transported feed / fodder from Owner of Truck Ranchi to Rajmahal during the period. No. RJ 14G 0311 P.W.43 Uday Pratap No shop in the name of Laxmi Singh Enterprises of Sunil Kumar Jha was of Raj Kishore Market, Shivpur functional at Raj Kishore Market, Godda Godda during the period. P.W.44 Mithilesh Sanction for prosecution of Shri Lalu 27, 27/1, 27/2, 27/3, Kumar Prasad, Dr. Jagannath Mishra, 27/4, 27/5, 27/6, Secretary to His Excellency Vidyasagar Nisad, Chandra Dev Prasad Governor of Verma, Bhola Ram Tufani, K. Bihar Arumugam, Mahesh Prasad, Beck Julious, S.N.Dubey, Phool Chand --17– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

Singh, Braj Bhushan Prasad, Dr. Ram Raj Ram, Dr. O.P.Diwakar, Raghevndra Kishore Das, Dr. Sayeed, Dr. Wassimuddin, Dr. Manoranjan Prasad, Dr. Nand Kishore Prasad, Dr. Raghunandan Prasad, Dr. Bimal Kant Das, Dr. Radh Mohan Mandal, Dr. Pitamber Jha, Dr. Krishan Kumar Prasad, Dr. Satyendra Singh, Rameshwar Chaudhary, Chattu Prasad and Shardendu Kumar Das issued at the instruction of Shri Binod Chandra Pandey His Excellency Governor of Bihar. P.W. 45 Raghvendra Efforts of Shri Lalu Prasad, Dr. A, A/1 A/2 Mark – Kishore Das R.K.Rana and S.B.Sinha for elevation XXX/3, Administrative Officer, of Dr. Ram Raj Ram to the Post of Diretorate AHD, Director since July 1989. Patna Fabrication of allotment letters.

Payments made to Lalu Prasad for favour.

False report by Jagdish Sharma on objections by Audit.

Seizure of huge cash at Ranchi Airport.

Payment for stay on transfer of Dr. B.N.Sharma from Chaibasa, Extension in service after retirement to Dr. S.B.Sinha, payments for managing questions raised in legislature regarding fraudulent payments etc.

Payment for Air ticket of accused Lalu Prasad and others by T.M.Prasad and --18– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

S.B.Sinha through J.P.Verma. P.W.46 Santosh Kumar The witness identified accused Naresh X, Introducer of the Prasad Proprietor of M/s Vyapar Kutir bank account of M/s Vyapar as he had introduced him for opening Kutir. current account of M/s Vyapar Kutir at Allahabad Bank, Ashok Nagar Branch, Kankarbag, Patna. P.W.47 Jasminder Singh Rakesh Mehra purchased Air Partner o M/s Conditioner Ambassador Car BR14B- Saluja Trading Company 4320 from Ashko Auto Mobile Main Road, Ranchi in October 1995 in the name of Naresh Kumar Jain. P.W.48 T.K. Chatterjee Seizure of 71 bank draft purchase 1/13, Chief Manager, application for payments to the accused SBI, Dumka suppliers and transporters from the account of District Treasury Dumka. P.W.49 Dayanand Seizure of Annual Return Files of M/s 28, 29, 30 to 30/2, Assistant S.R. Enterprises of Smt. Sarswati 30/3 to 30/5, 1 /4, Commissioner, Sales Tax, Chandra, M/s R.K. Agency of Lal Patna. Mohan Prasad, M/s B.R.Pharma of Mahendra Prasad P.W.50 P.C Thakur Identified signatures of accused Clerk, DAHO, O.P.Diwakar, Regional Director, Godda Dumka on 103 CNC bills and 738 vouchers of accused suppliers and transporters. P.W. 51 Shayam Lal Identified signatures for receipt of --- Marandi consignment by accused Dr. Pitamber Clerk on typist DAHO, Jha and accused Dr. Manoranjan Deoghar Prasad. Identified signatures for receipt of consignment by accused Dr. Krishan Kumar Prasad. P.W. 52 Md. Animal feed not received in the office Sahahabuddin of SAHO, Sahebganj. Clerk of SAHO, Sahebganj P.W. 53 Bal Krisna Introduced the current account of M/s 31, Gupta S.R.Enterprises of Smt. Sarswati Prop. of M/s B.K. Surgical Chandra wife of Mahendra Prasad. --19– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

Enterprises, Mahendra Prasad was introduced to Patna him by accused Tripurari Mohan Prasad in his office at Patna. P.W.54 Sheoji Ojha Payments for 04 bank drafts of Mukesh 7/41 to 7/44, 8/39 to Deputy Enterprises, 05 bank drafts of 8/40, 7/45 to 7/49, Manager, SBI, Main R.K.Agency, 04 bank drafts of 8/41 to 8/42, 7/50 to Branch Patna S.R.Enterprises, 04 bank drafts of B.R. 7/53, 8/43 to 8/45, Pharma by SBI, Dumka through 7/54 to 7/57, 8/46 to current account of Mukesh Enterprises 8/47, 2/7. at SBI, Main Branch, Patna. Accused Lal Mohan Prasad is proprietor of M/s Mukesh Enterprises, Patna P.W.55 Dr. Md Sayeed O.P.Diwakar functioned as Regional --- Staff Director of AHD, Dumka from Verification Officer, 27.06.1994 to February 1996. Office of Regional Director, AHD, Prepared supply orders for veterinary Dumka medicines and instruments without indent at the instruction of O.P.Diwakar.

Accused Diwakar obtained fake receipt certificates on the bills of suppliers from his subordinate DAHO, SAHO, Asst. Director Poultary, AIO, BAHO for preparation of consolidated bills to withdraw money from Dumka Treasury.

No cattle or piggery firm were functional under RD, AHD, Dumka during the period.

S.N.Dubey, Divisional Commissioner inspected Dumka Treasury and during inspection demanded details of illegal withdrawals made during 1991-92, --20– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

1992-93 and 1993-94.

Dr. Sesh Muni Ram was intitally upset but subsequently re-reconcile and informed the witness that he has negotiated with commissioner Dumka on condition that he would pay 5 percent of the allotment and withdrawals. In the month of May 1994 accused S.N.Dubey, Commissioner, Dumka issued order to treasury officer Dumka to pass purchase bills of AHD for Rs. 5 Lakhs and above.

At the time of his transfer, Dr. Sesh Muni Ram informed this witness that he has introduced his successor Dr. O.P.Diwakar to Shri S.N.Dubey, Commissioner Dumka and also informed about payment @ 5 percent of the allotment.

Dr. O.P.Diwakar also subsequently informed him that he has to pay 4 to 5 percent of the payments drawn against purchase bills of AHD, Dumka to Shri S.N.Dubey Commissioner.

This witness was also given 1 percent of the payments on purchase bills. He had to oblige Dr. Diwakar by giving receipt certificates and making stock entries of the medicines / materials shown supplied on the bills.

Dr. Diwakar also informed that Shri --21– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

Chandra Dev Prasad Verma, Minister is his man, Dr. Ravindra Kumar Rana is his friend, Dr. Ram Raj Ram, Director would do whatever he would ask which includes his suspension and transfer.

Dr. Diwakar obtained false certificate of receipt of material on suppliers bill from him and other sub ordinate officers under pressure for drawing money from Dumka Treasury.

Dr. Diwakar informed this witness that he obtained allotment letters from accused Dr. S.B.Sinha or through his men Mahendra Prasad supplier.

Payments were drawn from Dumka Treasury during the period of O.P.Diwakar without receipt of any instruments or medicines and or against meager supply of materials.

Dr. Diwakar has passed all the bills for the period from December 1995 and January 1996 for payments.

Supply orders for supply worth Rs. 20 Lakhs only have been prepared during the period and rest of the bills were passed without any supply orders.

The witness stayed in hotel Yuvraj at Doranda Ranchi with Dr. Diwakar during August 1994. Payment for the stay was made by owner of M/s Bhagat & Company Ranchi. --22– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

Dr. Diwakar used to collect all the documents relating to such payments from him on the pretext that these documents would be given to PAC. The documents included:- 1. Dispatch Registers relating to purchase. 2. Receipt Registers relating to purchase. 3. Stock Registers of medicines and instruments. 4. Stock Register of animal feed and fodder. 5. Guard files containing false receipts of medicines and instruments obtained from sub ordinate officer. 6. All files relating to purchase.

Dr. Jagdish Sharma, Chairman PAC used to call Dr. Diwakar to his residence at Patna and for getting the aforesaid records received by PAC, Dr. Diwakar used to make illegal payments to accused Jagdish Sharma.

During election of Bihar Legislative Assembly in the year 1995, Dr. Ravindra Kumar Rana summoned Dr. Diwakar as he was given ticket to contest from Gopalpur constituency for obtaining election expenses.

Dr. Diwakar had visited the residence of accused Dr. R.K.Rana with cash of Rs. 10 Lakhs in a briefcase. --23– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

He delivered the briefcase to Dr. Rana in his presence. The witness accompanied Dr. Diwakar to the residence of accused Dr. R.K.Rana for delivery of cash.

Dr. Rana asked for more money from Diwakar in his presence. Subsequently Dr. Diwakar informed that he had to spent Rs. 30 Lakhs for election expenses of Dr. R.K.Rana.

Dr. Diwakar informed this witness that Chanrdev Prasad Verma, Minister has also demanded Rs. 10 Lakhs from him as Minister is also contesting election from the constituency of Dr. Diwakar. Dr. Diwakar also informed that he has been posted as Regional Director, Dumka with additional charge of Regional Director Bhagalpur and Purnia also and simultaneously was given charge of DAHO, Godda, Bhagaglpur and Katihar by the same Minister and it was therefore, his duty to help him. Dr. Diwakar asked the witness to count Rs. 7 Lakhs in his house and keep them in a suitcase in his presence. Dr. Diwakar with the suitcase when to the residence of Minister with this witness at Kankarbagh Housing Colony, Patna and delivered this suitcase to the Minister in his presence. The Minister demanded more money from Dr. Diwakar in his presence. Subsequently --24– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

Dr. Diwakar informed that he paid another Rs. 8 Lakhs to the Minister for his election expenses.

On the date of counting, this witness was with Dr. Diwakar who informed that he had to spend Rs. 1.5 Crores on politicians for their election expenses during 1995. Dr. Diwakar also informed that these politicians have also taken money from Dr. S.B.Sinha who distributed money at the instruction of Dr. R.K.Rana. Dr. Diwakar informed that he has been assured posting as RD, Ranchi and after that he would replace Dr. S.B.Sinha for such withdrawals and payments from treasuries.

On 22.01.1996, Dr. Diwakar called him to his residence at Patna. Dr. Diwakar was upset. He informed that Finance Commissioner, V.S.Dubey has discovered the case of illegal withdrawals of AHD. He has also obtained reports from the office of AG, Ranchi. He had informed Dr. R.K.Rana who is close to Lalu Prasad and he had also taken appointment for meeting of Dr. Diwakar with Lalu Prasad on the same date but for meeting with Lalu Prasad he would require more money as Lalu Prasad does not properly without money. Dr. Diwakar called him to his bedroom and took out a VIP suitcase and asked him to verify if Rs. 20 Lakhs is kept in the suitcase. After --25– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

verification the witness informed that Rs. 20 Lakhs is available in the suitcase. Dr. Diwakar in his Maruti Car with a suitcase when to the residence of Chief Minister at 1 Anne Marg with him. At the gate of 1 Anne Marg aksed Dr. Diwakar for his identity, Dr. Diwakar informed that he is the men of Dr. R.K.Rana and thereafter he was allowed entry in the residence of Lalu Prasad. Dr. Diwakar went inside the residence of Lalu Prasad with the suitcase containing Rs. 20 Lakhs and the witness was on the Maruti Vehicle of Dr. Diwakar in the corridor inside the campus of the residence of Shri Lalu Prasad. After some time Dr. Diwakar returned empty handed to the vehicle and informed this witness about the delivery of cash to Lalu Prasad and also about the assurance given to him to scuttle the enquiry regarding withdrawals from Dumka Treasury.

The witness has been taken as approver in this case. P.W.56 K.L. Das Accused Dr. Bimal Kant Das BAHO Littipara functioned as TVO and accused Dr. Wassimuddin functioned as DAHO at Sahebganj during the period. In the year 1995 no veterinary medicine or animal feed was received by him at Littipara. He had also not seen feed being uploaded from Truck at Littipara.

P.W. 57 Maheshwar Accused Dr. Krishan Kumar Prasad has --- --26– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

Ram certified receipt of veterinary Accountant in medicines on the vouchers of the office of DAHO, Viswakarma Agency. No supply order Deoghar number is mentioned on any of the voucher. These bills have been passed by Regional Director, Dumka. P.W. 58 Pulak M/s Treatment Home Product, Kolkata X/6, 1/15 Mukherjee manufactured medicines on loan Partner of M/s Treatment license for M/s Little Oak Home Product, Pharmaceuticals, Kolkata. All the Kolkata medicines manufactured and shown supplied by M/s Little Oak Pharmaceuticals were for human consumptions. P.W. 59 Jit Mohan Pal Seizure of Bank drafts from SBI, Patna 1/16, 7/58. Chief Manager, of M/s Vyapar Kutir and other supply SBI, Main Branch, Patna firms. P.W. 60 Tripurari Sharan Deposit of bank drafts at SBI Patna. Deputy Manager, SBI, Main Branch, Patna P.W. 61 Janardhan Accused Dr. Bimal Kant Das and --- Prasad accused Dr. Wassimuddin have Head Clerk in the office of certified transportation of animal feed DAHO, to Sahebganj on the bills of M/s Sahebganj Krishna Road Carrier, Pakur and M/s Raj Kumar Sharma, Asansol. They have also certified receipt of veterinary medicines on the bills of Viswakarma Agency and M/s Bhagat & Co. Ranchi. No indent was placed for the said transportation or supply from his office to RD, Dumka. He had also not seen transportation of fodder at Sahebganj during the period.

P.W. 62 Kishore Kr The truck never transported any Sharma consignment of AHD in the year 1995 Owner of Truck --27– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

No. RJ08-G- in the state of Bihar. 00341 P.W. 63 Dr. Bibhuti Nath Receipt of consignment of bills Thakur certified by Dr. Pitamber Jha, TVO, Assistant Poultary Officer Deoghar. in the office of DAHO, Deoghar P.W. 64 Ranjit Kumar Seizure of Drug License Register of the 32, 32/1, 1/16, Mandal office of Civil Surgeon, Dumka. Assistant in the office of Civil Surgeon Dumka P.W.65 Paresh Acharya M/s Treatment Home Products 33, Accountant of manufactured only medicines for M/s Treatment Home Products human consumptions on behalf of M/s Little Oak Pharmaceuticals, Kolkata. P.W. 66 Laxman Prasad No animal feed or veterinary medicines BDO, Littipara supplied to Littipara Block during 1995-96. P.W. 67 Uday Kant Jha Seizure of books of account and 34, 35 to 35/2, 35/3, Assistant vouchers of M/s Radha Pharamacy, 36 to 36/9, 37 to Commissioner, Sales Tax, Dumka relating to supply of veterinary 37/14, 38 to 38/929, Dumka medicines to RD, AHD, Dumka. 39, 40, 41, 42, 1/17 & 1/18 P.W. 68 Bhupinder The truck never transported any Singh consignment to Rajmahal, Taljhari and Owner of Truck No. 14G-2842 Littipara from Ranchi during October 1995. P.W. 69 Anirudh Prasad Identified the signature of Dr. Yadav Satyanarayan Singh on the invoices of Office Clerk of DAHO, Godda R.K.Agency, Patna, Signature of Radha Mohan Mandal on the invoices of M/s Little Oak Pharmaceuticals, Kolkata. P.W.70 Priti Pal Saini The truck did not transport any Owner of Truck consignment in Bihar. No. RJ-02-G- 1635 P.W. 71 Dr. Ram Identified signatures of Satya Narayan Narayan Ram Singh and Radha Mohan Mandal on Veterinary Surgeon, Godda the invoices of M/s B.R.Pharma, M/s R.K.Agency, M/s Little Oak Pharmaceuticals. --28– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

P.W. 72 Mahesh Chand The truck did not transport any Owner of Truck consignment from Ranchi to Littipara. No. RJ-02G- 1421 P.W.73 Ibney Hassan M/s Bharti Enterprises and M/s Laxmi 18/4 Assistant Enterprises were not registered with Commissioner, Sale Tax, Godda Sale Tax Godda for supply of veterinary medicines. Misleading registration number on bills of M/s Laxmi Enterprises mentioned. P.W. 74 Hari Narayan The truck did not transport any 43 Meena consignment from Ranchi to Littipara. Owner of Truk No. RJ-29G- 0136 P.W. 75 Naresh Jha M/s Viswakarma Agency, Deoghar 18/5, Assistant though registered but as filed returns Commissioner, Sale Tax, disclosing zero sale during the period. Deoghar P.W. 76 Pramod Kumar Got transfer of ownership of A.C. XXX Bhagat Ambassador Car – BR 14D -4320 from Villager and neighbour of Naresh Jain of Ranchi to himself at the accused Dhruv instruction of Dhruv Bhagat without Bhagat making any payment. P.W. 77 Vijay Kumar Seizure of bank documents of Mukesh 1/19 Mishra Enterprises, Patna Chief Manager, SBI, Patna P.W. 78 Purusottam M/s Laxmi Enterprises, Godda was X/7, Mishra issued Drug License on 18.12.1995 Drug Inspector, Dumka from his office. P.W. 79 Jayram Prasad Tripurari Mohan Prasad purchased Air 44, 21/3 to 21/10 Verma Tickets of Dr. S.B.Sinha, Dr. Traffice Superintendent, S.K.Singh, K. Arumugam, Mahesh Indian Airline, Prasad and several politicians. Kolkata Subsequently Air Tickets of Dr. S.B.Sinha, Dr. S.K.Singh, Dr. R.K.Rana, R.K.Das, Beck Julious, K. Arumugam and K.N.Jha were also booked through him. In the year 1993- 94 Dr. R.K.Rana purchased Air Tickets of Lalu Prasad sometimes on payment --29– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

and sometimes on credit. Subsequently payment for the Air Tickets purchased on credit were made by Dr. S.B.Sinha or by his son Rajesh who was also a supplier of AHD. His statement was recorded by the court under section 164 Cr.P.C and also by Income Tax Officer on the aforesaid line. P.W. 80 Ram Chandra Seizure of documents relating to issue 1/20 Keshri of Drug License from his office to Drug Licensing Authority medicine vendors. Dumka P.W. 81 Ajay Singh Seizure of documents from the hotel by 1/21 Account the IO. Assistant, Astor Hotel, Kolkata P.W.82 Laxmi Narayan Seizure of documents relating to 1/22 Ghosh payments made for stay in the hotel. Deputy Manager, Astor Hotel, Kolkata P.W. 83 Navin kumar Seizure of cash books, sales register 35/4 & 35/5, 36/10, Tax Consultant, and ledger of Vyapar Kutir, Patna 45, 46,, 1/23 Patna P.W. 84 Shakti Pada Payment for stay of accused 47, 48, 49, 50 to Kundu M.C.Subarno from 07.08.93 to 50/2, 51, 47/1, 48/1 Finance Manager of 09.08.93 and from 02.10.94 to 49/1, 50/3 to 50/5, Hotel Astor, 04.10.94 was made by Dr. Ajit Kumar X/8, 47/2, 48/2, 50/6 Kolkata Verma Proprietor of M/s Little Oak to 50/8, 51/1, 47/3, Pharmaceuticals of Kolkata. Also Beck 50/9 to 50/14, 48/3 Julius stayed in the hotel from 03.06.95 & 48/4, 51/1, 47/4, to 04.06.95 for which payments were 50/15 to 50/17 , 49/2 made by M/s Little Oak & 51/3, 50/18 Pharmaceuticals, Kolkata to 50/20 51/4, A & A/1, P.W. 85 Amarjeet Singh The truck did not transport any Owner of Truck consignment in Bihar during the No. RJ-14G- 0998 period. P.W.86 B.K.Choudhery No supply orders issued to M/s 18/6, 18/7 Branch Alembic by R.D.AHD, Dumka during Manager, M/s Alembic, Patna 1995. Furnished details of veterinary --30– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

medicines on requisition of CBI. P.W. 87 Rajesh Kumar The truck did not transport any Owner of Truck consignment from Rajmahal to Taljhari No. RJ-26G- 0054 during October 1995. P.W.88 Prabhu Lal The truck did not transport any Gujjar consignment from Rajmahal to Taljhari Owner of Truck No. RJ-26G- during October 1995. 0005 P.W. 89 Deo Karan The truck did not transport any Regar consignment from Rajmahal to Taljhari Owner of Truck No. RJ-26G- during October 1995. 0269 P.W. 90 Ram Chandra Vehicle of Guide Travel was taken on Rai hire for pick and drop of the daughter Driver of M/s Guide Travels, of A.C.Chaudhary from his residence Kolkata to School and beck. P.W. 91 Jayant Banerjee Dr. Ajit Kumar Verma proprietor of 1/24, 1/25, Partner of Guide M/s Little Oak used to pay for booking Travel, Kolkata of cars used by A.C.Chaudhary. P.W.92 Ranjit Singh Dr. Ajit Kumar Verma proprietor of 52 to 52/4, 52/5 to Travel Agent of M/s Little Oak used to pay for booking 52/9, 52/10 to Guide Travel, Kolkata of cars used by A.C.Chaudhary. 52/15 , 52/16 to 52/17, 52/18 , 52/19 to 52/47 , 52/48 to 52/71, 52/72 to 52/78, 52/79 to 52/98 , 52/99 to 52/139, 52/140 to 52/156, 52/157 to 52/160, 52/161 to 52/174 , 52/175 to 52/179, 52/80 to 52/181, 53 to 53/7, 54 to 54/51, 54/52 9/76 to 9/80, 55 to 55/4, 55/5 to 55/11, 55/12 to 55/13 55/14, 56 to 56/6, --31– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

P.W.93 Pankaj Kumar, Dr. Ajit Kumar Verma proprietor of 57, X/1 Family friend of M/s Little Oak Pharmaceuticals has Dr. Ajit Kumar Verma sent Rs. 14 Lakhs to Dr. O.P.Diwakar through him. He delivered bag containing Rs. 14 Lakhs to O.P.Diwakar at his residence at Gardani Bag, Patna. Dr. Verma was his family friend and had made him Director of M/s Vee Pee Impex, M/s Little Oak Agro Kolkata with other parties associated with AHD. And also seizure of documents from his premises. P.W.94 Prem Kr Dubey, Identified the signatures of accused Stamp Clerk of Chathu Prasad, Treasury Officer, Dumka Treasury Kalika Prasad Sinha Accountant and Shardendu Kumar Das Assitant of Dumka Treasury on tainted bills. Also seizure of bills from Shri P N Mishra than Treasury Officer. P.W.95 Priyesh Kundan Receipt on vouchers enclosed with 12 58 to 58/1 Prasad, Clerk of CNC bills were certified by Dr. AD Poultary Dumka. Raghunandan Prasad, Asst. Director, Poultry Dumka. Materials shown receipt were not taken into stock register maintained for the purpose. P.W.96 Mahendra Pd. No lubricant was received in the office Ram, Live stock of KVO Dumka during 1995-96. Assistant of KVO Dumka. P.W. 97 Kamal Kishore 85 Bank Draft purchase applications 10/29 to 10/113 Dubey, Statistics were prepared in the writing of Assistant of RD AHD, Dumka. Rameshwar Choudhary, Head Clerk and signed by Dr. O P Diwakar, Regional Director. P.W.98 Shayam The witness had prepared all the 59, X/9, X/10, Chandra Mishra, invoices of M/s Little Oak Clerk of M/s Little Oak Pharmaceuticals, Kolkata in his writing --32– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

Pharmaceuticals at the instruction of accused Dr. A. K. , Kolkata. Verma his employer but no medicines mentioned in those invoices were supplied. Dr. A.K. Verma sent 31 Lakhs rupees to Dr. O.P. Diwakar in January 1996 in two installments of Rs. 15 Lakhs and Rs. 16 Lakhs through this witness who delivered cash consignments to Dr. Diwakar at his Gardani Bag residence of Patna P.W.99 Keshari Kishor Proved the files containing list of 60, 60/1, 61 , 44/1, Srivastava, veterinary medicine suppliers approved 60/2 Joint Director Statistics, AHD, by the Government and also the order Patna. of financial power of Regional Director to pass bills upto Rs. 15,000/-. Also identified his statement recorded under section 164 Cr. PC. P.W.100 Parshuram Seizure of documents form the office 1/27 Prasad Verma, of RD, AHD, Dumka. The witness also Assistant Director, AHD, confirmed initial verification about Dumka. passed bills and allotment letters by Shri Braj Kishor Pathak, Deputy Collector, Dumka in January, 1996. P.W.101 Mangal Pd. Proved initial scrutiny of tainted bills --- Yadav, Assistant by accused Sardendu Kumar Das, of , Dumka Treasury, Assistant of Dumka Treasury. Dumka P.W.102 Braj Ksihore Proved his statement recorded under 44/2 Pathak, section 164 Cr. PC. Employee of M/s Bhagat and Co. Ranchi. P.W.103 Nathmal Introduction of the account opening Sharma, Head form current account No. 9B/45 of M/s Cashier, SBI, Main Branch, Raj Kumar Sharma proprietorship Asansol. concerned of Rajendra Prasad Sharma. P.W.104 Shiv Kumar Lal, Identified signature of accused Braj 63 to 63/23 Typist of AHD, Bhushan Prasad Budget Officer on 24 Patna. allotment letters used for making alleged payments from Dumka --33– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

Treasury. P.W.105 Dineshwar Identified signature of accused Braj Pathak, Typist Bhushan Prasad Budget Officer on 24 of AHD, Patna. allotment letters used for making alleged payments from Dumka Treasury. P.W.106 Mda Abdullah, The 24 allotment letters were not Head Typist of prepared at AHD directorate Patna as AHD, Patna. the do not contain the signatures of Typist and comparer which is practice in his office. P.W.107 Ashok Kumar Accused Gopi Nath Das received cash Mishra, payment for 15 bills of M/s Radha Assistant of SBI, Dumka Pharmacy, Dumka from SBI, Dumka. P.W.108 Shiv Karan, This Truck did not transport Owner of Truck consignment of AHD, Bihar in the No. RJ-01G- 0650 month of November, 1995. P.W.109 Dr. Shashi Rishi Bhushan Prasad Typist of 68, 69 t0 69/10 Kumar Singh, Regional Director Ranchi used to Type Artificial Insemination allotment letters at the instruction of Officer, FSB, Dr. S.B. Sinha. Dr. Sinha used to call Ranchi. Braj Bhushan Budget Officer to Room No. 101 of Hotel Patliputra Ashoka at Patna and used to obtain the signature of Budget Officer on such allotment letters. Sometimes Mahendra Prasad was sent to be residence of Budget Officer for obtaining his signatures on such allotment letters. Dr. S.B. Sinha used to make regular payments to Dr. R.K. Rana as he was very close to accused Lalu Prasad. Dr. Rana used to help Dr. S.B. Sinha on account of his contact with Lalu Prasad on AHD matters. Dr. S.B. Sinha also used to make payments to Shri Vidya Sagar Nisad and Bhola Ram Tuphani both ministers from time to time. Dr. --34– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

Sinha had also sent Rs. 50 Thousand to Shri Vidya Sagar Nisad and Rs. 20 Thousand to Shri Tuphani through him in the year 1993. The witness went from Ranchi to Patna by Aeroplane at Patna Airport he was received by Maruti Car sent by Tripurari Mohan Prasad. From Airport he went to the residence of Shri Nisad at Rajbanshi Nagar, Patna were Shri Nisad called him to his bedroom and accepted packet containing 50 thousand sent by Dr. S.B. Sinha. Thereafter he went to the residence of Shri Tuphani at Baili Road, Patna. The PA asked this witness to meet Shri Tuphani where, he delivered Rs. 20 thousand and Shri Tuphani accepted the cash. Later on, Dr. R. K. Rana came to know about such payments made through this witness and Dr. Rana advised S.B. Sinha to make payment personally. In 1993-94, Dr. Sesh Muni Ram introduced Beck Julius to Dr. S.B. Sinha. Once, this witness accompanied Dr. S.B. Sinha and Sesh Muni Ram to circuit house, Patna where Beck Julius was staying. Both Dr. Sinha and Dr. Ram went to the room of Shri Beck Julius and after sometime they returned with one packet. On being asked, Dr. Sinha replied Shri Julius does not take whiskey and therefor the bottle of whiskey was returned but he accepted the cash. Later on, Shri Beck Julius shifted to his Government accommodation in veterinary college --35– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat campus, where this witness accompanied Dr. S.B. Sinha for delivery of cash in suitcase on several occasions. Later on, when Chandra Deo Prasad Verma became minister, Dr. S.B. Sinha also used to make payments to him in presence of this witness. By the end of year 1993 once he accompanied Dr. S.B. Sinha to the residence of Dr. Jagannath Mishra, then leader of opposition with a suitcase containing Rs. 5 Lakhs for delivery to Dr. Mishra. The cash of Rs. 5 Lakhs at Patna was arranged by Tripurari Mohan Prasad and payment was made in his presence for obtaining signature of Dr. Mishra on letter of recommendation for extension in service of Dr. Sinha after his retirement. In the year 1992 Dr. Sinha came to Delhi with Depesh Chandak with one crore rupees and stayed in hotal Hayat Regency. Dr. R.K. Rana was already staying in the said hotel. Late in the evening Dr. Rana and Dr. S.B. Sinha with the money went to Bihar Bhawan and on return, informed that payment was made to Lalu Prasad. This witness had seen Dr. S.B. Sinha with Lalu Prasad at the residence of Dr. R.K. Rana at Patna and on second occasion, he had seen them in the marriage function of the daughter of Dr. Ram Raj Ram. This witness had also seen Mukul Kapoor, PA of Lalu Prasad accepting money from Dr. S.B. Sinha at Ranchi. He had also seen --36– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

payments being made to Jagdish Sharma by Lalu Prasad. P.W.110 Braj Kishore Shri Anjani Kumar Singh, Deputy 64, Pathak, Deputy Commissioner had asked this witness Collector, Dumka to conduct enquiry on alleged illegal withdrawal by AHD, Dumka in the office of RD, AHD, Dumka and also at Dumka Treasury. After he submitted his report, Shri A.K. Singh, DC asked him to lodge FIR at Dumka Town PS. He identified the complaint on basis of which case No. 16/96 was registered at Dumka Town PS on 02.02.96. P.W.111 Anjani Kumar He has prepared the books of accounts 65, Sinha, Tax and returns of Mukesh Enterprises at Practitioner, Patna the requisition of Mahendra Prasad. P.W.112 Peter Murmu, This witness had made cash payments 66 to 66/4, 67 to Clerk of SBI, to Gopi Nath Das against 5 bills passed 67/4 Dumka for payment by RD, Dumka. P.W.113 Sita Ram This Truck did not transport Meena, Owner consignment of AHD in Bihar during of Truck No. RJ-14-G-1253 the period. P.W.114 Uday Kumar From June 1994 Dr. O.P. Diwakar Singh, Steno of functioned as Regional Director, RD, AHD, Dumka Rameshwar Choudhary functioned as Head Clerk and Pankaj Mohan Bhui functioned as Accountant in the office of RD, Dumka. He had never seen veterinary medicine and or fodder being received in the office during 1995. P.W.115 Brajesh Kumar Identified the signature of Dr. Ram Raj 60/3, 60/4 Roy, Assistant in Ram on the approved list of veterinary the office of AHD secretriat, medicines on files of secretariat. Patna P.W.116 Phool Jha Jagdish Sharma, as Chairman of PAC 90, X (Hostile), during visit to Ranchi and Dumka had Administrative Officer of PAC, authorized this witness to collect Patna documents of AHD Ranchi and Dumka --37– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

in the year 1993 and 1994 respectively after large scale irregularities noticed. He had obtained those documents after giving proper receipt to be office where from the documents were taken to Patna as it was not possible to conduct enquiry in the circuit house. He also admitted to have received documents of RD, Dumka in the year 1995 when Dhruv Bhagat was the chairman of PAC but denied rest of the contents of his statement recorded under section 164 Cr. PC. On 28.01.1997. P.W.117 Ms. Aparajita Seizure of documents regarding 1/28, X/11, X/12 & Gangaopadhya, booking of banquet room in the name X/13 Employee of Hotal Park, of M/s Little Oak Agro on 18.01.1996. Kolkata. P.W.118 Ram Yatan Proved the file relating to stay of 60/4, 70 Singh, Section transfer of Dr. B.N. Sharma by Lalu Officer of AHD, Patna. Prasad in June, 1993. P.W.119 Richard Procedure for filling up of school Thranton, admission forms at Bishop School, Principal of Bishop Boys Namkum. School, Namkum Ranchi. P.W. 120 Ram Swaroop The Truck did not transport Sharma, Owner consignment between Rajmahal and on Truck No. RJ-20G-0982. Taljhari during October, 1995 and also the Truck never was sent to Bihar. P.W. 121 Surya Kant He had filled in the school admission Prasad, Tour forms of Miss Ragini, Rohini and Operator, Ranchi. Chanda all daughters of Lalu Prasad at instruction of Md. Sayeed of Ranchi. P.W.122 Smt. Netali Proved the school admission forms of X/17, X/18, X/14, Jacob, Principal Miss. Hema and Dhanu, both daughters X/15, X/16, X/19. of Bishop Girls School, of Lalu Prasad. In the school admission Namkum form of Ragini and Rohini, Dr. S.B. Ranchi. Sinha of Ranchi has been maintained as local guardian --38– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

P.W. 123 Smt. Identified the admission form of Miss. Channawate Hema, Dhanu, Rohini, Ragini and Natrajan, PA to Principal of Chanda all daughters of Lalu Prasad in Bishop Girls the school. School, Namkum Ranchi. P.W. 124 Indu Bhushan Received complaint regarding illegal 70/1 , 71 to 71/2, A, Pathak, Addl. A/1, withdrawals of AHD in July, 1993 from Secretary of AHD, Patna. CVC. The complaint was perused by Shri Mahesh Prasad Secretary and minister Bhola Ram Tuphani. P.W. 125 Subhash Radha Pharmacy, Dumka was not the 18/8, 18/9, 71/3, Ramrao 71/4, X/20, 71/5 to authorized stockist of his company. Kumthekar, 71/9 Vice President of M/s Workhard, Mumbai. P.W.126 Anjani Kumar On 07.06.93 Shri Lalu Prasad presided 70/2, 70/10, A (H)` Singh, Addl. over meeting to discuss withdrawals Secretary, Finance, Govt. made from treasuries during March. All of Bihar during Secretaries, District Magistrates, and 1992-93. Treasury Officers including the witness and others were present in the meeting. The witness also deposed as Deputy Commissioner Dumka on 17.08.93 he had passed order that bills of above rupees one lakh be placed before him when two bills of AHD were sent to him by the District Treasury seeking his approval for payment. P.W. 127 Ram Briksha Identified signature of Dr. Ram Raj 71/11, Mishra, Ram on guest registration form. Also Assistant Director identified letter dated 24.06.94 of Dr. Statistics, AHD, Jagdish Sharma addressed to the Patna. secretary AHD that matters relating to financial irregularities of Santhal Pargana and South Chhotanagpur Range of AHD is being enquired into by PAC and therefore, enquiry by other --39– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

agencies were not required. The letter of Jagdish Sharma is available at page 192 of the file and report of Shiv Balak Choudhary is at page 162. P.W. 128 Stm. Poonam She is known to Shri Lalu Prasad has -- Singh, Wife of his cousin Ashok Kumar Singh was his Prem Prakash Singh. friend since JP agitation. She use to visit Bishop Scott School to see the daughters of Shri Lalu Prasad in year 1993. Subsequently Sub-Inspector of state excise department, Shri Sanjay Kumar and his wife Smt. Meera used to visit the school to see the daughters of Lalu Prasad. P.W.129 Krishna Pandit, Proved the list of registered letters 72 Postman of dated 23.03.94. registered letter No. Patna secretriat Post office. 2646 was delivered to Shri Mani Chand Lal Srivastava, Clerk posted in the office of secretary AHD Patna. P.W. 130 Nagina Thakur, On 16.11.94 and 06.06.95 this witness 72/1 & 72/2 Group-D has delivered letters No. 3956 and employee of Lohia Nagar, letter No. 721 to Shri Mani Chand Lal Post office, Srivastava, Clerk posted in the office of Patna. secretary AHD Patna. P.W.131 Arjun Kumar Proved circular regarding retirement 66 , 73 Prasad Yadav, after attaining the age fixed for Registrar from Personnel & superannuation. Administration reform, Ranchi. P.W. 132 Vijay Kumar, Proved the file on enquiry relating to 71/12, 71/13,60/4 Manager, Speed disposal of registered letter from Patna Post Customer care, Patna, secretariat to AHD Patna. R.M.S. P.W.133 Arun Kumar Seizure of 3rd report of Nivedan Samiti 1/29, 74 Singh, Deputy of Bihar Legislative Assembly and its Superintendent Govt. Press draft on 20.11.96 Gaya. P.W.134 Gangadhar Giri, Proved the file on preparation and 60/5 Section Officer, approval of reply to the starred Welfare Deptt. Govt. of Bihar. question of C. S. Munda in Bihar --40– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

Legislative Council. The question related to withdrawal from Ranchi Treasury. The reply was also approved by Shri P.C. Singh. P.W. 135 Binod Kumar, Approval of question relating to 60/5, 60/6, 60/7, Assistant withdrawal of 83 crores rupees from 60/8, 60/9, 60/10, working in Chief Minister’s Ranchi Treasury by AHD published in 60/11. Secretariate, Nav Bharat Times on 17.06.93 of C.S. Patna, Bihar. Munda raised in council by Minister incharge AHD Shri Jagdanand Singh. Also reply of starred question of Shri Parmeshwar in the council. The question related to several additional charges given to Dr. O.P. Diwakar RD, AHD, Dumka.

Also question of Shri Nilambar Chaudhary in the council. The question related to excess withdrawal of Rs. 73 crores despite ban on withdrawal but no reply was sent as Minister objected. Also question of Shri Uday Narayan Ray in the council. The question related to withdrawal of Rs. 236 and 312 crores despite budget of AHD during 1991-92 and 1992-93 was Rs. 48 and Rs. 55 respectively but no reply was sent. Also question of Shri Nilambar Chaudhary in the council. The question related to the action to be taken against AHD Maffia for misappropriation and also for lodging criminal cases against them. Also reply to the question of Shri Lalit Oraon, MP in Loksabha. The question related to the action to be taken against --41– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

large-scale misappropriation of government fund by public servants and suppliers of AHD.

Also question of Shri Shatrughan Prasad Singh in the council. The question related to seeking details of veterinary medicines purchased during 1994-95 by AHD.

P.W.136 Lalan Dubey, UN-starred question raised in Rajya 60/12. Section Officer, Sabha regarding mismanagement of AHD, Patna plans in Chotanagpur Region. Reply to the question was sent to the Government of Union by Shri Beck Julious denied the allegation. P.W. 137 Permendra Seizure of payment schedule 2403 and 1/30 & 1/31, 75, 76, Narayan Mishra, order book of Dumka Treasury for the Treasury Officer, Dumka period of alleged occurrence. P.W. 138 Dr. Amiyo Reply sent on behalf of M/s Brihans 18/10, 18/11, 71/14, Kumar Laboratory regarding veterinary 1/32 Chakarvorty, Chief Executive medicines shown supplied to RD Officer of M/s Dumka for the alleged payments. Birhans Laboratry, Pune. P.W. 139 Tapan Kumar Seizure of Guard File of Dumka 1/33, 77 & 77/1 Chakravorty, Treasury containing circulars and Treasury Officer, Dumka instructions of finance department perused by Shri Chathu Prasad, Treasury Officer, Dumka during the period of alleged transaction. The instruction of finance department was only 8 % of the annual budget should be spent in a month. P.W. 140 Gauri Shankar Dr. Ajit Kumar Verma Prop. of M/s Banerjee, Little Oak used to pay for the Employee of Little Oak accommodation and transportation of Pharmacuetical, Dr.B.N.Sharma, DAHO, Chaibasa and Kolkata also for Dr. R.K.Rana whenever they --42– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

visited Kolkata. Dr. Ajit Verma also paid for the electrical items such as pipes, geyser, fan etc. for the house of Shri A.C.Choudhary, Commissioner, Income Tax. The house of Shri A.C.Choudhary was under repair during the period. P.W. 141 Laleshwar During 1995 the driver transported Yadav, Pvt. Ambassador Car no. BR-14D-4320 Truck Driver of S.K.Mehra of from the residence of Dr. S.B.Sinha at Ranchi. Ranchi to Patna. The said Car was handed to Shri Tripurari Mohan Prasad at Patna. P.W. 142 Birendra Prasad The file contain letter of Shri Jagdish 60/13, Ambastha, Sharma received on 27.06.1994 Assistant in the office of AHD, intimating the secretary Shri Julius that Directorate, PAC is enquiring the allegation of Patna. financial irregularities and misappropriation by Dr. Shesh Muni Ram, RD, Dumka. The file also contains enquiry into the allegation by Shri Bachhu Prasad and Dr. Shiv Balak Chaudhary of AHD, Directorate. Also correspondence of Shri Tulsi Singh Minister seeking information about allocation and allotment to difference range of AHD during last three years. The information was sought with reference to news published on 15.07.1994 regarding misappropriation of Rs. 50 lacs in Times of India. P.W.143 Dr. Oswald Dr.O.P.Diwakar used to stay in his Anthony, Dental house at Gardanibagh, Patna from 1992 Surgan of Bihar State Health to 1996 on payment of rental. The Services. witness also identified Dr. Diwakar who was present in the Court. P.W. 144 Ramesh Kumar The witness identified the order of Shri 71/15, 60/14 Oraon, Section S.N.Dubey then Divisional --43– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

Officer in the Commissioner, Dumka on the office of application dated 31.05.1994 of RD, Divisional Commissioner, AHD, Dumka wherein it was Dumka mentioned that the Treasury Officer, would be able to pass the bills of AHD for Rs.5 lakhs and above. P.W. 145 Arun Kumar Memorandum sent to 10th Finance 10/24, 60/15, XX/8, Raina, Joint Commission on receipt and X/21, C, B. 64/IX, Director, Ministry of expenditure of the Govt. of Bihar, 71/16 Finance, Govt. disclosing expenditure of AHD as :- of India, New Delhi. Financial Year-Expenditure in Rs. 1990-91 72.29 crores 1992-93 143.25 crores 1991-92 117.60 crores 1993-94 62.41crores (est.) 1994-95 169.45 crores Forecast 1995-96 242.06 crores 1996-97 285.65 crores 1997-98 337.04 crores 1998-99 397.71 crores 1999-00 469.30 crores

P.W. 146 Paramjit Singh Veterinary medicines manufactured by 1/34, 60/16, 60/17 Hoda, Store the company were sold in the State of Officer of Wockhardt Ltd. Bihar through its C & F Agent M/s Aurangabad. Tridos Laboratory Ltd., Patna only. P.W. 147 Atam Prakash Vijay Malik paid for stay of 71/17, 71/18, 78, Manglani, Chief Dr.B.N.Sharma, Tripurari Mohan X/22, 50/21, 78/1, Accountant in Hotel Marina G- Prasad and others in Hotel Marina of 50/22, 78/2, 50/23, 59, Cannaught New Delhi during the period of alleged 78/3, X/23, 79 to Place, New Delhi. transaction. 79/2, 80 P.W. 148 Dipankar Dr. Ajit Kumar Verma paid for stay of 50/24, X/24, X/25, Banerjee, Ram Raj Ram in Hotel Airport Ashok 71/19 Business of Hotel & in Kolkata on 12th Feb. 1995. Restaurant, Hotel Ashoka near Dumdum Airport. --44– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

P.W. 149 Ajit Kumar During 1992-93, Dr. Shyam Bihari Srivastava, Sinha used to ascertain the figures of Personal Secretary to the expenditure of AHD available in Secretary finance department from this witness. Finance, Govt. of Bihar. He had sent the figures of expenditures of AHD to Shri Tulsi Singh, Minister. Sometimes Dr. S.B.Sinha used to call him to Hotel Patliputra for information as sometimes used to ascertain the figures over phone. P.W. 150 Shashi Kumar Seizure of three registers maintained 1/35, 81 to 81/2. Sinha, Key for details of artificial insemination at Village officer, Dumka Dumka. No AI Lubricant was received in his office at Dumka during 1993 to 1996. P.W. 151 Subroto Basak, Seizure of invoices relating of supply 18/12, 71/19 to Regional of veterinary medicines to Shri 71/230. Manager in B.S. Marketing Shudhanshu Jaiswal of M/s Tridoss Agency, Kolkata Lab , Patna. P.W. 152 Prashanto Proved the faxed message dated 82,71/231, 18/13 Kumar Ghosh, 16.12.95 of Shri A.C.Choudhary Assistant Commissioner addressed to Shri K.K.Deb Verman of Income Tax, then CIP, Chief Commissioner, Income Hoogly. Tax, Kolkata regarding transfer of IT file of S.B.Sinha and Rama Sinha from Ranchi. P.W. 153 Paramvir Singh, The Truck did not transport --- Truck Owner, consignments of AHD from Ranchi to Truck No. RJ- 14G-3647. Littipara from 05.11.95 to 07.11.1995. P.W. 154 Ramesh The Truct did not transport any Chandra material from Rajmahal to Taljhari Chopra, Truck Owner, Truck from 25.10.95 to 28.10.95 or any other No. RJ-14G- consignment of Animal Husbandry in 0465. the State of Bihar. P.W. 155 Rajendra Prasad Proved the letter no.737 dated 13.12.95 18/14, 18/15, 18/16, Kureel, Deputy with application of Dr.S.B.Sinha and A, Commissioner of Income Tax, his wife Smt. Rama Sinha for transfer Special Range, of assessment record from Ranchi to Ranchi. --45– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

CIT, West Bengal, Kolkata. The said letter was sent to CIT, Kolkata by Shri A.C.Choudhary seeking no abjection to transfer of assessment records. PW.156 Albinus Tirkey, No objection to transfer the assessment 18/14, 18/15, Deputy record was received in the office of 71/232,18/16, 18/17 Commissioner, Income Tax, 51 Shri A.C.Choudhary at Ranchi on Aikar bhawan, 08.01.1996 and Shri A.C.Choudhary Mumbai. passed order for transfer of assessment record on 31.01.1996. P.W.157 Basuki Nath The Jeep was under the control of Mandal, Jeep BDO, Jama and it has not transported Driver from Jama Block, any material of AHD. Dumka. P.W.158 Rajendra Dubey, Identified letter dated 14.07.97 with 18/18, 18/19, 18/20. Vice President enclosures containing call details of in MDLR Air Lines, Gurguon. Usha Phone, Mobile No. 9834000112 and 9834000111. These mobile phone were given to Shri P.R.Sinha, Secretary to the then Chief Minister at the time the mobile phone was launched in Bihar free of cost. P.W.159 Henry Anthony, Dr. O.P.Diwakar of Regional Director, Inspector of AHD used to stay in the house of his Police, Spl. Branch C.I.D. elder brother on rental basis from Bihar, Patna. September 1992 to Jan 1997. P.W.160 Rahul Singh, Payments for the Air Tickets for Partner of M/s V.S.Nishad, R.K.Rana, Vidya Bhushan, Indus Travel, Ranchi. K.N.Jha, Ram Raj Ram, R.K.Das, M.C.Subarno, K.M.Prasad were made by Mr. Sayeed, through Shri Suraj Employee of Jilan Transport, Ranchi. P.W.161 Mirza Md. Maintained file movement register in 84 Fahim, Under CM Secretariat at Patna. The file on Secretary of Chief Minister’s irregularities of distribution of animals Secretariate, in the office of RD, AHD, Ranchi was Patna. received through Chief Secretary on 12.11.1990 and the file was sent back. P.W.162 Miss. Jayanti Purchase of Air Tickets for Dr. Ram 85, 85/1 to 85/4, --46– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

Jha, Employee Raj Ram, Lalu Prasad, Dr. R.K.Rana, 85/5 to 85/785/8 to of M/s Raj Miss. Hema, Miss. Chanda, Miss. 85/18, 85/19 to Shree Tour and Travel Agency, Rohini, Miss.Raj Laxmi, Miss. Misa, 85/21, 85/22, X/26 Bailley Road, Miss. Ragini, Miss. Dhannu, Master to X/27, 86 Patna. Tej Pratap and Master Tarun of Sahara Airlines from this travel Agency.

P.W.163 Dharam Raj The witness objected to the proposal of 88, 88/1 Pandey, extension in service after retirement of Registrar from Finance accused Dr.S.B. Sinha and R.K.Das. Department, Govt. of Bihar. P.W.164 Ramanand The file of Animal Husbandry, Ranchi 84/1 Prasad Singh, regarding irregularities in distribution Upper Division Clerk in the of animals was received in CM, Accounts Secretariat on 14.11.1990. Shri Lalu Section of Chief Minister’s Prasad, Chief Minister of Bihar as on Secretariate, 14.11.1990. Bihar. P.W. 165 Suresh Chandra File on audit objection in respect of 84/2, Choudhry, AHD, Ranchi was received in CM, Assistant in the C.M.S. Secretariat on 15.11.1990 and the file Secretariate, was sent back to Secretary, AHD on Bihar Patna. 09.04.1991. P.W.166 Ajit Kumar, This witness has aid Rs. 1 lakh to Shri X/28, X/29 Assistant Naresh Kumar Jain on 18.03.1996 Manager-cum Accountant in against a cheque presented by him at Union Branch of Union Bank of India, Kantatoli Branch, India, Deoghar Branch. Ranchi. P.W.167 Ravi Shankar Identified letter dated 05.12.1993 of 70/3 Kumar Sinha, Dr. Jagannath Mishra leader of Under secretary in Home Spl. opposition for extension of service of Department, Dr. S.B.Sinha after retirement and also Govt. of Bihar, Patna. endorsement of Shri Lalu Prasad to Shri Chandradeo Prasad Verma with instruction to place the letter on file for extension in service and instruction of the minister to Director dated 07.12.1993 to sent the file. P.W.168 Anil Kumar Receipt of five containing complaint of 89, 89/1, 89/2. --47– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

Mehta, Private Ram Saran Yadav, Member Loksabha Assistnat, AHD, in the O/o Secretary, AHD on Patna. 15.10.1993 and the said file was sent to the minister AHD on 16.10.1993. Also receipt of appropriation account of 1994-95 of 2403 from AHD, Bihar in his office. P.W.169 Paresh Ghoshal, The witness had issued a cheque of Rs. Transport 1 lakh in favour of Rajesh Chawra for Business. repayment of loan taken from Naresh Jain as Naresh Jain was also maintaining account in Union Bank, Kantatoli in the name of Rajesh Chawra. P.W.170 Ravindra Regarding warrants issued by the 90 to 90/22, 90/23 to Kumar, competent officers of Income Tax, 90/28, 90/29 to Commissioner of Income Tax Ranchi to search the premises of 90/42, 90/43 to Appeal Cuttack. accused officers and suppliers in the 90/50, 90/51 to year 1993. Corresponding panchnama 90/57, 90/58 to and also appraisal reports. 90/61, 91, 91/1, 91/2, 91/3, 91/4, 91/5, 91/6, 91/7, 91/8, 91/9, 91/10, 91/11, 91/12, 91/13, 91/14, 92 to 92/7, P.W.171 Shree Deo Purchase of Air Ticket for Sajal 71/233, 71/234,, Singh, of Indus Chakraborty payment was made by 71/235, 71/236, Travel, Ranchi. Vijay Malik, purchase of Air Ticket for 71/237, 71/238, Radha Nandan Jha, O.P.Diwakar, 71/239, 71/240, K.Armugam and his wife, B.Prasad,

S.B.Sinha, S.K. Singh and others payment made by Md. Sayeed. P.W/172 Balvindar Vijay Malik paid for the taxi booked 93 Singh, Travel for the guests who arrived from Ranchi Agent, Delhi and Patna. P.W.173 Saiyad Hasan Naresh Kumar Jain deposited Rs.1 lakh 18/21, 8/48, 9/77, Javri, Officer of in his account at Union Bank, 18/22 Union Bank of --48– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

India. Kantatoli. P.W.174 Shiv Kumar Anant Kumar Gutgutiya is related to 71/241 & 71/242 Patwari, him. He has no transport agency. M/s Transporter, Dumka. Viswakarma Agency partnership firm of Shiv Raj Ram and Arun Kumar Singh. Shiv Raj Ram was the father of Dr. Sheshmuni Ram, Regional Director, AHD, Dumka. Rs.40 lakhs was paid to Shri S.N.Dubey, Additional Dumka in his presence at Jasidih Railway Station while Shri Dubey was on the train from Kolkata to New Delhi in the year 1994 for getting the limit of billed amount to be passed from Dumka Treasury enhanced. P.W.175 Arun Kumar Seizure of production and raw material 1/36, Maitra, Chemist registers of M/s Treatment Home of M/s Little Oak, Products, Kolkata Pharacuetical, Kolkata P.W.176 Ram Kishore, The truck was not taken on hire for Owner of Truck transportation in Bihar during 1995. No. RJ-14-G- 0144 P.W.177 Rajveer Singh Dipesh Chandak, Md. Sayeed, Vijay Saluja, Kr. Malik and Rakesh Mehra had Businessman, Ranchi. purchased vehicles through his company at Ranchi. Rakesh Mehra purchase one AC Ambassador Car from M/s Ashoka Automobiles Pvt. Limited. P.W.178 Surendra Kumar Dipesh Chandak arranged for purchase 94 to 94/18, 95 to Jalan, of gold bonds from RBI, Kolkata in the 95/18, 96 to /96/13, Businessman, Kolkata. names of Dr.S.B.Sinha and his family 97 to 97/47, 98 to members under Gold Bond Immunity 98/18, Scheme, 1993. P.W.179 Shankar Prasad, Proved order passed for registration of 18/181, 18/182, Central Fodder Scam Cases by the Govt. of 18/183, 18/184, Administrative Tribunal, Bihar at the initiative of Shri 18/185, 18/186, Ahmedabad, V.S.Dubey, then Secretary, Finance of 18/187, 26/102 & Gujarat. --49– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

the Govt. of Bihar. 26/103, 18/188, During 1995-96 Dhruv Bhagat was the 18/189, 18/190, Chairman of PAC and Shri Beck Julius 18/191 & 18/192, was the secretary of AHD. ( D, D/1, D/2, D/3 Enquiry conducted by the witness in with objection), E, January 1996 for withdrawals made in D/4, D/5 to D/10, excess of allocated budget in AHD. D/11 to D/14, D/15, During the meeting with Chief F, D/16, D/17, D/18 Minister of Lalu Prasad on 31.01.1996 the witness alongwith others of Finance Department were present for proposal to register FIR on information relating to withdrawals without allocated budget by AHD. P.W.180 S.P.Keshaw, Process for preparation and approval of 60/18 to 60/32, Departmental budget of the Govt. Department. Commissioner of Enquiry, Role and responsibility of Finance Govt. of Bihar. Minister in preparation of budget. Non Plan Budget of 2403 and file on vote on account for the financial year 1994-95. Cash Regulation File

P.W.181 Umesh Kumar Information on veterinary medicines of 18/29 Sinha, Manager, M/s Karnatka Antibiotics shown Marketing, Karnatka supplied to R.D, AHD, Dumka. Antibiotics, Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Bangalore P.W.182 Ramesh Prasad Reports of RBI on available balance 60/33, 60/34 & Singh, Asst. sent to the Accountant General and also 60/35 Budget Officer, Finance to the Finance Department of Bihar. In Department, case of over draft the amount is Govt. of Bihar adjusted within a weeks time. P.W.183 Arun Kumar Proved print outs containing STD call 95 to 95/6, 96, 96/1, Sinha, Chief details of Land Line Number 501500 97, 98, 99 to 99/9, Accounts Officer, BSNL, of Ranchi, Land Line Number 307832 66/10 & 66/11. Hazaribagh of Md. Sayeed of Ranchi and also of the other numbers of accused --50– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

S.B.Sinha, Dayanand Prasad Kashyap for the period of occurrence. P.W.184 Dr. Ram Raje Information on veterinary medicines 18/30, 18/31 Bijay Singh manufactured distributed on shown Patil, Assistant Manager, supplied to RD, AHD, Dumka during Wockhardt the period of occurrence. Veterinary Ltd., Mumbai P.W.185 Amitav, Addl. Statement of J.P.Verma and his son 100 & 100/1 Director, Rajesh Verma recorded under Income Financial Intelligence Tax Act. Unit, Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India P.W.186 Manoj Kumar Information on veterinary medicines 18/32 Ray, Manager, manufactured distributed on shown Marketing Service of M/s supplied to RD, AHD, Dumka during Glaxo India the period of occurrence. Company, Mumbai P.W.187 Arvind Kumar Budget File of Finance Department 60/36 Chugh, Member with objection that Department has of Revenue Board of furnished no reason for increase, Jharkhand therefore no consideration can be given. P.W.188 Pravir Kumar. Budget Estimate File of AHD for the 60/37 Basu, Upper year 1990-91. Secretary to Department of Agriculture, Govt. of India

P.W. 189 Sandeep Vohra, Dr. R.K.Rana stayed in Hotel Hayat 102, 101/a, 102/a & Employee of Regency, Delhi on 5th and 6th June of 102/b, 103, 103/a & Hotel Hayat Regency, New 1992 in Room No. 376. 103/b, Delhi Room No. 508 and 517 booked by Dipesh Chandak from 11.01.93 to 14.01.93. Dr. R.K.Rana and family stayed in the hotel from 23.11.95 to 27.11.95. P.W.190 Vijay Yadav, Information of batch number of 18/33 Factory veterinary medicines of this company Manager of Brihans shown supplied to AHD, Dumka --51– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

Laboratory, during the period of alleged Pune. occurrence. P.W.191 Rajendra Vijay, Information on details of vehicle 18/34 DTO, Ajmer registered with DTO, Ajmer shown engaged in transportation of feed of AHD, Dumka. P.W.192 Ram Jeevan Note on Letter of Deputy Accountant 60/38 Singh, Minister General dated 05.04.90 addressed to AHD, Bihar Shri M.C.Subarno, Regional Development Commissioner, Ranchi with a copy to Secretary, AHD, Patna regarding irregularity of payment of transport bills. Letter of Shri Ashok Chaudhary to Shri K.N.Jha, Regional Director, AHD, Ranchi seeking report on said letter of DAG and reply that the transport numbers of trucks on the transportation bills of M/s Satyendra Construction has been inadvertently mentioned on the bills as the numbers are not of trucks. Report of Dr. Ram Raj Ram, Director confirming distribution of cattle as true during field investigation conducted by him personally. K.Arumugam, Secretary, AHD also endorsed the verification report of Director. The witness as Minister gave a detailed note on 18.08.1990 to Lalu Prasad, Chief Minister for investigation into the allegation by CBI. Chief Minister did not discuss and Department of the Minister was changed. P.W.193 Chandra Information on allotment to RD, AHD, 18/35, 18/36, Kishore Mishra, Dumka during 1995-96 for purchase of Director, AHD, --52– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

Patna veterinary medicines and instruments. P.W.194 Ram Karan Jat, Information on details of vehicle 18/37, DTO, Bundi, registered with DTO, Ajmer shown Rajasthan engaged in transportation of feed of AHD, Dumka. P.W.195 Sohan Lal The truck was not engaged in Gopal, transportation of AHD in the year Transporter, Truck No. RJ 1995. 14G-3717, Rajasthan P.W.196 Rameshwar Prepared fake allotment and sub 104 Prasad allotment letters as and when asked by Choudhary, Head Assistant Dr. Sesh Muni Ram, RD. The amount of RD, AHD in the allotment letter used to be very Dumka. high. The allotment letters were obtained from Dr. S.B.Sinha. Regional Director also asked him when senior officers are certifying receipt of materials on bills, he should not suspect, he has to process the bills for payment. After transfer of Sesh Muni Ram in June 1994, Dr. O.P.Diwakar also followed the same line. Dr. Diwakar threatened him to transfer as he is close to Dr. R.K.Rana. Dr. Diwakar used to keep the passed bills and allotment letters, stock register in his custody. He had obtained receipt of documents relating to illegal payments of RD, Dumka from Dr. O.P.Diwakar. P.W.197 Kul Prakash Report of Chief Controller of Accounts 1/37, X/3 Srivastava, SO, dated 16.09.96 Food Supply Commerece Department, Govt. of Bihar P.W.198 Ramesh Nanda Information on civil deposit in case Sahay, Under alloted fund being lapsed. Secretary, Bihar State Information Commission, --53– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

Patna P.W.199 Stephen Lucas, Budget files of AHD contains actual 60/39, 60/40, 60/41, retired under expenditure for the year 1991-92, 60/42, 60/43, 60/44, Secretary Finance 1992-93 , 1993-94 and 1994-95 60/45, 60/46, 60/47, Department, mentioned in the files and also files 60/48 Govt. of Bihar disclosing surrender of funds at the close of every financial year during the period of alleged occurrence. P.W.200 Bidhu, Bhushan Based on information published in 18/38 & 18/39, Dewedi, local news paper regarding illegal 18/40 Inspector of Police, State payments made by AHD, Ranchi in the Vigilance name of fake supplies, he submitted Bureau, Patna information to the DG, Vigilance. Then DG, Vigilance expressed his inability to process the information as this witness mentioned the name of Lalu Prasad, Chief Minister as leader of the gang responsible of the illegal withdrawals. Subsequently he submitted another petition all the same information on the basis of which complain file was opened in the Vigilance Department. P.W.201 Chandrabali Proved the report of Nevedan No. 60/50, 60/51 Thakur 1160/85 on Animal Husbandry Member of Nevedan Department as Member. The report Samitee of recommended strict action such as Bihar Legislative enquiry and transfer of the officers of Assembly, Patna south vihar responsible for illegal payments. The file contains signature of Dr. Jagannath Mishra also. P.W.202 Gopalji Proved the report regarding stay of 60/52, 60/53 Srivastava accused politicians in Bihar Bhawan at Section Officer of Bihar New Delhi during the period 1990 to Bhawan at New 1996. Delhi. P.W.203 Shailendra Proved the files containing questions 60/54 to 60/67, Kumar raised in Legislative Assembly Secreteriate Assistant, Patna regarding illegal payments and replies --54– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

sent by the AHD to the Legislative Council. On some occasions replies were not sent also. P.W.204 Hari Narayan The truck was never engaged in Meena transportation of materials for AHD Owner of Truck No. RJ-14G- Bihar. 3512 P.W.205 Bal Krishna Files of surrender of fund at the close X/31, X/32 & X/33 Ram of financial year by AHD to the Under Secretary to the Govt. of Finance Department. Bihar, Finance Department, Patna P.W.206 Alok Verma Seizure of the registers of M/s 1/39, 58/2, 58/3 & Supervisor of Treatment Home Products, Kolkata in 58/4 Cattle Feed Factory of Dr. his presence. Ajit Kumar Verma at Rohtas P.W.207 Bakshi On 15th January 1996 M/s Little Oak Vijyanand Sinha Agro Limited a new company was Relative of Dr. Ajit Kumar launched by Dr. Ajit Verma for export Verma in presence of Dr. S.B.Sinha at Kolkata. P.W.208 Neel Details of production, distribution and 18/41, 18/42 Maheshwaran sale of veterinary medicines of this Manager of M/s Concept company during the period of alleged Pharmaceuticals occurrence. , Thane, Mumbai P.W.209 Prasanjit Proved stay of Dr. R.K.Rana in the 50/25, 50/26, 78/4, Baruwa hotel Taj Bengal. Booking and payment X/34 to X/37, 50/27 Assistant Manager, for the stay was made by Dipesh to 50/32, 78/5 to Finance of Hotel Chandak. 78/12,78/13 to Hayat Regency Kolkata. 78/24, 78/25 & 78/26. P.W.210 Ram Swarath Questions on illegal payments made by 18/43, X/38, 18/44 Prasad Singh, AHD and replies and assurance given to 18/46, , 18/47 & Deputy Secretary of by the Government in the Legislative 18/48, 60/68, 60/69, Bihar Council. 60/70, 18/49 to Legislative Council 18/51 P.W.211 Vivek Kumar Reports received from Reserve Bank of 60/71, 60/72, 60/73 Section Officer India in the Finance Department of Finance --55– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

Department, regarding withdrawals made from the Govt. of Bihar, treasuries every month during the Patna. period of occurrence. P.W.212 Jayant Kumar Issued Air Tickets of Sahara Airlines of Jaiswal Shri Lalu Prasad and his family Proprietor of M/s Rajshree members. Tour & Travels, Patna P.W.213 Phuleshwar Proved the budget files of AHD 2403 60/74 to 60/138, Paswan for the year 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993- 60/139 to 60/144, Budget Officer of Finance 94, 1994-95 and also budget speech of X/39 & X/40, 18/52 Department, Shri Lalu Prasad printed in book form. Patna In the budget speech of the year 1996- 97 mentioned about the fraudulent payments of AHD in the State of Bihar. Also files on receipt of CAG reports in the Finance Department of the Government. P.W.214 Krishna Mohan The Vigilance File BS 23/94 was 60/149, Prasad, received in CM secretariat on Joint Secretary posted in CM 05.07.1994 from the office of Chief Secreteriate, Secretary. The file was not seen by the Patna Chief Minister and sent back on 29.03.1995. The Vigilance File related to complaint of AHD. The file was again received in CM secretariat on 24.05.1995 and was returned on 02.02.1996 with order of Chief Minister Lalu Prasad. P.W.215 P.K.Suju Rooms booked by Dipesh Chandak for 78/27 to 78/39, General stay of co-conspirators in the hotel in 79/13 to 79/15 Manager, Hotel Taj, Kolkata the 1st week of December 1994. P.W.216 Sayed Tanvir Air Tickets purchased through 85/23 to 85/179 Ahmed J.P.Verma for co-conspirators during Proprietor of M/s Patliputra the period of occurrence. Travel, Patna P.W.217 Dipesh Chandak Payments released against non supply Proprietor of of materials were distributed among Badri Narayan & Company, officers making payments and Kolkata --56– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

suppliers receiving payments @ ratio of 80:20. Dr. S.B.Sinha, Dr. O.P.Diwakar, Dr. Ram Raj Ram, Dr. R.K.Rana, Dr. Jagdish Sharma, Lalu Prasad and Dr. Jagannath Mishra received illegal payments from Dr. S.B.Sinha for the protection and patronage given to co- conspirators on several occasions when the matter came to fore and enquiry to the matter was proposed. T.M.Prasad was the fund manager of fraudulent payments at Patna and Vijay Malik was the fund manager at Delhi. Paid for the accommodation of co- conspirators in hotel Taj Bengal, Kolkata when Dr. S.B.Sinha was on his way to Australia for Kidney transplant. P.W.218 Shiv Kumar Sale and purchase of Air Tickets for 106 to 106/08 Manager co-conspirators through J.P.Verma and Patliputra Travels, Patna also by Shri Mahendra Prasad of B.R.Pharma. Also sold Air Tickets of Sahara Airlines through Raj Shree Tour & Travels. P.W.219 S.R. Mazumdar Conducted part investigation, seized 1/40, 1/43 DSP, CBI, documents and examined witnesses. Kolkata P.W.220 Devanand Sinha Correspondence of Shri Beck Julius, 60/150 Assistant Posted Secretary with AG, Bihar on fraudulent in the AHD Directorate payments Patna P.W.221 Tilak Raj Gouri, Seizure of files of 5 year plan of the 1/44, 107 to 107/2 Under Secretary Government of Bihar. The file of Finance Department of mentioned actual expenditures of AHD Government of as under:- Bihar Financial Amount Year Spent (In Rupees) 1985-86 22.48 Crores --57– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

1986-87 25.16 Crores 1987-88 28.10 Crores 1988-89 32.04 Crores 1989-90 44.01 Crores 1991-92 117.60 Crores 1992-93 141.54 Crores 1993-94 188.01 Crores 1994-95 237.85 Crores

P.W.222 Anil Kumar Conducted part investigation with 1/45, 1/46, Inspector CBI, regard to bank accounts of M/s Seemex Dhanbad Cryogenics, Delhi and fraudulent payments encashed in the said account P.W.223 Sudhir Prasad Proved the files of Divisional X/41, 18/53, 60/151 Additional Chief Commissioner, Ranchi regarding & 60/152 Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, correspondence on IT raids on Ranchi premises of suppliers and officers of AHD in the year 1993 P.W.224 Tarkeshwar Misleading dispatch numbers posted in 60/153 to 60/158, Nath fake allotment letters and files on 108 to 108/77, Section Officer, AHD, Ranchi surrender of funds and correspondence 108/78 to 108/81, with Finance Department and AG 18/54 & 18/55, Bihar. 60/159 to 60/180, P.W.225 Chandra Correspondence of PAC with 109, 110 to 110/4, Prakash Sahay Directorate AHD for allotment files 60/181 to 60/185, Deputy Secretary, and expenditure reports of AHD 70/4 to 70/13 Govt. of Bihar, received from various offices. Records Patna were shown received by PAC but the same were allowed to be retained in the Directorate. Budget files of AHD disclosing allotment orders dispatched to the office of DAHO and RD of AHD in the state since 1991-92 to 1995-96 P.W.126 R.N.Tiwari Statement of Phool Jha, Administrative 44/4 Judicial Officer of PAC recorded under section Magistrate, Dhanbad 164 Cr.P.C on 28.01.1997. P.W.227 Tapas Statement of J.P.Verma, Traffic 44/5 Mukherjee Superintendent of Indian Airlines Judicial Magistrate, recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C on Kolkata 20.05.2003. P.W.228 Surendra Nath Report sent by Govt. of Bihar to 10th Bhatnagar --58– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

Deputy Director, Finance Commission disclosing Finance fraudulent expenses as actual Department, Govt. of India expenditure of AHD in the year 1994. P.W.229 Sandeep Garg Sanction for prosecution of 27/7 Additional A.C.Chaudhary, Commissioner Income Director, Income Tax, Tax, Ranchi. Delhi P.W.230 Umesh Kumar Conducted part investigation at Girls Inspector, CBI, College, Ajmer regarding payment of Sepcial Crime Branch, Kolkata school fees for the daughter of Shri Lalu Prasad. P.W.231 Roop Singh The truck did not transport any Owner of Truck consignment of AHD during the year No. RJ-14G- 3097 1995 P.W.232 Dhirendra Nath Withdrawal of Rupees 31341451/- 1/47, 1/48, 1/49, Biswas against actual allotment of Rs. 1/50, 1/51, 1/52, Dy SP, CBI, Kolkata and 150000/- during December 1995 and 1/53, 1/54, 1/55, Investigating January 1996. 1/56, 1/57, 1/58, officer of the case No scheme for free distribution of feed 1/59, 1/60, 1/61, in Santhal Paragana Range of Animal 1/62, 1/63, 1/64, Husbandry. 1/65, 1/66, 1/67, Seizure of documents, Requisitions 1/68, 1/69, 1/70, issued to various authority during 1/71, 1/72, 1/73, investigation. 174, 1/75, 1/76, 1/77, 1/78, 1/79, 1/80, 111, 111/1, 18/56, 18/57, 82/1, X/42, X/43, X/44, 82/2, X/45, X/46, 18/58 to 18/143 1/81, 1/82, 1/83, X/47, 112, X/48, X/49, P.W.233 Dr. Shiv Balak Veterinary medicines, instruments and 60/186 to 60/191 Chaudhary fodder were required to be purchased Joint Director, AHD, Patna on the basis of decisions taken by the Central Purchase Committee. Complaint files against Dr. Ram Raj --59– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

Ram, Dr. Krishan Mohan Prasad, Budget File, File on Assembly question and also file on correspondence with AG. P.W.234 Ranjeet Singh Smt. Sarswati Chandra is the proprietor 7/58 Assistant of M/s S.R. Enterprises and credit of Manager, SBI Main Branch, draft for Rs. 499900/- in the account of Patna M/s R.K.Agency, Patna. P.W.235 Dr. Surjeet Resiled from his statement as Singh complainant on the question raised by Advocate, Patna High Court Shri Lalit Oraon, Member Lok Sabha regarding illegal payment made by AHD. P.W.236 Suresh Kumar Purchased two bank drafts out of cash 7/59 to 7/62, 7/63 to Jain of Purlia payments made by Rakesh Mehra in 7/66 Road, Ranchi the name of Naresh Kumar Jain.

P.W/237 Layak Singh Conduted part investigation at the Inspector, CBI, premises of veterinary medicine Dhanbad since retired. manufacturing companies to verify the batch numbers, supply orders and payments, if any, made. P.W.238 Nawal Kishore Letter sent to SP, CBI, Patna regarding X/50 Prasad questions raised in the council on AHD Secretary of Bihar matters. Legislative Council, Patna P.W.239 Hiralal Ram Accused Braj Bhushan Prasad, Budget Routine Clerk of Officer, used to obtain dispatch number AHD, Patna of Directorate. P.W.240 Arbind Kumar Proved letters sent to the Govt. of 1/84, 60/186 to Mehta Bihar for treasury accounts in the 60/188 Senior Personnel office of Accountant General, Ranchi Assistant to the

Principal Accountant General, Ranchi P.W.241 Shiv Kumar No feed was received from the office Singh of RD, AHD, Dumka or dispatch feed Accountant of the office of to Dumka from Chaibasa. DAHO, --60– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

Chaibasa P.W.242 V.G.S. Proved opinion on signatures of 113, 113/1, 113/2, Bhatnagar accused Dhurv Bhagat with reference 113/2 Govt. Examiner of Questioned to specimen signatures sent to GEQD, documents, Kolkata for examination and opinion. Kolkata

P.W.243 Ravi Shankar Identified his notes for extension in A Kumar Sinha service after retirement of Dr. Section Officer of AHD, S.B.Sinha, Regional Joint Director on Secreteriat, the recommendation of Dr. Jagannath Patna Mishra and endorsement made by the Chief Minister of the said letter. Also identified the order passed by accused Lalu Prasad for grant of extension in service for one year. P.W.244 Surya Kant Identified his writings on the school X/14, X/15, X/16 Prasad Suraj admission forms of Ragini, Rohani, Employee of Md. Sayeed Acharya and Chanda all daughters of proprietor of accused Lalu Prasad in Bishop M/s Jilan Roadways, Westscot Girls School, Ranchi. Ranchi P.W.245 Ajay Kumar Jha Scrutiny report of bills for the alleged 114, 114/1, 114/2, Additional SP, transactions prepared by Shri 114/3, 114/4, X/51 CBI, EOW, Ranchi D.N.Biswas, IO of the case.

12. That during trial prosecution submitted the following documents which were admitted as exhibits. The details follows as under:- Sl. No. Exhibit Nos. Descriptions

01. Exhibit. 1 :- Seizure memo dated 13.05.1996 (Two pages) 02. Exhibit 1/1 :- Seizure Memo dated 10.06.1996. 03. Exhibit. 1 /2 :- Seizure memo dated 24.04.1996 04. Exhibit :- 1/3 :- Seizure Memo dated 28.06.1996. 05 Exhibit. 1 /4 :-Seizure Memo dated 26.06.1996 06. Exhibit. 1/5 :- Seizure Memo dated 07.06.1996. 07. Exhibit. 1/6 :- Seizure Memo dated 07.06.1996. 08. Exhibit. 1/7 :- Seizure memo (4 pages). 09. Exhibit. 1/8 :- Seizure memo dated 09.06.1996. --61– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

10. Exhibit. 1/9 :- Seizure memo dated 08.06.1996. 11. Exhibit. 1/10 :- Seizure memo dated 12.05.1997. 12. Exhibit. 1/11 :- Seizure Memo dated 31.05.1996. 13. Exhibit. 1/12 :- Seizure memo dated 26.04.1996. 14. Exhibit. 1/13 :- Seizure memo dated 22.04.1996 (carbon copy). 15. Exhibit. 1/14 :- Seizure memo dated 17.09.1996. 16. Exhibit. 1/15 :- Seizure memo dated 07.11.1996. 17. Exhibit. 1/16 :- Seizure memo dated 6.06.1996. 18. Exhibit. 1/17 and 1/18 :- Seizure memo. 19. Exhibit. 1/19 :- Seizure memo dated 17.09.1996. 20. Exhibit. 1/20 :- Seizure memo. 21. Exhibit.1/21 :- Seizure memo dated 14.11.1996. 22. Exhibit. 1/22 :- Seizure memo dated 08.11.1996. 23. Exhibit.1/23 :- Seizure Memo dated 28.09.1996 in 05 pages. 24. Exhibit. 1/24 :- Seizure Memo dated 06.11.1996 in 7 pages. 25. Exhibit. 1/25 :- Seizure memo dated 25.12.1996. 26. Exhibit. 1/26 :- Seizure Memo dated 16.04.1996 in 06 pages. 27. Exhibit. 1/27 :- Seizure Memo dated 21.04.1996. 28. Exhibit. 1/28 :- Seizure Memo dated 13.02.1997. 29. Exhibit. 1/29 :- Seizure memo. 30. Exhibit. 1/30 to 1/31 :- Seizure Memos dated 23.04.1996 and 25.04.1996. 31. Exhibit. 1/32 :- Seizure memo dated 13.05.1997. 32. Exhibit.1/33 :- Seizure memo dated 26.07.1999. 33. Exhibit. 1/34 :- Seizure memo dated 07.05.1997 with Zimanama. 34. Exhibit.1/35 :- Seizure memo dated 06.01.1997. 35. Exhibit. 1/36 :- Seizure memo dated 07.10.1996. 36. Exhibit. 1/37 :- Seizure list. 37. Exhibit 1/38 :- Carbon copy of seizure list dated 29.12.1996. 38. Exhibit. 1/39 :- Seizure memo dated 07.10.1996. 39. Exhibit. 1/40 to 1/43 :- Seizure memo (certified copy of Ext. 3/179 to 3/182 of R.C. 20(A)/96. 40. Exhibit. 1/44 :- Certified copy of Seizure list of R.C. 20(A)/96 (Ext.3/105). 41. Exhibit. 1/45 :- Seizure memo dated 25.04.97. 42. Exhibit. 1/46 :- Seizure memo dated 02.05.1997 (04 sheet). 43. Exhibit. 1/47 :- Seizure list dated 07.06.1996. 44. Exhibit. 1/48 :- Seizure list dated 07.06.1996. --62– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

45. Exhibit. 1/49 :- Seizure list dated 28.09.1996. 46. Exhibit. 1/50 :- Seizure memo dated 26.06.1996. 47. Exhibit. 1/51 :- Seizure memo dated 06.01.1997. 48. Exhibit. 1/52 :- Seizure memo dated 06.12.1996. 49. Exhibit. 1/53 :- Seizure memo dated 22.04.1996. (02 pages). 50. Exhibit.1/54 :- Seizure memo dated 10.06.1996. 51. Exhibit. 1/55 :- Seizure memo dated 14.10.1996 52. Exhibit. 1/56 :- Seizure memo dated 19.061996. 53. Exhibit. 1/57 :- Seizure memo dated 13.11.1996. 54. Exhibit. 1/58 :- Seizure memo dated 17.04.1997. 55. Exhibit.1/59 :- Seizure memo dated 24.11.1997 56. Exhibit.1/60 :- Seizure memo dated 25.11.1997. 57. Exhibit.1/61 :- Seizure memo dated 03.07.1997. 58. Exhibit.1/62 :- Seizure memo dated 05.05.1997. 59. Exhibit.1/63 :- Seizure memo dated 06.01.1997. 60. Exhibit.1/64 :- Seizure memo dated 06.01.1997. 61. Exhibit.1/65 :- Seizure memo dated 16.11.1996. 62. Exhibit.1/66 :- Seizure memo dated 15.10.1996. 63. Exhibit.1/67 :- Seizure memo dated 21.11.1997. (02 sheet). 64. Exhibit. 1/68 :- Seizure memo dated 10.09.1996. 65. Exhibit. 1/69 :- Seizure memo dated 30.09.1996. 66. Exhibit. 1/70 :- Seizure memo dated 17.09.1996. 67. Exhibit.1/71 :- Seizure memo dated 12.09.1996. 68. Exhibit.1/72 :- Seizure memo dated 10.01.1997 in 03 pages. 69. Exhibit.1/73 :- Seizure memo dated 23.12.1996. 70. Exhibit.1/74 :- Seizure memo dated 21.04.1996. 71. Exhibit.1/75 :- Seizure memo dated 23.11.1997. 72. Exhibit.1/76 :- Seizure memo dated 22.01.1997. 73. Exhibit.1/77 :- Seizure memo dated 15.05.1996. 74. Exhibit.1/78 :- Seizure memo dated 30.09.1996. 75. Exhibit.1/79 :- Seizure memo dated 07.10.1996 (carbon copy). 76. Exhibit.1/80 :- Receipt Memo dated 14.05.1996. 77. Exhibit. 1/81 :- Carbon copy of Seizure memo dated 23.04.1996. 78. Exhibit.1/82 :- Carbon copy of Seizure memo dated 25.04.1996. 79. Exhibit.1/83 :- Carbon copy of Seizure memo dated 16.04.1996. 80. Exhibit. 1/84 :- Seizure memo. 81. Exhibit.2 :- Account opening form cum specimen signature of current --63– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

account no. 376 of S.B.I Pakur Bazar Branch. 82. Exhibit. 2/1 :- Account Opening Form of account No. 40519 dated 11.11.1995. 83. Exhibit. 2/2 :- Account Opening Form of Account No. 2552 dated 10.10.1995. 84. Exhibit. 2/3 :- Account Opening form of Account No. SIB 0 39 dated 21.12.1995. 85. Exhibit. 2/4 :- Account Opening Form of Account No. 9B/45. 86. Exhibit. 2/5 :- Account Opening form of Account No. 1640 dated 24.06.1993. 87. Exhibit. 2/6 :- Account Opening form dated 12.11.1992. 88. Exhibit. 2/7 :- Account Opening Form of M/s. Mukesh Pharma, Patna. 89. Exhibit.3 :- Original ledger of A/c No. 376 in two sheets. 90. Exhibit 3/1 :- Original ledger of Account No. 40519 in two sheets. 91. Exhibit. 3/2 :- Original ledger of Account No. 2552 in one sheet only. 92. Exhibit.3/3 :- Original ledger of Account No. SIB – 39 in two sheets . 93. Exhibit. 3 /4 :- Original ledger of Account No. 9B/45. 94. Exhibit. 3/5 :- Original ledge of current Account no. 34. 95. Exhibit. 4 :- Request letter of Rajendra Kumar Bagria for closing A/c No. 376. 96. Exhibit. 5 :- Balance confirmation cum closer certificate of A/c No. 376. 97. Exhibit. 6 : - Debit voucher of S.B.I dated 26.02.1996. 98. Exhibit 7 to 7/13 :- Demand Draft (14). 99. Exhibit. 7/14 to 7/27 :- Demand Draft (14). 100. Exhibit. 7/28 to 7/33 :- Demand Drafts (6). 101. Exhibit. 7/34 to 7/35 :- Demand Draft (2). 102. Exhibit. 7/36 to 7/39 :- Demand Draft (4). 103. Exhibit. 7/40 :- Demand Draft dated 16.03.1996. 104. Exhibit. 7/41 to 7/44 :- Bank Draft (4) of M/s. Mukesh Enterprises, Patna. 105. Exhibit. 7/45 to 7/49 :- Bank Drafts of M/s. R.K. Agency, Patna. 106. Exhibit. 7/50 to 7/53 :- Bank Draft of M/s. S.R Enterprises, Patna. 107. Exhibit. 7/54 to 7/57 :- Bank Draft of M/s. B.R. Pharma, Patna. 108. Exhibit. 7/58 :- Demand Draft dated 26.12.1995. 109. Exhibit. 7/59 to 7/62 :- Bank Draft Application. --64– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

110. Exhibit. 7/63 to 7/66 :- Bank Draft. 111. Exhibit. 8 :- Current Account pay in slip dated 09.11.1995. 112. Exhibit. 8/1 to 8/10 :- Pay in slip (10). 113. Exhibit 8/11 to 8/19 :- Pay in Slip (9). 114. Exhibit. 8/20 :- Pay in Slip (1). 115. Exhibit. 8/21 to 8/23 :- Pay in Slip (3) dated 17.10.1995, 27.10.1995 & 31.01.1996. 116. Exhibit 8/24 to 8/29 :- Pay in Slip (6). 117. Exhibit. 8/30 :- Pay in Slip dated 18.01.1996 (1). 118. Exhibit.8/31 :- Pay in Slip dated 31.01.1996. 119. Exhibit. 8/32 to 8/34 :- Pay in Slip (3). 120. Exhibit. 8/35 to 8/38 :- Pay in Slip dated 08.04.96, 08.12.95, 21.03.96 and 27.03.1996 (4). 121. Exhibit. 8/39 to 8/40 :- Pay-in-slip of M/s. Mukesh Pharma, Patna 122. Exhibit.8/41 to 8/42 :- Pay-in-slip of M/s. R.K. Agency, Patna. 123. Exhibit. 8/43 to 8/45 :- Pay-in-slip of M/s. S.R. Enterprises, Patna. 124. Exhibit. 8/46 to 8/47 :- Pay-in-slip of M/s. B.R. Pharma, Patna. 125. Exhibit. 8/48 :- Pay-in-slip dated 15.03.1996. 126. Exhibit. 9 to 9/18 :- Cheque (19). 127. Exhibit. 9/19 to 9/37 :- Cheques (19). 128. Exhibit. 9/38 to 9/41 :- Cheques (4). 129. Exhibit. 9/42 to 9/44 :- Cheques (3). 130. Exhibit. 9/45 to 9/75 :- Cheques (31) current A/c. No. 34. 131. Exhibit. 9/76 to 9/80 :- 05 Cheques. 132. Exhibit. 9/77 :- One Cheque dated 16.10.1995. 133. Exhibit. 10 to 10/26 :- Draft Application Form ( 27). 134. Exhibit. 10/27 :- Draft Application Form. 135. Exhibit. 10/28 :- Draft Application form dated 16.03.1996. 136. Exhibit. 10/29 to 10/113 :- 85 Bank Draft Application. 137. Exhibit. 11 to 11/2 :- Signature of Smt. Benu Jha on Ext.2/1. 138. Exhibit. 11/3 :- Signature of Smt. Benu Jha on Ext. 3/1. 139. Exhibits. 11/3 to 11/34 Signature 140. Exhibit. 12 :- Request letter dated 28.02.1996. 141. Exhibit. 13 :- Draft dated 05.02.1996. 142. Exhibit. 14 :- Application dated 21.12.1995. 143. Exhibit. 15 :- Statement of Account. 144. Exhibit. 15/1 :- Statement of Account. --65– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

145. Exhibit. 15/2 :- Statement of Account (ledger). 146. Exhibit. 16 :- Entire Register. 147. Exhibit. 17 :- Cash memo. 148. Exhibit. 18 :- Letter dated 16.05.1996, Dumka (DTO) -05 pages. 149. Exhibit. 18/1 :- Letter dated 27.06.1996 in writing of Chitranjan Prasad. 150. Exhibit. 18/2 :- Letter No. 270 dated 14.08.1996. 151. Exhibit. 18/3 :- Letter Memo no. 2801 dated 14.09.1996. 152. Exhibit. 18/4 :- Letter dated 10.06.1996. 153 Exhibit. 18/5 :- Letter dated 13.06.1996. 154. Exhibit. 18/6 :- Letter dated 09.09.1996 in two sets. 155. Exhibit. 18/7 :- Letter dated 09.09.1996. 156. Exhibit. 18/8 :- Letter dated 27.09.1996. 157. Exhibit. 18/9 :- letter dated 18.10.1996. 158. Exhibit.18/10 :- Letter dated 29.08.1996 in 3 pages. 159. Exhibit. 18/11 :- Letter dated 13.05.1997 with 13 enclosures. 160. Exhibit. 18/12 :- Letter dated 12.05.1997. 161. Exhibit. 18/13 :- Letter dated 29.12.1997. 162. Exhibit. 18/14 :- Letter dated 13.12.1995 with two page enclosure. 163. Exhibit. 18/15 :- Letter dated 15.12.1995. 164. Exhibit. 18/16 :- Letter dated 31.01.1996. 165. Exhibit. 18/17 :- Letter dated 17.12.1996. 166. Exhibit. 18/18 :- Letter dated 14.07.1998 with enclosure 07 pages. 167. Exhibit. 18/19 :- Letter dated 12.07.1997 total page 16 pages. 168. Exhibit. 18/20 :- Letter with enclosures 23 pages. 169. Exhibit. 18/21 :- Letter dated 26.11.1998. 170. Exhibit. 18/22 :- Letter dated 20.12.1996 one sheet. 171. Exhibit. 18/23 :- Letter in 11 Sheet. 172. Exhibit. 18/24 : - Letter dated 30.01.1996. 173. Exhibit. 18/25 :- Letter dated 19.09.1996 (1) Sheets. 174. Exhibit. 18/26 :- Letter No. 102/FC (1) Sheet. 175. Exhibit. 18/27 :- Letter dated 01.02.1996 (01 Sheet). 176. Exhibit. 18/28 :- Letter dated 01.02.1996 (01 Sheet). 177. Exhibit. 18/29 :- Letter dated 13.02.1997 One sheet. 178. Exhibit. 18/30 :- Letter dated 03.12.1996 along with annexure. 179. Exhibit. 18/31 :- Letter dated 26.09.1996. 180. Exhibit. 18/32 :- Letter dated 23.09.1996 (01 sheet ). --66– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

181. Exhibit. 18/33 :- Letter dated 15.02.1997. 182. Exhibit. 18/34 :- Letter dated 03.07.1996 (03 sheets) 183. Exhibit 18/35 :- Letter No. 1794 dated 21.03.1997 (03 sheets) 184. Exhibit. 18/36 :- Letter No. 167 dated 17.02.1997 (04 Sheets) 185. Exhibit. 18/37 :- Letter dated 05.07.1996. 186. Exhibit. 18/38 :- Certified copy of Informatve Petition (letter) 187. Exhibit. 18/39 :- Certified copy of letter dated 10.03.1993. 188. Exhibit. 18/40 :- Carbon copy of letter dated 24.05.1992. 189. Exhibit. 18/41 & 18/42 :- Two letters. 190. Exhibit. 18/43 :- Certified copy of letter of Ext. 18/269. 191. Exhibit. 18/44 to 18/46 :- Certified copy of letter of Ext. 18/270 to 18/272. 192. Exhibit.18/47 and 18/48 :- Certified copy of letter of Ext. 18/273 & 18/274. 192. Exhibit. 18/49 to 18/54 :- Certified copies of letter of Ext. 18/275 to 18/277. 193. Exhibit. 18/52 :- Certified copy Ext. 18/301 of R.C. 20(A)/96. 194. Exhibit. 18/53 :- Certified copy of letter dated 17.03.1997 of R.C. 20(A)/96 (18/286). 195. Exhibit. 18/54 & 18/55 :- Certified copy of Ext. 18/159 to 18/160 of R.C. 20(A)/96 (Letter ). 196. Exhibit. 18/56 :- Letter dated 13.05.1996. 197. Exhibit. 18/57 :- Letter (Fax) dated 27.09.1996 (03 pages). 198. Exhibit.18/58 :- Letter dated 23.04.1996. 199. Exhibit. 18/59 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 06.05.1996 200. Exhibit. 18/60 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 06.05.1996 201. Exhibit. 18/61:- Carbon copy of Letter dated 06.05.1996 202. Exhibit. 18/62 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 06.05.1996 203. Exhibit. 18/63 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 06.05.1996 204 Exhibit. 18/64 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 06.05.1996 205. Exhibit. 18/65 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 06.05.1996 ( 02 sheets). 206. Exhibit. 18/66 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 06.05.1996 207. Exhibit. 18/67 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 06.05.1996 (02 sheets). 208. Exhibit. 18/68 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 10.02.1997 (02 sheets). 209. Exhibit. 18/69 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 04.06.1996 210. Exhibit. 18/70 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 10.02.1997 211. Exhibit. 18/71 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 25.06.1996 --67– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

212. Exhibit. 18/72 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 06.05.1996 213. Exhibit. 18/73 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 06.05.1996 214. Exhibit. 18/74 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 06.05.1996 ( 02 sheets ) 215. Exhibit. 18/75 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 06.05.1996 216. Exhibit. 18/76 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 23.04.1997 217. Exhibit. 18/77 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 14.08.1996 (02 sheets). 218. Exhibit. 18/78 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 23.04.1997 219. Exhibit. 18/79 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 23.04.1997 220. Exhibit. 18/80 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 20.07.1999 221. Exhibit. 18/81 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 20.07.1999 222. Exhibit. 18/82 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 10.09.1996 223. Exhibit. 18/83 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 02.12.1996 224. Exhibit. 18/84 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 14.11.1996 ( 02 sheets). 225. Exhibit. 18/85 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 14.11.1996 226. Exhibit. 18/86 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 14.08.1996 227. Exhibit. 18/87 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 14.08.1996 228. Exhibit. 18/88 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 10.02.1997 229. Exhibit. 18/89 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 10.02.1997 230. Exhibit. 18/90 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 11.05.1996 231. Exhibit. 18/91 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 30.09.1996 232. Exhibit. 18/92 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 14.08.1996 233. Exhibit. 18/93 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 14.05.1997 234. Exhibit. 18/94 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 17.04.1996 (03 sheets). 235. Exhibit. 18/95 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 17.09.1996 236. Exhibit. 18/96 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 30.09.1996 237. Exhibit. 18/97 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 03.05.1997 238. Exhibit. 18/98 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 16.04.1996 239. Exhibit. 18/99 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 16.04.1996 240. Exhibit. 18/100 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 07.06.1996 241. Exhibit. 18/101 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 07.06.1996 242. Exhibit. 18/102 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 10.06.1996 243. Exhibit. 18/103 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 15.11.1996 244. Exhibit. 18/104 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 24.12.1996 245. Exhibit. 18/105 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 03.12.1996 246. Exhibit. 18/106 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 03.12.1996 247. Exhibit. 18/107 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 01.10.1996 248. Exhibit. 18/108 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 17.09.1996 --68– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

249. Exhibit. 18/109 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 17.09.1996 250. Exhibit. 18/110 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 17.09.1996 251. Exhibit. 18/111 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 17.04.1996 252. Exhibit. 18/112 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 14.08.1996 253. Exhibit. 18/113 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 14.08.1996 254. Exhibit. 18/114 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 10.09.1996 255. Exhibit. 18/115 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 04.10.1996 256. Exhibit. 18/116 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 14.10.1996 257. Exhibit. 18/117 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 14.10.1996 258. Exhibit. 18/118 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 08.05.1997 259. Exhibit. 18/119 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 08.05.1997 260. Exhibit. 18/120 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 14.05.1997 261. Exhibit. 18/121 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 14.05.1997 262. Exhibit. 18/122 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 06.02.1997 263. Exhibit. 18/123 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 07.02.1997 ( 02 sheets). 264. Exhibit. 18/124 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 06.05.1996 (04 sheets). 265. Exhibit. 18/125 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 06.01.1997 266. Exhibit. 18/126 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 23.04.1997 267. Exhibit. 18/127 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 06.01.1997 268. Exhibit. 18/128 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 24.10.1997 269. Exhibit. 18/129 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 02.12.1996 270. Exhibit. 18/130 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 06.05.1996 271. Exhibit. 18/131 :- Carbon copy of Letter dated 10.02.1997 272. Exhibit. 18/132 :- Letter No. 8662 dated 27.08.1996. 273. Exhibit.18/133 :- Letter PT/ARD 274. Exhibit.18/134 :- Letter dated 17.12.1996 (05 sheets). 275. Exhibit.18/135 :- Letter dated 18.04.1996 (03 sheets) 276. Exhibit.18/136 :- Letter dated23.11.1996 along with enclosure 33 sheets. 277. Exhibit.18/137 :- Letter dated 13.11.1996 along with enclosure in 6 sheets. 278. Exhibit. 18/138 :- Letter dated 03.04.1997 along with enclosure in 03 sheets. 279. Exhibit.18/139 :- Letter dated 16.11.1996 along with enclusure in 2 sheets. --69– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

280. Exhibit.18/140 to 18/143 :- Four letters related to Bank respectively 281. Exhibit. 19 to 19/4 :- Letter dated 05.10.1996, 21.02.1997, 24.07.1996, 25.04.1997 and 30.04.1997 related by medicine. 281. Exhibit.20 :- Log Book. 282. Exhibit. 21 to 21/2 :- Signature on entries of Log Book dated 22.10.1995 to 24.10.1995. 283. Exhibit. 21/3 to 21/10 :- Signature of witnesses in statement given before income tax authority. 284. Exhibit. 22 to 22/6 :- Seven Register Dhanbad, some Register are torn condition detail mention in order sheet dated 21.11.1995. 285. Exhibit. 23 :- Memo No. 830 dated 05.07.1994 286. Exhibit. 23/1 :- Specimen signature memo no. 308 (M dated 31.08.1995. 287. Exhibit. 24 :- Treasury Messenger book dated 23.07.1986 to 02.01.1990 288. Exhibit. 25 to 25/4 :- C.N.C Bill (5), M/s. S.R. Enterprises, Patna. 289. Exhibit. 25/5 to 25/19 :- C.N.C Bills (15), M/s. Radha Pharmacy. 290. Exhibit. 25/20 to 25/34 :- C.N.C Bills (15), Laxmi Enterprises. 291. Exhibit. 25/35 to 25/45 :- C.N.C Bills of M/s. Transporter Raj Kumar Sharma. 292. Exhibit. 25/46 to 25/59 :- C.N.C Bills of Krishna Road Carrier. 293. Exhibits. 25/60 to 25/63 :- C.N.C Bills (4), M/s. Little Oak. 294. Exhibit. 25/64 to 25/69 :- C.N.C Bills (6), M/s. Vishwakarma Agency. 295. Exhibit. 25/70 to 25/72 :- C.N.C Bills (3) of M.R. Pharma. 296. Exhibits. 25/73 to 25/78 :- C.N.C Bills (6) of Mukesh Enterprises, Patna. 297. Exhibit. 25/79 to 25/84 :- C.N.C Bills (6), M/s. R.K. Agency. 298. Exhibits.25/85 to 25/88 :- C.N.C Bills (4) of Vyapar Kuttir. 299. Exhibit. 25/89 to 25/93 :- C.N.C Bills (5) of Bagat & Co. 300. Exhibit. 25/94 to 25/97 :- C.N.C Bills (4) of Semex Cryogenics. 301. Exhibit. 25/98 to 25/102 :- C.N.C Bills (5). 302. Exhibit. 26 to 26/49 :- Vouchers, M/s. S.R. Enterprises, Patna. 303. Exhibit. 26/50 to 26/90 :- Vouchers (41), Radha Pharmacy. 304. Exhibit. 26/91 to 26/221 :- Vouchers (131), Laxmi Enterprises. --70– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

305. Exhibit. 26/222 to 26/296 :- Vouchers ( 75), Transporters Raj Kumar Sharma. 306. Exhibit. 26/297 to 26/354 :- Vouchers (58) Krishna Road Carrier. 307. Exhibit. 26/355 to 26/394 :- Vouchers ( 40), M/s. Little Oak Pharmaceuticals. 308. Exhibits . 26/395 to 26/454 :- Vouchers ( 60) M/s. Vishwakarama Agency. 309. Exhibit. 26/455 to 26/464 :- Vouchers (10) M/s. Vishwakarma Agency. 310. Exhibits. 26/465 to 26/494 :- Vouchers (30) of M/s. B.R. Pharma. 311. Exhibits. 26/495 to 26/554 :- Vouchers (60) Mukesh Enterprises, Patna. 312. Exhibits. 26/555 to 26/612 :- Vouchers (58) M/s. R.K. Agency. 313. Exhibits. 26/613 to 26/652 :- Vouchers (40) of Vyapar Kuttir. 314. Exhibit. 26/653 to 26/700 :- Vouchers (48) of Bhagat & Co. 315. Exhibit. 26/701 to 26/737 :- Vouchers (37) Semex Cryogenic. 316. Exhibit. 27 :- Sanction order in 16 pages against the accused Lalu Prasad Yadav. 317. Exhibit. 27/1 :- Sanction order in 9 pages (Jagannath Mishra). 318. Exhibit. 27/2 :- Sanction order in 12 pages (Vidya Sagar Nishar, C. Verma and Bhola Ram Tufani). 319. Exhibit. 27/3 :- Sanction order in 15 pages against K. Arumugam, Mahesh Prasad, Beck Julius, Sripati Narayan Dubey, & Phool Chand Singh. 320. Exhibit. 27/4 :- Sanction order in 24 pages against the accused of Braj Bhushan Prasad, Dr. Ram Raj Ram, Dr. O.P Diwakar, R.K. Das, Dr. Md. Sayeed, Dr. Md. Wassimuddin, Dr. Manoranjan Prasad, Dr. Nand Kishore Prasad, Dr. Raghunandan Prasad, Dr. Bimal Kant Das, Radha Mohan Mandal, Dr. Pitember Jha, Dr. Krishna Kumar Prasad, Dr. Sateyndra Singh, Rameshwar Praad Choudhary, Chhatu Prasad and Sardendu Kumar Das. 321. Exhibit. 27/5 :- Sanction order in seven pages against the accused M.C. Subarno. 322. Exhibit. 27/6 Sanction order in 11 pages against the accused Jagdish Sharma and Dhruv Bhagat. --71– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

323. Exhibit. 27/7 :- Sanction order. 324. Exhibit. 28 :- Annual Return of Sale Tax of M/s. S.R. Enterprises. 325. Exhibit. 29 :- Note sheet of Sale Tax from 02.03.1996 to 13.05.1996. 326. Exhibit. 30 to 30/2 :- Quarterly Return of Sale Tax of M/s. R.K. Agency. 327. Exhibit. 30/3 to 30/5 :- Quarterly Return of M/s. B.R Pharma. 328. Exhibit. 31 :- Carbon copy of Account Opening Form of M/s. S.R. Enterprises, Patna. 329. Exhibit. 32 :- C.M Office Register. 329. Exhibit. 32/1 :- Entry Register S.N. 24 & 25. 330. Exhibit. 33 :- Production and Manufacturing Register of Little Oak Pharmaceuticals. 331. Exhibit. 34 :- Inspection report dated 01.02.1996 in 3 pages of M/s. Radha Pharmacy. 332. Exhibit. 35 to 35/2 :- Case Book and ledger Register during the period 94- 95 & 2 (95-96). 333. Exhibit. 35/3 :- Case Book Register during the period of 95 – 96. 334. Exhibit. 35/4 to 35/5 :- 02 cash Book Register during the period 94 – 95, 95 – 96 M/s. Vayapar Kutir. 335. Exhibit. 36 to 36/9 :- 10 Parties by ledger M/s. Radha Pharmacy. 336. Exhibit. 36/10 :- Ledger Book of M/s. Vyapar Kutir 337. Exhibit. 37 to 37/14 :- 15 case memo bill Book of M/s. Radha Pharmacy some Register is torn (carbon copy). 338. Exhibit. 38 to 38/929 :- Miscellaneous documents papers. 339. Exhibit. 39 :- B.S.T Certificate. 340. Exhibits. 40 :- C.S.T Certificate in respect 341. Exhibit. 41 :- C.S.T & B.S.T Returns. 342. Exhibit.42 :- Order sheet of Sale Tax Office, Dumka in respect of M/s. Radha Pharmacy. 343. Exhibit. 43 :- Transport Receipt. 344. Exhibit. 44 :- Statement U/s- 164 of Cr.P.C in R.C. No. 20(A)/1996. 345. Exhibit.44/1 :- Statement U/s- 164 of Cr.P.C. 346. Exhibit. 44/2 :- Statement U/s- 164 of Cr.P.C. 347. Exhibit. 44/3 :- Signature of witness given in U/s- 164 of Cr.P.C. 348. Exhibit.44/4 :- Statement U/s- 164 of Cr.P.C of Fool Jha. 349. Exhibit. 44/5 :- Certified copy of statement of Jai Ram Prasad Verma as Ext. 51/23 of R.C. 20 (A)/96. --72– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

350. Exhibit. 45 :- Sale Register of M/s. Vyapar Kutir. 351. Exhibit. 46 :- Purchase Register of M/s. Vyapar Kutir. 352. Exhibit. 47 :- Customer arrival card. 353. Exhibit. 47/1 :- Customer Arrival Card. 354. Exhibit. 47/2 :- Customer Arrival Card. 355. Exhibit. 47/3 :- Guest Arrival Card. 356. Exhibit. 47/4 :- Guest Arrival Card. 357. Exhibit. 47/5 :- Guest Arrival Card. 358. Exhibit. 48 :- Room Card. 359. Exhibit. 48/1 :- Room Booking Card. 360. Exhibit. 48/2 :- Room Booking Card. 361. Exhibit. 48/3 to 48/4 :- Room Card. 362. Exhibit. 48/5 :- Room Card. 363. Exhibit. 49 :- Hotel Payment receipt. 364. Exhibit. 49/1 :- Carbon copy of Hotel Payment receipt (torn) 365. Exhibit. 49/2 :- Hotel Payment receipt. 366. Exhibit. 50 to 50/2 :- Carbon copy of 3 Hotel Bills. 367. Exhibit. 50/3 to 50/5 :- 03 Carbon copy of Room's Telephone Charges bills. 368. Exhibit. 50/6 to 50/8 :- 03 Carbon Copy of Room and Telephone Charges bills. 369. Exhibit. 50/9 to 50/14 :- Room and Telephone Charges bills. 370. Exhibit. 50/15 to 50/17 :- Room and telephone charges bills. 371. Exhibit. 50/18 to 50/20 :- Telephone charges bills. 372. Exhibit. 50/21 :- Carbon copy of Hotel Payment bill. 373. Exhibit. 50/22 :- Carbon copy of Hotel Payment bill. 374. Exhibit. 50/23 :- Hotel Bill. 375. Exhibit. 50/24 :- Carbon copy of Hotel bill of Hotel Airport. 376. Exhibit. 50/25 & 50/26 :- Previous Ext. of R.C. 20(A)/96 Ext. 22/57 and 22/58. 377. Exhibit. 50/27 to 50/32 : - Ext. 22/60 to 22/65 of R.C 20(A)/96. 378. Exhibit. :- 51 :- Guest Departure Slip. 379. Exhibit. 51/1 :- Guest Departure Slip. 380. Exhibit. 51/2 :- Departure Slip. 381. Exhibit. 51/3 :- Departure Slip. 382. Exhibit. 51/4 :- Guest Departure Slip. 383. Exhibit. 52 to 52/181 :- Booking Registers of M/s. Guide and Travels --73– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

certain pages. 384. Exhibit. 53 to 53/7 :- 08 Bills of M/s. Guide Travels. 385. Exhibits. 54 to 54/51 :- 52 Vouchers of M/s. Guide Travels. 386. Exhibit. 54/52 :- 1 Voucher. 387. Exhibit. 55 to 55/14 :- Cash Book Registers of M/s. Guide Travels certain pages. 388. Exhibit. 56 to 56/6 :- Bill Register of M/s. Guide Travels certain pages. 389. Exhibit. 57 :- Search list dated 29.10.1996 in 5 pages. 390. Exhibit. 58 to 58/1 :- Stock Register of the office of Assistant Director Poultry, Dumka. 391. Exhibit. 58/2 to 58/4 :- Register and attendance Register. 392. Exhibit. 59 :- Signature on Guest Registration Form. 393. Exhibit. 60 :- File 3 P.S (1) 1055/91 394. Exhibit. 60/1 :- File 3 P S (I) 1055/91 & 3 PS (1) 1011/92. 395. Exhibit. 60/2 :- File 3 PS (1) 1011/92. 396. Exhibit. 60/3 :- File R F into 3 PS (I) 1016/95, File 3 P.S (I) 1013/93. 397. Exhibit. 60/4 :- File No. 145/93, File CR6/FM – 226 (PT) 96 – 97. 398. Exhibit. 60/5 :- File 1 F 22. 399. Exhibit. 60/6 :- File 15 P (2) 701/96. 400. Exhibit. 60/7 :- File 15 P (2) 1023/95. 401. Exhibit. 60/8 :- File 15 P (2) 164/96. 402. Exhibit. 60/9 :- File 15 P (2) 102/93. 403. Exhibit. 60/10 :- File 15 P (2) 306/95. 404. Exhibit. 60/11 :- File. 405. Exhibit. 60/12 :- File. 406. Exhibit. 60/13 :- File. 407. Exhibit. 60/14 :- File No. XVI 7/93. 408. Exhibit. 60/15 :- File 10 F 4 (4) 92. 409. Exhibit. 60/16 :- File 410. Exhibit. 60/17 :- File. 411. Exhibit. 60/18 :- Certified copy of File. 412. Exhibit. 60/19 to 60/32 :- 14 Certified copies of File. 413. Exhibit. 60/33 to 60/35 :- 03 File (Certified copies). 414. Exhibit. 60/36 :- Certified copy of file Ext. 38/383 of R.C. 20 (A)/96. 415. Exhibit. 60/37 :- Certified copy of file in Ext. 38/375 of R.C 20 (A) / 1996. --74– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

416. Exhibit. 60/39 to 60/44 :- Six certified copies of files of R.C. 20(A)/96. 417. Exhibit. 60/45 to 60/49 :- Five certified copies of file of R.C. No. 20(A)/1996. 418. Exhibit. 60/50 :- Certified copy of Ext. 89 of R.C. 20(A)/96. 419. Exhibit. 60/51 :- Certified copy of Ext. 38/339 of R.C 20(A)/96. 410. Exhibit.60/52 and 60/53 :- Certified copy of Ext. 18/303 and 18/304 of R.C 20 (A)/1996. 411. Exhibit. 60/54 to 60/67 :- Certified copy of Ext. 38/317 to 38/330 of R.C. 20(A)/96. 412. Exhibit. 60/68 to 60/70 :- Certified copies of file of Ext. 38/305 to 38/307 of R.C 20(A)/96. 413. Exhibit. 60/71 to 60/73 :- Certified copies of file of R.C. 20 (A)/96 in Ext. no. 38/308 to 38/310. 414. Exhibit. 60/74 to 60/138 :- Certified copy of Ext. 38/378 to 38/442 of R.C. 20(A)/96. 415. Exhibit. 60/139 to 60/144 : Certified copies of Ext. 105 to 105/5 of R.C. 20(A)/96. 416. Exhibit. 60/149 :- Certified copy of Ext 38/314 of R.C. No. 20(A)/96 Pate (File). 417. Exhibit. 60/150 :- Certified copy of file i.e. Ext. 38/283 of R.C. 20 (A) /96. 418. Exhibit. 60/151 to 60/152 :- Certified copy of file of R.C 20 (A)/96 i.e. Ext. 38/312 and 38/313. 419. Exhibit. 60/153 to 60/158 :- Certified copy of Ext. 38 to 38/50 of R.C. 20 (A)/96 (File). 420. Exhibit. 60/159 to 60/180 :- Certified copy of Ext. 38/6 to 38/27 of R.C. 20(A)/96 (File). 421. Exhibit. 60/181 to 60/185 :- Certified copy of file I.e Ext. 60/28 to 60/32 of R.C. 20(A)/96. 422. Exhibit. 60/186 to 60/191 :- Certified copy of Ext. 38/466 to 38/471

of R.C Case No. 20(A)/1996. 423. Exhibit. 61 :- Gudgt. 424. Exhibit. 63 to 63/23:-24 Allotment letters (certified copy substituted). 425. Exhibit. 64 :- Complain dated 02.02.1996 in 5 pages. 426. Exhibit. 65 :- Registration processing B.S.T & C.S.T Form --75– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

M/s.Mukesh Enterprises. 427. Exhibit. 66 to 66/4 :- Endorsement on signature in C.N.C Bills in Ext. 25/15 to 25/19. 428. Exhibit. 66/6 to 66/7 :- Endorsement. 429. Exhibit. 66/8 :- Endorsement in 03 sheet. 430. Exhibit. 66/9 :- Endorsement in 04 Sheet. 431. Exhibit. 66/10 :- Certified copy of Signature of P.W. 187. 432. Exhibit. 66/11 :- Certified copy of Signature of Abhay Kumar Singh. 433. Exhibit. 67 to 67/4 :- Signature of accused Gopi Nath Das in C.N.C Bill and in Ext. 25/15 to 25/19. 434. Exhibit. 68 :- Application dated 30.06.1998. 435. Exhibit. 69 to 69/10 :- Signature of S.K. Singh, P.W.109 in his statement recorded U/s- 164 of Cr.P.C. 436. Exhibit. 70 :- Note Sheet and signature of witness P.W. 118. 437. Exhibit. 70/1 :- Note Sheet. 438. Exhibit. 70/2 :- Note Sheet. 439. Exhibit. 70/3 :- Certified copy of Note Sheet dated 08.05.1994, (Ext.30 R.C. 39 (A) / 1996). 440. Exhibit. 70/4 to 70/13 :- Certified copy Note sheets and endorsed i.e. 18/163 to 18/172 of R.C. No. 20 (A)/96. 441. Exhibit. 71 to 71/2 :- Signatures. 442. Exhibit. 71/3 to 71/9 :- Signatures. 443. Exhibit. 71/10 :- Signature in Note Sheet. 444. Exhibit. 71/11 :- Signature of Dr. Ram Raj Ram. 445. Exhibit. 71/12 :- Signature. 446. Exhibit. 71/13 :- Signature. 447. Exhibit.71/14 :- Signature of V.A. Jadhav in letter dated 15.02.1997. 448. Exhibit. 71/15 :- Signature and Writing. 449. Exhibit. 71/16 :- Signature of S.K. Bhattacharya.

450. Exhibit. 71/17 :- Signature in Receipt memo dated 20.02.1997. 451. Exhibit. 71/18 :- Signature in Receipt Memo dated 07.10.96. 452. Exhibit. 71/19 :- Signature in seizure memo dated 04.02.97. 453. Exhibit. 71/19 to 71/230 :- Signature of Sudhanshu Jaiswal in company invoices in 212 pages. --76– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

454. Exhibit. 71/231 :- Signature and writing in Fax message. 455. Exhibit. 71/232 :- Endorsement and signature in letter dated 29.12.1995. 456. Exhibit. 71/233 :- Endorsement in Ext. 03/1 (Entry dated 08.12.1993. 457. Exhibit. 71/234 :- Endorsement in Ext. 83/2 Entry dated 23.09.1994. 458. Exhibit. 71/235 :- Endorsement in Ext. 83/2 Entry dated 18.10.1994. 459. Exhibit. 71/236 :- Endorsement in Ext. 83/2 (Entry dated 20.10.1994. 460. Exhibit. 71/237 :- Five Endorsement in Ext. 83/2 entry dated 23.10.1994. 461. Exhibit. 71/238 :- Endorsement in Ext. 83/2, entry dated 27.11.1994. 462. Exhibit. 71/239 :- Endorsement in Ext. 83/4 (Entry dated 01.03.1994. 463. Exhibit. 71/240 :- Endorsement in Ext. 83/4 Entry dated 06.03.1994. 464. Exhibit. 71/241 & 71/242 :- Certified copy of endorsement and Signature Ext. 30/1 and 30/2 of R.C. 39 (A)/96. 465. Exhibit. 72 :- List of carbon copy of Registered letter. 466. Exhibit. 72/1 to 72/2 :- List of Carbon copy of Registered letter. 467. Exhibit. 73 :- Circular. 468. Exhibit. 74 :- Report of Neweydan Samitee. 469. Exhibit. 75 :- Certified to be true copy of Payment schedule 2403. 470. Exhibit. 76 :- Office order Register. 471. Exhibit. 77 to 77/1 :- 2 Guard File (Ext. 77 to 77/1 ). 472. Exhibit. 78 :- Guest Registration Card. 473. Exhibit. 78/1 :- Guest Registration Card. 474. Exhibit. 78/2 :- Carbon copy of Guest Registration Card. 475. Exhibit. 78/3 :- Guest Registration Card. 476. Exhibit. 78/4 :- Ext. 22/59 of R.C. 20(A)/96. 477. Exhibit. 78/5 to 78/26 :- Ext. 22/60 to 22/87 of R.C. 20(A)/96. 478. Exhibit. 78/27 to 78/39 :- Certified copies of Guest Registered as Ext. 19 to 19/12 in R.C No. 20 (A)/96. 479. Exhibit. 79 to 79/2 :- Arrival and departure visitors Registers of M/s.

Hotel Marina. 480. Exhibits. 79/3 to 79/5 :- Certified copy of Ext. 20 to 20/3 in R.C. 20 (A)/96 (Arrival Departure Card). 481. Exhibit. 80 : - Carbon copy of bill receipt. 482. Exhibit. 81 to 81/2 :- 3 Veterinary Registers. 483. Exhibit. 82 :- Fax dated 16.12.1995 (torn). --77– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

484. Exhibit.82/1 :- Fax Message (06 pages) 485. Exhibit. 82/2 :- Fax Message (04 page) 486. Exhibit. 83 :- One Sales Register of page – 46 (torn). 487. Exhibit. 83/1 :- Sales Register. 488. Exhibit. 83/2 :- Sale Register page 1 to 4. 489. Exhibit. 83/3 : - Booking and Sales Register (torn). 490. Exhibit. 83/4 :- Booking Register from 01.03.1994 to 31.05.1994. 491. Exhibit. 84 : - Daily Diary Register (C.M Secretariate Register ). 492. Exhibit. 84/1 :- Entry of diary of C.M Secretaruate. 493. Exhibit. 84/2 :- Entry of Diary of C.M Secretariate. 494. Exhibit. 85 to 85/22 :- 22 Air Ticekt Sahara Airlines. 495. Exhibit. 85/23 to 85/179 :- Certified copy of Ext. 71/119 to 71/275 (Air Ticket) 496. Exhibit. 86 :- Stock Register Travel Agency for Ticket. 497. Exhibit. 87 :- Incoming Ticket Payment Register. 498. Exhibit. 88 :- Noting. 499. Exhibit. 88/1 :- Noting. 500. Exhibit. 89 :- Daily Diary Register AHD Secretariat Register. 501. Exhibit. 89/1 :- Daily Diary Register AHD Secretariat Register 502. Exhibit. 89/2 :- Daily Diary Register AHD Secretariat Register. 503. Exhibit. 90 to 90/22 :- 23 Warrant of Authorization under section – 132 Income-Tax. 504. Exhibit. 90/23 to 90/28 :- Warrant of Authorization under section 132 Income-Tax. 505. Exhibit. 90/29 to 90/42 :- Warrant of Authorization under Section – 132 Income-Tax. 506. Exhibit. 90/43 to 90/50 :- Warrant of Authorization under Section – 132 Income-Tax. 507. Exhibit. 90/51 to 90/57 :- Warrant of Authorization under Section 132 Income-Tax. 508. Exhibit. 90/58 to 90/61 :- Warrant of Authorization under Section – 132 of Income-Tax. 509. Exhibit. 91 to 91/1 :- Panchanama with enclosures. (Total 10 sheets). 510. Exhibit. 91/2 :- Panchnama along with 5 Page enclosures. 511. Exhibit. 91/3 :- Panchanama dated 12.10.1993. 512. Exhibit. 91/4 :- Panchanama dated 12.10.1993 along with 02 pages enclosures. --78– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

513. Exhibit. 91/5 :- Panchnama dated 01.02.1993 along with 4 page enclosure. 514. Exhibit.91/6 :- Panchanama dated 12.11.1993 along with one page enclosure. 515. Exhibit. 91/7 :- Panchanama dated 12.11.1993 along with one page enclosure. 516. Exhibit. 91/8 :- Panchanama dated 12.11.1993 with one page enclosure. 517. Exhibit. 91/9 :- Panchanama dated 12.11.1993 with one page enclosure. 518. Exhibit. 91/10 :- Panchnama dated 12.10.1993 with two page enclosure. 519. Exhibit. 91/11 :- Panchnama dated 12.11.1993 with two page enclosure. 520. Exhibit. 91/12 :- Panchananma dated 01.02.1993 along with six sheets enclosure. 521. Exhibit. 91/13 :- Panchnama dated 30.09.1993. 522. Exhibit. 91/14 :- Panchanama dated 01.02.1993 along with 17 Sheets enclosure. 523. Exhibit. 92 to 92/7 :- 08 Appraisal Report. 524. Exhibit. 93 :- Certified copy of Witness Balvinder Singh recorded in R.C.20 (A) / 1996 Pat – in page 04 pages. 525. Exhibit. 94 to 94/18 :- 19 Certified copy of Gold Bond Application. 526. Exhibit. 95 to 95/18 :- 19 certified copy of Nomination form. 527. Exhibit. 96 to 96/13 :- 14 Certified copies Receipt of Gold. 528. Exhibit. 97 to 97/47 :- 48 certified copies of Gold Bond. 529. Exhibit. 98 to 98/18 :- 19 certified receiving of Gold Bond. 530. Exhibit. 95 to 95/6 :- Certified copy of telephone print out. 531. Exhibit. 96 to 96/1 :- Certified copy of Payment Details. 532. Exhibit. 97 :- Certified copy of Subscriber Record. 533. Exhibit. 98 :- Certified copy of Daily Collection list. 534. Exhibit. 99 to 99/9 :- Certified copy of Telephones bills. 535. Exhibit. 100 to 100/1 :- Certified copy of Statement of Sri J.P Verma and Rajesh Verma. 536. Exhibit. 101 :- Hotel Register Hyat Regency, Delhi. 537. Exhibit. 101/a :- Hotel Register. 538. Exhibit. 102 :- Entries Sr. No. 376. --79– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

539. Exhibit. 102/a and 102/b :- Entries of Room No. 508 and 517 of Ext. 101/a. 540. Exhibit. 103 to 103/a and 103/b :- 03 Registration Card of Hotel Hayat. 541. Exhibit. 104 :- Receipt dated 28.01.1996. 542. Exhibit. 105 :- Certified copy of Vigilance file. 543. Exhibit. 106 to 106/8 :- Certified copies of Ext. 106/6 to 106/14. 544. Exhibit. 107 to 107/2 :- Certified copy of forecast of Financial Resources of R.C 20(A)/96 (89 to 89/2). 545. Exhibit. 108 to 108/77 :- Certified copy of Ext. 26/23 to 26/100 of R.C.- 20(A)/96. 546. Exhibit. 108/78 to 108/81 :- Certified copy of Ext. 39 to 39/5 of R.C. 20(A)/96 (File). 547. Exhibit. 109 :- Certified copy of list of file i.e. 40 of R.C. No. 20(A)/96. 548. Exhibit. 110 to 110/4 :- Certified copies of Ext. 41 to 41/4 of R.C. 20 (A)/96. 549. Exhibit. 111 :- Zimananma dated 13.05.1997. 550. Exhibit. 111/1 :- Zimananama dated 07.10.1996. 551. Exhibit.112 :- Payment details of Citi Bank through credits card of Ajit Kumar Verma. 552. Exhibit. 113 :- GEQD Letter no. 8160 dated 31.10.1996 (02 sheets). 553. Exhibit. 113/1 :- Carbon copy of GEQD letter 554. Exhibit.113/2 :- GEQD dated 21.11.1196 555. Exhibit.113/3 :- Opinion. 556. Exhibit. 114 :- Chart (08 sheet) 557. Exhibit.114/1 :- Chart (04) 558. Exhibit. 114/2 :- Chart (18) 559. Exhibit. 114/3 :- Chart (17) 560. Exhibit.114/4 :- Chart (01) 561. Exhibit. A :- Letter dated 24.12.1995 and File No. 1 Stha (1) 208/93. 562. Exhibit.A/1 :- File No. 12 P.Pa.M.NI – Ko (1) 111/94. 563. Exhibit. A/2 :- File No. P.Pa – San Prag (Go)-01/93. 564. Exhibit .A/3 :- File No. 1/stha (1)/1072/85 Part. 565. Marked ‘X’ for identification :- Photocopy of letter No. 1744 dated 23.12.94 & Photocopy of account opening form of Allahabad Bank & Photocopy of challan dated 27.10.1995. --80– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

566. Marked X/1 for identification :- Paper seized by P.W.93 & Photocopy of Registration certificate 567. Marked X/2 :- Photocopy of confidential letter (03 page) 568. Marked X/3 :- Transport Challan 569. Marked X/4 :- Photocopy of Owner Book. 570. Marked X/5 :- Photocopy of Fax dated 02.12.1996. 571. Marked X/6 :- Photocopy of Agreement paper. 572. Marked X/7 :- Photocopy of letter 23.11.1996. 573. Marked X/8 :- Guest Departure Slip (torn). 574. Marked X/9 :- Signature and writing. 575. Marked X/10:- U/s- 164 of Cr.P.C Statement. 576. Marked X/11 to X/13 :- Payment receipt 2. 577. Marked X/14 to X/16 :- Photocopy of attested Admission Form of Bishop Westcott Girls School. 578. Marked X/17 to X/18 :- Photocopy of attested Admission form of Bishop West Girls School. 579. Marked X/19 :- Photocopy of attested Admission form of Bishop West Girls School. 580. Marked X/20 :- Letter dated 16.05.1997. 581. Marked X/21 :- Memorandum and forecast. 582. Marked X/22 :- Guest Registration Card. 583. Marked X/23 :- Carbon copy of Hotel bill. 584. Marked X/24 :- Charge slip of CITI Bank. 585. Marked X/25 :- Seizure memo dated 04.02.1997. 586. Marked X/26 & X/27 :- Two Air-tickets of Sahara. 587. Marked X/28 & X/29 :- Account Opening Form & Ledge true copy. 588. Marked X/30 :- Account Opening form (P.W.194) 589. Marked X/31 to X/33 :- Certified copy of XX/731, XX/732 & XX/733 of R.C. 68(A)/96. 590. Marked X/34 to X/37 :- Certified copy of XX/744 to XX/747 of R.C.

20(A)/1996. 591. Marked X/38 :- Certified copy of letter (XX/727) of R.C. 20 (A)/96. 592. Marked X/39 & X/40 :- Certified copy of XX/748 & XX/749 of R.C. 20 (A)/96. 593. Marked X/41 :- Certified copy of letter of R.C. 20 (A)/96 (Ext. XX/735. --81– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

594. Marked X/42 :- Photocopy of letter dated 26.09.1996. 595. Marked X/43 :- Photocopy of letter dated 27.09.1996 596. Marked X/44 :- Photocopy of letter dated 23.9.96. 597. Marked X/45 :- Photocopy of letter dated 04.11.1998. 598. Marked X/46 :- Photocopy of letter dated 29.11.1996. 599. Marked X/47 :- Photocopy of calls details – 57 pages. 600. Marked X/48 :- photocopy of letter (03 sheets). 601. Marked X/49 :- Photocopy of letter no. 27.09.1996. 602. Marked X/50 :- Letter 603. Marked X/51 :- Pleader complain dated 15.05.1995 (24 sheet) 13. That is prosecution evidence are closed and U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C the statement of accused persons namely 1. Adhip Chandra Chaudhary, 2. Ajeet Kumar Verma, 3. Arun Kumar Singh, 4. Beck Julius, 5. Smt. Benu Jha, 6. Bimal Kant Das, 7. Dhruv Bhagat, 8. Gopi Nath Das, 9. Jagannath Mishra, 10. Jagdish Sharma, 11. Krishna Kumar Prasad, 12. Lal Mohan Prasad, 13. Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav, 14. Mahesh Prasad, 15. Manoranjan Prasad, 16. Mehar Chandra Subarno, 17. Mohindar Singh Bedi, 18. Nand Kishore Prasad, 19. Naresh Prasad, 20. Om Prakash Diwakar, 21. Pankaj Mohan Bhui, 22. Phool Chand Singh, 23. Pitamber Jha, 24. Radha Mohan Mandal, 25. Raj Kumar Sharma @ Raja Ram Joshi, 26. Raghu Nandan Prasad, 27. Rajendra Kumar Bagaria, 28. Ravindra Kumar Rana, 29. Shardendu Kumar Das, 30. Saraswati Chandra and 31. Vidya Sagar Nishad recorded on different dates in the court. Accused Lalu Prasad and Ravindra Kumar Rana submitted written statement U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C, which is also enclosure. All above accused persons deny from alleged charges and evidences and pleaded innocent. Accused also claimed to adduce defence evidence. 14. That is defence side examined only one witness namely Rajendra Kumar Bagaria, who is accused also in this case after permission U/s- 315 of Cr.P.C. 15. That during trial accused persons submitted the following documents which were admitted as exhibits. The details follows as under:- On behalf of Accused Rajendra Kumar Bagaria :- Exhibit. I :- Certified copy of Deposition of P.W.30 namely Anand Kumar Gutgutia Exhibit. I/1 :- Certified copy of P.W.02 Sukumar in R.C. 38(A)/96. Exhibit. I/2 :- Letter dated 24.04.2004 along with A/d. Exhibit. I/3 :- Letter dated 13.08.2016. --82– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

Exhibit. I/4 :- Two Postal receipt. Exhibit. I/5 :- Photocopy copy of seizure list. On behalf of Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav :- Exhibit. A :- File No. 01/93 (Certified) Exhibit.B :- Report of Finance Commission. Exhibit. C :- Certified copy of Judgment in R.C. 05 (A)/98 Exhibit. C/1 :- Certified copy of D.W. 22 namely A.P Durai in R.C. 20 (A)/96. Exhibit. C/2 :- Certified copy of All D.W. 1 to 16 in R.C. 64(A)/96. Exhibit. C/3 :- Certified copy of D.W. No. 31 of R.C. 20 (A)/96. Exhibit. C/4 :- Certified copy of Deposition of P.W.465 of R.C. 47 (A) / 1996. On behalf of Accused Dr. A.K. Verma :- Exhibits. A and A/1 :- Signature. On behalf of Accused Manoranjan Prasad :- Exhibit. A :- Xerox copy of seizure memo dated 12.09.1996 under signature of D.N. Bishwas along with Xerox copy of letter no. 638 dated 07.10.1995. and letter no. 711 dated 20.11.95 from the D.A.H.O, Deoghar to the then Regional Director, Dumka. On behalf of Accused Beck Julius :- Exhibit. A :- Certified copy of P.W. 344 namely Dr. Shiv Balak Chaudhary in R.C. 20 (A)/96. Exhibit. A/1 :- Certified copy of defence witness No. 03 in R.C. 20(A)/96. Exhibit. A/2 :- Certified copy of order dated 31.01.1996 (Income Tax, Ranchi) On behalf of Accused Jagdish Sharma :- Exhibit. B :- Certified copy of Ext. R/33 in R.C. 20 (A)/96 Ext. J in R.C. 64 (A)/96 (combined). Exhibit.B/1 :- Certified copy of Ext. H in R.C. 34 (A)/96, Ext. J in R.C. 64 9A)/96 (combined). Exhibit.B/2 :- Certified copy of Ext. J in R.C. 34 (A)/96 and Ext. R/37 in R.C. 20 (A)/96, Ext. G/ 2 in R.C. 68 (A)/96. Exhibit.B/3 :- Certified copy of Ext.1 in R.C. 34(A)/96, Ext. R/31 in R.C. 20(A)/96, Ext. J/3 in R.C. 64 (A)/96 are --83– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat combindly. Exhibit. B/4 :- Certified copy of Ext. R/34 in R.C 20(A)/96, Ext. J/4 in R.C 64(A)/96 and Ext. G/4 in R.C 68(A)/96 are combindly. Exhibit. B/5 :- Certified copy of Ext. R/38 in R.C. 20(A)/96, Ext. N in R.C 34(A)/96 and Ext. J/5 in R.C. 649(A)/96 are combindly. Exhibit.B/6 :- Certified copy of Ext. R/36 in R.C. 20(A)/96, Ext. J/6 in R.C 64 (A)/96 and Ext. G/6 in R.C 68 (A)/96 are combindly. Exhibit. B/7 :- Certified copy of Ext. R/39 in R.C. 20(A)/96, Ext. K in R.C. 34 (A)/96 and Ext. J/7 in R.C. 64 (A)/96 are combindly. Exhibit. B/8 :- Certified copy of Ext. R/17 in R.C. 20(A)/96, Ext. J/8 in R.C. 64f(A)/96 are combindly. Exhibit. B/9 :- Certified copy of Ext. R/18 in R.C. 20 (A)/96, Ext. J/9 in R.C. 64(A)/96 are combindly. Exhibit.B/10 :- Certified copy of Ext. R/19 in R.C. 20(A)/96, Ext. J/10 in R.C. 64 (A)/96 are combindly. Exhibit. B/11 :- Certified copy of individual charge of Jagdish Sharma in R.C. 20(A)/96. Exhibit. B/12 :- Certified copy of statement U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C. Exhibit. B/13 :- Certified copy of P.W. 55 Dr. Shashi Kumar Singh in R.C. 63(A)/96, Spl. 64/96 Exhibit. B/14 :- Notification 07/95 – 222 dated 09.05.1995. On behalf of Accused Arun Kumar Singh :- Exhibit. D :- Certified copy of Instrument of Partnership between A.K. Singh and Shiv Raj Ram Ext. E. Exhibit. D/1 :- Certified copy of deposition of P.W. 165 of R.C. 45 (A)/96. Exhibit. D/2 :- Certified copy of deposition of P.W. 45 of R.C. 41(A)/96. On behalf of Accused R.K. Rana :- Exhibit. E :- Certified copy of Judgment in R.C. 22(A)/96. Exhibit. F :- Certified copy of deposition of P.W. 11 in R.C. 45 (A)/96. On behalf of Accused Phool Chand Singh :- --84– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

Exhibit. G :- Certified copy of Ext. D – D/3 and Ext. F of R.C. 20(A)/96. Exhibit. G/1 :- Certified copy of file no. M 34/94 noting marked as Ext. D/10 of R.C. 20 (A)/96. Exhibit. G/2 :- Certified copy of cash file marked as Ext. D/11 of R.C. 20 (A)/96. Exhibit. G/3 :- Certified copy of Viniyog Lakra marked as Ext. E, E/1 and E/2 of R.C. 209A)/96. Exhibit. G/4 :- Certified copy of comments of Government of Bihar. On behalf of Accused Jagannath Mishra :- Exhibit. H :- Photocopy of documents i.e. Notification in memo no. 8384 dated 23.12.1989. 16. Now question before the court is that whether the alleged charges against each of the accused persons have been proved beyond reasonable doubt successfully by the prosecution or not ? F I N D I N G S 17. During argument both sides learned lawyer present in the court. On behalf of defence learned lawyer submitted in favour of his clients, on behalf of supplier accused. Ld. Lawyer submitted that they received supply order from office of R.D, (AHD), Dumka in pursuance of supply order they supply the required medicines and Animal Feed / Articles in that office. The employee office of R.D (AHD), Dumka granted receipt in favour of supplier accused. In the light of supply receipts, supplier accused prepared and submitted vouchers for payment against supply. Later on bill prepared according to submitted vouchers and bill passed after scrutiny in due course from Dumka Treasury. Supplier Firms received draft payments and deposited the same in current account of their firm. So there is no any illegality or criminal misappropriation of public money. Further submitted that accused Dr. Md. Sayeed and accused Rameshwar Chaudhary bargain with C.B.I. In collusion with C.B.I, they deposed against other co-accused. They referrered a ruling in the case of Piara Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (1969) 3 SCR 236 :- “ An accomplice is undoubtedly a competent witness under the Indian Evidence Act. There can be, however, no doubt that the very fact that he has participated in the commission of the offence introduces a serious taint in his evidence and Courts are naturally reluctant to act on such tainted evidence unless it is corroborated in material particulars by other independent evidence. --85– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

“ It is well settled that the appreciation of approver's evidence has to satisfy a double test. His evidence must show that he is reliable witness and that is a test which is common to all the witnesses. If this test is satisfied the second test which still remains to be applied is that the approver's evidence must receive sufficient corroboration. 18. On behalf of accused Arun Kumar Singh, the Ld. Lawyer Mr. Bharat Mahto filed written argument U/s- 314 of Cr.P.C and submitted that the accused petitioner was not the Proprietor of M/s. Vishwarkarma Agency and was simply partner of the same of which the main partner was Sri Sheo Raj Ram, the father of Shesh Muni Ram, and that all the works of the said firm was looked after by Shesh Muni Ram, Regional Director, Dumka and that he used to prepare vouchers as per direction of said Shesh Muni Ram and used to hand over the same to him and that he had not received any payment and that he used to be paid Rs. 1500/-, 2000/- monthly by Shesh Muni Ram. Further submitted that the accused petitioner done all the writing works on the directions of said Shesh Muni Ram and his son Pankaj who used to get the bills passed, used to receive the drafts, and used to deposit the same in the account of the firm and withdraw the same under the signature of the accused petitioner on the concern cheques. The P.W.165 Sanjeev Chaudhary in R.C – 45A/96 clearly support in para – 2 of his deposition and submitted that on the basis of above evidence on record absolutely no charge as alleged, stands proved against the petitioner and requested that in the ends of Justice acquitted the accused petitioner. 19. On behalf of accused Beck Julius, Ld. Lawyer Mr. Sanjeev Chandra filed written argument U/s- 314 of Cr.P.C and submitted that the accused petitioner was the then Secretary AHD, Bihar and the case is related with so- called Fodder Scam in connection with “Office of Regional Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Dumka. Further submitted that the allegation in brief is that during the financial year December – 1995 to January – 1996 the Public Servants of R.D Office, Animal Husbandry Department, Dumka, Officers / officials of Treasury Office, Dumka and the other supplier firms entered into a criminal conspiracy amongst themselves and in pursuance thereof cheated the government of Bihar on the basis of false and forged budget allotment letters and suppliers bills. Further submitted that the petitioner / accused is not named in the FIR either as an accused or as suspect, although the FIR was lodged after a through inquiry but after about 4 years of the FIR, the prosecution files a charge-sheet against the petitioner and others on 11.05.2000 without proper --86– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat investigation, and the reason behind it was that the aforesaid case is based upon voluminous documents and unfortunately the I.O of the case did not go through the voluminous documents, or may be, he did not understand the contents of the documents and in haste filed wrong charge-sheet. Ld. Lawyer submitted that the petitioner joined as Secretary as AHD, on 08.05.1994 who is over all official head of the department as per rule – 8 of the Rule of Executive Business but in respect to “Expenditure control (for Budget head 2403)” the Director AHD is the Head of Department & controlling officer. The Bihar Budge Manual Rule – 61 provides a list of officers responsible for the preparation of various portion of the budget. So, it is the responsibilities of Head of the Department and Controlling Officer to have control over budgetary and financial matter of the department. The then A.G., A & E Sri Pramod Kumar the most important and authoritative prosecution witness stated in para – 30 that major head 2403 release the fund by controlling authority who was director AHD. The requisition letter issued by D.D.Os, the Director has power to accept or reject and the petitioner was not the head of department. It is also submitted that it is settled law that the DAHO has to submit monthly expenditure report to the AHD Directorate through the Regional Director by the 07th of each month, as per 475 of Bihar Financial Rule Vol – 1. These reports are complied at the Directorate level along with the allocation made and if there is any discrepancy, further action is taken against the concerned DDO about the overdrawal of funds under the respective heads. Quarterly expenditure statement is to sent to the AG Bihar. As per rule 70 of Bihar Treasury Code Vol – 1 also it is mandatory for the treasury to send monthly account to the AG Bihar for compilation and final settlement of the account whether the withdrawal is genuine, excess or fraudulent, through audit. Further submitted that till the financial year 1995 – 96 the AG Bihar never gave any report that withdrawal under 2403 head is fraudulent or ungenuine or make any objection rather the AG recommended to be adjusted / regularized under legal provisions of the constitution of the said withdrawal your honour may peruse Ext. to in this secretary, AHD to accept the withdrawal as genuine. Further submitted that there was no alarming about excess withdrawals at all because no objection either from A.G, or D.C was ever received during financial year from 1992 – 95. Further submitted that Sri Shankar Prasad and Sri V.S. Dubey and other architects of the budget were posted in the Finance department in higher rank for the long time and if they carried out their duties perfectly excess withdrawal could not have been taken place or could not have continue. --87– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

Lastly prayed that it is legal compulsion for the Secretary to accept withdrawals in the Printed Budget as genuine, true and normal. So accused is innocent and given the benefit of doubt in his favour. 20. On behalf of accused Jagdish Sharma, Ld. Lawyer Mr. B.B. Rai files written argument U/s- 314 of Cr.P.C and submitted that accused has denied and rebutted all incriminating materials brought on record against him statement U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C. Further submitted that accused was Chairman of the Public Account Committee from April – 1992 to January – 1995 and instant case relates to period commencing from December – 1995 to January – 1996 and the accused was succeeded by Sri Dhruv Bhagat, as Chairman of PAC after the expiry of tenure of accused in January – 1995. The out come of the criminal conspiracy is alleged to have been the withdrawal of Rs. 3,13,41,451/- from Dumka Treasury on account of forged and fabricated bills for the supply of Fodder / feed and medicines. The general and vague allegation made by some approver/accomplice that the scam asters had paid some amount on some date, without specifying amount or date of payment or place of payment is meaningless. The allegation U/s- 13 (2) r/w 13 (1)(c) & (d) of P.C Act is misleading. The investigation Bureau of the Cabinet Vigilance Department of the Government of Bihar had already registered, Patna Vigilance P.S. Case No. 34/1990, in which, the Dumka Division made payment on the basis of forged and fabricated bills without purchase or supply of fodder / feed and veterinary medicines . The Vigilance Department dropped that part of the allegation. Accused R.K. Das P.W. 45 of this case was also one of the F.I.R named accused but he managed to get the case close and also against many higher officers like Ram Raj Ram, the then Director and further submitted that it was obvious that the then Government in power deliberately shut their eyes over the scam. In the year 1991 when Sri Ramjatan Sinha was the Chairman of the PAC. The question were raised on the floor of the assembly. Sri Lalu Prasad, the then Chief Minister made statement on the floor that the matter was being inquired into by the PAC chaired by Ram Jatan Sinha. It goes to show that the government was determined not to get the matter inquired by any authority which was not a part of the assembly. Further submitted that accused discharged his duties with due devotion and absolute integrity throughout as Chairman of the PAC as well as a member of Bihar Legislative Assembly and alleged that he falsely implicated in this case by his political rivals and persons hostile and inimical to him and his family member to damage his political career. This case registered by informant Brij Kishore Pathak, Deputy --88– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

Collector, Dumka Bihar after during inquiry in which six persons / firm were named as accused in Dumka P.S. Case No. 16/1996 dated 02.02.1996. The C.B.I under the order of Hon'ble High Court, Patna registered R.C. Case No. 38A/96 dated 11.04.1996. The first of all accused arrested in R.C. Case No. 32A/1996 for the first time but during investigation of that case nothing incriminating could be brought out and accused was not sent up for trial in R.C. Case No. 32A/1996. But innocently remain in jail more than five months. In that period accused was not remanded in R.C Case No. 38A/1996. Accused was not remanded in R.C. Case No. 38A/1996 till 02.07.1997. They rely the case law of P.V. Narshimha Rao Vs. State (C.B.I/SPE) reported in 1998 (4) Supreme page – 1 AIR – 1998 SC page – 2120. Further submitted that except the approvers R.K. Das , Dipesh Chandak, Rameshwar Prasad Chaudhary, Shashi Kumar Singh, Jai Ram Prasad Verma and Chandra Prakash Sahay none of the prosecution witness have stated anything adverse against accused Jagdish Sharma and submitted that approvers an accomplices have made false statement only to save their own skin and an accomplice is unworthy of credit unless corroborated in material particulars. Finally submitted that an accused should not be convicted on the basis of the uncorroborated testimony of approver unless corroborated by any independent witnesses on materials points and accused may be given the benefit of doubt in the ends of Justice. 21. On behalf of accused Jagannath Mishra, Ld. Senior Lawyer Mr. Kanhaiya Prasad Singh, High Court, Patna appeared with Junior lawyer Mr. Rakesh Jha files written argument and submitted that prosecution side produced two co-accused after grant of pardon. Accused Dr. Md. Sayeed and Rameshwar Chaudhary both support the prosecution story after bargaining benefit in their favour. They rely AIR – 1975 SC, Page no. 856 and approver is a most unworthy friend if at all, and he , having bargained for his immunity, must prove his worthiness for credibility in court. This test is fulfilled. Further submitted that ordinarily an approver's statement has to corroborated in material particulars bridging closely the distance between the crime and the criminal. Certain clinching features of involvement disclosed by an approver appertaining directly to an accused, if reliable, by the touch stone of other independent credible evidence, would give the needed assurance for acceptance of his testimony on which a conviction may be based. 22. Another ruling produced AIR – 1979 SC – 1761 and submitted that the law is well settled that the Court looks with some amount of suspicion on the evidence of an accomplice witness which is a tainted evidence and even --89– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

Section 133 of the Evidence Act clearly provides that the evidence of an accomplice witness should not be accepted unless corroborated. At the same time, it must be remembered that corroboration must be in respect to material particulars and not with respect to each and every item. It is a rule of prudence which the courts have followed for satisfying the test of the reliability of an approver and has now been crystallized into a rule of law. It is equally well settled that one tainted evidence cannot corroborate an other tainted evidence because if this is allowed to be done then the very necessity of corroboration is frustrated. 23. On behalf of accused Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav, the Ld. Lawyer Mr. Chitranjan Prasad and Mr. Prabhat Kumar filed written argument U/s- 314 of Cr.P.C and submitted that accused falsely implicated in this Fodder Scam Case due to political rivalry and submitted that it is the duty of court to scrutinize those allegations with care so that court may be in a position to judge whether the onus lies upon those who made allegations on the part of the authority has discharged their burden on proving it and in that case prosecution has to dispute allegation of malafide like in a case whether the defence has taken a defence of alibi than prosecution has to disprove it. 24. The Ld. Lawyer on behalf of accused Lalu Prasad Yadav referred Durai Commission Report and evidence of A.P Durai in R.C. 20(A)/1996 and referred the certified copy of evidence Brig. R. P. Nutial in R.C. 64A/1996. They submitted that Durai Commission of was instituted by Central Government, as at a high level meeting taken by the Prime Minister on 31.07.1997 evening, regarding an enquiry to be instituted into the conduct of C.B.I Officers who sought assistance of the Army, for execution of arrest warrant against Sri Lalu Prasad Yadav, former Chief Minister of Bihar and the DOPT has ordered Sri A.P. Dorai, the then Director C.R.P.F to make an enquiry. Further A.P Durai was directed not to enquire the conduct of the Judges. 25. The learned lawyer press on the statement of Durai Commission that by D.I.G , CBI is relevant as Dr. U.N. Biswas, Joint Director, C.B.I under whose supervision all investigation was made, left Patna on 25.07.1997, in the evening, in disgust of receiving the knowledge of stay of arrest by Hon'ble Supreme Court. Further the Dorai Commission has indicated Dr. U.N. Biswas as in Page – 80 of Report :- “Over a period of time Joint Director, C.B.I has displayed his obsession with arrest of Lalu Prasad Yadav, as he has been saying “ I don't want to arrest insignificant person.”. The Joint Director, East CBI has --90– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat told his over phone with Sri Kaumudi, S.P that the warrant of arrest should be executed on the same day otherwise Lalu Prasad Yadav might escape. The episode of 30.07.1997 has really shown the biasness of Dr. U.N Biswas obsession to arrest Lalu Prasad Yadav, by hook or by crook, either to humiliate him or to eliminate him. Further, the Dorai Commission Report at Page – 80 shows :- “ (c). Dr. Biswas was also making indiscreet remarks to the Press, projecting its own image, embarrassing his Director and disclose details of investigation with the Press commenting on the evidence collected prejudicating case of the accused”. Some examples are given in the report Defence Exhibit. D Regarding Sri Biswas, the Dorai Commission on his recommendation :- “ The single traumatic episode has shown how the uncontrolled segment of a central organization can set Central – State relation on collision course. Further submitted that recommended state of functioning of Joint Director, East Calcutta and his Sub-ordinates in relation to investigation in AHD cases, without taking his head quarter in confidence would give an impression that is why primacy of Director of C.B.I was reasserted to bring back professionalism and discipline among officers concerned. Officers accepting non-professional tendency use C.B.I as a platform for personal ambition should be identified in time by the Director and repatriated from the C.B.I. Further submitted that then come the episode dated 30.07.1997 when in the morning at 5:00 A.M, C.B.I Officer went to the resident of a Judge, monitoring the investigation (Although the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed that after charge sheet the matter will be between the CBI and the Trial Judge ) thereafter went to Danapur on false pretext to seek a platoon of Army at 8 A.M to arrest the petitioner, which was denied by Army, which resulted in this above said enquiry. Further submitted that two FAX Message, which is Annexure – 3 and Annexure – 4 at Page 56 – 57 is quoted here-in-below which will show the intention of C.B.I Joint Director, East to malign or for whatever purpose U.N. Biswas wanted to execute NBW through Army, on false pretext. It is relevant to mention here that the trial court “Issued NBW to 30 accused on 24.07.1997 but till 30.07.1997 none of the Warrant of Arrest or any process was executed by the C.B.I except trying to arrest Lalu Prasad with the help of Army, in the morning of 30.07.1997, knowing fully well that he will surrender on 30.07.1997 (vide order-sheet dated 30.07.1997), C.B.I requisitioned army at 8 A.M on 30.07.1997. Further submitted that on his direction the Chief Secretary was informed at 1 A.M at night of 30.06.1997 regarding arrest of Lalu Prasad by C.B.I. All arrangements --91– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

were made by D.W Sunil Kumar by surrounding the house of present Chief Minister with R.P.F persons and further to avoid problems the C.B.I was given all the helps as his evidence from the letters of the Chief Secretary and evidence of defence. The sky would not have fallen within 24 hours if Lalu Prasad would not have been arrested on 30.07.1997 before 11 A.M. Thereafter at 8 A.M on 30.07.1997 a letter was sent, by V.S.K Koumudi, S.P CBI to Commandant, Army Danapur that as per oral direction issued by Hon'ble Patna High Court this is to request made for favour of provide immediately Army Contingent, comprising of at least I Company to assist C.B.I Party to execute the NBW against Sri Lalu Prasad Yadav, the Former Chief Minister of Bihar. 26. Further submitted on behalf of Lalu Prasad Yadav the learned lawyer that not only that the conduct of Mr. U.N Biswas is clear from the letter of Sri B.P Verma, the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar to Home Secretary that Sri U.N Biswas (Letter dated 30.07.1997) D and Sri Kumar Saxena's Letter DG, IG of Police Bihar to Sri B.P Verma dated 30.07.1997, Letter of Sri Krishna Choudhary DIG Headquarter dated 29.07.1997; Letter of Sri K.B Singh B.M.P – 5 Pat dated 01.08.1997 (all part of exhibit D) : Letter of Jail Superintendent Sp. Jail BMP – 5 dated 01.08.1997 clearly shows that U.N Biswas tried to enter the jail premises where Lalu Prasad was kept, without any valid papers and on 31.07.1997 Mr. U.N. Biswas on the date of “Bihar Band” wanted to move around Patna to create problem for the Government of Bihar. Further submitted that all these acts are reported in Dorai Commission report, which shows malicious attitude of the C.B.I under the leadership of Dr. U.N Biswas, the Joint Director, C.B.I, AHD, Patna under whose leadership the entire AHD Scam was investigated. Further submitted that not only, the CBI after arrest of Lalu Prasad registered another case of Disproportionate Asset against Lalu Prasad on 19.08.1998. This case was filed with an ulterior motive in which charge-sheet is also submitted against Smt. Rabri Devi, the then Chief Minister of Bihar and wife of Lalu Prasad. In this case the payment of Rs. 40,500/- through Bank Draft in Mayo College was added in the expenditure of Sri Lalu Prasad and the Air Tickets were included in the expenses of Sri Lalu Prasad, which is a subject matter of this case. This case was numbered as R.C. 5A/98 i.e. Spl. 05/98 and the Trial Court vide a Judgment and order dated 18.12.2006 Lalu Prasad and Rabri Devi. Lastly submitted that the petitioner would like to place reliance on a case I.e AIR 1956 SC 415 para – 15 – 20 which relied on 1950 AC – 458. According to the above mentioned two cases resjudicata in criminal trial acquittal of accused in certain charge verdict --92– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

binding in all subsequent proceeding. The effect of verdict of acquittal pronounced by a competent Court on a lawful charge and after a lawful trial is not completely stated by saying the person acquitted, cannot be tried again for the same offence. To that it must be added that the verdict is binding and conclusive in all subsequent proceeding between the parties to the adjudication. In D.A Cases was made out may that whatever stated of approver regards payment to the accused is false. The findings are binding in all subsequent proceedings between the parties. Lastly submitted that the benefit of doubt may be exercised in the favour of the accused. 27. On behalf of accused Mahesh Prasad, the learned lawyer Mr. Sanjay Kumar filed written argument U/s- 314 of Cr.P.C and submitted that accused being a public servant employed as Secretary, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department, Government of Bihar, Patna during the period from September – 1992 to May – 1994 and falsely implicated in this case. The learned lawyer submitted that accused Mahesh Prasad always adhered to provision of rules and regulations of the government accused objected the extension of Dr. Girija Nandan Sharma against whom a police case was pending and did not agree in the proposal of extension of services of Dr, Indrabhan Prasad for two years because Dr. Prasad had already availed the extension for 1 ½ years earlier and submitted that the position of this accused is same as co-accused Beck Julius in the matter of Budgetary control and financial matters are concerned under Bihar Financial Rules, Bihar Budget Manual and Bihar Service Code the Director AHD has been declared as HOD and controlling officer of the Department. The Secretary of the department is the administrative head of the department as per rules of Executive business. The Director directly send the budget proposal to the Finance Department and finance department had dire communication and the Secretary has no role to play and submitted that there was nothing on record against this petitioner/accused and pray that accused may be provide the benefit of doubt in the ends of Justice because he was transferred from department on dated 07.05.1994 and no any role later on in AHD Department. 28. On the behalf of accused Manoranjan Prasad, the learned lawyer Mr. Akhileshwar Prasad filed written argument U/s- 314 of Cr.P.C and submitted that accused was not named in the F.I.R, criminal liability has been fastened on the accused Dr. Manoranjan Prasad merely for counter-signing the signatures of the T.V.O (M) on the certificate issued by him. Further submitted that it was the Statutory duty of the accused Dr. Manoranjan Prasad to --93– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

physically verify the receipt of each and every consignment of medicine and then only to Counter-sign the signature of the TVO (M) on the receipts. Ld. Lawyer rely a case Sridhar Prasad, S/o- Sri Ram Vs. The State of Bihar through the CBI as reported in 2011 (3) PLJR – 199 – para , 2, 3, 5, 11 and 12. Further submitted that no criminal liability can be fastened upon him and he is entitled to the protection of Section – 114 (e) and (f) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 29. On the behalf of accused Mohinder Singh Bedi, the learned lawyer Mr. Akhileshwar Prasad filed written argument U/s- 314 of Cr.P.C and submitted that accused Mohinder Singh Bedi had been running a firm in the name and Style of M/s. Semex Cryogenics, New Delhi manufactured Al equipments. The firm was registered with Sale Tax and Income Tax. M/s. Semex Cryogenics was duly approved by the ministry of agriculture and had been supplying the products to various states in India. The firm was also approved by the Central Purchase Committee of Animal Husbandry Department Government of Bihar. The firm had never submitted bill of feed and medicine to R.D , Dumka rather the firm only supplied Al equipments. Merely on the basis of bills submitted by the firm after supply the Al equipments, the C.B.I has made him as an accused in this case. The charge leveld against accused U/s- 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C is not proved against this accused and there is neither any oral nor documentary evidences to suggest that accused Mohinder Singh Bedi had played any such agreement with any of the co-accused persons to defraud the government or any person and pray that the accused deserves to be acquitted of the charges framed in the instant case in the ends of Justice. 30. On the behalf of accused Phul Chand Singh, the learned lawyer Mr. Raj Kumar Sahay filed written argument U/s- 314 of Cr.P.C and submitted that accused was Finance Commissioner, Government of Bihar from January – 1992 to February – 1994. The accused was not named in the F.I.R registered by State of Bihar but the C.B.I made him accused in the charge-sheet dated 11.05.2000. It is pertinent that the alleged fraudulent withdrawal from Dumka Treasury pertained to the period December – 1995 to January – 1996. The accused was not the Finance Commissioner, Bihar during that period, S.N. Sinha and Sri V.S Dubey were Finance Commissioner, Bihar at the time of occurrence. This accused was not a party to criminal conspiracy in creation of false allotment letters, creation of false supply orders, creation and submission of false supply bills, creation of false contingent bill falsely certifying the --94– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

receipt of materials, dishonestly passing the contingent bills for payments from Dumka Treasury. Further submitted that the provision of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is not attracted against this accused. Due to division of work budget files were not coming to the Finance Commissioner's level, it was disposed of at the level of Additional Finance Commissioner. It is also pertinent that every single voucher generated in the government Treasuries ultimately finds its way to the Office of the Accountant General, it is thoroughly scrutinized and classified there and entered under the proper head of account, the A.G Office had opportunity to see, month after month, hundreds and thousands of vouchers of the AHD, it should have been possible for that office to take cognizance of all the deficiencies and omission – A.G never pointed out that the withdrawals from AHD were fraudulent in nature, this appellant had no knowledge of fraudulent withdrawal and pray that accused is innocent so provide the benefit of doubt in the ends of Justice. 31. On the behalf of accused Pitamber Jha, the learned lawyer Mr. Akhileshwar Prasad filed written argument U/s- 314 of Cr.P.C and submitted that accused Pitamber Jha in this case being T.V.O, Deoghar acknowledged receipt of medicines against the bills of Vyapar Kutir Patna for which he gave fake certificate on the bills of Vyapar Kutir Ranchi which counter-signed by the DAHO, Doghar, Dr. Manoranja Prasad and Dr. Manoranjan Prasad the DAHO, Deoghar se3nt the bills to the R.D's Office Dumka, Dr. O.P Diwakar the R.D Dumka pased the bills of Vyapar Kutir Patna for payment of Rs. 4,99,900/-. Further submitted that Pitamber Jha first time posted in Deoghar, Jule – 1995 and he was not aware of the functioning of the R.D Office, Dumka and DAHO Office, Deoghar. Accused grant receipt in the bills of Vyapar Kutir Ranchi under pressure. Accused Pitamber Jha examined as P.W.22 in R.C No. 64A/1996 and also examined U/s- 164 of Cr.P.C in which stated that under pressure issued the receipt of medicine and pray that after considering circumstances provide the benefit of doubt in favour of accused. 32. On behalf of accused Rajednra Kumar Bagaria, the learned lawyer Mr. Krishna Prasad Sharma filed written argument U/s- 314 of Cr.P.C and submitted that investigating agency falsely implicated the accused in this case being the Proprietor of M/s. Krishna Road Career. The real fact is that one Anand Kumar Gutgutia asked petitioner to work under him as his employee to look after his business of whole-sale of Nirma detergent powder and Cake etc in the name of M/s. Anand Traders. Iin November 1995 in the direction of Anand Kumar Gutgutia petitioner opened an account in the name of Krishna --95– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

Road Career in the State Bank of India, Pakur Bazar Branch. Petitioner follow the direction of Anand Gutgutia and opened account no. 376 dated 09.11.1995, the opening form filled in writing and pen by Anand Kumar Gutgutia. 27 Bank Draft application form for issue draft M/s. Alfa Marketing Enterprises, A/c No. 2269, Kallupur Commercial Co-operative Bank Ltd., Ashram Road, applicant are Narendra Kumar and Anand Kumar Gutgutia. It is also relevant that Krishna Road Career written instead of Krishna Goods Career, Goods struck off but no initial. Lastly submitted that no single pie used by petitioner/accused and actual fraud committed by Anand Kumar Gutgutia but in collusion of C.B.I he save himself and innocent accused Ranjendra Kumar Bagaria facing the trial, who deserve the privilege of doubt in his favour. 33. On behalf of accused Ravindra Kumar Rana, the learned lawyer Mr. Prabhat Kumar filed written argument U/s- 314 of Cr.P.C and submitted that Town P.S. Case No. 16/1996 dated 02.02.1996 take over by C.B.I and registered R.C. No. 38A/1996 dated 11.04.1996. Petitioner/accused is not named in the F.I.R but falsely implicated in charge-sheet dated 11.05.2000. Accused never entered into criminal conspiracy with anyone to commit any offence. Accused was never posted in Chhotanagpur and Santhal Paragana. During his entire service in AHD. At the time of occurrence accused R.K. Rana was MLA and no any relevant evidence against accused. Approver accused Md. Sayeed and another approver Rameshwar Kumar Chaudhary deposition is not reliable. R.K. Rana is family friend of co-accused Lalu Prasad, accused helped in admission of Lalu Prasad Yadav's daughter in the year 1992 in which shows accused as uncle and rely two judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1975 SC 856 and AIR 1979 SC 1761. In which held that “an accomplish (approver) is a unworthy of credit unless he is corroborated in material particular”. Other witnesses stated that R.K. Rana stay in Hotel Taj but no clear what is the Full Form of R.K and pray that accused never indulge in criminal conspiracy and entitled the privilege of doubt in this case.

34. On behalf of prosecution, Ld. Special P.P C.B.I Mr. Rakesh Prasad submitted short story of case that such heavy withdrawals an Amount of Rs. 3,76,38,853/- in December – 1995 and January – 1996 were made against a meagre amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- allotted in favour of Regional Director, AHD, Santhal Pargana Region, Dumka for the financial year 1995 – 96 towards purchase of medicines etc. In pursuance of the criminal conspiracy the accused --96– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

suppliers firms without supplying /transporting the medicines/materials concerned fraudulently withdrew a sum of Rs. 3,13,41,451/- out of sum of Rs. 3,42,37,601/- drawn by the R.D, AHD, Santhal Pargana Region, Dumka and wrongful loss caused to the Government of Bihar and wrongful gain to co- accused persons. Further submitted that in order to cover up the said unlawful withdrawals out of fake allotments the accused officials in connivance with each other issued fictitious supply orders to accused suppliers, obtained their bills and procured false acknowledgement for the receipt of supplies of materials and thus falsified records to show the purported procurement and receipt of supplies. Further submitted that in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy, part of the defraud amount had been expended for extending hospitality to politicians and Government functionaries by way of providing free air journeys, hotel expenses and other illegal payments for protection, and patronage to co-conspirators. Further submitted that Rule – 479 of Bihar Financial Rules, Vol-I stipulates that before money an be spent two conditions must be fulfilled – (1). it must be sanctioned by the competent authority and funds must have been appropriated for it. The Bihar Financial Rules also lay down that Government will not approve of any expenditure in excess of the budget provision unless sanction to incurring expenditure has been obtained previously. 35. Further submitted that the excesses expenditure in Animal Husbandry Department of Bihar dealing with the major head 2403 for the years 1988 – 89 to 1995 – 96 was as below :-

Year Budget Expenditure Excess Percentage (Original plus (Rupees in Supplementary Crore) ) 1988-89 36.77 42.90 6.13 17 1989-90 42.80 51.45 8.65 20 1990-91 54.92 84.21 29.29 53 1991-92 59.10 129.82 70.72 120 1992-93 66.93 154.70 87.77 131 1993-94 74.14 199.17 125.03 169 1994-95 74.40 245.01 170.61 229 1995-96 82.12 228.61 146.49 178 (Provisional)

--97– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

Further submitted that a deep routed conspiracy, pursuant to which crores of rupees over and above the budgeted provision of Animal Husbandry Department were withdrawn fraudulently and systematically year after year by AHD Officials in collusion with the suppliers/transporters, Government officials, politicians of different political parties, ministers concerned and the then Chief Minster of the State of Bihar. Although the Finance Department received the CAG report for the year 1988-89 to 1994-95 disclosing the details of AHD grant, expenditure and excess payment of AHD which were seen by accused Lalu Prasad as Finance Minister of the State of Bihar. The file received in the finance department on 16.11.1993 and seen by the Finance Minister-cum-Chief Minister on dated 18.12.1993. Which shows that Finance Minster Lalu Prasad was aware of the actual grants, actual expenditure and excess expenditure over and above the budget provisions of AHD which were continuing from the year 1988 – 89 onwards. Lalu Prasad Chief Minister – cum- Finance Minister approved the draft memorandum presented to 10th Finance Commision on forecast of resources of Revenue Account for the period 1995 to 2000 on 26.05.1994 and memorandum reflected actual expenditure pertaining to the major head 2403 of AHD for the last three years but Lalu Prasad did not cause any inquiry to ascertain the cause of excess cum fraudulent withdrawal made by AHD. Lalu Prasad, the then Chief Minister gave a false assurance on the floor of the Legislative Council that the matter would be got enquired by CBI and if necessary by U.N.O after submission of report by PAC . The PAC inquiry report was also not tabled on the floor of the house and no police inquiry was made into the matter. 36. The Vigilance Case No. 34/1990 was registered following a preliminary inquiry conducted in the Vigilance Investigation Bureau. The F.I.R of the case, certain allegations were levelled against some members of Central Purchase Committee. In the last part of the F.I.R the fraudulent activities of AHD Officials and AHD Mafioso prevalent in AHD, Ranchi and Patna were also mentioned. No investigation into the allegation levelled in the last part of the F.I.R of Vigilance Case No. 34/90 was made. 37. On behalf of prosecution learned Special P.P submitted that in response to the Short Notice question NO.2 dated 25.06.1993 raised by Sri Sushil Kumar Modi, MLA, based on newspaper report published in a local Hindi newspaper dated 01.06.1993 regarding alleged withdrawal of Rs. 1200 Crores from the treasuries in spite of a ban imposed by the government of Bihar. The then Chief Minister Lalu Prasad gave an assurance on 08.07.1993 --98– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

on the floor of the Legislative Assembly that he would try to find out the truth about newspaper report on large withdrawal from the treasuries. He also assured to submit the exact figure and details of the manner in which the money was spent. However, the assurance was not complied with by said Sri Lalu Prasad and his willful inaction resulted in perpetuation of the fraud and lastly submitted that all prosecution witnesses as well as approver witnesses fully support the criminal conspiracies between politicians AHD Officials and Suppliers, Fake Vouchers and Fake Allotment on record and pray that accused may be held guilty after proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence as on record and convicted accordingly. 38. In the light of advance argument on behalf of both sides the legal position of charges discuss as follows :- 39. Section 120 (B) of I.P.C deals with criminal conspiracy the entire case of the prosecution hinges around a general and common conspiracy hatched among the accused persons. The essential ingredients being (a) and agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence (b) in doing so the accused either di or caused to be done (I) an illegal act or (ii) an act, which is not itself is illegal by illegal means, (c) such an act done or caused to be done by the offence punishable under the IPC (d) if the act so done was not an offence than overt act had been done by one or more parties to such an agreement in pursuance thereof. It has been found that it is wrong to think that every one of the conspirator must have taken active part in the commission of each or every one of the conspiratorial act. The offence of criminal conspiracy consists of meeting of minds of two or more persons for agreeing to do or causing to be done an illegal act or an act by illegal means, and in the performance of the act in terms thereof. In pursuant to the criminal conspiracy the conspirators commit several offences than all of them will be liable for the offences, even if some of them had not actively participated in the commission of the offence. It has been found in case reported as Suman Sood Vs. State of Rajasthan (2007) 5 SCC – 634, Criminal conspiracy can be drawn from surrounding circumstances since normally no direct evidence is available. It has been found in leading case of Kehar Singh Vs. State (1988) 3 SCC – 609 that in the agreement which in the eye of law amounts to conspiracy may be proved by direct evidence or may be inferred from acts and conduct of the parties. There is no difference between the mode of proof of the offence of the conspiracy and it may be established by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. It has been found that it is not necessary that each conspirator should --99– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

have been in communication with every other. It has been formulated by several decisions that A criminal conspiracy is an agreement by two or more persons to do or caused to be done an illegal Act or an Act which is not done by illegal means. The agreement is the gist of the offence. In order to constitute a single general conspiracy there must be a common design and common intention of all to work in furtherance of the common design. Each conspirator plays his separates part in one integrated and united effort to achieve the common purpose. Each one is aware that he has a part to play in general conspiracy though he may not know all its secrets or the means by which the common purpose is to be accomplished. The evil scheme may be promoted by a few, so one may drop out and some may join at a later stage, but the conspiracy continues until it is broken up., The conspiracy may develop in successive stages. There may be general plan to accomplish the common design by such means as may from time to time be found expedient. New techniques may be invented and new means may be devised for advancement of common plan. A general conspiracy must be distinguished from a number of separate conspiracies having a similar general purpose, where different ground of persons cooperate towards their separate aims without an privities with each other, each combination constitutes a separate conspiracy. The common intention of the conspirator then is a work for the furtherance of the common design of his ground only. Md. Hussain Umar Kochand Vrs. K.S. Dalip Singhji (1969) 3 SCC – 429. It has been found that a person can conspire to commit a statutory offence which is absolutely prohibited without having any knowledge of the existence of the statutory prohibition. 40. To record conviction under Section 120 -B, it is necessary to find the accused guilty of criminal conspiracy as defined in Section 120-A of I.P.C, which reads as under :- 120-A. Definition of criminal conspiracy – When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done - (1). an illegal act, or (2). an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy : Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof. --100– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

Explanation – It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object. 41. Though, the meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing/or causing to be done an illegal act or an act by illegal means is a sine qua non of the criminal conspiracy, yet in the very nature of the offence which is shrouded with secrecy, no direct evidence of the common intention of the conspirators can normally be produced before the Court. Having regard to the nature of the offence, such a meeting of minds of the conspirators has to be inferred from the circumstances proved by the prosecution, if such an inference is possible. 42. In Sardar Sardul Singh Caveeshar Vs. State of Maharashtra (1964) 2 SCR 387, it was stated “The essence of conspiracy is, therefore, that there should be an agreement between persons to do one or other of the acts described in the section. The said agreement may be proved by direct evidence or may be inferred from acts and conduct of the parties” 43. In Shivnarayan Laxminarayan Joshi & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra (1980) 2 SCC 465, it was observed :”It is manifest that a conspiracy is always hatched in secrecy and it is impossible to adduce direct evidence of the same. The offence can be only proved largely from the inferences drawn from acts or illegal omission committed by the conspirators in pursuance of a common design which has been amply proved by the prosecution.”. In Mohammad Usman Mohammed Hussain Maniyar & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra (1981) 2 SCC – 443, Hon'ble Court pointed out :- 44. “For an offence under Section 120-B, the prosecution need not necessarily prove that the perpetrators expressly agreed to do and / or caused to be done the illegal act; the agreement may be proved by necessary implication. In this case, the fact that the appellants were possessing and selling explosive substances without a valid license for a pretty long time leads to the inference that they agreed to do an/or caused to be done the said illegal act, for, without such an agreement the act could not have been done for such a long time.” In State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Krishan Lal Pradhan & Ors. (1987) 2 SCC – 17, it was observed : “In the opinion of Special Judge every one of the conspirators must have taken active part in the commission of each and every one of the conspiratorial acts and only then the offence of conspiracy will be made out. Such a view is clearly wrong. The offence of criminal conspiracy consists in a meeting of minds of two or more persons for agreeing to do or causing to be done an illegal act or an act by illegal means, and the --101– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

performance of an act in terms thereof. If pursuant to the criminal conspiracy the conspirators commit several offences, then all of them will be liable for the offences even if some of them had not actively participated in the commission of the offences.” In State of Maharashtra & Ors. Vs. Somnath Thapa & Ors. (1996) 4 SCC 659, a three-judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court after elaborate discussions of the various judgments of the Court, concluded thus : 45. “To establish a charge of conspiracy knowledge about indulgence in either an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means is necessary. In some cases, intent of unlawful use being made of the goods or services in question my be inferred from the knowledge itself. This apart, the prosecution has not to establish that a particular unlawful use was intended, so long as the goods or service in question could not be put to any lawful use. Finally, when the ultimate offence consists of a chain of actions, it would not be necessary for the prosecution to establish, to bring home the charge of conspiracy, that each of the conspirators had the knowledge of what the collaborator would do, so long as it is known that the collaborator would put the goods or service to an unlawful use. “ From a survey of cases, referred to above, the following position emerges : In reaching the stage of meeting of minds, two or more persons share information about doing an illegal act or a legal act by illegally means. This is the first stage where each is said to have knowledge of a plan for committing an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means. Among those sharing the information some or all may form an intention to do an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means. Those who do form the requisite intention would be parties to the agreement and would be conspirators but those who drop out cannot be roped in as collaborators on the basis of mere knowledge unless they commit acts or omissions from which a guilty common intention can be inferred. It is not necessary that all the conspirators should participate from inception to the need of the conspiracy; some may join the conspiracy after the time when such intention was first entertained by any one of them and some others may quit from the conspiracy. All of them cannot but be treated as conspirators. Where in pursuance of the agreement the conspirators commit offences individually or adopt illegal means to do a legal act which has a nexus to the object of conspiracy, all all of them will be liable for such offences even if some of them have not actively participated in the commission of those offences. The agreements, sine qua non of conspiracy, may be proved either by direct evidence which is rarely available in such cases or it may be inferred from utterances, writings, acts, omissions and conduct of the parties to the --102– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

conspiracy which is usually done. In view of Section 10 of the Evidence Act anything said, done or written by those who enlist their support to the object of conspiracy and those who join later or make their exit before completion of the object in furtherance of their common intention will be relevant facts to prove that each one of them can justiciable be treated as a conspirator. Section 10 of the Evidence Act recognizes the principle of agency and it reads as follows : “10. Things said or done by conspirator in reference to common design – Where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, anything said, done or written by any one of such persons in reference to their common intention, after the time when such intention was first entertained by any one of them, is a relevant fact as against each of the persons believed to be so cons pirating, as well for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy as for the purpose of showing that any such person was a party to it. “To apply this provisions, it has to be shown that (1) there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together; and (2) the conspiracy is to commit an offence or an actionable wrong. If these two requirements are satisfied then anything said, done or written by any one of such persons after the time when such intention was entertained by any one of them in furtherance of their common intention, is a relevant fact against each of the persons believed to be so conspiring as well as for the purpose of proving the existence of conspiracy and also for the purpose of showing that any such persons is a party to it. 46. Section – 409 of I.P.C deals with the Criminal Breach of Trust by Public Servant, or by banker merchant or agent. In order to sustain a conviction the prosecution is required to prove (I) accused, a public servant was entrusted with property or which he was duty bound to account for, and (ii) the accused has misappropriated the said property. The prosecution is not required to prove, nor it is possible to prove in every case, in what precise manner the accused had dealt with or appropriated with that property. It has been held that when entrustment is provided giving a false account of its use is generally considered to be a strong circumstances against the accused rather on proof of entrustment it is for the accused to discharge the burden that the entrustment has been carried out as accepted and the obligation has been discharged (2007) 1 SCC – 623. 47. Section – 420 of I.P.C deals with cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery or property. The elements which are required to be proved :- a. --103– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

Cheating, b. dishonest, inducement to deliver property or to make, alter or destroy an valuable security or anything which is sealed or signed or is capable of being converted into a valuable security and c. mens-rea of the accused at the time of making inducement. It has been held in N. Devindrappa Vs. State (2007) 5 SCC – 228 that the issuance of bogus receipts by the accused given to the complainant amounts to cheating since property includes money, hence offence under Section 420 IPC is made out. 48. Section – 465 of I.P.C deals with punishment for forgery, the term forgery has been defined U/s- 463 or the I.P.C, the essential ingredients being – (a) the accused prepared a false documents, (b) with false meaning of the written instruments for the purpose of fraud or deceit, (c) the documents was prepared dishonestly or fraudulently (d) it was done with the intention of causing wrongful gain to someone and wrongful loss to other. It has been held in Ram Narayan Vs. CBI (2003) SCC – 641 that the false document must be made with an intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any clas of public or to any community. The expression “an intent to defraud” mean something more than mere deceit. The object of deceit is required to be considered i.e. conduct coupled with intention to deceive or thereby to inure others. 49. Section – 467 of I.P.C deals with forgery of valuable security, will etc. In order to constitute the offence it must be proved that the documents in question is the false documents within the meaning of Section – 464 IPC and that it was forged by the accused with an intention as defined U/s- 463 IPC. It has been held that for the purpose for convicting the accused U/s- 467 IPC r/w Section – 471, it has to be shown that the accused either knew or has reason to believe that the document was forged. 50. Section – 468 of I.P.C is with regard to forgery for the purpose of cheating, the necessary constituent for the offence being – (a) a forgery in respect of the documents etc, (b) the intention of forgery being for the purpose of cheating, (c) there should be forgery with particular intent. It has been found that the intention of the cheating is sine-qua-non to constitute the offence. 51. Section – 471 of I.P.C, Using as genuine a forged document - the essential ingredients for the offence being – (a) the accused fraudulently or dishonestly used a document or electronic record as genuine, (b) the accused knew or had reason to believe that the documents were the forged one. Then term knowledge used in the Section “is an awareness and the part of the person concerned indicating his state of mind”, A.S. Krishnan Vs. State --104– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

(2004) 11 SCC – 576. The term reason to believe is another fact of the state of mind, but it is not weak as ‘suspicion’ or ‘doubt’ and mere seeing cannot be equated to be believed in fact reason to believe is a higher level of the stand of the mind, though knowledge is slightly on a higher plane than reason to believe. It has been found that to constitute the offence two requirements namely “knowledge” or “reason to believe” must be proved in the sense that they are deducible from the various attaining circumstances of the case, though such circumstances need not necessarily be capable or absolute conviction or inference, but they are sufficient to cause to believe by chain of probable reasoning leading to the conclusion or inference about the nature of the thing. 52. Section – 477 A of I.P.C, deals with falsification of accounts, in order to bring home the offence under this section the prosecution is required to establish three points (1) at the material time the accused was a clerk, government servant etc (2) that acting such he destroyed/altered/mutilated or falsified any book, paper, account etc which belong to or is in possession of his employer or has been received by him and on behalf of his employer, (3) that the accused acted willfully and with intent to defraud. The term, “intent to defraud” contains two elements, viz. Deceit and injury. A person is said to deceive another when by practicing “suggestion falsi” or ‘suppression veri’ or both, he intentionally induces another person to believe a thing to be true which he knows to be false, or does not believe to be true – AIR, 1976 SC – 2140. Any act done to conceal a past act which itself has been done dishonestly or fraudulently is done with intent to defraud. 53. Prevention of Corruption Act – In this case the accused persons have been charged under Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 also. This Act was intended to make effective provision for the prevention of bribe and corruption rampant amongst the public servant. It is a social legislation defined to curb illegal activities of the public servants and is designed to be liberally construed so as to advance its object. The object of the Act was considered in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ram Singh 2000 Cr.L.J 1401 (S.C). The term public servant has been given a wider meaning for the purpose of Prevention of Corruption Act, altogether 12 categories of persons have been brought to give it a wider sense, it is wider than that given U/s- 21 of the I.P.C (2002) S.C – 1772, it was held that even an outsider may be prosecuted under the Act, when a person commits an offence punishable under Act. Private individual, who are found grabbing public funds in conspiracy with an active connivance of public servants, are also liable for corrupt activities under the Prevention of --105– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

Corruption Act and the private individuals also cannot escape liability of the charge under the provisions of the Act. It has been found that the sum and substance of the offence U/s- 409 of the I.P.C and the offence U/s- 13 (1) (c) of the Act are one and the same i.e. misappropriation of a property entrusted to a public servant. It was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court as reported in AIR 1971 S.C 1910 that a public servant dishonestly allowing any other persons to convert to his own use property which is entrusted to the public servant will be covered within the meaning of the offence of misconduct in his duties under this Act. Let me say that to prove misappropriation, it is not necessary or possible in every case to prove in what precise manner the accused persons has dealt with or appropriated the goods. The question is one of intention and not a matter of direct proof, but giving a false account of what he has done with the goods received by him may be treated, a strong circumstance against the accused persons. Thus, if the entrustment is proved and the accused was under duty to account for it, it is for him to explain the loss. It is not the law of this country that the prosecution has to eliminate all possible defences or circumstances which may exonerate him. If these facts are within the knowledge of the accused then he has to prove them, of course the prosecution has to establish a prima-facie case in the first instance. The Hon’ble Apex Court while hearing several Criminal Appeals(2004, SCC, Cri, 1,244) in this case itself observed that the main charge in this case relates to Prevention Of Corruption Act, in respect of separate ad distinct acts ie. the monies siphoned out of different treasuries at different time, hence the case cannot be amalgamated. Their Lordship had taken notice of the provisions contained in Section – 13 (1)(c) and 13 (1) (d) and observed that the hub of the act envisaged in first of those offences is “dishonestly and fraudulently misappropriates”. Similarly the hinge of the act envisaged in the second section is “obtains” for himself or for any other person, any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means. The above acts were completed in the present cases when the money has gone out of the treasures and reached the hands of any of the persons involved. It has been found that the criminal conspiracies in the cases are allied offene of the offence under P.C Act. It has been found that so far the offences under Section 13 (1)(c) and Section 13 (1)(d) are concerned the places where the offences were committed could easily be identified as the place where the treasuries concerned was situated from where money goes; C.B.I Vs. Braj Bhushan Prasad 2001 Cr. L.J 4683 (SC). The Hon’ble Court has given guideline for --106– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

adopting the evidence of one case to another case in order to save the accused from hearing same evidence again and again. 54. Section – 13 of the Act deals with Criminal misconduct by a public servants. Section – 13 (1)(c) of P.C Act is attracted if the accused dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use any property entrusted to him or under his control as a public servant or allows any other persons to do so. 55. Section – 13 (1)(d) of P.C Act is attracted if the accused (I) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person valuable thing or pecuniary advantage or (ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage or (iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest. The offence is punishable U/s- 13 (2) of the Act. 56. The offence under Prevention of Corruption Act, the term “gratification” has been used. The word gratification is not defined in the Act hence, literal meaning has to be taken, in the Oxford Advance Learner’s Dictionary the word gratification is shown to have the meaning “to give pleasure or satisfaction to” hence, acceptance of something to the pleasure or the satisfaction of the recipient is gratification – State of A.P Vrs. C. Uma Maheswara Rao AIR 2004 S.C. - 2024. 57. Section – 13 (2) r/w 13(1) (c) & (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – deals with Criminal Misconduct by a Public Servant, Section 8 & 9 of the Act deals with taking gratification, in order, by corrupt or illegal means, to influence with public servant – is punishable with imprisonment for term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. 58. Let me say that in this case some technical jargons will be used by me which may not be common to a common man. I have caution to explain the technical terms before using them in the judgment. It is case of the prosecution that officers of the AHD both at the District and Secretarial levels in collusion of treasury officers and others with the blessings and support of the governments systematically drew huge sums of money in excess of grant i.e. the financial sanction against fake allotment letters, vouchers etc, from Consolidated Fund of the State. It has been argued that it may be a case of excess withdrawal but it is not a case of fraudulent withdrawal. Their Lordship --107– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

while making monitoring in this case had taken notice of the constitutional provisions relating to the state financing applicable to the states. The Articles to be taken in notice are Articles 202 to 206, 266 and 267. Article – 202 provides for laying down for a statement of the estimated receipts and expenditure called “Annual Financial Statements”, in common parlance known as the Budget, in respect of every financial year before the houses of the State Legislature. Article – 203 provides that estimates in respect of non-charged expenditure i.e items other than mentioned in Articles – 202 shall be submitted in the form of demands in the Legislative Assembly. After the assembly gives its assents to the estimates, i.e. to say grants are made under Article – 203, appropriation bill is introduced under Articles – 204 for the appropriation of money out of the consolidated fund of the state to meet the grants (with respect to non charged expenditure) and the charged expenditure i.e expenditure charged to the consolidated fund of the state under Article – 202 (3). Articles – 205 lays down that if the amount authorized under the appropriation bill to be spent for a particular service for the current financial year is found to be insufficient for the purposes of that year or when a need arises during the current financial year for supplementary or additional expenditure upon some new service not provided in budget; or if the money spent on any service during a financial year exceeds the amount granted for that service, another statement showing the estimated amounts of that expenditure is required to be presented to the Assembly. In that situation the procedure as said by Articles – 202 to 204 is required to be followed. Articles – 206 provides for Vote of Accounts and exceptional grant where a full fledged budget cannot be presented, the Assembly is empowered to make a grant in advance in respect of estimated expenditure for a part of financial year pending appropriation bill as per Article – 203 and 204. The Assembly is also empowered to make a grant to meet an unexpected demand when on account of the magnitude or the indefinite character of the service the demand cannot be stated with the details ordinarily given in the budget and exceptional grant. 59. Article – 266 provides for creation of consolidated fund of the state – it lays down that all revenues received by the government of state, all loans raised by that government by the issue of treasury bills, loans or wages and means, advances and all money received by that government in payment of loans shall form one consolidated fund called the consolidated fund of the state. 60. Article – 267 provides for contingency fund for each state as the --108– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

legislature of that state may establish by law comprising of such sums as may be determined by such law, to be placed at the disposal of the Governor of the State “ to enable advances to be made by him out of such fund for the purpose of meeting unforeseen expenditure pending authorization of such expenditure by the legislature of the state by law under Article – 205 or Articles – 206. Thus an expenditure by the state may be either from the consolidated fund or contingency fund. Ordinarily consolidated funds is to be used and the fund from the contingency fund is supposed to meet a temporary measure and unforeseen expenditure. 61. In this case role of Treasury Officer (T.O), and the responsibility of the Drawing and Disbursing Officer (DDO) has to be discussed for better appreciation of the judgment. As per Rule – 43 of Bihar Treasure Code Vol. - 1; the Collector is the General in-Charge of the Treasury. He shall be immediately responsible to the Government for its general working. A duty has been given to him to inform the Accountant General, Finance Department or other concerned Authorities for any defalcation or loss of public money, stamps etc. A duty has been cast upon the Treasury Officer to satisfy himself and the A.G that the claim produced in the Treasury is valid and also to ensure that the payees have received the sum charged. Rule 144 provides instruction with regard to preparation and forms of bill and the caution which the Treasury is supposed to exercise. Rule 190 lists irregularities which are treated to be sufficiently serious to necessitate disciplinary action. In this case a general term Contingency and Contingency bill has been used. The term contingency means and includes all incidental and other expenses which are incurred for the management of an office as an office or for technical working of the Department. Rule – 293 of the Code has differentiated counter-signed contingency and fully vouched contingencies. Fully vouched contingencies are charges which require neither special sanction nor counter signature, but may be incurred by the Head of the Office on his own authority subject to the necessity of accounting for them. These may be passed on Fully Vouched Bills, without counter signature. 62. Rule 305 of the Code lays down responsibility of Drawing and Disbursing Officer it reads as – Every public officer should exercise the same vigilance in respect of expenditure incurred from Gov revenues, as a person of ordinary prudence would exercise in spending his own money. The drawing officer is responsible for seeing (1) that vouchers are prepared according to rules, (2) that the money is either required for immediate disbursement or has --109– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

already been paid from the permanent advance, (3) that the expenditure is within the available appropriation, (4) that all steps have been taken with a view to obtain an additional appropriation, if the original appropriation has either been exceeded or is likely to be exceeded, and (5) that the case of contract contingencies, the proposed expenditure does not cause any excess over the amount fixed for these contingencies. NOTE – When a payee’s receipt sent in support of an item of contingent expenditure does not show the full details of the item for which it purports to be a receipts, such details unless they have been given on the contingent bill itself, should be given in the payee’s receipt by the drawing officer concerned at the time the receipt is attached to the contingent bill or is otherwise sent to the audit office. 63 In this regard Rule – 305 and Rule – 305 A of Bihar Financial Rule have also been gone through by me, where-under the duty and responsibility of the drawing and disbursing officer has been given. The crux of the point is “Every public officer should exercise the same vigilance in respect of expenditure incurred from Government revenues, as a person or ordinary prudence would exercise in spending his own money”. 64. The prosecution alleged that accused person fraudulently prepared the fake vouchers and withdraw money from treasury after passing the CNC bills. The term fraudulently has been discussed that fraudulently means there must be deception, actual or intended, any injury or risk of injury, though not to any particular persons. There must be advantages in one side and corresponding to loss to other. Existence of criminal intention is sufficient to cause wrongful gain to burn and and wrongful loss to another – It is not necessary that wrongful gain or loss should be casually caused. The gist of term lies in the criminal intend to commit fraud which , when not obvious, must be clearly and conclusively established. A leading case reported in AIR 1954 SC – 322 has been held that where a document bearing a certain date were brought into existence on a subsequent date, the accused was guilty or forgery. The accused taken consistent plea of defence that it is a case of excess withdrawal and not of fraudulent withdrawal. The term excess has not been defined in the I.P.C or any other criminal law. The Oxford dictionary defines excess as follows :- (1) Exceeding, (2). Amount by which one thing exceeds another. (3). A. Over stepping of accepted limits of moderation, esp. In eating or drinking. B. Immoderate behaviour, (4) Part of an insurance claimed to be paid by the insured – attrib. Adj. Usu. 1. That exceeds a limited or prescribed --110– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

amount, 2. Required as extra payment (excess postage) in (or to ) excess exceeding the proper amount of degree : in excess of more than, exceeding. Advance Learner's Dictionary defines excess as more than is expected or proper 65. In the light of oral argument as advanced on behalf of defence as well as on behalf of prosecution side, the detailed discussion in respect of accused persons in the following way :- 66. Accused Adhip Chandra Chaudhary stated in recorded statement U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C that he was Income Tax Commissioner posted in Ranchi since May-1994 to December-1996. Accused deny to criminal conspiracy with AHD. Accused also deny to send AHD Scam, accused income return from Ranchi Area to Calcutta Area and accepted the financial and other benefit from accused of AHD Scam. Accused fully deny criminal conspiracy with accused of AHD Scam and illegal withdrawal to wrongful loss of Government Revenue. Accused stated innocent himself and alleged that CBI falsely implicated him in this case. 67. On behalf of prosecution it is submitted that accused Adhip Chandra Chaudhary was working as Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi during the period 1994 to 1996. Accused S.B. Sinha managed the officials of the Income Tax Department including accused Adhip Chandra Chaudhary through accused Dipesh Chandok. Accused A.C. Chaudhary helped the AHD Officials and suppliers by stopping raids against them . Accused also helped them in their assessment. Accused Chuadhary was over enthusiastic in transferring the assessment record of AHD scamster accused S.B. Sinha and his wife to Calcutta I.T Jurisdiction and accordingly the letter was sent by speed post and the same was also faxed to Calcutta I.T Office. In the petition of accused S.B. Sinha and Mrs. Rama Sinha. It was falsely mentioned that they have shifted permanently to Calcutta. Accused A.C Chaudhary did not care to make inquiry into the stand taken by the petitioner on receipt of the no objection certificate from the office of C.I.T -4 Calcutta. Accused A.C Chaudhary issued the orders for transferring the assessment record of AHD Scamster S.B. Sinha and his wife to Calcutta I.T Jurisdiction. Accused Dipesh Chandak gave accused A.C . Chaudhary Rs. 05 Lakh in 1994 on the instructions of the King-pin S.B. Sinha. Accused A.K Verma Proprietor of M/s Little Oak Pharmaceuticals was arranging tickets for the travel of accused A.C. Chaudhary from Calcutta to Ranchi and also providing private cars to him at Calcutta. The car advance booking registers of the guide contains the name of accused A.C. Chaudhary --111– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

and his residential address on many dates from 1994 to 1996. One car of the guide was almost regularly booked for the use of the daughter of accused A.C. Chaudhary. In support of above allegation the prosecution side examined prosecution witnesses and documents exhibited in the court during trial. 68. Prosecution produced and examined many witnesses in the court. P.W. No. 170 Ravindra Kumar, Commissioner of Income-Tax Appeal Cuttack stated regarding warrant issued to search premises of accused S.B. Sinha situated at Ranchi. P.W. 217 Proprietor of Badri Narayan & Co. Kolkatta, Dipesh Chandok stated regarding payments released against non-supply of materials. P.W. 229 Sandip Garg, Additional Director Income-Tax, Delhi regarding Sanction for prosecution of A.C. Chaudhary which Ext. 27/7. P.W. 152, 156 stated related Ext. 82, 18/13, 18/14, 18/15, 18/16, 18/17 but the charge relating larger conspiracy with O.P Diwakar, Regional Director, AHD, Dumka and other co-conspirator of this case and illegally / fraudulently and dishonestly withdrawn Rs. 03,76,38,853/- from Dumka Treasury is not proved beyond reasonable doubt because this accused appointed in Income-Tax Department. The address of one accused Shyam Bihar Sinha from Ranchi to Calcutta is not a offence but it is a clerical mistake. The mistake immediately reform and jurisdiction of accused S.B. Sinha relating to Income-Tax Area again change from Calcutta to Ranchi and there is no any evidence relating to hospitality provide to accused Adhip Chandra Chaudhary and no any evidence to liquidated the Income-Tax raids conducted on the premises of co-conspirator at Ranchi in year 1992 – 93 and 1993 – 94. Accused deny to use car provided by co-accused. 69. So after considering all facts and circumstances, court found that prosecution sides do not able to prove alleged charges against accused person successfully beyond reasonable doubt and benefit of doubt provide to accused Adhip Chandra Chaudhary in the ends of Justice. Accused in the light of above discussion held innocent from above alleged charges U/s- 120(B) r/w Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A of I.P.C and U/s- 13(2) r/w Sec- 13 (i)(c) & (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. 70. Accused Ajit Kumar Verma stated in statement U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C that he was the owner of M/s. Little Oak Pharmaceuticals, Kolkatta. Further stated that firm supply of Veterinary medicines in the office of Regional Director, AHD, Dumka and he submitted vouchers in pursuance of 41 vouchers bill prepared and received draft Rs. 19,92,820/- which is genuine and fully deny active participation in criminal conspiracy. --112– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

71. On behalf of State Ld. Special P.P CBI submitted that prosecution witnesses fully supported the prosecution story. The vehicles by which shows in vouchers supply the medicine is fake. Further submitted that in furtherance of criminal conspiracy the employee of AHD, Office issued fake receiving in respect of supply medicine. Further in furtherance of criminal conspiracy bill prepared by the employee of AHD Office and pass in furtherance from Dumka Treasury in support examined P.Ws. 6, 15, 37, 38, 48, 55, 58, 90, 91, 92, 93, 97, 98, 175 and 232 fully supported the prosecution story. On behalf of prosecution side file documentary evidences Exhibits - 1/3, 2/2, 3/2, 12, 8/20 – 8/23, 9/19 – 9/37, 10/27, 13, 2/6, 3/5, 15/2, 9/45 to 9/75m 8/35 to 8/38, 10/28, 7/40, 1/7, 25/73 to 25/78, 26.495 to 26/554, 1/11, 7/41 to 7/44, 1/13, 10/29 to 10/113, 26/355 to 26/394, 1/24, 1/25, 52 to 52/181, 53 to 53/7, 54 to 54/51, 9/76 to 9/80, 55 to 55/14, 56 & 57, 1/15, 33 &1/36. From perusal of oral and documentary evidences, it is clear that accused Ajit Kumar Verma in close contact with employee of R.D, AHD, Santhal Pargana, Dumka Office. Accused submitted forged and fabricated vouchers without supplying medicine and it is also transpires that R.D, AHD, Dumka Office employee issued receiving of supply in collusion with accused. Further transpires that 41 fake invoices relating to supply of veterinary medicines passed by the Regional Director, AHD, Santhal Pargana Dumka. In furtherance of criminal conspiracy Treasury Dumka is also pass the bill submitted from R.D, AHD, Dumka Office. The Owner of M/s. Little Oak Pharmaceuticals, Kolkatta Mr. Ajit Kumar Verma received fraudulent payment of Rs. 19,92,820/- . After perusal of all oral and documentary evidences, court found that prosecution successfully proved alleged charges against accused Ajit Kumar Verma beyond reasonable doubt.

72. Accused Arun Kumar Singh statement recorded U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C on 14.11.2017 in which accepted that he was partner of M/s. Vishawkarma Agency, Deoghar. Further stated that main partner was father of Regional Director, Shesh Muni Ram named Shiv Raj Ram. Accused deny to received Rs. 19,98,800/- and stated that he was monthly paid employee of Shesh Muni Ram. Accused Arun Kumar Singh also accepted in question no. 4 that he submitted more than 70 vouchers to Shesh Muni Ram and further accepted that he follow the order of Shesh Muni Ram and prepared false vouchers. Accused pleaded innocent and deny to receive any fraudulent payment. 73. On behalf of prosecution agency examined P.Ws. - 12, 13, 14, 37, 48, 55, 75, 97 & 232 witnesses in the court during trial. And filed Exhibits, 1/5, --113– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

1/6, 1/13, 2/5, 7/36 to 7/39, 8/32 to 8/34, 9/42 to 9/44, 10/29 to 10/113, 18/5, 25/79 to 25/84, 26/555 to 26/612. After perusal of oral and documentary evidence, it is clear that accused frankly accepted and disclosed in statement U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C that he prepared false and fabricated vouchers and submitted / hand over to Shesh Muni Ram. Later on Shesh Muni Ram prepared bill and in furtherance of criminal conspiracy bill pass through Dumka Treasury and received illegal payment. In this way, illegal loss / criminal misappropriation of government money, in furtherance of criminal conspiracy committed by this accused. Hence, court found that prosecution side successfully proved alleged charges beyond reasonable doubt against accused Arun Kumar Singh. 74. Accused Beck Julius stated in statement U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C on 14.11.2017 that he was functioned as Secretary of Animal Husbandry Department since 08.05.1994 to June – 1997 in the capacity of the Secretary AHD and Fisheries Department. Accused clearly deny to participate in criminal conspiracy with co-accused Om Prakash Diwakar and other accused. Accused denied to facilitate fraudulent payment of Rs. 03,76,38,853/- from Dumka Treasury and also deny to extending hospitalities to the members of the alleged criminal conspiracy. Accused deny to receive undue illegal gratification and pecuniary advantages of yourself and also for co-conspirator Lalu Prasad to scuttle the investigation / enquiry, whenever the matter relating to alleged fraudulent payment came to fore. Accused deny to furnish false reply relating to excess withdrawal in respect the question raised by Sri Nilamber Chaudhary, MLC in 122 Session and also deny to the criminal conspiracy in furnishing and misleading reply to the question raised by Sri Lalit Oraon, M.P, Lok Sabha and deny to furnish falsified account of AHD to the Finance Department and reflecting surrender of grants despite heavy expenses incurred by the AHD. Accused deny to take proper action against those persons, who disclosed in letter dated 08.06.1995 and 29.12.1995 by the A.G., Bihar and Finance Department letter no. 24.10.1995 and 20.12.1995 informed. Accused clearly deny to visit Calcutta between 1992 – 96. Accused also deny to taken Air- tickets from any other co-accused and pleaded innocent. 75. On behalf of prosecution examined P.Ws – 44, 45, 79, 81, 82, 84, 109, 135, 136, 185, 220, 224, 225, 227 and filed following documentary evidences Exhibits. - 1/21, 1/22, 27 to 27/6, 38/270, 38/271, 38/277, 38/278, 38/276, 38/281, 38/282 (Exhibits RC – 20(A)/96 44, 44/5, 47 to 47/5, 48 to 48/4, 49 to 49/2, 50 to 50/18, 51 to 51/3, 60/5 to 60/11 60/150, 60/153 to --114– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

60/180, 68, 69 to 69/10, 70/4 to 70/13, 100 & 100/1, 108 to 108/77, 18/159 & 18/160, 109, 110 to 110/4

76. In the light of advance argument on behalf of both sides perused the oral and documentary evidences, it is clear that P.W.,55 Md. Sayeed and P.W. 196 Rameshwar Prasad Chaudhary, both are approver, so they stated about the false receiving of supply and false bill prepared and passed by D.D.O, Regional Director, AHD, Santhal Pargana, Dumka with the collusion of Treasury, Dumka Officer. P.W. 217 Dipesh Chandok stated in the chief in examination that he provide illegal gratifications to accused persons. P.W. 232 D.N. Viswas and P.W. 245 Ajay Kumar Jha both are part I.O of this case but nothing was seized which shows connection of this accused Beck Julius in criminal conspiracy of this case. From perusal of documentary evidences, it is clear that Director, AHD, Patna is sole responsible for planning and budget provide to Regional Director, of AHD. The Director of AHD, the then Ram Raj Ram received statement from the office of Regional Director of AHD from State and provide it to Financial Secretary. The Financial Secretary with advance approval of Finance Minister prepared budget and put in the floor of Legislative Assembly. So it is clear that the Secretary of AHD according to Bihar Financial Rule is not responsible for financial matter. The Secretary of AHD is head of administration. In the light of advance argument on behalf of both sides and after proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidences, court found that Secretary of AHD is not responsible for excess/illegal withdrawal from Dumka Treasury. The A.G send audit report to financial secretary Director of AHD in relating to excess withdrawal from Dumka Treasury but never send to secretary of AHD office Patna. Court found that prosecution agency is not proved alleged charges against accused Beck Julius beyond all reasonable doubt. The benefit of doubt in the ends of Justice may be provide to accused Beck Julius in this case and pass a reasonable order later on part of judgment. 77. Accused Smt. Benu Jha stated in statement U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C that she was house wife and living in Maheshpur. In question number – 2 accepted that she was owner of M/s. Laxmi Enterprises, Godda. Further accepted in question NO. 3 she never received fraudulent payment of Rs. 64,96,700/- from Dumka Treasury during financial year 1995 -96. Accused also deny to submit fraudulently and dishonestly 131 numbers of fake bills showing supply of veterinary medicines to the Office of R.D. AHD, Santhal Pargana range, --115– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

Dumka. She clearly accepted in answer of question no. 5 that M/s. Laxmi Enterprises, Godda was neither the supplier of veterinary medicines approved by then government of Bihar nor any of the approved supplier authorize to supply veterinary medicine on their behalf. The firm only was registered and no any office anywhere. She also answered in question no. 6 that she never submitted any vouchers of supply because she never made supply from firm M/s. Laxmi Enterprises, Godda. Accused clearly deny to receive fraudulent payments against fake bills and distributed among the co-conspirator and pleaded innocent. 78. On behalf of prosecution examined P.Ws – 3, 4, 5, 37, 41, 43, 48, 55, 73, 78, 97, & 232 and filed following documentary evidences Exhibits. - 1/1, 1 /2, 2/1, 3/1, 7/14 to 7/27, 8/11 to 8/19, 10/29 to 10/113, 11 to 11/3, 18/4, 25/35 to 25/45, 26/222 to 26/296. 79. In the light of advance argument on behalf of both the sides defence as well as prosecution and perused the oral and documentary evidences as brought on the record on behalf of both the sides. P.W.245, Ajay Kumar Jha I.O of the case clearly accepted that accused is unable to read anything but only made signature Benu Jha. Perusal of submitted vouchers from M/s. Laxmi Enterprises, Godda, it is clear that vouchers are not in the writing of accused Benu Jha. Accused husband Vinod Kumar Jha and brother-in-law Sushil Kumar Jha prepared the vouchers and submitted in the office of Regional Director, AHD, Dumka. Accused Sushil Kumar Jha pleaded guilty and convicted by the court previously who already died during the custody. I.O of this case not made accused her husband Vinod Kumar Jha but P.W examined from bank clearly deposed that Benu Jha open the account in the name of M/s. Laxmi Enterprises, Godda. In cross-examination it is also accept that he cannot say whether Benu Jha came physically in the bank branch before the manager or not. From perusal of oral and documentary evidences, court found that a fake firm registered in the name of M/s Laxmi Enterprise, Godda, which never supply medicines in the office of Regional Director, AHD, Dumka but in furtherance of criminal conspiracy Sushil Kumar Jha submitted fake vouchers in the department and Md. Sayeed and others employee of R.D. AHD, Dumka office granted receiving receipt in favour of supplier and other co-accused prepared bill which passed from Dumka Treasury in illegal way and criminal misappropriated money up to Rs. 64,96,700/- from Dumka Treasury in the financial year 1995 – 96 and illegal loss committed against government of Bihar. --116– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

80. After perusal of all oral and documentary evidence brought on record on behalf of both sides and argument advanced in the court. The court found that prosecution side do not prove alleged charge against accused Benu Jha beyond reasonable doubt successfully. I.O left the name of real accused and made her accused in formal way, who is an illiterate lady and living in a village – Maheshpur, District – Godda, so in the ends of justice the benefit of doubt may be provide to accused Benu Jha and appropriate order pass later on part of the judgment. 81. Accused Bimal Kant Das stated in statement U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C that he was T.V.O (Mobile) Sahebganj AHD, Dumka during 1995 – 96. Accused answered in response of question no. 3 that he had given receiving certificate in favour of M/s. Krishna Road, Career is not remembering but he issued receiving certificate to M/s. Vishavkarma Agency, Deoghar and deny to facilitate co-conspirator for making fraudulent payments resulting in wrongful loss of Rs. 03,76,38,853/- to Bihar Government Revenue. Accused expressed ignorance relating to list of suppliers approved by Central Purchase Committee of the Government and he deny to issue receiving in respect of supply veterinary medicine which were neither manufactured nor marketed in the erstwhile State of Bihar. Accused also deny to issue receiving from the office of AHD, Dumka to PAC for inquiry and pleaded not to be guilt and claimed to be innocent. 82. On behalf of prosecution examined P.Ws – 37, 55, 56, 61 & 232 and filed following documentary evidences Exhibits. - 25/35 to 25/45, 25/46 to 25/59, 25/60 to 25/63, 25/64 to 25/69, 25/89 to 25/93, 26/222 to 26/296, 26/297 to 26/354, 26/355 to 26/394, 26/395 to 26/454, 26/653 to 26/700. 83. In the light of advance argument on behalf of both parties, learned defence lawyer as well as Spl. P.P and perusal of oral and documentary evidences as brought on the record. Exhibit in series 25 and 26 clearly shows that accused Bimal Kant Das falsely certified the receipt of veterinary medicines and also certified the transportation bills of the private parties and thereby facilitated the alleged fraudulent payments from Dumka Treasury during the period of alleged occurrence. Accused Arun Kumar Singh, who was the partner of M/s. Vishavkarma Agency, Deoghar clearly explain in question no. 7 that more than 70 false vouchers were handed over to Shesh Muni Ram and further explain in question no. 3 that without supply medicine they prepared the vouchers and hand over to Shesh Muni Ram and got payment Rs. 2000/- per month from Shesh Muni Ram. So it is clear that prosecution --117– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

successfully proved alleged charges against this accused Bimal Kant Das that he issued receipt in favour of supplier without receiving the supply medicines beyond reasonable doubt successfully and court after perusal of oral and all documentary evidences safely found that the benefit of doubt cannot be provide in favour of accused Bimal Kant Das in the ends of Justice and further order passed in the later part of judgment in this case. 84. Dhruv Bhagat accused stated in statement U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C on 22.11.2017 that he was chairman of PAC during 1995 – 96 and deny active participation to the criminal conspiracy with Dr. O.P Diwakar, Regional Director AHD, Dumka and other co-conspirator of this case. Further deny fraudulently and dishonestly withdrawal from District Treasury, Dumka up to amount of Rs. 03,76,38,853/-. Accused deny to extending hospitalities to the members of alleged criminal conspiracy who defrauded Dumka, Treasury. Accused deny to write letter dated 20.01.1996 to the Finance Commissioner of Government of Bihar to stop inquiry regarding alleged withdrawals by the AHD and hand over the connecting documents to PAC. Further deny to write a letter dated 24.01.1996 to the then Chief Minister Lalu Prasad and clearly deny to make inquiry into any fraud or misappropriation unless entrusted to PAC by the Hon'ble Speaker of House. Accused also deny to accept one A.C. Ambassador car as illegal gratification from co-conspirator Dr. S.B. Sinha and claimed to be innocent and pleaded that both above letter dated 20.01.1996 and 24.01.1996 are forged letters which prepared by the prosecution to implicate falsely accused in this case. 85. On behalf of prosecution examined P.Ws – 45, 47,55, 76, 116, 166, 179, 173, 177, 196, 225, 226, 236, 242 and filed following documentary evidences Exhibits. - 7/59 to 7/66, 9/76, 9/77, 8/48, 18/21, 18/181 to 18/192, 26/102, 26/103, 44/4, 70/4 to 70/13, 104, 109, 110 to 110/4, 113 to 113/3, D-1 to D-18. 86. Perused the oral and documentary evidences, court found that accused was Chairman of PAC of Legislative Assembly during February – 1995 to February – 1996, it is true that PAC Committee inquire only those matters which hand over from Chairman of Assembly. On behalf of prosecution produced letter dated 20.01.1996 and 24.01.1996 but in the light of above letters Finance Commissioner of Government of Bihar and the then Chief Minister Lalu Prasad do not act upon . Further allegation that accused Dhruv Bhagat obtained one A.C Ambassador Car from co-conspirator S.B. Sinha but no ownership brought on the record. P.W.55 and P.W. 196 --118– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

Rameshwar Prasad Chaudhary both are approver and their statement is not corroborated from circumstantial evidences or by independent documentary evidences. P.W.245 and P.W. 232 examined in the court as part investigating officers. Above both witnesses never try to brought the ownership relating to A.C Ambassador Car. Further perusal of records, it is clear that accused Dhruv Bhagat is elected member of MLA, Bihar during period 1995 to 2000 and no any evidence on behalf of prosecution side brought on the record that Dhruv Bhagat involved in criminal conspiracy through which fraudulently prepared forged allotment letters and the Regional Director, AHD, Dumka withdrawn money on the basis of forged vouchers. Other two witnesses Dipesh Chandok and Shiv Kumar Patwari stated in chief in examination that accused received illegal gratification but not any evidence in support on the record. P.W.116 Phool Jha examined on behalf of prosecution side working as Secretary of PAC and nothing stated against accused Dhruv Bhagat. 87. In the light of above discussion and perusal of oral and documentary evidences, court found that prosecution side do not prove successfully alleged charges beyond reasonable doubt against accused Dhruv Bhagat. In the ends of Justice, court found that accused may be provide the benefit of doubt who facing the trial up to more than 21 years. 88. Accused Gopi Nath Das stated in statement U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C dated 16.11.2017 that he was owner of M/s. Radha Pharmacy, Dumka and he received payment of Rs. 20,45,450/- from Dumka Treasury during the year 1995-96. After supplying veterinary medicine to the Regional Director, AHD, Santhal Pargana, Dumka and submitted vouchers. Further stated that his firm was recognized and authorized in Bihar Government to supply medicine. Accused further stated that he received medicine from C.N.F, Patna and supply the same in the department and he is not a member of criminal conspiracy and fraudulently received the money illegal withdrawn from Dumka treasury and further pleaded to be innocent. 89. On behalf of prosecution examined P.Ws – 37, 48, 55, 97, 107 & 232 and filed following documentary evidences Exhibits. - 10/29 to 10/113, 25/20 to 25/34, 26/91 to 26/221, 1/3, 25/5 to 25/19 & 26/50 to 26/90. 90. In the light of advance argument on behalf of both sides made by learned lawyer and perusal of records it is transpires that accused admittedly Proprietor of M/s. Radha Pharmacy, Dumka which received fraudulent payment of Rs. 20,45,450/- through 40 fake and forge invoices relating to supply of veterinary medicine because the transporting vehicles registration --119– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

number is forged. The witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution side P.W.37, 44, 55, 97, 107, 232 and 245 fully support the prosecution story and relevant document which exhibited on behalf of prosecution side clearly shows the accused active participation in criminal conspiracy in the Fodder Scam Case. 91. After perusal of all oral and documentary evidences, court found that prosecution side successfully proved alleged charges against accused person Gopi Nath Das beyond reasonable doubt successfully, so the benefit of doubt in the ends of Justice cannot be provide to the accused Gopi Nath Das and appropriate order pass in the later part of the judgment. 92. Accused Jagannath Mishra, aged about 82 years stated in statement U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C on 11.12.2017 that he was three time Chief Minister of Bihar, first time 1975 till April – 1977, second time 08th June – 1982 to 13th April – 1983 and third time 06th December – 1989 to 10th March – 1990. Later on leader of Opposition two times in which March – 1990 to March – 1994 in Bihar Legislative Assembly and totally denied to participate in criminal conspiracy and fraudulently / dishonestly withdrawn Rs. 03,76,38,853/- from Dumka District Treasury. Accused also deny to receive illegal payment and extending hospitalities to the members of the alleged criminal conspiracy. Accused deny criminal conspiracy and fraudulent payment when report of Dy. Accountant General (I & W) in the year 1990 recommended the inquiry to be conducted by co-conspirator M.C. Subarno, the Regional Development Commissioner, Ranchi. Accused deny to advise as leader of Opposition and recommended the co-conspirator Lalu Prasad to confine the investigation of Vigilance Case No. 34/1990 against the members of Central Purchase Committee only. Accused deny to know personally Dr. S.B. Sinha and obtaining illegal gratification from co-conspirator M.S. Bedi in the end pleaded innocent from all above alleged charges against him. 93. On behalf of prosecution examined P.Ws – 45, 109, 167, 192, 243 and filed following documentary evidences Exhibits. - 38/270, 38/271, 38/276, 38/277, 38/278, 38/281, 38/282, 60/38, 68, 69 to 69/10, A. 94. From perusal of oral and documentary evidence as brought on the record and advance argument by learned lawyer on behalf of both sides, the court found after discussion that accused as leader of Opposition in Bihar Legislative Assembly recommended for extension in service of Dr. S.B. Sinha, after his retirement on 05.12.1993. The extension of S.B. Sinha extended up to one year by the then Chief Minister Lalu Prasad. It is also pertinent that --120– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

accused Jagannath Mishra wrote letter in pursuant to Chief Minister Lalu Prasad on 23.08.1990 in which suggested that to confine the investigation of Vigilance Case No. 34/1990 only against members of Central Purchase Committee and not against investigation the officers of AHD, Ranchi. One another letter dated 15.11.1990 written by this accused to the then Chief Minister Lalu Prasad that the inquiry on audit report be enterested to Regional Development Commissioner, M.C. Subarno. In support on behalf of prosecution five witnesses P.Ws. 45, 167, 243, 109 and 192 and some relevant document as on record. 95. From perusal of record court found that the role of the accused has not been mentioned specifically by the I.O. The prosecution witness P.W. 45 R.K. Das deposed against this accused but perusal of Vigilance Case No. 34/1990 it is clear that this witness R.K. Das already accused, who provide protection U/s- 306 of Cr.p.C with collusion of C.B.I. The statement of approver not corroborated by independent / circumstantial evidences, so in the light of Hon'ble Apex Court verdict reported in AIR 1975 SC 856, Ravinder Singh Vrs. State of Harayana, AIR 1979 SC 1761 Chonampara Chellapan Vrs. State of Kerela. 96. It is also pertinent from perusal of record that the period of occurrence is December – 1995 and January – 1996 and accused had written letter on 23.08.1990, 15.11.1990 and 05.12.1993 when accused was in position of leader of Opposition in Bihar Legislative Assembly all above three letters written to the then Chief Minister -cum-Finance Minster of Bihar Government Lalu Prasad Yadav. Accused was not in power to compel the then Chief Minister – cum- Finance Minister. It was option of Chief Minister -cum- Finance Minster that he act upon on the recommendation of this accused Jagannath Mishra or have powered to reject the recommendation and throw the letter in dustbin. So it is clear that in larger conspiracy which clearly expose in Vigilance Case No. 34/1990, accused Lalu Prasad Yadav was in power as Chief Minister -cum- Finance Minster, who with the help of Vigilance restrain the investigation relating to fraudulent withdrawal in AHD Department and constitute a larger conspiracy with co-accused R.K. Das, Ram Raj Ram, Shyam Bihari Sinha and others co-accused of Fodder Scam. 97. In the light of above observation and proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidences on the record, court found that prosecution side do not prove alleged charges against accused Jagannath Mishra successfully beyond reasonable doubt. In the ends of Justice, the benefit of doubt may be exercised --121– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

in the favour of accused Jagannath Mishra. The proper order pass in the later part of this judgment. 98. Accused Jagdish Sharma is about 68 years on 20.11.2017 stated in his statement U/s- 313 Cr.P.C that he was PAC Chairman between the period April 1992 to December – 1994 and deny as Chairman of PAC in December – 1995 to January – 1996 when the Regional Director, AHD, Dumka with co- conspirator of this case fraudulently and dishonestly withdrawn the payment of Rs. 03,76,38,853/- from the District Treasury, Dumka and deny to extending hospitalities to the members of the alleged criminal conspiracy and deny to receive books of account from tainted treasuries on the false pretext of inquiry in to the fraudulent payments without actually receiving and clearly deny and further deny being Chairman of Public Account Committee at the time of occurrence. He further disclosed in answer question no.9 that he wrote a letter to Chief Minister Lalu Yadav that no parallel inquiry should be conducted as PAC is already conducting on inquiry and further disclosed in answer no. 10 that it was the after decision of PAC and he wrote letter as Chairman of PAC. Accused totally denied to obtained, undue pecuniary advantage and illegal gratification and pleaded that he was totally innocent in this case. 99. On behalf of prosecution examined P.W.s – 45, 109, 127, 217, 224, 225 & 226 and filed following documentary evidences Exhibits. - 18/159 & 18/160, 38/270, 38/271, 38/277, 38/278, 38/281, 38/282, 44/4, 59, 60/153 to 60/180, 68, 69 to 69/10, 70/4 to 70/13, 108 to 108/77, 109, 110 to 110/4. 100. In the light of above advance discussion on behalf of both parties as put before court by learned lawyer and perused the oral and documentary evidences it is transpired that accused Jagdish Sharma was chairman of PAC Committee for certain period and inquired only those matter which is hand over by Speaker of Legislative Assembly . On behalf of prosecution examined approver Md. Sayeed and others who support the prosecution story but circumstantial evidences do not support the version of prosecution story. Accused never created false receipt of the vouchers and books of account. In the month of June – 1994 he wrote letters to the Secretary and also to the Chief Minister that no enquiry should conducted into the allegation with regard to fraudulent payments. The statement of approver is not reliable because they are already involve in criminal conspiracy. 101. On behalf of accused Jagdish Sharma an affidavit was filed relating to document and proceeding of PAC Committee. The proceeding of Legislative Assembly Bihar letter no. 193 / 10.07.91, a letter to Secretary AHD --122– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

Department by which all documents relating to Fodder Scam was called by Dy. Secretary, Bihar Vidhan Sabha and all documents relating to Animal Department put up before committee. Further shows letter no. 299 dated 03.10.1991 by which he seek the list who were benefited to Animal Feed and Fodder Transportation. Further letter no. 29 & 8 that AHD department provide all documents within 15 days of receiving the information and another file in relating to Legislative Assembly. The PAC Committee constitute by Legislative Assembly Chairman and the member of all parties include in the PAC Committee and Chairman of the PAC Committee wrote a letter relating to fodder scam. The Chairman of Legislative Assembly passed the tour programme of PAC. It is clear from perusal of oral and documentary evidences that Chairman of PAC Committee wrote a letter to Chief Minister / Leader of Assembly that provide all relevant document of AHD Department which can scrutinize by the PAC member. In this respect court found that Chairman of PAC Jagdish Sharma made a bonafide attempt to inspect AHD department documents and submit report to the Chairman of Legislative Assembly for discussion. The co-conspirator who got the benefit of U/s-306 of Cr.P.C deposed against this accused that accused received extended gratification and other costly item from the co-conspirator of AHD Department but such evidence is not believable in the light of many judgment pronounced by the Hon'ble Court and similarly the document of AHD Department received by Secretary of PAC Phool Jha who appointed by the Chairman of Legislative Assembly to cooperate the PAC Member when they are on tour. Phool Jha examined as P.W. 116. The statement of other approver co-accused found not reliable because they do not support by documentary evidences. 102. After considering all facts and oral evidences present on the record, court found that the accused being a Chairman of PAC play the role on the request of all PAC members and not individual capacity. Hence, in conclusive way court found that prosecution side do not prove alleged charges beyond reasonable doubt successfully and benefit of doubt may be exercised in the favour of accused, in the ends of Justice. And detailed order pass in the later part of this judgment. 103. Accused Krishna Kumar Prasad stated in statement U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C that he was posted as T.V.O, Jasidih during 01.01.1995 to 15.04.1996. He denied to receive Veterinary medicines shown to supply by M/s. Vishavkarma Agency and others falsely and facilitated co-conspirator for making fraudulent payment of Rs. 03,76,38,853/- from Dumka Treasury and --123– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

pleaded innocent. . 104. On behalf of prosecution examined P.W.s – 37, 55, 57 & 232 and filed following documentary evidences Exhibits. - 25/60 to 25/63, 26/355 to 26/394. 105. In the light of oral and documentary evidences as brought on the record and consideration of oral argument advanced on behalf of both parties learned lawyer during argument in the court. Exhibit. 25/60 to 25/63, 26/355 to 26/394 are receipt in signature of accused Krishna Kumar Prasad, which falsely certified the transportation bills of the private parties and facilitated the fraudulent payment from Dumka Treasury during December – 1995 and January – 1996. 106. After perusal of all above oral and documentary evidence, court found that prosecution side successfully proved the alleged charges beyond reasonable doubt and accused Krishna Kumar Prasad is not entitled to found benefit of doubt in this case so appropriate order pass in the later part of the judgment. 107. Accused Lal Mohan Prasad stated in statement U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C on 20.11.2017 that he was not owner of M/s. R.K. Agency and M/s. Mukesh Enterprises, Patna but his son Mahendra Prasad knew everything about above firms who died. Similarly, when asked that you in criminal conspiracy with co- conspirator Dr. O.P Diwakar, received fraudulently payment of Rs. 54,95,030/- from Dumka Treasury during year 1995 – 96, accused denied and stated that his son Mahendra Prasad knew everything. He do not submit any vouchers and do not know about M/s. R.K. Agency and M/s. Mukesh Enterprises, Patna and lastly pleaded that he was innocent. 108. On behalf of prosecution examined P.W.s – 24, 37, 48, 54, 55, 97, 232 and filed following documentary evidences Exhibits. - 1/13, 2/7, 7/41 to 7/44, 7/45 to 7/49, 7/50 to 7/53, 7/54 to 7/57, 8/39 to 8/40, 8/41 to 8/42, 8/43 to 8/45, 8/46 to 8/47, 10/29 to 10/113, 11/3 to 11/34, 19 to 19/4,, 25/89 to 25/93, 26/653 to 26/700, 109. After perusal of oral and documentary evidence, I find that accused is illiterate and he only made signature. It is pertinent that Mahendra Prasad was the servant of S.B. Sinha another co-accused. Mahendra Prasad registered two firms M/s. Mukesh Enterprises, Patna and M/s. R.K. Agency, Patna. The forged vouchers prepared and submitted by Mahendra Prasad and 118 fake vouchers submitted in Regional Director, Santhal Pargana AHD, Dumka. The payment also received by Mahendra Prasad. I.O examined as P.W. 245, who --124– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

clearly accepted in his cross-examination that accused Saraswati Chandra and Lal Mohan Prasad both are dummy owner of M/s. R.K. Agency, Patna and M/s. Mukesh Enterprises, Patna. No any registered office of above agency and neither supply medicine in the AHD, Department, Dumka, behind whole episode is Mahendra Prasad, who already died and no any piece of evidence against accused Lal Mohan Prasad. So in the light of above detail discussion court found that prosecution side do not prove alleged charges beyond the reasonable doubt in the court. Hence, benefit of doubt provide to accused Lal Mohan Prasad in the ends of Justice and proper order pass in the later part of judgment. 110. Accused Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav stated in statement U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C that he is by profession politician and he was Chief Minister and Finance Minister of Bihar State from since March – 1992 to July – 1997. Accused totally denied criminal conspiracy with O.P. Diwakar Regional Director, AHD, Dumka and other co-conspirator and fraudulent payment of Rs. 03,76,38,853/- withdrawn from Dumka Treasury. Accused totally denied criminal conspiracy part of the amount defrauded from Dumka Treasury by making illegal payment. Accused answered in corresponding question no. 6 that CAG report for the financial year 1988 - 89 to 1994 – 95 mentioned details of Sanction grant, expenditure and excess payments made by AHD of Bihar do not submit to the finance department of Bihar but send to the Governor of State, which produce in Cabinet. Later on put in the floor of Legislative Assembly and later on submitted PAC for inquiry and report and accept that excess expenditure / payments of Animal Husbandry Department added in 10th Finance Commission. In respect of MESO Programme the grant provide from Central Government, in which, irregularities was found up to Rs. 26,500/- but no any action taken in this respect. Further stated that Ramjivan Singh do not disclose clearly and Kamla Prasad Chief Secretary was authorized to inquire because State Vigilance was not ready to investigate and deny the matter of excess withdrawal from Animal Husbandry Department not discuss in the floor. Accused deny the fraudulent withdrawal and active part of criminal conspiracy. Accused totally deny the relation with Om Prakash Diwakar, Dr. R.K. Rana and Dr. Shyam Bihari Sinha. Accused deny about the knowledge of the fraudulent payment of Rs. 5.56 lacs from Chaibasa Treasury, noticed on 07.06.1993. Accused accept in question no. 5 and answered that he received four fraudulent vouchers who related with Deoghar Treasury and fake allotment letter were brought on notice at 13.06.1994 and that vouchers handed --125– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

over to Vigilance Director for inquiry and Vigilance Case No. 34/1990 registered and pleaded that he was totally innocent and NDA Government falsely implicated him in this case. 111. On behalf of prosecution examined P.W.s – 45, 55, 128, 135, 162, 167, 179, 182, 199, 200, 212, 213, 214, 217, 218 & 221 and filed following documentary evidences Exhibits. - 1/38, 1/44, 18/40, 18/40, 18/52, 18/181 to 18/192, 26/102, 26/103, 47/40 & 47/41, 60/5 to 60/11, 60/33 to 60/35, 60/39 to 60/48, 60/74 to 60/144, 60/49, 70/3, 85 to 85/22, 86 to 89, 106 to 106/8, D-1 to D-18, E. 112. Heard in detailed on behalf of both sides in advance and perused the records it transpires that accused remain in capacity of Chief Minister as well as Finance Minister during March – 1990 to July – 1997. And CAG report of financial year 1988 – 89 to 1994 – 95 disclosed excess expenditure. The accused in furtherance of criminal conspiracy do not take action against other co-accused as a Finance Minster and accused approved the report being sent to 10th Finance Commission in May – 1994 and the report disclosed the figure of fraudulent payments of AHD. Approver witness clearly disclosed that Shyam Bihari Sinha was in close relation with Lalu Prasad who collected and paid money to Lalu Prasad. Lalu Prasad provide protection to Shyam Bihari Sinha and others. The Finance Minister / Chief Minister received information from the office of Accountant General, Ranchi that payments for transportation of Animals on cars, scooters, motor cycle have been made to the office of Regional Director, Ranchi but no action was taken to investigate the information. On the contrary, the proposal of Cabinet Minister dated 18.08.1990 that do not investigate on the pretext of inquiry done by PAC and no inquiry was conducted until the Hon'ble High Court / Hon'ble Supreme Court ordered for F.I.R and investigation by C.B.I. From perusal of records it is clear that Lalu Prasad had knowledge regarding fraudulent withdrawals of money from many treasuries including during December – 1995 and January – 1996 from Dumka Treasury. The relevant time Finance Secretary V.S. Dubey and Regional Director, AHD, Dumka provided protection to co-accused which shows a greater conspiracy in Finance Department headed by this accused Lalu Prasad. Lalu Prasad, Chief Minister – cum- Finance Minister remain long time and he never hand over charge of Finance Department to any other Minister. The Vigilance I.G, D.P. Ojha who later on got promotion as D.G.P, Bihar never took interest in Vigilance Case No. 34/1990. P.W.200 Vidhu Bhushan Dwevedi clearly stated on oath that D.P Ojha was in close contact with accused Lalu --126– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

Prasad and others and they compelled to this witness for deleting the name of accused Lalu Prasad in the petition. Lalu Prasad although taken oath of Indian Constitution but never maintained the sanctity of oath. Accused Lalu Prasad extended the service of co-accused R.K. Das, Shyam Bihari Sinha. S.B. Sinha according to law superannuated on 31.12.1993 but he granted extension of service retrospective effect which is against the Rules and Regulations. Accused Lalu Prasad wrote a letter in favour of Ram Raj Ram co-accused who appointed as Director of AHD, Bihar. The Hon'ble Patna High Court quashed the appointment of Ram Raj Ram and ordered to maintain seniority of Radhe Shyam Sharma but accused Lalu Prasad elected as Chief Minister of Bihar in March – 1990 never implemented the order of Hon'ble High Court, Patna and helped Ram Raj Ram to file a Writ Petition in Hon'ble Supreme Court and manage any how status quo in favour of Ram Raj Ram and that petition remain pending in the Hon'ble Supreme Court till 1996. During 1990 to 1996 in the leadership of accused Lalu Prasad Yadav. Other co-accused withdrew money fraudulently from many District Treasuries in Santhal Pargana including, Dumka Treasury. The Finance Secretary appointed such type of person who followed the oral direction of accused Lalu Prasad so no any Finance Secretary dare to disclose the Fodder Scam which was continuous till 1996. Accused claim that he ordered to F.I.R against those persons who fraudulently withdrawn money from District Treasuries is totally excuse to show honestly on his part in last hour of Fodder Scam. The accused Lalu Prasad who born in a poor family, when entered in politics he started to flow the river of corruption in every field including AHD, Department. The State Government employee do not pay remuneration, regularly they compel to do work on half pay monthly payments. Accused earn a lot of money from illegal sources and made a Regional Party of whose all in all is Lalu Prasad Yadav. In pursuance of Hon'ble Court’s order accused Lalu Prasad left the Chair of Chief Minister in favour of his wife Rabri Devi. On the basis of politics accused created hurdle in disposal of criminal cases which remain pending up to 20 years and accused enjoyed politics power. Although charge-sheet submitted on 11.05.2000 in the court but accused Lalu Yadav elected as M.P and became Railway Minister of Central Government. Whereas the condition at the time of bail impose by the Hon'ble Court is that without prior permission of trial court the accused do not go beyond Bihar State. The CAG report of year 1988 – 89 grant Rs. 36.77 Crores excess reported Rs. 6.13 Crores in percentage 17 % more expenditure over budget provisions. Finance Department received the CAG report on --127– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

16.11.1993 which was seen by Finance Minister / Chief Minister on 18.12.1993 and similarly report of financial year 1989 – 90, 20 % more seen on 19.07.1994, Financial year 1990 – 91, 53 % more over budget provision seen on 05.06.1995, Financial Year – 1991 – 92, 120 % more over budget provision received in Finance Department on 17.01.1995 and seen by Finance Minister -cum- Chief Minister on 04.06.1995, Financial Year – 1992 – 93 – 131 % more over budget provision expenditure received in Finance Department on 22.05.1995 and seen by the Chief Minister – Finance Minister on 10.06.1995. Financial Year 1993 – 94 – 169 % excess withdrawal over budget provision, CAG report received on 27.09.1995 in Finance Department and seen by Chief Minister – cum- Finance Minister on 26.11.1995. and lastly for Financial Year 1994 – 95 excess withdrawal 229 % more over budget provision received in Finance Department on 15.06.1996 and seen by Chief Minister – cum- Finance Minister on 21.06.1996 which shows that Finance Minister Lalu Prasad was aware of the actual grants, actual expenditure and excess expenditure over and above the budget provision of AHD since December – 1993 and Lalu Prasad did not deliberately take any steps to inquire or stop the astronomical excess expenditure prevalent in AHD. Lalu Prasad approved the draft memorandum presented to 10th Finance Commission on forecast of resources of Revenue Account for the period 1995 – 2000 on 26.05.1994. The memorandum reflected actual expenditure pertaining to the major head 2403 of AHD for the last three years i.e., 1990 – 91 (Rs. 72.29 Crores), 1991 – 92 (Rs. 117.60 Crores), and 1992 – 93 (Rs. 143.25 crores). 113. In response to the call attention motion question no. 10 dated 18.03.1991 of Sri Kripa Nath Pathak and Shatrudhan Prasad Singh both MLC on subject of serious irregularities and fraudulent withdrawals by R.D, AHD, Ranchi a draft reply was approved. Accused Lalu Prasad, the then Chief Minister gave a false assurance on floor of the Legislative Council that matter would be got enquired by CBI and if necessary by U.N.O, after submission of report by PAC. No investigation into the allegations levelled in the last part of the FIR of Vigilance Case No. 34/1990 was made, when the Scam had broken out this investigated portion of FIR of Vigilance Case No. 34/1990. 114. In the perusal of all oral and documentary evidences as on record, court found that accused Lalu Prasad Yadav play center role in criminal misappropriation of Government money withdrawn from many District Treasuries. Accused provide protection to co-accused of criminal conspiracy, who fraudulently withdrawn money from District Treasuries in collusion of --128– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

Treasury Officers, R.D, AHD, the then Dy. Collector, AHD employee and suppliers in AHD Department. In the above discussion court found that prosecution side successfully proved alleged charges against accused Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav beyond reasonable doubt. In the ends of Justice no benefit of doubt exercised in the favour of accused and appropriate order pass in the later part of this judgment. 115. Accused Mahesh Prasad stated in statement U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C on 22.11.2017 that he was functioned as Secretary of Animal Husbandry Department since 22.09.1992 to 07.05.1994 in the capacity of the Secretary AHD and Fisheries Department. Accused clearly deny to participate in criminal conspiracy with co-accused Om Prakash Diwakar and other accused. Accused denied to facilitate fraudulent payment of Rs. 03,76,38,853/- from Dumka Treasury and also deny to extending hospitalities to the members of the alleged criminal conspiracy. Accused deny to receive undue illegal gratification and pecuniary advantages of yourself and also for co-conspirator Lalu Prasad to scuttle the investigation / enquiry, whenever the matter relating to alleged fraudulent payment came to fore. Accused deny to furnish false employee relating to excess withdrawal in respect the question raised by Sri Nilamber Chaudhary, MLC in 122 Session and also deny to the criminal conspiracy in furnishing and misleading reply to the question raised by Sri Lalit Oraon, M.P, Lok Sabha and deny to furnish falsified account of AHD to the Finance Department and reflecting surrender of grants despite heavy expenses incurred by the AHD. Accused deny to taken proper action against those persons, who disclosed in letter dated 08.06.1995 and 29.12.1995 by the A.G., Bihar and Finance Department letter no. 24.10.1995 and 20.12.1995 informed. Accused clearly deny to visit Calcutta between 1992 – 96. Accused also deny to taken Air-tickets from any other co-accused and pleaded innocent. 116. On behalf of prosecution examined P.W.s – 45, 109, 124, 129, 130, 131, 133, 201, 224 & 225 and filed following documentary evidences Exhibits. - 1/29, 18/159 & 18/160, 60, 60/50 & 60/51, 60/153 to 60/180, 68, 69 to 69/10, 70/1, 70/4 to 70/13, 71 to 71/2, 72/1 & 72/2, 73, 74, 108 to 108/77, 109, 110 to 110/4 . 117. In the light of advance argument on behalf of both sides perused the oral and documentary evidences, it is clear that P.W.,55 Md. Sayeed and P.W. 196 Rameshwar Prasad Chaudhary both are approver, so they stated about the false receiving of supply and false bill prepared and passed by D.D.O, Regional Director, AHD, Santhal Pargana, Dumka with the collusion of --129– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

Treasury, Dumka Officer. P.W. 217 Dipesh Chandok stated in the chief in examination that he provide illegal gratifications to accused persons but P.W. 232 D.N. Vishwas and P.W. 245 Ajay Kumar Jha both are part I.O of this case stated that nothing seized which shows connection of this accused Mahesh Prasad in criminal conspiracy of this case. From perusal of documentary evidences, it is clear that Director, AHD, Patna is sole responsible for planning and budget provide to Regional Director, of AHD. The Director of AHD, the then Ram Raj Ram received statement from the office of Regional Director of AHD from State and provided to Financial Secretary. The Financial Secretary with advance approval of Finance Minister prepared budget and put in the floor of Legislative Assembly. So it is clear that the Secretary of AHD according to Bihar Financial Rule is not responsible for financial matter. The Secretary of AHD is head of administration. In the light of advance argument on behalf of both sides and proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidences, court found that Secretary of AHD is not responsible for excess/illegal payment from Dumka Treasury. The A.G send audit report to financial secretary Director of AHD in relating to excess withdrawal from Dumka Treasury but never send to secretary of AHD office Patna. Court found that prosecution agency is not proved alleged charges against accused Mahesh Prasad beyond reasonable doubt. The benefit of doubt in the ends of Justice may be provide to accused Mahesh Prasad in this case and pass a reasonable order later on part of judgment. 118. Accused Manoranjan Prasad stated in statement U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C in which disclosed that he was functioned as DAHO, Deoghar during 1995 – 96 and deny to participate in criminal conspiracy with othre co-conspirator of this case and also deny to fraudulently and dishonestly certified receipt of Veterinary medicines shown to have been supplied by M/s. Viyapar Kutir and others. He further deny to facilitated co-conspirator for making fraudulent payments, resulting in wrongful loss of Rs. 03,76,38,853/- to government exchequer from Dumka Treasury. 119. On behalf of prosecution examined P.W.s – 37, 55 & 232 and filed following documentary evidences Exhibits. - 25/89 to 25/93, 26/653 to 27/700. 120. In the light of advance argument on behalf of both sides and after perusal of oral and documentary evidences as on record, court found that exhibits – 25/89 to 25/93 and 26/653 to 26/700 shows that accused granted receipt in favour of suppliers without supplying the medicines, which shows that accused Manoranjan Prasad participate in criminal conspiracy and counter- --130– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

signed the receipt of veterinary medicine on bills of the private parties M/s. Viyapar Kutir and others and thereby facilitated that alleged fraudulent payments from Dumka Treasuries during the period of alleged occurrence. After perusal of all above oral and documentary evidences court found that prosecution side successfully proved above alleged charges against accused person beyond reasonable doubt and no any reason to doubt about alleged charges in the ends of Justice. The relevant order passed in the relevant portion of the judgment. 121. Accused Mehar Chandra Subarno stated in statement U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C on 22.11.2017 that he was the Regional Development Commissioner of South Chhotanagpur Region , Ranchi during the period 1989 to 1991. Accused denied to participate in criminal conspiracy with Dr. O.P Diwakar, Regional Director, AHD, Dumka and other co-conspirators of this case and he further denial in conspiracy to withdrawn fraudulently and dishonestly from District Treasury, Dumka up to Rs. 03,76,38,853/- in December – 1995 and January – 1996. Accused also deny to receive letter report dated 05.04.1990 from Sri P.S. Iyer, Dy. Accountant General ( I & W) in relating to information regarding fraudulent payment in AHD and pleaded as innocent. 122. On behalf of prosecution examined P.W.s – 45, 84, 160 & 192 and filed following documentary evidences Exhibits. - 38/270, 38/271, 38/276, 38/277, 38/278, 38/281, 38/282, 47 to 47/5, 48 to 48/4, 49 to 49/2, 50 to 50/18, 50/18, 51 to 51/3, 60/38, 83, 83/1, 83/2, 83/3. 123. In the light of advance argument on behalf of both sides learned lawyer submitted in the court and perusal of oral and documentary evidences as brought on record on behalf of both sides. Court found that offence committed in December – 1995 and January – 1996 in which fraudulently withdrawn money from Dumka Treasury whereas the accused the Regional Development Commissioner in the Ranchi range and not in Santhal Pargana Range where Dumka Treasury situated. The allegation that accused obtained illegal gratification for the undue favours to co-conspirators is not clear, the approver who examined in the court is not reliable because they deposed in pretext to save himself from prosecution. After considering all facts and circumstances as on record, court found that prosecution side do not prove above alleged charges against accused Mehar Chandra Subarno beyond reasonable doubt successfully. Further the court found that in the ends of Justice the benefit of doubt may be provided to the accused person Mehar Chandra Subarno in this case. The order pass in proper place of judgment in --131– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

later part. 124. Accused Mohindra Singh Bedi stated in statement U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C that he was owner of M/s. Semex Cryogenics, Delhi. Accused deny to participate in criminal conspiracy with co-conspirator Dr. O.P Diwakar and others. Accused further deny to receive fraudulent payments of Rs. 13,45,464/- from Dumka Treasury during the year 1995 – 96. Accused disclosed that he received payments after supply articles in AHD and he do not submit forge vouchers. Further stated that he received order to supply. M/s. Semex Cryogenics, Delhi is approved by the then Central Purchase Committee and not approved from Government of Bihar to supply of AI instruments and lastly stated that he is innocent and falsely implicated in this case. 125. On behalf of prosecution examined P.Ws – 37, 48, 55, 96, 97 & 232 and filed following documentary evidences Exhibits. - 1/13, 10/29 to 10/113, 25/98 to 25/102, 26/701 to 26/737. 126. From perusal of oral and documentary evidences as brought on the record and advance argument as put up by learned lawyer on behalf of both sides. Court found that the Exhibits vouchers submitted on behalf of M/s. Semex Cryogenics, Delhi do not prove the means of supply. I.O D.N. Vishwas and Ajay Kumar Jha examined in the court, both stated that accused Mohinder Singh Bedi in close contact of co-conspirator Shyam Bihari Sinha. Accused submitted false and forge manufactured vouchers in AHD and consequently in pursuance of criminal conspiracy fraudulently withdrawn money from Dumka Treasury in account of M/s. Semex Cryogenics, Delhi. After perusal of all oral and documentary evidences as on record, court found that prosecution side successfully proved that accused submitted 37 fake invoices relating to supply of AI instruments and lubricants. Prosecution side successfully proved alleged charges against accused Mohinder Singh Bedi beyond reasonable doubt and there is no doubt in favour of accused Mohinder Singh Bedi. The appropriate order pass in the appropriate place of judgment of this case. 127. Accused Nand Kishore Prasad stated in statement U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C that he was functioned as artificial insemination officer of AHD, Dumka during 1995 – 96. Further stated that he issued certify of receiving veterinary medicine on oral order of Regional Director, Dumka whereas he was not authorize to receive. Accused deny to participate in criminal conspiracy and defrauded amount from Dumka Treasury were used for making illegal payments and extending hospitalities to the members of alleged criminal conspiracy. Accused further stated in answer of question no. 10 that he --132– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

received feed and fodder of Animals which send from Ranchi AHD Store to Dumka to AHD Store and pleaded innocent in this case. 128. On behalf of prosecution examined P.W.s – 37, 55 & 232 and filed following documentary evidences Exhibits. - 25/35 to 25/45, 26/222 to 26/296. 129. From perusal of oral and documentary evidences as on record, court found that the receiving exhibits no. 25/35 to 25/45 and 26/222 to 26/296 falsely certified the receipt of lubricants and AI equipments. On the basis of false certificate, the supplier submit forge vouchers and Regional Director, AHD, Dumka Shesh Muni Ram on the basis of false certificate prepared bill and passed. In this way, accused facilitate suppliers to withdrawn fraudulently and dishonestly a total Sum of Rs. 03,13,41,451/- from Dumka Treasury. P.W. 232 and 245 clearly stated that without supplying medicines / Fodder accused issued falsed certificate in respect of supply. In the light of above observation as discussed, court found that prosecution side successfully proved above alleged charges against accused Nand Kishore Prasad beyond reasonable doubt. On behalf of defence no any documentary or oral evidence proved in the court which can create doubt in respect of alleged charges. Hence, court found that accused do not deserve the privilege of doubt in the ends of Justice. Order pass in the later part of judgment.

130. Accused Naresh Prasad stated in statement U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C that he was owner of M/s. Viyapar Kutir, Patna on paper but real owner was Dr. Manoj Kumar Srivastava. Accused deny to participate in criminal conspiracy with co-conspirator Dr. O.P. Diwakar and others. Accused also deny to receive fraudulent payments of Rs. 04,99,900/- from Dumka Treasury but further stated that money deposit in the bank account of his firm and this accused sign the cheque and hand over to Dr. Manoj Kumar Srivastava. Accused found Rs. 5,000/- or some time Rs. 10,000/- from Manoj Srivastava when sign the cheque or draft by this accused. Accused disclosed that he is approver witness in R.C No. 45 (A)/1996 and pleaded that he was innocent he never deposit any supply vouchers in AHD Office. 131. On behalf of prosecution examined P.W.s – 37, 46, 48, 55, 97 & 232 and filed following documentary evidences Exhibits. -1/13, 10/29 to 10/113, 25/93, 25/94 to 25/97, 26/653 to 26/700. 132. In the light of above oral and documentary evidence as brought on the record on behalf of the both sides, court found that accused is the owner of M/s. Viyapar Kutir, Patna and he received Rs. 04,99,900/- on the basis of 40 --133– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

fake invoices relating to supply of veterinary medicines submitted to Regional Director, AHD, Dumka. Oral evidence deposed P.W. 37, 48, 55, 97, 46 and 232 who clearly stated in the chief in examination that Naresh Prasad owner of M/s. Viyapar Kutir, Patna and accused is the owner of M/s. Viyapar Kutir, Patna the draft deposit in the account of M/s. Viyapar Kutir so this plea is not reliable that Dr. Manoj Kumar Srivastava paid him Rs. 5,000/- or Rs. 10,000/- when any draft deposit in the firm account. Accused enjoy the money which withdrawn dishonestly from the Dumka Treasury in December – 1995 and January – 1996. In the light of above discussion court found that prosecution side successfully proved the above alleged charges against this accused beyond reasonable doubt and court further found that accused do not deserve the benefit of doubt in this case. Hence, order pass in other part of the judgment. 133. Accused Om Prakash Diwakar - in statement U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C accused Om Prakash Diwakar stated that he was the Regional Director of AHD, Santhal Pargna Range, Dumka during 1995 – 96 and he deny to pass a forge bill in pursuance of criminal conspiracy with other co-conspirator. He also deny to fraudulently and dishonestly passed 96 fake bills as D.D.O up to amount Rs. 03,76,38,853/- from Dumka Treasury in December – 1995 and January – 1996. Accused totally deny conspiracy to prepare forged allotment letters. Accused disclosed in his statement that the supply of medicine certified by doctors, on the basis of certified he passed the bill. He also deny to pass bill dishonestly split up in accordance with the financial power vested to him. He deny in corresponding question no. 10 that he do not purchase any medicine / articles from his office. He further disclosed that articles or medicine purchase from the office of Patna Director and payment is also done by the Director. Accused also deny the animal feed transported from Ranchi AHD Store to Dumka AHD Store and no any bill pass of transportation. Accused also deny to issue receipt relating to documents when PAC came to enquire in AHD Office Dumka and pleaded totally innocent from above alleged charges. 134. On behalf of prosecution examined P.W.s – 37, 48, 55, 93, 97, 99, 110, 116, & 232 and filed following documentary evidences Exhibits. - 1/13, 10/29 to 10/113, 23, 23/1, 24, 25 to 25/4, 25/5 to 25/19, 25/20 to 25/34, 25/35 to 25/45, 25/46 to 25/59, 25/60 to 25/63, , 25/70 to 25/72, 25/73 to 25/78, 25/79 to 25/84, 25/85 to 25/88, 25/89 to 25/93, 25/94 to 25/97, 25/98 to 25/102, 26 to 26/49, 26/50 to 26/90, 26/91 to 26/221, 26/222 to 26/296, 26/297 to 26/354, 26/355 to 26/394, 26/395 to 26/464, 26/465 to 26/494, 26/495 to 26/554, 26/555 to 26/612, 26/613 to 26/652, 26/653 to 26/700, 26/701 to --134– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

26/737, 44/1, 56, 57, 60, 60/1, 61, 64. 135. In the light of documentary and oral evidences as on record, court found that accused was posted as Director AHD, Dumka, who passed the bill and send to Treasury. Accused as the Regional Director, Dumka passed the fake bills of veterinary medicines, lubricants and also passed fake transportation bills of cattle feed and fodder in addition to the purchase of such materials by all the five district Animal Husbandry Officer for use of such materials. Accused in furtherance of criminal conspiracy causing wrongful loss of Rs. 03,13,41,451/- the State Exchequer . The P.Ws 232 and 245 fully supported the prosecution story. It is pertinent that the criminal conspiracy of O.P Diwakar, AHD, Dumka had given illegal gratification of lakhs of rupees and Sri Chandradeo Prasad Verma rewarded for posting him as R.D, AHD, Dumka. Accused succeeded in office, Shesh Muni Ram who already in contact with co-accused Shyam Bihari Sinha. When this accused was posted in the office of R.D, AHD, Dumka he started the same manner as dishonestly and fraudulently Ex-Regional Director follow the way in relating to supply. Accused withdrawn fraudulently Rs. 03,13,41,451/- illegally withdrawn from State Exchequer and wrongfully gain to himself and for others co-conspirators. From perusal of records, it is transpired that a bill relating to such medicines which never manufactured in the laboratory but AHD Employee granted false receipts in favour of suppliers. The then Dy. Collector Brij Kishore Pathak conduct inquiry on the direction of D.C - A.K. Singh found that O.P. Diwakar withdrawn Rs. 03,13,41,451/- in month December – 1995 and January – 1996. P.W. No. 110 Brij Kishore Pathak deposed in the court that Regional Director withdrawn fraudulently without receiving the medicines and feeds, although the supplier stated that they supplied the medicines and received payments from Dumka Treasury cannot be rely because the vehicles is two -wheeler and three-wheeler and government vehicles. The firm who submitted the vouchers of supply are never exist on land they only establish on paper. 136. In the light of above appreciation of all oral and documentary evidences, court found that this fellow accused Dr. Om Prakash Diwakar a higher officer in Santhal Pargana Region as Regional Director, Dumka took part in criminal conspiracy and helped in passing bill from Dumka Treasury. Accused had knowledge about forged allotment letters but he used as genuine and looted money from government exchequer. In the light of above discussion, court found that prosecution side successfully proved alleged charges against this accused and there is no any doubt the criminal --135– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

misappropriation of money and hospitality in favour of other co-accused. Court passed order in the later part of judgment accordingly. 137. Accused Pankaj Mohan Bhui stated in statement U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C that he was Accountant in office of Regional Director of AHD, Santhal Pargana, Dumka during 1995 – 96. Accused deny to participate in criminal conspiracy with other co-conspirators of this case. Further deny fraudulently payment of Rs. 03,76,38,853/- from Dumka Treasury whose 96 bills verified by this accused. He further disclosed that Head-clerk Rameshwar Prasad Chaudhary worked as Accountant and this accused manage in office corresponding works. Accused also deny to extending hospitalities to the members of alleged criminal conspiracy. Accused deny inquiry from PAC member and pleaded as innocent in this case. 138. On behalf of prosecution examined P.Ws – 37, 55, 93, 99 & 232 and filed following documentary evidences Exhibits. - 23, 23/1, 24, 25 to 25/4, 25/5 to 25/19, 25/20 to 25/34, 25/35 to 25/45, 25/46 to 25/59, 25/60 to 25/63, 25/70 to 25/72, 25/73 to 25/78, 25/79 to 25/84, 25/85 to 25/88, 25/89 to 25/93, 25/94 to 25/97, 25/98 to 25/102, 26 to 26/49, 26/50 to 26/90, 26/91 to 26/221, 26/222 to 26/296, 26/297 to 26/354, 26/355 to 26/394, 26/395 to 26/464, 26/465 to 26/494, 26/495 to 26/554, 26/555 to 26/612, 26/613 to 26/652, 26/653 to 26/700, 26/701 to 26/737, 56, 57, 60, 60/1, 61. 139. From perusal of oral and documentary evidences, court found that accused was posted as Accountant in the Office of R.D, AHD, Dumka. Further reveal that accused supplier and transporters to facilitate alleged fraudulent payments from Dumka Treasury. Accused posted in the Dumka, R.D, AHD, Santhal Pargana Office as Accountant but according to accused he maintain corresponding and accountant work conducted by Head-clerk Rameshwar Choudhary. Accused is government employee and he accepted that he scrutinize the bill, so this accused in furtherance of criminal conspiracy took active part so there is no any reason to shift the real liability from one person to another person. So in the light of oral and documentary evidences, court found that Dy. Collector Brij Kishore Pathak rightly conducted the inquiry in the office of R.D., AHD, Dumka and found that the vouchers submitted by those firms which never existed in virtual world and this accused in furtherance of criminal conspiracy facilitate to other co-conspirators and fraudulently withdrawn money from Dumka Treasury, so court found that prosecution side successfully proved alleged charges against accused Pankaj Mohan Bhui beyond reasonable doubt and there is no scope to provide the benefit of doubt. --136– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

The order pass in later part of judgment in proper place. 140. Accused Phool Chand Singh stated in statement U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C that he was functioned as Finance Commissioner of the Government of Bihar from 1992 to 1994 and subsequently functioned as Development Commissioner during 1995 – 96. Accused deny to constitute a criminal conspiracy with Dr. O.P. Diwakar Regional Director, AHD, Dumka and other co-conspirators. Accused deny to fraudulently and dishonestly facilitated fraudulent payment of Rs. 03,76,38,853/- from Dumka Treasury. Accused disclosed that CAG report for financial year 1988 – 89 to 1994 – 95 mentioned details of Sanction grant, expenditure and excess payments made by Animal Husbandry Department of Bihar. In pursuant of criminal conspiracy, the Finance Secretary do not take step to stop excess / fraudulent withdrawal from Dumka Treasury. Accused deny to ignore the R.B.I statements sent to t he Finance Department which mentioned heavy withdrawals by AHD and this accused facilitated alleged withdrawals from Dumka Treasury. Accused disclosed that a specific meeting was held on 07.06.1993, in which, accused did not initiate about any action. The Finance Department of the government of Bihar prepared forecast of resources for 10th Finance Commission in May – 1994 about none plan expenditure including expenditure of Animal Husbandry Department. Accused pleaded innocent but court found that prosecution side successfully proved the role of this accused to participate in criminal conspiracy and provide hospitality to other co-accused. Accused posted in Finance Department, who prepared the Annual Budget and put up before Finance Minister, later on passed from Cabinet for Financial Year expenditure. Accused deliberately do not take action against co-conspirators and facilitate to withdrawn fraudulently from Dumka Treasury and supplier received and deposited money in their firm account without supplying the materials. Accused was an active member of criminal conspiracy and was in direct touch with other co-accused Lalu Prasad Yadav the then Finance Minister -cum- Chief Minister. Accused do not dare to deny the illegal fraudulently withdrawal from many treasuries. Accused received CAG report which shows that excess withdrawal was in ascending order. This accused hand over the charge in August – 1995 to successor Vijay Shankar Dubey. In pursuant of larger conspiracy this accused is liable for fraudulently withdrawn money in December – 1995 and January – 1996. Accused remain posted as Finance Secretary under the Finance Minister, who managed the financial position of state and liable to maintain discipline in respect of financial position of state. --137– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

141. On behalf of prosecution examined P.W.s – 179, 180, 182, 199 & 221 and filed following documentary evidences Exhibits. - 1/44, 18/181 to 18/192, 26/102, 26/103, 38/349, 60/18 to 60/32, 60/33 to 60/35, 60/39 to 60/48, 107 to 107/2, D-1 to D – 18, E. 142. The Finance Commissioner had information from the report being sent to 10th Finance Commission in the month os May – 1994. The reports disclosed the figures of fraudulent payments of AHD that were prima facie far in excess of the voted grant and thereby was a party to the alleged criminal conspiracy which aided and abetted the alleged fraudulent payments from Dumka Treasury. Accused facilitated the alleged fraudulent payment from Dumka Treasury. Accused as public servant obtained pecuniary advantage from the members of conspiracy at the cost of State Exchequer. 143. From perusal of oral and documentary evidences, court found that prosecution side successfully proved with the help of oral and documentary evidence, the alleged charges against accused Phool Chand Singh beyond reasonable doubt and accused do not deserve the benefit of doubt in the ends of Justice. Court pass order in later part of judgment accordingly. 144. Accused Pitamber Jha stated in statement U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C that he was functioned as T.V.O (Mobile) Deoghar during financial year 1995 – 96. It is his first posting in July – 1995. Further accused deny in pursuant to criminal conspiracy with other co-conspirators of this case. Accused further deny to grant receipt certificate of veterinary medicines which supplied by M/s. Viyapar Kutir and others and facilitated co-conspirator to withdrawn fraudulently Rs. 03,76,38,853/- from government exchequer. Accused deny to extending hospitalities to the members of the alleged criminal conspiracy. Accused deny to have knowledge about fraudulent withdrawals and pleaded as innocent. 145. On behalf of prosecution examined P.Ws – 37, 55 & 232 and filed following documentary evidences Exhibits. - 25/89 to 25/93, 26/653 to 26/700. 146. In the light of advance argument on behalf of both sides. The Ld. Lawyer throw light on oral and documentary evidences. After perusal of records court found that accused accepted that he issued receipt without supplying material from the firm M/s. Viyapar Kutir and others. Exhibits clearly shows that accused made signature on the certificate and do not brought this matter before any legal authority. This accused became a part of criminal conspiracy which running since 1990 on a big stage, co-conspirators who posted in different capacities organized a gang of Scamsters and fraudulently --138– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

withdrawn money from many treasuries of the state. Particularly, this accused Pitamber Jha granted very few certificate but no any excuse on the part of accused that why he issued the receipt without receiving the supply. After perusal of records court found that prosecution sides successfully able to prove alleged charges against this accused beyond reasonable doubt and accused has no cogent reason that why he granted receipts without receiving the supply in the office of R.D. AHD, Santhal Pargana Range, Dumka. The proper order passed in later part of this judgment. 147. Accused Radha Mohan Mandal stated in statement U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C that he was functioned as Sub-Divisional AHD Officer, Godda during 1995 – 96. He disclosed that after receiving medicine supply he granted receiving certificate in favour of supplier and deny to facilitate co-conspirators for making fraudulent payments resulting in wrongful loss of Rs. 03,76,38,853/- to government exchequer. Accused granted certificate of receiving in favour of supplier M/s. Little Oak Pharmaceuticals & Others and clearly deny to participate in criminal conspiracy. Accused clearly deny the knowledge of fake allotment letters and repeatedly disclosed that he gave receiving certificate in favour of supplier after receiving supply of medicines and no any criminal conspiracy to pass bill. Accused admitted that he do not place order for supply of medicines. Accused deny to issue false receipt regarding transfer of documents relating to alleged fraudulent document from the office of AHD, Dumka to PAC and claimed to be innocent. 148. On behalf of prosecution examined P.Ws – 37, 55, 71 & 232 and filed following documentary evidences Exhibits. - 26/465 to 26/494, 26/564 to 26/584, 26/605 to 26/612, 26/355 to 26/374. 149. In the light of advance argument by learned lawyer on behalf of both parties and perusal of oral and documentary evidences as on record. Court found that Radha Mohan Mandal as Sub-Divisional Animal Husbandry Officer falsely certified the receipt of veterinary medicines on the bills of the private parties and thereby facilitated the alleged fraudulent payments from Dumka Treasury during December 1995 and January – 1996. Exhibit. 26 series clearly shows that accused granted receiving certificate in respect of supply whereas no any supply was in real sense. P.W.232 D.N. Vishwas, P.W. 245 Ajay Kumar Jha fully support the prosecution story. P.W. 30 Anand Kumar Gutgutia and P.W. 174 Shiv Kumar Patwari deposed that no transport in real sense but they prepared vouchers in respect of supply, which is false. So after perusal of all oral and documentary evidences, court found that prosecution side successfully --139– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

proved alleged charges against accused and accused do not deserve the privilege of doubt in his favour. The proper order pass in later part of judgment. 150. Accused Raghu Nandan Prasad stated in statement U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C that he was functioned as Assistant Director Paultry, AHD, Dumkar during 1988 to 1998. He further disclosed that he granted receiving certificate in favour of suppliers M/s. Semex Cryogenics, M/s. Laxmi Enterprises and Others. Accused deny to involve in criminal conspiracy and facilitated co- conspirator for making fraudulent payments up to Rs.03,76,38,853/- from government exchequer. He deny as taken part in active criminal conspiracy and defrauded Dumka Treasury and deny to extending hospitalities to the members of alleged criminal conspiracy. Accused totally deny the knowledge of false allotment. Accused show unknownness regarding the authorized supplier and further press that he granted receiving certificate, in which, supply received by him. Accused disclosed in response of question no. 8 that on the direction of Shesh Muni Ram he granted receipt in favour of supplier. He clearly deposed that he never hand over any record to PAC and pleaded innocent. 151. On behalf of prosecution examined P.Ws – 37, 55, 95 & 232 and filed following documentary evidences Exhibits. - 25/25 to 25/29, 25/31 to 25/34, 25/67, 25/95 to 25/97, 26/131 to 26/160, 26/171 to 26/221, 26/425 to 26/444, 26/701 to 26/737, 58, 58/1. 152. Kept advance argument of learned lawyer in mind and perused the records it is transpired that Dr. Raghu Nandan Prasad, Assistant Director Poultry , Dumka falsely certified the receipt of veterinary medicines on the bills of private party and thereby facilitated the alleged fraudulent payments from Dumk. Documentary exhibits shows that the vehicles whose registration number written in supply vouchers were fake. P.W. 174 Shiv Kumar Patwari and P.W. 30 Anand Kumar Gutgutia clearly stated that they submitted the vouchers of transportation without any reason and the bill passed in favour of accused firm account. P.W. 37, 55, 95 and 232 fully supported the prosecution story. 153. After perusal of records and proper appreciation of oral evidences, court found that prosecution side successfully proved alleged charges against accused person. This accused Dr. Raghu Nandan Prasad was never authorized to receive supply medicines and other item and grant the certificate in favour of owner of supply firms. It shows that accused took active part in criminal conspiracy and facilitated the fraudulent payments from Dumka Treasury in --140– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

December – 1995 to January – 1996. Accused is totally liable and conclusive way, court found that prosecution side successfully proved alleged charges against Raghu Nandan Prasad and there is no scope to prove benefit of doubt in the favour of accused. The proper order pass in the later of judgment. 154. Accused Raj Kumar Sharma @ Raja Ram Joshi stated in statement U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C that he was not owner of M/s. Raj Kumar Sharma and his name is Raja Ram Joshi. Accused deny in participation of criminal conspiracy with co-conspirator Dr. O.P. Diwakar and other and deny to receive fraudulent payments of Rs. 29,10,952/- from District Treasury. Accused deny to submit 75 fake bills showing transportation of 44,100 Quintals of Fodder from Stores of AHD, Ranchi to the store of Sahebganj, Pakur and other districts under the Regional Director Animal Husbandry, Santhal Pargana Range, Dumka. He deny the knowledge that Regional Director of AHD, Dumka had power to pass vouchers upto Rs. 15,000/- and pleaded to be innocent. 155. On behalf of prosecution examined P.Ws – 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16 to 23, 26 to 29, 30, 31, 32 to 36, 37, 39, 40, 42, 48, 55, 56, 62, 66, 68, 70, 72, 74, 85, 87 to 89, 97, 103, 108, 113, 153, 154, 191, 192, 194, 195 & 232 and filed following documentary evidences Exhibits. - 1 /4, 1/12, 1/13, 2/3, 2/4, 3/3, 7/34 to 7/35, 8/24 to 8/29, 8/30, 8/31, 9/38 to 9/41, 10 to 10/26, 10/29 to 10/113, 25/60 to 25/63, 26/297 to 26/354, 26/355 to 26/394 . 156. From perusal of oral and documentary evidences as on record, court found the accused as owner of M/s. R.K. Sharma, Dumka received fraudulent payments of Rs. 29,10,952/- during the period of alleged occurrence on the basis of 75 fake and forged invoices relating to transportation of cattle, feed and fodder. I.O D.N. Vishwas examined as P.W. 232 and part I.O Ajay Kumar Jha examined P.W. 245 clearly disclosed that no any animal firm was in the Santhal Pargana Region but Raja Ram Joshi in fake names registered a company and submitted forged vouchers in the office R.D, AHD, Dumka. The payments through drafts paid in the account of M/s. R.K. Sharma. So it is clear that accused actively participated in criminal conspiracy of fodder scam and also submitted a forge vouchers in relating to caws and bull supply in Santhal Pargana Region. In conclusive way, court found that prosecution side successfully proved alleged charges against the accused Raj Kumar Sharma @ Raja Ram Joshi beyond reasonable doubt and no scope to get benefit of doubt in favour of accused. In the ends of Justice the detail order pass in later part of judgment. --141– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

157. Accused Rajendra Kumar Bagaria stated in statement U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C that he was not owner of M/s. Krishna Road Careers, Pakur. Further stated that real owner of above firm was Anand Kumar Gutgutia and he was only employed in firm of Anand Traders on the basis of payments. Accused deny to receive payments of Rs. 26,58,285/- which fraudulently withdrawn from District Treasury Dumka during the year 1995 – 96 and actually payments received by Anand Kumar Gutgutia. Accused deny to submit 58 forged vouchers showing transportation of 49,200 Quintal of fodder from the stores of AHD, Ranchi to the stores of AHD Sahebganj, Pakur and other districts under administrative control of R.D, AHD, Santhal Pargana Range, Dumka. Accused totally deny relating to poultry firms and cattle, transportation in Santhal Pargana Range. Accused deny to participate in criminal conspiracy with other co-conspirators and pleaded innocent in this case. 158. On behalf of prosecution examined P.Ws – 1, 2, 16 to 23, 26 to 29, 32 to 36, 37, 39, 42, 48, 55, 56, 62, 66, 68, 70, 72, 74, 85, 87 to 89, 97, 108, 113, 153, 154, 191, 192, 194, 195 & 232 and filed following documentary evidences Exhibits. - 1, 1/13, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 to 7/13, 8, 8/1 to 8/10, 9 to 9/18, 10 to 10/26, 10/29 to 10/113, 25/70 to 25/72, 26/395 to 26/464. 159. After perusal of oral and documentary evidences as on record, court found that P.W. 30 Anand Kumar Gutgutia examined in the court who clearly accepted that the account of firm M/s. Krishna Road Career, Pakur open in the name of Rajendra Kumar Bagaria but the form fulfilled and introduced by Anand Kumar Gutgutia. The fake vouchers also in the writing of Anand Kumar Gutgutia and money transferred in the account of S.B.I, Branch, Pakur. Later on money transferred in the account of Anand Kumar Gutgutia and prepared draft at the address of Ahmadabad ( Gujarat) firms which supplied the Nirma and soap powder to Anand Firms. P.W. 232 D.N. Vishwas and P.W. 245 Ajay Kumar Jha is also accepted in cross-examination that Rajendra Kumar Bagaria is employee of Anand Gutgutia firms and account statement also shows that within two months Anand Gutgutia issued Rs. 26 Lacs draft in favour of Anand Firms, which shows that Rajendra Kumar Bagaria authorize to Anand Kumar Gutgutia and signed on the draft and cheque relating to account in his name. In this way after proper appropriation of evidences as on record, court found that accused taken part in criminal conspiracy with co-conspirator Anand Kumar Gutgutia and fraudulently withdrawn money from Dumka Treasury during December – 1995 and January – 1996. In the light of above discussion court found that prosecution side successfully proved alleged charges against --142– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

accused Rajendra Kumar Bagaria beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the proper order pass in the later part of judgment. 160. Accused Ravindra Kumar Rana stated in statement U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C that he was Veterinary Officer till December – 1994, later on he become Member of Legislative Assembly Bihar since March – 1995. Accused deny to take active participation in criminal conspiracy with Dr. O.P Diwakar, R.D, Dumka and other Co-conspirators of this case and also deny to fraudulently and dishonestly facilitated fraudulent payments of Rs. 03,76,38,853/- from District Treasury, Dumka. Accused deny to receive undue illegal gratification and pecuniary advantage of yourself and also for co-conspirator Lalu Prasad. Accused deny to receive huge pecuniary gain from co-conspirator Dr. Shyam Bihari Sinha at Hotel, Taj, Kolkatta and also deny to availed hospitalities as illegal gain for providing protection and patronage to co-conspirators and pleaded innocent. 161. On behalf of prosecution examined P.W.s – 55, 109, 215, 216, 217, 218 and filed following documentary evidences Exhibits. - 68, 69 to 69/10, 71/119 to 71/275, 78/27 to 78/39, 79/13 to 79/15, 106 to 106/8. 162. From perusal of oral and documentary evidences, it is clear that the accused was employed in AHD but never posted in South Bihar and Santhal Pargana Range. Accused have interest in association of veterinary doctors, so he had interest in transfer posting of colleagues. P.W. 55 Md. Sayeed and P.W. 174 Shiv Kumar Patwari stated that Shyam Bihari Sinha provide illegal gratification to accused Ravindra Kumar Rana and through Ravindra Kumar Rana to Lalu Prasad. Both above witnesses are approver so their statement are not reliable in absence of circumstantial evidences in support. Exhibits shows that accused R.K. Rana received illegal gratification in Taj Hotel, Kolkatta but no any conclusive prove that R.K. Rana present in Taj Hotel, Kolkatta was Ravindra Kumar Rana. No any document shows that accused favour / provide protection of co-conspirator in this case. On the basis of relationship between R.K. Rana and Lalu Prasad it cannot draw attention that accused R.K. Rana involved in larger criminal conspiracy and fraudulently withdrawn money from many treasuries. No any oral or documentary evidences shows that accused involved in the fraudulent payments in December – 1995 and January – 1996 from Dumka Treasury. Accused resigned from service in December – 1994 and take participation in State election and became MLA in March – 1995. On the basis of oral and documentary evidences, as on record, court found that prosecution side do not prove alleged charges against accused person beyond --143– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

reasonable doubt successfully and benefit of doubt in the ends of Justice may be provide in the favour of accused Ravindra Kumar Rana. The proper order pass in the later on part of judgment. 163. Accused Shardendu Kumar Das stated in statement U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C that he was functioned as Assistant at Treasury, Dumka during 1995 – 96. Further disclosed that he scrutinize 96 bills of office of R.D, AHD, Dumka and made signature on those bills. On the basis of 96 bills fraudulent payments resulting in wrongful loss of Rs. 03,76,38,853/- to government exchequer but accused deny to take part in criminal conspiracy and illegal payments from Dumka treasury. Accused also deny to extending hospitalities to the members of alleged criminal conspiracy. Accused pleased innocence. 164. On behalf of prosecution examined P.Ws – 94 & 101 and filed following documentary evidences Exhibits. - 1/26, 25 to 25/97, 25/99. 165. After perusal of oral and documentary evidence as brought on record it is clear that accused was scrutiny clerk in Dumka Treasury. Accused made signature on 96 bills that they are in order. The bills split up and passed by the Regional Director, Dumka for payments to the accused supplier and transporters. So in this way accused facilitated fraudulent payments from Dumka Treasury for pecuniary gain during the period of December – 1995 and January – 1996. From perusal of record it is also transpired that accused do not act as vigilant employee who can stop the fraudulent payments from Dumka Treasury. It is draw that accused Sardendu Kumar Das is participating in larger criminal conspiracy who fraudulently withdrawn money from many treasuries after submitting bill by AHD. In the light of above discussion court found that prosecution side successfully proved the alleged charges against accused Shardendu Kumar Das beyond reasonable doubt successfully. Hence, accused found guilty whose order pass in later part of this judgment. 166. Accused Smt. Sarswati Chandra stated in statement U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C that she was house wife of late Mahendra Prasad. She disclose that she do not know that she is the owner of M/s. S.R. Enterprises, Patna but everything was known to her husband Mahendra Prasad. She deny to participate in criminal conspiracy with co-conspirator Dr. O.P. Diwakar and other and received fraudulent payments Rs. 24,99,722/- from Dumka treasury during 1995 -96. Accused deny to submit 50 numbers of fake vouchers and bill showing supply of medicines to the R.D, AHD, Dumka. She deny about the knowledge of fraudulent withdrawal and pleaded to be innocent. 167. On behalf of prosecution examined P.Ws – 37, 55, 60, 232 & 234 and --144– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

filed following documentary evidences Exhibits. - 7/58, 8/39 to 8/47, 25 to 25/4, 26 to 26/49. 168. From perusal of oral and documentary evidences as on record, court found that P.W. 245 I.O Ajay Kumar Jha clearly accepted in cross-examination that Saraswati Chandra have no any knowledge relating to firm S.R. Enterprises, Patna she is owner of firm S.R. Enterprises on paper. The real culprit was her husband Mahendra Prasad who managed and received fraudulently payments of Rs. 24,99,720/. P.W. 245 Ajay Kumar Jha clearly accepted that non participation of accused Saraswati Chandra in business activities she do not made accused in R.C. 20 (A)/96 but her husband Mahendra Prasad was accused in that case. But why he made accused Sarasawati Chandra in R.C. 38 (A)/96 cannot given reasonable answer from Ajay Kumar Jha. Hence, after considering all facts and circumstances, court found that prosecution side do not prove alleged charges against accused Saraswati Chandra beyond reasonable doubt successfully. Court found in the ends of Justice to provide the benefit of doubt to the accused Saraswati Chandra in this case. Hence, proper order passed in the later part of the judgments. 169. Accused Vidya Sagar Nishad stated in statement U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C that age about 86 years and he was Minister of the government of Bihar for AHD during the period 1992 – 93 and he deny to participate in criminal conspiracy with Dr. O.P. Diwakar, R.D, AHD, Dumka and other co-conspirator of this case, he also deny to conspirate and fraudulently withdrawn Rs. 03,76,38,853/- from Dumka Treasury in December – 1995 and January – 1996. Accused deny to extending hospitalities to the members of criminal conspiracy and deny to receive illegal gratification from S.B. Sinha. In the ends pleaded innocent in this case. 170. On behalf of prosecution examined P.Ws – 45, 109, 192 & 203 and filed following documentary evidences Exhibits. - 38/270, 38/271, 38/276, 38/277, 38/278, 38/281, 38/282, 60/38, 60/54 to 60/67, 68, 69 to 69/10. 171. From perusal of oral and documentary evidences as on record brought on behalf of both sides, it is clear that the period of Minister in AHD is 1992 – 93 whereas the period of fraudulently withdrawal is financial year 1995 – 96. Whereas Finance Minister -cum-Chief Minister was Lalu Prasad Yadav. The matter relating to finance is put up by finance secretary before Finance Minister and not before AHD Minister. After perusal of records it is found that this accused do not involve directly in criminal conspiracy with Finance --145– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

Minister and others co-conspirators. P.W. 55 Md. Sayeed and P.W. 174 Shiv Kumar Patwari stated to provide illegal gratification to accused Vidya Sagar Nishad but above both witness granted pardon U/s- 306 of Cr.P.C so their statement cannot be reliable in the absence of independent corroboration. In the light of above discussion the court found that the prosecution side do not prove alleged charges against accused Vidya Sagar Nishad successfully beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, in the ends of Justice accused deserve the benefit of doubt. So the relevant order pass in the later part of judgment. 172. After perusal of records, court found that both documentary as well as oral evidences are sufficient on record to prove that an amount of Rs. 03,76,38,853/- had been drawn during financial year 1995 – 96 by the accused Dr. Om Prakash Diwakar in connivance with other accused Dr. Md. Sayeed, Dr. Bimal Kant Das, Dr. Krishna Kumar Prasad, Dr. Manoranjan Prasad, Dr. Nand Kishore Prasad, Dr. Pitamber Jha, Dr. Radha Mohan Mandal, Dr. Raghu Nandan Prasad and suppliers Raja Ram Joshi, Rajendra Kumar Bagaria and others. For this purpose the aforesaid accused persons created false and fabricated documents like allotment letter supply orders, bills and feed distribution files. The treasury officers and employee facilitated such fraudulent withdrawals and quietly observed that the bills are not being passed in accordance with law/Rules/Regulations and obtained pecuniary advantages in return. Similarly, the accused bureaucrats Phool Chand Singh the Finance Secretary of Bihar government despite having knowledge of fraudulent withdrawal in AHD but deliberately did not initiate any action to look into the matter to prevent the criminal misappropriation of State Government money. Politicians namely Lalu Prasad Yadav his willfully omissions and commissions have contributed to this plunder. The accused persons have invariably availed pecuniary gains and hospitality from the AHD officials and suppliers. It has been established by the prosecution that fund from government exchequer had been drawn on the basis of fake bills, fake allotment orders and supply orders. The fund so drawn had been encashed by the accused suppliers in their accounts at different places. The amount drawn was far in excess of the amounts allotted for the purposes. Fabrication of records to show consumption of materials shown to have been purchased also proves the meeting of minds from officials at District level to Directorate levels. Pecuniary advantages / gains from suppliers to AHD officials/bureaucrats and politicians have also been established. On the confirmation of fraudulent withdrawal to the tune of Rs. 03,76,38,853/- from District Treasury Dumka during the financial year --146– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

1995 – 96. In fact, it had been almost a precedent for last several year to ignore such alarming informations either through the sources of RBI and AG Office or through the sources of legislative and Vigilance Department. The government preferred to keep quiet and did not initiate any action on one pretext or the other. It has been submitted that the prosecution has proved its case through a consistent evidence and the chain of circumstantial evidences has been established to prove the angle of criminal-conspiracy. Due to this meeting of mind they had forgotten the provisions of law, constitutional provisions, service law and the government failed to enquire into the matter of criminal negligence and take drastic steps to prevent the ongoing loot. The prosecution has proved meeting of minds and conspiracy among Finance Minister, Finance Secretary and AHD Officials of Bihar by a chain of circumstantial evidences. The malafide intention of the Chief Minister/ Finance Minister nothing else when Chief Minister ordered for registration of a case SR 34/90, received information from AG Office regarding fraudulent payments to the transporter by AHD, Ranchi. Meeting of Treasury Officers, on 07.06.1993. The matter could have been stopped at an early stage, instead of taking an concrete step Sri Lalu Prasad kept on justifying the action and inaction of the AHD Officials and other bureaucrats and thereby aided and abetted the offence. 173. In view of the discussion above made remaining 19 accused persons are found guilty and being convicted for the offence U/s- 120B IPC to be r/w Section – 420, 409, 467, 468, 471, 477A of the I.P.C and Politician, Government Employee also held guilty U/s- 13 (2) r/w Sec- 13 (1)(c) & (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and order sentence in following way :- Order 174. The considered view of the court is that the involvement of the following accused namely (1). Adhip Chandra Chaudhary, (2). Beck Julius (3). Smt. Benu Jha, (4). Dhruv Bhagat, (5). Jagannath Mishra, (6). Jagdish Sharma, (7). Lal Mohan Prasad, (8). Mahesh Prasad, (9). Mehar Chandra Subarno, (10). Ravindra Kumar Rana, (11). Saraswati Chandra and (12). Vidya Sagar Nishad in alleged offences and roles played for which they have been charged jointly as well as separately is not proved and established beyond shadow of reasonable doubt, for lack of substantiate evidence. Therefore, they are not found guilty and are acquitted of the joint charges U/s- 120 B r/w – 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477A of the I.P.C and Politicians, Government employee also acquitted U/s- 13 (2) r/w 13 (I) (c) (d) of the P.C Act. 175. Accused persons namely (1). Adhip Chandra Chaudhary, (2). Smt. --147– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

Benu Jha, (3). Dhruv Bhagat, (4). Jagannath Mishra, (5). Lal Mohan Prasad, (6). Mahesh Prasad, (7). Mehar Chandra Subarno, (8). Saraswati Chandra and (9). Vidya Sagar Nishad, who have been acquitted, are on bail, consequently they are discharged from their respective bail bonds liabilities and are set at liberty in this case. Accused persons namely (1). Beck Julius, (2). Jagdish Sharma, (3). Ravindra Kumar Rana are in judicial custody. O.C is directed to issue release order at once. 176. In the light of above discussion made separately for each of the remaining accused facing trial in the instant case. The considered view of the court is that the prosecution has been able to proved and established the joint as well as separate respective charges beyond reasonable doubt against the following accused namely 1. Ajeet Kumar Verma, 2. Arun Kumar Singh, 3. Bimal Kant Das, 4. Gopi Nath Das, 5. Krishna Kumar Prasad, 6. Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav, 7. Manoranjan Prasad, 8. Mohinder Singh Bedi, 9. Nand Kishore Prasad, 10. Naresh Prasad, 11. Om Prakash Diwakar, 12. Pankaj Mohan Bhui, 13. Phool Chand Singh, 14. Pitamber Jha, 15. Radha Mohan Mandal, 16. Raj Kumar Sharma @ Raja Ram Joshi, (17). Raghu Nandan Prasad, (18). Rajendra Kumar Bagaria and (19). Shardendu Kumar Das are held jointly guilty for the offences U/s- 120B r/w Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A of the I.P.C and Politicians, Government Employee accused also held guilty separately U/s- 13 (2) r/w Section – 13 (i)(c) (d) of P.C Act and are convicted as such. 177. The above named the accused who have been found guilty and convicted for the offences in the manner referred here-in-above are on bail. Consequently upon their conviction bail bonds of the accused persons 1. Ajeet Kumar Verma, 2. Arun Kumar Singh, 3. Bimal Kant Das, 4. Gopi Nath Das, 5. Krishna Kumar Prasad, 6. Manoranjan Prasad, 7. Mohinder Singh Bedi, 8. Nand Kishore Prasad, 9. Naresh Prasad, 10. Om Prakash Diwakar, 11. Pankaj Mohan Bhui, 12. Pitamber Jha, 13. Radha Mohan Mandal, 14. Raj Kumar Sharma @ Raja Ram Joshi, (15). Raghu Nandan Prasad, (16). Rajendra Kumar Bagaria and (17). Shardendu Kumar Das hereby cancelled and they are taken into judicial custody. O.C directed to issue custody warrant. Accused Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav and Phool Chand Singh are in judicial custody, they remand back. 178. That is during trial 13 charge-sheeted accused persons have been died. They are as (1). B.B. Prasad (Budget Officer), (2). Bhola Ram Tufani (Minister), (3). Chandra Deo Prasad Verma (Minister), (4). Chhathoo Prasad --148– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

(Treasury Officer), (5). Kalika Prasad Sinha (Accountant), (6). K. Arumugam (Secretary), (7).Mahendra Prasad, (Prop. Of M/s. B.R. Pharma), (8). Raghavendra Kumar Das (Administrative Officer), (9). Rajendra Singh (Veterinary Officer), (10). Ram Raj Ram (Director), (11). S.N. Singh (Veterinary Officer), (12). Shyam Bihari Sinha ( Joint Director) and (13). Wasimuddin (Veterinary Officer). Above aforesaid accused persons trial drop due to death but civil liabilities cannot be died or discharged. Hence, C.B.I is directed to inform to E.D for enquire and seized / confiscated unproportionate movable and immovable property of above died accused persons, which acquired since January – 1990 and later on. The C.B.I also directed to take proper step according to law and enquire and seized / confiscated unproportionate movable and immovable property of above died accused persons. 179. This judgment is pronounced today 19th day of March – 2018 in open court by me. The case is fixed for hearing on the point of sentence on 21.03.2018, 22.03.2018 and 23.03.2018 on everyday six accused in Alphabetical form. O.C is directed to issue custody warrant till next fixed date. (Dictated and Corrected by me )

sd/- sd/- (Shiv Pal Singh) (Shiv Pal Singh) A.J.C-I-cum-Spl. Judge-VII, A.J.C-I-cum-Spl. Judge-VII, C.B.I (AHD Scam), Ranch. C.B.I (AHD Scam), Ranchi. Dated :- 19.03.2018 Dated :- 19.03.2018

--149– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

Point of Sentence

24.03.2018 :- On call both the sides, learned lawyers present in the court for hearing on the point of sentence. On behalf of accused namely 1. Ajeet Kumar Verma, 2. Arun Kumar Singh, 3. Bimal Kant Das, 4. Gopi Nath Das, 5. Krishna Kumar Prasad, 6. Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav, 7. Manoranjan Prasad, 8. Mohinder Singh Bedi, 9. Nand Kishore Prasad, 10. Naresh Prasad, 11. Om Prakash Diwakar, 12. Pankaj Mohan Bhui, 13. Phool Chand Singh, 14. Pitamber Jha, 15. Radha Mohan Mandal, 16. Raj Kumar Sharma @ Raja Ram Joshi, (17). Raghu Nandan Prasad, (18). Rajendra Kumar Bagaria and (19). Shardendu Kumar Das are held jointly guilty for the offences U/s- 120B r/w Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A of the I.P.C and Politicians, Government Employee accused also held guilty separately U/s- 13 (2) r/w Section – 13 (i)(c) (d) of P.C Act are convicted, who are present in the court, who already held guilty on 19.03.2018.

On behalf of accused Ajeet Kumar Verma, his learned lawyer Mr. Sanjeev Chandra submitted that accused facing trial up to more than 20 years. He is old person and senior citizen and pray that court may take lenient view in favour of accused Ajeet Kumar Verma.

On behalf of prosecution learned Spl. P.P of C.B.I Mr. Rakesh Prasad submitted that accused hold guilty that he prepared fake vouchers without supplying the veterinary medicines in furtherance of criminal conspiracy with other co-accused, so do not deserve the privilege of leniency in his favour and pray that maximum punishment may be awarded to the accused.

Heard in detail on behalf of both sides learned lawyer and consider all facts and circumstances as brought on the record. Accused held guilty U/s- 120 (B) r/w Section – 420, 467, 468, 471, 477(A) of the I.P.C, so accused awarded punishment of R.I 3 and ½ years (Three and Half Years) and fine of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Fifteen --150– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

Lakhs), in default of payment of fine, he further serve nine months punishment separately. During trial accused Ajeet Kumar Verma remain in judicial custody, which may be adjusted according to law in conviction.

On behalf of accused Arun Kumar Singh, his learned lawyer Mr. Sanjeev Chandra submitted that that accused facing trial up to more than 20 years. He is young and unemployed person, who in influence of Shesh Muni Ram prepared fake vouchers and pray that court may take lenient view in favour of accused Arun Kumar Singh.

On behalf of prosecution learned Spl. P.P of C.B.I Mr. Rakesh Prasad submitted that accused hold guilty that he prepared fake vouchers without supplying the veterinary medicines in furtherance of criminal conspiracy with other co-accused. Accused is a educated person and he availed to misuse themselves, so he do not deserve the privilege of leniency in his favour and pray that maximum punishment may be awarded to the accused.

Heard in detail on behalf of both sides learned lawyer and consider all facts and circumstances as brought on the record. Accused held guilty U/s- 120 (B) r/w Section – 420, 467, 468, 471, 477(A) of the I.P.C, so accused awarded punishment of R.I 3 and ½ years (Three and Half Years) and fine of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Fifteen Lakhs), in default of payment of fine, he further serve S.I 1 year (One year) punishment separately. During trial accused Arun Kumar Singh remain in judicial custody, which may be adjusted according to law in conviction.

On behalf of accused Bimal Kant Das, his learned lawyer Mr. Sanjeev Chandra submitted that he was posted T.V.O (Mobile), Sahebganj, AHD, Dumka during the occurrence. He issued receipt in favour of transporter M/s. Krishna Road Career and Raj Kumar Sharma and also issued receipt in favour of M/s. Vishawakarma Agency, the supply of veterinary medicines in pressure of higher officers of AHD, Department. Accused serfering last more than 20 years. He is old person. He is also suffering from --151– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat many diseases. Ld. lawyer pray that in the ends of Justice, the accused deserve the privilege of leniency in his favour.

On behalf of prosecution, learned P.P submitted that accused created bogus / false certificate. On the basis of bogus certificate R.D, AHD, Santhal Pargana Dumka passed bills and commit illegal loss to the state revenue and pray that accused played active part in criminal conspiracy with other co-accused. So do not deserve the privilege of leniency and pray that accused may be awarded maximum punishment according to law.

Heard in detail on behalf of both sides and consider all facts and circumstances as submitted by the parties Ld laywer. In the ends of Justice the following sentence is passed. Accused Bimal Kant Das hold guilty U/s- 120B r/w Section – 420, 467, 468, 471, 477(A) of I.P.C awarded punishment R.I 3 and ½ Years (Three and Half years) and fine Rs. 15,00,000/- (Fifteen Lakhs), in default of payment of fine further serve sentence S. I nine month one year separately. As held guilty U/s- 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1)(c) & (d) of P.C. Act awarded R.I 3 and ½ Years (Three and Half years) and fine Rs. 15,00,000/- (Fifteen Lakhs), in default of payment of fine further serve sentence S.I nine months separately. During trial accused Bimal Kant Das remain in judicial custody which may be adjusted according to law in conviction but both sentences accused served in consecutive manner not in concurrent way.

On behalf of accused Gopi Nath Das, his learned lawyer Mr. Sanjeev Chandra submitted that accused Gopi Nath Das facing the trial since last 20 years. Accused was Owner of M/s. Radha Pharmacy and presently he is only bread earner of his family. Accused is running a small medical shop and pray that accused deserve the lenient view in his favour.

On behalf of prosecution learned Spl. P.P of C.B.I Mr. Rakesh Prasad submitted that accused hold guilty that he prepared fake vouchers without supplying the medicines in furtherance of criminal conspiracy with other co-accused, so do not deserve the privilege of leniency in his favour and pray that maximum punishment may be awarded to the accused. --152– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

Heard in detail on behalf of both sides learned lawyer and consider all facts and circumstances as brought on the record. Accused held guilty U/s- 120 (B) r/w Section – 420, 467, 468, 471, 477(A) of the I.P.C, so accused awarded punishment of R.I 3 ½ Years (Three and Half Years) and fine of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Fifteen Lakhs), in default of payment of fine, he further serve S.I Nine months punishment separately. During trial accused Gopi Nath Das remain in judicial custody, which may be adjusted according to law in conviction.

On behalf of accused Krishna Kumar Prasad, his learned lawyer Mr. Anil Kumar Singh submitted that he was posted as T.V.O, Jasidih during the occurrence and pray that accused is a retired old person. He is also suffering from many diseases and further pray that in the ends of Justice the accused deserve the privilege of leniency in his favour.

On behalf of prosecution, learned P.P submitted that accused created bogus / false certificate. On the basis of bogus certificate R.D, Ahd, Dumka passed bill and commit illegal loss to the state revenue and pray that accused played active part in criminal conspiracy with other co-accused. So do not deserve the privilege of leniency and pray that accused may be awarded maximum punishment according to law.

Heard in detail on behalf of both sides and consider all facts and circumstances as submitted by the parties. In the ends of Justice the following sentence is passed. Accused Krishna Kumar Prasad hold guilty U/s- 120B r/w Section – 420, 467, 468, 471, 477(A) of I.P.C awarded punishment R.I 3 ½ Years ( Three and Half Years) and fine Rs. 15,00,000/- (Fifteen Lakhs) in default of payment of fine further serve sentence S.I nine months separately. As held guilty U/s- 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1)(c)(d) of P.C. Act awarded R. I 3 ½ Years ( Three and Half Years) and fine Rs. 15,00,000/- (Fifteen Lakhs) in default of payment of fine further serve sentence S.I nine months separately.. During trial accused Krishna Kumar Prasad remain in judicial custody which may be --153– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat adjusted according to law in conviction. The sentences run in the consecutive way not concurrently.

On behalf of accused Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav, his learned lawyer Mr. Prabhat Kumar appeared in the court and submitted that accused Lalu Prasad has been held guilty on 19.03.2018 in connection with R.C. Case No. 38(A)/96 arising out of Dumka Treasury. Further submitted that it is very pertinent to mention here that Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav is aged about 70 years and has been diagnosed with several health issues. On 27.08.2014 Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav has undergone Aortic Valve Replacement (AVR) with 21 mm Magna Ease Aortic Tissue Valve and ascending aortoplasty with closure of patent foramen ovale at Asian Heart Institute and Research Centre Pvt. Ltd in Mumbai. The Medical Board of Asian Heart Institute and Research Centre Pvt. Ltd has advised Lalu Prasad Yadav @ Lalu Yadav to do spirometry and deep breathing exercises, maintain good personnel hygiene including dental hygiene, check lipid profile and blood sugar on regular basis etc followed by medicines. It is also submitted that if the patient of Aortic Valve Replacement (AVR) is not taking proper care then there is a risk of experiencing complication especially in case of older people. It is a high risk of wound infection, lung infections, bladder infections, heart valve infections, excessive bleeding (which may lead to another operation), blood clots, strokes or Transient Ischaemic Attack (TIA), irregular heart beat problems, kidney problems. Lalu Prasad Yadav @ Lalu Yadav has been diagnosed with diabetes and has been advised for regular blood test, balanced diet, regular exercises followed by in taking of 18 different types of medicines. The raised blood sugar levels can cause wide range of serious health issue; the body either does not make enough insulin or cannot use what it has effectively. Glucose and Blood Sugar is the main power source of human body it comes from the food intake. Further stated that diabetes can damage large blood vessel, causing macro vascular disease, damages small blood vessels, causes heart attack, stroke, damages nerves (which can cause pain and numbness in toes, feet, legs, arms), a high blood sugar levels damages blood vessel and --154– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat kidney, causes gastroparesis, diabetic foot, damages eyes skin, heart etc. Lalu Prasad Yadav @ Lalu Yadav has under gone blood test and the report suggests that the creatinine level, HbA1C-DCCT, glucose-random, e-AG is all in higher sides. It is also submitted that if proper due care is not taken then Lalu Prasad Yadav @ Lalu Yadav will be affected with severe health hazards which cannot be cured if due precautions are not taken. Further submitted that it has come to notice Lalu Prasad Yadav @ Lalu Yadav is not keeping well and has also been diagnosed with diabetic foot and due care is not taken in case of diabetic foot (nail bed) then it may lead to imputation of fingers. The report suggests that Lalu Prasad Yadav @ Lalu Yadav has a problem of water retention which may severely affect the kidneys. Further submitted that State of Jharkhand as well as Birsa Munda Central Jail, Hotwar, Ranchi does not have any super medical facilities as well as infrastructure and if anything absurd happens to accused, he will not be given proper medical facilities . In support diseases learned lawyer submitted the relevant paper in the court and at present he is in RIMS for his treatment and doctors have advised for AIIMS, New Delhi for better treatment. In the end requested to the court that in the above circumstances of this case it would be justified an extremely short and lenient view may kindly be taken in the favour the accused.

On behalf of prosecution, learned Spl. P.P of C.B.I Mr. Rakesh Prasad highly opposed the submission of learned lawyer and submitted that the accused Lalu Prasad Yadav is a fit person who remain active 24 hours to organize Rally against government . Recently, on 27.08.2017 they organized a Mega Show in Gandhi Maidan, Patna and they emerge as a head of all opposition parties and try to pull leg of State Government as well as Central Government. Mr. Lalu Prasad Yadav is a custodian of public money after elected Chief Minister of State, in their period the public money was looted by criminals and officers do not dare to oppose the oral order of this accused and further prayed that this accused is habitual offender and already convicted in previous three cases relating to Fodder Scam and pray that the accused may be awarded rigorous punishment accordingly to law. --155– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

Heard in detail on behalf of both sides, learned lawyer and perused the filed documents. After considering all the facts and circumstances, the following sentence order is pass as held guilty U/s- 120 B r/w 420, 467, 468, 471, 477(A) of I.P.C, sentence awarded R.I of 7 years (Seven Years) and fine Rs. 30,00,000/- (Thirty Lakhs), in default of payment of fine he further serve punishment of S.I one year separately and held guilty U/s- 13 (2) r/w Section – 13 (i)(c)(d) of P.C. Act awarded sentence R.I of 7 years (Seven Years) and fine Rs. 30,00,000/- (Thirty Lakhs), in default of payment of fine he further serve punishment of S.I one year separately. During trial accused Lalu Prasad Yadav @ Lalu Yadav remain in judicial custody, which may be adjusted according to law in conviction. The sentences run in the consecutive way not concurrently.

On behalf of accused Manoranjan Prasad, his learned lawyer Mr. Akhileshwar Prasad submitted that he was posted as DAHO, Deoghar during the occurrence and pray that accused is a retired old person. He is also suffering from many diseases and further pray that in the ends of Justice the accused deserve the privilege of leniency in his favour.

On behalf of prosecution, learned P.P submitted that accused created bogus / false certificate. On the basis of bogus certificate R.D, AHD, Dumka passed bill and committed illegal loss to the state revenue and prayed that accused played active part in criminal conspiracy with other co-accused. So do not deserve the privilege of leniency and prayed that accused may be awarded maximum punishment according to law.

Heard in detail on behalf of both sides and consider all facts and circumstances as submitted by the parties. In the ends of Justice the following sentence is passed. Accused Manoranjan Prasad held guilty U/s- 120B r/w Section – 420, 467, 468, 471, 477(A) of I.P.C awarded punishment of R.I 3 ½ Years ( Three and Half Years) and fine Rs. 15,00,000/- (Fifteen Lakhs) in default of payment of fine further serve sentence S.I nine months separately. As held guilty U/s- 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1)(c)(d) of P.C. Act --156– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat awarded R.I 3 ½ Years ( Three and Half Years) and fine Rs. 15,00,000/- (Fifteen Lakhs) in default of payment of fine further serve sentence S.I nine months separately.. During trial accused Manoranjan Prasad remain in judicial custody which may be adjusted according to law in conviction. The sentences run in the consecutive way not concurrently.

On behalf of accused Mohinder Singh Bedi, his learned lawyer Mr. Akhileshwar Prasad submitted that accused Mohinder Singh Bedi facing the trial since last 20 years. Accused was Owner of M/s. Semex Cryogenics Agency, Delhi and he is suffering from very ailment and prayed that accused deserve the lenient view in his favour.

On behalf of prosecution learned Spl. P.P of C.B.I Mr. Rakesh Prasad submitted that accused held guilty that he prepared fake vouchers without supplying AI Instruments and Lubricants in furtherance of criminal conspiracy with other co-accused, so do not deserve the privilege of leniency in his favour as he is already convicted in other Fodder Scam Cases and prayed that maximum punishment may be awarded to the accused.

Heard in detail on behalf of both sides learned lawyer and consider all facts and circumstances as brought on the record. Accused held guilty U/s- 120 (B) r/w Section – 420, 467, 468, 471, 477(A) of the I.P.C, so accused awarded punishment of R.I 3 ½ Years (Three and Half Years) and fine of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Fifteen Lakhs), in default of payment of fine, he further serve S.I Nine months punishment separately. During trial accused Mohinder Singh Bedi remain in judicial custody, which may be adjusted according to law in conviction.

On behalf of accused Nand Kishore Prasad, his learned lawyer Mr. Sanjay Kumar submitted that he was posted as A.I.O, Dumka during the occurrence and pray that accused is a retired old person. He is also suffering from many diseases and further prayed that in the ends of Justice the accused deserve the privilege of leniency in his favour. --157– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

On behalf of prosecution, learned P.P submitted that accused created bogus / false certificate. On the basis of bogus certificate R.D, AHD, Dumka passed bill and committed illegal loss to the state revenue and pray that accused played active part in criminal conspiracy with other co-accused. The accused has been convicted previously in Fodder Scam Cases, so do not deserve the privilege of leniency and pray that accused may be awarded maximum punishment according to law.

Heard in detail on behalf of both sides and consider all facts and circumstances as submitted by the parties. In the ends of Justice the following sentence is passed. Accused Nand Kishore Prasad held guilty U/s- 120B r/w Section – 420, 467, 468, 471, 477(A) of I.P.C awarded punishment R.I 3 ½ Years ( Three and Half Years) and fine Rs. 15,00,000/- (Fifteen Lakhs) in default of payment of fine further serve sentence S.I nine months separately. As held guilty U/s- 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1)(c)(d) of P.C. Act awarded R.I 3 ½ Years ( Three and Half Years) and fine Rs. 15,00,000/- (Fifteen Lakhs) in default of payment of fine further serve sentence S.I nine months separately.. During trial accused Nand Kishore Prasad remain in judicial custody which may be adjusted according to law in conviction. The sentences run in the consecutive way not concurrently.

On behalf of accused Naresh Prasad, his learned lawyer Mr. Sanjay Kumar submitted that accused Naresh Prasad facing the trial since last 20 years. Accused was Owner of M/s. Viyapar Kuttir, Patna and presently he is only bread earner of his family. Accused was running a small medical shop and prayed that accused deserve the lenient view in his favour.

On behalf of prosecution learned Spl. P.P of C.B.I Mr. Rakesh Prasad submitted that accused held guilty that he prepared fake vouchers without supplying the medicines in furtherance of criminal conspiracy with other co-accused, accused has been convicted earlier in Fodder Scam Case, so do not deserve the privilege of leniency in his favour and pray that maximum punishment may be awarded to the accused. --158– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

Heard in detail on behalf of both sides learned lawyer and consider all facts and circumstances as brought on the record. Accused held guilty U/s- 120 (B) r/w Section – 420, 467, 468, 471, 477(A) of the I.P.C, so accused awarded punishment of R.I 3 ½ Years (Three and Half Years) and fine of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Fifteen Lakhs), in default of payment of fine, he further serve S.I Nine months punishment separately. During trial accused Naresh Prasad remain in judicial custody, which may be adjusted according to law in conviction.

On behalf of accused Om Prakash Diwakar, his learned lawyer Mr. Sanjay Kumar submitted that that he was posted as R.D, AHD, Dumka during the occurrence and pray that accused is a retired old person. He is also suffering from many diseases and further prayed that in the ends of Justice the accused deserve the privilege of leniency in his favour.

On behalf of prosecution, learned P.P submitted that accused passed bills on the basis of false and fabricated bills and committed illegal loss to the state revenue and prayed that accused played active part in criminal conspiracy with other co-accused. Accused has already been convicted in other Fodder Scam Cases including D.A Cases, so do not deserve the privilege of leniency and prayed that accused may be awarded maximum punishment according to law.

Heard in detail on behalf of both sides and consider all facts and circumstances as submitted by the parties. In the ends of Justice the following sentence is passed. Accused Om Prakash Diwakar held guilty U/s- 120B r/w Section – 420, 467, 468, 471, 477(A) of I.P.C awarded punishment of R.I 07 Years ( Seven Years) and fine Rs. 30,00,000/- (Thirty Lakhs) in default of payment of fine further serve sentence S.I one year separately. As held guilty U/s- 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1)(c)(d) of P.C. Act awarded R.I 07 Years ( Seven Years) and fine Rs. 30,00,000/- (Thirty Lakhs) in default of payment of fine further serve sentence S.I one year separately.. During trial accused Om Prakash Diwakar remain in judicial custody which may be adjusted according to law in --159– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat conviction. The sentences run in the consecutive way and not concurrently.

On behalf of accused Pankaj Mohan Bhui, his learned lawyer Mr. Sanjay Kumar submitted that he was posted as Accountant, in R.D, AHD, Office Dumka during the occurrence and pray that accused is a retired old person. He is also suffering from many diseases and further pray that in the ends of Justice the accused deserve the privilege of leniency in his favour.

On behalf of prosecution, learned P.P submitted that accused prepared processed split up bills. On the basis of said bills e R.D, AHD, Dumka passed bills and committed illegal loss to the state revenue and prayed that accused played active part in criminal conspiracy with other co-accused. So do not deserve the privilege of leniency and prayed that accused may be awarded maximum punishment according to law.

Heard in detail on behalf of both sides and consider all facts and circumstances as submitted by the parties. In the ends of Justice the following sentence is passed. Accused Pankaj Mohan Bhui held guilty U/s- 120B r/w Section – 420, 467, 468, 471, 477(A) of I.P.C awarded punishment of R.I 3 ½ Years ( Three and Half Years) and fine Rs. 15,00,000/- (Fifteen Lakhs) in default of payment of fine further serve sentence S.I nine months separately. As held guilty U/s- 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1)(c)(d) of P.C. Act awarded R.I 3 ½ Years ( Three and Half Years) and fine Rs. 15,00,000/- (Fifteen Lakhs) in default of payment of fine further serve sentence S.I nine months separately.. During trial accused Pankaj Mohan Bhui remain in judicial custody which may be adjusted according to law in conviction. The sentences run in the consecutive way and not concurrently.

On behalf of accused Phool Chand Singh, his learned lawyer Mr. Raj Kumar Sahay submitted that he is law abiding citizen having highest Regards for the Law of the Land as well as the court and petitioner is retired IAS Officer from Secretary level and aged about 79 years, he is diabetic patient, and also suffering --160– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat from hypertension. In support submitted medical prescription and prayed that he deserve the lenient view in his favour.

On behalf of prosecution, learned Spl. P.P of C.B.I Sri Rakesh Prasad submitted that it is admitted fact that Phool Chand Singh Sr. IAS Officer being Finance Secretary not performed his duty but it is admitted fact that he is senior citizen and prayed that he does not deserve privilege of lenient view in his favour as he has been convicted previously in Fodder Scam Case and he may be convicted according to law as provide in the above alleged charges against accused person.

Heard in detail on behalf of both sides, learned lawyer and consider all relevant facts as brought on behalf of both sides. It is transpired that accused is retired I.A.S. Officer. It is also admitted fact that accused facing trial since 1996. So after considering all relevant facts and material as available on record, in the ends of Justice the following conviction awarded U/s- 120 (B) r/w Section – 420, 467, 468, 471, 477 (A) of I.P.C and R.I 3 ½ years (Three and half years) conviction and fine of Rs. 15,00,000/- ( Fifteen Lakhs rupees ). In default of payment of fine further served the conviction of S.I nine months separately. Accused for the offence of U/s- 13 (2) r/w 13 (i)(c)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act to R.I 3 ½ years (Three and half years) conviction and fine of Rs. 15,00,000/- ( Fifteen Lakhs rupees ). In default of payment of fine further served the conviction of S.I nine months separately. During trial accused Phool Chand Singh remain in judicial custody, which may be adjusted according to law in conviction.

On behalf of accused Pitamber Jha, his learned lawyer Mr. Akhileshwar Prasad submitted that he was posted as T.V.O (Mobile), Deoghar during the occurrence and prayed that accused is at present suspended employee and this is his first offence and not convicted previously and further prayed that in the ends of Justice the accused deserve the privilege of leniency in his favour.

On behalf of prosecution, learned P.P submitted that accused created bogus / false certificate. On the basis of bogus --161– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat certificate R.D, AHD, Dumka passed bill and committed illegal loss to the state revenue and pray that accused played active part in criminal conspiracy with other co-accused, so do not deserve the privilege of leniency and prayed that accused may be awarded maximum punishment according to law.

Heard in detail on behalf of both sides and consider all facts and circumstances as submitted by the parties. In the ends of Justice the following sentence is passed. Accused Pitamber Jha held guilty U/s- 120B r/w Section – 420, 467, 468, 471, 477(A) of I.P.C awarded punishment of R.I 3 ½ Years ( Three and Half Years) and fine Rs. 15,00,000/- (Fifteen Lakhs) in default of payment of fine further serve sentence S.I nine months separately. As held guilty U/s- 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1)(c)(d) of P.C. Act awarded R.I 3 ½ Years ( Three and Half Years) and fine Rs. 15,00,000/- (Fifteen Lakhs) in default of payment of fine further serve sentence S.I nine months separately.. During trial accused Pitamber Jha remain in judicial custody which may be adjusted according to law in conviction. The sentences run in the consecutive way and not concurrently.

On behalf of accused Radha Mohan Mandal, his learned lawyer Mr. Sanjeev Chandra submitted that he was posted as Sub- Divisional, A.H.O, Dumka during the occurrence and prayed that accused is a retired old person. He is facing the trial last 20 years and further prayed that in the ends of Justice the accused deserve the privilege of leniency in his favour.

On behalf of prosecution, learned P.P submitted that accused created bogus / false certificate. On the basis of bogus certificate R.D, AHD, Dumka passed bill and committed illegal loss to the state revenue and pray that accused played active part in criminal conspiracy with other co-accused, so do not deserve the privilege of leniency and prayed that accused may be awarded maximum punishment according to law.

Heard in detail on behalf of both sides and consider all facts and circumstances as submitted by the parties. In the ends of Justice the following sentence is passed. Accused Radha Mohan --162– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

Mandal held guilty U/s- 120B r/w Section – 420, 467, 468, 471, 477(A) of I.P.C awarded punishment of R.I 3 ½ Years ( Three and Half Years) and fine Rs. 15,00,000/- (Fifteen Lakhs) in default of payment of fine further serve sentence S.I nine months separately. As held guilty U/s- 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1)(c)(d) of P.C. Act awarded R.I 3 ½ Years ( Three and Half Years) and fine Rs. 15,00,000/- (Fifteen Lakhs) in default of payment of fine further serve sentence S.I nine months separately.. During trial accused Radha Mohan Mandal remain in judicial custody which may be adjusted according to law in conviction. The sentences run in the consecutive way and not concurrently.

On behalf of accused Raj Kumar Sharma @ Raja Ram Joshi, his learned lawyer Mr. Ajay Mishra submitted that accused is senior citizen and his role is very limited in this case, he only provide transport certificate of supply materials on which basis the bill prepared and pass from Dumka Treasury. Further submitted that accused's mother is very old and his son namely Roshan Joshi has met with an accident leading to severe head injuries and is still unstable, rather his conditions are getting and from worse and pray that the court may graciously be pleased to take a lenient view keeping in view the circumstances and be pleased impose a minimum sentence to the convict.

On behalf of prosecution, learned P.P submitted that accused role in this case although limited but accused provide fictitious number of vehicles as Scooter, Motor cycle, Ambassador by which the supply materials shown to be delivered in the AHD Department and further submitted and he has been previously convicted in other Fodder Scam Case so he does not deserve any leniency and pray that court may award maximum sentence. Heard in detail on behalf of both sides and consider all facts and circumstances as available on the record. The accused awarded sentence in the following way for alleged charges U/s- 120B r/w Section – 420, 467, 468, 471, 477(A) of I.P.C awarded punishment R.I 3 and ½ years (Three and half years) and fine Rs. 15,00,000/- (Fifteen Lakhs) in default of payment of fine further serve sentence S.I nine months separately. During trial accused Raj --163– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

Kumar Sharma @ Raja Ram Joshi remain in judicial custody which may be adjusted according to law in conviction.

On behalf of accused Raghu Nandan Prasad, his learned lawyer Mr. Akhileshwar Prasad submitted that he was posted as Assistant Director Poultry, Dumka during the occurrence. He has given false certificate to suppliers for veterinary medicine supply and prayed that accused is a retired old person. He is facing the trial last 20 years and further prayed that in the ends of Justice the accused deserve the privilege of leniency in his favour.

On behalf of prosecution, learned P.P submitted that accused without authority issued false receiving certificate to supplier. On which the bills prepared and passed by R.D, AHD, Dumka and committed illegal loss to the State Government., so do not deserve the privilege of leniency and prayed that accused may be awarded maximum punishment according to law.

Heard in detail on behalf of both sides and consider all facts and circumstances as submitted by the parties. In the ends of Justice the following sentence is passed. Accused Raghu Nandan Prasad held guilty U/s- 120B r/w Section – 420, 467, 468, 471, 477(A) of I.P.C awarded punishment of R.I 3 ½ Years ( Three and Half Years) and fine Rs. 15,00,000/- (Fifteen Lakhs) in default of payment of fine further serve sentence S.I nine months separately. As held guilty U/s- 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1)(c)(d) of P.C. Act awarded R.I 3 ½ Years ( Three and Half Years) and fine Rs. 15,00,000/- (Fifteen Lakhs) in default of payment of fine further serve sentence S.I nine months separately.. During trial accused Raghu Nandan Prasad remain in judicial custody which may be adjusted according to law in conviction. The sentences run in the consecutive way and not concurrently.

On behalf of accused Rajendra Kumar Bagaria Prasad, his learned lawyer Mr.K.P. Sharma submitted that his role is very limited in this case, he only provide transport certificate of supply materials on which basis the bill prepared and pass from Dumka Treasury. That it is a first offence of the accused and pray that the court may graciously be pleased to take a lenient view --164– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat keeping in view the circumstances and be pleased to impose minimum sentence to the convict and lenient view may kindly be taken.

On behalf of prosecution, learned P.P submitted that accused submitted fake invoices in relating to transportation of cattle feed and submitted to R.D, AHD, Dumka and thereby loss of government revenue and so he does not deserve any leniency and prayed that court may award maximum sentence. Heard in detail on behalf of both sides and consider all facts and circumstances as available on the record. The accused awarded sentence in the following way for alleged charges U/s- 120B r/w Section – 420, 467, 468, 471, 477(A) of I.P.C awarded punishment R.I 3 and ½ years (Three and half years) and fine Rs. 15,00,000/- (Fifteen Lakhs) in default of payment of fine further serve sentence S.I nine months separately. During trial accused Rajendra Kumar Bagaria remain in judicial custody which may be adjusted according to law in conviction.

On behalf of accused Sardendura Kumar Das, his learned lawyer submitted that he was posted as Assistant, District Treasury, Dumka during the occurrence and he committed no offence and he only obeyed the order of Senior Officer. Hence, lenient view may kindly be taken. He has not convicted previously.

On behalf of prosecution, learned P.P submitted that accused processed split up bill passed by R.D, Dumka and committed illegally loss to the State Government Revenue., so do not deserve the privilege of leniency and prayed that accused may be awarded maximum punishment according to law.

Heard in detail on behalf of both sides and consider all facts and circumstances as submitted by the parties. In the ends of Justice the following sentence is passed. Accused Sardendu Kumar Das held guilty U/s- 120B r/w Section – 420, 467, 468, 471, 477(A) of I.P.C awarded punishment of R.I 3 ½ Years ( Three and Half Years) and fine Rs. 15,00,000/- (Fifteen Lakhs) in default of payment of fine further serve sentence S.I nine months separately. As held guilty U/s- 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1)(c)(d) of P.C. Act --165– R.C Case No. 38(A) /1996 - Pat

awarded R.I 3 ½ Years ( Three and Half Years) and fine Rs. 15,00,000/- (Fifteen Lakhs) in default of payment of fine further serve sentence S.I nine months separately.. During trial accused Sardendu Kumar Das, remain in judicial custody which may be adjusted according to law in conviction. The sentences run in the consecutive way and not concurrently.

It is also order pass that the ill-gotten properties (Movable or immovable ) acquired by the aforesaid convicts accused persons after 01.01.1990 must be confiscated / seized in the favour of State Government. Hence, C.B.I directed to inform to E.D to enquire and seized / confiscated unproportionate movable or immovable properties of above convict accused persons and the C.B.I also directed to take proper step according to law or enquire and seized / confiscated unproportionate movable or immovable of the above convicted accused persons in the favour of State Government according to law.

(Dictated by me ) (Corrected by me)

sd/- sd/-

(Shiv Pal Singh) (Shiv Pal Singh) A.J.C-I-cum-Spl. Judge-VII, A.J.C-I-cum-Spl. Judge-VII, C.B.I (AHD Scam), Ranch. C.B.I (AHD Scam), Ranchi. Dated :- 24.03.2018 Dated : - 24.03.2018