sign in sign up
<<
Home , Fodder Scam, Jagannath Mishra, Lalu Prasad Yadav, Nishad

--1– R.C. Case No. 64(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), Present:- Shiv Pal Singh A.J.C-I-cum Spl. Judge -VII, CBI (AHD Scam), Ranchi

Ranchi dated: 23 rd day of December, 2017 R.C. Case No. 64 (A) /1996 Pat

STATE (through C.B.I ) ………..Prosecution Versus 1. Sri Lalu Prasad @ Sri Lalu Prasad , S/o- Late Kundan Rai, aged about 70 Years, R/o- , P.S. - Phulwaria, District – Gopalganj, (), Present Address: - 10 Circular Road, (Bihar) Former , Bihar. 2. Dr. Jagarnath , S/o- Late Ravi Nandan Mishra, aged about 85 Years, R/o- 113/7 E. Lal Bahadur Shashtri Nagar, Patna (Bihar) Former Chief Minister, Bihar. 3. Sri Vidya Sagar , S/o- Late Darwari Prasad Mandal, aged about 86 Years, R/o- Usari, P.S – Gogari, District – Khagaria (Bihar), Former Cabinet Minister, Bihar. 4. Sri Jagdish Sharma, S/o- Late Kamta Prasad Sharma, aged about 67 Years, R/o- Korra, P.S – Ghoshi, District – Jahanabad (Bihar), Former Chairman, PAC and Former MLA, Bihar. 5. Dr. Rabindra Kumar Rana, S/o- Late Ganesh Prasad Yadav, aged about 71 Years, R/o- Narayanpur, P.S – Bihpur (Bhakaripur), District – Bhagalpur (Bihar), Former MLA. 6. Sri Dhruv Bhagat, S/o- Late Nathuni Bhagat, aged about 66 Years, R/o- 108 Bhartiya Colony, Sahebganj, P.S – Sahebganj, District – Sahebganj (Bihar), Former Chairman, PAC and Former MLA. 7. Sri Phulchand Singh, S/o- Late Rambali Singh, aged about 74 Years, R/o- Ekdangi, P.S. - Kaptanganj, District – Ajamgarh (U.P), Present Address :- Road No. 5, Adarsh Colony, West Patel Nagar, P.S. - Shashtri Nagar, District – Patna (Bihar), IAS and Finance Commissioner, Bihar Since retired.

Page 1 Of 88 --2– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

8. Sri Mahesh Prasad, S/o- Late Somnath, aged about 76 Years,R/o- Misrauli, P.S. - Kotwali Dehat, District – Sultanpur (U.P), Present Address: - 24 I.A.S Colony, Kidwaipuri, Patna (Bihar) IAS and Former Secretary, AHD and Fisheries, Bihar, Since retired. 9. Sri Beck Julius, S/o- Late Saiman Beck, aged about 74 Years, R/o- Ashok Nagar, in front of Gate No. 1, P.S – Argora, District – Ranchi (), IAS and Former Secretary, AHD and Fisheries, Bihar, Since retired. 10. Sri Adhip Chandra Chaudhary, S/o- Late Narayan Chandra Chaudhary, aged about 74 Years, R/o- Block AC – 149, Sal lake City, P.S – Vidhya Nagar North, District – North 24 Pargana (West Bengal), IRS and Former Commisoner Income Tax, Ranchi. 11. Sri Subir Kumar Bhattacharya, S/o- Late Kanhai Lal Bhattacharya, aged about 69 Years, R/o- D – 30 Kharkoi Enclave Sonari, P.S. - Sonari, Jamshedpur, District – East Sinhbhum (Jharkhand), Treasury Officer, . 12. Dr. Krishna Kumar Prasad, S/o- Late Nand Kishore Singh, aged about 62 Years, R/o- Govardhan Dham, Kaster Town, Deoghar, P.S. - Deoghar, District – Deoghar (Jharkhand), Touring Veterinary Officer (Mobile), Deoghar. 13. Sri Tripurari Mohan Prasad, S/o – Late Bashishth Narayan Sinha, aged about 64 Years, R/o- Samarpan House, Rajendra Path, Shekhpura, Patna, P.S. - Shashtri Nagar, District – Patna (Bihar), Supplier and Prop. of M/s Bihar Surgico Medico Agency, Patna. 14. Sri Sunil Kumar Sinha, S/o- Late Bashishth Narayan Sinha, aged about 54 Years R/o- Samarpan House, Rajendra Path, Shekhpura, Patna, P.S. - Shashtri Nagar, District – Patna (Bihar), Supplier and Prop. of M/s Shri Baba Chemical Works, Patna. 15. Sri Sushil Kumar, S/o- Late Bashishth Narayan Sinah, aged about 48 years, R/o- Samarpan House, Rajendra Path,Shekhpura, Patna, P.S. - Shashtri Nagar, District – Patna (Bihar), Supplier and Prop. of M/s Samarpan Veterinary Enterprises, Patna.

Page 2 Of 88 --3– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

16. Sri Sunil Gandhi, S/o- Sri Kishan Lal Gandhi, aged about 56 Years, R/o- 06 Naval Bihar, P.S. - T.P. Nagar, District – Meerut (U.P), Supplier and Prop. of M/s Magadh Distributors, Patna. 17. Sri Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, S/o- Sri Harishchandra Agarwal, aged about 44 Years, R/o- Gilan Pada, P.S – Dumka, District – Dumka (Jharkhand), Supplier and Prop. of M/s Sanjay Kumar, Dumka. 18. Sri Gopi Nath Das, S/o- Late Birendra Mohan Das, aged about 56 Years R/o- Shree Ram Pada, Dumka, P.S. - Dumka, District – Dumka (Jharkhand), Supplier and Prop. of M/s Radha Pharmacy, Dumka. 19. Sri Jyoti Kumar Jha, S/o- Sri Nand Kishore Jha, aged about 41 Years, R/o- Maheshpur, P.S. - Pathargama, District – Godda (Jharkhand), Supplier and Prop. of M/s Sewa Medical Agency, Godda. 20. Sri Rajendra Prasad Sharma @ Raj Kumar Sharma @ Raju @ Raj Kumar Joshi @ Raja Ram Joshi, S/o- Late Ram Kishan Joshi, aged about 65 Years, R/o Bara Palasi, P.S- Jama, District- Dumka (Jharkhand), Transporter, Prop. of M/s Rajendra Prasad Sharma, Dumka. 21. Smt. Sarswati Chandra, W/o- Sri Mahendra Prasad, aged about 56 Years, R/o- Dadi, P.S – Ekangarsarai, District – Nalanda (Bihar) Supplier and Prop. of M/s SR Enterprises. 22. Smt. Sadhana Singh W/o Sri Shailesh Prasad Singh aged about 50 years, R/o Siyaram Nagar, Bikhanpur, Bhagalpur (Bihar) Supplier and Prop. of M/s Usha Pharma Bhagalpur.

…… Accused Persons

Charged : 120B, r/w 409, 418, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A, 201, 511 of I.P.C and Section 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1)(c)(d) of P.C Act

Counsel for the C.B.I :- Sri Rakesh Prasad & Others. ………………..(Ld. Sr. P.P.)

Page 3 Of 88 --4– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

1. Counsel for the Accused No. 1 :- Sri Chitranjan Sinha & Sri Prabhat Kumar, 2. Counsel for the Accused No. 2 :- Rakesh Jha & Others. 3. Counsel for the Accused No. 3, 19 & 21:- Sri N.N. Tiwary. 4. Counsel for the Accused No. 4 :- Sri B.B. Rai. 5. Counsel for the Accused No. 5 :- Sri Prabhat Kumar. 6. Counsel for the Accused No. 6 :- Sri A.K. Kanth. 7. Counsel for the Accused No.7,13,14&15 :- Sri Raj Kumar Sahay. 8. Counsel for the Accused No. 8 & 11 :- Sri Sanjay Kumar. 9. Counsel for the Accused No. 9,10,17&18: - Sri Sanjeev Chandra. 10.Counsel for the Accused No. 12 :- Sri Anil Kumar Singh. 11.Counsel for the Accused No. 16 :- Sri Akhileshwar Prasad 12.Counsel for the Accused No. 20 :- Sri Ajay Mishra 13.Counsel for the Accused No. 22 :- Sri Bharat Lal Mahto

Judgment

1. That is on 26.09.2005 alleged charge U/s- 120B, r/w 409, 418, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A, 201, 511 of I.P.C and Section 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1)(c)(d) of P.C Act 1988 has been framed against accused 1. Shesh Muni Ram, 2. Vinay Kumar, 3. Krishna Kumar Prasad, 4. Brij Bhushan Prasad, 5. Ram Raj Ram, 6. Subir Kumar Bhattacharya, 7. Mahesh Prasad, 8. Beck Julius, 9. Jagdish Sharma, 10. Lalu Prasad @ 11. K. Armugam, 12. Phul Chand Singh, 13. Vidhya Sagar Nishad, 14. Jagarnath Mishra, 15. Dhruv Bhagat, 16 Ravindra Kumar Rana, 17. Adhip Chandra Chaudhary, 18. Tripurari Mohan Prasad, 19. Sunil Kumar Sinha, 20. Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, 21. Sushil Kumar Jha, 22. Sarswati Chandra, 23. Pramod Kumar Jaiswal, 24. Gopi Nath Das, 25. O.P. Gupta, 26. Jyoti Kumar Jha, 27. Sushil Kumar, 28. Smt. Shadhana Singh, 29. Sunil Gandhi, 30. Rajendra Prasad Sharma @ Raj Kumar Sharma @ Raju @ Raj Kumar Joshi @ Raja Ram Joshi and 31. Mahendra Prasad collectively as well as separately against accused Dhruv Bhagat U/s- 420 I.P.C and U/s- 13 (2) P.C. Act 1988, against accused, accused Beck Julius U/s- 420 I.P.C and U/s- 13 (2) of P.C Act, 1988, against accused Jyoti Kumar Jha U/s- 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C, against accused Vidhya Sagar Nishad U/s- 420 I.P.C and U/s- 13 (2) of P.C Act, against accused Sushil Kumar Jha U/s- 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, against accused Pramod Kumar Jaiswal U/s- 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C, against accused Jagarnath Mishra U/s- 420 IPC and U/s- 13 (2) of P.C Act 1988, against accused Subir Kumar Bhattacharya U/s- 420, 409, 477A I.P.C and U/s- 13 (2) of P.C Act, against accused Mahendra Prasad U/s- 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C against accused Smt. Sarswati

Page 4 Of 88 --5– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

Chandra U/s- 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C, against accused Rajendra Prasad Sharma @ Raj Kumar Sharma @ Raju @ Raj Kumar Joshi @ Raja Ram Joshi U/s- 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C, against accused Sunil Gandhi U/s- 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C against accused Smt. Usha Singh @ Sadhna Singh U/s- 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C, against accused Sushil Kumar U/s- 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C, against accused O.P Gupta U/s- 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C, against accused Gopi Nath Das U/s- 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C, against accused Sanjay Kumar Agarwal U/s- 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C against accused Sunil Kumar Sinha U/s- 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C, against accused Tripurari Mohan Prasad U/s- 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C, against accused Dr. Vinay Kumar U/s- 420, 409, 467, 468, 471, 477A I.P.C and U/s- 13 (2) of P.C Act, against accused Brij Bhushan Prasad U/s- 420, 467, 468 I.P.C and U/s- 3(2) of P.C Act, 1988, against accused Dr. Krishna Kumar Prasad U/s- 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A I.P.C and U/s- 13 (2) of P.C Act, against accused Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav U/s- 420 I.P.C U/s- 13 (2) of P.C Act, 1988, against accused Jagdish Sharma U/s- 420 I.P.C and U/s- 13 (2) of P.C Act, 1988, against accused Mahendra Prasad U/s- 420 I.P.C and U/s- 13 (2) of P.C Act, against accused Dr. Shesh Muni Ram U/s- 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C and U/s- 13 (2) of P.C Act 1988, against accused Ram Raja Ram U/s- 420, 468, 471 I.P.C and U/s- 13 (2) of P.C Act, 1988, against accused Phulchand Singh U/s- 420 I.P.C and U/s- 13 (2) of P.C Act, 1988, against accused K. Arumugam U/s- 420 I.P.C and U/s- 13 (2) of P.C Act, 1988, against accused Ravindra Kumar Rana U/s- 420 I.P.C and U/s- 13 (2) of P.C Act, against accused Adhip Chandra Chaudhary U/s- 420 I.P.C and U/s- 13 (2) of P.C Act, 1988. Above charges were read over and explained in to above accused persons, which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried in the court. 2. The F.I.R of R.C. 64(A)/1996 Pat. dated 15.05.1996 registered by Superintendent of Police, CBI, SPE. Patna against accused persons Shesh Muni Ram, Yugal Kishore Singh, Vinay Kumar, Krishna Kumar Prasad, Maheshwar Ram, M/s. Bihar Surgico Medico Agency, M/s. Baba Chemical Works, M/s. Brij Nandan Dwivedi, M/s Sanjay Kumar, M/s. Sri Gauri Distributors, M/s. S.R. Enterprises, M/s Shiv Kumar Patwari, M/s Bhagat Enterprises, M/s Medicine House, M/s. Radha Pharmacy, M/s O.P Gupta, M/s. Seva Medical Agency, M/s Rajendra Prasad Sharma, M/s. Live Stock Feed Agency, M/s. Enter Pharmaceuticals, M/s. Samarpan Veterinary Enterprises, M/s. Magdh Chemical Corporation, M/s. Inter Laboratory, M/s. Usha Pharma, M/s. Ethicare, M/s. Eastern Pharmaceuticals, M/s. Trideo Enterprises, M/s. Magdh Distributors and others unknown in compliance of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court, Patna on 11.03.1996 in CWJC No. 1617/1996, 1642/1996, 1656/1996, 459/1996,(R), 541/1996(R), 602/1996(R), 675/96 (R) and 687/1996 (R) and the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of on 29.03.1996 in SLP. (Civil) No. 5811/1996 vide

Page 5 Of 88 --6– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

which Central Bureau of Investigation through its Director was ordered to take up and investigate all criminal cases in respect of fraudulent withdrawals/encashment of Government money by Animal Husbandry Department, of the . Sri Nagendra Prasad, Inspector of Police, CBI, SPE, Patna was appointed as IO to investigate the case. 3. Allegation of the FIR disclosed that accused Dr. Shesh Muni Ram the then Regional Director, AHD, Santhal Pargana, Dumka, Dr. Yugal Kishore Singh, the then District Animal Husbandry Officers, Deoghar, Dr. Vinay Kumar, the then District Animal Husbandry Deoghar, Sri Krishna Kumar Prasad, the then Touring Veterinary (Mobile) Officer, Deoghar and Sri Maheshwar Ram Asst. District Animal Husbandry Office, Deoghar and 24 Private Firms were party to a criminal conspiracy and in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy they committed criminal misconduct by abusing their positions as public servants by dishonestly and fraudulently, misappropriating the government money or allowing other accused persons to do so during the period 1990 to 1994 by withdrawing the huge amounts, in excess of actual allotments from District Treasury, Deoghar under the head 2403 (AHD) on the basis of forged allotment and sub allotment letters. 4. The investigating Officers properly conducted investigation and found a criminal conspiracy behind fraudulent withdrawals by accused persons of AHD and submitted charge sheet No. 14/97 dated 28.10.1997 against accused persons namely 1. Dr. Shesh Muni Ram, 2. Dr. Vinay Kumar, 3. Dr. Krishna Kumar Prasad, 4. Sri Tripurari Mohan Prasad, 5. Sri Sunil Kumar Sinha, 6. Sri Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, 7. Sri Sushil Kumar Jha, 8. Smt. Saraswati Chandra, 9. Sri Pramod Kumar Jaiswal, 10. Sri Gopi Nath Das, 11. Sri O.P Gupta, 12. Sri Jyoti Kumar Jha, 13. Sri Sushil Kumar, 14. Smt. Usha Singh @ Sadhana Singh, 15. Sri Sunil Gandhi, 16. Dr. Shyam Bihari Sinha, 17. Sri Braj Bhushan Prasad, 18. Sri Raghvendra Kishore Das, 19. Dr. Ram Raj Ram, 20. Sri Mahesh Prasad, 21. Sri Beck Julius, 22. Sri Bhola Ram Toofani, 23. Sri Chandradeo Prasad Verma, 24. Sri Jagdish Sharma, 25. Shri Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav, 26. Shri K. Arumugham, 27. Shri Phool Chand Singh, 28. Shri Vidya Sagar Nishad, 29. Dr. , 30. Shri Dhrub Bhagat, 31. Dr. R.K. Rana, 32. Shri A.C. Chaudhary, 33. Shri Mahendra Prasad and 34. Shri Shailesh Prasad Singh. 5. After further investigation, supplementary charges sheet no. 06/2004 dated 25.08.2004 was submitted in the court disclosing withdrawal of Rs.89,27,164.15/- under 2403 major head during the financial year 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94 as against genuine allotment Rs. 4, 73, 400/- only through 371 contingent bills by the DDO and DAHO, Deoghar. It is also revealed the involvement of bureaucrats, politicians of diverse hues and political executives including the Ex. Chief Minister of

Page 6 Of 88 --7– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

the state of Bihar in the matter of protection and patronage given to the co-conspirators in the matter of alleged fraudulent withdrawals. The first charge sheet was laid in the court against 34 accused persons on 28.10.1997 after obtaining necessary sanction for prosecution against the public servant from His Excellency Governor of Bihar and also from the Government of Union of India. Subsequent to laying of first charge sheet further investigation was conducted with a view to collecting evidence against the remaining 13 suppliers. 6. From perusal of supplementary charge sheet it is clear that four accused persons Shiv Kumar Patwari, Rajendra Prasad Sharma @ Raj Kumar Sharma @ Raju @ Raj Kumar Jhoshi @ Raja Ram Joshi, , Subir Kumar Bhattacharya were sent up for trial. Remaining 12 accused persons Dr. Ygaul Kishore Singh, Maheshwar Ram, Janardan Dwevdi, Ajay Kumar Sinha @ Raman Jee Raman Prasad, Prakash Lal, Gauri Shankar Prasad, Surendra Nath Sharma, Chanchala Sinha, Surendra Nath Sinha, Satish Chandra Anand, Hari Sharan Sharma were not sent up for trial. 7. After perusal of charge sheet and Case diaries the prima facie case constituting offences U/s- 120B, 418, 420,467, 468, 471, 477A, 409, 201, and 511 of I.P.C further U/s- 13 (2) r/w 13(1) (c) & (d) of P.C Act 1988 was find out. Accordingly, cognizance was taken for the alleged offences on 02.07.1998. 8. That after framing the charge on behalf of prosecution examined the following witness:-

PW Name of P.Ws Gist of Evidence Exhibits Nos. Proved P.W.1 Raj Kishore Rai Vehicle No. BPO-09881 Vespa Scooter 1 & 1/1 shown in the transportation bill by accused Raja Ram Joshi for transporting fodder from Ranchi to Deoghar. P.W.2 Suresh Kumar Giriya Truck No. WMH7040 was not hired by -- accused Raja Ram Joshi for transportation of fodder from Ranchi to Deoghar. P.W.3 Ramesh Kumar Truck No. BR12H0942 was not hired by -- Ghiriya accused Raja Ram Joshi for transportation of fodder from Ranchi to Deoghar. P.W.4 Shankar Prasad Truck No. BRL9921 was not hired by -- Jhunjhunwala accused Raja Ram Joshi for transportation of fodder from Ranchi to Deoghar. P.W.5 Hari Prasad Singh BIR7181 and BPN9209 are Truck and 1/2 & 1/3 Dumper shown for transportation of fodder from Ranchi to Deoghar by accused Raja Ram Joshi.

Page 7 Of 88 --8– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

P.W.6 James Peter Lakra Vehicle No. BPJ-6131 Vespa Scooter shown --- in the transportation bill by accused Raja Ram Joshi for transporting fodder from Ranchi to Dumka. P.W.7 Kriti Kumar Roy Truck No. WB-41-0366 was not hired by accused Raja Ram Joshi for transportation of fodder from Ranchi to Deoghar. P.W.8 Dr. Kamal Kishore On being asked by accused Vinay Kumar and 2 to 2/6, 3, Prasad Sinha K.K.Prasad, he issued receipt for vetenary 4 & 5 medicines without actually receiving the same. The entries shown in the stock register of DAHO, Deoghar in his name are bogus. He confirmed the aforesaid facts u/s 164 Cr.P.C. statement. P.W.9 Dr. Girish Chandra On being asked by accused Vinay Kumar and 2 to 2/6, Ray K.K.Prasad, he issued receipt for vetenary 5/1, 3, 3/1, medicines without actually receiving the same. The entries shown in the stock register of DAHO, Deoghar in his name are bogus. He confirmed the aforesaid facts u/s 164 Cr.P.C. statement. P.W.10 Vijay Kumar Truck No. BRJ6667, BRJ8539 were not -- Didwani hired by accused Raja Ram Joshi for transportation of fodder from Ranchi to Deoghar. P.W.11 Kamal Prasad Truck No. BPW8397 were not hired by -- Chauhan accused Raja Ram Joshi for transportation of fodder from Ranchi to Deoghar. P.W.12 Pinku Chandra Truck No.BHR6476 was not hired by -- accused Raja Ram Joshi for transportation of fodder from Ranchi to Deoghar. P.W.13 Dr. Padma Bhushan On being asked by accused Vinay Kumar and 2 to 2/6, 3 Prasad K.K.Prasad, he issued receipt for veterinary to 3/2 and medicines without actually receiving the 5/2 same. The entries shown in the stock register of DAHO, Deoghar in his name are bogus. He confirmed the aforesaid facts u/s 164 Cr.P.C. statement. On being asked by accused Vinay Kumar and 2 to 2/6, 3 P.W.14 Dr. Prayag Ravi Das K.K.Prasad, he issued receipt for veterinary to 3/3 and

Page 8 Of 88 --9– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

medicines without actually receiving the 5/3 same. The entries shown in the stock register of DAHO, Deoghar in his name are bogus. He confirmed the aforesaid facts u/s 164 Cr.P.C. statement. P.W.15 Vishwanath Prasad Vehicle No. BRL-4567, Motorcycle and 1/5, BRL-8115, Jeep, shown in the transportation bill by accused Raja Ram Joshi for transporting fodder from Ranchi to Deoghar. P.W.16 Ram Krishna Thakur Truck No. BR14A-9046 was not hired by -- accused Raja Ram Joshi for transportation of fodder from Ranchi to Deoghar. P.W.17 Vimal Kumar Truck No. BHM 9244 was not hired by -- Khandelwal accused Raja Ram Joshi for transportation of fodder from Ranchi to Deoghar. P.W.18 Manoj Kumar Truck No. BHM 2661 was not hired by -- Khandelwal accused Raja Ram Joshi for transportation of fodder from Ranchi to Deoghar. P.W.19 Prem Nath Sondhi Truck No. BIR 7181 was not hired by -- accused Raja Ram Joshi for transportation of fodder from Ranchi to Deoghar. P.W.20 Om Prakash Truck No. BPW9725 was not hired by -- Budhwar accused Raja Ram Joshi for transportation of fodder from Ranchi to Deoghar. P.W.21 Dr. Uma Shankar On being asked by accused Vinay Kumar and 2 to 2/6 and Prasad K.K.Prasad, he issued receipt for veterinary 4. medicines and feed without actually receiving the same. The entries shown in the stock register of DAHO, Deoghar in his name are bogus. He confirmed the aforesaid facts u/s 164 Cr.P.C. statement. P.W.22 Dr. Pitambar Jha On being asked by accused Vinay Kumar and 2 to 2/6, 4 K.K.Prasad, he issued receipt for veterinary & 5/4. medicines and feed without actually receiving the same. The entries shown in the stock register of DAHO, Deoghar in his name are bogus. He confirmed the aforesaid facts u/s 164 Cr.P.C. statement. P.W.23 Raghvendra Kishore He is an approver. Undue payments for --- Das protection and patronage to accused Dr. Jagannath Mishra, Lalu Prasad, R.K.Rana,

Page 9 Of 88 --10– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

Jagdish Sharma, Ram Raj Ram, Mahesh Prasad, Dhrub Bhagat and others. Distribution of fraudulent payments at the ratio of 80:20 between public servants and suppliers. S.B.Sinha was the principal accused liable for fabrication of allotment letters and also for distribution of fraudulent payments among politicians and bureaucrats. Dr. Jagannath Mishra recommended Lalu Prasad for not causing investigation on the allegation against illegal payments made for none supplies of veterinary medicines by AHD, Ranchi, further recommended Lalu Prasad for causing only departmental enquiry on test audit report. S.B.Sinha managed appointment of one of the son of accused B.B. Prasad, Budget Officer in AHD, Jamshedpur and asked him to sign on fake allotment letters. Lalu Prasad granted extension in service to this approver and also to conspirator S.B.Sinha after retirement on recommendation of co-accused Jagdish Sharma and Dr. Jagannath Mishra respectively. P.W.24 Roop Narayan Singh Enquiry report on fraudulent payments from 6 and 6/1, Deoghar Treasury and bogus allotments letters during the financial year 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1995-96 P.W. 25 Dr. Shashi Kumar Fabrication of allotment letters by Dr. 26/333 to Singh S.B.Sinha with the help of accused Mahendra 26/343 and Prasad and B.B.Prasad. Undue payments for 5/5 to 5/15 protection and patronage to accused Dr. Jagannath Mishra, Lalu Prasad, R.K.Rana, Jagdish Sharma, Ram Raj Ram, Vidya Sagar Nishad, Bhola Ram Tuphani, Beck Julius and others. P.W. 26 Chandra Prakash Actual expenditure of previous years were 5/16to Sahay not mentioned in the column for the budget 5/25, 9, 10 estimate of the current year as per order of to 10/4, 11

Page 10 Of 88 --11– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

Dr. Ram Raj Ram, Director. Allotment files to 11/4, of directorate of AHD for the year 1986-87 to 18/164 to 1993-94 were shown transfer to the 18/172, Administrative Officer of PAC as per order 38/28 to of accused Ram Raj Ram but were retained 38/39, 41 to in an Almirah in the Directorate itself. 41/4 and 40. P.W. 27 Anand Mohan All books of accounts, vouchers and 38/33 to Srivastava statements relating to fraudulent payment of 38/35, 10/5 Ranchi Range were shown transferred to the to 10/7, Administrative Officer of PAC as per order 18/173 to of Dr. S.B.Sinha on 08.06.1993 but the same 18/180 and were retained in LRS at Kanke, Ranchi. 5/26 to 5/32, P.W.28 Shiv Narayan Sahoo All books of accounts, vouchers and 18/206 to statements relating to fraudulent payment of 18/210 and Ranchi Range were shown transferred to the 1/6 to 1/10 Administrative Officer of PAC as per order of Dr. S.B.Sinha on 08.06.1993 but the same were retained in LRS at Kanke, Ranchi under information to K.A.Khan, Director. P.W.29 Miss N. Jacob In the admission form of Miss Hema and Notarized Miss Dhanu both daughters of Lalu Prasad, copies of local guardian was N.K.Sinha at Visitors admission were Dr. Shukla Mohanty, Dr. R.K. Rana and forms were Sanjay Kumar. Admission form of Miss submitted Ragini, Miss. Chanda and Miss Rohini all since daughters of Lalu Prasad, Dr. S.B.Sinha was original a local guardian and among visitors name of was taken R.K.Rana was mentioned. as exhibit for trial of DA case against Lalu Prasad. Marked as X/2 to X/7. P.W. 30 Mr. Richard ------Thornten

Page 11 Of 88 --12– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

P.W.31 Basant Alfred Nag Fee payment receipts of the daughters of X-8 to X- Lalu Prasad at Bishop Scott School, Ranchi. 41 P.W.32 Dr. Bibhuti Nath He has not seen huge quantity of medicines --- Thakur received in the store of DAHO, Deoghar. P.W.33 Jasmindar Singh Sale of Ambassador Car to Rakesh mehra in --- Saluja Oct. 1995 from Ashoka Automobile, Ranchi. P.W.34 Laxmi Kant Das Information about huge illegal withdrawals --- by DAHO, Office, Deoghar during 1993-94. Dr. Sheshmuni Ram and Dr. O.P.Diwakar had good relations with accused R.K.Rana P.W.35 Pramod Kumar AC Ambassador Car was transferred in his --- Bhagat name by Naresh Jain at the instruction of accused Dhrub Bhagat which was in custody at Ranchi and was utilized by Shri Bhagat and when required. P.W. 36 Suryakant Prasad @ Admission form of the daughters of Lalu --- Suraj Kumar Prasad were written by him at the instruction of Md. Sayeed an accused of cases. P.W.37 Prem Chand Thakur Dr. Sheshmuni Ram was close to Dr. --- R.K.Rana, Lalu Prasad and others in the government during the relevant period of alleged occurrence. P.W.38 Mahadeo Prasad Das He has not seen medicine and fodders --- purchase in the office of Regional Director, Dumka. P.W.39 Krishna Prasad Furnished vouchers of the alleged fraudulent 12, payment from the office of AG, Ranchi for seizure by CBI during investigation. P.W. 40 Shyam Shankar CAG report for the year 1988-89, 1989-90, 38/387 to Dubey 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94 38/292, reflecting huge withdrawals of AHD in 10/8 to excess of allocated budget were received in 10/13, 9, 87 the finance department of the Government of to 87/8, Bihar before the Hon’ble High Court and 13/1 to Hon’ble Supreme Court ordered for 13/8, 87/5 investigation. to 87/8, 18/259 P.W. 41 Maheshwar Ram Passed and paid CNC Bills of M/s Magadh 14 to 14/3, Distributor, M/s Usha Pharma, M/s Bihar 15 to 15/7, Surgico Medico Agency, Patna , M/s 14/4 to

Page 12 Of 88 --13– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

Rajendra Prasad Sharma, Dumka, M/s Radha 14/8, 15/8 Pharmacy, Dumka, M/s S.R. Enterprises, to 15/27, Patna, M/s Bhagat and Company, Ranchi, 14/9 to M/s O.P.Gupta, Ranchi, M/s Gauri 14/19, Distributor, Bhagalpur, M/s Seva Medical 15/28 to Agency, Godda, M/s Tridav Enterprises, 15/92, Patna , M/s Sanjay Kumar, Dumka, M/s 14/20 to Samarpan Veterinary, Patna, M/s Baba 14/35, Chemical Works, Patna, M/s Sanjay Kumar, 15/93 to Dumka, M/s Shiv Kumar Patwari, Dumka, 15/184, Money receipts, Bill Book, Cash Book, 14/36 to Treasury Messenger Book, CNC Registers of 14/54, DAHO Deoghar, Draft Application Forms, 15/185 to Carbon Copy of receipt all the aforesaid 15/319, documents by Dr. Sheshmuni Ram from this 14/55 to witness on the pretext that these documents 14/86, will be handed over to PAC. All the bills 15/314 to were passed by Dr. Sheshmuni Ram, Dr. 15/454, Binay Kumar and Dr. Manoranjan Prasad as 14/87 to DDO. Shri S.K.Bhattacharjee advised SBI 14/101, Deoghar for payments against passed bills in 15/455 to the capacity of Treasury Officer, Deoghar. 15/541, 14/102, 14/126, 15/542 to 15/642, 14/127 to 14/139, 15/643 to 15/723, 14/140 to 14/163, 15/724 to 15/827, 14/164 & 14/165, 15/828 to 15/831,

Page 13 Of 88 --14– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

14/166 to 14/237, 15/832 to 1372, 14/238 to 14/245, 15/1373 to 15/1451, 14/246 to 14/253, 15/1452 to 1513, 14/254, 15/1369 to 15/1372, 14/255 to 14/260, 15/1451 to 15/1475, 16 to 16/109, 12/1, 17 to 17/2, 18 & 18/1, 19 , 19/1, 20, 20/2, 14 to 14/260, 22 to 22/3, P.W. 42 Sheo Shankar Tiwari Enquiry report alleging withdrawal 1/10 to Rs.50,00,000/- from Deoghar Treasury by 1/12, 24, 6 DAHO, Deoghar was submitted by him. to 6/2. Enquiry report also disclosed Dr. Sheshmuni Ram and Dr. Krishna Kumar Prasad responsible for the alleged fraudulent payment of Rs.50 lacs by fabricating allotment letters. P.W.43 Suresh Chandra Seizure of Bank draft and banker’s cheque 12/2, from SBI, Main Branch, Deoghar relating to 21/155, alleged fraudulent payments. P.W.44 Dr. Mohananand Jha Specific vet. medicines not supplied by 5/40,

Page 14 Of 88 --15– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

DAHO to the vet. Dispensary at Jasidih. P.W. 45 Dr. Panchu Gopal 90% of Vet. Medicines shown supplied were 5/41 Das not supplied to Vet. Dispensary at Ghormara. P.W.46 Dr.Raj Narayan No vet. Medicine or Fodder were supplied to 5/42 and 2 Singh him. Dr. K.K.Prasad obtained receipt on to 2/2, stock register from him under threat and duress. P.W.47 Smt. Karuna Kumari Enquiry report on alleged fraudulent Y/1 to Y/5 payment from D.C., Deoghar was received in the Vigilance Section of AHD, Directorate in April, 1994. The report was delivered to accused R.K.Das. P.W.48 Shiv Nandan Dueby Monthly Treasury accounts were sent to AG, 25 to 25/60, Office. Payment schedule advising SBI, 26 to 26/3, Deoghar for draft against passed bills of 27, AHD were identified. Split up vouchers within the financial power of DAHO were passed by the Treasury Officer explaining instances from Ext. 14 & 15. P.W.49 Shubhomoy Maitra Ext. 15/93 to Ext. 15/184 in the name of --- Rajendra Prasad Sharma were printed in Shivani Printing Press at Dumka at the request of accused Rajendra Prasad Sharma. P.W.50 Abinash Chandra Some vet. medicines of Pfizer make were not 27 to 27/2 Arora purchased by Shri Baba Chemical but have & X/42, been shown supplied to DAHO, Deoghar. P.W. 51 Rakesh Sharma Truck No. WB-41-0366 was not taken on --- hire by accused Rajindra Prasad Sharma for transportation of feed from Ranchi to Deoghar. P.W. 52 Dwarika Hajam Subir Kumar Bhattacharjee functioned as 28, 28/1, Treasury Officer, Deoghar during the period of alleged transaction. Large number of bills of AHD were processed by him on being asked by the treasury officer in the year 1992-93 without any objection. Details of withdrawals prepared and sent to the committee of BLA. P.W. 53 Thakur Shyam Identified accused Raja Ram Joshi as -- Sundar Singh contractor and transporter of AHD, Dumka. He also explained that Raja Ram Joshi, Raj

Page 15 Of 88 --16– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

Kumar Sharma, Raju and Rajendra Prasad Sharma of Bara Palasi are same person. P.W.54 Shri Sukhdeo Singh He had verified the complaint of Dr. Surjit 24, 28, 29, Singh relating to illegal payments of AHD 1/10, 6/2. bills by Deoghar Treasury. He also inspected the treasury officer to cause enquiry into the allegation and asked for allotment letters. DAHO, Deoghar had forwarded copies of six sub allotments letters on 06.08.1993. Subsequently the allotment letters were also requisition on the basis of which sub allotment letters were issued. On 20.10.1993 accused Sheshmuni Ram informed that all documents relating to allotment and payments have been given to PAC for enquiry. After follow up action taken he was transferred from Deoghar. P.W.55 Md. Reyaz Hussain Truck No. BHJ 3974 was not taken on hire --- by accused Rajindra Prasad Sharma for transportation of feed from Ranchi to Deoghar. P.W.56 R.K Khandelwal On being asked enquiry into the illegal 30, 1/11, 6, payments against bills of AHD, Deoghar was 7, 6/1, 29/1, conducted and the report sent to the 1/13, 1/14, government for order. 1/5, 29/2, 1/16, X/43, 30, 30/1, 1/12, P.W. 57 Dilip Chalak Declared Hostile. --- P.W. 58 Binod Kumar File No. 69/93 on starred question of Shri C. 10/14 to S. Munda, File No. 15 (P) 701/46 on starred 10/20 question of Parmeshwar, File No. 15P(2) (38/298 to 1023/95 on question of Nilambar Choudhary 38/304) , File No. 15 P (2) 104/96 on question of Uday Narayan Rai, File No. 15 P (2) 102/92 of Nilambar Choudhary, File No. 15 P (2) 1010/95 of Satrughan Prasad Singh and File No. 15 P (2) 106/95 of Lalit Uraon, MP all questions relating to fraudulent payments

Page 16 Of 88 --17– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

were raised in BLC and once also in Lok- Sabha. P.W. 59 Bijay Kishore Truck No. BR-10-5085 was not taken on hire --- Bajoria by accused Rajindra Prasad Sharma for transportation of feed from Ranchi to Deoghar. P.W. 60 B.S. Kataria Vehicle DIR -7155 Three Wheeler, DIL – 1/17, 1/18 1207 and DIL – 691 are Trucks of registration shown for transportation of feed and fodder from Ranchi to Deoghar. P.W. 61 Dr. Jagdish Prasad Veterinary medicines not supplied to --- Sarawan Dispensary by DAHO, Deoghar. P.W. 62 Dr. Laxmi Narayan Veterinary medicines not supplied to 2 to 2/6, Prasad Sarawan Dispensary by DAHO, Deoghar. 3/3 & 5/43 P.W. 63 Dr. Niranjan Kumar Veterinary medicines not supplied to 2 to 2/6, Uperbandha Dispensary by DAHO, Deoghar. 5/44, ¾

P.W. 64 Balwinder Singh Provided Taxi against cash payment by Bijay Malik of Delhi. P.W.65 Krishna Kant Prasad, Vehicle BRH – 9411 is a Mahindra Make 1/19 Maxi not to be used for transportation of feed. The vehicle has been shown in the transportation bill of accused Raja Ram Joshi. P.W. 66 Niranjan Prasad Details of Vet medicines purchased from M/s 1/20 Brihans Lab, Kolkata by M/s Bhagat & Co. Ranchi. P.W. 67 Krishna Mohan Jha Vehicle No. BRL -5491 not used for --- transporting maize from Ranchi to Deoghar by accused Raja Ram Joshi. P.W. 68 Vijay Kumar Registered Letter No. 721, 3956 and 2646 of 12/3, 12/4 AG, Bihar were delivered to AHD Patna on & 12/21 different dates. P.W. 69 Arun Kumar Sinha Print out of Telephone No. 501500, 306505, 31, 32, 32/1 502555, 205907 of S.B.Sinha, Dayanand to 32/4, 33 Kashyap and Md. Sayeed of Ranchi to 37 P.W.70 Balwindar Singh Rooms booked by accused Bijay Malik in 12/5, 38 to Hotel White House at Delhi for stay of co- 38/2, 39, conspirators. 39/1 to 39/8

Page 17 Of 88 --18– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

P.W. 71 Mazahar Aquil STD call details of land line number 223393 32/6 & of Patna. 32/7 and 1/23 P.W. 72 Ranjit Singh Payment for the Taxi of Guide Travels made 40 to by accused Dr. A.K.Verma. The Taxi was 40/181 & used by the family members of accused 41 to 41/7, A.C.Chaudhary at Kolkata. 42 to 42/52, 43 to 43/4, 44 to 44/14, 25 to 25/6, 21 to 21/16 P.W.73 Ram Chandra Rai Taxi Driver of Guide Travels attended duties --- of the daughter of accused A.C. Chaudhary at Kolkata. P.W. 74 Birendra Prasad File on enquiry into the complained against 10/22 Ambastha accused Sesh Muni Ram maintained at Directorate, AHD, Patna with reports of S.B.Chaudhary and Bachu Prasad against Lalu Prasad, Jagdish Sharma and others. P.W. 75 Nirmal Kumar Saraf Tickets purchased by Dipesh Chandak from 46 to 46 /9, Kolkata to Australia for accused S.B.Sinha 47 to 47/4, and his family members. 12/6 P.W. 76 Tilak Raj Gauri Forecast for 5 years plan of the Government 12/7, 48, disclosing actual expenditure of AHD as 48/1 & Year Expenditure 48/2 1985-86 22.48 Crores 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. 77 Laleshwar Yadav Ambasdor Car No. BR -14D – 4320 was --- taken from the residence of S.B.Sinha at Ranchi to Patna in 1995 and delivered to accused T.M.Prasad at Patna. P.W. 78 Shakti Pada Kundu Payment for the stay in Hotel Astore in 49 to 53/9 favour of Shri M.C.Subarano and Beck Julius

Page 18 Of 88 --19– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

was made by accused A.K.Verma. P.W. 79 Laxman Singh SB Account 41/17 – Rasmi Rana, 5/45, 12/3 SB Account 42/17 – Saurav Rana to 12/8, 55 SB Account 43/17 – Amit Rana to 55/52, 56 SB Account 44/17 – Naina Rana to 56/10, 57 SB Account 45/17 – Gaurav Rana to 57/5, 58 SB Account 51/25 – Naina Rana to 58/158, SB Account 52/25 – Naina Rana 12/10, 59 to In addition to that 66 RD Accounts were also 59/4, 60 & opened at Allahabad Bank, Khajpura Branch 61 of Allahabad Bank, Patna on being asked by accused R.K.Rana for cash deposits. Accused R.K.Rana also opened account in Patna City Branch of Allahabad Bank in the names of R.K.Rana, R.K.Yadav, N Devi, R.Kumar and other family members during 1994-95 P.W. 80 Krishna Pandit Delivered registered letter of AG to the AHD, 62, Directorate at Patna. P.W. 81 Mrs. Chandrawati School Admission forms of the daughters of X/2 to X/7 Natarajan accused Lalu Prasad at Bishap Scott School, Ranchi. P.W.82 Nagina Thakur Delivered registered letter of AG to the AHD, 62/1 & Directorate at Patna. 62/2 P.W. 83 Suman Kumar Seizure of documents from confidential 12/11, section of the O/o DC, Deoghar by Shri Nagendra Prasad, IO. P.W. 84 Ram Jatan Singh File on stay of transfer of Dr. B.N.Shrma at 10/23 the instruction of Lalu Prasad from Chiabasa to Hazaribagh in 1993 and also extension of service of accused S.B.Sinha. P.W. 85 Mahadev Sen Photographs of Lalu Prasad with Md. 61 to 64/3. Sayeed, Dayanand Kashap, K.M.Prasad and others. P.W.86 Arjun Prasad Yadav Rules of executive business, duties of 66 Ministers and Secretaries of the Govt. of Bihar and Bihar Budget Manual etc. P.W. 87 Ratish Chandra Jha Information on expenditure and allotment 64/IV to was not provided to AG, Ranchi informing 64/VII, 67, that the records are with PAC in the year 67/1, x/49, 1993-94. 68 and X/50.

Page 19 Of 88 --20– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

P.W.88 Ramesh Rawal No supply order to M/s Baif Lab from 1/24, DAHO, Deoghar or RD, Dumka for supply of Vet. Medicines. Vet. Medicines of batch no. shown supplied was not manufactured by the company against Shri Baba Chemical Works. P.W. 89 Bhuvan Chandra Stay in Hotel Akshay Palace and Hotel Sobti 38/3 to Joshi were booked by Vijay Malick of Delhi. 38/6, 22/32 to 22/33 P.W. 90 Arun Kumar Raina File on state fore cast of Bihar was received 10/24 in the finance commission, New Delhi. The information included actual expenditure of AHD for the year 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94. P.W. 91 Ramesh Prasad Expenditure report of treasuries received 10/25 to Singh from RBI. 10/27. P.W.92 Indu Bhushan Pathak Complain alleging fraudulent payment in 63/1, 72 to AHD received from CVC in AHD, 72/2 Directorate, Patna. P.W.93 Syed Tanvir Ahmad Shri J.P.Verma purchased Air Tickets for Co- 73 to Conspirators from Patluputra Travel Agency. 73/156 P.W.94 Birendra Kant Accused Dayanand Kashyap was appointed 1/25, 74, Thakur as Vice President for implementation of 20 10/28, 59/1, point programme by accused Lalu Prasad. P.W.95 Ram Raj Dubey Ambassador Car No. BR 14D-4380 was sent 75, 75/1, for servicing. Car owner was disclosed as 12/12, Dhrub Bhagat, MLA. P.W.96 Phanindra Narayan FIR of Vigilance Case disclosed fraudulent 76 Sinha payments by AHD, Ranchi at Para-6. P.W. 97 Madhav Gajanand On report sent by RBI, Nagpur regarding 1/26 to Kelkar Over Draft status of the account of the 1/156, 72/3 Government of Bihar and information on to 72/21, X/ withdrawals sent to finance department. 52, X/55, 1/158, P.W.98 Ramesh Nandan Treasury Code, Financial Rules, Civil --- Sahay Deposits, Cash Flow etc. P.W.99 Bal Krishna Ram File 2 B.T.(2) 1037/92 , File 2 B.T.(2) X/731 to 1037/93, File 2 B.T.(2) 1051/94 disclosing X/733, surrender of fund by AHD at close of the X/54 to financial years. X/56 P.W.100 Prabhas Shankar During searches conducted by IT on the 78, 79 to premises of Anil Kumar Sinha at Ranchi in 79/7

Page 20 Of 88 --21– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

1992 diary was recovered, statement of Anil Sinha disclosing distribution of fraudulent payments amount co-conspirators was recorded. P.W.101 Naresh Kumar Jain Ambassador Car was purchase at the --- instruction of S.K.Mehra from Ashoka Automobile Ranchi in his name and was subsequently given to accuse Dhruv Bhagat. P.W.102 Dharm Raj Pandey Extension in service after retirement to 63/2, 63/3, accused S.B.Sinha by Lalu Prasad at the (38/270 & recommendation of accused Dr. Jagannath 38/272) Mishra. P.W.103 Ravi Shankar Kr. Extension in service after retirement to 63/4, Sinha accused S.B.Sinha by Lalu Prasad at the recommendation of accused Dr. Jagannath Mishra. P.W.104 Krishna Mohan Photograph of Lalu Prasad with R.K.Rana 1/IV and Sharma and his family members. 1/V. P.W.105 Umesh Kumar Sinha Vet. Medicines of Karnatka Antibiotic shown 1/57, supplied to AHD P.W.106 Ram Jeewan Singh Recommendation for CBI enquiry on 10/29, fraudulent payment of transportation bill pointed out by AG, Ranchi by AG, Ranchi in the year 1990. P.W.107 Bachchu Prasad He along with Shiv Balak Choudhary visited 10/22, 5/46, DAHO, Office and Treasury Office, Deoghar for enquiry into the alleged fraudulent payment from Deoghar Treasury during 1990-91 to 1993-94. DAHO, Deoghar informed all documents relating to payment have been taken by Dr. Shesh Muni Ram for PAC enquiry. The figure of withdrawal was taken by S.B.Choudhary from Deoghar Treasury and the report was prepared which he did not signed as accused Jagdish Sharma had written a letter to Secretary Beck Julius and also sent a man to threaten him. P.W.108 Vijay Shankar Dubey Information regarding excess withdrawal and 10/30 30/2, enquiry by finance department leading to 63/5, 72/24, registration of cases in Feb. 1996. 6/3, 63/6,

Page 21 Of 88 --22– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

1/58 to 1/161. P.W.109 Shri Amitabh Statement of J.P.Verma recorded by Income Ext. 84 & Tax Department regarding purchase of Air 84/1. Tickets for Co-Conspirators. P.W.110 Sri Arvind Kumar Correspondence of AG on Monthly Accounts 12/14, Mehta of Treasury with finance department of 10/31 to Bihar. 10/33, P.W.111 Sri Kumarad Seizure of Bank Draft. 12/15, Suryaprakashan P.W.112 Shri Satish Pasreja Vet. Medicine of M/s Galaxo. No supply 1/162, orders ever received from AHD, Bihar. P.W.113 Shri Shankar Prasad Complaint against Shesh Muni Ram 10/22, regarding subject allegation of the case. P.W.114 Shri Atam Prakash Stay in Hotel Marina booked by accused 72/25, Manglani Vijay Mallik. 71/18 and 72/26 P.W.115 Ms. Jayanti Jha Air Tickets of Sahara Airlines from Rajshree 73/157, 73 / Tours and Travel Agency purchased on 158 to 73 / 26.06.95 in favour of Mr. Biswas, P.K.Roy, 179 & 89 Mukul Prasad and Lalu Prasad. P.W.116 Shri Suresh Chandra Diary Entry No. 7280 dated 15.11.90, 3937- 90 Choudhary dated 15.11.90 on audit file of AHD, Ranchi received in CM, Secretariate. File No. 116/90, received from the office of Chief Secretary. P.W.117 Shri Ramanand File on audit objection of AHD, Ranchi -- Prasad Singh received in CM, Secretariat when Lalu Prasad was Chief Minister. P.W.118 Shri Susasnta Das Passenger List of Sahara Airlines dated 91 Gupta 22.10.1995 of Flight No. S-2 015A from Delhi to Patna. Lalu Prasad and his family members name figure in the list. P.W.119 Shri Sant Pal Singh Details of vehicles nos. mentioned in the 1/163, transportation bills. 1/164, P.W. 120 Shri Rajiv Kumar Air tickets purchase by Tripurari Mohan 73/180 to Prasad and M/s Baba Chemicals from M/s 73/298, 94 Sanghmitra Travels, Patna for Co- to 94/1, 95 Conspirators. to 95/2, 96, 75 to 75/12, 97 to 97/12. P.W. 121 Shri Anand Vardhan Vigilance file BS 23/94 on subject allegation 10/34,

Page 22 Of 88 --23– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

Sinha of the case against Shesh Muni Ram and others. The file also contain note of DG, Vigilance on fake allotment letters and recommendation for detail enquiry on the subject was sent to Lalu Prasad on 04.07.94 and 24.05.95, which were returned to Vigilance Department without any order. Subsequently on 2nd Feb. 1996 Shri Lalu Prasad passed order to complete enquiry on the basis of photo copies with one month. P.W.122 Shri Jairam Prasad No plan for free distribution of fodder during 1/165 and 1993-94 and 1994-95. 1/162 P.W. 123 Shri P.K. Basu Budget estimate file 55/90 for 1991-92, 10/35, average of 3 years expenses taken as budget for the current year. P.W. 124 Shri Inder Singh He has not asked Shri Raju Singh to collect -- Namdhari information on expenditure of AHD has the subject was not in the jurisdiction of Public Undertaking Committee of BLA. P.W. 125 Shri Krishna Kant On procedure of allotment. -- Pandey P.W.126 Dr. R.P. Rao Seizure of documents from office of DAHO, -- Deoghar by Sri D.N.Biswas. P.W. 127 Mr. Rustom Ali Called details from three Mob. Nos. 1/168 recovered from Beur Jail, Patna, revealing conversation among co-conspirators. P.W. 128 Shri S.P Seshav On cash flow and expenditure control by -- finance department during the period of alleged occurrence, budget preparation, approval by finance department, BTE 106/93, expenditure of three previous years left blank. P.W.129 Shri K.K. Srivastava The accused suppliers were not in the 10/51, approved list. The financial power of DAHO 10/52 & 99 was Rs.5,000/- at one instance subject to the availability of allotment and payments made to accused P.C.Singh for undue favour. P.W. 130 Shri Narayan Foreign exchange taken by the family 7/2 to 7/3, Ganguly members of accused S.B.Sinha for which 100 to payment was made by Dipesh Chandak in 100/9 the December 1994.

Page 23 Of 88 --24– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

P.W.131 Shri Brandon Journey of S.B.Sinha and his family member 91/2 Claudions from Kolkata to Singapore on 09 December 1994. P.W. 132 Shri Kamlesh Kumar Complaints on fraudulent payments in AHD, 10/53, Department available with state vigilance 10/54, 101 from 1991-92 to 1995-96. to 101/12, 102 to 102/174, P.W.133 Shri Pramod Kumar Special Audit on AHD scam conducted by 68/1, 1/70, the O/o AHD. CAG reports and also draft 10/55 to appropriation report sent to AHD before 10/61, 70/1 registration of these cases. All the reports disclosed expenditure in excess of allocation to AHD, Bihar. P.W.134 Shri Puran Chandra Seizure of passenger list from Indian 91/3, 91/4, Sareen Airlines. 12/18, P.W. 135 Shri Anil Kumar Seizure of Guest register of Hotel Sobti, New 1/171, 103, Delhi. P.W.136 Shri Grish Chandra Call details of Telephone No. of Co- 31/1, Mishra Conspirator of Ranchi. 18/310, P.W. 137 Shri Sandip Vohra Visitor Register of Hotel Hayat Residency, 104, 105, New Delhi for stay of R.K.Rana at New 106a, 106b. Delhi. P.W. 138 Smita Air Tickets of Sahara Airlines. 73/162, 73/164 P.W. 139 Shri Stephen Lucas Budget estimate files of AHD and 10/62 to information received from Reserve Bank 10/72 regarding withdrawal made by Treasury. P.W. 140 Shri Shiv Kumar Air Tickets purchases by J.P.Verma for Co- 73 to Conspirators from Patliputra Travels, Patna. 73/156 P.W. 141 Shri Shiv Kumar Submitted 6 fake transportation bills for 14/255 to Patwari transportation bill from Ranchi to Deoghar 14/260 also identified the transporter bill of Raja Ram Joshi. 80% of the defrauded payment was given to Dr. Sheshmuni Ram. Rs. 40 lacs paid to S.N.Dubey by accused Sheshmuni Ram for revoking ban on ceiling imposed by DC, Dumka for payment of Rupees more then one lac from Dumka Treasury in the year 1994. P.W. 142 Shri Harshbardhan Meeting held on 07.06.1993 regarding excess 18/311

Page 24 Of 88 --25– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

withdrawal during March 1993 on different treasuries in presence of Lalu Prasad and Others. P.W.143 Shri Rameshwar Preparation of false sub allotment letters and 5/47,107 to Prasad Chaudhary concealment of vouchers and books of 107/7, 108, account by Sheshmuni Ram on false pretext 108/1, 109 of PAC enquiry during 1994. Also production to 109/6, of the books of accounts and fake 111, 112, allotment/sub allotment letters during 112/1, 113, investigation. 114, 115, 116 to 116/7, 117, P.W. 144 Shri Tarkeshwar Fake allotment letters used for alleged -- Nath fraudulent payment. P.W. 145 Shri Hiralal Fabrication of allotment letter by accused -- B.B.Prasad. P.W. 146 Shri Dinesh Nandan On 13.06.1994 accused Lalu Prasad gave 10/34, Sahay him copies of fake allotment letters for the alleged fraudulent payment for inquiry. During enquiry he discovered that PAC has taken documents and hence could not complete enquiry. P.W. 147 Shri Devanand Sinha Fake allotment letters used for the alleged --- fraudulent payments. P.W. 148 Shri Maher Khatri Stay at Hotel Taj during Dec. 1994 by the 49/6 to Co-Conspirators including Dr. S.B.Sinha and 49/21. others. P.W. 149 Shri Shailesh Prasad Received payment for none supply and 80% --- Singh of such payments given to Dr. Sheshmuni Ram. Transfer of B.N.Sharma on complaint of withdrawal of Rs.50 lacs from Chiabasa in 1993 and stay on transfer by accused Lalu Prasad on payment of Rs.20 lacs to Lalu Prasad on recommendation of Co-Accused Rajo Singh. Properties acquired by accused Sheshmuni Ram and others at Patna, Ranchi and Delhi. P.W. 150 Shri Nand Kumar Investigation on Air Tickets and Air journey --- Nair by Co-Conspirators from the fund raised out of fraudulent payments. P.W. 151 Shri Anand Swaroop Expert opinion on disputed writings and 88/5,

Page 25 Of 88 --26– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

Gupta signatures of the accused suppliers and 18/262 to, public servants. 18/266, P.W. 152 Sri V.G.S Bhatnagar Expert opinion on disputed writings and DXC signatures of the accused suppliers and 191/97, public servants. 119/10, P.W. 153 Shri Arvind Kumar Budget estimate files. --- Chug P.W. 154 Shri Bidhu Bhusan Information to vigilance department 1/173 to Dwivedi regarding illegal payments made on bogus 1/175, bills in AHD in the year 1992 indicating 12/31, involvement of accused Lalu Prasad and 10/74, others. P.W. 155 Shri Phooleshwar Budget files and CAG reports indicating 10/75 to information on expenditure in excess of the 10/145, allotment. PW.156 Shri Nagendra Investigated the case. FIR, Prasad Charge- sheet, sanction orders, seizure lists and statements recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of PWs.

9. That during trial prosecution submitted the following documents which were admitted as exhibits. The details follows as under:- Sl. Name of the exhibits Exhibit No. PWs No. 1. Letters received during investigation from 1 to 1/190 1,5,6,56, different authorities on different dates 60,65, 69,88, regarding subject allegation. 94, 108, 111, 112, 119, 122, 127, 129, 133, 135, 142, 154, 155 and 156

Page 26 Of 88 --27– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

2. Seven Stock Registers of Vet. Medicines of 2 to 2/6 8, 9, 13, 14, DAHO, Deoghar. 21, 22, 23 3. Charts 3 to 3/3

4. Feed Stock Register of DAHO, Deoghar 4

5. Statements recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. of Dr. 5 to 5/44 8, 9, 13, 14, Kamal Kishore Prasad Sinha, Dr. G.C.Ray, 21, 22, 23, Dr. P.B.Prasad, Dr. Prayag Ravidas, Dr. 25,44,45,46 Pitambar Jha, Dr.S.K.Singh, Dr. Uma & 107 Shankar Singh, Bachchu Prasad, Dr. Panchu Gopal Das Dr. Mahanand Jha, Dr. Raj Narayan Singh and others. 6. Inquiry Report 6 and 6/1 24

7. Endorsement of Statement of R.K. 7 24 Khandelwal, D.C. Deoghar, on Ext. 6 8. 8

9. List of Enclosures 9

10. Files. 10 to 10/166 11. Budget Estimates Files. 11 to 11/4 12. Seizure Lists 12 to 12/66 13. Books of appropriation account 13 to 13/8 14. Passed and paid CNC Bills of accused 14 to 14/260 41 suppliers. 15. Paid Vouchers of accused suppliers. 15 to 15/1475 41 16. Money receipts of fraudulent payments. 16 to 16/109 41 17. Bill Books of DAHO, Deoghar. 17 to 17/2 41 18. Cash Book of DAHO, Deoghar. 18 to 18/1 41 19. Treasury Messenger Books of DAHO, 19 to 19/1 41 Deoghar. 20. Three CNC Registers of DAHO, Deoghar. 20 to 20/2 41 21. 156 Draft Application Forms of DAHO, 21 to 21/155 41 Deoghar sent to SBI for purchase of Bank Drafts. 22. Three acknowledgement Receipts 22 to 22/3 41 23. File on correspondence with Public Accounts 23 41 Committee. 24. Complaint petition dated 23.02.1994 24 42 25. Treasury Accounts forwarding letters. 25 to 25/6 48 26. Payment Schedule Register of Deoghar 26 to 26/3 48 Treasury. 27. Signatures. 27 to 27/2 48 28. File regarding official course of business of 28 to 28/1 48

Page 27 Of 88 --28– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

Deoghar Treasury. 29. Endorsement signature in letters dated 29 to 29/3 29.02.1996, 13.03.1996 and 03.06.1998. 30. Fax message. 30 31. S.T.D Print out of telephone. 31 32. Computer Print Out. 32 to 32/7 71 33. Counter file, Payment details. 33 to 33/1 34. Original Subscriber Record Card. 34 35. Daily collection list. 35 36. Counter files. 36 to 36/9 37. Counter files details 37 38. Three registers of Hotel White House, Delhi. 38 to 38/2

39. Carbon copies of Bills of Hotel White 39 to 39/19 House, Delhi 40. Booking Registers of M/s. Guide Travel, 40 to 40/181 72 Kolkata. 41. Eight bills of M/s. Guide Travels 41 to 41/7 42. Vouchers of M/s. Guide Travel. 42 to 42/52 43. Five Cheques for payment to M/s Guide 43 to 43/4 Travels by accused A.K.Verma 44. Cash book register of M/s Guide Travels. 44 to 44/14

45. Bills Registers 45 to 45/6 46. Eleven computerized bills of M/s Caravan 46 to 46/10 Travels, Kolkata.

47. Five Money Receipt of M/s. Carvaan 47 to 47/4 Travels. 48. Forecast of Financial resources for the 48 to 48/2 eighteen five years plan. 49. Customer Arrival Card 49 50. Room Card 50 51. Payment receipts 51 52. Telephone bills of receipt of Hotel 52 to 52/3 53. Room Rent bill 53 to 53/2 54. Guest Departure Slip 54 to 54/4 55. Account Opening Form 55 to 55/52 56. Eleven Inter Branch Miscellaneous 56 to 56/10 57. 6 Original terms deposit form 57 to 57/5 58. 159 Pay in slip 58 to 58/158 59. 5 D.D.P Application form 59 to 59/4 60. Locker Register Folio 60 61. Agreement 61 62. Carbon copy of letters. 62 to 62/2 63. Note sheet and signature of witness of P.W. 63 to 63/1 84.

Page 28 Of 88 --29– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

64. Signature of witnesses. 64 to 64/IX 65. Carbon copy of production. 65 66. Circular dated 01.04.1991 66 67. Signature of P.Ws. 67 to 67/4 68. C.A.G Report dated 31.03.1995. 68 69. Bills Books Register of M/s. Akshay Palace 69 to 69/13 and Hotel Sobti. 70. Not Marked 70 71. Not Marked 71 72. Signatures 72 to 72/26 73. Air Tickets. 73 to 73/372 74. Notification. 74 75. Job Card. 75 to 75/1 76. F.I.R. 76 77. Appraisal Report prepared by IT. 77 78. Statement of Anil Kumar before Asst. 78 Director of Income Tax. 79. Panchnama 79 to 79/5 80. Form of 20 Motor. 80 81. Tax Token, 81 82. Form 29 and Form 30. 82 and 82/1 83. Two Affidavit dated 02.03.1996. 83 and 83/1 84. Statement U/s- 131 of I.T Act. 84 85. G.R. Card Number. 85 to 85/3 86. 3 Arrival and Departure registers. 86 to 8/2 87. Receipt 87 88. 1 Stock Register Travel Agency for Ticket. 88 89. Incoming Ticket Payment Register. 89 90. Entry in the diary of C.M Secretariat. 90 and 90/1 91. Passenger Manifest ( Sahara Airlines) 91 to 91/4 92. Flight Handling Report. 92 93. Special Handling Report. 93 94. Ledger (Page no. 64 and 65) 94 to 94/1 95. 3 Parties Register of Travel Agency. 95 to 95/2 96. Dues Register. 96 97. 13 Bill Book of Indian Airlines. 97 to 97/12 98. Buff Sheet Letter. 98 99. Certified copy of statement recorded U/s- 99 164 of Cr.P.C. 100. Certified copies of Applications for 100 to 100/9 Remittance in Foreign Currency. 101. Certified copies of Register of compliants of 101 to 101/1 State Vigilance Bureau, Patna. 102. Certified Copies of complaints relating to 102 to 102/173 AHD of State Vigilance Bureau, Patna. 103. Guest Entries Register Hotel Sobti. 103 104. Hotel Register Hayat Regency, Delhi. 104 105. Hotel Register Hayat Regency, Delhi. 104/a

Page 29 Of 88 --30– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

106. Entries Sr. No. 376 of Ext. 104. 105 107. Entries Sr. No. 517 & 508. 105/a and 105/b 108. 3 Registration Card of Hyat Regency, Delhi. 106 to 106/b 109. Certified copy of 5 allotment letters. 107 to 107/6 110. 2 Fake allotment register. 108 to 108/1 111. Sub Allotment files and non allotment. 109 to 109/5 112. Financial Power of AHD Official. 110 113. Certified Copy of search list. 111 114. Dispatch Register ( Certified Copy) 112 to 112/1 115. File of Original Allotment. 113 116. File Related to A.G. Bihar. 114 117. File of Complaint Regarding AHD Scam. 115 118. File of Fake allotment letters. 116 to 116/7 119. File of Complaint regarding AHD, Scam. 117 120. File of complaint regarding ADH, Scam. 118 121. Many Certified Copy Exhibit. In R.C. 119 to 119/10 20A/1996 and others. 122. F.I.R 120 156 123. Ticket Stock Diary 121 156 124. Medicine receipts 122 156 125. C.C. of Demand Draft issue register 123 156 126. 16 Drafts 124 to 124/15 127. Report of Bihar Legislative Assembly 125 128. Sanction Orders. 126 to 126/8

Some Identification Mark Document on behalf of prosecution are follows :- Mark -A :- Identity Card issued by the Government of Jharkhand, Mark B :- C.A.G Report dated 03.03.1995. Mark – C :- Report of Finance Commissioner. Mark – D to D/11 :- Note Sheets with signature. Mark – E to E/3 :- Certified copy of deposition of P.W. 3, 4 and 8 Sri A.K. Jha in R.C. No. 20A/1996 and inspection report on behalf of Lalu Prasad and Note Sheet. Mark – F to F/2 :- Noting page no. 5 and page no. 6 of File No. 13 and others. Mark. G :- Noting Ram Raj Ram in Ext. 63/3. Mark – H :- Photo copy of file Mark – I :- Certified copy of deposition of P.W. 197 Pramod Kumar. Mark – J to J/10 :- Certified Copies Exhibits of R.C. 20A/96, R.C. 34A/96. Mark – K :- Certified copy of deposition P.W. 23 R.K. Das. Mark – 1 to 1/V :- 3 Photographs, 50 Negatives. Mark – X to X/87 :- Letter on different dates with enclosure.

Page 30 Of 88 --31– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

Mark – Y/1 to Y/4 :- Photocopy of Diary Register. Mark – XX to XX/10 :- Money Receipts and others. Mark – XXX :- Photo copy of deed of agreement. 10. That is prosecution evidence are closed and U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C the statement of accused persons namely 1. Tripurari Mohan Prasad, 2. Sunil Kumar Sinha, 3. Sushil Kumar, 4. Sarswati Chandra, 5. Jyoti Kumar Jha, 6. Beck Julius, 7. Vinay Kumar, 8. Gopi Nath Das, 9. Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, 10. Krishna Kumar Prasad, 11. Rajendra Prasad Sharma @ Raj Kumar Sharma @ Raju @ Raj Kumar Joshi @ Raja Ram Joshi, 12. Mahendra Prasad, 13. Sunil Gandhi, 14. Usha Singh @ Sadhna Singh, 15. Phulchand Singh, 16. Mahesh Prasad, 17. Adhip Chandra Chaudhary, 18. Subir Kumar Bhattacharya, 19. Jagdish Sharma, 20. Brij Bhushan Prasad, 21. Dhruv Bhagat, 22. K. Arumugam, 23. Vidhya Sagar Nishad, 24. Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav, 25. Ravindra Kumar Rana, 26. Jagarnath Mishra, recorded on different dates in the court. Accused Lalu Prasad and Ravindra Kumar Rana submitted in written U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C statement which is also enclosure. All above accused persons deny from alleged charges and evidences and pleaded innocent. Accused also claimed to adduce defence evidence. 11. The following defence witnesses were examined on behalf of accused Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav - D.W.1 Suresh Paswan, D.W.2 Pavitra Paswan, D.W.3 Ejaj Hussain, D.W. 4 Jai Prakash Narayan Yadav, D.W.5 Md. Jainul, D.W.6 Gunjan Kumar, D.W.7 Ram Panni Singh, D.W.8 Shashi Bhushan Sharma, D.W.9 Rajendra Khan, D.W. 10 Syed Kamal Hussain, D.W.11 Mukund Prasad, D.W.12 Brig. R.P. Nautiyal, D.W.13 Richard Amrendra Viswas, D.W.14 Karu Ram, D.W. 15 D.P. Ojha. On behalf of Jagannath Mishra - D.W. 16. Pandey Dayanand Sharma. Sunil Kumar was examined as court witness No.1. 12. From perusal of records it transpires that 38 accused sent up for cognizance and facing trial whereas 12 accused persons not sent up for trial on behalf of prosecution side. From perusal of records it is transpires that 12 persons which are submitted not sent up for trial on behalf of prosecution side has been discharged and after perusal of records cognizance taken only against 38 accused persons. 13. From perusal of order sheet it is clear that accused persons Shiv Kumar Patwari, Raghvendra Kishore Das and accused Shailesh Prasad Singh were granted pardon on dated 03.05.2005, 14.03.2000 and 17.06.2003 U/s- 306 of Cr.P.C. It is also transpires from the records that accused persons namely Sushil Kumar Jha and Pramod Kumar Jaiswal pleaded guilty so their records were separated from original record. 14. It is also transpires from the records that accused persons namely 1. Shesh Muni Ram, 2. O.P. Gupta, 3. Shyam Bihari Sinha, 4. Bhola Ram Toofani, 5. Mahendra Prasad, 6. Rajo Singh 7. K.Arumugam, 8. Brajbhushan Prasad, 9. Dr. Vinay Kumar and

Page 31 Of 88 --32– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

10. Chandra Deo Prasad Verma died during trial, so the trial proceedings against them were dropped. Presently only 22 accused persons namely:- (1). Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav, (2). Dr. Jagarnath Mishra, (3). Vidya Sagar Nishad, (4). Jagdish Sharma, (5). Dr. Rabindra Kumar Rana, (6). Dhruv Bhagat, (7). Phulchand Singh, (8). Mahesh Prasad, (9). Beck Julius, (10). Adhip Chandra Chaudhary, (11). Subir Kumar Bhattacharya, (12). Dr. Krishna Kumar Prasad, (13). Tripurari Mohan Prasad, (14). Sunil Kumar Sinha, (15). Sushil Kumar, (16). Sunil Gandhi, (17). Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, (18). Gopi Nath Das, (19). Jyoti Kumar Jha, (20). Rajendra Prasad Sharma @ Raj Kumar Sharma @ Raju @ Raj Kumar Joshi @ Raja Ram Joshi, (21). Smt.Sarswati Chandra, (22). Smt.Sadhana Singh are facing trial. 15. Now question before the court is that whether the alleged charges against each of the accused persons has been proved beyond reasonable doubt successfully by the prosecution or not ? F I N D I N G S 16. That is during hearing on behalf of prosecution Ld. Sr.PP of C.B.I Sri Rakesh Prasad submitted that the matter related to fraudulent withdrawal of Rs. 95,08,140.10/- from Deoghar Treasury during the financial year 1991 – 92 to 1993 -94 on strength of forged and fabricated allotment letters and spurious bills preferred by the accused suppliers without effecting any supply or transporting any materials were passed for payments from Deoghar Treasury. When the fraud was detected accused Shesh Muni Ram took away all the connected records of DAHO, Deoghar with the intention to suppress the fraud and to destroy the evidences on the pretext of handing them over to public accounts committee of the Bihar Legislative Assembly. He also submitted that the crime perpetrated over the years because of the protection and patronage of accused bureaucrats, politicians including the former Chief Ministers of State of Bihar S/Sri Lalu Prasad Yadav and Dr. Jagannath Mishra. He further submitted that first fraudulent withdrawal in this case on 27.06.1991 by Dr. Vinay Kumar against a fake allotment letter no. 4615 dated 01.06.1991. This fake allotment letter could be traced out but allotment letter finds mentioned in the CNC Register of 1991 – 92. Letter No. 4615 dated 01.06.1991 was issued from the Establishment Section to DAHO, Chhapra and was not issued by Budget Section of the directorate to DAHO, Deoghar for allotment. The same letter no. has been mentioned at two places in CNC registers i.e. for allotment Rs. 5,000,00/- Lac and for allotment Rs. 1,00,000/- . This was only direct fake allotment letter used in this case. Remaining excess fraudulent withdrawals were made on the basis of fake Sub – allotment letters issued by Dr. Shesh Muni Ram to DAHO, Deoghar. 18 fake Sub- allotments letters were issued by Dr. Shesh Muni Ram to Dr. Vinay Kumar during the period July 1991 to August- 1993. 17 fake Sub-allotments letters amounting to Rs.

Page 32 Of 88 --33– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

97,000,00/- have been seized. One fake Sub-allotments letter 1343 dated 18.07.1991 for Rs. 6,000,00/- could not be found and seized but this was utilized by Dr. Vinay Kumar in making fraudulent withdrawal as per the CNC, Register. 10 fake allotment letters aggregating to Rs. 5.42 Crores issued under the signature of accused B.B. Prasad have been seized. In this way, he submitted that accused Vinay Kumar DAHO, Deoghar received fake allotment of Rs. 1.08 Crores against genuine allotment of Rs. 4,73,400/- to purchase vet. Medicines and instruments during the period of alleged occurrence. The total sum of Rs. 1.13 Crore withdrawal under the contingency for purchasing feed, fodder, medicine and minor expense on M and S, Minor construction and machine and equipment etc. including the withdrawal made on Salary, Office Expenses, Rent, Electricity, Fuel, and Telephone etc but all were not taken into the account because all these withdrawals were not made against the fake invoices. 17. Prosecution submitted that out of 371 contingent bills amounting to Rs. 89,21,164.15/- only 311 bills pertains to the accused suppliers and remaining 60 contingent bills relates to petty purchase like Table, Cloth, Towel, Curtail, etc. It is also submitted that the 11 bills aggregating Rs. 10,96,813/- could not be passed and were found left on the office of DAHO, Deoghar and balance of Rs. 180/- and Rs. 2,00,490/- were also found in the CNC Register. In this way about Rs. 13 Lacs out of fake Sub- allotments Rs. 20 Lacs could not utilized and the same were surrendered to Regional Director, AHD, Dumka. 18. Prosecution submitted that accused Dr. Shyam Bihari Sinha was the king-pin and master-mind behind the fraud made on the basis of bogus Sub-allotment letters issued under the signature of accused Sesh Muni Ram to DAHO, Deoghar. Dr. Sinha created conditions to ensure patronage to the accused officers /officials from Government level. The fake allotment letters were made manifold beyond the sanctioned budget. He further submitted that fraudulent withdrawal from Deoghar Treasury was not an isolated act of crime but was the out come of well organized conspiracy to loot the government money. He also submitted that the alleged withdrawal was the out come of well knit conspiracy involving the AHD and Treasury officers, unscrupulous suppliers, bureaucrats and politicians including the formal Chief Minister Lalu Yadav and Dr. Jagannath Mishra. 19. Prosecution explained that the modus operandi adopted in this case is of the systematic loot from government treasury at 3 levels which were interlink. The lower level functionaries at the district level were involved in siphoning off government funds against non-existent supplies. The supervisory level officers at the R.D. were engaged in creating conditions so that fictitious allotment orders for fictitious bills against non supply. They also connived with top management of AHD, government and other statutory bodies like public accounts committee (PAC) and politicians for

Page 33 Of 88 --34– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

protection and patronage so that the nefarious activities could flourish, unhindered. For providing such protective umbrella the politicians and bureaucrats enjoyed hospitalities and also received pay offs from co-conspirators. The income tax raid at the Ranchi Airport in the year 1992 disclosing recovery of huge money which was being carried to be handed over to the different accused persons at higher level. Accused Tripurari Mohan Prasad was one of the treasurer and custodian of fund made out of illegal withdrawals at Patna. None Supply of items mentioned in the bills of accused suppliers is evident from the statements of the field doctors i.e BAHOs and T.V.Os of Deoghar District. Their statements recorded U/s- 164 of Cr.P.C by the Special Magistrates at Patna and Dhanbad disclosed that the veterinary medicines and other items in questions, were not supplied to them by the accused DAHO, Deoghar, yet the same were falsely shown supplied on their records. 20. The Ld. Senior P.P C.B.I Sri Rakesh Prasad submitted that there is larger conspiracy behind the excess fraudulent withdrawal in AHD, Deoghar, which took place during 1991 to 1993. Use of fictitious allotment letters by accused AHD officers at Deoghar was smelt by the organization called Bihar Anti Corruption Campaigns, Patna. The secretary of the said organization Dr. Surjeet Singh vide his letter dated 10.02.93 addressed to Treasury Officer and others regarding withdrawal of money from Treasury on the basis of bogus bills of veterinary medicine by RD and DAHO to loot several lakhs. He also requested the Treasury Officer to demand original allotment letters and to verify the same from the Director AHD, Patna. The letter was also addressed to Sri Sukhdeo Singh, the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar and asked him that no bills of AHD be passed without allotment letters. DAHO Deoghar did not satisfy Sri Sukhdeo Singh then D.C, Deoghar after preliminary enquiry with the copy of Sub-allotments letter made available and he demanded the allotment letters issued from the Directorate of AHD for verification. The co-conspirators then informed him that the public account committee (PAC) for enquiry has seized all records relating to alleged fraudulent withdrawals. The D.C. Deoghar Sri Sukhdeo Singh also apprehended that RD, Dumka delayed production of original allotment letters to avoid the enquiry. He thereafter asked that an Executive Magistrate be deputed to seize the original allotment letters from RD Office at Dumka. Sri S.S. Tiwary was authorized to conduct an enquiry in the office of DAHO Deoghar and submit a report. Sri S.S.Tiwary, the authorized Magistrate by his letter no. 157 dated 11.03.1994 informed that against the allotment of Rs. 6,000/- only an amount of Rs. 50,000,00/- had been fraudulently withdrawn by DAHO, Deoghar. Sri S.S. Tiwary mentioned that the matter was very serious as it pertained to fraud and misappropriation, he recommended to inform the Secretary and Director of AHD to know about the truth in public interest. The inquiry report received by Sri Sukhdeo Singh dated 12.03.1994 was then

Page 34 Of 88 --35– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

forwarded by letter no., 846 dated 04.04.1994 to the Secretary AHD, Patna for verification into the alleged information but no follow up action was taken by the co- conspirators at Directorate and secretariat level on the contrary it was disclosed that the subject correspondence was destroyed and the Deputy Commissioner who initiated enquiry was transferred from Deoghar. 21. Prosecution further submitted that the report of Sri S.S. Tiwary along with letter of D.C. Deoghar received in the cell of Secretary, AHD on 06.04.1994. The Addl. Secretary Sri Indu Bhushan Pathak asked his office to put up the report immediately and the report was sent to the vigilance section of AHD, Directorate. The said enquiry report was received by Smt. Karuna Kumari routine clerk who handed over the report to co-conspirator R.K. Das, the then A.O and in-charge of Vigilance Cell who subsequently destroyed the inquiry report and the letter dated 04.04.1994. Prosecution further submitted that the co-conspirator then Secretary of AHD and co-conspirator then Director AHD had knowledge about the fraudulent withdrawals from Deoghar, Treasury since 1994 but no action was taken which shows that they were party to the alleged criminal conspiracy. Prosecution further submitted that Sri Nilambar Chaudhary, MLC raised the question vide No. AH-4 in the house regarding the fraudulent withdrawals of Rs. 50,00,000/- (50 Lacs) from the Deoghar Treasury on the basis of forged allotment letters by T.V.O (M) Deoghar and Regional Director, AHD, Santhal Pargana. Dr. Shiv Balak Chaudhary and Bachchu Prasad had already submitted an inquiry report on 29.06.1994 on the subject allegation to the co-conspirator Secretary AHD disclosing prima facie involvement of accused Dr. Shesh Muni Ram in the alleged illegal withdrawals of government money without proper allotment. Prosecution further submitted that a meeting was held under the chairmanship of the then AHD Minister Sri Chandrdeo Prasad Verma and co-conspirator on this subject. 22. Prosecution also submitted that letter dated 24.06.1994 was written by Sri Jagdish Sharma to stop the inquiry, when Dr. S.B. Chaudhary and Bachchu Prasad had completed the inquiry and was preparing the report which was submitted on 29.06.1994. Prosecution further submitted that accused persons who were in criminal conspiracy with co-conspirators obviously did not want the fraud to be exposed. The inquiry report of Sri S.S. Tiwary received in the directorate on 06.04.94 was destroyed and inquiry report of Dr. Shiv Balak Chaudhary was also buried. It was further submitted that there was a criminal conspiracy between co-conspirators Sri Shesh Muni Ram, Mahesh Prasad, R.K. Das, Ram Raj Ram, Beck Julius, Chandradeo Prasad Verma, Bhola Ram Toofani and others. It is also submitted that file No. 12AH/HQ/Vigilance Cell (1)111/94 shows that the Union of Non-Gazetted employees of AHD made demand for action and were indefinite Dharna at the residence of Minister for AHD on 12.01.1993. It is on record that on 14.01.1993 a memorandum

Page 35 Of 88 --36– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

was submitted by the Union to then Chief Minister and co-conspirators Lalu Prasad. It was further submitted that a complaint bearing letter no. 52/92 dated 02.06.94 addressed to Chief Minister, Chief Secretary regarding the alleged fraudulent withdrawals of Rs. 50,00,000/- was sent by the same union but no action was taken. It was then submitted that then Chief Minister and co-conspirator Lalu Prasad on 13.06.1994 called Sri Bachhu Prasad and Dr. S.B. Chaudhary and asked about the enquiry. Both informed that they could not initiate the inquiry as the figures of allotment and expenditure were not being provided to them by co-conspirators Dr. Ram Raj Ram in spite of the repeated oral request. Both Officers rushed to Deoghar on 19.06.1994 and conducted the inquiry at Deoghar on 20.06.1994. The inquiry team on returned from Deoghar and submitted the report on 29.06.1994 confirming the allegation as true. 23. It was further submitted that File No. BS 23/94 of Vigilance Department was opened as per the order Sri D.N. Sahay the then D.G., Vigilance to enquire into the 6 fake sub-allotments letters, photocopies of which were hand over to him by accused Lalu Prasad. Co-conspirator Jagdish Sharma as Chairman of PAC wrote a letter the co- conspirator and Chief Minister to stop the vigilance and departmental inquiry into the subject allegation. The then C.M. Lalu Prasad forwarded this letter to the Vigilance Department thereafter the vigilance enquiry into the subject allegation was stopped. As purposed by Sri D.N. Sahay then DG, Vigilance the said file was put up before C.M. Shri Lalu Prasad on 04.07.1994 by Sri A.K. Basak, then Chief Secretary but the file was returned after a gap of 08 months on 29.03.1995 without any order of the C.M. for enquiry of investigation on the subject allegation. 24. It was further submitted that CAG reports indicating excess withdrawals were also received and laid in the house when the said letter dated 17.06.94 of co- conspirator Jagdish Sharma was sent to C.M. Shri Lalu Prasad. It has also been brought on record that parallel inquiry both by the vigilance department and the PAC relating to appointment of Lecturer had been ordered by Lalu Prasad on 29.08.1991. In a meeting convened on 30.09.91 under the Chairmanship of Hon'ble Governor of Bihar was attended by Lalu Prasad along with his Chief Secretary and others wherein it was decided that vigilance department would conduct the in-depth inquiry under a time schedule. However, in the case of vigilance inquiry on the subject allegation against Dr. Shesh Muni Ram double standards was adopted by the Chief Minister Lalu Prasad to screen the co-conspirators and to facilitate further fraudulent withdrawal from Deoghar and other Treasuries by the co-conspirators. 25. In continuation prosecution further submitted that the extension of service after retirement was granted to co-conspirator R.K. Das and S.B. Sinha on the recommendation of co-conspirators Jagdish Sharma and Dr. Jagannath Mishra by Lalu

Page 36 Of 88 --37– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

Prasad then CM by manipulating rules and regulations. The act therefore disclosed nexus among co-conspirators and protection and patronage given to the AHD officers involved in the alleged offences. It was then submitted that the different accused persons of the AHD Directorate, Secretariat, Finance Department, Vigilance Department, PAC, Treasury Office, , other Bureaucrats and Politicians including the then Chief Minister Lalu Yadav and Dr. Jagannath Mishra himself were knowing about the fraudulent withdrawals made by the co-conspirators from different treasuries since long but no action was taken by them and thereby they aided and abetted the alleged fraudulent withdrawals from different treasuries. It was also submitted that Sri Ram Jivan Singh, the then Cabinet Minister for AHD in his note dated 18.08.1990 to the Chief Minister Lalu Prasd recommended for inquiry into the fraudulent payment reported by the office of Accountant General by CBI. The said note was put up before C.M. who took advise of Chief Secretary. The Chief Secretary also reported serious picture and recommended the allegation to be inquired by the vigilance department on 13.11.1990. Another co-conspirator Dr. Jagarnath Mishra the then leader of Opposition on 15.11.1990 had suggested to the then Chief Minister Lalu Prasad that an inquiry by the Regional Development Commissioner, Ranchi in place of Police inquiry as the enquiry by Police would harass the officials. This letter was endorsed by accused Lalu Prasad to the Chief Secretary for necessary action and thereafter, no police inquiry was made and the culprits were thus effectively shielded. 26. Prosecution further submitted that the accused Jagdish Sharma and Dhruv Bhagat as Chairman of PAC intervened as and when proposal for investigation into the alleged fraudulent payment was placed before the government, even though PAC had no jurisdiction for conducting enquiry into the alleged fraud and misappropriation. The Secretary of Bihar Legislative Assembly under orders of then Hon’ble Speaker of the house had informed that no enquiry relating to the fraudulent payments of AHD was entrusted to public accounts committee of the house during 1990-95. The Chief Minister & Finance Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav and the finance commissioner Phulchand Singh had details of expenditure through CAG Reports for the year 1988- 89, 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95. The CAG report contained details of grants, expenditure and unauthorized excess expenditure by AHD but no follow up action was taken in order to screen the offenders. CAG reports received in the Finance Department were perused by Lalu Prasad in his capacity of Finance Minister. The details mentioned in the report are as under:- Financial Grant in Rs. Expenditure Un-authorised Percent Seen by CM on Year in Rs. excess (%) 1988-89 36.77 Cr. 42.90 Cr. 6.13 Cr. 17 18.12.93 1989-90 42.80 Cr. 52.45 Cr. 8.65 Cr. 20 19.07.94 1990-91 54.92 Cr. 84.21 Cr. 29.29 Cr. 53 05.06.95

Page 37 Of 88 --38– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

1991-92 59.10 Cr. 129.82 Cr. 70.72 Cr. 120 04.06.95 1992-93 66.93 Cr. 154.70 Cr. 87.77 Cr. 131 10.06.95 1993-94 74.14 Cr. 199.17 Cr. 125.03 Cr. 169 26.11.96

27. It was further submitted that the inquiry report of Sri S.S. Tiwary Executive Magistrate, Deoghar regarding the fraudulent withdrawal of Rs. 50,00,000/- by DAHO, Deoghar, forwarded by D.C, Deoghar was perused by co-accused Mahesh Prasad but this report was destroyed in the directorate and no follow up action was taken. 28. The king-pin of this scheme played by Shyam Bihari Sinha. He was the Regional Joint Director, South Chhotanagpur Range AHD, Ranchi till his retirement on 31.12.1994 since his posting at Ranchi since 1975, the first corruption practices was reported in the year 1985. The allegation was enquired into by the Nivedan Committee. Thereafter, in 1990 Sri P.S. Ayar the then DAG (I & W) had brought to the notice of the government the gross regularities with regard to payments for transportation bill in office of Regional Director AHD, Ranchi during the period 1985-86 to 1988-89. In spite of all these allegations Dr. S.B. Sinha could continue to indulge in fraudulent practices as he received patronage from co-conspirators at top level of the government. It the politicians of the party in power or those in the opposition were together in providing protection and patronage in the form of extension of service ignoring government resolutions and instructions in the matter of reappointment and extension and also by scuttling enquiries as and when the proposal for investigation enquiry or audit was sent to the government. The leader of opposition, the chairman of PAC from other parties were together so far as screening the offenders is concerned. It was further submitted that the allegation of the case is well proved against each of the accused persons facing the trial and they may be dealt according to law. 29. On behalf of defence Ld. Lawyer namely Sri Chitranjan Sinha , Sri Prabhat Kumar, Rakesh Jha, Sri N.N. Tiwary, Sri B.B. Rai, Sri Prabhat Kumar, Sri A.K. Kanth, Sri Raj Kumar Sahay, Sri Sanjay Kumar, Sri Sanjeev Chandra, Sri Anil Kumar Singh, Sri Akhileshwar Prasad, Sri Ajay Mishra and Sri Bharat Lal Mahto collectively submitted that all accused suppliers of Vet. Medicines, Animal Feed and Machineries are genuine suppliers of AHD. They have supplied against supply orders received from R.D, AHD, Dumka and accordingly received legal payment according to law through bank drafts or cash. Suppliers have no authority to search about genuine allotment or fake allotment. They believe that order placed for supply according to legal allotment by the authority. Therefore, there is no any forgery or fake vouchers submitted by them in the department and no any criminal conspiracy with the officers for causing loss to the government of Bihar can be attributed to them. On behalf of Government Officers it is submitted that they passed vouchers after receiving supply of materials by the suppliers. The Treasury Officers passed bills

Page 38 Of 88 --39– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

according to law. It was further submitted there had not been any criminal conspiracy in preparation and receiving the forged allotment letters. The Ld. Lawyer collectively prayed that prosecution falsely implicated accused persons in the case. There is no criminal conspiracy among the accused persons and no any criminal misappropriation of government money as alleged in this case has been made out. Accused persons deserve the privilege of acquittal from above alleged charges in this case. 30. Heard in detail on behalf of both the sides Ld. Lawyer and perused the records. It is transpires that charges framed against accused persons U/s- 120 (B) r/w 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 477 (A) of I.P.C and Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (c)& (d) of P.C Act, 1988. 31. The summary of legal principles involved in this case is very important for appreciation of discussion. As stated earlier, the main allegation against the Public Officials being of criminal omission of their duties with a greed of taking gratification. The word act used with inference to section 3 (2) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, defines it as used with reference to an offence or a civil wrong , Shel include a series of acts and words which referred to acts done extent also to legal omission. It was considered in the case reported in AIR 1969 SC – 227 that an act required to be done cannot necessarily mean a Positive Act only and may also include acts which one is precluded from doing. It was found in a full bench decision reported in AIR 1965. That the Act within the meaning of the words used in various statues might include omission or failure to do an act, but in order that the particular statutes might cover and omission or failure. It must have been done under the statue or in the official capacity or under the official authority. There must be a statutory provision expressly or employed with requiring or authorizing the omission or failure. In this case the accused persons have been charge for various offence as stated above. The basic constituents of the such offences. 32. 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.

Page 39 Of 88 --40– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

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 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. 33. 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. Defenition of criminal conspiracy – When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done -

Page 40 Of 88 --41– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

(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. Explanation – It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object. 34. 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. 35. 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” 36. 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 :- 37. “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

Page 41 Of 88 --42– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

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 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 : 38. “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 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

Page 42 Of 88 --43– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

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. 39. 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. 40. Section – 420 of I.P.C deals with cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery or property. The elements which are required to be proved :- a. 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. 41. Section – 465 of I.P.C deals with punishment for forgery, the term forgery

Page 43 Of 88 --44– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

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. 42. 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. 43. 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. 44. 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 (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. 45. 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

Page 44 Of 88 --45– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

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. 46. 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 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-

Page 45 Of 88 --46– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

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 adopting the evidence of one case to another case in order to save the accused from hearing same evidence again and again. 47. 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. 48. 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. 49. 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. 50. 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

Page 46 Of 88 --47– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

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. 51. 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 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.

Page 47 Of 88 --48– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

52. 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. 53. Article – 267 provides for contingency fund for each state as the 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. 54. 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. 55. 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)

Page 48 Of 88 --49– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

that vouchers are prepared according to rules, (2) that the money is either required for immediate disbursement or has 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. 56. 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”. 57. 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 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

Page 49 Of 88 --50– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

58. Accused Tripurari Mohan Prasad taken stand U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C that he was owner of M/s. Bihar Surgico Medico Agency during 1990 to 1994. He further stated that he supplied medicine to DAHO, Deoghar. Accused deny the allegation that he do not supply the medicine DAHO, Deoghar and received payment Rs. 5,56,520/- Further stated that the firm receipt order to supply medicine DAHO, Deoghar. Further stated that he received bank draft after supplying the medicine and deny the allegation that in criminal conspiracy with political leader minister, Finance Officers, AHD Officers, Treasury Employee and he gave wrongful loss to the tune of Rs. 84,53,764/- to Bihar Government Revenue and claimed to be innocent. 59. On behalf of state submitted that against three fake sub allotment No. 4615 dated 01.06.1991 for Rs. 05 Lacs allotment No. 412 dated 26.02.1992 for Rs. 1,05,000/- and one more fake sub allotment for Rs. 06 Lacs, M/s. Bihar Surgico Medico Agency by bill no. 65/91 – 92 for Rs. 49,990/-, Bill No. 68/91-92 for Rs. 75,000/-, Bill No. 70/91-92 for Rs. 1,04,223/-, Bill No. 91/91-92 for Rs. 25,000/-, Bill No. 118/91-92 for Rs. 50,000/- Bill No. 352/91-92 for Rs. 28,280/-, Bill No. 353/91-92 for Rs. 24,185/-, Bill No. 406/91-92 for Rs. 5,000/-, Bill No. 407/91-92 for Rs. 0,19,910/-, Bill No. 428/91-92 for Rs. 0,15,030/-, Bill No. 409/91-92 for Rs. 0,9,970/- received illegally payments and committed illegal loss to State Government in criminal conspiracy with polticians, Finance Department Officers and AHD Officers. 60. On behalf of prosecution oral and documentary evidences produced in the support of allegation/charges. Approver witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution side, who fully supported the prosecution story of non-supply fraudulent payment and distribution of alleged fraudulent payments among co-conspirator public servants and suppliers at the ratio of 80 :20 . 61. On behalf of prosecution side many witnesses were examined including I.O P.W. 156 Nagendra Prasad who clearly stated that during investigation he found that medicines shown in vouchers submitted by M/s. Bihar Surgico Medico Agency, Patna and 23 other supplying firms is never manufactured by the company. The Proprietor submitted fake vouchers in connivance with AHD Department Officers. Further stated that those fake vouchers submitted by M/s. Bihar Surgico Medico Agency, Patna granted receipt of supply and bill passed by DDO, DAHO. Those bills passed by DDOs, DAHO also passed by Treasury Officer, Deoghar after receiving gratification. Approver R.K. Das also support the prosecution story that accused Tripurari Mohan Prasad in close contact with co-accused Shyam Bihari Sinha and on many occasions accused provide fund for illegal payments to politicians R.K. Rana and Chief Minister who provide protection to AHD Officers. 62. From perusal of oral and documentary evidence as on record, court found that prosecution side successfully proved alleged charges against accused Tripurari Mohan

Page 50 Of 88 --51– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

Prasad beyond reasonable doubt. 63. Accused Sunil Kumar Sinha taken stand U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C that he was Proprietor of M/s. Baba Chemical Works during 1990 to 1994. Further stated that his elder brother Tripurari Mohan Prasad managed all work. Accused deny to submit vouchers of Rs. 5,64,086/- in respect of medicine supply in DAHO, Deoghar. Accused fully deny to receive a supply order. Accused deny to involve in criminal conspiracy with Minister, Politicians, Financial Department Officers, AHD Officers and Officers of Treasury Deoghar and wrongfully loss Rs. 84,53,764/- to Bihar Government Revenue and claimed to be innocent. 64. On behalf of prosecution alleged that M/s. Baba Chemical Works on basis of fake allotment letters submitted fake vouchers in the department and received illegally by Bill No. 410/91-92 for Rs. 0,04,970/-, Bill No. 116/91-92 for Rs. 0,99,200/-, Bill No. 117/118/91-92 for Rs. 0,55,000/-, Bill No. 119/91-92 for Rs. 0,49,650/-, Bill No. 72/91-92 for Rs. 0,93,860/-, Bill No. 120/91-92 for Rs. 0,49,650/-, Bill No. 351/91-92 for Rs. 33,320/-, Bill No. 354/91-92 for Rs. 14,215/-, Bill No. 65/93-94 for Rs. 4,995/-. In support of alleged charges prosecution side produced oral and documentary evidences. The approver witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution side fully support the prosecution story that without supply the medicine firm submitted fake vouchers in the DAHO, Deoghar in which some bill passes and suppliers received money without supplying the medicine. 65. On behalf of prosecution I.O of this case P.W. 156 Nagendra Prasad examined in the court who clearly stated that the vouchers submitted by M/s. Baba Chemical Works is never supply medicine in AHD Department, Deoghar. Those medicine which described in vouchers never manufactured. It is also stated in examination that M/s. Baba Chemical Works registered in the name of Sunil Kumar Sinha, who is the brother of co-accused Tripurari Mohan Prasad. 66. From perusal of records it is clear that Sunil Kumar Sinha stated in statement U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C about the working of M/s. Baba Chemical Works. He clearly disclosed that Tripurari Mohan Prasad submitted vouchers and bill pass and deposit draft in the account of above firms and he only sign the cheque and money use by Tripurari Mohan Prasad. 67. From perusal of records it is clear that accused well acquittantd with the activities of elder brother Tripurari Mohan Prasad, who are in contact with co-accused Dr. Shyam Bihari Sinha. Tripurari Mohan Prasad provide money to co-accused Shyam Bihari Sinha, who provide money to higher officers and politicians and save from legal action against officers, on the basis of money C.M / Finance Minister provide protection to accused. It is clear that this accused taken benefit of fraudulent withdrawal from Deoghar Treasury, on the basis of fake vouchers. So after perusal of

Page 51 Of 88 --52– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

oral and documentary evidences, court found that prosecution side successfully proved alleged charges beyond reasonable doubt. 68. Accused Sushil Kumar stated in recorded statement U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C that he was Proprietor of M/s. Samarpan Veterinary Enterprises, Patna during 1990 to 1994 and further stated that all activities of firm maintained by his elder brother Tripurari Mohan Prasad. Accused deny to acknowledge to submit fake vouchers of Rs. 3,89,490/- in DAHO, Deoghar without supply the medicine and also deny to acknowledge to receive a supply order from AHD. Accused acknowledge that he never received any certificate on basis of fake vouchers to supply medicine and no any bill pass a bill from Deoghar Treasury. He also deny to receive a payment through bank draft and gave wrongful loss of Rs. 84,53,764/- to Bihar Government Revenue. In criminal conspiracy with Minister, Politicians, Finance Department Officer, AHD Officers and Treasury Officers, Deoghar. Accused totally stated as innocent in respect of alleged charges. 69. On behalf of prosecution submitted that above firm in respect of fake Sub- allotment submitted fake vouchers and illegally Bill No. 110.91-92 for Rs. 49,830/-, Bill No. 111/91-92 for Rs. 78,640/-, Bill No. 112/91-92 for Rs. 68,810/-, Bill No. 114 & 115/91-92 for Rs. 1,47,210/-, Bill No. 403 to 405 /91-92 for Rs. 45,000/-.Bill pass. In support of above charges prosecution side produced oral and documentary evidences in the court during trial. Co-accused also examined after approver in the court who fully supported the prosecution story. 70. On behalf of prosecution P.W. 156 I.O Nagendra Prasad examined in the court who stated in chief in examination that Proprietor of M/s. Samarpan Veterinary Enterprises, Patna is a fake firms established only on paper, above firm submitted fake vouchers in the office DAHO, Deoghar. Above firm never supplied the medicine but due to criminal conspiracy with other co-accused received issued without receiving the supply and also pass the bill by DDOs. It is also stated that Treasury Officers without objection pass the bill, on the basis of fake sub-allotments letters issued by R.D, AHD, Dumka. Approver and some other independent witnesses also support the evidence of I.O. So after perusal of all oral and documentary evidence as available on the record, court found that prosecution side successfully proved alleged charges against accused Sushil Kumar beyond reasonable doubt. 71. Accused Sarswati Chandra U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C statement recorded taken stand that he do not have knowledge that she was Proprietor of M/s. S.R. Enterprises, Patna during 1990 to 1994. Accused fully deny to submit fake vouchers of Rs. 6,92,355/- in respect of medicine supply in DAHO, Deoghar. Accused also deny to receive Rs. 6,92,355/- through bank draft and taken stand as innocent about the occurrence and further stated that her husband Mahendra Prasad had received the

Page 52 Of 88 --53– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

alleged fraudulent payments. 72. On behalf of prosecution side submitted that M/s. S.R. Enterprises, Patna submitted fake vouchers against fake Sub-allotment No. 20 dated 21.02.1992 for Rs, 02 Lakh, Sub-allotment no. 06 dated 29.11.1991 for Rs. 05 Lakh (as per CNC Register), Fake Sub-allotment No. 160 dated 04.07.1992 for Rs. 05 Lakh and illegally pass Bill No. 355 & 356/91-92 for Rs. 43,350/-, Bills No. 349 & 350/91-92 for Rs. 47,500/, Bill Nos. 75 ti 97/92-93 for Rs. 4,99,355/- pass illegally. In support of alleged charges prosecution side examined many witnesses in the court during trial and also submitted the documentary evidences in the court. Approver witnesses examined in the support of prosecution. Approver witnesses S.K. Patwari P.W.141, Shilesh Prasad Singh P.W. 149 examined on behalf of prosecution side. I.O of this case Nagendra Prasad – P.W.156 also examined in support of prosecution case. The Investigating Officer are substantiate that this accused petitioner has/had no manner of concern with the firm M/s. S.R. Enterprises, Patna, nor had she carried on any business, transactions under name of said firm as alleged. 73. The statement of the witness referred to above substantiate that the accused petitioner is innocent, as the said firm was open by her husband Sri Mahendra Prasad and entire transactions in the name of the said firm was undertaken by him, who also used to submit bills to the office of Regional Director, AHD, Dumka and used to receive payments, therefore by issuing received in token thereof and who himself open account in the banks in the name of the firm. Mahendra Prasad used to operate the said accounts himself by depositing the drafts received by him and withdrawing the money from the said accounts, and as this accused petitioner had absolutely no knowledge of the information of the aforesaid activities of her husband. 74. From perusal of the record it is transpires that P.W. 141 and P.W. 149 both are examined on behalf of prosecution side as approver in this case, above both approver witnesses admitted that they continuously visit R.D, Office Dumka and DAHO, Dumka but never seen accused Sarswati Chandra in R.D Office, AHD, Dumka and Office DAHO, Dumka. All transactions of above firms done by her husband Mahendra Prasad. Mahendra Prasad prepared the fake vouchers and submit in the Regional Office, R.D, AHD, Dumka. With connivance of other co-accused prepared false receipt of supply materials and in illegal way pass the bill. On behalf of above firms M/s. S.R. Enterprises, Patna. Mahendra Prasad received the draft and deposit in the account of above firms. The accused Sarswati Chandra illiterate lady, who any how make a signature Sarswati Chandra, whose signature send to FSL for report but FSL report discolored that the signature cannot be compare as used in the transactions because Sarswati Chandra learn only made signature any how, so the pattern is not certain to made a signature of particular type.

Page 53 Of 88 --54– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

75. After perusal of all documentary and oral evidences, it is clear that petitioner accused Sarswati Chandra is not actively taken part in the above name firms activities. whole activities of above firm control and conduct by her husband Mahendra Prasad. So, in the ends of Justice it is not proper that above accused Sarswati Chandra may be convict for illegal activities of her husband. After perusal of all documentary and oral evidences as on record and after considering oral argument advanced on behalf of both sides, court found that prosecution side is not able to prove above alleged charges against accused Sarswati Chandra beyond reasonable doubt successfully. Benefit of doubt may be exercised in favour of accused Sarswati Chandra. 76. Accused Jyoti Kumar Jha stated in recorded statement U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C that he was Proprietor of M/s. Seva Agency during 1990 to 1994 but deny to acknowledge that he submitted fake vouchers Rs. 5,00,730/- in DAHO, Deoghar, in respect to supply medicine. He further stated that his elder brother Sushil Kumar Jha managed all work. Accused deny to apply for draft issue in favour of firm and further stated that he know nothing about the occurrence, he is innocent. 77. On behalf of prosecution the Ld. Spl. P.P submitted that a fake Sub-allotment letter for Rs. 15 Lakh issue and Seva Medical Agency submitted fake vouchers in respect of supply medicine, in which illegally 24 bills No. 98 to 118& 315 to 317 for Rs. 5,05,105/- illegally prepared and submitted by the DDO's. Further submitted that in criminal conspiracy with Minister, Politicians, Finance Department Officer, AHD, Officers, Treasury Officers, Deoghar, caused wrongful loss of Rs. 84,53,764/- to Bihar Government Revenue. In support examined prosecution witnesses and document exhibited. Approver witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution side, who supported fully the prosecution story. 78. After perusal of record, it is transpires that accused Jyoti Kumar Jha, as Proprietor of Seva Medical Agency, Main Raod, Godda submitted fake vouchers with supplying medicine in AHD Department/ DAHO, Deoghar. It is also pertinent from perusal of records that another co-accused Sushil Kumar Jha pleaded guilty in the court on 25.11.2005 and confessional statement of the accused Sushil Kumar Jha was recorded by the court. From perusal of confessional statement filed on behalf of defence shows that Sushil Kumar Jha in plead guilty disclosed that he is close contact with Shyam Bihari Sinha and Sajjal Chakarborty on the direction of Dr. Shyam Bihari Sinha he prepared false vouchers without supplying the medicine and pass bill by respected DDOs, in whole payment he found only 10 % which is sufficient for maintain family in dignity way and it is also further disclosed that Jyoti Kumar Jha is dummy Proprietor he do nothing in respect of payments. But from perusal of records it is transpires that Jyoti Kumar Jha is Proprietor of Seva Medical Agency, Main Road, Godda and draft paid in the account of Jyoti Kumar Jha, so there is no doubt that Jyoti

Page 54 Of 88 --55– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

Kumar Jha are unknown from fraudulent withdrawal and payments from Deoghar Treasury. After perusal of oral and documentary evidences, court found that P.W. 156 I.O Nagendra Prasad and Approver witness R.K. Das clearly disclosed that company is fake, which submitted fake vouchers without supplying the medicine in AHD Department. The Proprietor actively participated in criminal conspiracy with politicians, officers, and withdrawn money from government treasury wrongfully. So after perusal of all relevant documents as on record, court found that prosecution side successfully proved alleged charges against accused Jyoti Kumar Jha, detail order pass in later part. 79. Accused Gopi Nath Das stated in recorded statement U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C that he was Proprietor of Radha Pharmacy during 1990 to 1994. He also stated that he submitted vouchers of Rs. 9,55,037/- after supplying medicine in DAHO, Deoghar. Accused further stated that he supply the medicine and received bank draft amount Rs. 9,55,037/- legal payment and deny in conspiracy with Minister, Politicians, Finance Department Officer, AHD Officers, Deoghar and commit wrongful loss Rs. 84,53,764/- to Bihar Government Revenue. Accused claimed that his firm is registered and he is innocent. 80. On behalf of prosecution submitted that against fake Sub-allotment No. 1962 dated 16.11.1991 for Rs. 02 Lakh and another fake Sub-allotment for Rs. 05 Lakhs. The illegal bill No. 238 and 242 /91-92 for Rs. 93,770/- and three bill No. 341 to 343/91-92 for Rs. 1,02,060/- passed by the treasury. In support of alleged charges prosecution side examined many prosecution witnesses and exhibited document. Prosecution side also examined approver in support. 81. In support prosecution side examined many witnesses including approver and I.O of this case. P.W. 156 Nagendra Prasad clearly stated that during investigation he found that M/s. Radha Pharmacy is a fake registered firm on paper, which never existed in reality. The owners of M/s. Radha Pharmacy submitted fake vouchers of medicine supply in DAHO, Deoghar and received fraudulently withdrawal money from Deoghar Treasury. It is also stated that accused in criminal conspiracy by which illegally gain money and wrongfully loss to the State Government. 82. After perusal of oral and documentary evidence, court found that accused Gopi Nath Das submitted fake vouchers and totally involved in fodder scam in connivance with other co-accused Shyam Bihari Sinha, Shesh Muni Ram and further found that prosecution side successfully proved alleged charges on the basis of oral and documentary evidences beyond reasonable doubt. 83. Accused Sanjay Kumar Agarwal stated in statement U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C that he was Enterprises of M/s. Sanjay Kumar Firm. Accused deny to submit false vouchers to supply 'Besan' in DAHO, Deoghar for Rs. 26,96,950/- and also deny to receive

Page 55 Of 88 --56– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

above amount through draft. Accused fully deny to criminal conspiracy with Minister, Politicians, AHD Officer, and Deoghar Treasury Officers and commit wrongful loss of Rs. 84,53,764/- in Bihar Government Revenue and stated that he was innocent. 84. On behalf of state Ld. Spl. P.P submitted that M/s. Sanjay submitted false bill against fake Sub-allotments issued by R.D, Dumka. The Bill No. 274 to 285 & 287/92- 93 for Rs. 4,40,000/-, Bill No. 245 to 254, No. 265 to 269, 271, 273, 292 & 293/92-93 for Rs. 5,00,000/-, Bill Nos. 270, 272, 288 to 291, 294 & 295/92-93 for Rs. 2,65,000/-, Bill Nos. 332, 333, 334 & 337/92-93 for Rs. 1.04,000/-, Bill No. 234, 235, 236, 239, 240 & 266 to 268 for Rs. 4,94,000/-, Bill No. 273 to 277 & 279 to 284/92-93 for Rs. 5,45,00/-, Bill No. 293 to 300/92-93 for Rs. 2,99,000/- In support of alleged charges prosecution side examined many prosecution witnesses and exhibited document. Prosecution side also examined approver witnesses in support. 85. On behalf of prosecution side examined I.O P.W. 156 who stated that M/s. Sanjay Kumar Firm submitted fake vouchers relating to supply 'Besan' in AHD Department whereas in the Santhal Paragana Region there is no any firm of piggery or cattle farm for other animals. It is also stated in chief in examination that the vehicles written in vouchers are fake numbers. On behalf of defence no any suggests during cross-examination of above witness. The I.O never accepted against statement in chief in examination. 86. After perusal of oral and documentary evidences, court found that no any documentary evidence produced on behalf of the accused in his support. So after perusal of oral and documentary evidences as on record found that prosecution side successfully proved alleged charges that accused prepared false document in relating to supply in DAHO. It is also proved that accused actively participated in criminal conspiracy with other co-accused who facing the trial in the case. The alleged charges proved beyond reasonable doubt against this accused Sanjay Kumar Agarwal. 87. Accused Sunil Gandhi in recorded statement U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C stated that he was Proprietor of M/s. Magadh Distributors Patna during 1990 to 1994. He further stated that he supply medicine and submitted vouchers amount Rs. 03, 98,000/-. Further stated that he supply the medicine according to supply order from AHD. Accused fully deny to participate in criminal conspiracy with Minister, Politicians, Finance Department Officers, AHD Officer, and Treasury Officers, Deoghar, in furtherance to commit wrongful loss of Rs. 84,53,764/- to Bihar Government Revenue by illegal withdrawals. Accused further submitted that he was innocent and falsely implicated in this case. 88. On behalf of prosecution submitted that against fake Sub-allotment four bills vide No. 67 to 70/93-94 for Rs. 3,98,000/- pass illegally. In support of alleged charges prosecution side examined many prosecution witnesses and exhibited document.

Page 56 Of 88 --57– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

Prosecution side also examined approver witnesses in support. 89. On behalf of prosecution side examined P.W. 156 I.O of this case, who clearly stated in chief in examination that no any medicine prepared and delivered to accused but accused submitted vouchers relating to those medicine which are not manufactured. During cross-examination no any acceptance in the favour of accused, hence, after perusal of oral and documentary evidences, court found that accused person in contact with other co-accused and active member of fodder scam, who submitted fake vouchers and received fraudulent withdrawal money, which is distributed among co-accused politicians, Finance Department Officers, AHD Department Officers, who provide protection to accused person in continue the fraudulent withdrawal from Deoghar Treasury during 1990 to 1994. So after perusal of oral and documentary evidences as on record, court found that prosecution side successfully proved alleged charges against accused beyond reasonable doubt. 90. Accused Usha Singh @ Sadhna Singh taken stand in U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C that she have no knowledge that she was Proprietor of M/s. Usha Pharma Bhagalpur during 1990 to 1994. She fully deny from knowledge to submit fake vouchers Rs. 98,635/- in respect of medicine supply in DAHO, Deoghar. Accused also deny receiving a certificate of supply medicine and withdraw the payment through bank draft. Accused deny participating in criminal conspiracy and wrongful loss to Bihar Government Revenue and pleaded as innocent. She pleaded innocence and attributed the alleged acts and omissions to her husband Shailesh Prasad Singh, who is an approver in this case. 91. On behalf of prosecution submitted that against fake Sub-allotment letter no. 210 dated 19.08.1992 for Rs. 10 Lakh Bill No. 202 & 240/92-93 for Rs. 39,655/- pass illegally. In support of alleged charges prosecution side examined many prosecution witnesses and exhibited document. Prosecution side also examined approver witnesses in support of two witness P.W. 141 Shiv Kumar Patwari and P.@. 149 Shailesh Prasad Singh in this case. 92. Heard in detail on behalf of both sides, learned lawyer and perused the records, it is transpires that alleged charge individually U/s- 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C and jointly charge with other accused persons U/s- 120B r/w Sec. 418, 420, 467, 468, 477A, 409, 201 and 511 of I.P.C. In support to bring home the charges the prosecution has examined altogether 156 witnesses and has proved various documents. Out of the evidences brought on record by the aforesaid P.Ws, the statement of S.K. Patwari P.W. 141, Shailesh Prasad Singh – P.W.149 and Nagendra Prasad P.W. 156. The investigating officer are sufficient to substantiate that this accused petitioner has / had no manner of concern with the firm M/s. Usha Pharma nor had she carried on any business transactions under the name of the said firm as alleged P.W. 141 stated in para

Page 57 Of 88 --58– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

– 61 that he know Shailesh Prasad Singh, who supply in AHD on the name of M/s. Usha Pharma and M/s. Shakti Pharma. The vouchers prepared by Shailesh Prasad Singh and who also received the payments of above firms. Further stated in para – 62 that he never seen Sadhna Singh @ Usha Singh in RD, Office Dumka and in DAHO office, Dumka. Further stated in para – 63 that he never seen Sadhna Singh in DAHO Office , Deoghar. 93. P.W. 149 Shailesh Prasad Singh who is also approver of this case stated in para – 6 of chief examination that Dr. Sharma printed form and bill of Usha Pharma and this witness only endorsed the name of medicines Batch No. and Cost. And fake bill the hand over to Dr. Gauri Shankar Prasad. Next day reached in AHD, Office where he received payment of bill Rs. 4.5 Lacs as stated in para – 7. Further stated that Dr. Sharma given Rs. 20,000/- to this witness . Further stated in para – 9 that when Dr. Sharma posted as DAHO, Palamu he is also live with Sharma in Government Quarter where he prepared fake bill in the name of Usha Pharma. Further stated in para – 10 that he open the account in Union Bank of India, Ranchi and hand over the sign cheque book to Dr. Sharma. Further stated in para – 12 that in January – 1992 Dr. Sharma transferred to Chaibasa, so this witness also accompany with them in Chaibasa where open in new firm as Shakti Pharma and account open in Cananra Bank, Ranchi and United Bank, Bhalgalpur by fake signature name of Satish Singh. Further stated in para – 22 that Dr. Shesh Muni Ram pass the bill which submitted on the name of Shakti Pharma and Usha Pharma and payment from Dumka range treasury done by Shesh Muni Ram. Further stated in para – 24 that amount Rs. 50,000/- fake bill in the name of Usha Pharma submitted in Deoghar to DAHO, Dr. Vinay Kumar and Dr. Krishna Prasad, T.V.O mobile issue receipt of receiving after one and half month Shesh Muni Ram informed that collect the draft from DAHO, Deoghar. Further stated in para – 26 that this witness collect the draft and deposit in the Union Bank of India, Ranchi in the account of Usha Pharma. Further stated in para – 37 that Usha Pharma registered in the name of his wife Sadhna Singh and Usha Pharma vouchers exhibit 15 to 15/27 which fullfil by this witness and clear accepted in para – 38 that his wife do not have any connection with these fake vouchers. This witness clear accept in para – 51 that Sadhana Singh is a house wife and the Usha Pharma open by this witness and conduct all business activities by this witness. This witness accept in para – 53 that bill exhibit. 14/4 to 14/8 is paid by draft and clear accept in para – 55 that this witness received only Rs. 5,000 to 10,000/- per month from B.N. Sharma and K.M Prasad. P.W. 156 Nagendra Prasad I.O of this case accepted in para 180 that during investigation that Shailesh Singh given statement that M/s. Usha Pharma open by him and whole activities control by this Shailesh Prasad Singh and Shailesh Prasad Singh admitted that signature and writing on receipts. No any evidence found during investigation that

Page 58 Of 88 --59– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

Usha Singh supervise the business activities of Usha Pharma. 94. After perusal of oral and documentary evidence as on record, evident that it was Shailesh Prasad Singh, the husband of this accused who open the Pharma M/s. Usha Pharma and its accounts in bank and did all the business in its name and received payments therefore, and operate the bank account. The accused Sadhna Singh had no knowledge or information. From perusal of vouchers Ext. 15/8 to 15/27 and CNC bills Ext. 14/4 to 14/8 to the amount of Rs. 98,631/- in question relating to the transactions in the name of the firm were prepared and signed by Sri Shailesh Prasad Singh and bank draft Ext. 21/107 for Rs. 19,895/- in question was also received by Shailesh Prasad Singh. 95. After perusal of records it is clear that accused Sadhna Singh not in criminal conspiracy with the other accused and she had no knowledge or information of the firm business. In the light of above discussion the court found that the prosecution side do not prove alleged charges against accused Sadhna Singh @ Usha Singh beyond reasonable doubt successfully and benefit of doubt in the ends of Justice provide to accused Sadhna Singh @ Usha Singh. 96. Accused Raja Ram Joshi @ Rajendra Prasad Sharma @ Raju Kumar Sharma @ Raju @ Raj Kumar Joshi recorded statement U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C stated that he never submitted the fake vouchers in DAHO, Deoghar during 1990 to 1994. Accused also deny the registration no. of vehicle which used in supply of materials and submission of fake vouchers Rs. 3,76,280/- Accused also deny receiving a fake certificate of material carrying one place to another place. Accused also deny receiving payment through bank draft and wrongful loss to Bihar Government Revenue in furtherance of criminal conspiracy with Minister, Politicians, AHD Officers, Finance Department Officers, and Treasury Officers Deoghar. 97. On behalf of prosecution side examined oral and documentary evidences which discuss in detail in the light of alleged charges against accused person. Approver witnesses also examined on behalf of prosecution side. 98. On behalf of state examined many witnesses including P.W. 156 I.O of this case, who clearly stated that accused submitted bill in relating to carrying / transporting the materials but during investigation it is found that the vehicles registration number is fictitious. On the basis of fake vouchers in relating to material supply from one place to another place and got Rs. 3,76,280/- on the basis of fake vouchers. Accused nothing produced relating to alleged charges. So it is clear that accused accepting his guilt as alleged against him. 99. After perusal of all oral and documentary evidences, court found that accused have many alias name as Rajendra Prasad Sharma @ Raj Kumar Sharma @ Raju @ Rajkumar Joshi @ Raja Ram Joshi. On behalf of accused no any explanation in written

Page 59 Of 88 --60– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

to his alias name which is create doubt against their character. So after perusal of all documentary and oral evidences as brought on record on behalf of both sides, court found that prosecution side successfully proved alleged charges against this accused who in criminal conspiracy with other co-accused. 100. Accused Phulchand Singh in statement U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C stated that he was Finance Commissioner during 1992 to 1994 in Bihar Government and deny the posting since 1990 to 1994. Accused deny to receive guidance from RBI and A.G relating to financial irregularities in AHD, Bihar. He also deny criminal conspiracy with Ministers, Politicians, other Financial Department Officers, AHD Officers and material suppliers to commit wrongful loss Rs. 84,53,764/- to Bihar Government Revenue through illegal payment. Accused also stated that he oppose the service extension of employee Dr. S.B. Sinha and R.K. Das. He further stated that he is innocent and falsely implicated in this case. 101. On behalf of prosecution side submitted that accused Lalu Prasad was the Finance Minister during the relevant period 1990 to 1996 and this accused Phulchand Singh was the Finance Commissioner from January 1992 to February – 1994 and failed will fully to discharged their duty to enforce discipline in managing the financial affairs of the state. They allow, through their connivance and deliberate in action, the conspirators in AHD and other co-accused to commit embezzlement of huge amount of money during the period of their incumbency, resulting in unprecedented loss to exchequer. Further stated that accused Lalu Prasad in his capacity as Finance Minister, each year proposed the budget of AHD. Both budget and AFS contained the actual expenditure of AHD for the previous years which were far in excess of the sanctioned budget. The budget was prepared by the Finance Department Sri Phulchand Singh and others had the occasions to go through the printed budget/AFS of the Government containing information about actual of AHD. But neither the Chief Minister/Finance Minister accused Lalu Prasad and nor the Finance Commissioner Phulchand Singh referred to above initiate any action to find out the cause of such alarming excess withdrawals by AHD, in connivance with each other to facilitate the fraud. Further submitted that the CAG report for the year 1988-89 to 1994-95 contained details of grant, expenditure and unauthorized excess expenditure in AHD. These reports received by the finance department where seen by accused Lalu Prasad in his capacity as Finance Minister. Lalu Prasad year 1989 grant Rs. 36.77 Crores, expenditure Rs. 42.96 Crore, excess expenditure Rs. 6.13 Crore more than 17 % report received on 16.11.1993 in Financial Department seen by the Finance Minister/Chief Minister on 18.12.1993. This reveals that accused Lalu Prasad and Finance Commissioner Phulchand Singh were fully aware at least from December-1993 onwards about the actual grants, actual expenditure and unauthorized excess expenditure over and above

Page 60 Of 88 --61– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

the budget allocation of AHD. This increased steadily from 1988-89 onwards and reached 229 % in 1994-95. But no steps were taken. The RBI also intimated to Finance Department that due to heavy withdrawals the government had plunged into a very difficult over draft situation. The accused Lalu Prasad or accused Phulchand Singh have associated himself in the matter of introduction of cash flow regulation for the Financial year 1992-93 to 1993-94. Prosecution in support examined pardon grant co- accused witnesses in the court and also exhibited relevant document during trial. 102. On behalf of state examined approver witnesses R.K. Das, Shailesh Prasad Singh, Shiv Kumar Patwari who support fully the prosecution story R.K. Das clearly stated that fake allotment letter issued from Directorate AHD and dispatch in due process I.O Nagendra Prasad P.W. 156 fully support the prosecution story and stated that finance department have knowledge about the excess / fraudulent withdrawal in AHD department and it is also stated that there is criminal conspiracy between Finance Minister and Finance Department Officer to protect the Animal Husbandry Department Officers, who manage fake vouchers and pass in proper way without supplying the medicine animal feed / fodder and after withdrawal from treasury the money is distributed between conspirators. It is also stated by I.O that Chief Minister / Finance Minister and their faithful politicians R.K. Rana, Jagdish Sharma also enjoy hospitality and received illegal gratification from co-accused of fodder scam but no any action taken by this fellow accused Phulchand Singh after receiving the information about the fraudulent excess withdrawals in AHD Department / DAHO, Deoghar. 103. From perusal of the record it is transpires that Sri P.S. Ayar the then DAG (I & W) vide memo no. ECPA -1-12 dated 05.04.1990 had brought to the notice of Sri M.C. Subarno, the then Regional Development Commissioner, Ranchi, the gross irregularities perpetrated in the office of Regional Director, AHD, Ranchi during the period 1985-86 to 1988-89. Copies of the Memos were also marked to Secretary, AHD, Patna. In this letter fraudulent payment of several lakhs of rupees for transport of livestock/feeds by vehicles, the registration number of which actually pertained to Cars, Scooters, Jeeps, Oil tankers, etc was mentioned and the then AHD Minister Ram Jeevan Singh in his note dated 18.08.1990 sent to the Chief Minister recommended and inquiry by C.B.I. The then Chief Minister Lalu Yadav ordered the matter to be inquired into by the Vigilance Department by his note dated 13.11.1990. Meanwhile leader opposition Dr. Jagarnath Mishra write a letter dated 15.11.1990 had suggested to the Chief Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav and inquiry by the Regional Development Commissioner, Ranchi, as a police inquiry would harass the officials so this letter was marked by Lalu Prasad to the Chief Secretary for necessary action and no police inquiry, thereafter was made and the culprits were affectively shielded. The finance

Page 61 Of 88 --62– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

commissioner Phulchand Singh from January 1992 to February – 1994 failed willfully to discharge their duty to enforce discipline in managing the financial affairs of the state. They allow through connivance and deliberate in action, the conspirator in AHD and other co-accused to commit embezzlement of huge amount of money. The Phulchand Singh Finance Commissioner head the occasions to go through the printed budget / AFS of the Government containing information about actual of AHD but the Finance Commissioner never initiated any action to find out the cause of such alarming excess withdrawal by AHD, in connivance with each other to facilitate the fraud. 104. From perusal of records it is transpires that CAG report for year 1988 – 89 to 1994-95 contained in details of grant, expenditure and unauthorized excess expenditure in AHD which exhibit in this case, these reports received by the Finance Department were seen by Finance Minister and laid in the house. The excess withdrawal increase steadily from 1988-89 onwards and reached 229 % in 1994 – 95 but no steps were taken by the Finance Commissioner / Finance Minister in spite of such repeated heavy excess withdrawals beyond the voted grants. It is also reveal from the oral and documentary evidences that R.B.I intimated to the Finance Department for heavy withdrawals and government had puzzled into a very difficult over draft situation. But the Phulchand Singh being the Finance Commissioner had associated himself in the matter of introduction of cash flow regulation for the financial year 1992 – 93 to 1993- 94. But no any affective regulations to curb fraudulent excess withdrawals in AHD. Dr. S.B. Sinha instructed K.K. Srivastava joint Director AHD, to get the ban imposed by finance department lifted some how, so he made with Phulchand Singh and as per the discussion held with him, proposal for lifting the ban was moved. The proposal was approved by Dr. Ram Raj Ram and Sri Mahesh Prasad marked the file directly to Sri Phulchand Singh as advised by Dr. S.B. Sinha, so the file personally taken by Sri K.K. Srivastava to Phulchand Singh, who approved the proposal of AHD on 08.12.1993. In this way after perusal of all oral and documentary evidence as on record, court found that prosecution side successfully proved alleged charges against accused Phulchand Singh beyond reasonable doubt. 105. Accused Mahesh Prasad stated in U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C recorded statement that he was Secretary in AHD, Bihar Government since October -1992 to 07 May 1994. Accused deny from knowledge of excess withdrawal in AHD of Bihar. He also deny to receive report of excess withdrawal from RBI and CAG. Accused also deny to receive report No. 1160/85 from CVC and clearly deny to facilitate AHD Officer and suppliers in withdrawal of illegal payment and deny to misuse which official post. Accused also deny from criminal conspiracy with Ministers, Politicians, Finance Department Officer, AHD Officers and Suppliers to commit a wrongful loss amount Rs. 84,53,764/- illegally withdrawals from Deoghar, Treasury and loss to Bihar Government Revenue.

Page 62 Of 88 --63– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

Accused further stated that he oppose the service extension of Girja Nandan Sharma and Indravan Prasad. Further stated that the service extension of R.K. Das given by Chief Minister in his absent and pleaded as innocent. Accused Phulchand Singh also submitted a written answer of one page in which stated that I.G, Vigilance, D.P. Ojha in letter no. 1449 dated 27.11.1993 issue in the favour of accused in which given the clean chit but C.B.I falsely implicated in this case. 106. On behalf of prosecution submitted that the accused Mahesh Prasad deliberately in conspiracy with the other co-accused did not initiate any action following the revelation made on 07.06.1993 in the meeting of the then Chief Minister that Dr. B.N. Sharma DAHO, Chaibasa had fraudulently drawn Rs. 50.56 Lacs and raised no objection when the proposal for the extension of service Dr. S.B. Sharma was moved. On behalf of prosecution submitted that service extension matter of R.K. Das, S.B. Sinha and promotion of Ram Raj Ram are not the only instances showing protection and patronage to the accused persons by the bureaucrats and politicians. There are other example also which shows how the conspirators were showing undue favour and given protection to the members of the AHD Mafiya. Prosecution in support above allegation examined co-accused pardon grant witnesses and other independent witnesses. Prosecution exhibited document during trial. 107. Prosecution in support of prosecution story examined many witnesses during trial in the court. They also produced documents which related to accused Mahesh Prasad that he is in connivance with Mafiya in Fodder Scam and accused taken active part / participate in criminal conspiracy with other politicians and officers and shielded to other co-accused who fraudulently withdrawn the excess payments from Deoghar treasury and dishonestly, fraudulently, facilitated extension of service of co-accused S.B. Sinha and R.K. Das, in spite of knowledge about there fraudulent activities in AHD. On behalf of prosecution brought documentary evidence that accused Mahesh Prasad obtained undue pecuniary benefits and illegal gratifications from the co-accused and the facilitated the dishonest and fraudulent withdrawal of government fund. It is revealed from oral and documentary evidences that during their assignment as AHD Secretary Mahesh Prasad willfully and purposely omitted to discharge their duties in the matter of budgetary and expenditure control and a conspiracy with other co-accused persons did not exercise such control in AHD, as a result of fraudulent excess withdrawal continued unawaited. It is also revealed that Mahesh Prasad in conspiracy with the other co-accused did not initiate any action following the revelation made on 07.06.1993 in the meeting of the then Chief Minister Lalu Yadav that Dr. B.N. Sharma DAHO, Chaibasa head fraudulently drawn Rs. 50.56 Lacs and raised no objection when the proposal for the extension of the service of Dr. S.B. Sinha was moved and do not initiate any inquiry on the receipt of the complaint from the CVC New Delhi about

Page 63 Of 88 --64– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

the complaint dated 11.07.1993 of Sri Ram Sharan Yadav. M.P and approved a false reply to the question of Sri Nilamber Chaudhary MLC regarding seizure of heavy amounts from the AHD Mafiya by the Income Tax Department. So after perusal of all oral and documentary evidences as on record on behalf of prosecution side as well as on behalf of defence the court found that accused Mahesh Prasad are actively participated in criminal conspiracy of AHD Mafiyas who fraudulently withdrawn money from Deoghar Treasury and found that prosecution side successfully proved alleged charges against accused Mahesh Prasad beyond reasonable doubt. 108. Accused Adhip Chandra Chaudhary stated in recorded statement U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C that he was Income Tax Commissioner posted in Ranchi May-1994 to December-1996. Accused deny to criminal conspiracy with AHD. Accused persons . 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 in this case. 109. On behalf of state prosecution 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 Chandak. 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. 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 Chandauk gave to 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 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

Page 64 Of 88 --65– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

witnesses and documents exhibited in the court during trial. 110. Prosecution produced and examined many witnesses in the court to prove that co-accused S.B. Sinha paid Rs. 05,00,000/- (Five Lacs ) to Adhip Chandra Chaudhary. The period of withdrawal in this case is 1990 to 1994 and this accused Adhip Chandra Chaudhary posted in Ranchi as Income-Tax Commissioner since May 1994 to December – 1996. Main allegation against this accused is that he transfer the jurisdiction of co-accused S.B. Sinha and his wife from Ranchi to Culcatta but just after one month he again recall on order, so there is no any concurrent and circumstantial evidences on record that accused help to prepare fake allotment letter or fake supply letter or fraudulently illegally pass the bill and misappropriate the withdrawal money from Deoghar treasury. 111. After perusal of all documentary and oral evidences as produced on behalf of prosecution side, court found that Adhip Chandra Chaudhary is not protected co- accused of fodder scam and it is also clear that he is not involve in the criminal conspiracy with other co-accused. On behalf of prosecution side it is brought on record that he used vehicle which wasprovided by M/s. Little Oak Pharmaceuticals Ltd, at Calcutta. 112. After perusal of all documentary and oral evidences which brought on the record on behalf of prosecution side, court found that the alleged charges against accused Adhip Chandra Chaudhary, the then Income-Tax Commissioner, Ranchi is not proved beyond reasonable doubt successfully. In the ends of Justice, it is essential to provide benefit of doubt in favour of accused Adhip Chandra Chaudhary. 113. Accused Subir Kumar Bhattacharjee stated in recorded statement U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C that he was Treasury Officer, of Deoghar Treasury since 20th January-1992 to 26th March- 1997. Accused deny to pass Rs. 84,53,764/- of AHD from Deoghar Treasury. Accused also deny to over look the treasury code Rules in passing the bill of DAHO, Deoghar. Accused stated that he is not entitled to see and judge that one item supplied and carry on different dates and separately bill is prepared. Accused stated that he has not passed bill beyond power of AHD Officers. Accused is not entitled to restrict him and cleanly deny to receive 4 to 5 % commission for passing illegal bills. Accused also deny to participate in criminal conspiracy with other co-accused and caused wrongful loss, by illegal withdrawal of Rs. 84,53,764/- from Deoghar Treasury to Bihar Government Revenue. Accused pleaded that he pass bill according to Bihar Treasury Code and he is innocent, falsely implicated by the C.B.I in this case. 114. On behalf of prosecution during trial submitted that Annuexure – A of charge sheet reveals the fake allotment and the excess fraudulent withdrawal of Deoghar, the withdrawal under contingencies during financial year 1991-92 allotment amount Rs. 02 Lakh but amount withdrawn Rs. 43,44,329.55/-, in financial year 1992-93 allotted

Page 65 Of 88 --66– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

amount was Rs. 96,400/- but illegally withdrawal amount Rs. 38,25,764.75/-, in year 1993-94 allotted amount was Rs. 1,77,000/- but withdrawal amount Rs. 7,57, 069.85/- in this way contingencies allotted Rs. 4,73,400/- and withdrawal Rs. 89,27,164.15 /- So in this way total allotment was Rs. 4,73,400/- but fraudulently excess withdrawal amount comes to Rs. 84,53,764.15/- Further submitted that during investigation 17 fake Sub-allotment letters amounting to Rs. 97,000,00/- were issued by accused Shesh Muni Ram under his own signature on the basis of 10 fake allotment letters aggregating Rs. 5.42 Crores. All the 10 fake allotment letter signed by accused B.B. Prasad have also been recovered. Prosecution in support examined prosecution witnesses and also exhibited relevant document which produced during trial in the court. 115. On behalf of prosecution P.W. 42 Shiv Shankar Tiwary examined in the court who after inquiry found that legal allotment was only Rs. 6,000/- against which AHD Department withdrawn Rs. 50,00,000/- (Fifty Lacs) from Deoghar Treasury. Witness also stated that P.W.42 Shiv Shankar Tiwary submitted report to the then D.C Sukhdeo Singh about the fraudulent withdrawal from Deoghar Treasury. Deoghar, D.C Sukhdeo Singh did not take any action against fraudulent withdrawal and forwarded report of Executive Magistrate Shiv Shankar Tiwary to Finance Commissioner whereas the report of Executive Magistrate Shiv Shankar Tiwary is worried. 116. From perusal of report it is also transpires that on complaint against Shesh Muni Ram for fraudulently withdrawal Rs. 50,00,000/- from Deoghar Treasury, on the basis of fake allegation, order two Officers Bachu Prasad and Shiv Balak Chaudhary to enquire Deoghar Treasury regarding excess withdrawal and report. On 20.04.1994 both officers made inquiry in Deoghar Treasury and submit report on 30.04.1994 to Director of AHD. The report not signed by Bachu Prasad because the PAC Chairman Jagdish Sharma wrote a letter to C.M Lalu Prasad that stop the other inquiry in relating to Santhal Pargana excess withdrawal cases because PAC is conducting inquiry. C.M forward such letter to Director AHD, who stop the inquiry and buried the report of Shiv Balak Chaudhary which submitted on 30.04.1994. 117. Accused Subir Kumar Bhattacharya posted in Deoghar Treasury since 18.01.1992 to 30.02.1997, he passed many bills which submitted by DAHO, Deoghar. On 14.07.1993 a letter received from D.C, Deoghar, in which he requested to call allotment letter from D.D.O and Regional Director, Santhal Paragana, Dumka. DAHO Deoghar sent a letter with seven sub allotment letters amount Rs. 50,00,000/- to D.C Deoghar. The Regional Director AHD, Dumka informed that all relevant papers seized by PAC. Later on 13 bills submitted by DAHO, Deoghar which taken return on 24.08.1994. Later on no any CNC bill pass from Deoghar Treasury but some other treasuries in Santhal Pargana region continue to pass bill in the light of fake sub- allotments letters.

Page 66 Of 88 --67– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

118. After perusal of records as brought on behalf of prosecution as well as on behalf of defence, court found that the treasury officer did not pass bill after 24.08.1994 but before it in the year 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94 passed many bills and never demanded the original bill from DDO's. So court found that treasury officer as well as D.C both are responsible for withdrawal of fraudulent money from Deoghar Treasury and court found that prosecution side successfully proved alleged charges against accused Subir Kumar Bhattacharya beyond reasonable doubt. But it is surprising that why not made accused the then D.C, Deoghar on the same ground. The order against the then D.C pass later on in this case. 119. Accused Jagdish Sharma taken stand in U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C recorded statement that he was Chairman of P.A.C, Bihar since April – 1992 to January-1995. Accused deny to conspiracy with accused of AHD Scam and received gratification and pay of from accused persons who fraudulently withdrawals money from Deoghar, Treasury. Accused deny with criminal conspiracy participation with other accused of this case and wrongful loss to Government Revenue. Accused deny to provide seizure list to DAHO, Deoghar Officers that he seized the relevant document and obstruct the investigation of fraudulent withdrawal by other agency as vigilance. Accused submitted that he do his work as MLA in Bihar Legislative and do no wrong as pleaded by the prosecution and falsely implicated in this case. 120. On behalf of the prosecution submitted that this accused with criminal conspiracy of other accused caused wrongful loss to State Government Bihar. The letter dated 24.06.1994 was written by accused Jagdish Sharma to stop the inquiry when Dr. S.B. Chaudhary had completed the inquiry and preparing his report which was submitted on 29.06.1994, which shows that accused was in criminal conspiracy with the AHD Mafiya and did not want the fraud to be exposed and they got a letter written by Chairman PAC that the matter was under consideration of the PAC. Inquiry report of Dr. Shiv Balak Chaudhary prima facie disclosed that accused Shesh Muni Ram and other had fraudulently withdrawn more than Rs. 50, Lakh from the Deoghar Treasury on the basis of the forged allotment letters. Accused Jagdish Sharma Chairman PAC no action was taken against accused Shesh Muni Ram and other for the financial regularities. Further submitted on behalf of the prosecution the role of Public Account Committee in the Chairmanship of accused Jagdish Sharma that the glaring example of accused involvement in AHD case is report dated 30.12.1992 as Chairman of PAC. It was found by the audit that fraudulent payments were made on the basis of fake documents as animal feed etc were shown to have been transported by vehicles like cars, station wagons, oil tankers, Jeep, Scooters, etc. The A.G wrote letter to the R.D.C Ranchi to initiate departmental inquiry by memo no. ECPA-I-12 dated 05.04.1990. The matter was referred to PAC in the chairmanship of Sri Ram Ratan Singh but the report

Page 67 Of 88 --68– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

was submitted by accused Sharma on 30.12.1992 and falsely observed that no regularity was found in the transportation R.D, Ranchi and others and saved accused from any action. Further submitted that as per the tour programme and T.,A bill submitted by accused Jagdish Sharma shows that he visited Deoghar on different dated between 1993-94 including dated 20.04.1994 for the inspection of accounts and pending files and accounts for the year 1984-85 to 1986-87 and 1987-88. The details of withdrawal of AHD for 10 years from 1984-85 to 1993-94 were prepared by the Treasury which clearly indicated the abnormal figures of withdrawal during the financial year 1991-92 to 1992-93 under head contingencies. It also reveal that accused Shesh Muni Ram seized the documents on the pretext of PAC inquiry on 20.04.1994. In fact the documents were not taken by PAC from accused Shesh Muni Ram. Further submitted on behalf of prosecution that accused Jagdish Sharma accepted hospitality from the accused persons in cash and kind. Accused Jagdish Sharma was a classmate of Dr. Shesh Muni Ram in the veterinary college, Patna. Jagdish Sharma and his family members traveled from Patna to Dehli, Delhi to Patna, Patna to Bombay/Goa and back on the strength of Air-tickets arranged / purchased by the accused persons. In support allegation prosecution side examined many independent witnesses including pardon grant co-accused Dipesh Chandauk and others. Documentary evidences also exhibited during trial in the court. 121. On behalf of prosecution examined I.O, two approver witness and other independent witnesses in support of alleged charges accused Jagdish Sharma who was Chairman of PAC during the financial year 1992 – 93, 1993-94 and 1994-95. The glaring of example of his involvement in the AHD cases his report dated 30.12.29912 and Chairman of PAC regarding the enquiry into the irregularities in transportation of Animals by the officials of the Regional Director AHD, Ranchi . It was found by the audit the fraudulent payment were made on the basis of the fake document as animals and feed as shown to have been transported by vehicles like Cars, station wagons, Oil tankers, Jeep, Scooter in vide memo no. 72 dated 30.12.1992, in said report Jagdish Sharma has falsely observed that no irregularity found in the transportation on exonerated R.D Ranchi and others and saved from any action. The CAG reports for the year 88 – 89 to 93 – 94 were received by the Finance Department and laid in the house in between 29.12.1993 to 22.12.1995. The report indicating huges excess expenditure incurred by AHD, PAC was authorized to take up the inquiry on the CAG paras regarding excess withdrawal in AHD. As per the tour programme and a T.A bills submitted by Sri Jagdish Sharma, he visited Deoghar on different dates between 1993 and 1994. He requisitioned the details of withdrawal of AHD for last three years from Deoghar Treasury on 20.04.1994. Sri Jagdish Sharma asked for the withdrawal figures for the financial year 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94 during the meeting of PAC at

Page 68 Of 88 --69– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

Deoghar. The statement clearly shows that Rs. 43.29 Lacs had been drawn in 1991-92, and Rs. 34.12 Lacs drawn in 1992-93 and Rs. 7.57 Lacs drawn in 1993-4 from DAHO, Deoghar treasury. This shows that Sri Jagdish Sharms know about the excess withdrawal of AHD particularly of Deoghar district in April -1994 but no action was taken by him. It is also clear that Dr. Shesh Muni Ram seized the documents on the pretext of PAC inquiry on 20.04.1994 and Sri Jagdish Sharma seized the documents by issuing a receipt on 20.04.1994 to Maheshwar Prasad, Dr. Shesh Muni Ram had also seized records of Deoghar for PAC inquiry on 02.09.1993 to create impression that the PAC was actually inquiry into the matter, when the fraud was detected at Deoghar in July / August – 1993. Jagdish Sharma in letter dated 17.06.1994 to the Chief Minister and letter dated 24.06.1994 to the Secretary Beck Julius has been written that PAC was inquiring into the matter relating to AHD and had already seized records of AHD. He purposefully concealed even the so called return of documents by 08.06.1994. Further brought on record that Jagdish Sharma accepted hospitality from the accused persons in cash and kind from classmate Dr. Shesh Muni Ram, R.K. Das approver stated that Shesh Muni Ram Rs.. 5 lacs paid to the Jagdish Sharam and Dr. S.B. Singh had paid Rs. 50 Lacs after February 1994 at Patna. Seized register Akshay Palace, Pusha Road, Karol Bag Delhi, at White house, Delhi shows that Jagdish Sharma stay with family members and travelled Patna to Delhi, Delhi to Patna and Patna to Bombay and back whose ticket arrange by co- accused M/s. Patliputra Travels . 122. On behalf of accused submitted that he is drawn due to political revenge and C.B.I first arrest in R.C. Case No. 32A/96 on 30.09.1996 without permission of Chairman, Speaker, Vidhan Shabha. It is also submitted that without sanction from speaker of Bihar Legislative Assembly submitted charge-sheet and court taken the cognizance, which is against law. On behalf of defence it is also submitted that accused not conspirator in creation of allotment letters, creation of forge supply orders, creation of forge contingent bills and he is not obtaining illegal gratification and there is not an iota of evidence that accused played any part in the issue of false allotment letters. Further submitted that the statement given by P.W. 23 R.K. Das is not reliable because he is approver and accomplish so falsely given statement to save their on skin. 123. From perusal of records, it is transpires that accused Jagdish Sharma was the Chairman of PAC during 1990 to 1994 and during that period he received the detail passing bill from Deoghar Treasury. He have knowledge the withdrawal of excess payment from Deoghar Treasury but he is save co-accused Shesh Muni Ram, who are classmate from Veterinary College period. 124. Accused Jagdish Sharma Chairman of PAC take oath of constitution he do not perform his duty as allotted by Legislative Assembly. After perusal of oral and

Page 69 Of 88 --70– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

documentary evidence , court found that accused Jagdish Sharma is deeply involved in criminal conspiracy and protect Shesh Muni Ram and other co-accused of fodder scam in the capacity of PAC Chairman. In conclusively court found that prosecution side successfully proved above alleged charges against accused Jagdish Sharma. So later on pass order in the light of above discussion. 125. Accused Dhruv Bhagat U/s-313 of Cr.P.C recorded statement deny that he was Chairman of PAC during 1990 to 1994. Accused totally deny to acknowledge the Fodder Scam and criminal conspiracy with other accused. Accused Dhruv Bhagat deny to receive gratification and cars from accused persons of Fodder Scam Accused Dhurv Bhagat deny to provide umbrella of protection for AHD Scam accused persons. Accused submitted that PAC in his Chairmanship inquired and prepared report according to law and deny to participate in criminal conspiracy with other accused persons and wrongful loss to Bihar Government Revenue. Accused submitted that he is innocent and CBI falsely implicated in this case to harass him ill-motive. 126. On behalf of prosecution submitted about the role played by accused Dhruv Bhagat that Dhruv Bhagat was Chairman of PAC from 10.05.1995 to 09.05.1996 and during his incumbency a Chairman PAC he received four CAG reports for the financial year 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94, in which reported that excess withdrawals of Rs. 29.29 Crores, Rs. 70.72 Crore, Rs. 87.77 Crores, and Rs. 125.03 Crore respectively by the AHD Department which were referred to the PAC. But PAC Chairman Dhruv Bhagat did not present any report to the assembly as required under Rule – 166 of Bihar Budget Manual and further submitted that the PAC Chairman accused Dhruv Bhagat being in conspiracy with AHD Scamsters and in pursuance of the said conspiracy wrote a letter to the Finance Commissioner, Bihar Patna to the effect that in the meeting of the PAC help on 26.12.1995 and this letter was marked in the Chief Minister of Information and necessary action. It is also submitted that accused Dhruv Bhagat had taken one Ambassador Car (A.C) from accused S.B. Singh in October-1995 which was purchased through one of suppliers of AHD Sri Rakesh Mehra. The said car no. BR14D – 4320 was purchased for Rs. 3,10,000/- in October- 1995 and sold on paper for Rs. 2,20,000/- in February-1996. The workshop manager he has testified that the said car belong to Dhruv Bhagat MLA. It has also submitted that the bank account of Sri Dhruv Bhagat contains heavy deposits and withdrawals, fixed deposit during 1995-96, which shows that accused Dhruv Bhagat received sufficient gratification both in cash as well as kind from AHD Mafiya. Prosecution also examined pardon grant witnesses in support his allegation and some document which exhibited during trial in the court. 127. From perusal of records it is transpires that the occurrence of period is 1990 to 1994 where as accused Dhruv Bhagat became Chairman of PAC in 1995 after

Page 70 Of 88 --71– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

election of Legislative Assembly, Bihar On behalf of prosecution it is alleged that Dhruv Bhagat after receiving gratification from other co-accused persons they provide protection for withdrawal illegally from treasury Deoghar. As alleged that Dhruv Bhagat received vehicles from co-accused and protect him but on record do not brought such types evidence on behalf of prosecution side. It is true that Dhruv Bhagat became Chairman of PAC but he never constitute a committee to inquire the Fodder Scam Cases and he never write a letter to the then Chief Minister Lalu Yadav to stop the enquiry of vigilance in fodder scam cases, no any act upon on the letter written by Dhruv Bhagat. 128. From perusal of approver and I.O evidence in this case, it is stated that heavy amount deposited in the account of Dhruv Bhagat but no any evidence brought on record that heavy amount withdrawn from treasury in relating to fodder scam, so this matter is relating to income tax and not related to fodder scam cases. Accused Dhruv Bhagat was MLA in Legislative Assembly of Bihar, no any allegation in relating to prepared fake vouchers of material supply in AHD, Department, it is also further clear that accused is not in a position to pass a bill and receipt the illegal withdrawn from the treasury. No any direct involvement of accused in fodder scam case. After perusal of record it is clear that this accused already convicted in R.C Case No. 20A/96 and R.C. 33A/96, as file written argument on 21.12.2017, which is not relevant in this case. 129. After perusal of all documents and oral evidences as on record it is clear that no any iota of evidence against this accused and court found that prosecution side is not proved above alleged charges beyond reasonable doubt successfully and benefit of doubt certainly exercised in the favour of accused Dhruv Bhagat according to principle of law. 130. Accused Vidhya Sagar Nishad who taken stand in recorded statement U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C that he was Minister of AHD Bihar during period 1990 to 1993. Accused deny to acknowledge that any fraudulent withdraw by AHD Officials during their period as Minister. Accused deny to recommended the extension of service Dr. Indrabhan Prasad for two years. Accused deny the question raised by MLC Kripanath Pathak and Shatrudhan Prasad Singh regarding serious irregularities and fraudulent withdrawal in AHD and Sri Nilamber Chaudhary MLC question in 1993 regarding seizure of Rs. 20 Crore by Income Tax Officer from AHD Mafiya and submitting a false reply and accused deny to have relation with any AHD Officials and save the AHD Scamasters and received illegal gratification in cash or in the firm of other hospitality. Accused deny in criminal conspiracy with accused Shesh Muni Ram and other co-accused persons and fraudulent withdrawals of Rs. 84,53,764/- from Deoghar Treasury on the basis of fake allotment letters and CNC bills. Further stated that he have been falsely implicated by the C.B.I in the present case and he is innocent.

Page 71 Of 88 --72– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

131. On behalf of prosecution submitted that the report of Nivedan Committee in the Animal Husband Matters No. 1160/85 in the year 1989 is self described the mis deeds of accused Shyam Bihar Sinha. Motion question no. 10 dated 18.03.1991 of Sri Kripa Nath Pathak and Sri Shatrudhan Prasad Singh both MLC from the subject of serious irregularities and scam of Rs. 30 Crore by R.D. AHD, Ranchi in the 1/7th session of the council a draft reply was approved by this accused Vidhya Sagar Nishad vide his note dated 22.03.1991, which shows that accused in conspiracy with co- accused persons. Further the question no. 133 session of the counsel whether the income tax officers had seized Rs. 20 Crore from AHD Mafiya and D.C., Ranchi sent a report as embezzlement from treasury a false draft reply prepared by R.K Das administrative officers and the then Minister AHD. Accused Vidhya Sagar Nishad reply that there was no AHD Mafiya and the department was not aware of any inquiry by the Income Tax Authority. The prosecution side in support examined many prosecution witnesses in the court during trial and exhibited the relevant document. 132. On behalf of prosecution, it is alleged that accused Vidhya Sagar Nishad, who was AHD Minister during 1990 to 1993, who have active party to appointment of Dr. Ram Raj Ram as Director AHD but during trial in the court no such types of evidence produce on brought on the records. Prosecution alleged that Vidya Sagar Nishad purchase land by receiving illegal money from co-accused of fodder scam but no any evidence on the record that who paid the money or where Vidya Sagar Nishad purchase the land. It is true that accused remain AHD minister from 1990 to 1993 but no any active part in criminal conspiracy with other accused Lalu Prasad, Jagarnath Mishra, Jagdish Sharma, R.K. Rana, Dhruv Bhagat, who are also facing the trial. AHD minister is appointed on the bill of Chief Minister. It is privilege of Chief Minister that which MLA take charge in his cabinet of ministers. The co-accused Lalu Prasad Yadav already Chief Minister as well as Finance Minister from 1990 and onward. Accused Vidya Sagar Nishad is not in a position to make a fake vouchers or fake allotment for withdrawal of illegal money from Treasuries. No any direct evidence on behalf of prosecution brought on the record which shows that Vidya Sagar Nishad protect other co-accused, who active to commit a illegal loss to State Government of Bihar. After perusal of oral and documentary evidences, court found that no any independent evidence except approver and I.O against this accused, which cannot be reliable in the absence of independent and circumstantial evidences has, court found that prosecution side badly fail to prove alleged charges against accused Vidya Sagar Nishad and benefit of doubt definitely exercise in the favour of accused person in the ends of the Justice. 133. Accused Beck Julius stated in recorded statement U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C that he was posted as secretary AHD since 08.05.1994 to June-1997 and deny to acknowledge about the irregularities of finance and save to accused of AHD Scam. Further deny that

Page 72 Of 88 --73– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

from 1992 to 1995 there is 229 % more expenditure in AHD and not taken action against accused person who are involved in AHD Scam. Accused also deny to participate in criminal conspiracy with Minister, Politicians and other accused persons and commit wrongful loss to State Government of Bihar due to illegal withdrawal of Rs. 84,53,764/- from the Deoghar Treasury. Accused stated that he is innocent and falsely implicated in this case by the prosecution. 134. On behalf of prosecution Ld. Spl. P.P submitted that draft appropriation account for the financial year 1994-95 received from the A.G. Bihar on 26.10.95 which revealed the actual expenditure far in excess of the budget allocation in respect of the AHD budget allocation only Rs. 74.40 Crore and expenditure incurred Rs. 245.01 Crore and this draft appropriation account was seen by accused on 26.11.1995 but in conspiracy with the other co-accused. Accused forwarded the said account to the director AHD and deliberately did not make any efforts to identify the reasons behind such enormous excess expenditure. Further submitted that accused willfully ignored to D.O letters dated 08.06.95 and 19.12.95 received from Sri Ravi Saksena about excess expenditure by AHD over the last few years but accused shielded the other co- conspirators and sent a wrong reply that the PAC had seized the records. The accused approved the false reply on the question of Sri Nilamber Chaudhary MLC, denying the alleged excess withdrawals and approved a false draft reply to the starred question No. AH-4. Accused Beck Julius did not take any action on the question of Sri Uday Narayan MLC regarding excess withdrawal and as proved a false draft in reply. Accused had under taken Air Journeys on the tickets paid for out of the defrauded amount by the co-accused. Accused stayed at a Hotel at Calcutta and also utilized hired cars at the cost of accused suppliers and received illegal gratification from co-accused. Prosecution examined oral evidences in alleged support and also exhibited documentary evidence during trial in the court. 135. During trial of the case many witness examined by the prosecution in the court, I.O Nagendra Prasad P.W. 156 clearly stated in chief in examination that Beck Julius has been functioning as Secretary AHD since 08.05.1994. Being the head of the department he was responsible for controlling expenditure vis – a – vis the voted grant. It is also stated the Secretary AHD is over all official head of the department as per rule – VIII of the rule of Executive business. The Animal Husbandry Sector the Fishery Sector and the Dairy Sector together make the department and each section is headed by a Director and the Secretaries the head of the administrative department namely Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department and Secretariat level. The Budget had of Animal Husbandry is 2403 and this case is also related with the same. P.W. 133 Sri Pramod Kumar the then A.G stated that major head 2403 Controlling Authority Release fund who is the Director AHD. According to the requirement of DDOs, the Director

Page 73 Of 88 --74– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

AHD issue the allotment letter. That as per the rule of executive business (Rule – 8), The secretary of the department is only the official head of department whereas the Secretary of the Department shall not be treated as head of department. 136. It is the settled law that the DAHO has to submit monthly expenditure report to the AHD Directorate through the Regional Director by the seventh of each month and these reports are complied at the Directorate level along with the allocation made and if there is any discrepancies, further action is taken with the concern D.D.O about the excess withdrawal of funds under the respective heads. Quarterly expenditure statement is to send to the A.G. Bihar but DAHO, Deoghar was not sending the actual monthly expenditure report to the directorate. P.W. 23 R.K. Das fully supported the prosecution case till the financial year 1995 – 96. The A.G Bihar never gave any report that withdrawal under 2403 head is fraudulent or ungenuine. Ext. 10/8 to 10/13 in this regard is relevant. P.W. 40 Sri S.S. Dube clearly stated that excess withdrawal from year 1988 to 1995 is adjusted by higher authority. Ext. 38/287 to 38/292 clearly explain the excess withdrawal. 137. P.W.42 Shiv Shankar Tiwary, Dy. Finance Secretary stated in para – 15 that on 01.02.1996 Harshvardhan, Director Treasury and Tilak Raj Gauri and Additional Secretary Finance Department came from Patna to Deoghar and inquire about fraudulent withdrawal. P.W. 108 B.S. Dube stated in para – 14 of deposition that A.G demanded 3 to 4 years treasury wise expenditure and Secretary AHD write a letter dated 23.01.1996 which is Ext. 18/184. Accused Beck Julius also sent a D.O letter No. 203/S.C dated 16.12.1995 All these excess figures are shown in the printed budget through the government in the Finance Department and fully debate and discussed and voted in the house with all these excess expenditure figure. 138. On the behalf of defence submitted that it was the responsibilities and duties of the finance department to watch and control over excess withdrawals and it was not the responsibility and duties of the secretary AHD. Further submitted that Sri Shankar Prasad and Sri B.S. Dube had been posted in the finance department in higher rank for the long time and had they carried out their duties excess withdrawal would not have taken place or could not have continued. Further submitted that no any file or document of the AHD on record that may prove that the draft appropriation account in question ever came to the Secretary Beck Julius. From perusal of Ext. 87/5 to 87/8 shows that draft appropriation account is only a copy seized from the A.G and signature of Beck Julius is not there which may authenticate that the draft appropriation account actually was neither seen or receipt by Secretary Beck Julius. AG has all the details well documented of all withdrawals including excess / fraudulent withdrawals up to the time of this case was instituted. All excess withdrawals have been recommended to be adjusted / regularized including the appropriation account for the financial year 1994

Page 74 Of 88 --75– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

-95 received in 15th June – 1996, after the so-called scam surfaced. 139. On behalf of state submitted that Sri Beck Julius received two D.O letters i.e. dated 08.06.1995 and 29.12.1995 from Sri Ravi Saksena A.G Bihar. Ravi Seksena brought the excess expenditure incurred by the AHD over the last few years to the notice of Sri Beck Julius but Beck Julius did not taken action and shield the other co- conspirators and said a wrong reply that the PAC had seized the records. 140. From perusal of record oral and documentary evidences, court found out that Beck Julius have knowledge about excess withdrawal and he written a letter no. 6594 dated 09.11.1995 sent to all the Regional Directors of AHD and to others. After perusal of all records court found that prosecution is successfully proved alleged charges against this accused person. 141. Accused Krishna Kumar Prasad taken stand in statement U/s-313 of Cr.P.C recorded statement that he was posted T.V.O, Deoghar during 1992 to 1994 . Accused also stated that he received the material supply by the suppliers and grant certificate to the suppliers and also stated that after verification of that vouchers accused Dr. Vinay Kumar pass bill and suppliers received payments. Accused deny that he grant certificate without supplying the materials on the basis of fake vouchers. Accused also deny that he received 5 to 6 % commission on fake vouchers and grant a certificate. Accused deny to acknowledge about the fake allotment and criminal conspiracy with other accused persons and illegally withdrawal of Rs. 84,53,764/- from Deoghar Treasury and wrongful loss to Bihar Government Revenue. Accused stated innocent and further submitted that he was falsely implicated in this case and submitted to produce defence evidence in his favour. 142. On behalf of prosecution submitted that the suppliers given the number of vehicles Oil tanker, Scooters, Ambassador and shows that they transported live animals on those vehicles which is impossible and accused falsely certified those vouchers and grant certificate to receive material. Further submitted that on the basis of those certificate and fake vouchers bill pass illegally and suppliers received payments in illegal way. In this way accused with criminal conspiracy of other accused commit wrongful loss to State Government Revenue. In above alleged charges prosecution examined oral witnesses and also exhibited documentary evidence during trial. 143. On behalf of prosecution many witnesses examined including P.W. 156 I.O of this case. P.W. 156 Nagendra Prasad stated in chief in examination that no any material supply from suppliers and accused grant certificate to receive the material. Accused do not produced oral or documentary evidences that he actually receive the supply materials but on the basis of granting receipt certificate of supply. The fake vouchers submitting by suppliers have passed by the DDO, Deoghar and supplier receipt fraudulent withdrawal money from Deoghar Treasury. So it is clear from perusal of oral

Page 75 Of 88 --76– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

and documentary evidences as on record available that accused grant receipt to suppliers without supplying the materials. So it is clear that accused active member of criminal conspiracy and withdrawal fraudulent money from Deoghar Treasury on the basis of vogus and fake bills which passed by the DDO, DAHO, Deoghar. 144. So after perusal of oral and documentary evidences, court found that prosecution side successfully proved alleged charges against accused person. 145. Accused Jagarnath Mishra taken stand U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C recorded statement that he was leader of opposition in Bihar Assembly during 1992 to 1994 and deny to acknowledge to criminal conspiracy with other co-accused of AHD and fraudulently withdrawal of money from Deoghar Treasury. Accused deny to taken facility of Air-tickets, Hotel expenses and other benefit from any co-accused and deny to given protection to co-accused. Accused stated that he write a letter dated 15.11.1990 to co-accused Lalu Prasad the then Chief Minister for suggesting inquiry. Further stated in statement that his letter does not a cause to conspirator Lalu Prasad of promotion of co-conspirator Dr. Raj Ram. Further stated that he write a letter or request of M.L.A Ranchi in favour of Dr. S.B. Sinha that he is a good officers and C.M, Lalu Prasad Yadav extended service about one year. Further submitted that he is innocent and falsely implicated in this case. Accused further submitted that he produce defence evidence in his defence. 146. On behalf of prosecution submitted that accused Jagarnath Mishra misuse his position as leader of opposition. Accused in criminal conspiracy with other co-accused provide shield corrupt officers Dr. Ram Raj Ram and Dr. S.B. Sinha with connivance co-accused Lalu Yadav and received illegal gratification from accused persons. Prosecution examined oral and approver co-accused witnesses in support of prosecution story and exhibited documentary evidence in the court. 147. On behalf of defence one witness Mr. Pandey Dayanand Sharma has been examined in the favour of accused Jagarnath Mishra and 14 documents on behalf of accused is also brought on the record. 148. On behalf of prosecution side, it is brought on record that accused Jagarnath Mishra write three letters, letter dated 23.08.1990, 15.11.1990 and 05.12.1993 and in spite of knowledge of on going alleged fraudulent withdraw. Further alleged that accused provide protection and patronage and scuttling inquiry against co-accused person in lieu of gratification which facilitate the alleged withdrawal. In support examine many witnesses on behalf of prosecution side as well as to approver and I.O approver witness R.K. Das P.W. 23 stated that said letter dated 23.08.1990 written by the accused Jagarnath Mishra but such letter has not been brought on record The statement of P.W. 23 with regard to Vigilance Case No. 34/1990 has not been corroborated by any other piece of evidence on record. So the statement made by an

Page 76 Of 88 --77– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

approver cannot be and admissible evidence and held by Hon'ble Apex Court as submitted by defence in AIR – 1975 SC 856 and AIR – 1979 SC 1761. 149. P.W. 132 Kamlesh Kumar the then Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, who supervised the said vigilance Case NO. 34/1990 stated in para – 22 to 25 have asserted that the said case reached its logical conclusion and charge sheet have been filed in the said case. So allegation made on the basis of letter dated 23.08.1990 has no evidence in support. 150. Further letter dated 15.11.1990 related to administrative inquiry was suggested in place of police inquiry but no any oral or documentary evidence has been brought on record to substantiate the aforesaid allegations and third letter dated 05.12.1993 in which recommended for extension of service of Dr. S.B. Sinha, co- accused after his retirement. From perusal of P.W. 103 statement who dealt with file pertaining to extension of service of Dr. S.B. Sinha has given in para – 4 that there was neither departmental inquiry nor judicial proceeding was pending against the said Dr. S.B. Sinha at the relevant time. The defence witness Pandey Dayanand Sharma is also stated that he request to Jagarnath Mishra to write a letter to extension of services in public interest. The perusal of statement made by approver P.W. 23 pertaining to extension of service of Dr. S.B. Sinha is not only based on hearsay and the evidence accomplice witness P.W. 23 must be discarded. It is also alleged that accused Jagarnath Mishra protect and ensure promotion and posting as Director of AHD to the co-accused Dr. Ram Raj Ram whereas in fact at the relevant time write a letter by Lalu Prasad to the said promotion of Dr. Ram Raj Ram by notification no. 5930 dated 31.07.1989. The accused was not the Chief Minister of Bihar as evident but he became Cheif Minister of Bihar on 06.12.1989 and ordered to recall notification no. 376 – 377 dated 19.01.1990. Further P.W. 25 Shashi Kumar Singh deposition that Jagarnath Mishra received gratification cannot be and admissible evidence because Dr. Shashi Kumar Singh is an accused another fodder scam. On behalf of prosecution side no original letter brought on record and no any reason brought on the record that why they prove the above letter in Photocopy which is secondary evidence. 151. On behalf of defence as submitted documentary evidence that accused Jagarnath Mishra has raised the issue of excess withdrawal of Rs. 12,00/ Crore of Treasury of Bihar on 08.07.1993 on the floor of Bihar Assembly. From perusal of minute dated 08.07.1993 it is clear that Jagarnath Mishra as a leader of opposition asked from the then Chief Minister in March during session and demand for white paper about 1200 Crore excess withdrawal. So after perusal of oral and documentary evidence, court found that no any direct involvement of accused Jagarnath Mishra is proved by the evidence relating to conspiracy and given protection of other co-accused of fodder scam. No any direct evidence against accused and oral evidence produced on

Page 77 Of 88 --78– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

behalf of prosecution side is not corroborated by circumstantial evidence relating to illegal gratification and court found that prosecution side is badly failed to prove alleged charges against accused Jagarnath Mishra and benefit of doubt and in the ends of Justice definitely exercise in the favour of accused persons. 152. Accused Ravindra Kumar Rana taken stand in recorded statement U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C that he was veterinary doctor in the Government of Bihar 1992 to 1994. Accused stated that he was General Secretary of Bihar Veterinary Association and President of All India Veterinary Association and under this capacity he met to Chief Minister with delegation. Accused stated that he became MLA of Bihar in 1995 and deny to acknowledge the AHD Scam. Accused deny from criminal conspiracy with co- accused of AHD Officials and Politicians and to manage transfer posting and extension of service for accused of AHD. Accused deny to receive pecuniary advantages from AHD Scamsters and hand over to co-accused Lalu Prasad. Accused stated as innocent and falsely implicated in present case. Accused submitted written statement U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C which on the record. 153. On behalf of prosecution Ld. Spl. P.P submitted that accused Ravindra Kumar Rana being close to the scamsters is to enjoy hospitality by staying in costly Hotels at Calcutta, New Delhi and Other places. Dr. Rana stayed at Hotel Taj Bengal Calcutta and for he stay the money was paid by Depesh Chandauk. Accused Rana was habitually accepting bribe for himself as well as on behalf of accused Lalu Prasad. It is further submitted that accused was a student of Bihar Veterinary College Patna and had been residing in the same locality ever since he became a veterinary doctor even after resigning from service. Accused being very close to the then C.M, Lalu Prasad and accused allow the fraud to continue and accused receipt and acquired huge movable and immovable property. Accused also declared local guardian of daughters Lalu Prasad in support prosecution examined oral and approver co-accused witnesses in the court. 154. On behalf of prosecution examined many witnesses in support of allegations against accused R.K. Rana. P.W. 156 Nagendra Prasad stated in para – 379 that during service in AHD Department accused never posted in any DAHO or R.D Office. Further stated in para – 38 that Dr. R.K. Rana never posted in Deoghar but stated that R.K. Rana used to receive money from AHD Mafiya for giving political protection being very close to the then Chief Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav. Rana doing service in veterinary department but living in official quarter of AHD after resigning from service. R.K. Rana became a member of Bihar Legislative Assembly, so his occupancy has been declared unauthorized by the AHD Directorate. He remained the president of the Bihar Veterinary Association and was very close to Chief Minister. Accused have close link with Dr. Ram Raj Ram and Dr. Wasimuddin. In the school records of Bishop

Page 78 Of 88 --79– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

Wescott School, Ranchi where the children of Lalu Prasad are studying Rana and Dr. S.B. Sinha where declared local guardian as uncle. A daughter of Lalu Prasad taken admission in Mayo College for girls Ajmer, the bank draft Rs. 40,500/- prepared by this accused. Accused have a Jeepcy registration no. BEQ – 6260 of AHD, which on paper deputed the office of DAHO, Jahanabad. But the vehicle and driver Mahendra Prasad were in personal use or Dr. Rana by oral order of Director AHD. Ram Raj Ram. R.K. Rana frequently used to travel by Air on ticket purchase by Dr. S.B. Sinha and other co- accused. Dr. R.K. Rana habitually accepting bribe for himself as well as on behalf of C.M Lalu Prasad which proved close nexus in between R.K. Rana and Dr. S.B. Sinha. One cooperative Inderpuri Grih Nirman Sahyog Samiti having Mr. R.K. Rana as Secretary and the then C.M Lalu Prasad as President. The C.B.I in R.C No. 78A/1996 found disproportionate assets Rs. 5.70 Crore approximately. 155. After perusal of oral evidence as deposed P.W. 23 R.K. Das, P.W. 156 Nagendra Prasad that R.K. Rana in close relation with the then C.M, Lalu Prasad and King-pin scameters Dr. S.B. Sinha. The telephonic talk between R.K. Rana and S.B. Sinha reveals that they are in close relation to each other and the occasionally accept the gratification from Dr. Ram Raj Ram, who are Director in AHD. The accused deny but no any evidence brought on record in his support on behalf of accused R.K. Rana stress that P.W.23 R.K. Das are grant pardon co-accused so his statement is not reliable in the absence of other independent evidences. But I.O and some other witnesses and documentary evidences shows that R.K. Rana in close relation with other co-accused Ram Raj Ram, Dr. Shyam Bihari Sinha and the then C.M-cum Finance Minister Lalu Prasad. The document relating to Lalu Prasad daughter's shows that R.K. Rana Manager family matters of Lalu Prasad Yadav and given umbrella of protection to accused who fraudulently excess withdrawal from Deoghar, Treasury. 156. After perusal of oral and documentary evidence, court found that prosecution side successfully proved alleged charges against this accused R.K. Rana and there is no any doubt against alleged charges. 157. Accused Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav taken stand in recorded statement U/s- 313 of Cr.P.C that he was Chief Minister and Finance Minister of Government of Bihar during year 1990 to 1997 and deny to acknowledge AHD Scam since 1989. Accused further stated that he make signature the CAG report year 1988-89 to 1994-95 and same sent to PAC for inquiry. Accused deny to criminal conspiracy with other co-accused persons of this case intentionally although the finance department government of Bihar in its forecast of resources on revenue account clearly mentioned the figure indicating excess expenditure in major head 2403 (AHD) being Finance Minister of Bihar. Further stated that CAG Bihar had pointed out about the fraudulent payments AHD and transported live stock on cars, Scooters but intentionally

Page 79 Of 88 --80– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

neglected these reports and further deny criminal conspiracy with Jagarnath Mishra and other co-accused persons in order to suppress the matter when AHD Minister Bihar Sri Ram Jeevan Singh send a details a note demanded a CBI Inquiry in AHD Scam. Accused deny to conspiracy with co-accused persons of AHD Scam and to save their skin, the inquiry of AHD Scam was handed over to PAC. Accused also deny not given a proper answer the question of Sushil Modi raised in regarding withdrawal of Rs. 1200 Crore in AHD Scam in July -1993. Accused stated that on 22.01.1996 this matter came in knowledge and I ordered inquiry and constituted a team to seized all the document and also directed to registered case against D.D.O and recovery of money. On the point of Daya Nand Kashayap to provide a status of cabinet minister as precedent of 20 point programme. Accused answered that his name was put in file according to precedent but when became an accused cancel the appointment. On question the telephone No. 205907, 222079, 224129 and phone no. 501500 in continuous calling terms with AHD Scam king-pin Sri S.B. Sinha and suppliers Daya Nand Kashayap, accused Lalu Prasad Yadav deny and stated that he never talk to S.B. Sinha and Daya Nand Kashayap any point of time. On the point of service extension of S.B. Sinha king-pin of AHD scam for one year, accused stated that Jagarnath Mishra wrote a letter to me for extension service two years in year 1993. After considering departmental notes only extended service for one year. On the point of none-gazetted employee association inform about fraudulent withdrawal from Deoghar Treasury by AHD Officials accused answered that no file or document came before them such type matter. Further stated that the six photo copies of alleged forged Sub-allotment letters issued by Shesh Muni Ram to D.N. Sahay in this respect he did not stopped the vigilance inquiry and accused deny to receive illegal gratification either in cash or in the form of other hospitality either through Dr. R.K. Rana co-conspirator or directly from Dr. S.B. Sinha another co- conspirator or from other AHD Scamasters. Accused deny to know Dr. Shesh Muni Ram and submitted that he falsely implicated in 06 cases of same of similar facts and put him behind of bar. Accused finally submitted a written 313 of Cr.P.C statement in detail and plead that he is totally innocent and falsely implicated by the C.B.I on the basis of concocted evidence. And further submitted that he produce defence evidence in his favour in the court. 158. On behalf of prosecution it is submitted that the scam in AHD came in large scale when accused Lalu Prasad came in power and appointed as Chief Minister of Bihar. Accused Lalu Prasad in both capacity Chief Minister of Bihar as well as Finance Minister of Bihar provide a shield to accused persons and received gratification in coins and kinds during remain in power. The modus operandi of this systematic loot of government treasury had three aspects which were inter-linked . Lower level functionaries at the district level were involved in siphoning off

Page 80 Of 88 --81– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

government funds against non-existence supplies. The supervisory level officers at Regional Directorate were engaged in creating conditions so that fictitious allotment orders for fictitious supplies may be made. They also connived with top management of AHD, government and other statutory bodies like PAC and Politicians for protection and patronage so that the nefarious activities could flourish unhindered. For providing such protected umbrella the politicians and bureaucrats enjoyed hospitality and also received pay of. Prosecution submitted that Lalu Prasad was Finance Minister during period 1990 to 1996. Lalu Prasad presented the Annual Financial Statement and budget for the financial year 1990-91 to 1996-97 in the state assembly. The budget was prepared by the finance department and laid in the house by the accused Lalu Prasad. The A.F.S were put up to him for his approval but neither in the capacity of Chief Minister and not in the capacity of Finance Minister taken any action to find out the cause of such alarming excess withdrawal by AHD, in connivance with each other to facilitate the fraud. The accused Lalu Prasad was fully aware of the actual grants, actual expenditure and excess expenditure of the AHD as the AFS were put to him by the finance department for perusal and taking approval of the council of Ministers. The CAG report for the year 1988-89 to 1994-95 contained details of grant expenditure and unauthorized excess expenditure in AHD which seen by the accused Lalu Prasad in his capacity as Finance Minister and laid in the house but no steps were taken by accused Lalu Prasad in spite of such repeated heavy excess withdrawals beyond the voted grants. On behalf of state further submitted that accused Lalu Prasad and family enjoyed hospitality of Air-tickets for which money was paid by accused J.P Verma from the account of accused supplier group. 159. On behalf of prosecution examined P.W.42 Shiv Shankar Tiwary, the then Executive Magistrate, Deoghar stated in para – 2 that on 30.02.1994 Dr. Krishna Kumar Prasad, TVO, Deoghar write a letter to D.C Deoghar against DAHO, Deoghar that R.D, Dumka ordered to work but DAHO taken the charge from Deoghar. D.C Deoghar ordered to S.S. Tiwary Executive Magistrate to inquire and report the complain letter dated 23.02.1994 Ext. 24, D.C Deoghar Sukhdeo Singh ordered to inquire such letter Ext. 1/10. The Executive Magistrate S.S. Tiwary submitted report on 11.03.1994 in 10 pages which Ext. 6/2. Further stated in para – 5 that he clearly written that the legal allotment is only Rs. 6,000/- against DAHO, Deoghar withdrawn Rs. 50,00,000/- (Fifty Lacs) illegally on fraudulent allotment. In support I.O examined in the court on behalf of prosecution side, which is submitted charge-sheet and alleged that a D.C letter no. 534 dated 17.11.1993 informed the Commissioner, Santhal Pargan, Dumka that Rs. 38, 25,764. 75/- had been withdrawn by DAHO, Deoghar in 1992 – 93. It was also stated by I.O that Dr. Mukteshwar Prasad was transferred to Mohanpur vide notification no. 3711 dated 30.06.1992 but continue on the post of TVO (M), Deoghar.

Page 81 Of 88 --82– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

The accused Lalu Prasad the then MLA, leader of Lok Dal write a letter on 01.09.1888 to the C.M, Bihar to allow Dr. Ram Raj Ram to continue on the post of Additional Director and second letter on 23.09.1988 to maintain seniority of Dr. Ram Raj Ram and next letter dated 21.09.1988 to the Chief Secretary not to consider the petition of Dr. R.S. Sharma. Another co-accused Dr. R.K. Rana, the then Maha -Mantri Bihar Animal Husbandry Union wrote letter no. 4/89 dated 21.12.89 to allow Dr. Ram Raj Ram to continue on the post of Director, AHD. The Hon'ble High Court gave a judgment in favour of Dr. R.S. Sharma on 19.12.1990 but not appointed as Director. Further stated I.O that AHD directorate, Secretariat, Finance Department, Vigilance Department, PAC, A.G Office, Treasury Office, Income-Tax Department other Bureaucrats and politicians including Chief Minister Lalu Yadav were knowing about the excess fraudulent withdrawal for a very long time but no action was taken by them letter of Sri Sonedhari, the then MLA received in 1989 in the light of letter inquired by Smt. Kumud Chaudhary the then S.P, Vigilance and report were seen by the D.I.G Vigilance and D.G, Vigilance. Dr. Shyam Bihari Sinha alleged fraudulently purchase of medicines worth Rs. 50 Crore and fraudulent purchase of Pigs. This file went to Sri Lalu Prasad the then Chief Minister with the recommendation of the then Vigilance Commissioner. Another petition written by Naval Kishore Sahi MLA that alleged excessive expenditure of Rs. 50 Crore in purchase of medicines by Dr. Shyam Bihari Sinha and request for vigilance inquiry. The report submitted on 30.10.1991 to inquire are matters raised in meeting of Nivedan Committee on 22.09.1989. The then Director AHD wrote a letter to D.P. Ojha, I.G Vigilance, who in response to the said letter on 11.11.1992 replied that allegation against Dr. S.B. Sinha regarding purchase of different materials the charge could not be termed as prima facie. The MLC Kripa Nath Pathak and Shatrudhan Prasad Singh call attention motion then C.M replied. Question No. 10 that scam of Rs. 30 Crore by R.D, AHD, Ranchi. Sri Lalu Prasad Chief Minister vide a note dated 09.04.91 ordered to wait for the submission of the report of PAC, Chairman Sri Jagdish Sharma, who are in conspiracy with co-accused. Sri P.S. Ayar the then DAG (I & W) vide memo no. ECPA – 1 – 12 dated 05.04.1990 and brought to notice of Sri MC. Subarno that the gross irregularities perpetrated in the office of Regional Director and recommended note dated 18.08.1990 to the Chief Minister recommended and inquiry by C.B.I. but no police inquiry thereafter was made and the culprits were affectively shielded. So the role of Lalu Prasad Chief Minister – cum- Finance Minister, shows to failed willfully to discharge their duty, they allow through their connivance and deliberate in action the conspirator in 'AHD and other co-accused to commit embezzlement of huge amount of money. It is also revealed that Sri Lalu Prasad presented Annual Financial Statement and Budget for the Financial year – 1990 – 91 to 1996 – 97 in the States Assembly and actual expenditure of AHD for previous

Page 82 Of 88 --83– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

years which were far in excess of the sanction budget. In 1990 – 91 proposed budget 53.54 crore and Sanction budget of AHD for that year Rs. 32.77 Crores but actual expenditure shown Rs. 39.34 Crores, so excess expenditure Rs. 6.57 Crores. In similarly92-93 Financial year excess expenditure Rs. 12.19 Crores, for year 93 – 94 excess expenditure Rs. 29.38 Crores, 94 – 95 excess expenditure Rs. 72.07 Crores, so its shows that Lalu Prasad was fully aware of the actual grants, actual expenditure and excess expenditure of the AHD, so budget estimate for year 1993-94 was shown as merely Rs. 62.41 Crore but the latest estimate (expenditure) was shown as Rs. 169.45 Crores. The CAG report seen by Lalu Prasad in December – 1993 by which actual grants, actual expenditure, and unauthorized excess expenditure was clear this increased steadily from 1988 – 89 onwards and reached 229 % in 1994 – 95. Which shows that the Finance Department and Treasury Officer are deeply involved in criminal conspiracy with accused Lalu Prasad Yadav. The inquiry report of Sri S.S. Tiwary Executive Magistrate, Deoghar regarding the fraudulent withdrawal of Rs. 50,00,000/- by DAHO, Deoghar forwarded by D.C. Deoghar was received by Sri Mahesh Prasad but the this report was destroyed in the Directorate and no action was taken and falsely replies were prepared on the question raised by M.P, MLA and MLC, which shows that AHD Secretary K. Arumugam, Mahesh Prasad, Beck Julius willfully and purposely omitted to discharge their duties and in conspiracy with other co- accused. 160. On behalf of accused Lalu Prasad Yadav submitted that the C.B.I has not been investigated the matter since 1977 – 78 but just to malign and with malafide against Lalu Prasad the then C.M of Bihar from 1992 to 1997, investigated only the period of Lalu Prasad, Ex. Chief Minister. Further submitted that the B.S. Dube P.W. 108 Finance Commissioner gained knowledge of fodder scam for the first time on 22.01.1996. He is witness no. 108 in R.C. 20A/96 and his evidence has been adopted in this case. Further stated that on 31.01.1996 the meeting was conveyed between the members of Finance Department and Shankar Prasad Additional Finance Commissioner and Vijay Shankar Dube Attended the meeting in second session. They appraised the petitioner about the fraudulent withdrawal of case from Chaibasa treasury in the month of December – 1995 and advise to the accused to lodge F.I.R on the same day, so petitioner ordered in the writing that District Magistrate of all affected treasuries be ordered to lodged the F.I.R against D.D.Os. So in the light of petitioners ordered 41 F.I.R lodged in relation to fodder scam and submitted that no any evidence that prior to number 1995, any fraudulent withdrawal has been made in the AHD, their evidence of excess withdrawal not whisper that such withdrawal were fraudulent or illegal as Ext. 10/31 series CAG Report. Further submitted that matter relates to Deoghar district administration and witness examined on behalf of prosecution are P.W.

Page 83 Of 88 --84– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

24 Rup Narayan Singh, District Account Officer, in the year 1990. P.W.42 Shiv Shankar Tiwary, Executive Magistrate in 1994, P.W. 37 Prem Chandra Thakur, clerk in DAHO, Godda, P.W. 52 Dwarika Hazari and P.W. 54 Sukhdeo Singh, D.C Deoghar, in the year 1993 – 94 and P.W. 56 R.K. Khandewal, D.C. Deoghar, in the year 1995-96, who support the prosecution story. So far as finance department is concern P.W. 40 Sri H.S. Dube, P.W. 108 Sri B.S. Dube, Finance Commissioner, P.W.128 Sri Prakash Keshav, the Additional Finance Commissioner, P.W. 155 Phuleshwar Paswan, Budge Officer were examined by the prosecution, according to defence their evidence is that first time information regarding fraudulent withdrawal gained in January – 1996. 161. But perusal of records it is clear that CAG report seen by Lalu Prasad Yadav in December – 1993 in which clearly mentioned the excess withdrawal in respect of each financial year so the plea of defence is not reliable that first time knowledge gained in 1996 January. The defence taken plea that P.W. 156 the I.O of the case stated in para 112 :- “Jab Pashupalan Ghotale Ka Puri Tarah Bhandafor Ho Gaya Tha To Vitta Vibhag Se Upper Vitta Aayukt Ne Ek Note Barhaya Jismen Unhone Likha Ki Pashupalan Vibhag Ke Adhikari Vyay Vo Budget Avantan Se Bahut Jyata Hai Se Gambhir Aparadh Banata Hai, Kyonki Ismen Cheating, Forgery, Falsification Of Accounts Ityadi Aparadh Bhi Hua Hai, Yah Vistrit Tippani Jab Shri Bijay Shankar Dubey, Tatkalin Vitta Ayukt, Bihar Sarkar Ko Prastut Kiya Gaya To Unhone Spast Se Pashupalan Vibhag Ke Adhikariyon Ke Khilaf Aparadhik Mamla Darj Karane Ki Anushansa Kiya, Iske Bad Bhi Sri Lalu Prasad Ne Shuru Men Aparadhik Mamla Darj Karane Ka Aadesh Nahin Diya Tatha Dinank 31.01.1996 Ko Apani Tippani Ken Yah Aadesh Diya Ki Aage Ki Karravahi Karane Ke Liye Pahale Sabhi Tadhyon Ko Ekatrit Kiya Jaye”. Further stated that Mukhymantri Sri Lalu Prasad Ne Vitta Ayukt Ke Uparyukt Sujhav Ko Mante Hue Aparadhik Mamala Darj Karne Ka Adesh Diya.” 162. On behalf of defence submitted that CBI has made a mountain out of a mole by stating the reluctance of the petitioner. Shankar Prasad Addl. Finance Commissioner who was examined as P.W. 102 in R.C 20A/96 in this case he has not been examined deliberately so that correct facts do not see the light of the day. Certified copy of deposition filed in this case and his marked as defence exhibit. Further submitted that none examination of Sri Shankar Prasad Additional Finance Commissioner is one of the example of CBI malafide and concealment of fact. 163. From perusal of record it is transpires that modus operandi of AHD scam is that false allotment letters were sent by AHD Headquarter Patna to the different district of Jharkhand by putting a false memo no. but issued by the same officer i.e Budget Account Officer, AHD, Headquarter, Patna. On the basis of these fake allotment letters for the concerned district the suppliers in conspiracy with district administration of

Page 84 Of 88 --85– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

AHD used to prepare false bills of supply, which was passed by district officials and treasury officer of the concerned district and payment were made by the banks to the suppliers. It is also pertinent to note that over more than Rs. 50,00,000/- bills has to be sent to the headquarter at Patna for clearance till 1977. To defeat this the bills of less than Rs. 50,000/- in bunch were submitted and passed. 100 bills of same supplier of less than Rs. 50,000/- were passed and paid. Thereafter the passed bill were sent to Accountant General Office, by the concerned district Magistrate. On near look of the bills will show grave suspicious but Accountant General Officer never objected to these bills nor any audit check was made by the officers of A.G, nor Accountant General ever audited these fraudulent payments in annual report they have only reported that excess expenditure were made. 164. On behalf of defence stated that F.I.R and charge are defective, the CBI instituted this very case without taking order / direction from the Hon'ble High Court or by the State Government, which is wrong in the eye of law and submitted that this score alone the trial is vitiated. But this argument of defence is not tenable. Because this case was lodged and order passed by Hon'ble High Court in March – 1996 and in the Hon'ble High Court, Patna vide its order dated 11.03.1996, passed in CWJC No. 1656 of 1995 and other analogous cases directed the CBI through the Director to scrutinize all cases of excess withdrawal and expenditure in the Department of Animal Husbandry, in the State of Bihar (including Jharkhand ) during the period 1977 – 78 to 1995 – 96 and lodged cases, where withdrawals were found to be fraudulent in character and to take up the investigation in those cases to its logical end as early as possible, preferably within four months. 165. In defence on behalf of Lalu Yadav examined 15 witnesses in the court which are cross-examined by the prosecution. D.W.1 Suresh Paswan, D.W.2 Pavitra Paswan, D.W.3 Ejaj Hussain, D.W.4 Jai Prakash Narayan Yadav, D.W. 5 Md. Jainul, D.W. 6 Gunjan Kumar, D.W. 7 Rampani Singh, D.W.8 Shashi Bhushan Sharma, D.W. 9 Rajendra Khan, D.W. 10 Shaiyad Kamal Hussain, D.W. 11 Mukund Prasad, D.W. 12 Brigadier R.P. Notiyal, D.W. 13 Richard Amrendra Vishavas, D.W. 14 Karu Ram and D.W. 15 D.P. Ojha one more witness which summoned on behalf of Lalu Prasad but deny to examine in the court, so witness Sunil Kumar examined as court witness and cross-examined on behalf of CBI. All defence witnesses orally stated in favour of accused but no any concurrent truth came on the record, which made conclusive proof in favour of accused Lalu Prasad. D.W. 15 who have interest in favour of Lalu Yadav and filed in notarize book in R.C Case No. 20A/96, which Ext. L in this case. Further stated that CBI seized all relevant document in fodder scam the case lodged by vigilance 30/90 is pending in the court till now. 166. After perusal of oral and documentary evidences, it is clear that some

Page 85 Of 88 --86– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

employee in AHD department who retired but service extended post facto. Their service extension of Dr. S.B. Sinha also accorded by Sri Lalu Prasad in spite of the objection raised by the Finance Department as File No. 1/Estt. (1) – 208, Dr. S.B. Sinha gave an application to the Director for grant of extension of service for two years beyond 31.12.1993. Leader of opposition wrote a letter to the Chief Minister on 05.12.1993 praising the services of Dr. S.B. Sinha and recommended extension of service of Dr. S.B. Sinha for two years. The then Chief Minister Lalu Yadav endorsed to this letter to the Minister AHD for putting up the file for extension of service on 05.12.1993, itself and it was sent from the Chief Minister Secretariiate on 07.12.1993 vide Diary No. 511759. Dr. Ram Raj Ram Director of AHD recommended favourable for the extension of service. The file forwarded to the Chief Minister on 28.12.1993 for granting approval of service extension. Dr. Sinha is due to retire on 31.12.1993, so Dr. Sinha be ordered to be continued in his post. Sri Mahesh Prasad issued an order on 31.12.1993 will continue on same post even after his death of superannuation. The proposal forwarded on 05.01.1994, which totally disapproved in the Finance Department dated 01.04.1991. The file was received in the Chief Minister Secretariat on 18.01.1994 by Diary No. 322. The file remained with the Chief Minister for almost one full year 18.01.1994 to 31.12.1994 and Chief Minister pass order on last day on 31.12.1994 to extended period of service, which resolved in the cabinet meeting on 13.06.1995. Lalu Yadad as Chief Minister of Bihar State specially favoured Dr. Ram Raj Ram as Director AHD and who a tool in the hand of the AHD Mafiya and the major excess fraudulent withdrawal took place during his tenure. Ram Raj Ram was favoured by the accused persons including the Bureaucrats and politicians directly or indirectly in his appointment as Director and return he help the AHD Mafiya and facilitate the crime. 167. After perusal of records, it is clear that Dr. Ram Raj Ram and Dr. Shyam Bihari Sinha are King-pin of fodder scam and both are eye ball of the then Chief Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav. Due to eye ball of Chief Minister Dr. Ram Raj Ram and Dr. Shyam Bihari Sinha got protection of umbrella from politicians and bureaucrats. No body dare to oppose the nefarious activities of above both accused persons. After perusal of oral and documentary evidence as brought on behalf of both sides, court found that there was fodder scam Mafiya in the leadership of the then Chief Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav to other accused Jagdish Sharma and R.K. Rana knit criminal conspiracy and provide fully protection to accused Ram Raj Ram and Shyam Bihari Sinha, who enlisting with suppliers and other accused prepared fake allotment letters with help of financial department. In their guidance prepared vogus voucher in respect of supply medicine, cattle feed / fodder and instruments in Santhal Pargana Region , they also withdrawal from Deoghar Treasury. The excessive withdrawal clearly

Page 86 Of 88 --87– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

reported in Executive Magistrate S.S. Tiwary that actual allotment Rs. 6,000/- but fraudulently withdrawn Rs. 50,00,000/- by DAHO, Deoghar. The then D.C, Sukhdeo Singh forward to Finance Commissioner which never came out in public and no any action taken in pursuance of that report. In this way court found that if Chief Minister Lalu Yadav is not given protection to Bureaucrats, it is never possible to commit such type offence by the bureaucrats. 168. After perusal of oral and documentary evidences, court found that prosecution side successfully proved alleged charges against accused Lalu Prasad Yadav and there is no any doubt in respect of alleged charges. In the light of above discussion the order passed later on. 169. In the light of above discussion made separately for each of the accused facing in the instant case, the following order is pass :- Order The considered view of the court is that the involvement of the following accused namely Jagarnath Mishra, Vidya Sagar Nishad, Dhruv Bhagat, Adhip Chandra Chaudhary, Sarswati Chandra and Sadhna Singh @ Usha Singh 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 U/s- 13 (2) r/w 13 (I) (c) (d) of the P.C Act. They are also acquitted of their respective separate charges U/s- 420 I.P.C and U/s- 13 (2) r/w - 13 (I) (c) (d) of the P.C Act. Accused Jagarnath Mishra, Dhruv Bhagat, Adhip Chandra Chaudhary and Viyda Sagar Nishad. And U/s- 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C so far as accused Sarswati Chandra and Sadhan Singh @ Usha Singh. Above accused persons 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. 170. 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 prove and establish the joint as well as separate respective charges beyond reasonable doubt against the following accused namely 1. Lalu Yadav @ Lalu Prasad Yadav, 2. Jagdish Sharma, 3. Ravindra Kumar Rana, 4. Phulchand Singh, 5. Mahesh Prasad, 6. Beck Julius, 7. Rajendra Prasad Sharma @ Raja Ram Joshi @ Raju @ Raj Kumar Joshi, 8. Krishna Kumar Prasad, 9. Subir Kumar Bhattacharjee, 10. Tripurari Mohan Prasad, 11. Gopi Nath Das, 12. Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, 13. Jyoti Kumar Jha, 14. Sunil Gandhi, 15. Sunil Kumar Sinha and 16. Sushil Kumar 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.

Page 87 Of 88 --88– R.C. Case No. 64(A) /1996 Pat

171. The above named all 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 are cancelled and they are taken into the custody. 172. This judgment is pronounced today 23rd day of December – 2017 in open court by me. The case is fixed for hearing on the point of sentence on 03.01.2018. 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.

Page 88 Of 88