http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 13 CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 1009-1010 of 2001 Appeal (crl.) 1013-1014 of 2001 PETITIONER: C.B.I., A.H.D., PATNA Vs. RESPONDENT: BRAJ BHUSHAN PRASAD & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/10/2001 BENCH: K.T. Thomas, Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri & U.C. Banerjee JUDGMENT: THOMAS, J. Leave granted. The question is short but the range of consideration got widened much. Answer to the question may be of advantage to some accused and disadvantage to some other accused who are involved in a large number of criminal cases which are compendiously styled with the sobriquet Bihar Fodder Scam Cases. These cases related to a series of orchestrated fraudulent acts by which a staggeringly huge amount of public money was plundered or looted after creating fake bills and other false documents for the said purpose, with the active participation or connivance of several high ups in the administration of the State. Though it is unnecessary now to mention the whopping sum so plundered in each case, we are told that the aggregate of them exceeds Rs.720 crores. The persons arraigned in the cases include men who held high offices, besides the two former Chief Ministers of Bihar (Lalu Prasad Yadav and Dr. Jagannath Mishra). The above indicated question winched to the fore on the midnight of 15th November, 2000, when the erstwhile State of Bihar got itself bifurcated into two States by the Act of Parliament called The Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 (for short the Act). One region of it became a new State called Jharkhand while the remaining region became the present State of Bihar. We are told that 64 cases have been registered relating to fodder scam. All the cases were directed to be investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI for short) pursuant to an order passed by the High Court of Patna which was affirmed by this Court, with some modifications as per the judgment in State of Bihar and anr. vs. Ranchi Zila Samta party and anr. {1996 (3) SCC 682}. It is not disputed that 52 cases, out of the above, involve withdrawal of huge sums of money from the government treasuries situated in the territories now http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 13 falling within Jharkhand State. Out of those 52 cases, charge-sheets have been filed by the CBI before the appointed day i.e. 15.11.2000 in 36 cases before the Special Court situated at Patna. These appeals relate to those 36 cases. It was submitted on behalf of the CBI that those 36 cases stood transferred to the State of Jharkhand soon after the midnight of 15.11.2000. That claim of the CBI was resisted by some of the accused in those cases (including Lalu Prasad Yadav and Dr. Jagannath Mishra) who contended that none of those cases has been transferred. Thus the simple question is whether all or any of those cases stood transferred to the courts situated in the State of Jharkhand on the midnight when the new State was born. A Full Bench of three Judges of the Patna High Court considered the question. By the impugned judgment the learned Judges of the Full Bench of the High Court took the view that none of the 36 cases has been transferred to Jharkhand State, though one of the learned Judges of the Full Bench held that 23 cases (out of the said 36 cases) should have gone over to Jharkhand State. Thus the High Court discountenanced the claim of the CBI regarding the 36 cases as per the impugned judgment. It is admitted by both sides that the transfer of cases as a sequel to the bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Bihar is the result of the operation of a statutory provision incorporated in the Act. Section 89 of the said Act reads thus: 89(1) Every proceeding pending immediately before the appointed day before a court (other than the High Court), tribunal, authority or officer in any area which on that day falls within the State of Bihar shall, if it is a proceeding relating exclusively to the territory, which as from that day is the territory of Jharkhand State, stand transferred to the corresponding court, tribunal, authority or officer of that State. (2) If any question arises as to whether any proceeding should stand transferred under sub-section (1), it shall be referred to the High Court at Patna and the decision of that High Court shall be final. (3) In this section- (a) proceeding includes any suit, case or appeal; and (b) corresponding court, tribunal, authority or officer’ in the State of Jharkhand means- (i) the court, tribunal, authority or officer in which, or before whom, the proceeding would have laid if it had been instituted after the appointed day; or (ii) in case of doubt, such court, http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 13 tribunal, authority or officer in that State, as may be determined after the appointed day by the Government of that State or the Central Government, as the case may be, or before the appointed day by the Government of the existing State of Bihar to be the corresponding court, tribunal, authority or officer. Before the appointed day (i.e. 15.11.2000) the erstwhile State of Bihar comprised of all the territories now included in the State of Jharkhand as well as the territories retained with the present State of Bihar. Jharkhand State is comprised mainly of three regions- (1) North Chhotanagpur (2) South Chhotanagpur (3) Santhal Pargana. Government treasuries situated at Dhanbad, Ranchi and Chaibasa were all located within Jharkhand area. The city of Patna which was the capital of the undivided State of Bihar falls within the region of the present State of Bihar. Patna is now the capital of the present State of Bihar. The above informations are useful for appreciating the rival contentions. It is admitted by both sides that in all the 36 cases (involved here) the allegations pertained to the withdrawal of crores of rupees made from the treasuries located in the territories of Jharkhand area. Long before the division of the State of Bihar courts were established for the trial of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short the PC Act). As per the notification issued by the Government of Bihar on 19.4.1994, three courts of Special Judges were created; one at Dhanbad, the second at Ranchi and the third at Patna. The court so created at Dhanbad was conferred with the jurisdiction over all areas under the division of North Chhotanagpur. The court so created at Ranchi was given jurisdiction over all areas under the division of South Chhotanagpur. The court so created at Patna was given the jurisdiction over the remaining regions. Another court of Special Judge was established at Patna by notification issued by the Government on 22.5.1996, as per which jurisdiction was given over all Patna areas barring north and south of Chhotanagpur. This means, there were two courts at Patna having territorial jurisdiction over the same areas. Yet another court of Special Judge was established at Patna itself by notification issued on 5.6.96. This court was conferred with the territorial jurisdiction over the entire area of the State of Bihar. The court of Special Judge created by notification dated 5.6.1996 could thus exercise jurisdiction over the entire undivided State of Bihar at a time when a court created earlier (as per notification of 19.4.1994) could have exercised jurisdiction in the two regions which fell within Jharkhand area. In other words, the last created court was invested with the concurrent jurisdiction vis-Ã - vis the jurisdiction exercisable by all other courts. This last notification probably would have created problems for the investigating agencies for determining which of the courts to be chosen for filing charge-sheets under Section 4(2) of the PC Act, (where there are more Special Judges http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 13 than one for such area the offences shall be tried by the Special Judge as specified in this behalf by the Central Government). But no such notification was issued by the Central Government. It was in the above situation that the Registrar of the High Court sent a letter to the District and Sessions Judge, Patna on 13.6.1996 directing him to inform the Special Judge appointed as per the notification of 5.6.1996 to deal with all the cases pertaining to the Animal Husbandry Scam (same as Fodder Scam) without any restrictions of the area. The legal validity of the said letter of the Registrar was doubted by the Full Bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment. That letter was assailed before us also on the premise that only the Central Government has the power to specify, which out of the two courts, can try any particular class of cases. This is so provided in Section 4(2) of the PC Act. Be that as it may, we would decide the present dispute de hors the validity or otherwise of the said letter. It is not disputed before us that the courts of the Special Judges situated within Jharkhand area have jurisdiction to try all the 36 cases now involved. The High Court, as per the impugned judgment, considered the question whether the court at Patna also has the jurisdiction to try them.