Fodder Scam-Bihar Judgement

District: Ranchi Dated, the 8th June, 2007
IN THE COURT OF XTH ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER
CUMIIIRD SPECIAL JUDGE, C.B.I. (A.H.D. SCAM CASES), RANCHI
R.C. CASE NO. 77(A )OF 1996
S T A T E
Versus
1. Dr. Ajeet Kumar Sinha(62)
2. Brajesh Kumar Sinha (31)
3. Rajesh Kumar Sinha (36)
4. Braj Bhushan Prasad (70)
5. Sushil Kumar (37)
6. Bhanukar Dubey (63)
7. Tripurari Mohan Prasad (54)
8. Mahendra Prasad ( 48)
9. Naresh Prasad (42)
10.Bal Krishna Dubey(61)
11.Girish Kumar Sinha (56)
12.Dr. Om Prakash Diwakar (57)
13.Rakesh Kumar Sinha (53)………………………Accused persons
On behalf of Prosecution: Shri Shiv Kumar, Special P.P. for C.B.I.
On behalf of Defence :1. Shri Akhilesh Prasad, Advocate
(For accused no. 1to 3)
2. Shri N.N. Tiwary, Advocate
(For accused no. 4 & 8)
2
3. Shri
R.K.Sahay, Advocate
(For accused no. 5, 7& 13)
4. Shri Panduranga Basudev, Advocate
(For accused no.6)
5. Shri Vishnu Sharma, Advocate
(For accused no. 9)

6. ShriSanjay Kumar, Advocate
(For accused no. 10 & 12 )
7. Shri Sunil Kumar, Advocate
(For accused no. 11)
P R E S E N T: Shri Manoranjan Kavi,
Xth Addl. Judicial Commissionercum
IIIrd Special Judge, C.B.I. (AHD Scam cases)
Ranchi
J U D G M E N T.
Against the accused persons namely ; Dr. Shyam Bihari Sinha
(Since deceased) Dr. Ajeet Kumar Sinha, Brajesh Kumar Sinha,
Rajesh Kumar Sinha, Braj Bhushan Prasad, Sushil Kumar, Bhanukar
Dubey, Tripurari Mohan Prasad, Mahendra Prasad, Naresh Prasad,
Bal Ksirhna Dubey, Girish Kumar Sinha, Dr. Om Prakash Diwakar,
Laxmikant Das,Rakesh Kumar Sinha and Sushil Kumar Jha a FIR was
3
lodged for the offences u/s 120B read with sections
420/467/468/471, and 511 of the Indian Penal Code and section 13(2)
read with 13(1) ( c) &(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on
the basis of the F.I.R. instituted by the C.B.I. in compliance to the
order passed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court in its order dated
11.03.96 passed in
C.W.J.C.Nos.1617/96,1642/96,1644/96,1656/96,459/96®,541/96®,60
2/96®,675/96®.and 687/96® and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in his order dt 19.03.96.in Special Leave (Civil) No 5811/96 and
registered this R.C. Case No. 77(A)/96 Pat.
2. .As a matter of fact, in course of investigation of RC 33A/96
Pat and RC 34/96 Pat, it has come to the light that during Sept 94 to
Oct 95 the above referred accused person in connivance with each
other fraudulently and dishonestly defrauded the AHD and Govt. of
Bihar to the extent of Rs 56,94,060/ on the basis of fake and
fabricated allotment letters purportedly issued by the AHD Patna
showing the fake purchase of the medicines on the basis of the same.
The Central Bureau of Investigation took up the investigation of this
case. Before submission of the charge sheet accused Dr. Shyam Bihari
Sinha died and the case was dropped against him by order dated
16/11/99.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, as per the F.I.R. is
that all the accused persons as aforesaid and others in conspiracy
during the period September 1994 to October 1995 fraudulently and
dishonestly defraud the Animal Husbandry Department and Govt. of
Bihar to the extent of Rs. 56, 94,060/ on the basis of fake and
fabricated allotment letters purportedly issued by the Animal

4
Husbandry Department Patna and showing the fake purchase of the
medicines on the basis of the same. During the course of investigation
of R.C. case No. 33(A)/96 Pat and R.C. 34(A)/96 Pat. the above facts
came into light. It is alleged that accused Om Prakash Diwakar
(accused no. 1 as in the F.I.R. ) while functioning as DAHO in the
Animal Husbandry Deptt., Godda, during the period of September,
1994 to October, 1995 in pursuance of criminal conspiracy with
others actively conniving with the accused suppliers, AHD officials
and officials of the Treasury , fraudulently and dishonestly by
misusing their official position as public servant obtained the
following fake allotment letters purportedly issued by the Directorate
A.H., Patna, Bihar to the tune of the amount mentioned against their
numbers as noted below :
Allotment letter no. 2BT/104/AH Dated For the Amount Rs.
No.
4899 21/.07/.94 37,00,000/
4900 Do 40,00,000/
4896 Do 30,00,000/
4897 Do 35,00,000/
5123 29/07/94 55,00,000/
5124 Do 45,00,000/
5125 Do 45,00,000/
5129 Do 55,00,000/
5338 09.0894 40,00,000/
5357 10.08.94 55,00,000/
5395 12.08.94 45,00,000/
5453 17.08.94 55,00,000/
7175 17.10.94 45,00,000/
7197 18.10.94 40,00,000/
7198 18.10.94 60,00,000/
7212 20.10.94 60,00,000/
7289 24.10.94 45,00,000/
7290 Do 55,00,000/
7291 Do 45,00,000/
7292 Do 46,00,000/
5
7292 Do 55,00,000/
7293 Do 54,00,000/
1730 29.04.95 40,00,000/
1731 Do 46,00,000/
1732 Do 74,00,000/
1733 Do 49,00,000/
1734 Do 39,00,000/
1924 09.05.95 48,00,000/
1925 Do 39,00,000/
1926 Do 52,00,000/
1927 D0 47,00,000/
1928 Do 70,00,000/
1929 D0 63,00,000/
1930 D0 58,00,000/
2027 16.05.95 65,00,000/
2029 D0 65,00,000/
2030 D0 65,00,000/
3415 07.07.95 50,00,000/
3480 11.07.95 40,00,000/
3481 D0 48,00,000/
3482 Do 45,00,000/
3483 D0 45,00,000/
On the basis of the above fake allotment letters, a sum of Rs.
56, 94, 060/ was withdrawn from Godda Treasury. It further
transpired that no such allotment was ever issued by the AH
Directorate and as such they were fake. All the fake allotment letters
bear the genuine signature of Braj Bhushan Prasad, Budget –cum
Accounts Officer, one of the accused as in the F.I.R. because he was
also a part and parcel of the criminal conspiracy being perused by the
other accused persons. It further transpired that one of the accused
B.B. Prasad used to sign the fake allotment letters on the directions of
S.B. Sinha, one of the accused as in the F.I.R., who was then Regional
Joint Director, Ranchi. It has also come in notice that the fake
allotment letters were used to be handed over to accused D.D.Os. by
one Mahendra Prasad accused who was very close to S.B. Sinha,
6
accused. Mahendra Prasad used to deliver the letters to the D.D.Os.
Afterward one Girish Kumar Sinha, one of the accused, P.A. to the
then Director, AHD, Ramraj Ram used to issue fake dispatch numbers
on the fake allotment letters. Girish Kumar Sinha being very close to
the Director, AHD was in position to obtain the running dispatch
number from the dispatch clerk which he utilized to give it on the fake
allotment letters in order to give it a legal and genuine shape. By
resorting to these modus operandi the accused persons successfully
withdrew Rs. 56, 94,060/ from the Godda Treasury. It further
transpired that as per laid down procedure/ rules of the Govt. of
Bihar, the official of the Treasury was required to use utmost care and
discretion in the matter of scrutiny and clearing the bills of the
department which used to be put in the Treasury in splited form.
Enquiry, however, revealed that the officials/ staff of the treasury
were in connivance with the AHD officials and in pursuance thereof
they cleared all the bills of the A.H.D. without raising any object9ion
to that and for that they used to be regularly paid and received illegal
remuneration/ pecuniary benefit. They (accused nos. 4, 5 and 6 as in
the F.I.R. ) did not scrutinize the splitted bills in the manner
prescribed for by the Govt. and the Treasury officer also in turn
passed all the A.H.D. bills with ulterior motive. It further transpired
that accused suppliers (accused no.s 11 to 16 as in F.I.R.) did not
supply the medicines as per indent by the D.D.Os., and in turn issued
fake invoices purportedly showing supply of the medicines thereby
facilitating fraudulent withdrawals in the name of supply of
medicines. The T.VO ( M) of the department Ajit Kumar Sinha
( accused no. 2 as in F.I.R. ) fraudulently made fake entries in the
7
stock register of the department and also on the bills showing
receipt of the medicines although not received and accused no. 3 L.K.
Das (as in the F.I.R. ) in connivance with the department was
instrumental in preparing fake treasury bills and getting those passed
by the Treasury by persuading the treasury clerks/ officials with the
knowledge that the bills were fake. The facts mentioned in the source
of information disclose the commission of offence u/s
120B/420/467/468/471 and 511 I.P.C. and section 13(2) read with
13(1)(c) & (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against O.P.
Diwakar, the then Regional Director, Ajit Kumar Sinha, T.V.O. (M),
L.K.Das , Accountant , Rakesh Kumar Singh, Treasury Officer,
Balkrishna Dubey, Accountant, Bankuar Dubey, Bill clerk, Treasury
,Godda, Brajbhushan Prasad, Budget –cumAccount Officer, Girish
Kumar Sinha, Statistical Supervisor, S.B. Sinha, Director, Mahendra
Prasad ( Pvt. ), M/S Bihar Surgico Medico Agency, M/s Samarpan
Veterinary Enterprises, Tara Pharmaceuticals, M/S Seva Medical
Agency, M/s Bharti Enterprises, M/s Vyapar Kutri and others
unknown. Hence, this case was registered and investigation is
entrusted to Shri S.K.Dev, S.P., C.B.I., STF, New Delhi, Camp Patna.
After completion of the investigation, the I.O. submitted charge sheet
against the accused persons namely Dr. Om Prakash Diwakar, Dr. Ajit
Kumar Sinha, Rakesh Kumar Sinha, Bal Krishna Dubey, Bhanukar
Dubey, Braj Bhushan Prasad, Girish Kumar Sinha, Mahendra Prasad,
Tripurari Mohan Prasad, Sushil Kumar , Rajesh Kumar Sinha, Brajesh
Kumar Sinha and Naresh Prasad except accused Laxmikant Das who
was not sent up for trial and accordingly the cognizance of the offence
was taken .
8
4. Accused persons namely; Dr. Om Prakash Diwakar, Dr. Ajit
Kumar Sinha, Rakesh Kumar Sinha, Bal Krishna Dubey, Bhanukar
Dubey, Braj Bhushan Prasad, Girish Kumar Sinha, Mahendra Prasad,
Tripurari Mohan Prasad, Sushil Kumar , Rajesh Kumar Sinha, Brajesh
Kumar Sinha and Naresh Prasad and Sushil Kumar Jha, have been
jointly charged for the offence u/s 120B read with sections
420/467/468/471/511 of the I.P.C. and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act.; for that they all amongst themselves
and the coaccused Shyam Bihari Sinyha (since dead) during the
aforesaid period from September, 1994 to October 1995 at Godda,
Dumka, Patna and other places in Bihar were party to a criminal
conspiracy and agreed to do or caused to be done an illegal act or acts
which are not legal by illegal means to wit a certain false allotment
letters, creating false requisitions for issuance of allotment letters
creation of false/fake supply orders purchase orders creation and
submission of false/fake supply bills / invoices preparation of false
documents , files and books of account , falsely justifying issuance of
forged allotment letters and fraudulent purchase/ receipt of materials,
cheating of the Govt. money and further abusing the official position
for the pecuniary gain etc. and in pursuance thereof a total sum of Rs.
55,55,966/ were dishonestly and fraudulently withdrawn from the
Godda Treasury of Govt. of Bihar against 43 forged and fake
allotment letters and seven suballotment letters issued to DAHO,
Godda, without valid sanction and beyond budget allocation through
false and fake supply/purchase orders, false and fake supply bills/
invoices having false certificate of receipt of materials, false
contingent bills etc. and that they thereby committed an offence of
9
criminal conspiracy punishable u/s 120B read with sections
420,467,471 and 511 of the I.P.C. and 13(2) read with section
13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
They have also been charged separately for the offences as
follows:
Accused Sushil Kumar Prop. Of M/s Samarpan Veterinary
Enterprises , Patna has been charged firstly; for that during the
period of September, 1994 to October, 1995 at Godda, Dumka , Patna
and other places of Bihar he cheated the Animal Husbandry
Department, Govt. of Bihar by dishonestly and fraudulently inducing
the State Public Exchequer to deliver to him a total sum of Rs.
49,850/ by submitting forged/fake and fabricated bills on the ;basis of
forged and fake supply orders to District Animal Husbandry Office,
Godda and dishonestly received the said amount without affecting
supplies and that he thereby committed an offence punishable under
section 420 of the I.P.C. Secondly ; that during the aforesaid period
and at aforesaid places he forged a certain documents to wit bills
showing supply of medicines and thereby committed an offence
punishable u/s 467 of the I.P.C. Thirdly; that during the aforesaid
period and at aforesaid places he forged certain documents to wit
aforesaid bills showing supply of medicines intending that those shall
be used for the purpose of cheating and thereby committed an offence
punishable u/s 468 of the I.P.C. Fourthly; that during the aforesaid
period and at the aforesaid places he fraudulently and dishonestly
used as genuine a certain documents to wit aforesaid bills and supply
which he then knew and reason to believe, at the time he used those,
10
to be forged documents and thereby committed an offence
punishable u/s 471 of the I.P.C.
Accused Sushil Kumar Jha , owner of M/s Bharti Enterprises,
Patna & M/s Seva Medical Agency, Jamtara has been charged firstly;
that during the period of September to October, 1995 at Godda,
Dumka, Patna and other places in Bihar he cheated the Animal
Husbandry Department, Govt. of Bihar by dishonestly and
fraudulently inducing the State Public Exchequer to deliver to him a
total sum of Rs. 12,36,375/ by submitting forged /fake and fabricated
bills on the ;basis of forged and fake supply orders to District Animal
Husbandry Office, Godda and dishonestly received the said amount
without affecting supplies and that he thereby committed an offence
punishable u/s 420 of the I.P.C. Secondly; that during the aforesaid
period and at the aforesaid places he forged certain documents to wit
showing supply of medicines and that he thereby cokmmitt5ed an
offence punishable u/s 467 of the I.P.C. Thirdly; that during the
aforesaid period and at aforesaid places he forged certain documents
to wit aforesaid bills showing supply of medicines intending that
those shall be used for the purpose of cheating and that he thereby
committed an offence punishable u/s 468 I.P.C. Fourthly; that during
the aforesaid period and at the aforesaid places he fraudulently and
dishonestly used as genuine a certain documents to wit aforesaid bills
and supply orders which he then knew and had reason to believe at the
time he used those to be forged documents and that he thereby
committed an offence punishable u/s 471 of the I.P.C.
Accused Tripurari Mohan Prasad, Prop. Of M/s Bihar Surgico
Medico Agency, Patna has been charged firstly; that the period of
11
September 1994 to October 1995 at Godda, Dumka , Patna and
other places in Bihar he cheated the Animal Husbandry Department,
Govt. of Bihar by dishonestly and fraudulently inducing the State
Public Exchequer to deliver to him a total sum of Rs. 65,000/ by
submitted forged/fake and fabricated bills on the basis of forged and
fake supply orders to District Animal Husbandry Office, Godda and
dishonestly received the said amount without affecting supplies and
that he thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 420 I.P.C.
Secondly; that during the aforesaid period and at aforesaid places he
forged certain documents to wit bills showing supply of medicines
and that he thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 467 of the
I.P.C. Thirdly; that during the aforesaid period and at aforesaid places
he forged certain documents to wit aforesaid bills showing supply of
medicines intending that those shall be used for the purpose of
cheating and that he thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 468
I.P.C. Fourthly that during the aforesaid period and at aforesaid places
he fraudulently and dishonestly used as genuine certain documents to
wit aforesaid bills and supply orders which he then knew and had
reason to believe at the time he used those to be forged documents and
that he thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 471 I.P.C.
Accused Rakesh Kumar Sinha, Treasury Officer, Godda
Treasury has been charged firstly; for that he during the period of
September 1994 to October, 1995 at Godda , Dumka, Patna and other
places of Bihar cheated the Animal Husbandry Department, Govt. of
Bihar through Godda Treasury, dishonestly and fraudulently and
inducing them to deliver to him a total sum of Rs. 55,55,966/ to him
or coaccused persons , which was the property of the said Govt. of
12
Bihar by passing the fake and forged contingent bills and split
up invoices intentionally and knowingly on the basis of false and
forged allotment letters, and thereby he has facilitated fraudulent
payment of aforesaid amount to himself and other accused persons
I.P.C. Secondly; that during the aforesaid period and at aforesaid
places, he being a public servant employed as Treasury Officer,
Godda Treasury , Govt. of Bihar by corrupt and illegal means or by
otherwise abusing his position as such public servant obtained for
himself and for other coaccused persons pecuniary advantages to the
extent of Rs. 55,55,966/ from Godda Treasury , of erstwhile Govt. of
Bihar by illegally passing numerous contingent bills and split up
invoices intentionally and knowingly on the basis of false and forged
budget allotment letters and he thereby committed criminal
misconduct an offence specified u/s 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 .punishable u/s 13(2) of that Act.
Accused Brajesh Kumar Sinha , Partner of M/s Tara
Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Patna has charged firstly; for that during the
period September, 1994 to October, 1995 at Godda, Dumka, Patna
and other places in Bihar he cheated the animal Husbandry
Department, Govt. of Bihar by dishonestly and fraudulently induced
the State Public Exchequer to deliver to him a total sum of Rs.
37,16,811/ by submitting forged /fake and fabricated bills on the
;basis of forged and fake supply orders to District Animal Husbandry
Office, Godda and dishonestly received the said amount without
affecting supplies and that he thereby committed an offence
punishable u/s 420 of the I.P.C. Secondly; that during the aforesaid
13
period and at the aforesaid places he forged certain documents to
wit bills showing supply of medicines and that he thereby committed
an offence punishable u/s467 I.P.C. Thirdly; that during the aforesaid
period and at aforesaid places he forged certain documents to wit
aforesaid bills showing supply of medicines intending that those shall
be used for the purpose of cheating and that he thereby committed an
offence punishable u/s 468 of the I.P.C. Fourthly; that during the
aforesaid period and at the aforesaid places he fraudulently and
dishonestly used as genuine certain documents to wit aforesaid bills &
supply orders which he then knew and had reason to believe at the
time he used those to be forged documents and that he thereby
committed an offence punishable u/s 471 of the I.P.C.
Accused Dr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, who Touring Veterinary
Officer ( Mobile), Godda and other places of Bihar , has been charged
firstly; for that he during the period September, 1994 to October, 1995
at Godda, Dumka Patna and other places of Bihar cheated the Animal
Husbandry Department, Govt. of Bihar through Godda Treasury ,
dishonestly and fraudulently inducing the Godda Treasury of Govt. of
Bihar to deliver a total sum of Rs. 55,55,966/ to him or coaccused
persons , which was the property of the Govt. of Bihar, on the basis
of false and forged allotment letters, false and forged requisition
letters issued by him, false and forged supply orders, fake and forged
supply ;bills/invoices and forged /false contingent bills etc. for
payment against purchase of medicines to coaccused suppliers and
that he thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 420 of the I.P.C.
Secondly; that he during the aforesaid period and at the aforesaid
places he forged certain documents purporting to be a valuable

14
security or an authority given to make transfer or to deliver certain
valuable security to wit supply/ purchase orders , contingent bills etc.
with intent to defraud and that he thereby committed an offence
punishable u/s467 of the I.P.C. Thirdly; for that he during the
aforesaid and at the aforesaid places forged certain documents to wit
supply /purchase orders, contingent bills etc. intending that those shall
be used for the purpose of cheating and that he thereby committed an
offence punishable u/s 468 I.P.C. Fourthly; that he during the
aforesaid period and at the aforesaid places fraudulently or
dishonestly used as genuine a certain documents, to wit aforesaid
allotment letters, supply/purchase orders, contingent bills, supply
bills/invoices containing false receipt of materials etc. Which he then
knew or had reason to believe at the time he used those to be forged
documents and that he thereby committed an offence punishable u/s
471 I.P.C. Fifthly; for that he during the aforesaid period and at the
aforesaid places he being a, willfully and with intent to defraud
falsified books of accounts to wit expenditure report, stock register
etc. which belonged to Govt. of Bihar, his employer and in his
possession and thereby committed an offence u/s 477A of the Indian
Penal Code . Sixthly; for that he during the aforesaid period and at
aforesaid places that you being a public servant employed as Touring
Veterinary Officer ( Mobile ), Godda, Govt. of Bihar by corrupt and
illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as such public
servant obtained for himself and for other coaccused persons
pecuniary advantage to the extent of Rs. 55,55,966/ during the period
September, 1994 to October, 1995 from Godda Treasury, Govt. of
Bihar and he thereby committed criminal misconduct an offence

15
specified in section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988.
Accused Mahendra Prasad has been charged firstly; for that he
in between September, 1994 to 1995 at Godda, Patna and other places
in erstwhile Bihar cheated the Animal Husbandry Department and
Govt. of Bihar through Godda Treasury , by dishonestly and
fraudulently and inducing them to deliver total amount of Rs.
55,55,966/ to him and coaccused persons , and which was the
property of the said Govt. of Bihar on the basis of false and forged
Budget allotment letters, supply orders, suppliers bills etc. and got
prepared and signed by coaccused and that he thereby committed an
offence punishable u/s 420 of the I.P.C. Secondly; for that during the
aforesaid period and at the aforesaid places, forged certain documents
purporting to be valuable security or an authority given to make or
transfer or to deliver certain valuable security, to wit aforesaid false
and forged allotment letters with intent to defraud, and that you
thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 467 of the I.P.C.
Thirdly; for that during the aforesaid period and at the aforesaid
places he forged/got forged certain documents to wit allotment letters
intending that those shall be used for the purpose of cheating and that
he thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 468 I.P.C
Accused Girish Kumar Sinha has been charged firstly; for that
he in between September 1994 to October 1995 at Godda, Dumka,
Patna and other places of Bihar cheated the Govt. of Bihar through
Godda Treasury, Godda dishonestly and fraudulently inducing them
to deliver a total sum of Rs. 55.55.966/ to him or to coaccused
persons, which was the property of the Govt. of Bihar on the basis of
16
false certificate of receipt of medicines given by him on the
false/fake supply of bills invoices of coaccused namely Tripurari
Mohan Prasad, Sushil Kumar, Rajesh Kumar Sinha, Brajesh Kumar
Sinha, Naresh Prasad, Sushil Kumar Jha and others for purchase of
medicines and that he thereby committed an offence punishable u/s
420 I.P.C. Secondly; for that during the aforesaid period and at
aforesaid places he fraudulently and dishonestly used as genuine
certain documents, to wit with aforesaid 43 allotment letters which he
then knew or had reason to believe at the time of he used it to be a
forged documents and that thereby he committed an offence
punishable u/s 471 read with section 467 of the I.P.C. Thirdly; for that
he during the aforesaid period and at aforesaid places he being a
public servant employed as aforesaid by corrupt and illegal means or
by otherwise abusing your position as such public servant obtained for
himself and other coaccused public servants pecuniary advantage
from the coaccused suppliers and others to the extent of Rs.
55,55,966/ through Godda Treasury , Govt. of Bihar and that he
thereby committ5ed criminal misconduct , an offence specified in
Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 punishable
u/s 13(2) of that Act.
Accused Bhanukar Dubey, who is Assistant (Scrutiny Clerk),
Godda Treasury has been charged firstly for that he during the period
September, 1994 to October, 1995 at Godda, Dumka, Patna and other
places of Bihar cheated the Animal Husbandry Department, Govt. of
Bihar through Godda Treasury, dishonestly and fraudulently and
inducing them to deliver to him a total sum of Rs. 55,55,966/ to him
or to coaccused persons and which was the property of Govt. of

17
Bihar by passing fake and forged contingent bills and split up
allotment letters and thereby he facilitated fraudulent payment of
aforesaid amount to himself and other accused persons and thereby he
committed an offence punishable u/s 420 I.P.C. Secondly; for that
during the aforesaid period and at aforesaid places, he being a public
servant employed as Assistant( Scrutiny Clerk ), Godda Treasury ,
Govt. of Bihar by corrupt and illegal means or by otherwise abusing
his position as such public servant obtained for himself and for other
coaccused persons pecuniary advantages to the extent of Rs.
55,55,966/ from Godda Treasury , of erstwhile Govt. of Bihar by
illegally passing numerous contingent bill and split up invoices
intentionally and knowingly on the basis of false and forged budget
allotment letters and he thereby committed criminal misconduct , an
offence specified u/s 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 punishable u/s 13(2) of that Act.
Accused Bal Krishna Dubey, who is Accountant of Godda
Treasury has been charged firstly for that he during the period
September 1994 to October, 1995 at Godda , Dumka, Patana and
other places of Bihar cheated the Animal Husbandry Department,
Govt. of Bihar through Godda Treasury , dishonestly and
fraudulently and inducing them to deliver to deliver to him a total
sum of Rs. 55,55,966/ to him or coaccused persons , and which was
the property of the Govt. of Bihar by passing the fake and forged
contingent bills and split up invoices intentionally and knowingly on
the basis of false and forged allotment letters and thereby he
facilitated fraudulent payment of aforesaid amount to himself and

18
other accused persons and that he thereby committed an offence
punishable u/s 420 I.P.C. Secondly that at the aforesaid and at the
aforesaid places he being a public servant employed as Accountant,
Godda Treasury, Govt. of Bihar by corrupt and illegal means or by
otherwise abusing his position as such public servant obtained for
extent of 55,55,966/ from Godda Treasury of erstwhile Govt. of
Bihar by illegally passing numerous contingent bills and split up
budget allotment letters and he thereby committed criminal
misconduct , an offence specified u/s 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 punishable u/s 13(2) of that Act.
Accused Naresh Prasad, who is the proprietor of M/s Vyapar
Kutir, Patna has been charged firstly for that during the period
September, 1994 to October, 1995 at Godda, Dumka, Patna and other
places in Bihar he cheated the Animal Husbandry Department, Govt.
of Bihar by dishonestly and fraudulently inducing the State Public
Exchequer to deliver to him a total sum of Rs. 4,87,900/ by
submitting forged/fake and fabricated bills on the basis of forged and
fake supply orders to District Animal Husbandry Office , Godda and
dishonestly received the said amount without affecting supplies and
he thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 420 of the I.P.C.
Secondly; that during the aforesaid period and at the aforesaid places
he forged certain documents to wit bills showing supply of medicines
I.P.C. Thirdly; that during the aforesaid period and at aforesaid places
he forged certain documents to wit aforesaid bills showing supply of
19
medicines intending that those shall be used for the purpose of
cheating and that he thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 468
I.P.C. Fourthly; that during the aforesaid period and at aforesaid
places he fraudulently and dishonestly used as genuine certain
documents to wit aforesaid bills and supply orders which he then
knew and had reason to believe, at the time he used those, to be
forged documents and that he thereby committed an offence
punishable u/s 471 of the I.P.C.
Accused Braj Bhushan Prasad, who is Budget & Account
Officer, AHD, Patna has been charged firstly; for that he during the
period of September, 1994 to October, 1995 at Godda, Dumka, Patna
and other places of Bihar Cheated the Animal Husbandry Department
Govt. of Bihar through Godda Treasury dishonestly and fraudulently
inducing the Godda Treasury of Govt. of Bihar to deliver a total sum
of Rs. 55,55,966/ to him or to coaccused persons , which was the
property of said Govt. of Bihar on the basis of 43 false and forged
budget allotment letters issued under his signature without budget
allocation and proper approval and that he thereby committed an
offence punishable u/s 420 of the I.P.C. Secondly ; that he during the
aforesaid period and at the aforesaid places, forged certain documents
purporting to be a valuable security or an authority given to make or
transfer or to deliver certain valuable security to wit aforesaid forged
allotment letters with intent to defraud and that he thereby committed
an offence punishable u/s 467 of the I.P.C. Thirdly that he during the
aforesaid period and at the aforesaid places he forged certain
documents to wit aforesaid forged allotment letters intending that
those shall be used for the purpose of cheating and that he thereby
20
committ5ed an offence punishable u/s 468 of the I.P.C.
Fourthly; that during the aforesaid period and at the aforesaid places
he fraudulently or dishonestly used as genuine certain documents, to
wit aforesaid forged allotment letters, knew and had reason to believe
at the time of use , to be forged documents and that thereby he
committed an offence punishable u/s 471 read with section 467 of the
I.P.C. Fifthly; that he during the aforesaid period and at the aforesaid
places he being a public servant employed as Budget & Account
officer, A.H.D. Patna, Govt. of Bihar by corrupt and illegal means or
by otherwise abusing his position as such public servant obtained for
extent of Rs. 55,55,966/ from the Godda Treasury, Govt. of Bihar on
the basis of forged allotment letters issued by him under his signature
and that he thereby committed criminal misconduct , an offence
specified in section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
Accused O.P. Diwakar, who is Regional Director , A.H.D. ,
Dumka has been charged firstly for that during the period September,
1994 to October, 1995 at Godda, Dumka, Patna and other places of
Bihar cheated the Animal Husbandry Department, Govt. of Bihar
through Godda Treasury , dishonestly and fraudulently inducing the
Godda Treasury of Govt. of Bihar to deliver a total sum of Rs.
55,55,966/ to him or to coaccused persons which was the property
of the said Govt. of Bihar on the basis of false and forged allotment
letters, false and forged requisition letters issued by him , false and
forged supply orders, fake and forged supply bills/invoices and
forged/false contingent bills etc. for payment against purchase of

21
medicines to coaccused suppliers and that he thereby committed an
offence punishable u/s 420 I.P.C. Secondly ; that he during the
aforesaid period and at the aforesaid places he forged certain
documents purporting to be a valuable security or an authority given
to make or transfer or to deliver certain valuable security to wit
supply/purchase orders, contingent bills, etc. with intent to defraud
I.P.C. Thirdly; that he during the aforesaid period and at the aforesaid
places forged certain documents to wit supply/purchase orders,
contingent bills etc. intending that those shall be used for the purpose
of cheating and that he thereby committed an offence punishable u/s
468 I.P.C. Fourthly; that he during the aforesaid period and at the
aforesaid places fraudulently or dishonestly used as genuine certain
documents to wit aforesaid allotment letters, supply/ purchase orders,
contingent bills, supply bills/ invoices containing false script of
materials etc. which he then knew or had reason to believe at the time
he use those to be forged documents and that he thereby committed an
offence punishable u/s 471 of the I.P.C. Fifthly; that he during the
aforesaid period and at the aforesaid places he being a public servant
employed as Regional Director of Animal Husbandry Department,
Dumka, Govt. of Bihar willfully and with intent to defraud falsified
books of accounts to wit expenditure report, stock register etc. which
belonged to Govt. of Bihar, his employer and in his possession and
thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 477A of the I.P.C.
Sixthly; that he during the aforesaid period and at the aforesaid places
he being a public servant employed as Regional Dirctor of Animal
Husbandry department, Dumka Govt. of Bihar by corrupt and illegal
22
means or by otherwise abusing his position as such public servant
obtained for himself and for other coaccused persons pecuniary
advantage to the extent of Rs. 55,55,966/ during the period
September, 1994 to October, 1995 from Godda Treasury, Govt. of
Bihar and he thereby committed criminal misconduct , an offence
specified in section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, l
Charges were explained to the accused persons in open Court
to whom they denied and claimed to be tried.
During pendency of the case accused Sushil Kumar Jha filed a
petition for confessing his guilt and accordingly his case was
separated by order dated 23/1/2006.
In support of the charges the prosecution has examined as many
as 36 witnesses and has also proved series of documents which were
marked as Ext. 1 series to Ext.; 30 series . The list of documents as
exhibited on behalf of the prosecution in this case is as under:
Exhibits
Exhibit No. Exhibited Documents
1 to 1/9 10 vouchers of M/s. Bihar Surgico Medico Agency, Patna dated 23.07.94
(PW1).
1/10 to 1/14 5 vouchers of M/s. Bihar Surgico Medico Agency, Patna dated 6.1.95 (PW
1).
1/15 to 1/17 3 vouchers of M/s. Bihar Surgico Medico Agency, Patna dated 29.03.95
(PW1).
1/18 to 1/25 8 vouchers of M/s. Samarpan Veterinary Enterprises, Patna dated 23.07.94
(PW1)
1/26 to 1/28 3 vouchers of M/s. Samarpan dated 6.1.85 (PW1)
1/29 to 1/30 2 vouchers of M/s. Samarpan dated 29.3.95 (PW1)
23
1/31 to 1/92 62 vouchers of M/s. Tara Pharmaceuticals, Patna dated 5.11.94 (PW1)
1/93 to 1/155 63 vouchers of M/s. Tara dated 5.11.94 (PW1)
1/221 to 1/243 23 Vouchers of M/s. Tara dated 5.11.94 (PW1)
1/244 to 1/267 24 vouchers of M/s. Tara dated 5.11.94 (Not attached with bill) (PW1)
1/272 to 1/274 3 vouchers of M/s. Tara dated 5.11.94.
2 Bill No. 80/9495 (PW1).
2/1 Bill No. 82/9495 (PW1)
2/2 Bill No. 118/9495 (PW1)
2/3 Bill No. 81/9495 (PW1)
2/4 Bill No. 83/9495 (PW1)
2/5 Bill No. 117/9495 (PW1)
2/6 Bill No. 24/9596 (PW1)
2/7 Bill No. 25/9596 (PW1)
2/8 Bill No. 26/9596 (PW1)
2/9 Bill No. 27/9596 prepared for 15 vouchers dated 9.9.94 (not attached with
bill) (PW1)
bill) (PW1)
bill) (PW1)
bill) (PW1)
2/13 Bill No. 31/9596 prepared for 8 vouchers dated 5.11.94 (Not attached with
bill) (PW1)
2/14 Bill No. 32/9596 prepared for 9 vouchers (Not attached with bill) (PW1)
2/15 Bill No. 33/9596 (PW1)
bill) (PW1)
bill) (PW1)
bill) (PW1)
2/19 Bill No. 37/9596 (PW1)
bill) (PW1)
bill) (PW1)
2/22 Bill No. 57/9596 (PW1)
24
2/23 Bill No. 77/9596 prepared for 66 vouchers dated 17.07.95 (Not attached
with bill) (PW1)
with bill) (PW1)
with bill) (PW1)
with bill) (PW1)
with bill) (PW1)
2/28 Bill No. 116/9495 (PW1)
2/29 Bill No. 84/9596 prepared for M/s. Bharti Enterprises, Godda (Not attached
with bill) (PW1).
with bill) (PW1).
with bill) (PW1).
with bill) (PW1).
with bill) (PW1).
with bill) (PW1).
2/35 Bill No. 97/9596 prepared for M/s. Vyapar Kutir, Patna (Not attached with
bill) (PW1).
bill) (PW1).
bill) (PW1).
bill) (PW1).
2/39 Bill No. 75/9596 prepared for M/s. Sewa Medical Agency, Jamtara (Not
attached with bill) (PW1).
2/40 Bill No. 76/9596 prepared for M/s. Sewa Medical Agency, Jamtara (Not
attached with bill) (PW1).
3 to 3/12 13 Draft Issue Slips (PW1).
4 Bill Book of DAHO, Godda (PW1).
25
5 Bill Book of DAHO, Godda (PW1).
6 Cash Book Register of DAHO, Godda (PW1).
7 Contingent Register of DAHO, Godda (PW1).
8 Signature of Jyoti Kr. Jha on page 41 of Ext. 7 (PW1).
8/1 to 8/6 Signature of Sushil Jha on page 42 to 44 of Ext. 7 (PW1).
8/7 Signature of Sushil Jha on page 36 of Ext. 7 (PW1).
9 to 9/1 Two receipts given by T.M.Prasad and annexed with page no. 26 of Ext. 7
(PW1).
9/2 to 9/22 21 receipts given by Brajesh Kumar Sinha (PW1).
9/23 to 9/26 4 receipts given by Deepak (PW1).
10 Contingency File of DAHO, Godda (PW1).
11 Allotments file of DAHO, Godda for the period 9596 (PW1).
12 to 12/6 7 sub allotment letters issued by RD, Dumka to SAHO, Godda (PW1).
12/7 to 12/49 43 fake allotment letters (PW6).
13 to 13/26 26 Bank Drafts (PW2)
14 to 14/4 5 pages of Draft Issue Register (PW2).
14/5 Certified photocopy of ledger sheet of A/c. No. 736 of M/s. Samarpan (PW
5).
14/6 Certified photocopy of Ledger Sheet of A/c. No. 7118 of M/s. Bihar Surgico
(PW5).
14/7 Certified photocopy of Ledger sheet of A/c. No. 1/115 of M/s. Vyapar Kutir
(PW7).
14/8 Certified photocopy of Ledger sheet of A/c. No. 173 (PW9).
15 Seizure Memo dated 20.12.96 (PW2).
16 Certified Photocopy of Account Opening Form of M/s. Samarpan (PW5).
16/1 Certified photocopy of Account Opening Form of M/s. Bihar Surgico (PW
5).
16/2 Certified photocopy of Account Opening Form of M/s. Vyapar Kutir (PW7).
16/3 Account Opening Form of M/s Tara (PW9).
17 Certified photocopy of application given by M/s. Samarpan Veterinary
Enterprises for correction (PW5).
18 Certified photocopy of Payinslip dated 4.3.95 (PW5).
18/1 Certified photocopy of PayinSlip dated 4.3.95 (PW5).
18/2 to 18/5 4 original Payinslip dated 29.10.95 (PW7).
18/6 to 18/12 7 PayinSlips (PW9).
19 Letter dated 9.1.97 written by Bank to IO (PW5).
19/1 to 19/2 2 letters dated 18.1.97 & 19.1.97 written by bank (PW7).
19/3 Letter dated 27.11.97 written by bank to IO (PW9).
19/4 Letter of Hindustan Ciba Geigy (PW12).
19/5 Letter of Wockhardt Veterinary Ltd. (PW13).
19/6 Letter dated 14.02.97 of M/s. Concept (PW34).
19/7 to 19/8 2 Letters of M/s. Alembic (PW35).
26
19/9 Letter written by Sunil Grover (PW35).
19/10 Letter written by Arun Parikh (PW35).
20 Certified photocopy of Specimen signature Card of M/s. Vyapar Kutir (PW
7).
20/1 Specimen Signature Card of M/s. Tara (PW9).
21 to 21/1 2 Original Cheque of M/s. Vyapar Kutir (PW5).
21/2 to 21/23 22 cheques (PW9).
22 to 22/1 2 Receipts dated 20.7.95 & 28.7.95 (PW17).
22/2 Receipt dated 1.8.95 (PW17).
22/3 to 22/4 2 Receipts dated 12.9.94 & 14.9.94 (PW18).
22/7 Receipt given by Ajit Kumar Sinha (PW19).
22/12 Receipt dated 14.9.94 (PW21).
22/13 Receipt written by Ajit Kumar Sinha (PW21).
23 to 23/1 Signature of PW19 on Ext. 22/5 & Ext. 22/6 (PW19).
24 Sanction Order against Bhanukar Dubey (PW22).
24/1 Sanction Order dated 22.1.98 (PW24).
24/2 Sanction Order against Bal Krishna Dubey (PW29).
24/3 Sanction Order dated 16.3.98 (PW24).
25 Seizure Memo dated 24.12.96 (PW23).
26 FIR (PW30).
27 Forwarding Letter of CBI to GEQD (PW32).
27/1 Forwarding Letter of GEQD to CBI (PW32).
28 GEQD Opinion (PW32).
28/1 Detail reasoning of GEQD (PW32).
29 to 29/2 Three Issues Register (PW33).
30 Chart (PW33).
After closure of the prosecution evidence the accused persons
were examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. where they denied their involvement
and alleged false implication and pleaded to adduce evidence in their
defence, soon after the recording of statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C.
4. After entering upon the defence, the accused persons have
examined as many as 7 witnesses and proved certain documents as
Ext.AE series in support of their defence.
27
5. I have heard the learned Special. P.P. for C.B.I. as well as
learned lawyers for different set of accused persons exhaustively.
6. Now, the sole question before me is whether the prosecution
has been able to prove the charges against the accused persons beyond
all shadow of reasonable doubts?
FINDINGS
7. In support of the charges leveled against the accused persons
the prosecution has adduced series of oral and documentary
evidences. In order to appreciate these evidences, I wish to classify
these evidences mainly in six categories as under:
(I) Evidences adduced on the point of creation of alleged fake
allotment letters (Ext12/712/49) at AHD Directorate, Patna.
(II) Evidences on the point of preparation of bills and their
passing from Godda Treasury
(III) Evidences on the point of non manufacturing/non delivery
of medicines by various medicine companies.
(IV) Evidences on the point of non distribution of medicines to
various dispensaries under Godda DAHO, Office.
(V) Evidences of different Investigating Officers who
conducted separate investigations for specific purpose.
(VI) Evidence of Hand writing expert
It is pertinent to note here that all evidences are used against all
accused persons as all accused were charged jointly for criminal
conspiracy with each other but specific category of the evidences are
used to prove the charges against specific set of accused persons who
on the basis of their alleged individual roles played by the each

28
accused persons, they can also be classified into two categories as
under:
(a) Accused persons who are alleged to be involved in
creation of alleged fake allotment letters Ext12/712/49
BrajBhushan Prasad, Mahendra Prasad,Girish Kumar
Sinha
(b) Accused persons who are alleged to be involved in using
the alleged fake allotment letters and have used them for
creation of alleged sub allotment letters Ext1212/6 for
their wrongful gain by raising fake invoices which were
presented at Treasury Office,Godda and encased through
various banks: Dr. Om Prakash Diwakar, Dr. Ajeet
Kumar Sinha, Brajesh Kumar Sinha, Rajesh Kumar
Sinha, Sushil Kumar, Tripurari Mohan Prasad, Naresh
Prasad, Bal Ksirhna Dubey, Bhanukar Dubey and Rakesh
Kumar Sinha.
In this case some of the accused persons are public servents and
as such the prosecution has proved the formal Sanction Order against
them issued by competent authorities, the summary of which is given
below for better appreciation of the case as under:
Summary of evidences on the point of sanction for prosecution.
22 Budhinath Panjiara, He sated that on 23.3.98 Sri Rajesh Bhushan, DC, Godda,
Steno, DC office, gave him dictation of sanction order ( Ext24) accorded
Godda. against Bhanukar Dubey. He identified his writing, signature
and signature of DC, Godda over sanction order.
29
24 Chandrika Sah, Retd. He stated that on 22.1.98 Sri Bhikhari Ram, Law Secretary
Head Typist, Law accorded sanction against (1) Dr. O.P. Diwakar (2) Dr. Ajit
Dept.,Secretariat Bihar. Kumar Sinha (3) Braj Bhushan Prasad (4) Grish Kumar
Sinha (5) Dr. Shyam Bihari Sinha. He identified the
signature of Bhikhari Ram on sanction order (Ext.24/1). He
further stated that on 16.3.98 Sri Rajendra Prasad, Law
Secretary gave dictation to Md. Sultan Ansari and accorded
sanction against Rakesh Kumar Sinha, TO, Godda. He
identified the signature on sanction order ( Ext.24/3)
29 Nar Singh Narayan He stated that on 17.10.97 he gave dictation to his steno
Pandey, Secretarycum Ram Prakash Jha and accorded sanction against Bal Krishna
Director, Treasury, Dubey. He identified the sanction order (Ext.24/2).
Bihar.
31 Lalan Padey, Director, He stated that in the year 1996 he was posted at Gopdda and
National Planning that time Dr. Rai Bahadur Prasad Yadav was Deputy
Programme. Commissioner, Godda. He further stated that on the
direction of DC, Godda, he inspected DAHO office Godda
along with his team and during inspection he found that Rs.
45 lakhs was withdrawn between Nov.,95 to Jan.,96. He
further stated that he was directed to inspect only for these
three month and accordingly he gave his report to DC who
directed to lodge FIR. Accordingly the FIR was lodged as
Godda PS No.29/96 which was taken over by CBI as RC.33
(A)/96. He further stated that during his inspection he found
that more amount had already been withdrawn but
documents were not made available to him as such he did
not mention these things in the said FIR. He further stated
that there was no reason for not lodging FIR for the period
Aug., 94 to Oct., 95.

30
8. Now I wish to discuss each categories of the evidences as
said above separately with respect to the accused persons against
whom the charges of that category is alleged.
(a) The first category of the evidences adduced by the
prosecution is in support of the charges as framed against the accused
persons namely BrajBhushan Prasad, Mahendra Prasad and Girish
Kumar Sinha who were alleged to be involved in creation of the
alleged fake allotment letters (Ext12/712/49). Summary of statements
of witnesses in this category is given as under:
Summary of statements of witnesses on the point of creation of fake
allotment letters at AHD Directorate, Patna
6 Tarkeshwar Nath, He stated about the procedure of budget. What should be
Asstt., AHD normally written in Allotment Letters. He proved 43 fake
Directorate, Patna allotment letters (Ext. 12/7 to 12/49). He clearly stated that
these were not issued from his section. He also stated that
how these are fake. He also stated that during his tenure in
budget section he never saw any allotment letter of such
huge amount. He clearly stated that during 9495 and 9596
there was ban on allotment in the head of ‘Anya Prabhar’
and officials of budget sections had knowledge about it. He
clearly stated that without seeing the file I can say that these
allotment letters are fake.
23 Krishna Prasad, Dy. He stated that on 24.12.96 he was working as Dy.
Accountant General. Accountant General, AG office, Ranchi. He further stated

31
that all bills passed by treasury come to AG office for
compilation of Account. He further stated that on 24.12.96
one Ramjee Rai, Inspector, CBI came to my office and
demanded bills passed by Godda Treasury. He gave him 41
bills along with annexed vouchers. Ramjee Rai prepared
seizure Memo. He identified the writing, signatures on
Seizure Memo (Ext.25).
25 Dr. Shiva Balak He stated that between 21.9.2000 to 19.8.2002 he was
Chaudhary, Member Director, AHD Directorate, Patna. He explained the purpose
Bihar Public Service of formation of AHD Directorate procedure of allocation of
Commission budget, formation and purpose of control purchase
committee, financial powers of RD and DAHO. He
identified the signature of Braj Bhushan Prasad on 43 fake
allotment letters (Ext.12/7 to 12/49). He explained as to
why and how these allotment letters are forged. He further
stated that it is the duty of DDO to purchase materials from
the list of C.P.C... He has also deposed that during his tenure
of service at AHD Directorate, the annual allotment in the
head on nonplanned for purchase of medicine etc.was
between 11.50 lakhs for each of the District of the state. He
has also deposed that at the time investigation by CBI he
personally verified the 43 fake allotment letters (Ext12/7 to
12/49) from the official record of allotments maintained in
the Directorate and found no mention of those fake letters in
the official record and further found that those allotments
were never approved by the Director. He pointed out the
glaring discrepancies and short comings, observed in those
43 fake allotment letters. He further stated that all the DDO
are required to send monthly expenditure to the Director and
after compilation of expenditure list. The Director used to
send an officer in AG for verification. In cross examination
32
this witness has admitted that before 1996 the copy of
budgeted allotments of each district for the year was not
used to be sent to District Treasuries.
33 Hira Lal Ram, Routine He stated that he was working in Issue Section and his duty
Clerk, AHD, Patna. was to enter the letters in Dispatch Register and to dispatch
the same. He further stated that there was serial numbers on
the said register. He proved three Dispatch registers from
the period 20.5.94 to 29.7.94, 29.7.94 to 26.9.94 and 26.9.94
to 14.12.94 as Ext. 29 to 29/2. He further stated that during
investigation in the CBI office, Ext.12/7 to 12/49 was shown
to me and I was directed to match the same from Ext.29 to
29/2. He further stated that these allotment letters were
never issued to RD, Dumka from these three dispatch
registers. He further stated that after seeing the dispatch
register (Ext.29 to 29/2), he separately prepared a chart
(Ext.30).
Apart from the above referred statements of the witnesses on
the point of creation of fake allotment letters, I find that the statements
of PW30, 32 and 36 are used by the prosecution for corroboration.
The summary of evidences of PW30,36 and 32 are given as under:
30 Indu Shekhar Jha, He stated that in the year 1996 he was posted as Inspector,
Inspector, CBI. CBI, Patna and at the same time Javed Ahmad was the SP,
CBI, Patna. He further stated that he was the Investigating
Officer of RC.33 (A)/96 and RC.34 (A)/96 and 33(A)/96
were related with DAHO office, Godda. He further stated
that Dr. O.P. Diwakar was RD Dumka and he was incharge
DAHO, Godda. He further stated that the period of RC.33
(A)/96 was Nov.95 to Jan.96 and during investigation it
transpired that Dr. OP Diwakar was incharge DAHO Godda
from Sept., 94 to Oct., 95 and during that relevant period
33
Rs.56,94,060/ was fraudulently withdrawn from Godda
Treasury. He further stated that during investigation he
recovered 43 allotment letters and that letters were signed by
Braj Bhushan Prasad, BudgetcumAccount Officer and the
said allotment letters were take and the same were made
available to Dr. OP Diwakar by Mahendra Prasad who was
very close to Dr. S.B. Sinha. He further stated that Girish
Kumar Sinha was the person who managed the dispatch
numbers written on allotment letter (Ext. 12/7 to 12/49). He
further stated that during investigation it also transpired that
without supplying materials, the suppliers gave invoices and
TVO (M) Godda made entries on the said invoices regarding
supplying of medicines. He further stated that without any
objection the Treasury Officials passed the bills. He further
stated that he intimated the matter to Javed Ahmad, the then
SP, CBI, Patna, who gave dictation of this FIR to Ram Krit
Rai and signed on it. He proved the FIR (Ext.26)
36 Awadhesh Kumar He stated that on 16.9.96 he was posted as Dy. SP, CBI,
Singh, Dy. SP, CBI, Patna and on 16.10.97 he got charge of investigation of this
Patna. case. During investigation he examined accused Dr. OP
Diwakar and Braj Bhushan Prasad in Beur Jail and took
their specimen writing. He further stated that he sent
documents alongwith specimen writing of OP Diwakar, BB
Prasad, Bal Krishna Dubey and Bhanukar Dubey to GEQD,
Kolkata. He further stated that he obtained sanction orders
from competent authority and received GEQD opinion. He
further stated that on 23.9.98 he submitted charge sheet
against accused persons.
32 V.G.S. Bhatnagar, He stated that documents of this case were sent by Sri
GEQD, Kolkata. V.S.K. Kaumudi, SP, CBI, Patna for examination and report.
He proved forwarding letter as Ext.27. He further stated
that after examination written report No. DXC192/97

34
dt.29.1.98 was prepared (Ext.28). The said opinion was
sent to CBI (Ext.27/1). He further proved the detailed
reason for opinion as Ext.28/1.
9. Now, I wish to examine the evidences from both side coupled
with their respective arguments advanced before me. Thus first I take
up the case against the accused Braj Bhushan Prasad visàvis his
defence. The PW 6, PW23, PW25, PW33 are the main witnesses who
support the charges against the accused Braj Bhushan Prasad. The
signatures of the accused B.B.Prasad appear over the alleged 43
allotment letters (Ext. 12/712/49) are not disputed by the defence,
rather defence has tried to make out a case that he put his signatures
on those allotment letters in course of his duty and under the
knowledge and direction of the Director, AHD. PW6 and PW33 have
pointed out several discrepancies in the construction of said allotment
letters Ext. 12/712/49 which clearly shows the fake nature of those
documents. The prominent amongst the anomalies pointed out by
these witnesses are:
a. The table no./ collection no i.e. after ‘2BT (2) has not been
mentioned in Ext. 29,29/1and 29/2.
b. The year has not been written in the letter no. which should
have been written after and “/”
c. The alleged amount was not in tabular from or in other words
no column was made in them, to show how much amount is
allotted and date of issue of those exhibits and what the earlier
was allotted amount was and also the total allotted amount.
35
d. The signature of a comparer is not appearing on the
below of the signature of "AYA BYA EWAM LEKHA
PADADHIKARI”
Both PW6 and PW33 have categorically pointed out the
discrepancies which lead to the only conclusion that the said allotment
letters are false and fabricated by the accused persons and the accused
Braj Bhusan Prasad is equally liable in creation of those fake
allotment letters. In crossexamination the defence has pointed out
that there was no fixed and prescribed Performa for issuance of
allotment letters which is not denied by these witnesses but even
assuming there were no prescribed Performa in the AHD Directorate
for such purpose, then also the prosecution version can not be brushed
aside which is based on the regular course business of the department
from long long time. Moreover the accused Braj Bhushan Prasad
being the authorized officer for issuance of such order is expected to
know the normal rule of practice for issuance of such allotment
letters. It is the settled principle that a person who is signing the
document presume to know the contains of the same and the accused
being the senior officer can not be believed to have no knowledge of
such requirements, it is interesting to note that PW6 has categorically
deposed that during the relevant period there was absolute ban
imposed on the allotment of funds under the head “ Anya Prabhar” by
the circular of the Finance Dept. Govt. of Bihar and this fact was
known by everybody in the Budget Section. Further I find that PW6
and PW33 have proved that such letters were never dispatched to the
addressee.PW33 has proved three Dispatch registers from the period
20.5.94 to 29.7.94, 29.7.94 to 26.9.94 and 26.9.94 to 14.12.94 as Ext.
36
29 to 29/2. He further stated that during investigation in the CBI
office, Ext.12/7 to 12/49 were shown to me and I was directed to
match the same from Ext.29 to 29/2. He further stated that these
allotment letters were never issued to RD, Dumka from these three
dispatch registers. He further stated that after seeing the dispatch
register (Ext.29 to 29/2), he separately prepared a chart (Ext.30).
Moreover even if it is believed that the accused have acted under the
direction of his Director to sign the said allotment letters then also it is
difficult understand as to why those letters were not dispatched
through the regular dispatch register and dispatch nos. used for these
three allotment letters are also fake. The learned lawyer for the
defence has argued that the so called dispatch register Ext25/14 is a
fabricated document and prepared unauthorisedly by PW31 who
admitted to have deposed that he was a dispatch clerk till 1994 and
thereafter he was transferred and one Keshav Rai was made dispatch
clerk but the witness did not joined the new post& continued working
as dispatch clerk. I find no merit in such argument of the defence
particularly when no suggestion was made to pw33 that Ext 25/14 is a
fake and fabricated document and witness was discharge without
crossexamination on behalf of the accused Braj Bhushan Prasad. In
the light of the discussion made above it is clear that the prosecution
has proved the involvement of this accused Braj Bhushan Prasad in
creation of the fake allotment letter in order to cheat and defraud the
Govt. along with other accused persons for their wrongful gain.
Accordingly I found and hold the accused Braj Bhushan Prasad guilty.
The other two accused persons namely Mahendra Prasad and
Girish Kumar Sinha also roped up in this category and the charges
37
against them also relates to creation of fake allotment letters.
It is pertinent to note here the prosecution has made out a case that
accused Braj Bhushan Prasad fraudulently and dishonestly, knowing
fully well that these fake allotment letters were not processed by his
budget and Accounts Department, signed those allotment letters and
handed them over to Accused Girish Kumar Sinha who in his turn,
took the dispatch numbers from the dispatch clerk and passed on 3
dispatch numbers to Mahendra Prasad who filled in those fake
allotment letters with such dispatch numbers as said above and
handed over to other accused persons.
10. Now I take up the scrutiny of evidence with regard to accused
Mahendra Prasad in the back drop of his alleged involvement in the
crime as suggested by the prosecution in the foregoing paragraphs. I
have already discussed and held that three allotment letters (Ext 12/7
to 12/49) are fake documents. On perusal of both the documents it
appears that all dispatch numbers appears to have been incorporated
by pen .According to the prosecution these dispatch numbers were
filled on the body of the allotment letters by accused Mahendra
Prasad. Neither expert witness nor a single witness is examined on
behalf of the prosecution to prove the involvement of accused
Mahendra Prasad in this case. It appears from the charge sheet itself
that the accused Mahendra Prasad is a private person and not the
employee in AHD department. Thus the prosecution was supposed to
bring some evidence to show his specific overt act in the commission
of the crime. It is settled principle of law that the expert evidence is
only corroborative evidence and not a substantive piece of evidence.
But in the present case the prosecution has failed to bring any direct
38
or indirect evidence against the accused Mahendra Prasad. It is
really surprising that the biggest and prime prosecuting agency of the
country CBI failed to complete the chain of circumstances showing
guilt of the accused Mahendra Prasad who might have played the vital
role in this big scam. Be that as it may, in this case prosecution has
miserably failed to prove the charges against the accused Mahendra
Prasad and I have no option than to hold accused Mahendra Prasad
not guilty giving him benefit of doubts and acquit him from all
charges.
So far accused Girish Kumar Sinha is concerned, I find that
prosecution virtually brought no evidence to prove any of the charges
against him. The sole witness PW 33, Hiralal Ram has categorically
deposed that he never given any dispatch number to accused Girish
Kumar Sinha. Thus I find and hold that the prosecution has miserably
failed to prove the charges against accused Girish Kumar Sinha and
accordingly I hold him not guilty and acquit him from all charges.
11. Now I wish to discuss the evidence adduced by the
prosecution in support of the charges against the second set of accused
persons who are alleged to be involved in using the alleged fake
allotment letters and have used for creation of further suballotment
letters (Ext. 12 to 12/6) for their wrongful gain by using fake invoices
which were presented at Treasury Office Godda and encased through
various banks. In order to prove the charges against accused persons
of this category, the prosecution has series of oral as well as
documentary evidences. For better appreciation of the evidences I
wish to reproduce the summary of the evidences on separate points in
issue as under:
39
Summary of statements of witnessess on the point of
preparation of bills and their passing from Godda Treasury
Sl. Prosecution witness Summary of evidence
No. examined in the case
1 Laxmi Kant Das Asstt. He stated about the preparation of bills, passing of bills. He
cumBill Clerk, DAHO, proved the suppliers vouchers (Ext. 1 to 1/274), Bills (Ext. 2
Godda to 2/40), Draft issue slips (Ext. 3 to 3/12, Treasury
Messenger Book (Ext. 4). Bill Book (Ext. 5), Cash Book
(Ext. 6). Contingent Register (Ext. 7), Signatures of
suppliers (Ext. 8 to 8/7). Receipts (Ext. 9 to 9/26),
Contingent File (Ext. 10), Allotment File (Ext.11) and 7 sub
allotment letters (Ext. 12 to 12/6). He clearly stated that for
passing of bills he paid 3% in Treasury and the money was
provided either by O.P.Diwakar or Ajit Kumar Sinha. Some
time Dr. Ajit Kumar Sinha used to pay the illegal
gratification to the treasury officials himself. He also stated
that he never saw the supply of medicine in such huge
quantity. In cross examination this witness categorically
stated to have paid 3% as illegal gratification to accused Bal
Krishan Dubey. Further stated that the power of withdrawal
was Rs.15000/ for RD and 5000/ for DAHO. Latter on the
power of RD was increased to Rs.50000/.
Summary of statements of witnesses on the point of non distribution of
medicines to various dispensaries under Godda DAHO, Office.
8 Dr. Brajesh Kumar, He stated that O.P. Diwakar was incharge DAHO, Godda

40
TVO, Sunder pahari, and Ajit Kumar Sinha was TVO (M) Godda and whose duty
Godda was to receive medicines from suppliers and to distribute
among doctors. He said that TVO (M) took Medicine receipt
from him but did not give medicine. He further said that he
complained the matter to Dr. O.P.Diwakar but he said that
do as TVO (M) say.
11 Dr. Birendra Kumar, He stated that during 199495 Dr. O.P.Diwakar was in
TVO, Dande charge DAHO, Godda and Dr. Ajit kumar Sinha was TVO
(M), Godda. He further stated it was the duty of TVO (M) to
maintain stock of medicine and to distribute medicines
amongst doctors. He stated that from September, 94 to
October, 1995 he did not receive any medicine from TVO
(M) but he gave him medicine receive receipt. On being
complained to Dr. O.P. Diwakar, he stated that do as TVO
(M) say otherwise you will be transferred from this place.
He further stated that Dr. Ajit Kumar Sinha TVO (M) took
his stock book of medicine but did not give any receipt for
the same.
14 Dr. Nand Kishore He stated that during 199495 Dr. O.P.Diwakar was in
Prasad Sah, TVO, charge DAHO, Godda and Dr. Ajit kumar Sinha was TVO
Mahgama (M), Godda. He further stated it was the duty of TVO (M) to
maintain stock of medicine nad to distribute medicines
the same.
15 Dr. Ram Narayan Ram, He stated that Dr. O.P. Diwakar was functioning as in
41
V.S., Godda. charge DAHO, Godda from September, 94 to October, 95
and at the same time Dr. Ajit Kumar Sinha was TVO (M).
He further stated that TVO(M) did not give him Neocidal,
Analgan, Dexona Injection and Bacipen Injection but he
took medicine receive receipt from me. Upon my objection
he gave threats to me and said he will be transferred from
here or his C.R. Will be adverse. On complained to Dr.
O.P.Diwakar, he said do as TVO (M) say otherwise you will
be transferred.
16 Dr. Dr. Chandan He stated that he joined on 8.5.95 first time at that time Dr.
Gobind Dev, BAHO, O.P.Diwakar was DAHO incharge, Godda and Dr. Ajit
Bowanjore Kumar Sinha was TVO (M). He further stated that only once
in the month of January, 96 he received medicine in less
quantity but he did not receive Neocidal, Dexona Injection,
Analgan Susp, Becipen Injection and Piprazime susp.
17 Dr. Awadhesh Kumar He stated that between September, 1994 to October, 95 Dr.
Singh, TVO, Deodanr O.P. Diwakar was incharge DAHO, Godda and Dr. Ajit
Kumar Sinha was TVO (M), Godda and during this period
he did not receive any medicines from TVO (M) but he gave
two medicines receive receipts (Ext. 2222/1) to him. TVO
(M) further gave direction that you enter all the medicine in
your stock register and show expenditure in treatment
register. On protest TVO (M) said that you will be
transferred from him and your C.R. will be adverse. He
further stated that when he complained to Dr. O.P.Diwakar,
he sai do as TVO (M) say this in my order. Stock Register
and treatment register of 199495 had been taken by TVO
(M) and he gave receipt (Ext. 22/2) for the same but he
never gave registers to him.
18 Dr. Dayanand Prasad, He stated that during September, 94 to October, 95 Dr.
42
TVO, Bowanjore O.P.Diwakar and Dr. Ajit Kumar Sinha was functioning as
incharege DAHO, Godda and TVO (M) respectively.
During this period he did not receive any medicine from
TVO (M) but he gave two medicines receive receipts (Ext.
22/3 & 22/4) to him. He further stated that TVO (M) gave
direction that you enter all the medicine in your stock
register and show expenditure in treatment register. Upon
protest he threatened and said that you will be transferred
from here to another place. Upon complained to Dr.
O.P.Diwakar he said do as TVO (M) say.
19 Dr. Krishna Chandra He stated that Dr. O.P.Diwakar and Dr. Ajit Kumar Sinha
Jha, TVO, Poraiyahat. was functioning as incharge DAHO, Godda and TVO (M)
Godda respectively between September, 94 to October, 95.
He further stated that during this period TVO (M) took my
signature on medicine receive receipts (Ext. 22/5 & 22/6)
without supplying medicines. He further stated that on the
direction of TVO (M) he entered the names of medicines in
stock book of medicine and showed expenditure in treatment
register. He further stated that in the Presidentship of Dr.
Nand Kishore Sah a meeting was held for this purpose and a
memorandum was handed over to R.D., Dumka Dr.
O.P.Diwakar but he said to as TVO (M) say. This is my
order. He further stated that my stock book of medicine and
treatment register was taken over by Dr. Ajit Kumar Sinha
TVO (M) and for that he gave receipt (Ext. 22/7) but he
never returned my register.
20 Dr. Sadanand Mahto, He stated that Dr. O.P.Diwakar and Dr. Ajit Kumar Sinha
BAHO, Sudner Pahari was functioning as incharge DAHO, Godda and TVO (M)
Godda respectively between September, 94 to October, 95.
He further stated that during this period TVO (M) took my
signature on medicine receive receipts (Ext. 22/5 & 22/6)
without supplying medicines. He further stated that on the
43
direction of TVO (M) he entered the names of medicines in
stock book of medicine and showed expenditure in treatment
register. He further stated that in the Presidentship of Dr.
Nand Kishore Sah a meeting was held for this purpose and a
memorandum was handed over to R.D., Dumka Dr.
O.P.Diwakar but he said to as TVO (M) say. This is my
order. He further stated that my stock book of medicine and
treatment register was taken over by Dr. Ajit Kumar Sinha
TVO (M) and for that he gave receipt (Ext. 22/8 to 22/11)
but he never returned my register.
21 Dr. Bal. Mukund Sah, He stated that Dr. O.P.Diwakar and Dr. Ajit Kumar Sinha
BAHO, Paraiyahat was incharge DAHO, Godda and TVO (M) Godda from
September, 94 to October, 95. He further stated that
TVO(M) used to take my signature on medicine receive
receipts (Ext. 22/12 & 22/13) but did not supply the
medicines to him in full quantity. He further stated that TVO
(M) said that he will give medicine in due course but failed.
He further stated that TVO (M) along with gave direction
that you enter all the medicines in your stock register and
show expenditure in Treatment Register.
27 Dr. Satya Narayan He stated that during 199495 Dr. O.P.Diwakar was in
Singh, BAHO, Godda. charge DAHO, Godda and Dr. Ajit kumar Sinha was TVO
(M), Godda. He further stated it was the duty of TVO (M) to
maintain stock of medicine and to distribute medicines
the same.
44
Summary of statements of witnesses on the point of non
manufacturing/non delivery of medicines by various medicine
companies
12 RAVI SRIVASTAVA, HE WAS WORKING AS MEDICAL REPRESENTATIVE
HINDUSTAN CIBA IN THE SAID COMPANY. HE FURTHER STATED
GEIGY THAT IN COMPLIANCE OF LETTER DATED
30.12.1996 WRITTEN BY DY.SP, CBI TO OUR
COMPANY, MR. TUGRAINT, BUSINESS MANAGER,
SENT A FAX MESSAGE ALONGWITH INVOICES AND
WROTE THAT HIS COMPANY HAS NOT
MANUFACTURED NEOCIDAL 5 LTRS., BATCH NO.
402 AND 403. HE FURTHER WROTE THAT M/S.
BIHAR SURGICO MEDICAL AGENCY, PATNA WAS
SUPPLIED 3192 STRIPS OF FASINEX BOLUS 200 MG..
BATCH NO. 419. HE PROVED THE SAID FAX
MESSAGE (EXT. 19/4).

13 Madhukar Vrema, Field He stated that he was working as Field Officer in Wockhardt
Sales Officer, since 95 to 99 and Hari Enterprises was C&F Agent of his
Wockhardt. company. He further stated that company did not supply
medicines directly to the distributors. Distributor gave
supply orders to C&F Agent and they supply the medicines
to them other on payment through cheque or drafts. In

45
compliance of letter dated 30.12.1996 written by Dy. SP,
CBI, Vice President of our company Dr. S.R. Kuthekar gave
reply that our company had not manufactured Analgan 1 Ltr.
Batch No. 93004. He further stated that Analgan 1 Ltr.,
Batch No. 92024 was manufactured by out company but the
same were not sent to Bihar Depot. He proved the letter
(Ext. 19/5) written to IO.
34 P. Venkatesan, Retd. He stated hat he was working as Senior Manager
Senior Manager, M/s. (Distribution) of M/s. Concept Pharmaceuticals. He further
Concept stated that in compliance to the letter of IO he gave answer
Pharmaceuticals , on 14.2.97 through letter (Ext.19/6) in which I write that
M/s. Seva Medical Agency, Jamtara was not our authorized
stockiest and we never supplied any medicine to DAHO,
Godda. He gave detail of concimin powder 2.5 Kg. Batch
No.173.
Summary of statements of witnesses of different Investigating Officers
who conducted separate investigations for specific purposes.
26 Ramjee Rai, Inspector, He stated that on the instructions of SP, CBI, he came to
CBI. Ranchi and met K. Prasad, Dy. A.G. And demanded from
him the bills passed by Godda Treasury. He gave me the
bills and vouchers and he prepared seizure memo. He
identified the seizure memo as well as the bills and
vouchers.
28 Bhavanand Kharkwal, He stated that he was directed to collect documents from AG
Dy. SP, CBI. office, Ranchi. He came on 2.12.96 at Ranchi along with a
copy of fax massage dt. 29.11.96. He met K. Prasad, Dy.
AG but he told that he has not received any tax massage
46
regarding handing over documents. He further stated that on
my request Sri K. Prasad gave him a letter addressed to Sri
U.N. Biswas.
35 S.K. Dev (IO), Retd. He is the Investigating Officer of this case. He stated that
Dy. SP, CBI after reading FIR he started investigation of this case. He
collected Bills along with vouchers from AG and examined
witnesses. He further proved three letters (Ext.19/7, 19/8,
19/9) written by M/s. Alembic Chemicals Works Ltd., Patna
to him. He further proved letter written by M/s. Cadila
Health Care, Ahmedabad as Ext19/10. He further stated
that he investigated the case upto 16.10.97 and thereafter
this case was made over to Sri Awadhesh Kumar Singh,
Dy.SP, CBI, AHD, Patna.
36 Awadhesh Kumar He stated that on 16.9.96 he was posted as Dy. SP, CBI,
Singh, Dy. SP, CBI, Patna and on 16.10.97 he got charge of investigation of this
Patna. case. During investigation he examined accused Dr. OP
Diwakar and Braj Bhushan Prasad in Beur Jail and took
their specimen writing. He further stated that he sent
documents along with specimen writing of OP Diwakar, BB
Prasad, Bal Krishna Dubey and Bhanukar Dubey to GEQD,
Kolkata. He further stated that he obtained sanction orders
from competent authority and received GEQD opinion. He
further stated that on 23.9.98 he submitted charge sheet
against accused persons.
12. At the onset, I take up the evidence adduced against accused Dr.
Om Prakash Diwakar, the then Regional Director, A.H.D. Office
Dumka . As I have already discussed in the foregoing paragraphs that
43 fake allotment letters Exts. 12/7 to 12/49 were created at Animal
Husbandry Directorate, Patna by accused Braj Bhushan Prasad in

47
connivance with other accused persons and I have already held
that those 43 allotment letters are fake. Since then the said fake
allotment letters were created against settled norms of A.H.D.
Directorate beyond the provisions of allotted budget for A.H.D.
Department by the Government of Bihar and next chain circumstances
led to use all those fake allotment letters. P.W1. Laxmi Kant Das has
categorically stated that he used to receive allotment letters from
A.H.D. Patna through Dr. Om Prakash Diwakar , who normally used
to reside at Patna and he has also deposed that on the basis of those
allotment letters Dr. Om Prakash Diwakar handed over seven sub
allotment letters which are marked as Exts. 12 to 12/6. This witness
has admitted that one suballotment letter is written in his hand
writing while he was at Patna at the direction of Dr. Om Prakash
Diwakar. It is also relevant to mention here that this witness has
admitted to have prepared the bills (Exts. 2 to 2/40) on the basis of of
supply voucher (Ext. 1 to 1/274)at the instance of Dr. Om Prakash
Diwakar . On perusal of bills (EXts. 2 to 2/40) which bears the
signature of Dr. Om Prkash Diwakar as Drawing and Disbursing
officer which is not disputed by him clearly goes to show that those
bills were prepared in utter violation to the Bihar Financial Rules and
Bihar Treasury Code. PW1 has stated that power of withdrawal upto
Rs.15000/ per day and Rs.5000/ per day for RD and DAHO was
fixed by the Government. This fact is not denied by the accused O. P.
Diwakar. Thus it is hard to understand that how he signed those bills
Ext 22/40 when each of the bills is beyond his prescribed limit of
withdrawal. Bihar Treasury Code assigned a bounden duty on the
DDO to observe each and every rule before presenting any contingent
48
bill for passing and fix sole responsibility on the DDO, if any
excess withdrawal is made in violation of the code. Thus the accused
O.P. Diwakar who signed all the bills as said above can not ward of
his responsibility when there is apparent and glaring discrepancies
appear on the face of the disputed bills. It is argued on behalf of the
defence that it has come in the evidence that monthly statement of
bills passed by the Treasury used to sent to the Accountant General ,
Bihar Patna but no objection about the irregularly was communicated
by the A.G. Bihar .It is pertinent to mention here that the explanation
for absence of no objection has been supplied by the testimony of the
witnesses of the prosecution as already indicated above and the
prosecution witnesses have categorically stated that audit of the bills
were not done by the A.G. , the evidence is otherwise primafacie
shows that the bills were irregular as has been indicated above cannot
be overlooked. Moreover, the prosecution has brought convincing
evidence of representatives of various medicine companies who were
examined in this case as PWs. 12,13 and 34 in this case. P.W. 12 who
was working as medical representative of M/s Hindustan Ciba Geigy
Ltd. proved this fact that Neocidol five liters batch no. 402 and 403
were never manufactured by his company . He also proved that 3192
strip’s of Facinex Bolus 200 m.g. batch No. 419 were supplied to
Bihar Surgico Medico Agency. He proved the fax message Ext. 19/4.
In crossexamination competency of this witness was challenged by
the defence but in my opinion this witness proved fully about the
contents of the fax message, hence his competency cannot be
challenged with regard to the contents of the letter. This witness has
categorically stated that such medicines were either not manufactured
49
by his company or fewer quantity of medicines were supplied to
Bihar Surgico Medico Agency, Patna but on perusal of the vouchers
which is marked in this case as Ext. k1 to 1/26 it is apparent that
invoices were raised by M/s Bihar Surgico Medico Agency with
respect to the medicines namely; Neocidol, Fasinex which were not
even manufactured by M/s Hindustan Ciba Gauigy Ltd. Similarly ,
P.W. 13 Madhukar Verma of Wokhardt India Ltd. and P.W. 34
P.Venkatasan of M/s Concept Pharmaceuticals disclose certain facts
which goes to the root of authenticity of the vouchers raised by
various suppliers and on the basis of those vouchers a false receipt
was even prepared by coaccused Ajit Kumar Sinha at the instance of
Dr. O.P.Diwakar who happens to be R.D., Dudmka as well as
D.A.H.O. Godda The prosecution has also examined a series of
witnesses as P.Ws. 8,11,14.15.16.18.19.20 ,21 and 27 who are doctors
posted at various dispensaries under D.A. H.O.,Godda and have
deposed that they have never received any medicine from D.A.H.O.
office, Godda. I further find that in certain bills no. 24, 26, 27, 28 etc.
certificate was appended by accused O.P.Diwakar as D.D.O.cum
D.A.H.O. , Godda which clearly goes to show that total amount of
bills withdrawn was beyond 8 per cent limit fixed by the finance
department and certificate to that fact is given by D.A.H.O. Godda
with bill that the amount is within 8 per cent of total budget. It has
also come in the evidence that O.P.Diwakar , P.W. 1 used to pay 3 per
cent of the bill amount of illegal gratification by passing of the bills
in the treasury and the money was used to be provided either by
accused O.P.Diwakar or Ajit Kumar Sinha . This fact is not even
contradicted in the crossexamination of P.W. 1 on behalf of the

50
accused O.P.Diwakar but the evidence on the point of payment
of illegal gratification remains unrebutted against O.P. Diwakar.
In the light of the discussions made above I have no hesitation
to hold that accused O.P.Diwakar played pivotal role in practicing
forgery against Government of Bihar and withdrawing huge public
money from the Government treasury in connivance with each and
every accused persons and accordingly I hold accused O.P.Diwakar
guilty.
13. Now let me discuss the evidence as led by the prosecution
against accused Dr. Ajit Kumar Sinha visàvis his defence. I have
already indicated while fixing culpability of the accused persons with
regard to creation of six fictitious suballotment letters (Exts. 12 to
12/6), the accused Dr. Ajit Kumar Sinha has played a major role in the
creation of Exts. 12 to 12/6. It is the case of the prosecution that Dr.
Ajit Kumar Sinha was Touring Veterinary Officer (mobile) and
entrusted with job of receiving and distributing medicines supplied to
DAHO, Godda. It is further alleged that in pursuance to the criminal
conspiracy between all the accused persons accused Dr. Ajit Kumar
Sinha fraudulently and dishonestly certified the invoices presented by
accused Sushil Kumar, Tripurari Mohan Prasad,Rajesh Kumar
Sinha,Brajesh Kumar Sinha and other suppliers showing receipt of
the medicines by him though factually no medicines was ever
supplied by accused suppliers during Sept.1994 to Oct,1995. The case
of the defence is of total denial and false implication. It is submitted
by the learned lawyer for the accused Dr. Ajit Kumar Sinha that he
has nothing to do with the allotment of funds, issue of allotment
letters and suballotment letters nor issuing supply order. Further it is
51
submitted that he was not even concern with the presentation of
bills before the treasury and withdrawal of the amounts for payment
to the suppliers. It is also submitted that accused Dr. Ajit Kumar Sinha
was posted as T.V.O. (mobile) at District Animal Husbandry office
Godda during the relevant period and he was also in charge of stores
of veterinary medicines and in course of his duty whenever he
received medicines from various suppliers he used to enter them into
a stock register maintained at the store in regular course of his duty.
But unfortunately that stock register was not even seized or produced
before this Court. Further it is submitted that the charges against the
accused that he certified receipt of medicines cannot be believed in
view of the fact that the original stock register was never produced
Finally he submitted that on the basis of clear cut admission on the
part of P.Ws. as well as the defence evidence it is clear that certificate
of receipt of medicines issued by this accused is not fictitious and he
actually received medicines distributed those medicines to various
doctors and as such no charge is proved against the accused Dr. Ajit
Kumar Sinha and he is liable to be acquitted.
The first contention made by the learned lawyer for the defence
that this accused had nothing to do with allotment of funds, issue of
allotments letters and suballotment letters but on perusal of
deposition of P.W. 1 it appears that this witness has identified the
writing of accused Ajit Kumar Sinha as maker of the seven sub
allotment letters (Ext. 12 to 12/7) along with coaccused Dr.
O.P.Diwakar who signed those documents. If it is believed that the
accused has nothing to do with creation of allotments letters then it
was the duty of the defence to explain under what circumstance this
52
accused wrote those sub allotment letters which I have
already held as fictitious and fabricated documents. It is true that
original stock register was not produced before me by the prosecution,
what prevented the defence call for the so called original stock
register if it was available at DAHO Office Godda or seized by CBI in
connection with RC case no,33/96 when the accused entered into his
defence. Moreover, the prosecution has brought convincing evidence
of representatives of various medicine companies who were examined
in this case as PWs. 12, 13 and 34 in this case. P.W. 12 who was
working as medical representative of M/s Hindustan Ciba Gaigy Ltd.
Proved this fact that Neocidol five litres batch no. 402 and 403 were
never manufactured by his company . He also proved that 3192 strips
of Facinex Bolus 200 m.g. batch No. 419 were supplied to Bihar
Surgico Medico Agency. He proved the fax message Ext. 19/4. In
crossexamination competency of this witness was challenged by the
defence but in my opinion this witness proved fully about the contents
of the fax message, hence his competency cannot be challenged with
regard to the contents of the letter. This witness has categorically
stated that such medicines were either not manufactured by his
company or fewer quantity of medicines were supplied to Bihar
Surgico Medico Agency, Patna but on perusal of the vouchers which
is marked in this case as Ext. 1 to 1/26 it is apparent that invoices
were raised by M/s Bihar Surgico Medico Agency with respect to the
medicines namely; Neocidol & Fasinex which were not even
manufactured by M/s Hindustan Ciba Geigy Ltd. Similarly , P.W. 13
Madhukar Verma of Wokhard India Ltd. and P.W. 34 P.Venkatasan
of M/s Concept Pharmaceuticals disclosed certain facts which goes to
53
the root of authenticity of the vouchers raised by various
suppliers and on the basis of those vouchers false receipt was even
prepared by accused Ajit Kumar Sinha at the instance of Dr.
O.P.Diwakar who happens to be R.D., Dudmka as well as D.A.H.O.
Godda and as such I find no merit in the submissions advanced by the
learned lawyer for the defence. I further find that PW1 has stated in
deposition that he use to pay 3% of the bill amount to the treasury
officials and the money used to be provided by accused O.P.Diwakar
and Ajit Kumar Sinha. It is also deposed that some time accused Ajit
Kumar Sinha also used to pay bribe to the treasury officials by
himself. This witness is not even cross examined on this incriminating
statement by accused Ajit Kumar Sinha, even no explanation is put
forth by the defence on this point. Interestingly, on perusal of Ext
21/19 I find that a sum of Rs.75000/ was paid by accused Rajesh
Kumar Sinha and Brajesh Kumar Sinha, partners of M/s Tara
Pharmaceuticals, Patna through cheque. No explanation is given by
the accused Ajit Kumar Sinha that under what circumstances he
received such huge amount from accused firm.
In the light of the discussions made above I have no
hesitation to hold that the prosecution has proved all the charges
against the accused Ajit Kumar Sinha beyond all shadow of
reasonable doubts and accordingly I hold him guilty.
14. Let me now take up the charges against the suppliers namely
Sushil Kumar, Tripurari Mohan Prasad, Rajesh Kumar Sinha, Brajesh
Kumar Sinha and Naresh Prasad as the arguments advanced by them
are having common grounds and the respective charges faced by them
54
revolves round the fact of non supply of medicines for which
they have received payment from DAHO AHD Godda.
Learned lawyer for accused Tripurari Mohan Prasad and Sushil
Kumar vehemently argued that in this case despite the direction of
Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India V. Sushil Modi ( 1997(1)
PLJR page 53 SC and direction of Hon’ble Patna High Court, the
CBI took over the investigation of AHD cases from Bihar Police.
RC33A/96 Pat and RC34A/96 Pat pertaining to Godda Treasury were
being investigated by the Investigating Agency from the very
beginning. Perusal of h alleged period of occurrence mentioned in the
State Police, formal FIR of RC 33A/96 Pat is month November,
December 1995,January 1996 and before period of RC34A/69 Pat and
this case are also covered by the alleged period of occurence of
RC33A/96Pat.It is also submitted that the present FIR was lodged on
28/11/96 at very belated stage and the delay in lodging FIR has not
been explained. It is settled principle of law that “delay” in lodging
FIR is not always fatal to the prosecution unless the prejudice is
shown”. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Apren Joseph &
others case reported in 1973 Cr. L.J 185 SC has held “No direction
of time in the abstract can be fixed as reasonable time for giving and
information to police, the question reasonable time being a matter for
determination for the court in each case mere delay in lodging FIR
with police is therefore not necessarily, as a matter of law be fatal to
the prosecution”. Same principle is relied upon by the Hon’ble
Jharkhand High Court in the case of Bija Gope and others v. State
of Bihar reported in JCR2004(1) 282. In this case the explanation
55
given by the prosecution appears to me satisfactory as no prejudice
is shown by the defence. Moreover, the so called FIR of RC 33A/96
Pat is not produced either by the prosecution or by the defence who
could have proved the same in their defence and in the absence of
such FIR of RC 33A/ 96 Pat I have no reason to believe as suggested
by the defence.
Learned lawyer for the defence has argued on the point of
consequence of not complete deposing the fact of a witness of
investigating agency. The defence has relied upon the decision of
Hon’ble Apex Court reported 1988 SCC (Cri) page 250. I have gone
through the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in a case of murder
where a single witness has disclosed the incident six months after the
occurrence and that two his evidence discrepant in term but the fact
before me are quite different than that before the Hon’ble Apex Court.
Hence, I am of the opinion that since no prejudice is shown the
aforesaid decision of the Apex Court is of no consequence to the
defence.
It has further been argued that Shri P.K.Pandey, Inspector
C.B.I. has seized various documents in the official chamber of one
Shailendra Rastogi , Chartered Accountant of accused Tripurari
Mohan Prasad on 30.5.96 and 4.6.96 in connection with R.C. 29A/96
Pat. . He relied upon a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in
1987 PLJR (SC) 19 where it was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court
that the defence based on the documents recovered from the accused
where the defence had founded it relevant and relevant and vital
documents seized from the custody of the accused and not

56
deliberately produced, conviction of the accused cannot be
sustained. It is really surprising that the defence is relying upon
certain fact which beyond the settled provisions of law. In the
aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, was pleased to take
adverse view against the prosecution for deliberately not producing
certain vital documents seized by them in course of investigation. In
this case the so called seizure was made in some other case i.e. R.C.
29A/96 and that fact is never brought to the notice of this Court, when
the accused entered into the defence. Thus, in my opinion, such
argument is of no help to the defence. Learned lawyer for the defence
also tried to impress upon me that evidence adduced in the form of
letter issued of medicines Companies cannot be relied upon, as
provisions of section 63 of the Evidence is not complied with. He
relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court reported in
A.I.R. 1983 Bombay , Page 1 and A.I.R. 1981 Supreme Court page
2085.This argument of the learned defence lawyer falls flat simply
because so called letter from medicine Company which was marked
as Ext. 19/4 by P.W. 12 was not objected when it was tendered and it
is settled principle of law that the objection with regard to mode of
proof of document cannot be allowed later on if no objection is taken
when the document is tendered in evidence. Moreover, from the
deposition of P.W. 12 it appears that this witness was not even cross
examined by these accused persons. On the point of circumstantial
evidence the learned lawyer for the defence has relied upon the
decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2001(1) Eastern
India Criminal Cases page 152 where the Hon’ble Apex Court has
57
held that the circumstantial evidence must be cogently and
firmly established. It should form a chain pointing towards guilt of the
accused; it should show complete that there is no scope for conclusion
that a crime was committed. In this case before me the prosecution
has led direct evidence against the accused persons and so called
circumstantial evidence, if any, is with regard to the larger issue of the
criminal conspiracy. The defence has no where pointed out as to
which chain they suggested to have missing in the link of
circumstances. The prosecution has led direct evidence on the point of
creation of fake allotment letters, fake suballotment letters and PW25
has specifically deposed in this court that during his tenure of service
the normal annual budget for entire State Animal Husbandary Dept.
under the Head of purchase of medicines etc. was usually 3 carores
and for each district it was 1.5 Lakhs. But between Sept.94
Oct95,against annual budget of 1.5 Lakhs, withdrawal is made to the
tune of Rs. 55,55,966/ The prosecution has also led evidence that 275
invoices which were proved in this case towards claim of supply by
the accused firms which ultimately proved by direct evidence to be
false. It will be evident from the fact that P.W. 12 who proved Ext.
19/4 clearly suggests that no medicine with particular batch numbers
was even produced by the manufacturing Company.
In the backdrop of claims of the suppliers and vis a –vis the
prosecution evidence, I wish to give a comparative Chart in this
regard to appreciate the claims of the suppliers visàvis prosecution
evidence as under:
Comparative Chart showing claim of supplier’s visàvis prosecution
evidence
58
Sl.No. Exhibits No. Name of suppliers Name of Remarks to specific
medicines queries by the
claimed to be manufacturers with Exts.
supplied No.
1 1 to 1/9 Bihar Surgico Neocidol 20 E.C. As per Ext. 19/4, this drug
Medico Agency 5 ltrs ( Batch no. with specific batch no.
402 was never manufactured
by M/s Hindustan Ciba
Geigy Ltd.
2. 1/10 Do Longacillin Inj. Not included in the charge
48 lac. (Batch
No. 0171)
3. 1/11 Do Sulphacinidine Do
tab. 80’s (Batch
No. 0335)
4. 1/13 &1/14 Do Facinex Bolus As per Ext.19/4 this drug
400 m.g. (Batch with specific batch no.
No. 49) was not delivered to M/s
Bihar Surgico Medico
Agency, Patna
5. 1 to 1/17 Do Neocidol 20 E.C. As per Ext. 19/4, this drug
5 litr (Batch No. with specific batch no.
405) was never manufactured
by M/s Hinustan Ciba
Geigy Ltd.
6. 1/18 to 1/25 M/s Samarpan Analgan Susp. 1 As per Ext. 19/5, this drug
Veterinary litr. (Batch No. with specific batch no.
Enterprises, Patna 93009) was never manufactured
by M/s. Wockhardt India
Ltd.
7. 1/26 Do Analgan Susp. 1 As per Ext. 19/5, this drug
litr. with specific batch no.
(Batch was manufactured by M/s.
No.92024) Wockhardt India Ltd. but
not sold in Bihar
8. 1/27 Do Lemasole Inj. Not included in the charge
( Batch No.
1100394)
9. 1/28 Do Analgan Susp. 1 As per Ext. 19/5, this drug
ltr. (Batch No. with specific batch no.
92024) was manufactured by M/s.
Wockhardt India Ltd. but
not sold in Bihar
10. 1/29 & 1/30 Do Cotton Not included in the charge
Absorbents
59
11. 1/32 to 1/92 Tara Wormin As per Ext. 19/10, this
Pharmaceuticals powder(Batch drug with specific batch
No. 3021 no. was manufactured by
M/s. Cadila Health Care,
but not sold in Bihar
12. 1/93 to 1/155 Do Do Do
13. 1/156 to Do Do Do
1/220
14. 1/221 to Do Do Do
1/243
15. 1/244 to Do Do Do
1/267
16. 1/268 to Do Dexona Inj. 5 ml. As per Ext. 19/10, this
1/274 Batch No. 4017 drug with specific batch
no. was manufactured by
M/s. Cadila Health Care,
but was sold only 300 in
Bihar
In the light of the discussions made above I find no merit in the
arguments of the learned lawyers for the defence. Learned Lawyer for
accused Rajesh Kumar Sinha and Brajesh Kumar Sinha argued that
though it is not disputed that both of them were partners of firm M/s
Tara Pharmaceuticals, Patna but it is also a fact that they were only
name lenders and entire business was run by on Anil Kumar, DW 2. It
is also argued that the prosecution did filed a single chit of paper to
show that they have singed any document or have induced any body
rather the invoices of M/s Tara Pharmaceuticals which are proved in
this case as Ext 1/311/274 do not bear their signatures. Similar
argument is advanced on behalf of accused Shushil Kumar that he was
only a name lender and entire transactions of the firm m/s Samarpan
Enterprises was actually handled by his elder brother accused
Tripurari Mohan Prasad and this fact is admitted by accused Tripurari
Mohan Prasad in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Learned lawyer for the
60
accused Sushil Kumar has also tried to impress upon me that
though he happened to be owner of M/s Samarpan Veterinary
Enterprises Patna but, in fact, he was only name lender and the entire
management of the firm M/s Samarpan Veterinary Enterprises was
being handled for his brother coaccused Tripurari Mohan Prasad. He
further drawn my attention towards the statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. of
accused Tripurari ;Mohan Prasad where he admitted that he used to
manage the business of M/s Samarpan Veterinary Enterprises and he
signed all the vouchers presented on behalf of M/s Samarpan
Veterinary Enterprises. He also submitted that there is nothing on the
record to show that the accused Sushil Kumar has taken part in any
manner in the entire transaction as suggested by the prosecution and
as such in view of the fact that he was only name lender he cannot be
criminally liable for the act of omission and commission committed
by his brother accused Tripurari Mohan Prasad. He relied upon
decision of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 1992 Cr. L.J. page 3587
where the Hon’ble Apex Court has held in a case of charge of forgery
of document , if no evidence is led to show that the accused have done
that with his knowledge or his consent the accused is entitled to be
acquitted. It remains undisputed that Tripuari Mohan Prasad was the
proprietor of M/s Bihar Surgico Medico Agency, Patna and Sushil
Kumar was proprietor of M/s Samarpan Veterinary Enterprises,
Patna. It is also not disputed that the amounts of drafts were credited
to the account of M/s Samarpan Veterinary Enterprises, Patna
operated under the signature of accused Sushil Kumar which also
remains unchallenged. Accused Sushil Kumar as proprietor of
Samarpan Vetrinary Enterprises signed as a introducer in the account
61
of his brother so there is testimony of prosecution witness
that besides transaction in their respective account as proprietor both
the accused persons also did other things to the knowledge and
consent of each other. The respective certified copy of ledger of the
Bank account statement of these two firms was not the debit and
credit for their respective accounts also remained unchallenged. I have
already indicated in the fore going paragraphs that in order to fulfill
their nefarious plan of the accused persons including accused
suppliers conspired with each other to receive payment against fake
supplies of medicines through their respective accounts. Even if it is
presumed for the sake of argument that accused Sushil Kumar was
only name lender, even then he being the proprietor of the firm cannot
be absolved from its responsibility for act of omissions and
commissions committed by or on behalf of the firm. Moreover it is
the duty of the proprietor of the firm to show that under what capacity
the said Tripurari Mohan Prasad was allowed by the proprietor of the
firm work for and on behalf of accused Sushil Kumar. Question of
consent and knowledge of accused is immaterial in this case as it was
the duty of accused Sushil Kumar to see that his firm is not engaged in
criminal activities and as such the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court
has got no application in the facts and circumstances of this case. I am
not at all impressed by such arguments of the defence, the criminal
liability is a individual thing and can not be presumed that a person
who is running a firm and getting benefit out of that, can ward off his
responsibility if the firm is engaged in criminal activity. Moreover,
the huge money withdrawn form Godda Treasury was encashed
through the accounts of the accused persons in various banks which
62
were operated under their signatures only. Thus, I find no
merit in the argument advanced by the learned lawyer for the accused
Sushil Kumar.
15. Now, I shall discuss the prosecution visàvis defence
evidence led against the accused suppliers. From perusal of Exhibited
275 invoices which were proved by the prosecution it appears that it
relates to supply of medicines by m/s Bihar Surgico Medico Agency,
Patna ( Ext 11/17),m/s Samarpan Enterprises, Patna (Ext. 1/18
1/30),m/s Tara Pharmaceuticals, Patna ( Ext.1/311/274). Apart from
these 275 invoices proved in this case, few more bills were proved
without invoices attached to those bills belonging to m/s Tara
Pharmaceuticals, Patna , m/s Vyapar Kuttir, Patna and m/s Bharti
Enterprises Patna& m/s Seva Medical Agency, Jamtara ( whose prop.
Sushil Kumar Jha already confessed his guilt and his case is
separated. It has been argued on behalf of accused Naresh Prasad that
the prosecution did not filed a single invoice of M/s Vyapar Kuttir
Patna to show those invoices were issued by him for wrongful gain,
though four bills Ext 2/352/38 were proved to implicate him.It is true
that no invoices are attached with exhibited bills Ext. 2/352/38. but
on perusal of Ext. 18/218/5 it appears that by these four pay in slips
four bank drafts worth Rs. 497900/ were deposited in the account of
accused firm M/s Vyapar Kuttir whose prop. was the accused Naresh
Prasad and total amount withdrawn by Ext 2/352/38 also comes to
Rs. 497900/ and this fact is not disputed that bank drafts worth
Rs.497900/were not deposited in the bank account of M/s Vyapar
Kuttir, Patna. Moreover, in the back drop of the fact that there was no
allotment and fake allotments letters were prepared and on the basis
63
of those fake allotments, fake suballotments were prepared.
There is no reason to believe that this entire nefarious plan hatched up
for the purpose of making of actual supply of medicines as suggested
by the defence. In view of the discussions made above I find and hold
accused Sushil Kumar, Tripurari Mohan Prasad, Rajesh Kumar,
Brajesh Kumar and Naresh Prasad guilty.
16. Now I shall look into the evidences on the question of roles
played by accused Rakesh Kumar Sinha, Bal Krishna Dubey and
Bhanukar Dubey who were Treasury officer, head clerk –cum
accountant and Scrutiny clerk respectively on the relevant period i.e.
between 1994 to October, 1995. From the charges framed against
these accused persons it appears that these three accused persons
entrusted with job for passing contingent bill after proper scrutiny and
checking as produced before them by D.A.H.O. Office, Godda under
the signature of D.D.O., D.A.H.O. Office, Godda. It is also pointed
out that they were responsible for making objection about financial
irregularity as noticed on those contingent bills keeping in view the
financial power delegated to the D.D.Os. which reveals that these
accused persons while functioning as Treasury Officer, Head clerk
cumaccountant and Scrutiny clerk respectively in the Treasury of
Godda in furtherance of criminal conspiracy and in collusion with
other accused persons have cleared and recommended issue of pay
orders in utter violation of the rules led down in the Bihar Financial
Rules and also Bihar Treasury Code for their wrongful gain to the
extent of 5555966/. In support of the charges the prosecution has
mainly relied upon the evidence of P.Ws. 1,31and 26. P.W. 1 has
proved this fact that the bills (Exts. 2 to 2/40) were presented before
64
the Treasury by him and the same was received by accused
Bhanukar Dubey , who happened to Scrutiny clerk at the relevant
time. He has also deposed that he used to pay 3 per cent of the bill
amount to the Treasury officials for passing of the bills. He has
categorically stated in his crossexamination that he used to pay that
money as illegal gratification to accused Bal Krishna Dubey who
happened to be head clerk –cumaccounts clerk at the relevant time at
Treasury Office, Godda. This fact has not been denied by the accused
persons in their crossexamination to this witness and hence this fact
goes un rebutted. P.W. 26 has proved this fact that in course of his
investigation he collected these bills along with vouchers from the
Accountant General Office at Ranchi and he prepared seizure memo
thereto. Accused Rakesh Kumar Sinha examined himself as P./W. 3
and has deposed that he joined Godda in March, 1994 as Executive
Magistrate and by the order of the then Deputy Commissioner he
started working as Treasury Officer though he never worked as
Treasury Officer prior to that. He also deposed that the post of
Treasury Officer comes within Bihar Financial Service who acquired
extensive training for those purposes but this witness being the officer
of the Bihar Administrative Service was not given such training. He
further deposed that he used to send monthly statement of all
contingent bills passed by him to the A.G.Bihar and no objection was
ever raised by Accountant General Bihar in this regard. In cross
examination he admitted that being the Treasury Officer it was his
duty to pass the bills under the provisions of Bihar Treasury Code
and; Bihar Financial Rules. On perusal of disputed bills which is
marked as Exts. 2 to 2/40 in this case it appears that the major heads
65
were not mentioned in the bill. Further allotment No. and amount
allotted is not mentioned in the bill. All the bills do not disclose about
the previous allotment balance. All columns of the bills were not
filled up which is mandatory under the Bihar Treasury Code. It also
appears that all bills were withdrawn on a particular date showing
allotment balance as Nil. It is not disputed that the D.D.Os. were
given power of withdrawal to the limit of Rs. 15,000/ per day for
R.D. and Rs. 5000/ per day for D.A.H.O. and this fact is
communicated to every treasury. Thus, it was duty of the treasury
officials to raise objections when such huge bills for withdrawal of
huge amount in splited forms are presented before them. Further I find
that in some of the bills which are Exts. 2 to 2/6 onward, a certificate
is appended by the D.D.O. suggesting that the bill amount is within 8
per cent of the annual provisions of the budget. But in the bills itself it
appears that withdrawal amount is much higher than 8 per cent as
certified by the D.D.O. which, in itself, is sufficient to raise objection
by the Treasury Officials, which they failed to do. I also find that
some of the invoices which are marked as Exts. 1/43 to 1/52, these do
not bear signatures certifying the receipt of the materials as disclosed
in the invoices and surprisingly these invoices were also passed by the
D.D.Os. as well as Treasury Officials which clearly goes to show that
these officials were in hand in gloves with each other and deliberately
did not raise any objection to which they are duty bound.
Learned lawyers for the accused Rakesh Kumar Sinha, Bal
Krishan Dubey and Bhanukar Dubey have submitted that Bihar
Financial Rule is not applicable to the Treasury which, in my opinion,
is not correct on a bare perusal of introductory portion in rule 1 of
66
Bihar Treasury Rule vol. 1 reveals that in the matter of
receipt, custody and disbursement of Government money, Bihar
Financial Rules are supplementary to the rules of Bihar Treasury
Rules. Rule 130 of the Bihar Treasury rule said that purchase order
should not be split up to avoid the interest for obtaining the sanction
of higher authority required with reference to the total amounts of
order.
“180(1) the bill, cheque or other documents presented as a claim
for money shall be received by the accountant and then laid before the
treasury officer, who, if the claim is admissible, the authority given
good, the signature and counter signatures were necessary, genuine
and in order and the receipt, a legal quittance, will sign the order for
payment at the foot of the bill etc. taking care to adopt the procedure
prescribed in clause (iii) of Rule 144. Careful attention must also not
be given to the instructions contained in these rules regarding the
complaint of bills, cheques etc. presented in support of claim against
the Govt. Rule 189 of the Bihar Treasury Code Vol. 1 reads: The
treasury officer has of satisfy not only for himself, but also for the
accountant general that the claim is valid; and is further to prove that
the payee has actually received the same charged. Careful attention
must, therefore, be given to the rules regarding the presentation of
bills, referred to in Rule 144. Treasury officer must have required
information as to the natural of every payment he is making and is
without excuse, if he accepts a bill which does not formally record
that information. Note 1A set of instruction for the guidance of
treasury officer is given in appendix (13). The list in appendix has
been completed for the convenience of the treasury official only. In a
67
treasury a clerk should be told as (a) a bill Scrutiny clerk whose
duty should specifically be to see that none of these defects existed in
the bill passed for payment in treasury. Defective bills should be
returned to the drawing officer for the amendment; if for any reasons
the defect cannot be removed, a written explanation must be
obtained.”
17. In view of the requirements as mentioned in the above said rules
the accused persons were duty bound to do thorough check of the bills
before passing them. It is not disputed by both the accused that they
were not party in passing those disputed bills. It has also come in the
evidence that financial power as DAHO –cum D.D.O. of AHD
department was Rs. 5000/per day. So it is very clear that treasury
officials knowing fully well about the financial limitation of the
D.D.O. passed the bills in cursory manner. On perusal of the
contingent bill it reveals that the bills were split up to avoid necessity
for obtaining sanction of higher authority which is utter violation of
Bihar Financial Rules. Moreover the treasury officials failed to raise
any objection which is apparent on the basis of it. Learned lawyer for
the accused Bal Krishna Dubey and Bhanukar Dubey tried to impress
upon me that if at some irregularity were committed in passing of the
bills it will be sole responsibility of the treasury officer who passed
those bills and none else. It is true that according to Bihar Treasury
Code, Treasury officer is the sole authority to pass a contingent bill
and his responsibility cannot be denied but merely fixing
responsibility on the Treasury officers, who passed the disputed bills
cannot absolve the responsibility of the Accountant and Scrutiny clerk
who was duty bound to check and verify each and every details in
68
accordance with Bihar Financial Rules and Bihar Treasury Code.
In the present case all the disputed bills were presented before the
Treasury Officer for passing the same by the accused Bal Krishna
Dubey and Bhanukar Dubey and after thorough verification and
putting their counter signatures implying therein that the bills are
defect free and in accordance with Bihar Financial Rules and Bihar
Treasury Code , as I have already discussed the provisions of the
Bihar Financial Rules and Bihar Treasury Code in the foregoing
paragraphs, it is apparent that there were glaring irregularity such as
split up bills beyond the prescribed limit of the D.D.O., allotment
amount is not mentioned, balance of allotment amount is not
mentioned etc. are clear cut examples where the accused persons
could have raised their objection before placing the same for passing
and in this bounden duty, the accused persons have completely failed.
In every government office it is a practice that Superior officers rely
upon their subordinates only particularly in accounting matters and
put their signature in good faith though it does not absolve the officers
from his responsibility In the light of the discussions made above I
find no merit in the submissions made by the learned lawyer for the
defence on this issue.
I further find that these three accused persons namely; Rakesh
Kumar Sinha , Bal Krishna Dubey and Bhanukar Dubey were also
charged u/s 13(i)(d)(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. In this
context it is pertinent to mention that P.W.1 Laxmi Kant Das has
categorically stated that he used to pay 3 per cent of the bill amount to
the treasury officials for passing the bills presented before Godda
Treasury. In crossexamination this witness has further clarified that
69
he used to pay the money as illegal gratification to accused
Bal Krishna Dubey. This witness was not even crossexamined by
accused Bal Krishna Dubey but the entire evidence remains un
rebutted on the point of payment of illegal gratification to the treasury
officials. I further find that accused Rajesh Kumar Sinha and Brajesh
Kumar Sinha , partners of M/s Tara Pharmaceuticals , Patna has paid
a sum of Rs. 20,000/ by cheque issued in favour of accused Rakesh
Kumar Sinha and the said cheque is proved in this case as Ext.
21/16.Accused Rakesh Kumar Sinha , who is the Treasury Officer at
the relevant period of Godda Treasury, and M/s Tara Pharmaceuticals
was the supplier whose bills were passed by accused Rakesh Kumar
Sinha . In this circumstance it is natural to believe that accused firm
M/s Tara Pharmaceuticals paid the aforesaid Rs. 20,000/ to accused
Rakesh Kumar Sinha as illegal gratification. No explanation
whatsoever is put forth by accused Rakesh Kumar Sinha in his
defence to deny this fact that a sum of Rs. 20,000/ was received by
him from M/s Tara Pharmaceuticals. In the light of the discussions
made above it is clear that the prosecution has able to prove all the
charges against accused Rakesh Kumar Sinha Bal Krishna Dubey and
Bhanukar Dubey beyond all shadow of reasonable doubts and
accordingly I hold them guilty .
18. Now let me discuss the penal provisions of law in respect of
which the prosecution has succeeded in bringing home the charge
against the accused persons in view of different sets of facts which
prosecution has succeeded in proving against each of the accused
persons as already indicated by me in the foregoing paragraphs of this
judgment.
70
The first offence is of criminal conspiracy punishable
u/s 120B I.P.C. The definition of criminal conspiracy as is applicable
in the facts and circumstances of the case is when two or more
persons agreed to do or cause to be done or any illegal act, such an
agreement is designated as criminal conspiracy. It will be appropriate
to refer to the settled principle of law regarding this. In Shv Narayan
Laxmi Narayan Joshi –vrs.State of Maharastra (A.I.R. 1980 SC, 439
at page 441) the Hon’ble Apex Court has the occasion to observe in
respect of an offence punishable u/s 120B i.e. it is not the law that
every conspirator must be present at every stage of conspiracy. If the
conspirator concerned has agreed to the common design and has not
resiled from the agreement, it can be presumed that he continued to be
party to the conspiracy. It is manifest that the conspiracy is always
hatched in secrecy and it is impossible to adduce direct evidence on
the same. The offence can be only proved largely from the inference
drawn from the acts or illegal omission committed by the Conspirator
in pursuance of the common design. Keeping in view the aforesaid
settled principle of law let me examine whether the prosecution has
succeeded in proving the conspiracy. As already held by me in the
foregoing paragraphs of this judgment prosecution has succeeded in
proving that the accused Braj Bhusan Prasad signed the 43 forged
allotment letters marked Exts 12/712/49 and basing upon the same
the accused Dr.O.P.Diwakar , being assisted by the accused Dr. Ajit
Kumar Sinha issued seven fake sub allotment letters to the office of
DAHO, AHD, Godda. Similarly thereafter, the accused suppliers of
this case raised bills and received payments without supply the entire
71
quantity of medicines mentioned in their respective bills facilitated
by the accused Ajit Kumar Sinha who falsified entries showing receipt
of entire medicines and accused Rakesh Kumar Sinha, Bal Krishna
Dubey and Bhanukar Dubey facilitated the withdrawal of the amount
by not raising any objection regarding the deficiencies in the bills
presented in the treasury for withdrawal of the amount of the bills.
They also ignored the wrong mentioning of the head of account in the
bills of DAHO,AHD, Godda. This fraudulent withdrawal of amount
from the Govt. Treasury without entirely supplying the medicines
could not have been possible, had any of these accused persons would
not have cooperated individually in any of the links of the series of
acts, the commission of which culminated in fraudulent withdrawal of
money from Godda.Treasury. So all these circumstances irresistibly
leads one prudent man to the only conclusion that these series of
occurrence involving several offences which will be discussed later
individually, happened, in pursuance of criminal conspiracy and I
have no hesitation in holding so. Now let me examine the offences
committed in pursuance of this criminal conspiracy. In furtherance of
a criminal conspiracy the offence of cheating and dishonestly
inducing delivery of property punishable /s 420 I.P.C. has been
committed, as in pursuance of criminal conspiracy the Govt. of Bihar
through Godda. Treasury was cheated and dishonestly induced in
delivering money to the accused suppliers though they have not
supplied the materials for which they raised bills. In pursuance of this
criminal conspiracy the offence of forgery of valuable security
punishable u/s 467 I.P.C. has also been committed as in pursuance of
this conspiracy the accused Braj Bhusan Prasad forged Exts12/7

72
12/49,fake allotment letters, which purports to be valuable
security. In pursuance of the criminal conspiracy the offence of
forgery for the purpose of cheating punishable u/s 468 I.P.C. has also
taken place as Exts12/712/49 and Exts1212/6 were forged with the
intent that the same shall be used for the purpose of cheating the Govt.
of Bihar by making unauthorized and illegal withdrawal from its
Godda Treasury. In pursuance of the criminal conspiracy the offence
of using a forged document as genuine punishable u/s 471 I.P.C. has
also been committed as Exts12/712/49 and were used Exts1212/6
as genuine document though the accused persons have knowledge and
reason to believe that the same was a forged document and in
pursuance of the criminal conspiracy the offence of falsifying the
accounts of employer punishable u/s 477A I.P.C. has also been taken
place. As the accused Braj Bhusan Prasad and Dr. O.P.Diwakar and
other accused persons have also made false entries in their employer’s
book. In view of the discussions made above I find and hold that the
accused persons namely Braj Bhusan Prasad, Dr. O.P.Diwakar, Dr.
Ajit Kumar Sinha Sushil Kumar, Tripurari Mohan Prasad, Rajesh
Kumar Sinha, Brajesh Kumar Sinha, Rakesh Kumar Sinha, Bal
Krishna Dubey, Bhanukar Dubey and Naresh Prasad guilty of the
offence punishable u/s 120B I.P.C. for each of them being party to a
conspiracy having committed offence punishable u/s 420,467,468,471
and 477A I.P.C. and convict each one of the accused persons for the
said offences.
19. Now let me discuss the penal offence for which each of these
accused persons can be held guilty individually and separately also
besides their being held guilty u/s120 B I.P.C as indicated above. The
73
accused Braj Bhusan Prasad by signing Exts12/712/49 cheated
the Govt. of Bihar and thereby dishonestly induced it to deliver
money to the accused suppliers so I hold the accused Braj Bhusan
Prasad guilty of the offence punishable u/s 420 I.P.C. individually
and separately also and he is convicted of the said offence. Accused
Braj Bhusan Prasad has forged Exts12/712/49 which purports to be
valuable security and for this individual action of the accused Braj
Bhusan Prasad I hold him guilty of the offence punishable u/s 467
I.P.C. and convict him of the said offence. The accused Braj Bhusan
Prasad committed the said forgery of Exts12/712/49 intending that
the documents shall be used for cheating hence I hold of the accused
Braj Bhusan Prasad guilty individually and separately also for the
offence punishable u/s 468 I.P.C. and convict him of the same
offence. Accused Braj Bhusan Prasad used the said forged Exts12/7
12/49 as genuine when he had knowledge of the same to be forged
one and because of this act of him I hold him individually guilty of the
offence punishable u/s 471 I.P.C. and convict him of the said offence.
Accused Braj Bhusan Prasad being a public servant by abusing his
position as a public servant has obtained for himself as well as for the
accused supplier pecuniary advantage and for this act of accused Braj
Bhusan Prasad I hold him guilty of the offence punishable u/s 13(2)
read with 13(1)(d)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and
convict him of the said offence.
20. As far as accused Dr. O.P.Diwakar is concerned, he has cheated
the Govt. of Bihar and thereby dishonestly induced it to deliver
money to the accused suppliers and for this act of Dr. O.P.Diwakar I
hold him individually and separately guilty of the offence punishable
74
u/s420 I.P.C. and convict him of the said offence. Accused Dr.
O.P.Diwakar has forged Exts1212/6 which purports to be valuable
security and for this individual action of the accused I hold him guilty
of the offence punishable u/s 467 I.P.C. and convict him of the said
offence. The accused Dr. O.P.Diwakar committed forgery of Exts12
12/6 intending that the documents shall be used for cheating hence I
hold of the accused Dr. O.P.Diwakar guilty individually and
separately also for the offence punishable u/s 468 I.P.C. and convict
him of the same offence. The accused Dr. O.P.Diwakar has also used
the Exts1212/6 as genuine even though he was knowing and also
has reason to believe that the same is forged and for this act of the
accused Dr. O.P.Diwakar I hold him guilty separately for the offence
punishable u/s 471 I.P.C. and convict him of the said offence.
Accused Dr. O.P.Diwakar being a public servant by abusing; his
position as a public servant obtained for himself and the accused
suppliers of medicines pecuniary advantage and for this act of him I
hold him guilty for the offence punishable u/s 13(2) read with 3(1) (d)
(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and convict him of the
said offence.
21. As far as accused Dr. Ajit Kumar Sinha is concerned, he has
cheated the Govt. of Bihar and thereby dishonestly induced it to
deliver money to the accused suppliers and for this act of Dr. Ajit
Kumar Sinha I hold him individually and separately guilty of the
offence punishable u/s420 I.P.C. and convict him of the said offence.
Accused Dr. Ajit Kumar Sinha has forged Exts1212/6 which
purports to be valuable security and also gave false certificate on the
275 fake invoices, for this individual action of the accused I hold him
75
guilty of the offence punishable u/s 467 I.P.C. and convict him of
the said offence. The accused Dr. Ajit Kumar Sinha committed
forgery of Exts1212/6 intending that the documents shall be used for
cheating hence I hold of the accused Dr. Ajit Kumar Sinha guilty
individually and separately also for the offence punishable u/s 468
I.P.C. and convict him of the same offence. The accused Dr. Ajit
Kumar Sinha has also used the Exts1212/6 and Ext 11/274 as
genuine even though he was knowing and also has reason to believe
that the same is forged and for this act of the accused Dr. Ajit Kumar
Sinha I hold him guilty separately for the offence punishable u/s 471
I.P.C. and convict him of the said offence. Accused Dr. Ajit Kumar
Sinha being a public servant by abusing; his position as a public
servant obtained for himself and the accused suppliers of medicines
pecuniary advantage and for this act of him I hold him guilty for the
offence punishable u/s 13(2) read with 3(1) (d) (ii) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988 and convict him of the said offence.
22. As far as accused Rakesh Kumar Sinha is concerned he cheated
Govt. of Bihar and thereby dishonestly induced it to delivery money
to the accused suppliers and for this act of accused Rakesh Kumar
Sinha. I hold him individually and separately guilty for the offence
punishable u/s 420 I.P.C. and convict him of the offence. The accused
Rakesh Kumar Sinha being a public servant by abusing his position as
public servant obtained for himself and accused suppliers of medicine
pecuniary advantage and for this act of him I hold him guilty for the
offence punishable u/s 13(2) read with 13(1)(d)(ii) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act and convict him of the said offence;. But as the
76
prosecution has not succeeded in proving that the accused Rakesh
Kumar Sinha individually and separately forged any document or use
any forged document or the prosecution can not prove that he
individually and separately falsified any account hence I hold that the
prosecution has not succeeded in bringing home the charge punishable
u/s 467,468 and 471,477A I.PC and individually and separately
against accused Rakesh Kumar Sinha, hence the individual and
separate charges punishable u/s 467/468 and 471/ 477A I.P.C. fails
against the accused Rakesh Kumar Sinha
23. The accused Bal Krishan Dubey has also cheated the
State of Bihar and dishonestly induced it to deliver money to accused
suppliers and for this individual acts of the accused Bal Krishan
Dubey I hold him gullty individually and separately also for the
The accused Bal Krishan Dubey being a public servant by abusing his
position as public servant obtained for himself the accused suppliers
pecuniary advantage and for this individual act of Bal Krishan Dubey
.I hold him guilty for the offence punishable u/s 13(2) read with
13(13) (1) (d) (ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act individually
and separately and convict him of the said offence. But I have no
hesitation in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove
individual and separate charges against him for foregoing any
document by him hence the individual charges for the offence
punishable u/s 467/ 468/471and 477A I.P.C. against the accused Bal
Krishan Dubey fails.
24. The accused Bhanukar Dubey has also cheated the State of
Bihar and dishonestly induced it to deliver money to accused

77
suppliers and for this individual acts of the accused Bhanukar
Dubey,I hold him guilty individually and separately also for the
The accused Bhanukar Dubey being a public servant by abusing his
position as public servant obtained for himself the accused suppliers
pecuniary advantage and for this individual act of Bhanukar Dubey .I
hold him guilty for the offence punishable u/s 13(2) read with 13(13)
(1) (d) (ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act individually and
separately and convict him of the said offence. But I have no
hesitation in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove
individual and separate charges against him for foregoing any
document by him hence the individual charges for the offence
punishable u/s 467/ 468/471and 477A I.P.C. against the accused
Bhanukar Dubey fails.
25. As far as the suppliers namely Sushil Kumar, Tripurari Mohan
Prasad,Rajesh Kumar Sinha, Brajesh Kumar Sinha and Naresh Prasad
are concerned, they all cheated the Govt. of Bihar and thereby induced
it to release money in their favour and for these individual acts of
theirs I hold each of them guilty individually and separately also for
the offence punishable u/s 420 I.P.C. and convict them for the said
offence. The prosecution has proved beyond all shadow of reasonable
doubts that the accused Sushil Kumar,Prop.M/s Samarpan
Enterprises,Patna and Tripurari Mohan Prasad, Prop. M/s Bihar
Surgico Medico Agency, Patna, Rajesh Kumar Sinha & Brajesh
Kumar Sinha,Partners of M/s Tara Pharmaceuticals, Naresh Prasad
Prop.M/s Vyapar Kuttir, Patna have made false invoices/bills in order
78
to defraud the Govt.with intention to causing wrongful loss to the
Govt. of Bihar and wrongful gain for themselves and they have used
the forged bills knowing fully well that those are forged documents. I
am of the opinion that the prosecution has proved the charges u/s
467/471 I.P.C. against the accused Sushil Kumar, Tripurari Mohan
Prasad, Rajesh Kumar Sinha, Brajesh Kumar Sinha and Naresh
Prasad, individually and separately.
26. In view of the discussions made above the accused Braj
Bhushan Prasad, O.P. Diwakar,Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sushil Kumar,
Tripurari Mohan Prasad Rajesh Kumar Sinha, Brajesh Kumar Sinha
and Naresh Prasad,Rakesh Kumar Sinha,Bal Krishan Dubey and
Bhanukar Dubey have been held guilty and convicted for the offence
punishable u/s 120B read with 420/467/468/471 I.P.C. The accused
Braj Bhushan Prasad is also held guilty individually and separately for
the offence punishable u/s 420 /467/468/471 I.P.C. as well as section
13(2) read with 13(1)(d)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and
convicted him of the said offence. The accused Dr. O.P. Diwakar and
Dr.Ajit Kumar Sinha are found guilty and convicted individually and
separately for the offence punishable u/s 420/467/468/471 I.P.C. as
well as section 13(2 ) read with 13(1)(d)(ii) Prevention of Corruption
Act. The accused Rakesh Kumar Sinha, Bal Krishan Dubey and
Bhanukar Dubey are also held guilty individually and separately for
offence punishable u/s 420 I.P.C. as well as section 13(2 ) read with
13(1)(d)(ii) Prevention of Corruption Act and are convicted
accordingly. Accused Sushil Kumar, Tripurari Mohan Prasad, Rajesh
Kumar Sinha, Brajesh Kumar Sinha and Naresh Prasad who were the
79
suppliers, are also held guilty individually and separately for
offence punishable u/s 420/457/471 I.P.C. and accordingly all of them
are convicted individually.
27. In view of the conviction of the accused persons namely; accused
Braj Bhushan Prasad, O.P. Diwakar,Ajit Kumar Sinha, Rajesh Kumar
Sinha, Brajesh Kumar Sinha and Naresh Prasad,Rakesh Kumar Sinha
and Bal Krishan Dubey who are on bail, their bail bonds are hereby
cancelled and they are taken into custody. So far convict, Bhanukar
Dubey, Sushil Kumar and Tripurari Mohan Prasad ,are concerned,
they are already in jail custody. I have already found and hold that the
prosecution failed to bring home the charges leveled against accused
Girish Kumar Sinha and Mahendra Prasad and as such they are
acquitted from all charges. Accused Girish Kumar Sinha and
Mahendra Prasad who is on bail, are discharged from their liabilities
of bail bonds. Put up this record for hearing on the point of sentence
with respect to the convicts namely, Braj Bhushan Prasad, O.P.
Diwakar,Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sushil Kumar, Tripurari Mohan Prasad
Rajesh Kumar Sinha, Brajesh Kumar Sinha and Naresh Prasad,Rakesh
Kumar Sinha,Bal Krishan Dubey and Bhanukar Dubey on 12/6/2007.
Pronounced in open Court on the 8th day of June, 2007.
Maoranjan Kavi
IIIrd Special Judge, C.B.I (AHD Scam cases), Ranchi
80
Dictated and corrected by me.
Manoranjan Kavi
Ranchi.
12/6/07: Record is put up today for hearing on the point of
sentence. Heard the learned Counsels for the convicts and Shri Shiv
Kumar, learned Special P.P. for the C.B.I. on the point of sentence.
On behalf of Braj Bhushan Prasad it is submitted that he is aged
about 70 years. He is ailing. His sons are unemployed and pension is
the only source of income for his family members and his wife is bed
ridden. Hence, lenient view may be taken in the matter of sentence.
On behalf of convict Sushil Kumar it is submitted that
he has remained in custody form 13.05.98 in this case. His family
member has also suffered mentally and physically because of his
remaining in custody. He is not a hard core criminal. Hence, a lenient
view may be taken in the matter of sentence. Similarly, it is submitted
on behalf of the convict Tripurari Mohan Prasad that he is in custody
since beginning and has suffered due to long protracted trial. His
entire family has ruined because of these cases though he is not a
hardcore criminal and as such lenient view may be taken. Learned

81
lawyer for these convicts have filled a petition u/s 427 Cr.P.C.
but the same is not pressed hence stands rejected as not pressed.
On behalf of convicts Bal Krishna Dubey and Bhanukar
Dubey, it is submitted that both are senior citizens aged about 60
years and above. There is no criminal antecedent against these
accused persons. It is further submitted considering the fact that the
involvement of this accused in this case is very minor in comparison
to other coconvicts and moreover, their role was only to scrutinize
the bills, presented for passing by the Treasury Officer, though the
Treasury Officer is also convicted in this case, the culpability of these
accused persons are only trivial in nature. Considering the facts and
circumstances, lenient view may be taken.
On behalf of convict Dr. Ajit Kumar Sinha it is submitted that he is
senior citizen and sole bread earner of his family and there is none to
look after his family in his house. The convict has suffered a lot due to
such long trial and the prosecution nowhere has proved that there was
any criminal antecedent on the part of the convict. Finally it is
submitted that considering the facts of this case lenient view may be
taken.
On behalf of the convict Dr. O.P. Diwakar it is
submitted that the convict has always cooperated with the prosecution
and has never misused the privilege of bail. It is also submitted that he
has been suffering from various aliment and presently one of his son
undergoing operation for his eyes and there is none to look after him
and as such lenient view may be taken.
On behalf of convict Naresh Prasad it is submitted that lenient view
may taken.
82
Learned Special P.P., on the other hand, has
vehemently argued and submitted that the offences for which the
convicts have been convicted are of serious nature. They managed to
forge fake allotment letters and siphoned out huge amount of money
from the State Exchequer hence they do not deserve any leniency. He
further submitted that in case convicts are ailing there are facilities for
their treatment in jail and it is settled principle of law that the period
undergone by the convict can be adjusted by the sentence awarded.
Hence, he submitted that no leniency be shown to the convicts in the
matter of sentence.
Keeping in view the rival submissions made and the
facts and circumstances of the case which resulted in withdrawal of
money from the government treasury to the tune of several lakhs and
this case is one among the chain of cases instituted against these
accused persons for cheating and defrauding the ex chequers to the
tune of carores in the popularly known Fodder Scam Cases. Some of
the accused has already been convicted by different courts for their
involvement in those cases. Thus, it will be proper to sentence the
convict Braj Bhushan Prasad, Tripurari Mohan Prasad, Sushil Kumar,
Bal Krishna Dubey, Bhanukar Dubey and Dr. Ajeet Kumar Sinha,
Dr.O.P Diwakar, Rakesh Kumar Sinha, Brajesh Kumar Sinha ,Rajesh
Kumar Sinha and Naresh Prasad to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for(4) four years and fine of Rs. 25,000/ and in default to undergo
simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable u/s
120B read with section 420/467/468/471/477A I.P.C.to each of the
convicts
83
The convict Braj Bhushan Prasad was individually
and separately held guilty for the offence u/s 420/467/468/471 I.P.C.
considering the fact that accused person was the public servant and he
was master mind in the entire transaction and has played main role
along with other accused convicts. Though the money involved is
meager in comparison to large number of cases instituted for alleged
defaulcation of public money in so called fodder Scam cases.
However, considering the age and health of the convict I sentence the
convict Braj Bhushan Prasad to undergo R.I. for four (4) years for
each of the offences on each count and he is also sentenced to pay a
fine of Rs. 50,000/ for each of the offences on each count. In default,
in the alternative, the convict is further sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for three months for each of the defaults. The convict
Braj Bhushan Prasad is also held guilty u/s 13 (i)(d)(ii) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act and as such the convict Braj Bhushan
Prasad is further sentenced to undergo R.I. for four years and to pay a
fine of Rs. 50,000/ and in default he is directed to undergo further
simple imprisonment of 3 months.
Convict Dr. Om Prakash Diwakar has played a pivotal
role in the entire scam .On the record it appears that this convict being
the responsible public servant in a higher rank misused his privilege
of being a public servant and connived with scammers to cheat and
defraud the exchequers. .However, considering the age and health of
the convict Dr. Om Prakash Diwakar, I sentence the convict Dr. Om
Prakash Diwakar to undergo R.I. for seven (7) years for each of the
offences on each count and he is also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.
100,000/ for each of the offences on each count. In default in the

84
alternative the convict Dr. Om Prakash Diwakar is further
sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for each
of the defaults. The convict is also held guilty u/s 13 (i)(d)(ii) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act and as such the convict Dr. Om Prakash
Diwakar is further sentenced to undergo R.I. for six (6) years and to
pay a fine of Rs. 100,000/ and in default he is directed to undergo
further simple imprisonment of 3 months.
So far convict Dr. Ajit Kumar Sinha is concerned, The
convict Dr. Ajit Kumar Sinha was individually and separately held
guilty for the offence u/s 420/467/468/471 I.P.C. Considering the fact
that accused person was the public servant and has played main role
along with other co convicts. Further I find the defence has brought
evidence on the record by DW that M/s Tara Pharmaceuticals was
owned by this convict Dr. Ajit Kumar Sinha. This fact that the convict
being the public servant started a fictitious firm in the name of his
sons in order to defraud the Govt. in violation of the Bihar Service
Code is in itself sufficient to take strong view against the convict.
However, considering the age and health of the convict Dr. Ajit
Kumar Sinha I sentence the convict Dr. Ajpt Kumar Sinha to undergo
R.I. for seven (7) years for each of the offences on each count and he
is also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100,000/ for each of the
offences on each count. In default in the alternative the convict is
further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months
for each of the defaults. The convict Dr. Ajit Kumar Sinha is also held
guilty u/s 13 (i)(d)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and as such
the convict Dr. Ajeet Kumar Sinha is further sentenced to undergo
85
R.I. for six (6) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/ and in default
he is directed to undergo further simple imprisonment of 3 months.
So far convict Rakesh Kuamr Sinha is concerned I am of
the opinion that not only he being the Treasury Officer, responsible
for passing the fake bill but also there is evidence on the record that
he received illegal gratification directly from accused firm M/s Tara
Pharmaceuticals , Patna. It is really unfortunate that a gazetted officer
entrusted with pious responsibility of safeguarding the interest of the
State and public at large has miserably failed in his duty for some
unholy reasons. Particularly, when there is evidence that this convict
receive illegal money directly form one the supplier M/s Tara
Pharmaceuticals. I, therefore, not inclined to take lenient view on the
point of sentence with regard to convict Rakesh Kumar Sinha and
accordingly he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
four years u/s 420 I.P.C. He is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.
1,00,000/ In default of payment of fine he is further directed to
undergo simple imprisonment for three months for each of the
defaults. I have also held convict Rakesh Kumar Sinha guilty u/s u/s
13 (i)(d)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and as such the
convict Rakesh Kumar Sinha is further sentenced to undergo R.I. for
four (4) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/ and in default he is
directed to undergo further simple imprisonment of 3 months.
Convicts Bal Krishna Dubey and Bhankar Dubey, both were
convicted u/s 120 B read with section 420/467/468/471 I.P.C.
However individually and separately they were also convicted for the
offence punishable u/s 420 I.P.C. and under section 13(d)(ii) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act both of the convicts are sentenced

86
individually to undergo R.I. for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.
50,000/ and in default to undergo further simple imprisonment of 3
months for each of the offences and on each count.
In this case five convicts namely; Sushil Kumar,
Tripurari Mohan Prasad, Rajesh Kumar Sinha, Brajesh Kumar Sinha
and Naresh Prasad were held guilty and these convicts were the
suppliers. Though all the five convicted suppliers were convicted u/s
420/467/471 I.P.C. individually but their respective wrongful gains
are different. In this case whereas Convict Sushil Kumar was held to
have made wrongful gain of Rs. 49,850/ and convict Tripurari
Mohan Prasad was held to have made wrongful gain of Rs. 65,000/
but the convicts Rajesh Kumar Sinha and Brajesh Kumar Sinha,
partners of M/s Tara Pharmaceuticals have made wrongful gain of Rs.
37,16,811/, Similarly , convicts Naresh Prasad had also made
wrongful gain of Rs. 4,87,900/.But it is clear ,that though the nature
of offence committed by each of the five suppliers are same but there
is difference on the point of wrongful gains of each suppliers
.Considering the fact that convict Sushil Kumar is responsible for
wrongful loss of the exchequer to the tune of Rs. 49,850/ only and
convict Tripurari Mohan Prasad is responsible for wrongful loss to the
exchequer to the tune of Rs. 65,000/ only which are very small
amount compared to responsibility of other suppliers. I, therefore,
sentence convict Sushil Kumar and Tripurari Mohan Prasad to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year u/s 420 I.P.C. and
rigorous imprisonment for three years u/s 467/471 I.P.C. for each
count individually .I also sentence each of the convicts Sushil Kumar
and Tripurari Mohan Prasad to a pay a fine of RS. 10,000/ and in
87
default of payment they are further directed to undergo simple
imprisonment for three months.
So far convict Brajesh Kumar Sinha is concerned I find
that at the time of occurrence the convict Brajesh Kumar Sinha was
approx.19 years of age and as such it appears natural that he might
have acted under the direction and guidance of his elder brother
Rajesh and father Ajit Kumar Sinha because of his tender age of
understanding. Thus I feel inclined to take lenient view in sentencing
this convict and accordingly I sentence him to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 3 years u/s 420/467/471 IPC on each count. But in
regards to the convict Rajesh Kumar Sinha , I am of the opinion that
he deserve no sympathy as he was mature enough to take decision of
his own and therefore ,I sentence him to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 5years u/s 420 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for 6
Years u/s 467/471 on each count. In addition the convict Rajesh
Kumar Sinha is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.50000/ for each of the
offences committed by him and in default of payment of fine, he is
directed to undergo further simple imprisonment for 3 months for
each defaults.
So far convict Naresh Prasad is concerned I feel that a
punishment of rigorous imprisonment for 4 years u/s 420/467/471 IPC
on each count will suffice. In addition the convict Naresh Prasad is
sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.50000/ for each of the offences
committed by him and in default of payment of fine, he is directed to
undergo further simple imprisonment for 3 months for each defaults.
All the sentences against all the convicts as directed
above shall run concurrently and the convicts are further entitled to
88
have set off for the period undergone by each of the convict
during pendency of the trial from the total sentences as awarded
against each of them.
(Manoranjan Kavi)
IIIrd Special Judge, C.B.I. (AHD Scam Cases)
R A N C H I
Dictated and corrected by me.
(Manoranjan Kavi)
Ranchi
89

Fodder Scam-Bihar Judgement

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fodder Scam-Bihar Judgement

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

District: Ranchi Dated, the 8th June, 2007

(Since deceased) Dr. Ajeet Kumar Sinha, Brajesh Kumar Sinha,

Dubey, Tripurari Mohan Prasad, Mahendra Prasad, Naresh Prasad,

11.03.96 passed in

2/96®,675/96®.and 687/96® and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of

Oct 95 the above referred accused person in connivance with each

Bihar to the extent of Rs 56,94,060/­ on the basis of fake and

fabricated allotment letters purportedly issued by the AHD Patna

that all the accused persons as aforesaid and others in conspiracy

fabricated allotment letters purportedly issued by the Animal

came into light. It is alleged that accused Om Prakash Diwakar

1994 to October, 1995 in pursuance of criminal conspiracy with

and officials of the Treasury , fraudulently and dishonestly by

misusing their official position as public servant obtained the

56, 94, 060/­ was withdrawn from Godda Treasury. It further

transpired that no such allotment was ever issued by the AH

other accused persons. It further transpired that one of the accused

the Director, AHD was in position to obtain the running dispatch

withdrew Rs. 56, 94,060/­ from the Godda Treasury. It further

discretion in the matter of scrutiny and clearing the bills of the

department which used to be put in the Treasury in splited form.

Enquiry, however, revealed that the officials/ staff of the treasury

that accused suppliers (accused no.s 11 to 16 as in F.I.R.) did not

fake invoices purportedly showing supply of the medicines thereby

facilitating fraudulent withdrawals in the name of supply of

medicines. The T.VO ( M) of the department Ajit Kumar Sinha

Das (as in the F.I.R. ) in connivance with the department was

of information disclose the commission of offence u/s

120B/420/467/468/471 and 511 I.P.C. and section 13(2) read with

13(1)(c) & (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against O.P.

L.K.Das , Accountant , Rakesh Kumar Singh, Treasury Officer,

,Godda, Brajbhushan Prasad, Budget –cum­Account Officer, Girish

Veterinary Enterprises, Tara Pharmaceuticals, M/S Seva Medical

Agency, M/s Bharti Enterprises, M/s Vyapar Kutri and others

unknown. Hence, this case was registered and investigation is

Kumar Sinha, Rakesh Kumar Sinha, Bal Krishna Dubey, Bhanukar

Kumar Sinha, Rakesh Kumar Sinha, Bal Krishna Dubey, Bhanukar

Kumar Sinha and Naresh Prasad and Sushil Kumar Jha, have been

aforesaid period from September, 1994 to October 1995 at Godda,

Dumka, Patna and other places in Bihar were party to a criminal

letters, creating false requisitions for issuance of allotment letters

creation of false/fake supply orders purchase orders creation and

55,55,966/­ were dishonestly and fraudulently withdrawn from the

Godda Treasury of Govt. of Bihar against 43 forged and fake

allotment letters and seven sub­allotment letters issued to DAHO,

false and fake supply/purchase orders, false and fake supply bills/

invoices having false certificate of receipt of materials, false

and other places of Bihar he cheated the Animal Husbandry

the State Public Exchequer to deliver to him a total sum of Rs.

Godda and dishonestly received the said amount without affecting

and at aforesaid places he forged a certain documents to wit bills

showing supply of medicines and thereby committed an offence

period and at aforesaid places he forged certain documents to wit

period and at the aforesaid places he fraudulently and dishonestly

that during the period of September to October, 1995 at Godda,

Dumka, Patna and other places in Bihar he cheated the Animal

Husbandry Department, Govt. of Bihar by dishonestly and

showing supply of medicines and that he thereby cokmmitt5ed an

to wit aforesaid bills showing supply of medicines intending that

time he used those to be forged documents and that he thereby

Govt. of Bihar by dishonestly and fraudulently inducing the State

that he thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 420 I.P.C.

forged certain documents to wit bills showing supply of medicines

Bihar to the extent of Rs 56,94,060/ on the basis of fake and

56, 94, 060/ was withdrawn from Godda Treasury. It further

withdrew Rs. 56, 94,060/ from the Godda Treasury. It further

,Godda, Brajbhushan Prasad, Budget –cumAccount Officer, Girish

55,55,966/ were dishonestly and fraudulently withdrawn from the

allotment letters and seven suballotment letters issued to DAHO,

37,16,811/ by submitting forged /fake and fabricated bills on the

servant obtained for himself and for other coaccused persons

55,55,966/ to him and coaccused persons , and which was the

to deliver a total sum of Rs. 55.55.966/ to him or to coaccused

false/fake supply of bills invoices of coaccused namely Tripurari

himself and other coaccused public servants pecuniary advantage

from the coaccused suppliers and others to the extent of Rs.

55,55,966/ through Godda Treasury , Govt. of Bihar and that he

or to coaccused persons and which was the property of Govt. of

coaccused persons pecuniary advantages to the extent of Rs.