JAGDISH SHARMA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application for bail has been filed by the sole petitioner, who has been made accused in Special Case No. 22/96 corresponding to R.C. No. 20 (A)/96-Patna for an offence under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477,477-A, 201 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(2.) The prosecution case, in short, is that pursuant to a direction of this Court dated 11-3-1996 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1642/96 and its analogous cases, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court in S.L.P. No. 5811 of 1996, the C.B.I. took up investigation of 47 cases, including the case lodged by Sadar Police Station, Chaibasa vide F.I.R. No. 12 of 19% dated 20-2-19% relating to fraudulent withdrawal of huge sum of Government money from the Government Treasury by the officials of the State Government and suppliers of Animal Husbandry Department. Apart from taking over investigation of those 47 cases, the C.B.I. also registered some new cases.

(3.) Though in the present case, initially the petitioner has not been named in the first information report but after investigation, Mr. A.K. Jha, Inspector of Police, .C.B.I. filed a petition before the Special Judge, C.B.I. Patna on 6-1-1997 alleging therein that the case, relates to fraudulent withdrawal of Rs. 35 crores and odd from Ghaibasa Treasury during the period 1994-95 by the officers named in the first information report. It had further transpired during the course of investigation that the present petitioner, who at the relevant time was the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee of the Bihar Legislative Assembly (hereinafter referred to as the 'PAC'), had.also connived and had collected figures of fraudulent withdrawal from the Treasury and had also assisted the accused persons so that the investigation could not be done in a proper manner. It was also found out that the petitioner also enjoyed the hospitability from the accused suppliers of the Department, who were named accused in the said case. It has further been alleged that the petitioner in his capacity of the Chairman of the PAC took over the enquiry of the alleged excess withdrawal from Chaibasa Treasury Animal Husbandry Department suo motu without any reference by the Speaker of the Assembly or the Government of Bihar and had seized the relevant records pertaining to the excess fraudulent withdrawal so that proper investigation could not be done and the accused persons could not be booked. During the investigation, it has also come to light that inspite of the fact that the petitioner was in know of the fact regarding the excess and fraudulent withdrawal from the Chaibasa Treasury but he neither took action to expose the same nor did he submit any report rather by abusing his position of Chairman of the PAC, he protected the accused officials and suppliers of the Animal Husbandry Department. The said act of the petitioner is said to have been done for a monetary gain of Rs. five lacs per month, which he was being paid by the suppliers-accused in the present case. It has also been alleged that the petitioner wrote a letter to the Chief Minister, Government of Bihar to give orders to the officials of the Vigilance Department and Finance Department to stop enquiry against the officials of Animal Husbandry Department till the completion of the enquiry and submission of report by the P.A.C. on the ground that the P.A.C. was enquiring into the matter relating to the financial irregularities of South Chhotanagpur and Ranchi. The said act was only for the purpose of fore-stalling any enquiry by the Vigilance Department against Dr. B.N. Sharma and other accused persons.