- (1.) In these applications the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order passed by Special Judge CBI in special Case No.47/96 (arising out of R.C.Case No.47(A)/96), Special Case No.65/96 (arising out of R.C.Case No.64(A)/96), Special Case No.39/96 (arising out of R.C.Case No.38(A)/96) and Special Case No.68/96 (arising out of R.C.Case No.68(A)/96), whereby the prayer made by the petitioner for his discharge has been rejected.
(2.) The aforesaid cases were registered by the CBI relating to fraudulent withdrawal of money from different Districts "â„¢ Treasury of the united State of Bihar by different persons/public servants, suppliers and dealers. The petitioner is also named in the FIR.
(3.) Mr.M.S.Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, assailed the impugned orders as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned counsel firstly submitted that out of these cases sanction for prosecution was taken only in three cases but no sanction was obtained in respect of one case being R.C.Case No.64(A)/96. Hence framing of charge is wholly without jurisdiction. Learned counsel further drawn my attention to the comparative chart showing the allegation so far the petitioner is concerned and submitted that continuance of separate prosecution against the petitioner is violative of Article 20 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel further submitted that Special Judge has failed to exercise the jurisdiction in not amalgamating all the cases for trial.;