- (1.) By invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court entire criminal proceedings of two cases, R.C. case no.20(A) of 1996 and R.C case no.68(A) of 1996 have been sought to be quashed on the ground that the prosecution in those cases would be barred by Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as the petitioner has already been convicted for the similar offence in R.C. case no.51(A) of 1996.
(2.) The facts leading to filing of this case are that in the year 1996 when it was detected that officials and staffs of Animal Husbandry Department in connivance with other accused persons including high ups in the administration have been facilitating withdrawal of money from different treasuries of the erstwhile State of Bihar fraudulently putting State exchequer to a great loss, 64 cases known as Fodder Scam cases were instituted at different places of the State of Bihar. Out of those cases, three cases giving rise to R.C. case no.20(A) of 1996, R.C case no.68(A) of 1996 and R.C case no.51(A) of 1996 which were concerned with fraudulent withdrawal from Chaibasa Treasury were registered under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477, 477A, 201, 511 read with Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The period for which the aforesaid three cases were registered are as follows: 1.R.C. case no.68(A) of 1996 - for the period from 10.4.1992 to 31.3.1993 2.R.C.case no.51(A) of 1996 for the period from 1.4.1993 to 31.1.1994 3. R. C. case no.20(A) of 1996 for the period from 1.4.1994 to 31.1.1995
(3.) In all the aforesaid three cases, the petitioner had never been made named accused in the first information report. However, after investigation of the case, charge sheets were submitted against the petitioner in all three cases imputing charges common in nature that the petitioner while was posted as Deputy Commissioner, Chaibasa was required to manage affairs of the treasury but he never inspected the treasury as required under the Treasury Code and that despite his knowledge of excess fraudulent withdrawal made by co-accused Dr.B.N.Sharma from Chaibasa Treasury, the petitioner did not exercise control over the Treasury to stop misappropriation of the Government fund rather he conspired with other accused and facilitated illegal withdrawal by abusing his position and also by receiving undue pecuniary benefit of one laptop and two printers from the officials and suppliers of the Animal Husbandry Department with only difference that he facilitated fraudulent withdrawals of Rs.38,94,29,433/- from Chaibasa Teasury during the period 1.4.1993 to 31.3.1994, subject matter of R.C. case no. 51(A) of 1996, Rs.37,07,39,743/- for the period 1994-95, subject matter of R.C. case no.20(A) of 1996 and further Rs.37,62,79,883/- during the period 1992-93 subject matter of R.C.case no.68(A) of 1996.;