- (1.) HEARD learned Sr. counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I on the matter of bail.
(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant, former Chief Minister -cum -Finance Minister of the State of Bihar having been convicted for various offences under Sections 120B read with Sections 420,409, 467, 468, 471 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years for some of the offences on the allegation that the appellant having knowledge that the officials of the AHD Department are withdrawing money fraudulently from different treasuries on the basis of forged allotment letters for purchasing feed, fodder, medicine etc. but in fact, either it was not purchased or purchased but in short and that he gave protection/patronage to the officials of the AHD Department facilitating them to draw money from the treasury illegally and fraudulently and in lieu of that, the appellant not only received hefty money but also received hospitalities from them time to time but the prosecution has failed to establish any of the circumstances as aforesaid on the basis of which the order of conviction has been recorded. In this regard it was submitted that the C.B.I in order to prove the charge that the appellant received huge money from S.B. Sinha said to be the kingpin of the scam through R.K. Rana, co -convict has relied upon the evidences of the approvers P.W.195, R.K. Das, P.W.196 Dipesh Chandak and P.W.199, Dr. Shashi Kumar Singh, Veterinary Doctor. Of them, P.W. 196 and P.W.199 who have deposed that S.B. Sinha was very closed to the co -convict, R.K.Rana through whom this appellant used to receive money but both of them have admitted in their cross -examination that the payments had never been made to the appellant in their presence. P.W.199 has even gone to say that he had never met with this appellant and that whatever he has deposed about the money being received by this appellant, he has said so as he had heard about it. Thus, it was submitted that both the witnesses P.W.196 and P.W.199 are hearsay and their testimonies are not worth reliable at all and hence their testimonies to the effect, as stated above, are inadmissible in evidence.
(3.) IT was further submitted that so far P.W.195, R.K. Das is concerned, he is also an approver and has deposed that the appellant, Lalu Prasad Yadav and co -convict, R.K. Rana were in visiting term with S.B. Sinha and has claimed to have seen the appellant taking hefty money of Rs.5 lacs from S.B. Sinha but his evidence is not at all reliable for the reason that this witness was an accused in as many as 13 cases. After he was examined in this case, he was given pardon at the instance of the C.B.I and that for a considerable period, he was under custody of C.B.I during which he was tortured. In such event, it would be quite legitimate to draw conclusion that the C.B.I under the threat got the statement recorded. Moreover, the appellant was not aware about his earlier statement made under Section 161 as copy of the same was never given to the appellant, though to that effect an application has been filed for a direction to the C.B.I to furnish the copy of the statement made under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by him which prayer was resisted and ultimately copy of the statement was never given and in that event, a great prejudice has been caused to the appellant and thereby evidence of P.W.195 is not worth consideration so far this appellant is concerned.;