R.R.PRASAD, J. - (1.) ALL the aforesaid cases were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order as all the aforesaid cases arise out of the same impugned order and the question involved in all the cases is the same as to whether the trail court is justified in summoning the petitioner under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to face the trial along with other accused persons already facing trial.
(2.) BEFORE coming to the matter which has given rise all the aforesaid cases some back grounds of the case more so fodder scam cases needs to be stated as it may have some bearing upon the question involved in all these cases. When large number of defalcation of public funds, fraudulent transaction and falsification of accounts, to the tune of around Rs. 500 crore in the Animal Husbandry Department in the State of Bihar came to light several Public Interest Litigations were filed in the High Court of Judicature at Patna and at its Ranchi Bench in the year 1996 by which time some of the cases had been lodged at some districts. Taking the gravity of the matter, Patna High Court directed the CBI to investigate those cases where there has been excess drawal in the department of Animal Husbandry and also to register the cases for fraudulent withdrawal of the public fund and the Court directed the first information reports already registered for the said offences to be kept in abeyance. However, the said order passed by the Patna High Court was modified by Honble the Supreme Court to the extent that all those cases instituted by the district police were directed to be taken over by the CBI for its investigation under the control and supervision of the Patna High Court. Accordingly, CBI took over the matter of investigation and also lodged number of cases and the CBI seems to have divided the cases in two categories, one being of larger conspiracy involving politicians and top bureaucrats; and the other being cases of conspiracy involving district officials, the suppliers, Treasury officers etc. Treasury wise. However, in the meantime, Bihar reorganization Act came into being and than the controversy arose as to whether cases would be enquired/tried in the State of Jharkhand or State of Bihar. However, that was resolved by the Honble Supreme Court whereby 36 cases were directed to be enquired into or tried within the territory of Jharkhand State including the present one which relates to Dumka Treasury. When the trail of those cases said to be of larger conspiracy bearing Nos. R.C.20A of 1996(PAT), R.C.64A of 1996 (PAT), R.C.38A of 1996 (PAT), R.C.68A of 1996 (PAT), R.C. 47A of 1996 (PAT) and R.C.63A of 1996 (PAT), all related to fraudulent withdrawal but of different Treasuries were being tried separately, an application was filed before the Honble Supreme Court by the petitioner Lalu Prasad Yadav and Dr. Jagannath Mishra for amalgamation of those trials but the prayer was refused resultantly the trials of the cases are going on separately. On amongst them one case i.e, R.C.38A of 1996 which is a case of larger conspiracy is related to Dumka Treasury and the instant case which has given rise these applications is also concerned with the Dumka Treasury. It be pointed out that the present case was initially instituted on 22.2.1996 under Sections 109, 120B, 409, 478, 471, 477A of the Indian Penal Code and also Section 13(1)(c)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act as Dumka (Town) P.S. case No. 21 of 1996 alleging therein that the then district Animal Husbandry Officer Dr. Shiv Narayan in conspiracy with other accused persons (suppliers) has withdrawn a sum of Rs. 94,84,211/ - illegally through false and forged bills. However, subsequently CBI took over the investigation of that case and got it registered as R.C. No. 39A of 1996 on 11.4.1996. The CBI having investigated the case submitted charge sheet on 30.9.2000 against 45 accused persons named therein. In course of time, trial commenced in May, 2004 and by 15 th September, 2007 the prosecution after examining 100 witnesses closed the case and then the statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, before that one Mahendra Prasad, who was facing trial as an accused filed an application on 3.2.2007 stating therein that he intends to confess his guilt and on that application his case was separated from the main case. After the statement under Section 281 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded his statement under Section 313 was also recorded and them he was convicted and sentenced on 3 rd/4 th April, 2007. Thereafter on his application, praying therein to allow him to examine as defense witness in favour of his father and wife who are also facing the trial, was allowed to be examined as defense witness No. 1 (D.W.1). Thereafter other 9 defense witnesses wore examined and at that stage the court passed the impugned order dated 15.9.2007 whereby the court suo moto on the basis of evidences appearing on the record summoned the petitioners as well as other accused persons under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to face trial along with other accused persons.
(3.) BEING aggrieved with that order, all the applications as aforesaid have been filed.;