By invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court entire criminal Proceedings of six cases, R.C No. 20(A) of 1996, R.C No. 33(A) of 1996, R.C No. 38(A) of 1996, R.C No. 47(A) of 1996, R.C No. 64(A) of 1996 and R.C No. 68(A) of 1996 have been sought to be quashed on account of the prosecution of the petitioner in those cases is hit by Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as the petitioner has already been convicted on similar charges in R.C No. 22(A) of 1996.

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 facilitated withdrawal of money fraudulently from different Treasuries of the erstwhile State of Bihar putting State exchequer to a great loss, 64 cases known as Fodder Scam cases were instituted at different places of the erstwhile State of Bihar. Out of those cases, seven cases as e.g R.C No. 33(A) of 1996, R.C No. 38(A) of 1996, R.C No. 47(A) of 1996, R.C No. 64(A) of 1996, R.C No. 68(A) of 1996, R.C No. 20(A) of 1996 and R.C No. 22(A) of 1996 relate to fraudulent withdrawal from Godda, Dumka, Doranda, Deoghar and Chaibasa Treasuries. Those cases were registered under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477, 477A, 201, 511 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In one of the cases, i.e, in R.C No. 22(A) of 1996, the petitioner has been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act on the charges being proved that the appellant being member of the Legislative Assembly had close association with the then Chief Minister and taking advantage of that position, the appellant extended patronage to the high officials of the Department of Animal Husbandry and also the suppliers and thereby he received Rs. 50 crore from them and facilitated the suppliers to draw money fraudulently from Godda Treasury without supplying medicine or material to the Department.

According to the petitioner, on the same charges the petitioner has been put to trial in following six cases. These cases relate to illegal withdrawal from Godda, Deoghar, Doranda, Dumka and Chaibasa Treasuries and the period during which illegal withdrawal was made is as follows:

1. R.C No. 38(A) of 1996 -- for the period 1995 relates to Chaibasa Trasury

2. R.C No. 33(A) of 1996 -- for the period from November, 95 to January, 1996 relates to Godda Treasury

3. R.C No. 47(A) of 1996 -- for the period from 1990-91 to 1995-96 relates to Doranda Treasury

4. R.C No. 64(A) of 1996 - for the period from 1995-96 relates to Deoghar Treasury

5. R.C No. 20(A) of 1996 - for the period from 1994-95 relates to Chaibasa Treasury

6. R.C No. 68(A) of 1996 -- for the period from 1992-93 relates to Chaibasa Treasury

In all those cases, charge sheets were submitted against the petitioner by imputing charges that this petitioner had had close nexus with the then Chief Minister Lalu Prasad and taking advantage of that he patronized/protected S.B Sinha, kingpin of the scam and other co-accused and thereby facilitated withdrawal of Government money fraudulently from different Treasuries and in lieu of that, he received illegal gratification for himself as well as other co-accused, Lalu Prasad, the then Chief Minister. The withdrawal of huge money was shown to have been made for making payment to the suppliers for supply of materials such as medicine fodder etc. but in fact, materials were either not supplied or supplied but not in full.

Upon submission of the charge sheet the petitioner along with other co-accused were put on trial in the aforesaid six cases and also in R.C No. 22(A) of 1996. In R.C No. 22(A) of 1996 on the charges that the petitioner was closely associated with the scamster from whom he received pecuniary benefit for himself and for others including Lalu Prasad and acted as conduit between the scamster and the then Chief Minister Lalu Prasad and that for extending patronage to the officials of the Animal Husbandry Department and also the suppliers, he received not less than Rs. 50 crores. The charges on being proved, the petitioner was convicted in R.C No. 22(A) of 1996. On being convicted, an appeal has been preferred before this Court which has been numbered as Cr. App. No. 738 of 2009.

According to the petitioner, the petitioner has been put on trial in the aforesaid six cases on more or less similar charges. In such situation, since the petitioner has been convicted in one of the cases, this application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of other six cases on the ground that prosecution of the petitioner in other six cases on similar charge is illegal being hit by Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Mr. B.P Pandey, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been convicted in R.C No. 22(A) of 1996 which case was related to illegal withdrawal of money from Godda Treasury for the period from January, 1992 to June, 1992 but the court went on beyond that period to take into account the event showing acts of conspiracy from 1984 to 1996 and came to conclusion that this petitioner had had very close nexus with Dr. S.B Sinha, Dr. K.M Prasad and other scamstar and also with Lalu Prasad Yadav and also recorded that for patronizing and protecting the scamster, he received gratification for himself as well as Lalu Prasad Yadav and that apart, he accepted hospitalities extended by the suppliers and also by S.B Sinha, kingpin of the scamster. The court in order to come to conclusion that this petitioner had close nexus with Lalu Prasad and also with the kingpin of the scamsters had taken into account several incidences, evidences of which were led by the prosecution. More or less on similar charges, the petitioner is being prosecuted in other six cases which is prohibited in terms of the provision as contained in Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In other words, it can be said that the petitioner is being prosecuted in violation of the provision as contained in Section 300 read with Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India.

In this regard it was further submitted that it has never been the case of the prosecution that the petitioner was instrumental in any manner in withdrawing money from any of the treasuries, though it is the case that the money which had been withdrawn from different treasuries was paid to this petitioner either for himself or for Lalu Prasad Yadav but the prosecution has never come forward with the case even to show remotely that the amount withdrawn from a particular treasury was paid to the petitioner as illegal gratification.

In such eventualities, when the petitioner has been convicted in one of the cases on the charge of receiving illegal gratification either for himself or for Lalu Prasad for extending patronage to the other accused persons including suppliers and also upon establishing that there was close nexus between this petitioner and Lalu Prasad and also S.B Sinha, any further prosecution in other cases almost on the same charges is not only violative of the provision as contained in Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but it has also violative of the provision of the Constitution and therefore, any further prosecution of the petitioner in other cases is quite bad in view of the decision rendered in a case of Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat (2012 Cr.L.J 2432). Therefore, the proceeding of those cases as against the petitioner is fit to be set aside.

Mr. Khan, learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I submitted that when it was noticed that lacs and lacs of money is being withdrawn from different treasuries fraudulently, cases were registered treasury wise and therefore, any conspiracy made with respect to withdrawal of money from different treasuries is different from each other and in such situation, one can never say that charges are the same, though some instances showing conspiracy among the accused person may be the same. In that event, charges on which the petitioner has been put to trial in the aforesaid cases can never be said to be the same and as such, the petitioner cannot take advantage of the provision as contained in Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, particularly when the petitioner had obtained undue pecuniary advantage from the beneficiaries of the crime proceed in different cases in lieu of patronage provided them as and when required.

Having heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I and on perusal of the record, it is quite evident that six cases lodged against the petitioner and others related to withdrawal of money from different treasuries such as, Godda, Doranda, Dumka, Deoghar, Chaibasa which relate to different period wherein charges more or less are that this petitioner having nexus with Lalu Prasad and S.B Sinha received illegal gratification either for himself or for Lalu Prasad for giving patronage to the officials of the Animal Husbandry Department and also suppliers who without supplying the materials to the Department, did withdraw the amount which he was not entitled to get and thereby State exchequer was put to loss in lacs and lacs but the period of charges seems to be somewhat different and even the ingredient seems to be some what different from the ingredient of the charge upon which the petitioner was convicted in one of the cases e.g in R.C.33(A) of 1996 which relates to illegal withdrawal of the amount from Godda Treasury, one of the charges is that some blankets were purchased in the name of DAHO for distribution to the employees of Animal Husbandry Department but those blankets were made over to the petitioner by one of the co-accused whereas in R.C No. 38(A) of 1996 the petitioner has been charged to have accepted hospitalities from the suppliers, Dr. A.K Verma M/s. Little OAK Pharmaceutical and Dinesh Chandak. Similarly, in R.C No. 47(A) of 1996 it has been alleged that the petitioner received huge amount from the accused suppliers to distribute it to the bureaucrats, politicians and also for himself whereas it has been alleged in R.C No. 64(A) of 1996 which relates to the period from 1991-93 that he enjoyed hospitalities of the accused suppliers M/s. Little OAK Pharmaceutical. Likewise in R.C No. 68(A) of 1996 which relates to the period from 1988-96, he has again been charged for accepting hospitalities from accused suppliers and that he received gratification for himself as well as for Lalu Prasad from the Animal Husbandry Department Scamstar.

Thus, one can notice that the petitioner has been charged in those cases to have received illegal gratification during which period money was drawn fraudulently from different Treasuries whereas the period relating to the charge subject matter of R.C No. 22(A) of 1996 in which the petitioner has been convicted is from January, 1992 to June, 1992, though according to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the court while convicting the petitioner did go beyond that period to get the charge established of conspiracy but the fact remains that in the said case period of charge relates to January, 1992 to June, 1992.

Further stand of the petitioner is that though the cases in which the petitioner has been put to trial relate to different period as well as different treasuries from which withdrawal is said to have been made fraudulently but the prosecution has not come forward with the specific case that the amount which has been withdrawn from a particular treasury has been paid to the petitioner but this fact cannot be ascertained at this stage without looking to evidences adduced in those cases.

Under the circumstances, it be stated that certainly there appears to be overlapping of some of the facts in these cases but in view of the fact that the period of charge relates to the different period and pertains to different treasuries, ingredients of the offences alleged can be said to be different.

Here, it would be pertinent to refer to a case of Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat (supra) wherein their Lordships have observed as follows:

“In view of the above, the law is well settled that in order to attract the provisions of Article 20(2) of the constitution i.e, doctrine of autrefois acquit or Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or Section 71 of the Indian Penal Code or Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, ingredients of the offences in the earlier case as well as in the latter case must be the same and not different. The test of ascertain whether the two offences are the same is not identity of the allegations but the identity of the ingredients of the offence. Motive for committing offence cannot be termed as ingredients of offences to determine the issue. The plea of autrefois acquit is not proved unless it is shown that the judgment of acquittal in the previous charge necessarily involves an acquittal of the latter charge.

In this respect, I may refer to another decision rendered in a case of Maqbool Hussain v. State Of Bombay, (AIR 1953 SC 325) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold:

“That the fundamental right which is guaranteed under Article 20(2) enunciates the principle of “autrefois convict” or “double jeopardy” i.e, a person must not be put in peril twice for the same offence. The doctrine is based on the ancient maxim “nemo debet bis punire pro uno delicto”, that is to say that no one ought to be twice punished for one offence. The plea of “autrefois convict” or “autrefois acquit” avers that the person has been previously convicted or acquitted on a charge for the same offence as that in respect of which he is arraigned. The test is whether the former offence and the offence now charged have the same ingredients in the sense that the facts constituting the one are sufficient to justify a conviction of the other and not that the facts relied on by the prosecution are the same in the two trials.

As I have stated earlier that facts in all these cases seem to have been overlapping to each other but the ingredients as mentioned above seems to be some what different. In that situation, I am constrained to hold that the cases are not hit by the provision of Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Accordingly, this application stands dismissed.