Jharkhand High Court
Lalu Prasad Alias Lalu Prasad Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Cbi on 14 November, 2014
Author: R.R.Prasad
Bench: R.R.Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. M.P. No. 1811 of 2014
Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav........................ Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand through C.B.I....... Opp. Party
......
Coram: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.R.Prasad
......
For the petitioner : Mr. Rajenpra Pd. Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Advocate
For the C.B.I. : Md. Mokhtar Khan, Advocate
......
ORDER
C.A.V. On 19/09/2014 Delivered on 14/11/2014
07/ 14.11.2014By invoking inherent power of this Court, entire criminal proceedings of R.C. Case No. 64(A)/1996, is being sought to be quashed on the ground that the prosecution, in the said case would be barred by Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the petitioner, on the similar allegations in which the ingredients were the same as that of the present case, has been convicted in R.C. Case No. 20(A)/1996.
2. The facts, leading to the filing of this case, are that in the year 1996, when it was detected that the Officials and Staff 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 and putting the State exchequer to a great loss fraudulently, 64 cases, known as Fodder Scam Cases, were instituted at different places of the State of Bihar. After bifurcation of the State, most of the cases including the aforesaid two cases, i.e. R.C. Case No. 20(A)/1996 and R.C. Case No. 64(A)/1996, were transferred to the State of Jharkhand. The aforesaid two cases relating to fraudulent withdrawal from Chaibasa and Deoghar Treasuries, have been 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. The period for which the aforesaid two cases were registered is being shown herein below:-
(a) R.C. Case No. 20(A)/1996- for the period from 01/04/ 1994 to 31/01/1995, relates to Chaibasa Treasury.
(b) R.C. Case No. 64(A)/1996- for the period from 1990- 1994 relates to Deoghar Treasury.
3. The aforesaid two cases were lodged on the allegation that the accused persons-officials and staff of the the Department of Animal Husbandry, Bihar, in connivance with the suppliers did illegal acts by creating forged allotment letters, false supply orders and the bills, upon which false certificate of receiving the materials were given, and then false contingent bills were drawn and even the falsification of the documents were made and on the basis of which huge money to the extent of Rs. 37,70,39,743/- was withdrawn from Chaibasa Treasury, whereas a sum of Rs. 89,27,164.15/- was withdrawn from Deoghar Treasury, which was beyond allocation of the fund, knowledge of which was there to high officials including the petitioner, who, during 1990-1994 was the Member of Parliament, Finance Minister and the Chief Minister of the State of Bihar, but they did not do anything purposely to facilitate the other co-accused to withdraw the money fraudulently and not only that they did certain acts to protect them so that they may not be prosecuted.
After investigation, charge sheets were submitted in both the aforesaid cases against the accused persons including the petitioner, who was not the FIR named accused. Upon cognizance being taken, charges were framed in R.C. Case No. 20(A)/1996, under Section 120B read with Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, whereas charges were framed in R.C. Case No. 64(A)/1996, under Section 120B read with Sections 409, 418, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A, 201 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
4. To be more elaborate, the charges, which were framed in R.C. Case No. 20(A)/1996, against the petitioner and other accused persons are that during the period between 1988 to 1996 at Chaibasa, Patna, Ranchi, Bhagalpur and other places are that all the accused persons, in conspiracy with each other, did act illegally whereby false allotment letters, supply orders, bills upon which false certificate of receiving the materials were created, and then false contingent bills were prepared on the basis of which a sum of Rs. 37,70,39,743/- was withdrawn illegally from Chaibasa Treasury. Those acts were done by the AHD Officials in connivance with the suppliers after getting protection from the high ups including petitioner, who, during the period was the Finance Minister and the Chief Minister of the State of Bihar.
Further the petitioner was charged with the accusation that while holding the aforesaid posts, the petitioner, who had knowledge of illegal withdrawal, did not do anything to check it, rather the petitioner extended the services and promoted the AHD Officias, who had indulged themselves in the said nefarious activities and in this manner he had had close nexus with the AHD Officials, who, in conspiracy with the suppliers did draw the money illegally from the Chaibasa Treasury and in lieu of that the petitioner was paid money by S.B.Sinha, the King-pin of the Scam and also received hospitality from other scamesters.
5. Similar charges were framed in R.C. Case No. 64(A)/1996, with only difference with respect to period, the amount which was drawn fraudulently and the place of the Treasury, which in this case was Deoghar Treasury.
6. After the charges were framed, the petitioner and other accused persons were put on trial in R.C. Case No. 20 (A)/1996, wherein the petitioner was found guilty of the charges levelled against him and accordingly was convicted and sentenced. The Court did find the petitioner guilty for the reason that the petitioner while functioning as Finance Minister and the Chief Minister though had knowledge of illegal withdrawal being made under the forged allotment letters by AHD Officials, did not do any thing to check that as the petitioner had nexus with those AHD Officials to whom the petitioner not only gave protection rather extended the services of some of them and in lieu of that he was paid illegally by S.B.Sinha, the King- pin of the Scam and apart from it the petitioner did receive hospitality from them and, thereby, it was concluded that the petitioner was in conspiracy with the AHD Officials and also the other accused persons and on account of that the State was put to huge loss.
7. To be more specific, the Court in arriving at to the conclusion that the petitioner was one of the conspirator, placed reliance on four categories of the circumstances/evidences:-
(A) The petitioner having knowledge of illegal withdrawal being made from the treasury beyond the allocation of the funds did not do anything to check the malady;
(B) He had had close nexus with the persons, who had indulged themselves in the said illegal activities of withdrawing the money from the Treasuries fraudulently; and (C) The benefits extended to the official of AHD Department who were involved in the illegal activities of withdrawing money fraudulently.
(D) The petitioner had received hospitality from the scamesters.
(A) So far as the first circumstance regarding knowledge of the illegal withdrawal is concerned, the Court has relied upon the following facts:-
(i) The petitioner being the Finance Minister had had knowledge of CAG report, reporting therein about the excess withdrawal in crores for the financial years 1988-89, 89-90, 90-91, 91-92, 92-93, 93-94 and 1994-95, which withdrawal had been made on the basis of fake allotment letters and bills submitted by the suppliers but he did not do anything suggesting his connivance with the AHD Officials and the suppliers.
(ii) Report of the 10th Finance Commission showing a great difference in between allocation of fund and actual expenditure for the financial years 1990-91 and 1992-93, was placed before the petitioner, but he did not take any action.
(iii) Mr. Ram Jivan Singh, the then AHD Minister had given a note on 18/08/1990 highlighting about the scam and demanded for CBI inquiry, but the petitioner at the instance of Jagannath Mishra, the then Chief Minister, who was also the party to the conspiracy, entrusted inquiry to the Regional Development Commissioner.
(iv) It had been brought to the notice of the petitioner that payments were made for transportation of live stocks on the vehicles, which, on inquiry, were found to be Cars and Scooters and, thereby it was proved to be a case of fraudulent payment, but it was ignored by the petitioner by taking a plea that wrong registration number has been mentioned.
(v) In the year 1991, the then M.L.C. Kripa Nath Pathak and Shatrughan Pd. Singh had raise question about the AHD Scam upon which assurance was given that suitable action would be taken but instead of referring the matter to the CBI, the petitioner passed an order for awaiting report of the PAC (Public Account Committee).
(vi) In between July 1992 to October 1992, Shesh Muni Ram had issued fake allotment letters of Rs. 50 lakhs. Some of it was handed over to the petitioner, who directed for vigilance inquiry (Vig. Case No. 23/1994), but, when it was brought to the notice of the petitioner that relevant records have been seized by the PAC, vigilance investigation was stopped on 04/07/1994.
(vii) On 08/07/1993, one of the Members of the Assembly Mr. S.K.Modi had raised a question on the Floor of the House that despite the ban, which had been imposed, Rs. 1200 crores had been withdrawn, but no step was taken for checking excess withdrawal.
(viii) On 06/03/1993, the DAHO B.N.Sharma had withdrawn a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs in one day against the allotment of RS. 4 lakhs.
When this fact was brought to the notice of the petitioner, a meeting was convened on 07/06/1993, but instead of taking any action, the petitioner had stayed the transfer order of said B.N.Sharma.
(ix) Through calling attention motion, the matter relating to fraudulent withdrawal was raised on 18/03/1991, upon which a false assurance was given for holding inquiry by the Public Account Committee.
(x) When corrupt practices of Shesh Muni Ram had been brought to the notice of the petitioner, one Jagdish Sharma, co-convicts, wrote a letter to the petitioner that no other inquiry be held as the PAC is holding inquiry. The petitioner accepted that proposal.
(xi) A question was raised in the House on 19/07/1988 with respect to fraudulent withdrawal by AHD Officials including S.B.Sinha, vigilance case was instituted vide B.S Case No. 20/1991, but that was closed by the petitioner on 31/12/1994.
(B) The matter relating to the association of the petitioner with the AHD Officials and others, who were parties to the conspiracy:-
(I) Dr. R.K.Rana one of the co-convicts and the King-pin of the Scam S.B.Sinha (since dead), were the local guardian of the daughter of the petitioner.
(II) The petitioner had also association with co-convict Md. Sayeed, a supplier and also with Dayanand Kashyap a co-convict, who was made Vice President of the 20 Point Programme.
(C) The benefit extended to the Officials of the AHD Department, who had indulged themselves in the matter relating to fraudulent withdrawal:-
(a) Extension of services was given to Dr. S.B.Sinha on 31/12/1994 in spite of objection being raised by the Finance Department and that too without approval of the Cabinet.
(b) Extension of services of R.K.Das was given on 28/02/1994 for one year on the recommendation of the co-convicts Jagdish Sharma.
(c) Took the cause of Dr. Ram Raj Ram, by the petitioner while the petitioner was M.P., who was under threat of being removed from the post of Additional Director, AHD.
(d) Cancelled the transfer order of Dr. B.N.Sharma, who had been alleged to have withdrawn Rs. 50.54 lakhs without there being allotment.
(D) Hospitality extended to the petitioner by the suppliers and the AHD Officials and payment of money to the petitioner:-
(i) A supplier had arranged Air tickets for the petitioner and family members worth Rs. 44,000/-.
(ii) Dr. S.B.Sinha, the King-pin of the scam paid a sum of Rs. 1 crore to the petitioner through R.K.Rana in the year 1992.
(iii) In January 1993 S.B.Sinha paid Rs. 1 crore to the petitioner, which had been collected from the supplier Vijay Mallick.
(iv) In the year 1988-89 Rs. 5 lakhs had been paid to the petitioner.
8. On the said materials the petitioner was convicted and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment.
9. Since the petitioner has been convicted in the aforesaid case, this application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of R.C. Case No. 64A/1996, on the ground that any prosecution for the same offence is barred under Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
10. Mr. Rajendra Pd. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that on the same charges upon which the petitioner has already been convicted in R.C. Case No. 20A/1996, the petitioner is being prosecuted in R.C.Case No. 64A/996, which is not permissible under the principal of 'autrefois convict and autrefois acquit', under which one cannot be prosecuted on the same set of facts if he has already been convicted or acquitted by the Court of competent jurisdiction.
Learned senior counsel in order to buttress his stand by referring to the materials appearing against the petitioner as recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. , in both the cases, did point out that whatever incriminating materials had been used against the petitioner for his conviction, the same has been placed in this case (R.C.Case No. 64A/1996) for prosecuting the petitioner.
Further, by referring even to the charges framed in both the cases, did point out that exactly the similar is the charge in this case, which was there in R.C. Case No. 20A/1996 though the period, the amount and the treasury is different, but that is not going to make any difference as the ingredients upon which the petitioner is being sought to be prosecuted in R.C. Case No. 64A/1996, is the same which was there in R.C. Case No. 20A/1996. Further it was pointed out that tough the instant prosecution relates to illegal withdrawal of the amount from Deoghar Treasury, but nowhere it is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner was paid money out of the amount, which had been withdrawn from Deoghar Treasury, rather the same amount of bribery, which was there in R.C.Case No. 20A/1996, is being utilized in this case for prosecuting the petitioner and, therefore, the prosecution of the petitioner in this case, i.e. R.C. Case No. 64A/1996 is hit by the provisions as contained in Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
11. It was pointed out that this Court in the cases of "Sajal Chakraborty- versus- State of Jharkhand through S.P., CBI, Ranchi [W.P. (Cr.) 152 of 2011]", "Sripati Narayan Dubey- versus- State of Jharkhand through S.P., CBI [W.P.(Cr.)183 of 2008]" as well as in the case of "Dr. Jagannath Mishra-versus- State of Jharkhand through Superintendent of Police, CBI, Ranchi [W.P.(Cr.) 305 of 2013]" has quashed the proceeding of other case when on the same charges the petitioners of those cases had been convicted in one of the cases.
12. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the CBI submits that notwithstanding the fact that the charges are the same but since the period, during which illegal withdrawal was made, is different and even the Treasuries are different and also the amount of defalcation, the parties and suppliers, who are being prosecuted, are different, and, hence, question of prosecution of the petitioner in this case, i.e. R.C. Case No. 64A/196, being hit by Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, does not arise.
Further it was submitted that since the offences alleged are with respect to different financial year for different transaction, for different fake allotment letters, different fake supply orders, different falsification of books, it cannot be said that the charges are the same and similar and, thereby, the principle of 'autrefois convict and autrefois acquit' as enshrined under Section 300 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure would not be applicable.
In this regard, it was pointed out that So far as R.C. Case No. 20A/1996 is concerned, in that case one Dr. B.N.Sharma had been alleged to have withdrawn a sum of Rs. 37.30 crores from Chaibasa Treasury during the period 1994-95 on the basis of 78 fake allotment letters, whereas in the instant case one Dr. Shesh Muni Ram had issued 17 fake sub allotment letters worth Rs. 97 lakhs, to Dr. Vinay Kumar the then DAHO, Deoghar in between November, 1991 to August, who in turn had made fraudulent withdrawal of Rs. 84.53 lakhs from Deoghar Treasury during 1991-94. Further it was pointed out that so far the instant case is concerned, Dr. Shesh Muni Ram issued fake sub allotment letters to Sahebganj , Godda and Dumka on the basis of 10 fake allotment letters. Again it was pointed out that in R.C. Case No. 20A/1996, one of the allegation was that B.B.Prasad, the then Budget and Account Officer, AHD Headquarter, Patna on the instructions of Dr. Ram Raj Ram, the then Director AHD had issued genuine allotment letters to Dr. B.N.Sharma, DAHO, Chaibasa of Rs. 4.07 crores during the period 1994-95. But, here in the instant case genuine allotment letter of Rs. 4,73,400/- was issued to DAHO, Deoghar for the period 1991 and 1994.
13. By referring to those facts, it was submitted that the accusation/charges cannot be said to be the same and, hence, the plea, which has been taken on behalf of the petitioner of case being hit by the provisions of Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not tenable.
14. Further, it was submitted that the principle would also not be applicable particularly in this case as the cases have been lodged as per the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, passed in a case reported in "[(2003) 1 SCC 786]" at different places from where money had been withdrawn from the Treasuries. This case relates to Deoghar Treasury, whereas R.C. Case No. 20A/1996 was related to Chaibasa Treasury and, as such, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. It was also submitted that in one of the similar type of cases, i.e. in the case of "R.K.Rana @ Rabindra Kumar Rana-versus- State of Jharkhand through CBI [W.P.(Cr.) No. 226 of 2011]", this Court had rejected the prayer of quashing of the other cases.
15. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the charge sheet of both the cases, judgment passed in R.C. Case No. 20A/1996 and also from the order framing charges in both the cases, it appears that the petitioner was put on trial in bot the cases on the charges that the accused persons Officials and Staffs of the Department of Animal Husbandry, Bihar, in connivance with the suppliers did illegal acts and created forged allotment letters, supply orders and the bills upon which false certificate of receiving the materials were given on the basis of which false contingent bills were drawn and even falsification of the documents were made upon which huge money was withdrawn from Deoghar and Chaibasa Treasuries and those withdrawal from both the treasuries were much much more than the actual allotment. The amount and the period of withdrawal is different but from the materials, which were taken to be incriminating as recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in both the cases, it appears that the allegations in both the cases are the same and similar. I have already indicated earlier about the materials which have been used against the petitioner for showing the petitioner being party to the conspiracy. Same materials are being sought to be utilized in this case, i.e. R.C. Case No. 64A/1996, which is evident from the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in R.C. Case No. 20A/1996.
16. Since, I have already indicated above, it need not be repeated in detail, rather in brief it can be stated that for establishing the point of conspiracy on the part of this petitioner, the same materials, which have been described herein above in detail, which were the subject matter of prosecution of the petitioner in R.C. Case No. 20A/1996, are being sought to be utilized against the petitioner in this case, i.e. R.C. Case No. 64A/1996. Similar is the situation with respect to fact relating to close association with the scamesters and the hospitality received from them and also with respect to factum of bribe being made to the petitioner.
17. It would be worthwhile to state here that the submissions, which had been advanced on behalf of the CBI is that since the amount of defalcation/misappropriation and the period of charge and also the Treaury as well as forged letters under which the amount had been withdrawn are different, the case would never fall within the mischief of the provision as contained in Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
18. At this stage, I am reminded of the well known maxim of nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa, which postulates the well established law that no one should be put on peril twice for the same offence. The fundamental right guaranteed under Article 20(2) of the Constitution has its roots in the said maxim. The said Article embodies protection against the second trial and conviction for the same offence.
19. At the same time, I may refer to provision as contained in Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which does stipulate that no man should be vexed for more than one trial arising out of identical act committed by him when an offence has already been subject to judicial adjudication, whether it ended in conviction or acquittal. The said provision reads as follows:-
"300. Person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for the same offence (1) A person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made under sub-section (1) of Section 221 or for which he might have been convicted under sub-section (2) thereof."
20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had occasion to examine the scope of the clause "same offence" appearing in Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in a case of "State of Bombay- versus- S.L.Apte (AIR SC 1961
578)" where the appellant had challenged his prosecution when he was sought to be prosecuted for the offence under Section 105 of the Insurance Act, after the appellant was convicted under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering the ingredients constituting those offences was pleased to hold that they are not sought to be punished for the same offence twice but for two distinct offences constituted or made up of different ingredients and therefore, the bar of Article 20(2) of the Constitution or Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 was not applicable. However, the Court while coming to that conclusion, was pleased to observe in paragraph 13 which is as follows:-
"13. To operate as a bar the second prosecution and the consequential punishment thereunder, must be for 'the same offence'. The crucial requirement therefore for attracting the article is that the offences are the same i.e. they should be identical. If, however, the two offences are distinct, then notwithstanding that the allegations of facts in the two complaints might be substantially similar, the benefit o the ban cannot be invoked. It is, therefore, necessary to analyse and compare not the allegations in the two complaints but the ingredients of the two offences and see whether their identity is made out."
Again in paragraph 16 it was observed as follows:-
"16. the emphasis is not on the facts alleged in the two complaints but rather on the ingredients which constitute the two offences with which a person is charged."
21. Thus, what emerges out is that to ascertain whether two offences are the same or not test would not be the identity of the allegations but the identity of the ingredients of the offences.
Subsequently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of "Monica Bedi- versus- State of Andhra Pradesh [(2011) 1 SCC 284]" was pleased to hold as under:-
"It is thus clear that same facts may give rise to different prosecution and punishment and in such an event the protection afforded by Article 20(2) is not available. It is settled law that person can be prosecuted and punished more than once even on substantially same facts provided the ingredients of both the offences are totally different and they did not form the same offence."
22. Further, Their Lordships by placing reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States was pleased to hold that test of identity of offences is whether the same evidence is required to sustain them; if not, then the fact that both charges relate to and grow out of one transaction does not make a single offence where two are defined by the statutes.
23. Here in the instant case, the question which has cropped up is not that the same facts constitute two different offences under different statutes, rather the question is as to whether the ingredients of the offences for which the petitioner was tried and convicted and the offence for which he is being prosecuted in the case, which has given rise to this case, are the same or totally different and further whether the same evidence is required to sustain the charges of the later case (R.C. Case No. 64A/1996).
24. It has already been noticed from the charge sheets, orders framing charges, the judgment passed in R.C. Case No. 20A/1996 and the incriminating materials appearing against the petitioner as recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in both the cases, the ingredients of the offences for which the petitioner is being prosecuted in subsequent case, is the same.
25. It be noted that the amount said to have been fraudulently or illegally drawn is different in both the cases. Even the Treasury and forged allotment letters are different but it hardly makes any difference so far as the case of this petitioner is concerned as the petitioner is being sought to be prosecuted and has been prosecuted in earlier case on the allegation that the petitioner had given protection to AHD Officials and that in spite of misdeeds of AHD Officials came to the knowledge, the petitioner did not do anything, rather they were rewarded by giving extension of services or staying the transfer order and to prove the charges same evidences are being used in the instant case, I.e R.C. Case No. 64A/1996, which had been used in R.C. Case No. 20A/1996, which is evident from the statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure showing incriminating materials which have come in the evidences in both the cases to be the same. In other words, it be stated that the evidences, which were led by the prosecution to prove the ingredients of offences as indicated avove by putting them category wise ABCD, are the same which are being sought to be used to prove the ingredients in R.C. Case No. 64A/1996. It never happens to be the case of the prosecution that it was the petitioner who did any act for commission of the offence of forgery nor it is the case of the prosecution that the amount, which has been alleged to have been paid to the petitioner in the case which is being tried as R.C. Case No. 64A/1996, is different than the amount, which was the subject matter of trial of R.C. Case No. 20A/1996, nor it is the case of the CBI that the amount paid to he petitioner by the co-accused in a case giving rise to R.C.Case No. 64A/1996 is different and had been drawn from Deoghar Treasury.
26. Thus, the ingredients of the charges, which determine the issue as to whether the charges are the same or not, are absolutely the same upon which the petitioner has been tried earlier and in that event, period of charge being different, amount withdrawn fraudulently being different, the Treasury being different, hardly matters.
So far as the decision rendered in the case of "R.K.Rana @ Rabindra Kumar Rana" (supra) is concerned, the Court had come to the conclusion that though the facts of different cases were overlapping to each other but the ingredients of the allegations were some what different. In that situation, it was held that the case is not hit by the provision of the Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But, here in the instant case as I have repeatedly said that the ingredients are the same, the prosecution of the petitioner in this case, i.e. R.C. Case No. 64A/1996, cannot be allowed to be proceeded so far as the offences under Sections 120B read with Section 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477, 477A of the Indian Penal Code and also the offence under Section 13(1)(c)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, is concerned as it is hit by Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
19. So far the trial for the offence under Section 201 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, it will go on as the petitioner in earlier case, i.e. R.C. Case No. 20A/1996, had never been charged with those two offences.
With the aforesaid observations, this application stands allowed but in part.
(R.R.Prasad, J) Mukund/cp.3