Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Mr. Sinha, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that it is true that earlier prayer of the petitioner for granting him pardon in R.C.No.54(A) of 1996 was rejected but the application has been filed for grant of pardon in the changed circumstances and as such, earlier decision passed by this Court and even by the Supreme Court would not be a bar to grant pardon to the petitioner.

In this regard it was pointed out that the petitioner has been made accused in as many as 13 cases and out of those cases, the petitioner had already been granted pardon in six cases before the prayer for pardon made in connection with R.C.No.54(A) of 1996 was rejected. But subsequently, in rest of six cases, pardon was granted and that the court having noticed, the evidence of the petitioner absolutely in consonance with the statement recorded under Section 306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, found the petitioner credible and trustworthy and that led to conviction of number of accused persons in R.C.No.5(A) of 2000, 24(A) of 1996, 50(A) of 1996, 51(A) of 1996, 47(A) of 1996 and 52(A) of 1996 and that the petitioner's statement has not only been used in the aforesaid cases but it is being used by the C.B.I in other cases being tried in Patna and Ranch and under this situation, the trial court should have granted pardon to the petitioner particularly when C.B.I by filing affidavit on 11.8.2006 and 11.11.2011 emphatically put before the court that it is only on the basis of disclosure made by this petitioner, the prosecution could be able to prove his case of conspiracy successfully in other fodder scam cases.

In this regard it was stated that statement made by this petitioner under Section 306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure pertains to modus operandi adopted by the politicians, bureaucrats, Officers of the AHD and the suppliers under which State exchequer was put to great loss.

He also revealed the manner in which the bogus invoices were prepared for fraudulent withdrawal from the treasury and has named the persons who shared the booty and as such, statement of this witness was the sheet anchor in all fodder scam cases.