@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Deoki Nandan Prasad, J.@mdashIn this application the petitioner has prayed for issuance of an appropriate direction(s) or order (s) to the opposite party to transfer all cases of conspiracy and other act qua the petitioner and his alleged conspirators as alleged in the cases i.e. RC 20(A)/96 (Special Case No. 22/96), RC 68(A)/96 (Special Case No. 68/96), RC.64(A)/96 (Special Case No. 65/96), RC 38/AJ/96 (Special Case No. 39/96) and C. 47(A)/96 (Special Case No. 50/96) in one Court and further for a direction of framing charges jointly for fair and speedy trial of the aforesaid cases.
2. The petitioner is a former Chief Minister of the erstwhile State of Bihar and an Ex-M.P. of Rajya Sabha and was also the Leader of the Opposition of the Bihar Lagislative Assembly at the relevant time and he has been made accused in the said Animal Husbandry Department (AHD) cases and charged for committing criminal misconduct.
3. The material allegation qua the petitioner in all the charge sheets is same and similar. The allegation as made out against the petitioner can be divided into six heads, the details of which are given below :-
(a) Recommendation for enquiry by the regional Development Commissioner.
(b) Recommendation for enquiry only against the Members of the Central Purchase Committee.
(c) Acting on recommending of Shri Laloo Prasad Yadav and promoted Dr. Ram Raj Ram.
(d) Recommendation for extension of service of Dr. S. B. Sinha.
(e) Received payments.
(f) Recommendation for telephone connection to daughter-in-law of an accused.
4. It is further stated that the report was already submitted u/s 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ''the Code'') on 5-12-2001 in RC. 42(A)/96 (Special Case No. 43/96) before the learned Special Judge, C.B.I. (A.H.D.), Patna with a prayer by the Investigating Officer to close the case as the aforesaid six cases have been registered and charge sheets have been filed which also proved that RC.42(A)/96 was the principal case and the other six cases are the offshoots of this case treasury wise. All these cases falling under conspiracy are similar but it has been filed separately only to harass the accused persons along with this petitioner. At the point of framing charge in R.C. 64.(A)/96 (Special Case No. 65/96), petitions were filed by some of the accused persons before the learned Special Judge. C.B.I., Patna praying therein that the alleged occurrence of both the cases i.e. R.C. 20(A)/96 and RC 64(A)/96 were part of the same transaction and, as such, both the cases should be tried jointly but the said prayer was rejected by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Patna which was challenged before the Patna High Court in Cr. Misc. No. 25483 of 1999 which was disposed of by order dated 25-4-2000 diecting the trial Court to consider the matter afresh. It is further stated that all the cases already investigated and in respect of which, charge sheets have been filed as well as all other cases which are still under investigation are concerning one and the same conspiracy and, therefore, all the cases of the said single conspiracy should be put in one and the same Court for cognizance, framing of charges and trial, if at all required as well as it will also be in the interest of justice and it will result in smooth and speedy trial if all the cases are tried together in one court and therefore, all the cases as against the petitioner resulting to conspiracy be transferred in one Court.
5. Mr. Tara Kant Jha, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner confined his argument only in regard to transfer of cases of conspiracy as against the petitioner and submitted that as many as five special cases are pending in the Special Courts as against the petitioner for committing criminal conspiracy and those cases are pending in different Courts of the Special Judge, whereas the allegation in all the said cases are of similar and same nature as regards to conspiracy and, therefore, all the cases of the petitioner along with other co-conspirators may be transferred to one Court so that the trial of all the cases be expedited fairly and speedily. It is also submitted that a single conspiracy does not split up into several conspiracies merely because it is found spread over different areas or different consequential or ancillary offences are committed at different point of time rather it remains one and the same offence and therefore in the interest of justice, it would be pertinent to get all the cases be tried together in one Court. It is further argued that the allegation of conspiracy against the petitioner in R.C. 20(A)/96 related to only one transaction and the involvement of the petitioner, therefore, cannot be said to to repeated in every alleged withdrawal nor can there be innumerable conspiracies so as to match with every alleged withdrawal. Thus the prosecution cannot be allowed to multiply the conspiracies and get the petitioner involved in every withdrawal and, therefore, such a course is apparently repugnant to the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence as well as two cases RC 64(A)/96 (Special Case No. 65 of 1996) and RC.38 (A)/96 (Special Case No. 39/96) are pending before the learned Special Judge, C.B.I, at Dumka. In such circumstances, all the cases relating to the petitioner may be transferred to one Court of the Special Judge, Ranchi. the learned counsel for the petitioner placed his reliance on the decision of
6. On the other hand, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the C.B.I, contended before me that as many as thirty-six cases relating to fodder scam have been transferred to the State of Jharkhand as per the decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court as they are relating to the occurrence taken place in the different districts of the State of Jharkhand and thereafter the State Government with a view to convenient for the accused persons as well as for speedy and fair trial, as many as six special Courts have been created specifically for trying the cases of fodder scam which are functioning at one place at Ranchi. It is further submitted that the Court of Special Judge created at Dumka has now been transferred at Ranchi and the said Special Court is also functioning at Ranchi as well as all the cases relating to the occurrence of Dumka Division have been transferred to the Court of the said Special Judge and all the Special Courts functioning at Ranchi are busy in day to day proceeding of the said cases and for the speedy disposal of those cases six Courts of Special Judge have been created so that all the cases relating to fodder scam may be disposed of as quickly as possible. It is also submitted that the petitioner ought to have moved such petition before the Special Court itself if any grievance the petitioner had but without availing this opportunity, this application has been filed which is fit to be dismissed. The learned counsel further contend that as many as 94 witnesses have already been examined in R.C. 20 (A)/96 and the trial of the case is in progress on the day to day basis will hamper the whole trial if such cases will be transferred in one Court and that is a delaying tactics on the part of the petitioner to scuttle in speedy disposal of the cases.
7. Before appreciating the submission of the learned counsel, it will be pertinent to refer Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which gives power to the High Court about transfer of the cases which reads as under :-
407. Power of High Court to transfer cases and appeals.-
(1) Whenever it is made to appear to the High Court.
(a) that a fair and impartial inquiry or trial cannot be had in any criminal Court subordinate thereof.
(b) that some question of law of unusual difficulty is likely to arise, or
(c) that an order under this Section is required by any provision of this Code, or will tend to the general convenience of the parties or witnesses, or is expedient for the ends of justice.
It may order -
(i)...
(ii) that any particular case or appeal, or class of cases or appeals, be transferred from a criminal Court subordinate to its authority to any other such Criminal Court of equal or superior jurisdiction;
...
(2)...
Provided that no application shall lie to the High Court for transferring a case from one Criminal Court to another criminal Court in the same Sessions Division, unless an application for such transfer has been made to the Sessions Judge and rejected by him.
8. It is true that the petitioner has also been charged for committing offences under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') Section 3 of the Act reads as under:-
3. Power to appoint Special Judges - (1) The Central Government or the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint as many Special Judges as may be necessary for such area or areas or for such case or the following offences, namely.
(a) any offence punishable under this Act; and
(b) any conspiracy to commit or any attempt to commit or any abetment of any of the offences specified in Clause (a),
(2) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Special Judge under this Act unless he is or has been a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge or an Assistant Sessions Judge under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).
9. Thus it is apparent that the State Government may by notification in the Official Gazette appoint as many as Special Judges as may be necessary for such area or areas or for such case or group of cases, as may be specified in the notification to try the said cases. The Special Judge is also entitled to exercise all the powers of the Sessions Judge as provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure in relation to a proceeding under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Provision of Sub-section (4) of Section 4 and Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act sufficiently indicate the intention of the Legislature and also the object of the Act that the cases of Corruption shall be tried speedily and completed as soon as possible and the Special Judge will hold the trial of an offence on day to day basis. Altogether 36 cases of Fodder Scam have been transferred to the State of Jharkhand for trial and for speedy disposal of those cases, the State Government appointed six Special Judges for trying those cases at one place at Ranchi for the trial of Fodder Scam cases. It may also be noted that the Special Judge functioning at Duinka has also been transferred to Ranchi and all the cases pending at Dumka have been transferred to the Court of the Special Judge at Ranchi having jurisdiction of Dumka Division and the cases of other district relating to Fodder Scam have equally been transferred in the Courts of rest five Special Judges which are functioning at one place at Ranchi. The distribution of work relating to 36 Fodder Scam Cases will also help the Court in disposal of these cases very expeditiously. In order to achieve the object of speedy disposal of Corruption Cases, it is essential to distribute the cases equally in every Special Court. In one of the cases (RC. 20(A)/96), 94 witnesses have already been examined and the trial is going on day to day basis. There is no any grievance against any of the Special Courts. A mere allegation that the petitioner would not get quick justice by keeping those cases in different Courts, cannot be taken in account in view of the fact that all the cases are taking tried at one place at Ranchi and the court will also function smoothly if it is not overburdened or cumbersome rather the Court shall dispose of those cases expeditiously by taking proper and effective attentions.
10. The facts of the decision in the case of
11. It is also pertinent to note that several accused persons are charge-sheeted in each of the said cases and it is to be seen that those accused persons would not be prejudicially affected. Moreover all the Special Courts are already functioning smoothly and fairly as well as there is no grievance as against any of the Special Courts, the question of transferring only those cases in one Court does not arise as such action may cause prejudice to other accused persons. It will be prime duty of the Court concerned to dispose of the cases of corruption by taking effective attention on day to day basis as enunciated under Sub-section (4) of Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which reads as under :-
4. Cases triable by Special Judges.-
...
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), a Special Judge, shall as far as practicable, hold the trial of an offence on day-to-day basis.
12. For the aforementioned reasons, I do not find any merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed.
