Fooder scam Judgement given by Sri G. K. Singh Spl. Judge VII CBI ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

58to February 1992. Ext. 18/2, Ext. 18/3, Ext. 18/4 and Ext. 18/5 all arePayment Schedule Register of different periods.It appears from perusal of Ext. 3 series, referred above, that no anycertificate was given by the D.D.Os regarding receiving of materials orgoods but in spite of that the Bills have been passed. It also appears that allthe Bills passed for more than Rs. 5,000=00 of amount in one day. This wasalso beyond financial power of D.D.Os., as referred in Ext. 15/31. But thisfact was not scrutinized and without any objection Bills were passed underconspiracy.18. In respect of accused S.N. Jha he was an Executive Magistrate,Sahebganj. He was not a permanent Treasury Officer of Sahebganj. Ondifferent dates by the order of the Deputy Commissioner he was functioningas In-Charge Treasury Officer. According to prosecution he has dischargedhis duty as Treasury Officer on 4.3.1992, 7.3.1992, 24.3.92, 17.8.1994 and22.11.1995. During this period he cleared payment of 26 Bills of AHDSuppliers. The Bills were passed without raising any objection about theallotment though it was unusually high. He passed as many as 11 vouchersinvolving Rs. 4,00,000=00 in a single day on 7.3.1992. That without properchecking the false Bills have been passed. From prosecution side Ext. 3/74,Ext. 3/90, Ext. 3/94 to 3/101; Ext. 3/103 to 3/106, Ext. 3/111 to 3/117; Ext.3/123; Ext. 3/130; Ext. 3/131; Ext. 3/134 and Ext. 3/140 were passed by thisTreasury Officer in spite of many discrepancies were apparent on the Bills.The Bills were passed beyond the financial power of District AnimalHusbandry Officer, Sahebganj of Rs. 5,000=00 per day. The Sanction orderagainst this accused is Ext. 28/1.According to the Ext. 15/31 the financial power of District AnimalHusbandry Officer was limited for Rs. 5,000=00 per day but this financiallimitation has been totally ignored in passing the Bill by the Treasuryofficer.P.W. 36 is Ram Nath Prasad, Typist in the Law Department. In para-3 and 4 he proved Sanction Order i.e. Ext. 28 and 28/1.P.W. 42 Dilip Kumar Shah he proved Ext. 28/3 i.e. Sanction Order ofthe Deputy Commissioner in respect of employees of Treasury Office,Sahebganj.P.W. 38 Manohar Ram also stated about the Sanction Order Ext. 28/3.
59P.W. 4 Satya Sadhan Chatterjee is a retired Accountant of SahebganjTreasury. He proved the Payment Schedule Register i.e. Ext. 16. Thewithdrawal extract for the year 1983-84 to 1995-96 is Ext. 16. The otherPayment Schedule Registers are Ext. 18, Ext. 18/1, Ext. 18/2, Ext. 18/3, Ext.18.4 and Ext. 18/5.The defence Ext.’F’ is order of Departmental Proceeding which wasstarted against accused S.N. Jha and he was exonerated from the charge ofDepartmental Proceeding. Ext. 5 is Government order on Ext. F. Ext. H isorder of the Hon’ble Court passed in Cr.W.C.C. No. 631 of 2008. Ext. I iscertified copy of deposition of P.W. 59 of R.C. No. 46(A)/96 and Ext. J andJ/1 are copies of Ext. B and B/1 of R.C. 47(A)/96.It is important to mention here that Departmental Proceeding is quite adifferent thing and it cannot demolish the criminal proceeding against theaccused. The criminal conspiracy was not the subject matter of theDepartmental Proceeding.19. In respect of accused Alok Kumar Gupta. According to theprosecution case while functioning as Accountant, Sahebganj Treasuryduring 1991 to 1996 he processed all the Bills of AHD Suppliers involved inthis case without raising any question about the allotment, though it wasunusually high. He processed as many as six (6) vouchers involving Rs. 4.5lakhs on a single day which is 6.7.1991. Fifteen (15) vouchers involved Rs.7,00,000=00 in a single day which is 2.3.1992. Eleven (11) vouchersinvolved Rs.4,00,000=00 in a single day i.e. 7.3.1992. Twenty-five (25)vouchers involving lakhs of rupees on the single day i.e. 14.4.1992. Hecleared payment of Bills bearing T.V. No. 30 dated 6.7.1991, T.V. NO. 81dated 20.7.1991 and T.V. No. 82 dated 20.7.1991, which did not mention ofthe details classification. For these irregularities these Bills deserve to besent back to the D.D.Os. for clarification. He blindly passed the bills. Fromperusal of Ext. 3 to Ext. 3/136, it appears that a number of discrepancies andview was apparent on Bills but in spite of that Bills were presented beforethe Treasury Officer for passing of it and for withdrawals of amount. FromExt. 15/31, it is well apparent that the financial power of the District AnimalHusbandry Officer as D.D.Os was Rs. 5,000=00 per day. But lakhs ofrupees were passed in one day beyond financial power of D.D.Os. TheSanction Order is Ext. 28/3 against this accused.
Page 1 and 2:
District-Ranchi Dated Ranchi the da
Page 3 and 4:
324. Smt. Chanchala Sinha,Proprieto
Page 5 and 6:
5(i) Accused Braj Bhushan Prasad st
Page 7 and 8: 7nineteen) during the years 1990-91
Page 9 and 10: 9Godda and dishonestly received the
Page 11 and 12: 11Husbandry Office, Godda and disho
Page 13 and 14: 13then becomes the responsibility o
Page 15 and 16: 15to the first hand information of
Page 17 and 18: 1702. 1991-92 Rs.1,55,000=00 Rs.42,
Page 19 and 20: 19P.W. 18 Ramji Rai, Retired Inspec
Page 21 and 22: 21P.W. 82 Bhola Nath Choudhury, Emp
Page 23 and 24: 232/376 to 2/396 PW3 Voucher(21) an
Page 25 and 26: 252/1130 Patna2/1131 to2/11392/1140
Page 27 and 28: 273/28 PW3 Bill No. 334(C)/91-923/2
Page 29 and 30: 293/106 PW3 Bill No. 132(C)/95-963/
Page 31 and 32: 3113/2 PW3DAHO, SahabganjApproved R
Page 33 and 34: 3315/65 PW9015/66 to 15/74 PW9015/7
Page 35 and 36: 3525/7 to 25/8 PW20 2 Sub allotment
Page 37 and 38: 3735 PW39 Partnership Deed36 to 36/
Page 39 and 40: 3998/153 to98/16598/166 to98/18598/
Page 41 and 42: 41that on fake allotment letters ex
Page 43 and 44: 43allotted to DAHO, Sahebganj out o
Page 45 and 46: 45his deposition he has given full
Page 47 and 48: 47Treasury after making entries in
Page 49 and 50: 49the Treasury it was his duty to d
Page 51 and 52: 51persons. They have prepared forge
Page 53 and 54: 53P.W. 59 Dr. Dhanik Lal Mandal, TV
Page 55 and 56: 55In this respect, P.W. 23 Dr. Dula
Page 57: 57Gupta, Accountant, Sahebganj Trea
Page 61 and 62: 61this Accountant but under conspir
Page 63 and 64: 63informed the CBI that M/s Bihar S
Page 65 and 66: 65name of his firm M/s Samarpan Vet
Page 67 and 68: 67Husbandry Office, Sahebganj in th
Page 69 and 70: 69In this respect, P.W. 16 Arun Kum
Page 71 and 72: 71This accused has stated in this d
Page 73 and 74: 73Authority, Patna in R.C. 45/96, S
Page 75 and 76: 75The Account was opened in the nam
Page 77 and 78: 77manufacturing medicine which was
Page 79 and 80: 79that from the year 1990-96 no one
Page 81 and 82: 8133. Accused Smt. Chanchala Sinha
Page 83 and 84: 83any Branch at Sahebganj for carry
Page 85 and 86: 85Officer-in-Charge Town P.S. Saheb
Page 87 and 88: 87In the above circumstances, I fin
Page 89 and 90: 89infirmities and discrepancies. He
Page 91 and 92: 91has been shown by the Suppliers f
Page 93 and 94: 93the firm was opened in his name b
Page 95 and 96: 95Considering all these evidences,
Page 97 and 98: 97sons are unemployed and pension i
Page 99 and 100: 99period of one (1) year and also t
Page 101 and 102: 101Rigorous Imprisonment for a peri
Page 103 and 104: 103he shall further undergo Simple
show all

Fooder scam Judgement given by Sri G. K. Singh Spl. Judge VII CBI ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?