Judgment:
B.P. Singh and B.P. Sharma, JJ.
1. The petitioner herein is an accused in at least two cases, out of several cases registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation in the State Bihar, numbering about 41, in connection with what is commonly known as Animal Husbandry Scam. It is alleged that large scale illegal withdrawals of huge amounts took place from various treasuries of the Government of Bihar in relation to supply of fodder, medicines etc. to the department of Animal Husbandry and though payments were made, in fact the goods alleged to have been supplied were never supplied. Since the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as the 'C.B.I.') has sought remand of the petitioner in at least two of the cases, we proceed on the basis that he is an accused in the two cases in which he has been remanded, though it is premature for us to say whether he is accused in other cases as well which are being investigated by the C.B.I, under the directions of the High Court and the Supreme Court.
2. The first case is Mango P.S. case No. 30 of 1996 which was instituted on 3.2.96 on the basis of a report submitted by the then Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Dr. Gorelal Yadav, The said case was being investigated by the State police, but after the orders of the High Court and the Supreme Court, the said case has been registered by the C.B.I, as R.C. 23 (A/96, Patna on 27.3.96. Before the Special Judge, the case has been numbered as Special Case No. 25 of 1996. This case shall be hereinafter referred to as the 'First Case.'
3. Similarly Mango P.S. case No. 43 of 1996 was also registered on 24. 2.1996 on the basis of report of the same Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Dr. Gorelal Yadav and the same has been numbered as R.C. Case No. 52 (A) of 1996, Patna, by the C.B.I, on 14.4.1996. Before the Special Judge, this case has been numbered as Special case No. 55 of 1996. For the facility of reference, we shall hereinafter, refer to this case as the 'Second Case'.
4. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying that the order dated 17.8.96 (Annexure-8) passed by the special Judge, C.B.I. (Animal Husbandry), Patna remanding the petitioner to the custody of the C.B.I, for 7 days in the second case be quashed as being without jurisdiction. He has also prayed for the quashing of the order dated 26.8.96 passed by the Special Judge and the order dated 29.8.96, (Annexure-12), on the ground that the orders are without jurisdiction and in breach of Articles 14, 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India and Sections 50 and 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner has also prayed for release from custody, or in the alternative, to be released on bail. By order dated 29.8.96, the learned Special Judge refused to recall his order dated 17.8.96 remanding the petitioner to GB.I. custody in the second case.
5. At the very outset, we may notice the objection raised by counsel appearing for the C.B.I, who submitted that this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution pf India was not maintainable, inasmuch as the custody of the petitioner was authorised by lawful orders passed by a court having jurisdiction in the matter. On the other hand, counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction may quash an order even if passed by a Court of law if it is shown not only, that the order is wholly without jurisdiction, but that it is contrary to clear provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the illegal order so passed results in depravation of the personal liberty of the petitioner which is guaranteed by the Constitution of India. Such an order is also in teeth of Articles 14, 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is not necessary for us to express any opinion on the objection raised by the counsel for the C.B.I., because counsel for the parties could not dispute that, in any event, this Court has jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the impugned orders if they were contrary to the provisions of the Constitution as also the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Even if it is shown that the order is without jurisdiction, this Court is competent in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction to quash such an order. Since this Court undoubtedly has jurisdiction to test the legality and property of the orders passes, the objection that this Court cannot exercise it writ jurisdiction in such a case, becomes academic. It has been repeatedly held that the mere label to a petition is immaterial and what is of signification is the fact whether the tribunal has or has not the jurisdiction of entertain the petition. Since this Court has jurisdiction to test the correctness of the impugned orders and to quash them, if necessary, we proceed to consider the matter on merit.
6. Before adverting to the submissions urged on behalf of the parties, it will be useful to notice the facts leading to the filing of the instant petition. The relevant facts may be stated thus:
7. On 3.2.1996, the Deputy Commissioner of East Singhbhum, submitted written report to the Mango Police Station making certain allegations against same of the officers of the Govt. of Bihar and the supplier who are said to have received huge amounts by way of price for goods supplied, which goods, in fact, had never been supplied. On the basis of his written report, Mango P.S. Case. No. 30 of 1996 was registered which is the first case against the petitioner. On the basis of the said report, investigation was taken up and the case has been registered as Special Case No. 25 of 1996.
The same Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum lodged another report on 24.2.1996 on the basis of which Mango P.S. Case No. 48 of 1996 was registered which is jointly investigated and which has given rise to special case No. 55 of 1996 which is the second case against the petitioner.
8. On 16.5.1996, the C.B.I, arrested the petitioner at New Delhi and on the very next day produced him before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, who remanded him to C.B.I, custody, to ensure his production before the Special Court at Patna. The petitioner was produced before the Special Judge at Patna on 13.5.96 and was remanded to jail custody. On 20th May, 1996, on the application of the C.B.I, the Special Judge, remanded the petitioner to 7 days' C.B.I, custody in the first case. Again by order dated 26.5.1996, the remand to the custody of the C.B.I, was granted for five more days. On 31.5.96, the petitioner was remanded to jail custody. By order dated 7.6.96, the C.B.I, was directed to produce some of the evidence on 11.6.96, but on its request, it was granted further time till 15.6.96 to produce the memo of evidence. This had become necessary in view of the fact that the petitioner had applied for grant of bail on 7.6.96. Ultimately by order dated 15.6.96, the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody after his application for bail was rejected. The petitioner was thereafter remanded to judicial custody from time to time. During this period two bail applications filed by him were rejected. On 6.8.96, the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody till 20.8.96. On 16.8.96, the petitioner applied for bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 437 Cr.PC After some hearing application was adjourned to 17.8. 96. On 17.8.96, since no chargsheet was filed by C.B.I, in the first case, despite the expiry of the statutory period, the Court granted bail to the petitioner under Section 167(2) Cr.PC and after accepting the bond submitted by the petitioner passed a release order. The petitioner was not actually released because of the events that followed.
9. When the petitioner applied for bail under Section 167(2) read with Section 437 Cr.PC on the 16th of August, 1996, the C.B.I, also applied for remand of the petitioner to C.B.I, custody in the second case. On 17.8.96, while issuing the release order in the first case, the learned Special Judge remanded the petitioner to C.B.I, custody, for a period of seven days in the second case. The petitioner filed an application on 19.8.96 claiming that the remand in the second case was not justified since both the cases were the same and therefore, prayed for recall of the order dated 17.8.96. It appears that the petitioner also moved this Court in Writ Jurisdiction by filing a writ petition being Cr. W. J.C. No. 587 of 1996 which was heard and disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 23.8.96 directing the Special Judge, C.B.I, to pass appropriate order on the petition filed by the petitioner for recall of the order dated 17.8.96. The application for recall of the order dated 17.8.96 was heard by the learned Special Judge on 28.8.96 and the same was rejected by the Special Judge holding, inter alia, that the two cases were in fact independent and separate cases and, therefore, the remand of the petitioner in the second case was justified in law. As observed earlier, the order dated 17.8.96 remanding the petitioner to the custody of C.B.I, in the second case as also the order dated 28.8.96 rejecting the application for recall of the order dated 17.8.86, have been challenged before us in this proceeding. Though, as it appears from the impugned orders, several objections were raised before the learned Special Judge, before us counsel for the petitioner submitted that having regard to the authoritative declaration of the law by the Supreme Court of India, the remand of the petitioner in the second case was illegal, as both the cases related to same set of facts and constituted in law only one occurrence. It could not, therefore, be said that the second case related to a different occurrence and a different transaction in which the complicity of the petitioner was disclosed. On the other hand, counsel for the C.B.I, justified the order of remand and supported the findings of the learned Special Judge.
10. In this connection, counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in : 1992CriLJ2768 Central Bureau of Investigation Special Investigation Cell-1, New Delhi v. Anupam, ]. Kulkarni. Counsel for the C.B.I, submitted that the ratio of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court is that the Magistrate under Section 167(2) Cr.PC authorise the detention of the accused in such custody as he thinks fit, but it should not exceed 15 days in the whole and that after the expiry of the first 15 days, the detention thereafter could only be in judicial custody. The other observations in the judgment are mere obiter. It was therefore, submitted by him that the law declared by the Supreme Court that a remand in another case is permissible only if that other case related to a different occurrence in which the complicity of the arrested accused was disclosed, was mere obiter and not binding upon this Court. We have read the judgment of the Supreme Court carefully and we have no hesitation in rejecting the submission urged by counsel for the C.B.I. The Court in order to decide the case before it considered the entire scheme of the Code by special reference to Section 76 Cr.PC and declared the law. The declaration of the law by the Supreme Court is binding upon this Court and any amount of persuasion by counsel for the C.B.I, has not persuaded us to take a different view. Even if the observations in the judgment of the Supreme Court are considered to be obiter, the same are still binding upon this Court. We must, therefore, apply to the facts of this case, the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision. Since the Supreme Court has itself succinctly summed up the principles applicable in such cases, we can do no better then to quote the conclusions summed up by the court itself which is as follows:
Whether any person is arrested under Section 47, Cr.PC he should be produced before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours as mentioned therein. Such Magistrate may or may not have jurisdiction to try the case. If Judicial Magistrate is not available, the police officer may transmit the arrested accused to the nearest Executive Magistrate in whom the judicial powers have been conferred. The Judicial Magistrate can in the first instance authorise the detention of the accused in such custody i.e. either police or judicial from time to time but the total period of detention cannot exceed fifteen days in the whole. Within the periods of fifteen days there can be more than one order changing the nature of such custody either form police to judicial or vice versa. If the arrested accused is produced before the Executive Magistrate he is empowered to authorise the detention in such custody either police or judicial only for a week, in the same manner namely by one or more orders but after one week he should transmit him to the nearest Judicial Magistrate along with the records. When the arrested accused is so transmitted the Judicial Magistrate, for the remaining period, that is to say excluding one week or the number of days of detention ordered by the Executive Magistrate may authorise further detention within that period of first fifteen days to such custody either police or judicial. After the expiry of the first period of fifteen days the further remand during the period of investigation can only be in judicial custody. There cannot be any detention in the police custody after the expiry of first fifteen days even in a case where some more offences either serious or otherwise committed by him in the same transaction come to light at a later stage. But this bar does not apply if the same arrested accused is involved in a different case arising out of a different transaction. Even if he is in judicial custody in connection with the investigation of the earlier case he can formally be arrested regarding his involvement in the different case and associate him with the investigation of that other case and the Magistrate can act as provided under Section 167(2) and the proviso and can remand him to such custody as mentioned therein during the first period of fifteen days and thereafter in accordance with the proviso as discussed above. If the investigation is not completed within the period of ninety days or sixty days then the accused has to be released on bail as provided under the proviso to Section 167(2). The period of ninety days or sixty days has to be computed from the date of detention as per the orders of the Magistrate and not from the date of arrested by the police. Consequently the first period of fifteen days mentioned in Section 167(2) has to be computed from the date of such detention and after the expiry of the period of first fifteen days it should be only judicial custody.
11. Having regard to the aforesaid principles, we have only to examine the facts of the two cases and record a finding as to whether the petitioner is involved in two different cases arising out of different transaction. If the two cases are distinct and different the remand order must be upheld, but if it is found that the two cases are in reality the same and relate to the same occurrence, the remand order must be quashed as being without jurisdiction since Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not permit any further remand, if the investigating agency fails to file a charge-sheet within the statutory period of 90 days,
12. Before adverting to the allegations contained in the two reports lodged with the police giving rise to the two cases, we may observe that both the reports were lodged in the same police station by the same informant namely the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum. Both the reports were made in the month of February, 1996, one on the 3rd February, 1996 and the other on the 24th February, 1996. Both the reports contained allegations against the concerned officials of the State of Bihar and the Suppliers who are said to have withdrawn huge amounts without actually supplying the goods. In both the cases, the allegation is that the suppliers were acting in collusion and in conspiracy with the officials of the Govt. of Bihar. It is no doubt true that the names of the suppliers and the officers are different in the two reports. In the first F.I.R. the date and time of occurrence has been mentioned as between year 1991 and January, 1996 in the second F.I.R., it has been mentioned as during 1991 to 1995.
13. We will now notice the allegations contained in the first information report giving rise to the first case in connection with which the petitioner was arrested and later on remanded to C.B.I, custody and thereafter judicial custody. The report of the Deputy Commissioner begins by referring to the letter of the Commissioner Finance dated 27.1.96 and the message of the Divisional Commissioner dated 29.1.96 whereunder certain directions had been received in connection with bills passed under head 2403, Animal Husbandry and 2404 fisheries development and 2405 fishery. The treasuries had been directed to make available the requisite information. The report proceeds to state that the informant had on 30.1.96 obtained monthly statements under these heads from the Treasury Officer for the period April, 1995 to December, 1995 relating in the year 1995-96, after perusal of which the informant had authorised his officers to check the bills and cash in the office of the District Animal Husbandry Officer. When one of the officers Sri Rai went to the aforesaid office, it was found closed and only a class IV employee was found present who opened the Chambers of the District Animal Husbandry Officer. The other rooms including Nazarat, Stores, etc. were locked and he informed that though all the officers and employees were present till 29.1.96, but on what day (30.1.96), no one was present. The information himself went to the office of the District Animal Husbandry Officer and directed Sri Rai to get information from the treasury with regard to withdrawals from the contingency fund. On the basis of the information received, it was found that the following amounts had been withdrawn during the years 1991-92 to 1994-95, April, 1995to December, 1995 and January, 1996. The extent of withdrawal in the different years were found to be as follows;
Year Total amount withdrawn
_______ ______________________
1991-92 Rs. 2, 69, 96, 216.75
1992-93 Rs. 2, 90, 69, 238.39
1993-94 Rs. 4, 39, 48, 780.70
1994-95 Rs. 8, 64, 33, 877.20
1995-96
(Ka) April, 95 to December, 95 Rs. 17, 64, 62, 645.30 (Kha) January, 96 Rs. 1, 24, 45, 800.00
14. After going through the monthly withdrawal statements the suspicion became stronger that the District Animal Husbandry Officer had made illegal withdrawals from the treasury. An Executive Magistrate was therefore debuted to seal the office of the District Animal Husbandry officer and the office was sealed on 30th January, 1996. An inventory was prepared and a sum of Rs. 6600/- was found there in cash.
The monthly accounts of the Jamshedpur treasury for the period up to December, 1995 had been sent to the Accountant General's office and, therefore, the bills presented and passed by the treasury till December, 1995 were not available. The bills that were available and related to the month of January, 1996 were examined. The Regional Director of the Department of Animal Husbandry, South Chotanagar Area, Ranchi, had issued 194 orders on 8th April, 1995 referable to letters No. 30176 to 30369. All these orders related to M/s. Bhagat and Company for supply of ground-nut cake. There appeared no justification for issuing 194 purchases orders separately for supply of such goods by M/s. Bhagat and Company it is not necessary to refer to the other details mentioned in this part of the report because they deal with the details relating to supply alleged to have been made by M/s. Bhagat and Company with which we are not concerned in the instant case. The informant alleged that the manner in which supplies are said to have been made appeared to be impossible and unbelievable. Similarly the report refers to M/s. A Traders, Patel Nagar, Patna and to the 50 supply orders dated 13.12.95 issued to the said firm. Certain irregularities in that connection have been pointed out in the report. It has been concluded that the quantity of goods supplied was not justified having regard to annual requirement. It has further been stated that Dr. Vinay Kumar, the District Animal Husbandry Officer, ought not to have passed the bills without verifying whether the supplies were required, particularly when government sanction was not available for purchase of such huge quantities of the supplies, the other officers referred to in the reports are alleged to have failed in their duty to ascertain the requirement and supply of goods during the period and the bills were prepared and passed fraudulently and in collusion with them. Such bills were paid by the treasury. The bank drafts were received by one Anant Pandey, an Assistant in the department.
After going through the bills presented to the treasury in January, 1996 it became clear that Dr. Vinay Kumar, the District Animal Husbandry Officer, had not sent the bills with the same signature as was given by him by way of sample signature. He was required by Rule 144 of the Bihar Treasury Code, as a drawing and disbursing Officer to put his full signature, which he had not done. These bills had been passed by the Treasury Officer, Shri Ranjit Singh and had been examined by Assistant Dhanpat Pandey and Accountant Bachchu Singh. No effort was made to verify the sanctioned amount mentioned in those bills and an exaggerated amount had been shown. On the same day for the supply of the same type of goods by the same firm, several bills were presented which were sanctioned by the treasury on the same day without any objection. Since the treasury accounts for the period April, 1995 to December, 1995 were not available, as they had been sent to the Accountant General, information was collected from the State Bank of India and it appeared from the information so collected that a payment of Rs. 16, 21, 99, 745/- has been made to 21 firms, particulars whereof were given in the report. The name of the firm Bhagat & Co., Ranchi is mentioned in the report as one of the 21 firms to whom payments were made but there is no mention of the firm of which the petitioner is said to be the Manager Director. In the end, it is stated that the purchases made from the said firms and payments made to them were suspicious. It was also apprehended that the amounts withdrawn in earlier years may also have been withdrawn in the same manner. On the basis of such facts, it was alleged that necessary action may be taken against the accused persons and the persons named as accused were as many as 12 out of whom, two were the suppliers, namely, M/s. Bhagat &. Co. and M/s. A. Traders and the remaining were the officers of the department of Animal Husbandry, which included Dr. Vinay Kumar, District Animal Husbandry Officer, his Accountant, Assistants etc. as also the Treasury Officer Ranjit Singh and his Accountant and Assistant.
15. We have advisedly taken note of the averments in detail. There is no reference to the petitioner or his firm in the said first information report. The first information report relates to the period between 1991 and January, 1996. It appears from the report that the documents in the office of the District Animal Husbandry Officer as also in the treasury, were examined from which it appeared that the officers of the department as well as the treasury, in collusion with the suppliers had got issued purchase orders, bills and payment orders which were illegal and unauthorised. There was considerable suspicion about the actual supply of goods and it appeared that they acted in collusion with each other to withdraw big amounts showing fake supplies to the department. What is however noticeable is the fact that the bills etc. for the period prior to January, 1996 were not available since monthly accounts of the treasury for that period had already been sent to the Accountant General's office. Only the accounts for the month of January, 1996 which were available, as also some other documents, were examined, from that it appeared that at least in the case of two firms, M/s. Bhagat and Co. and M/s. A. Traders, payments had been made in an illegal manner. Though 21 firms were mentioned in the report, only two of them were arrayed as accused in the first information report. It was, however, suspected that in the earlier years as well similar withdrawals might have been made by following the same procedure. Counsel for the parties are agreed that so far as this first information report is concerned, the name of the petitioner or his firm does not figure at all. It is, therefore, a little surprising that the C.B.I, after arresting the petitioner at New Delhi on 16.5.96 produced him before the Special Judge on 18.5.1996 and on 25.5.1996 prayed for his remand to the custody of C.B.I, in Special case No. 25 of 1996, the first case, arising out of the aforesaid F.I.R. It was, under these circumstances, that the petitioner was remanded to C.B.I, custody for the first time on 20.5.96 in Special Case No. 25 of 1996.
16. On 5.6.96, when the bail petition filed on behalf of the petitioner on 31.5.96, came up for hearing, the special Judge adjourned the hearing to 7th June, 1996 and on 7th June, 1996 directed the C.B.I, to produce the memo of evidence by 11.6.96. The bail petition was ultimately rejected on 15.5.96 after the C.B.I, had produced the memo of evidence Annexure-12 dated 13.6.96.
The memo of evidence refers to S.C. 23(A) 96 Patna, the case arising out of the first information report lodged on 3.2.96 being Mango P.S. Case No. 30- of 1996. From the memo of evidence, it appears that the investigation of the case revealed the complicity of the petitioner who was Managing Director of M/s. Agrl. Medichem (1) Private Ltd., New Delhi. The said Company was a manufacturing Unit engaged in the manufacture of human and veterinary medicines and was approved by the Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Patna, for supply of veterinary medicines in the State of Bihar. The said firm received payments to the tune of Rs. 9.92, 919/- from the District Animal Husbandry Officer, Jamshedpur, for alleged supply of medicines to the Animal Husbandry Department, Jameshdpur District East Singhbhum. Particulars of the bill and the amounts withdrawn, were given from which it appears that all the payments were made in October, 1992 by demand draft by the State Bank of India, Jamshedpur. Investigation further revealed that the petitioner was the eldest son of Sri Shyam Bihari Sinha, another main accused of this case, who retired as Regional Joint Director in the Office of Regional Director. Animal Husbandry Department, South Chotanagar, Region, Ranchi. With the help of his father, the petitioner had procured supply order and received payment for alleged supply of medicines. Referring to the complaint of the Deputy Commissioner;, East Singhbhum, it was stated that the complaint clearly mentions that the funds have been drawn by accused officials of Animal Husbandry department, Jamshdepur and the Treasury, Jamshedpur and payments made to different supplies without materials being supplied. The investigation also revealed that there was no proper allotment from the Government of the funds so paid to different suppliers including the company of which the petitioner was the Managing Director. Only after the matter of fraudulent withdrawals came to light, the petitioner resigned as Managing Director of the said Company. The petitioner had in his possession huge assets for which he had no explanation. The evidence collected during investigation disclosed prima facie evidence against him and his direct complicity in the case had come to light. The investigation was continuing and it was expected that more evidence will be collected against him. Since the petitioner was the son of a very influential and rich person, there was every likelihood that he would tamper with the evidence and influence the witnesses, if released on bail.
17. From the memo of evidence produced before the Special Judge in the first case, it is quite clear that the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer related to payment made to the company of which the petitioner was the Managing Director in October, 1996 amounting to a total sum of Rs. 9.92, 919/-. The allegation was that the payments were made against alleged supply of Veterinary medicines which actually were never supplied. It is worth emphasising that though the petitioner is not even named in the first information report, that is explained by pointing out that the necessary documents for the period prior to December, 1996 were not available and a suspicion had been expressed that similar Withdrawals may have been made in the earlier years, which included the year 1991-92 as also the year 1992-93 in which alleged payments were made to the company of which the petitioner was the managing director. Obviously, therefore, the investigation in the first case was not confined to the facts stated in the first information report and the investigating team was also examining the transactions which had taken place in the earlier years beginning from the year 1991-92. Counsel format he C.B.I, submitted that even though there was no reference to the petitioner or his him firm in the first information report giving rise to the first case, the Investigating Officer was fully justified in investigating all facts related to the various transactions that took place in connection with supplies made to and payments received from the Animal Husbandry department from the year 1991-92 till January, 1996, when the first information report was lodged. We entirely agree with the submission urged before us, because even if a first information report reveals only a few facts and transactions or detailed investigation in connection with the said transaction a series of transactions is found in which fraud and conspiracy is suspected all such transaction are naturally relatable to the same case initiated on the basis of the first information report lodged by the informant. They can therefore be investigated in that case. We have earlier expressed a little surprise at the way the petitioner was got remanded in the first case, because we find that there is a clear allegations against the petitioner in the subsequent first information report giving rise to the second case and the allegations made in the second case are precisely the same as those revealed in the memo of evidence of the first case produced before the Special Judge. We should have thought that the CBI should have prayed for the remand of the petitioner in the second case, rather than in the first case. This is more so because admittedly, both the cases were being investigated by the same officer. We repeatedly asked the counsel for the C.B.I, to explain to us as to why instead of praying for the remand of the petitioner in the second case where a clear allegation was made against him relating to specific trancations involving a specified amount his remand was sought in the first case, he could give us no satisfactory explanation but rightly argued that there was no legal impediment in the way of the C.B.I, asking for his remand in the first case. We are of the view that though there was no technical impediment in the way of the C.B.I, asking for remand of the petitioner in the first case, the fact has relevance when considered in the context of abuse of power or abuse of the process of the court by the investigating agency by asking for successive remands in different cases, even though the cases relate to the same occurrence.
18. We now proceed to notice the allegations contained in the subsequent firs information report lodged on 24.2.1996 by the same Deputy Commissioner of East Singhbhum, Dr. Gorelal Yadav giving rise to the second case.
In this report, the informant has referred to the letter of the Finance Commissioner dated. 16.2.1996 giving particulars of the allotments made year wise and itemwise for the financial years 1991-92 to 1995-96 excluding provision for salary etc. The allotment for the whole State under the head 2043, Animal Husbandry was as follows:-
Year Total allotted fund for the entire State (In lakhs)
____ ___________________________________________________
1991-92 407.38 Lakhs
1992-93- 301.94 '
1993-94 405.02 '
1994-95 419.80 '
1995-96 470.41 '
As against this, the withdrawals under the same head from the Jamshedpur treasury alone was as follows:
Year Total amount withdrawn from Jamshedpur.
___ _______________________________________
1991-92 Rs. 2, 69, 96, 216.75
1992-93 Rs. 2, 90, 69, 838.30
1993-94 Rs. 4, 38, 48, 780.70
1994-95 Rs. 8, 64, 33, 877.20
1995-96 (till
January, 96) Rs. 19, 68, 82, 209.20
19. From this it appeared that the major portion of the allotment made for the entire State under the said head withdrawn from the Jamshedpur treasury during the years 1991-92 and 92-93 and for the remaining years the maximum withdrawals were in the district of East Singhbhum. It is stated in the report that the District Animal Husbandry office was started in December, 1991 and the first District Animal Husbandry Officer posted in the district was Dr. Ram Prakash Ram who continued till 11.7.95 and thereafter Dr. Vinay Kumar was posted as District Animal Husbandry Officer. In July, 1995 a total sum of Rs. 1, 38, 17, 496, 65 was withdrawn out of which against several bills, Dr. Ram Prakash Ram had authorised withdrawal of Rs. 1, 18, 60, 988/-. The report then refers to purchases made in the month of May, 1995 and after analysing the quantities purchased, the report concludes that the quantity of purchases made were not justified having regard to the requirement and in making such purchases, the rules were not followed. All purchases referred to in this part of the report relate to purchases made in the year 1995. Thereafter it is stated that the necessary information was collected from the State Bank of India, Jamshedpur as regards the withdrawals made yearwise during the years 1991-92 to 1994-95 and payments made by the District Animal Husbandry Officer to the different suppliers without proper sanction. The list which forms part of the report contains the names of as many as 39 suppliers showing the payments made to the them year wise. It is not necessary to reproduce the entire list but name of the suppliers who are named, including the firm of which the petitioner was the Managing Director, deserve notice. They are as follows:
____________________________________________________________________________
SI. no. Name of the firm 1991-92 1992-93 1994-95 1994-95 Total
____________________________________________________________________________
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
______________________________________________________________________________
4. M/s Jantavet, Ranchi 1856191.00 250000.00 2106191/-
18. M/s. Angil Medichem (I) 992919.00 992919/-
Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi.
23. M/s. Bhagat & Co. Ranchi. 44898/- 2890310/- 292958/- 3328160/-
________________________________________________________________________________
It is then stated that the facts discovered showed that under this head, even without allotment, much larger sums had been withdrawn and it appeared that on the basis of forged sanction orders and in collusion with the officers of the State, the firms received payment fraudulently without making the supplies. It was, therefore, requested that appropriate action be taken, against the concerned persons which included the then District Animal Husbandry Officer and other named officers apart from unnamed concerned officers as also 39 firms whose names are mentioned in the report. Apart from the officers of the Animal Husbandry Department and the suppliers, the then Treasury Officer, Shri Ranjit Singh is also named as an accused apart from his Assistant and Accountant. In this manner as many as persons have been named as accused in the second report lodged by he Deputy Commissioner giving rise to the second case.
20. If these two first information reports are compared. It would appear that both of them relate to more or less to the same period, namely, between the years 1991 and 1995. No doubt, in the second report, the month of January, 1996 is also included. In both the reports, the main allegation is that during this period huge amounts were fraudulently withdrawn from the treasury even though alleged supplies were not made by suppliers to the Animal Husbandry Department. The payments were made with the connivance of the officers of the department and the treasury and also such payments were received from the treasury at Jamshedpur through demand drafts issued by the State Bank of India. In both the specific instances which have been mentioned relate to the year 1995. In the first report, it is apprehended that in the past as well such fraudulent withdrawals may have been made in the same manner. Only two of the firms are named as accused in the first report since the supplies made by them after December, 1995 were found to be false. This was also because relevant papers for the earlier period were not available when the office of the District Animal Husbandry Officer was inspected, as the relevant accounts had been submitted to the Accountant General. Only a few days later, the same Officer lodged the second F.I.R. and in that as well reference is made to specific transactions of the year 1995 only. However, on the basis of figures obtained from the State Bank of India, it has been mentioned that from the year 1991-92 onwards, large sums have been withdrawn by different suppliers whose number is 39 including the firm of which the petitioner was the Managing Director. Having regard to the nature of transactions discovered, it was apprehended that the payments made in earlier year to the suppliers must also have been made in a fraudulent manner as was the case with respect to supplies made in the year 1995.
21. These facts lead us to the conclusion that in substance, the case was that huge amounts were withdrawn fraudulently by suppliers of the Animal Husbandry department during the years 1991 to 1995 and payments were received by them without making supplies with the connivance of and in conspiracy with, the officers of the department as also the officers of Jamshedpur treasury. The two reports giving rise to two cases, really related to the same occurrence, but the second report included the names of more suppliers on the basis of information received from the State Bank of India. In both the cases, the clear allegation was that even between the years 1991 and 1995 fraudulent withdrawals had been made.
22. At this stage, we may notice one very significant fact mentioned in the second report lodged by the Deputy Commissioner. It is clearly stated by him that from September, 1991 to 11th July, 1995, Dr. Ram Prakash Ram was the District Animal Husbandry Officer. Thereafter Dr. Vinay Kumar took over as the District Animal Husbandry Officer. It is also an admitted position that so far as the petitioner is concerned, his firm is alleged to have withdrawn a sum of Rs. 4, 69, 92, 119/- in October, Io92 i.e. during the period when Dr. Ram Prakash Ram was the District Animal Husbandry Officer. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner or his firm received any payment during the tenure of Dr. Vinay Kumar who took over in July, 1995.
23. The other aspect of the matter which deserves emphasis is that in the first report made by the Deputy Commissioner giving rise to the first case, there was no allegation against the petitioner in the sense that neither he nor his firm were named in the report. There was only a general allegation that in the earlier years as well fraudulent withdrawals had taken place and suppliers had been paid even without supplies being made. Even so, the petitioner was arrested and the C.B.I, sought his remand in the first case which was granted. To justify the remand, the C.B.I, produced memo of evidence before the Special Judge from which it appears that the M/s. Angil Medichem (1) Pvt. Ltd. the firm of which the petitioner was the Managing Director, had been paid a sum of Rs. 9, 92, 918 in October, 1992 in a fraudulent manner. This was the basis on which the remand was sought to be justified.
24. We however, find that in the second report this was precisely the allegation against the petitioner and one would have thought that in such circumstances if both the cases were being investigated by the same investigating officer, the two cases could be amalgamated and if not, the petitioner ought to have been remanded in the second case and not in the first case. Counsel for the C.B.I, submitted that if the C.B.I, in the course of investigation into the first case found material against the petitioner connected with the fraudulent withdrawals from the treasury it is justified in seeking his remand and in the first case itself and such remand was justified by law. We do not for present dispute this proposition because even if a report is lodged relating to an occurrence without naming any one as an accused, it is open to the investigating officer to find facts and to bring the accused to book even if unnamed in the report. What is significant however, is the fact that on the basis of the allegations in the second case, the petitioner was remanded in the first case. This can only lead to the inference that even the C.B.I, treated both the cases as one, since the occurrence related to fraudulent withdrawals between the years 1991 and 1995, which was to be investigated in both the cases. Counsel for the petitioner, therefore, rightly submitted that the C.B.I, itself treated the transactions referred to in the second case as the result of the conspiracy referred to in the first case. In substance, it treated both the cases as one.
25. Counsel for the C.B.I, did not dispute the factual position that the petitioner was not named in the first case but the memo of evidence submitted in the first case contained precisely the allegations made against the petitioner in the second case. It was however submitted that while investigating the second case more facts came to light that huge amounts had been withdrawn by one M/s. Janet Veterinary owned by one Shri Umesh Dubey whose brother Ganesh Dubey was one of Directors of M/s. Angil Medichem. The aforesaid M/s. Janet Veterinary was shown to be sole distributor of M/s. Angil Medichem for Chotanager and Santhal Pargana region and was also authorised to collect all payments for M/s. Angil Medichem. In this way the bills to the tune of Rs. 19, 25, 314/- were raised and the payments were made to the said distributor firm. Out of the receipts, the petitioner took 80% share and only the remaining 20% was kept by the distributor. Even this transaction, according to the prosecution, relates to the month of March, 1992 when Dr. Ram Prakash Ram was the District Animal Husbandry Officer. M/s. Janta Veterinary, Ranchi is named as one of the firms in the second case as having received a total sum of Rs. 21, 06, 191.
26. Counsel for the CBI submitted that in view of the discovery of new facts in the second case, apart from the facts stated in the first information report, that case must be treated as an independent case relating to a different transaction altogether. We are afraid, the submission, if accepted, would perpetuate the mischief which must be avoided, as it would give a licence to the prosecuting agency to seek successive remands in the same case on the pretext of discovery of new facts. The fact that the petitioner had an arrangement with his distributor for sharing the gains fraudulently obtained, was only relevant to show how they operated the fraud and the role played by each participant in the perpetration of fraud. The core of the case still remained the fraudulent withdrawal of amounts from the treasury pursuant to a conspiracy between the suppliers and the officials. A similar argument was repelled by the Supreme Court in A.K, Kulkarni (supra) in the following words:
The learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that as a result of the investigation carried on and the evidence collected by the police the arrested accused may be found to be involved in more serious offenses than the one for which he was originally arrested and that in such a case there is no reason as to why the accused who is in magisterial custody should not be turned over to police custody at a subsequent stage of investigation when the information disclose his complicity in more serious offenses. We are unable to agree. In one occurrence it may so happen that the accused might have committed several offenses and the police may arrest him in connection with one or two offenses on the basis of the available information and obtain police custody. If during the investigation his complicity in more serious offences during the same occurrence is disclosed, that does not authorise the police to ask for police custody for a further period after the expiry of the first fifteen days. If that is permitted then the police can so on adding some offence or the other of a serious nature at various stages and seek further detention in police custody repeatedly, this would defeat the very object underlying Section 167. However, we must clarify that this limitation shall not apply to a different occurrence in which complicity of the arrested accused is disclosed. That would be different transaction and if an accused is in judicial custody in connection with one case and to enable the police to complete their investigation of the other case they can require his detention police custody for the purpose of associating him with the investigation of the other case. In such a situation he must be formally arrested in connection with other case and then obtain the order of the Magistrate for detention in police custody.
27. Two main reasons have been given by the Special Judge for holding that the two cases were distinct and separate. According to him, the second case related to the fraudulent receipt of a sum of Rs. 19, 25, 314/- by M/s. Janta Veterinary as representative of M/s. Angil Medichem in March, 1992, while the first case related to the withdrawal of a sum of Rs. 9.92, 919 by M/s. Angil Medichem itself in October, 1992. Secondly, the first case related to the period when one Vinay Kumar was the District Animal Husbandry Officer, while the second related to the period when Ram Prakash Ram held that post. Both the reasons, to our mind, are untenable.
In the first report, there was neither any mention of M/s. Angil Medichem nor any mention of M/s. Janta Veterinary. In the second report, however both the firms were mentioned as firms suspected of having made fraudulent withdrawals. The transactions between the two firms only disclose the manner in which the conspirators operated. They did not by themselves disclose the commission of an offence and the transaction could be understood only in the background of the conspiracy in which both were partners. The discovery of transaction between the two firms was mere discovery of more facts support to the case of conspiracy and was separate case in itself. At best, it may be said that the discovery of such facts discloses the commission of other offences by the petitioner during the said offences by the petitioner during the said occurrence. An occurrence giving rise to a case involving fraud and conspiracy, may consist of chain of events or transactions not know to the investigating agency at the initial stage. Deeper probe may reveal a series of events or transactions that may have taken place, pursuant to the conspiracy, involving the co-conspirators named or unnamed. The discovery of such facts in the course of investigation may complete the chain of events and provide useful evidence to the prosecution to prove its case. The discovery of each such fact with the progress of investigation does n to give rise to a new occurrence, but only provides the links in the chain of events which together constitute the offence of conspiracy. Such discovery of further facts in connection with the same occurrence cannot justify a further remand, beyond the statutory period.
The second reason given has also no basis in facts. The withdrawal of amounts by M/s. Angil Medichem and by M/s. Janta Veterinary took place in October, 92 and March, 92 respectively. It is not disputed that from September, 91 to July, 1995, Ram Prakash Ram was the District Animal Husbandry Officer. Both the transactions took place in the year 1992, i.e. during his tenure. Neither of the transactions relate to the period when Vinay Kumar held that post.
28. We are also of the view that the method adopted by the CBI of seeking successive remands, is not permissible in law and amounts to a serious abuse of its power as also an abuse of the process of the Court. In the first case, even though there was no direct allegation against the petitioner, a remand was obtained on the ground that material had been discovered to support the allegation in the second case relating to the petitioner's firm having received a sum of Rs. 9, 92, 919/- in October, 1992. No charg-sheet was submitted within the statutory period and when the petitioner was to be released under Section 167(2) Cr.PC, remand was sought in the second case, not on the basis of allegation in the second report, but on the basis of some facts which were later discovered by the CBI and related to transactions between the co-conspirators inter-se. If the CBI is allowed to follow this method, successive remand may be ordered on discovery of new facts in all the 41 cases registered by it and the petitioner will have to remain in custody for even ten years. In any event, the two cases with which we are concerned in the instant case, relate to the same occurrence and are not different occurrences. Both the transactions complained of were also of the year 1992 and that a separate trial, even technically, was not necessary. The mere fact that more details of the conspiracy were discovered later, does not make the second case a separate and distinct occurrence. We have already noticed earlier that both the cases relate to the same period and the same treasury and in both the informant are the same who had lodged information at the same who had lodged information at the same police station about fraudulent withdrawals by the named and unnamed persons pursuant to a conspiracy in relation to alleged supplies made to the Animal Husbandry department. The discovery of further facts relating to the conspiracy in the course of investigation at a later stage will not constitute a fresh occurrence so as to justify another remand.
In view of the above findings and following the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in A.K. Kulkarni (supra), we quash the order of the Special Judge, CBI, Patna dated 16, 8.96 in special case No. 55/96 and hold that a second remand was not justified in law. It is not necessary for us to quash the order dated 27.8.96, as we are also of the view that the Special Judge has no jurisdiction to review his order dated 27.8.96, which could only be challenged before a superior Court. This, however, will make no difference to the result of the case as the remand order dated 17.8.96 is quashed and the petitioner's remand in Special case No. 55 of 1996 is held illegal. The Special Judge must we now give effect to the release order passed in Special Case No. 25 of 1996 on 17.8.96 and if the bond furnished by the petitioner has been accepted, he must be released from custody forthwith in special Case No. 55 of 1996. The application is accordingly allowed.