VERY IMPORTANT POINT
All the 36 cases out of 52 in "Bihar Fodder Scam Cases" in which charge sheets have been filed by the CBI in Special Court at Patna stood transferred to the corresponding courts situated within the territories of the Jharkhand State on the appointed day (i.e.15.11.2000) by the operation of Section 89 of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000. Supreme Court transfers 36 Fodder cases (involving Ex-Chief Ministers Shri Laloo Prasad Yadav and Shri Jagannath Mishra) to Jharkhand.

Headnote:Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000-Section 89-Creation of Jharkhand & New Bihar-Transfer of cases from old Bihar to Jharkhand on appointed day i.e. 15.11.2000-Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Sections 179 and 180 -Jurisdiction of Criminal Courts-Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988-Sections 4(2), 13(1)(c) and (a)-Cases pertaining to plundering of huge amount of public money in Bihar Fodder Scam cases -Out of 52 cases, charge sheets have been filed by the CBI before the appointed date i.e. 15.11.2000 in 36 cases before the Special Court situated at Patna-Whether all or any of those 36 cases stand transferred to the Special Courts situated in the State of Jharkhand on the midnight of 15.11.2000 when the State of Jharkhand was born?-Meaning of the words "proceedings relating exclusively to the territory" in section 89 of the Act-High Court holding that court at Patna also has the jurisdiction to try them-Proper course is Court at Jharkhand-Appeal to Supreme Court-Whether all 36 cases be transferred to Special Courts in the State of Jharkhand w.e.f. 15.11.2000 ? (Yes)-Appeal allowed.
       Held : It is not disputed before us that the courts of the Special Judges situated within Jharkhand area have jurisdiction to try all the 36 cases now involved. The High Court, as per the impugned judgment, considered the question whether the court at Patna also has the jurisdiction to try them. (Para 15)
       Section 89 of the Act deals with what should have happened on the appointed day i.e. 15.11.2000 in respect of every proceeding "relating exclusively to the territory" of Jharkhand State. Every such proceedings "shall stand transferred to the corresponding court, tribunal, authority or officer" of Jharkhand State. Here the words "relating exclusively to the territory of Jharkhand State" are the decisive words. What is meant by the word "exclusively" in this context, has now to be determined. (Para 20)
       After reviewing case law
       Held : If so, we have to gauge the implication of the words "proceeding relating exclusively to the territory" from the surrounding context. Section 89 of the Act says that proceeding pending prior to the appointed day before "a court (other than the High Court), tribunal, authority or officer" shall stand transferred to the "corresponding court, tribunal, authority or officer" of the Jharkhand State. A very useful index is provided in the section by defining the words "corresponding court, tribunal, authority or officer in the State of Jharkhand" as this:
       "The court, tribunal, authority or officer in which or before whom the proceeding would have laid if it had been instituted after the appointed day."
       Look at the words "would have laid if it had been instituted after the appointed day". In considering the question as to where the proceeding relating to the 36 cases involved in these appeals would have laid, had they been instituted after the appointed day, we have absolutely no doubt that the meaning of the word "exclusively" should be understood as "substantially all or for the greater part or principally". We cannot overlook the main object of Section 89 of the Act. It must not be forgotten that transfer of criminal cases is not the only subject covered by the section. The provision seeks to allocate the files or records relating to all proceedings, after the bifurcation if they were to be instituted after the appointed day. Any interpretation should be one, which achieves that object and not that which might create confusion or perplexity or even bewilderment to the officers of the respective States. In other words, the interpretation should be made with pragmatism, not pedantically or in a stilted manner. For the purpose of criminal cases, we should bear in mind the subject matter of the case to be transferred. When so considering, we have to take into account further that all the 36 cases are primarily for the offences under the PC Act and hence they are all triable before the courts of Special Judges. Hence, the present question can be determined by reference to the provisions of PC Act. The charge-sheets in all these cases were filed in the court of the Special Judge at Patna when the State of Bihar remained undivided prior to 15.11.2000. By the notification dated 5.6.1996 (supra) that court was conferred with the territorial jurisdiction to try all cases falling under the PC Act. Added to it when the Registrar of the High Court of Patna directed (rightly or wrongly) the District and Sessions Judge to see that all cases relating to Animal Husbandry Scam (same as Bihar Fodder Scam cases) should be filed in that court, the CBI had no option in the matter except to file all those cases before the court at Patna. There is no dispute that on 15.11.2000 the court at Patna was divested of its jurisdiction over the territories falling within the Jharkhand State. (Paras 27 to 30)
       Held further : We have no doubt in our mind that the hub of the Act envisaged in first of those two offences is "dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates". Similarly the hinge of the act envisaged in the second section is "obtains" for himself or for any other person, any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means. The above acts were completed in the present cases when the money has gone out of the public treasuries and reached the hands of any one of the persons involved. Hence, so far as the offences under Section 13(1)(c) and Section 13(1) (d) are concerned the place where the offences were committed could easily be identified as the place where the treasury concerned was situated. It is an undisputed fact that in all these cases the treasuries were situated within the territories of Jharkhand State. Thus, when it is certain where exactly the offence under Section 13 of the PC Act was committed it is an unnecessary exercise to ponder over the other areas wherein certain allied activities, such as conspiracy or preparation, or even the prefatory or incidental acts were done, including the consequences ensued. (Paras 35, 36 & 37)
       Held finally : We are now coming to the final conclusion. In our considered view all the 36 cases involved in these appeals stood transferred to the corresponding courts situated within the territories of the Jharkhand State on the appointed day (i.e. 15.11.2000) by the operation of Section 89 of the Act. We therefore, direct the Registrar of the High Court of Patna to instruct the officers concerned for despatching the records of all these 36 cases, to the corresponding courts at Jharkhand State forthwith. We also direct the Registrar of the High Court of Jharkhand to do whatever is needed for reaching such records in the appropriate courts. To avoid the confusion and repetition of the exercise, we make it clear that the evidence already recorded in any of the 36 cases will be treated as evidence recorded by the proper court having jurisdiction. In other words, the Special Judge need not call the witnesses already examined over again for repetition of what has already come on record. The impugned judgments are set aside and the appeals are disposed of accordingly. (Paras 48, 49 & 50)

JUDGMENT

Thomas, J.-Leave granted.

2. The question is short but the range of consideration got widened much. Answer to the question may be of advantage to some accused and disadvantage to some other accused who are involved in a large number of criminal cases which are compendiously styled with the sobriquet "Bihar Fodder Scam Cases". These cases related to a series of orchestrated fraudulent acts by which a staggeringly huge amount of public money was plundered or looted after creating fake bills and other false documents for the said purpose, with the active participation or connivance of several high ups in the administration of the State. Though it is unnecessary now to mention the whopping sum so plundered in each case, we are told that the aggregate of them exceeds Rs.720 crores. The persons arraigned in the cases include men who held high offices, besides the two former Chief Ministers of Bihar (Lalu Prasad Yadav and Dr. Jagannath Mishra).

3. The above indicated question winched to the fore on the midnight of 15th November, 2000, when the erstwhile State of Bihar got itself bifurcated into two States by the Act or Parliament called The Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 (for short the Act ). One region of it became a new State called Jharkhand while the remaining region became the present State of Bihar.

4. We are told that 64 cases have been registered relating to fodder scam. All the cases were directed to be investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI for short) pursuant to an order passed by the High Court of Patna which was affirmed by this Court, with some modifications as per the judgment in State of Bihar and Anr. v. Ranchi Zila Samta Party and Anr.1. It is not disputed that 52 cases, out of the above, involve withdrawal of huge sums of money from the government treasuries situated in the territories now falling within Jharkhand State. Out of those 52 cases, charge-sheets have been filed by the CBI before the appointed day i.e. 15.11.2000 in 36 cases before the Special Court situated at Patna. These appeals relate to those 36 cases.

5. It was submitted on behalf of the CBI that those 36 cases stood transferred to the State of Jharkhand soon after the midnight of 15.11.2000. That claim of the CBI was resisted by some of the accused in those cases (including Lalu Prasad Yadav and Dr. Jagannath Mishra) who contended that none of those cases has been transferred. Thus the simple question is whether all or any of those cases stood transferred to the courts situated in the State of Jharkhand on the midnight when the new State was born.

6. A Full Bench of three Judges of the Patna High Court considered the question. By the impugned judgment the learned Judges of the Full Bench of the High Court took the view that none of the 36 cases has been transferred to Jharkhand State, though one of the learned Judges of the Full Bench held that 23 cases (out of the said 36 cases) should have gone over to Jharkhand State. Thus the High Court discountenanced the claim of the CBI regarding the 36 cases as per the impugned judgment.

7. It is admitted by both sides that the transfer of cases as a sequel to the bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Bihar is the result of the operation of a statutory provision incorporated in the Act. Section 89 of the said Act reads thus:

"89(1) Every proceeding pending immediately before the appointed day before a court (other than the High Court), tribunal, authority or officer in any area which on that day falls within the State of Bihar shall, if it is a proceeding relating exclusively to the territory, which as from that day is the territory of Jharkhand State, stand transferred to the corresponding court, tribunal, authority or officer of that State.

(2) If any question arises as to whether any proceeding should stand transferred under sub-section (1), it shall be referred to the High Court at Patna and the decision of that High Court shall be final.

(3) In th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2001 Supreme(SC) 1380

Cases Referred (15)