Ram Nandan Prasad, J.

1. These two petitions have been filed u/s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the order dated 9.6.2000 passed by the Special Judge, CBI, Patna in Special Case No. 5/98, whereby the petitions filed by the petitioners for their discharge have been rejected and charges have been framed for the offences u/s. 13(2) read with sec. 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, hereinafter referred to as the 1988 Act, against Sri Lalu Prasad, hereinafter referred to as Sri Prasad, petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 14894/2000, and u/s. 109, Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with sec. 13(2) read with sec. 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act, against Smt. Rabri Devi, petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 14895/2000.

2. Before we deal with the respective contentions of the parties, it would be appropriate to take note of certain relevant facts. On 19th February, 1996, the State Government in supersession of all previous Notifications issued a Notification u/s. 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 and thereby granted consent to all members of the Delhi Special Police establishment (CBI) to exercise powers and jurisdiction under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 for the whole of the State of Bihar in respect of investigation of, inter alia, offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 with a proviso that where the public servant employed in connection with, inter alia, the affairs of the Government of Bihar in relation to offences under said Act, prior consent of the State Government shall be obtained.

3. On 11th March, 1996, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sushil Kumar Modi and Ors. V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors., 1996(1) PLJR 561, directed the Central Bureau of Investigation, hereinafter referred to as the CBI, to inquire and scrutinize all cases of excess drawals and expenditure in the Department of Animal Husbandry in the State of Bihar during the period 1977-78 to 1995-1996 and to lodge cases where the drawals were found to be fraudulent in character and to take the investigation in those cases to its logical end, as early as possible preferably within four months and suspended the investigations by the State Police in the cases already instituted, taking into consideration the Notification dated 19th February, 1996.

4. The matter went before the Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar and Anr. V/s. Ranchi Zila Samta Party and Anr., 1996(1) PLJR 97 (SC) and the Apex Court affirmed the said order of this Court dated 11th March, 1996 with certain modifications. The Apex Court by its judgment and order directed that the investigation by the CBI should be under the overall control and supervision of the Patna High Court to alleviate the apprehensions of the State about the control of the investigation by the CBI. The Apex Court entrusted the CBI to investigate the case and directed the officers of the CBI to inform the Chief Justice of this Court from time to time of the progress made in the investigation and also to obtain directions in the matter of conducting the investigation, if needed. The Chief Justice was authorized to post the matter for directions before a Bench presided over by him or to constitute any other appropriate Bench. The Apex Court then observed that after the investigation is over and reports are finalized, as indicated by the Division Bench of this Court in its judgment, expeditious follow up action shall be taken, and the High Court and the State Government shall co-operate in assigning adequate number of Special Judges to deal with the cases expeditiously so that no evidence may be lost sight of.

5. Subsequently a Division Bench of this Court started monitoring the investigation by the CBI and in course of monitoring the case by an order dated 23rd August, 1996 asked the CBI to file an affidavit as to why in view of materials already collected, separate cases with respect to offences prescribed under sec. 13(1)(e) of the 1