P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J.

1. This criminal revision was not in the list on 5.3.2004. It had already been directed to be posted before me in view of the fact that the learned Single Judge before whom it was listed in the normal course, directed it to be listed before the Chief Justice to assign it to another appropriate bench and had also suggested that if possible it may be listed on 5.3.2004, It was directed to be listed next week. But on the request of senior counsel from Delhi that the matter be heard, especially since I was sitting single that day and he had come all the way from Delhi to argue it, the matter was called up for hearing since the prosecutor appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation also submitted that he was ready to get on with the case. It was thus that the case was called up and taken up and both sides were heard.

2. The accused is the revision petitioner. He challenges the order passed by the Special Judge-ll, CBI (AHD), Ranchi. On 20.1.2004 in RC 54/[A]/96-Pat by which the Special Judge dismissed a petition filed by the accused, the petitioner before me, seeking his removal from the array of the accused and to desist from framing any charge against him in the particular prosecution. According to the revision petitioner, the present case was one of the several cases registered in respect of fraudulent withdrawal of money from the Treasuries in Bihar on the strength of forged and fabricated allotment letters for making payments to suppliers for non-existent supplies of feed/fodder, medicines and other equipments, called fodder scam cases.

3. According to the revision petitioner, since he had been accepted as an approver in certain other fodder scam cases, including in one before the same Special Court, he could not be arrayed as an accused in the case on hand and since the prosecution has also agreed to treat him as an approver in the present case also, the Court was bound to treat him as an approver and remove him from the array of the accused. He contended that the evidence given by him in cases in which he had been treated as an approver, would be adversely affected if he is not made an approver in the present case also and that since the prosecution has agreed to treat him as an approver in the present case as well, the Court was obliged to drop him from the array of the accused and treat him as an approver, subject, of course, to the conditions in that behalf. The prosecution supported this plea of the revision petitioner, the accused. But the learned Special Judge took the view that he was one of the prime accused in the particular case and it would not be appropriate to treat him as an approver and that he had to be retained in the array of the accused. The Special Judge thus dismissed the application made by the accused and proceeded to frame charges against him. This revision challenges the order dismissing the applications of the accused to treat him as an approver in the present prosecution also.

4. Before me, the prosecutor appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) proceeded to support the arguments of learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the Court below was in error in rejecting the application of the accused to be treated as an approver and retaining him in the array of the accused. The has compelled the Court to make an investigation of its own on some of the aspects arising for decision and the result of that investigation is also reflected in this judgment.

5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the petitioner was treated as an approver by the very Court in another case and he had also been treated as approver in four other cases which were all part of the fodder scam cases and in that situation, the revision petitioner should have been treated as an approver in the present case also, notwithstanding the fact that he has been charged with misappropriation of a substantial part of the amount allegedly misappropriated in the prese