IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.35407 of 2008 LALA AJAY KUMAR SINHA Versus STATE OF BIHAR - - - - 2. 12.9.2008 Heard. The case relates to an audited account and a report on that basis reporting withdrawal of Rs. 208.16 lacs from the Treasury on the head of salary bills by fabricating advice slips under signatures which were also of non-existent intermediary disbursers. Various paragraphs of the case diary could indicate as to how the amount, as indicated above, could have been siphoned off the Treasury on the basis of advice slips which were not signed by the real drawing and disbursing Officers. It is not that the petitioner, who was the Accountant in the Crime Investigation Department, was the solitary person who was indulging in the frauds, there could be Officers in the rank of Dy. S.P. and others who have been granted anticipatory bail by a Bench of this Court in respect of which some orders have been annexed 2 to the present petition. This petitioner attempted twice for being granted the same relief as was granted by the Court to the Officers in the rank of Dy. S.P. and others who were sitting at par with the petitioner but his prayer was not allowed as may appear from annexures appearing at pages 120 and 121 of the present brief. The typed report indicates as to how the amount of money, as indicated above, could be siphoned off by the petitioner in deep collusion with some other employees and the Officers in the rank of Dy.S.P. and others on the basis of the advice slips during the different periods. The contention was that the petitioner was an old man of 67 years, who was suffering from several ailments and other persons who were bearing almost the similar allegation are enjoying the privilege of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure granted by this Court. Besides, the procedure was pointed out as to how the bill could be presented, passed and disbursement of salary to be made to the employees and during that course it was contended that it was the responsibility of 3 the superintendent of Police to order for preparation of bill, to check the acquittance roll and thereafter pass it and send it to the Treasury for passing and again checking the bill amount with the advice slip and after getting the bill from the treasury to check the amount and disburse/distribute the amount to the employees. Might be that the Superintendent of Police could not be an innocent person, he might also have the deeper hand in the conspiracy, but for that reason the person who was preparing the bill, sending the same to the Treasury and receiving back from the Treasury after passing of the same and receiving advice slips could not escape his responsibility. The fraud is huge, involvement is deep and that probably diminishes the discretionary power of the Court. The petition is dismissed. Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)