Order This application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed on behalf of the CBI praying therein to expunge certain remarks made by learned Special Judge, CBI while passing the order dated 15.9.2007 in R.C. No. 39(A) of 1996-Pat. whereby the court suo motu summoned certain persons under section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to face trial along with other persons on the basis of-evidences appearing on the record. 2. Before coming to the matter the background of the fodder scam cases needs to be taken notice of as the same will have some bearings upon this case. 3. When large number of defalcation of public funds, fraudulent transaction and falsification of accounts to the tune of around Rs.500 crore in the Animal Husbandry Department in the State of Bihar came to light several Public Interest litigations were tiled in the High Court of Judicature at Patna and at its Ranchi Bench in the year 1996 by which time some of the cases had been lodged at some districts. Taking into the consideration the gravity of the matter, Patna High Court directed the CBI to investigate those cases where there has been excess drawal in the Department of Animal Husbandry and also to register the cases for fraudulent withdrawal of the public fund and the Court directed the first information reports already registered for the said offences to be kept in abeyance. However, the said order passed by the Patna High Court was modified by Hon'ble the Supreme Court to the extent that all those cases instituted by the district police were directed to be taken over by the CBI for its investigation under the control and supervision of the Patna High Court. Accordingly, CBI took over the matter of investigation and also lodged number of cases and the CBI seems to have divided the cases in two categories, one being of larger conspiracy involving politicians and top bureaucrats and the other being cases of conspiracy involving district. officials, the suppliers, Treasury Officers etc. Treasury-wise. However, in the meantime, Bihar Reorganization Act came into. being and then the controversy arose as to whether cases would be enquired/tried in the State of Jharkhand or State of Bihar. officials, the suppliers, Treasury Officers etc. Treasury-wise. However, in the meantime, Bihar Reorganization Act came into. being and then the controversy arose as to whether cases would be enquired/tried in the State of Jharkhand or State of Bihar. However, that was resolved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court whereby 36 cases were directed to be enquired into or tried within the territory of Jharkhand State including the present one which relates to Dumka Treasury. When those cases said to be of larger conspiracy bearing nos. R.C. 20A of 1996(PAT), R.C. 64A of 1996 (PAT), R.C. 38A of 1996 (PAT), R.C. 68A of 1996 (PAT), R.C. 47A of 1996 (PAT) and R.C. 63A of 1996 (PAT), all related to fraudulent withdrawal but of different Treasuries were being tried separately, an application was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the petitioner Lalu Prasad Yadav and Dr. Jagannath Mishra for amalgamation of those trials but the prayer was refused resultantly the trials of the cases are going on separately. On amongst them one case i.e. R.C. 38A of 1996 which is a case of larger conspiracy is related to Dumka Treasury and the instant case which has given rise these applications is also concerned with the Dumka Treasury. It be pointed out that the present case was initially instituted on 22.2.1996 under sections 109, 120(B), 409, 478, 471, 477A of the Indian Penal Code and also Section 13(1)(c)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act as Dumka (Town) P .S. case no. 21 of 1996 alleging therein that the then District Animal Husbandry Officer Dr. Shiv Narayan in conspiracy with other accused persons (suppliers) has withdrawn a sum of Rs.94,84,211/- illegally through false and forged bills. However, subsequently CBI took over the investigation of that case and got it registered as R.C. No. 39A of 1996 on 11.4.1996. The CBI having investigated the case submitted charge-sheet on 30.9.2000 against 45 accused persons named therein. In course of time, trial commenced in May, 2004 and by 15th September, 2007 the prosecution after examining 100 witnesses closed the case and then the statements of the accused persons were recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. The CBI having investigated the case submitted charge-sheet on 30.9.2000 against 45 accused persons named therein. In course of time, trial commenced in May, 2004 and by 15th September, 2007 the prosecution after examining 100 witnesses closed the case and then the statements of the accused persons were recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. Thereafter one Mahendra Prasad who was facing trial as an accused pleaded his guilt and accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced and then on his prayer, he was allowed to be examined as defence witness in favour of his father and wife and thereupon learned court below passed the order on 15.9.2007 whereby the court below summoned certain persons under section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to face trial and at the same time learned trial court directed the CBI to conduct further investigation on the point mentioned below:- (i) To verify the entire bank accounts of firm namely Wiseman Construction and NCIL, New Delhi and to produce all the papers regarding constitution of the firm, its Bank Account. (ii) Report regarding white house near Patna Museum. (ii) Relevant register of Hotel Taj. Kolkata of December, 1994 so that presence of accused can be traced. (iv) Money deposited by Sri Mahendra Prasad with accused Md. Sayeed (not accused in this case) in the house of one Mr. Abdullah and Sri Prasenjeet Bulman @ Jeet, Rs.10 crores deposited in the house of Sri S.K. Sarawagi. (v) Property of Seshmuni Ram: (a) One that at Surya Apartment, Exhibition Road, Patna. (b) Office space in Ashiana Tower, Exhibition Road. Patna. (c) Office space in Om Tower, Exhibition Road, Patna. (d) Land purchased in Danapur. Patna. (vi) To ascertain as to who were the competent and authorized persons to-receive and check the bills of AHD Office, Dumka and also to ascertain as to under what circumstances the CNC Bills of DAHO, Dumka were not checked by the AG office during the period from 1991-92 to 1995-96. (vii) To submit a report before the court about involvement of the officers of Finance Department, Government of Bihar and AHD officials during the period 1991-92 to 1995-96 where fraudulent withdrawal of Rs.1,47,60,294/- were made. (viii) To submit a report that who were working in Planning Section and Budget Section of AHD, Government of Bihar. (vii) To submit a report before the court about involvement of the officers of Finance Department, Government of Bihar and AHD officials during the period 1991-92 to 1995-96 where fraudulent withdrawal of Rs.1,47,60,294/- were made. (viii) To submit a report that who were working in Planning Section and Budget Section of AHD, Government of Bihar. (ix) Properties of Ravi Sinha from illegal means of his father as reflected by Deepak Kumar be taken note of and some receiver be appointed; it not appointed so far. (x) To fix up the identify of one Mr. Verma who had been occupying Qr. NO.4 of Doranda Accountant General Pool at Ranchi during the period from 1989 to 1994. 5. Consequently the trial court observed as follows: "This is one of those cases in which even the prosecution has suppressed various important facts from the trial court." 6. Being aggrieved with this remarks CBI has filed this application to expunge the aforesaid remarks. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the CBI submits that though the trial court while passing the order dated 15.9.2007 directed the CBI to go for further investigation on certain points (which have been indicated above) but that seems to be unwarranted as CBI has already made investigation almost on all the points though not in connection with the instant R.C case but in connection with other fodder scam cases bearing nos. RC. 52A of 1996-Pat., R.C. 64A of 1996-Pat., R.C. 20A of 1996-Pat., RC. 21 A of 1996-Pat. and R.C. 1 (A) of 1998-Pat. (AHD case) etc. in which the accused who were summoned under section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in this case, has been facing trial and in those cases the investigation made by the CBI was monitored by Division Bench either at Hon'ble Patna High Court or Hon'ble Jharkhand Court and the CBI was never subjected to any criticism and therefore under this situation whatever remarks of suppressing important facts have been made that appears to be wholly unwarranted and uncalled for and hence the same be expunged. 8. As has been noted above, when number of fodder scam cases were registered, CBI seems to have divided the cases in two categories, one being of larger conspiracy particularly involving politicians and top bureaucrats and the other being cases of conspiracy involving District Officials, Suppliers, Treasury Officers Treasury-wise. 9. 8. As has been noted above, when number of fodder scam cases were registered, CBI seems to have divided the cases in two categories, one being of larger conspiracy particularly involving politicians and top bureaucrats and the other being cases of conspiracy involving District Officials, Suppliers, Treasury Officers Treasury-wise. 9. So far this case is concerned, it relates to Dumka Treasury whereas one more case is related to Dumka Treasury which is RC. 38A of 1996 and that is a case of larger conspiracy and that apart, other cases of larger conspiracy are also pending for trial. In course of trial of the instant case, when the statements of the accused persons were recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after prosecution has closed his evidence after examining as many as 100 witnesses, one Mahendra Prasad an accused when was convicted on guilty being pleaded by him was examined as defence witness, the court after taking into consideration the evidences of D.W.1 as well as other evidences did find that there are evidences against certain persons and as such those persons were summoned, vide impugned order dated 15.9.2007. However, the said order on being challenged has been set aside by this Court. It appears that the trial court while summoning accused persons under section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure felt that there has been some deficiency in the investigation and hence directed the CBI to investigate the matter on certain points and thereby observed that prosecution has suppressed various important facts but the direction and observation seems to be unwarranted under the facts and circumstances of the case where it has been stated in the petition filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that CBI has already made investigation on the said points which were directed to be investigated upon but not in the instant case, rather in other fodder scam cases. That being the situation, any direction regarding fresh investigation and the remarks made by the trial court that the prosecution has suppressed various important facts from the trial court seems to be unwarranted and uncalled for. Accordingly, it is expunged. 10. In the result, this application is allowed.