CASE STUDY ONE CAN UNDERSTAND THE intelligence quotient (IQ) SCORE AND DEVELOPMENT IN BIHAR BY STUDYING THE CRIMES DEALT IN POLICE DEPARTMENT

Intelligence quotient WHAT IS THE IQ LEVEL OF PEOPLE BASED ON DEVELOPMENT AND CHOOSING WRONG LEADERS

ONE HAS TO STUDY THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS IN BIHAR BASED ON CRIMES AND THE IOQ LEVEL OF PEOPLE WHO CHOOSE Lalu Yadav’s elder son Tej Pratap Yadav shown 25 yrs of age and … More important and Glaring is – one of 9th Fail and another happens

 

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-bihar-polls-lalu-prasad-s-younger-son-tejaswi-aged-more-than-elder-one-affidavits-states-2131949

An intelligence quotient (IQ) is a score derived from one of several standardized tests designed to assess human intelligence. The abbreviation “IQ” was coined by the psychologist William Stern for the German term Intelligenzquotient, his term for a scoring method for intelligence tests he advocated in a 1912 book.[1] When current IQ tests are developed, the median raw score of the norming sample is defined as IQ 100 and scores each standard deviation (SD) up or down are defined as 15 IQ points greater or less,[2] although this was not always so historically. By this definition, approximately two-thirds of the population scores between IQ 85 and IQ 115, and about 5 percent of the population scores above 125.[3][4]

IQ scores have been shown to be associated with such factors as morbidity and mortality,[5][6] parental social status,[7] and, to a substantial degree, biological parental IQ. While the heritability of IQ has been investigated for nearly a century, there is still debate about the significance of heritability estimates[8][9] and the mechanisms of inheritance.[10]

IQ scores are used for educational placement, assessment of intellectual disability, and evaluating job applicants. Even when students improve their scores on standardized tests, they don’t always improve their cognitive abilities, such as memory, attention and speed.[11] In research contexts they have been studied as predictors of job performance, and income. They are also used to study distributions of psychometric intelligence in populations and the correlations between it and other variables. Raw scores on IQ tests for many populations have been rising at an average rate that scales to three IQ points per decade since the early 20th century, a phenomenon called the Flynn effect. Investigation of different patterns of increases in subtest scores can also inform current research on human intelligence.

 

 

Lalu’s son Tejashwi Yadav appointed deputy CM of Bihar

  • HT Correspondent, Hindustan Times, New Delhi
  • |

  • Updated: Nov 20, 2015 19:17 IST

RJD chief Lalu Prasad’s son Tejashwi Yadav takes oath as a minister during the swearing-in ceremony of the new government at Gandhi Maidan in Patna on Friday. (PTI Photo)


RJD chief Lalu Prasad’s son Tejashwi Yadav, a first time MLA, has been made the deputy chief minister in the Bihar cabinet that took charge on Friday.

The announcement came hours after chief minister Nitish Kumar and 28 ministers of the RJD-JD(U)-Congress alliance, which included Prasad’s two sons, Tejashwi and Tej Pratap, were sworn in.

Tejashwi, who was the second person to be sworn in after Kumar, will hold the road and building construction portfolios

Prasad’s elder son Tej Pratap Yadav has been alloted the health department . Chief minister Kumar will keep the crucial home ministry.

Tej Pratap — a school dropout– had fumbled twice earlier while taking oath prompting Governor Ram Nath Kovind to correct him.

The selection of ministers was done keeping vote banks in mind with OBCs including Yadavs getting more prominence.

Besides Kumar, the ministry has 12 members each from RJD and JD(U) and four from Congress .

RJD won 80 seats in the Bihar poll followed by JD(U) 71 and Congress 27 totalling 178 in the 243-member legislative assembly

Even after emerging the single largest party, Prasad stuck to the pre-poll understanding that Kumar would be the chief minister. Since then there was speculation that Tejashwi would be made the deputy chief minister.

More ministers would be sworn in later as the cabinet can have a maximum of 36 members as per the number of seats in the Bihar assembly.

http://patnapolice.bih.nic.in/

http://biharpolice.bih.nic.in/

 

Close to 60% Bihar MLAs face criminal charges, RJD leads the pack

At 31, the Lalu Yadav-led RJD again has the highest number of MLAs with serious criminal charges, including attempt to murder, followed by the JD(U) with 24

Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar (right) and RJD chief Lalu Prasad greet each other after the Mahagathbandhan’s victory in the Bihar Assembly elections on Sunday

* A total of 143 MLAs (59%) in the new Bihar assembly face criminal charges, and 96 MLAs face serious including and kidnapping.

* Among MLAs facing serious charges, 12 have been charged for murder, 26 are charged for attempt to murder, nine are charged for and 13 face charges.

The Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) led by Lalu Prasad, which emerged as the largest single party in the Bihar assembly with 80 seats, has the highest number of MLAs (49) with criminal cases pending against them.

The is followed by its Mahagathbandan (Grand Alliance) ally the Janata Dal (United) with 37 MLAs who have criminal cases pending against them.

An analysis of affidavits filed by 3,450 candidates for the 243-seat assembly showed that 1,038 (30%) candidates had declared criminal charges, according to data sourced from Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), a non-profit think-tank working on electoral and governance reforms.

As many as 796 (23%) candidates had declared serious criminal cases including charges related to murder, attempt to murder, communal disharmony, kidnapping and crimes against women lodged against them.

PATNA:  Twelve mobile phones were seized from inmates of a Bihar jail during a raid early Wednesday, police said.

Half a dozen mobile chargers, SIM cards and other objectionable items were also recovered from the prisoners of Beur central jail here, police said.

A police team led by Senior Superintendent of Police Vineet Vinayak raided the jail, where several gangsters, criminals turned politicians and Maoists are lodged.

The raid was conducted following the murder of a businessman who was robbed by unidentified assailants in Patna Monday night. Police received information that inmates were freely using mobile phones to operate their criminal gangs.

Story First Published: April 07, 2010 11:43 IST

Maoist linked criminal from Bihar

THANE: The city police have secured the custody of a Bihar-based maoist, Chand Miya (37), who is suspected of procuring personnel and weapons for the attempted assassination of a BJP functionary, Mahesh Patil, in Kalyan last month. The anti-extortion cell of the Thane police will interrogate his role in the attempted assassination.

Miya, the prime suspect in a bomb blast in Ara district court in Bihar that was carried out in an attempt to free his comrades Lambu Sharma and Akhilesh Upadhyay, is believed to be conducting his operations from Ara jail.

” Our men had intercepted calls from the cell phones of co-accused Suraj Khan and nabbed his team of six men from Kalyan station on June 28. We recovered four pistols and 20 rounds of ammunition. Khan revealed that he was hired by Kunal Patil to eliminate the functionary with whom he had a long standing conflict,” said Parag Manere, DCP (crime)

He added that a deeper probe led to Miya, who has 22 other cases registered against him. ” Khan went to Bihar to procure weapons from Miya and promised him Rs 5-10 lakh for the operation,”said N T Kadam of the anti-extortion cell.

On interrogating criminals from Bihar and UP, it was revelaed that Miya’s operations were conducted without the usage of modern gadgets to avoid surveillance.

Advertisements

TAMIL NADU GOVT CAN NOW AGAIN OPEN ALL THE WAR CRIMES IN SRILANKA Rahul Gandhi declared he is British, claims Subramanian Swamy, wants his citizenship cancelled

TAMIL NADU GOVT SHOULD OPEN ABOUT SRILANKAN WARCRIMES BECAUSE THEY NOE WILL BE IN STRONG POSITION TO ASK QUESTIONS FROM U.N AND THE INDIAN GOVT TO GIVE DETAILS ABOUT SRILANKAN CIVIL WAR AND WHAT TYPE OF WEAPONS WERE PROVIDED .RAHUL GANDHI IS NOT A INDIAN CITIZEN MEANS THAT TAMIL NADU GOVT SHOULD START INVESTIGATING ABOUT WARCRIMES IN SRILANKA MONEY TRANSFERED TO SRILANKA.

 

TAMIL TIGERS REHABILATION

THESE VIDEOS SHOW THAT BILLIONS OF MONEY WERE SPENT TO KILL TAMILS AND SO HOW MUCH RAHUL GANDHI HAS GIVEN TO SRILANKA TAMIL NADU GOVT HAS TO INVESTIGATE.

 

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=TAMIL+TIGERS+REHABILATION

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moC4MN7g63I

 

 

BJP leader Subramanian Swamy on Monday alleged that Congress Vice President Rahul Gandhi had been the director of a company in Britain and he had declared himself as a British citizen.

 

 

 Subramanian Swamy, rahul gandhi, rahul gandhi british, british nationality, latest newsCongress Vice-President Rahul Gandhi.

Accusing Congress vice-president Rahul Gandhi of declaring himself a British citizen to float a firm in that country, BJP leader Subramanian Swamy has written to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, demanding that the Congress MP should be stripped of his Indian citizenship as well as his parliamentary membership. The Congress has, however, dismissed Swamy’s charge.

“I wrote to PM Modi on November 12, asking him to initiate steps to cancel Rahul’s citizenship and will ask Lok Sabha Speaker to appoint a committee or direct the committee on ethics to cancel his Lok Sabha membership,” Swamy said at a specially-convened press conference.

Watch Video – Rahul Gandhi Vs Subramanian Swamy: Gandhi’s Citizenship Row

 

However, the Congress termed the allegations false and said the dirty tricks department of the BJP was resorting to “petty and mindless mud-slinging” as it was “frustrated by its humiliating defeat in Bihar and internal revolt brewing amongst the seniormost leadership”.

In his letter to the PM, Swamy alleged that Rahul had floated a company called Backops Limited in 2003 in the UK, and in the annual return form, he had declared himself to be of British nationality with a UK address. Rahul also held 65 per cent of the total shares issued by this company, Swamy claimed.

“Same facts were repeated, viz, that Mr Rahul Gandhi as having British nationality in the annual returns filed on Oct 31, 2006 as well,” the letter said.

“No MP can incorporate a company abroad without permission and without declaring the same in his nomination form as a candidate for election to Parliament,” the letter added.

Congress communication department head Randeep Singh Surjewala said, “The sole purpose appears to be to divert attention from inner revolt and paralysis of policy and governance being questioned all around.”

About the company’s annual return purportedly mentioning Rahul as a British national, Surjewala said: “Rahul Gandhi has not filed any such return. If somebody has committed an error while uploading, it can be corrected. It is correctable. Rahul has held Indian citizenship from the day he was born.”

 

 

BIHAR ELECTIONS AND MYANMAR IS A CASE STUDY FOR THE WHOLE WORLD TO KNOW WHAT TYPE OF MENTALITY DO YOU HAVE TO VOTE FOR A VERY CORRUPT LEADER FOR DEVELOPMENT

ONE HAS TO DO A CASE STUDY OF BIHAR AND MYANMAR TO KNOW WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE IN THEIR MENTALITY TO KNOW WHAT MADE BIHAR TO ELECT A VERY CORRUPT LEADER WHERE IS THE DEVELOPMENT.

ONE HAS TO TAKE THE CASE STUDY OF BIHAR INTERNATIONALLY AND TRY TO APPLY IN THEIR OWN COUNTRIES.

LETS DEBATE OPENLY WILL THE PEOPLE OUSTIDE BIHAR LIVING IN OTHER COUNTRIES WILL VOTE FOR A CORRUPT PERSON.

PEOPLE IN INDIA WILL ASK IN ANY PART OF WORLD THERE ARE COMMUNAL TENSIONS BUT

WILL IN ANY PART OF WORLD THEY WOULD VOTE LIKE IN BIHAR EVEN MYNANMAR KNOW WHO IS A BETTER LEADER FOR THEM . THIS IS THE MAIN DIFFERENCE OF PEOPLE WHO VOTED IN BIHAR AND IN MYANMAR .

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-34756381

Myanmar votes in first open election in 25 years

  • 54 minutes ago
  • From the sectionAsia
Myanmar"s National League for Democracy (NLD) party leader Aung San Suu Kyi arrives to cast her ballot during the general election in Yangon November 8, 2015Image copyrightReuters
Image captionAung San Suu Kyi arrived to vote in Yangon amid a large media scrum

Voting has taken place in Myanmar’s general election – the first openly contested poll in 25 years after decades of military rule.

Voting was brisk, with many people emerging smiling from polling stations.

Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy (NLD) is expected to win the most parliamentary seats, although she is barred from the presidency.

The military-backed Union Solidarity Development Party (USDP) has been in power since 2011.

Large crowds gathered in Yangon as Ms Suu Kyi arrived to cast her vote.

Wearing her trademark thazin flowers in her hair, she smiled and waved, but left without comment.

Across the country, long queues formed at some polling booths, with reports of people waiting from before dawn.

“When I cast my vote I was very excited and so worried that I might do something wrong that my hands were shaking,” said Kay Khine Soe, in Ms Suu Kyi’s Kawhmu constituency.

INDIA GOT INDEPENDENCE IN 1947 BIHAR WAS MADE TO BE A BACKWARD STATE BY THE POLITICIANS .

NOW ONE HAS TO UNDERSTAND THE MINDSET OF PEOPLE FROM 1947 TILL 2015.

EVEN A COUNTRY OUTSIDE WILL VOTE FOR A INTELLIGENT ENEMY.

SO ONE CAN UNDERSTAND THE MINDSET AND THIS WILL REALLY NOT APPLY TO OTHER INDIAN STATES.

PEOPLE WILL VOTE DIFFERENTLY IN OTHER INDIAN STATES . BIHAR IS A EXCEPTIONAL CASE.

WHERE PEOPLE REALLY DONT KNOW TO JUDGE THINGS PROPERLY .

A COMMAN MAN WILL ASK THIS QUESTION AGAIN YOU HAVE A CORRUPT LEADER.

AFTER SO MANY YEARS OF INDEPENDENCE AGAIN BIHAR HAS VOTED FOR A VERY CORRUPT LEADER SO WHERE IS THE DEVELOPMENT.

Supreme Court Sends Notice to Lalu Prasad in Fodder Scam Case

EMAIL
PRINT
11COMMENTS
Supreme Court Sends Notice to Lalu Prasad in Fodder Scam Case

File Photo: RJD Chief Lalu Prasad

The Supreme Court has issued a notice to RJD leader Lalu Prasad regarding a corruption case, asking why the charges against him that have been dropped by the Jharkhand High Court cannot be revived.

The notice came after the Central Bureau of Investigation, which had probed the scam, moved the top court challenging the high court order. The Jharkhand high court had dropped some charges against Mr Prasad in November 2014. The verdict gave him relief under the relevant section of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act and Article 22 of the Constitution, which that states that a person once convicted or acquitted cannot be tried again for the same offence.

The former chief minister of Bihar had been charged in several cases related to the scam, in which Rs. 900 crores were embezzled from the state exchequer for fictitious medicines and fodder for cattle over a period of 20 years. The matter came to light in 1996.

In October 2013, Mr Prasad was convicted in one of the cases- on charges of embezzling Rs.37 crore. But he received bail in December 2013 from the Supreme Court.

The veteran leader – who was banned from contesting elections due to his conviction — has four weeks to reply to the notice.

Story First Published: August 17, 2015 15:29 IST

Fodder Scam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Fodder Scam involved hundreds of billions of dollars in alleged fraudulent reimbursements from the treasury of Biharstate for fodder, medicines and husbandry supplies for non-existent livestock.

The Fodder Scam (Hindi: चारा घोटाला, chārā ghoṭālā) was a corruption scandal that involved the embezzlement of about 9.4 billion (equivalent to 25 billion or US$380 million in 2015) from the government treasury of the eastern Indian state of Bihar.[1] Among those implicated in the theft and arrested were thenChief Minister of Bihar, Lalu Prasad Yadav, as well as former Chief Minister, Jagannath Mishra.[2][3] The scandal led to the end of Lalu’s reign as Chief Minister. There is also allegation on Shivanand Tiwari of receiving 1 crore and 60 lakh Rupees respectively from S.N. Sinha.

The theft spanned for many years, and allegedly involved numerous Bihar state’s administrative and elected officials across multiple administrations of theIndian National Congress and the Janata Dal parties. The corruption scheme involved the fabrication of “vast herds of fictitious livestock” for which fodder, medicines and animal husbandry equipment was supposedly procured.[1][4] Although the scandal broke in 1996, the theft had been in progress, and increased in size, for over two decades.[5] Besides the magnitude and duration of the theft, the scam was and continues to be covered in Indian media due to the extensive nexus between tenured bureaucrats, elected politicians and businesspeople that it revealed,[6] and as an example of the mafia raj that has penetrated several state-run economic sectors in the country.

As of May 2013, the trial has completed in 44 cases out of a total of 53 cases.[7] More than 500 accused have been convicted and awarded punishments by various courts.[8]

The scam[edit]

The scam had its origins in small-scale embezzlement by some government employees submitting false expense reports, which grew in magnitude and drew additional elements, such as politicians and businesses, over time, until a full-fledged mafia had formed.[6] Jagannath Mishra, who served his first stint as the chief minister of Bihar in the mid-1970s, was the earliest chief minister to be accused of knowing involvement in the scam.[9]

In February 1985, the then Comptroller and Auditor General of India, T.N. Chaturvedi, took notice of delayed monthly account submissions by the Bihar state treasury and departments and wrote to the then Bihar chief minister, Chandrashekhar Singh, warning him that this could be indicative of temporary embezzlement.[10] This initiated a continuous chain of closer scrutiny and warnings by Principal Accountant Generals (PAGs) and CAGs to the Bihar government across the tenures of multiple chief ministers (cutting across party affiliations), but the warnings were ignored in a manner that was suggestive of a pattern by extremely senior political and bureaucratic officials in the Bihar government.[11] In 1992, Bidhu Bhushan Dvivedi, a police inspector with the state’s anti-corruption vigilance unit submitted a report outlining the fodder scam and likely involvement at the chief ministerial level to the director general of the same vigilance unit, G. Narayan.[12][13] In alleged reprisal, Dvivedi was transferred out of the vigilance unit to a different branch of the administration, and then suspended from his position. He was later to be a witness as corruption cases relating to the scam went to trial, and reinstated by order of the Jharkhand High Court.

Exposure and investigation[edit]

Laloo Prasad Yadav, then chief minister ofBihar, was a prime accused in the fodder scam investigation.

Bihar Veterinary Association for the first time exposed Animal Husbandry Mafia in its 1985 Press Conference. In 1990 the executive committee of Bihar Veterinary Association was changed and Dr R K Rana was made the General Secretary of BVA . Once the mafia had control over the association, they went all guns blazing. At that point Dr. Dharmendra Sinha and Dr. Biresh Prasad Sinha ( The Ex-office bearers of BVA) started collecting and gathering information against this whole unethical practice of Mafia. They exposed this to all the political guns of Bihar. Among all these political guns were Sushil Kumar Modi who initiated the whole episode after it was broken out by Amit Khare. On 27 January 1996, the deputy commissioner of West Singhbhum district, Amit Khare, acted on information to conduct a raid on the offices of the animal husbandry department in the town of Chaibasa in the district under his authority. The documents his team seized, and went public with, conclusively indicated large-scale embezzlement by an organised mafia of officials and business people. The news of fodder scam was first broken out by Indian journalist Ravi S Jha, who working with the Asian Age then in Calcutta, named the then Bihar Chief Minister of having implicit involvement in the scam. Based on evidence collected by him from Chaibasa, Jha not only found out widespread involvement of Bihar government machinery in the scam, he even mentioned how earlier governments too were taking advantage of a shoddy system, where top government officials along with the ministers were flouting norms to make money illegally. Jha, an Associate Director of Public Affairs, is currently working with anti-corruption crusader and good governance promoter Rajeev Chandrasekhar, the Rajya Sabha Member of Parliament.[11] Laloo ordered the constitution of a committee to probe the irregularities.[14] There were fears that state police, which is accountable to the state administration, and the probe committee would not investigate the case vigorously, and demands were raised to transfer the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which is under federal rather than state jurisdiction. Allegations were also made that several of the probe committee members were themselves complicit in the scam.[14] A public interest litigation was filed with the Supreme Court of India, which led to the court’s involvement,[14] and based on the ultimate directions issued by the supreme court, on March 1996, the Bihar High Courtordered that the case be handed over to the CBI.[15]

An inquiry by the CBI began and, within days, the CBI filed a submission to the High Court that Bihar officials and legislators were blocking access to documents that could reveal the existence of a politician-official-business mafia nexus at work.[16] Some legislators of the Bihar Legislative Council responded by claiming the court had been misinformed by the CBI and initiating a privilege motion to discuss possible action against senior figures in the regional headquarters of the CBI, which could proceed similar to a contempt of court proceeding and result in stalling the investigation or even prosecution of the named CBI officials.[16] However, U. N. Biswas, the regional CBI director, and the other officials tendered an unqualified apology to the Legislative Council, the privilege motion was dropped, and the CBI probe continued.[16] As the investigation proceeded, the CBI unearthed linkages to the serving chief minister of Bihar, Laloo Prasad Yadav and, on 10 May 1997, made a formal request to the federally-appointed Governor of Bihar to prosecute Laloo (who is often referred by his first name in Indian media).[17] On the same day, a businessman, Harish Khandelwal, who was one of the accused was found dead on train tracks with a note that stated that he was being coerced by the CBI to turn witness for the prosecution.[17] The CBI rejected the charge and its local director, U. N. Biswas, kept the appeal to the governor in place.[13][17] An Income Tax Investigation also blamed Laloo for the scam.

Path to prosecution[edit]

A few days of uncertainty followed the CBI’s request to the state governor to prosecute the chief minister. The governor, A. R. Kidwai, was accountable to the federal government, and had already stated that he would need to be satisfied that strong evidence against Laloo existed before he would permit a formal indictment to proceed.[18] The federal government, led by newly appointed prime ministerInder Kumar Gujral who had just succeeded the short-lived government of the previous prime minister HD Deve Gowda, consisted of a coalition that depended on support from federal legislators affiliated with Laloo for its survival.[13][19] It was also unclear why the CBI had sought the governor’s consent in the first place and, when the High Court demanded to know why it was being sought, the CBI stated that it was a “precautionary measure.”[20] The High Court, questioning the tactic, warned that it would allow some time for the permission to transpire, but if it sensed a delay, it would force a prosecution on its own authority.[20]

On 17 June, the governor gave permission for Laloo and others to be prosecuted.[21] Five senior Bihar government officials (Mahesh Prasad, science and technology secretary; K. Arumugam, labour secretary; Beck Julius, animal husbandry department secretary; Phoolchand Singh, former finance secretary; Ramraj Ram, former AHD director), the first 4 of whom were IAS officers, were taken into judicial custody on the same day.[22][23] The CBI also began preparing a chargesheet against Laloo to be filed in a special court. Expecting to be accused and imprisoned, Laloo filed an anticipatory bailpetition, which the CBI opposed in a deposition to the court, listing the evidence against Laloo.[24] Also, on 21 June, fearing that evidence and documentation that might prove essential in further exposing the scam were being destroyed, the CBI conducted raids on Laloo’s residence and those of some relatives suspected of complicity.[25]

On 23 June, the CBI filed chargesheets against Laloo and 55 other co-accused,[26] including Chandradeo Prasad Verma (a former union minister), Jagannath Mishra (former Bihar chief minister), two members of Laloo’s cabinet (Bhola Ram Toofani and Vidya Sagar Nishad), three Bihar state assembly legislators (RK Rana of the Janata Dal, Jagdish Sharma of the Congress party, and Dhruv Bhagat of the Bharatiya Janata Party) and some current and former IAS officers (including the 4 who were already in custody).[23] Mishra was granted anticipatory bail by the Bihar state High Court.[27] Laloo’s anticipatory bail petition, however, was rejected by the same court, and he appealed to the Supreme Court, which resulted in a final denial of bail on 29 July.[26] On the same day, Bihar state police were ordered to arrest him.[28] The next day, he was jailed.[29] Later, the Bihar Director General of Police, SK Saxena, justified the one-day delay in arresting Laloo by stating in court that “any precipitate action would have led to police firing and killing of a large number of people.”[30]

End of Laloo’s chief ministership[edit]

As it became evident that Laloo would be engulfed in the scandal and its prosecution, demands for him to be removed from the chief ministership had gained momentum both from other parties,[31][32] as well as within Laloo’s own party, the Janata Dal.[33] On 5 July, Laloo formally parted ways with the Janata Dal and formed his own party, the Rashtriya Janata Dal (or RJD), taking with him virtually all the Janata Dal legislators in the Bihar state assembly,[34] and winning a vote of confidence in the state assembly a few days later.[35] The RJD continued to support the coalition federal government, however.[34] With demands for his resignation continuing to mount, on 25 July, Laloo resigned from his position, but was able to install his wife, Rabri Devi as the new chief minister on the same day. On 28 July 1997, Rabri’s new government won another vote of confidence in the Bihar legislature by 194–110, thanks to the Congress and Jharkhand Mukti Morcha parties voting in alignment with the RJD.[36]

Laloo claimed he had been instrumental in helping HD Deve Gowda become the prime minister.[37] However, there was press speculation that Gowda held a grudge against Laloo for insisting that Gowda step down when Gowda’s fledgling government ran into internal coalition squabbles, and this motivated him to push CBI Director Joginder Singh for Laloo’s prosecution.[22][38] Much later, in 2008, Laloo also claimed that Deve Gowda confessed, and “wept and fainted,” when Laloo confronted him on inciting the CBI to pursue the prosecution.[37] Looking retrospectively, Laloo has said that the scam had a lasting negative impact on his political career, and may have ended his prospects to one day be prime minister of India.[39]

There were reports that Joginder Singh had violated norms in keeping the new prime minister, IK Gujral, in the dark as he pursued the prosecution.[38] Gujral’s own new government also depended on Laloo for support in parliament,[40] and Joginder Singh later alleged that Gujral had attempted to block the scam investigation from proceeding.[41][42] On 30 June, the federal government issued orders to transfer Singh out of the CBI and into the Home Ministry as a Special Secretary,[40] which was technically a promotion but also had the effect of removing him from the investigation.[43] There was also an alleged follow-on move to transfer U. N. Biswas, the regional CBI director, which led to the High Court warning that it would act to disallow any such transfer.[44]

Prosecution[edit]

As the CBI discovered further evidence over the following years, it filed additional cases related to fraud and criminal conspiracy based on specific criminal acts of illegal withdrawals from the Bihar treasury. Most new cases filed after the division of Bihar state (into the new Bihar and Jharkhand states) in November 2000 were filed in the new Jharkhand High Court located in Ranchi, and several cases previously filed in the Bihar High Court in Patna were also transferred to Ranchi. Of the 63 cases that the agency had filed by May 2007, the majority were being litigated in the Ranchi High Court.[2][45]

Laloo’s initial chargesheet, filed by the CBI on 27 April 1996, was against case RC 20-A/96, relating to fraudulent withdrawals of 370 million (US$5.6 million) from the Chaibasa treasury of the (then) Bihar government,[23] and was based on statutes including Indian Penal Code sections 420 (cheating) and 120(B) (criminal conspiracy), as well as section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.[46] Even though he had been jailed, he was kept in relative comfort at the Bihar Military Police guest house.[47] After 135 days in judicial custody, Laloo was released on bail on 12 December 1997.[48] The next year, on 28 October 1998, he was rearrested on a different conspiracy case relating to the fodder scam, at first being kept in the same guest house, but then being moved to Patna’s Beur jail when the Supreme Court objected.[47][49] After being granted bail, he was rearrested yet again in a disproportionate assets case on 5 April 2000. His wife and then Chief Minister Rabri Devi was also asked to surrender on that date, but then immediately granted bail.[47] This stint in prison lasted 11 days for Laloo, followed by a one-day imprisonment in another fodder scam case on 28 November 2000.[47]

Jagannath Mishra had been permitted bail in June 1997, and avoided judicial remand when Laloo was first detained in July 1997. However, he was taken into custody on 16 September of the same year. He was freed on bail on 13 October but then remanded again, at the same time as Laloo, on 28 October 1998, when he was kept at the same guest house as Laloo, and later shifted to Beur jail along with him.[49][50] Mishra was freed on bail on 18 December,[49] but then rearrested in a different fodder scam case on 7 June 2000.[3]

Due to the multiplicity of cases, Laloo Yadav, Jagannath Mishra, and the other accused have been remanded several times in the years since 2000. In 2007, 58 former officials and suppliers were convicted, and given terms of 5 to 6 years each.[49] As of May 2007, about 200 people had been punished with jail terms of between 2 and 7 years.[45] A 2005 litigation of one of the cases (RC 68-A/96) in the Ranchi High Court involved over 20 truckloads of documents.[51]

On 1 March 2012, nearly 16 years after CBI was handled over the case, a special CBI court in Patna framed charges against Lalu Prasad Yadav and Jagannath Mishra along with 32 other accused. Of the total 44 accused, six have died, two have turned approvers, while two others are still evading arrest. The CBI had chargesheeted them in this case on 3 March 2003. The court said that the trial would begin soon.[52][53][54]

Disproportionate assets case[edit]

A disproportionate assets (DA) case was filed against Lalu in August 1998. The Income Tax claimed that Lalu had amassed wealth of Rs. 4.6 million out of the government treasury. Lalu and Rabri werechargesheeted in April 2000 and charges were framed by the court on 9 June 2000. Finally, the couple was acquitted on 18 December 2006 by a special CBI court.[55]

CBI didn’t appeal against this verdict in high court. However, Government of Bihar challenged the verdict (of CBI court) in Patna High Court and the high court accepted the plea.[56] This verdict of Patna High Court was challenged by Lalu and the CBI in SC.[57] The SC in April 2010 declared that the Government of Bihar has no right to file appeal against acquittal of the accused even in cases where the CBI refuses to challenge the trial court or High Court’s verdict favouring the accused.[58]

In yet another twist in the case, Government of Chhattisgarh in an unrelated case requested the Supreme Court to review its verdict in Lalu Yadav Disproportionate assets case. The Government of Chhattisgarh was aggrieved by Supreme Court verdict in DA case when it was trying to challenge the acquittal of former chief minister Ajit Jogi‘s son Amit Jogi in a murder case. After the trial court in Chhattisgarh acquitted Amit Jogi in May 2007, for over three-and-a-half years, the CBI again (similar to Lalu’s DA case) did not file any appeal. Chhattisgarh High Court rejected Government of Chhattisgarh‘s appeal due to Supreme Court‘s order (which is binding on all) in Lalu Disproportionate assets case. On 19 March 2012, the Supreme Court agreed to review its own decision in Lalu’sDisproportionate assets case.[59] However in May 2012, Supreme Court dismissed the Review Petition holding that the earlier Judgment did not suffer from any mistake apparent on the face of the record warranting any review.[60]

Convictions[edit]

As of May 2013, the trial has completed in 44 cases out of a total of 53 cases.[7] More than 500 accused have been convicted and awarded punishments by various courts. Some of the most prominent convicts include former CM of Bihar Lalu Prasad,[61] former Member of Parliament RK Rana and former Member of Legislative Assembly Dhruv Bhagat.[8]

On 30 September 2013, a Special CBI Court in Ranchi convicted Lalu Prasad Yadav and Jagannath Mishra along with 44 others in the case. Thirty-seven people were taken into judicial custody. The court has announced a sentence of 5 years and 4 years for Laloo and Jagannath Mishra respectively.[62]

Sentence[edit]

Former Bihar chief minister and Rashtriya Janata Dal president Lalu Prasad was sentenced to 5 years in jail in a fodder scam case by a special CBI court on 3 October 2013. The court of Pravas Kumar Singh announced the quantum of punishment via video conference due to security reasons. Prasad has also been slapped with a fine of Rs 2.5 million. The 65-year-old leader has lost his Lok Sabha seat and is also barred from contesting election for six years following the sentencing due to an earlier Supreme Court order.

Another former Bihar chief minister Jagannath Mishra has been handed a 4-year sentence.[63]

Impact[edit]

Since it broke into public light, the fodder scam has become symbolic of bureaucratic corruption and the criminalisation of politics in India generally, and in Bihar in particular. It has been called a symptom of the “deep and chronic malady afflicting the Bihar government and quite a few other state governments as well.”[64] In the Indian parliament, it was cited as an important indicator of the deep inroads made by mafia raj in the politics and economics of the country.[65] Reference has also been made to the anarchic nature of governance (the “withering away of the state”) that occurs when a mafia develops in a state-controlled sector of the economy.[66]

Laloo Prasad Yadav is the only person on whom the Lok Sabha debated for a complete session as the official agenda.[67]

BIHAR ELECTIONS IS A EXAMPLE A CASE STUDY FOR ENTIRE WORLD HOW PEOPLE VOTE FOR A CORRUPT LEADER WHERE IS THE DEVELOPMENT

ONE HAS TO SEE BIHAR ELECTIONS AND THE MINDSET OF THE PEOPLE THEY HAVE VOTED FOR A VERY CORRUPT LEADER WHAT SORT OF DEVELOPMENT THEY ARE EXPECTING FROM A CORRUPT LEADER.

NO OTHER STATE IN INDIA WILL VOTE LIKE BIHAR IN COMING ELECTIONS.

A COMMAN MAN WILL ASK THIS QUESTION AGAIN YOU HAVE A CORRUPT LEADER.

AFTER SO MANY YEARS OF INDEPENDENCE AGAIN BIHAR HAS VOTED FOR A VERY CORRUPT LEADER SO WHERE IS THE DEVELOPMENT.

Supreme Court Sends Notice to Lalu Prasad in Fodder Scam Case

EMAIL
PRINT
11COMMENTS
Supreme Court Sends Notice to Lalu Prasad in Fodder Scam Case

File Photo: RJD Chief Lalu Prasad

The Supreme Court has issued a notice to RJD leader Lalu Prasad regarding a corruption case, asking why the charges against him that have been dropped by the Jharkhand High Court cannot be revived.

The notice came after the Central Bureau of Investigation, which had probed the scam, moved the top court challenging the high court order. The Jharkhand high court had dropped some charges against Mr Prasad in November 2014.

The verdict gave him relief under the relevant section of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act and Article 22 of the Constitution, which that states that a person once convicted or acquitted cannot be tried again for the same offence.

The former chief minister of Bihar had been charged in several cases related to the scam, in which Rs. 900 crores were embezzled from the state exchequer for fictitious medicines and fodder for cattle over a period of 20 years. The matter came to light in 1996.

In October 2013, Mr Prasad was convicted in one of the cases- on charges of embezzling Rs.37 crore. But he received bail in December 2013 from the Supreme Court.

The veteran leader – who was banned from contesting elections due to his conviction — has four weeks to reply to the notice.

Story First Published: August 17, 2015 15:29 IST

Fodder Scam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Fodder Scam involved hundreds of billions of dollars in alleged fraudulent reimbursements from the treasury of Biharstate for fodder, medicines and husbandry supplies for non-existent livestock.

The Fodder Scam (Hindi: चारा घोटाला, chārā ghoṭālā) was a corruption scandal that involved the embezzlement of about 9.4 billion (equivalent to 25 billion or US$380 million in 2015) from the government treasury of the eastern Indian state of Bihar.[1] Among those implicated in the theft and arrested were thenChief Minister of Bihar, Lalu Prasad Yadav, as well as former Chief Minister, Jagannath Mishra.[2][3] The scandal led to the end of Lalu’s reign as Chief Minister. There is also allegation on Shivanand Tiwari of receiving 1 crore and 60 lakh Rupees respectively from S.N. Sinha.

The theft spanned for many years, and allegedly involved numerous Bihar state’s administrative and elected officials across multiple administrations of theIndian National Congress and the Janata Dal parties. The corruption scheme involved the fabrication of “vast herds of fictitious livestock” for which fodder, medicines and animal husbandry equipment was supposedly procured.[1][4] Although the scandal broke in 1996, the theft had been in progress, and increased in size, for over two decades.[5] Besides the magnitude and duration of the theft, the scam was and continues to be covered in Indian media due to the extensive nexus between tenured bureaucrats, elected politicians and businesspeople that it revealed,[6] and as an example of the mafia raj that has penetrated several state-run economic sectors in the country.

As of May 2013, the trial has completed in 44 cases out of a total of 53 cases.[7] More than 500 accused have been convicted and awarded punishments by various courts.[8]

The scam[edit]

The scam had its origins in small-scale embezzlement by some government employees submitting false expense reports, which grew in magnitude and drew additional elements, such as politicians and businesses, over time, until a full-fledged mafia had formed.[6] Jagannath Mishra, who served his first stint as the chief minister of Bihar in the mid-1970s, was the earliest chief minister to be accused of knowing involvement in the scam.[9]

In February 1985, the then Comptroller and Auditor General of India, T.N. Chaturvedi, took notice of delayed monthly account submissions by the Bihar state treasury and departments and wrote to the then Bihar chief minister, Chandrashekhar Singh, warning him that this could be indicative of temporary embezzlement.[10] This initiated a continuous chain of closer scrutiny and warnings by Principal Accountant Generals (PAGs) and CAGs to the Bihar government across the tenures of multiple chief ministers (cutting across party affiliations), but the warnings were ignored in a manner that was suggestive of a pattern by extremely senior political and bureaucratic officials in the Bihar government.[11] In 1992, Bidhu Bhushan Dvivedi, a police inspector with the state’s anti-corruption vigilance unit submitted a report outlining the fodder scam and likely involvement at the chief ministerial level to the director general of the same vigilance unit, G. Narayan.[12][13] In alleged reprisal, Dvivedi was transferred out of the vigilance unit to a different branch of the administration, and then suspended from his position. He was later to be a witness as corruption cases relating to the scam went to trial, and reinstated by order of the Jharkhand High Court.

Exposure and investigation[edit]

Laloo Prasad Yadav, then chief minister ofBihar, was a prime accused in the fodder scam investigation.

Bihar Veterinary Association for the first time exposed Animal Husbandry Mafia in its 1985 Press Conference. In 1990 the executive committee of Bihar Veterinary Association was changed and Dr R K Rana was made the General Secretary of BVA . Once the mafia had control over the association, they went all guns blazing. At that point Dr. Dharmendra Sinha and Dr. Biresh Prasad Sinha ( The Ex-office bearers of BVA) started collecting and gathering information against this whole unethical practice of Mafia. They exposed this to all the political guns of Bihar. Among all these political guns were Sushil Kumar Modi who initiated the whole episode after it was broken out by Amit Khare. On 27 January 1996, the deputy commissioner of West Singhbhum district, Amit Khare, acted on information to conduct a raid on the offices of the animal husbandry department in the town of Chaibasa in the district under his authority. The documents his team seized, and went public with, conclusively indicated large-scale embezzlement by an organised mafia of officials and business people. The news of fodder scam was first broken out by Indian journalist Ravi S Jha, who working with the Asian Age then in Calcutta, named the then Bihar Chief Minister of having implicit involvement in the scam. Based on evidence collected by him from Chaibasa, Jha not only found out widespread involvement of Bihar government machinery in the scam, he even mentioned how earlier governments too were taking advantage of a shoddy system, where top government officials along with the ministers were flouting norms to make money illegally. Jha, an Associate Director of Public Affairs, is currently working with anti-corruption crusader and good governance promoter Rajeev Chandrasekhar, the Rajya Sabha Member of Parliament.[11] Laloo ordered the constitution of a committee to probe the irregularities.[14] There were fears that state police, which is accountable to the state administration, and the probe committee would not investigate the case vigorously, and demands were raised to transfer the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which is under federal rather than state jurisdiction. Allegations were also made that several of the probe committee members were themselves complicit in the scam.[14] A public interest litigation was filed with the Supreme Court of India, which led to the court’s involvement,[14] and based on the ultimate directions issued by the supreme court, on March 1996, the Bihar High Courtordered that the case be handed over to the CBI.[15]

An inquiry by the CBI began and, within days, the CBI filed a submission to the High Court that Bihar officials and legislators were blocking access to documents that could reveal the existence of a politician-official-business mafia nexus at work.[16] Some legislators of the Bihar Legislative Council responded by claiming the court had been misinformed by the CBI and initiating a privilege motion to discuss possible action against senior figures in the regional headquarters of the CBI, which could proceed similar to a contempt of court proceeding and result in stalling the investigation or even prosecution of the named CBI officials.[16] However, U. N. Biswas, the regional CBI director, and the other officials tendered an unqualified apology to the Legislative Council, the privilege motion was dropped, and the CBI probe continued.[16] As the investigation proceeded, the CBI unearthed linkages to the serving chief minister of Bihar, Laloo Prasad Yadav and, on 10 May 1997, made a formal request to the federally-appointed Governor of Bihar to prosecute Laloo (who is often referred by his first name in Indian media).[17] On the same day, a businessman, Harish Khandelwal, who was one of the accused was found dead on train tracks with a note that stated that he was being coerced by the CBI to turn witness for the prosecution.[17] The CBI rejected the charge and its local director, U. N. Biswas, kept the appeal to the governor in place.[13][17] An Income Tax Investigation also blamed Laloo for the scam.

Path to prosecution[edit]

A few days of uncertainty followed the CBI’s request to the state governor to prosecute the chief minister. The governor, A. R. Kidwai, was accountable to the federal government, and had already stated that he would need to be satisfied that strong evidence against Laloo existed before he would permit a formal indictment to proceed.[18] The federal government, led by newly appointed prime ministerInder Kumar Gujral who had just succeeded the short-lived government of the previous prime minister HD Deve Gowda, consisted of a coalition that depended on support from federal legislators affiliated with Laloo for its survival.[13][19] It was also unclear why the CBI had sought the governor’s consent in the first place and, when the High Court demanded to know why it was being sought, the CBI stated that it was a “precautionary measure.”[20] The High Court, questioning the tactic, warned that it would allow some time for the permission to transpire, but if it sensed a delay, it would force a prosecution on its own authority.[20]

On 17 June, the governor gave permission for Laloo and others to be prosecuted.[21] Five senior Bihar government officials (Mahesh Prasad, science and technology secretary; K. Arumugam, labour secretary; Beck Julius, animal husbandry department secretary; Phoolchand Singh, former finance secretary; Ramraj Ram, former AHD director), the first 4 of whom were IAS officers, were taken into judicial custody on the same day.[22][23] The CBI also began preparing a chargesheet against Laloo to be filed in a special court. Expecting to be accused and imprisoned, Laloo filed an anticipatory bailpetition, which the CBI opposed in a deposition to the court, listing the evidence against Laloo.[24] Also, on 21 June, fearing that evidence and documentation that might prove essential in further exposing the scam were being destroyed, the CBI conducted raids on Laloo’s residence and those of some relatives suspected of complicity.[25]

On 23 June, the CBI filed chargesheets against Laloo and 55 other co-accused,[26] including Chandradeo Prasad Verma (a former union minister), Jagannath Mishra (former Bihar chief minister), two members of Laloo’s cabinet (Bhola Ram Toofani and Vidya Sagar Nishad), three Bihar state assembly legislators (RK Rana of the Janata Dal, Jagdish Sharma of the Congress party, and Dhruv Bhagat of the Bharatiya Janata Party) and some current and former IAS officers (including the 4 who were already in custody).[23] Mishra was granted anticipatory bail by the Bihar state High Court.[27] Laloo’s anticipatory bail petition, however, was rejected by the same court, and he appealed to the Supreme Court, which resulted in a final denial of bail on 29 July.[26] On the same day, Bihar state police were ordered to arrest him.[28] The next day, he was jailed.[29] Later, the Bihar Director General of Police, SK Saxena, justified the one-day delay in arresting Laloo by stating in court that “any precipitate action would have led to police firing and killing of a large number of people.”[30]

End of Laloo’s chief ministership[edit]

As it became evident that Laloo would be engulfed in the scandal and its prosecution, demands for him to be removed from the chief ministership had gained momentum both from other parties,[31][32] as well as within Laloo’s own party, the Janata Dal.[33] On 5 July, Laloo formally parted ways with the Janata Dal and formed his own party, the Rashtriya Janata Dal (or RJD), taking with him virtually all the Janata Dal legislators in the Bihar state assembly,[34] and winning a vote of confidence in the state assembly a few days later.[35] The RJD continued to support the coalition federal government, however.[34] With demands for his resignation continuing to mount, on 25 July, Laloo resigned from his position, but was able to install his wife, Rabri Devi as the new chief minister on the same day. On 28 July 1997, Rabri’s new government won another vote of confidence in the Bihar legislature by 194–110, thanks to the Congress and Jharkhand Mukti Morcha parties voting in alignment with the RJD.[36]

Laloo claimed he had been instrumental in helping HD Deve Gowda become the prime minister.[37] However, there was press speculation that Gowda held a grudge against Laloo for insisting that Gowda step down when Gowda’s fledgling government ran into internal coalition squabbles, and this motivated him to push CBI Director Joginder Singh for Laloo’s prosecution.[22][38] Much later, in 2008, Laloo also claimed that Deve Gowda confessed, and “wept and fainted,” when Laloo confronted him on inciting the CBI to pursue the prosecution.[37] Looking retrospectively, Laloo has said that the scam had a lasting negative impact on his political career, and may have ended his prospects to one day be prime minister of India.[39]

There were reports that Joginder Singh had violated norms in keeping the new prime minister, IK Gujral, in the dark as he pursued the prosecution.[38] Gujral’s own new government also depended on Laloo for support in parliament,[40] and Joginder Singh later alleged that Gujral had attempted to block the scam investigation from proceeding.[41][42] On 30 June, the federal government issued orders to transfer Singh out of the CBI and into the Home Ministry as a Special Secretary,[40] which was technically a promotion but also had the effect of removing him from the investigation.[43] There was also an alleged follow-on move to transfer U. N. Biswas, the regional CBI director, which led to the High Court warning that it would act to disallow any such transfer.[44]

Prosecution[edit]

As the CBI discovered further evidence over the following years, it filed additional cases related to fraud and criminal conspiracy based on specific criminal acts of illegal withdrawals from the Bihar treasury. Most new cases filed after the division of Bihar state (into the new Bihar and Jharkhand states) in November 2000 were filed in the new Jharkhand High Court located in Ranchi, and several cases previously filed in the Bihar High Court in Patna were also transferred to Ranchi. Of the 63 cases that the agency had filed by May 2007, the majority were being litigated in the Ranchi High Court.[2][45]

Laloo’s initial chargesheet, filed by the CBI on 27 April 1996, was against case RC 20-A/96, relating to fraudulent withdrawals of 370 million (US$5.6 million) from the Chaibasa treasury of the (then) Bihar government,[23] and was based on statutes including Indian Penal Code sections 420 (cheating) and 120(B) (criminal conspiracy), as well as section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.[46] Even though he had been jailed, he was kept in relative comfort at the Bihar Military Police guest house.[47] After 135 days in judicial custody, Laloo was released on bail on 12 December 1997.[48] The next year, on 28 October 1998, he was rearrested on a different conspiracy case relating to the fodder scam, at first being kept in the same guest house, but then being moved to Patna’s Beur jail when the Supreme Court objected.[47][49] After being granted bail, he was rearrested yet again in a disproportionate assets case on 5 April 2000. His wife and then Chief Minister Rabri Devi was also asked to surrender on that date, but then immediately granted bail.[47] This stint in prison lasted 11 days for Laloo, followed by a one-day imprisonment in another fodder scam case on 28 November 2000.[47]

Jagannath Mishra had been permitted bail in June 1997, and avoided judicial remand when Laloo was first detained in July 1997. However, he was taken into custody on 16 September of the same year. He was freed on bail on 13 October but then remanded again, at the same time as Laloo, on 28 October 1998, when he was kept at the same guest house as Laloo, and later shifted to Beur jail along with him.[49][50] Mishra was freed on bail on 18 December,[49] but then rearrested in a different fodder scam case on 7 June 2000.[3]

Due to the multiplicity of cases, Laloo Yadav, Jagannath Mishra, and the other accused have been remanded several times in the years since 2000. In 2007, 58 former officials and suppliers were convicted, and given terms of 5 to 6 years each.[49] As of May 2007, about 200 people had been punished with jail terms of between 2 and 7 years.[45] A 2005 litigation of one of the cases (RC 68-A/96) in the Ranchi High Court involved over 20 truckloads of documents.[51]

On 1 March 2012, nearly 16 years after CBI was handled over the case, a special CBI court in Patna framed charges against Lalu Prasad Yadav and Jagannath Mishra along with 32 other accused. Of the total 44 accused, six have died, two have turned approvers, while two others are still evading arrest. The CBI had chargesheeted them in this case on 3 March 2003. The court said that the trial would begin soon.[52][53][54]

Disproportionate assets case[edit]

A disproportionate assets (DA) case was filed against Lalu in August 1998. The Income Tax claimed that Lalu had amassed wealth of Rs. 4.6 million out of the government treasury. Lalu and Rabri werechargesheeted in April 2000 and charges were framed by the court on 9 June 2000. Finally, the couple was acquitted on 18 December 2006 by a special CBI court.[55]

CBI didn’t appeal against this verdict in high court. However, Government of Bihar challenged the verdict (of CBI court) in Patna High Court and the high court accepted the plea.[56] This verdict of Patna High Court was challenged by Lalu and the CBI in SC.[57] The SC in April 2010 declared that the Government of Bihar has no right to file appeal against acquittal of the accused even in cases where the CBI refuses to challenge the trial court or High Court’s verdict favouring the accused.[58]

In yet another twist in the case, Government of Chhattisgarh in an unrelated case requested the Supreme Court to review its verdict in Lalu Yadav Disproportionate assets case. The Government of Chhattisgarh was aggrieved by Supreme Court verdict in DA case when it was trying to challenge the acquittal of former chief minister Ajit Jogi‘s son Amit Jogi in a murder case. After the trial court in Chhattisgarh acquitted Amit Jogi in May 2007, for over three-and-a-half years, the CBI again (similar to Lalu’s DA case) did not file any appeal. Chhattisgarh High Court rejected Government of Chhattisgarh‘s appeal due to Supreme Court‘s order (which is binding on all) in Lalu Disproportionate assets case. On 19 March 2012, the Supreme Court agreed to review its own decision in Lalu’sDisproportionate assets case.[59] However in May 2012, Supreme Court dismissed the Review Petition holding that the earlier Judgment did not suffer from any mistake apparent on the face of the record warranting any review.[60]

Convictions[edit]

As of May 2013, the trial has completed in 44 cases out of a total of 53 cases.[7] More than 500 accused have been convicted and awarded punishments by various courts. Some of the most prominent convicts include former CM of Bihar Lalu Prasad,[61] former Member of Parliament RK Rana and former Member of Legislative Assembly Dhruv Bhagat.[8]

On 30 September 2013, a Special CBI Court in Ranchi convicted Lalu Prasad Yadav and Jagannath Mishra along with 44 others in the case. Thirty-seven people were taken into judicial custody. The court has announced a sentence of 5 years and 4 years for Laloo and Jagannath Mishra respectively.[62]

Sentence[edit]

Former Bihar chief minister and Rashtriya Janata Dal president Lalu Prasad was sentenced to 5 years in jail in a fodder scam case by a special CBI court on 3 October 2013. The court of Pravas Kumar Singh announced the quantum of punishment via video conference due to security reasons. Prasad has also been slapped with a fine of Rs 2.5 million. The 65-year-old leader has lost his Lok Sabha seat and is also barred from contesting election for six years following the sentencing due to an earlier Supreme Court order.

Another former Bihar chief minister Jagannath Mishra has been handed a 4-year sentence.[63]

Impact[edit]

Since it broke into public light, the fodder scam has become symbolic of bureaucratic corruption and the criminalisation of politics in India generally, and in Bihar in particular. It has been called a symptom of the “deep and chronic malady afflicting the Bihar government and quite a few other state governments as well.”[64] In the Indian parliament, it was cited as an important indicator of the deep inroads made by mafia raj in the politics and economics of the country.[65] Reference has also been made to the anarchic nature of governance (the “withering away of the state”) that occurs when a mafia develops in a state-controlled sector of the economy.[66]

Laloo Prasad Yadav is the only person on whom the Lok Sabha debated for a complete session as the official agenda.[67]

Voting starts in Myanmar’s first free election in 25 years

Voting began on Sunday in Myanmar’s first free nationwide election in quarter of a century, after a campaign that was marred by concerns about irregularities and religious tensions.

The party of opposition icon Aung San Suu Kyi is expected to win the largest share of votes cast by an electorate of around 30 million, who will choose from among thousands of candidates standing for parliament and regional assemblies.

Read more at Reutershttp://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/07/us-myanmar-election-idUSKCN0SW0TP20151107#rS5DrId83jT1whMs.99

INDIAN LAWS HAS TO CHANGE TO SOLVE PENDING CASES IN COURTS

INDIA CAN SOLVE CASES EASILY THROUGH PUBLIC DOMAIN AND THIS WOULD ALSO SAVE TIME FOR COURTS BECAUSE THEY ARE ALREADY CARRYING OVER 3 CRORE COURT CASES PENDING NOW SOMEWHERE LAWS HAS TO BE CHANGED BECAUSE INDIANS TODAY ARE MORE CAPABLE TO SOLVE CASES THROUGH PUBLIC DOMAIN . SO WHAY WHY CANT LAWS BE CHANGED SO THAT MANY CAN DEBATE DISCUSS THROUGH FACEBOOK OR THROUGH SOCIAL MEDIA TO CHANGE MANY EXISTING LAWS . THIS WILL NOT ONLY REDUCE CRIMES BUT IT WILL DEVELOP INDIA ON A FASTER PACE . STUDYING AND SOLVING PENDING CASES CASES THROUGH PUBLIC DOMAIN WILL MAKE INDIA A BETTER DEMOCRACY . AND THIS WILL BRING MORE INTELLECTUAL MINDS TO SOLVE CASES AND CHANGE LAWS IN INDIA.

Over 3 crore court cases pending across country

https://kavidhakrishnamoorthi559.wordpress.com/2015/11/07/there-can-be-ways-through-which-pending-cases-in-india-can-be-solved-by-the-courts/

SEE THE POSIBILITY OF SOLVING CASES EASILY THROUGH PUBLIC DOMAIN IN INDIA.

ONE HAS TO SEE THE TOOLS FOR SOLVING CASES THROUGH PUBLIC DOMAIN.

YOU DO HAVE CASE LAWS .

THERE ARE CASES RELATING TO TAXES .

NOW SEE HOW MANY INDIANS WHO ARE GOOD IN ACCCOUNTING OR THEY CAN BE COLLEGE STUDENTS

OF COMMERCE OR PEOPLE WORKING IN OFFICE WHAT THEY NEED DETAILS OF A CASE REPORT TO STUDY

AND THEY CAN PROVIDE MORE DETAILED SOLUTIONS COMPARED TO ANY JUDGE OR LAWYER WORKING FOR THAT CASE.

WHY CANT RULES BE CHANGED . INDIAN COURTS HAVE TO USE VIEWS AND SOLUTIONS GIVEN BY STUDENTS AND PEOPLE WORKING IN OFFICE THROUGH SOCIAL MEDIA BECAUSE SO MANY CASES ARE SIMILAR SO WHY CANT THESE PEOPLE HELP TO SOLVE CASES . THEY CAN POST THEIR VIEWS ABOUT A PARTICULAR CASE IN A WEBSITE AND THIS CAN SOLVE MANY CASES EASILY IN INDIA . THIS WILL WORK ON A LARGER SCALE TO GET MORE AND MORE PEOPLE INVOLVED TO SOLVE THE CASES TO DEBATE AND TO ALTER THE EXISTING LAWS .

THIS WILL RESULT IN CHANGE OF LAWS IN INDIA.

Income Tax – Case Laws AND MANY CASE STUDIES

https://www.taxmanagementindia.com/visitor/case_laws_list2.asp?Law=17

Legal Service India – Landmark Judgments in India – Historical cases, famous Trials

http://www.legalserviceindia.com/laws/landmark_judgments.htm

cases-on-income-tax-decided-by-supreme-court-and-high-courts

http://www.caclubindia.com/articles/cases-on-income-tax-decided-by-supreme-court-and-high-courts-16043.asp

Income Tax Case Laws – Section Wise

https://www.taxmanagementindia.com/visitor/case_laws_list_sections.asp

Income Tax Judgment of SC, HC and ITAT

http://taxguru.in/category/income-tax-case-laws/

ITAT doubts exemption U/s. 54EC allowed by Bombay HC in Ace Builder against short-term capital gains computed u/s 50 – See more at: http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/itat-doubts-exemption-54ec-allowed-bombay-hc-ace-builder-shortterm-capital-gains-computed-50.html#sthash.ggzXdKAf.dpuf

Brief of the Case Correctness of law laid down by Bombay High Court in Ace Builder 281 ITR 210 that deduction u/s 54EC is available to short-term capital gains computed u/s 50 doubted by  ITAT Mumbai  in the case of ITO Vs Legal Heir of Shri Durgaprasad Agnihotri although it has followed the Judgment of Bombay High Court as required to maintain judicial discipline. – See more at: http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/itat-doubts-exemption-54ec-allowed-bombay-hc-ace-builder-shortterm-capital-gains-computed-50.html#sthash.ggzXdKAf.dpuf

Facts of the case:

1. assessee is an individual engaged in the business of photography

2. assessee also earned long term capital gain, which was claimed exempt under section 54EC

3. The assessee made investment of Rs.25,50,000, in capital gain bonds of National Highway Authority of India and claimed exemption under section 54EC of the Act against the aforesaid capital gain earned.

4. The Assessing Officer denied the benefit of exemption under section 54EC on the ground that the shop was a depreciable asset and the resultant gain was a short term capital gain whereas the exemption under section 54EC was available only on long term capital gain (LTCG).

5. the learned CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee

Contentions of Appellant:

the building having been held for a period in excess of three years, it would by definition qualify to be a long-term capital asset (LTCA) u/s.2(29A), and the capital gain arising on its transfer eligible for exemption u/s. 54EC.

– See more at: http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/itat-doubts-exemption-54ec-allowed-bombay-hc-ace-builder-shortterm-capital-gains-computed-50.html#sthash.ggzXdKAf.dpuf

the Assessing Officer was justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee in-as-much as the capital gain on the sale of shop, a depreciable asset, is deemed as a short-term capital gain (STCG) u/s.50, while exemption u/s. 54EC is allowed only on LTCG, i.e., which is, by definition, not STCG. Ruling of Honorable ITAT/Court: 1. The capital asset sold by the assessee during the year is a shop, comprising of land (or rights therein) as well as building or the super-structure thereon, which are separate and distinct assets under the Act 2. by virtue of the deeming provision of section 50, cost of a long-term capital asset (LTCA), i.e., as per section 2(29A), where depreciable, forming part of a block assets on which depreciation stands claimed, the capital gain on its transfer would have to be computed in terms thereof, i.e. by treating the WDV of the relevant block of assets (or, as the case may be, the relevant asset) as its cost of acquisition. 3. The second deeming per the provision of section 50 is qua the nature of such capital gains, i.e., as capital gains arising from the transfer of a STCA. Section 54EC is available on capital gain arising on the transfer of a LTCA, i.e., which is not a STCA by definition. The same shall, therefore, not apply to capital gains computed u/s.50. 4. by definition a capital expenditure, depreciation, which is amortization of the cost over a definite period is allowed as expenditure where the asset is employed for the purposes of business or profession, toward recouping its’ cost, so as to make available the necessary funds with the business for the replacement of the asset at the end of its’ useful life, enabling the business to in the process, maintain the capital of the firm. 5. Income, by definition, is accretion to capital, so that only the excess, i.e., over cost, including the cost of depletion of capital, would be income, both in economic and accounting theory. The charge of depreciation, thus, has a sound basis thereto, well accepted in taxing statutes. 6. WDV of the relevant (block of) asset, representing its un-depreciated or the unutilized life/value, is taken as its cost of acquisition for the purpose of computation of capital gains in as- much as it is only this, depreciated asset, that stands transferred, fetching a value corresponding with its’ balance life. 7. This would, in our view, also explain or bring forth the prescription of a separate computation mechanism for capital gain on transfer of capital assets that are depreciable (per s. 50), and also not extending thereto the indexation benefit, to adjust for the inflation factor, per s. 48, for such assets even where held for long-term. 8. deduction u/s.54EC to be available on the capital gains computed u/s.50 of the Act. 9. Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed. Key Take Away Correctness of law laid down by Bombay High Court in Ace Builder 281 ITR 210 that deduction u/s 54EC is available to short-term capital gains computed u/s 50 doubted by Tribunal. – See more at: http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/itat-doubts-exemption-54ec-allowed-bombay-hc-ace-builder-shortterm-capital-gains-computed-50.html#sthash.ggzXdKAf.dpuf

Over 3 crore court cases pending across country

NEW DELHI: Concerned over a backlog of more than three crore cases in courts across the country, Chief Justice of India H L Dattu has asked the Chief Justices of all High Courts to ensure expeditious disposal of cases pending for five years or more.

A Supreme Court official said that the CJI has written a letter to all High Court Chief Justices asking them to look into the dockets of cases pending for five or more years in subordinate judiciary of all states.

According to data available with the apex court, the number of pending cases with the Supreme Court is 64,919 as on December 1, 2014.

The data available for the 24 High Courts and lower courts up to the year ending 2013 showed pendency of 44.5 lakhs and whopping 2.6 crores, respectively.

Of the over 44 lakh cases pending in the 24 high courts of the country, 34,32,493 were civil and 10,23,739 criminal.

The maximum pendency of civil and criminal cases together was in Allahabad High Court with 10,43,398 cases while the minimum was in Sikkim with 120 cases pending at the end of 2013. The Delhi High Court had a total of 64,652 cases pending before it.

As per the data, the Allahabad High Court had the maximum number of pending criminal cases – 3,47,967.

Of the 2.6 crore cases pending in lower courts, Uttar Pradesh subordinate judiciary tops the chart with over 56 lakh cases pending by the end of 2013, out of which 41,98,761 are criminal matters.

Delhi district courts recorded a total of 5,22,167 pending cases, including 3,81,615 criminal cases.

The CJI came out with an innovative idea of expeditious disposal of cases by setting up a special “social justice bench” to deal with the pendency of cases having social issues which are on rise and needs specialised approach.

The CJI has also been emphasising on the disposal of petty, compoundable (cases which can be compromised) criminal matters and other civil disputes through Lok Adalats as an alternate dispute resolution mechanism where decisions are arrived at amicably and can’t be appealed against.

Union Minister for Law and Justice D V Sadananda Gowda, also flagged similar concerns and said amendments in law are also required to speed up the disposal process.

Gowda, who was speaking at Bar Council of India on Friday, suggested amending the Motor Vehicles Act, Negotiable Instruments Act and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to dispose of petty offences, relating to accidents, cheque- bouncing as well as civil suits like family and property disputes and company matters that consume the courts’ precious time.

He said that in order to facilitate expeditious disposal of cases, the government is “seriously thinking” making mandatory pre-trial conferences under which both defence and prosecution lawyers will be asked to refrain themselves from seeking “unwarranted” adjournments.

http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/subcat.pdf

03 DIRECT TAXES MATTER 0301 Income Tax Reference under Section 257 0302 Appeals under Section 261 of Income Tax Act upon a certificate granted by the High Court 0303 Other matters under Income Tax act, 1961 0304 Cases relating to Excess Profit Tax Act 1940 0305 Business profit tax Act, 1947 0306 Agricultural Income Tax 0307 Reference under Section 27(3)(a) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 0308 Appeals under Section 29(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 upon a certificate granted by the High Court 0309 Gift Tax Act 1958 0310 Property Tax 0311 Valuation 0312 Capital Gains 0313 SLPs relating to Wealth Tax 0314 Income from salaries 0315 Income from House Property 0316 Income from Business/Profession 0317 Income from other sources 0318 Deductions/exemptions 0319 Penalties/Prosecution/Settlement Commission 0320 Re-assessment/Revisional Power/Rectification 0321 CBDT Circular 0322 Registration 0323 Others 0324 Matters relating to recovery of Direct Tax due 04 INDIRECT TAXES MATTERS 0401 Interpretation of the Customs Act, Rules & Regulations Supreme Court of Inda – List of Revised Subject Categories as on 19th March, 2015 3 0402 Interpretation of exemption notification under Customs Act 0403 Interpretation of other notification under Customs Act 0404 Valuation of Goods under the Customs Act 0405 Sales Tax Act (Central & various States) 0406 Cess Acts (Rubber, Coffee, Tea, Sugar, etc.) 0407 Entry Taxes 0408 Motor Vehicles Taxation 0409 Purchase Tax 0410 Licence Fee 0411 Classification under the Indian Tariff Act, 1934 & Customs Tariff Act, 1975 0412 Reference under Section 82C of the Gold Control Act 0413 Hotel Receipts Tax Act 0414 Entertainment Tax 0415 Terminal Tax 0416 Octroi 0417 Valuation 0418 Toll Tax 0419 Interpretation of the Central Excise Act & the rules 0420 Interpretation of exemption notifications under Central Excise Act 0421 Interpretation of other notifications under Central Excise Act 0422 Valuation of goods under the Central Excise Act 0423 Tariff classification under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 0424 Import/Export Control Act, 1947 0425 Import Control Order 0426 Open General License 0427 Import/Export Policy 0428 Others 0429 Professional Tax 0430 Water & Sewage Tax 0431 Service Tax 0432 Appeals u/s 130 E of Customs Act, 1962 Supreme Court of Inda – List of Revised Subject Categories as on 19th Mar

0433 Appeals u/s 35 L of Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. 0434 Anti Dumping Duty 0435 Value Added Tax 0436 Matters relating to recovery of Indirect Tax due

THERE CAN BE WAYS THROUGH WHICH PENDING CASES IN INDIA CAN BE SOLVED BY THE COURTS

THERE ARE SO MANY PENDING CASES IN COURTS IN INDIA WHY CAN RULES BE CHANGED TO SOLVE THESE CASES.

FOR EXAMPLE  THERE ARE CASES RELATING TO TAXES .

NOW SEE HOW MANY INDIANS WHO ARE GOOD IN ACCCOUNTING OR THEY CAN BE COLLEGE STUDENTS

OF COMMERCE OR PEOPLE WORKING IN OFFICE WHAT THEY NEED DETAILS OF A CASE REPORT TO STUDY

AND THEY CAN PROVIDE MORE DETAILED SOLUTIONS COMPARED TO ANY JUDGE OR LAWYER WORKING FOR THAT CASE.

WHY CANT RULES BE CHANGED . INDIAN COURTS HAVE TO USE VIEWS AND SOLUTIONS GIVEN BY STUDENTS AND PEOPLE WORKING IN OFFICE THROUGH SOCIAL MEDIA BECAUSE SO MANY CASES ARE SIMILAR SO WHY CANT THESE PEOPLE HELP TO SOLVE CASES . THEY CAN POST THEIR VIEWS ABOUT A PARTICULAR CASE IN A WEBSITE AND THIS CAN SOLVE MANY CASES EASILY IN INDIA . THIS WILL WORK ON A LARGER SCALE TO GET MORE AND MORE PEOPLE INVOLVED TO SOLVE THE CASES TO DEBATE AND TO ALTER THE EXISTING LAWS .

THIS WILL RESULT IN CHANGE OF LAWS IN INDIA .

https://targetstudy.com/colleges/bcom-hons-degree-colleges-in-uttar-pradesh.html

Over 3 crore court cases pending across country

NEW DELHI: Concerned over a backlog of more than three crore cases in courts across the country, Chief Justice of India H L Dattu has asked the Chief Justices of all High Courts to ensure expeditious disposal of cases pending for five years or more.

A Supreme Court official said that the CJI has written a letter to all High Court Chief Justices asking them to look into the dockets of cases pending for five or more years in subordinate judiciary of all states.

According to data available with the apex court, the number of pending cases with the Supreme Court is 64,919 as on December 1, 2014.

The data available for the 24 High Courts and lower courts up to the year ending 2013 showed pendency of 44.5 lakhs and whopping 2.6 crores, respectively.

Of the over 44 lakh cases pending in the 24 high courts of the country, 34,32,493 were civil and 10,23,739 criminal.

The maximum pendency of civil and criminal cases together was in Allahabad High Court with 10,43,398 cases while the minimum was in Sikkim with 120 cases pending at the end of 2013. The Delhi High Court had a total of 64,652 cases pending before it.

As per the data, the Allahabad High Court had the maximum number of pending criminal cases – 3,47,967.

Of the 2.6 crore cases pending in lower courts, Uttar Pradesh subordinate judiciary tops the chart with over 56 lakh cases pending by the end of 2013, out of which 41,98,761 are criminal matters.

Delhi district courts recorded a total of 5,22,167 pending cases, including 3,81,615 criminal cases.

The CJI came out with an innovative idea of expeditious disposal of cases by setting up a special “social justice bench” to deal with the pendency of cases having social issues which are on rise and needs specialised approach.

The CJI has also been emphasising on the disposal of petty, compoundable (cases which can be compromised) criminal matters and other civil disputes through Lok Adalats as an alternate dispute resolution mechanism where decisions are arrived at amicably and can’t be appealed against.

Union Minister for Law and Justice D V Sadananda Gowda, also flagged similar concerns and said amendments in law are also required to speed up the disposal process.

Gowda, who was speaking at Bar Council of India on Friday, suggested amending the Motor Vehicles Act, Negotiable Instruments Act and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to dispose of petty offences, relating to accidents, cheque- bouncing as well as civil suits like family and property disputes and company matters that consume the courts’ precious time.

He said that in order to facilitate expeditious disposal of cases, the government is “seriously thinking” making mandatory pre-trial conferences under which both defence and prosecution lawyers will be asked to refrain themselves from seeking “unwarranted” adjournments.

http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/subcat.pdf

03 DIRECT TAXES MATTER 0301 Income Tax Reference under Section 257 0302 Appeals under Section 261 of Income Tax Act upon a certificate granted by the High Court 0303 Other matters under Income Tax act, 1961 0304 Cases relating to Excess Profit Tax Act 1940 0305 Business profit tax Act, 1947 0306 Agricultural Income Tax 0307 Reference under Section 27(3)(a) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 0308 Appeals under Section 29(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 upon a certificate granted by the High Court 0309 Gift Tax Act 1958 0310 Property Tax 0311 Valuation 0312 Capital Gains 0313 SLPs relating to Wealth Tax 0314 Income from salaries 0315 Income from House Property 0316 Income from Business/Profession 0317 Income from other sources 0318 Deductions/exemptions 0319 Penalties/Prosecution/Settlement Commission 0320 Re-assessment/Revisional Power/Rectification 0321 CBDT Circular 0322 Registration 0323 Others 0324 Matters relating to recovery of Direct Tax due 04 INDIRECT TAXES MATTERS 0401 Interpretation of the Customs Act, Rules & Regulations Supreme Court of Inda – List of Revised Subject Categories as on 19th March, 2015 3 0402 Interpretation of exemption notification under Customs Act 0403 Interpretation of other notification under Customs Act 0404 Valuation of Goods under the Customs Act 0405 Sales Tax Act (Central & various States) 0406 Cess Acts (Rubber, Coffee, Tea, Sugar, etc.) 0407 Entry Taxes 0408 Motor Vehicles Taxation 0409 Purchase Tax 0410 Licence Fee 0411 Classification under the Indian Tariff Act, 1934 & Customs Tariff Act, 1975 0412 Reference under Section 82C of the Gold Control Act 0413 Hotel Receipts Tax Act 0414 Entertainment Tax 0415 Terminal Tax 0416 Octroi 0417 Valuation 0418 Toll Tax 0419 Interpretation of the Central Excise Act & the rules 0420 Interpretation of exemption notifications under Central Excise Act 0421 Interpretation of other notifications under Central Excise Act 0422 Valuation of goods under the Central Excise Act 0423 Tariff classification under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 0424 Import/Export Control Act, 1947 0425 Import Control Order 0426 Open General License 0427 Import/Export Policy 0428 Others 0429 Professional Tax 0430 Water & Sewage Tax 0431 Service Tax 0432 Appeals u/s 130 E of Customs Act, 1962 Supreme Court of Inda – List of Revised Subject Categories as on 19th Mar

0433 Appeals u/s 35 L of Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. 0434 Anti Dumping Duty 0435 Value Added Tax 0436 Matters relating to recovery of Indirect Tax due