: ShriKrishna Prasad, Advocate : New Delhi : Rs.200 crore Dainik Hindustan Advertisement Scam of M/S The Hindustan Times Limited(New Delhi), the Respondent No.02,Mantoo Sharma (Munger,Bihar) ,in his Counter-Affidavit, has told the Supreme Court of India how the powerful media house of India,M/S TheHindustan Times Limited(New Delh) (Now changed into M/S the Hindustan Media Ventures Limited,New Delhi) has been committing forgery, cheatings and fraud with the Union and Bihar governments since 2001 continuously in clear connivance with the officials of the Directorate of Information & Public Relation Department,Govt. of Bihar,Patna, D.A.V.P(New Delhi) and the office of the Press Registrar,New Delhi in a bid to get the Union and Bihar govt. advertisements by printing, publishing and circulating illegal and unauthorized newspaper ,’Dainik Hindustan’ among readers in the Munger district of Bihar in India.The Supreme Court of India has been told about the modus operandi of the deep –rooted forgery, cheatings and fraud of M/S The Hindustan Times Limited(New Delhi) in a desparate bid to loot the government money in crores in the form of the government advertisement publication.
In the Synopsis of his Counter-Affidavit, the Respondent No.02,Mantoo Sharma (Munger,Bihar) has explained the modus operandi of M/S The Hindustan Times Limited (New Delhi) in committing the serious economic offences in Bihar in India in the following way:
“”THE SYNOPSIS :
The Press & Registration of Books Act, 1867 and The
Registration of Newspapers (Central) Rules, 1956 (the
amended Act) say that if any new company has to print &
publish a newspaper, the company has to go throughall
legal processes under the above mentioned acts. Legal
procedures which are mandatory are given below:-
At first, the Company of a new newspaper has to file
a Declaration (An Application in the prescribed Form-1 for
issuance of "the Certificate of Registration" & "the
Registration Number") under section 5(2) of The Press &
Registration of Books Act, 1867 before the District
Magistrate/The Sub-Divisional Magistrate of the concerned
district under whose local jurisdiction such newspaper is
going to be printed or published.
The Section 5 of The Press & Registration of Books
Act, 1867 has set forth Rules as to the printing and
publication of newspapers in details.
And ,the section 5(2) of The Press &
Registration of Books Act, 1867 thus says–'
'The Printer and the Publisher of every such
newspaper shall appear in person or by agent authorised
in this behalf in accordance with rules made under section
20, before a District Magistrate,Presidency Magistrate or
Sub-Divisional Magistrate within whose local jurisdiction
such newspaper shall be printed or published, and shall
make and subscribe, in duplicate in the prescribed printed
form ( That is known as 'Form- I' under Chapter
"Schedule").
In the Declaration (the form of an Application for
issuance of 'The Certificate of Registration' and 'the
Registration Number' ) , the Printer and the Publisher of
the newspaper give the details of particulars of the
proposed printing or publication of a newspaper viz. (1)
the title of the newspaper, (2) language of newspaper in
which it is to be published, (3) periodicity of publication,
(4) retail selling price of the newspaper per copy, (5)
publisher's name and address, (6) place of
printing and name of the printing press where the
newspaper is actually printed and the true and
precise description of the premises on which the
press is installed, (7) place of publication , (8)
Printer's name,(9) owner's names, (10) particulars of
the firm, the Joint Stock Company , the Trust, etc.
( Declaration is mandatory for printing or for
publication or for both printing and publication ofany
newspaper)
After filing the Declaration for printing or
publication of a newspaper by the publisher,the District
Magistrate/ Presidency Magistrate / The Sub-Divisional
Magistrate of the area under whose local jurisdiction, the
newspaper is going to be printed or published,
authenticates it under section 06 of The Press &
Registration of Books Act,1867after getting ‘signal’ from
the Press Registrar,New Delhi.
Besides, one of the authenticated Declaration
originals shall be deposited among the records ofthe
office of the Magistrate, and the other shall be deposited
among the records of the High Court of Judicature, or
other principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction for the
place where the said declaration shall have been made. It
is also mandatory under Section 06 of the Press &
Registration of Books Act, 1867.
The Section 06 of The Press & Registration of
Books Act, 1867 thus says,
" Authentication of Declaration: Each of the
two originals of every declaration so made and subscribed
as is aforesaid, shall be authenticated by the signature
and official seal of the Magistrate before whom thesaid
declaration shall have been made.
DEPOSIT
One of the said originals shall be deposited
among the records of the office of the Magistrate, and the
other shall be deposited among the records of the High
Court of Judicature, or other principal Civil Court of
original jurisdiction for the place where the said
declaration shall have been made.”
Only then, the Company can start the
publication of the newspaper under section 5(2-C)
of The Press & Registration of Books Act, 1867.
The Section 5(2-C) of the Press & Registration
of Books Act, 1867 thus says,
''A Declaration in respect of a newspaper
made under Section 5(2) and authenticated under
section 06 shall be necessary before the
newspaper can be published.”
This is mandatory.
It clearly states that any new newspaper can be
published only after fulfilling the legal procedures under
sections 5(2) and 06 of the Press & Registration ofBooks
Act,1867,according to the section 5 (2-C) of the Act. So,if
the Owner/Publisher of a newspaper does not honourthe
legal obligations of the sections 5(2) and 06 of the Act,the
publication of any such newspaper can be termed as
"illegal".
Then the District Magistrate/The Sub-Divisional
Magistrate will send the "Authenticated Declaration"
(Application) to the Press Registrar,the Ministry of
Information & Broadcasting, New Delhi for the issue of
6
'the Certificate of Registration' and 'the Registration
Number' in respect of that newspaper.
And then, the Press Registrar(New Delhi) will issue
"the Certificate of Registration" to the publisherof the
newspaper under section 19(C) of The Press &
Registration of Books Act, 1867 and under section 10(1)
of the Registration of Newspapers(Central) Rules, 1956.
CERTIFICATES OF REGISTRATION
The Section 19(C) of The Press & Registration
of Books Act, 1867 thus says,
'' Certificates of Registration: On receiving from
the Magistrate under section 06, a copy of the declaration
in respect of a newspaper and on the publication ofsuch
newspaper, the Press Registrar shall, as soon as
practicable thereafter, issue ''a Certificate of Registration''
in respect of that newspaper to the publisher thereof."
The section 10(1) of the Registration of
Newspapers (Central) Rules, 1956, thus, says :
“Certificate of Registration—(1) Where a
publisher makes a declaration before a Magistrate, the
Press Registrar shall, as soon as practicable, after receipt
of the copy of the declaration, issue to the publisher a
certificate of registration in Form V.”
Besides, the Press Registrar(New Delhi) will also
issue ''the Registration Number'' to the Newspaperunder
section 7(2) of the amended act' The Registration of
Newspapers(Central) rules, 1956.''
REGISTERED NEWSPAPER
The Section 7(2) of The Registration of
Newspapers(Central) Rules,1956 thus says,
'' Maintenance of the Register: The pages of
The Register shall be numbered consecutively and entries
in respect of a newspaper shall start from a fresh
page.When particulars, enumerated in Form-1
(Declaration), have been entered in the Register inrespect
of a newspaper, the Press Registrar shall allot ''a
Registration Number'' to that newspaper.”
And then,when the company of a newspaper
obtains " the Certificate of Registration" and "the
Registration Number " from the Press
Registrar,New Delhi , the newspaper is termed as
a 'Registered Newspaper' .
SPECIFIC SECTION FOR
AN EXISTING NEWSPAPER
when the company of any existing
newspaper sets up new printing presses at a number of
places and starts the printing or publication or both
printing & publication of that newspaper at different
places of new printing locations, the Company has again
to go through all the above mentioned legal processes
such as(1) Filing a fresh Declaration(an application in
Form-I for issuance of "Certificate of Registration" and
"Registration Number") before District
Magistrate,(2)Getting the declaration "authenticated" by
the concerned District Magistrate,(3) Obtaining ''the
Certificate of Registration'' and ''the Registration Number''
from the Press Registrar(New Delhi) under the section 5(3)
of The Press & Registration of Books Act,1867 as isdone
in the case of printing or publicaton or both the printing
and publication of a new newspaper.
The Section 5(3) of The Press & Registration
of Books Act, 1867 thus says,
''As often as the place of printing or
publication is changed, a new declaration shall
be necessary.''
It means when the company of the existing
newspaper sets up new printing pressess at other
places/other locations of printing presses and starts new
printing or publications at new places , the existing
newspaper has also to go through all the above mentioned
legal processes to get the newspaper ‘registered’ from the
office of the Press Registrar (New Delhi).
And then, that newspaper is termed as ''a
registered newspaper''.
Now, it has become clear that there are great
differences between the meanings of the word”
Declaration” and the words” Certificate of Registration”.
“Declaration” that contains the details of the
proposed printing or publication or both printing and
publication of a new or an existing newspaper, ismade
in the FORM-1 (Schedule) while “ Certificate of
Registration” that contains the certificate fromthe office
of the Press Registrar(New Delhi) declaring the
newspaper a ‘Registered Newspaper’ ,is made in Form-V.
The petitioner, in her petition at several points,
has tried her best to misguide this Hon’ble Court on the
plea that she has filed a Declaration before the District
Magistrate, so she has completed her all legal obligations
and is entitled to publish the advertisements of the
Union and the Bihar governments.
Your Honour ! Will the police set free a
person carrying fire-arms on the plea that he/she
has applied for an arms-licence and has not got
the ‘Arms-licence’ from the District Magistrate till
the time of the arrest ?
THE STATUS OF THE DAILY HINDI
NEWSPAPER ‘HINDUSTAN’ IN THE
PRESENT CASE
Dainik Hindustan, a Hindi Daily newspaper, is
printed and published from New Delhi(the headquarters of
the Media House) and has got its ''the Certificate of
Registration'' and ''the Registration No.509'' fromthe
office of the Press Registrar,the Ministry of Information &
Broadcasting,govt. of India,New Delhi after going through
all the legal procedures under sections 5(2),06,5-2(C),19(C) of the Press & Registration of Books Act, 1867
and section 7(2) and10(1) of the Registration of
Newspapers(Central) Rules,1956.
THE COMPANY HONOURS CENTRAL
ACTS IN U.P, BUT VIOLATES THEM IN
BIHAR
The company of the same title newspaper (the
existing newspaper) 'Dainik Hindustan' also started
printing and publishing its new publications/editions
from eight new and independent printing locations
namely Allahabad,Merrut, Bareilly, Kanpur,
Agra,Varanasi, Aligarh and Lucknow in Utter Pradesh
respectively.The Company that prints and publishes
Dainik Hindustan, accordingly honoured the CentralActs
and got ''separate Certificates of Registration'' and
''separate Registration Numbers'' from the Press
Registrar,New Delhi for all new & separate printings and
publications of Dainik Hindustan in Utter Pradesh.
Dainik Hindustan has got the Registration
N0.106410(New Registration No.UPHIN/2010/33853)
for its Allahabad publication/edition, the
Registration No.106411(New Registration No.
UPHIN/2010/33854) for its Merrut
publication/edition, the Registration
No.106412(New Registration No.UPHIN/2010/33855)
for its Bareilly publication/edition, the Registration
No. 106413(New Registration No.
UPHIN/2010/33856)for its Kanpur
publication/edition, the Registration
No.106414(New Registration No.
UPHIN/2010/33857) for its Agra
publication/edition,the Registration No.106415(New
Registration No.UPHIN/2010/33858) for its Varanasi
publication/edition,the Registration No.110090(New
Registration No.UPHIN/2011/37533) for its Aligarh
publication/edition and the Registration No.64319
for its Lucknow publication/ediion.Dainik
Hindustan has also got "The Certificates of
Registration" for all above mentioned eight new
printing stations/printing presses in Utter Pradesh.
But, when the same title newspaper(existing
newspaper) Dainik Hindustan entered Bihar, set up the
new printing location at Patna and started its new
publication/edition from Patna in 1986, it obtained its
"separate Certificate of Registration" and "the
new Registration No.44348/1986" from the office
of the Press Registrar,New Delhi under the P.R.B
Acts.
VIOLATIONS OF PRESS &
REGISTRATION OF BOOKS ACT,1867
START IN BIHAR FOR
WRONGFUL GAINS
But when the company of the same title
newspaper(existing newspaper) Dainik Hindustan set up
its new printing press/printing location at Bhagalpur in
Bihar and started printing and publishing its new
Bhagalpur and Munger publications/editions at
Bhagalpur printing press in Bihar since 2001,it obtained
neither ''the separate Certificates of Registration'' nor ''the
new Registration Numbers'' for new Bhagalpur and
Munger publications/editions from the office of thePress
Registrar,New Delhi ,thus arbitrarily and willfully violating
the section 5(3) of the Press & Registration of Books Act,
1867.Thus, the companies of the newspaper viz M/S
Hindustan Times Limited(New Delhi),M/S
H.T.Media Limited(New Delhi) and M/S Hindustan
Media Ventures Limited(New Delhi) continued
printing and publishing the new Bhagalpur &
Munger publications/ editions of Dainik Hindustan
from the Bhagalpur printing press from August 03,
2001 to June, 30, 2011illegally without having "
Certificates of Registration" and " Registration
Numbers" in order to make wrongful gain by
obtaining the government advertisements.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF
ADVERTISEMENT
POLICY OF UNION GOVERNMENT IN INDIA
The Union Government through the Directorate of
Advertising & Visual Publicity(D.A.V.P),Information&
Broadcasting Ministry,Government of India,New Delhi,
approves "the Govt. Advertisement Rates" and releases
"the Union Govt. advertisements" to newspapers in bulk
every year after fulfilling the certain conditionssuch as
(1) The Newspaper must have ''the
Certificate of Registration'' and ''The Registration
Number',
(2) The Evidence of uninterrupted publication of the
newspaper for 36 months(three years) regularly,
(3) The Certificate of Audit Bureau of Circulation
regarding the circulation of the newspaper,etc.
(4) There must be a minimum of seventy
five thousand of circulation of the newspaper.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ADVERTISEMENT
POLICY OF BIHAR GOVERNMENT
The Bihar govt. also through the Information &
Public Relation Department(IPRD),Patna, approves the
"Govt. Advertisement Rate" and releases the "State
Government Advertisements" in bulk to newspapers
either directly or through different district stategovt.
offices every year in all districts of Bihar.
The Information & Public Relation
Department(IPRD),Patna,Bihar enlists the eligible
newspapers for the "State Govt. Advertisements" onthe
following terms and conditions such as
(1) the Newspaper must have "The
Certificate of Registration" from the office of the
Press Registrar,New Delhi,
(2) the number of sold Hindi daily
newspaper must be a minimum of 45 thousand per
day,
(3) the newspaper must have obtained " the
Approved D.A.V.P Rate".etc.
DAINIK HINDUSTAN NOT ENTITLED TO
PUBLISH ADVERTISEMENTS FROM
AUGUST ,03, 2001 TO JUNE 30, 2011
Under the terms and conditions of the
Advertisement Policies of the Union Govt. and the Bihar
Govt. as well, the new Bhagalpur and Munger
publications/editions of Dainik Hindustan were not
entitled to get and publish the Government
Advertisements from the Union Government and the
Bihar Government as well as both
publications/editions had completely failed to
comply with the mandatory provisions of the
Press & Registration of Books Act,1867 and the
Registration of Newspapers(Central) Rules, 1956
and the statutory rules and regulations of
Advertisement Policies.The statutory provisions of
Advertisement Policies include obtaining "the Certificate
of Registration" & "the Registration Number" from the
Press Registrar,New Delhi.
EVEN AFTER REGISTRATION ,BOTH PUBLICATIONS
WERE NOT ENTITLED TO GET AND PUBLISH
GOVERNMENT ADVERTISEMENTS FOR THREE
YEARS
Under the terms and conditions of the
Advertisement Policies of .D.A.V.P(New Delhi) and I.P.R.D
(Patna,Bihar),the new Bhagalpur and Munger
publications/editions of Dainik Hindustan were not entitled
to get the govt advertisements from the union govt. and
the state govt. for three years from August ,03,2001 to
July 31,2004,even though they would have obtained'the
Certificates of Registration'' and ''the Registration
Numbers'' because there must have been an
uninterrupted publication of the daily Hindi newspaper for
three years regularly even after obtaining the "Certificate
of Registration" and the "Registration Number" from the
office of the Press Registrar,New Delhi as per terms and
conditions of the Advertisment Policy of the D.A.V.P,New
Delhi.
Thus , when the company completes three
yours publication regularly even after obtaining
“the Certificate of Registration” & “the
Registration Number”, it will ,then, be eligible only
to apply for “the DAVP Advertisement Rate” and
“DAVP Advertisements.”
It is also crystal clear that the Bihar Govt will
consider enlisting any Hindi newspaper for the release of
the "State Govt. Advertisements" if that newspaper gets
the "D.A.V.P Approved Advertisement Rate" from the
DAVP ,New Delhi as per one of the three main termsand
conditions of the I.P.R.D,Patna,Bihar .
MAIN REASON BEHIND
THE ECONOMIC OFFENCE
To compensate the possible gross loss of
income in the head of the publication of the
advertisements of the union government and the
Bihar government in the wake of a new
publication/edition, the publisher/owner as well as
the editors fraudulently induced the officials of
the D.A.V.P(New Delhi) and I.P.R.D(Patna,Bihar) to
deliver the advertisements of the union
government and the Bihar govt. respectively to
the illegal and unauthorised Bhagalpur and
Munger publications of Dainik Hindustan for
wrongful gain from August, 03 ,2001 to June
30,2011 by wrongly presenting the Bhagalpur and
Munger publications/editions as "Registered
Newspapers" before the Govts. in Delhi and
Patna. The Bhagalpur and Munger publications of Dainik
Hindustan went in circulation/publication among readers
and advertisers without the "Certificates of Registration''
and ''Registration Numbers''.But to cheat the officials of
D.A.V.P(New Delhi),I.P.R.D(Patna,Bihar) and private
advertisers,too,the publishr/owner and the editors of
Dainik Hindustan of Bhagalpur and Munger editions
continued printing on the "Print-line" on the last page of
the newspaper the "Registration No.44348/1986" from
August 03,2001 to June 30,2011, thus falsely and
dishonestly presenting the newspaper to be "a lawfully
registered newspaper".In reality, the truth is that the
"printed Registration No.44348/1986" has been
officially allocated to the Patna
publication/edition of Dainik Hindustan from the
office of the Press Registrar,New Delhi in 1986
,some 15 years ago before the start of the new
printing and publications of Bhagalpur and
Munger editions of Dainik Hindustan in the year
2001 last.The documentary evidences of forgery and
cheatings in the printing of the Patna Publication
Registration No.44348/1986 on the "Print-line of the
Bhagalpur and Munger publications/editons of Dainik
Hindustan by such a powerful media house is a serious
economic offence which has never been heard in the
past hundred years in the world. "Thus,the company
plundered the government exchequer upto about two
hundred crores during the period.
PETITIONER COUNTERFEITED REGISTRATION
NO.44348 OF 1986 OF PATNA EDITION OF
HINDUSTAN
While printing and publishing the "Registration
No.44348 /1986" of the Patna Dainik Hindustan publication
on the "Print-line" of the Bhagalpur and Munger
publications of Dainik Hindustan continuously from
August,03,2001 to June ,30,2011,the owners/publishers
and the editors of Dainik Hindustan fraudulently and
dishonesly used the Registration No. of Patna publication
of Dainik Hindustan as ‘a genuine Registration No.’of
Bhagalpur and Munger publications of Dainik Hindustan
despite the fact that they knew very well that they had
been committing forgery,fraud and cheatings willfully .
Thus,the owners/publishers and the editors
knowingly counterfeited the Registration
No.44348/1986 of Patna publication of Dainik
Hindustan in the Bhagalpur and Munger
publications of Dainik Hindustan for the wrongful
purpose of giving false impression of a Registered
Newspaper to the Bhagalpur and Munger
publications of Dainik Hindustan before the
Government Advertisement Releasing Agencies.
The whole and sole intention of the
owners/publishers and the editors to commit such a
crime of forgery and cheatings on such a large scale for
such a long period was to get the govt. advertisements of
the union and the Bihar governments by hook or by crook
in active connivance with the senior government officials
and Ministers of the concerned departments of the Union
and the Bihar governments. Thus, all the named accused
persons in the Munger Kotwali P.S Case No. 445/2011
willfully committed the offences of forgery, fraud and
cheatings on such a large scale.
ORDERS OF CENTRAL INFORMATION
COMMISSION (NEW DELHI) FLOUTED
The Central Information Commission(C.I.C)
(New Delhi), vide its order dated December
08,2008,in the case No.CIC/OK/A/2008/885/AD
(ShriKrishna Pd Vs Central Public Information
Officer,office of the Press Registrar,New Delhi),passed
an order directing the CPIO to hold an immediate
enquiry into the matter of publication of Dainik
Hindustan under one title 'Hindustan' from 38
districts of Bihar and 12 of Jharkhand with
different editors stationed at each of 50 districts
and with different news items from each district
allegedly violating the rules of Press &
Registration of Books Act.The CIC also directed the
CPIO(office of the Press Registrar,New Delhi) to conduct
the enquiry with consultation with the District Magistrates
and submit the enquiry report within one month of the
receipt of this order.
PUBLISHERS/OWNERS PROVE THEIR FORGERY,FRAUD
AND CHEATINGS WITH THEIR PRINTED DOCUMENTS
PUBLICLY
But, the order of the C.I.C,New Delhi has not
been complied till this day by the CPIO(the office
of the Press Registrar,New Delhi) under the
influence of the powerful corporate media house
.The office of Press Registrar(New Delhi) only wroteletters
to the District Magistrates of Patna,Bhagalpur and
Muzaffarpur to hold an enquiry into the matter.When the
process of enquiry began ,the owners/publishers
of Dainik Hindustan removed the “Patna
Registration Number—RNI No.44348/1986” from
its Print Line and started printing and publishing
“RNI No.- Applied for" on the Print-line of the
Bhagalpur and Munger editions/publications of
Dainik Hindustan from July 01, 2011.Even when
the Company continued printing and publishing the
Registration Number –RNI No.-Applied For, the
Union and the Bihar Governments didn’t stop
releasing the government advertisements to the
Bhagalpur and Munger editions of Dainik
Hindustan.This action of the Union Government
and the Bihar government show the involvement
of government officials and concerned ministers
in this government advertisement scam.
At the same time, this action of the
owners/publishers of the company has publicly
exposed their acceptance of offences of forgery,
fraud and cheatings in the printed form , and it is
unusual in the history of economic offences of
the media – world .
Such documentary evidences in this matter
need more and more thorough probe by powerful
investigating agencies of the country like C.B.I or
CAG to expose yet other economic offences
relating to such other Government Advertisement
Scams in other districts of Bihar and in other
states viz Jharkhand, Delhi etc.
Thus, the company has openly and publicly
accepted in print its forgery, fraud and cheatings
in respect of the printing and publication of the
"Registration No.44348/1986" (allotted to the
Patna edition) on the "Print-line" of the Bhagalpur
, Munger,Lakhisarai,Jamui, Sheikhpura, Banka,
Khagaria, Begusarai and Muzaffarpur
publications/editions of Dainik Hindustan for more
than a decade.
DAREDEVIL ACT OF ECONOMIC OFFENCE OF
OWNER/ PUBLISHER OF DAINIK HINDUSTAN IN
CASE OF MUNGER EDITION/ PUBLICATION
The owners/publishers continued printing ''
Registration No..- Applied For'' in the Bhagalpur and
Munger publications/editions of Dainik Hindustan from
July 01,2011 to April 16, 2012.And from April 17,2012,the
company began printing new and separate "Registration
No.BIHHIN/2011/41407" in the Bhagalpur and Munger
publications /editions.But, the owner/publisher didn't
comply the rules of the PRB Act in the case of the
Munger publication/edition till filing of this
counter-affidavit in this Hon’ble Court. In support
of this statement, the enquiry-report of the
Munger Collector that was sent to the Hon'ble
High Court of Patna in Bihar in connection with
this case is mentioned here for perusal.
D.M’S REPORT TO HON’BLE HIGH COURT EXPOSES
UNAUTHORISED PUBLICATION AND CIRCULATION
OF MUNGER EDITION OF DAINIK HINDUSTAN IN
MUNGER
The Munger Collector,vide office letter No.1448/legal,dated
27/09/12,to the Honourable High Court,Patna ,in response
to a direction of the Patna court in the Cr.Misc.No.
2951/2012(Shobhana Bharatiya Vs State of Bihar &
others),has clearly stated –
"……….Today monring,Hindustan newspaper had
been obtained from Munger town(Munger edition) and
nearby Lakhisarai town(East Bihar edition).Both the
newspapers indicate same editor,same publisher and
printer,same local editor,same phone number and same
R.N.I .No. The RNI No. is also same as what can be seen
on Bhagalpur edition .This way, it appears that on
same registration, same R.N.I No., different
content is being published ,printed and circulated
in different districts. Since the content is
different,so they should be treated as different
newspapers ,and should have different R.N.I's No.
Here RNI No.is same.This way it has been found
that in Bhagalpur,Munger and Lakhisarai, different
newspaper contents are being circulated bearing
same registration details…..It is evident that not only
news content is different ,but also some govt.
advertisement is published in one newspaper ,and not in
the others.For example, on page No.06 of newspaper
,circulated in Lakhisarai (East Bihar edition),
advertisements of Planning Dept.bearing Advertisement
No. PR-7332(planning)/12-13 has been published,but not in
Munger edition, circulated in Munger town.”
Thus, the daredevil act of economic offence of such
a big corporate media house of India has been proved and
it has stunned everyone in law that the company hasbeen
still illegally publishing the Munger edition of Dainik
Hindustan without ''the Certificate of Registration'' and
''the Registration Number'' under the P.R.B Act even after
the lodging of this F.I.R with Munger Kotwali police station
about one year and 8 months earlier.Thus,the Munger
edition of Dainik Hindustan has been still illegally
obtaining and publishing the advertisements of the Union
and the Bihar governments in bulk .This action of the
company proves its daredevil act of economic offence .
The chief economic offenders are the chairperson,the
chief editors and the publisher/owner respectively of such
a powerful newspaper industry of India.
ONE MORE IMPORTANT REASON FOR
CHEATINGS AND FORGERY OF THE MEDIA
HOUSE
The DAVP(New Delhi),the sole agency of the union
government for the approval of "the Govt. Advertisement
Rate" and the "release" of "all central gov.
advertisements(Advts)" to newspapers, has made it
"compulsory" that the minimum circulation of the daily
newspaper must be 75,000(Seventy five thousand ) per
day while the I.P.R.D(Patna,Bihar), the sole agencyof the
Bihar govt. for approval of "the Govt. Advertisement
Rate" and the "release" of the "State Govt.
Advertisements" to newspapers, has made it
"compulsory" in its terms and conditions that the
minimum circulation of the newspaper must be
20,000(Twenty thousand) per day from 1981 to 2008, and
45,000(forty five thousand) per day from 2008 to till
now.And under the terms and conditions in respect
of the minimum circulation ,Dainik Hindustan
could/ can/would never fulfil the terms and
conditions in all times to come as in each district
of Bihar,the circulation of Dainik Hindustan does
not cross ten thousand except some exceptions
.Under the circumstances, the company gets ''the
Certificate of Registration'' and '' the Registration NO.'' of
Dainik Hindustan for "one place of publication", but the
company prints, publishes and circulates "38 different
publications/editions" for "all thirty eight districts" of
Bihar with same title 'Dainik Hindustan',same editor, same
publisher,same printer, same registration No., same
telephone No.,same local editor,but each districtwise
publication/ edition of Dainik Hindustan in Biharis
totally "different" in news as has been "certified"by "the
Enquiry-Report" of the Munger District Magistrate which
was sent to the Hon'ble Patna High Court in connection
with Criminal Misc.No.2951 of 2012 ( Shobhana Bharatiya
Vs State of Bihar and others) in this case.
But when the company prints and publishes
38 different newspapers with totally different
news contents in each districtwise
edition/publication under one registration No.,the
Publisher/owner presents the circulation figure
taking together of figures of all the different
editions/publications of the Hindi daily
“Hindustan” ,thus fulfilling the terms and
conditions of the allotment of the union and the
state govt. advertisements. Thereby they
committed such a fraud to obtain the government
advertisements. As it is the powerful media house,none
in the govt. machinery from district to Delhi dareseven to
probe the allegations of economic offences ,what tospeak
of conducting any deep enquiry and taking any legal
actions against the economic offenders.Such a big
economic offence has come to light only due to the action
of the judiciary at Munger.
COMPANY DY. G. M'S LETTER-A SUBSTANTIAL DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
T O PROVE FORGERY, FRAUD AND CHEATINGS
OF THE COMPANY TOP FUNCTIONARIES
Ravi Bhushan, Deputy General Manager(Media
Marketing),on behalf of M/S H.T.Media Ltd(Patna),vide
official letter No.-7744,dt. Sept 06,2005, addressed to
Director, Information & Public Relations Dept,Bihar,Patna,
in the first paragraph(lines 1 to 5) has clearly admitted
that there are two more printing stations (printing
presses) for publication of Dainik Hindustan –oneat
Bhagalpur and another at Muzaffarpur considering the
benefits of local readers of the region so that the
newspapers could reach them timely with "regional news"
of their areas. Both printing stations (including Bhagalpur
and Muzaffarpur) have ''No Registration Numbers.''
He futher admits in the letter,'' Dainik
Hindustan, printed from printing stations at
Patna,Bhagalpur & Muzaffarpur , bears "the same
Registration No.-44348/1986''
In a surprising tone, he admits that
newspapers, being printed at Bhagalpur and
Muzaffarpur are not separate editions and
himself questions in the letter '' It may be
considered whether the inclusion of all these
printing stations in the state govt. advertisement
approval list will be "legal" or "not" ? ''
HANDS OF OFFICIALS AND MINISTERS OF
UNION GOVERNMENT IN THIS GOVERNMENT
ADVERTISEMENT SCAM ARE ALSO
PROVED
He further reveals and admits that
DAVP(New Delhi) has separately approved the
central govt. advertisement- rate for Dainik
Hindustan being printed at Bhagalpur and
Muzaffarpur also besides at Patna.
This letter of the Company Dy.G.M clearly suggests
that the influence of the media and political power was
working behind this foul game in amassing money by
fraud. The company has thus fraudulently obtained "the
DAVP Advertisement Rate" for Bhagalpur and
Muzaffarpur editions/publications of Dainik Hindustan
having ''No Certificate of Registration'' and ''No
Registration Number'' since August 03,2001 to the filing of
the Munger Kotwali P.S case No. 445/2011'' in utter
violation of mandatory provisions of concerning rules in
respect of issuance of the government advertisements .
Even knowing very well that it attracts punishment
for economic offences , the Dy.G.M ,in writing, demanded
from the Director,Information & Public Relations
Department,(Patna,Bihar) to include "Bhagalpur and
Muzaffarpur editions/publications of Dainik Hindustan" in
"the State Govt. Advertisement Approval List" ,knowingly
that Bhagalpur and Muzaffarpur editions/publications of
Dainik Hindustan are without ' The Certificate of
Registration' and ' The Registration Number'' , citing the
example of D.A.V.P(New Delhi) .Further, this is a matter of
another independent high level probe as to how the
D.A.V.P,Ministry of Information & Broadcasting,(New
Delhi) approved 'The DAVP Advertisement Rate" and
released "All Union Government Advertisements " from
August ,03,2001 to June 30,2011 continuously and
surprisingly , violating the terms and condtions ofits own
department/ ministry.
It is the rare amongst the rarest cases in which the
powerful Media House has obtained both "DAVP
approved Advertisement Rate" and "the Central Govt.
Advertisements" ,showing Bhagalpur & Muzaffarpur
editions/publications of Dainik Hindustan certifying as
"Independent Editions/publications" ,fraudulently using
"the Certificate of Registration " and "the Registration
Number –RNI No.44348/1986 " of the Patna
edition/publication of Dainik Hindustan.
This letter of the Company's Deputy General
Manager (Media-Marketing) Ravi Bhushan has been
incorporated as "a documentary evidence" againstall
the accused persons in the Munger Kotwali P.S CaseNo.
445/2011 in "the Supervision Report-01" of Dy.S.P(Munger)
and "the Supervision Report -02" of the S.P(Munger).
SUPERVISION REPORT NO- 01 OF
DY.S.P(MUNGER) AND SUPERVISION REPORT
NO-02 OF S.P (MUNGER) HAVE FOUND ALL
ALLEGATIONS OF FORGERY AND CHEATINGS
TRUE AGAINST PETITIONER AND
OTHERS IN MUNGER KOTWALI P. S CASE NO.
445 / 2011.
Dy.S.P( Munger) in his supervision report No-01 , dated 21 April, 2012 in the para No.3 on page
No.20, has clearly stated,''Facts coming in the
way of investigation and supervision and
documents ,obtained, prove that this case is
"prime-facie true.''
Dy.S.P(Munger) in his supervision report , in the
para No. 02 on page No.20,further states,''Facts that have
come in the way of investigation and supervision, it has
become clear that Dainik Hindustan has been being
illegally printed and published in Munger,Bhagalpur and
Muzaffarpur uninterrupted ,violating arbitrarily the
inherent provisions of the Press & Registration of Books
Act,1867,and ignoring the rules and terms and conditions
of the Bihar Advertisement Policy -2008 of Information &
Public Relations Dept,Bihar,Patna. Dainik
Hinustan,printed/published at above mentioned three
places has been obtaining and publishing the state
government advertisements thereby gobbling the govt.
money.
SUPERVISION REPORT -02 OF S.P (MUNGER)
ALSO EXPOSES THE FRAUD, FORGERY AND
CHEATINGS OF THE PETITIONER AND OTHERS
IN THE ADVERTISEMENT SCAM
The Police Superintendent(Munger), in his
supervision report No-02 ,dated 30 April,2012 ,in para No.-03 on page No.-06, has clearly stated,''In the wayof
investigation and supervision,it has become clear that the
Registration No.44348/1986(that is allocated to thePatna
edition of Dainik Hindustan) was used in the editions
/publications of Munger,Bhagalpur and Muzaffarpur from
the year 2001 to June, 30,2011, while "Applied For'' was
used at the place of the Registration No. in all three
mentioned editions/publications of Dainik Hindustanfrom
July,01,2011 to April, 16,2012.Again, the Munger
edition/publication of Dainik Hindustan was being printed
/published using the Registration No.–RNI No. –
BIHHIN/2011/41407.
S.P further clearly states in his superivision report
No-02 ,in the para No.04 on page No.06 &07, ''Above facts
that have come in course of investigation and supervision
prove clearly that printing /publication of Dainik
Hindustan from Munger,Bhagalpur and Muzaffarpur has
been continuing uninterrupted ,arbitrarily and publicly
violating the mandatory provisions of the Press &
Registration of Books Act, 1867,and ignoring the
mandatory provisions of the Bihar Advertisement Policy-
2008,Dainik Hindustan, printed/published from all above
mentioned three places, has been printing the govt.
advertisements and thereby obtaining the govt. money
from treasury.
COMPLAINANT AND THREE OTHER
INDEPENDENT WITNESSESS U / S 164 OF
Cr.P.C SUPPORT F.I.R AND PROSECUTION
FULLY
The S.P ,in his supervision report no-02, in the para
No. 02 on page -07, has further stated,' In course of
investigation, the Investigating Officer (I.O ) of the
case got the statements of the
complainant,Mantoo Sharma and other
independent witnesses viz. witness No.01
ShriKrishna Pd,Witness No.02 Sri Kashi Prasad,
Witness No. 03 Bipin Kumar Mandal recorded
under section 164 of Cr.P.C in the Munger judicial
court on April 19, 2012.All witnessess, who
recorded their statements in the Munger court,
have fully supported the F.I.R and all the
allegations against the accused persons named in
the F.I.R.(Kotwali P.S Case No.445/2011).
The S.P ,in his supervision report No.02, in the first
para on page 01, has given in brief the gist of the F.I.R
lodged with the Munger Kotwali Police station in
Bihar(Kotwali P.S Case No.445/2011, dated 18 Nov,2011).
NAMED ACCUSED PERSONS IN THIS
WORLD FAMOUS FORGERY AND CHEATING
CASE
The S.P states,'' On th basis of the Munger court
complaint case No. 993(C)/2011,filed by the
complainant,Mantu Sharma,son of Late Ganesh
Sharma,resident of Puraniganj,P.S.- Kasim Bazar,District-
Munger,an F.I.R has been lodged against (1) the
principal accused Shobhana
Bharatia(Chairperson, Hindustan Publication
Group(The Hindustan Media Ventures
Ltd.),Main Office,18-20,Kasturba Gandhi
Marg,New Delhi ,(2) Shashi Shekhar,Chief
Editor,Hindustan Media Ventures
Ltd.,Newspapers Group,New Delhi,(3) Aaku
Srivastawa,Acting Editor, Patna Edition,(4)
Binod Bandhu, Deputy Regional
Editor,Bhagalpur edition, and (5) Amit
Chopra,Printer & Publisher, M/S Hindustan
Media Ventures Ltd., Lower Nathnagar
Road,Parbatti, Bhagalpur, and all named accused
persons have been accused of violating the
different sections of the Press & Registration of
Books Act, 1867 and sections 420/471 & 476 of
Indian Penal Code, printing/publishing the
Bhagalpur and Munger editions/publications of
Dainik Hindustan fraudulently by using the wrong
Registration Number , and getting crores and
crores of rupees in the "Advertisement -Head"
after obtaining the govt. advertisements from the
state as well as the union government by
presenting forged documents of ‘’registration’’
before the concerned officials."
PRESS REGISTRAR ( NEW DELHI ) CONFIRMS
VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF PRESS &
REGISTRATION OF BOOKS ACT, 1867
AT THE HANDS OF PETITIONER AND OTHERS
.
The Sectional Officer , In the office of the
Press Registrar, New Delhi,Purnima Mallick,
vide an official letter , dated 20 April, 2006,
addressed to the Secretary, Information &
Public Relations Dept.(Bihar,Patna), has clearly
stated that '' Dainik Hindustan can be printed
at Patna only according to the provisions of
the Press & Registration of Books Act, 1867,
because this office has only approved the
printing of the Patna edition of Dainik
Hindustan.If, the company desires to print this
newspaper also from Bhagalpur &
Muzaffarpur, they will have to file the
Declarations from these places also.''
The Sectional Officer's letter was sent in response
to an official letter of the Secretary , Information & Public
Relations Dept, Bihar,Patna, IAS, Vivek Kr.Singh.
Mr.Singh,vide official letter No.-Advt-48-01/2006-247/PRD,Patna dated 22/ 3/ 2006, had sought advice on
certain points regarding the printing and the publication
of Dainik Hindustan from Patna,Bhagalpur and
Muzaffarpur.
The Secretary, I.P.R.D, Patna, Bihar has
said in his official letter,
''Dainik Hindustan, published from Patna, is
also being printed from Bhagalpur and
Muzaffarpur,but has obtained only "one
Registration No. 44348/1986(Patna)",but, D.A.V.P,
I & B Ministry, Govt. of India, New Delhi, has
approved '' Separate Advertisement Rates" for all
these "three printing locations" of Dainik
Hindustan.Dainik Hindustan newspaper is
presently being printed in different forms in
Bhagalpur and Muzaffarpur without Registration
.Is it not the violation of the provisions of the
Press & Registration of Books Act, 1867 ? An
advice on this point is being sought from you.''
The official letters of the Sectional Officer,the office
of the Press Registrar, New Delhi, Purnima Mallick and
the Secretary of Information & Public Relations
Department,Bihar,Patna,Vivek Kr.Singh, are the parts of
"documentary evidences" in the Supervision Report No.-01 of Dy.S.P(Munger) and the Supervision Report No.02 of
the S.P(Munger) in the Kotwali (Munger) P.S Case No.
445/2001.
Thus, the letter of the Sectional Officer of the office
of the Press Registrar(New Delhi) in the year 2006,also
confirms that till that particular date of despatch of the
letter ( April,20,2006), the "Separate Declarations” on
behalf of the company had not reached the office ofthe
Press Registrar,New Delhi through District Magistrates of
the concerned districts for the printing /publication of
Bhagalpur, Munger and Muazaffarpur
editions/publications of Dainik Hindustan (exising
newspaper).
INTERNAL AUDIT REPORT NO. – 195 /
2005-06 OF CHIEF ACCOUNTS CONTROLLER
(C.A.C), FINANCE (AUDIT ) DEPT, BIHAR,
PATNA ALSO EXPOSES THE GOVT.
ADVERTISEMENT SCAM & INVOLVEMENT
OF THE HINDI DAILY “ HINDUSTAN” IN THE
SCAM
The Chief Accounts Controller(CAC),Finance
(Audit) Dept,Patna, Bihar, has clearly stated in
the para No.02 of the Adudit Report No.-195/2005-06,'' Information & Public Relations Dept, Bihar,
Patna has made an illegal payment of Rs. 01,00,
15,955= 96 paises (Rupees one crore, fifteen
thousand and nine hundred fifty five rupees and
ninety six paise) to Dainik Hindustan, showing
Bhagalpur and Muzaffarpur printing stations of
Patna Hindustan edition as ' Independent
Publications'' during the financial years 2002-03
and 2003-04.
The Audit Report No. -195/2005-06 further
states ,''According to the provisions of the Press &
Registration of Books Act, 1867, the company had
to (1) file declaration before the Collector in the
prescribed form ,(2) to seek permission from the
Company Registrar, and (3) to get the Certificate
of Registration from the Press Registrar(New
Delhi) before the starting of new publication of
the newspaper, but all three processes were not
done in the matter of printing/publications of
Bhagalpur and Muzaffarpur editions/publications of
Dainik Hindustan.
The Audit Report No-195 further says,'' Files
disclose that Declaration of Muzaffarpur
publication was filed on Nov,29, 2003 and the
Declaration for Bhagalpur publication was filed on
Dec 11, 2003 when the Muzaffarpur publication
was started on March 28,2001 and the Bhagalpur
publication was started on August 03,2001 .It
means "Declarations" were filed two years after
the start of printing stations at Bhagalpur and
Muzaffarpur. And both printing stations/printing
presses viz Bhagalpur and Muzaffarpur, have
neither valid 'Certificate of Independent
Publication' nor ' Certificate of Registration.''
The Audit -Report No. 195 further states,'' It is
clear that Dainik Hindustan has kept in total
darkness the office of D.A.V.P in obtaining
'Separate Advertisement Rates' for Bhagalpur and
Muzaffarpur printing stations/publications .It is
utmost surprising that the IPRD,Bihar,Patna has
not been capable to verify and certify as to how
D.A.V.P (New Delhi) had approved "Separate
Advertisement Rates" for Bhagalpur and
Muzaffarpur publications when there are no such
"registered Independent publications" at
Bhagalpur and Muzaffarpur. The department of
Information & Public Relations,Bihar,Patna had
also not taken any initiatives till now for the
verification as to how both
publications(Bhagalpur & Muzaffarpur) were
treated as "Independent Publications" and were
allowed "Separate Advertisement Rates” by the
DAVP,New Delhi, and payment for illegal
publication of the govt. advertisements was not
"curbed" by the dept.It has become clear that
after getting separate advt. rate for illegal
publications in a wrongful manner, payment for
advertisements was received.
Besides, there are a number of discrepancies
in the claim of the circulation of Dainik Hindustan
in Bihar and the circulation has not been verified
by the Audit Bureau of Circulation by the
department.Therefore, the payment made against
the advertisement bills of Dainik Hindustan for
Bhagalpur and Muzaffarpur publications/editions
is illegal and a sum of Rs. 01,00,15,955=56 paises
is to be recovered from the company .''
It is noteworthy that the internal audit-report
of the Bihar Finance Department,Bihar,Patna
No.195/ 2005-06 has been incorporated as “a
documentary evidence against all the named
accused persons in the Munger Kotwali P.S. Case
No.445/2011 in “the Supervision Report N0.-01 of
Dy.S.P(Munger) and “the Supervision Report No.-02 of S.P (Munger).
After the submission of the Audit Report No,195/
2005-06 of Chief Accounts Controller(CAC), Finance(Audit)
Dept, Bihar, Patna, the Information & Public Relations
Dept,Patna,Bihar sought the "legal opinion" of thethen
Advocate General of Bihar in this connection.
THEN ADVOCATE GENERAL OF BIHAR
EXONERATES COMPANY FROM ALL CHARGES OF
FORGERY, FRAUD AND CHEATINGS
The then Advocate General of
Bihar,Mr.P.K.Shahi(now Education Minister, Government
of Bihar) quite surprisingly, in his report, submitted to
the Bihar govt. in the year 2007, exonerated the company
from all charges of forgery,fraud and cheatings on
fictitious and illogical grounds citing the case ofMafalal
Industries Ltd. Vrs Union of India((1997) and Principle
enunciated by Lord Denning L.J in Combe Vrs. Combe
(1951) 1 All England Report 767 which are quite irrelevant
in this scam detected in the Audit Report No.-195/2005-06, since the Audit Report of the Finance Department of
Bihar has made out a “clear prima- facie case” involving
more than Rs. one crore in only two financial yearsin one
department when the advertisement scam has been
rocking the state since August, 03,2001 to June, 30,2011
continuously either under the political umbrella or some
other reasons best known to the then Advocate General
of Bihar. Instead of recommending to the Bihar
government to file criminal cases either with the police or
with the Economic Offence Unit (Bihar) (E.O.U), the then
Advocate General of Bihar opined not to recover
the illegal payment of Rs.01,00,15,955=96 paise
from the management of Dainik Hindustan ,paid
from the govt. exchequer illegally.
Further, the dropping of “Objections” raised
in the Audit –Report No.195/ 2005-06 by the Bihar
Finance Department itself on the proposal of
Information & Public Relation Department(I.P.R.D),
Bihar, Patna is curious without assigning “any
reason” thereof involving the advertisement scam
that encouraged and emboldened the company
printing and publishing Dainik Hindustan illegally
to gobble several crores from the government
exchequer continuously from August,03,2001 to
June,30,2011.
This needs yet another independent
probe by a reliable investigating agency like C.B.I
or CAG or Economic Offences Unit under the
direct monitoring of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
because officials of the Bihar Finance Department
,I.P.R.D (Bihar,Patna) and D.A.V.P(New Delhi) and
powerful politicians are also involved in this scam,
besides the questionable role of the then
Advocate General of Bihar, Mr.P.K.Shahi.
PRESENT STATUS OF POLICE INVESTIGATION
IN MUNGER KOTWALI P.S CASE NO. 445 / 2011
In the wake of the order of the Hon’ble High
Court of Patna, the Munger police accelerated the
police investigation into the Munger Kotwali P.S
Case No.445/2011 .Under the directives of the
Hon’ble High Court, the Munger police were bound
to complete the police investigations into the
Munger P.S Case No.445/2011 within three months
from the date of the receipt of the order of the
High Court of Patna .The date fixed by the High
Court of Patna for the Munger police to complete
the investigation into this case was to expire on
March 17, 2013 last. The Munger police had also
begun the process of assessing the loss of actual
revenue of the Bihar government in this Dainik
Hindustan government advertisement scam
.Besides, the Munger police had earlier submitted
the Supervision Report No-01 of the Dy.S.P and the
Supervision Report No.02 of the S.P,Munger in
52
which they have found “prima-facie “true all
allegations against all the named accused persons
in the Munger Kotwali P.S. Case No.445/2011.But,
following the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.1603 of
2013 ,filed by the petitioner, all police
investigations in this case have come to a halt.
Rs.200 crore Dainik Hindustan Advertisement Scam : Supreme Court to hear Shobhana Bhartia’s S.L.P (Cri) No.1603 of 2013 on Dec 16 next
The official website of the Supreme Court of India has notified that the Supreme Court will hear the Special Leave Petition(Criminal) No. 1603 of 2013 of Shobhana Bhartia,the Chairperson of M/S Hindustan Media Ventures Limited,Kasturba Gandhi Marg,New Delhi on December 16,2013 next.
Supreme Court adjourns hearing on Nov 11,2013 last:
The Supreme Court of India adjourned the hearing on the final disposal matters relating to the Special Leave Petition (criminal) No. 1603 of 2013 of Shobhana Bhartia, the Chairperson of M/S The Hindustan Media Ventures Limited,New Delhi on November 11, 2013. The Bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.L.Dattu and Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.Gopala Gowda adjourned the final argument as M/S Karanjawala & Co.,counsels for the petitioner,Shobhana Bhartia sought time in writing in the court. The respondent No.02, Mr.Mantoo Sharma(Munger,Bihar) was present in the court in person.His counsel Mr.ShriKrishna Prasad(Munger,Bihar) was also present and ready to argue in the court.
The Registrar orders to list the matter before the court :
The Hon’ble Justice Mr.Sunil Thomas, the Registrar-II, the Supreme Court of India, on Sept,19,2013, in the Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 1603/2013(Shobhana Bhartia Versus State of Bihar and Another), passed an order to list the matter before the Hon’ble Court as per rules. The Court of the Hon’ble Registrar-II, the Supreme Court of India, on Sept, 19,2013, ordered , “In view of the urgency expressed by the parties and service being complete, list the matter before the Hon’ble Court as per rules after the expiry of three weeks.” The Hon’ble Court also mentioned in the order,” The Respondent No.-02,Mantoo sharma, Party-in-Person, has filed the Counter-Affidavit.The Respondent No.01, Mr.Samir Ali Khan, Advocate, seeks three weeks’ time for filing the Counter-Affidavit.” It is worth mentioning that the Respondent No.01,Mr.Samir Ali Khan, Advocate is the Hon’ble counsel for the State of Bihar.
Mantoo Sharma files his counter-affidavit in Supreme Court
:Mr.Mantoo Sharma, Respondent No.-02 in the Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 1603 of 2013, filed by the Shobhana Bhartia, the chairperson of M/S Hindustan Media Ventures Limited(New Delhi), has filed his counter-affidavit in 315 pages in the Supreme Court on Sept, 16 recently. Mr.Mantoo Sharma is the informant in the Munger Kotwali P.S Case No. 445/2011 in Bihar. Before filing his counter-affidavit, Mr.Sharma sent one set of the counter-affidavit to M/S Karanjawala & Co., Advocates for the petitioner, Shobhana Bhartia, the Chairperson of M/S Hindustan Media Ventures Limited, The Hindustan Times House, 18-20, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi -110001 by the registered parcel and two sets of his counter – affidavit to the government lawyer of the Bihar government in the Supreme Court by hand.Four sets of the counter- affidavit were filed in the court of the Reistrar -II, Mr.Sunil Thomas.
The petitioner prays for the quashing of the Munger Kotwali P.S Case No.445/2011(Bihar):
The petitioner, Shobhana Bhartia has filed the Special Leave Petition( Criminal) No. -1603 of 2013 in the Supreme Court and prayed for the quashing of the Munger Kotwali P.S Case No. 445/2011, dated Nov.,18,2011 under sections 8(b)/14/15 of the Press & Registration of Books Act, 1867 read with Sections 420/471/476 of the Indian Penal Code
Named accused persons in the Munger Kotwali P.S Case No.445/2011(Bihar): In the Munger Kotwali P.S Case No.445/2011 in Bihar, the Chairperson of M/S Hindustan Media Ventures Limited (New Delhi)Shobhana Bhartia, the Chief Editor,Dainik Hindustan, Shashi Shekhar(New Delhi), the Regional Editor,Dainik Hindustan,Patna edition, Akku Srivastawa, the Regional Editor, Dainik Hindustan,Bhagalpur edition,Binod Bandhu and the Publisher, ,M/S Hindustan Media Ventures Limited( Nw Delhi), Amit Chopra, have been accused of receiving the government money to the tune of about rupees two hundred crores illegally and fraudulently by obtaining and printing the advertisements of the Union and Bihar governments in the name of illegally printed and published Munger and Bhagalpur editions of Dainik Hindustan for a decade continuously in Bihar.
The Munger police ,meanwhile, have submitted the Supervision Report No.01 and the Supervision Report No.-02 and have found all allegations “prima-facie true” against all the named accused persons including the principal accused Shobhana Bhartia (New Delhi) under sections 8(b)/14/15 of the Press & Registration of Books Act, 1867 and sections 420/471/476 of the Indian Penal Code. The historical order of the Patna High Court : The Hon’ble Justice of the Patna High Court, Justice Anjana Prakash, in her order, dated Dec 17,2012, in the Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2951 of 2012, refused to interfere in the police investigation and directed the Munger (Bihar) police to complete the investigation in the Kotwali P.S Case No. 445/ 2011 within the three months from the date of the order.
By ShriKrishna Prasad
Advocate M-09470400813
