{"id":16263,"date":"2013-12-02T09:22:10","date_gmt":"2013-12-02T09:22:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.bhadas4media.com\/old1\/2013\/12\/02\/modus-operandi-of-shobhana-bhartia\/"},"modified":"2013-12-02T09:22:10","modified_gmt":"2013-12-02T09:22:10","slug":"modus-operandi-of-shobhana-bhartia","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.bhadas4media.com\/old1\/modus-operandi-of-shobhana-bhartia\/","title":{"rendered":"modus operandi of Shobhana Bhartia in committing serious economic offences"},"content":{"rendered":"

\t: ShriKrishna Prasad, Advocate<\/strong> :  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.<\/p>\n

\tIn 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:<\/p>\n

\t“”THE SYNOPSIS :<\/p>\n

\tThe Press & Registration of Books Act, 1867 and The<\/p>\n

\tRegistration of Newspapers (Central) Rules, 1956 (the<\/p>\n

\tamended Act) say that if any new company has to print &<\/p>\n

\tpublish a newspaper, the company has to go throughall<\/p>\n

\tlegal processes under the above mentioned acts. Legal<\/p>\n

\tprocedures which are mandatory are given below:-<\/p>\n

\tAt first, the Company of a new newspaper has to file<\/p>\n

\ta Declaration (An Application in the prescribed Form-1 for<\/p>\n

\tissuance of "the Certificate of Registration" & "the<\/p>\n

\tRegistration Number") under section 5(2) of The Press &<\/p>\n

\tRegistration of Books Act, 1867 before the District<\/p>\n

\tMagistrate\/The Sub-Divisional Magistrate of the concerned<\/p>\n

\tdistrict under whose local jurisdiction such newspaper is<\/p>\n

\tgoing to be printed or published.<\/p>\n

\tThe Section 5 of The Press & Registration of Books<\/p>\n

\tAct, 1867 has set forth Rules as to the printing and<\/p>\n

\tpublication of newspapers in details.<\/p>\n

\t <\/p>\n

\tAnd ,the section 5(2) of The Press &<\/p>\n

\tRegistration of Books Act, 1867 thus says–'<\/p>\n

\t'The Printer and the Publisher of every such<\/p>\n

\tnewspaper shall appear in person or by agent authorised<\/p>\n

\tin this behalf in accordance with rules made under section<\/p>\n

\t20, before a District Magistrate,Presidency Magistrate or<\/p>\n

\tSub-Divisional Magistrate within whose local jurisdiction<\/p>\n

\tsuch newspaper shall be printed or published, and  shall<\/p>\n

\tmake and subscribe, in duplicate in the prescribed printed<\/p>\n

\tform ( That is known as 'Form- I' under Chapter<\/p>\n

\t"Schedule").<\/p>\n

\tIn the Declaration (the form of an Application  for<\/p>\n

\tissuance of 'The Certificate of Registration' and 'the<\/p>\n

\tRegistration Number' ) , the Printer and the Publisher of<\/p>\n

\tthe newspaper give the details of particulars of the<\/p>\n

\tproposed printing or publication of a newspaper viz. (1)<\/p>\n

\tthe title of the newspaper, (2) language of newspaper in<\/p>\n

\twhich it is to be published, (3) periodicity of  publication,<\/p>\n

\t(4) retail selling price of the newspaper per copy,  (5)<\/p>\n

\tpublisher's name and address, (6) place of<\/p>\n

\tprinting and name of the printing press where the<\/p>\n

\tnewspaper is actually printed and the true and<\/p>\n

\tprecise description of the premises on which the<\/p>\n

\t <\/p>\n

\tpress is installed, (7) place of publication , (8)<\/p>\n

\tPrinter's name,(9) owner's names,  (10) particulars of<\/p>\n

\tthe firm, the Joint Stock Company , the Trust, etc.<\/p>\n

\t( Declaration is mandatory for printing or for<\/p>\n

\tpublication or for both printing and publication ofany<\/p>\n

\tnewspaper)<\/p>\n

\tAfter filing the Declaration for printing or<\/p>\n

\tpublication of a newspaper by the publisher,the District<\/p>\n

\tMagistrate\/ Presidency Magistrate \/ The Sub-Divisional<\/p>\n

\tMagistrate of the area under whose local jurisdiction, the<\/p>\n

\tnewspaper is going to be printed or published,<\/p>\n

\tauthenticates it under section 06 of The Press &<\/p>\n

\tRegistration of Books Act,1867after getting ‘signal’ from<\/p>\n

\tthe Press Registrar,New Delhi.<\/p>\n

\tBesides, one of the authenticated Declaration<\/p>\n

\toriginals shall be deposited among the records ofthe<\/p>\n

\toffice of the Magistrate, and the other shall be deposited<\/p>\n

\tamong the records of the High Court of Judicature,  or<\/p>\n

\tother principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction for the<\/p>\n

\tplace where the said declaration shall have been made. It<\/p>\n

\tis also mandatory under Section 06 of the Press &<\/p>\n

\tRegistration of Books Act, 1867.<\/p>\n

\tThe Section 06 of The Press & Registration of<\/p>\n

\tBooks Act, 1867 thus says,<\/p>\n

\t" Authentication of Declaration:  Each of the<\/p>\n

\ttwo originals of every declaration so made and subscribed<\/p>\n

\tas is aforesaid, shall be authenticated by the signature<\/p>\n

\tand official seal of the Magistrate before whom thesaid<\/p>\n

\tdeclaration shall have been made.<\/p>\n

\tDEPOSIT<\/p>\n

\tOne of the said originals shall be deposited<\/p>\n

\tamong the records of the office of the Magistrate,  and the<\/p>\n

\tother shall be deposited among the records of the High<\/p>\n

\tCourt of Judicature, or other principal Civil Court of<\/p>\n

\toriginal jurisdiction for the place where the said<\/p>\n

\tdeclaration shall have been made.”<\/p>\n

\tOnly then, the Company can start the<\/p>\n

\tpublication of the newspaper under section 5(2-C)<\/p>\n

\tof The Press & Registration of Books Act, 1867.<\/p>\n

\t <\/p>\n

\tThe Section 5(2-C) of the Press & Registration<\/p>\n

\tof Books Act, 1867 thus says,<\/p>\n

\t''A Declaration in respect of a newspaper<\/p>\n

\tmade under Section 5(2) and authenticated under<\/p>\n

\tsection 06 shall be necessary before the<\/p>\n

\tnewspaper can be published.”<\/p>\n

\tThis is mandatory.<\/p>\n

\tIt clearly states that any new newspaper can be<\/p>\n

\tpublished only after fulfilling the legal procedures under<\/p>\n

\tsections 5(2) and 06 of the Press & Registration ofBooks<\/p>\n

\tAct,1867,according to the section 5 (2-C) of the Act. So,if<\/p>\n

\tthe Owner\/Publisher of a newspaper does not honourthe<\/p>\n

\tlegal obligations of the sections 5(2) and 06 of the Act,the<\/p>\n

\tpublication of any such newspaper can be termed as<\/p>\n

\t"illegal".<\/p>\n

\tThen the District Magistrate\/The Sub-Divisional<\/p>\n

\tMagistrate will send the "Authenticated Declaration"<\/p>\n

\t(Application) to the Press Registrar,the Ministry of<\/p>\n

\tInformation & Broadcasting, New Delhi for the issue of<\/p>\n

\t6<\/p>\n

\t'the Certificate of Registration' and 'the Registration<\/p>\n

\tNumber' in respect of that newspaper.<\/p>\n

\tAnd then, the Press Registrar(New Delhi) will issue<\/p>\n

\t"the Certificate of Registration" to the publisherof the<\/p>\n

\tnewspaper under section 19(C) of The Press &<\/p>\n

\tRegistration of Books Act, 1867 and under section  10(1)<\/p>\n

\tof the Registration of Newspapers(Central) Rules, 1956.<\/p>\n

\tCERTIFICATES OF REGISTRATION<\/p>\n

\tThe Section 19(C) of The Press & Registration<\/p>\n

\tof Books Act, 1867 thus says,<\/p>\n

\t'' Certificates of Registration:  On receiving from<\/p>\n

\tthe Magistrate under section 06, a copy of the declaration<\/p>\n

\tin respect of a newspaper and on the publication ofsuch<\/p>\n

\tnewspaper, the Press Registrar shall, as soon as<\/p>\n

\tpracticable thereafter, issue ''a Certificate of Registration''<\/p>\n

\tin respect of that newspaper to the publisher thereof."<\/p>\n

\tThe section 10(1) of the Registration of<\/p>\n

\tNewspapers (Central) Rules, 1956, thus, says :<\/p>\n

\t“Certificate of Registration—(1) Where a<\/p>\n

\tpublisher makes a declaration before a Magistrate,  the<\/p>\n

\tPress Registrar shall, as soon as practicable, after receipt<\/p>\n

\tof the copy of the declaration, issue to the publisher a<\/p>\n

\tcertificate of registration in Form V.”<\/p>\n

\tBesides, the Press Registrar(New Delhi) will also<\/p>\n

\tissue ''the Registration Number'' to the Newspaperunder<\/p>\n

\tsection 7(2) of the amended act' The Registration of<\/p>\n

\tNewspapers(Central) rules, 1956.''<\/p>\n

\tREGISTERED NEWSPAPER<\/p>\n

\tThe Section 7(2) of The Registration of<\/p>\n

\tNewspapers(Central) Rules,1956 thus says,<\/p>\n

\t'' Maintenance of the Register:  The pages of<\/p>\n

\tThe Register shall be numbered consecutively and entries<\/p>\n

\tin respect of a newspaper shall start from a fresh<\/p>\n

\tpage.When particulars, enumerated in Form-1<\/p>\n

\t(Declaration), have been entered in the Register inrespect<\/p>\n

\tof a newspaper,  the Press Registrar shall allot ''a<\/p>\n

\tRegistration Number'' to that newspaper.”<\/p>\n

\t <\/p>\n

\tAnd then,when the company of a newspaper<\/p>\n

\tobtains " the Certificate of Registration" and "the<\/p>\n

\tRegistration Number " from the Press<\/p>\n

\tRegistrar,New Delhi , the newspaper is termed as<\/p>\n

\ta 'Registered Newspaper' .<\/p>\n

\tSPECIFIC SECTION FOR<\/p>\n

\tAN EXISTING NEWSPAPER<\/p>\n

\twhen the company of  any existing<\/p>\n

\tnewspaper  sets up new printing presses at a number of<\/p>\n

\tplaces and starts the printing or publication or both<\/p>\n

\tprinting & publication of that newspaper at different<\/p>\n

\tplaces of new printing locations, the Company has again<\/p>\n

\tto go through all the above mentioned legal processes<\/p>\n

\tsuch as(1) Filing a fresh Declaration(an application in<\/p>\n

\tForm-I for issuance of "Certificate of Registration" and<\/p>\n

\t"Registration Number") before District<\/p>\n

\tMagistrate,(2)Getting the declaration "authenticated" by<\/p>\n

\tthe concerned District Magistrate,(3) Obtaining ''the<\/p>\n

\tCertificate of Registration'' and ''the Registration Number''<\/p>\n

\tfrom the Press Registrar(New Delhi) under the section 5(3)<\/p>\n

\tof The Press & Registration of Books Act,1867 as isdone<\/p>\n

\t <\/p>\n

\tin the case of printing or publicaton or both the printing<\/p>\n

\tand publication of a new newspaper.<\/p>\n

\tThe Section 5(3) of The Press & Registration<\/p>\n

\tof Books Act, 1867 thus says,<\/p>\n

\t''As often as the place of printing or<\/p>\n

\tpublication is changed, a new declaration shall<\/p>\n

\tbe necessary.''<\/p>\n

\tIt means when the company of the existing<\/p>\n

\tnewspaper sets up new printing pressess at other<\/p>\n

\tplaces\/other locations of printing presses and starts new<\/p>\n

\tprinting or publications at new places , the existing<\/p>\n

\tnewspaper has also to go through all the above mentioned<\/p>\n

\tlegal processes to get the newspaper ‘registered’ from the<\/p>\n

\toffice of the Press Registrar (New Delhi).<\/p>\n

\tAnd then, that newspaper is termed as ''a<\/p>\n

\tregistered newspaper''.<\/p>\n

\tNow, it has become clear that there are great<\/p>\n

\tdifferences between the meanings of the word”<\/p>\n

\tDeclaration” and the words” Certificate of Registration”.<\/p>\n

\t <\/p>\n

\t“Declaration” that contains the details of the<\/p>\n

\tproposed printing or publication or both printing  and<\/p>\n

\tpublication of a new or an existing newspaper, ismade<\/p>\n

\tin the FORM-1 (Schedule) while “ Certificate of<\/p>\n

\tRegistration” that contains the certificate fromthe office<\/p>\n

\tof the Press Registrar(New Delhi) declaring the<\/p>\n

\tnewspaper a ‘Registered Newspaper’ ,is made in Form-V.<\/p>\n

\tThe petitioner, in her petition at several points,<\/p>\n

\thas tried her best to misguide this Hon’ble Court  on the<\/p>\n

\tplea that she has filed a Declaration before the  District<\/p>\n

\tMagistrate, so she has completed her all legal obligations<\/p>\n

\tand is entitled to publish the advertisements of the<\/p>\n

\tUnion and the Bihar governments.<\/p>\n

\tYour Honour ! Will the police set free a<\/p>\n

\tperson carrying fire-arms on the plea that he\/she<\/p>\n

\thas applied for an arms-licence and has not got<\/p>\n

\tthe ‘Arms-licence’ from the District Magistrate till<\/p>\n

\tthe time of the arrest ?<\/p>\n

\tTHE STATUS OF THE DAILY HINDI<\/p>\n

\tNEWSPAPER ‘HINDUSTAN’ IN THE<\/p>\n

\tPRESENT CASE<\/p>\n

\t <\/p>\n

\tDainik Hindustan, a Hindi Daily newspaper, is<\/p>\n

\tprinted and published from New Delhi(the headquarters of<\/p>\n

\tthe Media House) and has got its ''the Certificate  of<\/p>\n

\tRegistration'' and ''the Registration No.509'' fromthe<\/p>\n

\toffice of the Press Registrar,the Ministry of Information &<\/p>\n

\tBroadcasting,govt. of India,New Delhi after going through<\/p>\n

\tall the legal procedures under sections 5(2),06,5-2(C),19(C) of the Press & Registration of Books Act, 1867<\/p>\n

\tand section 7(2) and10(1) of the Registration of<\/p>\n

\tNewspapers(Central) Rules,1956.<\/p>\n

\tTHE COMPANY HONOURS CENTRAL<\/p>\n

\tACTS IN U.P, BUT VIOLATES THEM IN<\/p>\n

\tBIHAR<\/p>\n

\tThe company of the same title newspaper (the<\/p>\n

\texisting newspaper) 'Dainik Hindustan' also started<\/p>\n

\tprinting and publishing its new publications\/editions<\/p>\n

\tfrom eight new and independent printing locations<\/p>\n

\tnamely Allahabad,Merrut, Bareilly, Kanpur,<\/p>\n

\tAgra,Varanasi, Aligarh and Lucknow in Utter Pradesh<\/p>\n

\trespectively.The Company that prints and publishes<\/p>\n

\tDainik Hindustan, accordingly honoured the CentralActs<\/p>\n

\tand got ''separate Certificates of Registration''  and<\/p>\n

\t <\/p>\n

\t''separate Registration Numbers'' from the Press<\/p>\n

\tRegistrar,New Delhi for all new & separate printings and<\/p>\n

\tpublications of Dainik Hindustan in Utter Pradesh.<\/p>\n

\tDainik Hindustan has got the Registration<\/p>\n

\tN0.106410(New Registration No.UPHIN\/2010\/33853)<\/p>\n

\tfor its Allahabad publication\/edition, the<\/p>\n

\tRegistration No.106411(New Registration No.<\/p>\n

\tUPHIN\/2010\/33854) for its Merrut<\/p>\n

\tpublication\/edition, the Registration<\/p>\n

\tNo.106412(New Registration No.UPHIN\/2010\/33855)<\/p>\n

\tfor its Bareilly publication\/edition, the Registration<\/p>\n

\tNo. 106413(New Registration No.<\/p>\n

\tUPHIN\/2010\/33856)for its Kanpur<\/p>\n

\tpublication\/edition, the Registration<\/p>\n

\tNo.106414(New Registration No.<\/p>\n

\tUPHIN\/2010\/33857) for its Agra<\/p>\n

\tpublication\/edition,the Registration No.106415(New<\/p>\n

\tRegistration No.UPHIN\/2010\/33858) for its Varanasi<\/p>\n

\tpublication\/edition,the Registration No.110090(New<\/p>\n

\tRegistration No.UPHIN\/2011\/37533) for its Aligarh<\/p>\n

\tpublication\/edition and the Registration No.64319<\/p>\n

\tfor its Lucknow publication\/ediion.Dainik<\/p>\n

\t <\/p>\n

\tHindustan has also got "The Certificates of<\/p>\n

\tRegistration" for all above mentioned eight new<\/p>\n

\tprinting stations\/printing presses in Utter Pradesh.<\/p>\n

\tBut, when the same title newspaper(existing<\/p>\n

\tnewspaper) Dainik Hindustan entered Bihar, set up  the<\/p>\n

\tnew printing location at Patna and started its new<\/p>\n

\tpublication\/edition from Patna in 1986,  it obtained its<\/p>\n

\t"separate Certificate of Registration" and "the<\/p>\n

\tnew Registration No.44348\/1986" from the office<\/p>\n

\tof the Press Registrar,New Delhi under the P.R.B<\/p>\n

\tActs.<\/p>\n

\tVIOLATIONS OF PRESS &<\/p>\n

\tREGISTRATION OF BOOKS ACT,1867<\/p>\n

\tSTART IN BIHAR FOR<\/p>\n

\tWRONGFUL GAINS<\/p>\n

\tBut when the company of the same title<\/p>\n

\tnewspaper(existing newspaper) Dainik Hindustan set  up<\/p>\n

\tits new printing press\/printing location at Bhagalpur in<\/p>\n

\t <\/p>\n

\tBihar and started printing and publishing its new<\/p>\n

\tBhagalpur and Munger publications\/editions at<\/p>\n

\tBhagalpur printing press in Bihar since 2001,it obtained<\/p>\n

\tneither ''the separate Certificates of Registration'' nor ''the<\/p>\n

\tnew Registration Numbers'' for new Bhagalpur and<\/p>\n

\tMunger publications\/editions from the office of thePress<\/p>\n

\tRegistrar,New Delhi ,thus arbitrarily and willfully violating<\/p>\n

\tthe section 5(3) of the Press & Registration of Books Act,<\/p>\n

\t1867.Thus, the companies of the newspaper viz M\/S<\/p>\n

\tHindustan Times Limited(New Delhi),M\/S<\/p>\n

\tH.T.Media Limited(New Delhi) and M\/S Hindustan<\/p>\n

\tMedia Ventures Limited(New Delhi) continued<\/p>\n

\tprinting and publishing the new Bhagalpur &<\/p>\n

\tMunger publications\/ editions of Dainik Hindustan<\/p>\n

\tfrom the Bhagalpur printing press from August 03,<\/p>\n

\t2001 to June, 30, 2011illegally without having "<\/p>\n

\tCertificates of Registration" and " Registration<\/p>\n

\tNumbers" in order to make wrongful gain by<\/p>\n

\tobtaining the government advertisements.<\/p>\n

\tTERMS AND CONDITIONS OF<\/p>\n

\tADVERTISEMENT<\/p>\n

\t <\/p>\n

\tPOLICY OF UNION GOVERNMENT IN INDIA<\/p>\n

\tThe Union Government through the Directorate of<\/p>\n

\tAdvertising & Visual Publicity(D.A.V.P),Information&<\/p>\n

\tBroadcasting Ministry,Government of India,New Delhi,<\/p>\n

\tapproves "the Govt. Advertisement Rates" and releases<\/p>\n

\t"the Union Govt. advertisements" to newspapers in bulk<\/p>\n

\tevery year after fulfilling the certain conditionssuch as<\/p>\n

\t(1) The Newspaper must have ''the<\/p>\n

\tCertificate of Registration'' and ''The Registration<\/p>\n

\tNumber',<\/p>\n

\t(2) The Evidence of uninterrupted publication of the<\/p>\n

\tnewspaper for 36 months(three years) regularly,<\/p>\n

\t(3) The Certificate of Audit Bureau of Circulation<\/p>\n

\tregarding the circulation of the newspaper,etc.<\/p>\n

\t(4) There must be a minimum of seventy<\/p>\n

\tfive thousand of circulation of the newspaper.<\/p>\n

\tTERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ADVERTISEMENT<\/p>\n

\tPOLICY OF BIHAR GOVERNMENT<\/p>\n

\t <\/p>\n

\tThe Bihar govt. also through the Information &<\/p>\n

\tPublic Relation Department(IPRD),Patna, approves the<\/p>\n

\t"Govt. Advertisement Rate" and releases the "State<\/p>\n

\tGovernment Advertisements" in bulk to newspapers<\/p>\n

\teither directly or through different district stategovt.<\/p>\n

\toffices every year in all districts of Bihar.<\/p>\n

\tThe Information & Public Relation<\/p>\n

\tDepartment(IPRD),Patna,Bihar enlists the eligible<\/p>\n

\tnewspapers for the "State Govt. Advertisements" onthe<\/p>\n

\tfollowing terms and conditions such as<\/p>\n

\t(1) the Newspaper must have "The<\/p>\n

\tCertificate of Registration" from the office of the<\/p>\n

\tPress Registrar,New Delhi,<\/p>\n

\t(2) the number of sold Hindi daily<\/p>\n

\tnewspaper must be a minimum of 45 thousand per<\/p>\n

\tday,<\/p>\n

\t(3) the newspaper must have obtained " the<\/p>\n

\tApproved D.A.V.P Rate".etc.<\/p>\n

\tDAINIK HINDUSTAN NOT ENTITLED TO<\/p>\n

\tPUBLISH ADVERTISEMENTS FROM<\/p>\n

\t <\/p>\n

\tAUGUST ,03, 2001 TO JUNE 30, 2011<\/p>\n

\tUnder the terms and conditions of the<\/p>\n

\tAdvertisement Policies of the Union Govt. and the  Bihar<\/p>\n

\tGovt. as well, the new Bhagalpur and Munger<\/p>\n

\tpublications\/editions of Dainik Hindustan were not<\/p>\n

\tentitled to get and publish the Government<\/p>\n

\tAdvertisements from the Union Government and the<\/p>\n

\tBihar Government as well as  both<\/p>\n

\tpublications\/editions had completely failed to<\/p>\n

\tcomply with the mandatory provisions of the<\/p>\n

\tPress & Registration of Books Act,1867 and the<\/p>\n

\tRegistration of Newspapers(Central) Rules, 1956<\/p>\n

\tand the statutory rules and regulations of<\/p>\n

\tAdvertisement Policies.The statutory provisions of<\/p>\n

\tAdvertisement Policies include obtaining "the Certificate<\/p>\n

\tof Registration" & "the Registration Number" from  the<\/p>\n

\tPress Registrar,New Delhi.<\/p>\n

\tEVEN AFTER REGISTRATION ,BOTH PUBLICATIONS<\/p>\n

\tWERE NOT ENTITLED TO GET AND PUBLISH<\/p>\n

\t <\/p>\n

\tGOVERNMENT ADVERTISEMENTS FOR THREE<\/p>\n

\tYEARS<\/p>\n

\tUnder the terms and conditions of the<\/p>\n

\tAdvertisement Policies of .D.A.V.P(New Delhi) and I.P.R.D<\/p>\n

\t(Patna,Bihar),the new Bhagalpur and Munger<\/p>\n

\tpublications\/editions of Dainik Hindustan were not entitled<\/p>\n

\tto get the govt advertisements from the union govt. and<\/p>\n

\tthe state govt. for three years from August ,03,2001 to<\/p>\n

\tJuly 31,2004,even though they would have obtained'the<\/p>\n

\tCertificates of Registration'' and ''the Registration<\/p>\n

\tNumbers'' because there must have been an<\/p>\n

\tuninterrupted publication of the daily Hindi newspaper for<\/p>\n

\tthree years regularly even after obtaining the "Certificate<\/p>\n

\tof Registration" and the "Registration Number" from the<\/p>\n

\toffice of the Press Registrar,New Delhi as per terms and<\/p>\n

\tconditions of the Advertisment Policy of the D.A.V.P,New<\/p>\n

\tDelhi.<\/p>\n

\tThus , when the company completes three<\/p>\n

\tyours publication regularly even after obtaining<\/p>\n

\t“the Certificate of Registration” & “the<\/p>\n

\tRegistration Number”, it will ,then, be eligible only<\/p>\n

\tto apply for “the DAVP Advertisement Rate” and<\/p>\n

\t“DAVP Advertisements.”<\/p>\n

\t <\/p>\n

\tIt is also crystal clear that the Bihar Govt will<\/p>\n

\tconsider enlisting any Hindi newspaper for the release of<\/p>\n

\tthe "State Govt. Advertisements" if that newspaper  gets<\/p>\n

\tthe "D.A.V.P Approved Advertisement Rate" from the<\/p>\n

\tDAVP ,New Delhi as per one of the three main termsand<\/p>\n

\tconditions of the I.P.R.D,Patna,Bihar .<\/p>\n

\tMAIN REASON BEHIND<\/p>\n

\tTHE ECONOMIC OFFENCE<\/p>\n

\tTo compensate the possible gross loss of<\/p>\n

\tincome in the head of the publication of the<\/p>\n

\tadvertisements of the union government and the<\/p>\n

\tBihar government in the wake of a new<\/p>\n

\tpublication\/edition, the publisher\/owner as well as<\/p>\n

\tthe editors fraudulently induced the officials of<\/p>\n

\tthe D.A.V.P(New Delhi) and I.P.R.D(Patna,Bihar) to<\/p>\n

\tdeliver the advertisements of the union<\/p>\n

\tgovernment and the Bihar govt. respectively to<\/p>\n

\tthe illegal and unauthorised Bhagalpur and<\/p>\n

\t <\/p>\n

\tMunger publications of Dainik Hindustan for<\/p>\n

\twrongful gain from August, 03 ,2001 to June<\/p>\n

\t30,2011 by wrongly presenting the Bhagalpur and<\/p>\n

\tMunger publications\/editions as "Registered<\/p>\n

\tNewspapers" before the Govts. in Delhi and<\/p>\n

\tPatna.  The Bhagalpur and Munger publications of Dainik<\/p>\n

\tHindustan went in circulation\/publication among readers<\/p>\n

\tand advertisers without the "Certificates of Registration''<\/p>\n

\tand ''Registration Numbers''.But to cheat the officials of<\/p>\n

\tD.A.V.P(New Delhi),I.P.R.D(Patna,Bihar) and private<\/p>\n

\tadvertisers,too,the publishr\/owner and the editors of<\/p>\n

\tDainik Hindustan of Bhagalpur and Munger editions<\/p>\n

\tcontinued printing on the "Print-line" on the last  page of<\/p>\n

\tthe newspaper the "Registration No.44348\/1986" from<\/p>\n

\tAugust 03,2001 to June 30,2011, thus falsely and<\/p>\n

\tdishonestly presenting the newspaper to be "a lawfully<\/p>\n

\tregistered newspaper".In reality, the truth is that the<\/p>\n

\t"printed Registration No.44348\/1986" has been<\/p>\n

\tofficially allocated to the Patna<\/p>\n

\tpublication\/edition of Dainik Hindustan from the<\/p>\n

\toffice of the Press Registrar,New Delhi in 1986<\/p>\n

\t,some 15 years ago before the start of the new<\/p>\n

\tprinting and publications of Bhagalpur and<\/p>\n

\t <\/p>\n

\tMunger editions of Dainik Hindustan in the year<\/p>\n

\t2001 last.The documentary evidences of forgery and<\/p>\n

\tcheatings in the printing of the Patna Publication<\/p>\n

\tRegistration No.44348\/1986 on the "Print-line of the<\/p>\n

\tBhagalpur and Munger publications\/editons of Dainik<\/p>\n

\tHindustan by such a powerful media house is a serious<\/p>\n

\teconomic offence which has never been heard in the<\/p>\n

\tpast hundred years in the world. "Thus,the company<\/p>\n

\tplundered the government exchequer upto about two<\/p>\n

\thundred crores during the period.<\/p>\n

\tPETITIONER COUNTERFEITED REGISTRATION<\/p>\n

\tNO.44348 OF 1986 OF PATNA EDITION OF<\/p>\n

\tHINDUSTAN<\/p>\n

\tWhile printing and publishing the "Registration<\/p>\n

\tNo.44348 \/1986" of the Patna Dainik Hindustan publication<\/p>\n

\ton the "Print-line" of the Bhagalpur and Munger<\/p>\n

\tpublications of Dainik Hindustan continuously from<\/p>\n

\tAugust,03,2001 to June ,30,2011,the owners\/publishers<\/p>\n

\tand the editors of Dainik Hindustan fraudulently and<\/p>\n

\tdishonesly used the Registration No. of Patna publication<\/p>\n

\tof Dainik Hindustan as ‘a genuine Registration No.’of<\/p>\n

\tBhagalpur and Munger publications of Dainik Hindustan<\/p>\n

\tdespite the fact that they knew very well that they had<\/p>\n

\tbeen committing forgery,fraud and cheatings willfully  .<\/p>\n

\t <\/p>\n

\tThus,the owners\/publishers and the editors<\/p>\n

\tknowingly counterfeited the Registration<\/p>\n

\tNo.44348\/1986 of Patna publication of Dainik<\/p>\n

\tHindustan in the Bhagalpur and Munger<\/p>\n

\tpublications of Dainik Hindustan for the wrongful<\/p>\n

\tpurpose of giving false impression of a Registered<\/p>\n

\tNewspaper to the Bhagalpur and Munger<\/p>\n

\tpublications of Dainik Hindustan before the<\/p>\n

\tGovernment Advertisement Releasing Agencies.<\/p>\n

\tThe whole and sole intention of the<\/p>\n

\towners\/publishers and the editors to commit such a<\/p>\n

\tcrime of forgery and cheatings on such a large scale for<\/p>\n

\tsuch a long period was to get the govt. advertisements of<\/p>\n

\tthe union and the Bihar governments by hook or by crook<\/p>\n

\tin active connivance with the senior government officials<\/p>\n

\tand Ministers of the concerned departments of the Union<\/p>\n

\tand the Bihar governments. Thus, all the named accused<\/p>\n

\tpersons in the Munger Kotwali P.S Case No. 445\/2011<\/p>\n

\twillfully committed the offences of forgery, fraud  and<\/p>\n

\tcheatings on such a large scale.<\/p>\n

\t <\/p>\n

\tORDERS OF CENTRAL INFORMATION<\/p>\n

\tCOMMISSION (NEW DELHI) FLOUTED<\/p>\n

\tThe Central Information Commission(C.I.C)<\/p>\n

\t(New Delhi),  vide its order dated December<\/p>\n

\t08,2008,in the case No.CIC\/OK\/A\/2008\/885\/AD<\/p>\n

\t(ShriKrishna Pd Vs Central Public Information<\/p>\n

\tOfficer,office of the Press Registrar,New Delhi),passed<\/p>\n

\tan order directing the CPIO to hold an immediate<\/p>\n

\tenquiry into the matter of publication of Dainik<\/p>\n

\tHindustan under one title 'Hindustan' from 38<\/p>\n

\tdistricts of Bihar and 12 of Jharkhand with<\/p>\n

\tdifferent editors stationed at each of 50 districts<\/p>\n

\tand with different news items from each district<\/p>\n

\tallegedly violating the rules of Press &<\/p>\n

\tRegistration of Books Act.The CIC also  directed the<\/p>\n

\tCPIO(office of the Press Registrar,New Delhi) to conduct<\/p>\n

\tthe enquiry with consultation with the District Magistrates<\/p>\n

\tand submit the enquiry report within one month of the<\/p>\n

\treceipt of this order.<\/p>\n

\t <\/p>\n

\tPUBLISHERS\/OWNERS PROVE THEIR FORGERY,FRAUD<\/p>\n

\tAND CHEATINGS WITH THEIR PRINTED DOCUMENTS<\/p>\n

\tPUBLICLY<\/p>\n

\tBut, the order of the C.I.C,New Delhi has not<\/p>\n

\tbeen complied till this day by the CPIO(the office<\/p>\n

\tof the Press Registrar,New Delhi) under the<\/p>\n

\tinfluence of the powerful corporate media house<\/p>\n

\t.The office of Press Registrar(New Delhi) only wroteletters<\/p>\n

\tto the District Magistrates of Patna,Bhagalpur and<\/p>\n

\tMuzaffarpur to hold an enquiry into the matter.When the<\/p>\n

\tprocess of enquiry began ,the owners\/publishers<\/p>\n

\tof Dainik Hindustan removed the “Patna<\/p>\n

\tRegistration Number—RNI No.44348\/1986” from<\/p>\n

\tits Print Line and started printing and publishing<\/p>\n

\t“RNI No.- Applied for" on the Print-line of the<\/p>\n

\tBhagalpur and Munger editions\/publications of<\/p>\n

\tDainik Hindustan from July 01, 2011.Even when<\/p>\n

\tthe Company continued printing and publishing the<\/p>\n

\tRegistration Number –RNI No.-Applied For, the<\/p>\n

\tUnion and the Bihar Governments didn’t stop<\/p>\n

\treleasing the government advertisements to the<\/p>\n

\tBhagalpur and Munger editions of Dainik<\/p>\n

\t <\/p>\n

\tHindustan.This action of the Union Government<\/p>\n

\tand the Bihar government show the involvement<\/p>\n

\tof government officials and concerned ministers<\/p>\n

\tin this government advertisement scam.<\/p>\n

\tAt the same time, this action of the<\/p>\n

\towners\/publishers of the company has publicly<\/p>\n

\texposed their acceptance of offences of forgery,<\/p>\n

\tfraud and cheatings in the printed form , and it is<\/p>\n

\tunusual in the history of economic offences of<\/p>\n

\tthe media – world .<\/p>\n

\tSuch documentary evidences in this matter<\/p>\n

\tneed more and more thorough probe by powerful<\/p>\n

\tinvestigating agencies of the country like C.B.I or<\/p>\n

\tCAG to expose yet other economic offences<\/p>\n

\trelating to such other Government Advertisement<\/p>\n

\tScams in other districts of Bihar and in other<\/p>\n

\tstates viz Jharkhand, Delhi etc.<\/p>\n

\t <\/p>\n

\tThus, the company has openly and publicly<\/p>\n

\taccepted in print its forgery, fraud and cheatings<\/p>\n

\tin respect of the printing and publication of the<\/p>\n

\t"Registration No.44348\/1986" (allotted to the<\/p>\n

\tPatna edition) on the "Print-line" of the Bhagalpur<\/p>\n

\t, Munger,Lakhisarai,Jamui, Sheikhpura, Banka,<\/p>\n

\tKhagaria, Begusarai and Muzaffarpur<\/p>\n

\tpublications\/editions of Dainik Hindustan for more<\/p>\n

\tthan a decade.<\/p>\n

\tDAREDEVIL ACT OF ECONOMIC OFFENCE OF<\/p>\n

\tOWNER\/ PUBLISHER OF DAINIK HINDUSTAN IN<\/p>\n

\tCASE OF MUNGER EDITION\/ PUBLICATION<\/p>\n

\tThe owners\/publishers continued printing ''<\/p>\n

\tRegistration No..- Applied For'' in the Bhagalpur and<\/p>\n

\tMunger publications\/editions of Dainik Hindustan from<\/p>\n

\tJuly 01,2011 to April 16, 2012.And from April 17,2012,the<\/p>\n

\tcompany began printing new and separate "Registration<\/p>\n

\tNo.BIHHIN\/2011\/41407" in the Bhagalpur and Munger<\/p>\n

\tpublications \/editions.But, the owner\/publisher didn't<\/p>\n

\tcomply the rules of the PRB Act in the case of the<\/p>\n

\t <\/p>\n

\tMunger publication\/edition till filing of this<\/p>\n

\tcounter-affidavit in this Hon’ble Court. In support<\/p>\n

\tof this statement, the enquiry-report of the<\/p>\n

\tMunger Collector that was sent to the Hon'ble<\/p>\n

\tHigh Court of Patna in Bihar in connection with<\/p>\n

\tthis case is mentioned here for perusal.<\/p>\n

\tD.M’S REPORT TO HON’BLE HIGH COURT EXPOSES<\/p>\n

\tUNAUTHORISED PUBLICATION AND CIRCULATION<\/p>\n

\tOF MUNGER EDITION OF DAINIK HINDUSTAN IN<\/p>\n

\tMUNGER<\/p>\n

\tThe Munger Collector,vide office letter No.1448\/legal,dated<\/p>\n

\t27\/09\/12,to the Honourable High Court,Patna ,in response<\/p>\n

\tto a direction of the Patna court in the Cr.Misc.No.<\/p>\n

\t2951\/2012(Shobhana Bharatiya Vs State of Bihar &<\/p>\n

\tothers),has clearly stated –<\/p>\n

\t"……….Today monring,Hindustan newspaper had<\/p>\n

\tbeen obtained from Munger town(Munger edition) and<\/p>\n

\tnearby Lakhisarai town(East Bihar edition).Both the<\/p>\n

\tnewspapers indicate same editor,same publisher and<\/p>\n

\t <\/p>\n

\tprinter,same local editor,same phone number and same<\/p>\n

\tR.N.I .No. The RNI No. is also same as what can be  seen<\/p>\n

\ton Bhagalpur edition  .This way, it appears that on<\/p>\n

\tsame registration, same R.N.I No., different<\/p>\n

\tcontent is being published ,printed and circulated<\/p>\n

\tin different districts. Since the content is<\/p>\n

\tdifferent,so they should be treated as different<\/p>\n

\tnewspapers ,and should have different R.N.I's No.<\/p>\n

\tHere RNI No.is same.This way it has been found<\/p>\n

\tthat in Bhagalpur,Munger and Lakhisarai, different<\/p>\n

\tnewspaper contents are being circulated bearing<\/p>\n

\tsame registration details…..It is evident that not only<\/p>\n

\tnews content is different ,but also some govt.<\/p>\n

\tadvertisement is published in one newspaper ,and not in<\/p>\n

\tthe others.For example, on page No.06 of newspaper<\/p>\n

\t,circulated in Lakhisarai (East Bihar edition),<\/p>\n

\tadvertisements of Planning Dept.bearing Advertisement<\/p>\n

\tNo. PR-7332(planning)\/12-13 has been published,but not in<\/p>\n

\tMunger edition, circulated in Munger town.”<\/p>\n

\tThus, the daredevil act of economic offence of such<\/p>\n

\ta big corporate media house of India has been proved and<\/p>\n

\tit has stunned everyone in law that the company hasbeen<\/p>\n

\tstill illegally publishing the Munger edition of Dainik<\/p>\n

\t <\/p>\n

\tHindustan without ''the Certificate of Registration'' and<\/p>\n

\t''the Registration Number'' under the P.R.B Act even after<\/p>\n

\tthe lodging of this F.I.R with Munger Kotwali police station<\/p>\n

\tabout one year and 8 months earlier.Thus,the Munger<\/p>\n

\tedition of Dainik Hindustan has been still illegally<\/p>\n

\tobtaining and publishing the advertisements of the  Union<\/p>\n

\tand the Bihar governments in bulk .This action of the<\/p>\n

\tcompany proves its daredevil act of economic offence .<\/p>\n

\tThe chief economic offenders are the chairperson,the<\/p>\n

\tchief editors and the publisher\/owner respectively of such<\/p>\n

\ta powerful newspaper industry of India.<\/p>\n

\tONE MORE IMPORTANT REASON FOR<\/p>\n

\tCHEATINGS AND FORGERY OF THE MEDIA<\/p>\n

\tHOUSE<\/p>\n

\tThe DAVP(New Delhi),the sole agency of the union<\/p>\n

\tgovernment for the approval of "the Govt. Advertisement<\/p>\n

\tRate" and the "release" of "all central gov.<\/p>\n

\tadvertisements(Advts)" to newspapers, has made it<\/p>\n

\t"compulsory" that the minimum circulation of the daily<\/p>\n

\tnewspaper must be 75,000(Seventy five thousand ) per<\/p>\n

\tday while the I.P.R.D(Patna,Bihar), the sole agencyof the<\/p>\n

\tBihar govt. for approval of "the Govt. Advertisement<\/p>\n

\tRate" and the "release" of the "State Govt.<\/p>\n

\tAdvertisements" to newspapers, has made it<\/p>\n

\t <\/p>\n

\t"compulsory" in its terms and conditions that the<\/p>\n

\tminimum circulation of the newspaper must be<\/p>\n

\t20,000(Twenty thousand) per day from 1981 to 2008,  and<\/p>\n

\t45,000(forty five thousand) per day from 2008 to till<\/p>\n

\tnow.And under the terms and conditions in respect<\/p>\n

\tof the minimum circulation ,Dainik Hindustan<\/p>\n

\tcould\/ can\/would never fulfil the terms and<\/p>\n

\tconditions in all times to come as in each district<\/p>\n

\tof Bihar,the circulation of Dainik Hindustan does<\/p>\n

\tnot cross ten thousand except some exceptions<\/p>\n

\t.Under the circumstances, the company gets ''the<\/p>\n

\tCertificate of Registration'' and '' the Registration NO.'' of<\/p>\n

\tDainik Hindustan for "one place of publication", but the<\/p>\n

\tcompany prints, publishes and circulates "38 different<\/p>\n

\tpublications\/editions" for "all thirty eight districts" of<\/p>\n

\tBihar with same title 'Dainik Hindustan',same editor, same<\/p>\n

\tpublisher,same printer, same registration No., same<\/p>\n

\ttelephone No.,same local editor,but each districtwise<\/p>\n

\tpublication\/ edition of Dainik Hindustan in Biharis<\/p>\n

\ttotally "different" in news as has been "certified"by "the<\/p>\n

\tEnquiry-Report" of the Munger District Magistrate which<\/p>\n

\twas sent to the Hon'ble Patna High Court in connection<\/p>\n

\twith Criminal Misc.No.2951 of 2012 ( Shobhana Bharatiya<\/p>\n

\tVs State of Bihar and others) in this case.<\/p>\n

\t <\/p>\n

\tBut when the company prints and publishes<\/p>\n

\t38 different newspapers with totally different<\/p>\n

\tnews contents in each districtwise<\/p>\n

\tedition\/publication under one registration No.,the<\/p>\n

\tPublisher\/owner presents the circulation figure<\/p>\n

\ttaking together of figures of all the different<\/p>\n

\teditions\/publications of the Hindi daily<\/p>\n

\t“Hindustan” ,thus fulfilling the terms and<\/p>\n

\tconditions of the allotment of the union and the<\/p>\n

\tstate govt. advertisements. Thereby they<\/p>\n

\tcommitted such a fraud to obtain the government<\/p>\n

\tadvertisements.  As it is the powerful media house,none<\/p>\n

\tin the govt. machinery from district to Delhi dareseven to<\/p>\n

\tprobe the allegations of economic offences ,what tospeak<\/p>\n

\tof conducting any deep enquiry and taking any legal<\/p>\n

\tactions against the economic offenders.Such a big<\/p>\n

\teconomic offence has come to light only due to the action<\/p>\n

\tof the judiciary at Munger.<\/p>\n

\tCOMPANY DY. G. M'S LETTER-A SUBSTANTIAL DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE<\/p>\n

\tT O PROVE FORGERY, FRAUD AND CHEATINGS<\/p>\n

\tOF THE COMPANY TOP FUNCTIONARIES<\/p>\n

\t <\/p>\n

\tRavi Bhushan, Deputy General Manager(Media<\/p>\n

\tMarketing),on behalf of M\/S H.T.Media Ltd(Patna),vide<\/p>\n

\tofficial letter No.-7744,dt. Sept 06,2005, addressed to<\/p>\n

\tDirector, Information & Public Relations Dept,Bihar,Patna,<\/p>\n

\tin the first paragraph(lines 1 to 5) has clearly admitted<\/p>\n

\tthat there are two more printing stations (printing<\/p>\n

\tpresses) for publication of Dainik Hindustan –oneat<\/p>\n

\tBhagalpur and another at Muzaffarpur considering the<\/p>\n

\tbenefits of local readers of the region so that the<\/p>\n

\tnewspapers could reach them timely with "regional news"<\/p>\n

\tof their areas. Both printing stations (including Bhagalpur<\/p>\n

\tand Muzaffarpur) have ''No Registration Numbers.''<\/p>\n

\tHe futher admits in the letter,'' Dainik<\/p>\n

\tHindustan, printed from printing stations at<\/p>\n

\tPatna,Bhagalpur & Muzaffarpur , bears "the same<\/p>\n

\tRegistration No.-44348\/1986''<\/p>\n

\tIn a surprising tone, he admits that<\/p>\n

\tnewspapers, being printed at Bhagalpur and<\/p>\n

\tMuzaffarpur are not separate editions and<\/p>\n

\thimself questions in the letter '' It may be<\/p>\n

\t <\/p>\n

\tconsidered whether the inclusion of all these<\/p>\n

\tprinting stations in the state govt. advertisement<\/p>\n

\tapproval list will be "legal" or "not" ? ''<\/p>\n

\tHANDS OF OFFICIALS AND MINISTERS OF<\/p>\n

\tUNION GOVERNMENT IN THIS GOVERNMENT<\/p>\n

\tADVERTISEMENT SCAM ARE ALSO<\/p>\n

\tPROVED<\/p>\n

\tHe further reveals and admits that<\/p>\n

\tDAVP(New Delhi) has separately approved the<\/p>\n

\tcentral govt. advertisement- rate for Dainik<\/p>\n

\tHindustan being printed at Bhagalpur and<\/p>\n

\tMuzaffarpur also besides at Patna.<\/p>\n

\tThis letter of the Company Dy.G.M clearly suggests<\/p>\n

\tthat the influence of the media and political power was<\/p>\n

\tworking behind this foul game in amassing money by<\/p>\n

\tfraud. The company has thus fraudulently obtained "the<\/p>\n

\tDAVP Advertisement Rate" for Bhagalpur and<\/p>\n

\tMuzaffarpur editions\/publications of Dainik Hindustan<\/p>\n

\thaving ''No Certificate of Registration'' and ''No<\/p>\n

\tRegistration Number'' since August 03,2001 to the filing of<\/p>\n

\t <\/p>\n

\tthe Munger Kotwali P.S case No. 445\/2011'' in utter<\/p>\n

\tviolation of mandatory provisions of concerning rules in<\/p>\n

\trespect of issuance of the government advertisements .<\/p>\n

\tEven knowing very well that it attracts punishment<\/p>\n

\tfor economic offences , the Dy.G.M ,in writing, demanded<\/p>\n

\tfrom the Director,Information & Public Relations<\/p>\n

\tDepartment,(Patna,Bihar) to include "Bhagalpur and<\/p>\n

\tMuzaffarpur editions\/publications of Dainik Hindustan" in<\/p>\n

\t"the State Govt. Advertisement Approval List" ,knowingly<\/p>\n

\tthat Bhagalpur and Muzaffarpur editions\/publications of<\/p>\n

\tDainik Hindustan are without ' The Certificate of<\/p>\n

\tRegistration' and ' The Registration Number'' , citing the<\/p>\n

\texample of D.A.V.P(New Delhi) .Further, this is a matter of<\/p>\n

\tanother independent high level probe as to how the<\/p>\n

\tD.A.V.P,Ministry of Information & Broadcasting,(New<\/p>\n

\tDelhi) approved 'The DAVP Advertisement Rate" and<\/p>\n

\treleased "All Union Government Advertisements " from<\/p>\n

\tAugust ,03,2001 to June 30,2011 continuously and<\/p>\n

\tsurprisingly , violating the terms and condtions ofits own<\/p>\n

\tdepartment\/ ministry.<\/p>\n

\tIt is the rare amongst the rarest cases in which the<\/p>\n

\tpowerful Media House has obtained both "DAVP<\/p>\n

\tapproved Advertisement Rate" and "the Central Govt.<\/p>\n

\tAdvertisements" ,showing Bhagalpur & Muzaffarpur<\/p>\n

\t <\/p>\n

\teditions\/publications of Dainik Hindustan certifying as<\/p>\n

\t"Independent Editions\/publications" ,fraudulently using<\/p>\n

\t"the Certificate of Registration " and "the Registration<\/p>\n

\tNumber –RNI No.44348\/1986 " of the Patna<\/p>\n

\tedition\/publication of Dainik Hindustan.<\/p>\n

\tThis letter of the Company's Deputy General<\/p>\n

\tManager (Media-Marketing) Ravi Bhushan has been<\/p>\n

\tincorporated as "a documentary evidence" againstall<\/p>\n

\tthe accused persons in the Munger Kotwali P.S CaseNo.<\/p>\n

\t445\/2011 in "the Supervision Report-01" of Dy.S.P(Munger)<\/p>\n

\tand "the Supervision Report -02" of the S.P(Munger).<\/p>\n

\tSUPERVISION REPORT NO- 01 OF<\/p>\n

\tDY.S.P(MUNGER) AND SUPERVISION REPORT<\/p>\n

\tNO-02 OF S.P (MUNGER) HAVE FOUND ALL<\/p>\n

\tALLEGATIONS OF FORGERY AND CHEATINGS<\/p>\n

\tTRUE AGAINST PETITIONER AND<\/p>\n

\tOTHERS IN MUNGER KOTWALI P. S CASE NO.<\/p>\n

\t445 \/ 2011.<\/p>\n

\tDy.S.P( Munger) in his supervision report No-01 , dated 21 April, 2012 in the para No.3 on page<\/p>\n

\tNo.20, has clearly stated,''Facts coming in the<\/p>\n

\tway of investigation and supervision and<\/p>\n

\tdocuments ,obtained, prove that this case is<\/p>\n

\t"prime-facie true.''<\/p>\n

\tDy.S.P(Munger) in his supervision report , in the<\/p>\n

\tpara No. 02 on page No.20,further states,''Facts that have<\/p>\n

\tcome in the way of investigation and supervision, it has<\/p>\n

\tbecome clear that Dainik Hindustan has been being<\/p>\n

\tillegally printed and published in Munger,Bhagalpur and<\/p>\n

\tMuzaffarpur uninterrupted ,violating arbitrarily the<\/p>\n

\tinherent provisions of the Press & Registration of  Books<\/p>\n

\tAct,1867,and ignoring the rules and terms and conditions<\/p>\n

\tof the Bihar Advertisement Policy -2008 of Information &<\/p>\n

\tPublic Relations Dept,Bihar,Patna. Dainik<\/p>\n

\tHinustan,printed\/published at above mentioned three<\/p>\n

\tplaces has been obtaining and publishing the state<\/p>\n

\tgovernment advertisements thereby gobbling the govt.<\/p>\n

\tmoney.<\/p>\n

\tSUPERVISION REPORT -02 OF S.P (MUNGER)<\/p>\n

\tALSO EXPOSES THE FRAUD, FORGERY AND<\/p>\n

\tCHEATINGS OF THE PETITIONER AND OTHERS<\/p>\n

\tIN THE ADVERTISEMENT SCAM<\/p>\n

\t <\/p>\n

\tThe Police Superintendent(Munger), in his<\/p>\n

\tsupervision report No-02 ,dated 30 April,2012 ,in para No.-03 on page No.-06, has clearly stated,''In the wayof<\/p>\n

\tinvestigation and supervision,it has become clear that the<\/p>\n

\tRegistration No.44348\/1986(that is allocated to thePatna<\/p>\n

\tedition of Dainik Hindustan) was used in the editions<\/p>\n

\t\/publications of Munger,Bhagalpur and Muzaffarpur  from<\/p>\n

\tthe year 2001 to June, 30,2011, while "Applied For'' was<\/p>\n

\tused at the place of the Registration No. in all three<\/p>\n

\tmentioned editions\/publications of Dainik Hindustanfrom<\/p>\n

\tJuly,01,2011 to April, 16,2012.Again, the Munger<\/p>\n

\tedition\/publication of Dainik Hindustan was being printed<\/p>\n

\t\/published using the Registration No.–RNI No. –<\/p>\n

\tBIHHIN\/2011\/41407.<\/p>\n

\tS.P further clearly states in his superivision report<\/p>\n

\tNo-02 ,in the para No.04 on page No.06 &07, ''Above facts<\/p>\n

\tthat have come in course of investigation and supervision<\/p>\n

\tprove clearly that printing \/publication of Dainik<\/p>\n

\tHindustan from Munger,Bhagalpur and Muzaffarpur has<\/p>\n

\tbeen continuing uninterrupted ,arbitrarily and publicly<\/p>\n

\tviolating the mandatory provisions of the Press &<\/p>\n

\tRegistration of Books Act, 1867,and ignoring the<\/p>\n

\tmandatory provisions of the Bihar Advertisement Policy-<\/p>\n

\t <\/p>\n

\t2008,Dainik Hindustan, printed\/published from all  above<\/p>\n

\tmentioned three places, has been printing the govt.<\/p>\n

\tadvertisements and thereby obtaining the govt. money<\/p>\n

\tfrom treasury.<\/p>\n

\tCOMPLAINANT AND THREE OTHER<\/p>\n

\tINDEPENDENT WITNESSESS U \/ S 164 OF<\/p>\n

\tCr.P.C SUPPORT F.I.R AND PROSECUTION<\/p>\n

\tFULLY<\/p>\n

\tThe S.P ,in his supervision report no-02, in the para<\/p>\n

\tNo. 02 on page -07, has further stated,' In course of<\/p>\n

\tinvestigation, the Investigating Officer (I.O ) of  the<\/p>\n

\tcase got the statements of the<\/p>\n

\tcomplainant,Mantoo Sharma and other<\/p>\n

\tindependent witnesses viz. witness No.01<\/p>\n

\tShriKrishna Pd,Witness No.02 Sri Kashi Prasad,<\/p>\n

\tWitness No. 03 Bipin Kumar Mandal recorded<\/p>\n

\tunder section 164 of Cr.P.C in the Munger judicial<\/p>\n

\tcourt on April 19, 2012.All witnessess, who<\/p>\n

\trecorded their statements in the Munger court,<\/p>\n

\thave fully supported the F.I.R and all the<\/p>\n

\t <\/p>\n

\tallegations against the accused persons named in<\/p>\n

\tthe F.I.R.(Kotwali P.S Case No.445\/2011).<\/p>\n

\tThe S.P ,in his supervision report No.02, in the first<\/p>\n

\tpara on page 01, has given in brief the gist of the F.I.R<\/p>\n

\tlodged with the Munger Kotwali Police station in<\/p>\n

\tBihar(Kotwali P.S Case No.445\/2011, dated 18 Nov,2011).<\/p>\n

\tNAMED ACCUSED PERSONS IN THIS<\/p>\n

\tWORLD FAMOUS FORGERY AND CHEATING<\/p>\n

\tCASE<\/p>\n

\tThe S.P states,'' On th basis of the Munger court<\/p>\n

\tcomplaint case No. 993(C)\/2011,filed by the<\/p>\n

\tcomplainant,Mantu Sharma,son of Late Ganesh<\/p>\n

\tSharma,resident of Puraniganj,P.S.- Kasim Bazar,District-<\/p>\n

\tMunger,an F.I.R has been lodged against (1) the<\/p>\n

\tprincipal accused Shobhana<\/p>\n

\tBharatia(Chairperson, Hindustan Publication<\/p>\n

\tGroup(The Hindustan Media Ventures<\/p>\n

\tLtd.),Main Office,18-20,Kasturba Gandhi<\/p>\n

\tMarg,New Delhi ,(2) Shashi Shekhar,Chief<\/p>\n

\t <\/p>\n

\tEditor,Hindustan Media Ventures<\/p>\n

\tLtd.,Newspapers Group,New Delhi,(3) Aaku<\/p>\n

\tSrivastawa,Acting Editor, Patna Edition,(4)<\/p>\n

\tBinod Bandhu, Deputy Regional<\/p>\n

\tEditor,Bhagalpur edition, and (5) Amit<\/p>\n

\tChopra,Printer & Publisher, M\/S Hindustan<\/p>\n

\tMedia Ventures Ltd.,  Lower Nathnagar<\/p>\n

\tRoad,Parbatti, Bhagalpur, and all named accused<\/p>\n

\tpersons have been accused of violating the<\/p>\n

\tdifferent sections of the Press & Registration of<\/p>\n

\tBooks Act, 1867 and sections 420\/471 & 476 of<\/p>\n

\tIndian Penal Code, printing\/publishing the<\/p>\n

\tBhagalpur and Munger editions\/publications of<\/p>\n

\tDainik Hindustan fraudulently by using the wrong<\/p>\n

\tRegistration Number , and getting crores and<\/p>\n

\tcrores of rupees in the "Advertisement -Head"<\/p>\n

\tafter obtaining the govt. advertisements from the<\/p>\n

\tstate as well as the union government by<\/p>\n

\tpresenting forged documents of ‘’registration’’<\/p>\n

\tbefore the concerned officials."<\/p>\n

\t <\/p>\n

\tPRESS REGISTRAR ( NEW DELHI ) CONFIRMS<\/p>\n

\tVIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF PRESS &<\/p>\n

\tREGISTRATION OF BOOKS ACT, 1867<\/p>\n

\tAT THE HANDS OF PETITIONER AND OTHERS<\/p>\n

\t.<\/p>\n

\tThe Sectional Officer , In the office of the<\/p>\n

\tPress Registrar, New Delhi,Purnima Mallick,<\/p>\n

\tvide an official letter , dated 20 April, 2006,<\/p>\n

\taddressed to the Secretary, Information &<\/p>\n

\tPublic Relations Dept.(Bihar,Patna), has clearly<\/p>\n

\tstated that '' Dainik Hindustan can be printed<\/p>\n

\tat Patna only according to the provisions of<\/p>\n

\tthe Press & Registration of Books Act, 1867,<\/p>\n

\tbecause this office has only approved the<\/p>\n

\tprinting of the Patna edition of Dainik<\/p>\n

\tHindustan.If, the company desires to print this<\/p>\n

\tnewspaper also from Bhagalpur &<\/p>\n

\tMuzaffarpur, they will have to file the<\/p>\n

\tDeclarations from these places also.''<\/p>\n

\t <\/p>\n

\tThe Sectional Officer's letter was sent in response<\/p>\n

\tto an official letter of the Secretary , Information & Public<\/p>\n

\tRelations Dept, Bihar,Patna, IAS, Vivek Kr.Singh.<\/p>\n

\tMr.Singh,vide official letter No.-Advt-48-01\/2006-247\/PRD,Patna dated 22\/ 3\/ 2006, had sought advice  on<\/p>\n

\tcertain points regarding the printing and the publication<\/p>\n

\tof Dainik Hindustan from Patna,Bhagalpur and<\/p>\n

\tMuzaffarpur.<\/p>\n

\tThe Secretary, I.P.R.D, Patna, Bihar has<\/p>\n

\tsaid in his official letter,<\/p>\n

\t''Dainik Hindustan, published from Patna, is<\/p>\n

\talso being printed from Bhagalpur and<\/p>\n

\tMuzaffarpur,but has obtained only "one<\/p>\n

\tRegistration No. 44348\/1986(Patna)",but, D.A.V.P,<\/p>\n

\tI & B Ministry, Govt. of India, New Delhi, has<\/p>\n

\tapproved '' Separate Advertisement Rates" for all<\/p>\n

\tthese "three printing locations" of Dainik<\/p>\n

\tHindustan.Dainik Hindustan newspaper is<\/p>\n

\tpresently being printed in different forms in<\/p>\n

\t <\/p>\n

\tBhagalpur and Muzaffarpur without Registration<\/p>\n

\t.Is it not the violation of the provisions of the<\/p>\n

\tPress & Registration of Books Act, 1867 ? An<\/p>\n

\tadvice on this point is being sought from you.''<\/p>\n

\tThe official letters of the Sectional Officer,the  office<\/p>\n

\tof the Press Registrar, New Delhi, Purnima Mallick  and<\/p>\n

\tthe Secretary of Information & Public Relations<\/p>\n

\tDepartment,Bihar,Patna,Vivek Kr.Singh, are the parts of<\/p>\n

\t"documentary evidences" in the Supervision Report  No.-01 of Dy.S.P(Munger) and the Supervision Report No.02 of<\/p>\n

\tthe S.P(Munger) in the Kotwali (Munger) P.S Case No.<\/p>\n

\t445\/2001.<\/p>\n

\tThus, the letter of the Sectional Officer of the  office<\/p>\n

\tof the Press Registrar(New Delhi) in the year 2006,also<\/p>\n

\tconfirms that till that particular date of despatch of the<\/p>\n

\tletter ( April,20,2006), the "Separate Declarations” on<\/p>\n

\tbehalf of the company had not reached the office ofthe<\/p>\n

\tPress Registrar,New Delhi through District Magistrates of<\/p>\n

\tthe concerned districts for the printing \/publication of<\/p>\n

\tBhagalpur, Munger and Muazaffarpur<\/p>\n

\teditions\/publications of Dainik Hindustan (exising<\/p>\n

\tnewspaper).<\/p>\n

\t <\/p>\n

\tINTERNAL AUDIT REPORT NO. – 195 \/<\/p>\n

\t2005-06 OF CHIEF ACCOUNTS CONTROLLER<\/p>\n

\t(C.A.C), FINANCE (AUDIT ) DEPT, BIHAR,<\/p>\n

\tPATNA ALSO EXPOSES THE GOVT.<\/p>\n

\tADVERTISEMENT SCAM & INVOLVEMENT<\/p>\n

\tOF THE HINDI DAILY “ HINDUSTAN” IN THE<\/p>\n

\tSCAM<\/p>\n

\tThe Chief Accounts Controller(CAC),Finance<\/p>\n

\t(Audit) Dept,Patna, Bihar, has clearly stated in<\/p>\n

\tthe para No.02 of the Adudit Report No.-195\/2005-06,'' Information & Public Relations Dept, Bihar,<\/p>\n

\tPatna has made an illegal payment of Rs. 01,00,<\/p>\n

\t15,955= 96 paises (Rupees one crore, fifteen<\/p>\n

\tthousand and nine hundred fifty five rupees and<\/p>\n

\tninety six paise) to Dainik Hindustan, showing<\/p>\n

\tBhagalpur and Muzaffarpur printing stations of<\/p>\n

\tPatna Hindustan edition as ' Independent<\/p>\n

\tPublications'' during the financial years 2002-03<\/p>\n

\tand 2003-04.<\/p>\n

\t <\/p>\n

\tThe Audit Report No. -195\/2005-06 further<\/p>\n

\tstates ,''According to the provisions of the Press &<\/p>\n

\tRegistration of Books Act, 1867, the company had<\/p>\n

\tto (1) file declaration before the Collector in the<\/p>\n

\tprescribed form ,(2) to seek permission from the<\/p>\n

\tCompany Registrar, and (3) to get the Certificate<\/p>\n

\tof Registration from the Press Registrar(New<\/p>\n

\tDelhi) before the starting of new publication of<\/p>\n

\tthe newspaper, but all three processes were not<\/p>\n

\tdone in the matter of printing\/publications of<\/p>\n

\tBhagalpur and Muzaffarpur editions\/publications of<\/p>\n

\tDainik Hindustan.<\/p>\n

\tThe Audit Report No-195 further says,'' Files<\/p>\n

\tdisclose that Declaration of Muzaffarpur<\/p>\n

\tpublication was filed on Nov,29, 2003 and the<\/p>\n

\tDeclaration for Bhagalpur publication was filed on<\/p>\n

\tDec 11, 2003 when the Muzaffarpur publication<\/p>\n

\twas started on March 28,2001 and the Bhagalpur<\/p>\n

\tpublication was started on August 03,2001 .It<\/p>\n

\tmeans "Declarations" were filed two years after<\/p>\n

\tthe start of printing stations at Bhagalpur and<\/p>\n

\tMuzaffarpur. And both printing stations\/printing<\/p>\n

\tpresses viz Bhagalpur and Muzaffarpur, have<\/p>\n

\tneither valid 'Certificate of Independent<\/p>\n

\tPublication' nor ' Certificate of Registration.''<\/p>\n

\tThe Audit -Report No. 195 further states,'' It is<\/p>\n

\tclear that Dainik Hindustan has kept in total<\/p>\n

\tdarkness the office of D.A.V.P in obtaining<\/p>\n

\t'Separate Advertisement Rates' for Bhagalpur and<\/p>\n

\tMuzaffarpur printing stations\/publications .It is<\/p>\n

\tutmost surprising that the IPRD,Bihar,Patna has<\/p>\n

\tnot been capable to verify and certify as to how<\/p>\n

\tD.A.V.P (New Delhi) had approved "Separate<\/p>\n

\tAdvertisement Rates" for Bhagalpur and<\/p>\n

\tMuzaffarpur publications when there are no such<\/p>\n

\t"registered Independent publications" at<\/p>\n

\tBhagalpur and Muzaffarpur. The department of<\/p>\n

\tInformation & Public Relations,Bihar,Patna had<\/p>\n

\talso not taken any initiatives till now for the<\/p>\n

\t <\/p>\n

\tverification as to how both<\/p>\n

\tpublications(Bhagalpur & Muzaffarpur) were<\/p>\n

\ttreated as "Independent Publications" and were<\/p>\n

\tallowed "Separate Advertisement Rates” by the<\/p>\n

\tDAVP,New Delhi, and payment for illegal<\/p>\n

\tpublication of the govt. advertisements was not<\/p>\n

\t"curbed" by the dept.It has become clear that<\/p>\n

\tafter getting separate advt. rate for illegal<\/p>\n

\tpublications in a wrongful manner, payment for<\/p>\n

\tadvertisements was received.<\/p>\n

\tBesides, there are a number of discrepancies<\/p>\n

\tin the claim of the circulation of Dainik Hindustan<\/p>\n

\tin Bihar and the circulation has not been verified<\/p>\n

\tby the Audit Bureau of Circulation by the<\/p>\n

\tdepartment.Therefore, the payment made against<\/p>\n

\tthe advertisement bills of Dainik Hindustan for<\/p>\n

\tBhagalpur and Muzaffarpur publications\/editions<\/p>\n

\tis illegal and a sum of Rs. 01,00,15,955=56 paises<\/p>\n

\tis to be recovered from the company .''<\/p>\n

\t <\/p>\n

\tIt is noteworthy that the internal audit-report<\/p>\n

\tof the Bihar Finance Department,Bihar,Patna<\/p>\n

\tNo.195\/ 2005-06 has been incorporated as “a<\/p>\n

\tdocumentary evidence against all the named<\/p>\n

\taccused persons in the Munger Kotwali P.S. Case<\/p>\n

\tNo.445\/2011 in “the Supervision Report N0.-01 of<\/p>\n

\tDy.S.P(Munger) and “the Supervision Report No.-02 of S.P (Munger).<\/p>\n

\tAfter the submission of the Audit Report No,195\/<\/p>\n

\t2005-06 of Chief Accounts Controller(CAC), Finance(Audit)<\/p>\n

\tDept, Bihar, Patna, the Information & Public Relations<\/p>\n

\tDept,Patna,Bihar sought the "legal opinion" of thethen<\/p>\n

\tAdvocate General of Bihar in this connection.<\/p>\n

\tTHEN ADVOCATE GENERAL OF BIHAR<\/p>\n

\tEXONERATES COMPANY FROM ALL CHARGES OF<\/p>\n

\tFORGERY, FRAUD AND CHEATINGS<\/p>\n

\tThe then Advocate General of<\/p>\n

\tBihar,Mr.P.K.Shahi(now Education Minister, Government<\/p>\n

\tof Bihar) quite surprisingly, in his report, submitted to<\/p>\n

\tthe Bihar govt. in the year 2007, exonerated the company<\/p>\n

\t <\/p>\n

\tfrom all charges of forgery,fraud and cheatings on<\/p>\n

\tfictitious and illogical grounds citing the case ofMafalal<\/p>\n

\tIndustries Ltd. Vrs Union of India((1997) and Principle<\/p>\n

\tenunciated by Lord Denning L.J in Combe Vrs. Combe<\/p>\n

\t(1951) 1 All England Report 767 which are quite irrelevant<\/p>\n

\tin this scam detected in the Audit Report No.-195\/2005-06, since the Audit Report of the Finance Department of<\/p>\n

\tBihar has made out a “clear prima- facie case” involving<\/p>\n

\tmore than Rs. one crore in only two financial yearsin one<\/p>\n

\tdepartment when the advertisement scam has been<\/p>\n

\trocking the state since August, 03,2001 to June, 30,2011<\/p>\n

\tcontinuously either under the political umbrella  or some<\/p>\n

\tother reasons best known to the then Advocate General<\/p>\n

\tof Bihar. Instead of recommending to the Bihar<\/p>\n

\tgovernment to file criminal cases either with the police or<\/p>\n

\twith the Economic Offence Unit (Bihar) (E.O.U), the then<\/p>\n

\tAdvocate General of Bihar opined not to recover<\/p>\n

\tthe illegal payment of Rs.01,00,15,955=96 paise<\/p>\n

\tfrom the management of Dainik Hindustan ,paid<\/p>\n

\tfrom the govt. exchequer illegally.<\/p>\n

\tFurther, the dropping of “Objections” raised<\/p>\n

\tin the Audit –Report No.195\/ 2005-06 by the Bihar<\/p>\n

\tFinance Department itself on the proposal of<\/p>\n

\t <\/p>\n

\tInformation & Public Relation Department(I.P.R.D),<\/p>\n

\tBihar, Patna is curious without assigning “any<\/p>\n

\treason” thereof involving the  advertisement scam<\/p>\n

\tthat encouraged and emboldened the company<\/p>\n

\tprinting and publishing Dainik Hindustan illegally<\/p>\n

\tto gobble several crores from the government<\/p>\n

\texchequer continuously from August,03,2001 to<\/p>\n

\tJune,30,2011.<\/p>\n

\tThis needs yet another independent<\/p>\n

\tprobe by a reliable investigating agency like C.B.I<\/p>\n

\tor CAG or Economic Offences Unit under the<\/p>\n

\tdirect monitoring of the Hon’ble Supreme Court<\/p>\n

\tbecause officials of the Bihar Finance Department<\/p>\n

\t,I.P.R.D (Bihar,Patna) and D.A.V.P(New Delhi) and<\/p>\n

\tpowerful politicians are also involved in this scam,<\/p>\n

\tbesides the questionable role of the then<\/p>\n

\tAdvocate General of Bihar, Mr.P.K.Shahi.<\/p>\n

\t <\/p>\n

\tPRESENT STATUS OF POLICE INVESTIGATION<\/p>\n

\tIN MUNGER KOTWALI P.S CASE NO. 445 \/ 2011<\/p>\n

\tIn the wake of the order of the Hon’ble High<\/p>\n

\tCourt of Patna, the Munger police accelerated the<\/p>\n

\tpolice investigation into the Munger Kotwali P.S<\/p>\n

\tCase No.445\/2011 .Under the directives of the<\/p>\n

\tHon’ble High Court, the Munger police were bound<\/p>\n

\tto complete the police investigations into the<\/p>\n

\tMunger P.S Case No.445\/2011 within three months<\/p>\n

\tfrom the date of the receipt of the order of the<\/p>\n

\tHigh Court of Patna .The date fixed by the High<\/p>\n

\tCourt of Patna for the Munger police to complete<\/p>\n

\tthe investigation into this case was to expire on<\/p>\n

\tMarch 17, 2013 last. The Munger police had also<\/p>\n

\tbegun the process of assessing the loss of actual<\/p>\n

\trevenue of the Bihar government in this Dainik<\/p>\n

\tHindustan government advertisement scam<\/p>\n

\t.Besides, the Munger police had earlier submitted<\/p>\n

\tthe Supervision Report No-01 of the Dy.S.P and the<\/p>\n

\tSupervision Report No.02 of the S.P,Munger in<\/p>\n

\t52<\/p>\n

\twhich they have found “prima-facie “true all<\/p>\n

\tallegations against all the named accused persons<\/p>\n

\tin the Munger Kotwali P.S. Case No.445\/2011.But,<\/p>\n

\tfollowing the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court<\/p>\n

\tin the Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.1603 of<\/p>\n

\t2013 ,filed by the petitioner, all police<\/p>\n

\tinvestigations in this case have come to a halt.<\/p>\n

\tRs.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<\/p>\n

\tThe 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.<\/p>\n

\tSupreme Court adjourns hearing on Nov 11,2013 last:<\/p>\n

\tThe 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.<\/p>\n

\tThe Registrar orders to list the matter before the court :<\/p>\n

\tThe 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.<\/p>\n

\tMantoo Sharma files his counter-affidavit in Supreme Court<\/p>\n

\t: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.<\/p>\n

\tThe petitioner prays for the quashing of the Munger Kotwali P.S Case No.445\/2011(Bihar):<\/p>\n

\tThe 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<\/p>\n

\t 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.<\/p>\n

\tThe 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.<\/p>\n

\tBy ShriKrishna Prasad<\/span><\/p>\n

\tAdvocate<\/p>\n

\tM-09470400813<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\t: ShriKrishna Prasad, Advocate<\/strong> :  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.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[22],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-16263","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-print"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bhadas4media.com\/old1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16263","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bhadas4media.com\/old1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bhadas4media.com\/old1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bhadas4media.com\/old1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bhadas4media.com\/old1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=16263"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.bhadas4media.com\/old1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16263\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bhadas4media.com\/old1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=16263"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bhadas4media.com\/old1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=16263"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bhadas4media.com\/old1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=16263"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}