JUNUL BHENGRAJ Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application, the petitioner have sought a writ of mandamus directing suspension of conviction and sentences, awarded to them in R.C. 59(A)/1996 by judgment dated 31.03.2004 passed by the 5th Special Judge, CBI (AHD Scam), Ranchi, till disposal of all the pending cases against the petitioners, mentioned in the enclosed chart Annexure 2, on the ground that in the said cases the petitioners are facing trial of the similar/identical kind of charges and in all the cases the respondents State/CBI is the informant and investigating agency. In R.C. 59(A) of 1996, the petitioners have been convinced under Sections 120 -B, 420, 467, 468 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 years for conviction under Section 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Besides the same, the petitioners Braj Bhusahan Prasad and Mahendra Prasad have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 years under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code and for 5 years under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code and to pay fine of Rs. 20,000/ -(Rupees Twenty Thousand) each under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months; petitioner -Junul Bhengraj has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 years under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for 5 years under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for 1 year under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/ - (Rupees Twenty Thousand) under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months; petitioner Ram Nandan Singh has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 years under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code and 5 years under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for 1 year under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ - (Rupees Five Thousand) under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months; petitioners Basant Kumar Sinha, Anjani Kumar Singh and Rama Shankar Singh have been further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 years under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for 5 years under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for 1 year under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/ - (Rupees Twenty Thousand) each under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months; petitioner -Junul Bhengraj along with other two has been further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 years under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code. All sentences are to run concurrently and the period already suffered by them as under trial prisoners has been set off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) THE petitioner's case is, that a first information report was lodged being Lohardaga Police Station Case No. 10 of 1996 on 5.2.1996 on the basis of a written report of Krishna Mohan Prasad followed by the investigation. The investigation of the case was subsequently undertaken by the Central Bureau of Investigation and on completion thereof charge sheet was submitted under Sections 120 -B, 409, 420, 468, 471, 477 -A, 201, 511 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 13(2), 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Several other cases were also instituted against the petitioners alleging their involvement in which informant, accused, witnesses and the manner of occurrence and the prosecution case and the defence of the accused persons are almost same and identical. In all the cases the petitioners were made accused for abusing their official powers and/or for conspiracy to defalcate the Government amount constituting the offences punishable under Sections 120 -B, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 409 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 13(2), 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioners were remanded to jail custody in all the cases shown in the chart Annexure -2. According to the petitioners in the interests of justice the judgment dated 31.3.2004 passed in R.C. 59(A) of 1996 and appealed against in Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2004 be stayed by issuing an appropriate writ/direction in the nature of mandamus awaiting disposal of all the aforesaid pending cases against them in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Gajanan and Ors., : 2001CriLJ4234 .

(3.) MR . K.K. Jha 'Kamal', learned Counsel for the petitioners, proceeding with his argument referred to the provisions of Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') and submitted that pending an appeal, the Appellate Court has power to suspend conviction and sentence both, in exceptional circumstances and the instant case is one such case in which the conviction and sentence should be stayed during the pendency of the appeal and awaiting the final decision of the cases shown in chart Annexure 2, for the ends of justice. Learned Counsel further referred to the provisions of Chapter XIII of the Code, particularly, those contained in Sections 177, 178, 179, 184, 185 and 186 thereof. He has further referred to the provisions of Sections 219, 220, 221 and 223 of Chapter XVII of the Code and submitted that in view of the provisions contained in the said provision of the Code read with the provision of Section 389 of the Code as also the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashta v. Gajanan and Anr., 2004 (3) JCR 227 (SC) : (2004) 2 PLJR 7 (SC), the conviction and sentence of the petitioners passed in RC 59(A) of 1996 is fit to be stayed during the pendency of the said appeal as well as till the disposal of the cases mentioned in Annexure 2.