RAMAVATAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH CBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and learned Counsel appearing for the CBI on the matter of bail. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant though has been convicted for the offences under Section 120B read with 420/409/467/468/471/477A of the Indian Penal Code and also separately for the said offences as well as under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and was awarded maximum sentence for six years for one of the offences on the allegation that the appellant being proprietor of M/s. Tirupati Agency took payment without supplying the medicine to the Animal Husbandry Department but the appellant was never the proprietor of the said firm known as M/s. Tirupati Agency, rather proprietor of the said firm is one Rajendra Sharma and the reason for prosecuting the appellant is that certain documents concerning with the firm bear the name of R. Sharma and the appellant has been taken to be the R. Sharma though R. Sharma stands for Rajendra Sharma who is the ' proprietor of the firm and this fact has even been admitted by PW 111, an Investigating Officer who has categorically said that he being Investigating Officer of other case bearing No. R.C. 3A of 2001 did find that writing found on certain documents as R. Sharma was that of Rajendra Sharma who has been convicted in that case and this fact further gets strengthened from the fact that when this appellant was put on trial in R.C. No. 24 -A of 1996, he was acquitted of the charges and thus, it can be said that the appellant has wrongly been convicted and deserves to be admitted on bail.

(2.) AS against this, learned Counsel appearing for the CBI submits that though it is true that PW 111 has deposed in the manner which has been highlighted but whatever he has said it seems to have been connected with the investigation of R.C. No. 3 -A of 2001 whereas Investigating Officer having found this appellant to be the proprietor of M/s. Tirupati Agency submitted charge -sheet and in course of trial, it was found by the Court that it was the appellant who did receive a draft of Rs. 4,99,000/ - from the DHO, Chaibasa and not only that, this appellant has been also charge -sheeted as a proprietor of M/s. Tirupati Agency in as many as 16 cases and that Rajendra Sharma in some cases has denied that he is the proprietor of M/s. Tirupati Agency, rather, according to him, it was the appellant who is the proprietor and hence, the appellant seems to have rightly been convicted as the prosecution has been able to establish that the appellant without supplying the medicine took payment of Rs. 4,99,000/ - with connivance of other accused persons.