RAVI SINHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and learned Counsel appearing for the CBI on the matter of bail.

(2.) Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant, the Director of M/s. Anqill Medichem (India") Pvt. Ltd. havinq been convicted for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 473, 474, 477A read with Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(D) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was awarded maximum sentence for five years for one of the offences on the alleqation that the appellant did receive a sum of Rs. 5,90,306/- on the basis of fake supply order and invoices though supply of the medicine was made to the extent of Rs.2,94,856/- but the prosecution has utterly failed in establishing the said accusation. On the contrary, the Investigation Officer (P.W.941 has admitted that durinq search of the dispensary by P.W.87, medicines which the appellant claimed to have supplied were found even in the year 1996, thouqh the same had been supplied in the year 1992 and this also acts established from Annexure A/9 and the Investigation Officer further admits that endorsement regarding receipt of the medicines supplied by the appellant is there in the reqisters of the D.A.H.O office, Dumka, T.V.O, Raneshwar, D.A.H office, Jarmundi, T.V.O, Karbandiha. That apart, the appellant has produced evidences oral as well as documentary that medicines which have claimed to have supplied were manufactured by the appellant s company which were dispatched by a Transport Company to the offices where delivery was affected and in support of these facts, documents such as copies of bilties received back in the office of the Company after delivery of the goods marked as Exts. J/1 and J/1/1, gate passes Exts. K/1 and K/1/1 were produced but the case of the defence was disbelieved simply on the ground that only cartoons have been shown to have been dispatched to the D.H.O office and that medicines which were shown to have been dispatched on 4.9.1992 have been received in the office on 23.9.1992 after much delay creating doubt and that supply order was never produced by the appellant to show that the medicines had been supplied, pursuant to supply order but the fact was that supply orders had been seized by the CBI which was shown by producing Exts. A/5 and P/2 and the other ground on which case of the appellant was disbelieved is untenable and that all these circumstances go to show that the appellant, in fact, had supplied the medicines for which payment was taken and as such appellant did not commit any offence whatsoever.

(3.) It was also submitted that the appellant had also been made Weused in other cases such as R.C.20(A) of 1996 and R.C.45(A) of 1996 on the same allegation but the Investigating Officer on verifying the allegation did find that the appellant, in fact, had supplied the medicines to the department and thereby the appellant was never sent up for trial in those cases.