SATYENDRA KUMAR MEHRA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.S.G.I representing the C.B.I on the prayer of suspension of sentence made through I.A. No. 892 of 2018.

(2.) Appellant has been convicted in connection with R.C. Case No. 68(A) of 1996 passed by Additional Judicial Commissioner-VII-cum-Special Judge-1, CBI (AHD), Ranchi for the offences under Sections 120-B/420, 120-B/467, 120-B/468 and 120-B/471 of the Indian Penal Code. He has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs. 25,000/- for the offences under Section 120-B/420 of the Indian Penal Code, in default thereof, Simple Imprisonment for 3 months. Similar sentence has been awarded for the offences under Sections 120-B/467, 120-B/468 and 120-B/471 of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences shall run concurrently.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this matter relates to fraudulent withdrawal from Chaibasa Treasury in the year 1992-93 under Animal Husbandry Department. He further submits that appellant was an approved supplier of the Department. The rates, on which supply orders were issued were approved by Central Purchase Committee. The appellant made supplies to Animal Husbandry Department at Chaibasa against supply orders issued by the official of the Department. It is also not the case that no supplies were made. Learned counsel has relied upon the findings relating to suppliers at page 264 of the impugned judgment. He submits that the findings against this appellant are based upon the statements of P.Ws. 20, 21 and 22. He has referred to the statements of P.Ws. 20 and 21 at page 31 of the impugned judgment in support of his submission that the said witnesses have not made reference of the name of this supplier. P.W.22, who was posted at Union Bank of India, Doranda Branch, Ranchi, has however made statement that seven bank drafts of S.B.I., Chaibasa in favour of appellant were deposited in Current Account No. 29008, which are marked as Exts.- 2/197 to 2/203. Four pay-in-slips were in favour of appellant, which are marked as Exts.- 2/27 to 5/30, but it should be read as Exts.- 5/27 to 5/30 because pay-in-slips have been given series of Ext.-5. Four cheques of Current Account No. 29008 of the appellant-Company are marked as Exts.- 7/3 to 7/6. Similar original drafts purchased by the appellant-Company are marked as Exts.- 6/2 to 6/5. Four cheques were issued for purchase of these drafts are marked as Exts.- 7/7 to 7/10. The certified copy of statement of Current Account No. 29008 was marked as Ext.- 8/10. These transactions were undertaken as per Banking Rules. Learned counsel submits that on the basis of the statement of a Bank Official, who did not have any knowledge whether the appellant was in any way involved with fraudulent withdrawal being a supplier only, his conviction has been recorded for the aforesaid offences. Therefore, there is no material evidence, which could support the finding of his conviction. Appellant is 71 years of age. The break-up of the period of custody undergone by him in connection with present R.C Case has been furnished under paragraph-10 of the application. As per break-up of the period of custody, appellant has remained in custody for 30 months and 24 days as on date. The total sentence awarded to him is 5 years with fine. Therefore, he has remained for more than half of the sentences in custody. The appellant may therefore be granted privilege of suspension of sentence and released on bail.