VIJAY KUMAR MALLIK Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.S.G.I. representing CBI on the prayer for suspension of sentence made through I.A. No. 1028/2018.

(2.) The appellant stands convicted in connection with R.C.- 68(A)/1996 vide impugned judgment dated 24th January 2018 passed by the learned court of Additional Judicial Commissioner-VII cum Special Judge (AHD), CBI-I, Ranchi for the offences under Section 120B/420 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. He has also been convicted under Section 120B/467 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years with a fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for three months; further convicted for the offences under Section 120B/468 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years with a fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The appellant also stands convicted for the offences under Section 120B/471 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years with a fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. All the sentences shall run concurrently and the period undergone shall be set off.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was the proprietor of Mallick Enterprises which had made supplies to the Animal Husbandry Department at Chaibasa during the period 1992-9 He was an approved supplier of the Department. The role of the appellant has been discussed at paragraph-24 at page-268 of the impugned judgment containing the findings on the role of the suppliers. The same makes reference to the statements of P.W.95 and P.W.96 who have deposed that false bills were prepared for Mallick Enterprises on commission without supplying ground nut cake. Other prosecution witness had deposed against the appellant. However, the appellant has remained in custody for a period for more than half of the sentence awarded in the present case taking together the period of custody during trial and after his conviction. The details of the period of custody in connection with the instant case have been mentioned at para-2 of the supplementary affidavit filed on 14th March 2018. As per the details and the documents in support thereof being letter no.3305 dated 1st June 2007 by the Beur Jail authorities from Patna, order dated 20th April 2006 and order dated 26th August 2008 enclosed thereto, the appellant was in custody from 18th November 1996 to 18th February 1997 for three months, from 3rd September 2002 to 3rd October 2002 for one month and from 20th April 2006 to 26th August 2008 for 28 months, in total 32 months. After his conviction on 24th January 2018 he has remained in custody till date for a period little less than two months. The appellant is an old person and has undergone by-pass heart surgery in 2012. Therefore, he may be released on bail by granting the privilege of suspension of sentence.