RAJAN MEHTA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and the CBI on the prayer for suspension of sentence made through I.A. No. 4038/2018.

(2.) The appellant stands convicted in connection with R.C. Case No.45(A)/1996-Pat vide impugned judgment dated 9th April 2018 passed by the learned court of Special Judge-VII, (AHD Scam), Ranchi for the offence under Sec. 120B read with Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477(A) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1 Crore and in default whereof to undergo S.I. for one year separately.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant at the outset submits that this appellant was the Manager of M/s Asian Breeders, New Delhi during the period 1991-92 to 1995-96. The Firm was in the name of his wife Madhu Mehta and his brother-in-law Harish Kumar Khanna. The appellant has been falsely implicated in the instant R.C. Case for having obtained fraudulent payment against forged 235 vouchers under the A.H.D. Department, Dumka. Appellant has denied the allegations in the statement made under Sec. 313 Crimial P.C., 1973 which has been discussed by the learned trial court at paragraphs-122 and 123 of the impugned judgment. Appellant also stated having supplied the material and received lawful payments on passing 19 bills by the Treasury. He had received the supply order from the Regional Director, A.H.D., Dumka. However, learned trial court has on the basis of the statements of P.Ws.1, 2, 20, 43, 53, 195 and 197 together with the documentary evidence erroneously proceeded to hold the appellant guilty for having facilitated illegal withdrawal from Dumka Treasury and thereby caused loss to the State revenue. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant further submitted that this appellant has been convicted for the aforesaid offences and sentenced for seven years though the fraudulent withdrawal in his case, if at all assumingly correct, were to the tune of Rs. 69,80,816.00 while other suppliers who have also been convicted and received payment much more than this appellant, have been imposed a lesser sentence of 3 and 1/2 years by the same Court in this impugned judgment. He has made reference to the case of one Ajit Kumar Verma in whose case fraudulent payment of Rs. 1.88 crores were made; Arun Kumar who had received fraudulent withdrawal to the tune of Rs. 2.22 crore; appellant Gopi Nath Das who has received Rs. 1.39 Crores. Learned counsel submits that on consideration of these facts, this Court in the case of Dayanand Prasad Kashayap Vs. State through CBI in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.871/2018 has been pleased to enlarge the said appellant on bail upon grant of privilege of suspension of sentence as he was awarded a sentence of seven years but had received payment of Rs. 1,25,49,810.00 which was much less than other suppliers who had been imposed a sentence of 3 and 4 years only by the same court in this impugned judgment. The appellant therefore deserves similar treatment. Appellant has been in custody for about 27 months and odd days by now. He is aged 64 years. Learned senior counsel for the appellant has prayed for sympathetic consideration so far as the condition of deposit of fine is concerned, as the wife of the appellant is suffering from kidney ailment and on this ground the appellant was granted provisional bail vide order dated 29th June 2018.