BRIJ SHUSHAN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH CBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE interlocutory application bearing no. 2334 of 2008 has been filed under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for staying the order of conviction recorded against the appellant under Section 120(B) read with Sections 420/ 467/468/471/477A of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act by the Special Judge, CBI in R.C. No. 2E of 1998(D).

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that one firm, namely, M/s Data Cables Pvt. Ltd was enjoying Cash Credit (Bill) Limit of 1.40 crores with the State Bank of India, S.I.B., Dhanbad. One N.C. Jain, Director of the said firm presented 17 fake bills to the Bank amounting to Rs. 2,01,53,981/ - alongwith fake receipts showing delivery of mining cables to various units of B.C.C.L., Dhanbad. Believing the said bills and receipts to be genuine, the Bank made advance of Rs. 1.40 croresto the said N.C. Jain but when the bills were sent to the B.C.C.L. for realization of the amount, it was disowned and returned unpaid by the B.C.C.L. Therefore, a case was lodged by the CBI alleging therein that officials of the Bank including the appellant having entered into a criminal conspiracy with N.C. Jain advanced Rs. 1.40 crores to N.C. Jain against discounting of 17 fake bills of M/s Data Cables Pvt. Ltd. The CBI having investigated the case submitted charge -sheet against 9 accused persons including the appellant on the accusation that the appellant and other Bank officials intentionally did not follow the norms/rules of the Bank while processing and passing the said fake bills and that apart, the appellant did not reverse the entries in the record of the Bank within the stipulated period of 90 days and that when the forgery and cheating was detected, they did not institute any action against the said N.C Jail.

(3.) LEARNED counsel further submits that after the order of conviction and sentence was recorded, notice has been served upon the appellant whereby the appellant has been asked to show cause as to why not he be discharged from the service and, therefore, if the order of conviction is not stayed, the appellant would be losing his service which is only source of his livelihood and, therefore, taking into consideration all this aspect of the matter, the order of conviction be stayed.