GAURI SHANKAR PRASAD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal filed under Section 454 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order dated 5-3-2009 passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner -cum- Special Judge (AHD Scam) IV, CBI, Ranchi in R. C. No. 19A of 1996 whereby learned Special Judge rejected the petition filed under Section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for release of a sum of Rs. 9 lacs in favour of the appellant.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that when it was noticed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chaibasa that huge amount has been withdrawn from the Treasury on the basis of forged allotment letters, Deputy Commissioner, Chaibasa ordered for enquiry and in course of enquiry, certain materials including briefcase containing hard cash of Rs. 9 lacs were seized on 4-2-1996 from the office of D.A.H.O, Chaibasa, inventory of which was prepared. Subsequently, a case was lodged against the accused person including the appellant, who at that time was posted as District Animal Husbandry Officer, Chaibasa under Sections 467, 468, 471, 465, 477A read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(l)(c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Later on, when the matter was referred to C.B.I, it registered a case as R.C.19A of 1996. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted whereby this petitioner and other accused persons were put on trial. The trial Court having found the appellant guilty, convicted him for the offences under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471, 465, 477A and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(l)(c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(3.) Being aggrieved with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellant preferred an appeal which is pending for hearing but in the meantime, the petitioner filed an application before the learned trial Court under Section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for release of hard cash amounting to Rs. 9 lacs on the ground that the said amount belonging to this appellant though had been seized by the Civil Administration, had never been made subject-matter of the case and that the fact that the money belonged to this appellant has been admitted by one Shiv Kumar Singh, one of the prosecution witness, who has been examined as P.W.90. The said witness in his examination-in-chief has categorically admitted that Rs. 9 lacs, which had been seized by the Civil Administration, had been given him by this appellant for keeping it in the office and then he had given it to one Lal Mohan Gope so that he may keep it in his Almirah.