RAM AVTAR SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel representing the C.B.I on the prayer for suspension of sentence made through I.A. No. 5187 of 2019.

(2.) Appellant stands convicted by the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.05.2019 passed in R.C. 20(A) of the year 1996 (Supl.) by the learned Court of Special Judge-IV, CBI, AHD, Ranchi for the offence under Section 120B, 467, 420,468 and 471 r/w 465 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years and a fine of Rs.50,000 and in default, additional 6 months S.I. u/s 120B I.P.C; R.I. for 4 years and a fine of Rs.1 Lakh and in default, 9 months S.I. u/s 420 I.P.C.; R.I. for 3 years and a fine of Rs. 1 Lakh and in default, additional 9 months S.I. u/s 467 I.P.C.; R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs. 1 Lakh and in default, additional 9 months S.I. u/s 468 I.P.C. and R.I. for 2 years and a fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default, additional 6 months S.I u/s 471 r/w 465 I.P.C. All the sentences shall run concurrently. Out of total fine amount of Rs. 4 Lakhs, Rs.3 Lakhs and 75 thousand will be realized as compensation to the State.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the subject period of instant R.C case is between 1994-1995 relating to fraudulent withdrawal to the tune of approximately Rs.35 crores 66 lakhs and odd made under the Animal Husbandry Department under Chaibasa Treasury. It is submitted that appellant was not the proprietor of the firm M/s Triputi Agency. The statement of the appellant/accused as D.W.1 under Section 315 Cr.P.C has been referred to in para 91 of the impugned judgment where he has categorically stated that one Rajendra Sharma @ R. Sharma @ R.K.Sharma @ Sudarshan Sharma, who was uncle of the appellant, was the proprietor of M/s Triputi Agency. He was trader of whole sale medicine and the appellant worked as employee in his firm since year 1989 and got salary. He was asked by his uncle to prepare bill and to withdraw money from bank through cheque and bank draft and he worked as per his direction. His uncle was convicted on his evidence in another case where he has categorically told that he was an employee under him and in Triputi agency he was neither the beneficiary nor partner. Ext.B to B/7 have been produced in support thereof. However, learned Trial Court has drawn a cryptic finding at the internal page 62 of the impugned judgment by recording that the accused/appellant, proprietor of Triputi Agency was shown to have supplied medicines and received payment to the tune of Rs. 39,95,450/-. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the said Rajendra Sharma has been convicted in other R.C. case as proprietor of Triputi Agency. This appellant has been acquitted of the charge in R.C.24A/1996 and R.C.31A/1996, Ext.A to A/4 have been referred to in support of that. It is submitted that on account of erroneous findings recorded by the learned Trial Court, appellant has been held guilty. Appellant is in custody for 24 months i.e., more than half of sentence of 4 years. Therefore, he may be enlarged on bail on grant of privilege of suspension of sentence during pendency of this appeal.