Jharkhand High Court
Md. Zahid Hussain @ Zahid Hussain vs The State Of Jharkhand (Through C.B.I) on 2 November, 2018
Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 526 of 2018
---
Md. Zahid Hussain @ Zahid Hussain --- ---- Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand (through C.B.I) --- --- Respondent
---
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
For the Appellant: Mr. Akhouri Anjani Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Rajiv Nandan Prasad, Advocate
---
I.A. No. 2528/2018
---
10/ 02.11.2018 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and CBI on the prayer for suspension of sentence made through I.A. No. 2528/2018.
2. Appellant stands convicted in connection with R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.01.2018 passed by the Additional Judicial Commissioner-VII cum-Special Judge (AHD), C.B.I.-I, Ranchi for the offences under section 120-B read with sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years each with a fine of Rs. 25,000/- each and in default thereof, to undergo S.I. for three months each.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this appellant has been implicated only in this R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 relating to fraudulent withdrawals at Chaibasa Treasury for the period 1992-93. He is not an accused in any other fodder scam cases. Learned trial court has not recorded any finding of guilt against this appellant in the impugned judgment, but finally convicted him of the aforesaid charges. Findings of the learned court on the point of implication of accused / suppliers are at para-24 between pages-262 to 268 of the impugned judgment, but there is no whisper about the present appellant. At best, a statement made under section 313 of the Cr.PC by all the suppliers that they received respective amount through bank drafts and against genuine supplies, is mentioned at page-265. Prosecution Witnesses 50, 51 and 70 whose statements have been discussed at Pages-54 & 58-70 in the impugned judgment are all Bank Officials who have only proved the bank drafts prepared in favour of M/s Bihar Cattle Feed Agency, Muzaffapur, a Supplier Firm of the appellant. They are not the competent witnesses to depose about the charge of fraudulent withdrawals against fake supplies. Learned CBI Court has not made any mention of any amount said to have been fraudulently obtained by the appellant against fake supplies. Appellant is 63 years old and has undergone custody for 18 months by now. He has also suffered hemorrhage in October 2017 and is on medication. As such, he deserves the privilege of suspension of sentence during pendency of this appeal.
24. Learned counsel for the CBI has taken the court to the statement of PWs 50, 51 and 70, referred to by the counsel for the appellant also in order to submit that these are the prosecution witnesses who are Bank Officials and have proved the drafts issued in the name of the Firm of the appellant. However, learned counsel does not dispute the statement made on behalf of the appellant that there is no mention of any amount fraudulently withdrawn in the impugned judgment, nor is there any specific finding about his role at para-24 where the role on implication of the accused / suppliers have been discussed. Learned counsel for the CBI also has not been able to dispute that the appellant has not been made accused in connection with any other R.C. case. However, he has opposed the prayer on merits.
5. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties in the light of the facts and circumstances, noted above. The evidence on record, as pointed out by the learned counsel for both the parties in respect of the appellant, is of the prosecution witnesses 50, 51 and 70, all of whom are Bank Officials. Some drafts issued in the name of the appellant's Firm have been proved by them. Apart from the above, there is no discussion or finding on the guilt of the appellant in the impugned judgment by the learned CBI Court at para-24 dealing with the accused / suppliers, though a conviction has been recorded against him for the aforesaid charges. The appellant has been in custody for 18 months only against a sentence of five years by now. However, in view of the aforesaid reasons, this Court is inclined to grant privilege of suspension of sentence to the appellant during pendency of this appeal. Accordingly, let the appellant Md. Zahid Hussain @ Zahid Hussain be released on bail, during the pendency of this appeal, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of Learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VII cum-Special Judge (AHD), CBI-I, Ranchi in connection with R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996, subject to deposit of fine of Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty Thousand) in the Court below and if not wanted in connection with any other case. The appellant would not leave the country without permission of the Learned Trial Court. He would also submit his passport, if any, before the Learned Trial court.
6. I.A. No. 2528/2018 stands disposed of accordingly.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J) Ranjeet/