Jharkhand High Court
Dayanand Prasad Kashayap vs State Through Central Bureau Of ... on 12 October, 2018
Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 871 of 2018
---
Dayanand Prasad Kashayap --- --- Appellant
Versus
State through Central Bureau of Investigation (AHD), Ranchi --- Respondent
---
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh For the Appellant: Mr. Vishnu Kr. Sharma, Advocate For the Resp-CBI: Mr. Rajiv Nandan Prasad, Advocate
---
05/ 12.10.2018 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and CBI on the prayer for suspension of sentence made through I.A. No. 6899/2018.
2. Appellant stands convicted in connection with R.C. Case No. 45(A)/1996- pat vide impugned judgment of conviction dated 09.04.2018 and order of sentence dated 18.04.2018 passed by the Learned Special Judge-VII, CBI (AHD Scam), Ranchi for the offences under section 120-B read with sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477(A) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years with a fine of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- and in default thereof, to undergo S.I. for one year separately.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was the proprietor of M/s Vaishnav Enterprises, Ranchi and made supplies to the Animal Husbandry Department, Dumka between the period 1991-92 to 1995-1996. He has stated under section 313 Cr. PC during trial that payments to the tune of Rs. 1,25,49,810/- were received against the valid 459 vouchers in respect of which 25 bills were passed. He denied receiving payments illegally without supplying feed supplement to the department in conspiracy with other accused persons. The sheet anchor of the argument on behalf of the appellant is that the learned CBI court has not maintained parity in imposing sentence on similarly situated persons and that to falling in the category of suppliers. He has referred to the case of one Ajit Kumar verma in whose case, though fraudulent payment received were Rs. 1.88 crore and odd but he had been awarded lesser sentence of three and half years with a fine of Rs. 50.00 lakhs. Similarly, in the case of Arun Kumar @ Arun Kumar Singh, fraudulent withdrawals were to the tune of Rs. 2.22 crore and odd, learned CBI court has awarded similar sentence of three and half years with a fine of Rs. 50.00 lakhs. Similarly, co-convict Gopi Nath Das, supplier who is said to have fraudulently received payment of Rs. 1.39 crore and odd, has been imposed lesser sentence of three and half years with a fine of Rs. 50.00 lakhs. Similar is the case of co-convict Mohinder Singh Bedi who is also said to have fraudulently received an amount of Rs. 4.66 crore and odd, he has been awarded 2. sentence of three and half years with a fine of Rs. 50.00 lakhs. On the other hand, co-convict Rajan Mehta who is said to have fraudulently received payment of Rs. 69.80 lakhs and odd, has been imposed sentence similar to that of the appellant i.e. seven years and fine of Rs. 1.00 crore. Therefore, there is apparent discrimination in the award of sentence upon the similarly situated persons in the category of suppliers, rather whose who have received fraudulent payments more than that of the appellant i.e. Rs. 1.25 crores and odd, have been given lesser sentence. There is no rational basis for the Trial Court to impose twice to the quantum of sentence on this appellant compared to other suppliers despite they having received payments much more than the present appellant from the same department. This appellant is 65 years old and has by now undergone custody for about 33 months, as per the verification done by the CBI on the instant prayer for suspension of sentence. This appellant has been enlarged on bail in similar conviction in R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 by this court on completion of half of the custody against the sentence of five years therein. Therefore, appellant may be enlarged on bail after grant of privilege of suspension of sentence without any pre-condition of deposit of fine. Learned counsel submits that substantial property of the appellant has been attached by the CBI.
4. Learned counsel for the CBI has strongly opposed the prayer. He has distinguished the case of this appellant on merits based on the findings recorded by the learned CBI court in the impugned judgment. He submits that this appellant had not only made fraudulent supplies, but vouchers submitted by him showed that two wheelers and LML Vespa were used for transportation of mineral mixer from Khunti to Sahebganj. This was found to be beyond imagination by the learned CBI court. This appellant had high profile connection with the main accused, the then Chief Minister of the State. He was nominated as a Chairman of 20 Point Programme for Ranchi District by the State Government of Bihar which showed that he got protection from the accused politician and bureaucrats. The appellant in league with the other accused persons named at paragraph-79 of the impugned judgment, in fact submitted bogus vouchers with impunity to obtain fraudulent payments to the tune of Rs. 1.25 crores through bank draft during the period 1991-92 and1992-93.
5. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and facts and circumstances, taken note above. From the materials borne from the record, noted above, it appears that number of suppliers including the appellant were 3. involved in conspiracy with the officials of the Animal Husbandry Department, and others in obtaining fraudulent payments against submission of fake vouchers and bogus supplies. It is also evident that different amount of fraudulent withdrawals have been made by one or the other suppliers, each of whose role has been discussed separately by learned CBI court. There are co-convicts who have received fraudulent payments substantially more than that of the appellant also and have been imposed with a sentence of three and half years with a fine of Rs. 50.00 lakhs by the learned court. There are two distinguishing features pointed out by the learned counsel for the CBI in case of the appellant, as recorded by the learned CBI court- one relating to the transportation by two wheelers and LML Vespa from Khunti to Sahebganj and the other relating to his high profile connection and nomination as Chairman of 20 Point Programme by the State Government headed by the then Chief Minister of the State who is also an accused in the instant case and a convict. There may be distinguishing evidence vis-à-vis individual suppliers, but the common thread which runs against all of them is the receipt of fraudulent payments against the fake vouchers of fraudulent supplies of medicines, feed, etc. This appellant has been imposed with a sentence of seven years with a fine amount of Rs. 1.00 crore. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances taken together with the fact that this appellant has by now undergone custody for about 33 months and odd against the sentence awarded, I am inclined to grant privilege of suspension of sentence to the appellant. Accordingly, let the appellant Dayanand Prasad Kashayap be released on bail, during the pendency of this appeal, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of Learned Special Judge-VII, CBI (AHD Scam), Ranchi in connection with R.C. Case No. 45(A)/1996-Pat, subject to deposit of fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Five Lakh) 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. 6899/2018 stands disposed of accordingly.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J) Ranjeet/