Jharkhand High Court
Satyendra Kumar Mehra vs Union Of India Through Cbi on 22 April, 2022
Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 137 of 2022
----
Satyendra Kumar Mehra .............. Appellant
Versus
Union of India through CBI ............... Respondent
---
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
---
Through: Video Conferencing
--
For the Appellant : Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate,
For the Resp.-CBI : Mr. Prashant Pallav, ASGI
M/s. Navneet Sahay, Shivani Jhaluka, A.C to A.S.G.I
---
04/22.04.2022 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the C.B.I on the prayer for suspension of sentence made through I.A No. 2649 of 2022.
Appellant stands convicted in connection with R.C.Case No. 47(A)/1996-PAT vide impugned judgment of conviction dated 15.02.2022 and order of sentence dated 21.02.2022 passed by learned Special Judge-V, CBI, (A.H.D. Scam Cases), Ranchi for the offences under Section 120(B) read with Sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act r/w Section 13(1)(c)(d) of the P.C.Act and sentenced to undergo R.I for 4 years with a fine of Rs. 10.00 Lakhs under Section 120B of I.P.C.; R.I for 4 years with a fine of Rs. 5.00 Lakh under Section 420,409,467,468,471 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code and default sentences. No separate sentence has been awarded under the P.C. Act. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that role of the appellant has been discussed by learned CBI Court at paragraph 204-206 of the impugned judgment. Appellant (A-47) was the proprietor of M/s. Satyendra Construction Company, Ranchi. Appellant's firm was accused of purported supply of yellow maize during the Financial Year 1990-91 to 1993-94 to RPF, GCF, Hotwar, PDU Jamshedpur, Poultry Hotwar etc.. It has been alleged that on the basis of fake invoices and false certification obtained from AHD officials, a sum of Rs. 4,41,08,354/- was withdrawn from the treasury through 73 CNC bills. As per charge-sheet, an amount of Rs. 53,31,044/- was received on account of fraudulent supply because registration numbers of 165 trucks used for transportation were found to be non-commercial vehicles. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned trial court has however convicted the appellant apparently on the basis of certain oral witnesses, P.W. 441, 153 and 512 and documentary evidence 2. by holding that it is not believable that supply of 6848 quintal of yellow maize could be made in two months only for RPF, Hotwar. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant's firm had made huge supply to the tune of Rs. 4.41 crore, the total of which has not been found to be fake supplies even during investigation. The findings of learned trial court are not based on proper appreciation of evidence. It is submitted that the appellant has competed more than half of the custody against the sentence of 4 years awarded under different provisions of IPC and ordered to run concurrently. The details of the period of custody undergone by the appellant during different periods have been furnished in the form of chart at Para-10 of the interlocutory application, out of which appellant categorically relies upon the periods from serial no. 1 to serial no. 6 and since his conviction in the present R.C Case on 15th February, 2022 till date, which are extracted as under:
Sl. Date Month/Days
No.
1 28.08.1997 to 28.11.1997 3 months 01 day
2 17.04.2006 to 10.09.2007 1 year 04 months 24
days
3 07.12.2007 to 21.01.2008 1 month 14 days
4 01.05.2008 to 09.05.2008 09 days
5 11.12.2009 to 18.12.2009 08 days
6 21.01.2012 to 27.01.2012 07 days
7 15.02.2022 to till date i.e. 66 days
22.04.2022
Total Period 02 years 09 days
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that certified copy of order-sheet of the learned CBI Court enclosed to the supplementary affidavit filed on 17 th April, 2022 with copy to learned counsel for the CBI support the claim of the period of custody undergone by the appellant during different periods from 1997 to January, 2012. Taking into account the period of custody of about 66 days from the date of his conviction on 15th February, 2022 in the instant case, appellant has thus completed more than half of the custody i.e., 24 months.
Considering the principles of parity under which other convicts/appellants have been enlarged on bail by suspending the sentence by this Court not only in the instant R.C case such as Dr. Krishna Mohan Prasad and Dr. Bijayeshwari Prasad Sinha in Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 94 of 2022 and Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 100 of 3. 2022 respectively vide orders dated 08.04.2022 but in other fodder scam cases also, the appellant may be enlarged on bail by suspending the sentence.
Learned counsel for the CBI has opposed the prayer. Learned counsel submits that the prosecution has adduced oral and documentary evidence in the nature of several exhibits which substantiate that fraudulent payments to the tune of Rs. 53 lakhs have been received as such supplies were made by non- commercial vehicles which was established on verification from the registration no. of 165 trucks purportedly used for such supply However, learned counsel for the CBI is not in a position to dispute the claim of more than half of the custody undergone by this appellant supported by order-sheet of learned CBI Court enclosed to the supplementary affidavit.
I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and taken note of the materials relied upon from the lower court record and also the period of custody undergone by the appellant in connection with the instant R.C Case No. No. 47(A)/1996-PAT. Having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances and that the appellant has remained in custody for more than half of the sentence awarded in the instant case, I am inclined to grant the privilege of suspension of sentence to the appellant by enlarging him on bail.
Accordingly, let the above-named appellant 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-V, CBI (AHD Scam Cases), Ranchi in connection with R.C Case No. 47(A)/1996-PAT, subject to deposit of fine amount of Rs. 1.50 Lakhs 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 and the appellant and his bailors shall not change their address or mobile nos. without permission of the learned Trial Court.
I.A No. 2649 of 2022 stands disposed of accordingly.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J) Jk/