Jharkhand High Court
Md. Sayeed @ Master vs The Union Of India Through Cbi on 6 May, 2022
Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 144 of 2022
----
Md. Sayeed @ Master .............. Appellant
Versus
The Union of India through CBI ............... Respondent
---
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
---
Through: Video Conferencing
--
For the Appellant : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate,
For the Resp.-CBI : Ms. Shivani Jaluka, A.C to A.S.G.I
---
05/06.05.2022 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. 1956 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) r/w Section 13(1)(c)(d) of the P.C.Act and has been sentenced to undergo R.I for 5 years with a fine of Rs. 50 Lakhs under Section 120B of I.P.C.; R.I for 5 years with a fine of Rs. 1 Crore 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 the appellant (A-26) was the Partner of M/s. Chhotanagpur Cattle Food Supply Company Ranchi and Proprietor of M/s. M.S Enterprises and together with other partners of M/s. Chhotanagpur Cattle Food Supply Company Ranchi such as A-27, A-28, A-29, A-30 and A-31, all family members of the appellant, had been accused of purported supply of yellow maize, wheat bran, GNC, Fish Meal, Powel and Bhusa wroth Rs. 20,07,19,631/- and received such amount towards such supply as per 287 contingent bills. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that CBI had alleged that these materials were allegedly supplied through 1622 trucks but during investigation, it was found that registration numbers were of non- commercial vehicle, which have been shown in the delivery Challans/invoices as registration number of trucks. The appellant has been accused of making huge fraudulent withdrawals against fake contingency bills and fake allotment letters during the period April, 1990 to March, 1995 amounting to Rs. 139 Crore under the Regional Directorate, AHD, Ranchi against the purchase of feed, medicines 2. instruments etc. It has been alleged that against genuine allotment of 1.98 Crore, unauthorized withdrawals were made on the basis of fake allotment letters worth Rs. 274 cores. Appellant had taken a defence that he has no role in the issuance of allotment letter. CBI has failed to show that there was any predetermined mind with the officials of AHD or that this appellant was actually participating in day to day activities of the firm. It is also submitted that the defence has taken the plea that the supplier is not required to enquire about the valid registration of vehicle number prior to sending the consignment. However, learned trial court has arrived at erroneous finding without properly appreciating the evidence on record. Appellant has completed about 2 years 10 months and 20 days of custody against the maximum sentence of 5 years awarded for the offences under IPC. No separate sentence has been awarded under the P.C Act. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant may be granted bail by suspending his sentence as he has been completed more than half of the custody on the principles of parity as has been applied by this Court in cases of similar convicts/appellants under Fodder Scam cases, not only in connection with the instant R.C Case but convictions under other R.C cases also.
Learned counsel for the CBI has opposed the prayer. She submits that the appellant along with his family members, who were partners of M/s. Chhotanagpur Cattle Food Supply Company Ranchi and also proprietor of M/s. M.S Enterprises were involved in receiving huge fraudulent payments on the basis of fake allotment, fake invoices and without any materials actually being supplied to the department. Therefore, appellant may not be enlarged on bail. However, she submits that on the basis of joint inspection in the presence of learned counsel for the parties and CBI official, it has been found that the appellant has completed 2 years 10 months and 20 days of custody i.e. more than half of the custody against the sentence of 5 years awarded upon him.
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. 50,000/-
3.(Rupees Fifty 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. 15 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. 1956 of 2022 stands disposed of accordingly.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J) Jk/