Jharkhand High Court
Dr. Radha Mohan Mandal @ Radha Mohan ... vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Cbi on 10 May, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 JHA 439
Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 801 of 2018
---
Dr. Radha Mohan Mandal @ Radha Mohan Mandal --- --- Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand through CBI --- --- --- 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
---
07/ 10.05.2019 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and CBI on the prayer for suspension of sentence made through I.A. No. 4473/2018.
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 Additional Judicial Commissioner-I-cum-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 sections 13(2) read with sections 13(1)(c)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three and half years each for either of the offences under I.P.C and P.C. Act with a fine of Rs. 50,00,000/- each and in default thereof, to undergo S.I. for nine months each separately. However, both the sentences were ordered to run consecutively and not concurrently.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was the Sub Divisional Animal Husbandry Officer, Godda during the subject period of the instant R.C. Case relating to fraudulent withdrawal from AHD Department under Dumka Treasury during 91-92 and 95-96. The appellant in his statement under section 313 of the Cr.PC, has denied having provided false certification to the suppliers against fake supplies and facilitating passing of Bills without valid allotment. However, learned Trial Court has on consideration of the prosecution evidence such as statement of P.Ws. 1,2,12 and 197 and certain documentary evidence, proceeded to erroneously hold him guilty for the charges and causing wrongful loss to the State Exchequer in conspiracy with the other co-accused. Role of the appellant has been discussed by the learned Trial Court at para-118 and 119 of the impugned judgment. This appellant has remained in custody for more than half of the sentence under either of the offences of IPC or PC Act i.e. 3½ years awarded by the learned Trial Court. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Trial Court has without any justification, directed the sentences to run consecutively and not concurrently. He further submits that the same CBI Court in similar cases such as R.C. Case No. 64(A)/1996-Pat, while recording conviction under the offence charged therein and awarding sentence, 2 consciously made them to run concurrently and not consecutively. Incarceration of the appellant for a larger period taking the sentence to run consecutively would be unjust. He has referred to the cases of Dr. Shashi Kumar Sinha @ Shashi Kumar Singh in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 803/2018 and that of Sardendu Kumar Das @ Saradindu Kumar Das in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 860/2018 arising out of R.C. Case No. 45(A)/1996-Pat where this Court has been pleased to enlarge the appellant on bail having undergone custody for more than half of the sentence awarded under either of the offence of I.P.C and P.C. Act. Appellant was dismissed from service in the year 1996 and was reinstated after about four years and since then, remained in suspension till his retirement. The appellant is 67 years old and also suffering from severe financial distress. As such, he may be enlarged on bail upon grant of privilege of suspension of sentence by sympathetically considering the condition of deposit of fine. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that this appellant has been convicted in connection with R.C. Case No. 38(A)/1996-Pat. This Hon'ble Court in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 820/2018, by order dated 03.05.2019, has been pleased to enlarge the appellant on bail on grant of privilege of suspension of sentence with a condition of deposit of fine of Rs. 1.00 lakh only as against the fine of Rs. 15.00 lakh each as against both the offences under IPC and P.C. Act. The same learned CBI Court in the instant R.C. Case has however, awarded exorbitant fine amount of Rs. 50.00 lakhs each for the offences under IPC and P.C. Act. As such, condition of fine may be sympathetically considered. The period of custody undergone by the appellant before conviction from 25.01.2001 to 12.09.2001 is 7 months and 18 days. A supplementary affidavit has been filed enclosing the certificate of Assistant Jailer, Model Central Jail, Beur, Patna in support thereof. The appellant has been in custody since the date of conviction dated 19.03.2018 passed in R.C. Case No. 38(A)/1996- Pat by the same learned Court, though in the instant R.C. Case, judgment of conviction was recorded on 09.04.2018. The period of custody from 19.03.2018 on his conviction in the other R.C. Case therefore deserves to be counted for the purpose of counting his total period of incarceration.
4. Learned counsel for the CBI has opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence on merits. He submits that the prosecution evidence brought during trial conclusively establishes the liability of this appellant in facilitating fraudulent withdrawal from AHD Department, Dumka during the subject period of the instant R.C. Case by issuing false certification against fake supplies made under forged allotment orders. Therefore, finding of the learned Trial Court is well considered and proper. However, learned counsel for the CBI does not dispute that the appellant has 3 remained in custody for more than 21 months i.e. more than half of the sentence awarded under either of the offences under I.P.C. and P.C. Act. He also points out that the sentences were directed to run consecutively in the case of other co-convicts in the present R.C. Case by the learned CBI Court. However, he is not in a position to dispute the fact that in connection with other R.C. Case, the same Court has directed sentences to run concurrently and not consecutively, such as R. Case No. 64(A)/1996- Pat.
5. I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and the facts and circumstances of the case. Appellant has been convicted for the offences under the provision of I.P.C and P.C. Act and sentenced to undergo R.I for three and half years as against each of them, but the sentences have been directed to run consecutively and not concurrently. Appellant has undergone custody for more than 21 months i.e. more than half of the sentence awarded under either of the offences of I.P.C or P.C. Act. In such circumstances, I am inclined to grant the privilege of suspension of sentence to the appellant during the pendency of the appeal. Accordingly, let the appellant Dr. Radha Mohan Mandal @ Radha Mohan Mandal be released on bail, during the pendency of this appeal, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of Learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-I-cum-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. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one 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. 4473/2018 stands disposed of accordingly.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J) Ranjeet/