Jharkhand High Court
Dr. Rabindra Kumar Rana @ Ravindra Kumar ... 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. 208 of 2018
---
Dr. Rabindra Kumar Rana @ Ravindra Kumar Rana --- Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand through C.B.I (AHD Ranchi)--- Respondent
---
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh For the Appellant : M/s. Anil Kr. Sinha, Chittaranjan Sinha, Sr. Adv.
Prabhat Kumar, Adv.
For the C.B.I : M/s. Rajiv Sinha, ASGI, Rajiv Nandan Prasad & Niraj Kumar
---
08/ 2.11.2018 Heard learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and learned A.S.G.I representing C.B.I on the prayer for suspension of sentence made through I.A. No. 1013 of 2018
2. Appellant stands convicted in connection with R.C. Case No. 68(A) /1996 vide impugned judgment dated 24th January,2018 passed by the learned Court of Additional Judicial Commissioner-VII cum Special Judge(AHD), CBI-I, Ranchi for the offences under Sections 120-B r/w section 409, 420, 467, 468,471 and 477-A of the I.P.C and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5(five) years and fine of Rs.5,00,000/-(Five Lakhs), in default of payment of fine, to further undergo S.I. for 1(one) year. He has further been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5(five) years and fine of Rs.5,00,000/-(Five Lakhs), in default of payment of fine, to further undergo S.I. for 1(one) year for the offences under Section 13(2)&13(1)(c)(d) of the P.C. Act. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently and the period undergone shall be set off.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has taken the following grounds to press the prayer for suspension of sentence:
(i) The entire material evidence on record does not substantiate any allegation of substantive offence under the Indian Penal Code or Prevention of Corruption Act against the appellant. Appellant has been convicted with the aid of Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code i.e., on the charge of conspiracy. P.Ws. 199 and 202, both of whom were the Investigating Officers, have in their examination clearly stated that there was no material to show fraudulent withdrawal from Chaibasa Treasury or receipt as against this appellant;
(ii) That entire statements and materials from the other case i.e., R. C. Case No. 20A/1996 have been adopted in the instant case. There is no material to connect this appellant with the fraudulent withdrawals from Chaibasa Treasury in the Financial Year 1992-93 under A.H.D. Department, subject matter of the instant trial
(iii) That appellant had been facing trial in altogether 7 R. C. -2- Cases relating to Fodder Scam Case, namely the present one i.e. R. C. Case Nos. 68(A)/96; R.C. Case No. 20(A)/96 which relates to the fraudulent withdrawal for the period 1994-95 under the same Chaibasa Treasury; R.C. Case No. 22(A)/96 which relates to the fraudulent withdrawal for the period January, 1992 to June, 1992 under Godda Treasury; R.C. Case No. 33(A)/96 which relates to the fraudulent withdrawal for the period November, 1995 to January, 1996 from Godda Treasury; R.C. Case No. 64(A)/96 which relates to the fraudulent withdrawal for the period 1988- 1996 from Dumka Treasury and R. C. Case No. 38(A)/96 for the period 1990-91 to 1995-96 and in R.C. Case No. 47A/996, trial is going on.
4. In six cases in which trial has been concluded, appellant has been acquitted in R.C. Case No. 38(A)/96 on the basis of almost the same evidence while in rest of the 5 cases he has been convicted. In R.C. Case No. 20(A)/96, this Court has been pleased to enlarge the appellant on bail in Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 798 of 2013 vide order dated 25th October, 2013. In R.C. Case No. 22(A)/96, appellant has been granted bail after his conviction by Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. No. 6457 of 2009. In R.C. Case No. 33(A)/96, appellant was granted bail by this Court in Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 364 of 2013 vide order dated 19th July, 2013. In these cases appellant had not completed half of the sentence. In R. C Case No. 64(A)/96, appellant was granted bail by this Court in Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 146 of 2018 by order dated 31 st August, 2018 on completion of half of the sentence in custody.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that since the evidence is common in all these cases, by the rule of parity also appellant should be enlarged on bail. Appellant has undergone about 20 months of custody in connection with the instant case. In total he has been in custody for 4 years 3 months in connection with all of these cases taken together till date. Role of the appellant has been discussed at Page-276 of the impugned judgment. At best, the findings are to the effect that the appellant was close to the main accused, the then Chief Minister of Bihar, Lalu Prasad Yadav and that he had paid one fee of Rs. 45,500/- of his daughter who was studying at Mayo College, Ajmer. Other finding is that he had availed of certain hospitality in Hotels or Air ticket purchased in favour of other accused as well. Statement of P.Ws. 49, 103 and 112 etc. have been taken into account to hold the appellant guilty for the aforesaid offences on the charge of conspiracy. There has been no misuse of bail at any point of time in connection with any R.C. Case by the appellant. He has been facing protracted trial in these cases since 1996. He is 73 years old -3- and therefore deserves sympathetic treatment for the purpose of privilege of suspension of sentence.
6. Learned ASGI has strongly opposed the prayer for bail. It is submitted that the case against the appellant is not of being directly involved in fraudulent withdrawal from Chaibasa Treasury like the supplier or the official at A.H.D. Department at Chaibasa. The evidence which has come against the appellant and applies to all these prosecutions related to different Treasuries of fraudulent withdrawal from A.H.D. Department is of being involved in the larger conspiracy at the top level in league with the then Chief Minister of Bihar, Lalu Prasad Yadav. Evidence of P.W.1 Dinesh Chandak discussed by learned trial court at Page-16 and 17 of the impugned judgment clearly goes to prove his involvement in the larger conspiracy. P.W.1 has stated that Dr. S.B.Sinha told him that payments were made regularly and directly to the then Chief Minister of Bihar or through Dr. R. K. Rana i.e., the appellant. Appellant was very close to Dr. S.B.Sinha. Payment of money was made through this appellant at different points of time to the then Chief Minister. P.W.49 also an approver Raghvendra Kishore Das has made similar statement against the appellant in his deposition which has been discussed at Pages- 45, 48 etc. in the impugned judgment. He categorically stated that appellant was residing in the campus of Bihar Animal College Hospital, Patna where Lalu Prasad had also been living. Dr. S.B.Sinha came in contract with Dr. R. K. Rana and later on friendship had grown among Dr. R.K.Rana, Dr. S.B. Sinha and Lalu Prasad Yadav. He participated money with Lalu Prasad Yadav. He had obtained currency of dollars from Gurmit Affairs and given him Rs. 10 lakhs in his presence. Learned Trial Court has also taken into account the submission of the appellant at Para-16 Page-245 of the impugned judgment and categorically dealt with the case of the appellant in the findings recorded at Page-276 onwards.
7. Learned Trial Court has upon consideration of the evidence of P.W. 1, Dinesh Chandak, P.W. 49, Raghvendra Kishore Das, P.W.103, Miss. Jayanti Jha and P.W.112, Prasenjit Barma and others clearly held that it was the appellant through whom Dr. S.B.Sinha used to oblige the then Chief Minister of Bihar. Payments of Rs. 1 Crore to the then Chief Minister of Bihar through this appellant has also been specifically mentioned by P.W.-1 and taken note of in the findings.
8. Learned ASGI has countered the arguments made on behalf of the appellant by relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case -4- of State of Jharkhand Vs. Lalu Prasad Yadav alias Lalu Prasad reported in (2017) 8 SCC Page-1 specifically Para 8 and 42. He submits that the accused themselves sought observation from the Apex Court to treat the evidence recorded in one case and document marked as exhibit in one case as evidence in other cases also. Evidence of general conspiracy is common to all but all the cases at the same time related to offences which had happened at different places by different accused persons. Argument that the same evidence has been adopted in these R.C Cases would not dilute the findings recorded by learned CBI Court in each such respective cases. Involvement of the appellant in the larger conspiracy applies to all the R.C Cases where he is facing trial. Learned Trial Court in this case has considered the evidence on record in proper perspective and recorded proper and correct findings. Therefore, in view of serious charges proved against the appellant, he does not deserve the privilege of suspension of sentence. Learned Trial Court has discarded the argument on reliance upon the testimony of the approver at Page-285 of the impugned judgment while proceeding to record conviction against the appellant along with other accused persons.
9. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has painstakingly pointed out to the cross-examination of these P.Ws. specifically P.Ws 1 and 49 and submitted that P.W.1 had clearly stated that no payment was given to then Chief Minister of Bihar, Lalu Prasad Yadav in his presence. He had never seen Dr. R.K. Rana, i.e., appellant with Lalu Prasad Yadav. He had not seen delivery of cash to Lalu Prasad Yadav by Dr. R.K. Rana neither he has seen demand of money from Lalu Prasad Yadav. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that detailed consideration of the merits of the case could take place at the stage of hearing. However, considering the aforesaid circumstances, appellant deserves privilege of suspension of sentence, more so when he has remained in custody for 20 months in the present case. He submits that this Court in the case of one Dayanand Prasad Kashyap, has been pleased to enlarge him on bail by order dated 12th October, 2018 passed in in Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 871 of 2018 in connection with R.C. Case No. 45(A)/1996, though he had undergone custody of about 33 months and odd against the sentence of 7 years.
10. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and the facts and circumstances taken note above including the relevant material evidence placed by the rival parties on the prayer for grant of the privilege of suspension of sentence. Learned Trial Court has in its finding recorded at page -5- 276 on the role of Politicians dealt with the case of this appellant also. Learned Trial Court has made reference to the statements of the prosecution witnesses such as P.W.1, P.W.49, P.W.121,P.W.103, P.W.112 which persuaded the learned C.B.I. Court to hold him guilty for the charges of criminal conspiracy with the other accused in connection with fraudulent withdrawal of Rs.62.79 Lakhs in the financial year 1992-93 from Chaibasa Treasury under the Animal Husbandry Department. The role of the Appellant as revealed from the statement of the prosecution witnesses and as per the findings recorded are in respect of his involvement in larger conspiracy with the then Chief Minister of Bihar Lalu Prasad Yadav and others such as Dr. S.B.Sinha. Closeness of the appellant with the then Chief Minister of Bihar and payments of money through this appellant by Dr. S.B.Sinha have been recorded by the learned Trial Court on the basis of evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Statement of these prosecution witnesses in particular convey his proximity to the main accused. Other statements of P.W.103, 112 discussed by the learned Trial Court go to show that he availed of hospitality in hotels and air tickets also along with other accused persons. From the findings of the learned Trial Court it appears that though this appellant was not directly responsible for the fraudulent withdrawal from Chaibasa Treasury against fake supplies and fake vouchers but was part of the larger conspiracy at the topmost level.
11. As observed by the Apex Court in the case of State of Jharkhand Vrs. Lalu Prasad Yadav reported in (2017)8 SCC 1, evidence and documents adduced in one case could be adopted as evidence in other case as per the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of CBI Vrs. Braj Bhushan Prasad reported in 2001(9) SCC 432. Evidence in one of the R.C. Cases adduced by the CBI thus led to be adopted without objection by the accused persons in other R.C. Cases like the present one. Individual fraudulent withdrawal at different places under different treasuries by different accused persons were the reasons for institution of separate R.C cases as per the place or period of the crime but the evidence of general conspiracy may have been common to all. Consideration of the prayer for privilege of suspension of sentence is to be undertaken on the basis of findings recorded in the particular case by the learned C.B.I Court and weighed accordingly. Appellant however has been acquitted in one of the R.C. Case i.e., R.C. Case No. 38A of 1996 and convicted in rest of the 5 cases which have concluded while trial is going on in one more case i.e., R.C. Case No. 47A/1996. While bail has been granted to the 6. appellant in R.C. Case no. 20A/1996, 33A/1996 by this Court earlier on merits but it is also evident that prayer for suspension of sentence on merits has been rejected by this Court in R.C.64A/1996 by order dated 18.05.2018. This appellant has however been enlarged on bail in the said case later on, on completion of half of the sentence by order dated 31.08.2018. Appellant has been granted bail in R.C. Case No. 22 A /1996 by the Apex Court vide order dated 18.09.2009. With reference to the case of Dayanand Prasad Kashayap relied by the learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 871 of 2018, appellant Dayanand Prasad Kashayap has been granted privilege of suspension of sentence on the ground of parity with other co- convicts, suppliers. The other co-convicts/ appellants suppliers named therein were found to have received fraudulent payment of amounts much larger than this appellant but were imposed a sentence of 3 ½ years with a fine of Rs.50 Lakhs only as compared to the appellant Dayanand Prasad Kahayap who was imposed a sentence of 7 years with a total fine of Rs.1 Crore. He had also undergone custody of 33 months and odd.
12. Consideration of the plea of the appellant in the aforesaid facts and circumstances and in the above perspective specifically in the light of the evidence and findings recorded by the learned CBI Court in the present case does not persuade this Court to grant him privilege of suspension of sentence at this stage as he has not undergone custody for half of the sentence till date. As such, I am not inclined to enlarge the appellant on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for privilege of suspension of sentence is rejected.
13. I.A. No. 1013 of 2018 stands rejected accordingly.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J) jk