Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Arjun Prasad vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 11 January, 2023
Bench: Surya Kant, V. Ramasubramanian
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.93 OF 2023
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.)No.6918 of 2022)
ARJUN PRASAD … APPELLANT
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION … RESPONDENT
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment dated
25.01.2022 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi whereby
the Criminal Appeal, preferred by him, was partly allowed and while
setting aside the appellant’s conviction under Section 477A IPC,
his conviction under Sections 120B/420/471 read with Section 468
IPC and under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (for short, `the old Act’) has
been upheld, and as a sequel thereto, the sentence of one year
imprisonment, awarded to the appellant by the Trial Court, has been
upheld.
3. The appellant, at the relevant time, was working as a
Manager (Small Scale Industries and Business Division), State Bank
of India at Daltonganj Branch (erstwhile Bihar and presently
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Jharkhand).
satish kumar yadav
Date: 2023.01.14
R.C.No.1/1980 was registered on 25.01.1980 at Police
12:30:34 IST
Reason:
Station SPE/CBI, Patna under Sections 120B/420/471 read with
Section 468/477A IPC and under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)
2
(d) of the old Act, alleging that the co-accused of the appellant
and a customer – M/s M.L. Biswas & Co. colluded with each other
thereby causing a loss of Rs.57.24 lakhs to the bank. Though, the
appellant was not named in the FIR, during the course of
investigation, his name surfaced and upon filing a supplementary
challan, he was also eventually chargesheeted. The Special Judge,
CBI (South Bihar), Patna convicted the appellant and the co-accused
under the above-mentioned provisions holding that the prosecution
had successfully proved the criminal conspiracy. The appellant was
consequently sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one
year. The aggrieved appellant filed an appeal before the High
Court. The said appeal remained pending for 34 years and has been
eventually dismissed vide judgment dated 25.01.2022, except that
the appellant has been acquitted under Section 477A IPC.
4. As noted above, the complaint was registered more than 40
years back on 25.01.1980. The sanction order to prosecute the
appellant was granted on 08.03.1982. The trial began thereafter and
continued for four years till it culminated into conviction of the
appellant and his co-accused on 30.08.1988. The appellant filed
his Criminal Appeal No.375 of 1988 promptly but unfortunately it
took 34 years for the High Court to adjudicate the same.
5. Meanwhile, the appellant has crossed the age of 80 years.
It may also be noticed, at this stage, that during the pendency of
the trial and/or post conviction, the appellant has undergone
actual sentence of 41 days.
6. As regards to the merits of the case, it appears to us
that keeping the limited scope of interference, save and except
3
when a question of law arises for consideration, it would not be
prudent or expedient for this Court to re-appraise the evidence and
venture into the realm of facts. The short question, thus, that
falls for consideration is whether it will serve the cause of
administration of criminal justice to send the appellant back to
custody to undergo the remainder of his sentence at this belated
stage?
7. It appears to us that the old age of the appellant, who
has admittedly crossed the age of 80 years, is a strong mitigating
circumstance and deserves to be kept in view for answering the
aforementioned question. In this old age, the appellant might be
dependent upon his family members for day-to-day activities and it
would, thus, cause extreme and unexplainable hardships if he is
sent to jail to undergo the left out sentence period. In this
regard, we are inclined to draw support from two decisions of this
Court in (i) Shahzade vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1982) 1 SCC 349
and (ii) R.V. Lyngdodh vs. State (Delhi) Spl.Establishment, (1999)
2 SCC 645 wherein owing to the old age of the convict-
appellant(s), this Court intervened and reduced the sentence to the
period already undergone by convict. We adopt the same analogy and,
thus, reduce the sentence of the appellant to the period already
undergone by him.
8. For the reasons aforestated, the appeal is allowed in
part; the judgments of the learned Special Judge, CBI (South
Bihar), Patna and the High Court are modified and the sentence of
the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him.
The bail bonds, if any, furnished by the appellant are discharged.
4
9. As a result, pending interlocutory applications also
stand disposed of.
.........................J.
(SURYA KANT)
..............…….........J.
(V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN)
NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 11, 2023.
5
ITEM NO.13 COURT NO.9 SECTION II-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).6918/2022
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 25-01-2022
in CRA(SJ) No.375/1988 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at
Ranchi)
ARJUN PRASAD Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Respondent(s)
IA No.78119/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
IA No.90645/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No.90644/2022 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES Date : 11-01-2023 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN For Petitioner(s) Mr. Shree Prakash Sinha, Adv.
Mr. Rakesh Mishra, Adv.
Ms. Mohua Sinha, Adv.
Ms. Larraine Philip, Adv. Mr. Rishabh Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Shekhar Kumar, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Vikaramjeet Banerjee, A.S.G. Mr. Merusagar Samantaray, Adv. Mr. P V Yogeswaran, Adv.
Mr. Madhav Sinhal, Adv.
Mr. Pratyush Shrivastava, Adv. Mrs. Swati Ghildiyal, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in part in terms of the signed order.6
As a result, pending interlocutory applications also stand disposed of.
(SATISH KUMAR YADAV) (KAMLESH RAWAT) DEPUTY REGISTRAR COURT MASTER (Signed order is placed on the file)