Bombay High Court
Vir Singh Kunvar Singh Chaudhary vs The Central Bureau Of ... on 31 August, 2021
Bench: Prakash Deu Naik
rpa 1/5 6 ia 1266 2021.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1266 OF 2021
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.40 OF 2020
Vir Singh Kunvar Singh Chaudhary .. Applicant/ Appellant
Versus
The Central Bureau of Investigation
and Anr. .. Respondents
......
Mr.Satyvrat Joshi, Advocate for the Applicant/Appellant.
Mr.Ninad M. i/b. Mr.Hiten Venegaonkar, Advocate for Respondent
No.1.
Mr.R.M. Pethe, APP for the Respondent No.2-State.
......
CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
DATED : AUGUST 31, 2021.
P.C. :
This is an application for suspension of sentence and
grant of bail during the pendency of criminal Appeal No.40 of
2020, preferred by the applicant challenging the judgment and
order dated 20th December, 2019, passed by the learned Special
Digitally
signed by
RAJESHRI
RAJESHRI PRAKASH Judge CBI (ACB), Pune. The applicant (accused no.1) is convicted
PRAKASH AHER
AHER Date:
2021.09.01
for the ofence punishable under Sections 409, 420, 468 and 471
18:10:38
+0530
of Indian Penal Code ("IPC", for short) and sentenced to sufer
rpa 2/5 6 ia 1266 2021.doc
rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fne of
Rs.25,000/-, under each sections, in default to sufer further
imprisonment for six months for each ofences. He is also
convicted for the ofence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read
with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to
sufer rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay fne of
Rs.25,000/-, in default to sufer further imprisonment for six
months under. All the sentences were directed to run
concurrently. The appellant, was acquitted for the ofence
punishable under Section 120-B of IPC. Accused nos.2 to 8 were
acquitted for all the ofences.
2 Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the
applicant was on bail during the trial. During the pendency of
trial, he was in custody from 25th April, 2013 to 27th July, 2013.
From the date of conviction i.e. 20 th December, 2019, he has
continued to be in custody, and, for a period of about 1 and ½
year, he is in custody. It is submitted that the applicant has good
case on merits. Sanction accorded for prosecution of the
applicant was defective. Although, he was tried along with the co-
accused on the charge of conspiracy, all the accused were
acquitted under Section 120-B of IPC. Accused Nos.2 to 8 were
rpa 3/5 6 ia 1266 2021.doc
acquitted for all the ofences. The case of the prosecution is that
there is diversion of HSD. It was not seized during the course of
investigation. The ofence under Sections 420, 409, 468, 471 of
IPC are not made out. Fine amount is deposited.
3 Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that
the ofence is of serious nature. The applicant was working as
Chief Loco Inspector at Railway Consumer Depot (RCD). (It is the
case of the prosecution that fuel issuers i.e. accused nos.2 to 8
did not make requisite entries.) During the period of 22 nd April,
2011 to 1st July, 2011, 3,72,664 liters of High Speed Diesel (HSD)
was misappropriated by accused in connivance with each other.
Huge loss was caused to the complainant.
4 The case of the prosecution is that the applicant and
accused nos.2 and 8 had acted in connivance with each other in
misappropriating the HSD by misusing their position. The fuel
issuers i.e. accused nos.2 to 8 did not make requisite in trial. The
judgment of the trial Court, however, indicate that there was no
evidence of involvement of accused nos.2 to 8, and they were
acquitted of all the charges. The charge of conspiracy was not
proved against all accused. The fnding of the trial Court is that
rpa 4/5 6 ia 1266 2021.doc
the applicant is the person who had misappropriated HSD. The
defence of the applicant is that the case is entirely based on the
fact that all the accused had acted in connivance with each other,
and, since the charge of conspiracy, and, involvement of accused
nos.2 to 8, has not been proved, the question is whether it can be
handiwork of single person to commit the alleged ofence, has
fallen. It is pertinent to note that the applicant was on bail during
the trial. After the conviction, he is in custody from 20th
December, 2019. Appeal may not come up for hearing shortly. The
maximum sentence awarded by the trial Court for the ofence for
which he is seven years. It is a short term sentence. Considering
the submissions, case for suspension of sentence is made out.
:: O R D E R ::
(i) Interim Application No.1266 of 2021, is
allowed;
(ii) During the pendency of Appeal No.40 of 2020,
the sentence of imprisonment awarded vide
judgment an order dated 20th December, 2019,
passed by Special Judge (CBI) ACB, Pune,
convicting the applicant is suspended, and, he is
rpa 5/5 6 ia 1266 2021.doc
directed to be released on bail on executing P.R.
Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, with one or
more sureties in the like amount;
(iii) Applicant is permitted to furnish cash bail in the
sum of Rs.50,000/-, for a period of ten weeks, in
lieu of surety;
(iv) Applicant shall appear before trial Court to
mark his presence, once in six months;
(v) Interim Application No.1266 of 2021, stands
disposed of accordingly.
(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)
