Delhi High Court
Baij Nath Mittal vs State Thr.C.B.I. on 31 May, 2013
Author: S. P. Garg
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RESERVED ON : 13th MAY, 2013
DECIDED ON : 31st MAY, 2013
+ CRL.A. 1037/2012 & CRL.M.B.Nos.285/2013 & 1633/2012
BAIJ NATH MITTAL ..... Appellant
Through : Ms.Rebecca M.John, Sr.Advocate
with Mr.Kushdeep Gaur &
Mr.Harsh Bora, Advocates.
versus
STATE THR.C.B.I. ..... Respondent
Through : Ms.Rajdipa Behura, Spl.P.P.
AND
+ CRL.A. 1090/2012 & CRL.M.B.1701/2012
MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA ..... Appellant
Through : Mr.Vishal Gosain, Advocate with
Mr.Kushdeep Gaur & Mr.Harsh
Bora, Advocates.
versus
STATE THR.CBI ..... Respondent
Through : Ms.Rajdipa Behura, Spl.P.P.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J.
CRL.M.B.Nos.285/2013 & 1633/2012 in CRL.A.1037/2012 &
CRL.M.B.1701/2012 in CRL.A.1090/2012
1. The appellants- Baij Nath Mittal and Mukesh Kumar Gupta
seek suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. I have heard the
counsel for the appellants and learned Spl.P.P. Apparently, allegations
against the appellants are very serious whereby they allegedly embezzled/
misappropriated ` 1,46,23,041/- having substantial value in 1991. This
amount was meant for eradication of leprosy in India. Instead of utilising
the amount for noble cause, the convicts in conspiracy under Section 120
B IPC utilized the said amount for their own personal benefits. During the
process, they allegedly forged documents; opened fictitious accounts etc.
On that score, the appellants deserve no leniency.
2. Baij Nath Mittal is in custody since 16.08.2012. As per
nominal roll dated 29.11.2012, he has undergone three months and sixteen
days incarceration as on 01.12.2012. He also earned remission for fifteen
days. The custody period has since increased to about ten months. Son of
the appellant volunteered to deposit 25% of the embezzled amount
without prejudice and subject to outcome of the appeal. The appellant is
aged about 73 years and is suffering from various ailments including
cardiac disease. He was on bail throughout the trial. He did not misuse the
liberty granted to him. He is not involved in any other criminal case and is
not a previous convict. The appeal is not likely to be heard in near future.
Co-convict K.C.Mittal who was awarded RI for three years is already on
bail and his substantive sentence has been suspended. The appellant has
deposited the fine amount.
3. Allegations against the appellant- Mukesh Kumar Gupta are
that he in conspiracy with Baij Nath Mittal opened fictitious account in
the name of Sat Prakash. Substantial amount was transferred to that
account and was withdrawn by issuing self cheques. The said cash was
used by Baij Nath Mittal. Mukesh Kumar Gupta has been awarded RI for
five years. He is in custody since 16.08.2012. As per nominal roll dated
23.10.2012, he has undergone two months and ten days incarceration as
on 25.10.2012. He also earned remission for five days. The custody period
has since increased to about ten months. During the pendency of the trial,
he was on bail and there are no allegations that he misused the liberty
granted to him. He is not involved in any other criminal case and is not a
previous convict. The appeal is not likely to be heard in near future. He
has deposited the fine amount.
4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
substantive sentence of the appellant- Baij Nath Mittal is suspended till
the disposal of the appeal on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of `
3 lacs with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial
Court subject to his depositing 25% of the embezzled amount of `
1,46,23,041/- with the Registrar General of this Court. Appellant's son
states that he will deposit the required amount by Monday i.e. on
03.06.2013. The amount will be deposited at the first instance with the
Registrar General of this Court. In the meanwhile, CBI shall verify if the
eradication of leprosy programme is in existence and if it is found to be in
existence, this money will be transferred to the said organization to utilize
for the eradication of the leprosy. This amount shall be without prejudice
subject to outcome of the appeal.
5. Substantive sentence of the appellant- Mukesh Kumar Gupta
is suspended till the disposal of the appeal on his furnishing personal bond
in the sum of ` 3 lacs with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction
of the Trial Court.
6. The applications stand disposed of.
CRL.A.1037/2012 & CRL.A.1090/2012
List in due course.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
MAY 31, 2013
tr
