Jharkhand High Court
Jagdish Sharma vs The Union Of India Through Cbi on 8 April, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 249 of 2022
---
Jagdish Sharma --- --- --- Appellant
Versus
The Union of India through CBI --- --- --- Respondent
---
CORAM: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
Through: Video Conferencing
For the Appellant: Mr. Indajit Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Prashant Pallav, ASGI and
Mr. Navneet Sahay & Ms. Shivani Jaluka, A.C to ASGI
---
02/ 08.04.2022 Defect No. 9(i) is ignored as it relates to the copy of the impugned
judgment supplied by the learned Trial Court. Learned counsel for the appellant
undertakes to remove the remaining defect, as under, by 13.04.2022.
9(ii) Date of sentence may be corrected at para-1, aggrieved, prayer and also at
I.A.
Office to place the file for inspection and removal of defects, on
requisition being made, within this time.
2. Admit.
3. Call for the lower court records in connection with R.C. Case No.
47(A)/1996-Pat from the court of learned Special Judge-V, C.B.I (A.H.D Scam
Cases), Ranchi.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has prayed for confirmation of
provisional bail granted to the appellant for 60 days vide order dated 15.02.2022
through I.A. No. 2954/2022.
5. The sole Appellant stands convicted in connection with R.C. Case No.
47(A)/1996-Pat vide impugned judgment dated 15.02.2022 passed by the
Learned Special Judge-V, C.B.I (A.H.D Scam Cases), Ranchi for the offences
under sections 120-B read with sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 and 477A of
the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of
Prevention of Corruption Act and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for three
years with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and default sentence under section 120-B of
the Indian Penal Code and R.I for three years with a fine of Rs. 50,000/- and
default sentence under section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, vide
impugned order of sentence dated 15.02.2022. All the sentences have been
ordered to run concurrently.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Trial Court
has discussed the role of the appellant (A-158) as Chairman of P.A.C and
rendered its finding at para-84, 85 and 94 of the impugned judgment. Learned
CBI Court has held the appellant guilty for the alleged offences as he was the
Chairman of P.A.C from April 1992 to January 1995 and was alleged to be
instrumental in creating hindrance in any inquiry against the accused officials /
suppliers of Animal Husbandry Department. However, learned Trial Court upon
considering the lesser gravity of the charges has awarded maximum sentence of
three years under the relevant provisions of Indian Penal Code and Prevention
of Corruption Act and has been pleased to grant provisional bail to the
appellant, which may be confirmed.
7. Learned counsel for the CBI has opposed the prayer. He submits that
appellant being the Chairman of P.A.C during the subject period was found to
have been instrumental in scuttling the inquiry relating to A.H.D Scam. He
further submits that the prosecution has been able to successfully establish the
charges against the appellant and other accused persons on the basis of oral and
documentary evidence.
8. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant
and C.B.I and the facts and circumstances noted above, provisional bail granted
to the appellant vide order dated 15.02.2022 by the Court of learned Special
Judge-V, C.B.I. (AHD Scam Cases), Ranchi in connection with R.C. Case No.
47(A)/1996-Pat is confirmed, subject to deposit of 50% of fine amount imposed
by the learned Trial Court 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 and the appellant and his bailors shall not change their address or mobile
nos. without permission of the learned Trial Court.
9. I.A. No. 2954/2022 stands disposed of accordingly.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)
Ranjeet/
