Jharkhand High Court
Dr. Ram Nath Ram @ Ram Nath Ram vs The Union Of India Through C.B.I on 8 April, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 216 of 2022
---
1. Dr. Ram Nath Ram @ Ram Nath Ram
2. Dr. Rajendra Baitha @ Rajendra Baitha --- --- --- Appellants
Versus
The Union of India through C.B.I --- --- --- Respondent
---
CORAM: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
Through: Video Conferencing
For the Appellants: Mr. Vishnu Kr. Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Prashant Pallav, ASGI and
Mr. Navneet Sahay & Ms. Shivani Jaluka, A.C to ASGI
---
02/ 08.04.2022 In view of submission of learned counsel for the appellants, surviving
defects no. 9 (i) is ignored.
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 appellants has prayed for confirmation of
provisional bail granted to the appellants for 60 days vide order dated
15.02.2022 through I.A. No. 2666/2022.
5. Both the appellants stand 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 have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for three
years each with a fine of Rs. 50,000/- each and default sentence under section
120-B of the Indian Penal Code; R.I for three years each with a fine of
Rs. 50,000/- each and default sentence under sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471
and 477A of the Indian Penal Code and R.I for three years each with a fine of
Rs. 1,00,000/- each and default sentence under section 13(2) read with section
13(1)(d) 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 appellants submits that appellants were doctors
in the Animal Husbandry Department. Appellant no. 1 was posted at
Chakradharpur while Appellant no. 2 was posted at Seraikella. Learned counsel
for the appellants submits that both the appellants have been convicted by the
learned Trial Court on an erroneous finding that they have fraudulently allowed
withdrawal of money from the Government Exchequer by certifying fake bills,
invoices, etc. against non-existing supply by the suppliers. 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 P.C. Act and has been pleased to grant provisional bail to the
appellants, which may be confirmed.
7. Learned counsel for the CBI has opposed the prayer. He submits that the
prosecution has been able to successfully establish the charges against the
appellants and other accused persons on the basis of oral and documentary
evidence.
8. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants
and C.B.I and the facts and circumstances noted above, provisional bail granted
to the appellants 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 each
imposed by the learned Trial Court and if not wanted in connection with any
other case. Appellants would not leave the country without permission of the
learned Trial Court. They would also submit their passport, if any, before the
learned Trial Court and appellants and their bailors shall not change their
address or mobile nos. without permission of the learned Trial Court.
9. I.A. No. 2666/2022 stands disposed of accordingly.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)
Ranjeet/
