Jharkhand High Court
Sandeep Mallick @ Sandeep Malik @ ... vs The Union Of India Through Cbi on 8 April, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 194 of 2022
---
Sandeep Mallick @ Sandeep Malik @ Sandip Mallik
@ Sandip Malik @ Sandip Mallik --- 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. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Prashant Pallav, ASGI and
Mr. Navneet Sahay & Ms. Shivani Jaluka, A.C to ASGI
---
03/ 08.04.2022 Admit.
2. 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.
3. 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. 2873/2022.
4. 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)(c)(d) of
Prevention of Corruption Act and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for three
years with a fine of Rs. 50,000/- 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 sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 and 477A of the Indian
Penal Code. No separate sentence has been awarded for the offences under the
P.C. Act, vide impugned order of sentence dated 15.02.2022. All the sentences
have been ordered to run concurrently.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant (A-51) was
alleged to be the proprietor of M/s Hindustan Livestock Agency, Delhi and is
accused of making supply of cross breed bulls and castrated buff bulls during
the financial year 1991-92 to the Animal Husbandry Office at Chaibasa, Ranchi,
Palamau, Gumla, Lohardaga and Jamshedpur and fraudulently received
Rs. 16,40,075 through nine contingent bills. However, learned counsel has
submitted that the appellant has deposited the alleged amount. It is submitted
that the learned Trial Court has discussed the role of the appellant and rendered
its findings at para-214 to 216 of the impugned judgment. 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 has been pleased to grant provisional bail to the appellant, which may
be confirmed.
6. Learned counsel for the CBI has opposed the prayer. He 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.
7. 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.
8. I.A. No. 2873/2022 stands disposed of accordingly.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)
Ranjeet/
