Jharkhand High Court
Adhip Chandra Choudhary @ Adhip ... vs The Union Of India Through S.P on 8 April, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 174 of 2022
---
Adhip Chandra Choudhary @ Adhip Chandra
Choudhary @ Adhip Chand Choudhary --- --Appellant
Versus
The Union of India through S.P.,
CBI (AHD Scam), Ranchi. --- --- Respondent
---
CORAM: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
Through: Video Conferencing
For the Appellant: Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate
For the Respondent: M/s. Prashant Pallav, ASGI, Navneet
Sahay, Shivani Jaluka.
---
03/ 08.04.2022 Learned counsel for the appellant undertakes to remove the
following surviving defects by 13th April 2022:
9(ii) Execution of appellant at Vak. differs from his name
spelling at page no.1 and Vak.
2. Office to place the file for inspection and removal of defects on
requisition being made within this time.
3. Admit.
4. 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.
5. 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. 2384/2022.
6. 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 read with sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 and 477A of the Indian
Penal Code and R.I for three years with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- 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.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the discussions
regarding the role of the appellant (A-161) are at pargraph-301 to 304
of the impugned judgment. The appellant was the Commissioner,
Income Tax, Ranchi during the period 1994-96. It is alleged that he was
also In-charge of Dhanbad, Jamshedpur, Bokaro and Ranchi range of
Income-tax. The allegation against this appellant was that he had made
frantic efforts to dispose of the income-tax assessment of Dr. S.B. Sinha
and his wife Smt. Rama Sinha and received illegal gratification as well.
However, learned Trial Court upon considering the lesser gravity of the
offence 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 vide order dated 15.02.2022, which
may be confirmed.
8. Learned counsel for the CBI has opposed the prayer. He submits
that the appellant in capacity of Commissioner of Income-tax was in
conspiracy with the accused suppliers in disposing of their assessments
without proper inquiries and examination of ITRs.
9. 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 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.
10. I.A. No. 2384/2022 stands disposed of accordingly.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)
Shamim/
