Jharkhand High Court
Saraswati Chandra vs Vrs on 22 April, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 196 of 2022
Saraswati Chandra ............Appellant
Vrs.
Union of India through C.B.I. (AHD) .......... Respondent
.......
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
For the Appellant : Mr. Dharmendra Kr. Tiwari, Advocate
For the CBI : M/s Prashant Pallav, ASGI, Navneet Sahay,
and Shivani Jaluka, A.C. to ASGI
04/22.04.2022 Admit.
2. Call for the Lower Court Record in connection with R.C. Case
No. 47(A)/1996-PAT from the court of Learned Special Judge-V, CBI
(AHD 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. 3140 of 2022.
4. Appellant stands convicted in connection with R.C. Case No.
47(A)/1996 - PAT vide impugned judgment of conviction dated
15.02.2022 and order of sentence of the same date passed by the Learned
Special Judge-V, CBI (AHD 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) of P.C Act r/w section 13(1)(c)(d)
of P.C Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years with a fine of Rs.
1,00,000/- under Section 120B of I.P.C and R.I for 3 years with a fine of
Rs. 1,00,000/- under Section 420,409,467,468,471 and 477A of the
Indian Penal Code and default sentences. All the sentences were directed
to run concurrently.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant (A-
53) was the proprietrix of the firm M/s S.R. Enterprises. The learned
Trial Court has discussed the role of the appellant at para 217 to 220 of
the impugned judgment. Learned Trial Court has itself taken note that
though she was the proprietrix of the firm but all the affairs of the firm
was looked after by her husband Sri Mahendra Prasad, who was the
lieutenant of kingpin of the scam, Dr. S.B.Sinha. It is submitted that
allegedly payment of Rs. 87,91,330/- was made on the basis of false
bills and false allotment orders without any actual supply of veterinary
medicines to the Animal Husbandry Department. The learned Trial Court
has also taken note of the evidence that Sri Mahendra Prasd was the care
taker of the firm M/s S.R. Enterprises, Patna. However, treating the
appellant to be the beneficiary of the amount received by the firm and
considering the nature of her involvement, she has been convicted for
the charges but lesser sentence of a maximum period of 3 years was
imposed under the provisions of I.P.C. Learned Trial Court has therefore
been pleased to grant provisional bail vide order dated 15.02.2022,
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 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. 3140/2022 stands disposed of accordingly.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)
A.Mohanty
