Jharkhand High Court
Jagmohan Lal Kakkar vs Union Of India Through Central ... on 6 May, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 145 of 2022
----
Jagmohan Lal Kakkar .............. Appellant
Versus
Union of India through Central Bureau of
Investigation (AHD), Ranchi ............... Respondent
---
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
---
Through: Video Conferencing
--
For the Appellant : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate,
For the Resp.-CBI : Ms. Shivani Jaluka, A.C to A.S.G.I
---
05/06.05.2022 Heard learned senior counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for
the C.B.I on the prayer for suspension of sentence made through I.A No. 2908 of
2022.
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 dated 21.02.2022 passed by learned Special Judge-V, CBI,
(A.H.D. Scam Cases), Ranchi for the offences under Section 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 the Prevention of Corruption Act and has
been sentenced to undergo R.I for 4 years with a fine of Rs. 50 Lakhs under
Section 120B of I.P.C.; R.I for 4 years with a fine of Rs. 50 Lakhs under Section
420,409,467,468,471 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code and default sentences.
No separate sentence has been awarded under the P.C. Act. All the sentences
were directed to run concurrently.
Learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant (A-
32) was Partner of M/s. Navketan Enterprises, Ranchi against whom it was
alleged by CBI that the Firm purportedly supplied yellow maize and GNC worth
Rs. 2,49,13,577/- during Financial Year 1990-91 to 1993-94 and received such
amount through 44 CNC bills. An amount of Rs. 2,82,600/- was found to be
fraudulently received against fake supply as the registration number of nine
trucks were found to be of non-commercial vehicles. The appellant had taken a
plea that he had made supply of equipment and his firm had received payments
against genuine supply. However, learned trial court has arrived at an erroneous
finding without proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The role of the
appellant has been discussed at Paras-181 to 185 of the impugned judgment.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has completed 2
years and 26 days of custody against the maximum sentence of 4 years awarded
under IPC. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant may be
granted bail by suspending his sentence as he has completed more than half of the
custody on the principles of parity as has been applied by this Court in cases of
similar convicts/appellants under Fodder Scam cases, not only in connection with
the instant R.C Case but convictions under other R.C cases also.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that despite the fact that though,
allegation against the appellant is that he received fraudulent payments to the tune
of Rs. 2,82,600, but learned trial court has imposed disproportionate amount of
fine of Rs. 1 Crore. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the findings
of learned trial court as against accused no. 39 Suresh Kumar Dubey against
whom the fraudulent payments were Rs. 26,86,493/- but the fine amount imposed
was only 2.5 Lakhs. Similarly in the case of convict, Satyendra Kumar Mehra (A-
47) the fraudulent withdrawal was Rs. 53,31,044/- whereas the fine amount
imposed is only 15 Lakhs. It is submitted that there is disparity in the imposition
of fine as against the appellant compared to other convicts, who had fraudulently
withdrawn much more amount from the department. Therefore, this court may
consider sympathetically while imposing the condition of deposit of fine.
Learned counsel for the CBI has opposed the prayer. She submits that the
appellant was also responsible for fake supplies and receipt of payment of Rs.
2,82,600 fraudulently has been successfully established by the CBI on oral and
documentary evidence. Learned counsel for the CBI further submits that on the
basis of joint inspection in the presence of learned counsel for the parties and CBI
official, it has been found that the appellant has completed 2 years and 26 days of
custody i.e. more than half of the custody against the sentence of 4 years awarded
upon him.
I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties
and taken note of the materials relied upon from the lower court record and also
the period of custody undergone by the appellant in connection with the instant
R.C Case No. No. 47(A)/1996-PAT. Having regard to the totality of facts and
circumstances and that the appellant has remained in custody for more than half
of the sentence awarded in the instant case, I am inclined to grant the privilege of
suspension of sentence to the appellant by enlarging him on bail.
Having considered the further submissions of learned counsel for the
appellant, it appears that as regards the appellant the fine amount imposed is of 1
Crore as compared to other convict such as A-39 or A-47 against whom the total
amount of fraudulent withdrawal amount is more. Therefore, as a condition of
bail the appellant shall deposit fine amount of Rs. 2 Lakhs.
Accordingly, let the above-named appellant be released on bail,
during the pendency of this appeal, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Fifty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the
satisfaction of learned Special Judge-V, CBI (AHD Scam Cases), Ranchi in
connection with R.C Case No. 47(A)/1996-PAT, subject to deposit of fine
amount of Rs. 2 Lakhs in the Court below 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.
I.A No. 2908 of 2022 stands disposed of accordingly.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)
Jk/
