Jharkhand High Court
Dr. Radha Raman Sahay @ Radha Raman ... vs Vrs on 6 May, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 112 of 2022
Dr. Radha Raman Sahay @ Radha Raman Sahay ............Appellant
Vrs.
Union of India through CBI .......... Respondent
.......
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
For the Appellant : Mr. Ashish Kumar, Advocate
For the CBI : M/s Prashant Pallav, ASGI, Navneet Sahay,
and Shivani Jaluka, A.C. to ASGI
05/06.05.2022 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for
the CBI on the prayer for suspension of sentence made through I.A. No.
1813 of 2022.
2. 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 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) r/w Section
13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 4 years with a
fine of Rs. 1 Lakh u/s 120 B I.P.C. and R.I. for 4 years with a fine of Rs.
5 Lakh u/s 13(2) of the P.C. Act and default sentences. All the sentences
were directed to run concurrently.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that role of the
appellant (A-104) as Drawing and Disbursing Officer in the office of
R.D., AHD, Ranchi has been discussed in para 140 to 144 of the
impugned judgment. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court has
arrived at an erroneous finding that the appellant being the drawing and
disbursing officer had without scrutiny of the vouchers, caused
fraudulent withdrawal leading to huge loss to the government exchequer.
It is submitted that the appellant had taken a plea that he was the
Assistant Director, Headquarters and the Regional Director, AHD,
Ranchi, was in real sense, the administrative and budget controlling head
of the range. The Regional Directorate, Ranchi passed the suppliers'
bills, which led to fraudulent withdrawal from the Treasury. Therefore,
the findings of the learned CBI Court are not based on proper
appreciation of evidence and the responsibilities entrusted under the
rules upon the appellant as Assistant Director, AHD, Ranchi. It is
submitted that the appellant has completed about 2 years 20 days of
custody against the maximum sentence of 4 years awarded under both
sections of I.P.C and P.C. act. Therefore, appellant may be enlarged on
bail by suspending his sentence 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.
4. Learned counsel for the CBI has opposed the prayer on merits.
She submits that appellant being the drawing and disbursing officer was
primarily responsible for the fraudulent withdrawal as he not only failed
to scrutinize fake invoices against fake allotment but connived with the
accused / suppliers causing huge loss to the government exchequer.
Learned counsel for the CBI however does not dispute that appellant has
completed 2 years and 20 days of custody against the maximum sentence
of 4 years under both provisions of IPC and PC Act, which is more than
half of the custody.
5. 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 under gone by the appellant in
connection with the instant R.C. Case 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 against the
maximum sentence of 4 years in the instant case, I am inclined to grant
the privilege of suspension of sentence to the appellant by enlarging him
on bail.
Accordingly, let the appellant be released on bail, during the
pendency of this appeal, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Five 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 the fine amount of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy
Five Thousand) 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
bailers shall not change their address or mobile nos. without permission
of the learned Trial Court.
6. I.A. No. 1813 of 2022 stands disposed of accordingly. I.A. No.
3290 of 2022 for early hearing is closed
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)
A.Mohanty
