Jharkhand High Court
Beck Julius vs Vrs on 16 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 175 of 2022
Beck Julius ............Appellant
Vrs.
The Union of India through Central Bureau of Investigation.......... Respondent
.......
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
For the Appellant : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate
For the CBI : M/s Prashant Pallav, DSGI, Bajrang Kumar,
A.C. to DSGI
06/16.09.2022 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for
the CBI on the prayer for suspension of sentence made through I.A. No.
2442 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.50,000/- u/s 120 B I.P.C. and R.I. for 4 years with a fine of
Rs.50,000/- u/s 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act and default
sentences. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant (A-1) submits that appellant
was Secretary, AHD from 05.05.1994. Learned CBI Court has discussed
the role of the appellant at para 293 to 295 of the impugned judgment.
The charges against the appellant was that he received draft
appropriation accounts for the financial year 1994-95 from A.G. Bihar on
26.10.1995. These were in excess to the budgetary allocation of Rs.74.40
crores for the financial year 1994-95 whereas the department incurred
expenditure to the tune of Rs. 245.01 crore. The draft appropriation
accounts were seen by the appellant on 26.10.1995 but he displayed
inexplicable insensitivity and routinely forwarded the said accounts to
the Director, AHD. He did not make any effort to identify the reasons
attributable to such colossal expenditure. Prosecution witness PW. No.
559, the then Additional Finance Commissioner also brought into notice
about heavy excess withdrawals by AHD during the period 24.10.1995
and 20.12.1995 but no steps were initiated to find out the causes. It is
alleged that appellant has also obtained favours on 14 occasions such as
air travel tickets etc. from proprietor of the firm involved in AHD scam.
He has also availed hospitality at hotel in Kolkata.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant in his
written arguments duly submitted that he was never HOD of budget head
2403 rather the Director was the HOD of the budget head 2403. The
draft appropriation account in question, never came before him. All the
budget were passed before his joining as Secretary, AHD. Not a single
file as alleged by P.W. No.559 was brought on record by the prosecution
neither was it placed before the appellant. Appellant never stalled
departmental inquiry against Dr. Sheshmuni Ram. So far as alleged
tickets are concerned, those air tickets were purchased by Mr. Nadeem,
which could be evident from perusal of the purchase register. Learned
counsel for the appellant submits that apart from the above, appellant has
remained in custody for more than half of the sentence of 24 months
against the maximum sentence of 4 years under his conviction. On
ground of parity also, as has been accorded to other co-convicts, not only
in the instant R.C. case but other R.C cases also, this Court may be
pleased to enlarge the appellant on bail. Appellant is 79 years old.
4. Learned counsel for the CBI has opposed the prayer on merits. He
submits that the prosecuting agency CBI has been able to adduce both
oral and documentary evidence to show the complicity of the appellant
as Secretary of the Animal Husbandry Department during certain period
of scam under the instant R.C. Case No. 47(A)/1996. The excess
expenditure, much beyond the budgetary allocation could not have been
without his connivance. However, learned counsel for the CBI does not
dispute the fact that appellant has completed half of the custody as on
date.
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.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty
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. 2442 of 2022 stands disposed of accordingly.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)
A.Mohanty
