Dr. Vijay Shankar Singh @ Vijay ... vs The Union Of India Through Cbi
2023 Latest Caselaw 3754 Jhar

                                   1


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                   Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 692 of 2023


    Dr. Vijay Shankar Singh @ Vijay Shankar Singh .....        ...   Appellant
                                Versus
    The Union of India through CBI
                                              .....      ...    Respondent
                             --------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

------

    For the Petitioner       :       Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
    For the CBI              :      Mr. Anil Kumar, A.S.G.I.
                             :       Ms Chandana Kumari, A.C. to A.S.G.I.
                             ------
02/ 06.10.2023         Admit.
     2.          Issue Notice.
     3.          Call for the Lower Court Records.

4. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned A.S.G.I. appearing for the CBI waives notice on behalf of the CBI.

I.A. No. 8869 of 2023.

5. The sole appellant Dr. Vijay Shankar Singh @ Vijay Shankar Singh, by way of the aforesaid I.A., prays for confirmation of provisional bail granted to him for 60 days by order dated 28.08.2023, passed in R.C. Case No. 48(A)/1996 by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VII-cum-Special Judge, CBI-II (AHD), Ranchi.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant is convicted along with others in connection with R.C. Case No. 48(A)/1996 for the offences under section 120B r/w 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code, section 420, 467, 468, 471 of I.P.C. and under Section 13(1)(c) & (d) r/w section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and has directed the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) for the offence under section 120B r/w S. 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for six months, and further rigorous imprisonment for three years to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) for the offence under section 420, 467, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of

payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple Imprisonment for six months and further rigorous imprisonment for three years to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) for the offence under Section 13(2) r/w section 13 (1) (c), 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. All these sentences were directed to run concurrently and the period undergone shall be set off has been ordered.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant was found guilty by the learned trial court below only for the issuance of requisition (Ext. 126/8) which was never processed or used in the commission of the offence. He submits that appellant was found guilty by the learned trial court only on the basis of exhibit 126/8 but the learned trial court failed to consider the important point/ exhibit which are exhibit H and H/1 which were the letters issued by the appellant addressed to the D.A.H.O, Ranchi by which the appellant had requested to the D.A.H.O, Ranchi to cancel the earlier requisition as well as receiving. He submits that both the letters (Exhibit H and H/1) were the documents of the prosecution which was earlier exhibited in RC Case No. 47(A)/96 on behalf of prosecution. He submits that the appellant was the prosecution witness in other two cases of the fodder scam RC 31(A)/96 and RC 47(A)/96 and he was examined as PW-23 and PW- 66 respectively on behalf of the prosecution. He submits that though the requisition related to the appellant Ext. 126/8 was never been used and processed in this case however, said requisition has already been withdrawn by the appellant vide exhibit H and H/1 and both the letters were written by the appellant to the D.A.H.O, Ranchi much prior to initiation of instant case (RC 48(A)/1996). He submits that the learned trial court has not considered the Exhibit H and H/1 of the appellant while deciding the case of the appellant, rather, those exhibits were used by the learned trial court for another accused (Dr. Anil Kumar Singh, accused No. 20) which is evident from perusal of page number 252 of the impugned judgement. He submits that no requisition in plain paper with respect to any article has been used by the office of D.A.H.O, Ranchi for the purpose of

passing of any bills or for withdrawal of any money. He submits that that total 53 cases had been registered by the C.B.I related to fodder scam and in all the cases the C.B.I had found that the many doctors had issued the requisition in plain paper but those doctors was not been made as an accused in any of the cases except in the instant case. He submits that not a single prosecution witness out of total 617 prosecution witnesses has stated anything against the appellant with respect to the involvement of the appellant in the offence. He submits that appellant who was posted as B.A.H.O at Bero, Ranchi, Ranchi and working under the Government of Jharkhand on 22.08.2001 at the time of granting Prosecution Sanction (Ext. 323/2) and no prosecution sanction has been granted by the State of Jharkhand against the appellant. However, the C.B.I has obtained the prosecution sanction against the appellant by the Government of Bihar (Exhibit-323/2) on 22.08.2001 which is completely invalid as it had been issued by Government of Bihar. He submits that the main Investigating Officer of this case has specifically stated that the requisition was not used to withdraw the money from the treasury as such no loss to the government or no gain to any accused person including the appellant from the said requisition. He submits that learned trial court below has failed to appreciate the fact that the requisition of the appellant was not used in Commission of offence in any manner and in absence of any evidence in this point the learned trial court below has wrongly held the appellant guilty. He submits that the issuance of the requisition by the appellant does not make out any ingredient of under Section 120B r/w 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 13(1)(c) & (d) r/w section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

8. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned A.S.G.I. appearing for the CBI submits that the case of the appellant has been discussed in para- 36 to 41 of the judgment. He submits that the learned trial court has passed the said judgment after looking into the evidence available on record and in such type of cases, leniency is not required. However, he does not dispute that the appellant has been imposed the maximum sentence of three years and has been granted

provisional bail.

9. In view of the above submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the CBI as well as further considering the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, the provisional bail granted to the appellant vide order dated 28.08.2023 passed by Additional Judicial Commissioner-VII-cum-Special Judge, CBI-II (AHD), Ranchi, in R.C Case No. 48(A)/1996, is confirmed, subject to deposit of 50% of the fine amount before the learned 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 addresses or mobile numbers without permission of the learned Trial Court.

10. The aforesaid I.A. stands disposed of.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) satyarthi/-