Jharkhand High Court
Dr. Anil Kumar Singh vs The Union Of India Through Cbi on 6 October, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 691 of 2023
Dr. Anil Kumar 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. 8868 of 2023.
5. The sole appellant Dr. Anil Kumar 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 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 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)(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 appellant was found guilty by the learned trial court only for
the Issuance of requisition but neither any requisition was exhibited
nor proved in this case. He submits that the learned trial court has
held guilty to the appellant only on the basis of exhibit H/2, H/3 and
H/4 which were the letters issued by the appellant addressed to the
D.A.H.O, Ranchi from which the appellant had requested to the
D.A.H.O, Ranchi either to supply the material or to cancel the earlier
requisition as well as receiving of the appellant. He submits that as
per impugned judgement the appellant was found guilty only for
issuance of requisition issued by the appellant but during course of
trial no requisition/ indent related to the appellant has been
exhibited either on behalf of the prosecution or defence. He submits
that the learned trial court has held the appellant guilty for issuance
of requisition for supply of the materials but in absence of any
requisition related to the appellant the learned trial court has
wrongly held the appellant guilty. He submits that it is duty of the
prosecution to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt by
producing oral or documentary evidence during the course of trial
but in the present case the prosecution has not produced any
documentary or oral evidence with respect to issuance of requisition/
indent by the appellant nor exhibited any requisition issued by the
appellant. He submits thatthe learned trial court had held the
appellant guilty only on the basis of three letters (Ext. H/2 to H/4) of
the appellant but those letters/ exhibits are not requisitions. He
submits that from perusal of page 252 of impugned judgement, it is
evident that the learned trial court has opined that the appellant has
issued requisition/ indent related to the instant case which are
exhibit H to H/4 but in the matter of fact the exhibit H and H/1 are
letters related to another accused (Dr. Vijay Shankar Singh accused
no. 54) of the instant case and exhibit H/2 to H/4 are the letters of
the appellant addressed to D.A.H.O, Ranchi and none of those
letters are requisition/ Indent either Issued by the appellant or by
another accused (Dr. Vijay Shankar Singh accused no. 54) who was
related with the exhibit H and H/1. He submits that since no
requisition/ indent related to the appellant has been proved as such
the learned trial court has wrongly held the appellant guilty in this
case. He submits that though the learned trial court has held guilty
to the appellant only for the issuance of one requisition but no
charge has been framed against the appellant for issuance of any
requisition in this case He submits that since no charges has been
framed against the appellant about the issuance of the requisition
hence, the appellant has not given any opportunity to take his
defence on the aforesaid point during course of trial as such the
conviction of the appellant only for the issuance of requisition cannot
be sustained. He submits that charges has been framed against the
appellant with respect to other allegations for which the appellant
has faced trial about 22 years in this case but the learned trial court
did not found the appellant guilty on the allegation for which the
charges has been framed against the appellant whereas, the
appellant was found guilty for the offence for which neither the
charges has been framed against the appellant nor any statement
has been recorded by the learned trial court at the time of recording
of the statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C. 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 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
requisitions in plain paper but those doctors were not been made as
an accused in any of the cases except in the instant case.
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/-
