Jharkhand High Court
Dr. Rameshwar Prasad 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. 686 of 2023
Dr. Rameshwar Prasad 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. 8863 of 2023.
5. The sole appellant Dr. Rameshwar Prasad 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 the appellant was found guilty by the learned trial court only
for the issuance of requisitions (Ext. 126/3 to 126/5) which were
never processed or used in the commission of the offence. He
submits that the learned trial court has held guilty to the appellant
only for the issuance of requisitions (Exhibit- 126/3 to 126/5) but no
charge has been framed against the appellant for issuance of
aforesaid requisition in this case. He further submits that that the
appellant was held guilty for issuance of requisitions (Exhibit- 126/3
to 126/5) but no question has been asked by the learned trial court
at the time of recording the statement of the appellant under section
313 of Cr.P.C. about the aforesaid requisitions (Exhibit- 126/3 to
126/5) in the above mentioned case. 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
further submits that no requisitions 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
further 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. He further submits that not a single
prosecution witness out of total 617 prosecution witnesses have
stated anything against the appellant with respect to the
involvement of the appellant in the offence. He further submits that
the appellant who was posted as B.A.H.O at Ormanjhi, 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 granted b y the State of Jharkhand against
the appellant.
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/-
