Jharkhand High Court
Shyam Sunder Sharma vs The Union Of India Through Cbi ... on 6 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 664 of 2023
Shyam Sunder Sharma ..... ... Appellant
Versus
The Union of India through CBI (AHD) ..... ... Respondent
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Tiwari, 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. 8871 of 2023.
5. The sole appellant Shyam Sunder Sharma, 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 120-B read with Sections
409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477-A of the Indian Penal Code with R.I. for
three years and fine of Rs. 4,00,000/- and under Sections 420, 467, 468,
471 of the Indian Penal Code a common sentence for all IPC Sections
R.I. for three years and fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default of payment of
fine, further SI for six months in each Section. 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 is that he is the power of attorney holder and employee of M/s
Durga Medical Hall, Bhagalpur, and is not a beneficiary and he was the
only staff of the firm and admitted that he is the salary paid staff of
the said firm. This fact has also been confessed by the co-accused
Sushil Kumar Jha (since deceased) in R.C. case No. 48(A)/1996 and
other cases. This defense of the appellant has been corroborated by the
statement of this appellant u/s 313 of the Cr.P.C. This appellant has
clearly stated before this learned trial court that he knows nothing about
the opening the firm and management of the firm. Everything was done
by the Principal of the power of attorney and this appellant acted on the
strength of power of attorney given by the Principal Om Prakash
Sharma. He further submits that the appellant now became 67 years
unable to pay the fine amount of Rs.4,20,000/-. As such imposing of
arbitrary fine is quite illegal in the eyes of law as the appellant has now
become pauper and now the appellant has become helpless and there is
no means of earning and the appellant is facing the trial since the date of
institution of the case since more than 27 years and the appellant is not in
position to pay the fine amount; and as such lenient view may be taken
and nominal fine may be directed to be deposited by this 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 paras-43 and
87 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.)
Amitesh/-
