Jharkhand High Court
Jolly Srivastava vs Union Of India Through Cbi on 6 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 663 of 2023
Jolly Srivastava ..... ... Appellant
Versus
Union of India through CBI ..... ... Respondent
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Apurv, 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. 8686 of 2023.
5. The sole appellant Jolly Srivastava, 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
two years and fine of Rs. 50,000/- and under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471
of the Indian Penal Code a common sentence for all IPC Sections R.I. for
two years and fine of Rs. 50,000/- 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
the appellant was an approved supplier with AHD, Bihar. He submits
that the appellant did not play any active role in the business and it was
her husband, who was looking all the affairs of the business and also
stated that the bill for purported supply, total supply has been duly made
and thereafter the bills were endorsed. It is only presumption of
prosecution that the materials have not been supplied. He further submits
that there was no evidence on record to prove that the appellant had
obtained any undue pecuniary benefit or has forged any document or
used any document which was forged as genuine, falsifying the charges
under Sections 468 and 471 of the IPC. He further submits that there was
no evidence on record to prove that the appellant has ever induced any
person or official of AHD to deliver any supply order or any payment
thereof to the appellant, and as such, falsifying the charge under section
420 of the IPC.
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
74 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
two 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. She would also
submit her passport, if any, before the learned trial court and the
appellant and her 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/-
