Jharkhand High Court
Ravindra Kumar Mehra @ Ravi Mehra vs Union Of India Through Cbi on 9 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 667 of 2023
Ravindra Kumar Mehra @ Ravi Mehra ... Appellant
-Versus-
Union of India through CBI ... Respondent
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Appellant : Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate
For the CBI : Mr. Barjang Kumar, A.C. to Mr. Prashant Pallav, D.S.G.I.
-----
03/09.10.2023 Admit.
2. Call for the Lower Court Records.
3. Issue Notice. Mr. Bajrang Kumar, learned A.C. to D.S.G.I. appearing
for the CBI waives notice on behalf of the CBI.
I.A. No. 8704 of 2023
4. The said I.A. has been filed for confirmation of provisional bail
granted to the appellant vide order dated 28.08.2023 for a period of 60
days during pendency of the present appeal.
5. The appellant has been convicted for charge under Section 120(B)
read with Section 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477A of the Indian Penal
Code by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I.-II, (A.H.D.), Ranchi in R.C. Case
No.48(A)/1996 vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
28.08.2023 and he has been sentenced to R.I. for three years and fine of
Rs.1,00,000/-. Further, a common sentence for Section 420, 467, 468, 471
of the Indian Penal Code and R.I. of three years and fine of Rs.1,00,000/-
has been imposed and all the sentences have been directed to run
concurrently and in default of payment of fine, he has been further directed
to undergo S.I. for six months separately for each set off offences.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the
appellant was proprietor of M/s Arke Enterprises, Ranchi and he was a
genuine supplier to the AHD since long. He submits that the appellant was
an approved supplier of AHD and his rate was also approved by the Central
Purchase Committee. After obtaining the supply orders, the appellant
supplied the materials to the AHD and did the transportation of Ground Nut
Cake to the AHD. He further submits that none of the P.Ws. adduced even
a single word against the appellant and there is no material on record
available to show the complicity of the appellant. He also submits that the
appellant had supplied total quantity of materials to the AHD and made the
supply of Ground Nut Cake to the AHD. Nowhere in the charge-sheet, it has
been stated that a clear description has been given regarding the allegation
levelled against the appellant. The appellant was a bona fide businessman
and regular assesses of Sales Tax and Income Tax and he maintained all
books of accounts. The appellant had already shown all his
transactions/business in Sales Tax and Income Tax Departments.
7. Mr. Bajrang Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the CBI submits
that the case of the appellant has been discussed in paras-43 and 47 of the
judgment and the allegations have been found to be established. However,
learned counsel for the CBI does not dispute that the appellant has been
imposed maximum sentence of three years and granted provisional bail.
8. Having considered the submission of the learned counsel for the
appellant and CBI and in the facts and circumstances noted above, the
provisional bail granted to the appellant vide order dated 28.08.2023
passed by the learned 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.
9. Accordingly, I.A. No.8704 of 2023 is disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/
