Jharkhand High Court
Dr. Hira Lal vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Cbi on 16 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 743 of 2023
Dr. Hira Lal ... Appellant
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand through CBI ... Respondent
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Appellant : Mr. Gopal Krishna Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Chanchal Chhaya, Advocate
For the CBI : Mr. Anil Kumar, A.S.G.I.
-----
02/16.10.2023 Admit.
2. Call for the Lower Court Records.
3. Issue Notice. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned A.S.G.I. appearing for the CBI
waives notice on behalf of the CBI.
I.A. No. 9422 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.10,000/-. Further, a common sentence for Section 420, 467, 468 and
471 of the Indian Penal Code and R.I. of three years and fine of
Rs.20,000/- has been imposed. The appellant has also been convicted
under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act and he has been sentenced to undergo R.I.
for three years with fine of Rs.20,000/- 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 has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years and he has
been granted provisional bail vide order dated 28.08.2023. He further
submits that there is neither any direct or circumstantial evidence to
establish the charges framed by the learned Trial Court and just in
mechanical manner impugned judgment of conviction has been passed. He
further submits that although the learned Trial Court found inconsistency in
the evidence of P.Ws., but relied on only that part which were incriminating
in nature. He submits that the learned Trial Court has convicted the
appellant only on the basis of suspicion and it is cardinal principle of law
that suspicion however strong cannot take the place of evidence. He
further submits that the learned Trial Court convicted the appellant merely
on the basis of Ext.126/2 for requisition/indent/letters which was taken into
evidence on the basis of examination of P.W.211 Devendra Nath Roy who
was an incompetent witness to prove the signature of the appellant, as it
was stated by him in his evidence that it was not written in his presence,
having no knowledge with the exhibit, since he was not posted during that
period. He further submits that the learned Trial Court only on the basis of
Ext.126/2 convicted the appellant which is completely an unproved
document in the eyes of law. He also submits that there is no evidence in
the entire record that there has been any material receiving through this
requisition/indent and moreover, as per the star witness of the Trial Court-
P.W.585, supplier's bill having no material receipts, were never used in
withdrawing money.
7. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned A.S.G.I. appearing for the CBI submits that
the case of the appellant has been discussed in paras-36 to 41 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.9422 of 2023 is disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/
