Jharkhand High Court
Pradeep Kumar Choudhary vs Union Of India Through C.B.I on 18 October, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 711 of 2023
Pradeep Kumar Choudhary ..... Appellant
Versus
Union of India through C.B.I. ...... Respondent
----
CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Appellant(s) :- Ms. Moushmi Chatterjee, Advocate
For the C.B.I :- Mr. Anil Kumar, A.S.G.I.
Ms. Chandana Kumari, A.C. to A.S.G.I
Mr. Nitish Parth Sarthi, A.C. to A.S.G.I.
----
I.A. No. 9134 of 2023.
03/18.10.2023 This appeal was already admitted vide order dated
06.10.2023.
2. Heard Ms. Moushmi chatterjee, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. Anil Kumar, learned A.S.G.I., appearing for the
C.B.I.
3. This interlocutory application has been filed for
suspension of sentence of the appellant and release him on bail,
during the pendency of this appeal.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits
that by judgment dated 28.08.2023 the appellant is convicted
along with others in connection with R.C. Case No. 48(A)/1996 for
the offences under Section 120B read with Sections 409, 420, 467,
468, 471 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code, further convicted
under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code
and later on 01.09.2023 sentenced the appellant under Section
120-B read with Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477-A of the
Indian Penal Code R.I. for four years with fine of Rs. 3,00,000/-.
Further under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal
Code a common sentence for all IPC Sections R.I. for four years
with fine of Rs. 80,000/- and further ordered that 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.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
the appellant is an approved supplier with AHD, Bihar. She further
submits that the appellant has supplied the medicines to DAHO,
Ranchi but the I.O. has failed to cite any reason as to how the
conclusion has been arrived at that the said firm of the appellant
has not supplied the medicines. She submits that it is an admitted
case of the prosecution that the said firm of the appellant has
obtained supply orders from R.D., Ranchi and on the basis of
supply orders the appellant supplied medicines to DAHO, Ranchi.
The medicines were received by the competent authority of the
department and a certificate was issued on bills thereafter bills
were duly verified by the passing authority and then only the
payments were made to the appellant and it is only presumption of
prosecution that the materials have not been supplied. She further
submits that there was no evidence on record to prove that the
appellant did not supply materials worth Rs. 14,11,837.61/- and has
defrauded the said amount and in respect of the rest amount has
which has not been supplied, he has no liability as he had supplied
the entire amount falsifying the charges under section 420 of the
I.P.C.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that
the appellant has withdrawn amount of Rs. 14,11,837.61/- on
behalf of his firm namely, M/s S.M. Enterprises, Patna for the
purported supply of medicines. She submits when the defrauded
amount was more than 20 lakhs the learned trial court awarded
sentence of four years whereas on less then 20 lakhs of defrauded
amount the learned trial court awarded sentence of three years and
for a sum of Rs. 14,11,837.61/- the present appellant has been
awarded sentence of four years thus there is disparity in sentence,
so far as the appellant is concerned. She further submits that
identical was the situation in the case of Rajan Mehta Vs. State
of Jharkhand through C.B.I. in Criminal Appeal (Sj) No. 740
of 2018 arising out of fodder scam cases and considering that
aspect of the matter the Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated
02.11.2018 has been pleased to suspend the sentence and directed
to deposit a sum of Rs. 2.5 lakhs being the fine amount. She
submits that appellant has undergone custody for one years and
three months. On these grounds she submits that the sentence of
the appellant may be suspended.
7. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned A.S.G.I. appearing on behalf of
the C.B.I. submits that the case of the appellant has been
considered in para 43 and 92 of the judgment. He submits that
the amount so far as appellant is concerned the allegation is that
the appellant defrauded Rs. 14,11,837.61/- however, the appellant
has been sentenced for four years. He submits that in the amount
involved more than Rs. 20 lakhs the learned Trial Court awarded
sentence of four years however, he submits that there is no
illegality in the impugned judgment.
8. Looking into the trial court judgment in para 92 it
appears that allegations are that the appellant has withdrawn Rs.
14,11,837.61/- thus it is an admitted position withdrawal amount is
less than twenty lakh wherein the cases where more than twenty
lakhs has been defrauded the learned trial court has awarded
sentence of four years and for lesser amount of Rs. Twenty lakhs
the sentence was awarded for three years by the learned trial
court. Thus, prima facie it appears that the learned trial court has
erred in awarding the sentence of four years so far as appellant is
concerned. In the case where three years sentence has been
awarded provisional bail has been granted by the learned trial court
and in some of the cases this court confirmed the said provisional
bail.
9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances taken
together with the fact that the appellant has undergone custody for
one year and three months against the awarded sentence, and
further considering that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has
suspended the sentence even counting the production warrant in
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 737 of 2018 dated 27.07.2018 and Criminal
Appeal (SJ) No. 130 of 2022 dated 13.05.2022, I am inclined to
suspend the sentence of the appellant by enlarging him on bail.
Accordingly, the appellant be released on bail, during the pendency
of this appeal, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees
Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each,
to the satisfaction of Learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VII-
cum-Special Judge, CBI-II (AHD), Ranchi in connection with R.C.
Case No. 48(A)/1996, subject to deposit of 1,00,000/- (Rs. One
lakhs) 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 interlocutory application is disposed of.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J)
Satyarthi/-
