Jharkhand High Court
Tripurari Mohan Prasad vs The Union Of India Through Central ... on 18 October, 2023
1 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 666 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 666 of 2023
Tripurari Mohan Prasad ... Appellant
-Versus-
The Union of India through Central Bureau of Investigation
... Respondent
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Appellant : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate
For the CBI : Mr. Anil Kumar, A.S.G.I.
Ms. Chandana Kumari, A.C. to A.S.G.I.
-----
03/18.10.2023 The appeal was admitted on 13.10.2023 and it was observed that the
I.A. No. 8953 of 2023, which has been filed for suspension of sentence, will
be considered on the next date and that is why, the said I.A. has been
placed today.
2. Heard Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
and Mr. Anil Kumar, learned A.S.G.I. appearing on behalf of the C.B.I.
3 I.A. No. 8953 of 2023 has been filed for suspension of sentence of
the appellant and to release him on bail, during the pendency of this
appeal.
4. The appellant has been held guilty under Section 120B read with
Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477(A) of the Indian Penal Code and
separately held guilty for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of
the Indian Penal Code in R.C. Case No.48(A)/1996 and he has been
sentenced for the offence under Section 120-B read with Sections 409,
420, 467, 468, 471 and 477(A) of the Indian Penal Code to undergo R.I. for
four years with fine of Rs. 29,00,000/-. A common sentence for the offence
under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code for four
years with fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- has also been imposed upon the appellant
and in default of payment of fine, further S.I. for six months in each section
2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 666 of 2023
was also be imposed and all the sentences have been directed to run
concurrently and the period undergone shall be set off.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned
Court has also held that the I.O. of the case has not enquired the
manufacturing records of the company and entire prosecution story seems
to be imaginary. The I.O. of this case had not placed the whole set of
relevant facts, unvarnished truth regarding supply of medicines by M/s
Bihar Surgico Medical Agency before the learned Court and the appellant
cannot be held guilty on the basis of distorted facts. He also submits that
the appellant had supplied the medicines in exact quantity and the entire
sale purchase of the appellant is in sale tax records, which has neither
been examined nor brought on record by the prosecution. He further
submits that the appellant has undergone in custody for about 40 months
and if the production warrant is not counted, he has undergone in custody
for about 13 months.
6. On the other hand, Mr. Anil Kumar, learned A.S.G.I. appearing for the
CBI submits that the case against the appellant has been well proved,
which has been discussed in paras-43 and 59 of the judgment. He further
submits that the learned Court has rightly held the appellant guilty and, as
such, leniency is not required. He disputes half of the sentence undergone
by the appellant.
7. In view of the above facts and considering that the appellant has
undergone in custody for about 40 months and if the production warrant is
not counted, he has undergone in custody for about 13 months and also
considering that the prayer of similarly situated accused for production
warrant for suspension of sentence has been considered by co-ordinate
3 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 666 of 2023
Bench of this Court in Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 737 of 2018 vide order dated
27.07.2018 and also in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 130 of 2022 vide order dated
13.05.2022, I am inclined to suspend the sentence of the appellant by
enlarging him on bail. Accordingly, the appellant, named above, 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 Special Judge, CBI-II (AHD),
Ranchi, in connection with R.C. Case No.48(A)/1996, subject to deposit of
20% 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
bailers shall not change their address or mobile numbers without
permission of the learned Trial Court.
8. Accordingly, I.A. No.8953 of 2023 is disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/
