- (1.) The appellants- Baij Nath Mittal and Mukesh Kumar Gupta seek suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. I have heard the counsel for the appellants and learned Spl.P.P. Apparently, allegations against the appellants are very serious whereby they allegedly embezzled/ misappropriated Rs. 1,46,23,041/- having substantial value in 1991. This amount was meant for eradication of leprosy in India. Instead of utilising the amount for noble cause, the convicts in conspiracy under Section 120 B IPC utilized the said amount for their own personal benefits. During the process, they allegedly forged documents; opened fictitious accounts etc. On that score, the appellants deserve no leniency.
(2.) Baij Nath Mittal is in custody since 16.08.2012. As per nominal roll dated 29.11.2012, he has undergone three months and sixteen days incarceration as on 01.12.2012. He also earned remission for fifteen days. The custody period has since increased to about ten months. Son of the appellant volunteered to deposit 25% of the embezzled amount without prejudice and subject to outcome of the appeal. The appellant is aged about 73 years and is suffering from various ailments including cardiac disease. He was on bail throughout the trial. He did not misuse the liberty granted to him. He is not involved in any other criminal case and is not a previous convict. The appeal is not likely to be heard in near future. Co-convict K.C.Mittal who was awarded RI for three years is already on bail and his substantive sentence has been suspended. The appellant has deposited the fine amount.
(3.) Allegations against the appellant- Mukesh Kumar Gupta are that he in conspiracy with Baij Nath Mittal opened fictitious account in the name of Sat Prakash. Substantial amount was transferred to that account and was withdrawn by issuing self cheques. The said cash was used by Baij Nath Mittal. Mukesh Kumar Gupta has been awarded RI for five years. He is in custody since 16.08.2012. As per nominal roll dated 23.10.2012, he has undergone two months and ten days incarceration as on 25.10.2012. He also earned remission for five days. The custody period has since increased to about ten months. During the pendency of the trial, he was on bail and there are no allegations that he misused the liberty granted to him. He is not involved in any other criminal case and is not a previous convict. The appeal is not likely to be heard in near future. He has deposited the fine amount.;