Ashok Srivastava, J. - (1.) I have heard Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Samit Gopal appearing on behalf of the appellant, Sri Pranay Krishna, Learned Counsel appearing for C.B.I. and the learned A.G.A. on the bail prayer.
(2.) THE appellant Ravi Chandra has been found guilty and convicted by the learned Special Judge (Anti Corruption)(C.B.I.), Ghaziabad. He has been sentenced to various terms of imprisonment under various sections of Indian Penal Code, Prevention of Corruption Act and Information Technology Act. The maximum punishment to which the appellant has been sentenced is 7 years. It has been submitted from the side of the appellant that the appellant is in jail since the date of judgment and he has also been in jail for a few months during the pendency of investigation and trial. Drawing my attention towards the charges framed against the appellant and the provisions as contained under Sections 219 and 220 Cr.P.C. Mr. Chaturvedi has contended that the appellant is accused of more offences than one committed within the space of 36 months computing from the first date of the alleged offences. He has further said that from perusal of the charges framed against the applicant on 18.5.2007 it is evident that all the charges relate to the period commencing from October, 2000 to September, 2003 which constitute the first set and from June, 2004 to August, 2004 which constitute the second set. He has further contended that the first set of offences has been said to have been committed at the branch of the bank situate in Sector 26 whereas the second set relates to another place which is situated in Sector 18. He has further said that since the offence alleged against the appellant are not confined to a period of 12 months and the places are different, there is a possibility that the appeal may be allowed and remanded back to the learned lower court with the direction to reframe the charges in accordance with Chapter XVII of the Cr.P.C. and for retrial of the case. It has further been submitted that maximum punishment which has been inflicted against the appellant is seven years and there is no likelihood of hearing of the appeal by this Court in the near future. Mr. Chaturvedi has further submitted that the plea of wrong framing of charges has been taken by the appellant before the learned lower court but it did not consider this issue properly and merely disposed of this contention by saying that in his opinion no prejudice has been caused to the appellant on this count. It has further been contended from the side of the appellant that the rulings cited from the side of the respondent -C.B.I. have been cited but the rulings cited from the side of the appellant before the learned lower court have neither been mentioned nor discussed in the judgement. It has further been contended that the vital issue in this appeal is that whether the wrong framing of charges has prejudiced the appellant or not is to be heard and decided on merits in this appeal.
(3.) THE bail application has been vehemently opposed by the Learned Counsel for the C.B.I. and the learned A.G.A. My attention has been drawn towards the judgment reported in, 1963 (2) Cri. L. J. 671 (The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Cheemalapati Ganeswara Rao and another) and : (2009) 7 SCC 198 ( Sanichar Sahni Vs. State of Bihar). Learned Counsel for C.B.I. has argued that in the instant case no real prejudice has been caused to the appellant and, therefore, benefit of Section 219 Cr.P.C. cannot be given to him. He has further contended that the trial has been properly conducted and charges are properly framed.;