Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Jadu Nandan Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Jitendra Prasad Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Gyan Prakash, learned counsel appearing on behalf of C.B.I., Sri Manu Raj Singh and Smt. Alpana Singha, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
(2.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of conviction dated 18.02.2013, passed by Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act (C.B.I.), Ghaziabad, in Special Case No. 2 of 2005, R.C. No. 6(S)2001, under Sections 120B, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 411 I.P.C. and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(D) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Sector 24 Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar, whereby the accused-appellant was sentenced for the offence under section 120B I.P.C. for three years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 3 lakhs fine, under section 419 read with Section 120B I.P.C. for two years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 5 lakhs fine, under section 420 read with Section 120B I.P.C. for five years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 5 lakhs fine, under section 467 read with Section 120B I.P.C. for seven years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 7 lakhs fine, under section 468 read with Section 120B I.P.C. for five years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 5 lakhs fine, under section 471 read with Section 120B I.P.C. for three years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 2 lakhs fine, under section 409 read with Section 120B I.P.C. for seven years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 5 lakhs fine, under section 411 read with Section 120B I.P.C. for two years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 5 lakhs fine and under section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(D) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for seven years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 5 lakhs fine. The default sentence in lieu of fine against all the offences, if added together will be 61 months additional imprisonment. The learned trial court has further directed that all the sentences will run concurrently.
(3.) During the course of argument, learned counsel for the accused-appellant has confined his argument to the quantum of sentence and has submitted that the accused-appellant has been in jail since 18.02.2013. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant that prior to that the accused-appellant has been in jail for two years and as such, he has submitted that against the maximum sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment, the accused-appellant has already passed the sentence and he has further passed the sentence of imprisonment of about 31 months and 20 days and only remaining sentence in lieu of fine has to be observed. In support of the said contention, learned counsel for the accused-appellant has drawn attention of this Court on the certificate issued by Jail Superintendent, Ghaziabad, which has been filed at page no. 13 of the second bail application and according to which the substantive sentence of accused-appellant is over on 02.10.2016 and since 03.10.2016, he is undergoing the default sentence in lieu of fine. The default sentence is to end on 02.11.2021. As such, the whole term of imprisonment, even in lieu of fine has to end after about two and half years. Therefore, the learned counsel for the accused-appellant has requested that either the accused-appellant should be released on undergone or substantial reduction in sentence may be made for the benefit of the accused-appellant, so that slight early release may be insured.;