PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant-appellant, learned counsel for the CBI and perused the record.
(2.) Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has submitted that the appellant Harish Babu has been convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 120B IPC [read with section 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988] for 05 years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 5000/-fine, under section 420 IPC for 04 years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 2000/- fine, under section 467 IPC for 07 years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 7000 fine, under section 468 IPC for 04 years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 2000/- fine and under section 471 IPC for 01 year rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 1000/- fine.
(3.) The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that there is no role disclosed by the CBI of the accused- appellant in the commission of offence, only certain seals (stamps) were recovered from the house of the accused- appellant and they were not properly sealed nor in any memo of recovery was prepared nor they were taken into possession. The accused-appellant has been falsely implicated. He was on bail during trial and he did not misuse the liberty of bail. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the entire prosecution story is absolutely false and incorrect and there are material contradictions in prosecution evidence, the trial court without properly appreciating the evidence on record has acted wrongly and illegally in convicting the accused-appellant. Learned counsel further submitted that appellant has every hope of success in appeal and he undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall remain present before the Court as and when required and he will cooperate with the hearing of appeal for which his counsel will remain present on the dates of listing.;