R.R. Prasad, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and learned Counsel appearing for the CBI on the matter of bail.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant having been found guilty for the offences under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code has been awarded maximum sentence for five years for one of the offences on the allegation that this appellant without receiving the materials i.e. Yellow maize, Groundnut etc. granted receipts but the fact is that it is never the case of the prosecution that this appellant granted receipts without receiving the materials from the suppliers but the appellant had received the materials which have been supplied from the parent department i.e. RPF Hotwar and as such, the appellant can never be said to have gone in collusion with the suppliers and thereby he granted certificates of receipt of the materials supplied to the RPF Hotwar and, as a matter of fact, the Investigating Officer in course of his evidence has admitted that he did not make investigation to the effect that how much quantity was required for the livestocks which were there in the Duck Breeding Farm still the court below recorded the order of conviction on the ground that the quantity which had been received by this appellant from the RPF Hotwar was not required for the number of birds which were there on 25.2.1996 but on that day, the appellant was not in service, rather he had retired much before that and that the quantity of the materials which the appellant has been said to have received relates to the period from April, 1992 to March, 1995 and for that, there has been no investigation as to whether the quantity received was required or not keeping in view he number of birds and ducks during relevant point of time and, therefore, the appellant certainly be said to have wrongly been committed. As against this, learned Counsel appearing for the CBI submits that the appellant had sent requisition before the Budget and Accounts Officer and thereby he can be said to have gone in connivance with other accused who have been alleged to have misappropriated huge amount putting the State exchequer to a great loss.
(3.) THIS argument was countered by submitting that It is not the appellant, who had sent the requisition, rather Dr. B.N.P.Verma, who had sent the requisition to the Regional Director, AHD, Ranchi and the Budget and Accounts Officer, AHD Directorate, Patna, vide Exts.19 to 19/14 and thus, the situation is that the appellant had never issued any requisition for supply of the materials nor he had granted any receipts for which the suppliers were paid and that there has been no materials to show that the appellant had gone in collusion with other accused.;