R.R.PRASAD, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and learned Counsel appearing for the CBI on the matter of ball.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant, who at the relevant point of time, was posted as Accountant in the Treasury, Chaibasa, has been convicted for the offences under Sections 409, 420, 467,468, 471/465 read with Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 477A of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and was awarded maximum sentence for four years for some of the offences on the allegation that the appellant in connivance with other officials of Animal Husbandry Department and also with the suppliers got the bills of more than Rs. 5000/ - drawn by DDO passed which was against the provision of Bihar Financial Rules as DDO was not empowered to draw money from the bills of more than Rs. 5000/ - but conviction and sentence on that allegation is quite illegal as the accountant under the Treasury Code is responsible only for keeping complete records of cash and transaction of books of the District Treasury and if the DDO has raised the bills for more than Rs. 5000/ - against the provision of Bihar Financial Rules, the appellant cannot be held responsible and taking Into consideration this aspect of the matter, the Treasury Officer and the Accountant have been admitted to bail by this Court, though in other Fodder Scam Cases and, therefore, the appellant deserves to be admitted on bail. As against this, learned Counsel appearing for the CBI submitted that it is the case where the prosecution has been able to establish that all the accused persons, officials of Animal Husbandry Department, suppliers and the officers of Treasury including the appellant were hand in gloves, as the appellant and the Treasury Officer got several bills passed which were not in accordance with the provision of Bihar Financial Rules and thereby facilitated the suppliers to withdraw huge amount without supplying the materials to the Animal Husbandry Department and for that, Treasury Officials were paid upto 5% of the amount drawn from the Treasury which is evident from the evidence of P.W.72 an approver and also from the evidence of P.W.54 and that in other cases, Treasury Officers have been admitted to bail but after taking into consideration that no materials was there to show that the Treasury Officers were in collusion with the officials of Animal Husbandry Department and the suppliers.
(3.) REGARD being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, Lam not inclined to grant bail to the appellant. Hence, the prayer for bail of the appellant is hereby rejected. However, the appellant would be at liberty to move for bail after serving half of the sentence of the maximum sentence imposed by the trial Court, if the appeal is not taken up before that.;