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 proprietor of M/s. Raj Care was convicted for the offences under Sections 420/468/471 read with Sections 465 and 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code and was awarded maximum sentence of six years for one of the offences on the allegation that the appellant without supplying Ground Nut Cake and Wheatbran to the extent as claimed took payment of entire materials but the prosecution has failed palpably to establish the charge that the appellant did not supply the materials to the extent which the appellant claimed to have supplied rather the appellant was convicted on the premises that the appellant had failed to give explanation regarding place from where the appellant had purchased the materials and that the appellant did not produce any documents such as road permit, challan to establish that those materials were carried to the godown of the Hotware Farm and that document relating to payment of Sales Tax and Income Tax were also not produced and thus onus has been shifted upon the appellant to prove his innocence which is contrary to the principle of Criminal Justice Dispensation System and as such the order of conviction and sentenced is quite bad and that the appellant deserves to be admitted on bail. As against this, learned Counsel appearing for the CBI submits that this is one of the Fodder Scam Cases where the then officials of Animal Husbandry Department in connivance with each other right from top to bottom got forged allotment letters issued and then issued supply orders to different suppliers including the appellant's farm, namely, M/s. Raj Care though it was never registered under the Sales tax Department and then without getting supply of Ground Nut Cake and Wheatbran to the extent which the appellant claimed to have supplied made payment and the manner in which the accused persons in connivance with others misappropriated such a large money has been highlighted by an approver who has been examined as PW 82 and that apart, as per the Investigating Officer (PW 117) the go -down meant for storage of feed and fodder did not have had the storage capacity of the materials which the accused person claimed to have supplied and under this situation the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant.
(3.) REGARD being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the appellant. Hence, the prayer for bail of the appellant is 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. The aforesaid I.A. stands disposed of.;