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 submitted that the appellant, proprietor of M/s. Zee Pharma has been convicted for the offences under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 477-A 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 and was also saddled with fine on the allegation that the appellant without supplying the medicine (veterinary product) took payment but the prosecution has failed to establish that charge as none of the prosecution witness has come forward to say that the appellant never supplied the medicine (veterinary product), for which the appellant has taken payment and even this fact has been admitted by Investigating Officer (PW 156) in his evidence and that apart, documents adduced in evidence on behalf of the appellant such as Ext. C, authorisation letter issued by the Company, namely, M/s. Pfizer Limited, Ext. D series, treasury chalans showing payment of sales tax over the amount which the appellant took payment of account of supply of the medicine (veterinary product) to the department would go to show that the appellant has supplied the medicine and as such, any conviction by the Court below is quite illegal and therefore, the appellant deserves to be admitted on bail.
(3.) As against this, learned Counsel appearing for the CBI submitted that so far the instant case is concerned, it is not a case of non-supply rather it is a case of short supply of the materials. In other words, the suppliers including the appellant did supply the material in short but took payment of the entire materials which they have claimed to have supplied and this fact gets established from the evidences of number of witnesses, such as, TVOs, BHOs and SHOs; PW 58, PW 61, PW 65, PWs 68 to 77. PW 79 and also PW 80. Further claim of this appellant of supply of the materials gets falsified from the testimony of PW 95. who has stated that he never let out building to the appellant to carry out business of M/s. Zee Pherma whereas claim of the appellant is that he had taken a building from PW 91 to carry out business of M/s. Zee Pharma and that it is the case where the prosecution has fully established that Animal Husbandry Department Officials on the basis of forged allotment letters issued supply orders to the suppliers and without receiving the materials or receiving the materials in short, raised the bills for the entire materials and thereby the suppliers took payment whereby State exchequer was defrauded of huge money.;