Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant and CBI on the prayer for suspension of sentence made through I.A. No. 6899/2018.
(2.) Appellant stands convicted in connection with R.C. Case No. 45(A)/1996-pat vide impugned judgment of conviction dated 09.04.2018 and order of sentence dated 18.04.2018 passed by the Learned Special Judge-VII, CBI (AHD Scam), Ranchi for the offences under section 120-B read with sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477(A) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years with a fine of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- and in default thereof, to undergo S.I. for one year separately.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was the proprietor of M/s Vaishnav Enterprises, Ranchi and made supplies to the Animal Husbandry Department, Dumka between the period 1991-92 to 1995-1996. He has stated under section 313 Cr. PC during trial that payments to the tune of Rs. 1,25,49,810/- were received against the valid 459 vouchers in respect of which 25 bills were passed. He denied receiving payments illegally without supplying feed supplement to the department in conspiracy with other accused persons. The sheet anchor of the argument on behalf of the appellant is that the learned CBI court has not maintained parity in imposing sentence on similarly situated persons and that to falling in the category of suppliers. He has referred to the case of one Ajit Kumar verma in whose case, though fraudulent payment received were Rs. 1.88 crore and odd but he had been awarded lesser sentence of three and half years with a fine of Rs. 50.00 lakhs. Similarly, in the case of Arun Kumar @ Arun Kumar Singh, fraudulent withdrawals were to the tune of Rs. 2.22 crore and odd, learned CBI court has awarded similar sentence of three and half years with a fine of Rs. 50.00 lakhs. Similarly, co-convict Gopi Nath Das, supplier who is said to have fraudulently received payment of Rs. 1.39 crore and odd, has been imposed lesser sentence of three and half years with a fine of Rs. 50.00 lakhs. Similar is the case of co-convict Mohinder Singh Bedi who is also said to have fraudulently received an amount of Rs. 4.66 crore and odd, he has been awarded 2. sentence of three and half years with a fine of Rs. 50.00 lakhs. On the other hand, co-convict Rajan Mehta who is said to have fraudulently received payment of Rs. 69.80 lakhs and odd, has been imposed sentence similar to that of the appellant i.e. seven years and fine of Rs. 1.00 crore. Therefore, there is apparent discrimination in the award of sentence upon the similarly situated persons in the category of suppliers, rather whose who have received fraudulent payments more than that of the appellant i.e. Rs. 1.25 crores and odd, have been given lesser sentence. There is no rational basis for the Trial Court to impose twice to the quantum of sentence on this appellant compared to other suppliers despite they having received payments much more than the present appellant from the same department. This appellant is 65 years old and has by now undergone custody for about 33 months, as per the verification done by the CBI on the instant prayer for suspension of sentence. This appellant has been enlarged on bail in similar conviction in R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 by this court on completion of half of the custody against the sentence of five years therein. Therefore, appellant may be enlarged on bail after grant of privilege of suspension of sentence without any pre-condition of deposit of fine. Learned counsel submits that substantial property of the appellant has been attached by the CBI.;