Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned ASGI representing CB1 on the prayer for suspension of sentence made through I.A. No. 972 of 2018.
(2.) Appellant stands convicted in connection with R.C. Case No. 68(A)/ 1996 vide impugned judgment dated 24th January, 2018 passed by learned Court of Additional Judicial Commissioner-VII-cum-Special Judge (AHC), CBI-I, Ranchi for the offences under Sections 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 5 years and a fine of Rs. 10,00,000/-, in default whereof, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year, also under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 years and a fine of Rs. 10,00,000/-, in default whereof, to undergo Simple Imprisonment of one year; under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years in each section and fine of Rs. 25,000/- under each section. He has also been sentenced Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years under Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and fine of Rs. 50,000/-, in default whereof, to undergo Simple Imprisonment of 3 months for each default. All the sentences shall run concurrently and the period undergone shall be set off.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant was District Animal Husbandry Officer, Chaibasa between January 1993 to March, 1993 and had been working as Drawing and Disbursing Officer during that period. As such all such bills had to cross his desk and accordingly the evidence discussed by learned CBI Court on the point of implication of Officers of Animal Husbandry Department at page 269 of the impugned judgment also refers to this fact. Appellant had also, during his statement made under section 313, CrPC, 1973 stated that it contained original signature of Budget Officer and that he did not deny the approval of contingent bills as it was a matter of record. As per break-up given hereunder: (i) 9.8.2000 to 8.11.2000, (ii) 1.8.2006 to 6.12.2008 and thereafter on conviction since 24th January, 2018 till date, he has remained in custody for more than half of the sentences awarded to him. Therefore, he may be enlarged on bail after granting him privilege of sentence. Learned counsel for the appellant by referring to paragraph 3 of the impugned judgment where charges have been mentioned and the findings of conviction at page 305 thereof submits that learned CBI Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant and four others twice for the substantive offences under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The approach of learned CBI Court is apparently erroneous and as a result huge amount of fine has also been imposed against each such offence again. Learned counsel for the appellant prays for suspension of fine amount as it would be onerous for the appellant to deposit it for the purpose of grant of bail.;