- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel representing the CBI on the prayer for suspension of sentence made through I.A. No. 3594/2018.
(2.) Appellant stands convicted in connection with R.C. Case No. 64(A)/1996- Pat vide impugned judgment dated 23.12.2017 and order of sentence dated 06.01.2018 passed by the Learned A.J.C.-I-cum Special Judge-VII, CBI (AHD Scam), Ranchi for the offences under section 120-B read with sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477(A) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three and half years each for both the offences under Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption Act with a fine of Rs. 5 Lakhs each and in default thereof, to undergo imprisonment for 1/2 year separately.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant was posted as Secretary, A.H.D. Department between 8th May, 1994 to June, 1997. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that fraudulent withdrawal from Deoghar Treasury under A.H.D Department for the period 1992 to 1995 were the subject matter of this trial. Therefore, appellant was not even holding the charge of Secretary of A.H.D. Department at the relevant point of time. Appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has denied that irregularities were committed to save the accused of A.H.D Scam. He also denied having participated in criminal conspiracy with Minister, Politicians and other accused persons and caused wrongful loss to State of Bihar due to illegal withdrawal of Rs. 84,53,764/- from Deoghar Treasury. However, learned Trial Court on consideration of the statement of Prosecution Witness nos. 156, 23, 40, 42 and the documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution erroneously proceeded to hold him guilty of the charges. Learned Court also failed to take into account the specific statement of the P.W. 133, the then Accountant General that Director AHD issued allotment letter as per the rule of executive business. The Secretary of the department is only the official head of the department and shall not be treated as head of the Department. It is also submitted on behalf of the appellant that he has remained in custody for half of the sentence awarded. Appellant is 74 years old and as such he may be granted the privilege of suspension of sentence and be enlarged him on bail.;