- (1.) Heard learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the CBI on the prayer for suspension of sentence made through I.A. No. 4592/2018.
(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 sections 120-B read with sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477(A) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three and half years with a fine of Rs. 50,00,000/- and in default thereof, to undergo S.I. for nine months separately.
(3.) Learned Senior counsel for the appellant submits that the Firm M/s Laxmi Enterprises was in the name of his wife Benu Jha and that his real brother Sushil Kumar Jha used to supervise the Firm and conducted all affairs relating to it. The present appellant was completely ignorant about such fake supplies or fraudulent payments received. Learned Trial Court has discussed the role of the appellant at paragraphs-68 and 69 of the impugned judgment. Appellant categorically denied having knowledge of submission of any fake bills or receipt of fraudulent payment of Rs. 19.99 lakhs by bank draft. However, learned Trial Court on consideration of the statement of the prosecution witnesses 1,2,4,13,20,120,150, 195 and 197 together with certain documentary evidence, proceeded to hold this appellant liable for the offences and that M/s Laxmi Enterprises, Godda was a fake Firm registered only on paper. The appellant's brother Sushil Kumar Jha, also an accused in the instant case, pleaded guilty and died while serving sentence. In such circumstances, the appellant should not have been convicted for the aforesaid offences. He further submits that the appellant has undergone custody for more than half of the sentence awarded by now. As such, he may be enlarged on bail upon grant of privilege of suspension of sentence. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Trial Court while imposing the sentence has awarded excessive fine to the tune of Rs. 50.00 lakhs when the charges were only in relation to fraudulent withdrawal of an amount of Rs. 19.99 lakhs. This appellant is also in severe financial distress. He was in fact receiving a meagre amount of Rs. 1,500/- for livelihood by his brother. Therefore, condition of deposit of fine amount may be suitably modified on sympathetic consideration.;