- (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 having been convicted for the offence under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for five years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 3,00,000/ - and was further sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years on being found guilty for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act on the allegation that this appellant being a Member of the Legislative Assembly had close association with the then Chief Minister and taking advantage of that, the appellant extended patronage to the high officials of the Department of Animal Husbandry and also the suppliers and thereby received huge money from them and facilitated the other accused persons to draw money from the Godda Treasury without supplying medicines or materials to the Department but the prosecution has completely failed to establish the fact that the appellant was in league with other accused persons, who either drew the money illegally or facilitated other accused to draw money illegally. In this respect learned counsel submitted that the trial court while holding the appellant guilty for conspiracy has mainly relied upon the evidences of four witnesses, namely, P.W. 17, P.W. 30, P. W. 37 and P.W. 39 but if their evidences are taken in totality not in isolation as has been done by the trial court, whatever circumstances has been shown to be used as an act of conspiracy it would get demolished.
(3.) IN this respect learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that so far P.W. 17 is concerned, he has spoken about three circumstances which, according to prosecution, go to show the act of conspiracy so far this appellant is concerned but those evidences highlighting the circumstances if are read in the context of the fact as elicited in the cross -examination, it would never indicate any incriminating circumstances of indulgence of this appellant in the act of any conspiracy. To substantiate this it was submitted that P.W. 17 has testified that this appellant in association with Dr. S.B. Sinha, one of the perpetrators, was quite instrumental in getting Dr. Ram Raj Ram posted as In -charge, Director of the Department of Animal Husbandry but the fact elicited in the cross -examination would go to show that Dr. Ram Raj Ram was made In -charge, Director by virtue of his seniority and under the order of the High Court/ Hon'ble Supreme Court. The other circumstance which was used to hold the appellant guilty for conspiracy is that the vigilance when detected gross illegality in the matter of purchase of certain materials from a foreign country, had lodged a case against the members of the purchase committee and other officials posted at Regional Office, Patna but this appellant, according to P.W. 17, in association with Dr. S.B. Sinha exerted influence on the authority as a result of which case was never investigated properly but that assertion of P.W. 17 gets demolished from his own evidence elicited in cross -examination whereby he has deposed that the then Chief Minister did not interfere in the matter by directing the authority to stay the investigation, rather vigilance after taking advice of Special Public Prosecutor and even the then Advocate General submitted charge -sheet. The other circumstance used against the appellant is that when certain irregularities were found during audit inspection, the then Departmental Minister ordered for CBI enquiry but in order to save the culprits, enquiry was never handed over to the CBI, rather the enquiry was entrusted to be made by Public Accounts Committee and this was done by the then Chief Minister but at the instance of the person, who had influence over the Department but the same witness has testified that the Public Accounts Committee had found the Regional Director, Animal Husbandry Department to be inno - cent and the said report had even been accepted by the Accountant General and that said allegation had no connection with the matter relating to Godda Treasury.;