Dhrub Bhagat Alias Dhruv Bhagat Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation Ranchi and anr - Court Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 441 of 2013 Dhurub Bhagat @ Dhruv Bhagat ..... Appellant(s) Versus C.B.I., Ranchi & Anr. . Respondent(s) CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE R. R. PRASAD For the Appellant(s) : M/s Jay Prakash Jha, Sr. Advocate. Shree Prakash Jha, Advocate. For the CBI : Md. Mokhtar Khan, ASGI ----- 05 /23.08.2013. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the CBI. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant having been found guilty for various offences under the Indian Penal Code and also under the Prevention of Corruption Act, was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years for one of the offences under the I.P.C. besides lessor sentence for other offences on the allegations that this appellant being the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee by writing a letter [Exhibit 4/14] to Finance Commissioner [P.W.56] made an attempt to stop the investigation on the premise that the Public Accounts Committee is in seisin with the matter relating to the illegal withdrawal of the money related to A.H.D. Department from the Treasury and that the appellant received one A.C. Ambassador Car for receiving hospitality of the persons involved in this case, but the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the said letter [Exhibit 4/14] being written by this appellant as the said letter has never been admitted in evidence in accordance with law as P.W.56 who, has proved that letter, has never said in his evidence that the letter is under the signature of this appellant or that he does know the hand-writing of the appellant and, therefore, that letter cannot be used against that appellant. Further it was submitted that even if it is used by the prosecution, it never goes to show about the connivance of the appellant with other accused in the matter relating to illegal withdrawal of the money from the Treasury as the appellant as per the case of prosecution had only made an attempt to stop investigation. It was further submitted that the car which is said to have been given to this appellant at the instance of some of the persons involved in the case has never been proved to have been given at the instance of the persons involved in this case rather the Ext.-C which had been adduced in evidence on behalf of the appellant goes to show that a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- had been sanctioned by the Bihar Vidhan Sabha for purchasing a car which fact has never been doubted. Under the circumstances, the appellant deserves to be admitted on bail and particularly when the appellant has already served sentence for about 29 months. As against this Mr. Khan, learned counsel appearing for the CBI submits that P.W.56 in his evidence has categorically said that Ext.-4/14 had been sent by this appellant to him. The contents of which letter has never been denied by the appellant. Further it has come in the evidence of P.Ws.11 and 53 that the car had been given to this appellant at the instance of S.B. Sinha, the king-pin of the scam. Upon it, Mr. Jha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that even if P.W.56 has deposed that the letter was sent by this appellant to him, that letter cannot be said to have been proved in accordance with the provisions as contained in Section 47 of the Evidence Act for the reason already stated above and that contents of it, in absence of signature being proved in accordance with law, cannot be used against the appellant and so far as the evidence with respect to car being given to this appellant is concerned, it has never been definitely proved that it has been given to the appellant by one of the scamesters. Firstly on account of the fact that the car was never in the name of this appellant and secondly that the appellant had taken loan from the Bihar Vidhan Sabha for purchasing the car which is evident from the document adduced in evidence. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances, the appellant, above named, is directed to be enlarged on bail, during the pendency of the appeal, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri Sitaram Prasad, learned Special Judge-VII, C.B.I. (A.H.D. Scam), Ranchi in R.C. Case No. R.C. 33(A)/1996 Pat. Sandeep/ (R. R. Prasad, J.)