ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Budu Munda, Son of Marju Munda – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand through Central Bureau of Investigation, Ranchi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Heard the parties through video conferencing.
2. The appellant has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 19.10.2004, passed by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi in Special Case No. 50/89, 51/89 and 52/89 arising out of R.C. 2(A)/89 (Pat.) whereby and where under the learned court below has held the appellant-convict guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 420/468/477A & 468 read with Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 5(1) (d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 corresponding to Section 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years in each count and also directed to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- for each of the said offences. It was also ordered that the sentences shall run concurrently and in default of payment of fine, the appellant-convict shall undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two months for each of the fine awarded.
3. The brief facts of the case is that the appellant-convict while posted as Special Assistant in the Bank of India, Khunti Branch,
Khem Chand v. State of H.P. [1994 Supp (1) SCC 7 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 212 : AIR 1994 SC 226]
Rajinder Pershad v. Darshana Devi [(2001) 7 SCC 69 : AIR 2001 SC 3207]
Sunil Kumar v. State of Rajasthan [(2005) 9 SCC 283 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1230 : AIR 2005 SC 1096]
State of U.P. v. Nahar Singh [(1998) 3 SCC 561 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 850 : AIR 1998 SC 1328]
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.