ORDER

% 19.02.2024 CRL.M.A. 5318/2024 (exemption from filing certified copies / dim annexures)

1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

CRL.M.(BAIL) 313/2024

3. The present appeal is filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), praying for setting aside the judgment dated 05.01.2024 and Order on Sentence dated 22.01.2024, (hereafter ‘impugned orders’), passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI-PC Act, Coal Block Cases, Rouse Avenue District Courts Complex, Delhi in CC No. 98/2019.

4. The learned Special Judge, CBI, by way of the impugned orders has convicted the appellant / applicant under Sections CRL.A. 155/2024 417/420 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and has sentenced the applicant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a total period of three years and to pay a fine of ₹1,00,000/- for offence under Section 120B and 120B read with Sections 420/468/471 of the IPC. He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a total period of three years and to pay a fine of ₹1,00,000/- for offence under Section 420 of the IPC. He was also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months in default of payment of fine.

5. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been alleged to have induced MoC to issue allocation letter dated 06.09.2005.

6. He submits that the sentence in relation to the co-accused, Anand Nandkishore, has already been suspended by this Court by order dated 25.01.2024 in CRL.A. 76/2024.

7. He submits that the applicant was not a signatory to the communication dated 10.05.2004 addressed by the company to the Government of Maharashta.

8. He vehemently contends that the applicant was only an employee of the company and was not beneficiary of any alleged cheating. The applicant is about 66 years of age and is suffering from various medical ailments.

9. Ms. Tarannum Cheema, learned counsel appearing for the CBI firmly opposes the present application.

10. It is not denied that the applicant was an employee of the company.

11. It is not the case of the prosecution that the applicant was the beneficiary of the cheated amount. The applicant was working in the company in his capacity as salaried CEO of the company.

12. The fine imposed by the learned Trial Court is also stated to have been deposited by the applicant.

13. Considering the aforesaid facts and the fact that the appeal is likely to take considerable time before it is finally decided, this Court considers it apposite to suspend the sentence of the applicant till the pendency of the present appeal.

14. The applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond for a sum of ₹50,000/- with one surety of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court on the following conditions:

a. He shall provide the address where he would be residing after his release and shall not change the address without informing the concerned IO/ SHO;

b. He shall under no circumstance leave the country without the permission of the Court;

c. He shall, upon his release, give his mobile number to the concerned IO/SHO and shall keep his mobile phone switched on at all times.

15. The present application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

CRL.A. 155/2024

16. For the reasons mentioned in the appeal and in view of the observations made above, the appeal is admitted.

17. Let the appeal be taken up in due course.

18. Let the Trial Court Record be also requisitioned.

AMIT MAHAJAN, J FEBRUARY 19, 2024 ‘KDK’ CRL.A. 155/2024