ORDER

% 19.02.2024 CRL.M.A. 5332/2024 (exemption from filing the certified, clear and legible copies of the annexures) & CRL.M.A. 5333/2024 (exemption from filing the clear and legible copies of medical records)

1. Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The applications stand disposed of.

CRL.M.(BAIL) 304/2024

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 CRL.A. 157/2024 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 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 under Section 120B and 120B read with Sections 420/468/471 of the IPC. He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of ₹1,00,000/- for offence under Section 417 of the IPC and 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 Senior Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been alleged to have misrepresented about the existing sponge iron capacity of M/s Shree Virangana Steels Ltd.. It is alleged that the applicant in the letter dated 15.04.2004 mentioned that the company had the production capacity of 75000 MTPA whereas, that the actual production capacity was of 60000 MTPA.

6. She 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. She submits that the allegation against the applicant is that he induced MoS to issue recommendation letter dated 10.08.2004 and further induced MoC to issue allocation letter dated 06.09.2005. CRL.A. 157/2024

7. She submits that the allegations are baseless since the Screening Committee itself records that the production capacity of the company was 60000 MTPA.

8. She further submits that it is also a matter of fact that even though the production capacity of the company was 60000 MTPA, the company was able to manufacture 70000 MTPA.

9. She vehemently contends that the applicant was only an employee of the company and was not beneficiary of any alleged cheating. The applicant is 68 years of age and is suffering from various medical ailments.

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

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

12. 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 President of the company.

13. The applicant was never arrested by the CBI during the period of investigation and remained in bail throughout the period of trial.

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

15. 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.

16. 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