Partly allowed

Jay Prakash and Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation Ghaziabad

Allahabad HC2 Feb 2023CRLA/6873/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the appeal against conviction in a fraud case where appellants served over four years. The court modified sentences, reduced imprisonment to that already served, and increased the fine to Rs.2,50,000 each.

What did the court decide?

Sentence modified to imprisonment already undergone; fine enhanced to Rs.2,50,000 each to be deposited in the account of Post Office, Gazraula.

Jay Prakash and Anr. Vs Central Bureau of Investigation Ghaziabad — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 87

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6873 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Jay Prakash And Anr. Respondent :- Central Bureau Of Investigation Ghaziabad Counsel for Appellant :- Amrendra Pratap Singh,Dharmendra Prasad Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Gyan Prakash,Sanjay Kumar Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Amrendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the accused-appellants and Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the CBI and perused he record.

¶6

This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 10.10.2018 passed by Ist Special Judge (Anti Corruption), CBI, Court No.2, Ghaziabad in Special Case No.24 of 2011, arising out of CNR No.UPGZ 010005962003, RC No.12(A)/2002-DAD, by which the accused-appellants had been convicted for the offence under Section 120-B IPC and awarded the sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/ each and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo fifteen days additional imprisonment; under Section 420 read with Section 120-B IPC, five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/ each and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo six months additional imprisonment; under Section 467 read with Section 120-B IPC, ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.25,000/ each and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo one year additional imprisonment; under Section 468 read with Section 120-B IPC, five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/ each and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo six months additional imprisonment; under Section 471 read with Section 120-B IPC, seven year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/ each and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo one year additional imprisonment;.

¶7

Learned counsel for the accused-appellants submits that the accused-appellants have already undergone more than four years of the sentence and the maximum sentence is of ten years. He further submits that the entire fine as awarded by the learned trial court has been deposited by the accused-appellants. He also submits that the learned trial court did not consider the fact that the accused-appellants were the first offenders and no benefit of the provisions of the Probation of First Offenders Act, 1930 was given to them. He further submits that be that it may, he does not want to press this appeal on merit so far conviction is concerned, but looking at the fact that the accused-appellants

¶8

were the first offenders and they had already undergone for more than four years of sentence, this Court may reduce the sentence to the sentence already undergone and may increase the fine.

¶9

Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the CBI has no objection for dismissing the appeal so far conviction is concerned. He is also not in a position to dispute the fact that the learned trial court has not considered the fact that the accused-appellants were the first offenders and they have not been given the benefit of the Probation of First Offenders Act while sentencing them.

¶10

I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record and the impugned judgment and order.

¶11

The offence allegedly was committed in the year 1998-1999 and the allegation is that the accused-appellants and other coaccused have misappropriated Rs.12,80,000/- amount of different fictitious accounts opened in the Post Office.

¶12

Considering the fact that the offence was committed long back in the year 1998-1999, i.e. around 25 years back and the submission of the learned counsel for the accused-appellants that he would not like to press this appeal on merit so far conviction is concerned, the appeal against conviction is dismissed. Accused-appellants have already undergone more than four years of sentence and they have left it to the discretion of the Court to increase the fine and, therefore, the sentence awarded to the accused-appellants is modified and the sentence is reduced to the sentence already undergone with direction to the accused-appellants to deposit Rs.2,50,000/- each within a period of eight weeks from today in the account of Post Office, Gazraula, District Amroha and submit the bonds to the satisfaction of the court concerned, which shall hold good for a period of six months.

¶13

Subject to above noted terms, the appeal is partly allowed.

¶14

Order Date :- 2.2.2023

¶15

Kumar Manish.

¶16

Digitally signed by :- MANISH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jay Prakash and Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation Ghaziabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jay Prakash and Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation Ghaziabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gyanendra Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Khem Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Juvenile X Vs State of U.P. and Another

Veer Singh Vs C.B.I.

Gaurav Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Muqeem Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Another