JUDGMENT (1) THIS appeal is admitted for hearing. (2) ISSUE notice. Call for the lower Court records. (3) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the CBI on the matter of bail. (4) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant, posted at the relevant time as Veterinary Officer at Regional Poultry farm, Hotwar having been found guilty for various offences under the Indian Penal Code and also under the Prevention of Corruption Act was awarded maximum sentence for six years for one of the offences on the allegations that the appellant in collusion with others without receiving medicines/materials did issue certificates regarding receipt of the materials facilitating the suppliers to draw huge amount putting the State exchequer to a great loss but the prosecution has failed to establish that this appellant did grant certificates of receipt of the materials without receiving the materials, rather some of the prosecution witnesses have admitted that the appellant had received the materials supplied by the suppliers. That apart, some of the prosecution witnesses have also admitted that good number of livestock were there in the farm and they were properly fed and were being provided with the medicine. Further the Investigating Officer (P. W. 126) had also not conducted investigation properly as he never visited other centre where medicines/materials were supplied from Regional Poultry Firm, Hotwar and at the time of trial, stock books were deliberately withheld by him in course of trial, though the Court had ordered for production of those documents had the Investigating Officer made any investigation on this point, he could have come to the conclusion that the materials received at Hotwar Poultry firm were supplied to other centre but the Court below did not take into consideration all these aspects of the matter and therefore, committed illegality in recording the order of conviction and sentence against the appellant and moreover, the appellant has already served sentence for a period of 30 months as against the maximum sentence of six years and hence, the appellant be admitted on bail. (5) AS against this, learned counsel appearing for the CBI submits that learned trial Court after taking into consideration the documentary evidences and the oral testimonies of the witnesses such as, P. W. 89, P. W. 103 and also the evidence of P. W. 79 as well as Investigating Officer did come to conclusion that the appellant in conspiracy with other accused persons did manipulate official records/registers and issued false receipt of receiving materials facilitating the other accused to withdraw, the money putting the State exchequer to. a great loss and thereby the appellant has rightly been convicted and sentenced by the trial Court. (6) REGARD being had to the facts and circumstances and the evidences showing prima facie commission of the offence as alleged, I am not inclined to grant bail to the appellant. Hence, the prayer for bail of the appellant is rejected. However, the appellant would be at liberty to move for bail after serving half of the sentence of the maximum sentence imposed by the trial Court, if the appeal is not taken up before that. Order accordingly.