JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I on the matter of bail. 2. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant, who was Chairman, Public Accounts Committee, from April 1992 to January 1995, on being found guilty for various offences under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code as well as for the offence under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years with a fine of Rs.2.5 lacs under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and further rigorous imprisonment for four years and a fine of Rs.2.5 lacs under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act on the allegation that the appellant even after having knowledge that the officials of the AHD Department are withdrawing money fraudulently from different Treasuries on the basis of forged allotment letters to stall the matter from being handed over to the Vigilance on the plea of matter being enquired into by the Public Accounts Committee and that he also gave protection/patronage to one of the officials of the AHD Department by making recommendation for extension of his services and that in lieu of giving protection of the officials of the AHD Department, he not only received illegal gratification from the persons involved in the case but also enjoyed hospitalities by availing Air Tickets purchased by them but the prosecution has failed to establish any of the circumstances as aforesaid on the basis of which the order of conviction has been recorded. 3. 3. In this regard it was submitted that the C.B.I in order to prove the charge of stalling the enquiry to be taken by the Vigilance has proved two documents dated 17.6.1994 (Ext.38/314) and 24.6.1994 but the court has failed to take notice of the fact that the Vigilance had already taken up the matter for enquiry when it came to know about the illegal withdrawal from the Treasuries by AHD Department and that it was for the Government to accept the proposal or not to accept the proposal as there would have been no hurdle in getting the matter enquired by other Agencies and therefore, Vigilance should have proceeded with the enquiry and would not have taken lame excuse for not taking up the enquiry/investigation in view of the aforesaid two documents. 4. Further it was submitted that, according to the case of the C.B.I, the appellant made recommendation for extension of service of one of the officials of the AHD Department, namely, R.K. Das, an approver, who was examined as P.W.195, vide its letter dated 3.2.1994 (Ext.38/272) but nothing wrong was committed by this appellant being public representative in making recommendation when nothing was there against him which would be evident from the evidence of I.O. (P.W.348), who has stated that against R.K. Das no departmental proceeding was pending and moreover, the recommendation was advisory in nature which was never binding upon the Government. 5. Further it was submitted that in order to prove the charge that the appellant had received illegal gratification from the persons involved in illegal withdrawal of the money had examined P.W.195. R.K.Das, P.W.196, Dipesh Chandak, P.W.199, Dr.Sashi Kumar Singh, who are all approvers but apart from them, no independent witness has been examined for having corroboration of the said fact and thereby the court below should not have accepted the versions of all those accomplishes and moreover, none of them has stated that the money was given in presence of them rather they have stated that they do not have any personal acquaintance with this appellant and in that event, statement made by the aforesaid witnesses regarding receiving of illegal gratification is not worth considerable. 6. 6. Further the prosecution has examined one of the witness P.W.209, an employee of Indian Airlines to prove that the appellant undertook Air journey at the cost of the Scamstar but he has never deposed that the Air Ticket was purchased for the appellant through him. 7. However, the court has relied upon the entry made in the register simply showing the name of the appellant in whose name Air tickets have been shown to have been issued but that cannot be conclusive proof to prove the charge in absence of any evidence to the effect that the said tickets had been purchased for this appellant. 8. Thus, it was submitted that the trial court has based upon its finding on the evidences of two approvers, P.W.195, R.K.Das, P.W.196, Dipesh Chandak as well as other witnesses, P.W.96, P.W.97, P.W.106, P.W.199 and P.W.209, who, though were not made approvers but they were somehow or others involved very much in the alleged act of withdrawal of money from the Treasuries and therefore, the court below should not have acted upon the evidences of those witnesses but the trial court upon placing reliance on their evidences as well as other evidences, referred to above, has committed illegality in convicting the appellant. 9. As against this Mr. M. Khan, learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I submitted that the appellant, while was holding the post of Chairman, Public Accounts Committee, was quite aware of the fact that the officials of the AHD Department have involved themselves in withdrawing the money illegally from the Treasuries on the basis of forged allotment letters and the matter has been taken by the Vigilance for enquiry. In spite of that this appellant in order to protect the persons involved in the Scam wrote two letters dated 17.6.1994 and 24.6.1994 expressing his wishes that the matter be not entrusted to any other Agencies as the committee is holding enquiry with respect to the money drawn in excess than the budgetary allocation from the Treasuries and that in order to show that the Committee has been proceeding with the enquiry has shown to have seized several documents but no effective step was ever taken, rather those documents relating to the alleged fraudulent withdrawal were kept concealed in the store of the Institute of Animal Health and Production, Kanke, Ranchi and this fact was proved by P.W.19, P.W.96, P.W.97 and P.W.106. 10. 10. Further they have also proved certain documents to show that the appellant tried to stall enquiry or investigation in the alleged irregularity during 1993-95 and thereby the appellant has rightly been held guilty for the falsification of the documents. 11. Culpability of this appellant has been further found from the fact that this appellant initiated the matter relating to extension of the services of one R.K. Das (P.W.195), who was a party to creation of false document on the basis of which illegal withdrawal of money was made from the Treasuries. The matter goes further that the appellant had received illegal gratification from the persons involved in this Scam which fact has been proved by three witnesses, who saw S.B.Sinha, the Kingpin of the Scam giving money to the appellant and therefore, even if the witnesses do not have personal acquaintance with this appellant, it hardly matter. 12. The association of this appellant with the person involved in the Scam has further been proved by the fact that Air Tickets were purchased by the persons involved in the Scam for this appellant. 13. In these circumstances, it was stated that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused persons in conspiracy with each other including this appellant committed offences for which they have been convicted. 14. Thus, it was submitted that ample evidences have been laid to show that the appellant had had knowledge from before about the fraudulent withdrawal from the Treasury which matter when was taken by the Vigilance, the appellant by writing letters to the Chief Minister succeeded in preventing for some time from entrusting the enquiry to the Vigilance and that patronage was given by this appellant to the persons involved in the Scam and in lieu of that, he received illegal gratification. 15. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances placed on behalf of the parties and particularly, the material placed on behalf of the C.B.I., I am not inclined to grant bail to the appellant. Hence, the prayer for bail of the appellant is rejected at this stage.