JUDGMENT : Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.S.G.I. representing C.B.I. on the prayer for suspension of sentence made through I.A. No. 828 of 2018. 2. The appellant stands convicted in connection with RC. Case No. 68(A)/1996 vide impugned judgment dated 24th January, 2018 passed by the learned Court of Additional Judicial Commissioner-VII-cum-Special Judge (AHD), CBI-I, Ranchi for the offences under Section 120-B read with Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(2) of the P.C Act and separately under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act. He was sentenced under Section 120-B read with Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code to undergo R.I. for five (05) years and a fine of Rs. 10,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine, S.I. for one (01) year; under Section 13(2) of the P.C Act to undergo RI. of five (05) years and fine of Rs. 10,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine, S.I. of one (01) year; under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code to undergo R.I. of three (03) years in each section and fine of Rs. 25,000/- under each section. He is sentenced R.I. for three (03) years under Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act and fine of Rs. 50,000/- in default of payment of fine, S.I. of three (03) months for each default. All the sentences shall run concurrently and the period undergone shall be set-off. 3. Learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that material discussion in respect of the appellant in the impugned judgment is at pages 270 and 271 under the heading 'Findings on the point of implication of Officers of Animal Husbandry Department'. Learned senior counsel further submits that findings are based on the submission of one PW, 88 that the appellant and other Medical Officers of the Department of Animal Husbandry, Chaibasa instructed for preparation of split supply orders for supply of veterinary medicines during the financial year 1992-93. PW 121 has also disposed that supply orders for purchase of huge quantities of feed, veterinary medicine and instruments were prepared without indents to be supplied to DAHO, Chaibasa during 1992-93 at the recommendation of the appellant and another doctor. PW 121 has also disposed that supply orders for purchase of huge quantities of feed, veterinary medicine and instruments were prepared without indents to be supplied to DAHO, Chaibasa during 1992-93 at the recommendation of the appellant and another doctor. Apart from the, above, there are no findings against the appellant. Appellant has remained in custody during trial and after his conviction for a total period of more than 41 months. The break up of the custody during trial is provided at para 7 of the instant I.A. i.e. 3 yeas 04 month and 8 days and after conviction on 24.01.2018 he has remained in custody till date for approximately 2-½ months. The lower Court records were also inspected by the parties pursuant to the Court's order dated 23.03.2018, which confirms the period of custody undergone. Certified copy of the order of learned C.B.I. Court dated 21.04.1999 and 18.09.1999 are also enclosed as Annexure-A and A/1 to the supplementary affidavit. 4. Learned senior counsel for the appellant further submits that the learned trial Court seems to have committed error in sentencing the appellant twice for the offence under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(2) of the P.C Act. He has referred to para 3 at page 8 of the impugned judgment and the conviction recorded at page 305 (first and second para) also in support of his aforesaid contention. It is further submitted that as a result of such sentencing, fine has also been imposed twice on the appellant, which is also harsh. 5. Learned AS.G.I. representing C.B.I. has opposed the prayer for' suspension of sentence on merits. However, he does not dispute the fact that appellant has undergone custody for a period more than half of the sentence awarded. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.S.G.I. representing C.B.I. have placed a judgment rendered by the Apex Court ill the case of Satyendra Kumar Mehra @ Satendera Kumar Mehra in Criminal Appeal No. 406 of 2018 dated 23.03.2018 on the power of the Appellate Court under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to suspend the sentence of imprisonment as well as fine with or without any condition. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court at para 34, Appellate Court can suspend the sentence of imprisonment as well as of fine without any condition or with conditions. The Appellate Court could have suspended the sentence and fine both or could have directed for deposit of fine or part of fine. 7. Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and learned AS.G.I. representing C.B.I.; the facts and circumstances noticed herein above arid also that the appellant has undergone custody for a period more than half of sentence awarded in connection with the instant case, I am inclined to grant the privilege of suspension of sentence to the appellant during pendency of the appeal. Accordingly, let the appellant Dr. Krishna Mohan Prasad be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Court of Additional Judicial Commissioner-VII -cum-Special Judge (AHD), CBI-I, Ranchi in connection with R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996, subject to deposit of the fine amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- in the Court below awarded by the learned trial Court. The appellant would not leave the country without permission of the learned trial Court. He would also submit his passport, if any, before the learned trial Court. 8. I.A No. 828 of 2018 stands disposed of accordingly. I.A. disposed of.