JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the CBI on the prayer for suspension of sentence made through I.A. No. 9964/2018. 2. Appellant stands convicted in connection with R.C. Case No. 45(A)/1996 – Pat vide impugned judgment of conviction dated 09.04.2018 and order of sentence dated 18.04.2018 passed by the Learned Special Judge-VII, CBI (AHD Scam), Ranchi for the offences under sections 120-B read with sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477(A) of the Indian Penal Code and section 13(2) read with section 13 (1) (c) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three and half years each with a fine of Rs. 50,00,000/- each and in default thereof, to undergo S.I. for nine months each separately. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was posted as District Animal Husbandry Officer, Deoghar between 1993 to 1996. He had only attested the signature of Travelling Veterinary Officer on 61 invoices. He had never certified the supply of animal feed, medicines and machinery because it was not within the scope of his duty. DHAO is not supposed to verify each and every invoices and supplies made thereunder. He has therefore not misused his position in causing wrongful loss to the State revenue to the tune of Rs. 34,91,54,844/-, as alleged, in conspiracy with the Regional Director, AHD and Treasury Officer, Dumka. He submits that the learned CBI Court has however taken into account the statement of prosecution witnesses no. 1,2, 11, 12, 195 and 197 together with certain documentary evidence to come to an erroneous finding that he having countersigned false certificate relating to supply in criminal conspiracy with other officer, had misused his position and caused wrongful loss to the State Government. Learned counsel submits that the appellant is 73 years old and suffering from various serious medical ailments. He further states that fine of Rs. 50.00 lakhs imposed by the learned Trial Court is grossly excessive as at best, allegations relating to fraudulent withdrawals on his counter signature were to the extent of Rs. 20.00 lakhs. He has made reference to the statement of PW-197. Appellant has undergone custody for more than half of the sentence by now and therefore, may be granted the privilege of suspension of sentence and sympathetic consideration may be accorded, so far as deposit of fine amount is concerned. 4. 20.00 lakhs. He has made reference to the statement of PW-197. Appellant has undergone custody for more than half of the sentence by now and therefore, may be granted the privilege of suspension of sentence and sympathetic consideration may be accorded, so far as deposit of fine amount is concerned. 4. Learned counsel for the CBI has opposed the prayer on merits. He has referred to the discussions on the role of the appellant by the learned CBI court at para-106 and 107 of the impugned judgment. He further submits that the appellant being the District Animal Husbandry Officer was directly instrumental in huge fraudulent withdrawals against allotment of Rs. 5.71 lakhs for the period 1991-92 and 1995-96. Learned counsel however does not dispute that the appellant has undergone custody for more than half of the custody by now. 5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the facts and circumstances noted above. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and that the appellant has undergone custody for more than half of the sentence awarded by now, I am inclined to grant the privilege of suspension of sentence to the appellant during pendency of the appeal. Accordingly, let the appellant Manoranjan Prasad @ Dr. Manoranjan Prasad Sinha be released on bail, during the pendency of this appeal, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of Learned Special Judge-VII, CBI (AHD Scam), Ranchi in connection with R.C. Case No. 45(A)/1996 – Pat, subject to deposit of the fine amount of Rs. 2.50 lakhs in the Court below and if not wanted in connection with any other case. 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. 6. I.A. No. 9964/2018 stands disposed of accordingly.