2026:JHHC:28725 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 30 of 2008 Sanjay Sinha, S/o Dr. N.P. Sinha, Resident of Sushila Niwas, Hinoo Main Road, Hinoo, P.S. Doranda, District - Ranchi … … Appellant Versus State of Jharkhand through CBI … … Respondent --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Appellant : Mr. Shekhar Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Apurv, Advocate : Mrs. Moushmi Chatterjee, Advocate For the CBI : Mr. Prashant Pallav, ASGI : Ms. Shivani Jaluka, AC to ASGI --- 06/23.09.2026 Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This Criminal Appeal (SJ) has been filed against the judgment of conviction dated 18.12.2007 and order of sentence dated 19.12.2007 passed in Case No.R.C.50A/1996 by the learned Special Judge-IV, C.B.I. (A.H.D. Scam Cases), Ranchi. By the said judgment, the appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (c ) and (d ) of P.C. Act. The appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 years under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471, 477 A of the IPC and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (c ) and (d ) of P.C. Act and R.I. for 6 years, u/s 420 R.I. for 6 years, u/s 467, R.I. for 6 years u/s 468 and R.I. for 6 years u/s 471 read with 467 of IPC. A fine of Rs.18 lakhs has been imposed as part of sentence under Section 120-B r/w Section 420, 409, 467, 468, 471, 477-A of IPC and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) ( c ) and (d ) of P.C. Act. In default of payment of fine amount or any part of the same, the appellant was directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. However, the learned court passed order that the sentences shall run concurrently. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has expired and their legal heirs do not want to pursue the 2026:JHHC:28725 2 appeal, but the death certificate has been forwarded to the learned counsel for the appellant which has been placed on record along with the mention slip. He submits that accordingly this appeal has abated and the learned counsel for the appellant does not want to press the present appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the CBI has no objection so far as the aforesaid prayer of the appellant is concerned. 5. Considering the submissions, this appeal is treated as abated. 6. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed. 7. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through Fax/email. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of order: 23.09.2026 Date of uploading: 29.09.2026 Saurav/-