2026:JHHC:28856 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 965 of 2008 Vijay Kumar Mallik, S/o late Inder Lal Mallik, Resident of 26, Engineers’ Enclave, P.O. + P.S. Pitampura, Delhi - 110034 … … Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand through C.B.I… … 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 --- 03/23.09.2026 Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This Criminal Appeal (SJ) has been filed against the judgment of conviction dated 14.07.2008 and order of sentence dated 21.07.2008 passed in Case No.R.C.51A/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 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 465 and Section 477 A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (C ) and (d) of the P.C Act and further convicted him of charges under Section 420, 467, 468, and 471 read with 465 of Indian Penal Code. 3. The appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 years under Section 420 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for 6 years under Section 467 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for 6 years under Section 468, rigorous imprisonment for 2 years under Section 471 read with Section 465 of Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for 6 years along with a fine of Rs.50 lacs for the offence under Section 120B IPC read with Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 465 Indian Penal Code and Section 477 – A of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (C ) and (d) of P.C. Act. In default of payment of fine amount , the appellant was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 2026:JHHC:28856 2 months. However, the learned court passed order that the sentences shall run concurrently. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has expired and their legal heirs do not want to pursue the 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. 5. Learned counsel for the CBI has no objection so far as the aforesaid prayer of the appellant is concerned. 6. Considering the submissions, this appeal is treated as abated. 7. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed. 8. 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/-