Delhi District Court
As State Of Madhya Pradesh vs . Ram Singh, 2000(1) Rcr on 24 May, 2013
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. N. K. SHARMA, SPECIAL JUDGE
(PC ACT) - 02 : DELHI.
RC No.11(S)/1990
CC No. 73/2001
CBI/SCB/NEW DELHI
ID NO. 02401R0231362001
CBI
VS
1. SH. G. C. JAIN, OFFICER,
JMGS-I, SBI, RAIL BHAWAN BRANCH,
NEW DELHI.
2. SH. RAKESH KUMAR @ RAKESH JAIN,
S/O SH. M. K. JAIN,
R/O 257, LIG FLATS, EAST LONI ROAD,
SHAHADARA, DELHI.
3. SH. PRAMOD KUMAR @ PRAMOD JAIN,
S/O SH. RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN,
R/O A-1/65, ROHINI, DELHI.
Date of Institution :22.12.1992.
Date of Arguments :07.05.2013.
Date of Judgment :20.05.2013.
Order on Sentence :24.05.2013.
ORDER ON SENTENCE
1 of 95
2
1. Vide my separate judgment announced on
20.05.2013, accused no.1 G. C. Jain, accused no. 2 Rakesh
Kumar @ Rakesh Jain and accused no. 3 Pramod Kumar @
Pramod Jain are held guilty and convicted for the offences
punishable under Section 120-B r/w Section 420, 467, 468,
471 and 477-A of IPC and u/s 5(2) read with Section 5(1) (d)
of PC Act.
2. Accused no. 1 G. C. Jain is also held guilty and
convicted for the offences punishable under section 420,
467, 468, 471 and 477-A of IPC and u/s 5(2) read with
Section 5(1) (d) of PC Act.
3. Accused no. 2 Rakesh Kumar @ Rakesh Jain is
also held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable
under section 420 of IPC.
4. Accused no. 3 Pramod Kumar @ Pramod Jain is
2 of 95
3
held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under
section 420 of IPC.
5. It has been argued by Sh. Y. Kahol, learned counsel
for convict G. C. Jain that he is 68 years of age and is not a
previous convict. He has clean antecedents. He is facing
agony of this trial since 1993. He is suffering from various
ailments as well suffering from old age problems. It has
been further argued that no loss has been caused to the
Bank as he has deposited the money at the time of his
Departmental Enquiry. It is prayed that in these
circumstances, lenient view may be taken against him.
6. It has been argued by Sh. Alok Bansal, Advocate,
as Amicus Curiae for convict Rakesh Kumar @ Rakesh Jain
that he is 54 years of age and is not a previous convict. He
is facing agony of the trial since 1993. He has clean
antecedents. He is suffering from diabetes and high blood
3 of 95
4
pressure as well as heart ailments. He has to look after his
75 years old aged father suffering from 100% vision loss and
unable to move on his own and 72 years old aged mother
suffering from various old age diseases. It has been further
argued that his wife has recently got operated upon the
removal of her uterus and gall blader. It has been also
argued that he has two unmarried children i.e. one daughter
and one son. There is no other person except him to look
after his aged parents and wife. It is submitted that he is the
victim of the circumstances. It is prayed that in these
circumstances, lenient view may be taken against him.
7. It has been argued by Sh. Y. Kahol, learned counsel
for convict Pramod Kumar @ Pramod Jain that he is 53
years of age and is not a previous convict. He is facing
agony of the trial since 1993. He has clean antecedents.
There is no one else to look after his family and he is the
4 of 95
5
only sole bread earner of the family. It has been argued that
convict Pramod Kumar @ Pramod Jain has merely signed
the cheques and handed over to convict G. C. Jain being a
relative. It is further submitted that he is the victim of the
circumstances. It is prayed that in these circumstances,
lenient view may be taken against him.
8. It has been argued by Sh. I. D. Vaid, learned Special
PP for CBI that no leniency be shown to the Convicts in
awarding the sentence as it will be undesirable and will also
be against public interest. He has argued that convict G. C.
Jain is involved in a serious corruption case being public
servant and he was running a private business of Property
Dealer inspite he was working as JMGS-1 in State Bank of
India, Rail Bhawan Branch, New Delhi. Convict G. C. Jain
entered into criminal conspiracy with his co-accused namely
Rakesh Kumar @ Rakesh Jain and Pramod Kumar @
5 of 95
6
Pramod Jain. Convict G. C. Jain played with the public
funds with the help of forged pay in slips by replacing
genuine pay in slips and used those forged pay in slips as
genuine. Convict G. C. Jain also falsified the accounts of
various customers for the purpose of cheating and he also
diverted the funds of the customers in the accounts of his co-
convicts namely Rakesh Kumar @ Rakesh Jain and Pramod
Kumar @ Pramod Jain.
9. It has been further argued by the learned Special
PP that convicts namely Rakesh Kumar @ Rakesh Jain and
Pramod Kumar @ Pramod Jain were in the criminal
conspiracy with convict G. C. Jain and they have issued the
drafts and cheques from their accounts with the knowledge
that no sufficient funds were available in their accounts. It
has been prayed by the learned Special PP that they should
be awarded severe punishment and heavy fine may also be
6 of 95
7
imposed.
10. I have carefully considered the submissions made
on behalf of the Convicts and the Prosecution.
11. The Apex Court in para 7 of the judgment reported
as State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ram Singh, 2000(1) RCR
(Criminal) 784 expressed its concern about corruption by
observing as under:-
"Corruption in a civilised society is a disease
like cancer, which if not detected in time is
sure to maliganise the policy of country
leading to disastrous consequences. It is
termed as plague which is not only contagious
but if not controlled spreads like a fire in a
jungle. Its virus is compared with HIV leading
to AIDS, being incurable. It has also been
termed as Royal thievery. The socio-political
system exposed to such a dreaded
communicable disease is likely to crumble
under its own weight. Corruption is opposed
7 of 95
8
to democracy and social order, being not only
anti-people, but aimed and targeted against
them. It affects the economy and destroys the
cultural heritage. Unless nipped in the bud at
the earliest, it is likely to cause turbulence
shaking of the socio economic political system
in an otherwise healthy, wealthy, effective and
vibrating society."
12. In a case reported as State of UP Vs Shri Kishan,
2005 I AD (SC) 180, their Lordships laid down the following
guidelines on the subject in para 8 as under:-
"Imposition of sentence without considering its
effect on the social order in many cases may
be in reality a futile exercise. The social
impact of the crime, e.g. Where it relates to
offences against women, dacoity, kidnapping,
misappropriation of public money, treason and
other offences involving moral turpitude or
moral delinquency which have great impact
on social order and public interest, cannot be
8 of 95
9
lost sight of and perse require exemplary
treatment. Any liberal attitude by imposing
meager sentences or taking too sympathetic
view merely on account of lapse of time in
respect of such offences will be result-wise
counter productive in the long run and against
societal interest which needs to be cared for
and strengthened by string of deterrence
inbuilt in the sentencing system".
13. Their Lordships in para 9 of the judgment further
observed as under:
"The Court will be failing in its duty if
appropriate punishment is not awarded for a
crime which has been committed not only
against the individual victim but also against
the society to which the criminal and victim
belong. The punishment to be awarded for a
crime must not be irrelevant but it should
conform to and be consistent with the atrocity
and brutality with which the crime has been
9 of 95
10
perpetrated, the enormity of the crime
warranting public abhorrence and it should
"respond to the society's cry for justice against
the criminal."
14. In a case reported as State of Karnataka Vs.
Puttaraja, 2003 X AD(SC) 464, their Lordships in para 7 of
the judgment observed as under:
"Undue sympathy to impose inadequate
sentence would do more harm to the justice
system to undermine the public confidence in
the efficacy of law and society could not long
endure under such serious threats. It is,
therefore, the duty of every court to award
proper sentence having regard to the nature
of the offence and the manner in which it was
executed or committed etc. This position was
illuminatingly stated by this Court in Sevaka
Perumal etc. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR
1991 SC 1463.
15. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that if
10 of 95
11
following sentences in this case are awarded, it shall serve
the ends of justice.
16. Sentences to convict G. C. Jain:-
Convict is sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of
two years for offence punishable under Section 120-B of IPC
read with Section 420, 467,468,471,477A of IPC and U/s
5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of PC Act, 1947. He is further
sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-(Rs. Twenty
Thousands Only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall
undergo S. I. for a further period of two months.
For the offence punishable under Section 420 of
IPC, Convict G. C. Jain is sentenced to undergo R.I. for a
period of four years alongwith a fine of Rs.40,000/-(Rs. Forty
Thousands Only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall
undergo S. I. for a further period of four months.
For the offence punishable under Section 467 of
11 of 95
12
IPC, Convict G. C. Jain is sentenced to undergo R.I. for a
period of five years alongwith a fine of Rs.50,000/-(Rs. Fifty
Thousands Only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall
undergo S. I. for a further period of five months.
For the offence punishable under Section 468 of
IPC, Convict G. C. Jain is sentenced to undergo R.I. for a
period of three years alongwith a fine of Rs.30,000/-(Rs.
Thirty Thousands Only) and in default of payment of fine, he
shall undergo S. I. for a further period of three months.
For the offence punishable under Section 471 of
IPC, Convict G. C. Jain is sentenced to undergo R.I. for a
period of three years alongwith a fine of Rs.30,000/-(Rs.
Thirty Thousands Only) and in default of payment of fine, he
shall undergo S. I. for a further period of three months.
For the offence punishable under Section 477A of
IPC, Convict G. C. Jain is sentenced to undergo R.I. for a
12 of 95
13
period of five years alongwith a fine of Rs.50,000/-(Rs. Fifty
Thousands Only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall
undergo S. I. for a further period of five months.
For offence punishable under Section 5(2) read with
Section 5(1)(d) of PC Act, 1947, Convict G. C. Jain is
sentenced to undergo R. I. for a period of five years
alongwith a fine of Rs.50,000/-(Rs. Fifty Thousands Only)
and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo S. I. for a
further period of five months.
17. Sentences to Convict Rakesh Kumar @ Rakesh
Jain.
Convict is sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of
two years for offence punishable under Section 120-B of IPC
read with Section 420, 467,468,471,477A of IPC and U/s
5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of PC Act, 1947. He is further
sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-(Rs. Twenty
13 of 95
14
Thousands Only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall
undergo S. I. for a further period of two months.
For the offence punishable under Section 420 of
IPC, Convict Rakesh Kumar @ Rakesh Jain is sentenced to
undergo R.I. for a period of four years alongwith a fine of Rs.
40,000/-(Rs. Forty Thousands Only) and in default of
payment of fine, he shall undergo S. I. for a further period of
four months.
18. Sentences to Convict Pramod Kumar @ Pramod
Jain.
Convict is sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of
two years for offence punishable under Section 120-B of IPC
read with Section 420, 467,468,471,477A of IPC and U/s
5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of PC Act, 1947. He is further
sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-(Rs. Twenty
Thousands Only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall
14 of 95
15
undergo S. I. for a further period of two months.
For the offence punishable under Section 420 of
IPC, Convict Pramod Kumar @ Pramod Jain is sentenced to
undergo R.I. for a period of four years alongwith a fine of Rs.
40,000/-(Rs. Forty Thousands Only) and in default of
payment of fine, he shall undergo S. I. for a further period of
four months.
19. It is further directed that all the substantive
sentences shall run concurrently. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.
P. C. be also given to all the three convicts.
20. A copy of Judgment and this order on sentence be
given to the convicts free of cost. File be consigned to
Record Room.
(N. K. SHARMA)
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT)(CBI):02
DELHI/24.05.2013.
15 of 95
16
IN THE COURT OF SH. N. K. SHARMA, SPECIAL JUDGE
(PC ACT) - 02 : DELHI.
RC No.11(S)/1990
CC No. 73/2001
CBI/SCB/NEW DELHI
ID NO. 02401R0231362001
CBI
VS
1. SH. G. C. JAIN, OFFICER,
JMGS-I, SBI, RAIL BHAWAN BRANCH,
NEW DELHI.
2. SH. RAKESH KUMAR @ RAKESH JAIN,
S/O SH. M. K. JAIN,
R/O 257, LIG FLATS, EAST LONI ROAD,
SHAHADARA, DELHI.
3. SH. PRAMOD KUMAR @ PRAMOD JAIN,
S/O SH. RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN,
R/O A-1/65, ROHINI, DELHI.
Date of Institution :22.12.1992.
Date of Arguments :07.05.2013.
Date of Judgment :20.05.2013.
16 of 95
17
JUDGMENT
1. This judgment will dispose off the CBI criminal case referred to herein above filed by the CBI on 22.12.1992.
2. Brief facts as per the case of prosecution are that this case was registered in Special Crime Branch of CBI New Delhi on 28.09.1990 on the basis of a complaint received from Manager (Vigilance), State Bank of India, local Head office, New Delhi vide their letter no. VIGL/818 dated 28.09.1990 and the IO was entrusted with the investigation. It was alleged that Sh. G. C. Jain while posted and functioning as Officer, JMGS-I and Incharge of Clearing Section in the State Bank of India, Rail Bhawan Branch, New Delhi, during the year 1987 - 1988 connived with some private persons, got opened five Saving Bank Accounts in the name of his relatives / 17 of 95 18 fictitious persons in the said branch by introducing their accounts and he fraudulently diverted clearing proceeds of cheques/drafts deposited by different Bank customers in their accounts by replacing genuine pay in slips by bogus pay in slips in the said five Saving Bank Accounts or accounts of his choice. The details of accounts which were opened on his introduction are given as under:-
S. NO. SB A/C NOS. NAME OF A/C HOLDER 1 SB A/C NO.10898 SH. RAKESH KUMAR. 2 SB A/C NO. 12010 SH. D.S. TIWARI. 3 SB A/C NO. 12066 SH. PRAMOD KUMAR. 4 SB A/C NO.12243 SH. GULSHAN ARORA. 5 SB A/C NO.12147 SH. PRAKASH CHAND.
3. Subsequently, money was withdrawn from these accounts and accused G.C. Jain embezzled bank's fund amounting to Rs. 12,33,162/-. Some of the accounts whose funds had been diverted are as follows:-
(1) MINISTRY OF INFORMATION &
BROADCASTING.
18 of 95
19
(2) M/S CINE ARTS.
(3) M/S. PANCHVATI CO-OPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY.
(4) M/S COSY HOMES CO-OPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY.
(5) M/S PARSARAN CO-OPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY.
(6) M/S MANAS VIHAR CO-OPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY.
(7) SH. D.C. JOSHI.
(8) SH. KAMALJEET AZAD.
4. The investigation has further disclosed that accused G.C. Jain was posted and functioning as officer JMGS-I and Incharge of Clearing Section w.e.f April 1987 and he was responsible for release of credit to depositors through local and national clearing in accordance with the rules and procedure as laid down by the bank and it was his duty as Incharge of Clearing to ensure that the credit of the proceeds of clearing against cheques/drafts etc. presented by the customers of the branch is given to their accounts.
19 of 95 20
5. Accused G.C. Jain while working as public servant in the capacity of an officer in JMGS-I, State Bank of India, Rail Bhawan Branch, New Delhi got opened following Saving Bank Accounts in the name of his relatives / fictitious persons by introducing their accounts himself:-
1. SB A/c No.10898 in the name of Sh. Rakesh Kumar.
2. SB A/c No. 12066 in the name of Sh.Pramod Kumar.
3. SB A/c No.12243 in the name of Sh. Gulshan Arora.
4. SB A/c No.12147 in the name of Sh. Prakash Chand.
6. After opening these accounts accused G.C. Jain dishonestly and fraudulently diverted clearing proceeds of several cheques deposited by account holders to the said 20 of 95 21 four accounts instead of to the accounts of actual beneficiaries who deposited the cheque in question was given after sometime by way of fresh misappropriation of amounts of clearing proceeds of some other cheques deposited by other customers or by raising fraudulent debits in IBIT account of the bank or accounts of customers of the bank. Details of transaction in question are as under:-
SL. CH. NO. AMOUNT DEPOSITED BY & DRAWN ON DEPTD. CREDIT CREDIT GIVEN TO CREDIT GIVEN NO & DATE A/C NO. ON RECD. TO ACTUAL BENEFICIARY AND FROM WHERE 1 031183 16,000/- M/S MANAS VIHAR CENTRAL BANK OF 19.11.87 21.11.87 A/C NO. 12147 OF ON 28.11.87 01.11.87 CO-OP. GROUP INDIA, JANPATH, NEW PRAKASH CHAND FROM A/C NO.
HOUSING SOCIETY DELHI, DRAWN BY ID 12177 OF JAI IN THEIR SB A/C CHATURVEDI, SB A/C BHAGWAN NO. 12151 NO.13830 2 758930 9,000/- -DO- PNB, KHAN MARKET, 14.12.87 16.12.87 A/C NO. 12147 OF ON 02.01.88 02.12.87 NEW DELHI DRAWN BY PRAKASH CHAND FROM IBIT A/C. RCP SINHA, A/C NO.
16527 3 214622 10,000/- -DO- STATE BANK OF 15.12.87 17.12.87 A/C NO. 10898 OF ON 02.01.88 13.12.87 PATIALA, DDS FLATS, RAKESH KUMAR FROM A/C NO.
KALKAJI, NEW DELHI, 5147 OF COSY
DRAWN BY C.P. HOMES, C.G.
CHHABRA, A/C. NO. SOCIETY.
CA-153
4 394769 23,600/- -DO- SBI DDA BUILDING 22.12.87 26.12.87 A/C NO. 12147 OF ON 02.01.88
19.12.87 DRAWN BY BR. BHATIA, PRAKASH CHAND FROM IBIT A/C.
S.B. A/C NO. 3879
5 322933 9,500/- -DO- STATE BANK OF 22.12.87 26.12.87 A/C NO. 10898 OF - DO -
07.12.87 PATIALA, SHASTRI RAKESH KUMAR
BHAWAN, S.B. A/C NO.
6242 DRAWN BY RAJA
SINGH
21 of 95
22
6 136096 39,000/- -DO- SBI, MAIN BRANCH, 22.12.87 26.12.87 A/C NO. 12066 OF - DO -
18.12.87 NEW DELHI DRAWN BY PRAMOD KUMAR
J.L. GULLANI, CA, NO.
65200/44
7 667456 10,000/- -DO- CORPORATION BANK, 22.12.87 28.12.87 A/C NO. 12147 OF ON 02.01.88
11.12.87 KAMLA NAGAR, DELHI, PRAKASH CHAND FROM COSY
DRAWN BY B.K. HOMES A/C NO.
SRIVASTAVA, S.B. A/C 5147
NO. 1862
8 044419 15,000/- Panchvati CO-OP. BANK OF INDIA, 04/01/88 06/01/88 A/C NO. 1441 OF ON 15.01.88
30.12.87 GROUP HOUSING ANSARI ROAD, DELHI, JM HALLON. ( TO OUT OF FUNDS
SOCIETY IN THEIR DRAWN BY DAMYANTI SQUARE UP THE RECOVERED
SB A/C NO. 12151 BHUTANI A/C NO. 2530 MISAPPROPRIATI FROM SH. G.C.
ON FROM HIS JAIN
ACCOUNT VIDE
ENTRY NO. 14 OF
THIS STATEMENT
9 018067 10,000/- -DO BANK OF BARODA, 22.12.87 RETURNE A/C NO. 10898 OF ON 28.12.87
7.12.87 KAROL BAGH, DELHI, D UNPAID RAKESH KUMAR VIDE ANOTHER
DRAWN BY BIMLA ON MISAPPROPRIA
MOTIHAR, S.B. A/C NO. 26.12.87 TION.
8052
10 800830 19,000/- M/S COSY HOMES PNB, JANAKPURI, NEW 28.12.87 30.12.87 A/C NO. 12177 OF ON 07.09.88 BY
30.11.87 CO-OP. GROUP DELHI, DRAWN BY V.S. JAYBHAGAT BUT DEPOSIT OF
HOUSING SOCIETY SINGHAL, S.B. A/C. NO. ACTUALLY NOT CASH SH. G.C.
IN THEIR SB A/C 13921 POSTED IN THE JAIN
NO. 5147 ACCOUNT.
11 106113 4,00,000/- M/O INFORMATION INDIAN BANK, 26.11.87 04.01.88 AMOUNT ON 15.01.88
13.11.87 AND NARIMAN POINT, Rs. DIVERTED AS OUT OF FUNDS
BROADCASTING BOMBAY, DRAWN BY 2,26,800/- UNDER:- RECD. FROM
NFDC LTD. BOMBAY, Rs. 1) IBIT A/C. G.C. JAIN
CA - 10695 1,755/- 2) A/C NO. 10898
Rs. 3)DRAFT ISSUED
96,695/-
Rs.
74,750/-
12 106114 30,000/- - DO - - DO - - DO - 04.01.88 SB. A/C NO. 12147 ON 15.01.88
13.11.87 OF PRAKASH OUT OF FUNDS
CHAND RECD. FROM
G.C. JAIN
13 003019 50,000/- M/S B.L. GUPTA NAINITAL BANK, 28.12.87 30.12.87 CREDIT SHOWN ON 02.01.88 BY
30.11.87 CONSTRUCTIONS PANCHKUIAN ROAD, TO HAVE GIVEN A CONSOLIDATE
CO. LTD. C/A NO. NEW DELHI, DRAWN TO SB A/C NO. DEBIT OF RS.
42048 BY RAM KUMARI DEVI, 12177 & 12147 2,26, 800/-
S.B. A/C NO. 604 BUT ACTUALLY RAISED BY SH.
NOT GIVEN G.C. JAIN
14 004800 15,000/- SH. J. M. HALLAN, SBI, NIRMAN BHAWAN, 02.01.88 05.01.88 A/C NO. 12066 OF ON 06.01.88 BY
01.01.88 S.B. A/C NO. 1441 DRAWN BY PAO. AGR & PRAMOD KUMAR. SEPAR ATE
COOP. DEPTT. MISAPPROPRIA
TION FROM
A/C NO. 4152
VIDE ENTRY NO.
8 ABOVE
15 101421 20,000/- M/S K.R.N. VIJAY BANK 09.11.87 11.11.87 A/C NO. 12147 OF ON THE SAME
TAGORE, A/C. NO. PRAKASH CHAND DAY BY A
12107 CONSOLIDATE
DEBIT OF RS.
80,399/- IN IBIT
A/C BY SH. G.C.
JAIN
22 of 95
23
16 117912 5,000/- M/S SBI STAFF SBI, NEW DELHI 31.10.87 03.11.87 A/C NO. 12066 OF ON 11.11.87 A
30.10.87 SAHKARI SAMITI PRAMOD KUMAR CONSOLIDATED
LTD. SB. A/C. NO. DEBIT OF RS.
8846 80,399/- IN IBIT
A/C RAISED BY
SH. G.C. JAIN.
17 924096 10,000/- M/S NFRD. A/C NO. (1) SBI, PAPLABI, 12.11.87 IBIT A/C TO ON 28.11.87 BY
11.06.87 7968 CALCUTTA, DRAWN BY ADJUST THE DEBIT TO A/C
ANUKUL CHAND EARLIER DEBIT NO. 12147-
ON 11.11.87 TO Rs.20,000/-;
IBIT A/C A/C No. 12066 -
AMOUNTING TO Rs.20,000/-;
RS. 80,000/- A/C No. 10898-
Rs.20,000/-
18 425126 10,000/- (2) UBI, DESHAPRIYA However, these
09.06.87 PARK, KOLKATA entries do not
appear in the
accounts.
19 083369 10,000/- (3) UBI, OLD COURT
17.09.87 HOUSE, CALCUTTA
20 100988 10,000/- (4) ABN BANK,
28.07.87 CALCUTTA
21 011069 10,000/- (5) ANDHRA BANK,
11.06.87 CALCUTTA
22 ----------- 10,000/- (6) SBBJ, CALCUTTA
23.06.87
23 69195 10,000/- (7) CANARA BANK,
18.09.87 CALCUTTA
24 81625 10,000/- (8) IOB, CALCUTTA
02.05.87
FRAUDULENT DEBITS / CREDITS TO ACCOUNTS:-
AMOUNT DATE A/C DEBITED A/C CREDITED RS. 10,000/- 21.09.87 IBIT A/C 5147 12010 OF DS TIWARI. RS. 71042/- 02.01.88 M/S COSY HOME CO-OP GROUP HOUSING 12151 RS. 10,000/-
SOCIETY. 12151 RS. 10,000/-
12151 RS. 10,000/-
7012 RS. 10,000/-
4252 RS. 10,000/-
DRAFT ISSUED RS. 21,042/-
RS. 71,042/-
RS. 80,000/- 11.11.87 IBIT A/C. 8846 RS. 05,000/-
(EXCLUDING THE 4252 RS. 10,000/-
GENUINE ENTRIES IBIT RS. 07,000/-
OF RS.399/- 2610 RS. 10,000/-
12107 RS. 20,000/-
12066 RS. 04,000/-
10898 RS. 24,042/-
RS. 80,000/-
RS. 2,26,800/- 02.01.88 IBIT A/C. 12151 RS. 15,700/-
12151 RS. 39,000/-
12151 RS. 23,600/-
12151 RS. 9,500/-
12151 RS. 9,000/-
42048 RS. 50,000/-
DRAFT ISSUED RS. 80,000/-
RS.2,26,800/-
23 of 95
24
TOTAL TRANSACTIONS AMOUNT:-
DETAILS AMOUNT
CLEARING TRANSACTIONS DEBIT TO RS. 7,61,100/-
CUSTOMERS / IBIT A/Cs RS. 71,000/-
RS. 90,000/-
RS. 2,26,800/-
RS. 11,48,942/-
7. Thus accused G.C. Jain dishonestly and
fraudulently transferred an amount of Rs.7,61,100/-
through clearing transactions and Rs. 3,87,842/- by debiting customers IBIT Accounts with the total credit to various accounts including aforesaid questioned accounts of accused persons amounting to Rs. 11,48,942/- but he actually used Rs. 6,45,062/- out of the said fraudulent amount, which was later on deposited by accused G.C. Jain on 15.01.1988 and 07.09.1988 on cash in the aforesaid questioned accounts and the same was utilized to afford credits to the general account holders by the bank who had been denied credits earlier by the accused.
24 of 95 25
8. Accused no.2 Rakesh Kumar is nephew of accused no.1 G.C. Jain and Sh. Pramod Kumar is son of his brother - in - law. Sh. Gulshan Arora had worked with him in property dealer business by name 'Today Property' and there was no person by name Prakash Chand at the address given in the ledger sheet of the said account. Sh.
Rakesh Kumar and Sh. Pramod Kumar had opened Savings Bank Account no. 10898 and 12066 respectively after conniving with accused G.C. Jain and later on withdrew the fraudulently credited amounts in those two accounts at the behest of accused G.C. Jain.
9. The account no 12147 in the name of Sh. Prakash Chand was opened by accused G.C. Jain and it was operated by accused G.C. Jain and accused Rakesh Kumar.
10. Sh. D.S. Tiwari and Smt. Veena Tiwari though 25 of 95 26 opened SB A/c no. 12010 duly introduced by accused G.C. Jain are not connected with the offence because all the unauthorised debit/credit vouchers as well as entries in their account are in the handwritings of accused G.C. Jain without their proper authorization and as such no case is made out against Sh. D.S. Tiwari and Smt. Veena Tiwari. Moreover, Sh. D.S. Tiwari had informed the bank as soon as he came to know about unauthorized entries in his account.
11. Sh. Gulshan Arora also opened SB A/c. no. 12243 on the advice of accused G.C. Jain and withdrew Rs. 34,000/- from his account which was fraudulently credited by accused G.C. Jain in the said account but in view of his plea that he had handed over Rs. 35,000/- to accused G.C. Jain for depositing in the said account and withdrew the said amount under the bonafide belief that Rs.
26 of 95 27 35,000/- had been deposited in his account by accused G.C. Jain. Since bogus vouchers were prepared by accused G.C. Jain himself without the knowledge of Sh. Gulshan Arora, no case is made out against Sh. Gulshan Arora.
12. The above facts prima-facie disclosed commission of offences U/s 120B r/w 420 / 467 / 468 / 471 / 477A of IPC against accused no. 1 G. C. Jain, accused no. 2 Rakesh Kumar, accused no. 3 Pramod Kumar and also u/s 5(1) (d) of PC Act, 1947 against accused G.C. Jain.
13. After according the sanction for prosecution in respect of accused G.C. Jain U/s 6 of PC Act 1947 has been accorded by the competent authority, IO has filed the charge sheet.
14. After taking cognizance, all the accused persons were summoned to appear in the court and on their 27 of 95 28 appearance, they were supplied with the copies of the documents.
15. After hearing the arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for parties on point of charge and after going through the record, my Ld. Predecessor vide his separate order dated 05.03.2004 held that there are sufficient grounds for framing of charge for the offences punishable u/s 120-B r/w Section 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477-A of IPC and u/s 5(2) read with Section 5(1) (d) of PC Act against all the accused persons and a separate charge u/s 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477-A of IPC and u/s 5(2) read with Section 5(1) (d) of PC Act is also made out against accused G. C. Jain and charge u/s 420 and 468 of IPC is made out against accused Rakesh Kumar and u/s 420 of IPC is made out against accused Pramod Kumar. Accordingly, my Ld. Predecessor framed the 28 of 95 29 charges for the offences punishable u/s 120-B, r/w Section 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477-A of IPC and u/s 5(2) read with Section 5(1) (d) of PC Act against all the accused persons and a separate charge u/s 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477A of IPC and u/s 5(2) read with Section 5(1) (d) of PC Act against accused G. C. Jain and charge u/s 420 and 468 of IPC is made out against accused Rakesh Kumar and u/s 420 of IPC is made out against accused Pramod Kumar to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
16. In support of its case, CBI has examined as many as 43 witnesses.
PW-1 Sh. J. M. Hallan S/o Sh. Dheru Ram, R/o AG-145, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi.
PW-2 Sh.Raja Singh, S/o Sh. Udey Singh, R/o D-4, Manas Apartment, Mayur Vihar, Delhi. PW-3 Sh. R. C. P. Sinha, S/o Sh. Ram Ayodhya 29 of 95 30 Singh, R/o C-8/253-A, Lawrence Road, Delhi. PW-4 Sh. A. Ravindra Nath Tagore, S/o Sh. A. J. Azariah, R/o 39, Lodhi Road Complex, New Delhi.
PW-5 Sh. Suresh Bhambri, S/o Late Sh. K. L. Bhambri, R/o 5, Pocket- D, Mayur Vihar Phase-II, Delhi.
PW-6 Sh. Chander Kumar Sharma, S/o Sh. M. L. Sharma, R/o C-47, Manas Apartment, Mayur Vihar Phase-I Extension, Delhi. PW-7 Sh. V. K. Jain, S/o Sh. R. S. Jain, R/o 1/21, Sarvapriya Vihar, New Delhi.
PW-8 Sh. Jai Bhagwan, S/o Sh. Bhale Ram, R/o E-2/132, Sultanpuri, Delhi.
PW-9 Mrs. Kamlesh Bhatia, W/o Sh. Vijay Bhatia, R/o 38/18, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi. PW-10 Sh. Rajinder Kumar Sharma S/o Late Sh. Madan Lal Sharma, R/o WZ-38/18, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi.
PW-11 Sh. J. L. Guliani S/o Late Sh. H. C. Guliani, R/o C-44, Manas Apartment, Mayur Vihar Phase-I, Delhi.
PW-12 Ms. Jyoti Motihar D/o Sh. C. R. Motihar, 30 of 95 31 R/o B-6/10, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. PW-13 Sh. B. R. Bhatia, S/o Late Sh. Haveli Ram Bhatia, R/o B-56, Manas Vihar Apartments, Mayur Vihar, New Delhi.
PW-14 Sh. Harish Kumar Dhingra, Sr. Assistant, SBI, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi. PW-15 Sh. P. K. Jain, S/o Sh. N. K. Jain, R/o 18/324, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi.
PW-16 Sh. K. Ramkrishanan (Retd). Dy. Managing Director, SBI, R/o Konkoth, Rama Verma Puram, Trichur.
PW-17 Sh. Gulshan Arora, S/o Late Sh. P.N. Arora, R/o 24-A, Pocket-F, G.T.B. Enclave, Delhi-93 PW-18 Ms. Vimal Motihar, W/o Sh. C.R. Motihar, R/o E-23, Anand Niketan, Delhi. PW-19 Sh. V.D. Naniwadekar, Section Officer, Vigilance, Disciplinary Section, ICAR, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi.
PW-20 Smt. Veena Tiwari, W/o Sh. Devi Sharan Tiwari, R/o B-203, Vigyan Vihar, Group Housing Society, Plot no.19, Sector - 56, Gurgaon, Haryana.
31 of 95 32 PW-21 Sh. Bhagat Ram, S/o Late Sh. Babu Ram, R/o 2089, Raghubeer Pura, Gandhi Nagar, Shahdara Road, Delhi.
PW-22 Sh. Devi Sharan Tiwari S/o Late Sh. Darbari Lal Tiwari, R/o B-203, Vigyan Vihar, Sector
- 56, Gurgaon.
PW-23 Sh. Surender Kumar Patni, S/o Sh. Sewa Ram Patni, retired as Branch Manager, SBI, R/o B-39, East of Kailash, New Delhi - 65. PW-24 Sh. Ramesh Chander Awasthi, S/o Sh. B.B. Awasthi, R/o 4/48C, Vipul Khand, Gomati Nagar, Lucknow.
PW-25 Sh. Hem Raj, Special Assistant, State Bank of India, Rail Bhawan Branch, New Delhi. PW-26 Sh. G.C. Mittal, (Retd.) S/o Late Sh. S.L. Mittal, R/o H. No. 710, B-Block, Kamla Nagar, Agra.
PW-27 Sh. Ram Chander S/o Late Sh. B. Prasad, Additional SP (retired), R/o H. No. 246, Niti Khand-III, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad (UP). PW-28 Sh. S. C. Sharma,S/o Late Sh. B.K. Sharma, R/o B-114, Panchvati Society, Vikaspuri, New Delhi.
32 of 95 33 PW-29 Sh. Sarvagya Poonam S/o Late Sh. R. D. Sharma, R/o H-18/3, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. PW-30 Sh. J. S. Bhasin, Special Assistant, State Bank of India, Rail Bhawan Branch, New Delhi. PW-31 Sh. Jagdish Singh S/o Sh. Deep Chand, R/o House No. 201-E, Ward No. 2, Mehrauli, New Delhi-30.
PW-32 Sh. Santokh Singh S/o Sh. Vir Singh, R/o 262, Vij Nagar, Jalahandhar.
PW-33 Ms. Rita Khosla, Deputy Manager, SBI, Delhi Administrative Office, Parliament Street, New Delhi.
PW-34 Ms. Meenakshi Jain, Senior Assistant, SBI, Palam Colony, Delhi.
PW-35 Sh. Mahender Kumar Jain S/o Sh. Lala Bhola Ram Jain, R/o H. No. 81, Engineers Apartment, Patparganj, Delhi.
PW-36 Sh. Jagjit Singh S/o Late Sardar Khazan Singh R/o G-45-A, Dilshad Colony, Delhi-95. PW-37 Ms. Girija Kaul W/o Sh. R. K. Kaul, R/o 319, New Delhi Apartments, 7th Vasundhara Enclave, Delhi-96.
33 of 95 34 PW-38 Sh. R. N. Dey, MD in the Howrah Motor Co. Ltd. office at 166, Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata.
PW-39 Sh. Hira Lal Aggarwal, S/o Sh. Moti Lal Aggarwal, R/o D-50, Saket, New Delhi-110017. PW-40 Sh. Uday Keshav Nayak, S/o Sh.
Keshave Narayan Nayak, R/o A-15, Hemratan Dr. Radha Krishnan Marg, Andheri East, Mumbai.
PW-41 Sh. Hari Singh, S/o Late Sh. Leela Ram, R/o Village Kapriwas, Post Office Hero Honda Motors Ltd. District Rewari, Haryana. PW-42 Sh. Brij Mohan, S/o Late Sh. Hans Raj, R/o A-44, Defence Colony, Delhi-24. PW-43 Sh. S. B. Gupta, S/o Late Sh. Jamuna Dass Gupta, R/o H. No. 149, Mohalla Gurhai, Shahdara, Delhi-110032.
17. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statements under Section 313 Cr. P. C. of all the three accused persons were recorded. The accused persons have denied their involvement in commission of offence.
34 of 95 35 Accused G. C. Jain has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. Accused G. C. Jain has further stated that no loss was caused to the Bank and all the money have been recovered and credited in the correct accounts and he is the instrumental person to make the recovery and credited the same in the correct accounts. Accused Rakesh Kumar Jain has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated by the CBI being close relative of accused G. C. Jain. He has further stated that he never entered into any criminal conspiracy with any of the accused persons and never visited the bank for opening any such account. Accused Pramod Kumar Jain has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated by the CBI being close relative of accused G. C. Jain. He has further stated that he never entered into any criminal conspiracy with any of the 35 of 95 36 accused persons. He has also stated that he visited the bank for opening his account and on receipt of cheque book, he had signed some cheques and handed over the same to accused G. C. Jain, who is related to him. He has further stated that he has nothing to do with the commission of any offence.
18. In defence, Accused no. 1 G. C. Jain has examined the following two witnesses:-
DW-1 Joginder Singh, Manager, State Bank of India (Vigilance Department), Parliament Street, New Delhi.
DW-2 Manoj Basumatary, Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Rail Bhawan Branch, New Delhi.
19. Accused no. 2 Rakesh Kumar and Accused no. 3 Pramod Kumar have not led any defence evidence.
20. I have heard final arguments of Sh. I. D. Vaid, Learned Special PP for CBI and Sh. Y. Kahol, Advocate, 36 of 95 37 Ld. Counsel for accused no. 1 G. C. Jain and Accused no. 3 Pramod Kumar @ Pramod Jain as well as Sh. Alok Bansal, Advocate, Ld. Amicus Curiae for accused no. 2 Rakesh Kumar @ Rakesh Jain and perused the record.
21. Sh. I. D. Vaid, Ld. Special PP for the CBI has argued that the accused no. 1 G. C. Jain while working as JMGS-1, entered into criminal conspiracy with his co- accused Rakesh Kumar and Pramod Kumar during the period from September, 1987 to January, 1988 and diverted the funds of different customers of the Bank in account no. 10898 in the name of accused no. 2 Rakesh Kumar, in account no. 12066 in the name of accused no. 3 Pramod Kumar, in account no. 12243 in the name of Gulshan Arora and also in account no. 12147 opened in the name of Prakash Chand, a fictitious person on the introduction of accused no. 1 G. C. Jain. The funds were 37 of 95 38 diverted by replacing the genuine pay in slips and using forged pay in slips as genuine and also falsified the accounts of various customers for the purpose of cheating and thereby a pecuniary advantage of Rs.11,48,942/- was obtained by diverting and withdrawing the amount from the abovesaid accounts in the name of accused Rakesh Kumar, accused Pramod Kumar, fictitious account of Prakash Chand and Gulshan Arora.
22. It has been further argued by the Ld. Special PP that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts against all the three accused persons, hence they may be convicted. He has placed reliance on the following judgments:-
(1) M. NARAYANAN NAMBIAR VS. STATE OF KERALA, AIR 1963 SUPREME COURT 1116 (V 50 C 168) (2) STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. RAM 38 of 95 39 BABU MISRA, AIR 1980 SUPREME COURT 791 (3) M. R. PILLAI VS. M/S MOTILAL VRIJBHUKHANDAS & ORS. AIR 1970 BOMBAY 324.
23. On the other hand, Sh. Y. Kahol, Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused no.1 G. C. Jain has argued that the Prosecution has failed to bring any iota of evidence to show the criminal conspiracy between all the accused persons. He has further argued that there is no iota of evidence to show that accused no.1 G. C. Jain has committed the forgery or falsified the accounts of the various customers of the Bank and cheated them. He has further argued that no loss has been cast to the Bank or any other person and accused no. 1 G. C. Jain has gain nothing. Ld. Defence Counsel further submitted that accused no. 1 G. C. Jain has been falsely implicated in 39 of 95 40 the present case.
24. Sh. Y. Kahol, Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused no.3 Pramod Kumar @ Pramod Jain has argued that the Prosecution has failed to bring any iota of evidence to show the criminal conspiracy between all the accused persons. He has further argued that accused no. 3 Pramod Kumar has gone to Bank for opening of the account and on the receipt of cheque book, he has signed some cheques and handed over to accused no. 1 G. C. Jain, who is related to him. Ld. Defence Counsel further submitted that accused no. 3 Pramod Kumar has been falsely implicated in the present case for the reason that he is a close relative of accused no.1 G. C. Jain.
25. Sh. Alok Bansal, Ld. Amicus Curiae for accused no.
2 Rakesh Kumar has argued that the Prosecution has failed to bring any iota of evidence to show the criminal 40 of 95 41 conspiracy between all the accused persons. He has further argued that accused no. 2 Rakesh Kumar never opened an account as alleged by the Prosecution. Ld. Defence Counsel has further argued that accused No. 2 Rakesh Kumar never applied for issuance of any cheque book. Ld. Defence Counsel has submitted that accused is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case by the Prosecuting Agency i.e. CBI. He has placed reliance upon the following Judgments:-
(1) K. R. PURUSHOTTAM VS. STATE OF KERALA, 2005(3) JCC, 1847.
(2) JOHN PANDIAN VS. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE TAMILNADU, 2011(1) JCC 1993.
(3) SANJIV KUMAR VS. STATE OF H.P., 1999 SUP.
COURT CASES (CRI.) 127.
(4) SUKHVINDER SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB, 1994 SUP. COURT CASES (CRI.) 376.
(5) RAKESH KUMAR VS. STATE, 2004(1) JCC-110.
41 of 95 42 PUBLIC SERVANT & SANCTION
26. The first point for consideration is as to whether the proper sanction for prosecution was accorded before initiation of prosecution against accused Gopi Chand Jain or not as required under Section 6, which is mandatory and reads as under:-
"6. Previous Sanction necessary for Prosecution:-
(1) No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 161 or Section 164 or Section 165 of the Indian Penal Code or under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3-A) of Section 5 of this act, alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction, -
(a) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of the union and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Central Government, of the Central Government;
42 of 95 43
(b) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of a State and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the State Government of the State Government;
(c) in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his Office."
27. The undisputed position is that accused no.1 G. C. Jain was working as a public servant in the capacity of an officer JMGS-I and Incharge Clearing Section, State Bank of India, Rail Bhawan Branch, New Delhi during 1987 and 1988 and accused G. C. Jain did not dispute this fact in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. Therefore, it stands proved that accused G.C. Jain was public servant within the meaning of Section 6 of the PC Act, 1947.
43 of 95 44 SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION AGAINST ACCUSED G. C. JAIN.
28. The evidence on record shows that on 19.11.1992, the Sanction Order was accorded for launching Prosecution under Prevention of Corruption Act against accused G. C. Jain by PW-16 K. Ramkrishanan, who in his deposition deposed that before granting sanction, he perused the entire material put up before him by CBI and after applying his mind on the documents and statements of witnesses, he granted sanction for prosecution vide Sanction Order Ex. PW-16/A.
29. On the other hand, Ld. Defence Counsel for accused no.1 G. C. Jain argued that PW-16 was not the Competent Authority to remove accused no. 1 G. C. Jain from his service.
30. PW-16 K. Ramkrishanan in his examination in chief 44 of 95 45 deposed that he was the Competent Authority to take disciplinary action and remove officers, JMGS-I and he had proved his Sanction Order Ex. PW-16/A and he also specifically deposed that before according the sanction, he has gone through the entire material put up before him by CBI. During his cross examination conducted by ld. Defence Counsel, he has denied the suggestion that the sanction has been accorded mechanically without application of mind.
31. Accused no. 1 G. C. Jain has failed to extract anything in his favour in the cross examination of PW-16 K. Ramkrishanan. In the entire evidence of PW-16, there is nothing to even remotely suggest that he had not applied his mind before according sanction order Ex. PW-16/A against accused no.1 G. C. Jain.
32. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I hold that the 45 of 95 46 Sanction order Ex. PW-16/A is legal and valid. CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY, FORGERY, CHEATING, FALSIFICATION OF ACCOUNTS & CRIMINAL MISCONDUCT.
33. Before adverting to the discussion of this case, it would be useful to have a look upon the relevant charges framed against the accused persons. Charges against accused no. 1 G. C. Jain, accused no.2 Rakesh Kumar and accused no.3 Pramod Kumar were framed for the trial of offences punishable u/s 120-B, r/w Section 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477-A of IPC and u/s 5(2) read with Section 5(1) (d) of PC Act, 1947. Substantive charges u/s 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477A of IPC and u/s 5(2) read with Section 5(1) (d) of PC Act were also framed against accused no.1 G. C. Jain. Substantive charges punishable u/s 420 and 468 of IPC were framed against 46 of 95 47 accused no.2 Rakesh Kumar and charge punishable u/s 420 of IPC is also framed against accused no.3 Pramod Kumar.
Section 120-A defines "Criminal Conspiracy", which reads as under:-
"120-A. Definition of criminal conspiracy - When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done -
(1) an illegal act, or (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means,such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy.
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.
Explanation - It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object."
47 of 95 48
34. As per definition of criminal conspiracy U/s 120-A of Indian Penal Code when two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done, (a) an illegal act; or (b) an act, which is not illegal by illegal means, such agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy. The essence of offence of conspiracy is the fact of combination by agreement. The agreement may be express or implied, or in part express and in part implied. The conspiracy arises and the offence is committed as soon as the agreement is made; and the offence continues to be committed so long as the combination persists, that is until the conspiratorial agreement is terminated by completion of its performance or by abandonment or frustration. The gist of offence of conspiracy is an agreement to break the law. In considering the question of criminal conspiracy, it is not always possible to give affirmative evidence about the 48 of 95 49 date of formation of conspiracy, about the persons who took part in the formation of conspiracy, about the object which the conspirators set before themselves as the object of conspiracy and about the manner in which the object of conspiracy was to be carried out. All this necessarily a matter of inference. The essence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act. Such an agreement can be proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence or by both. It is not necessary that there should be express proof of the agreement, far from the acts and conduct of the parties, the agreement can be inferred.
35. On the point of criminal conspiracy, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shiv Narayan Laxmi Narayan Joshi Vs State of Maharashtra, AIR 1980 SC 439, that a conspiracy is always hatched in secrecy and it 49 of 95 50 is impossible to adduce direct evidence of the same. The offence can be only proved largely from inference drawn from acts or illegal omissions committed by the conspirators in pursuance of a common design.
36. The agreement to conspire may be inferred from circumstances, which raised a presumption of a concerted plan to carry out an unlawful design. A conspiracy need not be established by proof which actually brings the party together; but may be shown like any other fact, by circumstantial evidence.
37. In Kehar Singh and Others Vs State, AIR 1988 SC 1883, it is observed:
"Generally, a conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and it may be difficult to adduce direct evidence of the same. The prosecution will often rely on the evidence of acts of various parties to infer that they were done in reference to their 50 of 95 51 common intention. The prosecution will also more often rely upon the circumstantial evidence. The conspiracy can be undoubtedly proved by such evidence direct or circumstantial. But the Court must require whether the two persons are independently pursuing the same end or they have come together to the pursuit of the unlawful object. The former does not render them conspirators, but the later does. It is however, essential that the offence of conspiracy required some kind of physical manifestation or agreement the express agreement however need not be proved. Nor mutual meetings of the two persons is necessary. Nor it is necessary to prove the actual words of communication. The evidence as to transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful design may be sufficient."
"5. Criminal Misconduct in discharge of official duty.
(1) A Public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct;
(a) to (c) ..........
51 of 95 52
(d) if he by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as a public servant,obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(e) -----
(2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less then one year but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine."
38. On bare reading of the above provisions, it is clear that in order to bring home the charge under Section 120- B of IPC, the prosecution is required to prove that all the three accused persons in connivance with each other have diverted the funds of different customers of the Bank by replacing the genuine pay in slips and using forged pay in slips as genuine and also falsified the accounts of various customers for the purpose of cheating. A 52 of 95 53 conspiracy need not be established by proof which actually brings the party together, but may be shown like any other fact, by circumstantial evidence.
39. It is also clear that in order to establish the guilt of the accused under Section 5(2) read with Section 5 (1) (d) of the PC Act, 1947, the Prosecution is required to establish that the accused by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his official position, obtained advantage or a valuable thing for himself or for any other person.
40. The present case was registered on the basis of complaint dated 28.09.1990 Ex. PW-26/A made by complainant PW-26 G. C. Mittal, who has deposed that during the year 1990 he was posted as Manager (Vigilance), State Bank of India, Parliament Street, Local Head Office, New Delhi and during that year, accused G. C. Jain was working as Clearing Incharge with State Bank 53 of 95 54 of India, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi. He has further deposed that he lodged complaint Ex. PW-26/A with CBI, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi.
41. I have gone through the complaint Ex. PW-26/A. It is mentioned in the complaint that accused G. C. Jain in connivance of some private persons embezzled Bank's funds to the tune of Rs.12,33,162/- during the period September,1987 to January,1988. Bank's customers used to deposit cheques/drafts and other instruments for credit to their accounts with Rail Bhawan Branch after collection of amounts through Clearing House. Pay-in- slip containing account number and name of account holder etc. used to be filled up by customers and deposited by them alongwith such cheques, drafts etc. Accused G. C. Jain used to substitute these pay-in-slips by bogus pay-in-slips for the proceeds of clearing to be 54 of 95 55 misdirected.
42. It is further mentioned in the complaint Ex. PW-26/A that their enquiries revealed that most of such credits have been misdirected and credited in the following five SB Accounts which were opened with Rail Bhawan Branch on the introduction of accused G. C. Jain himself.
S.NO ACCOUNT NO. ACCOUNT HOLDER
1 10898 Sh. Rakesh Kumar
2 12010 Sh. D.S. Tiwari
3 12066 Sh. Pramod Kumar
4 12147 Sh. Prakash Chand
5 12243 Sh. Gulshan Arora
43. It is further mentioned in the complaint Ex. PW-26/A that subsequently money used to be quietly withdrawn from these five Bank's customers regarding non-credit of amounts of cheques etc., lodged by them. Accused G. C. Jain used to give to their accounts required credit by 55 of 95 56 debiting the amount to various other accounts in the Bank. Some of the accounts whose funds had been thus diverted are as follows:-
(1) Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. (2) M/s. Cine Arts.
(3) Panchvati C. G. H. Society. (4) M/s. Cosy Hane CGH Society. (5) M/s. Prasaran CGH Society. (6) Sh. D. C. Joshi.
(7) Sh. Kamaljit Azad.
(8) M/s. Manas vihar Co-operative Gr. H. Society Ltd.
44. It is further mentioned in the complaint Ex. PW-26/A that after their internal enquiries Sh. G. C. Jain has returned the entire amount except Rs.23,000/-. He has been placed under suspension by the Bank.
45. The star witness of the Prosecution is PW-24 Ramesh Chand Awasthi, who has deposed that during July, 1985 to April 1988, he worked as Branch Manager, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi and accused G. C. Jain was 56 of 95 57 working as Desk Officer at Rail Bhawan Branch under him.
46. He has further deposed that the fraud was detected in January, 1988 and it was found that accused no. 1 G. C. Jain diverted the amounts due to bonafide depositors of the Bank to other accounts opened and introduced by him in the name of his relations and friends. The amounts were diverted to these accounts by crediting the proceeds of cheques / drafts deposited by account holders in their accounts for collections through clearing. The amounts were periodically appropriated to the bonafide account holders by effecting fresh diversions from other bonafide account holders.
47. He has also deposed that four accounts in the name of accused no.2 Rakesh Kumar, accused no.3 Parmod Kumar, Prakash Chand and Gulshan Arora were 57 of 95 58 introduced by accused G. C. Jain in which the proceeds of cheques /drafts of bonafide depositors were credited. Saving account no. 12066 was opened in the name of accused no.3 Pramod Kumar mentioned the address 61/1, Railway Quarters, Subzi Mandi, Delhi-110007 with the introduction of accused G. C. Jain. PW-24 has also identified the signatures of accused G. C. Jain on Account Opening Form Ex. PW-24/1. The ledger sheet is Ex. PW-24/2.
48. He has further deposed that an account no. 12243 in the name of Sh. Gulshan Arora with the address of Shop No. 2, Raj Sinha Road, New Delhi, was opened with the introduction of accused G. C. Jain. He has also identified the signatures of accused G. C. Jain on Account Opening Form Ex. PW-17/A. The ledger sheet of Sh. Gulshan Arora is Ex. PW-24/3.
58 of 95 59
49. PW-24 has also identified the ledger sheet Ex.
PW-24/4 of Prakash Chand having saving bank account no. 12147 and ledger sheet Ex. PW-24/5 of accused no.2 Rakesh Kumar having account no. 10898. DIVERSION OF THE CLEARING PROCEEDS OF CHEQUES FAVOURING TO M/S. MANAS VIHAR CO- OPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY.
50. PW-24 after seen the cheque no. 0311813 dated 01.11.1987 Ex. PW-6/A5 has deposed that the said cheque for Rs.16,000/- favouring to M/s. Manas Vihar Co- Operative Group Housing Society deposited by a member of the society vide pay in slip dated 18.11.1987 Ex. PW-24/7. On realization of the said cheque, the proceeds were credited to the bank account no. 12147 of Prakash Chand through a fake pay in slip Ex. PW-24/8. On 28.11.1987, the account no. 12177 of one Jai Bhagwan was debited with Rs. 16,000/- by accused G. C. Jain and 59 of 95 60 credit afforded to the account of M/s. Manas Vihar Co- operative Group Housing Society Ltd.
51. PW-24 after seen the cheque no. 214622 dated 13.12.1987 Ex. PW-6/A2 has deposed that the said cheque for a sum of Rs.10,000/- favouring to M/s. Manas Vihar Co-Operative Group Housing Society deposited by a member of the said society. This amount was credited to the bank account no. 12898 of Rakesh Kumar on 17.12.1987 through a fake pay in slip Ex. PW-24/11. The amount of Rs.10,000/- was finally credited to the account no. 12151 of M/s. Manas Vihar Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd on 01.01.1988 vide Ex. PW-24/12. This was done through a fake General Debit voucher dated 01.01.1988 Ex. PW-24/13.
52. PW-24 after seen the cheque no. 394769 dated 19.12.1987 Ex. PW-6/A6 has deposed that the said 60 of 95 61 cheque for Rs.23,600/- deposited for credit to the account of M/s. Manas Vihar Co-Operative Group Housing Society by a member of the said society. On clearance of the said cheque on dated 26.12.1987 the credit was given to saving bank account no. 12147 of Prakash Chand through a fake pay in slip Ex. PW-24/14. The credit of Rs. 23,600/- was finally given to M/s. Manas Vihar Co- operative Group Housing Society Ltd. on 01.01.1988 vide pay in slip Ex. PW-24/15. This amount was drawn from IBIT account on 02.01.1988 through the fake General Debit Voucher for Rs. 2,26,800/-.
53. PW-24 after seen the cheque no. 136096 dated 18.12.1987 Ex. PW-6/A3 has deposed that the said cheque for a sum of Rs.39,000/- favouring to M/s. Manas Vihar Co-Operative Group Housing Society deposited by a member of the said society. On clearance of the said 61 of 95 62 cheque, the amount of Rs.39,000/- was given to account no. 12066 of Pramod Kumar (Accused no. 3) vide fake pay in slip Ex. PW-24/18. The credit to M/s. Manas Vihar Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. was given on 02.01.1988 through pay in slip Ex. PW-24/10.
54. After seeing the cheque no. 667456 dated 11.12.1987 Ex. PW-6/A4, PW-24 has further deposed that the said cheque for a sum of Rs.10,000/- favouring to M/s. Manas Vihar Co-Operative Group Housing Society deposited by a member of the said society. On clearance, the credit of Rs.10,000/- was given to account no. 12147 of Prakash Chand through fake pay in slip Ex. PW-24/19. The amount was finally credit to account no. 12151 of M/s. Manas Vihar Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. on 27.12.1987 through the pay in slip Ex. PW-24/20.
55. After seeing the cheque no. 758930 dated 62 of 95 63 02.12.1987 Ex. PW-6/A1 (Ex. PW-3/A), PW-24 has further deposed that the said cheque amounting to Rs. 9,000/- was deposited for credit to M/s. Manas Vihar Co- Operative Group Housing Society deposited by a member of the said society. He has further deposed that pay in slip dated 16.12.1987 Ex. PW-24/9 made in the name of account No. 12147 of Prakash Chand. He has further deposed that the general debit slip dated 02.01.1988 Ex. PW-24/10 vide which an amount of Rs.2,26, 800/- was debited to IBIT account. This amount was afforded to the account of M/S. Manas Vihar Co-Operative Group Housing Society Ltd. on 02.01.1988.
56. PW-24 after seen the photocopy of cheque no.
322933 dated 07.12.1987 Mark A (Ex.PW-2/A), has further deposed that the said cheque amounting to Rs. 9,500/- in favour of M/s. Manas Vihar Co-Operative Group 63 of 95 64 Housing Society deposited by a member of the said society. The credit of this cheque was given to account no. 10898 of Rakesh Kumar (Accused No.2) through a a fake pay in slip Ex. PW-24/16 made by accused no. 1 G. C. Jain. The credit of Rs.9,500/- was finally given to M/s. Manas Vihar Co-Operative Group Housing Society Ltd. vide pay in slip dated 01.01.1988 Ex. PW-24/17. This was done again through General Debit Voucher Ex.PW-24/10. PW-24 has also identified the handwriting and signatures of accused G. C. Jain on fake pay in slips.
57. The above version also finds support from the testimonies of following witnesses:-
58. PW-6 Chander Kumar Sharma has deposed that in the year 1990 he was Treasurer of M/S. Manas Vihar Co- Operative Society, Mayur Vihar Phase-I Extension and their society had an account at SBI, Rail Bhawan Branch, 64 of 95 65 Delhi. He has further deposed that their Accountant after taking the cheques from the members and filling the pay- in-slip used to deposit the same in the Rail Bhawan Branch. He has also identified the cheques Ex. PW-6/A1 to A6 issued by different members in favour of their society and deposited in the said account. He has also identified the photocopy of cheque Mark A / Ex. PW-2/A.
59. PW-2 Raja Singh, who was the member of M/S. Manas Vihar Co-Operative Group Society Ltd, vide member ship no. 62, has also identified the photocopy of cheque no. 322933 dated 07.12.1987 drawn on State Bank of Patiala, Shastri Bhawan Branch, New Delhi in favour of M/S. Manas Vihar Co-Operative Group Housing Society, Mayur Vihar, Delhi.
60. PW-3 R. C. P. Sinha, who was the member of M/S. Manas Vihar Co-Operative Group Society Ltd, vide 65 of 95 66 member ship no. 119, has stated that the cheque no. 758930 dated 02.12.1987 Ex. PW-3/A was issued by him in favour of M/S. Manas Vihar Co-Operative Group Housing Society, Mayur Vihar, Delhi, as installment to purchase Flat no. B-49.
61. PW-11 J. L. Gulani has deposed that in the year he was posted as Senior Technical Assistant in ICAR. At that time, he was also a member of Manas Vihar Co- Operative Group Housing Society, Delhi and he purchased a built up flat for which he had made the part payment through cheque Ex. PW-6/A-3.
62. PW-13 B. R. Bhatia has deposed that he was the member of Manas Vihar CGHS and he has been alloted a flat no. B-56 in that society and in token of payment of various installments, he had made payment to the society by cheques and he had issued one cheque dated 66 of 95 67 19.12.1987 Ex. PW-6/A-6 amounting to Rs.23,600/- as per part payment.
DIVERSION OF THE CLEARING PROCEEDS OF CHEQUES FAVOURING TO M/S. PANCHVATI CO- OPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.
63. PW-24 after seen the cheque no. 044419 dated 30.12.1987 Ex. PW-24/21, has deposed that the said cheque amounting to Rs. 15,000/- deposited for credit to the account of M/S. Panchvati Co-Operative Group Housing Society Ltd by Ms. Damyanti Bhutani. On clearance of the cheque, the amount of Rs.15,000/- was given to J. M. Hallan having account no. 1441 through a fake pay in slip Ex. PW-24/22 prepared in the handwriting and signatures of accused no.1 G. C. Jain. The amount was finally credited to the account of M/S. Panchvati Co- Operative Group Housing Society Ltd. On 15.01.1988 out of the funds recovered from accused no.1 G. C. Jain and 67 of 95 68 held in Sundry Deposit Account vide General Debit voucher for Rs.5,55,020/-when the credits were afforded to many such accounts deprived of their bonafide funds in the past. PW-24 has also identified his signatures on Sundry Deposit Debit Voucher Ex. PW-24/23.
64. The above version also finds support from the testimony of PW-1 J. M. Hallan, who after seen the cheque no. 004800 dated 01.01.1988 has deposed that during the year, 1988, he has deposited the said cheque in his account no. 1441 SBI Rail Bhawan Branch, New Delhi.
65. PW-24 has identified the cheque no.018067 dated 07.12.1987 Ex. PW-24/29 (Ex. PW12/A). After seen the same he has deposed that the said cheque amounting to Rs. 10,000/- deposited for credit to the account of M/S. Panchvati Co-Operative Group Housing Society Ltd. by a 68 of 95 69 member of the said society. On clearance of the said cheque, the amount of Rs.10,000/- was credited to accused no. 2 Rakesh Kumar having account no. 10898 through a fake pay in slip Ex. PW-24/30 filled in the handwriting and signatures of accused no.1 G. C. Jain.
66. PW-12 Jyoti Motihar has deposed that during the year 1987, she was the member of the Panchvati Co- Operative Group Housing Society, New Delhi and as a member, she was allotted a flat no. 34-A, Near Vikas Puri, Delhi. She has further deposed that she made the part payment of flat by Cheque No. 018067 dated 07.12.1987 Ex. PW-12/A, which was issued by her mother PW-18 Vimal Motihar.
DIVERSION OF THE CLEARING PROCEEDS OF CHEQUES FAVOURING TO MINISTRY OF INFORMATION & BROADCASTING, GOVT. OF INDIA.
67. PW-24 after seen the cheque no. 106113 dated 69 of 95 70 13.11.1987 has deposed that the said cheque amounting to Rs. 4,00,000/- deposited for credit to the account of Pay & Accounts Officer, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Govt. of India. On clearance of the cheque on 04.01.1988 was diverted as under :-
(1) A draft of Rs.74,600/- was issued in favour of DDA on behalf of one Deepak. This draft application form is a fake voucher Ex. PW-24/25 prepared under the handwriting and signatures of accused no. 1 G. C. Jain.
(2) A draft of Rs.96,500/- was issued in favour of DDA on behalf of accused no. 2 Rakesh Kumar through a fake draft application form Ex. PW-24/26 on 04.01.1988.
(3) The amount of Rs.2,26,800/- was credited to account of IBIT.
(4) The amount of Rs.1,755/- was credited to account no. 2 Rakesh Kumar.
70 of 95 71 (5) The balance amount of Rs.345/- was accounted for as Draft Exchange Charges for the aforesaid two drafts.
68. PW-24 after seen the cheque no. 106114 dated 13.11.1987 Ex. PW-24/27 has deposed that the said cheque amounting to Rs. 30,000/- deposited for credit to the account of Pay & Accounts Officer, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Govt. of India. On clearance of the cheque on 04.01.1988, the amount was credited to account no. 12147 of one Prakash Chand through a fake voucher Ex. PW-24/28, which was prepared and signed by accused no.1 G. C. Jain. Finally the amount was credited in cash to the account of Pay & Accounts Officer, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Govt. of India on 15.01.1988 vide Pay in slip Ex. PW-24/23. This was done out of the funds recovered from accused no. 1 G. C. Jain and held in 71 of 95 72 Sundry Deposit Account.
69. The above version also finds support from the testimonies of the following witnesses :-
70. PW-31 Jagdish Singh has deposed that he remained posted as Senior Accountant in the office of Pay and Accounts Office, Main Secretariat, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. After seen the two cheques of Rs.4,00,000/- dated 13.11.1987 Ex. PW-24/24 and Rs.30,000/- dated 13.11.1987 Ex. PW-24/27, issued by National Film Development Corporation Ltd., favouring Accounts Officers, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. These cheques were received in their office and the same were deposited in the account of Ministry at State Bank of India, Rail Bhawan Branch, New Delhi vide challan No. 370 and 371 respectively dated 16.11.987.
72 of 95 73
71. PW-40 Uday Keshav Nayak has deposed that he was working in National Film Development Corporation, Mumbai during the period from 1978 to 2009. After seen the cheque No. 106113 for Rs.4,00,000/- dated 13.11.1987 Ex. PW-24/24 and Cheque No. 106114 for Rs. 30,000/- dated 13.11.1987 Ex. PW-24/27, he has deposed that these cheques issued by National Film Development Corporation Ltd. in favour of Pay and Accounts Officer, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting. He has identified the signatures of authorised signatories S. V. Chari and Mr. Karmarkar on the aforesaid two cheques. The cheques were issued towards repayment of loan and interest taken from Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.
DIVERSION OF THE CLEARING PROCEEDS OF CHEQUES FAVOURING NATIONAL FUND FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT.
73 of 95 74
72. PW-24 after seen the 8 Pay in slips of Rs.10,000/-
each dated 28.11.1987 Ex. PW-24/30A to Ex. PW-24/30H for credit to the Savings Bank Account No. 7968 of National Fund for Rural Development, has deposed that all the pay in slips were prepared and passed by accused no. 1 G. C. Jain. All the fake pay in slips used in place of the original deposited by the account holder.
73. PW-24 R. C. Awasthi, after seen the two cheques bearing no. 100988 dated 28.07.1987 Ex. PW-24/31 and 425126 dated 09.06.1987 Ex. PW-24/32 both of Rs. 10,000/- each favouring National Fund for Rural Development drawn by M/s. Francis Kleen and Co. Pvt. Ltd and Howrah Motor Company Ltd., has deposed that after clearance the amount received from Clearing House was diverted to other accounts and credits afforded to 74 of 95 75 National Fund for Rural Development on 28.11.1987 by debit to IBIT Account.
74. This version also finds support from the testimony of PW-38 R. N. Dey, who has deposed that he was working as MD in Howrah Motor Company Ltd. The donation of Rs.10,000/- has been made by the company favouring National Fund for Rural Development vide Cheque No. 425126 dated 09.06.1987 Ex. PW-24/32. CASH PAYMENT IN LIEU OF CHEQUE FAVOURING TO M/S. COSY HOME CO-OPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY.
75. PW-24 after seen the Pay in Slip dated 07.09.1988 for Rs.19,000/- favouring account no. 5147 of Cosy Home Co-operative Group Housing Society, has deposed that the same is in the handwriting of accused no. 1 G. C. Jain and cash has been deposited against this pay in slip.
76. This version also finds support from the testimony of 75 of 95 76 PW-7 V. K. Jain, who was the Secretary of Cosy Home Co-Operative Group Housing Society, Rohini, has deposed that their society was having an account at SBI, Rail Bhawan Branch. As per procedure of their society, the member himself used to deposit the cheque in the bank and deliver the copy meant for society in our office. Their society did not authorize G. C. Jain to prepare any debit voucher on behalf of their society. He has further deposed after seen the half torn debit voucher for Rs. 71,042/- Mark PW-7/A, that their society has never given any instruction for preparing this debit voucher.
77. PW-7 has further deposed that one cheque no.
800830 dated 30.11.1987 was deposited in the account of Cosy Home Co-Operative Group society account on 28.12.1987 and its credit was given to the society on 07.09.1988 vide pay in slip Ex. PW-7/C. The then 76 of 95 77 Manager of the Bank also credited interest of Rs.633/- vide Pay in slip Ex. PW-7/B on the above amount in their account.
ISSUANCE OF DRAFTS & PAYMENTS.
78. PW-24 has deposed after seen the draft application form dated 26.12.1987 for draft Ex. PW-24/33 of Rs. 24,000/- favouring accused no. 3 Pramod Kumar prepared and passed by accused no.1 G. C. Jain.
79. PW-24 has deposed after seen the draft application form dated 02.01.1988 for draft Ex. PW-24/34 of Rs. 21,000/- favouring accused no. 3 Pramod Kumar prepared and passed by accused no.1 G. C. Jain.
80. After seeing the draft application form dated 02.01.1988, PW-24 has deposed that the draft Ex. PW-24/35 amounting to Rs.80,000/- passed by accused no. 1 G. C. Jain favouring Delhi Development Authority.
77 of 95 78
81. PW-24 has further deposed after seen the draft application form dated 11.11.1987 for draft Ex. PW-24/36 of Rs.15,000/- favouring accused no. 3 Parmod Kumar passed by accused no.1 G. C. Jain.
82. PW-24 has also deposed after seen the draft application form dated 01.01.1988 for draft Ex. PW-24/37 of Rs.24,500/- favouring one Smt. Sushma Arora passed by accused no.1 G. C. Jain.
83. This version finds corroboration from the testimonies of the following witnesses:-
84. PW-34 Ms. Meenakshi Jain. She has deposed that during the period from 1984 to 1989, she remained posted as Clerk Cum Typist in Rail Bhawan Branch, SBI, Delhi and accused G. C. Jain was Passing Officer in the Branch. She has also worked as Draft issuing clerk during the said period. As Draft Issuing Clerk, she used 78 of 95 79 to received the applications for purchasing the drafts and inventory issued by the Officer Incharge. They used to issue the drafts serially for the applications and after issuing the drafts, they enter the same in the Draft Issue Register.
85. PW-34 after seen a draft purchasing application Ex.
PW-24/33, wherein the applicant has requested for issuing a draft amounting to Rs.24,000/- in favour of one Pramod Kumar. Draft No. 222715 has been issued as per the endorsement of accused G. C. Jain. She has identified the initials of accused G. C. Jain on the same.
86. She has further deposed that the Draft Issue Register Ex. PW-34/A is pertaining to the period from 25.10.1987 to 04.014.1988 on which the drafts have been entered by her.
87. PW-34 has further identified her writing on entry Ex.
79 of 95 80 PW-34/B vide which a draft no. 222715 has been issued in favour of accused No. 3 Pramod Kumar but in the entry the name of the applicant is one Prakash Chand.
88. PW-34 after seen a draft purchasing application Ex.
PW-24/34, wherein the applicant has requested for issuing a draft amounting to Rs.21,000/- in favour of one Pramod Kumar. Draft has been issued as per the endorsement of accused G. C. Jain. She has identified the initials of accused G. C. Jain on the same.
89. PW-34 has further identified her writing on entry Ex.
PW-34/C vide which a draft no. 222721 has been issued in favour of DDA but in the entry the name of the applicant is one Prakash Chand.
90. PW-34 after seen a draft purchasing application Ex.
PW-24/25, wherein the applicant has requested for issuing a draft amounting to Rs.74,600/- in favour of DDA.
80 of 95 81 Draft has been issued as per the endorsement of accused G. C. Jain. She has identified the initials of accused G. C. Jain on the same.
91. PW-34 has further identified her writing on entry Ex.
PW-34/D vide which a draft no. 287002 has been issued in favour of DDA but in the entry the name of the applicant is one Deepak.
92. PW-34 after seen a draft purchasing application Ex.
PW-24/26, wherein the applicant has requested for issuing a draft amounting to Rs.96,500/- in favour of DDA. Draft has been issued as per the endorsement of accused G. C. Jain. She has identified the initials of accused G. C. Jain on the same.
93. PW-34 has further identified her writing on entry Ex.
PW-34/E vide which a draft no. 287001 has been issued in favour of DDA but in the entry the name of the applicant 81 of 95 82 is one Rakesh Kumar.
94. PW-34 after seen a draft purchasing application Ex.
PW-24/35, wherein the applicant has requested for issuing a draft amounting to Rs.79,840/- in favour of DDA. Draft has been issued as per the endorsement of accused G. C. Jain. She has identified the initials of accused G. C. Jain on the same.
95. PW-34 has further identified her writing on entry Ex.
PW-34/F vide which a draft no. 222720 has been issued in favour of DDA but in the entry the name of the applicant is one Prakash Chand.
96. PW-34 after seen a draft purchasing application Ex.
PW-24/36, wherein the applicant has requested for issuing a draft amounting to Rs.15,000/- in favour of Pramod Jain. Draft has been issued as per the endorsement of accused G. C. Jain. She has identified 82 of 95 83 the initials of accused G. C. Jain on the same.
97. PW-34 has further identified her writing on entry Ex.
PW-34/G vide which a draft no. 746154 has been issued in favour of DDA but in the entry the name of the applicant is one Deepak.
98. PW-34 after seen a draft purchasing application Ex.
PW-24/37, wherein the applicant has requested for issuing a draft amounting to Rs.24,500/- in favour of Smt. Sushma Arora. Draft has been issued as per the endorsement of accused G. C. Jain. She has identified the initials of accused G. C. Jain on the same.
99. PW-34 has further identified her writing on entry Ex.
PW-34/H vide which a draft no. 222719 has been issued in favour of Sushma Arora but in the entry the name of the applicant is one Prakash Chand.
100. PW-34 has further deposed that the drafts have 83 of 95 84 been delivered to the signatory of the recipients.
101. PW-25 Hem Raj has deposed that he remained posted as Clerk Cum Cashier with Rail Bhawan Branch with State Bank of India, New Delhi, during the period from February, 1983 to August, 1991. During the period from November, 1987 to January, 1988. He has further deposed that he used to sit on the payment counter. After see the cash payment register (D-60) for the period from 30.09.1987 to 06.01.1988 Ex. PW-25/A, he has deposed that vide entry dated 21.12.1987 at page no. 256 Ex. PW-25/A1, a payment of Rs.9500/- was made by him to accused G. C. Jain.
102. He has further deposed that vide two entries for Rs.
10,000/- and Rs.20,000/- dated 28.12.1987 at page no. 270 Ex. PW-25/A2 and Ex. PW-25/A3 of Ex. PW-25/A, a payment of Rs.30,000/- was made by him to accused G. 84 of 95 85 C. Jain.
103. PW-25 has further deposed that vide two entries for Rs. 15,000/- and Rs.6,000/- dated 01.01.1988 at page no. 285 Ex. PW-25/A7, a payment of Rs.15,000/- and Rs. 6,000/- were made by him to accused G. C. Jain.
104. PW-25 has further deposed that vide entry dated 01.01.1988 at page no. 282 Ex. PW-25/A10, a payment of Rs.24,000/- was made by him to accused G. C. Jain.
105. PW-33 Ms. Rita Khosla has deposed that during the period from 1981 to 1989, she remained posted as Clerk Cum Cashier in Rail Bhawan Branch, SBI, Delhi and accused G. C. Jain was an Officer in the branch.
106. PW-33 after seen the Cash Payment Register Ex.
PW-25/A, has deposed that she has made an entry Ex. PW-25/A3 at page no. 292 regarding the payment of Rs. 5,000/-in account No. 10898 pertaining to accused no. 2 85 of 95 86 Rakesh Kumar. She has further deposed that the payment has been received by accused G. C. Jain.
107. PW-33 after seen the Cash Payment Register Ex.
PW-25/A, has deposed that she has made an entry Ex. PW-25/A8 at page no. 297 regarding the payment of Rs. 22,000/- in account No. 12066 pertaining to accused no. 3 Pramod Kumar. She has further deposed that the payment has been received by accused G. C. Jain.
108. PW-33 after seen the Cash Payment Register Ex.
PW-25/A, has deposed that she has made an entry at page no. 287 Ex. PW-33/A regarding the payment of Rs. 18,500/- on 02.01.1988 in account No. 12066 pertaining to accused no. 3 Pramod Kumar. She has further deposed that the payment has been received by accused G. C. Jain.
109. PW-33 after seen the Cash Payment Register Ex.
86 of 95 87 PW-25/A, has deposed that she has made an entry at page no. 247 Ex. PW-33/B regarding the payment of Rs. 19,000/-on 17.12.1987 in account No. 11031 pertaining to M. R. Gyanchandani. She has further deposed that the payment has been received by accused G. C. Jain.
110. PW-33 after seen Cash Payment Register Ex.
PW-25/A, has deposed that she has made an entry at page no. 130 Ex. PW-25/A5 regarding the payment of Rs. 8,000/-on 09.11.1987 in account No. 12066 pertaining to accused no. 3 Pramod Kumar. She has further deposed that the payment has been received by accused G. C. Jain.
111. PW-37 Ms. Girija Kaul has deposed that she was working as a clerk in State Bank of India, Rail Bhawan Branch during the year, 1987-88. Accused G. C. Jain was an Officer posted in the Branch at that time and was 87 of 95 88 Incharge of Clearing Section. She was also working in the Clearing Section during the said period. She has further deposed that her duties were to collect the cheques from the customers alongwith the pay in slip and after entering the same in the Clearing Register, she handed over the same to accused G. C. Jain, who used to arrange outward clearing bundles. The cheques used to be sent to clearing section and vouchers were used to remain with accused G. C. Jain.
112. She has further deposed after seen the Clearing Register (D-47), that she had made an entry Ex. PW-37/A on 14.09.1987 for sending a cheque no. 624009 of Rs. 10,000/- to Bombay. She has also identified her writing and signatures of accused G. C. Jain on Ex. PW-37/A.
113. PW-37 has further deposed after seen the Clearing Register (D-41), that she had made an entry Ex. PW-37/B 88 of 95 89 on 22.12.1987 at page no. 76 for sending a cheque no. 394769 of Rs.23,600/- to DDA Branch. She has also identified her writing and signatures of accused G. C. Jain on Ex. PW-37/B.
114. PW-37 has further deposed after seen the Clearing Register (D-41), that she had made an entry Ex. PW-37/C on 28.12.1987 at page no. 81 for sending a cheque no. 697753 of Rs.25,000/- to IO, Lodhi Road. She has also identified her writing and signatures of accused G. C. Jain on Ex. PW-37/C.
115. PW-37 has further deposed after seen the Clearing Register (D-41), that she had made an entry Ex. PW-37/D on 02.01.1988 at page no. 102 for sending a cheque no. 311778 of Rs.7,000/- to Inder Puri. She has also identified her writing and signatures of accused G. C. Jain on Ex. PW-37/D. 89 of 95 90
116. PW-37 has further deposed after seen the Clearing Register (D-41), that she had made an entry Ex. PW-37/E on 02.01.1988 at page no.103 for sending a cheque no. 0004800 of Rs.15,000/- to Nirman Bhawan. She has also identified her writing and signatures of accused G. C. Jain on Ex. PW-37/E. This clearing has been released on 05.01.1988.
117. PW-37 has further deposed after seen the Clearing Register (D-42), that she had made an entry Ex. PW-37/F on 22.12.1987 at page no.86 for sending a cheque no. 667456 of Rs.10,000/- to Corporation Bank and Cheque No. 032831 of Rs.15,700/- to Bank of Baroda. She has also identified her writing and signatures of accused G. C. Jain on Ex. PW-37/F. This clearing has been released on 28.12.1987.
118. PW-37 has further deposed after seen the Clearing 90 of 95 91 Register (D-42), that she had made an entry Ex. PW-37/G on 01.01.1988 at page no.92 for sending a cheque no. 374567 of Rs.11,520/- to Indian Bank. She has also identified her writing and signatures of accused G. C. Jain on Ex. PW-37/G .
119. PW-37 has further deposed after seen the Clearing Register (D-43), that she had made an entry Ex. PW-37/H on 06.11.1987 at page no.90 for sending a cheque no. 077040 of Rs.10,000/- to Bank of Rajasthan. She has also identified her writing and signatures of accused G. C. Jain on Ex. PW-37/G.
120. PW-37 has further deposed after seen the Clearing Register (D-43), that she had made an entry Ex. PW-37/J on 09.11.1987 at page no.96 for sending a cheque no. 211283 of Rs.10,000/- to J & K Bank. She has also identified her writing and signatures of accused G. C. Jain 91 of 95 92 on Ex. PW-37/J.
121. PW-37 has further deposed after seen the Clearing Register (D-43), that she had made an entry Ex. PW-37/K on 09.11.1987 at page no.97 for sending a cheque no. 101421 of Rs.20,000/- to Vijaya Bank. She has also identified her writing and signatures of accused G. C. Jain on Ex. PW-37/K.
122. PW-37 has further deposed after seen the Clearing Register (D-44), that she had made an entry Ex. PW-37/L on 19.11.1987 at page no.18 for sending a cheque no. 031183 of Rs.16,000/- to Central Bank of India. She has also identified her writing and signatures of accused G. C. Jain on Ex. PW-37/L.
123. PW-37 has further deposed after seen the Clearing Register (D-44), that she had made an entry Ex. PW-37/M on 14.12.1987 at page no.79 for sending a 92 of 95 93 cheque no.758930 of Rs.9,000/- to Punjab National Bank. She has also identified her writing and signatures of accused G. C. Jain on Ex. PW-37/M. This clearing has been released on 16.12.1987.
124. PW-37 has further deposed after seen the Clearing Register (D-40), that she had made an entry Ex. PW-37/N on 31.10.1987 at page no.39 for sending a cheque no. 117912 of Rs.5,000/- to New Delhi. She has also identified her writing and signatures of accused G. C. Jain on Ex. PW-37/N. This clearing has been released on 03.11.1987.
125. PW-37 has further deposed after seen the Clearing Register (D-45), that she had made an entry Ex. PW-37/O on 28.12.1987 at page no.10 for sending a cheque no. 800830 of Rs.19,000/- to Punjab National Bank. She has also identified her writing and signatures of accused G. C. 93 of 95 94 Jain on Ex. PW-37/O.
126. PW-37 has further deposed after seen the Clearing Register (D-45), that she had made an entry Ex. PW-37/P on 29.12.1987 at page no.11 for sending a cheque no. 094871 of Rs.20,000/- to RBI. She has also identified her writing on Ex. PW-37/P.
127. PW-37 has further deposed after seen the Clearing Register (D-46), that she had made an entry Ex. PW-37/Q on 24.11.1987 at page no.10 for sending a cheque no. 822102 of Rs.5,000/- to SBI, Main Branch, Mumbai. She has also identified her writing and signatures of accused G. C. Jain on Ex. PW-37/Q.
128. PW-37 has further deposed after seen the Clearing Register (D-46), that she had made an entry Ex. PW-37/R on 26.11.1987 at page no.11 for sending a cheque no. 106113 of Rs.4,00,000/- to Indian Bank, Nariman Point, 94 of 95 95 Mumbai and Cheque No. 106114 for Rs.30,000/- to Indian Bank, Nariman Point, Mumbai. She has also identified her writing and signatures of accused G. C. Jain on Ex. PW-37/R.
129. PW-37 has further deposed after seen the Clearing Register (D-46), that she had made an entry Ex. PW-37/S on 09.12.1987 at page no.14 for sending a cheque no. 091534 of Rs.10,000/- to Bank of Baroda, Mumbai. She has also identified her writing and signatures of accused G. C. Jain on Ex. PW-37/S.
130. PW-24 R. C. Awasthi has further deposed that the amount of Rs.5,55,020/- recovered from accused no.1 G. C. Jain in cash and held in Branch Sundry Deposit Account was made over to bonafide owners of the funds on 15.01.1988. The details of the same has been given on the reverse of Ex. PW-24/23.
95 of 95 96
131. PW-24 has also identified the signatures of Sh.
Surender Patni, Branch Manager on two Seizure Memos dated 08.04.191 and 19.02.1991 Ex. PW-24/38 and Ex. PW-24/39 vide which the documents as mentioned in the Seizure Memos have been handed over to IO/Dy. SP. Ram Chander.
132. PW-24 has also identified his signatures on Seizure Memo dated 29.04.1991 Ex. PW-24/40 vide which the documents as mentioned in the Seizure Memo has been handed over to IO/Dy. Ram Chander by him.
133. PW-27 IO/ Ram Chander has deposed that during the year 1990, the investigation of this case was entrusted with the investigation of case FIR No. RC-11/90, Delhi against accused G. C. Jain and others. The investigation of this case was marked to him by Sh. J. P. Verma, the then SP, CBI. He has further deposed 96 of 95 97 that the FIR Ex. PW-27/A was registered on 28.09.1990 by Sh. J. P. Verma.
134. He has further deposed that during investigation he seized various documents and examined witnesses. He obtained specimen handwriting and signatures of all the accused persons in the presence of the witnesses and sent the questioned documents with specimen handwriting and signatures to GEQD for opinion and obtained the opinion of GEQD. He also obtained sanction for prosecution against accused no. 1 G. C. Jain from his competent authority i.e. Chief General Manager, SBI, New Delhi. After obtaining the sanction for prosecution, he filed the charge sheet in the Court. GEQD OPINION.
135. PW-32 Santokh Singh has deposed that he retired as Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, 97 of 95 98 Govt. of India, Shimla in the year 1996. He has further deposed that documents in RC-11(s)/90, SCB/CBI received in the laboratory alongwith the questioned and standard documents from SP, SCB, New Delhi for examination and opinion. He has identified his signatures and signatures of Sh. Subhashis Dey on their findings at Opinion Number CX-69/91 dated 21.06.1991 Ex. PW-32/A.
136. He has further deposed that S-1 to S-39 are the specimen writings of accused G. C. Jain, which are Ex. PW-27/B1 to Ex. PW-27/B-21 and Ex. PW-32/1 to Ex. PW-32/4. The admitted documents of accused G. C. Jain are A1 to A19 Ex. PW-32/5 to Ex. PW-32/23.
137. He has further deposed that S-40 to S-79 are the specimen writings of accused no. 2 Rakesh Jain, which are Ex. PW-27/C-1 to Ex. PW-27/C-39.
98 of 95 99
138. He has further deposed that S-80 to S-103 are the specimen writings of Gulshan Arora, which are collectively Exhibited as Ex. PW-17/E.
139. He has further deposed that S-104 to S-125 are the specimen writings of accused no. 3 Pramod Jain, which are Ex. PW-29/A-1 to Ex. PW-29/A-22.
140. As per opinion Ex. PW-32/A, the writing and signatures stamped and marked S1 to S39 and A1 to A19 are similar with Q1, Q7, Q17, Q20, Q23, Q26, Q30, Q33, Q35, Q36, Q39, Q42, Q43, Q46, Q49, Q52, Q55, Q56, Q59 to Q61, Q63, Q70, Q73, Q82, Q89, Q94, Q95, Q97, Q99, Q106, Q109, Q115, Q117 to Q119, Q123 to Q126, Q131, Q132, Q136, Q137,Q145, Q146, Q149 to Q163, Q165, Q169 to Q178, Q181 to Q185, Q187, Q189, Q202, Q205, Q207, Q209, Q213, Q225, Q227 to Q232, Q234 to Q236, Q237/1, Q240, Q242, Q245, Q247, Q249 to Q265, 99 of 95 100 Q267 to Q270, Q273 to Q-275, which shows that the writing and signatures of accused G. C. Jain.
141. As per opinion Ex. PW-32/A, the writing and signatures stamped and marked S40 to S79 are similar with Q2 to Q4, Q6, Q8, Q9, Q12 to Q14, Q16, Q18, Q19, Q58, Q62, Q90 to Q92, Q98/1, Q168, Q179, Q180, Q186, Q188, Q190 to Q201, Q203, Q204, Q206, Q208, Q210, Q212, Q233, Q237 to Q239, Q243, which shows the writing and signatures of accused no. 2 Rakesh Jain.
142. As per opinion Ex. PW-32/A, the writing and signatures stamped and marked S80 to S103 are similar with Q64, Q66, Q67, Q69, Q101, Q104 and Q105, which shows the writing and signatures of Gulshan Arora.
143. As per opinion Ex. PW-32/A, the writing and signatures stamped and marked S104 to S125 are similar with Q21, Q22, Q24, Q25, Q27, Q28, Q31, Q32, Q34, 100 of 95 101 Q37, Q38, Q40, Q41, Q44, Q45, Q47, Q48 Q50, Q51, Q53, Q54, Q107, Q108, Q141, Q143, Q241, Q244 and Q246, which shows the writing and signatures of accused no. 3 Pramod Jain.
ACCOUNT IN THE NAME OF FICTITIOUS PERSON I.E. PRAKASH CHAND.
144. PW-24 R. C. Awasthi deposed that four accounts in the name of accused no. 2 Rakesh Kumar, accused no.3 Pramod Kumar, one Prakash Chand and Gulshan Arora were introduced by accused no. 1 G. C. Jain.
145. This version also finds support from the testimonies of following witnesses:-
146. PW-21 Bhagat Ram has deposed that the house no.
2809, Raghubar Pura, Gandhi Nagar-2, Gali No. 6, Delhi, was purchased by him and his brother Kasturi Lal in the joint name from Sh. Mahender Kumar Jain in the year 101 of 95 102 1988. During the year 1987-88, there was no tenant by the name Prakash Chand in this house.
147. PW-35 Mahender Kumar Jain has deposed that he sold the house no. 2809, Raghubar Pura, Gandhi Nagar-2, Gali No. 6, Delhi, to PW-21 Bhagat Ram. He has further deposed that he had one tenant by the name of Rawat and another tenant Rajender Jain in the said premises. He never rented out his house to any person by the name of Parkash Chand.
148. I have also gone through the ledger sheet of the Bank Ex. PW-24/4 in respect of Prakash Chand having bank account no. 12147. Perusal of the ledger sheet Ex. PW-24/4 shows that the address of the said Prakash Chand is mentioned as house no. 2809, Raghubar Pura, Gandhi Nagar-2, Gali No. 6, Delhi.
149. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that 102 of 95 103 accused no.1 G. C. Jain had got opened an account in the name of fictitious person i.e. Prakash Chand on his introduction.
DOING A PRIVATE BUSINESS ON THE PART OF ACCUSED NO. 1 G. C. JAIN.
150. Ld. Special PP has contended that accused no. 1 G. C. Jain while working as JMGS-I in State Bank of India, Rail Bhawan Branch, New Delhi, was doing a private business as Property Dealer and was having a firm "Today Properties" where his two relatives accused no.2 Rakesh Kumar and accused no. 3 Pramod Kumar were also working.
151. This contention finds support from the testimonies of the following witnesses :-
152. PW-17 Gulshan Arora has deposed that he knew accused G. C. Jain since 1986 as he came to his contact 103 of 95 104 when he visited Dilshad Garden to purchase a flat and accused G. C. Jain was having his office in the name of "Today Properties" at that Place. With the help of accused G. C. Jain, he bought a flat at Dilshad Garden. He has further deposed that he discussed his financial problem with accused G. C. Jain, who told him that he was a Bank Employee and he (accused G. C. Jain) could arrange a loan for him. He also asked him to accompany him to the bank for opening the account. In December 1987, he opened an account no. 12243 vide account opening form Ex. PW-17/A and accused G. C. Jain introduced his account as introducer.
153. PW-20 Veena Tiwari has deposed that in November, 1987 she alongwith her husband went to Dilshad Garden to purchase a flat and they went in the office of "Today Property Dealer". The Property Dealer Mr. Jain was not 104 of 95 105 available in the office. One of his employees wrote their address. Thereafter, accused G. C. Jain came to their house and told that he will show them a flat costing around Rs. 1,30,000/-. She alongwith her husband and Nandoi went with the accused and saw a flat in B-Block Dilshad Garden. She has further deposed that accused G. C. Jain came next day in their house in Delhi and told them that he is a Bank Manager in State Bank of India and at the instance of accused G. C. Jain, she and her husband opened a joint account No. 12010 by depositing Rs.20/- in SBI, Rail Bhawan Branch. She has correctly identified the accused G. C. Jain before the Court. This fact has also been corroborated by PW-22 Devi Sharan Tiwari, the husband of PW-20 Veena Tiwari.
154. PW-36 Jagjit Singh has also corroborated the fact that accused no.1 G. C. Jain and accused no. 2 Rakesh 105 of 95 106 Kumar Jain were running a company by the name of M/s. Today Properties.
155. It is an admitted fact that accused no. 1 G. C. Jain was working as JMGS-I in State Bank of India, Rail Bhawan Branch, New Delhi. He has also admitted this fact in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C.
156. In view of the above discussion, Prosecution has able to prove that accused no.1 G. C. Jain while working as JMGS-I in State Bank of India, Rail Bhawan Branch, New Delhi was doing a private business as Property Dealer and was having a firm "Today Properties".
157. In view of the above, it is clear that the diversion of the clearing proceeds received in favour of genuine account holders have been proved by PW-24 R. C. Awasthi. His evidence also clearly established that the clearing proceeds were deposited in the accounts of 106 of 95 107 accused no.2 Rakesh Kumar @ Rakesh Jain, accused no.3 Pramod Kumar @ Pramod Jain and one fictitious person i.e. Prakash Chand and Gulshan Arora by fake pay in slips which were in the handwriting of accused no.1 G. C. Jain and also passed by him.
158. It has also been proved by PW-24 R. C. Awasthi that intermittently the genuine account holders were being appropriated by accused no.1 G. C. Jain either by fresh diversion or by debiting from IBIT. It is further clear that the amounts have been withdrawn from the accounts of Prakash Chand, accused no. 2 Rakesh Kumar, accused no. 3 Pramod Kumar and Gulshan Arora and the payments have been received by accused no.1 G. C. Jain himself.
159. The testimony of PW-24 R. C. Awasthi also proved that the forging of pay in slips and passing off the pay in 107 of 95 108 slips for diverting the funds of genuine account holders. This fact has been corroborated by the evidence of PW-32 Santokh Singh, Handwriting expert of GEQD, Shimla.
160. The factum of conspiracy has also been proved from the testimony of PW-24 R. C. Awasthi, who deposed that the accounts of accused no.2 Rakesh Kumar and accused no.3 Pramod Kumar were opened on the introduction of accused no.1 G. C. Jain and they have withdrawn the funds or purchased the drafts out of the money which was lying in their accounts. From this the necessary inference can be drawn that they were in conspiracy with each other.
161. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond reasonable doubts against all the accused 108 of 95 109 persons for the offences punishable under Section 120-B r/w Section 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477-A of IPC and u/s 5(2) read with Section 5(1) (d) of PC Act. Hence, they all are held guilty and convicted for the same.
162. Prosecution has also succeeded in proving its case beyond reasonable doubts against accused no. 1 G. C. Jain for the offences punishable under section 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477-A of IPC and u/s 5(2) read with Section 5(1) (d) of PC Act. Hence, accused no. 1 G. C. Jain is held guilty and convicted for the same.
163. Prosecution has also succeeded in proving its case beyond reasonable doubts against accused no. 2 Rakesh Kumar @ Rakesh Jain for the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC. Hence he is held guilty and convicted accordingly.
109 of 95 110
164. Prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused no. 2 Rakesh Kumar @ Rakesh Jain for the offence punishable under section 468 of IPC. Hence accused no. 2 Rakesh Kumar @ Rakesh Jain is acquitted from the offence punishable under Section 468 of IPC.
165. Prosecution has also succeeded in proving its case beyond reasonable doubts against accused no. 3 Pramod Kumar @ Pramod Jain for the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC. Hence he is held guilty and convicted accordingly.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY I.E. ON 20.05.2013 (N. K. SHARMA) SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) CBI):02 DELHI.
110 of 95 111 CC NO. 73/01 CBI VS. G.C. JAIN & ETC.
20.05.2013 Present:- Sh. J. S. Wadia, Ld. PP for CBI.
Accused no. 1 G. C. Jain and Accused no. 3 Pramod Kumar @ Pramod Jain are present on bail with counsel Sh. Y. Kahol, Advocate. Accused no. 2 Rakesh Kumar @ Rakesh Jain is present on bail with counsel Sh. Alok Bansal, Advocate as Amicus Curiae.
Vide separate judgment announced of even date on separate sheets, accused no.1 G. C. Jain, accused no. 2 Rakesh Kumar @ Rakesh Jain and accused no. 3 Pramod Kumar @ Pramod Jain are held guilty and convicted for the offences punishable under Section 120-B r/w Section 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477-A of IPC and u/s 5(2) read with Section 5(1)
(d) of PC Act.
Accused no. 1 G. C. Jain is also held guilty and convicted for the offences punishable under section 420, 467, 111 of 95 112 468, 471 and 477-A of IPC and u/s 5(2) read with Section 5(1)
(d) of PC Act.
Accused no. 2 Rakesh Kumar @ Rakesh Jain is also held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC.
Accused no. 2 Rakesh Kumar @ Rakesh Jain is acquitted for the offence punishable under section 468 of IPC.
Accused no. 3 Pramod Kumar @ Pramod Jain is held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC.
All the three accused persons i.e. accused no.1 G. C. Jain, accused no. 2 Rakesh Kumar @ Rakesh Jain and accused no. 3 Pramod Kumar @ Pramod Jain be taken into custody and be produced on 21st May, 2013 for arguments on the point of sentence.
(N. K. SHARMA) SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT)(CBI):02 DELHI/20.05.2013.
112 of 95