Delhi District Court
Cbi vs (1) Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa on 6 January, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SHRI P.S. TEJI : DISTRICT & SESSIONS
JUDGE (EAST) : SPECIAL JUDGE (CBI), KARKARDOOMA
COURTS, DELHI
AC No.02/2009
Unique Case ID No.02402R0032462009
FIR No.RC DAI 2006 A 0045
U/s 120B read with Section 420/468/471 IPC
and under Section 13(2) r/w Sec. 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988.
CBI Versus (1) Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa
S/o Late Sh. S.A. Kudwa
R/o A8, Awadh Apartment,
Vipul KhandI, Gomati Nagar,
Lucknow (UP)
(2) Anuj Kumar Sharma
S/o B.L. Sharma
R/o H.No.180, Street No.5,
Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi.
(Already PO)
(3) Suruchi Sharma
W/o Anuj Kumar Sharma
R/o H.No.180, Street No.5,
Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi.
AC No.02/2009 CBI Vs. Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa etc. Page 1 of 45
Date of Institution : 30.01.2009
Date of judgment reserved : 17.12.2013
Date of judgment : 03.01.2014
JUDGMENT
Three accused persons, namely, Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa, Anuj Kumar Sharma (PO) and Suruchi Sharma have been sent to face trial by the Anti Corruption Branch of the CBI, for the offences punishable under sections 120B read with Section 420/468/471 IPC and under Section 13(2) r/w Sec. 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988.
2 At the time of commission of offence, accused Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa was posted as Sr. Manager, whereas accused Anuj Kumar Sharma (already PO) and Suruchi Sharma are the private persons.
3 Briefly stating, the facts of the present case are that a written complaint dated 31.10.2006 Ex.PW11/A was made by Sh. K.V. Raghav Kamath, DGM, Corporation Bank to the CBI to the effect that during the period 02.04.2004 to 29.09.2004, accused Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa was working as Branch Manager, Corporation Bank, Vasundhra Enclave Branch who sanctioned and AC No.02/2009 CBI Vs. Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa etc. Page 2 of 45 disbursed 13 Home loans amounting to Rs.86.58 lacs and one loan under Corp. Meditech Scheme for Rs.15 lacs for purchasing medical equipments. It was alleged that the said loans were disbursed by accused Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa by violating banking laws without proper verification of properties. Apart from other loans, it was alleged that Corp Home Loan No.42/2004 for Rs.7,20,000/ was sanctioned to accused Anuj Kumar Sharma and Suruchi Sharma towards purchase of flat No.3, plot No.31, Dwarika Apartments, Shalimar Garden ExtensionI, Ghaziabad. It was alleged that during verification it was revealed that accused Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa processed the loan application submitted by the borrowers without ensuring the genuineness of sale deed and property documents and also the genuineness of ownership of flat. The loan amount was credited in account No.2983 maintained jointly in the name of accused Anuj Kumar Sharma and his mother Updesh Kumari Sharma. During investigation, it revealed that accused Anuj Kumar Sharma had already availed housing loan of Rs.4,00,000/ against the same property from Andhra Bank and another housing loan of Rs.5.5 lacs from Syndicate Bank against the same property. The documents submitted by the borrowers were found to be forged. AC No.02/2009 CBI Vs. Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa etc. Page 3 of 45 4 On the basis of complaint Ex.PW11/A, FIR Ex.PW15/A was registered and its investigation was entrusted to Inspector Sushil Kumar (PW15). During the course of investigation, he seized various documents including certified extracts of manual of instruction on housing loan Ex.PW11/G and loan file Ex.PW1/A vide seizure memo Ex.PW11/B. Vide letter Ex.PW11/C, IO received Account Opening form with supporting documents Ex.PW11/D and original statement of account Ex.PW11/E in respect of SB Account No.2983 in the name of accused Anuj Kumar Sharma(PO) with Corporation Bank, Vasundhra Enclave.
5 The loan amount was disbursed to accused Anuj Kumar Sharma(PO) vide Pay order dated 22.04.2004 for a sum of Rs. 7.20 lacs Ex.PW2/B which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW11/F. IO issued notice U/s 91 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW15/B to Axis Bank and in reply thereto letter Ex.PW3/A was received along with account opening form with supporting document Ex.PW3/B1 to B10 and statement of account Ex.PW3/C in respect of joint account of accused Anuj Kumar Sharma and his mother Updesh Kumari Sharma. The vouchers Ex.PW2/A1 to A19 of Axis Bank were seized vide memo Ex.PW2/A. AC No.02/2009 CBI Vs. Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa etc. Page 4 of 45 6 During investigation, IO wrote letter Ex.PW15/C to Andhra Bank, Preet Vihar to supply vouchers of loan disbursed to accused Anuj Kumar Sharma. Vouchers Ex.PW7/A to Ex.PW7/C were received from Andhra Bank vide letter Ex.PW7/D. Attested copy of sale deed Ex.PW7/F submitted with Andhra Bank was received vide letter Ex.PW7/E. IO issued letter Ex.PW12/A to Syndicate Bank, Shahdara Branch and another letter Ex.PW15/D to is Assets Recovery Branch from where certified copy of sale deed Ex.PW15/E was received vide letter Ex.PW13/A. IO also received letter Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C from SubRegistrarIII, Ghaziabad enclosing certified copy of sale deed Ex.PW1/D. 7 On 24.04.2008, IO seized certified copy of GPA dated 30.05.2001 Ex.PW4/A from Sh. Amit Aggarwal(PW4) vide memo Ex.PW4/B. Vide letter Ex.PW15/F issued by SubRegistrar IV Seelam Pur, IO received certified copy of GPA Ex.PW8/A in favour of Smt. Updesh Kumari Sharma by Sh. Amit Aggarwal. IO received admitted handwritings Ex.PW4/C1 and C2 vide letter Ex.PW4/C as well as specimen signatures on sheets Ex.PW4/D1 to D4 of Sh. Amit Aggarwal. IO also obtained specimen signatures of Sh. Rajender Singh(PW6), Typist in SDM Court compound, Seelam AC No.02/2009 CBI Vs. Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa etc. Page 5 of 45 Pur on sheets Ex.PW15/G1 to G5 and also of Sh. K.K.Yadav(PW5), the then SubRegistrarIII, Ghaziabad on sheets Ex.PW15/H1 to H4. The questioned documents from file Ex.PW1/A along with writings were sent to GEQD, Chandigarh vide letter Ex.PW14/A of the CBI and report Ex.PW14/B was received. No sanction for prosecution of accused Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa was obtained as he was already dismissed from service.
8 After completion of the investigation, the challan was put up in the court where accused persons were supplied with the copies of the chargesheet and the documents of the CBI. Accused Anuj Kumar Sharma was declared PO on 14.12.2011. 9 The charges under sections 120B r/w 420, 468, 471 IPC and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act and also under sections 420 IPC and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act was framed against accused P.S.Kudwa. Separate charges under sections 120B r/w 420, 468, 471 IPC and also under sections 420/468/471 IPC was framed against accused Suruchi Sharma. Accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them and claimed trial. 10 The prosecution has examined 15 witnesses in support of its case. PW1 Sh. Rohtash Tyagi is the Registration Clerk, AC No.02/2009 CBI Vs. Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa etc. Page 6 of 45 Office of SubRegistrar, Ghaziabad. PW2 Sh.Himanshou Chauhan and PW3 Sh.Shubhashish Kaul, are the officers of the then Axis Bank, Swasthya Vihar. PW4 Sh. Amit Aggarwal is the Director of Lalgarhia Properties Pvt. Ltd. PW5 Sh. Krishna Kumar Yadav was the then SubRegistrarIII, Ghaziabad. PW6 Sh Rajendra Singh was working as Typist in the premises of SDM Court, Seelam Pur. PW7 Sh. G.D.Sharma was the official of Andhra Bank, Preet Vihar. PW8 Sh. Chhattar Pal Singh is the LDC, office of SubRegistrar IV, Seelam Pur. PW9Sh. R.S.Rana was the then SubRegistrar IV, Seelam Pur. PW10 Sh. V.S.V.Nagesh and PW11 Sh.Shrinath Kamath are the Officers of Corporation Bank. PW12 Sh.Naresh Kumar Duggal was the then Sr. Manager, Syndicate Bank, Shahdara. PW13 Sh. Gyaneshwar Nath Sharma was the Recovery Officer of Syndicate Bank. PW14 Sh. Abhimanyu Kumar examined the Handwriting and Signatures in CFSL. PW15 Inspector Sushil Kumar is the IO of the case.
11 Statements of accused persons have been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused P.S.Kudwa stated that he has not committed any wrong while sanctioning the loan. He relied upon the report furnished by Bank Officers and empaneled Advocate. AC No.02/2009 CBI Vs. Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa etc. Page 7 of 45 Witnesses examined are false and interested who deposed under the pressure of CBI. IO had not conducted impartial investigation. He is innocent and has been falsely implicated. During his tenure, he sanctioned loan in 200 cases and chargesheet has been filed only in 5 cases that might be an human error.
12 Accused Suruchi Sharma stated that she is innocent and has been falsely implicated. She never applied for any loan jointly with her husband or individually. She lived with her husband at Lalita Park for about 2 years and her husband is not residing with her for the last 67 years. Signatures on the loan application form were not her. She was not told by her husband about obtaining of any loan.
13 Both the accused opted to lead evidence in their defence. However, only accused Suruchi Sharma examined DW1 Sh.Deepak Jain, handwriting and finger prints expert. 14 I have heard Shri S. Krishna Kumar, learned PP for the CBI as well as Ld. Counsel for accused persons. I have also carefully gone through their submissions and the material available on record.
AC No.02/2009 CBI Vs. Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa etc. Page 8 of 45 Criminal conspiracy 15 To prove the conspiracy between accused persons, prosecution has examined Sh. V.S.V. Nagesh (PW10), Chief Manager (Vigilance Division), Corporation Bank. He has stated that present case pertains to loan granted to Anuj Kumar Sharma for purchasing second hand flat(old flat) bearing No.3, Plot No.31, Dwarika Apartments, ExtensionI, Shalimar Garden, Ghaziabad, UP vide loan file Ex.PW1/A. As per loan application placed at page No.127130, accused A.K.Sharma and Suruchi Sharma applied for loan jointly. They requested for loan of Rs.9,50,000/ and accused P.S.Kudwa sanctioned the loan of Rs.7,20,000/ on 22.04.2004 and it was sanctioned on the basis of agreement to sale entered into by borrowers with Smt. Updesh Kumar Sharma, appearing at page No. 6971. Accused P.S.Kudwa obtained photocopies of Income Tax Returns and Balance sheet supporting the income of borrowers placed at page No.157209. On the basis of aforesaid documents, accused P.S.Kudwa sanctioned loan of Rs.7,20,000/. PW10 further stated that before sanctioning the loan, the Bank Manager had to comply with norms of the Bank i.e. verification of income of the borrowers, personal interview and personal visit to the place of borrowers to AC No.02/2009 CBI Vs. Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa etc. Page 9 of 45 ascertain the due diligence; no third party such as broker should be entertained; no cross guarantees can be entertained; genuineness of title; reputation of builder; permission from Municipal Authorities; margin money and end use of the property before disbursement and valuation of the property. PW10 further stated that he conducted investigation at Corporation Bank, Vasundhra Enclave Branch which disclosed that majority of Housing Loans disbursed by accused P.S.Kudwa were routed through brokers and borrowers did not approach the bank directly. He did not conduct due diligence and presanction visit. All the borrowers submitted photocopies of Income Tax Returns and Salary Certificates which were not verified by accused P.S. Kudwa due to which borrowers submitted forged IT returns and salary certificates.
16 PW10 further stated that in the present case, accused P.S.Kudwa did not conduct presanction visit before sanctioning the loan. The loan was appraised on the basis of photocopies of IT Returns whose genuineness was not certified. As advised by empaneled Advocate, genuineness of link documents was not verified. Accused Anuj Kumar Sharma(PO) while creating equitable mortgage in respect of property did not deposit the originals of link AC No.02/2009 CBI Vs. Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa etc. Page 10 of 45 documents. Borrowers deposited original title deeds which was placed at page No.8099 of file Ex.PW1/A. As link documents were found to be different, PW10 sought verification of the aforesaid title deed at SubRegistrar Office, Ghaziabad. As per information received from Sub Registrar Office, title deed placed at page No.80 to 99 of file Ex.PW1/A was not registered with them. The information received at page No.3 to 5 of Ex.PW1/A. 17 PW10 further stated that during investigation, he found that Smt. Updesh Kumari Sharma was the mother of borrower and the borrower had already availed the housing loan from Andhra Bank, Preet Vihar Branch. He also conducted field enquiries at the residential address furnished by the borrower and found that the borrower had been absconding. The borrower had also availed housing loan for the same flat from Syndicate Bank, Mayur Vihar Branch by submitting same set of documents. PW10 further stated that before sanctioning the loan, accused P.S. Kudwa should have conducted independent enquiries as to the consideration held between mother and son. Without ascertaining the same, accused P.S. Kudwa disbursed the loan amount of Rs.7,20,000/ to Smt. Updesh Kumari by way of pay order dated 22.04.2004 Ex.PW2/B. The borrower had AC No.02/2009 CBI Vs. Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa etc. Page 11 of 45 encashed the said pay order at UTI Bank, Preet Vihar Branch where he had a joint account with his mother. The credit sanctioning intimation is placed at page No.6, due diligence report is placed at page No.12, appraisal note is placed at page No.13 to 19 and term loan agreement and guarantee agreement is placed at page No.38 to 62 of loan file Ex.PW1/A. 18 Similarly, PW11 Sh. Shrinath Kamath, AGM, Corporation has deposed about the procedure to be adopted before sanctioning and disbursing housing loans. Apart from that, he has proved the copy of complaint filed by the bank in respect of 14 matters including the present one pertaining to accused Anuj Kumar Sharma (PO) and Suruchi Sharma as Ex.PW11/A. On the basis of said complaint, CBI filed the present charge sheet. On 4.1.2007, he handed over loan file Ex.PW1/A to the CBI vide memo Ex.PW11/B. Vide letter Ex.PW11/C, he supplied original account opening form Ex.PW11/D and statement of account Ex.PW11/E in respect of SB account No.2983 in the name of accused Anuj Kumar Sharma. He also handed over original pay order dated 22.04.2004 Ex.PW2/B in favour of Smt. Updesh Kumari Sharma vide memo Ex.PW11/F. He further stated that in this case, housing loan was granted for purchase AC No.02/2009 CBI Vs. Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa etc. Page 12 of 45 of house in the name of applicant's mother which generally bank did not finance. The applicants were accused Anuj Kumar Sharma (PO) and Suruchi Sharma. The loan was disbursed on 22.04.2004 by accused P.S. Kudwa by issuing pay order Ex.PW2/B. The borrowers did not pay the installments of the loan and bank proceeded against them by invoking SARFASI Act. When the bank officials went to the property in question for taking possession, it was revealed that Andhra Bank had already taken its possession against the housing loan granted on the same property to accused Anuj Kumar Sharma (PO). It was also revealed that Syndicate Bank had also financed against the same property to accused Anuj Kumar Sharma. These events had taken place before taking charge by PW11 of Vasundhara Enclave Branch in June 2006. He further stated that accused P.S. Kudwa did not make proper enquiry at the site by which the earlier loans taken against the same property could have been revealed, thus the bank has lost entire loan amount. He had also handed over to CBI copy of circular/guidelines captioned "due diligence exercise while financing under Corphome" Ex.PW11/G which was an extract from Manual of Instructions on Housing Loan.
19 It has been argued by Ld counsel for accused AC No.02/2009 CBI Vs. Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa etc. Page 13 of 45 P.S.Kudwa that for constituting offence of criminal conspiracy, mens rea is essential. He has relied upon a judgment in case of C.Chenga Reddy and others vs. State of A.P.(1996) 10 SCC 193 in which it was observed that prosecution case was based on circumstantial evidence as the payment was made to the contractors by the Government Engineers in conspiracy by fabricating documents to show that the work was executed when no work was performed. It was held that though accused acted in violation of financial code and Government's circulars, but dishonest intention was absent. 20 Ld counsel for accused P.S.Kudwa has also relied upon judgment in case of Y.K.Gupta vs. State of UP 2001 Cri.L.J. 339 in which it was observed that since no pecuniary advantage shown to have been obtained by accused, no conspiracy between them was proved. It was further observed that mere fact that supplier of machinery was not found available at given address to ascertain nature of machinery whether old or new, can not term the inspection report prepared by accused/Assistant Manager as forged document. 21 Perusal of loan file Ex.PW1/A shows that the housing loan application at page 127130 was moved by jointly by accused Suruchi Sharma and her husband accused Anuj Kumar Sharma (PO) AC No.02/2009 CBI Vs. Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa etc. Page 14 of 45 for taking home loan under Corp Home Scheme for purchase of a flat No.3, Plot No.31, Dawarika Apartment, Shalimar Garden Extn.I, Shaibabad, Ghaziabad, UP. Name of the seller of the said flat was mentioned as Smt. Updesh Kumari Sharma, mother of accused Anuj Kumar Sharma (PO). Vide this application, loan of Rs.7,20,000/ was sought.
22 The Manual of Instructions on Housing loans/Due Diligence Exercise while financing under Corp Home Ex.PW11/G, shows that before sanction of loan, Branch Managers were required to verify of income of the borrowers. He is required to conduct personal interview and personal visit to the place of borrowers to ascertain the due diligence. They are required to ensure that there is no third party such as broker in the deal. No cross guarantees can be entertained. The Bank Managers are required to ascertain the genuineness of title and reputation of builder. They have to verify the permission from Municipal Authorities. They are also required to ensure the payment of margin money and end use of the property before disbursement and valuation of the property.
23 In the present case, it has come in evidence that accused Anuj Kumar Sharma (PO) and Suruchi Sharma jointly AC No.02/2009 CBI Vs. Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa etc. Page 15 of 45 applied for Home loan for purchase of flat flat No.3, Plot No.31, Dawarika Apartment, Shalimar Garden Extn.I, Shaibabad, Ghaziabad, UP from Corporation Bank where accused Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa was posted as Branch Head being Sr. Manager. The said flat was alleged to be purchased from Smt. Updesh Kumari Sharma, mother of accused Anuj Kumar Sharma (PO). 24 As per testimony of PW10 Sh. V.S.V. Nagesh, he found that Smt. Updesh Kumari Sharma was the mother of borrower and the borrower had already availed the housing loan from Andhra Bank, Preet Vihar Branch. He also conducted field enquiries at the residential address furnished by the borrower and found that the borrower had been absconding. The borrower had also availed housing loan for the same flat from Syndicate Bank, Mayur Vihar Branch by submitting same set of documents. Testimony of PW8 has been corroborated by PW7 Sh. G.D. Sharma, the then Branch Manager, Andhra Bank, Preet Vihar. He deposed that he supplied credit voucher dated 23.03.2004 for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/ for issue of pay order favouring Smt. Updesh Kumari Sharma Ex.PW7/A and corresponding debit voucher for having disburse the loan amount. Vide said pay order, a sum of Rs.4 lacs was disbursed to Smt. Updesh AC No.02/2009 CBI Vs. Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa etc. Page 16 of 45 Kumari Sharma by way of consideration for sale of flat No.3, Plot No. 31, Shalimar Garden Extn.I, Shaibabad, Ghaziabad, UP. The borrower was Anuj Kumar Sharma who had submitted link documents to the effect that he had purchased the said flat from his mother. After release of consideration amount, sale deed was executed between the parties. They handed over to CBI attested copy of sale deed dated 24.03.2004 Ex.PW7/F vide letter Ex.PW7/E. The borrower did not pay back the loan amount and thus they obtained the possession of the flat in question through Court and then auctioned the same. PW12 Sh. Naresh Kumar, the then officer of Syndicate Bank has also corroborated that he handed over documents to CBI vide letter Ex.PW12/A. This letter also shows that accused Anuj Kumar Sharma (PO) also availed housing loan from Syndicate Bank for the same flat in question.
25 PW4 Sh. Amit Aggarwal, Director of Lalgarhia Properties Pvt. Ltd. Has stated that they had sold the said flat to Smt. Updesh Kumari Sharma vide GPA dated 30.05.2001 and proved its certified copy as Ex.PW4/A which was handed over to CBI vide memo Ex.PW4/B. After going through the original GPA dated 30.05.2001 placed at page No.71 to 74 of loan file Ex.PW1/A, he AC No.02/2009 CBI Vs. Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa etc. Page 17 of 45 stated that it did not bear his signatures and it was not executed by them. Similarly, agreement to sell, Will, receipt and possession letter were not theirs.
26 So, a combined reading of testimony of PW10 Sh. V.S.V. Nagesh and PW7 Sh. G.D. Sharma, PW12 Sh. Naresh Kumar and PW4 Sh. Amit Aggarwal, it is evident that accused Suruchi Sharma was the coapplicant with her husband accused Anuj Kumar Sharma (PO). The sale deed and other documents filed along with the loan application form by accused Suruchi Sharma and her husband were found to be forged, as deposed by PW4 Sh. Amit Aggarwal, Director, Lalgarhia Properties Pvt. Ltd.
27 In the present case, it is alleged that no presanction verification of the property in question was got conducted by accused Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa. As per Manual Ex.PW11/G, Branch Head of the Bank was required to verify the property proposed to be purchased prior to sanction of home loan. In the present case, it was the duty of accused Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa to verify the property before sanctioning of loan amount, but he had not done so individually. All this shows that accused Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa hatched a criminal conspiracy with their coaccused while sanctioning AC No.02/2009 CBI Vs. Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa etc. Page 18 of 45 the loan amount for the flat against which housing loan was already availed from Andhra Bank and Syndicate Bank.
28 It has also come in evidence that the GPA at page No. 71 to 74 and agreement to sale at page 69 to 71 on loan file Ex.PW1/A submitted by accused Suruchi Sharma and her husband with the bank as collateral security was found to be forged one inasmuch as PW4 Sh.Amit Aggarwal, Director, Lalgarhia Properties Pvt. Ltd. has stated that the same were not executed by his company. PW1 Sh. Rohtash Tyagi, official from SubRegistrarIII, Ghaziabad, U.P. has proved the copy of sale deed registered with the Sub Registrar as Ex.PW1/D. After going through the sale deed at page No.80 to 98 of loan file Ex.PW1/A, PW1 stated that it did not bear the signatures of SubRegistrar nor the stamp of his office. PW5 Sh. Krishna Kumar Yadav, SubRegistrar, also deposed that sale deed placed at page 8099 of file Ex.PW1/A was not registered in their office.
29 PW6 Sh. Rajender Singh has deposed that he was working as Typist in the premises of SDM Court compound, Seelam Pur prior to 2005. He was shown agreement to sale, GPA, Will, receipt and photostat letter dated 30.05.2001 placed at page No.6979 AC No.02/2009 CBI Vs. Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa etc. Page 19 of 45 of loan file Ex.PW1/A. After going through the said document, PW6 stated that the same did not bear his signatures and the same were forged.
30 From the testimony of PW6, it has been established that the link documents filed by accused Anuj Kumar Sharma(PO) and Suruchi Sharma along with the loan application with regard to transfer of rights from Amit Aggarwal(PW4), Director of Lalgarhia Properties to Smt. Updesh Kumari Sharma in respect of flat in question were forged. PW8 Chhattar Pal, official from Sub Registrar IV, Seelam Pur, has corroborated the testimony of PW6. PW8 proved another copy of GPA dated 30.05.2001 executed by Sh. Amit Aggarwal in favour of Smt. Updesh Kumari in respect of flat in question as Ex.PW8/A( another copy Ex.PW4/A). PW8 had also gone through the GPA placed at page No.7274 of file Ex.PW1/A and after going through it stated that it did not bear the genuine seal and same was not registered in their record.
31 It has also come in evidence that apart from forged sale deed, GPA and agreement to sale in loan file Ex.PW1/A, no document regarding income of accused/borrowers was submitted along with the loan application to show their repayment capacity. As AC No.02/2009 CBI Vs. Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa etc. Page 20 of 45 per manual Ex.PW11/G, accused Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa was required to verify the documents but he even did not verify whether the margin money was paid by accused Suruchi Sharma and her husband Anuj Kumar Sharma(PO) towards purchase of flat before sanction of the loan amount. He also did not ascertain the repayment capacity of accused persons. Accused P.S. Kudwa had also not obtained any document in support of the possession of assets by them. Accused P.S.Kudwa obtained only the photocopies of Income Tax Returns of his coaccused persons which are at page 157 to 209 and had not obtained their genuine nor got them certified/verified. Even accused P.S.Kudwa did not personally visit the property in question or got the documents placed on record verified from the office of SubRegistrar and that was the reason it revealed later on that accused Suruchi Sharma and Anuj Kumar Sharma(PO) already availed housing loan against the same flat from Andhra Bank and Syndicate Bank.
32 All the above acts by accused persons clearly proves that accused Suruchi Sharma along with her husband obtained home loan from Corporation Bank for purchase of flat against which housing loan had already been availed from Syndicate Bank and AC No.02/2009 CBI Vs. Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa etc. Page 21 of 45 Andhra Bank and submitted forged and fabricated documents and used the same as genuine in securing loan amount. It has further been established that accused Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa had not acted diligently while sanctioning loan amount. It has been proved that accused Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa, being public servant criminally conspired with his other coaccused in forging documents and using them as genuine in securing loan from the bank with a view to cheat the bank.
33 It is a settled law that conspiracies are hatched in the pitch dark secrecy and direct evidence of those are hardly available. In this respect, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in the case titled K.R. Purushothaman vs. State of Kerala, AIR 2006 SC 35 that to constitute a conspiracy, meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing an illegal act or an act by an illegal means is the first and primary condition and it is not necessary that all the conspirators must know each and every details of the conspiracy. The agreement amongst the conspirators can be inferred by necessary implications. In most of the cases, the conspiracies are proved by the circumstantial evidence, as the conspiracy and its objects are usually deduced from the circumstances of the case and the conduct of the accused involved AC No.02/2009 CBI Vs. Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa etc. Page 22 of 45 in the conspiracy. The criminal conspiracy is an independent offence in Indian Penal Code. The unlawful agreement is sine qua non for constituting offence under Indian Penal Code and not an accomplishment. Conspiracy consists of the scheme or adjustment between two of more persons which may be express or implied or partly express and partly implied. The offence of conspiracy shall continue till the termination of the agreement. 34 In another case titled Shivnarayan Laxminarayan Joshi Versus State of Maharashtra (reported in 1980 SCC (Cri.)
493), the Hon'ble Supreme has observed that it is manifest that a conspiracy is always hatched in secrecy and it is impossible to adduce direct evidence of the same.
35 Keeping in view the above clear and cogent evidence, prosecution has successfully established that there was criminal conspiracy between the accused persons and common object of which was to cheat the bank. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that both the accused persons criminally conspired with each other to avail loan facility by submitting forged and fabricated documents and using them as genuine and thus cheated the bank by causing financial loss to the bank to the tune of Rs.7,20,000/. Thus, the authorities relied AC No.02/2009 CBI Vs. Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa etc. Page 23 of 45 upon by accused in case of C.Chenga Reddy(supra) and Y.K.Gupta(supra) are of no help to him as same are distinguishable from the facts of the present case.
36 Consequently, accused P.S.Kudwa is hereby held guilty for commission of offences punishable under Section 120B IPC read with Sections 420/468/471 IPC and under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988. Accused Suruchi Sharma is also held guilty for commission of offences punishable under Section 120B IPC read with Sections 420/468/471 IPC.
Forgery & Cheating 37 It is alleged against accused Suruchi Sharma that she along with her husband accused Anuj Kumar Sharma(PO) committed forgery in the documents with regard to flat in question and used the same as genuine and on the basis of same, managed to obtain loan from the bank and thus cheated the bank.
38 It is alleged against accused Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa that he fraudulently and dishonestly sanctioned and disbursed loan of Rs.7,20,000/ in favour of his coaccused persons without obtaining the requisite documents, without physically inspecting the site in question and verifying the documents and thus cheated the bank. AC No.02/2009 CBI Vs. Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa etc. Page 24 of 45 39 To prove the forgery committed by accused Suruchi Sharma, PW10 Sh. V.S.V. Nagesh has deposed that as per loan file Ex.PW1/A, loan application was moved by accused Suruchi Sharma along with her husband accused Anuj Kumar Sharma on 10.04.2004. The loan was sanctioned on the basis of sale deed dated 22.04.2004. The loan amount was disbursed through SB A/C No.2983 opened in the name of accused Anuj Kumar Sharma(PO), coapplicant of the loan, vide application form Ex.PW11/D. As per statement of account Ex.PW11/E, an amount of Rs.7,20,000/ lacs was disbursed on 22.04.2004. He further deposed that he conducted investigation at the site and found that housing loan was already availed against the same flat in question from Andhra Bank and Syndicate Bank. Witness was cross examined at length but the defence has failed to put any dent on his testimony.
40 Loan application form submitted by accused Suruchi Sharma is at page 127 to 130 of loan file Ex.PW1/A. Perusal of application form shows that loan of Rs.7,20,000/ was applied for by accused Suruchi Sharma and her husband accused Anuj Kumar Sharma(PO), being joint applicants for purchase of flat bearing No.3, Plot No.31, Dawarika Apartments, Shalimar Garden ExtensionI, AC No.02/2009 CBI Vs. Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa etc. Page 25 of 45 Ghaziabad,UP from Smt. Updesh Kumari Sharma, mother of accused Anuj Kumar Sharma(PO). Along with loan application form sale deed dated 22.04.2004 was annexed. Thus, the forged and fabricated sale deed at page 82 to 98 in loan file Ex.PW1/A was submitted by accused Suruchi Sharma and Anuj Kumar Sharma(PO) for obtaining the loan from the bank and the same was used as genuine with the sole object to cheat the bank.
41 It has been argued by ld counsel for accused Suruchi Sharma that she was not a signatory to loan application form. She had not applied for any loan from any bank and signatures on loan application were not her. In support of her case, DW1 Sh. Deepak Jain, Handwriting and Finger Prints Expert, has been examined who stated that he had examined disputed signatures of accused Suruchi Sharma from the documents Ex.PW1/A and compared them with her admitted signatures on vakalatnama and arrest memo. He was provided with sheet Ex.DW1/A containing specimen signatures of accused Suruchi Sharma. After examination, he reached the conclusion that disputed signatures on Ex.PW1/A were not written by accused Suruchi Sharma. He proved his report as Ex.DW1/B and enlarged photographs as Ex.DW1/C. AC No.02/2009 CBI Vs. Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa etc. Page 26 of 45 42 Report Ex.DW1/B shows that disputed signatures of accused Suruchi Sharma appearing on page 6,7, 910, 2024, 3440,4142, 4448, 4957 and 5862 were compared by DW1 from her admitted signatures on specimen sheet Ex. DW1/A as well as from vakalatnama dated 14.01.2013 and arrest memo dated 13.01.2013.
43 Perusal of loan file Ex.PW1/A shows that there is photocopy of driving license of accused Suruchi Sharma at page 32 having her signatures which was issued on 21.11.2002. Accused Suruchi Sharma has not disputed her signatures on her driving license. The Handwriting Expert had not examined her admitted signatures on the driving license at page 32 of the loan file Ex.PW1/A. Accused got examined her admitted signatures on the arrest memo, vakalatnama and specimen sheet Ex.DW1/A which were put by her on the same at the time of her arrest or thereafter, which creates doubt that she intentionally changed her signatures while putting them on arrest memo and vakalatnama with a view to create ground that the loan documents did not bear her signatures. So, the accused can not get any help from the report of Handwriting Expert Ex. DW1/B. Rather, the prosecution has duly established that AC No.02/2009 CBI Vs. Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa etc. Page 27 of 45 accused Suruchi Sharma was the coapplicant of the housing loan and her signatures appear on the loan documents.
44 It has also come in evidence that coaccused Anuj Kumar Sharma(PO) managed to get the loan sanctioned and disbursed. Statement of account Ex.PW11/E in respect of account No.2983 in the name of accused Anuj Kumar Sharma shows that a sum of Rs.7,20,000/ was disbursed on 22.04.2004 vide Pay Order Ex.PW2/B which was deposited in his Axis Bank Account No. 055010100097477(Ex.PW3/B1 to B3) which was in the joint name with his mother Updesh Kumari Sharma. The statement of account Ex.PW3/C of that Bank shows that the Pay Order Ex.PW2/B was encashed on 24.04.2004. So, the prosecution has successfully established that accused Suruchi Sharma along with her husband accused Anuj Kumar Sharma(PO) committed forgery in the documents and used the same as genuine and on the basis of forged documents, managed to get housing loan of Rs.7,20,000/ from the bank and thus cheated the bank.
45 So far as accused Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa is concerned, it is alleged against him that the fraudulently and dishonestly sanctioned and disbursed loan amount of Rs.7,20,000/ in AC No.02/2009 CBI Vs. Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa etc. Page 28 of 45 favour of coaccused persons without verification of documents and thus cheated the bank.
46 It has been argued by ld counsel for accused P.S.Kudwa that loan was not sanctioned by him as he was not posted during the said period nor appraisal note was signed by him. He has further argued that it was on the report of other bank officers and empaneled Advocate, the loan was sanctioned and P.S.Kudwa had nothing to do with the same. He has further argued that Manual of Instructions Ex.PW11/G was not in the picture when the loan was sanctioned. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon judgment in case of C.Chenga Reddy(supra) in which it was observed that though the prosecution has established that the appellants have committed not only codal violations but also irregularities by ignoring various circulars and departmental orders in the matter of allotment of work, yet no dishonest intention on their part could be shown and none of the circumstances could be construed as incriminating or were of any conclusive nature. He has further relied upon judgment in case of State of Rajasthan vs. Govind Ram Bagdiya and others 2003 Cri.L.J. 1169 in which it was observed that there was nothing to show that any personal gain was obtained by AC No.02/2009 CBI Vs. Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa etc. Page 29 of 45 accused persons or there was any wrongful loss to Municipal Board. On similar points, judgment in case of M.Gopala Krishnaiah and etc. vs. The State 1988 Cri.L.J.651 has been relied upon. 47 It has already come in evidence that at the relevant period, accused Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa was posted as Senior Manager of the Bank. He was duty bound to verify the documents submitted along with loan application forms. As per manual Ex.PW11/G under the Corp Home Scheme, the branch head of the bank was required to verify the documents submitted along with application form from their originals. It was also required by the branch head to conduct presanction and postsanction verification of the property to be purchased. As per manual Ex.PW11/G, it was also required that the purchaser of property must show the payment of margin money before sanctioning of loan amount and the bank was required to ascertain the repayment capacity of the borrowers. 48 In the present case, it has come in the testimony of PW10 Sh. V.S.V. Nagesh that no presanction or postsanction verification of the flat in question was conducted by accused Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa either before sanction of loan or thereafter. So far as postsanction verification of the property to be purchased is AC No.02/2009 CBI Vs. Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa etc. Page 30 of 45 concerned, there is no document or note on record that accused Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa conducted any postsanction verification of the property for the purchase of which loan was sanctioned. Accused P.S.Kudwa had sanctioned and disbursed the loan without ascertaining the repayment capacity of coaccused persons as he had not obtained original IT Returns and sanctioned the loan only on the basis of their photocopies nor got them verified/ certified. 49 It has also been established that accused Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa did not obtain any document showing the income of coaccused persons/borrowers nor any noting was made by him to ascertain whether the margin money was paid by them to the seller of the flat before sanctioning of loan amount. In this way, accused Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa violated the guidelines envisaged in the banking manual Ex.PW11/G meant for grant of home loans. So, the prosecution has duly established that accused Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa did not verify the documents submitted by coaccused persons; he did not conduct the physical verification of the property; he did not obtain the documents which were declared as assets by coaccused before fraudulently and dishonestly sanctioning and disbursing loan amount of Rs.7,20,000/ to his coaccused persons and thus committed AC No.02/2009 CBI Vs. Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa etc. Page 31 of 45 cheating with the bank. It has already been established that loan amount of Rs.7,20,000/ was disbursed to coaccused through his bank account. So, the prosecution has successfully established that there was mens rea on the part of accused and he has caused loss to the bank by sanctioning and disbursing the loan to his coaccused. Therefore, the authorities relied upon by accused P.S.Kudwa are distinguishable from the facts of the present case and do not help him. 50 From the aforesaid discussion, prosecution has been able to prove its case against accused Suruchi Sharma under Section 420, 468 & 471 IPC. Prosecution has also been able to prove its case against accused Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa under Section 420 IPC. Criminal misconduct 51 Accused Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa has also been charged for commission of offences punishable under Section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act. It is alleged against accused Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa that while working as Sr. Manager of Corporation Bank, Vasundhra Enclave Branch he sanctioned loan under Corp Home Scheme to his coaccused persons without duly verifying documents and without conducting presanction and post sanction verification of the flat in question.
AC No.02/2009 CBI Vs. Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa etc. Page 32 of 45 52 It has come in evidence that accused Anuj Kumar Sharma(PO) and Suruchi Sharma applied for a loan of Rs.7,20,000/ for purchase of flat in question under Corp Home Scheme. Note appearing on the back side of page 128 of the loan application in the loan file Ex.PW1/A made by accused Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa shows that he misused his official position and facilitated his coaccused persons inasmuch as accused Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa mentioned that he was satisfied for the claim of Rs.7,20,000/. Thereafter, accused P.S. Kudwa sanctioned a sum of Rs.7,20,000/ without verifying the property to be financed. As per Manual Ex.PW11/G, loan under Corp Home Scheme could be granted after due verification of property to be purchased, after due diligence, after comparing the copies of documents submitted with their originals, after ascertaining repayment capacity of borrowers, payment of margin money by borrowers from their own funds etc. But accused Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa by abusing his official position sanctioned and disbursed loan to his coaccused persons.
53 It has also come in evidence that accused Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa had not taken on record the documents of the properties which were shown as his assets by coaccused persons. It AC No.02/2009 CBI Vs. Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa etc. Page 33 of 45 has also come in evidence that accused Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa had not ascertained whether the borrowers/ coaccused persons were having repayment capacity to pay the loan amount or not. As per manual Ex.PW11/G, accused Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa was required to have documents in support of margin money paid by his coaccused prior to disbursal of loan amount. But accused Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa had not verified whether the margin money was paid by his coaccused out of their funds or not.
54 Accused Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa had also not conducted any postsanction verification of the property to be purchased. Without verifying the flat in question, accused Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa while abusing his official position, violated the guidelines envisaged in manual Ex.PW11/G and thus facilitated his coaccused in disbursing loan amount to them.
55 Consequently, it has been duly established by the prosecution that accused Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa being public servant and while posted as Sr. Manager of Corporation Bank abused his official position by causing wrongful loss to the bank and corresponding wrongful gain to their coaccused. 56 In view of above evidence and discussion, accused AC No.02/2009 CBI Vs. Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa etc. Page 34 of 45 Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa is held guilty for offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C.Act. Defence 57 Defence taken by accused Suruchi Sharma is that she never applied for any loan jointly with her husband or individually. Earlier she used to live with her husband but for the last 67 years, her husband is not residing with her. Signatures on the loan application were not her and she was never told by her husband about obtaining any loan.
58 It is argued by ld defence counsel that CBI has failed to prove on record that any document was signed by accused Suruchi Sharma. She had not signed any document in file Ex.PW1/A. Even no report from CFSL was obtained to the effect that she had signed those documents. He has further argued that defence witness DW1 was examined who proved that signatures appearing on the loan documents were not of accused Suruchi Sharma.
59 In support of her defence, accused Suruchi Sharma examined DW1 Sh. Deepak Jain, Handwriting and Finger Prints Expert who stated that he had examined disputed signatures of accused Suruchi Sharma from the documents Ex.PW1/A and AC No.02/2009 CBI Vs. Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa etc. Page 35 of 45 compared them with her admitted signatures on vakalatnama and arrest memo. He was provided with sheet Ex.DW1/A containing specimen signatures of accused Suruchi Sharma. After examination, he reached the conclusion that disputed signatures on Ex.PW1/A were not written by accused Suruchi Sharma. He proved his report as Ex.DW1/B and enlarged photographs as Ex.DW1/C. 60 I have gone through the testimony of DW1 as well as report Ex.DW1/B prepared by him. It shows that disputed signatures of accused Suruchi Sharma appearing on page 6, 7, 910, 2024, 3440, 4142, 4448, 4957 and 5862 were compared by DW1 from her admitted signatures on specimen sheet Ex. DW1/A as well as from vakalatnama dated 14.01.2013 and arrest memo dated 13.01.2013. In the loan file Ex.PW1/A there is a document which is the photocopy of driving license of accused Suruchi Sharma at page 32 having her signatures which was issued on 21.11.2002. There is no dispute by accused Suruchi Sharma that it did not bear her signatures. Perusal of the report Ex.DW1/B of DW1, Handwriting Expert examined by accused shows that he had not examined admitted signatures of accused Suruchi Sharma on the driving license at page 32 of the loan file Ex.PW1/A. Accused got examined her AC No.02/2009 CBI Vs. Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa etc. Page 36 of 45 admitted signatures on the arrest memo, vakalatnama and specimen sheet Ex.DW1/A which were put by her at the time of her arrest or thereafter, which creates doubt to the effect that she intentionally changed her signatures while putting them on arrest memo and vakalatnama with a view to create ground that the loan documents did not bear her signatures. So, the accused can not get any help from the report of Handwriting Expert Ex. DW1/B. Rather, the prosecution has duly established that accused Suruchi Sharma was the coapplicant of the housing loan and her signatures appear on the loan documents as observed in earlier part of the judgment. 61 So, accused has failed to probabilise her defence that signatures on the loan application and loan documents in file Ex.PW1/A were not her.
Conclusion 62 It has been established by the prosecution that both the accused persons along with accused Anuj Kumar Sharma(PO) entered into a criminal conspiracy and common object of which was to cheat the bank by committing forgery and fabrication in the documents and using the same as genuine. Accused Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa had not conducted any verification of the documents and the AC No.02/2009 CBI Vs. Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa etc. Page 37 of 45 property to be mortgaged and facilitated his coaccused. Prosecution has convincingly proved the nexus between accused persons to the effect that on the basis of forged and fabricated documents, loan was sanctioned and disbursed causing financial loss to the bank and corresponding gain to accused persons.
63 It has also been proved that accused Suruchi Sharma committed forgery in the documents by submitting forged and fabricated Sale Deed, GPA and agreement to sale towards collateral security in securing the loan amount. It has also been proved that the said documents annexed with the loan application were forged and fabricated as per the testimony of PW4 Sh. Amit Aggarwal, Record Clerk from SDM Office (PW1) and the then SDM (PW5). The said forged documents were used as genuine by accused with the purpose to cheat the bank for obtaining loan amount.
64 It has further been established that accused Prabhat ,Sitaram Kudwa sanctioned the loan of Rs.7,20,000/ to his coaccused persons without conducting presanction and post sanction verification of the property to be purchased. He had also not ascertained the repayment capacity of his coaccused persons and also did not verify whether the margin money was paid by them out of AC No.02/2009 CBI Vs. Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa etc. Page 38 of 45 their own sources. Thus, it has been established that accused Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa abused his official position being public servant while posted as Senior Manager of Corporation Bank, Vasundhara Enclave Branch and bypassed the guidelines of bank by sanctioning and disbursing the loan amount. Thus, by abusing his official position as public servant, accused Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa facilitated coaccused persons in obtaining loan under Corp Home Scheme to the tune of Rs. 7,20,000/ and causing wrongful loss to the bank. 65 Consequently, accused Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa, is hereby held guilty under Section 120B IPC read with Sections 420/468/471 IPC and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act. Accused Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa is also held guilty under Section 420 IPC and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act. Accused Suruchi Sharma is held guilty under sections 120B IPC read with Sections 420/468/471 IPC and for substantive offences under sections 420/468/471 IPC. Both the accused persons are convicted accordingly.
Announced in the open Court ( P.S. TEJI )
Dated: 03.01.2014 District & Sessions Judge (East)
Special Judge (CBI)
Karkardooma Courts : Delhi
AC No.02/2009 CBI Vs. Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa etc. Page 39 of 45
IN THE COURT OF SHRI P.S. TEJI : DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (EAST) : SPECIAL JUDGE (CBI), KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI AC No.02/2009 Unique Case ID No.02402R0032462009 FIR No.RC DAI 2006 A 0045 U/s 120B read with Section 420/468/471 IPC and under Section 13(2) r/w Sec. 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988.
CBI Versus (1) Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa
S/o Late Sh. S.A. Kudwa
R/o A8, Awadh Apartment,
Vipul KhandI, Gomati Nagar,
Lucknow (UP)
(2) Anuj Kumar Sharma
S/o B.L. Sharma
R/o H.No.180, Street No.5,
Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi.
(Already PO)
(3) Suruchi Sharma
W/o Anuj Kumar Sharma
R/o H.No.180, Street No.5,
Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi.
AC No.02/2009 CBI Vs. Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa etc. Page 40 of 45
ORDER ON SENTENCE
I have heard Ld. Counsel for the convicts as well as learned PP for the CBI on the quantum of sentence. 2 The learned PP for the CBI has submitted that the convicts have been held guilty for commission of criminal conspiracy. Convict Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa, being public servant, by misusing his official position caused pecuniary loss to the bank. It is further argued that convict Suruchi Sharma committed forgery in the documents and used the same as genuine with a view to cheat the bank by obtaining loan. He has further argued that accused Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa has been held guilty for committed cheating with the bank. He has further submitted that accused P.S. Kudwa has already been convicted in four cases, therefore, he deserves no leniency and maximum punishment provided under the law may be awarded to him.
3 The learned counsel for convict Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa has submitted that he is 58 years old and is the only earning member of the family and that entire family is dependent upon him. It is further submitted that there is no other member in his family to look after his wife and children. It is also submitted that he has two AC No.02/2009 CBI Vs. Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa etc. Page 41 of 45 daughters of marriageable age apart from one son. He is also having 89 years old ailing mother in the family to look after. It is submitted that though convict P.S. Kudwa has been convicted in four cases, but appeals against the conviction have already been filed in which the sentence of imprisonment has already been suspended. Ld. Counsel has prayed for taking a lenient view while awarding sentence to the convict.
4 On behalf of convict Suruchi Sharma, it has been submitted that she is 41 years old and first time offender. Marriage of the convict has been discontinued. She is having 16 year son to look after who is suffering from depression. She is having no source of income. She remained in judicial custody for about five months. It is submitted that keeping in view the familial circumstances of the convict, a lenient view may be taken while awarding sentence to her. 5 Vide judgment dated 03.01.2014, convict Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa has been convicted under Section 120B IPC read with Sections 420/468/471 IPC and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act. He has also been convicted for the offence under section 420 IPC and under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act. Convict Suruchi Sharma has been convicted under Section AC No.02/2009 CBI Vs. Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa etc. Page 42 of 45 120B IPC read with sections 420/468/471 IPC and for substantive offences under sections 420/468/471 IPC.
6 Considering the circumstances under which the offences were committed, convicts are sentenced as under :
(i)Convict Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa is awarded sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.15,000/ for the offence punishable under Section 120B IPC read with Sections 420/468/471 IPC and section 13(2) read with 13(1)
(d) of P.C. Act. In default of payment of fine, convict shall further undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
(ii)Convict Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa is further awarded sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.15,000/ for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. In default of payment of fine, convict shall further undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
(iii)Convict Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa is further awarded sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.15,000/ for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act. In default of payment of fine, convict shall further undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
AC No.02/2009 CBI Vs. Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa etc. Page 43 of 45
(iv)Convict Suruchi Sharma is awarded sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 15,000/ for the offence punishable under Section 120B IPC read with Sections 420/468/471 IPC. In default of payment of fine, convict shall further undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
(v)Convict Suruchi Sharma is further awarded sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.15,000/ for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. In default of payment of fine, convict shall further undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
(vi)Convict Suruchi Sharma is further awarded sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.15,000/ for the offence punishable under Section 468 IPC. In default of payment of fine, convict shall further undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
(vii)Convict Suruchi Sharma is further awarded sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.15,000/ for the offence punishable under Section 471 IPC. In default of payment of fine, convict shall further undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
7 All the sentences of the convicts shall run concurrently. The convicts shall be entitled for the benefit of the AC No.02/2009 CBI Vs. Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa etc. Page 44 of 45 provisions of Section 428 Cr.PC. Copies of the judgment and order on sentence be given free of cost to the convicts.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court ( P.S. TEJI )
Dated: 06.01.2014 District & Sessions Judge(East)
Special Judge (CBI)
Karkardooma Courts : Delhi
AC No.02/2009 CBI Vs. Prabhat Sitaram Kudwa etc. Page 45 of 45