The Part Of Accused. Reliance Was Placed ... vs . Fateh on 7 December, 2018

[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

The Part Of Accused. Reliance Was Placed ... vs . Fateh on 7 December, 2018

 IN THE COURT OF SAVITA RAO, SPL. JUDGE, (PC ACT) CBI01,
          (SOUTH) SAKET  COURTS : NEW DELHI


CC No. : 47/16
RC No. : 221/2015/E/0011
EOIII/CBI, New Delhi
Unique Case ID No. : DLST010032042016
Under Sections 120B r/w sec. 420 IPC,467,468,471,477A and sec. 13 (2) 
r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act.


C.B.I.

Vs.

1. Krishan Kumar Singh @ K.K. Singh
S/o Late Sh. Yadunandan Prasad Singh
R/o VPOSimuara, Via Tekari, Gaya , Bihar

2. Kumari Vandana Sinha
W/o Sh. Krishan Kumar Singh
R/o VPOSimuara, Via Tekari, Gaya , Bihar

3. Amitesh Kumar
S/o Sh. Ram Swarup Singh
Mohalla Janakpur, PO Buniyad Ganj
District Gaya, Bihar

Date of Institution: 02.08.2016
Date of Arguments : 28.11.2018 and 03.12.2018


CC No. : 47/2016                                                    1/67
 Date of Judgment : 07.12.2018

Appearances : 

Mr. Navin Giri, Ld. PP for CBI
Counsel Sh. Rajesh Kumar for all the accused persons. 

                                      JUDGMENT

1. Instant case was registered on the complaint of Sh. Ashok Kumar, Branch Manager, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi against Krishan Kumar Singh, Kumari Vandana Sinha, Amitesh Kumar and other unknown persons for commission of offences u/s 120B r/w 409,420.468 IPC, sec. 43 (a) (i) r/w sec. 66 & 66C of Information Technology Act, 2000 and section 13 (2) r/w sec. 13 (1) (d) of P.C. Act . In terms of allegations, accused Krishan Kumar Singh, the then Assistant Manager, SBBJ, Sarita Vihar Branch, Delhi and the other coaccused persons in conspiracy with each other cheated the funds of bank to the tune of Rs. 331.47 lacs by creating fake Special Term Deposit Receipt (STDR) accounts and thereafter transferring the interest of such STDRs in the saving accounts of the coaccused as well as through some dormant/fake accounts which were used for such purpose. The amount so credited was subsequently siphoned off from the said accounts by the accused persons.

2. Investigation revealed that accused Krishan Kumar Singh while posted and functioning as Assistant Manager/Deputy Manager at Sarita Vihar, Delhi , CC No. : 47/2016 2/67 State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, during the period 20082012 by abusing his official position as public servant entered into a criminal conspiracy with co accused Kumari Vandana Sinha and Amitesh Kumar at New Delhi and Gaya with the object of cheating the funds of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipure, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi by way of creation of fake STDRs and thereafter siphoning off the interest accrued thereon through the accounts of Kumari Vandana Sinha , Amitesh Kumar and some other dormant/fake accounts.

3. Investigation further revealed that one customer of Sarita Vihar Branch of SBBJ namely Shri Sheel Yadav (CIF No. 71102832594) having saving account with the bank with no. 61065915011 approached the branch on 21.2.2009 and requested for issuance of two STDRs of Rs. 10 lacs each for a period of 35 months through cheque no. 068201 issued from his account no. 61065915011 dated 21.02.2009 duly signed by him. The said request was processed by accused KK Singh through his login id 18553 ( as SWO). The amount of Rs. 20 lacs was debited from the SB account of Shri Sheel Yadav under the ID of accused K.K. Singh (18553) by accused K.K. Singh. Investigation revealed that one STDR (61066852354) was issued on 23.02.2009 with the date of transaction as 23.2.2009 of Rs. 10 lacs with the maturity period of 35 months.

4. Investigation further revealed that another STDR ( 61066852285) was issued in the name of Sheel Yadav with the back date of transaction as 24.2.2008 of Rs. 10 lacs with the date of maturity as 24.2.2009. The STDR was initiated as well as checked/verified through the identity of Sh. K.K. Singh CC No. : 47/2016 3/67 (18553). Investigation further revealed that the second STDR was got matured on 24.2.2009 with interest of Rs. 98,438/ and on the same date 24.2.2009, Rs. 10 lacs alongwith the interest of Rs. 98,438/ was got credited to the internal account (A/c No. 98525107892) of the bank. On 24.2.2009, another STDR in the name of one Balwan Singh (CIF No. 71103574584) of Rs. 98,438/ was opened with no. 61066949946 whereas with the remaining amount of Rs. 10 lacs, another STDR was issued in the name of Sheel Yadav with no. 61066852285 with transaction date as 24.2.2009. The voucher for the said STDR was issued on 21.2.2009. These two transactions of STDR of Shri Balwan Singh and Sheel Yadav were initiated through the identity of KK Singh (18553) and checked/verified through the identity of Sh. Vijay Kumar Gupta (8473) by accused K.K. Singh himself.

5. Investigation disclosed that the STDR opened in the name of Balwan Singh 61066949946 was dated 24.2.2009 and on 03.03.2009, the amount of Rs. 98,438/ was got credited in the fake saving account (A/c no. 61067430534) opened by accused K.K. Singh in the name of one Mohan Kumar Singh (CIF 71103865347). Subsequently, Rs. 97,500/ was withdrawn by accused K.K. Singh through two cheques from the said account. In similar manner, he had used money of some genuine customers namely Sh. G.R. Sahni, Shri. Ashwani Chawla, Smt. Krishna Dhar and Sh. Kesar Singh for creation of bogus STDRs to generate interest with back dated value.

6. Investigation further disclosed that accused Krishan Kumar Singh by abusing his official position as public servant and with intent to cheat the bank CC No. : 47/2016 4/67 funds, opened 232 STDRs by using 79 fake and inoperative CIFs unauthorizedly in the CBS system. In order to achieve the object of the above criminal conspiracy, accused K.K. Singh , Kumari Vandana Sinha and Amitesh Kumar used saving bank accounts in the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur branches , wherein the interest accrued on the fake STDRs was got credited and was subsequently withdrawn by the accused persons. Investigation disclosed that out of these nine SB Accounts, accused K.K. Singh by abusing his official position as public servant, got opened the account in names of Mohan Kumar Singh, Subhash and Ajay Kumar Yadav on the basis of bogus and forged documents. Accused Kumari Vandana Sinha and Amitesh Kumar dishonestly and/or fraudulently assisted accused K.K. Singh in opening the SB accounts in their respective names for facilitating the credit of interest amount accrued on the fake STDRs as created by accused K.K. Singh and thereafter facilitated accused K.K. Singh to siphon off the said amount on the strength of cheques duly signed by them and given to accused K.K. Singh who used the same for siphoning off the amount credited in their respective accounts. As accused Kumari Vandana Sinha and Amitesh Kumar were not doing any business activities at that time, so they could not have made such huge deposits in their respective accounts. Moreover K.K. Singh had withdrawn the defrauded amount by forging the signatures of one Subhash on the cheques as well as the account of Subhash was opened by accused K.K. Singh himself for deposit of defrauded amount of the STDRs.

7. Investigation further disclosed that in order to conceal the fact of creation CC No. : 47/2016 5/67 of fake STDRs, accused K.K. Singh by using the IDs of his colleague bank officials namely V.K. Doda, Ravinder Kumar, Seema Goel, Khacheru, Om Prakash and V.K. Gupta on the pretext of checking the same, falsely verified the same to be correctly created and thereby covered up the creation of bogus STDRs . For the said purpose, accused K.K. Singh by abusing his official position as public servant deleted some of the entries regarding false STDRs in the Voucher Verification Reports (VVRs) and after deletion, substituted the correct VVRs with bogus/forged VVRs to avoid detection of creation of false STDRs by him.

8. Similarly, SB Account standing in the name of Navin Kumar was also got opened by accused K.K. Singh. The said account was opened in the year 2007, when he was posted in Gaya Branch of SBBJ. Investigation revealed that this account was being used by accused K.K. Singh as Navin Kumar did not open the same. It also came in evidence that the interest amount accrued on some of the STDRs was also got transferred to the said account. The amount was subsequently withdrawn by accused K.K. Singh through the ATM which was obtained by him unauthorizedly.

9. In order to achieve the object of conspiracy, co accused Kumari Vandana Sinha after deposit of interest on account of fake STDRs, transferred the said amount for investment in Share Market through M/s Mansukh Securities & Finance Ltd. Gaya, Bihar and M/s Religare Securities Ltd., Gaya Bihar.

10. From the facts and circumstances mentioned above, it is alleged that accused K.K. Singh, the then Assistant Manager/ Dy. Manager of Sarita Vihar, CC No. : 47/2016 6/67 SBBJ Branch, accused Kumari Vandana Sinha and Amitesh Kumar were parties to criminal conspiracy, the object of which was to cheat the funds of the bank by way of creation of fake STDRs and to have the accrued interest thereon credited in the account of the accused persons and some dormant and fictitious accounts opened by the accused. In pursuance of the same, accused K.K. Singh by abusing his official position as public servant as well as accused Kumari Vandana Sinha and Amitesh Kumar by the aforesaid acts of omission and commission cheated the funds of Sarita Vihar Branch of SBBJ to the tune of Rs. 331.47 lacs and thereby committed offences punishable u/s 120B r/w sec. 420,467,468,471,477A IPC r/w sec. 13 (2) and 13 (1) (d) of PC Act.

11. After filing of charge sheet, charge was framed against all the accused persons u/s 120B IPC r/w sec. 420/467/468/471/477A IPC, besides framing of further charge u/s 13(2) r/w sec. 13 (1) (d) of PC Act against Accused K.K. Singh.

12. Prosecution in support of its case examined following witnesses:

13. PW1 is Sh. Hari Kinker who was posted as Branch Manager in State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur in year 2016 and on asking of CBI, had handed over documents Ex. PW1/A to Ex. PW1/C (Colly) to CBI and also referred to ATM PIN Issue Register Ex. PW1/E .

14. PW2 is Sh. Sheel Yadav who was having account in SBBJ, Sarita Vihar Branch . He referred to FDs opened on his insructions vide Ex. PW2/C and Ex. PW2/D and deposed that there was no request from his side to open any FD prior to 14.2.2009.

CC No. : 47/2016 7/67

15. PW3 is Sh. S. Harisankar who was posted as Chief General Manager in State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and had accorded sanction Ex. PW3/B (Colly) for prosecution of accused K.K. Singh.

16. PW4 is Mohan Das Bairwa who got opened a saving bank account no. 61066995303 in SBBJ, Sarita Vihar Branch and deposed that apart from this account, he did not get open any other account in this branch and further denied having issued cheques Ex. PW4/D (colly).

17. PW5 is Sh. Ashwani Kumar Chawla who was having two saving accounts in SBBJ, Sarita Vihar Branch and stated that cheque Ex. PW5/B was given by him to the bank authorities on 5.3.2009 for opening Fixed Deposit and he never asked the bank to open any back dated STDR.

18. PW6 is Sh. Ray Singh Meena who was also holding a bank account in SBBJ, Sarita Vihar and deposed that he never introduced bank account of any Mohan Das Bairwa.

19. PW7 is Sh. Ajay Kumar who was holding a joint account with his wife in State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Sarita Vihar Branch and deposed that apart from this account, he did not have any other account in SBBJ, Sarita Vihar Branch nor he ever got issued any cheque book or ATM Card against the account Ex. PW7/A and Ex. PW7/B (colly).

20. PW8 is Sh. Ram Prakash Mitharwal who was also having saving account in SBBJ, Sarita Vihar and deposed that he never introduced account of any Ajay Kumar Sethi.

21. PW9 is Sh. Prafulla Kumar Jha who is witness to obtaining of specimen CC No. : 47/2016 8/67 handwriting and signatures of Mohan Das Bairwa, Ram Prakash Mitharwal, Ray Singh Meena and Ajay Kumar Sethi.

22. PW10 is Sh. Mukesh Kumar, constable from CBI who visited several addresses on notices Ex. PW10/A to Ex. PW10/P and submitted his report on the back of notices to IO.

23. PW11 is Sh. Krishan Kumar Singh, constable from CBI who visited several addresses on notices Ex. PW11/A to Ex. PW10/G and submitted his report on the back of notices to IO.

24. PW12 is Sh. Rajesh Kumar Verma, Constable from CBI who visited several addresses on notices Ex. PW12/A to Ex. PW12/F and submitted his report on the back of notices to IO.

25. PW13 is Sh. Rajender Singh who on the directions of IO visited Gaya, Bihar and collected documents Ex. PW13/A , Ex. PW13/B (colly), Ex. PW1/A, Ex. PW1/B, Ex. PW1/C and Ex. PW1/E from the office of Sub Registrar, Gaya, Bihar and State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur respectively.

26. PW14 is Sh. Mahender Singh, constable from CBI who visited several addresses on notices Ex. PW14/A to Ex. PW14/K and submitted his report on the back of notices to IO.

27. PW15 is Sh. Subhash Chander, constable from CBI who visited several addresses on notices Ex. PW15/A to Ex. PW15/F and submitted his report on the back of notices to IO.

28. PW16 is Sh. Ram Gilash Meena who was holding an account in SBBJ, Sarita Vihar Branch and closed it in year 2011. He deposed that he never CC No. : 47/2016 9/67 deposited any amount of Rs. 9,80,000/ nor got opened any STDR for such a huge amount.

29. PW17 is Sh. Satbir Singh who also was holding an account in SBBJ, Sarita Vihar Branch and deposed that he never did any transaction in the said account nor got opened any Special Term Deposit Receipt/Fix Deposit (STDR) in the said account.

30. PW18 is Sh. Bhogendra Lal Karn who was also holding an account in SBBJ, Sarita Vihar Branch which was closed in the month of December 2009. He deposed that he never made any transaction in the account after 2009 nor ever instructed the branch to issue STDR in his name.

31. PW 19 is Sh. Laxman Singh who was working as Deputy Manager in Goluwala Branch and handed over documents Ex. PW19/A to Ex. PW19/C to CBI.

32. PW20 is Sh. Deepankar De who was posted as Branch Operational Manager in HDFC Bank, Sarita Vihar Branch and handed over the account related documents of accused Vandana Sinha to CBI.

33. PW21 is Sh. Hemant Saxena who was looking after the work of Personal Banking Authorizer in HDFC Bank, Sarita Vihar Branch and vide documents Ex. PW20/B (colly) had opened the account of accused Vandana Sinha on her request.

34. PW22 is Sh. Chandu Yadav who deposed with respect to sale of a piece of land by his mother namely Munma Devi to accused Vandana Sinha vide Ex. PW13/B. CC No. : 47/2016 10/67

35. PW23 is Sh. Jitender Kumar who was the property dealer for sale of piece of land between Munma Devi and accused Vandana Sinha.

36. PW24 is Ms. Krishna Dhar who was holding a bank account with SBBJ, Sarita Vihar Branch and deposed that vide Ex. PW24/A, she had reinvested the matured amount of Rs. 15 lacs on 30.7.2011 and never instructed the bank to reinvest the STDR on back date.

37. PW25 is Sh. Arun Kumar whose account in SBBJ, Sarita Vihar Branch was got closed in year 2009 and as deposed, he never made any transaction in his account after closure of the account.

38. PW26 is Sh. Kapil Awal, Manager from Mansukh Securities who had handed over the documents and details pertaining to his clients namely Vandana Sinha and Navin Kumar to CBI.

39. PW27 is Ms. Sanchita Bannerjee who in year 2016 was posted as Branch Manager in SBBJ, Sarita Vihar Branch and had handed over documents Ex. PW27/A , Ex. PW27/B (colly), Ex. PW27/C, Ex. PW27/D, Ex. PW27/E and Ex. PW27/F (colly) to CBI.

40. PW28 is Sh. Mayank Bhatia from Religare Securities Ltd. / Fortis Securities Ltd. who on the asking of CBI handed over certain documents regarding accused Kumari Vandana Sinha to CBI.

41. PW29 is Vinod Kumar Ajmera who in year 2016 was posted as AGM Core Banking Project in State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and had provided information pertaining to maker, checker and time of 229 transactions of account opening and funding of STDRs to CBI.

CC No. : 47/2016 11/67

42. PW30 is Ms. Archana Vijay from SBBJ, Sarita Vihar Branch who referred to Ex. PW30/A, Ex. PW30/A1, Ex. PW30/A2 (colly), Ex. PW30/B (colly), Ex. PW7/A (colly), Ex. PW30/C (colly) and Ex. PW4/D (colly) and stated that the said transactions were executed by accused K.K. Singh.

43. PW31 is Vivek Chaturvedi who was posted as Chief Manager, System in SBBJ at Zonal IT Centre and handed over documents Ex. PW31/A to Ex. PW31/N (colly) to IO .

44. PW32 is Sh. Ravinder Kumar, Branch Head/Manager from SBBJ, Sarita Vihar Branch who identified signatures of Sh. Ashok Kumar, Branch Head of SBBJ on Ex. PW32/A (colly).

45. PW33 is Sh. Khacheru from SBBJ, Sarita Vihar Branch who as deposed was assigned the task of cashier for receipt and disbursement of amount more than Rs. 35000/ and he never issued or checked any STDR during his service with bank.

46. PW34 is Sh. Navin Kumar Singh, real brother of accused Krishan Kumar Singh who deposed that he never got opened any account in SBBJ, Sarita Vihar Branch nor ever received any ATM PIN for this account.

47. PW35 is Sh. Ravi Shankar Sandilya who conducted inspection in Sarita Vihar branch of SBBJ and exhibited his internal investigation report as Ex. PW35/A (colly).

48. PW36 is Sh. Mahesh Kumar Lakhmara who in year 2016 was posted as Chief Manager , General Banking in Delhi Zone Office and handed over certain documents to CBI vide Ex. PW36/A. He also conducted the preliminary inquiry CC No. : 47/2016 12/67 in the matter and gave his QRT (Quick Response Team) report Ex. PW36/B (colly).

49. PW37 is Ms. Seema Goel who after seeing Mark PW37/X and Mark PW37/Y deposed that these FDRs/STDRs were not issued by her and only her identity number had been used.

50. PW38 is Sh. Vijay Kumar Gupta who was working as Deputy Manager in SBBJ, Sarita Vihar Branch who after seeing Voucher Verification Report MarkPW38/X1, Mark PW38/X2 and Mark PW38/X3 stated that voucher qua these STDRs were never signed by him and never received by him.

51. PW39 is Sh. Om Prakash who was working as Branch Manager during the relevant period in Sarita Vihar Branch who after seeing Mark PW39/X and Mark PW39/Y stated that accused K.K. Singh had originated these STDRs which had been verified by his ID.

52. PW40 is Sh. Banee Singh, who was holding a salary account in SBBJ, Sarita Vihar Branch and deposed that he never made any transaction regarding FDR in this account nor got any FDR from the said branch.

53. PW41 is Sh. Keshar Singh who was also having an account in SBBJ, Sarita Vihar branch and deposed with respect to cheque bearing no. 225092 dated 8.4.2009 for Rs. 10 lacs bearing his signatures which was issued for opening of FDR.

54. PW42 is Sh. Vijay Verma from CFSL who examined the questioned documents and gave his opinion as Ex. PW42/C (Colly).

55. PW43 is Sh. Vinod Kumar Doda who was working as Branch Manager CC No. : 47/2016 13/67 in SBBJ, Sarita Vihar Branch in year 2010 and stated about sharing of his password in urgent circumstances as well as about numerous entries wherein his ID/password, as deposed, had been used by accused K.K. Singh to issue back dated STDRs.

56. PW44 is Sh. Ashok Kumar, complainant of the case, who in year 2015 was posted as Branch Manager in SBBJ, Sarita Vihar and on receipt of information from one of his colleague banker from Goluwala Branch regarding irregularities found in loan account maintained during the period of accused K.K. Singh, checked the accounts and on finding the chain of irregularities in many accounts, reported the matter to higher officials followed by complaint made to CBI.

57. PW45 is Sh. Nakul Awasthi from IDBI Bank who identified signatures of Sh. Suresh Kumar Sah on Ex. PW45/A as well as signatures of Sh. Pramod Kumar on Ex. PW45/C, Ex. PW45/D (colly) and Ex. PW45/E (colly).

58. PW46 is Sh. M. M. Sharma, who stood as witness to obtaining of handwriting/signature of accused K. K. Singh.

59. PW47 is Sh. Yashpal Gupta who was working as Deputy Manager in year 2013 in SBBJ, Sarita Vihar Branch and deposed with respect to process of opening of STDR/TDR.

60. PW48 is Inspector Anita Jha, IO of the case who conducted investigation of the case and filed the charge sheet in the court.

61. Statements of all the accused persons U/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein they stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated. Accused K.K. Singh further chose to lead evidence in defence and examined Sh.

CC No. : 47/2016 14/67

Rajesh Kumar Mishra from SBI, Sarita Vihar Branch as DW1 who brought the summoned documents and exhibited the same as Ex. DW1/1 (colly) and Ex. DW1/2 (colly).

62. Having heard Ld. Prosecutor Sh. Navin Giri and counsel Sh. Rajesh Kumar for accused persons and with perusal of record, following is the discussion to reach the conclusion whether the offences alleged against accused persons stand proved or not.

63. PW44 is the complainant of instant matter. In the year 2015, when he was posted as Branch Manager in Sarita Vihar branch, he received an information from his colleague banker at Goluwala branch that there were some irregularities found in the loan account maintained during the period of working of accused K. K. Singh and he was also suggested by his colleague to inquire into the matter. Upon receipt of said information, PW44 checked the accounts and he also found irregularities in many accounts, upon which matter was reported to higher officers and a Quick Response Team (QRT) visited the branch and recommended for detailed investigation.

64. On scrutiny of transactions, it was found that there were large number of transactions forming a chain of creation of back value dated STDRs/TDRs. It was also noticed that within span of twothree days, the FDRs were matured and the accrued interest of 1 to 3 years was transferred to other accounts. This witness gave the series of such transactions of creation of back value dated STDRs starting with Sheel Yadav, customer of their bank with CIF No. 71102832594 who had requested for opening of two STDRs vide credit vouchers (Ex. PW2/C) (D103) & Ex. PW2/D (D104) and had tendered a cheque CC No. : 47/2016 15/67 of Rs. 20 lakhs Ex. PW2/B (D102). The said request was processed by accused K. K. Singh. The amount was debited from the account of Sheel Yadav as reflected in his statement of account bearing no. 61065915011 which amount was debited from his account on 23.02.2009 and the cheque amount was parked in the BGL account bearing no. 98525107892 (internal account of bank). The relevant entry of crediting the internal account (BGL account) was also reflecting in Ex. PW31/D (colly.). The teller ID by which this amount was debited is 18553 which belonged to accused K. K. Singh, who by debiting the BGL account by Rs.10 lakhs, created a back dated STDR bearing no. 61066852285 in the name of Sheel Yadav with the maturity date of 24.02.2009. The date of issuance of STDR was 23.02.2009 which was made effective from 24.02.2008. The said entries were also reflected in the document Ex. PW44/B and the relevant entry of Rs.10 lakhs by which the STDR with teller ID 18553 of accused K.K. Singh was created is also reflected in VVR dated 23.02.2009 (D143 page 2) {MarkPW35/X (colly), Ex. PW47/22 (colly). On the date of maturity, system calculated the interest on FDR and credited it in the fake STDR account. The matured interest amount of Rs. 98438/ was credited in BGL account on 24.02.2009. The interest amount of Rs.98438/ which was credited by the system on 23.02.2009 was also mentioned in fake STDR account statement. The total matured amount of Rs.10,98,438/ was transferred to BGL account by debiting Rs.10 lakhs on 24.02.2009 and the genuine STDR, as requested by the customer Sheel Yadav, was issued. The remaining amount of Rs.98438/ in the BGL account was shifted to STDR account bearing no.

CC No. : 47/2016 16/67

61066949946 of Balwan Singh, which was then transferred to the fake account of Mohan Kumar Singh on 03.3.2009. The relevant transfer entry of Rs.98438/ was reflected in Ex. PW44/D (colly.). The amount of Rs.90,000/ and Rs.7500/ was withdrawn from this account on 04.3.2009 and 25.7.2009 respectively by issuing cheques bearing no. 69561 and 69562 and the STDRs which were requested by genuine customer Sheel Yadav were also issued.

65. Sheel Yadav was examined by prosecution as PW2 who stated that he was having an account with State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Sarita Vihar which was opened on 14th February, 2009. Intending to open the FDs, he gave the cheque bearing no. 068201 dated 21.02.2009 of Rs.20 lakhs to open two FDs of Rs.10 lakh each for 35 months in joint name of himself and Reeta Yadav. The date on the application form was also filled by him i.e. 21.02.2009 and the bank was requested to open FDs on 21.02.2009 vide Ex.PW2/C and Ex.PW2/D respectively. There was no request made by him to the bank for opening of any FDs prior to 21.02.2009 for such huge amount of Rs.10 lakh and he did not know how the back dated STDRs were made by the bank from his account or the cheque given by him. As per the bank's document, the effective date of account opening was shown as 24.02.2008 and this witness did not know how this account was opened as there was no request from his side to open any FD prior to 21.2.2009. Moreover, his saving account was opened only on 14.02.2009, so there was no question for him to deposit any cheque or making any request for FDs in State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Sarita Vihar Branch.

66. The other reference was made by PW44 to one Mr. G. R. Sahani having CC No. : 47/2016 17/67 CIF No. 8002368953 who had requested for renewal of his two STDRs Ex. PW44/E1. The matured amount of initial STDR of Rs.6,48,648/ was credited to the internal account (BGL account) {Ex. PW31/D) (colly.)} on 06.3.2009 as reflected in Ex PW31/D. This entry was done by teller ID 18553 of accused K. K. Singh and on the same day the BGL account was debited and fake STDR in name of fake customer, namely, Subhash was issued. The STDR was issued on 06.3.2009 with effective date 07.3.2008 and with maturity date on 07.3.2009. Out of this transaction, interest was earned for Rs.53,469/ . The maturity amount of Rs.702117 was credited in BGL account on 07.3.2009 by teller ID of accused K. K. Singh and on the same day, STDR of Rs.6,48,648/ was issued by debiting the BGL account in name of genuine customer G. R. Sahani, as requested by him. The interest amount earned on fake STDR, i.e., amount of Rs.53469/ was debited from BGL account on the same day by teller ID of accused K. K. Singh and credited in the fake account bearing no. 61067671014 in name of Subhash. The relevant credit entry from BGL account was reflected at point X on page 1 of D12 Ex. PW44/F (colly).

67. The account in the name of Subhash was a fake account which had been used to siphon the money. Account opening form of Subhash was not available and is also not part of record, however, the transactions in the account bearing no. 61067671014 in name of Subhash, speak volumes about the connectivity of the said account with accused persons. The credit of the interest accrued on STDRs and the transfers from the other accounts is reflected in the abovesaid account as well as the transfers from this account to the account of A2, PW34 CC No. : 47/2016 18/67 Naveen Kumar and other related accounts. Cheques Ex. PW42/D, Ex. PW42/G and Ex. PW42/H issued from the account of Subhash were found to be in the handwriting of accused K.K. Singh with tallying of the signatures and handwriting i.e. Q61, Q138, Q139, Q142 to Q148, as opined by CFSL expert. Ex. PW42/K (Q171 to Q174), Ex. PW42/L (Q179 to Q181), Ex. PW42/M (Q186 to Q190) and Ex. PW42/N (Q191, Q195 and Q196) which are cheques of fake account in name of Subhash Kumar, some of the contents including the signatures were opined to be in the handwriting of accused K.K. Singh by CFSL expert. Similarly, on Ex. PW42/X10 (Q413) and Ex. PW42/X11 (Q416) which are ATM Pin Register and cheque book issue register respectively, were bearing the signatures of accused K.K. Singh by writing as 'Subhash' , in terms of positive opinion of CFSL Expert.

68. In the same way Sh. G. R. Sahani tendered his STDR account no. 61031890344 for renewal amounting to Rs. 352062/ on 30.3.2009. On the same day, the said STDR was debited and amount was credited to bank internal account (BGL account) bearing no. 98525107892 as reflected in Ex. PW31/D (colly.) which was again credited with the teller ID of accused K. K. Singh and on the same day, a fake STDR account bearing no. 61069198655 was created by teller ID of accused K. K. Singh which is reflected at point X14 with effective date of opening 21.12.2007 and maturity date 20.5.2009 as reflected in Ex. PW44/B (colly.) The relevant entry of creation of fake STDR was also reflected in the said document. On 30.3.2009, system credited the interest amount of Rs.42805/ in the said fake STDR account. A sum of Rs.352062/ CC No. : 47/2016 19/67 was credited to bank's internal account and subsequently genuine STDR was issued to Mr. G. R. Sahani. The interest amount of Rs.42805 was debited from fake STDR account and credited to saving account of Subhash bearing no. 61067671014.

69. This witness further referred specifically with regard to the creation of back value dated STDRs with the amount debited from the account of Virinda Chawla, Kesar Singh and referred to all the relevant entries in that respect in the documents brought on record, which were created following the same modus operandi, as having been adopted for the other persons as noted in detail earlier. List of fake STDRs allegedly created by accused K.K. Singh was brought on record as Ex. PW32/A (colly) and Mark PW16/X3 (D6), which as stated by this witness, was prepared after proper scrutiny of bank records as there were thousands of entries in the bank record which were summarized by making list.

70. With regard to the number of bank entries, consolidated and summarized list prepared for the transactions after scrutiny of bank records was exhibited on record as Ex.PW32/A (colly) . The details of 233 entries summarized in Ex. PW32/A (colly.) and the relevant debit and credit entries done in fake STDR were reflected in statement Ex. PW44/C (colly.) .

71. As is forming part of evidence, on the basis of same modus operandi, funds of customers namely Ashwani Chawla, Virinda Chawla and Krishna Dhar were also used for creation of back dated STDRs.

72. Ashwani Kumar Chawala was examined as PW5 who stated about two CC No. : 47/2016 20/67 saving accounts in SBBJ, Sarita Vihar branch which were joint accounts in the name of himself and his wife and another in the joint name of his grandmother Ms. Vrinda Devi Chawla and himself. The account which was in his name alongwith his grandmother had been closed. This witness stated about cheque dated 05.3.2009 having been given in the bank for opening Fix Deposit (FD) in his name and in name of his wife Ms. Alka Chawla. He had never asked the bank to open any back dated STDR and he did not know any person by the name of Subhash. According to him, the cheque was submitted in the bank on 05.3.2009 and effective date for STDR should have been the same. He himself was surprised to know as to how the back dated STDR was made after debiting his account for the said amount. The FDRs which had been given to them by the bank also stood matured by now.

73. Statement of Ms Krishna Dhar was recorded as PW24. She also stated on the similar lines regarding deposit with the bank for preparation of FDRs and she had never instructed bank to reinvest the STDR on back date.

74. There were other customers whose accounts were used/ misused for the purpose of creation of STDR without their instructions.

75. PW16 got opened one account in SBBJ, Sarita Vihar branch in the year 2010 which was closed in the year 2011. He stated that the purpose of opening of this account was to hire a locker and he might have deposited only Rs. 1000/ and Rs. 500/ occasionally in the said account but he had never deposited such huge amount in his account and he never got opened any Special Term Deposit Receipt/Fix Deposit (STDR) in this account nor ever received any interest CC No. : 47/2016 21/67 accrued on it. He had never instructed the bank to open any STDR on this account. According to him, his account had actually been closed in the year 2011 only and CIF of his account had been used for creation of STDR by someone. He had not received any TDS certificate/interest certificate from the bank nor received any bank transaction SMS on his mobile pertaining to this STDR.

76. The other such customer is PW17 who also was surprised to find credit entry of Rs.5,22,023/ dated 31.12.2009 in his account and did not know how this amount was credited in his account since he had never deposited any such amount. Similar was his answer with regard to the credit entry of Rs.1,30,193/ dated 16.01.2010 and he did not know how this amount was credited in his account since he never deposited nor received any such amount. Another credit entry of Rs. 3,78,804/ dated 15.9.2010 was also noted in his account and he again did not know how this amount was credited in his account and similar was his answer for the other credit entries of Rs.1,15,649/ dated 12.11.2010 , Rs.8,63,185/ dated 01.3.2012 and Rs.2,70,435/ dated 02.3.2012 . He reiterated that he never withdrew or transferred the said amount from his account nor he got this account closed and he did not know how it got closed on 05.3.2012. He had never instructed bank to open any STDR and never deposited any such amount for the said periods. He also reiterated that CIF of his account had been used for creation of STDR by someone and he neither deposited any amount for creation of STDR nor received any interest thereon.

77. PW18 was also having his account in the bank which was got closed by CC No. : 47/2016 22/67 him in the month of December, 2009 and no transaction was made by him after 2009. He never instructed the bank to issue STDR in his name, therefore, did not know regarding the credit entries of Rs.6,11,109/ dated 21.12.2009, Rs.1,47,944/ dated 28.01.2009 and of Rs.3,83,442/ dated 12.7.2010, Rs.1,06,651/ dated 17.7.2010, Rs.9,93,879/ dated 02.02.2012 and Rs.3,12,030/ dated 02.2.2012 in his account.

78. PW25 also got closed his account in the year 2009 and never transacted in this account thereafter. Therefore he did not know about the credit entries in his account as he had also never instructed bank to open STDR nor had deposited any amount nor had withdrawn or received any amount after the closure of the account.

79. There is series of fake accounts which were opened using the documents of genuine customers since their application forms were never obtained and already existing customer's CIFs were used .

80. PW6 Ray Singh Meena was holding his bank account in SBBJ, Sarita Vihar. He did not know any person by name of Mohan Das Bairwa. However in the account opening form bearing no. 61067430534 of Mohan Das Bairwa, it was his account number which was written in column of introducer's account number. He stated that the signatures of introducer in the said form did not belong to him and he had never introduced any bank account of Mohan Das Bairwa. The writing and signatures on the documents i.e Account opening form in name of Mohan , KYC documents of Mohan Das Bairwa Ex. PW4/B (colly) . (Q1, Q2, Q4, Q5, Q12 to Q15, Q20, Q22) did not match with the writing CC No. : 47/2016 23/67 and signatures of PW4 Mohan Das Bairwa which were verified by accused K.K. Singh with confirmation from expert with regard to Q18, Q19 and Q21 upon Ex. PW4/C (colly). Signatures of Mohan Kumar Q24, Q25, Q28, Q34, Q35 and Q36 also did not match with PW4 Mohan Das Bairwa.

81. Similarly, the writing and signatures upon the cheques bearing no. 069561 and 069562 issued from the account of Mohan Kumar (Q22A, Q23, Q30, Q31 and Q33), as opined by CFSL Expert were in the handwriting of accused K.K. Singh.

82. PW7 Ajay Kumar Sethi was holding a joint account with his wife in State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi. He did not know about account opening form bearing no. 61087238304 alongwith KYC documents. This account was also in his name and also bearing his photo but he did not know how this account was got opened as he never got this account opened in SBBJ, Sarita Vihar branch. As stated, the account opening form did not bear his signatures and the signature appended on the form, as stated, did not belong to him. He also did not know the person, who had introduced this account and did not know any person by name of Ram Prakash Matharwal, who had been shown to have introduced this account. He never got issued any cheque book or any ATM card against this account.

83. PW8 Ram Prakash Mitharwal who had been shown as introducer for the opening of the said account of PW7 confirmed that he never introduced any account of Ajay Kumar Sethi, though account number in introducer's column was his but the signatures were not of him.

CC No. : 47/2016 24/67

84. Contents of the account opening form including the signatures of Ajay Kumar Sethi (Q109 to Q113, Q116 to Q119, Q121, Q122, Q124 and Q

130) were found to be in handwriting of accused K.K. Singh, in terms of opinion of CFSL expert.

85. PW40 Banee Singh had got opened his bank account in SBBJ, Sarita Vihar branch which was the salary account and was opened with deposit of initial amount of Rs.1000/. Account no. was 61067028516 but he had never got any FDR made from SBBJ, Sarita Vihar branch. He stated that there was mention of three transactions in Ex. PW32/A but his name was differently spellt and he never got made any FDR from the branch. Account number mentioned in the statement belonged to him, however spelling of his name was different and he never made any transaction regarding FDR in this account. He did not know how his account number had been used in preparing FDR and he had no knowledge about the transactions. He also had never made any application with the bank for change of his name in the bank account and he never obtained any bank statement from SBBJ, Sarita Vihar branch and all the transactions were not pertaining to his account in SBBJ, Sarita Vihar Branch. The address for the said bank account was the same address as that of the witness and according to him, at the time of opening of his bank account in SBBJ, Sarita Vihar, he had given the address of school, where he was working and he used to write his name with spelling as 'Banee" whereas the account wherein alleged transactions had been carried out, did not belong to him and spelling of his name was also written differently.

CC No. : 47/2016 25/67

86. The other such person who had not opened any account but account was found having been opened in his name was the own brother of accused K.K. Singh i.e. PW34 Navin Kumar. He was holding one bank account in SBBJ, Gaya and stated about account opening form of SBBJ Ex. PW30/C bearing his photo, however he denied the signatures on the said account opening form and stated that he had never applied for opening of this account. The KYC documents annexed with the application form were never given by him. In the register for issuance of ATM PIN Ex. PW1/E, there was an entry in his name but he had never received any ATM PIN for this account and he did not know who had received this ATM PIN. He had never made any transaction in this account nor knew anything about the transactions in the statement. This witness was confronted with his statement given to CBI wherein he had stated that the ATM Pin for the said account was taken by accused K.K. Singh as his signatures were appearing on the register Ex. PW1/E but during his examination before court, he denied identifying the signatures of accused K.K. Singh and also of A2 in the statement given to CBI and also stated about never handing over the documents to accused K. K. Singh.

87. It was submitted by counsel for defence that account of PW34 was opened in year 2007 in Sarita Vihar Branch when the accused no.1 was not posted at Sarita Vihar Branch, hence the accused no. 1 cannot be held responsible for having manipulated the opening of account of Navin Kumar.

88. Perusal of record reveals the account having been opened in the year 2007 and the account opening form is Ex. PW30/C which pertains to opening of CC No. : 47/2016 26/67 the account at SBBJ, S.P. Road, Gaya. Case of the prosecution was also with regard to the account of Navin Kumar maintained in Gaya Branch with the supporting documents to prove the same. The noting in deposition of PW 34 with regard to the account at Sarita Vihar Branch, seems to be the inadvertence since it was never the case of prosecution that Navin Kumar was having any account in Sarita Vihar Branch. The ATM Register Ex. PW1/E vide which the ATM had allegedly been issued also pertains to SBBJ, Gaya Branch. Therefore, the objection raised by counsel for defence is not sustainable since the account was opened in year 2007 during the working of A1 at Gaya Branch.

89. This witness, nevertheless, specifically denied having opened the account or filling up the account opening form Ex. PW30/C which according to him was not bearing his signatures. Voluminous transactions were reflected in the said account. Statement of this account bearing no. 61032591547 is part of the record mark PW34/X Ex. PW44/K (colly), perusal of which reveals the cash deposits, ATM withdrawals, transfers from account number 0061067671014 i.e. the alleged fake account in name of Subhash and many transfers from this account to the account no. 61040287649 belonging to accused Vandana and many other transfers to related accounts.

90. Signatures and writing in the account opening form of PW 34 Naveen Kumar i.e. Q37 to Q55 were concluded to be in the handwriting of accused K.K. Singh in terms of the expert opinion. Denial of PW34 with regard to opening and operating the said account and the transactions in the said account having been routed to the account of A2 and the investments with the Religare CC No. : 47/2016 27/67 Securities and Mansukh Securities and the receipt of money from the fake account of Subhash allegedly opened by accused no.1, coupled with the conclusion of expert with regard to handwriting and signatures of accused K.K. Singh, does not leave much to draw the conclusion with regard to the account of PW34 having been opened by A1 to siphon off the funds of the bank.

91. PW30 was posted in Sarita Vihar Branch as Single window operator in the year 2008 and she remained there till January 2016. As Single Window Operator, her job included opening of STDR accounts. Accused K.K. Singh was working in Sarita Vihar branch during the relevant period and he used to authorize all the entries executed through single window. This witness referred to the account opening forms of Ajay Kumar Sethi, Mohan Das Bairwa, Naveen Kumar and also referred to the account opening forms of A2 and A3 . According to her, necessary verification was conducted by accused K.K.Singh as his signatures were also appearing on Ex. PW7/A i.e. account opening form of Ajay Kumar Sethi . It was accused K.K. Singh who had verified the signatures of introducer and this account was opened by accused K.K.Singh and also signed by him. Similarly for account opening forms of Mohan Das Bairwa, Naveen Kumar, Amitesh Kumar, necessary verification was conducted by accused K.K.Singh and his signatures were appearing on Ex. PW 4/D (colly) and Ex. PW30/C (colly), who also verified the signatures of introducer. Copy of voter I.Card and ID Card of Amitesh Kumar had also been verified under the signatures of accused K.K.Singh who had also signed as introducer and also signed as an officer opening the account/Verifying officer .

CC No. : 47/2016 28/67

92. It was submitted by Ld. Counsel for defence that there is fixed procedure for transactions which can be completed through the various authorities and an individual official is not capable of manipulating any transaction including opening of STDR or Saving Account and also the payments thereof. It was also submitted that none of the erstwhile branch Managers and bank officials including PW32, PW337, PW39, PW38 and PW44 etc. had stated that the alleged STDR account and saving account can be independently opened by a single individual official of bank. It has been stated by all the bank officials that the customer, first of all places request alongwith the cheque for opening of STDR to the bank official and thereafter individual bank official has to get the from filled up by the customer himself or bank staff. It was further submitted that only after opening the STDR account, funding can be allocated for that particular STDR account and only after completion of whole process for opening of STDR, bank officer can sign the STDR certificate of same cheque amount. At the end of bank day, voucher verification report is generated by system automatically which is to be printed by system administrator and then branch manager gives printed VVRs to officials for tallying the account and all those officials involved for checking the VVRs are to sign alongwith seal , besides putting signatures on roaster register of the bank. Thereafter all VVRs alongwith vouchers stitched by Record keeper are kept in strong room after taking signatures of branch manager. Further, upon production of STDR by customer, same procedure is adopted for release of payment of the STDR alongwith the interest amount. The entire amount including interest relating to CC No. : 47/2016 29/67 particular STDR is reflected in VVR of customer , whereas the interest amount on particular STDR is reflected in VVR of BGL, which is again checked by designated official and the VVR of BGL is checked by the Branch Manager/Head. It was also submitted that original VVRs of customers have not been produced before the court , therefore, A1 cannot be prosecuted for the offences which he has not committed.

93. PW43 and PW47 explained the banking procedure with regard to creation of STDR and the subsequent proceedings.

94. PW43 stated that for opening of STDR/TDR, customer should have an account in the branch who makes a written request for issuance of deposit on the prescribed proforma of the bank. If the STDR/TDR is of less than Rs.20,000/ , then cash can be deposited for issue of STDR/TDR but in other cases, payment would be made only through cheque. The concerned clerk/officer after making the necessary verification and entries in Core Banking Solution (CBS), forwards the transaction in the system alongwith the vouchers for approval. For this purpose, system generates a 'Q' of such transaction and generate account number. Thereafter, checker verifies the transaction and in this way, STDR/TDR is created. The official initiating the creation of deposit receipt is known as maker and the person who approves that deposit is known as checker.

95. PW47 also explained the same procedure by adding that authorization of funding in STDR depends upon the value of amount of the STDR to be issued. Some funding may be done by clerk which falls within his power and other CC No. : 47/2016 30/67 funding which is beyond his power is sent by him to his senior officer for authorization. Thereafter, receipt regarding issue of STDR is issued to customer which is duly signed by officer. On maturity, customer can get the payment of STDR in cash if the amount is less than Rs.20,000/ and if more, then the amount is credited in his account or pay order is issued as per his request. For the funding of amount of STDR, the relevant debit and credit entries are reflected in the voucher verification report (VVR). The officer checks the report to whom it is allotted and generally, the officer, who authorizes the transaction of STDR, his VVR is checked by other officer. In case of new customer, who approaches for issuance of STDR, an account opening form is filled alongwith his KYC documents brought by him for creation of Customer Identification (CIF). The clerk feeds the data in computer and officer of the bank authorizes the transaction for generating the CIF. After creation of CIF, TDR/STDR account is generated and same procedure is adopted which is used for existing customer.

96. Both these witnesses confirmed the submission of Ld. Counsel for defence with regard to process for opening of STDRs and release of the payment after maturity, however, attributed the misuse of procedure due to the lacunas in the system by A1 .

97. PW43 was working as Branch Manager of Sarita Vihar Branch when accused K.K. Singh was posted as Assistant Manager. Accused K.K. Singh was also promoted in the same branch on the post of Deputy Manager and he had worked with PW43 for more than two years. Certified copy of list of CC No. : 47/2016 31/67 transactions made with back value dated STDRs was referred by this witness who further referred to the entries of STDRs in the said list mark Ex. PW44/D (colly) (D26), some of which had been initiated by his ID i.e. 9569 and verified by the maker ID of accused K. K. Singh 18553. There were other numerous entries where the checker and maker was same i.e. accused K.K. Singh. It was stated by this witness that as per this list, these STDRs were issued with back value dated one year or more. Interest on the same was approved for one year and above, within span of twothree days. In a short span of time, huge interest amount had been generated and fraudulently credited in other accounts. Though, he did not know how these STDRs/TDRs entries were generated but stated that there might be possibility that his ID or password might have been seen while making entries on the computer and there was also possibility that he might have shared his password, though in rare circumstances and in case of exigencies, with bank staff, for smooth running of the branch. He stated that it appeared that someone had taken the advantage of sharing of his credentials and had issued the back dated deposits through his ID, which according to him were made fraudulently by accused K. K. Singh by taking advantage of lacuna of back value date system in the software as there was no check available in the system.

98. According to this witness, his user ID had been misused as maker and checker for some of the entries particularly at s.no. 48 to 50 but he was neither the maker nor checker for the said entries. Though he did not remember all the STDR accounts, where his user ID was used but according to him, accused K. CC No. : 47/2016 32/67 K. Singh was acquainted with the technology and he had chosen the Head, where nobody was complaining. During the working of accused K. K. Singh at this branch all these entries were made which were stopped as soon as accused K. K. Singh was transferred from this branch and similar entries were made in the branch where the accused K. K. Singh had joined, upon which inquiry was also conducted. He stated that one individual bank officer cannot open the STDR account but then volunteered to state that one individual bank officer can open STDR account in a case it is made through transfer of funds or in case of urgency or due to shortage of staff . According to him, his ID/password had been used even on the date when he was on leave and while using his ID/password, STDR was prepared /created even on date of his leave i.e. 19.2.2.2011.

99. Ld. Counsel for defence submitted that though this witness claimed to be on leave on 19.2.2011 but in the roaster register, his attendance is marked for the very same day which points out towards the falsity of the claim of this witness. It was also submitted that the witnesses those who themselves should been the accused , have been examined by the prosecution, therefore, their evidence cannot be relied upon.

100. Ld. Prosecutor, per contra, successfully clarified by submitting that the VVR was to be prepared by the end of the day and used to be checked on the next day and accordingly the signatures upon the roaster register used to be appended on the date of checking of VVRs as is demonstrated from Ex. DW1/A. For example, the VVRs prepared on 3.10.2008 were checked on CC No. : 47/2016 33/67 4.10.2008 with signatures of the officers concerned on roaster register on 4.10.2008. The witness, PW43, was stated to be on leave on 19.2.2011 and the VVRs prepared on 18.2.2011 but checked on 19.2.2011 are not under the signatures of PW43, whereas for the VVRs prepared on 19.2.2011 but checked on the later date, are under the signatures of PW43, besides accused no.1, which corroborates the submission of PW43 regarding his being on leave, yet the STDRs having been prepared using his ID on the day of his leave.

101. In terms of list Ex.PW32/A (colly) (D6), for most of the entries, it was the ID of accused K.K. Singh which was used as maker and checker and for the other entries where the ID of other bank officials /officers were used either as maker or checker and they complained about sharing/misuser of their ID password by someone else.

102. PW43 further, gave particular reference to the STDR which was made on 06.09.2010 at s.no. 51 of D26 which according to him was back value dated 09.10.2007. As per the documents, Maker was having user ID 9569 which was his ID and checker was having user ID 18553, which was ID of accused K.K. Singh. As stated, here user ID of PW43 was misused by accused K.K. Singh since this account was never opened in 2007 but was opened in year 2010 only and in the year 2007, at the time of creation of back value STDR dated 9.1.2007 (actual date of entry 6.9.2010), neither he nor accused K.K. Singh was posted in Sarita Vihar Branch.

103. Similarly other bank officers/officials who had worked with accused K.K. Singh during the relevant period stated about sharing/misuser of their CC No. : 47/2016 34/67 password/ID by accused K.K. Singh for the purpose of creating back value dated STDRs.

104. Amongst others, PW33, PW30, PW38, PW37 and PW39 are the witnesses who stated about their IDs having been misused by accused K.K. Singh.

105. PW33 stated that there was an entry regarding generation of STDR bearing no. 61143583290 for Rs.10,76,983/ which was reflecting his ID no.18076 and another ID 18553 of accused K.K. Singh was appearing as checker of the said transaction but he never issued or checked any STDR during his service with bank, however, it is possible that other bank officer had used his identity password for clearing the said transaction as he used to share his password for help from other officials of the branch. He did not know how to create STDR as he was only knowing the task of handling cash. He got promotion from the post of peon therefore, was not having much knowledge of handling computer and other work of bank. In cross examination, he reiterated that he never issued or checked any STDR during his service with bank. Though he did not remember every transaction done by him during course of his duties but he knew about the nature of transactions done by him, therefore, he could say that he had never issued or checked any STDR during his service with bank.

106. PW37 had also worked with accused K.K. Singh. Being trainee officer, she was learning the banking system during the relevant period. The deposit receipts issued under her identity were never issued by her and her identity CC No. : 47/2016 35/67 number had been misused. For some of the entries, the identity of accused K. K. Singh was appearing as checker and according to her, at that time, she was under training and might be taking assistance of some bank official and there was possibility that these STDR might have been got prepared by using her ID since she did not make these STDRs. She had not shared her password /her employee ID with anyone but her ID was misused and she denied that the said entries were made by her.

107. ID of PW38 i.e. 8473 had also been used as checker for issuance of STDRs reflected in D199 MarkPW38/X1, MarkPW38/X2 & Mark PW38/X3, Ex. PW47/54 (colly). The vouchers qua these STDRs were never signed by him and were never received by him. According to him, there was possibility that accused K. K. Singh might have seen his ID while typing it in the computer and used it for issuance of STDR since he never shared his ID during his service.

108. PW30 stated that the Voucher verification report is generated by Accountant or Officers of the Bank. It was the responsibility of accused K.K.Singh as Assistant Manager to take the printout of Voucher Verification Reports. Voucher Verification Reports are Ex. PW30/A, Ex. PW30/A1 and Ex. PW30/A2 (colly) which were bearing signatures of accused K.K. Singh but many of the credit entries were not appearing on the report signed by accused K.K Singh. Specific reference was made to the credit entry of Rs. 3,40,497/ in the SB account of Ajay Kumar Yadav/Ramesh Kumar Yadav and of Rs 4,90,093/ to the SB account of Sh Vijender Singh. The reports prepared by CC No. : 47/2016 36/67 accused K.K. Singh were consisting of entries which did not correspond with the entries retrieved from the data base. The Credit entries highlighted in documents were not appearing in the reports signed by accused K.K.Singh which transactions were executed through the ID 18553 belonging to accused K.K.Singh.

109. PW38 who was appointed as Deputy Manager stated that all vouchers pertaining to opening of account or opening of STDR, including funding were sent to checkers for approval of the transaction. All vouchers pertaining to opening of account or opening of STDR, including funding were initialed by the checker before approval. All the VVRs, vouchers for the transaction day were stitched by daftari (peon) and signed by branch manager for keeping in safe record. Whenever the branch manager was not available in branch, PW38 was to sign all the related documents of that transaction day in place of branch manager of SBBJ, Sarita Vihar branch. Roaster register was maintained while he was Deputy Manager in SBBJ, Sarita Vihar branch for maintaining the records of checkers of VVRs and vouchers on daily basis. In cross examination, in answer to the query as to who had opened the account for the transaction of FDR interest, he stated that it cannot be ascertained by seeing VVR mark PW38/X1, PW38/X2 and PW38/X3 but according to him, it was accused K. K. Singh, who used to receive the FDRs from the customers therefore, it was only he, who was the maker of the FDRs.

110. PW39 had also worked as Branch Manager till the year 2009 in Sarita Vihar Branch and his ID No. 14871 had also been used as Checker to generate CC No. : 47/2016 37/67 some STDRs. Accused K.K. Singh had originated these STDRs and it had been verified by ID of PW39. He referred to entry at point 'X' (D148) (page 3) which was not reflected in Ex. PW30/A prepared by accused K. K. Singh. As stated by this witness, Ex. PW30/A had been checked by accused K. K. Singh and there was deliberate deletion of entry in Ex. PW30/A . The deleted entry was very well reflected on page 3 of D148. Similarly, Ex. PW42/X18 (Q444 & Q453) which are voucher verification report in which malafide transactions were deleted before printing of VVR by accused K.K. Singh, were opined to be signed by accused K.K. Singh by CFSL Expert. As further stated, the transaction which a person generates cannot be checked and verified by the same person in VVR and as per rules, checker is required to put his signature on roaster register after checking of VVR but for the relevant period, this witness found unable to comment since during the relevant period, accused K.K. Singh was checking the VVRs himself and the record was in his custody. This witness admitted that D148 was not the complete voucher verification report of the branch for that particular date i. e., 11.02.2010. However, stated that this report was complete for teller ID of accused Krishan Kumar and apparently Ex. PW30/A was incorrect document. According to him, in case vouchers are missing, the VVR checker asks the maker to make duplicate voucher and entry regarding missing vouchers are entered in missing voucher register and if his signatures were not present on vouchers ,then it was to be considered that entries were not authorized or sanctioned by him. He also stated that if the signature of approver is not available on the voucher, then it should be CC No. : 47/2016 38/67 presumed that it has not been authorized properly by the checker.

111. According to PW43, the responsibility to verify VVRs used to be given from time to time to different officers under his supervision and he used to see the initial of the officer, who was assigned for checking of VVR. According to him, there used to be thousands of entries and it was not possible to see each and every entry.

112. Ld. Counsel for defence sought much of the reliance from the banking procedure to establish his point with regard to preparation of VVRs for every transaction and the non availability/ non filing of VVRs on record with regard to many such transactions which form part of the list of allegations against accused K. K. Singh. As argued, for every VVR generated, next day, same is checked by Branch Manager or the authorized person and the signatures is made on the hard copy, which VVRs have not been filed on record. Further the best document to show fraudulent transactions were the hard copies since VVRs only reflected the transactions and did not indicate fraudulent transactions, whereas hard copies have not been filed on record, therefore no conclusion can be drawn with regard to any fraudulent transactions since the responsibility to check VVRs can be delegated/assigned but BGL is to be checked only by Branch Manager, in which eventuality, if there was any fraudulent transaction, the same could have been found by branch manager while checking BGL.

113. The counter, to the said argument of Ld. Counsel for defence, is in the deposition of prosecution witnesses. PW44 stated about authorization in favour of accused K. K. Singh to generate the VVRs and to hand over the VVRs to CC No. : 47/2016 39/67 other authorized officer for verification, including him. He was also authorized to verify the VVRs and some VVRs had been deliberately deleted from the report. As stated, there were some instances in which the entries in VVRs were deleted deliberately.

114. PW43 though admitted that the VVR of bank General Ledger (BGL) is checked by Branch Manager only as well as VVR of interest paid on STDR was checked by Branch Manager of Sarita Vihar Branch but also stated that the back value interest entries were not reflected in VVR of BGL.

115. As explained by prosecution witnesses, the non filing of the voucher verification reports and the entries not being reflected seems to be due to the reason of voucher verification reports having not been prepared /destroyed so as the fraudulent entries should not be detected and there being no entries or the availability of voucher verification report, the same could not have been reflected in VVR of BGL, therefore, could not be found out by Branch Manager while checking BGL.

116. PW35 who conducted the inquiry upon the allegations also found the vouchers missing for the transactions for which fraud was committed, whereas other vouchers were available. He examined and verified the voucher verification reports with STDR/FD transactions. Accused K.K. Singh used to check the vouchers prepared by him, himself from the voucher verification reports which was not laid down practice of the bank. Vouchers prepared and passed by the particular officer should not be checked by the same officer but in most of the cases vouchers were prepared/passed by K. K. Singh and were also CC No. : 47/2016 40/67 regularly checked by K. K. Singh himself.

117. This witness also detailed with regard to the modus operandi adopted by accused K.K.Singh in alleged siphoning off funds of the bank and stated that accused K.K. Singh was making false entries in the core banking system of the bank, whereas no such entries were requested or valid in existence. Serious fraud was committed by accused K. K. Singh. Upon receipt of request for preparation of STDRs , he used to give twothree days time to the customer and then used to create back dated STDRs for period of twothree years. As per his strategy, the said back dated STDRs matured after twothree days of the deposit made by customers when he used to make FDRs in the name of customers. Interest accrued for that period of twothree years used to be transferred to fictitious accounts opened by accused K. K. Singh. Some of the fictitious accounts were in the names of Ajay Kumar Yadav, Navin, Subhash etc. Accused K. K. Singh himself was verifying the VVRs which job otherwise was required to be done by some other official, therefore, till the time he was in branch the fraud was not detected. Many times, the vouchers were passed by the Branch Manager in good faith and accused K.K. Singh took the benefit of good faith of the Branch Manager and committed the fraud.

118. As stated, there are two modes for preparation of FDRs , one by debiting the account of customer and corresponding credit in the intermediatory account of the bank. After that, by debiting the intermediatory account and crediting the STDR account of customer and in case of renewal of STDR, STDR amount and STDR interest are debited and the amount is credited in the intermediatory CC No. : 47/2016 41/67 account. After that by debiting the intermediatory account, fresh STDRs are issued. In both the cases, amount is credited in intermediatory account and then STDR is prepared by debiting the intermediatory account. Here, accused K. K. Singh used to play the fraud. The amount should have gone to the account of the customer, who requested for preparation of STDR but for all fraudulent back dated STDRs, the amount debited from the intermediatory account was credited in the fake and fictitious accounts. From those fake and fictitious accounts, A1 used to withdraw the amount from different modes, i.e., ATM, RTGS, clearing of cheque etc. There were cash transactions also. Bank had suffered a loss of Rs.332.13 lakhs due to these fraudulent transactions. As per the report, the amount was siphoned to fake SBBJ accounts bearing no. 61067719773, 51031374845, 61087238304 and other accounts. Accused K. K. Singh also used to create fixed deposits from the amount of interest credited in the fictitious accounts and used to deposit the proceeds of the fictitious STDRs in fivesix fictitious accounts at irregular interval.

119. This witness emphasized that accused K.K. Singh used to check the Voucher Verification Report (VVR) during that period when he was posted in the branch but he did not report any irregularity regarding missing vouchers which created a doubt that fraud had been committed by accused K. K. Singh. The vouchers were passed by accused K. K. Singh and in this case VVR should have been crosschecked by any officer other than accused K. K. Singh but in this case VVRs were also checked by accused K. K. Singh. The maximum vouchers on record were checked through the ID of accused K. K. Singh and CC No. : 47/2016 42/67 he never objected to the missing of the vouchers. As per banking guidelines, after checking of VVR, the vouchers are stitched and sealed under a voucher cover. Branch Manager/Accountant put his signature on the voucher cover and gives to record keeper to place them in lock and key/safe custody, but in practice, these guidelines were not followed.

120. The non filing of the VVR pertaining to fraudulent transactions thereby was because of the reason that the vouchers were either not prepared or destroyed, as brought on record by the prosecution witnesses, which were checked from ID of accused K.K. Singh and the accusing finger was also towards accused K.K. Singh since it was he who was responsible for checking of the same and for preparation, whereas many of the vouchers were missing and accused K.K. Singh was required to report with regard to missing of the vouchers if the same was handy work of some one else.

121. Ld. Counsel for defence also raised submission qua the capability of accused K.K. Singh with regard to creation of STDRs. As submitted, accused was working as Assistant Manager and most of the entries which had been shown in the documents were more than his passing power. As submitted, the capability of accused K.K. Singh falls under the capability level 3 and group4, therefore could not have made any transactions beyond his capability level.

122. PW 47 stated about the authorization power during the relevant period for scaleI officer as upto Rs.5 lakhs. Above Rs.5 lakhs, the authorization power vested in the next senior officer, i.e., Deputy Manager or Branch Manager. As per record, accused K. K. Singh was posted as Assistant Manager during the CC No. : 47/2016 43/67 relevant period but had been officiating as Deputy Manager as per the office order. As deposed, in case only one officer is posted in branch, his power is automatically increased for smooth functioning of the branch. PW47 initially stated that he had not issued office order for A1 nor he was able to tell who had issued the office order and was also not able to tell whether the office order was operative for a limited period and only in absence of Deputy Manager and Branch Manager. However, this witness in cross examination when was confronted with D47, referred to the instructions pertaining to accused K.K. Singh who was instructed to officiate with capability 712 in absence of Deputy Manager and then it was stated by witness that it was the same office order which he was referring to earlier whereby capability/passing power of A1 had been increased to level of 712 with passing power of unlimited amount. It was also submitted by Ld. PP that there was no separate order issued by higher authorities since A1 was not designated officer for whom permanent order is required to be passed from the Belapur Office but only the office order was passed by the Branch higher officers in order to meet out the requirement and for smooth functioning of the branch in the absence of the Manager or Deputy Manager or in case of excess work load.

123. Ld. Counsel for defence by putting the said office order to the witness in cross examination whereby capability level of accused had been increased to 7 12 himself helped the prosecution case to show that the alleged transactions carried out by accused K.K. Singh were within his passing power/capability level.

CC No. : 47/2016 44/67

124. Ld counsel for defence also submitted that the list of transactions given in tabular form cannot be a valid document since the list mentions about the entries which are different from the documents on record. Interest certificates generated for the same transactions are different from the amount mentioned in the list. As per the list, there was generation of interest amounting to Rs. 3 Crores, whereas in terms of the interest certificates brought by DW1 on record, no single transaction tallied with the list. For example, the interest amount calculated for Sheel Yadav was Rs. 98438/ which was different from the amount as mentioned in the list . Similarly for one transaction, there were mentions twice or thrice, therefore tabular form which was relied upon by the prosecution differs from the original documents and cannot be relied upon. Ld. Counsel for defence also submitted that as per the banking procedure, TDS is deducted upon the interest amount and the list is then forwarded to the income tax authorities. The interest generated on the allegedly fraudulent entries was more than 71 lacs or so, as per the interest certificates and as per the tabular form, it was more than Rs. 3 Crores, therefore TDS must have been deducted on the said amount which was also so reflected in the documents by showing the deduction of TDS but no evidence is brought on record with regard to the deduction of TDS and issuance of TDS Certificate as well as forwarding of the same to the income tax authorities. It was submitted that in terms of deposition of prosecution witnesses, there is no deduction of TDS but at the same time, in D1 the last entry is pertaining to TDS deduction of Rs. 5126/.

125. PW47 though admitted that he had not verified the amount of interest CC No. : 47/2016 45/67 mentioned in document D26 with the system generated interest certificate issued at the end of every financial year, he also admitted that TDS is deducted on interest if form 15H/15G is not fed with the account in the system. He was not able to tell in which accounts, form 15G/15H were fed after examining the document D26 having total 233 accounts. He admitted that bank deposits the TDS amount with the list of account holders alongwith PAN details of the account holders on every next month of deduction of TDS. In every branch, Branch Manager is authorized person to deposit TDS amount with IT department. The Branch Manager is authorized person to issue TDS certificate to customers and same was his answer with regard to interest certificate, though he stated that for and on behalf of Branch Manager any officer can issue the TDS certificate or interest certificate. This witness was not able to tell as to how much TDS amount had been deducted in the alleged fraudulent STDRs . Interest amount of Rs. 179 was mentioned at Sl. No. 152 of D26 for amount of Rs.6,75,812/ for the period 04.10.2008 to 03.9.2011 . Similarly interest amount of Rs. 0/ was mentioned at Sl. No. 223 of D26 for amount of Rs.2,25,600/ for the period 30.8.2007 to 24.8.2009 and also there was mention of interest amount of Rs. 0/ at Sl. No. 233 of D26 for the period 31.12.2007 to 30.3.2009. This witness answered that he did not know whether the said entries were right or wrong because during a particular period, interest amount could not be zero or even Rs. 179 which was very less but then sought to clarify that interest amount of Rs. 179 was for two days, i.e., from 03.9.2011 to 05.9.2011, whereas period which had been mentioned at Sl. No. 152, was wrongly mentioned as CC No. : 47/2016 46/67 04.10.2008. This witness admitted that in the interest column, Rs.0 amount had been shown but sought to clarify that it was correction of the entry nullifying the original entry . The STDR was created on 03.9.2011 and paid on 05.09.201 which was reflected from the relevant entry at page no. 152 & 153 of D6 Ex. PW44/C.

126. Ld. Counsel for defence again helped the case of prosecution by putting the question that the TDS had not been deducted and deposited to the Income Tax Department on the interest amount in the STDRs mentioned in the present case, which was admitted by this witness but he stated that before making payments for these STDRs, Form 15G and H were added in those STDRs. Form G and H according to this witness are physical forms and details are not mentioned in the entries which were also not seized by CBI as the same were not found in branch. Since vouchers were not available in the branch, entries with respect to form 15 G and H must have been fed with the physical forms though he admitted that the branch Manger has to send form G and H to the Income Tax Department in case interest is above Rs. 10,000/ but he was not able to say whether the branch Manager did not send the forms G and H where interest amount exceeded Rs. 10,000/ pertaining to STDRs in question to the Income Tax Department.

127. It was stated by PW48 that from the inquiries conducted, it was revealed that no TDS had been deducted for all these transactions and therefore no TDS certificates were issued. IO had not seized any such certificate since according to her, no TDS was deducted, therefore, no certificate was issued. Though she CC No. : 47/2016 47/67 again sought to clarify that the TDS certificates were not issued though she was not sure whether TDS was deducted or not. It is matter of record that the customers who had been examined by the prosecution have not received any TDS certificate nor even the interest accrued upon the back value dated STDRs. It is also matter of record that after the back value dated STDRs were opened, interest accrued upon the same had been transferred to the different accounts.

128. Ld. Prosecutor successfully clarified by submitting that the interest which was credited in the accounts, as reflected in the list, was for the entire period of FDR, whereas the interest certificates were generated for each financial year separately. Therefore, there was difference in the total amount of interest accrued on the FDR and the interest certificate generated for each financial years. The interest amount, if is calculated for the entire period of STDRs works out to be same and there is no ambiguity or dissimilarity in the amount. With regard to sole entry of TDS deduction of Rs. 5126/, it was submitted that the same was clerical mistake which can be verified from the fact that there was no corresponding entry of the deduction of tax of Rs. 5126/ in the account statement of Raghwender Kumar Sinha bearing no. 61148401284 Ex. PW44/C (page no. 233 of D6).

129. As emerged on record and summarized by PW48, accused K. K. Singh opened nine accounts in the name of accused K. K. Singh himself, Kumari Vandana Sinha, Amitesh Kumar, Navin Kumar, Mohan Kumar Singh, Subhash and Ajay Kumar Yadav. The proceeds/interest generated on the fake STDRs was credited/transferred in these accounts by accused K. K. Singh through his CC No. : 47/2016 48/67 own ID No. 18553. Accused K. K. Singh created fake back value dated STDRs and proceeds of those STDRs were transferred in abovesaid nine accounts. One Customer Sh. Sheel Yadav (PW2) (genuine customer of SBBJ Bank, Sarita Vihar branch) had requested for issuance of two STDRs of Rs.10 lakhs each for a period of 35 months through cheque amounting to Rs.20 lakhs Ex. PW2/B. Sh. Sheel Yadav filled the deposit receipts Ex. PW2/C and Ex. PW2/D for issuance of two STDRs. The deposit receipts were filled on 21.02.2009, which request was processed by accused K. K. Singh through his login ID. Two STDRs were made on 23.02.2009. Out of which, one was fake STDR and another was genuine STDR created by accused K. K. Singh through his ID. The genuine STDR bearing no. 61066852354 was created on 23.02.2009 and the fake STDR in the name of Sh. Sheel Yadav with back date entry, i.e., 24.02.2008 was created. The date of issuance of fake STDR was 23.02.2009 which was matured on 24.02.2009 on the very next date of issuance of STDR. System calculated one year back date interest and credited the amount with interest of Rs.98,438/ alongwith the principal amount of Rs.10 lakhs. Accused K. K. Singh transferred this matured amount of Rs.10,98,438/ to BGL account through his ID. On 24.02.2009, accused K. K. Singh made another STDR of Rs.10 lakhs in the name of Sh. Sheel Yadav as was requested by him through his deposit receipt Ex. PW2/D. In this way, Sheel Yadav, the genuine customer, got his both STDRs on 24.02.2009. However, his request was processed on 21.02.2009. The interest amount of Rs.98,438/ generated on fake STDR was used for making another fake STDR in the name of Balwan Singh.

CC No. : 47/2016 49/67

130. As stated, the vouchers pertaining to fake STDR could not be traced out during the investigation as they were either destroyed or were never made. On 03.3.2009 another fake account Ex. PW4/B in name of Mohan was opened and KYC documents of genuine customer, namely, Mohan Das Bairwa were used for opening of this account. The photograph which was affixed on the account opening form was not of genuine customer Mohan Das Bairwa and the KYC documents of genuine customer Mohan Das Bairwa which had been used for opening of this account bears the writing of accused K. K. Singh. CFSL has opined in positive that the writing at Q18 to Q21 are of accused K. K. Singh. The interest amount of Rs.98,438/ was transferred in this fake account of Mohan Kumar. This transfer had been effected through ID of accused K. K. Singh and the relevant entry is on D199 (Voucher Verification Report). The credit entry of interest in fake account of Mohan Kumar Singh is reflected in statement of account Ex. PW44/D (colly.) The amount of Rs.90,000/ was withdrawn on the very next day, i.e., 04.3.2009 vide cheque bearing no. 069561 dated 04.3.2009 Ex. PW4/D). Amount of Rs.7500/ was withdrawn vide cheque bearing no. 69562 Ex. PW4/D. ID of Ms. Archna Vijay was used for processing of these two cheques and ID of accused K. K. Singh was used for clearing both the cheques. The relevant entry in creation of STDR bearing no. 61066949946 in the name of non existing person Balwan Singh is reflected in Ex. PW47/54 (colly.) The maker ID of accused K. K. Singh was used for creation of STDR 61066949946 from the interest of Rs.98,438/ generated on fake STDR bearing no. 61066852285.

CC No. : 47/2016 50/67

131. The funds of four genuine customers, namely, Sh. G. R. Sahani, Sh. Ashwani Chawla (PW5), Smt. Krishna Dhar (PW24) and Sh. Kesar Singh (PW41) were used for creation of back dated fake STDR. The account opening forms for the abovesaid accounts were collected. However, the account opening form of Subhash was not available in the branch and bank wrote a letter Ex. PW27/C regarding unavailability of form in the branch. Current account bearing no. 61087238304 in the name of Sh. Ajay Kumar Yadav was opened and KYC documents of a genuine customer Sh. Ajay Kumar Sethi was used for opening of that fake current account bearing no. 61087238304. The account opening form Ex. PW7/A (colly.) of the said account bears the signature of accused K. K. Singh as verifying officer at point Z and CFSL has given positive opinion regarding the signature of accused K. K. Singh.

132. Sh. G. R. Sahani made a request in the bank for renewal of his STDR bearing no. 61067781094 on 06.3.2009 on maturity of its previous STDR. Two STDR receipt Ex. PW44/E1 and Ex. PW44/F1 were the old STDR which were submitted for renewal. The maturity amount of STDR bearing no. 61031311530 was Rs.6,48,648/. The entire maturity amount including interest was transferred to BGL account by crediting the BGL account by user ID of accused K. K. Singh on 06.3.2009. The relevant entry of credit in BGL account is reflected in Ex. PW31/D (colly.) On the same day, the BGL account was debited with the entire amount and back date value STDR bearing no. 61067719773 in the name of non existing customer Subhash was created. The relevant entry of STDR bearing no. 61067719773 is reflected in Ex. PW44/C CC No. : 47/2016 51/67 (colly). This amount had been transferred from BGL account bearing no. 98525107892. The STDR got matured on 07.3.2009 and system calculated the interest amount of Rs.53,469/ and the entire matured amount including interest was credited in the BGL account with the teller ID of accused K. K. Singh. The credit entry in STDR account is reflected at point Y on Ex. PW44/C (colly.). The relevant entry of transfer to BGL account is also reflected at point Z on Ex. PW44/C (colly). The relevant credit entry in BGL account is reflected at point X6 on Ex. PW31/D (colly.). On the same day, STDR for the amount of Rs.6,48,648/ as was requested by Sh. G. R. Sahani was renewed by the teller ID of accused K. K. Singh. The relevant entry of debiting the BGL account from that amount is at point X7. The interest amount earned on the STDR bearing no. 61067719773 made on the non existing customer Subhash was transferred from BGL account in the fake SB account of Subhash. The relevant credit entry of interest amounting to Rs.53,469/ is reflected at point X1 on Ex. PW44/F (colly.)}.

133. In the same way, another TDR Ex. PW44/F1 of Sh. G. R. Sahani was submitted for renewal by Sh. G. R. Sahani. The maturity amount of this TDR Rs.3,52,062/ was transferred to BGL account with the teller ID of accused K. K. Singh. The relevant entry of debiting the BGL account is reflected at point X13 on page 5 of D146 {(Ex. PW31/D (colly.)}. On the same day, back value dated STDR bearing no. 61069198655 in the non existing customer Subhash was made by debiting the BGL account. The relevant entry of debiting BGL account is at point X14 on page 5 of D146 {(Ex. PW31/D (colly.)}. The CC No. : 47/2016 52/67 relevant entry of creation of STDR is at point X on Ex. PW44/C (colly.). The system calculated the interest amount of Rs.42,543/ and credited in the STDR account on 30.3.2009 . The amount of Rs.3,52,062/ as reflected at point Z1 was debited in the BGL account and on the same day, the TDR in the name of Sh. G. R. Sahani was renewed with amount of Rs.3,52,062/. The interest amount of Rs.42,543/ was transferred to SB account of Subhash. The relevant entry of crediting the SB account of Subhash (fake account) is reflected at point X3 on (Ex. PW44/F (colly.) Three other genuine customer's funds were also utilized for one or two days for creation of back value dated STDR and by making back value dated STDR, accused K. K. Singh accumulated the amount of Rs.1,85,000/ and by using this amount, accused K. K. Singh rotated this amount for creating the back value dated STDR by using 79 fake/inoperative CIFs of the customers and generated other fake STDRs and in total 233 STDRs were created by accused K. K. Singh.

134. Fake SB account in the name of Mohan Kumar Singh, Ajay Kumar Yadav, Subhash and Navin were opened by accused K. K. Singh. KYC documents of genuine customer of Sh. Ajay Kumar Sethi were used for opening the fake account in the name of Ajay Kumar Sethi. Accused K. K. Singh was the verifying officer for opening of this account Ex. PW7/A (colly.) and he signed as verifying officer at point Z (Q115). Positive opinion of CFSL in this regard has been received. The purported introducer of this form Sh. Ram Prakash Mitherwal denied to having signed or introducing Sh. Ajay Kumar Sethi. The signature of Sh. Ram Prakash Mitherwal at point Q123 does not CC No. : 47/2016 53/67 belong to Sh. Ram Prakash Mitherwal and positive expert opinion in this regard has been received. The CIF of Sh. Ajay Kumar Sethi, i.e., 61087238304 had been used for creating this account in the name of Ajay Kumar Yadav.

135. Another fake account in the name of Navin Kumar Ex. PW30/C was opened in Gaya in the year 2007 which was never in the knowledge of PW34 Navin Kumar . This account was opened on the introduction of accused K. K. Singh and he signed on it as introducer. Navin Kumar never requested to open this account and never received the ATM issued on this account, however, the ATM PIN issued on this account was taken by accused K. K. Singh. Accused K. K. Singh was posted in Gaya branch during the relevant period when this account was opened. The interest amount of back value dated STDRs was parked in this account. The relevant entries are reflected in SB statement of account of Navin Kumar (Ex. PW44/K (colly). The amount which was credited in the account of non existing person Subhash was withdrawn by issuing different cheques. Self cheque bearing no. 069922 for the amount of Rs.20,000/ was issued for withdrawal of money. This cheque bears the writing of accused K. K. Singh at point Q167 to Q171. Accused K. K. Singh signed this cheque as Subhash. Also, there are other cheques Ex. PW42/L, Ex. PW42/M & Ex. PW42/N , Ex. PW42/D , Ex. PW42/G , Ex. PW42/H which had been signed by accused K. K. Singh as Subhash and money was withdrawn from this account. The amount of Rs.1 lakh was transferred through RTGS in the account of Vandana bearing no. 042116002545 maintained at HDFC Gaya branch. Accused K. K. Singh had made his initials at point X on NEFT form CC No. : 47/2016 54/67 and he also signed the NEFT form as Subhash at point Q203.

136. The interest amount of STDR was also transferred through different accounts as well as through cash in the account of Amitesh Kumar bearing no. 61089132848. Amitesh Kumar had also made RTGS transaction for transfer of the amount. Ex. PW42/F (D42) and Ex. PW42/E (D43) are the cheques by which RTGS transactions have been done by Amitesh Kumar. Positive opinion qua signature of Amitesh Kumar has been received.

137. As further stated by PW48, there were number of cash withdrawal from ATM, transfer from the account, withdrawal from the cheques. The relevant entries of withdrawal, transfer and other transactions can be seen in the concerned statements of accounts. Approximately interest amount of Rs.3 crores was credited out of the fraudulent STDR. Some amount was also transferred in the account of Navin from the account of Subhash. The entries were deleted from the VVRs, which is clear from comparison (D148) Ex. PW47/26 and VVR Ex. PW30/A. In this way, the other entries relating to creation of STDR were deleted and the amount which was credited in the accounts of Vandana was used in transacting in share market. Positive opinion has been received from CFSL with regard to these documents. PW48, thereby narrated the sequence of events as per investigation carried out by her in crystalised manner to make the entire case understandable.

138. I would also like to note that IO of this case not only carried out the investigation most diligently and efficiently but also made herself available for proper assistance to Ld. Prosecutor . Ld. Prosecutor in turn did justice to the job CC No. : 47/2016 55/67 assigned to him for successful prosecution in bringing home the guilt of accused persons.

139. Coming back to facts of case, signatures and handwriting of accused K.K. Singh was obtained in presence of PW46. Accused K.K. Singh in the statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. stated that his signatures were taken forcefully by CBI on various types of documents. Ld. Counsel for defence also submitted that the signatures and handwriting of accused K.K.Singh was taken on blank papers forcefully to match the signatures on the alleged cheques alongwith other papers. Suggestion was put to PW46 with regard to specimen signatures/handwriting having not been obtained in his presence and having been obtained forcefully. However, PW46 specifically stated about the signatures/handwriting of accused having been taken in his presence and according to him, accused K.K. Singh gave the signatures/specimen handwriting voluntarily. This witness had also signed over all the sheets.

140. Ld. Counsel for defence submitted that the CFSL report is merely corroborative piece of evidence whereas the signatures itself were denied by accused and on the basis of the opinion of expert, the prosecution case cannot rest upon.

141. PW42 had examined the documents and had given his detailed opinion. The positive opinion received with regard to the questioned documents has already been mentioned.

142. Though PW46 had specifically stated that the signatures and handwriting of the accused was voluntarily given by accused in his presence who had also CC No. : 47/2016 56/67 signed over all the sheets upon which specimen signatures and handwriting of A1 was taken. Based upon the voluntary given specimen handwriting and signatures, the examination was conducted with the opinion of forensic expert as detailed earlier. For the sake of arguments, even if the contention of A1 is considered though not believed that the signatures and handwriting was taken forcefully, yet there is no dispute that the specimen signatures /handwriting from which the comparison was made was the handwriting and signatures of accused K.K. Singh only. Though it is also correct that CFSL report is only corroborative piece of evidence, however considering the other material on record, the positive opinion by the CFSL expert attains significance and importance and lends the corroboration to the case of prosecution.

143. Ld. Counsel for defence also submitted that the customers whose genuine documents were allegedly used by the accused for opening of fake accounts or creation of back value dated FDRs have also not been called as witnesses like G.R. Sahni and similarly there is no investigation regarding the fake accounts and the alleged non existing customers. There is no investigation qua the addresses of those fake customers which is merely the saying of the IO and there being no evidence to that aspect, the conclusion drawn by IO regarding the accounts being fake should not be accepted. It was also submitted that even otherwise the witnesses examined by the prosecution had merely stated about non issuance of directions for opening of the STDR account which are stated to be back value dated FDRS but there is no record available on record for opening of accounts of even those customers or the record pertaining to the CC No. : 47/2016 57/67 creation of back value dated FDR, whereas none of those witnesses stated that the accused had opened back value dated FDRs and there is no allegation that the back value dated FDRs were opened by A1.

144. In terms of record, many witnesses who were available and had either not opened the account or had not issued any instruction for issuance of the FDRs which had been created back value dated, have been examined by the prosecution. It is not the quantity of evidence which weighs the case of prosecution but the quality. The witnesses examined for the above said purpose by the prosecution have remained categorical with regard to their deposition confirming the case of prosecution regarding either not opening of the accounts which had been opened using their documents or non issuance of instructions for which back value dated FDRS had been created and also with regard to non receipt of any interest generated on those back value dated FDRs. The submission of Ld. Counsel for defence that they have not stated that the back value dated FDRs had been opened by A1 seemingly is absurd since none of the said customers were party to the alleged crime allegedly committed by A1 with regard to opening of the fake accounts with help of genuine documents and also with regard to creation of back value STDRs . None of the witnesses were aware of the same since there was no loss caused to them. The connectivity of A1 to the alleged crime is to be interpreted from the evidence brought on record and not by the saying of the customers who had absolutely no knowledge with regard to the same.

145. Pertaining to the contention with regard to, no inquiry or investigation CC No. : 47/2016 58/67 conducted for the fake addresses, prosecution has examined PW10, PW11, PW12, PW14 and PW15. Notices sent to as many as 41 addresses did not yield any result with the report of addresses being " incomplete/untraced/no such person found/wrong address". The notices were taken by the abovesaid witnesses and they had furnished the reports upon the notices. Suggestions put to these witnesses that they were not provided the documents bearing the addresses and name of persons and photo identity card etc. cannot be considered relevant objection. Providing of photo identity cards or the documents pertaining to the addresses etc. would not have served any different purpose when the address, name etc. were already written on the notices issued and most of the addresses were not found in existence. The witnesses have rather stated about inquiries having been made from many persons regarding existence of the addresses and the persons from the locality people and also from the concerned police station of the area and post office. Suffice it was for the process servers to make such efforts to locate persons and their addresses and their reports in this respect with regard to non existence of such persons and addresses cannot be questioned.

146. Ld. Counsel for defence submitted that assuming, though not admitting that if there was some allegation of misappropriation, it is not possible for one person to misappropriate the alleged amount . The bank is still investigating the individual accountability of bank officials. Further there was no provision made for alleged misappropriation, which was mandatory under the circular of RBI vide circular no. RBI/201415/535/DVR No. BP.BC 83/21.04.048/201415 CC No. : 47/2016 59/67 dated 1.04.2015 . Further the bank had not done any provision of alleged fraud which goes to prove that there is no fraud committed to the bank much less by the accused K.K. Singh. It was further submitted that speculation of the bank in respect of the alleged and imaginary fraud can be further proved by column no.8, page no. 106 of DW1/2 that there is likely loss to the bank. The prosecution again failed to establish the conformity of the loss to the bank due to alleged misappropriation. Vide DW1/2, it is clearly stated that there is nil loss to the bank, hence entire prosecution story is crumbled as there is no loss alleged by the prosecution.

147. Ld. Counsel for defence further submitted that in terms of the allegations of prosecution, maker and checker have to be different persons. The prosecution witnesses have stated that their user IDs had been stolen/misused by accused K.K. Singh, then why this benefit is not available to accused K.K. Singh as similarly his ID could have been stolen by someone else.

148. In terms of the case of prosecution, the fraud was detected at a much later stage, therefore, till that time, there could not have been any provision to make up the losses which was also the reason that the loss was being reflected as Nil. It was submitted by Ld. Prosecutor that due to lacuna in the system, the fraud was not detected earlier and also there was no complaint from any corner since no loss had been caused to the genuine customers but only to the bank, which was not detected, hence, there was no occasion to show the losses actually caused to the bank.

149. With regard to other contention of Ld. Counsel for defence, at the cost of CC No. : 47/2016 60/67 repetition, it may be noted that for most of such transactions, the maker ID and checker ID is that of accused K.K. Singh. For user of other IDs, number of transactions is much lesser than that of the user of ID of accused K.K. Singh whose involvement is in each and every such transaction. He was the person responsible and had authority to create STDRs, to check VVRS and during the working of accused K. K. Singh at Sarita Vihar branch all these entries were made which were stopped as soon as accused K. K. Singh was transferred from this branch. Similar entries, however, were detected in the branch where the accused K. K. Singh had joined, upon which inquiry was also conducted. The most important fact is the benefit of such transactions having been accrued to accused no.1 and his relatives only.

150. Prosecution examined PW26 and PW28 to show the huge investments and transactions done in security and derivatives in the name of A2 i.e. wife of A1 and Navin Kumar. The certified copies of detailed transaction ledgers for the period 1.4.2010 to 31.3.2014 Ex. PW26/C pertaining to the transactions done by A2 and for the period 1.3.2009 to 31.3.2015 Ex. PW26/D pertaining to the transactions done in the name of Navin Kumar were brought on record by PW26.

151. PW28 also brought the financial statement for the year 1.4.2009 to 31.3.2014 with regard to trading code in the name of A2. This witness was from the Religare Security Limited where A2 had made payments and taken pay outs aggregating to Rs.4.63 crores (approx) and Rs.1.40 crores (approx) respectively during the above said period. It was also informed that around CC No. : 47/2016 61/67 Rs.2.30 crores were lost by the client during the said period in derivatives segment and Rs.90 lakhs were also lost by the client in capital segment. Profit and Loss Account of A2 in cash segment and derivatives segment respectively were brought on record as Ex. PW28/F and Ex. PW28/G which points out towards the huge investments made in name of A2 with Religare Securities. Though this witness was not able to tell, by the available record, that from which account of the client the amount had been credited and also stated that Religare Securities is having only the record of cheque details given by the clients but this witness reiterated that the amount credited to said trading account had been credited from the mapped bank account in the name of A2 from DD provided by client. Ex. PW42/J is cheque from joint account of accused K.K. Singh and Kumari Vandana including NEFT request form, by which amount of Rs. 60,000/ was paid to Mansukh Security and Finance Ltd. the relevant debit entry in statement of account bearing no. 61040287649 is reflected in D8 dated 9.7.2009. The contents of cheque/NEFT request (Q151 to Q166) were opined by CFSL expert to be in handwriting and signature of accused K.K. Singh. Further, on Ex. PW42/O (colly) (Q204, Q210, Q217, Q 224, Q229, Q232, Q234, Q235, Q242 to Q248, Q256, Q263, Q266 to Q 272, Q274 and Q275) which are different cheques from the account of K.K. Singh and Kumari Vandana Sinha issued in favour of Mansukh Securities and Finance Ltd, LIC and self cheques, some of the contents of cheques and signatures were opined to be in handwriting and signatures of accused K.K. Singh. Further, the contents of Ex. PW42/S to Ex. PW42/X9 ( Q290, Q291, CC No. : 47/2016 62/67 Q293 to Q295, Q297, Q343, Q294 and Q404) which are cheques alongwith deposit slips of the account of Vandana Sinha by which the investments were made, contents of the cheques were opined to be in the handwriting of accused K.K. Singh.

152. A property in name of A2 was also purchased which was sold by mother of PW22 through PW23. The consideration amount of Rs. 6.40 lacs was paid in the form of cash and direct deposit in bank. The amount of Rs. 3 lacs for the payment was given to PW23 through RTGS in his account for onward payment to the mother of PW22 and the said amount was paid by him to seller in cash after withdrawal from bank.

153. A2 herself did not know about the source of payment for purchase of the said property, though was aware that a property was purchased in her name. A 1 in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. stated about the said property having been purchased by his father in law, in name of his wife, however, no such supporting evidence was brought on record by Accused persons in the defence. The accounts operating in the name of accused persons and the other fake accounts reveal the transactions of huge amount. Accused K.K. Singh was working in bank and his source of funding was his salary, whereas A2 is stated to be house wife, though had some earnings from the tuitions which she was taking. The amount of interest of alleged fake STDRs was transferred in the account of A2 from the account of Subhash. The amount was also transferred from the fake accounts in the account of Naveen which was being operated by accused K.K.Singh without the knowledge of Naveen Kumar since Naveen CC No. : 47/2016 63/67 Kumar denied having opened this fake account. Though it was urged on behalf of A2 and A3 that they had no role in transfer of the amount from BGL Account and from the fake accounts to their respective accounts nor they had any role in the creation of fake STDRs and crediting the interest. Fact remains that the huge amount was transferred in their accounts. Prosecution remained successful in proving the case with regard to siphoning off the funds of the bank by A1 and the defence was unable to controvert or to explain with regard to the source of huge funds and transactions in their accounts.

154. It was also submitted that A2 was a house wife and was merely following the instructions of her husband as any other house wife could have done and was putting her signatures wherever so sought by A1. Similarly A3 had blindly signed the cheques and withdrew the amount only on the instructions of accused K.K. Singh due to the relationship between him and A

1. Neither A3 had utilized any such amount nor knew about the source of such funding. A1 himself in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. stated that accounts of A 2 and A3 were operated by him. All the transactions were done by him on behalf of A2 and A3 after obtaining their signatures. They only signed on cheques on his instructions.

155. It was submitted by Ld. Counsel for defence that there was no loss to the bank. Therefore, there was no question of fraudulent and dishonest intention on the part of accused. Reliance was placed upon Abdul Fazal Siddiqui Vs. Fateh Chand Hirawat and Another, wherein it was observed that " the expression 'dishonestly' has been defined as " whoever does anything with the intention of CC No. : 47/2016 64/67 causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person , is said to do that thing 'dishonestly'. 'Fraudulently' has been defined as " a person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise".

156. It was also submitted that it cannot be said that accused formed criminal conspiracy at one time as alleged since none of the witnesses or documents speak about the fact that there was a conspiracy held between the accused in order to cause loss to the bank or cheat the bank as alleged. There may be some allegations of irregularities but the same cannot be termed as criminal act ending in constitution of offence of criminal conspiracy.

157. Charge had been framed against the accused persons u/s 120B IPC r/w sec. 420/467/468/471/477A IPC, besides framing of further charge u/s 13(2) r/w sec. 13 (1) (d) of PC Act against Accused K.K. Singh.

158. A1 with his misdeeds and with dishonest intentions and fraudulent means, by way of creation of fake STDRs to have the accrued interest thereon, credited in the account of accused persons and also by opening of fictitious and fake accounts and by abusing his official position as Public servant cheated the funds of bank where he was employed to the tune of Rs. 331.47 lacs. Wrongful loss was caused to the bank . A1 with his technical expert could have proved to be an asset for the bank but by misusing the said capability, he defrauded and succeeded in siphoning off the huge funds of the bank. The bogus and false documents prepared/entries made and false withdrawals were made by A1. Forged documents/electronic record/entries were used for the purpose of CC No. : 47/2016 65/67 cheating by A1, who also fraudulently and dishonestly used the genuine documents furnished by genuine customers for creation of fraudulent back value dated STDRs which were used by him knowing them to be forged record. A1 being officer/employed with the bank with the intent to defraud the bank, destroyed and falsified the documents/valuable securities and abused his position as Public Servant by using corrupt and illegal means, whereby he obtained for himself and for his other relatives pecuniary advantage, thereby caused wrongful loss to the bank. Prosecution thereby succeeds in proving the allegations levelled against accused no.1 who is held guilty for the offences punishable u/s 420/467/471/477A IPC as well as u/s 13(2) r/w sec. 13 (1) (d) of PC Act.

159. Though A1 has tried to take the responsibility upon him in order to save A2 and A3 by submitting that it was he who was operating their accounts and they were putting signatures upon the documents on his asking. This fact cannot be ignored that both of them though had not participated in preparation of back value dated STDRS and the siphoning off the funds but they were not ignorant of the deposits of huge amount and transactions in their accounts . They assisted A1 in opening the accounts in their respective names which were used for credit of interest amount accrued on fake STDRs as created by accused K.K. Singh and on the strength of cheques duly signed by them and given to accused K.K Singh, he was able to use the same for siphoning of the amount by crediting in their respective accounts. They permitted A1 to use their accounts for deposit of money earned by fraudulent means, thereby, facilitated him in the CC No. : 47/2016 66/67 commission of the crime, thereby cannot be absolved of the responsibility at least for abetting the same. Section 120B IPC refers to an agreement between the parties to do a particular act and to bring home the charge of conspiracy within the ambit of section 120B IPC, it is necessary to establish that there was an agreement between the parties for doing unlawful act . It has to be shown that all means adopted and illegal acts done were in furtherance of the object of conspiracy hatched . As already noted, there was no active participation of accused no.2 & 3 for the misdeeds of accused no.1 in forgery of documents/records/entries and user of the same. Albeit, they had facilitated and abated A1 for committing fraud with the bank by siphoning of the funds in their accounts. The facts of the case disclose the commission of offence u/s 109 IPC for the abetment rather than falling into category of section 120B IPC. Charge for the offence u/s 109 IPC had not been framed against A2 and A3 but the same falling into the category of lesser offence, there is no requirement for the separate charge and A2 and A3, thereby are held guilty u/s 109 IPC r/w section 420 IPC, instead of section u/s 120B IPC r/w sec. 420 IPC but are acquitted from other charges.

160. Resultantly, A1 stands convicted for the offences u/s 420/467/471/477A IPC as well as u/s 13(2) r/w sec. 13 (1) (d) of PC Act and A2 and A3 stand convicted for the offence u/s 109 IPC r/w section 420 IPC. Digitally signed SAVITA by SAVITA RAO Date:

                                                                             RAO            2018.12.07
                                                                                            13:33:21 +0530


Announced in the Open Court                                  (Savita Rao)
Today on 07.12.2018                          Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI01(South) 
                                                        Saket Courts : New Delhi




CC No. : 47/2016                                                                          67/67

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi District Court

The Part Of Accused. Reliance Was Placed ... vs . Fateh on 7 December, 2018