Delhi District Court
State vs Sushil Kumar on 17 January, 2026
In the Court of Dr. Ruchi Aggarwal Asrani : Special Judge
(PC Act) (ACB)-02 Rouse Avenue Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLCT11-000608-2019
CC No. : 138/2019
FIR No.: 45/2007
Police Station: ACB
U/s.13(1)(d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
read with Section 420/467/468/471/120B/34 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860.
State
Vs.
1. Sh. Sushil Kumar
S/o Sh. Satyapal,
R/o A-3/390, East Gokalpuri, Shahdara, Delhi.
2. Sh. Veer Pal Singh
S/o Sh. Babu Singh,
R/o 10/120, A Block, Meethapur Extn., Badarpur, New Delhi-44.
3. Sh. Dinesh Kumar Gupta
S/o Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta,
R/o 109, Sewa Nagar, Ghaziabad (UP) and permanent address:
D-88/A, Gali No.9, Jyoti Colony, Shahdara, Delhi.
4. Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta
S/o Late Sh. Banwari Lal,
R/o VPO Ghitora, Distt. Bagpat (UP).
5. Sh. Jitender Kumar Sharma
S/o Late Sh. Kishan Chand Sharma,
R/o 161, Gali No.14, Balbir Nagar Extn., Shahdara, Delhi.
6. Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma @ Rishi Pal
S/o Late Sh. Kishan Chand Sharma,
CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 1 of 194
R/o 161, Gali No.14, Balbir Nagar Extn., Shahdara, Delhi.
.......Accused
Date of institution : 27.09.2017
Date of conclusion
of final arguments : 26.11.2025
Date of judgment : 17.01.2026
JUDGMENT
1. The present criminal case originated from a charge- sheet filed by the State against accused persons namely Sh. Sushil Kumar, Sh. Veer Pal Singh, Sh. Dinesh Kumar Gupta, Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta, Sh. Jitender Kumar Sharma and Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma @ Rishi Pal alleging commission of offences punishable under Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'PC Act') and Sections 419/420/467/468/471/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC').
Brief facts:
2. As per the charge-sheet, FIR of this case was registered by Inspector N. K. Sharma of Anti Corruption Branch of Government of NCT of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'ACB') on the basis of a letter/complaint bearing no. F.438/SKD/BONN/Vig-132 dated 23.08.2006, written by Sh. Subhash Chandra, General Manager of Delhi SC/ST/OBC/ Minorities Handicapped Financial & Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'DSFDC'). It has been alleged that upon examination of the file no.438/SKD/BONN, pertaining to grant of loan of Rs. 50,000/- to Sh. Rishi Pal S/o Sh. Tidda Ram, CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 2 of 194 R/o C-56, Karawal Nagar, Delhi-94, the higher officials of DSHFDC discovered that DSHFDC had been defrauded by some persons and the matter required thorough investigation by an outside agency because DSHFDC did not have the requisite infrastructure to investigate the fraud. Pursuant to the said complaint, FIR No. 45/2007 was registered at P.S. ACB and the investigation was initiated.
Investigation:
3. The investigation of this case has been conducted over a span of 10 years by Inspector N. K. Sharma, Inspector Kailash Chandra, Inspector Pankaj Sharma, Inspector Rakesh Kumar and Inspector Rohtash Kumar of ACB and it has been found that:
(a) In the year 2003, DSHFDC was granting loans to the weaker sections of the society, including safai karamcharis, under a scheme known as SKD loans scheme;
(b) The process of grant of loans under the SKD loans scheme, involved 8 steps viz. (i) issuance and receipt of free loan application form by the Entrepreneurship Guidance Cell ('EG Cell') of DSHFDC, (ii) scrutiny of the loan application form by the dealing assistant of the SKD loans scheme, (iii) survey/inspection/verification of the applicant by the Field Inspector appointed by the Scheme In-charge/Branch In-charge,
(iv) placing of loan file before the Loan Screening Committee ('LSC') for interviewing the applicant, checking the originals of his/her documents, studying the report prepared by Field CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 3 of 194 Inspector and approving the sanction of the loan to the applicant,
(v) completion of post sanction formalities by the concerned dealing assistant consisting of collection of original payslip, office I-card, photographs of the applicant and collection of residence proof of guarantor, complete hypothecation deed, guarantee deed, post dated cheques etc., (vi) scrutiny of the loan file by Loan Accounts Section ('LAS') for sending to the competent authority for final approval/sanction of the loan, (vii) preparation of cheque in favour of the applicant by the Finance & Accounts Department of DSHFDC, so that it can be disbursed by the personal section of the Managing Director of DSHFDC to the applicant against proper receipt, after verification of identity of the applicant and (viii) preparation of master loan register and recovery fact sheet for making of necessary entries by the concerned branch of DSHFDC; and
(c) In the year 2003, the accused persons, 3 of whom were/are employees of DSHFDC, had hatched a criminal conspiracy to prepare forged documents, used them to defraud DSHFDC into sanctioning/granting a loan of Rs.50,000/- under the SKD loans scheme, in the name of a fictitious person viz. Sh. Rishi Pal S/o Sh. Tidda Ram, R/o C-56, Karawal Nagar, Delhi-94 and utilized/appropriated the said money, for their own ends/purposes.
4. It has been further alleged as follows:
(a) In pursuance of the aforesaid criminal conspiracy, the accused, Sh. Sushil Kumar, who was employed as a peon at the Nand Nagri Branch of DSHFDC in 2003, had made an entry CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 4 of 194 dated 17.01.2003 at serial no. 232 of the form issue register (available at page no.34 of the said register), showing issuance of loan application form no. 6640 of SKD loans scheme to Sh. Rishi Pal S/o Sh. Tidda Ram, R/o 196, Bhola Nath Nagar, Delhi;
(b) Further, the Form Issue register has another entry at page no.
52 (which could not be attributed to any accused) viz. entry dated 16.06.2003 at serial no. 258, showing issuance of loan application form no. 6769 of the SKD loans scheme to a fictitious person namely Sh. Rishi Pal S/o Sh. Kidda, R/o C-56, West Karawal Nagar, New Delhi;
(c) Accused Sushil Kumar had brought the application form no. 6769 (issued to the fictitious person, Sh. Rishi Pal S/o Sh. Kidda, R/o C-56, West Karawal Nagar, New Delhi) with the details of Sh. Rishi Pal S/o Sh. Tidda, R/o 196, Bhola Nath Nagar, Delhi to Sh. Sanjay Kumar, another peon at the Nand Nagri Branch of DSHFDC and requested him to enter it in the SKD receipt register;
(d) In view of the request made by the accused Sushil Kumar, the other peon, Sh. Sanjay Kumar had entered the application form no. 6769 with the details of Sh. Rishi Pal S/o Sh. Tidda, R/o 196, Bhola Nath Nagar, Delhi in the SKD receipt register on the same day i.e. 19.06.2003, vide entry at serial no.438 (available at page no.23 of the said register) and made an endorsement to the effect that the form had been brought by the accused, Sh. Sushil Kumar;
CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 5 of 194(e) Accused Sushil Kumar and Accused Dinesh Kumar Gupta (who was employed as LDC at the Nand Nagri Branch of DSHFDC in 2003) had used the entry no. 438 of the above- mentioned wrongly received loan application form no. 6769 to initiate a loan file (viz. file no. 438/BONN/SKD) of a new fictitious person viz. Sh. Rishi Pal S/o Sh. Tidda Ram, R/o C-56, West Karawal Nagar, Delhi (i) with forged form no. 2038 (a form qua which no entry exists in the above-mentioned registers viz. form issue register and SKD receipt register), when the established practice at DSHFDC was to ensure that the receipt serial number of a particular application form is to be used for that particular application form only and not for any other application form and (ii) with photocopy of forged ration card no.121708 in the name of Sh. Rishi Pal S/o Sh. Tidda Ram, R/o E-56, West Karawal Nagar, Delhi;
(f) The Accused Dinesh Kumar Gupta had processed the above- mentioned loan file no.438/BONN/SKD (knowing it to be of a fictitious person) vide note-sheet no.1/N and while doing so, mischievously hid from his superior officers (i) that the loan application form no.2038 had no entry in the above-mentioned two registers viz. Form Issue Register and SKD Receipt Register and (ii) that the Ration Card received along with the loan application form had the address of the applicant as E-56, West Karawal Nagar, instead of the address mentioned in the loan application form viz. C-56, West Karawal Nagar, Delhi;
(g) Due to the deception practiced by the accused Dinesh Kumar Gupta, Sh. Krishna Kumar, the Branch Incharge of the Nand CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 6 of 194 Nagri Branch of DSHFDC innocently marked the loan application of the fictitious person viz. Sh. Rishi Pal S/o Sh. Tidda Ram, R/o C-56, West Karawal Nagar, Delhi, for verification by the accused, Sh. Veerpal Singh, then working as the Field Inspector in the Nand Nagri Branch of DSHFDC;
(h) The accused/Field Inspector Veerpal Singh prepared an undated field inspection report (available at note-sheet no.2/N), inter-alia falsely reporting (i) that he had personally met the fictitious person viz. Sh. Rishi Pal S/o Sh. Tidda Ram at C-56, West Karawal Nagar, Delhi; (ii) that the said fictitious person had told him that he is already running a shop of shoes/ chappals in a 9 x 10 shop at his residence and (iii) that he had seen the original documents of the said fictitious person;
(i) In view of the false report prepared by the accused Veerpal Singh, the branch in-charge of the Nand Nagri Branch of DSHFDC accepted the loan application of the fictitious person viz. Sh. Rishi Pal S/o Sh. Tidda Ram, R/o C-56, West Karawal Nagar, Delhi to be genuine and forwarded it for consideration by the LSC;
(j) The loan application of the fictitious person viz. Sh. Rishi Pal S/o Sh. Tidda Ram, R/o C-56, West Karawal Nagar, Delhi was approved by the LSC on 06.08.2003;
(k) After the aforesaid approval by LSC, in pursuance of the aforesaid criminal conspiracy, the accused Dinesh Kumar Gupta placed on record on the loan file (i) a letter no. 3622 dated 27.08.2003, with an endorsement, "mujhe patra mein di gayi CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 7 of 194 sabhi shartein manjoor hain - Rishipal". This was forged by the accused Sushil Kumar and (ii) fake/forged documents of the guarantor Sh. Madan Mohan.
(l) In view of the aforesaid letter/forged endorsement, the loan was finally approved in the name of fictitious person viz. Sh. Rishi Pal S/o Sh. Tidda Ram, R/o C-56, West Karawal Nagar, Delhi;
(m) One of the post loan approval formalities was the giving of 46 postdated cheques by the fictitious person viz. Sh. Rishi Pal S/o Sh. Tidda Ram, R/o E-56, West Karawal Nagar, Delhi to DSHFDC. The accused Anil Kumar Gupta (working as a clerk at Khari Baoli Branch of the Delhi State Co-operative Bank Ltd. as well as accused Vinod Kumar Sharma got a savings account number 2391, opened at Khari Baoli Branch of the Delhi State Co-operative Bank Ltd. on 21.11.2003 in the name of Sh. Rishi Pal S/o Sh. Tidda Ram, R/o E-56, West Karawal Nagar, Delhi by using the forged copy of ration card of a genuine person viz. Sh. Rishi Pal S/o Sh. Tidda Ram, R/o E-56, West Karawal Nagar, Delhi, provided by the accused Sushil Kumar and by using the photograph of the accused Vinod Kumar Sharma;
(o) Accused Sushil Kumar forged the signatures of the fictitious person viz. Sh. Rishi Pal S/o Sh. Tidda Ram, R/o E-56, West Karawal Nagar, Delhi on the 46 cheques, drawn upon account number 2391, Khari Baoli Branch, Delhi State Co-operative Bank Ltd. and submitted them to DSHFDC, for completion of post loan approval formality;
CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 8 of 194(p) Cheque no. 434351 of Rs.50,000/- dated 20.07.2004 was issued by DSHFDC in the name of fictitious person viz. Sh. Rishi Pal S/o Sh. Tidda Ram, R/o C-56, West Karawal Nagar, Delhi;
(q) All the accused persons decided not to present the aforesaid cheque of Rs.50,000/- for encashment in account number 2391, Khari Baoli Branch, Delhi State Co-operative Bank Ltd. and therefore submitted (i) an application to SHO, PS Gokalpuri, reporting that cheque no(s).657741 to 657800 had been lost while traveling in bus having route no.261 and (ii) an application to the Delhi State Co-operative Bank Ltd., Khari Baoli Branch, on 11.09.2004 for closure of account no.2391;
(r) that in pursuance of the aforesaid criminal conspiracy, the accused Sushil Kumar and accused Vinod Kumar Sharma (with the assistance of an introducer Sh. Jai Narayan Solanki) got opened an account no.1159153 at GPO, Kashmeri Gate, on 06.07.2014 in the name of Sh. Rishi Pal S/o Sh. Tidda Ram, R/o E-56, West Karawal Nagar, Delhi, for the purpose of encashing the aforesaid cheque no. 434351 and ultimately withdrew the sum of Rs.50,000/- from the said account no.1159153 by using self cheque no.446251 on 26.07.2004; and
(s) Accused Jitender Kumar Sharma introduced the accused Vinod Kumar Sharma (who is his real brother) to the other accused of this case knowing that the accused Vinod Kumar Sharma will impersonate as the fictitious person, Sh. Rishi Pal S/o Sh. Tidda Ram, R/o E-56, West Karawal Nagar, Delhi before CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 9 of 194 the authorities of DSFDC, the officials of Khari Baoli Branch of the Delhi State Co-operative Bank Ltd. and the GPO, Kashmeri Gate, Delhi.
4. The IOs also recorded the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.PC and after completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed.
5. It has been further alleged in the chargesheet that all the accused persons are liable to be prosecuted, convicted and sentenced u/s 420/467/468/471/120B/34 IPC and s 13(1)(d)/13 (2) PC Act in view of the investigation as well as the statements of (i) the genuine Sh. Rishi Pal S/o Sh. Tidda Ram, R/o E-56, West Karawal Nagar, Delhi, (ii) public witness, Smt. Anita, (iii) public witness, Sh. Madan Mohan, (iv) the relevant witnesses/officials of DSHFDC, (v) the witnesses from Delhi State Co-operative Bank Ltd. and GPO, Kashmeri Gate, Delhi and (vi) the handwriting expert, Sh. S. L. Mukhi of Truth Lab, Delhi.
II. Framing of charge:
6. Charge under sections 120-B IPC r/w Section 420/467/468/471 IPC and section 13(1)(d)/13(2) PC Act; section 419 IPC r/w section 120B IPC; section 420 IPC r/w section 120B IPC; section 467 r/w section 120B IPC; section 474 r/w section 120B IPC and Section 13 (1) (d)/ 13(2) PC Act r/w section 120B IPC was framed against accused Sushil Kumar on 31.05.2018 to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 10 of 1947. Charge under sections 120-B IPC r/w Section 420/467/468/471 IPC and section 13(1)(d)/13(2) PC Act; section 420 IPC r/w section 120B IPC; section 467 r/w section 120B IPC; section 474 r/w section 120B IPC and Section 13 (1) (d)/ 13(2) PC Act r/w section 120B IPC was framed against accused Veer Pal Singh on 31.05.2018 to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
8. Charge under sections 120-B IPC r/w Section 420/467/468/471 IPC; section 420 IPC r/w section 120B IPC; section 467 r/w section 120B IPC; section 474 r/w section 120B IPC and Section 13 (1) (d)/ 13(2) PC Act r/w section 120B IPC was framed against accused Dinesh Kumar Gupta on 31.05.2018 to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
9. Charge under sections 120-B IPC r/w Section 420/467/468/471 IPC; section 420 IPC r/w section 120B IPC; section 467 r/w section 120B IPC; section 474 r/w section 120B IPC and Section 13 (1) (d)/ 13(2) PC Act r/w section 120B IPC was framed against accused Anil Kumar Gupta on 31.05.2018 to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
10. Charge under section 420 IPC r/w section 120B IPC; section 467 r/w section 120B IPC; section 474 r/w section 120B IPC was framed against accused Jitender Kumar Sharma on 31.05.2018 to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
11. Charge under section 420 IPC r/w section 120B IPC; section 467 r/w section 120B IPC; section 474 r/w section CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 11 of 194 120B IPC was framed against accused Vinod Kumar Sharma on 31.05.2018 to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
12. Perusal of the chargesheet revealed that the case of the prosecution is that accused Vinod Kumar Sharma had impersonated as Rishipal to cheat DSFDC. In these circumstances, additional altered charge under Section 419/120-B of IPC was framed against accused Vinod Kumar Sharma on 23.12.2025.
III. Prosecution Evidence:
13. In support of its case, prosecution examined total 59 witnesses.
14. PW-1 - Sh. Madan Mohan Chauhan deposed that in the year 2008, he was posted as Lab Assistant in the Central School, Pitam Pura, New Delhi when he was called to ACB and was confronted by the IO with a Guarantee Bond executed with respect to an SKD loan sanction of Rs.50,000/- in favour of Rishi Pal S/o. Tidda Ram. He further deposed that he had seen the guarantee bond and exhibited it as Ex.PW1/A purported to have been signed by him on page no.7. He also deposed that the said bond was never executed by him at any point of time and also did not bear his signatures and the signatures appearing at page no. 7 purported to be of Madan Mohan at point X1 to X3 and on X4 and X5 (as guarantor) are false and fabricated and not his. He also deposed that the signatures purported to be of him appearing on other places of documents on page nos. 1 to 7 at points X6 to X18 are not his and they are also false and fabricated. He had CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 12 of 194 also seen the copy of certificate of Secondary School, copy of identity card in the name of M. M. Chauhan, copy of Ration Card in the name of Madan Mohan, pay certificate in the name of Madan Mohan which are marked as Mark PW1/B to Mark PW1/E in respect of which he deposed that the said documents are also forged and fabricated and do not belong to him. He had also gone through the copy of ration card wherein the residence of the card holder was shown as Bagichi Nangal Rai, but he deposed that he had never resided at any such address in his entire life. The names of family members shown in the ration card are also not his. He had never studied at Govt. Sr. Secondary School at Gokul Puri, Delhi as indicated in the certificate of 12th class Mark PW1/B. He did not know any person namely Naresh and Ombir Singh who are shown as witness in the guarantee bond Ex.PW1/A. Further, he never stood guarantor for Rishi Pal S/o. Tidda Ram during his whole life. During investigation, IO had taken his handwriting specimen on 4 sheets which are Ex.PW1/F to Ex.PW1/I bearing his signatures at point X. He had also handed over the copy of his original ration card as ID Card to the IO which was sezied vide Seizure memo Ex.PW1/J bearing his signatures at point A. The photocopy of Ration card and ID Card were marked as Mark PW-1/K and Ex.PW1/L. He could not produce the original of both the documents as the ration card had already been surrendered and the ID Card had also been submitted in the department after his retirement.
15. PW-2 - Sh. Jitender Kumar deposed that he remained posted as Zonal Incharge since November 2005 to July CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 13 of 194 2007 and being the Deputy Manager, he was aware that in the year 2003-04, SKD finance scheme was launched by his department. When he was called by the official of ACB in the year 2007-08, then he came to know regarding a case which had been registered by ACB regarding sanctioning of loan of Rs.50,000/- under the SKD Finance scheme in the name of Rishi Pal S/o Tidda Ram. During investigation, he was shown the documents with respect to the sanctioning of the said loan by the IO and he explained the detailed procedures and steps for obtaining and sanctioning the SKD loan to the IO. He also explained the role of the officials in sanctioning of such loan. He had provided the information regarding the same in the form of a noting to the IO.
16. PW-2 further deposed that the safai karamchari who was an employee and their dependent family memebrs were eligible to obtain the loan under the SKD finance scheme. The eligible applicant could obtain the requisite form from the EG cell of the office or from the public representative i.e MLA, MP etc. or the non-official directors of the board. He also deposed that the duly filled up form was to be annexed with the caste certificate, ration card and other documents as required in the application form whereafter, an entry was to be made in the form receipt register. The said documents were required to be attested by a Gazetted Officer. After the entry was made, the same was given a registration number and then it was sent to the dealing clerk. The dealing clerk would check the form and put it up before Branch Incharge to mark the same for field verification. Thereafter, the application form was marked to the concerned CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 14 of 194 Field Inspector for field verification. The Field inspector used to visit the given address of the applicant, where he had to personally meet the applicant and to verify all the documents annexed with the application as well as his address and financial condition and occupation. After satisfaction, he prepared a detailed report containing the recommendation to sanction or not to sanction the loan which was to be forwarded to the Branch Manager/Scheme Incharge. Thereafter, the Branch incharge sent the file to the LSC for final decision. Branch Incharge also issued a letter to the applicant to appear before the LSC at the given time and place and the LSC would ensure the presence of the applicant, his attendance would be marked; and then he would be interviewed by the committee comprising of 3-4 members and the concerned Branch Incharge alongwith Scheme Incharge. The documents annexed with the application form would be checked by the committee and accordingly they passed their observations/recommendations for sanctioning of loan duly signed by all the members. The recommendation was then sent to the MD/chairman for approval. The applicant was also interviewed by the LSC and after sanctioning the loan, the sanction and agreement letter were sent to the applicant to fulfill the post sanction formalities and the applicant had to appear in the branch alonwith the guarantor with all the requisite documents of the guarantee. The dealing assistant got the HP Deed signed from the applicant and also got the guarantee deed filled and signed from the guarantor in the presence of two witnesses. The affidavit and post dated cheques of the applicant were also obtained. After getting satisfied, the Scheme Incharge CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 15 of 194 sent the file to LAS for scrutiny. Thereafter, LAS sent the file to the competent authority for final approval and sanction. After competent authority approved the loan file, the same was dealt by Finance and Accounts Department (FAD) who prepared the cheque and got the same signed by the General Manager/MD or someone from the finance department. Thereafter, the loan cheque alongwith the file was sent to the MD for disbursement of the loan. The cheque used to be directly handed over to the applicant on verification of identity and against proper receipt.
17. Thereafter, the file was sent to the concerned branch where the entry of the loan was made in the master loan register as well as in the recovery Facts sheet and the dealing clerk used to prepare these documents which were signed by the branch incharge. All the relevant entries of applicant, guarantor, PDC cheque were entered in the said sheet. The photograph of the applicant as well as the guarantor was also pasted at the appropriate space in the MLR. He had seen the copy of noting sheet which was mark PW2/A in which the detailed steps taken for sanctioning of the loan and also stated by him in his previous statement had been elaborated. The noting sheet also bore his detailed note at point X to X bearing his signatures at point A. He had also seen the form receipt register Ex. PW2/B wherein the name of the Rishipal son of Tida Ram was mentioned at Sl. No.438 wherein his residential address had been mentioned as 196 Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi. He had gone through the Loan file No.438/SKDBONN Ex. PW3/B, wherein the loan application form Ex.PW3/B2 of alleged Rishi Pal son of Tida Ram was lying where his address was mentioned as C-56, West CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 16 of 194 Karawal Nagar, Delhi-94. It was observed by the Court that after perusing the document mark Ex. PW2/A, witness had stated that he had given his opinion/report qua the document Ex.PW3/B2 with respect to two different addresses. The portion of the note sheet Ex. PW2/A was marked as X to X.
18. At that stage, Ld. APP wanted to ask leading questions from the witness. (Same was objected by Ld. Defence counsel on the ground that the same was not introductory or undisputed question but the same was allowed).
19. Ld. APP asked the witness that before issuing loan application form, the EG Cell used to check/verify the documents alongwith the original i.e. ration card/election card, cast certificate etc. of the applicant and also ensure at the time of receiving of the form that all columns were duly filled up as per the application, to which he replied in the affirmative. Ld. PP for the State also asked the witness whether the forms which are issued otherwise than the EG Cell, are required to be more scrutinized by the department to which, the witness replied that it is the duty of the person who received the form to scrutinize the same properly but there is no difference as to the level of scrutiny in the form issued from the EG Cell or other than EG Cell. Ld. PP for the State also put a question to the witness that after going through mark PW2/A form receipt register, application form Ex.PW3/B2 and the document annexed with the form, whether a proper scrutiny in processing the loan had been carried out in the present case to which, the witness answered that after going CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 17 of 194 through the said documents, he observed that a proper scrutiny was not carried out for the purpose of processing the loan.
20. PW-3 - Sh. Jitender Kumar deposed that on 19.2.2008, he was posted as UDC in DSFDC and on that day, he produced the file No. 438/SKD/BONN in the ACB before the IO Inspector Kailash Chander in pursuance of letter No.10351/NKS/ACB (Mark X) dated 19.11.07. The file was in two sections i.e. one containing note sheet (consisting of 6 pages i.e. 1 N to 6 N) and other containing correspondence consisting of 26 pages. The correspondence file did not have page on 2C. The documents at page No. 14C i.e. hypothecation deed (Ex.PW3/B1) and application form (Ex.PW3/B2) at 4C did not have the photograph of the applicant. On that day, he had seen the original loan file (Ex.PW3/B (Colly.) He had seen the original loan file of Rishi Pal son of Tidda Ram that had noting file running from page 1 to 6N in original (Ex.PW3/C1 to Ex.PW3/C4). The original affidavit without date attested by Notary Public was exhibited as Ex.PW3/D and one photocopy of ration card in the name of Rishi Pal son of Tidda Ram was exhibited Ex. PW3/E. The original office copy of interview letter was Ex. PW3/F; one photocopy of minutes of LAC was exhibited as Ex.PW3/G; office copy of sanction letter was exhibited Ex.PW3/G; pay slip of the guarantor which was marked as Mark-PW1/E was exhibited as Ex. PW3/H; attested copy of ration card of guarantor which was earlier marked as Mark-PW1/D was exhibited as Ex. PW3/1; attested copy of the identity card of the guarantor which was earlier exhibited as Ex. PW1/C was re-exhibited as Ex. PW3/J; certificate of CBSE of CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 18 of 194 guarantor which was earlier Mark-PW1/B was exhibited as Ex.PW3/K; affidavit of the applicant of personal guarantee was exhibited as Ex. PW3/L; affidavit of the legal heir was exhibited as Ex. PW3/M; bond of guarantee was already Ex. PW1/A; attested copy of electricity bill was exhibited as Ex.PW3/N; the acceptance of loan of the applicant on the document was exhibited as Ex.PW3/O; copy of promoter contribution was exhibited as Ex.PW3/P; original letter for forwarding of 46 cheques was exhibited as Ex. PW3/Q; original check list was exhibited as Ex. PW3/R; original expenditure sanction of Rs.50,000/- was exhibited as Ex.PW3/S; original voucher of Rs.50,000/- was Ex. PW3/T; copy of fact sheet which was lying in the file was exhibited Ex. PW3/U; original certificate for sending the file to FRD section for recovery was exhibited as Ex.PW3/V. He had also brought the original vigilance inquiry file in the court and the photocopy of the noting running from P1N to P39N were exhibited as Ex. PW3/X (collectively). The original of the document which was earlier marked as Mark- PW2/A was exhibited as Ex. PW3/Y.
21. PW-4 - Sh. Vijay Choudhary deposed that in the year 2008, he was posted as Branch Manager in Delhi State Co- operative Bank Ltd., Khari Baoli, Delhi. During the investigation, PW-4 was confronted with Account no. 2931 by the IO, which was opened in the name of Sh. Rishi Pal S/o Sh. Tidda Ram. He further deposed that account no. 2931 was opened in the name of Sh. Rishi Pal S/o Sh. Tidda Ram on 21.11.2003 and the account was introduced by Sh. Arun Tiwari who was a peon in the said branch. The account was opened CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 19 of 194 with the permission of Smt. Dayawanti (bank official of the said branch) and her signatures are also present on the form. The account was opened by the clerk Sh. Pawan Kumar Sharma whose signatures are also appearing on the account opening form. The account opening Form was exhibited as Ex.PW4/A which bore the signatures of introducer at point A, of Smt. Dayawanti at point B and Sh. Pawan Sharma at point C. The specimen card of the said account was exhibited as Ex.PW4/B which also bears the signatures of Dayawanti at point-A. He further deposed that an application for closing of the bank account and for misplacement of cheques was also received with regard to the aforesaid account and the said applications were allowed by the then Manager, Sh. Raj Singh. The application for closure of account was exhibited as Ex.PW4/C and the intimation for misplacement of cheque was exhibited as Ex.PW4/D. Both the documents bore the signatures of the then Manager Sh. Raj Singh at point-A. The document called for loose cheque used for the purpose of withdrawal pertaining to the account no. 2931 was exhibited as Ex.PW4/E. The photocopy of the ledger of the said account was marked as Mark PW4/F and the photocopy of the ration card used for the purpose of opening of account was marked as Mark PW4/G. The accused present in the court on that day i.e Sh. Anil Gupta was also working in the said bank as a clerk at the relevant time when the bank account was opened.
22. PW-5 - Sh. R. K. Anand being the panch witness deposed that specimen handwriting and signatures of Madan Mohan Chauhan were taken by the IO in his presence on a plain CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 20 of 194 sheet (Ex. PW-1/F and Ex.PW-1/I bearing his signatures at point B.) The documents were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-5/A. He also deposed that Sh. Madan Mohn handed over the photocopy of his ration card and ID (Ex. PW1/K and Ex. PW1/L) and that the same were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/J.
23. PW-6 - Sh. Manmohan Khinchi deposed that being the Manager in the department of DSFDC office, Nand Nagri, Delhi, he produced one SKD loan application issue register in original; one register SKD application form receipt register as well as one attested copy of master loan register along with a detailed letter bearing No. BO/NN/270. He further deposed that all the said documents were seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW6/A. The form receipt register (Ex.PW2/B) marks the entry of the loan application form of Rishi Pal at serial No.438 page No.23 and the application form No. has been mentioned as 6769. He proved the attested copy of the master loan register (Ex.PW6/B) and Letter referred BO/NN/270 (Ex. PW6/C) with regard to the handing over of the FSL documents. He also deposed that as per record, the application form entered at page No. 23 of the register (Ex. PW2/B) was not issued from the branch.
24. PW-7 - Sh. Manoj Rawat deposed that he was posted as data Entry Operator in Delhi State Cooperative Bank and that he and Sh. P. K. Sharma, the then Branch Manager handed over the original saving bank account opening form of account no.2931 (Ex.PW4/A) alongwith specimen signature card CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 21 of 194 (Ex.PW4/B) of Sh. Rishi Pal S/o Sh. Tidda Mal. He relied on one photocopy of the ration card bearing no. B-750952 in the name of Sh. Rishi Pal S/o Sh. Tidda Mal (already Mark PW4/G); one original application dated 11.09.2004 for closure of the aforesaid account (already Ex.PW4/C); another application for misplacement of cheque book (already Ex.PW4/D) and photocopy of the ledger of page no.310 (already Mark-PW-4/F). He had also brought the attested copy of ledger showing the entry of issue of cheque book to the account holder (photocopy of same was Mark PW7/A wherein the relevant entry is at point X). All the said documents except document Mark PW7/A were seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/B. He had also brought the original cheque book issue register for the relevant period (copy of same was exhibited as Ex.PW7/C (earlier marked as PW7/A). He had also brought the original ledger of account no.2931 (copy of same was exhibited as Ex.PW7/D(earlier marked as PW4/F).
25. PW-8 - Sh. Arun Tiwari deposed that he was working as Peon, Delhi State Co-operative, Khari Baoli and on 21.11.2003, an account was opened in the bank in the name of Rishi Pal. Accused Anil Gupta was working as cashier and he told him that Rishipal was his known and he asked him to introduce Rishipal for opening his saving bank account. All the forms for opening the account were filled up by accused Anil Gupta. He also deposed that accused Anil Gupta wrote his name and account no. in the appropriate column of introducer in the form and thereafter, accused Anil Gupta took his signatures on the said form. PW-8 further deposed that in the year 2008, he CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 22 of 194 came to know that no person ever existed by the name of Rishipal. He tried to trace said Rishipal on many occasions and on 26.10.2008, he went to the office of ACB where one person was sitting and he was told that the name of said person was Vinod Sharma and the photographs of Vinod Sharma and copy of his ration card is available on the account opening form of said Rishipal. At that stage, original account opening form Ex.PW-4/A was shown to the witness and he identified his signatures at point-A. His name and account no. in the form were filled up by accused Anil Gupta. At that stage, original ledger Ex.PW-4/F was shown to the witness who identified the photographs of said person whose introduction was got done through him by accused Anil Gupta. He had correctly identified accused Anil Gupta who was present in the court on that day. However, later he stated that said person who was found sitting in ACB on 26.10.2008 and was introduced as Vinod Sharma was not present in the court. (Court observation: It was informed that Vinod Kumar Sharma had gone to Dispensary, Tis Hazari Courts).
26. PW-9 - Sh. Mukesh Kumar Vaidya deposed that he was working as a Safai Karamchari in MCD and was a member of the Safai Karamchari Union and he alongwith other members of the union usually met outside the office of Shahdara MCD Office, Karkardooma, Delhi. DSHFDC office, Shahdara used to launch various schemes of loan to the unemployed family members of Safai Karamchari time and again. He further deposed that in the month of May-June, a scheme for loan was launched by the DSHFDC office and one safai karamchari CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 23 of 194 namely Rishipal son of Tiddaram who was earlier residing at Bhola Nath Nagar and thereafter, residing at Karawal Nagar had approached him to apply for the loan of Rs.50,000/-. Since most of the safai Karamchai were illiterate and they were unable to meet out the formalities of the loan application, therefore, they used to assist them. Rishi Pal son of Tidaram was then introduced by him, with a person namely Satish Lamba through a lady namely Anita, who was also working in his office. The requisite application form of Rishi Pal son of Tidaram alongwith all the requisite documents i.e. photocopy of ration card, caste certificate, photographs etc. were handed over to Mr. Satish Lamba for depositing the same in the office for seeking the loan. Mr. Satish Lamba had charged a sum of Rs.5,000/- as process fee and he had deposited the loan application form in the office. The witness also deposed that later on, they came to know that the department was asking for a government employee as a guarantor but the same could not be arranged by the applicant and therefore, his loan was not sanctioned and the same was rejected. He came to know about the said fact from Anita. He asked Satish Lamba to return the process fee but he returned only Rs. 2,000/- and the rest of the money was retained by him on the pretext of his own processing charges. Later on, he came to know that the documents submitted by Tidda Ram were misused and a loan of Rs.50,000/- was given to someone else. The documents submitted by the applicant were also not returned back. He deposed that the police had also inquired from him in this regard in the year 2008 and he had given a detailed statement in this regard.
CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 24 of 19427. PW-10 - S.P. Jaiswal deposed that in the month of December 2004 to November 2005, he was posted as Branch Manager, DSFDC, Nand Nagri Branch. The office used to grant loan to persons who were below poverty line, especially to the members of SC/ST/OBC/minority and handicapped persons. The scheme of loan SKD was launched in the year 2003. The Safai Karamchari and their dependents were eligible for apply for loan in the aforesaid scheme. The application form for the said scheme was dealt by the entrepreneur guidance cell (EG Cell) in the Nand Nagri branch. The application form with all the necessary documents were to be submitted in the said branch. A loan case in the name of Rishipal S/o Tiddaram was also received in the branch and it was processed and a loan of Rs.50,000/- was sanctioned in his name and accordingly disbursed. One of the dealing assistants of his office, Mr. Ram Avtar, had informed him that the head office has raised query about missing photograph of the guarantor on the recovery fact sheet file of the applicant Rishipal Pal S/o Tidda Ram. He asked his dealing assistant to enquire about the said fact and accordingly the dealing assistant Ram Avtar had visited the given address of the applicant Rishipal S/o Tidda Ram and he informed him that the applicant was not found residing at the given address and the person named Rishipal S/o Tidda Ram was found residing in some other nearby place. Dealing Assistant Ram Avtar had also met said Rishipal S/o Tidda Ram and he had informed Ram Avtar that he had never obtained/availed any of loan of Rs.50,000/- from DSFDC, Nand Nagri Branch. The CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 25 of 194 matter was accordingly reported to the head quarters. He also deposed that during investigation, he was also called by ACB where he had also seen the recovery fact sheet on page no. 23/C Ex.PW3/O. He perused the document and deposed that it is apparent that the photograph of the guarantor is missing. He had also shown the certificate Ex. PW3/V at page no. 24/C regarding the fact that the loan was entered in the master loan register/fact recovery sheet. This certificate was signed by accused Veerpal bearing his signatures at point A on encircled portion with red ink. He had prepared a detailed report in this regard and also submitted that this fact needed a detailed enquiry.
28. PW-10 deposed that the recovery of loan aspect of the Rishi Pal S/o Tidda Ram was put up by the then dealing assistant Vinod Kumar which was forwarded by accused Veerpal, who was promoted as Asstt. Manager and on the recovery, a detailed note was prepared by Ram Avtar LDC on 26.04.2005 and he brought the fact in his notice. In the note, it was mentioned that the efforts were made to trace Rishipal S/o. Tidda Ram at his given address C-56 Karawal Nagar, Delhi-94 but the address was found fake and thereafter, Ram Avtar had also visited at E-56, Gali No.4, in front of Jagat Dairy, West Karawal Nagar where Rishi Pal S/o Tidda Ram was found residing and the photograph affixed on the loan form was shown to his family member but they had not identified the person whose photo was affixed therein and they informed Ram Avtar that Rishi Pal S/o. Tidda Ram R/o E-56 has never obtained any loan of Rs.50,000/- from DSFDC. He had also requested to get the photograph of the applicant and guarantor be obtained. The CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 26 of 194 noting of Ram Avtar in this regard was on Ex.PW-3/X colly. at point X. The note of Ram Avtar was endorsed by him.
29. He had also brought the original inquiry file pertaining to the transaction in question in respect of Rishi Pal son of Tidda Ram. The copy of the documents which was already Ex.PW3/X(colly) from page 1/N to 39/N of the said inquiry was already on record. The report of Sh. Ram Avtar, official of the branch was already Ex.PW3/X from page 1/N to 2/N bearing his signatures at point X at page 2/N. The photocopy of the letter titled as "Safai Karamchari Rin Yojna" in respect of Rishi Pal which was at page 5/N of Ex.PW3/X(colly) and on page 6/N the photocopy of the recommendation of Veerpal was mentioned with his signature. The said photocopy was already Ex.PW3/X(colly). (The same was also compared with the original of the above said photocopy which are Ex.PW17/A and 17/D. The signature of Veerpal on Ex.PW17/D as well as the photocopy i.e. Ex.PW3/X (colly) at page 6/N are at point X. Thereafter, the report of Veerpal in respect of field inquiry was already Ex.PW3/X from page 3/N to 4/N bearing his signatures at point X. The report of Ram Avtar dated 2.6.05 from page 12/N to 13/N of Ex.PW3/X was filed by Ram Avtar bearing his signatures at point X. Thereafter, he demanded the comprehensive note on the same vide his noting of page 13/N of Ex. PW3/X. His noting on page 13/N bears his signatures at point X. The field inspector Sh. Ashok Shakarwal gave the detailed noting in this respect vide his report from page 14/N to page 16/N bearing his signatures at point X on Ex. PW3/X. He gave his detailed report and also recommendation for getting the CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 27 of 194 matter investigated from some alternative mechanism /agency vide his detailed noting from 16/N to page 21/N on Ex.PW3/X bearing his signature at point X. The date mentioned with the signature of Sh. Ashok Shakarwal was wrongly mentioned as 10.9.05 while it should have been 10.6.05 as he also recommended the action on 10.6.05. During the fact finding inquiry conducted by him, the detail of which was already mentioned on 10.6.05 and as per the report which he had seen in the court and also telling the facts in the court by going through the judicial file. He had telephonically conversed with the Branch Manager, DSCB, Khari Baoli in which the account of so called Rishi Pal was opened and the cheques were given towards the repayment and the said Branch Manager informed him that no transaction in the said saving A/c No.2931 had been conducted by the account holder and it might be possible that cheque of Rs.50,000/- was encashed through some other bank or account. The Branch Manager Sh. Raj Singh had also informed him that the Saving Bank Account in their branch was opened on the introduction of one Sh. Anil Gupta. He briefly told the procedure, from the time the application was received in the branch in respect of loan and till its disbursement at that time as now the procedure had been changed. The same is: a) the application has to be received along with complete documents and the same is entered in the register; b) the dealing clerk would put the application alongwith complete documents to the Branch Manager; c) the branch manager would mark the file to the field inspector for pre-sanction inspection; d) the said field inspector would submit his report to the branch manager; e) the said case CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 28 of 194 would go to LSC; f) the loan sanction committee would conduct further procedure therein; g) the disbursement process, if recommended, would be initiated.
30. PW-10 further deposed that he came to know that the amount pertaining to the loan in question has been deposited with the department. He volunteered that the exact position of the amount was yet to be ascertained since the interest was also to be calculated. During investigation, when he was called in ACB office, he had also seen the other documents in which he had identified the signature of Branch Manager. Original loan Ex. PW3/D was shown to the witness and he deposed that the document 1/N, 2/N and 3/N bears the signatures of branch incharge at Ex. PW17/A, 17/B and 17/D at point B respectively i.e. Krishan Kumar Ji. The signature i.e. Q2 and Q1 on document 3/N and 1/N respectively must have been of dealing clerk as dealing clerk used to place the file before the branch incharge but signatures are not in a proper manner as such he could not tell who had signed the same.
31. PW-11 - Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta deposed that he was posted as Inspector, Transport Department, GNCTD and on 08.11.2008, his duty was as panch witness in ACB. He further deposed that the IO obtained specimen signatures and handwriting of Sanjay Kumar on 6 pages and he had signed on those pages as witness (Ex.PW-11/A (colly.)
32. PW-12 - Sh. Pawan Sharma, Assistant Manager, Delhi State Cooperative Bank, Narela Mandi, Delhi deposed that CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 29 of 194 he was posted in Khari Baoli branch in 2003 when an account was opened in the name of one Rishipal, however, he did not remember the exact account number. He also deposed that the said account was opened on the introduction of one Arun Tiwari who was peon of his bank at that time.
33. He also deposed that Rishipal had come to their bank with one bank employee namely Anil Kumar. Prior to the opening of the account, Rishipal had also visited once or twice in the said bank with Anil Kumar. As per formalities, two photographs as well as copy of ration card was given by Rishipal in order to open the account alongwith the account opening form. Thereafter, he checked the form and saw the ration card and then gave his initial on the account opening form and the same was forwarded to Manager Dayawanti and she had also put her initial on account opening form. Rishipal had also put his signature in his presence at the time of appending his signature on the form. At that time, Arun Tiwari and Anil Kumar were also present there. Arun Tiwari had also signed as an introducer on the said form since he was also the employee of the bank but he had not signed in his presence.
34. At that stage, the original bank account opening form Ex.PW-4/A having account no. 2931 dated 21.11.2003 was shown to the witness and after seeing the same, the witness had replied that it was the same account opening form on which the said account was opened. The witness admitted his signature at point C on Ex.PW-4/A. He also pointed out the signatures of Dayawanti on Ex.PW-4/A at point B and signature of Rishipal.
CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 30 of 194The signature of Rishipal on Ex.PW-4/A were appended by Rishipal in the presence of Dayawanti @ Dayawati as well as in his presence. He also deposed that the specimen signature form Ex.PW-4/B bore his signature on it. He deposed that the photographs were used for the purpose of annexing them on the specimen signature form as well as on the bank ledger. During his examination, the copy of ration card already Mark PW-4/G in the name of Rishipal S/o. Sh. Tidda Ram was shown to the witness and upon seeing the same, PW-12 stated that the same was given by Rishipal.
35. During his examination, the photocopy of ledger of bank Ex. PW-7/D was shown to the witness who stated that it was the copy of bank ledger which bore the photographs of Rishipal. Further, the Bank specimen signature form Ex. PW- 4/B also bore the photograph of Rishipal. PW-12 correctly identified accused Anil Kumar who was present in the court on that day and he also identified the signature of Arun Tiwari in Hindi on account opening form Ex.PW-4/A at encircled point-X.
36. PW-13 - Sh. Panna Lal deposed that he was residing at C-56, Gali No. 5, West Karawal Nagar, Delhi since 1991 and he was the owner of the entire house. He further deposed that he was working as a wireman in CPWD and he had never taken any loan of Rs.50,000/- from any DFSDC Corporation in the year 2003-04 nor any person in the name of Rishi Pal S/o Tidda Ram had ever resided in the aforesaid address or that there was no tenant in the name of Rishipal S/o Tidda Ram in his house at any point of time. His entire house CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 31 of 194 was a residential unit and there was no shop etc. in the said house. He also deposed that in the year 2003-04, no one had come from any department to inquire regarding the loan and later on, he came to know that his aforesaid address had been misused/used by someone for sanctioning the loan. In the year 2008, he was called by ACB and his statement was recorded in the said regard.
37. PW-14 - Sh. P. K. Sharma deposed that he was posted as Branch Manager, Delhi State Co-operative Bank, Khari Baoli and on 26.09.2008, he handed over one original saving bank account opening form No. 2931 bearing the address, signature, profession and specimen signature of Rishipal S/o.Tidda Ram. (The form is Ex.PW-4/A). He further deposed that the form was introduced by Arun Tiwari, bank employee having bank account no. 2287 and the nominee was shown as Ms. Bishambari having address as E-56, West Karawal Nagar. He also handed over one specimen signature card (Ex.PW-4/B) having photograph of account holder with four specimen signature having endorsement of bank clerk Pawan Sharma at point B and of Dayawanti at point-A. The documents i.e. photocopy of ration card bearing no. B-750952 in the name of Rishipal S/o Tidda Ram; the copy of ration card (Ex.PW-14/A); one original application dated 11.09.2004 for closure of the account (Ex.PW-4/C); One photocopy of application for loss of cheque book having serial no.657741 to 657800 (Ex.PW-4/D); photocopy of ledger statement of A/c No. 2931 (Ex.PW-7/D) were seized by the IO vide Seizure memo Ex.PW-7/B. CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 32 of 194
38. PW-15 - Sh. S. K. Jain deposed that he was posted as a PA at GPO Kashmere Gate, Delhi and on 06.07.2004, saving bank account bearing No.1159153 was opened in the name of Rishi Pal son of Tida Ram showing his residential address E-56 West Karawal Nagar, Delhi. He further deposed that the savings bank account was opened by him as he was handling the said seat on that day. The account opening form which was filled up and on the basis of which the aforesaid account was opened also bore the photograph of the applicant and the same was exhibited as Ex.PW15/A. He also deposed that the account holder had signed the application form in his presence and he put his signature on the application form as well as on the place of specimen signature in Hindi and the same bore his signature on the reverse of Ex.PW15/A at the encircled portion at point X and his photograph appears at point Y. PW-15 further deposed that the aforesaid bank account was introduced by one Jai Narayan Solanki R/o A-185 Gokul Puri, Delhi who also had a savings bank account No.1157569 in the said post office and he was also known to one of the post office employees namely Pawan Kumar and that the account of Jai Narayan Solanki was also introduced by Pawan Kumar PA. The said account was opened for Rs.500/- and the account holder had also annexed one copy of ration card. The application form was also endorsed by the then APM at point Z. On opening of the account, a cheque book as well as the pass book of the account were also handed over to the account holder. Since the pin code of the address of the account holder was not filled up in the application form, the account holder mentioned Delhi-94 in his own handwriting upon asking (point CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 33 of 194 Z-1). Nomination of the account was made in the computer at entry No.9389 and the other details were also filled up in the computer. On 20.07.2004, a cheque bearing No. 434351 was deposited in the aforesaid account vide SB 103 which is Ex.PW15/B and the said money was withdrawn from the said account vide cheque No.446251 (Ex. PW15/C). The police official also recorded his statement in this regard on 08.10.2008. He could not recognize the face of the person who got the account opened/account holder at that stage as the period of almost 15 years had already been passed.
39. PW-16 - Sh. Rishipal deposed that he was residing at E-56 Gali No. 4, near Jagat Dairy, West Karawal Nagar for last 20/22 years and he was a permanent employee of MCD, working as a Safai Karamchari. He further deposed that he belonged to Scheduled Caste section of society and had a ration card issued at E-56, West Karawal Nagar. The said Ration Card mentioned total 8 members, his wife, his mother and children. Prior to shifting to West Karawal Nagar, he was residing at 196, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara and had an SC certificate from the said address. He also deposed that he studied up to 5th class. His ration card was issued in his name Rishipal S/o Tidda. In the year 2003, he was in the need of loan and for the said purpose, he had contacted one Mr. Mukesh Vaid in Karkardooma who asked him to arrange a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for the purpose of arranging loan for him. Rishipal gave him some documents for arranging the loan, however, after 5 months of taking those documents, Mukesh told him that his loan has been rejected and no loan whatsoever was sanctioned to him. He deposed that regarding CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 34 of 194 the documents which he handed over to Mukesh at the time of applying for loan, Mukesh had informed him that he had destroyed the same.
40. PW-16 deposed that he did not take any loan from Delhi State SC/ST/OBC/Minority Handicap Finance and Develpment Corporation, Nand Nagri. He also did not get any loan of Rs.50,000/- for the purpose of running a shop of footwears in the year 2003. Thereafter, some person from DSFDC, Nand Nagri came to his house and asked him whether he had applied for any loan from the department since attachment proceedings were going to be initiated against him for obtaining loan but he informed that he had never obtained any kind of loan from DSFDC, Nand Nagri. At that stage, application form no. 2048 Ex.PW3/B2 was shown to the witness and the witness stated that he had not filled up any such form and the form also did not bear his signatures at point A. He had seen the copy of ration card Ex. PW3/E to which he stated that the ration card was not his nor did it bear his photographs and did not even bear his signatures. He further deposed that the details of children mentioned in the ration card were not his, however, it had his and his wife's name. He had also seen the affidavit Ex. PW3/D and deposed that the said affidavit did not bear his signatures at point A. He had also seen the affidavit for personal guarantee as well as legal heir Ex. PW3/L and Ex. PW3/M and deposed that the same did not bear his signatures at point A. He had also seen the hypothecation deed Ex. PW3/B1 to which he stated that it was also not filled up by him nor did the same bear his signatures on any page at point A. In the year 2003, the electricity bill of E-56 CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 35 of 194 was also not in his name. The document Ex. PW3/O also did not bear his signature at point A. He had also not got opened any S/B account in the Delhi State Cooperative Bank Ltd, Khari Baoli nor in the post office GPO in the year 2003. At that stage, the account opening form Ex. PW4/A purportedly to be of Rishipal S/o Tidda Ram was shown to him and he stated that he had never filled up any such form nor did the same bear his signatures at point A on all the places. He deposed that Bishambari is his mother whereas in the account opening form Ex. PW4/A, Bishambari had been shown as nominee and wife of the applicant which was otherwise totally wrong. He had also seen an application for closing of the said account Ex. PW4/C and deposed that he never wrote the said application and it did not bear his signatures at point A. He had also not given any intimation or report Ex.PW4/D with regard to issue of cheque and regarding loss of cheques in the bus and the said application also did not bear his signatures at point A. He had also seen another document Ex.PW4/E and the photocopy of ration card Ex. PW14/A and stated that the same did not bear his photograph. He had also seen the account opening form of account no.1159153 Ex. PW15/A and this form was also not filled up by him nor the same bore his signatures at point A on all the places. He had also seen the voucher Ex.PW15/B with regard to the deposit of Rs.50,000/- and the same was also not filled up by him. He had also seen the withdrawal cheque of Rs. 50,000/- Ex.PW15/C and the same did not bear his signatures at point A on all the places. He had also seen the cheque number 657764 and 657765 Ex. PW16/A and Ex. PW16/B and he stated CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 36 of 194 that both the said cheques did not bear his signatures at point A. He had also seen the cheque no. 657766 and 657767 Ex. PW16/C and Ex. PW16/D and stated that the said cheques also did not bear his signatures at point A. He had also seen the cheque number 657768 and 657769 Ex.PW16/E and Ex.PW16/F and both the cheques did not bear his signatures at point A. He had also seen the cheque number 657770 and 657771 Ex. PW16/G and Ex. PW16/H and stated that both the said cheques also did not bear his signatures at point A. He had also seen the cheque numbers 657772 and 657781 Ex. PW16/I and Ex. PW16/J and none of the said cheques bore his signatures at point A. He had also seen the cheque number 657782 and 657783 Ex. PW16/K and Ex. PW16/L and the said cheques also did not bear his signatures at point A. He had also seen the cheque numbers 657784 and 657785 Ex. PW16/M and Ex. PW16/N and none of the said cheques bore his signatures at point A. He had also seen the cheque numbers 657799 and 657786 Ex. PW16/O and Ex.PW16/P and the said cheques did not bear his signatures at point A. He had also seen the cheque number 657788 and 657789 Ex.PW16/Q and Ex. PW16/R and the said cheques also did not bear his signatures at point A. He had also seen the cheque number 657790 and 657791 Ex. PW16/S and Ex. PW16/T and both the said cheques also did not bear his signatures at point A. He had also seen the cheque number 657792 and 657793 Ex.PW16/U and Ex. PW16/V, both the said cheques also did not bear his signatures at point A. He had also seen the cheque number 657794 and 657795 Ex.PW16/W and Ex. PW16/X, both the said cheques also did not bear his CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 37 of 194 signatures at point A. He had also seen the cheque number 657796 and 657797 Ex.PW16/Y and Ex. PW16/Z, both the said cheques also did not bear his signatures at point A. He had also seen the cheque number 657798 and 657800 Ex. PW16/Z1 and Ex. PW16/Z2, both the said cheques also did not bear his signatures at point A. He had also seen the cheque number 657779 and 657741 Ex.PW16/Z3 and Ex. PW16/Z4, both the said cheques also did not bear his signatures at point A. He had also seen the cheque number 657742 and 657743 Ex. PW16/Z5 and Ex. PW16/Z6 and both the said cheques also did not bear his signatures at point A. He had also seen the cheque number 657780 and 657744 Ex. PW16/Z7 and Ex. PW16/Z8, both the said cheques also did not bear his signatures at point A. He had also seen the cheque number 657745 and 657773 Ex. PW16/Z9 and Ex. PW16/Z10, both the said cheques also did not bear his signatures at point A. He had also seen the cheque number 657774 and 657775 Ex. PW16/Z11 and Ex. PW16/Z12, both the said cheques also did not bear his signatures at point A. He also saw cheque number 657776 and 657777 Ex. PW16/Z13 and Ex. PW16/Z1 and both the cheques did not bear his signatures at point A. He had also seen the cheque number 657778 Ex. PW16/Z15, which also did not bear his signatures at point A. He had also seen the endorsement on the back side of the cheques and the same was also not in his hand nor had he made any such endorsement on all the cheques. He had also seen the specimen signatures card of the bank account no.2931, Delhi State Cooperative Bank Ex.PW4/B and the same did not bear his specimen signature at point A on both the sides, even the CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 38 of 194 signatures on the reverse of the card at point A were stated to be not his. PW-16 deposed that he was also called by the ACB and they had taken his specimen handwriting and signatures on a plain paper (Ex.PW16/Z16 to PW16/Z43) all bearing his signatures at point A. He further deposed that the loan application form was obtained by him from Mukesh Vaid and he had handed over the photocopy of caste certificate and copy of ration card to Mukesh Vaid. Mukesh Vaid had introduced him with one Anita who used to work in loan office and then the application form alongwith the document was given to her for deposit in the office. He deposed that the form was also filled by him with the assistance of Anita and Mukesh Vaid. The loan could not be sanctioned to him as they were asking for the government guarantor. He was informed by Anita and Mukesh Vaid that his loan application as well as documents were deposited by them in the office of DSFDC office and after rejecting the loan, the document will not be returned to him by them. He deposed that Mr. Mukesh Vaid had returned him only Rs.2,000/- and the rest was retained as expenditure. He came to know later that a loan of Rs.50,000/- has been taken in his name fraudulently. No one had inquired in 2003 regarding verification of the loan at his residence nor had he appeared before the Loan Sanctioning Committee. At that stage, the admitted signature obtained of the witness during investigation by the ACB officials had been shown to the witness which he admitted to be his admitted signature/handwriting and the same was seized by the ACB on 28.7.09 in his presence vide seizure memo Ex.
CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 39 of 194PW16/Z44. The documents were exhibited as Ex.PW16/Z45 to Ex. PW16/56.
41. PW-17 - Sh. Sanjay Kumar deposed that in the year 2003, he was posted as Peon in the DSFDC, Nand Nagri when the office was distributing loan to SC/ST and Minorities. He further deposed that he had seen the SKD form receipt register pertaining to the year 2003 Ex. PW2/B and in the said register, there was an entry at page no.23, Sl. No. 438, regarding receipt of an application form of one Rishipal s/o Tidda Ram r/o 196 Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, bearing the Sl. Number of application form as 6769. He admitted that the entry encircled with red mark and Ex. PW17/A had been made by him in his own handwriting. He deposed that the entry was made by him at the behest of accused Sushil Kumar who was present in the court on that day and he was also Peon in the said office. The accused Sushil had produced the application form of the applicant along with the documents and therefore, he had entered the same in the register. He made the endorsement at the relevant entry of Sushil in his hand so that the same could be used for reference in future. He also admitted that the initial at point B of Ex.17/A was in his handwriting as Sushil. The same had been particularly mentioned there since accused Sushil came to him and wanted to take the form immediately, therefore, for the purpose of future reference in view of his haste, the said initial in the name of Sushil was put at point B. On that day, the Branch Manager had posted him on the duty of receiving the forms. He did not see the applicant of the said form namely Rishipal son of Tida Ram on that day. He did not give the form to accused Sushil Kumar. After 3 PM CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 40 of 194 when the counter was closed, the said form was handed over to dealing clerk namely Dinesh Gupta who was also present in the court on the day of his deposition and the witness had correctly identified him. PW-17 had seen the loan application form bearing No.2048 Ex.PW3/B2 and the witness stated that it was not the said application form which was received by him on 19.06.03 vide entry No.438. He also deposed that he had seen the application form Ex.PW3/B2 and on the application, the reference i.e. 438 BONN dated 19.06.03 was not in his handwriting and the same is in the handwriting of accused Sushil Kumar. He deposed that the application form also appeared to be filled up by accused Sushil Kumar. The address of the applicant mentioned in the loan application form receipt register was mentioned as 196 Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara whereas the loan application form lying on loan file Ex.PW3/B2 has a different address as C-56 West Karawal Nagar, Delhi. PW-17 deposed that the application form received by him must have been a photograph of the applicant but the application Ex.PW3/B2 did not have the photograph of the applicant. He had also seen the SKD receipt register Ex. PW2/B wherein the handwriting of accused Sushil was also at page Nos. 7,8,9,10,11, and 14. He clarified that page No.4 is not in the handwriting of accused Sushil Kumar. At that stage, the signature appearing on the document lying on the loan file and encircled with red ink is already Ex.PW3/B and the documents are Ex. PW17/A(1N) and the signature are at point Q1 Ex. PW17/B(3N), the signature are at point Q2, Ex. PW17/C(5N) the signature at point Q1A, already Ex. PW3/2(19C)the signature at point Q1C, Ex PW3/R (BC) the CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 41 of 194 signature at point Q1B were put to the witness but he stated that he was not in a position to identify the said signatures. The witness however admitted that on the documents Ex.PW17/D at page 2N, the signature of accused Virpal on the file are at point X.
42. At that stage, Ld. Addl. PP sought permission to cross examine the witness and the same was allowed. During cross-examination by Ld. PP for the State, the witness admitted that he was called by the officials of ACB and they had inquired from him with regard to the aforesaid case and they recorded his detailed statement on 8.11.08. He also admitted that the loan application form which was given to him by accused Sushil also had a photograph of the applicant, copy of ration card, caste certificate and affidavit. He denied the suggestion that during inquiry in the ACB, Ex. PW17/A(1N), signature at point Q1; Ex. PW17/B(3N), signature at point Q2; Ex. PW17/C(5N), signature at point Q1A; Ex. PW3/2(19C), signature at point Q1C; Ex. PW3/R (BC), signature at point Q1B were put to him and he had identified the signature appearing on these documents to be of Dinesh Kumar Gupta or that accused Dinesh Kumar used to put initial in the same manner deliberately. He was confronted with the statement Ex. PW17/E at point A from portion A to A where it was so recorded. PW-17 could not say whether the photograph affixed on the application form was different from the photograph affixed on Ex.PW4/B as considerable period of time had passed. He denied the suggestion that he had stated in his statement Ex.PW17/E that there was a loan office in the market at the first floor in the area of Karkardooma where on one or two CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 42 of 194 occasions, he had visited with Sushil or that accused Dinesh and Virpal also used to visit the said office. He was confronted with the statement Ex. PW17/E at point A from portion B to B where it was so recorded. He also denied the suggestion that accused Sushil, Dinesh and Virpal used to tell him that the owner of the said loan office was their friend or that the office used to facilitate the government/private loan scheme. He was confronted with the statement Ex.PW17/E at point A from portion C to C where it was so recorded. He further denied the suggestion that he also noticed that one MCD employee Krishan Pal or Krishan Kumar also used to meet accused Dinesh Kumar Gupta and Virpal in the Nand Nagari office with regard to the loan of safai Karamchari of his zone. He was confronted with the statement Ex. PW17/E at point A from pertion D to D where it was so recorded. He also denied the suggestion that the accused Sushil Kumar, peon used to visit the said office and bring the loan cases. He was confronted with the statement Ex. PW17/E at point A from portion E to E where it was so recorded. Although, he admitted that he came to know about taking of loan of Rs.50,000/- fraudulently in the name of Rishipal son of Tida Ram when he visited C-56, West Karawal Nagar, Delhi-94 to trace the loan seeker alongwith clerk Ram Avtar at the spot, he denied the suggestion that when he alongwith Ramavatar visited at the given address C-56 West Karawal Nagar, Delhi-94 to trace the loan seeker, then he came to know that the address was fake and there was no Rishipal son of late Tida Ram living there. He was confronted with the statement Ex.PW17/E at point A from portion F to F where it was so recorded. He also denied the CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 43 of 194 suggestions that then he came to know that the photograph of the original Rishipal and his address E-56 were changed and that the photograph pasted on the fact recovery sheet was also shown to the person in the locality but no one had identified the person to be Rishipal son of Tidaram. He was confronted with the statement Ex.PW17/E at point A from portion G to G where it was so recorded. He further denied that he alongwith Ram Avtar went to E-56 gali No.4 west Karawal Nagar where the original Rishipal son of Tida Ram was residing and when they showed the documents to the family members of Rishipal, they had informed them that Rishipal had not taken any loan from the DSFDC. He admitted that whenever any loan application form is received in the office and it was given to the dealing hand Dinesh Kumar Gupta, it was his duty to scrutinize all the entries as well as the documents annexed with the application form. He had not disclosed the name of the accused Dinesh Kumar Gupta and Sushil Kumar as the person who in connivance with each other had removed the original form from the record but he had stated that the original form has been removed and another form was placed on record. He denied the suggestion that accused Virpal had prepared a forged report without verification at the spot. He was confronted with the statement Ex. PW17/E at point A, from portion I to I where it was so recorded. He admitted that the accused Sushil Kumar was also working as a messenger and he used to take the dak and other misc. to the head office. He denied the suggestion that during the said period, accused Dinesh also used to take the official file to his residence and used to deal with the same. He was confronted with the statement Ex. PW17/E at CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 44 of 194 point A from portion J to J where it was so recorded. He admitted that it is the duty of accused Dinesh Kumar Gupta after being satisfied with the document to get the document marked for field inspection/inquiry. He admitted that dealing hand also used to verify the document of guarantor of loanee after loan was sanctioned. He deposed that it is correct that he came to know later on that the loan in this case was processed on the basis of forged and fabricated documents. The witness was shown the original SKD Form issue register Ex. PW-17/F at page no. 34 and the entry on the register from serial no. 121 to 125 and 227 and 232 from point A to A1 are in the handwriting of Sushil Kumar and the entry at Sr. 232 of Rishi Pal S/o. Tidda Ram, 196 Bhola Nath Nagar is also made by him. The relevant page is Ex.PW-17/G. On the same register, another entry of Rishi Pal S/o. Kidda, C-56, West Karawal Nagar exists but he was not aware about the said handwriting. He had also seen the loan file at page no.1N (Ex PW 17/A) and stated that the form was filled up in the handwriting of Sushil Kumar and he identified his handwriting on the red encircled portion. He further deposed that during investigation, an observation memo was also prepared by the ACB officials in the said regard when he alongwith Rajinder went there and the register was shown to them. The observation memo Ex.PW-17/H bore his signature at point A. During investigation, he had also handed over his specimen handwriting twice to the IO which is on pages Ex.PW-11/A (colly.) running in 10 pages. He denied the suggestion of Ld. PP for the state that he was intentionally not giving the answers on the confronted portion or purposely not identifying the signature of accused CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 45 of 194 Dinesh Kumar Gupta as he was under pressure being the employee of the same department.
43. PW-18 - ASI Suraj Pal Singh deposed regarding deposit of documents viz. admitted signature/handwriting on 8 sheets alongwith forwarding letter No. 7912 with FSL, Rohini. He also deposed that so long as the documents remained in his possession, the same were not tampered. He exhibited the forwarding letter as Ex.PW-18/A with endorsement of receipt was at point B.
44. PW-19 - Sh. Uma Dutt Sharma deposed that he was posted as Inspector in GPO Kashmere Gate and on 07.10.2008, the original saving bank account opening form of Rishi Pal son of Tida Mal bearing No.1159153, one photocopy of ration card No. 121708, one attested copy of ledger of account No. 1159153, one screen shot of specimen signature of introducer Jai Narayan Solanki, the specimen signature of the aforesaid account was produced by the then Satya Praksh Chief Post Master to the IO of the case which was seized vide memo Ex.PW19/A. The account opening form was Ex.PW15/A, the photocopy of ration card lying in the supplementary charge-sheet Ex. PW15/E, the ledger account was Ex. PW19/B and screen shot of specimen signature of introducer Jai Narayan Solanki was Ex. PW19/C.
45. PW-20 - Krishna Kumar deposed that he was posted as Branch Incharge, SCSTFDC, Nand Nangri and that on 19.06.03, a form in the name of Rishi Pal son of Tida Ram, R/o 196 Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi Ex. PW2/B was made in CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 46 of 194 the SKD form receipt register, the relevant entry being at page No.23 Ex.17/A1. On that day, Dinesh Kumar Gupta as dealing assistant, Virpal as the Field Officer, Sushil Kumar as the peon and two other peons, Sanjay Kumar and Rajender Singh, were working in the said office. The form was usually received at the counter along with the documents by the person to whom the duty was assigned by him to the available staff as they had acute shortage of staff. He volunteered that although, it was the duty of the dealing hand to receive the form but due to shortage of staff, the other staff like 4th class educated employee used to be posted to issue and receive the application. He further deposed that along with the application form, the applicant also used to come to the counter at the time of depositing of the form and the documents brought by him were also duly checked by the concerned person. Just to facilitate the applicant being the person of weaker section, the application forms used to be issued from various places of the branches like Rajpur Road and the forms were also distributed to the representatives of the public. He deposed that he was not sure whether a register was also being maintained in the branches at that time for the issuance of the loan application form.
46. He further deposed that the loan application form Ex.PW3/B2 bearing registration No.438BONN dated 19.6.03 was processed by the dealing assistant and he prepared a noting in this regard on page 1N Ex. PW17/A on the file Ex.PW3/B(colly) bearing the signature of the dealing hand at point Q1 now mark on point A encircled portion was put up by the dealing hand before him for field verification. He had put his CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 47 of 194 signature on the noting Ex.PW17/A at point B and marked the same to the field inspector Virpal for verification. He also deposed that it was the duty of the dealing hand to scrutinize all the documents; see that all the entries are in order; documents were proper; and that the person whose application has been properly verified according to the check list, then noting was forwarded to him for further field verification and accordingly he had forwarded the loan application form along with the file noting to the field inspector Virpal. Field inspector accused Virpal had given a detailed report to the effect that he had duly verified the applicant and his credentials, documents at the given address and after being satisfied, he had recommended the case for approval before the LAC. The detailed note of Virpal on the file Ex.PW3/B(colly at page No.2N) bears his signatures at point X. After the recommendation of Virpal, he marked the file to Rajender Singh peon for keeping it on record and his endorsement in this regard on Ex.PW17/D was at point B. The file was handed over to Rajender Singh as no single file was being forwarded to LAC and after taking a date, bulk of the cases were put up before the LAC on a pre-appointed date to decide the fate of the case. In the LAC, the personal hearing of the applicant was also given and a prior intimation was also given to the applicant to appear before the LAC along with the original documents at the given date and place.
47. During his further examination-in-chief, PW-20 deposed that he had gone through the SKD loan file Ex.PW3/B and after perusing the same, page No.2/C was missing and even the copy of SC certificate was not available on the file. On the CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 48 of 194 basis of the note prepared by dealing hand and the verification report given by the field inspector believing the same to be true, he forwarded the case for Loan Screening Committee. He also deposed that the letter Ex.PW3/F is an interview letter sent to the applicant to appear before the LSC which was sent by the scheme incharge and he could bring the document to show that the letter was being sent by the scheme incharge but he again said that he will not able to produce the said document. As per record, Ex. PW-17/A1 (i.e page no. 23 of Ex. PW-2/B), form no. 6769 was received from Sh. Rishipal S/o. Tidda Ram as mentioned in Sr. No. 438. The original loan file Ex.PW-3/B contained form no. 2048 i.e Ex.PW-3/B2 and the registration no. was shown as 438 meaning thereby that form no. 6769 was received as per entry no. 438 in Ex. PW-17/A1 but the same was changed and form no. 2048 was placed on the file. He further deposed that during the investigation, he had also identified the signature of Dinesh Gupta, the Dealing Assistant on Ex.PW- 17/A at point A. He also identified the signature of Veerpal on the detailed report of Veerpal Ex.Pw-17/D at point X.
48. He was also shown the document Ex.PW3/B2 where the photograph of the applicant was also missing. Thereafter, the file was again put before him in respect of meeting held by LAC where the applicant Rishipal would have appeared before the LAC. The said noting was placed before him by dealing hand Sh. Dinesh Gupta. As per the office protocol, the dealing hand would put the file before him, however, he could not identify the signature of the person who had signed Ex.PW-17/B before placing the file before him and thereafter, he had issued the CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 49 of 194 sanction letter on the basis of minutes to the applicant to complete the post sanction formalities. The minutes of LAC and the letter issued by him Ex.PW-3/G bore his signature at point A. Thereafter, he was transferred and Sh.Raj Kumar, Deputy Manager had taken the charge.
49. He also deposed that at that time, Sushil Kumar peon was assigned the work of Dak and Messenger. Ex. PW-3/B bore the signature of dealing Assistant Vinod Kumar at point B. however, he was not able to identify the signature appearing on Ex. PW-3/B at point A. At Ex.PW-3/S, he identified the signature of Branch Incharge Raj Kumar at point A, General Manager M. Mohd. at point B and Accounts Incharge Sh.A.K. Bhatnagar at point C. He was not able to tell whose signatures appeared on document 5/N, however, the dealing hand had put the same and marked to Deputy Manager, Branch office. The work of peon Sushil Kumar who was also assigned the duty of dak and messenger and his duty was also to take and bring the files to and from Head office and to and from Branch office. After the matter came into light, one inquiry was also conducted by the office, in which he had also participated and gave the statement.
50. At that stage, Jitender Kumar, Assistant, DSFDC, produced the inquiry file. His statement in the said inquiry is Ex.PW-20/A (OSR) bearing his signature at point A. In the said statement, he had identified the signature of Dinesh Gupta appearing on 5/N Ex.PW-17/C at point A. Later on, after his transfer, Veerpal Singh had again joined the said branch as CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 50 of 194 Assistant Manager. Later on, he also came to know that Rs.56,000/- was deposited in the account of corporation in respect of the said loan. He could not identify the signature at Ex.PW-17/B as the signature on the same was totally different from Ex. PW-17/A at page no.1/N at point A.
51. PW-21 - Sh. A.P. Singh deposed that he had brought the original record, order pertaining to 22.05.2003 (Ex.PW-21/C (OSR)); order pertaining to 30.09.2003 (Ex.PW- 21/D (OSR)); order pertaining to 26.12.2003 (Ex.PW-21/E (OSR)); order pertaining to 27.08.2002 (Ex. PW- 21/F (OSR)); order pertaining to 07.11.2005 (Ex.PW-21/G (OSR)); order pertaining to 06.08.2003 (Ex.PW-21/H (OSR)); order pertaining to 10.04.2003 (Ex.PW-21/I (OSR)); order pertaining to 07.03.2004 (Ex.PW-21/J (OSR)); order pertaining to 01.09.2000 (Ex. PW-21/K (OSR)); order pertaining to 01.11.2002 (Ex.PW- 21/L (OSR)); order pertaining to 09.11.2000 (Ex. PW-21/M (OSR)); order pertaining to 15.10.2003 (Ex. PW-21/N (OSR)).
52. He further deposed that the orders pertaining to 12.07.2001, 16.05.2002, 02.09.2005 and 27.10.2005 could not be found in the office as they were untraceable, as such he was unable to bring the original. However, the attested copies bearing his signature pertaining to the abovesaid orders are already on record which were handed over by him to the police vide letter dated 20.11.2008. The said orders dated 16.05.2002, 02.09.2005, 12.07.2001 and 27.10.2005 are Ex.PW-21/O, Ex.PW-21/P, Ex.PW-21/Q, Ex.PW-21/R respectively and all the above said orders bore his signature at points A. CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 51 of 194
53. PW-22 - Sh. Bed Pal Singh deposed that he was posted as LDC in DSSFDC in Nand Nagri Branch and on 20.11.08, he handed over a dispatch register for the period 10.02.2003 to 05.04.2005 containing 250 pages pertaining to the correspondence of dispatch from the Nand Nagri Branch. The register was seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW22/A which bore his signature at point A. The IO submitted that the original register was not traceable and only a copy of a single page was available on the record. The copy of the relevant page is PW22/B. He further deposed that in the month of December 2004, he was posted in the Head office at Rohini and was on duty in the strong room. The file bearing 438 SKD/BONN already Ex.PW2/B was received from Nand Nagari branch to keep the same in strong room under the certificate of dealing hand Sh. Vinod Kumar which was also forwarded by the then Asst. Manager Vir Pal. The Certificate Ex.PW3/B bore the signature of Vinod Kumar at point B and of Vir Pal at point A. He also deposed that so long as the file remained in the strong room, no tampering took place in it.
54. PW-23 - Sh. Shyam Kishore Sareen deposed that he was posted as record keeper at Sector-11, Rohini, Oriental Bank of Commerce and on 11.11.2008, he had met the ACB officials with the original letter dated 10.11.2008 written by Sr. Manager V.K. Jain and original deposit receipt of Rs. 56,000/- deposited by one Rishi pal in Oriental Bank of Commerce, Sector-11, Rohini, on 02.11.2017. The same was seized by the IO. The original letter was Ex.PW-23/A bearing the signature of V.K.Jain CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 52 of 194 at point A. He identified his signature as he had seen him writing and signing during the course of official duty. The original receipt of Rs. 56,000/- was exhibited as Ex.PW-23/B. The seizure in this respect was exhibited as Ex.PW-23/C bearing his signature at point A.
55. PW-24 - Sh. Vinod Kumar deposed that he was posted in DSFDC, Nand Nagri Branch in the year 2004 when Sh. Jaiswal, Dinesh Kumar, Ram Avtar, Manoj Kumar, Veerpal and other officials, the name of which he did not remember, were also posted there. His duty was assigned to prepare Master Loan Register as well as recovery fact sheet in respect of loan given to persons. He further deposed that the matter pertains to one person Rishi pal to whom the loan was given. While preparing the document, he found that there was no guarantor photograph on the file and when the said fact was told to Sh. S.P.Jaishwal, Deputy Manager they had appointed one Ram Avtar LDC to get the photographs of guarantor from Rishi Pal after visiting his address as given in the file. Thereafter, Ram Avtar went but the said address was not found correct. Again, the official Sh.Ram Avtar was sent to address and then he managed to get the original Rishi Pal. As per his information, his wife met him and told him that Rishi Pal could not get loan as he was working in MCD. Thereafter, he was told through his wife to come in the office, on which he visited the same but he did not remember what statement or information he had given to the officials. The police official had also met him and he gave the said information to the police wherein his statement was also recorded. Except this, the police had not shown him any other document.
CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 53 of 19456. When he was asked by the court to tell the process of making the recovery fact sheet as well as the original Master loan register, he replied that the recovery fact sheet used to be prepared in respect of original loan file. The entries were made in recovery fact sheet on the basis of original Master Loan file and also one photograph is pasted on the recovery fact sheet which is available in the original loan file i.e one additional photograph of the person to whom loan was given, which is available on the original loan file. The said photograph is pasted upon the photocopy of original master loan register and then the same is regarded as recovery fact sheet i.e the photograph of the person appearing on the original form has to be the same which is pasted upon the recovery fact sheet. He also deposed that he had seen the recovery fact sheet Ex.PW-24/A. The said recovery sheet was then sent to Veerpal, Asstt. Manager, who appended his signature on the same at point A and he identified his signature.
57. PW-25 - Smt. Naresh Devi being the wife of Rishi Pal, deposed that her marriage with Rishipal was solemnized in the year 1980 and she had five children. She further deposed that at that time, her husband was working in MCD, however, she did not know his designation in the MCD. She also deposed that she was illiterate and used to give only thumb impression on the documents. Her youngest son was approximately 25 years of age as on that day. She disclosed the name of her mother-in-law as Bishambri Devi who was no more and died in the year 2004. At that stage, the witness was shown Ex.PW3/M i.e. affidavit to which, she had replied that the said affidavit stated to have CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 54 of 194 signature in encircled portion X were not her signatures. She voluntarily stated that she only put her thumb impression on the documents. At that stage, the witness was also shown the document Ex.PW24/A which was the photocopy of master register No.258 having one original photograph and she stated that the same was not of her husband Rishipal. At that stage, the witness was also shown Ex.PW4/B having one photograph on it and she deposed that the said photograph was also not of her husband. She was not aware as to whether her husband had obtained any loan from DSFDC (Delhi SC,ST, OBC, Minority, Handicapped Minority Devision Corporation under SKD i.e. Safai Karamchari Division). She also deposed that during the investigation of this case, police had inquired the matter from her.
58. PW-26 Sh. Vikas Dhawan, Assistant Manager, DSFDC had brought the original cheque distribution register containing relevant page. During the investigation, he had handed over one recovery fact sheet file No.438/SKD containing pages 1N 15N and 1 C to 16C.
59. At that stage, the above said original file was shown to the witness containing the above said pages. The said file (Ex.PW26/1(colly)) was given to the police by him. He had also handed over the certified copy of the cheque distribution register i.e. page 8 to the police (Ex.PW26/2(OSR)). He had also handed over the photocopies of pay in slips of Oriental Bank of Commerce for the deposit of Rs.56,000/- in DSFDC Account in account No.1404. The photocopy of the same was marked as CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 55 of 194 Mark 26/A(the original of the said receipt is also on record). The same was exhibited as Ex.PW26/3. He had also given 13 cheques of Delhi State. Cooperative Bank Ltd. Khari Baoli favouring DSFDC stated to have been issued by Rishipal. All those documents were seized by the IO vide Ex.PW26/3 which bore his signatures at point A. Later on, he had also handed over 28 cheques of Delhi State Cooperative Bank Ltd. favouring DSFDC as issued by Rishipal which were also seized by IO vide Ex.PW26/4 which bore his signatures at point A. He did not remember the number of cheques now, however, the same was mentioned in seizure memo. At that stage, the original cheques of Delhi State Cooperative Bank favouring DSFDC bearing name Rishipal of various amounts Ex.PW16/A to Ex.PW16/Z, Ex.PW16/Z1 to Ex.PW16/Z15 were shown to the witness who deposed that the said cheques were given by him to the police.
60. PW-27 - Ajay Kumar Goel being, Assistant Manager at DSFDC had brought the original receipt copy pertaining to the relevant entry. He deposed that on 17.9.03, he was posted as Cashier at DSFDC (HQ) 2, Battery Lane, Rajpur Road, Delhi. One person namely Rishipal alongwith sanction letter had come to him and he had issued the receipt of Rs.250/- as processing fee. He had not verified the identity of the said Rishipal as it was presumed in ordinary business that the person who was having the sanction letter would be the same. The photocopy of the receipt Ex.PW3/P was also compared and found to be correct with the carbon copy of the original receipt register brought by the said witness on that day.
CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 56 of 19461. PW-28 - Sh. A.K. Mathur deposed that he had retired from DSFDC in October 2012 but in the year 2004-05, he was posted as Company Secretary in the above said department and in the year 1995, he was posted as Vigilance Officer for some time. He was also Vigilance Officer in respect of fraudulent loan issued in the name of Rishi Pal for the sum of Rs.50,000/-. He also deposed that in respect of that, one vigilance inquiry was conducted which was initially marked to him. In the inquiry, he had discussed the matter with MD Sh. C. Tardey and General Manager. He had also issued the notice to the respective persons i.e. original Rishi Pal, guarantor Madan Mohan and S.R. Rana, Krishan Kumar, Ram Avtar, Raj Kumar, Virpal and Dinesh Gupta. He had correctly identified accused Virpal and Dinesh Gupta. He also deposed that during the inquiry, he had recorded the statements of above said persons. Thereafter, the matter was discussed with senior officers, who recommended that the matter should be sent to Director of Vigilance and thereafter, the file was sent to Director of Vigilance. At that stage, Sh. Jitender, Assistant from Vigilance Section, DSFDC produced the vigilance file pertaining to loan inquiry in respect of Rishi Pal. The file was shown to the witness to which, he had stated that the statements of the above said 8 persons were given by the respective persons to him (Ex.PW28/A(OSR)).
62. PW-29 - Sh. Nand Kishore deposed that the police had called him in the investigation of this case in the year 2008 and had shown him one original pay in slip of OBC Bank, Sector-11 Rohini, Delhi. He had seen the pay in slip dated CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 57 of 194 2.1.2007 in respect of A/c No.1404. The said account was issued to DSFDC. It was the same receipt which was shown to him by the police officials. He confirmed the police that on 02.01.2007, he was posted in Rohini, Sector 11, Branch of OBC wherein he was on cash receipt duty. One person had given him the pay in slip in the name of Rishi Pal in respect of Rishipal Loan A/c No. 438 SKD/NM pertaining to DSFDC. Rs.56000/- was deposited by the said Rishipal. The receipt was also bearing his signatures. He had taken the amount and deposited the same in the bank. He had also appended the stamp of Rohini Bank and also made his endorsement to the effect of Rs.56000/-alongwith his initials. The receipt is already Ex.PW23/B and his endorsement was in encircled portion encircled as YY. He could not identify the said person who has deposited the money since a number of persons came on that day in the bank. The same fact was also told by him to the police that he could not identify the said Rishipal.
63. PW-30 - Sh. Krishan Pal deposed that he was working in MCD as a Safai Karamchari. He further deposed that the name of his wife was Sarla Devi and he had applied for Rs.50,000/- loan from DSFDC in the year 2003. The loan was finally sanctioned for Rs.30,000/-. For the formalities of the loan, he had visited Nand Nagari branch of DSFDC number of times, where he met the officials of DSFDC. At that stage, on being asked, witness pointed towards accused Virpal, as one of the officials of DSFDC who used to meet there. He did not remember the name of the said person (Virpal) since it was long ago. He also deposed that the accused used to tell him to deposit various forms to complete all the formalities. He could not tell CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 58 of 194 whether any other person who was present in the court also used to meet him in the office. The police had called him in the office during the investigation of the case.
64. At that stage, Ld. Addl. PP for the state sought permission to examine the witness as he was resiling from his earlier recorded statement which was allowed. During the cross- examination by Ld. PP for the State, the witness denied the suggestion that accused Dinesh Gupta and Sushil Kumar also used to meet him in the DSFDC branch office when he used to visit the same or that Dinesh Gupta was dealing clerk or that one person namely Bablu whose original name was Jitender, who was also present in court on that day, used to sit in the office with dealing clerk; that accused Jitender used to come with Dinesh Gupta in his car or that he used to do petty work of the office like bringing tea doing photocopy or that Virpal and Sushil Kumar were also known to Jitender Bablu; that he was aware about the fake loan amount issued in the name of Rishipal; that he raised a doubt on Virpal, Dinesh Gupta and Sushil Kumar and Anil Gupta who was relative of Dinesh Gupta and was working in Khari Baoli, Delhi Corporation Bank; that he was deliberately not identifying the accused persons being under threat or coercion; that he was won over by the accused persons, deposing falsely in the court to protect the accused from the due process of law; that he was deposing falsely.
65. PW-31 - Sh. Ram Avtar, UDC, DSFDC, Ambedkar Bhawan, Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi deposed that he was working as LDC in Nand Nagari Branch, DSFDC in the year 2005-2007.
CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 59 of 194The police had called him in ACB during the investigation of this case. He further deposed that prior to his posting in the Nand Nagri Branch, Vinod Kumar used to deal with the work of preparation of Master Loan Register, preparation of facts sheet and depositing the same in recovery cell of DSFDC. The Assistant Manager at that time was Sh. Virpal when he joined (Accused Virpal was correctly identified). He further deposed that during his tenure, the recovery facts sheet file came back to their office by raising objection that only one photograph was there whereas there had to be two photographs, one of applicant and one of guarantor but he could not remember which photograph was missing. Thereafter, the file was put up before the branch manager, Sh. S.P. Jaiswal, who directed him to visit the house of the applicant at the address mentioned in the record. On his direction, he went to Karawal Nagar where the address of Rishipal was found to be wrong, however, on local inquiry, he visited the house of Rishipal which was in Karawal Nagar itself. The information was given to his daughter and his wife to tell Rishipal to visit the DSFDC, Nand Nagri Branch as he was not present there. Thereafter, on the next day, he came to the Nand Nagri Branch and met Manager. The manager called him in the office and gave him the application which was given by Rishipal and told him to make noting of the same in the file and then put the file before him again. Thereafter, he made the noting. At that stage, the recovery facts sheet file Ex. PW26/1 was shown to the witness and he stated that the noting dated 16.3.05 on page 2N of the file i.e. recovery fact sheet bearing his signature at point X was done by him. Thereafter, the file was put before CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 60 of 194 Manager, S.P. Jaiswal and he did not know what happened with the file.
66. Prior to putting the file before S.P. Jaiswal, he had handed over the file, after making the noting, to peon Sanjay with a direction to hand over the same to Assistant Manager Virpal as the file was to be placed before S.P. Jaiswal through Assistant Manager by way of proper channel but the file got misplaced. Thereafter, the file was traced after few months from the almirah or the back side of the almirah of Virpal and then the file was placed before S.P. Jaiswal who had dealt with the file as per procedure. During the missing of the file, the part file was sent to the higher authority by S.P. Jaiswal and when the main file was traced, the same was also sent to the higher authority.
67. PW-32 - Sh. Jai Prakash being panch witness deposed that all the accused persons were arrested by IO Insp. Kailash Chand and that their writing samples were taken on plain paper (all the accused persons were correctly identified). With respect to accused Virpal, he proved the arrest memo (Ex.PW32/A bearing his signature at point A); and personal search memo (Ex.PW32/B bearing his signatures at point A). With respect to accused Sushil Kumar, he proved the arrest memo (Ex.PW32/C bearing his signature at point A); and personal search memo (Ex.PW32/D bearing his signatures at point A). With respect to accused Dinesh Gupta, he proved the arrest memo (Ex.PW32/E bearing his signature at point A); and personal search memo (Ex.PW32/F bearing his signatures at point A). With respect to accused Vinod Kumar Sharma, he CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 61 of 194 proved the arrest memo (Ex.PW32/G bearing his signature at point A); and personal search memo (Ex.PW32/H bearing his signatures at point A). With respect to accused Jitender Kumar Sharma, he proved the arrest memo (Ex.PW32/I bearing his signature at point A); and personal search memo (Ex.PW32/J bearing his signatures at point A). With respect to accused Anil Kumar, he proved the arrest memo (Ex.PW32/K bearing his signature at point A); and personal search memo (Ex.PW32/L bearing his signatures at point A).
68. Specimen handwriting of accused Virpal Singh Ex.PW32/M (colly-17 pages) bore his signatures at point A; of accused Dinesh Kumar Gupta Ex.PW32/N (colly-30 pages) bore his signature at point A; of accused Jitender Kumar Sharma @ Babloo Ex.PW32/P (colly-25 pages) bore his signature at point A; of accused Vinod Kumar Sharma Ex.PW32/Q (colly-23 pages) bore his signatures at point A; of accused Anil Kumar Gupta Ex.PW32/R (colly-8 pages) bore his signature at point A. His statement was recorded by the IO in the said regard.
69. PW-33 - Sh. Raj Kumar deposed that he was posted as Branch Incharge/Dy. Manager in DSFDC in the year 2003 and his office was situated at Nand Nagri Branch, Delhi. He was incharge at Nand Nagri Branch since September to November 2003. On 18.11.03, he had joined the investigation of the present case with Inspector Kailash Chand, IO at ACB, Old Secretariat Delhi. He deposed that there was a loan matter of one Rishi Pal and an inquiry was conducted in this regard which was joined by him also and it was found that some fraud was detected. He CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 62 of 194 further deposed that he was posted as Deputy Manager (Accounts) DSFDC (HQ) and since September 2003 to November 2003, he was Deputy Manager at Nand Nagri Branch. One loan case of Mr. Rishi Pal was already sanctioned from the concerned sanction committee and sanction letter had already been issued to Mr. Rishipal from the said committee prior to his tenure at Nand Nagari Branch. He also deposed that after sanction of loan, the loan applicant used to come to the branch for completing loan formalities and the said loan applicant used to complete his document with the concerned dealing clerk. The loan file of applicant Rishipal was dealt with in the Nand Nagri Branch by the accused Dinesh Kumar Gupta (correctly identified). He did not remember the number of the loan file. The said file of Rishipal was processed by accused Dinesh between September and November 2003. Upon receipt of the loan file of Rishipal, he signed it and forwarded it to Sh. A.K.Bhatnagar who was Manager (Accounts) for disbursement of sanctioned loan. Thereafter, he was transferred from Nand Nagri branch. He was shown Ex.PW-17/A (part of file Ex.PW-3/B) i.e. the page 1/N of loan file 438/SKD/BONN from the judicial record and he deposed that the same bore the signature of Dinesh at point A and of Sh. Krishan Kumar (Branch Incharge) at point B. He had also seen page 2/N Ex.PW-17/D which bore signature of Veerpal at point X and signature of Krishan Kumar at point B. Veerpal was posted in the said Nand Nagri Branch as Field Inspector at that time (Accused Veerpal was correctly identified by him). He had also seen page 3/N Ex. PW-17/B and it bore signature of Krishan Kumar at point B. Krishan Kumar was posted as Branch CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 63 of 194 Manager and he was Deputy Manager by post but since he was posted in the branch therefore, he was branch incharge. He had also seen page 5/N Ex.PW-17/C and the same bore signature of accused Dinesh Kumar Gupta at point A and his signature at point B dated 20.11.2003. He had also seen Ex.PW-3/V and and the same bore signature of accused Veerpal at point A and Ex. PW-3/U bore signature of accused Veerpal at point X. He had also seen Ex.PW-3/S and the same bore signature of Sh.N.Mohd., the then General Manager of the said branch at point B and of Sh. A.K.Bhatnagar the then Manager (Finance and Accounts), at point C and of him at point A. He had also seen Ex.PW-3/R and the same bore signature of accused Dinesh Kumar Gupta at point A and of him at point B. He had also seen Ex.PW-3/Q and it bore signature of accused Dinesh Kumar Gupta at point A and of him at point B. At that stage, the recovery fact sheet file of Rishipal Ex.PW-26/1 was shown to the witness who correctly identified the same and also identified the signature of accused Veerpal, the then Branch Incharge on page 1/N at point A. The post of Veerpal was field inspector but after he was transferred, he was given the duty of Branch incharge. The page 2/N bears signature of accused Veerpal at point A, of Sh. S.P.Jaiswal, the then Deputy Manager at point B and of Dealing Clerk Ram Avtar at point X, on page 3/N, signature of accused Veerpal at point A and of S.P.Jaiswal at point B and of Ram Avtar at point C, on Page 4/N signature of Ram Avtar at point A. The signatures of accused Veerpal on different pages in the file Ex.PW-26/l are at point A. The loan file was shown to him by the IO during investigation and he found that the loan in CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 64 of 194 question had been taken in the wrong name of Rishipal and even the guarantor who was shown as guarantor in the loan document had not given that guarantee. The loan amount taken in the matter was for Rs. 50,000/- in the fictitious name.
70. At that stage, Ld. Addl. PP submitted that the witness was resiling from his previously recorded statement u/s 161 Cr.PC and sought permission to cross examine the witness which was allowed.
71. During his cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, the witness admitted that his statement was recorded by the IO on 18.11.2008 (Ex.PW-33/Α). He further admitted that he had joined investigation in this case at ACB in connection with loan file no. 438/SKD/BONN which was in the name of Rishipal son of Tidda Ram and that after checking the record of concerned file, he might have told the IO that the loan application file No. 6769 dated 19.06.2003 regarding which entry was made at Sr. No. 438 in SKD loan form receipt register was replaced with another application form no. 2048 mentioning the address of the applicant as C-56, West Karawal Nagar, Delhi. At that stage, Ex.PW-3/B2 and register Ex.Pw-17/A1 were shown to the witness from judicial record and after seeing the same, he admitted that in Ex.PW-17/A1 at Sr. no. 438, the form no. mentioned was 6769 and that in Ex.PW-3/B2, the form no. mentioned was 2048.
72. When the court asked the witness whether as per the SKD receipt register Ex.PW-2/B, the relevant page of which is CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 65 of 194 Ex.PW-17/A bearing entry no. 438 and, as per Ex.PW-3/B2, the different form number indicated that the form was subsequently changed, the witness replied that the application form was subsequently changed in the records. He also admitted that the said changed application form along with other relevant documents was processed by accused Dinesh Kumar Gupta and the loan application form was forwarded to Sh. Krishan Kumar and on field inquiry at page no.1/N signature of the then Branch Incharge Krishan Kumar and of accused Dinesh Kumar Gupta were identified by him; that thereafter, the file was marked to Mr. Veerpal Singh and he had put his signature at page no.2/N i.e the field inquiry report and then it was forwarded to Sh.Krishan Kumar, Branch Incharge and thereafter, the loan was processed and sanctioned by the loan screening committee on 06.08.2003 and the concerned applicant was thereafter, informed by Branch Incharge Krishan Kumar for completion of post loan sanction formalities through post and the same was mentioned on page 7/C; that Krishan Kumar, the then Branch Manager was working in Nand Nagri Branch prior to him when he had joined in the year 2003; that accused Dinesh was to complete the formalities after sanction of loan which includes checking of documents of the loan applicant, taking post dated cheques from the loan applicant, taking process fee receipt of Rs. 250/-, the execution of HP Deed in presence of loan applicant and witnesses, verification of the government employee as guarantor of the loan, photographs, after checking original documents the attested copies of documents to be taken on file, execution of affidavits etc. and that the page no. 4/N and 5N in the loan file Ex.PW-3/B CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 66 of 194 reveals that it was done by accused Dinesh. At that stage, page no.17C of Ex. PW-3/B was shown to the witness and after seeing the same, he admitted that the loan applicant Rishipal in his own handwriting had mentioned that all the conditions are acceptable to him as mentioned in portion X to X and the said page is Ex.PW-3/O and the signature of Rishipal is at point A. He also admitted that as per page no.17C i.e Ex.PW-3/P, a receipt of Rs.250/- was executed; the said fee receipt was done during the tenure of accused Dinesh; as per page 8C, 9C, 10C, 11C and 15C of the loan file and as per pages 12C, 13C, 16C, 14C, 18C and 19C, the verification of documents/guarantor etc. was done by accused Dinesh; on page 19C, initial sign as dealing clerk is of accused Dinesh; on page 20C, against checking of documents and receiving of document, initially accused Dinesh had signed and thereafter as to documents checked, he had signed; that his duty was to simply check whether the dealing clerk had checked and taken on record all the necessary documents and after satisfying himself, expenditure sanction was granted by him as mentioned in page 20C; on 24.11.2003, the file was sent to Accounts Section through Dak, through peon and thereafter, final sanction in the loan file was granted by the concerned General Manager; after expenditure sanction was signed on 08.01.2004, the loan file went to the cashier for preparation of cheque and in this case, loan amount cheque was prepared on 05.07.2004 and after preparation of cheque, the file once again went to the office of MD and the cheque had to be received by the loan applicant in the presence of MD. He admitted that later on, he came to know that in this case, the loan amount of Rs.50,000/- was taken CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 67 of 194 fraudulently in the name of Rishipal; that he subsequently came to know that the amount of Rs.56,000/- which includes interest was deposited in the account of DSFDC in the name of Rishipal in cash on 02.01.2007 in account no.1404 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Sector 11, Rohini and the said account no. was in the knowledge of staff of DSFDC; that if any loan applicant wanted to repay the loan in cash, the procedure was that the said applicant should have taken a form from the recovery section of DSFDC and after filling up that form only, cash repayment of loan amount could have been possible. Volt. The form used to be in total 4 counter foils. He also admitted that in the present matter, after getting the original form no. 6769 changed and based on a forged address C-56, West Karawal Nagar and based on false address filled in the form and based on false verification report and by filing forged documents and after opening the bank accounts or post office account, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was obtained as loan from DSFDC fraudulently and that in the said transaction involvement of DSFDC officials was there; that in the said fraudulent transaction, he felt that accused Dinesh Kumar Gupta was involved; that had accused Dinesh properly checked the loan applicant/guarantor and the loan documents, this fraudulent transaction would not have been possible; that had accused Veerpal given proper and true field survey verification report, this loan would not have been sanctioned; that had at the time of preparation of recovery fact sheet (RFS) and Master loan register (MLR), by the Assistant Manager, the photos were checked properly, this transaction could have been detected and that due to lapse of time, he forgot to mention these details as CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 68 of 194 mentioned in the cross examination by the Ld. Prosecutor and therefore, could not be mentioned.
73. PW-34 - Sh. Vinod Kumar being panch witness deposed that on 26.11.2008, the IO had taken specimen signatures and handwriting of accused Sushil Kumar on 37 sheets (Ex.PW-34/A1 to A-37 and all the sheets bear his signature at point A). He had also recorded statement of one lady namely Anita and one person namely S.K. Jain in the presence of the accused. His statement was recorded to the said effect. He correctly identified the accused Sushil Kumar.
74. PW-35 - Sh. Ravinder Dalal being panch witness deposed that on 25.11.2008 at about 10.00 a.m., Inspector Kailash Chand already arrested 6 accused persons namely Sushil Kumar, Dinesh Gupta, Veerpal Singh, Vinod Kumar and there was one more Gupta whose complete name he could not recollect and there was one more person. He again said that there was one Anil Kumar also amongst those six accused. He further deposed that out of those six accused, specimen handwriting of accused Dinesh Kumar Gupta, Vinod Kumar and two more persons was taken by the inspector in his presence on about 5-6 pages each. He had signed those specimen handwriting pages given by those accused. He deposed that he could identify the specimen handwritings. At that stage, the witness was shown specimen handwritings of accused Vinod from judicial record running into 5 pages and stated that those were the same specimen handwriting of accused Vinod which were given by accused Vinod in his presence on that day, running into 5 pages CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 69 of 194 and it bore his signatures at point A and signature of accused Vinod at point B. Those specimen handwritings were exhibited as Ex.PW-35/A1 to A5. Further, the witness was shown specimen handwriting of accused Dinesh from judicial record and PW-35 identified the same as the specimen handwriting of accused Dinesh which was given by accused Dinesh in his presence and the same bore his signatures at point A and signature of accused Dinesh at point B. The said specimen handwritings were exhibited as Ex.PW-35/B1 to B6. Again, the witness was shown specimen handwritings of accused Sushil from judicial record running into 6 pages. He deposed that those were the same specimen handwriting of accused Sushil which were given by accused Sushil in his presence on that day and bore his signatures at point A and signature of accused Sushil at point B. The said specimen handwritings were exhibited as Ex.PW-35/C1 to C6. The witness was then shown specimen handwritings of accused Jitender Kumar Sharma from judicial record running into 5 pages and after seeing the same, he deposed that those were the same specimen handwritings of accused Jitender Kumar Sharma which were given in his presence on that day and bore his signatures at point A and signature of accused Jitender Kumar Sharma at point B. The said specimen handwritings were exhibited as Ex.PW-35/D1 to D5.
75. He also deposed that on that very day, the accused persons who were in custody of Inspector also gave their respective disclosure statements which were recorded by the IO in his presence and he signed those disclosures. At that stage, the witness was shown disclosure statement of accused Sushil CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 70 of 194 and the witness identified his signatures at point A on the said document. The disclosure statement was marked as Mark P-35- X1. He identified the signature of accused Sushil on the said document at point B. Then the witness was shown disclosure statement of accused Dinesh and he identified his signatures at point A on the said document. The disclosure statement was marked as Mark-P-35-X2 bearing the signature of accused Dinesh at point B.
76. Further, the witness was shown disclosure statement of accused Veerpal and the witness identified his signatures at point A on the said document. The disclosure statement was marked as Mark P-35-X3 and he identified the signature of accused Veerpal at point B. Thereafter, the witness was shown disclosure statement of accused Anil Gupta and he identified his signatures at point A and Al. The disclosure statement was marked as Mark P-35-X4 and he identified the signature of accused Anil Gupta at points B and B1. Later, the witness was shown disclosure statement of accused Jitender and the witness identified his signatures at point A. The disclosure statement was marked as Mark P-35-X5 and he identified the signature of accused Jitender at point B. Then the witness was shown disclosure statement of accused Vinod Kumar and the witness identified his signatures at point A. The disclosure statement was marked as Mark P-35-X6 and he identified the signature of accused Vinod Kumar at point B. Thereafter, the accused persons were produced by the IO before the court.
CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 71 of 19477. PW-35 further deposed that after the accused persons were produced in the court, two of the accused persons were remanded to jail and the other four persons were taken by the police for interrogation. However, he could not recollect on that day as to which of the accused was sent to jail and which were brought for interrogation. He deposed that he could try to identify the accused persons on that day by their faces however he would not be able to relate their names as the incident was very old pertaining to year 2008. At that stage, the witness had a look at the persons sitting in the court room and he submitted that the accused persons sitting on the back side of the court room appeared to be the same but he could not relate to their names and it seemed to him that they were from the same persons who were seen by him on that day. His statement u/s 161 Cr.PC was recorded by Inspector Kailash Chand.
78. At that stage, Ld. Chief Prosecutor for the State sought permission to put some leading question to the witness as to some introductory aspects which was allowed. The witness admitted that the name of 6th accused is Jitender; that the two accused who were sent to JC were Vinod and Anil Gupta and rest of the four persons namely Dinesh, Veerpal, Sushil and Jitender were taken on two days' police custody and that the six persons (accused) pointed out to him at that time were the same persons who were interrogated on that day in his presence in ACB.
79. PW-36 - Insp. Harvinder Singh deposed he was posted at ACB as inspector in the year 2006-07 when a CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 72 of 194 complaint was received from General Manager, DSFDC and he was directed to conduct a preliminary inquiry regarding the said complaint. The said complaint dated 23.08.2006 was Ex.PW- 36/A. After conducting preliminary inquiry, he submitted his report to the senior police officers in office of ACB and thereafter, the case was registered. During inquiry, he had interrogated some employees of DSFDC and he found that prima facie case was made out as per the allegations leveled in the complaint. Thereafter, he deposed that he was repatriated to his parent department. He further admitted that the complaint was registered and PE (DOV) 60/06 dated 04.10.2006 and inquiry report was submitted on 12.06.2007 to Sr. Police officers recommending registration of the case and that during the inquiry, he had interrogated the employees of DSFDC namely Sushil Kumar, Dinesh Kumar Gupta and Veerpal Singh and found that a prima facie case of getting loan sanctioned fraudulently in the name of Rishipal was made out.
80. PW-37 - Sh. Manoj Kumar Sharma deposed that in July 2004, he was working as Sr. Data Processor in MD Section, DSFDC. He further deposed that at that time, MD was Sh. Targay and Smt. Geeta Suresh, Jr. Steno to the MD and Mr. Deen Dayal, PS to MD were also working him, PW-37. He also deposed that he looked after the work of making entries and the work allocated to him by MD; his work was not to issue cheques to anybody. Mr. Deen Dayal was assigned the job of issuing cheques to the beneficiaries. He did not know what precaution he used to take before issuance of cheques. There was a register maintained by their section regarding issuance of cheques to the CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 73 of 194 beneficiaries in which entries used to be made by Geeta Suresh and sometimes, by him. When he used to make entry in the register, it was made as per the file which used to be received from the file section. A register used to be maintained for issuance of cheque to the beneficiaries but he never issued/ handed over any cheque himself to any beneficiary. The register as well as the cheque used to be kept in almirah in their office which had two keys. Both those keys used to remain in the office drawer of the office. He did not keep any key.
81. Attention of the witness was drawn towards document Ex. PW-26/2 and he stated that he had seen this document; and the handwriting in the red encircled portion at point X in column no. 5 is his handwriting and also the address 'C-56, West Karawal Nagar, Delhi' is written against Sr. No. 37 which is also in his handwriting. The rest of the writing on this document is in the hand of Smt. Geeta Suresh.
82. He further deposed that he must have received some file/document regarding the above mentioned entry and therefore, he must have made that entry in his handwriting on that document. He did not do anything else regarding this entry on that day. No body came from his office before. Nobody from them came to him on the day when he made entry at point X in Ex. PW-26/2. He did not issue any cheque against this entry to anyone. He then deposed that he was interrogated in the present matter by the ACB official but he did not recollect the date. His statement was recorded by the police.
CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 74 of 19483. PW-38 - Mr. Rajinder Singh deposed that initially, he was working as a peon and subsequently, he became LDC in DSFDC. Prior to October 2019, he was working in the head office of DSFDC, Rohini Sector-16 and was posted in Nand Nagri Branch since October 2019. He became LDC in October 2005 and prior to that, he was a peon. He had been working as LDC at DSFDC Financing corporation. He also deposed that in June/July 1999, he was working as peon in Nand Nagri Branch office of DSFDC and he remained there till 2003 when he was transferred to head office. He also deposed that some years ago, IO had called him at ACB office and he had joined the investigation and he was interrogated about the present case. He was shown a file by the IO which was a loan file of someone by the name of Rishipal. The file which was shown to him contained half documents and did not contain rest half documents which ought to have been there. He saw one loan application form and one note sheet in the said file. He was asked by the IO whether he knew the loan applicant or whether he knew the address mentioned in the loan application. He told the IO that he did not know any such person. The application form did not contain any photo. He did not remember the application form number or serial number or page number which was shown to him. He also did not know the date on which that application was received in the branch or what date was mentioned on the application form. One Mr. Krishan Kumar was Assistant Manager in the Nand Nagri Branch in June 2003 who was working as Branch Incharge at that time. He then deposed that accused Veerpal (correctly identified) was working as Field CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 75 of 194 Inspector at that time. Accused Dinesh Gupta (correctly identified) was working as Dealing Clerk in the branch at that time. One Mr. Doodh Nath was working as UDC in that branch. Besides him, there were two more peons working in the branch at that time namely Sushil Kumar (correctly identified) and one Mr. Sanjay. He also deposed that since at that time there was shortage of staff in their branch, at the instance of branch manager, sometimes he and Sanjay used to issue application forms to the applicants who used to visit branch and sometimes, they also used to receive the application in branch from the applicants. He deposed that at the time of the receiving applications, an entry used to be made in the register maintained for that purpose, by the person who used to receive applications such as he or Sanjay or anybody else who used to receive application. Only entry in the register used to be made and no separate receiving used to be issued by us to the applicant. He also deposed that the accused Sushil was assigned the job of Dak Peon by the branch Manager. As Dak Peon, it was the job of accused Sushil to carry files and documents in the office etc. At that stage, the witness was shown the register which was already Ex.PW-2/B from judicial record, particularly drawing his attention to entry at Sr. no. 438 on page no. 23 of the register which was already Ex. PW-17/A1. He did not know in whose handwriting that entry no. 438 existed. It was neither in his handwriting nor in the handwriting of Sanjay and he did not know whose handwriting it was. At that stage, attention of the witness was drawn towards a small initial which was already given 'Q41'. He did not know in whose handwriting 'Q41' was CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 76 of 194 and he did not know as to what was written at 'Q41' and why it was written. After seeing Ex. PW-17/A1 and 'Q41', he could not say as to whom the concerned application was handed over. It was, however, correct that this entry Ex. PW-17/A1 was dated 19.06.2003. At that stage, the witness was shown a loan file which was already Ex. PW-3/B. This file was shown to him by the IO in ACB. In Ex. PW-17/A1 in column no.2, the numerical '6769' denotes the application number. He also deposed that the same number should reflect on the loan application form. The same application form no. i.e 6769 occurring on Ex. PW-17/A1 should have been mentioned in the loan application form which was Ex. PW-3/B2 as a part of Ex.PW-3/B. When the loan file Ex. PW-3/B was shown to him by the IO and which he had then seen from judicial record also, the application form no. printed on the application was 2048 whereas as per entry at Sr. no. 438 in the register Ex. PW-17/A1, it should have been 6769. This application Ex. PW-3/B2, as seen by him that day and when seen by him before the IO, bears the registration serial number 438 dated 19.06.2003 in the name of one Rishipal S/o. Sh. Tidda Ram. In this application Ex. PW-3/B2 as seen by him that day, and when seen by him before the IO, contained the address of Rishipal the loan applicant as 'C-56, West Karawal Nagar, Delhi' whereas in the register containing entry Ex. PW-17/A1 at Sr. no. 438 the address mentioned was '196 Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdra'. The address in the Ex. PW-17/A1 and in Ex. PW-3/B2 should have been same as also the loan application form should have been same and not different. He also deposed that the loan application form no. used to be printed numbers on the printed CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 77 of 194 application proforma and it was never written by hand. He could not comment as to why the loan application form and the address of the applicant were different in Ex. PW-17/A1 and in Ex. PW- 3/B2 and under what circumstances they were different. Ex. PW- 3/B2 did not contain photograph of applicant. Whenever they used to accept any application in their branch, the application form used to contain photograph before acceptance of the application. He did not know in whose handwriting that application form Ex.PW-3/B2 was. He further deposed that after the application was received in their branch, they used to inform the Branch Incharge Sh. Krishan Kumar and Branch Incharge used to direct that the application be given to the dealing clerk. In June 2003, in their branch, dealing clerk was accused Dinesh. The application form used to be received alongwith its annexures and the dealing clerk used to prepare a note sheet after checking it with check list as to what documents were annexed with the application. He then deposed that he did not remember anything else regarding this case and he was not associated with this case in any manner.
84. PW-39 - Sh. Vijay Kumar Sain deposed that in February 2009, he was working as LDC in Corporation Bank, Chandni Chowk Branch, Delhi and also as LDC in Corporation Bank, Pitampura Branch, Delhi. He further deposed that on 27.02.2009, he carried one letter no. OR/Ch.Ch./48/09 dated 26.02.2009 (Ex.PW-39/B) signed by Mrs. Anuradha at point A along with one original cheque no. 434351 dated 05.07.2004 drawn in favour of Rishi Pal for Rs.50,000/- issued from Chandni Chowk branch of Corporation Bank from A/c No. 5111 CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 78 of 194 (Ex.PW-39/C.). He took this letter and the cheque to ACB and handed over to Inspector Kailash, but he was not very sure about his designation. Those documents were taken by the police official vide seizure memo dated 27.02.2009 bearing his signature at point A (Ex. PW-39/A). Since, he had seen Mrs. Anurdha Kriplani signing during the course of official duties, therefore, he could identify her signature. He further deposed that the said cheque must have been presented in GPO Delhi 110006 as on the back side of this cheque the stamp of GPO exist. The cheque must have been presented there for encashment and then it must have been received in their bank for encashment from GPO. His statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C was recorded by IO.
85. PW-40 - Sh. Rajender Kumar deposed that earlier he was employed in GPO, Delhi located at Kashmere Gate as PRI (P) (Public Relation Inspector Postal) and has now retired. He did not remember the date or month or the year but he carried three documents to inspector Kailash Chand at ACB. Those three documents were given to him by Deputy Chief Post Master, GPO, Kashmere Gate, Delhi to be handed over to inspector. He carried one original SB103 pertaining to Post office Savings Bank A/c no. 1159153 dated 06.07.2004 for Rs.500/- deposited towards opening of new account which was bearing signature of some Rishi Pal; another original SB103 dated 20.07.2004 for Rs.50,000/- pertaining to A/c No.1159153, vide which one cheque no. 434351 dated 05.07.2004 from Corporation Bank, Chandni Chowk was deposited in this account and; one original cheque no. 446251 dated 26.07.2004 for Rs.50,000/- from the same account no. 1159153 in the name of 'self' bearing signature CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 79 of 194 of Rishi Pal for withdrawing of this amount of Rs.50,000/-. All these three documents are already on record and are Ex. PW- 15/D; Ex. PW-15/B and Ex. PW-15/C, respectively. He then deposed that at that time when he handed over these documents to the inspector, the seizure memo Ex. PW-40/A was prepared which bears his signature at point A. His statement u/s 161 Cr.PC was recorded by the IO. He further deposed that he handed over the above mentioned documents to the inspector on 09.03.2009 and the same date that appears on Ex. PW-40/A.
86. PW-41 - Sh. Pradeep Kumar deposed that on 28.07.2009, he was working as Craft Instructor in ITI Shahdara and was on panch duty in ACB, Delhi. On that day, in his presence, Inspector Kailash Chand obtained handwriting specimen/signatures specimen of one person namely Rishi Pal who voluntarily gave his specimen handwriting/signatures in the office of ACB. He had seen the said specimen writing/signature of Rishi Pal obtained on 28.07.2009 in original from the judicial record running into 28 pages and the same were Ex. PW-16/Z16 to Ex. PW-16/Z-43 bearing his signature at point B and signature of Rishi Pal at point A. His statement u/s 161 Cr.PC was recorded.
87. PW-42 - Sh. Neeraj Chopra deposed that in February 2009, he was Branch Incharge of Delhi State Co- operative Bank Limited, Khari Baoli, Delhi. In the month of February or March 2009, he went to ACB along with one Manoj Rawat, who was a clerk at that time, and gave certain documents to the IO of the present case. He did not remember orally as to CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 80 of 194 which documents he carried since it was an old matter. After seeing a register kept on judicial record, he deposed that he took that register and supplied it to the IO. It was an attendance register for the period January 2003 to December 2003 and it contains attendance of all the staff members of the bank i.e. Delhi State Co-operative Bank, Khari Baoli in the month of November 2003. The register was Ex. PW-14/DA. Similarly he had also seen the withdrawal slip cum loose cheque dated 11.09.2004 bearing no. 716508, which is for Rs. 900/-, purportedly drawn by one Rishi Pal, and this document contained signature of Rishi Pal on the front side as well on the back side. This document also contained signature of bank official Smt. Dayawanti who was Account Officer and that of Mr. Raj Singh who was Manager. This document was Ex. PW-4/E. This cheque was drawn from A/c No. 2931 L/F from Khari Baoli branch of above mentioned bank. This document was also handed over by him to the IO. Similarly, he had also seen leave applications dated 25.07.2008 and 05.08.2008 from judicial record. He had handed over these two documents also to the IO. These two leave applications pertain to one Anil Kumar and his designation was mentioned in the application as Clerk. But these applications pertained to the period prior to his joining the branch and therefore, he did not know Mr. Anil Kumar. These two applications were Ex.PW-42/A1 and Ex.PW-42/A2. These documents were taken into possession by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW-42/B bearing his signature at point A and also signature of Manoj Rawat at point B. He did not remember whether IO also recorded his statement on that day. He affirmed CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 81 of 194 as correct that the documents were handed over on 27.02.2009 as the same date appeared under his signature on the seizure memo. He could not admit or deny that his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC was also recorded on the same day. He voluntarily stated that it does not contain his signature so he could not say whether it was recorded on the same day or some other day.
88. PW-43 - Smt. Anita deposed that she was residing at Vaishali since 2005 and was working as receptionist at Satish & Sons at Yojna Vihar, Karkardooma. Mr. Satish Loomba was the owner of the said firm who had since expired. The firm of Mr. Satish Loomba, where she was working as receptionist used to deal in securing loan for public persons who used to approach that firm. She deposed that public persons used to come and give applications for obtaining loan from different departments and firm of Mr. Satish Loomba used to help in processing of those loan applications from the concerned departments. Mr. Satish Loomba used to take processing fee of Rs. 5,000/- from such loan applicants. She deposed that one Mr. Mukesh Kumar Vaid who was working in MCD and was the Union Leader was known to her and Mr. Satish Loomba. One Rishi Pal had applied in the said firm for obtaining loan. He had submitted copy of his ration card, application form and caste certificate along with processing fee of Rs. 5000/- which he deposited in the office of firm. One Mr. Sushil Kumar was working in SDM office which used to deal in grant of loan and he used to visit their office. She handed over the application form of Rishi Pal along with documents to accused Sushil who had collected it from their office. She deposed that she did not remember the said date when the CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 82 of 194 application was handed over to him, but it was sometime in the year 2003. After some days, accused Sushil Kumar came to their office and told them that since there was no guarantor for applicant Rishi Pal, his loan could not be sanctioned. However, accused Sushil Kumar did not return the loan application and other documents of Rishi Pal. She then deposed that after that, they informed Rishi Pal that his loan could not be sanctioned because of the above mentioned reason. Thereafter, out of Rs.5,000/- paid by Rishi Pal, a sum of Rs. 2000/- was returned to him but Mr. Satish Loomba retained remaining Rs. 3000/- as processing fee. She also deposed that on 26.11.2008 she went to ACB Office and her statement was recorded. She also deposed that she had identified accused Sushil Kumar, who was present in ACB on that day. She further deposed that accused Sushil Kumar was working as Peon at that time in Delhi State Finance Development Corporation which used to grant loan to SC/ST people/applicants. She deposed that the name of father of Rishi Pal who applied for loan was Sh. Tidda Ram and that the loan application by Rishi Pal was given sometime in May/June 2003.
89. PW-44 - Sh. Deepak Kumar deposed that on 04.02.2010, he was working as Assistant in DSFDC / Head quarter, Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi and on that day, certain documents from personal file of accused Sushil Kumar, Dinesh Kumar and Veer Pal Singh were taken by him from their respective personal files and he handed over those documents to the IO. His colleague Pradeep Singh, UDC also accompanied him to ACB and documents were handed over to Inspector Kailash Chand. He further deposed that he had seen original CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 83 of 194 application dated 16.04.2003, 08.08.2003, 09.07.2004, 14.06.2005 and 06.04.2000 given by accused Sushil Kumar. All the five documents, taken out from the personal file of accused Sushil Kumar were the same which were handed over to Inspector Kailash Chand by him. The said documents were communications sent by the accused to the office and all these documents bear signature of accused Sushil Kumar. These documents were given Mark A-8; A-5; A- 7; A-6 & A-9 respectively and these documents were Ex.PW44/A-1 to A-5, respectively. He then deposed that he had seen original application dated 07.08.2003, 15.03.2005, 04.04.2005, 26.04.2005 and 02.05.2005 given by accused Dinesh Gupta. All these five documents, taken out from the personal file of accused Dinesh Gupta were the same which were handed over to Inspector Kailash Chand by him. These documents were communications sent by the accused to the office and all these documents bear signature of accused Dinesh Gupta. These documents were Ex.PW44/B-1 to B-5, respectively. He also deposed that he had seen original application dated 10.06.2003, 08.10.2003, 12.10.2003, 12.05.2004 and 20.05.2004 given by accused Veer Pal. All these five documents, taken out from the personal file of accused Veer Pal were the same which were handed over to Inspector Kailash Chand by him. These documents are communications sent by the accused to the office and all these documents bear signature of accused Veer Pal. These documents were Ex.PW44/C-1 to C-5, respectively. He also deposed that all these above mentioned documents were taken into possession by the IO vide seizure memo which he had CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 84 of 194 signed. He had seen the seizure memo from the judicial record dated 04.02 2010 bearing his signature at point A (Ex.PW44/D). His statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C was recorded by the IO. He also deposed that he did not remember whether there was any panch witness present at that time when he handed over these documents to the IO.
90. PW-45 - Sh. Mehar Chand deposed that in February, 2010, he was working as Supervisor in Ministry of Defence and was working in the same ministry in 2003 also. In 2003, he was appointed as Director (Honorary) in DSFDC for about 2-3 years. He was one of the members of LSC for screening of applicants who used to apply for loan under SC/ST category in DSFDC. It was especially meant for Safai Karamcharis. Besides him, in the LSC, there was one General Manager and one Deputy Manager. He was the Chairman of the said LSC. There were other members also in the LSC but he did not remember their designations. He also deposed that sometime in the year 2010, he was called by IO, ACB to inquire into his role in the LSC. He told the IO that his role was that he used to ask from the loan applicants as to their caste and it was the responsibility of the other dealing clerks/assistants from Administrative Department of DSFDC to check the caste certificate of the applicant. He also told the IO that in North India, mostly persons belonging to Valmiki Caste only used to do work of Safai Karamcharis. The IO also asked him if he would be available in case required in the present matter, upon which he told the IO that he would be available. He further deposed that no CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 85 of 194 document was shown to him by the IO when he went toACB and nothing else happened in the office of ACB on that day.
91. PW-46 - Ms. S. Albina deposed that in 2008-2009, she was the Assistant Manager (Vigilance) in DSFDC office located in Sector 16, Rohini, Delhi. Pursuant to a letter dated 19.06.2008, she had sent letter no. F 438/359/SKD/3580 dated 25.08.2009 bearing her signature (at point A on letter Ex.PW46/A). Along with the letter, one original form issue register was also sent. She deposed that it was the same register which was Ex.PW17/F. She did not remember whether she had seen the above mentioned letter or the register before the IO in ACB. She voluntarily stated that it has been more than ten years. She also deposed that she did not remember whether the IO had shown her any other document when she went to ACB since it is a matter of more than ten years old. She deposed that she did not recollect whether she saw this document before the IO in the ACB after seeing document Ex.PW45/P-2.
92. PW-47 - Mr. Thakur Dayal deposed that in 2011, he was working as Inspector/Statistical Assistant in Commissioner of Industries, Patparganj Industrial Area, Delhi and on 25.01.2011, he was on panch witness duty in ACB. One Inspector met him there and three persons were present namely accused Sushil and one Sanjay and Rajender. He deposed that the above named three persons identified their hand writings on certain documents which were shown to them by the IO and he was told that the case was pertaining to some fraud. One memo regarding identification of hand writing was prepared by the IO CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 86 of 194 which he had signed (Ex.PW17/H bearing his signature at point B). The registers Ex.PW2/B and Ex.PW17/F, were the same which were shown to the above named three persons in which they admitted their hand writings. Similarly, the file Ex.PW3/B was shown to the above named three persons and they admitted their hand writings.
93. PW-48 - Sh. Virender Pal deposed that in the year 2010, he was working as LDC in Transport Department at Wazirpur Authority. On 12.11.2010, he was deputed as panch witness in ACB and he had reached there at about 10.00 a.m. In the ACB office, there were 4-5 persons whose specimen signatures were taken by the IO on several papers and he also signed those papers. He stated that he could identify those papers. He could not physically identify those persons as he did not remember their faces but so far as he could recollect some of the persons were named Jitender, Sushil and Veer Pal. At that stage, witness was shown specimen handwriting and signatures of accused Dinesh Gupta, running into 30 sheets, from judicial record. He deposed that these were the same documents, which were prepared in his presence and specimen were taken in his presence and he signed all those pages at point A. These documents were collectively Ex.PW-48/A. At that stage, witness was shown specimen handwriting and signatures of accused Veer Pal, running into 29 sheets, from judicial record. These were the same documents, which were prepared in his presence and specimen were taken in his presence and he signed all those pages at point A. These documents were collectively Ex.PW- 48/B. At that stage, witness was shown specimen handwriting CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 87 of 194 and signatures of accused Sushil Kumar, running into 28 sheets, from judicial record. These were the same documents, which were prepared in his presence and specimen were taken in his presence and he signed all those pages at point A. These documents were collectively Ex.PW-48/C. At that stage, witness was shown specimen handwriting and signatures of accused Jitender Kumar, running into 25 sheets, from judicial record. These were the same documents, which were prepared in his presence and specimen were taken in his presence and he signed all those pages at point A. These documents were collectively Ex.PW-48/D. At that stage, witness was shown specimen handwriting and signatures of accused Vinod Kumar Sharma, running into 25 sheets, from judicial record. These were the same documents, which were prepared in his presence and specimen were taken in his presence and he signed all those pages at point A. These documents were collectively Ex.PW-48/Ε.
94. PW-49 - Mr. Sunil Sachdev deposed that he was posted as Deputy Manager, Vigilance in DSFDC in June 2017. Pursuant to letter dated 12.05.2017 received from ACB, he forwarded the bio data and sanction u/s 19 of PC Act to PS ACB vide his letter dated 02.06.2017. He further deposed that he had seen the said letter on judicial record bearing his signature with date at point A. His letter was Ex. PW-49/A. Alongwith this letter, he had forwarded bio data signed by him and the respective sanction order signed by Ms. Rinku Dhugga who was Managing Director at the relevant time in DSFDC. The bio data and sanction orders were regarding accused Dinesh Kumar Gupta who was working as UDC in DSFDC; accused Veerpal Singh CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 88 of 194 who was working as Assistant Manager in DSFDC and accused Sushil Kumar who was working as LDC in DSFDC. The bio data of accused Dinesh Kumar, signed by him was on judicial record and he had seen his signatures on this document then, which he identified at point A (Ex.PW-49/B). The Sanction order qua accused Dinesh Kumar, duly signed by Ms. Rinku Dhugga was Ex.PW-49/C. He identified the signatures of Ms. Rinku Dhugga as he had seen her signing during the official course of duties. Her signature was at point A. He also deposed that the bio data of accused Sushil Kumar, signed by him was on judicial record and he had seen his signatures on this document, which he identified at point A (Ex.PW-49/D). The Sanction order qua accused Sushil Kumar, duly signed by Ms. Rinku Dhugga was Ex.PW-49/E. He identified the signatures of Ms. Rinku Dhugga as he had seen her signing during the official course of duties. Her signatures was at point A. He further deposed that the bio data of accused Veerpal Singh, signed by him was already on judicial record and he had seen his signatures on this document now, which he identified at point A (Ex.PW-49/F). The Sanction order qua accused Veerpal Singh, duly signed by Ms. Rinku Dhugga was Ex.PW-49/G. He identified signatures of Ms. Rinku Dhugga as he had seen her signing during the official course of duties. Her signatures was at point A.
95. PW-50 - Mr. Pawan Kumar Fuloria deposed that on 26.11.2010, when he was working as Craft Instructor (Fitter) at ITI, Nand Nagri, Delhi, he was on panch witness duty on that day at PS ACB and he was present at PS ACB. In his presence, IO Insp. Kailash Chand obtained specimen hand writing and CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 89 of 194 signatures of Anil Kumar Gupta on 18 sheets. He signed all those 18 sheets as a witness. He further deposed that Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta gave his specimens in his presence and thereafter, he signed those sheets. He correctly identified the accused Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta in the Court. He further deposed that he had seen the 18 sheets containing specimen signatures/writings from judicial record (Ex.PW50/A-1 to A-18). He stated that all these sheets bear his signatures at Point A and all these sheets also bear signatures of accused Anil Kumar Gupta at Point B. He did not remember whether IO recorded his statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C.
96. PW-51 - Sh. S.L. Mukhi deposed that he joined as the Director of Truth Labs, New Delhi in 2007. Prior to it, he was working as Principal Scientific Officer in CFSL, CBI, Delhi. He worked in CFSL since 1970 to 2005. He was a handwriting expert and he worked in the CFSL as a handwriting expert and continued as a handwriting expert in Truth Labs also. He had left the job at the time of recording of statement. Therefore, he worked as a handwriting expert since 1970 till 2017 and had an experience of 47 Years. He had given evidence qua examining the documents in more than 4000 cases throughout India in various Courts including High Courts. He had examined several lakhs of documents in his career. So far as the present case was concerned, when he was working as Director of Truth Labs, several questioned documents were received from ACB as mentioned in his report dated 20.10.2014 from Page 1 to Page 4 under Paragraph "A". Along with the questioned documents, he had also received Standard/Admitted writings/Admitted CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 90 of 194 signatures/Specimen writings/Specimen Signatures, as mentioned in his report in Page no. 4 to Page 10. He further deposed that after comparing the questioned writings/signatures with the admitted and specimen writings/signatures supplied to him, he gave opinion that the questioned writings/signatures Marked Q6 (Ex.PW3/O); Q12, Q12/1, Q12/2, Q12/3, Q12/A to Q12/O (Ex.PW1/A), Q19 (Ex.PW16/Z-4), Q19A (Ex.PW16/Z-
5), Q19B (Ex.PW16/Z-6), Q19C (Ex.PW16/Z-8), Q19D (Ex.PW16/Z-9), Q19E (Ex.PW16/Z-10), Q19F (Ex.PW16/Z-11), Q19G (Ex.PW16/Z-12), Q19H (Ex.PW16/Z-13), Q191 (Ex.PW16/Z-14), Q19J (Ex.PW16/Z-15), Q19K (Ex.PW16/Z-3), Q19L (Ex.PW16/Z-7), Q20 (Ex.PW16/Z-4), Q20A (Ex.PW16/Z-
5), Q20B (Ex.PW16/Z-6), Q20C (Ex.PW16/Z-8), Q20D (Ex.PW16/Z-9), Q20E (Ex.PW16/Z-10), Q20F (Ex.PW16/Z-11), Q20G (Ex.PW16/Z-15), Q20K (Ex.PW16/Z-3), Q20L (Ex.PW16/Z-7), Q21 (Ex.PW16/Z-4), Q21A (Ex.PW16/Z-5), Q21B (Ex.PW16/Z-6), Q21C (Ex.PW16/Z-8), Q21D (Ex.PW16/Z-9), Q21E (Ex.PW16/Z-10), Q21F (Ex.PW16/Z-11), Q21G (Ex.PW16/Z-12), Q21H (Ex.PW16/Z-13), Q21 I (Ex.PW16/Z-14), Q21J (Ex.PW16/Z-15), Q21K (Ex.PW16/Z-3), Q21L (Ex.PW16/Z-7), Q25 (Ex.PW16/A), Q25A to Q25M (Ex.PW16/B to 16/N), Q25N to Q25/X (Ex.PW16/P to 16/Z), Q25Z (Ex.PW16/O), Q25Y (Ex.PW16/Z-1) (Ex.PW16/Z-12), Q20H (Ex.PW16/Z-13), Q20I (Ex.PW16/Z-14), Q20J 1), Q25Z- 1(Ex.PW16/Z-2), Q26 (Ex.PW16/A), Q26A to Q26M (Ex.PW16/B to 16/N), Q26N to Q26X (Ex.PW16/P to 16/Z), Q26Z (Ex.PW16/O), Q26Y (Ex.PW16/Z-1), Q26Z-1 (Ex.PW16/Z-2), Q27 (Ex.PW16/A), Q27A to Q27M CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 91 of 194 (Ex.PW16/B to 16/N), Q27N to Q27X (Ex.PW16/P to 16/Z), Q27Z (Ex.PW16/0), Q27Y (Ex.PW16/Z-1), Q27Z-1 (Ex.PW16/Z-2), Q29, Q29A, Q29B (Part of Ex.PW3/B-1), Q29C & Q32 (Part of Ex.PW1/A), were written by the writer of Specimen S-1 to S-113 ie. S-1 to S-29 (Ex.PW48/C collectively 28 pages), S-30 to S-39 (Ex.PW34/A-1 to A-9), S-40 to S-44 (now Ex.PW51/A-1 to A-5), S-45 to S-47 (Ex.PW34/A-10 to A-
12), S-48 to 60 (now Ex.PW51/B-1 to B-13), S-61 to 63 (Ex.PW34/A-13 to A15), S-64 to 65 (now Ex.PW51/C-1 & C-2), S-66 to S-79 (Ex.PW34/A-16 to A-29), S-80 & 81 (now Ex.PW51/D-1 & D-2), S-82 to 88 (Ex.PW34/A-30 to 36), S-89 to 102 (now Ex.PW51/E-1 to E-14), S-103 (Ex.PW34/A-37), S- 104 (Ex.PW35/C-1), S-105 to 109 (Ex.PW35/C-2 to C-6), S-110 to 113 (Ex.PW47/A-1 to A-4). The reasons for his opinion were mentioned in his report in detail on page no. 17 to 19. His report, running into 21 pages Ex.PW51/X, bear his signature at Point A on every page. He then deposed that he also gave opinion that the questioned writings / signatures Mark Q-4 Ex.PW17/D), Q5B (Ex.PW17/A), Q3 (Ex.PW17/D), Q3A (Ex.PW3/V), were written by the person who wrote specimen S-180 to S-208, (Ex.PW48/B collectively running into 29 pages), S-209 & 210 (now Ex.PW51/F1 & F-2), S- 211 to 218 (Part of Ex.PW32/M collectively), and also the person who wrote admitted writings A-10 (Ex.PW44/C-2), A-11 (Ex.PW44/C-1), A-12 (Ex.PW44/C-
5), A-13 (Ex.PW44/C-4), A-14 (Ex.PW44/C-3), A-15 (now Ex.PW51/G), A15 A to A15 E (now Ex.PW51/H-1 to H-5). The reasons for his abovesaid opinion were mentioned in detail in his CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 92 of 194 Report Ex.PW51/X on Page 20 & 21. For rest of the documents, no definite opinion could be arrived at by him.
97. PW-52 - Mr. Rakesh Kumar deposed that on 08.11.2013, when he was posted as Inspector in PS ACB, further investigation of the present case was assigned to him. He took over further investigation from Inspector Pankaj Sharma. On perusal of file, he found that FSL result as to the opinion of hand writing expert was awaited in the present matter. On 12.02.2015, through Ct. Sanjay, he got collected the handwriting expert's report from Truth Labs. Ct. Sanjay brought two sealed envelopes and handed over the same to him on that day. One of the envelopes contained the handwriting expert's opinion, which was on judicial record and was Ex.PW51/X. The covering letter along with Ex.PW51/X from Mr. S. L. Mukhi was Ex.PW52/A. In the second envelope, the documents were received back from the expert. He further deposed that thereafter, the investigation of the present case was transferred from him to another IO on 09.05.2016. No other investigation took place during his tenure regarding this case.
98. PW-53 - Retd. ACP Kailash Chandra deposed that on 26.12.2007, when he was posted as Inspector in PS ACB, he received investigation of the present case. Prior to him, the investigating officer was N. K. Sharma who had expired. On the complaint dated 23.08.2006, by Mr. Subhash Chandra, General Manager of Delhi SC / ST / OBC / Minorities/ Handicapped / Financial & Development Corporation, Ex.PW36/A, Inspector N. K. Sharma made endorsement in his own handwriting which CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 93 of 194 was Ex.PW53/A bearing signatures of N. K. Sharma at point A. He was conversant with the handwriting and signatures of N. K. Sharma as he had worked with him and he was no more. Pursuant to the said endorsement, the present FIR was registered on 09.10.2007. He further deposed that after he received investigation of this case, on 19.02.2008, Jitender Kumar UDC from DSFDC came to PS ACB and handed over the file and documents pertaining to the present case. He had brought File no. 438/SKD/BONN(Main File) in the name of Rishipal which contained documents Mark Sl. No. 1/C to 26/C and Note sheets 1/N to 6/N. The said file was already Ex.PW3/B, which he had seen from judicial records on that day. From documents, 1/C to 26/C, Page 2/C was missing from the file when it was brought by Jitender. He had mentioned the details of all the documents of this file in the Seizure Memo prepared by him which was already Ex.PW3/A and which was in his handwriting, bearing his signatures at Point B. He also deposed that on 21.04.2008, Mr. Madan Mohan S/o Jai Chand joined investigation and handed over photocopy of his ration card and photocopy of his ID card in presence of panch witness R. K. Anand, which were already on record Mark 1/K & 1/L and which were taken into possession vide seizure memo already Ex.PW1/J bearing his signature at Point C. Said Mr. Madan Mohan was shown as guarantor to the loan in the name of Rishi Pal, however, Mr. Madan Mohan denied having stood guarantor. On that very day, in presence of panch witness R. K. Anand, Mr. Madan Mohan gave his specimen signatures and specimen handwritings on four pages. He prepared a memo in this regard which was Ex.PW5/A, CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 94 of 194 bearing his signature at Point B and signature of Madan Mohan at Point C. The specimen signature of Mr. Madan Mohan were already Ex.PW1/F to 1/1. He then deposed that on 10.06.2008, Mr. Manmohan Khinchi, Branch Manager, DSFDC came to PS ACB and handed over one Register, already Ex.PW2/B. In this register, on page no. 23 at Sl.No. 438, there was an entry as to the loan application in the name of Rishi Pal S/o Tidda Ram R/o 196, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara under Form No. 6769. The said entry was already Ex.PW17/A. This register was taken into possession vide seizure memo already Ex.PW6/A as mentioned at Sl.No. 2 on this seizure memo. The register mentioned at Sl.No. 1 of this seizure memo was not traceable as it was lost by the subsequent IO. The seizure memo was in his handwriting bearing his signature at point B. Vide the same seizure memo, one copy of Master Loan Register was also handed over by Mr. M. M. Khinchi, as mentioned at Sl. No. 3 in the seizure memo and it was taken into possession. The said copy of Master Loan Register was already on judicial record and was already Ex. PW6/B. Mr. M. M. Khinchi also handed over one written reply dated 10.06.2008 which was taken into possession vide the same memo, and was already Ex.PW6/C. On 26.09.2008, Mr. P. K. Sharma, Branch Manager of The Delhi State Co-operative Bank and Mr. Manoj Rawat, Clerk came to PS ACB and handed over one original Savings Bank Account Opening Form in the name of Rishi Pal, which was already Ex. PW4/A. They also handed over one specimen signature card, already Ex.PW4/B; one photocopy of ration card Ex.PW14/A; one application in the name of Rishi Pal dated 11.09.2004 Ex.PW4/C; one photocopy CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 95 of 194 of application regarding loss of cheque book Ex.PW4/D and; one photocopy of ledger statement Ex.PW7/D. All these documents were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/B which was in his handwriting bearing his signature at point B and it also bears signature of Manoj Rawat and P. K. Sharma. On the account opening form, the photograph is of accused Vinod and not of Rishi Pal. When he interrogated Rishi Pal during investigation, he denied having opened this account and he said that he never applied for any loan in DSFDC. The photograph on the loan application was also not of Rishi Pal.
99. PW-54 further deposed that during investigation, he came to know that this account was opened by accused Vinod in the name of Rishi Pal as in this bank, accused Anil Kumar Gupta was working as Cashier in Delhi State Co-operative Bank, Khari Baoli and his relative Dinesh was a dealing clerk in Nand Nagri Branch of DSFDC and they got this account opened in the name of Rishi Pal by accused Vinod after it was got introduced from one Arun Kumar who was working as Peon in the bank. From this account, cheque book was obtained and post dated cheques were submitted when loan was taken in the name of Rishi Pal from DSFDC. He further deposed that during investigation, he had called Rishi Pal in whose name loan was taken, as also the guarantor, Mr. Madan Mohan. He also issued notices to witnesses namely Naresh and Ombir who had witnessed the guarantee and Hypothecation Deed. He also stated that it was learnt that the address of Ombir mentioned in the documents was fake and there was no such address or person existing in the name of Ombir. The address of Naresh mentioned in the loan CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 96 of 194 documents was though correct, but even he was not residing at that address and he was a tenant in that premises long ago having left that premises long ago. When he examined Rishi Pal and showed him the account documents/loan documents and the Form Receipt Register Ex.PW2/B submitted by Mr. Manmohan Khinchi, Rishi Pal stated that neither he opened any account in Delhi State Cooperative Bank, Khari Baoli nor he signed any such document and he stated that all those documents etc. were forged. He stated that all the documents in the loan file Ex.PW3/B were fake and the documents containing his signatures and signature/thumb impression of his wife Smt. Naresh Devi were forged. He stated that he had although applied for loan earlier, but he was informed that his loan application was rejected and he specified that the loan documents in question forming part of file Ex.PW3/B were all forged. He also deposed that even the guarantor Mr. Madan Mohan, when examined, stated that he did not stand guarantor for anyone by the name of Rishi Pal and that his signatures on the guarantee documents and other documents as to his identity forming part of the loan file did not belong to him. He recorded statements of the above mentioned persons namely Rishi Pal and Madan Mohan. He then deposed that during investigation, it was also noticed that in the loan application form with the registration no. 438, the date was mentioned as 19.06.2003 and the form number was mentioned as 2048, as apparent from Ex. PW3/B2, whereas in the Safai Karamchari Division (SKD) Receipt Register the entry Ex.PW17/A-1 at Serial no. 438 contained a different form no. 6769 instead of 2048 and also the address on both these CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 97 of 194 documents were different. During investigation, he examined the person who had made entry Ex.PW17/A-1, namely Sanjay who was Peon in Nand Nagri Branch of DSFDC. He had stated that it was accused Sushil Kumar, present in the Court (correctly identified) who had handed him over that form to make that entry and Sanjay also stated that he had made an initial/endorsement by the name of Sushil at Point Q-41 on Ex.PW17/A-1 in this regard. Sanjay also stated that he handed over the loan application/documents to accused Dinesh Gupta (correctly identified). He recorded statement of Sanjay in this regard.
100. He further deposed that during investigation, he also recorded statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C of Smt. Anita and Mukesh Vaid, through whom Rishi Pal had earlier applied for loan and through whom Rishi Pal had come to know that his loan was not sanctioned. During investigation, he also came to know that the document Ex.PW3/O which is part of Ex.PW3/B at internal page 17 of the file should have been in routine sent to the loan applicant through post but since the address was incorrect, it was deliberately not sent through post and instead at Point Q-6 and Q-13 i.e. Point Mark X to X and A, accused Sushil had forged by writing that this document was hand delivered to Rishi Pal and even the signature of Rishi Pal at Point Q-13 were forged by accused Rishi Pal. He also came to know that in the loan file Ex.PW3/B, the internal page 2/C was missing and the said document should have been the Caste Certificate of the loan applicant. Though in the check list of the loan file, it was mentioned that Caste Certificate was part of the file and loan application but this document was actually missing from the loan CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 98 of 194 file Ex.PW3/B. He further deposed that during investigation, he also recorded statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C of one Jitender Kumar who was manager of DSFDC regarding the process and procedure followed in DSFDC generally for grant of loan. He also examined and recorded statement of one Mr. S. P. Jaiswal. During investigation, it came to be known that the loan amount of Rs. 50,000/- in favour of Rishi Pal given through cheque of DSFDC, was deposited in an account which was opened in the name of Rishi Pal at GPO, Kashmere Gate Post Office and from there, the amount of Rs. 50,000/- was withdrawn in cash. Regarding it, he had issued notices to the concerned official of GPO and on 07.10.2008, Mr. Sat Prakash and Uma Dutt came and joined investigation. They supplied original account opening form Ex.PW15/A and the pay-in-slip at the time of opening of this account in the post office which is Ex.PW15/D. Ex.PW15/A revealed that an account in the name of Rishi Pal S/o Tidda Ram with address E-56, West Karawal Nagar, Delhi was opened in which nominee mentioned was Smt. Naresh Devi wife of Rishi Pal. Rishi Pal had stated that he did not open this Post Office Savings Account in his name and it was forged bearing his forged signature. Introducer to this account was one Mr. Jai Narayan Solanki. He examined him who stated that he signed this document at the instance of accused Sushil as he was known to accused Sushil. He recorded statement of Jai Narayan Solanki. Again said, on 07.10.2008 the account opening form and the copy of Ration Card and copy of ledger was received by him from Sat Prakash and Uma Dutt and not the pay-in-slip of Rs.500/-. The copy of ration card and the copy of ledger received CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 99 of 194 on 07.10.2008 are respectively Mark 15/E and Ex.PW19/B. He took those documents in possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW19/A, bearing his signature at Point C, signature of Sat Prakash at Point A and Uma Dutt at Point B. During investigation, he sent communication to the Office of DC, Government of NCT of Delhi and Central Government, Ministry of Law & Justice, in order to find out about Notaries namely J. D. Sharma and Ashok Kumar whose names were mentioned in the affidavits in the loan file. He received communication Ex.PW58/A from SDM, Headquarter, NCT of Delhi which informed that as per record, there was no Notary Public by the name of J. D. Sharma. Similarly, a letter dated 15.12.2008 written by one Mr. R. K. Srivastav, Assistant Legal Advisor from the Office of Ministry of Law & Justice was received and the said communication was Ex. PW53/B which was received in the Office of ACB on 19.12.2008. His communications sent to the Ministry of Law, dated 23.10.2008 was Ex.PW53/B-1. During investigation, he came to know that in Oriental Bank of Commerce, Rohini Branch, the amount had been deposited in cash to the tune of Rs. 56,000/- in the account of DSFDC towards repayment of loan with interest. On 11.11.2008, Mr. Shyam Sunder Sareen, Cashier from OBC, Rohini Branch appeared and tendered a pay-in-slip dated 02.01.2007 regarding depositing of that amount along with the letter of the Bank Manager. He seized those documents vide seizure memo Ex.PW23/C bearing his signature at Point D, signature of Shyam Sunder Sareen at Point A. The pay-in-slip was Ex.PW53/C and the letter of Bank Manager was already Ex. PW23/A. He also CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 100 of 194 recorded statement of Shyam Sunder Sareen. During investigation, he also issued notice to the concerned official of DSFDC to supply the post dated cheques which were tendered with the loan processing application and documents. Accordingly, on 17.11.2008 Mr. Vikas Dhawan from DSFDC joined investigation and he tendered 13 post dated cheques, recovery fact sheet file in original, cheque distribution register copy and one more document which he seized vide a seizure memo which was already Ex.PW26/B, bearing his signature at Point B and signature of Mr. Vikas at Point A. The post dated cheques were Ex.PW16/Z-3 to Z-15; the recovery fact sheet was Ex.PW26/1 (collectively); certified copy of Cheque Distribution Register was Ex.PW26/2. He then deposed that on 20.11.2008, he received a communication sent by Mr. A. P. Singh, Deputy Manager, Legal in DSFDC along with some documents regarding posting details of the accused persons who were employed in DSFDC. The letter of Mr. A. P. Singh was Ex.PW21/A and the documents supplied with this letter were Ex.PW21/B, 21/B-1 to B-17, 21/C to 21/R. He took those documents on investigation file and later on, he recorded statement of Mr. A. P. Singh. On 20.11.2008 itself, one Mr. Vedpal from DSFDC joined investigation and he had supplied one correspondence register of the year 2003, Nand Nagri Branch regarding the loan transaction in question, which was seized by him vide seizure memo Ex.PW22/A. However, at subsequent stages of investigation, the said register was lost by the subsequent IOs and it was not filed with the chargesheet. During investigation, he examined Sh. Krishan Kumar, Raj CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 101 of 194 Kumar, Ram Avtar and Vinod Kumar from DSFDC, Nand Nagri Branch and he recorded their statements U/s 161 Cr.P.C. During investigation, he issued notices to the accused persons to join investigation and from the photograph in the loan file, he tried to search the person whose photograph was affixed in the loan application. Upon it, one Mr. Jitender Kumar joined investigation and told him that the photograph belonged to his brother Vinod Kumar. Both Jitender and Vinod Kumar are accused in this case (correctly identified). On 24.11.2008, he arrested accused Dinesh Gupta, Sushil Kumar, Veerpal, Anıl Gupta, Jitender and Vinod Kumar. Accused Dinesh (correctly identified) was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW32/E and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW32/F. Accused Sushil Kumar (correctly identified) was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW32/C and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW32/D. Accused Veerpal (correctly identified) was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW32/A and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW32/B. Accused Anil Gupta (correctly identified) was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW32/K and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW32/L. Accused Jitender (correctly identified) was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW32/I and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW32/J. Accused Vinod (correctly identified) was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW32/G and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW32/H. Police custody of accused Dinesh Gupta, Veerpal, Jitender and Sushil was obtained from the Court.
101. He also deposed that on 27.02.2009 Mr. Vijay Kumar Sen appeared before him from Corporation Bank, CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 102 of 194 Chandni Chowk Branch and he tendered the original cheque of Rs. 50,000/- which was issued in the name of Rishi Pal against disbursal of loan. That cheque had already been encashed in the post office savings account of GPO. He seized the cheque (Ex.PW39/C) vide seizure memo Ex.PW39/A. On 27.02.2009 itself, one Mr. Manoj Rawat and Neeraj Chopra from Cooperative Bank, Khari Boali joined investigation and they supplied some documents which he seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW42/B, bearing his signature at point C and signature of Manoj and Neeraj at point B and A respectively. The attendance Register of the staff was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/DA. The withdrawal slip cum lose cheque dated 11.09.2004 was Ex.PW4/E; and leave applications dated 25.07.2008 and 05.08.2008 of Anil Kumar were Ex. PW42/A1 and A2. He further deposed that on 09.03.2009, some more documents were submitted by Vikas Dhawan from DSFDC which were seized by him vide seizure memo Ex.PW26/4. The documents seized vide this seizure memo were total 28 cheques issued from Delhi State Cooperative Bank Limited, Khari Baoli and those cheques were Ex.PW16/A to 16/1, Ex.PW16/J to 16/N, Ex.PW16/Q to 16/Z, Ex.PW16/Z-1, Ex.PW16/O, Ex.PW16/Z-2.
102. On 09.03.2009 itself from GPO, Kashmere Gate, one Mr. Rajender Kumar joined investigation and he supplied some documents i.e. one pay-in-slip of Rs. 500/- executed at the time of opening of Post Office Savings Account in GPO in the name of Rishi Pal. He also supplied the pay- in-slip through which the cheque for Rs. 50,000/- i.e. the cheque of disbursal of loan was deposited in the account in GPO and he also supplied CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 103 of 194 one cheque drawn as "Self" from the post office account through which the amount of Rs. 50,000/- was withdrawn in cash from this account in post office. He took those documents into possession vide memo Fx.PW40/A bearing his signature Point B, signature of Rajender at Point A. Those three documents seized vide Ex.PW40/A were already Ex. PW15/B, C & D. He then deposed that on 28.07.2009, he obtained admitted handwriting and signatures of Rishi Pal from his office i.e. MCD Office, Karkardooma. These documents were produced by one Mr. A. K. Jain, Sanitary Superintendent, MCD. He took those documents into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW16/Z-44, bearing his signature at Point B and signature of Rishi Pal at Point A. The document seized vide this seizure memo i.e. the leave applications were Ex.PW16/Z-49 to 2-56; affidavits dated 03.01.1991 & 11.12.2000 were Ex.PW16/Z-45; and application for advance of PF were Ex.PW16/Z-47 & 48. He deposed that during investigation, when he tried to verify the copy of electricity bill and the copy of ration card which were given at the time of applying for the loan in question, he found that the electricity bill was in the name of Rishi Pal and the ration card copy was also in the name of Rishi Pal. However, when he went to the address mentioned in the electricity bill, he found that the said electricity meter was not in the name of Rishi Pal but it was in the name of one Shiv Kumar and Shiv Kumar had already left that house by that time when he visited the house. Similarly, when he went to verify the ration card, the actual ration card was found in the name of Raj Bahadur. Thereby meaning that the copy of electricity bill and the ration card submitted with the loan CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 104 of 194 application, were both forged. The copy of electricity bill was Ex.PW-3/N and the copy of ration card was Ex.PW-3/E in the loan file Ex.PW-3/B. Both Ex.PW-3/N and 3/E were shown to have been attested by the Principal, ITI Nand Nagri. He further deposed that when he verified the fact of attestation from him, the Principal denied having attested or signed these two documents. He replied about it vide his letter dated 17.11.2008 and he also supplied his specimen signature also with the said letter. The said judicial record was Ex.PW-53/D and the letter, already on specimen signature sheets annexed with the letter was Ex.PW. 53/D1, D2 and D3 running into three pages. About the ration card Ex.PW-3/E, FSO replied vide his letter Ex.PW-55/A that the ration card no. 121708 did not exist in the name of Rishi Pal and that it was in the name of Raj Bahadur. He also deposed that in the loan file, copy of CBSE certificate in the name of Madan Mohan; copy of I-Card and copy of ration card, Ex.PW- 3/K, Ex.PW-3/J and Ex.PW-3/I respectively also existed which were shown to have been attested by one Dr. P. K. Sagar. When he verified about Mr. P. K. Sagar, he was found to be non existent. Thereby meaning that these attestations on these three documents were also forged. He also deposed that on 09.04.2009, Sh. J.S. Sandhu, GM of DSFDC had sent a letter alongwith original handwriting and signatures of three accused i.e Sushil Kumar, Dinesh Kumar and Veerpal. The said letter was Ex.PW-53/E and the original handwriting and signatures which were received alongwith this letter were Ex.PW-44/C5, Ex.PW- 51/G, Ex.PW-51/H1, Ex.PW-51/H2, Ex.PW-51/H3, Ex.PW- 51/H4, Ex.PW-51/H5, Ex.PW-44/A5, Ex.PW-53/E1, Ex.PW-
CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 105 of 19453/E2, Ex.PW-53/E3, Ex.PW-53/E4, Ex.PW-53/E5, Ex.PW-53/E6, Ex.PW-53/E7, Ex.PW-53/E8, Ex.PW-53/E9, Ex.PW-53/E10. He then deposed that on 25.08.2009, he received a letter from Ms. S. Albina, Assistant Manager (Vig.) from DSFDC and alongwith this letter one Form Issue Register was received. The said letter was Ex.PW-46/A and the Register received with this letter was Ex.PW-17/F. In this Register at Sr. No. 258 under the date 16.06.2003 the form for loan reflected to have been issued in the name of Rishi Pal was Form no. 6769. In this entry the address of Rishi Pal mentioned was different i.e C- 56, West Karawal Nagar Delhi, which was different from the address of Rishi Pal found mention in another Register Ex.PW- 2/B at Sr. No. 438 under the date of 19.06.2003 wherein the address mentioned was 196, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdra. In the loan file Ex.PW-3/B, the Loan Application was not with the number 6769, but with the number 2048 as printed thereon in Ex.PW-3/B2. In this Application Form Ex.PW-3/B2 the address of C-56, West Karawal Nagar was mentioned. In the Register Ex.PW-17/F, there was another entry at Sr. No. 232 under the date 17.01.2003 reflecting that one more Loan Application Form with printed no. 6640 was issued in the name of Rishi Pal S/o. Tidda Ram with address 196, Bhola Nath Nagar, Delhi. He then deposed that thereafter, Mr. J. S. Sindhu had sent a letter dated 12.10.2009 alongwith copy of Minutes of the LSC and the copy of notesheet and the names and addresses of members of LSC. The said letter was already on judicial record and was exhibited as Ex.PW-53/F, running into two pages. The copy of Minutes of the Meeting dated 06.08.2003 attached with this Ex.PW-53/F as CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 106 of 194 received from Mr. J.S. Sindhu was Mark 53/X1. A copy of List of 126 Loan Applicants which contained the name of applicant Rishi Pal at Sr.No.23 was Ex.PW-45/P-2.
103. He further deposed that on 04.02.2010, Mr. Deepak Kumar, Assistant from DSFDC came to PS ACB and handed over certain documents which were taken into possession vide a seizure memo already Ex.PW-44/D, bearing his signature at point B and signature of Deepak Kumar at point A and signature of a panch witness Narender Kumar at point C. Under this seizure memo, the admitted handwriting and signatures of Sushil Kumar as supplied by Deepak Kumar, and as taken into possession were Ex.PW-44/A1 to A4. Similarly, the admitted signatures/writing of accused Dinesh seized under this seizure memo were Ex.PW-44/B1 to B5. Similarly, the admitted signatures/writing of accused Veerpal Singh seized under this seizure memo were Ex.PW-44/C1 to C5. He further deposed that during investigation, he examined the Chairperson and Members of LSC namely Mehar Chand and S.R. Rana and their statements were recorded by him. The original minutes of the meeting dated 06.08.2003 and the relevant file before the LSC regarding the loan in question were not supplied to the investigating agency and it was claimed to have been lost. From the original records of the LSC, it could have been verified as to who appeared in person before the LSC seeking loan. The members of the LSC told him during investigation that the Dealing Assistant of DSFDC used to place the file of the loan applicant at the time of consideration of application and the Dealing Assistant used to appear with the loan applicant in CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 107 of 194 person before the LSC. He then deposed that during investigation, a letter dated 28.07.2011 from Mr. Rajinder Dev, Principal of Kendriya Vidyalaya, Pitam Pura was received with the original admitted signature of Madan Mohan, Lab Assistant working in the said school and who was shown to have stood as guarantor in the loan application, and also the original admitted signature of Dr. Ikram, Ex. Principal of the School. The said letter of Rajinder Dev was Ex.PW-53/H and the four original papers containing admitted signature of Dr. Ikram ul Haq were Ex.PW- 53/H1 to H4. The four original papers containing admitted signature of Madan Mohan Chauhan, the Lab Assistant were Ex.PW-53/H5 to H8. Madan Mohan was examined and he denied having stood guarantor in the loan in question. He also deposed that during investigation on 25.01.2011, accused Sushil Kumar and witnesses Sanjay and Rajender were called to PS ACB and in the presence of panch witness, whose name he did not remember that day, one inspection memo cum identification memo was also prepared which was Ex.PW-17/H, bearing his signature at point C, signature of accused Sushil at point D of witness Sanjay at point A, Rajender at point E and panch witness at point B. He also deposed that during investigation, it was also found that in the original Loan application File, on the Loan Application there should have been photograph of applicant Rishi Pal S/o. Tidda Ram, but no photo was found in the loan file, particularly loan application Ex.PW-3/B2. In the Loan File, Ex.PW-3/B there should have been a photo of the guarantor also, but it was not there. In the Loan Recovery Fact Sheet File (RFS File), there was one photograph annexed on Ex.PW- 24/A at CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 108 of 194 point Mark X. In this RFS File also there should have been photograph of the guarantor, but no photograph of the guarantor existed in this file Ex. PW-26/I. In the Account Opening Form Application of the account opened in the name of Rishi Pal in Delhi State Cooperative Bank, Khari Baoli, there existed a photograph on Ex.PW-4/B which was specimen signature card. This photograph was of accused Vinod, whereas the signature card was in the name of Rishi Pal.
104. He also deposed that during investigation, the introducer of this account in the bank and the bank official who opened the account, identified accused Vinod as the person who had opened this account. Similarly, in the Account Opening Form of the account opened in the name of Rishi Pal in GPO Kashmere Gate, Ex.PW-15/A, on the back side there existed a photograph which photograph resembles accused Sushil. During investigation, the introducer of this account in the GPO and the GPO official who opened the account, identified accused Sushil as the person who had opened this account. During investigation, Rishi Pal S/o. Tidda Ram denied that the three photographs on Ex.PW-24/A, Ex.PW-4/B and Ex.PW-15/A were not his photographs and also that these three photographs were different, whereas the loan application and the two accounts were in the name of Rishi Pal. He further deposed that during investigation, it was also found that it was the duty of accused Veerpal to have checked the loan file whether it contained all the documents and photographs before sending it to the Strong Room, but he did not do it. During investigation it was also found that when the RFS File was sent back by DSFDC HQ to the Nand Nagari Branch for CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 109 of 194 the reason that photograph of guarantor did not exist in the said file, the file reached accused Veerpal who by that time had been promoted to Assistant Manager and after the file was received by Veerpal, it went missing. He then deposed that thereafter, the Branch Manager Mr. S.P. Jaiswal prepared complete record after he came to know about the incident and then he had sent the record to DSFDC, HQ and thereafter some inquiry was undertaken at DSFDC, HQ and then complaint was filed on which FIR was registered. He also deposed that during investigation, on different dates, he obtained specimen handwriting and signatures of witnesses namely Madan Mohan, Rishi Pal, Rajender and Sanjay, and also of the accused persons namely Sushil Kumar, Dinesh Gupta, Veerpal Singh, Jitender Kumar, Vinod Sharma and Anil Gupta. The specimen signatures and handwriting of Madan Mohan obtained during investigation were Ex.PW-1/F, Ex.PW-1/G, Ex.PW-1/H, Ex.PW-1/I. The specimen signatures and handwriting of Rishi Pal obtained during investigation were Ex.PW-16/Z16 to Ex.PW. 16/Z43 and, Ex.PW-53/I. The specimen signatures and handwriting of Rajender obtained during investigation were Ex.PW-38/P1 (collectively running into 4 pages). The specimen signatures and handwriting of Sanjay obtained during investigation were Ex.PW-11/A (collectively running into 6 sheets), and Ex.PW- 53/J1 to J4. The specimen signatures and handwriting of Sushil obtained during investigation were Ex.PW-51/A1 to A5, Ex.PW- 51/B1 to B13, Ex.PW-51/C1 to C2, Ex.PW-51/D1 to D2, Ex.PW- 35/C1 to C6, Ex.PW-34/A1 to A37, Ex.PW-48/C (collectively running into 28 pages), Ex.PW-47/A1 to A4, CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 110 of 194 Ex.PW-51/E1 to E14, Ex.PW-53/K and Ex.PW-53/L. The specimen signatures and handwriting of Dinesh Kumar obtained during investigation were Ex.PW-32/N (collectively running into 30 pages), Ex.PW-35/B1 to B6, Ex.PW-48/A (collectively running into 30 pages). The specimen signatures and handwriting of Veerpal obtained during investigation were Ex.PW-32/M (collectively running into 17 pages), Ex.PW-51/F1 to F2, Ex.PW-48/B (Collectively running into 29 pages). The specimen signatures and handwriting of Jitender obtained during investigation were Ex.PW-32/P (Collectively running into 25 pages), Ex.PW-48/D (Collectively running into 25 pages), Ex.PW-35/D1 to D5, Ex.PW-53/M1 and M2. The specimen signatures and handwriting of Vinod Sharma obtained during investigation were Ex.PW-32/Q (collectively running into 23 pages), Ex.PW-35/A1 to A5, Ex.PW-48/E (Collectively running into 25 pages). The specimen signatures and handwriting of Anil Gupta obtained during investigation were Ex.PW-32/R (collectively running into 8 pages), Ex.PW-50/A1 to A18.
105. He then deposed that during investigation, he also recorded statements of witnesses from time to time, u/s 161 Cr.PC and he came to know that accused Dinesh was the concerned Dealing Hand who was supposed to deal with the Loan File prior to approval of loan as well as after approval of loan. He also came to know that it was accused Veerpal who conducted the field verification before grant of loan and he gave a false verification report and subsequently he was promoted as Assistant Manager. During investigation, he also came to know that accused Anil Kumar Gupta was posted in Delhi State CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 111 of 194 Cooperative Bank, Khari Baoli at the relevant time when the account in the name of Rishi Pal was opened there and the said loan was opened at the instance of accused Anil and also that accused Anil was relative of accused Dinesh. During investigation, he also came to know that accused Sushil was though posted at DSFDC HQ, but he was working as Dak Peon/ Rider duty and he was visiting all the different branches of DSFDC including the branch of Nand Nagari. He also came to know that accused Jitender was working as Private Helper of accused Dinesh in the DSFDC Branch, Nand Nagri and that accused Jitender and accused Vinod are real brothers. He further deposed that during the tenure of investigation done by him, in the year 2010-2011, he had filed application before the concerned Court seeking permission to obtain specimen signatures/hand writings of the accused persons. The application dated 26.11.2010, bearing his signature, seeking permission qua accused Anil Gupta and the application dated 12.11.2010 qua other five accused bearing his signature, were already on record. These two applications were Ex.PW53/N-1 & N-2, respectively. The said applications also contained orders passed by the Court allowing the said applications, which were Ex.PW53/O-1 & 0-2, respectively. During investigation, he had also sent the questioned documents containing questioned signatures and writings, and also the specimen writings and hand writings to FSL on two different dates i.e. 22.06.2011 & 29.12.2011. Upon his transfer, on 28.03.2013, he handed over the files and documents to the subsequent IO Inspector Pankaj Sharma.
CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 112 of 194106. PW-54 - Ms. Rinku Dugga deposed that in the month of June, 2017, she was posted as Chairperson-cum- Managing Director in Delhi SC/ST/OBC (DSFDC). She further deposed that a request letter was received from PS ACB seeking Sanction against certain employees of DSFDC. Since, she was the appointing and disciplinary authority of those persons, the matter was put up before her for considering grant of Sanction u/s 19 of POC Act against them. So far as she recollected orally that day, one of the officials whose Sanction was sought was Veer Pal, but she was unable to recollect the names of other two without seeing the Sanction granted by her. Along with the Sanction request letter, she had received copy of FIR, some documents regarding preliminary inquiry and some other documents whose description she did not recollect that day exactly. Perusal of all those records revealed a case of serious fraud. Thereafter, she accorded Sanction against all those three officials being the competent authority, u/s 19 of POC Act. She did not remember the exact date of Sanction. But she could verify her signatures on the same. At that stage, attention of the witness was drawn towards documents Ex.PW49/C, Ex.PW49/E & Ex.PW49/G. After seeing the three documents, she replied that all these three documents bears her signature at Point A. After seeing the Sanction, she recollected that the Sanction was granted qua Dinesh Kumar Gupta who was working as UDC in DSFDC, Nand Nagri Branch; Sushil Kumar who was working as a Peon in Nand Nagri branch of DSFDC and; Veer Pal Singh who at the relevant time was posted as Field Inspector in the same branch of DSFDC. Her Sanctions were dated 02.06.2017.
CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 113 of 194At that stage, the request letter for Sanction dated 16.03.2017 addressed to the Managing Director of DSFDC and written by the Additional Commissioner of Police, ACB, which was part of the office file brought from DSFDC by Sh. Sunil Sachdeva, Deputy Manager, DSFDC on that day was perused by the Court. The said document was directed to be shown to her to which she replied that based on this letter dated 16.03.2017 seeking Sanction, the file was processed in DSFDC and it was put up before her with the concerned material, as mentioned in the letter and then she accorded the above mentioned three Sanctions. A copy of this letter was taken on record and was Ex.PW54/A (OSR).
107. PW- 55 - Mr. Virender Kumar Batra deposed that he was a retired Government Official but in August 2009, he was working as Food & Supply Officer in Nand Nagri area and he had Circle No. 45 & perhaps Circle no. 46 under his jurisdiction. Circle no. 45 also pertained to Nand Nagri Area. At that stage, he was shown one communication dated 11.08.2009 from judicial record to which he replied that this letter bears his signature, however, it is in the handwriting of his sub-ordinate i.e. one out of two inspectors, but he did not recollect their names today as the matter was old. This letter was Ex.PW55/A, bearing his signature at Point A. He then deposed that vide Ex.PW55/A, he had informed the Inspector of ACB that the Ration Card no. 121708, did not stand in the name of Rishi Pal, as per records of the FSO Office, and that the said ration card number 121708, New number APL45460879, stood in the name of one Raj Bahadur. At that stage, he was shown Ex.PW3/E, from judicial CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 114 of 194 record. His letter Ex.PW55/A, pertained to this very ration card number, and as per their records, the said ration card no. 121708 was not in the name of Rishi Pal S/o Tidda Ram.
108. PW-56 - Mr. K. L. Meena deposed that on 09.10.2007, he was posted as Sub Inspector in PS ACB and on that day, he was working as duty officer from 2.00 PM till 8.00 PM. At 5.10 PM, a rukka was received by him as handed over by Inspector N. K. Sharma for registration of FIR. Upon it, he registered the FIR of the present case. He had brought the original FIR register on that day. Carbon copy of this FIR was already on judicial record, which was in his handwriting and was Ex.PW56/A (OSR) bearing his signatures at Point A. Its photocopy was also taken on record and was given Ex.PW56/A1. After registration of FIR, he made endorsement on rukka which was Ex.PW56/B bearing his signature at Point A and which was in his handwriting. He had brought the original DD register today containing DD no. 15 & 17 regarding commencement and conclusion of registration of FIR. Both these DDs were also in his handwriting. DD no. 15 was lodged at 5.10 PM and DD no. 17 was lodged at 7.00 PM. The copy of DD no. 15 was Ex.PW56/C (OSR). The copy of DD no. 17 was Ex.PW56/D (OSR). After registration of FIR, he handed over a copy of FIR and original rukka to Inspector N. K. Sharma.
109. PW-57 - Mr. Subhash Chandra deposed that in the year 2006, he was working as General Manager in DSFDC. DSFDC used to grant loans to a particular category of persons and in case, if any loan default used to be there and the matter CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 115 of 194 used to be inquired and in those circumstances anything unusual was noticed, appropriate action used to be taken. In the present case, he gave a complaint dated 22.08.2006 Ex.PW36/A which was signed by him at Point A. This complaint was dispatched on the next day i.e. 23.08.2006 to the Directorate of Vigilance. He also deposed that the details of the concerned case in which there was a default of loan repayment was mentioned in his complaint. He did not recollect any other fact on that day regarding this case.
110. PW-58 - Mr. Rajeev Kumar deposed that in 2008, he was working as SDM (HQ-II). Pursuant to a letter dated 23.10.2008, he had given his reply dated 26.11.2008 Ex.PW58/A bearing his signature at Point A. Vide the said letter, he had informed that there was no notary public by the name of J. D. Sharma, as per records.
111. PW-59 - Mr. Rohitash deposed that on 30.06.2016, he was posted as an Inspector in PS ACB, when further investigation of the present case was handed over to him. After perusal of the file, he noticed that the investigation of the case was almost complete except the Sanction u/s 19 of the PC Act. He accordingly sought Sanction of the competent authority through letter dated 16.03.2017 Ex.PW54/A. Vide that letter, Sanction was sought against three accused namely Sushil Kumar, Veer Pal Singh and Dinesh Gupta. The said letter was sent to the competent authority after it was signed by the Additional Commissioner of Police, ACB. Pursuant to that letter, Sanction dated 02.06.2017 were received qua the above named three CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 116 of 194 accused from the concerned competent authority vide letter which was already Ex.PW49/A. The three Sanctions against accused Sushil Kumar, Veer Pal and Dinesh Gupta were Ex.PW49/E, Ex.PW49/G & Ex.PW49/C, respectively. He had also similarly applied for Sanction against accused Anil Kumar Gupta. However, that letter was not on judicial file. Vide that letter also, Sanction was sought. Pursuant to that request, communication dated 01.06.2017 was received from Delhi State Cooperative Bank Limited which was signed by the concerned AGM in which it was informed that Sanction against Anil Kumar Gupta may not be required as he had been dismissed from the services of the bank. The said letter was Ex.PW59/A. It was received in ACB on 13.06.2017. Thereafter, he prepared the chargesheet and filed it in the Court after its approval from the Prosecution Branch. Subsequently, he had also filed supplementary chargesheet in the matter along with which certain documents were filed.
IV. Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.PC:
112. Upon completion of the prosecution evidence, all incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused persons were put to them in their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. All the accused persons denied the allegations in general and asserted that they had been falsely implicated in the present case.
113. Accused Sushil Kumar stated that as a peon, he used to do ancillary duties at the instance of Deputy Manager, Sh.
CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 117 of 194Krishan Kumar and that he is not a beneficiary of the alleged transaction or the loan amount in any manner and that he has been falsely implicated.
114. Accused Dinesh Kumar Gupta stated that this is a false case against him. He also stated that he was a UDC/dealing assistant but was not responsible for exclusively discharging duties for that post/ seat. There was shortage of man power in the branch but the work load was heavy due to which various officials of Nand Nagri Branch used to be directed to do different work. Even peons in the branch used to issue application forms and receive the same for different schemes. Even the intial scrutiny of the application forms and documents used to be done by the peons. He stated that as UDC, he also used to be deputed for field work, though it was not his job. He also stated that the loan application in question must have been in order as it was cleared by the Loan Accounts Section and in case, there was any deficiency in the loan file, the said Section would not have cleared it. The loan applicant was even required to appear before the Loan Screening Committee which also reflects that every thing was complete in the loan file as only thereafter, the loan must have been approved. He further stated that he had no role to play in the present matter and he has been falsely implicated and that the investigation has not been done properly.
115. Accused Anil Kumar Gupta and Jitender Kumar Sharma stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated.
CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 118 of 194116. Accused Vinod Kumar Sharma stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He also stated that he has no role whatsoever in the loan in question or in the account opened in Delhi State Cooperative Bank or anywhere else.
V. Defence Evidence:
117. Accused Sushil, Veerpal, Anil Kumar Gupta, Jitender Kumar Sharma and Vinod Kumar Sharma chose not to lead DE. Accused Dinesh Kumar Gupta had given his willingness to lead DE in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C., however, vide statement dated 25.02.2023, he stated that he does not wish to lead DE.
VI. Abatement of proceedings:
118. During the proceedings, accused Veerpal had expired, thus, proceedings in respect of accused Veerpal were held to have been abated vide order dated 29.08.2025.
VII. Final Arguments:
119. Heard final arguments on behalf of the State as well as all the accused persons and perused the record. Ld. Counsel for the accused persons namely Sushil Kumar, Dinesh Kumar Gupta, Jitender Kumar Sharma, Vinod Kumar Sharma and Anil Kumar Gupta had also filed their respective written submissions.
CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 119 of 194VII (a). Submissions on behalf of the State:
120. Ld. Public Prosecutor for the State argued that the prosecution has clearly established that the accused persons had conspired with each other to obtain loan from DSFDC in the name of one Rishipal. He submitted that DSFDC used to sanction and disburse loans to people belonging to the category of safai karamchari and one Rishipal S/o Tidda Ram had applied for loan but his loan was rejected and documents were not returned. Using the said name and certain documents, the accused persons, in conspiracy with each other, forged documents relating to the identity of Rishipal and his guarantor and fraudulently obtained a loan of Rs.50,000/-. He argued that the photograph put on the form seeking loan was not of actual Rishipal but of Vinod Kumar Sharma who impersonated as Rishipal to obtain the loan. For the purpose of giving effect to their conspiracy, the accused persons submitted forged documents, opened bank accounts in the name of fictitious Rishipal, and submitted false reports.
121. Ld. PP for the State argued that the prosecution has successfully established that the borrower Rishipal was fictitious as real Rishipal as PW-16 deposed that he never applied for any loan; or executed any loan document; or opened any bank. He pointed out that his deposition is corroborated by the testimony of PW-13, Panna Lal, the owner of premises C-56, West Karawal Nagar who proved that no person in the name of Rishiapl ever resided there. Further, PW-9 and PW-43 also proved that real Rishipal had applied for a loan which was not sanctioned and CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 120 of 194 thus, establishing that his documents were submitted with the loan application and were not returned by accused Sushil Kumar.
122. Ld. PP for the State further submitted that the documents of Sh. Madan Mohan PW-1 were forged. He pointed out that PW-1 deposed that he never stood as a guarantor for Rishipal and that the guarantee bond was forged; his signatures were fabricated; and his identity documents were false.
123. He further proved that the ration card of Rishipal has been proved to be forged and the notary public who attested the affidavit filed along with the loan application has also been proved to be non-existent.
124. Ld. PP for the State argued that it has been established that accused Sushil Kumar manipulated the form issuance and forged many documents including the loan application form Ex. PW-3/B2 and the 46 post dated cheques. He further contended that accused Dinesh Kumar Gupta deliberately suppressed the discrepancies in the loan form and the accompanying documents; accused Veerpal gave false field inspection report; accused Anil Kumar Gupta facilitated the opening of the fraudulent bank account in the name of fictitious Rishipal; accused Vinod Kumar Sharma impersonated as Rishipal and accused Jitneder Kumar Sharma introduced accused Vinod Kumar Sharma to impersonate as Rishipal. He argued that these acts are not independent of each other but instead they form a continuous chain aimed at one illegal object which was to defraud DSFDC.
CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 121 of 194125. Ld. PP for the State also argued that accused Sushil Kumar, Dinesh Kumar Gupta and Veer Pal Singh were public servants and they abused their official position to obtain pecuniary advantage. He argued that the material on record conclusively proves the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
VII (b). Submissions on behalf of accused Sushil Kumar:
126. Ld. Counsel for accused Sushil Kumar argued that the accused has been falsely implicated and that he has never committed any offence. He raised multifold defences. Ld. Counsel for accused Sushil Kumar argued that the accused Sushil was only a Peon and had no authority to sanction the loan. He also argued that it is the case of the prosecution itself that accused Sushil Kumar did not benefit from the alleged fraudulent transaction and therefore, no motive on his part to commit the alleged fraud has been proved by prosecution. Ld. Counsel for accused Sushil Kumar also contended that no meeting of mind or any element of conspiracy has been proved by the prosecution and thus, the whole case falls to the ground. He also vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the dispatch register vide which the letter was sent to Rishipal; has not examined Jai Prakash Solanki who was a material witness to prove the role of the accused in opening the bank account in GPO, Kashmere Gate; and has failed to prove the handwriting and signatures of the accused on the alleged forged documents. He also contended that there is an unreasonable and unexplained CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 122 of 194 delay in lodging of FIR and thus, considering all of the above, accused Sushil Kumar should be acquitted.
VII (c). Submissions on behalf of accused Dinesh Kumar Gupta:
127. Ld. Counsel for accused Dinesh Kumar Gupta argued that Dinesh Gupta was UDC and technically dealing hand of the loan file concerned, but in practice, he was not the only one dealing with the file exclusively. He pointed out that there is ample evidence on record that the branch was understaffed and as per exigencies of the situation, educated peons performed various duties which were actually required to be performed by clerks. He further argued that accused Dinesh Kumar Gupta did not receive the concerned loan application form and had no role in initial writing work on the file or any register relating to receipt of the loan application. He submitted that accused Dinesh Kumar Gupta got to deal with the loan file only after it was handed over to him at the direction of the branch incharge by the officials who had received it. He also submitted that accused Dinesh Kumar Gupta processed the loan application form in routine and had no doubt, knowledge or reason to suspect any wrongdoing or if loan application form he processed was the original or a replaced one. He further argued that in processing of the loan file, accused Dinesh Kumar Gupta checked if it was accompanied by all documents as per the check list prescribed; recorded on note sheet as to at what page what document was placed on the correspondence part of the file; and proposed to the branch incharge in standardized format to get the facts and the documents of the applicant verified.
CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 123 of 194128. Ld. Counsel for accused Dinesh Kumar Gupta submitted that at the time of putting up the file to the Branch Incharge, the file was complete in all respects. The material before accused Dinesh Kumar Gupta did not give rise to any suspicion or doubt. He contended that there is nothing on record to show that Dinesh Kumar Gupta had received or processed the concerned file post approval of the loan for completion of post- sanction formalities by receiving documents, i.e., hypothecation, guarantor and post-dated cheques and enclosing the same with the loan form.
129. Ld. Counsel for accused Dinesh Kumar Gupta argued that the post loan formalities were not completed by Dinesh Kumar Gupta. He submitted that there is nothing to show that he had received the file in question post sanction.
130. Ld. Counsel for accused Dinesh Kumar Gupta also argued that the prosecution sanction is invalid as it is mentioned in the sanction letter that accused Dinesh Gupta withdrew the loan amount which is not the case of ACB. He argued that this shows non-application of mind of the sanctioning authority.
131. He also argued that there is nothing on record to prove that the accused Anil Kumar Gupta was the brother of Dinesh Kumar Gupta and that it is a self made story of the prosecution. He submitted that in view of the above, accused Dinesh Kumar Gupta should be acquitted.
CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 124 of 194VII (d). Submissions on behalf of accused Anil Kumar:
132. Ld. Counsel for accused Anil Kumar Gupta argued that the star witness who has deposed against him is PW-8, Sh. Arun Tiwari as he deposed that " Accused Anil Gupta told me that Rishipal was his known and he asked me to introduced Rishipal for opening his saving bank Account. All the forms for opening the account were filled up by Anil Gupta. Accused Anil Gupta wrote my name and account no. in the appropriate column of introducer in the form".
133. He submitted that when the documents alleged to be written by accused Anil Kumar Gupta were sent to FSL, Rohini, it was opined that it has not been possible to express any opinion on the said handwritings. Ld. Counsel for accused Anil Kumar Gupta argued that from the report of the handwriting expert, it is crystal clear that the document Ex.PW-4/A has not been written by accused Anil Kumar Gupta and that the entire story has been cooked by PW-8. He, therefore, submitted that the accused shall be acquitted.
VII (e). Submissions on behalf of accused Jitender Kumar Sharma:
134. Ld. counsel for accused Jitender Kumar submitted that the main allegation against him is that he introduced his brother Vinod Kumar Sharma to impersonate as Rishipal. He argued that the same is only a presumption and has not been categorically proved by prosecution. He pointed out that PW 30 CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 125 of 194 Kishan Pal had failed to identify accused Jitender Kumar Sharma in the court. He also argued that there is no evidence against him that he had obtained any amount out of Rs.50,000/-. Also, his handwriting/signature have not matched on any document. He also contended that no offence has been proved against him and thus, he should be acquitted.
VII (f). Submissions on behalf of accused Vinod Kumar Sharma:
135. Ld. Counsel for accused Vinod Kumar Sharma argued that there is no concrete evidence to prove that the accused had impersonated as Rishi Pal before Delhi State Cooperative Bank, Khari Baoli, Delhi or L.S.C. or any other authority. Ld. Counsel for accused Vinod Kumar Sharma argued that no witness has identified accused Vinod Sharma as Rishi Pal to establish impersonation. He also pointed out that the photo of Vinod Kumar was stapled and it cannot be said that the accused Vinod Kumar Sharma himself gave that photograph. He also submitted that the signature/writing of the accused has not matched the question writings and that the case of prosecution is based on assumptions and presumptions and the case has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, thus, the accused should be acquitted.
VIII. Examination and Analysis:
136. Ld. Counsel for the accused persons have put forward multifold defence arguments. However, before addressing the defence of the accused persons, it is important to CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 126 of 194 see whether the different alleged acts amount to an offence or not.
VIII (A) The procedure to obtain loan:
137. The procedure to obtain the loan has been described by PW-2, Sh. Jitender Kumar who was posted as Zonal Incharge, DSFDC. He explained that SKD Finance Scheme was launched in the year 2003-04 by DSFDC under which employed safai karamchari and their dependent family memebrs were eligible to obtain the loan. The procedure was as follows:
(a) Eligible candidate were to obtain the requisite form from the EG cell or from the public representative i.e MLA, MP etc. or the non-official directors of the board. Before issuing loan application form, the EG Cell used to check/verify the documents alongwith the original i.e. ration card/election card, caste certificate etc. of the applicant and also ensure at the time of receiving of the form that all columns were duly filled up as per the application.
(b) The duly filled form was required to be annexed with the caste certificate, ration card and other requisite documents. The said documents shall be attested by a Gazetted Officer.
(c) An entry had to be made in the form receipt register and after the entry was made, the same was given a registration number and then it was sent to the dealing clerk.
(d) The dealing clerk would check the form and put it up before Branch Incharge to mark the same for field verification.CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 127 of 194
(e) The Field inspector was to visit the given address of the applicant, where he had to personally meet the applicant and verify all the documents annexed with the application as well as his address and financial condition and occupation. After satisfaction, he prepared a detailed report containing the recommendation to sanction or not to sanction the loan which was to be forwarded to the Branch Manager/Scheme Incharge.
(f) Thereafter, the Branch incharge sent the file to the LSC for final decision. Branch Incharge also issued a letter to the applicant to appear before the LSC at the given time and place.
(g) The LSC would ensure the presence of the applicant, his attendance would be marked; and then he would be interviewed by the committee comprising of 3-4 members and the concerned Branch Incharge alongwith Scheme Incharge. The documents annexed with the application form would be checked by the committee and accordingly they passed their observations/ recommendations for sanctioning of loan duly signed by all the members. The recommendation was then sent to the MD/ chairman for approval. The applicant was also interviewed by the LSC and after sanctioning the loan, the sanction and agreement letter were sent to the applicant to fulfill the post sanction formalities.
(h) The applicant had to appear in the branch alongwith the guarantor with all the requisite documents of the guarantee. The dealing assistant got the HP Deed signed from the applicant and also got the guarantee deed filled and signed from the guarantor CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 128 of 194 in the presence of two witnesses. The affidavit and post dated cheques of the applicant were also obtained.
(i) After being satisfied, the Scheme Incharge sent the file to LAS for scrutiny.
(j) Thereafter, LAS sent the file to the competent authority for final approval and sanction.
(k) After competent authority approved the loan file, the same was dealt by Finance and Accounts Department (FAD) who prepared the cheque and got the same signed by the General Manager/MD or someone from the finance department.
(l) Thereafter, the loan cheque alongwith the file was sent to the MD for disbursement of the loan.
(m) The cheque used to be directly handed over to the applicant on verification of identity and against proper receipt.
(n) Thereafter, the file was sent to the concerned branch where the entry of the loan was made in the master loan register as well as in the recovery Facts sheet and the dealing clerk used to prepare these documents which were signed by the branch incharge. All the relevant entries of applicant, guarantor, PDC cheque were entered in the said sheet. The photograph of the applicant as well as the guarantor was also pasted at the appropriate space in the MLR.CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 129 of 194
VIII (B) The Loan Application:
(i) Application No. 6640:
138. It is the case of the prosecution that accused Sushil Kumar, who was working as a peon at DSFDC, made an entry dated 17.01.2003 at Sr. No. 232 in the Form Issue Register showing issuance of loan application form no. 6640 to Sh. Rishi Pal S/o Sh. Tidda Ram, R/o 196, Bhola Nath Nagar, Delhi. Perusal of the SKD Form Issue Register (Ex. PW-17/F) shows that an entry was made for issuance of a loan application form no. 6640 in favour of Rishi Pal at serial no. 232.
139. PW-17 Sanjay Kumar, who was posted as Peon in DSFDC, Nand Nagri deposed that "...the entry at serial no. 121 to 125 and 227 and 232 from point A to A1 are in the handwriting of Sushil Kumar and the entry at Sr. no. 232 of Rishi Pal S/o Tidda Ram 196 Bhola Nath Nagar is also made by him." Thus, PW-17 proved that the entry for form no. 6640 at serial no. 232 (Ex. PW-17/G) in Form Issue Register Ex. PW- 17/F was made by accused Sushil Kumar. PW-17 stuck to his stand in his cross-examination. While he admitted that he is not a handwriting expert but he deposed in his cross-examination that he can identify the handwriting of accused Sushil Kumar as he has seen him writing.
140. Further, the handwriting of the entry at serial no. 232 (Ex. PW-17/G) was sent to the handwriting expert. Sh. S.L. Mukhi, Director, Documents Division, Truth Labs, NCR Delhi CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 130 of 194 opined vide his report Ex. PW-51/X that no opinion can be expressed regarding questioned handwriting Q-38 i.e. entry of form no. 6640 at serial no. 232 of register Ex. PW-17/F.
141. Thus, from the perusal of the entry at serial no. 232 (Ex. PW-17/G) of the SKD Form Issue Register, it stands established that form no. 6640 was issued in favour of Sh. Rishi Pal S/o Sh. Tidda Ram, R/o 196, Bhola Nath Nagar, Delhi. Also, while the handwriting expert could not express any opinion as to who had written entry at serial no. 232 but PW-17 deposed that it was made by accused Sushil Kumar. How much reliance can be placed upon the deposition of PW-17 in identification of handwriting will be decided at a later stage.
(ii) Application No. 6769:
142. Further and notingly, another entry dated 16.06.2003 at Sr. No. 258 in the same register Ex. PW-17/F showed issuance of form no. 6769 in the name of Sh. Rishi Pal S/o Sh. Kidda, R/o C-56, West Karawal Nagar, New Delhi. Perusal of the SKD Form Issue Register Ex. PW-17/F shows that at serial no. 258, another entry is made in the name of Rishi Pal s/o Kidda R/o C-56 West Karawal Nagar. The handwriting of the said entry was sent to handwriting expert wherein it was examined as Q-39 and vide report Ex. PW-51/X, Sh. S.L. Mukhi, Handrwtiting Expert opined that no opinion can be expressed as to who wrote the questioned handwrriting at Q-39 i.e. entry at serial no. 258 in register Ex. PW-17/F. CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 131 of 194
143. Clearly, while the name of the applicant in both the application forms was the same but the address was different, thus, raising a doubt on the genuineness of the issuance of application forms. Further, the receipt entry of the said application form no. 6769 was admittedly made by PW-17 Sanjay Kumar, who deposed that the Branch Manager had posted him on the duty of receiving the forms. PW-17 was shown the SKD form receipt register Ex. PW2/B particularly, the entry at page no. 23, Sl. No. 438, regarding receipt of an application form of one Rishipal S/o Tidda Ram R/o 196 Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, bearing the Sl. Number of application form as 6769. He admitted that the entry encircled in red and Ex. PW17/A had been made by him in his own handwriting. He also deposed that the said entry was made by him at the behest of accused Sushil Kumar. He clarified in his deposition that the accused Sushil Kumar had produced the application form of the applicant along with the documents and therefore, he had entered the same in the register. He also testified that he made an endorsement at the relevant entry of Sushil Kumar in his hand so that the same could be used for reference in future. He also pointed out that the initial at point B of Ex. 17/A was in his handwriting as Sushil Kumar. The same had been particularly mentioned there since accused Sushil Kumar came to him and wanted to take the form immediately, but due to haste, an initial in the name of Sushil was put at point B.
144. Perusal of the SKD Receipt Register Ex. PW-2/B shows that at serial no. 438, form no. 6769 in the name of Rishipal s/o Tidda Ram has been entered but the address CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 132 of 194 mentioned is 196 Bhola Nath Nagar and not C-56 West Karawal Nagar. While the address of 196 Bhola Nath Nagar was mentioned in the application form no. 6640 but the receipt entry has been made of form application no. 6769 which actually had the address of C-56 West Karawal Nagar and not 196, Bhola Nath Nagar. Thus, it is established that application form number of one form has been used and the address mentioned in another form has been used.
145. PW-17 had also deposed categorically that he had made the entry in the Receipt Register at the behest of accused Sushil Kumar. He also significantly pointed out that he had made an endorsement indicating that the form was brought by Sushil Kumar (at point Q-41). The said initial had also gone to the handwriting expert and vide report Ex. PW-51/X, Sh. S.L. Mukhi, Handrwtiting Expert opined that no opinion can be expressed as to who wrote the questioned handwrriting at Q-41. PW-17 also clarified that he had not seen the applicant of the said form namely Rishipal S/o Tida Ram on that day.
146. PW-17 further testified that he had not given the form to accused Sushil Kumar and after 3 PM, when the counter was closed, the said form was handed over to dealing clerk/ accused Dinesh Gupta for further processing.
(iii) Discrepancy in form nos.:
147. PW-17 pointed out a discrepancy that while the application form received by him had application no. 6769 but the application form shown to him bore loan application No. CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 133 of 194 2048 (Ex. PW3/B2). He categorically deposed that this was not the application form which was received by him on 19.06.2003 vide entry at Sl. No. 438. He also deposed that he had seen the application form Ex.PW3/B2 and on the application, the reference i.e. 438 BONN dated 19.06.03 was not in his handwriting and the same is in the handwriting of accused Sushil Kumar. The handwriting on the application form Ex. PW-3/B2 was also sent for expert opinion to find out who filled the form but vide report Ex. PW-51/X, Sh. S.L. Mukhi, Handrwtiting Expert opined that no opinion can be expressed as to who wrote the questioned handwrriting at Q-5 i.e. the form Ex. PW-3/B2.
148. PW-17 further deposed that the application form appears to be filled up by accused Sushil Kumar. He pointed out that the address of the applicant mentioned in the loan application form receipt register was mentioned as 196 Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara whereas the loan application form lying on loan file Ex. PW3/B2 has a different address which is C-56 West Karawal Nagar, Delhi.
149. PW-17 also deposed that the application form received by him had a photograph of the applicant but the application Ex. PW3/B2 did not have the photograph of the applicant. He had also seen the SKD receipt register Ex. PW2/B wherein the handwriting of accused Sushil was also at page Nos. 7,8,9,10,11, and 14. He clarified that page No.4 is not in the handwriting of accused Sushil Kumar.
CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 134 of 194150. Perusal of record also reveals that the actual loan file no. 438/SKD/BONN (Ex. PW-3/B) was initiated not with form no. 6769, but with a different form no. 2048 (Ex. PW-3/B2), which had no entry in either the Form Issue Register or the SKD Receipt Register. Furthermore, the address mentioned in form no. 2048 was C-56, West Karawal Nagar, Delhi, different from the address in the register entries.
151. Perusal of record also reveals that the loan application form no. 2048 (Ex. PW-3/B2) was accompanied by a forged photocopy of ration card no. 121708 in the name of Sh. Rishi Pal S/o Sh. Tidda Ram, R/o E56, West Karawal Nagar, Delhi (Ex. PW-3/E).
152. Further, it came out in the testimony of PW-33 Sh. Raj Kumar that the application forms were changed. When the court questioned PW-33 if it is correct that as per the SKD receipt register Ex. PW-2/B, the relevant page of which is Ex. PW-17/A bearing entry no. 438 and, as per Ex. PW 3/B2, the different form number indicates that the form was subsequently changed, to which PW-33 said that "it is correct that the application form was subsequently changed in records."
(iv) Observation:
153. From the above, it is clear that form no. 6640 was issued in the name of Sh. Rishi Pal S/o Sh. Tidda Ram, R/o 196, Bhola Nath Nagar, Delhi and form no. 6769 was issued in favour of Rishipal S/o Tidda Ram R/o 196, Bhola Nath Nagar. It is also clear that there is no entry of form no. 6640 in the Receipt CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 135 of 194 Register but form no. 6769 has been received in the Receipt Register vide entry no. 438. Further, it is also proved that the form number that was actually used for obtaining the loan was 2048 and the file no. of the loan shows that the entry of receipt register of form no. 6769 i.e. 438 has been used to create the master loan file.
154. Therefore, it stands established that the details of the loan applicant Rishipal have been manipulated and even the form on the basis of which loan has been sanctioned has been manipulated.
VIII (C). The loan applicant:
155. It is the case of the prosecution that while the loan application was made in the name of Rishipal but he did not make any such application and that the accused persons conspired with each other to obtain loan in the name of Rishipal. To prove the same, prosecution examination Sh. Rishipal as PW- 16 who categorically stated in his evidence that his father's name is Sh. Tidda Ram and he is a permanent resident of E-56 Gali No. 4, near Jagat Dairy, West Karawal Nagar since last 20/22 years. He also stated that he belonged to Scheduled Caste and had a ration card issued at E-56, West Karawal Nagar mentioning total 8 members including his wife, his mother and children. He also stated that prior to shifting to West Karawal Nagar, he was residing at 196, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara and had an SC certificate from the said address.
156. Rishipal asserted that in the year 2003, he was in CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 136 of 194 need of loan and thus, he had applied for loan through one, Mr. Mukesh Vaid, however, his loan was rejected. He also stated that he was informed that the documents that he had submitted for obtaining the loan had been destroyed. PW-16, Rishipal, reasserted that he had not taken any loan from DSFDC, Nand Nagri.
157. PW-16, Rishipal also stated in his deposition that after some time, someone from DSFDC, Nand Nagri came to his house and asked him if he had applied for any loan from the department since attachment proceedings were going to be initiated against him for obtaining loan but he informed that he had never obtained any kind of loan from DSFDC, Nand Nagri. When the application form no. 2048 Ex.PW3/B2 was shown to PW-16, Rishipal, he stated that he had not filled up any such form and the form did not bear his signatures. He was also shown the copy of ration card Ex. PW3/E and he stated that the said ration card was not his nor did it bear his photograph or signature. He also clarified that the details of children mentioned in the ration card were not his, however, it bore his wife's name.
158. PW-16, Rishipal also deposed that the affidavit Ex. PW3/D; affidavit for personal guarantee Ex. PW3/L; or the legal heir certificate Ex. PW3/M did not bear his signatures. He also stated that the hypothecation deed Ex. PW3/B1 was not filled up by him nor did it bear his signatures. He also stated that in 2003, even the electricity bill of E-56 was not in his name. He denied having opened any savings account in Delhi State Cooperative Bank Ltd, Khari Baoli or in the post office GPO. He denied CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 137 of 194 having filled up the account opening form Ex. PW4/A.
159. PW-16. Rishipal also clarified that while Smt. Bishambari is his mother but she has been shown as nominee and his wife in the account opening form Ex. PW4/A. He also denied having written any application for closing of the account Ex. PW4/C or giving any intimation or report Ex.PW4/D with regard to issue of cheque and loss of cheques in the bus. He also stated that document Ex.PW4/E and photocopy of ration card Ex. PW14/A do not bear his photograph. He also denied having filled up the account opening form of account no.1159153 Ex. PW15/A and the voucher Ex.PW15/B with regard to the deposit of Rs.50,000/-. He also stated that withdrawal cheque of Rs.50,000/- Ex.PW15/C; and cheques Ex. PW16/A, Ex. PW16/B, Ex. PW16/C, Ex. PW16/D, Ex.PW16/E, Ex.PW16/F, Ex. PW16/G, Ex. PW16/H, Ex. PW16/I, Ex. PW16/J, Ex. PW16/K, Ex. PW16/L, Ex. PW16/M, Ex. PW16/N, Ex. PW16/O, Ex.PW16/P, Ex.PW16/Q, Ex. PW16/R, Ex. PW16/S, Ex. PW16/T, Ex.PW16/U, Ex. PW16/V, Ex.PW16/W, Ex. PW16/X, Ex.PW16/Y, Ex. PW16/Z, Ex. PW16/Z1, Ex. PW16/Z2, Ex.PW16/Z3, Ex. PW16/Z4, Ex. PW16/Z5, Ex. PW16/Z6, Ex. PW16/Z7, Ex. PW16/Z8, Ex. PW16/Z9, Ex. PW16/Z10, Ex. PW16/Z11, Ex. PW16/Z12, Ex. PW16/Z13, Ex. PW16/Z14 and Ex. PW16/Z15 do not bear his signatures. He also stated that even the endorsement on the back side of the cheques was not in his hand nor had he made any such endorsement on any cheque.
160. PW-16 Rishipal also stated that the specimen CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 138 of 194 signatures card of the bank account no.2931, Delhi State Cooperative Bank Ex.PW4/B did not bear his specimen signature on either side.
161. Further, PW-25 Smt. Naresh Devi, wife of PW-16 Rishi Pal, corroborated his testimony, denied signing any documents, and stated that the photographs on Ex. PW-24/A and Ex. PW-4/B were not of her husband.
162. Also, PW-16 Rishipal had also deposed that when he had applied for loan, which was rejected, he had made the application through Mr. Mukesh Vaid. Prosecution examined Mr. Mukesh Vaid as PW-9 who deposed that he was a member of the Safai Karamchari Union and when in the month of May- June, a scheme for loan was launched by the DSHFDC office, one safai karamchari namely Rishipal S/o Tiddaram who was earlier residing at Bhola Nath Nagar and thereafter, residing at Karawal Nagar had approached him to apply for the loan of Rs.50,000/-. He also deposed that since most of the safai Karamchai were illiterate, they used to assist them. Rishi Pal S/o Tidaram was then introduced by him with a person namely Satish Lamba through a lady namely Anita, who was also working in his office. The requisite application form of Rishi Pal S/o Tidaram alongwith all the requisite documents i.e. photocopy of ration card, caste certificate, photographs etc. were handed over to Mr. Satish Lamba for depositing the same in the office for seeking the loan. Mr. Satish Lamba had charged a sum of Rs.5,000/- as process fee and he had deposited the loan application form in the office. PW-9 also deposed that later on, CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 139 of 194 they came to know that the department was asking for a government employee as a guarantor but the same could not be arranged by the applicant and therefore, his loan was not sanctioned and the same was rejected. He also deposed that the documents submitted by the applicant were also not returned back.
163. Further, Ms. Anita who was introduced by Mukesh Vaid to Rishipal was also examined as PW- 43 amd she reaffirmed the version of PW-16 Rishipal and PW-9 Mukesh Vaid. She testified that while she was working as receptionist at Satish & Sons at Yojna Vihar, Karkardooma, her job was to deal in securing loans for public. She testified that Mr. Satish Loomba used to take processing fee of Rs.5,000/- from the applicants. Rishi Pal had applied in the said firm for obtaining loan and he had submitted copy of his ration card, application form and caste certificate along with processing fee of Rs. 5000/-. One Mr. Sushil Kumar was working in SDM office which used to deal in grant of loan and he used to visit their office. She handed over the application form of Rishi Pal along with documents to accused Sushil who had collected it from their office. She also deposed after a few days, accused Sushil Kumar came to their office and told them that since there was no guarantor for applicant Rishi Pal, his loan could not be sanctioned, however, he did not return the loan application and other documents of Rishi Pal. She also deposed that after that, they informed Rishi Pal that his loan could not be sanctioned and out of Rs. 5000/-, Rs. 2000/- was returned to him but Mr. Satish Loomba retained remaining Rs. 3000/- as processing fee. She also clarified that the CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 140 of 194 name of father of Rishi Pal who applied for loan was Sh. Tidda Ram and that the loan application by Rishi Pal was given sometime in May/June 2003.
164. Notably, PW-55 Sh. Virender Kumar Batra, Food & Supply Officer, confirmed through his letter (Ex. PW-55/A) that ration card no. 121708 (Ex. PW-3/E) which was given at the time of making the loan application was actually, not in the name of Rishi Pal S/o Tidda Ram but in the name of one Raj Bahadur.
165. Also, PW-58 Sh. Rajeev Kumar, SDM (HQ-II), confirmed through his letter (Ex. PW-58/A) that there was no notary public by the name of J.D. Sharma as mentioned in the affidavit Ex. PW-3/D in the loan file.
166. PW- 13, Panna Lal, deposed that he is the owner of property bearing no. C-56 West Karawal Nagar and that nobody in the name of Rishipal has ever resided at his address.
167. From the above, it is clear that PW-16 Rishipal, PW-9 Mukesh Vaid and PW-43 Anita have proved that Rishipal had applied for loan in June 2003 which was not sanctioned and that the documents submitted by him along with the loan application were not returned to him.
168. Further, PW-16 Rishipal had not applied for the loan in question. Further, it is also proved by PW-13, owner of property bearing no. C-56 West Karawal Nagar that Rishipal never resided at the said address. It has also been established that by PW-55 that the ration card attached along with the loan CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 141 of 194 application does not belong to Rishipal. Also, PW-58 has proved that the alleged notary public who allegedly notarised the affidavit Ex. PW-3/D does not exist. Thus, it has been proved by prosecution that Rishipal S/o Tidda Ram R/o E-56 West Karawal Nagar, Delhi did not make the loan application in question.
VIII (D) Fake/forged documents of the guarantor Sh. Madan Mohan:
169. The prosecution has alleged that the guarantor mentioned as Sh. Madan Mohan Chauhan in the loan application never stood as a guarantor and only his name and fake documents have been used for the purposes of getting the loan application sanctioned. To prove its case, prosecution examined Sh. Madan Mohan Chauhan as PW-1 who deposed that he never executed the guarantee bond Ex. PW-1/A which is purported to have been signed by him with respect to the loan sanction of Rs.50,000/- in favour of Rishi Pal. He also deposed that the bond Ex. PW-1/A does not bear his signatures and that the same are false and fabricated. He also denied the signatures on other documents on page nos. 1 to 7 at points X6 to X18 as his and stated that the same are also false and fabricated. He also deposed that the copy of certificate of Secondary School (PW- 3/K), copy of identity card (EX. PW-3/J) in the name of M. M. Chauhan, copy of Ration Card (Ex. PW-3/I) in the name of Madan Mohan, pay certificate (Ex. PW-3/H) in the name of Madan Mohan are also forged and fabricated and do not belong to him. He further clarified that the address mentioned on the ration card is Bagichi Nangal Rai while he has never resided at CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 142 of 194 the said address ever. He also pointed out that the names of family members shown in the ration card are also not his and that he had never studied at Govt. Sr. Secondary School at Gokul Puri, Delhi as indicated in the certificate of 12 th class Mark PW1/B. He also testified that he did not know any person namely Naresh and Ombir Singh who are shown as witnesses in the guarantee bond Ex.PW1/A and he outrightly denied having stood as guarantor for Rishi Pal S/o. Tidda Ram in his whole life.
170. During investigation, the handwriting specimen of Sh. Madan Mohan Chauhan were taken on 4 sheets (Ex.PW1/F to Ex.PW1/I) and he had also handed over the copy of his original ration card and ID Card.
171. Ld. Counsels for the accused persons did not put any question/suggestion to PW-1 Madan Mohan that he did sign the guarantee bond.
172. Further, PW-51, Sh. S.L.Mukhi, Director, Documents Division, Truth Labs deposed that he had prepared the report Ex. PW-51/X as per which the questioned handwriting at points Q12, Q12/1, Q12/2, Q12/3, Q12/A to Q12/O on the guarantee bond Ex. PW-1/A matched the sample handwriting of S1 to S113 which was of accused Sushil Kumar.
173. PW-1 has categorically deposed that he did not sign the guarantee bond and that he did not stand as a guarantor for Rishipal. Whether accused Sushil Kumar filled up the guarantee bond and signed on behalf of the guarantor, Madan Mohan, and CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 143 of 194 how much reliance can be placed on the report of the handwriting expert are issues that will be decided later.
VIII (E) Processing of the Fraudulent Loan Application:
174. PW-20, Krishna Kumar who was posted as Branch Incharge, DSFDC, Nand Nangri deposed that on the date of receipt of form no. 6769, accused Dinesh Kumar Gupta was posted as Dealing Assistant, accused Virpal as Field Officer, and accused Sushil Kumar as a Peon along with two more peons, Sanjay Kumar and Rajender Singh. He also deposed that the loan application form was usually received at the counter along with the documents by the person to whom the duty was assigned by him to the available staff as they had acute shortage of staff. He volunteered that although, it was the duty of the dealing hand to receive the form but due to shortage of staff, the other staff like 4th class educated employee used to be posted to issue and receive the application. He further deposed that along with the application form, the applicant also used to come to the counter at the time of depositing of the form and the documents brought by him were also duly checked by the concerned person.
175. He further deposed that the loan application form Ex.PW3/B2 bearing registration No.438BONN dated 19.6.03 was processed by the Dealing Assistant and he prepared a noting in this regard on page 1N Ex. PW17/A on the file Ex.PW3/B(colly) bearing the signature of the dealing hand at point Q1 now (mark A encircled portion). He stated that the said noting was put up by the dealing hand (i.e. accused Dinesh CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 144 of 194 Kumar Gupta) before him for field verification. He had put his signature on the noting Ex.PW17/A at point B and marked the same to the Field Inspector Virpal for verification. He also deposed that it was the duty of the dealing hand (i.e. accused Dinesh Kumar Gupta) to scrutinize all the documents and see that all the entries are in order; documents were proper; and that the application has been properly verified according to the check list and after that, noting was forwarded to him for further field verification. He stated that accordingly, he had forwarded the loan application form along with the file noting to the Field Inspector Virpal. Field inspector accused Virpal had given a detailed report to the effect that he had duly verified the applicant and his credentials, documents at the given address and after being satisfied, he had recommended the case for approval before the LAC. The detailed note of Virpal on the file Ex.PW3/B (colly at page No.2N) bears his signatures at point X. After the recommendation of Virpal, he marked the file to Rajender Singh, Peon for keeping it on record and his endorsement in this regard on Ex.PW17/D was at point B. The file was handed over to Rajender Singh as no single file was being forwarded to LAC and after taking a date, bulk of the cases were put up before the LAC on a pre-appointed date to decide the fate of the case. In the LAC, the personal hearing of the applicant was also given and a prior intimation was also given to the applicant to appear before the LAC along with the original documents at the given date and place.
176. During his further examination-in-chief, PW-20 deposed that he had gone through the SKD loan file Ex.PW3/B CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 145 of 194 and after perusing the same, page No.2/C was missing and even the copy of SC certificate was not available on the file. He testified that on the basis of the note prepared by dealing hand and the verification report given by the Field Inspector and believing the same to be true, he forwarded the case for Loan Screening Committee. He also deposed that the letter Ex.PW3/F is an interview letter sent to the applicant to appear before the LSC which was sent by the scheme incharge.
177. PW-20 also deposed that as per record, Ex. PW- 17/A-1 (i.e page no. 23 of Receipt Register Ex. PW-2/B), form no. 6769 was received from Sh. Rishipal S/o. Tidda Ram as mentioned in Sr. No. 438. He also noted that the original loan file Ex.PW-3/B contained form no. 2048 Ex.PW-3/B2 and the registration no. was shown as 438 meaning thereby that form no. 6769 was received as per entry no. 438 in Ex. PW-17/A-1 but the same was changed and form no. 2048 was placed on the file. He further deposed that during investigation, he had also identified the signature of Dinesh Gupta, the Dealing Assistant on Ex.PW- 17/A at point A. Sh. S.L. Mukhi, Handwriting expert opined in his Report Ex. PW-51/X that no opinion can be expressed as to the questioned signature Q-1 i.e. signature of accused Dinesh Gupta. PW-20 also identified the signature of Veerpal on the detailed report of Veerpal Ex.PW-17/D at point X. Sh. S.L. Mukhi, Handwriting expert opined in his Report Ex. PW-51/X that the questioned signature Q-3 matches the sample signatures of accused Veerpal.
178. Further, PW-20 also deposed that the file was again CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 146 of 194 put before him in respect of meeting held by LAC where the applicant Rishipal would have appeared before the LAC. The said noting was placed before him by dealing hand Sh. Dinesh Gupta. As per the office protocol, the dealing hand would put the file before him, however, he could not identify the signature of the person who had signed Ex.PW-17/B before placing the file before him and thereafter, he had issued the sanction letter on the basis of minutes to the applicant to complete the post sanction formalities. The minutes of LAC and the letter issued by him Ex.PW-3/G bore his signature at point A. He deposed that thereafter, he was transferred and Sh. Raj Kumar, Deputy Manager had taken the charge.
179. From the testimony of PW-20, it is clear that accused Dinesh Kumar Gupta was working as Dealing Assistant at Nand Nagri Branch. PW-17, Sanjay had deposed that when he received the form no. 6769, he handed it over to accused Dinesh Kumar Gupta and PW-20 deposed that it was the duty of accused Dinesh Kumar Gupta to scrutinise all the documents and verify the identity of the applicant. PW-20 also deposed that accused Dinesh Kumar Gupta prepared note-sheet no. 1/N (Ex. PW-17/A) and placed the file before him i.e. Branch Incharge, Sh. Krishan Kumar for marking it for field verification. However, in his cross-examination, PW-20 has deposed that the first dealing hand was to receive the application form and the second dealing hand was to scrutinise the documents and process the file. It is not clear as to who was the first dealing hand and who was the second dealing hand.
CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 147 of 194180. Still, it is clear that there was some default as it was not noted that application form no. 2048 had no entry in the Form Issue Register or SKD Receipt Register. It was also not pointed out that file no. 438 is actually with respect to form no. 6769 and not 2048. Further, it was not pointed out that the ration card showed address E-56 while the application form showed C-56 and the fact that the photograph of the applicant was missing from the loan application was also not shown.
181. Further, PW-20 also deposed that accused Veerpal Singh, Field Inspector, had filed a report that he had verified the credentials of the applicant and documents at the given address. The field verification report (Ex. PW-17/D at note-sheet 2/N) shows that accused Virpal had personally met Sh. Rishi Pal S/o Sh. Tidda Ram at C-56, West Karawal Nagar, Delhi but PW-16 Rishipal deposed that he never resided at the said address. Further, Sh. Panna Lal, the owner of the property C-56 was examined as PW-13 who also deposed that no person in the name of Rishipal has ever resided at his address. This shows that the report given by accused Virpal was incorrect.
VIII (F). Post-Sanction Fraud
182. It is an admitted position that the loan was approved by the Loan Screening Committee. It is a matter of procedure that after the approval of the loan by the LSC, the applicant has to complete post sanction formalities. PW-20 deposed that he had written a letter (Ex. PW-3/G) to the applicant to complete the post sanction formalities. PW-3 also proved on record the letter of acceptance by applicant Rishipal. The said letter Ex. PW-3/O CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 148 of 194 is signed in the name of Rishipal on the front page at two points and on the back of it, it is written, "mujhe patra mein di gayi sabhi shartein manjoor hain - Rishipal" . It was alleged that the same has been written by accused Sushil Kumar. The said handwriting was sent to handwriting expert for expert opinion to find out who wrote the said report. Vide Report Ex. PW-51/X, Sh. S.L. Mukhi opined that the said questioned handwriting Q-6 matches the sample handwriting of accused Sushil Kumar.
183. Thus, it stands established that PW-16 Rishipal had not made any such endorsement and therefore, some fraud has been committed. Whether the said noting was made by accused Sushil Kumar or not and how much reliance can be placed upon the report of the handwriting expert will be decided at the later stage.
VIII (G). Creation of Bank Accounts for Fraud
184. One of the post sanction formalities was the giving of 46 post dated cheques by the applicant to DSFDC. It is alleged that for this purpose, accused Anil Kumar Gupta, working as clerk at Khari Baoli Branch of Delhi State Cooperative Bank Ltd. and accused Vinod Kumar Sharma got a savings account no. 2931 opened on 21.11.2003 in the name of Sh. Rishi Pal S/o Sh. Tidda Ram, R/o E-56, West Karawal Nagar, Delhi.
185. PW-4, Sh. Vijay Chaudhary, who was posted as Branch Manager, Delhi State Cooperative Bank Ltd., Khari Baoli in the year 2008 affirmed in his evidence that account no. 2931 was opened in the name of Rishipal S/o Tidda Ram on CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 149 of 194 21.11.2003. He also deposed that the account was introduced by Arun Tiwari who was a peon in the said branch. He also deposed that the account was opened with the permission of Ms. Dayawanti and opened by clerk Pawan Kumar Sharma. He proved the account opening form Ex. PW-4/A.
186. Prosecution also examined Sh. Arun Tiwari as PW- 8 who was posted as a peon in Khari Baoli branch, Delhi State Cooperative Bank. He despoed that on 21.11.2003, an account was opened in the bank in the name of Rishi Pal and that accused Anil Gupta who was working as cashier told him that Rishipal was his known and asked him to introduce Rishipal for opening his saving bank account. He also deposed that all the forms for opening the account were filled up by accused Anil Gupta. He also deposed that accused Anil Gupta wrote his name and account no. in the appropriate column of introducer in the form and thereafter, accused Anil Gupta took his signatures on the said form.
187. PW-8 further deposed that in the year 2008, he came to know that no person ever existed by the name of Rishipal. He tried to trace said Rishipal on many occasions and on 26.10.2008, he went to the office of ACB where one person was sitting and he was told that the name of said person was Vinod Sharma and the photographs of Vinod Sharma and copy of his ration card are available on the account opening form of said Rishipal. During his evidence, original account opening form Ex. PW-4/A was shown to the witness and he identified his signatures at point-A. He also deposed that his name and account CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 150 of 194 no. in the form were filled up by accused Anil Gupta. He was also shown the original ledger Ex. PW-4/F and he identified the photographs of the person whose introduction was got done through him by accused Anil Gupta. During evidence when he was asked to identify accused Vinod Kumar Sharma, he was not present in the court. The court observed that accused Vinod Kumar Sharma had gone to Dispensary, Tis Hazari Courts but when he came back to the court, PW-8 Arun Tiwari correctly identified him.
188. Thus, PW-8 has deposed that he had introduced the opening of the account of Rishipal at the instance of accused Anil Kumar Gupta and that the photograph of Vinod Kumar Sharma was used in place of Rishipal for the purposes of opening the account. He also identified accused Vinod Kumar Sharma.
189. Further, PW-12 Sh. Pawan Sharma, who opened the account, testified that the person who came to open the account i.e. Rishipal came with Anil Kumar Gupta and he correctly identified Anil Kumar Gupta in the court.
190. He also deposed that the photograph on the specimen signature card (Ex. PW-4/B) is of accused Vinod Kumar Sharma. The signatures allegedly of Rishipal on account opening form (Ex. PW-4/A) and Ex. PW-4/B were sent to the forensic expert but no conclusive opinion has been given.
191. However, the 46 post-dated cheques drawn on account no. 2931 that were submitted to DSFDC allegedly bearing the signatures of Rishipal were also sent to the CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 151 of 194 handwriting expert and in his report Ex. PW-51/X, Sh. S.L. Mukhi has opined that questioned handwriting Q-26, Q-26A, Q- 26B, Q-26C, Q-26D, Q-26E, Q-26G,Q-26F, Q-26H, Q-26I, Q- 26J, Q-26K, Q-26L, Q-26M, Q-26Z, Q-26N, Q-26O, Q-26P, Q- 26Q, Q-26R, Q-26S, Q-26T, Q-26U, Q-26V, Q-26W, Q-26X, Q- 26Y, Q-26Z1, Q-20K, Q-20, Q-20B, Q-20A, Q-20L, Q-20C, Q- 2OD, Q-20E, Q-20F, Q-20G, Q-20H, Q-20I, Q-20J and questioned signatures Q-25, Q-25A, Q-25B, Q-25C, Q-25D, Q- 25E, Q-25G, Q-25F, Q-25H, Q-25I, Q-25J, Q-25K, Q-25L, Q- 25M, Q-25Z, Q-25N, Q-25O, Q-25P, Q-25Q, Q-25R, Q-25S, Q- 25T, Q-25U, Q-25V, Q-25W, Q-25X, Q-25Y, Q-25Z1, Q-19K, Q-19, Q-19B, Q-19A, Q-19L, Q-19C, Q-19D, Q-19E, Q-19F, Q- 19G, Q-19H, Q-19I, Q-19J match the sample handwriting and sample signatures of accused Sushil Kumar.
192. Therefore, the testimonies of PW-8 and PW-12 indicate that fictitious Rishipal was referred by accused Anil Kumar Gupta to open an account in Delhi State Cooperative Bank; photograph of accused Vinod Kumar Sharma was used on the account opening form and the 46 post dated cheques were not filled and signed by Rishipal. Whether the said cheques were filled and signed by accused Sushil Kumar and how much reliance has to be placed upon the report of the handwriting expert are issues that will be decided at a later stage.
193. PW-4 also deposed that an application for closure of the bank account and misplacement of cheques was received with regard to account no. 2391. He proved the application for closure Ex. PW-4/C and intimation for misplacement of cheques CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 152 of 194 Ex. PW-4/D. For this purpose, an application was also made to SHO, PS Gokalpuri, reporting that cheque no(s).657741 to 657800 had been lost while traveling in bus having route no.261. Although, the signatures on Ex. PW-4/C and Ex. PW-4/D were sent to the handwriting expert, but vide Report Ex. PW-51/X, the handwriting expert opined that no opinion can be expressed regarding the handwriting and sigatures on the said 46 post dated cheques.
VIII (H). Opening of the account in GPO, Kashmere Gate:
194. Cheque no. 434351 of Rs. 50,000/- dated 20.07.2004 was issued by DSFDC in the name of Sh. Rishi Pal S/o Sh. Tidda Ram, R/o C-56, West Karawal Nagar, Delhi. The said cheque was deposited in account no.1159153 which was opened at GPO, Kashmeri Gate, on 06.07.2014 in the name of Sh. Rishi Pal S/o Sh. Tidda Ram, R/o E-56, West Karawal Nagar, Delhi. The cheque no. 434351 was deposited and ultimately Rs.50,000/- was withdrawn from the said account no.1159153 by using self cheque no. 446251 on 26.07.2004.
195. PW-15 Sh. S.K. Jain, who was posted as PA at GPO, Kashmere Gate deposed that on 06.07.2004, a saving bank account bearing no. 1159153 was opened in the name of Sh. Rishi Pal S/o Sh. Tidda Ram R/o E-56 West Karawal Nagar. He proved the account opening form as Ex. PW-15/A bearing the photograph of the applicant. He also deposed that the account holder had signed the application form in his presence and had put his signature on the application form as well as on the CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 153 of 194 place of specimen signature in Hindi and also on the reverse of Ex.PW15/A at the encircled portion at point X and his photograph appears at point Y. PW-15 further deposed that the aforesaid bank account was introduced by one Jai Narayan Solanki R/o A-185 Gokul Puri, Delhi who also had a savings bank account No.1157569 in the said post office and he was also known to one of the post office employees namely Pawan Kumar and that the account of Jai Narayan Solanki was also introduced by Pawan Kumar PA. He also deposed that the account holder had also annexed one copy of ration card. On opening of the account, a cheque book as well as the pass book of the account were also handed over to the account holder. He further deposed that on 20.07.2004, a cheque bearing No. 434351 was deposited in the aforesaid account vide SB 103 which is Ex.PW15/B and the said money was withdrawn from the said account vide cheque No.446251 (Ex. PW15/C). He admitted that he could not recognize the face of the person who got the account opened/account holder at that stage as the period of almost 15 years had already been passed.
196. The handwriting and signatures on the account opening form Ex. PW-15/A, the depositing slip Ex. PW-15/B and the cheque through which the amount was withdrawn Ex. PW-15/C were sent to the handwriting expert for an opinion, however, vide his Report Ex. PW-51/X, he opined that no express opinion can be given as to who wrote the questioned handwriting and questioned signatures Q-16D, Q-16A, Q-16, Q- 16C, Q-16B, Q-16E, Q-24C, Q-24, Q-24B and Q-24A. Thus, it could not be proved as to who withdrew the amount.
CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 154 of 194VIII (I). Recovery Fact Sheet Irregularities:
197. PW-10 Sh. S.P. Jaiswal, who was Branch Manager at DSFDC testified that one of the dealing assistants of his office, Mr. Ram Avtar, had informed him that the head office has raised query about missing photograph of the guarantor on the recovery fact sheet file of the applicant Rishipal Pal S/o Tidda Ram. He asked his dealing assistant to enquire about the said fact and accordingly, the dealing assistant Ram Avtar had visited the given address of the applicant Rishipal S/o Tidda Ram and he informed him that the applicant was not found residing at the given address and the person named Rishipal S/o Tidda Ram was found residing at some other nearby place. Dealing Assistant Ram Avtar had also met said Rishipal S/o Tidda Ram and he had informed Ram Avtar that he had never obtained/availed any of loan of Rs. 50,000/- from DSFDC, Nand Nagri Branch. The matter was accordingly reported to the head quarters. He also deposed that the recovery fact sheet Ex. PW3/O clearly shows that it is apparent that the photograph of the guarantor is missing. He had also shown the certificate Ex. PW3/V regarding the fact that the loan was entered in the master loan register/fact recovery sheet which was signed by accused Veerpal.
198. PW-10 deposed that the recovery of loan aspect of the Rishi Pal S/o Tidda Ram was put up by the then dealing assistant Vinod Kumar which was forwarded by accused Veerpal, who was promoted as Asstt. Manager and on the recovery, a detailed note was prepared by Ram Avtar LDC on 26.04.2005 and he brought the fact in his notice. In the note, it CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 155 of 194 was mentioned that the efforts were made to trace Rishipal S/o. Tidda Ram at his given address C-56 Karawal Nagar, Delhi-94 but the address was found fake and thereafter, Ram Avtar had also visited at E-56, Gali No.4, in front of Jagat Dairy, West Karawal Nagar where Rishi Pal S/o Tidda Ram was found residing and the photograph affixed on the loan form was shown to his family member but they had not identified the person whose photo was affixed therein and they informed Ram Avtar that Rishi Pal S/o. Tidda Ram R/o E-56 has never obtained any loan of Rs.50,000/- from DSFDC. He had also requested to get the photograph of the applicant and guarantor. The noting of Ram Avtar in this regard was on Ex.PW-3/X colly. at point X and the said note was endorsed by him.
199. PW-24 Sh. Vinod Kumar who was posted in DSFDC deposed that it was his duty to prepare Master Loan Register as well as recovery fact sheet in respect of loan given to persons. He further deposed when he was preparing the documents with respect to loan file of Rishipal, he found that there was no guarantor photograph on the file and he told the said fact to Sh. S.P. Jaishwal, Deputy Manager. He corroborated the testimony of PW-10 regarding the missing photogaph of the guarantor as well as the fact that Rishipal was found residing at some other nearby address rather than the one mentioned in the loan documents.
VIII (J). Repayment to Cover Tracks:
200. PW-23 Sh. Shyam Kishore Sareen testified that on 02.01.2007, an amount of Rs. 56,000/- was deposited in Oriental CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 156 of 194 Bank of Commerce, Sector-11, Rohini in DSFDC's account, purportedly as repayment of the loan with interest vide receipt Ex. PW-23/B. The handwriting and the signatures upon Ex. PW- 23B were sent to the handwriting expert but vide his report Ex. PW-51/X, Sh. S.L. Mukhi opined that no express opinion can be given as to the questioned handwriting and signatures Q-17 and Q-17A i.e. the writing and signatures upon Ex. PW-23/B.
201. PW-29 Sh. Nand Kishore, the cashier who received the deposit, testified that someone deposited Rs. 56,000/- showing it as repayment for "Rishipal Loan A/c No. 438 SKD/NM" but he could not identify the person who made the deposit.
202. PW-33 Sh. Raj Kumar testified that the repayment would normally require obtaining a form from the recovery section of DSFDC with four counter foils, but in this case, the amount was simply deposited in cash without following proper procedure. Thus, while it has been established that Rs. 56,000/- was deposited in the name of Rishipal but it could not be proved as to who deposited the same.
VIII (K). Prosecution Sanction:
203. PW-59 Inspector Rohitash testified that he sought sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the accused public servants through letter dated 16.03.2017 Ex. PW-54/A. PW-54 Ms. Rinku Dugga, who was Chairperson-cum-Managing Director of DSFDC in June 2017, testified that (a) she was the appointing and disciplinary authority CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 157 of 194 of the accused DSFDC employees; (b) she received the request for sanction along with copy of FIR, preliminary inquiry documents, and other materials; (c) after perusal of the record revealing serious fraud, she accorded sanction under Section 19 of PC Act dated 02.06.2017 against Sushil Kumar (Ex. PW-49/E); Dinesh Kumar Gupta (Ex. PW-49/C) and Veerpal Singh (Ex. PW-49/G); and (d) she identified her signatures on all three sanctions.
204. Regarding accused Anil Kumar Gupta, PW-59 testified that sanction was also sought from Delhi State Co- operative Bank Ltd. However, the bank informed through letter dated 01.06.2017 Ex. PW-59/A that sanction may not be required as he had been dismissed from service.
IX. Examination and Analysis of the case of each accused:
205. After having discussed whether the alleged acts stand proved or not and whether they amount to offence or not, the case of each accused shall be examined and analysed one by one:
IX (A). Case of accused Sushil Kumar:
206. It is the allegation against accused Sushil Kumar that he played a pivotal role in the commission of the crime by
(a) procuring and issuing loan application forms; (b) making entries in the Form Issue Register; (c) forging signatures of the fictitious borrower on loan documents and cheques; and (d) CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 158 of 194 acting as a link between other accused in furtherance of conspiracy.
(i) Misuse of loan documents:
207. The prosecution examined PW-16 Rishipal to prove that he had not availed any loan of Rs. 50,000/- from DSFDC and also that he had applied for loan on an earlier occasion which was rejected. PW-16 also proved that his documents which were submitted along with the previous rejected loan application, were not returned to him. PW-9 Mukesh Vaid and PW-43 had corroborated the said fact. PW-43 Anita had specifically deposed that the said loan documents were not returned by accused Sushil Kumar.
208. Ld. Counsel for the accused had submitted that there is no proof regrading the fact that accused Sushil Kumar was in possession of the loan documents of Rishipal. He argued that it is only a submission on the part of PW-43 that he did not return the documents while accused Sushil Kumar had no authority to deal with or retain any loan document as he was only a Peon. He further submitted that further, there is no evidence on record to prove that accused Sushil Kumar had misused the said loan documents.
209. From the above, it is clear that while the prosecution has proved that actual Rishipal had applied for loan on an earlier occasion which was rejected and also that he had submitted his loan documents along with the application but clearly, the prosecution has not been able to establish that the said loan CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 159 of 194 documents were in the possession of accused Sushil Kumar or that he used the said loan documents or the information therein to commit the crime in question. Saying so would only be a matter of assumption especially considering that he was working as a Peon who would not have much authority in retaining the documents or going through the same.
(ii) The loan application:
210. The prosecution examined PW-17 to prove that entry for form no. 6640 issued to Sh. Rishi Pal S/o Sh. Tidda Ram, R/o 196, Bhola Nath Nagar, Delhi at serial no. 232 (Ex. PW-17/G) in Form Issue Register Ex. PW-17/F was made by accused Sushil Kumar. PW-17 stuck to his stand in his cross- examinaiton and though he admitted that he is not a handwriting expert but he deposed in his cross-examination that he can identify the handwriting of accused Sushil Kumar as he has seen him writing.
211. PW-17 further deposed that another form no. 6769 in the name of Sh. Rishi Pal S/o Sh. Kidda, R/o C-56, West Karawal Nagar, New Delhi was issued vide entry at Sr. No. 258 in the same register Ex. PW-17/F. He also deposed that the receipt entry of the said application form no. 6769 was made by him in the SKD form receipt register Ex. PW2/B at page no. 23, Sl. No. 438 but the same was done at the behest of accused Sushil Kumar. He clarified in his deposition that the accused Sushil Kumar had produced the application form of the applicant along with the documents and therefore, he had entered the same CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 160 of 194 in the register. He also testified that he made an endorsement at the relevant entry of Sushil Kumar in his hand so that the same could be used for reference in future. He also pointed out that the initial at point B of Ex. 17/A was in his handwriting as Sushil Kumar.
212. PW-17 further pointed out that while the application form received by him had application no. 6769 but the application form shown to him bore loan application No. 2048 (Ex. PW3/B2). He categorically deposed that this was not the application form which was received by him on 19.06.2003 vide entry at Sl. No. 438. He also deposed that he had seen the application form Ex.PW3/B2 and on the application, the reference i.e. 438 BONN dated 19.06.03 was not in his handwriting and the same is in the handwriting of accused Sushil Kumar. PW-17 further deposed that the application form appears to be filled up by accused Sushil Kumar.
213. PW-17 also deposed that the application form received by him had a photograph of the applicant but the application Ex. PW3/B2 did not have the photograph of the applicant.
214. From the above, it is clear that form no. 6640 was issued in the name of Sh. Rishi Pal S/o Sh. Tidda Ram, R/o 196, Bhola Nath Nagar, Delhi and form no. 6769 was issued in favour of Rishipal S/o Tidda Ram R/o 196, Bhola Nath Nagar. It is also clear that there is no entry of form no. 6640 in the Receipt Register but form no. 6769 has been received in the Receipt CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 161 of 194 Register vide entry no. 438. Further, it is also proved that the form number that was actually used for obtaining the loan was 2048 and the file no. of the loan shows that the entry of receipt register of form no. 6769 i.e. 438 has been used to create the master loan file. While it is the case of the prosecution that the details of the loan applicant Rishipal have been manipulated by accused Sushil Kumar, it was submitted on behalf of accused Sushil Kumar that merely because it is alleged that accused Sushil Kumar made an entry in the Form Issue Register, it does not mean that he has manipulated the entries. He argued that the case of the prosecution is only based on assumptions and therefore, no fact stands proved.
215. It is also the case of prosecution that accused Sushil Kumar fraudulently filled up the guarantee bond Ex. PW-1/A as Sh. S.L. Mukhi, Handwriting Expert has reported vide his report Ex. PW-51/X that the questioned handwriting matches the handwriting of accused Sushil Kumar.
216. Perusal of record reveals that while PW-17 has categorically deposed that the handwriting on the entry at serial no. 232 as well as the application form Ex. PW-3/B2 is of accused Sushil Kumar. He has also deposed that he can identify his handwriting as he is aware of the same. However, vide Report Ex. PW-51/X, the handwriting expert has mentioned that no opinion can be expressed as to who wrote the questioned handwriting at Q-38 i.e. entry of form no. 6640 at serial no. 232 of register Ex. PW-17/F or as to the questioned handwriting Q-5 i.e. the form Ex. PW-3/B2. Further, PW-17 has not himself seen CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 162 of 194 accused Sushil Kumar make that entry at serial no. 232 Ex. PW- 17/G or fill the form Ex. PW-3/B2. PW-17 has only identified the handwriting of accused Sushil Kumar. Also, in his cross- examination, he has admitted that accused Sushil Kumar has never worked under his supervision. Although, he has denied the suggestion that he cannot identify the handwriting of accused Sushil Kumar but he has not categorically deposed in what capacity was he aware of his handwriting and could identify his handwriting. Further, PW-17 has also admitted that the application forms were filled up by the staff at times as the applicants were illiterate. Therefore, it cannot be ignored that even if for the sake of argument, it is considered that accused Sushil Kumar filled the form Ex. PW-3/B2, it may be to extend assistance to the applicant of the form. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused Sushil Kumar had filled the loan application form Ex. PW-3/B2 and if he did then, it was with the intention to defraud DSFDC.
217. While it is correct that vide Report Ex. PW-51/X, the handwriting on the guarantee bond Ex. PW-1/A has matched the handwriting of accused Sushil Kumar but it is the settled position that Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that the opinion of experts, including handwriting experts, is relevant when the Court has to form an opinion on matters of science or art, including identity of handwriting but it is trite law handwriting expert evidence is only an opinion and not substantive proof. It is a weak type of evidence and must be received with great caution and conviction cannot ordinarily be CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 163 of 194 based solely on handwriting expert opinion unless strongly corroborated by other evidence.
218. It was held in the case of Ram Chandra v. State of U.P., AIR 1957 SC 381 that expert evidence as to handwriting is opinion evidence and can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence. It was further held in the case of Magan Bihari Lal v. State of Punjab, (1977) 2 SCC 210 that handwriting expert opinion is a weak type of evidence and cannot be relied upon without substantial corroboration. It was also held in Murari Lal v. State of M.P., (1980) 1 SCC 704 that it is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert opinion without independent corroboration.
219. Therefore, it is clear that the opinion of the handwriting expert under the Indian Evidence Act is limited and corroborative in nature and the courts must see if there is any independent substantive evidence before placing reliance upon it, particularly in criminal cases. In view of this, this court is of the view that sole reliance cannot be placed on the report of handwriting expert to prove that the guarantee bond Ex. PW-1/A was filled up by accused Sushil Kumar.
(iii) Submission of forged documents:
220. It is the case of the prosecution that forged documents were submitted along with the loan application. PW- 16 Rishipal proved that the ration card Ex. PW3/E is forged as it does not bear his photograph or signature. He also clarified that the details of children mentioned in the ration card were not his, CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 164 of 194 however, it bore his wife's name. PW-16, Rishipal also deposed that the affidavit Ex. PW3/D; affidavit for personal guarantee Ex. PW3/L; or the legal heir certificate Ex. PW3/M did not bear his signatures. He also stated that the hypothecation deed Ex. PW3/B1 was not filled up by him nor did it bear his signatures. He also stated that in 2003, even the electricity bill of E-56 was not in his name.
221. Further, PW-55 Sh. Virender Kumar Batra, Food & Supply Officer, confirmed through his letter (Ex. PW-55/A) that ration card no. 121708 (Ex. PW-3/E) which was given at the time of making the loan application was actually, not in the name of Rishi Pal S/o Tidda Ram but in the name of one Raj Bahadur.
222. Thus, the prosecution established that forged documents were submitted along with the loan application, however, the prosecution failed to establish that accused Sushil Kumar had any role to play in the same.
(iv) Fraudulent completion of post sanction formalities:
223. It is also the case of prosecution that after the sanction of the loan, the fictitious Rishipal was to complete post sanction formalities and one such formality was to hand over 46 post dated cheques. It is further its case that the said 46 post- dated cheques drawn on account no. 2931 that were submitted to DSFDC bore the signatures of Rishipal and the same were actually done by accused Sushil Kumar. Prosecution has placed heavy reliance on the report Ex. PW-51/X submitted by Sh. S.L. Mukhi who has opined that questioned handwriting Q-26, Q-
CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 165 of 19426A, Q-26B, Q-26C, Q-26D, Q-26E, Q-26G,Q-26F, Q-26H, Q- 26I, Q-26J, Q-26K, Q-26L, Q-26M, Q-26Z, Q-26N, Q-26O, Q- 26P, Q-26Q, Q-26R, Q-26S, Q-26T, Q-26U, Q-26V, Q-26W, Q- 26X, Q-26Y, Q-26Z1, Q-20K, Q-20, Q-20B, Q-20A, Q-20L, Q- 20C, Q-2OD, Q-20E, Q-20F, Q-20G, Q-20H, Q-20I, Q-20J and questioned signatures Q-25, Q-25A, Q-25B, Q-25C, Q-25D, Q- 25E, Q-25G, Q-25F, Q-25H, Q-25I, Q-25J, Q-25K, Q-25L, Q- 25M, Q-25Z, Q-25N, Q-25O, Q-25P, Q-25Q, Q-25R, Q-25S, Q- 25T, Q-25U, Q-25V, Q-25W, Q-25X, Q-25Y, Q-25Z1, Q-19K, Q-19, Q-19B, Q-19A, Q-19L, Q-19C, Q-19D, Q-19E, Q-19F, Q- 19G, Q-19H, Q-19I, Q-19J match the sample handwriting and sample signatures of accused Sushil Kumar.
224. Ld. PP for the State also pointed out that as a part of post sanction formality, a letter of acceptance was also recieved. He referred to the testimony of PW-20 who deposed that he had written a letter (Ex. PW-3/G) to the applicant to complete the post sanction formalities. PW-3 also proved on record the letter of acceptance by applicant Rishipal. The said letter Ex. PW-3/O is signed in the name of Rishipal on the front page at two points and on the back of it, it is wrriten, "mujhe patra mein di gayi sabhi shartein manjoor hain - Rishipal". Ld. PP for the State pointed out that this noting has been made by accused Sushil Kumar as is clear from the handwriting expert report Ex. PW- 51/X wherein Sh. S.L. Mukhi opined that the said questioned handwriting Q-6 matches the sample handwriting of accused Sushil Kumar.
CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 166 of 194225. Ld. PP for the State had argued that since the handwriting and signatures on the 46 post dated cheques as well as on the letter of acceptance Ex. PW-3/O have matched the sample handwriting and sample signatures of accused Sushil Kumar, it stands proved that accused Sushil Kumar had written and signed the said cheques as well as letter of acceptance which in turn means that accused Sushil Kumar has committed fraud u/s 420/467/468/471 IPC read with section 120B IPC as well as offence u/s 13(1)(d) PC Act punishable u/s 13(2) PC Act.
226. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that there is no direct proof regarding the involvement of accused Sushil Kumar in the present case. He further submitted that no one has seen him write or sign the said cheques and as far as the opinion of the handwriting expert is concerned, the same is a very weak piece of evidence. He also pointed out that the documents were sent to a private laboratory for forensic examination and not to FSL and the possibility of bias cannot be ruled out in this case.
227. Perusal of record reveals that the prosecution has not led any evidence to prove that someone had actually seen the accused write and sign the 46 post dated cheques or the letter of acceptance of loan. Further, the only piece of evidence that is available with the prosecution to prove that the 46 post dated cheques were filled and signed and the letter of acceptance was written by accused Sushil Kumar is the opinion report of Sh. S.L. Mukhi. Though, this court does not agree with the argument of Ld. Counsel for the accused that the report should be disregarded CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 167 of 194 only because it has been given by a private laboratory. As long as the credentials of the handwriting expert have been confirmed and not destroyed in cross-examination, no bias can be alleged. Nothing has come out in the cross-examination of PW-51 that would show that his credentials have been damaged. In fact, PW- 51 has denied the suggestion that Truth Lab has always given reports in favour of ACB. To say so, even in the present report, positive opinion has not been expressed on many handwritings and signatures. Therefore, this court is of the view that the report is genuine.
228. However, it has been observed earlier that heavy reliance cannot be placed on the reports of expert evidence especially to hold an accused guilty.
229. In the case at hand, no witness has deposed that the accused Sushil Kumar was seen forging any cheque or letter. This court is of the view that sole reliance on the report of the handwriting expert cannot prove this fact and thus, prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused Sushil Kumar had forged the 46 post dated cheques or the letter of acceptance.
230. In conclusion, the Form Issue Register relied upon by the prosecution only establishes issuance and movement of forms, which is part of routine office functioning. The register does not show fabrication of entries, false insertion or any exclusive handling of the loan file by the accused. No witness has deposed that the accused Sushil Kumar was seen filling the CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 168 of 194 forged loan application form Ex. PW- 3/B2 or the 46 post dated cheques or Ex. PW-3/O the letter of acceptance. While the handwriting upon Ex. PW-3/B2 has not matched the sample handwriting of the accused Sushil Kumar, it has matched on the 46 post dated cheques as well as the letter of acceptance Ex. PW- 3/O. The prosecution has heavily relied on the handwriting expert opinion to connect accused Sushil Kumar with forged signatures on the post dated cheques. However, the expert opinion stands unsubstantiated by any independent evidence. The Report Ex.PW-51/X as the only piece of evidence against accused Sushil Kumar cannot be solely relied upon to secure conviction in this case.
231. Further, it cannot be denied that the accused Sushil Kumar did not have any authority to sanction the loan. He was admittedly a Peon who did not have the authority to sanction any loan application. Also, the prosecution has admittedly not been able to prove as to who withdrew the loan amount of Rs.50,000/- or how the same was distributed. Clearly, as the prosecution has not been able to prove who withdrew the loan amount, it can be said that the prosecution has not been able to prove that accused Sushil Kumar took any benefit of the said amount. In the absence of any such proof, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove that accused Sushil Kumar was a beneficiary to the alleged fraud. Thus, his motive to commit the fraud has not been proved.
232. Also, PW-15 deposed that the amount of Rs.50,000/- was withdrawn vide cheque Ex. PW-15/C. The same was sent for forensic examination. However, vide Report CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 169 of 194 Ex. PW-51/X, Sh. S.L. Mukhi reported that no conclusive opinion can be given as to the handwriting and signature on Ex.PW-15/C. Therefore, it could not be proved as to who withdrew the amount of Rs. 50,000/-.
233. The deposit slip Ex. PW-23/B was sent for forensic examination. However, vide report Ex.PW-51/X, Sh. S.L. Mukhi stated that no conclusive opinion can be given as to handwriting upon deposit slip Ex. PW-23/B. Also, PW-29 who was the cashier at the relevant time deposed that he cannot identify the person who deposited the cash. The prosecution has also not been able to prove as to who deposited the amount of Rs.56,000/- in the name of Rishipal as payment of the loan amount. In view of above, the prosecution has failed to establish that accused Sushil Kumar forged any document; or that he acted pursuant to a criminal conspiracy.
IX (B). Case of accused Dinesh Kumar Gupta:
234. The prosecution has alleged that accused Dinesh Kumar Gupta, LDC, had processed a forged loan file; suppressed discrepancies and acted in furtherance of conspiracy to commit the crime in question.
235. Prosecution has placed heavy reliance on the testimony of PW-20, Krishna Kumar who was posted as Branch Incharge, DSFDC, Nand Nangri and deposed that on the date of receipt of form no. 6769, accused Dinesh Kumar Gupta was posted as Dealing Assistant. He further deposed that the loan application form Ex.PW3/B2 bearing registration No.438BONN CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 170 of 194 was processed by the Dealing Assistant and he prepared a noting in this regard on page 1N Ex. PW17/A on the file Ex.PW3/B(colly) bearing the signature of the dealing hand at point Q1. He stated that the said noting was put up by the dealing hand (i.e. accused Dinesh Kumar Gupta) before him for field verification. He categorically deposed that it was the duty of the dealing hand (i.e. accused Dinesh Kumar Gupta) to scrutinize all the documents and see that all the entries are in order; documents were proper; and that the application has been properly verified according to the check list and after that, noting was forwarded to him for further field verification.
236. During his examination, PW-20 also stated that during investigation, he had also identified the signature of Dinesh Gupta, the Dealing Assistant on Ex.PW-17/A at point A. However, Sh. S.L. Mukhi, Handwriting expert opined in his Report Ex. PW-51/X that no opinion can be expressed as to the questioned signature Q-1 i.e. signature of accused Dinesh Gupta.
237. With respect to the post LAC meeting stage, PW-20 deposed that the file was again put before him in respect of meeting held by LAC where the applicant Rishipal would have appeared before the LAC. The said noting was placed before him by dealing hand Sh. Dinesh Gupta. As per the office protocol, the dealing hand would put the file before him, however, he could not identify the signature of the person who had signed Ex.PW-17/B before placing the file before him and thereafter, he had issued the sanction letter on the basis of minutes to the applicant to complete the post sanction CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 171 of 194 formalities.
238. Ld. PP for the State argued that from the testimony of PW-20, it is proved that accused Dinesh Kumar Gupta was working as Dealing Assistant at Nand Nagri Branch and that it was his duty to scrutinise all the documents and verify the identity of the applicant. PW-20 also proved that accused Dinesh Kumar Gupta prepared note-sheet no. 1/N (Ex. PW-17/A) and placed the file before PW-20 for further processing.
239. It is correct that the prosecution has been able to establish that there was some manipulation in the records and that the loan application form no. 2048 Ex. PW-3/B2 had no entry in the Form Issue Register or SKD Receipt Register as also that file no. 438 was actually with respect to form no. 6769 and not 2048 or that while the ration card showed address E-56 while the application form showed C-56 or that the photograph of the applicant was missing from the loan application. However, the question is if the loan application form Ex. PW-3/B2 was processed by accused Dinesh Kumar Gupta intentionally to commit the fraud and the offences in question or not.
240. In his defence, Ld. Counsel for accused Dinesh Kumar Gupta argued that Dinesh Gupta was UDC and technically dealing hand of the loan file concerned, but in practice, he was not the only one dealing with the file exclusively. He pointed out that there is ample evidence on record that the branch was understaffed and as per exigencies of the situation, educated peons performed various duties which CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 172 of 194 were actually required to be performed by clerks. He further argued that the accused Dinesh Kumar Gupta did not receive the concerned loan application form and had no role in initial writing work on the file or any register relating to receipt of the loan application. He submitted that accused Dinesh Kumar Gupta got to deal with the loan file only after it was handed over to him at the direction of the branch incharge by the officials who had received it.
241. He also submitted that accused Dinesh Kumar Gupta processed the loan application form in routine and had no doubt, knowledge or reason to suspect any wrongdoing. He did not even know if the loan application form he processed was the original or a replaced one. He further argued that in processing of the loan file, accused Dinesh Kumar Gupta checked if it was accompanied by all documents as per the check list prescribed; recorded on note sheet as to at what page what document was placed on the correspondence part of the file; and proposed to the branch incharge in standardized format to get the facts and the documents of the applicant verified.
242. Ld. Counsel for accused Dinesh Kumar Gupta submitted that at the time of putting up the file to the Branch Incharge, the file was complete in all respects. The material before accused Dinesh Kumar Gupta did not give rise to any suspicion or doubt. He also argued that had the file processed by accused Dinesh Kumar Gupta been incomplete or had any deviations from the prescribed procedure or had anything to give rise to suspicion or doubt, the branch incharge would have CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 173 of 194 figured it out and sent the file back to the officials who had received it for remedial action, if any, and would not have marked it to others for further necessary action.
243. Ld. Counsel for accused Dinesh Kumar Gupta pointed out that PW-2 deposed that "It is correct that the dealing assistant will not check the original documents as and when it is received by him only to check whether the application form is annexed with the copies of the relevant documents." He also pointed out that PW-10 deposed that "...when the branch manager signs the application for field verification, it means that he is prima-facie satisfied with application of the loan."
244. Ld. Counsel for accused Dinesh Kumar Gupta also pointed out that PW-20 Krishan Kumar deposed that "It was duty of dealing hand to receive the applications due to shortage of staff the other staff like 4th class educated employees used to be posted to issue and receive application forms." Ld. Counsel for the accused contended that the application form was not received by accused Dinesh Kumar Gupta and was only processed by him.
245. From the above, it is clear that the accused Dinesh Kumar Gupta has admitted that he had processed the loan application form Ex. PW-3/B2. However, it is his case that the duty of accused Dinesh Kumar Gupta was to only check if the loan form was accompanied by all documents as per the check list prescribed. He also argued that at the time of processing the CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 174 of 194 loan form, the accused did not smell anything wrong and thus, forwarded the file for further processing.
246. While the prosecution has proved that the file was processed by accused Dinesh Kumar Gupta which is also his admitted case and has also proved that there was some manipulation but it has not been proved that it was the duty of accused Dinesh Kumar Gupta to check the Form Issue Register as well as Form Receipt Register to check if the application form corresponds with the entries in the said registers. The prosecution has also not been able to prove that the accused Dinesh Kumar Gupta processed the form with mala fide. In fact, PW-2 has deposed that it was not the duty of the Dealing Assistant to check the original documents.
247. While it is stated to be the duty of the Dealing Clerk to check the documents but it is not specified that at that particular time, the photograph was missing. It is only an assumption that even at the time when the form was processed, the photograph was missing and that accused Dinesh Kumar Gupta is to be blamed for it.
248. It was held in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Wasudeo Ramchandra Kaidalwar (1981) 3 SCC 199 that mere processing of files does not constitute an offence unless dishonest intention is established. In the present case, prosecution has miserably failed to show any mala fide intention on the part of accused Dinesh Kumar Gupta in processing the file especially in light of the fact that PW-3 has failed to prove as to CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 175 of 194 who actually withdrew the money and benefitted from this alleged fraud.
249. Further, with respect to post LAC meeting stage, Ld. Counsel for accused Dinesh Kumar Gupta argued that there is nothing on record to show that Dinesh Kumar Gupta had received or processed the concerned file post approval of the loan for completion of post-sanction formalities by receiving documents, i.e., hypothecation, guarantor and post-dated cheques and enclosing the same with the loan form. PW-20 had also deposed that in usual course of business, the file was processed by Dealing Hand but he could not identify the signatures of the person who processed it on Ex. PW-17/B.
250. Thus, prosecution has failed to prove that the file was put up before accused Dinesh Kumar Gupta for verification post approval by LAC.
251. It is also the case of prosecution that accused Anil Kumar Gupta was the brother of accused Dinesh Kumar Gupta and that they had conspired with each other to commit the present offences. However, the prosecution has not placed any document on record to prove the same. Perusal of the chargesheet shows that in column no. 11, the name of the father of accused Dinesh Kumar Gupta is Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta and the name of the father of accused Anil Kumar Gupta is Late Sh. Banwari Lal which shows that they are not real brothers. Whether they were cousin brothers or known to each other has not been proved by prosecution.
CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 176 of 194252. Ld. Counsel for accused Dinesh Kumar Gupta also argued that the prosecution sanction is not valid as PW-54 Ms. Rinku Dugga, the sanctioning authority, was unable to give the details of the documents received and perused by her before grant of sanction. He further argued that it is mentioned in the sanction letter that accused Dinesh Gupta withdrew the loan fraudulently which is not the case of ACB. He argued that this shows non-application of mind of the sanctioning authority.
253. It is established law that while granting sanction, the sanctioning authority must examine the material collected during investigation; understand the allegations; and arrive at an independent satisfaction that prosecution is necessary. The sanction order cannot be mechanical based on a draft without examining relevant records. Sanction is held to be invalid if sanction order is cryptic or stereotype and if facts are not properly reproduced. It was held in the case of Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1979) 4 SCC 172 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that "Sanction is not an idle formality. It must be shown that the sanctioning authority had before it the material facts and applied its mind." Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reiterated in the case of C.B.I. v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (2014) 14 SCC 295 that the prosecution must prove that the sanctioning authority had examined the relevant material and applied its mind.
254. In the present case, perusal of sanction order Ex.PW-49/C shows that the sanctioning authority has mentioned that the amount was withdrawn by the accused. However, it is CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 177 of 194 apparent from the record that there is no material on record to show that the accused Dinesh Kumar Gupta specifically had withdrawn the money from the bank account. If the file was carefully perused by the sanctioning authority, it would have come to her notice that there is no allegation of the investigating agency regarding withdrawal of the amount by the accused. It is a material fact as it determines if the accused Dinesh Kumar Gupta had actually benefitted from the alleged fraud or not. It is also possible that if the sanctioning authority realised that the accused Dinesh Kumar Gupta did not benefit from the alleged fraud, her decision as to grant of sanction may be different. Therefore, this court is of the view that the sanction order is in effect invalid on the ground of non-application of mind by the sanctioning authority.
IX (C). Case of accused Anil Kumar Gupta:
255. Accused Anil Kumar Gupta is alleged to have facilitated opening of bank account No. 2931 in Delhi State Co- operative Bank Ltd. Khari Bawli Branch, Delhi in the name of one Rishipal upon the introduction of Sh. Arun Tiwari (PW-8) and the concerned Manager Mrs. Dayawanti permitted to open account. The prosecution has placed heavy reliance on the deposition of PW-8, Sh. Arun Tiwari who deposed that "Accused Anil Gupta told me that Rishipal was his known and he asked me to introduced Rishipal for opening his saving bank Account. All the forms for opening the account were filled up by Anil Gupta."
CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 178 of 194256. He also deposed that accused Anil Gupta wrote his name and account number in the appropriate column of introducer in the form. The said writing was sent for expert opinion and vide Report Ex. PW-51/X, Sh. S.L. Mukhi opined that no express opinion regarding the authorship of the questioned handwriting can be given.
257. Although, PW-8 has categorically deposed that Anil Kumar Gupta had asked him to introduce Rishipal for the purposes of opening the account but the averment of PW-8 that he had filled up his name and account no. as an introducer is not proved as Report Ex. PW-51/X is against prosecution with respect to this issue.
258. Further and more importantly, no witness has deposed that accused Anil Kumar Gupta knew that Rishipal was fictitious. In Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar (2000) 4 SCC 168, it was held that dishonest intention at inception is mandatory for cheating, which is absent here. Even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that accused Anil Kumar Gupta had asked PW-8 Arun Tiwari to introduce the fictitious Rishipal, it does not mean that his intention was dishonest. It could be an honest recommendation. Clearly, prosecution has failed to prove any mens rea or criminal facilitation on the part of accused Anil Kumar.
IX (D). Case of accused Jitender Kumar Sharma:
259. It is the case of prosecution that accused Jitender Kumar Sharma, the real brother of Vinod Kumar Sharma, CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 179 of 194 introduced him to the other accused persons knowing that he would impersonate the genuine Rishi Pal before the authorities of DSFDC and financial institutions.
260. However, Ld. counsel for accused Jitender Kumar submitted that accused used to help the employee of D.S.F.D.C by bringing tea and doing photostat. He argued that the whole case of the prosecution is based on assumptions and there is no evidence against him that he had in fact introduced his brother to the other accused persons to impersonate as Rishipal or that he obtained any amount out of Rs. 50,000/-.
261. Merely because the accused Jitender Kumar Sharma was working in DSFDC and was the brother of accused Vinod Kumar Sharma does not mean that he was involved in the conspiracy to commit the offences in question. There is no evidence against him that proves that he had entered into an agreement to commit an illegal act or regrading any benefit received by him.
IX (E). Case of accused Vinod Kumar Sharma:
(a) Opening of account in Delhi State Cooperative Bank:
262. Ld. PP for the State argued that the accused Vinod Kumar Sharma had impersonated as Rishipal to get the bank accounts opened at Delhi State Cooperative Bank Ltd., Khari Baoli and GPO, Kashmere Gate. He submitted that one of the post sanction formalities was the giving of 46 post dated cheques by the applicant to DSFDC and for this purpose, accused Vinod Kumar Sharma impersonated as Rishipal and got a savings CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 180 of 194 account no. 2931 opened on 21.11.2003 in the name of Sh. Rishi Pal S/o Sh. Tidda Ram, R/o E-56, West Karawal Nagar, Delhi.
263. Prosecution has heavily relied on the testimony of PW-4, Sh. Vijay Chaudhary, who was posted as Branch Manager, Delhi State Cooperative Bank Ltd., Khari Baoli who affirmed that a bank account no. 2931 was opened in the name of Rishipal S/o Tidda Ram on 21.11.2003. He proved the account opening form Ex. PW-4/A. PW-4 also deposed that the account was introduced by Arun Tiwari who was a peon in the said branch and was opened by clerk Pawan Kumar Sharma with the permission of Ms. Dayawanti.
264. Prosecution also examined Sh. Arun Tiwari as PW-8 who affirmed the testimony of PW-4 and despoed that on 21.11.2003, an account was opened in the bank in the name of Rishi Pal. PW-8 further deposed that in the year 2008, he came to know that no person ever existed in the name of Rishipal. He also testified that he tried to trace said Rishipal on many occasions and on 26.10.2008, he went to the office of ACB where one person was sitting and he was told that the name of said person was Vinod Sharma and the photographs of Vinod Sharma and copy of his ration card are available on the account opening form of said Rishipal. He was shown the original ledger Ex.PW-4/F and he identified the photographs of the person whose introduction was got done through him by accused Anil Gupta. During evidence when he was asked to identify accused Vinod Kumar Sharma, he was not present in the court. The court observed that accused Vinod Kumar Sharma had gone to CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 181 of 194 Dispensary, Tis Hazari Courts but when he came back to the court, PW-8 Arun Tiwari correctly identified him.
265. Ld. PP for the State contended that thus, PW-8 has established that he had introduced the opening of the account of Rishipal at the instance of accused Anil Kumar Gupta and that the photograph of Vinod Kumar Sharma was used in place of Rishipal for the purposes of opening the account. He also identified accused Vinod Kumar Sharma as a person who was shown as Rishipal to him by accused Anil Kumar Gupta at the time of introducing the opening of the bank account.
266. Prosecution also examined PW-12 Sh. Pawan Sharma, who opened the account, and he testified that Rishipal had come to their bank with one bank employee namely Anil Kumar. He also deposed that as per formalities, two photographs as well as copy of ration card were given by Rishipal in order to open the account alongwith the account opening form. When the witness was shown the original bank account opening form Ex.PW-4/A having account no.2931 dated 21.11.2003, the witness replied that it was the same account opening form on which the said account was opened. He also deposed that the specimen signature form Ex. PW-4/B bore his signature on it. He deposed that the photographs were used for the purpose of annexing them on the specimen signature form as well as on the bank ledger. During his examination, the copy of ration card already Mark PW-4/G in the name of Rishipal S/o. Sh. Tidda Ram was shown to the witness and upon seeing the same, PW-12 stated that the same was given by Rishipal. During his CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 182 of 194 examination, the photocopy of ledger of bank Ex. PW-7/D was also shown to the witness who stated that it was the copy of bank ledger which bore the photographs of Rishipal. Further, the Bank specimen signature form Ex. PW-4/B also bore the photograph of Rishipal.
267. Ld. PP for the State argued that the photograph on the specimen signature card (Ex. PW-4/B) is of accused Vinod Kumar Sharma and therefore, it stands established that accused Vinod Kumar Sharma had impersonated as Rishipal to open the bank account.
268. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for accused Vinod Kumar Sharma argued that there is no concrete evidence to prove that the accused had appeared as Rishi Pal before Delhi State Cooperative Bank. Ld. Counsel for accused Vinod Kumar Sharma argued that PW-12 who allegedly opened the account has not been able to identify the accused Vinod Kumar Sharma in the court. He also deposed that the photograph anexed on the specimen signature card Ex. PW-4/B is a stapled photograph which can be done at any stage and by anyone. The photograph does not even bear the signatures of the accused so as to give it authenticity. He also pointed out that PW-12 has stated that Rishipal had signed on the account opening form Ex. PW-4/A as well as specimen signature card Ex. PW-4/B and when the same were sent for forensic examination, Sh. S.L. Mukhi in his report Ex. PW-51/X opined that no conclusive opinion can be given.
269. He further pointed out that though PW-8 Arun Tiwari has identified the accused Vinod Kumar Sharma correctly CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 183 of 194 in the court but the identification process cannot be said to be legal and valid. He pointed out that the accused Vinod Kumar Sharma was admittedly shown to the witness in the ACB office as a person whose photograph has been appended on the specimen signature card. He also pointed out that during the identification process in the court, accused Vinod Kumar Sharma had gone to the dispensary and he was identified upon his return which shows that the witness knew that the accused is not present and was easy to identify upon his return. Ld. Counsel for accused Vinod Kumar Sharma also pointed out that in his cross- examination, PW-8 admitted that he had seen Rishipal (i.e accused Vinod Kumar Sharma) in ACB and he had not met him prior to meeting at ACB. This shows that PW-8 had not met the accused at the time of opening of the account.
270. From the above, it is clear that as per the testimony of PW-8 Arun Tiwari, he had never met accused Vinod Kumar Sharma. He has admitted that he had seen the accused in the office of ACB and thus, his identification of accused Vinod Kumar Sharma cannot be said to be proper. Clearly, no photograph has been annexed on the account opening form Ex. PW-4/A and the photograph annexed on the specimen signature card Ex. PW-4/B is a stapled one without any counter signature of the accused. It cannot be denied that the said photograph could have been placed later on. Also, photograph on the ledger Ex.PW-7/D also does not bear the counter signature of the accused Vinod Kumar Sharma and thus, it cannot be proved with certainty that the said photograph is of Vinod Kumar Sharma or that the same has been placed on the ledger Ex. PW-7/D by him.
CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 184 of 194Further, PW-12 has not identified accused Vinod Kumar Sharma as the person who came to open the bank account. Also, the handwriting expert has not been able to give any opinion on the handwriting and signature on Ex. PW-4/A and Ex. PW-4/B. Thus, the prosecution has not been able to prove that accused Vinod Kumar Sharma had impersonated as Rishipal to open the account in Delhi State Cooperative Bank Ltd.
(b) Opening of account in GPO, Kashmere Gate:
271. Ld. PP for the State further submitted that loan cheque no. 434351 for Rs. 50,000/- dated 20.07.2004 which was issued by DSFDC in the name of Sh. Rishi Pal S/o Sh. Tidda Ram, R/o C-56, West Karawal Nagar, Delhi was deposited in account no.1159153 which was opened at GPO, Kashmere Gate, on 06.07.2014 in the name of Sh. Rishi Pal S/o Sh. Tidda Ram, R/o E-56, West Karawal Nagar, Delhi.
272. To prove that accused Vinod Kumar Sharma had impersonated as Rishipal to open the account in GPO, Kashmere Gate, prosecution examined PW-15 Sh. S.K. Jain, who was posted as PA in the said branch. He deposed that on 06.07.2004, a saving bank account bearing no. 1159153 was opened in the name of Sh. Rishi Pal S/o Sh. Tidda Ram R/o E-56 West Karawal Nagar and the account opening form Ex. PW-15/A bears the photograph of the applicant. He also deposed that the account holder had signed the application form in his presence and had put his signature on the application form as well as on the place of specimen signature in Hindi and also on the reverse CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 185 of 194 of Ex.PW15/A and that his photograph appears at point Y. PW- 15 further deposed that the aforesaid bank account was introduced by one Jai Narayan Solanki R/o A-185 Gokul Puri, Delhi who also had a savings bank account No.1157569 in the said post office and he was also known to one of the post office employees namely Pawan Kumar. He also deposed that the account holder had also annexed one copy of ration card. However, the wintess admitted that he could not recognize the face of the person who got the account opened/account holder as the period of almost 15 years had elapsed.
273. In defence, Ld. Counsel for accused Vinod Kumar Sharma argued that proseution has examined Sh. S.K. Jain as PW-15 but he has categorically admitted that he cannot recognize the face of the person who got the account opened/account holder. Thus, prosecution could not prove who had come for opening the account. Also, while it was the stance of PW-15 that the account was opened on the introduction of Sh. Jai Narayan Solanki but prosecution did not examine him as a witness.
274. From the testimony of PW-15, it stands proved that he cannot identify accused Vinod Kumar Sharma. Though, he stated that accused had signed on the account opening form Ex. PW-15/A as well as the specimen signature card but again the handwriting expert has stated in his report Ex. PW-51/X that no conclusive opinion can be given as to the handwriting and signatures on the account opening form Ex. PW-15/A. Also, the introducer Sh. Jai Narayan Solanki has not been examined by CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 186 of 194 prosecution. Thus, from the above, it is clear that the evidence led by the prosecution is not sufficient to prove that accused Vinod Kuma Sharma had actually gone to GPO, Kashmere Gate to get an account opened in the name of Rishipal.
(c) Appearance before LSC:
275. It is also the case of the prosecution that accused Vinod Kumar Sharma had appeared before the LSC as Rishipal to get the loan sanctioned. However, the prosecution has not led any evidence to prove that accused Vinod Kumar Sharma had so appeared. In fact, their own witness PW-20 deposed that he cannot tell whether there was any attendance register in respect of the claimant on the day of LSC interview. Thus, there is no evidence on record to prove that accused Vinod Kumar Sharma appeared before the LSC as Rishipal.
(d) Receipt of loan cheque:
276. The prosecution also alleged that the accused Vinod Kumar Sharma also apeared as Rishipal to receive the loan cheque but PW-33 Sh. Raj Kumar deposed that the cheque had to be received by the applicant in the presence of M.D. but he could not identify the accused Vinod Sharma as Rishi Pal. Thus, even this factum has not been proved.
277. Since, no witness has properly identified accused Vinod Kumar Sharma as Rishi Pal to establish impersonation; and also that the photograph of Vinod Kumar Sharma is a stapled one; and that the handwriting and signature of the accused has CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 187 of 194 not matched the sample handwriting and signature of the accused Vinod Kumar Sharma, the prosecution has not been establish its case against accused Vinod Kumar Sharma beyond reasonable doubt.
IX (F). No element of conspiracy:
278. Ld. Counsel for the accused persons contended that in order to bring the accused under Section 120A of IPC, the most important ingredient is an agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act. In the present case, the individual act of each accused has been discussed and analysed in detail and no substantive evidence has come on record to prove that they have committed the alleged act/ offence. The prosecution has not led any evidence to prove that the accused knew each other and conspired together to commit the alleged offences. Although, it is correct that criminal conspiracy can rarely be proved by direct evidence and has to be inferred from conduct and circumstances (State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, (2005) 11 SCC 600, Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) 1988 Supp SCC 701) but it cannot be denied that a conviction cannot be based on assumptions and presumptions.
IX (G). Prosecution sanction:
279. It has been decided above that the prosecution sanction with respect to accused Dinesh Kumar Gupta is invalid, on the same basis, the prosecution sanction with respect to accused Sushil Kumar is also invalid as in his sanction order Ex.PW-49/E also, the sanctioning authority has mentioned that the amount has been withdrawn by accused Sushil Kumar while CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 188 of 194 there is no such assertion on behalf of the prosecution. Thus, it is concluded that the prosecution sanction with respect to accused Sushil Kumar as well as accused Dinesh Kumar Gupta is invalid.
Conclusion:
280. In a criminal case, the onus lies on the prosecution to establish the fundamental requirement of criminal law: that the guilt of the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. It is well-settled that one of the core principles of criminal ju- risprudence is that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Equally well-established is that suspicion, no matter how strong, cannot substitute for proof. There is a significant distinc- tion between the fact that the accused "may have committed the offence" and that he "must have committed the offence," the lat- ter of which the prosecution must establish through reliable and cogent evidence. The presumption of innocence is recognized as a fundamental human right, which cannot be disregarded. (Re- liance is placed on the cases Narender Singh & anr. Vs. State of M.P. (2004) 10 SCC 699; Ranjtsingh Brahamjeet Singh Sharma Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2005) 5 SCC 294; Ganesan Vs. Rama S. Raghuraman & Ors. (2011) 2 SCC 83 and; State of U.P. Vs. Naresh & Ors. (2011) 4 SCC 384; State Vs. Gulzari Lal Tan- don AIR 1979 SC 1382).
281. In the case of Mousam Singha Roy and Others v. State of West Bengal 2003 (3) JCC 1385 : [(2003) 12 SCC 377], Hon'ble Supreme Court held:
"It is also a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the more serious the offence, CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 189 of 194 the stricter the degree of proof, since the higher degree of assurance is required to convict the accused."
282. While the State contends that all the elements of the alleged offences have been established and that all the evidence put together forms a complete chain of circumstances to prove that the accused persons have committed the alleged offences but the foregoing discussion demonstrates otherwise. The prosecution has failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt. It was held in the case of Sharad Birdichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 that chain of circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. They should exclude any possible hypothesis except the one proposed. It was also held that there must be a complete chain of evidence leaving no reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused.
283. While the present case concerns a misuse of a welfare loan scheme, meant for marginalized Safai Karamcharis and it seems that the credentials of real Rishi Pal may have been misused to obtain a loan of Rs. 50,000/-, however, to say that a conspiracy was hatched by accused Sushil Kumar, Dinesh Kumar Gupta, Anil Kumar Gupta, Jitender Kumar Sharma and Vinod Kumar Sharma would be giving extra weight to assumptions and presumptions birthed by prosecution.
284. While the prosecution has proved that the real Rishipal had not obtained the loan in question but the evidence against accused Sushil Kumar rests predominantly on the opinion of the handwriting expert, which, in the absence of substantive CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 190 of 194 and independent corroboration, cannot by itself form the basis of conviction. No witness has deposed that he misused the loan documents filed by real Rishipal along with his previous rejected loan application; or that he changed the loan application form; or that he filled up the loan application form Ex. PW-3/B2 or the 46 post dated cheques or the letter of acceptance of loan; or that he submitted forged documents for fictitious Rishipal or guarantor Madan Mohan; or that he derived any pecuniary advantage from the transaction; or that he deposited the amount back into the account vide Deposit slip Ex. PW-23/B. In the absence of proof of dishonest intention, benefit, or conscious participation, the essential ingredients of the offences alleged against accused Sushil Kumar remain unproved. He is therefore entitled to the benefit of doubt.
285. As regards accused Dinesh Kumar Gupta, the prosecution has established that he processed the loan file in his capacity as Dealing Assistant. However, mere processing of official files, without proof of mala fide intention or conscious facilitation of fraud, does not constitute a criminal offence. The prosecution has failed to prove that it was his duty to verify the Form Issue Register or that he knowingly suppressed material discrepancies. No evidence has been led to show that he forged any document; or that he processed the loan application form Ex. PW-3/B2 with mala fide intention knowing that the same is filed to seek a loan fraudulently; or that it was Dinesh Kumar Gupta who had signed on Ex. PW-17/B verifying the details of the application post LSC meeting; or that he received any illegal gratification; or acted in collusion with other accused.
CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 191 of 194Consequently, the prosecution has failed to establish his criminal liability beyond reasonable doubt.
286. The prosecution case against accused Anil Kumar Gupta rests on his alleged role in facilitating the opening of a bank account and introducing the impersonator. While certain circumstances raise suspicion, the evidence falls short of proving beyond reasonable doubt that he knowingly participated in impersonation or conspiracy. Further, no evidence has been led to show that he was a beneficiary of the loan amount or that he acted pursuant to any pre-arranged plan with other accused. In the absence of clear proof of knowledge and intent, his conviction cannot be sustained.
287. Insofar as accused Jitender Kumar Sharma is concerned, the prosecution has not led any substantive evidence to establish his role in the alleged conspiracy or commission of the offences. His alleged involvement is based on conjectures without any cogent or reliable evidence to connect him with the fraudulent transaction. Mere association or suspicion cannot substitute proof of guilt.
288. The prosecution alleged that accused Vinod Kumar Sharma impersonated Rishipal at various stages, including opening of the bank account, appearance before the Loan Sanction Committee, and receipt of the loan cheque. However, none of the material witnesses have conclusively identified him in respect of these acts. The handwriting and signature evidence remains inconclusive, and the prosecution has failed to establish CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 192 of 194 the factum of impersonation beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the benefit of doubt must enure in his favour.
289. Absence of concrete evidence in the present case create a serious doubt in the mind of this Court regarding the commission of the offences by the accused persons.
290. In summary, the prosecution has not been able to establish a chain of circumstances so complete that there is no other possibility but that the accused persons are guilty. Prosecution has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons conspired with each other to defraud DSFDC to obtain a loan of Rs.50,000/- in the name of fictitious Rishipal. Further, the prosecution sanction with respect to accused Sushil Kumar and Dinesh Kumar Gupta is also invalid. It is well-settled law that where two interpretations are possible - one favoring the prosecution and the other favoring the accused - the interpretation favorable to the accused must be adopted. However, in the present case, there are no two views as the prosecution has failed to lead any concrete evidence to prove the guilt of any of the accused persons.
Decision:
291. The accused persons Sushil Kumar, Dinesh Kumar Gupta, Anil Kumar Gupta, Jitender Kumar Sharma and Vinod Kumar Sharma are acquitted of all the charges.
Surety bonds in respect of all the accused persons stand discharged. The original documents, if any, be returned after cancellation of endorsement, if any.
CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 193 of 194All the acquitted persons are directed to furnish bail bonds under Section 437-A Cr.PC in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each along with one surety each in the like amount within one week from today.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by RUCHIAnnounced in the open court today RUCHI AGGARWAL AGGARWAL ASRANI on this 17th day of January, 2026.
ASRANI Date:
2026.01.17 16:52:56 +0530 DR. RUCHI AGGARWAL ASRANI SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) (ACB-02) ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS, NEW DELHI CC No. 138/19 in FIR No. 45/07 State vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Page 194 of 194