Delhi District Court
Cbi vs . Ravi Bansal And Another on 7 December, 2018
CC No. 25/12
CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another
IN THE COURT OF VIKAS DHULL, SPL. JUDGE, (PC
ACT) CBI03, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
C.C.No. : 25/2012
ID No. : 15/16
CNR No.: DLSW010000092005
FIR No. : RC8 (E)/2003/EOWI/N.Delhi
U/s. : 120B r/w Section
420/467/468/471 IPC and
Section 13 (2) r/w Sec.13(1)
(d) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988.
In the matter of:
Central Bureau of
Investigation (C.B.I.)
V e r s u s
1. Ravi Bansal
S/o Sh. S.L.Bansal
R/o 1449/13, Gali no.8,
Durgapuri, Shahdra
Delhi.
2. Gopal Prasad
S/o Late Sh. Faguni Ram
Page: 1/127
CC No. 25/12
CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another
R/o GH6/317
Meera Bagh, Paschim Vihar
New Delhi110087.
... Accused persons
Date of first institution : 28.02.2005
Date of institution : 20.07.2012
Date on which judgment reserved : 13.11.2018
Date on which judgment pronounced : 07.12.2018
JUDGMENT
1. The brief facts which are relevant for deciding the present case are that the present case was registered on 30.06.2003 on a written complaint of Sh.Y.L.Madan, Deputy General Manager, Canara Bank, New Delhi.
CHARGE SHEET
2. In the written complaint, it was alleged by Sh.Y.L.Madan that accused Gopal Prasad, the then Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Paharganj Branch, New Delhi during the year 20022003 had entered Page: 2/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another into a criminal conspiracy with coaccused Ravi Bansal and dishonestly and fraudulently granted various credit facilities and loans to coaccused Ravi Bansal on the basis of bogus and forged documents causing loss to the bank to the extent of Rs.15,26,157/ plus interest.
3. After the case was registered, the matter was taken up for investigation and during the course of investigation, it came on record that coaccused Ravi Bansal, Proprietor of M/s.Shree Durga Road Lines had applied for a vehicle loan for Rs.7.20 lacs for the purchase of second hand truck bearing registration No. HR47A2324 from M/s.Balaji Road Lines. Coaccused Ravi Bansal had submitted an agreement to sell dated 26.08.2002 executed between Hari Garg, proprietor of M/s.Balaji Road Lines, the alleged owner of second hand truck bearing registration no. HR47A2324 and himself for the purpose of taking loan. Coaccused Ravi Bansal had also submitted registration certificate in Page: 3/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another the name of M/s.Balaji Road Lines. The loan was processed by accused Gopal Prasad and loan was disbursed through draft of Rs.8.40 lacs in favour of M/s.Balaji Road Lines.
4. During the course of investigation, it came on record that there is no person by the name of Hari Garg and the registration certificate submitted by coaccused Ravi Bansal showing M/s.Balaji Road Lines as the owner of truck was also a forged RC. It also came on record that registration certificate produced by coaccused Ravi Bansal showing the transfer of HR47A2324 in the name of its proprietorship concern i.e. M/s.Shree Durga Road Lines and showing the hypothecation in favour of Canara Bank was also a forged document.
5. Even the draft of Rs.8.40 lacs was encashed by coaccused Ravi Bansal in an account opened by him in the name of M/s.Balaji Road Lines in Syndicate Bank, Rohini and the amount was later on withdrawn.
Page: 4/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another
6. It also came against coaccused Ravi Bansal that he had taken loan of Rs.4 lacs against hypothecation of truck bearing registration no. HR 47A2324 from M/s.Suchita Finance Corporation.
7. With regard to accused Gopal Prasad, it had come on record that he had sanctioned the loan and had also made an endorsement on the registration certificate as "original verified".
8. It has also come on record that prior to grant of loan, accused Gopal Prasad had sanctioned loan of Rs.4 lacs to M/s.Shree Durga Road Lines and it was clear that M/s.Balaji Road Lines and M/s.Jai Ambey Road Lines were sister concerns of M/s.Shree Durga Road Lines but this fact was deliberately overlooked by accused Gopal Prasad.
9. The account became NPA on 09.06.2003 and the total outstanding in the said account was Rs.6,36,467/.
10. During the course of investigation, it further came on record that coaccused Ravi Bansal had Page: 5/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another opened a Saving bank account in the Canara Bank, Paharganj Branch and applied for a vehicle loan for Rs.8.60 lacs for purchase of Tata Safari vehicle from HIM Motors (P) Ltd., Pashim Vihar, New Delhi.
11. This loan was also sanctioned by accused Gopal Prasad and a draft was issued in favour of M/s. HIM Motors (P) Ltd. for Rs.9,57,560/.
12. Coaccused Ravi Bansal had submitted copy of RC of vehicle bearing no. DL4CU0571 with hypothecation in favour of Canara Bank. Co accused Ravi Bansal had also submitted copy of invoice as well as receipt issued by HIM Motors (P) Ltd. However, during the course of investigation, it came on record that RC as well as receipt/invoice issued by M/s.HIM Motors (P) Ltd.were forged and fabricated documents.
13. Against accused Gopal Prasad, it came on record that he had introduced and permitted opening of Saving Bank account no. 21626 in the Page: 6/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another name of accused Ravi Bansal and had also sanctioned the loan. It also came on record against accused Gopal Prasad that margin money of Rs.97,560/ was debited from the account of M/s.Shree Durga Road Lines, which account was already overdrawn by Rs.2.63 lacs.
14. It also came against accused Gopal Prasad, that Branch Manager had delegated power to grant vehicle loan not exceeding Rs.10 lacs. However, in the present case, accused Gopal Prasad had exceeded his delegated power by granting two vehicles loans to coaccused Ravi Bansal beyond his delegated power of Rs.10 lacs, by intentionally overlooking the bank circulars and thereafter, the account became NPA on 09.06.2003 with total outstanding of Rs.8,50,291/.
15. Lastly, it also came on record in the investigation that coaccused Ravi Bansal had submitted loan application on 19.12.2002 for purchase of one PentiumIV Computer under Page: 7/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another Cancarry Scheme in the branch of accused Gopal Prasad.
16. Coaccused Ravi Bansal had submitted the quotation obtained from M/s. Kamsha Computer Enterprises. The said loan was again sanctioned by accused Gopal Prasad for Rs.52,300/ and the amount was credited into the account of M/s. Kamsha Computer Enterprises.
17. It came on record against accused Gopal Prasad that while granting said loan under Cancarry Scheme, he had violated the circular no. 192/02 dated 02.09.2002 by giving loan to M/s.Varun Finance Corporation whereas under the Cancarry Scheme, loan could have been granted only to individuals.
18. It also came on record that later on, name of accused Ravi Bansal was dishonestly inserted by accused Gopal Prasad and even then, account became NPA on 09.06.2003 to the extent of Rs.39,399/.
Page: 8/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another
19. During the course of investigation, specimen signature and handwriting of accused were taken and same were sent for comparison with the loan documents.
20. Based upon the aforementioned investigation, accused Gopal Prasad and coaccused Ravi Bansal were charged sheeted for the offence under Section 420/467/468/471 r/w Section 120B IPC and accused Gopal Prasad was additionally charged under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of PC Act, 1988 for having abused his official position as a government servant.
21. The charge sheet was filed against both accused after having obtained sanction for prosecution under Section 19(1)(c) of PC Act, 1988 against accused Gopal Prasad.
22. After filing of charge sheet, copies were supplied and thereafter, arguments on the point of charge were heard.
CHARGE Page: 9/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another
23. On the basis of material placed on record, the Ld.Predecessor of this court, had framed charge against accused Ravi Bansal for the offence under Section 420/467/468/471 read with Section 120B IPC and separate charge against accused Gopal Prasad for the offence under Section 467/468/471 r/w Section 120B IPC and under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(D) of the PC Act. Both accused pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against them and have sought trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
24. At trial, prosecution had examined in all 16 witnesses.
25. PW1 Suresh Rao was the general manager, Canara Bank and he had deposed on oath that he was the disciplinary authority with regard to accused Gopal Prasad and he had granted sanction for prosecution of accused Gopal Prasad vide Page: 10/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another Ex.PW1/C.
26. PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak, Senior Manager, Canara Bank, Paharganj, New Delhi and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao working as an Advance Officer in Canara Bank, Paharganj, New Delhi had deposed that they were working under accused Gopal Prasad in the year 20022003.
27. Both PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao had deposed regarding loan applied by accused Ravi Bansal for the purchase of second hand truck, for the purchase of new Tata Safari and for the purchase of one PentiumIV Computer. They also deposed on oath that all the three loans were sanctioned by accused Gopal Prasad.
28. It was also deposed by PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao that accused Gopal Prasad had exceeded his delegated power by granting vehicle loan beyond Rs.10 lacs. It was also deposed by PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao that under the Can Carry Page: 11/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another Scheme, loan could have been sanctioned in the individual name only wherein in this case, it was sanctioned in the name of M/s.Varun Finance Corporation by accused Gopal Prasad and later on, name of accused Ravi Bansal was inserted in the invoice of M/s.Kamsha Computer by accused Gopal Prasad.
29. PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao had also deposed on oath that it was accused Gopal Prasad, who had verified from the original, the copy of RC submitted by accused Ravi Bansal.
30. PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao had also deposed on oath that presanction credit decision was also taken by accused Gopal Prasad at the time when coaccused Ravi Bansal had made a request for loan of Rs.9 lacs for purchase of second hand truck.
31. PW4 Sh.Praveen Kohli is the proprietor of M/s. Kamsha Computers Enterprises and he had Page: 12/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another deposed on oath of having supplied computers, printers and other accessories to accused Ravi Bansal after taking a draft of Rs.52,000/ from him. PW4 Parveen Kohli also deposed on oath that both invoices Ex.PW2/A29 and Ex.PW2/A30 although were issued by him in favour of M/s.Varun Finance Corporation and were in his handwriting but the words "Ravi Bansal C/o " were not in his handwriting.
32. PW5 Sh.Y.L.Madan was working as Deputy General Manager, Canara Bank, Delhi Circle Office in the year 2003 and he had deposed on oath that after he was informed regarding the fraud in the Canara Bank, Branch Paharganj, he had got the matter investigated by Sh.Nair Ajit Krishanan and Sh.V.S.Harihar Sudan and after investigation, they have filed a report dated 07.04.2003. He had further deposed on oath that based upon investigation report and the directions of Chief Vigilance Officer, he had filed a complaint with Page: 13/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another CBI Ex.PW5/B.
33. PW6 Sh.Kailash Kaushik was working as Surveyor and Loss Assessor in the year 2002 and he had carried out the valuation in respect of vehicle No. HR47A2324 at the request of accused Ravi Bansal and had given his valuation report Ex.PW6/A.
34. PW7 Sh.S.K.Rai was working as Motor Vehicle Inspector in Janak Puri Authority of Transport Department in the year 2004. He had deposed on oath that vehicle no. DL4CU0571 Tata Safari was registered in the name of accused Ravi Bansal and as per the registering certificate of the said vehicle, no hypothecation was marked on the registration certificate.
35. It was further deposed by PW7 Sh.S.K.Rai that photocopy of RC of vehicle no. DL4CU0571 Tata Safari in the name of accused Ravi Bansal is a forged document as it contains hypothecation in favour of Canara Bank whereas no such Page: 14/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another hypothecation was there in the original RC.
36. PW8 Sh.Suraj Bhan had deposed on oath that in the year 2003, he was working as registration clerk in the Transport Office, Rewari. It was further deposed by him that truck bearing no. HR 47A2324 was registered with the Transport Department, Rewari in the name of Baljeet Singh, Proprietor of M/s.Balaji Road Lines and said truck was hypothecated in favour of M/s.Telco Limited, Mumbai. He further deposed on oath that thereafter, hypothecation was cancelled and fresh hypothecation in the name of M/s.Suchita Finance Corporation was made. He further deposed that registration no. HR47 belongs to District Rewari whereas registration no. HR38 belongs to District Faridabad.
37. PW9 Sh.V.B.Gopal had deposed on oath that in the year 2004, he was posted as Assistant Manager in Syndicate Bank, Sector5, Rohini Branch, New Delhi. PW9 Sh.V.P.Gopal had Page: 15/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another deposed on oath that accused Ravi Bansal had opened a current account in the name of M/s.Balaji Road Lines in Syndicate Bank, Sector5, Rohini Branch, New Delhi. PW9 Sh.V.B.Gopal further deposed that DD No. 941839 dated 28.08.2002 issued by Canara Bank, Pahar Ganj Branch in favour of M/s.Balaji Road Lines was deposited in their branch in the account of M/s.Balaji Road Lines and even later on, the amount was withdrawn through two cheques.
38. PW10 Sh.Ram Chand was working as Assistant Secretary in the office of District Transport Office, Faridabad from December 2000 to July, 2005 and he had deposed on oath that HR 38 is the code number allotted for registration of new vehicles of Faridabad, District Haryana. He further deposed on oath that photocopy of registration certificate in respect of vehicle no. HR 47A2324 Ex.PW2/A11 (D17) is a forged document as HR47 pertains to District Rewari but Page: 16/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another it bears stamp of District Transport Officer, Faridabad. He further deposed that even duplicate RC could not have been issued from District Transport Office, Faridabad.
39. PW11 Sh.Narender Kumar was posted as an officer from February, 2001 to July, 2003 in the Canara Bank, Paharganj Branch, New Delhi and as an officer in the branch, his duty was to pass cheques. He deposed on oath that accused Gopal Prasad had allowed overdrawing/discounting of cheques in the account of coaccused Ravi Bansal and accused Gopal Prasad had initialed on the register as token of having allowed the overdrawing and cheque discounting.
40. PW12 Sh.Sumit Gupta had deposed on oath that he is having a partnership firm in the name of M/s. Suchita Finance and he had refinanced in the year 2003, the vehicle of Ravi Bansal i.e. HR47A 2324. He further deposed on oath that accused Ravi Bansal had produced the RC of HR47A2324 Page: 17/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another on which the name of previous financier i.e. M/s.Telco was already endorsed. However, he produced NOC of M/s. Telco to show that entire loan was paid and accordingly, he had refinanced said vehicle to Ravi Bansal for Rs.4 lacs. He further deposed on oath that after giving loan to accused Ravi Bansal, he had sent a letter to the registering authority, Rewari for getting finance endorsed on the registration certificate.
41. PW13 Sh.Ajit Nair was working as Manager in Canara Bank at Circle Office, Nehru Place, New Delhi in the year 2003. He had deposed on oath that as per instructions from his superiors, he had conducted investigation in the Canara Bank, Paharganj Branch, New Delhi regarding the irregularities in the discounting of cheques and sanction of certain loans by accused Gopal Prasad.
42. PW13 Sh.Ajit Nair also deposed that accused Gopal Prasad had exceeded without authority, certain delegated powers by granting Canmobile Page: 18/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another Loan of Rs.12.60 lacs when the delegated power to sanction a Canmobile loan was upto Rs.10 lacs.
43. PW13 Sh.Ajit Nair also deposed on oath that accused Gopal Prasad had sanctioned certain loans i.e. loans for heavy vehicles under Small Road Transport Operator Scheme on the basis of forged and fabricated documents.
44. It was further deposed by PW13 Sh.Ajit Nair that under the Cancarry Scheme, loan can be granted only to individuals. He also proved his investigation report Ex.PW5/A.
45. PW14 Dr.Ravindra Sharma has deposed on oath that he is working in the Forensic Document Expert Department for the last 20 years and had examined a large number of documents and had expressed his independent opinion on them. He deposed on oath that he has received certain questioned documents alongwith admitted documents and specimen signatures of accused Gopal Prasad and specimen signature and Page: 19/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another handwriting of accused Ravi Bansal, Vijay Laxmi Bansal and Kuldeep Kumar Aggarwal. He further deposed that after careful and thorough examination of documents, he had given his report Ex.PW14/L.
46. PW15 Sh.N.K.Mahajan was working as General Manager, M/s. HIM Motors (P) Ltd., Paschim Vihar, New Delhi and he had deposed on oath that receipt in favour of accused Ravi Bansal showing hypothecation in favour of Canara Bank Ex.PW2/A23, invoice in favour of accused Ravi Bansal showing hypothecation in favour of Canara Bank Ex.PW2/A21 and registration certificate in respect of vehicle DL4CU0571 Tata Safari Mark A showing hypothecation in favour of Canara Bank were not issued by M/s.HIM Motors (P) Ltd. and all documents are forged and fabricated.
47. He also deposed about the original invoice, receipt and Form no. 20 Ex.PW15/C, Form no. 21 Ex.PW15/D and RC Ex.PW15/F to have been Page: 20/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another issued by their company and in these documents, there was no hypothecation in favour of any bank.
48. PW16 Sh.P.K.Khanna was the investigating officer of this case and he deposed that during the course of investigation, he conducted searches, collected relevant documents from the bank and other government departments, recorded statement of witnesses, obtained specimen handwriting and signature of accused persons and sanction for prosecution of accused Gopal Prasad and thereafter, he had filed the charge sheet in the present case.
49. No other witness was examined by prosecution. Accordingly, prosecution evidence was closed.
50. Thereafter, both accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and all the incriminating material coming on record was put to them.
51. Both accused persons submitted that they Page: 21/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another have been falsely implicated in the present case. Accused Ravi Bansal denied to lead defence evidence. However, accused Gopal Prasad opted to lead defence. Thereafter, even accused Gopal Prasad did not lead any defence evidence. Accordingly, the matter was posted for final arguments.
52. I have heard Sh.Raj Kamal, Ld.PP for CBI, Sh. Abdul Sattar and Sh.K.Ansari, Ld.counsels for accused Gopal Prasad and Sh.P.S.Singhal, Ld.counsel for accused Ravi Bansal.
ARGUMENTS On behalf of CBI
53. It was submitted by Ld.PP for CBI that in the present case, it has been established on record that accused Gopal Prasad being Branch Manager of Canara Bank, Paharganj Branch, New Delhi had entered into a criminal conspiracy with coaccused Ravi Bansal whereby loan was granted to co accused Ravi Bansal on the basis of forged and Page: 22/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another fabricated documents and in violation of circular and orders issued by Canara Bank.
54. It was submitted that in the present case, three transactions have been proved on record which shows the complicity of accused Gopal Prasad and coaccused Ravi Bansal in the criminal conspiracy to cheat Canara Bank, Branch Paharganj, on the basis of forged and fabricated documents.
55. It was submitted that the first transaction pertains to grant of loan with regard to second hand truck bearing No. HR47A2324.
56. It was submitted that loan of Rs.7.20 lacs was applied by coaccused Ravi Bansal with the Canara Bank, Branch Paharganj wherein accused Gopal Prasad was posted as a Branch Manager.
57. It was submitted that coaccused Ravi Bansal had shown that he was purchasing truck from Sh.Hari Garg, proprietor of M/s.Balaji Road Lines and accordingly, had submitted an agreement to Page: 23/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another sell dated 26.08.2002. However, said agreement to sell was a forged document as no such person by the name of Sh.Hari Garg was in existence and neither Sh.Hari Garg was the owner of truck bearing no. HR47A2324.
58. It has come in the evidence of PW8 Sh.Suraj Bhan, who had produced the file from Transport Department, Rewari that truck bearing No. HR 47A2324 was registered in the name of Baljeet Singh, proprietor of M/s.Balaji Road Lines.
59. It was further submitted that coaccused Ravi Bansal had produced registration certificate Ex.PW2/A11 showing ownership of truck bearing no. HR47A2324 in the name of M/s.Balaji Road Lines to have been issued by District Transport Officer, Faridabad and said registration certificate was verified from the original by accused Gopal Prasad but said registration certificate was a forged document and said fact has been proved on record by the evidence of PW10 Sh.Ram Chand, who had Page: 24/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another come from the office of District Transport Office, Faridabad.
60. It was further submitted that coaccused Ravi Bansal had also produced before accused Gopal Prasad, the registration certificatein the name of his firm M/s.Shree Durga Road Lines showing hypothecation in favour of Canara Bank and said document is Ex.PW2/A9 but the said document was a forged document and said forgery has been proved on record by evidence of PW8 Sh. Suraj Bhan, who was posted in the office of Transport Department, Rewari.
61. It was further submitted that in the present case, on the basis of loan documents submitted by coaccused Ravi Bansal, loan amount of Rs.8.40 lacs was disbursed through a demand draft favouring M/s.Balaji Road Lines and the said demand draft was got encashed not by owner of truck bearing No. HR47A2324 but was got encashed by coaccused Ravi Bansal himself by Page: 25/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another depositing the same in his account with Syndicate Bank, Sector5, Rohini, New Delhi.
62. It was further submitted that this fact has been proved on record by the evidence of PW9 Sh.V.B.Gopal, who was posted as Assistant Manager, Syndicate Bank, Rohini, New Delhi.
63. It was further submitted that coaccused Ravi Bansal had not only cheated the Canara Bank but on the basis of registration certificate of truck bearing No. HR47A2324, coaccused Ravi Bansal had also taken loan of Rs.4 lacs from M/s.Suchita Finance Corporation and this fact has been proved on record by PW12 Sh.Sumit Gupta, who was proprietor of said firm.
64. It was further submitted by Ld.PP for CBI that after applying for the first loan of Rs.7.20 lacs on 28.08.2002, coaccused Ravi Bansal had applied for a second vehicle loan on 21.09.2002 for the purchase of Tata Safari and made an application in this regard for loan of Rs.8.60 lacs with the bank of Page: 26/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another accused Gopal Prasad.
65. It was submitted that pursuant to criminal conspiracy between accused Gopal Prasad and co accused Ravi Bansal, loan was sanctioned by accused Gopal Prasad after he had taken a pre sanction decision.
66. It was further submitted that thereafter, loan of Rs.9,57,560/ was sanctioned in favour of M/s. HIM Motors (P) Ltd.and the same was encashed.
67. It was further submitted that thereafter, co accused Ravi Bansal had produced invoice, receipt and registration certificate of Tata Safari bearing No. DL4CU0571 and in all the three documents, hypothecation was shown in favour of Canara Bank. However, all the three documents i.e. receipt, invoice and registration certificate produced by coaccused Ravi Bansal were forged documents as in the original invoice, receipt and registration certificate, no hypothecation was marked in favour of Canara Bank and said fact has Page: 27/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another been proved on record by PW7 Sh.S.K.Rai, who was the witness from Transport Department, Rajpur Road, Delhi and also by the evidence of PW15 Sh.N.K.Mahajan, who was the General Manager of M/s. HIM Motors (P) Ltd. from where coaccused Ravi Bansal had purchased the Tata Safari vehicle.
68. It was further submitted that as a part of criminal conspiracy, accused Gopal Prasad had sanctioned this loan, to purchase Tata Safari, to coaccused Ravi Bansal knowing fully well that under his delegated powers, accused Gopal Prasad had only the power to sanction vehicle loan upto Rs.10 lacs only.
69. It was further submitted that with regard to application of loan by coaccused Ravi Bansal under the Cancarry Scheme for purchase of computer worth Rs.39,000/ on the basis of quotation from M/s. Kamsha Computer Enterprise, loan was sanctioned and the draft was Page: 28/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another encashed in the account M/s.Kamsha Computer Enterprise P.Ltd. However, accused Gopal Prasad in conspiracy with coaccused Ravi Bansal, had sanctioned the loan to coaccused Ravi Bansal knowing fully well that loan could have been sanctioned to individual only whereas in this case loan was sanctioned in favour of M/s.Varun Finance Corporation of coaccused Ravi Bansal in violation of bank circular No. 192/2002 Ex.PW2/A33.
70. It was further submitted that accused Gopal Prasad had later on forged the invoice issued by M/s. Kamsha Computer Enterprise in favour of M/s.Varun Finance Corporation by inserting the name of "Ravi Bansal C/o" and this fact is proved on record by PW4 Sh.Parveen Kohli, who was the proprietor of M/s. Kamsha Computer Enterprise and also by evidence of PW2 Sh.B.V.Naik and PW3 Sh.Ramanarao duly corroborated by evidence of handwriting expert PW14 Dr. Ravindra Sharma.
Page: 29/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another
71. It was submitted that investigation was carried out by bank with regard to fraud committed by Canara Bank, Paharganj Branch and later on, investigation report was submitted by PW13 Sh.Ajit Nair against accused Gopal Prasad.
72. It was concluded by submitting that accused Gopal Prasad had sanctioned various loans to co accused Ravi Bansal, pursuant to their criminal conspiracy, by violating bank circulars by exceeding the grant of vehicle loans beyond Rs.10 lacs, by granting loan to M/s.Varun Finance Corporation under he Cancarry Scheme whereas loan could have been granted to individual only and also by granting loan to coaccused Ravi Bansal, on the basis of forged and fabricated documents and in this way, both accused had caused loss to Canara Bank, Branch Paharganj to the tune to Rs.15,26,157/. Accordingly, it was prayed that both accused persons be convicted for the offence with which they have been charged Page: 30/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another with.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED GOPAL PRASAD
73. On the other hand, it was submitted by ld.counsel for accused Gopal Prasad that in the present case, sanction for prosecution obtained by CBI is defective and only on this short ground alone, accused Gopal Prasad deserves to be acquitted.
74. It was submitted that in the present case, single FIR has been registered but three different charge sheets have been filed on record with regard to same FIR. However, similar sanction order has been obtained with regard to three different charge sheets and since separate sanction order has not been obtained in the present case, therefore, sanction order is defective and in absence of any sanction, accused Gopal Prasad could not have been prosecuted.
Page: 31/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another
75. It is further submitted that sanction order is also defective on the ground of nonapplication of mind by sanctioning authority i.e. PW1 Sh.K.Suresh Rao. It is submitted that it has come in the cross examination of PW1 Sh.K.Suresh Rao that he was supplied with the draft sanction order by CBI and after going through the same, he had sanctioned the same. Therefore, there has been no application of mind in granting of sanction by PW1 Sh.K.Suresh Rao and hence, on this ground also, sanction order is defective.
76. It was further submitted that since sanction was invalid one, therefore, entire trial gets vitiated and accordingly, a prayer was made to acquit accused Gopal Prasad on the ground of there being invalid sanction.
77. It was further submitted by accused Gopal Prasad that the evidence which has come on record led by prosecution do not show that accused Gopal Page: 32/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another Prasad had misused his official position pursuant to criminal conspiracy with coaccused Ravi Bansal.
78. It was submitted that in the cross examination of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.Ramanarao, who are the witnesses from the bank, it has come on record that accused Gopal Prasad had not misused his official position to benefit coaccused Ravi Bansal.
79. It was submitted that all the due procedure prescribed by the bank was followed by accused Gopal Prasad in granting of loan and no intentional omission has been committed by accused Gopal Prasad just to provide benefit to co accused Ravi Bansal.
80. It was submitted that with regard to transaction of grant of loan for purchase of second hand truck bearing no. HR47A2324 applied by coaccused Ravi Bansal, accused Gopal Prasad had mentioned on the photocopy of registration Page: 33/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another certificate as "original verified" on the basis of original registration certificate produced by co accused Ravi Bansal before accused Gopal Prasad and after seeing the same, he had made the endorsement of "original verified".
81. It has also come in the cross examination of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.Ramanarao that there is no mechanism in the bank at the time of grant of second hand vehicle loan to get the registration certificate verified from the transport department. Therefore, based upon trust, the registration certificate produced by coaccused Ravi Bansal was verified to be genuine and accused Gopal Prasad never knew that it was a forged document.
82. Similarly, the forged invoice and registration certificate produced by coaccused Ravi Bansal, at the time of grant of loan, for purchase of Tata Safari also could not be verified by accused Gopal Prasad from the dealer as there was no mechanism Page: 34/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another to get the same verified.
83. It was further submitted that accused Gopal Prasad had not sanctioned the loan of the vehicle beyond his delegated power of Rs.10 lacs intentionally but it was a bonafide mistake and on realizing the same, he had brought this fact to the notice of Circle Office and said mistake committed by accused Gopal Prasad was ratified by letter of advise vide Ex.PW2/DA.
84. It was further submitted that with regard to third transaction for grant of computer loan under the Cancarry scheme to coaccused Ravi Bansal, there was no allegation of misuse of funds by co accused Ravi Bansal as it has come in the evidence that draft of Rs.52,300/ issued by Canara Bank was encashed into the account of M/s.Kamsha Computer Enterprise. Therefore, loan was utilized by the end user and accused Gopal Prasad had not abused his official position.
85. It was further submitted that by granting loan Page: 35/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another to M/s.Varun Finance Corporation for the purpose of purchase of computer under the Cancarry Scheme, accused Gopal Prasad had not violated the bank circular regarding the grant of loan to individuals as it has come in the evidence that M/s.Varun Finance Corporation was the proprietorship concern of coaccused Ravi Bansal and in the eyes of law, proprietorship concern is identified by its proprietor and has got no separate legal entity.
86. It was further submitted that internal audit of the bank was also got conducted during the time when the aforementioned loans were granted by accused Gopal Prasad and in the internal audit report, no malpractices in granting of loan was pointed out by the auditors.
87. It was further submitted that there is no evidence on record to show that accused Gopal Prasad had taken any pecuniary benefit from co accused Ravi Bansal to establish the element of Page: 36/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another criminal conspiracy.
88. It was further submitted that whatever accused Gopal Prasad had done was done in good faith, in discharge of its official duties and he did not misuse his official position for the benefit of coaccused Ravi Bansal. Accordingly, a prayer was made to acquit accused Gopal Prasad with regard to charges framed against him.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED RAVI BANSAL
89. With regard to accused Ravi Bansal, it was submitted by Ld.counsel for accused Ravi Bansal that in the present case, there is no evidence on record to incriminate accused Ravi Bansal in the alleged offence.
90. It was submitted that accused Ravi Bansal was an illiterate person and he had never applied for any bank loan for purchase of second hand truck, Tata Safari or for purchase of computer Page: 37/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another under the Cancarry Scheme.
91. It was submitted that in all the three aforementioned loans, the guarantor was Kuldeep Aggarwal i.e. brother of accused Ravi Bansal and since he was looking after the affairs of family, therefore, Kuldeep Aggarwal in connivance with accused Gopal Prasad had applied for aforementioned loans in the name of accused Ravi Bansal and amount of sanctioned loan was also misappropriated by Kuldeep Aggarwal.
92. It was submitted that only the evidence against accused Ravi Bansal that he had filled up the application form for the aforementioned loans, is the report of handwriting expert i.e. PW14 Dr.Ravindra Sharma. However, the said report is inadmissible in evidence as the specimen handwriting and signature of accused Ravi Bansal were not taken with prior permission of the court and even otherwise, the CBI was not competent to have taken the specimen handwriting and Page: 38/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another signature of accused Ravi Bansal during the course of investigation.
93. In support of his submission, Ld.counsel for accused Ravi Bansal has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi delivered in Sapan Haldar and another Vs. State, (2012) 181 DLT 225 (FB).
94. It was further submitted that even witness Sh.S.K.Gupta, who had witnessed the taking of specimen handwriting and signature of accused Ravi Bansal was not examined in this case. Therefore, there was no evidence on record to show that specimen handwriting and signature of accused Ravi Bansal were taken during the course of investigation and even assuming that the same were taken, the report of the handwriting expert, on the basis of handwriting and signature of accused Ravi Bansal, is inadmissible in evidence.
95. It was further submitted that apart from report of handwriting expert, none of the witnesses Page: 39/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another examined by prosecution have deposed to the effect that accused Ravi Bansal came to the bank and had applied for aforementioned loans. Therefore, the factum of accused Ravi Bansal applying for loan has not been proved on record by prosecution.
96. It was further submitted that ultimate beneficiary of loan amount was Kuldeep Aggarwal and this fact has been established by way of admission in the cross examination of PW16 Sh.P.K.Khanna, who is IO of this case.
97. This fact also establishes on record that accused Ravi Bansal had never applied for loan and in fact, loan was applied by Kuldeep Aggarwal, in the name of accused Ravi Bansal and that is why, Kuldeep Aggarwal had withdrawn the amount from the account where the draft was deposited.
98. It was further submitted that even bank account, which was opened in Syndicate Bank, Page: 40/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another Rohini was got opened by Kuldeep Aggarwal and that is why, he had withdrawn the amount sanctioned for the purchase of second hand truck bearing no.HR47A2324.
99. It was further submitted that deliberately and intentionally, the IO of this case, had not taken specimen signature and handwriting of Kuldeep Aggarwal even though he was the guarantor of all the loans applied by accused Ravi Bansal.
100. It was submitted that handwriting and signature of Kuldeep Aggarwal was deliberately not taken by the IO as it would have exposed the fact that loan was indeed applied by Kuldeep Aggarwal.
101. It was submitted that the reason for not taking handwriting specimen and signature of Kuldeep Aggarwal was to save Kuldeep Aggarwal from his prosecution as IO was in connivance with Kuldeep Aggarwal.
102. It was further submitted that connivance of Page: 41/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another IO with Kuldeep Aggarwal has been established on record, in the light of admission made by IO in his cross examination that he was in constant telephonic touch with Kuldeep Aggarwal, during the course of investigation even though Kuldeep Aggarwal was an accused in respect of present FIR.
103. It was further submitted that it has also come in the cross examination of PW16 Sh.P.K.Khanna that Kuldeep Aggarwal and accused Gopal Prasad's sons were doing joint business of Dwarka Tours and Travels.
104. It was submitted that it has also come in the cross examination of PW16 Sh.P.K.Khanna that mini bus used for running of Dwarka Tour and Travel was got financed by Sh.Devender Kumar, at the behest of Kuldeep Aggarwal.
105. It was further submitted that even one more firm by the name of Dwarka Watch Company was being run by Kuldeep Aggarwal and accused Gopal Prasad and investigating officer PW16 Page: 42/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another Sh.P.K.Khanna has admitted in his cross examination that Gurmeet Singh was supplying watch to the aforementioned shop and told the IO that accused Gopal Prasad and Kuldeep Aggarwal had jointly gone to his shop for the purchase of watches.
106. Due to the aforementioned closeness between Kuldeep Aggarwal and IO, accused Ravi Bansal has been falsely implicated in the present case. Accordingly, it was concluded by submitting that prosecution has miserably failed to prove that accused Ravi Bansal had applied for loan on the basis of forged documents and had accordingly, cheated the Canara Bank in connivance with accused Gopal Prasad. Accordingly, a prayer was made to acquit accused Ravi Bansal.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND FINDING
107. I have carefully considered the rival Page: 43/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another submissions of the respective counsels and have carefully perused the record.
108. In the present case, as per case of CBI, there were primarily three loan transactions in which there are allegations of cheating and forgery pursuant to criminal conspiracy.
109. There is further separate charge against accused Gopal Prasad of having misused his official position to grant pecuniary advantage to accused Ravi Bansal and causing pecuniary loss to Canara Bank.
110. Before dealing with the fact as to whether cheating and forgery in the grant of three loans was done by accused persons or not, I would first discuss certain preliminary contentions raised by counsels during the course of arguments which are germane in deciding the issue of cheating and forgery in the three loan transactions.
111. From the arguments led on record by defence counsel, the issue with regard to defective sanction Page: 44/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another and issue with regard to inadmissibility of report of handwriting expert are required to be dealt with initially.
SANCTION
112. The point of sanction is relevant only to accused Gopal Prasad as he was a public servant.
113. Ld.counsel for accused Gopal Prasad had contended that sanction is invalid one as no separate sanction has been taken for each separate charge sheet and also on the ground of non application of mind.
114. The said contention of Ld.counsel for accused Gopal Prasad deserves to be rejected.
115. In the present case, the grant of sanction vide order Ex.PW1/C under Section 19 (1)(c) of PC Act, 1988 has been proved on record by the evidence of PW1 Sh.K.Suresh Rao.
116. PW1 Sh.K.Suresh Rao, who was the General Manager, of the Canara Bank and who was the Page: 45/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another disciplinary authority with regard to accused Gopal Prasad and had the power to remove him from the service of bank, had deposed that he had granted sanction Ex.PW1/C after studying documentary evidence and statements received by him.
117. It is an admitted case of CBI that although out of same FIR, three different charge sheets have been filed but only one sanction order was obtained under Section 19(1)(c) of PC Act, 1988 for prosecution of accused Gopal Prasad.
118. The said fact has been admitted by IO PW16 Sh.P.K.Khanna in his cross examination.
119. The only requirement of law on the part of sanctioning authority is that there should be application of mind, at the time of grant of sanction. If the sanctioning authority had applied its mind to the facts brought before it and thereafter, had accorded sanction then sanction is valid one even though draft sanction order was sent to the sanctioning authority. I am fortified in Page: 46/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another my reasoning by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India delivered in C.S. Krishnamurthy vs. State of Karnataka, (2005) 4 SCC 81.
120. In the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, draft sanction order was sent to the sanctioning authority but since the sanction order was very expressive, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that "even if a draft sanction order is sent to the sanctioning authority then also, if there is material on record to show that sanctioning authority had applied its mind to the material sent to it then, the sanction order is valid".
121. It was further held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that "if sanction order is very expressive then in that case the argument that particular material was not properly placed before the sanctioning authority and sanctioning Page: 47/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another authority has not applied its mind, becomes unsustainable".
122. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had relied upon the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Indu Bhushan Chatterjee Vs. State of West Bengal, 1958 Cr.L.J. 279 wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in para 9 as under:
9. It is necessary therefore to decide whether the sanction accorded in this case was a valid sanction. The substance of the sanction has already been stated but in order that there may be no misunderstanding we quote that very words of the sanction itself :
"Whereas a complaint was made against Shri Indu Bhusan Chatterjee, Assistant Supervisor, Claims of the B. N. Railway (now Eastern Railway) Garden Reach, Calcutta, who looked after the claims cases against the railway of the Vizianagram Section, that the said Indu Bhusan Chatterjee had demanded and on 12th May, 1952, accepted a bribe of Page: 48/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another Rs. 100 (Rupees one hundred only) from Shri V. S. Doraiswamy of the Commercial Claims Bureau, Vizinagram as a motive or reward for speedy and favourable settlement of the claims cases of the Commercial Claims Bureau and thereby having committed an offence punishable under Section 161 I.P.C. and also the offence of criminal misconduct by the illegal and corrupt use of his official position as a public servant to obtain a pecuniary advantage for himself punishable under S. 5 (2) read with S. 5 (1), clause (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act II of 1947, I. R. K. Bokil, Chief Commercial Superintendent, Eastern Railway, Calcutta having applied my mind to the facts and circumstances of the case, am satisfied, and am of the opinion that in the interests of justice, Shri Indu Bhusan Chatterjee, Assistant Supervisor, Claims, Eastern Railway, Garden Reach, Calcutta be put on his trial in a Court of competent jurisdiction for the offences alleged against him. That as Shri Indu Bhusan Chatterjee, Assistant Supervisor, Claims, Eastern Railway, Garden Reach, Calcutta is removable from his office by Page: 49/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another me : I therefore by virtue of the powers vested in me by S. 6 ( c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act II of 1947, do hereby accord sanction that Shri Indu Bhusan Chatterjee be prosecuted in a competent Court of law for the offence of having accepted an illegal gratification as a motive or reward for showing favour to Shri V. S. Doraiswamy, in his official functions viz., the settlement of the cases of the Vizianagram Section of Eastern Railway, punishable under S. 161 I. P. C. and for the offence of criminal mis conduct for the corrupt and illegal use of his official position to obtain a pecuniary advantage for himself punishable under S. 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Act II of 1947)."
In our opinion, this sanction clearly states all the facts which concern the prosecution case alleged against the appellant with reference to his acceptance of Rs. 100 from Doraiswamy on May 12, 1952, in circumstances which, if established, would constitute offences under S. 161, Indian Penal Code and S. 5 (2) of the Act. The Page: 50/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another sanction also clearly states that Mr. Bokil had applied his mind and was of the opinion that in the interests of justice the appellant should be prosecuted. The charge framed against the appellant at his trial was with reference to this very incident and none other. What more facts were required to be stated in the sanction itself we are unable to understand. Mr. Bokil in his examinationinchief stated "On the prayer of the police I accorded sanction to the prosecution of one Shri. I. B. Chatterjee who was the Assistant Supervisor of Claims. Before according sanction I went through all relevant papers and was satisfied that in the interest of justice, Sri I. B. Chatterjee should be prosecuted. This is the sanction marked Ex. 6". In cross examination, however, he made the following statement : "This sanction Ex. 6 was prepared by the police and it was put before me by the personnel branch of my office. I did not call for any record in connection with this matter from my office. I did not call for the connected claim cases nor did I enquire about the position of those claim cases."
Page: 51/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another The learned Judges in granting the certificate, apparently, were impressed by the statement of Mr. Bokil that Ex. 6 was prepared by the police and put before him by the personnel branch of his office, because the learned Chief Justice observed, "I can hardly imagine the duty of granting the proper sanction being properly discharged by merely putting one's signature on a readymade sanction presented by the police." It seems to us that, Mr. Bokil's statements does not prove that he merely put his signature on a readymade sanction presented by the police. It is true that he did not himself dictate or draft the sanction, but Mr. Bokil has stated in the clearest terms, in his examinationin chief, that before he accorded sanction he went through all the relevant papers. There is no reason to distrust this statement of Mr. Bokil, nor has the High Court, while granting the certificate of fitness, done so. He was an officer of his rank in the Railway and must have been fully aware that the responsibility of according to sanction against an official of the Railway subordinate to him lay upon him. It is inconceivable that an Page: 52/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another officer of the rank of Mr. Bokil would blindly sign a readymade sanction prepared by the police. Apparently, the sanction already drafted contained all the material facts upon which the prosecution was to be launched, if at all, concerning the acceptance of the bribe by the appellant on May 12, 1952. When Ex. 6 was placed before Mr. Bokil other relevant papers were also placed before him. It is significant that Mr. Bokil was not crossexamined as to what the other relevant papers were and in the absence of any question being put to Mr. Bokil we must accept his statement that the papers placed before him were relevant to the only question before him whether he should or should not accord his sanction to the prosecution of the appellant. Mr. Bokil said, and we see no reason to distrust his statement, that before he accorded his sanction he went through all these papers and after being satisfied that sanction should be given he accorded his sanction. It is true that he did not call for any record in connection with matter from his office nor did he call for the connected claim cases or find out as Page: 53/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another to how they stood. It was not for Mr. Bokil to judge the truth of the allegations made against the appellant, by calling for the records of the connected claim cases or other records in connection with the matter from his office. The papers which were placed before him apparently gave him the necessary material upon which he decided that it was necessary in the ends of justice to accord his sanction.
123. In the matter of Indu Bhushan Chatterjee Vs. State of West Bengal's case (supra), a draft sanction order was placed before the sanctioning authority by the police, who had signed the same. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had held that the very fact that sanctioning authority was a senior officer, therefore, it is to be presumed that he must have gone through the material on record and through the sanction order and after applying its mind, must have accorded sanction. Therefore, sanction was held to be a valid one.
Page: 54/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another
124. In the light of aforementioned law, now let us see whether the sanction order Ex.PW1/C reflects application of mind on the part of sanctioning authority i.e. PW1 Sh.K.Suresh Rao.
125. The sanction order Ex.PW1/C dated 24.02.2005 is running into five pages and it has been specifically mentioned in para 17 of the aforementioned sanction order by PW1 Sh.K.Suresh Rao that he had carefully examined the material placed before him and after examining the same, he considered that accused Gopal Prasad had committed the offence and should be prosecuted in the court of law.
126. The sanction order Ex.PW1/C specifically mentions about the three loan transactions involved in the present case in paras 7,10 and 14 and it also specifically mentions how on the basis of fake and forged documents, loan was obtained by accused Ravi Bansal in conspiracy with accused Page: 55/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another Gopal Prasad. Therefore, the sanction order Ex.PW1/C shows that PW1 Sh.K.Suresh Rao had applied his mind to the facts and material placed before him before granting sanction vide Ex.PW1/C.
127. Further, PW1 Sh.K.Suresh Rao was working as General Manager, Canara Bank, Head Office Bangalore at the time when he granted sanction. Therefore, it is not believable that such a senior officer of Canara Bank holding such a responsible post would have granted sanction for prosecution of accused Gopal Prasad without going through the material placed before him.
128. Therefore, it is proved on record that sanction order Ex.PW1/C was passed by PW1 Sh.K.Suresh Rao after applying his mind to the material placed before him.
129. The granting of single sanction order for three different charge sheets will not invalidate sanction Page: 56/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another order Ex.PW1/C as long as it contains all the material facts required for sanction with regard to a particular charge sheet.
130. In the present case, all the three transactions which are subject matter of the present charge sheet have been specifically mentioned in the sanction order Ex.PW1/C.
131. Therefore, although a single sanction order has been passed but since it covers all the three loan transactions involved in the present case, therefore, it was a valid sanction order.
ADMISSIBILITY OF HANDWRITING EXPERT REPORT
132. It was submitted by ld.counsel for accused Ravi Bansal that in the present case, specimen handwriting and signatures of accused Ravi Bansal obtained by IO during the course of investigation were the basis of giving of report Ex.PW14/L by Page: 57/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another handwriting expert PW14 Dr.Ravindra Sharma.
133. It was submitted that since permission of the court was not obtained at the time of taking of specimen handwriting and signature of accused Ravi Bansal, therefore, the report Ex.PW14/L is inadmissible in evidence.
134. In support of his submission, Ld.counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi delivered in Sapan Haldar and another Vs. State, (2012) 191 DLT 225 (FB).
135. I have carefully perused the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi delivered in Sapan Haldar's case (supra). In para 31 of the aforementioned judgment, it has been held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that an investigating officer, during investigation, cannot obtain a handwriting sample or a signature sample from a person accused of having committed an offence.
Page: 58/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another
136. However, in the said judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India delivered in Rabindra Kumar Pal @ Dara Singh Vs. Republic of India, (2011) 1 sCC (Cri) 706 was not considered.
137. In the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India delivered in Rabindra Kumar Pal's case (supra), similar question had arisen before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India whether the Police (CBI) had the power under CrPC to take specimen signature and writing of A3 for examination by the expert.
138. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India after relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India delivered in State of Bombay Vs. Kathi Kalu Oghad, AIR 1961 SC 1808 had come to the conclusion in para 78 that the procedure adopted by the investigating agency which was Page: 59/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another analyzed and approved by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court, cannot be faulted with.
139. In the light of judgment of the Hon'ble Surpreme Court of India holding specimen signature and handwriting of accused taken by CBI during investigation to be admissible, the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court delivered in Sapan Haldar's case (supra) cannot be applied to the facts of the present case.
140. Therefore, the contention of Ld.counsel for accused Ravi Bansal that report of handwriting expert was inadmissible in evidence, is required to be rejected.
141. Now, let us examine the evidence which has come on record with regard to three loan transactions of the present case.
142. The charge against accused Ravi Bansal and Page: 60/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another Gopal Prasad is that they pursuant to criminal conspiracy had committed offence of cheating and forgery, by granting three loans. on the basis of forged and fabricated documents and thus, caused wrongful loss to the bank and wrongful gain to accused Ravi Bansal.
143. Accused Gopal Prasad has been separately charged under Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 for having abused his official position by sanctioning loans to accused Ravi Bansal on the basis of forged documents and also in violation of various circulars of the bank regarding delegation of power and with regard to granting of loan under the Cancarry Scheme with the objective of causing pecuniary gain to accused Ravi Bansal.
144. I shall be dealing with all the three loan transactions separately to find out as to whether from the evidence led on record, offence with Page: 61/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another which accused persons have been charged with, has been proved or not?
I. Loan Transaction of Second Hand Truck Bearing Registration NO. HR47A2324.
145. The onus was upon the prosecution to have proved that for obtaining loan of Rs.7.20 Lacs for the purchase of second hand truck bearing no. HR 47A2324, accused Ravi Bansal had produced fake and forged documents in conspiracy with co accused Gopal Prasad.
146. Since in the present case, at the stage of statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and during the course of final arguments, Ld.counsel for accused Ravi Bansal had challenged the applying of second hand vehicle loan, therefore, first of all, it was required to be proved whether accused Ravi Bansal had indeed applied for second hand vehicle loan or it was applied by Page: 62/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another Kuldeep Aggarwal to falsely implicate accused Ravi Bansal.
147. As per evidence of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak, who was the senior manager, Canara Bank (Second Line) and as per evidence of PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao, who was working as an Advance Officer in Canara Bank, Branch Paharganj at the time when accused Ravi Bansal had applied for loan as proprietor of M/s.Shree Durga Road Lines, it was accused Ravi Bansal, who had applied for purchase of second hand truck bearing no. HR 47A2324 vide his application Ex.PW2/A2. They had also deposed on oath that alongwith said application, accused Ravi Bansal had submitted Agreement of Sale dated 26.08.2002 executed between Hari Garg, Proprietor of M/s.Balaji Road Lines Ex.PW2/A7 alongwith copy of registration certificate in the name of M/s.Balaji Road Lines Ex.PW2/A11.
Page: 63/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another
148. It was also deposed to by them that Kuldeep Aggarwal had stood as a guarantor for the said loan.
149. In the entire cross examination of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao, it was nowhere suggested by accused Ravi Bansal that he had never visited the Canara Bank, Branch Paharganj for the application of loan for the purchase of second hand truck bearing no. HR 47A2324 and it was his brother Kuldeep Aggarwal, who had applied for the loan by misusing his blank signed documents. Therefore, this defence has been taken up for the first time at the stage of statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.c. by accused Ravi Bansal which is nothing but an after thought and is required to be disbelieved.
150. The contention of the Ld.counsel for accused Ravi Bansal that IO deliberately did not take specimen signature and handwriting of Kuldeep Page: 64/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another Aggarwal as IO was in connivance with Kuldeep Aggarwal and that would have proved the innocence of accused Ravi Bansal, is also required to be rejected.
151. The reason for the same is that there was no requirement of taking specimen handwriting and signature of Kuldeep Aggarwal as firstly, it was never the defence of accused Ravi Bansal either at the time of investigation or at trial that he had not filled up the loan application form Ex.PW2/A2 but the same was filled up in the handwriting of his guarantor Kuldeep Aggarwal.
152. Secondly, during the cross examination of PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao by accused Ravi Bansal, PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao has specifically deposed on oath that he had filled up the application form Ex.PW2/A2 as per the information given by the applicant i.e. accused Ravi Bansal.
153. The said deposition of PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao was never challenged by Page: 65/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another accused Ravi Bansal to be an incorrect one. Therefore, accused Ravi Bansal admitted that his loan application Ex.PW2/A2 was filled up by PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao on his instructions.
154. Since accused Ravi Bansal had himself admitted that his loan application Ex.PW2/A2 was filled up by PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao, therefore, there was no question of taking specimen handwriting and signature of his guarantor Kuldeep Aggarwal for sending the same for comparison with the loan application form Ex.PW2/A2.
155. To corroborate the testimony of PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao that accused Ravi Bansal had appeared personally before Paharganj Branch for the application of loan for second hand truck, there is a letter Ex.PW3/D5 dated 28.08.2002 which was put to him in the cross examination by accused Gopal Prasad and after seeing the same, PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao had admitted that it was Page: 66/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another in his handwriting and this document was a letter of evidencing the execution of documents by accused Ravi Bansal.
156. Another fact which proves that it was accused Ravi Bansal, who had applied for the loan for the purchase of second hand truck bearing no. HR 47A2324 is the evidence of PW6 Sh.Kailash Kaushik.
157. PW6 Sh.Kailash Kaushik was the person, who had give the valuation report in respect of vehicle bearing no. HR47A2324 Ex.PW6/A (D17).
158. As per the evidence of PW6 Sh.Kailash Kaushik, he had given the valuation report Ex.PW6/A on the asking of accused Ravi Bansal, who was introduced to him by one Balbir working in Telco and he also correctly identified accused Ravi Bansal in the court. He also deposed on oath that even the registration certificate of second hand truck bearing no. HR47A2324 was shown to him by accused Ravi Bansal.
Page: 67/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another
159. In his cross examination by accused Ravi Bansal, PW6 Sh.Kailash Kaushik categorically deposed that he is known to accused Ravi Bansal for the past 08 years and he had not followed certain guidelines for the preparation of valuation report as he was introduced to accused Ravi Bansal by one Balbir Singh of Tata Motors. He further deposed that he had prepared the report in good faith because accused Ravi Bansal had told him that in any case, vehicle would be inspected by the bank before the grant of sanctioning of loan.
160. In the entire cross examination by accused Ravi Bansal, it was never suggested that accused Ravi Bansal had never approached PW6 Sh.Kailash Kaushik for the valuation report of second hand truck bearing no. HR47A2324 or PW6 Sh.Kailash Kaushik was never known to accused Ravi Bansal. Therefore, evidence of PW6 Sh.Kailash Kaushik also proves on record that for the purpose of availing the loan for purchase of second hand truck Page: 68/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another bearing no. HR47A2324, it was accused Ravi Bansal, who had approached PW6 Sh.Kailash Kaushik for the purpose of obtaining valuation report Ex.PW6/A.
161. The evidence of PW6 Sh.Kailash Kaushik also proves that since accused Ravi Bansal wanted to avail the loan from Canara Bank, Paharganj Branch for the purchase of second hand truck bearing no. HR47A2324, therefore, in his interest, he had obtained the valuation report from PW6 Sh.Kailash Kaushik.
162. In case, accused Ravi Bansal had never applied for the loan to purchase second hand truck bearing no. HR47A2324 and he was not aware about the application of loan, then there was no reason for accused Ravi Bansal to have approached PW6 Sh.Kailash Kaushik for the purpose of valuation report.
163. The testimony of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanaro that it was accused Ravi Bansal, Page: 69/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another who had applied for loan for purchase of second hand truck bearing no. HR47A2324 and the testimony of PW6 Sh. Kailash Kaushik that valuation report was also obtained by accused Ravi Bansal is further corroborated by the report of handwriting expert Ex.PW14/L.
164. In the said report, PW14 Dr.Ravinder Sharma opined on the basis of specimen signatures of accused Ravi Bansal from S11 to S25 Ex.PW14/I that questioned signatures appearing of accused Ravi Bansal as proprietor of M/s.Shree Durga Road Lines at point Q.181 and Q.182 on Ex.PW2/A1 i.e. application for loan for purhcase of second hand truck at points Q.184 to Q.186 on Ex.PW2/A4 i.e. letter of undertaking and at points Q.187 to Q.193 on Ex.PW2/A5 i.e. date of hypothecation are that of accused Ravi Bansal.
165. The contention of the Ld.counsel for accused Ravi Bansal that specimen signatures of accused Ravi Bansal Ex.PW14/I have not been proved in Page: 70/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another this case to be that of accused Ravi Bansal as independent witness Sh.S.K.Gupta in whose presence the alleged specimen signatures were taken, has not been examined in this case, is required to be rejected.
166. The reason for the same is that although it is true that independent witness Sh.S.K.Gupta has not been examined but his nonexamination is not fatal to the prosecution case. The reason for the same is that at the time of filing of charge sheet, report of handwriting expert was annexed with it and was supplied to accused Ravi Bansal alongwith charge sheet but at the stage of charge or during entire trial, accused Ravi Bansal had never disputed that his specimen signatures Ex.PW14/I were never taken by the IO.
167. Even in the cross examination of PW14 Dr.Ravinder Sharma, who was the handwriting expert and who had given the report Ex.PW14/L on the basis of specimen signatures of accused Ravi Page: 71/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another Bansal, no suggestion was given to him in the cross examination that specimen signatures of accused Ravi Bansal were never taken by the IO and a false report has been given by him regarding signatures being that of accused Ravi Bansal.
168. It was only at the fag end of the trial that accused Ravi Bansal had taken up this defence at the time of cross examination of IO that his specimen signatures were not taken. In the opinion of this court, this defence is a false defence being an after thought and is required to be disbelieved.
169. Now, the next question arises is whether accused Ravi Bansal had produced fake and forged documents for the purpose of availing loan of Rs.7.20 Lacs for the purchase of second hand truck bearing no. HR47A2324 or not?
170. As per evidence of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao, it was accused Ravi Bansal, who had produced the agreement to sell dated 26.08.2002 Ex.PW2/A7 showing the Page: 72/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another execution of agreement for the purchase of second hand truck bearing no. HR47A2324 from its owner, namely, Hari Garg, proprietor of M/s.Balaji Road Lines, Apsara Complex, UP Border, Delhi.
171. Accused Ravi Bansal had also produced the copy of registration certificate in the name of M/s.Balaji Road Lines Ex.PW2/A11.
172. Accused Ravi Bansal had also produced transfer ownership document i.e. RC in the name of its firm M/s.Shree Durga Road Lines showing hypothecation in favour of Canara Bank, New Delhi Ex.PW2/A9.
173. The RC Ex.PW2/A11 and Ex.PW2/A9 were forged documents, have been proved on record by the evidence of PW8 Suraj Bhan and PW10 Ram Chand.
174. As per the documents submitted by accused Ravi Bansal to the Canara Bank, Paharganj Branch, second hand truck bearing no. HR47A2324 was owned by Hari Garg, Proprietor of M/s.Balaji Road Page: 73/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another Lines. However, evidence of PW8 Suraj Bhan, who had appeared alongwith the original record from the office of Transport Department, Rewari where the truck was registered, had proved on record that truck bearing no. HR47A2324 as per their record was registered in the name of Baljeet Singh, proprietor of M/s.Balaji Road Lines and in their record, no person by the name of Hari Garg was the owner of aforementioned truck.
175. Nothing was brought out from the cross examination of PW8 Suraj Bhan to doubt his credibility.
176. Further, it was never suggested by accused Ravi Bansal to PW8 Suraj Bhan that real owner of the truck was Hari Garg and not Baljeet Singh. Therefore, the ownership of Baljeet Singh, Proprietor of M/s.Balaji Road Lines was deemed to have been admitted by accused Ravi Bansal and hence, agreement to sell dated 26.08.2002 Page: 74/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another Ex.PW2/A7 and RC Ex.PW2/A11 were forged documents.
177. The forgery of RC Ex.PW2/A11 was further proved by the evidence of PW10 Ram Chand. PW10 Ram Chand was working in the District Transport Office, Faridabad from December 2000 to July, 2005 and he had deposed on oath that HR 38 is the code number allotted for registration of vehicles of Faridabad, District Haryana and HR47 pertains to vehicles of District Rewari. He further deposed on oath that since registration certificate of truck bearing no. HR47A2324 Ex.PW2/A11 was bearing the stamp of District Transport Officer, Faridabad even though vehicle pertains to District Rewari, and having regard to the fact that signatures of Transport Officer Sh.Jagdip Singh were his forged signatures, therefore, he had deposed that certificate of registration Ex.PW2/A11 was a forged document.
Page: 75/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another
178. In the entire cross examination, nothing was brought out on record to doubt the credibility of PW10 Ram Chand. Therefore, evidence of PW8 Suraj Bhan and PW10 Ram Chand proves that agreement to sell Ex.PW2/A7 and copy of Registration Certificate Ex.PW2/A11 showing M/s.Balaji Road Lines as owner of truck in question, was forged and fabricated document produced by accused Ravi Bansal before the Canara Bank.
179. Further, the Registration Certificate Ex.PW2/A9 showing M/s.Shree Durga Road Lines, the proprietorship concern of accused Ravi Bansal, as owner of second hand truck bearing no. HR 47A2324 and hypothecation in favour of Canara Bank is also a forged and a fabricated document as there was no record with the Transport Department, Rewari produced by PW8 Suraj Bhan to show that Hari Garg, proprietor of M/s.Balaji Road Lines was ever the owner of said truck.
Page: 76/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another
180. Since accused Ravi Bansal had never purchased the truck from its original owner i.e. Baljeet Singh, hence RC Ex.PW2/A9 showing M/s.Shree Durga Road Lines as new owner of second hand truck bearing no. HR47A2324 was also a forged document.
181. The forgery of Ex.PW2/A7, Ex.PW2/A9 and Ex.PW2/A11 also stands proved by the fact that demand draft which was prepared by Canara Bank in favour of M/s.Balaji Road Lines Ex.PW2/A12 was encashed at Syndicate Bank, Sector5, Rohini and the account in which it was got encashed was that of accused Ravi Bansal.
182. In this regard, evidence of PW9 Sh.V.B.Gopal is relevant.
183. As per evidence of PW9 Sh.V.B.Gopal, he was working in the Syndicate Bank, Branch Rohini and accused Ravi Bansal had got a current account opened in their branch in the name of M/s.Balaji Road Lines vide Account Opening Form Ex.PW9/B. Page: 77/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another He had further deposed on oath that demand draft Ex.PW2/A12 issued by Canara Bank, Paharganj Branch was deposited in the aforementioned branch of M/s.Balaji Road Lines and the same was credited into the aforesaid account and the amount was withdrawn through two cheques.
184. In the entire cross examination of PW9 Sh.V.B.Gopal, it was nowhere suggested by ac cused Ravi Bansal that he had never got the ac count opened in the name of M/s.Balaji Road Lines or that the same was opened by his brother Kuldeep Aggarwal just to misuse his firm's name.
185. It was also never suggested to PW9 Sh.V.B. Gopal by accused Ravi Bansal that current account in the name of M/s.Balaji Road Lines do not per tain to accused Ravi Bansal. Therefore, the evi dence of PW9 Sh.V.B.Gopal proves on record that it was accused Ravi Bansal, who fraudulently used the forged agreement to sell in the name of Hari Garg, proprietor of M/s.Balaji Road Lines and Page: 78/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another thereafter, he had deposited the draft in the name of M/s.Balaji Road Lines in Syndicate Bank, Branch Rohini to show that draft has been paid to the owner Hari Garg, proprietor of M/s.Balaji Road Lines but in reality, it was encashed by accused Ravi Bansal himself as he had opened an account in the name of M/s.Balaji Road Lines as its propri etor.
186. Accused Ravi Bansal had created the fictitious name of Hari Garg and had fraudulently got a draft issued in the name of M/s.Balaji Road Lines just to get the same encashed into his own account at Syndicate Bank, Branch Rohini. Therefore, seller and buyer both in the present case was accused Ravi Bansal.
187. Accused Ravi Bansal not only cheated the Ca nara Bank, Paharganj Branch by producing forged and fabricated documents but he also cheated Su chita Finance from where he got the second hand Page: 79/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another truck bearing no. HR47A2324 financed for Rs.4 Lacs.
188. PW12 Sh.Sumit Gupta, who was the partner in Suchita Finance had deposed on oath that ac cused Ravi Bansal had contacted him for refinance of the second hand truck bearing no. HR47A2324 and accordingly, he had given finance of Rs.4 Lacs to accused Ravi Bansal.
189. He further deposed on oath that he had also sent a letter Ex.PW8/M to registering authority, Rewari and Form No.34 for getting hypothecation done vide Ex.PW8/N.
190. Accused Ravi Bansal had denied that he had ever got the vehicle financed from PW12 Sh.Sumit Gupta. However, the evidence of PW12 Sh.Sumit Gupta stands corroborated by evidence of PW8 Suraj Bhan, who has also deposed on oath that they had received hypothecation papers Ex.PW8/M and Ex.PW8/N from PW12 Sh.Sumit Gupta.
Page: 80/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another
191. In case PW12 Sh.Sumit Gupta had not financed the second hand truck bearing no. HR 47A2324 to accused Ravi Bansal, then there was no requirement of PW12 Sh.Sumit Gupta to write a letter of hypothecation to Transport Department, Rewari. Therefore, this fact proves on record that on the basis of forged RC, accused Ravi Bansal had also taken loan of Rs.4 Lacs from Suchita Finance.
192. Although it is proved on record in the light of aforesaid discussion that accused Ravi Bansal had produced forged agreement to sell Ex.PW2/A7 and Registration Certificates Ex.PW2/A11 and Ex.PW2/A9 for the purpose of cheating Canara Bank by taking loan of Rs.7.20 Lacs and for the purpose of cheating Suchita Finance for Rs.4 Lacs but it is nowhere proved on record that aforesaid documents were forged by accused Ravi Bansal himself.
193. The entire prosecution evidence which has come on record nowhere proves that it was ac Page: 81/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another cused Ravi Bansal, who had forged the Agreement to Sell Ex.PW2/A7 between Hari Garg and himself and registration certificates Ex.PW2/A9 and Ex.PW2/A11.
194. As far as Agreement to Sell Ex.PW2/A7 is concerned, the same do not bear any signatures of accused Ravi Bansal.
195. Further, the prosecution was required to prove on record that the signatures of Hari Garg appearing on the said document are in the hand writing of accused Ravi Bansal. However, the said document, as per the admission made by the IO PW16 Sh.P.K.Khanna in his cross examination, was never sent to the handwriting expert for his opin ion. Therefore, there is nothing on record to show that Agreement to Sell Ex.PW2/A7 was forged by accused Ravi Bansal for the purpose of cheating.
196. Similarly, with regard to registration certifi cates Ex.PW2/A9 and Ex.PW2/A11, the investigat ing officer had not sent the same to the handwrit Page: 82/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another ing expert for comparison with the specimen hand writing and signatures of accused Ravi Bansal to obtain opinion as to whether the handwriting in the Registration Certificates Ex.PW2/A9 and Ex.PW2/A11 is that of accused Ravi Bansal. There fore, there is also no evidence on record to show that registration certificates Ex.PW2/A9 and Ex.PW2/A11 were forged by accused Ravi Bansal for the purpose of cheating.
197. Therefore, what is proved on record is that accused Ravi Bansal had used Ex.PW2/A7, Ex.PW2/A9 and Ex.PW2/A11 as genuine docu ments for the purpose of obtaining loan knowing fully well that they were forged documents.
198. Accordingly, prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused Ravi Bansal had cheated Canara Bank by using forged and fabricated documents with regard to loan transaction of second hand truck bearing no. HR 47A2324.
Page: 83/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another
199. As far as accused Gopal Prasad is concerned, prosecution was required to prove that accused Gopal Prasad in connivance with coaccused Ravi Bansal had misused his official position in sanctioning of loan on the basis of forged and fabricated documents to coaccused Ravi Bansal.
200. As per the evidence of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao, during the processing of this loan, accused Gopal Prasad had made an endorsement on the Registration Certificates Ex.PW2/A9 and Ex.PW2/A11 that he has verified them from "original".
201. However, later both the aforementioned registration certificates were found to be forged and fabricated.
202. In the crossexamination of PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao, it has come on record that at the time of sanctioning of loan,there was no procedure/rule/practice for verification of Page: 84/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another registration certificate from the concerned RTO at the time of sanction of loan or thereafter.
203. Further, it has also come in the cross examination of PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanaroa that after disbursement of loan, in case of second hand vehicle, the bank was required to obtain copy of registration certificate of the vehicle with hypothecation endorsed thereon.
204. Therefore, the evidence which has come on record of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao nowhere suggest that if accused Gopal Prasad after seeing the original registration certificate produced by coaccused Ravi Bansal had made the endorsement of "original verified" , then he had violated any rule or procedure of the bank or the same was done pursuant to criminal conspiracy.
205. Further, in the grant of present loan, all the due procedure was followed by accused Gopal Page: 85/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another Prasad in the light of evidence of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak.
206. In the cross examination of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak, he had admitted that with regard to grant of present loan, all due process was followed and there was no procedural lapse on the part of accused Gopal Prasad and there was no irregularity in sanction of loan as per documents.
207. It was also admitted by PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak in his cross examination that even this loan was reviewed by higher authority of Circle Office and no adverse remarks were given.
208. PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak further deposed in his cross examination that the present loan was processed by PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao and thereafter, he had recommended the same.
209. It has also come in the cross examination of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak that loan officer has to take all relevant documents from the loanee and whenever he feels any objection in the documents, he may Page: 86/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another raise objection before recommending to sanctioning authority.
210. It has further come in the cross examination that he did not record any disagreement on the basis of documents before sanctioning the loan.
211. PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak also deposed that the present loan was audited annually by the External Audit Officer and no adverse remarks were given in their audit. Even in the internal inspection report, the inspecting authority did not point out any procedural lapse.
212. Although PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao had deposed in his examination in chief that accused Gopal Prasad had already taken the credit decision on loan applicationEx.PW2/A1 but his cross examination and evidence of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak do not corroborate his testimony.
213. As per the cross examination of PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao, he had processed the loan documents and being the Loan Officer, he was Page: 87/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another competent to record his disagreement with regard to loan documents and in that circumstances, loan could have been rejected.
214. However, in the present case, no dis agreement was recorded by PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao while processing the loan documents.
215. Further, it has also come in the evidence of PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao that in the loan application Ex.PW2/A1, there is no recording of the fact that credit decision has been taken by accused Gopal Prasad.
216. Even assuming that accused Gopal Prasad had taken a credit decision but still since the Loan Officer PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao had the power to process loan documents and recommend for rejection of loan in case documents were not found satisfactory, therefore, it cannot be said that credit decision taken by accused Gopal Prasad was final and binding upon other officers of the bank.
Page: 88/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another
217. PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao also admitted that said loan application Ex.PW2/A2 bears the signature of recommending authority i.e. PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak.
218. It has also come in the cross examination of PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao that sanction memorandum Ex.PW3/D3 (D17) has the signature of both accused Gopal Prasad and Recommending Officer PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak.
219. It was also deposed to by PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao that Ex.PW3/D3 (D17) also bears the endorsement by accused Gopal Prasad regarding other liability of Rs.4 Lacs.
220. PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao also admitted that after the loan documents were checked by PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak, the same were placed before the Sanctioning Authority i.e. accused Gopal Prasad.
221. From the abovementioned evidence of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao, accused Gopal Prasad had sanctioned the loan Page: 89/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another after being fully aware of other previous liability of Rs.4 Lacs of accused Ravi Bansal which he duly mentioned in the sanction memorandum Ex.PW3/D3 (D17). Therefore, the previous liability of Rs.4 Lacs was not concealed by accused Gopal Prasad while sanctioning the loan.
222. Further, the loan was sanctioned after the loan documents were found to be in order by PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao, Loan Officer and after the same was recommended by PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak.
223. Further, after the sanction of present loan, accused Gopal Prasad was required to take on record copy of RC with the hypothecation in favour of Bank which was also duly complied with in the present case.
224. Further, there was no rule of the bank which required accused Gopal Prasad to have verified registration certificate from the concerned Transport Department.
225. Further, the present loan was reviewed by the Page: 90/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another Audit Department as well as by internal inspection and in the same also, no procedural irregularity was noticed by the Canara Bank.
226. Further, the payment by way of draft was also issued in the name of seller i.e. M/s.Balaji Road Lines.
227. Further, nothing has been brought on record to show that any pecuniary gain had come to accused Gopal Prasad after sanctioning of present loan to establish the element of conspiracy. Therefore, prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused Gopal Prasad had misused his official position in the sanctioning of present loan to accused Ravi Bansal as Proprietor of M/s.Durga Road Lines on the basis of forged documents.
II. Transaction with regard to Tata Safari DL 4CU0571 Page: 91/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another
228. The onus was upon the prosecution to have proved that for obtaining loan of Rs.8.60 Lacs for purchase of Tata Safari bearing No. DL4CU0571, accused Ravi Bansal had produced fake and forged documents in conspiracy with coaccused Gopal Prasad.
229. As per evidence of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak, who was the Senior Manager (Second Line), Canara Bank and as per evidence of PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao, who was working as an Advance Officer in Canara Bank, Branch Paharganj, it was accused Ravi Bansal, who had applied for Canmobile Loan for purchase of Tata Safari on 06.09.2002 vide his loan application Ex.PW2/A14.
230. It was also deposed by them that Kuldeep Aggarwal had stood as guarantor in this loan and loan was sanctioned on the basis of quotation produced by accused Ravi Bansal from HIM Motors Pvt.Ltd. Ex.PW2/A20.
Page: 92/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another
231. It was also deposed that draft was prepared in favour of HIM Motors Pvt.Ltd. and same was encashed at Syndicate Bank, Branch Rohini, New Delhi. It was also deposed by them that after the sanction of loan, accused Ravi Bansal had produced photocopy of Registration Certificate in respect of Tata Safari vehicle bearing No. DL4CU 0571 and payment receipt Ex.PW2/A23 showing hypothecation of vehicle in favour of Canara Bank, New Delhi.
232. In the entire cross examination of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao, it was nowhere suggested by accused Ravi Bansal that he had never visited the Canara Bank, Branch Paharganj for the application of loan for the purchase of Tata Safari bearing No. DL4CU0571 or it was his brother Kuldeep Aggarwal, who had applied for the loan by misusing his blank signed documents. Therefore, this defence has been taken up for the first time at the stage of statement of Page: 93/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another accused under Section 313 Cr.P.c. by accused Ravi Bansal which is nothing but an after thought and is required to be disbelieved.
233. The contention of the Ld.counsel for accused Ravi Bansal that IO deliberately did not take specimen signature and handwriting of Kuldeep Aggarwal as IO was in connivance with Kuldeep Aggarwal and that would have proved the innocence of accused Ravi Bansal, is also required to be rejected.
234. The reason for the same is that there was no requirement of taking specimen handwriting and signature of Kuldeep Aggarwal as firstly, it was never the defence of accused Ravi Bansal either at the time of investigation or at trial that he had not filled up the loan application form Ex.PW2/A14 but the same was filled up in the handwriting of his guarantor Kuldeep Aggarwal.
235. Secondly, during the cross examination of PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao by accused Ravi Bansal, Page: 94/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao has specifically deposed on oath that he had filled up the application form Ex.PW2/A14 as per the information given by the applicant i.e. accused Ravi Bansal.
236. The said deposition of PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao was never challenged by accused Ravi Bansal to be an incorrect one. Therefore, accused Ravi Bansal admitted that his loan application Ex.PW2/A14 was filled up by PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao on his instructions.
237. Since accused Ravi Bansal had himself admitted that his loan application Ex.PW2/A14 was filled up by PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao, therefore, there was no question of taking specimen handwriting and signature of his guarantor Kuldeep Aggarwal for sending the same for comparison with the loan application form Ex.PW2/A14.
238. To corroborate the testimony of PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao that accused Ravi Bansal had Page: 95/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another appeared personally before Paharganj Branch for the application of loan for Tata Safari, there is a letter of evidencing Ex.PW3/D8 (D18) dated 21.09.2002 which was put to him in the cross examination by accused Gopal Prasad and after seeing the same, PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao had admitted that it was in his handwriting and this document was a letter of evidencing the execution of documents by accused Ravi Bansal.
239. Another fact which proves that it was accused Ravi Bansal, who had taken the delivery of Tata Safari bearing no. DL4CU0571 from HIM Motors Pvt.Ltd.is the evidence of PW15 Sh.N.K.Mahajan.
240. PW15 Sh.N.K.Mahajan was the General Manager of HIM Motors Pvt.ltd. from where Tata Safari vehicle bearing no. DL4CU0571 was delivered to accused Ravi Bansal.
241. PW15 Sh.N.K.Mahajan had deposed on oath that accused Ravi Bansal had submitted relevant Page: 96/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another documents for purchase of new Tata Safari and the same was delivered to him.
242. In the entire cross examination of PW15 Sh.N.K.Mahajan by accused Ravi Bansal, it was never suggested to him that no vehicle was purchased by accused Ravi Bansal from HIM Motors Pvt. Ltd. or that it was taken by Kuldeep Aggarwal.
243. The testimony of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak, PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao and PW15 Sh.N.K.Mahajan that it was accused Ravi Bansal, who had applied for loan for purchase of Tata Safari vehicle bearing no. DL4CU0571 and had taken delivery of the same is further corroborated by report of handwriting expert Ex.PW14/L.
244. In the said report, PW14 Dr.Ravindra Sharma opined, on the basis of specimen signatures of accused Ravi Bansal that signatures at point Q.89 on Ex.PW2/A13 i.e. Account opening Form, Q.91 i.e. Application for Loan Ex.PW2/A14, Q.93 on Page: 97/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another Ex.PW14/B i.e. particular of vehicle hypothecated, Q.94 on Ex.PW2/A18 i.e. Guarantee Agreement and at point Q.97 on Ex.PW14/C i.e. Specimen Signature Card are that of accused Ravi Bansal.
245. The contention of the Ld.counsel for accused Ravi Bansal that specimen signatures of accused Ravi Bansal Ex.PW14/I have not been proved in this case to be that of accused Ravi Bansal as independent witness Sh.S.K.Gupta in whose presence the alleged specimen signatures were taken, has not been examined in this case, is required to be rejected.
246. The reason for the same is that although it is true that independent witness Sh.S.K.Gupta has not been examined but his nonexamination is not fatal to the prosecution case. The reason for the same is that at the time of filing of charge sheet, report of handwriting expert was annexed with it and was supplied to accused Ravi Bansal alongwith charge sheet but at the stage of charge or during Page: 98/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another entire trial, accused Ravi Bansal had never disputed that his specimen signatures Ex.PW14/I were never taken by the IO.
247. Even in the cross examination of PW14 Dr.Ravinder Sharma, who was the handwriting expert and who had given the report Ex.PW14/L on the basis of specimen signatures of accused Ravi Bansal, no suggestion was given to him in the cross examination that specimen signatures of accused Ravi Bansal were never taken by the IO and a false report has been given by him regarding signatures being that of accused Ravi Bansal.
248. It was only at the fag end of the trial that accused Ravi Bansal had taken up this defence at the time of cross examination of IO that his specimen signatures were not taken. In the opinion of this court, this defence is a false defence being an after thought and is required to be disbelieved.
249. Now, the next question arises is whether accused Ravi Bansal had produced fake and forged Page: 99/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another documents for the purpose of availing loan of Rs.8.60 Lacs for the purchase of Tata Safari bearing no. DL4CU0571 or not?
250. As per evidence of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao, it was accused Ravi Bansal, who after availing the loan of Rs.8.60 Lacs for purchase of Tata Safari Vehicle had produced copy of RC Mark A, payment receipt Ex.PW2/A23 and invoice Ex.PW2/A21 and in all the documents, hypothecation was shown in favour of Canara Bank, New Delhi.
251. In the cross examination of PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao by accused Gopal Prasad, one more document i.e. copy of cover note of Oriental Insurance Company Ex.PW3/D10 (D18) was also put to the said witness and after seeing the same, witness admitted that this document was also produced by accused Ravi Bansal showing hypothecation in favour of Canara Bank, New Delhi. Therefore, prosecution was required to Page: 100/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another prove that Registration Certificate Mark A, payment receipt Ex.PW2/A23, invoice Ex.PW2/A21 and document Ex.PW3/D10 were forged and fabricated documents produced by accused Ravi Bansal.
252. With regard to Registration Certificate Mark A, prosecution had examined on record PW7 Sh.S.K.Rai, who was the Motor Vehicle Inspector in Janakpuri authority of Transport Department at the relevant time.
253. PW7 Sh.S.K.Rai had produced original file of Tata Safari vehicle bearing No. DL4CU0571 Ex.PW7/C (colly) having original Registration Certificate Ex.PW15/F (D19). He had deposed on oath that Ex.PW15/F as per said file, no hypothecation was marked on the registration certificate Ex.PW15/F in favour of anyone and photocopy of Registration Certificate dated 16.10.2002 Mark A is a forged registration certificate as photocopy of Registration Certificate Page: 101/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another Mark A bear hypothecation endorsement in favour of Canara Bank, New Delhi and secondly, the signature appearing on the Rregistration Certificate Mark A are not that of registering authority.
254. PW7 Sh.S.K.Rai further deposed on oath that there was no Form34 available in the file which is required for the purpose of putting hypothecation of vehicle.
255. Nothing was brought out in the cross examination of PW7 Sh.S.K.Rai to doubt his credibility. Therefore, evidence of PW7 Sh.S.K.Rai proves on record that Registration Certificate Mark A produced by accused Ravi Bansal before the Canara Bank was forged and fabricated document.
256. With regard to payment receipt Ex.PW2/A23, invoice Ex.PW2/A21 and cover note of Oriental Insurance Company Ex.PW3/D10 (D18), the relevant witness examined by the prosecution was PW15 Sh.N.K.Mahajan, who was the General Page: 102/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another Manager of HIM Motors Pvt.Ltd., Paschim Vihar, New Delhi.
257. PW15 Sh.N.K.Mahajan had deposed on oath regarding receipt issued by HIM Motors Pvt.Ltd.in favour of accused Ravi Bansal dated 16.10.2002 Ex.PW15/B and photocopy of cover note of United India Insurance Company Ltd. Mark PW15/2 and it was deposed that these documents were issued by their company and they do not bear any kind of endorsement in favour of Canara Bank.
258. It was further deposed to by him that payment receipt Ex.PW2/A23 dated 23.09.2002, photocopy of cover note of Oriental Insurance Ex.PW3/D10, registration certificate Mark A and invoice Ex.PW2/A21 showing hypothecation in favour of Canara Bank were neither issued by them nor it bears signatures of PW15 Sh.N.K.Mahajan.
259. PW15 Sh.N.K.Mahajan further deposed on oath that all the documents required for registration of vehicle, used to be signed by him.
Page: 103/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another
260. In the cross examination of PW15 Sh.N.K.Mahajan, nothing could be brought out on record to show that aforementioned documents were genuine documents and were issued by HIM Motors Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, evidence of PW15 Sh.N.K.Mahajan proves that documents Ex.PW2/A23, Ex.PW3/D10 and invoice Ex.PW2/A21 were forged and fabricated documents.
261. However, the entire prosecution evidence nowhere proves that it was accused Ravi Bansal, who had forged Registration Certificate Mark A having signature of PW15 Sh.N.K.Mahajan, cover note of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.Ex.PW3/D10 and invoice Ex.PW2/A21.
262. As far as Regisration Certificate Mark A is concerned, since it bears signatures of PW15 Sh.N.K.Mahajan, therefore, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to have taken specimen signatures of accused Ravi Bansal for getting the same Page: 104/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another compared with signatures appearing of PW15 Sh.N.K.Mahajan on the Registration Certificate Mark A and only after an opinion had come on record that it was the handwriting of accused Ravi Bansal, one could have said Registration Certificate Mark A was forged by accused Ravi Bansal.
263. However, in the present case, the Registration Certificate Mark A was never sent for comparison with the specimen signature and handwriting of accused Ravi Bansal. Therefore, it was never proved on record that Registration Certificate Mark A was forged by accused Ravi Bansal.
264. Further, copy of original insurance cover Ex.PW3/D10 is a handwritten cover note and therefore, prosecution ought to have taken the specimen handwriting of accused Ravi Bansal for getting the same compared with the handwriting appearing in the original insurance cover note Ex.PW3/D10. However, the cover note Page: 105/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another Ex.PW3/D10 has not been sent to the handwriting expert for obtaining opinion after comparing the same with specimen handwriting of accused Ravi Bansal. Therefore, there is no material on record that it was accused Ravi Bansal, who had forged cover note Ex.PW3/D10.
265. The prosecution has also not been able to prove that invoice Ex.PW2/A21 was forged by accused Ravi Bansal as there was no evidence on record to show that the computer generated invoice was printed by accused Ravi Bansal on his computer and the stamp of HIM Motors Pvt. Ltd.appearing on the said invoice was also found in possession of accused Ravi Bansal. Hence, it was never proved on record that documents Ex.PW2/A23, Ex.PW3/D10 and Ex.PW2/A21 were forged by accused Ravi Bansal.
266. Therefore, the aforementioned discussion proves on record that accused Ravi Bansal had Page: 106/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another cheated the Canara Bank by taking loan of Rs.8.60 Lacs by using forged documents of hypothecation.
267. As far as accused Gopal Prasad is concerned, he has been charged of having misused his official position by granting this loan beyond his delegated power of Rs.10 Lacs.
268. As far as issue of sanction of this loan is concerned, evidence of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak shows that there was no procedural lapse or irregularlity in sanctioning of this loan by accused Gopal Prasad.
269. It has also come in the evidence of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak that accused Ravi Bansal had applied for loan for purchase of Tata Safari vehicle on the basis of quotation Ex.PW2/A20 produced from HIM Motors Pvt.Ltd and the said quotation was sent for processing to PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao.
270. PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak has also deposed on oath that PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanaro did not make any dis Page: 107/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another agreement in the grant of present loan as per documents Ex.PW2/A13 to Ex.PW2/A23.
271. It has also come in the cross examination of PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanaro that if at the time of processing of loan documents of loanee, they are not found to be satisfactory and if loan officer records disagreement, then loan proposal is liable to be rejected.
272. It has also come in the cross examination of PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao by accused Ravi Bansal that he had verified the contents of all the documents and he had not found any irregularity in the same and he had also admitted that he had not raised any objection when the aforesaid loan was sanctioned.
273. It has also come in the cross examination of PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao that there was no procedure/rule/practice for verification of RC from concerned RTO at the time of sanction or thereafter.
Page: 108/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another
274. It has also come in his cross examination that there was no procedure of the bank by which insurance cover note or receipt could be verified or crosschecked by the insurance company.
275. It has further come in the evidence of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao that loan amount was correctly credited into the account of HIM Motors Pvt.Ltd i.e. intended beneficiaty. Therefore, evidence of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao nowhere suggests that accused Gopal Prasad had committed any irregularity while sanctioning the present loan to accused Ravi Bansal.
276. The loan was sanctioned by accused Gopal Prasad after the same was recommended by PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao.
277. Further, PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao had not recorded any disagreement in grant of loan to accused Ravi Bansal.
278. Further, there was no procedure in the bank Page: 109/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another for crosschecking of registration certificate and insurance cover note. Therefore, accused Gopal Prasad had not misused his official position in sanctioning of this loan to accused Ravi Bansal.
279. The only evidence which has come against accused Gopal Prasad was that he had sanctioned this loan to accused Ravi Bansal in violation of his delegated powers to sanction loan upto Rs.10 Lacs.
280. PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao had also produced on record the Head Office Circular No. 192/02 Ex.PW13/D (D4) and 126/02 Ex.PW13/C (D3) in this regard.
281. However, in his cross examination, PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao had admitted that there is no restriction as per Circular No. 192/02 Ex.PW13/D (D4) for grant of second mobile loan when first loan is outstanding.
282. It has also come in the evidence of PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao that immediately after the sanction of loan, accused Gopal Prasad had written Page: 110/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another a letter to the Circle Office, Delhi on 23.09.2002 Ex.PW3/A2 by which he sought ratification of exceeding the delegated power.
283. Further, it has come in the cross examination of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak that the Circle Office had reviewed and ratified the grant of loan by accused Gopal Prasad vide letter Ex.PW2/DA.
284. Therefore, evidence which has come on record suggests that although accused Gopal Prasad had granted this loan in violation of bank circular nos. 192/02 Ex.PW13/D (D4) and 126/02 Ex.PW13/C (D3) but this violation alone is not sufficient to hold that accused Gopal Prasad had misused his power just to provide pecuniary gain to accused Ravi Bansal.
285. It has come on record that if processing officer PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao records dis agreement in the grant of loan, then the loan was liable to be rejected. However, PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao had not recorded any dis Page: 111/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another agreement in the grant of loan on the basis of circular nos. 192/02 Ex.PW13/D (D4) and 126/02 Ex.PW13/C (D3).
286. Further, the evidence which has come on record shows that accused Gopal Prasad alone had not taken the decision for sanction of this loan and in helping him reach the decision for sanction, he was assisted by PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao, who was the recommending officer for grant of loan.
287. Since PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao, Recommended Officer had not pointed out circular nos. 192/02 Ex.PW13/D (D4) and 126/02 Ex.PW13/C (D3) regarding exceeding of delegated power of Rs.10 Lacs, therefore, in the opinion of this court, bonafide mistake might have been committed by accused Gopal Prasad while sanctioning the loan and no malafide could be imputed.
288. The bonafide of accused Gopal Prasad in granting loan is made out from the fact that Page: 112/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another immediately when he came to know that he has committed mistake by granting this loan, then he had sought ratification of his act vide document dated Ex.PW3/A2 (D18) from the Circle Head Office and vide Ex.PW2/DA (D18), Circle Office ratified the grant of loan by accused Gopal Prasad in violation of circular nos. 192/02 Ex.PW13/D (D
4) and 126/02 Ex.PW13/C (D3).
289. In the opinion of this court, if Circle Office was satisfied that accused Gopal Prasad had intentionally and dishonestly violated circular nos. 192/02 Ex.PW13/D (D4) and 126/02 Ex.PW13/C (D3), then they would not have ratified the sanction of loan by accused Gopal Prasad to accused Ravi Bansal and in that eventuality, loan would have been recalled. Therefore, ratification of omission of accused Gopal Prasad by Circle Office, further proves that even Circle Office was satisfied that said omission was not deliberate but due to an oversight.
Page: 113/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another
290. Further, there is no evidence on record to show that any pecuniary advantage was taken by accused Gopal Prasad from coaccused Ravi Bansal in sanction of this loan. Therefore, this fact of accused Gopal Prasad exceeding his delegated power which eventually was ratified by Circle Head Office is not sufficient to hold that accused Gopal Prasad had abused his office to provide pecuniary advantage to accused Ravi Bansal on the basis of forged and fabricated documents.
291. In the light of above discussion, the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused Gopal Prasad had misused his official position by sanctioning this loan pursuant to criminal conspiracy with accused Ravi Bansal to cheat the bank on the basis of forged and fabricated documents.
III. Transaction with regard to Cancarry loan Page: 114/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another
292. With regard to this loan transaction, the charge against accused Gopal Prasad was that he had misused his official position by granting loan under Cancarry Scheme to M/s.Varun Finance Corporation whereas as per the bank circular no. 192/02 Ex.PW13/D, only individual persons were eligible for the loan for financing of brand new durable utility articles including furniture.
293. It was also alleged against accused Gopal Prasad that he had dishonestly inserted the name of coaccused Ravi Bansal on the invoices in favour of M/s.Varun Finance Corporation so that Cancarry Loan could have been sanctioned to accused Ravi Bansal.
294. In the present case, the relevant witnesses, who have proved the grant of loan under the Cancarry Scheme to accused Ravi Bansal are PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak, PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao and PW4 Sh.Praveen Kohli.
295. It is an admitted position of the prosecution Page: 115/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another in the light of evidence of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao that the loan which was sanctioned to accused Ravi Bansal for the purchase of computers and printers was paid to Kamsha Computer Enterprises through demand draft and thereafter, Kamsha Computer Enterprises had supplied the computers and printers to accused Ravi Bansal.
296. The evidence of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao that loan amount was paid directly to the end user i.e. Kamsha Computer Enterprises is further corroborated by the evidence of PW4 Sh.Praveen Kohli, who was the owner of Kamsha Computer Enterprises, who deposed on oath regarding supplying of computers and printers to accused Ravi Bansal. Therefore, the evidence of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak, PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao and PW4 Sh.Praveen Kohli proves on record that loan taken by accused Ravi Bansal under the Cancarry Scheme was utilized for Page: 116/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another the said purpose and even the payment was made to seller Kamsha Computer Enterprises.
297. Further, the taking of loan by accused Ravi Bansal also stands proved in the light of unrebutted testimony of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak, PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao and PW4 Sh.Praveen Kohli as no defence was put to the witnesses that accused Ravi Bansal had never applied for the loan under the Cancarry Scheme or no computer/printer delivery was taken by accused Ravi Bansal from PW4 Sh.Praveen Kohli.
298. The only question which is required to be decided is whether accused Gopal Prasad had misused his official position by granting loan to M/s.Varun Finance Corporation in violation of circular no. 192/02 Ex.PW13/D dated 02.09.2002 (D4) and later on by inserting the name of accused Ravi Bansal in the invoice issued by Kamsha Computer Enterprises to show that the loan had been granted to an individual.
Page: 117/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another
299. The onus was upon the prosecution to have proved the aforementioned charge. However, the evidence of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao and documents filed on record prove to the contrary.
300. As per evidence of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak, the loan under the Cancarry Scheme was applied for by accused Ravi Bansal and even the loan was sanctioned to accused Ravi Bansal.
301. PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak had further deposed on oath that accused Gopal Prasad had made an addition in the invoice Ex.PW2/A29 and Ex.PW2/A30 "Ravi Bansal C/o " before M/s.Varun Finance Corporation as loan had been sanctioned to accused Ravi Bansal.
302. Further, it has also come in the cross examination of PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao by accused Ravi Bansal that he had verified the loan application form Ex.PW2/A24 and the supporting documents and he had not noticed any irregularity Page: 118/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another in the same.
303. It has also come in the cross examination of PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao on behalf of accused Gopal Prasad that accused Ravi Bansal was the proprietor of M/s.Varun Finance Corporation. It was also admitted by him that the loan was sanctioned in the name of accused Ravi Bansal for the purchase of computers. He further deposed on oath that the quotation should have been in the name of accused Ravi Bansal but since accused Ravi Bansal had himself produced the quotation in the name of M/s.Varun Finance Corporation, therefore, the loan was sanctioned in his name.
304. I have also carefully perused the loan documents of the Cancarry Scheme and the application form Ex.PW2/A24 shows that the application for loan was made in the individual name of accused Ravi Bansal and there is no mention about M/s.Varun Finance Corporation applying for the said loan.
Page: 119/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another
305. Further, the sanction memorandum Ex.PW2/A25 also shows that the loan has been sanctioned in the name of accused Ravi Bansal and not in the name of M/s.Varun Finance Corporation.
306. Further, the letter of undertaking Ex.PW2/A26 and hypothecation agreement Ex.PW2/A27 have all been executed by accused Ravi Bansal in his individual capacity and not as proprietor of M/s.Varun Finance Corporation. Therefore, the aforementioned documents and evidence of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao proves on record that the loan was applied by coaccused Ravi Bansal in his individual capacity and even the loan was sanctioned to him in his individual capacity and M/s.Varun Finance Corporation was never the applicant of the loan.
307. Therefore, the loan was applied for and sanctioned to an individual as per bank circular no.
Page: 120/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another 192/02 Ex.PW13/D and no misuse of official position was done by accused Gopal Prasad in sanctioning of the said loan.
308. However, the invoices issued by Kamsha Computer Enterprises Ex.PW2/A29 and Ex.PW2/A30 were issued in the name of M/s.Varun Finance Corporation.
309. The insertion of name of accused "Ravi Bansal C/o" on Ex.PW2/A29 and Ex.PW2/A30 by accused Gopal Prasad stands proved in the light of evidence of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and also in the light of admission made by accused Gopal Prasad while being examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
310. While being examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused Gopal Prasad had also offered an explanation as to why the name of accused Ravi Bansal was added prior to M/s.Varun Finance Corporation in Ex.PW2/A29 and Ex.PW2/A30.
311. In the explanation provided by accused Gopal Prasad, it was stated that since loan could not have Page: 121/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another been granted to an individual and since accused Ravi Bansal was the proprietor of M/s.Varun Finance Corporation, therefore, said correction was made at the time of postsanction formalities.
312. Since in the present case, loan was applied by accused Ravi Bansal and was also sanctioned to accused Ravi Bansal vide Ex.PW2/A24 and Ex.PW2/A25 respectfully, therefore, the explanation offered by accused Gopal Prasad appears to be plausible one and no malafide can be imputed on the part of accused Gopal Prasad in sanctioning the loan on the basis of quotation Ex.PW2/A28.
313. I am further supported in my reasoning by the evidence of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak, who has deposed on oath that the quotation procured by accused Ravi Bansal from Kamsha Computer Enterprises Ex.PW2/A28 was in favour of M/s.Varun Finance Corporation and the same was processed by PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao.
Page: 122/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another
314. Further, it has also come in the cross examination of PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao by accused Ravi Bansal that while processing the loan and the documents, he did not find any irregularity in the same. Therefore, the evidence of PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao also suggests that while processing the loan documents, he also did not notice any kind of irregularity in the grant of loan to accused Ravi Bansal although he had obtained quotation in the name of M/s.Varun Finance Corporation otherwise, he would have objected to the grant of loan as per circular no. 192/02 Ex.PW13/D (D4).
315. Therefore, the evidence which has come on record suggest that all the bank officers who were involved in the processing of this loan were of the view that since loan had been applied by individual and was sanctioned to an individual and since M/s.Varun Finance Corporation happened to be proprietorship concern of accused Ravi Bansal, Page: 123/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another therefore, loan was granted as per circular no. 192/02 Ex.PW13/D (D4).
316. Therefore, it was never proved on record that accused Gopal Prasad had dishonestly inserted the words "Ravi Bansal C/o" in invoices Ex.PW2/A29 and Ex.PW2/A30 prior to M/s.Varun Finance Corporation as it is an admitted fact that M/s.Varun Finance Corporation was the proprietorship concern of accused Ravi Bansal and even loan was sanctioned to accused Ravi Bansal in his individual capacity.
317. Even otherwise, the proprietorship concern in the eyes of law has got no separate legal identity and is identifiable with its proprietor. Therefore, even if it is assumed that M/s.Varun Finance Corporation had applied for the loan and was sanctioned the loan, then also it cannot be said that any violation of circular no. 192/02 Ex.PW13/D (D4) was committed as sanctioning of loan to M/s.Varun Finance Corporation amounted Page: 124/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another to sanctioning of loan to accused Ravi Bansal since it was his proprietorship concern.
318. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove on record that accused Gopal Prasad had misused his official position in granting loan on the basis of quotation Ex.PW2/A28 and on the basis of invoices Ex.PW2/A29 and Ex.PW2/A30 in favour of M/s.Varun Finance Corporation or he had dishonestly added the name of accused Ravi Bansal in invoices Ex.PW2/A29 and Ex.PW2/A30.
319. In the light of above discussion, the prosecution has only been able to prove that accused Ravi Bansal had cheated the Canara bank by taking loan for the purchase of second hand truck bearing no. HR47A2324 by using forged and fabricated documents.
320. It has also been proved on record that accused Ravi Bansal also cheated the Canara Bank by taking loan for the purchase of Tata Safari bearing No. DL4CU0571 by using forged and Page: 125/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another fabricated documents showing hypothecation in favour of Canara Bank.
321. However, with regard to Cancarry Loan, no cheating or forgery was proved on record by the prosecution against accused Ravi Bansal.
322. Accordingly, accused Ravi Bansal is convicted for the offence under Section 420 and 471 IPC. Since the charge of forgery of documents has not been proved against accused Ravi Bansal, therefore, he is acquitted for the offence under Section 467 & 468 read with Section 120B IPC.
323. As far as accused Gopal Prasad is concerned, since prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused Gopal Prasad had misused his official position, to provide aforesaid three loans to accused Ravi Bansal pursuant to criminal conspiracy, on the basis of forged and fabricated documents, therefore, accused Gopal Prasad is acquitted for the offence under Section 420/467/468/471 r/w Section 120 Page: 126/127 CC No. 25/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and another B IPC and under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1) (D) of the PC Act.
324. In terms of Section 437A Cr.P.C let accused Gopal Prasad furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/with one surety of the like amount with undertaking to appear before the appellate court as and when he receives notice from it.
325. Put up on 20.12.2018 for arguments on the point of sentence with regard to convict Ravi Bansal.
Announced in the open court
Date: 07.12.2018 VIKAS Digitally signed by
VIKAS DHULL
DHULL Date: 2018.12.07
16:33:11 +0530
(Vikas Dhull)
Spl. Judge (PC Act) (CBI)03
Dwarka Courts/New Delhi
Page: 127/127