Cbi vs . Sangeeta Arora Etc. on 22 December, 2015

[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Cbi vs . Sangeeta Arora Etc. on 22 December, 2015

1
CC No. 39/08
CBI Vs. Sangeeta Arora etc.
Judgment dt. 22.12.2015

IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA,
SPECIAL JUDGE CBI02 (PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT), DISTT.
NORTH WEST, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.

CC No. 39/08
Unique Case I.D. No. 02404R0507992002

RC No. S18/2001/E0001/CBI/SIUVIII

CBI Vs. 1. Smt. Sangeeta Arora
W/o Shri Gurjeet Singh Arora
R/o 421, Third Floor,
Mount KailashII
New Delhi
Proprietor of M/s Rajual Merchandising Co.
422, Sant Nagar, East of Kailash
New Delhi110065

2. S.N. Singh
S/o Late Shri Ram Naresh Singh
R/o RZJ/56/220, Sagarpur West
New Delhi110046
also at : H132/5, F2, SectorV
Vaishali, Ghaziabad.

3. Moti Lal Joshi
S/o Shri Ram Narayan Joshi,
R/o 253, Masjid Moth, Second Floor
South Ext. PartII,
New Delhi
Permanent Add: Village & PO Jaswant Garh
Tehsil Ladnun, Distt. Nagaur, Rajasthan

Page 1 of 61
2
CC No. 39/08
CBI Vs. Sangeeta Arora etc.
Judgment dt. 22.12.2015

4. Sanjay Malik (Chartered Accountant)
S/o Shri A.L. Malik
R/o B3/4 Miyawali Nagar,
Paschim Vihar,
New Delhi.

5. Bipin Chander Paul Kakkar
S/o Late Shri Satpal Kakkar
R/o 510, Mount Kailash TowerII
New Delhi

6. G.R. Meena
S/o Late Shri Ram Sahay Meena
Manager (C&I), SBBJ, Nehru Place Branch
New Delhi
R/o Vill. & PO Garh,
Tehsil Basi, Distt. Jaipur
Rajasthan.

Date of Institution : 07.06.2002
Date of conclusion
of arguments : 08.12.2015
Date of Judgment : 22.12.2015

Judgment
In brief, the case of the prosecution (CBI) is that on 12.2.1998, the
accused Sangeeta Arora (A1) Proprietor of M/s Rajual Merchandising Co.
opened a current account with State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (hereinafter be
referred as 'bank'), Nehru Place Branch, New Delhi showing her business as

Page 2 of 61
3
CC No. 39/08
CBI Vs. Sangeeta Arora etc.
Judgment dt. 22.12.2015

export of garments. A1 in conspiracy with the other coaccused to cheat the
bank pledged false and forged documents as collateral security and also false
collateral security of property bearing No. 35/12, Village Nagli Sakrawati, Delhi
and thereby induced the bank to sanction various credit facilities i.e. Export
packing credit (EPC) of Rs. 15,00,000/ and Foreign Bills Purchased/discounted
(FBP/FBD) limit of Rs. 35,00,000/ for the purpose of availing the credit facilities.
In pursuance of the criminal conspiracy A1 through the accused
Sanjay Malik (A4) and the accused Bipin Chandar Paul Kakkar (A5) Chartered
Accountants, approached the accused G. R. Meena (A6) Bank Manager (C&I)
and Shri P.R. Kanther, Chief Manager of the bank. A1 had no property of her
own to mortgage with the bank, but with intention to defraud the bank, A1 along
with A4 and A5 arranged false sale deed of the property No. 35/12, Village Nagli
Sakrawati, Delhi to be offered as collateral security with the help of the accused
S.N. Singh (A2) and the accused M.L. Joshi (A3) and they also arranged a fake
person as guarantor namely Major Jagdish Lal Segan.
In pursuance of the criminal conspiracy, A1 submitted false break
up of sales from 1.4.1997 to 31.1.1998 of Rs. 214.65 Lacs, export orders, copy of
assessment order of income tax for the assessment year 199798, photocopy of
the forged sale deed of property No. 35/12, Village Nangli Sakrawati, Delhi, forged
and false assets and liability statement of Major Jagdish Lal Segan and fake and
forged balance sheet and financial statement of the firm, false assets and liability
statement and other financial documents duly attested by Suraj Garg and

Page 3 of 61
4
CC No. 39/08
CBI Vs. Sangeeta Arora etc.
Judgment dt. 22.12.2015

Associates (Chartered Accountant). A6 has accepted these documents from A1
and also accepted unsigned CMA data from the borrower and also did not call for
any formal application/request for the loan from A1. A6 has failed to conduct
any presanction inspection of the property, verification of the genuineness of the
documents.
In pursuance of the criminal conspiracy to cheat the bank, A6 on
the basis of false/forged documents prepared the opinion report and put a
proposal to the Chief Manager Shri P.R. Kanther for sanctioning EPC of Rs. 15
lacs and FBP/FBD of Rs. 35 lacs on 11.3.1998. The Chief Manager sanctioned
the credit facilities on 14.3.1998. In pursuance of the sanction, the documents
were executed in favour of the bank on 26.3.1998. A6 without submission of
control return to the controlling authority released the payments to M/s Rajual
Merchandising company. A6 has also not ensured the mutation of the property in
favour of the bank in the revenue record.
In pursuance of the criminal conspiracy, EPC of Rs. 10 lacs was
released to M/s Rajual Merchandising Company on 20.8.99 and on the same day
A1 got issued a banker cheuqe for Rs. 9 lacs in favour of M/s Ravi Industries by
debiting the loan account. The banker cheque was deposited in the current
account No. 50220 of M/s Ravi Industries at Corporation Bank, Janakpuri Branch,
New Delhi. This account belongs to one Dalip Kumar, who was then employee of
A4 and A5 and the proceeds were immediately withdrawn in cash. The account
in the name M/s Ravi Industries was got opened by A4 and A5 for the purpose of

Page 4 of 61
5
CC No. 39/08
CBI Vs. Sangeeta Arora etc.
Judgment dt. 22.12.2015

siphoning of loan funds.
In pursuance of the criminal conspiracy, one Madan Gopal Singh
has acted as the impersonator for Major Jagdish Lal Segan and has executed
bank documents. Madan Gopal Singh was arranged by A2 to furnish fake
guarantee at the instance of A3 and A4.
It is the case of the prosecution that all the accused persons A1 to
A6 have entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat the bank and in pursuance
of that conspiracy, A6 has abused his official position and has accepted the
forged document as collateral security and thereby the accused persons has
dishonestly induced the bank to sanction credit facilities to the tune of Rs.
29,56,164/ and thereby caused wrongful loss to the bank.
After investigation, the charge sheet has been filed against the
accused persons for the offences punishable U/s 120r/w 420, 468,471 IPC and
section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act
2. A1 to A6 were charged for the offences punishable U/s 120B IPC
read with Section 420 IPC, U/s 420 IPC read with section U/s 120 IPC, 468 IPC
read with Section 120B IPC and U/s 471 IPC read with section 120B IPC. A6
was also charged for the offence punishable U/s 13(2) read with Section 13 (1) (d)
of Prevention of Corruption Act. All the accused persons had pleaded not guilty to
the charges and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution (CBI) has examined 33
witnesses. Statement of the accused persons have been recorded U/s 313

Page 5 of 61
6
CC No. 39/08
CBI Vs. Sangeeta Arora etc.
Judgment dt. 22.12.2015

Cr.P.C. in which they have denied the case of the prosecution. A1 has examined
one witness in her defence. A4 has examined three witnesses in his defence and
A5 has examined two witnesses in his defence.
4. PW1 Shri K.N. Mishra Gopal has deposed that during the year 2000,
he was posted as Chief Manager in the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Nehru
Place, New Delhi. Cash credit limit is given to a unit to meet its day to day
expenditures and cost of raw materials etc. EPC (Export Packing Credit) limit is
given for the same purpose but to export units. A foreign bills purchased/foreign
bills discounted (FBP/FBD) are the limits which are given to the borrowers against
purchase/discount of bills sent to overseas parties. For sanction of these loans,
the borrowers has to submit to the bank an application along with all the required
financial data and papers. He had shown account opening form of Rajual
Merchandising Company which was opened on 12.2.1998 by the Proprietor Smt.
Sangeeta Arora. It has been authorised by the bank official Shri G.R. Meena.
The Account Opening Form is EX. PW1/1. Vide sanction letter dated 14.03.1998,
sanction of Credit Facilities i.e. PPC Hypothication of Rs.15 lacs, FBP/FBD limit of
Rs.35 lacs with overall limit of Rs.35 lacs has been given to the party M/s Rajual
Merchandising Company. This letter is signed by Sh. G.R. Meena, which is EX.
PW1/3. The party executed documents i.e. Form C1 ( Agreement of Loan for
overall limit) and Form C2 ( Agreement of Hypothication of goods and assets)
which bears the signatures of Sh.G.R. Meena which is EX. PW1/4 and Ex. PW1/5
respectively. The guarantor Shri Jagdish Lal has executed Form C4 ( Deed of

Page 6 of 61
7
CC No. 39/08
CBI Vs. Sangeeta Arora etc.
Judgment dt. 22.12.2015

Guarantee for overall limit) which is EX.PW1/6, affidavit of the guarantor is
EX.PW1/7. The document i.e. form C5 ( letter regarding the grant of Individual
Limit within the overall limit) bears signature of guarantor and Shri G.R. Meena
and the same is Ex. PW1/8. He has proved the letter dated 26.03.1998 bearing
the signatures of Shri G.R. Meena as Ex. PW1/9 vide which it was written to the
Tehsildar Nangli Sakrwati, Delhi for marking the lien on the revenue record and
record mutation in favour of the bank.
In cross examination by A1, PW1 has deposed that the loan
application disbursement etc., had already taken place before joining to the said
branch.
In cross examination by A6, PW1 has deposed that the
documents Ex. PW1/4, Ex. PW1/5, PW1/6, Ex. PW1/8 executed on behalf of
M/s Rajual Merchandising Co. with the bank are as per prescribed bank
norms. As per the document Ex. PW1/PX, the mutation of the property in
the name of Jagdish Lal Segan in favour of State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur,
Nehru Place, New Delhi was created on 27.03.1998. The inspection report
dt. 19.08.1999 was conducted by Sh. G.R. Meena of M/s Rajual
Merchandising Co. and that report is Ex.PW1/PX4 (Pages 278 to 281 in file
D36). The irregularity report was put up by Sh. G.R. Meena and Sh. Pukhraj
Kanther to the Controller, Zonal Office, New Delhi pertaining to M/s Rajual
Merchandising and that report is Ex. PW1/PX5 (page 311 in file D36). The
opinion reports of Smt. Sangeeta Arora and Shri Jagdish Lai, Guarantor

Page 7 of 61
8
CC No. 39/08
CBI Vs. Sangeeta Arora etc.
Judgment dt. 22.12.2015

were prepared by Sh. G.R. Meena and both the reports are collectively as
Ex.PW1/PX9. (Page 339 to 402 in File D36). These reports were prepared
on the basis of assets and liabilities statement dt. 18.02.1998 prepared by
Suraj Garg & Associates and are Ex. PW1/PX10 (pages 403 & 404 in File D
36.) The break up of sales from 1.4.1997 to 31.1.1998 submitted by Smt.
Sangeeta Arora are Ex. PW1/PX11 (Pages 406 to 418 in file D36).
PW1 has proved the account opening form pertaining to
Account No. CD804 as Ex. PW1/12. This account was opened by M/s
Rajual Exim (P) Ltd. He has proved the certified copy of foreign bill
purchase and discounted liability ledger as Ex. PW1/13 (file D19) and Ex.
PW1/14 (D20) respectively. The statement of account pertaining to Current
A/c no. 684 of M/s Rajual Merchandising Co. is Ex. PW1/15. The statement
of account pertaining to CC no. 521 of M/s Rajual Merchandising Co. as
Ex. PW1/16 (D24). The statement of account pertaining to Current A/C no.
804 in the name of M/s Rajual Exim (P) Ltd. as Ex. PW1/17 (D24)
PW 3 Shri Rajender Singh Chauhan has deposed that in the year
1998, he was posted as Deputy Manager in State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur
Branch, Nehru Place, New Delhi. He has proved the certified copies of the
Standing Arrangement Register in respect of M/s Rajual Merchandising
Company as Ex. PW3/A1 to A3. By virtue of these documents, EPC of rupees
ten lakhs was released on 20.8.1999 to M/s Rajual Merchandising Company on
the basis of inspection done by Mr. G. R. Meena, who has approved release of

Page 8 of 61
9
CC No. 39/08
CBI Vs. Sangeeta Arora etc.
Judgment dt. 22.12.2015

EPC of rupees ten lakh. The Bankers cheque bearing no. 305938 dated
20.8.1999 which is Ex. PW3/B for a sum of Rs.9 lakh was issued in favour of M/s
Ravi Industries by Mr. Anil Kashyap, the then Deputy Manager. The current
account of M/s Rajual Merchandising Company was debited to the said amount
at the request of Mrs. Sangeeta Arora against bank reference which is Ex.
PW3/B. The EPC was released on the condition that the party shall submit the
documents against the export within 21 days, but the party did not submit the
export documents to realize outstanding EPC of ten lakhs. He has proved the
inward documentary bill for collection return of unpaid bills as Ex. PW3/D (D
17). He has proved the certified copy of protested bills as Ex. PW3/E (D23)
and as per Ex. PW3/E the outstanding amount in the account of M/s Rajual
Merchandising Co. as on 04.04.2001 was Rs. 4,48,054.60/.
In cross examination by A6, PW3 has deposed that Ex. PW3/A3
(D22) does not bear the signatures of Sh. G.R. Meena. It is correct that
EPC was released on the basis of drawing power derived from the stocks
available with the borrower and availability of limit. The sanction of limit and
verification of stocks are duly assessed and verified by the Manager.
In cross examination by PW5, PW3 has deposed that the EPC
is released to the party after having eligible drawing powers and inspections
made thereon. After the EPC is released, the amount is credited in the
current account of the party by debiting the EPC account. The party is free
to carry out any other transactions in that current account which may not be

Page 9 of 61
10
CC No. 39/08
CBI Vs. Sangeeta Arora etc.
Judgment dt. 22.12.2015

related to the loan amount. The party cannot use the amount of EPC
released by the bank for any other purpose for which it was given to the
party. PW3 has denied the suggestion that there is no restriction imposed by
the bank on the party to utilize the amount released in EPC in any manner
whatsoever. He do not know as to on what basis the EPC of Rs. Ten lacs
was released to M/s Rajual Merchandising and as to how the same was
utilized. The EPC is released against the confirmed order of the buyer.
PW 8 Sh. Pukhraj Kanther has deposed that in the year 1998, he
was working as Chief Manager in State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur at Nehru
Place, New Delhi. In the year 1999, he was promoted as Asstt. General
Manager. He was overall Incharge of Nehru Place Branch of SBBJ. Accused
G.R.Meena was working as Manager (C& I). He has proved the proposal
containing recommendations for credit facilities amounting to Rs.
35,00,000/ fund based in favour of M/s Rajual Merchandising Co. recommended
on 11.3.98 by G.R. Meena, as Ex. PW8/A1 (Page 348 to 363 in file D36).
On the basis of said proposal, he accorded his sanction on 14.03.1998 as
(page 361 in file D36). He made remarks regarding sanction and reporting
for review (page 348 in file D36). He made remarks for "Limits to be
released only mutation in favour of Bank Noted by Revenue Authority." (Page
352 in file D36 He has proved the sanction letter as Ex. PW8/A2 bearing
the signatures of Sh. G.R. Meena which was issued on the basis of
sanction. M/s Rajual Merchandising Co. was sanctioned loan of Rs. 35 lacs

Page 10 of 61
11
CC No. 39/08
CBI Vs. Sangeeta Arora etc.
Judgment dt. 22.12.2015

which was against the primary security of hypothecation of stocks, bill of
lading/airway bills. The loan was also secured against a collateral security
pertaining to property bearing no. Khasra. No. 35/12, Village Nangli
Sakrawati Delhi in the name of Major Jagdish Lal Segan. He has proved the
request letter dt. 23.4.98 of the accused Sangeeta Arora for the release of
packing credit as Ex. PW8/A3 (page 332 in file D36). He made queries on
the letter which was addressed to the accused G.R. Meena. The conduct of
account of M/s Rajual Merchandising Co. has not been satisfactory and he
had written a letter dt. 10.8.1998 in this regard to M/s Rajual Merchandising
Co, which is Ex. PW8/A4 (page 331 in file D36) and it also contains the
initial of G.R. Meena. The accused G.R. Meena has given the inspection
report dt. 1.9.1998 which is Ex. PW8/A5 (pages 327 to 329 in file D36). On
her report, he made his comments on 03.09.1998 as "since there are
problems of realization we should stop extending EPC/FBP/FBD against firm
order. The firm should have valid LCs." The same is Ex.PW8/A6 (page 326
in file D36).
The accused Smt. Sangeeta Arora, had written a letter dt.
05.09.1998 which was received by him on 07.09.1998. The letter is Ex.
PW8/A7 (Page 322, 323 in file D36). The letter was marked to the accused
Sh. G.R. Meena and he made his remarks as " We should do only LC
business. Even EPC should be released after receipt of LCs only."
He knew the accused Sh. Bipin Kakkar and Sh. Sanjay Malik. It

Page 11 of 61
12
CC No. 39/08
CBI Vs. Sangeeta Arora etc.
Judgment dt. 22.12.2015

is difficult to remember if both of them had met him pertaining to account of
M/s Rajual Merchandising Co. As a sanctioning authority, he had not seen
any request letter of M/s Rajual Merchandising Co. he had only gone
through the appraisal note put up by Sh. G.R. Meena, Manager (C&I). It is
mandatory that there should be a formal request from the party. Either
Manager (C&I) or any other authorized is required to visit the mortgaged
property which was kept as collateral security. He has proved the banker's
cheque dated 20.08.1999 issued in favour of Ravi Industries of Rs. Nine lacs as
Ex.PW3/B. He has proved the letter dt. 01.06.1999 and inspection report dt.
29.05.1999 bearing his signature of Shri Ranjeet Datta, Chief Manager as Ex.
PW8/A8 (pages 302 to 306 in file D36). He has also proved the letter dt.
18.05.1999 and letter dt. 22.04.1999 bearing the signatures of G.R. Meena and
note dt. 10.04.1999 bears the signatures of Sh. Ranjeet Datta, Chief Manager as
Ex. PW8/A9 (pages 307 to309 in file D36).
In cross examination on behalf of the accused A6, PW8 has
deposed that list of buyers and export orders were submitted by M/s Raujal
Merchandising Co. in due course of business. The accused G.R. Meena has
completed all the formalities, as required for the sanction for the said credit
facilities. The valuation report and legal search report has been prepared in
respect of the collateral security. The advocate and valuer of the bank who had
prepared their reports were on the panel of the bank. It was his instructions to
release the limits only after getting the mutation done. The mutation was

Page 12 of 61
13
CC No. 39/08
CBI Vs. Sangeeta Arora etc.
Judgment dt. 22.12.2015

completed in favour of bank in the year 1998 and the limits were released on
04.05.1998. The accused Sangeeta Arora might have submitted the
application for grant of loan in the bank. The audit was carried out in
respect to the entire limit of the branch. He has not come across any audit
irregularity during his period in respect of this borrower's account. T he
relationship between Sh. G.R. Meena and M/s Rajual Merchandising Co.
was of bank and customer. The accused G.R. Meena has discharged his
duty in his official capacity, as evident from the file, in due course of
official business.
PW19 Shri Bhuwnesh Kumar Bansal has deposed that he has
remained posted in the State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Nehru Place
Branch, New Delhi w.e.f 08.05.1997 to 07.08.2000 as Assistant Manager.
He was posted in the C&I Division. Sh. G.R. Meena was the Manager of
C&I Section. He had dealt with the matter of M/s Rajual Merchandise Co.
when the documents pertaining to loan were executed for process. He has
proved the document i.e. Ex. PW1/1, Ex. PW1/4 to Ex. PW1/8 which are
already proved by PW1. He has proved the letter dt. 26.03.1998 of Jagdish
Lal in the bank which was submitted in the bank regarding mortgage of property
as Ex.PW19/A (D11). He has proved the sale deed which was submitted by the
accused Smt. Sangeeta Arora and Jagdish Lal Segan in the bank pertaining to
property No. 35/12, Nangli Sakrawati, New Delhi as Ex. PW15/A (D37). He knew
the accused Sanjay Malik and Bipin Kakkar as both had met Sh. G.R. Meena in

Page 13 of 61
14
CC No. 39/08
CBI Vs. Sangeeta Arora etc.
Judgment dt. 22.12.2015

connection with the loan proposal of M/s Rajual Merchandising Co. Initially, both
had come and met Sh. G.R. Meena but at the time of documentation Smt.
Sangeeta Arora and Jagdish Lal had come. Again said, both Sanjay Malik and
Bipin Kakkar also accompanied Smt. Sangeeta Arora and Jagdish Lal at the time
of execution of documents in the bank at Nehru Place Branch. He has proved 35
cheques issued under the signatures of Smt. Sangeeta Arora as Ex. PW19/B.
In cross examination by A5, PW19 has deposed that he do not
remember the exact dates or time on which Mr. Sanjay Malik and Bipin Kakkar
had come to the bank. (Vol. They had come during the process of loan.) He do
not know as to how long they had stayed in the bank on that day. He do not
remember as to whom Sh. Sanjay Malik and Bipin Kakkar used to meet.
PW21 Shri R.C. Banger has witnessed the specimen signatures
of Smt. Sangeeta Arora and the same has been proved as Ex. PW21/A (D94).
PW22 Shri Shamsher Singh is the witness to the specimen
signatures of Shri Ravinder Malik and has proved the same as Ex.
PW12/A1 (D105) and he is also the witness to the specimen signatures of
Dalip Kumar and has proved the same as EX. PW22/A (D106).
PW23 Shri B.D. Meena is the witness to the specimen
signatures of Shambhu Nath Singh and of Bipin Chandra Pal Kakkar and
Govind Ram Meena and the same has been proved as Ex. PW23/A to Ex.
PW23/C respectively.
PW25 Shri K.R. Srikantan has deposed that in the year 2002,

Page 14 of 61
15
CC No. 39/08
CBI Vs. Sangeeta Arora etc.
Judgment dt. 22.12.2015

he was posted as Chief General Manager, State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur
at Jaipur. He has given sanction for the prosecution of the accused Sh.
G.R. Meena (A6) and he has proved the sanction as Ex. PW25/A.
PW27 Shri A.K. Garg has proved the cheque bearing no. 720057
dated 20.8.1999, which was issued by the accused Sangeeta Arora for an
amount of Rs.9,00,585/ for issuing a bankers cheque of Rs.9,00,000/ in favour of
M/s Ravi Industries as Ex.PW19/B. He has proved the bankers cheque
no.305938 dated 20.8.1999 for Rs.9 lacs in favour of Ravi Industries as
Ex.PW3/B. He has also proved various other cheques issued by M/s Rajual
Merchandising Company as Ex.PW19/B collectively. He has proved the copy of
cheque returning register in respect of cheque no. 173822 for Rs.1,00,000/ as
Ex. PW27/A.
In cross examination by the accused A5, PW27 has deposed that
the cheque no. 173822 for Rs. One lac was issued from current A/c no. 684 of M/s
Rajual Merchandising Co. and was returned unpaid on 18.04.1998. The first EPC
for Rs. 12 lacs was released to M/s Rajual Merchandising Co. on 02.05.1998.
PW30 Shri R.K. Tiwari has deposed that he remained posted
as Chief Manager in the office of Assistant General ManagerII, Zonal
Office State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, New Rajender Nagar, New Delhi
from December, 1998 to 31.03.2001. He had conducted an inquiry in respect
of account of M/s Rajual Merchandising Co. and submitted his report in the bank
which is Ex. PW30/A.

Page 15 of 61
16
CC No. 39/08
CBI Vs. Sangeeta Arora etc.
Judgment dt. 22.12.2015

PW11 Shri P.D. Shenoy has deposed that during the year
20002001, he was posted as Senior Manager, Corporation Bank, Janak
Puri Branch, New Delhi. He has proved the statement of account No.
050148 for the period 1.4.1998 to 31.03.1999 (D57)as Ex. PW11/A1. The
account opening form, pertaining to Ravi Industries which pertains to
Janakpuri Branch of Corporation Bank is Mark PA1. The cheque No.
820121 dt. 21.8.1999 for an amount of Rs. 4,40,000/ issued by M/s Ravi
Industries from the account No. 50220 maintained in corporation bank,
Janakpuri Branch is mark PA2 (D38). The cheque No. 820122 for an
amount of Rs. 4,50,000/ issued by M/s Ravi Industries from the account
No. 50220 maintained in Corporation Bank Janakpuri Branch and the same
is mark PA3.
The statement of account No. 50220 (D107) from the period
1.

4.99 to 31.3.2001 is mark PA5. The account opening form pertaining to M/s. Perfect Associates Pvt. Ltd., pertains to account no.50148, Janak Puri Branch of Corporation Bank is mark as PA4. This account was opened on the introduction of Krishna Colour Lab Studio and the names of Sanjay Malik and Bipin Chander Pal Kakkar are appearing in the said account opening form, who had opened that account.

PW14 Shri N. Sampat Kumar has deposed that in the year 1998 he was posted as Special Assistant at Corporation Bank, Greater Kailash Branch, New Delhi. He has proved the letter dt. 11.02.1998 addressed to the Page 16 of 61 17 CC No. 39/08 CBI Vs. Sangeeta Arora etc. Judgment dt. 22.12.2015 Manager, Corporation Bank, Greater KailashII, New Delhi by the accused Sangeeta Arora as Ex.PW1/2 and certificate dt. 11.02.1998 issued in favour of M/s Rajual Merchandising Company as Ex.PW14/A. PW6 Shri S.N. Relan has deposed that in the year 1991, he started practice as an Advocate at Delhi. He was on the panel of various banks including State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur in the year 1991 to 2000. He was entrusted with legal search report work by the bank. He submitted the legal search report on 2.3.1998 to the Chief Manager, State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Nehru Place, New Delhi Branch for the property being land measuring 1000 Sq. Yards of Khasra no. 35/12 at village Nangli Sakrawati, New Delhi belonging to Major Jagdish Lal Segan. The report is Ex.PW6/A. He submitted this report after verifying the records of SubRegistrar office at Kashmiri Gate and SubRegistrar office at Janak Puri as per receipts issued by the respective offices. The said receipts are Ex.PW6/B & Ex. PW6/C. This report was issued at the request of one Mr. Joshi who introduced him as a Chartered Accountant. He brought the original Sale Deed which was laminated. He compared the same with the photocopy and returned the original immediately. Later on, he prepared his report and handed over the same to said Mr. Joshi. The photocopy of the sale deed was tallied with the office copy of the Sale Deed available at SubRegistrar Office, Kashmiri Gate.

In cross examination by the accused A6, PW6 has deposed that he used to hand over the Legal Search Report to the client/party or the bank Page 17 of 61 18 CC No. 39/08 CBI Vs. Sangeeta Arora etc. Judgment dt. 22.12.2015 directly from where the request was received. The title deed was found in order.

In cross examination by the accused A3, PW6 has deposed that he did not see any document to ascertain the identity of the person who had approached him for obtaining Legal & Search Report. He used to submit the photocopy of the title deed shown to him by the party for obtaining the Legal & Search Report along with the report to the bank itself. He referred the name of Mr. Joshi because of his memory. He did not note down the name of Mr. Joshi on any slip. The person who had approached him in the connection of Legal & Search Report in question did not meet him prior to the said date when he approached him for obtaining the Legal & Search Report and thereafter he did not meet him. Nobody came to him for collecting the Legal & Search Report and he submitted the same directly to the bank.

PW20 Shri Anuj Kumar Beotra has deposed that he is a Civil Engineer. He was doing the business of construction and later on he joined Sh. V.P. Aneja, Govt. Approved Valuer in the year 1996. His duty with Sh. V.P. Aneja was to inspect the properties and submitted his inspection reports in respect of properties regarding valuation etc. The valuation report dt. 24.12.1997 (D14) was prepared by him as well as by Sh. V.P. Aneja in respect of property no. 35/12, Village Nangli, Sakrawati, Delhi43 and the report is Ex.PW20/A (D14). The valuation of the property was shown as Rs. 55 lacs. The valuation report of the property was done by him on the asking of Sh. S.N.Singh and his son Manu Page 18 of 61 19 CC No. 39/08 CBI Vs. Sangeeta Arora etc. Judgment dt. 22.12.2015 who had shown him the property. He had mentioned the description of property at page no. 3 against the column no. 23 (general) where it is written that "The referred property is situated on Main Najafgarh Road about 2 km. before Najafgarh while going from Uttam Nagar. It is opp. to S.P.Kappur Farm adjacent to Main Bus Stand of Nangli Sakrawati. There is a Nursery known as Shyam Nursery & a Farm House known as Development Farm House nearly. However, no revenue authority was available to identify the plot."

IO had taken him to the aforesaid property, but, it was learnt that the property evaluated by him was not the same property because he had done the valuation of the property which was shown to him by Mr. Manu. Sh. M.L. Joshi used to come to them, but I do not remember whether he had asked for doing evaluation of this property or not. He identified Sh. M.L. Joshi (A3) who is present in the court.

In cross examination by the accused A3, PW20 has deposed that he had wrongly valued the plot because no revenue authority was available on the site.

PW2 Shri Krishan Kumar has deposed that during the year 2001, he was posted as Patwari in the Tehsil Nazafgarh, Delhi. Village Nangli Sakrawati. He has proved NAKAL KHATONI of Khasra No. 12 ractangle 35 in the village Nangli Sakrawati, Delhi as Ex.PW2/1.

PW15 Shri Anil Vashisht has deposed that in the year 1988 Page 19 of 61 20 CC No. 39/08 CBI Vs. Sangeeta Arora etc. Judgment dt. 22.12.2015 about 1000 sq. yard out of Khasra No. 35/12 Village Nangli Sakrawati was sold to Sh. Jagdish Lal Segan by him. He has proved the copy of Sale Deed dt. 14.6.1988 as Ex. PW10/A (D29). The another Sale Deed Ex. PW15/A (D37) purported to have been executed by him in favour of Sh. Jagdish Lal Segan on 14.06.1988 does not bear the signatures and it has never executed the sale deed.

PW5 Shri Raj Kumar Segan has deposed that the property measuring 1000 Sq.Yards situated near Kakrola village (old name Sakrawati) was in the name of his father Major Jagdish Lal. His father died on 30.12.1990. The property bearing no. 35/12 at Village Nangli, Sakrawati, Delhi was sold in the year 1996 by him with the consent of other family members to Sh. Ganesh Prashad. The signatures on the deed of guarantee dt. 26.3.1998 which is Ex. PW1/6 (D5) does not bear the signatures of his father and the photograph appearing on this documents are not of his father. The signatures on an affidavit dt. 26.3.1998 which is Ex. PW1/7 (D6) are not of his father. He has proved the death certificate of his father as Ex. PW17/A. PW5 has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused persons.

PW17 Shri Chander Prakash from the office of Birth & Death has proved the death certificate of Shri Jagdish Lal as Ex. PW17/A. PW7 Shri Ganesh Kumar has deposed that he had purchased plot measuring 1000 Sq. Yrds from Sh. Raj Kumar. The original sale deed had lost from Page 20 of 61 21 CC No. 39/08 CBI Vs. Sangeeta Arora etc. Judgment dt. 22.12.2015 him and thereafter he lodged an FIR to that effect. He has proved the documents i.e. General Power Attorney, Agreement to Sell, affidavit, Will receipts of the aforesaid property executed by Raj Kumar in his favour as Ex. PW7/A2 to Ex. PW7/A5.

PW10 Shri Narayan Dass has deposed in the year 2001, he was posted as an LDC in the Record Room, Kashmere Gate. He has proved the sale deed Ex. PW10/A (D29). The copy of the sale deed dt. 13.6.98 (D37) does not tally with the certified copy of the sale deed i.e. Ex.PW10/A. PW28 Shri Sham Chand has deposed that during the year 1988, he was posted as Sub RegistrarII, Kashmere Gate, Delhi. The signatures appearing on the sale deed Ex.PW15/A (D37) does not belong to him.

PW31 Shri M.N. Sharma has deposed that he has been practicing as an advocate. The sale deed Ex. PW15/A bears his fake seal and signatures. He had never drafted any such sale deed.

PW29 Shri Mahendra Singh has deposed that in the year 2002, he was posted as Dy. Works Manager in India Security Press, Nasik Road, Nasik, Maharashtra. He had conducted the examination of non judicial stamp paper Ex.PW15/A (D37) of Rs. 2000/ denomination and found that this stamp paper was forged. He has proved the report in this respect as Ex. PW29/A. Page 21 of 61 22 CC No. 39/08 CBI Vs. Sangeeta Arora etc. Judgment dt. 22.12.2015 PW29 has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused persons.

PW4 Shri Anil Kumar Singh has deposed that the photographs on the deed of guarantee which is Ex. PW1/6 is of Shri M.G.Singh. Mr. S.N. Singh is his brother who was serving in the Army. He cannot say exactly as to whether he had met Mr. M.G.Singh on visiting his factory.

PW9 Shri Suraj Garg has deposed that he is Charted Accountant by Profession. The tax audit report, Profit & Loss Account and Balance Sheet for the year ending 31.3.1998 of M/s Rajual Merchandise Company (Page 259 to 267 in file D36) does not bear his signatures. He had never provided any services regarding the aforesaid documents to M/s Rajaul Merchandise Company. He knew the accused Sanjay Malik as he had shared his office for about six months around 1995. He cannot say as to who had used the name of his firm for making balance sheets used in the matter of M/s Rajual Merchandise Co.

In cross examination by A1, PW9 has denied the suggestion that he or anyone from his office had audited the accounts of M/s Rajual Merchandise Co. He has also denied the suggestion that he has regularly audited the accounts of M/s Rajual Merchandise Co. He has also denied the suggestion that all the signatures appearing on the accounts statements pertain to himself.

PW12 Shri Ravinder Malik has deposed that he is doing the consultancy work since 19961997. Sanjay Malik is related to him, who is a Page 22 of 61 23 CC No. 39/08 CBI Vs. Sangeeta Arora etc. Judgment dt. 22.12.2015 Chartered Accountant by profession. The letter of proprietorship has been written by him on the instructions of Sh. Sanjay Malik, who had asked him to assist Sh. Dilip Kumar for opening an account in the bank. The letter of proprietorship is Ex. PW12/A (D30). The account opening form in his handwriting is Ex.PW16/A and photo appearing on it belongs to Sh. Dilip Kumar. The pay in slip dt. 21.08.1999 having particulars of banker cheque No. 305938 is in his handwriting and is Ex. PW24/B. He has handed over to Sh. Dilip Kumar. after filling the particulars in the pay in slip. The self cheque bearing no. 820121 dt. 21.08.1999 for an amount of Rs. 4,40,000/ and self cheque bearing No. 820122 dt. 21.08.1999 for an amount of Rs. 4,50,000/ are in his handwriting bearing his signatures on the reverse side of the cheque and has also the signatures of Sh. Dilip Kumar are Ex. PW24/C and Ex. PW24/D respectively. Both the cheques were encashed by Shri Dalip Kumar.

In cross examination by Ld. PP, PW12 has deposed that Sh. Sanjay Malik and Bipin Kakkar had asked him to assist Sh. Dilip Kumar in opening an account in the Corporation Bank, Janak Puri Branch. Sh. Sanjay Malik had asked Sh. Chander Shekhar Juneja, Proprietor of M/s Krishna Color Lab to introduce the account. He has deposed that he had not stated to the IO that after obtaining the cheque book, Sh. Sanjay Malik and Bipin Kakkar kept the cheque book in their custody after getting it signed by Sh. Dilip Kumar on both sides of Page 23 of 61 24 CC No. 39/08 CBI Vs. Sangeeta Arora etc. Judgment dt. 22.12.2015 cheques. and that banker's cheque was handed over to him by Bipin Kakkar. Sh. Bipin Kakkar had instructed him to get the banker's cheque to get it deposited in the account of Ravi Industries and then withdraw the money of Rs. 8.9 lacs. He do not know for what purpose the payment of Rs. 9 lacs from M/s Rajual Merchandising Co. was received by Bipin Kakkar. He had not stated before the IO that he has received cheque Ex.PW24/C & Ex.PW24/D from Bipin Kakkar. He had received the cheque of Rs. 9 lacs from Sh. Dilip Kumar for depositing in the bank. He has denied the suggestion that he had not received a cheque of Rs. 9 lacs from Sh. Dilip Kumar, but, from Bipin Kakkar. He had not stated before the IO that he had withdrawn the money of Rs. 8.9 lacs and handed over to Bipin Kakkar in bank itself. He has denied the suggestion that he had withdrawn Rs. 8.9 lacs from the bank.

PW12 has been confronted with the statement recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C. which is Ex. PW12/PX. He had made the statement before Ld. MM recorded U/s 164 Cr.P.C. which is Ex. PW12/A2. Ex. PW12/A2 has been made by him as per the writing given to him by the IO one day prior to making the statement by calling him at his office.

In cross examination by the accused A5, PW12 has deposed that he had entered the particulars in the account opening form as per the instructions received from Sh. Dilip Kumar. He was threatened by the IO for false implication in the case as the account opening form, body of the cheque were in his handwriting.

Page 24 of 61 25 CC No. 39/08

CBI Vs. Sangeeta Arora etc. Judgment dt. 22.12.2015 The body of the cheque was also filled by him at the instance of Dilip Kumar. It was Dilip Kumar only who was operating the account of Ravi Industries.

In cross examination on behalf of the A4, PW12 has deposed that Dalip gave the cheques Ex.PW24/C & Ext.PW24/D and he filled up the face of the cheques, then, Dilip Kumar signed on the cheques in his presence. He knew Sh. Dilip for last about 13 years. He used to take financial advice from him. He is the financial consultant and help in providing loans, finances etc as well as in banking related works. When he testified that Sanjay Malik and Bipin Kakkar had asked him to assist Dalip Kumar, he meant any type of assistance like opening of accounts and financial consultancy etc. PW13 Shri Churchill Singh Chadha has deposed that he knew Sangeeta Arora as she was their family friend and she has started business in the name of Rajual Merchandising Company. She wanted to do some business so she approached Chartered Accountant Mr. Sanjay Malik and Mr. Vipin Kakkar and they discussed about the loan from bank . He was in the office of M/s Rajual Merchandising when Mr. Sanjay Malik or Mr. Vipin Kakkar alongwith Mr. Meena visited the office.

In cross examination, PW13 has deposed that he had not stated in his statement recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C. that Sangeeta Arora wanted to do some business and had approached Mr. Sanjay Malik and Mr. Vipin Kakkar. He do not remember as to on which date Sangeeta Arora had Page 25 of 61 26 CC No. 39/08 CBI Vs. Sangeeta Arora etc. Judgment dt. 22.12.2015 approached Sanjay Malik and Bipin Kakkar, it was probably, in the year 199697. He do not remember the date when Mr. Sanjay Malik, Bipin Kakkar alongwith Mr. Meena, the then Manager of the bank came to the office of M/s Rajual Merchandising. Probably, it was a talk of 1997.

PW16 Shri Chander Shekhar Juneja has deposed that he knew Sh. Dilip Kumar through Sh. Ravinder Malik who is residing in their vicinity. He has introduced the A/c No. 50220 in the Corporation Bank, Janak Puri Branch, New Delhi which was opened by Sh. Dilip Kumar in the name of M/s Ravi Industries. He has introduced the account No. 50148 in the Corporation Bank which was opened by one Sanjay Malik and Bipin Chander Paul Kakkar in the name of M/s Perfect Associates Pvt. Ltd. on 17.04.1998. The account opening form of M/s Ravi Industries and of Perfect Associates Pvt. Ltd. are Ex.PW16/A and Ex. PW16/A1 respectively. He introduced the said account on the asking of Sh. Ravinder Malik.

In cross examination of Ld. PP, PW16 has deposed that he do not remember as to whether I had stated to CBI that he had introduced Dilip Kumar for opening the account at the instance of Sanjay Malik.

PW18 Shri Lalit Kumar Sharma has deposed that he has remained posted as Postman in the Dabri village during the year 20012002. He cannot tell about the address No. 23A, Gali No. 4, Dabri Village, Post Office , Palam Delhi.

PW24 Shri Dilip Kumar has deposed that he was working in M.L. Malik & Company from 1990 to 1996. After a gap of one year, he again joined the Page 26 of 61 27 CC No. 39/08 CBI Vs. Sangeeta Arora etc. Judgment dt. 22.12.2015 aforesaid company and remained there from 1997 to 2001. The company was being run by Sh. Sanjay Malik. He has opened the account no. 50220 dt. 15.09.1998 in the Corporation Bank, Janak Puri Branch. The account opening form is Ex. PW16/A. Ex. PW16/A is filled up in the handwriting of Sh. Ravinder Malik. The letter of proprietorship dt. 15.09.1998 which is Ex. PW12/A is filled up in the handwriting of Sh. Ravinder Malik. The A/c No. 50220 was opened in the name of Ravi Industries on the instructions of Sh. Sanjay Malik and Sh. Bipin Kakkar. The payin slip dt. 21.08.1999 for an amount of Rs. 9 lacs which is Ex. PW24/B is filled up in the handwriting of Sh. Ravinder Malik and vide this payin slip Ex. PW3/B pay order dt. 20.08.1999 for an amount of Rs. 9 lacs was deposited. The cheque bearing no. 820121 Ex. PW24/C and cheque bearing No. 820122 which is Ex. PW24/D bears his signatures but the particulars mentioned in the cheque are in the handwriting of Sh. Ravinder Malik. He has not withdrawn the amount of Rs.8,90,000/ against the aforesaid cheques. He had also opened an account in the name of M/s Eagle Industries and Compact Concrete Product on the instructions of Sanjay Malik and Bipin Kakkar. The cheque books which were issued in the aforesaid accounts were taken from him by Sanjay Malik and Bipin Kakkar after getting his signatures on the cheque books. He has proved the statement of accounts of M/s Ravi Industries Ex. PW24/F and also the statement recorded U/s 164 Cr.P.C. as Ex. PW24/E. In cross examination on behalf of A5, PW24 has deposed that Page 27 of 61 28 CC No. 39/08 CBI Vs. Sangeeta Arora etc. Judgment dt. 22.12.2015 Ravinder Malik had met him in the office and then he accompanied him to the bank. He never visited the bank after opening the bank account of Ravi Industries. He had received the cheque book after 23 days of opening the bank account. He has denied the suggestion that the account of M/s Ravi Industries was being operated solely by him and that Sh. Bipin Kakkar or Sh. Sanjay Malik had no concern with the same. He has also denied the suggestion that he was not employed with M/s M.L. Malik & Co. He has further denied the suggestion that an amount of Rs. 8.9 lacs were not withdrawn by him.

In cross examination on behalf of the A4, PW24 has deposed that he had not shown salary as his income in his income tax return, though, he was earning salary.

PW26 Shri Gurmeet Singh has deposed that he had worked with Malik & Co., Paschim Vihar, New Delhi for 2 ½ years. The firm/company was run by the accused Sanjay Malik and Bipin Kakkar. The company by the name of Atlanta was formed in his name by the accused Sanjay Malik and Bipin Kakkar and the account of this firm was opened in Corporation Bank, Janak Puri, Delhi. The account of the said firm was being maintained by them. The cheque book of the said account remained with them. He is known to Sh. Dilip Kumar who was working in Sanjay Malik & Co. He had also opened an account in the name of M/s Ravi Industries in Corporation Bank which was got opened by Sanjay Malik and Bipin Kakkar.

Page 28 of 61 29 CC No. 39/08

CBI Vs. Sangeeta Arora etc. Judgment dt. 22.12.2015 In cross examination on behalf of the accused A6, PW26 has deposed that he he do not file income tax return. He do not know if he is Director of 24 companies. He do not have any ICard to show that he is working in the firm Today Homes. M/s Today Homes had made him Director of a few companies. Later on, they removed him from the Directorship. He was only a dummy Director He do not have any document to show that he had worked in Malik & Co. He has denied the suggestion that he had never worked for Bipin Kakkar and Sanjay Malik.

In cross examination on behalf of A5, PW26 has deposed that he do not remember the date when the account in the name of Atlanta Company was opened in the Corporation Bank, Janak Puri, Delhi. He do not remember the particulars of the account such as A/c number, introducer etc. He do not remember when the account in the name of M/s Ravi Industries was opened. At that time, he was not present in the bank. He has denied the suggestion that he along with Dilip were in the business of trading and was earning commissions for providing accommodation entries to various companies, firms and individuals.

PW32 Dr. R. Sharma, Dy. Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, CFSL Unit has deposed that the documents of this case have been received in the laboratory vide letter Ex.PW32/A. The questioned documents and specimen documents in respect of different persons were received. After careful and thorough examination, he came to the conclusion and his report is Page 29 of 61 30 CC No. 39/08 CBI Vs. Sangeeta Arora etc. Judgment dt. 22.12.2015 Ex.PW32/B. He has also given the supplementary report which is Ext.PW32/D. The reasons for the opinion in respect of these reports are Ex.PW32/F & Ex.PW32/G respectively. PW32 has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused persons.

PW33 Insp. R.K. Saha, the Investigating Officer of the case has deposed that the instant case was entrusted to him vide FIR Ex. PW33/A. During the course of investigation, he collected the documents from the bank as well as from other authorities against proper seizure memos Ex. PW11/A, PW33/A1, Ex. PW3/C, Ex. PW33/A2, Ex. PW7/A, Ex. PW5/A and Ex. PW1/10, Ex. PW33/A3. During the course of investigation, Ms. Sangeeta Arora, Shambhu Nath Singh, Sh. Moti Lal Joshi, Moti Lal, Anil Vashisht, M.N. Sharma, Tilak Raj, Suraj Bhan Garg, Sham Chand, Bipin Chandra, Govind Ram Meena, Ravinder Malik, Dalip Kumar gave specimen writings/signatures. He has sent the documents to FSL and has obtained the reports from the FSL. He got recorded the statement of of Sh. Dilip Kumar and Sh.Ravinder Malik u/s 164 CrPC which are Ex.PW24/E and Ext.PW12/A2 respectively. He has received the sanction order dt. 17.5.2002 which is Ex. PW25/A for prosecution of the accused G.R. Meena from the competent authority. After completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet.

In cross examination on behalf of A4 and A5, PW33 has deposed that he did not investigate as to when the cheque book containing cheques Ex.PW24/C and Ex.PW24/D was issued by the bank to M/s Ravi Industries. He Page 30 of 61 31 CC No. 39/08 CBI Vs. Sangeeta Arora etc. Judgment dt. 22.12.2015 has not seized any proof of employment of Dilip and Gurmeet. (Voltd. It was not provided by the employer.) In cross examination on behalf of the accused A2, PW33 has deposed that no phone call details of the accused were taken in investigation. No evidence has come on record to show his visits to the bank.

In cross examination on behalf of the accused A6, PW33 has deposed that Advocate has given false certificate of the mortgage property stating that it was free from all encumbrance and the deed of the property was complete and fit for mortgage with the bank. Sh. V. P. Aneja, the Government approved valuer, had given a false valuation of the said property. DEFENCE WITNESSES A1/DW1 Shri R.G. Meena, Manager Branch Operation, State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Nehru Place, New Delhi has deposed that the compromise and the one time settlement had been entered into and the entire amount of the settlement had already been deposited by the borrower company i.e. M/s Rajual Merchandising Co. to the bank. The entire settlement amount had been paid to the bank and no due left and the account has been closed.

A4/DW1 Ms. Mahima Arora, Inspector Income Tax has deposed that she has brought alongwith her the record of Sh. Dilip Kumar having PAN No. ANEPK1362N. As per his address, he is an income tax assesses and filed his income tax return. As per their record, the income tax return of assessment year 20072008 of Mr. Dilip Kumar was filed online and is Ex.A4/DW1/A. The record Page 31 of 61 32 CC No. 39/08 CBI Vs. Sangeeta Arora etc. Judgment dt. 22.12.2015 prior to 20072008 is not available in their ward because he had not filed his returns prior to it.

A4/DW2 Shri Amarjeet, Tax Assistant has deposed that a raid was conducted by the income tax department in the premises of Sh. Gurmeet Singh.

A4/DW3 Shri Praveen Kumar Sharma, Manager (Operation), State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Nehru Place, New Delhi has deposed that the cheque book bearing no. 720051 to 720100 was issued to Rajual Merchandising Co. on 01.07.1999.

A5/DW1 Shri Data Ram, Sr. Technic al Assistant has deposed that as per the records, the Gurmeet Singh Matharu was a Director in 49 companies. The certified copy of Director Identification Number pertaining to Gurmeet Singh Matharu is Ex. A5/DW1/A. A5/DW2 Shri Batar Mahato from Corporation Bank has deposed that as per the letter, Ex. A5/DW2A cheque book bearing cheque no.'s 79696 to 97700 was issued on 18.09.1998, cheque no.'s 818151 to 818200 was issued on 09.03.1999, cheque no.'s 820101 to 820150 was issued on 09.05.1999, cheque no.'s 827401 to 827450 was issued on 18.12.1999. The cheque book issuance register pertaining to the account and the application for closure of the account no. 050220 of Ravi Industries have been destroyed at our end being more than ten years old. The statement of account for the period 15.09.1998 to 31.03.1999 is Ex.A5/DW2/B (two sheets).

5. I have heard the Ld. PP for the CBI and Ld. Counsels for the Page 32 of 61 33 CC No. 39/08 CBI Vs. Sangeeta Arora etc. Judgment dt. 22.12.2015 accused persons and perused the file.

Ld. PP for the CBI has argued that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons. From the evidence on record, it is proved that A1 has furnished the false and forged documents in the bank to avail credit facilities. A1 has also furnished the fake guarantor and fake sale deed of property as collateral security to avail credit facilities.

A2 and A3 has procured false valuation report and false legal search report of the property No. 35/12, Village Nangli Sakrawati, Delhi.

A4 and A5 has arranged the forged documents for A1 and has siphoned of Rs. Nine lacs from loan account of A1 for their firm M/s Ravi Industries.

A6 has accepted the forged documents and fake guarantor and has released the credit facilities to M/s Rajual Merchandising Company without following rules and norms of the bank.

From the evidence on record, it is proved that all the accused persons has entered into criminal conspiracy to cheat the bank and in pursuance of that criminal conspiracy false and forged documents were got prepared and filed in the bank resulting in sanctioning the credit facilities to A1 and thereby causing wrongful loss to the bank and wrongful gain to the accused persons.

On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the accused A1 has argued that A1 has been falsely implicated in the case. A1 has not cheated the bank nor has prepared any forged documents. It is A4 and A5 who had arranged the loan Page 33 of 61 34 CC No. 39/08 CBI Vs. Sangeeta Arora etc. Judgment dt. 22.12.2015 from the bank and A1 has signed the blank stamp paper and plain papers as required by A4 and A5. A1 has never visited the bank and is not aware of the banking process and so she blindly trusted A4 and A5. A1 was asked by A4 and A5 to issue blank cheque as it is required for the loan process for security. By using that cheque A4 and A5 has withdrawn Rs. Nine lacs from her account. A1 was regular returning the loan amount and had cleared complete outstanding of the bank.

Ld. Counsels for the accused A2 and A3 has argued that there is no evidence on record to link the A2 and A3 with the alleged offences. Both of them have been falsely implicated in the case.

Ld. counsels for the accused A4 and A5 has argued that A4 and A5 has been falsely implicated with ulterior motive. IO has malafidely conducted the investigation and filed the false charge sheet against A4 and A5. There is no evidence on record to show that A4 and A5 were instrumental in the opening of the bank account of the A1 and in the execution of documents by A1 and guarantor with the bank and has arranged the forged documents as alleged by the prosecution. There is no reliable evidence on record to prove that M/s Ravi Industries belongs to A4 and A5 and they got opened the account of M/s Ravi Industries at Corporation Bank and has siphoned of EPC of Rs. Nine lacs of M/s Rajual Merchandising Company to M/s Ravi Industries.

It is the A1, who after having applied for loan and submitted the relevant documents, had approached A4 and A5 for their professional services Page 34 of 61 35 CC No. 39/08 CBI Vs. Sangeeta Arora etc. Judgment dt. 22.12.2015 as they are Charted Accountants and running a company in the name to Perfect Associates Pvt. Ltd. A1 has issued the cheque of Rs. 1 lac towards initial payment fee for engaging their services. However, that cheque was dishonoured on 18.4.1998 even before the start of providing services by Perfect associates. In the absence of initial payment fee, no service was provided by A4 and A5 to A1. A4 and A5 has no role in the alleged conspiracy. There is no evidence on record which would prove that they are involved in the commission of alleged offences.

Ld. counsel for the accused A6 has argued that A6 has been falsely implicated in the case. A6 has not violated any banking rules while processing the proposal. Whatever A6 has done it was totally in the official capacity in the due course of business to discharge his official duties. The evidence brought on record by the prosecution does not prove that A1 has committed the misconduct and has in any way entered into the conspiracy with co accused persons to cheat the bank.

6. ROLE OF ACCUSED SANGEETA ARORA (A1)

(i) PW1 Shri K.N. Mishra Gopal has deposed that the accused Sangeeta Arora, Proprietor of M/s Rajual Merchandising Company has opened the current account in the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (SBBJ), Nehru Place Branch, New Delhi on 12.2.1998. This current account has been authorized by the accused G.R. Meena. He has proved the account opening form as Ex. PW1/1.

PW8 Sh. Pukhraj Kanther has deposed that the accused G.R. Meena was working as Manager (C&I). PW8 has proved the proposal for Page 35 of 61 36 CC No. 39/08 CBI Vs. Sangeeta Arora etc. Judgment dt. 22.12.2015 credit facilities amounting to Rs. 35,00,000/ fund based in favour of M/s Rajual Merchandising Co. recommended on 11.3.98 by the accused G.R. Meena, as Ex. PW8/A1.

On the basis of Ex. PW8/A1, PW8 has accorded his sanction on 14.3.98. On the basis of this sanction, the accused G.R. Meena issued the sanction letter dt. 14.3.98 Ex. PW8/A2 to M/s Rajual Merchandising Co. regarding the sanctioning the credit facilities which are as follows: Nature of facilities Sanctioned limit (Rupees in lacs)

1. EPC (Hyp.) Rs. 15.00

2. FBP/FBD (Docy) Rs. 35.00 Ceiling on fund based limit Rs. 35.00 PW1 has deposed that the accused Sangeeta Arora executed the documents with the accused G.R. Meena on behalf of the bank which are proved on record as follows: a. Agreement of loan for over all limits dt. 26.3.98 as Ex. PW1/4. b. Agreement of Hypothetic of goods and assets dt. 26.3.98 as Ex.

PW1/5.

c. Letter regarding the grant of individual limits within the over limit dt.

26.3.98 as Ex. PW1/8

PW1 has also proved the deed of Guarantee dt. 26.3.98 given on behalf of the guarantor Jagdish Lal Segan to secure credit facilities as Page 36 of 61 37 CC No. 39/08 CBI Vs. Sangeeta Arora etc. Judgment dt. 22.12.2015 Ex. PW1/6 and the affidavit of Jagdish Lal Segan guarantor dt. 26.3.98 affirming himself to be the owner of the property bearing No. 35/12, Village Nangli, Sakrawati, Delhi as Ex. PW1/7.

PW8 proved the request letter dt. 23.4.98 of the accused Sangeeta Arora for the release of EPC as Ex. PW8/A3.

PW1 has deposed that opinion reports of the accused Sangeeta Arora and of the guarantor Shri Jagdish Lal were prepared by the accused G.R. Meena and has been proved as Ex. PW1/PX9. These reports were prepared on the basis of assets and liability statements Ex. PW1/PX10 prepared by Suraj Garg and Associates and the break up of sales from 1.4.97 to 31.1.98 Ex. PW1/PX11 submitted by the accused Sangeeta Arora.

ii) PW9 Shri Suraj Garg has deposed that the tax audit report, Profit & Loss Account and Balance Sheet for the year ending 31.3.1998 of M/s Rajual Merchandise Company does not bear his signatures. He had never provided any services regarding the aforesaid documents to M/s Rajaul Merchandising Company. He cannot say as to who had used the name of his firm for making balance sheets used in the matter of M/s Rajual Merchandising Co.

PW32 Dr. R. Sharma has opined in his report Ex. PW32/F that seal impression of Suraj Garg and Associates on documents Ex. PW1/PX10 and on the documents Ex. PW32/A5 which are audit reports, statement of accounts, balance sheet does not telly with the sample seal impression of Suraj Garg and Associates.

From the evidence of PW9 and from the report of Ex. PW32/F, it is Page 37 of 61 38 CC No. 39/08 CBI Vs. Sangeeta Arora etc. Judgment dt. 22.12.2015 proved that the accused Sangeeta Arora has furnished the forged financial documents to procure credit limits from the bank.

iii) PW19 Shri Bhuwnesh Kumar Bansal has proved the letter dt. 26.3.98 of the guarantor Shri Jagdish Lal to the bank regarding mortgage of property measuring 1000 sq. yards out of Khasra No. 35/12, Nangli Sakrawati, New Delhi (hereinafter be referred as 'Said Property'). PW19 has also deposed that the sale deed of the 'said property' which is Ex. PW15/A has been submitted in the bank by the accused Sangeeta Arora and Jagidsh Lal.

Perusal of the Ex. PW15/A shows that the sale deed of the 'said property' has been registered on 13.6.88 between vendor namely Anil Vashisht and Vendee namely Major Jagdish Lal Segan.

Shri Anil Vashisht has been examined as PW15 and he has deposed that in the year 1988 the said property was sold by him to Jagdish Lal Segan. He has proved the copy of the sale deed dt. 14.6.88 as Ex. PW10/A. He has deposed that the sale deed Ex. PW15/A has not been executed by him and it does not bear his signature. As per the FSL report Ex. PW32/F also, sale deed Ex. PW15/A does not bear the signature of Anil Vashisht.

PW5 Shri Raj Kumar Segan has deposed that the said property was in the name of his father Major Jagdish Lal and the said property was sold in the year 1996 by him to Sh. Ganesh Prashad. His father Jagdish Lal has died on 30.12.90 and he has proved the death certificate of his father as Ex. PW17/A. PW5 has also deposed that the deed of guarantee which is Ex. PW1/6 and the Page 38 of 61 39 CC No. 39/08 CBI Vs. Sangeeta Arora etc. Judgment dt. 22.12.2015 affidavit Ex. PW1/7 does not bear the signatures of his father. He has also deposed that the photograph appearing on Ex. PW1/6 is not of his father. PW5 has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused persons.

PW17 Shri Chander Prakash has also proved the death certificate of Shri Jagdish Lal as Ex. PW17/A. PW10 Shri Narayan Dass who is from the Record Room, Kashmere Gate has deposed that Ex. PW10/A does not tally with the Ex.PW15/A. PW28 Shri Sham Chand who is the Sub RegistrarII, Kashmere Gate, Delhi has deposed that the signatures appearing on the sale deed Ex.PW15/A does not belong to him.

PW31 Shri M.N. Sharma has deposed that the sale deed Ex. PW15/A bears his fake seal and signatures and he had never drafted any such sale deed.

PW29 Shri Mahendra Singh who is the expert and has proved his report as Ex. PW29/A and as per the report, the non judicial stamp paper of Ex.PW15/A of Rs. 2000/ denomination was forged.

PW7 Shri Ganesh Kumar has deposed that he had purchased the said property from Sh. Raj Kumar.

From the evidence of PW15, PW5, PW10, PW28, PW31 and from the report Ex. PW29/A, it is proved that sale deed Ex. PW15/A is a forged sale deed.

Page 39 of 61 40 CC No. 39/08

CBI Vs. Sangeeta Arora etc. Judgment dt. 22.12.2015

iv) PW3 Shri Rajender Singh Chauhan has deposed that EPC of rupees ten lakhs was released on 20.8.1999 to M/s Rajual Merchandising Company. The Bankers cheque bearing no. 305938 dated 20.8.1999 which is Ex. PW3/B for a sum of Rs.9 lakh was issued in favour of M/s Ravi Industries. The EPC was released on the condition that the party shall submit the documents against the export within 21 days, but the party did not submit the export documents to realise outstanding EPC of ten lakhs.

PW27 Shri A.K. Garg has proved the cheque bearing no. 720057 dated 20.8.1999 for an amount of Rs.9,00,585/ as Ex. PW19/B which was issued by the accused Sangeeta Arora for issuing a bankers cheque of Rs.9,00,000/ in favour of M/s Ravi Industries.

From the evidence of PW3, PW8 and PW27, it has been proved that on 20.8.99 EPC of Rs. Ten lacs was released to M/s Rajual Merchandising Company and on the same day the banker cheque Ex. PW3/B of the amount of Rs. 9,00,000/ has been issued in favour of M/s Ravi Industries on the basis of cheque Ex. PW19/B of the accused Sangeeta Arora.

PW3 has also deposed that after the EPC is released, the amount is credited in the current account of the party by debiting the EPC account. The party cannot use the amount of EPC released by the bank for any other purpose for which it was given to the party.

Page 40 of 61 41 CC No. 39/08

CBI Vs. Sangeeta Arora etc. Judgment dt. 22.12.2015 From the evidence of PW3, it is also evident that the amount of Rs. 9,00,000/ out of EPC amount of Rs. 10,00,000/ has not been used for the purpose for which it was given to the accused Sangeeta Arora as the accused has failed to submit the documents against the export within prescribed period.

v) As per the evidence of PW5 and death certificate Ex. PW17/A Jagdish Lal Segan has expired on 30.12.90. However, guarantee deed Ex. PW1/6 and the affidavit Ex. PW1/7 are dt. 26.3.98 and has been shown to be executed by Major Jagdish Lal Segan. It proves that fictitious person has impersonated as Major Jagdish Lal Segan while executing the guarantee deed in favour of the bank and submitted the forged sale deed with bank discussed above.

vi) Statement of the EPC account of the bank of M/s Rajaul Merchandising Company which is Ex. PW3/A1 and Ex. PW3/A2 shows that the first EPC of Rs. 12 lacs was released on 2.5.98. The last EPC of Rs. 10 lacs was released on 20.8.99. In between these entries, there are also entries of EPC released and of credits. Statement of account of FBP/FBD of M/s Rajaul Merchandising Company which is Ex. PW1/13 shows that the last bill negotiated in the account was on 19.8.99 and which was crystallized on 8.12.99. The FIR has been registered on 22.2.01. The protected bill register which is Ex. PW3/A shows that the outstanding amount against the accused Sangeeta Arora was Rs.

Page 41 of 61 42 CC No. 39/08

CBI Vs. Sangeeta Arora etc. Judgment dt. 22.12.2015 29,56,164/ as on 22.2.01.

vii) Section 415 IPC read as follows:

Cheating: "Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "Cheat"."

Section 420 IPC read as follows:

Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property: "Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."

Section 463 IPC read as follows: Forgery: "Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to Page 42 of 61 43 CC No. 39/08 CBI Vs. Sangeeta Arora etc. Judgment dt. 22.12.2015 the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery."

Section 468 IPC read as follows: Forgery for purpose of cheating: "Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."

Section 471 IPC read as follows: Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record: "Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document or electronic record which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document or electronic record, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document or electronic record."

viii) The accused Sangeeta Arora has not disputed her signature on the documents which are alleged by the prosecution has been signed by her and it has also been proved from the report Ex. PW32/F that the alleged signatures on the documents are of the accused Sangeeta Arora.

The accused Sangeeta Arora has taken the defence that she has Page 43 of 61 44 CC No. 39/08 CBI Vs. Sangeeta Arora etc. Judgment dt. 22.12.2015 never visited the bank. It is the accused Sanjay Malik and Bipin Chandar Kakkar who had arranged the loan for her from the bank and she has signed stamp papers and plain papers as required by them. The accused Sangeeta Arora has not led any evidence in her defence and has also not put any such suggestion to any of the prosecution witnesses. In my view, the defence taken by the accused Sangeeta Arora is without any merit and it is not reliable.

ix) From the evidence on record as discussed above, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused Smt. Sangeeta Arora has submitted the false documents i.e. assets and liability statement, financial documents, forged sale deed and fictitious guarantee and forged sale deed as a collateral security with the bank to avail the credit facilities and thereby dishonestly induced the bank to sanction fund based export credit limits of Rs. 35 lacs and that the accused Sangeeta Arora has dishonestly used these false documents as genuine despite having knowledge that these are forged documents. However, there is no evidence on record to prove the fact that the accused Sangeeta Arora has forged these documents. Accordingly, the accused Sangeeta Arora has committed the offences punishable U/s 420 IPC and U/s 471 IPC.

7. ROLE OF THE ACCUSED G.R. MEENA (A6)

i) The accused G.R. Meena has authorized the opening of the current account of the accused Smt. Sangeeta Arora vide account opening form Ex. PW1/1. It has been mentioned by the accused Smt. Sangeeta Arora in the column relating Page 44 of 61 45 CC No. 39/08 CBI Vs. Sangeeta Arora etc. Judgment dt. 22.12.2015 to the name of the bank with whom she was enjoying the facility as Corporation Bank, Greater KailashII, Delhi.

PW14 has proved the certificate dt. 11.2.98 of Corporation Bank, Foreign Exchange Section Branch, Greater KailashII, New Delhi as Ex. PW14/A certifying that M/s Rajual Merchandising Company has been maintaining account with them since 25.10.97.

On the basis of proposal Ex.PW8/A1 of the accused G.R. Meena, PW8 has accorded his sanction on 14.3.98. The documents Ex. PW1/4, Ex. PW1/5, Ex. PW1/8 has been executed by him on behalf of the bank.

PW8 has deposed that it is mandatory that there should be a formal request from the party for the grant of credit facilities. The accused Sangeeta Arora might have submitted the application for the grant of loan in the bank. In the agreement of loan which is Ex. PW1/4, it has been mentioned that vide application dt. 2.3.98 the borrower has requested the bank to finance the business of the borrower's.

In view of the evidence of PW8 and the clause in Ex. PW1/4, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused G.R. Meena has prepared the proposal for the sanction of credit facilities without the application/request from the accused Sangeeta Arora.

ii) PW8 has deposed that he has made remarks on the proposal Ex.

Page 45 of 61 46 CC No. 39/08

CBI Vs. Sangeeta Arora etc. Judgment dt. 22.12.2015 PW8/A1 for limits to be released only after mutation in favour of Bank noted by Revenue Authority. As per the statement of account of M/s Rajual Merchandising Co. which is Ex. PW3/A1, the first EPC of Rs. 12 lacs was released to M/s Rajual Merchandising Co on 2.5.98. The document Ex. PW1/PX which is the copy of Khatoni shows that the mutation of the 'said property' in favour of the bank was done on 27.3.98 by the revenue authorities. From these facts, it is proved that first EPC to M/s Rajual Merchandising Co. was released only after the mutation of the property in favour of the bank was got done.

iii) The document Ex. PW1/PX which is the inspection report shows that the inspection of the premises of M/s Rajual Merchandising Co. was conducted by the accused G.R. Meena on 19.8.99. On that report, PW8 has remarked "please do surprise inspection from time to time in future maintain close follow up".

Ex. PW8/A8 which is the inspection report shows that the inspection of the premises of M/s Rajual Merchandising Co. was conducted by Shri Ranjeet Dutt, Chief Manager of SBBJ on 29.5.99. On that report, PW8 has remarked "Please ensure that the party adhers to the prescribed system in maintaining of proper record. Please inspect within a week and report".

The document Ex. PW1/PX5 is the irregularity report of M/s Page 46 of 61 47 CC No. 39/08 CBI Vs. Sangeeta Arora etc. Judgment dt. 22.12.2015 Rajual Merchandising Co. which has been put up by the accused G.R. Meena and PW8 to the Controller Zonal office, New Delhi. Ex. PW1/PX3 is the letter dt. 15.12.98 of PW8 to M/s Rajual Merchandising Co. for the submission of the balance sheet immediately. Ex. PW8/A7 is the letter dt. 5.9.98 of M/s Rajual Merchandising Co.to the Manager and on which it has been remarked by PW8 to the accused G.R. Meena "we should do only LCs business, even EPC should be released after receipt of LCs only. Ex. PW8/A6 is the inspection report dt. 1.9.08 which was conducted in the premises of M/s Rajual Merchandising Co. by the accused G.R. Meena and on this inspection report it has been remarked by PW8 to accused G.R. Meena that since there are problem of realization we should stop extending EP FBP/FBD against firm orders. The firm should have valid LC".

PW1 has deposed that the accused G.R. Meena has prepared the opinion report of the accused Smt. Sangeeta Arora and Shri Jagdish Lai, Guarantor which are Ex.PW1/PX9 on the basis of financial statements which are Ex. PW1/PX10 and Ex. PW1/PX11.

PW8 has deposed that valuation report and legal search report has been prepared in respect of the collateral security. The advocate and valuer of the bank who had prepared their reports were on the panel of the bank.

PW6 Shri S.N. Relan has deposed he was on the panel of the Page 47 of 61 48 CC No. 39/08 CBI Vs. Sangeeta Arora etc. Judgment dt. 22.12.2015 bank and has submitted the legal search report on 2.9.1998 which is Ex. PW6/A regarding the property. He has prepared the report after verifying the records of SubRegistrar office at Kashmiri Gate and SubRegistrar office at Janak Puri. As per the report Ex. PW6/A, the 'said property' has been free from all encumbrances. The complete chain of title deed of the said property has been examined and found in order and complete in all respect.

PW20 has proved the valuation report dt. 24.12.97 of the 'said property' as Ex. PW20/A. As per the report Ex. PW20/A, the valuation of the said property has been assessed at Rs. 55 lacs only. It is also reported in the report that the said property was a vacant plot and no revenue authority was available to identify the plot.

iv) From the evidence on record, it is clear that the accused G.R. Meena while preparing the proposal for sanction of the credit facilities to the accused Smt. Sangeeta Arora, has acted upon the financial statements furnished by the accused Smt. Sangeeta Arora and also on the legal search report Ex. PW6/A and the valuation report Ex. PW20/A of the said property. Both PW6 and PW20, who had prepared the reports Ex. PW6/A and Ex. PW20/A respectively were on the panel of the bank.

There is no evidence on record to prove that the accused G.R. Meena was having knowledge or has reasons to believe that the documents filed before him by the accused Sangeeta Arora and the reports are false documents.

Page 48 of 61 49 CC No. 39/08

CBI Vs. Sangeeta Arora etc. Judgment dt. 22.12.2015

v) PW30 has deposed that he had conducted an inquiry in respect of account of M/s Rajual Merchandising Co. and submitted his report in the bank which is Ex. PW30/A. In that report, PW30 has pointed out the lapses on behalf of the accused G.R. Meena in the proposal for cash credit limit to M/s Rajual Merchandising Co. and in the release of the limits to M/s Rajual Merchandising Co.

On the basis of inquiry report, no criminal liability can be attributed to the accused G.R. Meena as he has no occasion to present his case before the inquiry officer. Moreover, the extent of proof required in the criminal proceedings is distinct from the inquiry proceedings of the department. The degree of proof beyond reasonable doubt does not apply to the departmental inquiry.

vi) PW8 in his cross examination has deposed that the accused G.R. Meena has completed all the formalities as required for the sanction of the said cash credit facilities. The audit was carried out in respect of the entire limit of the branch. He has not come across any audit irregularity during his period in respect of this borrower's account. T he relationship between the accused G.R. Meena and M/s Rajual Merchandising Co. was of bank and customer. The accused G.R. Meena has discharged his duty in his official capacity, as evident from the file, in due course of official business.

Page 49 of 61 50 CC No. 39/08

CBI Vs. Sangeeta Arora etc. Judgment dt. 22.12.2015 PW1 has also deposed that the documents Ex. PW1/4, Ex. PW1/5, PW1/6, Ex. PW1/8 executed on behalf of M/s Rajual Merchandising Co. with the bank are as per prescribed bank norms.

The accused G.R. Meena has conducted the inspection of the premises of M/s Rajual Merchandising Co. and has submitted irregularity reports.

vii) In view of the above discussion and in the light of the evidence coming in the cross examination of PW1 and PW8, there is no conclusive evidence on record to prove that the accused G.R. Meena has entered into alleged criminal conspiracy to commit the alleged offences of cheating and forgery and abused his official position as public servant and committed criminal misconduct.

8. ROLE OF THE ACCUSED SANJAY MALIK AND BIPIN CHANDER PAUL KAKKAR (A4 and A5) The accused Sanjay Malik and Bipin Chander Paul Kakkar has not disputed that they are running the company in the name of Perfect Associate Pvt. Ltd. and which was having the current account with the Corporation Bank. However, the defence of the accused Sanjay Malik and Bipin Chander Paul Kakkar is that the accused Sangeeta Arora had approached for their professional services, as they are Chartered Accountants after having applied for loan and submitted the relevant documents to the bank. The accused Sangeeta Arora Page 50 of 61 51 CC No. 39/08 CBI Vs. Sangeeta Arora etc. Judgment dt. 22.12.2015 has issued the cheque of Rs. One lac towards the initial payment for their services, however that cheque was dishonoured on 18.4.98 and thereafter no service was provided by Perfect Associates to the accused Sangeeta Arora.

The document Ex. PW16/A1 shows that the accused Sanjay Malik and Bipin Chander Paul Kakkar were having a current account in the Corporation Bank in the name of Perfect Associates Pvt. Ltd.. That current account has been introduced by PW16.

The entry dt. 20.4.98 in the statement of account of the Corporation bank of Perfect Associates Pvt. Ltd. which is Ex. PW11/A1, in respect of cheque bearing No. 173822 dt. 18.4.98, shows dishonouring of the cheque as the amount of Rs. One lac of the aforesaid cheque has not been credited to the account of Perfect Associates Pvt. Ltd.

PW27 has proved the relevant entry in the cheque returning register in respect of cheque no. 173822 as Ex. PW27/A and which shows that this cheque has been issued on behalf of M/s Rajual Merchandising Co.

Accordingly, it is proved that the accused Sanjay Malik and Bipin Chander Paul Kakkar has received the cheque of the amount of Rs. One lac from M/s Rajual Merchandising Co. and which was dishonoured on 20.4.98. Apart from it, Ex. PW11/A does not show any dealing of M/s Rajual Merchandising Co. with perfect associates pvt. Ltd.

ii) The prosecution has relied upon the testimonies of PW12, PW16, Page 51 of 61 52 CC No. 39/08 CBI Vs. Sangeeta Arora etc. Judgment dt. 22.12.2015 PW24 and PW26 to prove that the accused Sanjay Malik and Bipin Chander Paul Kakkar in conspiracy with the co accused has siphoned off funds of the amount of Rs. Nine lacs from the account of M/s Rajual Merchandising Co. in favour of M/s Ravi Industries which is being run by Sanjay Malik and Bipin Chander Paul Kakkar, in order to cheat the bank

iii) PW12 Shri Ravinder Malik has deposed that the letter of proprietorship has been written by him on the instructions of the accused Sh. Sanjay Malik, who had asked him to assist Sh. Dilip Kumar for opening an account in the name of M/s Ravi Industries in the bank. He has proved the letter of proprietorship as Ex. PW12/A. He has handed over the payin slip Ex. PW24/B which is in his handwriting to Sh. Dilip Kumar after filling the particulars of the banker cheque No. 305938 Ex. PW3/B. The cheque Ex. PW24/C dt. 21.8.99 of an amount of Rs. 4,40,000/ and cheque Ex. PW24/D dt. 21.8.99 of the amount of Rs. 4,50,000/ were filled by him and these were encashed by Dalip Kumar.

PW12 has also deposed that the accused Sanjay Malik and Bipin Chander Paul Kakkar had asked him to assist Sh. Dilip Kumar in opening an account in the Corporation Bank, Janak Puri Branch. Sh. Sanjay Malik had asked Sh. Chander Shekhar Juneja, Proprietor of M/s Krishna Color Lab to introduce the account. The accused Bipin Kakkar had instructed him to get the banker's cheque deposited in the account of Ravi Industries and then withdraw Page 52 of 61 53 CC No. 39/08 CBI Vs. Sangeeta Arora etc. Judgment dt. 22.12.2015 Rs. 8.9 lacs. He has not stated before the IO that he had received the cheques Ex. PW24/C and Ex. PW24/D and banker cheque from Bipin Kakkar. He had received the cheque of Rs. 9 lacs from Sh. Dilip Kumar for depositing in the bank. He has not stated to the IO that he had withdrawn the money of Rs. 8.9 lacs and handed over to Bipin Kakkar in bank itself. He has proved the statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C. made before Ld. MM as Ex. PW12/A2.

In cross examination, PW12 has deposed that he had entered the particulars in the account opening form as per the instructions received from Sh. Dilip Kumar. The body of the cheque was also filled at the instance of Dilip Kumar. It was Dilip Kumar only who was operating the account of Ravi Industries. Dalip Kumar gave the cheques Ex.PW24/C and Ex.PW24/D and he had filled up the cheques. Shri Dilip Kumar signed on the cheques in his presence. He knew Sh. Dilip for last about 13 years. Statement Ex. PW12/A2 has been made by him as per the writing given to him by the IO one day prior to making the statement by calling him at his office. I was threatened by the IO for false implication in the case as the account opening form, body of the cheque etc. were in his handwriting.

The evidence of PW12 is not reliable as he has made contradictory statements in his testimony and also that he was threatened by the investigating officer (IO) for false implication in the case.

iv) PW16 Shri Chander Shekhar Juneja has deposed that he knew Sh.

Page 53 of 61 54 CC No. 39/08

CBI Vs. Sangeeta Arora etc. Judgment dt. 22.12.2015 Dilip Kumar through Sh. Ravinder Malik. He has introduced the account which was opened by Sh. Dilip Kumar in the name of M/s Ravi Industries on the asking of Sh. Ravinder Malik. The account opening form for M/s Ravi Industries is Ex. PW16/A. From the testimony of PW16, nothing has been come on record to prove that he has introduced the account in the name of M/s Ravi Industries at the instance of the accused Sanjay Malik and Bipin Chander Paul Kakkar.

v) PW26 Shri Gurmeet Singh has deposed that the company by the name of Atlanta was formed in his name by the accused Sanjay Malik and Bipin Kakkar and the account of this firm was opened in Corporation Bank, Janak Puri, Delhi. The account of the said firm was being maintained by them. He knew Sh. Dilip Kumar. Dalip Kumar had also opened an account in the name of M/s Ravi Industries in Corporation Bank which was got opened by Sanjay Malik and Bipin Kakkar.

In cross examination, PW26 has deposed that he do not know if he is the Director of 24 companies. He do not remember when the account in the name of M/s Ravi Industries was opened. At that time, he was not present in the bank.

A5/DW1 Shri Data Ram from Registrar of Companies has deposed that as per the records, the Gurmeet Singh Matharu was a Director in 49 companies.

Page 54 of 61 55 CC No. 39/08

CBI Vs. Sangeeta Arora etc. Judgment dt. 22.12.2015 PW26 is not a reliable witness as he himself is a dummy director of 46 companies and also from his evidence it is not proved that account in the name of M/s Ravi Industries was got opened by the accused Sanjay Malik and Bipin Chander Paul Kakkar as at the time of opening of the account, he was not present in the bank.

vi) PW24 Shri Dilip Kumar has deposed that he was working in M.L. Malik & Company from 1990 to 1996. After a gap of one year, he again joined the aforesaid company and remained there from 1997 to 2001. The company was being run by Sh. Sanjay Malik. He has opened the account no. 50220 dt. 15.09.1998 in the name of M/s Ravi Industries in the Corporation Bank, Janak Puri Branch. The account opening form is Ex. PW16/A. Ex. PW16/A is filled up in the handwriting of Sh. Ravinder Malik. This account was opened on the instructions of Sh. Sanjay Malik and Sh. Bipin Kakkar. Vide payin slip Ex. PW24/B, banker cheque of Rs. 9 lacs was deposited in the Corporation Bank. The cheque Ex. PW24/C and cheque Ex. PW24/D bears his signatures. He has not withdrawn the amount of Rs.8,90,000/ against the aforesaid cheques. He has proved the statement of accounts of M/s Ravi Industries as Ex. PW24/F and his statement recorded U/s 164 Cr.P.C. as Ex. PW24/E. In cross examination, PW24 has deposed that he has never visited the bank after opening the bank account of Ravi Industries. He had received the cheque book after 23 days of opening the bank account.

Page 55 of 61 56 CC No. 39/08

CBI Vs. Sangeeta Arora etc. Judgment dt. 22.12.2015 There is no documentary evidence on record to prove that PW24 was the employee of the accused Sanjay Malik and Bipin Chander Paul Kakkar.

PW24 has deposed that he has never visited the bank after opening the bank account of Ravi Industries. As per the document Ex. PW16/A, the current account in the name of M/s Ravi Industries was opened on 15.9.98. Pay in slip Ex. PW24/B and the cheques Ex. PW24/C and Ex. PW24/D bears the signatures of PW24 and all are dated 21.8.99 and has been deposited in the bank. These documents contradict the testimony of PW24 that he had never visited the bank after opening the bank account on 15.9.98.

PW24 has deposed that the cheque books which were issued in the in the account were taken from him by the accused Sanjay Malik and Bipin Chander Paul Kakkar but the IO has not seized any cheque books from the accused persons.

viii) Perusal of the statement of account of M/s Ravi Industries which is Ex. PW24/F shows debit entries of Rs. 4,50,00/ and Rs. 4,40,000/ against the self cheques bearing No. 0820122 Ex. PW24/D and 0820121 Ex. PW24/C respectively.

It is proved from the evidence on record that on 21.8.99 banker cheque Ex. PW3/B which was got issued on behalf of the accused Sangeeta Arora from her current account in the SBBJ bank, has been deposited in the account of M/s Ravi Industries and on the same day an amount of RS. 8,90,000/ has been withdrawn from the account of M/s Ravi Industries vide cheques Ex. PW24/C and Page 56 of 61 57 CC No. 39/08 CBI Vs. Sangeeta Arora etc. Judgment dt. 22.12.2015 Ex PW24/D. Perusal of the statement of account of M/s Ravi Industries which is Ex. PW24/F also shows that there are several debit or credit entries in the account from 3.4.98 till 14.7.2000. There is no investigation on these entries to show that these entries were related to the transactions conducted on behalf of the accused Sanjay Malik and Bipin Chander Paul Kakkar on behalf of M/s Ravi Industries.

After considering the evidence of testimonies of PW12, PW16, PW24, PW6 and the documents on record, no reliable and conclusive evidence has been come on record to prove that the accused Sanjay Malik and Bipin Chander Paul Kakkar has any concern with M/s Ravi Industries or that cheque Ex. PW24/C and Ex. PW24/D has been got encashed by them or that they have received the amount of Rs. 8,90,000/ after encashment of these cheques.

ix) PW8 has deposed that he knew the accused Bipin Chander Paul Kakkar and Sanjay Malik. It is difficult to remember if both of them had met him pertaining to the account of M/s Rajual Merchandising Co.

PW19 has deposed that he knew the accused Sanjay Malik and Bipin Kakkar as both had met Sh. G.R. Meena in connection with the loan proposal of M/s Rajual Merchandising Co. Initially, both had come and met the accused G.R. Meena, but at the time of documentation Smt. Sangeeta Arora and Jagdish Lal had come. Again said, both Sanjay Malik and Bipin Kakkar also accompanied Smt. Sangeeta Arora and Jagdish Lal at the time of execution of Page 57 of 61 58 CC No. 39/08 CBI Vs. Sangeeta Arora etc. Judgment dt. 22.12.2015 documents in the bank at Nehru Place Branch.

In cross examination, PW19 has deposed that he do not remember the exact dates or time on which Mr. Sanjay Malik and Bipin Kakkar had come to the bank. (Vol. They had come during the process of loan.) He do not remember as to whom Sh. Sanjay Malik and Bipin Kakkar used to meet The evidence of PW8 does not in ways show that the accused Bipin Chander Paul Kakkar and Sanjay Malik met him in connection with the grant of credit facilities to the M/s Rajual Merchandising Co. The evidence of PW19 also does not prove that the accused Sanjay Malik and Bipin Chander Paul Kakkar were instrumental in arranging the false documents for the purpose of cash credit facilities and has thereby fraudulently induced the bank to grant credit facilities to M/s Rajual Merchandising Co.

x) It has been observed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in 221 (2015) Delhi Law Times 572 as under: " I am conscious that generally conspiracies are not hatched in the open, by their nature, they are secretly planned. It is not always possible to give affirmative evidence about the date of its formation, about the persons who took part in it, about the object which the conspirators set before themselves and about the manner in which the object of the conspiracy was to be carried out. Conspiracy Page 58 of 61 59 CC No. 39/08 CBI Vs. Sangeeta Arora etc. Judgment dt. 22.12.2015 can be established by direct or circumstantial evidence or conduct of the parties. At the same time, it is also settled position of law that mere suspicion is not enough to proceed. If reliance is placed upon circumstantial evidence, a clear link has to be established and the chain has to be completed. Conspiracy cannot be assumed from a set of unconnected facts or from a set of conduct exhibited by different accused persons at different places and time without a reasonable link. Meeting of minds or the element of agreements is the essence of the offence under Section 120B, IPC. Mere relationship of employer and employee ipso facto cannot lead to an inference beyond doubt that there was a meeting of mind; it cannot constitute a valid foundation for proceedings against P2 and P4 for commission of the aforesaid offence with the aid of Section 120B, IPC for individual acts of P1 and P3. Offence of conspiracy requires some kind of physical manifestation of agreement such as by way of meetings and communications which is lacking herein."

xi) In view of the above discussions and the above mentioned judgment, I am of the opinion that from the evidence on record, the prosecution Page 59 of 61 60 CC No. 39/08 CBI Vs. Sangeeta Arora etc. Judgment dt. 22.12.2015 has failed to prove the link of both the accused persons Sanjay Malik and Bipin Chander Paul Kakkar with the coaccused in the grant of credit facilities and dishonestly inducing the bank to grant credit facilities to the accused Sangeeta Arora. Accordingly, alleged offences of conspiracy, cheating and forgery does not stands proved against the accused Sanjay Malik and Bipin Chander Paul Kakkar.

9. ROLE OF THE ACCUSED S.N. SINGH AND M.L. JOSHI (A2 AND A3) To prove the role of the accused persons S.N. Singh and M.L. Joshi in the alleged offences, the prosecution has relied upon the testimonies of PW6 and PW20.

i) PW6 has deposed that legal search report Ex. PW6/A was issued at the request of one Mr. Joshi who introduced him as Chartered Accountant. Later on he prepared his report and handed over the same to said M.L. Joshi.

In cross examination, PW6 has deposed that he has not seen any document to ascertain the identity of the person who had approached him for obtaining Legal & Search Report. He referred the name of Mr. Joshi because of his memory. Nobody had come to collect the Legal & Search Report and he has submitted the same directly to the bank.

In the testimony of PW6, nothing has been come on record to establish that it is the accused M.L.Joshi who has approached PW6 for the legal Page 60 of 61 61 CC No. 39/08 CBI Vs. Sangeeta Arora etc. Judgment dt. 22.12.2015 search report of the 'said property'.

ii) PW20 has deposed that the valuation report Ex. PW20/A of the 'said property' was done by him on the asking of Sh. S.N.Singh and his son Manu. M.L. Joshi used to come to them, but he do not remember whether he had asked for doing evaluation of the property or not. He had done the valuation of the property which was shown by Mr. Manu.

From the testimonies of PW20, it is evident that the said property was shown by one Mr. Mannu and not by the accused S.N. Singh. Nothing has been come on record against the accused S.N. Singh and M.L. Joshi that they were instrumental in getting the false valuation report from PW20 in respect of the 'said property'.

iii) From the evidence on record, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused S.N. Singh and M.L. Joshi are involved in the alleged conspiracy in order to cheat the bank by arranging false documents.

10. In view of the above discussions, the accused persons namely S.N. Singh, M.L. Joshi, Sanjay Malik, Bipin Chander Paul Kakkar and G.R. Meena are acquitted of the charges. However, the accused Sangeeta Arora is convicted for the offences punishable U/s 420 IPC and U/s 471 IPC.

Announced in the open court (Rajneesh Kumar Gupta) today i.e. on 22.12.15 Special Judge CBI02 (PC Act) North West District, Rohini Courts,Delhi.

Page 61 of 61

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi District Court

Cbi vs . Sangeeta Arora Etc. on 22 December, 2015