Delhi District Court
Rc No.46(A)/95, Cc No.83/11 Cbi vs . Ashok Pasrija on 18 July, 2012
IN THE COURT OF ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA,
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT), CBI-08, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
CC No. : 83/2011
PS : CBI/ACB/ND
Unique ID No. 02401R0073511998
RC No. : 46(A)/95-DLI
U/s 120B r/w 420 IPC and 420/477-A IPC
and Sec. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act, 1988
CBI
Versus
Shri Ashok Pasrija,
Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce,
Rajgarh Colony Branch,
Delhi.
At present r/o D-140, Bathla Apartment,
Patparganj, Delhi.
Date of FIR : 16.06.1995
Date of Institution : 23.07.1998
Arguments heard on : 13.07.2012
Date of Judgement : 18.07.2012
JUDGEMENT
1. Accused Ashok Pasrija is facing trial before this Court in three RC No.46(A)/95, CC No.83/11 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija separate cases registered by CBI vide RC No. 46(A)/95 (CC No. 83/11), RC No. 47(A)/95 (CC No. 84/11) and RC No. 48(A)/95 (CC No. 85/11). Another case registered by CBI vide RC No. 49(A)/95 is informed to be pending in the Court of Shri Pradeep Chaddah, Special Judge, CBI, Delhi. It is alleged that during 1992 to 1994 accused Ashok Pasrija working as Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Rajgarh Colony Branch, Delhi defrauded and cheated the bank by making unauthorized transactions in various accounts. In RC No. 46(A)/95, the accused is alleged to have made false credit entries in SB Account no. 3988/15 of Shri Pawan Kumar Rawat without actually receiving the amount. Further, vide unauthorized transactions amount was transferred from account no. 3988 to other accounts i.e. account no. 11610 belonging to S. K. Raheja; account no. 12151 (a fictitious account in the name of S. K. Raheja); account no. 12136 belong to L. M. Kapoor and Smt. Malti Kapoor; account no. 12557 a benami account opened and operated by Ashok Pasrija and account no. 12990 an account in the name of Sushila Devi Kapoor.
In RC No. 47(A)/95 (CC No. 84/11), accused is alleged to have cheated the bank by making false entries in account no. 12169/47 of Shri L. M. Kapoor and Sushila Devi and account no. 12136/47 belonging to L. M. Kapoor and Malti Kapoor. Accused also made unauthorized transactions in account no. 11914 in the name of Shri L. M. Kapoor and also opened fictitious account no. 11898 in the name of L. M. Kapoor and account no. 11899 in the name of Malti Kapoor.
In RC No. 48(A)/95 (CC No. 85/11), accused is alleged to have defrauded the bank by opening fictitious account in the name of Yograj Grover and Suman and further made false and fictitious entries in joint account no. 12123/47. Accused also opened a fictitious account no.
RC No.46(A)/95, CC No.83/11 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija 12557/49 in the name of one Suman Arora. Further, accused allegedly made various unauthorized entries in account no. 12123 by transferring amount from other accounts i.e. CA2515 belonging to Satpal Makkar; account no. 12169 belonging to L. M. Kapoor and Sushila Devi Kapoor and from account no. 12476.
It may also be appropriate to mention that apart from the common witnesses from the bank, the account holders Shri Lalit Mohan Kapoor, Shri Satpal Makkar, Shri Yograj Grover are common in some of the cases which have been taken up together for disposal [{i.e. RC No. 46(A)/95 (CC No. 83/11) - PW6 Shri Lalit Mohan Kapoor, PW 9 Brig. K. C. Sukhija}, {RC No. 47(A)/95 (CC No. 84/11) PW13 Shri Yograj Grover, PW18 Lalit Mohan Kapoor, PW20 Brig. K. C. Sukhija, PW22 Shri Satpal Makkar} {RC No. 48(A)/95 (CC no. 85/11)
- PW6 Lalit Mohan Kapoor, PW8 Brig. K. C. Sukhija, PW9 Shri Yograj Grover, PW18 Shri Satpal Makkar}]. Apart from above, Brig. K. C. Sukhija is a common witness in all the three cases before whom the accused made admissions in writing in respect of illegal acts committed by him alongwith unauthorized entries made in the account of Neeraj Sukhija s/o Brig. K. C. Sukhija and the same have been investigated in RC 49(A)/95.
2. In the aforesaid background the facts of present case may be seen. The FIR in the present case i.e. RC No. 46(A)/95 was registered by CBI on the basis of reliable information that Shri Ashok Pasrija, Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Rajgarh Colony Branch, Delhi during the period 1992-93 entered into a criminal conspiracy with Shri Pawan Kumar Rawat with the object to cheat the bank by making false credit entries in SB Account No. 3988/15 of Shri RC No.46(A)/95, CC No.83/11 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija Pawan Kumar Rawat without actually receiving the amount in account of Shri Pawan Kumar Rawat.
As per case of prosecution accused Ashok Pasrija caused a loss of Rs.1,08,900/- to Oriental Bank of Commerce, Rajgarh Colony, Delhi by way of making false credit entries in ledger sheet of account No.3988 and he further transferred an amount of Rs.1,33,900/- from account no.3988 to various accounts in the branch without debit confirmation. The account holder of 3988 is also stated to have been put at loss of Rs.14,995/- by way of illegal credit and withdrawal entries by accused Ashok Pasrija.
It may be appropriate to reflect at this stage itself that though accused Ashok Pasrija is initially alleged to have entered into conspiracy with Pawan Kumar Rawat at the stage of registration of FIR but the subsequent investigation did not link Shri Pawan Kumar Rawat with the crime and he expired on 14.01.1996.
3. Charge was framed against accused Ashok Pasrija u/s 409/420 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 alongwith Section 467/468 & 477A IPC.
4. In support of its case, prosecution examined 19 witnesses. The following witnesses were examined from the bank to prove the relevant entries and documents relating to the transactions. PW1 Sh. Chand Kumar Dhawan (Officer, Oriental Bank of Commerce);
PW2 Shri Navin Pant(Clerk-cum-Cashier, Oriental Bank of Commerce);
PW3 Sh. B. R. Jain (Chief Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce);
RC No.46(A)/95, CC No.83/11 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija PW4 Shri S.P. Jain (Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce); PW5 Shri J.P. Verma (Officer, Oriental Bank of Commerce); PW8 Shri K.L. Bhutani (AGM, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Regional Office);
PW10 Shri Mansa Ram (Clerk-cum-Cashier, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Suraj Mal Vihar Branch);
PW11 Shri V.K. Gujral (Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Darya Ganj Branch);
PW12 Shri K.L. Kapoor;
PW13 Shri Hari Narayan Tandon (Retired Senior Manager from Oriental Bank of Commerce, Head Office);
PW15 Shri Mahabir Prasad Arora.
PW19 Shri Sudarshan Kumar; PW6 Shri Lalit Mohan Kapoor; and PW9 Brigadier K.C. Sukhija are the witnesses relating to accounts which were unauthorizedly operated by the accused for making the transfer entries. Further, written admissions were also made by accused before Brig. K. C. Sukhija.
PW14 Shri S.P. Singh (Divisional Engineer, Telephone Exchange, Delhi) proved the handwriting of Pawan Kumar Rawat in his personal file.
PW16 Shri Balbir Singh (Employee of Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad) proved the date of death of Pawan Kumar Rawat as per official records.
PW17 Dr. M.A. Ali [Sr. Scientific Officer Gr.-I (Document), CFSL, CBI, New Delhi] proved the opinion of the expert late Shri T. R. Nehra who has since expired as to the handwriting on various documents forwarded for examination (Ex.PW17/C).
RC No.46(A)/95, CC No.83/11 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija PW18 Inspector Virender Thakran (Anti Corruption Branch, GNCT, Delhi) deposed as to the conduct of investigation.
5. The following witnesses from the bank were examined by the prosecution to prove the relevant debit vouchers/ledgers/day book/long book etc. to show that the credit entries amounting to Rs. 1,08,900/- in account no. 3988 belonging to Pawan Kumar Rawat were fake and further debit entries were made from account no. 3988 to various accounts by accused Ashok Pasrija amounting to Rs. 1,33,900/-.
(i) PW-1 Chand Kumar Dhawan posted as officer in Rajgarh Branch of Oriental Bank of Commerce in the year 1991 deposed that his duty was to sit on savings ledger no. 1 and accused Ashok Pasrija was second man in the branch during relevant period. He identified the specimen signature card of account no. 3988 (Ex.PW1/A) allowed to be opened by Shri J. P. Verma who was the hall incharge at that time. He further proved the ledger of account no. 3988 (Ex.PW1/B) and the entries in the ledger sheet (X1 to X12) in the handwriting of accused alongwith his initials on the entries. He further stated that entries mark Y1 to Y5 and X1 to X12 were fake. He further identified the debit slip of account no. 3988 dated 28.04.92 (Ex.PW1/D), transfer payment order dated 12.09.92 (Ex.PW1/E), application for preparing the TPO (Ex.PW1/F), cheque no. 643740 dated 12.09.92 (Ex.PW1/G), debit slip of account no. 3988 dated 14.09.92 (Ex.PW1/H), debit voucher dated 28.11.92 (Ex.PW1/I), cheque no. 643742 dated 15.04.93 (Ex.PW1/J), credit voucher dated 15.04.93 (Ex.PW1/K).
RC No.46(A)/95, CC No.83/11 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija
(ii) PW-2 Shri Navin Pant working in Oriental Bank of Commerce since 1991 stated that accused Ashok Pasrija was second officer and his duty was to deal with the customers and to open the accounts. He further identified the signatures of accused Ashok Pasrija on vouchers Ex.PW2/A1 to A10. He further identified the original ledger sheet Ex.PW1/B containing entries of Rs.15,000/- & Rs.25,000/- (Mark X) in his handwriting and entries mark X2 to X4 in handwriting of accused. He also stated that entries mark Y1 to Y3 were in his handwriting.
He further stated that the vouchers duly passed by the officer were received by him and thereafter he used to make entry in the ledger and the officer used to check the entry and release it. Further as an officer in the branch, accused Ashok Pasrija some times used to make entry in the ledger and pass it. He further clarified that after the voucher is passed, the vouchers are put in a basket and on the next day the vouchers goes to the person who was the day book clerk and on receiving the vouchers, the clerk used to make entry in the day book. He further clarified that his duty was only to post entry in the ledger and in the long book. He further stated that he used to make entry in long book and then make entry in the ledger and the long books were also sent to the day book clerk on the next day for tallying the entries. He further identified the extract of long book in respect of SB ledger 15 of 23.08.92 Ex.PW12/M (D-29). He further proved the entries on voucher Ex.PW2/A1 (D-5), voucher D-6, D-4 (Ex.PW10/C), D-7 (Ex.PW3/A2), transfer voucher D-8 (Ex.PW3/A3), D-9 (Ex.PW3/A4), D-14 (Ex.PW3/A6), Ex.PW3/A1.
RC No.46(A)/95, CC No.83/11 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija
(iii) PW-3 Shri B. R. Jain posted as Senior Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Rajgarh Colony Branch during the year 1992 identified the handwriting of accused on debit voucher Ex.PW2/A1 and Ex.PW3/A1 to A10.
(iv) PW-10 Shri Mansa Ram stated that he was working as Clerk-cum-Cashier in Rajgarh Colony branch of Oriental Bank of Commerce wherein accused Ashok Pasrija was working as Manager. He proved the different transfer vouchers detailed as under:
•Debit voucher (Ex.PW3/A9) dated 24.04.1992 for Rs.11,000/- in respect of account no. 3988 of Pawan Kumar whereby amount was transferred to account no. 11610 of Shri S. K. Raheja. He further stated that debit voucher is in hand of Ashok Pasrija and basis for transfer as given in the voucher is telephonic instruction. Further, there was no confirmation from the account holder regarding telephonic instruction. He also deposed that corresponding credit voucher (Ex.PW10/A) in respect of this amount for transfer in account no. 11610 was also in the handwriting of accused.
•Debit voucher (Ex.PW3/A10) for Rs.10,000/- of account no. 3988 of Shri Pawan Kumar whereby amount was credited in account no. 11610 of Shri S. K. Raheja. He also stated that debit voucher was prepared on telephonic instructions and as per record there was no confirmation for transfer of amount to account no. 11610. He further proved the credit voucher dated 24.10.1992 (Ex.PW10/B). •Debit voucher dated 21.04.1992 (Ex.PW3/A3) for Rs.20,000/- of account no. 3988 of Shri Pawan Kumar whereby amount was credited in account no. 11610 of Shri S. K. Raheja. He also stated that debit voucher was prepared on telephonic instructions and as per record there was no confirmation for transfer of amount to account no. 11610.
•Debit voucher dated 30.06.1992 (Ex.PW3/A5) for Rs.15,000/- of account no. 3988 of Shri Pawan Kumar whereby amount was credited in account no. 12136. He also stated that debit voucher was prepared on telephonic instructions and as per record there was no confirmation for transfer of amount to account no. 12136. Further, no corresponding credit voucher was found.
RC No.46(A)/95, CC No.83/11 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija •Debit voucher dated 19.09.1992 (Ex.PW3/A6) for Rs.14,000/- of account no. 3988 of Shri Pawan Kumar whereby amount was credited in account no. 12557. He also stated that debit voucher was prepared on telephonic instructions and as per record there was no confirmation for transfer of amount to account no. 12557. Further, no corresponding credit voucher was found. The debit voucher was also stated to be in hand of accused Ashok Pasrija.
•Debit voucher dated 28.11.1992 (Ex.PW3/A7) for Rs.10,100/- of account no. 3988 of Shri Pawan Kumar whereby amount was credited in account no. 12990. He also stated that debit voucher was prepared on telephonic instructions and as per record there was no confirmation for transfer of amount to account no. 12990. Further, no corresponding credit voucher was found. •Debit voucher dated 11.12.1992 (Ex.PW3/A8) for Rs.10,000/- of account no. 3988 of Shri Pawan Kumar whereby amount was credited in account no. 12557. He also stated that debit voucher was prepared on telephonic instructions and as per record there was no confirmation for transfer of amount to account no. 12557. Further, no corresponding credit voucher was found. •Debit voucher dated 04.02.1992 (Ex.PW2/A1) for Rs.11,000/- of account no. 3988 of Shri Pawan Kumar whereby amount was credited in account no. 11610. He also stated that debit voucher was prepared on telephonic instructions and as per record there was no confirmation for transfer of amount to account no. 11610. Further, no corresponding credit voucher was found. •Debit voucher dated 15.02.1992 (Ex.PW3/A1) for Rs.16,000/- of account no. 3988 of Shri Pawan Kumar whereby amount was credited in account no. 11610. He also stated that debit voucher was prepared on telephonic instructions and as per record there was no confirmation for transfer of amount to account no. 11610. Further, no corresponding credit voucher was found. •Debit voucher dated 20.03.1992 (Ex.PW3/A2) for Rs.10,000/- of account no. 3988 of Shri Pawan Kumar whereby amount was credited in account no. 11610. He also stated that debit voucher was prepared on telephonic instructions and as per record there was no confirmation for transfer of amount to account no. 11610. Further, no corresponding credit voucher was found. •Credit voucher dated 15.04.1993 (Ex.PW1/A) for Rs.59,167/- of account no. 3988 of Shri Pawan Kumar in the hands of accused Ashok Pasrija. He further stated that RC No.46(A)/95, CC No.83/11 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija a transfer pay order in name of Vice Chairman, GDA was prepared in respect of this amount and the credit voucher was prepared on the basis of cheque Ex.PW1/J. •Pay in slip dated 01.02.1992 (Ex.PW10/C) whereby amount was paid in account no. 3988 of Shri Pawan Kumar Rawat after transfer from some other account. He further stated that pay in slip is in hand of accused Ashok Pasrija. He also stated that transfer pay order for Rs.60,000/- was prepared by accused vide Ex.PW1/F which is in his handwriting and the TPO was issued in the name of Vice Chairman, GDA. Further, carbon copy of the information regarding sending of TPO is Ex.PW1/E.
(v) PW-11 Shri V. K. Gujral who was working on the seat of savings in the Rajgarh Colony branch of Oriental Bank of Commerce stated that he had handed over certified copy of long book dated 28.11.1992 in respect of ledger no. 15 (Ex.PW11/A). He further deposed that there is debit of Rs.10,100/- in account no. 3988/15 but no amount is shown as credited in the long book of account no. 3988 dated 28.11.1992. He further clarified that entry is made in long book in respect of debit of account for a particular date on the basis of any cheque, vouchers etc.. He further stated that certified copy of long book (Ex.PW11/A) was seized by the IO on 27.03.1997 vide seizure memo (Ex.PW11/B).
(vi) PW-12 Shri K. L. Kapoor posted as Manager in Rajgarh Colony branch of Oriental Bank w.e.f. January, 1994 to 1999 proved the various documents as detailed below and further pointed out the irregularities on the basis of documents.
▪He proved letter dated 15.03.1997 (Ex.PW12/A) written by Shri P. L. Bhatnagar, then Chief Manager of the bank to Shri Virender Thakran (IO). ▪He also identified the signatures of Shri P. L. Bhatnagar on long book dated RC No.46(A)/95, CC No.83/11 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija 23.08.1992 in respect of ledger no. 15 (Ex.PW15/B). ▪He further clarified that the long book had been prepared on the voucher dated 23.08.1992 and the extract of long book Ex.PW12/B show that there was no voucher dated 23.08.1992 in respect of account no. 3988. ▪He further stated that there was no entry dated 20.12.1992 of Rs.2,000/- in respect of account no. 3988 on the record of bank as per Ex.PW12/A. He further sated that certified copy of long book dated 11.12.1992 (D32) and day book dated 11.12.1992 (D33) were handed over to IO.
▪He also confirmed that TPO of Rs.60,000/- on 12.09.1992 was issued by Rajgarh Colony branch. He further confirmed that as per Ex.PW12/C in respect of account no. 3988, there is no entry in respect of amount of Rs.60,000/- and the debit entry should have been made in the long book Ex.PW12/C. ▪He further proved the long book dated 01.10.1992 (D35)(Ex.PW12/G) and stated that there was no entry in respect of account no. 3988 on credit side. ▪He further proved D28 (Ex.PW12/L) which is certified copy of day book of bank dated 23.08.1992; D29 (Ex.PW12/M) which is extract of long book of bank in respect of SB ledger no. 15 dated 23.08.1992; D30 (Ex.PW12/N) which is certified copy of general ledger no. 15, D34 which is certified copy of general ledger of savings bank 15; D43 which is certified copy of duty sheet and office orders of Rajgarh Colony branch of Oriental Bank of Commerce (Ex.PW12/H); D26 (Ex.PW12/J) which is a letter dated 29.06.1996 written by Chief Manager Oriental Bank of Commerce Rajgarh Colony Branch to Superintendent of CBI bearing signatures of Shri P. L. Bhatnagar who has since expired; certified copy of day book dated 01.10.1992 (Ex.PW12/D); D35 (Ex.PW12/G) which is certified copy of long book dated 01.10.1992; day book dated 01.10.1992; general ledger of SB ledger no. 15, 16; cash book dated 01.10.1992 (Ex.PW12/P) collectively; D36 (Ex.PW12/Q collectively) which is certified copy of book dated 28.11.1992; day book dated 28.11.1992 in respect of SB ledger and also general ledger of SB no. 15; D37 (Ex.PW12/R collectively) which is certified copy of long book dated 29.11.1992; day book dated 29.11.1992 and general ledger of SB 17; D42 (Ex.PW12/U collectively) which is certified copy of balancing of books in respect of SB ledger no. 15.
▪He further stated that documents were handed over to Inspector Virender RC No.46(A)/95, CC No.83/11 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija Thakran vide seizure memo dated 25.03.1997 (Ex.PW12/S) and seizure memo dated 07.10.1996 (Ex.PW12/T).
6. The following witnesses from the bank were further examined.
(i) PW-4 Shri S. P. Jain posted as Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Rajgarh Colony Branch during 1992-93 stated that he had given certified copies of documents mentioned in seizure memo Ex.PW4/A. He further stated that Ex.PW12/G, Ex.PW12/P, Ex.PW12/Q and Ex.PW12/H were certified by him. He further stated that it had been mentioned in the duty sheets and office order as to who had been keeping ledgers of certain SB and the same could also be ascertained from the duty slips. Further, for balancing of books officer orders were issued as to the official who would tally and check the balance. He also stated that in the absence of any voucher bearing the signatures of the customer or cheques or withdrawal form, no account could be debited and if any debit is made without supporting document, the entry is false and fictitious. Similarly procedure was specified by him for credit entries. He further deposed that balance of all the entries of accounts are entered in a book called balance book and the balances are tallied with the day book. Further on the basis of day book, general ledgers are maintained where all balances of all books are entered.
(ii) PW-5 Shri J. P. Verma working as officer, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Rajgarh Colony branch from 1985 to 1991 stated that account no. 3988 in name of Pawan Kumar Rawat was introduced by Raj Kumar Sisodia and he allowed opening of the account vide his RC No.46(A)/95, CC No.83/11 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija signatures on Ex.PW1/A.
(iii) PW-8 Shri K. L. Bhutani stated that he was working in inspection department as Deputy Chief Manager in Oriental Bank of Commerce from 1993 to 1995. During December, 1994 he had conducated the inspection at Oriental Bank of Commerce branch Rajgarh as per instructions of Head Office and it was revealed that accused Ashok Pasrija had defrauded the bank with an amount of Rs. 6.50 lakhs approximately by way of making fake credit entries, making payments without debiting the accounts and transferring he amount from some accounts to other accounts without confirmation/instructions of the depositors. He further stated that inspection report was prepared and submitted to the bank.
(iv) PW-13 Shri Hari Narayan Tandon stated that he was posted in Oriental Bank of Commerce Rajgarh Colony Branch as Senior Manager in 1995. He proved the seizure memo Ex.PW13/A whereby documents were handed over to Inspector Virender Thakran. He further stated that account no. 3988 belonging to Pawan Kumar Rawat was allowed to be opened by J. P. Verma whose signatures on account form and specimen signatures card he identified. He also proved the revised ledger sheet alongwith original ledger sheet of account no. 3988 (Ex.PW1/B & Ex.PW13/A).
(vi) PW-15 Shri Mahavir Prasad stated that on 25.02.1997 he was posted as Manager at Rajgarh Colony branch of Oriental Bank of Commerce. He identified seizure memo dated 25.02.1997 (Ex.PW15/A) bearing his signatures whereby documents were handed RC No.46(A)/95, CC No.83/11 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija over to Inspector Virender Thakran. He further identified signatures of Shri P. L. Bhatnagar on Ex.PW12/K. He further stated that credit entries of Rs.32,800/- and Rs.41,000/- in ledger of account no. 3988 were fake entries as they were without any voucher.
7. PW-14 Shri S. P. Singh stated that he knew Pawan Kumar, JTO who was earlier posted in Laxmi Nagar Exchange. He proved production cum seizure memo dated 25.02.1997 (Ex.PW14/A) in respect of handing over of personal file of Shri Pawan Kumar to Inspector Virender Thakran. He identified signatures and handwriting of Pawan Kumar on various pages in the file.
8. Prosecution further examined the witnesses in whose accounts the amount was unauthorizedly transferred by accused Ashok Pasrija from the account no. 3988 belonging to Shri Pawan Kumar Rawat. It may be appropriate to mention that Pawan Kumar Rawat expired on 14.01.1996 as deposed by PW-14 and as such he could not be examined by the prosecution.
(i) PW-6 Shri Lalit Mohan Kapoor stated that he was having a joint account no. 12136 with his wife in Oriental Bank of Commerce, Rajgarh Colony branch. He further stated that another joint account no. 12169 was alongwith his mother in the same bank. He denied having known persons named Pawan Kumar Rawat (holder of account no. 3988). He further deposed that he knew Ashok Pasrija as he was the Manager in the bank and denied knowledge of transfer of amount of Rs.15,000/- on 30.06.1992 from account no. 3988 to his account no. 12136. He further denied opening of any account no.
RC No.46(A)/95, CC No.83/11 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija 12990 by his mother in her name.
(ii) PW-7 Smt. Usha Rawat, wife of Pawan Kumar Rawat was declared hostile by the prosecution as she resiled from her earlier statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
(iii) PW-19 Shri Sudarshan Kumar Raheja stated that accused was his brother-in-law and had maintained an account no. 11610 in the Rajgarh Colony branch which was opened in January, 1992. He further stated that another account was opened in October, 1992 in joint name with his wife bearing no. 12901 and denied any knowledge about account no. 12151. He denied having known any person by name of Pawan Kumar Rawat and stated that the amount from account of Pawan Kumar Rawat was not transferred to his account at his instructions or vice-versa. He denied any knowledge about transfer of Rs.10,045/- on 01.02.1992 to account no. 3988 or transfer effected vide voucher Ex.PW10/DA and Ex.PW10/D (D21 & D22). He further denied the handwriting on cheque dated 15.02.1992 for Rs.16,000/- in respect of account no. 11610 and withdrawal voucher dated 20.03.1992 for Rs.10,000/- from account no. 11610 alongwith transfer voucher dated 20.03.1992 for Rs.10,000/- (D56); cheque dated 21.04.1992 for Rs.20,000/- (D57) and transfer voucher dated 21.04.1992 for Rs.20,000/- (D58); original cheque dated 26.04.1992 in respect of account no. 12151 (D48); voucher dated 20.03.1992 for Rs.10,000/- Ex.PW19/P8 (D58); cheque dated 21.04.1992 for Rs.20,000/- in respect of account no. 11610 (Ex.PW19/P10)(D-57).
RC No.46(A)/95, CC No.83/11 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija
9. PW-16 Shri Balbir Singh, Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad proved the death certificate of Pawan Kumar (Ex.PW16/1) and stated that as per record, Pawan Kumar had expired on 14.01.1996.
10. PW-17 Dr M. A. Ali, Handwriting Expert proved the reports of the handwriting expert late Shri T. R. Nehra who had since expired as Ex.PW17/C.
11. PW-9 Shri K. C. Sukhija stated that his son Neeraj Sukhija was having account no. 12590 in Oriental Bank of Commerce, Rajgarh Colony, Delhi wherein his neighbour Ashok Pasrija was posted as Manager. He further stated that accused was staying in neighbourhood and the passbook was handed over by his son to the accused. Thereafter, in 1994 he came to know that accused is involved in some fraud in the bank and approached him. He further stated that accused gave a written confession to him on 10.05.1995, 12.05.1997 and 17.05.1997 which are in handwriting of accused and endorsement was made by the witness on the top of the confession given on 10.05.1995 and 12.05.1997 (It may be observed that the said statements given by accused are dated 10.05.1995, 12.05.1995 & 17.05.1995). The said confessions were proved as Ex.PW9/A, Ex.PW9/B and Ex.PW9/C. The witness further deposed that accused told him that he was involved in a fraud of Rs.6.00 lakhs in various savings accounts in the branch including the account of son of witness.
12. In his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. accused denied the case of prosecution and claimed that he was innocent and further sought an RC No.46(A)/95, CC No.83/11 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija opportunity to lead evidence in defence. However, since the accused failed to lead the evidence in defence, the same was closed by the orders of the Court. Subsequently, accused examined himself in defence in another case pending against the accused bearing CC No. 85/11, RC No. 48(A)/95 which is being taken up alongwith the present case and examined himself in defence. Accused therein relied upon judgements passed in civil cases filed by Oriental Bank of Commerce for recovery against him alongwith other persons which were dismissed by the concerned Civil Court. Since the defence of the accused in all the three cases registered by CBI and pending before this Court is common, accused was permitted to file the aforesaid judgements in defence evidence.
Accused took a stand that prosecution is based on insufficient evidence since even the civil cases filed by OBC for the recovery of amount against him as well as other persons as mentioned in the respective suits were dismissed. The said cases filed by OBC and as relied by accused are detailed as under:
1. Suit No.611/07, OBC vs. 1) Sudershan Kumar Raheja, 2) Ashok Pasrija, decided vide judgement dated 03.06.09 by Shri Pulastaya Pramachala, CCJ/ ARC East, KKD, Delhi. The certified copy of the judgement along with decree is Ex.DW1/A.
2. Suit No.91/07, OBC vs. 1) Rashmi Gulati, 2) Ashok Pasrija decided vide judgement dated 21.04.09 by Shri Pulastaya Pramachala, CCJ/ ARC East, KKD, Delhi. The certified copy of the judgement along with decree is Ex.DW1/B.
3. Suit No.735/07, OBC vs. 1) Neeraj Sukhija, 2) Ashok Pasrija, decided vide judgement dated 01.06.09 by Shri Pulastaya Pramachala, CCJ ARC East, KKD, Delhi. The certified copy of the judgement along with decree is Ex.DW1/C. A civil appeal no.44/04 (OBC vs. P.K. Rawat and Ashok Pasrija) was preferred against judgement and decree dated 30.10.04 passed in suit No.M15/04/96 dated 17.03.04 decided by Ms. Veena Rani, Civil Judge, KKD Courts, Shahdara. The said appeal was decided by Shri A.S. Jaichandra, Addl. District & Sessions Judge vide judgement dated 09.04.08. The certified copy of the judgement alongwith decree sheet is RC No.46(A)/95, CC No.83/11 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija Ex.DW1/D. Accused further stated that all the four cases referred to above were decided against OBC.
13. Ld. Counsel for accused has assailed the case of prosecution on the following grounds:
i) That the prosecution failed to obtain sanction u/s 19 of PC Act, 1988 and no evidence had been led on record to prove that the accused was not in service on the date of filing of charge-sheet.
ii) Reliance was placed upon the judgements passed in the civil suits/appeal Ex.DW1/A to Ex.DW1/D wherey claim filed by Oriental Bank of Commerce against the accused alongwith other defendants stated therein was dismissed.
iii) It is also contended that the prosecution had filed an extract of the long book instead of producing the original or the complete copy certified under the Banker's Book Evidence Act to prove the alleged irregularities and the witnesses who had made the entries in the bank record had not been examined.
iv) The seizure memos relied by the prosecution were also disputed on the ground that the same had not been proved by the concerned witnesses who had allegedly signed the same.
v) It was also contended that evidence had not been led on behalf of prosecution to prove that accused was appointed as Hall Incharge from October, 1991 to January, 1993.
RC No.46(A)/95, CC No.83/11 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija
vi) It was also submitted that the withdrawal voucher/cheque could be passed on telephonic confirmation of the account holder as per practice and no evidence had been led to show that the account holder had not telephonically confirmed the withdrawal of the amount.
vii) The testimony of Brig. K. C. Sukhija (PW9) was stated to be untrustworthy on the ground that there was no reason for accused to make the admission before him. The same were stated to have been fabricated by prosecution.
viii) The counsel for accused also placed reliance on Magan Bihari Lal vs. State of Punjab (1977) 2 SCC 210, Rajkumar vs. State of Haryana 1997 (1) Chandigarh Criminal Cases 478 (HC), Raj Mani vs. State 1997 (2) CC Cases 101 (HC), P. K. Vasudeva vs. Zenobia Bhanot AIR 1999 SC 3322 and Avtar Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab 1997 (2) CC Cases 24 (HC) in support of the contentions.
On the other hand, ld. PP for CBI pointed out that the testimony of witnesses clearly brings out that the entries were fabricated by accused whereby the amount was wrongly credited and debited in various accounts without any authorization from account holders for wrongful gain. The other contentions made on behalf of accused were also refuted and it was pointed out that there was no requirement for seeking sanction u/s 19 of PC Act, 1988 as the accused had been dismissed prior to filing of chargesheet. It was also submitted that the illegal transactions made by accused have been proved by the relevant witnesses and also corroborated by opinion of handwriting expert along with extra judicial confessions/written admissions made RC No.46(A)/95, CC No.83/11 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija by accused before Brig. K. C. Sukhija
14. I have heard ld. PP for CBI, counsel for accused and perused the record carefully.
As per banking practice any amount debited or credited in a bank account is supported by a voucher on the basis of which the transaction is effected and the said transaction is further reflected in the relevant ledger and long book by way of specific entry. The bank also maintains 'day book' for reflecting relevant entries and balance is also tallied in 'balance book' for the purpose of reconciliation of accounts. The transactions effected by accused in the present set of cases reflect that the transfer entries were illegally made and also did not tally in the relevant ledgers maintained by the bank and clearly leads to only inference that the same were effected fraudulently for wrongful gain by the accused.
There is sufficient evidence on record to prove that the accused Ashok Pasrija was working as hall Incharge in the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Rajgarh Colony Branch since October, 1991 till Jan., 1993. Further, as hall incharge, it was duty of accused to see opening and closing of accounts, balancing of books, joint custody of cash, maintenance and deployment of staff and other day to day duties. Testimony of PW-1 Shri Chand Kumar Dhawan is categorical that accused Ashok Pasrija was the Hall Incharge. PW-2 Shri Navin Pant in aforesaid context also clarified that branch incumbent of every branch appoints Hall Incharge and there is no vacancy or circular issued for post of Hall Incharge. The contention raised on behalf of RC No.46(A)/95, CC No.83/11 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija accused that he was not the Hall Incharge appears to be meritless as evidence of prosecution witnesses could not be dented to aforesaid extent.
It has also been pointed on behalf of prosecution on the basis of evidence led on record that though the amounts were wrongly credited by accused Ashok Pasrija, the same could not be detected during routine reconciliation as the accused maneuvered during the process of reconciliation of accounts and the entries were made by the subordinate staff in good faith on the basis of instructions given by the accused who was their senior officer and Manager in the bank.
15. As per case of prosecution false credit entries in SB Account no. 3988/15 of Shri Pawan Kumar Rawat were made by accused Ashok Pasrija amounting to Rs.1,08,900/-and the amount was wrongly shown to be credited without the amount being actually received in the said account:
S.No. Date Amount
1. 23.8.92 Rs.32,800-00
2. 23.8.92 Rs.41,000-00
3. 1.10.92 Rs.15,000-00
4. 28.11.92 Rs.10,100-00
5. 11.12.92 Rs.10,000-00
Total Rs.1,08,900-00
The fact that entries were wrongly fabricated in account no.
3988 pertaining to Pawan Kumar Rawat was revealed as the same were not supported by any credit voucher in support of the transaction . Further the corresponding entries do not match with the day book and ledgers maintained in the Bank for day to day RC No.46(A)/95, CC No.83/11 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija transanctions. The illegallity could not be detected during routine reconciliation as the accused maneuvered during the process of reconciliation of accounts and the entries were made by the subordinate staff in good faith on the basis of instructions given by the accused who was their senior officer and Manager in the bank.
The fact that the entries were wongly made by the accused for wrongful gain may also be seen in the light of evidence led on record. In aforesaid context PW1 stated that entries in ledger Ex.PW1/B pertaining to account no. 3988 belonging to Pawan Kumar Rawat (Ex.X1 to X12 & Y1 to Y5) were fake. The testimony of PW-2 Shri Navin Pant is also relevant and he clarified in respect of unauthorized entries made in the ledger. He explained that in case Officer or Hall Incharge himself makes entry in the ledger, the ledger clerk cannot object him to do so because he is subordinate. He also clarified that when there is no confirmation from the account holder, no entry can be made in the ledger and if any such entry is made the same is unauthorized. PW-2 also explained that ledger entry in the amount showing credit of Rs.15,000/- should have been entered in long book dated 01.10.1992 (Ex.PW1/C) but absence of same reflects that the same is fake. He further stated that credit of transfer of Rs.10,100/- on 29.11.1992 had been cleared and initialed by accused in Ex.PW1/B but there is no entry of Rs.10,100/- in long book Ex.PW12/R in respect of account no. 3988 which reflects that the entry is false.
PW-12 Shri K. L. Kapoor in respect of entry dated 23.08.1992 for Rs.32,800/- in SB account no. 3988 also stated that extract of long book Ex.PW12/B shows that there is no voucher dated 23.08.1992 in respect of account no. 3988.
RC No.46(A)/95, CC No.83/11 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija PW-2 also stated that the credit entry in the ledger Ex.PW1/B for Rs.32,800/- and Rs.41,000/- by way of transfer had been made by accused himself and he had put his initials in the ledger. Prosecution has pointed out that so far as the amount of Rs.32,800/- and Rs. 41,000/- are concerned the same are not supported by any vouchers and the amount had never been deposited in the bank for being credited to account no. 3988 and as such the entries are fake. The evidence on record clearly proves that the amount was wrongly credited by accused as detailed above in account no. 3988/15.
16(a). Further, the prosecution case is that the amount in account no. 3988 belonging to Pawan Kumar Rawat was further illegally transferred to other accounts which were operated by accused Ashok Pasrija. The amounts from account no. 3988 were transferred to account no. 11610 belonging to Shri S. K. Raheja, account no. 12151 a fictitious account in the name of Shri S. K. Raheja, SB 12136 account in the name of L. M. Kapoor and Smt. Malti Kapoor, SB 12557 a benami account opened and operated by Ashok Pasrija, SB 12990 an account in name of Sushila Devi Kapoor.
The entries of amount transferred by accused Ashok Pasrija on different dates from A/c No.3988 belonging to Pawan Kumar Rawat without confirmation from account holder ( Shri Pawan Kumar Rawat) may be tabulated below:-
Date Amount Transferred to Remarks
15.2.92 Rs.16,000/- SB Account of Shri S.K.
Voucher Ex.PW3/A1 A/C 11610 Ratheja i.e. relative of
Shri Ashok Pasrija
20.03.92 Rs.10,000/- -do- -do-
Voucher Ex.PW3/A2
RC No.46(A)/95, CC No.83/11 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija
21.4.92 Rs.20,000/- -do- Ledger sheet of A/C
Voucher Ex.PW3/A3 No.3988 debited on
19.8.92 i.e. after a
gap of four months.
24.4.92 Rs.11,000/- -do- -do-
Voucher Ex.PW3/A9
24.4.92 Rs.10,000/- -do- -do-
Voucher Ex.PW3/A10
28.4.92 Rs.17,800/- SB A/C 12151 Fictitious account in
Voucher Ex.PW3/A4 the name of Shri S.K.
Ratheja
30.6.92 Rs.15,000/- SB 12136 A/C in the name of
Voucher Ex.PW3/A5 Shri L.M. Kapoor and
Smt. Malti Kapoor
19.9.92 Rs.14,000/- SB 12557 A benami account
Voucher Ex.PW3/A6 opened and operated
by Shri Ashok Pasrija
28.11.92 Rs.10,100/- SB 12990 An account in the
Voucher Ex.PW3/A7 name of Smt. Sushila
Devi Kapoor
11.12.92 Rs.10,000/- SB 12557 Benami account
Voucher Ex.PW3/A8
Total Rs.133,900/-
It is also pointed out by the prosecution that Shri Ashok Pasrija either withdrew the amount from the other accounts or credited the amount in other accounts by transfer from account No.3988 to compensate the loss caused by withdrawals in said accounts. Further, to compensate the transferred amount or in anticipation of demand of money by the account holder of account No.3988 Shri Ashok Pasrija made fake credit entries in account No.3988.
The aforesaid illegal entries stand proved by testimony of PW-19 Shri S. K. Raheja who was the account holder of savings bank account no. 11610, PW-6 Shri Lalit Mohan Kapoor account holder in respect of account no. 12136 and who also clarified the position with RC No.46(A)/95, CC No.83/11 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija respect to account no. 12990.
PW-19 Shri Sudarshan Kumar Raheja stated that accused was his brother-in-law and had maintained an account no. 11610 in the Rajgarh Colony branch which was opened in January, 1992. He further stated that another account was opened in October, 1992 in joint name with his wife bearing no. 12901 and denied any knowledge about account no. 12151. He denied having known any person by name of Pawan Kumar Rawat and stated that the amount from account of Pawan Kumar Rawat was not transferred to his account at his instructions or vice-versa. He denied any knowledge about transfer of Rs.10,045/- on 01.02.1992 to account no. 3988 or transfer effected vide voucher Ex.PW10/DA and Ex.PW10/D (D21 & D22). He further denied the handwriting on cheque dated 15.02.1992 for Rs.16,000/- in respect of account no. 11610 and withdrawal voucher dated 20.03.1992 for Rs.10,000/- from account no. 11610 alongwith transfer voucher dated 20.03.1992 for Rs.10,000/- (D56); cheque dated 21.04.1992 for Rs.20,000/- (D57) and transfer voucher dated 21.04.1992 for Rs.20,000/- (D58); original cheque dated 26.04.1992 in respect of account no. 12151 (D48); voucher dated 20.03.1992 for Rs.10,000/- Ex.PW19/P8 (D58); cheque dated 21.04.1992 for Rs. 20,000/- in respect of account no. 11610 (Ex.PW19/P10)(D-57).
Similarly PW-6 Shri Lalit Mohan Kapoor in context of the entries made in his accounts stated that he was having a joint account no. 12136 with his wife in Oriental Bank of Commerce, Rajgarh Colony branch. He further stated that another joint account no. 12169 was alongwith his mother in the same bank. He denied having known person named Pawan Kumar Rawat (holder of account no. 3988). He further deposed that he knew Ashok Pasrija as he was the Manager in the bank and denied knowledge of transfer of amount of Rs.15,000/- on 30.06.1992 from account no. 3988 to his account no. 12136. He further denied opening of any account no. 12990 by his mother in her name.
The testimony of aforesaid both the witnesses (PW-6 and PW-19) could not be dented during cross-examination and clearly reflects that the accused unauthorizedly transferred the amount from account no. 3988 belonging to Pawan Kumar Rawat to the accounts referred by PW-6 & PW-9. Also account no. 12557 has been proved RC No.46(A)/95, CC No.83/11 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija in CC No.85/11 to have been fictitiously opened by accused.
16(b). The prosecution further relies on the fact that the vouchers had been filled by the accused himself and the amount was debited/transferred without getting any confirmation from the holder of account no. 3988 in order to cheat the bank and to utilize the amount which was wrongly earlier credited in account no. 3988. The fact that the amount was wrongly transferred in account no. 11610 and 12151 has been confirmed in testimony of PW-6 Shri Lalit Mohan Kapoor and PW-19 Shri Sudarshan Kumar Raheja. The testimony of PW-19 is categorical to the extent that he had never maintained two different accounts with different numbers in Rajgarh Colony branch and further he did not know any person by name of Pawan Kumar Rawat and there was no question of transferring amount from account of Pawan Kumar Rawat to his account. He also stated that he did not authorize or request the accused Ashok Pasrija to transfer the amount from one account to another account or vice-versa.
16(c)(i). The following circumstances have been also proved in testimony of PW-1 Shri Chand Kumar Dhawan who was posted as Officer in Rajgarh Branch of OBC during relevant period and identified the signatures of accused Ashok Pasrija.
Testimony of PW-1 brings out that so far as voucher dated 28.04.1992 amounting to Rs.17,800/- Ex.PW1/D is concerned, the amount had been transferred as per voucher to SB 12151 which is a fake account in the name of Sudarshan Kumar Raheja (brother-in-law of accused) who denied having opened the aforesaid account. The said voucher is under the signatures of accused Ashok Pasrija.
RC No.46(A)/95, CC No.83/11 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija PW-1 Shri Chand Kumar Dhawan, Officer, OBC also proved debit slip of account no. 3988 dated 14.09.1992 of Rs.14,000/- (Ex.PW1/H) and debit voucher dated 18.11.1992 of same account for Rs.10,100/- (Ex.PW1/I) which at Q-9 and Q-8 have been opined to be filled up in the handwriting of accused Ashok Pasrija. Further the aforesaid amount to be debited from account no. 3988 of Pawan Kumar Rawat to 12557 and 12990 was as per telephonic instruction as mentioned on the voucher and the same was not got confirmed by the account holder of SB 3988 i.e. Shri P. K. Rawat. It is pointed out by prosecution that the said debit voucher in case of debit of amount from account no. SB 3988 to any other account was required to be confirmed by the account holder as it has been done with respect to debit voucher dated 04.02.1992 (Ex.PW2/A1) whereby the amount of Rs.11,000/- debited from account no. 3988 to 11610 was confirmed by signatures by the account holder. It may be also noticed that account no. 12557 has been proved to be fictitious in connected cases which was opened and operated by accused in the name of Suman Arora.
(ii). Similarly prosecution has relied upon statement of PW-2 Shri Naveen Pant who was posted at OBC, Rajgarh Colony branch since 1991 and identified the handwriting of accused Ashok Pasrija. He proved the ten vouchers Ex.PW2/A1 to A10 alongwith original ledger sheet Ex.PW1/B. During course of arguments it has come to my notice that though the vouchers have been mentioned as Ex.PW2/A1 to A10 the same have not been exhibited on the relevant vouchers which the prosecution submits have again been exhibited as Ex.PW3/A1 to A10 in testimony of PW-3 Shri B. R. Jain.
It may be pointed out that the aforesaid vouchers were signed RC No.46(A)/95, CC No.83/11 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija by Ashok Pasrija but the debit has not been confirmed by the account holder Shri Pawan Kumar Rawat. PW-2 Shri Naveen Pant in his evidence further pointed out that the entries were made in the ledger in respect of the voucher which had no confirmation from the account holder because the voucher was prepared and passed by accused and he had to obey the order.
(iii). PW-1 also deposed with respect to transfer payment order dated 12.09.1992 amounting to Rs.60,000/- (Ex.PW1/E) which was initialed by the accused. It is pointed out by the prosecution that since prior to 23.08.1992, amount left in credit of account no. 3988 of P. K. Rawat was only for Rs.69.10, accused unauthorizedly made two fake entries of Rs.32,800/- and 41,000/- by way of transfer to ensure that fraud does not come to notice of Pawan Kumar Rawat and since Pawan Kumar Rawat required a draft for GDA for Rs.60,000/-. The said transfer voucher is stated to have been initialed by accused Ashok Pasrija at Q-12. Application for preparing the TPO vide Ex.PW1/F is also in the handwriting of accused as opined by the Handwriting Expert.
17. Apart from the illegal entries fabricated by the accused, the prosecution has relied upon the extra judicial confessions by way of written statement made by accused Ashok Pasrija to Brig. K. C. Sukhija who has been examined in all the cases pending against the accused. The said handwritten statements given by the accused to Brig. K. C. Sukhija of his own freewill are clear admissions by the accused pointing out to his guilt. The testimony of Brig. K. C. Sukhija could not be dented during cross-examination and his testimony may RC No.46(A)/95, CC No.83/11 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija be briefly referred as under:
PW-9 Shri K. C. Sukhija stated that his son Neeraj Sukhija was having account no. 12590 in Oriental Bank of Commerce, Rajgarh Colony, Delhi wherein his neighbour Ashok Pasrija was posted as Manager. He further stated that accused was staying in neighbourhood and the passbook was handed over by his son to the accused. Thereafter, in 1994 he came to know that accused is involved in some fraud in the bank and approached him. He further stated that accused gave a written confession to him on 10.05.1995, 12.05.1997 and 17.05.1997 which are in handwriting of accused and endorsement was made by the witness on the top of the confession given on 10.05.1995 and 12.05.1997. (Note: there appears to be an error in dates as the statements are dated 10.05.1995, 12.05.1995 & 17.05.1995). The said confessions are Ex.PW9/A, Ex.PW9/B and Ex.PW9/C. The witness further deposed that accused told him that he was involved in a fraud of Rs.6.00 lakhs in various savings accounts in the branch including the account of son of witness.
Ld. PP for CBI has pointed out that accused Ashok Pasrija is also facing trial in another case bearing RC 49/95 which is pending before the Court of Shri Pradeep Chaddah, Special Judge, CBI and in the aforesaid case the irregularities committed in the account of Neeraj Sukhija son of K. C. Sukhija (have been dealt) and the charge- sheet was separately filed. The accused had given the said three confessional statements dated 12.05.1995, 10.05.1995 and 17.05.1995 as referred in statement of PW-9 Shri K. C. Sukhija with reference to said case and same has been relied in all the cases pending against the accused. All the said confessions in handwriting of accused have been placed in original in RC No. 49(A)/95 and the photocopies have been proved by PW9 in the present case as Ex.PW9/A, Ex.PW9/B & Ex.PW9/C. The writing of the said confessions which have been marked as Q1 on confession dated 12.05.1995 and Q2 on confession dated 10.05.1995 were opined by RC No.46(A)/95, CC No.83/11 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija expert to be in handwriting of accused Ashok Pasrija and the handwriting expert is stated to have been examined in relevant RC 49(A)/95. The said confessional statements have been duly proved by witness Shri K. C. Sukhija in whose presence the said confessional statements were given and cannot be discarded merely because the handwriting expert Shri V. K. Khanna who had compared the handwriting and given the opinion that the same were in the handwriting of accused has not been examined in this case. The copy of the opinion of the handwriting expert has been relied by the prosecution in the three cases pending before this Court and the original admissions alongwith the opinion have been placed in the fourth case pending against the accused i.e. RC 49(A)/95 which is pending in the Court of Shri Pradeep Chaddah, Special Judge, CBI, Delhi and have been proved in the said case. The said file was also summoned during the course of arguments. The testimony of PW9 K. C. Sukhija could not be dented during cross-examination and there is no iota of doubt that the said confessional statements were made by the accused voluntarily and without any coercion.
It may now be relevant to point out the contents of the confessional statement dated 12.05.1995 which bears the endorsement of Shri K. C. Sukhija on the top of the statement alongwith date whereby accused categorically admitted having committed irregularities as under:
"I hereby admit having committed irregularities to the tune of Rs.6.00 lacs in different SB A/cs from Feb 92 onwards (including 2 entries of SB 12590 of Neeraj). No one else is responsible or be held responsible for my this act.
I undertake to reimburse the Bank with amount of loss caused because of my acts latest by 31.12.94.
I know that I do not deserve any sympathy/soft corner still for the sake of my innocent family I request for a Mercy.
Hoping for a Mercy.
Yours faithfully"
RC No.46(A)/95, CC No.83/11 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija The confessional statement dated 12.05.1995 categorically points out that the accused therein unconditionally admitted his fault to K. C. Sukhija and was made even prior to registration of FIR.
So far as statement written by accused dated 10.05.1995 is concerned, the accused therein assured that K. C. Sukhija would not face any problem.
The third statement dated 17.05.1995 under signature of Ashok Pasrija may also be reproduced.
"To whomsoever it may concern This is confirmed that Sh Neeraj Sukhija R/o D-161 Bathla Appts, Patpar Ganj has no connection/relation with the questionable entries to the tune of Rs.23,000/- (Rs. Twenty three thousand only) that are appearing in his SB a/c no. 12590 with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Rajgarh Colony, Delhi & for which entries a legal notice has been issued or a Suit has been filed by the Bank making him a party. This charge against him is totally baseless which is being conveyed on the basis of available records with the bank.
Sd/-
(ASHOK PASRIJA) 17/5/95"
The said statement also clearly reflects that the accused admitted that the entries made in the account of Neeraj Sukhija (account no. 12590) had no connection with the questionable entries to the tune of Rs.23,000/-. Further, when read in conjunction with the earlier statements, the same reflect that the accused categorically admitted his dubious role in making the illegal entries to the tune of Rs.6.00 lakhs in different SB accounts. Since the original statements written by the accused were duly produced and copies exhibited thereafter and the concerned witness Shri K. C. Sukhija before whom RC No.46(A)/95, CC No.83/11 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija the said statements were made has been duly examined, I am of the opinion that the same cannot be overlooked merely because the concerned handwriting expert has not been examined in this case. There does not appear to be any reason to presume that Ex.PW9/A to Ex.PW9/C were fabricated to implicate the accused as contended by the counsel. The testimony of Brig. K. C. Sukhija could not be dented during cross-examination and there is no reason to disbelieve the written admissions made by accused. The illegality committed by the accused as such stands proved even by his own admission by way of confessional statements given to Brig. K. C. Sukhija.
18. At this stage, the contention raised by counsel for accused that report of the handwriting expert given by Shri T. R. Nehra, Handwriting Expert cannot be read in evidence u/s 293 Cr.P.C. and otherwise has not been proved due to death of Shri T. R. Nehra may be dealt with. Reliance has also been placed upon Magan Bihari Lal vs. State of Punjab (1977) 2 SCC 210, Rajkumar vs. State of Haryana 1997 (1) Chandigarh Criminal Cases 478 (HC), Raj Mani vs. State 1997 (2) CC Cases 101 (HC), P. K. Vasudeva vs. Zenobia Bhanot AIR 1999 SC 3322 and Avtar Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab 1997 (2) CC Cases 24 (HC).
On the other hand, the contention is refuted on behalf of prosecution and it is submitted that the report given by the handwriting expert Shri T. R. Nehra was proved by PW17 Dr. M. A. Ali and can be duly read in evidence. It is also contended that the contents of the said report of the handwriting expert are relevant and can be considered u/s 32 (2) of the Evidence Act and since the report has RC No.46(A)/95, CC No.83/11 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija been proved by PW17 to be in the writing of the expert who had since expired. Reliance is also placed upon 2009 Crl. L. J. 3268 Ramesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1964 Pat 62 Ram Balak Singh and Ors. vs The State and AIR 1980 Supreme Court 531 Murarilal v. State of M. P. & AIR 1989 Supreme Court 702 Prithi Chand vs. State of Himachal Pradesh .
I have given considered thought to the contentions raised at bar. There is no doubt to the proposition that the maker of the report regarding the handwriting has to appear as a witness for the proof of the contents of the report and the report of handwriting expert is not covered under Clause C of Sub-section 4 of Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as held in 1997 (2) C.C. Cases 101 relied by the counsel for accused. The said proposition was decided by the Hon'ble High Court in the background that the accused did not have the opportunity to challenge the report of the handwriting expert as it was produced at the stage of recording of statement of accused u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
In the present case, the fact remains that the said report of the handwriting expert has been duly proved by PW17 Dr. M. A. Ali since the expert who had given the report, namely, Shri T. R. Nehra had expired. The contents of the report are relevant as per Sub-section 2 of Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act as held in 2009 Crl. L.J. 3268. The report has also been proved by PW17 Dr. M. A. Ali as per requirement of Section 67 of the Evidence Act. Reference may also be made to AIR 1989 Supreme Court 702 wherein the medical certificate made by the doctor whose presence could not be procured RC No.46(A)/95, CC No.83/11 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija and was proved by another doctor was held to be admissible on the analogy that Section 32 of the Evidence Act provided that when a statement written or verbal is made by a person in the discharge of a professional duty whose attendance cannot be procured without an amount of delay the same is admissible in evidence. Apart from above, Section 73 of the Evidence Act enables a Court to compare disputed writings with admitted or proved writings to ascertain whether a writing is of the person by whom it purports to have been written and for the purpose the expert opinion aid's the Court. Further, the Court before acting on such evidence/opinion of the handwriting expert normally also sees if it is corroborated either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. The witnesses who were working with the accused in the bank in the course of duties have also deposed as to the making of various entries by the accused who were well acquainted with his handwriting and nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination to throw doubt if the relevant entries had not been made by the accused. In view of above, the report of handwriting expert is relevant and can be considered. At the same time it may be observed that even apart from the report of handwriting expert, sufficient evidence has been led to prove the illegal transactions carried by the accused.
(ii) It has been also contended by counsel for accused that expert evidence is a weak type of evidence and the Courts do not consider it as conclusive and, therefore, it is not safe to rely upon it without seeking independent and reliable corroboration. There is no dispute to the aforesaid extent as to the proposition of law. However, counsel for accused has further contended that since permission was not RC No.46(A)/95, CC No.83/11 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija obtained by the IO prior to obtaining the specimen handwriting of the accused, the opinion of the handwriting expert has to be excluded.
I am of the considered view that the law on the aforesaid point has been authoritatively clarified in Bhupinder Singh vs. State in the judgement passed by the three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Crl. Appeal No. 1005/2008 decided on 30.11.2011. In the aforesaid case, expressing doubt to the correctness of decisions in Harpal Singh v. State (Criminal Appeal No. 362/2008 decided on 25th May, 2010) and Satyawan v. State (Criminal Appeal No. 34/2011 decided on 9th July, 2009) wherein the two division benches had ignored the part of the report of the handwriting expert on the ground that the investigating officer had taken the specimen handwriting in violation of the provisions of the the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, the following question was referred for adjudication by a larger Bench "Whether the sample finger prints given by the accused during investigation under Section 4 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 without prior permission of the Magistrate under Section 5 of the Act will be admissible or not?"
The Hon'ble Full Bench was of the considered view that the view expressed in Harpal Singh (Supra) and Satyawan (supra) is not a correct view and was overruled. It was further observed that the view expressed in the case of Sunil Kumar @ Sonu vs. State of NCT of Delhi Crl. Appeal No. 446/2005 decided on 25.03.2010 lays down the law in correct perspective. The observations in Sunil Kumar @ Sonu may be beneficially reproduced as under :
"26. It is true that the specimen finger print impressions of the appellants were taken by the IO directly and not through the Magistrate as provided in RC No.46(A)/95, CC No.83/11 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija Section 5 of Identification of Prisoners Act. But, that, to my mind was not necessary because Section 4 of Identification of Prisoners Act specifically provides that any person who has been arrested in connection with an offence punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year or upwards shall, if so required by a police officer, allow his measurement to be taken in the prescribed manner. In view of the independent powers conferred upon a police officer under Section 4 of the Act, it was not obligatory for him to approach the Magistrate under Section 5 of the Act. He would have approached the Magistrate, had the appellants refused to give Specimen Finger Print Impressions to him. Therefore, no illegality attaches to the specimen finger print impressions taken by the Investigating Officer. The court needs to appreciate that the very nature and characteristic of material such as finger prints renders it intrinsically and inherently impossible for anyone to fabricate them. If there is an attempt to fabricate finger prints, that can certainly be exposed by the accused by offering to allow his finger prints to be taken so that the same could be compared through the process of the court. Crl. A. No. 1005/2008 Page 6 of 15 None of the appellants has come forward to the court with a request to take his finger print impressions in the court and get them compared with the chance finger prints lifted by PW-1 from Car No. DL 2CA 4116 on 21st December, 2000."
In view of the authoritative pronouncement in Bhupinder Singh vs. State (Supra) and other authorities referred therein, I am of the considered view that opinion of the handwriting expert cannot be excluded merely on the ground that the specimen handwriting of the accused were obtained during investigation for comparison without seeking the permission of the Magistrate.
In the aforesaid context, reliance may also be placed upon AIR 2011 SC 1436 wherein reference was made to the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad and Ors., AIR 1961 SC 1808 and the relevant observations in Para 35 may be quoted:-
"11. ........When an accused person is called upon by the Court or any other authority holding an investigation to give his finger impression or signature or a specimen of his handwriting, he is not giving any testimony of the nature of a 'personal testimony'. The giving of a 'personal testimony' must depend upon his volition. He can make any kind of statement or may refuse to make any statement. But his finger impressions or his handwriting, in spite of RC No.46(A)/95, CC No.83/11 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija efforts at concealing the true nature of it by dissimulation cannot change their intrinsic character. Thus, the giving of finger impressions or of specimen writing or of signatures by an accused person, though it may amount to furnishing evidence in the larger sense, is not included within the expression 'to be a witness."
19. The accused (in his defence) has also relied upon the judgements passed in the civil cases filed by Oriental Bank of Commerce against the accused alongwith other persons for recovery of the amount which were dismissed, to contend that the irregularities could not be proved against the accused.
Before I dwell upon the aforesaid judgements passed in civil cases, the scope of findings in the civil suits vis-a-vis the criminal proceedings may be seen as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in AIR 2010 Supreme Court 2010 {Kishan Singh (D) through L. Rs. v. Gurpal Singh & Ors.} in para 19.
"19. Thus, in view of the above, the law on the issue stands crystallized to the effect that the findings of fact recorded by the Civil Court do no have any bearing so far as the criminal case is concerned and vice-versa. Standard of proof is different in civil and criminal cases. In civil cases it is preponderance of probabilities while in criminal cases it is proof beyond reasonable doubt. There is neither any statutory nor any legal principle that findings recorded by the court either in civil or criminal proceedings shall be binding between the same parties while dealing with the same subject-matter and both the cases have to be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced therein. However, there may be cases where the provisions of Sections 41 to 43 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, dealing with the relevance of previous Judgments in subsequent cases may be taken into consideration."
(a) The judgement relied by accused may now be adverted to and RC No.46(A)/95, CC No.83/11 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija scrutinized. RCA No. 44/04 pertains to judgement dated 09.04.2008 passed in appeal by Shri A. S. Jayachandra, ADJ, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi whereby the appeal preferred by Oriental Bank of Commerce was dismissed and the findings of the ld. Civil Judge in judgement and decree in suit no. M15/04/96 dated 30.10.2004 were affirmed. The accused has not filed the copy of judgement passed in suit no. M15/04/96 dated 30.10.2004 by the Civil Judge. The perusal of judgement in appeal reveals that the suit was filed by Oriental Bank of Commerce against Ashok Pasrija and P. K. Rawat (since deceased) in respect of fraud committed in account no. 3988/15 (in the name of P. K. Rawat) by way of credit entries for sum of Rs.1,08,900/-. The findings of the trial court were upheld in appeal and the suit filed by Oriental Bank of Commerce appears to have been dismissed since the bank failed to examine the relied upon witnesses, namely, Shri P. L. Bhatnagar after partly examining the witness and since the bank also failed to prove the admission letter allegedly signed by accused Ashok Pasrija in original. The entries on the basis of ledger were also held to be not proved for want of certification under Banker's Book Evidence Act and for other reasons as recorded in the judgement. It was also observed in para 17(j) of the judgement passed in appeal that the allegation basically was against one of the account holder P. K. Rawat who died having appropriated the amount. It was also reasoned that the allegation against Ashok pasrija is that he facilitated such wrongful entries to help P. K. Rawat but to prove this allegation, none of the bank employees who worked during the tenure of defendant no. 2 was examined. It was also observed thereafter that after careful perusal of record, it becomes difficult to find out the role of defendant.
RC No.46(A)/95, CC No.83/11 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija A bare perusal of the judgement reveals that the same was passed for the reasons that the relevant witnesses were either not examined or the documents were not proved in accordance with provisions of Evidence Act. The case was filed by OBC against both the account holder s well as accused herein for recovery. However, so far as the present proceedings are concerned, the same have to be assessed in the background that the CBI itself had placed Shri P. K. Rawat in column no. 2 of the charge-sheet and did not find any evidence to substantiate the finding that he was in conspiracy with accused Ashok Pasrija. The evidence in the present case as such needs to be assessed independently of the findings of the civil court and assess if the documents filed on record have been proved in accordance with law and if the evidence points to the guilt of the accused. It may be difficult to hold in the facts and circumstances that the prosecution of the accused cannot be sustained merely on the basis of the findings of the civil court with reference to judgement relied by the accused. The relevant evidence has been duly led in present proceedings to prove the facts beyond reasonable dount.
(b) The second judgement relied by the accused pertains to civil suit no. 611/07 (Ex.DW1/A), OBC vs. Sudarshan Kumar Raheja & Ashok Pasrija. The said suit was filed for recovery of Rs.43,808/- against the aforesaid defendants and the same was dismissed vide judgement dated 03.06.2009 by Shri Pulastya Pramachala, CCJ/ARC, East/MM, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. As per the case of the plaintiff in the aforesaid suit, fake entries were made in account no. 12151/47 in the name of Sudarshan Kumar Raheja for Rs.28,000/- which amount was withdrawn on 29.05.1992 for Rs.12,000/- and on RC No.46(A)/95, CC No.83/11 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija 13.06.1992 for Rs.16,000/-. The said suit was dismissed since the plaintiff bank failed to prove the factum of making false entries of credit in account of Sudarshan Kumar Raheja (defendant in the suit). It was observed by the ld. trial Court that the plaintiff had nowhere explained that which particular entry was fake which pertained to credit of amount in the account of defendant no. 1 and the plaint speaks only about composite amount of Rs.28,000/-.
However, so far as the present proceedings are concerned, the prosecution has duly proved the relevant ledgers, vouchers etc. to prove the fake entries involved in the proceedings and as such, the findings of the civil Court cannot absolve the accused in the light of the categorical evidence on record.
(c) The third judgement relied upon by the accused Ex.DW1/D pertains to suit filed by OBC against Smt. Rashmi Gulati and Ashok Pasrija for recovery of Rs.49,623/-. The suit filed by the plaintiff bank was dismissed vide judgement dated 21.4.2009 by Shri Pulastya Pramachala, CCJ/ARC/MM (East), Kakardooma Courts, Delhi. The said case pertains to making of fake entries in account no. 11112/43 for sum of Rs.40,532/- and out of the same, cash amount of Rs. 11,040/- for pay order of Rs.11,015/- was made out in name of defendant no. 1 and amount of pay order was withdrawn by defendant no. 2. Further, a CDR dated 09.01.1994 for sum of Rs.30,000/- favouring defendant no. 1 was also issued.
So far as the aforesaid judgement is concerned, the said account number does not appear to be involved in the present case.
(d) The fourth judgement relied upon by the accused Ex.DW1/C RC No.46(A)/95, CC No.83/11 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija pertains to suit filed by OBC against Neeraj Sukhija and Ashok Pasrija for recovery of Rs.28,024/-. The suit filed by the plaintiff bank was dismissed vide judgement dated 01.06.2009 by Shri Pulastya Pramachala, CCJ/ARC/MM (East), Kakardooma Courts, Delhi. As per the case of the plaintiff bank, the fake entries were made in account no. 12590 belonging to Neeraj Sukhija for a sum of Rs.23,000/- and out of this amount, at the request of Neeraj Sukhija a demand draft was made favouring Col. K. C. Sukhija for Rs.10,000/- and the remaining amount was withdrawn by defendant no. 1 or transferred to other accounts. The ld. Trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to explain as to which particular entries were fake which pertained to credit of amount in the account of defendant no. 1 and only a composite amount of Rs.23,000/- was mentioned. It was also observed that nothing relating to the accounts was produced before the Court and the plaintiff failed to prove the factum of making false entries of credit in account of defendant no. 1.
So far as the aforesaid judgement is concerned, same may be relevant for consideration in RC 49(A)/95 which is pending before the Court of Shri Pradeep Chaddah, Special Judge, Delhi. So far as illegal entries other than relating to account no. 12590 are concerned, the same have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The accused cannot be given any benefit merely on the basis of said judgements passed in aforesaid civil cases and specifically in view of written admissions made by accused before Shri K. C. Sukhija which have been duly proved on record.
In view of aforesaid discussion, the accused cannot be granted benefit of doubt merely because of dismissal of civil proceedings for recovery of amount initiated by OBC. The charge against the accused RC No.46(A)/95, CC No.83/11 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija stands proved beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of evidence led on record in the present proceedings.
20. Contention has also been raised on behalf of accused that in respect of some of the entries, the prosecution has filed extract of long book instead of producing the original and as such the case has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
The contention raised by the counsel for accused does not carry any merit since overwhelming evidence has been led by prosecution to establish the illegal transactions carried by the accused. In case the accused was prejudiced by non production of any such document in original, the same could have been summoned by him. Further, there does not appear to be any requirement that each and every entry made in the relevant ledgers/books maintained in the bank was required to be proved by the concerned person who had made the entries. The relevant copies of the documents duly certified under the Bankers Book Evidence Act, 1891 have been produced and proved on record.
21. Counsel for accused also challenged the proceedings on the ground that no sanction had been obtained by the prosecution u/s 19 of PC Act, 1988. The said contention on the face of record appears to be meritless as it was pointed out by the prosecution that the accused had been dismissed from service prior to filing of chargesheet on 23.07.1998. For the aforesaid purpose during the course of arguments, file pertaining to RC 46(A)/95 was also called since some of the documents in original referred during the course of arguments were stated to have been tagged with the said file. In the aforesaid RC No.46(A)/95, CC No.83/11 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija case, an original communication dated 19.06.1998 addressed by Shri S. K. Singh, Chief Vigilance Officer to Shri Anil Kumar, Superintendent of Police has been brought to my notice whereby it was communicated that Ashok Pasrija had been removed from the service of the bank vide letter dated 29.03.1997.
22. The accused has been charged for offences u/s 420/409/467/468/477-A IPC (falsification of accounts). Section 463 deals with forgery and Section 464 further defines "making of false documents". Section 467 provides punishment for forgery of valuable security, will etc. Section 468 deals with forgery for purpose of cheating. The opinion of Handwriting Expert proves the fact that accused forged various debit vouchers, credit vouchers for wrongly debiting and crediting the amount as discussed in preceding paras. The forgery has been clearly done for purpose of cheating and the accused further prepared and used the various debit slips and credit slips for wrongly crediting the amount and for illegal gain. The accused is hereby convicted under Sec 420/467/468 IPC.
Sec. 477-A IPC deals with falsification of accounts and may be reproduced.
"477A, Falsification of accounts.- Whoever, being a clerk, officer or servant, or employed or acting in the capacity of a clerk, officer or servant, willfully, and with intent to defraud, destroys, alters, mutilates or falsifies any book, electronic record, paper, writing], valuable security or account which belongs to or is in the possession of his employer, or has been received by him for or on behalf of his employer, or willfully, and with intent to defraud, makes or abets the making of any false entry in, or omits or alters or abets the omission or alteration of any material RC No.46(A)/95, CC No.83/11 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija particular of any material particular form or in, any such book, electronic record, paper, writing], valuable security or account, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
Explanation-It shall be sufficient in any charge under this section to allege a general intent to defraud without naming any particular person intended to be defraud without naming any particular person intended to be defrauded or specifying any particular sum of money intended to be the subject of the fraud, or any particular day on which the offence was committed."
The evidence clearly points out that the debit and credit slips were dishonestly prepared for wrongful gain to the accused and causing loss to the bank and the account holders. The accused also intentionally made fraudulent entries for purpose of illegal gain and thereby committed offence punishable u/s 477-A IPC. The accused is accordingly also convicted u/s 477-A IPC.
Section 409 IPC deals with criminal breach of trust by public servant or by banker, merchant or agent and provides that whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property in his capacity of a public servant or in the way of his business as a banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with imprisonment prescribed therein. It has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused by abusing his position as a public servant/banker committed criminal breach of trust and also duped the account holders and as such is liable to be convicted u/s 409 IPC.
RC No.46(A)/95, CC No.83/11 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija
23. OFFENCE COMMITTED BY ACCUSED ON THE PROVED FACTS UNDER PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988.
Relevant portion of Section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which provides for criminal misconduct by a public servant reads as under:
"13.Criminal misconduct by a public servant.
(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,-
[...]
(c) If he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use any property entrusted to him or under his control as a public servant or allows any other person so to do; or
(d) If he, -[...]
(ii) By abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or [...](2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than one year but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine."
The accused in the present case being deputed in the bank had access to all the documents maintained in the Banking business and was also responsible as an manager for conduct of day to day business in the bank. The accused wrongly made the entries or ensured that the transactions are wrongly entered on the basis of vouchers for debiting and crediting of the amount in various accounts and as such on the face of record misused his position for fraudulent RC No.46(A)/95, CC No.83/11 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija gain and committed criminal breach of trust. It is therefore beyond purview of doubt that accused being a public servant is guilty of offence u/s 13(1)(d) r/w Sec 13(1)(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
24. For the foregoing reasons the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accused is accordingly convicted for commission of offences under Sections 409/420/467/468,477 A IPC & 13 (1) (d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Announced in the (Anoop Kumar Mendiratta)
open Court on Special Judge (PC Act)
18th July, 2012 CBI-08, Central District,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
RC No.46(A)/95, CC No.83/11 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija IN THE COURT OF ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT), CBI-08, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
CC No. : 83/2011
PS : CBI/ACB/ND
Unique ID No. 02401R0073511998
RC No. : 46(A)/95-DLI
CBI
Versus
Shri Ashok Pasrija,
Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce,
Rajgarh Colony Branch,
Delhi.
At present r/o D-140, Bathla Apartment,
Patparganj, Delhi. .......Accused/Convict
Date of FIR : 16.06.1995
Date of Institution : 23.07.1998
Date of Judgement : 18.07.2012
Order on Sentence : 20.07.2012
CASE MORE THAN 10 YEARS OLD.
1. Accused Ashok Pasrija has been convicted vide separate judgements dated 18.07.2012 in all the three connected cases which were taken up together for disposal (i.e. RC No. 46(A)/95 (CC No. 83/11), RC No. 47(A)/95 (CC No. 84/11) and RC No. 48(A)/95 (CC No. 85/11). The accused has been convicted in each case for commission of offences U/s 409/420/467/468/477 (A) IPC & Section 13 (1)(d) r/w Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988.
RC No.46(A)/95, CC No.83/11 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija
2. I have heard Shri A. K. Dutt, ld. PP for CBI and counsel for accused on point of sentence.
Counsel for accused submits that accused is aged about 60 years and has already been dismissed from service. It is further submitted that family of the accused has also suffered immensely on account of his dismissal and has been financially ruined. It is also contended that accused is suffering from medical ailments and has been facing proceedings for the last 17 years since registration of FIR in 1995 and as such a lenient view be taken.
On the other hand Ld. PP for CBI contends that deterrent sentence be passed.
3. Accused was an employee of Oriental Bank of Commerce and indulged in preparation of false documents, forging of entries and fabrication of accounts for wrongful gain. Apart from the bank, the account holders in the respective cases were also put at loss and duped in good faith. The fraud committed by accused could not be detected for a considerable period despite audits since the the accused being a Manager in the bank had access to all the documents and was able to maneuver. The acts of the accused pose a fundamental threat to the viability of the organization itself and also resulted in loss to several account holders who trusted the accused and thereby calls for a deterrent sentence.
RC No.46(A)/95, CC No.83/11 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija
4. The case also calls for appropriate checks to be taken by the bank as the illegal transactions carried by the accused could not be detected in the normal course despite regular balancing of books claimed to have been carried in the bank. Some of the credit entries were made by the accused even without supporting vouchers which could not have been possible, if the other employees in the bank had been diligent enough to cross check the vouchers with corresponding entries. There appears to be lack of supervision by the senior officials. The judgements filed by the accused in his defence reflect that the Oriental Bank of Commerce resorted to filing of the civil suits for recovery of the amounts against some of the account holders on the presumption that they were in collusion with the accused while the prosecution at the stage of investigation itself gave a clean chit to the account holders in the present cases as the fraud was committed by the accused and the account holders themselves were put at loss. In the facts and circumstances, the bank is required to at least ensure that the account holders are not put to inconvenience and further face litigation for deficiencies in their own system or the fraud committed by its employees. The Oriental Bank of Commerce needs to ensure proper conciliation and accountability of banking transactions on day to day basis to prevent similar frauds. A copy of judgment alongwith order on sentence be also forwarded to the Chairman/CEO, Oriental Bank of Commerce for information and necessary action.
5. I am of the considered view that interest of justice would be fully met if convict shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years in RC No.46(A)/95, CC No.83/11 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija respect of offence under Section 420 IPC and shall also pay fine of Rs.2,000/-; in default of payment of fine accused shall undergo SI for 2 months. In respect of offence under Section 409 IPC, convict shall undergo R.I. for 3 years and shall pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-; in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for 2 months. In respect of offence under Section 467 IPC, convict shall undergo R.I. for 3 years and shall pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-; in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for 2 months. In respect of offence under Section 468 IPC, convict shall undergo R.I. for 3 years and shall pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-; in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for 2 months. In respect of offence under Section 477 A IPC, convict shall undergo R.I. for 3 years and shall pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-; in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for 2 months. Lastly, in respect of offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 convict shall undergo R.I. for 3 years and shall pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-; in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for 2 months. The aforesaid sentence under different sections in this case as well as the sentence imposed in the other two cases decided alongwith this case shall run concurrently (i.e. CC No. 83/11, 84/11 & 85/11). Convict shall also be entitled to benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. Copy of judgement alongwith order on sentence be provided to convict free of cost.
Announced in the open court (Anoop Kumar Mendiratta)
th
on 20 July, 2012 Special Judge (CBI-08), PC Act
Central Distt., Delhi.
RC No.46(A)/95, CC No.83/11 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija