Delhi District Court
Cbi No.01/10 Cbi vs Smt.Savita Devi & Ors. on 10 May, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH.R P PANDEY: SPECIAL JUDGE (CBI)01
ROHINI COURTS:DELHI
RC7/2009/E0001/EOUII/CBI/N.Delhi
U/s120B/420/468/471 IPC & PC Act, 1988
CBI CASE No.01/10
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, NEW DELHI
VS
1. Smt.Savita Devi wife of late Sh.Ombir Singh
C9/1, DLF PhaseI, Gurgaon (Haryana)
2. S L Dhir son of late Sh.M L Dhir
G25, Mansarover Garden, New Delhi
3. Ravi Sethi son of late Sh.Roshan Lal Sethi
270, Double Storey, New Rajendra Nagar
New Delhi
4. Satish Sikri son of late Sh.Q R Sikri
31, ABlock, Chander Nagar
Janakpuri, New Delhi
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.1 of 86
5. D C Narnolia son of late Sh.C R Narnolia
G141, Choma Village, New Palam Vihar
PhaseI, Gurgaon, Haryana
6. D R P Sundaram
rd
1316, Bajanai Koil, 3 Street, Flat B4
Ist Floor, AR Flats, Anu Homes
Choolaimedu, Chennai600094
7. K V Prabhakar Rao son of late Sh.K V Surya Rao
Flat No.203, Sri Sai Heights, S S Nagar
Street No.8, Habisguda, Hyderabad500007
8. Om Prakash Sharma son of late Sh.Chander Mani
C154, Mahavir Enclave, PartIII
New Delhi110045
9. Smt.Shanti Devi wife of Sh.Om Prakash Sharma
C154, Mahavir Enclave, PartIII
New Delhi110045
10.Sunil Kumar son of Sh.Om Prakash Sharma
C154, Mahavir Enclave, PartIII
New Delhi110045
11.Raj Kumar son of late Sh.Sundar Pal
B29, Trehan Home Developers
Bhiwadi
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.2 of 86
12.Ravinder Vasudev son of late Sh.S L Vasudev
G1/13C, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi
Date of institution 02.01.2010
Date on which case 23.04.2014
Reserved for order
Date of Order 10.05.2014
CASE ID02404R0005022010
Appearances: Sh.N P Srivastava, ld.Public Prosecutor for CBI.
Sh.Sunil Ahuja, Advocate for A1, A3 and A4.
Sh.A V Shukla, Advocate for A2.
Sh.Yashvir Singh, legal aid counsel for A5.
Sh.Vijay Kaundal, Advocate for A6 and A7.
Sh.Rajesh Arora, Advocate for A8, A9 and A10.
Sh.Pardeep Tewatia, Advocate for A11.
Sh.Munender Mann, Advocate for A12.
ORDER ON CHARGE:
1.0 The RC was registered on the basis of written
complaint made by Dy.General Manager, Canara Bank, Circle
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.3 of 86
Office, New Delhi (for short 'Bank') with CBI. As per the
allegations, M/s Kumbh Steel Pvt. Ltd. (for short 'company') with
directors Sh.Omvir Singh and his wife Smt.Savita Devi availed open
cash credit limit of Rs.250 lacs with Canara Bank, Uttam Nagar
Branch, New Delhi against mortgage of properties (a) H.No.52,
BlockB, Bharat Vihar, Raja Puri, Uttam Nagar in the name of
Sh.Ombir Singh, (b) Flat No.G1G5 in Saran Apartments, Moti
Vihar Village, Silokhara, Gurgaon in the name of Sh.Ombir Singh
and (c) Plot no.6, Kh.No.116/9, Mahavir Enclave, Uttam Nagar, New
Delhi in the name of Sh.Raj Kumar.
1.1 When account became NPA the bank took
possession, in the presence of District Authority, of the properties
on 04.11.08. Then actual owners of the said flat no.G1 - G4
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.4 of 86
objected to the same by showing copies of its sale deed in their
favour and upon verification it was revealed that the borrower had
played fraud on the bank by submitting fake/forged documents. It
was also revealed that plot no.6, Kh.No.116/9, Mahavir Enclave,
Uttam Nagar in the name of Sh.Raj Kumar was not traceable and
the title deeds in respect of flat no.G1 - G5 was forged. The non
existent plot in the name of Raj Kumar was valued by S.L.Dhir
(A2), valuer worth Rs.73.82 lacs on 18.10.02.
1.2 It is further alleged that the initial sanctioned
adhoc limit of Rs.50 lacs was permitted to be enhanced by the
circle office vide note dated 15.03.03, despite pending compliance
of all the sanction terms and conditions by the branch before
release of the limit. The limits were recommended and sanctioned
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.5 of 86
in utter disregard to the lending norms without proper justification in
recommending and permitting enhancement to Rs.250 lacs without
taking additional collateral securities, particularly when earlier
request for enhancement was turned down due to inadequate
collateral.
1.3 It was also alleged that Sh.D R P Sundaram (A6),
the then DGM, sanctioning authority, Sh.K V Prabhakar Rao (A7)
and Sh.S S Bhatt, the then AGM and Sh.S K Gupta, Sr.Manager in
the circle office also permitted/recommended enhancement upto
Rs.200 lacs without stipulating any additional collateral security,
specially when the earlier request in this regard had been turned
down. This was besides the fact that there was no justification for
permitting adhoc limit of Rs.50 lacs by the circle office despite
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.6 of 86
return of discounted cheques in the account.
1.4 It is further alleged that sanctioning authority/D R
P Sundaram had stated that the enhancement/adhoc limits were
permitted in consultation with Sh.Prakash Mallya, the then GM of
Delhi Circle and that these facts were noted in the sanction note
dated 27.11.04, 02.12.04 and 03.12.04.
2.0 CBI investigated the case and in the investigation
it was revealed that M/s Sandeep Iron and Steel having its
proprietor Sunil Sharma (A10) opened a current account no.6299
on 02.07.97 with Canara Bank, Uttam Nagar Branch, New Delhi.
The said account was introduced by Ombir Singh, proprietor of M/s
Mahalaxmi Steel Company having account no.5389. The account
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.7 of 86
was permitted by Sh.R P Malhotra, the then Manager.
2.1 Sunil Sharma vide his application form dated
10.08.99 requested for sanction of secured OD of Rs.10 lacs. The
said limit was sanctioned against EMT of property of Ombir Singh,
plot no.52, Kh.No.109/12 measuring 150 sq.yds valued at Rs.44
lacs. The said collateral security was common for Durga Steel
Traders, Mahavir Steel Traders, Maharaja Steels and Sandeep Iron
and Steel etc. The OD limit was renewed on 08.05.01/26.05.01 by
Sh.R L Jarwal and Sh.V Manoharan. The same security was also
made available to Gupta Steels Traders and Kamal Traders, etc.
On 30.08.01, the debit balance in account was Rs.11,36,487/.
Sh.Sushil Sharma was also one of the directors of M/s Kumbh
Steel Pvt. Ltd. which was sanctioned limit of Rs.50.00 lacs out of
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.8 of 86
which Rs.11,63,528/ was credited in loan account of M/s Sandeep
Iron & Steel.
2.2 Similarly, proprietorship concern of Smt.Shanti
Devi wife of Om Prakash in the name of M/s Mahavir Steel Traders
had also opened a current A/C No.6119 on 23.12.97 with Uttam
Nagar Branch of the bank which was introduced by Sh.Mahesh,
Proprietor of M/s Maharaja Steel Pvt. Ltd and Smt.Shanti Devi had
given authority to Sh.Mahesh for operating the account. On
12.08.99, Smt.Shanti Devi had made an application to the bank for
sanction of secured OD limit of Rs.10 lacs with Ombir Singh as
guarantor which was processed by Sh.R P Malhotra (now retired),
Manager of the bank and sanctioned by Sh.R L Jarwal (now
expired), the then Sr.Manager of the bank. Sanction was against
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.9 of 86
EMT of same property of Ombir Singh bearing Plot No.52, Kh.No.
109/12. OD limit was renewed on 08.05.01 and 26.05.01 and said
account was having debit balance of Rs.10,37,630/ on 30.08.01.
The outstanding amount plus interest i.e. Rs.10,62,047/ was
credited to this account through debit and credit vouchers out of the
sanctioned limit of Rs.50 lacs to M/s Kumbh Steel Pvt. Ltd. during
August, 2001 on the basis of fake and forged property documents
and Smt.Shanti Devi was also one of the directors of M/s Kumbh
Steel Pvt. Ltd.
2.3 Investigation has further revealed that M/s Durga
Steel Traders having its proprietor accused/Ombir Singh vide his
application form dated 10.08.99 requested for sanction of secured
OD of Rs.10 lacs. The case was processed by Sh.R P Malhotra,
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.10 of 86
the then Manager and OD limit of Rs.10 lacs was sanctioned on
10.08.99 by Sh.R L Jarwal, the then Sr.Manager. The sanction of
the limit was conveyed to Sh.Ombir Singh by Sh.R L Jarwal by
letter dated 12.08.99. The said limit was sanctioned against EMT
of property of Ombir Singh, Plot No.52, Kh.No.109/12 measuring
150 sq.yds. The said property was also mortgaged in various
group accounts. The OD limit was renewed on 26.05.01 by Sh.R L
Jarwal and Sh.V Manoharan and conveyed to Sh.Ombir Singh.
The said account was having debit balance of Rs.10,29,994.64 on
30.08.01. The outstanding amount + interest i.e. Rs.10,54,220.64
was credited in this account through debit credit vouchers by
sanctioning the limit of Rs.50 lacs to M/s Kumbh Steel Pvt Ltd
during August, 2001 on the basis of fake and forged property
documents.
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.11 of 86
2.4 Investigation has further revealed that M/s Kamal
Traders having its proprietor account Om Prakash Sharma opened
a current A/C No.6298 on 02.07.98. The said account was
introduced by accused Ombir Singh. The said account was
permitted by Sh.R P Malhotra, the then manager of the branch and
introducer's signatures was verified by Sh.D S Uppal, Officer. M/s
Kamal Traders through its proprietor Om Prakash vide his
application form dated 13.08.99 requested for sanction of secured
OD of Rs.10 lacs and Ombir Singh signed as guarantor. The case
was processed by Sh.R P Malhotra, the then Manager and OD limit
of Rs.10 lacs was sanctioned on 12.08.99 by Sh.R L Jarwal, the
then Sr.Manager. The said OD limit was conveyed to the party on
12.08.99 under the signature of Sh.R L Jarwal. The said limit was
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.12 of 86
sanctioned against EMT of property of Mahesh Kumar, Plot No.
50A, Kh.No.109/12 measuring 150 sq.yds valued Rs.50.78 lacs.
The OD limit was renewed on 26.05.01 by Sh.R L Jarwal and Sh.V
Manoharan. The said account was having debit balance of Rs.
10,37,326.38 on 30.08.01. The outstanding amount + interest Rs.
10,63,747/ was credited in this account by debit credit vouchers by
sanctioning the limit of Rs.50 lacs to M/s Kumbh Steel Pvt. Ltd.
during August, 2001 on the basis of fake and forged property
documents.
3.0 Investigation has further revealed that company
under the signature of all the four accused directors, namely, Ombir
Singh, Om Prakash Sharma, Sunil Kumar (appointed as director
w.e.f. 18.05.01) and Smt.Shanti Devi submitted a request for
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.13 of 86
sanction of limit of Rs.60 lacs. Proposal for sanction of PCC limit of
Rs.60 lacs was forwarded to circle office by accused R L Jarwal,
Sr.Manager, Canara Bank, Uttam Nagar Branch, New Delhi vide his
letter dated 06.07.01 along with credit report NF622. In the said
proposal following collateral security were proposed:
1. Plot No.52 admeasuring 150 sq.yds, Kh.No.109/12, Rajapuri,
Bharat Vihar, New Delhi in the name of accused Ombir Singh,
valued at Rs.44 lacs reported to be already mortgaged to the
bank for taken over four firms (namely Durga Steel Traders,
Sandeep Iron and Steels, Mahavir Steel Traders and Kamal
Traders) which were already sanctioned OCC limit of Rs.10
lac each under branch power. The said property is existing
and bank has taken the possession of the said property under
SARFAESI Act.
2. Flat No.G1 to 5, Halabad Sharan Apartment, Moti Vihar,
South City Enclave, Gurgaon in the name of Sh.Ombir Singh
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.14 of 86
valued at Rs.54 lacs were proposed to be mortgaged.
3.1 M/s Kumbh Steel Pvt. Ltd. was got incorporated
by on 09.03.01 with ROC in which Ombir Singh, Om Prakash
Sharma (father of Ombir) and Smt.Shanti Devi (mother of Ombir)
were initial directors, which opened a current account no.6995 on
17.03.01. Sh.Sunil Kumar was also appointed director of M/s
Kumbh Steel Pvt. Ltd. (for short referred to as 'company). The
company under the signature of all these directors applied for
sanction of OCC limit of Rs.60.00 lacs with Uttam Nagar Branch of
the Bank which was forwarded to Circle Office on 06.07.01
stipulating collateral security of Plot No.52 in Kh.No.109/12,
Rajapuri, Bharat Vihar, New Delhi and Flat No.G1 to G5, Halabad
Sharan Apptt., Moti Vihar, South City Enclave, Gurgaon to be
mortgaged to secure the loan.
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.15 of 86
3.2 While there is no issue regarding above Delhi
property in respect of Gurgaon property it was revealed that
accused/Ombir Singh (since expired) had forged his sale deed,
which was only in respect of 'flat no.G5' but he altered it to show
'flat no.G1 to G5', the Legal Search Report (LSR) (dated 26.06.01)
and valuation report (dated 02.07.01) of which were given by
accused/Ravinder Vasudeva (A12) and V P Aneja (since expired)
respectively. Accused/S L Dhir (A2) had subsequently valued this
property at Rs.72 lacs vide his valuation report dated 30.05.05.
3.3 The proposal was processed at circle office and
limit of Rs.50.00 lacs was sanction on 02.08.01 subject to the
condition that EMT perfection to be confirmed and the branch
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.16 of 86
incharge to visit both properties. The limit was credited to the
account of the company after execution of documents on 25.08.01
and from this account the OD limits of above mentioned four
proprietorships' accounts of Ombir Singh, Om Prakash, Smt.Shanti
Devi and Sunil Sharma were satisfied and closed.
4.0 Investigation has further revealed that company
requested for enhancement of limit by submitting original
application under the signature of all the aforesaid four directors.
Accused R L Jarwal, the then Sr.Manager, Canara Bank, Uttam
Nagar Branch, New Delhi vide letter dated 14.05.02 submitted the
proposal for enhancement of limit from Rs.50 to Rs.80 lacs with the
mortgage of same two properties. In the said enhancement LIC
policies in the name of Ombir Singh, Smt.Shanti Devi, Om Prakash
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.17 of 86
Sharma and Sunil Sharma was also offered as collateral security.
The valuation of the property plot no.52 admeasuring 150 sq.yds,
Kh.No.109/12, Rajapuri, Bharat Vihar, New Delh in the name of
Sh.Ombir Singh was shown at reduced level of Rs.28 lacs as on
08.05.02 due to market recession and photocopy of valuation report
dated 08.05.02 of Sh.S L Dhir, panel valuer was also forwarded.
4.1 The case was processed at circle office and
enhancement to Rs.80 lacs was permitted on 03.06.02.
Enhancement was communicated to branch vide sanction
memorandum dated 05.06.02 with the important conditions that
EMT perfection to be got confirmed by the legal section before
release of the limit for both the properties to be mortgaged and up
to date tax paid receipt on both the properties are to be obtained.
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.18 of 86
4.2 Sh.R L Jarwal had falsely confirmed that branch
incharge has inspected the stocks and EMT properties on
25.08.01. Necessary documents were executed on 08.07.02 by
accused Ombir Singh and enhanced limit was started releasing
w.e.f. 05.06.02 and on 08.07.02 account was having debit balance
of Rs.70.89 lacs.
5.0 The directors of the company accused/Ombir
Singh, Sunil Sharma, Om Prakash and Shanti Devi requested for
enhancement of limit from Rs.80 lacs to Rs.100 lacs by enclosing
copy of audited balance sheet as on 31.03.02 showing sales of Rs.
297.34 lacs.
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.19 of 86
5.1 Investigation has revealed that Sh.Laxmi Narain
s/o Sh.Chunni Lal, R/oVillage Palam was the owner of agricultural
lands situated in various khasras of Palam village since 195455.
Accordingly, he was the owner of 1 acre of land situated in Kh.No.
116/9 of village Palam. After the death of Sh.Laxmi Narain on
12.01.03, as per revenue record, his sons, namely, Sh.Jai Bhagwan
and Sh.Ranbir are the owners of said Kh.No.116/9 (1 acre = 4840
sq.yds). As per revenue record, the said khasra is an agricultural
land but at site an unauthorized colony, namely, Mahavir Enclave,
PartIII is existing.
5.2 Accused Ombir Singh, director of M/s Kumbh
Steel Pvt Ltd prepared fake and forged documents viz. GPA,
agreement to sell, affidavit of Laxmi Narain and money receipt, all
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.20 of 86
dated 24.01.84 showing himself as owner of said plot by GPA and
transfered the ownership of said plot in the name of accused Raj
Kumar (A11) vide sale deed no.337 dated 02.02.2000. The said
sale deed is registered with Sub Registrar, Kapashera. Raj Kumar
(A11) is real brotherinlaw of Sh.Ombir Singh. Hence, he
mortgaged the said plot for the loan sanctioned to M/s Kumbh Steel
Pvt. Ltd. Valuation of said plot was carried out by accused/S L Dhir
(A2), the panel valuer of the bank.
5.3 Investigation has revealed that accused/Raj
Kumar (A11) was not the owner of the said plot evaluated by
accused/S L Dhir. In fact, Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur and Sh.Gulshan
Kumar Makkar are the owner of said plot evaluated by said valuer.
Even Raj Kumar purported to be the owner of said plot, not aware
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.21 of 86
about the existence of the property. Sh.Om Prakash Sharma,
Smt.Shanti Devi and Sh.Sunil Kumar, the father, mother and
brother of Sh.Ombir Singh respectively, all directors of M/s Kumbh
Steel Pvt. Ltd., admitted that their family was not having plot no.6,
Mahavir Enclave, PartIII, New Delhi. Hence, a bogus sale deed
was prepared and mortgaged with the bank for the purpose of
cheating.
5.4 The case was processed in Circle Office and limit
was enhanced from Rs.80 to Rs.95 lacs on 26.11.02. Sanction was
conveyed to branch on 27.11.02 with important conditions that:
before release of enhanced portion of the limit, branch to ensure
perfection of existing EMT (equitable mortgage by deposit of title
deeds) of two properties and EMT of additional property offered in
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.22 of 86
the name of Raj Kumar i.e. plot no.6, Mahavir Enclave having its
value as Rs.70.32 lacs as per valuation report dated 19.10.02; upto
date tax paid receipts of all the three properties to be obtained; and
the branch to ascertain realistic value of the collateral and satisfy
themselves.
5.5 The original sanction letter issued to the party is
not available on record. However, necessary documents were
executed by Sh.Ombir Singh on 11.12.02 and enhanced limit was
released before execution of documents.
6.0 Investigation has revealed that Ombir Singh and
Sunil Sharma, directors of the company requested for
enhancement of limit from Rs.95 to Rs.150 lacs. Along with
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.23 of 86
application form, borrowing power resolution dated 15.11.03 under
the signature of Ombir Singh and Sunil Sharma, was submitted.
6.1 In addition to already mortgaged three properties,
for the said enhancement, branch also proposed additional
collateral EMT of built up single storey building on an area of 204
sq.yds in the name of Mahesh Kumar at H.No.35, Village Rathiwas,
Distt.Gurgaon (Haryana) valued at Rs.100.95 lacs as per valuation
report of accused/S.L. Dhir (A2), dated 28.11.02. In fact said
additional collateral was offered as common collateral for
enhancement sought for M/s Moskos Steel Pvt. Ltd., M/s Maharaja
Ispat Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Kumbh Steel Pvt. Ltd.
6.2 The office note was prepared on 12.12.03 under
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.24 of 86
the signature of Sh.S K Gupta, Sr.Manager, Circle Office. In the
office note, he brought out that additional offered property of
Mahesh Kumar situated at Rathi was seems to be valued on a very
high side, therefore, branch to ascertain the correctness of the
same by making discreet inquiry i.e. making personal visit to the
property and to get valuation report from a local valuer on the
bank's panel since the property is situated outside Delhi and
moreover, the recommendation of limit of Rs.150 lacs falls beyond
MPBF (Maximum Permissible Bank Finance). MPBF was
calculated on the basis of accepted turnover of Rs.600 lacs = Rs.
120 lacs - Rs.30 lacs, margin = Rs.90 lacs.
6.3 Under such circumstances Sh.S K Gupta,
Sr.Manager, Circle Office recommended only the renewal of the
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.25 of 86
existing limit. Hence the circle office did not permit enhancement of
the limit and only renewed the existing limit of Rs.95 lacs observing
that the enhancement sought was without matching improvement in
the collaterals. Accused/D R P Sundaram then posted as DGM in
Circle Office had also signed the note on 03.01.04. It was
conveyed to branch on 05.01.04 and in turn accused/D C Narnolia
informed the company vide letter dated 12.01.04. It is significant to
note that on 05.01.04 company's account was showing debit
balance of Rs.113.22 lacs.
7.0 Investigation has further revealed that Ombir
Singh, vide his letter dated 06.11.04 informed the branch regarding
resignation of Sunil Sharma w.e.f. 26.10.04 and induction of
Smt.Savita Devi (A1) as director w.e.f. 22.10.04. The directors of
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.26 of 86
the company Ombir Singh and Smt.Savita Devi w/o Ombir Singh
requested the branch for enhancement of limit from Rs.95 lacs to
Rs.300 lacs in the month of November, 2004. Company had shown
sales of Rs.860 crores till 31.03.04 as per copy of audited balance
sheet.
7.1 The enhancement proposal was forwarded by
Ravi Sethi (A3), Chief Manager of Uttam Nagar Branch(tenure
20.09.04 to 22.07.06) vide letter dated 09.11.04. The branch
recommended limit of Rs.300 lacs on the basis of existing three
properties and on the basis of sale turnover achieved till October,
2004 as Rs.1,585 lacs and projected sales of Rs.2,500 lacs till
31.03.05. However, no sales tax returns were furnished.
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.27 of 86
7.2 Appraisal memorandum dated 02.12.04 under
signature of accused/D C Narnolia (Manager) was also submitted.
The case was processed at Circle Office vide note dated 27.11.04
containing adverse features. Yet accused/K V Prabhakar, the then
AGM recommended enhancement of OCC limit of Rs.200 lacs and
accused/D R P Sundaram, the then DGM sanctioned the same on
01.12.04.
7.3 It is thus alleged that the enhancement of the limit
from Rs.95 lacs to Rs.200 lacs without taking any further collateral
security, once having been declined, was completely unjustified and
aforesaid hence the officers D C Narnolia (A5), Credit Manager,
Ravi Sethi (A3), Chief Manager, Canara Bank, Uttam Nagar
Branch, New Delhi. K V Prabhakar Rao (A7), the then AGM,
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.28 of 86
D.R.P. Sundaram, the then DGM being sanctioning authority,
misused their official position.
7.4 In the account of M/s Kumbh Steel Pvt. Ltd. as on
11.11.04, the outstanding was Rs.169 lacs and as on 03.12.04, the
outstanding was Rs.182 lacs, which clearly indicated the that funds
were released in anticipation of sanction, by Ravi Sethi (A3) and D
C Narnolia (A5).
7.5 It is further revealed that Ombir Singh director of
the company vide his letter dated 03.03.05 asked for Rs.50 lacs as
an adhoc limit for 3 months. Ravi Sethi, Chief Manager of Uttam
Nagar Branch forwarded the proposal for adhoc limit of Rs.50 lacs
to Circle Office vide his letter dated 07.03.05 recommending adhoc
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.29 of 86
limit of Rs.50 lacs as per assurance given by the party for
submitting collateral security in coming financial year. Office note
was prepared by Sh.S K Gupta on 15.03.05 and he recommended
for adhoc limit which was also recommended by Sh.S S Bhat, AGM
and permitted by DRP Sundaram on 18.03.05 and conveyed to the
branch on 24.03.05. On 18.03.05, outstanding in the company's
account was 250 lacs (approximately).
7.6 The OCC A/C No.325 of M/s Kumbh Steel Pvt. Ltd
was declared NPA on 31.12.05 with debit balance of Rs.
2,50,44,784.60. In this way the bank suffered a loss of Rs.202.77
lacs.
8.0 As regards funds flow from account of M/s Kumbh
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.30 of 86
Steel Pvt. Ltd., it is revealed during investigation that besides
crediting outstanding amounts in accounts of proprietorship
concerns of accused/Sunil Sharma, Om Prakash, Ombir Singh and
Smt.Shanti Devi, as mentioned above, huge amounts were also
transferred to the accounts of M/s Surya Steel Traders whose
proprietor was Sh.Suresh Kumar, who was driver of accused Ombir
Singh and not having any business dealings with M/s Kumbh Steel
Pvt. Ltd. and the transactions are only paper transactions.
8.1 Besides, the huge funds were also transferred to
M/s Karan Steel of one Sugam Sharma, who was not having any
business dealings with M/s Kumbh Steel Pvt. Ltd., Raj Kumar
(A11), brotherinlaw of Ombir Singh in his proprietorship firms'
accounts of M/s Maharaja Ispat Pvt. Ltd and M/s Karan Steels,
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.31 of 86
account of M/s Golden Rathi in the name of Ombir Singh, M/s
Moskos Steel Pvt. Ltd. in the name of Raj Kumar, brotherinlaw of
Ombir Singh, M/s Karamvir Steel Pvt. Ltd. under the directorship of
accused Om Prakash Sharma and Smt.Shanti Devi and M/s
Golden Rathi Steel Star Industries under the directorship of Ombir
Singh, Mahesh and Smt.Krishna.
8.2 It was found that accused Ombir Singh, R L
Jarwal, Branch Manager of Canara Bank and V P Aneja, approved
valuer of the bank have sin a expired. Against bank officers
S/Sh.Mahesh Kumar and S S Bhatt, bank was advised to take
action for their misconduct and lapses. Accused/Satish Sikri (A4)
is the only serving public servant and hence sanction against him
u/s 19(1)(c) was obtained. Charge sheet has been filed for the
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.32 of 86
offence against accused persons u/s 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC
and 13(2) r/w section 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 and substantive
offences thereunder.
8.3 After hearing the arguments advanced by the
ld.Public Prosecutor for CBI and ld.counsels for accused persons
and considering their written arguments placed on record, I proceed
to discuss the role of accused persons in the light of evidence
arrayed by CBI to prove the allegations and the charge which can
be framed on the basis thereof against each of them.
9.0 ROLE OF ACCUSED SAVITA DEVI (A.1), OM PARKASH (A.
8), SHANTI DEVI (A.9) AND SUNIL KUMAR (A.10)
9.1 The facts which have not been disputed by any of
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.33 of 86
the accused persons are that accused Sunil Kumar Sharma, Shanti
Devi, Om Parkash and accused Ombir Singh (since expired) were
having their proprietorship concerns availing credit facilities from
Uttam Nagar branch in which outstanding was around Rs.11.00 lacs
each and the property which was mortgaged for the purpose of
securing loan in all these cases {except for securing loan
sanctioned to Om Prakash (A8)} was property of Ombir Singh
bearing plot No.52, Khasra No.109/12 measuring 150 sq. yards.
The property bearing plot No.50A, Khasra No.109/12 admeasuring
150 sq. yards which was mortgaged for securing loan advanced to
accused Om Parkash.
9.2 On incorporation of company M/s Kumbh Steel
Pvt. Ltd. on 09.03.01, besides accused/Ombir Singh (since
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.34 of 86
expired), Om Parkash Sharma and Smt. Shanti Devi (both parents
of accused Ombir Singh) had become Directors of the company at
the time of incorporation itself and thereafter accused Sunil Sharma
had also joined the Board of Directors of the company on 18.05.01.
Both Ombir Singh and Sunil Kumar Sharma are sons of accused
Om Parkash Sharma and Shanti Devi. The direct benefit which
they all had derived through the finance to the company by sanction
of a limit of Rs.50 lacs was that from this amount the outstanding
amounts of the loans of all these four persons existing in their
proprietorship firm's accounts, were satisfied, by crediting
approximately Rs.11 lacs each in these four accounts by debiting
the account of the company.
9.3 It is seen that for securing limit of Rs.50 lacs from
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.35 of 86
the bank on 06.07.01 Ombir Singh had mortgaged flat No.G1 to
G5, Saran Apartments, Moti Vihar Village, Silokhara, Gurgaon
valued at Rs.54 lacs whereas Ombir Singh was having only one flat
i.e. G5 in the said property. Then again when the Bank secured
enhancement of limit from Rs.80 lacs to 95 lacs on the proposal of
company, the company had offered mortgage of additional
property bearing plot No.6 measuring 250 sq.yards out of Khasra
No.116/9 situated in revenue estate of village Palam, Delhi, abadi
area known as Mahavir Enclave, registered in the name of Raj
Kumar which was a bogus title deed of a nonexistent property.
9.4 Om Parkash Sharma and Shanti Devi have been
shown resigned from the directorship of company on 17.12.02 which
was intimated to the bank by accused Sunil Sharma vide his letter
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.36 of 86
dated 15.01.03 i.e. period before the proposal for enhancement of
credit limit from 95 lacs to 150 lacs was moved by the company.
9.5 It has been submitted by Ld. Counsel for accused
Om Parkash, Shanti Devi & Sunil Kumar (A.8 to A.10) that in fact
these accused persons were not knowing that mortgage of property
No.G1 to G.5 at Gurgaon and plot No.6 at Palam Village were
raised on forged documents or that the properties were not owned
by Ombir Singh. It is not disputed that accused Om Parkash and
Shanti Devi are parents of Ombir Singh & Sunil Kumar Sharma and
were on the Board of Directors of the company along with them and
therefore, it is prima facie evident that they all are having
knowledge about forged title deeds and nonexistent properties in
the name of Ombir Singh and Raj Kumar which were mortgaged to
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.37 of 86
the bank for securing loan sanctioned to the company of which, all
of them were directors and in fact even prior to the floating of the
company they were running their individual proprietorship firms, the
outstanding of which was repaid by raising loan in the name of
company, which loan was got sanctioned on the basis of forged title
deed and nonexistent property.
9.6 Sh.Rajesh Arora, Ld. Counsel for these accused
persons has relied upon a Judgment cited as Guru Vipin Singh
Vs. C.M.Singh & Anr. 1996 (4) Crimes 135 (SC) in which it was
observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that to attract explanation No.
2 to section 464 IPC, making false documents were essential. He
has submitted that in this case there is no allegation that accused
Nos. 8, 9 or 10 had falsified any document. I find that ratio of
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.38 of 86
Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is not applicable to their
case as accused Nos. 8, 9 & 10 were Directors of the company
alongwith Ombir Singh (since expired) and members of same
family and thus presumed to know that whatever documents
accused Ombir Singh, being one of the Directors of the company,
was using to secure credit facilities from the bank, were forged
documents as neither Ombir Singh nor his brotherinlaw Raj
Kumar, were owners of any such properties which were mortgaged
with the bank to secure credit facilities/enhancement of limits to the
company. Moreover, they can not be separately charged for
substantive offence u/s 467 or 468 IPC as they themselves have
not made any false documents as is also the ratio of Guru Vipin
Singh's case (supra).
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.39 of 86
9.7 Ld. Counsel for accused No.1 has submitted that
accused No.1 Smt.Savita Devi had become Director of the
company w.e.f. 22.10.04 when accused Sunil Sharma had resigned
w.e.f. 26.10.04. Smt.Savita Devi is wife of Ombir Singh and she
had become director of the company at the juncture when company
had approached the bank for enhancement of its credit limit from
Rs.95 lacs to Rs.300 lacs on security of the same mortgaged
assets, the title deeds of which were lying deposited with the bank.
The company, under her directorship alongwith her husband/Ombir
Singh (since expired) had applied for enhancement of credit facility
from Rs.95 lacs to 300 lacs whereas the previous proposal of the
company for enhancement from Rs.95 lacs to 150 lacs was already
declined. She had been able to secure enhancement of limit of the
company from Rs.95 lacs to 200 lacs without offering any fresh
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.40 of 86
securities and on the basis of false projections about sales. It was
during her tenure as director of the company that maximum amount
of funds were got sanctioned by the company from bank without
there being any additional security or real business of the company.
The equitable mortgage of the same three properties, out of which
two were sham, was extended to cover the enhanced credit limit.
Further, an adhoc limit of Rs.50 lacs was also got sanctioned on
03.03.05 to company during her directorship and due to the fraud
the bank had suffered a loss of Rs.202.77 lacs.
9.8 Thus a prima facie case of cheating u/s 420 IPC is
made out against accused No.1, 8, 9 & 10 besides a case of
criminal conspiracy u/s 120B IPC r/w Section 420/467/468/471
IPC and 13(2) r/w 13 (1)(d) of P.C.Act against all of them.
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.41 of 86
10.0 ROLE OF ACCUSED/RAVI SETHI (A3), D.C.NARNOLIA
(A5), D.R.P.SUNDARAM (A6) AND K.V.PRABHAKAR
(A7)
10.1 All these accused persons are bank officials. Accused
D.C.Narnolia was posted as Credit Manager and Ravi Sethi was
posted as Chief Manager of Uttam Nagar branch.
Accused/D.C.NarnoliaCredit Manager alongwith L. Raju, the then
Chief Manager of the Branch had forwarded the proposal of the
company to the Circle Office of the bank, seeking enhancement of
limit from Rs.95 lacs to 150 lacs on 28.11.03. The circle office had
declined enhancement proposal under the signature of accused
D.R.P.Sundram, who was then DGM of the circle office on 03.01.04.
This fact was conveyed to the party by accused D.C.Narnolia on
12.01.04. Despite the fact that earlier proposal of enhancement
from Rs.95 lacs to Rs.150 lacs was declined by the bank in
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.42 of 86
January, 2004, again the company had moved proposal for
enhancement of its credit limit from Rs.95 lacs to 300 lacs in
November, 2004 when accused Ravi Sethi had become Chief
Manager and D.C.Narnolia was still posted as Credit Manager in
the same branch.
10.2 Despite the fact that proposal for enhancement of
credit limit to the company to Rs.150 lacs from existing limit of Rs.
95.00 lacs was turned down by Circle Office, its second proposal
for enhancement of limit to Rs.300 lacs was recommended by
accused Ravi Sethi vide his letter dated 09.11.04 on the basis of
collateral security of the same existing three properties and on the
basis of figure of sale achieved till October, 2004 at Rs.1585 lacs
without there being any sales tax returns furnished by the company
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.43 of 86
in support of its claim. The appraisal memorandum under the
signatures of accused D.C.Narnolia was also submitted, who was
well aware about the reasons for declining of earlier proposal by the
Bank's Circle Office.
10.3 The case was processed at the Circle Office by
Sh.S.K.GuptaSr.Manager, who had recorded adverse features, yet
accused K.V.PrabhakarAGM at Circle office had recommended for
enhancement of OCC limit of the company to the tune of Rs.200
lacs on 01.12.04 which was sanctioned by accused D.R.P.Sundram
(A.6) who was DGM of the circle office on 01.12.04 and thus the
credit limit of the company was enhanced from Rs.95 lacs to Rs.
200 lacs without there being any further collateral security and
without there being any enquiry into the submission of company
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.44 of 86
about steap rise in their sale and without insisting any sales tax
returns.
10.4 Not only this the account of the company as on
11.11.04 was having an outstanding balance of Rs.169 lacs and Rs.
182 lacs as on 03.12.04 meaning thereby that the funds were
released by accused Ravi Sethi and D.C.Narnolia being Chief
Manager and Manager of the branch respectively, in anticipation of
receipt of sanction from Circle Office, clearly showing the criminal
conspiracy between Directors of company and the officers of the
bank i.e. A3 and A5 at branch office level and A6 at Circle Office
level. It is clear from the sanction letter of circle office that it is
dated 03.12.04 i.e. the date on which the outstanding in the account
of the company had reached to Rs.182 lacs. All the documents
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.45 of 86
showing correspondence and sanction orders have been
mentioned by CBI in the list of relied upon documents, through all
these averments have been proved.
10.5 Ld. Counsel for accused Ravi Sethi has relied
upon Judgments pronounced by the court of Sh.Manoj Kumar, Ld.
Spl.Judge, CBI, Saket Courts, Delhi and Sh.Vinod Kumar, Ld.
Special Judge, CBI, Rohini Courts, Delhi to the effect that in two
other cases accused Ravi Sethi has been acquitted by the courts. I
have perused the Judgments and find that the facts of those cases
were different from the facts showing involvement of accused Ravi
Sethi in the present case.
10.6 Ld. Counsel for accused Ravi Sethi has also relied
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.46 of 86
upon a Judgment of Karnataka High Court in Mahesh Joshi Vs.
CBI 2002 Cri.L.J.97 wherein FIR was quashed in which there was
no allegation against accused Director that he had taken any
undue favour or illegal gratification for allowing disputed telecast.
He has also relied upon Apex Court's judgment in 2006 (1) CC
Cases (SC) 131 to the same effect. But in the present case undue
monetory advantage to the company and corresponding loss to the
bank has been caused, due to misconduct of accused, hence the
ratio of these Judgments do not apply to the present facts and
circumstances. He has then relied upon judgment cited as 2011
Crl.LJ 2027 which has been delivered in the facts and
circumstances peculiar to that case, hence of no help to accused.
10.7 After going through the documentary and oral
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.47 of 86
evidence arrayed by prosecution to prove its case, I find that there
is sufficient evidence against accused Ravi Sethi (A3), D C
Narnolia (A5), D R P Sundaram (A6) and K V Prabhakar (A7) to
frame charge against them for offence punishable u/s 120B r/w
420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and 13(2) r/w (13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988
besides for substantive offence u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act,
1988.
11.0 ROLE OF ACCUSED/S L DHIR (A2)
11.1 As per the charge sheet, it is alleged that
accused/S L Dhir (A2), who was panel valuer of the bank, vide his
valuation report dated 30.05.05 declared the value of 5 flats G1 to
G5, Hallabad Sharan Apartments, Moti Vihar, South City Enclave,
Gurgaon in the name of Ombir Singh (accused since expired) as
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.48 of 86
Rs.72.00 lacs. His valuation report in respect of this property is
D93 which is dated 30.05.05 and he certified that property was
inspected by him on 28.05.05 in presence of owner. He has
disclosed all the measurement of property including its sides. In
this property accused Ombir Singh had owned only one flat i.e. G5
and not all the 5 flats i.e. G1 to G5, as already discussed.
PW15/Ajit Singh, PW16/Ranjeet Singh and PW18/Ashok Kumar
have been examined in this respect.
11.2 Similarly, he also furnished valuation report dated
19.10.02 (D88 and D74) in respect of property of accused/Raj
Kumar (A11) bearing Plot No.6, Block B2, Mahavir Enclave, New
Delhi disclosing the value of the property as 70.32 lacs mentioning
that it is single storey building with one room and boundary wall and
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.49 of 86
also disclosing the boundaries of the property giving measurement
of the land and thus certifying that he inspected the property to
make valuation. During investigation this property was found non
existing. In this respect CBI has recorded statements of
PW19/Shanti Lal, PW20/R K Dogra, PW21/Sunil Kumar,
PW22/Dinesh Kumar Sharma, PW24/Umesh Kumar,
PW25/Gulshan Kumar Makkar and PW28/Jai Bhagwan.
11.3 It is common knowledge that the value and
measurements of the constructed property can not be given without
doing physical verification of the property by the valuer himself and
thus it is prima facie shown that accused/S L Dhir (A2) had not
only given false valuation report but he also assured the physical
existence of both these properties which was false.
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.50 of 86
11.4 His ld.counsel/Sh.A V Shukla has submitted that
there was no lapse on the part of accused/S L Dhir (A2), who was
approved valuer of the bank and he was provided with the
registered documents of both these properties and he valued the
same on the basis of documents supplied to him by the bank and
as per his assessment of their market value.
11.5 It is quite clear from the evidence arrayed by CBI
that accused/S L Dhir (A2) had submitted bogus valuation report
which led the bank to accept these properties in equitable
mortgage for collateral security for extending finance to M/s Kumbh
Steel Pvt. Ltd., whereas in Gurgaon property, mortgager owned
only one flat i.e. G5 and the Delhi property was found not existing.
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.51 of 86
Under such circumstances the defence of accused will be seen
only in trial as the prima facie case exists against him to frame
charge for creating these false valuation reports for the purpose of
cheating which is punishable under section 468 IPC and using the
same as genuine which is punishable u/s 471 IPC, besides for the
criminal conspiracy to commit offences u/s 120B r/w
420/467/468/471 IPC.
12.0 ROLE OF ACCUSED/SATISH SIKRI (A4) AND RAJ
KUMAR (A11)
12.1 The allegation against accused/Raj Kumar (A11)
is that as a part of criminal conspiracy, he got executed in his
favour, a sale deed in respect of plot no.6 measuring area of about
250 sq.yds out of Kh.No.116/9, situated in the revenue estate of
village Palam, Delhi abadi known as Mahavir Enclave, Block B2.
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.52 of 86
During investigation, it was revealed that accused/Raj Kumar (A11)
is brotherinlaw (wife's brother) of Ombir Singh and that one acre
of agricultural land situated in Kh.No.116/9 in village Palam is
owned by Sh.Laxmi Narayan son of Sh.Chunni Lal of village Palam
since 195455 and after death of Sh.Laxmi Narayan on 12.01.03, as
per revenue record, his sons namely, S/Sh.Jai Bhagwan and Ranbir
are the owners of said Kh.No.116/9 and no plot of land was sold to
Ombir Singh by any of them. These facts have not been disputed
during arguments.
12.2 Accused/Ombir Singh, director of M/s Kumbh
Steel Pvt. Ltd had prepared fake and forged documents viz. GPA,
agreement to sell, money receipt, affidavit purportedly executed
Sh.Laxmi Narayan all dated 24.01.84 showing himself as owner of
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.53 of 86
the said plot by GPA sale. The transfer of ownership of the said
plot in the name of accused/Raj Kumar (A11) was then executed
by Ombir Singh, vide sale deed no.337 dated 02.02.2000. The sale
deed executed by Ombir Singh in favour of accused/Raj Kumar
(A11) was registered with Sub Registrar, Kapashera.
12.3 The same sale deed was deposited by
accused/Raj Kumar (A11) with the bank for creating equitable
mortgage by deposit of title deeds (EMT), representing himself to
be the owner of the said plot of land, when an application of the
companyM/s Kumbh Steel Pvt. Ltd. under the directorship of Ombir
Singh, Sunil Sharma, Om Prakash and Smt.Shanti Devi, requesting
for enhancement of limit from Rs.80 lacs to Rs.100 lacs, was
acceded to by the bank, allowing enhancement of limit to Rs.95.00
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.54 of 86
lacs.
12.4 The application of company was forwarded by
accused/Satish Sikri (A4), Manager of the bank vide his letter
dated 25.10.02 to Circle Office of the Bank and on the basis of his
recommendation, the limit of finance to the company was enhanced
from Rs.80 lacs to Rs.95 lacs and the sanction was conveyed to the
Branch Manager by the Circle Office on 27.11.02 with the stipulation
that branch has to ensure perfection of existing EMT of the
properties and EMT of additional property offered in the name of
accused/Raj Kumar (A11) i.e. Plot No.6, Mahavir Enclave having
its value as Rs.70.32 lacs as per valuation report dated 19.10.02
submitted by accused/S L Dhir (A2). Besides, upto to date tax
paid receipt of these properties were to be obtained by Branch
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.55 of 86
Manager and he was also to ascertain the realistic value of the
collaterals and satisfy himself. The necessary documents were
executed by Ombir Singh on 11.12.02 for enhancement of limit and
enhanced limit was released even before execution of documents.
12.5 Thus, the role of accused/Raj Kumar (A11) is
quite clear that he got executed a forged sale deed in his favour
and stood guarantor to the loan granted to M/s Kumbh Steel Pvt.
Ltd., of which his brotherinlaw/Ombir Singh was one of the
directors by depositing forged sale deed in equitable mortgage.
12.6 Sh.Pradeep Tewatia, ld.counsel for accused/Raj
Kumar (A11) has submitted that at the best charge against
accused/Raj Kumar (a11) can be framed u/s 468/471 IPC only but
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.56 of 86
no charge u/s 120B or 420 or 467 IPC are made out against him.
He has also submitted that dispute is of civil nature and there is no
amount which has been cheated by accused/Raj Kumar (A11) in
this case. He has also submitted that accused/Raj Kumar (A11)
had acted bonafide when he purchased property from his brother
inlaw and thus he has not forged any documents.
12.7 The forgery of sale deed was for the purpose of
cheating the bank in order to get enhancement of the limit from Rs.
80 lacs to Rs.100 lacs, on the basis of collateral security of the said
property in the name of Raj Kumar (A11), of which neither its
transferee/Ombir Singh nor transferor/Raj Kumar (A11) had any
title or interest on the basis of forged sale deed. Yet accused/Raj
Kumar stood guarantor to the sanction of loan to the company on
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.57 of 86
the basis of the said forged sale deed. There is no substance in
the submission of ld.defence counsel that Raj Kumar (A11) may
not be knowing the forgery by Ombir Singh. Raj Kumar (A11) is
real brotherinlaw of Ombir Singh, therefore, it can not be believed
that he was not aware that his brotherinlaw was not owner of any
such plot of land or that he got executed sale deed of property
which is not existing without ascertaining as to which was that plot
of land.
12.8 Accused/Raj Kumar (A11) had sent letter
evidencing in deposit of title deed with the bank (D62) bearing his
signatures at point Q30. He also signed the scheduleA of the
bank at Q.32 to Q.34 showing that he had deposited sale deed,
GPA, affidavit, agreement, receipt and khautaniphotocopy. Sale
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.58 of 86
deed executed in his favour by Ombir Singh (D63) bears signature
of accused/Raj Kumar (A11) at points Q22 to Q27. He also
executed an affidavit which is D69 and is dated 13.11.02 bearing
his signature at points Q28 and Q29, vide which he has declared
himself as owner of property bearing Plot No.6, Kh.No.116/9, Block
B2, Mahavir Enclave, New Delhi. He also submitted the
documents purportedly executed by Sh.Laxmi Narayan which are
GPA, affidavit, agreement to sell and receipt purportedly executed
by Sh.Laxmi Narayan for transfer of plot of land to Ombir Singh
(D64 to D67) and a copy of khautani is D68.
12.9 Sh.Jai Bhagwan son of Sh.Laxmi Narayan has
been examined to the effect that all the document shown executed
by Sh.Laxmi Narayan have in fact not been executed by Sh.Laxmi
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.59 of 86
Narayan.
12.10 Witnesses have been examined by IO of the case
u/s 161 Cr.PC such as PW19/Shanti Lal, then SubRegistrar who
registered sale deed in question, PW20/R K Dogra, UDC of the
same office of SRA, PW21/Sunil Kumar, Halka Patwari of Palam,
PW22/Kishan Sharma, AZI, MCD, PW24/Umesh Kumar, UDC in
Sub Registrar office, PW25/Gulshan Kumar Makkar, who stated
that Ombir Singh owned only one plot in Mahavir Enclave, PhaseIII
which was sealed by Canara Bank and that Raj Kumar (A11) is not
owner of any plot in that colony. PW26/Jai Bhagwan son of late
Laxmi Narain, stated that his father never sold any plot of land to
Ombir Singh and the documents showing sale of land to Ombir
Singh are forged and PW36/Ashok Tyagi, Advocate, prepared the
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.60 of 86
sale deed in question on the basis of documents provided to him by
accused/Raj Kumar and signed the sale deed as witness along with
another witness Sh.Mahesh Kumar, brother of Ombir, which would
show that the sale deed of accused/Raj Kumar (A11) was a forged
document.
12.11 Thus, it is prima facie shown that the bank has
been cheated of the loan amount and the company has gained the
quantum of loan on the basis of false & forged security and,
therefore, it is clear that the substantive charge for offence u/s 420,
467 & 471 r/w 467 IPC are made out against accused/Raj Kumar
(A11), besides the charge of criminal conspiracy thereof u/s 120B
IPC for inducing the bank to lend money to the company of
accused Om Prakash, Sunil Kumar and Smt.Shanti Devi, on the
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.61 of 86
basis of bogus sale deed of the property offered as collateral
security.
12.12 As regards accused/Satish Sikri (A4), who
remained as Branch Manager of Uttam Nagar Branch of Canara
Bank w.e.f. 28.08.02 to 13.09.03, it is alleged that he had forwarded
the enhancement proposal of Rs.80 lacs to Rs.100 lacs in the name
of the company under the directorship of Ombir Singh, Sunil
Sharma, Om Prakash and Smt.Shanti Devi on the basis of forged
security in respect of aforesaid property in the name of accused/Raj
Kumar (A11) and a forged valuation report in respect of same
property which was furnished by accused/S L Dhir (A2). Accused
Satish Sikri, being Branch Manager, was duty bound to physically
inspect the property to ensure existence of the property and its
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.62 of 86
valuation. The omission in doing so raises a very strong suspicion
which show a prima facie case against him for conspiring with
accused/Raj Kumar (A11) and other accused persons, who were
the directors of the company at that time. It is settled position of
law that even the grave suspicion on the basis of evidence before
the court can form the ground for framing of the charge against an
accused.
12.13 Sh.Sunil Ahuja, ld.counel for accused/Satish Sikri
(A4) has submitted that the party which had floated the company
M/s Kumbh Steel Pvt. Ltd. was dealing with the Branch since 1997
and initial limits were sanctioned in favour of their firms way back in
1997 and even the initial advance to the company, after its
formation, was sanctioned by the other officers and during his
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.63 of 86
incumbency only the proposal for enhancement of limit from Rs.80
lacs to Rs.100 lacs was forwarded by him to the Circle Office.
12.14 He has submitted that the same valuation report
given by accused/S L Dhir (A2) in respect of the same property
was also relied upon earlier and thus there was nothing new which
was done by accused/Satish Sikri (A4) while recommending for
enhancement of limit from Rs.80 lacs to Rs.100 lacs.
12.15 It is seen from the letter of accused/Satish Sikri
(A4) addressed to Delhi Circle office dated 25.10.02 available at
page no.412 of D61 that EMT of additional security of this property
of accused/Raj Kumar (A11) was offered which was also a security
in case of M/s Moskos Steel Pvt. Ltd and the valuation of the
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.64 of 86
property has been mentioned as Rs.70.32 lacs as per valuation
report dated 19.10.02.
12.16 The sanction order from the Circle Office
conveyed to the Branch Manager, Uttam Nagar is dated 27.11.02
enhancing the limit from Rs.80 lacs to 95 lacs which is available at
page no.316 of D61. In this letter, it is provided that the branch had
to ascertain the realistic value of the collaterals and satisfy
themselves and that upto date tax paid of all three properties, was
to be obtained.
12.17 Submission of the ld.counsel for accused/Satish
Sikri (A4) that this property of accused/Raj Kumar (A11) was
already mortgaged in M/s Kumbh Steel Pvt. Ltd and there was
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.65 of 86
nothing new which was to be done by accused/Satish Sikri (A4) for
securing enhancement of limit in case of M/s Kumbh Steel Pvt Ltd.,
does not hold any ground as the same was an additional security
for enhancement and it was so proposed by accused/Satish Sikri
(A4) himself which was accepted by the Circle Office. Submission
of ld.counsel for accused/Satish Sikri (A4) that accused/Satish
Sikri (A4) had taken all the precautions, required to be taken by the
Branch Manager, has to be seen during trial and not at this stage.
12.18 Further, accused/Satish Sikri (A4) being manager
of Uttam Nagar Branch had submitted a false physical verification
report of property to Circle Office vide letter dated 07.02.03 (D76A)
wherein he has certified that he has done physical verification of
the properties mortgaged to M/s Moskos Steel Pvt. Ltd, M/s Kumbh
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.66 of 86
Steel Pvt. Ltd, and M/s Maharaja Ispat Pvt. Ltd along with
Sh.Mahesh Prakash, Officer of the Branch. Sh.Mahesh Prakash
has been examined by CBI as PW35 and he has stated that he
has never visited to verify the property either personally or along
with accused/Satish Sikri (A4). He denied having initialed below
the letter dated 07.02.03.
12.19 Sanction for prosecution of accused/Satish Sikri
(A4) was obtained which is available with the charge sheet u/s
19(1)(c) of PC Act.
12.20 Thus, I find that there is a prima facie case against
accused/Satish Sikri (A4) to the effect that he conspired with other
accused persons in recommending enhancement of loan limit to
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.67 of 86
the company and thereby prepared and submitted a false physical
verification report of the mortgaged properties to secure
enhancement of financial assistance/limit to M/s Kumbh Steel Pvt.
Ltd. Accordingly charge against him for substantive offence u/s
468 and 471 r/w 468 IPC and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988,
besides for criminal conspiracy u/s 120B r/w 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC
and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act are liable to be framed against
him.
13.0 ROLE OF ACCUSED/RAVINDER VASUDEVA (A12)
13.1 Accused/Ravinder Vasudev (A12) is an advocate
by profession and was on the panel/approved list of lawyers of
Canara Bank. It is alleged against him that he, in his report dated
26.06.01, had submitted false search report showing that
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.68 of 86
accused/Ombir Singh (since expired) is owner of 5 flats G1 to G5
in Saran Apartments, Gurgaon whereas Ombir Singh had
purchased only one flat i.e. G5 on the ground floor of Saran
Apartments. It is also alleged that not only he submitted false
report dated 26.06.01, he also submitted subsequent false report
dated 07.05.03 relating to the same property.
13.2 Ld.Public Prosecutor has submitted that
accused/Ravinder Vasudeva (A12) had given false report in
respect of property to favour private accused persons due to which
they have been able to take huge financial limits from the bank,
which ultimately not repaid resulting into huge financial loss to the
public sector bank.
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.69 of 86
13.3 Ld.counsel appearing for accused/Ravinder
Vasudev (A12) has drawn attention of the court towards document
no.D119, which is certified copy of Book of Instructions of Canara
Bank, wherein at para no.2.5, it is required that whenever a
property proposed to be mortgaged is situated in one State and the
advancing branch is in different State, the advancing branch has to
call for the LSR relating to that particular property from Bank's
panel advocate who is practising in the State where the property is
situated, through the regional office/circle office of the bank under
whose jurisdiction the property falls.
13.4 He has thus submitted that the bank had in fact
made a mistake by asking him to investigate title of the property
which was situated in Gurgaon (Haryana) whereas he was on the
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.70 of 86
bank's panel of advocates for Delhi only. He has further submitted
that however he had carried out the detailed search with utmost
care and had mentioned true and correct facts as per the
documents shown to him. He has pointed out to the LSR (D43),
wherein it is clearly mentioned in column of 'Whether
original/photocopy/certified copy?', the 'photocopy of the nakal
intkal, sale deed dated 14.06.99 and sale deed dated 07.02.94'
were seen by him. He had also mentioned in para no.2 of the LSR
about the extent of the ownership of the property in flat no.G1 to
G5 in Kh.No.45/2, Silokhra, 'MAY BE ASCERTAINED.' He had
mentioned that he had traced the party's title for the last 13 years
and from the documents it was revealed that Smt.Teg Grover wife
of Sh.Ranjit Singh Grover had purchased the property in Kh.No.
45/2 bearing area of 400 sq.yds and the patwari had made the
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.71 of 86
intkal of the said sale deed favouring Smt.Teg Grover. He stated in
the report that Smt.Teg Grover had sold the property to Ombir
Singh son of Sh.Om Prakash Sharma vide sale deed dated
14.06.99, vasika no.3882, additional book no.1, bahi no.5891 and
according to the documents of the property, it is an agricultural land
and party has to produce the document whereby it has been
permitted to change the user of the land to residential. He has also
submitted that as per the search made at the office of sub registrar
no registered charge on the property were found on the basis of
records available for the period from year 1989 till 25.06.03. As
regards evidence of possession, he has advised that the bank
should physically verify whether Ombir Singh is in possession of
the property and documents such as house tax receipt/electricity
bill/telephone bill may be taken. He certified that on the basis of
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.72 of 86
document Ombir Singh is the owner of the above property. The
supplementary non encumbrance report dated 07.05.03 in respect
of the same property is D89 whereby accused/Ravinder Vasudev
(A12) has certified that he inspected the records of the sub
registrar on 24.04.03 and found that no registered charges are
there on the property bearing property no.,G1 to G5, Kh.No.45/2,
Silokhra, Moti Vihar, Tehsil and Distt.Gurgaon. The ld.cunsel has
submitted that Ravinder Vasudeva had not mentioned any incorrect
fact in his report as he did not claim that he had ascertained
physical possession of Ombir Singh to the property and that he had
additionally disclosed about the kind of user of the land.
13.5 Ld.counsel for accused/Ravinder Vasudev (A12)
has also relied upon judgment of Hon'le Supreme Court in CBI Vs.
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.73 of 86
K Narayana Rao, Crl. Appeal no.1460 of 2012, DOD 21.09.12,
wherein it has been held:
25. In Pandurang Dattatraya Khandekar Vs. Bar
Council of Maharashtra & Ors., (1984) 2 SCC 556,
this court held that "... there is a world of difference
between the giving of improper legal advice and the
giving of wrong legal advice. Mere negligence
unaccompanied by any moral delinquency on the part of
a legal practitioner in the exercise of his profession does
not amount to professional misconduct.
26. Therefore, the liability against an opining advocate
arises only when the lawyer was an active
participant in a plan to defraud the bank. In the
given case, there is no evidence to prove that A6 was
abetting or aiding the original conspirators.
27. However, it is beyond doubt that a lawyer owes an
"unremitting loyalty" to the interests of the client and it is
the lawyer's responsibility to act in a manner that would
best advance the interest of the client. Merely because
his opinion may not be acceptable, he can not be
mulcted with the criminal prosecution, particularly,
in the absence of tangible evidence that he
associated with other conspirators. At the most, he
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.74 of 86
may be liable for gross negligence or professional
misconduct if it is established by acceptable evidence
and can not be charged for the offence under sections
420 and 109 of IPC along with other conspirators
without proper and acceptable link between them. It is
further made clear that if there is a link or evidence to
connect him with the other conspirators for causing loss
to the institution, undoubtedly, the prosecuting
authorities are entitled to proceed under criminal
prosecution. Such tangible materials are lacking in the
case of the respondent herein.
28.In the light of the above discussion and after analysing all the materials, we are satisfied that there is no prima facie case for proceeding in respect of the charges alleged insofar as respondent herein is concerned. We agree with the conclusion of the High Court in quashing the criminal proceedings and reject the stand taken by the CBI.
13.6 In this case also I find that only mistake which accused/Ravinder Vasudev (A12) has committed is that whereas Ombir Singh was owner of only one flat i.e. G5, he relied upon the photocopy of the title deed submitted by Ombir Singh to him CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.75 of 86wherein Ombir Singh had manipulated by writing on page no.3, 'G1 to G5' in place of 'G5' and 'five bed rooms' in place of 'one bed room.' The original of that photocopy which was shown to accused/Ravinder Vasudev (A12) for obtaining his opinion is available at D40 and even in the original, if see by naked eyes, the manipulation has been carried out in such a way that it may not be noticed easily. Thus, it is quite possible that accused/Ravinder Vasudev (A12), while giving the opinion on the basis of photocopy of the same document would have been misled and could not detect manipulation in the document which was nicely carried out by Ombir Singh. It is not the case that D45 (without manipulations) is actually not registered with sub registrar of Gurgaon and, therefore, it was quite possible for anyone to believe contents of the said sale deed.
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.76 of 86
13.7 PW15/Ajit Singh, Tehsildar of Sub Registrar
Office has also stated after seeing the sale deed of Ombir Singh in question that he had registered the said sale deed wherein seller was Smt.Teg Grover and purchase was Ombir Singh and the same were signed in his presence and as per the certified copy Ombir Singh had purchased one flat no.G5, Uttar, Ground Floor whereas in the original sale deed he had mutilated the same 'G1 to G5.' 13.8 PW16/R S Grover is husband of Smt.Teg Grover. He has deposed that he purchased the plot admeasuring 400 sq.yds, Kh.No.45/2, Village Silokhra, Distt. & TehsilGurgaon in the name of his wife, on which he got constructed multi storey building th upto 4 floor and on the ground floor 5 numbers of flats marked G1 CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.77 of 86to G5 were constructed out of which G5 was sold by his wife to Ombir Singh vide sale deed no.3882 dated 14.06.99 for Rs.3 lacs. 13.9 Opinion report (D43) dated 26.06.01 or non encumbrance report dated 07.05.03 (D89) of accused/Ravinder Vasudev (A12) do not disclose any incorrect fact about the ownership of Ombir Singh except about the sale deed mentioning flat no.G1 to G5 instead of G5 only which is obviously based on the photocopy of the sale deed dated 14.06.99 provided to him by the bank and not based on his inspection of the flats. 13.10 There is nothing in the charge sheet or in the evidence of any of the prosecution witness to show that accused/Ravinder Vasudev (A12) had any direct contact with the CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.78 of 86borrower who had proposed mortgage of his property with the bank.
13.11 It is significant to note that although, there is no mention in the charge sheet about giving false legal search report by accused/Ravinder Vasudev (A12) in respect of another property mortgaged to the bank but from the charge sheet and records, it is apparent that when the company/Kumbh Steel Pvt Ltd had sought enhancement of limits sanctioned to it from Rs.80 lacs to Rs.100 lacs and it was forwarded by Uttam Nagar Branch of the bank vide letter dated 25.10.02, the company had proposed mortgaged plot no.6 admeasuring 250 sq.yds out of Kh.No.116/9 situated in the revenue estate of village Palam, Delhi abadi known as Mahavir Enclave, PartII registered in the name of Raj Kumar (A11) as CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.79 of 86collateral additional security which was offered as common security for this account along with M/s Moskos Steel Pvt. Ltd. The LSR dated 23.10.02 in respect of this property is D71. 13.12 From report, it is clear that it was given in respect of another company M/s Moskos Steel Pvt ltd. As is apparent from his report (D71), accused/Ravinder Vasudev (A12) had examined only photocopies of those documents and had also mentioned that the boundaries are to be ascertained. It is not disputed that the property comprised in Kh.No.116/9 was not burdened with any charge and, therefore, non encumbrance certificate is not disputed but the question was that the sale deed which was executed by Ombir Singh (deceased) in the name of his brotherinlaw/Raj Kumar (A11) was forged sale deed. Accused/Ravinder Vasudev CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.80 of 86(A12) has certified that he had made search in the office of Sub Registrar and no registered charges on the property in Kh.No.116/9, village Palam could be found on the basis of records made available to him for the period October, 1989 to October, 2002. As regards evidence of possession, he had mentioned that bank must obtain documents for showing the proof of possession, meaning thereby that he did not certify the possession or physical existence of the property.
13.13 He however certified that as per the sale deed, accused/Raj Kumar (A11) is absolute owner of the said property. Sale deed of the property is available as D63 which has been executed by deceased/Ombir Singh in favour of accused/Raj Kumar (A11), who is his brotherinlaw and the said sale deed is CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.81 of 86registered with Sub Registrar.
13.14 PW36/Ashok Tyagi is an advocate, who has stated that he knew Ombir Singh, director of M/s Kumbh Steel Pvt. Ltd as his client and had completed documentation relating to the sale deed no.337/1 dated 02.02.2000 registered with Sub Registrar IX for the property bearing Plot No.6 measuring 250 sq.yds out of Kh.No.116/9 situated in the revenue Estate of village Palam, Delhi State, area abadi known as Mahavir Enclave, BlockB2, New Delhi. After going through the sale deed shown to him, he had stated that documentation were prepared by him as per documents supplied by vendee/Raj Kumar (A11). He has also stated that accused/Raj Kumar (A11) and Ombir Singh had signed in his presence in front of Sub Registrar and he had witnessed the same. He also stated CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.82 of 86that Mahesh Kumar, brother of deceased/Ombir Singh had also signed on the sale deed as a witness. However, he stated that he does not know whether the property is existing or not and it was duty of the vendor and the vendee to clear this fact. 13.15 Thus, it may be seen that neither the advocate who documented and witnessed the forged sale deed nor another witness Mahesh Kumar, brother of deceased/Ombir Singh, who had witnessed the same forged sale deed, have been charge sheeted as accused by CBI, whereas Ravinder Vasudev (A12), who had given the report on the basis of photocopies of the documents without certifying possession, as is apparent from his report (D71) and supplementary report (D91) given after seeing the original of the sale deed, has been made an accused in this case. There is CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.83 of 86absolutely no evidence of him colluding with any other accused which would give rise to a conclusion or at least a genuine doubt that he gave report in order to favour anyone. His case clearly falls within the ratio of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.Narayana Rao's case (supra).
13.16 I find that Ravinder Vasudeva (A12) has not stated any incorrect fact in his legal search reports which appear to have been given under the bonafide belief that the sale deed which is registered with the Sub Registrar is in respect of a real and genuine property. Hence, under such circumstances, I find that there is no sufficient evidence against him to frame charge of conspiracy with other accused persons. I accordingly discharge accused/Ravinder Vasudeva (A12).
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.84 of 86
13.17 As a result of above discussion, it is ordered that
the charge be framed against A1 to A11 for offences punishable u/s 120B r/w 420/467/468/471 IPC and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988. Besides, charge for substantive offences u/s 420 IPC against A1, A8, A9 and A10; u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act against A3, A5, A6 and A7; u/s 468 and 471 r/w 468 IPC against A2; u/s 468, 471 r/w 468 IPC and section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act against A4 and u/s 420, 467 and 471 r/w 468 IPC against A11 be also framed.
13.18 As accused/Ravinder Vasudeva (A12) has been discharged his bail bond and surety bond stand cancelled.
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.85 of 86
13.19 It is made clear that nothing in this order shall be
construed as comment on the merit of the case or adjudication of any fact.
Announced in the Open (R P PANDEY)
Court on 10.05.2014 SP.JUDGE(PC ACT)CBI01
CBI No.01/10 CBI Vs.Smt.Savita Devi & Ors.
Page No.86 of 86