Delhi District Court
Reported As K. Radhai vs . Cbi Cochin Unit (2007) 10 Scc 582 And on 31 January, 2018
State through CBI v. Raj Kumar etc.
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER BHAT
SPECIAL JUDGE, CBI-01, NORTH-WEST DISTRICT
ROHINI COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI.
IN THE MATTER OF:
CBI No. : 143/2016 (Old No. 14/12)
CNR No. : DLNW01-000289-2010
FIR No. : RC 72/2009/EOU-III/CBI/N. Delhi
Under Section: 120B IPC r/w
Section 419/420/467/468/471 IPC
and Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of PC Act, 1988
and substantive offences and
Under Section 12 of PP Act.
Police Station: CBI/EOW-II/New Delhi
STATE
THROUGH
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
NEW DELHI
VERSUS
CBI Case No. 143/16 (Old No. 14/12) Page No. 1 of 12
State through CBI v. Raj Kumar etc.
1.Raj Kumar S/o Sh. Sunder Pal R/o G-29, 5th Floor, Trehan Home Developers, Bhiwadi.
Also at Village-Hasanpur, Tehsil-Tauru, Distt. Gurgaon .........Convict No. 1
2. Neel Kamal W/o Late Sh. Ombir Singh R/o C-9/1, DLF Phase-I Gurgaon, Haryana ..........Convict No. 2
3. Satish Sikri S/o Late Sh. Q.R. Sikri R/o 31, A-Block, Chander Nagar Janak Puri, New Delhi.
..........Convict No. 34. M/s Moskos Steel Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Director Raj Kumar S/o Sh. Sunder Pal R/o G-29, 5th Floor, Trehan Home Developers, CBI Case No. 143/16 (Old No. 14/12) Page No. 2 of 12 State through CBI v. Raj Kumar etc. Bhiwadi.
Also at Village-Hasanpur, Tehsil-Tauru, Distt. Gurgaon ..........Convict No. 4 Appearance : Sh. Neetu Singh, Learned Public Prosecutor for CBI Sh. P.K. Sharma, Ld. Counsel for accused Raj Kumar (C1) and M/s Moskos Steel Pvt. Ltd. (C4) through its Director Raj Kumar Sh. Abhishek Prasad, Ld. Counsel for accused Neel Kamal (C2).
Sh. Sunil Ahuja, Ld. Counsel for accused Satish Sikri (C3).
ORDER ON THE POINT OF SENTENCE :-
1. Vide judgement dated 30.01.2018, accused Raj Kumar, Neel Kamal, Satish Sikri and company M/s Moskos Steel Pvt. Ltd have been convicted as under:-
(i) Raj Kumar has been convicted under Section 120B/468 IPC. He has also been convicted for the substantive offence under Section 468 IPC.
CBI Case No. 143/16 (Old No. 14/12) Page No. 3 of 12 State through CBI v. Raj Kumar etc.
(ii) Raj Kumar, Neel Kamal, Satish Sikri and the company M/s Moskos Steel Pvt. Ltd have been convicted under Section 120B/471 IPC as well as for the substantive offence under Section 471 IPC.
(iii) Raj Kumar, Neel Kamal and the company M/s Moskos Steel Pvt. Ltd have been also convicted under Section 120B/420 IPC as well as for the substantive offence under Section 420 IPC.
(iv) Satish Sikri has also been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) (ii) & (iii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. Arguments heard on the point of sentence.
3. Ld. Public Prosecutor submitted that the offence committed by the convicts are serious in nature. He argued that on account of corruption in banking transactions and bank frauds, NPAs of the banks are rising tremendously day by day and have touched the figure of Rs. 6 lac crores. According to him, the rising NPAs of the banks create a serious hurdle in the overall progress of the Nation.
4. He would argue that pursuant to well hatched conspiracy, Raj Kumar and Ombir Singh (since deceased) forged/fabricated title CBI Case No. 143/16 (Old No. 14/12) Page No. 4 of 12 State through CBI v. Raj Kumar etc. documents with regards to the non existent plot of land and later on they were joined in the conspiracy by Neel Kamal and Satish Sikri in submitting those title documents to the bank as collateral security for obtaining enhancement of the credit limit for the company from Rs. 40 lacs to Rs. 100 lacs. He submitted that there was nobody in the Uttam Nagar Branch of the Bank to expose of the forgery for the reason that the Manager of Branch Satish Sikri himself was involved in the conspiracy and assisted the other conspirators in achieving the object of the conspiracy by submitting a false physical verification report in respect of the said non existent plot of land. He further submitted that the offences committed by Satish Sikri being a public servant, under the PC Act have vast ramification against the whole Nation and are against the public good. He argued for a very stern sentence to all the convicts.
5. Ld. Counsel for convicts Raj Kumar and the company M/s Moskos Steel Pvt. Ltd argued for a lenient sentence to them. At the outset, he submitted that since these two convicts have not been convicted of any provision of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, this Court has no power to sentence them and the case may be referred to the Magistrate for awarding sentence to them for the offences under Indian Penal Code for which they have been convicted.
6. It is further submitted by him that the convict Raj Kumar is 40 years old and only earning member of his family consisting of his wife and two minor children one of whom is suffering from cerebral palsey requiring constant medication and care. He also argued that CBI Case No. 143/16 (Old No. 14/12) Page No. 5 of 12 State through CBI v. Raj Kumar etc. Raj Kumar has been victim of circumstances with no previous criminal history and has not obtained any financial gain for himself from the bank. The Ld. Counsel urged this Court to impose most lenient sentence upon these two convicts.
7. The Ld. Counsel referred to judgment of Supreme Court reported as K. Radhai Vs. CBI Cochin Unit (2007) 10 SCC 582 and judgment of the High Court reported as Rajeev Kumar Goyal @ Raj Kumar Goyal and Ors. Vs. State through CBI 2014 VII AD (Delhi) 667 in order to convey that sentence of less than three years imprisonment should be imposed for the offences under Section 468,471 and 420 IPC.
8. On behalf of convict Satish Sikri, it has been argued that he cannot be placed in the same pedestal as the other convicts for the reason that his role was limited to the submission of false physical verification report in respect of the plot of land sought to be mortgaged with the bank. He submitted that the convict is 68 years old, suffering from acute asthma and hypertension for which he requires regular treatment. He also pointed out that the wife of the convict is financially as well as emotionally dependent upon the convict in such late stage of life. He prayed for a very lenient sentence to the convict.
9. Ld. Counsel for convict Neel Kamal argued that she, being an obedient Hindu wife, had no option but to obey the dictates of her husband i.e. Late Sh. Ombir Singh which has made her a criminal. He submits that this convict had no intention to commit any crime at all and she had been under the impression that everything is CBI Case No. 143/16 (Old No. 14/12) Page No. 6 of 12 State through CBI v. Raj Kumar etc. going on well in the company. Lastly, the Ld. Counsel submitted that the convict is widowed lady with a daughter of marriageable age dependent upon her. He prayed that the convict may let off very leniently.
10. I have considered the submissions made by the Ld. PP as well as the Ld. Counsels appearing for the convicts and have taken into consideration all the facts and circumstances in which the offences have been committed by the convicts. Judgements cited at the bar have also been considered.
11. It has already been held in the judgement dated 30.01.2018 passed by this Court that the forgery or fabrication of the title documents regarding a non existent plot of land was the brain child of Raj Kumar and his brother-in-law Ombir Singh (since expired). Later on they took the Manager of the Uttam Nagar Branch of the Bank Satish Sikri is also in confidence and involved him in conspiracy by submitting the forged title documents as collateral security. Satish Sikri, being the Branch Manager, was responsible for conducting physical inspection of the property sought to be mortgaged with the bank in view of the circulars issued by the bank and also as per the directions issued by the circle office. He, being involved in the conspiracy, did not take any steps to ascertain as to whether the plot of land in question actually exists and submitted a false physical verification report confirming therein the physical existence of the plot of land, which did not exist at all. The plan worked perfectly as there was nobody to point out the forgery of the documents or non existence of the plot of land. Accordingly, the credit limit of the company was CBI Case No. 143/16 (Old No. 14/12) Page No. 7 of 12 State through CBI v. Raj Kumar etc. enhanced from time to time.
12. It is thus evident that the convicts Raj Kumar, Neel Kamal and the company M/s Moskos Steel Pvt. Ltd have been reaping the fruits of their illegal acts thereby causing serious financial loss to the bank as they, later on, failed to liquidate their outstanding as a result of which the loan account of the company became NPA. It is when the bank officials visited the area to locate the mortgaged plot of land, to effect its attachment and sale for realising dues of the company in the loan account, that they found of the plot of land did not exist at all. Thus, the three convicts have caused wrongful loss to the bank and wrongful gain to themselves to the tune of lacs of rupees which they have been enjoying for several years. In view of the same, they are not entitled to any leniency at all and are liable for a stern punishment.
13. So far as the convict Satish Sirki is concerned, he was a public servant, being the Manager of the Branch of the Bank and hence the custodian of the money deposited by the customers of the bank. He was expected to discharge his function for the public good and in public interest. Every holder of the public office is a trustee of the power confirmed upon him which he has to exercise only for promoting the public interest. Such power is to be exercised strictly in accordance with the statutory provisions and the fact situation of the particular case. Moreover, the bank officer is duty bound to exercise his power or discretion for the interest of the bank as well as in the interest of the customers of the bank, who have put in their hard earned money with the bank. However, convict Satish Sikri deliberately abandoned his duties as a bank officer and disregarded CBI Case No. 143/16 (Old No. 14/12) Page No. 8 of 12 State through CBI v. Raj Kumar etc. the faith reposed in him by the bank as well as by the customers of the bank. He became party to the conspiracy for submitting fake collateral security and to cheat the bank.
14. The argument of the Ld. Counsel for convicts Raj Kumar and the company M/s Moskos Steel Pvt. Ltd that this Court cannot pass sentence against them for the offences under the Indian Penal Code as they have not been convicted for any offence under the PC Act, is absolutely fallacious. It is established legal principle that the Court which passes the judgment of conviction alone shall have to hear the convicts on the quantum of sentence and to sentence them accordingly. The arguments of the Ld. Counsel are not supported by any provision of law.
15. The old age of a convict, the ailments which he might be suffering and the ordeal of long trial suffered by him may be mitigating factors to be considered by the court while deciding quantum of sentence to be imposed upon the convict, but at the same time, the aggravating factors like the gravity of the offence, its implications upon the public at large and the instances of similar offences committed by the convict during the relevant period have also to be taken note of.
16. It is true that in certain cases, the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court have taken the old age, ill health and long delay in the conclusion of the trial into consideration while awarding a lenient sentence upon the convicts / appellants before them. However, all those judgements have been rendered in the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. It is neither a rule of law nor has been provided so, in any of the judgements of either High Court or Supreme CBI Case No. 143/16 (Old No. 14/12) Page No. 9 of 12 State through CBI v. Raj Kumar etc. Court, that in all cases where the convict is having certain ailments and the trial has taken a very long time to conclude, a lenient possible sentence should be imposed upon the convict. Each convict has to be dealt with according to the facts and circumstances of the case in which he is convicted and all other attending circumstances
17. I feel in agreement with the Ld. PP that the frauds played with the bank for obtaining loan/credit on the basis of false and fictitious security are on the rise and so are the NPAs of the banks which have touched the figure of Rs. 6 lac crores. The enormous figure of NPAs of the banks poses a serious hurdle in the overall progress of the Nation and impedes the economic growth of the Nation. Hence, the persons found to have resorted to such frauds/criminal activities related to banks deserve to be dealt with sternly without any leniency.
18. Keeping view of the above discussion with regards to mitigating and aggravating factors, convicts are hereby sentenced as under:
(i) Convict Raj Kumar is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period three years alongwith fine of Rs. 1 lac for the offence under Section 120B/468 IPC. He shall suffer further simple imprisonment for a period of four months in case of default in payment of fine.
(ii) He is also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period four years alongwith CBI Case No. 143/16 (Old No. 14/12) Page No. 10 of 12 State through CBI v. Raj Kumar etc. fine of Rs. 2 lac for the offence under Section 468 IPC. He shall suffer further simple imprisonment for a period of six months in case of default in payment of fine.
(iii) Convicts Raj Kumar, Neel Kamal and Satish Sikri are sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period three years alongwith fine of Rs. 1 lac each for the offence under Section 120B/471 IPC. They shall suffer further simple imprisonment for a period of four months in case of default in payment of fine.
(iv) They are further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period four years alongwith fine of Rs. 2 lac each for the offence under Section 471 IPC. They shall suffer further simple imprisonment for a period of six months each in case of default in payment of fine.
(v) Convicts Raj Kumar, Neel Kamal and company M/s Moskos Steel Pvt. Ltd are sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period three years alongwith fine of Rs. 1 lac each for the offence under Section 120B/420 IPC. They shall suffer further simple imprisonment for a period of four months in case of default in payment of fine.
CBI Case No. 143/16 (Old No. 14/12) Page No. 11 of 12 State through CBI v. Raj Kumar etc.
(vi) They are further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period four years alongwith fine of Rs. 2 lac each for the offence under Section 420 IPC. They shall suffer further simple imprisonment for a period of six months each in case of default in payment of fine.
(vii) Convicts Satish Sikri is also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period four years alongwith fine of Rs. 1 lac for the offence under Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) (ii) & (iii) of PC Act. He shall suffer further simple imprisonment for a period of four months in case of default in payment of fine.
19. All the sentences shall run concurrently.
20. The convicts shall be entitled to benefit of Section 428 Cr. PC.
21. Copy of order on the point of sentence as well as copy of judgement dated 30.01.2018 be given to the convicts free of cost.
22. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court on 31.01.2018 (Virender Bhat) Special Judge, CBI-01, North West Rohini Courts, Delhi CBI Case No. 143/16 (Old No. 14/12) Page No. 12 of 12