Delhi District Court
27 vs State Of on 24 January, 2014
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. N. K. SHARMA, SPECIAL JUDGE,
(PC ACT)-02, CBI, DELHI.
CC NO.173/01.
CBI/SCB/N. DELHI.
RC NO. 2(S)/93.
ID NO. 02401R0065292001
CBI
VERSUS
1. P. K. SETH,
S/O LATE SH. GHANSHAM DASS SETH,
R/O 87, AMBIKA VIHAR,
NEW DELHI - 110041.
2. SH. SUNIL AGGARWAL,
S/O SH. MAMAN CHAND AGGARWAL,
R/O POCKET B-7, PLOT NO. 12,
SECTOR-4, ROHINI,
DELHI-110042.
1 of 102
2
3. MS. MEENU TRIKHA,
D/O LATE SH. W.N. TRIKHA,
R/O WZ-82, PLOT NO.74,
PRATAP NAGAR, JAIL ROAD,
NEW DELHI-110064.
4. MS. KUSUM BALA,
D/O SH. VIJAY PAL SINGH,
R/O H-3, HAUZ KHAS,
POLICE COLONY,
NEW DELHI.
5. SH. SATISH C. GAUR,
S/O SH. J.C. GAUR,
R/O AG-110, SHALIMAR BAGH,
DELHI-110052.
Date of Institution :24.11.1993.
Date of Arguments :13.05.2014.
Date of Judgment :22.05.2014.
JUDGMENT
1. This Judgment will dispose off the CBI criminal case referred to herein above filed by the CBI on 24.11.1993.
2 of 102 3
2. Brief facts as per the case of prosecution are that this case was registered on 03.02.1993 on the basis of a Source Information. The allegations in brief made in the FIR are that accused no. 1 P. K. Seth and accused no. 2 Sunil Aggarwal and other unknown persons entered into a criminal conspiracy and in furtherance of which accused no. 2 Sunil Aggarwal submitted 27 bogus loan applications under Big- Buy-Scheme to accused no. 1 P. K. Seth, who in his capacity as Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Pratap Nagar Branch, Delhi, during the period from 03.11.1990 to 14.10.1991, sanctioned and disbursed the same without making proper verification and thereby cheated the bank to the tune of Rs. 8,57,000/-. It has been revealed that during the year 1991, State Bank of India, was having a Scheme called the Big Buy Scheme under which Government Employees, Employees of Public Sector Undertakings, Reputed Private Concerns and Self Employed persons, who 3 of 102 4 had completed five years service or had five years standing were eligible for the loans ranging between Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 1 lacs for purchasing consumer durables like TV, VCR, Refrigerator, Washing Machine etc. on interest @ 17.5%. The loanees were to open either a Current Account or a Saving Bank Account with the Bank and deposit 25% of the loan amount as margin money with the Bank. The articles bought were to be hypothecated to the Bank or collaterally secured by 3rd Party Guarantee and were also to be insured against the risks of fire, theft etc.
3. It has been further revealed that accused no.1 P. K. Seth, accused no.2 Sunil Aggarwal, Proprietor of M/s. Moonex Electronics (India) Delhi, accused no. 3 Meenu Trikha, accused no. 4 Kusum Bala and accused no. 5 Satish C. Gaur (employees of accused no.2 Sunil Aggarwal) entered into a criminal conspiracy with each other and in furtherance of which, accused no. 2 Sunil Aggarwal with the 4 of 102 5 assistance of accused no.3 Meenu Trikha, accused no. 4 Kusum Bala and accused no. 5 Satish C. Gaur as well as some unidentified employees, prepared 27 bogus loan applications, pay slips, quotations and advance receipts in the names of 26 non-existing persons showing them working as Doctors in Employees State Insurance Corporation Hospital (ESIC), New Delhi and one in the name of genuine Doctor of ESIC, who never applied for any loan and submitted the same to accused no.1 P. K. Seth, who sanctioned the loans in their favour and disbursed Rs. 8,57,000/- to M/s. Moonex Electronics (India) and M/S. ADMC Corporation (India). The alleged suppliers of consumer durables to the said alleged loanees as per details below:-
4. (i) S.NO. DATE OF LOAN NAME OF LOANEE AMOUNT OF SANCTION NO. LOAN
01. 16.03.1991 B-138 DR.(MRS.) HELEN SINGH RS. 45,000=00
5 of 102 6
02. 16.03.1991 B-139 DR.SURINDER KR. BEDI RS. 35,000=00
03. 16.03.1991 B-141 DR.RAJINDER KR. SAXENA RS. 33,000=00
04. 16.03.1991 B-142 DR.HARI MOHAN KAPOOR RS. 32,000=00 TOTAL RS.1,45,000=00 Out of the aforesaid four loanees, only Dr. (Mrs.) Helen Singh was an employee of ESIC but neither she applied for nor obtained any loan and the other three persons were never in the employment of ESIC. The said loan amount i.e. Rs. 1,45,000/-was disbursed by Banker's Cheque No. 994931 dated 16.03.1991 favouring M/s. ADMC Corporation (India), which is the Proprietorship concern of Smt. Angoori Devi (mother of accused no. 2 Sunil Aggarwal). Four Current Accounts were opened in the names of the said loanees after disbursing the loans and the proceeds of the loan were made for paying the initial deposit of Rs.100/- each in the said four current accounts. Sh. Sunil Aggarwal (A-2) signed the loan application and quotation of Dr. R.K. 6 of 102 7 Saxena. Ms. Meenu Trikha (A-3) signed the loan application, and quotation of Dr. Surinder Kumar Bedi and the pay slips in the names of Dr. Hari Mohan Kapoor and Dr. (Mrs.) Helen Singh. Accused no. 5 Satish C. Gaur signed the loan application and quotation in the name of Dr. Hari Mohan Kapoor.
4. (ii) S. DATE OF LOAN NAME OF LOANEE AMOUNT OF NO. SANCTION NO. LOAN
01. 04.04.1991 B-150 S. K. ARORA. RS. 40,000=00
02. 04.04.1991 B-151 RAMESH JETHMALANI. RS. 22,000=00
03. 04.04.1991 B-152 SANJEEV JOSHI. RS. 38,000=00
04. 04.04.1991 B-160 DR. DC PASSI. RS. 27,000=00
05. 04.04.1991 B-161 DR. SC GAUR. RS. 22,000=00 TOTAL RS.1,49,000=00.
The aforesaid five loans were disbursed by Bankers' Cheque No. 997804 dated 04.04.1991 favouring M/s. Moonex Electronics (India) and all the said five loanees were non existing.
4. (iii) 7 of 102 8 S. DATE OF LOAN NAME OF LOANEE AMOUNT OF NO. SANCTION NO. LOAN
01. 05.04.1991 B-159 DR. CHANDER BHAN SINGH RS. 23,000=00 This loan was disbursed by Banker's cheque no. 997814 dated 05.04.1991 favouring M/s. Moonex Electronics (India) and this loanee is also non existing.
4. (iv).
S. DATE OF LOAN NAME OF LOANEE AMOUNT OF
NO. SANCTION NO. LOAN
01. 06.04.1991 B-153 DR. P. C. GULATI RS. 33,000=00
02. 06.04.1991 B-154 DR. S. N. GARG RS. 27,000=00
03. 06.04.1991 B-155 DR. MANOJ ARYA RS. 46,000=00
04. 06.04.1991 B-157 DR. M. L. BHATI RS. 28,000=00
05. 06.04.1991 B-158 DR. GAGAN MALHOTRA RS. 36,000=00
TOTAL RS.1,70,000=00
The said five loans were disbursed by Bankers' Cheque No. 997823 dated 06.04.1991 favouring M/s. Moonex Electronics (India). Accused no. 3 Meenu Trikha signed loan application and quotation in the name of Dr. P. C. Gulati and loan application in the name of Dr. S. N. Garg.
4. (v) 8 of 102 9 S. DATE OF LOAN NAME OF LOANEE AMOUNT OF NO. SANCTION NO. LOAN
01. 16.04.1991 B-168 DR. S. S. RAI RS. 40,000=00
02. 16.04.1991 B-169 DR. C. S. CHAWLA RS. 31,000=00
03. 16.04.1991 B-170 DR. J. PARAMATMA RS. 36,000=00
04. 16.04.1991 B-171 DR. S. DASS. RS. 32,000=00
05. 16.04.1991 B-172 DR. C. K. PANDEY RS. 34,000=00
06. 16.04.1991 B-173 DR. KUSUM JAIN RS. 35,000=00
07. 16.04.1991 B-174 CHANDER PRAKASH RS. 28,000=00 MAJHI.
TOTAL RS.2,36,000=00 Accused no. 4 Kusum Bala signed the loan application and quotation in the name of Dr. Kusum Jain. The amount of the said seven loans were disbursed by Banker's cheque no. 997871 dated 16.04.1991 for Rs. 1,31,000/- avouring M/s. ADMC Corporation (India), Delhi and Bankers' Cheque No. 997872 dated 16.04.1991 for Rs. 1,05,000/- favouring M/s. Moonex Electronics (India). All the said seven loanees were non existing.
4. (vi) S. DATE OF LOAN NAME OF LOANEE AMOUNT OF NO. SANCTION NO. LOAN 9 of 102 10
01. 18.04.1991 B-175 DR. B. LAL. RS. 36,000=00
02. 18.04.1991 B-176 DR. J. N. SINGH. RS. 26,000=00
03. 18.04.1991 B-177 DR. ASHOK KUMAR. RS. 23,000=00
04. 18.04.1991 B-179 DR. ERIK EKKA. RS. 23,000=00
05. 18.04.1991 B-180 DR. D. K. BHATTACHARYA. RS. 26,000=00 TOTAL RS.1,34,000=00 The amount of the said five loans was disbursed by Bankers' Cheque No. 997880 dated 18.04.1991 for Rs. 36,000/- favouring M/s. Moonex Electronics (India) and Bankers' Cheque No. 997881 dated 18.04.1991 for Rs. 98,000/- favouring M/s. ADMC Corporation (India). All the said five loanees are non-existing.
5. Investigation further revealed that accused no. 1 P. K. Seth in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy allowed accused no. 2 Sunil Aggarwal to make entries in the Big- Buy-Loan ledger of the bank pertaining to the said 27 Big- Buy-Loan accounts and intentionally did not initiate any follow up action after the sanction and disbursement of the said loans. All the said loans remain outstanding and unpaid 10 of 102 11 to the Bank and thereby the accused persons cheated State Bank of India, Pratap Nagar Branch, Delhi to the tune of Rs. 8,57,000/-.
6. Investigation also revealed that accused no. 1 P. K. Seth obtained a gold bracelet from M/s. B. K. Jewellers, Wazir Pur, Delhi through his son Puneet Seth for which payment was made by accused no. 2 Sunil Aggarwal from his account no. 2288 in the name of M/s. Pikaso Credit and Leasing (India) Ltd., at State Bank of India, Pratap Nagar Branch, Delhi. The said firm was a Proprietorship concern of accused no. 2 Sunil Aggarwal.
7. Investigation further revealed that accused no. 1 P. K. Seth also got his son Puneet Seth employed with accused no. 2 Sunil Aggarwal's firm M/s. Jatin International. Accused no. 1 P. K. Seth was found in possession of a cheque of M/s. Moonex Electronics (India) for Rs.5,000/- which was signed by accused no. 2 Sunil Aggarwal with the payees and 11 of 102 12 date columns blank intended for future use by accused no. 1 P. K. Seth.
8. Accused no. 1 P. K. Seth thus, after conniving with other accused persons, abused his official position as a Public Servant and obtained undue pecuniary advantage for himself and others and sanctioned 27 bogus loans in the names of the aforesaid persons, causing pecuniary loss to the Bank. All the loans amount to Rs.8,57,000/- are still outstanding.
9. During the investigation, Expert from GEQD/Shimla has given positive opinion about handwriting and signature of accused no. 2 Sunil Aggarwal, accused no. 3 Ms. Meenu Trikha, accused no. 4 Kusum Bala and accused no. 5 Satish C. Gaur on the questioned documents.
10. All the said said accused persons i.e. accused no. 1 P. K. Seth, accused no. 2 Sunil Aggarwal, accused no. 3 Ms. Meenu Trikha, accused no. 4 Kusum Bala and accused no. 5 12 of 102 13 Satish C. Gaur have thereby committed offences u/s 120-B, r/w 420, 468 and 471 of IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of PC Act, 1988.
11. The Competent Authority has accorded Sanction for Prosecution u/s 19 (i) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for prosecution of accused no.1 P. K. Seth alongwith the other accused persons for the above said offences.
12. After taking cognizance, all the accused persons were summoned to appear in the Court and on their appearance, they were supplied with the copies of the documents.
13. After hearing the arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for parties on point of charge and after going through the record, my Ld. Predecessor vide his separate order dated 02.11.1995 held that there are sufficient grounds for framing of charge for the offences punishable u/s 120-B, r/w 420,468 and 471 of IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of 13 of 102 14 PC Act, 1988 against all the five accused persons. Further charges u/s 420 of IPC and 13(2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of PC Act be framed against accused no.1 P. K. Seth. Further charges u/s 420,468 and 471 of IPC be also framed against accused no. 5 Satish C. Gaur. Further charges u/s 468 of IPC be framed against accused no. 3 Meenu Trikha, accused no. 4 Kusum Bala and accused no. 5 Satish C. Gaur.
14. Accordingly, on 25.01.1996 my Ld. Predecessor framed the charges for the offences punishable u/s 120-B, r/w 420, 468, 471 of IPC and 13 (1) (d) r/w Section 13 (2) of PC Act, 1988 against all the five accused persons i.e. Accused no.1 P. K. Seth, accused no.2 Sunil Aggarwal, accused no. 3 Meenu Trikha, accused no.4 Kusum Bala and accused no. 5 Satish C. Gaur. Charges for substantive offences punishable u/s 420 IPC is also framed against accused no. 1 P. K. Seth and accused no. 5 Satish C. Gaur.
14 of 102 15 Charges for substantive offences u/s 468 of IPC is also framed against accused no.3 Meenu Trikah, accused no. 4 Kusum Bala and accused no. 5 Satish C. Gaur. Charges for the substantive offences u/s 468/471 of IPC is also framed against accused no. 5 Satish C. Gaur. Charges for the substantive offences punishable u/s 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act, 1988 is also framed against accused no.1 P. K. Seth, which are as follows:-
FIRSTLY, that all of you namely, (1) P.K. Seth, (2) Sunil Aggarwal, (3) Ms. Meenu Trikha, (4) Ms. Kusum Bala and (5) Satish Chand Gaur, during the year 1991 at Delhi were parties to the conspiracy alongwith some other persons to do illegal acts to wit cheating to State Bank of India, Pratap Nagar Branch, Delhi and you (P.K. Seth) by abusing your official position as Branch
15 of 102 16 Manager of the said Bank obtained pecuniary advantages to you all and in furtherance of the said conspiracy, you (P.K. Seth) as Manager, opened 26 fictitious Buy Big Scheme Loan Account and one account of the same nature in the name of Dr. Helen Singh with the said Bank and thereafter shown that the said 27 account holders have purchased durables like T.V., V.C.R., Refrigerator, Washing Machine etc. costing about to Rs.8,57,000/- from M/s Moonex Electronics (India) Delhi and M/s. A.D.M.C. Corporation (India) Delhi and credited the accounts of these two sister concerns and in furtherance of said conspiracy withdrew and allowed to withdrew the money from the accounts of 16 of 102 17 M/s. Moonex Electronics (India) Delhi of Sunil Aggarwal & A.D.M.C. Corporation (India) of Mrs. Angoori Devi, mother of Sunil Aggarwal and in furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy forged and fabricated the loan application forms, pay slips, quotations for availing loans under the Big Buy Scheme in the names of (1) Dr. (Mrs.) Helen Singh, (2) Dr. Surender Kumar Bedi, (3) Dr. Rajender Kumar Saxena, (4) Dr. Hari Mohan Kapoor, (5) S.K. Arora, (6) Ramesh Jethmalani, (7) Sanjeev Joshi, (8) Dr. D.C. Passi, (9) Dr. S.C. Gaur, (10) Dr. Chander Bhan Singh, (11) Dr. P.C. Gulati, (12) Dr. S.N. Garg, (13) Dr. Manoj Arya, (14) Dr. M.L. Bhati, (15) Dr. Gagan Malhotra, (16) Dr. S.S. Rai, (17) Dr. C.S. 17 of 102 18 Chawla, (18) Dr. J. Parmatma, (19) Dr. S.Das, (20) Dr. B. Lal, (21) Dr. C.K. Pandey, (22) Dr. Kusum Jain (23) Chander Prakash Majhi, (24) Dr. J.N. Singh, (25) Ashok Kumar, (26) Dr. Erik Ikka and (27) Dr. D.K. Bhattacharya and used these forged documents as genuine which you know to be forged at the time used therefore and the said acts were done in pursuance of the agreement of you all and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 120B r/w 420, 468, 471 of IPC and Sections 13 (1) (d) r/w section 13 (2) of the P.C. Act, 1988 and within my cognizance. SECONDLY, you P.K. Seth and Satish Chand Gaur at the same place and time cheated State Bank of India, Pratap Nagar 18 of 102 19 Branch to the tune of Rs.8,57,000/- by dishonestly inducing it to disburse the loan on the basis of false and forged documents in the names of said 27 persons and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 420 of the IPC and within my cognizance.
THIRDLY, you Meenu Trikha, Kusum Bala and Satish Gaur, forged the signature of Dr. (Mrs.) Helen Singh, Dr. Surinder Kumar Bedi, Dr. P.C. Gulati, Dr. S. N. Garg, Dr. Kusum Jain and Dr. Hari Mohan Kapoor respectively for the purpose of cheating and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 468 of IPC and within my cognizance. FOURTHLY, you Satish Chand Gaur, used the forged and fabricated loan application 19 of 102 20 and quotations as genuine pertaining to the loan account of Dr. Hari Mohan Kapoor, which you know to be forged at the time you used it to be a forged document and that you thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 468/471 of the IPC and within my cognizance.
FIFTHLY, you P.K. Seth allowed to disburse Rs.8,57,000/- as loan amount pertaining to said 27 loanees and without verifying the genuineness of the said loanees and without conducting post sanction inspection of the articles which were to be purchased out of the loan and further abused your official position as Public Servant and obtained undue pecuniary advantage for yourself to the 20 of 102 21 tune of Rs. 20,185/- being the cost of gold bracelet obtained for your son from M/S B.K. Jewellers, Wazirpur, New Delhi and for others and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of P.C. Act, 1988 and within my cognizance.
15. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
16. In support of its case, CBI has examined the following 23 witnesses:-
PW-1: Raghbir Singh Dhiraj, Local Officer Manager, ESIC, Ghaziabad, UP.
PW-2: V. K. Khurana, Dy. Director, Finance, ESIC, Regional Office, Rajindra Place, New Delhi.
PW-3: Lt. Col. Varinder Kumar Verma (Rtd.), Joint Director, East ESIC Headquarters, Kotla Road, New Delhi.
PW-4: Dr. Mrs. Nasreem Khan, Deputy Medical Commissioner, South Zone, 21 of 102 22 Bangalore.
PW-5: K. L. Babbar, Chief Manager, now retired S/o Sh. Ram Ditta, R/o E-A/260, Maya Enclave, New Delhi-110064, retired as Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Vigilance Department, New Delhi.
PW-6: Madan Gopal Batra, Manager Accounts cum Administration, SBI, Tis Hazari, Delhi.
PW-7: Ravi Dass, S/o Sh. Ram Parshad, R/o GH-5/7, Flat No. 214, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi.
PW-8: Begraj Sharma, Assistant in SBI, Uttam Nagar, Delhi.
PW-9: Devraj Kagra, Assistant in SBI, Kishan Ganj Branch, Delhi.
PW-10: Smt. Neelam Kanwar, W/o Sh.
Rajesh Kumar, R/o D-31, Vijay Nagar, Delhi.
PW-11: Anil Sharma, S/o Late Sh. S. N. Sharma, R/o RZ-291M, Raj Nagar Part-II, Palam Colony.
PW-12: Pawan Gulati, S/o Sh. D. G. Gulati, R/o BK-2/25, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-52.
22 of 102 23 PW-13: Baljinder Suri, S/o Late Sh. S. B. Suri, 24/6, Rajpura Extension Colony, New Delhi-30.
PW-14: R. B. Bhatnagar, Deputy Commandant, CISF, Itawa.
PW-15: M. S. Thakur, S/0 Sh. Kalyan Singh Thakur, Manager, Dena Bank (Retd.) R/o 61, Maheshwari Apartments, Sector-14, Rohini, Delhi.
PW-16: Dr. Helen Singh, W/o Sh. N. A. Singh, R/o H. No. 179, Pocket-14, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi.
PW-17: Mohinder Singh, Assistant Govt. Examiner of Questioned Documents, Govt. of India, Shimla.
PW-18: A. K. Sen (Retd.), Dy. Managing Director, R/o CG-186, Sector-2, Salt Lake City, Kolkata.
PW-19: Tika Ram Wagle (Retd.), Assistant Manager, State Bank of India, IGI Airport, R/o 248, Phase-II, Pocket-2, Sector-14, Dwarka, New Delhi.
PW-20: Inspector Akhil Kaushik, CBI, Dehradoon.
PW-21: A. K. Chabbra, Branch Manager, 23 of 102 24 SBI, Pratap Nagar Branch, Delhi.
PW-22: N. Surendran, DSP, CBI, ACB, Vishakhapatnam Branch.
PW-23: Sanjay Malik S/o Sh. H. R. Malik, R/o 1810, Sui Walan, Darya Ganj, Delhi.
17. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statements under Section 313 Cr. P. C. of all the five accused persons were recorded. The accused persons have denied their involvement in commission of offence and have stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case
18. In defence, Accused no. 1 P. K. Seth has examined the following two witnesses :-
DW-1: Smt. Asha Seth W/o Sh. P. K. Seth, R/o 87, Ambika Vihar, New Delhi-87.
DW-6: Deepak Jain, Handwriting and Finger Print Expert, Chamber No. T-20, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. (Previously examined as DW-5 on behalf of accused no. 2 Sunil Aggarwal.)
19. Accused no. 2 Sunil Aggarwal in his defence has 24 of 102 25 examined the following two witnesses :-
DW-2: Sh. Parmod Kumar Seth, Chief Manager, SBI, Region-IV, Parliament Street, New Delhi.
DW-5: Deepak Jain, Handwriting and Finger Print Expert, Chamber No. T-20, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
20. Accused no. 3 Meena Trikha, accused no.4 Kusum Bala and accused no.5 Satish C. Gaur, in their defence, has examined the following two witnesses :-
DW-3: R. P. Nagpal, Assistant Secretary, CBSE, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
DW-4: Morice Tete, Assistant Controller of Examination, Delhi University.
21. I have heard final arguments of Sh. J. S. Wadia, Ld. PP for CBI and Sh. R. K. Goomar, Advocate, Ld. Counsel for accused no. 1 P. K. Seth, Sh. Pankaj Vivek, Advocate, Ld. Counsel for accused no.2 Sunil Aggarwal, Sh. Anand Mishra, Advocate, Ld. Counsel for accused no. 3 Meenu Trikha, accused no. 4 Kusum Bala and accused no. 5 Satish C.
25 of 102 26 Gaur and perused the record.
22. Sh. J.S. Wadia, Ld. PP for the CBI has argued that the accused no. 1 P.K. Seth was working as Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Pratap Nagar Branch, Delhi and he had sanctioned and disbursed 27 bogus loan application without making proper verification.
23. Ld. PP has further argued that accused no. 1 P. K. Seth had entered into conspiracy with other co-accused persons namely accused no.2 Sunil Aggarwal, who is the Proprietor of firm M/s. Moonex Electronics (India), and accused no. 3 Meenu Trikha, accused no. 4 Kusum Bala and accused no. 5 Satish Gaur were employees of accused no. 2 Sunil Aggarwal. All the bogus applications were submitted by accused no. 2 Sunil Aggarwal, which were prepared by accused no. 3 Meenu Trikha, accused no. 4 Kusum Bala and accused no. 5 Satish Chand Gaur.
24. It has been further argued by the Ld. PP that one of 26 of 102 27 the applicant namely Dr. (Mrs.) Helen Singh never applied for any loan whereas other 26 applicants were bogus. Accused no. 3 Menu Trikha, accused no. 4 Kusum Bala and accused no. 5 Satish Gaur has forged the signatures of various applicants and filled up various pay-in-slips.
25. Ld. PP has further argued that accused no. 1 P. K. Seth has obtained the gold bracelet from M/s. B. K. Jewellers through his son Puneet Seth, for which payment was made by accused no. 2 Sunil Aggarwal.
26. It has been further argued by the Ld. PP that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts against all the five accused persons, hence they may be convicted.
27. On the other hand, Sh. R.K. Goomar, Ld. Counsel for the accused no. 1 P.K. Seth has argued that the accused no.1 P. K. Seth was Manager of the Bank and accused no.2 Sunil Aggarwal was the customer of the Bank. Though, 27 of 102 28 accused no.1 P. K. Seth was over all incharge of the Bank but he cannot be held liable and responsible for acts of bank clerks as the loan applications are scrutinized by the clerks of the bank and at the most, accused no.1 P. K. Seth can be said to be negligent in work and no criminal liability can be attributed to him.
28. It has been further argued by the Ld. Defence Counsel that the main culprit of the present case is Sh. Tika Ram Wagle but the Prosecution has not made him as an accused rather he has been made by the Prosecution as a witness.
29. Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that FIR clearly shows that the loan applications have been moved by the accused no. 2 Sunil Aggarwal himself and he forged and got forged the signatures of the doctors / loanees.
30. Ld. Defence counsel has submitted that he has not abused his official position working as Branch Manager while 28 of 102 29 sanctioning the 27 loan applications.
31. Ld. Defence counsel has also submitted that accused has been falsely implicated by the CBI in the present case.
32. Ld. Defence counsel has placed reliance upon the following judgments:-
1. M. MAMMUTTI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, AIR 1979 SUPREME COURT 1705.
2. RAKESH KUMAR Vs. STATE, 109 (2004) DELHI LAW TIMES 826, DELHI HIGH COURT.
3. MOHAMMAD AHMED SADDIQI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB, 2005 CRL.L. J. 3053., PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT.
4. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. SUKHDEO SINGH & ANR., DEATH REFRENCE CASE NO.1 OF 1989 WITH STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH CBI VS.
SUKHDEO SINGH @ SUKHA & ORS., 1993 (1) C.C. CASES 57 (SC), SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.
5. STATE Vs. PAWAN KUMAR GARG (DELHI 29 of 102 30 ADMN.),1986(1) RCR 142.
33. Sh. Pankaj Vivek, Ld. Counsel for the accused no.2 Sunil Aggarwal has argued that prosecution has failed to bring any iota of evidence to show that accused no. 3 Meenu Trikha, accused no. 4 Kusum Bala and accused no. 5 Satish Chand Gaur were his employees.
34. He has further argued that there is no iota of evidence to show that accused no.2 Sunil Aggarwal has committed the forgery and cheated the Bank.
35. He has further argued that there is no iota of evidence to show that there is criminal conspiracy between all the accused persons.
36. Ld. Defence Counsel has submitted that accused no. 2 Sunil Aggarwal has been falsely implicated in the present case.
37. Ld. Defence counsel has placed reliance upon the following judgments:-
30 of 102 31
1. MURARI LAL Vs. STATE OF M.P. (1980) 1 SCC 704.
2. SUKHVINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB (1994) 5 SCC 152
3. MUKIMUDDIN Vs. STATE 1991 (97) CR.L.J. 2903
4. V.N. DEOSTHALI Vs. STATE 2010 (2) RCR (CRL.) 159.
38. Sh. Anand Kumar Mishra, Ld. Counsel for accused no. 3 Meenu Trikha, accused no. 4 Kusum Bala and accused no. 5 Satish Chand Gaur has argued that the prosecution has failed to bring any iota of evidence to show the criminal conspiracy between the accused persons.
39. Ld. Defence Counsel further argued that accused no. 3 Meenu Trikha, accused no. 4 Kusum Bala and accused no. 5 Satish Chand Gaur have been falsely implicated in the present case and there is no iota of evidence regarding their involvement in the present case. Accused no. 3 Meenu Trikha, accused no. 4 Kusum Bala and accused no. 5 Satish 31 of 102 32 Chand Gaur are victims of circumstances as they were employees of accused no. 2 Sunil Aggarwal.
40. Ld. Defence Counsel has placed reliance on the following citations :-
1. MAGAN BIHARI LAL VS. STATE OF PUNJAB, AIR 1977 SUPREME COURT 1091, 1977 CRI. L.J. 711.
2. BALAK RAM VS. STATE OF U.P., AIR 1977 SUPREME COURT 1095, 1977 CRI. L.J. 716.
3. ISHWARI PRASAD MISRA VS.
MOHAMMAD ISA, AIR 1963 SUPREME COURT 1728 (V 50 C 259).
4. CHAMPARAN CASE CONCERN VS. STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER, AIR 1963 SUPREME COURT 1737 (V 50 C 260).
5. RAM CHANDRA VS. STATE OF U.P., AIR 1957 SC 381 (V 44 C 60 MAY).
6. STATE OF BIHAR VS. RAM NARESH PANDEY AND ANOTHER, AIR 1957 SC 389 (V 44 C 61 MAY).
7. PARSRAM AND ANOTHER VS.
32 of 102 33 EMPEROR, AIR 1937 SIND 58.
8. MANGHAN KHAN AND ANOTHER VS. EMPEROR, AIR 1937 SIND 61.
9. B.N. MUKERJI AND OTHERS VS. EMPEROR, AIR (32) 1945 NAGPUR
163.
10.MESSRS. MULJI SIEKA & CO. VS. DISTRICT COUNCIL BHANDARA THROUGH CHAIRMAN AND ANOTHER, AIR (32) 1945 NAGPUR
171.
11.RE MADHUKAR DASRATH MENDEKAR AND OTHERS, 1972 CRI. L.J. 978 (V 78 C 246), MYSORE HIGH COURT.
12.HIRA LAL HARI LAL BHAGWATI VS. CBI, 2003 SUPREME COURT CRI 1121.
13.P.K. NARAYANAN VS. STATE OF KERALA, (1995) I SUPREME COURT CASES 142.
14.RAKESH KUMAR VS. STATE, 109 (2004) DELHI LAW TIMES 130, DELHI HIGH COURT.
15.SARDAR SARDUL SINGH 33 of 102 34 CAVEESHAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, 378 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
16.TEJA SINGH VS. RAM PRAKASH TALWAR AND OTHERS, AIR 1984 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 95.
17.P.K. NARAYANAN VS. STATE OF KERALA, 1995 SCC (1) 142 1994 SCALE (4) 740.
18.MAGAN BIHARI LAL VS. STATE OF PUNJAB, AIR 1977 SUPREME COURT 1091, 1977 CRI. L.J. 711.
19.SATYA BHUSHAN SHOME VS.
STATE, 1977 SCC (CRI) 313.
41. First of all, at the very outset, I will discuss the contention of the Ld. Counsel for accused no.1 P. K. Seth that the main culprit in the present case is Sh. Tika Ram Wagle but the Prosecution has not made him as an accused rather he has been made as a witness by the Prosecution.
42. I see no force in the contention of Ld. Defence Counsel of accused no. 1 P. K. Seth. In this regard, it is 34 of 102 35 pertinent to mention here that accused no. 2 Sunil Aggarwal had moved an application under Section 319 Cr. P. C. for summoning PW-19 Tika Ram Wagle as an accused but the same was dismissed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 06.06.2009. Thereafter, accused no.2 Sunil Aggarwal had preferred a criminal Revision Petition No. 357/2009 against the impugned order dated 06.06.2009 passed by my Ld. Predecessor of this Court but the same was also dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 15.12.2009. Hence, the order dated 15.12.2009 has attained the finality.
43. From the above, it is clear that the Prosecution has rightly made Tika Ram Wagle as a witness instead of an accused in the present case.
PUBLIC SERVANT & SANCTION
44. The first point for consideration is as to whether the proper sanction for prosecution was accorded before 35 of 102 36 initiation of prosecution against accused P. K. Seth or not as required under Section 19 (1) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which is mandatory and reads as under:-
"19. Previous Sanction necessary for Prosecution:-
(1) No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 7,10,11,13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction, -
(a) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of the union and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Central Government, of that Government;
(b) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of a State and is not removable from his office save by or with sanction of the State Government, of that Government;
(c) in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his Office."
45. The undisputed position is that accused no.1 P. K. 36 of 102 37 Seth was working as Branch Manager, SBI, Pratap Nagar Branch, Delhi and accused no. 1 P. K. Seth did not dispute this fact in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. Therefore, it stands proved that accused no.1 P. K. Seth was public servant within the meaning of Section 19 of the PC Act, 1988.
SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION AGAINST ACCUSED NO.1 P. K. SETH.
46. The evidence on record shows that on 28.10.1993 the Sanction Order was accorded for launching Prosecution under Prevention of Corruption Act against accused no.1 P. K. Seth by PW-18 Ashish Kumar Sen, who in his deposition testified that on 28.10.1993, he was posted as Chief General Manager of the Delhi Circle of SBI. He further deposed that he accorded the sanction for prosecution of accused P. K. Seth. He further deposed that he was competent to grant sanction in his above capacity and was also disciplinary 37 of 102 38 authority for the officer of the rank of MMGS-II (Middle Manager Grade Scale-II). PW-18 also deposed that he fully applied his mind to the facts of the present case and material placed before him by the Investigating Agency before granting sanction for accused P. K. Seth. He has identified his signatures on the last page and initials on all the remaining pages on the Sanction Order Ex. PW-18/A.
47. On the other hand, Ld. Defence Counsel for accused no.1 P. K. Seth argued that the Sanction order has been accorded mechanically without application of mind.
48. PW-18 A. K. Sen during his examination in chief has deposed that he fully applied his mind to the facts of the present case and material placed before him by the Investigating Agency before granting sanction for accused P. K. Seth.
49. Accused no. 1 P. K. Seth has failed to extract anything in his favour in the cross examination of PW-18 A. 38 of 102 39 K. Sen. In the entire evidence of PW-18, there is nothing to even remotely suggest that he had not applied his mind before according sanction order Ex. PW-18/A against accused no.1 P. K. Seth.
50. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I hold that the Sanction order Ex. PW-18/A is legal and valid.
CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY, CHEATING, FORGERY FOR THE PURPOSE OF CHEATING, USING AS GENUINE A FORGED DOCUMENT & CRIMINAL MISCONDUCT.
51. Before adverting to the discussion of this case, it would be useful to have a look upon the relevant charges framed against the accused persons. Charges for the offences punishable u/s 120-B, r/w 420,468, 471 of IPC and Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of PC Act, 1988 were framed against all the five accused persons i.e. accused no. 1 P. K. Seth, accused no. 2 Sunil Aggarwal, accused no. 3 39 of 102 40 Ms. Meenu Trikha, accused no. 4 Kusum Bala and accused no. 5 Satish C. Gaur. Charges for substantive offences punishable u/s 420 IPC is also framed against accused no. 1 P. K. Seth and accused no. 5 Satish C. Gaur. Charges for substantive offences u/s 468 of IPC is also framed against accused no.3 Meenu Trikha, accused no. 4 Kusum Bala and accused no. 5 Satish C. Gaur. Charges for the substantive offences u/s 468/471 of IPC is also framed against accused no. 5 Satish C. Gaur. Charges for the substantive offences punishable u/s 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act, 1988 is also framed against accused no.1 P. K. Seth.
Section 120-A defines "Criminal Conspiracy", which reads as under:-
"120-A. Definition of criminal conspiracy - When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done -
(1) an illegal act, or (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means,such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy.
40 of 102 41 Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.
Explanation - It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object."
52. As per definition of criminal conspiracy U/s 120-A of Indian Penal Code when two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done, (a) an illegal act; or (b) an act, which is not illegal by illegal means, such agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy. The essence of offence of conspiracy is the fact of combination by agreement. The agreement may be express or implied, or in part express and in part implied. The conspiracy arises and the offence is committed as soon as the agreement is made; and the offence continues to be committed so long as the combination persists, that is until 41 of 102 42 the conspiratorial agreement is terminated by completion of its performance or by abandonment or frustration. The gist of offence of conspiracy is an agreement to break the law. In considering the question of criminal conspiracy, it is not always possible to give affirmative evidence about the date of formation of conspiracy, about the persons who took part in the formation of conspiracy, about the object which the conspirators set before themselves as the object of conspiracy and about the manner in which the object of conspiracy was to be carried out. All this necessarily a matter of inference. The essence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act. Such an agreement can be proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence or by both. It is not necessary that there should be express proof of the agreement, far from the acts and conduct of the parties, the agreement can be inferred.
53. On the point of criminal conspiracy, it has been held 42 of 102 43 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shiv Narayan Laxmi Narayan Joshi Vs State of Maharashtra, AIR 1980 SC 439, that a conspiracy is always hatched in secrecy and it is impossible to adduce direct evidence of the same. The offence can be only proved largely from inference drawn from acts or illegal omissions committed by the conspirators in pursuance of a common design.
54. The agreement to conspire may be inferred from circumstances, which raised a presumption of a concerted plan to carry out an unlawful design. A conspiracy need not be established by proof which actually brings the party together; but may be shown like any other fact, by circumstantial evidence.
55. In Kehar Singh and Others Vs State, AIR 1988 SC 1883, it is observed:
"Generally, a conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and it may be difficult to adduce direct evidence of the same. The 43 of 102 44 prosecution will often rely on the evidence of acts of various parties to infer that they were done in reference to their common intention. The prosecution will also more often rely upon the circumstantial evidence. The conspiracy can be undoubtedly proved by such evidence direct or circumstantial. But the Court must require whether the two persons are independently pursuing the same end or they have come together to the pursuit of the unlawful object. The former does not render them conspirators, but the later does. It is however, essential that the offence of conspiracy required some kind of physical manifestation or agreement the express agreement however need not be proved. Nor mutual meetings of the two persons is necessary. Nor it is necessary to prove the actual words of communication. The evidence as to transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful design may be sufficient."
"420 - Cheating and Dishonestly inducing delivery of property - Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which he signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 44 of 102 45 seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
"468- Forgery for purpose of cheating - Whoever commits forgery, intending that the (document or electronic record forged) shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
"471- Using as genuine a forged (document or electronic record) - Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any (document or electronic record) which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged (document or electronic record), shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such (document or electronic record).
"13. Criminal Misconduct by a Public Servant.
(1) A Public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct;
(a) to (c) ..........
(d) if he, -
(i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary 45 of 102 46 advantage; or
(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest; or ***** (2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less then one year but which may extend to 7 years and shall also be liable to fine."
56. On bare reading of the above provisions, it is clear that in order to bring home the charge under Section 120-B of IPC, the prosecution is required to prove that all the five accused persons in connivance with each other cheated the State Bank of India, Pratap Nagar Branch to the tune of Rs. 8,57,000/- by producing / making forged and fabricated 27 Bogus loan application forms in the name of 27 fictitious persons, pay slips, quotations for availing loans under Big Buy scheme. A conspiracy need not be established by proof which actually brings the party together, but may be shown like any other fact, by circumstantial evidence.
46 of 102 47
57. It is also clear that in order to establish the guilt of the accused under Section 13(2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act, 1988 also, the Prosecution is required to establish that the accused by corrupt or illegal means or by using his official position, obtained advantage or a valuable thing for himself or for any other person.
58. The instant case was registered on 03.02.1993 on the basis of source information. As per the allegations contained in FIR Ex. PW-20/A, accused no. 2 Sunil Aggarwal during the year 1991, submitted 27 applications on behalf of 27 persons to State Bank of India, Pratap Nagar Branch, Delhi, for obtaining loan under Big-Buy-Scheme. It has been further alleged that accused no.2 Sunil Aggarwal himself filled in all the 27 application forms and forged or got forged the signatures of said 27 persons, who have been shown as Doctors and working in ESI Hospital except one Dr. Helen Singh. It has been also alleged that accused no. 1 P. K. 47 of 102 48 Seth, Branch Manager, after conniving with accused no.2 Sunil Aggarwal sanctioned all the loans in favour of the said persons and the amounts have also been disbursed without proper verification of the borrowers. It has further alleged that accused no.1 P. K. Seth and accused no. 2 Sunil Aggarwal entered into criminal conspiracy with each other and other unknown persons have cheated the bank to the extent of Rs.8,57,000/-.
59. IO/ Inspector N. Surendran, during investigation wrote a letter dated 08.07.1993 addressed to "The Additional Director (D), ESI, Scheme, Directorate Medical, Delhi, whereby he has requested to confirm about the employment of the following 27 persons in ESI during the period 1990-1991:-
(1) Dr. Surinder Kumar Bedi, (2) Dr. Mrs. Helen Singh.
(3) Dr. Ashok Kumar.
(4) Dr. Eric Ekka.
(5) Dr. D. K. Bhattacharya.
48 of 102 49 (6) Dr. J. N. Singh.
(7) Dr. B. Lal.
(8) Dr. C. K. Pandey.
(9) Dr. Chander Prakash Majhi.
(10) Dr. Kusum Jain.
(11) Dr. J. Paramatma.
(12) Dr. S. Dass.
(13) Dr. C. S. Chawla.
(14) Dr. S. S. Rai.
(15) Dr. Chander Bhan Singh.
(16) Dr. Gagan Malhotra.
(17) Dr. M. L. Bhatti.
(18) Dr. Manoj Arya.
(19) Dr. S. N. Garg.
(20) Dr. P. C. Gulati.
(21) Dr. Sanjiv Joshi.
(22) Dr. Surinder Kumar Arora.
(23) Dr. Ramesh Jethmalani.
(24) Dr. Hari Mohan Kapur.
(25) Dr. Rajender Kumar Saxena.
(26) Dr. S. C. Gaur.
(27) Dr. D. C. Passi.
60. In response to the letter dated 08.07.1993 of IO/Inspector N. Surendran, a reply dated 08.07.1993 has been received from Dr. (Mrs.) Nasreem Khan, wherein it has been mentioned that as per the record of his office, none of the doctors as mentioned in letter dated 08.07.1993 was 49 of 102 50 working under ESI Scheme except Dr. (Mrs.) Helen Singh during the period 1990-1991. Dr. (Mrs.) Nasreem Khan has been examined before the court as PW-4. She has identified the reply before the court as Ex. PW-4/A. WITNESSES FROM ESIC HOSPITAL.
61. Prosecution has examined PW-1 Raghbir Singh Dhiraj, PW-2 V. K. Khurana, PW-4 Dr. Mrs. Nasreem Khan and PW-16 Dr. Helen Singh from ESIC Hospital.
62. PW-1 Raghbir Singh Dhiraj has deposed that in the year 1988, he was posted as a Head Clerk in ESI, Directorate (Medical), Accounts Branch, Basai Dara Pur, Ring Road, New Delhi. He has further deposed that in the year 1988, Dr. Mrs. Helen Singh was Director (Medical) and she retired sometimes in 1991. He has also deposed that his section used to deal with the pay bills of doctors and during the year 1988 within his knowledge, there was no doctors by the names of (1)Dr. Surinder Kumar Bedi, (2) Dr. 50 of 102 51 D. C. Passi,(3) Dr. Ashok Kumar,(4) Dr. Eric Ekka, (5) Dr. D. K. Bhattacharya,(6) Dr. J. N. Singh, (7) Dr. B. Lal,(8) Dr. C. K. Pandey,(9) Dr. Chander Prakash Majhi, (10) Dr. Kusum Jain, (11) Dr. J. Paramatma, (12) Dr. S. Dass, (13) Dr. C. S. Chawla,(14) Dr. S. S. Rai,(15) Dr. Chander Bhan Singh,(16) Dr. Gagan Malhotra,(17) Dr. M. L. Bhatti,(18) Dr. Manoj Arya, (19) Dr. S. N. Garg,(20) Dr. P. C. Gulati,(21) Dr. Sanjiv Joshi, (22) Dr. Surinder Kumar Arora,(23) Dr. Ramesh Jethmalani, (24) Dr. Hari Mohan Kapur,(25) Dr. Rajender Kumar Saxena and (26) Dr. S. C. Gaur in ESIC Hospital.
63. PW-1 has further deposed after seeing the pay slip Ex. PW-1/A purported to have been signed by D. D. Sharma, Accounts Officer, that the signatures of D. D. Sharma are forged as he is familiar with the signatures of D. D. Sharma. He has also deposed that in the year 1988, the performas of pay slips used by them were different from the performa of Ex. PW-1/A. 51 of 102 52
64. PW-1 has also deposed, after seeing the application form Ex. PW-1/B and the quotation Ex. PW-1/C, that these documents do not bear the signatures of Dr. Helen Singh anywhere. The documents bear the forged signatures of Dr. Helen Singh as he is familiar with the genuine signatures of Dr. Helen Singh.
65. PW-2 V. K. Khurana has deposed that he took over the charge as Accounts Officer (M) from D. D. Sharma w.e.f. 04.07.1991. The matters relating to Pay and Establishment were dealt with in his Section and the matter relating to the Gazetted Officers and medical Officers i.e. Pay Certificates / Pay Slips etc. were issued from his Section. He has also deposed, after seeing the pay slips Ex. PW-2/B1 to Ex. PW-2/B23 and the pay slip Ex. PW-1/A, that these documents neither bear the handwriting and the signatures of Sh. D. D. Sharma, Accounts Officer as he is also familiar with the handwriting and signatures of D. D. Sharma.
52 of 102 53
66. PW-4 Dr. Mrs. Nasreem Khan has deposed after seeing the reply dated 08.07.1993 Ex. PW-4/A, that she had sent the same in connection with letter dated 08.07.1993 Mark A.
67. PW-16 Dr. Helen Singh has deposed that in the year 1991, she was posted at ESI Hospital, Basai Dara Pur as Director of Medical Services, Delhi. During her tenure, she had never taken any loan from SBI from any of its branch. She has deposed after seeing the loan application form Ex. PW-1/B and quotation Ex/ PW-1/C, that the both the documents do not bear her signatures. She has identified her signatures on an application Ex. PW-1/D addressed to the Manager, State Bank of India, Pratap Nagar, Delhi.
68. PW-16 has further deposed, after seeing the Memorandum Ex. PW-1/A, that the signatures appearing on the same does not belong to Sh. D. D. Sharma.
WITNESSES FROM THE BANK.
53 of 102 54
69. Prosecution has examined PW-5 K. L. Babbar, PW-6 Madan Gopal Batra, PW-7 Ravi Dass, PW-10 Neelam Kanwar and PW-19 Tika Ram Wagle from the Bank.
70. PW-5 K. L. Babbar has deposed that in the year 1991, he was posted as Chief Manager, Personal Banking Division, State Bank of India, New Delhi and there were three categories i.e. A, B and C of the branches of SBI. The powers under big buy scheme, the discretionary powers of Branch Managers under A Category was to sanction the loan upto Rs. 1 lakh and the discretionary powers for sanction the loan of category B branch was Rs.50,000/-. He has further deposed that this scheme was for permanent employees in Government of India, Public Sector / Undertaking, Private Establishment of reputes. The employee must have minimum of 5 years permanent service and his net salary should be minimum Rs.1,500/- P. M. This scheme stipulated that the borrower must have a saving or current account 54 of 102 55 before disbursement of loan and the borrower should arrange 25% margin of the articles to be purchased and 75% or 12 monthly net income was to be financed. If the amount was less than Rs.10,000/- the account was to be opened as demand loan account and deposit was to be made within 36 months. In all other cases, term loan account was opened and the payment was fixed upto 5 years. It was mandatory to deposit margin money in the deposit account opened in the branch. Scheme did not provide any deviation of the conditions above.
71. PW-5 has deposed after seeing the file no. 1 pages 1 to 107 containing 27 loan application forms and enclosures, folio 1 to 107 Ex. PW-5/A, that all the 27 loan applications have been sanctioned by accused no.1 P. K. Seth, who was the Branch Manager, Pratap Nagar, Delhi. He has further deposed that all the 27 loan applications and salary certificates do not contain the net income and length 55 of 102 56 of service. Moreso, margin money in all cases has not been deposited in the Bank, which was mandatory, rather paid to supplier directly, which is in contravention to the laid down instructions of the Big Buy Scheme.
72. PW-5 has further deposed that Ex. PW-5/B1 to Ex. PW-5/B79 are loan applications, quotations and receipts. He has also deposed that the Branch Manager was duty bound to scrutinize while sanctioning loan. After the loan amount is disbursed to the borrowers, it is the duty of the Branch Manager to ensure and use of funds by obtaining receipts / delivery challans of the articles purchased from loan amount. He has further deposed that insurance of articles purchased from Bank Loan and first Inspection of the items purchased, is the responsibility of the Branch Manager as follow up of the advance. He has also identified the signatures of accused P. K. Seth on the loan applications.
73. PW-6 Madan Gopal Batra has deposed that he 56 of 102 57 remained posted in SBI Pratap Nagar Branch, Delhi from October, 1991 to November, 1993. He has also deposed that when new account (SB) or Current Account is opened in a Bank Account opening form and specimen signatures are obtained from the customer. The new account holder must produce introduction. Signatures are also obtained in the presence of the officer concerned by whom the new account is to be opened. The signatures are also obtained on the opening form. After that, Branch Manager authroizes the account opening form. For opening of the account in the bank books, there is a procedure for initial amount depositing for opening a new account. Without deposit of initial amount, no account can be opened in the Bank.
74. PW-6 has deposed after seeing the Pay-in-Slip dated 16.03.1991 numbering 13, that all the 13 pay in slips do not bear the signatures of the depositers and all 13 pay in slips are amounting to Rs.100/- each.
57 of 102 58
75. PW-6 has further deposed that his answer in respect of other 14 pay in slips dated 23.03.1991 is the same, as to the already 13 slips.
76. PW-6 has identified the signatures of Branch Manager Sh. Sehajpal on letter dated 15.11.1993 addressed to Sh. N. Surendran, Inspector of Police CBI.
77. PW-6 has deposed after seeing the 15 photostat copies of the Ledger sheets Ex. PW-6/A1 to 15, that the same are attested by him and the same are in favour of various persons mentioned therein in the column of names. He has also deposed after seeing the book of instructions pages from 01 to 11, that the same are certified by Branch Manager, Pratap Nagar, Delhi. He has further deposed that the same are signed by Sh. Sehajpal. He has identified the signatures of Sh. Sehajpal on Ex. PW-6/16.
78. PW-6 has also deposed that it is necessary to open SB or current account in the Bank or obtaining loan under 58 of 102 59 big buy scheme. They serve notices to the loanees in case of default of payment. If inspite of repeated notices, they do not pay then they go to the Court for recovery.
79. PW-6 has further deposed after seeing the file of ledger-folios of 27 big buy loans pages 1 to 32, that this file contains loan ledger sheets of various persons but he does not know any of the 27 persons mentioned in these ledger sheet personally.
80. PW-6 has further deposed that before filing the case in Court, the outstanding in the account is transferred to protested bills account after obtaining the permission from the concerned authority. He has also deposed that when the permission is obtained, the balance outstanding in the loan account is transferred to Protested Bills Account. He has further deposed that amount remains outstanding in the Protested Bills account opened in the name of the individual loanees till the amount is recovered from him.
59 of 102 60
81. He has identified his signatures on ledger Sheets Ex. PW-6/1 to Ex. PW-6/29, which are in original.
82. PW-7 Ravi Dass has deposed that he remained posted in Pratap Nagar Branch of SBI from 1985 to 1998 as Cashier. After seeing the Pay in Slips Ex. PW-7/1 to Ex. PW-7/14, he has deposed that the same were dealt by his head cashier. He has further deposed that he has also dealt with it. He has also identified his signatures on all the pay in slips Ex. PW-7/1 to Ex. PW-7/14.
83. PW-7 has further deposed that he also dealt with the credit vouchers Ex. PW-7/15. He has further deposed that Head Cashier had received payment in respect of pay in slips Ex. PW-7/1 to 14 and handed over to him because he was sitting on the cash counter. This witness has been cross examined by the Ld. PP as he has been resiled from his previous statement.
84. During his cross examination conducted by Ld. PP, 60 of 102 61 PW-7 has admitted after seeing the pay in slip dated 16.03.1991 that the same is in the name of Angoori and is in the handwriting of accused Sunil Aggarwal. He has further admitted that the writing on the back of Ex. PW-7/30 is also in the handwriting of accused Sunil Aggarwal.
85. During the cross examination conducted by Ld. PP, PW-7 has further deposed that the pay in slip Ex. PW-7/31 to 43 as well as Debit Slips Ex. PW-7/44 to 56 are in the handwriting of accused P. K. Seth. He has further deposed that he told to CBI except for the entries of amount, the other particulars on Ex. PW-7/44 to 56 are in the handwriting of accused Sunil Aggarwal.
86. PW-10 Smt. Neelam Kanwar has deposed that in the year 1991, she was posted in Pratap Nagar Branch of the State Bank of India and at that time, accused P. K. Seth was the Branch Manager and T. R. Waghle was accountant. She has further deposed that she know accused Sunil 61 of 102 62 Aggarwal as a customer of the Bank.
87. PW-10 has identified the writing of accused Sunil Aggarwal on all loan applications except Ex. PW-5/B74 and Ex. PW-5/B78 after seeing the file Ex. PW-5/A pertaining to 27 loans with enclosures. She has further deposed that except for loan applications Ex. PW-5/B68 and Ex. PW-5/B71, all other loan applications are sanctioned by accused P. K. Seth. She has also identified the signatures of accused P. K. Seth. She has further deposed that the writing as to names, addressed encircled Q-55 and Q-56 on Ex. PW-6/1 and entries encircled Q57 and Q58 on Ex. PW-6/2 and the entry on name, address and in the column of security DP note dated 16.03.1991 and the column of Rs. And first entry of dated on Ex. D5/2 and of debit and entry on Mark Q59 and Q60 on Ex. PW-6/3 and entry marked on Q61 and Q62 on Ex.D5/5 of Ex. PW-6/4, entry of name, address and column of security, rate of interest, DP note dated and 62 of 102 63 the column of Rs. and the first entry on Ex. PW-6/5 and entry on marked Q63, Q64 on Ex. PW-6/7 and entry on Q65 and Q66 on Ex. PW-6/8 and entry on marked as Q67, Q68 on Ex. PW-6/9 and entry on Q69, Q70 on Ex. PW-6/10 and entry on Q71, Q72 on Ex. PW-6/11 and entry on Q73 and Q74 on Ex. PW-6/12 and entry of name, address, security, rate of interest, DP note dated column of amount and the first entry on Ex. PW-10/A are of accused Sunil Aggarwal.
88. PW-10 has further deposed that similarly entry on Q75, Q76 on Ex. PW-6/13 and entry on Q77 and Q78 on Ex. PW-6/14 and entry on Q79 and Q80 on Ex. PW-6/15 and entry on Q81 and Q82 on Ex. PW-6/16 and entry on Q83 and Q84 on Ex. PW-6/17 are also of accused Sunil Aggarwal.
89. PW-10 Neelam Kanwar has further deposed that entry on Q85, Q86 on Ex. PW-6/18 and entry on Q87 and Q88 on Ex. PW-6/19, entry on Q89, Q90 on Ex. PW6/20 and entry on Q91, Q92 on Ex. PW-6/21, entry on Q93 on Ex.
63 of 102 64 PW-6/22, entry on Q94 on Ex. PW-6/23, entry on Q95 on Ex. PW-6/24 and entry on Q97 and Q98 on Ex. PW-6/25, enry on Q99 and Q100 on Ex. PW-6/26 and entry on Q101 and Q102 on Ex. PW6/27 are of accused Sunil Aggarwal.
90. PW-10 has also identified the handwriting of accused Sunil Aggarwal on the entry of name, address, security, rate of interest, DP note, dated and the column of Rs. on Ex. D5/29 and entry on Q103 and Q104 on Ex. PW6/28 and entry on Q105 and Q106 on Ex. PW6/29.
91. She has also identified the handwriting of accused Sunil Aggarwal on the credit slips Ex. PW-7/31 to Ex. PW-7/43 except Ex. PW-7/42.
92. PW-10 has also identified the handwriting of accused Sunil Aggarwal on the pay in slips dated 05.04.1991 Ex. PW-10/B1 to 10 in the name of Surender Kumar Bedi, Hari Mohan Kapoor, Seema Aggarwal, Angoori Devi, Helen Singh, Bharat Deva, Dhaniram and Rajender Kumar Saxena.
64 of 102 65 She has also identified the handwriting of accused Sunil Aggarwal on the debit vouchers Ex. PW-7/44 to Ex. PW-7/56.
93. PW-10 Neelam Kanwar has further deposed after seeing the Credit slips for amounting to Rs.500/- each Ex. PW-10/1 to 13 that the same are also filled up by accused Sunil Aggarwal. She has further deposed that the Branch Manager was empowered to sanction all the loans in the Bank. All the loan applications in questions have been sanctioned by accused P. K. Seth.
94. PW-19 Tika Ram Wagle has deposed that during the year 1991, he was posted as Accountant cum Desk Officer in SBI, Pratap Nagar Branch, New Delhi and at that time accused P. K. Seth was the Branch Manager. He has further deposed that he know accused Sunil Aggarwal as he was having number of accounts in that branch and was a regular visitor to their branch. He was having cordial relation 65 of 102 66 with the officers and officials of that branch at that time.
95. PW-19 has further deposed that he has seen the loan applications forms in the file (D-1) in the name of various persons. All these forms are filled up accused Sunil Aggarwal and all the loans have been sanctioned by accused P. K. Seth.
96. PW-19 has further deposed that he has seen the file (D-3) containing Pay in slips Ex. PW-7/31 to 43 and all these pay in slips are filled up by accused Sunil Aggarwal and received by Cashier. After seeing the Debit Vouchers Ex. PW-7/44 to 56, he has deposed that the same are also filled by accused Sunil Aggarwal. He has also identified his signatures on the same.
97. PW-19 after seeing the banker cheques Ex. PW-7/57, has deposed that the same was issued by him against disbursement of loan sanctioned by Branch Manager. The connected credit voucher of above Banker 66 of 102 67 Cheque was duly passed by him against loan already sanctioned by the Branch Manager. The commission vouchers Ex. PW-10/1 to 13 are also filled up by accused Sunil Aggarwal and received by Cashier.
98. PW-19 has deposed after seeing the Banker Cheque Ex. PW-7/58, that the same was issued with the joint signatures of him and accused P. K. Seth against disbursement of loan in favor of Moonex Electronics India. He has also identified the signatures of accused Sunil Aggarwal on the reverse side of Cheque Ex. PW-7/58.
99. PW-19 has also identified his signatures on the issuance of Banker Cheque Ex. PW-7/59 against disbursement of loan. He has also identified the signatures of accused Sunil Aggarwal on the back side of the cheque.
100. PW-19 has further deposed that Banker Chque Ex. PW-7/60 was issued jointly by him and Branch Manager P. K. Seth against disbursement of loan. He has also deposed 67 of 102 68 that Cheque Ex. PW-7/61 had been issued under his signatures in favor of ADMC Corporation against disbursement of loan.
101. PW-19 has deposed that Banker Cheque Ex. PW-19/1 was issued by him but it has not been paid till date as payment signature do not appear on it. Similarly Banker Cheque Ex. PW-7/62 and Ex. PW-9/A2 were issued by him.
102. PW-19 has deposed after seeing the ledger sheet in the file (D-2), that the entries encircled at Q55 and Q56 on Ex. PW-6/1 have been made by accused Sunil Aggarwal. Similarly, entries at point Q57, Q58 on Ex. PW-6/2 and entries at Q59 and Q60 on Ex. PW-6/3, entries at point Q61, Q62 on Ex. PW-6/4, entries encircled at point B and C on Ex. PW-6/5, entries at point Q-63 and Q-64 on Ex. PW-6/7, entries at point Q65 and Q66 on Ex. PW-6/8, entries at point Q67, Q68 on Ex. PW-6/9, entries Q69 to Q106 have been made by accused Sunil Aggarwal. He has further identified 68 of 102 69 his signatures on the entry on Ex. D-5/12.
103. PW-19 has further deposed after seeing the file (D-4 and D-5) containing cheque Ex. PW-19/2 that the same was drawn by accused Sunil Aggarwal as Proprietor for Moonex Electronics but not paid.
WITNESSES FROM THE COMPANIES OF ACCUSED NO. 2 SUNIL AGGARWAL.
104. Prosecution has examined PW-11 Anil Sharma and PW-23 Sanjay Malik from the companies of accused no. 2 Sunil Aggarwal.
105. PW-11 Anil Sharma has deposed that he worked from December, 1989 to October, 1990 as a Manager in M/s. Pikaso Credit and Leasing Ltd. He has further deposed that the said company was owned by accused Sunil Aggarwal. He has also deposed that he knew S. K. Kohli and Mr. Waghle, who were employees in SBI, Pratap Nagar Branch. Mr. Waghle was accountant and Mr. Kohli was the Branch 69 of 102 70 Manager at that time. He has further deposed that both the above said persons also knew to accused Sunil Aggarwal and they had personal relations with each other.
106. PW-11 has also deposed that Mr. Anoop, Miss. Poonam, Miss. Meenu, Miss. Rajender Kaur and another Anil Sharma, Pawan Gulati, Sanjay Vimmi Chaddha were also employed with him. He also know the Companies of accused Sunil Aggarwal which were named under the style of M/s. Moonex Electronics and Pikaso Credit and Leasing and both the firms were having same address.
107. PW-11 has further deposed that he obtained a loan from SBI, Pratap Nagar Branch under Big Buy Scheme, which was got obtained by accused Sunil Aggarwal. The loan was meant for purchasing some articles but he did not purchase the articles and he had paid all the loan amount, which was arranged by accused no. 2 Sunil Aggarwal.
108. PW-23 Sanjay Malik has deposed that he has 70 of 102 71 worked as Sales Executive in Picaso Company in the year 1988-89 for about 5-6 months. M/s. Picaso Company was managed by accused Sunil Aggarwal and accused Sunil Aggarwal was also running Moonex Company also but the details of other companies run by accused Sunil Aggarwal are not known to him. He has further deposed that Picaso and Moonex Companies had been dealing in financing the household, two wheeler products to the employee of private sector and for this purpose, Moonex / Picaso Companies used to demonstrate the product with the consent of the employer. After the demonstration is given, the product used to be financed and employer used to give permission to deduct the installment of the financed product from the salary of the employee. He has also deposed that they had a talk for demonstration in ESI Hospital, Basai Darapur but that permission was not granted and thereafter he was hospitalized for 10 days in Sunder Lal Jain Hospital and 71 of 102 72 when he rejoined after his recovery, accused Sunil Aggarwal asked him to sign certain forms which he refused and thereafter he sent his resignation through registered post. He has further deposed that he refused to sign certain forms which were filled in the name of certain person. Those forms were pertaining to finance of household items. He has also deposed that during his tenure, other employees namely accused Meenu, accused Kusum, accused Satish etc. were also working in Picaso Company.
GEQD OPINION.
109. It has been submitted by the Ld. PP that during the course of investigation the specimen handwriting of accused no. 1 P. K. Seth (S-300 to S-303), accused no. 2 Sunil Aggarwal (S-1 to S-294), accused no. 3 Meenu Trikha (S-309 to S-348), accused no.4 Kusum Bala (S-349 to S-359), accused no. 5 Satish Chand Gaur (S-389 to S-411), Puneet Seth (S-304 to S-308) son of accused no.1 P. K. 72 of 102 73 Seth as well as some witnesses have been taken and the same were sent to the CFSL with the questioned documents for the expert opinion. Prosecution has examined PW-17 Mohinder Singh, Assistant Government Examiner of Questioned documents, Govt. of India, Shimla, who has examined the documents.
110. PW-17 Mohinder Singh has deposed before the Court that he has received the documents of the present case for examination and after careful and through examination, he came to the following conclusions :-
(1) The enclosed writings stamped and marked Q-1, Q-1A and S333 to S348 have been written by one and the same person.
(2) The enclosed writings stamped and marked Q-18, Q-19, Q19A and S349 to S359 have been written by one and the same person.
(3) The enclosed writings stamped and marked Q-49, Q-49A and S389 to S394 have been written by one and the same person.
(4) The enclosed writings stamped and marked 73 of 102 74 Q-51, Q-51A Q-55 to Q-106 and S-1 to S-87, S-94 to S-99, S-265 to S-272 have been written by one and the same person.
(5) The enclosed writings stamped and marked Q-107, Q-108 and S304 to S308 have been written by one and the same person.
(6) The enclosed writings stamped and marked Q-2, Q-4, Q-39, Q-41, Q-41A, Q-50 and S309 to S311, S322 to S348, S464 to S485 have been written by one and the same person. FINDINGS:-
REGARDING THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 120-B OF IPC AGAINST ALL THE ACCUSED PERSONS.
111. I have gone through the testimonies of the witnesses as well as the citations given by the accused persons.
112. PW-5 K. L. Babbar has deposed after seeing the file no. 1 pages 1 to 107 containing 27 loan application forms and enclosures, folio 1 to 107 Ex. PW-5/A, that all the 27 loan applications have been sanctioned by accused no.1 P. 74 of 102 75 K. Seth, who was the Branch Manager, Pratap Nagar, Delhi. He has further deposed that all the 27 loan applications and salary certificates do not contain the net income and length of service. Moreso, margin money in all cases has not been deposited in the Bank, which was mandatory, rather paid to supplier directly, which is in contravention to the laid down instructions of the Big Buy Scheme.
113. PW-5 has further deposed that Ex. PW-5/B1 to Ex. PW-5/B79 are loan applications, quotations and receipts. He has also deposed that the Branch Manager was duty bound to scrutinize while sanctioning loan. After the loan amount is disbursed to the borrowers, it is the duty of the Branch Manager to ensure and use of funds by obtaining receipts / delivery challans of the articles purchased from loan amount. He has further deposed that insurance of articles purchased from Bank Loan and first Inspection of the items purchased, is the responsibility of the Branch Manager as follow up of 75 of 102 76 the advance. He has also identified the signatures of accused P. K. Seth on the loan applications.
114. PW-7 Ravi Dass, during his cross examination conducted by Ld. PP, has admitted after seeing the pay in slip dated 16.03.1991 that the same is in the name of Angoori and is in the handwriting of accused Sunil Aggarwal. He has further admitted that the writing on the back of Ex. PW-7/30 is also in the handwriting of accused Sunil Aggarwal.
115. During the cross examination conducted by Ld. PP, PW-7 has further deposed that the pay in slip Ex. PW-7/31 to 43 as well as Debit Slips Ex. PW-7/44 to 56 are in the handwriting of accused P. K. Seth. He has further deposed that he told to CBI except for the entries of amount, the other particulars on Ex. PW-7/44 to 56 are in the handwriting of accused Sunil Aggarwal.
116. PW-10 Smt. Neelam Kanwar has deposed that in 76 of 102 77 the year 1991, she was posted in Pratap Nagar Branch of the State Bank of India and at that time, accused P. K. Seth was the Branch Manager and T. R. Waghle was accountant. She has further deposed that she know accused Sunil Aggarwal as a customer of the Bank.
117. PW-10 has identified the writing of accused Sunil Aggarwal on all loan applications except Ex. PW-5/B74 and Ex. PW-5/B78 after seeing the file Ex. PW-5/A pertaining to 27 loans with enclosures. She has further deposed that except for loan applications Ex. PW-5/B68 and Ex. PW-5/B71, all other loan applications are sanctioned by accused P. K. Seth. She has also identified the signatures of accused P. K. Seth. She has further deposed that the writing as to names, addressed encircled Q-55 and Q-56 on Ex. PW-6/1 and entries encircled Q57 and Q58 on Ex. PW-6/2 and the entry on name, address and in the column of security DP note dated 16.03.1991 and the column of Rs.
77 of 102 78 And first entry of dated on Ex. D5/2 and of debit and entry on Mark Q59 and Q60 on Ex. PW-6/3 and entry marked on Q61 and Q62 on Ex.D5/5 of Ex. PW-6/4, entry of name, address and column of security, rate of interest, DP note dated and the column of Rs. and the first entry on Ex. PW-6/5 and entry on marked Q63, Q64 on Ex. PW-6/7 and entry on Q65 and Q66 on Ex. PW-6/8 and entry on marked as Q67, Q68 on Ex. PW-6/9 and entry on Q69, Q70 on Ex. PW-6/10 and entry on Q71, Q72 on Ex. PW-6/11 and entry on Q73 and Q74 on Ex. PW-6/12 and entry of name, address, security, rate of interest, DP note dated column of amount and the first entry on Ex. PW-10/A are of accused Sunil Aggarwal.
118. PW-10 has further deposed that similarly entry on Q75, Q76 on Ex. PW-6/13 and entry on Q77 and Q78 on Ex. PW-6/14 and entry on Q79 and Q80 on Ex. PW-6/15 and entry on Q81 and Q82 on Ex. PW-6/16 and entry on Q83 and Q84 on Ex. PW-6/17 are also of accused Sunil Aggarwal.
78 of 102 79
119. PW-10 Neelam Kanwar has further deposed that entry on Q85, Q86 on Ex. PW-6/18 and entry on Q87 and Q88 on Ex. PW-6/19, entry on Q89, Q90 on Ex. PW6/20 and entry on Q91, Q92 on Ex. PW-6/21, entry on Q93 on Ex. PW-6/22, entry on Q94 on Ex. PW-6/23, entry on Q95 on Ex. PW-6/24 and entry on Q97 and Q98 on Ex. PW-6/25, enry on Q99 and Q100 on Ex. PW-6/26 and entry on Q101 and Q102 on Ex. PW6/27 are of accused Sunil Aggarwal.
120. PW-10 has also identified the handwriting of accused Sunil Aggarwal on the entry of name, address, security, rate of interest, DP note, dated and the column of Rupees on Ex. D5/29 and entry on Q103 and Q104 on Ex. PW6/28 and entry on Q105 and Q106 on Ex. PW6/29.
121. She has also identified the handwriting of accused Sunil Aggarwal on the credit slips Ex. PW-7/31 to Ex. PW-7/43 except Ex. PW-7/42.
122. PW-10 has also identified the handwriting of 79 of 102 80 accused Sunil Aggarwal on the pay in slips dated 05.04.1991 Ex. PW-10/B1 to 10 in the name of Surender Kumar Bedi, Hari Mohan Kapoor, Seema Aggarwal, Angoori Devi, Helen Singh, Bharat Deva, Dhaniram and Rajender Kumar Saxena. She has also identified the handwriting of accused Sunil Aggarwal on the debit vouchers Ex. PW-7/44 to Ex. PW-7/56.
123. PW-10 Neelam Kanwar has further deposed after seeing the Credit slips for amounting to Rs.500/- each Ex. PW-10/1 to 13 that the same are also filled up by accused Sunil Aggarwal. She has further deposed that the Branch Manager was empowered to sanction all the loans in the Bank. All the loan applications in questions have been sanctioned by accused P. K. Seth.
124. PW-16 Dr. Helen Singh has deposed that in the year 1991, she was posted at ESI Hospital, Basai Dara Pur as Director of Medical Services, Delhi. During her tenure, 80 of 102 81 she had never taken any loan from SBI from any of its branch. She has deposed after seeing the loan application form Ex. PW-1/B and quotation Ex. PW-1/C, that the both the documents do not bear her signatures. She has identified her signatures on an application Ex. PW-1/D addressed to the Manager, State Bank of India, Pratap Nagar, Delhi.
125. PW-16 has further deposed, after seeing the Memorandum Ex. PW-1/A, that the signatures appearing on the same does not belong to Sh. D. D. Sharma.
126. PW-19 has deposed after seeing the ledger sheet in the file (D-2), that the entries encircled at Q55 and Q56 on Ex. PW-6/1 have been made by accused Sunil Aggarwal. Similarly, entries at point Q57, Q58 on Ex. PW-6/2 and entries at Q59 and Q60 on Ex. PW-6/3, entries at point Q61, Q62 on Ex. PW-6/4, entries encircled at point B and C on Ex. PW-6/5, entries at point Q-63 and Q-64 on Ex. PW-6/7, entries at point Q65 and Q66 on Ex. PW-6/8, entries at point 81 of 102 82 Q67, Q68 on Ex. PW-6/9, entries Q69 to Q106 have been made by accused Sunil Aggarwal. He has further identified his signatures on the entry on Ex. D-5/12.
127. PW-19 has further deposed after seeing the file (D-4 and D-5) containing cheque Ex. PW-19/2 that the same was drawn by accused Sunil Aggarwal as Proprietor for Moonex Electronics but not paid.
128. From the testimonies of the witnesses PW-5, 7, 10, 16, 17 and 19, it is clear that there is criminal conspiracy between accused no.1 P. K. Seth and accused no. 2 Sunil Aggarwal. Even if the testimony of PW-19 Tika Ram Wagle is not read against accused no.2 Sunil Aggarwal as PW-19 Tika Ram Wagle was not traceable for cross examination despite the opportunity given by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 30.10.2006 to accused no. 2 Sunil Aggarwal, but the testimonies of PW-10 Neelam Kanwar and PW-17 Mohinder Singh have clearly proved the handwriting 82 of 102 83 of accused Sunil Aggarwal on the ledger sheets of the Bank.
129. I have also gone through the GEQD Opinion, wherein it has been mentioned that the enclosed writings stamped and marked Q-51, Q-51A Q-55 to Q-106 and S-1 to S-87, S-94 to S-99, S-265 to S-272 have been written by one and the same person.
130. After perusal of the same, it reveals that on the questioned documents i.e. Q-55, Q-56 on Ex. PW-6/1 (Ledger Sheet), Q-57, Q-58 on Ex. PW-6/2(Ledger Sheet), Q-59, Q-60 on Ex. PW-6/3(Ledger Sheet), Q-61, Q-62 on Ex. PW-6/4(Ledger Sheet), Q-63, Q-64 on Ex. PW-6/7(Ledger Sheet), Q-65, Q-66 on Ex. PW-6/8(Ledger Sheet), Q-67, Q-68 on Ex. PW-6/9(Ledger Sheet), Q-69, Q-70 on Ex. PW-6/10(Ledger Sheet), Q-71, Q-72 on Ex. PW-6/11(Ledger Sheet), Q-73, Q-74 on Ex. PW-6/12(Ledger Sheet), Q-75, Q-76 on Ex. PW-6/13(Ledger Sheet), Q-77, Q-78 on Ex. PW-6/14(Ledger Sheet), Q-79, Q-80 on Ex. PW-6/15(Ledger 83 of 102 84 Sheet), Q-81, Q-82 on Ex. PW-6/16(Ledger Sheet), Q-83, Q-84 on Ex. PW-6/17(Ledger Sheet), Q-85, Q-86 on Ex. PW-6/18 (Ledger Sheet), Q-87, Q-88 on Ex. PW-6/19(Ledger Sheet), Q-89, Q-90 on Ex. PW-6/20(Ledger Sheet), Q-91, Q-92 on Ex. PW-6/21(Ledger Sheet), Q-93 on Ex. PW-6/22, Q-94 on Ex. PW-6/23(Ledger Sheet),Q-95, Q-96 on Ex. PW-6/24 (Ledger Sheet), Q-97, Q-98 on Ex. PW-6/25(Ledger Sheet), Q-99, Q-100 on Ex. PW-6/26(Ledger Sheet), Q-101, Q-102 on Ex. PW-6/27(Ledger Sheet), Q-103, Q-104 on Ex. PW-6/28(Ledger Sheet), Q-105, Q-106 on Ex. PW-6/29 (Ledger Sheet),have been written by accused no.2 Sunil Aggarwal as his specimen handwriting S-1 to S-294 tallied with the aforesaid Questioned documents.
131. The GEQD Opinion of PW-17 Mohinder Singh also corroborates the testimony of PW-10 Neelam Kanwar, who has also identified the handwriting of accused no. 2 Sunil Aggarwal on the aforesaid questioned documents (Ledger 84 of 102 85 sheets of Big Buy Loan Scheme).
132. Accused no.1 P. K. Seth had admitted in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. that he sanctioned loan on 27 loan applications. The handwriting of accused no. 2 Sunil Aggarwal on the 27 ledger sheets of Big Buy Loan Scheme of the Bank clearly shows the nexus between accused no.1 P. K. Seth and accused no. 2 Sunil Aggarwal. From this it is proved that they were in conspiracy with each other.
133. The criminal conspiracy between accused no. 1 P. K. Seth and accused no. 2 Sunil Aggarwal further fortifies by the testimony of PW-13 Baljinder Suri, who has deposed that in the year, 1991, he was working in BK Jewellery House as Sales Manager, New Wazirpur Industrial Complex. He has further deposed after seeing the Order Form dated 07.04.1991 Ex. PW-13/A1 that the same was in his handwriting and as per Order Form, order for gold bracelet 85 of 102 86 was placed by accused no.2 Sunil Aggarwal.
134. PW-13 has further deposed after seeing the entry on Q-107 that the same pertains to the entry of the person who might have received the gold bracelet. He has also deposed that the entry on Sale / Issue Voucher Ex. PW-13/A2 for the sum of Rs.20,185/- bear the signatures of the customer at point A.
135. The specimen handwriting of Puneet Seth were also taken during the investigation and the same were sent to CFSL for expert opinion.
136. I have also gone through the GEQD Opinion, wherein it has been mentioned that the enclosed writings stamped and marked Q-107, Q-108 and S304 to S308 have been written by one and the same person. The opinion clearly shows that the Q-107 and Q-108 bear the signatures of Sh. Puneet Seth, who is son of accused no.1 P. K. Seth.
137. From the above, it is clear that accused no.1 P. K. 86 of 102 87 Seth and accused no. 2 Sunil Aggarwal entered into criminal conspiracy. Hence, accused no.1 P. K. Seth and accused no. 2 Sunil Aggarwal are held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 120-B of IPC.
138. Prosecution has failed to bring the evidence to show the role of accused no. 3 Meenu Trikha, accused no. 4 Kusum Bala and accused no. 5 Satish Chand Gaur in the criminal conspiracy. Hence, accused no. 3 Meenu Trikha, accused no. 4 Kusum Bala and accused no. 5 Satish Chand Gaur are acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 120-B of IPC.
REGARDING THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 13(2) READ WITH SECTION 13(1)(d) OF PC ACT, 1988 AGAINST ACCUSED NO. 1 P. K. SETH.
139. Ld. PP has submitted that accused no. 1 P. K. Seth has abused his official position as Public Servant and obtained undue pecuniary advantage for himself to the tune 87 of 102 88 of Rs.20,185/- being the cost of gold bracelet obtained for his son from M/s. B. K. Jewellers, Wazirpur, New Delhi.
140. As it has already been proved that the questioned documents i.e. Q-107 Ex. PW-13/A1 (Order Form) and Q-108 Ex. PW-13/A2 (Sale / Issue Voucher) bear the signatures of Sh. Puneet Seth, who is son of accused no.1 P. K. Seth.
141. From the above, it is clear that the son of accused no.1 P. K. Seth has received the gold bracelet for a sum of Rs.20,185/-vide Sale / Issue Voucher Ex. PW-13/A2. The order of the gold bracelet was placed by accused no.2 Sunil Aggarwal vide Order Form Ex. PW-13/A1. Accused no. 1 P. K. Seth has abused his official position as Public Servant and obtained undue pecuniary advantage for himself to the tune of Rs.20,185/- being the cost of gold bracelet obtained for his son from M/s. B. K. Jewellers, Wazirpur, New Delhi. Hence, accused no.1 P. K. Seth is held guilty for the offence 88 of 102 89 punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of PC Act, 1988.
REGARDING THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 420 OF CR. P. C AGAINST ACCUSED NO.1 P.K. SETH AND ACCUSED NO. 5 SATISH CHAND GAUR.
142. PW-5 K. L. Babbar has deposed before the court after seeing the file no. 1 pages 1 to 107 containing 27 loan application forms and enclosures, folio 1 to 107 Ex. PW-5/A, that all the 27 loan applications have been sanctioned by accused no.1 P. K. Seth but all the 27 loan applications and salary certificates do not contain the net income and length of service.
143. He has also deposed that the Branch Manager was duty bound to scrutinize while sanctioning loan. He has further deposed that insurance of articles purchased from Bank Loan and first Inspection of the items purchased, is the responsibility of the Branch Manager as follow up of the 89 of 102 90 advance.
144. PW-6 Madan Gopal Batra has deposed that it is necessary to open SB or current account in the Bank or obtaining loan under big buy scheme. They serve notices to the loanees in case of default of payment. If inspite of repeated notices, they do not pay then they go to the Court for recovery. He has further deposed that before filing the case in Court, the outstanding in the account is transferred to protested bills account after obtaining the permission from the concerned authority.
145. PW-6 has further deposed that when the permission is obtained, the balance outstanding in the loan account is transferred to Protested Bills Account.
146. PW-6 has deposed that amount remains outstanding in the Protested Bills account opened in the name of the individual loanees till the amount is recovered from him.
90 of 102 91
147. Accused no. 1 P. K. Seth has also admitted in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. that he has not inspected the item purchased due to paucity of time.
148. From the testimonies of PW-5 K. L. Babbar and PW-6 Madan Gopal Batra, it is clear that the Branch Manager was duty bound to scrutinize the loan applications while sanctioning loan. The insurance of articles purchased from Bank Loan and conduct first inspection of the items purchased from the loan, is the responsibility of the Branch Manager, as follow up of the advance given to the customers. But accused no. 1 P. K. Seth has not inspected the item purchased. He has admitted this fact in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr. P. C. The conduct of accused no. 1 P. K. Seth has proved that he had cheated the State Bank to the tune of Rs.8,57,000/- by dishonestly inducing it to disburse the loan on the basis of false and forged documents in the names of 27 persons.
91 of 102 92 Hence, accused no.1 P. K. Seth is held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 420 of Cr. P. C.
149. Prosecution has failed to bring on record the evidence regarding the involvement of accused no. 5 Satish Chand Gaur in the offence punishable under Section 420 of Cr. P. C. Hence, accused no. 5 Satish Chand Gaur is acquitted for the same.
REGARDING OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 468 OF IPC AGAINST ACCUSED NO. 3 MEENU TRIKHA, ACCUSED NO. 4 KUSUM BALA AND ACCUSED NO. 5 SATISH CHAND GAUR.
150. It has been submitted by the Ld. PP that the accused no. 3 to 5 have forged the signatures on the loan applications, quotations and pay slips of fictitious persons. The prosecution has examined PW-1 Raghbir Singh Dhiraj, PW-4 Dr. (Mrs.) Nasreem Khan and PW-16 Dr. Helen Singh.
151. PW-1 has also deposed that during the year 1988 within his knowledge, there was no doctors by the names of 92 of 102 93 (1)Dr. Surinder Kumar Bedi, (2) Dr. D. C. Passi,(3) Dr. Ashok Kumar,(4) Dr. Eric Ekka, (5) Dr. D. K. Bhattacharya,(6) Dr. J. N. Singh, (7) Dr. B. Lal,(8) Dr. C. K. Pandey,(9) Dr. Chander Prakash Majhi, (10) Dr. Kusum Jain, (11) Dr. J. Paramatma, (12) Dr. S. Dass, (13) Dr. C. S. Chawla,(14) Dr. S. S. Rai,(15) Dr. Chander Bhan Singh,(16) Dr. Gagan Malhotra,(17) Dr. M. L. Bhatti,(18) Dr. Manoj Arya,(19) Dr. S. N. Garg,(20) Dr. P. C. Gulati,(21) Dr. Sanjiv Joshi,(22) Dr. Surinder Kumar Arora,(23) Dr. Ramesh Jethmalani,(24) Dr. Hari Mohan Kapur,(25) Dr. Rajender Kumar Saxena and (26) Dr. S. C. Gaur in ESIC Hospital.
152. PW-4 Dr. (Mrs.) Nasreen Khan has deposed that in response to the letter dated 08.07.1993 of IO/Inspector N. Surendran regarding the confirmation about the employment of the 27 persons i.e. (1)Dr. Surinder Kumar Bedi, (2) Dr. Mrs. Helen Singh (3) Dr. Ashok Kumar(4) Dr. Eric Ekka(5) Dr. D. K. Bhattacharya(6) Dr. J. N. Singh (7) Dr. B. Lal(8) Dr. 93 of 102 94 C. K. Pandey(9) Dr. Chander Prakash Majhi (10) Dr. Kusum Jain(11) Dr. J. Paramatma (12) Dr. S. Dass (13) Dr. C. S. Chawla (14) Dr. S. S. Rai (15) Dr. Chander Bhan Singh (16) Dr. Gagan Malhotra (17) Dr. M. L. Bhatti (18) Dr. Manoj Arya (19) Dr. S. N. Garg (20) Dr. P. C. Gulati (21) Dr. Sanjiv Joshi. (22) Dr. Surinder Kumar Arora. (23) Dr. Ramesh Jethmalani. (24) Dr. Hari Mohan Kapur. (25) Dr. Rajender Kumar Saxena. (26) Dr. S. C. Gaur. (27) Dr. D. C. Passi, in ESI during the period 1990-1991, she has sent a reply dated 08.07.1993 Ex. PW-4/A, wherein it has been mentioned that as per the record of office, none of the doctors as mentioned in letter dated 08.07.1993 was working under ESI Scheme except Dr. (Mrs.) Helen Singh during the period 1990-1991.
153. PW-16 Dr. Helen Singh has deposed that in the year 1991, she was posted at ESI Hospital, Basai Dara Pur as Director of Medical Services, Delhi. During her tenure, she had never taken any loan from SBI from any of its 94 of 102 95 branch.
154. She has deposed after seeing the loan application form Ex. PW-1/B and quotation Ex. PW-1/C, that both the documents do not bear her signatures.
155. I have also gone through the GEQD Opinion Ex. PW-17/B1 to PW-17/B2, wherein it has been mentioned that the enclosed writings stamped and marked Q-1, Q-1A, Q-2, Q-4, Q-39, Q-41, Q-41A, Q-50 and S309 to S311, S322 to S348 as well as S464 to S485 have been written by one and the same person.
156. Perusal of the same shows that the questioned documents i.e Q1 and Q1/A bear the signatures of Dr. Surender Kumar Bedi on the loan application and on the quotation in favour of Dr. Surender Kumar Bedi by ADMC Corporation (India) and Q2 bears the signatures of D. D. Sharma on the pay slip of Dr. Surender Kumar Bedi, Q4 bears the signatures of D. D. Sharma on the pay slip of Dr. 95 of 102 96 Helen Singh, Q39 bears the signatures of Dr. S. N. Garg on the Loan application, Q41 and Q41/A bear the signatures of Dr. P. C. Gulati on the Loan application and on the quotation in favour of Dr. P. C. Gulati by Moonex Electronics (India) and Q50 bears the signatures of D. D. Sharma on the pay slip of Dr. Hari Mohan Kapoor, but the same have been signed by accused no. 3 Meenu Trikha as her specimen handwriting S-309 to S-348 and S-464 to S-485 tallied with the aforesaid Questioned documents.
157. I have also gone through the GEQD opinion regarding the specimen handwriting of accused no. 4 Kusum Bala. In the GEQD Opinion, it has been mentioned that the enclosed writings stamped and marked Q-18, Q-19, Q19A and S-349 to S-359 have been written by one and the same person.
158. After perusal of the same, it reveals that Q-18, Q19 and Q-19A bear the signatures of Dr. Kusum Jain on the 96 of 102 97 loan application and on the quotation in favour of Dr. Kusum Jain by ADMC Corporation (India) but the same have been signed by accused no. 4 Kusum Bala as her specimen handwriting S-349 to S-359 tallied with the aforesaid Questioned documents.
159. I have also gone through the GEQD opinion regarding the specimen handwriting of accused no. 5 Satish Chand Gaur. In the GEQD Opinion, it has been mentioned that the enclosed writings stamped and marked Q-49, Q-49A and S389 to S394 have been written by one and the same person.
160. After perusal of the same, it reveals that Q-49 and Q49/A bear the signatures of Dr. Hari Mohan Kapoor on the loan application and on the quotation in favour of Dr. Hari Mohan Kapoor by ADMC Corporation (India) but the same have been signed by accused no. 5 Satish Chand Gaur as his specimen handwriting S389 to S394 tallied with the 97 of 102 98 aforesaid Questioned documents.
161. In view of the above, it is clear that accused no. 3 Meenu Trikha, accused no. 4 Kusum Bala and accused no. 5 Satish Chand Gaur forged the signatures of Dr. Surinder Kumar Bedi, Dr. P. C. Gulati, Dr. S. N. Garg, Dr. Kusum Jain and Dr. Hari Mohan Kapoor as well as the signatures of D. D. Sharma, Accounts Officer (Med) respectively for the purpose of cheating. Hence, accused no. 3 Meenu Trikha, accused no. 4 Kusum Bala and accused no. 5 Satish Chand Gaur are held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 468 of IPC.
REGARDING OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 471 OF IPC AGAINST ACCUSED NO. 5 SATISH CHAND GAUR.
162. It has been submitted by the Ld. PP that the accused no. 5 Satish Chand Gaur has used forged and fabricated the loan application and quotation as genuine to the loan account of Dr. Hari Mohan Kapoor.
98 of 102 99
163. As it has already been proved that accused no. 5 Satish Chand Gaur involved in the forgery for the purpose of cheating.
164. From the GEQD opinion regarding the specimen handwriting of accused no. 5 Satish Chand Gaur, it is clear that that Q-49 and Q49/A bear the signatures of Dr. Hari Mohan Kapoor on the loan application and on the quotation in favour of Dr. Hari Mohan Kapoor by ADMC Corporation (India) but the same have been signed by accused no. 5 Satish Chand Gaur as his specimen handwriting S389 to S394 tallied with the aforesaid Questioned documents.
165. In view of the above, it is clear that accused no. 5 Satish Chand Gaur has used forged and fabricated loan application and quotation as genuine pertaining to the loan account of Dr. Hari Mohan Kapoor. Hence, accused no. 5 Satish Chand Gaur is held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 471 of Cr. P. C. 99 of 102 100
166. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond reasonable doubts against accused no.1 P. K. Seth and accused no. 2 Sunil Aggarwal for the offences punishable under Section 120-B r/w Section 420, 468 and 471 of IPC and 13 (1) (d) r/w Section 13 (2) of PC Act, 1988. Hence, accused no. 1 and accused no. 2 are held guilty and convicted for the same.
167. Prosecution has also succeeded in proving its case beyond reasonable doubts against accused no. 1 P. K. Seth for the offences punishable under section 420 of IPC. Hence, accused no. 1 P. K. Seth is held guilty and convicted for the same.
168. Prosecution has also succeeded in proving its case beyond reasonable doubts against accused no. 1 P. K. Seth for the offences punishable under section 13 (2) r/w Section 13(1) (d) of PC Act, 1988. Hence, accused no. 1 P. K. Seth is 100 of 102 101 held guilty and convicted for the same.
169. Prosecution has also succeeded in proving its case beyond reasonable doubts against accused no. 3 Meenu Trikha, accused no. 4 Kusum Bala and accused no. 5 Satish Chand Gaur for the offence punishable under section 468 of IPC. Hence accused no. 3 Meenu Trikha, accused no. 4 Kusum Bala and accused no. 5 Satish Chand Gaur are held guilty and convicted accordingly.
170. Prosecution has also succeeded in proving its case beyond reasonable doubts against accused no. 5 Satish Chand Gaur for the offence punishable under section 471 of IPC. Hence accused no. 5 Satish Chand Gaur is held guilty and convicted accordingly.
171. Prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused no. 3 Meenu Trikha, accused no. 4 Kusum Bala and accused no. 5 Satish Chand Gaur for the offences punishable under Section 120-B r/w Section 420, 468 and 101 of 102 102 471 of IPC and 13 (1) (d) r/w Section 13 (2) of PC Act, 1988. Hence, accused no. 3 Meenu Trikha, accused no. 4 Kusum Bala and accused no. 5 Satish Chand Gaur are acquitted for the same.
172. Prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused no. 5 Satish Chand Gaur for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. Hence, accused no. 5 Satish Chand Gaur is acquitted for the same.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY I.E. ON 22.05.2014.
(N. K. SHARMA) SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) CBI:02 DELHI.
102 of 102 103 IN THE COURT OF SH. N. K. SHARMA, SPECIAL JUDGE, (PC ACT)-02, CBI, DELHI.
CC NO.173/01.
CBI/SCB/N. DELHI.
RC NO. 2(S)/93.
ID NO. 02401R0065292001 CBI VERSUS
2. P. K. SETH, S/O LATE SH. GHANSHAM DASS SETH, R/O 87, AMBIKA VIHAR, NEW DELHI - 110041.
2. SH. SUNIL AGGARWAL, S/O SH. MAMAN CHAND AGGARWAL, R/O POCKET B-7, PLOT NO. 12, SECTOR-4, ROHINI, DELHI-110042.
103 of 102 104
3. MS. MEENU TRIKHA, D/O LATE SH. W.N. TRIKHA, R/O WZ-82, PLOT NO.74, PRATAP NAGAR, JAIL ROAD, NEW DELHI-110064.
4. MS. KUSUM BALA, D/O SH. VIJAY PAL SINGH, R/O H-3, HAUZ KHAS, POLICE COLONY, NEW DELHI.
5. SH. SATISH C. GAUR, S/O SH. J.C. GAUR, R/O AG-110, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110052.
Date of Institution :24.11.1993.
Date of Arguments :13.05.2014.
Date of Judgment :22.05.2014.
Order on Sentence :24.05.2014.
ORDER ON SENTENCE
1. Vide my separate judgment announced on 22.05.2014, accused no.1 P. K. Seth and accused no. 2 Sunil Aggarwal are held guilty for the offences punishable under Section 120-B r/w 104 of 102 105 Section 420, 468 and 471 of IPC and 13 (1) (d) r/w Section 13 (2) of PC Act, 1988.
2. Accused no. 1 P. K. Seth is also held guilty for the offences punishable under section 420 of IPC.
3. Accused no. 1 P. K. Seth is further held guilty for the offences punishable under section 13 (2) r/w Section 13(1) (d) of PC Act, 1988.
4. Accused no. 3 Meenu Trikha, accused no. 4 Kusum Bala and accused no. 5 Satish Chand Gaur are held guilty for the offence punishable under section 468 of IPC.
5. Accused no. 5 Satish Chand Gaur is also held guilty for the offence punishable under section 471 of IPC.
6. It has been argued by Sh. R. K. Goomar, Learned counsel for convict no. 1 P. K. Seth that he is 73 years of age and is not a previous convict. He has clean antecedents. He is facing agony of this trial since 1993. He is suffering from various ailments such as Severe Heart Problems, Highly Diabetic, Acute 105 of 102 106 Bronchial Asthma, Hernia and Appendix, ADIP with Paralysis in all four limbs with DM with CODP, as well suffering from old age problems. He has to look after his wife, who is also suffering from old age problems. His sons are not residing with him. It is prayed that in these circumstances, lenient view may be taken against him.
7. It has been argued by Sh. Pankaj Vivek, Ld. Counsel for Convict no. 2 Sunil Aggarwal that he is 51 years of age and is not a previous convict. He is facing agony of the trial since 1993. He has clean antecedents. He has to look after his 81 years old aged father who is bedridden and 79 years old aged mother suffering from various old age diseases. He has argued that he has one son aged about 24-25 years and one married daughter aged about 26 years. It has been also argued that he is the sole bread earner of his family. There is no other person except him to look after his aged parents, wife and his son aged about 24-25 years. It has been further argued that he is the only brother of six 106 of 102 107 married sisters. It is prayed that in these circumstances, lenient view may be taken against him. Ld. Counsel for convict no. 2 Sunil Aggarwal has relied upon the following judgments:-
1. BALARAM SWAIM Vs. STATE OF ORISSA, AIR 1991 SUPREME COURT 279.
2. M. O. SHAMSUDHIN Vs. STATE OF KERALA, (1995) 3 SUPREME COURT CASES 351.
8. It has been argued by Sh. Anand Kumar Mishra, Learned counsel for convict no.3 Meenu Trikha that she is 43 years of age and is not a previous convict. She is facing agony of the trial since 1993. She has clean antecedents. She has to look after her 75 years old aged father-in-law and 70 years old aged mother-in-law suffering from various old age diseases. She has also to look after her daughter aged about 15 years. There is no other person except her to look after her aged parents in law and daughter. It has been further argued that she is the victim of the circumstances as she was the employee of the convict no. 2 Sunil Aggarwal. It is prayed that in these circumstances, lenient 107 of 102 108 view may be taken against him.
9. It has been argued by Sh. Anand Kumar Mishra, Learned counsel for convict no.4 Kusum Bala that she is 40 years of age and is not a previous convict. She is facing agony of the trial since 1993. She has clean antecedents. She has to look after her 80 years old aged father-in-law and 75 years old aged mother-in-law suffering from various old age diseases. She has also to look after her 18 years unmarried brother-in-law. It has been also argued that her husband is working on Daily wages. She has one daughter aged about 13 years and one son aged about 15 years. There is no other person except her to look after her aged parents in law and daughter and son. It has been further argued that she is the victim of the circumstances as she was the employee of the convict no. 2 Sunil Aggarwal. It is prayed that in these circumstances, lenient view may be taken against her.
10. It has been argued by Sh. Anand Kumar Mishra, 108 of 102 109 Learned counsel for convict no.5 Satish Chand Gaur that he is 43 years of age and is not a previous convict. He is facing agony of the trial since 1993. He has clean antecedents. He has to look after his 72 years old aged father and 67 years old aged mother suffering from various old age diseases. It has been also argued that he is working on Daily wages. He is the sole bread earner of his family. He has two sons aged about 15 and 7 years. There is no other person except him to look after her aged parents, wife and sons. It has been further argued that he is the victim of the circumstances as he was the employee of the convict no. 2 Sunil Aggarwal. It is prayed that in these circumstances, lenient view may be taken against him.
11. Ld. Counsel for convict no. 3 to 5 has also argued that all the three convicts are not previous convicts and they may please be released on Probation. He has relied upon the following judgments :-
1. ROSHANALI BURHANALI SYED Vs. STATE 109 of 102 110 OF GUJARAT, AIR 1982 SUPREME COURT 784 (1).
2. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. NASIMKHAN AHMAD KHAN MALI KHAN ETC. AIR 1971 SUPREME COURT 381.
3. SURENDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN, AIR 1979 SUPREME COURT 1048.
12. It has been argued by Sh. J. S. Wadia, Learned PP for CBI that no leniency be shown to the Convicts in awarding the sentence as it will be undesirable and will also be against public interest. It has been argued by the Ld. PP that Convict no. 1 P. K. Seth entered into criminal conspiracy with his co-accused i.e. convict no. 2 Sunil Aggarwal.
13. Ld. PP has further argued that convict no. 1 P. K. Seth is involved in a serious corruption case being public servant and being the Branch Manager of State Bank of India, Pratap Nagar Branch cheated the Bank to the tune of Rs.8,57,000/-. He has also argued that convict no. 1 P. K. Seth has abused his official 110 of 102 111 position being public servant.
14. Ld. PP has argued that convict no. 2 Sunil Aggarwal is involved in conspiracy with convict no. 1 P. K. Seth with intention to cause wrongful gain to his firms and consequent of which wrongful loss has been caused to the State Bank of India to the tune of Rs.8,57,000/-.
15. Ld. PP has also argued that convict no. 3 Meenu Trikha, convict no. 4 Kusum Bala and convict no. 5 Satish Chand Gaur have forged the signatures of various applicants on the loan applications, quotations and filled up the various pay in slips in order to obtain loans from the State Bank of India.
16. It has been prayed by the learned PP that they should be awarded severe punishment and heavy fine may also be imposed.
17. I have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the Convicts and the Prosecution.
111 of 102 112
18. The Apex Court in para 7 of the judgment reported as State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ram Singh, 2000(1) RCR (Criminal) 784 expressed its concern about corruption by observing as under:-
"Corruption in a civilised society is a disease like cancer, which if not detected in time is sure to maliganise the policy of country leading to disastrous consequences. It is termed as plague which is not only contagious but if not controlled spreads like a fire in a jungle. Its virus is compared with HIV leading to AIDS, being incurable. It has also been termed as Royal thievery. The socio- political system exposed to such a dreaded communicable disease is likely to crumble under its own weight. Corruption is opposed to democracy and social order, being not only anti- people, but aimed and targeted against them. It affects the economy and destroys the cultural heritage. Unless nipped in the bud at the earliest, it is likely to cause turbulence shaking of the socio economic political system in an otherwise healthy, 112 of 102 113 wealthy, effective and vibrating society."
19. In a case reported as State of UP Vs Shri Kishan, 2005 I AD (SC) 180, their Lordships laid down the following guidelines on the subject in para 8 as under:-
"Imposition of sentence without considering its effect on the social order in many cases may be in reality a futile exercise. The social impact of the crime, e.g. Where it relates to offences against women, dacoity, kidnapping, misappropriation of public money, treason and other offences involving moral turpitude or moral delinquency which have great impact on social order and public interest, cannot be lost sight of and perse require exemplary treatment. Any liberal attitude by imposing meager sentences or taking too sympathetic view merely on account of lapse of time in respect of such offences will be result-wise counter productive in the long run and against societal interest which needs to be cared for and strengthened by string of deterrence inbuilt in the sentencing system".
113 of 102 114
20. Their Lordships in para 9 of the judgment further observed as under:
"The Court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against the individual victim but also against the society to which the criminal and victim belong. The punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality with which the crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting public abhorrence and it should "respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminal."
21. In a case reported as State of Karnataka Vs. Puttaraja, 2003 X AD(SC) 464, their Lordships in para 7 of the judgment observed as under:
"Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of 114 of 102 115 law and society could not long endure under such serious threats. It is, therefore, the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed etc. This position was illuminatingly stated by this Court in Sevaka Perumal etc. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1991 SC 1463.
22. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that if following sentences in this case are awarded, it shall serve the ends of justice.
23. Sentences to convict no. 1 P. K. Seth:-
For the offence punishable under Section 120-B of IPC read with Section 420, 468, 471 of IPC and U/s 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of PC Act, 1988, Convict no. 1 P. K. Seth is sentenced for the period already undergone. He is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.80,000/-(Rs. Eighty Thousands Only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo S. I. for a further period of four months.
115 of 102 116 For the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC, Convict no. 1 P. K. Seth is sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of one year alongwith a fine of Rs.40,000/-(Rs. Forty Thousands Only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo S. I. for a further period of two months.
For offence punishable under Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of PC Act, 1988, Convict no. 1 P. K. Seth is sentenced to undergo R. I. for a period of two years alongwith a fine of Rs.20,000/-(Rs. Twenty Thousands Only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo S. I. for a further period of one month.
24. Sentences to Convict no. 2 Sunil Aggarwal.
For the offence punishable under Section 120-B of IPC read with Section 420, 468, 471 of IPC and U/s 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of PC Act, 1988, Convict no. 2 Sunil Aggarwal is sentenced for the period already undergone. He is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.80,000/-(Rs. Eighty Thousands 116 of 102 117 Only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo S. I. for a further period of four months.
25. Sentences to Convict no. 3 Meenu Trikha.
Convict no. 3 Meenu Trikha is sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of one year for offence punishable under Section 468 of IPC. She is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.40,000/-(Rs. Forty Thousands Only) and in default of payment of fine, she shall undergo S. I. for a further period of two months.
26. Sentences to Convict no. 4 Kusum Bala.
Convict no. 4 Kusum Bala is sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of one year for offence punishable under Section 468 of IPC. She is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.40,000/-(Rs. Forty Thousands Only) and in default of payment of fine, she shall undergo S. I. for a further period of two months.
27. Sentences to Convict no. 5 Satish Chand Gaur.
Convict no. 5 Satish Chand Gaur is sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of one year for offence punishable 117 of 102 118 under Section 468 of IPC. He is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.40,000/-(Rs. Forty Thousands Only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo S. I. for a further period of two months.
Convict no. 5 Satish Chand Gaur is also sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of six months for offence punishable under Section 471 of IPC. He is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-(Rs. Twenty Thousands Only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo S. I. for a further period of one month.
28. It is further directed that all the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. Benefit of Section 428 Cr. P. C. be also given to all the five convicts.
29. A copy of Judgment and this order on sentence be given to all the five convicts free of cost. File be consigned to Record Room.
118 of 102 119 (N. K. SHARMA) SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT)(CBI):02 DELHI/24.05.2014.
119 of 102 120 CC NO. 173/01 CBI VS. P. K. SETH ETC.
24.05.2014 Present:- Sh. J. S. Wadia, Ld. PP for CBI.
Convict No. 1 P. K. Seth is present with counsel Sh. R. K. Goomar, Advocate.
Convict No.2 Sunil Aggarwal is present with counsel Ms. Anupriya Singh, Advocate.
Convict No.3 Meenu Trikha, Convict No. 4 Kusum Bala and convict no. 5 Satish Chand Gaur are present with counsel Sh. Anand Kumar Mishra, Advocate. Vide my order on the point of sentence on the separate sheets, following sentences in this case are awarded :-
1. Sentences to convict no. 1 P. K. Seth:-
For the offence punishable under Section 120-B of IPC read with Section 420, 468, 471 of IPC and U/s 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of PC Act, 1988, Convict no. 1 P. K. Seth is sentenced for the period already undergone. He is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.80,000/-(Rs. Eighty Thousands 120 of 102 121 Only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo S. I. for a further period of four months.
For the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC, Convict no. 1 P. K. Seth is sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of one year alongwith a fine of Rs.40,000/-(Rs. Forty Thousands Only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo S. I. for a further period of two months.
For offence punishable under Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of PC Act, 1988, Convict no. 1 P. K. Seth is sentenced to undergo R. I. for a period of two years alongwith a fine of Rs.20,000/-(Rs. Twenty Thousands Only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo S. I. for a further period of one month.
2. Sentences to Convict no. 2 Sunil Aggarwal.
For the offence punishable under Section 120-B of IPC read with Section 420, 468, 471 of IPC and U/s 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of PC Act, 1988, Convict no. 2 Sunil Aggarwal is 121 of 102 122 sentenced for the period already undergone. He is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.80,000/-(Rs. Eighty Thousands Only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo S. I. for a further period of four months.
3. Sentences to Convict no. 3 Meenu Trikha.
Convict no. 3 Meenu Trikha is sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of one year for offence punishable under Section 468 of IPC. She is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.40,000/-(Rs. Forty Thousands Only) and in default of payment of fine, she shall undergo S. I. for a further period of two months.
4. Sentences to Convict no. 4 Kusum Bala.
Convict no. 4 Kusum Bala is sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of one year for offence punishable under Section 468 of IPC. She is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.40,000/-(Rs. Forty Thousands Only) and in default of payment of fine, she shall undergo S. I. for a further period of two months.
5. Sentences to Convict no. 5 Satish Chand Gaur.
122 of 102 123 Convict no. 5 Satish Chand Gaur is sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of one year for offence punishable under Section 468 of IPC. He is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.40,000/-(Rs. Forty Thousands Only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo S. I. for a further period of two months. Convict no. 5 Satish Chand Gaur is also sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of six months for offence punishable under Section 471 of IPC. He is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-(Rs. Twenty Thousands Only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo S. I. for a further period of one month. It is further directed that all the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. Benefit of Section 428 Cr. P. C. be also given to all the five convicts.
A copy of Judgment and this order on sentence be given to all the five convicts free of cost.
File be consigned to Record Room.
123 of 102 124 (N. K. SHARMA) SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT)(CBI):02 DELHI/24.05.2014.
124 of 102 125 CC NO. 173/01 CBI VS. P. K. SETH ETC.
24.05.2014 File taken up on the applications under Section 389 of Cr. P. C. moved by learned counsel for Convict no.1 P. K. Seth, Convict no. 3 Meenu Trikha, Convict no. 4 Kusum Bala and Convict no. 5 Satish Chand Gaur for suspension of sentences. Present:- Sh. J. S. Wadia, Ld. PP for CBI.
Convict No. 1 P. K. Seth is present with counsel Sh. R. K. Goomar, Advocate.
Convict No.3 Meenu Trikha, Convict No. 4 Kusum Bala and convict no. 5 Satish Chand Gaur are present with counsel Sh.Anand Kumar Mishra, Advocate. Ld. Counsel for Convict no.1 P. K. Seth, Convict no. 3 Meenu Trikha, Convict no. 4 Kusum Bala and Convict no. 5 Satish Chand Gaur have filed applications under Section 389 (3) Cr. P. C. for suspension of Sentence. Heard. All the four convicts i.e. Convict no.1 P. K. Seth, Convict no. 3 Meenu Trikha, Convict no. 4 Kusum Bala and Convict no. 5 Satish Chand Gaur remained on bail during the trial of this case and they have not misused the liberty of the bail and attended 125 of 102 126 the court on each date of hearing. This fact is also not disputed by the Ld. PP.
Convict no.1 P. K. Seth, convict no.3 Meenu Trikha, convict no. 4 Kusum Bala and convict no. 5 Satish Chand Gaur are directed to furnish the Bail Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount.
Bail Bonds with one surety each have been furnished by Convict no.1 P. K. Seth, Convict no. 3 Meenu Trikha, Convict no. 4 Kusum Bala and Convict no. 5 Satish Chand Gaur and the same are accepted upto 23rd July, 2014.
Original FDR bearing no.ACRPM9402D in the name of Smt. Asha Seth, surety of convict no. 1 P. K. Seth be returned back after making the endorsement on it.
Original FDR bearing no.39408136 in the name of Ms. Rama, surety of convict no. 3 Meenu Trikha be returned back after making the endorsement on it.
Photocopies of Pay Slip, PAN Card and Voter I-Card of Sh. Vikram Singh, surety of convict no. 4 Kusum Bala has been filed.
Original FDR bearing no.D10071534 in the name of Jagdish Chand, surety of convict no. 5 Satish Chand Gaur be returned back after making the endorsement on it.
A copy of this order be given dasti to the convict persons.
File be consigned to Record Room.
126 of 102 127 (N. K. SHARMA) SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT)(CBI):02 DELHI/24.05.2014.
127 of 102