Delhi District Court
Cbi vs . 1 Amit Kumar Bajaj, on 1 March, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MANOJ JAIN: SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) (CBI)
SOUTH DISTRICT: SAKET DISTRICT COURTS
NEW DELHI
CC No. 15/2012
RC 6(E)/2005/EOW-II/DLI
U/s 120B r/w 419/420/467/468/471 IPC
& 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act
Unique ID No. 02406R111242008
CBI Vs. 1 Amit Kumar Bajaj,
Son of Narender Kumar Bajaj,
Resident of A-165, Kalkaji,
New Delhi.
(Proclaimed Offender)
(Hereinafter referred to as A-1)
2 T. Harish,
Son of late Sh. Dev Narayan Tiwari,
Resident of G-II/137, 2nd Floor,
Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi-85.
(Hereinafter referred to as A-2)
3 Rajender Prasad Dadeech,
Son of Late Sh. Madan Lal Dadeech,
R/o 1957, Khajanewale Ka Rasta,
3rd Crossing, Chand Pole, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
(Hereinafter referred to as A-3)
4 Deepak Kumar,
Son of Sh. Leela Dhar,
Resident of C-123, Gali No. 4,
East Azad Nagar, Shahdara,
Delhi-51.
(Since expired)
(Hereinafter referred to as A-4)
5 R.K. Mehta,
Son of late Sh. Gurditta Ram,
Resident of 163, Sector-4,
Gurgaon, Haryana.
(Hereinafter referred to as A-5)
CC No. 15/2012 CBI Vs. Amit Kr. Bajaj etc. Page 1 of 46
6 Tanuj Kumar,
Son of Narender Kumar,
Resident of G-11, Ridgewood Apartment,
DLF Phase-IV, Gurgaon, Haryana.
(Proclaimed Offender)
(Hereinafter referred to as A-6)
7 Narender Kumar,
Son of Sh. Laxman Das,
Resident of G-11, Ridgewood Apartment,
DLF Phase-IV, Gurgaon, Haryana.
(Proclaimed Offender)
(Hereinafter referred to as A-7)
8 Rajender Goyal,
Son of Sh. Ram Kumar,
Resident of WZ-453, Rishi Nagar,
Rani Bagh, New Delhi.
(Proclaimed Offender)
(Hereinafter referred to as A-8)
9 Rajesh Kumar,
Son of Narender Kumar,
Resident of G-11, Ridgewood Apartment,
DLF Phase-IV, Gurgaon, Haryana.
(Proclaimed Offender)
(Hereinafter referred to as A-9)
10 Smt. Chand Rani,
Wife of late Sh. Mohd. Munus,
Resident of Gali No. 3, Sanjam Vihar,
Wazirabagh Gaon, New Delhi.
(Hereinafter referred to as A-10)
11 Smt. Vaneeta Kumar,
Wife of Sh. Narender Kumar,
Resident of G-11, Ridgewood Apartment,
DLF Phase-IV, Gurgaon, Haryana.
(Proclaimed Offender)
(Hereinafter referred to as A-11)
CC No. 15/2012 CBI Vs. Amit Kr. Bajaj etc. Page 2 of 46
i) Date of Institution : 25.03.2008
ii) Date on which case was received on
Transfer by this Court : 21.12.2012
iii) Date of framing of charge : 21.12.2010
iv) Date of conclusion of arguments : 14.02.2014
v) Date of Judgment : 01.03.2014
Memo of Appearance
Ms. Jyotsna Sharma,, learned Public Prosecutor for CBI.
Sh. V.K. Ohri, learned counsel for accused T. Harish.
Sh. Ajay Digpaul, learned counsel for accused R.P. Dadeech.
Sh. K.B.B. Singh, learned counsel for accused R.K. Mehta & Chand
Rani.
JUDGMENT
STORY OF PROSECUTION 1.0 All the eleven accused persons have been charge sheeted by CBI for commission of offences U/s 120 B r/w 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and substantive offences thereof.
1.1 Sh. R.K. Khanna, Senior Manager, Central Bank of India, Safdarjang Enclave Branch had lodged a complaint dated 06.05.2005 with CBI reporting therein that proprietors and partners of various firms, in connivance with bank officials, had caused wrongful loss to the bank and wrongful gain to themselves and requested that the matter may be got investigated and the culprits be brought to the books.
1.2 Such complaint was directed against ten different accounts.
CC No. 15/2012 CBI Vs. Amit Kr. Bajaj etc. Page 3 of 461.3 FIR was registered on 18.05.2005. Investigation was carried out by CBI and four separate charge-sheets were filed by CBI.
1.4 Present charge-sheet, which has been labeled as charge sheet No.1, relates to four accounts i.e. M/s R.P. Textiles, M/s Magnet Restaurant, M/s S.S. Enterprises and term loan account of Narender Kumar and Ms. Vaneeta Kumar.
1.5 It will not be out of place to mention here that charge-sheet is also directed against one more accused i.e. Animesh Bhattacharya but his name has been put in column no.2 as he died during the investigation stage itself. It is also equally important to mention here that as far as accused Amit Kumar Bajaj, Tanuj Kumar, Narender Kumar, Rajender Goyal, Rajesh Kumar and Ms. Vaneeta Kumar are concerned, they absconded and were declared proclaimed offenders.
1.6 M/s R.P. Textiles was partnership concern of A-1 and deceased Animesh Bhattacharya. It was having its office at A-165, Kalkaji, New Delhi-19. It was in the trade of industrialized cloth velvet and other fabrics. On 02.04.2003, such firm approached for sanction of over draft limit of Rs.20 lacs to Central Bank of India, Safdarjang Enclave branch, New Delhi. One property no. E-34, Greater Kailash Enclave-II, New Delhi, belonging to accused Animesh Bhattacharya, was offered as collateral. A-6 stood guarantor for said facility. Balance sheets and ITRs were also filed. A-5 R.K. Mehta was posted as loan officer/Assistant Manager in said branch and he conducted pre-sanction inspection report and observed that the performance of the firm was satisfactory. He recommended sanction of over draft limit of Rs.20 lacs and on the basis of such recommendation, A-3 Sh. R.P. Dadeech, Senior Manager sanctioned over draft limit of Rs.20 lacs.
CC No. 15/2012 CBI Vs. Amit Kr. Bajaj etc. Page 4 of 461.7 A-6 and A-7 were partners of M/s Magnet Restaurant, Metropolitan Mall, M.G. Road, Gurgaon, Haryana. Their office was also situated at A-165, Kalkaji, New Delhi. It will not be out of place to mention here that A-1, A-6 and A-9 are real brothers and A-7 & A-11 happen to be their parents. Said firm opened an account with said branch of Safdarjung Enclave on 16.07.2003 and applied for over draft limit of Rs.36 lacs and offered two properties as collaterals. One such property was situated in village Kamruddin Nagar, Nangloi, New Delhi. It was measuring 430 square yards and belonged to A-8. One another property measuring 200 square yards situated in village Tikri Kalan belonging to A-7 was also offered as collateral. ITRs and audited balance sheets were also furnished and in the similar manner the loan was processed by A-5 and was eventually sanctioned by A-3.
1.8 M/s S.S. Enterprises, 12/9, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi was proprietorship concern of A-9 Rajesh Kumar and he opened an account with said branch of Safdarjang Enclave on 08.08.2003 and applied for over draft limit of Rs.15 lacs under Cent Trade Scheme for expansion his business and offered one property bearing Khasra No.1178, Village Tikri Kalan measuring 1500 square yards as collateral. Audited balance sheets and ITRs were also furnished. Such loan was also processed by A-5 - and was sanctioned by A-3 on 04.09.2003.
1.9 As regards term loan account of "Narender Kumar and Ms. Vaneeta Kumar", they had applied for personal loan of Rs.8 lacs under Cent Mortgage Scheme and offered a piece of land measuring 2000 square yards in village Tikri Kalan and A-7 Narender Kumar claimed himself to be the owner of said land. Again, ITRs were furnished and such loan, which was processed by A-5 was also sanctioned by A-3 in the similar manner.
CC No. 15/2012 CBI Vs. Amit Kr. Bajaj etc. Page 5 of 461.10 On the basis of the complaint of Sh. R.K. Khanna, the matter was investigated comprehensively. Such investigation revealed connivance of all such borrowers with the said two bank officials and also with A-2 Sh. T. Harish, A-4 Deepak Kumar and A-10 Chand Rani. A-2 was panel advocate of Central Bank of India and he had furnished Legal Search Reports (LSRs) in all said four accounts and opined that the title deeds of all such properties were mortgageable whereas as per the investigation, all such LSRs were found to be false/bogus as title deeds were found forged and not registered as claimed. Investigation also revealed that the various audited balance sheets purportedly signed by Sh. Raj Chawla, Chartered Accountant of M/s Raj Chawla & Associates were forged as Sh. Raj Chawla revealed that he was never having any office at 246/10, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-92 as projected in such balance sheets and he also denied his signatures on all such balance sheets.
1.11 So much so, even ITRs were found to be forged.
1.12 It was also found that A-5 had not visited the properties to be mortgaged and falsely mentioned in his report to the contrary and on the basis of his false recommendation, the loan facility was availed by all such four borrowers.
1.13 It also surfaced during the investigation that A-4 had forged bogus conveyance deed in the name of accused Animesh Bhattacharya as well as one more sale deed and Lal Dora Certificate whereby it was attempted to show that A-10 Chand Rani was the owner of property No.1178, village Tikri Kalan. Report of GEQD also nailed him down on this score. Said property bearing Khasra No. 1178, village Tikri Kalan was never in the name of A-10 Chand Rani. Such property in fact belonged to one Sh. Hoshiyar CC No. 15/2012 CBI Vs. Amit Kr. Bajaj etc. Page 6 of 46 Singh and Chand Rani, in collusion with her co-accused and without having any right title or interest in said property, sold the same on papers in favour of A-1 Amit Kumar. Though the sale deed was genuinely executed before the Sub Registrar-II, Janak Puri, New Delhi, it was found to be forged as Chand Rani had no right over the same.
1.14 During investigation valuation reports purportedly given by Sh. Rameshwar Dayal of M/s Saxena & Associates were also found to be forged. Investigation also disclosed that M/s R.P. Textiles had issued cheques in favour of one Sh. Anurag Dubey who was a close friend of A-3 R.P. Dadeech and during house search of house of A-3, one blank cheque signed by Anurag Dubey was recovered for which A-3 could not offer any satisfactory explanation which indicated taking of pecuniary advantage by A-3. It also came to fore that the funds under sanctioned limits were withdrawn arbitrarily and the bank officials never attempted to ensure proper end use of the funds by the borrowers.
1.15 All the said four accounts turned Non Performing Assets (NPA) with the outstanding amount of Rs. 9,25,200/-, Rs. 57 lacs, Rs. 19.16 lacs and Rs. 10.35 lacs approx respectively. Thus, it was concluded during investigation that all the aforesaid borrowers, bank officials, panel advocate, A-10 Chand Rani and A-4 Deepak Kumar had conspired together and credit facilities were availed submitting forged title deeds and thereby wrongful loss was caused to the bank and corresponding wrongful gain to the accused (s).
1.16 Since all the four accounts were found to be inter linked, single charge sheet has been filed.
CC No. 15/2012 CBI Vs. Amit Kr. Bajaj etc. Page 7 of 461.17 As far as A-5 R.K. Mehta is concerned, sanction for his prosecution was obtained from the competent authority. However, since A-3 R.P. Dadeech had already ceased to be a public servant, no sanction was, therefore, sought for his prosecution.
COGNIZANCE AND CHARGES 2.0 Charge sheet was laid before the court on 25.03.2008.
2.1 Cognizance was taken by the court on 05.02.2009 and all the accused were ordered to be summoned.
2.2 A-1 Amit Kumar Bajaj, A-6 Tanuj Kumar, A-7 Narender Kumar, A-8 Rajender Goyal, A-9 Rajesh Kumar and A-11 Vaneeta Kumar absconded, they were accordingly declared proclaimed offenders. Reference be made to order sheets dated 08.10.2010 and 25.03.2011.
2.3 Arguments on charge were heard and in terms of order dated 16.12.2010, remaining five accused persons were ordered to be charged u/s 120 B r/w 420, 468, 471 IPC r/w 13 (2) & 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. Accused Deepak Kumar and Chand Rani were also separately charged u/s 467 IPC. Accused Harish Tiwari was also separately charged u/s 420, 468 IPC and accused R.K. Mehta & R.P. Dadeech were also charged with substantive offences u/s 13 (2) & 13 (1) (d) PC Act.
2.4 Charges were framed on 21.12.2010 and all the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
CC No. 15/2012 CBI Vs. Amit Kr. Bajaj etc. Page 8 of 462.5 Accused Deepak Kumar, however, died during the trial and proceedings qua him stood abated vide order dated 25.07.2012.
WITNESSES FOR PROSECUTION 3.0 Prosecution was directed to adduce evidence and has examined 34 witnesses.
3.1 Witnesses can be classified as under:-
OFFICIALS RELATED TO CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA PW2 Sh. Ram Pada Mishra (Manager, Safdarjang Enclave Branch from 2001 to 2004). PW12 Sh. S.S. Sheokhand (Senior Manager of Safdarjang Enclave Branch during 2007-2008).
PW15 Sh. A.K. Dass (Enquiry officer in connection with departmental proceedings) PW16 Sh. Girish Prabhakar Chitnis (Sanctioning Authority) PW17 Sh. Ravinder Kumar Khanna (Complainant) PW31 Sh. Parmod Sharma (Cash Teller Operator, Safdarjang Enclave Branch from 2002 to 2007) OTHER BANK OFFICIAL AND POSTMEN PW1 Avtar Singh, Punjab & Sind Bank.
PW3 Amit Kumar Sharma.
PW4 Sh. Subhash Chand.
PW10 Smt. Babli Devi.
WITNESSES FOR PROVING ELEMENT OF FORGERY PW5 Sh. Raj Chawla, Chartered Accountant PW6 Sh. Sanjay Gupta, Associate of Raj Chawla PW8 Sh. Yogesh Pachori, Panel Advocate CC No. 15/2012 CBI Vs. Amit Kr. Bajaj etc. Page 9 of 46 PW9 Sh. Yogesh Kumar Tiwari, Associate of A-2 PW11 Sh. Amit Bawa, in connection with property of E-34 GK Enclave-II PW13 Sh. Birender Prasad, Valuer PW14 Sh. Kartar Singh, in connection with property no. 630 of Tikri Kalan PW18 Sh. Pawan Kumar, to prove death of accused Animesh PW19 Sh. Chaturbhuj Shukla, in connection with property of E-34 GK Enclave-II PW20 Sh. Sanjay Tyagi, for proving forgery in sale deed PW21 Sh. Hoshiyar Singh, in connection with property no. 1178 of Tikri Kalan PW22 Sh. Satpal Singh, in connection with property of Kamruddin Nagar PW23 Smt. Nirmal Kanta, for proving forgery PW24 Sh. Jai Singh Dass, in connection with property no. 1178 of Tikri Kalan PW25 Sh. R.K. Nanda, for proving forgery PW26 Sh. Jagat Singh Chauhan, in connection with property of E-34 GK Enclave-II PW27 Sh. Raghuvendra Singh, in connection with property of E-34 GK Enclave-II PW34 Sh. P.K. Dabas, Sub Registrar, Janakpuri.
PRIVATE WITNESSES PW7 Sh. Abhay Singh. Employee of M/s Marathon India Ltd. PW30 Sh. Anurag Dubey, friend of A-3 WITNESSES RELATED TO INVESTIGATION PW28 Sh. P.C. Mishra, member of search team PW29 Sh. S.S. Atwal, CBI official PW32 Insp. Virender Kumar, Investigating Officer PW33 Sh. T. Joshi, GEQD STATEMENTS OF ACCUSED AND DEFENCE WITNESSES 4.0 All the accused in their respective statement u/s 313 Cr. PC pleaded innocence.
CC No. 15/2012 CBI Vs. Amit Kr. Bajaj etc. Page 10 of 464.1 Accused R.K. Mehta claimed that loan and advance department was being handled by Sh. R. P. Dadeech, Senior Manager and PW2 Sh. R. P. Mishra, Manager. After the transfer of Sh. Dadeech, Sh. O. B. Srivastava was controlling the overdraft department and according to him the loan application(s) used to be accepted by Sh. R.P. Dadeech who used to obtain Legal Search Reports and used to evaluate the same personally. Similarly, after Mr. Dadeech, it was Sh. O.B. Srivastava who used to receive the loan application and used to obtain Legal Search Report and valuation report. He also claimed that he had prepared the Credit Status Reports only as per the instructions of his seniors. He specifically claimed that loan(s) had been processed on the basis of satisfactorily LSRs and valuation reports. According to him, he had followed the banking norms and banking instructions of his senior and that he had been falsely implicated.
4.2 As far as accused Harish Tiwari is concerned, he admitted that he was on the panel of the bank but according to him he did not visit the bank or did not handle the documents in question due to paucity of time and his one associate Surender Khosla used to visit the bank and he, in connivance with other persons, manipulated the reports without his knowledge and consent. He claimed that he was never called by the bank to explain his situation/stand and he was not even paid for any of the Legal Search Reports in question. He also claimed that he had requested CBI to obtain his handwriting and to send the same to G.E.Q.D. But CBI deliberately did not take send his specimen signatures and falsely implicated him in the present matter.
4.3 Accused R.P. Dadeech also pleaded innocence and claimed that he did not deviate from any banking norms and guidelines and rather all the circulars of the bank were followed. He also simultaneously asserted that CC No. 15/2012 CBI Vs. Amit Kr. Bajaj etc. Page 11 of 46 he had relied upon the appraisal reports/recommendations of loan officer Sh. R.K. Mehta, LSRs given by panel advocate, valuation reports and the self attested documents given by the borrowers.
4.4 Accused Chand Rani @ Afroz Begum claimed that she has been falsely implicated in the matter. She also expressed astonishment as to why her name was shown as Chand Rani. According to her, her name was Afroz Begum and she did not have any connection with any of the loan account and she did not know any of the borrower or bank official in question. She, however, uttered that one Radhey Shyam Kapoor had taken her photograph on the pretext that some job would be arranged for her and perhaps such Mr. Kapoor had misused her photograph and was responsible for entangling her in the present matter.
4.5 None of accused, who are facing trial, desired to lead evidence in defence.
RIVAL CONTENTIONS 5.0 Ld. Prosecutor has contended that CBI has been able to prove its case to the hilt. It has been claimed that in view of the testimony led by the prosecution, it amply stands proved that false and forged documents were submitted by the borrowers with evidence dishonest intention to cheat the bank. Credit facility was obtained under Cent Trade Scheme and all the account(s) turned NPA. Loan facilities were used mischievously for other purposes and the amount was pocketed by these borrowers and, thereby, there was wrongful loss to the bank. It has been claimed that Sh. R. K. Mehta had knowingly accepted the false documents and gave incorrect pre- sanction reports falsely claiming therein that the performance of the firm(s) CC No. 15/2012 CBI Vs. Amit Kr. Bajaj etc. Page 12 of 46 were satisfactory and it was only on the basis of his recommendation that the loans had been sanctioned. Ms. Sharma has contended that A-3 Dadeech was also equally liable and both these bank officials entered into conspiracy with accused Harish Tiwari and obtained false LSRs from him. She has asserted that both the bank officials had knowingly accepted forged documents and accused Chand Rani has also assisted in preparation of such forged documents.
5.1 Sh. Ohri learned defence counsel has addressed arguments on behalf of accused Harish Tiwari. A-2 happens to be legal practitioner and was on the panel of the bank. It has been argued that he has been falsely implicated in the present case and there is not even an iota of evidence suggesting his involvement or association in any manner whatsoever. It has been argued that his one associate had committed all such illegal acts and signed as Harish Tiwari and he had not given any such LSR at all.
5.2 It has also been contended that there is no material showing Harish Tiwari to be part of any conspiracy or suggesting that he was beneficiary in any manner whatsoever. Lastly, it has been asserted that even if it is assumed that false LSR had been given by an advocate, it would not, in itself, be sufficient to infer that he had any malafide intention or that he was a co-conspirator. Reliance has been placed upon two judgments on this score which I would advert to at appropriate place.
5.3 Sh. Singh has defended A-3 R.K. Mehta and his prime contention is that Sh. Mehta was Assistant Manager and was not associated with the loans and advances at all and was instructed to work as an in-charge of saving department, DD issue department, pay order and scroll which used CC No. 15/2012 CBI Vs. Amit Kr. Bajaj etc. Page 13 of 46 to consume his whole of the day. He admitted that appraisal had been prepared by Sh. Mehta but that was as per the instructions of his seniors. It has also been claimed that there was no laches on the part of accused Mr. Mehta and he did his best and it was not possible for any other person of reasonable prudence to have detected any forgery more so when LSR had been received from panel lawyer. It has also claimed that there is no material on record suggesting that accused R. K. Mehta had accepted any gratification or that had indulged in any corrupt practice and merely because he had prepared appraisal notes, he cannot be hauled up because the account(s) ultimately turned NPA.
5.4 Sh. Singh has also defended accused Chand Rani and it has been argued that there is nothing to suggest that she was part of any conspiracy. According to him, except for the fact that somehow photograph of Chand Rani is appearing on one sale deed, there is no other allegation against her. It has also been argued that even otherwise the report of GEQD also completely exonerates her.
5.5 As far as A-5 R.P. Dadeech is concerned, it has been argued that he has been falsely implicated. Written submissions have also been filed by him. It has also been orally argued that he was not part of any conspiracy and did not deviate from any banking norms, guideline or circular. It has also been argued that he did his job with utmost sincerity and there is nothing on record to show that he had given any undue favour to any borrower or derived any pecuniary advantage from any of the four borrowers.
CC No. 15/2012 CBI Vs. Amit Kr. Bajaj etc. Page 14 of 46EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE 6.0 I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions and carefully scrutinized the entire testimony and the documents on record.
6.1 A-5 was posted as Assistant Manager at the relevant time. He joined Safdarjang Enclave Branch in the end of year 2002. PW2 Sh. Ramapada Mishra remained posted as Manager, Safdarjang Enclave Branch from May 2001 to May 2004. Sh. Mishra was holding No.2 position in the branch. A-3 R.P. Dadeech was, at that time, Senior Manager and was the senior most official of the Branch.
6.2 In the present case, there are four different loan accounts and loan was advanced under Cent Trade Scheme to M/s R.P. Textiles and M/s S.S. Enterprises. As far as M/s Magnet Restaurant is concerned, it was cash credit and term loan and as regards the account of Mr. Narender Kumar and Ms. Vaneeta Kumar, loan was under Cent Mortgage Scheme.
6.3 Let me first refer to the various documents submitted by said three borrowers.
M/S R.P. TEXTILES 7.0 M/s R.P. Textiles had prayed for loan/advance under Cent Trade Scheme. It requested for OD limit of Rs.20 lacs. All the documents related to said loan account are contained in D8. Application moved by A-1 and deceased accused Animesh Bhattacharya has been proved as Ex. PW2/K. Fact, however, remains that such application is found to be signed by A-1 only. It does not contain signatures of other accused i.e. Animesh Bhattacharya. A-1 also submitted audited balance sheets and trading and CC No. 15/2012 CBI Vs. Amit Kr. Bajaj etc. Page 15 of 46 profit and loss account for various previous years. These were allegedly found audited by M/s Raj Chawla & Associates and were bearing signatures of Sh. Raj Chawla. A6 Tanuj Kumar stood as guarantor and property bearing No. E 34, Greater Kailash Enclave-II was offered as security. Sh. A. Bhattacharya claimed himself to be the owner of such property. The property was valued as Rs.68 lacs approximately as per the valuation report of M/s Sumit Mathur & Associates.
7.1 Pre sanction inspection report, prepared by A-5, has been proved as Ex. PW2/A. As per such report, Sh. Mehta had visited the property offered as security on 05.04.2003 and in the remarks column, he used word "satisfactory". Thereafter, Mr. Mehta prepared process-cum-appraisal note which has been proved as Ex. PW2/A2 and he recommended OD limit of Rs. 20 lacs under Cent Trade Scheme on usual terms and conditions plus guarantee of accused Tanuj Kumar. On the basis of such recommendation, A-3 recommended loan and such sanction has been proved as Ex. PW2/A3.
7.2 Various credit status reports were also prepared by Sh. Mehta and these have also been proved. Reference be made to Ex. PW2/A1, Ex. PW2/A4, Ex. PW2/A5 and Ex. PW2/A6.
7.3 Equitable mortgage was created on 08.04.2003 and the recital thereof is contained in Ex. PW2/E (D41). Such equitable mortgage was created by PW2 Sh. Ram Pada Mishra. Valuation report given by M/s Sumit Mathur & Associates is found contained in D-8. It is signed by Sh. Triloki Nath Mathur and the valuation is based on actual site inspection and the information supplied by the owners and according to Sh. Mathur, the value of such property, under distress sale, would be approximately of Rs.68 lacs. Naturally, the worth of the property was much more as the OD limit sought CC No. 15/2012 CBI Vs. Amit Kr. Bajaj etc. Page 16 of 46 was only of Rs.20 lacs.
7.4 LSR was given by A-2 Sh. Harish Tiwari and such LSR has been proved as Ex. PW31/Z15. It is dated 05.04.2003 and as per the contents of the report, Sh. Tiwari had visited the office of the Sub Registrar at Mehrauli and at Asaf Ali Road to conduct the search and inspect the relevant documents. He also observed that since there was a conveyance deed in respect of such property i.e. E 34, Greater Kailash Enclave-II in favour of Sh. A. Bhattacharya, such property could be equitably mortgaged in favour of the bank.
M/S MAGNET RESTAURANT 8.0 M/s Magnet Restaurant applied for credit facilities and relevant documents are contained in D-16.
8.1 Application has been proved as Ex. PW2/Z1 which is signed by A-6 Tanuj Kumar. He happened to be the partner along with his father i.e. A-7 Narender Kumar. Loan was taken for setting up of restaurant in Gurgaon and it was claimed that the promoters of the restaurant were being in the business for the last 25 years and had acquired enough experience to run restaurant. Such application was, however, signed by A-6 Tanuj Kumar alone. A-8 Rajender Goyal stood guarantor. A-8 Rajender Goyal also claimed himself to be the owner of built up property situated in Khasra No.5 measuring 430 square yards situated at village Kamruddin Nagar, Nangloi, New Delhi and worth of such property was claimed as Rs.68 lacs approximately. Copy of sale deed was also furnished.
8.2 Pre sanction report prepared by Sh. Mehta has been proved as Ex. PW2/Z2. Such report is dated 28.06.2003 which also reflects that same CC No. 15/2012 CBI Vs. Amit Kr. Bajaj etc. Page 17 of 46 day, A-5 had also visited said property of Kamruddin Nagar and found everything to be satisfactory.
8.3 Following credit status reports have also been proved by the prosecution:-
Sl. Credit status report of Exhibit No.
No.
1 Accused Narender Kumar Ex. PW2/Z3
2 Accused Tanuj Kumar Ex. PW2/Z4
3 Accused Rajesh Kumar Ex. PW2/Z5
4 Accused Rajender Kumar Ex. PW2/Z6
8.4 Process note prepared by A-5 has been proved as Ex. PW2/Z7
and it was also mentioned in the process note that one of the borrowers i.e. accused Narender Kumar had also availed another loan under Cent Mortgage Scheme from the same bank on 14.05.2003 in which he was co-borrower with his wife Ms. Vaneeta Kumar. It will be also important to mention here that besides the aforesaid property of Kamruddin Nagar, another property measuring 2000 square yards situated in Khasra No.630, Tikri Kalan which belonged to accused Narender Kumar and which had already been mortgaged by accused Narender Kumar and the said joint loan account was also taken as additional collateral security with respect to the present loan of M/s Magnet Restaurant.
8.5 Sanction letter was issued by A-3 R.P. Dadeech and such letter dated 11.08.2003 has been proved as Ex. PW2/Z8 and term loan for Rs.33 lacs, working capital limit of Rs.2 lacs and bank guarantee limit of Rs. one lac was accordingly sanctioned and the entire fixed assets such as air conditioning system, lighting, electrical fittings, furniture, kitchen equipments, computers, music system etc besides the raw material were taken as CC No. 15/2012 CBI Vs. Amit Kr. Bajaj etc. Page 18 of 46 hypothecated to the bank. The borrower was also required to submit stock statement every month and to submit insurance policy as well. It is also not in dispute that such insurance policies were submitted by the borrower. One cover note of such policy issued by Oriental Insurance Company having sum ensured of Rs.11 lacs with respect to stock of food, raw material etc is found to be on bank record. Similarly, one more cover note issued by New India Insurance Company Ltd for total sum ensured amount of Rs.50 lacs on kitchen equipments, electrical fittings etc was also submitted to the bank. Both such cover notes are found contained in D-16.
8.6 Admittedly, such loan had been given for a specific purpose i.e. for setting up of restaurant and the entire chunk of the payment was to be made in the name of M/s Random Developers through account payee cheques. There was no self withdrawal at all and the facility was to be released in the name of said firm M/s Random Developers which was supposed to develop restaurant for the borrowers.
8.7 LSR was given by A-2. It contains signatures of accused Harish Tiwari from Q48 to Q59. His such LSR dated 14.07.2003 has been proved as Ex. PW2/Z9. It pertains to the property situated in Kamruddin Nagar and Sh. Tiwari evaluated all the documents by visiting the office of Sub Registrar at Janak Puri and then opined that the title was perfect for the purposes of creating of equitable mortgage. He also found that such property was earlier in the name of Satpal Singh and Sh. Satpal Singh sold such property to Sh. S.C. Gupta and then Sh. S.C. Gupta sold the same to accused Rajender Goyal vide sale deed dated 03.12.1992.
8.8 Valuation report of said property has been given by Sh. Rameshwar Dayal of M/s Saxena & Associates. Such report is at page no.
CC No. 15/2012 CBI Vs. Amit Kr. Bajaj etc. Page 19 of 46695 of D-16 and according to such report dated 04.07.2003, the market value of such property was Rs.68,70,200/-.
M/S S.S. ENTERPRISES 9.0 All the relevant documents pertaining to M/s S.S. Enterprises are contained in D-17. Some of the documents related to title deeds are also contained in D-16.
9.1 Application moved by M/s S.S. Enterprises through its proprietor i.e. accused Rajesh Kumar A-9 has been proved as Ex. PW2/Q and such firm prayed for finance under Cent Trade Scheme and sought OD limit of Rs.15 lacs. Audit report of M/s Raj Chawla & Associates having signatures of Raj Chawla were also furnished.
9.2 Process note prepared by Sh. Mehta has been proved as Ex. PW2/R and A5 R.K. Mehta recommended OD limit of Rs.15 lacs which was eventually sanctioned by A-2 R.P. Dadeech.
9.3 Legal Search Report given by Harish Tiwari has been proved as Ex. PW31/Z16. Such report is dated 04.09.2003 and bears signatures of accused Harish Tiwari form Q37 to Q47 and he claimed to have visited the office of Sub Registrar at Janak Puri and conducted search and inspected the record and found that the sale deed dated 30.10.2000 executed by accused Chand Rani in favour of accused Rajesh Kumar was genuine document and that property could be mortgaged with the bank. Such property was measuring 1500 square feet and was situated in Khasra No.1178, Tikri Kalan, New Delhi.
CC No. 15/2012 CBI Vs. Amit Kr. Bajaj etc. Page 20 of 469.4 It will not be out of place to mention here that with respect to said facility, accused Rajesh Kumar had claimed himself to be the owner of said property of Tikri Kalan having purchased the same from accused Chand Rani. Sale deed executed by accused Chand Rani in favour Rajesh Kumar has been proved as Ex. PW21/A (pages no. 529 to 535 of D16). Such sale deed is dated 30.10.2000 and bears signatures of seller Chand Rani portion Q337, Q338, Q338A, Q340. Her thumb impression are also found to be there.
9.5 Valuation report pertaining to said property situated in Khasra No. 1178 village Tikri Kalan, New Delhi has been given by Sh. Rameshwar Dayal on 03.09.2003 and according to him, he had visited said property and its value was Rs.45 lacs. It was an open plot and, therefore, the value of the land only was considered.
LOAN ACCOUNT OF ACCUSED NARENDER KUMAR AND MS. VANEETA KUMAR 10.0 D-18 contains all such relevant documents pertaining to aforesaid loan account. As already noticed above, this loan was sought under Cent Mortgage Scheme which was comparatively softer in nature. Loan application has been proved as Ex. PW2/T. It is dated 25.04.2003 and the loan amount of Rs.8 lacs was sought for business expansion. It is found to be signed by both the borrowers i.e. A-7 Narender Kumar and A-11 Vaneeta Kumar. It has already been noticed above that Sh. Narender Kumar had offered his property situated in Khasra No.630, village Tikri Kalan as security.
10.1 Pre sanction inspection report dated 30.04.2003 prepared by A-5 has been proved as Ex. PW2/U and Sh. Mehta had visited the property CC No. 15/2012 CBI Vs. Amit Kr. Bajaj etc. Page 21 of 46 and accorded his satisfaction. Process note has been proved as Ex. PW2/Y. It was prepared by A-5 on 13.05.2003 and same day the loan was sanctioned by A-3. Financial report/credit status report have been proved as under:-
Sl. No. Credit status report of Exhibit No.
1 Accused Amit Kumar Ex. PW2/X
2 Accused Ms. Vaneeta Kumar Ex. PW2/W
3 Accused Narender Kumar Ex. PW2/V
10.2 LSR given by A-2 Harish Tiwari has been proved as Ex.
PW31/Z17. It is dated 06.05.2003. It has also been exhibited as Ex.
PW2/Z12. Such report bears signatures of accused Harish Tiwari from Q94 to Q101 and as per such report, accused Harish Tiwari had visited the office of Sub Registrar at Janak Puri and had seen the sale deed dated 01.06.2000 and observed that Kartar Singh son of Net Ram had sold said property situated in Khasra No. 630, village Tikri Kalan in favour of accused Narender Kumar.
10.3 Valuation report given by one Sh. B.P. Singh has been proved as Ex. PW13/A. He is government approved valuer and as per his report dated 10.05.2003, he found the value of said plot as Rs.60 lacs. It will be important to mention here that PW13 Sh. B.P. Singh denied giving any such report or signing any such valuation report. He labelled such report as a forged document.
CC No. 15/2012 CBI Vs. Amit Kr. Bajaj etc. Page 22 of 46ROLE & INVOLVEMENT OF PUBLIC SERVANTS 11.0 Let me weigh up whether accused A-3 R.P. Dadeech and A-5 R.K. Mehta have committed any act of criminal misconduct or whether they are party to any criminal conspiracy.
11.1 It is very much apparent that A-3, Senior Manager was the senior most official in the Branch. PW2 Sh. Ramapada Mishra, Manager was second man and A-5, being Assistant Manager was third in command.
11.2 Central Bank of India had come up with Cent Trade Scheme and various facets of such scheme have been echoed by PW12 Sh. S.S. Sheokhand who was also posted as Senior Manager in the same Branch from May 2007 to May 2008. Facility used to be provided to the traders, retailers, commission agents under such scheme and any borrower was under obligation to deal with such bank exclusively as long as such facility was enjoyed by the borrower. Manner of monitoring was through credit and debit submissions. Overall delegated lending power of a Senior Manager was Rs. 50 lacs and financial papers were also required to be seen before grant of loan and the property, sought to be mortgaged, was also required to be physically verified and bank also was required to seek legal search report from the advocate and valuation report from the valuer. Basis of sanction of loan was the projected financial statement and the value of security.
11.3 There does not seem to be any dispute with respect to the aforesaid fact. As per such scheme, bank was required to collect following details at the time of processing of such application:-
(i) Application form.
(ii) Financial statements (if available).
CC No. 15/2012 CBI Vs. Amit Kr. Bajaj etc. Page 23 of 46
(iii) Copy of Sales Tax Registration.
(iv) Copies of Sale Tax Return/Assessment orders for last
four quarters.
(v) Details of property offered as security with valuation
report from Approved Valuer.
(vi) Credit report from previous banker/mortgage report.
11.4 It is already noticed above that advance/facility under Cent
Trade Scheme was extended in the two accounts only i.e. in the accounts of M/s R.P. Textiles and M/s S.S. Enterprises. With respect to the account of 'Narender Kumar and Ms. Vaneeta Kumar', the loan was under Cent Mortgage Scheme. Such scheme was milder in terms vis-a-vis Cent Trade Scheme.
11.5 Loan was processed by A-5 but eventually it was sanctioned by A-3. They both also do not dispute such fact and their signing and preparing relevant documents. PW31 Pramod Kumar Sharma remained posted in Safdarjang Enclave branch as Computer Teller Operator (CTO) and it will be important to mention here that during time of recording of testimony of PW31 Pramod Kumar Sharma, both the bank officials-accused, categorically stated that they did not dispute their handwriting and signatures on any of the bank documents.
11.6 PW17 Sh. Ravinder Kumar Khanna happens to be very material witness of the prosecution. In fact, the investigation had taken off on the basis of his complaint. A careful perusal of the record indicates that there are two separate complaints. First such complaint is dated 08.11.2004 and has been proved as Ex. PW17/A1. It is running into 17 pages and bears signatures of R.K. Khanna at point A on the last page. Such complaint is CC No. 15/2012 CBI Vs. Amit Kr. Bajaj etc. Page 24 of 46 addressed to Sh. Alok Mittal, SP, EOW, CBI. His second complaint dated 06.05.2005 has been proved as Ex. PW17/A. It is addressed to D.K. Chaudhary, SP, EOW-II, CBI. This witness was questioned as to why there were two separate complaints and he answered that the CBI had asked him to give a fresh complaint on the same lines and, therefore, he had given a second complaint which was otherwise similar in nature. I also do not find much difference between the two complaints but there was, truly speaking, no requirement of having another complaint from Sh. R.K. Khanna. It would be, however, very important to mention here that even as per the aforesaid two complaints filed by Sh. R.K. Khanna, the accusing finger pointed the borrowers and two bank officials i.e. A-3 R.P. Dadeech and O.B. Srivastava, his successor only. It was categorically mentioned in the complaint that all such borrowers and said aforesaid two Senior Managers had caused wrongful loss to the bank and wrongful gain to themselves. Thus, even as per the complaint bank, there was no involvement of A-5.
11.7 A-5 has claimed that he had been instructed to prepare the loan appraisal and he prepared the same as per the dictums of A-3. According to him, he only obeyed the commands of his senior and prepared the reports as per the whims and fancies of A-3. A-5 has also placed reliance on circulars to drive home the point that he was under obligation to obey his superiors. He also claimed that he was burdened with extra work-load as he was handling Saving Department and related matters, DD issue department / DD paid department, Deceased accounts (saving), Inoperative accounts (saving), attending the customer queries for saving accounts, to check the ALPM generated sheets by the clerk manually with the whole day work and any other work allotted to him by the senior officers. He gave vivid description of the work undertaken by him in connection with the accounts in question. PW2 Mr. Mishra also admitted in his cross examination that there was no exclusive CC No. 15/2012 CBI Vs. Amit Kr. Bajaj etc. Page 25 of 46 loan department in bank at the relevant time and A5 was assigned the duty to deal with the loan files besides other work.Fact, however, remains that Mr. Mehta cannot be permitted to take shelter behind his being over-burdened or that he had no option to bow down to his boss. I would rather hasten to add that during the trial, I found A-5 to be intelligent enough. He definitely was not a gullible man who could have succumbed to any sort of pressure coming from his superiors or could be be-fooled by anyone. I am, therefore, not ready to accept that he had prepared the appraisal notes merely at the asking of his superiors.
11.8 However, criminality does not lie in preparing the appraisal reports. It is to be seen whether he deliberately accepted any forged or false document. It is to be seen whether he had obtained the report of panel advocate and valuation report only name sake knowing fully well that such reports were erroneous and flawed. It is also to be seen whether he had pocketed any pecuniary advantage of any sort whatsoever.
11.9 PW2 Ram Pada Mishra is an important bank official. He is senior to A-5 but junior to A-3. He remained posted as Manager in said branch of Safdarjang Enclave from May 2001 to May 2004. Since he worked along with A-3 and A-5, he is conversant with their handwriting and signatures and has also identified the same on the relevant documents. He also deposed that M/s T. Harish & Associates was on the panel of the bank. He also briefly described about the various terms and conditions related to 'Cent Trade Scheme' and 'Cent Mortgage Scheme' supplementing that immovable property used to be the prime security in both the Schemes.
CC No. 15/2012 CBI Vs. Amit Kr. Bajaj etc. Page 26 of 4611.10 It is also important to mention that equitable mortgage was eventually created by PW2 Sh. R.P. Mishra. Entries appearing in recital register of have been proved as under:-
Sl. Name of the loan account Description of property Document & Exhibit Date of No. No. creation of equitable mortgage 1 M/s R.P. Textiles E 34, Greater Kailash Ex PW2/B (D-8) 08.04.2003 Enclave-II, New Delhi Ex.PW2/E (D41) 2 M/s S.S. Enterprises Property situated in Ex.PW2/C (D-39) 08.09.2003 Khasra No. 1178 measuring 1500 square feet, village Tikri Kalan 3 M/s Magnet Restaurant Khasra No. 5 village Ex. PW2/D (D40) 14.08.2003 Kamruddin Nagar, Nangloi, Delhi 4 Narender Kumar & Khasra No. 630, village Ex.PW2/F (D-42) 14.05.2003 Vaneeta Kumar Tikri Kalan, Delhi 11.11 It is not in dispute that such equitable mortgage was created by PW2 R.P. Mishra and the property documents were eventually retained on record by him at the time of creation of equitable mortgage.
11.12 I have carefully seen the examination-in-chief of PW2 R.P. Mishra. He has deposed about the various documents executed in connection with the aforesaid four loan accounts. He has also deposed about the preparation of appraisal notes and the sanction and disbursement of the loan(s). He has also identified the signatures of both concerned bank officials but surprisingly, he has not uttered even a single word about any sort of illegality or deviation from the standard norms or guidelines by any of the aforesaid two accused-bank officials. Except for proving the documents, PW2 CC No. 15/2012 CBI Vs. Amit Kr. Bajaj etc. Page 27 of 46 R.P. Mishra has done virtually nothing. It was expected that he would have at least apprised the court as to what went wrong and where.
11.13 PW17 Sh. R.K. Khanna, complainant has also nowhere come up with any specific assertion against either of the two bank officials. He has also not been able to highlight as to what irregularity or illegality had been committed by them, if any? Rather in his cross examination, he categorically admitted that if LSR was positive and favourable then such mortgaged property used to be accepted.
11.14 Testimony of PW3 Mr. Sharma also does not take us anywhere as he categorically deposed in his cross examination that he could not comment about any irregularity in loan account as he was not dealing with the loan department and his role was limited to savings. He also admitted that there was shortage of staff in their branch. He also claimed that he had no knowledge about Cent Trade Scheme.
11.15 PW12 Sh. S.S. Sheokhand remained posted as Senior Manager in the same branch though during subsequent period i.e. from May 2007 to May 2008. He also deposed about the various facets of Cent Trade Scheme but again, nowhere did he whisper about any irregularity or omission on the part of any of the aforesaid two bank officials facing trial at the moment? His deposition also indicates that in Cent Trade Scheme, if the property was in the name of borrower, there was no requirement of having any additional guarantee. It becomes important because in the present case, though the property was allegedly in the name of the borrower yet the bank officials had also, as an additional safeguard, obtained guarantee. If the bank officials were acting in any connivance with the borrowers or if they were acting in detriment to the interest of the bank, they would not have insisted for any CC No. 15/2012 CBI Vs. Amit Kr. Bajaj etc. Page 28 of 46 additional guarantee. PW12 S.S. Sheokhand also admitted that there was no designated post of loan officer in the bank.
11.16 PW16 Girish Kumar Chitnis happened to be the sanctioning authority. He had accorded sanction for prosecution of A-5. He admitted in his cross examination that it was the responsibility of the branch manager to closely supervise and control accounts after the loan had been sanctioned.
He also admitted that he had gone through the complaint (D2) which was against 10 banks and against two bank officials namely R.P. Dadeech and O.B. Srivastava. He has proved his sanction order as Ex. PW16/A. According to him, property which was proposed to be mortgaged with the bank did not belong to the parties concerned and A-5 abused his official powers and permitted the parties to avail the bank loans against forged documents. This remains to be seen and tested. It is to be assessed whether bank officials had knowingly and designedly permitted the borrowers to place on record forged papers.
11.17 With respect to all the four accounts in question, the requisite documents, including audited balance sheets, had been furnished by the borrowers. The bank had obtained legal search reports from the panel advocate and also valuation report from the approved valuers.
11.18 No bank-man could have gathered any sort of doubt with respect to such documents furnished by the borrowers. Even microscopic eyes could not have suggested that such financial documents, purportedly signed by Sh. Raj Chawla, Chartered Accountant, were forged. Moreover, there was no circular or bank guidelines that these documents were required to be cross-checked from the concerned Chartered Accountant. Thus, even if it is assumed for a moment that there was some sort of defect in the audited CC No. 15/2012 CBI Vs. Amit Kr. Bajaj etc. Page 29 of 46 reports of Chartered Accountant, any person, in the place of accused R.K. Mehta, would have done the same if not less and would have prepared the appraisal notes in similar way.
11.19 It is noticed that Loan Processing Officer had not accepted the applications on their face value and did not prepare the appraisal notes merely on the basis of the applications. LSRs from panel advocate and valuation reports from the approved valuers were also sought. These reports did not at all reveal that there was anything fishy with respect to the properties sought to be mortgaged with the bank.
11.20 When title documents are furnished by any borrower, the bank officials are not always in a position to comment upon the authenticity of same from mere glance and in order to establish the genuineness of such documents, therefore, there is a system of obtaining Legal Scrutiny Report or Legal Search Report. Such report is given by an advocate who is on the panel of the bank. Sh. Harish Tiwari was not hand-picked by A-3 or A-5. Accused Harish Tiwari was on the panel of the bank and such panel is rather approved by Circle Office or Head Office. Even otherwise it is not the case of prosecution that accused A-3 and A-5 had chosen an advocate whose name was not on the panel of the bank.
11.21 In the present matter, as already noted above, LSRs were obtained. Accused Harish Tiwari, Advocate, as per these LSRs, had scrutinized all the documents and opined that equitable mortgage could be created as all such properties were free from all sorts of encumbrances, mortgage, charge etc. His reports clearly suggested that he had personally visited the concerned offices of Sub-Registrar and that he had personally scrutinized the relevant documents.
CC No. 15/2012 CBI Vs. Amit Kr. Bajaj etc. Page 30 of 4611.22 Thus the applications, in all the four accounts, were before A-5. Full description of the immovable properties had also been provided by the borrowers. he even physically inspected all the properties. It's not the case of CBI that these addresses were wrong or non-existent. All the necessary documents were also placed before the bank. It was practically impossible for anyone to detect any forgery or fraud by naked eyes from such documents. Title documents were required to be correlated and cross-checked with the official record and the panel advocate, who had been hired for such exclusive purpose, confirmed the correctness of the same.
11.23 It is also important to mention that PW2 Sh. R.P. Mishra had been examined in the connected bearing CC No. 13/2011 CBI Vs. Mahender Tandon etc. in which he had categorically deposed that there was no other way for verification of the property except through physical verification or through panel advocate/valuer. He also admitted that there was no guideline insisting for certified copies of the title documents from the office of Sub- Registrar before disbursing or sanctioning the loan. So much so, in that case, he deposed that if the reports of panel advocate and panel valuer were positive then such reports coupled with the physical inspection was sufficient for the Branch Manager to believe the genuineness of the title and Branch Manager was well within his discretion to sanction and disburse the loan.
11.24 Details of LSRs and valuation reports furnished in all the said four accounts are as under:-
Sl. Name of account LSR given by accused Valuation Report No. Harish Tiwari 1 M/s R.P. Textiles Ex. PW31/Z15( D-8) (D No.8, page 395 to 405) Dated 5.4.2003 Given by Triloki Nath Mathur on 4.4.2003 (Un-exhibited and unproved) 2 M/s Magnet Restaurant Ex. PW2/Z9 (D-16) (D No.16, page 695 to 703) CC No. 15/2012 CBI Vs. Amit Kr. Bajaj etc. Page 31 of 46 Dated 14.7.2003 Given by Rameshwar Dayal of M/s Saxena & Associates on 4.7.2003 (Un-exhibited and unproved) 3 M/s S.S. Enterprises Ex. PW31/Z16 (D-17) (D No.17, page 247 to 257) Dated 4.9.2003 Given by Rameshwar Dayal of M/s Saxena & Associates on 3.9.2003 (Un-exhibited and unproved) 4 Narender Kumar & Ms. Ex. PW31/Z17 (D-18) Ex. PW13/A Vaneeta Kumar Dated 6.5.2003 D No. 18, page 183 to 193 Given by B.P. Singh on 10.5.2003 11.25 I have carefully perused all the documents furnished by the borrowers. I have also very carefully seen all the aforesaid LSRs and valuation reports. In view of the same coupled with the physical inspection of the properties, it would have been next to impossible for any bank official to have detected or smelt any forgery 11.26 PW5 Sh. Raj Chawla, Chartered Accountant has graced the witness box. I have seen his testimony and undoubtedly he has deposed that he had never given any audit report in connection with the accounts of M/s R.P. Textiles, M/s S.S. Enterprises and M/s Magnet Restaurant. He claimed that he was having his office at 204, Wadhwa Complex, D288/10, Laxmi Nagar and never had his office or practiced from 246/10, Laxmi Nagar. He also claimed that he did not know the alleged properties/partners of the borrower firms. Fact, however, remains that during the relevant period, there was no mechanism for cross checking such audit reports from the concerned Chartered Accountants. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any lapse on the part of any of the bank official. As per the prevalent practice, these audit reports were accepted as per their face value.CC No. 15/2012 CBI Vs. Amit Kr. Bajaj etc. Page 32 of 46
11.27 PW15 Sh. A.K. Das Gupta had been appointed as Enquiry Officer with respect to the disciplinary proceedings against accused R.P. Dadeech and O.B. Srivastava. He conducted enquiry and submitted his report. His enquiry report is not part of the relied upon documents. Fact, however, remains that during his cross examination, A-3 R.P. Dadeech himself produced one copy of such enquiry report and such report was shown to Sh. A.K. Das Gupta and he admitted the same to the correct copy. Such enquiry report has been exhibited as Ex. PW15/DA.
11.28 I have seen the same. As regards the account of M/s Magnet Restaurant and account of 'Narender Kumar and Ms. Vaneeta Kumar', the charges were not proved at all. Though the title deed was found to be fake with respect to the aforesaid two accounts, yet it was held in the Departmental Enquiry that no connivance or indulgence of R.P. Dadeech was proved in any way. It was also observed that as regards the account of Narender Kumar and Ms. Vaneeta Kumar, the branch had even written letter to the Sub Registrar concerned for recording bank charge of the property.
11.29 However, as regards the account of M/s R.P. Textiles, the charge was proved holding that Sh. R.P. Dadeech has transgressed his powers and exceeded his limits applying principle of group concept. It was also observed that haste was shown in sanctioning the limit. Here, situation is different. No prosecution witness has made even a whisper about the principle of group concept. No one has claimed that sanction was accorded with undue haste.
Moreover, as already noticed above, concerned bank officials who have appeared as prosecution witnesses, have not even attempted to elaborate about any irregularity, lapses or omission on the part of bank officials.
CC No. 15/2012 CBI Vs. Amit Kr. Bajaj etc. Page 33 of 4611.30 Be that as it may, fact remains that Standard of proof required to establish any criminal case is far higher than the standard of proof required to establish guilt in departmental proceedings and, therefore, such observation appearing in departmental proceedings cannot be kept aloof and detached and has to be given due credence.
11.31 Prosecution has strongly relied upon one fact of recovery of blank cheque from the house search of A-3. As per charge sheet, accused Amit Kumar had issued cheques in favour of one Anurag Dubey. These cheques were drawn from the account of M/s R.P. Textiles. As per Ld. Prosecutor, there were dealings between accused R.P. Dadeech and Anurag Dubey and R.P. Dadeech had purchased a flat from Anurag Dubey and when the house of accused R.P. Dadeech was searched one blank cheque signed by Anurag Dubey had been recovered and accused R.P. Dadeech could not given any satisfactory explanation and such fact clearly establishes that A-5 had obtained pecuniary advantage.
11.32 PW30 Sh. Anurag Dubey has graced the witness box but, unfortunately, he has not supported the case of prosecution. He admitted that he was director of M/s Marathon India Limited and his such company had opened an account with Johri Bazar branch of Jaipur of Central Bank of India and his such company had availed credit facilities from such branch of Jaipur. He also admitted that initially accused R.P. Dadeech was branch Manager in Jaipur branch. He, however, deposed that no favour was sought by him from R.P. Dadeech and even R.P. Dadeech had not done anything wrong. He admitted that R.P. Dadeech wanted to buy his flat but also supplemented that such deal did not eventually materialize and even the possession was not handed over to Sh. Dadeech. Since he was found resiling from his previous CC No. 15/2012 CBI Vs. Amit Kr. Bajaj etc. Page 34 of 46 statement, he was grilled by prosecution but despite his exhaustive cross examination, prosecution could not elicit anything from him which may even distantly favour the prosecution. He admitted that cheque Ex. PW12/A (D54) was a blank cheque which was bearing his signatures but he denied that such cheque was given to R.P. Dadeech so that R.P. Dadeech could show favour to him. He rather volunteered that in connection with loan account on some occasions, blank cheque used to be given to the bank official to ensure timely payment.
11.33 I have seen such blank cheque Ex. PW12/A (D54) and according to the case of prosecution, such blank cheque had been recovered from the house search of accused R.P. Dadeech. Such search memo has been proved as Ex. PW28/A (D22) and the inventory of the articles recovered from there has been proved as Ex. PW28/B. PW32 Virender Singh had deposed that aforesaid cheque Ex. PW12/A (D54) had been recovered in the house search of accused R.P. Dadeech. He also claimed that one more blank cheque i.e. Mark PW32/T was also recovered in such house search. Interestingly, such cheque Mark PW32/T was never part of the challan or relied upon documents. It was only during the recording of testimony of IO that he produced such cheque from his own file and placed the same. It was in these circumstances that such cheque was retained on record and was merely marked and not exhibited. Defence had also taken an objection regarding the exhibition of cheque. Such objection is naturally a valid one as no explanation, much less cogent one, has come forth from the side of prosecution as to why such cheque was not initially placed on record. Moreover, prosecution has not proved the cheque in the desired manner. No one has thrown light as to who was the signatory of such cheque.
CC No. 15/2012 CBI Vs. Amit Kr. Bajaj etc. Page 35 of 4611.34 I have also seen search list contained in D22 and somehow I have not been able to find the reference of these two cheques in such memo. If at all, these two cheques had been recovered during the search of the house of accused R.P. Dadeech, IO should have specifically mentioned about such fact in the search memo or inventory.
11.35 PW28 Sh. R.C. Mishra was member of such search team and he has also not made any reference about the recovery of any such cheque.
11.36 Be that as it may, even if it is assumed that any such blank cheque had been recovered from the house search of R.P. Dadeech, it would not by itself be of any real significance particularly in view of the hostile testimony of Anurag Dubey. More importantly, there is already a civil litigation between Anurag Dubey and R.P. Dadeech and despite such hostility between the two, Anurag Dubey has not spoken anything in favour of prosecution or against R.P. Dadeech.
11.37 Any act of misconduct does not automatically become an act of criminal misconduct as well. An act of misconduct remains in the realm of negligence and dereliction of duty alone whereas a criminal misconduct demonstrates malafide and dishonest intention. There is nothing to indicate that accused R.P. Dadeech and accused R.K. Mehta were acting in league with the borrowers. There is no material to suggest that they had obtained any pecuniary advantage or valuable security for themselves. There is nothing to indicate that they had indulged in any corrupt practices. There is nothing to indicate that they had abused or misused their official position. Even if they are found to be touch lax, such fact, by itself, would not make them accused or co-conspirators. I am, therefore, inclined to grant them benefit of doubt.
CC No. 15/2012 CBI Vs. Amit Kr. Bajaj etc. Page 36 of 46ROLE AND INVOLVEMENT OF HARISH TIWARI 12.0 As far as accused Harish Tiwari is concerned, as per CBI, he had given false Legal Search Reports in all the four matters and thereby persuaded the bank to release the facilities to the borrowers. These LSRs are as under:-
Sl. Name of account Exhibit Number and date of Alleged signatures of accused No. LSR Harish Tiwari (Q. Nos.) 1 M/s R.P. Textiles Ex. PW31/Z15 (D No.8) Q26 to Q34 Dated 5.4.2003 2 M/s Magnet Restaurant Ex. PW2/Z9 (D No.16) Q48 to Q59 Dated 14.7.2003 3 M/s S.S. Enterprises Ex. PW31/Z16 (D No.17) Q37 to Q47 Dated 4.9.2003 4 Narender Kumar & Ms. Ex. PW31/Z17 (D No.18) Q94 to Q101 Vaneeta Kumar Dated 6.5.2003 12.1 I have seen the report of GEQD PW33 Sh. T. Joshi. He was provided with specimen signatures/handwriting of Harish Tiwari. These are contained in S1 to S20, S371A to S373 which are already exhibited as Ex. DX (D26). As per the report of Sh. T. Joshi, the specimen handwriting matched with the questioned handwriting contained in Q37 to Q52 and also Q54 to Q59. Thus as per the report of T. Joshi, it was Harish Tiwari who had given Legal Search Reports in two accounts i.e. Account of M/s Magnet Restaurant and M/s S.S. Enterprises. There is no positive forensic opinion regarding the other two LSRs.
12.2 I have seen the answers given by accused Harish Tiwari when his statement u/s 313 Cr. PC was recorded. He has point blank denied about CC No. 15/2012 CBI Vs. Amit Kr. Bajaj etc. Page 37 of 46 his preparing or signing any such LSR. He also denied giving any specimen handwriting. He claimed as under:-
"I was appointed on the panel of the bank along with other seven banks and due to paucity of time, I never visited the bank or handled the documents. My associate Sh. Surender Khosla and his staff used to visit the bank and he in connivance with other persons had manipulated the report without my knowledge and consent. I was never paid by the bank for the opinion in question. I was never called upon to explain by the bank. I had explained these facts to IO as my associate Surender Khosla had died by that time that is why I have been falsely implicated by the IO in the present case. I had requested several times to the IO to send my handwriting to GEQD for verification but same was not done intentionally. I am innocent. I am having 15 years standing at the Bar and not a single complaint has been filed against me by any of the bank or any person for misconduct."
12.3 It is also important to mention here that during trial, accused Harish Tiwari made a statement admitting that his specimen signatures/handwriting were taken during the investigation. His statement to such effect was recorded on 05.12.2013 and all such sheets forming part of D26, which were containing his specimen signatures and handwriting, were exhibited as Ex. DX on the basis of his own admission.
12.4 Undoubtedly, whenever any bank asks any panel lawyer to submit or furnish any LSR, there has to be some sort of request in writing also. Unfortunately, no such request in writing is found to be there on record. Any empanelled advocate, who is asked to give LSR, is eventually paid for giving opinion. Such written request and the proof of payment would have CC No. 15/2012 CBI Vs. Amit Kr. Bajaj etc. Page 38 of 46 been very handy substantiation to lay bare that LSR had been given by Sh. Harish Tiwari and none else. Perhaps, CBI never imagined that Harish Tiwari would disown his own signed reports during trial and, therefore, it did not tax itself any further. It was not the right approach. CBI should have gone for collection of all sort of evidence irrespective of any stand of defence.
12.5 Harish Tiwari was admittedly on the panel of the bank. He cannot be heard claiming that his associate Surender Khosla, who is no more alive, had manipulated the reports. He is trying to pass on the buck to a dead man. Fact remains that two LSRs are, as per scientific evidence, containing his signatures.
.
12.6 Now it remains to be seen as to whether Harish Tiwari has committed any offence by submitting false LSRs in said two accounts i.e. of M/s Magnet Restaurant and M/s S.S. Enterprises.
12.7 It has been argued by Sh. Ohri that even if it is assumed for a moment that opinion was erroneous or incorrect that by itself cannot label him as co-conspirator or that it was given in pursuance of any criminal conspiracy. According to Sh. Ohri, on the basis of same set of documents, it is quite possible that one may hold those to be genuine and the other may disagree and any such opinion, therefore, based on scrutiny of documents simpliciter would not be enough to hold that legal opinion was laced with ulterior motive.
12.8 A false report can be given deliberately also when there is some motive involved and some undue favour is to be shown to anyone else. Indisputably, such false report would have benefitted the borrower firm and it CC No. 15/2012 CBI Vs. Amit Kr. Bajaj etc. Page 39 of 46 might be quite possible that it would have been given at the behest of the borrower but then standard of proof in a criminal case is much more stringent and is not to be governed by guess-work at all.
12.9 Defence has placed reliance upon one judgment of Apex Court given in the case of CBI Vs. K. Narayana Rao (2012) 9 SCC 512. In that case, accused, who was a legal practitioner and panel advocate for Vijaya Bank, was asked to verify the documents and to give legal opinion. He gave false legal opinion in respect of ten housing loans. He sought quashing of proceedings against him. Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh quashed the criminal proceedings and such order was affirmed by Apex Court observing that liability against opining advocate arises only when lawyer was an active participant in a plan to defraud the bank. Merely because his opinion was not correct or acceptable, he could not be mulcted with the criminal prosecution particularly in the absence of tangible evidence that he associated with other conspirators. It was also observed that at the most, he would be liable for gross negligence or professional misconduct and could not be charged for penal sections with other conspirators without proper and acceptable link.
12.10 In one another judgment of our own High Court given in the case of Nita Deep Rastogi Vs. CBI (Criminal Revision Petition No. 77/08 Date of Decision 21.01.2009), petitioner, feeling aggrieved by framing of charges against her for various offences including offence u/s 13 (2) PC Act knocked the doors of High Court claiming that she had given the report in bonafide manner in her capacity as panel advocate and she had carried out search and had given the report accordingly. As per CBI, whereas, she had prepared a false report. In that case, petitioner advocate pleaded that there was no allegation that she had met any of the accused at any point of time and it was prayed that mere preparation of report on the basis of material CC No. 15/2012 CBI Vs. Amit Kr. Bajaj etc. Page 40 of 46 produced before her could not invite the charges and that there was nothing to show that she intended to cheat or defraud the bank or was acting in any criminal conspiracy. In that case also, there was no allegation that petitioner had gained any pecuniary advantage as a result of preparing such report. She was accordingly discharged holding that false report itself could not constitute either the substantive evidence or even a piece of circumstantial evidence and that it was one thing to say that she could have exhibited the greater professional care and competence and quite a different thing to say that her professional opinion attracted criminal liability.
12.11 Legal advice based on documents cannot be said to be culpable in itself even if opinion is eventually found to be false. I would also supplement that even in said two judgments cited above, advocate-accused had also verified the record from concerned authorities and then rendered the opinion. Undoubtedly, every case has its own peculiarity and the precedent cannot be blindly applied but in the present case, situation is precisely similar and identical. Said precedents are squarely applicable here.
12.12 In such type of cases pertaining to grant of facilities, huge public money is involved and bank authorities, more than often, rely upon the LSR given by panel advocate. Banks should evolve a formula to ensure that only quality advocates make to the panel. Moreover bank should also, as additional safeguard, send title documents to the concerned Sub Registrar for verification/cross-checking. Banks should wake up and keep their house in order and should have the best available talent on the panel if they really want that public money is not drowned in drain.
12.13 Legal profession is noble profession and every advocate should be true to his job. Harish Tiwari had been hired by the bank and he owed a CC No. 15/2012 CBI Vs. Amit Kr. Bajaj etc. Page 41 of 46 professional and contractual duty to his paymaster. Accused Harish Tiwari failed to live up to the expectations of his employer. I am mindful of the fact that there is no evidence showing him ever meeting any of his co-accused. He was engaged by the bank as he was on bank panel and he gave opinion which was ultimately found to be erroneous and false. There is no evidence suggesting that he had received any illegal gratification or any sort of benefit from any of his co-accused to give such opinion. He was, however, awfully insensitive towards his job. Since element of conspiracy or his meeting any of his co-accused from borrower firm or his accepting any illegal gratification is missing, he cannot be hauled up under other penal sections either and, therefore, I extend benefit of doubt to him.
ROLE AND INVOLVEMENT OF ACCUSED CHAND RANI 13.0 As far as the alleged role and involvement of accused Chand Rani is concerned, her name is surfacing in one account i.e. account of M/s S.S. Enterprises only.
13.1 Accused Rajesh Kumar had claimed himself to be the proprietor of M/s S.S. Enterprises and submitted title documents showing that he had purchased one property measuring 1500 square feet, Khasra No.1178, Tikri Kalan, New Delhi from his co-accused Chand Rani. Sale deed was purportedly executed by accused Chand Rani in favour of accused Rajesh Kumar on 30.10.2000. Such sale deed has been proved as Ex. PW21/A (page nos. 529 to 535 of D16) and it contains signatures of Chand Rani on Q337, Q338, Q338A, Q339 and Q340. Her thumb impressions are also CC No. 15/2012 CBI Vs. Amit Kr. Bajaj etc. Page 42 of 46 there. Such sale deed also bears photograph of Chand Rani as seller and of accused Rajesh Kumar as buyer.
13.2 As per the specific case of CBI, though the sale deed had been genuinely executed in the office of Sub Registrar-II, Janak Puri, yet it was a forged document in as much as the seller had no authority or title to sell the same. As per the charge sheet, such forged sale deed and Lal Dora certificate had been prepared by accused Deepak Kumar (since expired).
13.3 I have seen the report of GEQD which has been proved as Ex. PW33/D and it becomes very much evident and apparent that such report does not indict Chand Rani in any manner whatsoever. There is no finding that her specimen signatures matched with the questioned signatures. Her photograph is admittedly appearing on such sale deed but I am not able to gather her involvement merely on the basis of such photograph. When her statement was recorded u/s 313 Cr. PC, she claimed that her name was Afroz Begum and she was never known as Chand Rani. She, in her such statement also claimed as under:-
"I do not know any of my co-accused. I had never gone to any bank or any office of Sub-Registrar in connection with documents related to this matter. I do not know why I am labelled as Chand Rani. I do not know why I have been implicated in the present matter. I have no connection with any of the loan account. I do not know their proprietors or partners. I do not any of the bank officials facing trial in the present case. Radhey Shyam Kapoor though had taken my photograph but did not get any job for me anywhere. My daughter was unwell at that time and I CC No. 15/2012 CBI Vs. Amit Kr. Bajaj etc. Page 43 of 46 had given my photograph to Radhey Shyam Kapoor with the hope that he would get me job. I do not know anything else. I am innocent. I have been falsely implicated."
13.4 I would also like hasten to add here that, as already noticed above, the investigating agency never harboured any doubt regarding the execution of sale deed by Chand Rani in favour of accused Rajesh Kumar. It only came up with the assertion that Chand Rani was co-conspirator and though the sale deed was in fact executed, yet it had no value in the eyes of law as she had no right title or interest in said property and, therefore, could not have sold the same. However, when PW34 Sh. P.K. Dabas, Sub Registrar, Janak Puri entered into witness box, he labelled such sale deed Ex. PW21/A (D16) as forged by exclaiming that such deed was not bearing his signatures at all. His such stand is a huge improvement and is not in synchronization with the case of prosecution.
13.5 Be that as it may, even if the aforesaid sale deed is held as forged, accused Chand Rani cannot declared co-conspirator merely because her photograph is found pasted on such sale deed particularly when GEQD has not been able to give any positive opinion. Curiously, her thumb impressions were not sent for comparison at all. Since the report of Sh. T. Joshi clearly exonerates her and since there is no other material which may even remotely indicate her association with any other account. I am, therefore, inclined to grant her benefit of doubt. She is accordingly acquitted of all the charges levelled against her.
CC No. 15/2012 CBI Vs. Amit Kr. Bajaj etc. Page 44 of 46FORGED DOCUMENTS 14.0 The alleged forger Deepak Kumar has already expired.
14.1 All the borrowers are absconding.
14.2 Naturally, if any document is found to be forged, the onus shifts on to the borrowers. After all, these alleged forged documents had been submitted by the borrowers themselves. I have before me the testimony of PW5 Sh. Raj Chawla. I have also seen the testimony of PW13 Sh. Birender Prasad Singh. I have also seen testimony of various other officials and private witnesses and admittedly their testimony indicate that there was apparent defect in the title deeds submitted by the borrowers. ITRs were also found to be forged. However, such aspect needs to be scrutinized elaborately and comprehensively only when all such proclaimed offenders are eventually arrested and are made to face trial. I have already noted above that even if these documents are held to be forged documents even now, the bank officials, ipso facto, cannot be held liable as they had obtained Legal Search Reports from the panel advocate.
CONCLUSION 15.0 In view of my foregoing discussion, I hereby grant benefit of doubt to A-2 T. Harish, A-3 R.P. Dadeech, A-5 R.K. Mehta and A-10 Chand Rani and acquit them of all the charges.
15.1 They all would, however, submit personal bond u/s 437-A Cr.P.C. in a sum of Rs. 20,000/- each with one surety each of like amount.
CC No. 15/2012 CBI Vs. Amit Kr. Bajaj etc. Page 45 of 4615.2 File be consigned to Record Room and it be revived as and when any of the proclaimed offenders i.e. A-1 Amit Kumar Bajaj, A-6 Tanuj Kumar, A-7 Narender Kumar, A-8 Rajender Goyal, A-9 Rajesh Kumar and A-11 Ms. Vaneeta Kumar are apprehended.
Announced in Open Court Saturday, March 01, 2014 (MANOJ JAIN) Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI) South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi CC No. 15/2012 CBI Vs. Amit Kr. Bajaj etc. Page 46 of 46