Rc No. 3(E)/1995/Cbi/Bs&Fc/N.D vs Kathi Kalu Oghad on 21 April, 2016

[Cites 47, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Rc No. 3(E)/1995/Cbi/Bs&Fc/N.D vs Kathi Kalu Oghad on 21 April, 2016

   IN THE COURT OF MS. VRINDA KUMARI: SPECIAL
   JUDGE (PC ACT), CBI03, SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET
               COURT, NEW DELHI
                            

CC No. 19/12
RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D
U/s 120 B r/w Section 420, 467, 471 IPC 
and Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of P.C. Act.

Central Bureau of Investigation 

        Versus 

A1  Davinder Kumar
     S/o Sh. B.D. Saran
     R/o 299, SectorA, PocketC,
     Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. 

A2  Rangi Lal Goel                       Proceedings against him
     S/o Sh. Tara Chand                   stood abated vide order 
     R/o KU131, Pitampura,               dated 04.04.2006
     New Delhi. 

A3  Subhash Chand Goel
     S/o Sh. Rangi Lal Goel
     R/o KU131, Pitampura, New Delhi.
A4 Anil Kumar Goel 
     S/o Sh. Jai Narain Goel
     R/o Mandi Motiganj, Mainpuri,
     UP
A5  Ashok Kumar Goel
     S/o Sh. Jain Narain Goel
     R/o Mandi Motiganj, Mainpuri, UP.


CC No. 19/12                                            1 of 167
RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D
 A6     Dhanraj Garg
        S/o late Sh.Meghraj Garg,
        R/o Vill. Katlaheri, Distt. Karnal
        Haryana.

A7     M/s Ganga Plywood  
A8     M/s Mohan Agro Mills                discharged vide order dated 
A9     M/s Sanjeev Dal Mills               08.10.2010.
A10    M/s Tara Chand  

Date of FIR                          :      13.05.1995
Date of filing of Chargesheet       :      31.05.1997 
Arguments completed on               :      07.04.2016
Date of judgment                     :      21.04.2016


JUDGMENT

Brief facts of the case:

1. The final report u/Sec. 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "Cr.PC") discloses that the present case was registered on the basis of source of information as per which State Bank of Patiala, S.N. Marg, Delhi, during the period 199192 was cheated to the tune of Rs. 56 lacs by the directors/partners/proprietors of M/s Ganga Plywood Industries Company Pvt. Ltd, M/s Pawan Kumar Subhash Chand, M/s Sanjeev Enterprises, M/s Aggarwal Trading Company, M/s Sanjeev Dal Mills, M/s Tara Chand Jain and M/s Mohan Agro Mills Ltd by way CC No. 19/12 2 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D of purchase of bogus documentary bills supported by forged transport receipts.

2. During the investigation, it was revealed that current account no. 146/2 of M/s Ganga Plywood Industries Co. Pvt. Ltd was opened in the above said bank on 18.09.1989 by its Directors namely Accused Anil Goel, Jai Narain Goel, Rangi Lal Goel, Subhash Goel, Pawan Goel and Ashok Goel and following five (5) bills of M/s Ganga Plywood Industries Co. Pvt. Ltd amounting to a total of Rs.11.56 lacs were purchased by Accused Devinder Kumar during the relevant time:

(1) Bill No. 92 (Bank DN No. 2113) dated 17.02.1992 for Rs. 2,61,340.40 drawn on M/s Goyal Timber, Bhadoi supported by purported MTR No. 39557 dated 16.02.1992 of Roshan Transport & Forwarding Agency (Bombay).

(2) Bill No. 97 (Bank DN No. 2141) dated 22.02.1992 for Rs. 2,38,416.00 drawn on M/s Suresh Kumar Mittal & Sons, 117, Nanak Ganj, Sipri Bazar, Jhansi supported by purported MTR No. 39670 dated 21.02.1992 of Roshan Transport & Forwarding Agency (Bombay), (3) Bill no. 93 (Bank DN No. 2140) dated 22.02.1992 for Rs. 2,28,445.00 drawn on M/s Vijay Kumar CC No. 19/12 3 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D Mittal & Sons, 117, Nanak Ganj, Sipri Bazar,Jhansi supported by purported MTR No. 39669 dated 21.02.1992 of Roshan Transport & Forwarding Agency (Bombay).

(4) Bill No. 95 dated 22.02.1992 (Bank DN No. 2150 dated 24.02.1992) for Rs. 2,34,840.80 drawn on M/s Garg Plywood Home, Bhadohi supported by purported MTR no. 39671 dated 21.02.1992 of Roshan Transport & Forwarding Agency (Bombay). (5) Bill no. 96 dated 22.02.1992 (Bank DN No. 2151 dated 24.02.1992) for Rs. 1,95,749.10 drawn on M/s Goyal Timber, Bhadohi supported by purported MTR no. 39672 dated 21.02.1992 of Roshan Transport & Forwarding Agency (Bombay).

3. Investigation further revealed that the drawees mentioned in these bills were nonexistent and the bills were supported by forged Motor Transport receipts of M/s Roshan Transport and Forwarding Agency (Bombay). The same were alleged to have been forged by Accused Dhanraj Garg, who was accountant of the company at Naya Bazar Office. These bills were signed by Accused Rangi Lal. The registration number of vehicles mentioned in the forged MTRs were found to be non commercial vehicles. It was further revealed that M/s Roshan CC No. 19/12 4 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D Transport & Forwarding Agency (Bombay) did not issue any Motor Transport Receipt for transporting the goods of M/s Ganga Plywood Industries Co. Pvt. Ltd during the relevant period. After purchase of above said documentary bills, accused Rangi Lal drew cheques no. 996422 dated 22.02.1992 for Rs. 4,50,000/ (cash withdrawal) and cheque no. 996419 dated 17.02.1992 for Rs. 2,264,000/ favouring M/s Tara Chand Jai Narain and accused Subhash Goel drew cheque no. 996425 dated 27.02.1992 for Rs. 2,290,000/ on account of M/s Ganga Plywood Industries Co. Pvt. Ltd.

4. Apart from abovesaid five bills, following three bills were purchased by Field Officer Ashok Jaidka on behalf of State Bank of Patiala, S.N. Marg, Delhi:

(1) Two bills no. 90 and 91 (Bank's DN Nos. 2050 & 2051 both dated 04.02.1992 for Rs.2,40,193.60 & Rs. 2,48,289.80 drawn on M/s Garg Plywood Home and M/s Goyal Timber both of Bhadohi and supported by MTR no. 39325 and 39326 dated 03.02.1992 of M/s Roshan Transport and Fowarding Agency Bombay) (2) One bill No. 100 (DN no. 2271 dt. 18.03.1992 for Rs. 2,29,074.42 drawn on M/s Goyal Timber, Bhadoi and supported by MTR No. 42219 dt.

CC No. 19/12 5 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 16.03.1992 of M/s Roshan Transport and Forwarding Agency Bombay).

5. Following three bills were purchased by Sh. M.R. Goel, the then Branch Manager on behalf of State Bank of Patiala, S.N. Marg, Delhi:

(1) Bills bearing no. 102 DN No. 88 dated 02.05.1992, bill No. 107 and 108 (DN No. 111 and 112 both dated 13.05.1992) for Rs. 1,97,116/, Rs.

1,88,553.75 and Rs. 1,96,530/ respectively drawn on Gaya Prasad Timber Traders, Main Bazar, Bewar, M/s Garg Plywood Home and M/s Gagan Plywood Home both of Bhadohi, supported by MTR No. 42495 dated 01.05.1992, 42603 and 42603 both dated 12.05.1992 of above said transporter.

6. These bills were also signed by Accused Rangi Lal and the accompanying MTRs had been forged by Accused Dhanraj Garg (MTR No. 39325, 39326 and 42495 and Suresh Jain (MTR No. 42219, 42603 and 42602). It is alleged that after crediting of the proceeds to the account of M/s Ganga Plywood Industries Co. Pvt. Ltd., amounts were withdrawn in cash and transferred to the accounts of sister concerns by Accused Rangi Lal Goel.

7. It was further revealed that current account no. 7114 was opened by Accused Subhash Goel with State Bank of CC No. 19/12 6 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D Patiala, S.N. Marg, on 24.10.1991 by declaring himself as Sole Proprietor of M/s Pawan Kumar Subhash Chand. The account was authorized to be opened by Accused Davinder Kumar. It was established that M/s Pawan Kumar Subhash Chand was a fictitious business concern and no credit facilities had been sanctioned to the said concern. It is alleged that Accused Davinder Kumar purchased eight documentary bills i.e. Bills no. 505, 506, 507, 508 all dated 27.12.1991 (Bank DN No. 1838, 1839, 1840 and 1841 respectively) for Rs. 98,800.00 each, drawn on M/s Rakesh Kumar Sharma, C/o Ram Dev General Store, Jawahar Bazar, Koppal supported by purported GR no. 16528, 16527,16529 and 16530 all dated 26.12.1991 of G.B. Transport India Pvt. Ltd and bills no. 509, 510,511, 512 all dated 30.12.1991 (Bank DN No. 1834, 1835, 1836 and 1837 respectively) for Rs. 99,500.00 each, drawn on M/s Rakesh Kumar Sharma, C/o Ram Dev General Store, Jawahar Bazar, Koppal supported by purported GR no. 16586, 16585,16587 and 16588 all dated 29.12.1991 of G.B. Transport India Pvt. Ltd. The drawee mentioned in the said bills was non existent and the MTRs had been forged by Accused Dhanraj Garg. Further, the registration number of vehicle mentioned in the forged MTRs were found to be non CC No. 19/12 7 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D commercial vehicle. All the bills(hundies) were signed by Accused Subhash Goel. The transport company i.e. M/s G.B. Transport (India) Pvt. Ltd did not book any goods for transportation for M/s Pawan Kumar Subhash Chand during the relevant period. After crediting of the proceeds of said bills in the current account of M/s Pawan Kumar Subhash Chand, cheque no. 345502 for Rs. 7,85,000/ was drawn by Accused Subhash Goel on 30.12.1991 in favour of M/s Sanjeev Dal Mills.

8. It was submitted that during investigation, out of 42 bills mentioned in FIR, only 19 bills i.e. 11 bills of M/s Ganga Plywood Industries Co. Pvt. Ltd and 3 bills of M/s Pawan Kumar Subhash Chand alongwith relevant transport receipts could be collected from State Bank of Patiala and investigation in respect of remaining bills was conducted on the basis of the information collected from the DN register of State Bank of Patiala, S.N. Marg, Delhi, debit/credit vouchers and correspondences with drawee banks.

9. It was also revealed from the investigation that current account no. 1586 was opened in the name of M/s Sanjeev Dal Mills with State Bank of Patiala, S.N. Marg on 20.10.1989. Accused Anil Goel, Ashok Goel, Ram Murti Devi and Kanta Devi were the partners of the said CC No. 19/12 8 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D partnership concern. No credit facilities had been sanctioned to this firm. It is alleged that Accused Davinder Kumar purchased eight bills of M/s Sanjeev Dal Mills for Rs. 7.93 lacs of this firm on 17.12.1991 vide D.N. 1757 for Rs. 99,550.00 purported GR no. 28508 dt. 16.12.1991; DN No. 1758 for Rs. 99,550.00 purported GR no. 28509 dated 16.12.1991; DN No. 1759 for Rs. 99,550.00 purported GR No. 28507 dated 16.12.1991; DN No. 1760 for Rs. 99,550.00 purported GR No. 28506 dated 16.12.1991 and DN No. 1761 for Rs. 99,550.00 purported GR No. 28505 dated 16.12.1991 of Roshan Transport & Forwarding Agency (Bombay) were drawn on M/s Raju Trading Company and on 21.01.1992 vide D No. 1979, purported GR no. 19175 dt. 20.01.1992; DN No. 1980 purported GR No. 19176 dated 20.01.1992 and DN No. 1981 purported GR No. 19177 dated 20.01.1992 for Rs. 1,00,115.00 each of G.B. Transport (India) Pvt. Ltd were drawn on M/s Rajasthan Agencies, Ganga Babu Ki Theki, Begampura (Patna). The drawees mentioned in the abovesaid bills were nonexistent and MTR(GR) had not been issued by said transport company. After crediting of the proceeds to the account of the firm, cheque no. 341868 dated 17.12.1991 for Rs. 4,55,000/ was drawn by Accused Rangi Lal Goel and the amount CC No. 19/12 9 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D was transferred to the account of M/s Ganga Plywood Industries Co. Pvt. Ltd. Other cheque bearing no. 341891 dated 21.02.1992 for Rs. 5,30,000/ was drawn by Accused Rangi Lal Goel and the amount was withdrawn in cash.

10. It was also revealed from the investigation that current account no. 7152 was opened by Accused Anil Kumar Goel on 09.01.1992 with the above said bank declaring himself as sole proprietor of M/s Aggarwal Trading Co. and the said account was authorized to be opened by Accused Devinder Kumar. No credit facilities had been sanctioned to this company. It is alleged that Accused Davinder Kumar purchased seven bills i.e. D.N. 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985 all dated 21.01.1992 for Rs. 1,14,585.00 each drawn on M/s Rajasthan Agencies, Ganga Babu Ki Theki, Begampura (Patna) purported GR no. 19163, 19164, 19165, 19166 all dated 20.01.1992 of G.B. Transport India Pvt. Ltd. and D.N. 1999, 2000 and 2001 all dated 24.01.1992 for Rs.1,15,000.00/ each drawn on M/s Raju Trading Company, Sonepur Bihar purported GR no. 19219, 19220 and 19221 total amounting to Rs. 8.03 lacs of this company. It was revealed that M/s Aggarwal Trading Company was a fictitious business concern the drawee mentioned above CC No. 19/12 10 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D were nonexistent and no MTR(GR) had been issued by said transport company. After crediting of the proceeds of the bills, cheque nos. 723402 and 723403 were drawn by Accused Anil Goel on 27.01.1992 for Rs. 2,53,000/ and Rs. 90,000/ in favour of M/s Sanjeev Dal Mills and Rs. 90,000/ was withdrawn in cash. Another cheque no. 723401 was drawn by Accused Anil Goel on 21.02.1992 for Rs. 4,50,000/ and the amount was withdrawn in cash.

11. It was also revealed that current account no. 7156 was opened by Accused Rangi Lal Goel, declaring himself as sole proprietor of M/s Sanjeev Enterprises, with the said bank on 23.01.1992 and this account was authorized to be opened by Accused Devinder Kumar. No credit facilities had been sanctioned to this firm. It is alleged that Accused Devinder Kumar purchased four bills i.e. D.No. 2084, 2085, 2086 and 2087 all dated 12.02.1992 purported GR No. 19321, 19322, 19323 and 19324 of G.B. Transport India Pvt. Ltd., for Rs. 1,00,050.00 each drawn on M/s Rajasthan Agencies, Ganga Babu Ki Theki, Begampura, Patna City on adhoc basis. It was established that M/s Sanjeev Enterprises was a fictitious business concern and the drawee mentioned above were also non existent and no MTRs(GRs) were issued by the said transport company. After crediting of proceeds of CC No. 19/12 11 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D the said bills to the account of M/s Sanjeev Enterprises, cheque nos. 724851 and 724854 were drawn by Accused Rangi Lal Goel on 12.02.1992 and 13.02.1992 for Rs. 50,000/ and Rs. 3,45,000/.

12. It was also revealed that current account no. 1584 of M/s Tara Chand Jai Narain, was opened with State Bank of Patiala on 18.10.1989. Accused Rangi Lal Goel, Jai Narain Goel and Subhash Goel were authorized to operate this account. No credit facilities had been sanctioned to this firm by the bank. It is alleged that Accused Davinder Kumar purchased three bills i.e. D.No. 2091, 2092 and 2093 all dated 13.02.1992 supported by purported GR No. 19348, 19349 and 19350 of G.B. Transport India Pvt. Ltd, for Rs. 99,820.00 each drawn on M/s Rajasthan Agencies, Ganga Babu Ki Theki, Begampura, Patna City. It was established that the drawee mentioned above were non existent and MTRs(GRs) annexed with the bills were not issued by the said transport company. After crediting of proceeds of the said bills, cheque no. 342969 and 342970 were drawn by Accused Subhash Chand Goel on 13.02.1992 and 14.02.1992 for Rs. 1,30,000/ and Rs. 2,64,000/. An amount of Rs. 1,30,000/ was withdrawn in cash and Rs. 2,64,000/ was transferred to the account of M/s Ganga CC No. 19/12 12 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D Plywood Industries Co. Pvt. Ltd.

13. It was also revealed that current account no. 1695 was opened in the name of M/s Mohan Agro Mills Ltd with State Bank of Patiala, S.N. Marg on 04.12.1990. Accused Anil Goel, Pawan Goel, Ashok Goel and Subhash Goel were authorized to operate this account. No credit facilities had been sanctioned to this firm by the bank. It is alleged that Accused Devinder Kumar purchased eleven bills (D.No. 1720 to 1725 dated 11.12.1991 for Rs.84,500/ each drawn on M/s Mangalsain Om Prakash supported by GR of M/s Roshan Transport and Fowarding Agency (Bombay) and D.No. 2226 to 2230 dt. 13.03.1992 for Rs.4,84,580 drawn on M/s Ajay Kumar & Company, 52/43C, New Dal Mandi, Kanpur supported by purported GRs of Roshan Transport & Forwarding Agency (Bombay) on adhoc basis. It was established that Accused Ashok Goel, Director of M/s Mohan Agro Mills Ltd drew cheque no. 311163 dated 13.12.1991 for Rs. 2,95,000/ on current account no. 1695 of M/s Mohan Agro Mills Ltd with State Bank of Patiala, S.N. Marg, in favour of self and withdrew the money. The said cheque was drawn against a credit of Rs. 7.02 lacs obtained by the company by getting six bogus bills discounted on 11.12.1991. The drawees of the above said bills M/s CC No. 19/12 13 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D Mangalsain Om Prakash was nonexistent and the bills were supported by forged GRs of M/s Roshan Transport and Forwarding Agency.

14. During investigation, it was revealed that Branch Manager of PNB, Sonepur (Bihar) had cautioned Devinder Kumar vide letter dated 07.03.1992 about the fake nature of GRs sent alongwith the bills of M/s Aggarwal Trading Co. and M/s Sanjeev Dal Mills for collection and intimated that M/s G.B. Transport (India) Pvt. Ltd and M/s Roshan Transport & Forwarding Agency (Bombay) did not have any delivery office at the said destinations and the GRs primafacie appear to be fake and was requested to look into the matter. Sh. Devinder Kumar replied the said letter on 24.03.1992 and promised to check the matter with the concerned transporters and informed PNB, Sonepur that the drawer of the bills had been enjoying credit limits from the bank which was factually incorrect in as much as the drawer of the said bills (DN No. 1742 to 1746 dated 14.12.1991 and DN No. 1999 to 2001 dated 24.01.1992) were M/s Sanjeev Dal Mills and M/s Aggarwal Trading Company, which had been sanctioned no limit by the bank. It was established that Devinder Kumar did not make enquiries with the transporters and also purchased bills backed by CC No. 19/12 14 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D the GRs of the said transporters during the subsequent period.

15. The investigation further revealed that the name of M/s Roshan Transport & Forwarding Agency (Bombay) was removed from the list of IBAapproved transporters w.e.f. 23.04.1991. However, Devinder Kumar had accepted the GRs of the above said transport company while discounting bills of M/s Ganga Plywood Industries Co. Pvt. Ltd and its associates during the period December, 1991 to March 1992. None of the conditions mentioned in Section 4.10 of Chapter H(7) of Books of Instructions of State Bank of Patiala were fulfilled and due precautions were not taken by Sh. Devinder Kumar while purchasing the said bills as he accepted GRs of M/s Roshan Transport & Forwarding Agency (Bombay) and M/s G.B. Transport (India) Ltd although none of the said transporters had offices at the destinations i.e. Koppal, Bewar, Jhansi, Bhadohi, Patna and Sonepur (Bihar).

16. It was further revealed that no other control returns in respect of the bill discounting transactions in question except those referred to in DN No. 1757 to 1761 dated 17.12.1991 of M/s Sanjeev Dal Mills had been received from S.N. Marg Branch of State Bank of Patiala. It was established that State Bank of Patiala, S.N. Marg has CC No. 19/12 15 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D been defrauded to the tune of Rs. 56 lacs approximately by Accused Rangi Lal Goel, Subhash Goel, Ashok Goel and Anil Goel, Directors of M/s Ganga Plywood Industries Co. Pvt. Ltd, Proprietor of M/s Pawan Kumar Subhash Chand, M/s Sanjeev Enterprises, M/s Aggarwal Trading Co. and Director of M/s Mohan Agro Mills Ltd, in the above said fraudulent transactions of discounting bills drawn on nonexistent drawees on the strength of forged Motor Transport Receipts.

17. It is stated that the allegations of criminal conspiracy, cheating, using of forged documents etc, as contained in the FIR against Accused Pawan Kumar Goel, Jai Narain Goel, Smt. Ram Murti Devi and Smt. Kanta Devi could not be substantiated. These Accused persons have not signed or executed any bogus / forged documents and no evidence could be found to establish any overt act on their part which can be stated to have been committed in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy to cheat State Bank of Patiala, S.N. Marg, Delhi.

18. It is further stated that Suresh Jain volunteered to make a confessional statement during investigation and as such his statement U/Sec. 164 Cr.P.C was got recorded wherein he has implicated himself and other coaccused Rangi Lal goel and Subhash Goel in the matter of CC No. 19/12 16 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D preparation of forged MTRs. Accused Suresh Jain has since been tendered pardon U/Sec. 306 Cr.P.C by Sh. S.K. Kaushak. ld. Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi on 07.02.1997 and he has been taken as an approver of this case.

19. It is alleged that Accused Rangi Lal Goel, Subhash Goel, Anil Goel, Ashok Goel and Dhanraj Garg have committed acts of criminal conspiracy with Accused Devinder Kumar with an intent to cheat State Bank of Patiala, S.N. Marg, Delhi by forging documents/valuable securities, using them as genuine and thereby cheated the said bank in the matter of discounting of bogus bills drawn on non existent drawees during the period 1991 92, which caused wrongful loss of Rs. 56 lacs approximately to State Bank of Patiala and wrongful gain to them. It is also alleged that accused Devinder Kumar in his capacity of public servant also committed act of criminal misconduct by causing undue favour to the said business concerns and its Directors/proprietors by abusing his official position in the matter of purchasing of the bogus bills supported by forged transport documents repeatedly on adhoc basis without any sanction/approval from the competent authority.

CC No. 19/12                                                           17 of 167
RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D
 CHARGE

20. After hearing arguments of prosecution and defence, order on charge was passed on 08.10.2002 vide which A 7 M/s Ganga Plywood, A8 M/s Mohan Agro Mills, A9 M/s Sanjeev Dal Mills and A10 M/s Tara Chand were discharged. Charges were framed against A1 to A6 for the offences U/Sec. 120B r/w Sec. 420, 467, 471 IPC and U/Section 13(1)(d) r/w section 13(2) PC Act, 1988; against A2, A3 and A4 for the offence U/Sec. 420, 471 r/w Section 467 IPC; against A6 for offence U/Sec. 467 IPC; and against A1 for offence U/Sec. 13(1(d) r/w Section 13(2) of PC Act, 1988. All the Accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

EVIDENCE

21. In order to prove its case prosecution examined 75 witnesses. The gist of statement of witnesses as under:

21.1 PW1 is Sh. Bharat Bhushan, an employee of M/s Roshan Transport and Forwarding Agency during the period from 1981 to 1988. He proved that the GRs Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/11 were not issued by the Transport Company i.e M/s Roshan Transport and Forwarding Agency. He further testified that the GRs of the Transport Company were always written in English whereas the above said CC No. 19/12 18 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D GRs were written in Hindi. The company never booked any goods as described in the GRs on behalf of M/s Plywood & Timber Products, M/s Pawan Kumar Subhash Chand, M/s Sanjiv Enterprises, M/s Aggarwal Trading Company, M/s Mohan Agro Mills Ltd. and M/s Sanjiv Dal Mills. Upon receiving the knowledge of the above said fake GRs, Sh. Raj Kumar Kalra, head of M/s Roshan Transport and Forwarding Agency, lodged a complaint with Police station Nabi Karim, which is Ex.PW1/12. 21.2 PW2 Sh. Ram Phal is an employee of State Bank of Patiala, Shahdhanand Marg Branch. He testified that during the year 199192, Accused Davinder Kumar was the Branch Manager. He went through the Demand Negotiation Register Ex.PW2/A and confirmed that the entries dated 11.02.1992, 12.02.1992 and 13.02.1992 on pages 51 to 53 of the DN Register were in his handwriting. He identified the initials of Accused Davinder Kumar against those entries at portion encircled red and mark A against rechecking. He also stated that Rangi Lal (Accused no. 2) used to come to Accused Davinder Kumar with bills and used to hand over the bills to Davinder Kumar.

21.3 PW3 is Sh. Suresh Kumar Gupta who was running a partnership business in the vicinity of Peeli Kothi, Naya CC No. 19/12 19 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D Bazar, Delhi. He testified that he knew Accused no. 2 Rangi Lal who was having a shop by the name of M/s Tara Chand Jai Narain at Peeli Kothi, Naya Bazar. He had no knowledge if any concern by the name of M/s Pawan Kumar Subhash Chand, M/s Sanjeev Enterprises or M/s Aggarwal Trading exists in Peeli Kothi, Naya Bazar. 21.4 PW4 is Sh. Ravi Gupta who was an employee of M/s G.B. Transport India (P) Ltd from 1987 till 2001 and worked there as Branch Manager. He went through the GRs marked A1 to A8 and confirmed that these were not filled up by any of the employees of M/s G.B. Transport India (P) Ltd. He further testified that even though the GRs resemble the GRs of his company but the format was different. The type set, the arrangement of letters and columns were also different. He confirmed that above said GRs forms were not of M/s G.B. Transport India (P) Ltd. He further stated that numbering done on the GRs were not in accordance with the format being followed by the company where the branch code started from 095 whereas in the above said GRs it stated from

165. Further, the above said GRs were filled in Hindi whereas in the Transport Company, the GRs were never filled in Hindi. He also stated that M/s G.B. Transport India (P) Ltd never dealt with M/s Ganga Plywood CC No. 19/12 20 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D Industries, M/s Sanjeev Dal Mills, M/s Mohan Agro Mills, M/s Tara Chand Jai Narain and M/s Pawan Kumar Subhash Chand. Upon coming to know about the fake GRs, the company filed a complaint with police station Nabi Karim, Delhi, which is Ex.PW4/A. 21.5 PW5 is Sh. Rajesh Kumar who is Manager of proprietorship concern having its office in the vicinity of Peeli Kothi, Naya Bazar, Delhi. He stated that he had no knowledge if the firms M/s Pawan Kumar Subhash Chand and M/s Sanjeev Enterprises existed at 1716/18, Peeli Kothi, 1st floor, Naya Bazar, Delhi, during the years 1991 and 1992.

21.6 PW6 is Sh.Vijay Kumar Srivastava who was posted as General Manager (Operation) in State Bank of Patiala, Punjab. He was the appointing and disciplinary authority of Accused Davinder Kumar and also had the authority to remove the Accused from service. He proved the order of sanction to prosecute Accused Davinder Kumar, which is Ex.PW6/A. He testified that before according the sanction, he had examined CBI's report, statement of witnesses and related documents carefully. 21.7 PW7 is Sh. Manish Kumar Singh who was posted as Clerk in Central Bank of India, Badhoi Branch, UP from November, 1991 to 2003. He proved the returning memos CC No. 19/12 21 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D dated 03.06.1992, 02.06.1992 and 02.06.1992 filled up in his own handwriting. He testified that the bills were entered in the Bill Collection Register (IBC) and the entries were made at Srl. No. 12/7, 12/8, 11/163, 11/164, 11/174, 214 and 215. These entries bore the distinctive numbers and are in his handwriting and signed by Sh.

Krishan Lal, the then Sub Accountant of the Branch. The TRs are Ex.PW7/A1 to Ex.PW7/A3. He further testified that he never came across any representative of M/s Garg Plywood Home, M/s Goel Timbers and M/s Gagan Plywood Home at Main Market, Bhadoi.

21.8 PW8 is Sh. Vinod Kumar Bhatt who was working as Clerk in Central Bank of India at zonal Office, Lucknow. He had joined as clerk in Central Bank of India, Bhadoi branch on 05.02.1990. He has proved the returning memos Ex.PW7/A1 to Ex.PW7/A3 and has identified handwriting of Sh. Manish Kumar Singh, clerk on these returning memos, bearing signature of Sh. Kishan Lal who was working as SubAccountant in Badhoi Branch of Central Bank of India. He has identified the signature of Sh. Kishan Lal on these returning memos at point A. He further testified that no person of M/s Garg Plywood Home, M/s Goel Timber and M/s Gagan Plywood ever came to Central Bank of India, Bhadoi branch and that he CC No. 19/12 22 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D had not seen these firms working in the market at Bhadoi during the said period.

21.9 PW9 is Sh K.T. Raja Gopalan who was working as General Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Head Office, The Mall, Patiala since 1997 and before that he was working as DGM in the head office. He testified that M/s Pawan Kumar Subhash Chand, M/s Sanjeev Enterprises, M/s Sanjeev Dal Mills, M/s Aggarwal Trading Company, M/s Mohan Agro Mills Ltd and M/s Tara Chand Jai Narain were not having accounts where any facility of Cash Credit or any other loan facility was given to any of them. He, however, expressed his inability to say if these firms had any Cash Credit Limit or Bill Purchasing Facility for any amount less than Rs. 2 crores as he was not dealing with any account where the limit was less than Rs. 2 crores. He proved his letter dated 11.07.1995 addressed to the CBI as Ex.PW9/A. On the basis of this letter, he testified that no proposal for sanction of Credit Limit or Bill Purchasing Facility was received in the head office in respect of current account of the above said firms, which were within the powers of the head office. 21.10 PW10 is Sh. Ashok Kalra who was working as Booking Incharge in Mumbai office of the firm M/s Roshan Transport & Forwarding Agency. He has testified that the CC No. 19/12 23 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D GRs Ex.PW10/P1 to Ex.PW10/P10 were never issued by M/s Roshan Transport. He further stated that the transport company did not accept plywood with transportation and that he did not have any branch office at Mainpuri.

21.11 PW11 is Sh. Satish Bajaj who was the President of the association of the Factory Owners at Shalimar Bagh Industrial Area, namely, Shala Mar Small Scale Industries Association Regd, in the year 1996. Later on, he was President of the Association of Factory Owners at the New Industrial Area of Shala Mar Village Regd. Delhi 88. He testified that there was no firm in the name of Aggarwal Trading Company in the year 1991 or 1992 or thereafter.

21.12 PW12 is Sh. Anand Parkash Kanojia who testified that the property no. 1716/18, Peeli Kothi, Naya Bazar, Delhi, belonged to his mother Smt. Shanti Devi and his sisterin law Smt. Savitri Devi. He had been collecting rent from the tenants of the Dharamshala being run from this premises. He has testified that M/s Pawan Kumar Subhash Chand and M/s Sanjeev Enterprises were never the tenants in any portion of the above said address or in room no. 2 of the above mentioned address. One Sh. Rangi Lal was the tenant in room no. 2 in the year 1989 CC No. 19/12 24 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D and was running business in the name of M/s Jai Narain Rangi Lal and thereafter in the name of M/s Tara Chand Jain Narain.

21.13 PW13 is Sh. Ram Kishore Chaudhary who was posted as Special Assistant at PNB, Sonepur Branch, Distt. Saran, from December, 1990 to February, 1993. He has proved letter dated 07.03.1992 written in his own hand and under his signature as Ex.PW13/A. He was the Incharge of Bilty Section. He has further testified that Bilty/Bill belonging to one M/s Roshan Transport & Forwarding Agency was discounted by State Bank of Patiala, Shardanand Market Branch and sent to his bank at Sonepur. The bill was in favour of Bihar Transport Company, Sonepur. Despite repeated intimations, none appeared from Bihar Transport Company to take delivery of the goods and make payment. Upon physical verification, it was found that there was no Transport Company in the name of Bihar Transport Company running at Sonepur. He received two telegrams asking for detention of the bill, upon which he wrote letter Ex.PW13/A to State Bank of Patiala and asked for specific details regarding detention of bills and requested SBP to send such intimation by post instead of by telegram. He has proved the reply received from SBP, S.N. Marg dated 24.03.1992 as Ex.PW13/B wherein he CC No. 19/12 25 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D was informed that the parties whose bill had been discounted was having a satisfactory account and was asked to return the bill if the same had not been honoured by the party.

21.14 PW14 is Sh. Ajay Kumar, broker in grains in the name and style of M/s Ajay Kumar and Company at Kanpur. He deposed that he knew the firms M/s Tara Chand Jai Narain, M/s Mohan Agro Mills and M/s Sanjeev Dal Mills as well as their owners. He testified that he never placed any order on any of these three firms for purchase of pulses, rice etc. He also informed the State Bank of India at Naya Ganj, Kanpur that he had not placed any such order and that the concerned five hundies did not pertain to him. On calling up the owners of the three firms, he was informed that they would get the hundies retired after making the payments and that he need not worry about them.

21.15 PW15 is Sh. Rajinder Tiwari, who was posted at SBI, Naya Ganj Branch from 1990 to2001. He proved the letter dated 12.12.2008 issued under the signature of Sh. Om Prakash as Ex.PW15/A vide which it was intimated that the dispatch register dated 04.05.1992 has been destroyed. He also proved the certified copy of LSC register Ex.PW15/B. From serial no. 451 to 455 of this LSC, bills CC No. 19/12 26 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D for the credit of State Bank of Patiala, Shradanand Marg, New Delhi, are mentioned and the name of the drawee is mentioned as Ajay Kumar and Company. All the five bills were returned as the payment was not forthcoming. He also deposed that the bills which are returned by the branch are certainly sent by registered post after entering the same in dispatch register.

21.16 PW16 is Sh. Kailash Chand Gupta who had taken one room on rent on the first floor of property no. 1716/18, Peeli Kothi, Naya Bazar, for running his business of Jute Goods in the year 1984. He was running his business in that room even during the period 199192. He testified that during this period or even thereafter there was no business concern in the name of M/s Pawan Kumar Subhash Chand or M/s Sanjeev Enterprises in the said address. He, however, confirmed that Sh. Rangi Lal and his son Subhash Goel were running their business in the rented one room on the first floor of the above said property in the name and style of M/s Jai Narain Rangi Lal and thereafter under the name of M/s Tara Chand Jai Narain. During the cross examination, this witness stated that he no longer remember whether Subhash Goel son of Rangi Lal used to sit in the said rented room or not. He clarified that he could not remember as it was an old CC No. 19/12 27 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D matter. This witness was examined and cross examined on 15.07.2009.

21.17 PW17 is Sh. Surjeet Singh who was posted as ALPM (Advance Ledger Posting Machine) Operator in State Bank of Patiala, S.N. Marg, during the year 199192. It was his duty to post debit and credit vouchers to various accounts in the computer on the basis of vouchers received from different sections. He has proved the account opening form of Pawan Kumar Subhash Chand as Ex.PW17/A bearing the signature of Accused Davinder Kumar at point A and Sh. Ajay Jaidka, Accountant at point B. The current account number allotted to the said firm was 7114. The address of the account holder mentioned in this application is 1716/18, Peeli Kothi, Naya Bazar. This address has also been shown as address of Sh. Subhash Chand Goel, Proprietor of the firm. Affidavit (Ex.PW71/6) of Subhash Chand Goel in this respect is a part of Ex.PW17/A. He has also proved the account opening form of M/s Aggarwal Trading Company bearing signature of Accused Davinder Kumar at point A is Ex.PW17/B. Anil Goel was the partner/ proprietor of this firm and the account was opened on 09.01.1992 and the number allotted was 7152. The account opening form of Sanjeev Enterprises bearing signature of Accused no. 1 CC No. 19/12 28 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D at point A is Ex.PW17/C. The account number is 7156/1 dated 23.01.1992. He has further proved the cheque dated 27.01.1992 worth Rs. 90,000/ as Ex.PW17/D. The amount was paid to Sh. Suresh Jain and was passed by Accused no. 1. The cheque dated 21.01.1992 worth Rs. 4,50,000/ is Ex.PW17/E, which was passed by Accused no. 1. The cheque dated 27.01.1992 amounting to Rs. 2,53,000/ is Ex.PW17/F. This amount was credited in the account of Sanjeev Dal Mill and the cheque was passed Accused no. 1. He has also proved the cheque dated 12.02.1992 worth Rs. 50,000/ as Ex.PW17/G passed by Accused no. 1. The cheque dated 13.02.1992 worth Rs. 3,45,000/ vide which the cash payment was taken by Sh. Suresh Jain is Ex.PW17/H and was passed by Accused no. 1. The witness has also proved the credit vouchers Ex.PW18/A, Ex.PW18/C and Ex.PW18/D, which bear the signature of Accused no. 1 at points A. The statement of account of M/s Pawan Kumar Subhash Chand is Ex.PW17/J. The witness has also proved the cheque Ex.PW18/H15 passed by Accused no. 1, statement of account of M/s Sanjeev Dal Mill (Ex.PW17/K), credit voucher related to Sanjeev Dal Mill passed by Accused no. 1 Ex.PW18/G, cheque dated 17.12.1991 Ex.PW18/H7 passed by Accused no. 1, CC No. 19/12 29 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D cheque dated 21.01.1992 Ex.PW18/H8 passed by Accused no. 1, statement of account of Aggarwal Trading Company Ex.PW17/L, credit voucher dated 21.01.1992 relating to Aggarwal Trading Company and passed by Accused no. 1 Ex.PW18/E, credit voucher dated 24.01.1992 relating to Aggarwal Trading Company and passed by Accused no. 1 Ex.PW18/F, statement of account relating to Sanjeev Enterprises Ex.PW17/M, its credit voucher dated 02.02.1992 Ex.PW18/H, account opening form of M/s Tara Chand Jai Narain dated 18.10.1989 Ex.PW17/N, its statement of account from 11.12.1991 to 27.08.1992 Ex.PW17/O, its credit voucher dated 13.02.1992 Ex.PW18/H1, cheque dated 13.02.1992 vide which amount was debited in account of this firm Ex.PW18/H16 and was passed by Accused no. 1, similar cheque dated 14.02.1992 Ex.PW18/H17 passed by Sh. Ashok Jaidka, statement of account of M/s Mohan Agro Mills Ltd. From 11.12.1991 to 13.05.1992 Ex.PW17/P, its credit voucher dated 11.12.1991 passed by Accused no. 1 Ex.PW18/A, cheque dated 13.12.1991 passed by Sh. Ashok Jaidka Ex.PW18/H18, cheque dated 11.12.1991 passed by Ashok Jaidka Ex.PW18/H19. He also proved the letter dated 24.03.1992 bearing signature of Accused no. 1 as Ex.PW13/B. Circular no. C&I/6 of 19911992 CC No. 19/12 30 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D dated 03.05.1991 on the subject of approved list of Transport Operators Deletions is Ex.PW17/P1. During his cross examination, he stated that all the above mentioned accounts were opened as per Banking Rules. 21.18 PW18 is Sh. Gulshan Kumar Grover, who was posted as State Bank of Patiala, S.N. Marg, from 1987 to February 1996 as clerkcumtypist. This witness has proved various credit vouchers passed by Accused no. 1 vide which money was deposited to the accounts of M/s Sanjeev Dal Mills, M/s Pawan Kumar Subhash Chand, M/s Aggarwal Trading Company, M/s Sanjeev Enterprises, M/s Tara Chand Jai Narain, M/s Ganga Plywood Industries on various occasions. These credit vouchers are Ex.PW18/A to Ex.PW18/H6. He has also proved various cheques vide which money was withdrawn on various occasions by M/s Aggarwal Trading Company, M/s Ganga Plywood Industries, M/s Sanjeev Dal Mill, M/s Tara Chand Jain Narain, M/s Ganga Plywood Industries, M/s Sanjeev Enterprises on various occasions from the accounts of the above said companies as well as M/s Mohan Agro Mills Ltd. He has deposed that these cheques were passed by Accused no. 1 except the cheques Ex.PW18/H17, Ex.PW18/H18, Ex.PW18/H19, Ex.PW18/H11, Ex.PW18/H12 and Ex.PW18/H13. This witness also CC No. 19/12 31 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D proved the current account opening forms of M/s Mohan Agro Mills Ltd. (Ex.PW18/H20), M/s Pawan Kumar Subhash Chand (Ex.PW17/A), M/s Sanjeev Enterprises (Ex.PW17/C), M/s Aggarwal Trading Company (Ex.PW17/B), M/s Tara Chand Jai Narain (Ex.PW17/N), M/s Ganga Plywood Industries Pvt. Ltd. (Ex.PW18/J). He also identified the signatures of the then Accountant Sh. Garg on the specimen card relating to the account of M/s Ganga Plywood Industries Company Pvt. Ltd., which is Ex.PW18/K. 21.19 PW19 is Sh. R. Vasu, retired Sr. Vice President, Administration and Transport Department from Indian Banks' Association. He has proved his letter dated 30.06.1995 (Ex.PW19/A) addressed to Inspector of Police, CBI/BS&FC written in response to the letter dated 29.06.1995 of CBI. He testified that from 23.04.1991 M/s G.B. Transport (I) Pvt. Ltd and M/s Roshan Transport and Forwarding Agency were not in the recommended list of operators. He also explained the conditions required to be fulfilled by the transport operators to be recommended by the Indian Banks' Association.

21.20 PW20 is Sh. S.P. Sethi who was Chief Manager, State Bank of Patiala at Head Office in Patiala from 1992 to July, 1995. He stated that chapter H7 of PartII of revised CC No. 19/12 32 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D Book of Instructions (Ex.PW20/A) dealt with the procedure for purchasing and discounting of bills. He specifically referred to Sections 1.3, 8, 1.4, 1.5, 1.7, 2.4, 2.6,3, 4.1, 4.7, 4.10, 4.11, 4.14, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5 and Section 8.2 of this Chapter. He also explained the scheme of delegation of powers 1990 vide which ScaleIII Branch Manager was authorized to sanction upto the limit of Rs. 8 lacs, ScaleII Branch Managers were authorized to sanction upto the limit of Rs. 4 lacs and Regional Manager was authorized to sanction upto a limit of Rs. 25 lacs.

21.21 PW21 is Sh. Radhakrishan Mittal, who testified that he was running his service centre under the name and style of M/s Mittal Radionics from a rented accommodation at Shipri Bazar, Jhansi, UP and his brother Sh. Vijay Kumar Mittal, engaged in the business of Contractor of construction work, was also residing there and was not dealing in plywood. He testified that the bill dated 22.02.1992 (Ex.PW21/A), bill dated 22.02.1992 (Ex.PW21/B), bill dated 21.02.1992 (Ex.PW21/C), bill dated 21.02.1992 (Ex.PW21/D) were fake bills and that there was no firm either in the name of M/s Vijay Kumar Mittal and Sons or M/s Suresh Kumar Mittal and Sons running from the abovesaid address. During cross CC No. 19/12 33 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D examination, he stated that he was not aware if his brother Sh. Vijay Kumar Mittal was engaged in some other business besides construction work.

21.22 PW24 is Sh. Ram Prakash Arora, who was posted as Chief Manager (Audit) in State Bank of Patiala in the Inspection Department of the Head Office at Patiala from July, 1990 till 1995. He proved his inspection report Ex.PW24/C in respect of the inspection conducted by him in May, 1992 pertaining to State Bank of Patiala, S.N. Marg, New Delhi, in respect of the firms namely M/s Ganga Plywood Industries and its associates i.e. M/s Pawan Kumar Subhash Chand, M/s Sanjeev Dal Mills, M/s Sanjeev Enterprises, M/s Aggarwal Trading Company, M/s Tara Chand Jai Narain and M/s Mohan Agro Mills Ltd.

21.23 PW25 is Sh. Subhash Chand Gulati, who worked as ClerkcumCashier in the branch of SBI at Shipri Bazar, Jhansi, UP from 1991 to 1997. He proved the returning memo dated 30.05.1992 (Ex.PW25/A) through which the bank had returned the bill relating to hundi no. 93. He also proved that hundi dated 22.02.1992 (Ex.PW21/B) was also returned to State Bank of Patiala, S.N. Marg, New Delhi, vide return memo Ex.PW25/A. CC No. 19/12 34 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 21.24 PW27 is Sh. Rabindra Paitha, who was working as Cash Officer in the Parmanand Pur Branch of SBI, District Saran, from 1991 to December, 1993. He proved the local short credit document certified by Chief Manager of the SBI, Head Office, pertaining to the Parmanand Pur Branch (Ex.PW27/A). The relevant entries are entries no. 1757 to 1761 of State Bank of Patiala, S.N. Marg, drawn on Raju Trading Company. He testified that the said bills remained unpaid.

21.25 PW28 is Sh. Ramesh Kumar Dubey, who was a clerk typist in the Shipri Bazar, Jhansi Branch of SBI. He proved the returned memo dated 30.08.1992 (Ex.PW28/A) through which a hundi/bill no. 97 (Ex.PW21/A) of M/s Suresh Kumar Mittal and Sons was returned to State Bank of Patiala, S.N. Marg, as same had not been cleared / retired by the party concerned. He further confirmed that the hundi / bill (Ex.PW21/B) in the name of M/s Vijay Kumar Mittal and Sons was returned vide return memo Ex.PW25/A. 21.26 PW29 Sh. Nakul Prasad was working as Branch Manager in Katra Bazar, Patna Branch of State Bank of India. Owing to his retirement, he could not produce the Local Short Credit Register maintained in the official course of business. In view of this, he could not testify about the CC No. 19/12 35 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D bills received from State Bank of Patiala, S.N. Marg, Delhi for collection.

21.27 PW30 Sh. Upender Prasad was the Branch Manager in Parmanand Pur, District Saran Branch of SBI. He proved the Local Short Credit Register Ex.PW27/A maintained in SBI, Paramanand Pur Branch in ordinary course of business. He testified on the basis of record that bills no. 1757 to 1761 of State Bank of Patiala, S.N Marg drawn on Raju Trading Company for Rs. 99,550/ each returned unpaid due to the reason that "party had not retired (not paid the bill amount)".

21.28 PW32 is Sh. Virender Kumar Gupta who was posted as Clerk in S.N. Marg Branch, from 1989 to 1992. He had made entries of bills in the DN Register (Ex.PW2/A). These were the entries of the bills, which were to be received for payment. He has proved the relevant entries collectively as Ex.PW32/A to Ex.PW32/H. He also identified his signatures and handwriting on the Control Return Forms (Ex.PW24/D1 colly.). He also explained that these Control Return Forms are passed by the Branch Manager and in his absence by Field Officer. He also identified the signatures of Accused no. 1 on the hundies Ex.PW42/A1 to Ex.PW42/A8. He also identified the signatures of Accused no. 1 on the hundies Ex.PW21/A, CC No. 19/12 36 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D Ex.PW21/B as well as on other hundies Ex.PW32/X2, Ex.PW32/X3, Ex.PW32/X6. He also identified the signatures of Sh. Ashok Zaidka on the hundi Ex.PW32/X 1, Ex.PW32/X4 and Ex.PW32/X5 and signatures of Sh. M.R. Goel on hundies Ex.PW32/X7, Ex.PW32/X8 and Ex.PW32/X9.

21.29 PW33 is Sh. Manoj Kumar who had worked in Patna City Branch as ClerkcumCashier from 1991 to 1997. In 1992, he had been working in Bill Department and had never heard about any business concern by the name of M/s Rajasthan Agencies at Patna City.

21.30 PW34 is Sh. Anil Kumar Singh who worked as Clerk cumCashier in S.N. Marg, Delhi Branch of SBP from 1985 to 1992. He proved the Account Opening Form (Ex.PW17/A) of M/s Pawan Kumar Subhash Chand on the basis of which the current account no. 7114 was opened on 24.10.1991. He also identified the signatures of Accused no. 1 Davinder Kumar, the then Branch Manager at point A, who authorized to open this account and that of Sh. Ashok Jaidka, who verified the firm at point E. He also proved the Account Opening Form of M/s Sanjeev Enterprises (Ex.PW17/C) in respect of which current account no. 7156/1 was opened on 23.01.1992 and the same was authorized by Accused no. 1. He proved the CC No. 19/12 37 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D Account Opening Form of M/s Ganga Plywood Industries (Ex.PW18/K) in respect of which current account no. 146/2 was opened on 18.09.1989 and was authorized by Sh. R.N. Garg, the then Branch Manager. He further proved the letter No. 5674 dated 24.03.1992 addressed to Manager, Punjab National Bank, Sonpur, District Saran, Bihar in respect of DN No. 1742 to 1746 and D.N. No. 1999 to 2001 under the signatures of Accused no. 1. He further testified that he had visited the office of M/s Roshan Transport after the letter was received from PNB, Sonpur and inquired about the transport receipts attached with Bills bearing DN No. 1742 to 1746 and 1999 to 2001 and found that these TRs were never issued by M/s Roshan Transport. He also testified that the bills bearing DN NO. 1742 to 1746 and 1999 to 2001 were purchased on Adhoc basis as the drawer companies did not have any regular credit limit.

21.31 PW35 is Sh. Dinesh Chandra who is a timber merchant at Bhadoi, UP. He testified that he was running his business in the the area since 199293 and he knew all the businessmen in the field of timber business. He never heard of any firm by the name of M/s Gagan Plywood Home, Goel Timber or Garg Plywood.

CC No. 19/12 38 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 21.32 PW36 is Sh. Sunil Kumar who has been working as a Commission Agent of grains passed more than 35 years. Currently he is working under the name and style of M/s Sushil Kumar Sudhir Kumar, Etawa, UP. He stated that he knew almost all the firms in this business in the area and to his knowledge, there was no company in the name and style of M/s Mangal Sen Om Prakash.

21.33 PW37 is Sh. Sudhir Garg, who was Regional Manager, Delhi in State Bank of Patiala from July, 1995. He explained the instructions received from Head Office in the year 199192 regarding adhoc purchase of documentary bills. He also referred to Section 3 of Chapter H7 of Bank's Book of Instructions regarding restrictions on purchase of bills on adhoc basis. He proved the letter dated 22.08.1989 written by Sh. S.P. Mittal, Chief Manager (Credit), SBP HO, Patiala, addressed to Branch Manager, SBP, S.N. Marg, as Ex.PW37/A. As per this letter, the sanction of Cash Credit Limit of Rs. 75 lacs and USB limit of Rs. 25 lacs in favour of Ganga Plywood Industries Company Pvt. Ltd. was conveyed and the date of sanction of the limit was 18.08.1989 and the date of expiry of the limit was 17.08.1990.

CC No. 19/12 39 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 21.34 PW38 is Sh. Ashok Kumar who has been running a rice mill under the name and style of M/s Krishan Lal Ashok Kumar Sudhir Kumar, Etawa, UP since 1981 and was also Secretary of Rice Millar Association since 1990. As per his knowledge, there was no such firm in the name of M/s Mangal Sen Om Prakash and no such license issued in the name of such firm since 1981.

21.35 PW39 is Sh.Chhabi Nath, Postal Assistant joined Bhadoi Post Office as Assistant from June 1994 onwards and stated that during his tenure he never saw any mail pertaining to M/s Ganga Plywood Home, Goel Timbers and Gagan Plywood.

21.36 PW41 Sh. Raj Kumar is a retired Post man who remained posted at GPO, Kashmeri Gate from 1962 to 2001. His area of distribution was Peeli Kothi Naya Bazar. He distributed posts in this area even in 199192. He testified that some investigating officials had contacted him and enquired from him with respect to two firms and he had informed that he never received any post for distribution in the Peeli Kothi Area in respect of those two firms. He partially remembered the name of one firm and upon putting a leading question admitted that he had provided information in respect of M/s Pawan Kumar Subhash Chand and M/s Sanjeev Enterprises.

CC No. 19/12 40 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 21.37 PW42 is Sh. Hukma Ram, who runs a kirana store as a sole proprietor under the name and style of M/s Ramdev General Stores at Koppal, Karnataka. He testified that no person by the name of Sh. Rakesh Kumar Sharma resided with him or had any concern with the above said firm. Upon seeing the hundies no. 505, 506, 507, 508 dated 27.12.1991 and hundies 509 to 512 dated 30.12.1991, he stated that someone had given wrong information to the effect that one Rakesh Kumar Sharma was operating from his firm and address. He, however, admitted knowing Rangi Lal Goel as he used to receive Dal from his Sanjeev Dal Mills.

21.38 PW43 is Sh. Mukesh Chander Aggarwal, Sr. Typist, ARTO, Mainpuri, UP. He testified that he was posted in Transport Department of Etha in 1996 as Junior Clerk. As per the official record, he had informed the CBI officials that Rajdoot Motorcycle bearing registration no. UPT 2012 was registered in the name of one Birbal since 23.04.1973.

21.39 PW44 is Sh. Sanjay Saxena who is an Agriculturist and used to be in plywood business since 1983. He was running his business under the name and style of New Hardware Store at Bewar. He had informed the CBI officials in June 1996 that in Bewar area, he was the only CC No. 19/12 41 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D businessman dealing in timber and there was no other person or firm involved in the business of plywood, sunmica and timber till then.

21.40 PW45 is Sh. Malkhan Singh. He is the registered owner of truck no. UTM 2084 and has been running his transport business in the name of Kanpur Agra Mainpuri Transport since 1969. He had already sold the subject truck in the year 199798. He had informed the CBI officials that no plywood etc. was ever transported from Mainpuri to anywhere including Kanpur and that his truck had never been booked by Roshan Transport or by G.B. Transport. 21.41 PW47 is Sh. Laddan from Lucknow, UP is Assistant Urdu Translator and was also doing the work of registration and transfer of vehicle registered in the office of ARTO. He brought the record pertaining to the registration of a Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing registration no. UP343006 (Ex.PW47/A). He also produced the original file pertaining to registration of two vehicle scooter bearing registration no. UP343133 (Ex.PW47/B). He also proved the letter dated 30.05.1996 bearing signatures of the ARTO Sh. R.K. Mishra (Ex.PW47/C).

21.42 PW49 is Sh. Vijay Kumar Goel, who was posted as Deputy Manager, Regional Office, State Bank of Patiala, New Delhi, during 1995. In his presence, specimen CC No. 19/12 42 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D signatures of Accused Rangi Lal, Subhash Chand and Devender Kumar were collected by CBI. He proved these specimen signatures as Ex.PW49/1 to Ex.PW49/11, Ex.PW49/12 to Ex.PW49/22 and Ex.PW49/23 to Ex.PW49/33 respectively.

21.43 PW50 is Sh. Rajesh Kumar Kathuria, who was deputed to the CBI office for about 6 to 8 months to work as a typist under the directions of HRD Department. In his presence, specimen initials and handwriting of Accused Suresh Jain were taken. These Ex.PW50/P1(colly.) and Ex.PW50/P2 (colly.) The specimen signatures of Accused Anil Kumar Goel taken in his presence are Ex.Pw50/P3 (Colly). Specimen signatures of Accused Ashok Kumar Goel taken in his presence are Ex.PW50/P4 (colly.). He also stated that because of lapse of time, he could not identify the person from whom the specimen signatures were collected in his presence.

21.44 PW51 is Sh. V. Sriniwasan, who was deputed to work as Stenographer at the office of CBI at Chanakya Puri for couple of months. He has proved the specimen signatures and handwriting of Accused Dhanraj Garg Ex.PW51/P1 (colly.) and Ex.PW51/P2 respectively, which were collected in his presence.

CC No. 19/12 43 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 21.45 PW52 is Sh. Tej Prakash Chauhan, who was posted as Clerk with Vijaya Bank, R.K. Puram Branch, in May, 1996 and had accompanied the CBI officials to Dilshad Garden in relation of to some investigation. He proved the specimen handwriting collected in his presence as Ex.PW52/P1. After this witness was declared hostile, he was cross examined by ld. PP, upon which the witness stated that he was not aware if he had visited Dilshad Garden alognwith CBI officials in some other case. 21.46 PW53 is Sh. J.K. Jindal, who was posted as Chief Manager, Audit, Inspection Department, State Bank of Patiala, Head Office Patiala, on 12.07.1995. He has proved the seizure memo dated 12.07.1995 Ex.PW53/P1 in respect of DN purchases of standing in sister concern of M/s Plywood Industries Company Ltd., seized by CBI on his production. It has been observed by the Court that the documents seized vide this seizure memo were not on record.

21.47 PW55 is Sh. R.K. Saini, who is Sr. Technical Assistant in the office of Registrar of Companies, New Delhi. He brought the certified copies of the Certificate of Incorporation, Articles of Association and Memorandum of Association of M/s Ganga Plywood Industries Company Pvt. Ltd. (Ex.PW55/A, Ex.PW55/B and CC No. 19/12 44 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D Ex.PW55/C). He also brought the original Annual Return for the year 199293 filed by M/s Ganga Plywood Industries, the copy of which is Ex.PW55/D. It contains the names of all the Directors of the said company. 21.48 PW58 is Sh. S.C. Narang, who was posted as Field Officer in State Bank of Patiala, S.N. Marg, in the year 199596. He proved the seizure memos (Ex.PW58/A, Ex.PW58/A1, Ex.PW58/A2, Ex.PW58/A3 and Ex.PW58/A4) bearing his signatures vide which he handed over the documents mentioned therein to CBI. 21.49 PW59 is Sh. Suresh Jain, whose statement U/S 164 Cr.P.C (Ex.PW59/A colly.) was recorded by the then ld. Magistrate. He was a coaccused and was granted pardon U/S 306 Cr.P.C vide order dated 07.02.1997 by the then ld. ACMM, Delhi. He proved his specimen signatures/handwriting (Ex.PW50/P1, Ex.PW50/P2, Ex.PW59/C). He also proved the bills Ex.PW59/D1 to Ex.PW59/D3, which are in his handwriting bearing the signatures of Sh. Rangi Lal. Similarly, the bill Ex.PW32/X8, GRs Ex.PW1/10 and Ex.PW1/11, hundi Ex.PW32/X9 are in his handwriting. The bill and the hundi bear the signatures of Sh. Rangi Lal. The GRs were prepared under the instructions of Accused Rangi Lal. This witness was not able to identify the signatures and CC No. 19/12 45 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D handwritings on other hundies and GRs. He admitted that no other person except himself and Accused Dhanraj Garg prepared the documents in the nature of above mentioned documents in M/s Ganga Plywood. He testified that the bills were prepared by him and the other Accountant Accused no. 6 Dhanraj Garg at the instance of Rangi Lal (Accused no. 1) and in his absence under the instructions of his son Subhash Goyal (Accused no.3). 21.50 PW60 is Sh. S.N. Tiwari who joined as Post Master in Sonepur Sub Post Office, District Saran, Bihar in December, 1993 and remained posted till April, 1999. He testified that he had informed the CBI that he never dealt with any correspondence/letters/postage addressed to or by M/s Raju Trading Company. He also informed that other post man posted in the area had also never heard about such company as M/s Raju Trading Company. 21.51 PW61 is Sh. Gaya Prasad Verma who was posted as Post man in Head Post Office Etawah, UP from the year 1982 to 1992. He stated that he had never heard about M/s Mangal Sen Om Prakash firm and he never distributed any post at the address of this firm in the Main Bazar, Etawah City.

21.52 PW62 is Sh. Ravi Sexana, owner of the truck bearing DLIG 1974 from the year 199092. He testified that the CC No. 19/12 46 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D GR dated 21.02.1992 (Ex.PW62/A) did not belong to his firm and his truck was not used for transportation of the said goods. He also stated that the above said truck was a national permit truck and the same could not be used in UP for the local bookings. He also did not take any booking of this truck from Mainpuri (UP) to Bhadohi (UP). To a Court question, this witness answered that he never provided this truck either to M/s Roshan Transport and Forwarding Agency or to M/s Ganga Plywood Industries.

21.53 PW63 is Sh. Ram Jeewan, Peoncumrecord clerk in registration branch, Head Quarter, Transport Department, Delhi. He brought the summoned record pertaining to five trucks, one bus and one Nissan Allwin alongwith a report of the details of these vehicles (Ex.PW63/A). 21.54 PW64 is Sh. Surender Kumar who was posted as Senior Manager in Punjab National Bank, Sonepur, District Saran, Bihar. He could not produce the summoned record pertaining to correspondence between PNB, Sonepur Branch and State Bank of Patiala, S.N. Marg Branch as the record had been destroyed being older than eight year old.

21.55 PW66 is Sh. K. Gopal Rao, who was Accountant in SBI, Hyderabad, Koppal Branch, Karnataka, at the relevant CC No. 19/12 47 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D time. He testified that the Inward Bills for Collection Registration (IBC Register) of SBI, Koppal Branch (Ex.PW66/A) was maintained in ordinary course of duties. The DN numbers 1834 to 1841 at page 56 of this register pertain to eight bills drawn on one Rakesh Kumar Sharma. These bills were supported by Lorry Register vide RR number 16586 and were received from State Bank of Patiala, S.N. Marg. Since no payments were received within stipulated period of 30 days against these eight bills, these were returned to State Bank of Patiala, S.N. Marg. The Lorry receipts are Ex.PW66/B1 to Ex.PW66/B8. The eight demand notes relating to these bills Ex.PW42/A1 to Ex.PW42/A8 were also explained. He also confirmed the bills of Pawan Kumar Subhash Chand drawn on Rakesh Kumar Sharma at Koppal (Ex.PW42/D1 to Ex.PW42/D8). The return memo dated 25.05.1992 bearing his signatures vide which the bills with documents were sent back to SBP, S.N. Marg is Ex.PW66/C. The four bills mentioned at page 51 of the IBC register were also returned on account of non payment.

21.56 PW67 is Sh. Mangat Rai Goel, who joined as Branch Manager in State Bank of Patiala, S.N. Marg, in April, 1992. Accused Davinder Kumar was his predecessor. He CC No. 19/12 48 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D explained the circumstances in which he became suspicious of the dealings between Accused Davinder Kumar and the Directors of M/s Ganga Plywood and their family members. He showed the letter received by S.N. Marg branch from PNB, Sonepur and the response of the S.N Marg Branch (Ex.PW13/A and Ex.PW13/B) to the Internal Auditor Sh. R.P. Arora. He brought these facts to the knowledge of his Regional Manager also. He pursued the matter further with PNB, Sonepur. He proved the ledger book of account pertaining to M/s Ganga Plywood Industries as Ex.PW67/A. He also explained the circumstances in which he dealt with the bills submitted by Accused Rangi Lal and Subhash Goel accompanied with GRs related to Mohan Agro Limited and M/s Ganga Plywood Industries and the subsequent steps taken by him in this regard. He also explained the steps taken by him on finding out certain interpolations done by Sh. Ashok Zaidka, Field Officer in the GRs Ex.PW10/1 and Ex.PW10/2. He identified the signatures of Accused Davinder Kumar on the GRs Ex.PW67/A2 and Ex.PW67/A8 (purportedly of M/s G.B. Transport) 21.57 PW68 is Sh. C.K. Mishra who was posted as Regional Manager in the State Bank of Patiala, New Delhi in the year 199293. Apart from explaining the procedures and CC No. 19/12 49 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D rules involved in discounting of bills, he also testified about the information provided by the successor of Accused no. 1, i.e. Branch Manager Sh. M.R. Goel regarding the forged GRs as well as the audit that was carried out subsequently.

21.58 PW69 is Sh. Girdhari Lal Ahuja who was posted as Accountant in State Bank of Patiala, S.N. Marg from October, 1990 to August, 1991. He testified that the work pertaining to the advances and purchase of bills was looked after by the Branch Manager and Field Officer of the Bank. He explained the role of the Branch Manager in purchase of bills and also explained how DN liabilities purchase register was maintained.

21.59 PW71 is Sh. Naresh Chander Sood, now retired Govt.

Examiner of questioned documents, Shimla. He proved his report in respect of the documents sent for examination as Ex.PW71/B and Ex.PW71/C with reasons for such opinion.

21.60 PW73 is Sh. S.K. Kaushik, the then ACMM, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. He had passed the order dated 06.02.1997 (Ex.PW73/B) upon the application of the IO U/S 306 Cr.P.C for seeking tender of pardon to Accused Suresh Jain (Ex.PW73/A).

CC No. 19/12 50 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 21.61 PW74 is Sh. Pravin Kumar, the then Spl. Judge, CBI, Rohini Courts, Delhi. He was posted as M.M, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi on 13.12.1996 and the application U/S 164 Cr.P.C for recording the statement of Sh. Suresh Jain was marked to him on this date. The statement recorded by him is Ex.PW74/A. The other proceedings carried out by him in this respect are Ex.PW74/B and Ex.PW74/C. 21.62 PW75 is the investigating officer of the case Sh. Partha Mukherjee who was assigned investigation of the present case by the then SP, BS&FC, CBI. He has explained the investigation conducted by him and has proved the return memo, letters from various banks etc., seizure memos as well as the copy of FIR.

22. The Court also summoned two witnesses:

(1) CW1 is Sh. D.K. Khanna who upon the directions of the Court, produced the summoned record pertaining to registration number of vehicle (JEEP) No. UPD 3009 in the name of UP Tuberculous Association.

(2) CW2 is Sh. S.K. Sharma, who produced the summoned record related to vehicle no. DL3C 4471, Maruti 800 Car registered with Sheikh Sarai Transport Authority in the name of S.P. Goel.

CC No. 19/12 51 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 313 CrPC

23. After prosecution evidence, statement of all the Accused persons were recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC. The entire incriminating evidence was put to all the Accused persons. They denied the incriminating evidence pertaining to their role in commission of offence and claimed their innocence.

23.1. A1 Davinder Kumar mainly stated that he had performed his duty bona fidely in the best interest of the bank in accordance with the norms and practice of the bank; he had never entered into any criminal conspiracy with anyone; he neither took any favour from anyone nor gave any undue favour to any customer. He further stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case and is a victim of circumstances as the facts have been construed by the investigating agency.

23.2. A3 Subhash Chand Goel mainly stated that he was not aware of the day to day business affairs of any of the firms/companies, which were managed by his father late Sh. Rangi Lal and his uncle Jai Narain; all the business transactions of said firms/companies, managed by Rangi lal, Jai Narain and other family members were bona fide without any dishonest or fraudulent intention; he was never a part of any criminal conspiracy or did not commit CC No. 19/12 52 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D any offence; he did not prepare or execute any document alleged in this case; he signed some documents on the instructions of his father under bona fide belief; he did not withdraw or utilize any amount of money from the account of any of the firm/company for his personal use. He further stated that after the death of his father, he entered into a settlement with the bank in DRT case and towards full and final settlement of the case, he paid an amount of Rs. 1 crore 20 lacs to the bank after selling his residential house and as on date, nothing is due against any of his firms/companies in respect of the facilities granted by State Bank of Patiala, S.N. Marg Branch. 23.3. A4 Anil Kumar Goel mainly stated that he was looking after the production work at Mainpuri, UP in rice Mill i.e. Mohan Agro Mills Ltd and M/s Ganga Plywood Industries Pvt. Ltd.; he was not living in Delhi and day to day business affairs particular the final transactions were being carried out from Delhi office by his uncle late Sh. Rangi lal and therefore he was not aware about the day to day affairs of the said firms/companies. He further stated that he did not commit any offence and neither had any dishonest or fraudulent intention.

23.4. A5 Ashok Kumar Goel mainly stated that he never came across G.B. Transport India Pvt. Ltd and Orissa Transport CC No. 19/12 53 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D Service; he has no knowledge about any GR relevant to this case; he was not linked with M/s Pawan Kumar Subhash Chand and Sanjeev Enterprises in any manner whatsoever; he had no relation with M/s Pawan Kumar Subhash Chand, Sanjeev Enterprises, Aggarwal Trading Company and M/s Tara Chand Jai Narain and Mr. Rangi Lal used to run said company/partnership firm for all practical purposes; the accounts of Sanjeev Dal Mills were being maintained in Delhi office under the supervision of Mr. Rangi Lal; the head office of M/s Mohan Agro Mills Ltd was in Delhi and all the financial affairs and accounts were being dealt with in Delhi office under the supervision of Rangi Lal. He further stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case only on the basis of his alleged signature on a blank single cheque which he might have signed in ordinary course of business at the request or instruction of either late Sh. Rangi Lal or any other official concerned with the firms. 23.5. A6 Dhanraj Garg mainly stated that he was employed by Sh. Rangi Lal as 'Muneem' (accountant) in M/s Tara Chand Jai Narain; he was looking after the work of preparing bills, hundies and accounts of all the companies/firms at the instructions of Sh. Rangi Lal; neither he was asked nor he prepared any GR at any point CC No. 19/12 54 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D of time during my employment in the aforesaid firm M/s Tara Chand Jai Narain; Sh. Suresh Jain was the other accountant employed in the companies/firms who was looking after the work as assigned to him; Sh. Suresh Jain was always deputed by Sh. Rangi Lal to look after the work of banks in all respects; he had never gone to the bank for any purpose; the handwritings/signatures on the GRs belonged to Sh. Suresh Jain; he was not a beneficiary to any amount except my salary which was being paid to me by Sh. Rangi Lal; he had worked bonafidely as Muneem (accountant) without any dishonest or fraudulent intention. He further stated that he was neither a part of any criminal conspiracy nor committed any offence; he did not prepare or execute any GRs as alleged in the case; the other documents like bills/hundies were prepared by him bona fidely on the instructions of Sh. Rangi Lal being his duty in ordinary course of his employment.

DEFENCE EVIDENCE

24. One defence witness was examined by Accused Subhash Chand Goel. DW1 Sh. Devi Lal, Record Keeper in DRT III, New Delhi, brought the summoned record in respect of OA No. 254/97 (TA No. 38/2002) in case titled as "State Bank of Patiala vs. M/s Ganga Plywood Industries Pvt. Ltd.". The copy of the original application (OA) is CC No. 19/12 55 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D Ex.DW1/A. The copy of final order dated 12.03.2007 in respect of settlement alongwith application for withdrawal of OA is Ex.DW1/B.

25. I have heard the ld. PP for CBI and Ld. Defence counsels for Accused persons. I have carefully perused the record. I have also considered the written submissions submitted by prosecution as well as Accused no.1.

26. All the official transactions and documents including registers of SBP, SN Marg pertaining to the controversy in question have been proved primarily by official witnesses of the Bank including PWs 17, 18, 32, 56 and

57. Veracity of these documents has not been questioned by any of the accused persons. Return of bills unpaid is also not disputed. It is also not disputed that the procedure to be followed by the Bank Manager while discounting the bills is mentioned in ChapterH of PartII of Banks' Book of Instructions (Ex.PW20/A). It is also not disputed that being a ScaleIII employee/Branch Manager, Accused no. 1 had discretionary powers to make adhoc purchases of bills upto Rs. 8 lacs. During the recording of SA U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C, Accused no. 1 stated that his tenure as Branch Manager in State Bank of Patiala, SN Marg was from 01.01.1991 to 25.04.1992. It is also noted that the then Field Officer has been CC No. 19/12 56 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D mentioned as 'Ashok Zaidka' at some places and 'Ashok Jaidka' at others.

INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 13(1)(d) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT

27. Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act,1988 reads as follows:

13 Criminal misconduct by a public servant: (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct

(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 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

28. It has been argued on behalf of Accused persons that demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non for the offence U/sec. 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. It has also been argued that there is no evidence of acceptance of bribe or any other pecuniary advantage by Accused no. 1, the then CC No. 19/12 57 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D Branch Manager Devinder Kumar. It is the defence of the Accused that in the absence of such evidence of obtaining pecuniary advantage by the Accused no. 1, no offence U/Sec. 13(1)(d) of the PC Act is made out. In support of this contention, ld. Counsel for Accused no. 4 and 5 has relied upon the following judgments:

(1). B. Jayaraj vs. State of AP, 2014 (4) LRC 35 (SC);

(2). P. Satyanarayana Murthy vs. The District Inspector of Police and Anr., 2015 (4) JCC 2674;

(3). N. Sunkanna Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2015 (8) LRC 123 (SC);

                 (4).     Khaleel Ahmed vs. State of Karnataka, 2016
          (1)             JCC 163;

It is noteworthy that in all the above said cases, section 7 as well as section 13 (1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the PC Act were invoked and all these matters pertained to demand of illegal gratification by the public servant. All these case laws are, therefore, distinguishable from the present case on facts. Ld. Counsel for the Accused no. 4 and 5 has laid much stress on P. Satyanarayana Murthy's case on the ground that in this case section 13(1)(d) was independently interpreted by Hon'ble Supreme Court of CC No. 19/12 58 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D India as the conviction U/Sec. 7 of the Act had already been set aside by Hon'ble High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad. The perusal of the judgment shows that even though the issue before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was limited to application of Section 13(1)(d), this issue was decided in light of the fact of the case. In this case, it was held that the proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the offence U/Sec. 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably, the charge therefor, would fail.

29. The issue of interpretation of Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act also arose before the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Runu Ghosh vs. CBI, Crl. A. 482/2002. Vide judgment dated 21.12.2011, it was held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi : "...It would be sufficient if the prosecution proves that the public servant "obtains" by his act, pecuniary advantage or valuable thing, to another, without public interest. The inclusion of public interest, in the opinion of the Court, tips the scale in favour of a construction which does not require proof of mens rea...

CC No. 19/12                                                                 59 of 167
RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D
                (Para 74)

Having now settled the true interpretation of whether the offence U/Sec. 13(1)(d)(iii) requires proof of mens rea, it would now be vital to settle what really the prosecution would have to establish to say that the public servants actions or decisions, which results in a third party obtaining a pecuniary advantage or valuable thing, without public interest... (Para 81) ...a decision is said to be without public interest, (if the other requirements of the provision, i.e. Section 13(1)(d)(iii) are fulfilled) if that action of the public servant is the consequence of his or her manifest failure to observe those reasonable safeguards against detriment to the public interest, which having regard to all circumstances, it was his or her duty to have adopted".

It was also held that the public servant acts without public interest, if his action or decision is by manifestly failing to exercise reasonable precautions to guard against injury to public interest, which he was bound at all times to do resulting in injury to public interest.

30. In N. Narayanan Nambiar Vs. State of Kerala, AIR 1963 SC 1116, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme CC No. 19/12 60 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D Court of India while discussing Section 5 (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (which is similar to section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988) that on a plain reading of the express words used in the clause, we have no doubt that every benefit obtained by a public servant himself, or for any other person by abusing his position as a public servant falls within the mischief of the said clause.

Thus, in the facts & circumstances of the present case, it would be suffice for prosecution to prove that Accused no. 1 abused his position as a public servant or that while holding office as a public servant acted without public interest and obtained pecuniary advantage for Accused no. 2 to 5.

HANDWRITING AND SPECIMEN SIGNATURES

31. Ld. counsels for the Accused persons have argued that the specimen signatures and handwritings were not given voluntarily by the Accused persons and therefore, the GEQD opinion stands vitiated. It has been argued by ld. Counsel for Accused no. 3 and 6 that since the specimen handwritings and signatures of certain Accused persons were taken while they were in police custody, such specimen were inadmissible in evidence and, therefore, CC No. 19/12 61 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D opinion of handwriting expert based on such specimen is also inadmissible. It has further been argued by ld. Counsel for Accused no. 4 and 5 that according to the prevalent law during the period 199192, the investigating officer had not power to collect the specimen signatures and handwritings of the Accused persons on his own and even the Court had no power to issue such a direction U/Sec. 73 of the Indian Evidence Act while the investigation was in progress and no proceeding was pending before any Court. It has also been argued that such specimen signatures and handwritings could also not have been collected U/Sec. 4 and Sec.5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920. In support of this contention, ld. Counsel has relied upon following judgments:

(1) State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Ram Babu Misra, 1980 Supreme Court 791;

(2) Sapan Haldar and Anr. vs. State, 2012 VIII AD (Delhi) 533;

(3) Sukhvinder Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab, (1994) 5 SCC 152;

It has been argued that from 1980 till June 2006, law laid down in Ram Babu Misra's case was the law of the land and it was reiterated in Sapan Haldar's case. It was only CC No. 19/12 62 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D with the introduction of Section 311 A Cr.P.C that the issue of investiture of Magistrates with the power to issue directions to any person, including an Accused person, to give specimen signatures and writings was taken care of.

32. In light of these arguments, the above said case laws relied upon by ld. Counsel for Accused no. 4 and 5 must be discussed. In Sukhvinder Singh's case, the specimen writings of the appellant were taken under the directions of Tehsildar Executive Magistrate even though no inquiry or trial was pending in his Court. It was held that where the case was still under investigation and no proceedings were pending in any Court in which it might be necessary to compare the two writings, the person (Accused) could not be compelled to give his specimen writing. It was also held that failure of the Accused to raise objection when called upon to give specimen writing was immaterial. In Ram Babu Misra's case and Sapan Haldar's case, the Hon'ble Courts have also discussed State of Bombay vs. Kathi Kalu Oghad, AIR 1961 SC 1808. The issue in Ram Babu Misra's case was whether the Magistrate was empowered U/Sec. 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to direct the Accused to give his specimen writing when the case was still under investigation. It was held that the Section 73 of the CC No. 19/12 63 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D Evidence Act contemplated pendency of some proceedings before a Court and it does not permit a Court to give a direction to the Accused to give specimen writings for anticipated necessity for comparison in a proceeding which may later be instituted in the Court. While discussing Kathi Kalu Oghad's case, it was observed that the question whether such a direction U/Sec. 73 of the Evidence Act could be given when the matter was still under investigation and there was no proceeding before the Court was expressly left open and this question was not considered in the said case. It was further observed that the question that was actually decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Kathi Kalu Oghad's case was that no testimonial compulsion under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India was involved in a direction to give specimen signature and handwriting for the purpose of comparison. In Sapan Haldar's case, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while deciding a reference held that it was apparent that neither section 4 nor section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 would encompass a handwriting. Thus, neither a police officer during investigation, nor even a Magistrate can direct a person accused of having committed an offence to give his sample signature or handwriting sample, the former CC No. 19/12 64 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D U/Sec. 4 and the latter U/Sec. 5. It was further held that the power is that of the Court concerned and is to be found in section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act.

33. The State of Bombay vs. Kathi Kalu Oghad and Ors., 1961 AIR 1808 is the 11 Judge Bench judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India wherein it has been held "We agree therefore with the conclusion reached by the majority of the Bench that there is no infringement of Art. 20 (3) of the Constitution by compelling an accused person to give his specimen handwriting or signature; or impressions of his fingers, palm or foot to the investigating officer or under orders of a court for the purpose of comparison under the provisions of s.73 of the Indian Evidence Act..."

In this case, specimen handwritings of the accused had been taken during investigation while the Accused was in police custody. These were excluded from consideration by the Courts below on the ground that obtaining of such signatures offended Art. 20(3) and that an element of compulsion was implicit in the Accused being in police custody at the time the handwritings were taken.

34. The issue of law laid down in Ram Babu Misra's case and in Sapan Haldar's case on one hand and law laid down in CC No. 19/12 65 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D Kathi Kalu Oghad's case on the other presented itself before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rekha Sharma vs. CBI, Crl. Appeal no. 124/2013. Vide judgment dated 05.03.2015, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held:

"(Para 306) ...It has been repeatedly held by the Apex Court that judicial discipline obliges the High Courts of the land to follow the judgments of the Supreme Court and the mere fact that a particular provision or argument was not considered by the Supreme Court while deciding a case would not denude its precedential value. (Para 307) Strong reliance is placed on a judgment of a Three Judge Bench of this High Court in Sapan Haldar (supra). As a matter of fact the judgment in Sapan Haldar case (supra) rightly recognizes the fact that the Magistrate could not have been approached by the investigating agency in terms of Section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 for obtaining handwriting exemplars. The Court rightly opined in Para 31(i) that handwriting and signatures are not measurements and, therefore, do not fall within the ambit of the Identification of the Prisoners Act, 1920.

However, it is submitted that in para 19, it was CC No. 19/12 66 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D erroneously concluded that the police officer during investigation could not have obtained such signatures on his own. It would be pertinent to highlight that the said conclusion is sans any reasoning or discuss whatsoever;

(Para 308) The High Court in Sapan Haldar's case (supra) did not advert its precious consideration to the definition of the term investigation prescribed under Section 2(h) of Cr.P.C., which has also been subject matter of interpretation in catena of judgments of the Supreme Court which have held it to have a broad and inclusive connotation. The High Court lost sight of the fact that the Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of Selvi vs. State of Karnataka reported as (2010) 7 SCC 263 has held that the term investigation includes steps which are not exhaustively and expressly enumerated."

35. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Kathi Kalu Oghad's case and judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rekha Sharma's case, this Court has no hesitation in holding that there was no CC No. 19/12 67 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D illegality in taking of specimen signatures and handwritings of the Accused persons by the Investigating Officer during investigation. Further, there is nothing on record to suggest that there was any element of constraint or coercion in the physical sense or any threat on the basis of which specimen signatures were extorted from the Accused persons. As has been discussed in Kathi Kalu Oghad's case, mere asking by a police officer investigating a crime against a certain individual to do a certain thing is not compulsion within the meaning of Art. 20(3) of the Constitution of India.

EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF GEQD OPINION

36. Ld. Counsel for Accused no. 4 and 5 has relied upon State of Maharashtra vs. Sukhdev Singh and Anr., (1992) 3 SCC 700 wherein it has been held regarding handwriting expert's opinion that the quality of his opinion would depend on the soundness of reasons on which it is founded. It has been further held that the Court however cannot afford to overlook the fact that the signs of identification of handwriting is an imperfect and frail one as compared to the signs of identification of finger prints. It has also been held that before acting upon the opinion of handwriting expert, it must be proved beyond CC No. 19/12 68 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D any manner of doubt, namely, (i) the genuineness of the specimen / admitted handwriting of the concerned Accused and (ii) the handwriting expert is a competent, reliable and dependable witness whose evidence inspires confidence.

37. In Murari Lal vs. State of M.P., AIR 1980 Supreme Court 531, it has been held that there is no rule of law, nor any rule of prudence which has crystallized into a rule of law, that opinion evidence of a handwriting expert must never be acted upon, unless substantially corroborated. Further, it has been held that the science of identification of handwriting is not nearly so perfect and the risk is, therefore, higher. But this is a far cry from doubting the opinion of a handwriting expert as an invariable rule and insisting upon substantial corroboration in every case, howsoever the opinion may be backed by the soundest of reasons. It is hardly fair to an expert to view his opinion with an initial suspicion and to treat him as if inferior sort of witness. It has been observed that expert testimony is made relevant by S. 45 of the Evidence Act and where the Court has to form an opinion upon a point as to identity of handwriting, the opinion of a person 'specially skilled' in questions as to identity of handwriting is expressly made a relevant CC No. 19/12 69 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D provision. It has been held that in appropriate cases, corroboration may be sought. In cases where the reasons for the opinion are convincing and there is no reliable evidence throwing a doubt, the uncorroborated testimony of an handwriting expert may be accepted.

38. In the present case, there is no dispute regarding the genuineness of the specimen signatures and handwritings of the Accused persons as well as the approver PW59 Suresh Jain. It is not the case of any of the Accused persons that the signatures/handwritings sent to the GEQD as admitted signatures/handwritings are not their signatures/ handwritings. The opinion of the GEQD on the questioned signatures and handwritings are Ex.PW71/B and Ex.PW71/C. The detailed scientific reasons for these opinions have also been placed on record by the GEQD which are Ex.PW71/B2 and Ex.PW71/C2. The GEQD has explained in detail the manner in which the handwritings/signatures on the questioned documents have been compared with the specimen signatures/ handwritings and admitted signatures/handwritings. These reasons have not been challenged by the Accused persons in any manner. Therefore, there are no grounds to doubt the scientific investigation into the handwritings and signatures of the CC No. 19/12 70 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D Accused persons in the questioned documents and the GEQD opinion.

SANCTION TO PROSECUTE U/S. 19 OF THE PC ACT, 1988

39. It is not disputed that the then General Manager (Operation), State Bank of Patiala, PW6 Sh. Vijay Kumar Srivastava, was the competent authority to grant sanction U/Sec. 19 of the PC Act. During cross examination, he also explained that the sanction granted was with respect to the period December, 1991 to March, 1992.

40. Ld. counsel for Accused no. 1 has argued that the sanction to prosecute the public servant Accused no. 1 is not proper sanction as it was accorded mechanically without application of mind. He has pointed out that during cross examination this witness was not able to recall whether he had perused the statement of Sh. Sudhir Garg, the then Regional Manager, Sh. Virender Kumar Gupta, the then Advance Clerk, Sh. Ram Phal or Sh. Anil Kumar Srivastava. It has also been argued that PW6 admitted that he did not peruse the dispatch register and DN Register. Further, he could not recall any of the vital details related to the case and did not consider the recoveries effected in respect of the bills in question. He CC No. 19/12 71 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D also did not consider the bills after March, 1992. The witness has also admitted that he did not investigate if any other bank officials were also involved in the conspiracy. It is submitted that this shows that he had infact not perused any document and had granted the sanction mechanically. It has been argued that the sanction order was prepared by the CBI and PW6 merely signed it without applying his mind.

41. Ld. counsel for the Accused no. 1 has relied upon :

1. Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1979 Supreme Court 677;

2. CBI vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, 2014 Crl.LJ 930;

In Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed's case, it has been held that any case instituted without a proper sanction must fail because this being a manifest defect in the prosecution, the entire proceedings are rendered void ab initio. In Ashok Kumar Aggarwal's case, it has been held that the order of sanction should make it evident that the authority had been aware of all or relevant facts/materials and had applied its mind to all the relevant material. The power to grant sanction is to be exercised strictly keeping in mind the public interest and the protection available to the accused against whom the sanction is sought. The CC No. 19/12 72 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D sanction order in the instant case proved by PW6 is Ex.PW6/A. This sanction order was passed on 25.04.1997. The witness has been examined and cross examined on 02.06.2005. In these circumstances, his failure to recall a few witnesses whose statements were part of the record placed before him is not fatal to his testimony. In the sanction order, he has mentioned all the allegations against Accused no. 1 which show that he was aware of all the relevant facts of the case at the time of according sanction to prosecute Accused no. 1. He has mentioned in the sanction order that he has fully and carefully examined the material placed before him. In his testimony as PW6, he has stated that he examined CBI's report sent by the SP, CBI, statement of witnesses and other related documents. After their careful perusal and application of mind, he found that this case was a fit case for according sanction to prosecute the accused. So far as DN register and the dispatch register are concerned, their relevance has been stressed upon by ld. Counsel for Accused no. 1 in view of the allegation related to sending of control returns SBP 134 only whereas there is a whole gamut of allegations against Accused no. 1 on the basis of which he has been charged with the offence of criminal misconduct U/Sec. 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. Besides, CC No. 19/12 73 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D allegations related to Control Returns stem from other documents and witnesses too. The sanctioning authority was required to prima facie reach the satisfaction that relevant facts would constitute the offence.

42. In State of Maharashtra through CBI vs. Mahesh G. Jain, (2013) 8 SCC 119, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that while sanctity attached to an order of sanction should never be forgotten but simultaneously the rampant corruption in society has to be kept in view. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India considered various case laws on this issue and crystallized following principles "14.1. It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that the valid sanction has been granted by the sanctioning authority after being satisfied that a case for sanction has been made out.

14.2. The sanction order may expressly show that the sanctioning authority has perused the material placed before it and, after consideration of the circumstances has granted sanction of prosecution. 14.3. The prosecution may prove by adducing the evidence that the material was placed before the sanctioning authority and its satisfaction was arrived at upon perusal of the material placed CC No. 19/12 74 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D before it.

14.4. Grant of sanction is only an administrative function and the sanctioning authority is required to prima facie reach the satisfaction that relevant facts would constitute the offence.

14.5. The adequacy of material placed before the sanctioning authority cannot be gone into by the court as it does not sit in appeal over the sanction order.

14.6. If the sanctioning authority has perused all the materials placed before it and some of them have not been proved that would not vitiate the order of sanction.

4.7. The order of sanction is a prerequisite as it is intended to provide a safeguard to a public servant against frivolous and vexatious litigants, but simultaneously an order of sanction should not be construed in a pedantic manner and there should not be a hypertechnical approach to test its validity".

43. In the instant case the prosecution has placed the original sanction order before this Court and has also produced the sanctioning authority as a witness. In view of the above discussion as well as the principles reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Mahesh G. Jain's CC No. 19/12 75 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D case, a hypertechnical view of the sanction order cannot be taken. It should also not be lost sight of that the sanctioning authority is not required to conduct a parallel investigation into the offences at the time of grant of sanction. The sanction order, therefore, cannot be assailed on the ground that the sanction order was passed without first seeking explanations from Accused no. 1 and other bank officials. It is, therefore, held that the sanction to prosecute the Accused no. 1 (Ex.PW6/A) is a valid sanction order.

FAIR INVESTIGATION

44. Ld. counsel for Accused no. 1 has argued that the entire investigation was a biased one and Accused no. 1 cannot be convicted in a case where fair investigation has not been conducted. It has been pointed out that there was a delay of two years in lodging of the FIR. The duration of occurrence or the check period is from December, 1991 to March, 1992 but FIR was lodged on 15.03.1995 on the basis of source information. It has been argued that it has not been disclosed as to who the source was and this source was never produced before the Court as a witness. It has been argued that the writer of the FIR i.e. Sh. N.C. Verma, the then Superintendent of Police, CBI, BS&FC, CC No. 19/12 76 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D was not examined as PW by the prosecution. It has been further argued that admittedly the statement U/Sec. 161 Cr.P.C of Ashok Jaidka was recorded by the IO and the same was deliberately withheld by the IO. It has been argued that in such circumstance, an adverse inference must be drawn against prosecution to the effect that the statement of Ashok Jaidka may have been fatal to the case of prosecution and helpful to the accused. It has been argued that even though there was evidence that Ashok Jaidka had tried to tamper with the evidence, the IO neither arraigned him as accused nor as a witness. Further, M.R. Goel who succeeded Accused no. 1 as a Branch Manager and also made adhoc purchases of a few bills of Ganga Plywood Industries Company Pvt. Ltd., has also not been made an accused. Ld. Counsel for Accused no. 1 has referred to testimony of PW68 Sh. C.K. Mishra wherein he has stated in his examination in chief that in the year 199293, Sh. D.S. Ahluwalia was working as Administrative Officer in the Delhi Regional Office and the control returns sent by various branches of the Bank to Regional Office were first scrutinized by Desk Officer and, thereafter, by the Administrative Officer of the Regional Office. It has been argued that Sh. D.S. Ahluwalia was the best person to have proved CC No. 19/12 77 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D whether or not control returns in respect of adhoc purchases of bills made by the Accused no. 1 were sent or not.

45. Ld. counsel for Accused no. 1 has relied upon Babubhai vs. State of Gujarat and Ors, (2010) 12 SCC 254 wherein it has been held that the investigating agency cannot be permitted to conduct an investigation in a tainted and biased manner. The investigation into a criminal offence must be free from objectionable features or infirmities. It was also held that the investigating officer is not merely to bolster up a prosecution case with such evidence as may enable the Court to record a conviction but to bring out the real unvarnished truth.

46. In Babubhai's case, the investigation was totally one sided, biased and mala fide and one party was favoured by the investigating agency and the cause of the other party was prejudiced. It was a case of altercation between the members of two communities plying rickshaws and during investigation, statements of witnesses belonging to only one community were recorded and bias in investigation was palpably manifest. In the instant case, however, the facts are altogether different.

47. The FIR in the instant case was registered on 'source information'. During the course of arguments, much stress CC No. 19/12 78 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D has been laid on nondisclosure of the 'source'. Section 125 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provides that no Magistrate or police officer shall be compelled to say whence he got any information as to the commission of any offence. Non disclosure of source in the chargesheet in the present case, therefore, is not fatal.

48. During his examination in chief, PW75 IO Sh. Partha Mukherjee has identified the signatures of Sh. N.C. Verma, the then SP, who had registered the FIR. This is sufficient to prove the registration of FIR. It has been argued that even though the lodging of FIR stands proved, its contents should have been proved by Sh. N.C. Verma. I do not find any merit in this argument. Purpose of FIR is to set the process of criminal justice in motion and veracity of its contents is subject matter of investigation. Sh. N.C. Verma, therefore, was not a material witness and lodging of the FIR has been properly proved by the IO PW75.

49. Regarding the delay in registration of the FIR, it has been held in Lalai vs. State of UP, AIR 1974 SC 2118 and in Bhagare vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 476 that even a long delay in filing report of an occurrence can be condoned if the witnesses on whose evidence the prosecution relies had no motive for implicating the CC No. 19/12 79 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D accused. On the other hand, prompt filing of the FIR is not an unmistakable guarantee to the truthfulness of the version of the prosecution. In the instant case, out of 75 PWs, Accused no. 1 has cast aspersions during the course of final arguments only on PW69 M.R. Goel on the ground that this witness had professional rivalry with Accused no. 1 and that for this reason he deliberately withheld vital documents from the IO. The material details of these documents, however, have not been provided. Thus, delay in lodging of FIR in itself is not fatal to the prosecution in absence of any doubt about its case.

50. In response to argument of accused regarding non filing of statement U/Sec. 161 Cr.P.C of Ashok Jaidka by the IO, Ld. PP for CBI has argued that since M.R. Goel was cited as a prosecution witness, there was no requirement of citing Ashok Jaidka as a PW. Further, if the accused considered Ashok Jaidka as a material witness, what prevented them from summoning him in defence. Be that as it may, it is well settled that it is the quality of evidence that matters and not the quantity. It is correct that the statement U/Sec.161 Cr.P.C of Ashok Jaidka has not been filed on record by the IO as he has not been named as a PW in the chargesheet. However, perusal of CC No. 19/12 80 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D the chargesheet shows that the IO has not withheld any detail related to purchase of adhoc bills by the then Field Officer Ashok Jaidka and M.R. Goel, the successor of Accused no. 1. Sh. M.R. Goel has been examined as PW69 by the prosecution. Adverse inference cannot be drawn on conjectures and guess work.

51. It has been repeatedly and vociferously argued on behalf of the Accused no. 1 that Sh. D.S. Ahluwalia was a very material witness who could have proved whether or not the control returns were received in the office of Regional ManagerI. It has further been argued that IO has deliberately not cited him as PW which shows that the IO was biased. This argument of Accused no. 1 is misleading. In this regard Ex.PW75/C is a vital document. This is letter dated 30.01.1996 written by Regional ManagerI (Delhi) and addressed to the IO Sh. P. Mukherjee. This letter was written in response to the letter dated 22.01.1996 vide which the IO had sought certain informations from the Regional Manager. In para 6 of this letter, Regional Manager has informed the IO "6. Information regarding Sh. M.D. Sharma, the then Regional Manager is still awaited from Head Office. Sh. D.S. Ahluwalia, the former Administrative Officer, Regional Office has since CC No. 19/12 81 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D expired on 30.11.1995."

It is not clear as to in such a situation, how can Accused no. 1 allege that the IO deliberately did not cite Sh. D.S. Ahluwalia as a prosecution witness.

52. There is nothing on record to show that the investigation was a biased or tainted one.

CASH CREDIT LIMIT AND ROLE OF ACCUSED NO.1

53. While dealing with this issue , I shall consider the Audit Report Exh PW 24 /C. During his cross examination , the Auditor PW24 Sh Ram Prakash Arora appeared to be confused regarding the meaning of SBP131 and SBP

134. He was crossed examined extensively on this issue. Even though, during cross examination , Accused no. 1 suggested that the report Exh PW24/C was a false report, he himself has relied upon it for certain purposes. I shall consider that part of the report which has been relied upon by the Accused no.1 himself and also that in respect of which there is no cross examination.

Ganga Plywood Industries Co. Pvt. Ltd :

54. The current account opening form (Exh PW 18/J) of this company shows that its current account no.146/2 was CC No. 19/12 82 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D opened on 18/09/1989. Its office address is 1716/18, Pili Kothi, Naya Bazar, Delhi6. Rangi Lal Goyal (A2), Jai Narain (brother of A2), Anil Goyal (A4; son of Jai Narain Goyal), Ashok Goyal (A5; son of Jai Narain Goyal), Subhash Goyal (A3 ; son of A2 Rangi Lal) and Pawan Goyal are mentioned as its Directors. Exh PW 71/10 is the Resolution dt 15/09/1989 of this company vide which Anil Kumar Goyal (A4) and Rangi Lal (A2) were authorised by the Board of Directors to deal with the Bank on behalf of the Company in view of the sanction of credit limit in its favour.

55. Exh PW 37/A is sanction letter dt 22/08/1989 issued by Head Office of State Bank of Patiala at Patiala, Punjab and is addressed to the Branch Manager, State Bank of Patiala, S N Marg. Vide this letter, following credit limits were sanctioned in favour of the Company: Cash Credit (Hypn) - Rs 75.00 lacs and Usance/Demand Bills Discounting/ Purchases (Docy) Rs 25.00 lacs. Para 4 of this letter is vital which reads as follows:

"4. The credit facilities have been sanctioned for a period of one year and term will expire on 17.8.1990. In case you are satisfied with the working of the Company/conduct of account, the proposal for renewal of credit facilities should be submitted to us CC No. 19/12 83 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D alongwith your recommendations 2 months before the expiry of the said date."

56. For the purpose of present case, Credit limit of Demand Bills Discounting is relevant. From 22/8/1989 to 17/8/1990 , the credit limit of Rs 25 lacs was available to the company. The Branch manager could have made Regular Purchases of Bills upto limit of Rs 25.00 lacs during this period.

57. Exh PW 37/B is an official correspondence bearing no.

CAD/AN/1362 dt 15th May 1992 from Head Office, State Bank of Patiala, to Branch Manager, SBP, S N Marg, Delhi. Vide this letter, the Head office advised the branch manager to send the proposal for renewal of credit facilities of Ganga Plywood with specific recommendations alongwith comments about conduct of account, adverse features observed etc. This letter is vital for following reasons. First, it refers to an earlier correspondence in this respect dated 27th September 1991 vide which the branch manager was advised to submit renewal proposal. Second, Large Borrowers Statement had not been submitted since June 1991. Third, no correspondence in this regard was received from the Branch since June 1991. Fourth, constant follow up and monitoring of this account (of Ganga Plywood Industries) CC No. 19/12 84 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D was desirable. Fifth, the Head Office was not aware about the status of the account.

58. Accused no.1 has relied on all the documents (SBP134) constituting Exh PW 24/D1. On the other hand CBI's case is that except for the SBP 134 dt 13/05/92 and 18/03/92 , no other SBP 134 forming part of Exh PW 24/D1 was actually sent to the Regional Office. The abovesaid two control returns were sent by M R Goel , successor of Accused no.1 and the Field Officer Ashok Jaidka. It has also been argued by learned PP for CBI that this act of MR Goel and Ashok Jaidka of sending proper SBP134 showed their non participation in the conspiracy even though Departmental Action was initiated for negligence. Be that as it may, the undisputed SBP 134 dated 18/03/92 and 13/05/92 show that the credit limit for demand bill discounting/purchases (Documentary) of Ganga Plywood Industries was reduced to 20 lacs. In one of the SBP134 control returns dated 22/02/1992, against the purchase of DN no. 2140 & 2141, the sanctioned limit for Ganga Plywood has been shown as Rs 5 lacs. The circumstance of the reduction in this credit limit has not been explained. However , it does show that the credit limits sanctioned vide letter dated 22/08/1989 (Exh PW 37/A) expired on 17/08/1990 and it was not renewed.

CC No. 19/12 85 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D Despite communication from the Head Office dated 27/09/1991 as mentioned in communication Exh PW 37/B, Accused no. 1 avoided to send renewal proposal with specific recommendations and complete report on the conduct of the account of Ganga Plywood. Accused no.1 not only avoided to send renewal proposal but also ignored the advice of the Head Office to ensure constant follow up and monitoring of this account. The Accused no. 1 as Bank Manager at that time was required to be cautious while transacting with this account which he failed to be and continued with purchase of bills blatantly disregarding the advice of the Head Office.

Mohan Agro Mills Ltd.:

59. Anil Goyal (A4), Pawan Goyal, Ashok Goyal(A5), Subhash Goyal (A 3) are mentioned as Directors of this Company. Its Certificate of Incorporation is dated 21/09/1990 and is part of Exh PW75/H (Colly). Its current Account no. 1695 was opened in the State Bank of Patiala , SN Marg, Delhi on 04/12/1990. Its registered office in the Account opening form is mentioned as Mamli, Motiganj, Mainpuri in the Current Account opening Form (Exh PW 18/H20).

60. The Audit Report Exh PW 24/C shows that the Branch started purchasing Ad hoc bills only from 29/10/1991.

CC No. 19/12 86 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D This fact is not disputed. Thus, prior to the tenure of Accused no. 1, the adhoc bills of this company were not purchased. There was no credit limit sanctioned in favour of this company. There is nothing on record that would suggest that it enjoyed any such facility at any point of time.

M/s Sanjeev Dal Mill

61. It is a partnership firm (Dal Mill) and opened its current account no. 1586 in the Branch on 20/10/1989. Exh PW 71/7 shows that Ashok Goyal (A 5), Anil Goyal (A4), Smt Kanta Devi and Smt Ram Murti Devi were its partners. Further, they had appointed Subhash Goyal (A

3) as their authorised signatory / Manager for the purpose of transactions with the Bank. As per the Audit Report, it is a Dal (pulses) Mill at Delhi.

62. The Accused no.1 has relied upon the Audit report Exh PW 24/C to show that this firm was sanctioned credit limit of Rs 18 lacs and that the branch had been sending SBP134. Before discussing the report, it is essential to clarify that in the entire report, the word ' branch' refers to the S N Marg Branch of the State Bank of Patiala. Coming back to the part of report pertaining to the abovesaid firm, the SN Marg Branch has been purchasing its bills on Adhoc basis since 1990. It mentions that SBP CC No. 19/12 87 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 134 were sent to the Controlling Authority which has been confirmed by them upto August 1990. It further states that on 01/08/1990, the controlling authority restricted the branch to purchase bills upto Rs 18 lacs for the period upto 15/08/1990 only. Yet the branch has been purchasing DNs after 15/08/1990 and sending SBP134. It also states that as on 14/12/1991, the maximum outstanding against this firm was Rs 19,75,795/.

63. The report also highlights that this firm also enjoyed Cash Credit Hyporthecation limit of Rs7.50 lacs and DD Documentary Limit of Rs 39.40 lacs at Punjab National Bank, Lawrence Road, Delhi. Section 4.5 of the Bank's Book of Instructions provides that particular caution should be exercised when the bills are offered by the party who usually conduct such transaction through other banks.

64. The report shows that despite noncontinuation of the facility to purchase bills of this firm upto a limit of Rs 18 lacs, the Accused no. 1 continued to make adhoc purchases of the bills. It also shows that while maximum outstanding against this firm as on 14/12/1991 was Rs 19,75,795/, the Accused no. 1 purchased 5 bills ( DN no. 1757 to 1761) worth Rs 4,97,750/ in total on 17/12/1991 and 3 bills ( DN no. 1979 to 1981) worth Rs 3,00,345/ CC No. 19/12 88 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D on 21/01/1992. The Accused no.1 was required to exercise due caution while dealing with this firm which he did not.

M/s Pawan Kumar Subhash Chand:

65. It is a sole proprietorship trading concern. Subhash Goyal (A3) is its proprietor. The current Account opening form (Exh PW17/A) shows that it opened its current account in the Branch on 24/10/1991. Its office address is 1716/18, Pili Kothi, Naya Bazar , Delhi6. There is nothing to show that any credit limit facility was granted to it. Accused no.1 purchased 8 bills (DN no. 1834 to 1841) worth Rs 7,93,200/ on 30/12/1991 which were returned unpaid.

Aggarwal Trading Co.:

66. It is a sole proprietorship concern. Anil Goyal (A4) is its proprietor. The current account opening form (Exh PW 17/B) shows that its current account no. 7152 was opened on 09/01/1992. Its office address is Gali no. 4, Shalimar Village, Delhi 52.

67. The Accused no.1 started purchasing its Bills from 21/01/1992 onwards. He purchased 4 bills (DN no. 1982 to 1985) worth Rs 4,58,340/ on 21/01/92 and 3 bills (DN no. 1999 to 2001) worth Rs.3,45,300/ on 24/01/1992.

CC No. 19/12 89 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D There is nothing to show that any credit limit was sanctioned in its favour. All the bills were returned unpaid.

M/s Sanjeev Enterprises:

68. It is a sole proprietorship concern. Rangi Lal (A2) was its proprietor. The current account opening form (Exh PW 17/C) shows that it opened its current account no. 7156 on 23/01/1992. Its office address is 1716/18, Pili Kothi, Naya Bazar, Delhi6.The accused no. 1 purchased its 4 bills (DN no. 2084 to 2087) worth Rs 4,00,200/ on 12/02/1992. All these bills were returned unpaid. There is nothing to show that any credit facility was sanctioned in its favour.

M/s Tara Chand Jai Narain:

69. It is a partnership firm. Exh PW 17/ N shows that its current account no.1584 was opened on 18/10/1989. Its office address is mentioned as 1716/18, Naya Bazar, Delhi. Rangi Ram (A2) and Jai Narain (brother of A2) are its partners. Exh PW 71/9 shows that Subhash Goyal (A3) was its authorised signatory/manager.

70. As per the audit report, the Accused no. 1 purchased its 4 Bills (DN no. 2090 to 2093) worth Rs 3,99,280/ on 13/02/1992. In the chargesheet, however, 3 bills (DN no.

CC No. 19/12 90 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 2091 to 2093) worth Rs 2,99,460/ in total are mentioned. Accused no.1 has relied upon the audit report (Exh PW 24/C) to show that this firm enjoyed credit limit of Rs 15 lacs.

71. The report mentions that on 06/07/1990, the controlling authority had sanctioned Ad hoc limit of Rs 15 Lac upto 31/08/1990 in favour of this firm. There is nothing to show that this limit was extended further. The report also discloses that on 13/02/1992 when the Bills of this firm were purchased by Accused no. 1 , there was an outstanding of Rs 7,99,980/ against it. The Accused no.1 was expected to be cautious in these circumstances but no due caution was exercised.

72. In this case also, it has been highlighted in the Audit report that the firm was also enjoying cash credit (hypn) limit of Rs 4.50 lac and DD (Documentary) limit of Rs 22 lac with Punjab National Bank, Lawrence Road, Delhi. As per Section 4.5 of the Bank's Book of Instructions, Accused no. 1 should have exercised particular caution when the bills were offered by this party for purchase.

73. The above discussion shows that the same set of people who were the Directors of Ganga Plywood Industries Co. Pvt. Ltd were directors/partners/proprietors in the other 6 companies also. Thus, letter of advice (Exh PW 37/B) to CC No. 19/12 91 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D the extent of following up and monitoring the account was applicable to all these entities. However, Accused no. 1 not only disregarded the instructions of Head Office completely but also went ahead and got 3 new current accounts opened in the name of M/s Pawan Kumar Subhash Chand, M/s Aggarwal Trading Company and M/s Sanjeev Enterprises. No doubt, as per para 1.5 Chapter H7 of the Bank's Book of Instructions, the bill lodgers who are not availing cash credit facility should be encouraged to open current accounts with the Bank, in the instant case, however, situation is different as has already been discussed above. So far as the other three sister concerns are concerned, the Accused no. 1 also ignored the amount already outstanding against them. He also didn't take the status of credit facility adhoc or regular , if any, into account.

GOODS RECEIPTS (GRs)/MOTORS TRANSPORT RECEIPTS (MTRs)

74. Following are the lists of GRs/MTRs. The GRs which could be seized have been exhibited. The details of other GRs have been culled out from the DN Register (Ex.PW2/A). The first list pertains to the GRs annexed with the Bills purchased by Accused no.1. Second list CC No. 19/12 92 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D pertains to those purchased by Ashok Jaidka, the then Field Offcer and the third list pertains to those purchased by MR Goyal, successor Branch Manager. The seized GRs pertaining to Ganga Plywood Industries on record show that the goods were to be delivered from Mainpuri, UP through the Transport Company M/s Roshan Transport & Forwarding Agency. It is noted that the factories of Ganga Plywood Industries and Mohan Agro are located at Mainpuri, UP. The seized GRs of M/s Pawan Kumar Subhash Goyal show that the goods were to be delivered from Delhi through the transport company G.B. Transport (India) Pvt. Ltd.

DN no. purchased by Accused no.1 Davinder Kumar Srl. D.N. No. Bill no. Bill amount Drawer Transport receipts(GR No. (in rupees) company MTR 1 2113 92 261340.40 M/s Ganga MTR No. 39557 dt.

                      dt. 17.02.92                 Plywood       16.02.92   of   M/s   Roshan
                                                   Industries    Transport   &   Forwarding
                                                   Co. Ltd.      Agency
                                                                 Ex.PW10/3      Q30
  2   2141            97                 238416.00      do     MTR   No.   39670   dt.
                      dt. 22.02.92                               21.02.92   of   M/s   Roshan
                                                                 Transport   &   Forwarding
                                                                 Agency
                                                                 Ex.PW10/5      Q32


 3. 2140              93                 228445.00      do     MTR   No.   39669   dt.
                      dt. 22.02.92                               21.02.92   of   M/s   Roshan
                                                                 Transport   &   Forwarding
                                                                 Agency
                                                                 Ex.PW10/6      Q33




CC No. 19/12                                                            93 of 167
RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D
 Srl.  D.N. No.        Bill no.       Bill amount     Drawer     Transport receipts(GR
No.                                  (in rupees)     company    MTR

 4. 2150              95                 234840.80      do    MTR   No.   39671   dt.
    dt. 24.02.92      dt. 22.02.92                              21.02.92   of   M/s   Roshan
                                                                Transport   &   Forwarding
                                                                Agency
                                                                Ex.PW10/7      Q34
 5. 2151              96                 195749.10      do    MTR   No.   39672   dt.
    dt.24.02.92       dt. 22.02.92                              21.02.92   of   M/s   Roshan
                                                                Transport   &   Forwarding
                                                                Agency
                                                                Ex.PW10/8      Q35
 6. 1838              505                 98800.00 M/s Pawan    GR   No.   16528     dt
    dt. 30.12.91      dt. 27.12.91                 Kumar        26.12.91   of   G.B.
                                                   Subhash      Transport (India) Pvt. Ltd.
                                                   Chand        Ex.PW66/B1      Q20
 7. 1839              506                 98800.00      do    GR   No.   16527   dt.
    dt.30.12.91       dt. 27.12.91                              26.12.91   of   G.B.
                                                                Transport (India) Pvt. Ltd.
                                                                Ex.PW67/A2      Q21
 8. 1840              507                 98800.00      do    GR   No.   16529   dt.
    dt.30.12.91       dt. 27.12.91                              26.12.91   of   G.B.
                                                                Transport (India) Pvt. Ltd.
                                                                Ex.PW67/A3      Q22
 9. 1841              508                 98800.00      do    GR   No.   16530   dt.
    dt. 30.12.91      dt. 27.12.91                              26.12.91   of   G.B.
                                                                Transport (India) Pvt. Ltd.
                                                                Ex.PW67/A4      Q23
 10. 1834             509                 99500.00      do    GR   No.   16586   dt.
     dt. 30.12.91     dt. 30.12.91                              29.12.1991   of   G.B.
                                                                Transport (India) Pvt. Ltd.
                                                                Ex.PW67/A5      Q24
 11. 1835             510                 99500.00      do    GR   No.   16585   dt.
     dt. 30.12.91     dt.                                       29.12.1991   of   G.B.
                      30.12.1991                                Transport (India) Pvt. Ltd.
                                                                Ex.PW67/A6      Q25
 12. 1836             511                 99500.00      do    GR   No.   16587   dt.
     dt. 30.12.91     dt. 30.12.91                              29.12.1991   of   G.B.
                                                                Transport (India) Pvt. Ltd.
                                                                Ex.PW67/A7      Q26



CC No. 19/12                                                           94 of 167
RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D
 Srl.  D.N. No.        Bill no.        Bill amount     Drawer     Transport receipts(GR
No.                                   (in rupees)     company    MTR

 13. 1837             512                  99500.00      do    GR   No.   16588   dt.
     dt. 30.12.91     dt.  30.12.91                              29.12.1991   of   G.B.
                                                                 Transport (India) Pvt. Ltd.
                                                                 Ex.PW67/A8      Q27
 14 1757                            99550.00 M/s Sanjeev GR   No.   28508   dt.
    dt.17.12.91                                     Dal Mills   16.12.1991 of M/s Roshan
                                                                Transport and Forwarding
                                                                Agency
 15. 1758                           99550.00      do                 
     dt. 17.12.91                                                GR   No.   28509   dt.
                                                                 16.12.1991 of M/s Roshan
                                                                 Transport and Forwarding
                                                                 Agency
 16 1759                            99550.00      do    GR   No.   28507   dt.
    dt. 17.12.91                                                 16.12.1991 of M/s Roshan
                                                                 Transport and Forwarding
                                                                 Agency

 17 1760                              99550.00      do    GR   No.   28506   dt.
    dt. 17.12.91                                                 16.12.1991 of M/s Roshan
                                                                 Transport and Forwarding
                                                                 Agency

 18 1761                             99550.00      do    GR   No.   28505   dt.
    dt.17.12.91                                                  16.12.1991 of M/s Roshan
                                                                 Transport and Forwarding
                                                                 Agency
 19 1979                               100115.00      do    GR   no.   19175   dt.
    dt 21.01.92                                                  20.01.1992   of   G.B.
                                                                 Transport (India) Pvt. Ltd.
 20 1980                              100115.00      do    G.R.   No.   19176   dt.
    dt. 21.01.92                                                 20.01.1992   of   G.B.
                                                                 Transport (India) Pvt. Ltd.
 21. 1981                              100115.00      do    GR   No.   19177   dt.
     dt. 21.01.92                                                20.01.1992   of   G.B.
                                                                 Transport (India) Pvt. Ltd.
 22 1982                               114585.00 M/s        GR   No.   19163   dt.
    dt.21.01.92                                     Aggarwal  20.01.1992   of   G.B.

Trading Co Transport (India) Pvt. Ltd.

CC No. 19/12                                                           95 of 167
RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D
 Srl.  D.N. No.        Bill no.   Bill amount     Drawer      Transport receipts(GR
No.                              (in rupees)     company     MTR

 23 1983                          114585.00      do     GR   no.   19164   dt.
    dt. 21.01.92                                             20.01.1992   of   G.B.
                                                             Transport (India) Pvt. Ltd.
 24 1984              -              114585.00      do     GR   No.   19165   dt.
    dt. 21.01.92                                             20.01.1992   of   G.B.
                                                             Transport (India) Pvt. Ltd.
 25 1985                          114585.00      do     GR   No.   19166   dt.
    dt. 21.01.92                                             20.01.92   of   G.B.
                                                             Transport (India) Pvt. Ltd.
 26 1999              -              115100.00      do     GR   No.   19219   dt.
    dt. 24.01.92                                             23.01.1992of          G.B.
                                                             Transport (India) Pvt. Ltd.
 27 2000              -              115100.00      do     GR   NO.   19220   dt
    dt. 24.01.92                                             23.01.1992   of   G.B.
                                                             Transport (India) Pvt. Ltd.
 28 2001                          115100.00      do     GR   No.   19221   dt.
    dt. 24.01.92                                             23.01.92   of   G.B.
                                                             Transport (India) Pvt. Ltd.
 29 2084                            100050.00 M/s   Sanjeev GR   No.   19321   dt.
    dt. 12.02.92                               Enterprises 11.02.92   of   G.B.
                                                             Transport (India) Pvt. Ltd.
 30 2085                            100050.00      do     GR   No.   19322   dt.
    dt. 12.02.92                                             11.02.92   of   G.B.
                                                             Transport (India) Pvt. Ltd.
 31 2086                            100050.00      do     GR   No.   19323   dt.
    dt. 12.02.92                                             11.02.92   of   G.B.
                                                             Transport (India) Pvt. Ltd.
 32 2087                             100050.00      do     GR   No.   19324   dt.
    dt. 12.02.92                                             11.02.92   of   G.B.
                                                             Transport (India) Pvt. Ltd.

 33 2091                              99820.00 M/s   Tara GR   No.   19348   dt.
    dt. 13.02.92                               Chand   Jai 12.02.92   of   G.B.
                                               Narain      Transport (India) Pvt. Ltd.
 34 2092                              99820.00      do     GR   No.   19349   dt.
    dt. 13.02.92                                             12.02.92   of   G.B.
                                                             Transport (India) Pvt. Ltd.




CC No. 19/12                                                        96 of 167
RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D
 Srl.  D.N. No.        Bill no.   Bill amount      Drawer    Transport receipts(GR
No.                              (in rupees)      company   MTR

 35 2093                              99820.00       do   GR.   No.   19350   dt.
    dt. 13.02.92                                            12.02.92   of   G.B.
                                                            Transport (India) Pvt. Ltd.
 36 1720                              84500.00 M/s   Mohan GR   of   M/s   Roshan
    dt. 11.12.91                               Agro Mills Transport. GR number not
                                                           available. 
 37 1721                              84500.00       do   GR   of   M/s   Roshan
    dt. 11.12.91                                            Transport. GR number not
                                                            available. 
 38 1722                              84500.00       do   GR   of   M/s   Roshan
    dt. 11.12.91                                            Transport. GR number not
                                                            available. 
 39 1723                              84500.00       do   GR   of   M/s   Roshan
    dt. 11.12.91                                            Transport. GR number not
                                                            available. 
 40 1724                              84500.00       do   GR   of   M/s   Roshan
    dt. 11.12.91                                            Transport. GR number not
                                                            available. 

 41 1725                              84,500.00      do   GR   of   M/s   Roshan
    dt. 11.12.91                                            Transport. GR number not
                                                            available. 
 42 2226                              96,800.00      do_   GR   of   M/s   Roshan
    dt. 13.03.92                                            Transport. GR number not
                                                            available. 
 43 2227                              96,800.00      do_   GR   of   M/s   Roshan
    dt. 13.03.92                                            Transport. GR number not
                                                            available. 
 44 2228                              96,800.00      do_   GR   of   M/s   Roshan
    dt. 13.03.92                                            Transport. GR number not
                                                            available. 
 45 2229                              97,090.00      do_   GR   of   M/s   Roshan
    dt. 13.03.92                                            Transport. GR number not
                                                            available. 
 46 2230                              97,090.00      do_   GR   of   M/s   Roshan
    dt. 13.03.92                                            Transport. GR number not
                                                            available. 




CC No. 19/12                                                      97 of 167
RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D

DN no. pertaining to Ganga Plywood Industries purchased by Ashok Jaidka, Field Officer Srl. DN No. G.R No. Delivery Address No.

1. 2050 dt. 39325 dt. 03.02.92 Main Bazar, Bhadoi 04.02.92 Exh PW10/1(Q28) Roshan Trans.

2. 2051 dt. 3926 dt 3/2/92 Main Bazar , Bhadoi 02.02.92 Exh PW 10/2(Q29) Roshan Trans.

3. 2271 42219 dt 16/3/92 Bazar Samiti , Bhadoi Dt 18/3/92 Exh PW10/4(Q31) Roshan Trans.




DN no. pertaining to Ganga Plywood 
Industries purchased by MR Goyal
Srl.  DN No.         G.R No.                        Delivery Address
No.
1.         88 dt.                42495 dt 1/5/92  Durga Transport, Bewar
           02.05.92              Exh PW1/9 (Q36) 
                                 Roshan Trans. 
2.         111 dt.               42603 dt12/5/92  Delhi Banaras Trans. 
           13.05.92              Exh PW 1/10(Q37) company, Badoi
                                 Roshan Trans
3.         112 dt.               42604 dt 12/5/92  Delhi Banaras Trans.    
           13.05.92              Exh PW1/11 (Q38) Co., Badoi.
                                 Roshan Trans.




CC No. 19/12                                                     98 of 167
RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D
   GEQD Report and Other testimonies:

75. The evidentiary value of the GEQD Report has already been discussed above. The dispute regarding the authorship of Q 30 (MTR dt 16/02/1996 of Roshan Transport Exh PW10/3) has been dealt with separately while discussing the role of Accused no. 6. GEQD reports (Exh PW 71/B & PW71/C) have conclusively proved that the GRs Q20 to Q30 and Q 32 to Q 36 were prepared by Accused no. 6 , an accountant in the Delhi office of the firms of the Accused no. 2 to 5.Similarly, it has been conclusively proved that the GRs Q 31,37 & 38 were prepared by approver/PW 59 Suresh Jain. In his examination in chief, PW 59/Approver not only admitted preparation of GRs Q 31, 37 & 38 but he also testified that he also signed as booking clerk ' Ram Kumar ' at points A on these GRs and that he did all these acts at the instance of Accused no. 2 Rangi Lal. Though this PW did not support prosecution regarding handwriting of Accused no. 6 Dhanraj Garg, he stood steadfast on his own role and was not even cross examined by the accused persons to that extent. The prosecution has, therefore, established beyond doubt that the MTRs/GRs attached with bills bearing DN no.2113, 2141, 2140, 2150, 2151, 2050, 2051, 2271, 88, 111 and 112 CC No. 19/12 99 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D pertaining to Ganga Plywood Industries and the bills bearing DN no. 1834 to 1841 pertaining to M/s Pawan Kumar Subhash Chand were forged ones 3 of which were prepared by Approver Suresh Jain and rest by Accused no.6.

76. The DN Register shows that GRs /MTRs of Roshan Transport and GB Transport were annexed with the remaining Bills which are the subject matter of the present case. PW 4 is Shri Ravi Gupta who worked in M/s GB Transport India (P) Ltd as Manager from 1987 till 2001.He has categorically stated -" We have not dealt with M/s Ganga Plywood Industries, M/s Sanjiv Dal Mills , M/s Mohan Agro Mills, M/s Tara Chand Jai Narain and M/s Pawan Kumar Subhash Chand." After the Manager, State Bank of Patiala demanded goods and GRs from this transport company, it realised that its name was being misused. A complaint (Exh PW 4/A) dt 8/7/1992, therefore, was promptly lodged by PW 4 on behalf of this company with PS Nabi Karim to this effect. The promptness in lodging the complaint and the GEQD opinion leaves no doubt in the mind of the Court regarding the truthfulness of this witness.

CC No. 19/12 100 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D

77. Similar complaint dt 8/7/1992 (Exh PW1/12) was lodged by Sh Raj Kumar Kalra on behalf of M/s Roshan Transport with PS Nabi Karim. PW 10 is Sh Ashok Kalra who joined M/s Roshan Transport as clerk in 198283 and has been working as Booking Incharge since 198889.This witness has confirmed that M/s Roshan Transport has no branch at Mainpuri, UP. In the GR forms seized and in the particulars in the DN Register, it has been mentioned that for the purpose of sending goods from Mainpuri to the delivery address, services of M/s Roshan Transport were taken. During the cross examination of PW 10, a vague suggestion was put to the effect that there was one branch of M/s Roshan Transport at Mainpuri. This suggestion was denied. The accused failed to counter this witness on this point. The prosecution has thus established beyond any doubt that all the GRs / MTRs attached with the Bills in question were forged ones and, therefore, goods as mentioned in such Bills were infact never dispatched to the purported Drawees.

Role of Accused no. 1:

78. We have seen above how the advice of the Head Office at Patiala was ignored by Accused no. 1 while dealing with account of M/s Ganga Plywood Industries and the sister CC No. 19/12 101 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D concerns. Now I would examine whether accused number 1 exercised due caution while purchasing the bills in question. While purchasing the bills, the drawer of the bill is required to submit GRs/MTRs as well as hundis with the bills. At this juncture it is a vital part of the procedure laid down by the bank that the bank manager should ensure that the GRs/MTRs are of the transporter which is on the IBA approved list of the transporters. The defence of accused number 1 is that on the dates of purchase of the bills, he was not aware that M/s Roshan Transport and Forwarding Agency was not on the IBA approved list of transporters. He has further stated that he was merely following his predecessors while purchasing bills supported by GRs of M/s Roshan Transport. He has also pointed out that in his absence, the then field officer Ashok Jaidka and his successor MR Goyal also purchased bills supported by M/s Roshan Transport. It is noted that Ashok Jaidka and M R Goyal had purchased three bills each. Since GRs/MTRs are vital part of the purchase of the bills by the bank, it was the prime duty of accused number 1 to ensure that the transport companies were on the IBA approved list of transporters on the dates of such purchases. In this regard circular C&I/6 of 199192 dated 3/5/1991 (exhibit CC No. 19/12 102 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D ExhPW17/P1) issued by the Head office, State Bank of Patiala at Patiala is vital. Vide this circular, all branch managers were advised to delete the names of three transport operators including M/s Roshan Transport and Forwarding Agency. The letter dated 30/6/1995 of Indian Banks' Association (IBA) addressed to IO is exhibit ExhPW19/A. Vide this letter,the IBA has informed that G B Transport continued to be on the list of recommended transporters w.e.f 18/04/1983. It has further informed that since 23rd April 1991, M/s Roshan Transport was not on the recommended list. Contention of accused number 1 is that he was not aware of the circular dated 3/5/1991 issued by the Head Office as the same was not received in the branch. However, the presumption under section 114 illustration (f) of the Indian Evidence Act works against this contention. Once a circular has been issued in common course of business, it is presumed that it would have been circulated to all the branch managers for whose intimation and compliance it was issued. There is nothing to show that the common course of business in this case was interrupted in any manner. It establishes the case of the prosecution that the Accused no.1 blatantly ignored the directions of the Head Office as well as the instructions CC No. 19/12 103 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D in chapter H7 of the Bank's Book of Instructions to obtain pecuniary advantages to the Accused no. 2 to 5 by purchasing their bills supported by GRs of a transport company which did not figure in the IBA list of approved transporters. The accused number 1 has failed to show what precautions he took in respect of the GRs while purchasing the bills in question.

LETTER OF MANAGER, PNB, SONPUR

79. The handwritten letter in issue is exhibit PW13/A dated 7/3/1992 written by Manager, Punjab National Bank, Sonpur and is addressed to Manager, SBP, SN Marg, Delhi. This letter is in respect of purchase of DN numbers 1742 to 1746 and DN number 1999 to 2001. Punjab National Bank is the drawee bank to which these bills were sent for realization of bill amount from the drawees of bills. In this letter, Manager, PNB has pointed out that the above said bills are supported by Transport Receipts (TRs) of GB Transport (India) Pvt Ltd and Roshan Transport and Forwarding Agency (Bombay). The letter further mentions that as per the TRs, Roshan Transport has issued TR to delivery office of Bihar Transport company, Sonpur while GB Transport has issued the same in its own name for delivery to their CC No. 19/12 104 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D Sonpur godown office. It further states that as per the information of PNB, Sonpur, there is no transport office at Sonpur and therefore TRs seemed to be fake. Para 4 & 5 of this letter are reproduced below:

"4. The party, inspite of our efforts, does not seem to keen in retiring the same and we have been getting telegrams your office to detain the Bill continuously.

5. We do not know under what circumstances you have purchased such fake TRs and what circumstances compel you to instruct us for detaining the same for long.

Please guide clearly as follows: Whether we should detain the bill for further period. If so, uptill when ?

Please intimate us through regd letter and NOT by Telegram.

Manager."

80. Receiving of this letter in SBP, SN Marg is not disputed.

In the abovesaid letter, two sets of DN numbers are mentioned. For the purpose of present controversy, only DN no.1999 to 2001 purchased on 24/01/92 are relevant. The drawer of these bills is Aggarwal Trading Co. and the transporter is mentioned as GB Transport.

81. In response to this letter, Accused no.1 sent a reply dated 24/03/1992 (Exh PW 13/B). The contents of the reply are CC No. 19/12 105 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D reproduced below:

"Our DN No. 1742 to 1746 dtd 14/12/91 and DN No. 1999 to 2001.

Please refer your letter no. nil dated 7.3.92. We write to inform you that the borrower is enjoying a CC limit of Rs 75.00 lacs and Bills purchase limit of Rs 25.00 lacs with us. The accounts are running satisfactorily and we are receiving payments of the bills discounted by us. However, we are grateful to you for the advise and we have noted a caution. We are also taking up the matter separately with GB Transport (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Roshan Transport and Forwarding Agency. You are further advised not to detain anymore the bills and return the same if not paid your end.

Yours faithfully, Manager"

82. This handwritten reply admittedly bearing signatures of Accused no.1 at point A is material on various counts. First, the averments in the letter of PNB, Sonpur regarding repeated requests made by SN Marg Branch through telegrams to continue detaining the bills even though the drawee party was not showing any interest in retiring the bills have not been challenged in the reply. Second, the Accused no. 1 has provided absolutely wrong information to Manager, PNB, Sonpur regarding DN no. 1999 to 2001. These bills pertain to M/s Aggarwal CC No. 19/12 106 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D Trading Company which never enjoyed any CC limit. The facility of CC limit of Rs 75 lacs and Bill purchase limit of Rs 25 lacs was provided only to Ganga Plywood Industries and that too for one year. Accused no. 1 had taken no steps for its renewal. Yet Accused no. 1 informed PNB, Sonpur that borrower, i.e., M/s Aggarwal Trading Co. was enjoying the abovesaid cash credit limit and bill purchase limit. Third, the act of insisting on detaining the bills for long shows that Accused no. 1 was aware of possibility of bills not getting retired by the Drawee. Fourth, after sending such reply, Accused no. 1 kept the matter under wraps. He neither himself conducted any inquiry into the issue of fake GRs nor reported the matter to his superiors.

83. During the course of arguments, ld counsel for the Accused no. 1 raised the contention that the reply dt 24/3/1992 was prepared by a sub ordinate and the Accused merely signed it. This argument, however, does not pass the test of prudence. It is unbelievable that a Branch Manager dealing with public money in Bank where money transactions are scrutinised at each step under his vigil would sign a document as important as this reply without reading or verifying it. Infact, this piece of evidence clinches the role of Accused no. 1 in the CC No. 19/12 107 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D entire conspiracy and establishes beyond doubt that he actively misused his office as public servant to obtain pecuniary advantage for Accused no. 2 to 5. The accused can not hide behind the acts of his predecessors, successors or subordinates when he himself showed deliberate disregard for the advices and instructions and threw caution to wind. Without his active support , the Accused no. 2 to 5 could not have been successful in their design.

84. At this stage, it is vital to highlight Chapter H7 of the Bank's Book of Instructions which deals with the purchase of Demand Drafts covering demand bills. Section1.3 stipulates that Branch Manager must exercise the greatest care and discrimination in purchasing bills. In terms of section 4.1, Branch Managers are responsible that demand bills purchased by them represent genuine trade transactions or legitimate movement of funds and that the drawers or endorsers are in a position to repay the amounts immediately in the event of the bills being dishonoured by the drawees against whom the Bank has no recourse. Section 4.10 provides that the Motor Transport Receipts accompanying the bills should be from the company recommended for approval by Indian Bank's Association and conditions prescribed under the CC No. 19/12 108 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D scheme of IBA should be meticulously complied with. Further, the transport company should have an office at the place of despatch as well as destination. As per section 4.7, under no circumstance what so ever, fresh purchase of demand bills should be permitted to retire the bills received back unpaid.

 NON   EXISTENCE                              OF           COMPANIES/
 CONCERNS / FIRMS

85. The phrase 'proof of non existence' is an oxymoron.

There can be a straight affirmative evidence to prove existence of an entity but how to prove its nonexistence. The prosecution has attempted to do it by collecting evidence to prove nonexistence of firms drawers as well as drawees of the Bills in question by way of summoning people residing or working in the locality since long, postmen and even the bank officials of that area. Nonexistence of a firm , however , can be countered only by producing or putting specific details of such firm , like exact address or location, name of the owner or person in charge etc, to the witnesses proving such nonexistence.

CC No. 19/12                                                          109 of 167
RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D
  Drawers of the Bills:

86. Allegation of the prosecution is that the current accounts of three firms, namely, M/s Pawan Kumar Subhash Chand, M/s Aggarwal Trading Company and M/s Sanjeev Enterprises were opened during the tenure of Accused no.1 as branch manager only to offer forged Bills for purchase by the Bank and siphon off the proceeds whereas these firms never existed in reality.

87. Abovesaid three companies are all sole proprietorship concerns. Accused no. 3 Subhash Goyal is the sole proprietor of M/s Pawan Kumar Subhash Chand (Current A/c opened on 24/10/91). The bills in question of this firm were purchased on 30/12/1991.Accused no. 2 Rangi Lal was the sole proprietor of M/s Sanjeev Enterprises (current A/c opened on 23/01/92). Its bills were purchased on 12/02/92. Accused no. 4 Anil Kumar Goyal is the proprietor of M/s Aggarwal Trading (Current account opened on 9/1/92). Its bills were purchased on 21/1/92 and 24/1/92. All the bills in question of these concerns were returned unpaid.

88. Office address of M/s Pawan Kumar Subhash Chand and M/s Sanjeev Enterprises is 1716/18, Pili Kothi, Naya Bazaar, Delhi6. That of M/s Aggarwal Trading Co. is Gali no. 4, Shalimar Village, Delhi 52.

CC No. 19/12 110 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D

89. In SA U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C, Accused no. 1 has explained that M/s Pawan Kumar Subhash Chand and M/s Sanjeev Enterprises were working from 1716/18, Pili Kothi, Naya Bazar, Delhi6 and that he had visited the premises. In response to another question, he has explained that the current accounts of M/s Pawan Kumar Subhash Chand, M/s Sanjeev Enterprises and M/s. Aggarwal Trading Company were allowed to be opened by him after due verification was done by the Field Officer/Accountant. Perusal of the Current Account Opening Form of Sanjeev Enterprises (Ex.PW17/C), M/s Aggarwal Trading Company (Ex.PW17/B) and M/s Pawan Kumar Subhash Chand (Ex.PW17/A) shows that there is no column in these forms that would suggest that the Field Officer or the Accountant or the Branch Manager had physically verified the existence of these companies. This issue as well as veracity of the explanation of Accused in his SA, therefore, requires further examination.

M/s Aggarwal Trading Company

90. PW11 is Sh Satish Bajaj who has factory premises in Gali no.2, Village Shalimar Bagh, Industrial Area since 1972.He has deposed that there was no firm by the name of Aggarwal Trading Co. in the area in the year 1991 or CC No. 19/12 111 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 1992 or thereafter. This witness is an inhabitant of that area. He also stated that there was an Association of the factory owners in the name of Shalamar Small Scale Industries Association Regd. He also explained the procedure how a manufacturer may become member of the Association. During cross examination, he was asked whether he had brought any record of the members of the Association as in the year 199192. The witness had not produced any record. However, before insisting on disregarding this witness, the Accused no. 4 should have first stated whether he was the member of this Association or not. Cross examination of the witness does not disclose that it is the case of Accused no.4 that he was the member of the said Association. Further, the witness affirmed the suggestion that it was possible that one manufacturer may have 2 or 3 units in different names and apparently there is only one sign board. The accused must explain how this portion of testimony is relevant and whether there are 2 or 3 such units including Aggarwal Trading Co. running from one premises. The witness is an old inhabitant of the area and is steadfast that he had never heard or seen any firm by the name of Aggarwal Trading.

CC No. 19/12 112 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D

91. It is noted that in the current account opening form, Accused no. 4 has not provided any premises number. The address provided just reads 'Gali no. 4, Village Shalimar, Delhi52'.

92. In the cross examination, no specific queries were put to the witness regarding specific location of the concern's office or factory. The Accused no. 4 has also not produced anything in evidence to show what business transactions were being conducted which would have been a clinching proof of its existence. It has already been discussed how the goods mentioned in the bills in question were forged ones and in fact no goods were sent to the drawee. It fortifies and establishes the case of prosecution that this concern was a fictitious one.

M/s Pawan Kumar Subhash Chand & M/s Sanjeev Enterprise

93. The office address of these two concerns has been mentioned as 1716/18, Pili Kothi, Naya Bazar, Delhi6 in the Current Account Opening Forms. PW12 is Sh. Anand Parkash Kanojia who had been collecting rents from the tenants in property no. 1716/18, on behalf of the owners, i.e., his mother Smt. Shanti Devi and his sisterinlaw Smt. Savitri Devi who were the owners. He has deposed that Sh. Rangi Lal was a tenant in room no. 2 of the said CC No. 19/12 113 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D building in the year 1989 and was running business first in the name of M/s Jai Narain Rangi Lal and thereafter in the name of M/s Tara Chand Jai Narain. He has further testified that after the change in name of the firm, the rent receipts were issued in the name of Ms. Veena Goel at the request of Rangi Lal. He has stated categorically that M/s Pawan Kumar Subhash Chand and M/s Sanjeev Enterprises were never a tenant in any portion of the above stated premises or in room no. 2. This witness was cross examined only on behalf of Accused no. 1. During his cross examination, such questions as existence of written Rent Agreement, nature of business carried out by M/s Tara Chand Jai Narain or M/s Jai Narain Rangi Lal and whether or not the witness was aware that M/s Pawan Kumar Subhash Chand and M/s Sanjeev Enterprises were the sister concerns of Rangi Lal belonging to Ganga Plywood were put .

94. PW16 Sh. Kailash Chand Gupta was running his business related to jute goods since 1984 in a rented room on first floor of 1716/18. He has testified that during the period 199192 and even thereafter, there was not any business concern in the name of M/s Pawan Kumar Subhash Chand and M/s Sanjeev Enterprises in the said building.

CC No. 19/12 114 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D

95. In the circumstances of the present case, opening of current account in a bank and existence of an address would not suffice. It must be shown that the two firms in question were actually involved in business over a period of time. Such proof could have been produced only by the proprietors of these two firms. The argument that IO had seized all the documents from the Pili Kothi address is of no help as the details of specific documents, ledger books of these firms have not been provided by the Accused. If these two firms were in business, there must have been many transactions which could have proved that these two firms were actual proprietorship concerns genuinely conducting business. There is no evidence at all that would suggest that these two firms did not exist merely in name and that they were not created only for the specific purpose of availing the facility of discounting of bills. These firms were , therefore, fictitious ones.

Drawees of the Bills:

96. Following are the lists of drawees in respect of the DN numbers relevant to the present case.

CC No. 19/12 115 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D LIST OF DRAWEES OF THE DN NOs. PERTAINING TO ACCUSED DAVINDER KUMAR Srl. D.N. No. bill no. Bill amount Drawer Name of drawee of No. (in rupees) company the bill 1 2113* 92 261340.40 M/s Ganga M/s Goyal Timber, dt. 17.02.92 Plywood Bhadohi Industries Co.

Ltd.

 2 2141             97               238416.00       -do-       M/s Suresh Kumar
                    dt. 22.02.92                                Mittal and Sons, 117,
                                                                Nanak Ganj, Sipri
                                                                Bazar, Jhansi.
 3. 2140            93               228445.00       -do-        M/s Vijay Kumar
                    dt. 22.02.92                                Mittal and Sons, 117,
                                                                 Nanak Ganj, Sipri
                                                                   Bazar, Jhansi.
 4. 2150         95                  234840.80       -do-        M/s Garg Plywood
    dt. 24.02.92 dt. 22.02.92                                   Home, Main Market,
                                                                     Bhadohi
 5. 2151        96                   195749.10       -do-        M/s Goyal Timber,
    dt.24.02.92 dt. 22.02.92                                       Main Market,
                                                                     Bhadohi

 6. 1838         505                  98800.00 M/s Pawan      M/s Rakesh Kumar
    dt. 30.12.91 dt. 27.12.91                  Kumar         Sharma, C/o Ramdev
                                               Subhash Chand    General Store,
                                                               Jawahar Bazar,
                                                                   Koppal
 7. 1839        506                   98800.00       -do-               -do-
    dt.30.12.91 dt. 27.12.91
 8. 1840        507                   98800.00       -do-               -do-
    dt.30.12.91 dt. 27.12.91
 9. 1841         508                  98800.00       -do-               -do-
    dt. 30.12.91 dt. 27.12.91
10. 1834         509                  99500.00       -do-               -do-
    dt. 30.12.91 dt. 30.12.91
11. 1835         510                  99500.00       -do-               -do-
    dt. 30.12.91 dt.
                 30.12.1991


CC No. 19/12                                                           116 of 167
RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D
 Srl. D.N. No.       bill no.     Bill amount Drawer         Name of drawee of
No.                              (in rupees) company        the bill


12. 1836         511                99500.00      -do-              -do-
    dt. 30.12.91 dt. 30.12.91
13. 1837         512                99500.00      -do-              -do-
    dt. 30.12.91 dt. 30.12.91
 14 1757        -------             99550.00 M/s Sanjeev      M/s Raju Trading
    dt.17.12.91                              Dal Mills        Company, Sonpur
15. 1758         -------            99550.00      -do-              -do-
    dt. 17.12.91
 16 1759         -------            99550.00      -do-              -do-
    dt. 17.12.91
 17 1760         -----              99550.00      -do-              -do-
    dt. 17.12.91
 18 1761        ------              99550.00      -do-              -do-
    dt.17.12.91
 19 1979        ---                100115.00      -do-           Rajasthan
    dt 21.01.92                                             Agencies,Ganga Babu
                                                            ki Theki, Begumpura
                                                                   Patna.

 20 1980         ----              100115.00      -do-              -do-
    dt. 21.01.92
21. 1981         ---               100115.00      -do-              -do-
    dt. 21.01.92
 22 1982        ---                114585.00 M/s Aggarwal        Rajasthan
    dt.21.01.92                              Trading        Agencies,Ganga Babu
                                             Company        ki Theki, Begumpura
                                                                   Patna.
 23 1983         ---               114585.00      -do-              -do-
    dt. 21.01.92
 24 1984         -                 114585.00      -do-              -do-
    dt. 21.01.92
 25 1985         ---               114585.00      -do-              -do-
    dt. 21.01.92
 26 1999         -                 115100.00      -do-        M/s Raju Trading
    dt. 24.01.92                                             company, Gola Rd.
                                                               Sonepur, Bihar
 27 2000            -              115100.00      -do-              -do-


CC No. 19/12                                                       117 of 167
RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D
 Srl. D.N. No.       bill no.     Bill amount Drawer             Name of drawee of
No.                              (in rupees) company            the bill


     dt. 24.01.92
 28 2001         ---               115100.00      -do-                 -do-
    dt. 24.01.92
 29 2084                  -        100050.00 M/s     Sanjeev      M/s Rajasthan
    dt. 12.02.92                             Enterprises         Agencies, Ganga
                                                                  Babu ki Theki,
                                                                 Begumpura, Patna
                                                                      City
 30 2085                  -        100050.00      -do-                 -do-
    dt. 12.02.92
 31 2086                           100050.00      -do-                 -do-
    dt. 12.02.92
 32 2087                           100050.00      -do-                 -do-
    dt. 12.02.92
 33 2091                            99820.00 M/s         Tara     M/s Rajasthan
    dt. 13.02.92                             Chand        Jai    Agencies, Ganga
                                             Narain               Babu ki Theki,
                                                                 Begumpura, Patna
                                                                      City
 34 2092                            99820.00      -do-                 -do-
    dt. 13.02.92
 35 2093                            99820.00      -do-                 -do-
    dt. 13.02.92
 36 1720                            84500.00 M/s    Mohan M/s Mangalsain Om
    dt. 11.12.91                             Agro Mills     Prakash, Etawa
 37 1721                            84500.00      -do-                 -do-
    dt. 11.12.91
 38 1722                            84500.00      -do-                 -do-
    dt. 11.12.91
 39 1723                            84500.00      -do-                 -do-
    dt. 11.12.91
 40 1724                            84500.00      -do-                 -do-
    dt. 11.12.91
 41 1725                            84500.00      -do-                 -do-
    dt. 11.12.91


 42 2226                           96,800.00      -do_          M/s Ajay Kumar and


CC No. 19/12                                                           118 of 167
RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D
 Srl. D.N. No.        bill no.    Bill amount Drawer     Name of drawee of
No.                              (in rupees) company    the bill


      dt. 13.03.92                                      Co.,52/43/C, New Dal
                                                           Mandi, Kanpur
 43 2227                           96,800.00    -do_            -do-
    dt. 13.03.92
 44 2228                           96,800.00    -do_            -do-
    dt. 13.03.92
 45 2229                           97,090.00    -do_            -do-
    dt. 13.03.92
 46 2230                           97,090.00    -do_            -do-
    dt. 13.03.92

List of drawees of DN numbers pertaining to Ganga Plywood Industries purchased by Ashok Jaidka, Field Officer (details as per DN Register) Srl. No. DN No. Drawee of the bill

1. 2050 dt. 04.02.92 Garg Plywood Home, Main Market, Bhadohi, District Varanasi, UP.

2. 2051 dt. 02.02.92 M/s Goyal Timber, Main Market, Bhadohi

3. 2271 M/s Goyal Timber, Bhadohi Dt 18/3/92 List of drawees of DN numbers pertaining to Ganga Plywood Industries purchased by MR Goyal (details as per DN Register) Srl. No. DN No. Drawee of the bill

1. 88 dt. 02.05.92 M/s Gaya Prasad Timber Traders, Main Bazar, Bewar, UP.

2. 111 dt. 13.05.92 Garg Plywood Home, Main Bazar, Bhadohi.

3. 112 dt. 13.05.92 Gagan Plywood Home, Main Bazar, CC No. 19/12 119 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D Bhadohi.

The issue pertaining to drawees requires twopronged examination . First, their existence / non existence must be examined. Second, if they existed, whether they placed the orders for supply of goods as mentioned in the bills.

M/s Mangal Sain Om Prakash , Etawa

97. The case of the prosecution is that drawee of the bill M/s Mangalsen Om Prakash is a non existent firm. PW38 and PW61 have been cited by CBI in its favour in this regard. PW38 is Sh. Ashok Kumar who is a rice miller from Etawa, UP and has been running his rice mill under the name and style of M/s Krishan Lal Ashok Kumar Sudhir Kumar, Etawa, UP since 1981. This witness on the day of his testimony was also Secretary of Rice Miller Association since 1990. He stated that as per his knowledge there was no such firm as M/s Mangalsen Om Prakash and no such license was issued in the name of such firm since 1981. No doubt, during his cross examination he stated that it was possible that two or three different firms could be running under the same or similar name and style, this witness has stood steadfast CC No. 19/12 120 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D on his testimony that each firm was required to get itself registered with Mandi Board and to maintain permanent shop in the Mandi (at Farkhabad Road).

98. PW61 is Sh. Gaya Prasad Verma who worked as Postman in the Head Post Office, Etawa, UP from 1982 to 1992. He stated that as far as he could remember he had never heard about M/s Mangalsen Om Prakash (firm) and did not distribute any post at the address of the said firm in main Bazar, Etawa city. During his cross examination, he admitted that no register was maintained by him or by the Post Office in respect of the names and addresses of the persons/firms in his area of distribution of posts and that he was not aware of all the firms/organizations located in the main Bazar, Etawa city. He also admitted that he could not remember the names and addresses of all the firms of Etawa Main Bazar to whom he might have delivered the posts.

99. The testimony of PW38 regarding nonexistence of M/s Mangalsen Om Prakash is a strong one. The testimony of a post man who is well acquainted with the area under him can also not be disregarded. These two witnesses are the best witnesses to prove nonexistence of the abovesaid drawee. On the other hand, there is nothing on record that would suggest that a firm under the name of CC No. 19/12 121 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D M/s Mangalsen Om Prakash was running at Etawa and was involved in the business. No specific details of this drawee were put to the witness during cross examination by the accused. Ld. PP for CBI has argued that there was nothing that prevented Accused persons to summon the record or any person involved in the running of the drawee firm M/s Mangalsen Om Prakash. In view of the testimonies of PW 38 & PW 61 , prosecution has established that the drawee firm did not exist.

M/s Ajay Kumar &Co., Kanpur:

100. Sh Ajay Kumar himself deposed as PW14 and testified that he was working as a broker in Grains in the name and style of M/s Ajay Kumar and Co. at 52/43C, Nai Dal Mandi, Kanpur since the year 1987. Even though he knew the firm M/s Tara Chand Jai Narain, Mainpuri, M/s Mohan Agro Mills ,Mainpuri and M.s Sanjeev Dal Mills, Delhi, he never placed any order on any of these three firms for purchase of pulses, rice etc. He further deposed that five hundies were received in the drawee bank i.e. State Bank of India at Naya Ganj Kanpur. He informed that the hundies did not belong to him and that he had not placed any order. He then called upon Sh. Jai Narain and Sh. Rangi Lal to find out as to why the Hundies were sent CC No. 19/12 122 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D in his name when had not placed any order. This witness has categorically testified that he was informed by Sh. Jai Narain that he need not worry about these hundies and that his person would come to Kanpur and would get the hundies retired after making payments. During his cross examination, he admitted that he did not give any intimation in this regard to State Bank of India, Naya Ganj Branch or alleged in the complaint with the police. He explained that he was not aware that his name and the name of his firm was being misused. During his cross examination, he also explained the procedure of placing the order wherein he explained that the orders were directly placed by the purchaser and the deal is struck through him orally. The purchaser and the seller were informed about the deal on telephone. No doubt, he has stated in his cross examination that he had business dealings as a broker with Rangi Lal and Jai Narain and their firms. He had stood steadfast on his stand that he had never placed the order as mentioned in the above mentioned bills and has reiterated that his role is limited to that of a broker. The testimony of this witness could not be shaken. It has , thus , been established that even though this firm existed , it had not placed any order with M/s Mohan Agro Mills Ltd.

CC No. 19/12                                                           123 of 167
RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D
   M/s Rajasthan Agency:

101. PW 23 Sh Uttam Prashad Singh is the postman in the Sub post office at Begumpur, Patna since the year 1992 . He has testified that ' Ganga Babu ki Theki' was the name the street lying in his beat. Regarding the drawee firm , he has stated that there was no such establishment in this street nor was there any information in the post office regarding its existence. During cross examination, he stood firm on his testimony that being a post man , he would be informed about the particular name of an establishment under his beat. There are no grounds to disbelieve this witness. Accused, on the other hand , did not lead any evidence in their defense to prove existence of this firm. No specific address or detail related to this drawee was put to this witness by the accused during cross examination.

102. PW33 is Sh Manoj Kumar who worked as clerkcum cashier from 1991 to 1997 in Punjab National Bank , Patna City. He testified that during that period he never heard about any business concern by the name of M/s Rajasthan Agencies.

CC No. 19/12 124 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D M/s Raju Trading company, Gola Rd. Sonepur, Bihar

103. The evidence regarding the existence or non-existence of this firm is deficient.

M/s Suresh Kumar Mittal & Sons and M/s Vijay Mittal & Sons

104. PW21 Sh. Radha Krishan Mittal ran his service centre of M/s Mittal Radionics in the rented accommodation bearing no. 117, Nanak Ganj, Sipri Bazar, Jhansi. As per the testimony of this witness, his brother Sh. Vijay Kumar Mittal also resided in the said premises separately. No firm in the name of M/s Suresh Kumar Mittal & Sons or M/s Vijay Kumar Mittal & Sons was running. During the cross examination, it came out that Sh. Vijay Kumar Mittal was engaged in construction work of building including construction and repairs. While expressing his inability to state under which name and style and from where did his brother operate, this witness has stood firm that Sh. Vijay Mittal used the address for residential purpose. He has also explained that Sh. Vijay Kumar Mittal was alive and was aged about 55 or 60 years. It has been argued that there is no explanation on behalf of the prosecution as to why Sh. Vijay Kumar Mittal was not cited as a witness. Ld. PP on the other hand has argued that if these firms existed, what prevented the accused persons from summoning the owner or person incharge CC No. 19/12 125 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D or even Sh. Vijay Mittal during defence evidence. It has also been pointed out that as per the testimony of this witness, Sh. Vijay Kumar Mittal was in construction business and was not dealing in plywood. Be that as it may, the testimony of PW21 is vital to the extent that in the relevant period, it was M/s Mittal Radionics that was being run from the premises. There is absolutely no evidence as to who owned M/s Suresh Mittal & Sons and M/s Vijay Mittal & Sons and whether or not these firms were being run from the Sipri Bazar address and where were the goods supplied. The accused did not put any specific material details such as the ownership or person incharge of these two firms to PW21. The fact of non existence of a firm can be countered only with the specific facts of existence of that firm. It is the defence of the accused that these two drawee firms existed and therefore, they should have produced or put the specific details of such existence to the witness. It fortifies the case of the prosecution that the said drawee firms were nonexistence.

Rakesh Kumar Sharma C/o M/s Ramdev General Store, Koppal, Karnataka.

105. PW42 Sh. Hukma Ram is the sole proprietor of M/s Ramdev General Store at Koppal. He testified that he did CC No. 19/12 126 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D not know any such person as Rakesh Kumar Sharma and no such person operated under the name of his proprietorship concern. He admitted his own transactions with M/s Sanjeev Dal Mills through Rangi Lal but denied any connection with any Rakesh Kumar Sharma. It is important to note that this witness was not cross examined by any of the accused persons.

106. PW66 is Sh. K. Gopal Rao who was posted as Accountant in SBI of Hyderabad, Koppal Branch in Karnataka. During the cross examination, he admitted that Sh. Hukma Ram of M/s Ramdev General Store was a regular visitor of the Bank and that he had informed Sh. Hukma Ram about receipt of the bills in SBI of Hyderabad. He further stated that Sh. Hukma Ram had come to the bank with Sh. Rakesh Kumar Sharma prior to return of the bills. The accused have laid much emphasis on this part of testimony of PW66. This, however, does not establish existence of business by one Sh. Rakesh Kumar Sharma under the name of M/s Ramdev General Store. The Court cannot lose sight of the fact that Sh. Hukma Ram himself was not cross examined by the accused persons at all. Again, the prime witness Sh. Hukma Ram was not countered with any specific details about Rakesh Kumar Sharma with whom the accused persons purportedly CC No. 19/12 127 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D entered into the transaction in question. The existence of the business of Sh. Rakesh Kumar Sharma C/o M/s Ramdev General Store has not been established.

M/s Gaya Prasad Timber Traders, Bewar

107. PW44 Sh. Sanjay Saxena was in plywood business under the name and style of New Hardware Store at Bewar since 1983. He has testified that in Bewar, he was the only one dealing in timber as there was no other person or firm involved in business of plywood, sunmica and timber till then. During cross examination, he denied the suggestion that he was not the lone timber trader in the year 1992 in that town. The accused, however, did not confront this witness with better particulars of M/s Gaya Prasad such as its exact address, location, name of the owner etc. The nonexistence of this drawee is ,thus, established.

M/s Garg Plywood Home, Main Market, Bhadoi, M/s Goyal Timber, Main Market, Bhadoi and Gagan Plywood Home, Main Bazar, Bhadoi.

108. PW35 Sh. Dinesh Chander is a businessman running his business of timber at Bhadoi since 199293. He has testified that he never heard about any firm by the name of Gagan Plywood, Goyal Timber or Garg Plywood in CC No. 19/12 128 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D any of the nearby areas in Bhadohi. During the cross examination, the witness replied that he was not aware whether firms were running in small streets of Bhadoi or not. The accused persons did not put any specific detail or fact such as exact location or ownership of these three drawee firms to this witness. PW39 is Sh. Chhabi Nath who was posted as Assistant at Bhadoi Post Office from 1994 onwards. His testimony is relevant to the extent that from 1994 onwards, he did not see any mail pertaining to the above said three drawee firms. PW72 is Sh. Bishamber Dayal Sharma, Inspector, CBI who had visited various places such as Bhadoi, Bewar, Shalimar Bagh, Etawa during investigation to ascertain the existence of drawee firms. He has stated that he had personally visited Bhadoi and on inquiry from local residence as well as Postman, he came to know that the above said three drawee firms did not exist. As has been mentioned above, the accused persons did not come up with specific details of these firms to counter the witnesses or to show the existence of these firms. The existence of these firms, therefore, has not been established.




 Control Return SBP 134
          Two   kinds   of   Control   Returns     contemplated   in   the

CC No. 19/12                                                          129 of 167
RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D

banking system involved in the instant case are relevant :

 SPB134: It is the Control Return submitted to Regional Office after purchasing documentary bills  SPB131: It refers to Control Return in respect of the bills returned unpaid reported to the Regional Office.

109. It is not disputed that control return SBP134 is an intimation by the Branch Manager to the Regional Office regarding exercise of discretion in purchase of adhoc bills. The allegation against Accused no. 1 is that he did not send the control returns in the prescribed form of SBP134 to the Regional Office regarding the adhoc purchases of the bills in question. He also did not get the approval of Regional Office in respect of these purchases. It has been mentioned in chargesheet that except intimation in respect of bills bearing DN Nos. 1757 to 1761 dated 17.12.1991 of M/s Sanjeev Dal Mills, no other control returns regarding other bill discounting transactions in question were received from the SN Marg Branch, Delhi of State Bank of Patiala in the Regional Office. Further, none of the instances of adhoc purchases of bills by Accused no. 1 Davinder Kumar had been approved by the Regional Office. Vide letter dated 30.01.1996 (Ex.PW75/C), the Regional ManagerI (Delhi) informed IO that no other Control Return in CC No. 19/12 130 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D respect of DNs which are subject matter of this case except DN numbers 1757 to 1761 was available with the Regional OfficeI (Delhi).

110. Whether or not SBP134 in respect of purchases of bills in question were sent by the Branch Office can be inferred from the DN register (Ex.PW2/A), RM Dispatch register (Ex.PW32/DA1) and carbon copies of certain SBP134 forms (Ex.PW24/D1 colly.).

111. First it needs to be considered as to how the entries/endorsements 'SBP134 sent' in the DN register must be read. For example, during the cross examination, entries bearing DN no. 1716 to 1719 on page 7 of the DN register were put to PW37 Sh. Sudhir Garg who was AGM in State Bank of Patiala upto 1998. It is clarified that DN numbers 1716 to 1719 are not the subject matter of the present case. These DN numbers were used to clarify how the endorsement 'SBP134 sent' should be read. PW37 explained that the endorsement SBP134 on the extreme left just below the date must be read as an endorsement for entry bearing DN no. 1716 only. On the other hand, the case of Accused no. 1 is that only one date is mentioned on page no. 7 of the DN register at the extreme left in column no. 1 on the top. It is submitted that it shows that all the DN numbers from 1716 to 1725 CC No. 19/12 131 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D mentioned on page 7 were purchased on the said date i.e. 11.12.1991 and the endorsement 'SBP134' just below the date shows that control return SBP134 was sent for all the DN numbers mentioned on this page. The DN numbers 1720 to 1725 on this page are relevant to the present controversy.

112. Ex.PW24/D1 (colly.) are the carbon copies of the daily lists of demand drafts purchased. Each daily list is a printed proforma but the entries have been made in hand. In the printed note below, it is mentioned 'SBP134'. The seizure memo Ex.PW58/A4 also suggests that the abovesaid exhibits are Control Returns SBP134. These carbon copies pertain to the bills purchased on 11.12.1991, 17.12.1991, 21.01.1992, 21.01.1992, 12.02.1992, 13.02.1992, 13.05.1992, 18.03.1992, 22.02.1992 and 17.02.1992. PW32 Sh. Virender Kumar Gupta, Clerk in SN Marg Branch, while explaining the procedure has stated that two copies of SBP134 are prepared. Original copy is sent to the Regional Office and the carbon copy is retained in the branch. He was, however, not sure whether the carbon copies constituting Ex.PW24/D1 are the copies kept in the branch or are the copies which were sent to the Regional Office. As per the seizure memo Ex.PW58/A4, these copies were seized CC No. 19/12 132 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D from Sh. S.C. Narang, Field Officer, State Bank of Patiala, S.N. Marg, Delhi. Ld. PP has pointed out that only the carbon copies of the DN numbers purchased on 13.05.1992 and 18.03.1992 bear the proper stamp and initials of Regional ManagerI (D) with stamped endorsement 'Seen' which means that only these two control returns were sent to the Regional Office and not the others. During the course of arguments, it was submitted by ld. Counsel for Accused no. 1 that endorsement 'Seen' means approval of Regional Office.

113. Perusal of Ex.PW24/D1 (colly.) shows that there are certain endorsements and initials on three other SBP134 forms also. They do not bear the stamp of Regional Office but bear the signatures of RMI and below the signatures, designation 'RMI(D)' has been mentioned in hand. In SBP134 dated 13.02.1992 regarding bills purchased on 13.02.1992, it has been endorsed 'Stop Ad hoc Purchase'. Similar signatures are present on SBP134 form dated 22.02.1992 regarding bills purchased on 22.02.1992 and there is an endorsement in hand 'seen'. Similar signatures with endorsement 'seen' also occurred on the SBP134 form dated 19.02.1992 regarding bills purchased on 17.02.1992. This document shows that there was some issue related to entries regarding DN No. 2113 CC No. 19/12 133 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D in which sanction limit for Ganga Plywood Industries Ltd. has been shown as Rs. 20 lacs and the outstandings as on that date have been shown as Rs. 17.39 lacs and there is an endorsement 'Put up to CAD' against these entries.

114. Regarding SBP134 Control Returns with hand written endorsements, neither is there any evidence confirming the signatures and endorsements by the then RMI (D) nor is there anything to show that these signatures are forged or of someone else.

115. In these circumstances, the entries in RM Dispatch Register (Ex.PW32/DA1) become vital. This register pertains to all the correspondence and documents dispatched by the SN Marg Branch of State Bank of Patiala to the office of Regional Manager. It is not the case of the prosecution that this document is a tampered one and in fact the prosecution has itself relied upon it.

116. Following chart shall show the entries in the RM Dispatch register regarding the dispatch of relevant SBP134/Daily List of Demand Drafts purchased by accused Davinder Kumar.

CC No. 19/12                                                      134 of 167
RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D
 Srl. D.N. No. bill no.      Bill amount  Drawer          Whether                Date of 
No.                         (in rupees) company          Adhoc      Current    sending 
                                                         purchase    a/c of     control  
                                                         or          drawer     return SBP 
                                                         regular                134
                                                                                 
 1 2113*         92 dt.          261340.40 M/s Ganga      Regular               Srl. No. 246
                 17.02.92                  Plywood                   146/2 dt. dated 27.06.92
                                           Industries                18.09.89       in RM
                                           Co. Ltd.                               Dispatch
                                                                                   register
                                                                               (Ex.PW32/A)
 2 2141          97 dt.          238416.00     do        do                  Srl. No. 677
                 22.02.92                                                       dt. 24.02.92 in
                                                                                RM Dispatch
                                                                                    Register
 3. 2140         93  dt.         228445.00     do        do                         do
                 22.02.92
 4. 2150 dt.  95  dt.            234840.80     do        do                 Srl. no. 683 dt.
    24.02.92 22.02.92                                                             27.02.92 in
                                                                                 RM Dispatch
                                                                                    register
 5. 2151 dt.  96 dt.             195749.10     do        do                         do
    24.02.92 22.02.92                                                            
 6. 1838 dt.  505 dt.             98800.00 M/s Pawan      Adhoc                Srl. no. 559 dt.
    30.12.91 27.12.91                      Kumar                     7114 dt      04.01.92 in
                                           Subhash                   24.10.91    RM Dispatch
                                           Chand                                    register
 7. 1839 dt.  506  dt.            98800.00     do       Adhoc                        do
    30.12.91 27.12.91                                                            
 8. 1840dt.  507  dt.             98800.00     do       Adhoc                        do
    30.12.91 27.12.91
 9. 1841 dt.  508  dt.            98800.00     do       Adhoc                        do
    30.12.91 27.12.91
10. 1834 dt.  509 dt.             99500.00     do       Adhoc                        do
    30.12.91 30.12.91
11. 1835 dt.  510 dt.             99500.00     do       Adhoc                        do
    30.12.91 30.12.91                                                            
12. 1836 dt.  511 dt.             99500.00     do       Adhoc                        do
    30.12.91 30.12.91


CC No. 19/12                                                               135 of 167
RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D
 Srl. D.N. No. bill no.      Bill amount  Drawer        Whether                Date of 
No.                         (in rupees) company        Adhoc      Current    sending 
                                                       purchase    a/c of     control  
                                                       or          drawer     return SBP 
                                                       regular                134
                                                                               
13. 1837 dt.  512 dt.             99500.00    do      Adhoc                Srl. No. 559 
    30.12.91 30.12.91                                                         dt. 04.01.92 in 
                                                                              RM Dispatch 
                                                                              Register
 14 1757 dt.               99550.00 M/s          Adhoc               Srl. No. 586
    17.12.91                               Sanjeev                 1586 dt  dt. 13.01.92 in
                                           Dal Mills               20.10.89 RM Dispatch
                                                                                Register
15. 1758 dt.               99550.00    do      Adhoc                         do
    17.12.91
 16 1759 dt.               99550.00    do      Adhoc                         do
    17.12.91
 17 1760 dt.                 99550.00    do      Adhoc                         do
    17.12.91                                                                   
 18 1761dt.                 99550.00    do      Adhoc                         do
    17.12.91
 19 1979 dt                   100115.00    do      Adhoc                  Srl. No. 599
    21.01.92                                                                   dt. 23.01.92 in
                                                                                RM Dispatch
                                                                                   Register
                                                                               
 20 1980 dt.                 100115.00    do      Adhoc                Srl. No. 599 
    21.01.92                                                                  dt. 23.01.92 in 
                                                                              RM Dispatch 
                                                                              Register
21. 1981 dt.                  100115.00    do      Adhoc                         do
    21.01.92                                                                   
 22 1982dt.                   114585.00 M/s          Adhoc               Srl. No. 599 
    21.01.92                               Aggarwal                7152 dt.  dt. 23.01.92 in 
                                           Trading                 09.01.92 RM Dispatch 
                                           Company                           Register
 23 1983 dt.                  114585.00    do      Adhoc                         do
    21.01.92




CC No. 19/12                                                              136 of 167
RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D
 Srl. D.N. No. bill no.      Bill amount  Drawer          Whether                Date of 
No.                         (in rupees) company          Adhoc      Current    sending 
                                                         purchase    a/c of     control  
                                                         or          drawer     return SBP 
                                                         regular                134
                                                                                 
 24 1984 dt.  -                  114585.00     do       Adhoc                        do
    21.01.92
 25 1985 dt.                  114585.00     do       Adhoc                        do
    21.01.92
 26 1999 dt.  -                  115100.00     do       Adhoc                 Srl. No. 625
    24.01.92                                                                    dt. 05.02.92 in
                                                                                RM Dispatch
                                                                                    Register
 27 2000 dt.  -                  115100.00     do       Adhoc                        do
    24.01.92                                                                     
 28 2001 dt.                  115100.00     do       Adhoc                        do
    24.01.92
 29 2084                        100050.00 M/s            Adhoc                        **
    dt.                                    Sanjeev                   7156
    12.02.92                               Enterprises               dt. 
                                                                     23.01.92
 30 2085                        100050.00     do       Adhoc                         **
    dt.                                                                          
    12.02.92
 31 2086                         100050.00     do       Adhoc                        ** 
    dt. 
    12.02.92
 32 2087                         100050.00     do       Adhoc                         
    dt.                                                                          
    12.02.92
 33 2091                          99820.00 M/s   Tara Adhoc                            ***
    dt.                                    Chand   Jai       1584   dt.
    13.02.92                               Narain            18.10.89
 34 2092                          99820.00     do       Adhoc                        ***
    dt. 
    13.02.92
 35 2093                          99820.00     do       Adhoc                        ***
    dt. 
    13.02.92



CC No. 19/12                                                               137 of 167
RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D
 Srl. D.N. No. bill no.      Bill amount  Drawer     Whether                Date of 
No.                         (in rupees) company     Adhoc      Current    sending 
                                                    purchase    a/c of     control  
                                                    or          drawer     return SBP 
                                                    regular                134
                                                                            
 36 1720                         84500.00 M/s Mohan Adhoc                        **
    dt.                                   Agro Mills       1695   dt.
    11.12.91                                               04.12.92
 37 1721                         84500.00    do    Adhoc                       **
    dt. 
    11.12.91
 38 1722                         84500.00    do    Adhoc                       **
    dt. 
    11.12.91
 39 1723                         84500.00    do    Adhoc                       **
    dt. 
    11.12.91
 40 1724                         84500.00    do    Adhoc                       **
    dt. 
    11.12.91
 41 1725                         84500.00    do    Adhoc                       **
    dt. 
    11.12.91
 42 2226                         96,800.00   do_    Adhoc                Srl. No. 727 
    dt.                                                                    dt.16.03.92 in 
    13.03.92                                                               RM Dispatch 
                                                                           Register
 43 2227                         96,800.00   do_    Adhoc                       do
    dt. 
    13.03.92
 44 2228                         96,800.00   do_    Adhoc                       do
    dt. 
    13.03.92
 45 2229                         97,090.00   do_    Adhoc                       do
    dt. 
    13.03.92
 46 2230                         97,090.00   do_    Adhoc                       do
    dt.                                                                     
    13.03.92



CC No. 19/12                                                         138 of 167
RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D

**There is no mention of sending of SBP 134 (Ex.PW24/D1 colly.) in respect of the bills bearing these DN numbers in the RM Dispatch Register. The Carbon copies of the purported SBP 134 in respect of these DN numbers do not have any receiving of the office of Regional Manager. ***The carbon copies of the purported SBP134 (Ex.PW24/D1 colly.) in respect of these DN numbers do not have any Stamped endorsement of the office of Regional Manager. However, there are hand written endorsements which have been disputed by the prosecution.

117. So far as purchase of bills bearing DN No. 1720 to 1725 is concerned, there is no mention of sending SBP134 to Regional Office in the RM Dispatch Register. The carbon copy of the purported SBP134 which is part of Ex.PW24/D1 does not have any receiving of RMI. Thus, out of 46 bills purchased by the Accused no. 1, there is no entry in RM Register regarding control returns SBP134 in respect of purchase of 6 bills (DN No. 1720 to 1725) of Mohan Agro Mills Ltd. and 7 bills (DN No. 2084 to 2093) of M/s Sanjeev Enterprises. Regarding the other DN numbers, in view of the entries in the dispatch register, presumption U/Sec. 114, illustration (f) of the Indian Evidence Act would work in favour of the Accused no. 1.

118. Now the issue is whether it can be said with certainty that SBP134 for DN No. 1720 to 1725 and nos. 2084 to 2093 were not sent. As has been discussed above, control returns of these DN numbers do not find any mention in CC No. 19/12 139 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D the RM Dispatch Register. First I will consider DN numbers 2084 to 2093 purchased on 12.02.1992. On page 52 of the DN register, there are entries of the bills purchased on 12.02.1992 and 13.02.1992. On the extreme right of this page, there is an endorsement 'SBP134 sent' between the DN number 2087 (last entry purchased on 12.02.1992) and DN number 2088 (first entry purchased on 13.02.1992). The case of Accused no. 1 is that this endorsement is in respect of bills purchased on 12.02.1992 whereas the case of prosecution is that it is in respect of bills purchased on 13.02.1992. The DN register also shows that SBP134 were also sent in respect of certain purchases made on 13.02.1992, 14.02.1992, 17.02.1992, 19.02.1992. There is no corresponding entry in the RM Dispatch Register regarding purchases made on 13.02.1992 to 17.02.1992 either. On page 17 of the RM Register at entries no. 656 and 657 dated 19.02.1992, there are mentions of two daily lists of demand drafts having been dispatched through courier. No details have been mentioned as to in respect of which DN numbers this daily list/SBP134 was sent. Therefore, it cannot be said with certainty whether or not the endorsement SBP 134 on page 52 of the DN Register is in respect of purchases made on 12.02.1992 or in respect of purchases CC No. 19/12 140 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D made on 13.02.1992.

119. Before considering the DN numbers 1720 to 1725, I would refer to the undisputed SBP134 dated 18.03.1992 for DN Nos. 2270 and 2271. If the case of the prosecution is to be believed, then SBP134 should be considered to have been sent only in respect of that entry against which endorsement has been made in the DN Register. The corresponding entries of DN no.2270 & 2271 in the DN register on page 72 show that entries of these two DN numbers have been made against the date 17.03.1992. The endorsement '134/Sent' is mentioned just below the date. When this endorsement is read in the light of the above said undisputed SBP134 (part of Ex.PW24/D1 colly.), it comes out that this single endorsement is for both the entries and not just one. In view of this, the endorsement 'SBP134 Sent' mentioned under the date 11.12.1991 on page 7 of the DN register must be read for all the bills purchased on that day bearing DN Nos. 1716 to 1719 as well as 1720 to 1725.

120. In view of above discussion, an element of doubt regarding sending or not sending the Control Return SBP 134 to Regional Office persists and the prosecution has failed to establish beyond any doubt that SBP134 in respect of the bills in question were not sent.

CC No. 19/12 141 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D ACCUSED NO. 2 RANGI LAL (ALSO MENTIONED AS RANGI RAM AS WELL AS RANGI LAL GOYAL IN SOME OF THE DOCUMENTS)

121. Accused no. 2 expired during the course of trial.

However, his role in the conspiracy which is the subject matter of this case requires examination.

122. Accused no. 2 was one of the Directors in Ganga Plywood Industries Company Pvt. Ltd. The Board Resolution dated 15/09/1989 (Ex.PW71/10) of Ganga Plywood Industries shows that he and Accused no. 4 Anil Kumar Goel were authorized to represent the Company in the transactions with the Bank. Accused no. 2 is also the sole proprietor of Sanjeev Enterprises and a partner in M/s Tara Chand Jai Narain.

123. The bills of Ganga Plywood Industries offered for purchase to State Bank of Patiala, S.N. Marg, are Ex.PW71/1 to Ex.PW71/5, Ex.PW59/D1 to Ex.PW59/D3, Ex.PW21/C, Ex.PW21/D, Ex.PW62/A. Out of these bills, three bills i.e. Ex.PW59/D1, Ex.PW59/D2 and Ex.PW59/D3 were signed by Accused no.2. The remaining bills except the bills Ex.PW71/1 and Ex.PW71/2 bear signatures of 'A Goyal'. The GEQD report proves that the signatures of 'A Goyal' on the bills Ex.PW21/C, Ex.PW21/D, Ex.PW62/A are in the hand writing of Accused no. 6 Dhanraj Garg. In SA u/sec. 313 CC No. 19/12 142 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D Cr.P.C, Accused no. 6 has explained that being an Accountant/'Muneem', he was looking after the work of preparing bills and hundies at the instructions of Rangi Lal. Approver PW59 Suresh Jain was the other Accountant during the relevant time. In his testimony, he has categorically stated that the bills were being prepared either by him or by Accused no. 6 Dhanraj Garg on the instructions of Accused no. 2. In the absence of Accused no. 2, the bills were prepared on the instructions of his son Accused no. 3 Subhash Goyal. As has already been discussed, the GRs / MTRs attached with the bills of Ganga Plywood Industries were forged. The hundies prepared on the basis of forged bills and MTRs were all signed by this accused. The hundies and MTRs are the essential documents to be annexed with the bills for the purpose of their purchase by the bank. Such forged bills annexed with forged documents were offered for purchase and were purchased by the Bank in connivance with the then Bank Manager Accused no. 1 Davinder Kumar. Upon such purchases, amounts of Rs.4,63,340/, Rs. 1,36,909/, Rs. 2,61,340.40, Rs. 3,80,711.75 and Rs.1,97,116/ were released and credited in the current account of Ganga Plywood Industries vide credit Payin slips dated 22.02.1992 (Ex.PW18/H20), dated CC No. 19/12 143 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 22.02.1992 (Ex.PW18/H3), dated 17.02.1992 (Ex.PW18/H4), dated 13.05.1992 (Ex.PW18/H5) and dated 02.05.1992 (Ex.PW18/H6) respectively. These amounts were withdrawn from the current account of Ganga Plywood promptly in the following manner:

(i) Cheque No. 996422 dt. 22.12.1992 (Ex.PW18/H9) worth Rs. 4,50,000/ in favour of Suresh Jain.

(ii) Cheque no. 996419 dt. 17.02.1992 (Ex.PW18/H

10) worth Rs. 2,64,000/ in favour of M/s Tara Chand Jai Narain in which Accused no. 2 is a partner.

(iii) Cheque no. 996429 dt. 18.03.1992 (Ex.PW18/H

11) worth Rs. 2,30,000/ in favour of Accused no. 2 himself.

(iv) Cheque no. 996430 dt. 02.05.1992 (Ex.PW18/H

12) worth Rs. 1,95,000/ in favour of Accused no. 2 himself.

(v) Cheque no. 996431 dt. 11.05.1992 (Ex.PW18/H

13) worth Rs. 3,80,000/ in favour of Accused no. 2 himself.

All these cheques were issued by Accused no. 2 as one of the Managing Directors of Ganga Plywood Industries.

CC No. 19/12 144 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D

124. Accused no. 2 was the proprietor of Sanjeev Enterprises.

It has been established by the prosecution that current account in the name of this firm was opened only for the purpose of availing the bill purchase facility offered by State Bank of Patiala, S.N. Marg, whereas this proprietorship concern was not involved in any kind of business and did not exist. The current account of this firm was opened on 23.01.1992 in the S.N. Marg Branch of State Bank of Patiala and four bills worth Rs. 4,00,200/ in total were offered for purchase to the bank on 12/12/92. It has already been discussed how the Bills offered for purchase were supported with forged GRs and the drawees mentioned on them were non existent. PW59 Suresh Jain has also stated that he had prepared 3 forged GRs dated 16/3/92, 12/5/92 and 12/5/92 and had also signed those GRs as 'Jai Bhagwan' and 'Ram Kumar' in the space ' Booking Clerk' on the instructions of Accused no. 2. Upon purchase of such bills, an amount of Rs. 3,96,720/ after deduction of certain charges from the value of the bills was released and deposited in the current account of this concern vide Current Account PayinSlip dated 12.02.1992 (Ex.PW18/H). This amount was withdrawn partly on the same day and partly on the next day in the following manner:

CC No. 19/12 145 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D

(i) Cheque bearing no. 724851 dated 12.02.1992 (Ex.PW17/G) worth Rs. 50,000/ in favour of self.

(ii) Cheque bearing no. 724854 dated 13.02.1992 (Ex.PW17/H) worth Rs.3,45,000/ in favour of Suresh Jain.

Both these cheques were issued by Accused no. 2 himself as proprietor of Sanjeev Enterprises. Such withdrawal is reflected in the corresponding entries in statement of account Ex.PW17/M.

125. There are two cheques vide which the amount released in favour of Sanjeev Dal Mills against purchase of bills was withdrawn by Accused no. 2 vide two cheques. There is nothing on record to show that Accused no. 2 was the authorized signatory/representative of Sanjeev Dal Mills. The document Ex.PW21/7 shows that it was Accused no. 3 Subhash Goyal who was the authorized representative of the partnership firm Sanjeev Dal Mills. Since there is nothing to suggest that such withdrawal was ever objected to by any of the partners of this firm, it may be presumed that Accused no. 2 was also the authorized representative of this firm for the purpose of entering into transactions with the Bank.

126. Eight bills of M/s Sanjeev Dal Mills were purchased by CC No. 19/12 146 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D the S.N. Marg Branch against the purchase of which amounts of Rs. 4,93,350/ and Rs. 4,96,250/ were released and deposited in the current account of this firm vide Credit PayinSlips dated 17.12.1991 (Ex.PW18/B) and dated 21.01.1992 (Ex.PW18/G) respectively. These amounts were withdrawn on the same day in the following manner:

(i) Cheque no. 341868 dated 17.12.1991 (Ex.PW18/H7) worth Rs. 4,55,000/ in favour of Ganga Plywood Industries of which Accused no. 2 was the one of the directors alongwith Accused no. 3,4 and 5.

(ii) Cheque No. 341891 dated 21.01.1992 (Ex.PW18/H8) worth Rs.5,30,000/.

Both these cheques were issued by Accused no. 2 as Manager of Sanjeev Dal Mills. Withdrawal of these amounts has been reflected in the corresponding entries in the statement of account Ex.PW17/K.

127. Thus, prosecution has proved beyond any shadow of doubt that Accused no.2 was instrumental in preparation of forged GRs of M/s Ganga Plywood . The GRs attached with the Bills of Sanjeev Enterprises, Tara Chand Jai Narain , M/s Sanjeev Dal Mills were also forged. The drawees mentioned on the Bills of these companies / CC No. 19/12 147 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D firms were either nonexistent or had not placed any order. The proprietorship firm of Accused no. 2 ,i.e., Sanjeev Enterprises was a fictitious firm. Such Bills supported by forged GRs were offered for purchase to the Bank by Accused no.2 Upon release of amount against such purchase, he promptly withdrew the amount and siphoned it off either by transferring to M/s Tara Chand Jai Narain or for self consumption.

ACCUSED NO. 3 SUBHASH CHAND GOYAL

128. Accused no. 3 is one of the Directors in Ganga Plywood Industries as well as in Mohan Agro Mills Ltd. He is the sole proprietor of Pawan Kumar Subhash Chand and was the authorized representative / Manager in Sanjeev Dal Mills and M/s Tara Chand Jai Narain. He also introduced Accused no. 4 Anil Goel in the Current Account Opening Form of Aggarwal Trading Company.

129. Being the sole proprietor of Pawan Kumar Subhash Chand, Accused no. 3 was in direct control of all the aspects of this business concern and was legally accountable for its finances. He signed seven hundies of M/s Pawan Kumar Subhash Chand (Ex.PW49/A1 to A

8). The bills of this firm purchased by the Bank are Ex.PW2/B1 to Ex.PW2/B8. These bills mention the GR CC No. 19/12 148 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D numbers as well as the vehicle numbers. Needless to say the GRs attached with these bills were forged. The amount released and deposited in the current account of M/s Pawan Kumar Subhash Chand against purchase of those Bills was withdrawn by Accused no. 3 vide cheque no. 345502 dated 30.12.1991 worth Rs 7,85,000/. The cheque was issued by Accused no. 3 as proprietor of Pawan Kumar Subhash Chand in favour of Sanjeev Dal Mills of which Accused no. 4 and 5 were the partners and Accused no. 2 and 3 were the Managers/authorized representatives.

130. Apart from the above said cheque, Accused no. 3 also issued the following cheques towards withdrawal of the amount released and deposited against purchase of bills:

(i) Cheque No. 996425 dated 27.02.1992 (Ex.PW18/H

4) worth Rs. 2,90,000/ issued by Accused no. 3 as Director of Ganga Plywood Industries in favour of Suresh Jain.

(ii)Cheque No. 342969 dated 13.02.1992 (Ex.PW18/H

16) worth Rs. 1,30,000/ issued by Accused no. 3 as authorized representative of partnership firm Tara Chand Jai Narain. This cheque was a self cheque.

The cheque also bears the signature of Suresh Jain on the rear side.

CC No. 19/12 149 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D

(iii)Cheque No. 342970 dated 14.02.1992 (Ex.PW18/H17) worth Rs. 2,64,000/ issued by Accused no. 3 as AR of M/s Tara Chand Jai Narain. This cheque was issued in favour of Ganga Plywood of which Accused no. 3 is a Director.

131. In the SA U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C, the Accused no. 3 has explained that at the relevant time he was 21 years old and had just completed his education and all the acts of signing the cheques, hundies, Current Account Opening Form as introducer or being Director or Proprietor in some of the firms were done at the instructions of his father Accused no. 2 Rangi Lal. The affidavit filed by him in the Bank alongwith the Current Account Opening Form of M/s Pawan Kumar Subhash Chand (Ex.PW71/6) shows that he was 22 years old at that time.

132. Accused no. 3 has relied upon Shreya Jha vs. CBI, 2007 (3) JCC 2318 wherein reliance has been placed upon Bhika Lal Ramjibhai Zaveri vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1981 SC 476. It has been reiterated that mere association of one person with another, may be as a partner was insufficient to show inducement practiced by one of them. A more active role, with positive pointer to the involvement in regard to the inducement has to be shown. It was held CC No. 19/12 150 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D "The role assigned, or attributed to the petitioner, i.e opening bank accounts which were used by her father to siphon off and misappropriate funds, after opening proprietorship concerns, which were always used by her father, are insufficient to draw an inference of existence of a grave suspicion of such nature as to warrant charges against her".

133. In the above said case, the accused Shreya was about 23 years old at the time of commission of the offence and it was the case of CBI itself that her parents opened certain accounts in the name of their relatives and managed the affairs of those concerns or firms. The facts in the instant case are however different. PW59 Suresh Jain (Approver) has categorically stated that the bills were prepared by him and Accused no. 6 at the instructions of Accused no. 2 Rangi Lal and in the absence of Accused no. 2, they were prepared at the instructions of Accused no. 3 Subhash Goel. The witness has not been cross examined at all on this aspect by Accused no.3. This part of the testimony of the witness is, therefore, unrebutted and unchallenged. Besides, it was not a case of one isolated act on part of Accused no.3. He was Director in two firms; Proprietor in one business concern which was a fictitious one ; authorized representative of two firms and CC No. 19/12 151 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D he also introduced Accused no. 4 in opening current account of a firm which was not existent. He also issued four cheques for withdrawal of amounts released against the purchase of the said bills. The scale of his involvement by no means was minimal.

ACCUSED NO. 4 - ANIL KUMAR GOEL

134. Accused no. 4Anil Kumar Goel is one of the Directors in M/s Ganga Plywood Industries Company Pvt. Ltd, M/s Mohan Agro Mills Ltd and a partner in M/s Sanjeev Dal Mills. He is also a sole proprietor of M/s Aggarwal Trading Company. The Board Resolution dated 15/9/1989 ( Exh PW 71/10 ) of Ganga Plywood Industries shows that he and Accused no.2 Rangi Lal were authorized to represent the Company in the transactions with the Bank. The role of this Accused is categoric and more pronounced in respect of the transaction involving Mohan Agro Mills Ltd., and M/s Aggarwal Trading Company.

135. The role of Accused no. 5 Ashok Goel in the transaction involved in M/s Mohan Agro Mills Ltd has been discussed in detail separately. As has already been discussed in respect of purchase of bills of M/s Mohan Agro Mills Ltd, the total amount of Rs. 7.95 lacs was CC No. 19/12 152 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D released in favour of this Company by the Bank against such purchase. It has also been discussed above how the bills purchased were forged alongwith MTRs/GRs and how the drawees were either nonexistent or they had not placed any order. Apart from Accused no. 5, Accused no. 4 Anil Kumar Goel also withdrew an amount of Rs. 2.07 lacs from the above said amount released against the purchase of bills vide a cheque dated 11/12/91 bearing no. 311162 (Ex.PW18/H19). The signature of Accused no. 4 at Q125 on this cheque has been confirmed in the GEQD opinion dated 22.08.1996 (Ex.PW71/C) at Srl. No. 4. The withdrawal of this amount is also reflected in the statement of account (Ex.PW17/P). Vide this cheque, Accused no. 4 transferred the amount in favour of Ganga Plywood Industries in which he was one of the Directors.

136. Being the sole proprietor of M/s Aggarwal Trading Company, Accused no. 4 was in direct control of all the aspects of this business concern and was legally accountable for its finances. Out of the seven bills of this proprietorship concern purchased by the bank, four bills were in favour of M/s Rajasthan Agency and three bills were in favour of Raju Trading Agency.

137. Out of the 7 bills of this proprietorship concern purchased by the Bank, the bills bearing D.N. No. 1982 to 1985 CC No. 19/12 153 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D mention the drawee as M/s Rajasthan Agency and bills bearing DN No. 1999 to 2001 mention the drawee as M/s Raju Trading Company. Against the purchase of the bills bearing DN No. 1982 to 1985, an amount of Rs. 4,54,400/ was released by the Bank which was deposited in the current account of M/s Aggarwal Trading Company vide credit slip Ex.PW18/E. Against the purchase of bills bearing DN No. 1999 to 2001, an amount of Rs. 3,45,300/ was released after deducting certain charges which was deposited in the account of M/s Aggarwal Trading Company vide credit slip dated 24.01.1992 (Ex.PW18/F). These credit entries are also reflected in its statement of account (Ex.PW17/L) as entries dated 21.01.1992 and 24.01.1992. Immediately after such deposits , amounts of Rs. 2,53,000/, Rs. 90,000/ and Rs. 4,50,000/ were withdrawn by Accused no. 4 from the account vide cheques bearing no. (i) 723402 dated 27.01.1992 (Ex.PW17/F) (ii) No. 723403 dated 27.01.1992 (Ex.PW17/D) and (iii) cheque no. 723401 dated 21.01.1992 (Ex.PW17/E) respectively. The cheque no. 723402 was issued by Accused no. 4 in favour of M/s Sanjeev Dal Mills in which he was a partner alongwith Accused no.5. The cheque no. 723403 was issued in favour of Suresh Jain (Approver PW 59).

CC No. 19/12 154 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D Cheque no. 723401 was a self cheque and the amount was withdrawn by Accused for himself. All the three cheques were issued by Accused no. 4 as proprietor of M/s Aggarwal Trading Company and his signature are at point Q124, Q123 and Q122 respectively. The GEQD opinion dated 22.08.1996 Ex.PW17/C confirms the signature of Accused no. 4 on the abovesaid cheques at Srl. no. 4.

138. Prosecution has proved that Accused no. 4 opened a current account of a nonexistent proprietorship concern, namely, Aggarwal Trading co. in the SBP, SN Marg, Delhi.The Bills of this fictitious concern offered for purchase to the Bank were supported with forged GRs and atleast one of the two drawees of the Bills was non existent. After the release of amount against purchase of such forged Bills, accused withdrew the entire amount promptly and transferred part of it to Ganga Plywood Industries in which he himself had stakes and partly withdrew the amount for self .

ACCUSED NO. 5 - ASHOK KUMAR GOEL

139. Accused no. 5 Ashok Kumar Goel is a partner in M/s Sanjeev Dal Mills, a Director in Mohan Agro Mills Ltd., and a Director in Ganga Plywood Industries Company CC No. 19/12 155 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D Pvt. Ltd. The role of this Accused is categoric and more pronounced in respect of the transaction involving Mohan Agro Mills Ltd. Even though the bills were not recovered or seized, the transactions were proved by the DN register Ex.PW2/A. All the related details such as name of the drawee, name of the drawee bank and the details of the MTRs/GRs are mentioned in the DN register. It has been separately discussed how drawee of bills bearing DN No. 1720 to 1725, i.e M/s Mangalsen Om Prakash was a nonexistent firm and how the drawee of the bills (DN No. 2226 to 2230) M/s Ajay Kumar never placed any order for supply of goods. The Bills of this company offered for purchase to the Bank were, thus, fraudulent and supported by forged GRs. Testimony of PW14 Sh. Ajay Kumar also shows that Sh. Jai Narain, father of Accused no. 4 and 5 was also aware of the above said bills. The argument that Accused no. 2 Rangi Lal acted alone and other accused merely followed him does not hold any ground.

140. After the above said bills were purchased, the Accused no. 5 withdrew the amount credited to the current account of Mohan Agro Mills Ltd upon such purchases. Against the purchases of the above said 11 bills, a total amount of Rs. 7.97 lacs was credited in the account of this firm as is CC No. 19/12 156 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D reflected as two credit entries in the statement of account (Ex.PW17/P). These credit entries are in the sum of Rs. 5,00,500/ and Rs. 2,95,000/. Out of this, the Accused no. 5 withdrew an amount of Rs. 2,95,000/ vide cheque bearing no. 311163 dated 13.12.1991. This cheque (Ex.PW18/H18) was issued by Accused no. 5 on behalf of M/s Mohan Agro Mills Ltd in favour of himself. The signature of Accused no. 5 at Q135 on this cheque has been confirmed by the GEQD opinion dated 22.08.1996 (Ex.PW71/C) at Srl. No. 5. The statement of account (Ex.PW71/P) also shows that an amount of Rs. 2.07 lacs were also withdrawn from the account of this firm by the other Director namely Anil Kumar Goel Accused no. 4 vide cheque no. 311162 entry dated 11.12.1991, whose role has been discussed separately. The Accused no. 5 was, thus, fully aware of the transactions involving the purchase of 11 bogus bills of Mohan Agro Mills Ltd. After the amounts against the purchase of these bills were released by the bank and deposited in the current account of Mohan Agro Mills on 21.01.1992 and 24.01.1992, he withdrew the amount of Rs. 2.95 lacs in furtherance of this conspiracy.

141. It has been argued by ld. Counsel for accused that it was possible that Accused no. 5 must have left certain signed CC No. 19/12 157 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D cheques with Accused no. 2 Rangi Lal who would have either himself or through his employee withdrawn the cheque amount. The perusal of cheque shows that Accused no. 5 affixed his signatures twice on its rear side. Perusal of all the cheques on record lead to one irresistible conclusion that the presenter of the cheque who got the same encashed has signed on the rear side of the cheque. Thus, the cheque was presented and encashed by Accused no. 5 himself even though he may not have filled the cheque up himself.

142. It has also been argued by Accused no. 5 that the factories of Ganga Plywood and Mohan Agro Mills were located at Mainpuri, UP and he was only involved in their production segment. It is submitted that for this reason, he had no knowledge as to what was going on in the Delhi Offices. The Current Account Opening Form of Mohan Agro Mills shows that the address at Mainpuri, UP has been mentioned as the address of this company. This accused has not disputed that for the purpose of Account Opening Form, he had been to Delhi. His contention is that he mostly remained at Mainpuri. The above discussion, however, proves that when the money was released on 11.12.1991 against the purchase of the bills of Mohan Agro Mills Ltd., he withdrew the same CC No. 19/12 158 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D promptly vide cheque dated 13.12.1991. This cheque was presented and encashed by Accused no. 5 himself. Therefore, his argument that he was involved only in the production side of this Company and had nothing to do with the office work in Delhi fails.

ACCUSED NO. 6 DHANRAJ GARG

143. During the course of arguments, it was conceded by ld.

Counsel for Accused no. 6 that he does not dispute the preparations of bills and hundies by Accused no. 6 since it was his duty as an accountant / 'Muneem' to prepare them. GEQD report not only proves preparation of 8 bills (Ex.PW71/1, Ex.PW71/2, Ex.PW71/3, Ex.PW21/C, Ex.PW21/D, Ex.PW62/A, Ex.PW71/4 , Ex.PW71/5) of Ganga Plywood Industries Company Pvt. Ltd. but also proves that he signed the bills Exh PW 21/C, Exh PW 21/D and Exh PW 62/A as 'A Goyal'. The GEQD report also proves that he prepared the bills Ex.PW42/B1, Ex.PW42/B2, Ex.PW42/B3, Ex.PW42/B4, Ex.PW42/B5, Ex.PW42/B6, Ex.PW42/B7, Ex.PW42/B8 of Pawan Kumar Subhash Chand and six of them were also signed by him.

144. The contentious issue pertains to GRs/MTRs. The GRs constitute the questioned documents Q20 to Q38. The CC No. 19/12 159 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D GRs/MTRs pertaining to M/s. Roshan Transport & Forwarding Agency are Ex.PW10/1 to Ex.PW10/8, Ex.PW1/9 to bill Ex.PW1/11 (Q28 to Q38). The consignor in these GRs is Ganga Plywood Industries. The GRs/MTRs pertaining to M/s G.B. Transport India Pvt. Ltd are Ex.PW66/B1 and Ex.PW67/A2 to Ex.PW67/A8 (Q20 to Q27). The consignor in these GRs is Pawan Kumar Subash Chand. As per GEQD opinion (Ex.PW71/B), the questioned documents Q20 to Q30 and Q32 to Q36 are in the handwriting of Accused no. 6 Dhanraj Garg and the questioned documents Q31, Q37 and Q38 are in the hand of approver PW59 Suresh Jain.

145. Ld. counsel for Accused no. 6 has pointed out that during the cross examination, IO (PW75) admitted that PW59 Sh. Suresh Jain (approver) had informed him during investigation that the documents Q30, Q31, Q37 and Q 38 were in his handwriting and were prepared by him. On the basis of this submission, the IO submitted the Questionnaire (Ex.PW71/A) in which he requested GEQD to compare Q30 & Q31 with specimen signatures of Approver Sh. Suresh Jain S127 to S132. However, in his opinion, GEQD attributed the handwriting in the document Q30 to Accused no. 6 Dhanraj Garg. It has been further pointed out that on the CC No. 19/12 160 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D face of it, the handwritings in the questioned documents Q30 & Q31 appear different. But that handwriting in the document Q30 is same as that in the documents Q37 & Q38. It has also been argued that since the authorship of the document Q30 is disputed and this handwriting appears similar to that at Q38, there is a possibility that all the abovesaid questioned documents including Q20 to Q30 and Q31 to Q36 were written by Suresh Jain himself. It has also been argued that on the face of it, Q 20 to Q29 and Q37 and Q38 are in the same handwriting. It is submitted that if these handwritings are compared with that of Q30, they appear to be the same. He submits that this cast doubt on the GEQD report used as evidence against Accused no. 6 and, therefore, Accused no. 6 should be given benefit of doubt.

146. He submits that during the cross examination of the handwriting expert PW71 Sh. Naresh Chander Sood, Retired GEQD on 26.05.2014, the Court has also observed the dissimilarity in handwritings at Q31 and Q 37 and Q38.

147. Ld. counsel for Accused no. 6 has tried to lay a ground for grant of benefit of doubt to Accused no. 6 by insisting on taking a prima facie view of the handwritings on the questioned documents Q20 to Q38 whereas a scientific CC No. 19/12 161 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D investigation has already been conducted into the handwritings of Sh. Suresh Jain, Approver and Accused no. 6 Dhanraj Garg. Where the scientific method adopted by the GEQD and the reasons assigned by him have not been challenged on any ground whatsoever, it is the scientific investigation that shall prevail. No doubt, the IO has stated during his cross examination that at the time of investigation, he was informed by the Approver Sh. Suresh Jain that document Q30 was in his hand and that the IO himself was of the opinion that both these handwritings appeared similar, it is the scientific investigation that would prevail. It has, therefore, been established that the GRs/MTRs which constitute the questioned documents Q20 to Q30 and Q32 to Q36 were prepared by Accused no. 6 whereas he had knowledge that as an accountant, it was not his duty to prepare such forged MTRs/GRs which should have been prepared by the transport company. With such knowledge, Accused no. 6 created false documents on the basis of which he also prepared false bills mentioning the details of such forged MTRs. These bills were then used by the other accused to defraud the State Bank of Patiala. In these circumstances, there cannot be two views about Accused no. 6 having actively participated in the CC No. 19/12 162 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D conspiracy and creating forged documents in furtherance of this conspiracy.

PAYMENT OF AMOUNT IN DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL

148. It has been argued on behalf of accused persons that the State Bank of Patiala, S.N. Marg Branch filed Original Application bearing no. 254 of 1997 (Ex.DW1/A) before the DRT, New Delhi against M/s Ganga Plywood, Accused no. 2, 3,4 and 5 as well as Sh. Pawan Goel (brother of Accused no. 4 and 5) and Sh. Jai Narain (father of Accused no. 4 and 5 and brother of Accused no.

2). Vide order dated 12.03.2007 (Ex.DW1/B), the matter was settled between the parties and upon payment of settlement amount of Rs. 1.2 crores, the Bank withdrew the OA. It has been argued that in these circumstances, the benefit of settlement must go to the accused persons.

149. In CBI vs. Jagjit Singh, (2013) 10 SCC 686, it has been held that the offences when committed in relation with banking activities including offences U/Sec. 420/471 IPC have a harmful effect on the public and threaten the wellbeing of the society. These offences fall under the category of offences involving moral turpitude committed by public servants while working in that capacity. Prima CC No. 19/12 163 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D facie, one may state that the Bank is the victim in such cases but, in fact, society in general including customers of the bank are the sufferers. In the facts & circumstances of the present case, the Court is convinced that the payment made in DRT by the Accused will have no bearing on this case.

CONSPIRACY

150. The Accused no. 2,3 4 and 5 being family members and close relatives were Directors in Ganga Plywood Industries Co. Pvt. Ltd., Delhi of which Accused no. 2 and 4 were the authorized representatives for dealing with the S.N. Marg Branch of State Bank of Patiala. Accused no. 3,4 and 5 were also the Directors in Mohan Agro Mills Ltd, Mainpuri, UP. Accused no. 4 and 5 were partners in Sanjeev Dal Mills and Accused no. 2 and 3 were its authorized representatives. Accused no. 2 was partner in Tara Chand Jai Narain alongwith his brother Jai Narain. All these companies had current accounts in the SN Marg Branch of the SBP.The entire business was all in the family. The conspiracy manifest itself when the accused opened current accounts of three proprietorship concerns i.e. M/s Pawan Kumar Subhash Chand, M/s. Sanjeev Enterprises and Aggarwal Trading Company in CC No. 19/12 164 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D the names of Subhash Chand Goyal (A3), Rangi Lal (A

2) and Anil Kumar Goyal (A4) respectively. From this point, the role of Accused no. 1, the then Branch Manager of S.N. Marg Branch, namely Davinder Kumar, became pivotal. Without the active help of Accused no. 1, the conspiracy to defraud the bank could not have been successful. Fraudulent bills and forged GRs / MTRs were got prepared from the accountants i.e. Accused no. 6 Dhanraj Garg and PW59 Suresh Jain (Approver). Both these accountants prepared MTRs/GRs knowing fully well that it was not their duty to prepare the MTRs/GRs which should have been prepared by the respective transport companies and further, knowing fully well that they were preparing forged documents. The GRs/MTRs attached with the Bills were made and used fraudulently with the intention of causing it to be believed that they were issued by the Transport Companies, namely, M/s GB Transports and M/s Roshan Transports. The drawees mentioned in the bills in question either did not exist or did not place any order as mentioned in the bills in question. Without adopting the cautious approach as is expected of a Branch Manager of a Bank dealing with public money, Accused no. 1 abused his office as public servant and went out of his way to obtain pecuniary CC No. 19/12 165 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D advantage for Accused no. 2 to 5 as is evident from the episode involving exchange of correspondence between him and Manager, PNB, Sonpur. The credit vouchers show that against such purchases of the Bills, total amount of Rs 55.06 lakh was credited in the current accounts of the said firms. All the credit vouchers except two were processed by Accused no. 1. All the cheques, except 7, of the accused no. 2 to 5 for withdrawal of the amount credited in their current accounts against purchase of Bills were processed by Accused no.1. When the amounts were released and deposited in the current accounts of the above mentioned seven firms, all the accused persons issued cheques for prompt withdrawal of the money so deposited and siphoned off money. With such withdrawal & siphoning off, the conspiracy was complete. It has been established, beyond any shadow of doubt that the accused persons in conspiracy with each other perpetrated serious financial irregularity and cheated the State Bank of Patiala to the tune of approximately Rs. 55.06 lakh. Thus, following charges have been proved against the Accused persons beyond any shadow of doubt:

Accused No. 1 Davinder Kumar: Offence U/Sec. 13(1)

(d) r/w Sec. 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 and offence CC No. 19/12 166 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D U/Sec. 120B r/w Section 420, 467, 471 IPC and U/Sec.

13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988.

Accused No. 3 Subhash Chand Goyal: U/Sec. 420, 471 r/w Section 467 IPC and Section 120B r/w Section 420, 467, 471 IPC and U/Sec. 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988. Accused No. 4 Anil Kumar Goyal: U/Sec. 420, 471 r/w Section 467 IPC and Section 120B r/w Section 420, 467, 471 IPC and U/Sec. 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988. Accused No. 5 Ashok Kumar Goyal: U/Sec.120B r/w Section 420, 467, 471 IPC and U/Sec. 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of PC Act, 1988.

Accused no. 6 Dhanraj Garg: U/sec 467 IPC and u/s120B r/w Section 420, 467, 471 IPC and U/Sec. 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of PC Act, 1988.

151. The Accused no. 1,3,4,5 and 6 are convicted accordingly.

PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 21 ST DAY OF APRIL 2016 (Vrinda Kumari) Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI3), South, Saket Court New Delhi CC No. 19/12 167 of 167 RC No. 3(E)/1995/CBI/BS&FC/N.D

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi District Court

Rc No. 3(E)/1995/Cbi/Bs&Fc/N.D vs Kathi Kalu Oghad on 21 April, 2016