Delhi District Court
Cbi vs . Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. Page 1 Of 68 on 10 May, 2013
1
CBI case No. : 37/11
IN THE COURT OF SH. N. K. KAUSHIK
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT), CBI,
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
CBI Case No. : 37/11
RC No. : 4 (E)/2006/EOWI/ New Delhi
In the matter of :
CBI
versus
1. Sri Kant Chawla (A1)
S/o Shri Keemat Rai Chawla,
ExChief Manager, State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur,
Nangal Raya Branch, Jail Road, New Delhi,
R/o : Plot No.4, Road No.1,
Bhopal Pura, Udaipur 313 001, Rajasthan
2. Vijender Jindal (PO),
S/o Sh. Nand Kishore,
Proprietor of M/s B.R. Food Products.
3. Jagpal Singh Chaney (A2)
S/o late Sardar Singh Chaney
Prop. M/s Chaney & Associates,
C7, South Extension, PartII,
New Delhi 49
R/o : A1625, Ist Floor, Green Field,
Faridabad, Haryana. ............ Convicts
Date of Institution : 21.05.2008
Date on which Judgment Pronounced : 3.5.2013
Date on which Order on Sentence announced : 10.5.2013
CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. Page 1 of 68
2
CBI case No. : 37/11
O R D E R O N S E N T E N C E
1. By this order, I shall dispose off the contentions, raised on behalf of the
parties, on the point of sentence.
2. In the present case, both the convicts, namely, Sri Kant Chawla (A1) &
Jagpal Singh Chaney (A2) have been convicted for the offence
punishable under sections 120B IPC read with sections 420, 468 & 471
IPC read with section 13 (2) and 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988. Convict, Sri Kant Chawla(A1), has been convicted, in
addition, for the offence punishable under section 13(2) read with
section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Convict,
Jagpal Singh Chaney (A2), has been convicted, in addition, for the
offences punishable under sections 420 & 468 IPC.
3. It has been strongly contended on behalf of the State by the Ld. Sr. PP
for the CBI that this is a corruption case, in which, the convicts have
been convicted, as they were operating as an organised racket and have
caused illegal huge pecuniary loss to the State Bank of Bikaner and
Jaipur, Govt. of India Undertaking. That they have cheated the said
bank to the tune of Rs.31.58 lakhs when loan was fraudulently
CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. Page 2 of 68
3
CBI case No. : 37/11
sanctioned. They have, therefore, caused loss to the public exchequer of
the said amount. It has further been stated that the amount, to the
extent to which the Government has been cheated, was not a small
amount as the case pertains to the period prior to the year 2006, when it
was a huge and fat amount.
4. The State has further contended that the maximum prescribed
substantive punishment with fine be handed over to all the convicts, so
that enough and clear message goes to one and all and especially to the
potential offenders, who are in the waiting to commit such like frauds
so that the punishment act as a deterrence and the intent of the
legislature is fulfilled.
5. Convict Sri Kant Chawla, has prayed that a lenient view be taken on the
ground that there is no allegation against him that he has been
benefited even with single penny. That he has an old and ailing mother
of 80 years of age. That he is the only male member in the family to
support his wife and his son, who is bed ridden. That he, himself, has
also been afflicted with health problems.
CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. Page 3 of 68
4
CBI case No. : 37/11
6. Convict Jagpal Singh Chaney has submitted that he is 63 years of age
and is afflicted with various ailments like - high Blood Pressure, Blood
Sugar, etc. That he is also suffering from Glucoma and is unable to see
properly. That he has not been convicted previously. He has, however,
been convicted in another case also by this Court.
7. Both the convicts have, thus, prayed for a lenient view. They have
prayed for release on probation.
8. The contentions, raised by the the convicts, have met stiff and very
strong opposition on behalf of the State. It has been urged that convict
Sri Kant Chawla, the then public servant, is a convict before this Court,
in as many as three different cases as he had illegally and dishonestly
sanctioned loans/ Cash Credit Limits on the basis of false and fraudulent
documents in the year 2006, when it was quite a big sum. It has, further,
been stated on behalf of the State that being a public servant at the
relevant time, convict Sri Kant Chawla acted corruptly with full vigour, in
sanction of loan and then after in permitting overdraft beyond his
discretion and power, one after the other. It has, therefore, been urged
that this convict is a habitual offender and deserves maximum
CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. Page 4 of 68
5
CBI case No. : 37/11
punishment.
9. Similarly, it is stated that convict Jagpal Singh Chaney is held guilty in
two cases. it is stated that in pursuance to the systematic and well
planned conspiracy, he forged reports/documents and acted in
connivance with other convicts in this case.
10. It is further urged on behalf of the State that most of the pleas taken by
the convicts are routine and stock pleas and in any case, in the case
under the Prevention of Corruption Act, these pleas taken are not
considered as mitigating circumstances. It has, therefore, been prayed
that exemplary punishment be awarded to the convicts herein.
11. On behalf of the CBI, following case law have been cited:
(i) State of Punjab Vs. Rakesh Kumar, AIR 2009 Supreme Court 391,
(ii) Bikram Dorjee Vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 2009 Supreme Court 2539
(iii) Ankush Maruti Shinde Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 Supreme
Court 2609
(iv) Ammavasai Vs. Inspector of Police, Valliyanur, AIR 2000 SC 3644
(v) State of A. P. Vs. S. R. Rangadamappa, AIR 1982 SC 1492
(vi) State V A Parthiban, AIR 2007 Supreme Court 51,
(vii) State V Ratan Lal Arora, AIR 2004 Supreme Court 2364 &
CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. Page 5 of 68
6
CBI case No. : 37/11
(viii) Ram Narain Poply Vs. CBI, AIR 2003 Supreme Court 2748
(ix) State of J & K Vs. Vinay Nanda, AIR 2001 SC 611.
12. On behalf of the convicts, no case law has been cited:
13. At the very outset, it is observed that there is no quarrel over the settled
propositions of law discussed in the aforesaid case law, cited.
14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case law, reported as Dr. Subramanyam
Swami Vs. Dr. Manmohan Singh, 2012, AIR(SC) page 1185, has observed
that :
"The magnitude of corruption in our public life is
incompatible with the concept of socialistic secular democratic
public. The duty of the Court is that any anti corruption law has
to be interpreted and worked out in such a fashion as to
strengthen to fight against corruption."
15. It has further been observed in the same case that "In a situation where
two constructions are eminently reasonable, the Court has to accept the
one that seeks to eredicate corruption to the one which seeks to
perpetuate it."
CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. Page 6 of 68
7
CBI case No. : 37/11
16. It has been held in case reported as Narendra Champak Lal
Trivedi Vs. State of Gujrat, 2012 (7) SCC page 80 that: "Corruption
at any level does not deserve either sympathy or leniency."
17. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Vinod
Kumar, decided on, 18th May, 2012 (Criminal Appeal No. 1887) reiterated
the law laid down in State of J&K Vs. Vinay Nanda, AIR 2001 SC P 611,
and observed that superannuation of the convict and the pendency of
criminal trial for over a period of time cannot be treated a special
reason to reduce the sentence.
18. In the same appeal quoting 'M B Joshi Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR
2001 SC 147' the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that:
"It is the defect of the system that longevity of the cases tried
under the Prevention of Corruption Act is too lengthy. If that is
regarded as sufficient for reducing the sentence mandated by
the Parliament legislative exercise would stand defeated."
19. It was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported as
State of J & K Vs. Vinay Nanda, AIR 2001 SC P 611, that :
"Corruption at any level, by any person, of any
CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. Page 7 of 68
8
CBI case No. : 37/11
magnitude, is condemnable, which cannot be ignored by
the Judicial Courts, when proved. No leniency is
required to be shown in proved cases under the
Prevention of Corruption Act which itself treats the
offences under it of a special nature to be treated
differently than the general penal offences. The convicts
of the offences under the Act are to be dealt with heavy
hand and deterrant rod. No populous or sympathetic
approach is needed in such cases."
20. It was observed by the Hon'ble High Court in the cases reported as Jai
Bhagwan Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2008 150 DLT 46 (Delhi) and
Ravinder Kumar Arora Vs. CBI Manu/DE/8816/2007 (Delhi) , that :
"It is a normal thing that 'trial' of the person is
considered a period of 'agony' undergone by him. But
we tend to forget the agony of the society and the
complainant who dared lodge the complaint. The entire
purpose of the legislature of sentencing the offenders
stands defeated and that is the one reason that wages of
corruption are considered more attractive in this
country. The person caught is not always a firsttimer
corrupt. He may have been indulging into corrupt
activities / practices for a long number of years. It is to
his advantage that the trial is prolonged. He spends a
fraction of amount, earned by corrupt practices on
CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. Page 8 of 68
9
CBI case No. : 37/11
litigation and professionals to see that ultimately he
makes Criminal Justice System a laughing stock. In
this process, the entire legislative purpose of punishing a
corrupt stands defeated.
21. It was further observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid
case that :
"Accused facing trial since long; amount allegedly
misappropriated already been deposited; undergone
departmental punishment; only bread earner in
family; wife and three children's dependence on him
are the circumstance which do not constitute 'special
reasons'."
22. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported as State
of M. P. Vs. Shambhu Dayal Nagar, (2006) 8 SCC P 693, that :
"Corruption by public servant has become gigantic
problem. It has spread everywhere. No facet of public
activity has been left unaffected by the stink of
corruption. Large scale corruption retards the nation
building activities and everyone has to suffer on that
count."
23. It was observed by the Hon'ble High Court in the case reported as
CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. Page 9 of 68
10
CBI case No. : 37/11
AIR 1961, Mysore P 49, that:
"Infliction of a lenient sentence will defeat the purpose
of the P. C. Act."
24. It was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case reported as
State of T. N Vs. Kaliaperumal, (2005) 12 SCC 473 and State Vs. Ratan
Lal Arora, (2004) 4 SCC 590 that :
"Section 18 of the Probation of Offenders Act specifically
bars the offence under PC Act from the purview of the
Act."
25. The convicts, therefore, cannot be enlarged on probation in this
case relating to serious offences.
26. It was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
reported as State of M. P. Vs. Ram Singh, AIR 2000 SC 870, that:
"Corruption in a civilised society is a disease like cancer,
which if not detected in time is sure to maliganise the
polity of the country leading to disastrous consequences.
It is termed as plague which is not only contagious but
if not controlled spreads like a fire in a jungle. Its virus
is compared with HIV leading to AIDS being incurable.
The sociopolitical system exposed to such a dreaded
communicable disease is likely to crumble under its
own weight. Corruption is opposed to democracy and
CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. Page 10 of 68
11
CBI case No. : 37/11
social order, being not only anti people, but aimed and
targeted against them. It affects the economy and
destroys the cultural heritage."
27. Further, it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
law reported as Ankush Maruti Shinde Vs State of Maharashtra, AIR
2009 SC 2609 that:
" The social impact of the crime e.g. where it relates to
offences against women, decoity, kidnapping,
misappropriation of public money, treason and other offences
involving moral turpitude or moral delinquency which have
great impact on social order, and public interest cannot be
lost sight of and per se require exemplary treatment. Undue
sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more
harm to the justice system to undermine the public
confidence in the efficacy of law and society could not long
endure under such serious threats."
28. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported as
Mohd. A Hussain Vs. Asstt. Collector, Custom (Prevention) Ahmedabad,
AIR 1998 SC 2143, that :
CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. Page 11 of 68
12
CBI case No. : 37/11
"If a given transaction constitutes two offences under
two enactments generally, it is wrong to have
consecutive sentences. But this rule has no application
if the transaction relating to offences is not the same or
the facts constituting the two offences are quite
different. Sentencing judge should try to ensure that
the totality of the sentences is correct in the light of all
the circumstances of the case."
"In arriving at an appropriate sentence, the court
must consider, and some times reject, many factors.
The court must 'recognise, learn to control and exclude'
many diverse data. It is a balancing act and tortuous
process to ensure reasoned sentence."
29. In the case of Siddarama and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka, 2006 IV AD
(Cri.) (SC) 78, it was held that:
"undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would
do more harm to the justice system to undermine the
public confidence in the efficacy of law and society can
no longer endure under such serious threats. It is,
therefore, the duty of every court to award proper
sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and
the manner in which it was executed or committed etc."
30. It was further held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported as A.
CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. Page 12 of 68
13
CBI case No. : 37/11
B. Bhaskara Rao vs. Inspector of Police, CBI, Vishakapatnam, 2011(4)
RCR (Criminal) 290 (SC) that :
"in the case of corruption by public servant, long delay
in disposal, quantum of amount of bribe and that the
delinquent lost his job due to conviction etc., are not to
be taken as mitigating circumstances for reduction of
the sentence".
31. It was further held in the case law reported as Kishan Dayal vs. State,
1958 Raj LW 596 that:
" A corrupt official is a menace to the society and far
from helping in the proper functioning of the
Government and implementing of the laws, brings the
Government and the society at large into disrepute. It is
through the agency of the public servants that the policy
of the Legislature as well as of the Government is
implemented. It is through the public servants that
crimes are detected and offenders are brought to book. It
is through strictly honest and incorruptible public
servants that the welfare of the society can be ensured. If
such public servants are open to corruption and coerce
the public into paying them illegal gratification, the
whole structure of the society would be upset and the
policy of the Government and of the Legislature,
CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. Page 13 of 68
14
CBI case No. : 37/11
howsoever, beneficial it may be, would gravely suffer. A
public servant, therefore, once he is found to be guilty of
accepting or obtaining illegal gratification, deserves no
soft corner or indulgence from the Courts of Law."
32. It was held in the case reported as Madhukar Bhaskarrao Joshi vs. State
of Maharashtra, 2001 Cr. LJ 175(SC): that:
"When corruption was sought to be eliminated from the
polity all possible stringent measures are to be adopted
within the bounds of law. One such measure is to provide
condign punishment. Parliament measured the
parameters for such condign punishment and in that
process wanted to fix a minimum sentence of
imprisonment for giving deterrent impact on other
public servants who are prone to corrupt deals. That
was precisely the reason why the sentence was fixed as
seven years and directed that even if the said period of
imprisonment need not be given, the sentence shall not
be less than the imprisonment for one year. Such a
legislative insistence is reflection of Parliament's resolve
to meet corruption cases with very strong hand to give
signals of deterrence as the most pivotal feature of
sentencing of corrupt public servants. All public servants
have to face very serious consequences. If on the other
hand any public servant is given the impression that if
CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. Page 14 of 68
15
CBI case No. : 37/11
he succeeds in protracting the proceedings that would
help him to have the advantage of getting a very light
sentence even if the case ends in conviction, its fallout
would afford incentive to public servants who were
susceptible to corruption to indulge in such nefarious
practices with immunity. Increasing the fine after
reducing the imprisonment to a nominal period can also
defeat the purpose as the corrupt public servants could
easily raise the fine amount through the same means."
33. I have thoroughly and carefully considered the rival contentions. I have
also examined the asserted mitigating and aggravating circumstances,
pointed out by the parties. I am of the considered opinion that
considering all the aspects of the matter, the following sentence shall be
appropriate to meet the ends of justice and is awarded:
(i) Both the convicts herein are awarded sentence of two years
rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5000/, in default, one month
simple imprisonment, each, for the offence punishable under section
120B IPC.
(ii) Convict, Sri Kant Chawla (A1), being a repeat convict in three
cases, shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years and a fine of
CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. Page 15 of 68
16
CBI case No. : 37/11
Rs.25,000/, in default, six month simple imprisonment for the offence
punishable under section 13 (2) read with section 13 (1) (d) of the the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
(iii) Convict, Jagpal Singh Chaney (A2), for the offence punishable
under section 420 & 468 IPC, shall suffer sentence of rigorous
imprisonment for three years and six months and a fine of Rs.10,000/,
in default, two months simple imprisonment.
34. All the aforesaid sentences shall run concurrently.
35. Benefit of section 428 Cr.P.C. is extended to the convicts.
36. A copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given to all the
convicts, free of cost, forthwith.
37. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court ( N. K. Kaushik )
on 10th May, 2013 Special Judge (PC Act) CBI
Dwarka Courts
CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. Page 16 of 68
17
CBI case No. : 37/11
IN THE COURT OF SH. N. K. KAUSHIK
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT), CBI,
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
CBI Case No. : 37/11
RC No. : 4 (E)/2006/EOWI/ New Delhi
In the matter of :
CBI
versus
1. Sri Kant Chawla(A1),
ExChief Manager,
State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur,
Nangal Raya Branch,
Jail Road, New Delhi.
S/o Shri Keemat Rai Chawla,
R/o : Plot No.4, Road No.1,
Bhopal Pura, Udaipur313001, Rajasthan.
2. Shri Vijender Jindal (since PO),
S/o Shri Nand Kishore,
Prop. M/s B. R. Food Products.
3. Shri Jagpal Singh Chaney (A2),
Proprietor of M/s Chaney & Associates,
C7, South Extension, PartII,
New Delhi49.
S/o late Sardar Surjit Singh Chaney,
R/o : A1625, Ist Floor, Green Field,
Faridabad, Haryana. ............ Accused Persons
CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. Page 17 of 68
18
CBI case No. : 37/11
Date of Institution : 21.05.2008
Date on which Judgment Pronounced : 03.05.2013
Decision : Conviction
JUDGMENT
1. This is a corruption case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, registered by the CBI, relating to fraudulent sanction of cash credit limit and then of unauthorized, illegal and unwarranted over drawings in Cash Credit Accounts/Overdraft Accounts much beyond the sanctioned limits, by the accused person, in pursuance to an organised, systematic and well knit criminal conspiracy by the accused persons, who all acted in unison to cheat the bank.
2. The brief facts of the case, as disclosed by the prosecution, are that the present case was registered on 30.11.2006 against the accused persons on the basis of a complaint made by Chief Vigilance Officer, Shri M. L. Lal, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as SBBJ), Head Office, Tilak Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan. It is alleged by the prosecution that during the period w.e.f. 3.3.2004 to 24.2.2006, accused Sri Kant Chawla, the then Chief Manager, SBBJ, Nangal Raya Branch, New Delhi, in collusion with coaccused persons, dishonestly and CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. Page 18 of 68 19 CBI case No. : 37/11 fraudulently allowed over drawings in cash credit accounts /over draft accounts beyond the sanctioned limits. That he, beyond his discretionary powers, also purchased local and outstation cheques/ bills without any sanctioned limits and did not report about the above said transactions to his Controlling Authority. It is also alleged that several sale deeds of the properties, which were offered as collateral securities, were false & forged and, thus, he abused his officials position while accepting them at the time loan was sanctioned and caused wrongful loss to the bank to the tune of Rs.31.58 lakhs and corresponding wrongful gain to the accused persons/borrowers.
3. It is further alleged by the prosecution that accused Vijender Jindal (since Proclaimed Offender) was the Proprietor of M/s B. R. Food Products, 109 Vishal Towers, District Centre, Janak Puri, New Delhi, which was allegedly engaged in trading of rice. That on 14.12.2004, accused Vijender Jindal submitted an application for sanction of Cash Credit Limit of Rs.25 lac against hypothecation of stocks and book debts for working capital requirements. He offered the property measuring 200 sq. yards situated at plot No. 9, Block A Shanker Garden, New Dehi, as collateral security. That one Rajiv Bansal, R/o B3/32, Janak Puri, New CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. Page 19 of 68 20 CBI case No. : 37/11 Delhi, also stood guarantor to the said account.
4. It is further alleged that the said loan application was processed by Shri Prem Raj Mawar, the then Dy. Manager (Advances) but he did not carry out Preinspection Survey of the property as accused Sri Kant Chawla informed him that he had visited the property and found the same to be satisfactory. Accused Sri Kant Chawla, thereafter, without any inspection, in connivance with accused Vijender Jindal, fraudulently sanctioned a cash credit hypothecation limit of Rs.25 Lakhs under "SBBJ Sulabh Vyapar Rin Yojna", which was introduced on 24.9.2003. That Accused Sri Kant Chawla also issued Sanction Letter dated 23.12.2004, which was duly acknowledged by accused Vijender Jindal (declared Proclaimed Offender during the course of the proceedings), borrower and Rajiv Bansal as guarantor.
5. It is further alleged by the prosecution that the sale deed of the collateral property offered was found to be forged as it belonged to one Shri Sanjay Bansal, who denied having mortgaged the said property. That even the Rent Agreement dated 07.04.2004, purportedly executed between the accused Vijender Jindal with one Shri K. K. Sawhney, in CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. Page 20 of 68 21 CBI case No. : 37/11 respect of his office premises, 109, Vishal Towers, District Centre, Janak Puri, New Delhi, was also found to be forged as no such firm was ever in existence in the said premises.
6. Even the Audit Reports of the firm, M/s B. R. Food Products, for the financial years ending on 31.3.2002, 31.3.2003 and 31.3.2004, purportedly issued by M/s Goel Gupta and Associates, Chartered Accountants, were found to be forged as the said firm was not in existence at the given address and was also not registered with the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India.
7. It is further alleged that accused Jagpal Singh Chaney, who was Proprietor of M/s Chaney & Associates, C7, South Extension, Part II, New Delhi, had, allegedly, carried out the valuation of the property No. 9, BlockA, Shanker Garden, New Delhi, on 17.12.2004 and mentioned in his report dated 18.12.2004 that the said property was a vacant plot, measuring 200 Sq Yards and valued it at Rs.70 lakhs, and that it belonged to accused Vijender Jindal. However, the said property belonged to one Sanjay Bansal, who constructed a house on it and shifted in it in April, 2004 and thus, a false and fabricated report was given by the accused CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. Page 21 of 68 22 CBI case No. : 37/11 Jagpal Singh Chaney at the instance of accused Sri Kant Chawla and Vijender Jindal. That accused Sri Kant Chawla also failed to visit the said property in utter violation of the guidelines of the bank. That one Sanjay Kumar Rathi, Advocate, after scrutinizing the documents in the Sub Registrar Office, had given an encumbrance certificate in respect of the said property confirming that the said property belonged to accused Vijender Jindal. The said Advocate, however, was not implicated in this case by the IO/prosecution for the reasons best known to them and no further investigation was carried out in respect of the same.
8. It is further alleged that an amount of Rs.25 lakhs was released in the account No.51025483615 of the firm and accused Sri Kant Chawla illegally allowed the frequent overdrawings in the said account without informing the Controlling Authority. That the said account was declared NPA on 12.10.2006 and the outstanding balance in the said account as on 31.1.2008 was Rs.31,92,609.
9. It is further alleged that accused Vijender Jindal again applied for personal loan of Rs.6.5 lakhs on 25.2.2005 and offered the same property to the bank as collateral security. That this application was processed by CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. Page 22 of 68 23 CBI case No. : 37/11 Shri A. K. Aggarwal, the then Manager (Personnel), who sanctioned the loan under the instructions of accused Sri Kant Chawla. That though A. K. Aggarwal violated the guidelines laid down by the bank and sanctioned the loan on the basis of false documents and false non existent firm, but he too was not implicated. On the other hand, CBI had recommended RDA for major penalty against A. K. Aggarwal for procedural lapses. That the said account also turned NPA on 19.10.2006 showing the outstanding balance to the tune of Rs.7,37,139.98 as on 31.1.2008.
10. Thus, the case of the prosecution is that during the year 20042006, at Delhi and other places, accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy by having agreed to do an illegal act i.e. to cheat the SBBJ, Nangal Raya Branch, New Delhi, by fraudulently inducing it to disburse/sanction and obtain credit facilities in favour of M/s B. R. Food Products, 109 Vishal Tower, District Centre, Janak Puri, New Delhi, a proprietorship firm of accused Vijender (PO) to the extent of Rs.25 lakhs in SBBJ, Sulabh Vyapar Rin Yojna, on the basis of fake/fabricated documents viz. Sale Deed of property bearing No. 9. Block A, Shanker Garden, New Delhi, false Rent Agreement dated 7.4.2004, false Audit CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. Page 23 of 68 24 CBI case No. : 37/11 Reports, for the financial year ending 31.3.2002, 31.3.2003 & 31.3.2004, purportedly issued by M/s Goel Gupta and Associates and false Valuation Report dated 18.12.2004 prepared by accused Jagpal Singh Chaney.
11. Further, accused Sri Kant Chawla dishonestly and fraudulently by abusing his official position as a public servant, sanctioned the credit facility in favour of said M/s B. R. Food Products, to the extent of Rs.25 lakhs in SBBJ Sulabh Vyapar Rin Yojna on the basis of aforesaid fake/fabricated documents.
12. Further, accused Jagpal Singh Chaney dishonestly and fraudulently, in furtherance of criminal conspiracy, prepared or got prepared false valuation report dated 18.12.2004 in respect of property bearing No.9, BlockA, Shankar Garden, New Delhi, to facilitate the co accused Vijender Jindal for obtaining the credit facilities from the bank.
13. Both the accused persons, thus, are alleged to have committed offences punishable, under section 120(B) read with sections 420, 468, CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. Page 24 of 68 25 CBI case No. : 37/11 471 IPC and section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
14. Further, during the above said period, at Delhi, and other places, accused Sri Kant Chawla, being a public servant in the capacity of Sr. Manager, SBBJ, Nangal Raya, Branch, Delhi, by corrupt and illegal means or otherwise, abusing his official position, obtained pecuniary advantage by dishonestly and fraudulently sanctioning /disbursing credit facilities to said M/s B. R. Food Products to the extent of Rs.25 lakhs in SBBJ Sulabh Vyapar Rin Yojna on the basis of aforesaid fake/fabricated documents viz sale deed of property bearing no. 9, blockA, Shankar Garden, New Delhi, false rent agreement, dated 07.04.2004, false audit reports, for the financial year ending 31.03.2002, 31.03.2003 & 31.03.2004, purportedly issued by M/s Goel Gupta and Associates and false valuation report, dated 18.12.04, prepared by accused Jagpal Singh Chaney. The accused Sri Kant Chawla, thus, is also alleged to have committed an offence punishable under section 13(2) read with 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
15. Further, during the aforesaid period at Delhi and other places, CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. Page 25 of 68 26 CBI case No. : 37/11 accused Jagpal Singh Chaney, dishonestly and fraudulently induced the SBBJ, Nangal Raya Branch, Delhi, in sanctioning credit facilities in favour of said firm, M/s B. R. Food Products, to the extent of Rs.25 lakhs in SBBJ Sulabh Vyapar Rin Yojna, on the on the basis of fake /fabricated valuation report dated 18.12.2004. Further accused Jagpal Singh Chaney prepared a fake and fabricated valuation report dated 18.12.2004 in order to induce the SBBJ, Nangal Raya, New Delhi, in sanctioning credit facilities in favour of said firm i.e. M/s B. R. Food Products, to the extent of Rs.25 lakhs in SBBJ Sulabh Vyapar Rin Yojna and thus, accused Jagpal Singh Chaney is further alleged to have committed the offence, punishable under sections 420 and 468 IPC.
16. During the course of proceedings, accused Vijender Jindal was declared Proclaimed Offender vide order dated 12.3.2010.
17. Primafacie, charge under section 120B IPC read with sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC read with section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was made out, against both the accused persons, namely, Sri Kant Chawla and Jagpal Singh Chaney and substantive offence under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. Page 26 of 68 27 CBI case No. : 37/11 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in addition, against accused Sri Kant Chawla and under sections 420 & 468 IPC against accused Jagpal Singh Chaney were made out.
18. Charge, accordingly, was framed against both the accused persons, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
19. The prosecution, in order to substantiate its claim and contentions, examined as many as 18 witnesses, in all.
20. Thereafter, the accused persons were examined under section 313 Cr. P.C. The defence preferred not to lead any evidence, in defence.
21. The prosecution, has contended that the case of the prosecution has been squarely proved, in view of the documents, circumstances and other material that has appeared on record. That the prosecution evidence has supported and proved the prosecution version beyond any pale of doubt.
22. On the other hand, on behalf of the defence, it has been stated CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. Page 27 of 68 28 CBI case No. : 37/11 that the prosecution has failed to prove its case.
23. On behalf of the parties, written submissions have also been made which appear on file and is a matter of record.
24. On behalf of the State, following case law have been cited : i. Kalicharan Mahapatra Vs. State of Orissa, 1998 SC 2595 ii. Jaswant Kawathekar Vs. Economic Offences Wing 1995 (3) Crimes 227 MP iii. B.S. Goraya Vs. UT of Chandigarh, AIR 2007 SC 3039 iv. Habibulla Khan Vs. State of Orissa AIR 1995 SC 1124 v. Veera Swami Vs. Union of India 1991 3 SCC 655 vi. Ronald Wood Mathams Vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1954 SC 455, vii.Harihar Prasad Vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1972 SC viii. Subair vs. State of Kerala, (2009) 6 SCC 587 ix. C.K. Damodaran Rang Nair vs. Government of India, (1997) 9 SCC 477 x. R. Venkata Krishnan Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, AIR 2010 SC 1812 xi. M. Narayanan Nambiar Vs. State of Kerala, 1963 AIR 1116.
25. The defence, on the other hand, has cited following case law reported as:
i. Sheetla Sahai & Ors Vs. State of MP, 2009(8) SCC 670 ii. A. Subair vs. State of Kerala, (2009) 6 SCC 587 iii. C.K. Damodaran Nair vs. Government of India, (1997) 9 SCC 477 iv. Kehar Singh and Ors Vs. State (Delhi Administration),{1988 (3) SCC 609 at 731} v. CBI Vs. Duncans Agro Industries, JT 1996 (6)/227 1996 SCALE CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. Page 28 of 68 29 CBI case No. : 37/11 (5) 99 vi. K. R. Purushothaman Vs. State of Kerala, Appeal (Crl.) 495 of 2004, (Apex Court).
vii. State of Rajasthan Vs. Mohan Lal, Criminal Appeal No. 85 of 2003 of Apex Court, decided on 16.4.2009.
26. At the very outset, it is to be noted that there is no dispute over the propositions of law enunciated in the case law, mentioned in the written submissions. However, none of the contentions and law help or support the accused persons, in any manner, whatsoever.
27. I have carefully gone through the entire relevant material appearing on record and have given considered thought to the same. I have also considered the rival arguments that have been advanced, at the bar. My findings are as under:
28. PW1, Shri Gulzari Lal Kanwar, who was the then Deputy Manager in SBBJ, Nangal Raya, New Delhi, deposed that he handed over the certified copies of statement of accounts to CBI.
29. PW2Shri Madan Mohan Lal, who was Chief Vigilance Officer in SBBJ, Head Office, Jaipur at the relevant time, deposed that during CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. Page 29 of 68 30 CBI case No. : 37/11 scrutinizing the accounts of Nangal Raya Branch, New Delhi of SBBJ, it was found that certain over limits were granted to certain firms, which has also been confirmed by accused S. K. Chawla. He further deposed that he deputed Shri P. C. Yadav, Chief Manager (Vigilance) to conduct a detailed investigation in respect of the suspected fraud/affairs of Nangal Raya Branch. The said Chief Manager (Vigilance), Shri P. S. Yadav, submitted his investigation report, which has been proved as Ex.PW 2/A. PW2Madan Mohan Lal also deposed that they noticed the figuring of M/s B. R. Food Products in fraudulent activities in Nangal Raya Branch and lodged a written complaint on 30.11.2006 with SP, CBI, EOW, New Delhi, regarding the serious irregularities in the SBBJ's Nangal Raya Branch. The said complaint, on the basis of which FIR was registered, has been proved as Ex. PW2/B. The defence could not counter or contradict the contents of Ex.PW2/B, duly proved by the prosecution.
30. PW3Shri Raman Chaudhary was the successor of accused Sri Kant Chawla, who joined as Chief Manager of Nangal Raya Branch, New Delhi, on 4.5.2006. He deposed in detail about the procedure and guidelines, contained in the Bank Book of Instructions, about the over draft limit against Special Term Deposit Receipts or Cash Credit Limit CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. Page 30 of 68 31 CBI case No. : 37/11 under SBBJ Sulabh Vyapar Yojna. He deposed that the procedure /guidelines for over draft/demand loan, which have been proved as Ex. PW3/A, are contained in Chapter 11 of Banks Book of Instructions under the heading of Banks Fixed Deposit Receipt.
31. PW3Shri Raman Chaudhary also deposed about the circular of the SBBJ bank regarding personal banking advancespersonal loan against equitable mortgage of immovable property, attested copy of which has been proved as Ex. PW3/B. Circular No. P/44/200304 dated 29.5.2004 has also been proved as Ex.PW3/C, which is regarding personal loan against the equitable mortgage of immovable property (mortgage loanmodifications). He further proved the Circular No. C&I/14/200304 dated 24.9.2003 as Ex. PW 3/D, which is in respect of scheme for financing to retail and wholesale traders "SBBJ Sulabh Vyapar Rin Yojna" for SIB and C & I customers.
32. PW3 further deposed about the letter, executed by M/s B. R. Food Products, regarding the grant of individual limits within the overall limit SBBJ/F965 dated 23.12.2004 in connection with cash credit (Hypothecation) against stock of the limit of Rs.25,00,000/ and against CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. Page 31 of 68 32 CBI case No. : 37/11 book debts within the first limit. He identified the signatures of accused S. K. Chawla, as Chief Manager, at point A on the said letter and proved the same as Ex. PW 3/E. He also identified the signatures of accused S. K. Chawla as Chief Manager at point A on Agreement of Hypothecation of Goods and Assets in form SBBJ/F958 dated 23.12.2004, which has been proved as Ex. PW3/F, vide which accused Vijender Jindal (PO), Proprietor of M/s B. R. Food Products, entered into agreement in respect of the said CC limit.
33. PW3 further deposed that accused Vijender Jindal (PO), Proprietor of M/s B. R. Food Products, entered into an Agreement of Loan for Overall Limit of Rs.25 lakhs, which has been duly proved as Ex. PW3/G and has agreed to be governed by the terms and conditions as set out in the said agreement, Ex. PW 3/G.
34. He further deposed about the Report, submitted by accused Jagpal Singh Chaney of Chaney & Associates, who was the approved valuer of the bank's panel at the relevant time. PW 3 identified the signatures of accused Jagpal Singh Chaney at point A and that of accused Sri Kant Chawla at point B on the said report and proved the CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. Page 32 of 68 33 CBI case No. : 37/11 same as Ex.PW3/H. He further deposed that accused Sanjay Kumar Rathi Advocate, submitted Non Encumbrance Certificate of plot No. 9, Block A, Village Badhela, measuring area 200 Sq. yards out of rectangle No. 43, Killa no. 22, Shankar Garden, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi and on which he identified the signatures of said Sanjay Kumar Rathi at point A on the said certificate and proved the same as Ex. PW3/I. He also proved the Lawyer's Opinion Note regarding equitable mortgage of the said property as Ex. PW 3/J.
35. PW 3 further deposed that accused Sri Kant Chawla and and A. K. Aggarwal submitted the PreSantioned Survey Report dated 28.2.2005, Ex. PW3/K, which is in respect of the property, which was proposed by borrower, accused Vijender Jindal(PO), for mortgage against the loan for proposal limit of Rs.6,50,000/. He also deposed that an Agreement of Loan for a sum of Rs.6,50,000/ was executed between the accused Vijender Jindal and bank, which has been proved as Ex. PW3/L. He further proved Power of Attorney as Ex.PW3/M; Insurance Indemnity Bond as Ex.PW3/N; two affidavits; which were sworn by accused Vijender Jindal as Ex. PW 3/O and Ex. PW 3/P and the undertaking, given by the borrower, as Ex. PW 3/Q. CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. Page 33 of 68 34 CBI case No. : 37/11
36. PW3 also deposed that accused Vijender Jindal submitted an application for loan of Rs.6,50,000/ against equitable mortgage against the property i.e. A9 Shankar Garden, Najafgarh, Road, Vikash Puri, New Delhi and identified the signature of A. K. Aggarwal as Sanctioning Authority at point A and that of accused Sri Kant Chawla at point B and proved the said application as Ex. PW3/R. He also deposed about the arrangement letter for the above loan, which has been proved as Ex. PW3/S.
37. PW3 deposed that he prepared the documents, which has been proved as Ex. PW 3/T, Ex.PW3/U and handed over the same to the IO vide seizure memo, Ex.PW4/A. He also provided some information to IO, B. M. Pandit vide document, Ex. PW3/V, which has also been prepared by him. PW3 also deposed that he provided to the IO the search reports, which have been prepared by Mittal and Mittal Company in respect of M/s B. R. Food Products and which has been proved as Ex.PW3/W. He also deposed that he provided to IO, CBI, the statement of accounts alongwith copy of Bank Book of Instructions, Ex.PW3/X and statement of account, which has been proved as Ex. CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. Page 34 of 68 35
CBI case No. : 37/11 PW3/Y, in respect of Current Account/ Cash Credit No.01600052183 of M/s B. R. Food Products for the period 23.12.2004 to 10.08.2005.
38. He further deposed that a new number 51025483615 was alloted to M/s B. R. Food Products as a consequence of CBS system coming into and provided statement of account in respect of said account to the IO and identified the signatures of G. L. Kanwar at point B and the same has been proved as Ex. PW 3/Z. He deposed that on page 36 of the Special Hypothecation Inspection Register for the period 3.4.2007 to 16.9.2007, a note in respect of M/s B. R. Food Products for the limit sanction of Rs25 lakhs was made and accused Sri Kant Chalwa had given a remark in his hand "pre sanction visit satisfactory" on page 36 of the said register. He also identified the initials of accused Sri Kant Chawla at point A on page 36 and proved the said register as Ex.PW3/Z A. He also deposed that certain documents were seized by the IO vide seizure memo dated 14.12.2006, which has been proved as Ex. PW3/Z1.
39. During his reexamination by the prosecution, he further deposed that instructions contained in the Bank's Book of Instructions of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, VolII, was circulated to different branch of CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. Page 35 of 68 36 CBI case No. : 37/11 SBBJ and the instructions, contained in the Chapter XI17/644, para (2)
(b) to XI/19/646 upto para 58 A, has been proved as Ex. PW 3/Z2(copy). He further deposed about Chapter XII4 of Banker's Book, copy of which is Ex.PW3/A; Circular No. REORG/6/9697 dated 9.9.1996 regarding Scheme of Delegation of Powers, copy of Ex.PW16/A; Circular No.C &1/14/200304 dated 24.9.2003 which is Ex.PW3/D (copy); two Circulars No. P/30/200203 dated 5.12.2002 & No. P/44/200304 dated 29.3.2004, which have been proved as Ex.PW3/B and Ex. PW 3/C (copies). He further deposed about page 40 & 42 of Special Hypothecation Register of the branch for the period 1.4.2004 to 16.9.2007, copies of which are Ex. PW3/Z3 & Ex. PW3/Z4. He further deposed about the Demand Purchase Register, which is maintained in routine course in the branch in respect of instruments (cheque, bills, etc.) purchased, copy of page 2 of which is Ex. PW3/Z5.
40. PW3 further deposed about the Title Deed Register of Nangal Raya Branch, certified copies of pages 35 & 41, which are Ex. PW3/T & Ex. PW3/U. He deposed about Visit Book of the branch and identified the signatures of accused Sri Kant Chawla at point B on page 32, which has been proved as Ex. PW3/Z6 (copy).
CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. Page 36 of 68 37
CBI case No. : 37/11
41. PW3 has, thus, proved various above mentioned documents relied upon by the prosecution to prove their case. Nothing has come in his cross examination to disprove or contradict the evidence led by him.
42. PW4Shri Ashok Kumar Garg deposed that he was Deputy Manager, SBBJ, Nangal Raya Branch, New Delhi at the relevant time and accused Sri Kant Chawla was the then Chief Manager of the said branch at that time. He deposed that he handed over the documents, vide seizure memo dated 14.12.2006-Ex.PW3/Z1 and provided documents viz.ApplicationcumAppraisal FormEx.PW6/B, sanction letter dated 23.12.2004 of Rs. 25 lakhs against CC (Hyp)- Ex.PW6/E and Audit Reports dated 27.9.2002, 1.8.2003 and 24.7.2004, prepared by Goyal Gupta & Associates - Ex.PW4/A, Ex.PW4/B & Ex.PW4/C respectively, which were provided by M/s B. R. Food Products.
43. PW4 further deposed that on the direction of accused Sri Kant Chawla, he passed cheque No.880923 through which credit slipEx. PW 13/A, an amount of Rs.3,49,806 was credited in the account of M/s B. R. Food Products having account No.51025483615. He further deposed CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. Page 37 of 68 38 CBI case No. : 37/11 about title investigation report dated 16.10.2006 and identified his signatures alongwith the seal of the bank on the same and proved the same as Ex.PW4/D. He also deposed about the Chapter XI of Bank Book of Instructions, which is Ex. PW 4/E (true copy), were given to CBI.
44. PW5Sushil Kumar Goyal, the then Assistant General ManagerI, deposed that he carried out periodical visit of Nangal Raya Branch on 13.1.2006 and observed irregularities and on page 33, had given instructions in writing under his signatures at point A to accused Sri Kant Chawla, to the fact that branch was showing positive variance in "P" Segments and also gave the observations for rectifying the irregularities. He also identified the signatures of accused Sri Kant Chawla at point B on the same and said instructions on page 33 of the Visit Register has been duly proved as Ex. PW 5/A (copy).
45. PW5 further deposed that Shri J. L. Jain was deputed to look into the irregularities, who after visiting the branch gave his report with details of irregularities committed by the officers of the branch. He identified signatures of J. L Jain at point A on said report, which has been proved as Ex. PW5/B (certified true copy). He deposed that various CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. Page 38 of 68 39 CBI case No. : 37/11 officers were deputed for investigation and Manager Vigilance, P. S. Yadav, in his report, submitted violations in advance port folio and mentioned the name of accused S. K. Chawla under the head staff accountability. He further deposed that CC limit against the hypothecation of stocks and book debts/letter of credit was sanctioned by the accused Sri Kant Chawla. He also deposed that accused S. K. Chawla had purchased some cheques and committed overdrawing in various accounts beyond his discretionary powers.
46. PW6 Prem Raj Mawar, who was posted as Deputy Manager in Nangal Raya branch, deposed that accused Vijender Jindal (PO), Proprietor of B. R. Food Products, opened a Cash Credit account No. 0160052183. PW6 identified the photographs of accused Vijender Jindal at points A & B and his signatures at points AS39, AS38 & AS40 on the said Cash Credit Account opening form, which has been proved as Ex. PW 6/A. He further deposed that proposal for loan, which has been proved as Ex. PW6/B, in the name of M/s B. R. Food Products, under the signatures of accused Vijender Jindal (PO) at point A on the same, was received on 14.12.2004 and stock statement, Ex. PW6/C, for the month of 30.4.2004, showing the total stock value of Rs.43,50,600/, under the CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. Page 39 of 68 40 CBI case No. : 37/11 signatures of accused Vijender Jindal at point A, was also enclosed with the said proposal. The said proposal was processed vide process note, Ex. PW6/D and a loan of Rs.25,00,000/ was sanctioned by accused Sri Kant Chawla. PW6 further deposed that sanction of loan was conveyed to M/s B. R. Food Products by accused Sri Kant Chawla vide letter dated 23.12.2004, which has been proved as Ex. PW 6/E and one Rajeev Bansal, signed as guarantor at point C on the said letter, Ex. PW 6/E. PW6 also deposed that accused Vijender Jindal submitted copy of Rent Deed, which is Ex. PW 6/F, duly executed between K. K. Sahni and accused Vijender Jindal, in respect of office premises No. 109, Vishal Tower, Janak Puri, New Delhi. PW 6 further deposed that on the directions of accused S. K. Chawla, he filled in Agreement of Loan, Ex.PW3/G and loan documents in the presence of accused Vijender Jindal and obtained his signatures at point B & C and accused S. K. Chawla signed the same as Authorised Officer at point A on Ex. PW3/G.
47. PW 6 deposed and proved the three Nonjudicial stamp papers of Rs.50/each Ex. PW6/G, Ex. PW6/H & Ex.PW6/J, which were enclosed with said agreement. He also proved another two Nonjudicial stamp papers of Rs.50/each, enclosed with agreement of Hypothecation of CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. Page 40 of 68 41 CBI case No. : 37/11 goods and assets as Ex. PW 6/K & Ex. PW 6/L; other two NonJudicial stamp papers of Rs.50/each, enclosed with letter for grant of individual limit as Ex. PW6/M & Ex.PW 6/N. He further deposed about the consent clause (to be executed by borrower), and identified the signatures of accused Vijender Jindal at point A and proved the same as Ex.PW6/P. He further deposed about the consent clause (to be executed by guarantors) and proved the same as Ex. PW6/Q, on which one Rajiv Bansal signed at point A as guarantor.
48. PW 6 further deposed that accused Vijender Jindal had also given the affidavit on the prescribed proforma of the bank disclosing the details of his movable and immovable properties and proved it as Ex.PW6/R. He also deposed and proved the Non Judicial Stamp Paper of Rs.50, as Ex. PW6/S, on which PW6 obtained the signatures of accused Vijender Jindal in the presence of accused S. K. Chawla.
49. PW7Shri Ved Prakash Jha was the Sub Registrar II, Janak Puri, New Delhi at the relevant time, who deposed that he had certified and provided the certified copy of the sale deed of the property, in respect of Plot No. 9 of village Badhela, Shankar Garden, Najafgarh Road, Delhi, CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. Page 41 of 68 42 CBI case No. : 37/11 which has been proved as Ex. PW7/A, to B. M. Pandit, Inspector, CBI, through a letter dated 1.1.2008, which has been proved as Ex. PW7/B. He deposed that there are differences in the contents of sale deed, Ex. PW7/C and certified copy, Ex.PW7/A proved by him. He also deposed that he had supplied the certified office copy of the sale deed, which has been proved as Ex. PW7/C, in respect of the property No. 9, Block A, measuring 200 sq. yards, situated in the area of village Possangipur, New Delhi, which is known as Shankar Garden, New Delhi, registered in the name of Sanjay Bansal, through seizure memo dated 14.5.2008, which has been proved as Ex. PW7/D.
50. PW8 Shri Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, the then Manager (Personal), was posted in Nangal Raya Branch, New Delhi. He deposed that he mortgaged a loan of Rs.6.50 lakhs to accused Vijender Jindal against equitable mortgage of property, A9 Shankar Garden, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi.
51. PW9Shri Shivam Kumar was posted as Sr. Deputy Secretary in MC & MSS Department, the Institute of Chartered Accountant of India, at the relevant time. He deposed that on 6.2.2008, he furnished certain CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. Page 42 of 68 43 CBI case No. : 37/11 information to IO, Shri B. M. Pandit, vide the letter dated 6.2.2008, which has been proved as Ex.PW9/A and further deposed that the firm, namely, M/s Goel Gupta & Associate, Delhi, is not registered with them.
52. PW 10Shri Karamvir Singh, who was Sub Registrar, Janak Puri, Delhi on 30.12.2003, deposed that the so called original sale deed, Ex.PW7/C is forged one as it does not bear his signatures and at the time of execution of the said sale deed, he only was posted there as Sub Registrar on 30.12.2003.
53. PW11-Shri Sanjay Bansal deposed that in the year 1991, he had purchased the property bearing No. A9, Shankar Garden, Vikas Puri, New Delhi, from Shri Pushpinder, r/o 43, Lower Bazaar, Shimla vide a sale deed, on which he identified his signatures at point A and proved the same as Ex.PW11/A. He further deposed that he also provided the copy of letter dated 3.1.1992, which has been proved as Ex. PW11/B, for mutation of the property and three receipts issued from the office of Municipal Corporation of Delhi for 2003 to 2006, on which he identified his signatures at point A and proved the same as Ex. PW11/C, Ex. PW11/D and Ex. PW11/E respectively.
CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. Page 43 of 68 44
CBI case No. : 37/11
54. Shri Rajiv Bansal entered into witness box as PW 12 and during his examination he deposed that in the year 2004, he was dealing in trade of rice and knew accused Vijender Jindal as he was also dealing in the same trade. He deposed that accused Vijender Jindal had obtained loan of Rs.25 lakhs from SBBJ and he stood guarantor and signed the papers in respect of the said loan. He identified his signature at point A and proved the lease deed as Ex. PW 12/A.
55. PW13-Shri Yograj Bhatia was the Manager (P) in Nangal Raya branch of SBBJ from 2.2.2005 to 18.3.2008, who deposed and proved the credit slip/payinslip dated 24.12.2005 as Ex.PW13/A, on which he identified the initials of accused Sri Kant Chawla at point A below his handwritten note as 'DN' (Demand Negotiations). He deposed that DN implies that the cheque in question is to be immediately purchased.
56. PW14-Shri Krishan Kumar Sawhaney deposed that he had purchased the property No. 109, Vishal Tower, Janak Puri, District Centre, New Delhi in the year 198586. He further deposed that he never executed any Rent Agreement, Ex. PW6/F, with accused Jindal for the CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. Page 44 of 68 45 CBI case No. : 37/11 period 7.4.2004 to 6.4.2006.
57. PW15 Shri Pradeep Suri, who was LDC in Sub Registrar Office, Janak Puri, Delhi, in May, 2008, deposed about seizure of certified copy of sale deed, Ex.PW7/D, from him by CBI, through seizure memo, Ex. PW 7/E.
58. PW16-Inspector B. M. Pandit, IO of the case, deposed that investigation of this case was entrusted to him on 30.11.2006 and proved the copy of the FIR as Ex.PW16/A1 and identified the signatures and writing of Shri D. K. Chaudhary and also proved the copy of the complaint containing endorsement made by Shri D. K. Chaudhary at portion X as Ex. PW 16/A2.
59. He further deposed that he collected the documents from Shri A. K. Garg, Dy. Manager, SBBJ, Nangal Raya Branch, New Delhi, vide seizure memo dated 14.12.2006, copy of which is Ex. PW 16/A3. He also collected the certified true copy of Circular No. REORG/ 6/9697(Ex.PW16/A4), Circular No. C&1/14/200304 dated 24th September, 2003 (Ex. PW3/D) on advances against various types of CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. Page 45 of 68 46 CBI case No. : 37/11 securities, Circular No. P/30/200203 (Ex. PW3/A), Circular No. E/44/200304, Ex. PW3/B & C, from SBBJ, Nangal Raya Branch, New Delhi.
60. He further deposed that he received the letter dated 9.2.2008 from SBBJ, which has been proved Ex.PW16/A5 and vide seizure memo dated 14.2.2008, seized the documents at Sl. No. 1 to 5 mentioned therein, from Guljari Lal Kanwar, Asstt. Manager, SBBJ, whose signature he duly identified and the said seizure memo has been proved as Ex. PW16/A6. He also deposed that he collected the documents mentioned therein from Shri Vijay Kumar Gupta, Dy. Manager, SBBJ, Nangal Raya Branch, New Delhi, vide seizure Memo dated 12.10.2007, which has been proved as Ex. PW 16/A7. He also proved the copy of original cheque refer register as Ex.PW 16/A8, which is mentioned at Sl. No. 8 of said Memo, Ex. PW 16/A7.
61. He further deposed that he seized original investigation report dated 10.5.2006, submitted by PW P. S. Yadav, from Y. D. Sharma, vide seizure memo dated 9.5.2008, which has been proved as Ex. PW 16/A9. He further deposed that he got collected the documents Question CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. Page 46 of 68 47 CBI case No. : 37/11 Marked with Q numbers, specimen signatures and writings of the different persons including the accused persons and got forwarded the same to GEQD, Chandigarh for expert opinion through the letter of DIG, Shri A. K. Malhotra and the said letter has been proved as Ex.PW 16/A10. He identified his signature on three annexures of letter Ex.PW16/A10 and proved the same as Ex. PW16/A11, Ex. PW 16/A12 and Ex. PW 16/A13.
62. He further deposed that vide letter dated 3.3.2008, he sent additional questioned document to the GEQD, Chandigarh, under the signatures of Shri S. K. Kashyap, the then SP, CBI, EOWII, New Delhi and said letter has been proved as Ex. PW16/A14. He also identified his signature on the Annexure I, II, III and IV of the said letter, Ex.PW16/A4 and proved the same as Ex. PW16/A15 to Ex. PW16/A18.
63. PW16 further deposed that he received the opinion of the handwriting expert, GEQD, Chandigarh, which has been proved as Ex. PW16/A19. He also received the information vide letter dated 3.5.2008 from Shri M. M. Lal, Chief Vigilance Officer, which has been proved as Ex. PW16/A20. He deposed that during the course of investigation, he CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. Page 47 of 68 48 CBI case No. : 37/11 had examined the witnesses and recorded their statements.
64. PW17 - T. Joshi, who was an expert, CFSL, deposed that he had compared the questioned documents and writing with specimen writing and identified his signature at point B on his Opinion Report, Ex. PW 16/A19. He further deposed that his report, Ex. PW 16/A19, is correct and is in accordance with the established norms.
65. PW 18 - Shri Raj Kumar Mittal, Legal Practitioner, deposed and proved his report, Ex.PW4/D. He further deposed that he deposited the fee for inspection of the concerned documents with the concerned Sub Registrar Office and fee receipt, vide which fee was deposited, has been proved as Ex.PW18/A (copy).
66. He also deposed that he presented to the bank his bill, which has been proved as Ex.PW18/B.
67. The prosecution evidence discussed herein above has, thus, established the case of the prosecution.
CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. Page 48 of 68 49
CBI case No. : 37/11
68. In this case, the allegation of the prosecution against all the accused persons are that they entered into criminal conspiracy to cheat the bank, by using forged and fabricated documents and that they did cheat the bank on the strength of forged and fabricated documents. That accused Sri Kant Chawla(A1) (a public servant), abused and misused his power and position, being the Chief Manager of the bank, in question, at the relevant time. The other accused persons too played their role actively and committed the alleged offences.
69. The defence led no evidence and in no manner, countered or contradicted the evidence that has been established by the prosecution, as against all the accused persons. The case of the prosecution, thus, stands fully established against all the accused persons in terms of the charge framed against each one of them.
70. The striking and strong documentary and oral evidence proved on record by the prosecution fully contradicts the innocence of all the accused persons.
71. It is well settled that criminal conspiracy can be proved by the CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. Page 49 of 68 50 CBI case No. : 37/11 prosecution by leading the circumstantial evidence. The following case law illustrates this fully:
72. 'Conspiracies are not hatched in the open. The offence of conspiracy can always be proved by circumstantial evidence also' {2011(4) RCR (Criminal) P 84 SC}.
73. It may not be possible to prove the agreement between the conspirators by direct proof but the meeting of minds of the conspirators can very well be inferred from the circumstances proved by the prosecution. {State of Punjab vs. Jurnail Singh, 2011(3) RCR (Criminal) 244 (Punjab & Haryana) (DB)}.
74. 'Act or action of one of the accused can be used against the other accused in case of conspiracy by virtue of section 10 of the Evidence Act' {Mohan Singh vs. State of Bihar 2011(4) RCR(Criminal) 84 SC}.
75. In the case law reported as Firozuddin Basheeruddin (2001) 7 SCC 596, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :
"All conspirators are liable for crimes committed in furtherance of CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. Page 50 of 68 51 CBI case No. : 37/11 the conspiracy by any member of the group, regardless of whether liability would be established by the law of complicity. The law punishes conduct that threatens to produce the harm, as well as conduct that has actually produced it. Conspirators may be tried and punished for both the conspiracy and the completed crime".
76. In the case law reported as Hashim (K) 2005 Cri LJ 143 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "for an offence punishable under section 120B, the prosecution need not necessarily prove that the perpetrators expressly agree do to or cause to be done illegal act; the agreement may be proved by necessary implication".
77. In the case law reported as (2001) 4 Crimes 247 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "to prove conspiracy, it is not necessary that there should be direct communication between each conspirer and every other but the criminal design alleged must be common to all".
78. It has been held in the case law reported as Firozuddin Basheeruddin (2001) 7 SCC 596 that "the rationale of conspiracy is that the required objective manifestation of disposition to criminality is provided by the act of agreement. Conspiracy is a clandestine activity. Persons generally do not form illegal covenants openly. In the interest of security, a person may CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. Page 51 of 68 52 CBI case No. : 37/11 carry out his part of a conspiracy without even being informed of the identity of his coconspirators. An agreement of this kind can rarely be shown by direct proof, it must be inferred from circumstantial evidence of what lies in their minds".
79. It was further observed in the aforesaid judgment that "Regarding admissibility of evidence, loosened standards prevail in a conspiracy trial. Contrary to the usual rule, in conspiracy prosecutions, any declaration by one conspirator, made in furtherance of a conspiracy and during its pendency, is admissible against each coconspirator. Despite the unreliability of hearsay evidence, it is admissible in conspiracy prosecutions. Thus conspirators are liable on agency theory for statements of co conspirators, just as they are for the overt acts and crimes committed by their confrers".
80. Against each of the accused persons overwhelming evidence has appeared on record and there is no manner of doubt that they have committed the alleged offences. At the cost of repetition, the striking evidence proved against each one of them is being reproduced hereunder.
81. Evidence against the accused Sri Kant Chawla (A1)
(i) Admittedly, accused (A1), Sri Kant Chawla was Chief Manager of CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. Page 52 of 68 53 CBI case No. : 37/11 the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Nangal Raya Branch, during the period from 03.03.2004 to 24.02.2006.
(ii) Accused (A1) in terms of Annexure (1) to the circular, Ex.PW3/D, which relates to State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Sulabh Vyapar Rin Yojana, had stipulated that the Branch Manager concerned was required to make his own assessment about the present market value of the property offered for collateral security, based on the inspection of the property to be mortgaged and make local enquiries to ensure that the collateral security offered is a marketable property but accused accused (A1) dishonestly violated the same. On the contrary, when the application of accused Vijender Jindal was being processed, he had told PW6 & PW8 that they need not visit the property for verification as he had already visited the said property, which was to be mortgaged with the bank. This he did clearly to execute the criminal conspiracy hatched amongst the accused persons to cheat the bank.
(iii) Accused (A1) had further dishonestly accepted in pursuance to the criminal conspiracy, the false valuation report of accused J.S. Chaney, dated 18.12.04, which is Ex.PW3/H as 'correct'. In the said report, it had CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. Page 53 of 68 54 CBI case No. : 37/11 falsely been mentioned that the said property belonged to accused Vijender Jindal and the property was described as vacant residential plot, measuring 200 square yards of the value of Rs.70 Lakhs. The property in fact, was a built up property as has been proved by the aforesaid prosecution witnesses, examined by the prosecution during the course of the prosecution evidence. Neither the property belonged to the guarantor nor to Vijender Jindal.
(iv) Accused (A1) was expected to scrupulously adhere to the norms and mandatory conditions, laid down in the detailed guidelines, provided by the bank for the scheme under which loan in question, was sanctioned.
(v) Accused (A1), therefore, fraudulently in pursuance to the criminal conspiracy dishonestly sanctioned the Cash Credit Limit of Rs.25 Lakhs to M/s B.R. Food Products, knowing fully well that the collateral security, which was being offered was not a vacant plot and did not belong to the person to whom it was shown falsely belonging to. The signatures of accused (A1) have duly been proved on second sheet of Ex.PW6/D at point D and the same were duly identified in evidence by CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. Page 54 of 68 55 CBI case No. : 37/11 PW6. Even otherwise, the same have not been disputed.
(vi) Accused (A1) communicated the sanctioned order to the borrower and guarantor, vide letter, Ex.PW6/E. The Cash Credit account of the borrower was opened and the limit sanctioned was released on the same day by accused (A1).
(vii) Further, evidence indicates that accused (A1) had fraudulently, allowed overdrawings in the account during the period from August, 2005 to February, 2006, without taking prior permission from the controlling authority or without there being any justification and exigency and also without taking any telephonic approval from the controlling authority. He did not send deliberately a report in respect of the overdrawing in the account, in question. All this was done by him in utter violation of the circulars and instructions of the bank, in question.
(viii) The statement of account for the period from 23.12.04 to 10.08.2005, which are Ex.PW3/Y and Ex.PW3/Z clearly show that the account was overdrawn on several occasions. The account of M/s B. R. Food Products was declared 'NPA' on 12.10.06 when there was an CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. Page 55 of 68 56 CBI case No. : 37/11 outstanding of more than Rs.31 Lakhs.
(ix) Accused (A1), therefore, was hand in glove with other accused persons and clearly abused his power and position as public servant being Chief Manager, at the relevant time of the branch firstly, in sanctioning the Cash Credit Limit on the basis of the forged and fabricated documents, on the basis of fake guarantor and other fake documents and subsequently, by allowing over drawings beyond his discretionary powers and without intimation and permission of the higher authorities. He had, therefore, cheated the bank and has committed offences, punishable under section 120B IPC, 420 IPC, 471 IPC and under section 13(i)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
82. It has been authoritatively held that :
"Manager of the Bank responsible for the sanction of a loan is much more responsible to sanction the loan and to see all documents complete and in order and that the same are valid. It is his responsibility to examine the complete record and then sanction the loan. If there is an allegation of grant of loan on the basis of forged/fabricated documents, it is not a case of mere CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. Page 56 of 68 57 CBI case No. : 37/11 negligence. It is a case of conspiracy."
{R.K. Tyagi vs. The ChairmancumManaging Director, 2011(7) RCR (Criminal) 2497 (Punjab & Haryana)relied upon}.
83. In 'Tara Chand Vyas vs. Chairman & Disciplinary Authority (1997) 4 SCC 565', the Hon'ble Apex Court observed 'The banking business and services were nationalized to achieve the objects of economic empowerment of weaker sections of the people as a part of social and economic justice. The nationalized banks, therefore, are the prime sources and pillars for establishment of socioeconomic justice for the weaker sections. The employees and officers working in the banks are not merely the trustees of the society, but also bear the responsibility and owe duty to the society for effectuation of socioeconomic empowerment. The banking business and services are vitally affected by catastrophic corruption. It is required to eradicate corruption to properly channelize the use of public funds, the live wire for effectuation of socioeconomic justice in order to achieve the constitutional goal set in the preamble to the constitution and to see that the corruption conduct of the officers do not degenerate the efficiency of service leading to denationalization of the banking system.'
84. In the case law reported as R. Venkata Krishnan vs. CBI, AIR CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. Page 57 of 68 58 CBI case No. : 37/11 2000 SC 1812 it was held that that 'though it is true, that all the funds diverted were subsequently returned to NHB and no loss had thereby occasioned either to UCO Bank or the NHB but it must not be forgotten that white collar crimes of such a nature affect the whole society even though they may not have any victims. The conviction under section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was justified and was held'.
85. In this case, accused Vijender Jindal, who was declared 'Proclaimed Offender' during the course of proceedings, was the proprietor of M/s B.R. Food Products, who made an application, dated 14.12.2004. The application cum appraisal form is Ex.PW6/B and Ex.PW16/DX1. He offered plot no. 9, Block A, Shankar Garden, New Delhi, as collateral security, stating it to be worth Rs.70 Lakhs, which belonged to Rajiv Bansal, resident of B3/32, Janakpuri, New Delhi. Sh. Rajiv Bansal was offered as the guarantor.
86. Evidence against accused Jagpal Singh Chaney (A2)
(i) It is crystal clear that accused Jagpal Singh Chaney gave false and fabricated valuation report, dated 18.12.04, which is Ex.PW3/H, in CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. Page 58 of 68 59 CBI case No. : 37/11 respect of plot no. 9, Block A, Shankar Garden, New Delhi and gave valuation of the same at Rs.70 Lakhs.
(ii) Accused Jagpal Singh Chaney has admitted that he gave the aforesaid report in his statement, under section 313 Cr.P.C., also. He has falsely stated that he had personally inspected the property, in question on 17.12.04 as he has falsely stated that the property belonged to accused Vijender Jindal and was a vacant residential plot of land, measuring 200 square yards.
(iii) In his report, accused Jagpal Singh Chaney has not mentioned the shape of the plot, its dimensions and other physical features indicating that deliberately he was suppressing the truth and details in pursuance to the criminal conspiracy with other accused persons. He has fraudulently described the property as free hold and as a plot.
(iv) Accused Jagpal Singh Chaney has not attached the site plan with the report and has fraudulently mentioned that the same was available with the owner. Regarding the structure standing on the land, he has written 'NA'. Similarly, against column of water and electricity charges to CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. Page 59 of 68 60 CBI case No. : 37/11 be borne by the borrower, he has mentioned 'NA' thereby, evading the true facts.
(v) Regarding the property tax, accused Jagpal Singh Chaney has mentioned that the same was known to the owners. All this was clearly indicated by him to fabricate false report in favour of the borrower and in accordance with the illegal conspiracy hatched between the accused persons.
(vi) PW11 Sanjay Bansal deposed that he was the real owner of the property in question, having purchased the same in the year 1991 from Pushpender, vide sale deed, copy of which has been proved as Ex.PW11/A. He has deposed further that he was residing in the property and that he made construction on the plot, in question, for storing spare parts, regarding his business. He has also deposed and proved the mutation in his name and the receipts, issued by MCD of Delhi from 20032006, copies of which have been proved as Ex.PW11/B, Ex.PW11/C and Ex.PW11/D. In his testimony, he has clearly stated that he did not know any person by the name of Vijender Jindal, the borrower, in this case. He denied having executed the sale deed, CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. Page 60 of 68 61 CBI case No. : 37/11 Ex.PW7/C and the photographs, which were affixed on the said sale deed, were also not known, to him. He also did not know any Kirpal Singh.
(vii) By preparing and submitting report, Ex.PW3/H, accused J. S. Chaney has clearly acted in pursuance to the criminal conspiracy amongst the accused Vijender Jindal and Sri Kant Chawla. He had fabricated false facts in the report to enable the borrower to get sanctioned Cash Credit Limit of Rs.25 Lakhs, besides personal loan of Rs.6.5 Lakhs to the borrower. He along with other accused persons, thus, has cheated the bank after using forged and fabricated valuation report, which was false to his knowledge.
(viii) Accused Vijender Jindal was the proprietor of M/s B.R. Food Products. He has obtained fraudulently Cash Credit Limit by offering forged and fabricated sale deed and by using other false documents and assertions. He was declared 'Proclaimed Offender' during the course of proceedings. There is, thus, overwhelming evidence as against the accused Sri Kant Chawla as well as accused Jagpal Singh Chaney to fasten criminal liability as against them and as alleged by the CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. Page 61 of 68 62 CBI case No. : 37/11 prosecution.
87. All the accused persons thus cheated the bank using forged and fabricated documents. It has been held by our own High Court that 'where the accused obtained loan from the bank by producing forged documents, the method adopted by the accused to get the loan cannot be accepted as offences under section 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC are attracted {Hardayal Gumber vs. CBI, 2011 (9) AD (Delhi)}'.
88. In the case law reported as Devender Kumar Singla vs. Baldev Krishan Singla, 2004 Cri LJ 1774 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed the following points as essential ingredients to attract section 420 IPC:
1. Cheating;
2.Dishonest inducement to deliver property or to make, alter or destroy any valuable security or anything which is sealed or signed or is capable of being converted into a valuable security, and
3.Mens rea of the accused at the time of making the inducement. The making of a false representation is one of the ingredients for the offence of cheating under section 420."..CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. Page 62 of 68 63
CBI case No. : 37/11
89. In the case law reported as AIR 2004 SC 3229, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :
"For an offence under section 471, one of the necessary ingredients is fraudulent and dishonest use of the document as genuine. The act need not be both dishonest and fraudulent".
90. It has been asserted by the defence during the course of arugments that there are defects in the investigation. It is true that the present case has not been very effectively and professionally investigated by the Investigating Officers i.e. the Investigating Officer has completely over looked the role played by Sh. Sanjay Kumar Rathi, Advocate and Sh. Rajiv Bansal, Guarantor perhaps dishonestly. Had it been investigated effectively much more could have come on the surface and much larger rackets could have been unearthed, regarding the fraud in the bank. However, so long as case of the prosecution on the basis of circumstances and documents, established and available on record is concerned, the defect, if any, in the investigation does not help the present accused persons at all.
91. It has been held that 'It would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. Page 63 of 68 64 CBI case No. : 37/11 account of the defect as to do so would tentamount to playing into the hands of the investigation officer if the investigation is designedly defective. The prosecution evidence is required to be examined 'de hors' such ommission to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not'.{Dayal Singh vs. State of Uttranchal, 2012 AIR(SC) 3046}.
92. It has been held that 'That there were lacunas in investigation does not mean that incriminating evidence, if any, appearing against accused persons has to be ignored'.{Tejpal vs. State, 2012(6) RCR Criminal 798 Delhi(DB)}
93. In the case law reported as State vs. Santosh Kumar Singh, 2006(4) Crimes 782 (Del), the Hon'ble High Court has held that 'Courts should not be influenced by suspicious roles played by the investigation officer during investigation and criminal justice should not be made a casualty for wrongs committed by investigation officers.' CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. Page 64 of 68 65 CBI case No. : 37/11
94. In the case law reported as Dhanraj Singh 2004 Cri LJ 1807 (SC), it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that 'In the case of a defective investigation the court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence. But it would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect; to do so would tantamount to plying into the hands of the investigating officer if the investigation is designedly defectively. The contaminated conduct of officials should not stand on the way of evaluating the evidence by the courts; otherwise the designed mischief would be perpetuated and justice would be denied to the complainant party. Then the faith and confidence of the people would be shaken not only in the law enforcing agency but also in the administration of justice'.
95. In the case law reported as 2007 Cri LJ 758(SC), it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that 'Defective investigation may discredit the prosecution, but prosecution evidence may not necessarily be discarded on the ground. If the evidence is otherwise reliable and trustworthy, the court may convict the accused. Reminiscence of investigating officer will not ipso facto weaken the case of the prosecution'.
96. It stands proved on record, as discussed herein above, beyond any pale of doubt that all the accused persons joined altogether CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. Page 65 of 68 66 CBI case No. : 37/11 and entered into conspiracy to cheat the bank and did cheat the bank by using forged and fabricated documents. Accused Sri Kant Chawla, being a public servant at the relevant time criminally misconducted within the meaning of section 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
97. Both the accused persons namely, Sri Kant Chawla (A1) & Jagpal Singh Chaney (A2), therefore, are squarely liable to be held guilty under section 120B IPC read with section 420, 468 & 471 IPC read with section 13(2) and 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and are hereby convicted of the same.
98. Accused Jagpal Singh Chaney (A2) is further held guilty of the commission of offences under section 420 & 468 IPC and is accordingly convicted of the same.
99. Accused Sri Kant Chawla (A1) being public servant at the relevant time criminally misconducted and caused hefty illegal pecuniary gains to the accused persons and caused corresponding illegal loss to the bank in question. He is, CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. Page 66 of 68 67 CBI case No. : 37/11 therefore, also liable to be held guilty of the offence punishable under section 13(2) read with section 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in addition. He is, accordingly, convicted under section 13(2) read with 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
100.Both the accused persons are, accordingly, convicted.
101.Let the convicts be heard on the point of sentence, on 07.05.2013.
102.A copy of the judgment be sent to Director(CBI), who shall probe into the contaminated role of the IO, in this case of sparing/ignoring to intesly investigate the role of Sh. Rajiv Bansal, Guarantor and Sanjay Kumar Rathi, Advocate, in aiding and or abetting the offences in this case, under intimation to this court. Director (CBI) is further directed to get carried out intense and meaning full further investigation in terms of section 173(8) CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. Page 67 of 68 68 CBI case No. : 37/11 Cr.P.C and as per law, against the aforesaid two persons namely, Sh. Rajiv Bansal and Sanjay Kumar Rathi through a competent person.
Announced in the open court ( N. K. Kaushik )
on 03.05.2013 Special Judge, PC Act CBI
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.
CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. Page 68 of 68