Delhi District Court
State vs . Aparna Singh & Ors. on 12 September, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAGANDEEP JINDAL : MM09:
SOUTH EAST DISTRICT : SAKET COURT : NEW DELHI
State vs. Aparna Singh & Ors.
FIR No.532/2007
PS Defence Colony
U/s 419/420/468/471/120B IPC
Date of Institution of Case : 31.01.2008
Judgment Reserved for : 27.08.2018
Date of Judgment : 12.09.2018
1. CIS NO. : 85958/2016
2. The date of offence : 28.12.2005
2. Name of the complainant : Sh. Mukesh Nagpal, Chief Manager
SBI C38 DDA Complex, Defence
Colony, New Delhi.
3. Name of the accused, parentage : 1. Aparna Singh @ Swati Singh W/o
& residential address late Sh. Rajeev Singh R/o A49, 2nd
lane Surya lane Kushambi,
Ghaziabad, U.P;
2. Sarika @ Divya D/o late Sh. Ashok
Bahahur R/o Flat No.204, Amarpali
Apparment 56 I.P. Extension,
Patparganj, Delhi;
3. Akhil Saxena S/o Sh. S.K. Saxena
R/o G3, Plot No.41, Sector6,
Vaishali, Ghaziabad, U.P.
4. Offence complained of or proved : U/s. 419/420/468/471/120B IPC
State Vs. Aparna Singh & Anr. FIR NO. 532/2007 PS Defence Colony Page 1 of 12
5. Plea of the accused persons : Pleaded not guilty and claimed trial
6. Final Judgment/order : Convicted
7. Date of judgment/order : 12.09.2018
JUDGMENT
1 The case of the prosecution is that Mr. Mukesh Nagpal, Chief Manager SBI DDA Complex, Defence Colony, New Delhi, lodged a complaint wherein it is alleged that Rajeev Singh, Divya Singh, Akhil Saxena, Swati Singh and Mudit Verma approached complainant Bank on 28.12.2005 by representing themselves as employees of M/s United Phosphorus Ltd (hereinafter it shall be referred as 'UPL') having its office at G38, East of Kailash, New Delhi, for taking personal loan. They submitted the forged documents and loan of Rs.3 lacs each was granted to them. They paid some EMIs but thereafter they defaulted. When the officials of complainant bank approached the main office of M/s United Phosphorus Ltd, they came to know that none of the accused persons was the employee of M/s United Phosphorus Ltd and they defrauded the complainant bank by submitting forged documents for taking loan. During the investigation, it was found that M/s United Phosphorus Ltd has never opened any branch office in Delhi, therefore, the question of their office in East of Kailash does not exist. Further, the copies of Election Cards, salary slips were also found forged. 2 After the usual investigation, the charge sheet was prepared and filed against the accused persons.
3 It was based on the above investigation, the prosecution proceeded against State Vs. Aparna Singh & Anr. FIR NO. 532/2007 PS Defence Colony Page 2 of 12 the accused persons. Charge u/s. 419, 420/468/477/120B IPC was framed against accused Rajiv Singh, Sarika, Aparna Singh and Akhil Saxena to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4 During the trial accused Rajiv Singh passed away and the proceedings qua him stand abated vide order dated 06.08.2015.
5 The prosecution had examined 17 witnesses to prove its case. 5.1 PW1 is complainant Mukesh Nagpal, who reiterated all the facts as mentioned in his complaint filed Ex.PW1/A. He relied upon the Loan Application Form MarkB1 to B5, Seizure Memo is Ex.PW1/C, the details of personal loan calculated on 15.11.2007 Ex.PW1/D, the present status of loan account of accused persons as on 12.09.2007 is Ex.PW1/E, Personal Loan application of Swati is Ex.PW1/F, her employment letter is Ex.PW1/G, Self attested of her pan card is Mark B6, her original salary slip is Ex.PW1/H, Self attested of her election Icard is Mark B7, AnnxureVI/undertaking as provided by accused Swati allegedly issued by her employer is Ex.PW1/I, Arrangement letter and loan agreement is Ex.PW1/G, Original deed of guarantee is Ex.PW1/K, Original Personal Loan agreement form is Ex.PW1/L. PW1 also relied upon the loan documents of Mudit Verma Ex.PW1/S, to Ex.PW1/V. PW1 also depose that on 12.01.2006, accused Akhil Saxena has submitted personal loan application for Rs.3,00,000/ and after verifications loan of Rs. 300,000/ was sanctioned. In this regard he relied upon original loan application form Ex.PW1/P, original arrangement letter Ex.PW1/Q, Personal loan agreement is Ex.PW1/R and deed of guarantee is Ex.PW1/S. PW1 further relied upon the loan documents accused Rajiv Singh Ex.PW1/M to Ex.PW1/O. It is further deposed that after some time, he came to know that the name of Swati is Aparna, name of Divya is Sarika, name of Mudit Verma is Sanjeev Singh. None of them State Vs. Aparna Singh & Anr. FIR NO. 532/2007 PS Defence Colony Page 3 of 12 had ever worked in UPL. During his cross examination PW1 was confronted with the documents i.e. annexureVI of loan document which is Ex.PW1/A1, KYC norms Ex.X1, the other documents of loan transaction Ex.PW4/D1 to Ex.PW4/D4, PW1/DX1 to PW1/DX3.
5.2 PW2 Attar Singh deposed that on 19.09.2007 he was posted as HC at PS Defence Colony on that day he joined the investigation alongwith SI Ishwar Singh, Ct. Veer Singh and Inspector Meera Sharma. Accused Akhil Saxena was arrested in his presence vide arrest memo Ex.PW3/A, personal search memo Ex.PW3/B from House no. M66, Rama Krishna Apartments, IP extension, Patarganj. Thereafter, at a instance accused Akhil Saxena, other accused Rajiv Singh and his wife Aparna @ Swati Singh were arresting vide memo Ex.PW3/C and Ex.PW3/E from A 204, Sukh Sagar Apartment, IP Extension, Patarganj. On 21.09.2007, accused Rajiv Singh got recovered certain photographs from his house which were seized by the IO Inspector Meera Sharma. Io had also seized the documents from SBI G.K1, SBI Okhla Phase3, SBI Mayur Vihar. During his cross examination PW2 Attar Singh was also described as PW3. 5.3 PW4 Rekha Bhardwaj deposed that in the year she was posted as account in SBI, Defence Colony, New Delhi when accused Swati Singh, Rajiv and three other persons approached her to sanctioned personal loan. She proved that loan agreement Ex.PW4/A was filled by her in presence of accused Swati Singh at her instructions and its bears signatures of accused Swati Singh at Point B. She proved that loan agreement Ex.PW4/B was filled by her in presence of accused Rajiv Singh at his instructions and its bears signatures of accused Rajiv Singh at Point B. She proved that loan agreement Ex.PW1/S was filled by accused Mudit Verma in her presence and bears signatures of accused Mudit Verma at Point C. She also deposed that personal assets and liability statement of State Vs. Aparna Singh & Anr. FIR NO. 532/2007 PS Defence Colony Page 4 of 12 accused Divya Singh Mark S1 was filled by her in presence of accused Divya Singh at her instance. She also deposed that personal loan application form of accused Rajiv Mark S2 was filled by him in her presence and bears his signature at Point A. Accused Rajive submitted photocopy of PGDM Mark S3, Saral Form S4 and S5. She also proved the personal assets and liability statement of Gopal Singh Mark S6, personal assets and liability statement of Bimlesh Arya Mark S7, photocopy of election ID card and pan card of accused Mudit Ex.PW4/Z1 and Ex.PW4/Z2. During her cross examination she was confronted with documents Mark PW4/D1 to Mark PW4/D5, Ex.PW4/D6 to Ex.PW4/D9. 5.4 PW5 Sh. Padmendra Singh Rawat, Vice President, UPL deposed that after inquiry from HR Department, he came to know that none of the accused ever employees of UPL and he gave his written statement to the IO which is Ex.PW5/A. He further deposed that UPL has only one branch office situated at Cannought Place.
5.5 PW6 W/Ct. Nutan is the witness to the arrest of accused Aparna Singh vide arrest memo Ex.PW6/A, personal search memo Ex.PW6/B. 5.6 PW7 Sh. Naresh Kumar, UDC, Election office of Assembly Constituency No.52, New Delhi, produced his copy of ID Card which is Ex.PW7/A and Ex.PW7/B. He also produced the record of Election ID cards of assembly constituency no.52 Ex. PW7/C. He deposed that Election ID Card No.DMO0112586 dated 29.01.2000 in the name of Swati Singh was never issued by his office.
5.7 PW8 ASI Bhupender is the witness of seizure of photographs from the house of Rajeev which was seized vide seizure memo Mark PW8/Q1 and witness to the recovery of documents at the instance of accused Akhil which were seized vide seizure memo Mark PW8/X1.
State Vs. Aparna Singh & Anr. FIR NO. 532/2007 PS Defence Colony Page 5 of 125.8 PW9 Inspector Ishwar Singh join the investigation with the IO Inspector Meera Sharma. He proved the arrest memo and personal search memo of accused Akhil as Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW3/B, his disclosure statement is Ex.PW9/A, arrest memo and personal search memo of accused Rajeev as Ex.Pw3/C and Ex.PW3/D, arrest memo and personal search memo of accused Aparna as Ex.PW6/A and Ex.PW6/B, seizure memos Ex.PW9/B, Ex.PW9/D, Ex.PW9/G. 5.9 PW10 Sh. Vinod Kumar Mehto, Deputy Manager SBI Defence colony produced the copy of KYC norms issued by SBI Mumbai on 16.02.2016 which is Ex.X1.
5.10 PW11 W/ASI Clara Toppo was Duty Officer on 13.09.2007 posted at PS Defence Colony. She proved DD No.20A as Ex.PW11/A, present FIR Ex.PW11/B. 5.11 PW12 Sh. Satya Dev, Senior Branch Manager Vijaya Bank Patparganj produced the original account opening form of account No.3170 in the name of Sarika Nag alongwith documents for compliance of KYC norms which are Ex.PW12/A to Ex.PW12/E and certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act is Ex.PW12/F. 5.12 PW13 HC Anand Ballabh proved the death verification report of accused Sanjeev Singh which is Ex.PW13/A. 5.13 PW14 Meera Sharma ACP Railways was the IO of the present case. She deposed about the investigation conducted by her and proved various documents, memos and notices issued u/s 91 Cr.PC prepared by her during the investigation.
5.14 PW15 Inspector Ajay Kumar was the third IO of the present case, who arrested accused Sarika @ Divya vide arrest memo Ex.PW15/A in presence of State Vs. Aparna Singh & Anr. FIR NO. 532/2007 PS Defence Colony Page 6 of 12 W/Ct. Rekha and mother of accused Sarika.
5.15 PW16 Sh. Ashok Kumar Kathpalia, Assistant General Manager SBI produced the letter dated 05.03.2014 and documents supplied to police officials of PS Defence Colony which are Ex.PW16/A, Ex.PW16/B and other documents which are already exhibited during the testimony of other witnesses. 5.16 PW17 Retd. SI Samsuddin who was also one of the IO of the present case and he filed supplementary charge sheet in the court. 5.17 PW18 Mrs. Parvinder Kaur, UPC in the office of Assistant Electoral Registration Officer, assembly constituency no.59. She produced her ID card Ex.PW18/A1 and the verification report regarding Election ID Card No.DCV0758658 in the name Divya Singh and deposed the said car was never issued by her office. The report is Ex.PW18/A and copy of said Election ID Card is Mark 18/X. 6 After completion of prosecution evidence, all three accused persons were examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the allegations made against them. They submitted that they never applied for loan from SBI Defence colony nor they ever worked in UPL.
7 Accused persons did not lead any evidence in their defence. 8 Sh. K.K. Manan, Senior Advocate for accused Sarika @ Divya and Aparna @ Swati argued that loan was granted to them by the bank officials after verification of the documents. IO did not seize the original documents to verify the authenticity nor were sent to FSL to obtain handwriting expert opinion. The loan amount had already been repaid by the accused persons. Written submissions were also filed on behalf of these two accused persons. 9 Sh. Aditya Wadhwa, Ld. Counsel for accused Akhil argued that PW1 had deposed that loan was granted to accused Akhil after verification of his State Vs. Aparna Singh & Anr. FIR NO. 532/2007 PS Defence Colony Page 7 of 12 credentials. The only allegations against him is that he made a false submission that he was working in UPL. To prove this fact prosecution has examined PW5 Padmendra Singh Rawat, Vice President UPL, who had deposed on the basis of report given to him by HR Department of UPL. He was not having first hand information. Any person from HR Department of UPL had not been examined by the prosecution, therefore, testimony of PW5 cannot be relied upon to prove the allegations against accused Akhil that he made false representation to SBI Defence Colony to obtain loan. He further argued that the prosecution has failed to prove that the loan amount was used by accused Akhil or not. 10 In the present case, it is alleged that all three accused represented themselves as employees of UPL to take personal loan of Rs.3 lacs each from SBI Defence Colony and submitted false documents.
11 It is proved by PW1 that accused Swati @ Aparna made a personal loan application Ex.PW1/F alongwith the letter issued by UPL Ex.PW1/G, self attested copy of PAN Card Mark B6, Salary Slip Ex.PW1/H, Election ID Card Mark B7, Annexure 6 issued by her employer Ex.PW1/I and she also signed the arrangement letter and personal loan agreement Ex.PW1/J and Ex.PW1/L. PW4 Rekha Bhardwaj has categorically deposed that accused Swati @ Aparna signed loan agreement Ex.PW4/A in her presence and she filled the said loan agreement Ex.PW4/A in presence of accused Swati @ Aparna at her instructions. 12 PW1 deposed that accused Divya Singh @ Sarika submitted personal loan application Mark Q1 alongwith copy of certificate issued by Rajesh Tiwari, Senior Manager (Accounts) UPL Mark Q2 for taking personal loan of Rs.3 lacs. 13 PW1 deposed that accused Akhil Saxena submitted personal loan application for Rs.3 lacs Ex.PW1/P. Accused Akhil executed arrangement letter Ex.PW1/Q and personal loan agreement Ex.PW1/R. State Vs. Aparna Singh & Anr. FIR NO. 532/2007 PS Defence Colony Page 8 of 12 14 During the crossexamination of PW1 and PW2 the emphasis was more on the compliance of KYC norms and verification of documents and addresses submitted by the accused persons alongwith their loan applications. PW1 has deposed that he had verified the documents with the original and personally verified the official address at East of Kailash, New Delhi. No suggestion was put to these two witnesses that the accused persons never submitted any such loan application form nor executed the loan agreement as mentioned above rather the senior advocate for accused Divya @ Sarika and accused Aparna @ Swati that they both have repaid the entire loan agreement and no dues are left. 15 Ld. Counsel for accused Akhil put his suggestion to PW1 that PW1 was satisfied with creditworthiness of accused Akhil Saxena after the documents furnished by him for sanctioning the loan.
16 In V.N. Deosthali Vs State through CBI, 2009 SCC Online Delhi 4069, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in para number 19 held that : "When a witness deposes a particular fact and no suggestion to the contrary is given to him in crossexamination, the party against whom the deposition is made, is deemed to have admitted that fact."
17 Therefore, the submission of loan application, execution of loan agreement and sanction of loan amount of Rs.3 lacs each to accused Akhil Saxena, Sarika @ Divya and Swati @ Aparna is not disputed at all rather it has been admitted in the crossexamination of PW1 and PW4. The Ld. Defence Counsel submits that once the loan was granted after verification of documents and satisfaction of the bank officials then no question of cheating arose. 18 If any person applied for a loan on the basis of false facts and submission of false documents and loan is granted after verification of the documents it would not absolve the said person from committing cheating and forgery merely State Vs. Aparna Singh & Anr. FIR NO. 532/2007 PS Defence Colony Page 9 of 12 on the ground that these documents were verified by the bank officials if otherwise those documents were found forged subsequently. Bank officials have no authority to make the forged documents as genuine though it can be said that they themselves must be were involved in the fraud played by the said person on the system and misappropriate the public money.
19 Accused Akhil Saxena, Sarika @ Divya and Swati @ Aparna in their respective loan application form represented that they were employees of UPL having office at G38/B, Basement East of Kailash, New Delhi. PW5 has categorically deposed that none of these accused persons ever worked in UPL as mentioned in the report Ex.PW5/A nor UPL had ever its Branch Office in East of Kailash. Accused persons made a make shift office of UPL in East of Kailash just to procure the loan from SBI Defence Colony when PW1 visited the said address and found it to be correct. Moreover, all three accused persons in their statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC submitted that they never ever worked in UPL. 20 Section 11 of Indian Evidence Act provides that facts not other than relevant are relevant :
(i) if they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact;
(ii) if by themselves or in connection with other facts they make the existence or nonexistence of any fact in issue or relevant fact highly probable or improbable.
21 In the present case also, the fact in issue is whether the accused persons were employees of UPL or not. Once it is proved that they never worked in UPL then the issuance of employment letter or salary slip to them by UPL is highly improbable. Thus, it is proved that accused Akhil Saxena, Sarika @ Divya and Swati @ Aparna that they all induced the bank officials of SBI Defence Colony to sanction of personal loan of Rs.3 lacs each by making false representation that they are employees of UPL and failed to repay the loan. Hence, accused Akhil State Vs. Aparna Singh & Anr. FIR NO. 532/2007 PS Defence Colony Page 10 of 12 Saxena, Sarika @ Divya and Swati @ Aparna have committed the offence u/s 420 IPC.
22 Accused Swati @ Aparna dishonestly represented herself as Swati W/o Sh. Sanjay Singh while applying for personal loan. The onus was upon her that she was also known as Swati because her real name is Aparna Singh W/o Sh. Rajeev Singh as mentioned in bail bonds dated 02.11.2007. She failed to lead any evidence to prove that she was also known as Swati Singh W/o Sh. Sanjay Singh. Therefore, she has committed the offence u/s 419 IPC. She has also used the forged letter of employment issued by UPL Ex.PW1/G and salary slip Ex.PW1/H to apply for personal loan of Rs.3 lacs. Therefore, she has also committed the offence u/s 471 IPC.
23 Accused Divya @ Sarika dishonestly represented herself as Divya Singh W/o Sh. Rajeev Singh while applying for personal loan. The onus was upon her that she was also known as Divya Singh W/o Sh. Rajeev Singh because her real name is Sarika Nag W/o Sh. P.N. Nag as mentioned in account opening form Ex.PW12/A and Election ID card Ex.PW12/B, PAN Card Ex.PW12/C. She failed to lead any evidence to prove that she was also known as Divya W/o Sh. Rajeev Singh. Therefore, she has committed the offence u/s 419 IPC. 24 The prosecution has failed to prove that accused Divya @ Sarika and Akhil Saxena used forged documents while applying for personal loan of Rs.3 lacs from SBI Defence colony because PW1 and PW4 did not rely upon any such document used by accused Divya @ Sarika and Akhil Saxena. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove its case u/s 468/471 IPC against accused Divya @ Sarika and Akhil Saxena.
25 In view of the above discussions and appreciation of evidence, this court is of the considered opinion that accused Akhil has committed offence U/s 420 State Vs. Aparna Singh & Anr. FIR NO. 532/2007 PS Defence Colony Page 11 of 12 IPC, accused Sarika @ Divya has committed offence u/s 419/420 IPC and accused Swati @ Aparna has committed offence u/s 419/420/471 IPC. Hence, the accused persons are convicted accordingly. They shall be heard on quantum of sentence separately.
Digitally signed by GAGANDEEP Announced in the open Court on GAGANDEEP JINDAL JINDAL Date: and signed on 12.09.2018 2018.09.12 16:54:15 +0530 (GAGANDEEP JINDAL) MM09/SED/ND State Vs. Aparna Singh & Anr. FIR NO. 532/2007 PS Defence Colony Page 12 of 12