Delhi District Court
Cbi vs . Chanda International Pvt. Ltd. on 17 December, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH SYAL, SPECIAL JUDGE, (PC ACT)
& (CBI)-03, SOUTH WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA, NEW DELHI
CBI Case No. 20/12
RC No. SI8 2000 E 0005
In re:
Central Bureau of Investigation
Vs.
1. Chanda International Pvt. Ltd.,
253, Shahpur Jat, Opp. Panchsheel Shopping Complex,
New Delhi
(Represented by accused No. 2, Vivek Sood)
2. Vivek Sood,
S/o Late Sh. Lalit Krishan Sood,
R/o Flat No. 269, Sector - A,
Pocket -C, Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi - 110070.
3. Akshaya Jha,
S/o Sh. Vijay Kumar Jha,
R/o B-180, Sector-31,
Noida - 201301.
4. Nandita Bakshi,
W/o Sh. Rajeev Bakshi,
R/o C-349, Defence Colony,
New Delhi - 110024.
5. G.R. Meena,
S/o Sh. Ram Sahai Meena,
R/o 48, Jamuna Puri Colony,
CBI Case No. 20/12 17-12-2014 1 of 66
CBI Vs. Chanda International Pvt. Ltd.
Murli Pura Scheme,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
Date of Institution of Case : 14-12-2001
Date on which Judgment was reserved : 13-12-2014
Date on which Judgment was delivered : 17-12-2014
JUDGMENT
Facts 1.1 This case was registered on 31-08-2000 on source information alleging that accused No. 2, Vivek Sood and accused No. 3, Akshay Jha, Directors of accused No. 1, Chanda International Pvt. Ltd., 253, Shahpur Jat, Opp. Panchsheel Shopping Complex, New Delhi entered into a criminal conspiracy with one Sh. Ashok Kumar (Impersonator), Mehar Aslam Khan @ Chhaman @ Aslam, accused No. 4, Nandita Bakshi and accused No. 5, Govind Ram Meena during the year 1998-99 to cheat State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as SBBJ), Nehru Place Branch, New Delhi. In pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy, accused No. 2, Vivek Sood and accused No. 3, Akshya Jha, Directors of the company, fraudulently and dishonestly obtained various credit facilities to the tune of Rs 25 lacs on the basis of fake/forged documents including project report, balance sheet, profit and loss statement, cash flow statement, C & I data form, professional balance sheet, profit and loss account of Chanda Exports for the period ending 31-01-1999 and sale deed dated 10-11-1987 of property No. A-1 (old) and New No. 52 to 56, East Azad Nagar, Village Ghondli, Shahdara, Delhi, on which equitable mortgage was created through one person who impersonated CBI Case No. 20/12 17-12-2014 2 of 66 CBI Vs. Chanda International Pvt. Ltd.
as Ashok Kumar.
1.2 Investigation revealed that accused No. 1, Chanda International Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi was incorporated on 01-03-1999 and accused No. 2, Vivek Sood and accused No. 3, Akshay Jha are the promoter shareholders/directors of the company. Accused No. 2, Vivek Sood and accused No. 3, Akshay Jha vide their application dated 23-02-1999 had applied for credit facilities i.e. Export Packing Credit (herein after referred to as EPC) (Hyp) of 10 lacs, Foreign Bill Purchase (herein after referred to as FBP)/Foreign Bill Discounting (herein after referred to as FBD) (Docy) of Rs. 15 Lacs, overall ceiling on fund base of Rs. 25 Lacs, to SBBJ, Nehru Place Branch, New Delhi along with attested/certified photocopies of financial statements, assets and liability statements, balance sheet, certified by one Sh. Ashok Goel, M/s Goel & Jolly, Chartered Accountants, photocopy of sale deed of House No. A-1 (Old) and new No. 52 to 56, Khasra No. 974/287/811, East Azad Nagar, Vill, Ghondli, Shahdara, Delhi owned by one Sh. Ashok Kumar S/o Sh. Sheesh Ram, R/o 2266, Bihari Colony, Shahdara, Delhi-32 and its valuation report dated 12-02-1998 of Sh. B.P. Singh, Approved Govt. Valuer. In pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy, accused No. 5, G.R. Meena, while working as Manager (C & I), SBBJ, Nehru Place Branch, accepted the said documents, processed and sanctioned the said credit facilities on 27-02-1999, without actually verifying the genuineness of the documents and without directly getting the valuation of the said property done. He also unauthorizedly accepted the legal search report of Sh. Pramod Kumar, Advocate, who was not on Banks' Panel, through one Sh. G.K. Jain, a private CBI Case No. 20/12 17-12-2014 3 of 66 CBI Vs. Chanda International Pvt. Ltd.
person.
1.3 Accused No. 2, Vivek Sood, accused No. 3, Akshay Jha and the person who impersonated as Sh. Ashok Kumar executed the loan documents in presence of accused No. 5, G.R. Meena on 04-03-1999. Accordingly, Current Account No. 778 and EPC Account No. 148 were opened by accused No. 2, Vivek Sood and accused No. 3, Akshay Jha under the authority of accused No. 5, G.R. Meena on 04-03-1999.
1.4 Further, accused No. 2, Vivek Sood, vide application dated 03-04-1999, applied for enhancement of limit under FBP/FBD by Rs. 10 Lacs along with requisite information and order from their sister concern M/s Itinerant Jewellers Pte, Singapore. The said application was accepted, processed and recommended for sanction by accused No. 5, G.R. Meena. It was sanctioned on 10-04-1999 by Sh. Ranjeet Dutta, the then Chief Manager of the Bank.
1.5 It was further revealed that neither M/s Goel & Jolly, Chartered Accountant was registered with the Institute of Chartered Accountants, New Delhi on the given address of Karol Bagh, New Delhi, nor any person named Ashok Goel was ever its partner/employee. The valuation of the property i.e. House No. A-1, (Old) and new No. 52 to 56, Khasra No. 974/287/811, East Azad Nagar, Vill. Ghondli, Shahdara, Delhi was got done by one Mr. Aslam @ Mehar Aslam Khan @ Chhaman R/o S-22, Green Park Extn., New Delhi from Sh. B.P. Singh, a Govt. Approved Valuer. Sh. B.P. Singh had made inspection CBI Case No. 20/12 17-12-2014 4 of 66 CBI Vs. Chanda International Pvt. Ltd.
and valuation of the said property, on the basis of photocopy of the property documents supplied by the said Mr. Aslam, along with the said Ashok Kumar (impersonator). It was done on behalf of accused No. 4, Nandita Bakshi. The report was submitted for general reason and not for specific purpose in favour of SBBJ, Nehru Place Branch. Accused No. 5, G.R. Meena has unauthorizedly obtained legal search report of the said property from Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate, who was not on Bank's panel through Sh. G.K. Jain, a private person. In the report, it is mentioned that the property in question is free from all encumbrances whereas no such document was being maintained in the office of Sub-Registrar-IV, Seelampur, Delhi to show whether the said property was mortgaged with any authority or not. No letter was issued from the bank for getting legal search report from Sh. Pramod Kumar or for getting valuation report from Sh. B.P. Singh, a Govt. Approved Valuer by accused No. 5, G.R. Meena. These reports were received and accepted by him unauthorizedly.
1.6 Mr. Aslam @ Mehar Aslam Khan @ Chhaman arranged presence of the impersonator/guarantor who impersonated as Sh. Ashok Kumar S/o Sh. Sheesh Ram, R/o 2266, Bihari Colony, Shahdara, Delhi, owner of the property in question and also executed the loan documents in the name of Sh Ashok Kumar. Sh Ashok Kumar S/o Sh Sheesh Ram R/o 9/5160, Old Seelampur, Delhi was the actual owner of the property in question who sold the same to one Yashpal Bansal and never mortgaged his property in favour of Chanda International Pvt. Ltd.
CBI Case No. 20/12 17-12-2014 5 of 66 CBI Vs. Chanda International Pvt. Ltd. 1.7 It was also revealed that accused No. 2, Vivek Sood and
accused No. 3, Akshay Jha submitted Bills under LCs in favour of Sameeco International Pvt. Ltd., Singapore for an amount of Rs 9.13 lacs to Habib Bank Ltd., Singapore, which remained outstanding. Non LCs bills for Rs 23,14,521/- were also unrealised/outstanding. Thus, a total amount of Rs. 49,06895.25p were outstanding against the party as on 31-12-2000, for which bank had filed suit against the party, its Directors and guarantor on 15-01-2001.
1.8 Thus, accused No. 2, Vivek Sood and accused No. 3, Akshay Jha, Directors of accused No. 1, Chanda International Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi, in pursuance of criminal conspiracy with accused No. 4, Nandita Bakshi, accused No. 5, G.R. Meena and the impersonator and Mr. Aslam @ Mehar Aslam Khan @ Chhaman have caused wrongful loss of Rs 49,06,895.25p, as on 15-01-2001, including interest, to bank and corresponding wrongful gain to themselves.
1.9 Sanction for prosecution against accused No. 5, G.R. Meena, a Public Servant, U/s 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (herein after referred to as PC Act) was obtained.
1.10 On conclusion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed against accused No. 1, Chanda International Pvt. Ltd., accused No. 2, Vivek Sood, accused No. 3, Akshay Jha, accused No. 4, Nandita Bakshi and accused No. 5, G.R. Meena u/s 120B IPC r/w sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC and section 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1) (d) of PC Act, and substantive offences there under.
CBI Case No. 20/12 17-12-2014 6 of 66 CBI Vs. Chanda International Pvt. Ltd. 1.11 In the charge-sheet, it was stated that since, Mr. Aslam @
Chhaman @ Mehar Aslam Khan and the impersonator/guarantor were not available during investigation, the investigation against them is incomplete and supplementary charge sheet u/s 173 (8) would be filed when investigation against them is complete.
1.12 On 04-03-2003, a supplementary charge sheet was filed stating that Mirza Beg, who was accused in this case had expired.
2.1 Cognizance was taken and accused persons were summoned. On their appearnace, copies in terms of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were supplied to them. Accused No. 1, Chanda International Pvt. Ltd. is being represented by accused No. 2, Vivek Sood.
Charges 3.1 On 26-04-2003, my Ld. Predecessor framed charges against the accused persons as under :-
a) against all the accused persons, u/s 120-B r/w sections 419, 420, 467 and 471 IPC and section 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act,
b) against accused No. 1, Chanda International Pvt. Ltd., accused No. 2, Vivek Sood and accused No. 3, Akshay Jha under sections 420 and 471 IPC,
c) against accused No. 5, G.R. Meena u/s 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1) (d) of the CBI Case No. 20/12 17-12-2014 7 of 66 CBI Vs. Chanda International Pvt. Ltd.
The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial.
3.2 From the order sheet dated 12-09-2003 of my Ld. Predecessor, it appears that admission/denial of the documents was carried out.
Prosecution Evidence 4.1 In order to prove its case prosecution has examined 28 witnesses. Eight witnesses are from SBBJ, namely PW 2 Sh. B.K. Bansal, Assistant Manager, SBBJ, Nehru Place, New Delhi, PW 8 Sh. S.C. Grover, Chief Manager, SBBJ, Nehru Place, New Delhi, PW 9 Sh. A.K. Garg, Assistant Manager, SBBJ, Nehru Place, New Delhi, PW 13 Sh K.N. Mishra, Chief Manager, SBBJ, New Delhi, PW 16 Sh. Srikantan, Chief General Manager, SBBJ, Head Office Jaipur, PW 22 Sh. Ramesh Chander Banger, Clerk, SBBJ, Nehru Place, New Delhi, PW 23 Sh. R.S. Chauhan, Deputy Manager, SBBJ, Nehru Place, New Delhi and PW 25 Sh. Pukhraj Kanther, Chief Manager, SBBJ, Nehru Place, New Delhi.
4.2 Five witnesses are from Government Offices namely PW 3 Sh. Anil Kumar, Patwari, Office of Deputy Commissioner East, New Delhi, PW 4 Sh Shiv Charan Sharma, UDC, Office of Sub Registrar, Seelampur, Delhi, PW 11 Sh. Rameshwar, Head Clerk, Office of Food & Supply Department, Circle 42, Jagatpuri, New Delhi, PW 12 Sh. Dharmavir, Sub Registrar-IV, Krishna Nagar, Delhi and PW 19 Sh. G.K. Gupta, Assistant Registrar of Companies, CBI Case No. 20/12 17-12-2014 8 of 66 CBI Vs. Chanda International Pvt. Ltd.
New Delhi.
4.3 PW 10 Sh. Pramod Kumar is an Advocate, PW 6 Sh. Vinay Goyal and PW 20 Sh. G.K. Jain are Chartered Accountants and PW 21 Sh. B.P. Singh is a Property Valuer.
4.4 PW 1 Smt Ved Wati, PW 5 Sh. Kamal Gaur, PW 7 Sh. Ashok Kumar, PW 14 Sh. Virender Kumar, PW 15 Sh. Mahesh Yadav, PW 17 Ms. Radha Sharma, PW 18 Sh. Daya Ram and PW 26 Sh. Gyanendra Mishra are other private witnesses.
4.5 PW 24 Sh M.L. Sharma is the GEQD. PW 27 Sh. S.S. Yadav and PW 28 Sh. Anand Swaroop are the IOs.
Statement of Accused Persons 5.1 Statements of all the accused persons were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Accused No. 2, Vivek Sood has given statement on his behalf as well as on behalf of accused No. 1, Chanda International Pvt. Ltd. He stated that Chanda International Pvt. Ltd. had applied for loan and obtained the same as per normal banking procedure. After doing the business, the company had also paid lot of interest to the bank and finally repaid the entire loan amount. After receiving the entire loan amount, the bank had withdrawn recovery suit filed against the company and its Directors and guarantors. CBI has wrongly implicated him and other Directors and fabricated all types of evidence against CBI Case No. 20/12 17-12-2014 9 of 66 CBI Vs. Chanda International Pvt. Ltd.
the company. Thus, he is innocent.
5.2 Accused No. 3, Akshaya Jha has stated that all the witnesses have deposed as per the instructions and tutoring by the CBI.
5.3 Accused No. 4, Nandita Bakshi has stated that during the course of investigation and her discussions with CBI officials, she explained in great detail the business transactions and the rules governing them. She also explained that the entity doing business was legal and above board. Unfortunately, the investigating agency works with a prejudiced mind and prejudges any civil servant harshly in case he or she comes under scrutiny even in routine matters. In this case, she has been wrongly implicated as she is in no way connected to this company.
5.4 Accused No. 5, G.R. Meena has stated that the CBI did not investigate the matter properly to bring the truth before the court. He is innocent. He has been falsely implicated. There is no evidence against him which connects him with this alleged offence. He signed the loan documents only to discharge his official duty for which he was duty bound. He further stated that PW25 Sh. Pukhraj Kanther in his evidence dated 22-02-2013 has deposed that
(a) G.R. Meena was not head of the branch at that relevant period,
(b) When the loan proposal in the present case was put up to him for review all the formalities as per bank norms for processing of the loan had been complied with, CBI Case No. 20/12 17-12-2014 10 of 66 CBI Vs. Chanda International Pvt. Ltd.
(c ) G.R. Meena had satisfactorily responded to the queries raised by him, and
(d) G.R. Meena had signed on all the documents as stated by him in his official capacity in due course of business.
He also stated that he had shown the rules and regulations of the bank to the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer did not consider the rules and regulations of the bank and he intentionally did not file the copy of the rules and regulations of the bank along with the charge sheet just to justify his charge sheet.
Defence evidence 6.1 The accused persons have not examined any witness in their defence.
Arguments on behalf of CBI 7.1 Sh. U.S. Prasad, Ld. Special P.P. has argued that the facts that accused No. 1, Chanda International Pvt. Ltd., accused No. 2, Vivek Sood and accused No. 3, Akshay Jha had applied for various credit facilities and that the same were sanctioned and disbursed by SBBJ, Nehru Place Branch, New Delhi are not disputed. He contends that accused persons have used forged documents and made misrepresentations for obtaining the credit facilities. The fact that the sale deed, Ex.PW2/L is forged and that the property in question was never mortgaged has been proved by PW 1 Smt. Ved Wati, PW 3 Sh. Anil Kumar Patwari, PW 4 Sh. Shiv Charan Sharma, PW CBI Case No. 20/12 17-12-2014 11 of 66 CBI Vs. Chanda International Pvt. Ltd.
5 Sh. Kamal Gaur, PW 7 Sh. Ashok Kumar, PW 12 Sh. Dharamvir, PW 15 Sh. Mahesh Yadav, PW 17 Ms. Radha Sharma and PW 18 Sh. Daya Ram. PW 7 Sh. Ashok Kumar has denied his photograph on the said sale deed. Further, PW 6 Sh. Vinay Goel has proved that the project profile including statements of assets and liabilities of accused No. 2, Vivek Sood and accused No. 3, Akshaya Jha, purportedly certified by Goel & Jolly, Chartered Accountants is forged. Further, the evidence of PW 11 Sh. Rameshwar reveal that the copy of ration card, Mark Z used for obtaining the loan is forged. It is also contended that accused No. 5, G.R. Meena had sanctioned the loan on 27-02-1999 although accused No. 1, Chanda International Pvt. Ltd. was incorporated on 01-03-1999. The opinion dated 18-03-1998 of Sh. Pramod Kumar, Advocate has been unauthorizedly accepted by accused No. 5, G.R. Meena. Thus, it is clear that accused No. 5, G.R. Meena actively participated in the conspiracy to cheat SBBJ. It is further argued that Sh B.P. Singh had inspected the property in question and given his valuation report at the instance of accused No. 4, Nandita Bakshi which proves her involvement in the matter. Thus, prosecution has been able to prove that all the accused persons had conspired to cheat SBBJ, Nehru Place, New Delhi. Therefore, they are liable to be convicted. Ld. Special P.P. has relied upon Ajay Aggarwal Vs. Union of India, 1993 (3) SCC 609, State of Maharashtra Vs. Som Nath Thapa, 1996 (4) SCC 659, E.K. Chadrasenan Vs. State of Kerala, 1995 (2) SCC 99, Firozuddin Bashirudin and Others Vs. State of Kerala, 2001 (7) SCC 576, CBI Vs. Ravi Shankar Prasad, 2009 Cri. L.J. SC 3437, Sushil Suri Vs. CBI, 2011 (5) SCC 708, State of U.P. Vs. Krishna Master and others, AIR 2010 SC 3071, Kesho Ram Bora Vs. State of Assam, AIR 1978 SC 1096, Bank CBI Case No. 20/12 17-12-2014 12 of 66 CBI Vs. Chanda International Pvt. Ltd.
of India Vs. Yeturi Marandi Shankar Rao, AIR 1987 SC 821, Kirender Sarkar Vs. State of Assam, AIR 2009 SC 2513, Siddharth Vashisth @ Manu Sharma Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, 2010 (2) AD Crl. (SC) 645 and Jaipal Vs. State, 2011, Cr.LJ 4444 Delhi.
Arguments on behalf of accused No. 1, Chanda International Pvt. Ltd, accused No. 2, Vivek Sood, accused No. 3, Akshay Jha and accused No. 4, Nandita Bakshi 8.1 Sh. P.B.A. Srinivasan, Ld. Counsel for accused No. 1, Chanda International Pvt. Ltd, accused No. 2, Vivek Sood, accused No. 3, Akshay Jha and accused No. 4, Nandita Bakshi has argued that name of accused No. 4, Nandita Bakshi is not mentioned in the FIR. Further, Ms. S. Sundari Nanda, author of the FIR has not been examined and thus contents of the said FIR cannot be read in evidence. He also contends that on the basis of the same source information, CBI has recorded 4 FIRs which is not permissible in law. In this regard he has referred to T.T. Anthony Vs. State of Kerala & Others, (2001) 6SCC 181.
8.2 It is also argued that there was no conspiracy between accused No. 1, Chanda International Pvt. Ltd., accused No. 2, Vivek Sood, accused No. 3, Akshaya Jha, accused No. 4, Nandita Bakshi and accused No. 5, G.R. Meena because if there was any such conspiracy, Sh. B.P. Singh, Government approved Valuer, Sh. Pramod Kumar, Advocate, Sh. G.K. Jain, Chartered Accountant and Sh. Ranjit Dutta should have been accused. It is CBI Case No. 20/12 17-12-2014 13 of 66 CBI Vs. Chanda International Pvt. Ltd.
further contended that primary security in this case was current assets of the company and the collateral security i.e. property in question was only secondary. It is also submitted that loan was sanctioned in this case on account of past satisfactory working of loan accounts of sister concerns of the accused persons.
8.3 Ld. Counsel further contends that the sale deed, Ex. PW2/L is genuine. There are contradictions in the testimonies of PW 7 Sh. Ashok Kumar and PW 5 Sh. Kamal Gaur with regard to purchase of property in question and the share of PW 7 Sh. Ashok Kumar etc. and thus their testimonies cannot be relied upon. He also argues that PW 7 Sh. Ashok Kumar, who is stated to be the actual owner of the property in question was not shown the purported forged signatures. The sale deed presented to the bank by accused persons was without any photograph, since in 1987 the sale deeds were not having any photographs. The photograph on Ex.PW2/L has been put later on. He further submits that the evidence of PW 14 Sh. Virender Kumar, PW 15 Sh. Mahesh Yadav, PW 17 Ms. Radha Sharma and PW 18 Sh. Daya Ram is not clear and cannot be relied upon. The testimony of PW 24 Sh. M.L. Sharma, GEQD also cannot be relied upon since his co-examiner Sh. M.C. Joshi has not been examined.
8.4 It is also argued that there was no intention to cheat the bank. The bank was also satisfied with the loan account due to which the credit limits were enhanced by Sh. Ranjit Dutta, Chief Manager. Further, though accused No. 1, Chanda International Pvt. Ltd. was incorporated on CBI Case No. 20/12 17-12-2014 14 of 66 CBI Vs. Chanda International Pvt. Ltd.
01-03-1999, vide registration slip dated 23-02-1999 payment had been made to Registrar of Companies and all the formalities for formation of company were completed on 23-02-1999. The issuance of certificate of incorporation was a mere formality. Thus, the allegation that loan was applied without formation of the company is baseless.
8.5 Ld. Counsel further argues that though the firm M/s Goel & Jolly was closed in 1996, PW 6 Sh. Vinay Goyal had written letter on the letter head of Goel & Jolly in the year 2001. Thus, his testimony cannot be relied upon. He also submits that accused No. 4, Nandita Bakshi was merely a share holder in the foreign company and has no role in the present case. He finally contends that prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons and therefore the accused persons are entitled to acquittal. Ld. counsel has also relied upon Cogent Ventures (India) Ltd Vs. Raj Karan (through Lrs), (ARB.P.335/2006 & A.A. Nos. 7818, 11180/2006, 3692-3693, 6512/2009,7301 & 16738/2011, decided on 08-02-2012), Syed Samsudeen Vs. State (Crl.R.C. No. 1130 of 2009 decided on 13-09-2012), Basrur Venkata Row Vs. Unknown, 14 Ind Cas 418, Smt. Rekha Rana and Ors. Vs. Smt Ratnashree Jain, AIR 2006 MP 107, Dr. Vimla Vs. Delhi Administration, 1963 AIR 1572, Ishwari Prasad Mishra Vs. Mohhammad Isa, AIR 1963 SC 1728, Bhonu Lal Chaoudhary Vs. Mr. W.A. Vincent and Ors, 65 Ind Cas 882, Madhavlal Manishanker Trivedi Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1960 MP 269, Peary Lal and Ors. Vs. Emperor, 75 Ind Cas 148, Haider Ali Pradhania and Anr. Vs. Emperor, 18 Ind Cas 881, Roman Catholic Mission Vs. State of Madras, AIR 1966 SC 1457, Sri Lakni CBI Case No. 20/12 17-12-2014 15 of 66 CBI Vs. Chanda International Pvt. Ltd.
Baruan and Ors. Vs. Sri Padma Kalita & Ors, AIR 1253 JT 1996 (3) 268, Abdul Kareem Madar Sahab Vs. State of Mysore, AIR 1979 SC 1506, Manilal Vs. State of Kerala, 1998 Cri.L.J. 3785, Rabindra Kumar Dev Vs. State of Orissa, 1977 AIR 170, Suresh Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2003 (4) Mhlj 898, Ishari Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr., 1997 Cri LJ 2222 and National Insurance Company Limited Vs. K. Yadamma and Ors., 2005 (3) ALD 643.
Arguments on behalf of Accused No. 5, G.R. Meena 8.6 Sh. Arvind Singh, Ld. counsel for accused No. 5, G.R. Meena has argued that the said accused acted within his powers in sanctioning the loan, which was reviewed by Sh. P.R. Kanther. Before sanctioning the loan, he had obtained legal search report and valuation report. The loan was secured by way of collateral security of property which was earlier mortgaged in the account of M/s Swati Exports. There was no violation of any bank rules in processing or sanction of loan. It is further argued that after the loan is sanctioned, there is no option but to honour the bills. The queries raised by Sh. P.R. Kanther were satisfactorily responded to by accused No. 5, G.R. Meena. There is no evidence that accused No. 5, G.R. Meena violated any banking norms or that he obtained any pecuniary benefit. There was no professional misconduct on his part and thus he is entitled to an acquittal.
8.7 The general propositions of law laid down in the judgments cited by the parties have not been disputed.
CBI Case No. 20/12 17-12-2014 16 of 66 CBI Vs. Chanda International Pvt. Ltd. Points for Determination 9.1 I have heard all the parties and have also perused the record. In
the instant case, the following points are required to be determined:-
A. Charge u/s 120-B r/w section 419, 420, 467 and 471 IPC & section 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act against all the accused persons namely accused No. 1, Chanda International, accused No. 2, Vivek Sood, accused No. 3, Akshaya Jha, accused No. 4, Nandita Bakshi and accused No. 5, G.R. Meena
(i) Whether during the period 1998-1999, at New Delhi, all the accused persons namely accused No. 1, Chanda International Pvt. Ltd., accused No. 2, Vivek Sood, accused No. 3, Akshaya Jha, accused No. 4, Nandita Bakshi and accused No. 5, G.R. Meena entered into an agreement?
(ii) If so, whether they had agreed to cheat SBBJ, Nehru Place, New Delhi by deceiving and dishonestly/fraudulently inducing it to sanction various credit facilities to accused No. 1, Chanda International Pvt. Ltd. i.e. EPC (Hyp) of Rs. 10,00,000/-, FBP/FBD (Docy) of Rs. 15,00,000/-, and over all ceiling on fund base of Rs. 25,00,000/-, with further enhancement of FBP/FBD (Docy) by Rs. 10,00,000/-, on the basis of misrepresentation and forged/bogus/false documents, including valuable security, and by using as genuine such documents and by commission of criminal misconduct by public servant i.e. accused No. 5, G. R. Meena?
CBI Case No. 20/12 17-12-2014 17 of 66 CBI Vs. Chanda International Pvt. Ltd.
(iii) If so, whether in pursuance of the said agreement, accused No.1, Chanda International Pvt. Ltd., accused No. 2, Vivek Sood and and accused No. 3, Akshay Jha obtained various credit facilities i.e. EPC (Hyp) of Rs.
10,00,000/-, FBP/FBD (Docy) of Rs. 15,00,000/-, and over all ceiling on fund base of Rs. 25,00,000/-, with further enhancement of FBP/FBD (Docy) by Rs. 10,00,000/- from SBBJ, Nehru Place, New Delhi on the basis of forged/false documents including valuable security, viz. Sale deed, Ex.PW2/L in respect of property No. A-1, (old) & New No. 52 to 55 and 56 (Part), Khasra No. 974/287/871, East Azad Nagar, Village Ghondli, Delhi, documents signed by one impersonator as Ashok Kumar, owner of the above property and Project Profile, Ex.PW2/B, which include statements of assets and liabilities as on 31-01-1999 of accused No. 2, Vivek Sood and accused No. 3, Akshaya Jha, purportedly prepared by Goel & Jolly, Chartered Accountants and signed by one Sh. Ashok Goel as partner of Goel & Jolly, and using such documents as genuine, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged, and accused No. 6, G. R. Meena, being a public servant, abusing his position as a public servant to obtain pecuniary advantage for accused No. 1, Chanda International Pvt. Ltd.
B. Charge u/s 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act against accused No. 5, G. R. Meena.
(i) Whether during the period 1998-1999, at New Delhi, accused No. 5, G. R. Meena was a public servant i.e. Manager, SBBJ, Nehru Place, New Delhi?
CBI Case No. 20/12 17-12-2014 18 of 66 CBI Vs. Chanda International Pvt. Ltd.
(ii) If so, whether during the above period at Delhi, accused No. 5, G. R. Meena obtained various credit facilities i.e. EPC (Hyp) of Rs. 10,00,000/-, FBP/FBD (Docy) of Rs. 15,00,000/-, and over all ceiling on fund base of Rs. 25,00,000/-, with further enhancement of FBP/FBD (Docy) by Rs. 10,00,000/-, for accused No. 1, Chanda International Pvt. Ltd. and caused loss of Rs. 49,06,895.25 as on 31-12-2000 to SBBJ, by sanctioning the credit facilities on the basis of false/forged/bogus documents and misrepresentation?
(iii) If so, whether accused No. 5, G. R. Meena did as above by use of illegal means and/or abuse of his official position?
C. Charge u/s 420 IPC against accused No. 1, Chanda International Pvt. Ltd., accused No. 2, Vivek Sood, and accused No. 3, Akshay Jha.
(i) Whether during the period 1998-1999, at New Delhi, accused No. 2, Vivek Sood, and accused No. 3, Akshay Jha, Directors of accused No. 1, Chanda International Pvt. Ltd., deceived SBBJ, Nehru Place, New Delhi?
(ii) If so, whether the aforesaid accused persons, had induced SBBJ, Nehru Place, New Delhi to sanction various credit facilities i.e. EPC (Hyp) of Rs. 10,00,000/-, FBP/FBD (Docy) of Rs. 15,00,000/-, and over all ceiling on fund base of Rs. 25,00,000/-, with further enhancement of FBP/FBD (Docy) by Rs. 10,00,000/-, on the basis of forged/false documents including valuable security, viz. Sale deed in respect of property No. A-1, (old) & New No. 52 to 55 and 56 (Part), Khasra No. 974/287/871, East Azad Nagar, Village Ghondli, Delhi, documents signed by one impersonator as Ashok Kumar, owner of the CBI Case No. 20/12 17-12-2014 19 of 66 CBI Vs. Chanda International Pvt. Ltd.
above property and Project Profile, Ex.PW2/B, which include statements of assets and liabilities as on 31-01-1999 of accused No. 2, Vivek Sood and accused No. 3, Akshaya Jha, purportedly prepared by Goel & Jolly, Chartered Accountants and signed by one Sh. Ashok Goel as partner of Goel & Jolly?
(iii) If so, whether the above named accused persons, had induced SBBJ, Nehru Place, New Delhi as above dishonestly/ fraudulently?
(iv) If so, whether the aforesaid amount was credited in account of accused No. 1, Chanda International Pvt. Ltd.?
D. Charge u/s 471 IPC against accused No. 1, Chanda International Pvt. Ltd., accused No. 2, Vivek Sood, accused No. 3, Akshay Jha.
(i) Whether during the period 1998-1999, at New Delhi, accused No. 1, Chanda International Pvt. Ltd., accused No. 2, Vivek Sood, accused No. 3, Akshay Jha used forged/false documents, including valuable security, viz. Sale deed in respect of property No. A-1, (old) & New No. 52 to 55 and 56 (Part), Khasra No. 974/287/871, East Azad Nagar, Village Ghondli, Delhi, documents signed by one impersonaror as Ashok Kumar, owner of the above property and Project Profile, Ex.PW2/B, which include statements of assets and liabilities as on 31-01-1999 of accused No. 2, Vivek Sood and accused No. 3, Akshaya Jha, purportedly prepared by Goel & Jolly, Chartered Accountants and signed by one Sh. Ashok Goel as partner of Goel & Jolly, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged, for inducing SBBJ, Nehru Place, New Delhi to sanction various credit facilities i.e. EPC CBI Case No. 20/12 17-12-2014 20 of 66 CBI Vs. Chanda International Pvt. Ltd.
(Hyp) of Rs. 10,00,000/-, FBP/FBD (Docy) of Rs. 15,00,000/-, and over all ceiling on fund base of Rs. 25,00,000/-, with further enhancement of FBP/FBD (Docy) by Rs. 10,00,000/-, in favour of accused No. 1, Chanda International Pvt. Ltd.?
(ii) If so, whether the above named accused persons used the aforesaid documents as genuine knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged?
(iii) If so, whether the above named accused persons did so fraudulently or dishonestly?
10.1 It is pertinent to refer to Sec. 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as 'IEA') which define the terms 'proved', d ' isproved' and 'not proved' as under :-
" ' Proved'- A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists"
" ' Disproved'- A fact is said to be disproved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes that it does not exist, or considers its non-existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it does not exist."
"'Not proved'-A fact is said not to be proved when it is neither proved nor disproved."
CBI Case No. 20/12 17-12-2014 21 of 66 CBI Vs. Chanda International Pvt. Ltd. 10.2 It is well settled that the word 'proof' means anything which
serves, either immediately or mediately to convince the mind of the truth or falsehood of a fact or proposition; and the proofs of matters of fact in general are our senses, the testimony of witnesses, documents and the like. " Proof"
does not mean proof to rigid mathematical demonstration, because that is impossible; it means such evidence as would induce a reasonable man to come to the conclusion [vide Emperor vs. Shafi Ahmed, (1925) 31 Bom. LR 515]. Further, Sec. 134 of IEA stipulates that no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact.
10.3 In human affairs, everything cannot be proved with mathematical certainty and the law does not require it. Legal proof is something different from moral certainty about the guilt of an accused person. Suspicion, however, great, cannot take the place of legal proof. A moral conviction, however strong or genuine, cannot amount to a legal conviction supportable in law. The well known rule of criminal justice is that " fouler the crim e, higher the proof." [ vide Sharad Birdhichand vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622].
10.4 In criminal matters, the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. A benefit of doubt is the condition of the mind which exists where the judges cannot say that they feel an abiding condition, a moral certainty of the truth of the charge. It must not be a mere doubt of a CBI Case No. 20/12 17-12-2014 22 of 66 CBI Vs. Chanda International Pvt. Ltd.
vacillating mind that has not the moral courage to decide upon a difficult and complicated question and therefore, takes shelter in an idle scepticism (vide 1977 CrLJ 59).
10.5 It is well settled that the burden of proof in a criminal trial never shifts and it is always the burden of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence. However, the rule in section 106 of the Act would apply when the facts are 'especially within the knowledge of the accused' and it would be impossible or at any rate disproportionately difficult for the prosecution to establish such facts which are 'especially within the knowledge of the accused'. The prosecution is not required to eliminate all possible defences or circumstances which may exonerate him. If certain facts are in the knowledge of the accused then he has to prove them. Of course the prosecution has to prove prima facie case in the first instance. In this regard reference can be made to Murlidhar vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2005 SC 2345, State of Punjab vs. Karnail Singh, (2003) 11 SCC 271, Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs. State of Maharashtra, 2007 Cr LJ 20 (SC), Santosh Kumar Singh vs. State, (2010) 9 SCC 747 and Ram Singh vs. State, 2011 Cr LJ 618 (Raj.), AIR 1959 SC 1390, AIR 1937 Rang 83, 1968 Cri LJ 848, AIR 1967 Mys 79 and 1964 (1) Cri LJ 688.
10.6 It is also pertinent to refer to Sec 313 (4) of the Cr.P.C. which stipulates that the answers given by the accused, in his statement under this section, may be taken into consideration in such enquiry or trial, and put in CBI Case No. 20/12 17-12-2014 23 of 66 CBI Vs. Chanda International Pvt. Ltd.
evidence for or against him in any other enquiry into, or trial for, any other offence which such answers may tend to show he has committed. It is well settled that admission or confession of the accused in the statement under section 313, Cr PC in the course of trial can be acted upon and the court can rely on these confessions to proceed to convict him. In this regard reference can be made to Dharnidhar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2010) 7 SCC 759 and State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdev Singh, AIR 1992 SC 2100.
10.7 Further, the evidence of one accused or admission or action or statement made by one of the accused can be used as evidence against the other by virtue of Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act. In this regard reference can be made to Tribhuvan Nath Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 450 and Kehar Singh v State, AIR 1988 SC 1883 10.8 It is also well settled that criminal conspiracy is often hatched in secrecy and for proving the offence, substantial direct evidence may not be available. An offence of criminal conspiracy can also be proved by circumstantial evidence. However, it cannot be deemed to have been established on mere suspicion and surmises or inferences which are not supported by cogent evidence. Where the prosecution case rests merely on circumstantial evidence, the facts established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. However, on the basis of evidence led by prosecution, if two views are CBI Case No. 20/12 17-12-2014 24 of 66 CBI Vs. Chanda International Pvt. Ltd.
possible, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and other to his innocence, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted. In this regard, reference can be made to Saju vs. State of Kerala, (2001) 1 SCC 378, Sherimon vs. State of Kerala, (2011) 10 SCC 768, P.K. Narayanan vs. State of Kerala, (1995) 1 SCC 142, State of M.P. vs. Sheetla Sahai, 2009 Cr. LJ 4436, Shivaji Saheb Rao Bobde vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 2622, Harendra Narain Singh vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 1842, Baboo Ram, vs. State, 1996 Cri LJ 483 and N. Rajendra Prasad Bhat vs. State, 1996 Cri LJ 258.
10.9 The essence of conspiracy is unlawful combination and the complicity of the accused has to be decided after considering all the circumstances proved, before, during and after occurrence. Agreement between the conspirators may also be proved by necessary implication. It is not necessary that each member of a conspiracy must know all the details of the conspiracy. Facts established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused. It does not mean that each and every hypothesis suggested by accused must be excluded by proved facts. In this regard, reference can be made to Chaman Lal vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2009 SC 2972, R.K. Dalmia vs. The Delhi Administration, AIR 1962 SC 1821, Muriappan vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2010 SC 3718 and Firozuddin Basheeruddin vs. State of Kerala, (2001) 7 SCC 596.
10.10 It is also pertinent to refer to section 45 of the IEA which CBI Case No. 20/12 17-12-2014 25 of 66 CBI Vs. Chanda International Pvt. Ltd. provides as under:-
" 45. Opinions of experts.- When the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law, or of science, or art, or as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions, the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, or in questions as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions are relevant facts. Such persons are called experts."
10.11 The weight that ought to be attached to the opinion of an expert is a different matter from its relevancy. The Act only provides about the relevancy of expert opinion but gives no guidance as regards its value. In Murari Lal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1980 AIR 531, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held, " We are firmly of the opinion that there is no rule of law, nor any rule of prudence which has crystalized into a rule of law, that opinion evidence of a handwriting expert must never be acted upon, unless substantially corroborated. But, having due regard to the imperfect nature of the science of identification of handwriting, the approach, as we indicated earlier, should be one of caution. Reasons for the opinion must be carefully probed and examined. All other relevant evidence must be considered. In appropriate cases, corroboration may be sought. In cases where the reasons for the opinion are convincing and there is no reliable evidence throwing a doubt, the uncorroborated testimony of an handwriting expert may be accepted. There cannot be any inflexible rule on a matter which, in the ultimate analysis, is no more than a question of testimonial weight. We have said so much because this is an argument frequently met with in subordinate courts and sentences CBI Case No. 20/12 17-12-2014 26 of 66 CBI Vs. Chanda International Pvt. Ltd.
torn out of context from the judgments of this Court are often flaunted."
10.12 It is in the light of the above position of law that evidence is to be appreciated.
Appreciation of Evidence 11.1 From the evidence of PW2 Sh. B.K. Bansal, Assistant Manager, SBBJ, Nehru Place, New Delhi, PW9 A.K. Garg, Assistant Manager, SBBJ, Nehru Place, New Delhi, PW10 Pramod Kumar, Advocate, PW13 K. N. Mishra Gopal, Chief Manager, SBBJ, New Delhi, PW16 K.R. Srikantan, Chief General Manager, SBBJ, Head Office Jaipur, PW19 G.K. Gupta, Assistant Registrar of Companies, New Delhi, PW20 G.K. Jain, Chartered Accountant, PW22 R.C. Banger, Clerk, SBBJ, Nehru Place, New Delhi, PW23 R.S. Chauhan, Deputy Manager, SBBJ, Nehru Place, New Delhi, PW24 M.L. Sharma and PW25 Sh. Pukhraj Kanther, Chief Manager, SBBJ, Nehru Place, New Delhi, inter-alia, the following facts, with regard to sanction of credit facilities to accused No. 1, Chanda International Pvt. Ltd. and its disbursal, have emerged:-
(A)
(i) During the period 1998-1999, accused No. 5, G.R. Meena, was a public servant i.e. Manager, SBBJ, Nehru Place, Delhi.
(ii) Accused No. 1, Chanda International Pvt. Ltd. was incorporated on 01-03-1999 vide certificate of incorporation Ex. PW19/A and Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association, Ex. PW 19/E and accused No. 2, Vivek Sood and accused No. 3, Akshay Jha are the Directors thereof.
CBI Case No. 20/12 17-12-2014 27 of 66 CBI Vs. Chanda International Pvt. Ltd. iii) Accused No. 1, Chanda International Pvt. Ltd. had opened Current
Account No. 778 vide account opening forms dated 04-03-1999, Ex.PW2/O and Ex.PW9/B.
iv) Accused No. 1, Chanda International Pvt. Ltd. wrote a letter dated 23-02-1999, Ex.PW2/A, signed by accused No. 2, Vivek Sood and accused No. 3, Akshaya Jha with regard to finance of working capital limits.
v) Legal opinion cum search report dated 18-03-1998, Ex.PW2/H was given by Sh. Pramod Kumar, Advocate.
vi) Valuation report, Ex.PW2/J was given by Sh. B.P. Singh, Govt. Approved Valuer.
vii) An advance proposal dated 27-02-1999, Ex.PW2/M was prepared by accused No. 5, G.R. Meena and sanctioned by him on 27-02-1999. The same was reviewed by Sh. P.R. Kanther on 03-03-1999.
viii) The sanction of EPC (Hyp) for Rs. 10 lacs and FBP/FBD (Docy) of Rs.
15 lacs was conveyed to accused No. 1, Chanda International Pvt. Ltd. vide letter dated 03-03-1999 of SBBJ, Nehru Place.
ix) Accused No. 1, Chanda International Pvt. Ltd., vide its letter dated 03-04-1999, Ex.PW2/P, requested SBBJ, Nehru Place, Delhi to discount their bills to the extent of Rs. 10 lacs.
x) A note dated 10-04-1999 Ex.PW2/Q was prepared by accused No. 5, G.R. Meena recommeding the sanction of additional FBP/FBD (Docy) limit of Rs. 10 lacs for a period of three months. The same was sanctioned on 10-04-1999 by the Chief Manager.
xi) An entry regarding deposit of title deed, in respect of House No. A-1 (old), new No. 52 to 55 and 56 (Part), Khasra No. 974/287/811 at abadi East CBI Case No. 20/12 17-12-2014 28 of 66 CBI Vs. Chanda International Pvt. Ltd.
Azad Nagar, Delhi, by Sh. Ashok Kumar, S/o Sh. Sheesh Ram, R/o 2266, East Azad Nagar Bihari Colony, Shahdara was made in the mortgage register, Ex.PW2/D-B, which was witnessed, inter-alia, by accused No. 5, G.R. Meena.
xii) Accused No. 1, Chanda International Pvt. Ltd., accused No. 2, Vivek Sood and accused No. 3, Akshaya Jha had, inter-alia, submitted/executed the following documents with SBBJ, Nehru Place, New Delhi with regard to the aforesaid credit facilities :-
a) Sale deed dated 10-11-1987, Ex.PW2/L, executed by Sh. Ram Sharan in favour of Sh. Ashok Kumar S/o Sh. Sheesh Ram, in respect of property No. A-1 (old) and new No. 52 to 55 and 56 (Part), Khasra No. 974/287/811 situated at Abadi East Azad Nagar, Village Ghondli, Shahdara, Delhi 51, on which photograph of the purported guarantor Sh. Ashok Kumar is affixed.
b) Project profile, Ex.PW2/B, which include statements of assets and liabilities as on 31-01-1999 of accused No. 2, Vivek Sood and accused No. 3, Akshaya Jha, purportedly prepared by Goel & Jolly, Chartered Accountants and signed by one Sh. Ashok Goel as partner of Goel & Jolly.
c) Photocopy of ration card, Mark Z of Sh. Ashok Kumar.
d) Deed of guarantee for overall limit dated 04-03-1999, Ex.PW9/I, which bear signatures and photographs of accused No. 2, Vivek Sood, accused No. 3, Akshaya Jha and the purported guarantor Sh. Ashok Kumar,
e) Agreement of loan for overall limit dated 04-03-1999, Ex.PW9/J, which bear signatures of accused No. 2, Vivek Sood, accused No. 3, Akshaya Jha and accused No. 5, G.R. Meena.
f) Agreement of hypothecation of goods and assets dated 04-03-1999, Ex.PW9/K, which bear signatures of accused No. 2, Vivek Sood, accused No. CBI Case No. 20/12 17-12-2014 29 of 66 CBI Vs. Chanda International Pvt. Ltd.
3, Akshaya Jha and accused No. 5, G.R. Meena.
g) Letter regarding grant of individual limit dated 12-04-1999, Ex.PW9/L, which bear signatures of accused No. 2, Vivek Sood, accused No. 3, Akshaya Jha and the purported guarantor Ashok Kumar.
h) Supplemental agreement of loan for increase in the over limit dated 12-04-1999, Ex.PW9/M, which bear signatures of accused No. 2, Vivek Sood, accused No. 3, Akshaya Jha and accused No. 5, G.R. Meena.
i) Supplemental agreement of hypothecation of goods and assets for increase in the over limit dated 12-04-1999, Ex.PW9/N, which bear signatures of accused No. 2, Vivek Sood, accused No. 3, Akshaya Jha and accused No. 5, G.R. Meena.
j) Supplemental Deed of Guarantee for increase in the over limit dated 12-04-1999, Ex.PW9/O, which bear signatures of accused No. 2, Vivek Sood, accused No. 3, Akshaya Jha and the purported guarantor Sh. Ashok Kumar.
k) Letter dated 10-04-1999, Ex.PW9/P, conveying sanction of additional FBP/FBD (Docy) limit of Rs. 10 lacs to accused No. 1, Chanda International Pvt. Ltd., which bear signatures of accused No. 3, Akshaya Jha, the purported guarantor and accused No. 5, G.R. Meena.
l) Inland letters dated 18-03-1999 and 15-03-1999, Ex.PW9/Q and Ex.PW9/R and inland letters, Ex.PW25/A and Ex.PW25/B of the purported guarantor Sh. Ashok Kumar.
m) Declaration cum undertaking dated 26-03-1998, Ex.PW2/K, signed by the purported guarantor Sh. Ashok Kumar and witnesses Sh. Ajay Sharma, R/o CC-286, Pitampura, Delhi and Sh. Surender Singh, R/o D-1/106, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi.
CBI Case No. 20/12 17-12-2014 30 of 66 CBI Vs. Chanda International Pvt. Ltd. n) Letter dated 04-03-1999, Ex.PW24/B, regarding grant of individual limit
within overall limit signed by accused No. 2, Vivek Sood and the purported guarantor Sh. Ashok Kumar.
o) Affidavit dated 19-03-1998, Ex.PW24/C of the purported guarantor Sh. Ashok Kumar.
p) Affidavit dated 05-03-1999, Ex.PW24/D of the purported guarantor Sh.
Ashok Kumar.
(B)
i) Statement of Current Account No. 778 of accused No. 1, Chanda International Pvt. Ltd. for the period 01-07-2000 to 23-09-2000 is Ex.PW2/R.
ii) Statement of EPC Account No. 148 of accused No. 1, Chanda International Pvt. Ltd. for the period 01-03-1999 to 22-09-2000 is Ex.PW2/S.
iii) Statement of Account No. 778 of accused No. 1, Chanda International Pvt. Ltd. for the period 04-03-1999 to 12-07-2000 is Ex.PW9/H. (C) The following cheques were issued by accused No. 1, Chanda International Pvt. Ltd. from account No. 778 :-
i) Cheque No. 649309 dated 29-04-1999, Ex.PW22/X1 for Rs. 1,50,000/- in favour of Kamayani Jewellery Pvt. Ltd.,
ii) Cheque No. 649305 dated 29-04-1999, Ex.PW22/X2 for Rs. 4,25,277/-
in favour of, "Yourself" for issuance of pay order in favour of Banarasi Dass & Sons for Rs.4,25,000/-,
iii) Cheque No. 649303 dated 23-04-1999, Ex.PW22/X3 for Rs. 1,85,000/-
in favour of, "Self", CBI Case No. 20/12 17-12-2014 31 of 66 CBI Vs. Chanda International Pvt. Ltd. iv) Cheque No. 649250 dated 19-04-1999, Ex.PW22/X4 for Rs. 4,25,277/-
in favour of, "Yourself" for issuance of pay order in favour of Banarasi Dass & Sons for Rs.4,25,000/-,
v) Cheque No. 649244 dated 08-04-1999, Ex.PW22/X5 for Rs. 2,55,444/- in favour of Banarasi Dass & Sons,
vi) Cheque No. 649245 dated 03-04-1999, Ex.PW22/X6 for Rs. 2,90,000/- in favour of Kamayani Jewellery Pvt. Ltd.,
vii) Cheque No. 649238 dated 22-03-1999, Ex.PW22/X7 for Rs. 4,35,000/- in favour of Kamayani Jewellery Pvt. Ltd.,
viii) Cheque No. 649233 dated 17-03-1999, Ex.PW22/X8 for Rs. 7,62,500/- in favour of, "Yourself" for issuance of pay order in favour of Banarasi Dass & Sons for Rs.7,62,000/-,
ix) Cheque No. 649232 dated 17-03-1999, Ex.PW22/X9 for Rs. 1,73,115/- in favour of "Yourself" for issuance of pay order in favour of Banarasi Dass & Sons for Rs.1,73,000/-,
x) Cheque No. 649226 dated 05-03-1999, Ex.PW22/X10 for Rs. 8,26,189/- in favour of Banarasi Dass & Sons,
xi) Cheque No. 649228 dated 08-03-1999, Ex.PW22/X11 for Rs. 1,50,000/- in favour of Kamayani Jewellery Pvt. Ltd.,
xii) Cheque No. 649311 dated 04-05-1999, Ex.PW23/J for Rs. 1,25,000/- in favour of "Self",
xiii) Cheque No. 649312 dated 07-05-1999, Ex.PW23/K for Rs. 4,25,276/- in favour of, "Yourself" for issuance of pay order in favour of Banarasi Dass & Sons for Rs.4,25,000/-,
xiv) Cheque No. 649310 dated 06-05-1999, Ex.PW23/L for Rs. 37,904/- in CBI Case No. 20/12 17-12-2014 32 of 66 CBI Vs. Chanda International Pvt. Ltd.
favour of Banarasi Dass & Sons,
xv) Cheque No. 649278 dated 20-05-1999, Ex.PW23/M for Rs. 50,00,325/- in favour of, "Yourself" for issuance of pay order in favour of Banarasi Dass & Sons for Rs.50,00,000/-, xvi) Cheque No. 649277 dated 18-05-1999, Ex.PW23/N for Rs. 2,95,000/- in favour of "Self", xvii) Cheque No. 649280 dated 22-05-1999, Ex.PW23/O for Rs. 2,35,153/- in favour of, "Yourself" for issuance of pay order in favour of Banarasi Dass & Sons for Rs.2,35,000/-, xviii) Cheque No. 649279 dated 21-05-1999, Ex.PW23/P for Rs.58,000/- in favour of, "Self", xix) Cheque No. 649314 dated 25-05-1999, Ex.PW23/Q for Rs. 15,000/- in favour of Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., xx) Cheque No. 649315 dated 25-05-1999, Ex.PW23/R for Rs. 1,00,000/- in favour of Kamayani Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., xxi) Cheque No. 649316 dated 26-05-1999, Ex.PW23/S for Rs. 2,07,500/- in favour of "Self", xxii) Cheque No. 649313 dated 25-05-1999, Ex.PW23/T for Rs. 5,00,000/- in favour of "Self", xxiii) Cheque No. 649318 dated 31-05-1999, Ex.PW23/U for Rs. 5,00,325/- in favour of, "Yourself" for issuance of pay order in favour of SKV Exports and Trading Pvt. Ltd. for Rs. 5,00,000/-, xxiv) Cheque No. 649282 dated 27-05-1999, Ex.PW23/V for Rs. 2,50,000/- in favour of "Self", xxv) Cheque No. 649322 dated 04-06-1999, Ex.PW23/W for Rs. 1,07,500/-
CBI Case No. 20/12 17-12-2014 33 of 66 CBI Vs. Chanda International Pvt. Ltd. in favour of "Self",
xxvi) Cheque No. 649319 dated 03-06-1999, Ex.PW23/X for Rs. 1,25,000/- in favour of "Self", xxvii) Cheque No. 649320 dated 03-06-1999, Ex.PW23/Y for Rs. 19,988/- in favour of R.K. Tandon, xxviii) Cheque No. 649323 dated 05-06-1999, Ex.PW23/Z for Rs. 3,65,460/- in favour of "Yourself" for issuance of pay order in favour of Banarasi Dass & Sons for Rs.3,65,000/-, and xxix) Cheque No. 649306 dated 03-05-1999, Ex.PW23/AA for Rs. 23,101/- in favour of R.K. Tandon.
(D) Following Bills of Exchange issued by accused No. 1, Chanda International Pvt. Ltd. were protested :-
i) Bill of Exchange dated 16-03-1999, signed by accused No. 2, Vivek Sood along with noted and protested note dated 22-06-2000, Ex.PW23/B.
ii) Bill of Exchange dated 17-04-1999, signed by accused No. 2, Vivek Sood along with noted and protested note dated 22-06-2000, Ex.PW23/C.
iii) Bill of Exchange dated 16-03-1999, signed by accused No. 2, Vivek Sood along with noted and protested note dated 22-06-2000, Ex.PW23/D.
iv) Bill of Exchange dated 22-03-1999, signed by accused No. 2, Vivek Sood along with noted and protested note dated 22-06-2000, Ex.PW23/E.
v) Bill of Exchange dated 03-04-1999, signed by accused No. 2, Vivek Sood along with noted and protested note dated 22-06-2000, Ex.PW23/F. (E) PW 16 Sh. K.R. Srikantan, Chief General Manager, SBBJ, Head CBI Case No. 20/12 17-12-2014 34 of 66 CBI Vs. Chanda International Pvt. Ltd.
Office Jaipur, had passed sanction order dated 05-12-2001, Ex. PW16/A for prosecution of accused No. 5, G.R.Meena.
From the evidence of PW2 Sh. B.K. Bansal, PW9 A.K. Garg, PW10 Pramod Kumar, PW13 K. N. Mishra, PW16 K.R. Srikantan, PW19 G.K. Gupta, PW20 G.K. Jain, PW22 R.C. Banger, PW23 R.S. Chauhan, PW24 M.L. Sharma and PW25 Sh. Pukhraj Kanther, admission/denial of documents, statement of accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C. and the arguments advanced on behalf of the accused persons, it is clear that the aforesaid facts have not been disputed by the accused persons.
12.1 PW 8 Sh. S.C. Grover, Chief Manager, SBBJ, Nehru Place, New Delhi has deposed about handing over file of Chanda International to Sh. S.S. Yadav, Inspector, CBI vide production memo, dated 18-09-2000, Ex.PW8/A. 12.2 PW 26 Sh. Gyanender Mishra has deposed about working in the companies of Vijay Kumar Jha and accused No. 4, Nandita Bakshi during the period 1998 to 2000 and knowing accused No. 2, Vivek Sood. He has given names of some of the companies of accused No. 2, Vivek Sood and accused No. 4, Nandita Bakshi as Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., Chanda International, Kamayani Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., Nupur Enterprises, SKV Exports Pvt. Ltd., Balaji Exports and Juniper Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. This witness was cross-examined by Ld. Special P.P. He stated that he does not remember whether his statement was recorded by the IO on 17-10-2001. He denied that collateral security was arranged by the directors through Safiqur Rahman Khan or his associates, CBI Case No. 20/12 17-12-2014 35 of 66 CBI Vs. Chanda International Pvt. Ltd.
one Aslam, Niranjan Vashisht and the documents were prepared by him or by Vipin Kakkar and Sanjay Malik, CA who were working as consultants to the groups. He admitted that the company had received LC No. SIN/31492/99 for US Dollar 1,00,000.00 favoring the company from SAMEECO International Pvt. Ltd. to Habib Bank Ltd. Singapore and that it was faxed to him in his name. He further admitted that a meeting to resolve the issue of irregularities in the companies account was organized between bank officers and the directors of the companies. He also admitted that while he was working with the above company, the export consignments were sent to Singapore to Itinerant Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. and SAMEECO International Pvt. Ltd and one or two shipments were not accepted by SAMEECO International Pvt, Ltd. Singapore and payments were not coming to the bank. He had been informing accused No. 4, Nandita Bakshi and V.K Jha from time to time about the same. He admitted that there use to be money transactions between various companies of accused No. 4, Nandita Bakshi and accused No. 2, Vivek Sood. He has either denied or expressed ignorance about other suggestions given by Ld. Special P.P. 12.3 PW 27 Sh. S.S. Yadav is the IO who has deposed about the FIR, Ex.PW27/A registered by Mrs. S. Sundari Nanda. He has stated that seizure/collection of documents, from various officers of SBBJ. He has also deposed about the following :-
i) Letter dt. 28-2-2001 (D-77), Ex. PW 27/B, written by him to Food & Supply Officer seeking information regarding ration card No. 336990 in the name of Shri Ashok Kumar.
CBI Case No. 20/12 17-12-2014 36 of 66 CBI Vs. Chanda International Pvt. Ltd. ii) Production memo dt. 28-2-2001, (D-87), Ex. PW 27/C, vide which he
had seized the documents mentioned therein from Shri Ashok Kumar s/o Shri Sheesh Ram.
iii) Seizure Memo Ex PW 27/C, vide which he had obtained the documents Ex.PW27/D (colly) i.e. Certificate dt. 25-12-2000 of Shri Arvinder Singh Lovely, MLA, attested photocopy of voter's 'I' Card, attested photocopy of duplicate school leaving certificate of Shri Ashok Kumar and attested photocopy of ration card in the name of Shri Sheesh Ram.
iv) Letter dated 18-10-2000, Ex.PW27/H of Sub Registrar - IV, Seelampur, Delhi vide which he had sent a copy of sale deed bearing No. 112, Volume No. 2010, Book No. 1, Page No. 112 to 115 dated 12-01-1988, Ex.PW4/A. 12.4 PW 27 Sh. S.S. Yadav has also testified about obtaining specimen signatures of various persons as under :-
i) Specimen signatures of Sh. Akshay Jha obtained by him on 22.6.2001 on 06 sheets of paper marked S-1 to S-6, Ex.PW-24/E (colly.) in presence of witness Sh. O.P. Tanwar, UDC, MCD.
ii) Specimen signatures of Sh. Vivek Sood obtained by him on 07 sheets of paper marked S-7 to S-13, Ex.PW-24/F (colly.) in presence of witness, Ct. Kishore Kumar.
iii) Specimen signatures of Sh. Ashok Kumar obtained by him on 26.12.2000 on 05 sheets of paper marked S-14 to S-18, Ex.PW-7/1 to Ex.
PW-7/5 in presence of witness, Ct. Kishore Kumar.
iv) Specimen signatures of Sh. Dharambir obtained by him on 14.6.2001 on 06 sheets of paper marked S-19 to S-24, Ex.PW-24/G (colly.) in presence CBI Case No. 20/12 17-12-2014 37 of 66 CBI Vs. Chanda International Pvt. Ltd.
of witness, Ct. Kishore Kumar.
v) Specimen signatures of Sh. Pramod Kumar, Advocate obtained by him on 8.3.2001 on 11 sheets of paper marked S-25 to S-35, Ex.PW-24/H (colly.) in presence of witness, Ct. Kishore Kumar.
vi) Specimen signatures/handwriting of Sh. Shafiqur Rahman Khan obtained by him on 25.3.2001 on 05 sheets of paper marked S-36 to S-40, Ex.PW-24/I (colly.) in presence of witness, Ct. Kishore Kumar.
vii) Specimen signatures/handwriting of Sh. Nandi Gupta obtained by him on 30.12.2000 on 06 sheets of paper marked S-41 to S-46, Ex.PW-24/J (colly.) in presence of witness, Ct. Kishore Kumar.
viii) Specimen signatures/handwriting of Sh. B.P. Singh obtained by him on 4.12.2000 on 04 sheets of paper marked S-47 to S-50, Ex.PW-24/K (colly.) in presence of witness, Ct. Kishore Kumar.
12.5 PW 27 Sh. S.S. Yadav further deposed about letter dated 02-08-2001, Ex.PW27/J, written by Sh. Sanjay Awasthi, SP, CBI to GEQD, Shimla vide which the questioned documents, specimen writing / signatures and questionnaire were sent. He also stated about letter dated 24-09-2001, Ex.PW24/M of GEQD, Shimla vide which the opinion, Ex.PW24/L was received.
12.6 PW 24 Sh. M.L. Sharma, GEQD, Shimla has, inter-alia, deposed about receipt of various questioned documents and specimen handwritings/signatures from SP, CBI, SIU-VIII on 03-08-2001. He has further stated that after careful and thorough examination of the disputed handwriting CBI Case No. 20/12 17-12-2014 38 of 66 CBI Vs. Chanda International Pvt. Ltd.
and signatures and their comparison with the relevant specimen handwriting and signatures, he gave the opinion, Ex.PW24/L which bears his signatures at points A & A1 and signatures of Shri M.C. Joshi, the then Assistant Govt. Examiner of Questioned Documents at points B & B1. He also testified that all the documents along with the opinion were returned to SP, CBI, SIU-VIII, New Delhi vide their letter dated 24-09-2001, Ex.PW24/M. He further stated that the reasons for his opinion Ex.PW24/L is Ex.PW24/N. During cross examination, he admitted that no admitted signatures were supplied but opinion was given on the basis of the specimen signatures. He had not taken photographs of the signatures since he had examined the original documents. While examining the documents, he had prepared pencil notes. The opinion and the reasons are the sum and substance of those pencil notes. He had not enclosed those pencil notes given with the opinion or reasons. He had utilized various optical instruments like lenses of different magnification, angle poise lamp and stereo binoculars microscope for the examination of the various signatures i.e. the questioned and the specimen signatures and thereafter, he had observed, assessed and evaluated the characteristics which he had mentioned in his reasons, Ex.PW24/N. During his cross examination nothing affecting his testimony could be elicited.
13.1 It is alleged by the prosecution that the sale deed dated 10-11-1987, Ex.PW2/L submitted to SBBJ, Nehru Place, New Delhi for obtaining credit facilities, though, originally, per-se, genuine has been forged by altering the same i.e. by putting photograph of an impersonator as "Ashok Kumar son of Shri Sheesh Ram resident of 2266, Behari Colony, Shahdara, CBI Case No. 20/12 17-12-2014 39 of 66 CBI Vs. Chanda International Pvt. Ltd.
Delhi-32", the vendee. Various loan documents submitted/executed by the purported guarantor Sh. Ashok Kumar also bear address of the said Ashok Kumar, S/o Sheesh Ram as R/o 2266, Behari Colony, Delhi. The said sale deed has been executed by Sh. Ram Sharan in favour of Shri Ashok Kumar, S/o Shri Sheesh Ram, in respect of property bearing No. A1 (Old) and New No. 52 to 55 and 56 (Part), Khasra No. 974/287/811 situated at abadi East Azad Nagar, Village Gondali, Delhi - 51. It is also pertinent to mention that the same photograph as affixed at point A on sale deed, Ex.PW2/L is also affixed on the deed of guarantee for overall limit, dated 04-03-1999, Ex.PW9/I as that of the purported guarantor Ashok Kumar.
13.2 In this regard, PW 12 Shri Dharamvir testified that in the year 1987 he was posted as Sub-Registrar-IV, Krishna (sic Nagar) Delhi. His duty was to register the documents presented before him. He further stated that the sale deed dt. 10-11-1987, Ex. PW 2/L was presented by the Vendor in the office of Sub Registrar on 10-11-1987 and has been registered on 12-01-1988 vide document No. 112, Addl. Book No. 1, Volume No. 2010 at Pages 112 to
115. The document was registered after about two months because of deficiency at the time of presentation. He had registered the sale deed Ex. PW 2/L and it bears his signatures at point A at six places. There were some error in noting down the Khasra No. of the property and as such the correction was made and certified accordingly. The sale deed Ex. PW 2/L is a genuine document. This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of any accused.
13.3 PW4 Sh. Shiv Charan Sharma, LDC, office of Sub-Registrar, CBI Case No. 20/12 17-12-2014 40 of 66 CBI Vs. Chanda International Pvt. Ltd.
Seelam Pur, Delhi, deposed about handing over copy of sale deed, Ex. PW 4/A (original Ex. PW 2/L) to Inspector, CBI vide Mark A. This witness was also not cross examined on behalf of any accused.
13.4 PW3 Sh. Anil Kumar, Parwari, SDM office, Vivek Vihar deposed that Khasra No. 974/287/811, East Azad Nagar is not existing at Aabadi East Azad Nagar, Village Ghondli, Shahdara, Delhi-51. Khasra No. 974/287 is registered under 17 sub numbers i.e. 974/287/1 to 974/287/13. Copy of the Khasra Girdawri for the year Kharif 1998 to Rabi 2002 is Ex. PW 3/1. The abovesaid land never belonged to Ram Sharan, S/o Shri Fateh Chand, R/o A-1 East Azad Nagar, Delhi or Shri Ashok Kumar, S/o Shri Shish Ram, R/o 2266, Bihari Colony, Shahdara, Delhi-32. The names of actual owners of the land are mentioned from point A to A in Ex. PW 3/1. This witness was also not cross examined on behalf of any accused.
13.5 PW 7 Sh. Ashok Kumar S/o Sh. Sheesh Ram has testified that he was dealing in property business with one Kamal Gaur during the year 1987 to 2000. Their office was situated at House No. 2266 Bihari Colony, Shahdara, Delhi. The said office was owned by Smt. Burfi Devi, mother of Shri Kamal Gaur. During the year 1987, one property bearing No. A1 (Old) New No. 52 to 56 measuring 300 Yards, out of Khasra No. 974/287/811 situated at East Azad Nagar, Village Gondali was purchased jointly by him, Virender Singh and Shri Kamal Gaur. He also stated that as per mutual understanding, he was 25% share holder. Subsequently after lapse of one and a half year, the said property was sold through the property dealer Shri CBI Case No. 20/12 17-12-2014 41 of 66 CBI Vs. Chanda International Pvt. Ltd.
Nandi Gupta to one Bansal. The above mentioned property was purchased by them from one Shri Ram Saran, S/o Shri Fateh Chand. He stated that the photograph affixed at point A on the sale deed, Ex. PW 2/1(sic Ex.PW2/L) is not his. He does not know the said person whose photograph has been attached on the sale deed. He has never purchased any property from the person whose photograph has been affixed on Ex. PW 2/1 (sic Ex.PW2/L) at point A. He deposed that he does not have any account with SBBJ, Nehru Place Branch nor he ever visited the said Bank. He does not know any lady named Nandita Bakshi r/o C-349, Defence Colony, New Delhi nor he knows Shri V.K. Jha, Vivek Sood and Akshay Jha. He does not know the company named Chanda International Pvt. Ltd. He had never mortgaged the property mentioned in Ex. PW 2/1 (sic Ex.PW2/L) in favour of above named persons or for the company noted above. In his individual name, no ration card has ever been issued. Photocopy of ration card, Mark Z is not belonging to him nor the photo is his. He also deposed that he never visited SBBJ Bank Branch in Nehru Place nor he ever executed any loan document as Guarantor against the loan/credit facilities sanctioned to Chanda International or in favour of any other person named above. He has given his specimen signature on five sheets, Ex. PW 7/1 to Ex. PW 7/5 to the IO during the course of investigation.
13.6 During his cross examination, PW Sh. Ashok Kumar stated that the said property was purchased in the name of one Mr. Virender Singh and himself. As he remembers the said property was purchased on equal share i.e. 50%. He admitted that his share was 25% and he paid Rs. 25,000/- as per his share but in the document prepared it was shown 50%. He admitted that CBI Case No. 20/12 17-12-2014 42 of 66 CBI Vs. Chanda International Pvt. Ltd.
they had handed over the original documents of the land to one Mr. Nandi Gupta. As he remembers the said property was sold to one Mr. Bansal. He cannot say whether the document shown to him was the same original document or not which is in his name.
13.7 PW5 Sh. Kamal Gaur has testified that he is resident of 179, village Ghondli. They have property over there. He was doing the business of Property dealing till 1991. Thereafter he is doing agriculture/farming. He is also doing the business of property dealing. Property bearing No. 2266, situated at Bihari Colony, Shahdara was owned and possessed by his mother Smt. Barfi Devi. On the said property, there was one room in which their office existed, rest of the area was land. Ashok Kumar, S/o Shri Shish Ram, R/o Old Seelampur, Virender Singh and one Mukesh Sharma were also in the business of property dealing with him. He further testified that one property i.e. Plot No. A1 (old) and new number 52256 (sic 52 to 56) situated at Abadi East, Azad Nagar, Village Ghondli was purchased by him jointly with Ashok Kumar. The said plot was purchased by him from Shri Ram Saran. Later on, that plot was sold by him to one Mr. Bansal through General Power of Attorney. He knows Mr. Ashok Kumar, S/o Shish Ram, R/o Old Seelam Pur personally. The photograph affixed (stapled) on the sale deed dt. 12-01-88 at portion A on front page [(i.e. Ex. PW 2/1 (sic Ex.PW2/L)] is not of that Shri Ashok Kumar, S/o Shri Shish Ram. The property bearing number A-1 (old), New number 52 to 56 was never mortgaged in any bank either by himself or by Ashok Kumar S/o Shish Ram and they had never given any guarantee in any bank against any loan.
CBI Case No. 20/12 17-12-2014 43 of 66 CBI Vs. Chanda International Pvt. Ltd. 13.8 During his cross examintion, PW 5 Sh. Kamal Gaur stated that
whenever they purchase a land, they purchase it in the name of one of their partners due to mutual understanding and to facilitate the smooth further transactions. They sold the property in question to one Mr. Bansal through Power of Attorney because there were restrictions in the execution of sale deed. They had handed over the original questioned sale deed to one Mr. Bansal through the property dealer Mr. Nandi Gupta. He admitted that they executed the GPA in favour of one Mr. Rajinder Parkash and Smt. Satyavinder Kaur. Later on the sale deed was executed in the name of Yashpal Bansal and his wife. They had not shown any kind of documents to CBI regarding the sale and purchase of the land. He does not remember whether the document Ex. PW2/1 (sic Ex.PW2/L) is the original/same document through which they purchased the land from Mr. Ram Saran.
13.9 Ld. Counsels for the accused persons have argued that there are discrepancies in the testimonies of PW 7 Sh. Ashok Kumar and PW 5 Sh. Kamal Gaur and thus they cannot be relied upon. Ld. Special P.P contends that these are natural and minor discrepancies which do not go to the root of the matter. It is considered that though there are discrepancies in the testimonies of PW 7 Sh. Ashok Kumar and PW 5 Sh. Kamal Gaur with regard to the persons, in whose name, besides PW7 Sh. Ashok Kumar, the property in question was purchased and their shares in the same, the fact that the said property was purchased vide sale deed, Ex.PW2/L is not disputed. PW 4 Sh. Shiv Charan Sharma and PW 12 Sh. Dharamvir have proved the sale deed, CBI Case No. 20/12 17-12-2014 44 of 66 CBI Vs. Chanda International Pvt. Ltd.
Ex. PW2/L. As per the sale deed, Ex.PW2/L, the property in question was sold to Sh. Ashok Kumar. The discrepancies in their testimonies could be on account of their being property dealers and dealing in number of sale/purchase of properties, in contradistinction to purchase of a residential property for the purpose of residing therein. A person who purchases a property for his own use would remember the details of the purchase much more accurately. The above discrepancies have no effect on the fact that the property in question was purchased from Sh. Ram Saran in the name of PW 7 Sh. Ashok Kumar.
13.10 It can be observed that various loan documents submitted/ executed on behalf of the purported guarantor Sh. Ashok Kumar bears his signatures as under :-
i) At points Q194, Q-194 (1) to Q194 (5) and Q203 on letter dated 03-03-1999, Ex.PW2/DA of SBBJ, Nehru Place, New Delhi,
ii) At points Q99, Q104, Q105, Q110, Q111, Q116, Q117, Q122, Q122 (1) to Q122 (4), Q123, Q127 and Q131 on deed of guarantee for overall limits, dated 04-03-1999, Ex.PW9/I,
iii) At points Q131 (1), Q134, Q136, Q140, Q143, Q145 on letter dated 12-04-1999, Ex.PW9/L regarding grant of individual limits within the overall limits.
iv) At points Q75 and Q77, Q80, Q85, Q87, Q89, Q91, Q94 and Q96 on the supplemental deed of guarantee for increase in overall limit, dated 12-04-1999, Ex.PW9/O
v) At point Q190 on letter dated 10-04-1999, Ex.PW9/P of SBBJ, Nehru CBI Case No. 20/12 17-12-2014 45 of 66 CBI Vs. Chanda International Pvt. Ltd.
Place, New Delhi.
vi) At points Q173 to Q178 on inland letters, Ex.PW25/A, Ex.PW9/Q, Ex.PW9/R and Ex.PW25/B.
vii) At point Q186 on declaration cum undertaking, dated 26-03-1998 Ex.PW2/K.
viii) At points Q149, Q156, Q159, Q162, Q164 on letter regarding grant of individual limits within the overall limit dated 04-03-1999, Ex.PW24/B.
ix) At points Q184 and Q185 on Affidavit dated 19-03-1998, Ex.PW24/C
x) At points Q187 to Q189 on the Affidavit dated 05-03-1999, Ex.PW24/D. 13.11 PW 24 Sh. M.L. Sharma, GEQD in his opinion/report No. CX-113/2001, Ex.PW 24/L has opined that the person whose specimen signatures are marked S-14 to S-18 (i.e. Ashok Kumar) did not write the questioned signatures marked Q75, Q77, Q80, Q85, Q87, Q89, Q91, Q94, Q96, Q99, Q104, Q105, Q110, Q111, Q116, Q117, Q122, Q122/1 to Q122/4, Q123, Q126, Q131, Q131/1, Q134, Q136, Q140, Q143, Q145, Q149, Q156, Q159, Q162, Q164, Q173 to Q178, Q184 to Q190, Q194, Q194/1 to Q194/5 and Q203. The opinion, Ex.PW24/L of PW 24 Sh. M.L. Sharma is supported by reasons, Ex.PW24/N. During cross- examination, no question has been put to PW 24 Sh. M.L. Sharma that the aforesaid questioned signatures were of PW 7 Sh. Ashok Kumar. It is also not the case of the accused persons that the purported guarantor Ashok Kumar whose photo is affixed on Ex.PW2/L was somebody other than PW 7 Ashok Kumar.
13.12 PW1 Smt. Ved Wati has testified that late Shri Yash Pal Bansal CBI Case No. 20/12 17-12-2014 46 of 66 CBI Vs. Chanda International Pvt. Ltd.
was her husband. In the year 1985, they shifted to Delhi from Patiala and started living in house No. 376, Ram Nagar, Ashok Gali, Delhi. Her husband died in the year 1994. At that time, her elder son Tarun Bansal was studying abroad. He came to Delhi sometime after death of her husband. Her elder son found a file containing GPA relating to property No. A-1 (old) New number 5256 (52 to 56), village Gondli. Before this file was found by her son, she was not aware about location of their land which is subject matter of the documents found by her son. The property was found occupied by tenants. They enquired from one property dealer Mr. Nandi Gupta as to whether this property could be got vacated. He stated that it was difficult to get the property vacated. They then sent the file of the property to Mr. Nandi. Later on the property was sold to one Mahesh Yadav. During her cross examination she stated that she does not know from whom the property was purchased by her husband but it was purchased though Mr. Nandi Gupta. She does not know about the nature of documents found in the file. Therefore, she cannot say whether any sale deed was executed in respect of this property in favour of her husband or not. Probably, it was purchased on power of attorney basis.
13.13 PW15 Sh. Mahesh Yadav stated that he was born in H. No. 56- B, East Azad Nagar, Delhi-51 and he is residing in the said house since then. His parents were residing in the said house as tenants. One Mr. Ram Saran, Master was the owner of this house. In the year 1989, the owner Mr. Ram Saran gave them an option to either vacate the premises or to purchase the said house. In the year 1996, they purchased this property. However, in the meanwhile Mr. Ram Saran had expired. They had purchased this property CBI Case No. 20/12 17-12-2014 47 of 66 CBI Vs. Chanda International Pvt. Ltd.
from one Ms. Vedwati, wife of Yashpal Bansal who claimed to have purchased this house. He transferred the said house in the name of his mother Mrs. Shivpati. His brother namely Shri Rajan Yadav is still residing in the said house. No person with the name of Shri Ashok Kumar ever resided in the said plot. During his cross- examination, he denied that he had deposed falsely.
13.14 PW17 Ms. Radha Sharma stated that she is residing at 55B East Azad Nagar, Delhi -51 since her birth. This property initially belonged to one Shri Ramsharan. From Ramsharan, it went to Ashok Kumar. In the year 1991, she purchased a part of the aforesaid property i.e. 72 yards out of 300 yards in her name and in the name of her mother. Since then, she herself had occupied the house and had not given it to anyone. To her knowledge no person by the name of Aslam or Puran resided at the aforesaid property. She does not know any Nandita Bakshi personally. During her cross examination, she stated that she had shown her ownership document to the IO but he had not given copy of the same to the IO. She does not have the original documents of 300 sq yds. She has not seen Mr. Ashok Kumar.
13.15 PW 18 Shri Daya Ram testified that he is residing at 54, East, Azad Nagar, Village Krishna Nagar, Delhi for the last about 50 years. This house was on rent and the owner was Shri Ram Saran. For the last 20 years, he was paying rent at the rate of Rs. 50/- p.m. He also stated that he had a litigation with Shri Ram Saran which was initiated by him for getting the above premises vacated from him. In his above address, only he and his family are CBI Case No. 20/12 17-12-2014 48 of 66 CBI Vs. Chanda International Pvt. Ltd.
residing and none else. He does not know any Aslam or Ashok and they had never resided at his above address. No such person was even residing near his house.
13.16 The testimonies of the aforesaid witnesses have gone unimpeached. It is clear that the property as mentioned in the sale deed, Ex.PW2/L was purchased from Ram Saran by PW 7 Sh. Ashok Kumar S/o Sh. Sheesh Ram, R/o 2266. Behari Colony, Delhi. The purported guarantor was also shown as one Ashok Kumar S/o Sh. Sheesh Ram, R/o 2266, Behari Colony, Delhi. However, PW 7 Sh. Ashok Kumar neither stood as a guarantor for accused No. 1, Chanda International Pvt. Ltd. nor he signed any of the loan documents. The sale deed, Ex.PW2/L and the loan documents also do not bear his photograph. Accused persons have neither disputed the identity of PW 7 Sh. Ashok Kumar nor alleged that somebody other than PW 7 Sh. Ashok Kumar stood as guarantor in this case. It is, therefore, clear that the sale deed, Ex.PW2/L had been forged by altering the same by affixing photograph of an impersonator showing the same to be of vendee Ashok Kumar. Similarly, various loan documents as mentioned at para 13.10 above have been forged since these do not bear signatures of PW 7 Ashok Kumar, whose signatures are purportedly affixed on the said documents. Somebody has impersonated as PW 7 Ashok Kumar and the above documents have been forged by signing the same as Ashok Kumar.
14.1 It can be observed that statements of assets and liabilities of accused No. 2, Vivek Sood and accused No. 3, Akshaya Jha in the project CBI Case No. 20/12 17-12-2014 49 of 66 CBI Vs. Chanda International Pvt. Ltd.
profile of Chanda International Pvt. Ltd., photocopy of which is Ex.PW2/B have been purportedly prepared by Goel & Jolly, Chartered Accountants and signed by one Ashok Goel as Partner of the said Goel & Jolly. In this regard, PW 6 Shri Vinay Goel has testified that he is a Chartered Accountant and doing practice. He has been practicing in the name of Goel and Jolly from 1984 to around 1996. Mr. Naresh Jolly has been the main other partner in the firm. For a small period Mr. Rakesh Goel, G.P. Aggarwal and Mr. Anil Singhal have also been partners in the firm. Mr. Ashok Goel has never been a partner or associated with their firm. Their firm has never made any document or balance sheet etc. of Chanda International or other companies having Directors/partners with the name of Nandita Bakshi. During his cross examination he stated that the firm namely "Goel and Jolly" was closed sometimes in 1996. In 1996 before the closure of the firm, the firm might have become his proprietorship.
14.2 The testimony of PW 6 Sh. Vinay Goel has gone unimpeached. There is no reason to disbelieve his testimony. From his evidence, it is clear that no one named Sh. Ashok Goel was ever a partner in the firm Goel & Jolly and his firm Goel & Jolly has never made any document or balance sheet of Chanda International. If there was any partner of Goel & Jolly named Ashok Goel or if there was any other firm of Chartered Accountants working in the name of Goel & Jolly, it was especially within the knowledge of accused persons since they had purportedly got the above documents prepared from the said firm. The prosecution has discharged its initial burden by showing that no one named Ashok Goel was ever a partner of Goel & Jolly.
CBI Case No. 20/12 17-12-2014 50 of 66 CBI Vs. Chanda International Pvt. Ltd.
Thereafter, the burden shifted to the accused persons to show who was the said Ashok Goel who had prepared the statements of assets and liabilities, which are part of the Project Profile of accused No. 1, Chanda International Pvt. Ltd., Ex.PW2/B. They have failed to discharge this onus. Therefore, it can be safely held that the said document is a forged document.
15.1 It is pertinent to note that the purported photocopy of the ration card, Mark Z in the name of Ashok Kumar bears photograph of the same person whose photograph is affixed at point A on the sale deed, Ex.PW2/L. As earlier held, the said photograph is not of PW 7 Sh. Ashok Kumar. It also bears address of Ashok Kumar as "2266, East Azad Nagar, Bihari Colony, Shahdara, Delhi-32". It can also be observed that the upper half portion of Mark Z appears to be a portion of the application for change of Head of family, whereas the lower half appears to be copy of a portion of ration card.
15.2 Further, PW 11 Shri Rameshwar stated that in August 2001, he was working as Head Clerk in the office of Food and Supply Department, Circle 42, Jagat Puri, New Delhi and remained there till 2002. He used to deal with issuance of ration cards. He has seen the copy of ration card No. 336090, Mark Z, purported to have been issued on 02-06-1994 in favour of Food Shop No. 3748 from Circle No. 21 in the name of Shri Ashok Kumar. The ration card is not genuine as the said series was never used in circle No. 42 and it was never issued from circle No. 42. Further, though the ration card was issued in the name of Ashok Kumar but the name of one Jagat Pal Singh is appearing at Sl. No. 1 as head of the family. The area of East Azad Nagar CBI Case No. 20/12 17-12-2014 51 of 66 CBI Vs. Chanda International Pvt. Ltd.
falls within the jurisdiction of circle No. 42 whereas the area of 2266, Bihari Colony falls within the jurisdiction of circle No. 44. Further, a single ration card cannot be prepared for two circles and that both the areas do not fall within the jurisdiction of circle No. 41. He stated that they personally visit the house and he can say that the address of this house does not fall within jurisdiction of circle No. 42. The second page is marked as Z1. This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of any accused and thus, his testimony has gone unimpeached.
15.3 Though, at the time of deposition of PW11 Sh. Rameshwar, an objection was taken by Ld. defence Counsel on the ground that the second page may be of some other ration card and the original is not on record, there is no dispute about the first page mark Z having been submitted for the purpose of obtaining credit facilities. From the evidence led by prosecution, it is clear that the copy of ration card, Mark Z is a forged document.
16.1 It can be seen that declaration cum undertaking dated 26-03-1998, Ex.PW2/K, signed by purported guarantor Sh. Ashok Kumar has been witnessed by Sh. Ajay Sharma, R/o CC-286, Pitampura, Delhi and Sh. Surender Singh, R/o D-1/106, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi.
16.2 In this regard, PW 14 Shri Virender Kumar Malhotra, R/o D-106, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi stated that he is residing in House No. 106, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi since the year 1956. The property was allotted to his grandfather late Shri Sakir Chand Malhotra and thereafter, it came in the CBI Case No. 20/12 17-12-2014 52 of 66 CBI Vs. Chanda International Pvt. Ltd.
share of his father by succession and then to him. This property is occupied by him and his brother. He further deposed that no person in the name of Shri Surender Singh was ever his tenant in the premises in question. He cannot say about the photo copy of declaration cum undertaking given by one Shri Ashok Kumar and Surender Singh, a resident of H. No. D-106 Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi has been shown as a witness. None of the accused person has cross-examined this witness. In the declaration cum undertaking dated 26-03-1998, Ex.PW2/K, the address of the witness Sh. Surender Singh has been mentioned as D-1/106, Lajpat Nagar. However, address of PW 14 Sh. Virender Kumar is stated to be D-106, Lajpat Nagar. It appears that the address D-1/106, Lajpat Nagar is wrong since the said declaration itself is a forged document and no clarification in this regard has been offered by the accused persons. Testimony of PW 14 Sh. Virender Kumar Malhotra also supports the fact that the declaration cum understanding, Ex. PW2/K is a forged document.
17.1 It can be seen that the legal opinion cum search report, dated 18-03-1998, Ex.PW2/H had been accepted by accused No. 5, G.R. Meena although, accused No. 1, Chanda International Pvt. Ltd. was incorporated on 01-03-1999 and the request for credit facilities was made in February, 1999.
17.2 PW 10 Sh. Pramod Kumar deposed that in the year 1998, he was a practicing lawyer in Tis Hazari. He was never on the panel of SBBJ or Federal Bank. One Mr. G.K. Jain, Chartered Accountant had called him to give a report in respect of property No. H. No. A-1 (Old), New number 52, 53, CBI Case No. 20/12 17-12-2014 53 of 66 CBI Vs. Chanda International Pvt. Ltd.
54, 55 and 56 (Part) measuring area 150 sq. yards out of Khasra No. 974/287/811 at East Azad Nagar, Shahdara in the area of village Ghondli, Shahdara, Delhi-51. He further deposed that he was asked to prepare the said report for a private Bank i.e. Federal Bank Ltd. He prepared the report, Ex. PW 2/H. However, on seeing the report, he says that his report was actually addressed to M/s Federal Bank Ltd. but , on perusal of the report, Ex. PW 2/H he says that on page No. 1 of his report, forgery has been committed as the fluid has been used and the name of M/s federal Bank Ltd. is removed and instead the name of the State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur is typed. The said forgery is at point A of the report, Ex. PW 2/H. He has mentioned in his report, Ex. PW 2/H that it was prepared for the Federal Bank Ltd. and not for the State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur. His report contains his signatures at point B. During his cross examination, he deposed that he was not on the panel of Advocates of Federal Bank Ltd. or State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur. In the Private Banks, the reports are generally called by the Chartered Accountants. Mr. G.K. Jain asked him to prepare the report for Nehru Place Branch of the Federal Bank Ltd. The testimony of PW 10 Sh. Pramod Kumar has gone unimpeached.
17.3 PW 20 Sh. G.K. Jain had inter-alia, testified that he was acquainted with the Manager of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur namely accused G.R. Meena, Nehru Place Branch. Shri G.R. Meena had asked him to get a Legal opinion regarding a matter from some lawyer. Shri G.R. Meena had handed over some papers to get the legal opinion which in turn, he handed over to one Shri Parmod Kumar, Advocate, who was called in the CBI Case No. 20/12 17-12-2014 54 of 66 CBI Vs. Chanda International Pvt. Ltd.
Nehru Place Branch of the bank. He further deposed that Shri Parmod Kumar gave his legal opinion after about 3-4 days which he handed over to accused G.R. Meena. He thereafter had received a telephone call from accused G.R. Meena stating that there is some typographical error in the legal opinion given by Shri Parmod Kumar, Advocate regarding the branch of the bank. The said typographical error was rectified in the branch itself. This incident had taken place some time in the year 1998. During his cross - examination, he admitted that he himself had not seen those papers regarding which legal opinion was sought by Sh. G.R. Meena. He does not know regarding which property those papers pertain. He was not told by sh. G.R. Meena regarding the matter or the property for which legal opinion was sought. Sh. Pramod Kumar, Advocate by whom the legal opinion was given is known to him as he was on the panel of a number of banks.
17.4 From the testimonies of PW 10 Sh. Pramod Kumar and PW 20 Sh. G.K. Jain, it appears that though PW 20 Sh. G.K. Jain asked PW 10 Sh. Pramod Kumar to give legal opinion regarding the property in question, he told him (PW 10 Sh. Pramod Kumar) that the same was required for Federal Bank, Nehru Place, New Delhi and not for SBBJ, Nehru Place, New Delhi. The evidence of PW 10 Sh. Pramod Kumar in this regard is supported by his report, Ex.PW2/H. 17.5 It is pertinent to note that in the report, Ex.PW2/H, the name of the addressee bank has been changed to SBBJ by using fluid. Further, at pages 4 & 5 of the report, Ex.PW2/H, PW 10 Sh. Pramod Kumar has advised CBI Case No. 20/12 17-12-2014 55 of 66 CBI Vs. Chanda International Pvt. Ltd.
that a Declaration-cum-Undertaking be obtained from Sh. Ashok Kumar to the following effect :-
"a) That he is the owner in respect of house property bearing No. .............
and he has not created any encumberance over the property or any part of the property till date and is willing to mortgage the entire property mentioned above to The Federal Bank Ltd. Branch .................. for securing the repayment of loan alongwith interest and other charges payable by borrower Co.............
b) to d) xxxxxxxxxx e) That he shall not cause any encumberance or part with the possession
in respect of property in question without written consent from The Federal Bank Ltd., Nehru Place, Delhi." (emphasis supplied).
17.6 It is apparent from the evidence of PW 10 Sh. Pramod Kumar and his report, Ex.PW2/H that neither SBBJ asked him to give a report in respect of the property in question nor the report given by him was meant for SBBJ. The said report was clearly meant for Federal Bank. This report has been forged by altering the name of the bank on the first page. Further, the report is dated 18-03-1998 i.e. about one year prior to incorporation of accused No. 1, Chanda International Pvt. Ltd. or submission of application for credit facilities. It is thus clear that the legal opinion cum search report, Ex.PW2/H was illegally submitted on behalf of accused No. 1, Chanda International Pvt. Ltd., and unauthorizedly accepted by accused No. 5, G.R. Meena.
CBI Case No. 20/12 17-12-2014 56 of 66 CBI Vs. Chanda International Pvt. Ltd. 17.7 Further, PW 21 Sh. B.P. Singh deposed that he is working as
Valuer and Engineering Design Consultant for the last about 25 years. He knows accused Nandita Bakshi as Mr. Sanjay Bhat, who was working for HPCL, had introduced accused Nandita Bakshi to him. Accused Nandita Bakshi had engaged him for valuation of properties and got valued 3-4 immovable properties from him during the year 1992-1998. He further deposed that she had also got valued a property from him which was situated in East Azad Nagar. Accused Nandita Bakshi had sent a person with whom he had visited the property in East Azad Nagar for the purpose of carrying out its valuation and he had valued the same on the asking of the person who had accompanied him to the said property in East Azad Nagar. He also stated that valuation report, Ex. PW2/J, running into two pages, contains his signatures at point A on both pages. Report was handed over by him to the person who was sent by Ms. Nandita Bakshi to him for collection of the report. He remembers name of one Aslam who used to deal with him on behalf of accused Nandita Bakshi. He further stated that he used to receive cash payment for doing valuation work of the property for accused Nandita Bakshi. He had prepared the report, Ex. PW 2/J on the asking of Ms. Nandita Bakshi. He did not do any verification about the ownership of the property in question while doing the valuation. He also deposed that his statement, carbon copy of which is Mark PW 21/X, was recorded before Ld. MM u/s 164 Cr. P.C. It bears his signatures at point A on all eight pages.
17.8 During his cross- examination, PW 21 Sh. B.P. Singh stated that he does not know for submitting in which bank, Nandita Bakshi had got the CBI Case No. 20/12 17-12-2014 57 of 66 CBI Vs. Chanda International Pvt. Ltd.
valuation done from him in the year 1997-1998. For the purposes of preparing the Valuation Report, he had not entered the property and had assessed its value after seeing the property from outside only. At the time of valuation, he did see the title deeds, but on those title deeds, photographs of the registered owner were not there. He does not remember as to whether he had seen the owner of the property, at the time of valuation or not. No suggestion has been given to him that the valuation of the property in question was not got done by accused No. 4, Nandita Bakshi or that the valuation report, Ex. PW 2/J was not obtained by accused No. 4, Nandita Bakshi.
17.9 It can be seen that the valuation report, Ex.PW2/J submitted by PW 21, Sh. B.P. Singh was made in February 1998 i.e. about one year prior to incorporation of accused No. 1, Chanda International Pvt. Ltd. or its submitting application for credit facilities with SBBJ, Nehru Place, New Delhi. The said bank never asked PW 21 Sh. B.P. Singh to give the valuation report. It is clear that this report was dishonestly submitted by accused No. 2, Vivek Sood and accused No. 3, Akshaya Jha with SBBJ and unauthorizedly/dishonestly accepted by accused No. 5, G.R. Meena.
17.10 The contention of Ld. counsel for the accused persons that valuation report, Ex.PW2/J and the legal search report, Ex.PW2/H were already lying with the bank in the account of M/s Swati Exports and have been used in the case is of no use to the accused persons since these reports have been unauthorizedly accepted by accused No. 5, G.R. Meena. Further, the legal search report, Ex.PW2/H has also been forged by altering the name of CBI Case No. 20/12 17-12-2014 58 of 66 CBI Vs. Chanda International Pvt. Ltd.
the bank.
18.1 PW23 Shri R.S. Chauhan testified that in the present case, the importer named Itinerant Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. was at Singapore whereas the exporter was Chanda International Pvt. Ltd. The bank had sanctioned export limit to Chanda International Pvt. Ltd. Chanda International Pvt. Ltd. used to submit bills of exchange, packing list, invoice etc. to the bank. The bank used to negotiate within the sanctioned limit and send the same to the drawee bank for payment. He further stated that there were two kinds of bills, firstly, bills at sight and usage bills. The bills, Ex.PW23/B to Ex.PW23/F were usage bills which were duly accepted by the drawee to make the payment on due date but on due date, the drawee did not make the payment. However, the payment had been made to the party on the date of negotiation by the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur. However, the drawee bank i.e. UCO Bank at Singapore did not make the payment. Consequently, they wrote to UCO Bank at Singapore to note and protest the bills of exchange duly accepted by the drawee. Accordingly, UCO Bank sent to them the protest notes. In the protest note, it was mentioned that the address of the importer was wrong. He further stated that there was another limit named as Foreign Bills Negotiated under LC which was also sanctioned by the Manager C & I, i.e. accused No. 5 G.R. Meena. Under this limit, the importer was Sameeco International Pvt. Ltd., Singapore, who has opened LC through their Banker Habeeb Bank Ltd., Singapore in favour of Chanda International Pvt. Ltd. Generally, the LC is opened by importer in favour of exporter through importer bank who take the responsibility if the documents are as per the terms & conditions of LC. He CBI Case No. 20/12 17-12-2014 59 of 66 CBI Vs. Chanda International Pvt. Ltd.
further testified that in this case, there were two discrepancies i.e. buyer wise policy was not obtained from Export Credit Guarantee Corporation and buyer's status report was incomplete. Despite these discrepancies, the Manager Shri G.R. Meena had permitted to negotiate the documents. On account of the above, a loss of US Dollars 11856.94 and US Dollars 9459.34 was caused to the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur.
18.2 During his cross examination, PW 23 Sh. R.S. Chauhan stated that accused No. 5, G.R. Meena had negotiated the documents despite discrepancies and the said fact is reflected in the discrepancies register, maintained in the Branch. He has not seen the said register in the court. Ex. PW2/DA is the sanction letter dated 03-03-1999 vide which accused No. 5, G.R. Meena had sanctioned foreign bills negotiated under LC. He admitted that accused No. 5, G.R. Meena was not the Branch Manager. He was Manager, C & I. As Manager, C & I, he was dealing with loans. He also admitted that accused No. 5, G.R. Meena had signed all the documents in the present case in discharge of his official duties. The above testimony of PW 23 SH. R.S. Chauhan reveals that despite there being discrepancies, accused No. 5, G.R. Meena had permitted to negotiate the documents which caused loss to SBBJ.
19.1 From the entire evidence led by prosecution, it is clear that accused No. 1, Chanda International Pvt. Ltd., accused No. 2, Vivek Sood and accused No. 3, Akshaya Jha entered into a conspiracy with co-accused persons to cheat SBBJ and in pursuance of the said conspiracy, accused No. CBI Case No. 20/12 17-12-2014 60 of 66 CBI Vs. Chanda International Pvt. Ltd.
1, Chanda International Pvt. Ltd., accused No. 2, Vivek Sood and and accused No. 3, Akshay Jha obtained various credit facilities i.e. EPC (Hyp) of Rs. 10,00,000/-, FBP/FBD (Docy) of Rs. 15,00,000/-, and over all ceiling on fund base of Rs. 25,00,000/-, with further enhancement of FBP/FBD (Docy) by Rs. 10,00,000/- on the basis of forged/false documents, including valuable security, viz. Sale deed in respect of property No. A-1, (old) & New No. 52 to 55 and 56 (Part), Khasra No. 974/287/871, East Azad Nagar, Village Ghondli, Delhi and documents signed by one impersonator as Ashok Kumar, owner of the above property, project file, Ex. PW2/B, containing statement of assets and liabilities as on 31-01-1999 of accused No. 2, Vivek Sood and accused No. 3, Akshay Jha purportedly prepared by Goel & Jolly, Chartered Accountants and by using the aforesaid documents as genuine, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged documents.
20.1 From the evidence of PW 21 Sh. B.P. Singh, it is clear that the valuation report was given by him at the instance of accused No. 4, Nandita Bakshi in respect of property i.e. house No. A-1 (old), new No. 52, 53, 54, 55 and 56 (part), Khasra No. 974/287/811, East Azad Nagar, Village Ghondli, Shahdara, when owner of the said property i.e. PW 7 Sh. Ashok Kumar was neither a guarantor nor he had desired valuation of the said property. This valuation report had been dishonestly and fraudulently used for obtaining loan. Accused No. 4, Nandita Bakshi would not have done so if she was not a party to the conspiracy. There is no explanation by accused No. 4, Nandita Bakshi as to why she had obtained valuation report of the said property. In view of the aforesaid, it is clear that accused No. 4, Nandita Bakshi was a CBI Case No. 20/12 17-12-2014 61 of 66 CBI Vs. Chanda International Pvt. Ltd.
party to the conspiracy with co-accused persons to cheat SBBJ.
21.1 From the evidence brought on record, it is also apparent that accused No. 5, G.R. Meena had sanctioned the loan on 27-02-1999 although, accused No. 1, Chanda Intentional Pvt. Ltd. was incorporated on 01-03-1999. Further, as per PW 20 Sh. G.K. Jain, the legal opinion cum search report dated 18-03-1998, Ex.PW2/H was given at his instance. He also accepted the said report and the valuation report dated February 1998 Ex.PW2/J despite the fact that accused No. 1, Chanda International Pvt. Ltd. was incorporated on 01-03-1999 i.e. after about one year, when the legal opinion cum search report and the valuation report were given. Further, the legal opinion-cum- search report was not even meant for SBBJ. He also accepted photocopy of the ration card Mark Z which is apparently a forged document. In the register, Ex.PW2/DB, it was recorded that Mr. Ashok Kumar, S/o Sh. Sheesh Ram had deposited title deeds in respect of the property in question. There was no verification whatsoever regarding the said guarantor. From the aforesaid, it is clear that accused No. 5, G.R. Meena was a party to a conspiracy to cheat SBBJ, Nehru Place, New Delhi. He, being a public servant, by use of illegal means and/or abuse of his official position, obtained various credit facilities i.e. EPC (Hyp) of Rs. 10,00,000/-, FBP/FBD (Docy) of Rs. 15,00,000/-, and over all ceiling on fund base of Rs. 25,00,000/- with further enhancement of FBP/FBD (Docy) by Rs. 10,00,000/- for accused No. 1, Chanda International Pvt. Ltd. and caused loss of Rs. 49,06,895.25, as on 31-12-2000, to SBBJ, by sanctioning the credit facilities on the basis of false/forged/bogus documents and impersonation/misrepresentation regarding the guarantor.
CBI Case No. 20/12 17-12-2014 62 of 66 CBI Vs. Chanda International Pvt. Ltd. 21.2 It has also been argued on behalf of the accused persons that
on the same facts four FIRs i.e. RC No. 3E/2000, RC No. 4E/2000, RC No. 5E/2000, i.e. the present case and RC No. 6E/2000 have been registered which is not permissible as per law laid down in T.T. Anthony Vs. State of Kerala and Others (supra). Ld. P.P submits that facts of all the four cases are different. Admittedly, the borrower companies/firm and the loan account are different in all the aforesaid four cases. Thus, the above contention of the accused persons is not tenable.
Conclusions 22.1 In view of the aforesaid discussions, it is considered that the prosecution has been able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that,
a) All the accused persons namely, accused No. 1, Chanda International Pvt. Ltd., accused No. 2, Vivek Sood, accused No. 3, Akshaya Jha, accused No. 4, Nandita Bakshi and accused No. 5, G.R. Meena entered into a conspiracy to cheat SBBJ, Nehru Place, New Delhi and in pursuance of the said conspiracy, accused No. 1, Chanda International Pvt. Ltd., accused No. 2, Vivek Sood and and accused No. 3, Akshay Jha obtained various credit facilities i.e. EPC (Hyp) of Rs. 10,00,000/-, FBP/FBD (Docy) of Rs. 15,00,000/-, and over all ceiling on fund base of Rs. 25,00,000/-, with further enhancement of FBP/FBD (Docy) by Rs. 10,00,000/-, on the basis of forged/false documents, including valuable security, viz. Sale deed in respect of property No. A-1, (old) & New No. 52 to 55 and 56 (Part), Khasra No. CBI Case No. 20/12 17-12-2014 63 of 66 CBI Vs. Chanda International Pvt. Ltd.
974/287/871, East Azad Nagar, Village Ghondli, Delhi, documents signed by one impersonator as Ashok Kumar, owner of the above property and Project Profile, Ex.PW2/B, which include statements of assets and liabilities as on 31-01-1999 of accused No. 2, Vivek Sood and accused No. 3, Akshaya Jha, purportedly prepared by Goel & Jolly, Chartered Accountants and signed by one Sh. Ashok Goel as partner of Goel & Jolly and by using the aforesaid documents as genuine, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged documents and by commission of criminal misconduct by the public servant i.e. accused No. 5, G.R. Meena.
b) accused No. 5, G.R. Meena being a public servant i.e. Manager, (C& I), SBBJ, Nehru Place, New Delhi, by illegal means and/or abuse of his official position, obtained pecuniary advantage i.e. various credit facilities i.e. EPC (Hyp) of Rs. 10,00,000/-, FBP/FBD (Docy) of Rs. 15,00,000/-, and over all ceiling on fund base of Rs. 25,00,000/-, with further enhancement of FBP/FBD (Docy) by Rs. 10,00,000/-, for accused No. 1, Chanda International Pvt. Ltd. and caused loss to SBBJ to the tune of Rs.43.42 lacs as on 31-08-2000 by sanctioning the loan proposal on the basis of forged documents and misrepresentation,
c) Accused No. 1, Chanda International Pvt. Ltd., accused No. 2, Vivek Sood, accused No. 3, Akshaya Jha deceived and dishonestly/fraudulently induced SBBJ, Nehru Place, New Delhi to sanction various credit facilities i.e. EPC (Hyp) of Rs. 10,00,000/-, FBP/FBD (Docy) of Rs. 15,00,000/-, and over all ceiling on fund base of Rs. 25,00,000/-, with further enhancement of FBP/FBD (Docy) by Rs. 10,00,000/-, on the basis of forged/false documents, including valuable security, i.e. Sale deed in respect of property No. A-1, (old) CBI Case No. 20/12 17-12-2014 64 of 66 CBI Vs. Chanda International Pvt. Ltd.
& New No. 52 to 55 and 56 (Part), Khasra No. 974/287/871, East Azad Nagar, Village Ghondli, Delhi, documents signed by one impersonator as Ashok Kumar, owner of the above property and Project Profile, Ex.PW2/B, which include statements of assets and liabilities as on 31-01-1999 of accused No. 2, Vivek Sood and accused No. 3, Akshaya Jha, purportedly prepared by Goel & Jolly, Chartered Accountants and signed by one Sh. Ashok Goel as partner of Goel & Jolly, by using the aforesaid documents as genuine, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged documents.
22.2 The points at para 9 are decided accordingly.
22.3 In view of the aforesaid, it is held that
a) all the accused persons namely accused No. 1, Chanda International Pvt. Ltd., accused No. 2, Vivek Sood, accused No. 3, Akshaya Jha, accused No. 4, Nandita Bakshi and accused No. 5, G.R. Meena are guilty for commission of offence punishable u/s 120-B r/w sections 420 and 471 r/w sections 467/468 IPC and section 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act and they are convicted accordingly.
b) Accused No. 5, G.R. Meena is also guilty for commission of offence punishable u/s 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act and he is convicted accordingly.
c) Accused No. 1, Chanda International Pvt. Ltd. is also guilty for commission of offences punishable under (i) section 420 IPC and (ii) section 471 r/w sections 467/468 IPC and it is convicted accordingly.
CBI Case No. 20/12 17-12-2014 65 of 66 CBI Vs. Chanda International Pvt. Ltd. d) Accused No. 2, Vivek Sood is also guilty for commission of offences
punishable under (i) section 420 IPC and (ii) section 471 r/w sections 467/468 IPC and he is convicted accordingly.
e) Accused No. 3, Akshaya Jha is also guilty for commission of offences punishable under (i) section 420 IPC and (ii) section 471 r/w sections 467/468 IPC and he is convicted accordingly.
23. Let the convicts be heard on the point of sentence on 18-12-2014.
Announced in the Open Court today on 17th Day of December, 2014 (Rakesh Syal) Spl. Judge, (PC Act) & (CBI) -03, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.
CBI Case No. 20/12 17-12-2014 66 of 66 CBI Vs. Chanda International Pvt. Ltd.