Delhi District Court
Cc No. 23/12 Cbi vs . Ravi Bansal And Ors. on 28 January, 2019
Page: 1/233
IN THE COURT OF VIKAS DHULL, SPL. JUDGE,
(PC ACT), CBI 03, DWARKA COURTS, NEW
DELHI
C.C.No. : 23/12
ID No. : 10/16
CNR No.: DLSW010000092005
FIR No. : RC 8E/2003/EOWI/DLI
Dated 30.06.2003
U/s. : 120B read with Section
420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and
Section 13(2) read with
Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988.
Branch: CBI / EOWI, New Delhi
In the matter of:
Central Bureau of
Investigation (C.B.I.)
Versus
1. Ravi Bansal
Proprietor M/s.Varun Finance Corporation
S/o Sh. S.L.Bansal
R/o 1449/13, Gali no.8,
Durgapuri, Shahadra
CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 2/233
2. Vijay Laxmi Bansal
Proprietor M/s. Laxmi Carrying
Corporation
W/o Sh Ravi Bansal
R/o 1449/13, Gali no.8
Durgapuri, Shahadra
Delhi
3. Gopal Prasad
S/o Late Sh. Faguni Prasad
R/o GH6/317
Meera Bagh, Paschim Vihar
New Delhi110087.
4. Anu Bansal
W/o Sh.Kuldeep Kumar Aggarwal
R/o Flat no. B3/303, Sunny valley
Apartment
Plot no.27, Sector12
Dwarka
New Delhi.
... Accused persons
Date of Institution : 28.02.2005
Date on which judgment
was reserved : 13.11.2018
Date of which judgment
was pronounced : 28.01.2019
CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 3/233
JUDGMENT
1. The present case was registered on 30.06.2003 on a written complaint of Sh.Y.L.Madan, Deputy General Manager, Canara Bank, Delhi Circle Office, Paharganj, New Delhi.
CHARGE SHEET
2. In the said complaint, it was alleged that accused Gopal Prasad, the then Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Paharganj Branch, New Delhi during the year 20022003 had entered into a criminal conspiracy with accused Ravi Bansal, Proprietor of M/s.Varun Finance Corporation, accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal, Proprietor of M/s.Laxmi Carrying Corporation and accused Anu Bansal and pursuant to criminal conspiracy, various credit facilities were granted to accused persons on the basis of bogus and forged documents and thereby loss to CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 4/233
bank was caused to the extent of
Rs.82,19,137.83p. plus interest.
3. On the basis of complaint of Sh.Y.L.Madan, the present case was registered and thereafter, matter was taken up for investigation.
4. During the course of investigation, it came on record that accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal had opened a Current Account No. 7496 in Canara Bank, Paharganj Branch, New Delhi on 22.11.2002 in the name of M/s.Laxmi Carrying Corporation and the said account was introduced by accused Gopal Prasad.
5. It is also the case of CBI that thereafter, a KDR (Kamdhenu Deposit Receipt) No. 784/02 for Rs.5 lacs was created in favour of M/s.Laxmi Carrying Corporation on 07.12.2002 on the basis of a cash deposit by the party and thereafter, on the basis of CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 5/233 said KDR, an Overdraft (OD) facility was granted for Rs.4.50 lacs and OD Limit (Overdraft Account No. 58135) was also opened.
6. Investigation further disclosed that accused Ravi Bansal, Proprietor of M/s.Varun Finance Corporation had also opened a Current Account No. 7492 in the Canara Bank, Paharganj Branch, New Delhi on 14.11.2002 and the said account was also introduced by accused Gopal Prasad.
7. Further, KDR of Rs.10 Lac bearing No. 771 was also created on the basis of cash deposit by accused Ravi Bansal and on the basis of KDR, overdraft facility of Rs.9 Lac was sanctioned and overdraft account No. 51834 of M/s.Varun Finance Corporation was opened.
8. During the course of investigation, it came on record that accused Gopal Prasad had purchased a cheque of Rs.7.10 Lacs issued by SBI, Branch CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 6/233 Adokgiri, Meghalaya in favour of M/s.Laxmi Carrying Corporation and two cheques of Rs.4.90 lacs and Rs.10.01 lacs favouring M/s.Varun Finance Corporation also issued from SBI, Branch Adokgiri, Meghalaya on 12.12.2002.
9. During the course of investigation, it came on record that after the purchase of cheque of Rs.7.10 Lacs favouring M/s.Laxmi Carrying Corporation, Rs.1 Lac was credited into the Overdraft Account No. 58135 of M/s.Laxmi Carrying Corporation on 12.12.2002 and for the remaining amount of Rs.6.10 Lacs, a KDR was created in favour of Kuldeep Aggarwal by forging signatures of Kuldeep Aggarwal by accused Ravi Bansal.
10. It also came during the course of investigation that on the basis of purchase of cheque of Rs.4.90 Lacs and Rs.10.01 Lacs favouring M/s.Varun Finance Corporation, a KDR No. 791/02 for Rs.15 CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 7/233 lacs was created in favour of M/s.Varun Finance Corporation by accused Gopal Prasad and on the basis of KDR No. 791/02, overdraft facility of M/s. Varun Finance Corporation in OD Account No. 58134 was also enhanced from Rs.9 lacs to Rs.22.50 lacs.
11. It also came in the investigation that after the purchase of aforementioned three cheques, accused Gopal Prasad had vide its letter dated 12.12.2002 informed the Advance Section, Circle Office, Delhi regarding he having discounted three cheques of Rs.10.01 lacs, Rs.4.90 lacs and Rs.7.10 lacs in the account of M/s.Varun Finance Corporation and having invested the said amount in KDRs and accordingly, sought ratification of his action for having discounted the aforesaid cheques. The said ratification was sought as Branch Manager had the power to purchase cheque upto Rs.3 Lacs limit only.
CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 8/233
12. In the ratification letter dated 12.12.2002, accused Gopal Prasad had concealed the fact that he had purchased the cheque of Rs.7.10 lacs favouring M/s.Laxmi Carrying Corporation and accused Gopal Prasad also concealed the fact that he had created one KDR no. 791/02 for Rs.15 lacs in the name of M/s.Varun Finance Corporation and on the basis of said KDR, he had increased the Overdraft limit to Rs.22.50 Lacs.
13. Investigation disclosed that on the letter of accused Gopal Prasad seeking ratification, Circle Office had ratified vide their reply dated 21.12.2002, the action of accused Gopal Prasad of having discounted the outstations cheques worth Rs.22.01 Lac ( Rs.10.01 lacs + Rs.4.90 lacs+ Rs.7.10 lacs) of M/s.Varun Finance Corporation for investing the amount in KDRs.
14. However, the Circle Office had cautioned the Branch Manager, Canara Bank not to allow loans CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 9/233 against above mentioned KDRs during pendency of realization of cheques discounted.
15. Investigation further disclosed that thereafter, accused Gopal Prasad had again purchased a cheque of Rs.9.10 Lacs dated 14.12.2002 favouring M/s.Varun Finance Corporation issued from SIB Account, Adokgiri, Meghalaya and immediately after the purchase of said cheque, an amount of Rs.9 lacs was transferred on 17.12.2002 into the account of M/s.Laxmi Carrying Corporation and thereafter, a KDR No. 805/02 for Rs.9 lacs was created in favour of M/s.Laxmi Carrying Corporation.
16. Thereafter, on the basis of said KDR, M/s.Laxmi Carrying Corporation had applied for enhancement of overdraft facility which was sanctioned by accused Gopal Prasad.
CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 10/233
17. It also came in the investigation that thereafter on 24.12.2002, two more cheques of Rs. 18.30 lacs and Rs.20.25 issued in favour of M/s.Varun Finance Corporation and M/s.Laxmi Carrying Corporation respectively from Account No. 4971 of United Bank of India, Dhupdhara, Goalpara, Assam and SIB A/c No. 72/14779 of SBI of Goalpara, Assam were discounted by accused Gopal Prasad.
18. The amount of the aforesaid cheques was directly credited into the account of M/s.Laxmi Carrying Corporation and M/s.Varun Finance Corporation respectively from where the amount was withdrawn.
19. Investigation further disclosed that all six cheques, which were purchased by accused Gopal Prasad from accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal and accused Ravi Bansal, were returned unpaid, on CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 11/233 01.02.2003, on account of insufficiency of funds.
20. It also came on record during investigation that SBI account, Adokgiri Branch, Meghalaya from where four cheques were issued, was in the name of accused Ravi Bansal whereas one account of SBI, Goalpara Branch, Assam was in the name of Kuldeep Kumar Aggarwal and other account no. 4971 of United Bank of India, Goalpara Branch, Assam was in the name of accused Ravi Bansal and all accounts were operational till 1993 and thereafter, no transaction had taken place in the aforementioned four accounts.
21. It also came during the course of investigation that one of the six cheques issued from aforementioned SBI branch of Meghalaya, SBI, Goalpara Branch, Assam and United bank of India Goalpara Branch, Assam was signed by accused Ravi Bansal on which positive opinion was given CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 12/233 by the handwriting expert.
22. It also came during investigation that in the Emergency Advance Register, entries with regard to purchase of six cheques was made and with regard to cheque of Rs.9.10 Lacs, of Rs.20.25 Lacs and of Rs.18.30 Lacs, remarks were made by accused Gopal Prasad that "permission obtained/ratification sought" but in reality no permission or ratification was ever sought by accused Gopal Prasad with regard to three cheques of Rs.9.10 Lacs, Rs.20.25 Lacs and Rs.18.30 Lacs.
23. Investigation concluded that accused Gopal Prasad, in conspiracy with acused Ravi Bansal and accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal, dishonestly and fraudulently discounted six cheques for amounts ranging from Rs.4.90 Lacs to Rs.20.25 Lacs which were issued from the SB A/c of accused Ravi Bansal and K.K.Aggarwal whereas he was CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 13/233 authorized to discount/purchase cheques upto Rs.3 Lacs only as per delegation of powers vide circular no. 126/02 dated 04.06.2002. The account of M/s.Varun Finance Corporation became NPA (Nonperforming Asset) on 09.06.2004 and the outstanding balance was Rs.39,47,455/, whereas the account of M/s.Laxmi Carrying Corporation became NPA (Nonperforming Asset) on 05.06.2004 and the outstanding in the account was Rs.18,21,970/.
24. It also came in the investigation that on 16.08.2002, accused Ravi Bansal, Proprietor of M/s.Shree Durga Roadlines had applied for a Vehicle Loan of Rs.4 lacs for the purchase of old Hyundai Car No. DL5CB3186 from its registered owner i.e. accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal.
25. The said loan was sanctioned by accused Gopal Prasad for Rs.4 lacs under "Can Mobile"
CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 14/233 Scheme on the basis of agreement dated 14.08.2002 executed between accused Ravi Bansal and accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal, on the basis of sale invoice issued by MGF Hyundai Automobiles (P) Ltd. in favour of accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal and on the basis of copy of registration certificate in favour of accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal. Therefore, a draft of Rs.4 Lac was issued in favour of accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal which was got encashed by her in her account in Syndicate Bank, Rohini Branch, New Delhi.
26. During the course of investigation, it came on record that said vehicle was in fact owned by accused Ravi Bansal himself and the invoice and the copy of registration certificate favouring accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal produced at the time of availing loan were forged and fabricated documents.
CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 15/233
27. It also came during investigation that another copy of registration certificate produced by accused Ravi Bansal showing that vehicle has been transferred in the name of his firm M/s. Shree Durga Roadlines, having hypothecation in favour of Canara bank, was also a forged document as records from the Transport Office, Loni Road, Delhi shows that vehicle stood registered in the name of accused Ravi Bansal. Therefore, it was alleged that accused Gopal Prasad in conspiracy with accused Ravi Bansal and accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal had sanctioned a vehicle loan on the basis of forged documents and had thus cheated the bank of Rs.4 Lacs.
28. It also came during investigation that on 22.11.2002, accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal, Proprietor M/s.Laxmi Carrying Corporation submitted a loan application for sanction of vehicle loan for the purchase of second hand TATA truck CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 16/233 bearing registration no. HR38C7858.
29. The vehicle loan of Rs.8.50 lacs was sanctioned by accused Gopal Prasad on the basis of agreement to sell dated 29.11.2002 executed between Rajesh Kumar, Proprietor of M/s.Supreme Road Carriers, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, New Delhi, being the owner of the truck and accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal being purchaser of the said truck.
30. During the course of investigation, it came on record that M/s.Supreme Road Carriers did not exist at the given address and the draft of Rs.8.50 Lacs was got encashed in the proprietorship concern by the name of M/s.Supreme Road Carriers, whose proprietor was accused Ravi Bansal.
31. Therefore, investigation showed that all CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 17/233 accused persons i.e. Vijay Laxmi Bansal, Ravi Bansal and Gopal Prasad pursuant to their criminal conspiracy had obtained a vehicle loan for Rs.8.50 Lacs in the name of M/s. Laxmi Carrying Corporation on the basis of forged documents and siphoned off the entire loan amount and thus cheated the bank as account became NPA (Non performing Asset) on 05.06.2003 and total outstanding in the account was Rs.8,53,492/.
32. It also came in the investigation that accused Anu Bansal had also applied for vehicle loan for purchase of second hand TATA truck from M/s.Supreme Road Carriers, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, New Delhi and the loan of Rs.9 Lac was sanctioned by accused Gopal Prasad on the basis of loan application of accused Anu Bansal wherein accused Ravi Bansal was a guarantor. Agreement to sell between Sh.Rajesh Kumar, Proprietor of M/s.Supreme Road Carriers and CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 18/233 accused Anu Bansal and the copy of registration certificate of vehicle No. HR38G2324 in the name of M/s.Supreme Road Carriers were submitted.
33. The entire amount of Rs.9 Lac was got encashed by depositing draft in the account of M/s.Supreme Road Carriers in PNB, Sadar Bazar branch and said account was in the proprietorship of accused Ravi Bansal. The entire amount was withdrawn by accused Ravi Bansal through a self cheque and a cheque issued in favour of M/s. Jagdumba Traders.
34. It also came during the course of investigation that registration certificate submitted by the party was forged and even the address provided of M/s. M/s.Supreme Road Carriers was nonexistent.
35. The said account also became NPA on CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 19/233 25.06.2003 and the total outstanding in the account was Rs.9 Lac.
36. Sanction in respect of prosecution of accused Gopal Prasad under Section 19(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as PC Act) was also obtained.
37. On the basis of investigation, all accused persons were charge sheeted for the offence under Section 120B read with Section 420, 467,468,471 IPC and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988.
38. After filing of charge sheet, all accused persons were summoned and copy of charge sheet was supplied to them.
CHARGE
39. After hearing arguments on the point of CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 20/233 charge, Ld.Predecessor of this court, framed charge against all accused for the offence under Section 120B read with Section 420, 467,468,471 IPC read with Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988.
40. Further, accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal was separately charged for the offence under Section 420 IPC and accused Ravi Bansal was separately charged for the offence under Section 420,467,468,471 IPC. Accused Anu Bansal was also separately charged for the offence under Section 420 IPC and accused Gopal Prasad was separately charged for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988 and under Section 467,468,471 IPC.
41. All accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.
CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 21/233 PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
42. At trial, prosecution had examined in all 19 witnesses.
43. PW1 K.Suresh Rao was the General Manager, Canara Bank and he had deposed on oath that he was the disciplinary authority with regard to accused Gopal Prasad and he had granted sanction for prosecution of accused Gopal Prasad vide Ex.PW1/B.
44. PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak was posted as Senior Manager (Second Line) at Paharganj Branch of Canara Bank during the period from 28.06.2002 to 26.07.2003 and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao was posted as an officer during the said period and was discharging the duties in the advance department.
45. Both PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao had deposed on oath regarding CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 22/233 the current account of M/s.Laxmi Carrying Corporation and M/s.Varun Finance Corporation which was in the proprietorship concern of accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal and accused Ravi Bansal respectively.
46. PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao further deposed on oath regarding the overdraft account opened by M/s.Laxmi Carrying Corporation and M/s.Varun Finance Corporation.
47. PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao had also deposed on oath regarding purchase of three cheques by accused Gopal Prasad favouring M/s.Varun Finance Corporation and M/s.Laxmi Carrying Corporation of Rs.7.10 Lac, Rs.4.90 Lac and Rs.10.01 Lac issued from SBI, Adokgiri, Meghalaya branch.
CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 23/233
48. It was further deposed on oath by them that discounting of three cheques was permitted by accused Gopal Prasad and the amount was utilized in creation of Kamdhenu Deposit Receipt (KDR) of Rs.6.10 Lac in the name of Kuldeep Aggarwal and Rs.15 Lac in the name of M/s.Varun Finance Corporation on the basis of which overdraft limit of M/s.Varun Finance Corporation was increased to Rs.22.50 Lac.
49. Both PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao have also deposed on oath regarding the letter dated 12.12.2002 written by accused Gopal Prasad seeking ratification of discounting of aforementioned three cheques and the reply received from the Circle Office.
50. PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao had also deposed on oath regarding the purchase of three more cheques by CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 24/233 accused Gopal Prasad of Rs.9.10 Lac, Rs.18.30 Lac and Rs.20.25 Lac favouring M/s.Varun Finance Corporation and M/s.Laxmi Carrying Corporation.
51. They further deposed that the entire amount of the said cheques was directly credited into the overdraft account of M/s.Laxmi Carrying Corporation and M/s.Varun Finance Corporation.
52. It was further deposed to by PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao that powers of the Branch Manager to discount the cheque is upto Rs.3 Lac only.
53. It was also deposed to by PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao that all the six cheques on presentation were dishonoured due to insufficient funds.
54. PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 25/233 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao also proved on record the Account Opening Form of M/s.Laxmi Carrying Corporation and that of M/s.Varun Finance Corporation and also proved various entries made in the emergency advance register and the return memos of the bank regarding dishonorment of cheques.
55. PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao also deposed on oath about the vehicle loan applied for by accused Ravi Bansal as Proprietor of M/s.Durga Roadlines for purchase of old Hyundai Car No. DL5CB3186 owned by accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal and also deposed on oath about the sale agreement and the copy of registration certificate submitted by the parties.
56. PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao also deposed on oath that accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal, Proprietor of CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 26/233 M/s.Laxmi Carrying Corporation had applied for a loan for purchasing second hand TATA truck bearing registration no. HR38C7858 and accused Anu Bansal had applied for a loan for purchase of second hand TATA truck bearing no. HR38G 2324.
57. Both accused Anu Bansal and accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal had submitted separate agreement to sell between Sh.Rajesh Kumar, proprietor of M/s.Supreme Road Carriers and accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal and accused Anu Bansal respectively and copy of registration certificate was also submitted.
58. In the Loan Application of accused Anu Bansal, accused Ravi Bansal stood as a guarantor.
59. PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao also deposed that loan amount CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 27/233 with regard to purchase of second hand TATA truck bearing registration no. HR38C7858 and the loan amount with regard to vehicle TATA truck bearing no. HR38G2324 was credited into the account of M/s.Supreme Road Carriers.
60. It was also deposed to by PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao that since accused Anu Bansal had not complied with certain formalities with regard to obtaining of loan, therefore, notice was issued to her asking her to submit the copy of registration certificate, insurance policy etc. However, despite notice, documents were not submitted by accused Anu Bansal.
61. Both PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao had also deposed on oath regarding the endorsement made in the emergency advance register by accused Gopal Prasad and CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 28/233 endorsement made on the credit slip by accused Gopal Prasad.
62. PW4 Sh.Naresh Kumar was working as LDC in Transport Authority, Loni Zone, Shahdara, Delhi and he had produced the file pertaining to vehicle no. DL5CB3186. He deposed on oath that as per record, vehicle No. DL5CB3186 was registered in the name of accused Ravi Bansal. He further deposed on oath that copy of duplicate registration certificate in favour of accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal and in the name of Shree Durga Roadlines were both not issued by Transport Authority, Loni Zone, Shahdara, Delhi and hence, are forged documents.
63. PW5 Sh.V.B.Gopal, was posted as Assistant Manager in Sector5, Rohini Branch of Syndicate Bank, New Delhi in the year 2004.
64. PW5 had deposed on oath regarding CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 29/233 deposition of two drafts in the account of accused Ravi Bansal of Balaji Roadlines and that of accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal in their branch. He further deposed on oath that one draft issued by Canara Bank in favour of Shree Balaji Roadlines was deposited in their bank and draft issued by Canara Bank in favour of accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal was also deposited in their bank and the same were credited into the account of Shree Balaji Roadlines and accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal respectively.
65. PW6 Sh.Y.L.Madan was working as Deputy General Manager, Canara Bank, Delhi Circle Office, Paharganj in the year 2003 and he had deposed on oath that after he was informed regarding the fraud in the Canara Bank, Branch Paharganj, he had got the matter investigated by Sh.Nair Ajit Krishanan and Sh.V.S.Harihar Sudan and after investigation, they have filed a report dated 07.04.2003. He had further deposed on oath CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 30/233 that based upon investigation report and the directions of Chief Vigilance Officer, he had filed a complaint with CBI Ex.PW6/B.
66. PW7 Sh.Kailash Kaushik had deposed on oath that he was working as Surveyor and Loss Assessor and in the present case, he had given the valuation report with regard to vehicle No. HR38C7858, vehicle No. HR38G2324 and vehicle No. DL5CB 3186 on the asking of accused Ravi Bansal, who was known to him for the last 08 years.
67. PW8 Sh.Ram Chand was posted as Assistant Secretary in the office of District Transport Office, Faridabad. PW8 had deposed on oath that HR38 is the Code number for allotment of registration numbers to the vehicles of Faridabad. He further deposed on oath that copy of registration certificate in respect of vehicle No. HR 38G 2324 Ex. PW2/A86 and copy of registration certificate in respect of vehicle No. HR38C7858 CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 31/233 Ex.PW2/A4 are both forged documents.
68. PW8 further deposed that National Permit of vehicle No. HR38C7858 Ex.PW2/A4 and Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW8/B are also forged document as they bears forged signatures of PW8.
69. PW9 Sh.Tanuj Wadhera was the Sales Executive working in the MGF Hyundai Automobiles (P) Ltd. PW9 deposed on oath that vehicle bearing No. DL5CB3186 was sold by them to accused Ravi Bansal and the vehicle was hypothecated to the Standard Chartered Bank.
70. PW9 Sh.Tanuj Wadhera further deposed on oath that the said vehicle was never sold through MGF Hyundai Automobiles (P) Ltd.to accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal vide invoice No. 7283 dated 10062000 Ex.PW2/A69 and the said invoice is forged. He also deposed on oath that photocopy of registration certificate of vehicle no. DL5CB3186 in the name of Shree Durga Roadlines Ex.PW2/A CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 32/233 72 and photocopy of registration certificate in the name of accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal Ex.PW2/A73 has not been issued by their company i.e. MGF Hyundai Automobiles (P) Ltd.
71. PW10 Sh.Narender Kumar was posted as an Officer from February, 2001 to July, 2003 in the Canara Bank, Paharganj Branch when accused Gopal Prasad was the Branch Manager. He deposed on oath that as an officer of Paharganj branch, his duty was to pass the cheques.
72. PW10 Sh.Narender Kumar deposed on oath about various cheques which were cleared by him. It was further deposed by him that there were several instances when accused Gopal Prasad had allowed the overdrawing/discounting of cheques in the account of accused Ravi Bansal and Kuldeep Aggawal and accused Gopal Prasad had initialed on the register in token of having allowed the CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 33/233 overdrawing/ cheque discounting.
73. PW10 Sh.Narender Kumar also identified the signatures of accused Gopal Prasad in the emergency advance register showing allowing of discounting of cheque of the firms namely M/s. Varun Finance Corporation, M/s.Laxmi Carrying Corporation and M/s.H.R.Industries.
74. PW10 Sh.Narender Kumar also deposed on oath that current accounts of M/s.Laxmi Carrying Corporation and that of M/s.Varun Finance Corporation were also opened during his tenure at Paharganj Branch of Canara Bank and the same were introduced by accused Gopal Prasad and approved by accused Gopal Prasad.
75. PW11 Sh.Prem Nath Arora was posted as Manager, Punjab National Bank, Sadar Bazar Branch from September, 2003 to September, 2005.
CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 34/233
76. PW11 Sh.Prem Nath Arora had deposed on oath regarding sending of statement of account of M/s.Supreme Road Carriers to CBI.
77. PW12 Sh.N.K.Mahajan was the General Manager of M/s. HIM Motors Pvt.Ltd. and he had deposed on oath regarding sale of TATA SAFARI car bearing registration no. DL4CU0571 and his testimony is not relevant to the present case as the said transaction pertains to CC No. 25/12.
78. PW13 Sh.Ashok Kumar had deposed on oath that he was running the transport business in the name of M/s Supreme Roadways having his office at Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar. PW13 Sh.Ashok Kumar had deposed that there is no firm by the name of M/s Supreme Road Carrier in the area where he is running his office i.e. Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, Delhi. He further CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 35/233 deposed that no person by the name of Rajesh Kumar has ever worked with him nor any person by the name of Rajesh Kumar was running transport business in Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar and there was no godown no.7 in the area of Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, Delhi.
79. PW14 Sh.Amit Singh was posted at United Bank of India, Goalpara District, Assam in September, 2003. PW14 Sh.Amit Singh deposed on oath that in their bank, accused Ravi Bansal was having the Saving Account no. 4971 and he also proved the Account Opening Form Ex.PW14/A bearing his signatures.
80. PW15 Sh.Chandan Lal Dey was working as Chief Manager (Vigilance), State Bank of India, Guwahati in the year 2004. He deposed on oath that he had supplied relevant documents after collecting the same from Branch Manager of SBI, CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 36/233 Adokgiri, Meghalaya and Goalpara, Assam to the CBI. He further deposed on oath regarding handing over of specimen signature sheet of accused Ravi Bansal and Kuldeep Kumar Bansal, Account Opening Form and Ledger sheet of account of Kuldeep Kumar Bansal and accused Ravi Bansal to the CBI with regard to SIB/1/78 and SIB/72/14779.
81. PW16 Sh.Ajit Nair was working as Manager in Canara Bank at Circle Office, Nehru Place, New Delhi in the year 2003. He had deposed on oath that as per instructions from his superiors, he had conducted investigation in the Canara Bank, Paharganj Branch, New Delhi regarding the irregularities in the discounting of cheques and sanction of certain loans by accused Gopal Prasad.
82. PW16 Sh.Ajit Nair also deposed that accused Gopal Prasad had exceeded without authority, CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 37/233 certain delegated powers. PW16 Sh.Ajit Nair deposed that accused Gopal Prasad had indiscriminately discounted cheques beyond his delegated powers in various accounts despite knowing that the earlier cheques were being returned unpaid.
83. PW16 Sh.Ajit Nair had deposed that accused Gopal Prasad had also sanctioned certain loan i.e. loans for heavy vehicles under Small Road Transport Operator Scheme on the basis of forged and fabricated documents.
84. PW16 Sh.Ajit Nair proved his investigation report Ex.PW6/A.
85. PW17 Dr.Ravindra Sharma has deposed on oath that he was working in the Forensic Document Expert Department for the last 20 years and had examined a large number of documents CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 38/233 and had expressed his independent opinion on them. He deposed on oath that he has received certain questioned documents alongwith admitted documents and specimen signatures of accused Gopal Prasad and specimen signature and handwriting of accused Ravi Bansal, Vijay Laxmi Bansal and Kuldeep Kumar Aggarwal. He further deposed that after careful and thorough examination of documents, he had given his report Ex.PW17/ZZZ.
86. PW18 Sh.Ashok Kumar was posted as Senior Manager in Punjab National Bank in Sadar Bazar Branch during the year 20042005. PW18 Sh.Ashok Kumar has deposed on oath regarding the letter Ex.PW18/A (D19A) written by him to IO / PW19 Sh.P.K.Khanna vide which documents mentioned therein were sent to CBI. PW18 Sh.Ashok Kumar has deposed on oath that the abbreviation, "ODD" is used when cheque is CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 39/233 purchased by the bank or discounted and credit is given to the party.
87. PW19 Sh.P.K.Khanna was the investigating officer of this case and he deposed that during the course of investigation, he conducted searches, seized documents, collected relevant documents from the bank and other government departments, recorded statement of witnesses, obtained specimen handwriting and signature of accused persons and sanction for prosecution of accused Gopal Prasad and thereafter, he had filed the charge sheet in the present case.
88. No other witness was examined by prosecution. Accordingly, prosecution evidence was closed.
89. Thereafter, all accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and all the incriminating material coming on record was put CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 40/233 to them.
90. All accused persons submitted that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. All accused persons denied to lead defence evidence. Accordingly, the matter was posted for final arguments.
91. I have heard Sh.Raj Kamal, Ld.PP for CBI, Sh. Abdul Sattar and Sh.K.Ansari, Ld.counsels for accused Gopal Prasad, Sh.P.S.Singhal, Ld.counsel for accused Ravi Bansal and accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal and Sh.Amit Khanna, Ld.counsel for accused Anu Bansal.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF CBI
92. It was submitted by Ld.PP for CBI that in the present case, it has been established on record that accused Gopal Prasad, being Branch Manager of Canara Bank, Paharganj Branch, New Delhi had CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 41/233 entered into a criminal conspiracy with accused persons, namely, Ravi Bansal, Vijay Laxmi Bansal and Anu Bansal, whereby loan was granted to accused Ravi Bansal, Vijay Laxmi Bansal and Anu Bansal on the basis of forged and fabricated documents and in violation of circular and orders issued by Canara Bank.
93. It was submitted that in the present case, four transactions have been proved on record which shows the complicity of accused Gopal Prasad and accused Ravi Bansal, Vijay Laxmi Bansal and Anu Bansal in the criminal conspiracy to cheat Canara Bank, Branch Paharganj, on the basis of forged and fabricated documents.
94. It was submitted that the first transaction pertains to discounting of six cheques of M/s.Varun Finance Corporation and M/s.Laxmi Carrying Corporation which were in the CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 42/233 proprietorship of accused Ravi Bansal and accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal respectively.
95. It was submitted that initially three cheques i.e. cheque of Rs.7.10 Lac Ex.PW2/A18 in favour of M/s.Laxmi Carrying Corporation and cheque of Rs.4.90 Lac and Rs.10.1 Ex.PW2/A44 and Ex.PW2/A45 in favour of M/s.Varun Finance Corporation were deposited in the overdraft account of the respective firms.
96. These three cheques were purchased by accused Gopal Prasad knowing fully well that his power to purchase cheques is limited to Rs.3 Lacs only.
97. It was further submitted that although accused Gopal Prasad had sought ratification of his act of discounting of aforesaid three cheques beyond his delegated power but in the ratification letter dated 12.12.2002 Ex.PW2/A55, the correct CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 43/233 facts in support of ratification were not mentioned which shows the complicity of accused Gopal Prasad in discounting of above mentioned three cheques.
98. It was submitted that accused Gopal Prasad did not disclose in the ratification letter Ex.PW2/A55 that one of the cheques discounted was of M/s.Laxmi Carrying Corporation of Rs.7.10 Lacs Ex.PW2/A18 and accused Gopal Prasad also concealed the fact that apart from creating KDR from the aforementioned cheques, he had also credited Rs.1 Lac into the account of M/s.Laxmi Carrying Corporation and on the basis of KDR created on the basis of cheque amount of Rs.4.90 Lac and 10.01 Lac i.e. KDR No. 791/02 Ex.PW2/A43 of Rs.15 Lacs, overdraft limit of M/s.Varun Finance Corporation was enhanced from Rs.9 Lacs to Rs.22.50 lacs.
99. It was submitted that in case the correct facts CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 44/233 were brought to the notice of Circle Office,Delhi, then they would not have ratified the act of accused Gopal Prasad and deliberately false information was sent to Circle Office to somehow obtain ratification of his acts in discounting of abovementioned three cheques.
100. It was further submitted that with regard to remaining three cheques purchased by accused Gopal Prasad of Rs.9.10 Lacs Ex.PW2/A60, Rs.20.25 Lacs Ex.PW2/A22 and Rs.18.30 Lacs Ex.PW2/A74, although it is mentioned in the Emergency Advance Register that ratification has been sought but there was nothing on record to show that any ratification was made by Circle Office with regard to aforementioned three cheques.
101. It was further submitted that amount of aforementioned three cheques was directly CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 45/233 credited into the overdraft account of M/s.Varun Finance Corporation and M/s.Laxmi Carrying Corporation prior to their realization and from there the amount was withdrawn by accused Ravi Bansal and accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal.
102. It was submitted that at the time of first ratification, accused Gopal Prasad knew that Circle Office in their reply Ex.PW2/A56 had directed the Branch Manager not to provide any loan or advance till the time cheques are not encashed.
103. However, accused Gopal Prasad in violation of directions of Circle Office, had transferred the amount into the overdraft account of M/s.Varun Finance Corporation and M/s.Laxmi Carrying Corporation which shows that accused Gopal Prasad was acting in conspiracy with accused persons just to siphon off the money from the bank.
CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 46/233
104. It was further submitted that it has also come in the evidence of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao that all the aforementioned six cheques were dishonoured on presentation with the remarks of "insufficient funds" and it is also proved on record that the aforementioned six cheques were issued from the account of accused Ravi Bansal and his brother Kuldeep Aggarwal, who were having their bank account in SBI, Meghalaya and United Bank of India, Assam and this fact also stands proved on record by the evidence of PW14 Sh.Amit Singh and PW15 Sh.Chandan Lal Dey.
105. It was further submitted that even the signatures of accused Ravi Bansal on one of the cheques have been proved on record in the light of report of the handwriting expert. Therefore, it was proved on record beyond reasonable doubt that CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 47/233 accused Gopal Prasad pursuant to criminal conspiracy with coaccused Ravi Bansal and Vijay Laxmi Bansal, had discounted six cheques misusing his official position just to provide benefit to accused persons and cause wrongful loss to the Canara Bank.
106. It was further submitted that with regard to second transaction, it has come on record that accused Ravi Bansal being the proprietor of M/s.Shree Durga Roadlines had applied for a vehicle loan of Rs.4 Lacs for the purchase of old Hyundai Car bearing No. DL5CB3186 which was owned by his wife/coaccused Vijay Laxmi Bansal.
107. It was further submitted that said loan was also sanctioned by accused Gopal Prasad and the draft was encashed by accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal by depositing the same in Syndicate Bank, Sector 5, Rohini, New Delhi.
CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 48/233
108. It was further submitted that various documents submitted by accused Ravi Bansal showing vehicle in the name of accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal issued by MGF Hyundai Automobiles (P) Ltd. were found to be forged document and this fact stands proved by the evidence of PW9 Sh.Tanuj Wadhera.
109. It was further submitted that both accused Ravi Bansal and Vijay Laxmi Bansal pursuant to their criminal conspiracy had taken the car loan on the basis of forged and fabricated documents as it has been proved on record that car in fact was owned by accused Ravi Bansal himself and forged documents were created just to take vehicle loan showing his wife to be the owner of the same.
110. It was further submitted that in this context, PW4 Sh.Naresh Kumar from the Transport CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 49/233 Department and PW9 Sh.Tanuj Wadhera from MGF Hyundai Automobiles (P) Ltd has proved the ownership of accused Ravi Bansal with regard to vehicle no. DL5CB3186.
111. Both witnesses also proved on record that registration certificate submitted by accused Ravi Bansal showing accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal as the owner and thereafter, projecting M/s.Shree Durga Roadlines becoming the owner are forged and fabricated registration certificates.
112. It was further submitted that accused Gopal Prasad had made an endorsement on the registration certificate of accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal as "original verified" and the same was done by accused Gopal Prasad knowing fully well that accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal was not the owner of the car in question.
CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 50/233
113. It was further submitted that said car loan thereafter became NPA and bank had suffered wrongful loss on account of grant of loan by accused Gopal Prasad on the basis of forged and fabricated documents.
114. It was further submitted that third and fourth transaction pertains to grant of vehicle bearing Nos. HR38C7858 and HR38G2324 applied by accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal and accused Anu Bansal respectively.
115. It was submitted that in both the vehicle loans applied by accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal and accused Anu Bansal, it was shown that the aforementioned trucks are registered in the name of M/s.Supreme Road Carriers and its owner i.e. Rajesh Kumar had agreed to sell the same to accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal and accused Anu Bansal respectively. Accordingly, two agreement to sell were produced CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 51/233 before Branch Manager Gopal Prasad and on the basis of these Agreement to Sell, national permit and copy of registration certificate, loan in favour of accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal and accused Anu Bansal was sanctioned to the tune of Rs.8.50 Lacs and Rs.9 Lacs respectively by accused Gopal Prasad.
116. It was further submitted that it came in evidence of PW13 Sh. Ashok Kumar that proprietor of M/s. Supreme Road Carrier is a nonexistent person. Even copy of registration certificate produced by accused Anu Bansal showing M/s.Supreme Road Carrier as the owner and another registration certificate showing her to be owner are forged and fabricated documents and stand proved in the light of evidence of PW8 Sh.Ram Chand, who had appeared from the Transport Department, Faridabad.
CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 52/233
117. It was further submitted that even with regard to loan taken by accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal, it was proved on record that national permit and copy of registration certificate produced at the time of taking of loan were forged and fabircated documents and this fact stands proved by the evidence of PW8 Sh.Ram Chand, who was witness from the Transport Department, Faridabad.
118. It was further submitted that both drafts pertaining to vehicle loan of accused Anu Bansal and accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal were credited into the account of M/s.Supreme Road Carriers, having its account at Punjab National Bank, Sadar Bazar, Delhi and it has been proved on record that said account was opened by accused Ravi Bansal and he was the beneficiary of the said amount. This fact has been proved on record by the evidence of PW11 Sh.Prem Nath Arora and PW18 Sh.Ashok Kumar, who was the manager and senior manager CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 53/233 of Punjab National Bank, Sadar Bazar, Delhi.
119. It was submitted that the evidence on record proves that all accused persons pursuant to their conspiracy had taken vehicle loan on the basis of forged and fabricated documents and the amount of the truck loan was encashed into the account of accused Ravi Bansal at Punjab National Bank, Sadar Bazar Branch and both loan accounts became NPA and thereby wrongful loss was caused to Canara Bank, Paharganj Branch.
120. It was concluded by submitting that CBI has been able to prove on record beyond reasonable doubt that pursuant to criminal conspiracy of all accused persons, accused Gopal Prasad misused his official position as Branch Manager of Canara Bank, Paharganj Branch and had wrongfully discounted the six cheques worth around Rs. 69 Lacs and had also granted three vehicle loans to CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 54/233 accused persons on the basis of forged and fabricated documents and accordingly, wrongful loss to the tune of Rs.82,19,137.83 and interest was caused to Canara Bank as all the accounts had become NPA later on. Accordingly, a prayer was made to convict all accused persons for the offence with which they are charged with.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED GOPAL PRASAD
121. On the other hand, it was submitted by ld.counsel for accused Gopal Prasad that in the present case, sanction for prosecution obtained by CBI is defective and only on this short ground alone, accused Gopal Prasad deserves to be acquitted.
122. It was submitted that in the present case, single FIR has been registered but three different charge sheets have been filed with regard to same CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 55/233 FIR. However, similar sanction order has been obtained with regard to three different charge sheets and since separate sanction order has not been obtained in the present case, therefore, sanction order is defective and in absence of any sanction, accused Gopal Prasad could not have been prosecuted.
123. It is further submitted that sanction order is also defective on the ground of nonapplication of mind by sanctioning authority i.e. PW1 Sh.K.Suresh Rao. It is submitted that it has come in the cross examination of PW1 Sh.K.Suresh Rao that he was supplied with the draft sanction order by CBI and after going through the same, he had sanctioned the same. Therefore, there has been no application of mind in granting of sanction by PW1 Sh.K.Suresh Rao and hence, on this ground also, sanction order is defective.
CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 56/233
124. It was further submitted that since sanction was invalid one, therefore, entire trial gets vitiated and accordingly, a prayer was made to acquit accused Gopal Prasad on the ground of there being invalid sanction.
125. It was further submitted by accused Gopal Prasad that the evidence which has come on record led by prosecution do not show that accused Gopal Prasad had misused his official position pursuant to criminal conspiracy with coaccused Ravi Bansal.
126. It was submitted that in the cross examination of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.Ramanarao, who are the witnesses from the bank, it has come on record that accused Gopal Prasad had not misused his official position to benefit coaccused persons.
127. It was submitted that all the due procedure prescribed by the bank was followed by accused CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 57/233 Gopal Prasad in granting of loan and no intentional omission has been committed by accused Gopal Prasad just to provide benefit to co accused persons.
128. It was further submitted that accused Gopal Prasad had not misused his official position in discounting of six cheques as the same were discounted as per the delegated power of the Branch Manager.
129. It was further submitted that although it is correct that delegated power of the Branch Manager is limited to purchase cheques worth Rs.3 Lacs only and beyond that, purchase can be done subject to ratification by Circle Office.
130. It was further submitted that it has also come in the cross examination of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak that once the Circle Office ratifies the act of Branch CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 58/233 Manager in purchasing cheques, then the entire procedure becomes regularized.
131. It was further submitted that accused Gopal Prasad being the Branch Manager had the power to purchase cheques beyond his delegated power subject to ratification from Circle Office as per Bank Circular No. 126/02 dt. 04062002 Ex.PW2/A31 (wrongly deposed as PW2/A31 whereas the correct exhibit is Ex.PW16/B) (D
3) and since in the present case, ratification was sought by accused Gopal Prasad from Circle Office, therefore, there was no irregularly in purchasing of six cheques.
132. Therefore, accused Gopal Prasad had acted bonafidely in the purchase of six cheques and had not misused his official position to provide benefit to accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal and Ravi Bansal.
133. It was further submitted that there was no CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 59/233 evidence on record to show that any pecuniary benefit has come to accused Gopal Prasad from accused Ravi Bansal and accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal on account of purchase of six cheques. Therefore, CBI had failed to prove that accused Gopal Prasad had misused his official position while purchasing the aforementioned six cheques.
134. It was further submitted that prior to applying for ratification, accused Gopal Prasad had ensured that the amount of the cheques is not misused by accused persons by ensuring that amount is deposited in the Fixed Deposit (KDR).
135. It was further submitted that the act of accused Gopal Prasad in creating KDRs prior to encashment of cheques shows his intention that he wanted the amount to be not misused by accused persons prior to encashment of cheques.
CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 60/233
136. It was further submitted that overdraft facility was enhanced of M/s.Varun Finance Corporation from Rs.9.00 Lacs to Rs.22.50 Lacs on 12.12.2002 i.e. prior to reply of Circle Office dated 21.12.2002 Ex.PW2/A56. The said enhancement by accused Gopal Prasad was done as per his delegated powers and there is no irregularity in the same.
137. It was further submitted that accused Gopal Prasad had performed his duties diligently and when he got the information regarding the dishonourment of six cheques, then he had intended recovery proceedings against account holders and even the act of accused persons in cheating the bank was reported to the Higher Authorities vide Ex.PW3/D4.
138. It was further submitted that it was due to the efforts of accused Gopal Prasad that liability of cheques of Rs.4.90 Lacs and 10.01 Lac was recovered with upto date interest from accused CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 61/233 persons and with regard to other cheques also, part payment was recovered from accused persons.
139. It was submitted that with regard to grant of three vehicle loans i.e. of old Hyundai car bearing no. DL5CB3186, second hand Tata truck no. HR 38G2324 and another second hand Tata Truck no. 38C7858 applied by accused Ravi Bansal, Vijay Laxmi Bansal and Anu Bansal respectively, accused Gopal Prasad had mentioned on the photocopy of registration certificates as "original verified" on the basis of original registration certificates produced by accused persons.
140. It has also come in the cross examination of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao that there is no mechanism in the bank to get the registration certificates verified from the Transport Department. Therefore, based upon trust, registration certificates produced by accused persons were verified to be genuine and accused CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 62/233 Gopal Prasad never knew that they were forged documents.
141. Similarly, the forged invoice, registration certificate and national permit produced by accused persons at the time of availing aforementioned three vehicle loans could not be verified from the dealer as there is no rule of procedure of the bank for such verification.
142. It was further submitted that even the loan was sanctioned by accused Gopal Prasad by preparing a draft in the name of seller and even the draft was encashed into the account of the seller. Therefore, the amount was given by accused Gopal Prasad to the intended beneficiary.
143. It was further submitted that even in the evidence of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao, who are the bank officials of Canara Bank, it has come on record that no CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 63/233 procedural irregularity was committed by accused Gopal Prasad in grant of above mentioned three vehicle loans and even the Circle Office had not found any irregularity in grant of aforementioned three vehicle loans.
144. It was further submitted that even in the internal audit of the bank, no malpractices in granting of loan was pointed out by the auditors.
145. It was further submitted that there is also no evidence brought on record to show that accused Gopal Prasad had taken any pecuniary benefit from accused persons while granting the above mentioned three vehicle loans to establish the element of criminal conspiracy.
146. It was further submitted that bonafide of accused Gopal Prasad is made out from the fact that since accused Anu Bansal had not complied CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 64/233 with the post sanction formalities by submitting relevant documents, therefore, the loan applied by accused Anu Bansal was recalled. It was concluded by submitting that accused Gopal Prasad did not misuse his official position to provide pecuniary benefit to coaccused persons. Accordingly, a prayer was made to acquit accused Gopal Prasad.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED RAVI BANSAL AND VIJAY LAXMI BANSAL
147. With regard to accused Ravi Bansal and Vijay Laxmi Bansal, it was submitted by Ld.counsel for for both accused that in the present case, there is no evidence on record to incriminate accused Ravi Bansal and Vijay Laxmi Bansal in the alleged offence.
148. It was submitted that both accused Ravi Bansal and Vijay Laxmi Bansal were illiterate persons and they had neither applied for any bank CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 65/233 loan for purchase of any vehicle nor they had opened any bank account in SBI, Meghalaya and United Bank of India, Assam.
149. It was submitted that the elder brother of accused Ravi Bansal i.e. Kuldeep Aggarwwal was looking after the affairs of the family and therefore, Kuldeep Aggarwal in connivance with accused Gopal Prasad had applied for car loan in the name of accused Ravi Bansal and accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal and amount sanctioned was also mis appropriated by Kuldeep Aggarwal.
150. It was submitted that only evidence against accused Ravi Bansal and Vijay Laxmi Bansal that they had filled up the application form for the aforementioned loans, is the report of handwriting expert i.e. PW17 Dr.Ravindra Sharma. However, the said report is inadmissible in evidence as the specimen handwriting and signature of accused Ravi Bansal were not taken with prior permission CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 66/233 of the court and even otherwise, the CBI was not competent to have taken the specimen handwriting and signature of accused Ravi Bansal and Vijay Laxmi Bansal during the course of investigation.
151. In support of his submission, Ld.counsel for accused Ravi Bansal and Vijay Laxmi Bansal has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi delivered in Sapan Haldar and another Vs. State, (2012) 181 DLT 225 (FB).
152. It was further submitted that even witnesses, Sh.S.K.Gupta, Sh.S.S. Danish and Sh.Jitender Kumar Sharma, who had witnessed the taking of specimen handwriting and signature of accused Ravi Bansal and Vijay Laxmi Bansal were not examined in this case. Therefore, there was no evidence on record to show that specimen handwriting and signature of accused Ravi Bansal and Vijay Laxmi Bansal were taken during the course of investigation and even assuming that the CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 67/233 same were taken, the report of the handwriting expert, on the basis of handwriting and signature of accused Ravi Bansal and Vijay Laxmi Bansal, is inadmissible in evidence.
153. It was further submitted that apart from report of handwriting expert, none of the witnesses examined by prosecution have deposed to the effect that accused Ravi Bansal and Vijay Laxmi Bansal came to the bank and had applied for afore mentioned loans or had opened any of the current account. Therefore, the factum of accused Ravi Bansal and Vijay Laxmi Bansal applying for loan has not been proved on record by prosecution.
154. It was further submitted that ultimate beneficiary of loan amount was Kuldeep Aggarwal and this fact has been established by way of admission in the cross examination of PW19 Sh.P.K.Khanna, who is IO of this case.
CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 68/233
155. This fact also establishes on record that accused Ravi Bansal and accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal had never applied for loan and in fact, loan was applied by Kuldeep Aggarwal, in the name of accused Ravi Bansal and accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal and that is why, Kuldeep Aggarwal had withdrawn the amount from the account where the draft was deposited.
156. It was submitted that even bank account opened at Punjab National Bank, Sadar Bazar Branch, Delhi where the vehilce loan amount was credited was also got opened by Kuldeep Aggarwal and entire amount was withdrawn by him.
157. It was further submitted that deliberately and intentionally, the IO of this case, had not taken specimen signature and handwriting of Kuldeep Aggarwal even though he was the guarantor of loan applied by accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal and CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 69/233 was also the account holder in SBI, Assam from where a cheque favouring accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal was issued.
158. It was submitted that handwriting and signature of Kuldeep Aggarwal was deliberately not taken by the IO as it would have exposed the fact that loan was indeed applied by Kuldeep Aggarwal.
159. It was submitted that the reason for not taking specimen handwriting and signature of Kuldeep Aggarwal was to save Kuldeep Aggarwal from his prosecution as IO was in connivance with Kuldeep Aggarwal.
160. It was further submitted that connivance of IO with Kuldeep Aggarwal has been established on record, in the light of admission made by IO in his cross examination that he was in constant telephonic touch with Kuldeep Aggarwal, during CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 70/233 the course of investigation even though Kuldeep Aggarwal was an accused in respect of present FIR.
161. It was further submitted that it has also come in the cross examination of PW19 Sh.P.K.Khanna that Kuldeep Aggarwal and accused Gopal Prasad's sons were doing joint business of Dwarka Tours and Travels.
162. It was submitted that it has also come in the cross examination of PW19 Sh.P.K.Khanna that mini bus used for running of Dwarka Tour and Travel was got financed by Sh.Devender Kumar, at the behest of Kuldeep Aggarwal.
163. It was further submitted that even one more firm by the name of Dwarka Watch Company was being run by Kuldeep Aggarwal and accused Gopal Prasad and investigating officer PW19 Sh.P.K.Khanna has admitted in his cross examination that Gurmeet Singh was supplying CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 71/233 watch to the aforementioned shop and told the IO that accused Gopal Prasad and Kuldeep Aggarwal had jointly gone to his shop for the purchase of watches.
164. Due to the aforementioned closeness between Kuldeep Aggarwal and IO, accused Ravi Bansal and Vijay Laxmi Bansal have been falsely implicated in the present case. Accordingly, it was concluded by submitting that prosecution has miserably failed to prove that accused Ravi Bansal and Vijay Laxmi Bansal had applied for vehicle loans on the basis of forged documents or had presented cheques for discounting in their accounts and had accordingly, cheated the Canara Bank in connivance with accused Gopal Prasad. Accordingly, a prayer was made to acquit accused Ravi Bansal and accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED ANU BANSAL CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 72/233
165. It was submitted by Ld.counsel for accused Anu Bansal that accused Anu Bansal has no transaction in Canara Bank or any account therein, other then one saving account which belonged to her husband Kuldeep Aggarwal.
166. It was submitted that accused Anu Bansal became a joint account holder of the said saving account on the asking of her husband Kuldeep Aggarwal.
167. It was submitted that accused Anu Bansal had not given any application or signed any document pertaining to any loan taken from the Canara Bank.
168. It was submitted that in March, 1996, due to some strained relationship between the brothers, accused Anu Bansal and her husband Kuldeep Aggarwal moved out from the joint house and CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 73/233 starting living separately in Rohini and since then, accused Anu Bansal has no interaction/communication with accused Ravi Bansal and accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal. It was submitted that accused Anu Bansal has no knowledge of their work and business interest.
169. It was submitted that accused Anu Bansal was never inquired or examined by any official i.e. police officials or bank officials pertaining to any transaction in this case.
170. It was submitted that no specimen signatures of accused Anu Bansal were taken.
171. It was submitted that accused Anu Bansal has no transaction in any of these accounts and accused Anu Bansal has never withdrawn any money or transferred any money to anyone from these accounts by issuing cheques and, therefore, CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 74/233 she is not the beneficiary.
172. It was submitted that loan applied in the name of accused Anu Bansal was recalled as she has not complied with the post sanction formalities. Hence, no benefit accrued to her. Accordingly, a prayer was made to acquit accused Anu Bansal.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND FINDING
173. I have carefully considered the rival submissions of the respective counsels and have carefully perused the record.
174. In the present case, as per case of CBI, there were primarily four transactions in which there are allegations of cheating and forgery pursuant to criminal conspiracy.
CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 75/233
175. There is further separate charge against accused Gopal Prasad of having misused his official position to grant pecuniary advantage to accused Ravi Bansal, Vijay Laxmi Bansal and Anu Bansal and causing pecuniary loss to Canara Bank.
176. Before dealing with the fact as to whether cheating and forgery in the four transactions was done by accused persons or not, I would first discuss certain preliminary contentions raised by counsels during the course of arguments which are germane in deciding the issue of cheating and forgery in the four transactions.
177. From the arguments led on record by defence counsel, the issue with regard to defective sanction and issue with regard to inadmissibility of report of handwriting expert are required to be dealt with initially.
SANCTION CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 76/233
178. The point of sanction is relevant only to accused Gopal Prasad as he was a public servant.
179. Ld.counsel for accused Gopal Prasad had contended that sanction is invalid one as no separate sanction has been taken for each separate charge sheet and also on the ground of non application of mind.
180. The said contention of Ld.counsel for accused Gopal Prasad deserves to be rejected.
181. In the present case, the grant of sanction vide order Ex.PW1/B under Section 19 (1)(c) of PC Act, 1988 has been proved on record by the evidence of PW1 Sh.K.Suresh Rao.
182. PW1 Sh.K.Suresh Rao, who was the General Manager, of the Canara Bank and who was the disciplinary authority with regard to accused Gopal Prasad and had the power to remove him from the CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 77/233 service of bank, had deposed that he had granted sanction Ex.PW1/B after studying documentary evidence and statements received by him.
183. It is an admitted case of CBI that although out of same FIR, three different charge sheets have been filed but only one sanction order was obtained under Section 19(1)(c) of PC Act, 1988 for prosecution of accused Gopal Prasad.
184. The said fact has been admitted by IO PW19 Sh.P.K.Khanna in his cross examination.
185. The only requirement of law on the part of sanctioning authority is that there should be application of mind, at the time of grant of sanction. If the sanctioning authority had applied its mind to the facts brought before it and thereafter, had accorded sanction then sanction is valid one even though draft sanction order was CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 78/233 sent to the sanctioning authority. I am fortified in my reasoning by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India delivered in C.S. Krishnamurthy vs. State of Karnataka, (2005) 4 SCC 81.
186. In the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, draft sanction order was sent to the sanctioning authority but since the sanction order was very expressive, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that "even if a draft sanction order is sent to the sanctioning authority then also, if there is material on record to show that sanctioning authority had applied its mind to the material sent to it then, the sanction order is valid".
187. It was further held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that "if sanction order is very expressive then in that case the argument that particular material was not properly placed CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 79/233 before the sanctioning authority and sanctioning authority has not applied its mind, becomes unsustainable".
188. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had relied upon the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Indu Bhushan Chatterjee Vs. State of West Bengal, 1958 Cr.L.J. 279 wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in para 9 as under:
9. It is necessary therefore to decide whether the sanction accorded in this case was a valid sanction. The substance of the sanction has already been stated but in order that there may be no misunderstanding we quote that very words of the sanction itself :
"Whereas a complaint was made against Shri Indu Bhusan Chatterjee, Assistant Supervisor, Claims of the B. N. Railway (now Eastern Railway) Garden Reach, Calcutta, who looked CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 80/233 after the claims cases against the railway of the Vizianagram Section, that the said Indu Bhusan Chatterjee had demanded and on 12th May, 1952, accepted a bribe of Rs. 100 (Rupees one hundred only) from Shri V. S. Doraiswamy of the Commercial Claims Bureau, Vizinagram as a motive or reward for speedy and favourable settlement of the claims cases of the Commercial Claims Bureau and thereby having committed an offence punishable under Section 161 I.P.C. and also the offence of criminal misconduct by the illegal and corrupt use of his official position as a public servant to obtain a pecuniary advantage for himself punishable under S. 5 (2) read with S. 5 (1), clause (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act II of 1947, I. R. K. Bokil, Chief Commercial Superintendent, Eastern Railway, Calcutta having applied my mind to the facts and circumstances of the case, am satisfied, and am of the opinion that in the interests of justice, Shri Indu Bhusan Chatterjee, Assistant Supervisor, Claims, Eastern Railway, Garden Reach, Calcutta be put on his CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 81/233 trial in a Court of competent jurisdiction for the offences alleged against him. That as Shri Indu Bhusan Chatterjee, Assistant Supervisor, Claims, Eastern Railway, Garden Reach, Calcutta is removable from his office by me : I therefore by virtue of the powers vested in me by S. 6 ( c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act II of 1947, do hereby accord sanction that Shri Indu Bhusan Chatterjee be prosecuted in a competent Court of law for the offence of having accepted an illegal gratification as a motive or reward for showing favour to Shri V. S. Doraiswamy, in his official functions viz., the settlement of the cases of the Vizianagram Section of Eastern Railway, punishable under S. 161 I. P. C. and for the offence of criminal misconduct for the corrupt and illegal use of his official position to obtain a pecuniary advantage for himself punishable under S. 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Act II of 1947)."
In our opinion, this sanction clearly states all the facts which concern the prosecution case alleged against the appellant with reference to his CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 82/233
acceptance of Rs. 100 from
Doraiswamy on May 12, 1952, in
circumstances which, if established, would constitute offences under S. 161, Indian Penal Code and S. 5 (2) of the Act. The sanction also clearly states that Mr. Bokil had applied his mind and was of the opinion that in the interests of justice the appellant should be prosecuted. The charge framed against the appellant at his trial was with reference to this very incident and none other. What more facts were required to be stated in the sanction itself we are unable to understand. Mr. Bokil in his examinationinchief stated "On the prayer of the police I accorded sanction to the prosecution of one Shri. I. B. Chatterjee who was the Assistant Supervisor of Claims. Before according sanction I went through all relevant papers and was satisfied that in the interest of justice, Sri I. B. Chatterjee should be prosecuted. This is the sanction marked Ex. 6". In crossexamination, however, he made the following statement : "This sanction Ex. 6 was prepared by the police and it was put before me by the CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 83/233 personnel branch of my office. I did not call for any record in connection with this matter from my office. I did not call for the connected claim cases nor did I enquire about the position of those claim cases." The learned Judges in granting the certificate, apparently, were impressed by the statement of Mr. Bokil that Ex. 6 was prepared by the police and put before him by the personnel branch of his office, because the learned Chief Justice observed, "I can hardly imagine the duty of granting the proper sanction being properly discharged by merely putting one's signature on a readymade sanction presented by the police." It seems to us that, Mr. Bokil's statements does not prove that he merely put his signature on a readymade sanction presented by the police. It is true that he did not himself dictate or draft the sanction, but Mr. Bokil has stated in the clearest terms, in his examination inchief, that before he accorded sanction he went through all the relevant papers. There is no reason to distrust this statement of Mr. Bokil, nor has the High Court, while CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 84/233 granting the certificate of fitness, done so. He was an officer of his rank in the Railway and must have been fully aware that the responsibility of according to sanction against an official of the Railway subordinate to him lay upon him. It is inconceivable that an officer of the rank of Mr. Bokil would blindly sign a readymade sanction prepared by the police.
Apparently, the sanction already drafted contained all the material facts upon which the prosecution was to be launched, if at all, concerning the acceptance of the bribe by the appellant on May 12, 1952. When Ex. 6 was placed before Mr. Bokil other relevant papers were also placed before him. It is significant that Mr. Bokil was not crossexamined as to what the other relevant papers were and in the absence of any question being put to Mr. Bokil we must accept his statement that the papers placed before him were relevant to the only question before him whether he should or should not accord his sanction to the prosecution of the appellant. Mr. Bokil said, and we see no reason to distrust his statement, CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 85/233 that before he accorded his sanction he went through all these papers and after being satisfied that sanction should be given he accorded his sanction. It is true that he did not call for any record in connection with matter from his office nor did he call for the connected claim cases or find out as to how they stood. It was not for Mr. Bokil to judge the truth of the allegations made against the appellant, by calling for the records of the connected claim cases or other records in connection with the matter from his office. The papers which were placed before him apparently gave him the necessary material upon which he decided that it was necessary in the ends of justice to accord his sanction.
189. In the matter of Indu Bhushan Chatterjee Vs. State of West Bengal's case (supra), a draft sanction order was placed before the sanctioning authority by the police, who had signed the same. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had held that the very fact that sanctioning authority was a CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 86/233 senior officer, therefore, it is to be presumed that he must have gone through the material on record and through the sanction order and after applying its mind, must have accorded sanction. Therefore, sanction was held to be a valid one.
190. In the light of aforementioned law, now let us see whether the sanction order Ex.PW1/B reflects application of mind on the part of sanctioning authority i.e. PW1 Sh.K.Suresh Rao.
191. The sanction order Ex.PW1/B dated 24.02.2005 is running into five pages and it has been specifically mentioned in para 17 of the aforementioned sanction order by PW1 Sh.K.Suresh Rao that he had carefully examined the material placed before him and after examining the same, he considered that accused Gopal Prasad had committed the offence and should be prosecuted in the court of law.
192. The sanction order Ex.PW1/B specifically CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 87/233 mentions about the four transactions involved in the present case in paras 6, 11, 12 and 13 and it also specifically mentions how on the basis of fake and forged documents, loan was obtained by accused Ravi Bansal, Vijay Laxmi Bansal and Anu Bansal in conspiracy with accused Gopal Prasad. Therefore, the sanction order Ex.PW1/B shows that PW1 Sh.K.Suresh Rao had applied his mind to the facts and material placed before him before granting sanction vide Ex.PW1/B.
193. Further, PW1 Sh.K.Suresh Rao was working as General Manager, Canara Bank, Head Office Bangalore at the time when he granted sanction. Therefore, it is not believable that such a senior officer of Canara Bank holding such a responsible post would have granted sanction for prosecution of accused Gopal Prasad without going through the material placed before him.
194. Therefore, it is proved on record that sanction order Ex.PW1/B was passed by PW1 Sh.K.Suresh CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 88/233 Rao after applying his mind to the material placed before him.
195. The granting of single sanction order for three different charge sheets will not invalidate sanction order Ex.PW1/B as long as it contains all the material facts required for sanction with regard to a particular charge sheet.
196. In the present case, all the four transactions which are subject matter of the present charge sheet have been specifically mentioned in the sanction order Ex.PW1/B.
197. Therefore, although a single sanction order has been passed but since it covers all the four transactions involved in the present case, therefore, it was a valid sanction order.
ADMISSIBILITY OF HANDWRITING EXPERT REPORT
198. It was submitted by ld.counsel for accused Ravi Bansal that in the present case, specimen handwriting and signatures of accused Ravi Bansal CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 89/233 obtained by IO during the course of investigation were the basis of giving of report Ex.PW17/ZZZ by handwriting expert PW17 Dr.Ravindra Sharma.
199. It was submitted that since permission of the court was not obtained at the time of taking of specimen handwriting and signature of accused Ravi Bansal, therefore, the report Ex.PW17/ZZZ is inadmissible in evidence.
200. In support of his submission, Ld.counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi delivered in Sapan Haldar and another Vs. State, (2012) 191 DLT 225 (FB).
201. I have carefully perused the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi delivered in Sapan Haldar's case (supra). In para 31 of the aforementioned judgment, it has been held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that an investigating officer, during investigation, cannot obtain a handwriting sample or a signature sample from a CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 90/233 person accused of having committed an offence.
202. However, in the said judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India delivered in Rabindra Kumar Pal @ Dara Singh Vs. Republic of India, (2011) 1 sCC (Cri) 706 was not considered.
203. In the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India delivered in Rabindra Kumar Pal's case (supra), similar question had arisen before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India whether the Police (CBI) had the power under CrPC to take specimen signature and writing of A3 for examination by the expert.
204. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India after relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India delivered in State of Bombay Vs. Kathi Kalu Oghad, AIR 1961 SC 1808 had come to the conclusion in para 78 that the procedure CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 91/233 adopted by the investigating agency which was analyzed and approved by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court, cannot be faulted with.
205. In the light of judgment of the Hon'ble Surpreme Court of India holding specimen signature and handwriting of accused taken by CBI during investigation to be admissible, the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court delivered in Sapan Haldar's case (supra) cannot be applied to the facts of the present case.
206. Therefore, the contention of Ld.counsel for accused Ravi Bansal that report of handwriting expert was inadmissible in evidence, is required to be rejected.
207. Now, let us examine the evidence which has come on record with regard to four transactions of the present case.
208. The charge against accused Ravi Bansal, Vijay CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 92/233 Laxmi Bansal, Anu Bansal and Gopal Prasad is that they pursuant to criminal conspiracy had committed offence of cheating and forgery, by entering into four transactions on the basis of forged and fabricated documents and thus, caused wrongful loss to the bank and wrongful gain to accused Ravi Bansal, Vijay Laxmi Bansal and Anu Bansal.
209. Accused Gopal Prasad has been separately charged under Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 for having abused his official position by discounting six outstation cheques Ex.Ex.PW2/A18, Ex.PW2/A22, Ex.PW2/A44, Ex.PW2/A45, Ex.PW2/A60 and Ex.PW2/A74 and by sanctioning loans to accused persons on the basis of forged documents in violation of various circulars of the bank regarding delegation of power and with regard to granting of loans with the objective of causing pecuniary gain to accused Ravi Bansal and Vijay Laxmi Bansal.
CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 93/233
210. I shall be dealing with all the four transactions separately to find out as to whether from the evidence led on record, offence with which accused persons have been charged with, has been proved or not?
I. PURCHASE OF SIX CHEQUES
211. The charge against accused Gopal Prasad, accused Ravi Bansal, Proprietor of M/s.Varun Finance Corporation and accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal, Proprietor of M/s.Laxmi Carrying Corporation is that pursuant to criminal conspiracy between these accused persons, accused Gopal Prasad had purchased six outstation cheques, which were issued in favour of M/s.Laxmi Carrying Corporation and M/s.Varun Finance Corporation, beyond his delegated powers and the said six cheques were subsequently dishonoured resulting in wrongful loss to Canara Bank, Paharganj Branch, Delhi.
CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 94/233
212. In the present case, CBI has examined on record PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak, who was working as Senior Manager (Second Line) at Paharganj Branch, Canara Bank during 20022003 and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao, who was working as an Officer in the Advance Department of Canara Bank, Paharganj Branch, Delhi during the aforementioned period under accused Gopal Prasad.
213. It has come in the evidence of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao that Current Account No. 7496 of M/s.Laxmi Carrying Corporation was opened in the proprietorship of M/s.Varun Finance Corporation and Current Account No. 7492 was opened on 14.11.2002 in the name of M/s.Varun Finance Corporation in the proprietorship of accused Ravi Bansal and both accounts were introduced by accused Gopal Prasad as Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Delhi.
214. It has also come in the evidence of PW2 CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 95/233 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao that after opening of this account, Rs.5 Lacs was deposited in cash in the account of M/s.Laxmi Carrying Corporation and Rs.10 Lacs in cash was deposited in the account of M/s.Varun Finance Corporation.
215. It has also come in the evidence of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao that thereafter, Fixed Deposit was created vide KDR No. 784/02 for Rs.5 Lacs Ex.PW2/A7 and KDR No. 771/02 for Rs.10 Lacs Ex.PW2/A41 was created in the account of M/s.Varun Finance Corporation on the basis of deposition of cash by respective parties.
216. It has further come in the evidence of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao that thereafter, on the basis of KDRs Ex.PW2/A7 and Ex.PW2/A41, both accused Ravi Bansal and accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal had sought overdraft facility and the same was granted of Rs.4.5 Lacs in CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 96/233 the account of M/s.Laxmi Carrying Corporation and Rs.9 Lacs in the account of M/s.Varun Finance Corporation.
217. It has also come in the evidence of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao that M/s.Laxmi Carrying Corporation had opened an overdraft Account No. 58135 and Overdraft Account No. 58134 was opened by M/s.Varun Finance Corporation.
218. It has also come in the evidence of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao that on 12.12.2002, three cheques i.e. cheque of Rs.7.10 Lacs Ex.PW2/A18 in favour of M/s.Laxmi Carrying Corporation issued from SBI, Adokgiri, Meghalaya, cheque of Rs.4.90 Lacs Ex.PW2/A44 and Rs.10.01 Lacs Ex.PW2/A45 in favour of M/s.Varun Finance Corporation also issued from SBI, Adokgiri, Meghalaya were deposited in the respective overdraft accounts of the said firms.
CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 97/233
219. It has also come in the evidence of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao that as per Circular No. 126/02 dated 04.06.2002 Ex.PW2/A31 (wrongly deposed as PW2/A31 whereas the correct exhibit is Ex.PW16/B) (D
3), the power of the Branch Manager to purchase cheques was limited to Rs.3 Lacs.
220. It has also come in the evidence of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak that in case, ratification of action for purchase of cheques beyond the limit of Rs.3 Lacs is sought from the Circle Office and if Circle Office ratifies the act of Branch Manager of purchasing cheques beyond his power of Rs.3 Lacs, then there is no irregularity or procedural lapse in the discounting of cheques. It also came in the evidence of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao that accused Gopal Prasad had sought ratification from Circle Office regarding purchase of three aforementioned cheques vide Ex.PW2/A55 and Circle Office had vide their reply CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 98/233 Ex.PW2/A56 ratified the action of accused Gopal Prasad with the condition that no loan should be given pending realisation of cheques.
221. It has also come in the evidence of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao that the discounting of aforementioned three cheques i.e. Ex.PW2/A18, Ex.PW2/A44 and Ex.PW2/A45 was authorized by accused Gopal Prasad by making his endorsement in the Emergency Advance Register Ex.PW2/A30 and said deposition has been admitted by accused Gopal Prasad while being examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
222. It has also come in the evidence of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao that the aforementioned three cheques were dishonoured on presentation due to reason of "funds insufficient/drawer signature differ" vide return memos Ex.PW2/A21, Ex.PW2/A49 and Ex.PW2/A50.
CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 99/233
223. It has also come in the evidence of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao that with regard to cheque of Rs.7.10 Lacs Ex.PW2/A18, the amount was utilized by creating KDR of Rs.6.10 Lacs in favour of Kuldeep Aggarwal vide Transfer Voucher Ex.PW2/A20 and remaining amount of Rs.1 Lac was transferred in the overdraft account No. 58135 of M/s.Laxmi Carrying Corporation vide Transfer Voucher Ex.PW2/A19 which bears signatures of accused Gopal Prasad at point A.
224. It has also come in the evidence of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao that cheque amount of Rs.4.90 Lacs and Rs.10.01 Lacs Ex.PW2/A44 and Ex.PW2/A45 respectively was utilized by creating KDR of Rs.15 Lacs bearing No. 791/02 Ex.PW2/A43 and on the basis of KDR, overdraft limit was enhanced from Rs.9 Lacs to Rs.22.50 Lacs in the overdraft account no. 58134 of M/s.Varun Finance Corporation and thereafter, CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 100/233 the amount of Rs.15 Lacs was transferred in the overdraft account which stands duly proved by the statement of account Ex.PW2/A35 and from this overdraft account, the amount was withdrawn by accused Ravi Bansal through self cheques or by transferring the amount to other accounts.
225. Nothing was brought in the cross examination of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao to show that aforementioned acts were not committed by accused Gopal Prasad for purchase of cheques or preparation of KDR or enhancement of overdraft facility of M/s.Varun Finance Corporation.
226. Now, the question arises is whether despite the ratification by Circle Office, vide their leter dated 21.12.2002 Ex.PW2/A56, did accused Gopal Prasad misuse his powers to cause wrongful loss to the Canara Bank, Paharganj Branch, Delhi by purchasing abovementioned three cheques?
CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 101/233
227. The first fact which proves the complicity of accused Gopal Prasad in the wrongful purchasing of outstation cheques beyond his delegated powers worth Rs. 3 Lacs is the fact that request by accused Gopal Prasad to Circle Office dated 12.12.2002 Ex.PW2/A55 did not contain material and correct facts on the basis of which ratification was being sought.
228. It has come in the evidence of PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao that ratification letter dated 12.12.2002 Ex.PW2/A55 did not mention the correct fact that cheque of Rs.7.10 Lacs Ex.PW2/A18 was in the name of M/s.Laxmi Carrying Corporation and it was mentioned in the letter that it was in the name of M/s.Varun Finance Corporation.
229. It has also come in the evidence of PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao that it was also mentioned in the ratification letter Ex.PW2/A55 that amount of discounted cheques is being invested in KDRs CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 102/233 (Kaamdhenu Deposit Receipts). However, it was not apprised to the Circle Office that on the basis of KDR No. 791/02 of Rs.15 Lacs Ex.PW2/A43, overdraft facility of M/s.Varun Finance Corporation was enhanced from Rs.9 Lacs to Rs.22.50 Lacs and thereafter, an amount of Rs.15 Lacs was credited into the account of M/s.Varun Finance Corporation.
230. I have myself carefully perused Ex.PW2/A55 and in the said ratification letter of accused Gopal Prasad, even the fact of crediting Rs.1 Lac on the basis of cheque of Rs.7.10 Lacs Ex.PW2/A18 into the overdraft account of M/s.Laxmi Carrying Corporation was not mentioned.
231. In the opinion of this court, the ratification done by Circle Office vide Ex.PW2/A56 is no ratification in the eyes of law as ratification was obtained by fraud by accused Gopal Prasad by concealing material facts.
CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 103/233
232. If the Circle Office was informed regarding the true facts with regard to discounting of aforementioned three cheques, then the Circle Office would not have ratified the acts of accused Gopal Prasad in discounting of cheques.
233. The reason for the same is that accused Gopal Prasad had concealed the fact of transferring Rs.1 Lac against cheque of Rs.7.10 Lacs Ex.PW2/A18 into the overdraft account of M/s.Laxmi Carrying Corporation from where the amount was withdrawn.
234. Secondly, accused Gopal Prasad also did not intimate the Circle Office that on the basis of cheque of Rs.4.90 Lacs and Rs.10.01 Lacs Ex.PW2/A44 and Ex.PW2/A45 respectively, although KDR No. 791/02 Ex.PW2/A43 was created but he concealed the fact that on the basis of KDR, overdraft limit of the account of M/s.Varun Finance Corporation was enhanced from Rs.9 Lacs to Rs.22.50 Lacs and even amount CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 104/233 of Rs.15 Lac was credited into the overdraft account of M/s.Varun Finance Corporation from where the amount was withdrawn. Therefore, the purpose of creating KDR to prevent the utilization of the amount of the discounted cheques prior to their realization stood defeated.
235. Although accused Gopal Prasad had created KDR of Rs.15 Lacs with regard to cheque Ex.PW2/A44 and Ex.PW2/A45 but his act of granting overdraft facility on the basis of KDR No. 791/02 of Rs.15 Lacs to M/s.Varun Finance Corporation defeated the entire objective of creating of KDR to protect the amount invested in KDR from encashment pending realization of cheques.
236. The moment accused Gopal Prasad had sanctioned the enhancement of overdraft limit from Rs.9 Lacs to Rs.22.50 Lacs on the basis of KDR No. 791/02, it amounted to grant of loan to M/s.Varun Finance Corporation as the amount of CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 105/233 Rs.15 Lacs was transferred into the overdraft account of M/s.Varun Finance Corporation from where it was eventually withdrawn by accused Ravi Bansal through self cheques and by transferring it to other accounts.
237. I am fortified in my reasoning by the evidence of PW16 Sh.Ajit Nair, who was working as Manager, Canara Bank, Circle Office and had conducted investigation regarding irregularities in the discounting of cheques and sanction of certain loans at Paharganj Branch. In his cross examination by accused Gopal Prasad, he had deposed that Paharganj Branch had suppressed the information regarding creating of KDR and Overdraft limit being enhanced and even after receipt of ratification from Circle Office, this fact was not reported to the Circle Office.
238. PW16 Sh.Ajit Nair had further deposed that irregularity was there as without there being funds available in bank, overdraft limit was enhanced on CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 106/233
the basis of KDR, which amounts to
accommodation of the party.
239. Thirdly, the fact which proves that loss was caused by accused Gopal Prasad by discounting of three cheques is the fact that despite receipt of reply dated 21.12.2002 Ex.PW2/A56 from Circle Office, where accused Gopal Prasad was instructed not to grant any loan against the created KDRs, accused Gopal Prasad took no steps to ensure that whatever acts he has done with regard to creation of KDRs, should be duly complied with as per the instructions of the Circle Office.
240. If accused Gopal Prasad was acting bonafidely, then steps should have been taken by him to seek return of Rs.1 Lac transferred into the overdraft account of M/s.Laxmi Carrying Corporation against cheque of Rs.7.10 Lacs Ex.PW2/A18 and if the amount had been withdrawn prior to receipt of ratification letter Ex.PW2/A56, then Circle Office should have been CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 107/233 intimated for further course of action or the customer i.e. accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal should have been asked to deposit Rs.1 Lac back into the account pending realization of cheque.
241. Further, accused Gopal Prasad even after receipt of ratification letter dated 21.12.2002 Ex.PW2/A56 wherein he was instructed not to grant any loans against KDRs, did not take any action to prevent withdrawal of Rs.15 Lac from the overdraft account of M/s.Varun Finance Corporation and in case, the same has been withdrawn prior to the receipt of ratification Ex.PW2/A56, then his act of not informing the Circle Office regarding withdrawal of overdraft amount of Rs.15 Lacs without there being sufficient security, was a material concealment which put bonafide of accused Gopal Prasad in doubt.
242. Fourthly, another fact which shows the complicity of accused Gopal Prasad, in pursuance CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 108/233 to criminal conspiracy to cause wrongful loss to the Canara Bank, Paharganj Branch is the fact that accused Gopal Prasad knew that ratification or refusal from the Head Office is received in a day or two as accused Gopal Prasad in cross examination to PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao had suggested to him that Circle Office has to intimate ratification/refusal to Branch Manager in a day or two.
243. By giving suggestion, accused Gopal Prasad knew that ratification or refusal regarding discounting of cheque is received by the branch in a day or two. Therefore, accused Gopal Prasad should not have shown any urgency in discounting of abovementioned three outstation cheques, prior to ratification, which were beyond his delegated power of Rs.3 Lacs.
244. Since all the three cheques were outstation cheques and since accused Gopal Prasad knew that ratification or refusal comes very easily from the CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 109/233 Circle Office in a day or two, then there was no reason for accused Gopal Prasad to have transferred Rs.1 Lac into the overdraft account of M/s.Laxmi Carrying Corporation or Rs.15 Lacs into the overdraft account of M/s.Varun Finance Corporation, on the basis of aforementioned discounted cheques, prior to receipt of ratification from Circle Office.
245. This act of accused Gopal Prasad in discounting of cheques and transferring the amount into the overdraft account of M/s.Varun Finance Corporation and M/s.Laxmi Carrying Corporation without waiting for the ratification or refusal of the Circle Office also points towards his complicity in causing wrongful loss to the bank.
246. Fifthly, the fact which shows the complicity of accused Gopal Prasad in aforementioned discounting of three cheques is the fact of creation of KDR of Rs.6.10 Lacs Ex.PW2/A26 in the name of Kuldeep Aggarwal on the basis of application CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 110/233 allegedly made by Kuldeep Aggarwal Ex.PW2/A27.
247. It has come in the evidence of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao that said KDR was permitted to be opened by accused Gopal Prasad in the name of Kuldeep Aggarwal.
248. However, Kuldeep Aggarwal had never applied for opening of KDR of Rs.6.10 Lacs and as per handwriting expert report Ex.PW17/ZZZ signatures of Kuldeep Aggarwal appearing on the said KDR application Ex.PW2/A27 were forged by accused Ravi Bansal.
249. The application for opening of KDR Ex.PW2/A27 reflects that it has the alleged signatures of Kuldeep Aggarwal at Q17 and Q18 and that of accused Gopal Prasad at Q.286 and Q287.
250. During the course of investigation, specimen signatures of accused Ravi Bansal were taken vide CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 111/233 S11 to S25 Ex.PW17/WWW, that of accused Gopal Prasad vide S1 to S10 Ex.PW17/VVV and that of Kuldeep Aggarwal vide S31 to S35 Ex.PW17/YYY and all the aforementioned specimen signatures of accused Ravi Bansal, accused Gopal Prasad and that of Kuldeep Aggarwal were sent to the handwriting expert for comparison alongwith questioned document i.e. Ex.PW2/A27 for comparison with questioned signatures appearing at Q17 and Q18 allegedly of Kuldeep Aggarwal and questioned signatures appearing at Q86 and Q87 i.e. that of accused Gopal Prasad.
251. The handwriting expert i.e. PW17 Dr.Ravinder Sharma, after comparing Q17 and Q18 with the specimen signatures and admitted documents of accused Ravi Bansal i.e. specimen signature card of Jai Ambey RoadLines and Balaji Road Lines, had opined vide his report Ex.PW17/ZZZ that questioned signatures Q17 CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 112/233 and Q18 allegedly that of Kuldeep Aggarwal were in fact written by accused Ravi Bansal.
252. It was also opined by PW17 Dr.Ravinder Sharma that Q86 and Q87 i.e. questioned signatures of accused Gopal Prasad were also written by him on the basis of comparison with his specimen signatures S1 to S10 Ex.PW17/VVV.
253. It was also opined by the handwriting expert that specimen signature appearing at Q17 and Q18 of Kuldeep Aggarwal were not written by him on the basis of comparison with his specimen signatures S31 to S35 Ex.PW17/YYY.
254. Therefore, the report of handwriting expert PW17 Dr.Ravinder Sharma proves on record that application for KDR in the name of Kuldeep Aggarwal Ex.PW2/A27 was also forged by accused Ravi Bansal in conspiracy with accused Gopal Prasad for the purpose of cheating.
255. If accused Gopal Prasad was not acting in CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 113/233 criminal conspiracy, then he would have ensured presence of Kuldeep Aggarwal for moving an application for purpose of opening of KDR of Rs.6.10 Lacs Ex.PW2/A26.
256. The forgery of signatures of Kuldeep Aggarwal by accused Ravi Bansal on Ex.PW2/A27 further demolishes his defence that it was Kuldeep Aggarwal, who had misused his signed documents.
257. Therefore, this fact also proves that accused Gopal Prasad in criminal conspiracy with accused Ravi Bansal had fraudulently created KDR of Rs.6.10 Lacs in the name of Kuldeep Aggarwal, even though he had not applied for the same.
258. Therefore, the aforementioned discussion proves on record that ratification letter dated 21.12.2002 Ex.PW2/A56 was no ratification in the eyes of law as the same was obtained by accused Gopal Prasad on the basis of material concealment of facts pursuant to criminal conspiracy with CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 114/233 accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal and accused Ravi Bansal.
259. The evidence of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao also proves on record that on 26.12.2002, three more cheques were discounted by accused Gopal Prasad of Rs.9.10 Lacs favouring M/s.Varun Finance Corporation Ex.PW2/A60, of Rs.20.25 Lacs favouring M/s.Laxmi Carrying Corporation Ex.PW2/A22 and of Rs.18.30 Lacs favouring M/s.Varun Finance Corporation Ex.PW2/A74.
260. It was also proved on record in the evidence of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao that entries were made in the Emergency Advance Register Ex.PW2/A30 with regard to purchase of these three cheques and remarks were made in the handwriting of accused Gopal Prasad with regard to cheque Ex.PW2/A60 as "DM permission in person" and with regard to cheques Ex.PW2/A22 and Ex.PW2/A74 as "DM permission obtained".
CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 115/233
261. The said endorsement made in the Emergency Advance Register by accused Gopal Prasad with regard to abovementioned three cheques is a fact which has been duly admitted by accused Gopal Prasad in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C and stands corroborated by the report of handwriting expert Ex.PW17/ZZZ.
262. It has also come in the evidence of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak that in case, any oral permission is obtained in emergency from Circle Office for purchase of cheques beyond the powers of the branch, then permission in writing in support of oral permission is also received from Circle Office.
263. Further, it has been deposed by PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao that although accused Gopal Prasad had applied for ratification with regard to these three cheques but no ratification was received from the Circle Office.
264. It has also come in the evidence of PW2 CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 116/233 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao that the entire amount of three aforementioned cheques was directly credited into the overdraft account No. 58135 of M/s.Laxmi Carrying Corporation and account No. 58134 of M/s.Varun Finance Corporation.
265. It has also come in the evidence of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao that the abovementioned three cheques of Rs.18.30 Lacs, of Rs.9.10 Lacs and Rs.20.25 Lacs were dishonoured on presentation vide return memos Ex.PW2/A76, Ex.PW2/A61 and Ex.PW2/A24.
266. It was the defence of accused Gopal Prasad that he had sought ratification with regard to these three cheques also.
267. In order to prove this defence, accused Gopal Prasad had, in the cross examination of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak, put two documents i.e. Mark B ratification request with regard to cheque of CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 117/233 Rs.18.30 Lacs Ex.PW2/A74 and ratification request Mark C with regard to cheque of Rs.20.25 Lacs Ex.PW2/A22.
268. After seeing Mark B and Mark C, it was admitted by PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak that ratification request was sent by accused Gopal Prasad vide Mark B and Mark C and evidence of PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao also corroborates the testimony of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak that ratification request was sent by accused Gopal Prasad to Circle Office.
269. However, PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao had stated that ratification was not approved by the Circle Office. Therefore, onus had shifted upon accused Gopal Prasad to have brought on record some material to show that Circle Office had ratified the purchase of these three cheques also.
270. With regard to cheque of Rs.9.10 Lacs, accused Gopal Prasad had made an endorsement in the Emergency Advance Register Ex.PW2/A30 CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 118/233 as "DM permission in person" but as per the evidence of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak, in case oral permission is obtained, permission in writing has to be received from the Circle Office in support of oral permission. Further, with regard to cheque of Rs.9.10 Lacs Ex.PW2/A60, nothing was brought on record to show that accused Gopal Prasad had even sought ratification of his act from Circle Office in writing.
271. Further, in the present case, no permission in writing has been brought on record by accused Gopal Prasad in support of the fact that his act of purchasing cheque of Rs.9.10 Lacs Ex.PW2/A60 was ratified by the Circle Office.
272. Even with regard to cheque of Rs.20.25 Lacs Ex.PW2/A22 and of Rs.18.30 Lacs Ex.PW2/A74, although ratification was sent as per Mark B and C but there is no permission granted by the Circle Office with regard to purchase of these two cheques in writing.
CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 119/233
273. Further, accused Gopal Prasad also never brought on record any document to show that permission had been received ratifying his act of purchasing cheques of Rs.18.30 Lacs Ex.PW2/A74 and Rs. 20.25 Lacs Ex.PW2/A22.
274. Therefore, the above mentioned discussion show that evidence which has come on record proves that cheque Ex.PW2/A60, Ex.PW2/A22 and Ex.PW2/A74 were discounted by accused Gopal Prasad beyond his powers as per Circular No. 126/02 dt. 04062002 Ex.PW16/B (D3) and he had not sought any ratification from Circle Office with regard to his acting beyond his delegated powers.
275. Therefore, the endorsement made in the Emergency Advance Register having remarks of accused Gopal Prasad of "DM permission in person"/"DM permission obtained" were false remarks made by accused Gopal Prasad done with intention to falsely justify his act of purchasing CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 120/233 cheques beyond his delegated powers.
276. Further, after receipt of ratification letter dated 21.12.2002 Ex.PW2/A56, it was in the knowledge of accused Gopal Prasad that Circle Office shall ratify his act of purchasing cheques beyond his delegated power subject to the condition that KDRs were being created and with further direction that no loan, advances are to be given against KDRs pending realization of cheques.
277. Therefore, prior to purchase of these three cheques on 26.12.2002, accused Gopal Prasad had the knowledge that even if he had purchased cheques beyond his delegated power, then he was not supposed to grant any loan against these cheques unless the cheques are realized.
278. In the statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., it was the defence of accused Gopal Prasad that he had received the information vide Ex.PW2/A56 after 26.12.2002 but this fact was CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 121/233 never established on record by accused Gopal Prasad by leading any evidence nor it was suggested to PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao that ratification letter dated 21.12.2002 Ex.PW2/A56 was received after discounting of these three cheques on 26.12.2002. Therefore, this defence of accused Gopal Prasad that ratification letter Ex.PW2/A56 was received after 26.12.2002 cannot be believed.
279. Therefore, the fact which has been proved on record shows that accused Gopal Prasad had misused his official position by intentionally crediting the overdraft accounts of M/s.Laxmi Carrying Corporation and M/s.Varun Finance Corporation by purchasing cheque of Rs.20.25 Lacs Ex.PW2/A22 and of Rs. 18.30 Lacs Ex.PW2/A74 beyond his delegated powers and even his act of purchasing the cheques beyond his delegated powers was never ratified by the Circle Office and even no ratification was sought regarding cheque CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 122/233 of Rs.9.10 Lacs Ex.PW2/A60.
280. Accused Gopal Prasad had discounted these cheques by directly crediting amount into the account of M/s.Varun Finance Corporation and M/s.Laxmi Carrying Corporation just to cause wrongful loss to Canara Bank and wrongful gain to accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal and accused Ravi Bansal as eventually all the three abovementioned cheques were dishonoured on presentation.
281. Now, the next fact which is required to be proved is whether accused Gopal Prasad had conspired with accused Ravi Bansal and Vijay Laxmi Bansal or not, to cause wrongful loss to the bank while discounting abovementioned six cheques?
282. It is the defence of accused Ravi Bansal and Vijay Laxmi Bansal in their statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. and at the stage of final arguments that their signed cheques and blank CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 123/233 signed documents were misused by Kuldeep Aggarwal, who was a good friend of accused Gopal Prasad and they have been falsely implicated and no account was opened by them in the Canara Bank, Paharganj Branch, New Delhi or by accused Ravi Bansal at SBI, Adokgiri, Meghalaya and United Bank of India, Assam.
283. This defence has been taken up for the first time at the stage of statement of accused Ravi Bansal and Vijay Laxmi Bansal under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and is nothing but an after thought. Hence, is required to be discarded.
284. Further, it has been proved on record by the evidence of PW Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao that Current Account No. 7496 of M/s.Laxmi Carrying Corporation was opened in the proprietorship of accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal and Current Account No. 7492 of M/s.Varun Finance Corporation was opened in the proprietorship of accused Ravi Bansal.
CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 124/233
285. PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao has also proved on record the Account Opening Form of accused Ravi Bansal and Vijay Laxmi Bansal and their respective specimen signature card.
286. PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao has also deposed on record regarding deposition of six cheques by accused Ravi Bansal and Vijay Laxmi Bansal in their respective overdraft accounts.
287. The defence of accused Ravi Bansal and Vijay Laxmi Bansal is required to be rejected as in the cross examination of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao, it was nowhere suggested that they had not applied for opening of the current accounts of M/s.Laxmi Carrying Corporation and M/s.Varun Finance Corporation and it was Kuldeep Aggarwal, who had misused their documents.
CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 125/233
288. On the contrary, in the cross examination of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao by accused Ravi Bansal and Vijay Laxmi Bansal, it was suggested to these two witnesses that there was no procedural lapse in opening of Current Accounts and Overdraft Accounts of M/s.Varun Finance Corporation and M/s.Laxmi Carrying Corporation, which both the witnesses admitted to be correct.
289. Even deposition of cheques in the accounts of M/s.Laxmi Carrying Corporation and M/s.Varun Finance Corporation was not disputed by accused Ravi Bansal and accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal.
290. The dishonourment of six cheques was also not disputed in the cross examination ofPW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao.
291. Further, the signing of cheques and documents is also not in dispute by accused Ravi Bansal and Vijay Laxmi Bansal as in their CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 126/233 statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., said fact has been admitted.
292. Therefore, the evidence of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao proves beyond reasonable doubt that account of M/s.Laxmi Carrying Corporation and M/s.Varun Finance Corporation was opened by accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal and accused Ravi Bansal respectively and the aforementioned six cheques were deposited in their respective accounts by these two accused persons for the purpose of discounting of cheques.
293. The CBI was also required to prove on record that the aforesaid six cheques pertained to account of accused Ravi Bansal and his brother Kuldeep Aggarwal and the same were issued in favour of M/s.Laxmi Carrying Corporation and M/s.Varun Finance Corporation without there being any sufficient funds in the accounts from where cheques were issued.
CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 127/233
294. In this regard, CBI has examined PW14 Sh.Amit Singh, who was the Deputy Manager in United Bank of India, Goalpara District, Assam.
295. As per evidence of PW14 Sh.Amit Singh, Saving Bank Account No. 4971 was that of accused Ravi Bansal and he also produced on record Account Opening Form and specimen signature Card Ex.PW14/A and he further deposed that said account was opened by him and accused Ravi Bansal had signed in his presence.
296. In the cross examination of PW14 Sh.Amit Singh, nothing material was brought on record to show that said account was not opened by accused Ravi Bansal.
297. It was nowhere suggested to PW14 Sh.Amit Singh that signature appearing on the specimen card Ex.PW14/A are that of Kuldeep Aggarwal and even the said account was opened by Kuldeep Aggarwal.
CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 128/233
298. Further, at the stage of examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused Ravi Bansal had himself admitted signing of various documents and cheques.
299. Therefore, signing of documents and cheques was never in dispute and in the cross examination of PW14 Sh.Amit Singh, it was wrongly suggested that signature are not that of accused Ravi Bansal. Therefore, evidence of PW14 Sh.Amit Singh proves that Saving Bank Account No. 4971 of United Bank of India, Goalpara District, Assam from where cheque of Rs.18.30 Lac Ex.PW2/A74 was issued pertains to account of accused Ravi Bansal.
300. To further corroborate the evidence of PW14 Sh.Amit Singh that Saving Bank Account No. 4971 was that of accused Ravi Bansal, there is an opinion expressed by the handwriting expert in his report Ex.PW17/ZZZ with regard to cheque Ex.PW2/A74 of Rs.18.30 Lacs issued from the aforementioned account of United Bank of India, CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 129/233 Goalpara Branch, Assam.
301. The handwriting expert PW17 Dr.Ravinder Sharma vide his report Ex.PW17/ZZZ had opined that on the basis of comparison of specimen signatures of accused Ravi Bansal S11 to S25 Ex.PW17/WWW with signatures appearing on cheque Ex.PW2/A74, at point Q146 that signature appearing on the cheque Ex.PW2/A74 are that of accused Ravi Bansal. The said fact is further corroborated by the return memo of the cheque Ex.PW2/A76 wherein the reason for dishonourment of cheque is mentioned as "insufficiency of funds" and there is no endorsement in the return memo that it has been dishonored on the basis of "drawer signature differs"
302. Therefore, this fact also proves that Account NO. 4971 of United Bank of India, Goalpara Branch, Assam was that of accused Ravi Bansal.
CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 130/233
303. Further, with regard to SBI Accounts of Adokgiri, Meghalaya and United Bank of India, Goalpara District, Assam from where other five cheques were issued, the CBI had examined PW15 Sh.Chandan Lal Dey. PW15 Sh.Chandan Lal Dey was working as Chief Manager (Vigilance), State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Guwahati.
304. PW15 Sh.Chandan Lal Dey had identified the signatures of Sh.Rangarajan, who was the Deputy General Manager (Vigilance) of State Bank of India and letter Ex.PW15/A vide which he had sent certain documents to CBI for investigation.
305. PW15 Sh.Chandan Lal Dey also proved on record seizure memo dated 09.12.2004 Ex.PW15/B vide which documents pertaining to accused Ravi Bansal were handed over to CBI.
306. PW15 Sh.Chandan Lal Dey also proved on record the various documents handed over by him vide Ex.PW15/B which were in the nature of CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 131/233 specimen signature sheet of accused Ravi Bansal for account SIB/1/78 Ex.PW15/C, specimen signature sheet of Kuldeep Kumar for account SIB/72/14779 Ex.PW15/D, Account Opening Form of Kuldeep Kumar Ex.PW15/E, Account Opening Form of accused Ravi Bansal Ex.PW15/F, certified photocopy of cheque refer and return register of Goelpara Branch, Assam Ex.PW15/I and certified photocopy of cheque refer and return register of Adokiri Branch, Meghalaya Ex.PW15/J and also certified photocopy of ledger sheet of aforesaid two accounts Ex.PW15/G and Ex.PW15/H.
307. PW15 Sh.Chandan Lal Dey further deposed on oath that the afore mentioned documents were obtained by him from Branch Manager of Adokgiri, Meghalaya and Goalpara Branch by visiting the said branches.
308. It has also come in his cross examination that one of the account was dormant and the other was CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 132/233 closed.
309. In the entire cross examination of PW15 Sh.Chandan Lal Dey, nothing material was brought on record to show that documents produced by said witness did not pertain to the account of accused Ravi Bansal and his brother Kuldeep Aggarwal.
310. Further, no suggestion was given by accused Ravi Bansal to said witness in the cross examination that Account Opening Form and specimen signature card were forged and fabricated by his brother Kuldeep Aggarwal and it does not bear his signatures.
311. Therefore, a false defence was taken up by accused Ravi Bansal at the stage of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that accounts in the branch of SBI, Adokgiri, Meghalaya and United Bank of India, Goalpara District, Assam were fraudulently opened by his brother Kuldeep CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 133/233 Aggarwal.
312. The admission made by accused Ravi Bansal at the stage of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. regarding signing of cheques and other blank documents also suggests the fact that in fact he had opened the account and had signed the specimen signature sheet.
313. Therefore, the evidence of PW15 Sh.Chandan Lal Dey proves on record that SIB/1/78 from where four cheques were issued i.e. cheque Ex.PW2/A18, Ex.PW2/A44, Ex.PW2/A45 and Ex.PW2/A60 were in fact issued from the account of accused Ravi Bansal and another cheque of Rs.20.25 Ex.PW2/A22 was issued from the account of brother of accused Ravi Bansal i.e. Kuldeep Aggarwal.
314. The contention of the Ld.counsel for accused Ravi Bansal and accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal that IO deliberately did not take specimen signature CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 134/233 and handwriting of Kuldeep Aggarwal as IO was in connivance with Kuldeep Aggarwal and that would have proved the innocence of accused Ravi Bansal and accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal is also required to be rejected.
315. The reason for the same is that in the present case, IO has taken the specimen signatures of accused Kuldeep Aggarwal vide Spccimen sheets S 31 to S35 Ex.PW17/YYY which were sent to the handwriting expert for his opinion.
316. However, the original cheque Ex.PW2/A22 drawn on the SBI, Branch Goalpara, Assam allegedly having signature of accused Kuldeep Aggarwal was not sent to the handwriting expert for his opinion. In the cross examination of IO PW19 Sh.P.K.Khanna by accused Ravi Bansal and accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal, he had deposed that cheque Ex.PW2/A22 was not sent to the handwriting expert as the cheque Ex.PW2/A22 had been dishonoured vide return memo CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 135/233 Ex.PW2/A24 on the ground of "drawer signature differ".
317. In the opinion of this court, the reason given by the IO for not sending the cheque Ex.PW2/A22 to the handwriting expert for comparing the same with the signatures of Kuldeep Aggarwal was justified as the drawer bank had already given its opinion that the cheque Ex.PW2/A22 was not having the signature of Kuldeep Aggarwal and that is why it was dishonoured.
318. Further, I have myself compared the signature appearing on the cheque Ex.PW2/A22 with the specimen signatures of Kuldeep Aggarwal Ex.PW15/D pertaining to Account No. SIB/72/14779 from where the said cheque was issued and on comparison, it is apparent that the signatures appearing on the cheque Ex.PW2/A22 are not that of Kuldeep Aggarwal as per specimen signature sheet Ex.PW15/D. CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 136/233
319. It has also been proved on record that aforesaid six cheques were dishonoured on presentation on account of insufficient funds/drawer signature differs, return memos of which also stand proved on record by the evidence of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao, as discussed hereinabove.
320. The evidence which has come on record, as has been discussed hereinabove, shows that there existed a criminal conspiracy between accused Gopal Prasad, accused Ravi Bansal and accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal whereby cheques were issued by accused Ravi Bansal from his dormant/closed account of SBI, Adokgiri, Meghalaya and United Bank of India, Goalpara, Assam favouring his own proprietorship concern i.e. M/s.Varun Finance Corporation and M/s.Laxmi Carrying Corporation, proprietorship of his wife/accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal and on the basis of these outstation cheques, accused Gopal Prasad misused his CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 137/233 delegated powers by discounting these cheques whereby KDR was created or overdraft limit was enhanced from Rs.9 Lacs to Rs.22.50 Lacs.
321. The criminal conspiracy is generally hatched in secrecy and direct evidence with regard to criminal conspiracy is generally not available. However, existence of criminal conspiracy can be inferred from the circumstances which comes on record.
322. In the present case, it has come on record in the evidence of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayal and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao that accused Gopal Prasad had himself introduced opening of Current Account of M/s.Varun Finance Corporation and M/s. Laxmi Carrying Corporation.
323. Generally, in case of opening of bank account, introduction is sought from the existing customers of the bank but in the present case the very fact that accused Gopal Prasad had personally CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 138/233 introduced opening of accounts of M/s.Varun Finance Corporation and M/s.Laxmi Carrying Corporation shows that accused Gopal Prasad was personally known to accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal and accused Ravi Bansal and that is why he had personally introduced the opening of accounts.
324. For bringing into effect the object of criminal conspiracy, secrecy and confidentiality is required, which can be ensured from the persons, who are close and known to each other.
325. In the present case, the act of accused Gopal Prasad in introducing account of M/s.Varun Finance Corporation and M/s.Laxmi Carrying Corporation shows that he was very close to accused Ravi Bansal and Vijay Laxmi Bansal, therefore, criminal conspiracy was entered into whereby accused Gopal Prasad had misused his powers as a Branch Manager to facilitate discounting of cheques beyond his delegated powers which resulted into the loss of money of CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 139/233 Canara Bank.
326. It was because of criminal conspiracy that accused Gopal Prasad had discounted these cheques Ex.PW2/A18, Ex.PW2/A22, Ex.PW2/A44, Ex.PW2/A45, Ex.PW2/A60 and Ex.PW2/A74 beyond his delegated power and had sought ratification of his act vide letter Ex.PW2/A55 on the basis of concealment of material facts and with regard to other three cheques Ex.PW2/A22, Ex.PW2/A60 and Ex.PW2/A74, even no ratification was sought and even withdrawal of amount was not prevented by creating KDRs as amount with regard to these three cheques Ex.PW2/A22, Ex.PW2/A60 and Ex.PW2/A74 was directly credited into the overdraft account of M/s.Varun Finance Corporation and M/s.Laxmi Carrying Corporation, from where it was eventually withdrawn.
327. In the light of aforementioned discussion, it has been proved on record beyond reasonable CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 140/233 doubt that accused Gopal Prasad, accused Ravi Bansal and accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal had entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat Canara Bank, Paharganj Branch, New Delhi and pursuant to criminal conspiracy, accused Gopal Prasad had discounted six cheques by misusing his delegated powers as a Branch Manager and thereby caused loss to Canara Bank, Paharganj Branch, New Delhi and wrongful gain to accused Ravi Bansal and accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal. Accordingly, accused Gopal Prasad, accused Ravi Bansal and accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal are convicted for offence under Section 120B, 420,467,468,471 read with Section 120B IPC. Since accused Gopal Prasad alone is a public servant, therefore, he is con victed for having abused his official position i n discouting of aforementioned six cheques under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of PC Act, 1988.
II. Loan Transaction of Old Hyundai Car bearing CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 141/233 Registration No. DL5CB3186.
328. The onus was upon the prosecution to have proved that for obtaining loan of Rs.4 Lacs for the purchase of Old Hyundai Car bearing No. DL5CB 3186, accused Ravi Bansal and accused Vijay laxmi Bansal had produced fake and forged documents in conspiracy with coaccused Gopal Prasad to cheat Canara Bank, Branch Paharganj, Delhi.
329. Since in the present case, at the stage of statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and during the course of final arguments, Ld.counsel for accused Ravi Bansal had challenged the applying of vehicle loan, therefore, first of all, it was required to be proved whether accused Ravi Bansal had indeed applied for vehicle loan or it was applied by Kuldeep Aggarwal to falsely implicate accused Ravi Bansal.
330. As per evidence of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak, who was the Senior Manager (Second Line), at Pahargranj Branch, Canara Bank and as per CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 142/233 evidence of PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao, who was working as an Advance Officer in Canara Bank, Branch Paharganj at the time when accused Ravi Bansal had applied for loan as proprietor of M/s.Shree Durga Road Lines, it was accused Ravi Bansal, who had applied for purchase of Car loan bearing No. DL5CB3186 vide his application Ex.PW2/A63. They had also deposed on oath that alongwith said application, accused Ravi Bansal had submitted Agreement of Sale dated 14.08.2002 Ex.PW2/A67 executed between accused Ravi Bansal, Proprietor of M/s.Shree Durga Roadlines and accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal alongwith copy of registration certificate in the name of accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal Ex.PW2/A73, copy of insurance Ex.PW2/A70 and copy of invoice in favour of accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal Ex.PW2/A69.
331. In the entire cross examination of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao, it was CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 143/233 nowhere suggested by accused Ravi Bansal and accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal that they had never visited the Canara Bank, Branch Paharganj for the application of loan for the purchase of Old Hyundai car bearing no. DL5CB3186 and it was brother of accused Ravi Bansal, namely, Kuldeep Aggarwal, who had applied for the loan by misusing their blank signed documents.
332. On the contrary, it was suggested in the cross examination of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak by accused Ravi Bansal and accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal that there was no procedural lapse in sanctioning of various loans in this case to them. This fact was admitted by PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak. By giving this suggestion, accused Ravi Bansal and accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal admitted that accused Ravi Bansal had applied for loan for purchase of Old Hyundai car bearing no DL5CB3186 from accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal.
333. Even in the cross examination of PW3 CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 144/233 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao by accused Ravi Bansal and accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal, the fact of applying for loan for car bearing No.DL5CB3186 and submission of documents alongwith it, as deposed by PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao, was never challenged as there is no cross examination on this aspect. Therefore, the cross examination of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao had proved beyond reasonable doubt that it was accused accused Ravi Bansal, proprietor of M/s.Shree Durga Roadlines, who had applied for loan for purchase of car bearing No. DL5CB3186 being owned by accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal. Therefore, this defence has been taken up for the first time at the stage of statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by accused Ravi Bansal and accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal which is nothing but an after thought and is required to be disbelieved.
334. The contention of the Ld.counsel for accused CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 145/233 Ravi Bansal and accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal that IO deliberately did not take specimen handwriting of Kuldeep Aggarwal as IO was in connivance with Kuldeep Aggarwal and that would have proved the innocence of accused Ravi Bansal and accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal is also required to be rejected.
335. The reason for the same is that in the present case, IO has taken the specimen signatures of accused Kuldeep Aggarwal vide Spccimen sheets S 31 to S35 Ex.PW17/YYY for comparison with the signatures of Kuldeep Aggarwal as Guarantor at points Q45 and Q46 in the application form Ex.PW2/A64 which were sent to the handwriting expert for his opinion.
336. The handwriting expert PW17 Sh.Ravinder Singh vide his report Ex.PW17/ZZZ had opined that questioned signature of Kuldeep Aggarwal at point Q45 on Ex.PW2/A64 had matched with the specimen signatures S31 to S35 Ex.PW17/YYY. Therefore, the handwriting expert's opinion CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 146/233 Ex.PW17/ZZZ reflects that Kuldeep Aggarwal had only signed the application at point Q45 on Ex.PW2/A64 as a guarantor.
337. However, there is no other evidence on record to show that Kuldeep Aggarwal had got any benefit from the aforesaid loan as the entire loan proceeds were credited into the account of coaccused Vijay Laxmi Bansal and even the forged documents were produced by coaccused Ravi Bansal and co accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal and Kuldeep Aggarwal had no role to play in the same.
338. Therefore, on the basis of Kuldeep Aggarwal signing as a guarantor in the Loan Application Form Ex.PW2/A64 of his brother accused Ravi Bansal is not sufficient to conclude that he was part of the conspiracy and, therefore, IO rightly had not charge sheeted Kuldeep Aggarwal in the present case.
CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 147/233
339. Further, there was no requirement of taking specimen handwriting of Kuldeep Aggarwal as firstly, it was never the defence of accused Ravi Bansal either at the time of investigation or at trial that he had not filled up the loan application form Ex.PW2/A64 but the same was filled up in the handwriting of his brother Kuldeep Aggarwal.
340. Secondly, it has come in the cross examination of PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarano by accused Gopal Prasad that loan application form Ex.PW2/A64 was filled up by Sh.Rajesh Sehgal, the clerk of the Canara Bank, Branch Paharganj whereas credit report was filled up by PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarano. Therefore, since there was no evidence of loan application being filled up by Kuldeep Aggarwal, hence, IO rightly did not take the specimen handwriting of Kuldeep Aggarwal.
341. To corroborate the testimony of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao that accused Ravi Bansal, Proprietor of M/s.Shree CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 148/233 Durga Roadlines had appeared personally before Paharganj Branch for the application of loan for car, there is a letter Ex.PW3/DF (D17) dated 19.08.2002 which was put to PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao in his cross examination by accused Gopal Prasad and after seeing the same, PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao had admitted that it was in his handwriting and this document was a letter of evidencing the execution of loan documents by accused Ravi Bansal. The said document was never disputed by accused Ravi Bansal.
342. Another fact which proves that it was accused Ravi Bansal, who had applied for the loan for the purchase of car bearing no. DL5CB3186 is the evidence of PW7 Sh.Kailash Kaushik.
343. PW7 Sh.Kailash Kaushik was the person, who had give the valuation report in respect of vehicle bearing no. DL5CB3186.
344. As per the evidence of PW7 Sh.Kailash CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 149/233 Kaushik, he had given the valuation report Ex.PW7/C on the asking of accused Ravi Bansal, who was introduced to him by one Balbir working in Telco and he also correctly identified accused Ravi Bansal in the court. He also deposed on oath that even the registration certificate of Old Hyundai Car bearing NO. DL5CB3186 was shown to him by accused Ravi Bansal.
345. In his cross examination by accused Ravi Bansal, PW7 Sh.Kailash Kaushik categorically deposed that he is known to accused Ravi Bansal for the past 08 years and he had not followed certain guidelines for the preparation of valuation report as he was introduced to accused Ravi Bansal by one Balbir Singh of Tata Motors. He further deposed that he had prepared the report in good faith because accused Ravi Bansal had told him that in any case, vehicle would be inspected by the bank before the grant of sanctioning of loan.
346. In the entire cross examination by accused CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 150/233 Ravi Bansal, it was never suggested that accused Ravi Bansal had never approached PW7 Sh.Kailash Kaushik for the valuation report of old Hyundai Car bearing No. DL5CB3186 or PW7 Sh.Kailash Kaushik was never known to accused Ravi Bansal. Therefore, evidence of PW7 Sh.Kailash Kaushik also proves on record that for the purpose of availing the loan for purchase of old Hyundai car bearing No. DL5CB3186, it was accused Ravi Bansal, who had approached PW7 Sh.Kailash Kaushik for the purpose of obtaining valuation report Ex.PW7/C (D17).
347. In case, accused Ravi Bansal had never applied for the loan to purchase old Hyundai car bearing no. DL5CB3186 and he was not aware about the application of loan, then there was no reason for accused Ravi Bansal to have approached PW7 Sh.Kailash Kaushik for the purpose of valuation report.
348. The evidence of PW7 Sh.Kailash Kaushik also CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 151/233 proves that since accused Ravi Bansal wanted to avail the loan from Canara Bank, Paharganj Branch for the purchase of old Hyundai Car bearing No. DL5CB3186, therefore, in his interest, he had obtained the valuation report from PW7 Sh.Kailash Kaushik.
349. The testimony of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanaro that it was accused Ravi Bansal, who had applied for loan for purchase of old Hyundai Car bearing no. DL5CB3186 and the testimony of PW7 Sh. Kailash Kaushik that valuation report was also obtained by accused Ravi Bansal is further corroborated by the report of handwriting expert Ex.PW17/ZZZ wherein he has opined, after comparing the specimen signature of accused Ravi Bansal with his questioned signature appearing at Q169 on the Loan Application Form Ex.PW2/A64 and at point Q180 on the Agreement to Sell Ex.PW2/A67, that signature appearing on these two documents are that of accused Ravi CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 152/233 Bansal. Therefore, report of the handwriting expert further corroborates testimony of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak, PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao and PW7 Sh.Kailash Kaushik that it was accused Ravi Bansal, who had applied for the aforesaid car loan.
350. Now, the next question arises is whether accused Ravi Bansal in conspiracy with accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal had produced fake and forged documents for the purpose of availing loan of Rs.5 Lacs for the purchase of car bearing no. DL5CB 3186 or not?
351. As per evidence of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao, it was accused Ravi Bansal, who had produced the agreement to sell dated 14.08.2002 Ex.PW2/A67 showing the execution of agreement for the purchase of car bearing no.DL5CB3186 from its owner, namely, accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal.
352. Accused Ravi Bansal had also produced the CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 153/233 copy of registration certificate in the name of accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal Ex.PW2/A73.
353. Accused Ravi Bansal had also produced transfer documents i.e. registration certificate in the name of his firm M/s.Shree Durga Roadlines showing hypothecation in favour of Canara Bank, New Delhi Ex.PW2/A72.
354. The registration certificates Ex.PW2/A72 and Ex.PW2/A73 were forged documents, have been proved on record by the evidence of PW4 Sh.Naresh Kumar, who was working as LDC in Transport Authority, Loni Zone, Shahdara, Delhi since 2002 till March, 2005 and evidence of PW9 Sh.Tanuj Wadhera, who was working as Sales Executive in MGF Hyundai Automobiles (P) Ltd.
355. As per the documents submitted by accused Ravi Bansal to the Canara Bank, Paharganj Branch, car bearing no. DL5CB3186 was owned by accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal. However, evidence of CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 154/233 PW4 Sh.Naresh Kumar, who had appeared alongwith original record from Transport Authority, Shahdara, Delhi where the car was registered, had proved on record that car bearing no.DL5CB3186 as per their record was registered in the name of accused Ravi Bansal and earlier, there was hypothecation in the name of Standard Chartered Bank but after its payment, hypothecation in favour of Standard Chartered Bank was removed and fresh hypothecation in favour of Suchita Finance Corporation was made.
356. PW4 Sh.Naresh Kumar also deposed on oath that registration certificate Ex.PW2/A72 in favour of M/s.Shree Durga Roadlines having hypothecation in favour of Canara Bank is a forged documents as it has not been issued by their office and even registration certificate Ex.PW2/A73 showing ownership of accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal has also not been issued by their office.
357. Nothing was brought out in the cross CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 155/233 examination of PW4 Sh.Naresh Kumar to show that registration certificate Ex.PW2/A73 in the name of accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal had been issued by the office of Transport Authority, Shahdara, Delhi or accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal was the real owner of the car bearing no. DL5CB3186.
358. Further, even original registration certificate was not produced in cross examination of PW4 Sh.Naresh Kumar showing that vehicle was owned by accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal or was transferred in the name of accused Ravi Bansal after purchase.
359. The forgery of registration certificate Ex.PW2/A73 was further proved by the evidence of PW9 Sh.Tanuj Wadhera. PW9 Sh.Tanuj Wadhera, who was working as Sales Executive in MGF Hyundai Automobiles (P) Ltd.had deposed on oath that they had sold the car bearing no. DL 5CB3186 to accused Ravi Bansal with hypothecation in favour of Standard Chartered Bank.
CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 156/233
360. It was further proved on record by PW9 Sh.Tanuj Wadhera that Sale Certificate of Hyundai Car bearing No. DL5CB3186 bearing invoice No. 7283 dated 10.06.2000 Ex.PW9/C proves that vehicle was sold to accused Ravi Bansal.
361. It was further deposed by PW9 Sh.Tanuj Wadhera that invoice No. 7283 dated 10.06.2000 in the name of accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal Ex.PW2/A69 has not been issued by their company as it is not as per format and even the registration certificate Ex.PW2/A72 in the name of M/s.Shree Durga Roadlines and registration certificate Ex.PW2/A73 in the name of accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal has not been issued by their company.
362. In the entire cross examination of PW9 Sh.Tanuj Wadhera by accused Ravi Bansal and accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal, nothing was brought on record to doubt his testimony or credibility. Therefore, evidence of PW4 Sh.Naresh Kumar and CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 157/233 PW9 Sh.Tanuj Wadhera proves that invoice Ex.PW2/A69, registration certificate Ex.PW2/A73 showing accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal as the owner of car bearing no. DL5CB3186 and registration certificate showing M/s.Shree Durga Roadlines as owner in Ex.PW2/A72 were forged and fabricated documents produced by accused Ravi Bansal before the Canara Bank Branch, Paharganj, Delhi.
363. In the light of evidence which had come on record, sale agreement of Old Hyundai Car bearing No. DL5CB3186 between accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal and accused Ravi Bansal Ex.PW2/A67 is required to be examined as to whether it is a forged document or not?
364. The sale agreement Ex.PW2/A67 bears the signatures of accused Ravi Bansal at Q180 and accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal at point Q170.
365. The said document was sent to the handwriting expert PW17 Dr.Ravinder Sharma for CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 158/233 comparison with the specimen signature of accused Ravi Bansal i.e. S11 to S25 Ex.17/WWW and specimen signature of accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal i.e. S26 to S30 Ex.PW17/XXX.
366. The handwriting expert PW17 Dr.Ravinder Sharma vide his report Ex.PW17/ZZZ had opined, after comparing with the specimen signatures of accused Ravi Bansal S11 to S25 Ex.PW17/WWW with the questioned signature at point Q180 that the signature at point Q180 are that of accused Ravi Bansal. However, the handwriting expert had not given any opinion with regard to questioned signature of accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal at point Q170 on Ex.PW2/A67.
367. In the opinion of this court, accused Ravi Bansal and accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal are husband and wife, therefore, they are aware about the ownership of Old Hyundai Car bearing No. DL5CB3186.
CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 159/233
368. The execution of agreement Ex.PW2/A67 by accused Ravi Bansal wherein it has been stated by accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal that she is the registered owner of Old Hyundai Car bearing No. DL5CB3186 and selling the same to accused Ravi Bansal were false facts stated in the sale agreement Ex.PW2/A67 and both accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal and Ravi Bansal knew that the real owner was accused Ravi Bansal.
369. As per Section 463 IPC, making of any false document with the intention to commit fraud or with the intent to cause any person to part with the property, amounts to forgery.
370. Further, as per Explanation (1) to Section 464 IPC, a man's signature of his own name made, amount to forgery.
371. In the present case, although accused Ravi Bansal had himself signed the agreement Ex.PW2/A67 showing himself to be the purchaser CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 160/233 of Old Hyundai Car bearing No. DL5CB3186 from accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal but since accused Ravi Bansal was himself the owner of the said car, therefore, agreement Ex.PW2/A67 was a false document which was created with the intention to make the Canara Bank, Paharganj Branch give loan to accused Ravi Bansal.
372. Therefore, document Ex.PW2/A67 was a forged document created by accused Ravi Bansal in conspiracy with his wife/accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal.
373. The contention of the Ld.counsel for accused Ravi Bansal and Vijay Laxmi Bansal that specimen signatures of accused Ravi Bansal and accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal Ex.PW17/WWW and Ex.PW17/XXX respectively have not been proved in this case to be that of accused Ravi Bansal and accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal as independent witnesses Sh.S.K.Gupta, Sh.S.S.Danish and Sh.Jitender in whose presence the alleged CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 161/233 specimen signatures were taken, have not been examined in this case, is required to be rejected.
374. The reason for the same is that although it is true that independent witnesses Sh.S.K.Gupta, Sh.S.S.Danish and Sh.Jitender have not been examined but their nonexamination is not fatal to the prosecution case. The reason for the same is that at the time of filing of charge sheet, report of handwriting expert was annexed with it and was supplied to accused Ravi Bansal and accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal alongwith charge sheet but at the stage of charge or during entire trial, accused Ravi Bansal and accused Vijay Laxmi Banal had never disputed that their specimen signatures Ex.PW17/WWW and Ex.PW17/XXX respectively were never taken by the IO.
375. Even in the cross examination of PW17 Dr.Ravinder Sharma, who was the handwriting expert and who had given the report Ex.PW17/ZZZ on the basis of specimen signatures CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 162/233 of accused Ravi Bansal and accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal, no suggestion was given to him in the cross examination that specimen signatures of accused Ravi Bansal and accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal were never taken by the IO and a false report has been given by him regarding signatures being that of accused Ravi Bansal and accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal.
376. It was only at the fag end of the trial that accused Ravi Bansal and accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal had taken up this defence at the time of cross examination of IO that their specimen signatures were not taken. In the opinion of this court, this defence is a false defence being an after thought and is required to be disbelieved.
377. However, it was never proved on record that accused Ravi Bansal and accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal, had forged the invoice Ex.PW2/A69 and registration certificates Ex.PW2/A72 and Ex.PW2/A73.
CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 163/233
378. The Investigating Officer had never sent the registration certificates Ex.PW2/A72 and Ex.PW2/A73 and the invoice Ex.PW2/A69 to the handwriting expert for comparison with the specimen signature & handwriting of accused Ravi Bansal & accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal to obtain an opinion as to whether the handwriting & signatures in the registration certificates and the invoice are that of accused Ravi Bansal and accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal or not. Therefore, there is no evidence on record to show that registration certificates Ex.PW2/A72 and Ex.PW2/A73 and invoice Ex.PW2/A69 were forged by accused Ravi Bansal and accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal for the purpose of cheating.
379. Therefore, what is proved on record is that accused Ravi Bansal in connivance with accused Vijay Laxmi had used the forged invoice Ex.PW2/A69 & registration certificates Ex.PW2/A72 & Ex.PW2/A73 as genuine CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 164/233 documents for the purpose of obtaining loan knowing fully well that they were forged documents.
380. It is also proved on record that in the present case, draft of Rs.4Lacs sanctioned in the name of accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal as the owner of car bearing no. DL5CB3186 was encashed by her in account at Syndicate Bank, Rohini, New Delhi.
381. In this regard, evidence of PW5 Sh.V.B.Gopal, who was working as an Assistant Manager in Syndicate Bank, Branch Rohini is relevant.
382. PW5 Sh.V.B.Gopal has deposed on oath that draft no. 941820 dated 19.08.2002 issued by Canara Bank, Paharganj was deposited in their bank into the account of accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal for the purpose of discounting of the same and after discounting, the demand draft was sent for clearance and proceed was credited into the account of accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal from where CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 165/233 the amount was later on withdrawn through cheque.
383. PW5 Sh.V.B.Gopal also produced the Account Opening Form of SB A/C No. 4857 of accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal Ex.PW5/L and he also proved that accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal had also submitted Form No.2D (Saral) marked as Ex.PW5/2 and Form 60 as Ex.PW5/M.
384. In the entire cross examination of PW5 Sh.V.B.Gopal, it was nowhere suggested by accused Ravi Bansal and accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal that said account was fraudulently opened by Kuldeep Aggarwal and the entire proceeds of the loan amount was withdrawn by him by using their forged cheques.
385. Further, in his cross examination, accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal had never suggested that Form No.2D (Saral) Ex.PW5/2 and Form No. 60 Ex.PW5/M do not bear her signature or do not CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 166/233 pertain to her. Therefore, it was proved on record that draft of Rs.4 Lacs was credited into the account of accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal in her saving bank account at Syndicate Bank, Branch Rohini, New Delhi.
386. In the light of aforesaid discussion, it is proved on record that accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal was never the owner of car bearing No.DL5CB 3186 and pursuant to criminal conspiracy with accused Ravi Bansal, they had fraudulently shown accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal to be the owner of the Old Hyundai Car bearing No. DL5CB3186 and on the basis of forged sale agreement Ex.PW2/A67, invoice Ex.PW2/A69, registration certificates Ex.PW2/A72 and Ex.PW2/A73, Canara Bank, Paharganj Branch was cheated to give loan of Rs.4 Lacs to accused Ravi Bansal, which was eventualy credited into the account of accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal, being the owner of the car.
387. As far as accused Gopal Prasad is concerned, CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 167/233 prosecution was required to prove that accused Gopal Prasad in connivance with accused Ravi Bansal and accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal had misused his official position in sanctioning of loan on the basis of forged and fabricated documents to accused Ravi Bansal.
388. As per the evidence of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao, during the processing of this loan, accused Gopal Prasad had made an endorsement on the Registration Certificates Ex.PW2/A72 and Ex.PW2/A73 and invoice Ex.PW2/A69 that he has verified them from "original".
389. However, later on both the aforementioned registration certificates and invoice were found to be forged and fabricated.
390. Nothing had come in the evidence of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao that invoice Ex.PW2/A69 and registration certificates CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 168/233 Ex.PW2/A72 and Ex.PW2/A73 were required to be mandatorily verified from the concerned Transport Department and the car dealer by the Branch Manager.
391. Therefore, the evidence which has come on record of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao nowhere suggest that if accused Gopal Prasad after seeing the original registration certificates produced by accused Ravi Bansal had made the endorsement of "original verified" , then he had violated any rule or procedure of the bank or the same was done pursuant to criminal conspiracy.
392. Further, in the grant of present loan, all the due procedure was followed by accused Gopal Prasad in the light of admission of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak.
393. In the cross examination of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak, he had admitted that with regard to CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 169/233 grant of present loan, all due process was followed and there was no procedural lapse on the part of accused Gopal Prasad and there was no irregularity in sanction of loan as per documents.
394. It was also admitted by PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao in his cross examination that even this loan was reviewed by higher authority of Circle Office and no adverse remarks were given.
395. PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak further deposed in his cross examination that the present loan was processed and recommended by PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao and thereafter, accused Gopal Prasad had sanctioned the same.
396. It has also come in the cross examination of PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao that as per circular No. 192/02 dated 02.09.2002 Ex.PW16/D (D4), there was no restriction on grant of loan if the transaction is between husband and wife or between two sister concerns and he also admitted CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 170/233 that amount of loan sanctioned was within the powers of Branch Manager.
397. Further, after the sanction of present loan, accused Gopal Prasad was required to take on record copy of RC with the hypothecation in favour of Bank which was also duly complied with in the present case.
398. Further, the present loan was reviewed by the Circle Office and no procedural irregularity was noticed by the Circle Office, Canara Bank.
399. Further, the payment by way of draft was also issued in the name of seller i.e.accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal.
400. Further, nothing has been brought on record to show that any pecuniary gain had come to accused Gopal Prasad after sanctioning of present loan to establish the element of conspiracy. Therefore, prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused Gopal CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 171/233 Prasad had misused his official position in the sanctioning of present loan to accused Ravi Bansal as Proprietor of M/s.Durga Road Lines on the basis of documents submitted by accused Ravi bansal..
401. In the light of aforesaid discussion, the prosecution has not been able to prove that accused Gopal Prasad had misused his official position pursuant to criminal conspriacy to grant loan to accused Ravi Bansal on the basis of forged and fabricated documents and hence, accused Gopal Prasad is acquitted for the charge framed against him with regard to present transaction.
402. However, it is proved on record that accused Ravi Bansal and accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal pursuant to their criminal conspiracy had cheated the Canara Bank of Rs.4 Lacs by taking loan for purchase of old Hyundai car bearing no. DL5CB3186 claiming it to be owned by accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal whereas CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 172/233 in reality, the said car was owned by accused Ravi Bansal, on the basis of forged and fabricated document and by using various forged documents i.e. Agreement to Sell Ex.PW2/A67, Invoice Ex.PW2/A69 and Registration Certificates Ex.PW2/A72 and Ex.PW2/A73. Accordingly, accused Ravi Bansal and accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal are convicted for the offence under Section 120B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.
III. Transaction with regard to Second Hand Tata Truck bearing No. HR38C7858
403. The onus was upon the prosecution to have proved that for obtaining loan of Rs. 8.50 Lacs for the purchase of second hand Tata truck bearing no. HR38C7858, accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal had produced fake and forged documents in conspiracy with coaccused Ravi Bansal and accused Gopal Prasad.
CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 173/233
404. Since in the present case, at the stage of statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and during the course of final arguments, Ld.counsel for accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal had challenged the applying of second hand vehicle loan, therefore, first of all, it was required to be proved whether accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal had indeed applied for second hand vehicle loan or it was applied by Kuldeep Aggarwal to falsely implicate accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal.
405. As per evidence of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak, who was the Senior Manager, (Second Line), at Pahargranj Branch, Canara Bank and as per evidence of PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao, who was working as an Advance Officer in Canara Bank, Branch Paharganj at the time when accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal had applied for loan as proprietor of M/s.Laxmi Carrying Corporaton, it was accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal, who had applied for purchase CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 174/233 of second hand truck bearing no. HR38C7858 vide her application Ex.PW2/A2. They had also deposed on oath that alongwith said application, accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal had submitted Agreement of Sale dated 29.11.2002 Ex.PW2/A5 executed between Rajesh Kumar, Proprietor of M/s.Supreme Road Carriers and accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal alongwith copy of National Permit Ex.PW2/A4.
406. In the entire cross examination of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao, it was nowhere suggested by accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal that she had never visited the Canara Bank, Branch Paharganj for the application of loan for the purchase of second hand truck bearing no.HR38C 7858 or it was Kuldeep Aggarwal, who had applied for the loan by misusing her blank signed documents.
407. On the contrary, it was suggested in the cross CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 175/233 examination of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak by accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal that there was no procedural lapse in sanctioning of loan in this case to her and this fact was admitted by PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak to be correct. By giving this suggestion, accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal admitted that she had applied for loan for purchase of second hand truck bearing no.HR38C7858 from Rajesh Kumar, Proprietor of M/s.Supreme Road Carriers.
408. Even in the cross examination of PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao by accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal, the fact of applying for loan for second hand truck bearing no.HR38C7858 and submission of documents alongwith it, as deposed by PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao, was never challenged as there is no cross examination on this aspect. Therefore, the cross examination of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao had proved beyond reasonable doubt that it was accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal, who had applied for loan for purchase of CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 176/233 second hand truck bearing no.HR38C7858 being owned by accused Rajesh Kumar, Proprietor of M/s.Surpeme Road Carriers.
409. Therefore, this defence has been taken up for the first time at the stage of statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.c. by accused which is nothing but an after thought and is required to be disbelieved.
410. The contention of the Ld.counsel for accused Ravi Bansal and Vijay Laxmi Bansal that IO deliberately did not take specimen handwriting and signature of Kuldeep Aggarwal as IO was in connivance with Kuldeep Aggarwal and that would have proved the innocence of accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal, is also required to be rejected.
411. The reason for the same is that IO had taken specimen signatures of Kuldeep Aggarwal vide specimen sheets S31 to S35 Ex.PW17/YYY for comparison with the signature of Kuldeep CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 177/233 Aggarwal at point Q43 and Q44 in the Loan Application Form Ex.PW2/A3 which were sent to the handwriting expert for his opinion.
412. Further, there was no requirement of taking specimen handwriting of Kuldeep Aggarwal as firstly, it was never the defence of accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal either at the time of investigation or at trial that she had not filled up the loan application form Ex.PW2/A3 but the same was filled up in the handwriting of his brother Kuldeep Aggarwal.
413. Secondly, during the cross examination of PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao by accused Gopal Prasad, PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao has specifically deposed on oath that he had filled up the application form Ex.PW2/A3 and all other loan documents in his own handwriting, as per the information given by the applicant i.e. accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal. Since there was no evidence of loan application CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 178/233 being filled up by Kuldeep Aggarwal, hence, IO rightly did not take the specimen handwriting of Kuldeep Aggarwal.
414. Further, the said deposition of PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao was never challenged by accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal to be an incorrect one. Therefore, accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal admitted that her Loan Application Form Ex.PW2/A3 was filled up by PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao on her instructions.
415. Another fact which proves that it was accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal, who had applied for the loan for the purchase of second hand truck bearing no. HR38C7858 is the evidence of PW7 Sh.Kailash Kaushik.
416. PW7 Sh.Kailash Kaushik was the person, who had give the valuation report in respect of vehicle bearing no. HR38C7858 Ex.PW7/A(D18).
CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 179/233
417. As per the evidence of PW7 Sh.Kailash Kaushik, he had given the valuation report Ex.PW7/A (D18) on the asking of accused Ravi Bansal, who was introduced to him by one Balbir working in Telco and he also correctly identified accused Ravi Bansal in the court. He also deposed on oath that even the registration certificate of second hand truck bearing no. HR38C7858 was shown to him by accused Ravi Bansal.
418. In his cross examination by accused Ravi Bansal and accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal, PW7 Sh.Kailash Kaushik categorically deposed that he is known to accused Ravi Bansal for the past 08 years and he had not followed certain guidelines for the preparation of valuation report as he was introduced to accused Ravi Bansal by one Balbir Singh of Tata Motors. He further deposed that he had prepared the report in good faith because accused Ravi Bansal had told him that in any case, CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 180/233 vehicle would be inspected by the bank before the grant of sanctioning of loan.
419. In the entire cross examination by accused Ravi Bansal and accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal, it was never suggested that accused Ravi Bansal, husband of accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal, had never approached PW7 Sh.Kailash Kaushik for the valuation report of second hand truck bearing no. HR38C7858 or PW7 Sh.Kailash Kaushik was never known to accused Ravi Bansal, husband of accused Vijay Laxmi bansal. Therefore, evidence of PW7 Sh.Kailash Kaushik also proves on record that for the purpose of availing the loan for purchase of second hand truck bearing no. HR38C7858, it was accused Ravi Bansal, husband of accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal, who had approached PW7 Sh.Kailash Kaushik for the purpose of obtaining valuation report Ex.PW7/A in respect of truek bearing no. HR38C7858.
CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 181/233
420. The evidence of PW7 Sh.Kailash Kaushik also proves that since accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal wanted to avail the loan from Canara Bank, Paharganj Branch for the purchase of second hand truck bearing no. HR38C7858, therefore, to help her, accused Ravi Bansal, being husband, had obtained the valuation report from PW7 Sh.Kailash Kaushik.
421. In case, accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal had never applied for the loan to purchase second hand truck bearing no. HR38C7858 and she was not aware about the application of loan, then there was no reason for accused Ravi Bansal, husband of accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal, to have approached PW7 Sh.Kailash Kaushik for the purpose of valuation report.
422. The testimony of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanaro that it was accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal, who had applied for loan for purchase of CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 182/233 second hand truck bearing no. HR38C7858 and the testimony of PW7 Sh. Kailash Kaushik that valuation report was also obtained by accused Ravi Bansal, husband of accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal, is further corroborated by the report of handwriting expert Ex.PW17/ZZZ.
423. In the said report, PW17 Dr.Ravinder Sharma opined, on the basis of comparison of specimen signature of accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal S26 to S 30 Ex.PW17/XXX with questioned signature ap pearing of accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal as Propri etor of M/s.Laxmi Carrying Corporation at point Q252 and Q253 on Agreement to Sell Ex.PW2/A5 i.e. Agreement to Sell executed between Rajesh Kumar, Proprietor of M/s.Supreme Road Carriers and accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal, that signatures are that of accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal.
424. The contention of the Ld.counsel for accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal that specimen signatures of CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 183/233 accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal Ex.PW17/XXX have not been proved in this case to be that of accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal as independent witnesses Sh.S.S.Danish and Sh.Jitender in whose presence the alleged specimen signatures were taken, have not been examined in this case, is required to be rejected.
425. The reason for the same is that although it is true that independent witnesses Sh.S.S.Danish and Sh.Jitender have not been examined but their non examination is not fatal to the prosecution case. The reason for the same is that at the time of filing of charge sheet, report of handwriting expert was annexed with it and was supplied to accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal alongwith charge sheet but at the stage of charge or during entire trial, accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal had never disputed that her specimen signatures Ex.PW17/XXX were never taken by the IO.
CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 184/233
426. Even in the cross examination of PW17 Dr.Ravinder Sharma, who was the handwriting expert and who had given the report Ex.PW17/ZZZ on the basis of specimen signatures of accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal, no suggestion was given to him in the cross examination that specimen signatures of accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal were never taken by the IO and a false report has been given by him regarding signatures being that of accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal.
427. It was only at the fag end of the trial that accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal had taken up this defence at the time of cross examination of IO that her specimen signatures were not taken. In the opinion of this court, this defence is a false defence being an after thought and is required to be dis believed.
428. This fact also proves that it was accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal, who had applied for second hand CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 185/233 Tata Truck bearing No. HR38C7858 on the basis of Agreement to Sell Ex.PW2/A5.
429. Now, the next question arises is whether accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal in conspiracy with accused Ravi Bansal had forged documents and used them for the purpose of availing loan of Rs.8.50 Lacs for the purchase of second hand truck bearing no. HR38C7858 or not?
430. As per evidence of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao, it was accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal, who had produced the agreement to sell dated 29.11.2002 Ex.PW2/A5 showing the execution of agreement for the purchase of second hand truck bearing no. HR38C7858 from its owner, namely, Rajesh Kumar, Proprietor of M/s.Supreme Road Carriers, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, Delhi.
CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 186/233
431. It has also come in the evidence of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao that accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal had also produced copy of National Permits Ex.PW2/A4, Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW8/B and also submitted copy of RC Mark X/ PW8/C.
432. To prove that copy of RC Mark X and the Na tional Permits Ex.PW2/A4, Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW8/B produced by accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal were forged documents, prosecution had examined PW8 Sh.Ram Chand, who was working as Assistant Secretary in the District Transport Of fice, Faridabad where the truck in question was registered.
433. PW8 Sh.Ram Chand had deposed on oath that the original file of this vehicle was got burnt and, therefore, he was unable to produce the original file. However, after seeing the copy of RC Mark X / Ex.PW8/C in the name of M/s.Laxmi Carrying Corporation and National Permit Ex.PW2/A4 in CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 187/233 the name of M/s.Supreme Road Carriers. PW8 Sh.Ram Chand deposed that these documents were forged documents bearing signatures of PW8 Sh.Ram Chand on both these documents at point X on National Permit and X 1 to X 3 on the registra tion certificate.
434. He further deposed on oath that copy of Na tional Permits in favour of M/s.Laxmi Carrying Corporation Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW8/B also bears his forged signature at point X on both documents.
435. Nothing material was brought out in the cross examination of PW8 Sh.Ram Chand.
436. Therefore, evidence of PW8 Sh.Ram Chand proves on record that registration certificate Mark X / Ex.PW8/C and National Permits Ex.PW2/A4 and Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW8/B were forged and fabricated documents.
437. Further, the Agreement to Sell Ex.PW2/A5 bears the signatures of accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal, CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 188/233 proprietor of M/s.Laxmi Carrying Corporation at point Q252 and Q253 as per report of handwriting expert Ex.PW17/ZZZ.
438. However, the handwriting expert could not give any opinion with regard to signature appearing of Sh.Rajesh Kumar, Proprietor of M/s.Supreme Road Carriers, on agreement to sell Ex.PW2/A5 at point Q110 and Q111 and on receipt of payment at point Q112 Ex.PW17/CC after comparing the same with specimen signatures of accused Ravi Bansal and accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal but still it was proved on record that Sh.Rajesh Kumar, Proprietor of M/s.Supreme Road Carriers, the alleged seller was a nonexistent person and Agreement to Sell Ex.PW2/A5 was having the signatures of accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal, therefore, she had forged Agreement to Sell Ex.PW2/A5 in conspiracy with accused Ravi Bansal.
CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 189/233
439. To prove the point that Rajesh Kumar was a nonexistent person, prosecution has examined PW13 Sh.Ashok Kumar, who was running the transport business in the name of M/s.Supreme Roadways at Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, New Delhi.
440. The evidence of said witness is relevant as in the Agreement to Sell Ex.PW2/A5, address of M/s.Supreme Road Carriers was shown as godown no.7, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, New Delhi.
441. PW13 Sh.Ashok Kumar had deposed on oath that there is no transport company by the name of M/s.Supreme Road Carriers in Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, New Delhi and even there is no godown no.7 in the said area nor there is any transportor by the name of Sh.Rajesh Kumar.
442. In the cross examination by accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal, it was suggested to PW13 Sh.Ashok Kumar that M/s.Supreme Road Carriers is still in CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 190/233 existence at Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, New Delhi but the said suggestion was denied by PW13 Sh.Ashok Kumar.
443. In the light of evidence of PW13 Sh.Ashok Kumar, the onus had shifted upon accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal to have proved on record that Sh.Rajesh Kumar, Proprietor of M/s.Supreme Road Carriers was the owner of TATA truck bearing registration no. HR38C7858 and was having its office at godown no.7, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, New Delhi and he had executed the Agreement to Sell Ex.PW2/A5. However, accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal had never examined Sh.Rajesh Kumar, the alleged proprietor of M/s.Supreme Road Carriers to prove the selling of said truck to her vide Agreement to Sell Ex.PW2/A5.
444. The nonexamination of Sh.Rajesh Kumar, Proprietor of M/s.Supreme Road Carriers makes this court raise an adverse inference against accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal that either the said CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 191/233 witness was nonexistent or if he was in existence, then he was intentionally not produced in court as his testimony would not have been favourable to accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal.
445. Therefore, it was proved on record that there was no person by the name of Sh.Rajesh Kumar, Proprietor of M/s.Supreme Road Carriers having its office at Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, New Delhi.
446. The nonexistence of Sh.Rajesh Kumar, Proprietor of M/s.Supreme Road Carriers is further proved by the fact of payment made to M/s.Supreme Road Carriers, with regard to loan sanctioned in favour of accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal for the purchase of truck.
447. As per evidence of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao, the draft by which loan was sanctioned to accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal, was credited into the account of M/s.Supreme Road CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 192/233 Carriers at Punjab National Bank, Branch Sadar Bazar, Delhi.
448. The prosecution had examined PW18 Sh.Ashok Kumar, who was working as a Senior Manager in Punjab National Bank, Branch Sadar Bazar, Delhi and he had proved on record the certified copy of statement of account of M/s.Supreme Road Carriers Ex.PW18/B, certified copy of Account Opening Form of accused Ravi Bansal Ex.PW18/C and certified copy of specimen signature card of accused Ravi Bansal Ex.PW18/F and certified true copy of Pan Card of accused Ravi Bansal Ex.PW18/E.
449. In the entire cross examination by accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal and accused Ravi Bansal, it was never disputed that the record of the account brought by PW18 Sh.Ashok Kumar does not pertain to accused Ravi Bansal, Proprietor of M/s.Supreme Road Carriers or that the record produced by PW18 Sh.Ashok Kumar pertain to CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 193/233 Sh.Rajesh Kumar, Proprietor of M/s.Supreme Road Carriers.
450. Further, I have carefully perused the Account Opening Form pertaining to Account No. 15142 Ex.PW18/C which is duly certified as per bankers's book of Evidence Act, 1872 and it shows that the account is in the name of accused Ravi Bansal, Proprietor of M/s.Supreme Road Carriers and he has given his address of Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, Godown N0.7, Delhi.
451. Further, certified copy of statement of account as per Bankers' book of Evidence Act, 1872 Ex.PW18/B also shows that two drafts have been credited into the account of M/s.Supreme Road Carriers having its office at Godown No.7, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, Delhi.
452. Therefore, evidence of PW18 Sh.Ashok Kumar establishes beyond reasonable doubt that Sh.Rajesh Kumar, Proprietor of M/s.Supreme Road CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 194/233 Carriers was a nonexistent firm and in fact, M/s.Supreme Road Carriers was a proprietorship concern of accused Ravi Bansal having its bank account at Punjab National Bank, Branch Sadar Bazar from where the amount was fraudulently withdrawn by accused Ravi Bansal.
453. Hence, it is proved on record that the Agreement to Sell Ex.PW2/A5 is a false document as per the definition of "False Document" given in Section 464 IPC. The reason for the same is that as per Explanation (2) of Section 464 IPC, a document is a "false document" if it is made in the name of a fictitious person intending it to be believed that the document was made by a real person.
454. The very fact that in the Punjab National Bank, Branch Sadar Bazar, accused Ravi Bansal had shown his address as that of Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, Godown No.7, Delhi which is the same address mentioned in the Agreement to Sell CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 195/233 Ex.PW2/A5 further confirms this fact that both accused Ravi Bansal and accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal pursuant to their criminal conspiracy had forged Agreement to Sell Ex.PW2/A5 in order to cheat Canara Bank on the basis of fact that Truck was owned by M/s.Supreme Road Carriers.
455. The document produced showing the purchase of Truck i.e. Registration Certificate Mark X / PW8/C and National Permits Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW8/B in the name of M/s.Laxmi Carrying Corporation, Proprietorhip of accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal and National Permit Ex.PW2/A4 in the name of M/s.Supreme Road Carriers were also forged documents as per evidence of PW8 Sh.Ram Chand as discussed herein above.
456. In the entire evidence, accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal had never produced the original registra tion certificate and National Permit showing her to be the owner of the truck bearing no. HR38C CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 196/233 7858 nor she produced the said truck before the IO during the course of investigation.
457. This fact also proves that accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal never purchased any truck bearing No. HR 38C7858 and in case, she had purchased, then she would have been in possession of the original reg istration certificate and National permit of the truck.
458. Now, the next thing which is required to be proved in this transaction is whether National Permits Ex.PW2/A4, Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW8/B and registration certificate Mark X / Ex.PW8/C were forged by accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal or accused Ravi Bansal?
459. In the present case, specimen signatures of accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal and accused Ravi Bansal have been taken.
CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 197/233
460. The National Permits Ex.PW2/A4, Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW8/B and registration certificate Mark X / Ex.PW8/C were never sent by the IO to the handwriting expert for obtaining his opinion as to whether the signature appearing on National Per mits Ex.PW2/A4, Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW8/B and registration certificate Mark X / Ex.PW8/C are that of accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal or accused Ravi Bansal after matching the same with their specimen signatures S26 to S30 on Ex.PW17/XXX and S11 to S25 on Ex.PW17/WWW respectively. Therefore, it is not proved on record that National Permits Ex.PW2/A4, Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW8/B and regis tration certificate Mark X / Ex.PW8/C were forged by accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal or accused Ravi Bansal.
461. As far as accused Gopal Prasad is concerned, prosecution was required to prove that accused CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 198/233 Gopal Prasad in connivance with coaccused Ravi Bansal and accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal had misused his official position in sanctioning of loan on the basis of forged and fabricated documents to coaccused Vijay Laxmi Bansal.
462. As per the evidence of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao, during the processing of this loan, accused Gopal Prasad had made an endorsement on the National Permit Ex.PW2/A4 that he has verified it from "original".
463. However, later on the aforementioned National Permit was found to be forged and fabricated.
464. Therefore, the evidence which has come on record of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao nowhere suggest that if accused Gopal Prasad after seeing the original National Permit produced by coaccused Vijay CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 199/233 Laxmi Bansal had made the endorsement of "original verified" , then he had violated any rule or procedure of the bank or the same was done pursuant to criminal conspiracy.
465. Further, in the grant of present loan, all the due procedure was followed by accused Gopal Prasad in the light of admission of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak.
466. In the cross examination of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak, he had admitted that with regard to grant of present loan, all due process was followed and there was no procedural lapse on the part of accused Gopal Prasad and there was no irregularity in sanction of loan as per documents.
467. It was also admitted by PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao in his cross examination that even this loan was reviewed by higher authority of CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 200/233 Circle Office and no adverse remarks were given.
468. PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak further deposed in his cross examination that the present loan was processed and recommneded by PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao and thereafter, accused Gopal Prasad had recommended the same.
469. It has also come in the cross examination of PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao that loan officer has to take all relevant documents from the loanee and whenever he feels any objection in the documents, he may raise objection before recommending to sanctioning authority.
470. It has further come in the cross examination that he did not record any disagreement on the basis of documents before sanctioning the loan.
471. PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao also deposed that CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 201/233 the present loan was audited annually by the External Audit Officer and no adverse remarks were given in their audit. Even in the internal inspection report, the inspecting authority did not point out any procedural lapse.
472. Further, after the sanction of present loan, accused Gopal Prasad was required to take on record copy of RC with the hypothecation in favour of Bank which was also duly complied with in the present case.
473. Further, there was no rule of the bank which required accused Gopal Prasad to have verified registration certificate from the concerned Transport Department.
474. Further, the present loan was reviewed by the Circle Office and no procedural irregularity was noticed by the Circle Office, Canara Bank.
CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 202/233
475. Further, the payment by way of draft was also issued in the name of seller i.e. Rajesh Kumar, Proprietor of M/s.Supreme Road Carriers.
476. Further, nothing has been brought on record to show that any pecuniary gain had come to accused Gopal Prasad after sanctioning of present loan to establish the element of conspiracy.
477. In the light of aforesaid discussion, the prosecution has not been able to prove that accused Gopal Prasad had misused his official position pursuant to criminal conspriacy to grant loan to accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal on the basis of forged and fabricated documents and hence, accused Gopal Prasad is acquitted for the charge framed against him with regard to present transaction.
CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 203/233
478. However, it is proved on record that accused Ravi Bansal and accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal pursuant to their criminal conspiracy had cheated the Canara Bank of Rs.8.50 Lacs by taking loan for purchase of second hand Tata Truck bearing no. HR38C7858 by forging Agreement to Sell Ex.PW2/A5 and by using forged National Permits Ex.PW2/A4, Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW8/B and Registration Certificate Mark X / Ex.PW8/C. Accordingly, accused Ravi Bansal and accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal are convicted for the offence under Section 120B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 120B IPC.
IV. Loan Transaction of Second Hand Truck Bearing Registration No. HR38G2324
479. The onus was upon the prosecution to have proved that for obtaining loan of Rs.9 Lacs for the purchase of second hand Truck bearing No. HR CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 204/233 38G2324, accused Anu Bansal had produced fake and forged documents in conspiracy with co accused Gopal Prasad and coaccused Ravi Bansal.
480. Since in the present case, at the stage of cross examination of PW19 Sh.P.K.Khanna, who was the Investigating Officer of this case and at the stage of statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., Ld.counsel for accused Anu Bansal had challenged the applying of second hand vehicle loan and even having a sole bank account with Canara Bank, Paharganj Branch, therefore, first of all, it was required to be proved that whether accused Anu Bansal had indeed applied for second hand vehicle loan from her sole bank account in Canara Bank, Branch Paharganj or it was applied by some other person.
481. To prove that it was accused Anu Bansal, who had applied for second hand vehicle loan, prosecution had examined bank witnesses i.e. PW2 CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 205/233 Sh.B.V.Nayak, who was the Senior Branch Manager (Second Line) at Paharganj Branch of Canara Bank and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao, who was working as an Advance Officer in Canara Bank, Branch Paharganj at the time when accused Anu Bansal had applied for the second hand vehicle loan.
482. It has come in the evidence of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak that accused Anu Bansal was having a Saving Bank Account No. 21639 in which this loan was sanctioned. PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak further deposed on oath that this account was operated by accused Anu Bansal.
483. It has also come in the evidence of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak that amount of Rs.9 Lac was sanctioned as loan to accused Anu Bansal and out of the said Rs.9 Lac, margin money of Rs.1,37,000/ was debited from Saving Bank CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 206/233 Account of accused Anu Bansal bearing No. 21639.
484. In the cross examination of PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao by accused Anu Bansal, it was deposed to by PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao that application for loan of accused Anu Bansal Ex.PW2/A78 was filled up by him for the applicant and thereafter, he had recommended the same for sanction as Recommending Officer in normal course of business.
485. It has also come in the cross examination of PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao by accused Gopal Prasad that application for loan Ex.PW2/A78 was filled up by him and he had also done the interview of the party in this case and thereafter, he had recommended for the loan.
486. Further, in the cross examination of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak by accused Anu Bansal, it was suggested to PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak that Saving Bank CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 207/233 Account No. 21639 was opened as per the procedure and rules of the bank which witness admitted to be correct.
487. In the entire cross examination of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao by accused Anu Bansal, it was nowhere suggested that this Saving Bank Account No. 21639 was a joint Saving Bank Account of accused Anu Bansal and Kuldeep Aggarwal or that the Saving Bank Account No. 21639 was never opened by accused Anu Bansal. Therefore, false defence has been taken at the stage of statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C which is nothing but an after thought.
488. Therefore, evidence of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao proves on record beyond reasonable doubt that the Saving Bank Account No. 21639 was that of accused Anu Bansal and the same was opened by her as per procedure and CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 208/233 rules of the bank.
489. The evidence of PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao also proves on record that loan application Ex.PW2/A78 was filled up by him on behalf of the party and he had also interviewed accused Anu Bansal prior to recommending for grant of loan.
490. In the entire cross examination of PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao by accused Anu Bansal, it was nowhere suggested to him that accused Anu Bansal had never applied for loan vide Loan Application Ex.PW2/A78 or that she had not signed any loan documents or had not appeared before PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao for the purpose of interview.
491. Although in the cross examination of PW19 Sh.P.K.Khanna, a copy of statement of Account No. 21639 in the name of Kuldeep Aggarwal was shown to the witness but this court fails to compre hend as to why this document was not put to the CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 209/233 bank witnesses i.e. PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao and why no suggestion was given to PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ra manarao that Account No. 21639 was in the sole name of Kuldeep Aggarwal and later on, it became joint account with accused Anu Bansal.
492. Further, no defence evidence was led on record by accused Anu Bansal by calling bank records to prove that Account No. 21639 was ini tially in the sole name of Kuldeep Aggarwal or it later on became joint account when accused Anu Bansal was added as Joint Account Holder.
493. Therefore, it was proved on record by the evi dence of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ra manarao that Account No. 21639 was that of ac cused Anu Bansal whereas accused Anu Bansal failed to prove that it was a joint account.
CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 210/233
494. Another fact which proves that Saving Bank Account No. 21639 was that of accused Anu Bansal is the factum of debit of Rs.1,32,000/ as margin money from the said account, on account of loan granted for the purpose of purchase of second hand truck.
495. In the entire cross examination of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak, it was nowhere suggested to PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak that the amount of Rs.1,32,000/ was wrongly debited from the account of accused Anu Bansal as she had never applied for the loan.
496. Further, accused Anu Bansal had never raised any objection with the bank in writing with regard to debit of Rs.1,32,000/ from her bank account. This fact also proves that accused Anu Bansal had indeed applied for purchase of second hand truck bearing no. HR38G2324.
CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 211/233
497. The other contention of Ld.counsel for accused Anu Bansal was that it was nowhere proved that Loan Application Ex.PW2/A78 and other loan documents were signed by accused Anu Bansal as no specimen handwriting and signatures of accused Anu Bansal were taken for comparison with her signature and handwriting appearing on the loan documents.
498. The said contention is required to be rejected. Although it is true that in the present case, specimen handwriting and signature of accused Anu Bansal have not been taken for getting the same compared with loan documents Ex.PW2/A78 to Ex.PW2/A86 as per admission made by IO PW19 Sh.P.K.Khanna and report of the handwriting expert Ex.PW17/ZZZ but still in the opinion of this court, in the light of unrebutted testimony of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao, as discussed hereinabove, it CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 212/233 was proved on record that accused Anu Bansal was having a Saving Bank Account No. 21639 and in the said account, she had applied for the loan for purchase of second hand truck bearing No. HR 38G2324 and even margin money of Rs.1,32,000/ was debited from her said account.
499. Now, the next question arises is whether accused Anu Bansal in conspiracy with coaccused Ravi Bansal, had produced fake and forged documents for the purpose of availing loan of Rs.9 Lac for purchase of second hand Truck bearing no. HR38G2324 or not?
500. As per evidence of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao, it was accused Anu Bansal, who had applied for the loan for purchase of second hand truck bearing no. HR38G2324 vide Loan Application Ex.PW2/A78 and had also produced a guarantee agreement Ex.PW2/A82 CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 213/233 showing coaccused Ravi Bansal as her guarantor.
501. The factum of accused Ravi Bansal being the guarantor of accused Anu Bansal is proved on record by the Guarantee Agreement Ex.PW2/A82.
502. The Guarantee Agreement Ex.PW2/A82 having signature of accused Ravi Bansal at point Q102 to Q105 had matched with specimen signature S11 to S25 Ex.PW17/WWW as per the report of handwriting expert Ex.PW17/ZZZ.
503. In the entire cross examination of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao by accused Ravi Bansal, it was nowhere suggested that Guarantee Agreement Ex.PW2/A82 was never executed by accused Ravi Bansal. Therefore, report of the handwriting expert and unrebutted testimony of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao proves on record that accused Ravi Bansal had given guarantee for the loan taken CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 214/233 by accused Anu Bansal.
504. PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao have further deposed on oath that Agreement to Sell Ex.PW2/A84 was also produced alongwith Loan Application Ex.PW2/A78 showing truck bearing No. HR38G 2324 being owned by Sh.Rajesh Kumar, Proprietor of M/s.Supreme Road Carriers having its office at godown no.7, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, New Delhi and even the copy of registration certificate Ex.PW2/A86 and National Permit Ex.PW2/A89 were submitted by accused Anu Bansal alongwith Loan application Ex.PW2/A78.
505. PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao have further deposed on oath that after the loan was recommended by PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao, it was sanctioned by accused Gopal Prasad and thereafter, the loan was CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 215/233 disbursed by way of two drafts in the name of M/s.Supreme Road Carriers and the same were credited into the account of M/s.Supreme Road Carriers in Punjab National Bank, Branch Sadar Bazar.
506. To prove that the registration certificate Ex.PW2/A86 was a forged document, the prosecution had examined PW8 Ram Chand.
507. PW8 Ram Chand had deposed on oath that he was working as an Assistant Secretary in the District Transport Office from December, 2002 till July, 2005 and HR38 is the code number for allotment of registration numbers to the vehicles of District Faridabad, Haryana.
508. PW8 Ram Chand further deposed on oath that Sh.Jagdip Singh, District Transport Officer, Faridabad was posted during his tenure and he can identify his signatures as he had worked with him.
CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 216/233
509. PW8 Sh.Ram Chand further deposed on oath after seeing the copy of registration certificate Ex.PW2/A86 of vehicle bearing No. HR38G2324 registered in the name of M/s.Supreme Road Carriers that it was a forged document as it bears forged signatures of the then RTO Sh.Jagdip Singh at points X1 to X5.
510. In the entire cross examination of PW8 Sh.Ram Chand by accused Anu Bansal, nothing was brought out on record to create a doubt in his testimony.
511. Further, accused Anu Bansal also never produced the original registration certificate in her favour showing that she had purchased the truck bearing no. HR38G2324 from Sh.Rajesh Kumar, Proprietor of M/s.Supreme Road Carriers in the cross examination of PW8 Sh.Ram Chand.
CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 217/233
512. Further, Sh.Jagdip, Registering Officer, Faridabad was not examined in her defence to prove that signature appearing on registration certificate Ex.PW2/A86 are that of Sh.Jagdip, the then RTO, Faridabad. However, National Permit Ex.PW2/A89 was never put to PW8 Sh.Ram Chand in his evidence. Since National Permit Ex.PW2/A89 was issued from Transport Department, Faridabad, therefore, only PW8 Sh.Ram Chand could have proved about its genuineness or otherwise. There is no other evidence on record to show that Ex.PW2/A89 was a forged document. Hence, it was not proved that National Permit Ex.PW2/A89 was a forged document. Therefore, it was only proved on record that Ex.PW2/A86 was a forged registration certificate.
513. Prosecution was further required to prove that CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 218/233 Agreement to Sell Ex.PW2/A84 was a forged document. To prove the same, evidence of PW13 Sh.Ashok Kumar is relevant.
514. PW13 Sh.Ashok Kumar had deposed on oath that he was running transport business in the name of M/s Supreme Roadways having his office at Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, Delhi. PW13 Sh.Ashok Kumar had deposed that there is no firm by the name of M/s Supreme Road Carrier in the area where he is having his office i.e. Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, Delhi. He further deposed that no person by the name of Rajesh Kumar has ever worked with him nor any person by the name of Rajesh Kumar was running transport business in Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar and there was no godown no.7 in the area of Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, New Delhi.
515. There was no cross examination of PW13 Sh.Ashok Kumar by accused Anu Bansal meaning CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 219/233 thereby that she admitted this fact that Sh.Rajesh Kumar, Proprietor of M/s.Supreme Road Carriers was nonexistent.
516. The Agreement to Sell Ex.PW2/A84 being a forged document is further corroborated by the ev idence of PW18 Sh.Ashok Kumar.
517. PW18 Sh.Ashok Kumar, who was working as a Senior Manager in Punjab National Bank, Branch Sadar Bazar, Delhi had proved on record the certified copy of statement of account of M/s.Supreme Road Carriers Ex.PW18/B, certified copy of Account Opening Form of accused Ravi Bansal Ex.PW18/C and certified copy of specimen signature card of accused Ravi Bansal Ex.PW18/F and certified true copy of Pan Card of accused Ravi Bansal Ex.PW18/E.
518. In the entire cross examination of PW18 Sh.Ashok Kumar by accused Ravi Bansal, it was never disputed that the record of the account brought by PW18 Sh.Ashok Kumar does not CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 220/233 pertain to accused Ravi Bansal, Proprietor of M/s.Supreme Road Carriers or that the record produced by PW18 Sh.Ashok Kumar pertain to Sh.Rajesh Kumar, Proprietor of M/s.Supreme Road Carriers.
519. Further, I have carefully perused the Account Opening Form pertaining to Account No. 15142 Ex.PW18/C which is duly certified as per bankers's book of Evidence Act, 1872 and it shows that the account is in the name of accused Ravi Bansal, Proprietor of M/s.Supreme Road Carriers and he has given his address of Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, Godown N0.7, Delhi.
520. Further, certified copy of statement of account as per Bankers' book of Evidence Act, 1872 Ex.PW18/B also shows that two drafts have been credited into the account of M/s.Supreme Road Carriers having its office at Godown No.7, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, Delhi.
CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 221/233
521. Therefore, evidence of PW18 Sh.Ashok Kumar establishes beyond reasonable doubt that Agreement to Sell Ex.PW2/A84 was a forged and a fabricated document and Sh.Rajesh Kumar, Proprietor of M/s.Supreme Road Carriers was a nonexistent firm and in fact, M/s.Supreme Road Carriers was a proprietorship concern of accused Ravi Bansal having its bank account at Punjab National Bank, Branch Sadar Bazar from where the amount was fraudulently withdrawn by accused Ravi Bansal.
522. The very fact that in the Punjab National Bank, Branch Sadar Bazar, Delhi, accused Ravi Bansal had shown his address as that of Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, Godown No.7, Delhi which is the same address mentioned in the Agreement to Sell Ex.PW2/A84 further confirms this fact that both accused Ravi Bansal and accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal pursuant to their criminal conspiracy had made Agreement to Sell CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 222/233 Ex.PW2/A84 in the name of Sh.Rajesh Kumar, Proprietor of M/s.Supreme Road Carriers, who was nonexistent person.
523. Hence, document Ex.PW2/A84 was a forged document as it was created in the name of non existent person and is a false document and amounts to forgery as per Explanation 2 to Section 464 IPC which defines a "false document".
524. Therefore, the aforesaid evidence which has come on record proves that Agreement to Sell Ex.PW2/A84 and registration certificate Ex.PW2/A86 were forged document as Sh.Rajesh Kumar, Proprietor of M/s.Supreme Road Carriers was a nonexistent person and M/s.Supreme Road Carriers was in fact a proprietorship concern of accused Ravi Bansal, who was the guarantor of accused Anu Bansal.
525. Further, the fact that loan amount was disbursed into the account of M/s.Supreme Road Carriers in Punjab National Bank, Sadar Bazar CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 223/233 Branch, which was in fact account of accused Ravi Bansal further proves that accused Anu Bansal and accused Ravi Bansal were acting in criminal conspiracy to cheat Canara Bank, Branch Paharganj for the purpose of availing loan for purchase of second hand truck bearing no.HR38G 2324 on the basis of forged and fabricated documents.
526. Now, the next thing which is required to be proved in this transaction is whether Agreement to Sell Ex.PW2/A84 and registration certificate Ex.PW2/A86 were forged by accused Anu Bansal or accused Ravi Bansal?
527. In the present case, handwriting and specimen signature of accused Anu Bansal have not been taken. Therefore, there is no evidence on record to show that any of the aforementioned documents were in fact forged by accused Anu CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 224/233 Bansal.
528. Further, the registration certificate Ex.PW2/A86 was never sent by the IO to the handwriting expert for obtaining his opinion as to whether the signature appearing on registration certificate Ex.PW2/A86 are that of accused Ravi Bansal after matching the same with his specimen signatures S11 to S25 on Ex.PW17/WWW. Therefore, it is also not proved on record that registration certificate Ex.PW2/A86 was forged by accused Ravi Bansal.
529. Further, Agreement to Sell Ex.PW2/A84 was having the signature of Sh.Rajesh Kumar, Proprietor of M/s.Supreme Road Carriers at points Q106 and Q107 and at point Q108 on the payment receipt Ex.PW2/A85 but the report of the handwriting expert Ex.PW17/ZZZ has not been able to give any opinion as to who had made these CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 225/233 signatures at points Q106, Q107 and Q108 after comparing with the specimen signature of accused Ravi Bansal.
530. Therefore, it is also not proved on record that Agreement to Sell Ex.PW2/A84 was forged by accused Ravi Bansal.
531. Therefore, the evidence which has come on record do not prove that any of the forged documents which were used by accused Ravi Bansal and accused Anu Bansal pursuant to their criminal conspiracy were in fact forged by them.
532. As far as accused Gopal Prasad is concerned, the prosecution was required to prove that accused Gopal Prasad in conspiracy with accused Ravi Bansal and accused Anu Bansal had misused his official position in sanctioning of loan on the basis of forged and fabricated documents to coaccused Anu Bansal.
CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 226/233
533. As per the evidence of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao during the processing of this loan, accused Gopal Prasad had made an endorsement on the Registration Certificate Ex.PW2/A86 and National Permit Ex.PW2/A89 that he has verified the same from original.
534. Later on registration certificate Ex.PW2/A86 was found to be forged and fabricated.
535. However, it has not come in the cross examination of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao that there was any procedure or rule of the bank which required Branch Manager to have the registration certificate and National Permit verified from the concerned department before sanctioning of loan.
536. Further, it has come in the cross examination of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak by accused Gopal Prasad CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 227/233 that there was no procedural lapse by accused Gopal Prasad while sanctioning the aforesaid grant of loan.
537. It has also come in the evidence of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao that vehicle loan was sanctioned by accused Gopal Prasad after the same was recommended by the Advance Officer PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao.
538. It has also come in the cross examination of PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao by accused Gopal Prasad that before recommending the grant of loan, he has not raised any objection to the sanction of this loan.
539. It has also come in the cross examination of PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao by accused Gopal Prasad that Recommending Officer can record his dis agreement and in that case, loan is required to be CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 228/233 rejected.
540. It has also come in the evidence of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao that when accused Anu Bansal had not complied with the post sanction formalities by producing the vehicle for physical inspection, by producing copy of registration certificate and insurance policy showing hypothecation in favour of bank, then a notice was issued by accused Gopal Prasad Ex.PW2/A93 asking accused Anu Bansal and guarantor accused Ravi Bansal to produce documents for submission within a week. However, accused Anu Bansal and accused Ravi Bansal had not complied with the said notice.
541. It has also come in the evidence of PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak and PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao that loan was disbursed through two drafts into the account of the seller i.e. M/s.Supreme Road CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 229/233 Carriers. Therefore, end use of the loan was ensured.
542. Therefore, the evidence which has come on record shows that there was no rule or procedure which required Branch Manager to have got the registration certificate and national permit verified from the Transport Department.
543. Further, loan was sanctioned in this case by accused Gopal Prasad based upon recommendation made by Recommending Officer PW3 Sh.M.V.Ramanarao.
544. Further, the payment of the loan amount was also credited into the account of seller i.e. M/s.Supreme Road Carriers by depositing two drafts in their name and end use of the loan was ensured.
CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 230/233
545. Further, nothing was brought on record to show that Head Office or Audit Department has raised any kind of objection to the grant of aforesaid vehicle loan by accused Gopal Prasad.
546. It has also been admitted by PW2 Sh.B.V.Nayak in his cross examination that there is no procedural lapse in the grant of present loan by accused Gopal Prasad.
547. Further, accused Gopal Prasad had also issued a notice Ex.PW2/A93 asking accused Anu Bansal and accused Ravi Bansal to produce documents within one week to complete post sanction formalities and since, they did not comply with the same, therefore, loan was recalled.
548. Further, nothing has been brought on record to show that any pecuniary gain had come to accused Gopal Prasad after sanctioning of present CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 231/233 loan to establish the element of conspiracy. Therefore, prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused Gopal Prasad had misused his official position in the sanctioning of present loan to accused Anu Bansal on the basis of forged documents. Accordingly, acused Gopal Prasad is acquitted for the charges with regard to this vehicle loan.
549. Therefore, it can be concluded that the evidence which has come on record proves beyond reasonable doubt that accused Anu Bansal and accused Ravi Bansal pursuant to their criminal conspiracy had cheated the Canara Bank by availing loan of Rs.9 Lac for the purchase of second hand truck bearing no. HR 38G2324 by using forged Agreement to Sell Ex.PW2/A84 and forged registration certificate Ex.PW2/A86. Accordingly, accused Ravi Bansal and accused Anu Bansal are convicted for the CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 232/233 offence under Section 120B, 420 and 471 read with Section 120B IPC for this transaction.
550. In the light of above discussion, accused Gopal Prasad is convicted for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988. Further, accused Gopal Prasad, accused Ravi Bansal and accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal are convicted for the offence under Sections 120B, 420,467,468,471 read with Section 120B IPC with regard to transaction of discounting of six cheques.
551. Further, accused Ravi Bansal and accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal are convicted for the offence under Section 120B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC read with Section 120B IPC with regard to loan transaction of old Hyundai car bearing No. DL 5CB3186.
552. Further, accused Ravi Bansal and accused Vijay Laxmi Bansal are convicted for the offence CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.
Page: 233/233 under Section 120B, 420,467, 468 and 471 IPC read with Section 120B IPC with regard to loan transaction of second hand Tata Truck bearing No. HR38C7858.
553. Further, accused Ravi Bansal and accused Anu Bansal are convicted for the offence under Section 120B, 420 and 471 IPC read with Section 120B IPC for loan transaction of another second hand Tata truck bearing No. HR38G 2324.
554. Put up on 31.01.2019 at 2.30 p.m. for arguments on the point of sentence.
555. Copy of judgment be supplied free of cost to convicts.
Digitally signed by VIKAS VIKAS DHULL
DHULL Date:
2019.01.28
15:56:37 +0530
Announced in the open court (Vikas Dhull)
Dated: 28.01.2019 Spl. Judge (PC Act) (CBI)03
Dwarka Courts/New Delhi
CC No. 23/12 CBI Vs. Ravi Bansal and Ors.