Delhi District Court
State vs N.M. Krisnan on 24 December, 2024
CR No.70994/2016 State Vs. N.M. Krishnan
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
PRESIDED BY: SH. P. BHARGAV RAO
DLWT020001062000
FIR No. 109/2000
PS Punjabi Bagh
U/s 406/420/468/471/120B IPC
STATE VS. N.M. KRISHNAN
1) CR Case No. 70994/2016
2) Date of offence(s) November, 1995
3) Complainant Hardev Chadha S/o Sh. Munshi Ram
Chadha R/o 35A, Block F, Pkt. FG-1,
Vikaspuri, New Delhi.
4) Accused person(s) 1. N.M. Krishnan, Proprietor Senthil
Financier & Builders, 117 NTR Street,
Rangrajapuram, Chennai.
2. Arjun Shergil S/o Late Sh. K.K. Gill, R/o
GT-29, Sector - 117, Noida, U.P - 201304.
3. Anil Kumar Dhawan S/o Sh. C.P.
Dhawan R/o I-501, Ajnara Integrity, Raj
Nagar Extension, Ghaziabad, U.P. -
201017.
4. Sanjay Bhandari, V.K. Tours &
Transport, 118-A FF, Arjun Nagar,
Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi - 110029
R/o B-6/69, S.J. Enclave, New Delhi.
5) Offences 406/420/468/471/120B IPC
6) Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
7) Final Order Acquitted
8) Date of institution 26.02.2002
Digitally
signed by P
9) Date of judgment 24.12.2024
BHARGAV
P RAO
BHARGAV Date:
RAO 2024.12.24
16:44:47
+0530
FIR No.109/2000 PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 1 of 23
CR No.70994/2016 State Vs. N.M. Krishnan
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1.It is pertinent to mention at the outset that FIR was registered in the present case on an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. vide order dated 05.02.2000. Cognizance of the offense was taken on 05.06.2002. The brief facts of the complaint inter alia which are necessary for adjudication of the present case are reproduced hereunder:
That somewhere in the month of November, 1995 two persons claiming themselves to be the Financial Brokers had approached the petitioner company in its office aforesaid at Punjabi Bagh. It was represented by them that they could arrange the finance/money for the petitioner company and in consideration thereof they would be charging their commission. It was further represented by them that they would get the money from M/s Μ.Λ.Μ. Annamalayar Trust, having its office at M.A.M. House, Royavaram, Pudukottai. This trust was also represented by its Power of Attorney Holder M/s Senthil Financer and Builders. Shri N.M. Krishanna was the Managing Trustee of this Trust, who was the attorney holder of the said trust and was having its office at Chennai-24. In brief the said persons were to arrange loan for the petitioner- company of the extent of Rs.985 Crores from the said trust though the said M/s Senthil Financers and Builders through Shri N.M.Krishnanan. On such representations made by the said two persons, the petitioner had agreed to accept the loan to the extent of the said amount from the said trust. In the next meeting Shri N.M. Krishanan had also accompanied the said two persons to the office of the petitioner. Detailed discussions were held in regard to the said transaction in between the parties. The said Shri N.M. Krishanan had agreed to lend money to the extent of Rs.985 Crores to the Petitioner Company on the condition that the petitioner-company would create a mortgage of its hotel Digitally properties in favour of the trust. The transaction was finalised in between the signed by P BHARGAV P RAO BHARGAV Date:
RAO 2024.12.24
16:44:52
+0530
parties in the aforesaid office of the Petitioner Company, at Punjabi Bagh.FIR No.109/2000 PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 2 of 23
CR No.70994/2016 State Vs. N.M. Krishnan That Mr. N.M. Krishanan alongwith the said persons had agreed to arrange the said loan and had offered their services to get the documents prepared in that regard. They had required the Petitioner Company to part with a sum of Rs.65 Lacs for arranging and procuring the requisite Stamp Papers and adhesive stamps in order to get the Loan Agreement executed upon the same. The stamp papers as represented by them were required for reducing into writing the various terms and conditions of the loan agreement to he entered into in between the parties.
That the petitioner-company relaying upon the said representations made by the said persons had made the payment of Rs.65 lacs to them. This payment of Rs.65 lacs was made by the petitioner company through various Bank Drafts, details of which is annexed herewith, and marked as Annexure A. However, these drafts were prepared in the name of Shri Pavan Sachdeva, the Chairman and Managing Director of the petitioner company, who had simultaneously endorsed the same in blank and handed over the same to the said persons in order to facilitate them to procure the requisite stamp papers. This modus operandi to make the payment by the petitioner company was also adopted on asking of the said persons only. They had required the payment with blank endorsement so that they could get the drafts encashed as per their own convenience for obtaining the stamp papers. So that they could be endorsed to the stamp vendors. The petitioner company had got the drafts prepared in the name of its Chairman and Managing Director since the drafts could not have been got prepared and obtained from the Bank in Blank. The drafts were to be issued in favour of some person since all the said accused wanted the bearer drafts. The petitioner company had got the drafts prepared in the name of Chairman and Managing Director, who had in turn endorsed the same blank and handed over the same to the said three persons. Digitally signed by P P BHARGAV RAO That the aforesaid persons had obtained some stamp papers and adhesive BHARGAV Date:
RAO 2024.12.24
16:44:57
+0530
FIR No.109/2000 PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 3 of 23
CR No.70994/2016 State Vs. N.M. Krishnan
stamps from Shri C. Thirumohan Stamp Vendor having its office at Stringer Street, Madras-108 with the License No.109/B 41889 and S. Rajaram for the value of Rs.60.75 Lacs. They had also got the loan Agreement reduced into writing upon the said papers. The adhesive stamps were also affixed on the said document. The said document was handover to the petitioner company for the purposes of signing the same. The said documents containing adhesive stamps have also been countersigned by Shri S. Rajaram, party No.4 hereinabove. It is submitted that petitioner was required to pay a sum of Rs.65 lacs even though the adhesive stamps and stamp papers for value of Rs.60.75 lacs were only produced by them. The balance amount of Rs.4.25 lacs is still lying with them and have also been mis-appropriated by them for their personal use and gains.
That the petitioner-company was never released the money of Rs.985 Crores as promised by the aforesaid persons, but, it has also transpired that the adhesive stamps as well as the stamp papers upon which the said loan Agreement was reduced into writing are also forged. When the said trust did not release the money in favour of the petitioner company, the petitioner company approached the Stamp Vendor for refund of the ainount spent for purchasing and procuring the stamp papers and also the adhesive court stamps. At that time the petitioner company was informed that the said adhesive stamps and stamos papers were forged and fabricated documents. The petitioner company was not paid any amount in refund from the authorities concerned.
That the facts became clear that all the aforesaid three persons had conspired with each other and with a pre-planned conspiracy planned out the scheme and in furtherance thereof had approached the petitioner company. In preplanned manner all the accused aforesaid had approached the petitioner and made false and dishonest representations of arranging loan for the petitioner company. They falsely represented the petitioner company in order to induce Digitally signed by P BHARGAV P RAO the company to part away the sum of Rs.65 lacs. The complainant company was BHARGAV Date:
RAO 2024.12.24
16:45:02
+0530
FIR No.109/2000 PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 4 of 23
CR No.70994/2016 State Vs. N.M. Krishnan
misrepresented and cheated by them, and under the said inducement the complainant company had paid a sum of Rs.65.lacs to them. It is evident that all these accused persons had already procured the forged and fabricated stamp papers and adhesive stamps and had cooked up the whole story in order to extract money from the petitioner. They had used the said forged and fabricated documents purported to be the stamp paper and adhesive court stamps in order to play a fraud upon the petitioner company. They are not only guilty of forging and fabricating the documents, but, they have also cheated the petitioner company by a sum of Rs.65 lacs. The intentions of all the said persons have throughout been to cheat the petitioner company and use the said forged and fabricated documents. Relying upon the said statement the petitioner company had agreed to take loan from the said trust and had parted away the sum of Rs.65 lacs to the said persons. Later on, on enquiry it further came to know that the said bank statement was also forged.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that on the above complaint this case was registered by local police of PS Punjabi Bagh. Later on, the investigation was transferred to EOW, Crime Branch and the case was investigated by SI C.L. Bhardwaj. During investigation, the IO recorded the statement of Sh. Pawan Sachdeva, MD of M.S. Shoes East Ltd. who stated that inadvertently his attorney Sh. Hardev Chada could not mention the names of the two financial brokers. The names of two financial brokers are Arjun Shergill and Anil Dhawan who introduced N.M. Krishnan to him and induced him to make payment of Rs. 65 lacs for purchase of Stamp papers/adhesive stamps. The IO also recorded the statement of Sh. Hardev Chadha complainant who stated that inadvertently he could not mention the name of two financial brokers in the complaint. The name of two financial brokers are Arjun Shergill and Anil Dhawan. The IO made efforts to trace Arjun Shergill and Anil Dhawan. P Digitally signed by P BHARGAV RAO BHARGAV Date:
RAO However, Sh. Pawan Sachdeva brought them to EOW and identified them. The 2024.12.24 16:45:08 +0530 FIR No.109/2000 PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 5 of 23 CR No.70994/2016 State Vs. N.M. Krishnan IO also seized alleged forged stamp papers and adhesive stamps from Sh. Pawan Sachdeva. Later on the investigation was handed over to SI Pratap Singh. During investigation the IO collected reply of State Bank of Indore, Karol Bagh, New Delhi and they confirmed that M/s MS Shoes East Ltd. was running current A/c No. CD-065. 16 drafts amounting to Rs. 65 lacs were issued from the account of M/s M.S. Shoes East Ltd. and were in favour of Sh. Pawan Sachdev. The drafts were payable at State Bank of Indore, Broadway Branch, Chennai. The IO collected the reply from the State Bank of Indore, Broadway Branch Chennai and they confirmed payment of Draft Nos. 880644 to 880646 for Rs. 1 Lacs each and Draft No. 880647 for Rs 2 Lacs were collected by State Bank of Indore, Greater Kailash, New Delhi. The payment of Draft Nos 880632 to 880643 for Rs. 5 lacs each was collected by Indian Overseas Bank Kodambakkam, Chennai. They also provided attested copies of the bank drafts. The IO also collected the reply of Indian Overseas Bank Kodambakkam, Chennai and they confirmed that twelve drafts numbers 880632 to 880643 of Rs. 5 Lacs each were presented by them and collected the payment from State Bank of Indore, Broadway Branch, Chennai. The payment of these drafts was credited in the account No. CA 2114 of Senthil Financiers and Builders. The proprietor of this firm is N.M. Krishnan. The IO also collected reply of State Bank of Indore, Greater Kailash Branch and they confirmed that drafts amounting to Rs. 5 lacs were sent in collection and credited Rs 4,98,630/- in the account of M/s V.K. Tours & Transport. The proprietor of firm is Mr. Sanjay Bhandari. M/s V.K Tours & Transport could not clarify from where they received these four drafts. The IO examined Thiru E. Dharman District Registrar, Chennai who confirmed that stamp vender C. Thirumohan is registered with his office. He also provided the photocopy of sale register dt.
4.12.95 of stamp vender C. Thirumohan. There in no entry in the sale register Digitally
signed by P
BHARGAV
P RAO
BHARGAV
dt. 4.12.95 of C. Thirumohan stamp vendor of Sl. Nos mentioned on 15 stamp Date:
RAO 2024.12.24
16:45:14
+0530
FIR No.109/2000 PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 6 of 23
CR No.70994/2016 State Vs. N.M. Krishnan
papers of Rs. 5000/- each in question. The IO N.M. Krishnan, Arjun Sand Anil Dhawan have committed offence u/s 420/406/ 467/468/471/120-B IPC. Pof Rs. 5 lacs against draft Nos. 880644 to 880646 for Rs on lac each and DD No. 880647 for Rs 2 lacs was credited in the account of V.K. Tours & Transport whose proprietor is Sanjay Bhandari. He could not clarify from where he had received drafts of Rs. 5 lacs in question. Despite of visits to his office by IO, contact on phone, receipt of letter and Notice u/s 160 Cr.P.C., Sanjay Bhandari did not join investigation and did not provide the details from where he procured the four drafts of Rs. 5 Lacs in question. But it is fact that amount of Rs. 5 Lacs against four drafts was credited on the account of V.K. Tour & Transport whose proprietor is Sanjay Bhandari. Hence, he is beneficiary of the said cheated amount. He has also been chargesheeted in Col No. 4 with the other accused persons. As this Hon'ble Court has already taken cognizance on the complaint of Sh. Hardev Chadha, Attorney of M.S. Shoes East Ltd. and investigation of the case was going on simultaneously, the accused persons shown in Col No. 4 of the chargesheet were not arrested. However sufficient evidence to recommend prosecution for all the four accused persons has come on record. Therefore, all of them namely N.M. Krishnan, Anil Kumar Dhawan, Arjun Shergil and Sanjay Bhandari are recommended for trial as per law. They may be called through notices and witnesses cited in the list enclosed be called through summons also examined C. Thirumohan stamp vender who confirmed that he has not sold the 15 stamp papers of of Rs. 5000/- each in question and his signature and seal on the stamp papers is forged. The IO also made investigation regarding 1170 adhesive stamps of Rs.5000/- each and examined Thiru R. Venu, Asstt. Superintendent of Stamp, Chennai and the adhesive stamps pasted on 39 pages bearing seal of Asst. Superintendent of stamps and signature of S. Rajaram were shown to Sh. Thiru R. Venu Asstt. Superintendent Digitally signed by P BHARGAV P RAO BHARGAV of stamps who confirmed that on the stamps seal impression of General Stamp Date:
RAO 2024.12.24
16:45:20
+0530
FIR No.109/2000 PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 7 of 23
CR No.70994/2016 State Vs. N.M. Krishnan
Office dated 4.12.95 are forged since there was no office functioning at Saidaipet Chennai- 15 on 4.12.95. He also confirmed that on 4.12.95 there was no person in the name of Thiru Raja Ram working as Asst. Superintendent of stamps and hence signatures are forged. They have not sold 1170 adhesive stamps of Rs.5000/- each in question. There is stamp of district Registry Stamp Depot Madras October 1995 on each stamp paper of Rs. 5000/-. The IO examined Sh. Thriu S. Shivaraman Treasury Officer Distt. Treasury, Chennai but he could not confirm the genuinity of the seal at this distance time. The address of M/s M.AM. Annamalayar Trust has been shown at M.A.M. House Royavaram, Pudikottai. The IO also made investigation at M.AM. House Royavaram, Tamilnadu. Sh. M.A.M. Palaniappa Chettiar owner of MAM House was examined who confirmed that there is/was no trust in the name of Annamalayar Trust at present or in 1995 MAM House (given addresses) and he does not know N.M. Krishnan. The IO also recorded statement of Rathaalrishan S/o Sh. Kranppah who translated the statement of Sh. MAM Palaniappa Chettiar from Tamil language to English. The IO made search of N.M. Krishnan but he has vacated the office of Santil Financiers & Builders No. 117 N.TR.
Street, Rangarajapuram Chennai and his present whereabouts are not known. The 15 stamp papers and 1170 adhesive stamps were sent to India Security Press Nasik to verify whether these are forged or not. The report from India Security Press Nasik Road have been received and they have confirmed all the 15 stamp papers of Rs. 5000/- each in question and all the 1170 Spl. Adhesive stamps of Rs. 5000/- each are forged. From the investigation made so far it has come on record that accused N.M. Krishnan, Arjun Shergil and Anil Dhawan entered in deep rooted conspiracy and mislead the complainant that they will provide a loan of Rs. 985 Crores from Annamalayar Trust. They also induced Digitally the complainant to make payment of Rs.65 lacs for purchase of stamp papers P BHARGAV signed by P BHARGAV RAO Date:
RAO 2024.12.24 and adhesive stamps for writing agreement for providing loan. The complainant 16:45:33 +0530 FIR No.109/2000 PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 8 of 23 CR No.70994/2016 State Vs. N.M. Krishnan company made payment of Rs. 65 lacs to above accused persons through 16 bank drafts and Sh. Pawan Sachdeva Chairman cum Manager Director of M.S Shoes East Ltd. made blank endorsement on the back side of the bank drafts. The IO also examined Sh Pawan Sachdeva. The above accused persons arranged forged stamp papers and adhesive stamps and typed loan agreement, lease agreement on forged stamp papers and adhesive stamps and handed over the same to the complainant company for signature. No loan amount was released. Payment of Rs. 60 lacs was credited in the account of M/s Senthil Financiers & Builders whose proprietor is N.M. Krishnan. There was no trust in the name of Annamalayar Trust at the given address. The 15 stamp papers of Rs. 5000/- each in question have not been sold by C. Thirumohan Stamp vendor and his signature and seal on the stamp papers are forged. Asst. Superintendent of stamps have confirmed that they have not sold 1170 adhesive stamps in question on 4.12.95 and seal and signature on the adhesive stamps are forged. The above 15 stamps papers and adhesive stamps were forwarded by the accused persons to complainant after writing the agreement and lease agreement on the same. The accused persons had no arrangement of providing a loan of Rs. 985 Crores to complainant. Thus accused N.M. Krishnan, Arjun Shergil and Anil Dhawan have committed offence u/s 420/406/467/468/471/120-B IPC. Payment of Rs. 5 lacs against draft Nos. 880644 to 880646 for Rs one lac each and DD No. 880647 for Rs 2 lacs was credited in the account of V.K. Tours & Transport whose proprietor is Sanjay Bhandari. He could not clarify from where he had received the demand drafts of Rs. 5 lacs in question. Despite of visits to his office by IO, contact on telephone, receipt of letter and Notice u/s 160 Cr.P.C., Sanjay Bhandari did not join investigation and did not provide the details from where he procured the four drafts of Rs. 5 Lacs in question. But it Digitally is fact that amount of Rs. 5 Lacs against four drafts was credited on the account P BHARGAV signed by P BHARGAV RAO Date:
RAO 2024.12.24 of V.K. Tour & Transport whose proprietor is Sanjay Bhandari. Hence he is 16:45:39 +0530 FIR No.109/2000 PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 9 of 23 CR No.70994/2016 State Vs. N.M. Krishnan beneficiary of the said cheated amount. He has also been chargesheeted in Col No. 4 with the other accused persons. As this Hon'ble Court has already taken cognizance on the complaint of Sh. Hardev Chadha, Attorney of M.S. Shoes East Ltd. and investigation of the case was going on simultaneously, the accused persons shown in Col No. 4 of the chargesheet were not arrested. However, sufficient evidence to recommend prosecution for all the four accused persons has come on record.
3. Pursuant to direction of FIR, two witnesses i.e. Hardev Chadha, AR of the complainant company and Dalip Kumar, Clerk-cum-cashier, State Bank of Indore, Industrial Finance Branch were examined. In the meantime, chargesheet was filed, thereafter, the witnesses were not cross-examined.
4. It is pertinent to mention that since both Hardev Chadha, AR of the complainant company and Dalip Kumar, Clerk-cum-cashier, State Bank of Indore, Industrial Finance Branch were not examined by Ld. Counsel for accused, their testimonies cannot be read in the evidence.
5. Accused N.M. Krishnan was declared Proclaimed Offender vide order dated 18.07.2005.
6. Charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Section 406/420/468/471/120B IPC was filed by the investigating officer against the accused persons. Consequently, the said accused persons were summoned by the Court. The compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. was made and thereafter the charge for the offence punishable under Section 406/420/468/471/120B IPC was framed against the accused persons on 12.12.2013 to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. Vide order dated 10.02.2015, complainant Hardev Chadha was dropped from list of witnesses.
Digitally
8. To substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined the following P BHARGAV signed by P BHARGAV RAO Date:
RAO 2024.12.24 witnesses in the case:
16:45:45 +0530 FIR No.109/2000 PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 10 of 23 CR No.70994/2016 State Vs. N.M. Krishnan
9. HC Vasudev deposed that he was entrusted with the process u/s 82 Cr.P.C. and his detailed report is Ex.CW1/A. He further deposed that the report on the process u/s 83 Cr.P.C. is Ex.CW1/B.
10. Pawan Sachdeva deposed that he was Chairman cum Managing Director of M/s Shoes East Ltd., registered office at 112A Ekta Enclave. He further deposed that during investigation handed-over some document to IO which was seized vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW1/A. He further deposed that he also handed- over original Indian Non-Judicial stamp papers of Rs.5,000/- each having district treasury stamp of October, 1995 bearing No. 1458 to 1472 dated 04.12.1995 having stamp and signature of C.Thirumohan stamp vendor stringer street Madras 109/D41889 (total 5000 X 15) and stamp papers. He further deposed that he handed-over forty documents each containing special adhesive stamps of denominations 5000 X 30 on each page stamped by treasury Madras totalling Rs.60.00 lakhs which are documents of simple mortgage having stamp and signatures of S. Raja Ram (Stamp Vendor). The forty pages document are Ex.PW1/C. He further deposed that two financial brokers namely Anil Dhawan and Arjun Shergeil approached him at Punjabi Bagh office in November, 1995 and represented that they can arrange a loan of about Rs.1000 crores from a trust MAM Annmalayar at Poddukatai through its attorney M/s. Senthil Financers. He further deposed that those two brokers came along with NM Krishnan to his office in Punjabi Bagh in December, 1995 and told loan would be granted for which non-judicial stamp papers and adhesive stamps of Rs.65.00 lakhs are required. He further deposed that accused had shown the bank statement of the trust having balance amount of the sought loan and demand draft of Rs.65.00 lakhs were issued in his name. He further deposed that the demand drafts were endorsed on the request of those three accused and non-judicial stamp papers and adhesive stamp papers were given to him after Digitally signed by P BHARGAV P RAO typing the loan agreement. Thereafter, it is stated that when the loan was not BHARGAV Date:
RAO 2024.12.24
16:45:51
+0530
FIR No.109/2000 PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 11 of 23
CR No.70994/2016 State Vs. N.M. Krishnan
released, Pawan Sachdeva approached to get the refund of the stamp papers and adhesive stamps but came to know that it was forged. He further deposed that the accused cheated them, forged the documents and the bank statement showing them the loan amount which was sought for was also forged. He further deposed that names of accused Anil Dhawan and Arjun Shergil were not mentioned inadvertently in the complaint by complainant Hardev Chadha, however, he had produced the accused persons before the IO but could not produce accused N.M. Krishnan as he was untraceable. The witness was cross- examined by Ld. Counsel for accused persons.
11. Abhishek Kumar Verma deposed that :
"I am a summoned witness and today I state that the concerned document has already been destroyed as per the RBI guidelines being more than 10 years old. The required letter dated 07.09.18 on the letterhead of state bank of India under my signatures has also been filed by me regarding the same. The same be taken on record. The letter is now Ex.A1."
12. Manoj Kumar deposed that :
"I have brought the summoned record i.e. pertaining to statement of account/ledger in respect of M/s M.S. Shoes East Ltd. having address at 5 NWA, Punjabi Bagh Extension, New Delhi bearing account no. 065 which was changed later on to 01050060010 which is also further changed to 53049420674 from 27.09.1994 to 27.03.2007, certified copy of which is Ex. PW-3/A (running Into 28 pages) bearing my signatures at point A. The last transaction in the said account took place in the month of June, 1996". The witness was cross- examined by Ld. Counsel for accused persons.
13. PW Anil Kohli deposed that:
"Today. I have been summoned to produce the record with current account number V-0012 and for the letter number GK/MISC/0058/2001-02, Digitally signed by P P BHARGAV RAO BHARGAV dated 26.05.2001. As per our record the above said documents are not available Date:
RAO 2024.12.24
16:45:56
+0530
FIR No.109/2000 PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 12 of 23
CR No.70994/2016 State Vs. N.M. Krishnan
at present as the above said record is 20 years old and is not found in the bank. The details I have mentioned in the letter, which is Ex. PW-4/A (into two pages) bearing my signatures at point A. However, the above said documents are already on record and these are certified copies duly verified by the then Manager. I have seen the signatures on the above said letter. These signatures are appear to be of the Pramod Kumar Srivastava, the then Chief Manager of the State bank of Indore, M-10, GK-II. Mr. P.K. Srivastava may be summoned to identify his signatures". The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused persons as "Nil - opportunity given".
14. PW5 Retd. ASI Sunder Singh deposed that :
"On 18.02.2000, 1 was posted as Duty Officer at PS Punjabi Bagh. My duty hours were from 4.00 pm to 12 mid night. At about 8 pm, one rukka was brought before me through SHO concerned and I registered FIR on the basis of the same which is Ex.PWS/A (OSR) bearing my Signature at point A. I handed over the copy of FIR to SI Balihar Singh". The witness was cross-examined by accused persons as "Nil - opportunity given".
15. PW Radha Krishnan Venu deposed that:
"In the year 2001, 1 was working as Assistant Superintendent of Stomps at Chennai. My tenure in the department was from 01.07.1999 to 31.05.2001. On 20.03.2001, Police officer Pratap Singh approached for report on the sale of stamps. I had given information that no stamps was sold at that office on 04.12.1995, Police officer also confirmed the stamps not sold by this office and no office was working as Assistant Superintendent of Stamps. There is also to person in the name of Raja Ram who said to have signed on the stamp papers. On the requisition of police officials, I had provided the information/ report relating to the stamps by the letter dated 20.03.2001 which is Ex.PW6/A bearing my signature at point A". Ld. APP sought permission to cross-examine Digitally signed by P BHARGAV P RAO BHARGAV Date:
the witness as the witness is not deposing the complete facts. During the cross-
RAO 2024.12.24
16:46:03
+0530
FIR No.109/2000 PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 13 of 23
CR No.70994/2016 State Vs. N.M. Krishnan
examination by Ld. APP, the witness denied the suggestion that witness had seen 1170 special adhesive stamps of 5000 rupees on the police file and further denied the suggestion that there are 39 pages and on each page 30 adhesive stamps of Rs.5000 is affixed. The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused persons as "Nil - opportunity given".
16. PW ACP C. L. Bhardwaj deposed that:
"In May. 2000, I was posted as Sl at EOW Cell, Crime Branch, Delhi. In June-July, I was entrusted with the investigation of the present case. During investigation, I had demanded the documents from the complainant Mr Pawan Sachdeva. After 3-4 months the complainant had produced some documents at office of EOW, Qutub Institutional Area, Delhi. Thereafter, I had recorded the statement of complainant Pawan Sachdeva which is already Ex.PW1/DB bearing my signature at point A. I had also recorded the statement of Hardev Chadha, Authorized Attorney of the complainant which is Ex.PW7/A bearing my signature at point A. I do not remember the contents of statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. which are on record. During the investigation I also seized some relevant documents including the loan documents which were produced by the complainant vide seizure memo already Ex.PWI/A now bearing my signature at point B. Thereafter, investigation of the present case was transferred to SI Pratap Singh". The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused persons.
17. PW-8 Sh. M. R. Nachiappan, Chief Manager, Indian Overseas Hank, Kodambakkam Branch, Chennai deposed that:
"I have been working as a Chief Manager in Indian Overseas Bank. Kodambakkam Branch. Chennai since 03.06.2016. Today. I have come alongwith photocopy of the letter of Indian Overseas Bank dated 09.03.2001. photocopy of Clearing Credit Challan of Rs. 60 lakhs, photocopy of the details P Digitally signed by P BHARGAV RAO BHARGAV Date:
RAO of Clearing Credit Challan, photocopy of the Specimen signature of the N. M. 2024.12.24 16:46:09 +0530 FIR No.109/2000 PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 14 of 23 CR No.70994/2016 State Vs. N.M. Krishnan Krishnan, photocopy of the account opening form, photocopy of one document signed by the complainant Pawan Sachdeva attested by Chief Manager, Industrial Finance Branch. Karol Bagh, photocopy of the statement of account w.e.f. March, 1994 to 09.12.1996 in the name of Senthil Financiers and Builders and another statement of account w.c.f. 01.01.1997 to 18.03.2001 in the name of Senthil Financiers and Builders. Original / photocopy of the abovesaid documents are already in judicial record. Original letter of Indian Overseas Bank dated 09.03.2001 is exhibit Ex.PW8/A, Photocopy of Clearing Credit Challan of Rs.60 lakhs is Mark A. Photocopy of the details of Clearing Credit Challan is Mark B. photocopy of the Specimen signature of the N. M. Krishnan is Mark C, photocopy of the account opening form is Mark D (running into 5 pages), photocopy of one document signed by the complainant Pawan Sachdeva attested by Chief Manager. Industrial Finance Branch. Karol Bagh Mark E. Original statement of current account no.2114 w.e.f. March, 1994 to 09.12.1996 in the name Senthil Financiers and Builders which is Ex.PV8/8 (running into 7 pages) and another original statement of abovesaid account w.e.f. 01.01.1997 to
18.03.2001 in the name of Senthil Financiers and Builders which is Ex.PW8/C (running into 2 pages)". The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused persons.
18. PW9 Sh. Ravi Krishna Srivastava deposed that:
"In February, 2002. I was working as Works Manager, in India Security Press, Nasik. We had received 15 Non Judicial Stamps in the denomination of Rs.5.000/- and 39 sheets of Special Adhesive Stamps for their examination sent by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime Branch Delhi. After examination, I found that all the abovesaid documents were forged and I had prepared the detailed report in this regard which is PW9/A bearing my signature at point A". The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused P Digitally signed by P BHARGAV RAO BHARGAV Date:
RAO persons as "Nil - opportunity given".
2024.12.24 16:46:15 +0530 FIR No.109/2000 PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 15 of 23 CR No.70994/2016 State Vs. N.M. Krishnan
19. PW Anil Kohli, Cash Officer, State Bank of India, NRI Branch GK 11 deposed that:
"I have been deputed by the Branch Manager to appear on behalf of Sh. P. K. Srivastava. I cannot identify the signature of Sh. P.K. Srivastava on relevant documents. The address of P. K. Srivastava is also not available in the branch as he had left the bank before 2-3 years ago".
20. PW10 Sh Radhakrishnan deposed that:
"I can understand, read and write Tamil language only and Lam unable to translate the Tamil language into English language. Though I am well versed with Tamil language". Ld APP for the State sought permission to cross-examine the witness as the witness is resiling from his previous statement. Ld APP for the State has cross-examined the witness as under:
"I am the Caretaker and Accountant of MM Palaniappa Chittiar R/o MM House, Padumanai Line Street, Royavaram District Padukottia, Tamil Nadu. It is wrong to suggest that on 23-03-2001 police official had recorded the statement of MAM Palaniappa Chittiar in English and he had spoken in Tamil language and I had correctly translated the same in English language. It is wrong to suggest that MAM Palaniappa Chittiar had stated that there was no trust at MAM House at present nor in the year 1995 in the name and style of Annamalayar Trust. At this stage the witness is confronted from portion A to A-1 of his previous statement Mark 10A wherein it is so recorded." The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused persons as "Nil - opportunity given".
21. Upon completion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of accused persons under section 313 read with Section 281 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 28.02.2022 and the evidence surfaced against them and documents exhibited during the trial were put to them. The accused persons denied their correctness Digitally signed by P BHARGAV P RAO BHARGAV Date:
and pleaded innocence. The accused persons opted not to lead defence evidence.
RAO 2024.12.24
16:46:23
+0530
FIR No.109/2000 PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 16 of 23
CR No.70994/2016 State Vs. N.M. Krishnan
22. I have heard arguments on behalf of the State as well as arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons and also carefully perused the material record.
LEGAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED
23. Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 reads as:
"406. Punishment for criminal breach of trust.-- Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both".
24. Section 405 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 defines criminal breach of trust:
"405. Criminal breach of trust.--
Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits "criminal breach of trust".
25. Section 120B IPC provides for the offence of criminal conspiracy.
"Criminal conspiracy" is defined u/s 120 A IPC which reads as under:
"Definition of criminal conspiracy- When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done,-
An illegal act, or An act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy"
26. The essential ingredients to attract Section 120A are:
There should be two or more persons.
There should be an agreement between themselves. The agreement must be to do or cause to be done: an illegal act, or a legal act by illegal means.
27. Section 120A is a substantive offence. It is a settled proposition of law Digitally that in case of a conspiracy to commit an offence, the mere agreement is signed by P BHARGAV P RAO BHARGAV Date:
RAO 2024.12.24
16:46:30
+0530
FIR No.109/2000 PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 17 of 23
CR No.70994/2016 State Vs. N.M. Krishnan
sufficient to impose liability without the requirement that some overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy should have been committed.
28. Section 420 IPC provides for the offence of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. Simple cheating is punishable u/s 417 IPC. But where there is delivery or destruction of any property or alteration or destruction of any valuable security resulting from the act of person deceiving, the same falls under the ambit of section 420. It reads as under:
"420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.- Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person de- ceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine"
29. The essential ingredients to attract Section 420 IPC are:
Cheating:
Dishonest inducement to deliver property or to make, alter or destroy any valuable security or anything which is sealed or is capable of being converted into a valuable security; and Mens rea of the accused at the time of making the inducement.
30. It should also be noted that accused should have dishonest intention to cheat right at the time of making the promise or representation. If he does not have any such intention at the very outset and if he subsequently fails to fulfil the said promise, then he cannot be convicted for the offence punishable u/s 420 IPC. Reference can be taken from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hira Lal Hari Lal vs. CBI (2003) 5 SCC 257.
31. Section 468 of IPC reads as:
"468. Forgery for purpose of cheating.--
Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic Digitally record forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished P signed by P BHARGAV RAO BHARGAV Date:
with imprisonment of either de-scription for a term which may extend to RAO 2024.12.24 16:46:35 +0530 FIR No.109/2000 PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 18 of 23 CR No.70994/2016 State Vs. N.M. Krishnan seven years, and shall also be liable to fine"
32. A bare reading of this provision suggests that a person may be convicted under this offence if the following essential ingredients get fulfilled:
i. Existence of a forged document.
ii. Forged document must used for the purpose of cheating.
33. Therefore, the primary ingredient which needs to be proved by the prosecution in order to attract section 468 IPC is the existence of a forged document. Forgery is defined in section 463 IPC as the making of a false document or false electronic record with any of intentions mentioned therein. Section 464 defines the making of false document or false electronic record. Section 463 reads as under:
"Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to comme fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery".
34. Section 464 IPC reads as under:
"Making a false document A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record-
First- Who dishonestly or fraudulently Makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document:
Makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record: Affixes any electronic signature or any electronic record, Makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or authenticity of the electronic signature, With the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document, electronic record or electronic signature was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed. or affixed; or Secondly- Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed pr affixed with electronic signature either by himself or by any other person, whether such Digitally signed by P person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or P BHARGAV BHARGAV RAO Date:
Thirdly-Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, RAO 2024.12.24 16:46:41 +0530 FIR No.109/2000 PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 19 of 23 CR No.70994/2016 State Vs. N.M. Krishnan execute or alter a document or an electronic record or affix his electronic signature on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practiced upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration."
35. Therefore, a combined reading of the provisions enshrined in section 463 and 464 suggests that in addition to prove the making/existence of a false document by the accused, the prosecution is also required to establish that the said document or electronic record as the case may be, was forged to achieve any of the intentions enumerated in Section 463 i.e. (i) to cause damage or injury to the public, or to any person; or (ii) to support any claim or title; or (iii) to cause any person to part with property; or (iv) to enter into any express or implied contract; or (e) to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed. Therefore, in order to convict an accused u/s 468 IPC. prosecution needs to prove establish the making of a false document mentioned therein.
36. As discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the foremost ingredient which needs to be established by the prosecution in order to prove the culpability of an accused u/s 468 is the "existence of a forged document' which must be made in furtherance to the specified objectives mentioned therein. In other words, the prosecution needs to establish the fact that the accused made a false document with the intention interlia to commit fraud, cause injury/damage etc. Also, the knowledge about the existence of forged document must be attributed to the accused in order to get him convicted for an offence u/s 471 IPC.
37. Having discussed briefly the legal position involved in the present case, I shall now be examining the testimonies of PWs and the defence taken by the accused in the backdrop of the above discussed legal position. ARGUMENTS:
38. Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that Pawan Sachdeva was not given authority to appear before the court on behalf of the complainant. The said P Digitally signed by P BHARGAV RAO BHARGAV Date:
RAO 2024.12.24
16:46:49
+0530
FIR No.109/2000 PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 20 of 23
CR No.70994/2016 State Vs. N.M. Krishnan
contention is untenable as perusal of the record shows that vide order dated 07- 01-2001, an application was filed on behalf of Pawan Sachdeva with a request to substitute himself in place of Hardev Sachdeva along with copy of resolution of the complainant company and the said application was allowed by the then Ld. Predecessor Court.
39. It is pertinent to mention that the primary accused N.M. Krishnan remained absconded during the trial and was declared vide order dated 18.07.2005. The allegations against the accused Arjun Shergil and Anil Kumar Dhawan is that they accompanied accused N.M. Krishnan and induced the complainant to part with the sum of Rs.65.00 lakhs. The main allegations against the accused Sanjay Bhandari, Proprietor of V.K. Tours and Transport that he was the beneficiary of the forged amount and could not account for the amount of Rs.5.00 lakh received in the account of V.K. Tours and Transport.
40. At the very outset in the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove any of the charges against the accused persons. Firstly, the complainant Hardev Chadha could not be cross-examined by the accused persons as he never appeared during the trial and he was dropped from list of witnesses vide order dated 10.02.2015. It is pertinent to mention that initially the complaint was filed by Hardev Chadha against the accused N.M. Krishnan and other co-accused namely C. Thirumohan and S. Rajaram. Subsequently, the FIR was registered against the said accused persons. The names of the accused persons namely Arjun Shergil, Anil Kumar Dhawan and Sanjay Bhandari were not even mentioned in the complaint. It was deposed by PW1 Pawan Sachdeva in his examination-in-chief that the names of accused Anil Dhawan and Arjun Shergil were not mentioned inadvertently in the complaint by complainant Hardev Chadha. The names of the aforesaid co-accused persons cropped up firstly by PW1 Pawan Sachdeva and Hardev Chadha in their statements dated 16.10.2000. Digitally signed by P BHARGAV P RAO BHARGAV Date:
It is again pertinent to mention that the alleged incident is of the year 1995 and RAO 2024.12.24 16:46:55 +0530 FIR No.109/2000 PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 21 of 23 CR No.70994/2016 State Vs. N.M. Krishnan thereafter, board of resolution was passed in the year 1999 wherein Hardev Chadha was authorized by the company to file the complaint against N.M. Krishnan. The said resolution also does not contain the names of the co-accused persons herein.
41. Further, cross-examination of PW1 Pawan Sachdeva reveals major contradictions. The said PW1 could not bring the minutes of the meetings w.r.t. the requirement of loan of Rs.985.00 crores. On the one hand, PW1 deposed that several meetings were done with the accused persons but could not bring on record any minutes of the meetings mentioning the names of the accused persons. It is very unlikely that no minutes of the meetings were prepared for taking loan of such huge amount nor any of the accused persons herein were mentioned in the minutes of the meeting. Pawan Sachdeva deposed that no percentage of commission payable to Arjun Shergil and Anil Kumar Dhawan was finalized. No written agreement was executed in this regard between the complainant and the aforesaid accused persons. The discussions which had taken between the parties were oral and not recorded in writing. Even the company Secretary did not participate in the said meeting. No resolutions was passed by the Board of Directors for taking loan of Rs.985.00 crores. No advertisement was given by the complainant company in the newspaper or through brokers. Even no resolution was passed by the company for issuance of demand draft of Rs.65.00 lakhs. Further, it was deposed by PW1 that accused Anil Kumar Dhawan handed-over him a visiting card. However, the said visiting card was never handed-over to the IO ACP C.L. Bhardwaj. Perusal of the cross-examination of the IO reveals that the complainant did not cooperate with him and did not give any mobile number or address of any of the accused persons though he asked for the same. Such major contradictions on the testimony of PW1 casts serious doubts on the version of the prosecution. Digitally signed by P BHARGAV P RAO
42. The prosecution has failed to establish a link between accused N.M. BHARGAV RAO Date:
2024.12.24 16:47:01 +0530 FIR No.109/2000 PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 22 of 23 CR No.70994/2016 State Vs. N.M. Krishnan Krishnan and co-accused Arjun Shergil and Anil Kumar Dhawan. The loan agreement Ex.PW1/B and the mortgage deed Ex.PW1/C executed between the complainant company and the N.A.M. Annamalayar Trust does not contain the signatures of the co-accused persons which clearly establish that the accused persons namely Arjun Shergil and Anil Kumar Dhawan were not associated with the N.A.M. Annamalayer Trust or its power of attorney holder M/s Senthil Financer and Builders.
43. Further, w.r.t. the accused Sanjay Bhandari, PW1 deposed that he never met accused Sanjay Bhandari regarding this case. PW1 further deposed that he had not handed-over the drafts in question to the accused Sanjay Bhandari and was not aware if accused Sanjay Bhandari had received the amount. He admitted the suggestion that the name of accused Sanjay Bhandari has not been given in the complaint since he does not know the accused. He further deposed that he does not have grievance with the accused Sanjay Bhandari in respect of the present case.
44. Therefore, in the opinion of this court, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt qua the offence punishable u/s 406/420/468/471/120B IPC. Hence, accused Arjun Shergil, Anil Kumar Dhawan and Sanjay Bhandari are given benefit of doubt and are acquitted under Section 406/420/468/471/120B IPC.
Digitally signed by P BHARGAVAnnounced in open court P RAO
BHARGAV Date:
Today i.e. 24.12.2024 RAO 2024.12.24
16:47:07
+0530
(P. Bhargav Rao)
Judicial Magistrate First Class-05
District East/Karkardooma Courts
FIR No.109/2000 PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 23 of 23