Rcno.3(A)/98 Cbi vs . Praveen Kumar Gupta Cc Nos.90/11, ... on 5 November, 2011

[Cites 17, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Rcno.3(A)/98 Cbi vs . Praveen Kumar Gupta Cc Nos.90/11, ... on 5 November, 2011

        IN THE COURT OF ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
                         SPECIAL JUDGE (CBI-08)
                       TIS HAZARI COURTS , DELHI


CC No.: 90/11 (old CC no.98/01 )
        66/11(old CC no.91/01 )
        65/11 (old CC no94/01 )


RC No. : 3(A)/98
PS : CBI/ACU/New Delhi

CBI

Vs.

Praveen Kr. Gupta
S/o Sh. Rameshwar Dayal Gupta
R/o 9713F, Gali Neem Wali
Nawab Ganj, Delhi-06                              ........Accused

Date of FIR                            16.07.1998
Date of filing chargesheet             04.07.2000
Arguments heard on                     05.11.2011
Judgement passed on                    05.11.2011

      Case more than 10 years old
      JUDGEMENT

1. FIRST INFORMATION REPORT A complaint dated 16.07.98 was lodged by Sh. S.K. Abrol, (PW-1) Divisional Manager, Vigilance, Syndicate Bank regarding the fraud committed in Stock Invest Accounts at Asaf Ali Road Branch of Syndicate Bank, Delhi. It was alleged in complaint RCno.3(A)/98 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta CC nos.90/11, 66/11, 65/11 1/69 that accused Praveen Kumar Gupta (Clerk) was handling the work relating to Stock Invest Department since the inception of this scheme in June, 1992 till around 05.08.1997 though he was officially entrusted with the work in Stock Invest Department only for a brief period on two occasions. Further accused had opened nine stock invest accounts in his 'name' / 'family members and friends' at the branch and also merged six stock invest accounts with some other stock invest accounts against the rules of the scheme and operated these merged accounts. Also a large number of 'Stock Invest' were issued in accounts although they had very meager nominal credit balances. It was further alleged that 418 Stock Invest instruments were in unauthorised possession of accused Praveen Kumar Gupta which were surrendered by him to the Chief Manager on 02.08.97, when the fraud came to light. Accused Praveen Kumar Gupta is alleged to have resorted to manipulation / falsification of bank records and paid inflated interest on surrendered stock invests / outstanding credit balances in stock invest accounts and the siphoned off amount was suspected to be around 37.12 lacs. Aspersions were also cast on Smt. Sneh Gupta, who was the Supervisory Officer in the Stock Invest Department during the period 01.08.92 to 07.06.97, for failing to take due care and caution.

It may be appropriate to mention at this stage itself that though Sneh Gupta was named in the FIR but after investigation, the prosecution came to the conclusion in the chargesheet that RCno.3(A)/98 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta CC nos.90/11, 66/11, 65/11 2/69 there was insufficient evidence against Smt. Sneh Gupta and the offence was committed by Praveen Gupta by fraudulently or dishonestly getting her signatures. As such, her name was kept in column no.2 and was also cited as witness by the prosecution.

2. BACKGROUND FACTS As per case of prosecution, accused Praveen Gupta, opened a Saving Bank Account no. 26472 in the name of his mother Rama Rani Gupta and brother Pramod Kumar Gupta. However this account was not signed by either Smt. Rama Rani Gupta or Pramod Kumar Gupta and their signatures were forged on 'account opening form' and 'specimen signature cards'. Subsequently, accused Praveen Gupta and his wife Rajni Gupta also joined the above SB Account and thus account became 'joint account' of 4 persons i.e. Praveen Gupta, his wife Rajni Gupta and containing forged signatures of Rama Rani Gupta and brother Pramod Kumar Gupta.

Investigation further revealed that a 'Stock Invest Account no. 310' was also opened in the bank in the name of Smt. Rama Rani Gupta (mother of accused) and Sh. Pramod Kumar Gupta (brother of accused Praveen Gupta) but the account opening forms were not available in the bank. Further Smt. Rama Rani Gupta (mother of accused) and Pramod Kumar Gupta (brother of accused) had no knowledge about such SI Account no.

RCno.3(A)/98 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta CC nos.90/11, 66/11, 65/11 3/69 310 and this account was also fictitious which was being operated by accused Praveen Gupta.

3. BRIEF DETAILS OF 10 CHARGESHEETS FILED AGAINST ACCUSED At this stage, it may also be appropriate to mention that in respect of the fraud committed by the accused in respect of stock invest instruments, 10 separate chargesheets were filed by the prosecution. Further, common witnesses and documents have been relied in the cases. Vide order dated 28.05.2004 passed by the Ld. Predecessor, the 10 chargesheets were clubbed in four separate sets of cases. The first set of cases consists of CC no. 89/01 (new CC no. 63/11), 90/01 (new CC no.91/11) and 93/01 (new CC no.89/11). The second set of cases consists of CC no. 98/01 (new CC no.90/11), 91/01 (new CC no.66/11) and 94/01 (new CC no.65/11). The third set consists of CC no. 96/01 (new CC no.67/11), 95/01 (new CC no.64/11) and 97/01 (new CC no. 88/11). The fourth set consisted of CC no. 92/01. The evidence was further directed to be recorded in CC no. 89/01 (new CC no. 63/11), 98/01 (new CC no.90/11), 96/01 (new CC no.67/11) and 92/01.

4. CHARGE AGAINST THE ACCUSED The charge and facts in respective CC no. 98/01 (new CC no. 90/11), 91/01 (new CC no. 66/11) and 94/01 (65/11) are RCno.3(A)/98 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta CC nos.90/11, 66/11, 65/11 4/69 herein referred in brief for appreciation of facts in all the three cases to be disposed by this common judgement.

(a) In CC no. 90/11, the accused was charged for theft of stock investment no. 514283 which had already been encashed on 12.05.97 u/s 381 IPC. Further, the accused dishonestly induced the bank to credit Rs. 53,207/- to the joint saving bank account no. 26472 in name of Smt. Rama Rani Gupta (mother of accused) and Pramod Kumar Gupta (brother of accused) by re-submitting the stock instrument no. 514283 on 16.05.97, 24.05.97, 02.06.97 though the same had already been encashed on 12.05.97 and was accordingly charged u/s 420 IPC.

The accused was further charged for forging signature of Pramod Kumar Gupta in Stock Invest instrument 514283 for purpose of cheating u/s 468 IPC. The accused was also charged for fraudulently using as genuine Stock Invest instrument no. 514283 alongwith debit slips, credit slips and interest on debit slips as genuine u/s 471 IPC. The accused was further charged for falsification of accounts u/s 477-A IPC and for criminal misconduct by public servant u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988.

(b) In CC no. 66/11, the accused was charged for theft of stock investment no. 514332 which had already been encashed on 12.05.97 u/s 381 IPC. Further, the accused dishonestly induced the bank to credit Rs. 34,332/- to the joint saving bank account no. 26472 in name of Smt. Rama Rani Gupta RCno.3(A)/98 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta CC nos.90/11, 66/11, 65/11 5/69 (mother of accused) and Pramod Kumar Gupta (brother of accused) by re-submitting the stock instrument no. 514332 on 16.05.97, 20.05.97, 27.05.97 though the same had already been encashed on 12.05.97 and was accordingly charged u/s 420 IPC. The accused was further charged for forging signature of Pramod Kumar Gupta in Stock Invest instrument 514332 for purpose of cheating u/s 468 IPC. The accused was also charged for fraudulently using as genuine Stock Invest instrument no. 514332 alongwith debit slips, credit slips and interest on debit slips as genuine u/s 471 IPC. The accused was further charged for falsification of accounts u/s 477-A IPC and for criminal misconduct by public servant u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988.

(c) In CC no. 65/11, the accused was charged for theft of stock investment no. 514207 and 514208 which had already been encashed on 15.04.1997 u/s 381 IPC. Further, the accused dishonestly induced the bank to credit Rs.44,780 /- to the joint saving bank account no. 26472 in name of Smt. Rama Rani Gupta (mother of accused) and Pramod Kumar Gupta (brother of accused) by re-submitting the stock instrument no. on 29.04.97, 03.05.97, 08.05.97 though the same had already been encashed on 15.04.1997 and was accordingly charged u/s 420 IPC. The accused was further charged for forging signature of Rama Rani Gupta in Stock Invest instrument 514207 for purpose of cheating u/s 468 IPC. The accused was also charged for fraudulently using RCno.3(A)/98 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta CC nos.90/11, 66/11, 65/11 6/69 as genuine Stock Invest instrument no. 514207 and 514208 alongwith debit slips, credit slips and interest on debit slips as genuine u/s 471 IPC. The accused was further charged for falsification of accounts u/s 477-A IPC and for criminal misconduct by public servant u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988.

5. BRIEF REFERENCE TO THE WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE PROSECUTION AND THE EVIDENCE LED ON RECORD Accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial. Prosecution in support of its case examined 19 witnesses namely.

PW-1 Sh. Sudarshan Kumar Abrol, Regional Manager, Syndicate Bank, Pune, PW-2 Sh. Mohender Pal Singh, PW-3 Sh. P. Rangnath Prabhu, (Retd.), Chief Manager, PW-4 Ms. Madhu Bansal, Asstt. Manager, Syndicate Bank, PW-5 Sh. Prem Nath Malhotra, Chief Manager, Syndicate Bank, PW-6 Sh. Pramod Kumar Gupta (brother of accused Praveen Kumar Gupta), PW-7 Smt. Rajni Gupta, wife of accused Praveen Kumar Gupta, PW-8 Smt. Rama Rani Gupta (mother of accused Praveen Kumar Gupta), PW-9 Smt. Jahanara, PW-10 Sh. Arman-Ullah-Qureshi, PW-11 Sh. Basant Kumar, PW-12 Sh. Jaswant Singh Bhagi, PW-13 Dr. Swaraj Garg (sister of accused Praveen Kumar Gupta), PW-14 Dr. P.D. Garg, PW-15 Mrs. Sneh Gupta, PW-16 Sh. K.V. Sheshagiri, PW-17 Dr. Ravindra Sharma, PW-18 Sh. V.M. Holla, RCno.3(A)/98 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta CC nos.90/11, 66/11, 65/11 7/69 PW-19 Sh. J.S. Emmanuel.

6. PW-1 Sh. Sudarshan Kumar Abrol, PW-2 Sh.

Mohender Pal, PW-3 Sh. P. Rangnath Prabhu, PW-4 Ms. Madhu Bansal, PW-5 Sh. Prem Nath Arora, PW-12 Sh. Jaswant Singh Bhagi, PW-15 Ms. Sneh Gupta, PW-16 Sh. K.V. Sheshagiri and PW-18 Sh. V.M. Holla are the witnesses from the bank and deposed regarding the operation of the stock invest scheme and also proved various entries and other documents relating to the transactions in question.

PW-1 Sh. Sudarshan Kumar Abrol was working in the Vigilance Department of Syndicate Bank and had conducted the investigation at Asaf Ali Road Branch of Syndicate Bank after the irregularities were detected. He stated that Praveen Kumar Gupta was working as clerk at Asaf Ali Branch and was handling stock invest department work, even though officially he was entrusted with this work for short durations. Further accused Praveen Kumar Gupta had opened about 9 stock invest accounts and about 11 saving bank and overdraft accounts in his name and in the names of his close family members. The transactions running into thousands in number and of several lakhs were put through these accounts which were apparently looking to be quite disproportionate to the known sources of income of Praveen Kumar Gupta. It was also revealed that against one credit entry of a particular stock invest account there used to be multiple debits and at all times interest was also being paid. In the process Praveen Kumar Gupta was having huge financial benefits at the cost of bank for himself and for close family members. He further proved the complaint lodged with CBI, New Delhi Ex.PW1/A original of which is placed in old CC no. 92/01 in which the accused was convicted and copies in the remaining nine files. He further stated that all transactions were authorized by concerned officer Sneh Gupta and departmental action was initiated against RCno.3(A)/98 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta CC nos.90/11, 66/11, 65/11 8/69 both Praveen Kumar Gupta and Sneh Gupta. He further proved the seizure memo Ex.PW1/B (D-63) vide which the documents were seized by CBI (original filed in old CC no. 92/01 and copies placed in remaining 9 files). He further stated that copies of documents relating to proceedings of departmental action against Praveen Kumar Gupta and Sneh Gupta were handed over vide letter dated 03.12.1998 and the same were collectively exhibited as Ex.PW1/C. The certified copies of circulars relating to stock invest scheme of the bank handed over vide letter dated 17.06.99 were proved as Ex.PW1/D. PW-2 Sh. Mohender Pal during the period 01.01.97 to 01.06.97 was posted as Clerk in the Deposit Section of Syndicate Bank and proved various documents and entries. He proved letter dated 25.09.1999 (Ex.PW2/A) issued by Chief Manager vide which he was posted in Deposit Section for the above period. He further stated that the main function of Deposit Section was to receive deposits from the customer against receipts and other departments attached with Deposit Section like stock invest, cumulative deposit department, issuing of DD and pay orders etc. Further he was posted in stock invest section but never worked there. He further deposed that since the beginning of stock invest department, Sh. Praveen Kumar Gupta was working and handling the section and proved the stock invest register maintained in the bank by the accused (Ex.PW2/B). He proved the various entries made by the accused in the register as detailed in the examination and after seeing the entire register Ex.PW2/B deposed that he could say that almost all the entries in the register are in handwriting of accused P.K. Gupta which used to be intialled by the concerned officer. He further stated that documents D-3 to D-39 were prepared by accused Praveen Kumar Gupta and signed by concerned officer and the same were further exhibited as Ex.PW2/C-1 to Ex.PW2/C-34. The original of the said documents are placed in old CC no. 89/01. He also proved documents Ex.PW2/D-1 to Ex.PW2/D-14, the original of which are placed in CC no. 90/01 and stated that the same were in handwriting of P.K. Gupta. He also proved 36 documents (33 in original) and 3 photocopies placed in CC no. 93/01 as Ex.PW E-1 to Ex.PW E-36 and stated that the same were in handwriting of accused. The 47 documents (36 in original and 11 photocopies in CC no. 94/01) RCno.3(A)/98 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta CC nos.90/11, 66/11, 65/11 9/69 were proved as Ex.PW2/F-1 to Ex.PW2/F-47 and stated to be in handwriting of accused. The 41 documents (40 in original and 1 photocopy in CC no. 98/01) were proved as Ex.PW2/G-1 to Ex.PW2/G-41 and stated to be in handwriting of accused. The 35 documents (21 in original and 14 photocopies in CC no. 91/01) were proved as Ex.PW2/H-1 to Ex.PW2/H-35 and stated to be in handwriting of accused. The 49 documents (17 in original and 32 photocopies in CC no. 96/01) were proved as Ex.PW2/J-1 to Ex.PW2/J-49 and stated to be in handwriting of accused. The 49 documents (1 in original and 48 photocopies in CC no. 95/01) were proved as Ex.PW2/K-1 to Ex.PW2/K-49 and stated to be in handwriting of accused. The 31 documents (30 in original and 1 photocopy in CC no. 97/01) were proved as Ex.PW2/L-1 to Ex.PW2/L-31 and stated to be in handwriting of accused. The 32 documents (all in original in CC no. 92/01) were proved as Ex.PW2/M-1 to Ex.PW2/M-32 and stated to be in handwriting of accused.

PW-3 Sh. P. Rangnath Prabhu was the Chief Manager of Syndicate Bank, Asaf Ali Branch during 1997 and deposed regarding the procedure relating to Stock Invest Department and handing over of 418 stock invest instruments by accused. He further proved various documents seized by CBI. He stated that the bank had stock invest scheme for the customers who desired to stock in the primary stock market. The procedure was that the customer would submit an application form alongwith a cheque for the required amount and a credit slip for stock invest and submit it to Term Deposit Clerk. After verification, the clerk will submit it to Saving Bank Department who will pass the cheque and the officer concerned, after verifying the cheque and signing the credit slip, will release the slip to the stock invest department. The clerk in stock invest department will enter the slip in the stock invest register and prepare a stock invest instrument for the relative amount. The officer in stock invest department will check the entries and sign the instrument and the instrument is delivered to the customer. The procedure in case shares are not allotted to the customer is that the customer will present the instrument to the bank and request for refund. In case instrument is not found, he can claim it under indemnity letter. On receipt of this, the stock invest clerk will prepare the debit slip for the said amount. He will enter it in the ledger and for the same RCno.3(A)/98 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta CC nos.90/11, 66/11, 65/11 10/69 amount, credit slip is prepared for the customer's saving bank account These entries will be checked by the concerned officer and the amount is credited to saving bank account. The customer can debit the instrument only once to the stock invest account. He further stated that on 30.07.97, Mr. Holla, Officer, Stock Invest Department informed that he had noticed some irregularities in the stock invest amount and after verification he alongwith Mr. Holla were convinced of the irregularities. Further on 01.08.97 he alongwith another officer Mr. Chandermohan called upon accused at his residence and during discussion accused agreed having done some false entries and accepted use of some unused stock invest instruments in his possession. Accused further handed over more than 200 stock invest instruments on that day and subsequently altogether 418 stock investments were surrendered at the branch alongwith letter. The letter alongwith list of unused instruments were proved as Ex.PW3/A (colly) and the list of 418 stock investment instruments was proved as Ex.PW3/B. The matter was stated to have been further reported to higher authority i.e. General Manager, Zonal Office vide letter Ex.PW3/C. He further proved the documents handed over to CBI vide letter Ex.PW3/D, Ex.PW2/A, Ex.PW3/F. PW-4 Ms. Madhu Bansal also worked in Syndicate Bank, Asaf Ali Branch during 1991-1998 and deposed regarding the procedure followed in the bank regarding stock invest instruments and also proved various documents relating to the transactions. PW-4 Ms. Madhu Bansal stated that she has worked about 08-09 months in the Stocks Department in the year 1994 and at the aforesaid time, Rekha Gupta and Praveen Gupta had worked in the said section. She further explained the procedure for debiting the SI account and stated that the customer had to fill up a form for opening stock investment account. Thereafter it was the choice of the customer either to deposit a cheque from his saving account or deposit by debit slip or by cash. The customer was required to write on the back of the debit slip to debit the account for rupees so and so and thereafter sign it. The saving account was accordingly debited and she used to sign on debit and credit scheme slip. After entering in transfer scroll the credit slip would go to SI account and debit slip RCno.3(A)/98 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta CC nos.90/11, 66/11, 65/11 11/69 would come back to her. Thereafter SI slip would go to SI department and the slip would be entered by SI clerk in SI ledger. Then officer would authenticate all the entries. After the entry it was the duty of the officer to pass the slips after checking whether stock leaf is in proper order or not. After preparation of stock investment instrument and authorised by officer it was delivered to the customer for obtaining signature at the back of the credit slip of stock investment. If the SI instrument remained unutilised, then the customer had to give indemnity bond and also sign on the back of debit slip and thereafter the instrument was cancelled and the amount was credited in the savings account of customer. However if the SI instrument was less than Rs.10,000/-, the indemnity bond was not necessary. Further when the SI instrument was presented for cancellation, the SI clerk calculated the interest and prepared the debit slip to debit the SI account and credit slip for crediting the same in his account. Also on the SI slip "cancelled" was written with date and it was signed by the officer. Further it was also rounded in the ledger. She further proved the certified copy of statement of savings bank account no. 26472 (Ex.PW4/A) placed in CC no. 92/01 with photocopies in other cases. She further identified the debit slip Ex.PW2/C-13 raised by accused for issuing stock invest instruments and also stated that instruments which were debited on 02.05.97 are mentioned on page no. 104 of Ex.PW2/B and which also included the SI instrument no. 514128. She further clarified that this instrument could not have been debited twice i.e. on 26.04.97 or 02.05.97. She further identified the debit slip of saving bank account no. 264712 (Ex.PW2/M-13) credit slip Ex.PW2/M-17, stock investment debit slip (Ex.PW2/M-2) by which stock investment account no. 310 and other accounts were debited and also identified the other entries made by the accused as detailed in the statement. She also identified Ex.PW2/M-9 by which SB account no. 26472 was credited in handwriting of accused Praveen Kumar Gupta, debit slip Ex.PW2/M-3, debit slip Ex.PW2/M-6, credit slip Ex.PW2/M-10, debit slip Ex.PW2/M-4, debit slip Ex.PW2/M-15 for savings bank account no. 26472 for Rs. 26,500/-. Similarly she also identified debit slip Ex.PW2/M-5 in handwriting of accused whereby he debited stock investment account no. 310. She further stated that accused Praveen Kumar RCno.3(A)/98 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta CC nos.90/11, 66/11, 65/11 12/69 Gupta debited interest of Rs. 2,415/- as per document Ex.PW2/M-8 and on the reverse the accused had shown interest debited from stock investment account no. 310 as Rs. 1543/- instead of 579. She also deposed that credit slip dated 29.03.97 Ex.PW2/M-12 was prepared by accused to credit Rs. 27543/- but the amount was not correctly debited by accused and he had in fact debited excess amount of interest and this was the modus operandi of the accused in all other instruments.

PW-5 Sh. Prem Nath Malhotra ,Chief Manager, Syndicate Bank deposed that he was posted as Senior Manager in Syndicate Bank, Asaf Ali Road Branch in May - June, 1999 and came to know about the stock investment case. Further he produced certain bank records vide letter dated 18.10.1999 (Ex.PW5/A). He further stated that Sr. Manager and Cash Officer are jointly custodian of security items like cash, cheque books, stock invest etc and also proved the copy of stock invest register of special and security items (D-47) duly certified by him (Ex.PW5/B). He also proved the copy and office order book (D-48) (Ex.PW5/C), circular (D-46) (Ex.PW5/D) issued by the Planning Department.

PW-12 Sh. Jaswant Singh Bhagi was posted as clerk in the Asaf Ali Road Branch, Syndicate Bank in 1995. He also deposed regarding the procedure followed for stock invest account and proved various documents relating to the transactions.

PW-15 Ms. Sneh Gupta was posted during the period 1992-1997 as Astt. Manager in Stock Invest Department and was Supervisory Officer and proved the various entries and documents relating to transactions as relied by the prosecution. She is the star witness of the prosecution since she worked as Supervisory Officer and the accused had worked under her. She stated that after receiving stock investment, she used to entrust the instruments to the concerned clerk. She further stated that the accused re-circulated the used instruments many times. She also clarified that where the Stock Investment is issued and when the particular Stock Investment is debited, it should be rounded of at the place of issued and initialed by officer. She further stated that she could not put initials with date in the entry of issuance of the RCno.3(A)/98 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta CC nos.90/11, 66/11, 65/11 13/69 particular Stock Invest Instruments since the scheme was new and she was ignorant and also trusted the accused. Further she could not check properly for the reasons that they belong to staff members and she was busy in other work and was overloaded. She also explained that the instrument was re-circulated because he did not initial with date as it was removed from the employer's custody.

PW-16 Sh. K.V. Sheshagiri was posted in the branch as Sr. Manager during the period June 1995 to July 1995. He stated that after some irregularities were noticed in Stock Invest operations, the accused was called and he accepted that he had committed some irregularities and also produced some Stock Invest Instruments which he was holding at that time as per list Ex.PW3/B. He also further explained the irregularities with respect to Stock Invest instruments and stated that accused instead of surrendering the instruments, used to debit on debit slips. He further stated that general ledger is maintained to know the correct balance in a particular head of account and balancing register is maintained to know the balance in individual account. He also clarified during cross-examination that security instrument remains under the lock and key of the concerned officer and is a security item.

PW-18 Sh. V.M. Holla was posted at Asaf Ali Road Branch from 11.06.97 to 31.7.1999 and deposed regarding the procedure related to stock invest account. He also proved various documents relating to the transactions relied by the prosecution. He also stated that after giving the debit for first time, any further debit on the same Stock Instrument and interest thereon is fraudulent. He further stated that in July 1997, on finding discrepancy he verified accounts of Praveen Kumar Gupta and brought the same to notice of senior functionaries. He further stated that on scrutiny it was found that Praveen Kumar Gupta was making fraudulent multiple debits of SI and also taking interest. He also clarified that Praveen Kumar Gupta used to round of the SI number on the date when it was issued but did not put the date of cancellation and it was easy for him to represent. He also proved the various debit / credit slips and the entries made in various transactions.

RCno.3(A)/98 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta CC nos.90/11, 66/11, 65/11 14/69

7. PW-6 Sh. Pramod Kumar Gupta, brother of accused, PW-7 Smt. Rajni Gupta (wife of accused), PW-8 Smt. Rama Rani Gupta (mother of accused), PW-9 Jahan Ara, PW-10 Armanullah Quereshi, PW-13 Dr. Swaraj Garg (sister of accused), PW-14 Dr. P.D. Garg (brother-in-law of accused) are the witnesses in whose name the various accounts were opened in the Syndicate Bank, Asaf Ali Road Branch and are alleged to have been operated by the accused.

(I) PW-6 Sh. Pramod Kumar Gupta stated that accused Praveen Kumar Gupta is his real brother. He further stated that he had only gone to the bank for opening the account and signed the account opening form. He used to only sign but account was operated by his brother who was working in the branch and also identified the application dated 25.11.1992 for stock invest account 228 Ex.PW6/A bearing his signatures at point A. He further stated that specimen signature card Ex.PW6/B had been signed by him. However he denied his signatures on D-37 Mark PW6/A. He further admitted his signatures on letter (D-55) Ex.PW6/C but stated that it was not in his handwriting. He also deposed that cheque book and passbook of his account were collected by his brother which used to remain in the almirah and he used to sign the cheque whenever requested. He further stated that he could not admit or deny if the signature on account opening form Ex.PW6/D were in his hand. This witness was cross-examined by Ld. PP for CBI and denied the suggestion that he had wrongly identified his signatures on the documents which were not signed by him.

(ii) PW-7 Smt. Rajni Gupta (wife of accused) also did not support the prosecution and was cross-examined by Ld. PP for CBI.

RCno.3(A)/98 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta CC nos.90/11, 66/11, 65/11 15/69

(iii) PW-8 Smt. Rama Rani Gupta (mother of accused) also did not support the case of prosecution and was cross-examined by Ld. PP for CBI. She stated that she had opened an account no. 25895 at Syndicate Bank, Asaf Ali Road Branch and identified her signatures on account opening form Ex.PW8/A, specimen signature card (Ex.D-38) Ex.PW8/B and on specimen signature card of account no. 26472 Ex.PW8/D alongwith account opening form Ex.PW6/D. She denied the suggestion that she had made a statement to the IO denying her signatures on all the above documents.

(iv) PW-9 Smt. Jahan Ara was also cross-examined on behalf of Ld. PP for CBI as she did not support the case of prosecution. She stated that she did not know about any stock investment transaction conducted by her in Syndicate Bank, Asaf Ali Road Branch. She further identified her signatures on SI application form Ex.PW9/A in chargesheet no.8 and specimen signature card Ex.PW9/B. She further stated that she could not say if she had signed the document D-31 and denied having known the accused. During cross- examination, she denied having made a statement to CBI admitting her signatures on D-31.

(v) PW-10 Sh. Armanullah Quereshi stated that he knew the accused and was having the salary account in the Syndicate Bank, Asaf Ali Road Branch. He further identified his signatures on account opening form Ex.PW10/A, specimen signature card Ex.PW10/B. He further stated that subsequently his wife joined as joint holder of this account and identified her signature on Ex.PW9/A. He further identified his signatures on SI account opening form (D-62) Ex.PW10/C which was filled by accused Praveen Kumar Gupta . He further stated that he did not give any money to accused for purchasing share or for stock investment and he used to withdraw the salary received in the account. He further stated that accused RCno.3(A)/98 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta CC nos.90/11, 66/11, 65/11 16/69 had conducted share transactions from his account and after the cases, he was informed about the share transactions by the Manager and had closed the same as advised the Manager. He further denied his signatures on document D-30 and stated that share transactions were not to his knowledge.

(vi)PW-13 Dr. Swaraj Garg stated that accused Praveen Kumar is her brother. She further identified the application form Ex.PW13/A vide which the account had been opened and also identified her signatures. She further stated that her brother Praveen Kumar was operating the account after getting her signatures on documents and she did not visit the bank. She also identified the application form for opening Stock Invest Account Ex.PW13/B and also identified her signatures. She further stated that she became joint holder of the account alongwith her mother and brother and made a request vide letter Ex.PW13/C. This witness was cross-examined by Ld. PP and denied the suggestion by the prosecution that the letter of request Ex.PW13/C and Ex.PW2/L-1 had not been signed by her.

(vii) PW-14 Dr. P.D. Garg stated that accused Praveen Kumar is brother of his wife. He further stated that specimen signature card pertaining to account no. 25895 Ex.PW14/A was signed by his wife. He further stated that he had opened Stock Invest account in Syndicate Bank and accused was conducting transactions on his behalf. This witness was also cross-examined on behalf of prosecution and he denied the suggestion that Ex.PW14/A i.e. the specimen signature card was not signed by his wife.

8. PW-11 Sh. Basant Kumar stated that specimen signature of Praveen Kumar Gupta were taken in his presence and identified his signatures on document D-76 Ex.PW11/A which also contained the specimen signature of accused. He also identified specimen signature of accused taken on 17.01.2000 RCno.3(A)/98 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta CC nos.90/11, 66/11, 65/11 17/69 on D-78, 79, 80, 81, 82 (in chargesheet no. 1) (Ex.PW11/B to F). Similarly he identified his signatures on Ex.PW11/G, Ex.PW11/H, Ex.PW11/J and Ex.PW6/E.

9. PW-17 Dr. Ravinder Sharma, Assistant Government Examiner proved his opinion Ex.PW17/A with respect to the handwriting on the documents forwarded for examination by CBI.

PW-19 Sh. J.S. Emanuel (IO) deposed regarding the conduct of investigation and proved various documents as relied by prosecution.

10. STAND OF ACCUSED IN STATEMENT U/S 313 Cr.PC and DEFENCE EVIDENCE Accused in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. admitted that he was entrusted with work of Stock Invest Department and had handled work pertaining there to. He further submitted that the 9 Stock Invest account and 11 Saving Bank and Overdraft accounts were opened in his name and in the name of close family members. He further took a stand that entries in Stock Invest accounts were made under guidance of superiors and it was checked by them and further denied having made any financial benefit out of the transactions. He further submitted that he had been falsely implicated in this case since he had pointed out the irregularities in the bank.

Accused further led evidence of DW-1 Sh. Prabhat Verma, Sr. Manager, Syndicate Bank and also examined himself as DW-2.

RCno.3(A)/98 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta CC nos.90/11, 66/11, 65/11 18/69 DW-1 Sh. Prabhat Verma produced the Stock Invest issue / paid register for the period 08.10.1993 to 09.03.1996 as desired by accused. He further stated that balancing book from 01.01.1993 to 01.08.1997 were not available. He further proved letter dated 07.08.1997 specifying the persons who were posted in Stock Invest Department Ex.DW1/B. He also produced the Office Order Book for the period 07.01.1995 till 31.05.2002 which reflected the orders issued in the bank for the working of officials posted in various departments. He also stated that the sub-day book of the Stock Invest Department from 01.01.1993 to 01.08.1997 was not traceable. The photocopy of bank circulars pertaining to Stock Invest Scheme dated 01.10.1994, 01.12.1992, 14.08.1992 and 05.06.1992 were further collectively proved as Ex.DW1/E. DW-2 Praveen Kumar Gupta (accused) proved the copy of letter of appointment and confirmation letter Ex.DW2/1 and Ex.DW2/2. He further stated that he was officially entrusted work of Stock Invest Department from 01.12.1995 to 30.06.1996 and from 02.06.1997 to 06.08.1997. He further detailed the procedure for issue of Stock Invest Instrument. He further stated that the Stock Invest account was in four names ie. Rama Rani Gupta, Rajni Gupta, Praveen Gupta and P.K. Gupta. Further his mother was residing with his brother Pramod Kumar Gupta at Tri Nagar while he was residing at Nawab Ganj. He also stated that the account opening form of account no. 26472 at the time of opening was signed by his mother Smt. Rama Rani Gupta and his brother P.K. Gupta. He further stated that no complaint was ever made by any joint account holder in case the account had been wrongly operated. He further filed the certified copy of Stock Invest account no. 310 (2 pages - Ex.DW2/3) and photocopy of balancing or Stock Invest Head at Asaf Ali Road branch D-1901, dated 25.09.2007 (Mark DB). He further claimed that Stock Invest Account was debited irregularly after seven months of payment without the physical presentation of original Stock Invest Instrument and without informing the other joint account holders. He also stated that there had been no loss to the bank in any manner and no instrument was used actually for multiple debit. He further claimed that he was working on another seat in the bank but was deputed to maintain the registers and the case had been wrongly instituted RCno.3(A)/98 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta CC nos.90/11, 66/11, 65/11 19/69 against him though he had pointed out the irregularities relating to Stock Invest Instruments.

11. SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED AND LD. PP FOR CBI I have heard counsel for accused and Ld. PP for CBI and perused the record. Counsel for accused has assailed the case of prosecution on various grounds.

Accused claimed that he was not working in the Stock Invest department and further disputed the credit entries with respect to respective stock invest instruments alleged to have been encashed repeatedly. Counsel for accused further contended that accused was working in the Clearing Section of the Branch and was only preparing the statement / credit / debit slips as per the calculations made by the concerned officials posted in the stock invest department and had no occasion to check or re- calculate the calculations made by the concerned official in stock invest department. It was also urged that the entire work in the stock invest department was under the supervision of the senior officers and he had been made a scapegoat though the work was checked by the concerned officers. It was also contended that the concerned debit and credit slips were never in his possession in the bank and any error in calculations cannot be attributed to him. It was further urged that though another officer Smt. Sneh Gupta and others were accused by CBI in the initial complaint but no investigation had been conducted qua their role by CBI. It was RCno.3(A)/98 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta CC nos.90/11, 66/11, 65/11 20/69 further submitted that the bank had failed to produce the balancing book maintained by the bank which could reflect that the balance was reconciled for any particular day. Counsel for accused also relied upon photocopy of judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal no. 1477 of 2004 Mir Nagvi Askari Versus CBI decided on 07.08.2009.

On the other hand, Ld. PP for CBI relied upon testimony of witnesses and the circumstances as proved in evidence. He also submitted that the accused being in dominion over the Stock Invest instruments wrongly credited the same Stock Invest instrument repeatedly and also wrongly enhanced the interest or the amount to be credited on any particular day.

12. REFERENCE TO CC NO. 92/01(OLD) WHEREIN ACCUSED STANDS CONVICTED IN ONE OF THE CHARGESHEETS.

It may be pointed out that the accused stands convicted u/s 420, 468, 471, 477-A IPC and 13(1)(d) r/w Sec 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 vide judgement dated 13.08.2010 passed by Sh. P.K. RCno.3(A)/98 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta CC nos.90/11, 66/11, 65/11 21/69 Saxena, Spl. Judge, CBI in CC no. 92/01 (old) out of the 10 chargesheets filed against the accused. In the aforesaid case the accused obtained refund of Rs. 9,000/- with interest in respect of stock invest instrument Ex.PW2/M-1 (no. 514050 dated 15.01.97) and re-submitted the same on 12.03.97, 18.03.97, 29.03.97. The proceeds were credited in SB account no. 26472.

13. Public servant and sanction u/s 19 PC Act, 1988 There appears to be no dispute to the fact that the accused is a "public servant' within meaning of Section 2(C) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 at the time of commission of offence since the accused was working as clerk in Syndicate Bank, Asaf Ali Road Branch, Delhi. The same has been duly proved in the deposition of PW-1 Sudershan Lal, Regional Manager, Syndicate Bank as well as is also admitted by the accused.

It has also been pointed out by the prosecution that the accused was dismissed from service before the filing of chargesheet which is admitted by the accused. However it is submitted on behalf of accused that the fact of dismissal has not been proved by leading evidence on record. It may be noticed that the fact of dismissal is not disputed by accused and neither any evidence to the contrary has been led on record by the accused. Even the witnesses do not appear to have been cross-

RCno.3(A)/98 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta CC nos.90/11, 66/11, 65/11 22/69 examined to suggest that the accused had not been dismissed from service. In the facts and circumstances, since the accused stood dismissed from service, there does not exist any necessity for obtaining the sanction u/s 19 of the PC Act, 1988.

14. STOCK INVEST SCHEME At this stage itself a brief reference may be made to the 'Stock Invest Scheme' to understand the nature of fraud. The scheme of 'Stock Invest' was introduced in the year 1992 in the Syndicate Bank and under the scheme, customers who wanted to purchase shares from some public limited company were required to make payment through Stock Invest (SI) instrument to the company in place of a draft or cheque. The stock invest instrument was treated as 'fixed deposit receipt' and an interest upto 4 months or 'date of payment', which ever was earlier, was paid to the SI account holders on the face value of SI instruments. The customer was also required to open a savings bank account in the bank. Further the customer desirous to purchase shares, was required to submit an application to the SI clerk to get debited the amount in his SB Account and transfer the same to the stock invest account for the issuance of stock invest (SI) instruments. Further debit and credit slips were prepared by the SI clerk and accordingly saving bank clerk debited the amounts and forwarded the corresponding credit slip alongwith debit slips to the stock invest section. In the stock invest section, the dealing clerk entered the amount in stock invest RCno.3(A)/98 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta CC nos.90/11, 66/11, 65/11 23/69 amount ledger, and gave date and prepared stock invest instrument and put up the same to the Asst. Manager in-charge of the SI section who scrutinized the entries made in the SI Account ledger, SI instrument and credit slip and if found correct, passed the SI Account entries, credit slips and also the SI instrument for issuance. Then the dealing clerk issued the SI instrument in favour of company which sold the share/debenture as per request made by the customer. He also took signatures of the customer (SI account holder) on the SI instrument itself at the time of issuing SI and handed over the same to SI Account Holder. If the SI Account holder was not allotted shares by the payee company, then the SI instrument was sent back to the SI Account holder who presented the same to the bank for payment and the amount of the SI instrument and interest thereon was transferred to the saving bank account of the customer.

15. FORGERY OF ACCOUNT OPENING FORM As per case of prosecution, investigation revealed that accused Praveen Gupta had opened Saving Bank account no. 26472 in the name of his mother Rama Rani Gupta and brother Pramod Kumar Gupta. It is alleged that the account was not signed either by Rama Rani Gupta or Pramod Kumar Gupta and their signatures were forged on account opening form in specimen signature cards. Further subsequently Praveen Gupta and his wife Rajni Gupta joined the above Saving Bank account and as RCno.3(A)/98 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta CC nos.90/11, 66/11, 65/11 24/69 such the account being joint in respect of four persons namely Praveen Gupta, his wife Rajni Gupta, his mother Rama Rani Gupta and brother Pramod Kumar Gupta. The Stock Invest Account no. 310 is also stated to have been opened in the name of Rama Rani Gupta (Mother of accused) and Pramod Kumar Gupta (brother of accused) by Praveen Gupta. However the account opening form in respect of the same is stated to be not available in the bank. The prosecution also claims the said account to be fictitious as the same was being operated by accused Praveen Gupta.

16. The fact whether the said account was fictitiously opened by accused Praveen Gupta is sought to be proved by the prosecution by reference to the opinion (Ex.PW17/A) of the Handwriting Expert (PW-17 Dr. Ravinder Sharma) obtained with respect to the signatures appearing on account opening form Ex.PW6/D (D-42) at point Q-139.

17. On Ex.PW6/D (D-42) questioned signatures of PW6 Pramod Kumar Gupta are Q 139. According to deposition of PW17 Dr. Ravindra Sharma, the said Q 139 were written by one and the same person whose specimen signatures were S-1 to S-10, S-71 to S-160 and A1 to A7. Further signatures at Q-139 appearing on Ex.PW6/D (42) did not tally and match with specimen signatures S 31 to S 40 of PW6 Pramod Kumar Gupta, RCno.3(A)/98 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta CC nos.90/11, 66/11, 65/11 25/69 brother of the accused. The aforesaid evidence remained unchallenged and uncontroverted as the witness was not even suggested in case the opinion was incorrect. There is no reason to doubt the opinion given by PW-17. PW-6 Pramod Kumar Gupta and PW-8 Smt. Rama Rani Gupta obviously turned hostile being the relations of the accused. So, it stands proved on record that, on Ex.PW6/D (D42) Account opening form pertaining to Saving Bank Account No. 26472, accused forged signatures of his brother Sh. Pramod Kumar Gupta (PW-6) at point A for the purpose of cheating. The said document is a valuable security within the meaning of Section 467 IPC. At this stage, it is important to note that PW6 Pramod Kumar Gupta brother of the accused and one of the joint account holder in his cross-examination stated that since he used to remain busy as a contractor, his brother i.e. the accused used to operate his account. Hence, accused is liable for commission of an offence under Section 468 IPC.

18. It may be noticed that the accused has been convicted u/s 468 IPC for forging of account opening form referred to above in CC no. 92/01(old) decided by Sh. P.K. Saxena, Special Judge, CBI vide judgement dated 13.08.2010. In view of conviction of accused on aforesaid count in CC no. 92/01 (old) referred to above, the accused is not to be convicted on the same count in all the other remaining chargesheets for forging of the same account opening form.

RCno.3(A)/98 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta CC nos.90/11, 66/11, 65/11 26/69

19. TRANSACTIONS IN PRESENT CASES (CC NO.

90/11, 66/11 AND 65/11) I now deal with the respective cases with respect to individual stock instruments which were fraudulently repeatedly encashed by accused. It may be pointed out that the case against the accused is based on documentary evidence consisting of statement of Savings Bank account no. 26472 (Ex.PW4/A i.e. document 36) and stock invest register (Ex.PW2/B) in respect of stock invest account no. 310 and credit and debit slips made by the accused for debiting and crediting the SB account no. 26472. The entries in stock invest register (Ex.PW2/B) show the dates on which the respective SI instrument was repeatedly encashed by accused by fraudulent representation. The statement of SB account no. 26472 further reflects the corresponding credit entries in Saving bank account made after encashing of the stock invest instruments.

It may be appropriate to mention that apart from repeatedly encashing the particular stock invest instrument the accused in course of the entries also wrongly enhanced the interest or the total amount to be credited.

To understand the mode by which the fraud was committed it may be noticed that the debit entries in the Stock Invest account on encashment of SI instrument were made by way RCno.3(A)/98 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta CC nos.90/11, 66/11, 65/11 27/69 of debit slips. On certain occasions, more than one debit slips were prepared for debiting of amount towards the Stock Invest instruments and the interest separately. Similarly it is pertinent to observe that in some of the debit slips the amount was consolidated towards different Stock Invest accounts operated by accused and the bifurcated amount has to be taken into account for conciliation of debit and credit entries in the Stock Invest Register (Ex.PW2/B). Further the amount was credited in SB A/c 26472 (Ex.PW4/A) vide separate credit slips and even the amount in the same was inflated in some of the entries.

It may also be observed that both the Stock Invest Register (Ex.PW2/B) and statement of SB account Ex.PW4/A along with debit and credit slips have been duly proved on record by the witnesses. The fraud perpetrated by the accused is proved by the mere analysis of the entries in Stock Invest Register Ex.PW2/B and statement of SB account no. 26472 proved by the witnesses.

To assess the evidence on record adduced by the prosecution, it may also be appropriate to refer to statement of Smt. Madhu Bansal who worked in Syndicate Bank, Asaf Ali Road Branch, during 1991 to 1998 and was also posted in the Stock Invest Department for about 08-09 months in the year 1994. She stated that Praveen Gupta had worked in the section at that time and she could identify his handwriting. She also detailed the procedure followed in the Stock Invest Department which need not RCno.3(A)/98 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta CC nos.90/11, 66/11, 65/11 28/69 be reiterated. PW4 Smt. Madhu Bansal, further proved the certified copy of statement of account of savings bank account no. 26472 as Ex.PW4/A (D-36). The certificate affixed on the other side pertaining to each page thereof shows that it has also been certified under the Banker's Book of Evidence Act, 1891. The said document has remained uncontroverted on record and as per this statement of account Ex.PW4/A (D-36), savings bank account no. 26472 was initially opened on 11.10.1993 in the names of Ms. Rama Gupta and P.K. Gupta.

It may be noticed that PW-2 Mahender Pal who was posted as Clerk in the same branch identified the handwriting and signature of accused and also proved the Stock Invest Register maintained in the bank by the accused (Ex.PW2/B). He further identified the entries made on the various pages alongwith other documents to be in the handwriting of accused. There has been no effective cross-examination to doubt the veracity of statement of PW-2 or to presume that the entries were not made by the accused.

So far as the fraudulent repeated encashment of the same Stock Invest Instrument is concerned, the statement of PW-15 Smt. Sneh Gupta, who was the Supervisory Officer, under whom the accused was working is relevant. She clarified that the Stock Invest Instruments were entrusted to the accused and the same were re-circulated many times as she could not put initials RCno.3(A)/98 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta CC nos.90/11, 66/11, 65/11 29/69 with date in the entry of issuance of that particular Stock Invest Instrument. She duly explained that since the scheme was new, she was ignorant and also trusted the accused that he would put the date and round of the same. Further she could not check the same being overloaded and having been assigned with other work. She also duly proved the various debit and credit entries relating to various transactions alongwith the Stock Invest Instruments. This witness was only briefly cross-examined and no contradiction striking to the root of the case has been brought on record to doubt her veracity. In fact the accused was able to illegally represent and encash the same Stock Invest Instruments since the procedure was not strictly followed in accordance with rules. The supervisory or the senior staff members have been negligent but it appears that only the accused was beneficiary of the transactions. It was also deposed by PW-1 Sh. Sudershan Kumar Abrol, Divisional Manager that during enquiry, Sneh Gupta or the Manager were not found to be beneficiaries of the transactions.

There is no iota of doubt that the instrument could be debited only once as also clarified by PW-3 Sh. P. Ranganath Prabhu but was repeatedly wrongly encashed by accused. It may also be noticed that PW-2 Mahender Pal proved the fact that the entries in the Stock Invest Register Ex.PW2/B were made by the accused and since the accused himself was making the entries in RCno.3(A)/98 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta CC nos.90/11, 66/11, 65/11 30/69 the Stock Invest Register as well as the Stock Invest Instruments were got cleared by him, the fraud could not be detected in normal course. Even in the aforesaid context, PW-4 Smt. Madhu Bansal also clarified that accused was well versed with Stock Investment and used to do the work of Stock Investment and debiting of interest himself. She also explained if the wrong amount of interest is debited and the amount is not reflected because of making equal entry in the transfer scroll, the same could not be detected by the Passing Officer.

20. CC no. 90/11.

Now the transactions relating to the specific Stock Invest Instrument alongwith corresponding entries may be dealt to confirm, if the fraudulent multiple encashment stands proved on record.

The prosecution relies upon the following facts and circumstances against the accused as revealed in investigation.

                  (A)     CC no. 90/11.
            (i)     That SI instrument no. 514283 dated 26.02.97 for

Rs. 15,000/- was prepared by accused Praveen Gupta in favour of M/s HUDCO on behalf of Master Vidhan Gupta minor son of Sh. Pramod Kumar Gupta who is brother of Sh.

Praveen Gupta containing forged signatures of Shri Pramod Kumar Gupta.

The said stock invest instrument No. 514283 dated RCno.3(A)/98 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta CC nos.90/11, 66/11, 65/11 31/69 26.02.97 was sent to M/s HUDCO but the said company did not sell share to Master Vidhan Gupta and returned the SI instrument. Further the SI instrument was presented in the SI Account No. 310 for transfer of its amount and interest accrued thereon to SB Account No. 26472 on 12.05.97. No application for transfer is available on this account. Since the said SI Account No. 310 was being dealt with by Sh.

Praveen Gupta, he transferred SI instrument amount Rs.

15,000/ and interest Rs.279/ to SB Account No. 26472 as Rs.

15,279/ without getting it initialled and dated by Smt. Sneh Gupta, Asstt. Manager in charge of SI Section in token of the payment/cancellation of the SI instrument No. 514283.

Although the principle and interest of the cancelled 6 SIS was Rs. 32,454 but he fraudulently and dishonestly inflated the amount from Rs.32,454/ to Rs.35,529/ and credited the same in the said saving bank A/c No. 26472 on 12.05.97. Here he inflated consolidated debit slip by Rs.2,000/ and interest on deposit ( IOD) slip by Rs.1075/. It was the first debit of SI instrument No. 514283.

(ii) Second fraudulent multiple debit of SI no. 514283.

Investigation also revealed that on 16.05.97 again Praveen Gupta dishonestly or fraudulently utilised the said SI instrument no. 514283 by mixing it with other SI instruments RCno.3(A)/98 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta CC nos.90/11, 66/11, 65/11 32/69 and fraudulently and got it passed by Smt. Sneh Gupta, Asstt. Manager without getting it again initialled and dated by Smt. Sneh Gupta, Asstt. Manager, I/charge of SI section in token of payment/cancellation of the SI instrument no. 514283. Accused also falsified the stock invest account no. 310 ledger dated 16.05.97 (page no. 108). It is further alleged that accused transferred the amount of SI instrument no. 514283 of Rs. 15,000/- and interest accrued thereon as Rs. 260/- to SB account no. 26472 alongwith the amount of other 4 cancelled SI instruments on 16.05.97 where he fraudulently inflated interest to the tune of Rs. 1144/-. Thus the total fraud of Rs.16,404/- was done by Praveen Gupta by falsifying SI ledger.

Investigation further revealed that on 16.05.97,, the amount and interest of 5 cancelled SI instruments came to Rs. 33,846/- whereas accused fraudulently and dishonestly prepared the credit slip of Rs. 29,990- by falsifying interest on deposit slip (IOD) by Rs.1144/- and deposited the same amount in SB account no. 26472.

(iii) Third fraudulent multiple debit of SI no. 514283.

Investigation disclosed that accused Praveen Gupta fraudulently/dishonestly utilised the said stock invest instrument no. 514283 dated 26.2.97 on 24.05.97 for third time by entering the same in the SI ledger account no. 310 (page

-137) alongwith other 5 cancelled SI instruments and got the same passed by Sneh Gupta, Asstt. Manger without getting RCno.3(A)/98 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta CC nos.90/11, 66/11, 65/11 33/69 the instrument initialled and dated in token of payment /cancellation of the SI no. 514283 on 24.05.97. Again adopting same modus operandi, Praveen Gupta transferred Rs. 17,463/- fraudulently towards SB account no. 26472 alongwith the amount of interest of the 5 SI instruments i.e. Rs. 38,048/- instead of Rs. 37,871/- because he fraudulently inflated interest on deposit (IOD) slip by Rs. 1177/- and consolidated debit slip by Rs. 1000/-.

(iv) Fourth fraudulent multiple debit of SI No. 514283.

Investigation disclosed that again on 02.06.97, accused Praveen Gupta fraudulently/dishonestly utilised the same SI instrument No. 514283 dated 26.02.97 by making false entry in SI ledger Account no.310 on 02.6.97 (at page no.141) alongwith other 4 SI instruments and got the same fraudulently passed by Asstt. Manager Sneh Gupta without getting the instrument initialed and dated in token of payment/cancellation of the SI no. 514283 on 02.06.97. Again adopting the same modus operandi Praveen Gupta transferred Rs. 16,265/- fraudulently towards SB Account no. 26472 alongwith the SI amount and interest of other 4 SI instrument i.e. Rs. 41,413/- instead of Rs. 40,524/- because he fraudulently inflated interest on deposit slip by Rs. 889/-.

(v) Investigation disclosed that Praveen Gupta defrauded the total amount of Rs. 53,207/- in the above said 3 instances by falsifying the stock invest ledger account, instrument, debit slip, credit slip and also forged signatures of holder on SI No. 514283 which contained forged RCno.3(A)/98 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta CC nos.90/11, 66/11, 65/11 34/69 signatures of Sh. Pramod Kumar Gupta on behalf of his minor son Master Vihan Gupta..

21. To comprehend the dates alongwith the amount encashed by the accused with respect to stock invest no. 514283 involved in the present case, a graphical presentation given by the prosecution may be reproduced. The same also reflects the amount fraudulently encashed by the accused with respect to the said stock invest instrument on different dates.

RCno.3(A)/98 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta CC nos.90/11, 66/11, 65/11 35/69 FIR NO. RC 3 (A)/98ACUVIII STOCK INVEST (SI) NO. 514283. CC No. 90/2011 ISSUED ON 26.02.1997 FOR RS. 15000/ TO Mt. Vidhan U/G of Pramod Kumar Gupta Issuance Date of SI A/C SB Fraudulent Fraudulent Fraudulent Total Utilization of first issuance No. A/C Multiple excess debit excess IOD Fraudulent debit & & No. debit slip amount ( Interest on amount Fraud Multiple Amount deposit) Multiple debits Amount debits of the SI (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Issuance 26.02.97 310 26472 ..... ...... ....... ....... ..... Ist 12.05.97 310 26472 ..... 2,000/- 000+1075 3,075/- ----- 2nd 16.05.97 310 26472 15,000/- ---- 260+1144 16,404/- Rs.27,000 in SI A/c No.310 Rs.

2750/- in SI A/c No. 238 & Cash W/d Rs.

200/-

3rd 24.05.97 310 26472 15,000/- 1,000/- 286+1177 17,463/- Rs.38,000/-

in SI A/c No. 310 4th 02.06.97 310 26472 15,000/- ---- 376+889 16,265/- Rs.36000/-

in SI A/c 310 & Cash W/d Rs.

5400/-

45,000/-- 3,000/- 922+4285 53,207/-

22. The aforesaid SI instrument may be scrutinised with reference to evidence led on record. The stock invest number 514283(ExPW-2/G-1) was issued in favour of Vidhan Gupta under guardianship of Pramod Kumar Gupta for sum of Rs. 15,000/- on 26.02.97. The signatures of Pramod Kumar Gupta at Q-124 were forged and not signed by him as opined by PW-17 RCno.3(A)/98 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta CC nos.90/11, 66/11, 65/11 36/69 GEQD (Ex. PW-17/A) on comparison with the admitted writing and specimen signatures. The aforesaid evidence has remained unchallenged and uncontroverted as the witness was not even suggested if the opinion was incorrect. There is no reason to doubt the opinion given by PW17. It may also be observed that PW6 Pramod Kumar Gupta turned hostile obviously being the relation of accused. There is no iota of doubt that the signatures of Pramod Kumar Gupta were forged on the said instrument. The accused also used the instrument for fraudulent encashment repeatedly and also falsely prepared the debit and credit slips as discussed herein after.

The said stock invest was encashed by accused on 12.05.1997 for the first time. It may be pointed out that the actual total amount to be credited for all the transactions in SI Account 310 comes to Rs. 31,750/- plus interest of Rs. 704/- as per Ex.PW2/B (Stock Invest A/c 310) but the same was inflated to Rs. 33,750/-, as per debit slips Ex.PW2/G-2 and interest was inflated to Rs. 1,779/- as per Ex.PW2/G-9. The accused inflated an amount of Rs. 1075/- towards interest and Rs. 2,000/- towards the total amount of the Stock Invest Instruments. It may be mentioned the debit slip (towards interest) Ex.PW2/G-9 for debiting stock account 310, 268 and 269 was prepared for consolidated sum of RCno.3(A)/98 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta CC nos.90/11, 66/11, 65/11 37/69 Rs. 3391/-. Amount of Rs. 1779/- towards interest was to be debited for account no. 310 and the balance amount was to be debited towards Stock Invest Account no. 268 and 309. Also consolidated debit slip Ex.PW2/G-2 was prepared for sum of Rs. 65,900/-, which included the amount of Rs. 33750/- to be debited towards Stock Invest Account no. 310 and the balance amount towards Stock Invest Account no. 309 and 268.

The said amount was further credited in the saving bank account no. 26472 (Ex.PW4/A) for sum of Rs.35,529/- vide credit slips Ex.PW2/G-13. The accused as such wrongly gained amount of Rs. 2,000/- by inflating the debit slip and amount of Rs. 1075/- by inflating the interest on transaction for 12.05.1997 as proved by the entries.

The said instrument was further encashed on 16.05.97 for the second time as per debit entry against instrument No. 514283 in Ex. PW-2/B ( Stock Invest A/c 310) for sum of Rs.15,000/- along with interest of Rs.260/-. The debit slip Ex. PW-2/G-3 and Ex. PW-2/G-10 were prepared for debiting the stock invest account

310. Ex. PW-2/G-3 was prepared for a consolidated sum of Rs. 69425/- toward stock invest account No. 309, 268,310 & another account. Out of the same an amount of Rs.30250/- was to be credited towards SI A/c No 310. The same included the amount of Rs.15000/- towards encashment of stock invest instrument No. 514283. The debit slip Ex. PW-2/G-10 was made for consolidated sum of Rs. 3780/- for debiting interest of stock invest account No. RCno.3(A)/98 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta CC nos.90/11, 66/11, 65/11 38/69 238, 309, 268 & 310. Out of same amount of Rs. 1740/- was to be credited towards stock invest account 310. However the amount credited in saving bank account No. 26472 Ex. PW-4/A was for sum of Rs. 29,990/-as per credit slip Ex. PW-2/G-14. It may be pointed out that actual amount to be debited as per the entries dated 16.05.97 was for sum of Rs.33,250/- along with interest of Rs. 596/- but the debit slips had been prepared for sum of Rs. 30,250/- and Rs.1740/- and the accused finally decided to credit only a sum of Rs. 29,990/- which included the amount wrongly encashed for stock invest instrument 514283. The entries clearly reveal that the accused wrongly encashed the same SI instrument and made a wrongful gain.

The third encashment of the same instrument was made on 24.05.97. The stock invest account 310 Ex. PW-2/B was debited for stock invest instrument 514283 for sum of Rs.15,000/- plus interest of Rs.286/-. The debit slip Ex. PW-2/G-4 was prepared for consolidated sum of Rs. 87625/- towards stock invest account 309, 310 and another account. Out of the same amount of Rs. 36,100/- was to be debited towards account No. 310. Another debit slip (Ex.PW2/G-11) for consolidated sum of Rs. 4630/- towards interest was prepared for debiting stock invest account 268, 309, 310. The same reflected the interest amount towards stock invest account 310 for Rs. 1948/-. It may be pointed that the interest amount was inflated to Rs. 1948/- from Rs. 771/-. Further, the debit amount towards various instruments as per calculations RCno.3(A)/98 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta CC nos.90/11, 66/11, 65/11 39/69 in Ex. PW-2/B came to Rs. 37100/- but was made for Rs.36,100/- in the debit slip Ex. PW-2/G-4. However accused finally credited an amount of Rs.38,408/- in saving bank account 26472 (Ex. PW-4/A) as per credit slip Ex. PW-2/G-15. As such the instrument was again wrongly encashed and the amount was inflated as detailed above.

The fourth fraudulent encashment of same instrument was again made by accused on 02.06.97 as per debit entry against instrument No. 514283 in Ex. PW-2/B ( Stock invest A/c 310). The debit slips Ex. PW-2/G-7 and Ex. PW-2/G-6 for the same were made. Ex. PW-2/G-7 was made for consolidated sum of Rs. 75,485/- for different stock invest accounts. Out of same sum of Rs. 29,500/- was debited towards stock invest account 310. Another debit slip Ex. PW-2/G-6 was prepared for debiting stock invest account 310 for Rs.10,000/-. Accused also prepared consolidated debit slip Ex.PW2/G-12 towards interest amount for SI Account 309/310 and 268. Out of same, the amount towards SI A/C 310 was reflected as Rs. 1913/- instead of actual amount of Rs. 1024/-.The corresponding credit entry was made in saving bank account 26472 (Ex. PW-4/A) for sum of Rs. 41,413/- vide credit slip Ex. PW-2/G-16 dt 02.06.1997. The accused as such fraudulently encashed the amount for the fourth time and same is proved beyond reasonable doubt.

RCno.3(A)/98 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta CC nos.90/11, 66/11, 65/11 40/69 23. CC no. 66/11 The prosecution relies upon the following facts and circumstances against the accused as revealed in investigation.

(i) No application was available for making stock invest instruments, but it was revealed that SI instrument no. 514332 dated 04.03.97 for Rs. 9,000/- was prepared by accused Praveen Gupta in favour of M/s HUDCO on behalf of Master Sidhant Gupta minor son of his brother Sh. Pramod Kumar Gupta and the above SI contained forged signatures of Shri Pramod Kumar Gupta.

The said stock invest instrument No. 514332 dated 04.03.97 was sent to M/s HUDCO but the said company did not sell share to Master Sidhant Gupta son of Sh. Pramod Kumar Gupta and returned the SI instrument. The SI instrument was presented in the SI Account No. 310 for transfer of its amount and interest thereon to SB Account No. 26472 on 12.05.97. No application for transfer is available on this account. Since the said SI Account No. 310 was being dealt with by Sh. Praveen Gupta, he transferred SI instrument amount Rs.9,000/ and interest Rs.96/ to SB Account No. 26472 along with the amount of other cancelled instruments without getting them initialled and dated by Smt. Sneh Gupta, Asstt. Manager in charge of SI Section in token of the RCno.3(A)/98 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta CC nos.90/11, 66/11, 65/11 41/69 payment/cancellation of the SI instrument No. 514332 Although the principle and interest of the cancelled 5 SI was Rs. 32,454 but he fraudulently and dishonestly inflated the amount from Rs.32,454/ to Rs.35,529/ and credited the same in the said saving bank A/c No. 26472 on 12.05.97. Here he inflated Rs.2,000/ in consolidated debit slip and Rs.1075/ in Interest on deposit (IOD) dishonestly. It was the first debit of SI instrument No. 514332 dated 04.03.97..

(ii) Second fraudulent multiple debit of SI no. 514332 Investigation also revealed that on 16.05.97 again Praveen Gupta dishonestly or fraudulently utilised the said SI instrument no. 514332 by mixing it with other SI instruments and fraudulently and got it passed by Smt. Sneh Gupta, Asstt. Manager without getting it again initialled and dated by Smt. Sneh Gupta, Asstt. Manager, I/charge of SI section in token of payment/cancellation of the SI instrument no. 514332. Accused also falsified the stock invest account no. 310 ledger dated 16.05.97 (page no. 108). It is further alleged that accused transferred the amount of SI instrument no. 514332 of Rs. 9,000/- and interest accrued thereon as Rs. 144/- to SB account no. 26472 alongwith the amount of other 4 cancelled SI instruments on 16.05.97 where he fraudulently inflated interest to the tune of Rs. 1144/-. Thus the total fraud of Rs.10288/- was done by Praveen Gupta by falsifying SI ledger.

RCno.3(A)/98 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta CC nos.90/11, 66/11, 65/11 42/69 Investigation further revealed that on 16.05.97,, the amount and interest of 5 cancelled SI instruments came to Rs. 33,846/- whereas accused fraudulently and dishonestly prepared the credit slip of Rs. 29,990- by falsifying interest on deposit slip (IOD) by Rs.1144/- and deposited the same amount in SB account no. 26472.

(iii) Third fraudulent multiple debit of SI no. 514332.

Investigation disclosed that accused Praveen Gupta fraudulently/dishonestly utilised the said stock invest instrument no. 514332 dated 04.03.97 on 20.05.97 third time by entering the same in the SI ledger account no. 310 (page

-136) alongwith other 5 cancelled SI instruments and got the same passed by Sneh Gupta, Asstt. Manger without getting the instrument initialled and dated in token of payment /cancellation of the SI no. 514332 on 20.05.97. Again adopting same modus operandi, Praveen Gupta transferred Rs. 10476/- fraudulently towards SB account no. 26472 alongwith the amount of interest of the 5 SI instruments i.e. Rs. 36,781/- instead of Rs. 35,342/- because he fraudulently inflated interest on deposit (IOD) slip by Rs. 1439/- . Thus again he utilised Rs. 10476 in the second instance.

Fourth fraudulent multiple debit of SI No. 514332. Investigation disclosed that again on 27.05.97 accused Praveen Gupta fraudulently/dishonestly utilised the same SI instrument No. 514332 dated 04.03.97 by making false entry in RCno.3(A)/98 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta CC nos.90/11, 66/11, 65/11 43/69 SI ledger Account no.310 on 29.03.97 (at page no.137) alongwith other 4 SI instruments and got the same fraudulently passed by Asstt. Manager Sneh Gupta without getting the instrument initialed and dated in token of payment/cancellation of the SI no. 514332 on 27.05.97. Again adopting the same modus operandi Praveen Gupta transferred Rs. 10493/- fraudulently towards SB Account no. 26472 alongwith the amount and interest of other 4 SI instrument i.e. Rs. 39,868/- instead of Rs. 38519/- because he fraudulently inflated interest on deposit slip (IOD) by Rs. 1349/-. Thus in the fourth instance also he cheated Syndicate Bank to the tune of Rs.10493/- and utilized the same.

Investigation disclosed that Praveen Gupta defrauded the total amount of Rs. 34332/- in the above said 3 instances by falsifying the stock invest ledger account, instrument, debit slip, credit slip and also forged signatures of holder of SI No. 514332 which contained forged signatures of Sh. Pramod Kumar Gupta.

24. The factual position as per case of prosecution may be graphically represented for understanding as under

FIR NO. RC 3 (A)/98ACUVIII STOCK INVEST (SI) NO. 514332. CC No. 66/2011 ISSUED ON 04.03.1997 IN THE NAME OF SIDHANT GUPTA U/G PRAMOD KUMAR GUPTA FOR RS.9000/ Issuance of Date of SI A/C SB A/C Fraudulen Fraudulent Fraudulent Total Utilization first debit & issuance No. No. t Multiple excess excess IOD Fraudulent Fraud & debit debit slip ( Interest on amount Multiple Multiple Amount amount deposit) debits of the debits Amount RCno.3(A)/98 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta CC nos.90/11, 66/11, 65/11 44/69 SI (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Issuance 04.03.9 310 26472 ..... ...... ....... ....... .....

Ist 12.05.9 310 26472 ..... 2,000/- 000+1075 3,075/- -----

2nd 16.05.9 310 26472 9,000/- ---- 144+1144 10,288/- Rs.27,000 7 in SI A/c No.310 Rs.2750/-

in SI A/c No. 238 & Cash W/d Rs.200/-

3rd 20.05.9 310 26472 9,000/- ----- 37+1439 10,476/- Rs.

7 36,000/- in SI A/c No. 310 & Cash W/d Rs.900/-

4th 27.05.9 310 26472 9,000/- ---- 144+1349 10,493/- Rs.34000/-

7 in SI A/c 268 & Cash W/d Rs.5900/-

27,000/- 2,000/- 325+5007 34,332/-

25. The stock invest number 514332(Ex. PW2/H1) was issued in favour of Sidhant Gupta under guardianship of P.K Gupta for sum of Rs.9,000/ on 04.03.97. The case of prosecution is that said P.K. Gupta refers to Pramod Kumar Gupta. Further, the signatures at Q125 were not made by Pramod Kumar Gupta as per opinion of PW17 Sh. Ravinder Kumar, GEQD (Ex. PW17/A).

The aforesaid evidence has remained unchallenged and uncontroverted as the witness was not even suggested if the RCno.3(A)/98 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta CC nos.90/11, 66/11, 65/11 45/69 opinion was incorrect. There is no reason to doubt the opinion given by PW17. It may also be observed that PW6 Pramod Kumar Gupta turned hostile obviously being the relation of accused. There is no iota of doubt that the signatures of Pramod Kumar Gupta were forged on the said instrument. The accused also used the instrument for fraudulent encashment repeatedly and also falsely prepared the debit and credit slips as discussed herein after.

The said stock invest instrument was encashed by accused on 12.05.1997 for the first time. The stock invest account 310(Ex.

PW2/B page 107) was debited for sum of Rs.9,000/ plus Rs.136/ as interest by the accused. The accused prepared a consolidated debit slip for sum of Rs. 65,900/ (Ex. PW2/H2) for different stock invest account, out of which sum of Rs.33,750/ was to be debited towards stock invest account 310. Another debit slip Ex. PW2/H6 was prepared for consolidated sum of Rs. 3391/ towards interest, out of which sum of Rs. 1779/ was shown towards stock invest account 310. It may be pointed out that as per entries for 12.05.97 the total amount to be debited came to Rs.31750/ plus interest of Rs.704/ but the same was inflated to Rs. 33750/ and Rs. 1779/ RCno.3(A)/98 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta CC nos.90/11, 66/11, 65/11 46/69 (towards interest). As such even in the first encashment the accused fraudulently drew an excess of Rs. 2,000/ plus Rs. 1075/ on account of interest. Further the amount Rs. 35,529/ was credited in A/C no. 26472 (Ex. PW4/A) as per credit slip Ex.

PW2/H10. A mere perusal of entries alongwith debit and credit slips proves the wrongful gain made by accused.

The said instrument was further encashed for the second time on 16.05.97 as per debit entry against instrument No. 514332 in Ex. PW2/B ( Stock Invest A/c 310) for sum of Rs.9,000/ along with interest of Rs.144/. The debit slip Ex. PW2/H3 and Ex.

PW2/H7 were prepared for debiting the stock invest account 310.

Ex. PW2/H3 was prepared for a consolidated sum of Rs. 69,425/ toward stock invest account No. 309, 268,310 & another account.

Out of the same an amount of Rs.30,250/ was to be debited towards SI A/c No 310. The same included the amount of Rs.

9,000/ towards encashment of stock invest instrument No. 514332. The debit slip Ex. PW2/H7 towards interest was made for consolidated sum of Rs. 3,780/ for debiting stock invest account No. 238, 309, 268 & 310 and out of same amount of Rs.

1740/ was to be credited towards stock invest account 310. It RCno.3(A)/98 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta CC nos.90/11, 66/11, 65/11 47/69 may be pointed out that actual amount to be debited as per the entries dated 16.05.97 was for sum of Rs.33,250/ along with interest of Rs. 596/ but the debit slips had been prepared for sum of Rs. 30,250/ and Rs.1740/ after inflating the interest. However, the accused finally decided to credit only a sum of Rs. 29,990/ as per credit slip Ex.PW2/H11 in SB A/c 26472 (Ex.PW4/A) which included the amount for encashing the stock invest instrument 514332. The accused as such fraudulently encashed the same SI instrument as proved by the entries on record.

The third encashment of the same instrument was made on 20.05.97. The stock invest account 310 Ex. PW2/B was debited for stock invest instrument 514332 for sum of Rs.9,000/ plus interest of Rs.37/. The debit slips Ex. PW2/H4 & Ex. PW2/H8 were prepared. The debit slip Ex. PW2/H4 was prepared for consolidated sum of Rs. 75075/ towards different stock invest account 309, 310, 268. Out of the same amount of Rs. 34,825/ was to be debited towards account No. 310. Another debit slip Ex.

PW2/H8 for consolidated sum of Rs.3780 / towards interest was prepared for debiting stock invest account 268, 309, 310. The same reflected the interest amount towards stock invest account RCno.3(A)/98 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta CC nos.90/11, 66/11, 65/11 48/69 310 for Rs. 1956/. It may be pointed out that the interest amount was inflated to Rs. 1956/ instead of the actual amount as reflected in Ex. PW2/B. The accused further credited amount of Rs.

36,781/ in saving bank account 26472 (Ex. PW4/A). However the credit slip for the same has not been brought to my notice though the amount Rs. 36,781/ stands credited to SB A/c 26472. The entries clearly prove on record that the instrument was again wrongly encashed and the amount credited in the saving bank account.

The fourth encashment of the same instrument was again made by accused on 27.05.97 as per debit entry against instrument No. 514332 in Ex. PW2/B ( Stock invest A/c 310). The debit slips Ex.

PW2/H5 and Ex. PW2/H9 for the same were made. Ex. PW2/H5 was made for consolidated sum of Rs.88,775/ for different stock invest accounts 268, 310,309. Out of same sum of Rs. 37,675/ was debited towards stock invest account 310. Another debit slip Ex. PW2/ H9 towards interest was prepared for debiting stock invest account 310, 268 & 309 for Rs.4999/ . Out of the same the amount towards stock invest account 310 was shown for Rs. 2193/ instead of the actual amount of Rs. 844/ as reflected in Ex.PW2/D. The amount was further RCno.3(A)/98 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta CC nos.90/11, 66/11, 65/11 49/69 credited in saving bank account 26472 Ex. PW4/A for sum of Rs.

39,868/ vide credit slip Ex. PW2/H12 for Rs. 39,868/. The entries as such clearly prove the fraudulent encashment of same SI instrument.

26. CC no. 65/11

The prosecution relies upon the following facts and circumstances against the accused as revealed in investigation.

(i) No application was available for making stock invest instruments, but it was revealed that SI instrument no. 514207 dated 17.02.97 for Rs. 5750/- was prepared by accused Praveen Gupta in favour of M/s Unjha Formulations Ltd. on behalf of his mother Smt. Rama Rani Gupta containing her forged signatures thereon . On the same date, SI instrument No. 514208 for Rs.6250/- was also prepared in favour of M/s Unjha Formulations Ltd. by Parveen Gupta himself on behalf of himself under his own signatures.

The said stock invest instrument No. 514207 & 514208 dated 17.02.97 were sent to M/s Unjha Formulations Ltd. but the said company did not sell share to Smt. Rama Rani Gupta and Sh. Praveen Gupta and returned the SI instruments. The SI instruments were presented in the SI Account No. 310 for transfer of their amount and interest thereon to SB Account No. 26472 on 15.04.97. No application for transfer is available on this account. Since the said SI RCno.3(A)/98 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta CC nos.90/11, 66/11, 65/11 50/69 Account No. 310 was being dealt with by Sh. Praveen Gupta, he transferred SI instrument amount Rs.5750/ & Rs. 6250/ and interest Rs.72/ & Rs78/ respectively to SB Account No. 26472 along with the amount of other cancelled SI instruments without getting them initialled and dated by Smt. Sneh Gupta, Asstt. Manager in charge of SI Section in token of the payment/cancellation of the SI instrument No. 514207 & 514208. It was the first debit of SI instrument No. 514207 & 514208 dated 15.01.97.

(ii) Second fraudulent multiple debit of SI no. 514207 & 514208.

Investigation also revealed that on 29.04.97 again Praveen Gupta dishonestly or fraudulently utilised the said SI instrument nos. 514207 & 514208 by mixing them with other SI instruments and fraudulently and dishonestly got it passed by Smt. Sneh Gupta, Asstt. Manager without getting it again initialled and dated by Smt. Sneh Gupta, Asstt. Manager, I/charge of SI section in token of payment/cancellation of the SI instrument no. 514207 & 514208. Accused also falsified the stock invest account no. 310 ledger dated 29.04.97 (page no. 103). It is further alleged that accused transferred the SI instrument no. 514207 for amount Rs.5750/- and interest accrued thereon as Rs. 89/- and SI instrument No. 514208 for amount Rs.6250/- and interest accrued thereon as Rs.97/- to RCno.3(A)/98 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta CC nos.90/11, 66/11, 65/11 51/69 SB account no. 26472 alongwith the amount of other 3 cancelled SI instruments on 29.04.97 where he fraudulently inflated interest to the tune of Rs. 980/-. Thus the total fraud of Rs.13166/- was done by Praveen Gupta by falsifying SI ledger.

Investigation further revealed that on 29.04.97,, the amount and interest of 5 cancelled SI instruments came to Rs. 35289/- whereas accused fraudulently and dishonestly prepared the credit slip of Rs. 36269/-- by falsifying interest on deposit slip (IOD) to the tune of Rs.980/- and deposited the same amount in SB account no. 26472.

(iii) Third fraudulent multiple debit of SI no. 514207 & 514208.

Investigation disclosed that accused Praveen Gupta fraudulently/dishonestly utilised the said stock invest instrument no. 514207 & 514208 dated 15.02.97 on 3.05.97 third time by entering the same in the SI ledger account no. 310 (page -104) alongwith other 3 cancelled SI instruments and got the same passed by Sneh Gupta, Asstt. Manger without getting the instruments initialled and dated in token of payment /cancellation of the SI no. 514207 & 514208 on 17.02.97. Again adopting same modus operandi, Praveen Gupta transferred Rs. 15390/- fraudulently towards SB account no. 26472 alongwith the amount of interest of the 3 SI instruments i.e. Rs. 28193/- instead of Rs. 24998/- because he fraudulently inflated interest on debit slip by Rs. 1195/- and RCno.3(A)/98 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta CC nos.90/11, 66/11, 65/11 52/69 inflated Rs.2000/- on consolidated debit slip . Thus again he utilised Rs. 15390/- in the second instance.

Fourth fraudulent multiple debit of SI No. 514207 & 514208 Investigation disclosed that again on 08.05.97 accused Praveen Gupta fraudulently/dishonestly utilised the same SI instrument No. 514207 & 514208 dated 17.02.97 by making false entry in SI ledger Account no.310 on 08.05.97 (at page no.105) alongwith other 5 SI instruments and got the same fraudulently passed by Asstt. Manager Smt. Sneh Gupta without getting the instrument initialed and dated in token of payment/cancellation of the SI no. 514207 & 514208 on 08.05.97. Again adopting the same modus operandi Praveen Gupta transferred Rs. 16224/- fraudulently towards SB Account no. 26472 alongwith the amount and interest of other 5 SI instrument i.e. Rs. 35891/- instead of Rs. 31667/- because he fraudulently inflated interest on deposit slip (IOD) by Rs. 1224/- and inflated Rs.3000/- on consolidated debit slip. Thus in the fourth instance also he cheated Syndicate Bank to the tune of Rs.16224/-

Investigation disclosed that Praveen Gupta defrauded the total amount of Rs. 44780/- in the above said 3 instances by falsifying the stock invest ledger account, instrument, debit slip, credit slip and also forged signatures of his mother Smt. Rama Rani Gupta on SI instrument and utilized the above document having knowledge that the same are the RCno.3(A)/98 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta CC nos.90/11, 66/11, 65/11 53/69 forged documents.

Investigation also disclosed that accused Praveen Gupta fraudlently and dishonestly utilised the same SI nos. 514207 & 514208 more than 3 times and the fraud of the above SI instruments Nos. 514207 & 514208 was stopped when they were signed by Sh. V. M. Holla, Asstt. Manager on 12.06.97.

27. The factual position as per case of prosecution may be graphically represented for understanding as under.

FIR NO. RC 3 (A)/98ACUVIII STOCK INVEST (SI) NO. 514207 & 514208. CC No. 65/2011 514207 issued on 17.02.1997 FOR RS. 5750/ to Smt. Rama R. Gupta & SI No. 514208 for Rs.6250/ to Praveen Gupta RCno.3(A)/98 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta CC nos.90/11, 66/11, 65/11 54/69 Issuance Date of SI A/C SB Fraudulen Fraudulent Fraudulent Total Utilization of first issuance No. A/C t Multiple excess excess IOD Fraudulent debit & & No. debit debit slip ( Interest on amount Fraud Multiple Amount amount deposit) Multiple debits Amount debits of the SI (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Issuance 17.02.97 310 26472 ..... ...... ....... ....... ..... Ist 15.04.97 310 26472 ..... ---- ----- ---- ----- 2nd 29.04.97 310 26472 5750/- ---- 89+ 980 6819/- Rs.33250/-

                                              6250/-                       97           6347/-     in SI A/c
                                                                                                   No. 310 &
                                                                                                   Cash W/d
                                                                                                   Rs.1500/-
 3rd           03.05.97   310      26472     5750/-          2,000/-       98 +1195     9043/-     Rs.
                                             6250/-                        97           6347/-     27,000/- in
                                                                                                   SI A/c No.
                                                                                                   310 &
                                                                                                   Cash W/d
                                                                                                   Rs.1300/-
 4th           08.05.97   310      26472     5750/-          3,000/-       00+1224      9974/-     Rs.32500/-
                                             6250/-                                     6250/-     in SI A/c
                                                                                                   No. 310 &
                                                                                                   238, Cash
                                                                                                   W/d Rs.
                                                                                                   3400/-
                                             36,000/-       5,000/-      381+3399        44780/-

28. The stock invest number 514207 (Ex. PW2/F1) was issued in favour of Rama Rani Gupta for sum of Rs.5750/ on 17.02.97. Sh. Ravinder Kumar, GEQD opined that signatures at Q142 allegedly in the name of Rama Rani Gupta, on comparison with admitted and specimen handwriting of Praveen Kumar Gupta appeared to be written by one and same person(i.e. Praveen Kumar Gupta). The opinion was proved as Ex.PW17/A. The RCno.3(A)/98 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta CC nos.90/11, 66/11, 65/11 55/69 aforesaid evidence has remained unchallenged and uncontroverted as the witness was not even suggested if the opinion was incorrect. There is no reason to doubt the opinion given by PW17. It may also be observed that PW8 Rama Rani Gupta turned hostile obviously being the relation of accused.

There is no iota of doubt that the signatures of Rama Rani Gupta were forged on the said instrument. The accused also used the said instrument alongwith 514208 issued in his name for fraudulent encashment repeatedly and also falsely prepared the debit and credit slips as discussed herein after.

Till this stage, there was no wrongful gain as the instruments were encashed as per the amount due on instruments.

It is further the case of prosecution that the said instruments were illegally again encashed for the second time on 29.04.97 as per debit entry against instrument No. 514207 & 514208 in Ex.

PW2/B ( Stock Invest A/c 310) for sum of Rs.5750/ along with interest of Rs.89/ and sum of Rs. 6250/ along with interest of Rs.

97/. The debit slip Ex. PW2/F5 and Ex. PW2/F9 were prepared for debiting the stock invest account 310. Ex. PW2/F5 was prepared for a consolidated sum of Rs. 46,000/ toward stock RCno.3(A)/98 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta CC nos.90/11, 66/11, 65/11 56/69 invest account No. 309, 268,310. Out of the same an amount of Rs.24,600/ was to be debited towards SI A/c No 310. The same included the amount of Rs.5750/ & Rs. 6250/ towards encashment of stock invest instruments No. 514207 & 514208.

The debit slip Ex. PW2/F9 was made for consolidated sum of Rs.

2908/ for debiting interest of stock invest account No. 238, 309, 268 & 310 out of which amount of Rs. 1669/ was to be debited towards stock invest account 310. The amount was further credited in saving bank account No. 26472 (Ex. PW4/A) for sum of Rs.

36269/as per credit slip Ex. PW2/F14. Apart from the illegal second encashment, it may be pointed out that actual amount to be debited as per the entries dated 29.04.97 was for sum of Rs.

34,600/ along with interest of Rs. 689/ but the amount credited was Rs. 36,269/. As such apart from the fraudulent second encashment the accused also further enhanced the amount as detailed above.

The third encashment of the same instruments was made on 03.05.97 . The stock invest account 310 Ex. PW2/B was debited for stock invest instrument 514207 & 514208 for sum of Rs.5750/ plus interest of Rs.98/ and for sum of Rs. 6250/ plus interest of RCno.3(A)/98 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta CC nos.90/11, 66/11, 65/11 57/69 Rs.97/. The debit slips Ex. PW2/F6 & Ex. PW2/F10 were prepared for the said purpose. The debit slip Ex. PW2/F6 was prepared for consolidated sum of Rs. 50,850/ towards different stock invest account 309, 310, 268. Out of the same amount of Rs. 26,600/ was to be debited towards account No. 310. Another debit slip Ex. PW2/F10 for consolidated sum of Rs.2917/ towards interest was prepared for debiting stock invest account 268, 309,

310. The same reflected the interest amount towards stock invest account 310 for Rs. 1593/. Apart from the third illegal encashment of the same instruments, the amount for all the transactions was inflated along with interest from Rs.24600 / plus interest of Rs.

398/ to Rs.26,600/ & Rs. 1593/ as per Ex. PW2/F6 and Ex.

PW2/F10. Thereafter, the amount of Rs.28,193/ was credited in saving bank account 26472 Ex. PW4/A as per credit slip Ex.

PW2/F15. As such the accused again fraudulently encashed the same instruments and also enhanced the amount as detailed above and proved by the entries.

The fourth fraudulent encashment against the same instruments was made by accused on 08.05.97 as per debit entry against instruments No. 514207 & 514208 in Ex. PW2/B ( Stock RCno.3(A)/98 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta CC nos.90/11, 66/11, 65/11 58/69 invest A/c 310). The debit slips Ex. PW2/F7 and Ex. PW2/F11 were prepared for the said purpose. Ex. PW2/F7 was made for consolidated sum of Rs.60,000/ for different stock invest accounts 268, 310,309. Out of same sum of Rs. 34,000/ was debited towards stock invest account 310 instead of the actual amount of Rs.31,000/ towards all the transactions for 08.05.97.

Another debit slip Ex. PW2/F11 towards interest was prepared for debiting stock invest account 310, 268 & 309 for Rs.3265/ .

Out of the same the amount towards stock invest account 310 was shown for Rs. 1891/ instead of the actual amount of Rs.667/ The corresponding credit entry was made in saving bank account 26472 (Ex. PW4/A) for sum of Rs.35,891 / vide credit slip Ex.

PW2/F16. The accused as such apart from fraudulent encashment of stock invest instruments also inflated amounts as detailed above and proved by the entries on record.

29. OFFENCE U/S 420 IPC The Stock Invest Account 310 Ex.PW2/B was maintained by the accused and the entries therein have been made by him as deposed by the witnesses. The moment the Stock RCno.3(A)/98 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta CC nos.90/11, 66/11, 65/11 59/69 Invest Instrument which was encashed was represented again fraudulently for encashment the offence stood concluded. The evidence on record as discussed in preceding paras clearly reveals that the accused reused the Stock Invest Instrument for repeated encashment by wrongly making the debit slips and debiting the Stock Invest Account 310. Further the credit slip was wrongly prepared for crediting the saving bank account 26472 and the entries to this effect were further made. The said amount was also further again utilised by the accused as revealed from the entries contained in the saving bank account 26472 Ex.PW4/A. The contention raised by the accused that some of the transactions have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt in the absence of corresponding debit slip with respect to Stock Invest Account 310 or the credit slip towards saving bank account no. 26472 is devoid of merit since the corresponding entries of debit of Stock Invest Account 310 and credit entries in saving bank account 26472 have been duly proved on record and there does not appear to be any reason to doubt the same. There is no explanation by the accused as to how the encashed Stock Invest Instrument could be represented for encashment. The offence stood completed immediately as soon as the amount was wrongly debited in Stock Invest Account against the already encashed respective Stock Invest Instrument and credited in the savings bank account 26472. The debit and credit slips corroborate the entries made in Ex.PW2/B and Ex.PW4/A which even otherwise RCno.3(A)/98 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta CC nos.90/11, 66/11, 65/11 60/69 have been proved on record. In view of above, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused wrongly encashed the respective Stock Invest Instruments repeatedly and thereby cheated the bank. Accused is accordingly convicted for offence u/s 420 IPC in CC no. 90/11, 66/11 and 65/11.

30. OFFENCE COMMITTED BY ACCUSED ON THE PROVED FACTS UNDER PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988.

Relevant portion of Section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which provides for criminal misconduct by a public servant reads as under:

"13.Criminal misconduct by a public servant.

(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,-

                   [...]
                  (c)     If    he    dishonestly    or     fraudulently

misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use any property entrusted to him or under his control as a public servant or allows any other person so to do; or

(d) If he, -[...]

(ii) By abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or [...](2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a RCno.3(A)/98 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta CC nos.90/11, 66/11, 65/11 61/69 term which shall be not less than one year but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine."

The accused in the present case was deputed to work in the said department and had dominion over the Stock Invest instruments. The accused also wrongly made entries in the Stock Invest account maintained in the bank in the official course of its business for purpose of encashment same SI instrument. The accused on the face of record misused his position for fraudulently encashing the Stock Invest instruments which had already been encashed and further made incorrect entries in the Stock Invest account for wrongly gaining the amount. The same was further correspondingly credited in the respective Savings Bank account. The accused instead of ensuring that the funds of the public were not misappropriated, himself resorted to misappropriate the same by fraudulent multifold encashment of the same instrument. It is therefore beyond purview of doubt that accused being a public servant is guilty of offence u/s 13(1)(d) r/w Sec 13(1)(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for which he has been charged.

31. OFFENCES RELATING TO FALSE DOCUMENTS AND FALSIFICATION OF ACCOUNTS The accused has been charged for offences u/s 477-A IPC (falsification of accounts) and Section 468 IPC in all the three RCno.3(A)/98 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta CC nos.90/11, 66/11, 65/11 62/69 cases. Section 468 deals with forgery for purpose of cheating and Section 471 deals with using as genuine a forged document which a person known or has reasons to believe to be forged. It may also be appropriate to mention that Section 463 defines forgery and deals with making of false documents which is further define in Section 464 IPC. The opinion of Handwriting Expert PW-17 Sh. Ravinder Kumar proves the fact that accused forged the signature of Pramod Kumar Gupta on Stock Invest instrument 514283 in CC no. 91/11, 514332 in CC no. 66/11 and of Rama Rani Gupta in SI no. 514207 in CC no. 65/11 as discussed in preceding paras. The SI instrument is a valuable security and forgery had been done for purpose of cheating and as such accused is liable to be convicted u/s 468 IPC. The accused further prepared and used the various debit slips and credit slips for wrongly crediting the amount with respect to Stock Invest instrument 514283, 514332 and 514207 and 514208 knowing that the same had been prepared for illegally crediting the amount and thereby is liable to be convicted under Sec 471 IPC.

Sec 477-A IPC deals with falsification of accounts and may be reproduced.

"477A, Falsification of accounts.- Whoever, being a clerk, officer or servant, or employed or acting in the capacity of a clerk, officer or servant, willfully, and with intent to defraud, destroys, alters, mutilates or falsifies any book, electronic record, paper, writing], valuable security or account which belongs to or is in the RCno.3(A)/98 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta CC nos.90/11, 66/11, 65/11 63/69 possession of his employer, or has been received by him for or on behalf of his employer, or willfully, and with intent to defraud, makes or abets the making of any false entry in, or omits or alters or abets the omission or alteration of any material particular of any material particular form or in, any such book, electronic record, paper, writing], valuable security or account, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both. Explanation-It shall be sufficient in any charge under this section to allege a general intent to defraud without naming any particular person intended to be defraud without naming any particular person intended to be defrauded or specifying any particular sum of money intended to be the subject of the fraud, or any particular day on which the offence was committed."

The evidence also clearly points out in all the three cases the accused wrongly prepared the various debit slips for debiting Stock Invest Account 310 in respect of respective Stock Invest Instruments and further prepared the credit slips for crediting the amount illegally which was not due in saving bank account no. 26472. The said debit and credit slips were dishonestly prepared for wrongful gain to the accused and causing loss to the bank. The accused also intentionally made fraudulent entries for purpose of multiple encashment of the same stock instrument in Stock Invest account Ex.PW2/B and thereby committed offence punishable u/s 477-A IPC. The accused is RCno.3(A)/98 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta CC nos.90/11, 66/11, 65/11 64/69 accordingly convicted u/s 477-A in all the cases.

32. At this stage it may also be appropriate to deal with the allegations against the accused with respect to theft of respective stock instruments which have been repeatedly represented for encashment. Since as per testimony of PW-15 Smt. Sneh Gupta, the instruments were entrusted with the accused himself, there does not appear to be any question of commission of theft if the accused himself was in possession of the said stock invest instruments. The accused is accordingly acquitted of offence u/s 381 IPC.

33. For the foregoing reasons the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and accused is accordingly convicted for commission of offences under Sections 420, 468, 471, 477 A IPC & 13 (1) (d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in CC no. 90/11, 60/11 and 65/11.

Announced in the                             (Anoop Kumar Mendiratta)
open Court on                                    Special Judge(PC Act)
05.11.2011                                     (CBI)-8, Central District,
                                                 THC, Delhi.

RCno.3(A)/98 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta CC nos.90/11, 66/11, 65/11 65/69 IN THE COURT OF ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA SPECIAL JUDGE (CBI-08), PC ACT, CENTRAL DISTT.

TIS HAZARI COURTS , DELHI CC Nos.:90/11 (old CC no. 98/01) 66/11 (old CC no. 91/01) 65/11 (old CC no. 94/01) RC No. : 3(A)/98 PS : CBI/ACU/New Delhi CBI Vs. Praveen Kr. Gupta S/o Sh. Rameshwar Dayal Gupta R/o 9713F, Gali Neem Wali Nawab Ganj, Delhi-06 ........Accused Date of FIR 16.07.1998 Date of filing chargesheet 04.07.2000 Judgement passed on 05.11.2011 Order on sentence 15.11.2011 CASE MORE THAN 10 YEARS OLD.

CASE MORE THAN 10 YEARS OLD.

1. The accused has been convicted vide judgment dated 05.11.2011 for commission of offences U/s 420,468,471,477 (A) IPC & RCno.3(A)/98 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta CC nos.90/11, 66/11, 65/11 66/69 Section 13 (1)(d) r/w Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in all the three cases (CC no. 90/11, 66/11 and 65/11).

2. I have heard Ld. PP for CBI & accused on point of sentence.

Accused submits that he is aged about 55 years and has already been dismissed from service. It is further submitted that family of the accused has also suffered immensely on account of his dismissal and has been financially ruined. It is further urged that accused is also suffering from medical ailments and has been facing trial for the last 13 years. A prayer is accordingly made for lenient view in the matter.

On the other hand Ld. PP for CBI contends that deterrent sentence be passed.

3. Accused was an employee of Syndicate Bank and indulged in preparation of false documents and fabrication of accounts for illegal gains. Accused resorted to fraudulent multiple crediting of the same stock invest instruments and also breached the trust of other employees posted in the same section. The acts of the accused posed a fundamental threat to the viability of the organization itself and also adversely affected the service career of the co-employees who endorsed or signed the banking documents presented by accused in trust and good faith, in official course of banking. The same also resulted in significant RCno.3(A)/98 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta CC nos.90/11, 66/11, 65/11 67/69 loss to the exchequer by the time the fraud was detected. The instances unearthed during investigation only appear to be the tip of the iceburg although the embezzled amount may be much more as observed during investigation. In the facts and circumstances a deterrent sentence is called to curb the menace of corruption by way of criminal misconduct and cheating resorted by accused.

4. The case also calls for appropriate guidelines and counter measures to be taken by the Bank to confront such situations wherein the key employees maintaining the accounts are themselves the beneficiary of the schemes floated by the bank. The mode adopted by the accused for fraudulent multiple encashing of the same instrument despite maintenance of balancing book in the bank, calls for deeper analysis as the same could not have been possible but for want of complete lack of supervision or abdication of duties by senior officials.

In view of above, appropriate guidelines need to be formulated by Governor RBI to be followed by all the Banks which may work as bench mark to check the commission of frauds in similar schemes. It is necessary to ensure proper conciliation and accountability of banking transactions by the employees in such schemes. A copy of judgment and order be also forwarded to the Governor, RBI for compliance.

5. I am of the considered view that interest of justice would RCno.3(A)/98 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta CC nos.90/11, 66/11, 65/11 68/69 be fully met if convict shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years in respect of offence under Section 420 IPC and shall also pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- in each of the 3 cases. In default of payment of fine accused shall undergo SI for 2 months. As far as offence under Section 468 IPC is concerned, convict shall undergo R.I. for 3 years and shall pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in each of the three cases and in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for 2 months. In respect of offence under Section 471 IPC convict shall undergo R.I. for 2 years and shall pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in each of the three cases and in default thereof S.I. for 2 months. In respect of offence under Section 477 A IPC, convict shall undergo R.I. for 3 years and shall pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in each of the three cases and in default of payment to undergo S.I. for 2 months. Lastly, in respect of offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act, convict shall undergo R.I. for 3 years and shall pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in each of the three cases and in default of payment to undergo S.I. for 2 months. The said sentences shall run concurrently. Convict shall be entitled to benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C.. Copy of judgement alongwith order on sentence be provided to convict free of cost.

Announced in the open court                          (A.K. Mendiratta)
today, i..e on 15.11.2011                       Special Judge (CBI-08), PC
Act
                                       Central Distt., Delhi.15.11.2011

RCno.3(A)/98 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta CC nos.90/11, 66/11, 65/11 69/69

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi District Court

Rcno.3(A)/98 Cbi vs . Praveen Kumar Gupta Cc Nos.90/11, ... on 5 November, 2011