Delhi District Court
Cbi vs . R. K. Joshi Etc. Dl-0375 on 20 December, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SH. ARUN BHARDWAJ, SPECIAL JUDGE
(PC ACT), CBI05, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS,
NEW DELHI DISTRICT, NEW DELHI
CC No.11/16 (Old No.33/09 & 39/12)
CNR No.DLND010000092009
RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOUII/N Delhi
U/s 120B IPC readwith Section 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC &
Section 13 (2) readwith Section 13 (1) (d) P C Act 1988
Central Bureau of Investigation
versus
1. Ravinder Kumar Joshi @ R. K. Joshi
S/o Sh. Gian Parkash Joshi, the then Assistant General Manager,
UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch,
New Delhi. (Public ServantDismissed from service).
R/o A303, Delhi Rajdhani Apartments,
Patparganj, I. P. Extension,
New Delhi92.
... Accused no.1
2. Y. N. Kashyap (since deceased)
(Proceedings against him abated vide orders dated 08.02.2016)
S/o Sh. Ganeshi Lal,
R/o Flat No.804, Meditech Apartment,
Sector56, Gurgaon (Haryana) (Rented House)
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 1 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
(Private Person)
... Accused no.2
3. Ranjan Kashyap
S/o Late Sh. Y. N. Kashyap,
R/o Flat No.804, Meditech Apartment,
Sector56, Gurgaon (Haryana) (Rented House)
(Private Person)
... Accused no.3
Date of Institution : 30.09.2009
Date of Conclusion of Arguments : 20.12.2017
Date of Judgment : 20.12.2017
J U D G M E N T
1. This case was registered by CBI on the basis of a complaint
dated 10.02.2009 given by Sh. S. Rajaram, Zonal Manager, UCO
Bank, New Delhi to CBI (D2, Page No. 27 of File B2).
2. The complaint reads as under :
"I, S. Rajaram, functioning as Zonal Manager in UCO
Bank at Zonal Office, New Delhi being the Competent
Authority of the Bank, do hereby lodge complaint with
you for institution of a criminal case against S/ Shri R.
K. Joshi, the then Assistant General Manager (since
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 2 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
dismissed from Bank's service) of Delhi High Court
Branch of UCO Bank, New Delhi and S/Shri Y. N.
Kashyap, R/O House No.1361P, Sector14, Faridabad as
owing to their acts of criminal conspiracy and cheating
etc. UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch, New Delhi
sustained a wrongful loss of Rs.1.74 Crores.
On the basis of the application dated 21.10.2004 (D4,
Page No. 43 of File B2) (on a plain paper and not on the
prescribed format) from Sri Y. N. Kashyap, Sri R. K.
Joshi, the then Assistant General Manager (since
dismissed from Bank's service) of UCO Bank, Delhi
High Court, New Delhi Branch had sanctioned a loan of
Rs.1 Crore to Sri Y. N. Kashyap under Bank's UCO
RENT SCHEME. The sanction letter dated 24.01.05 (D
6 Page no. 55 of File B2) addressed to Sri Y. N.
Kashyap had been signed by Sri R. K. Joshi.
The subject loan amounting to Rs.1 Crore was
sanctioned to Sri Y. N. Kashyap against the Rent
Receivables of his property situated at H. No.1361P,
Sector14, Faridabad, he rented out to M/s. R. R.
Automotive Components (P) Ltd., A59, Kirti Nagar,
Delhi. Sri Y. N. Kashyap and his son Sri Ranjan
Kashyap are the Directors in the above named Company
and both were since residing in the property situated at
H. No.1361P, Sector14, Faridabad shown as rented out
to M/s. R. R. Automotive Components (P) Ltd. A
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 3 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
monthly rent of Rs.2,25,000/ had been shown to be paid
by M/s. R. R. Automotive components (P) Ltd. to Sri Y.
N. Kashyap for this property.
Again on the basis of an application dated 12.02.2005
(D13, Page No. 89 of File B2) (on a plain paper and
not on the prescribed format) from Sri Y. N. Kashyap,
Sri R. K. Joshi, the then Assistant General Manager
(since dismissed from Bank's service) of UCO Bank,
Delhi High Court, New Delhi Branch had sanctioned a
loan of Rs.32 Lakhs to Sri Y. N. Kashyap under Bank's
UCO RENT SCHEME. The sanction letter dated
25.02.2005 (D14, Page No. 91 of File B2) addressed to
Sri Y. N. Kashyap had been signed by Sri R. K. Joshi.
The subject loan as per the appraisal note amounting to
Rs.32 Lakhs was sanctioned to Sri Y. N. Kashyap
against the Rent Receivables of his property situated at
1361P, Sector14, Faridabad instead of property at 89,
Sector 24, Faridabad rented out to M/s. R. R.
Automotive Components (P) Ltd., A59, Kirti Nagar,
Delhi offered by Sri Y. N. Kashyap as set out in the
application of Sri Kashyap. A monthly rent of
Rs.1,06,250/ had been shown to be paid by M/s. R. R.
Automotive Components (P) Ltd., to Sri Y. N. Kashyap
for this property at Sector14, Faridabad as per the
appraisal note.
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 4 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
As is evident in both the above cases a monthly rent of
Rs.3,31,250/ had been shown to be paid by M/s. R. R.
Automotive Components (P) Ltd. to Sri Y. N. Kashyap,
Sri R. K. Joshi in connivance with the borrower (Sri Y.
N. Kashyap) did not ask for the balance sheet / financial
papers of M/s. R. R. Automotive Components (P) Ltd. to
ascertain the paying capacity and other assets of the said
company which required of him as a prudent Executive
of the Bank.
Moreover the copy of lease deed from where the details
of monthly rent payable and period of tenancy had to be
obtained are not on record. It appears that the above
named Branch Official in connivance with the borrower
had first decided the quantum of loan and later on
completed the paper work mentioning the figures of
monthly rent required to sanction a loan of Rs.1 Crore
and Rs.32 Lakhs and cited above.
Moreover both the above said loan accounts had been
secured by creating the equitable mortgage of
immovable property in the name of Sri Y. N. Kashyap
situated at H. No. 1361P, Sector14, Faridabad. The
subject property had been allotted to Sri Y. N. Kashyap
by HUDA vide its Conveyance Deed dated 02.06.95 (D
17, Page No. 115 of File B2). It is clearly mentioned on
page no.2 of the Conveyance Deed that for creation of
equitable mortgage of the involved property, pre
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 5 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
permission from HUDA is required. Sri R. K. Joshi in
connivance with the borrower did not seek any
permission from HUDA and created the equitable
mortgage in the Bank's books.
As the borrower failed to repay the installments in time
in both the above said loan accounts, Bank referred the
matter to HUDA for marking its lien on the subject
property. At this stage, it was found that the subject
property had already been mortgaged to two other
Banks namely Andhra Bank and Standard Chartered
Bank, New Delhi. The Deeds deposited with the Bank
were also found not genuine.
As is clear from the foregoing, the above named officer
of the Bank has criminally connived with Sri Y. N.
Kashyap
1) First by not asking for the balance sheet /other
financial papers to ascertain the paying capacity (an
amount of monthly rent of Rs.3,31,250/) of M/s. R. R.
Automotive Components (P) Ltd. ;
2) Secondly by not obtaining prepermission/sanction,
knowingly and deliberately from HUDA for creating the
Equitable Mortgage of the immovable property situated
at H. No. 1361P, Sector14, Faridabad before
sanctioning of the subject loans to Sri Y. N. Kashyap ; &
3) Third the above named official, in connivance with
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 6 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
the borrower, sanctioned the above said loans in the
absence of required papers as per the stipulations of the
UCO Rent Scheme which tantamount to cheating and
criminal breach of trust.
By these above said acts the above named dismissed
official of the Bank had put the Bank to wrongful loss of
Rs.1.74 Crores.
Sri Y. N. Kashyap defrauded the Bank when he
knowingly and deliberately deposited the fake / not
genuine Title Deeds relating to the property situated at
H. No.1361P, Sector14, Faridabad as security with the
Bank and availed the above said credit facilities from
UCO Bank, Delhi High Court, New Delhi Branch and
putting the Bank to a wrongful loss of Rs.1.74 Crores.
In view of the above it is requested that a criminal case
may be instituted against aforesaid dismissed Bank
official and Sri Y. N. Kashyap under the appropriate
sections of IPC and P. C. Act, 1988 for a thorough
probe."
3. On the basis of this complaint, RC No.0712009(E)0002 (D1,
Page No. 5 of File B2) was registered on 13.02.2009 at EOUII, New
Delhi under Section 120B IPC readwith Section 420/467/468/471 IPC
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 7 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
and Section 13 (2) readwith Section 13 (1) (d) of PC Act, 1988.
4. After completion of investigation, chargesheet under Section
173 of Cr. P.C. was filed against Ravinder Kumar Joshi (R. K. Joshi),
Y. N. Kashyap and Ranjan Kashyap alleging that they have committed
offences punishable under Section 120B IPC readwith Section
420/468/471 IPC and Section 13 (2) readwith 13 (1) (d) of PC Act,
1988 and substantive offences thereof.
5. During pendency of the case, Y. N. Kashyap died and
proceedings against him abated vide orders dated 08.02.2016.
6. A perusal of the charge sheet shows that :
(i) In the year 2001, UCO Bank vide UCO Bank Head Office
Circular No.CHO/ADV/21/20002001 dated 22.07.2000 (D39, Page
No. 277 of File B2) had introduced 'UCO Rent Scheme' to finance
against rental receivable. As per the Scheme:
(a) the loan could be sanctioned to owners i.e.
lessors of houses / flats / godowns / warehouses
etc. only;
(b) the owner may be an individual, a firm or a
company;
(c) the lessee, however, should be company or
corporate of good market standing (emphasis
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 8 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
supplied);
(d) the lessor and lessee should have invariably
entered into a lease agreement and should be
tenable as per the local / state Act;
(e) two securities were required, primary
security Assignment of Rent Receivable and
Collateral Security equitable mortgage of the
property for which lease agreement was entered
between lessor and lessee or some other property
the value of which covered the loan to the extent of
100%;
(f) the repayment of the term loan was to be
restricted to a maximum of 60 months period and
following documents were required to be
executed : (1) Agreement for Assignment of Rent
Receivable (as per format enclosed), (2) Term
Loan Agreement (A109), (3) Letter of Guarantee
(A107) / 107A), (4) Creation of Equitable
Mortgage, (5) Registration of Charge on Fixed
Assets with Registrar of Companies (wherever
required), (6) Original Lease Agreement with legal
opinion and (7) Valuation Certificate/s of
properties from approved valuer.
(ii) R. K. Joshi, ScaleV Officer, remained posted as Assistant
General Manager in Delhi High Court, UCO Bank Branch from May
2004 to 06.05.2005. He was competent to sanction various types of
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 9 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
loan facilities to the extent of Rs.3 Crores on each count to the
borrowers (D40, Page No. 299 of File B2).
(iii) Y. N. Kashyap vide application dated 21.11.2004 (D4, Page No.
43 of File B2), on a plain paper addressed to AGM, UCO Bank, Delhi
High Court, requested for sanction of loan of Rs.1 Crore under UCO
Rent Scheme on the basis that he has a property situated at 1361P,
Sector14, Faridabad, Haryana, in his name which he has given on rent
to M/s. R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. w.e.f. 03.11.2004.
(iv) The request of accused Y. N. Kashyap was processed by
Sh. Ranjeet Banerjee, the then Sr. Manager (Loans), since expired on
24.09.2008.
(v) The loan of Rs. One Crore was sanctioned in favour of Y. N.
Kashyap vide letter No.DHC/ADV/200405209 dated 24.01.2005 (D
6, Page No. 55 of File B2) duly signed by R. K. Joshi on the following
terms and conditions which were accepted by Y. N. Kashyap by putting
his signatures on the sanction letter:
1. The loan shall be secured by the equitable
mortgage of the landed property situated at House
No.1361P, Sector14, Faridabad, Haryana
(emphasis supplied).
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 10 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
2. The loan will be repaid in 60 months out of
the rent receivable.
3. The interest in the account will be charged at
the rate of BPLR (Bank Prime Lending Rate)
minus one point five percentage per annum. The
current BPLR (Bank Prime Lending Rate) is
11.00% (Eleven Percent)
4. The interest will be debited to the account at
monthly rests or at such interval which the Bank
may decide or as decided by Reserve Bank of
India.
5. The Bank will recover service charges at the
rate of 0.50% of the amount of loan sanctioned.
6. The property proposed to be mortgaged to
the Bank shall be insured against the risk of fire,
earthquake, damage by other natural calamities,
strikes, riots, civil commotion.
7. The borrower shall allow the Bank to inspect
the property at least once in a quarter or at any
other interval whenever the Bank desires to do that.
8. The borrower will ensure that there is no
premature termination of the lease agreement with
tenant.
9. In case of default in payment of any
installment the penal interest at the rate of 2% over
and above the normal rate shall become payable.
10. The repayment of the loan shall commence
immediately after one month from the date of
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 11 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
availing the term loan.
(vi) Before releasing the loan amount, Y. N. Kashyap executed an
Agreement for Assignment of Rent on 25.01.2005 (D9, Page No. 73 of
File B2) with M/s. R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd., A59,
Kirti Nagar, New Delhi.
(vii) The borrower Y. N. Kashyap signed as lessor of Property
No.1361P, Sector14, Faridabad, Haryana and on behalf of the lessee
i.e. R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd., Sh. Krishan Kumar
Makhija, an employee of the above said company signed the agreement
as authorized signatory. However, this agreement should have been
signed by one of the Directors of the company.
(viii) The tenancy lease agreement dated 03.11.2004 was not taken on
record by R. K. Joshi at the time of completing the documentation or
before the release of the sanctioned loan of Rs.1 Crore which was a
primary document on the basis of which loan of Rs.1 Crore was
sanctioned by R. K. Joshi in favour of Y. N. Kashyap, under UCO Rent
Scheme in violation of operational guidelines mentioned in Circular
No.CHO/ADV/21/20002001 dated 22.07.2000 (D39, Page No. 277 of
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 12 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
File B2).
(ix) In the Agreement relating to Term Loan (D7, Page No. 57 of
File B2), the date of application/proposal of borrower is shown as
21.10.2004 whereas in the original application, the date 21.10.2004
appears to be altered by overwriting to read as 21.11.2004 (D4, Page
No. 43 of File B2).
(x) The credibility of the guarantor Sh. Jaspal Singh Bishnoi R/o H.
No. 681, Sector 23, Faridabad, Haryana, an employee of the company,
was not obtained / verified by the R. K. Joshi as required in advances
covered by guarantee (Guarantor's Statement and Credit Report i.e.
Form No.G18 was not taken on record).
(xi) Ranjan Kashyap obtained signatures of Sh. Jaspal Singh Bishnoi
on the guarantee form as directed by R. K. Joshi on the pretext for
opening an account in the name of company and by keeping him in
dark and not telling him the true facts.
(xii) For creation of equitable mortgage, the borrower Y. N. Kashyap
had given (D12, Page No. 87 of File B2) Conveyance Deed of
Property No.1361P, Sector14 HUDA, Faridabad, Haryana dated
02.06.1995 but before release of loan, R. K. Joshi overlooked creation
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 13 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
of charge of the Bank on the above said property in the office of
HUDA Faridabad by not taking permission from the Estate Officer,
HUDA, Faridabad, Haryana, as mentioned in the Conveyance Deed as
well as in the legal search report of the panel lawyer.
(xiii) Most shockingly, the Conveyance Deed in respect of Property
No.1361P, Sector14, HUDA, Faridabad, Haryana dated 02.06.1995
submitted by Y. N. Kashyap was forged/fake (D17, Page No.115 of
File B2).
(xiv) Y. N. Kashyap again submitted another application dated
12.02.2005 (D13, Page No.89 of File B2) to R. K. Joshi stating that
he had rented out his Property No. 89, Sector24, Faridabad to M/s. R.
R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. and requested for further loan
under UCO Rent Scheme for Rs.32 Lakhs.
(xv) This request was processed by Sh. Ranjeet Banerjee, the then
Senior Manager of the Branch and by R. K. Joshi, the then AGM of
the branch and the loan was sanctioned by accused R. K. Joshi vide
sanction letter No. DHC/ADV/200405/135 dated 25.02.2005 (D14,
Page No. 91 of File B2) in favour of Y. N. Kashyap under UCO Rent
Scheme against the security of the same property i.e. H. No.1361P,
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 14 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
Sector14, Faridabad, Haryana, instead of against the security of
Property No.89, Sector24, Faridabad, Haryana as requested/applied by
the accused Y. N. Kashyap in his application dated 12.02.2005.
(xvi) The guarantor and authorized signatory on the agreement for
assignment of loan were same as in the previous loan case of
Rs.1 Crore and R. K. Joshi committed same irregularities which he had
committed in earlier loan case and Y. N. Kashyap made similar false
representation for obtaining the loan as were made by him in the
earlier case.
(xvii) A Loan Account No.8088 was opened in UCO Bank in the name
of Y. N. Kashyap on 25.01.2005 and after the loan was deposited in
this account, a sum of Rs.1 Crore was debited in the above account on
the same day and credited in the Current Account No.2251 through
debit voucher dated 25.01.2005 for Rs.1 Crore duly signed by Sh.
Ranjeet Banerjee, the then Senior Manager and by R. K. Joshi (D24,
Page No. 209 of File B2).
(xviii) This Current Account No.2251 was opened by Y. N. Kashyap
on 05.11.2004 in UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch.
(xix) Similarly, vide debit voucher dated 16.03.2005, a sum of Rs.32
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 15 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
Lakhs was credited and thereafter debited in the loan account of 8428
of Y. N. Kashyap and transferred / credited in the current account
No.2251 on 16.03.2005 (D25, Page No. 211 of File B2).
(xx) This amount of Rs.1,32,00,000/ was utilized / withdrawn in
following manner:
Date Description Amount In Remarks
of favour
document of
24.01.2005 Ch. 9,00,000 Cheque not traceable
No.955803 in the Bank. As per
account statement,
cash paid to bearer.
25.01.2005 Ch. 9,00,000 Cheque not traceable
No.955805 in the Bank. As per
account statement,
cash paid to bearer.
27.01.2005 Ch. 6,00,000 Self Cash received by
No.955868 Ranajn Kashyap
27.01.2005 Ch. 33,20,000 Ranjan The account
No.955867 Kashyap transferred and
credited in account
No.07010100030667
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 16 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
Date Description Amount In Remarks
of favour
document of
24.01.2005 Ch. 9,00,000 Cheque not traceable
No.955803 in the Bank. As per
account statement,
cash paid to bearer.
of Ranjan Kashyap
maintained in
Development Credit
Bank Ltd. Greater
Kailash Branch, New
Delhi
28.01.2005 Ch. 5,00,827 Yourself The cheque was
No.955870 passed by Sh. Ranjit
Banerjee, Sr.
Manager. Through
this cheque a DD for
Rs.5 Lakhs was
issued in favour of
Chakarwarty Steels
payable at Faridabad.
31.01.2005 Ch. 4,30,000 Self Cash received by
No.955876 Ranjan Kashyap
31.01.2005 Ch. 3,25,538 Yourself Through this cheque
No.955871 a DD for
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 17 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
Date Description Amount In Remarks
of favour
document of
24.01.2005 Ch. 9,00,000 Cheque not traceable
No.955803 in the Bank. As per
account statement,
cash paid to bearer.
Rs.3,25,000/ was
issued in favour of
Haryana Steel
Mongers (P) Ltd.
payable at Faridabad.
01.02.2005 Ch. 30,00,000 Ranjan The amount
No.955872 Kashyap transferred and
credited in account
no.1071978 of
Ranjan Kashyap
maintained in ABN
Amro Bank, Bara
Khamba Road,
Connaught Place,
New Delhi
16.03.2005 Ch. 31,10,000 Ranjan Amount transferred
No.955980 Kashyap in the current
account no.2366 of
Ranjan Kashyap
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 18 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
Date Description Amount In Remarks
of favour
document of
24.01.2005 Ch. 9,00,000 Cheque not traceable
No.955803 in the Bank. As per
account statement,
cash paid to bearer.
maintained in UCO
Bank, Delhi High
Court Branch, New
Delhi
Total 1,30,86,365
(xxi) Out of Rs.1,32,00,000/ sanctioned and released in favour of
Y. N. Kashyap, a sum of Rs.1,22,60,000/ was misutilized by Ranjan
Kashyap for personal gain and not for the purpose under UCO Rent
Scheme.
(xxii) Ranjan Kashyap, in criminal conspiracy with R. K. Joshi,
opened Current Account No.2366 on 07.01.2005 with an initial deposit
of Rs.10,000/ (D37, Page No. 245 of File B2). However, on the same
day, a clean overdraft facility amounting to Rs.32,49,954/ was granted
by R. K. Joshi. From this account, Ranjan Kashyap got issued a Pay
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 19 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
Order for Rs.32,57,509/ in favour of Standard Chartered Bank Loan
Account No.42314968 on 17.01.2005 itself. This overdraft amount was
later on adjusted by way of transfer of Rs.31,10,000/ from the Current
Account No.2251 of Y. N. Kashyap through cheque no.955890 dated
16.3.2005 for Rs.31,10,000/ which was issued in the name of Ranjan
Kashyap. For availing this overdraft facility, no documents were
obtained by R. K. Joshi from Ranjan Kashyap.
(xxiii) The Current Account No.2251 became NPA account on
30.09.2005.
(xxiv)Contrary to Clause No. 5 of Agreement for Assignment of Rent
(D9, Page No.73 of File B2), the rent was not deposited regularly in
the Loan Account No.8088 and Loan Account No.8428. (It is pertinent
to mention here that in the Agreement for Assignment of Rent (D23,
Page No.201 of File B2) for loan of Rs.32 Lakhs in the Clause No. 5,
the column of monthly rent is left blank).
(xxv) Subsequently, a sum of Rs.28,80,000/ was repaid in Loan
Account No.8088 and Rs.7,50,000/ in Loan Account No. 8428 i.e. a
total amount of Rs.38,64,200/.
(xxvi)Not only the title deed of Property No.1361P, Sector14,
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 20 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
Faridabad was forged but this property was already mortgaged with
Andhra Bank on 27.11.2001 for securing sanction of various credit
facilities to the tune of Rs.415 Lakhs sanctioned on 09.11.2001 in
favour of M/s. R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. through its
directors Y. N. Kashyap, Ranjan Kashyap, Ms. Reema Kashyap and
Ms. Asha Kashyap.
(xxvii) For availing the loan facility under UCO Rent Scheme, Ranjan
Kashyap managed to complete the Guarantor's Form and Agreement
for Assignment of Rent from his employees under threat and obtained
their signatures on the relevant documents from Sh. K. K. Makhija and
Sh. Jaspal Singh Bishnoi.
7. Cognizance of the case was taken on 01.10.2009 and on
23.07.2012, all the accused were charged for having committed the
offence under Section 120B IPC readwith Section 420, 468, 471 IPC
and 13 (2) readwith Section 13 (1) (d) of PC Act. Accused no. 1 R. K.
Joshi was also charged for having committed the offence under
Section 13 (2) readwith 13 (1) (d) of PC Act and Accused no.2 and
Accused no.3 were charged for having committed offences under
Section 420, 468 and 471 IPC. All the accused pleaded not guilty and
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 21 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
claimed trial. Order on charge dated 20.07.2012 have some clerical
mistakes. However, in order dated 23.07.2012, where charges were
framed against accused, there is no clerical mistake. This clerical
mistake has not caused any prejudice to any accused as the accused
faced the trial understanding well the charges framed against them in
order dated 23.07.2012.
8. Accused no.1 R. K. Joshi, during Admission / Denial of
documents, admitted 12 documents namely :
(i) D24 : Debit Voucher dated 25.01.2005 for Rs.1 Crore
in the name of Y. N. Kashyap, Loan Account No.8088 duly signed by
Sh. Ranjit Banerji, the then Senior Manager (since expired) and
accused R. K. Joshi (D24, Page No. 209 of File B2).
(ii) D25 : Debit Voucher dated 16.03.20005 for Rs.32
Lakhs in Loan Account of 8428 of Y. N. Kashyap duly signed by
Sh. Ranjit Banerji, the then Senior Manager (since expired) and by R.
K. Joshi, accused (D25, Page No. 211 of File B2).
(iii) D26 : Cheque No.955868 dated 27.01.2005 for a sum
of Rs.6 Lakhs in favour of 'Self', cash received by Ranjan Kashyap,
Accused no.3 from account No.CA2251 (D26, Page No. 213 of File
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 22 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
B2).
(iv) D27 : Cheque No.955867 dated 27.01.2005 for a sum
of Rs.32,20,000/ in favour of 'Ranjan Kashyap' from account No.CA
2251. The amount was transferred and credited in account
No.07010100030667 of Ranjan Kashyap maintained in Development
Credit Bank Ltd., Greater Kailash Branch, New Delhi (D27, Page No.
215 of File B2).
(v) D28 : Cheque No.955870 dated 28.01.2005 for a sum
of Rs.5,00,827/ in favour of 'Yourself' from account No.CA2251. The
cheque was passed by Sh. Ranjit Banerji, Senior Manager. Through
this cheque, a DD for Rs.5 Lakhs was issued in favour of Chakarwarty
Steels payable at Faridabad (D28, Page No. 217 of File B2).
(vi) D29: Cheque No.955876 dated 31.01.2005 for a sum
of Rs.4,30,000/ in favour of 'Self' from account No.CA2251, cash
received by Ranjan Kashyap (D29, Page No. 219 of File B2).
(vii) D30 : Cheque No.955871 dated 31.01.2005 for a sum
of Rs.3,25,538/ signed by Y. N. Kashyap in current account No. 2251.
Through this cheque, a DD for Rs.3,25,000/ was issued in favour of
Haryana Steel Mongers (P) Ltd. payable at Faridabad (D30, Page
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 23 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
No.221 of File B2).
(viii) D32 : Cheque No.955872 dated 01.02.2005 for a
sum of Rs.30,00,000/ in favour of 'Ranjan Kashyap' from account
No.CA2251. The amount transferred and credited in account No.
1071978 of Ranjan Kashyap (A3) maintained in ABN Amro Bank
Ltd., Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi (D32, Page No.
227 of File B2).
(ix) D33 : Cheque No.955890 dated 16.03.2005 for a sum
of Rs.31,10,000/ signed by Y. N. Kashyap in current account No. 2251.
This amount was transferred in the Current Account No.2366 of
Ranjan Kashyap (Accused no.3) maintained in UCO Bank, Delhi High
Court Branch, New Delhi (D33, Page No.229 of File B2).
(x) D34 : DD of Rs.5 Lakhs in favour of Chakrawarty
Steels issued by UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch, New Delhi (D
34, Page No. 233 of File B2).
(xi) D39 : 'UCO Rent' - Scheme for Financing rental
receivables (D39, Page No. 277 of File B2).
(xii) D40 : Lending powers to Executives / officers in
Scale(s) IV to VII (D40, Page No. 299 of File B2).
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 24 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
9. Accused no.3 Ranjan Kashyap admitted six documents,
namely :
(i) D20 : Non Encumbrance Certificate dated 20.10.2004
given by Sh. Kul Bharat Advocate to the AGM, UCO Bank, Delhi
High Court Branch, New Delhi for Property No.1361P, Sector14,
Faridabad, Haryana (D20, Page No. 153 of File B2).
(ii) D37 : Account Opening Form of Ranjan Kashyap for
Account No.2366 (D37, Page No. 245 of File B2).
(iii) D38 : Letter No.DHC/AGM/200910/075 dated
17.07.2009 from UCO Bank to the IO of this case along with Credit
Vouchers dated 17.01.2005 for Rs.32,57,509/ and Specimen Signature
Card of Ranjan Kashyap (D38, Page No. 275 of File B2).
(iv) D48 : Letter dated 12.08.2009 from ABN Amro
Bank along with certified copy of Account Opening Form and
Statement of Account in respect of Saving Bank Account No.1071978
in the name of Ranjan Kashyap (D48, Page No. 333 of File B2).
(v) D50 : Letter dated 07.09.2009 of Standard Chartered
Bank along with its enclosures i.e. Application Form, Sanction Letter,
Disbursement Request and Statement of Account in respect of Loan
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 25 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
Account No.42314968 in the name of Ranjan Kashyap and Yog Nath
Kashyap (D50, Page No. 493 of File B2).
(vi) D52 : Specimen signatures / handwritings / initials of
Ranjan Kashyap son of Y. N. Kashyap taken in RC No.02(E)2009/DLI
in the presence of Sh. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, Senior Manager, Bank
of India, Khan Market Branch, New Delhi (D52, Page No. 517 of File
B2).
10. The prosecution examined 21 witnesses to prove its case.
(PW1 Sh. S. Rajaram, Zonal Manager, UCO Bank)
11. PW1 proved his complaint dated 10.02.2009 given to the CBI as
Ex.PW1/A (D2, Page No.23 of File B2). The contents of the said
complaint have been noted in its entirety in the beginning of this
judgment.
12. In cross examination by learned counsel for Accused no.1, PW1
stated that he was not posted in Zonal Office, UCO Bank during the
period 200405 and does not know who was the Zonal Manager in
Zonal Office during that period; he had lodged the complaint under
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 26 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
written instructions of the Vigilance Department, Head Office,
Kolkata; the job of Senior Manager (Advances), if posted in a Branch,
is to process the loan applications received under different heads and
after scrutiny of documents, to put up the loan cases to Branch Head
for sanction if it was within the powers of Branch Head or to seek
sanction from Zonal / Head Office as per the quantum of loan and
power of sanction; the ground work of processing of application of
loan, detailed scrutiny thereof, taking search / Valuation Reports from
Panel Advocates / Valuer before putting up the case to Branch Head
and inspection of the property was the official duty of Senior Manager
(Advances); fulfillment of terms and conditions of the sanction order
are the responsibility of both Senior Manager (Advances) and the
Branch Head and he does not remember whether there was any
prescribed proforma for applying for loan under UCO Rent Scheme or
not.
13. During cross examination, PW1 was shown Ex.PW6/D (D7,
Page No. 57 of File B2). This is 'Agreement Relating to Term Loan'
dated 25.01.2005 with regard to loan of Rs. One Crore. PW1 admitted
that at Page No. 4 of this document, under the heading 'Schedule (here
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 27 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
give brief particulars of all security documents obtained by the Bank
from the borrower)' at point X to X, 'Rent Agreement' is mentioned.
This was to show that rent agreement was taken by the Bank at the
time of sanctioning the loan.
14. PW1 also admitted that entries of all the documents including
security documents is made in the Security Register maintained by the
Bank, after sanctioning the loan.
15. The witness was also confronted with Valuation Report dated
20.11.2004. This is Valuation Report of Property No.1361P, Sector14,
Faridabad, Haryana, as per which the worth of the property is
Rs.1,32,58,000/. The Valuation Report was exhibited as Ex.PW1/DX
(D19, Page No. 131 of File B2). (A perusal of this Valuation Report
shows that a certificate given at its last page which was to be signed by
the Branch Manager / Officer InCharge of Advance Department
certifying that 'The undersigned have inspected the property detailed
in the Valuation Report dated ... on ...... I have gone through the
report and am satisfied to the best of my knowledge that the value of
the property stated at Rs....../ by the approved valuer is realistic' is
blank).
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 28 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
16. The witness was also shown Search Report dated 20.10.2004.
This report is given by Advocate Sh. Kul Bharat and was exhibited as
Ex.PW1/DX1 (D20, Page No. 153 of File B2). This search report
mentions that searches were made in the office of Sub Registrar,
Faridabad. The report does not mention that any search was made in
HUDA office. This report further states that encumbrances over rights
in immovable property can be effected by a person by acts which need
not find mention in the records of Registering Authority and as a
safeguard against these and for securing Bank's interest, an affidavit /
declaration may be obtained in the format enclosed (the format of
affidavit is Ex.PW19/C (Part of D20, Page No. 179 of File B2). The
witness was also shown loan accounts (D43, Page No. 315 of File B2
and D44, Page No. 319 of File B2) as per which the Loan Account
No. 8088 had debit balance of Rs.73,91,185/ as on 15.12.2006 and
Loan Account No.8428 had debit balance of Rs.26,44,463/ as on
31.03.2006. These statements of accounts were exhibited as
Ex.PW1/DX2 and Ex.PW1/DX3 respectively. He stated that in these
statements of accounts, some expenses related to the account for
example, legal expenses, inspection charges etc. kept in suspense
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 29 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
account after the accounts became bad with reference to the accounts
were not reflected.
17. In crossexamination on behalf of learned counsel for Accused
no.2 & 3, PW1 stated that in UCO Rent Scheme, there was no
requirement of giving stock register or anything relating to the working
of the company as required in the case of other credit facility; there is
no allegation against Ranjan Kashyap in the complaint given to CBI
which is Ex.PW1/A, but he denied that there was no collusion between
the Bank official and Accused no. 2 & 3.
18. The witness was shown Security Register where details of the
documents and security documents obtained by UCO Bank in respect
of the two loans in question are mentioned. This register was already
exhibited as Ex.PW7/A1DX4 (additional documents, Page No. 13 of
File B5). (At Serial no.9 of this document is 'Agreement of Hiring of
Furniture, Fixture dated 17.02.2005 @ Rs.50,000/ per month signed
by Y. N. Kashyap and M/s. R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd.'
At Serial No.16 is 'photocopy of Agreement of Hiring of Furniture and
Fixture Rs.1,25,000/ dated 25.10.2004 signed by Y. N. Kashyap and
Sh. K. K. Makhija of M/s. R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd'. At
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 30 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
Serial No.21 is 'Credit Report dated 21.01.2005 on Sh. Jaspal Singh
Bishnoi, the Guarantor'). At Serial No. 29 is photocopy of lease deed
dated 03.11.2004 between Y. N. Kashyap and M/s. R. R. Automotive
Components Pvt. Ltd. regarding House No.1361, Sector14, Faridabad,
Haryana.
19. The witness was shown proposal for compromise of UCO Bank,
Head Office Kolkata (Recovery Department), Annexure No.10
(additional documents, Page No. 339 of File B5) which was exhibited
as Ex.PW1/DX4. (At Serial No. 17 of this proposal is 'Compromise of
total sacrifice and (i) actual sacrifice is shown Rs.30.34 Lakhs, (ii)
Notional sacrifice Rs.51.20 Lakhs and (iii) total sacrifice Rs. 82.04
Lakhs'). (In this proposal for compromise, the worth of guarantor Sh.
Jaspal Singh Bishnoi as per Credit Report dated 21.01.2005 is shown
as Rs.69.47 Lakhs).
20. The witness was also shown letter bearing reference
No.HO/RCR/DR/1686/200910 dated 06.10.2009 from UCO Bank,
Recovery Department, Head Office, Kolkata to FGM Office, New
Delhi intimating the approval of compromise proposal of account of
M/s. Y. N. Kashyap with Delhi High Court Branch. The same is
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 31 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
Ex.PW1/DX5 (additional documents, Page No.179 of File B4). In
this letter, it is mentioned that the proposal of Rs.68 Lakhs in full &
final settlement of the account against present Book Balance Rs.98.34
Lakhs (including ML Balance of Rs.97.64 Lakhs) involving actual
sacrifice of Rs.30.84 Lakhs and Notional sacrifice of Rs.51.20 Lakhs
has been approved. It is further mentioned in the approval letter that
compromise settlement shall not in any way affect the criminal action
taken by the Bank which shall continue (emphasis supplied).
21. The witness was also shown letter bearing reference
No.NDZO/RCR/200910/0793 dated 09.10.2009 addressed to the
Branch Office, Delhi High Court, New Delhi by Chief Officer
(Recovery), UCO Bank, Zonal Office, Recovery Department,
intimating approval of compromise proposal of account of Y. N.
Kashyap. The same was exhibited as Ex.PW1/DX6 (additional
documents, Page No. 177 of File B4).
22. Legal notice dated 09.12.2007 sent to Y. N. Kashyap, Sh. Jaspal
Singh Bishnoi and M/s. R. R. Components Pvt. Ltd. by counsel of
UCO Bank was proved as Ex.PW1/X7 (Additional Documents, Page
No. 325 of File B5).
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 32 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
(PW2 Sh. Hoshiyar Singh, Assistant in the office of Estate Officer,
HUDA, Rohtak, Haryana)
23. PW2 was posted as a Clerk in the office of Administrator,
HUDA, Faridabad in the year 1995. He was shown D17 (Page No. 115
of File B2) which is photocopy of Conveyance Deed dated 02.06.1995
of Property No. 1361P, Sector14, Faridabad, Haryana. (The original
of this Conveyance Deed was shown to the witness from the judicial
record in Crl. Case No.38/12 in RC No.2008/2009 titled as 'CBI vs. Y.
N. Kashyap' where the same was D93). He denied his signatures on
the same. He stated that in the year 1995, Sh. Rao Rattan Lal was the
Estate Officer, Faridabad and he can identify his signatures if shown to
him as he had seen him signing during the course of official duty. (It is
pertinent to mention here that Y. N. Kashyap, Accused no. 2 and
Ranjan Kashyap, Accused no. 3 of this case were also accused in the
case titled as 'CBI vs. Y. N. Kashyap and Ors.'. In that case, the
cheating was with Punjab National Bank, Paharganj Branch, New
Delhi and the Investigating Officer of this case and that case was the
same Inspector of CBI Sh. S. C. Bhalla and he was investigating both
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 33 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
the cases simultaneously due to commonality of private persons
involved in the cases. The forged Conveyance Deed of Property
No.1361P, Sector14, Faridabad, Haryana, given by private person to
Punjab National Bank and to UCO Bank were sent by the IO to
Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. After the original
documents came back, the same continued to be in the judicial file of
'CBI vs. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors'. The private person Ranjan Kashyap
and the public servants who were Managers of Punjab National Bank
have since been convicted in the said case). The witness stated that the
signatures of Sh. Rao Rattan Lal, the then Estate Officer as existing on
D93 Original Conveyance Deed of Property No. 1361P, Sector14,
Faridabad, Haryana given to UCO Bank by Y. N. Kashyap are not the
genuine signatures of the said Sh. Rao Rattan Lal and purported
initials of this witness are also not his initials. The photocopy of
Conveyance Deed of Property No.1361P, Sector14, Faridabad,
Haryana, after comparing the same with its original from the judicial
records of the other case titled as 'CBI vs. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors'. was
exhibited as Ex.PW6/J (Certified copy of Ex.PW6/B (D93) taken
from the case titled as 'CBI vs. Y. N. Kashyap and Ors', was filed on
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 34 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
record of this case by CBI on 14.12.2017). This witness was shown
photocopy of Deed of Conveyance dated 02.06.1995 in the File
Bearing No. MR 1325/ 2009 in RC No.2/E/2009/EOUII/N Delhi at
Page No.98103, original whereof is in the judicial records of 'CBI vs.
Y. N. Kashyap & Ors.' as D94 and the witness identified his initials at
point A and signatures of Sh. Rao Rattan Lal at point B. This
Conveyance Deed was exhibited as Ex.PW2/A (Certified copy of
Ex.PW6/A (D94) taken from the case titled as 'CBI vs. Y. N. Kashyap
and Ors', was filed on record of this case by CBI on 14.12.2017).
24. The witness was not crossexamined on behalf of learned
counsel for Accused no.1 R. K. Joshi.
25. In crossexamination by learned counsel for Accused no.2 & 3,
the witness stated that Conveyance Deed Ex.PW2/8 (it's a
typographical error and should be read as Ex.PW2/A) was not drafted
and typed in his presence. He stated that the dealing hand Sh. Satyapal
had signed on Ex.PW2/A in his presence at point C and no other
person had signed the Conveyance Deed in his presence.
(PW3 Sh. Kishan Kumar Makhija, Accounts Clerk,
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 35 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
M/s. R. R. Industries)
26. PW3 was Accounts Clerk from 1982 to 2008 in M/s R. R.
Industries which was later on named as M/s. R. R. Automotive
Components Pvt. Ltd. He stated that Accused no.2 Y. N. Kashyap,
Accused no.3 Ranjan Kashyap, Smt. Reema Kashyap and
Smt. Asha Kashyap were the Directors of M/s R. R. Automotive
Components Pvt. Ltd. The company was closed in the year 2008 as the
same was sealed by Andhra Bank. He stated that M/s. R. R.
Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. was being run from Plot No.89,
Sector24, Faridabad, Haryana and there was no office of the company
at A59, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi. He stated that he had signed on
Agreement for Assignment of Rent under the pressure of Ranjan
Kashyap and Y. N. Kashyap. He was shown D9 (Page No. 73 of File
B2) which is Agreement for Assignment of Rent dated 25.01.2005 and
identified his signatures at point A and signatures of Y. N. Kashyap at
point B on all the pages. The same was exhibited as Ex.PW3/A. He
was also shown D23 (Page No. 201 of File B2) which is Agreement
for Assignment of Rent dated 21.02.2005 and identified his signatures
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 36 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
at point A and signatures of Y. N. Kashyap at point B on all the pages.
The same was exhibited as Ex.PW3/B. He stated that he had signed
under the pressure of accused Y. N. Kashyap.
27. This witness was not crossexamined on behalf of learned
counsel for Accused no.1.
28. In crossexamination by learned counsel for Accused no.2 & 3,
he stated that he had signed Ex.PW3/A without reading as he was
forced to sign on the documents and was threatened to be removed
(from service) in case he does not sign the papers. He stated that
during the tenure of his service, Y. N. Kashyap and Ranjan Kashyap
had forced him to sign on several occasions. He denied the suggestion
that he was not forced to put any signatures by Y. N. Kashyap or
Ranjan Kashyap.
(PW4 Sh. K. Rama Mohan, Asst. General Manager,
Andhra Bank)
29. PW4 proved letter dated 21.08.2009 (D49, Page No. 363 of File
B2) given by him to the Inspector CBI and the same was exhibited as
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 37 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
Ex.PW4/A. He identified his signatures at point A. He stated in this
letter that Conveyance Deed in respect of Property No. 1361P, Sector
14, Faridabad submitted by M/s. R. R. Automotive Components Pvt.
Ltd. through its Director Y. N. Kashyap and Ranjan Kashap is with
DRT, New Delhi. He further deposed that with this letter, he had given
enclosures to CBI which were exhibited as Ex.PX (D49, Page No.
365 of File B2). These enclosures are letter of sanction which
mentions that Collateral Security of Property No.1361P, Sector14,
Faridabad, Harayana was also given for securing the loan and original
Deed of Conveyance of residential site bearing No.1361P, Sector14,
Faridabad, Haryana was also given to the Andhra Bank.
30. The witness was not cross examined by learned counsel for
Accused no.1.
31. In crossexamination by learned counsel for Accused no.2 & 3
the witness stated that original of documents were filed by Andhra
Bank with DRT.
(PW5 Sh. Atul Kumar soninlaw of Late Sh. Ranjeet Banerjee,
the then Sr. Manager (Loans) of UCO Bank)
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 38 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
32. PW5 proved letter dated 02.06.2009 written by widow of
Sh. Ranjeet Banerjee handing over the Death Certificate of Sh.Ranjeet
Banerjee to CBI. The letter and the Death Certificate were proved as
Ex.PW5/A (D47, Page No. 329 of File B2) and Ex.PW5/B (D47
Page No. 331 of B2) respectively.
(PW6 Sh. Jaspal Singh Bishnoi, Clerk in
M/s. R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd.)
33. PW6 stated that he worked as Clerk in M/s. R. R. Automotive
Components Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.89, Sector24, Faridabad, from 1998
2007; in the year 2005 or 2006, Accused no.3 Ranjan Kashyap had
taken him to UCO Bank at Delhi High Court Branch and asked him to
sign on some blank forms on the pretext that same are required to be
signed by him for opening an account in the name of their company;
Accused no.3 Ranjan Kashyap got his signatures on blank form of the
Bank on the directions of one Sh. Joshi, the Chief Manager of the
Bank; he had given his photographs to Ranjan Kashyap, Accused no.3
as demanded by him on the pretext that they are required to be given to
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 39 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
the Bank for opening an account; he was again made to sign on some
blank UCO Bank Forms by Ranjan Kashyap in the factory itself on the
pretext that the forms which were earlier signed in the Bank were not
correct; he received a letter from UCO Bank informing him that he
had stood guarantor for a loan of approximately Rs.1.3035 Crores; the
loan was in the name of Y. N. Kashyap, a Director in M/s R. R.
Automotive Components Ltd. and father of Ranjan Kashyap. He stated
that he can identify his signatures on Bank form on which Ranjan
Kashyap had made him to sign by keeping him in dark. He identified
UCO Bank form No.A21/A (D8, Page No. 63 of File B2) as the
form on which he had signed at point A in blank. Same was exhibited
as Ex.PW6/A (colly). This is deed of guarantee purportedly executed
by this witness in favour of Y. N. Kashyap for a Term Loan of Rs. One
Crore. He was shown application form for loan of Rs. One Crore under
UCO Rent Scheme dated 21.10.2004 bearing the signatures of Y. N.
Kashyap at point A which was exhibited as Ex.PW6/B (D4, Page No.
43 of File B2). Vide this application, Y. N. Kashyap had requested for
a loan of Rs. One Crore under UCO Rent Scheme. He identified letter
no.DHC/ADB/200405209 dated 24.01.2005 (D6, Page No. 55 of
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 40 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
File B2) and identified signatures of Y. N. Kashyap at point A and the
same was proved as Ex.PW6/C. This is letter of the Bank sanctioning
a Term Loan of Rs.1,00,00,000/ in favour of Y. N. Kashyap, Accused
no.2. This witness identified signatures of Y. N. Kashyap on
Agreement relating to Term Loan for a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/ at
point A (D7, Page No. 57 of File B2) and the same was exhibited as
Ex.PW6/D. He also identified the signatures of Y. N. Kashyap at point
A on letter dated 26.01.2005 addressed to the Manager, UCO Bank,
Delhi High Court, Delhi (D10, Page No. 83 of File B2). The same
was exhibited as Ex.PW6/E. This is draft of letter of Undertaking to
be obtained from the applicant for advances against immovable
property - Manual of Instructions Chapter 12. As per this letter, Y. N.
Kashyap handed over title deeds of Property No. l361/14, Faridabad,
Harayana to the Manager of UCO Bank, Delhi High Court towards the
security of immovable property for a loan / Cash Credit Facility. The
witness also identified signatures of Y. N. Kashyap on letter dated
27.01.2005 (D12, Page No. 87 of File B2), confirming the deposit of
title deeds of Property No.1361P, Sector14, Faridabad, Haryana, with
UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch. The same was exhibited as
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 41 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
Ex.PW6/F. He also identified the signatures of Y. N. Kashyap on
letter dated 12.02.2005 (D13, Page No. 89 of File B2) addressed to
the AGM, UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch, New Delhi,
requesting for loan of Rs.32 Lakhs against his rented Property
No.89/24, Faridabad, Haryana to M/s. R. R. Automotive Components
Pvt. Ltd. Same was exhibited as Ex.PW6/G. He also identified the
signatures of Y. N. Kashyap at point A on letter dated 25.02.2005 (D
14, Page No. 91 of File B2) accepting the terms and conditions of
Term Loan of Rs.32 Lakhs granted by UCO Bank, Delhi High Court
Branch, New Delhi and the same was exhibited as Ex.PW6/H. He also
identified the signatures of Y. N. Kashyap on photocopy of Deed of
Conveyance dated 02.06.1995 of Property No.1361P/14, Faridabad,
Haryana (D17, Page No. 115 of File B2). The same was exhibited as
Ex.PW6/J. Exhibiting on this document was objected at the time of
recording of evidence being a photocopy. When the evidence of this
witness was recorded, it appears that he was not shown original of this
Deed of Conveyance of this property which was part of judicial record
in Criminal Case No.38/2012 in RC No.2008/2009 as D93 in case
titled as 'CBI vs. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors.' which was shown to PW2
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 42 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
Sh. Hoshiyar Singh on 02.03.2015. Therefore, the objection is
overruled. Further, he identified the signatures of Y. N. Kashyap at
point A on Possession Certificate dated 05.12.1983 of property bearing
No.1361P, Sector14, Faridabad, Haryana (Part of D17, Page No. 127
of File B2). The same was exhibited as Ex.PW6/K. The witness
identified signatures of Y. N. Kashyap on letter dated 21.02.2005 (D
18, Page No. 129 of File B2) addressed to the Manager, UCO Bank,
Delhi High Court Branch, New Delhi at point A. Vide this letter, Y. N.
Kashyap had written to the UCO Bank that he has deposited with the
Bank on 25.1.2005 title deeds of his Property No.1361P/14,
Faridabad, Haryana as a security for the loan facility to the extent of
Rs.100 Lakhs and he stated that as agreed with the Bank, the title
deeds so deposited by him with the Bank shall continue to be held by
the Bank as security for increase in limit of loan by Rs.32 Lakhs. This
letter was exhibited as Ex.PW6/L. He also identified his signatures on
the UCO Bank Form No.A109CP 'Agreement Relating to Term Loan'
(D22, Page No. 199 File B2). However, he stated that when he
signed this form, it was blank. This is a guarantee form purportedly
executed by this witness for standing as a guarantor for Y. N. Kashyap
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 43 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
for the loan of Rs.32 Lakhs availed by him from UCO Bank, Delhi
High Court Branch, New Delhi. He also identified signatures of Y. N.
Kashyap at point B on all pages of assignment of rent of Property
No.89/24, Faridabad, Haryana executed between R. R. Industries,
UCO Bank and M/s. R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. As per
this agreement, the tenant M/s. R. R. Components Pvt. Ltd. had agreed
to deposit with the Bank each and every month subject to deduction of
tax at source and other money rent payable by the tenant to the
borrower in terms of the tenancy / lease agreement dated 14.02.2005.
This agreement (D23, Page No. 201 of File B2) was already
exhibited as Ex.PW3/B. He also identified the signatures of Ranjan
Kashyap on Account Opening Form in respect of Account No.2366 at
point A on all pages. This form was exhibited as Ex.PW6/O. He also
identified signatures of Ranjan Kashyap at point A on UCO Bank Pay
inSlip dated 17.01.2005 (D38, Page No. 273 of File B2) for issuing a
Demand Draft / Pay Order in favour of Standard Chartered Bank Loan
No.42314968 and the same was exhibited as Ex.PW6/P. He also
identified signatures of Ranjan Kashyap at point A in respect of
Current Account No.2366 in the name of Ranjan Kashyap (D38, Page
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 44 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
No. 275 of File B2) and the same was exhibited as Ex.PW6/Q.
34. In crossexamination by learned counsel for Accused no.2 & 3,
he deposed that he is a graduate; he hails from Moradabad, U.P.; he
has share in agricultural land in the village; he worked in M/s R. R.
Automotive Pvt. Ltd. from 1988 till 200607; he cannot identify the
officer of the Bank whom he had met during his visit to Delhi High
Court Branch of UCO Bank as he had seen him only once; he denied a
suggestion that Ex.PW6/A (D8, Page No.63 of File B2) which is
deed of guarantee purportedly executed by this witness in favour of
Y. N. Kashyap for a Term Loan of Rs. One Crore was filled by the
Bank officer in his presence; he denied a suggestion that this
guarantee deed was signed by him voluntarily and reiterated that Y. N.
Kashyap got the same signed on the pretext that the earlier blank form
which he had signed have been wrongly filled so he has to sign it
again. Same was his response with regard to Ex.PW6/N which is
Guarantee Deed purportedly executed by him with regard to Term
Loan of Rs.32 Lakhs granted by UCO Bank, Delhi High Court
Branch, New Delhi in favour of Y. N. Kashyap. To substantiate his
statement that on the asking of Accused no.1 R. K. Joshi, Accused
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 45 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
no.3 Ranjan Kashyap took his signatures on a blank form on the
pretext of opening a Bank account, he stated that officer of the Bank
was being addressed as Joshi by Ranjan Kashyap.
35. In crossexamination by learned counsel for Accused no.1, the
witness denied a suggestion that it was printed below his signatures on
Ex.PW6/A and Ex.PW6/N that the signatures were to be made by the
guarantor.
(PW7 Sh. Desh Raj Sonkar, Senior Manager, UCO,
Delhi High Court Branch)
36. PW7 was working in UCO Bank since 1973 and was aware
about all the Bank's Policies / Guidelines for sanction of various types
of Credit Facilities. He proved 'UCO Rent Scheme for financing
Rental Receivables dated 22.7.2000' (D39, Page No. 277 of File B2)
as Ex.PW7/A. As per Clause No. 4 of this Scheme, loan sanctioned to
individuals was for augmenting their earnings like investing in bonds /
securities, repairs / renovation of properties etc. As per clause7 of this
scheme, the loan amount may be disbursed to the current account of
the customer. As per Clause No. 9 of this Scheme, the primary
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 46 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
security was Assignment of Rent Receivable and Collateral Security
was equitable mortgage of the property for which Lease Agreement
was entered between the lesser and lessee or some other property the
value of which covered the loan to the extent of 100%. He stated that
he was posted in UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch from April,
2004 till August, 2005 and at that time R. K. Joshi, Accused no.1 was
the Asstt. General Manager. Since, R. K. Joshi was ScaleV Officer, he
was competent to sanction various types of loan facilities to the extent
of Rs. Three Crores on each count. He proved Loan Policy Document
(D5, Page No. 45 File B2) as exhibit Ex.PW7/B and stated that the
loan application of Y. N. Kashyap, Ex.PW6/B, for grant of loan of
Rs. One Crore was processed by R. K. Joshi and Sh. Ranjeet Banerjee
(the then Sr. Manager). He identified their signatures at point A & B
respectively. He stated that this loan of Rs. One Crore was sanctioned
in favour of Y. N. Kashyap vide letter dated 24.01.2005, Ex.PW6/C
(D6, Page No. 55 of File B2) and identified signatures of R. K. Joshi
on the said letter at point A & B and the signatures of Y. N. Kashyap at
point A. He stated that after the sanction of loan and before releasing
of loan amount to the borrower, the documentation work is completed
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 47 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
by the borrower on the prescribed format of the Bank with the
assistance of Bank officials dealing with the advances. In this case, the
borrower Y. N. Kashyap had executed / submitted Agreement for
Assignment of Rent Receivable, Agreement Relating to Term Loan of
Rs. One Crore, GuaranteecumIndemnity Form, Creation of Equitable
Mortgage. He identified the signatures of Y. N. Kashyap at point A on
Ex.PW6/D which is agreement relating to Term Loan, agreeing
thereby to abide by the terms and conditions mentioned therein
including repayment of loan amount. He stated that the date of
application / proposal of borrower is 21.10.2004 on agreement relating
to Term Loan, Ex.PW6/D whereas, in the original application,
Ex.PW6/B, the date of 21.10.2004 appears to be altered by overwriting
as 21.12.2004 at point 'X'. On seeing Ex.PW6/A, Guaranteecum
Indemnity Form, he stated that the credibility of the guarantor was not
obtained / verified as required in advances covered by guarantee in the
present case. He stated that the accused Y. N. Kashyap had handed
over Conveyance Deed of Property No. 1361P, Sector14, Faridabad,
Haryana for creation of equitable mortgage but Sh. Ranjeet Banerjee,
the then Sr. Manager, Incharge of Advances overlooked the creation
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 48 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
of charge of the Bank from the office of HUDA, Faridabad by not
taking permission from the Estate Officer, HUDA, Faridabad. He also
stated that Accused no.1 R. K. Joshi was the Supervisory Officer who
was also supposed to check the creation of charge of any other Bank
before release of the loan. He stated that the lease agreement is not on
record and there is no document to show that prior to sanctioning of
loan physical inspection of the property was conducted by the Bank
officers. With regard to second loan of Rs.32 Lakhs he identified the
Process Note - UCO Rent Scheme as Ex.PW7/C and identified
signatures of R. K. Joshi at point A and signatures of Sh. Ranjeet
Banerjee at point B (D15, Page No. 93 of File B2). He also proved
second Process Note as Ex.PW7/D (Part of D15, Page No. 97 of File
B2) and identified of signatures of R. K. Joshi at point A and
signatures of Sh. Ranjeet Banerjee at point B. He stated that the
second loan was sanctioned vide letter dated 25.02.2005, Ex.PW6/H,
against Property No.1361P, Sector14, Faridabad, Haryana instead of
against security of property bearing No.89, Sector24, Faridabad as
requested by the borrower Y. N. Kashyap in his application,
Ex.PW6/G. For second loan also he stated that the Lease Agreement
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 49 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
was not on record and credibility of the guarantor was also not on
record. However, he also volunteered that as per Ex.PW6/L which is
letter dated 21.02.2005, the borrower had requested to continue the
mortgage of Property No. 1361P, Sector14, Faridabad, Haryana in
respect of loan of Rs.32 Lakhs as well. (It is surprising that the second
loan of Rs.32 Lakhs was sanctioned vide letter dated 25.02.2005,
Ex.PW6/H but in letter dated 21.02.2005, Ex.PW6/L, Y. N. Kashyap
thanked Manager, UCO Bank for sanctioning an increase of Rs.32
Lakh in the said loan facility). The witness was shown statement of
account of Term Loan No.8088 in the name of Y. N. Kashyap. The
same was already exhibited as Ex.PW1/DX2. The objection that the
same cannot be read in evidence in the absence of certificate under
Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act is rejected in as much as this
document was confronted to PW1 by the accused himself. However,
statement of current account no.2251 in the name of Y. N. Kashyap
was also exhibited as Ex.PW7/E (D41, Page No. 305 of File B2) and
an objection was taken that the same is not accompanied by certificate
under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. The objection is overruled
for the reason that the same is accompanied by an endorsement by
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 50 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
Assistant General Manager, UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch
certifying that this is the true copy of the entries which are contained
in one of the ordinary books of the Bank and which was made in the
usual and working course of the business which is still in the custody
of the Bank. Further, he certified that this copy has been obtained by a
Mechanical process from the computer system maintained by the Bank
(moreover, the learned counsel for Accused no.3 has put questions
from this statement of account while crossexamining the IO/PW21
therefore, this statement can be read in evidence). He stated that as per
Ex.PW7/D, Process Note, the purpose of Term Loan was 'Augmenting
Earning through Investment in Bonds / Securities'. He proved Debit
Voucher dated 25.01.2005 (D24, Page No. 209 of File B2) as
Ex.PW7/F as he identified the signatures of Sh. Ranjeet Banerjee on
the said Debit Note pertaining to Loan Account 8088. He also proved
Debit Voucher dated 16.03.2005 (D25, Page No. 211 of File B2) as
Ex.PW7/G as he identified the signatures of Sh. Ranjeet Banerjee on
the said Debit Note pertaining to Loan Account 8428. He proved
cheques (D26, D27, D28, D29 and D30, Page No. 213, 215, 217,
219 and 221 of File B2) which were exhibited as Ex.PW7/H (colly).
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 51 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
Exhibiting these cheques was objected to by the learned counsel for
Accused no. 2 & 3. Since this witness admitted in his cross
examination that he is not conversant with the handwritings and
signatures of Y. N. Kashyap, the objection of the learned counsel for
the accused is upheld and these cheques shall not be treated as proved
in accordance with law. Same shall be the fate of two cheques (D32
and D33, Pages No. 227 and 229 of File B2). These two cheques are
also issued by Y. N. Kashyap in favour of Ranjan Kashyap. Again, as
the witness was not conversant with the handwriting and signatures of
Y. N. Kashyap these cheques shall not be treated as proved though
these are exhibited as Ex.PW7/J (colly). The Credit Voucher vide
which an amount of Rs. 31,10,000/ has been credited to the account of
accused Sh. Ranjan Kashyap in his current account No.2366 from the
current account No. 2251 of accused Y. N. Kashyap through cheque
No.955890 bearing signatures of Sh. Ranjeet Banerjee was exhibited
as Ex.PW7/K (D33, Page No. 231 of File B2). The witness sought to
prove as Ex.PW7/L, the statement of account of Current Account
No.2366 of accused Ranjan Kashyap (D42, Page No. 309 of File B2).
However, the same was objected to in as much as the same was not
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 52 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
supported by certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence
Act. The objection is upheld in the absence of certificate under
Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, as this is printout of
electronic record and is not primary evidence and has not been proved
as per Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, this statement
of account shall not be taken into consideration as the same is not
proved as per law. Lastly, the witness proved draft for an amount of
Rs.5 Lakhs dated 28.01.2005 bearing signatures of Sh. Ranjeet
Banerjee as Ex.PW7/M (D34, Page No. 233 of File B2). This is a
draft in favour of Chakrawarty Steels dated 28.01.2005.
37. In cross examination by learned counsel for Accused no.1, the
witness stated that the documents pertaining to loan account of
Rs. One Crore and Rs.32 Lakhs about which he has deposed in his
examination in chief, were not executed in his presence and he has not
dealt with these documents while he was posted in the Bank as he was
not looking after the seat of Advance. As noted earlier, he also stated
that neither he is conversant with the handwriting and signatures of
accused Y. N. Kashyap and accused Ranjan Kashyap nor with their
signatures. He stated that after the sanction of the loan, it is the duty of
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 53 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
the Incharge (Advances) as well as Branch Head to monitor
fulfillment of the terms and conditions of the advance and reiterated
that monitoring of terms and conditions of sanctioned loan is under
direct control of Branch Head. The witness was shown original
Equitable Mortgage Register of UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch,
New Delhi. The same was exhibited as Ex.PW7/A1DX (additional
documents, Page No. 5 of File B5). In the details of property, Property
No.1361P, Sector14, of Urban Estate Faridabad, Haryana is noted and
Deed of Conveyance dated 02.06.1995, Non Encumbrance Certificate
dated 20.10.2004 of Sh. Kul Bharat Advocate and Valuation Report of
Protocol Surveyors and Engineers Pvt. Ltd. dated 20.11.2004 valuing
Rs.132.58 Lakhs is mentioned under the heading of documents. The
same was also signed by this witness at point A. 'The draft of entry to
be made in Equitable Mortgage Register in respect of property
standing in the name of one or more individuals' dated 25.01.2005
bearing signatures of PW7 as a witness was proved as
Ex.PW7/A1DX1 (additional documents, Page No. 7 of File B5). This
Equitable Mortgage was with regard to loan of Rs. One Crore in
favour of Y. N. Kashyap. Similarly, a note under signatures of R. K.
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 54 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
Joshi, Accused no.1 noticing that the title deeds deposited by Y. N.
Kashyap with the Bank as security for the loan facility to the extent of
Rs.100 Lakhs granted by the Bank in his favour shall continue to be
held by the Bank as security for the increase of loan limit of Rs.32
Lakhs favouring Y. N. Kashyap signed by PW7 as a witness was
proved as Ex.PW7/A1DX2 (additional documents, Page No. 9 of File
B5). It is to be noticed that Y. N. Kashyap was extended a loan of
Rs.32 Lakhs independent of earlier loan of Rs.100 Lakhs and was not
for increasing the loan limit by another Rs.32 Lakhs. The witness was
also shown Office Order cum Duty Register w.e.f. 13.10.2015. The
same was proved as Ex.PW7/A1DX3 (additional documents, Page
No. 11 of File B5). The witness clarified that this Duty Register was
prepared subsequent to transfer of Branch Head i.e. accused R. K.
Joshi and PW7. The witness was also shown Security Ledger of UCO
Bank where details of documents executed and submitted regarding
loan are entered. The same was exhibited as Ex.PW7/A1DX4
(additional documents, Page No. 13 of File B5). At serial no.18, 19
and 25 of this document are documents pertaining to guarantor
Sh. Jaspal Singh Bishnoi namely Balance Sheet dated 31.03.2004.
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 55 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
(PW8 Sh. Mohd. Idris, Assistant Manager, HDFC Bank)
38. PW8 was Customer Service Executive in Development Credit
Bank. He proved as Ex.PW8/A letter dated 01.06.2009 (D46, Page
No. 353 of File B2). Vide this letter, statement of account of
Ranjan Kashyap in Development Credit Bank having A/c
No.07010100030667 was given to CBI to show deposit and withdrawal
of Rs.33,50,000/ and transfer of the same amount in favour of M/s R.
R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. The statement of account was
given Mark 8/A.
(PW9 Sh. Harmesh Kumar Gupta)
39. PW9 knew Ravinder Kumar Joshi and Ranjan Kashyap. His
help was taken by Ranjan Kashyap for availing loan from UCO Bank.
He had written the loan application Ex.PW6/B but Y. N. Kashyap had
not signed this application in his presence. On being questioned by the
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 56 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
learned PP for CBI, he admitted his statement recorded by CBI under
Section 161 of Cr.PC which was exhibited as Ex.PW9/PA. He was
confronted with his statement where he had stated that the loan
application was dictated by accused R. K. Joshi and signed by Y. N.
Kashyap in his presence in the office cabin of accused R. K. Joshi.
(PW10 Sh. Sehdev Singh Ahlawat, ExAssistant Engineer,
HUDA).
40. PW10 proved possession certificate of plot No.1631, Sector14,
Faridabad, already exhibited as Ex.PW6/K (this is a typographical
error as plot number in certificate is 1361P and not 1631). He denied
his signatures on Ex.PW10/A (D81 in Complaint Case No.38/12
titled as 'CBI v Y. N. Kashyap & Ors.').
(PW11 Sh. Ajay Kumar Sharma, Chartered Accountant)
41. PW11 alongwith Sh. Harmesh Gupta (his Manager) had gone to
UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch, New Delhi with the Accused
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 57 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
no.2 & 3 as Accused no.1 R. K. Joshi, AGM, UCO Bank, Delhi High
Court Branch was known to him. He deposed that the Accused no.1 R.
K. Joshi suggested that loan can be considered under UCO Rent
Scheme and on the request of Ranjan Kashyap, Sh. Harmesh Gupta
wrote an application for loan. The same was exhibited as Ex.PW11/A.
He proved as Ex.PW11/B a cheque drawn on PNB, Paharganj Branch
vide which part of money taken by Ranjan Kashyap was returned to
PW11.
(PW12 Sh. Satpal, Assistant, Estate Office, HUDA, Faridabad)
42. PW12 identified his signatures on Conveyance Deed dated
02.06.1995 which was already exhibited as Ex.PW6/A (in CC
No.38/12, titled as 'CBI v Y. N. Kashyap & Ors.'). He also identified
the signatures of Mr. Rao Rattan Lal the then Estate Officer, HUDA,
Faridabad on the said Deed of Conveyance. In another Deed of
Conveyance dated 02.06.1995 (D93) already exhibited as Ex.PW6/B
(in CC No.38/12 titled as 'CBI vs. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors.'), he denied
his signatures at point A and B and also denied the signatures of
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 58 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
Sh. Rao Rattan Lal at point C. He also denied handwriting at encircled
portion 'X' as also not his. When he was shown another Deed of
Conveyance, dated 02.06.1993, Ex.PW11/A (in CC No.38/12 titled as
'CBI vs. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors.'), he denied his purported signatures as
well as purported signatures of the Estate Officer on the said
Conveyance Deed. He was also shown photocopy of Conveyance Deed
already exhibited as Ex.PW6/J (original whereof was Ex.PW6/B in the
case titled as 'CBI vs. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors.'). He denied purported
signatures at point B and C as not his signatures and purported
signatures of Sh. Rao Rattan Lal, the then Estate Officer, HUDA at
point A as not his signatures.
43. In cross examination by learned counsel for Accused no.2 & 3,
he stated that Conveyance Deed is prepared in triplicate and he had
signed all the three copies. He stated that as per practice, one is
original and two are copies of the Conveyance Deed. The original is
prepared on Non Judicial Stamp paper. He stated that he had signed all
the three copies and Ex.PW6/A is the office copy of the Conveyance
Deed. He denied the suggestion that Ex.PW6/B and Ex.PW11/A are
also signed by him.
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 59 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
(PW13 Smt. Nidhi Das, Service Leader Manager,
Standard Chartered Bank)
44. PW13 had given letter no.08/09/028589 dated 07.09.2009 to the
IO of the case. She identified her signatures at point A on the said
letter which was exhibited as Ex.PW13/A (D50, Page No. 381 of File
B2). The Loan Application Form of Ranjan Kashyap was proved by
her as Ex.PW13/B. The Loan Application of Ms. Reema Kashyap and
Ms. Asha Kashyap were exhibited as Ex.PW13/C (colly) and Loan
Application in respect of M/s R. R. Automotive Components Pvt.
Limited was proved as Ex.PW13/D. The sanction letter sanctioning
the loan of Rs.33,50,000/ in favour of M/s R. R. Automotive
Components Pvt. Limited was proved as Ex.PW13/E. The request
made by all the borrowers for disbursement of loan sanctioned to them
by issuing cheque favouring accused Ranjan Kashyap for
Rs.33,50,000/ along with carbon / folio attested copy of the cheque
was exhibited as Ex.PW13/F. She further proved attested copy of loan
agreement executed between Standard Chartered Bank and accused
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 60 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
Ranajn Kashyap, Y. N. Kashyap and other coapplicants dated
21.01.2004 alongwith promissory note for loan of amount
Rs.33,50,000/ as Ex.PW13/G. She proved statement of account
no.42314968 of accused Ranjan Kashyap, Y. N. Kashyap and other co
applicants as Ex.PW13/H. However, the same was objected to as the
same was not attested as per Banker's Book's of Evidence Act, 1891.
The objection is upheld and this document will not be read in evidence
as not proved as per law. She stated that the loan was granted on the
basis of Collateral Security of Property No.1361P, Sector14,
Faridabad, Haryana and the said property was released on 19.01.2005
after the closure of the loan account. Voucher pay order no.189699
dated 17.01.2005 in favour of Standard Chartered Bank loan
no.42314968 for Rs.32,57,509/ by which the payment to close the
account was made was also shown to her which was already exhibited
as Ex.PW6/P.
(PW14 Sh. Praveen Doonga)
45. This witness was doing the business of photocopy at Kiosk
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 61 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
No.10, known as 'Pali Photostat' situated at Delhi High Court premises
since 1993. He stated that earlier the said Kiosk was run by Sh. Vijay
Pal Singh Pali and he had taken over the said business from Sh. Vijay
Pal Singh. He stated that at the time of taking over of the business,
Sh. Vijay Pal Singh Pali was maintaining a current account in the
name of Pali Photostat in UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch, New
Delhi. The witness deposed that he knows R. K. Joshi, who was the
AGM in the UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch, New Delhi when
he had taken over the business from Sh. Vijay Pal Singh Pali. He
identified R. K. Joshi present in the court. He stated that on the asking
of accused R. K. Joshi he had introduced one account in the UCO
Bank as Sh. Vijay Pal Singh Pali. He was shown photocopy of account
opening form original whereof was on the records of case titled as
'CBI v Y. N. Kashyap & Ors.' and identified his signatures as Sh. Vijay
Pal Singh Pali which he had signed on the asking of R. K. Joshi. The
said account opening form was exhibited as Ex.PW14/A (D3, Page
No. 29 of File B2). He also stated that when he signed the form the
photograph of account holder was not pasted on the said form. He
stated that he had signed the said account opening form at the asking
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 62 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
of Sh. R. K. Joshi as he was getting photocopy work from UCO Bank,
Delhi High Court Branch and the accused was the AGM of the said
branch.
46. In crossexamination by learned counsel for Accused no.1, he
denied a suggestion that R. K. Joshi, being AGM had no occasion to
request him to sign the introduction for account opening. He also
denied a suggestion that the said accused R. K. Joshi had no
knowledge about the introduction given by him at the time of opening
of account. He denied a suggestion given by learned counsel for
Accused no.2 & 3 that he is known as Rammi, therefore, the accused
Kashyap did not know that he was not Sh. Vijay Singh Pali.
(PW15 Sh. Ashok Kumar, the then Dy. Chief Officer,
UCO Bank, Zonal Office)
47. This witness proved letter dated 15.07.2009 addressed by Sh. A.
J. Patel, the then DGM, UCO Bank to IO of this case enclosing
therewith order dated 25.03.2008 passed by General Manager
(Personal Services), Disciplinary Authority imposing the penalty of
dismissal from service which shall be a disqualification for future
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 63 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
employment upon R. K. Joshi, Accused no.1. It is to be noticed that the
dismissal was not for any financial impropriety but for failure to
discharge his duties with diligence and devotion and acting in a
manner unbecoming of an officer employee of the Bank. Letter dated
15.07.2009 was proved as Ex.PW15/A (attached with Chargesheet,
Page No. 43 of File C) and dismissal order dated 25.03.2008 was
proved as Ex.PW15/B (attached with Chargesheet, Page No. 45 of
File C).
(PW16 Sh. Satyapal, the then Clerk in the office of Estate Officer,
HUDA, Faridabad, Haryana)
48. PW16 stated that permission of HUDA is required in respect of
mortgage or loan on the property allotted by the HUDA to the allottee.
This witness had handed over original allotment file to CBI vide
seizurecumproduction memo dated 20.04.2009 which was proved as
Ex.PW16/A (D45, Page No. 321 of File B2). The original allotment
file pertaining to plot No. 1361P, Sector14, Faridabad, Haryana was
proved as Ex.PW16/B (colly) (additional documents, Page No. 1 of
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 64 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
File B3). From this file, he proved permission for mortgage the said
property given to Andhra Bank vide letter dated 18.01.2002 as
Ex.PW16/B1 (additional documents, Page No. 247 of File B3). The
request by the allottee vide letter dated 16.01.2004 for permission to
mortgage the said property in favour of Standard Chartered Bank was
proved as Ex.PW16/B2 (additional documents, Page No. 275 of File
B3). The permission letter dated 16.01.2004 from HUDA permitting
mortgage of property in favour of Standard Chartered Bank was
proved as Ex.PW16/B3 (additional documents, Page No. 277 of File
B3). Letter dated 22.11.2005 from UCO Bank to HUDA requesting
for creation of charge/mortgage in favour of the said Bank was proved
as Ex.PW16/B4 (additional documents, Page No. 287 of File B3).
Letter dated 08.12.2005 of HUDA informing the UCO Bank that the
property had already been mortgaged in favour of Andhra Bank and
Standard Chartered Bank was proved as Ex.PW16/B5 (additional
documents, Page No. 281 of File B3). Though in this case it is not
relevant but the witness also stated that Punjab National Bank vide
letter dated 12.03.2008 had requested HUDA for permission to
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 65 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
mortgage the said property in its favour which was proved as
Ex.PW16/B6 (additional documents, Page No. 311 of File B3). Reply
of HUDA dated 28.05.2008 informing that the said property is already
mortgaged in favour of Andhra Bank, Standard Chartered Bank and
UCO Bank was proved as Ex.PW16/B7(additional documents, Page
No. 309 of File B3).
(PW17 Sh. Sujeet Kumar Srivastava, M/s Protocol Surveyor
and Engineers Pvt. Ltd.)
49. This witness proved signatures of Sh. Jasbeer Singh Saini on
valuation report of Property No.1361P, Sector14, Faridabad, Haryana
dated 20.11.2004 already exhibited as Ex.PW1/DX.
(PW18 Sh. Navjyot Khanna, Manager (Operation) Controls and
Change, the Royal Bank of Scotland)
50. This witness was shown certified copy of Account Opening
Form and Statement of Account No.1071978 in the name of Ranjan
Kashyap which was already Ex.A4. Certificate under Section 2A of
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 66 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
the Banker's Book's Evidence Act, 1891 was proved as Ex.PW18/A
(D48, Page No. 335 of File B2). The account opening form was
proved as Ex.PW18/B (D48, Page No. 337 of File B2). Certified
copy of the account was proved as Ex.PW18/C (D48, Page No. 361
of File B2). In this statement of account there is deposit entry of
Rs.60 Lakhs and cheque dated 27.01.2005 for Rs.30 Lakhs was already
exhibited as Ex.PW7/J.
(PW19 Sh. Kul Bharat, Panel Lawyer of UCO Bank)
51. This witness had given report with regard to Property No.1361
P, Sector14, Faridabad, Haryana which was already exhibited as
Ex.PW1/DX1. This witness had received letter dated 10.06.2006 from
UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch, New Delhi informing that the
property in question was already mortgaged with two Banks and their
charges have already been created with HUDA and the Title Deed
deposited with the Bank for equitable mortgage is not genuine. This
letter was proved as Ex.PW19/A (D20, Page No. 165 of File B2).
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 67 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
Reply given by this witness on 16.06.2006 replying that his search
report was based on search conducted in the office of SubRegistrar,
Faridabad. Same was exhibited as Ex.PW19/B (D20, Page No. 173 of
File B2). He stated that he had informed in his report that "Nature and
Marketability of the Right" should be in accordance with terms and
conditions of Conveyance Deed meaning thereby that the transaction
of the mortgaged property should be with the permission of concerned
authority of HUDA, Faridabad. He stated that he had advised that an
affidavit be also taken from the borrower and draft thereof was proved
as Ex.PW19/C (D20, Page No. 179 of File B2). The courier receipts
as per which he had sent this report was exhibited as Ex.PW19/D (D
20, Page No. 177 of File B2).
52. This witness was not crossexamined on behalf of any of the
accused.
(PW20 Sh. Abhimanyu Kumar, ScientistB, CFSL, Chandigarh)
53. This witness had examined questioned writings and signatures
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 68 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
on Ex.PW6/O which is account opening form in the name of Ranjan
Kashyap with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch. In this document
there were four questioned signatures, Q1 to Q4. He had also
examined Ex.PW3/A from where questioned signatures Q5 to Q14
were taken for examination. Ex.PW3/A is Agreement for Assignment
of Rent. He had also examined Ex.PW3/B another Agreement for
Assignment of Rent from where questioned signatures Q15 to Q23
were taken for comparison. On Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW3/B, signatures
of Sh. Krishan Kumar were taken for examination who had signed the
two Agreements for Assignment of Rent on behalf of M/s R. R.
Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. He had examined specimen
signatures of Sh. Praveen Kumar Doonga. The signatures of
Sh. Praveen Kumar Doonga as Sh. Vijay Pal Singh Pali were collected
on Ex.PW20/A (D51, Page No. 495 of File B2). Specimen signatures
of Ranjan Kashyap Ex.A6 from S12, S12/1, S13 to S15 were
compared for giving the report. Similarly, specimen signatures of
Sh. Krishan Kumar, Ex.PW20/B (D53, Page No. 527 of File B2)
from S16 to S25 were also taken for comparison and report. The
letter dated 12.08.2009 received by him requesting for his report from
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 69 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
SP, CBI was proved as Ex.PW20/C (D54, Page No.547 of File B2)
and his report dated 12.10.2009 was proved as Ex.PW20/D (D55,
Page No.561 of File B2). His findings are that the Account Opening
Form for Account No.2366 bears the signatures of Sh. Praveen Kumar
Doonga who has signed as Sh. Vijay Pal Singh Pali as introducer at
point Q1. His other finding was that the signatures of Ranjan Kashyap
at Mark Q2, Q3, Q4 when compared with his specimen signatures S
12, S12/1 and S13 to S15, they tallied. His third finding is that the
questioned signatures from Q5 to Q23 on Agreement for Assignment
of Rent when compared with admitted signatures of Sh. Kishan Kumar
Makhija (Sh. K. K. Makhija), they tallied.
(PW21 Sh. S. C. Bhalla, IO of the case)
54. The Investigating Officer has narrated the sequence of events
leading to sanction of two loans in favour of accused Y. N. Kashyap
under UCO Rent Scheme as stated in the complaint received from the
Bank (due to clerical mistake, the name of Bank is written as Punjab
National Bank in place of UCO Bank as another case titled as 'CBI v
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 70 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
Ranjan Kashyap & Ors.' on the complaint of Punjab National Bank
where Y. N. Kashyap and Ranjan Kashyap were accused was being
listed on the same date with this case). This witness identified
signatures of Sh. Ravi Kant, the then SP, CBI and FIR dated
13.02.2009 was proved as Ex.PW21/A (D1, Page No. 5 of File B2).
He stated that in the application for sanction of loan under UCO Rent
Scheme, the specific purpose is not mentioned. He stated that as per
UCO Rent Scheme Ex.PW7/A, the purpose should be for productive
purpose only such as augmenting their earnings like investing in
bonds/securities, repairs/renovation of properties etc. He stated that
the loan sanctioned was not used for any productive purpose. He stated
that the loan sanctioned was transferred to the personal account of
Ranjan Kashyap and Y. N. Kashyap and from there it was withdrawn.
He stated that the title deed of the mortgaged Property No.1361P,
Sector14, Faridabad, Haryana were fake and forged as the original
Conveyance Deed in respect of the said property was found to be
already mortgaged with Andhra Bank. He stated that Ex.PW6/B (D93
of the Complaint Case titled as 'CBI vs. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors.') is the
Deed of Conveyance of the mortgaged Property No. 1361P, Sector14,
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 71 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
Faridabad, Haryana which was submitted by accused Y. N. Kashyap
for sanction of abovestated loan which was found to be forged during
investigation as the original was mortgaged with the Andhra Bank.
The lending powers of executive/officers in ScaleIV to VII seized by
him during investigation were exhibited as Ex.PW21/B (D40, Page
No. 299 of File B2). The certified copy of register maintained by the
Bank wherein the details of the property mortgaged with the Bank in
the present case for Property No.1361P, Sector14, Faridabad, Haryana
are recorded was exhibited as Ex.PW21/C (D11, Page No. 85 of File
B2). This is with regard to loan of Rs. One Crore. The certified copy
of register maintained by the Bank wherein the details of the property
mortgaged with the Bank in the present case for Property No.1361P,
Sector14, Faridabad, Haryana are recorded was exhibited as
Ex.PW21/D (D16, Page No. 113 of File B2). This is with regard to
loan of Rs. 32 Lakhs. SeizurecumProduction memo dated
02.04.2009 (D31, Page No. 225 of File B2) as per which the IO had
seized the documents mentioned therein from Sh. J. P. Nagraj, the then
Manager, UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch, New Delhi was
exhibited as Ex.PW21/E (D31, Page No.225 of File B2). Two letters
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 72 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
both dated 09.06.2009 seized by the IO from Sh. J. P. Nagraj, the then
Manager, UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch, New Delhi were
collectively exhibited as Ex.PW21/F (D34, Page No. 235 of File B2).
Another seizurecumproduction memo dated 16.06.2009 vide which
the IO had seized the documents mentioned therein from Sh. J. P.
Nagraj, the then ExManager, UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch,
New Delhi was exhibited as Ex.PW21/G (D35, Page No. 239 of File
B2). Letter dated 16.07.2009 addressed to the IO by AGM, Delhi
High Court Branch, UCO Bank vide which documents mentioned
therein were sent to him was exhibited as Ex.PW21/H (D37, Page
No. 253 of File B2). The documents i.e. Statement of Account
No.2366 and abstract of Manual of Instructions regarding grant of
Temporary Overdraft (TOD) facilities and copy of PAN Number and
passport of accused Ranjan Kashyap which was submitted by him for
the opening of Account No.2366 in the UCO Bank vide letter
Ex.PW21/H were exhibited as Ex.PW21/J (Colly) (D37, Pages No.
255 of File B2). Letter dated 17.08.2009 addressed to Sh. Rammohan,
AGM, Andhra Bank vide which IO had called Conveyance Deed in
respect of Property No.1361P, Sector14, Faridabad,Haryana and
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 73 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
Property No.89, Sector24, Faridabad, submitted by M/s R. R.
Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. through its directors accused Y. N.
Kashyap (now deceased) and accused Ranjan Kashyap was exhibited
as Ex.PW21/K (D49, Page No. 379 of File B2). Letter dated
07.09.2009 from Smt. Nidhi Dass, Legal Services of Standard
Chartered Bank was exhibited as Ex.PW21/L (D50, Page No. 493 of
File B2). Thereafter, he referred to taking specimen signatures of
accused Ranjan Kashyap, Sh. Praveen Kumar Doonga and Sh. K. K.
Makhija for comparison with questioned signatures and handwriting
and concluded that after completing the investigation he has filed
chargesheet against the three accused persons namely R. K. Joshi, the
then AGM, UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch, New Delhi, Y. N.
Kashyap (since deceased) and Ranjan Kashyap for offences punishable
under Section 120B readwith Section 420, 468 and 471 IPC and
Section 13 (2) readwith Section 13 (1) (d) of PC Act and substantive
offences thereof.
55. In crossexamination by learned counsel for Accused no.1, the
IO of the case PW21, he stated that he did not examine any officer of
ScaleV or above of the Bank to ascertain the duties of Accused no.1
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 74 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
R. K. Joshi and had not collected any duty roster or any other
document describing the duties of Accused no.1 Sh. R. K. Joshi during
the relevant period. He admitted that the Bank had obtained report of
advocate but hastened to add that it was only in respect of ownership
of property. He was shown Ex.PW7/B (D15, Page No. 97 of File B2)
where at Page No. 109 there is a noting under the signatures of R. K.
Joshi 'Spot verification done by me. Found satisfactory.' But the
witness insisted that this verification was with respect to Property
No.A59, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi and not a mortgaged property i.e.
1361P, Sector14, Faridabad, Haryana. He admitted that in the UCO
Bank Rent Scheme Circular Ex.PW7/A (D39, Page No. 277 of File B
2) it is stated that the loan amount may be credited to the current
account of the customer. On seeing Ex.PW7/A1DX4 (Page No. 13 of
File B5), he admitted that the details of all the documents obtained /
executed in respect of loan accounts are recorded. He also admitted,
when shown Ex.PW6/D (D7, Page No. 57 of File B2), which is
agreement relating to Term Loan that it is mentioned in the schedule
that Rent Agreement has been obtained by the Bank from the
borrower.
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 75 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
56. In crossexamination by learned counsel for Accused no.3,
PW21 denied a suggestion that no Collateral Security was required to
be given by the borrower. (Clause No. 9 of Ex.PW7/A clearly mentions
that Collateral Security in the form of equitable mortgage of the
property for which Lease Agreement was entered between the lesser
and lessee or some other property the value of which covers the loan to
the extent of 100 % is required to be given. Not only this, the said
clause further provides in case the documents of the property for
which lease agreement entered between the lesser and lessee is not
available, equitable/ registered mortgage of other properties or other
chargeable securities like NSCs, IVPs, KVPs, Bank's own deposits
may be accepted provided such collaterals aggregate value is not less
than 100% of the loan amount).
57. He stated that the Bank had granted overdraft facilities for a sum
of Rs.32,49,954/ without securing the same against any
document/asset/security. He denied a suggestion that there was no role
of Ranjan Kashyap in procuring the loan from the Bank. He reiterated
that the verification of Collateral Security offered by the borrower was
verified by panel lawyer but it was restricted to title of the property
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 76 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
only from the office of the concerned registrar and not regarding
genuineness of the title documents from the office of HUDA. He
admitted that neither any format nor any printed form for loan under
the UCO Rent Scheme was available or prescribed at that time. He
also stated that the UCO Bank had taken steps in HUDA office for
creation of charge over mortgage property only when the account had
become NPA and no such steps were taken before granting the loan.
(Statements of accused under Section 313 of Cr.PC)
58. After completion of prosecution evidence, statements of the
accused were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Accused no.3
Ranjan Kashyap denied all the allegations that were put to him but he
admitted that he had visited UCO Bank on the instructions of his
father. He also admitted that substantial loan amount was withdrawn
by him but he stated that he had withdrawn the same on the
instructions of his father and used it as per his instructions. He also
stated that he was not involved in the application for the grant of loan
and the loan was not disbursed in his account. He stated that he had no
authority to withdraw the amount from the account into which the
sanctioned amount was disbursed. None of the documents were
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 77 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
submitted by him to any Bank. He stated that he was not keeping good
relations with his father and that might be a reason for the IO implicate
him falsely and arrest him.
59. Accused no.1 R. K. Joshi replied in his statement under Section
313 of Cr.PC that the decision to compromise was not his decision and
out of total loan of Rs.132 Lakhs, the borrower had paid Rs. 48 Lakhs
and out of the remaining amount of Rs. 84 Lakhs (excluding interest),
the Bank had settled the loan amount of Rs. 68 Lakhs which was paid
by the borrower. To the question that in Ex.PW6/B neither the lease
amount was mentioned nor period of tenancy was mentioned and still
on such an incomplete application form, the loan was sanctioned in
favour of Y. N. Kashyap, he stated that it was not mandatory to
mention such details in the loan application. To the question that he
acted on such Non Encumbrance Report where there is no report from
HUDA office, he stated that the panel advocate had given the
consolidated search report in respect of premises in question stating
that it was free from encumbrances and charge over the said property
and was fit for equitable mortgage. With reference to a condition in the
Conveyance Deed that no mortgage can be created without previous
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 78 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
permission of HUDA, he replied that there was no requirement of
previous permission in writing of the Estate Officer of HUDA at the
time of sanction of the loan. The witness was put a question that for
one property i.e. 1361P, Sector14, Faridabad, Haryana, he accepted
and believed two different rents i.e. Rs.2,25,000/ and Rs.1,06,250/
simultaneously and sanctioned and disbursed loan of Rs. One Crore
and Rs. 32 Lakhs to the borrower to which he replied that the two rents
accepted were in respect of two properties namely 1361P, Sector14,
Faridabad, Harayana and 89, Sector24, Faridabad. He stated that in
both the cases, the rent was separate for the premises and separate for
the furniture and fittings installed in the premises.
60. He also stated that both the loans were sanctioned by him in the
discharge of his official duties and he cannot be prosecuted without
sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. He referred to a Circular Dated
31.10.1994 according to which Branch Managers are primarily agents
for development and they should act accordingly. It further stated that
the Branch Managers should not be bogged down with routine work.
Besides other duties of Branch Manager, according to him profitable
deployment of resources (advances) is also the duty of a Branch
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 79 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
Manager. He stated that the loans in question were sanctioned by him
in good faith and had it been known to him that the property papers
were not genuine, he would not have sanctioned these loans. He stated
that the borrower had repaid the loan amount and Bank has issued a
'No Dues Certificate' to the borrower. He stated that he has not gained
any pecuniary advantage either for himself or for any other person in
sanctioning of the loan. He stated that the lapses are not intentional
and might have happened because of working under pressure of
meeting the targets assigned to the Branch.
(Defence Evidence)
61. On behalf of Accused no.1 R. K. Joshi, Sh. Ghanshyam Modi,
Manager, UCO Bank was examined as DW1. The written response to
the summoned documents signed by AGM, UCO Bank was exhibited
as Ex.DW1/A. He stated that the certified agreement copy was
submitted by the then Incumbent of the Branch vide his letter dated
23.02.2009. The said letter which at Serial No.9 mentions Agreement
of Assignment of Rent was exhibited as Ex.DW1/B, photocopy of
Process Note for the loan of Rs. One Crore was marked as Ex.DW1/C.
The nonencumbrance certificate was given to the IO of this case vide
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 80 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
letter dated 08.06.2009, copy of which was marked as Ex.DW1/D, 15
PDCs of Rs.67,200/ each were marked as Ex.DW1/E. The copy of
seizure / production memo handing over other cheques to CBI was
marked as Ex.DW1/F. The Statement of Account of M/s Pali Photostat
was exhibited as Ex.DW1/G. Copy of letter dated 08.11.2017 written to
head office to provide Circular dated 29.12.2003 was marked as
Ex.DW1/H. Similarly, circular dated 27.11.1998, 31.10.1995 and
15.09.2000 were also demanded from the head office vide letter dated
08.11.2017. Letter dated 28.03.2012 addressed to Accused no.1 R. K.
Joshi in response to RTI reply was marked as Ex.DW1/I. Circulars
dated 18.12.2003, 14.01.2004, 12.02.2004 & 25.03.2004 were also
called from the head office vide letter dated 08.11.2017 which was
marked as Ex.DW1/J. The photocopy of the booklet printed by the
UCO Bank titled as 'UCO Bank OFFICER EMPLOYEES' (Conduct)
Regulations, 1976 was marked as Ex.DW1/K. The UCO Bank
OFFICER EMPLOYEES' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976
were marked as Ex. DW1/L and other documents whose photocopies
were filed were collectively marked as Mark X.
62. The second witness Sh. Virender Singh summoned on behalf of
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 81 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
Accused no.1 R. K. Joshi is Ahlmad in the court of Ld. Special Judge,
New Delhi District who exhibited the certified copy of Chargesheet
pertaining to RC No.2E2007/EOWII/DLI as Ex.DW2/A. This charge
sheet includes list of witnesses and statement of Sh. Vijay Pal Singh
Pali recorded under Section 161 of Cr.PC. This witness also produced
certified copy of chargesheet, list of documents and list of witnesses
including statement of PW26 Sh. Vijay Pal Singh Pali and statement of
current account no.399 of M/s Pali Photostat which was exhibited as
Ex.DW2/B.
63. The next witness DW3 Sh. Ankit Rana, AGM, UCO Bank,
Delhi High Court Branch stated that a Security Register is maintained
in every Branch where documents taken from the borrower are noted
and that register is maintained by Senior Manager (Advances) /
Incharge (Advances). He stated that the original documents of this case
were filed with DRT at the time of initiating recovery proceedings and
the matter was settled with the Bank by the borrower. He stated that
there is no file of inquiry regarding documents submitted or not
submitted by the borrower.
64. In crossexamination he stated that as per compromise, the
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 82 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
criminal liability of the borrower was not waived.
65. The last witness examined on behalf of Accused no.3 as DW4
was Sh. Naveen Chand, Record Keeper, DRTII, who produced the
records of OA No.09/08 titled as 'UCO Bank vs. Y N Kashyap & Ors.'.
The application moved on behalf of applicant Bank for recording of
compromise / satisfaction of compromise amount received by the
applicant Bank was proved as Ex.DW4/1 and order dated 05.08.2010
passed by DRTII on the said application noticing that the defendants
have paid the compromised amount of Rs.68 Lakhs in entirety to the
Bank and the Bank is left with no dues over the defendants was proved
as Ex.DW4/2.
66. Arguments were addressed by Sh. Pankaj Gupta, learned senior
PP for CBI, Sh. Anil Kumar, learned counsel for Accused no.1 and Sh.
Rajiv Kapoor, learned counsel for Accused no.3. Additionally, written
arguments were also filed by learned counsel for Accused no.1.
(Points for Consideration)
67. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the points
for consideration would be whether all the accused conspired to cheat
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 83 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
the UCO Bank and conspired in forging documents and used those
forged documents as genuine? Whether Accused no.3 cheated the
UCO Bank and has committed the offence of forgery? Whether
Accused no.3 has used a forged document as genuine? Whether
Accused no.1 being a public servant committed criminal misconduct
and is liable to be punished for the same? Whether Accused no.1 had
no role in ensuring that all the terms and conditions for sanctioning the
loan are fulfilled by the borrower? Whether Accused no.1 cannot be
prosecuted in the absence of sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C.?
Whether Accused no.1 was acting in discharge of his official duty
when the alleged offence was committed by him ? Whether all the
responsibility was of Senior Manager (Loan) and whether Accused
no.1 had no responsibility in protecting the interest of UCO Bank
being its AGM?
(Discussion on Evidence/Arguments)
68. In the earlier parts of this judgment, the complaint given by
Zonal Manager of UCO Bank Sh. S. Rajaram, PW1 has been noted in
detail. The same is Ex.PW1/A.
69. The gist of Charge sheet, evidence adduced on behalf of
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 84 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
prosecution, response of the accused to questions put under Section
313 of Cr.P.C. and defence evidence led has also been noted in earlier
parts of this judgment and need no repetition again.
70. In brief, the crux of allegations is that Accused no.1 R. K. Joshi
was the AGM of UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch at the relevant
time. Accused no. 2 Y. N. Kashyap was the owner of two properties
namely Property No.1361P, Sector14, Faridabad, Haryana and
Property No.89, Sector24, Faridabad, Haryana. He approached
Accused no.1 R. K. Joshi for two loans under UCO Rent Scheme, one
for Rs.1,00,00,000/ and another for Rs.32,00,000/. For the first loan,
he stated that he has rented out his Property No.1361P, Sector14,
Faridabad, Haryana to M/s. R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. at
a monthly rent of Rs.2,25,000/. For second loan, he stated that he has
rented out his Property No.89, Sector24, Faridabad, Haryana to
M/s. R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. at a monthly rent of
Rs.1,06,250/. However, while requesting for second loan, he requested
that the second loan be also sanctioned in his favour on the basis of
title deeds of Property No.1361P, Sector14, Faridabad, Haryana. R. K.
Joshi, Accused no.1 did not find out financial worthiness of M/s. R. R.
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 85 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. He did not find out whether the said
company has the worth to pay a sum of Rs.3,31,250/ per month. The
title deed of Property No.1361P, Sector14, Faridabad, Haryana shows
that for creation of equitable mortgage, prior permission of HUDA is
required. Without seeking permission from HUDA, equitable mortgage
was sought to be created. The title deeds given to the Bank were found
to be forged and fake. It was also found that the said property is
already mortgaged with Andhra Bank. Hence, the allegations of
conspiracy to cheat the UCO Bank, forgery and using forged title
deeds as genuine against all the accused and allegations of criminal
misconduct against Accused no.1 and allegations of cheating, forgery
and using forged documents as genuine against Accused no.2 & 3.
71. Whether the title deeds of Property No.1361P, Sector14,
Faridabad, Haryana deposited with the Bank by Accused no.2 for
creating equitable mortgage for securing the loan of Rs.1,00,00,000/
and second loan of Rs.32,00,000/ are forged title deeds, is the first
point for consideration.
72. Testimony of PW4 Sh. K. Rama Mohan, Assistant General
Manager, Andhra Bank has shown that Conveyance Deed in respect of
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 86 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
Property No. 1361P, Sector14, Faridabad, Haryana submitted by
M/s. R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. through its Director Y.
N. Kashyap, Accused no.2 and Ranjan Kashyap, Accused no.3 were
with Debt Recovery Tribunal, New Delhi. This is proved by letter
dated 21.08.2009 written by Sh. K. Rama Mohan, Chief Manager of
Andhra Bank to the IO of this case vide Ex.PW4/A (D49, Page No.
363 of File B2). Therefore, as on 21.08.2009, the Conveyance Deed of
Property No.1361P, Sector14, Faridabad, Haryana was with the Debt
Recovery Tribunal, New Delhi. Along with letter dated 21.08.2009,
PW4 had given enclosures Ex.PX (D49, Page No. 365 of File B2) to
the IO of this case. One of the enclosures is Sanction Letter dated
09.11.2001 sanctioning Rs.300 Lakhs in favour of M/s. R. R.
Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. The sanction letter mentions that
Collateral Security for the loan is equitable mortgage of residential
house situated at Plot No.1361P, Sector14, Faridabad, Haryana in the
name of Y. N. Kashyap, Director of the company measuring 1126.67
sq. yds valuing Rs.108.869 Lakhs. The enclosures also include letter
dated 28.11.2001 written by Y. N. Kashyap depositing with Andhra
Bank documents of title of immovable property bearing No.1361P,
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 87 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
Sector14, Faridabad, Haryana with intent to secure the repayment to
the Andhra Bank of moneys that were due or would have become due
from time to time or at any time be due from M/s. R. R. Automotive
Components Pvt. Ltd. to the Andhra Bank.
73. In crossexamination by learned counsel for Accused no.2 & 3,
it came on record that original of documents Ex.PX were filed along
with the case before the DRT. Thus, from the evidence of PW4 and
from the perusal of Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PX, it stands proved that as
back as 28.11.2001, the original Conveyance Deed of Property
No.1361P, Sector14, Faridabad, Haryana was deposited with Andhra
Bank by Accused no. 2 and the original title deeds remained with
Andhra Bank at least till the writing of Ex.PW4/A which is letter dated
21.08.2009.
74. Accused no.2 & 3 did not controvert these facts in cross
examination of PW4. They accepted the testimony of PW4. Rather,
PW4 reiterated in cross examination that original of documents Ex.PX
were filed along with the case before DRT.
75. In this case, vide Ex.PW6/F (D12, Page No.87 of File B2)
Accused no.2 Y. N. Kashyap had confirmed that he has deposited with
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 88 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
UCO Bank on 25.01.2005 the title deeds of property bearing No.1361
P, Sector14, Faridabad, Haryana as security for the due repayment of
all advances to the extent of Rs.1,00,00,000/ made by UCO Bank to
him.
76. No suggestion was given to PW4 that the original Conveyance
Deed of Property No. 1361P, Sector14, Faridabad, Haryana was not
with Andhra Bank as on 25.01.2005.
77. It is not the case of the accused that the Conveyance Deed of
Property No.1361P, Sector14, Faridabad, Haryana given to Andhra
Bank was fake and the Conveyance Deed of Property No.1361P,
Sector14, Faridabad, Haryana given to UCO Bank was original.
78. Two Banks at one time cannot have original Conveyance Deed
of one property.
79. The testimony of PW4 is also corroborated by the testimony of
PW16 who has stated that vide Ex.PW16/B1 (additional documents,
Page No.247 of File B3) which is letter dated 18.01.2002 from HUDA
to Andhra Bank, permission was given for creation of equitable
mortgage of Property No.1361P, Sector14, Faridabad, Haryana in
favour of Andhra Bank.
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 89 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
80. Therefore, it is proved that the original title deeds of Property
No.1361P, Sector14, Faridabad, Haryana given to UCO Bank by
Accused no.2 Y. N. Kashyap on 25.01.2005 for creating Collateral
Security for a loan of Rs.1,00,00,000/ and also for another loan of
Rs.32,00,000/ were forged and fake.
81. PW2 Sh. Hoshiyar Singh, Assistant in the office of Estate
Officer, HUDA is one of the four witnesses on the Deed of
Conveyance of Property No.1361P, Sector14, Faridabad, Haryana. He
has denied his signatures on the Deed of Conveyance given by
Accused no.2 Y. N. Kashyap to UCO Bank for creation of equitable
mortgage. He has denied the signatures of the then Estate Officer
Sh. Rao Rattan Lal on the Deed of Conveyance given by Y. N.
Kashyap, Accused no.2 to UCO Bank. The Deed of Conveyance given
by Y. N. Kashyap, Accused no.2 to UCO Bank which according to
PW2 was forged and fabricated is Ex.PW6/J (D17, Page No.115 of
File B2).
82. PW2 identified his signatures on the office copy of Deed of
Conveyance of Property No.1361P, Sector14, Faridabad, Haryana
which is Ex.PW2/A (D45, Page No. 321A of File B2). He also
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 90 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
identified signatures of the then Estate Officer Sh. Rao Rattan Lal on
Ex.PW2/A. Therefore, the Deed of Conveyance of Property No.1361P,
Sector14, Faridabad, Haryana given by Y. N. Kashyap, Accused no.2
to UCO Bank was fake is proved by the testimony of PW2.
83. PW12 is another witness on the Deed of Conveyance of Property
No.1361P, Sector14, Faridabad, Haryana. He denied his signatures on
Conveyance Deed of Property No.1361P, Sector14, Faridabad,
Haryana, Ex.PW6/J as well as signatures of Sh. Rao Rattan Lal, the
then Estate Officer, HUDA on the said Conveyance Deed. This was the
Conveyance Deed which was given by Y. N. Kashyap, Accused no.2 to
UCO Bank for creating equitable mortgage for the two loans in
question. PW12 admitted his signatures as well as signatures of
Sh. Rao Rattan Lal, the then Estate Officer, HUDA on the office copy
of the Deed of Conveyance of Property No.1361P, Sector14,
Faridabad, Haryana which is Ex.PW2/A in this case.
84. Thus, from the evidence of PW4, PW2 and PW12, it is proved
that the Conveyance Deed of Property No.1361P, Sector14,
Faridabad, Haryana given to UCO Bank by Y. N. Kashyap, Accused
no.2 was forged.
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 91 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
85. The next point for consideration is whether R. K. Joshi, Accused
no.1 has committed any criminal misconduct?
86. R. K. Joshi, Accused no.1 has stated in the written arguments
that he was competent to sanction the loan in question. This is
evidence from Ex.PW21/B (D40, Page No.299 of File B2) which is
'Lending Powers to Executive / Officers in Scale(s)IV to VII'.
87. With regard to allegation of Rent Agreement not taken at the
time of sanction of the loans in question is concerned, the argument is
that the Schedule of Ex.PW6/D (D7, Page No. 57 of File B2) which is
Agreement relating to Term Loan for a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/ names
'Rent Agreement' which shows that a Rent Agreement was obtained by
the Bank. He relied on Ex.PW7/A1DX4, the Security Register
maintained by the Bank where Agreement of Hiring Furnitures and
Fixtures dated 17.02.2005 @ Rs.50,000/ per month signed by Y. N.
Kashyap and M/s. R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. is entered
at Serial No.9 and Agreement of Hiring of Furniture and Fixture @
Rs.1.25 Lakhs dated 25.10.2005 signed by Sh. Y. N. Kashyap and Sh.
K. K. Makhija of M/s. R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. is
entered at Serial No.16. This register at Serial No.29 also mentions
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 92 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
photocopy of Lease Deed dated 03.11.2004 between Y. N. Kashyap and
M/s. R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. regarding Property No.
1361P, Sector14, Faridabad, Haryana. It is also noted there that there
are three copies of the Lease Deeds and one is vetted by Sh. Kul
Bharat Advocate. He referred to an endorsement dated 31.10.2004 on
Ex.PW7/A1DX4 signed by Sh. N. K. Midha, Senior Manager and Sh.
Ranjeet Banerjee, another Senior Manager of UCO Bank to the effect
that the documents mentioned therein were in their joint custody. He
referred to the cross examination of PW7 where he corroborated taking
of Rent Agreement in this case. He also relied on evidence of PW21
who on being shown Agreements of Assignment of Rent Ex.PW3/A
and Ex.PW3/B had stated that the said Agreements mention 'Tenancy
Lease Agreement Annexed and Marked A'. He also relied on evidence
of PW21 who on being shown Agreement relating to Term Loan
Ex.PW6/D had stated that under the head 'Schedule', Rent Agreement
is mentioned.
88. The Accused no.1 R. K. Joshi has also addressed arguments on
the allegations that he did not take prior permission of HUDA before
creation of equitable mortgage and before disbursal of loan. He relied
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 93 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
on evidence of PW1 that it was the duty of Senior Manager
(Advances) to comply with the terms of the sanction which included
mortgage of the Property No. 1361P, Sector14, Faridabad, Haryana.
He argued that there is no cogent oral and documentary evidence / rule
/ circular of the Bank on record to substantiate that such prior
permission was required from HUDA for creating mortgage in favour
of UCO Bank and before disbursal of loan. He went on to argue that as
per Clause No.2 of the Conveyance Deed dated 02.06.1995 such
permission was required only for mortgage of the property and not for
sanction and disbursal of loan. Referring to Equitable Mortgage
Register Ex.PW7/A1DX1 (additional documents, Page No. 7 of File B
5), he argued that even though prior permission from HUDA was not
taken but still Equitable Mortgage of Property No.1361P, Sector14,
Faridabad, Haryana, was created in favour of UCO Bank. He has
argued that obtaining prior permission from HUDA does not make any
difference in any case.
89. R. K. Joshi, Accused no.1 has also argued that more than three
years prior to registration of this case, vide letter dated 22.11.2005,
Ex.PW16/B4 (additional documents, Page No. 287 of File B3), UCO
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 94 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
Bank had requested HUDA to note charge / mortgage in favour of
UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch and not to allow anybody else to
create any sort of encumbrances over the property without permission
of UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch, New Delhi. He has argued
that HUDA vide letter dated 28.05.2008, Ex.PW16/B7 (additional
documents, Page No.309 of File B3) addressed to PNB replied that the
property in question is already mortgaged in favour of Andhra Bank,
Standard Chartered Bank and UCO Bank. Thus, Property No.1361P,
Sector14, Faridabad, Haryana in any case stood mortgaged in favor of
UCO Bank in respect of the loan in question.
90. Accused no.1 R. K. Joshi has also relied on the report given by
Panel Advocate, Sh. Kul Bharat, Ex.PW1/DX1 (D20, Page No. 153
of File B2) to argue that the Panel Lawyer did not point out that prior
permission of HUDA was needed for creating equitable mortgage in
favour of UCO Bank. He has argued that an undertaking was taken
from borrower Y. N. Kashyap on the lines of the affidavit suggested by
Panel Lawyer, PW19 Sh. Kul Bharat. The said undertaking is
Ex.PW6/E (D10, Page No. 83 of File B2). He has relied upon the
report of panel lawyer where it was mentioned that property was fit for
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 95 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
mortgage and was free from all encumbrances. He has responded to
the letter of panel lawyer dated 16.06.2006 Ex.PW19/B (Part of D20,
Page No. 173 of File B2) by stating that the same is nothing but
shifting the burden on the Bank after coming to know that the property
was already mortgaged with other Banks as well.
91. For allegation that credibility report of the guarantor Sh. Jaspal
Singh Bishnoi was not taken, he has relied upon Ex.PW7/A1DX4
(additional document at Page No. 13 of File B5), which is security
register mentioning credit report dated 21.01.2005 of Sh. Jaspal Singh
Bishnoi. He has also replied upon Ex.PW1/DX4 (additional document
Page No. 339 of File B5), which is proposal for compromise where the
worth of Sh. Jaspal Singh Bishnoi is mentioned as Rs.69.47 Lakhs as
per credit report dated 21.01.2005. He, thus, argued that these facts
prove that credit report of the guarantor was taken. He has also replied
upon evidence of PW7, who also deposed that documents at Serial
No.18, 19 and 25 of the security register, Ex.PW7/A1DX4 pertain to
guarantor which are balancesheets, ITR and photocopy of Deed of
Conveyance, which are documents regarding the credit worthiness of
the said guarantor. He, thus, argued that the credibility report of
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 96 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
guarantor was obtained before sanctioning the loan.
92. There are allegations against Accused no.1 R. K. Joshi in the
complaint given by PW1, which is Ex.PW1/A (D2, Page No. 27 of
File B2) and in the chargesheet that he sanctioned the two loans on
plain papers and not on prescribed format for the same. However,
Accused no.1 R. K. Joshi has relied on evidence of PW1 as well as
PW21, where they have deposed that there was no format/ printed form
for loan under UCO Rent Scheme.
93. On the allegation that Accused no.1 R. K. Joshi, AGM of UCO
Bank had granted the two loans on the basis of forged and fabricated
title deeds of the property in question, he has argued that he had no
reason to doubt the genuineness of the title deeds in as much as he had
called for a report from the panel lawyer, who could not detect that the
title deeds are not genuine and are forged or fabricated. He has also
relied on evidence of PW1, where he has deposed that the Banking
business is carried out in good faith and could not comment as to
whether there was no mechanism in the Bank to differentiate between
original and fake documents in addition to the search report of the
panel advocate. He, thus, argued that there is no evidence on record to
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 97 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
prove that Accused no.1 R. K. Joshi had previous knowledge that the
Deed of Conveyance given for mortgage of the property as Collateral
Security, was forged and fabricated.
94. To show that presanction inspection of the mortgaged property
was carried out by him, he has relied on Ex.PW7/D (D15, Page No.
93 of File B2), which is Process Note, where it is written under
signatures of Accused no.1 R. K. Joshi that "Spot Verification done by
me. Found satisfactory".
95. He has further argued that it is not proved on record that the
Bank suffered any financial loss due to granting of these two loans in
favour of Accused no.2 Y. N. Kashyap. He has argued that the two
loans were sanctioned on 24.01.2005 & 25.02.2005 and he was posted
in Delhi High Court Branch till 06.05.2005 and, therefore, cannot be
held responsible for nonpayment of dues of the Bank by the borrower,
as he was not Incharge of the affairs of the Delhi High Court Branch
after 06.05.2005 and could not have dealt with the matter. He has
stated that at the time of compromise, book balance was Rs.98.34
Lakhs and the borrower had offered an amount of Rs.68 Lakhs, which
was almost double of the minimum acceptable amount. He has argued
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 98 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
that he was not in any way involved in the process of acceptance of the
compromise proposal at Rs.68 Lakhs by UCO Bank and the Bank
should have negotiated with the borrower for recovery of remaining
alleged sacrifice of Rs.30.34 Lakhs. He has argued that there is
nothing on record to show that either any official of Delhi High Court
Branch or of Zonal Office of UCO Bank ever sent any communication
to coaccused Y. N. Kashyap to increase the amount offered by him in
his compromise proposal and there is nothing to show that coaccused
Y. N. Kashyap refused to increase the offer of compromise. According
to him, the unpaid portion was only Rs.25,35,800/.
96. To the allegation that PW6 Sh. Jaspal Singh Bishnoi signed
guarantee papers at his instance, he has argued that before releasing of
loan amount to the borrower, documentation work was completed with
the assistance of Sh. Ranjit Banerjee, the then Sr. Manager, since
expired on 24.09.2008. He has argued that the said guarantor was a
graduate and conversant with a bit of English and as the document
where he signed were printed material / proforma from where it could
be clearly and easily learnt that these related to guarantee papers only,
the said guarantor could not have been deceived into believing
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 99 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
documents to be account opening form.
97. There is an allegation against Accused no.1 R. K. Joshi that at
his instance, PW14 Sh. Praveen Doonga introduced current account of
Y. N. Kashyap and Ranjan Kashyap as Vijay Pal Singh Pali. However,
Accused no.1 R. K. Joshi has argued that it has no relevance in present
case. He has argued that the purpose of introduction is to ensure that
actual person is opening the account and a Benami account is not
being opened. It is nobody's case that a wrong person had opened the
account in the name of somebody else. He has relied on Ex.DW2/A
and Ex.DW2/B, which are the chargesheets in case RC No.2E
2007/EOWII/DLI and RC 1E2007/EOWII/DLI to show that PW14
was an accused in both the cases for impersonating as Vijay Pal Singh
Pali while signing as introducer in other accounts not concerning this
case. He has argued that since 1993, PW14 Sh. Praveen Doonga was
impersonating as Vijay Pal Singh Pali and was operating the current
account no. 399 of Pali Photostat with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court
Branch and accused had no knowledge about Praveen Kumar Doonga
impersonating as Vijay Pal Singh Pali.
98. He has argued that after sanction of loan, it is the duty of
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 100 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
Sr. Manager (Advances) to ensure compliance of all the terms and
conditions/ procedural lapses, if any, lack mens rea and do not attract
criminal liability. He has relied on evidence of PW1 and PW7 where
they have stated that the ground work of processing of application for
loan and compliance of terms and conditions of the loan sanctioned by
the branch were the responsibility of Sr. Manager (Advances). He has
argued that the primary role of the head of the branch is to develop
business of the Bank while the second in command would be
responsible primarily for efficient conduct of the routine work of the
branch. He has further argued that even if some minor lapses are there
on the part of the accused in supervising the loans in question, those
are bonafide during the conduct of official business of the Bank in
good faith without any mens rea and do not attract any criminal
liability.
99. He has argued that allegation of criminal conspiracy is not
proved; there is no evidence that he obtained any pecuniary
advantage / favour from the coaccused in any manner; the complaint
Ex.PW1/A is not supported by internal inquiry report and supporting
material, as no such document was forwarded by complainant Bank to
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 101 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
the CBI.
100. Accused no.1 R. K. Joshi has shown contradictions in the
evidence of PW7 to argue that his testimony is not trustworthy and has
argued that the present complaint against him was as a counter blast to
the allegations of corruption made by him against Sh. V. K. Upadhyay,
General Manager and the Executive Director of UCO Bank. Lastly, he
has argued that proceedings against him are void ab initio for want of
sanction under Section 197 Cr. P.C.
101. Accused no.1 R. K. Joshi has relied on 'Anil Kumar Bose vs.
State of Bihar AIR 1974 SC 1560'. In this case, the evidence against
the appellant was only of failure on their part to perform their duties or
to observe the rules of procedure in a proper manner which were only
administrative lapses. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, on this evidence,
did not impute a guilty intention which is one of the essential
ingredients of the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC. He has
relied on 'C. Chenga Reddy & Ors. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1996
SCC (Cri) 1205'. In this case, it was held that the appellant had ignored
certain instructions on the subject which cannot lead to an irresistible
inference that they did so with dishonest intention only. He has also
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 102 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
relied on 'K. P. Purushothaman vs. State of Kerala, (2005) 12 SCC
631', where it is held that conspiracy can be proved by circumstantial
evidence. Each one of the circumstances should be proved beyond
reasonable doubt. Circumstances proved must form a chain of events
from which the only irresistible conclusion is about the guilt of the
accused which can be safely drawn and no other hypothesis against the
guilty is possible. He has also relied on 'State of Madhya Pradesh vs.
Sheetla Sahai & Ors., (2009) 8 SCC 617', where it is held in Para
No.39 that meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing or
causing to be done an illegal act or an act by illegal means. It is further
held that often conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and for proving the
said offence substantial direct evidence, may not be possible to be
obtained. An offence of criminal conspiracy can also be proved by
circumstantial evidence. Reliance is also placed on 'N. Shridhar vs.
State', decision dated 04.03.2015 in Crl. Appeal No.1058 of 2006 by
the Hon'ble High Court of Madras. This case is cited to argue that the
complaint Ex.PW1/A is not supported by internal inquiry report which
is fatal to the case of prosecution. Reliance is also placed on 'Prof. N.
K. Ganguly vs. CBI, New Delhi, 2015 (12) Scale 500' where it is held
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 103 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
that for the purpose of obtaining previous sanction from the
appropriate government under Section 197 of Cr.P.C., it is imperative
that the alleged offence is committed in discharge of official duty by
the accused. It is also important for the Court to examine the
allegations contained in the final report against the appellants to decide
whether previous sanction is required to be obtained by the respondent
from the appropriate government before taking cognizance of the alleged offence by the court against the accused. Since the allegations made against the appellants in the final report filed by the respondent were that the alleged offences were committed by them in discharge of their official duty, therefore, it was held that it was essential for the court to correctly decide as to whether the previous sanction from the Central Government under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. was required to be taken by the respondent, before taking cognizance and passing an order issuing summons to the appellants for their presence. Reliance is also placed on 'Ashoka Marketing Ltd. & Anr. vs. PNB (1990) 4 SCC 406', to argue that Nationalized Banks are not only government company but also corporation and the employees of such a Bank are public servants within the meaning of Clause No. 12 (b) of Section 21 CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 104 of 140 CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375 of IPC. Reliance is also placed on 'Baignath vs. State of Madhya Pradesh', AIR 1966 SC 220 where sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. was considered for employees of 'Madhya Bharat Electric Supply'. Reliance is also placed on 'Raghunath Anant Govilkar vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2008) 11 SCC 289', where protection under Section 197 of Cr.P.C for employees of Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority was considered. Reliance is also placed on 'Rajiv Ranjan vs. R. Vijay Kumar, (2015) 1 SCC 513', where protection under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. was considered for the employees of 'Jharkhand Electricity Board'. Reliance is also placed on 'Bir Narender Singh vs. Harpal Singh, 2006 (1) RCR (Crl.) 751'. In this case the appellant had appeared in the witness box as Manager of the Bank when he was called to produce the record of the Bank. He had produced the dispatch register before the court in discharge of his official duties. He had not forged the said dispatch register nor he was having any knowledge that the same was a forged one. In these circumstances, it was held that prior permission was required under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. for filing a complaint under Section 471 of IPC against him. Reliance is also placed on 'A. Shiva Prakash vs. State of CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 105 of 140 CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375 Kerala', Criminal Appeal No. 131 of 2007 decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 10.05.2016. In that case, it was held that as it was not proved that the appellant had taken money from some person and had obtained any pecuniary advantage thereby, therefore, it was held that it was the obligation of the prosecution to satisfy the mandatory ingredient which could implicate the appellant under the provisions of Section 13 (1) (d) (ii) of PC Act, 1988. In the end, reliance is placed on 'L. Chandraiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh', Crl. Appeal No.204/97 decided on September, 2003 to argue that in the absence of any evidence that coaccused had fraudulently prepared vouchers, the offences under Section 467/471 or 409 of IPC were not proved against the appellants.
102. There is no doubt that Accused no.1 R. K. Joshi was competent to sanction the two loans in question. But, the question is whether he committed criminal misconduct while sanctioning the loans and failed to ensure compliance of terms and conditions of sanction orders before disbursal of loans in favour of the borrower.
103. The first doubt that comes to the mind is whether in the absence of any independent report it was possible to believe that the rent of the CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 106 of 140 CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375 property in Faridabad in the year 200405 was Rs.2.25 Lakhs per month.
104. The property in question is built up on land admeasuring 1126.67 sq. yards. The classification of the locality according to valuation report Ex.PW1/DX (D19, Page No. 131 of File B2) is 'Middle Class'. Type of use to which it could be put is 'Residential' and the usage restriction is 'Residential Purpose Only'.
105. Therefore, a property which can only be used for 'Residential Purpose' in a 'Middle Class' locality could have fetched a rent of Rs.2.25 Lakhs per month in 200405? This property is neither in a posh colony nor a commercial property like in a mall etc. Accused no.1 R. K. Joshi believed this only on the self serving statement of borrower and did not get it verified from any independent source whether it is possible for the rent of said property to be Rs.2,25,000/ per month at that time.
106. In the opinion of this court, the very first step for sanctioning the loan in favour of Accused no.2 Y. N. Kashyap was doubtful that the rent of the property was Rs.2.25 Lakhs per month. It should have raised eyebrows of the sanctioning authority, that is, Accused no.1 R. CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 107 of 140 CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375 K. Joshi. He glossed over this unduly high rate of rent stated by the borrower, Accused no.2 Y. N. Kashyap.
107. While dealing with the Valuation Report, Ex.PW1/DX, another alarming feature is noticeable. In Ex.PW6/D (D4, Page No. 43 of File B2), which is the first application for loan of Rs. One Crore under UCO Rent Scheme, the borrower Accused no.2 Y. N. Kashyap has stated that he has rented out the property to M/s R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Limited w.e.f. 03.11.2004.
108. However, the valuation report dated 20.11.2001 at its internal page3 at serial no.17, which is 'Whether occupied by the owner/ tenant? If occupied by tenant since how long? Rent received per month', the answer is 'Owner Occupied'. The owner is Y. N. Kashyap. Thus, the report belied the submission of borrower, Accused no.2 Y. N. Kashyap that he has let out the property to M/s R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. since 03.11.2004 at a rent of Rs.2.25 Lakhs. The Valuation Report does not say that the property is tenanted. The valuation report does not mention that even a single penny is received by the owner as rent. There was absolutely nothing before Accused no.1 R. K. Joshi to believe from this valuation report that the borrower CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 108 of 140 CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375 before him was receiving a rent of Rs.2.25 Lakhs per month by letting out this property to M/s. R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. Accused no.1 R. K. Joshi could not have missed his own valuation report, which was made basis of sanction of huge loan of Rs. One Crore under a misrepresentation that the said property was let out at a rent of Rs.2.25 Lakhs per month to M/s. R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. Accused no.1 R. K. Joshi has laid great emphasis to convince this court that his role was only till sanction of the loan. However, the very first step taken by Accused no. 1 R. K. Joshi is suggestive of criminal misconduct and dehors the official discharge of duties.
109. Perusal of this valuation report further shows that the certificate appended with this report, which ought to have been signed by Branch Manager/ Officer Incharge of Advance Department with date is left blank, which otherwise reads "The undersigned have inspected the property detailed in the valuation report dated _____ on ____. I have gone through the report and I am satisfied to the best of my knowledge that the value of the property stated at Rs.____/ by the approved valuer is realistic". If the Accused no.1 R. K. Joshi had filled up this CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 109 of 140 CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375 proforma and had inspected the property himself as was required under this certificate, it would have come on record that the property is not tenanted in favour of M/s. R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. To hide this fact, Accused no.1 R. K. Joshi accepted the valuation report leaving the certificate appended therewith blank and unsigned.
110. This also shows that the undated endorsement under the signatures of Accused no.1 R. K. Joshi "Spot verification done by me. Found satisfactory" on Ex.PW7/D is contradictory to the valuation report relied on by Accused no.1 R. K. Joshi himself for sanctioning the loan in favour of M/s. R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd.
111. Another damning feature which strikes at the very beginning is that Accused no.1 R. K. Joshi absolutely took no step to find out financial position of M/s. R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. Accused no.1 R. K. Joshi had meekly accepted that M/s. R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. was paying a rent of Rs.2.25 Lakhs per month for Property No.1361P, Sector14, Faridabad and was paying a sum of Rs.1,06,250/ for Property No.89, Sector24, Faridabad and was thus, paying a total sum of Rs.3,31,250/ per month to Accused no.2 Y. N. Kashyap.
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 110 of 140CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
112. A perusal of the very first document exhibited in this case which triggered the prosecution, Ex.PW1/A, complaint given by PW1 Sh. S. Rajaram to CBI raises the very first allegation that Accused no.1 R. K. Joshi criminally connived with Accused no.2 Y. N. Kashyap by not asking for the balancesheet/ other financial papers to ascertain the paying capacity (an amount of monthly rent of Rs.3,31,250/) of M/s. R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd.
113. The crossexamination conducted on behalf of Accused no.1 R. K. Joshi, his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the defence evidence led by him to prove his innocence and detailed written arguments filed by him, are deafeningly silent on the efforts made by him to find out the paying capacity of M/s. R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd.
114. This assumes immense significance considering the fact that the UCO Rent Scheme for financing rental receivables, Ex.PW7/A (D39, Page No. 277 of File B2) while detailing the eligibility in 3rd Operational Guidelines suggests that "The lessee however should be a company or corporate of good market standing" (emphasis supplied).
115. Had Accused no.1 R. K. Joshi acted honestly, he would have taken steps to find financial status of M/s. R. R. Automotive CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 111 of 140 CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375 Components Pvt. Ltd. as a very first step before sanctioning the loans in favour of Accused no.2 Y. N. Kashyap.
116. Evidence of PW4 Sh. K. Rama Mohan, Asst. General Manager, Andhra Bank has shown that M/s. R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. had taken loan from Andhra Bank and the account had become NPA. The Bank had to approach Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) for recovering its dues.
117. At the time when Accused no.1 R. K. Joshi sanctioned the loan in favour of Accused no.2 Y. N. Kashyap in the year 2005, M/s. R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. was in dire straits facing recovery proceedings in DRT on behalf of Andhra Bank.
118. Learned Sr. PP for CBI, Sh. Pankaj Gupta has also drawn attention of the court to the judgment passed by this court on 09.10.2017 in the case titled as 'CBI Vs. Ranjan Kashyap & Ors.', in RC No. 0722008(E)0004 dated 26.09.2008, where the borrower M/s. R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. had also taken loan from Punjab National Bank, Paharganj Branch in the year 2006 and the account had become non performing account (NPA) resulting in filing of recovery proceedings against the said company by PNB before DRT, CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 112 of 140 CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375 Delhi.
119. The said lessee company had no such financial capacity to pay a rent of Rs.2.25 Lakhs per month is evident from the fact that from the very first month itself this condition was flouted and no such rent was deposited with the Bank.
120. R. K. Joshi, Accused no.1 even did not take Memorandum and Articles of Association of M/s. R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. to conceal that Y. N. Kashyap, Accused no.2 himself was a director of lessee company M/s. R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. For these reasons, Sh. S. Rajaram, Zonal Manager, UCO Bank in his complaint dated 10.02.2009 Ex.PW1/A (D2, Page No. 23 of File B2) has rightly alleged that Sh. R. K. Joshi, Accused no.1, has criminally connived with Y. N. Kashyap, Accused no.2 by not asking for the Balance Sheet / other financial papers to ascertain the paying capacity (an amount of monthly rent of Rs.3,31,250/) of M/s. R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd.
121. Therefore, if Accused no.1 R. K. Joshi had not deliberately overlooked the financial position of M/s. R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd., not a single penny would have been sanctioned CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 113 of 140 CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375 in favour of Accused no.2 Y. N. Kashyap against so called rent receivable from M/s. R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd.
122. Further, even on available documents relied on by Accused no.1 R. K. Joshi, there is no coherency with respect to the amount of rent. Agreement for Assignment of Rent Ex.PW3/A (D9, Page No. 73 of File B2) mentions at internal Page No.3 that the monthly rent is Rs.2.25 Lakhs. Process note Ex.PW7/C (D15, Page No. 93 of File B
2) mentions that the unexpired lease period is 60 months and monthly rent is Rs.25,000 for 24 months and, thereafter, Rs.25,000 x 1.25 for remaining 36 months. The Process Note Ex.PW7/D (Part of D15, Page No. 97 of File B2) mentions that the monthly rent is Rs.50,000/. Yet another process note, which is part of Ex.PW7/D mentions that the monthly rent is Rs. One Lakh per month for first 3 years and Rs.1.25 Lakhs per month for next 02 years. Ex.PW7/A1/DX4, which is Security Register, at Serial No.9 mentions agreement for hiring of furniture, fixture dated 17.02.2005 at the rate of Rs.50,000/ per month signed by Accused no.2 Y. N. Kashyap and M/s. R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. At serial no.16, it mentions agreement of hiring of furniture and fixture at the rate of Rs.1.25 Lakhs dated 25.10.2004 CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 114 of 140 CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375 signed by Accused no.2 Y. N. Kashyap and Sh. K. K. Makhija of M/s. R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. Thus, there is no clarity that the rent of Rs.2.25 Lakhs was evident from the documentation processed by Accused no.1 R. K. Joshi.
123. Accused no.1 R. K. Joshi has tried to show from various documents where it is mentioned that rent deed is enclosed with those documents. However, the rent deed is nowhere to be seen. Accused no.1 R. K. Joshi had summoned several documents under Section 91 Cr. P.C. from UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch, but still the rent agreement did not come on record. It is not the case of Accused no.1 R. K. Joshi that the rent agreement has been suppressed by Delhi High Court Branch or by CBI. When several other documents required by Accused no.1 R. K. Joshi, such as, security register etc. could be produced by UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch, the said Bank would have produced rent agreement as well if the same was available in the records.
124. The allegation against Accused no.1 R. K. Joshi in Ex.PW1/A is that he sanctioned the loans in absence of required papers as per the stipulations of the UCO Rent Scheme, which tantamount to cheating CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 115 of 140 CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375 and criminal breach of trust. As per process notes, Ex.PW7/C and Ex.PW7/D, the unexpired lease period is mentioned as 60 months. The lease being for more than one year was compulsorily to be a registered document. In spite of ample opportunities, Accused no.1 R. K. Joshi took no steps to summon any record from the office of SubRegistrar, Faridabad, where the lease deed would have been registered, had it ever seen the light of the day. A perusal of Deed of Conveyance of the property in question shows that only a lease on a monthly basis could have been created by the borrower and for a lease other than monthly lease, prior permission of HUDA was required. As per process notes, Ex.PW7/C and Ex.PW7/D, the unexpired lease period was 60 months. It shows that the lease was not monthly lease. In that event, prior permission of HUDA was required. This fact was also overlooked by Accused no.1 R. K. Joshi.
125. Further, Ex.PW7/A (D39, Page No. 277 of File B2) which is UCO Rent Scheme for Financing Rent Receivables, at serial no. 14(f), documentation - 'Original lease agreement with legal opinion' is one of the requirements for sanctioning the loan.
126. There is no legal opinion of the Panel Advocate on the lease CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 116 of 140 CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375 agreement, as per requirement of the scheme referred above. A perusal of security document, Ex.PW7/A1DX4 at serial no.29 mentions that 'photocopy of lease deed dated 03.11.2004 between Y. N. Kashyap and M/s. R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. regarding H. No.1361P, Sector14, Faridabad,Haryana (3 copies, one vetted by Sh. Kul Bharat, Advocate)'.
127. Learned Sr. PP for CBI, Sh. Pankaj Gupta raised serious doubts about vetting of lease deed by Sh. Kul Bharat, Advocate.
128. The doubts raised by Sh. Pankaj Gupta, Learned Sr. PP for CBI are not misplaced in as much as Ex.PW1/DX1, which is the report given by Panel Advocate is totally silent on the fact that the property has been let out to anyone. Thus, there is no question of the Panel Advocate having vetted any rent agreement. Further, Ex.PW19/A, which is letter dated 10.06.2005 addressed by UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch to Sh. Kul Bharat does not speak about any legal opinion having been given by Sh. Kul Bharat on the so called lease agreement. Similarly, in Ex.PW19/B, which is response of Sh. Kul Bharat dated 16.06.2006 to the letter of UCO Bank, dated 10.06.2005, there is no reference of any legal opinion given on the lease agreement to the CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 117 of 140 CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375 Bank. That further substantiates that no lease agreement was ever taken on record by Accused no.1 R. K. Joshi.
129. Another damning allegation against Accused no.1 R. K. Joshi is that he had not taken prior permission of HUDA for creation of equitable mortgage of Property No.1361P, Sector14, Faridabad, Haryana before sanctioning and disbursing the two loans totalling Rs.1.32 Crores in favour of Accused no.2 Y. N. Kashyap.
130. It is an admitted position that it is one of the conditions of Deed of Conveyance of Property No.1361P, Sector14, Faridabad, Haryana that HUDA has a first and paramount charge over the said property for the unpaid portion of the sale price, including additional price and the transferee (Y. N. Kashyap, Accused no.2 in this case) had no right to transfer by way of sale, gift, mortgage or otherwise, the land or any right, title/ interest therein (except by way of lease on a monthly basis) without the previous permission in writing of the Estate Officer.
131. The submissions of Accused no.1 R. K. Joshi in this regard are two foldfirst, compliance of terms and conditions of sanction order was the duty of Sr. Manager (Loans) and secondly, in any case, the mortgage was created w.r.t. property in question on the records of CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 118 of 140 CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375 HUDA as is evident from Ex.PW16/B4, which is letter dated 22.11.2005 from UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch to HUDA to note charge/ mortgage in favour of UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch and from Ex.PW16/B7, which is letter of HUDA addressed to Accused no.2 Y. N. Kashyap and Punjab National Bank, Paharganj Branch informing that permission has been given by HUDA for mortgage of Property No.1361P, Sector14, Faridabad, Haryana in favour of Andhra Bank, Standard Chartered Bank and UCO Bank and in case, Punjab National Bank also wants to create mortgage, they should get NOC from these 3 Banks.
132. The hands wash approach of Accused no.1 R. K. Joshi is of no help to him. He has tried to shift the entire burden on Sr. Manager (Loans), who has since expired. He is trying to say that observation of terms and conditions of sanction order were the responsibility of Sr. Manager (Loans) and not Branch Head. This court does not agree with the said submission of Accused no.1 R. K. Joshi. The very first witness PW1, Sh. S. Rajaram, Zonal Manager, UCO Bank, in cross examination by learned counsel for Accused no.1 R. K. Joshi stated that 'fulfillment of terms and conditions of sanction order is the CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 119 of 140 CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375 responsibility of both, Sr. Manager (Advances) and the Branch Head'. Similarly, PW7 Sh. Deshraj Sonkar, Sr. Manager, UCO Bank has also stated in his crossexamination conducted by learned counsel for Accused no.1 R. K. Joshi that 'After the sanction of the loan, it is the duty of the Incharge (Advances) as well as Branch Head to monitor fulfillment of the terms and conditions of the advance and reiterated that monitoring of terms and conditions of sanctioned loan is under direct control of Branch Head'. Therefore, Accused no.1 R. K. Joshi cannot wriggle out of his criminal misconduct by shifting the burden on a person, who has since passed away.
133. Further, a sum of Rs. One Crore was credited in the account of Accused no.2 Y. N. Kashyap being account no.8088, under the signatures of Sh. Ranjit Banerjee, Sr. Manager (Loans) and Accused no.1 R. K. Joshi. Similarly, another sum of Rs.32 Lakhs was also credited in the account of Accused no.2 Y. N. Kashyap being account no.8428, under the signatures of Sh. Ranjit Banerjee, Sr. Manager (Loans) and Accused no.1 R. K. Joshi. Before releasing this amount of Rs.1.32 Crores in the two accounts of Accused no.2 Y. N. Kashyap, Accused no.1 R. K. Joshi should have verified whether the equitable CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 120 of 140 CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375 mortgage has been created following all the preconditions or not.
134. The second submission of Accused no.1 R. K. Joshi is that since permission of HUDA was obtained for creation of mortgage in favour of UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch, no prejudice has been caused to the Bank. This submission is noted to be rejected. Had the Bank approached HUDA in 2005, it would have come to know that the property already has charge of Andhra Bank. The UCO Bank would have come to know that the account of M/s. R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. had become NPA and Andhra Bank is struggling to recover its dues from M/s. R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. The UCO Bank would have also come to know that the original title deeds of the property in question are with Andhra Bank and the one being offered to UCO Bank are forged. It would have helped in two ways. First, the UCO Bank would have never sanctioned loan of Rs.1.32 Crores on the basis of forged Deed of Conveyance and on the basis of collateral security of a property which was already mortgaged with Andhra Bank. Second, the UCO Bank would have certainly got second thoughts about financial status of M/s. R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. and would not have believed the CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 121 of 140 CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375 capacity of M/s. R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. to pay a monthly rent of Rs.2.25 Lakhs to Accused no.2 Y. N. Kashyap. The whole issue would have got nipped in the bud saving the Bank and all concerned of the inconvenience faced later on.
135. The first loan for Rs. One Crore was requested by Y. N. Kashyap, Accused no.2 vide application dated 21.10.2004 (date changed to 21.11.2004 by overwriting). The same is Ex.PW6/B (D4, Page No.43 of File B2). It was mentioned in the Loan Application by Y. N. Kashyap, Accused no.2 that Property No. 1361P, Sector14, Faridabad, Haryana, owned by him is rented to M/s. R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. w.e.f. 03.11.2004. This loan of Rs.1,00,00,000/ was sanctioned in favour of Y. N. Kashyap, Accused no.2 vide Sanction Letter dated 24.01.2005 Ex.PW6/C (D6, Page No.55 of File B2). The very first condition mentioned in this sanction letter is that "the loan shall be secured by the equitable mortgage of the landed property situated at House No.1361P, Sector14, Faridabad, Haryana". The second loan of Rs.32 Lakhs was requested by Accused no.2 Y. N. Kashyap, vide his application dated 12.02.2005, Ex.PW6/G (D13, Page No.89 of File B2). It was mentioned in the Loan Application by CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 122 of 140 CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375 Y. N. Kashyap, Accused no.2 that Property No.89, Sector24, Faridabad, Haryana, owned by him is rented to M/s. R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. The second loan was sanctioned on 25.02.2005 vide Ex.PW6/H (D14, Page No.91 of File B2). The very first condition mentioned in this sanction letter is that "the loan shall be secured by the equitable mortgage of the landed property situated at House No.1361P, Sector14, Faridabad, Haryana". Therefore, the second loan of Rs.32,00,000/ was also sanctioned against the same very property bearing No.1361P, Sector14, Faridabad, Haryana which was already given as collateral security for the earlier loan of Rs.1,00,00,000/. This is inspite of the fact that the accused had mentioned in second loan application that his another property bearing No.89, Sector24, Faridabad, Haryana has been rented out to M/s. R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. Why R. K. Joshi, Accused no.1 did not take into consideration Property No.89, Sector24, Faridabad, Haryana, which was stated to be rented out to M/s. R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd.? Why R. K. Joshi, Accused no.1 did not secure the second loan of Rs.32,00,000/ by the equitable mortgage of Property No.89, Sector24, Faridabad, Haryana? The interest of the CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 123 of 140 CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375 Bank would have been better secured if each loan was secured by equitable mortgage of different properties. Moreso, when Y. N. Kashyap, Accused no.2 himself had mentioned that he has rented out his property bearing No.89, Sector24, Faridabad, Haryana to M/s. R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. for availing loan of Rs.32,00,000/ under UCO Rent Scheme.
136. The explanation of R. K. Joshi, Accused no.1 is that Y. N. Kashyap, Accused no.2 vide his letter dated 21.02.2005, Ex.PW6/L (D18, Page No.129 of File B2) had requested the Bank to continue to hold as security the title deeds of property bearing No.1361P, Sector 14, Faridabad, Haryana for the second loan for Rs.32,00,000/ as well. The same is neither believable nor convincing. The said short letter is reproduced below :
"To, Date 21.02.2005
The Manager,
UCO Bank,
Delhi High Court Branch
Dear Sir,
Re: Term Loan Account under UCO Rent
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 124 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
I have deposited with you on 25.01.2005, the title dees relating to my property situated at H. No.1361P, Sector 14, Faridabad, Haryana as security for the loan facility to the extent of Rs.100 Lakhs granted by you in favour of Sh. Y. N. Kashyap. I thank you for sanctioning an increase of Rs.32,00,000/ in the said loan facility favouring Sh. Y. N. Kashyap. As already agreed with you, the title deeds so deposited by me with you shall continue to hold by you also as security for the said increased limit.
Yours faithfully, Sd/ Y. N. Kashyap"
137. A perusal of this letter shows few noticeable facts. Accused no.2 Y. N. Kashyap never requested for sanctioning an increase of Rs.32,00,000/ in the earlier loan facility of Rs.1,00,00,000/. A perusal of loan application dated 12.02.2005 given by Y. N. Kashyap, Accused no.2 requesting for availing a loan under UCO Rent Scheme for Rs.32,00,000/, Ex.PW6/G (D13, Page No.89 of File B2) belies that Y. N. Kashyap, Accused no.2 had ever requested for increase of Rs.32,00,000/ in the earlier loan facility of Rs.1,00,00,000/. This is also belied by a perusal of sanction letter dated 25.02.2005, Ex.PW6/H CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 125 of 140 CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375 (D14, Page No.91 of File B2) which does not speak about sanctioning an increase of Rs.32,00,000/ in the earlier loan facility of Rs.1,00,00,000/. A perusal of the same shows that totally independent of the earlier loan of Rs.1,00,00,000/, this second loan of Rs.32,00,000/ was sanctioned which was not towards increase of already existing facility.
138. There is no evidence of application of mind for not taking the title deeds of Property No.89, Sector24, Faridabad, Haryana as Collateral Security for sanctioning loan of Rs.32,00,000/ as well. Moreover, Agreement for Assignment of Rent, Ex.PW3/B (D23, Page No. 201 of File B2) mentions at its internal Page No.2 that 'the borrower has approached the Bank to grant to it Term Loan of Rs.32,00,000/ facilities to enable the borrower to augment his earnings'. This is totally contrary to expression 'sanctioning an increase of Rs.32,00,000/ in the said loan facility favouring Y. N. Kashyap' used in Ex.PW6/L (D18, Page No. 129 of File B2).
139. Another point to be noted is that vide Ex.PW6/L, Accused no.2 Y. N. Kashyap thanked the Manager of UCO Bank for sanctioning an increase of Rs.32 Lakhs in the earlier loan facility of Rs.100 Lakhs.
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 126 of 140CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375 However, the second loan of Rs.32 Lakhs was not sanctioned on 21.02.2005, but on 25.02.2005.
140. The collusion and conspiracy amongst the accused is evident from the fact that in the Agreement for Assignment of Rent, Ex.PW3/B (D23, Page No. 201 of File B2), the place where monthly rent payable by the lessee to the lessor was to be mentioned, the same has been left blank.
141. One of the contentions of Accused no.1 R. K. Joshi is that the Bank has not suffered any financial loss. In the same breath, he has also argued that actual sacrifice as per column no.17 of Ex.PW1/DX4 was Rs.30.34 Lakhs. He has argued that the compromise proposal was not accepted by him and the Bank should not have accepted the offer of accused if the Bank was suffering any loss. As per Ex.PW1/DX4, which is proposal for compromise, the notional sacrifice is Rs.51.20 Lakhs and total sacrifice which is sum total of actual sacrifice and notional sacrifice is Rs.82.04 Lakhs. This is the financial loss which the Bank suffered in this transaction. The Bank had to agree to this loss keeping in mind that it had no collateral security available with it. The Deed of Conveyance of the property in question given to it, were CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 127 of 140 CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375 forged and fake. Under these circumstances, the UCO Bank was coerced to accept compromise offer of accused to minimize its losses, but the actual loss in the whole transaction remained Rs.82.04 Lakhs. Moreover, whenever there is a one time settlement, the Bank suffers a loss. The Bank is not able to make any profit which is otherwise, is the objective of every Bank. One time settlement in this case was also best way out for UCO Bank in the absence of any hope of recovering any money from the borrower, though it resulted in loss of Rs.82.04 Lakhs.
142. The act of criminal misconduct and criminal conspiracy committed by Accused no.1 R. K. Joshi is also evident from the evidence of PW6 Sh. Jaspal Singh Bishnoi. Admittedly, he was a clerk in M/s. R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. where Accused no.2 Y. N. Kashyap and Accused no.3 Ranjan Kashyap were the directors. He has stated that Accused no.3 Ranjan Kashyap had taken him to UCO Bank at Delhi High Court Branch and asked him to sign on some blank forms on the pretext that same are required to be signed by him for opening an account in the name of their company. He has stated that Accused no.3 Ranjan Kashyap got his signatures on blank form of the Bank on the directions of one Sh. Joshi, the Chief Manager of the CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 128 of 140 CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375 Bank.
143. In crossexamination, he further clarified that the officer of the Bank was being addressed as Mr. Joshi by Accused no.3 Ranjan Kashyap and that is how, he came to know that the officer who had asked Accused no.3 Ranjan Kashyap to take his signatures on a blank paper, was Mr. Joshi.
144. Accused no.1 R. K. Joshi has argued that PW6 is a graduate and knew English a little bit and since guarantee forms, Ex.PW6/A and Ex.PW6/N had printed material/ proforma from where it could be clearly and easily learnt that these related to guarantee papers only, the witness had deposed falsely to avoid responsibility as a guarantor.
145. The matter was settled with the Bank in September, 2009. The statement of this witness was recorded in the court on 21.04.2015. The day, his statement was recorded in the court, the matter was already settled with the Bank. He was no more under duress to lie to save his skin. Even otherwise also, a clerk will not give security for his employer and that also to an extent of Rs.1.32 Crores. This is against normal human behaviour of a man of ordinary prudence and against ordinary course of conduct.
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 129 of 140CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
146. Therefore, it is also proved that it was Accused no.1 R. K. Joshi on whose directions, Accused no.3 Ranjan Kashyap took signatures of PW6 Sh. Jaspal Singh Bishnoi on a blank form misrepresenting him that he was signing an account opening form for the company.
147. The criminal misconduct and conspiracy by Accused no.1 R. K. Joshi is also proved by the fact that the loan under UCO Rent Scheme was for productive purposes only and was to be given for augmenting earnings of borrower by investing in bonds / securities, repairs / renovation of properties. Ex.PW7/D shows that the purpose in this case was augmenting earning through investment in bonds/ securities. Accused no.1 R. K. Joshi failed to observe that the loan was not at all utilised for the purpose for which it was sanctioned. Out of Rs.1.32 Crores, a sum of Rs.1,22,60,000/ was misutilized by Accused no.3 Ranjan Kashyap for personal gain and not used for the purpose it was sanctioned under UCO Rent Scheme. If the loan amount was used for investment in bonds/ securities, the Bank would have been in a stronger position to recover its entire dues from the borrower without being coerced to settle, suffering a loss of Rs.82.04 Lakhs.
148. To incriminate Accused no.1 R. K. Joshi, prosecution has CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 130 of 140 CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375 examined PW14 Sh. Praveen Doonga, who on the asking of Accused no.1 R. K. Joshi signed as introducer for the account of Accused no.2 Y. N. Kashyap, as Vijay Pal Singh Pali. It is argued on behalf of Accused no.1 R. K. Joshi that this evidence is not relevant for deciding the present case. Accused no.1 R. K. Joshi in his defence evidence has proved two chargesheets as Ex.DW2/A and Ex.DW2/B. In both these chargesheets, this witness is also an accused and in both the charge sheets, this witness, namely, Sh. Praveen Doonga is facing prosecution with the allegation that he was introducer of two accounts impersonating as Vijay Pal Singh Pali. Both the accounts were authorised to be opened by Accused no.1 R. K. Joshi, the then AGM, UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch. The evidence of PW14 shows that whenever Accused no.1 R. K. Joshi had to help other accused for opening an account, he took help of this Praveen Doonga, who impersonated as Vijay Pal Singh Pali and helped in opening the account.
149. The allegations and evidence discussed above show that Accused no.1 R. K. Joshi is guilty of having committed criminal misconduct in conspiracy with other accused to cheat the Bank by CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 131 of 140 CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375 using forged documents as genuine.
150. Admittedly, there is no sanction under Section 197 Cr. P.C, to prosecute Accused no.1 R. K. Joshi. However, it is not part of duties of a Bank officer to conspire with borrowers and cause loss of Lakhs of rupees to the Banks. It is not part of official duties of a Bank officer to act in disregard of the policies of the Bank to detriment of the Bank resulting in wrongful loss to the Bank and wrongful gain to borrowers of the said Bank. A Bank officer of the rank of AGM, who closes his eyes to allow borrowers to run away with the money of the Bank on the basis of forged and fake documents cannot seek shield of sanction under Section 197 Cr. P.C. This protection is for honest, sincere and law abiding public servants to shield them from false prosecution, so that they can discharge their duties confidently, independent of the threat of false prosecutions. Reliance is placed by Sh. Pankaj Gupta, Ld. Sr. PP for CBI on 'Prakash Singh Badal v State of Punjab', a judgment delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 06.12.2006, where it is held that the offence of cheating under Section 420 or for that matter offences relateable to Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC can by no stretch of imagination by their very nature be regarded as having being CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 132 of 140 CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375 committed by any public servant while acting or purporting to act in discharge of official duty.
151. In the case of 'Surinderjit Singh Mand & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Anr., 2016 (8) SCC 722', the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealing with the question of sanction under Section 197 of Cr.PC referred to its earlier decision in the case of 'P.P. Unnikrishnan v. Puttiyottil Alikutty (2000) 8 SCC 131' where in para - 21 it is held as under: "21. If a police officer dealing with law and order duty uses force against unruly persons, either in his own defence or in defence of others and exceeds such right it may amount to an offence. But such offence might fall within the amplitude of Section 197 of the Code as well as Section 64 (3) of the K P Act. But if a police officer assaults a prisoner inside a lockup, he cannot claim such act to be connected with the discharge of his authority or exercise of his duty unless he establishes that he did such acts in his defence or in defence of others or any property. Similarly, if a police officer wrongfully confines a person in the lockup beyond a period of 24 hours without the sanction of a Magistrate or an order of a court it would be an offence for which he cannot claim any protection in the normal course, nor can he claim that such act was done in exercise of his official duty. A police man keeping a person in the lockup for more than 24 hours CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 133 of 140 CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375 without authority is not merely abusing his duty but his act would be quite outside the contours of his duty or authority."
152. From the above, it is clear that although keeping a person in the lockup is covered under part of official duty of a cop but keeping him in lockup for more than 24 hours without authority of a Magistrate or an order of a court will not be part of official duty. Similarly, advancing loans under UCO Rent Scheme was part of official duty but omitting to find out financial worthiness of the tenant, omitting to take on record rent agreement, omitting to take prior permission of HUDA for creation of equitable mortgage, omitting to ensure that the sanctioned loan is utilized for the purpose for which it is sanctioned, taking signatures of innocent persons as guarantors on blank documents pretending that they are signing Account Opening Form and conspiring with private persons to cause unlawful gain to private persons and unlawful loss to the UCO Bank by using forged Deed of Conveyance would not be part of official duty of a senior Bank official of the rank of AGM.
153. Therefore, the argument of learned counsel for Accused no.1 CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 134 of 140 CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375 R. K. Joshi that in the absence of sanction, the accused cannot be prosecuted, is also rejected.
154. The next point for consideration is whether Accused no.3 Ranjan Kashyap has also committed criminal conspiracy to cheat the Bank and has used forged documents as genuine.
155. Accused no.3 Ranjan Kashyap is the son of Accused no.2 Y. N. Kashyap. Both of them were directors of M/s. R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. The borrower of loan in this case is Accused no.2 Y. N. Kashyap. The forged and fabricated title deed of Property No.1361P, Sector14, Faridabad, Haryana was given to the Bank by Accused no.2 Y. N. Kashyap. Even according to UCO Bank, Accused no.3 Ranjan Kashyap was not an accused in as much as in complaint Ex.PW1/A, there is no allegation against Accused no.3 Ranjan Kashyap.
156. Does it mean that Accused no.3 Ranjan Kashyap has been falsely implicated by CBI?
157. Three allegations have surfaced against Accused no.3 Ranjan Kashyap. First, in the evidence of PW3 Sh. Kishan Kumar Makhija, who was the Accounts Clerk in M/s. R. R. Automotive Components CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 135 of 140 CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375 Pvt. Ltd. it has come on record that he had signed Ex.PW3/A which is agreement for assignment of rent under the pressure of Accused no.3 Ranjan Kashyap and Accused no.2 Y. N. Kashyap. It is evident that agreement for assignment of rent was not signed by its directors, namely, Accused no.2 Y. N. Kashyap and Accused no.3 Ranjan Kashyap. Rather, it was got signed from PW3 Sh. Kishan Kumar Makhija, the Accounts Clerk in the said company. It has already come on record that there was no rent agreement between M/s. R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. and Accused no.2 Y. N. Kashyap for renting of Property No.1361P, Sector14, Faridabad at a monthly rent of Rs.2.25 Lakhs per month. It has also come on record that there is nothing to show that financial position of M/s. R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. to pay such an amount of rent to Accused no.2 Y. N. Kashyap. Therefore, Accused no.3 Ranjan Kashyap was certainly part of a conspiracy in as much as he compelled his employee under the threat of removing him from service in case, he does not sign the so called Agreement for Assignment of Rent.
158. Second incriminating evidence against Accused no.3 Ranjan Kashyap has come in the evidence of PW6 Sh. Jaspal Singh Bishnoi, CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 136 of 140 CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375 who was a mere Clerk with M/s. R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. He has stated that by concealing true facts from him, Accused no.3 Ranjan Kashyap procured his signatures on guarantee deed for a loan of Rs. One Crore as well as for second loan of Rs.32 Lakhs. The same are Ex.PW6/A and Ex.PW6/N. He was kept in dark about true nature of these documents and was made to believe that he was signing account opening forms for M/s. R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. whereas, he was made a guarantor for huge loan of Rs.1.32 Crores.
159. The third incriminating evidence against Accused no.3 Ranjan Kashyap is that he misutilized a sum of Rs.1,22,60,000/ out of the sanctioned amount of Rs.1.32 Crores from the account of Accused no.2 Y. N. Kashyap. In his statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C., he has given contradictory replies. On the one hand, he has stated that he visited UCO Bank on the instructions of his father and withdrew substantial loan amount on the instructions of his father and used it as per the instructions of his father. On the other hand, he stated that he was not keeping good relations with his father and that might be a reason for the IO to implicate him falsely and arrest him.
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 137 of 140CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
160. Since, Accused no.3 Ranjan Kashyap had coerced PW3 Kishan Kumar Makhija, Accounts Clerk of M/s. R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. to sign bogus agreement for assignment of rent and since Accused no.3 Ranjan Kashyap had taken signatures of PW6 Sh. Jaspal Singh Bishnoi, Clerk in M/s. R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. as a guarantor for the two loans worth Rs.1.32 Crore by misrepresenting that he is signing account opening forms and since almost the entire loan amount was withdrawn by him would show that he has also committed criminal conspiracy for cheating the Bank. He was the Director of M/s. R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. and he knew that the title deeds of the property in question were with Andhra Bank and his father could not have deposited original thereof with UCO Bank. Being the Director of M/s R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd., he knew that neither M/s. R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. has financial capacity to pay a monthly rent of Rs.3,31,250/ nor M/s. R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. has taken on rent from Accused no.2 Y. N. Kashyap property no.1361P, Sector14, Faridabad, Haryana or property no.89, Sector24, Faridabad, Haryana. Evidence of PW9 Sh. Harmesh Kumar Gupta has CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 138 of 140 CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375 shown that Accused no.3 Ranjan Kashyap was actively involved in procuring loan from UCO Bank in the name of his father. Evidence of PW11 Sh. Ajay Kumar Sharma, Chartered Accountant has also shown that Accused no.3 Ranjan Kashyap was actively involved in procuring loan from UCO Bank in the name of his father. Therefore, Accused no.3 Ranjan Kashyap is guilty of offence under Section 120B (criminal conspiracy) readwith Section 420 (cheating), 468 (forgery) and 471 of IPC (using the fake document as original) and readwith Section 13 (2) and 13(1) (d) of P. C. Act, 1988 (criminal misconduct by a public servant).
161. Resultantly, the final judgment of the court is:
(i) Accused no.1 R. K. Joshi is guilty of having committed the offences punishable under Section 120B readwith Section 420/468/471 IPC and readwith Section 13(2) and Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act. Accused no.1 R. K. Joshi is also guilty of having committed offences punishable under Section 13(2) readwith Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act;
(ii) Accused no.2 Y. N. Kashyap died during the pendency of
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 139 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375
this case. Proceedings qua him have abated. Therefore, no order is passed w.r.t. Accused no.2 Y. N. Kashyap;
(iii) Accused no.3 Ranjan Kashyap is held guilty of having committed the offence punishable under Section 120B readwith Section 420/468/471 IPC and readwith Section 13(2) and Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act.
162. Let a copy of this judgment be given free of cost to both the convicts.
163. List for arguments on order on sentence on 22.12.2017.
Announced in the open court (ARUN BHARDWAJ)
on 20.12.2017 Special Judge (PC Act): CBI05
PHC, New Delhi.
CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 140 of 140
CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375