Cbi vs . 1. N. Rajaram (A1), on 28 May, 2013

[Cites 49, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Cbi vs . 1. N. Rajaram (A1), on 28 May, 2013

1
CBI case . No.13/11

IN THE COURT OF SH. N. K. KAUSHIK
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT), CBI
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI

CBI case no. 13/11
FIR No. : RC SI 8/2003/E 0005/CBI/EOUIV/New Delhi

In the matter of :

CBI versus. 1. N. Rajaram (A1),
Manager, Canara Bank,
Mayapuri Branch, New Delhi.

R/o B70, Ashoka Enclave,
Rohtak Road, Near Peera Garhi,
New Delhi87.

2. Ashok Kumar Singhal (A2),
PartnerKanika Chemicals India,
Swastik Tower, Moti Nagar,
New Delhi.

S/o Late Omprakash Singhal,
R/o C2, Rose Apartments,
Sector14, Rohini,
Delhi.

3. Neeraj Kumar (A3),
PartnerKanika Chemicals India,
Swastik Tower, Moti Nagar,
New Delhi.

S/o Sh. Harbans Lal,
R/o T246/2, Railway Colony,
Sakur Basti, Rani Bagh,
New Delhi34.

4. Deepak Kumar(since deceased) (A4),
S/o Leeladhar,
R/o Flat no. A3, Plot no. A54,
Delux Apartments, Shalimar Garden,

CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 1 of 185 pages
2
CBI case . No.13/11

ExtensionII, Sahibabad (UP).

5. Raj Kumari (A5),
W/o Late Suresh Bardayal,
R/o 7/541, Jwala Nagar,
Shahdara, Delhi32.

6. Hukum Chand Garg (A6),
S/o Sh Ram Bhagat,
R/o H32/33, Sector3,
Rohini, Delhi85.

7. Ram Das Gupta (A7),
Director Shri Ram Polychem Ltd.,
S/o Jay Gopal Gupta,
R/o 5/3 B, Jaidev Park,
Punjabi Bagh, Delhi26.

8. Manish Gupta (A8),
Director Shri Ram Polychem Pvt. Ltd.,
S/o Ram Narayan Gupta,
R/o 5/3 B Jaidev Park,
Punjabi Bagh, Delhi26.
............ Convicts

Date of Institution : 09.12.2004
Date on which Judgment Pronounced : 18.05.2013
Date on which Order on Sentence announced : 28.05.2013

O R D E R O N S E N T E N C E

1. By this order, I shall dispose off the contentions raised on

the point of sentence.

CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 2 of 185 pages
3
CBI case . No.13/11

2. In the present case, all the convicts, namely, N. Rajaram

(A1), Ashok Kumar Singhal (A2), Neeraj Kumar (A3),

Raj Kumari (A5), Hukum Chand Garg (A6), Ram Das

Gupta (A7), and Manish Gupta (A8), have been

convicted for the offence punishable under section 120B

read with sections 419, 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC read with

section 13 (1) (d) & 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988. Convict, N. Rajaram (A1), has been convicted,

in addition, for the offences punishable under sections 420

& 471 IPC and under section 13(i) (d) read with section 13

(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Convicts,

namely, Ashok Kumar Singhal (A2) and Neeraj Kumar

(A3) have been convicted, in addition, for the offences

punishable under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.

Convict, Raj Kumari (A5), has been convicted, in

addition, for the offences punishable under sections 419,

420, 468 & 471 IPC. Convict, namely, H. C. Garg (A6), has

been convicted, in addition, for the offences punishable

under sections 420 & 471 IPC. Convicts, namely, Ram

Das Gupta (A7) and Manish Gupta (A8), have been

convicted, in addition, for the offences punishable under

sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC.

CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 3 of 185 pages
4
CBI case . No.13/11

3. It has been strongly contended on behalf of the State by

the Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI that this is a corruption case, in

which, the convicts have been convicted of white collar

crime. That they operated as an organised racket and have

caused illegal huge pecuniary loss to the Canara Bank,

Maya Puri Branch, a Govt. of India Undertaking. That

they have cheated the said bank and caused wrongful loss,

in or around the year 2001, to the tune of Rs. 36.36 lakhs

after loan of Rs.50 lakhs (Rs.25 lakhs + Rs.25 lakhs) was

fraudulently got sanctioned to the convicts (A2) and (A3).

They have, therefore, caused wrongful loss of public

money, of the said amount. It has further been stated that

the amount, to the extent to which the Government has

been cheated, was not a small amount as the banking

fraud in question pertains to the year 2001, when it was a

sizable and fat amount. The loss might have swelled up

and overgrown to more than Rs. One Crore, by now.

4. The State has further contended that the maximum

prescribed substantive punishment with heavy fine be

handed over to the convicts, so that enough and clear

message goes to one and all and especially to the potential

offenders, who are in the waiting to commit such like

CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 4 of 185 pages
5
CBI case . No.13/11

banking fraud so that the punishment act as a deterrence

and the intent of the legislature is fulfilled. It has also been

urged that suitable compensation be awarded to the

complainant/victim (which is the public in this case).

5. Convict, N. Rajaram (A1), has prayed that a lenient view

be taken as against him. That he is aged about 63 years.

That he is blind of one eye and is suffering from blurred

vision in another eye. That he cannot see beyond 2 or 3

meters. That he has an old and ailing mother of 87 years of

age, who is also heart patient. That he is the only male

member in the family to support his family. That he,

himself, has also been afflicted with various health

problems. That he has faced long trial. That he is not a

previous convict.

6. Convict, Ashok Kumar Singhal (A2) has submitted that

he is aged about 63 years. That he has old and ailing

mother of 85 years. That he has one unmarried daughter,

aged about 25 years. That he is the only male member in

the family to support his family. That he, himself, had also

been afflicted with brain disease mainly,

CVA/HTN/Seizure Disorder/DM(Diet Control)/Left

CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 5 of 185 pages
6
CBI case . No.13/11

Catarjet Surgery. That he even remained admitted in

Prashant Hospital, Prashant Vihar, for three days. That he

has already spent four and half months in the judicial

custody after being initially arrested, in this case. That he

has faced long trial. That he is not a previous convict. He

has prayed that a lenient view may be taken.

7. Convict, Neeraj Kumar (A3) has also prayed for a

lenient view. He has submitted that that he has two

children i.e. one daughter and son, who are aged about six

and half years and ten years, respectively, and who are

studying in 2nd & 5th classes. That he is the sole bread

earning member of the family. That he has already spent

74 days in the judicial custody w.e.f 4th December, 2003 to

6th February, 2004. That he has faced long trial.

8. On behalf of convict, Raj Kumari (A5), it has been

prayed that a lenient view be taken. That she is an old

lady, aged about 80 years, who is suffering from various

ailments and is totally bed ridden.

9. Convict Hukum Chand Garg (A6), has also prayed for a

lenient view. That he is aged about 65 years and is a

CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 6 of 185 pages
7
CBI case . No.13/11

practicing lawyer since 1975. That he is a responsible

member of Bar. That he has two children, aged about 26

years & 32 years and two grand sons, aged about 10

months and 5 years. He has also suffered heart attack and

is on regular medication since 2005. That no wrongful

gain has been made by him and that he is not a previous

convict.

10. Accused Ram Das Gupta (A7) too prayed for a lenient

view. It has been submitted on his behalf that he is the

sole earning member of the family. That he has daughter,

who has to appear in Company Secretary Exams in

Shimla, which are scheduled for 7th June, 2013 and there is

no other person in the family to accompany her. That he

is suffering from chronic disease. That he has not been

previously convicted in any other case.

11. Convict Manish Gupta (A8) has also prayed for a lenient

view. He has submitted that he has not been previously

convicted in any other case.

12. The above said convicts have, thus, prayed for taking a

lenient view.

CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 7 of 185 pages
8
CBI case . No.13/11

13. The contentions, raised by the the convicts, have met stiff

and very strong opposition on behalf of the State. It has

been urged that convict, N. Rajaram, the then public

servant, has been convicted, as he had illegally and

dishonestly processed, recommended and got sanctioned

loans/Cash Credit Limits on the basis of false, forged and

fraudulent documents in the year 2001, when it was quite

a big sum. It has, further, been stated on behalf of the

State that being a public servant at the relevant time,

convict N. Rajaram acted corruptly with full vigour, in

processing and recommending for sanction of loan and,

then in the quick withdrawal of the loan money for being

eaten up by the other convicts. It has, therefore, been

urged that this convict has played vital and key role in

cheating and defrauding the bank while using forged and

fabricated documents and deserves exemplary

punishment.

14. Regarding the convicts, Ashok Kumar Singhal (A2) and

Neeraj Kumar (A3), it is stated that they were the main

misuser of the fraudulently obtained loan amount and

were the key perpetrators of the offences committed in

CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 8 of 185 pages
9
CBI case . No.13/11

this case. That they pocketed the loan money, to which,

they were not legally entitled to. They successfully

cheated the public sector bank i.e. Canara Bank, Maya Puri

Branch, N. Delhi, alongwith other convicts while forging

various documents and using those documents and

offering impersonated guarantor with fake title deed. That

they are not entitled to any mercy or compassion.

15. Regarding the convicts, Raj Kumari (A5) it is stated that

she impersonated herself as Swarn Lata and gave false

address. She forged the signature of Swarn Lata and

submitted/used the forged documents in the bank. She,

thus, cheated the public sector bank i.e. Canara Bank,

Maya Puri Branch, N. Delhi, alongwith other convicts. She

is also not entitled to any mercy or compassion.

16. Similarly, it is stated that convict Hukum Chand Garg was

involved with full amplitude in the conspiracy and that in

pursuance to the systematic and wellplanned conspiracy

with other co convicts, he fabricated false report and

acted in connivance with other convicts in this case to

cheat the bank while using forged and fabricated title deed

and house tax receipt, etc.

CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 9 of 185 pages
10
CBI case . No.13/11

17. Regarding the convicts, Ram Das Gupta (A7) and Manish

Gupta (A8) it is stated that they were the Directors of M/s

Shree Ram Polychem P Ltd. and got issued fraudulently

two Letters of Credits of Rs.11,04,000 and Rs.8,14,000/ on

the basis of false, forged and fabricated bills without

supplying any goods and siphoned off the money. Thus,

both of them cheated Canara Bank to the tune of Rs.

19,18,000/, along with convict Ashok Kumar Singhal and

Neeraj Kumar in pursuance to well crafted criminal

conspiracy.

18. It is further urged on behalf of the State that the pleas

taken by the convicts are routine and stock pleas and in

any event, in a case under the Prevention of Corruption

Act, these pleas taken are not considered as mitigating

circumstances. It has, therefore, been prayed that

exemplary severe punishment be awarded to all the

convicts herein.

19. On behalf of the CBI, following case law have been cited:
(i) State of Punjab Vs. Rakesh Kumar, AIR 2009 Supreme
Court 391,
(ii) Bikram Dorjee Vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 2009

CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 10 of 185 pages
11
CBI case . No.13/11

Supreme Court 2539
(iii) Ankush Maruti Shinde Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR
2009 Supreme Court 2609
(iv) Ammavasai Vs. Inspector of Police, Valliyanur, AIR
2000 SC 3644
(v) State of A. P. Vs. S. R. Rangadamappa, AIR 1982 SC
1492
(vi) State V A Parthiban, AIR 2007 Supreme Court 51,
(vii) State V Ratan Lal Arora, AIR 2004 Supreme Court 2364
&
(viii) Ram Narain Poply Vs. CBI, AIR 2003 Supreme Court
2748
(ix) State of J & K Vs. Vinay Nanda, AIR 2001 SC 611.
(x) State of Punjab vs. Rakesh Kumar, AIR 2009 SC 391.
(xi) Shiv Raj Singh vs. Delhi Administration, AIR 1968 SC
1419.

20. On behalf of the convicts, no case law has been cited.

21. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case law, reported as Dr.

Subramanyam Swami Vs. Dr. Manmohan Singh, 2012,

AIR(SC) page 1185, has observed that :

"The magnitude of corruption in our public life is
incompatible with the concept of socialistic
secular democratic public. The duty of the Court
is that any anti corruption law has to be

CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 11 of 185 pages
12
CBI case . No.13/11

interpreted and worked out in such a fashion as
to strengthen to fight against corruption."

22. It has further been observed in the aforesaid case that "In

a situation where two constructions are eminently

reasonable, the Court has to accept the one that seeks to

eradicate corruption to the one which seeks to perpetuate

it."

23. It has been held in case reported as Narendra Champak

Lal Trivedi Vs. State of Gujrat, 2012 (7) SCC page 80 that:

"Corruption at any level does not deserve either

sympathy or leniency."

24. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan

Vs. Vinod Kumar, decided on, 18th May, 2012 (Criminal

Appeal No. 1887) reiterated the law laid down in State of

J&K Vs. Vinay Nanda, AIR 2001 SC P 611, and observed

that superannuation of the convict and the pendency of

criminal trial for over a period of time cannot be treated a

special reason to reduce the sentence.

25. It was observed by the Hon'ble High Court in the cases

reported as Jai Bhagwan Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2008

CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 12 of 185 pages
13
CBI case . No.13/11

150 DLT 46 (Delhi) and Ravinder Kumar Arora Vs. CBI

Manu/DE/8816/2007 (Delhi) , that :

"It is a normal thing that 'trial' of the
person is considered a period of 'agony'
undergone by him. But we tend to forget
the agony of the society and the
complainant who dared lodge the
complaint. The entire purpose of the
legislature of sentencing the offenders
stands defeated and that is the one reason
that wages of corruption are considered
more attractive in this country. The
person caught is not always a firsttimer
corrupt. He may have been indulging
into corrupt activities / practices for a
long number of years. It is to his
advantage that the trial is prolonged. He
spends a fraction of amount, earned by
corrupt practices on litigation and
professionals to see that ultimately he
makes Criminal Justice System a
laughing stock. In this process, the entire
legislative purpose of punishing a corrupt
stands defeated.

26. It was further observed by the Hon'ble Court in the

aforesaid case that :

"Accused facing trial since long; amount
allegedly misappropriated already been

CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 13 of 185 pages
14
CBI case . No.13/11

deposited; undergone departmental
punishment; only bread earner in family;
wife and three children's dependence on
him are the circumstance which do not
constitute 'special reasons'."

27. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

reported as State of M. P. Vs. Shambhu Dayal Nagar,

(2006) 8 SCC P 693, that :

"Corruption by public servant has become
gigantic problem. It has spread
everywhere. No facet of public activity has
been left unaffected by the stink of
corruption. Large scale corruption
retards the nation building activities and
everyone has to suffer on that count."

28. In the same appeal quoting 'M B Joshi Vs. State of

Maharashtra, AIR 2001 SC 147' the Hon'ble Apex Court

observed that:

"It is the defect of the system that longevity
of the cases tried under the Prevention of
Corruption Act is too lengthy. If that is
regarded as sufficient for reducing the
sentence mandated by the Parliament
legislative exercise would stand defeated."

29. It was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 14 of 185 pages
15
CBI case . No.13/11

reported as State of J & K Vs. Vinay Nanda, AIR 2001 SC P

611, that :

"Corruption at any level, by any person,
of any magnitude, is condemnable, which
cannot be ignored by the Judicial Courts,
when proved. No leniency is required to
be shown in proved cases under the
Prevention of Corruption Act which itself
treats the offences under it of a special
nature to be treated differently than the
general penal offences. The convicts of
the offences under the Act are to be dealt
with heavy hand and deterrent rod. No
populous or sympathetic approach is
needed in such cases."

30. It was observed by the Hon'ble High Court in the case

reported as AIR 1961, Mysore P 49, that:

"Infliction of a lenient sentence will defeat the

purpose of the P. C. Act."

31. It was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case

reported as State of T. N Vs. Kaliaperumal, (2005) 12 SCC

473 and State Vs. Ratan Lal Arora, (2004) 4 SCC 590 that

"Section 18 of the Probation of Offenders Act
specifically bars the offence under PC Act from

CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 15 of 185 pages
16
CBI case . No.13/11

the purview of the Act."

32. The convicts, therefore, cannot be enlarged on probation

in this case relating to serious offences.

33. It was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

reported as State of M. P. Vs. Ram Singh, AIR 2000 SC

870, that:

"Corruption in a civilised society is a disease like

cancer, which if not detected in time is sure to

maliganise the polity of the country leading to

disastrous consequences. It is termed as plague

which is not only contagious but if not

controlled spreads like a fire in a jungle. Its virus

is compared with HIV leading to AIDS being

incurable. The sociopolitical system exposed to

such a dreaded communicable disease is likely

to crumble under its own weight. Corruption is

opposed to democracy and social order, being

not only anti people, but aimed and targeted

against them. It affects the economy and destroys

the cultural heritage."

34. Further, it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 16 of 185 pages
17
CBI case . No.13/11

the case law reported as Ankush Maruti Shinde Vs State of

Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2609 that:

" The social impact of the crime e.g. where it

relates to offences against women, decoity,

kidnapping, misappropriation of public money,

treason and other offences involving moral

turpitude or moral delinquency which have great

impact on social order, and public interest

cannot be lost sight of and per se require

exemplary treatment. Undue sympathy to

impose inadequate sentence would do more

harm to the justice system to undermine the

public confidence in the efficacy of law and

society could not long endure under such serious

threats."

35. In the case of Siddarama and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka,

2006 IV AD (Cri.) (SC) 78, it was held that:

"undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence

would do more harm to the justice system to

undermine the public confidence in the efficacy

of law and society can no longer endure under

such serious threats. It is, therefore, the duty of

CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 17 of 185 pages
18
CBI case . No.13/11

every court to award proper sentence having

regard to the nature of the offence and the

manner in which it was executed or committed

etc."

36. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported

as Mohd. A Hussain Vs. Asstt. Collector, Custom

(Prevention) Ahmedabad, AIR 1998 SC 2143, that :

"If a given transaction constitutes two offences

under two enactments generally, it is wrong to

have consecutive sentences. But this rule has no

application if the transaction relating to

offences is not the same or the facts constituting

the two offences are quite different. Sentencing

judge should try to ensure that the totality of the

sentences is correct in the light of all the

circumstances of the case."

"In arriving at an appropriate sentence, the

court must consider, and some times reject,

many factors. The court must 'recognise, learn

to control and exclude' many diverse data. It is

a balancing act and tortuous process to ensure

reasoned sentence."

CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 18 of 185 pages
19
CBI case . No.13/11

37. It was further held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

reported as A. B. Bhaskara Rao vs. Inspector of Police,

CBI, Vishakapatnam, 2011(4) RCR (Criminal) 290 (SC)

that :

"in the case of corruption by public servant, long

delay in disposal, quantum of amount of bribe

and that the delinquent lost his job due to

conviction etc., are not to be taken as mitigating

circumstances for reduction of the sentence".

38. It was further held in the case law reported as Kishan

Dayal vs. State, 1958 Raj LW 596 that:

" A corrupt official is a menace to the society and

far from helping in the proper functioning of the

Government and implementing of the laws,

brings the Government and the society at large

into disrepute. It is through the agency of the

public servants that the policy of the Legislature

as well as of the Government is implemented. It

is through the public servants that crimes are

detected and offenders are brought to book. It is

through strictly honest and incorruptible public

CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 19 of 185 pages
20
CBI case . No.13/11

servants that the welfare of the society can be

ensured. If such public servants are open to

corruption and coerce the public into paying

them illegal gratification, the whole structure of

the society would be upset and the policy of the

Government and of the Legislature, howsoever,

beneficial it may be, would gravely suffer. A

public servant, therefore, once he is found to be

guilty of accepting or obtaining illegal

gratification, deserves no soft corner or

indulgence from the Courts of Law."

39. It was held in the case reported as Madhukar Bhaskarrao

Joshi vs. State of Maharashtra, 2001 Cr. LJ 175(SC): that:

"When corruption was sought to be eliminated

from the polity all possible stringent measures

are to be adopted within the bounds of law. One

such measure is to provide condign punishment.

Parliament measured the parameters for such

condign punishment and in that process wanted

to fix a minimum sentence of imprisonment for

giving deterrent impact on other public servants

who are prone to corrupt deals. That was

CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 20 of 185 pages
21
CBI case . No.13/11

precisely the reason why the sentence was fixed

as seven years and directed that even if the said

period of imprisonment need not be given, the

sentence shall not be less than the imprisonment

for one year. Such a legislative insistence is

reflection of Parliament's resolve to meet

corruption cases with very strong hand to give

signals of deterrence as the most pivotal feature

of sentencing of corrupt public servants. All

public servants have to face very serious

consequences. If on the other hand any public

servant is given the impression that if he

succeeds in protracting the proceedings that

would help him to have the advantage of getting

a very light sentence even if the case ends in

conviction, its fallout would afford incentive to

public servants who were susceptible to

corruption to indulge in such nefarious practices

with immunity. Increasing the fine after

reducing the imprisonment to a nominal period

can also defeat the purpose as the corrupt public

servants could easily raise the fine amount

through the same means."

CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 21 of 185 pages
22
CBI case . No.13/11

40. I have thoroughly and carefully considered the

contentions raised. I have also examined the asserted

mitigating and aggravating circumstances, pointed out by

the parties. I am of the considered opinion that

considering all the aspects of the matter, the following

sentence shall be appropriate and shall meet the ends of

justice :

(i) All the convicts herein are awarded sentence of two

years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5000/

(Rupees Five Thousands), in default, fifteen days simple

imprisonment, each, for the offence punishable under

section 120B IPC read with sections 419, 420, 467, 468 &

471 IPC read with section 13 (1) (d) & 13(2) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(ii) Convicts, namely, Ashok Kumar Singhal (A2) and

Neeraj Kumar (A3), who fraudulently cheated the Canara

Bank, Mayapuri Branch, New Delhi to the tune of Rs.36.36

Lakhs about 1012 years back, are sentenced to four years

rigorous imprisonment besides a fine of Rs.15,00,000/

(Rupees Fifteen Lakhs), each, in default, one year simple

imprisonment for the offence punishable under section

CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 22 of 185 pages
23
CBI case . No.13/11

420 IPC. For the offence punishable under section 467

IPC, the convicts shall suffer sentence of rigorous

imprisonment for three years, each, and a fine of Rs.

10,000/(Rupees Ten Thousands), in default, one month

simple imprisonment, each. For the offence punishable

under section 468 and 471 IPC, the convicts shall suffer

sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years, each,

and a fine of Rs.10,000/(Rupees Ten Thousands), in

default, one month simple imprisonment. From out of

the above said fine, if realized, Rs.30 lakhs be paid as

compensation to the bank to recoup, at least partially, the

loss of public money.

(iii) Convict, Raj Kumari (A5), for the offence

punishable under section 419 IPC, shall suffer sentence of

rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.

10,000/(Rupees Ten Thousand), in default, one month

simple imprisonment. She is sentenced to three years

rigorous imprisonment besides a fine of Rs. 10,000/

(Rupees Ten Thousands), in default, one month simple

imprisonment for the offence punishable under section

420 IPC. For the offence punishable under section 468

IPC, the convict shall suffer sentence of rigorous

CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 23 of 185 pages
24
CBI case . No.13/11

imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.10,000/

(Rupees Ten Thousands), in default, one month simple

imprisonment. For the offence punishable under

section 471 IPC, this convict shall suffer sentence of

rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.

5,000/(Rupees Five Thousands), in default, fifteen days

simple imprisonment.

(iv) Convict, H. C. Garg (A6), for the offence punishable

under section 420 IPC, shall suffer sentence of rigorous

imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.10,000/, in

default, one month simple imprisonment. For the

offence punishable under section 471 IPC, the convict

shall suffer sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three

years and a fine of Rs.5,000/(Rupees Five Thousands), in

default, fifteen days simple imprisonment.

(v) Convicts, Ram Das Gupta (A7) and Manish Gupta

(A8), who cheated the bank in question and siphoned off

the money to the tune of Rs.19,18,000/(out of which some

money was repaid) in the year 200102, for the offence

punishable under section 420 IPC, shall suffer sentence of

rigorous imprisonment for four years, each, and a fine of

CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 24 of 185 pages
25
CBI case . No.13/11

Rs.6,00,000/(Rupees Six Lakhs), each, in default, one

year simple imprisonment. For the offence punishable

under section 468 IPC, the convicts shall suffer sentence

of rigorous imprisonment for three years, each, and a

fine of Rs.10,000/(Rupees Ten Thousands), each, in

default, one month simple imprisonment. For the

offence punishable under section 471 IPC, the convicts

shall suffer sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three

years and a fine of Rs.10,000/(Rupees Ten Thousands), in

default, one month simple imprisonment. From out of

the above said fine imposed, if realized, Rs. Ten Lakhs be

paid as compensation to the complainant bank.

(vi) Convict, N. Rajaram (A1), is hereby awarded a

sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine

of Rs.25,000/, in default, two months simple

imprisonment, for the offence punishable under section

13 (i) (d) read with section 13 (2) of the the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988. For the offence punishable under

section 420 IPC, the convict shall suffer sentence of

rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.

10,000/, in default, one month simple imprisonment.

For the offence punishable under section 471 IPC, the

CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 25 of 185 pages
26
CBI case . No.13/11

convict shall suffer sentence of rigorous imprisonment

for three years and a fine of Rs.10,000/(Rupees Ten

Thousands), in default, one month simple imprisonment.

41. All the aforesaid sentences shall run concurrently.

42. Benefit of section 428 Cr.P.C. is extended to the convicts.

43. A copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given to

all the convicts, free of cost, forthwith.

44. File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in the open court ( N. K. Kaushik )
on 28th May, 2013 Special Judge (PC Act) CBI
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.

CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 26 of 185 pages
27
CBI case . No.13/11

IN THE COURT OF SH. N. K. KAUSHIK
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT), CBI,
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI

CBI Case No. 13/11
Date of Institution: 09.12.2004
Date on which Judgment Pronounced: 18.05.2013
Decision: Conviction

CBI case no. 13/11
FIR no. RC SI 8/2003/E 0005/CBI/EOUIV/New Delhi

In the matter of:

CBI versus. 1. N. Rajaram (A1),
Manager, Canara Bank,
Mayapuri Branch, New Delhi.

R/o B70, Ashoka Enclave,
Rohtak Road, Near Peera Garhi,
New Delhi87.

2. Ashok Kumar Singhal (A2),
PartnerKanika Chemicals India,
Swastik Tower, Moti Nagar,
New Delhi.

S/o Late Omprakash Singhal,
R/o C2, Rose Apartments,
Sector14, Rohini,
Delhi.

3. Neeraj Kumar (A3),
PartnerKanika Chemicals India,
Swastik Tower, Moti Nagar,
New Delhi.

S/o Sh. Harbans Lal,
R/o T246/2, Railway Colony,
Sakur Basti, Rani Bagh,
New Delhi34.

CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 27 of 185 pages
28
CBI case . No.13/11

4. Deepak Kumar(since deceased) (A4),
S/o Leeladhar,
R/o Flat no. A3, Plot no. A54,
Delux Apartments, Shalimar Garden,
ExtensionII, Sahibabad (UP).

5. Raj Kumari (A5),
W/o Late Suresh Bardayal,
R/o 7/541, Jwala Nagar,
Shahdara, Delhi32.

6. Hukum Chand Garg (A6),
S/o Sh Ram Bhagat,
R/o H32/33, Sector3,
Rohini, Delhi85.

7. Ram Das Gupta (A7),
Director Shri Ram Polychem Ltd.,
S/o Jay Gopal Gupta,
R/o 5/3 B, Jaidev Park,
Punjabi Bagh, Delhi26.

8. Manish Gupta (A8),
Director Shri Ram Polychem Pvt. Ltd.,
S/o Ram Narayan Gupta,
R/o 5/3 B Jaidev Park,
Punjabi Bagh, Delhi26.

.............Accused persons

JUDGMENT

1. This is a corruption case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which was registered by the CBI, as against the accused persons and is relating to the banking fraud, which was, allegedly, committed by the accused persons, in pursuance to a well knit criminal conspiracy.

CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 28 of 185 pages 29 CBI case . No.13/11

2. The case set up by the prosecution, in brief, is that accused N. Rajaram, the then Manager, Canara Bank, Mayapuri Branch, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as accused 'A1') along with co accused persons namely, Ashok Kumar Singhal (hereinafter referred to as accused 'A2') and Neeraj Kumar (hereinafter referred to as accused 'A3'), both partners of a partnership firm M/s Kanika Chemicals India, entered into a criminal conspiracy to defraud the Canara Bank with accused Deepak Kumar(since deceased and hereinafter referred to as accused 'A4'), Raj Kumari (hereinafter referred to as accused 'A5') and Hukum Chand Garg(hereinafter referred to as accused 'A6') and in pursuance thereto, they had succeeded in dishonestly cheating the bank to the tune of Rs.36.36 Lakhs after presenting false, forged and fabricated documents, including forged Perpetual lease deed, executed in favour of one Swarn Lata.

3. It is further alleged that M/s Kanika Chemicals India, a partnership firm through its partner in pursuance to the Criminal conspiracy had dishonestly approached Canara Bank, Mayapuri Branch, New Delhi, for credit facilities, in CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 29 of 185 pages 30 CBI case . No.13/11 the year 2001 and was dishonestly sanctioned cash credit limits and ILC Limit (DA) of Rs.25 Lakh each, during the month of December, 2001.

4. It is further alleged that the aforesaid limits were sanctioned on 13.12.01 against hypothecation of stocks as primary security and collateral security of EMT of property (Land & Building) no. 184, Saini Enclave, Vikas Marg, New Delhi, in the name of Swarn Lata and against negative lien on plot, situated at Village Shamsher, Jalalabad, Ghaziabad, in the name of accused persons namely, Ashok Kumar Singhal and Ram Das Gupta. That the said proposal was dishonestly processed, recommended and was fraudulently dealt by accused (A1) N. Rajaram, the then Manager of the Canara Bank, Mayapuri Branch, New Delhi, in pursuance to the said criminal conspiracy and accordingly, the loan was sanctioned to the firm of accused (A2) & (A3) on 13.12.2001.

5. It is further alleged that at the time of making request, there was no account of M/s Kanika Chemicals India with the bank and it was opened only on 06.11.01 with the introduction of one Mr. Sunil Gupta, proprietor of M/s CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 30 of 185 pages 31 CBI case . No.13/11 Steel Sales Syndicate.

6. That the loan account became irregular after some time and during one of the godown inspections, conducted by the branch, it was found that the stocks hypothecated to the bank had been disposed off dishonestly by accused(A2) & (A3), without knowledge of the bank. That thereafter, securities of EMT properties were verified and enquiries were made from DDA, regarding genuineness of the title deeds, submitted to the bank for creating EMT of landed property. The DDA disclosed that the said property was converted into free hold way back in 1995 and its owner was reflected as one Mr. Amit Modi and not Swarn Lata.

7. It was also revealed that the said property was already mortgaged to Punjab & Sind Bank and to the HSIDC before being tendered to the Canara Bank.

8. It is further alleged that accused Ashok Kumar Singhal (A2) and Neeraj Kumar (A3), partners of M/s Kanika Chemicals had availed loan, by submitting fake OPLs, fake statements of Bharat Overseas Bank, Vaishali, Sahibabad CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 31 of 185 pages 32 CBI case . No.13/11 Branch and also bogus financial statements and that they also arranged property as security on the basis of fake title deeds and, therefore, defrauded the bank.

9. It is further alleged that accused Raj Kumari impersonated herself as Swarn Lata and had signed EMT papers forging the signatures of Swarn Lata, at Mayapuri Branch and hence, defrauded the bank, by depositing the fake title deeds of the immovable property, which did not belong to her and that she gave her false address. That on enquriy, it was found that at the given address i.e. A54, Shalimar Garden, Sahibabad, the said Mrs. Swarn Lata did not stay.

10. It is further alleged that the property at 184, Saini Enclave, Vikas Marg, New Delhi was long back transferred in the name of Mr. Amit Modi, vide conveyance deed, dated 22.11.95. That the perpetual sublease deed was different from the certified copy, which fact had been dishonestly withheld and the facts were twisted in pursuance to the said criminal conspiracy in favour of Swarn Lata who was impersonated by accused Raj Kumari (A5) by the bank panel advocate, accused Hukum Chand Garg (A6) in his CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 32 of 185 pages 33 CBI case . No.13/11 bogus 'Legal Search Report', using forged and fabricated original title deed and house tax receipt.

11. It is further alleged that the said property was inspected by Sh. M.R. Bhatt, the then Chief Manager along with accused N. Rajaram (A1), the then Manager with malafide intention and a report regarding the same was prepared on 28.10.01(even prior to the date of application, dated 02.11.2001 vide which accused persons (A2) & (A3) introduced themselves to the bank for the first time), vide which physical possession of the same with the mortgagor was falsely and dishonestly confirmed.

12. That accused N. Rajaram (A1) had facilitated the grant of cash credit facilities, amounting to Rs.36.36 Lakhs, on the basis of forged securities, wherein accused Raj Kumari (A5) had impersonated herself as Swarn Lata and the forged and fake property documents of property no. 184, Saini Enclave, Vikas Marg, New Delhi, were deposited, which had been forged by accused Deepak Kumar (A4). That the false and motivated legal search report had been submitted by accused Hukum Chand Garg, Advocate (A6), who was on the panel of the said bank wherein he CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 33 of 185 pages 34 CBI case . No.13/11 had reported that this property was in the name of Swarn Lata (whereas actually it was owned by one Amit Modi). He also confirmed, dishonestly, the physical possession of Swarn Lata on the basis of fake house tax receipt and original perpetual lease deed (which documents were not even available with the bank when he submitted his report) besides falsely asserting that the property was got mutated in favour of Swarn Lata without any basis.

13. It is further alleged that accused Ashok Kumar Singhal (A2) and Neeraj Kumar (A3) had fraudulently, in pursuance to the alleged criminal conspiracy, applied for two letters of credit, amounting to Rs.11,04,000/ and Rs. 8,14,000/, respectively, in the name of M/s Shree Ram Polychem Pvt. Ltd of which accused Ram Das Gupta (A7) and Manish Gupta (A8) were the directors, who had issued false and fabricated bills for the said amounts, without supplying any material to M/s Kanika Chemicals India and they, thus, fraudulently received payments from the Canara Bank through their accounts. That a wrongful loss was, thus, caused to the bank to the tune of Rs.36.36 Lakhs and a corresponding wrongful gain to the said accused persons.

CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 34 of 185 pages 35 CBI case . No.13/11

14. The case of the prosecution, thus, is that accused N. Rajaram (A1), during the year 2001, at New Delhi, being a public servant, employed as Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Mayapuri Branch, New Delhi by corrupt or illegal means or otherwise by abusing his position as such public servant dealt, processed and got sanctioned OCC and ILC facilities and got released the money of loan to the tune of Rs.36.36 Lakhs in favour of M/s Kanika Chemicals India, Swastik Tower, Moti Nagar, New Delhi on the basis of false/forged documents, from Canara Bank, Mayapuri Branch. He, thus, is alleged to have committed an offence, punishable under section 13(i) (d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

15. Further accused Raj Kumari (A5), during the aforesaid period and place, cheated Canara Bank, Mayapuri Branch, New Delhi by impersonating herself as Swarn Lata and thereby fraudulently induced releasing of ILC and OCC facilities and got released the loan money to the tune of Rs. 36.36 Lacs in favour of M/s Kanika Chemicals India, Swastik Tower, Moti Nagar, New Delhi, and caused wrongful loss to Canara Bank, Mayapuri Branch and CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 35 of 185 pages 36 CBI case . No.13/11 corresponding wrongful gain to M/s Kanika Chemicals India, Swastik Tower, Moti Nagar, New Delhi. She, thus, is alleged to have committed an offence, punishable under section 419 IPC.

16. Further, during the aforesaid period and place, accused H.C. Garg, dishonestly submitted a false legal search report, which dishonestly induced the bank and thereby he caused wrongful loss to Canara Bank, Mayapuri Branch. Accused H.C. Garg, thus, is alleged to have committed an offence, punishable under section 420 IPC.

17. Further, during the aforesaid period and place, accused H.C. Garg had dishonestly and intentionally used as genuine the afore stated legal search report in respect of the property no. 184, Saini Enclave which he had known to be a forged and fabricated document. Accused H.C. Garg, thus, is alleged to have committed an offence, punishable under section 471 IPC.

18. Further, during the aforesaid period and place, accused persons namely, Ashok Kumar Singhal, Neeraj Kumar, Deepak Kumar, Raj Kumari, Ram Das Gupta and Manish CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 36 of 185 pages 37 CBI case . No.13/11 Gupta had cheated Canara Bank, Mayapuri Branch by dishonestly inducing the bank to deliver the ILC & OCC facilities to the tune of Rs.36.36 Lakhs on the basis of forged/fake documents and thereby caused a wrongful loss to the bank to the tune of Rs.36.36 Lakhs and corresponding gain to themselves. The aforesaid accused persons, thus, are alleged to have committed an offence punishable, under section 420 IPC.

19. Further, during the aforesaid period and place above named accused persons namely, Ashok Kumar Singhal, Neeraj Kumar, Deepak Kumar, Raj Kumari, Ram Das Gupta and Manish Gupta had forged the sale deed in respect of property no. 184, Saini Enclave, Vikas Marg, New Delhi and the NOC purportedly issued by DDA to obtain the ILC and OCC facilities from Canara Bank, Mayapuri Branch. The said accused persons, thus, are alleged to have committed an offence, punishable under section 467 IPC.

20. Further, during the aforesaid period and place, above named accused persons namely, Ashok Kumar Singhal, Neeraj Kumar, Deepak Kumar, Raj Kumari, Ram Das CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 37 of 185 pages 38 CBI case . No.13/11 Gupta and Manish Gupta had forged the sale deed in respect of property no. 184, Saini Enclave, Vikas Marg, New Delhi and the NOC purportedly issued by DDA intending that it shall be used for the purpose of cheating. The said accused persons, thus, are alleged to have committed an offence, punishable under section 468 IPC.

21. Further, during the aforesaid period and place, the above named accused persons namely, Ashok Kumar Singhal, Neeraj Kumar, Deepak Kumar, Raj Kumari, Ram Das Gupta and Manish Gupta, dishonestly/intentionally used as genuine the sale deed in respect of property no. 184, Saini Enclave, Vikas Marg, New Delhi and the NOC purportedly issued by DDA which they knew or had reason to believe to be forged documents. The said accused persons, thus, are also alleged to have committed offence punishable under section 471 IPC.

22. Further, during the aforesaid period and place, accused persons namely, N. Rajaram, Ashok Kumar Singhal, Neeraj Kumar, Deepak Kumar, Raj Kumari, H.C. Garg, Ram Das Gupta and Manish Gupta were parties to a criminal conspiracy the object of which was to cheat the CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 38 of 185 pages 39 CBI case . No.13/11 Canara Bank, Mayapuri Branch and in furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy accused Ashok Kumar Singhal and Neeraj Kumar, both partners in M/s Kanika Chemicals India, Swastik Tower, Moti Nagar, New Delhi, obtained OCC and ILC facility on the basis of forged/false sale deed of property no. 184, Saini Enclave, Vikas Marg, New Delhi and NOC purportedly issued by DDA in the name of Swarn Lata and accused Deepak Kumar(since deceased) prepared the fake/forged sale deed in respect of aforesaid property and accused Raj Kumari impersonated herself as Swarn Lata and signed the mortgage deed in favour of the aforesaid bank and accused Hukum Chand Garg submitted a false legal search report and accused Ramdas Gupta and Manish Gupta raised false/fabricated bills without supplying any material to M/s Kanika Chemicals India, Swastik Tower, Moti Nagar, New Delhi and received payment from the aforesaid bank and accused N. Rajaram by abusing his official position as public servant processed and recommended for sanction of OCC and ILC facilities and allowed withdrawal of the sanctioned limit without verifying the genuineness of the documents submitted by accused and thereby caused a wrongful loss to the tune of Rs.36.36 lakhs. The said accused persons, thus, are alleged CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 39 of 185 pages 40 CBI case . No.13/11 to have committed an offence, punishable under section 120B IPC read with 419/420/467/468/471 IPC and 13(i)

(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

23. Further, during the aforesaid period and place, accused persons namely, Ram Das Gupta and Manish Gupta had cheated Canara Bank, Mayapuri Branch by dishonestly inducing the bank to deliver Rs.19,18,000/ by receiving the payment against two LCs which was opened by partners of M/s Kanika Chemicals India, on the basis of false/forged invoices and bill of exchange, issued by them and thereby caused a wrongful loss to the tune of Rs. 19,18,000/ and corresponding gain to themselves. The said accused persons, thus, are alleged to have committed an offence, punishable under section 420 IPC.

24. Further, during the aforesaid period and place, above named accused persons namely, Ram Das Gupta and Manish Gupta had forged the invoices and bill of exchanges dated 22.12.01 and 12.01.02, intending that it shall be used for the purpose of cheating. The said accused persons, thus, are alleged to have committed an offence, punishable under section 468 IPC.

CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 40 of 185 pages 41 CBI case . No.13/11

25. Further, during the aforesaid period and place, above named accused persons namely, Ram Das Gupta and Manish Gupta dishonestly/intentionally used as genuine the invoices and bill of exchanges dated 22.12.01 and 12.01.02, which they knew or had reason to believe to be forged documents. The said accused persons, thus, are alleged to have committed an offence, punishable under section 471 IPC.

26. Further, during the aforesaid period and place, above named accused persons namely, Ram Das Gupta and Manish Gupta were parties to a criminal conspiracy along with other co accused persons namely, N. Rajaram, Ashok Kumar Singhal, Neeraj Kumar, Deepak Kumar, Raj Kumari and H.C. Garg, the object of which was to cheat the Canara Bank, Mayapuri Branch and in furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy co accused Ashok Kumar Singhal and Neeraj, partners in M/s Kanika Chemicals India, Swastik Tower, Moti Nagar, New Delhi, obtained OCC and ILC facilities on the basis of forged/false documents and opened two letter of credits for an amount of Rs.8,14,000/ and Rs.11,04,000/, in favour of Shree Ram CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 41 of 185 pages 42 CBI case . No.13/11 Polychem (P) Ltd. on the basis of forged/false invoices and bill of exchange issued by them and payments were made. The accused persons thereby caused a wrongful loss to the tune of Rs.19,18,000/. Accused persons namely, Ram Das Gupta and Manish Gupta, thus, are alleged to have committed an offence punishable under section 120B read with 420, 468 & 471 IPC and 13(i)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

27. Primafacie, offences under section 120B IPC read with sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and section 13(i)(d) read with section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against all the accused persons and substantive offences under section 13(i) (d) read with section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in addition, against accused N. Rajaram, under section 419 IPC against accused Raj Kumari, under sections 420 IPC and 471 IPC against accused H.C. Garg, under section 420 IPC, 467 IPC, 468 IPC and 471 IPC against accused persons namely Ashok Kumar Singhal, Neeraj Kumar, Deepak Kumar and Raj Kumari and under sections 420 IPC, 468 IPC, 471 IPC and under section 120B read with sections 420, 468 & 471 IPC and under section 13(i)(d) read with section 13(2) of CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 42 of 185 pages 43 CBI case . No.13/11 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were made out against accused Ram Das Gupta and Manish Gupta.

28. Charge, accordingly, was framed against the accused persons, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

29. During the course of the proceedings, accused Deepak Kumar (A4) died and proceedings against him abated, as per law.

30. The prosecution, in order to substantiate its claim and contentions, examined as many as 30 witnesses.

31. Thereafter, the accused persons were examined under section 313 Cr. P.C.

32. Defence has also produced two witnesses, in support of their defence.

33. The prosecution, has contended that the case of the prosecution has been squarely proved, in view of the large number of proved documents, circumstances and other CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 43 of 185 pages 44 CBI case . No.13/11 material that has appeared on record. That the prosecution witnesses have supported and proved the prosecution version beyond any pale of doubt.

34. On behalf of the defence, on the other hand, it has been stated that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

35. On behalf of the defence, some written arguments have also been filed, which have been placed on the record. The Ld. Prosecutor for CBI, however, did not file written submissions. He only submitted oral arguments.

36. On behalf of the State, following case law has been cited: i. Kalicharan Mahapatra Vs. State of Orissa, 1998 SC 2595 ii. Jaswant Kawathekar Vs. Economic Offences Wing 1995 (3) Crimes 227 MP iii. B.S. Goraya Vs. UT of Chandigarh, AIR 2007 SC 3039 iv. Habibulla Khan Vs. State of Orissa AIR 1995 SC 1124 v. Veera Swami Vs. Union of India 1991 3 SCC 655 vi. Ronald Wood Mathams Vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1954 SC 455, vii.Harihar Prasad Vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1972 SC viii. Subair vs. State of Kerala, (2009) 6 SCC 587 ix. C.K. Damodaran Nair vs. Government of India, (1997) 9 SCC 477 x. R. Venkata Krishnan Vs. Central Bureau of CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 44 of 185 pages 45 CBI case . No.13/11 Investigation, AIR 2010 SC 1812 xi. M. Narayanan Nambiar Vs. State of Kerala, 1963 AIR 1116.

37. The defence, on the other hand, has cited case law reported as:

i. M. Narayanan Nambiar Vs. State of Kerala, AIR 1963 SC 1116.

ii. Major S. K. Kale Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1977 SC 822.

iii. S. P. Bhatnagar Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 SC 826.

iv. Union of India and another Vs. Major J.S. Khanna 1972 (3) SCC 873 v. Abdullah Mohammed Pagarkar V. State, AIR 1980 SC 499 vi. Mehar Singh Vs. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1984 SC 1883 vii.Anand Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1992 Supreme Court 1939 viii.Vijayan @ Rajan V State of Kerala, AIR 1999 Supreme Court 1086 ix. Mubarak Ahmed Vs. State of Bombay, AIR 1957 Supreme Court 857 x. Harmanpreet Ahluwalia Vs. State of PunjabIX, (2009), SLT 341 xi. P S Rajya Vs. State of Bihar (1996) 9 SCCI xii.P. Sirajuddin V. State of Madras, 1970 (1) Supreme Court Cases 595 xiii. Rita Handa Vs. CBI, CRL Revision Petition No. 965/2006 xiv.Nita Deep Rastogi Vs. CBI, Cr. Rev.P 77/2008 & Crl MA 1434/2008 decided on 21.1.2009 xv. CBI Vs. K. Narayana Rao, (SC) Cr. Appeal No. 1460/2012 xvi. Bhagirath Vs. State of MP, (1976) 1 SCC 20 xvii. P. K. Narayanan Vs. State of Kerala (1995) 1 SCC 142 xviii. Tirath Prakash Vs. State, {2001 (91) DLT 613} xix.L. K. Adwani & Ors Vs. CBI, 1997 JCC 292 (DELHI) xx. State of Kerala Vs. P. Sugathan & Anr., (2000) 8 CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 45 of 185 pages 46 CBI case . No.13/11 Supreme Court Cases 203.

38. At the very outset, it is to be noted that there is no dispute over the propositions of law enunciated in the case law, mentioned in the written submissions filed by the defence. However, none of the contentions and the case law cited by the defence help or support the accused persons, in any manner, whatsoever, in view of the strong overwhelming prosecution evidence, circumstances and documents appearing on record, as against them.

39. I have carefully gone through the entire relevant material appearing on record and have given considered thought to the same. I have also considered the rival arguments that have been advanced, at the bar. My findings are as under:

40. PW1, Sh. S. Rajagopal Charyulu, was posted as Assistant General Manager in Canara Bank, Circle Office, New Delhi, during the year 2003. He has proved the complaint lodged by him to the Superintendent of Police, CBI, EOUIV, on 24.10.03, as Ex.PW1/A, having his signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him. On the basis of this complaint, present case was registered by the CBI.

CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 46 of 185 pages 47 CBI case . No.13/11

41. PW2, Sh. P.K. Batra was posted as Manager (Vigilance) at Canara Bank, Cirlce Office, New Delhi, during the relevant time. He has deposed that he had conducted investigation of the fraud, committed by M/s Kanika Chemicals India at Canara Bank, Mayapuri Branch, in this case.

42. PW2 has proved the application, moved by M/s Kanika Chemicals India for opening of current account no. 3617, as Ex.PW2/1. He has further deposed that the partners of the said firm also submitted a partnership letter, forms no. 16, proof of address i.e. telephone bill and copy of driving license, which have been proved as Ex.PW2/2 to Ex.PW2/5, respectively.

43. PW2 has further deposed that another OCC account was also opened by the partners of M/s Kanika Chemicals India on 12.12.01, vide account opening form, which is Ex.PW2/6. He has further proved the specimen signatures card, as Ex.PW2/7, bearing the photographs of accused Ashok Kumar Singhal, that of accused Neeraj Kumar and that of Swarn Lata, in the encircled portions, at pt. A, B and C, respectively, which have been duly identified by CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 47 of 185 pages 48 CBI case . No.13/11 him.

44. PW2 has further proved the letter/application dated 02.11.02, written by accused persons namely, Ashok Kumar Singhal and Neeraj Kumar, to the Chief Manager, Canara Bank, Mayapuri, requesting for credit facilities, as Ex.PW2/8.

45. PW2 has further deposed that along with the aforesaid letter, Ex.PW2/8, application for credit facilities in form no. NF 548, which is Ex.PW2/9; copy of balance sheet as on 31.03.99, which is mark A2; copy of balance sheet as on 31.03.2000, which is mark A3; copy of audit report, which is mark A4; copy of profit and loss account as on 31.03.2000, which is mark A5; copy of profit and loss account as on 31.03.01, which is mark A6; copy of balance sheet as on 31.03.01, which is mark A7; certificate of chartered accountant M/s Goyal Gupta & Associates, which is Ex.PW2/10; another chartered accountant certificate, which is Ex.PW2/11; copy of profit and loss account as on 31.03.99, which is mark A8; copy of audit report, dated 05.10.99, which is mark A9; copy of acknowledgment of sales tax return as on 31.12.2000, CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 48 of 185 pages 49 CBI case . No.13/11 which is mark A10; copy of central sales tax assessment order for the period 19981999, which is mark A11; copy of local sales tax assessment order for the period 199899, copy of which mark A12; acknowledgment of submission of sales tax return for the quarter ending 31.03.2001, which is mark A13 and for the quarter ending 30.06.01, which is mark A14, acknowledgment of the receipt of sales tax for the quarter ending 30.09.2001, which is mark A15; copy of certificate of registration with the Central Sales Tax, which is mark A16; certificate of registration in local sales tax, which is mark A17; projected trading profit and loss account as on 31.03.2002 and balance sheet, which is Ex.PW2/12; copy of form 3 CD, which is mark A18 for the assessment year 1999, copies of form 3 CD for the assessment year 200001, which is mark A19 and 200102, which is mark A20; copy of the income tax return for the assessment year 2001 and 2002 of M/s Kanika Chemicals India, which is mark A21, copy of income tax return of Swarn Lata for the assessment year 200001, which is mark A22; copy of income tax return in respect of accused Neeraj Kumar for the assessment year 200102, which is mark A23, copy of income tax return of co accused Ashok Kumar Singhal for the assessment year CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 49 of 185 pages 50 CBI case . No.13/11 200102, which is mark A24, copy of partnership deed, which is Ex.PW2/13, copy of ration card, which is mark A25; another copy of ration card of accused Ashok Kumar Singhal, which is mark A26; bio data form of accused Neeraj Kumar and Ashok Kumar Singhal, which are Ex.PW2/14 and Ex.PW2/15, respectively; particulars of the guarantor in NF 589, which is Ex.PW2/16; particulars of assets of accused Neeraj Kumar, which is Ex.PW2/17; certificate of Nikhil Trading Co. dated 22.11.01, which is Ex.PW2/18; certificate of Ashish & Co. dated 23.11.01, which is Ex.PW2/19, certificate of Jai Dayal Industries, dated 24.11.01, which is Ex.PW2/20; copy of statement of account for the period 08.11.01 to 22.11.01 in respect of current account no. 1616, maintained at Bharat Overseas Bank Ltd., Sahibabad, which is mark A27; copy of perpetual sub lease in respect of plot no. 184, Saini Enclave, which is mark A28; list of name of the supplier and customer, which are mark A29 and mark A30; copy of certificate issued by All India Plastic Association in respect of M/s Kanika Chemicals India, which is mark A31 and copy of the rent agreement, which is mark A32, were submitted.

CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 50 of 185 pages 51 CBI case . No.13/11

46. PW2 has further deposed that on receipt of the application for credit facilities along with the aforesaid documents, an appraisal memorandum, dated 30.11.01 (it also bear date 03.12.2001) was prepared by accused N. Rajaram (A1) in NF 622, which is Ex.PW2/21. He has identified signatures of the said accused, at pt. A, on the same. He has proved the analysis of balance sheet, prepared by accused N. Rajaram, as Ex.PW2/22.

47. PW2 has further deposed that vide letter, dated 02.11.01, accused N. Rajaram (A1) had asked Bharat Overseas Bank Ltd, Vaishali to give an opinion, regarding M/s Kanika Chemicals India. The said letter and the opinion allegedly received from Bharat Overseas Bank, have been proved by him as Ex.PW2/23 and Ex.PW2/24, respectively.

48. PW2 has deposed that accused N. Rajaram had prepared and submitted an office note, in respect of M/s Kanika Chemicals India, to the Chief Manager, recommending OCC Limit to the tune of Rs.25 Lakhs, in favour of the said firm with the terms and conditions. The said note has been proved by this witness as Ex.PW2/25.

CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 51 of 185 pages 52 CBI case . No.13/11

49. PW2 has further deposed that vide letter, Ex.PW2/26, a report for sanction of OCC limit to the tune of Rs.25 Lakhs and ILC Limit of 25 Lakhs, was sent by accused N. Rajaram to the Credit Review Section Circle Office, Delhi, which bears his signatures at pt. A and that of Sh. M.R. Bhatt, the then Chief Manager, at pt. B, which have been duly identified by him.

50. PW2 has further proved the pre sanction report, prepared by accused N. Rajaram, as Ex.PW2/27, vide which stock inspection was done, in respect of M/s Kanika Chemicals India. He has duly identified the signatures of accused N. Rajaram on the said report, at pt A and that of Mr. M.R. Bhatt, at pt.B.

51. PW2 has further deposed that accused N. Rajaram also gave an inspection certificate, which is Ex.PW2/29, bearing his signatures at pt. A and that of Sh. M.R. Bhatt, the then Chief Manager, at pt. B, which have been duly identified by PW2.

52. PW2 has further deposed that a letter was sent to Delhi Development Authority, seeking permission to mortgage CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 52 of 185 pages 53 CBI case . No.13/11 plot at property no. 184, Saini Enclave, Vikas Marg, Delhi, which is Ex.PW2/30, bearing the signatures of accused N. Rajaram at pt. A, which he duly identified.

53. PW2 has further proved the letter, dated 30.11.01, seeking willingness of alleged Swarn Lata to mortgage the property no. 184, Saini Enclave, Delhi to secure the credit facilities to be granted to M/s Kanika Chemicals, as Mark A33 (copy).

54. PW2 has further deposed that accused N. Rajaram had also prepared check list, for approval of Legal Scrutiny Report, submitted by accused H.C. Garg, which is Ex.PW2/31. He has identified the signatures of Sh. M.R. Bhatt, at pt. A, on the same.

55. PW2 has further proved the valuation report, submitted by Sh. V.P. Singh, the then approved valuer, in respect of property at plot no. 184, Saini Enclave, as Ex.PW2/32.

56. PW2 has further deposed that accused Raj Kumari (as Swarn Lata) had submitted a letter of willingness to mortgage the property at plot no. 184, Saini Enclave, which CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 53 of 185 pages 54 CBI case . No.13/11 is Ex.PW2/33. He has also identified the signatures of said accused at pt. A on the same.

57. PW2 has further deposed that accused Neeraj Kumar had submitted a Guarantee Agreement along with covering letter NF 371, which are Ex.PW2/34 & Ex.PW2/35, respectively. He has also identified the signatures of accused persons namely, Neeraj Kumar, Ashok Kumar Singhal and N. Rajaram, at points A, B and C, respectively, on the said Guarantee Agreement.

58. Similarly, accused Ashok Kumar Singhal had also submitted Guarantee Agreement in NF 370 along with covering letter NF 371, which have been proved as Ex.PW2/36 & Ex.PW2/37, respectively. He has also identified the signatures of accused persons namely, Ashok Kumar Singhal, Neeraj Kumar and N. Rajaram, at points, A, B and C, respectively, on the said Guarantee Agreement.

59. Similarly, PW2 has further proved the Guarantee Agreement in NF 370 and covering letter NF 371, submitted by alleged Swaran Lata, as Ex.PW2/38 & CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 54 of 185 pages 55 CBI case . No.13/11 Ex.PW2/39. He has also identified the signatures of accused persons namely, Swarn Lata, Ashok Kumar Singhal, Neearj Kumar and N. Rajaram, at points A, B, C & D, respectively, on the said Guarantee Agreement.

60. PW2 has further deposed that third party letter of pledge NF 474, which is Ex.PW2/40, was executed by Mrs. Raj Singhal, pledging a KDR Deposit receipt for sum of Rs.2. Lakhs. He has further deposed that the details of unsecured loan were submitted by M/s Kanika Chemicals India, which are Ex.PW2/41, bearing the signatures of accused Ashok Kumar Singhal, at pt. A, which he duly identified. He has further proved the subordinate agreements, which were executed by unsecured creditors in NF 444 as Ex.PW2/42 to Ex.PW2/48.

61. PW2 has further deposed that accused N. Rajaram also gave certificate of loan, which is Ex.PW2/49, bearing his signatures as well as signatures of Sh. M.R. Bhatt, the then Chief Manager, which have been duly identified by him. He has further deposed that attestation of the signatures of accused Swarn Lata, which were submitted by accused persons namely, Ashok Kumar Singhal and Neeraj Kumar, CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 55 of 185 pages 56 CBI case . No.13/11 are Ex.PW2/50.

62. PW2 has further deposed that vide letters, Ex.PW2/51 and Ex.PW2/52, stock statements dt. 30.11.01 and 31.01.02, were submitted by M/s Kanika Chemicals India. The said statements also bear the signatures of accused Ashok Kumar Singhal and Neeraj Kumar, at points A & B, respectively, which PW2 duly identified.

63. PW2 has further proved the lists of sundry creditors and sundry debtors, submitted by M/s Kanika Chemicals India, as Ex.PW2/53 & Ex.PW2/54, bearing the signatures of accused Ashok Kumar Singhal and Neeraj Kumar, at points A & B, respectively, which the witness duly identified. He has further deposed that alleged Swarn Lata had submitted title deed in NF 461 along with schedule A and B, which are Ex.PW2/55 & Ex.PW2/56, respectively. That she had also deposited the original perpetual sub lease deed, in respect of residential plot no. 184, Saini Enclave, Delhi, affidavit, dated 27.11.01, house tax receipt with permission to mortgage the aforesaid property from DDA, which are Ex.PW2/57 to Ex.PW2/60, respectively.

CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 56 of 185 pages 57 CBI case . No.13/11

64. PW2 has further deposed that accused Ashok Kumar Singhal had submitted a letter dated 12.12.01, giving undertaking to mortgage the property at Khasra no. 14, village Shamsher, Pragana Jalalabad, District Ghaziabad, UP. The said letter has been proved by him as Ex.PW2/61. He has further deposed that alleged Swarn Lata had submitted an account opening form along with form no. 60 and Identity Card issued from Election Commision India, which are Ex.PW2/62, Ex.PW2/63 and Mark A35, respectively.

65. PW2 has further deposed that during investigation, he had visited the address of Chartered Accountant, who had audited the financial statement of M/s Kanika Chemical India, at Laxmi Nagar, Delhi, where he came to know that no specific firm of the Chartered Accountant existed there. That he had also visited the address of accused Swarn Lata, furnished in the account opening form and copy of ration card i.e A54, Shalimar Garden, Ghaziabad, where he came to know that said Smt. Swarn Lata did not reside there.

66. PW2 has further deposed that during investigation, he had CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 57 of 185 pages 58 CBI case . No.13/11 also made enquiries with the introducer of the account of M/s Kanika Chemical India i.e. Sunil Gupta, proprietor of M/s Steel Sales Syndicate, who informed that he did not know the partners of Kanika Chemicals India, at the time of furnishing the account.

67. PW2 has further deposed that he had also made enquiries with Sh. Ravinder Kumar, who had introduced the account of alleged Smt. Swarn Lata, and was informed that he did not know Mrs. Swarn Lata but signed the account opening form as introducer at the request of accused N. Rajaram.

68. PW2 has further deposed that he had also visited the Bharat Overseas Bank, Vaishali Branch, Ghaziabad, to ascertain about the genuineness of copies of payment of account, submitted by partners of Kanika Chemical India and came to know that the transactions, reflected in the statements of account, submitted by M/s Kanika Chemical India, did not appear in the account of the said firm, maintained at the Bharat Overseas Bank. He has further deposed that the officers of the said bank also denied having given any opinion letter to Canara Bank, Mayapuri Branch, regarding conduct of account of M/s Kanika CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 58 of 185 pages 59 CBI case . No.13/11 Chemical India, with them.

69. PW2 has further deposed that during investigation, he also came across the report of Mr. MD Rai, Advocate, submitted to Canara Bank, Mayapuri Branch, wherein he had reported that the sub lease deed deposited with Canara Bank, Mayapuri Branch, in respect of property no. 184, Saini Enclave, was found fake. That the letter of DDA, granting permission was also found to be not genuine and that Swarn Lata, the owner of the property had sold her property, which stood in the name of Mr. Amit Modi.

70. PW2 has proved the report, which was filed by him, after completion of investigation, as Ex.PW2/64.

71. PW3, Sh. K. Suresh Rao was posted as General Manager at Canara Bank, Head Office, Bangalore, in October, 2004. He has deposed that vide sanction order, Ex.PW3/A, he had accorded sanction for prosecution, in respect of accused N. Rajaram. He has also identified his signatures, at pt. A, on each page of the said sanction order, which is running into three pages.

CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 59 of 185 pages 60 CBI case . No.13/11

72. PW4, Sh. M.D. Rai was the panel Advocate of Canara Bank, New Delhi, who was on the panel of the said bank, for the last 15 years. He has deposed that the Canara Bank, Mayapuri Branch had referred the case of property no. 184, Saini Enclave, Delhi, to him, for investigation. He gave the report, in this regard to the Chief Manager, Canara Bank, Mayapuri Branch, New Delhi, which is Ex.PW4/A. He has identified his signatures at pt. A and B, on the same. His report clearly show that accused H. C. Garg (A6) gave a false report.

73. PW5, Sh. Brahamnand was working as Assistant (cooperative societies) in DDA, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi, during the year 20002001. He has deposed that he was looking after the work of six societies, namely, Saini Enclave, CPWD, Harsh Vihar Cooperative etc. He has further deposed that Ex.PW2/60 was not issued from DDA. He has also identified the signatures of Sh. M.C. Singhal, the then Deputy Director (CS), DDA, at pt. A, on letter, Ex.PW5/A. He has further deposed that letter, Ex.PW2/30 was never received by him.

74. PW6, Sh. V.K. Vohra was posted as Dy. Secretary in the CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 60 of 185 pages 61 CBI case . No.13/11 Delhi Office of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, in the year 2004. He has proved the letter, dated 04.03.04 as Ex.PW6/A, vide which it has been confirmed that M/s Goyal Gupta & Associates was closed w.e.f 07.11.92, as per the record, maintained in the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. He has duly identified his signatures at pt. A, on the said letter.

75. PW7, Sh. S.K. Bansal was posted as Manager (Credit) at Canara Bank, Mayapuri Branch, Delhi. He has deposed that circular no. 149/99, dated 18.06.99 was issued by Canara Bank Credit Policy Section Corporate Credit Wing, Head Office, Bangalore, in respect of scheme for loans and advances to traders and business enterprises, copy of which is mark X.

76. Similarly, PW7 has deposed that circular no. 95/2000, dated 09.05.2000, was issued in respect of delegation of powers to various sanctioning authorities, copy of which is mark X1. He has identified his signatures at pt. A on the same, in token of having prepared the same. He has further deposed that the said circular is in bilingual form.

CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 61 of 185 pages 62 CBI case . No.13/11

77. PW7 has reiterated credit report, Ex.PW2/25; copy of certificate, issued by All India Plastic Association (Regd.) Nariman Point, Mumbai, Mark A31; inspection certificate, Ex.PW2/29; stock statement, Ex.PW2/51; list of sundry debtor, Ex.PW2/53 and list of sundry creditors, Ex.PW2/54.

78. PW7 has proved the Tappal & Courier Book Ledger of Canara Bank, Mayapuri Branch for the period w.e.f 21.09.01 to 07.03.03, as Ex.PW7/A. He has deposed that the said book was being maintained at Mayapuri Branch of the Bank, which contains entries regarding sending of letters, registered letters and letters sent by courier.

79. PW7 has deposed that letter, which is Ex.PW7/B was sent by accused N. Rajaram to Swarn Lata. The said letter bears the signatures of accused N. Rajaram, at pt. A, which has been duly identified by PW7.

80. PW7 has further deposed that circular no. 67/2001, dt.

15.03.01, pertaining to equitable mortgage transactions additional safeguards, copy of which is Ex.PW7/C, bears his signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 62 of 185 pages 63 CBI case . No.13/11 PW7. He has proved the statement of current account no. 3617, in the name of M/s Kanika Chemicals India, as Ex.PW7/D. He has identified his signatures and stamp on the same at pt. A.

81. Similarly, PW7 has proved the statement of account of OCC limit no. GA 10301 of M/s Kanika Chemicals India, as Ex.PW7/E.

82. PW7 has further deposed that on 13.12.01, current account no. 3617 of M/s Kanika Chemical India was debited of Rs. 73,000/ for payment to Ashwani through cheque no. 382570, which is Ex.PW24/D46. He has further deposed that on 14.12.01, current account no. 3617 was debited for making payment to Ravi for Rs.30,000/ by cheque no. 382572, which is Ex.PW24/D47. He has further deposed that on 18.12.01, current account no. 3617 was debited for Rs.1,50,000/ for making payment to Raj by cheque no. 382573, which is Ex.PW11/D.

83. He has further deposed that vide letter, Ex.PW7/F, he had given the statement of account to CBI, which bears his signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 63 of 185 pages 64 CBI case . No.13/11 PW7.

84. PW7 has proved the letter, Ex.PW7/G, which was sent by him to CBI, bearing his signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him. He has deposed that along with the aforesaid letter, a list of cheques, running into two pages was also enclosed, which is Ex.PW7/H, bearing his signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.

85. PW7 has further deposed that some circulars, tappal/courier book and ledger of Canara Bank were also handed over to CBI, vide seizure memo, Ex.PW7/J, which bears his signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him. He has further proved circular dated 13.01.2003, as Ex.PW7/K. He has further deposed that inspection of stock and insurance, has been mentioned in the manual of instructions on working capital finance, copy of which is Ex.PW7/L.

86. PW7 has further deposed that an application for opening of inland irrevocable letter of credit was submitted by M/s Kanika Chemicals India, favouring Shree Ram Poly Chem CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 64 of 185 pages 65 CBI case . No.13/11 Pvt. Ltd, for Rs.8,14,000/, for supply of PVC Grade I @ Rs. 37,000/ per metric tone for 22 metric tones, which is Ex.PW24/D49 and duplicate copy of the same is Ex.PW24/D50.

87. PW7 has further deposed that forwarding letter, dated 09.01.02, was submitted by M/s Kanika Chemicals India, addressed to Chief Manager, Canara Bank, for issuance of Irrevocable Letter of Credit, which is Ex.PW24/D51. He has further deposed that M/s Kanika Chemicals had also submitted a pledge letter by way of deposit receipt of KDR 020069, dated 10.01.02 for Rs.2,03,500/, which is Ex.PW24/D52. He has deposed that agreement, which is Ex.PW24/D53 was submitted by M/s Kanika Chemical Ltd, which is part of application for opening Irrevocable Letter of Credit, Ex.PW24/D49. He has further deposed that the party had also submitted proforma invoice, dated 02.01.02, issued by M/s Shree Ram Poly Chem Pvt. Ltd, addressed to M/s Kanika Chemical India, for supply of PVC Grade 1 @ Rs.37,000/, per metric tone, wherein it has been mentioned that requirement of 22 metric tone would be of Rs.8,14,000/. The said proforma invoice has been proved as Ex.PW24/D54. He has further deposed that CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 65 of 185 pages 66 CBI case . No.13/11 proforma invoice of Shree Ram Poly Chem Ltd, addressed to M/s Kanika Chemical India Ltd, is Ex.PW24/D56.

88. PW7 has further deposed that acting on the aforesaid application, the bank had opened Irrevocable Letter of Credit on 19.01.02, in favour of M/s Kanika Chemical India for Rs.8,14,000/. The said irrevocable Letter of Credit no. is 03/02, which has been mentioned at pt. A, on the document, Ex.PW9/A5. He has further deposed that the beneficiary of the said Irrevocable Letter of Credit no. 03/02 was M/s Shree Ram Poly Chem Pvt. Ltd and their advising bank i.e. Canara Bank, DDU Marg, New Delhi. He has deposed that documents, which are Ex.PW9/A6 and Ex.PW9/A7 are part of Ex.PW9/A5.

89. He has further deposed that LC no. 38/01, which is Ex.PW9/A8 was opened by the bank for Rs.11,04,000/, which contains special instructions, Ex.PW9/A9. He has deposed that copy of application for opening irrevocable letter of credit is Ex.PW9/A11.

90. PW7 has further deposed that application, dated 21.12.01, was submitted by M/s Kanika Chemical for opening of LC CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 66 of 185 pages 67 CBI case . No.13/11 for Rs.11,04,000/ for supply of PVC Granules GradeI @ Rs.46,000/, per metric tone for total supply of 24 metric tones, in favour of M/s Shree Ram Poly Chem Ltd, which is Ex.PW24/D57. He has deposed that Ex.PW9/A11 is the copy of the same. He has further deposed that application in terms of agreement is Ex.PW24/D58.

91. PW7 has further deposed that the letter, dated 26.12.01, which is Ex.PW7/M was submitted by Canara Bank, DDU Marg to Canara Bank, Mayapuri Branch. He has deposed that vide letter, Ex.PW7/M, invoice of Shree Ram Poly Chem Pvt. Ltd, dated 22.12.01, which is Ex.PW24/D59 and copy of same, which is Ex.PW24/E, delivery note of M/s Shree Ram Poly Chem Pvt. Ltd, which is Ex.PW24/D61 and bills of exchange, which is Ex.PW24/D62, were forwarded to Canara Bank, Mayapuri Branch, under Irrevocable letter of Credit no. 38/01. He has further deposed that the bills were accepted by M/s Kanika Chemical Ltd, which has been shown at pt. Q231 on Ex.PW24/D62. He has deposed that letter, dated 16.01.2002, which is Ex.PW7/N was submitted by Canara Bank, DDU Marg to Canara Bank, Mayapuri Branch, forwarding some documents, including invoice of Shree CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 67 of 185 pages 68 CBI case . No.13/11 Ram Poly Cam Private Ltd, which is Ex.PW7/P. He has deposed that with the said letter, invoice of Shree Ram Poly Chem Pvt. Ltd, dated 12.01.02, which is Ex.PW24/D63, bills of exchange, which is Ex.PW24/D64, have been submitted. He has further proved the computerized account ledger of Canara Bank and statement of account for the period w.e.f 02.12.01 to 19.03.04 as Ex.PW7/Q and Ex.PW7/R.

92. PW8, Sh. Ravinder Kumar was a government contractor, who was running a firm namely, M/s B.N. Electronics, in the year 2001 and was having a bank account in the Canara Bank, Mayapuri Branch.

93. PW8 has identified his signatures and handwriting at encircled portion at point A on the account opening form, in respect of Mrs. Swarn Lata, which is Ex.PW2/62. He has admitted that he had signed as an introducer on the said account opening form, on the asking of accused N. Raja Ram, the then Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Mayapuri Branch, who had come to his shop along with one Vijay Kumar. He has further admitted that he had not seen the person, whose account he had introduced.

CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 68 of 185 pages 69 CBI case . No.13/11

94. PW9, Sh. Ashok Kumar Marwaha was posted as an officer in Canara Bank, Mayapuri Branch, New Delhi. He has reiterated account opening form, Ex.PW2/62. He has identified his signatures at pt. B on the said account opening form, in token of having verified the signatures of introducer. He has deposed that since PW8, Sh. Ravinder Kumar personally did not come to the bank for introduction, he had struck out the portion 'signed before me'.

95. PW9 has reiterated account opening form, in respect of current account no. 3617 of M/s Kanika Chemicals India, Ex.PW2/1. He has identified his signatures at pt. A, on the same, in token of having verified the signatures of introducer, Sh. Sunil Gupta, proprietor of M/s Steel Sales Syndicate. He has admitted that the said introducer did not come to the bank at the time of introduction and he had verified his signatures on the basis of his specimen signatures, available in the bank record.

96. PW9 has further reiterated, Ex.PW2/62. He has identified the signatures of Sh. Satish Sikri, the then Manager of the CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 69 of 185 pages 70 CBI case . No.13/11 Branch, at pt. B on Ex.PW2/1 and at pt.X on Ex.PW2/62, who had authorized the opening of aforesaid two bank accounts.

97. PW9 has identified signatures of accused N. Rajaram, at point Q139, on page 8 of hypothecation of goods, running into eight pages, which is Ex.PW9/A1. He has also identified signatures of said accused, at pt. Q168, on the guarantee agreement, running into four pages, which is Ex.PW9/A2. Similarly, he has identified signatures of said accused at pt. Q91, on guarantee agreement, which is Ex.PW9/A3.

98. PW9 has also identified signatures of accused N. Rajaram, at pt. A, on specimen signatures card, which is Ex.PW9/A4.

99. PW9 has also identified signatures of accused N. Rajaram on applications for opening inland irrevocable revolving documentary credit, which are Ex.PW9/A5 to Ex.PW9/A7 and Ex.PW9/A9. Similarly, he has identified signatures of Sh. M.R. Bhatt on Ex.PW9/A8, which is also an application for opening inland irrevocable revolving CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 70 of 185 pages 71 CBI case . No.13/11 documentary credit.

100. PW9 has proved letter, dated 21.12.01 as Ex.PW9/A10, bearing the signatures of accused N. Rajaram, which he duly identified. He has also identified signatures of said accused, at pt. B, on blue copy of ILC no. 38/01, which is Ex.PW9/A11.

101. PW9 has also identified the signatures of Sh. M.R Bhatt at pt. A on the back side of the letter, dated 22.04.03, which is Ex.PW9/A12.

102. He has further reiterated the documents, Ex.PW2/6, Ex.PW2/25 to Ex.PW2/31, Ex.PW2/35, Ex.PW2/38, Ex.PW2/49, Ex.PW2/51, Ex.PW24/49 Ex.PW24/D9, Ex.PW24/D15, Ex.PW24/D50, Ex.PW24/D57 & Ex.PW24/D17, proved by the other prosecution witnesses.

103. PW9 has also identified signatures of Sh. M.R. Bhatt on documents, which are marked as D1, D3, D9, D11 to D18.

 CBI vs. N. Rajaram &  Ors.                                                   71 of 185 pages
                                                      72
                                                                           CBI case . No.13/11 

104.   PW10,   Sh.   Ram   Swaroop   Kapoor    was     posted   as   Sub

Registrar in the office of Sub Registrar, Shahdara, in the year 1976. He has deposed that perpetual sub lease deed, which is Ex.PW10/1, was registered by him on 15.06.1976. He has also identified his signatures at pt. A, on the last page of the said lease deed.

105. PW11, Sh. Sunil Sehgal was posted as Branch Manager at IDBI Bank, Pitampura Branch, from May, 2000 to July, 2004.

106. PW11 has identified his signatures & bank seal on account opening form, in respect of account no. 841436 of Mrs. Raj Singhal, copy of driving license, copy of form no. 16 and rent agreement, which have been collectively proved as Ex.PW11/A.

107. Similarly, PW11 has identified his signatures and seal, at pt. B, on statement of account, in respect of account no. 841436 of Mrs. Raj Singhal for the period from 01.05.2001 to 09.10.2003, which has been proved as Ex.PW11/B.

108. PW11 has deposed that cheque no. 556718, dated CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 72 of 185 pages 73 CBI case . No.13/11 19.12.2001 for sum of Rs.4 Lakh in the name of Mrs. Raj Singhal was also received, which amount was collected through clearing and credited in the account of said Mrs. Raj Singhal. He has further identified the crossing stamp of the bank, at pt. A, on cheque, which has been exhibited as Ex.PW11/C.

109. Similarly, PW11 has proved the cheque no. 382573, dated 15.12.2001 for sum of Rs.1,50,000/, in the name of Mrs. Raj Singhal, as Ex.PW11/D. He has identified the crossing stamp of his branch, at pt. A, on the said cheque.

110. PW12, Sh. Inderjeet Gupta was posted as Manager, in the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Kirti Nagar Branch, Delhi, at the relevant time. He has deposed that current account no. 7280, in respect of M/s Jupiter Trading Company, 103, First Floor, Swastic Tower Basai Dara Pur Road, New Delhi, was opened on 20.12.01 by applicantNeeraj, on introduction of Nikhil Trading, who were also having account in the same branch. He has identified the account opening form of the said current account, which is Mark PW12/A. CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 73 of 185 pages 74 CBI case . No.13/11

111. PW12 has also deposed that cheque no. 527753, dated 05.01.03, for sum of Rs.50,000/, in the name of Raj Exports India, issued by Jupiter Trading Co., was received in their branch, which has been marked as Mark PW12/B.

112. PW12 has further identified his signatures and bank seal, at point A, on statement of account in respect of account no. 7280 for the period w.e.f 01.04.2001 to 08.12.2003. The said statement of account is Ex.PW12/1. He has also identified the specimen signatures card and statement of account of current account no. 6967, which are Ex.PW12/2 & Ex.PW12/3, respectively. He has also reiterated cheque, Ex.PW11/C.

113. PW12 has deposed that vide seizure memo, Ex.PW12/4, he had handed over documents to the CBI. The said seizure memo also bears his signatures at pt. C, which he duly identified.

114. PW13, Sh. Satish Sikri was posted as Manager in Canara Bank, Mayapuri Branch from 1998 to 2002. He reiterated, account opening form, in the name of Mrs. Swarn Lata, Ex.PW2/62 and identified his signatures and signatures of CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 74 of 185 pages 75 CBI case . No.13/11 Sh. Ashok Marwah, on the same at pt. X & B, respectively. He deposed that alleged Mrs. Swarn Lata had signed the said account opening form, in his presence.

115. PW13 has further reiterated account opening form, Ex.PW2/1.

116. PW13 has further identified the specimen signatures of accused N. Rajaram, at pt. A, which were taken by the CBI, in his presence, running into five sheets and have been collectively proved as Ex.PW13/A. Similarly, he has identified the specimen signatures of Mr. M.R. Bhatt, the then Chief Manager, Canara Bank, in the specimen signatures sheet marked as S9 to S13. The said specimen signatures of Mr. M.R. Bhatt have been proved as Ex.PW13/B, which also bears the signatures of PW13, at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.

117. PW13 has correctly identified accused Raj Kumari as the lady, who had opened the account with the Canara Bank, Mayapuri Branch in the name of Swarn Lata impersonating as Swarn Lata. He has further deposed that she had falsely introduced herself as 'Swarn Lata', when CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 75 of 185 pages 76 CBI case . No.13/11 she came for opening the account. He has further deposed that the photograph at pt. A on account opening form, Ex.PW2/62, was that of accused Raj Kumari.

118. PW14, Mrs. Swarn Lata herself has appeared in the witness box and has deposed that plot no. 184, Saini Enclave was alloted to her and she sold the same in the year 1991 to one Mr. Dutt. She, however, did not remember the full name of the buyer. She has denied her signatures on documents, Ex.PW2/33, Mark A, Ex.PW2/38, Ex.PW2/39, Ex.PW2/55, Ex.PW2/57, Ex.PW2/56 & Ex.PW2/58.

119. PW14 has further deposed that she never visited Canara Bank, Mayapuri Branch. She has also denied having opened account no. 10185. She has also failed to identify the signatures and photograph affixed on account opening form of aforesaid account number. She has further denied having submitted form no. 60, Ex.PW2/63 and her signatures on the same. She has deposed that election ID, which is Mark A35 did not belong to her. She has further deposed that the photograph on the said election ID is that of some other lady. She could not say CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 76 of 185 pages 77 CBI case . No.13/11 whether she had signed or not the documents, Ex.PW10/1, in the absence of original.

120. PW15, Sh. M.C. Singhal was posted as Deputy Director in Cooperative Society DDA, Vikas Sadan, in the year 2004.

121. PW15 has deposed that he had written letter, Ex.PW5/A to the CBI, giving requisite information, on the basis of records of DDA. He has identified his signatures at pt. A, on the said letter.

122. PW16, Sh. Rajbir Singh was posted as Manager in Canara Bank, Deen Dayal Upadhyay Marg, New Delhi, in the year 2004. He has identified his signatures, at pt. A, on the collection memo, Ex.PW16/A, vide which documents, Ex.PW16/A1 to Ex.PW16/A14 were handed over by him to the CBI.

123. PW17, Sh. B.S. Vashisht was posted as Sub RegistrarIV in Seelampur, District North East w.ef. 10.07.03 to 30.11.05. He has identified the signatures of his predecessor, Sh. Atul Kumar, the then Sub Registrar, at pt. A, on the perpetual lease deed, dated 03.04.1976, in favour of Swarn CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 77 of 185 pages 78 CBI case . No.13/11 Lata, certified copy of which is Ex. PW17/1, as he had seen him writing and signing.

124. After going through the contents of original perpetual lease deed, Ex.PW2/57, PW17 has deposed that the seal of the office of Sub Registrar, affixed on the back side of each page of said perpetual lease deed differs from the seal on the back side of each page in the certified copy of the said sub lease deed, which is in respect of same property and is Ex.PW17/1.

125. PW17 has further deposed that stamp and signatures on page 10 of perpetual lease deed, Ex.PW2/57, at pt. X, differs from seal and signatures at pt.X1 and X2 on the last page of certified copy, Ex.PW17/1. He has further deposed that the said document contains the signatures of Sub Registrar only at the last page, as shown at pt X1 of sub lease deed, Ex.PW17/1 and at pt. X2, there is mention of SD RS Kapoor and that it does not contain his original signatures.

126. He has further deposed that vide perpetual conveyance deed, dated 22.11.1995, Ex.PW17/2, property no. 184, Saini Enclave, Delhi92, was purchased by Amit Modi, CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 78 of 185 pages 79 CBI case . No.13/11 whose name has been mentioned at pt. A on page 1 of the said conveyance deed.

127. PW17 has further proved the receipt, Ex.PW17/3, which was issued by his office, in the name of accused H.C. Garg, Advocate, after receipt of Rs.17/, for inspection of records, which was to be conducted from 1987 to 2001. Had accused H. C. Garg (A6) conducted actual inspection of true records, the fraud, in this case, could have been averted.

128. PW18, Sh. Amit Modi was Real Estate Developer, who was working in the name and style of ABA Builders Ltd. for the last 20 years. He has deposed that he was also director in Vishakha Builders Pvt from the year 1991 to 1997. He has further deposed that the plot no. 184, measuring 355.5 sq yards at Saini Cooperative House Building Society Ltd, Saini Enclave, Village Karkardooma, Vikas Marg, Delhi92, was purchased by M/s Vishakha Builders from Ashok Kumar and that the GPA was executed by Mr. Kamal Sharma in his favour. He has proved the said GPA as Ex.PW18/A, which is running into four pages.

CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 79 of 185 pages 80 CBI case . No.13/11

129. He has further proved the agreement for sale as Ex.PW18/B, which was executed by Mr. Ashok Kumar in the presence of Mr. Kamal Sharma, whose signatures have been identified by him. He has further identified his attestation and signatures on all the pages of the said agreement for sale, at pt. A.

130. PW18 has further deposed that he had moved an application on 15.04.95 for getting the said property freehold. He has identified his signatures and attestation on the said application and challan, which have been proved as Ex.PW18/C and Ex.PW18/D, respectively.

131. He has further proved conveyance deed, Ex.PW18/E, bearing his signatures at pt. A, which he duly identified. He has also identified his signatures on the perpetual sub lease deed, dated 03.04.76, executed in favour of Smt. Swarn Lata, wife of Sh. S. R. Saini, when the property was purchased from Mr. Kamal Sharma and Ashok Kumar. Copy of the said sub lease deed is Mark PW18/X1.

132. PW18 has further identified his signatures and attestation on agreement to sell, dated 16.05.91, executed between CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 80 of 185 pages 81 CBI case . No.13/11 Smt. Swarn Lata, wife of Sh. S.R. Saini and Sh. Vivek Dutt, son of Sh. Dharam Dutt, which is Mark PW18/X2.

133. PW18 has further identified his signatures and attestation on General Power of Attorney, dated 18.05.91, executed between Smt. Swarn Lata, wife of Sh. S.R. Saini, in favour of Sh. Gyan Chand Gupta, son of Late Sh. Radhey Shyam Gupta, which is Mark PW18/X3.

134. PW18 has further identified his signatures and attestation on Agreement to Sell & Purchase, dated 17.06.92 and General Power of Attorney, executed between Vivek Dutt, son of Sh. Dharam Dutt and Sh. Ashok Kumar, son of Sh. Tilak Raj, which is Mark PW18/X4.

135. PW18 has further identified his signatures and attestation on General Power of Attorney, dated 15.06.92, executed by Sh. Gyan Chand, son of Sh. Radhey Shyam Gupta and was handed over by Ashok Kumar and Kamal Sharma at the time of sale of property, which is Mark PW18/X5.

136. PW18 has proved the plan of house sanction, which was issued by MCD on 08.12.94, copy of which is Ex.PW18/G, CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 81 of 185 pages 82 CBI case . No.13/11 bearing his attestation and signatures at pt. A, which he duly identified.

137. PW18 has further proved the original form DI, in respect of construction made by him on the plot in question, issued by MCD, copy of which is Ex.PW18/H. He has also identified his attestation and signatures on the same at pt. A.

138. PW18 has deposed that receipt no. 551078, copy of which is Ex.PW18/I was issued to him by Delhi Jal Board on 12.12.96, when had had deposited the requisite fee etc for taking water connection on the plot. He has also identified his signatures, at point A, on the same.

139. PW18 has further deposed that electricity bill in respect of electricity connection installed at the plot in question, copy of which is Ex.PW18/J, was issued to him by the DESU. He has also identified his signatures and attestation on the same, at point A. Similarly, he has proved bill no. 984, dated 30.09.1996, bill no. UAM/4248/96, dated 13.09.96 and copy of paper cutting, bearing his attestation and signatures, copies of which are Mark PW18/6, Mark CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 82 of 185 pages 83 CBI case . No.13/11 PW18/7 and Mark PW18/8.

140. PW18 has further deposed that after the property in the name of M/s Vishakha Builders was purchased on 28.12.1992, the said property was transferred in the year 2008 to one Mr. Sanjeev, who had purchased the same in the name of his company. He has further deposed that before that, the said property was neither mortgaged to anybody, including bank nor any loan was ever taken against the said property by them and that there was not even an agreement to sell, GPA, Sale Deed with anybody in respect of this property by them before its sale to Sanjeev, in the year 2008.

141. PW18 has further deposed that the photograph affixed on account opening form SB account no. 10185 in the name of Swarn Lata, is not of Swarn Lata, wife of Sh. S.R. Saini, who was the sub leasee under deed, dated 03.04.76 and that he did not know whose photograph is affixed on the said account opening form, Ex.PW2/62.

142. PW19, Sh. Sanjay Singh was working as Assistant Assessor and Collector in MCD, Shahdara (South Zone), Geeta CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 83 of 185 pages 84 CBI case . No.13/11 Colony, Delhi, in the year 2004. He has deposed that Saini Enclave came in the jurisdiction of Shahdara South Zone for the purposes of House Tax Assessment.

143. PW19 has proved the letter, dated 03.03.2004, which he had written to CBI, intimating them that GA receipt no. 001854, dated 27.08.01, which is Ex.PW2/59, was not issued from their office, as Ex.PW19/A.

144. PW20, Sh. Gajraj Singh, was posted as Sales Tax Officer, Ward no. 55, on 31.07.2004. He has proved the letter no. STO/2004/Misc/1735, dated 25.02.04, which was issued to CBI, as Ex.PW20/A. He has identified his signatures at pt. A, on the same.

145. PW20 has further deposed that along with the said letter, he had forwarded the status report of registration no. 142539, given to dealer M/s Kumar Comfort Air Pvt. Ltd, 3830, Lal Kothi Patodi House, RD Darya Ganj, Delhi,which is Ex.PW20/B, bearing his signatures at pt.A, which have been identified by him.

146. PW21, Sh. Virender Pd. Singh was the government CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 84 of 185 pages 85 CBI case . No.13/11 approved valuer, who was in the panel of Canara Bank from 2001 to 2002. He has reiterated valuation report in respect of property no. 184, Saini Enclave Vikas Marg, Delhi, which is running into seven pages, as Ex.PW2/32. He has proved another valuation report, in respect of property, measuring 2 bighas, 15 biswas, situated at Village Shamsher, Pargana, Jalalabad, District Ghaziabad, owned by accused Ashok Kumar Singhal and Ram Saran Dass, which is running into six pages, as Ex.PW21/A, which were prepared by him. He has identified his signatures on the same, at pt. A.

147. PW22, Sh. B.S. Bidhuri was posted as Branch Manager in Bharat Overseas Bank Ltd, Vaishali Branch, Ghaziabad, UP, in the year 2003. He has deposed that there was only one branch of Bharat Overseas Bank Ltd, in Ghaziabad, UP and that there was no branch of the said bank in Sahibabad, Ghaziabad.

148. PW22 has proved the statement of account, pertaining to current account no. 1616, dated 06.12.2003 in the name of M/s Kanika Chemical India for the period from 12.07.01 to 06.12.03, as Ex.PW22/A, having his signatures at pt. A, CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 85 of 185 pages 86 CBI case . No.13/11 which has been duly identified by him.

149. After going through the unsigned statement of current account no. 1616 of M/s Kanika Chemical (India), 86, Rajender Nagar, Sector5, Sahibabad, for the period from 01.01.01 to 22.11.01, consisting of 11 sheets, pertaining to Bharat Overseas Bank, Vaishali, Sahibabad, which is mark A27, PW22 has deposed that the said statement of account is fake for the reasons that there is no branch of Bharat Overseas Bank in Sahibabad, Ghaziabad and that the current account no. 1616 in the name of M/s Kanika Chemical (India) was opened in Bharat Overseas Bank Ltd, no. 17, Express Apartment, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, on 12.07.01 only, as mentioned in Ex.PW22/A.

150. PW22 has reiterated letter of Canara Bank, Ex.PW2/23, in reply to which, Letter of Bharat Overseas Bank, Ex.PW2/24 had purportedly been sent. He has further deposed that letter, Ex.PW2/24 is on the computer paper of Bharat Overseas Bank Ltd but name of the branch has not been mentioned on the same nor it bears the signatures of any of branch manager of the Bharat Overseas Bank Ltd and that the said letter is fake as the same was never generated CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 86 of 185 pages 87 CBI case . No.13/11 from the bank.

151. PW22 has proved the letter, dated 02.01.2004 of Bharat Overseas Bank Ltd, which was written by him as Ex.PW22/B, having his signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him. He has further deposed that he had written the said letter in reference to the letter of Canara Bank, Ex.PW2/23 and of Bharat Overseas Bank Ltd, Ex.PW2/24.

152. PW23, Sh. Venu Gopal was an independent witness. He has deposed that before 2006, he was residing at flat no. A54/B1, Delux Apartment, Shalimar Garden Extension, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, UP and that he lived there for seven years. He has correctly identified accused Deepak (since deceased), who was also residing there on the top of his flat.

153. PW24, Sh. M.C. Joshi was handwriting expert, who came from GEQD, Chandigarh. He has proved the letter, dt. 04.02.04 and description of documents, dated 16.04.04 & 24.06.04, which were sent by DSP, CBI, EOUIV, New Delhi, for their scientific examination and for obtaining CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 87 of 185 pages 88 CBI case . No.13/11 opinion, as Ex.PW24/A(colly), Ex.PW24/B and Ex.PW24/C, respectively.

154. PW24 has proved the questioned documents, containing red encircled writings/signatures, which came for scientific examination and comparison, as Ex.PW24/D1 to Ex.PW24/D65. He has further deposed that for scientific examination and comparison of the aforesaid questioned items, standard writings and signatures of the relevant persons were also obtained, which are Ex.PW24/D66 to Ex.PW24/D162.

155. PW24 has further deposed that he had given his conclusions after careful and thorough examination of the questioned items with the relevant standard items, which are contained in opinion no. CX5/2004, dated 19.03.04, opinion, no. CX45/2004, dated 20.05.04 and opinion no. CX45/2004, dated 16.07.04 and are Ex.PW24/D163 to Ex.PW24/D165. He has further proved the detailed reasons, which he gave, in support of the aforesaid opinions, as Ex.PW24/D166 to Ex.PW24/D168.

156. PW24 has further deposed that after completion of CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 88 of 185 pages 89 CBI case . No.13/11 examination, all the documents along with opinions, were sent back to the CBI, vide laboratory letters no. CX45/2004/1076, dated 30.03.04, CX45/2004/148, dated 31.05.04 and CX45/2004/301, dated 21.07.04, which are Ex.PW24/D169 to Ex.PW24/D171, respectively. He has further deposed that with reference to opinion, dated 19.03.04, two specialized prints of VSC4 along with photographs of same item were also submitted, which are Ex.PW24/D172, colly.

157. PW25, Sh. M. Setu was working as Head of the Department of Legal Section at Circle Office, Canara Bank, Nehru Place, Delhi. He has proved the letter, dated 17.12.2002, containing observations/suggestions, running into two pages, which was forwarded by his Legal Department to the Canara Bank, Mayapuri, as Ex.PW25/A. He has identified his signatures at pt. A, on the same.

158. Sh. Pratap Vaghela is also examined as PW25. He was working as Officer in Karur Vyasa Bank, at Lawrence Road Branch, Kashav Puram, Delhi, in the year 2004. He has deposed that vide seizure memo, Ex.PW25/A, he had handed over documents mentioned therein to the CBI. He CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 89 of 185 pages 90 CBI case . No.13/11 has identified his signatures at pt. A, on the said seizure memo.

159. PW25 has further deposed that vide the aforesaid seizure memo, Ex.PW25/A, account opening form of current account no. 970, dated 07.09.99 along with copy of ration card of Rakesh Kumar in the name of IT Enterprises, E 304, JJ Colony, Khiyala, which is Ex.PW25/B, was seized.

160. PW25 has deposed that vide the aforesaid seizure memo, Ex.PW25/A, the documents which were seized are certified copy of account opening form of current account no. 351 in the name of Krishna Chemicals, 3630/6, Narang Colony, Tri Nagar, Delhi, running into two pages, which is Ex.PW25/C, bearing his signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by PW25; statement of account pertaining to current account no. 351 w.e.f 16.11.99 to 25.02.04, which is Ex.PW25/D, bearing attestation of PW25, which has been duly identified by him; statement of account, pertaining to current account no. 900 for the period from 07.09.99 to 12.10.99, which is running into five sheets, which is Ex.PW25/E, duly certified under signatures of Dipti Banerjeet, the then Officer, at pt.A, on CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 90 of 185 pages 91 CBI case . No.13/11 the first and last page, which have been duly identified by PW25.

161. PW25 has further deposed that current account no. 970 in the name of IP Enterprises has been introduced by Ramdas, partner of Krishna Chemicals India, who was having current account no. 351, in the same branch.

162. PW25 has reiterated, cheques, Ex.PW16/A1 to Ex.PW16/A7, which were issued by Shree Ram Polychem Private Ltd, in favour of M/s IP Enterprises. He has further deposed that these cheques were presented in Karur Vysya Bank Lawrence Road Branch, during October to November, 2001, and that the proceeds of these cheques were credited in the account of IP Enterprises, which has been reflected in statement of account, Ex.PW25/E. He has identified the clearance stamp of his bank i.e. Karur Vysya Bank on the back of these cheques, at pt. X.

163. PW25 has further reiterated, cheque, Ex.PW16/A8, which was issued by Sh. Ram Polychem Pvt. Ltd, in favour of M/s. KCI Polychem Pvt. Ltd.

CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 91 of 185 pages 92 CBI case . No.13/11

164. PW26, Sh. Yogender Prasad, was posted as LDC in SIU VIII Branch of CBI, in the year 2003. He has reiterated, specimen signatures sheet S24 to S30, in respect of accused Neeraj Kumar, which are Ex.PW24/D76 to Ex.PW24/D82. He has identified his signatures on the same at pt. A, on each sheet. He has deposed that the said signatures of accused Neeraj Kumar were obtained by the IO, in his presence. He has also correctly identified accused Neeraj Kumar, as the person, whose signatures were taken in his presence.

165. PW27, Jaleesh Dinakaran was working as Law Officer in Canara Bank, Disciplinary Action Cell, Circle Office, Nehru Place, New Delhi, on 16.12.03. He has deposed that specimen signatures of accused Raj Kumari, wife of Late Suresh Bar Daryal, R/o 7/541, Jwala Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi32, running into five pages, were obtained in his presence, which she gave voluntarily. He has identified his signatures at point A, on documents, Ex.PW24/D66 to Ex.PW24/D70.

166. PW27 has further deposed that on the same day, specimen signatures of accused Ashok Kumar Singhal, which are CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 92 of 185 pages 93 CBI case . No.13/11 running into five pages, were also obtained, which were given by the said accused voluntarily. He has identified his signatures at pt. A, on documents, Ex.PW24/D71to Ex.PW24/D75.

167. PW27 has further deposed that on the same day i.e. 16.12.03, specimen signatures of accused Deepak Kumar(since deceased), son of Leela Dhar, which are running into 63 pages were also obtained in his presence, which are Ex.PW24/D83 to Ex.PW24/D145. He has identified his signatures at pt. A on the said documents except Ex.PW24/D104 and Ex.PW24/D128. He has further deposed that accused Deepak (since deceased) had voluntarily given his specimen writing.

168. PW28, Sh. A.K. Saha, who was the IO of this case deposed that he was posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police, in EOUIV Branch of CBI, New Delhi, during the year 20032004. He has proved the FIR, which was registered in this case on the complaint of Sh. S. Rajagopalcharyulu, the then Deputy General Manager, Canara Bank, Circle Office, New Delhi, as Ex.PW28/A. CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 93 of 185 pages 94 CBI case . No.13/11

169. PW28 has deposed that he had seized records, vide seizure memo, Ex.PW28/B, which bears his signatures at pt.A, which have been duly identified by him. He has reiterated documents, Ex.PW12/4, Ex.PW25/A, Ex.PW16/A, Ex.PW7/G, Ex.PW7/H & Ex.PW7/J, which were seized by him. He has also identified his signatures on the said documents. He has further deposed that vide seizure memo, Ex.PW28/C, some documents from accused Ram Das Gupta were seized. The said seizure memo bears his signatures at pt.A and that of accused Ram Das Gupta, at pt. B, which have been duly identified by him.

170. PW28 has further proved the letter, dated 22.06.04, vide which Canara Bank provided specimen signatures card/account opening form, as Ex.PW28/D, having his signatures at pt. A and that of Sr. Manager, Sh. A.K. Gupta, at pt. B, which have been duly identified by him. He has reiterated documents, Ex.PW24/D152 to Ex.PW24/D156, Ex.PW24/D170 to Ex.PW24/D172. He has further proved the opinion, which was received by Sh. J.S. Verma, the then SP, I/C, CBI, from GEQD, as Ex.PW28/E. He has also identified the signatures of the said SP at pt. A, on the same. He has further reiterated CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 94 of 185 pages 95 CBI case . No.13/11 documents, Ex.PW13/A, Ex.PW13/B, Ex.PW24/A, Ex.PW24/B, Ex.PW24/C, Ex.PW24/D66 to Ex.PW24/D70, Ex.PW24/D71 to Ex.PW24/D151 and Ex.PW24/D157 to Ex.PW24/D162.

171. PW28 has further deposed that list of cheques of current accounts no. 10301 & 3617 and statement of account for the period from 12.12.01 to 16.12.03, in respect M/s Kanika Chemical India, were also obtained by him, which are marked as Mark PW28/1 & Mark PW28/2.

172. PW28 has further reiterated sanction order, against accused N. Rajaram, which is Ex.PW3/A.

173. PW28 has deposed, in detail, about the entire facts which were revealed during the investigation of this case.

174. PW29, Sh. Balwinder Singh has deposed that he had purchased property at E304, JJ Colony, Khayala, New Delhi from Rajender Singh Yadav, in August, 1999 and sold the same in 2006. He has further deposed that he has never let out the said property to anyone. He has deposed that he did not know any person by the name of Rakesh Kumar CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 95 of 185 pages 96 CBI case . No.13/11 and that no firm by the name of 'IP Enterprises 'ever existed in his presence, in the said premises. He has further deposed that there is no address, existing as WZ304, JJ Colony, Khayala, New Delhi.

175. PW30, Sh. Sabhapaty Chaudhary was another independent witness. He has deposed that in the year 20022004, he used to reside in Varanda of house no. 86, sector5, Rajender Nagar, Sahibabad, with the permission of owner of the house, which was vacated by him in the year 2004, on the asking of the owner. He has further deposed that there was some factory, where some manufacturing process used to go on. He, however, had never seen that factory functioning on the above said address.

176. This witness was declared hostile by the prosecution. In cross examination by Ld. PP for CBI, he admitted that his statement was recorded by the CBI. He, however denied having stated to the CBI in his statement that the owner of the premises let out the said premises for godown purpose and that it was, thereafter, vacated. He further denied having made statement, Ex.PW30/A, to the CBI.

CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 96 of 185 pages 97 CBI case . No.13/11

177. Now, I come to the version put forward by the defence witnesses.

178. DW1, Sh. Virender Negi deposed that he was posted as an officer in Mayapuri Branch of Canara Bank, New Delhi, from 2001 to October, 2005.

179. DW1 has reiterated document, Ex. PW2/8, which is a request letter for credit facility, addressed to Chief Manager.

180. DW1 has further reiterated document, Ex.PW2/25. He has identified the writing and signatures of Sh. Sundermurthy, the then Sr. Manager, at pt. X and that of Sh. M.R. Bhatt, at pt. Y, on the same. He has reiterated, Ex.PW2/31 and has identified the initials of S. Sundermurthy, at pt. C and that of M.R. Bhatt, at pt. A, on the same.

181. DW1 has proved the format of reporting fraud, which is Ex.DW1/1; the inspection certificate, which is Ex.DW1/2; Nil Encumbrance Certificate, given by Sh. Sanjay Aggarwal, Advocate, which is Ex.DW1/3; statement of CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 97 of 185 pages 98 CBI case . No.13/11 account of M/s B.N. Electronic, running into seven pages, as Ex.DW1/6 and statement of account of Sh. Ravinder Kumar Tyagi, running into two pages, which is Ex.PWDW1/7, colly.

182. DW1 has also identified initials of accused N. Rajaram, at pt.A, that of Sh. Som Prakash, at pt. B, and that of Sh. Mr. Bhatt, at pt. C, on document, Ex.DW1/1.

183. DW1 has further proved the letter, addressed to the Manager, Canara Bank, DDU Marg Branch as Ex.DW1/8 and identified his signatures, at pt. A. He has proved the letter, dated 15.03.02, which is addressed to M/s Kanika Chemicals, as Ex.DW1/9, having his signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.

184. DW1 has further reiterated Tapal Register, Ex.PW7/A. He has deposed that the said tapal register was maintained at the ground floor in Mayapuri Branch of the said bank. He has further reiterated, Ex.PW2/23(D4),Ex.PW2/30(D12)& Ex.PW7/B(D13), which are letters, relating to Advances and Foreign Exchange Section. He has deposed that the aforesaid letters, should have been entered in Tapal CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 98 of 185 pages 99 CBI case . No.13/11 Register maintained at Advances and foreign exchange department, at 2nd floor and that these letters should not have been entered in Inward Mail Register, Ex.PW7/A.

185. DW1 has further reiterated, inward mail letters, Ex.PW2/24(D5),Ex.PW2/33(D16)&Ex.PW2/60(D39).

186. DW2, Sh. Kuldeep Singh was UDC from VAT Department.

He has deposed that Sales Tax/ VAT no. is issued only after physical verification of the business premises and after ensuring that the business in the premises is operational. He has proved the document, which contains VAT number issued in this case, as Ex.DW2/A.

187. Thus, the defence evidence led by the accused persons do not help the defence in demolishing the prosecution version in any possible manner. Whatever has been deposed by DW1 and DW2, in no way, dislodges the overwhelming prosecution evidence led by the State.

188. The evidence led by the defence, in no manner, counter or contradict the evidence that has been established by the prosecution as against all the accused persons. The case of CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 99 of 185 pages 100 CBI case . No.13/11 the prosecution stands fully established against all the accused persons in terms of the allegations against each one of them. The striking and strong documentary and oral evidence proved on record by the prosecution fully contradicts the innocence of all the accused persons.

189. In this case, FIR Ex. PW28/A, was registered by the CBI on the basis of a written complaint dated, 24.10.2003, of Canara Bank, regarding the fraud played upon the bank by the accused persons.

190. The request for credit facilities for the first time was made by M/s Kanika Chemicals India through its partners on 2.11.2001. The said request letter along with the enclosures has been proved as Ex.PW2/8, vide which, the accused persons namely, Ashok Kumar Singhal(A2) & Neeraj Kumar(A3), introduced themselves as partners of M/s Kanika Chemicals India and the business done by them to the bank for the first time on 02.11.2001. That 14 enclosures were filed alongwith the said request and also enclosed was the filled in application, in the prescribed format, of the bank, for grant of bank facilities. The said application in the prescribed format of accused persons CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 100 of 185 pages 101 CBI case . No.13/11 namely, Ashok Kumar Singhal(A2) & Neeraj Kumar(A3), dated 02.11.01, is Ex. PW2/9, it was also duly signed by partner of M/s Kanika Chemicals India.

191. A bare perusal of the application, Ex.PW2/9, indicates that the application was addressed to Manager (A1), Canara Bank, Maya Puri, New Delhi and name of accused (A2) and (A3) were indicated as two partners of the firm M/s Kanika Chemicals India. In the Column of 'Approximate worth outside business', nothing was mentioned and column was left blank. In the space for 'Sales Tax Paid for the year 2001' instead of mentioning the amount of sales tax paid "RD Sales" was mentioned for the year 2001. In the column of 'amount of income tax assessed for the year', no year was mentioned and only "8220/" was written. In the column of 'for what year Income Tax has been assessed', "20002001" has been mentioned but in the column "Has it been paid? If pending what are the reasons?", 'N/A' was mentioned. This is absurd because when, on the basis of this application itself, if the income tax was assessed how the remark 'N/A' could be given in this column?

CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 101 of 185 pages 102 CBI case . No.13/11

192. In the said application, in the column of 'Income during the last 2 years', for the year 2000 income has been shown as "0.05 lakh" and for the year 2001 it has been shown as "0.08". With this meager income, accused (A2) & (A3) were seeking loan facilities of Rs.50 lakhs i.e. Rs.25 lakhs on account of OCC and Rs.25 lakhs on account of ILC (DA) basis 90 days, which is not only surprising but shocking. A firm having meager income of Rs.5000/ or Rs.8,000/ per annum cannot be imagined to repay loan of Rs.50 Lakhs. The application, therefore, outrightly, on the face of it, had no merit to be considered any further.

193. In the column 'security offered' the address of the property offered for negative lien is not mentioned at all, in the application Ex.PW2/9.

194. Despite all this, the application, Ex.PW2/9, was dishonestly entertained and propelled by accused (A1), obviously actuated with malafide intention in pursuance to the alleged criminal conspiracy amongst the accused persons.

195. Further, from out of the enclosures filed with the request, Ex.PW2/8, photocopies of the Balance Sheet, CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 102 of 185 pages 103 CBI case . No.13/11 Ex.PW24/D1, Ex.PW24/D2, Ex.PW24/D4 and Ex.PW24/D5, bear no date and were issued by a non existent Chartered Accountant's firm and were allegedly signed by the partners of Goyal Gupta Associate Chartered Accountants. As no date appears on these documents, on the face of it, it is, therefore, clear that these documents inspired no confidence. It has come in evidence that Goyal Gupta Associate Chartered Accountants did not exist at the address given in these documents. Not only this, as per the Institute of Chartered Accountant, the said firm of Chartered Accountants was not operating and was closed way back in the year 1992, as per their record, which is clearly reflected in Ex.PW6/A.

196. The certificates, issued by Goyal Gupta Associate Chartered Accountant, which are Ex. PW 2/10 and Ex. PW 2/11, being undated, ought to have been outrightly rejected when were presented by accused (A2) and (A3) but in pursuance to the criminal conspiracy, the same were dishonestly accepted by (A1) as true and genuine while processing the request of loan of the firm of accused (A2) & (A3). The evidence on record makes it clear that the said forged and fabricated certificates were used by CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 103 of 185 pages 104 CBI case . No.13/11 accused (A1) to defraud the bank and benefit other accused persons.

197. Both sales tax assessment orders, Mark A11 & Mark A12 admittedly presented by the accused(A2) & (A3), are undated and do not bear the ward number. The same were clearly forged and fabricated and were never issued by the concerned authority as per the evidence led by the prosecution witness PW20 vide documents, Ex.PW20/A & Ex.PW20/B.

198. Further, Mark A17 admittedly filed by accused (A2) & (A3) falsely contains address of ware house as 103, 1st Floor, Swastik Tower where as in Ex.PW2/8, it is 86, Rajender Nagar, Sector5, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad (UP).

199. Photocopies of income tax returns filed by accused persons namely, Ashok Kumar Singhal(A2), Neeraj Kumar(A3) and Raj Kumari (A5) on the face of it, are not reliable as the same contain blanks as against some of the required particulars like date, place etc. Moreover, the income shown in Ex.PW2/8 does not match with the one shown in the said income tax returns.

CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 104 of 185 pages 105 CBI case . No.13/11

200. Ex.PW2/13 is the copy of the partnership deed filed by accused (A2) & (A3), which bears the date 01.04.98. It does not bear the business address of 103, 1st Floor, Swastik Tower as was given in Ex.PW2/8 still in pursuance to the conspiracy hatched amongst accused persons, accused (A1) accepted, processed and recommended the loan case of accused (A2) & (A3) for approval. Even complete address of Rajinder Nagar Godown was not given in as much as sector number is missing altogether in the said copy of the partnership.

201. Photocopies of ration card were not legible and the address was not clearly visible but still the same was dishonestly acted upon by accused (A1).

202. In Ex.PW2/15, the address of residence given is different from which was given in the copy of income tax returns of accused Ashok Kumar Singhal.

203. Ex.PW2/14 & Ex.PW2/15 were the bio data forms filled and signed by accused Neeraj Kumar and Ashok Kumar Singhal and are dated 05.11.2001. The same do not contain CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 105 of 185 pages 106 CBI case . No.13/11 ration card number and name of issuing office even though photo copies of ration card was allegedly filed with application on 02.11.2001. The bio data was incomplete and accused (A1) did not insist the same to be completed rather the same was dishonestly acted upon while processing the case by accused (A1).

204. Ex.PW2/16 was the document furnished by accused (A2) and was regarding the particulars of assets of accused Ashok Kumar Singhal, it, however, did not bear date and place. The reverse side of Ex.PW2/16 contains particulars and alleged signatures of Swarn Lata {forged by accused Raj Kumari (A5), who impersonated as Swarn Lata}. It does not disclose the 'age' of Swarn Lata as the relevant column had been left blank. In the column 'Location & boundaries' only 'plot' was mentioned. It also did not bear date and place. How this document bore the signatures of Swarn Lata even before the appearance of the mortgagor in the bank is an unexplained mystery by the accused persons (A1), (A2), (A3) and (A5). On the other hand, it is a strong pointer to the pre meditated design, to commit alleged offences in this case, by the accused persons.

CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 106 of 185 pages 107 CBI case . No.13/11

205. Further, Ex.PW2/17 filed by accused Neeraj Kumar bears date of 02.11.01, showing that Ex.PW2/17 was filed along with Ex.PW2/16 as both the documents were processed and signed by accused (A1) on 03.12.2001 i.e. before even the guarantor/Mortgagor appeared on the scene in the bank and accorded her alleged willingness on 12.12.2001 to be the guarantor in this case. As per record, the willingness of the guarantor is of 12.12.2001. In case, guarantor came to the bank for confirmation on 12.12.01 how she could have signed Ex.PW2/16 prior to or on 03.12.01, the date on which, it was processed and signed in token of its acceptance by accused N. Rajaram (A1). It shows clear fraud, having been committed by the accused persons in pursuance to a well crafted criminal conspiracy.

206. Ex.PW2/18 is the letter from Nikhil Trading (which the evidence on record show was owned by none other than accused Ashok Kumar Singhal) and is dated 22.11.01. Ex.PW2/19, is from Ashish & company and is dated 23.11.01 and Ex.PW2/20 is from Jai Dayal Industries and is dated 24.11.01. How these letters could be available and could be filed with the request for loan which admittedly was moved on 02.11.01. Ex.PW2/18 to Ex.PW2/20 were, CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 107 of 185 pages 108 CBI case . No.13/11 therefore, forged and fabricated on the face of it and were used by accused (A1), (A2) and (A3), in pursuance to a criminal conspiracy to cheat the bank.

207. The copy of rent agreement, Mark A32 was admittedly filed along with letter of request, Ex.PW2/8 and is dated 25.03.98, showing Ashok Kumar Singhal as resident of 34 C, Rose Apartment, sector 14, Rohini. It provides that the tenancy was for 22 months only. Taking the tenancy from 25.03.98, the tenancy had already come to an end on the date of application i.e. 02.11.2001, as per the said agreement. Accused (A1), (A2) &(A3) were all, therefore, acting unitedly to defraud the bank while producing, processing, relying and acting on such a rent agreement to show the rented business premises to be existing as on 02.11.01. Further, the address given in photocopy of rent agreement does not exactly match with what is given in the application of request for loan, Ex.PW2/8. The application was dated 02.11.01 when the accused persons (A2) & (A3) did not even had an account with Canara Bank. Accused (A1), therefore, was required to act more diligently. The circumstances, on the other hand, indicate that he was all out to move forward the evil design of the CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 108 of 185 pages 109 CBI case . No.13/11 accused persons in pursuance to the alleged criminal conspiracy.

208. Ex.PW2/21 is an appraisal memorandum, admittedly prepared and signed by accused N. Rajaram (A1). It bears two dates at the top 30.11.2001 and 03.12.2001 without any plausible reason, available on record or coming forth from him.

209. In Ex.PW2/21 M/s Bharat Overseas Bank, Vaishali, Delhi, was dishonestly and to favour the accused persons (A2) & (A3) with malafide intention was shown by accused (A1) as the bank which was shown as "with whom the party is having dealings". {No document of M/s Bharat Overseas Bank, Vaishali, Delhi was admittedly even given by the applicants (A2) & (A3)}. Moreover, in the very next column of "credit limits enjoyed, if any" 'Nil' and 'only C/A' with them and 'A/C since closed' was written by accused (A1). If the account was already closed, it was not required to be observed by accused (A1) that the party is having dealings with a bank. A false assertion was made by accused (A1) in this regard and that falsely he misrepresented that the said bank as if was in Delhi.

CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 109 of 185 pages 110 CBI case . No.13/11

210. Accused (A1) has further falsely remarked that 'opinion received is satisfactory'. When the said current account was already closed at the time of processing, how the opinion could be indicated as 'satisfactory'.

211. No particulars of income tax/sales tax assessed and paid were given or indicated by the accused persons in the relevant columns of Ex.PW2/21 but still accused (A1) positively and favourably processed the request of accused persons (A2) & (A3) with dishonest motive.

212. All particulars were not filled by accused (A1) in Ex.PW2/21. Ex.PW2/21 was admittedly, however, signed by him i.e. accused (A1) in token of having checked the same.

213. Ex.PW2/23, which is the alleged 'private and confidential' letter written and admittedly signed by accused (A1) shows that

(a) No mode was indicated on the letter or otherwise was made available anywhere as to the manner in which it was dispatched by accused (A1). As such, it is apparent that it was not sent at all.

CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 110 of 185 pages 111 CBI case . No.13/11

(b) The said letter was addressed to 'M/s Bharat Overseas Bank Ltd, Vaishali' without indicating in which city/State the said Vaishali is. No letter could reach the destination with such a vague and incomplete address. All this shows that accused (A1) was acting dishonestly to defraud the bank and favour accused persons (A2) & (A3)

214. Ex.PW2/24 is a fake reply as the said branch of the bank was not existing there in Sahibabad (as was shown in the reply). The reply does not bear any reference number of Bharat Overseas Bank Ltd. Moreover, it does not answer means, standing and respectability of M/s Kanika Chemicals as was admittedly required/requested by accused(A1), vide Ex.PW2/23. How then accused (A1) accepted and acted on Ex.PW2/24 does not appeal to logic or common sense. The only inference that can be drawn is that accused (A1) was dishonestly acting to cause illegal pecuniary gain to the other accused persons.

215. Ex.PW2/25 is the proposal, which was processed and note for approval/sanction was prepared and signed by accused (A1), admittedly. Accused (A1), thus, actively participated to propell the fraudulent claim of accused CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 111 of 185 pages 112 CBI case . No.13/11 (A2) & (A3) to seek loan.

216. Ex.PW2/26 is the format for reporting sanctions made/prepared by accused (A1). It was admittedly signed by accused (A1) and was in his hand.

217. Ex.PW2/27 is a stock inspection report shown as a pre sanction visit (which shockingly was prior in time to when the party introduced themselves to the bank for the first time) by accused (A1) & Mr. M.R. Bhatt. It is admittedly signed by accused (A1) also. A bare perusal of this document shows that

i) Stock book was not properly maintained.

ii) No verification of purchase and sale invoice was made.

iii) What quantity of stock was verified, is not indicated. Vaguely it was stated that 'stock available to the tune of Rs. 35 Lakhs (approx)', without any basis.

iv) Time of inspection was not indicated in the report.

v) This inspection admittedly was carried out on 28.10.2001 whereas request for loan by the party was made on 02.11.2001. How accused (A1) could dream of the place of godown and the stock prior to the introduction of the party to the bank was made by (A2) & (A3), is not known.

vi) The inspection by accused (A1) is dated 28.10.01 which is a date prior to 02.11.01 when the request for loan was CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 112 of 185 pages 113 CBI case . No.13/11 made by the firm of accused (A2) & (A3). The existence of the criminal conspiracy, therefore, is writ large on the face of it as after setting the stage on 28.10.2001, the application/request for loan was made on 02.11.2001.

218. Ex.PW2/29 is the inspection certificate/report, dated 28.10.01, given by accused N. Rajaram (A1) and the Chief Manager and very clearly indicate that :

i) It does not show time of visit.

ii) It is dated 28.10.01 whereas the request for loan is dated 02.11.01. How it was that the particulars of the property & its owner was dreamt by accused (A1) even before the request for loan was made.

iii) It does not bear the signatures of the mortgagor allegedly reported found in physical possession.

iv) No identity proof of the person found in possession collected or filed or mentioned in the report, Ex.PW2/29.

v) No document of possession e.g. ration card, electricity bill etc seen, mentioned or annexed with the report, Ex.PW2/29.

vi) No whisper in the certificate/report as to from whom the spot enquiry was made.

219. Ex.PW2/3 & Ex.PW2/4 are the form no. 60 executed/filed by accused, Ashok Kumar Singhal & Neeraj Kumar. These forms indicate 'verified today 31 day of October, 2001' but was signed on date 06.11.2001. All this shows dishonest intention of the accused persons from the beginning to CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 113 of 185 pages 114 CBI case . No.13/11 cheat the bank. Accused (A1) never objected to all this, clearly showing his complicity in the commission of the crime.

220. Ex.PW2/30 is the alleged letter written to V.C. DDA by accused (A1) on 29.11.01. It is admittedly signed by accused (A1). Mode of sending this letter is not clear from the letter. There is no proof of dispatch of this letter. It is, therefore, clear that this letter was never sent and was manipulated.

221. Ex.PW7/B is the copy of letter, allegedly sent by accused (A1) to Smt. Swarn Lata. The said letter was required to be sent in duplicate in the prescribed format only along with the format of willingness which was to be given by the owner of the property. It is admittedly provided in the circular of the bank proved as Ex. PW2/7. That this letter was required to be sent by registered AD with acknowledgment due & the returned AD and the willingness, in the prescribed format, was required to be preserved by the branch manager. This procedure is laid down to prevent the fraud and to check the genuineness of the mortgagor/guarantor. Ex.PW7/B, however, nowhere CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 114 of 185 pages 115 CBI case . No.13/11 indicates that this letter was sent through registered post along with AD card. There is no evidence available in the bank record that the same was even sent. Accused (A1), therefore, did not send it, dishonestly, to procure advantage to accused (A2) & (A3) and to cheat the bank.

222. Further, the photocopy of the willingness format available on record mentions the place 'Delhi' whereas willingness letter made available to the bank by the alleged mortgagor on 12.12.2001, does not find any mention of the place, showing clear manipulation. Moreover, the copy of the above letter, is not in the prescribed format as the entire format of letter was required to be on one page, including the willingness to be given by the mortgagor as a measure of safeguard to check the fraud.

223. Ex.PW2/31 is the check list for scrutiny and approval of LSR by manager. This document was admittedly filled up by accused (A1) as it is in the hand of accused (A1). This document was not completed dishonestly and did not have the requisite particulars filled in, like, the branch reference, date, sanction letter number and its date. It was put up by accused (A1) on 03.12.01, as the document itself indicates.

CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 115 of 185 pages 116 CBI case . No.13/11

224. Ex.PW2/33 is the alleged letter of willingness, allegedly, executed by Swarn Lata (accused Raj Kumari has impersonated as Swarn Lata, in this case). This letter of willingness nowhere indicates as to how it reached the bank. During the course of arguments, it was submitted on behalf of accused (A1) that it was personally brought to the bank by alleged Swarn Lata. The account of alleged Swarn Lata was also opened on 12.12.01 as she had none prior to this date in the bank. The introducer of her account PW8 has deposed in court that he was requested by accused (A1) to introduce the alleged Swarn Lata (Raj Kumari impersonated in this case, as Swarn Lata). Vide Ex.PW2/33, it is indicated that the property was also mortgaged on 12.12.01 by accused Raj Kumari acting as Swarn Lata. Thus, the willingness by the accused Raj Kumari(A5) impersonating as Swarn Lata was fraudulently given and was aided by accused (A1). The opening of her account and her willingness were of the same date. This was done to facilitate the commission of offence of cheating and fraud, alleged, in this case, by accused persons (A1), (A2), (A3) & (A5).

CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 116 of 185 pages 117 CBI case . No.13/11

225. Further, the willingness attached to Ex.PW2/33 does not bear any date or place. It is, therefore, not understood where it was given and on which date, it was given and by what mode, it was sent to the bank.

226. Another document, which is Ex.PW24/D8 was admittedly executed by accused Raj Kumari, impersonating as Swarn Lata, on 12.12.01.

227. Ex.PW19/A is the letter written by MCD to the CBI, informing that the house tax receipt, dated 27.08.01, relied upon by the guarantor, accused Raj Kumari, accused H.C. Garg, accused Ashok Kumar Singhal and accused Neeraj Kumar, was not issued by MCD. They have confirmed that the said document filed by the accused Raj Kumari, was fake and fictitious as it was not issued from MCD.

228. Ex.PW2/D38 is the another guarantee agreement, signed allegedly by accused Raj Kumari, impersonating as Swarn Lata on 12.12.01, itself.

229. Ex.PW2/39 is another guarantee agreement, executed by accused Raj Kumari impersonating as Swarn Lata.

CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 117 of 185 pages 118 CBI case . No.13/11

230. Ex.PW2/41 is detail of unsecured loan and is signed by accused Ashok Kumar Singhal. It is just on the letter head of Kanika Chemicals India and is not supported by any authentic information. Moreover, this document is undated. It is not understood as to how the same was accepted by accused (A1).

231. Ex.PW2/49 is the certificate of loan papers, obtained, which is admittedly signed by accused (A1) and is dated 12.12.01.

232. Ex.PW2/7 are the appended photographs of accused (A2) (A3) and Raj Kumari, impersonating as Swarn Lata. It is signed by all the three accused persons (A1), (A2) & (A3), clearly indicating, how these accused persons were acting, together, in pursuance to the alleged criminal conspiracy to cheat the bank. This document is dated 12.12.01 and is counter signed by accused (A1). This document of loan reflects the malafide and evil intentions of accused (A1), (A2), (A3) and accused Raj Kumari(A5), impersonating as 'Swarn Lata'.

CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 118 of 185 pages 119 CBI case . No.13/11

233. Ex.PW2/6 is the request for opening current account and is dated 12.12.01 and is signed by accused (A2), (A3) and (A1) as manager. The current account of accused (A2) and (A3) was, therefore, opened by accused (A1), on 12.12.01. Vide Ex.PW2/50, accused Ashok Kumar Singhal & Neeraj Kumar certified, attested and verified the signatures of Swarn Lata, who was being impersonated by accused Raj Kumari. Ex.PW24/D6 is another such certificate. Both these certificates bear the forged signatures of Swarn Lata, who was impersonating as Raj Kumari. These documents clearly show the complicity of accused (A1), (A2), (A3) & (A5).

234. Ex.PW2/51 is the OCC stock statement, dated 30.11.01, signed by accused Ashok Kumar Singhal and submitted to the bank. This was processed by accused (A1) as it is signed by him. Bare perusal of this document shows that the closing stock, as per previous statement, number of units placed in since the last statement, number of units taken out since the last statement, are lying blank. Furthermore, the total amount of Rs.31,71,975/, is shown as inflated amount. The actual total comes around less than 22 Lakhs. Accused N. Rajaram (A1), therefore, in CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 119 of 185 pages 120 CBI case . No.13/11 pursuance to the alleged criminal conspiracy deliberately and dishonestly took this inflated figure along with other inflated figures as true figures so as to falsely determine total drawing limit of Rs.44,94,200/. This clearly shows complicity of accused N. Rajaram (A1) with the other accused persons, in committing the crimes, alleged, in this case. Further, in this document just above the signatures of accused N. Rajaram, at point B, on the last page at bottom under "for office use" contains that godown was checked by Sh. M.R. Bhatt and K.S. Jholi on 03.12.01, without there being any such material on record. He, therefore, falsely inserted this which was motivated and was with malafide intention to help the accused persons (A2) & (A3)to secure loan fraudulently.

235. Ex.PW2/53 is the list of sundry debtor as on 30.11.01, which is on the letter head of Kanika Chemicals India and is not with the complete particulars of the debtor or of other details or with any support to justify the amount of debt, indicating therein that the total amount of Rs. 33,78,840/ was taken as it is, blindly, by accused (A1) to arrive at the inflated total drawing limit for accused (A2) and (A3) in the document, Ex.PW2/51.

CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 120 of 185 pages 121 CBI case . No.13/11

236. Ex.PW2/54 is another detail of sundry creditors, which was also blindly accepted as true and taken as it is by accused (A1) in making calculations in Ex.PW2/51, without any justification.

237. Ex.PW2/52 is the stock statement given by Kanika Chemical India and signed by accused Neeraj Kumar, at pt. B. This was not verified by (A1) for the reasons best known to him.

238. Ex.PW2/57 is the forged and fabricated perpetual sub lease deed, which was admittedly used in this case for securing loan by the accused persons.

239. Ex.PW2/58 is the affidavit of Swarn Lata impersonating as Raj Kumari. This affidavit is dated 27.11.01. It is not understood as to how affidavit dt. 27.11.01 could be given when willingness to mortgage the property to the bank was given by alleged Swarn Lata {(A5) impersonated as Swarn Lata} on 12.12.01. Accused (A1) never objected to this because he was hand in glove with the other accused persons including (A5) and was only acting in pursuance CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 121 of 185 pages 122 CBI case . No.13/11 to the alleged criminal conspiracy.

240. Ex.PW2/59 is the forged and fabricated house tax receipt, which was relied upon by the accused persons, in perpetrating the fraud of cheating, in this case.

241. Ex.PW2/60 is the letter allegedly received in this case from DDA, which was found to be forged and fabricated. Moreover, this letter ought not to have been relied upon by accused (A1) as it neither bears the name or rubber stamp of the person singing it. Moreover, it is not clear from this letter as to how it reached the bank and ultimately to accused (A1), who, based on this forged letter had processed the entire proposal of loan, in this case.

242. Ex.PW2/55 is the letter, evidencing deposit of title deeds and is dated 13.12.01. It is also signed by accused Raj Kumari impersonating as accused Swarn Lata. Once the property was equitable mortgaged (which is created by deposition of title deeds) on 12.12.01, how it is that the title deeds were deposited vide this document, on 13.12.01?

CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 122 of 185 pages 123 CBI case . No.13/11

243. Ex.PW2/56 also bears the forged signatures of Swarn Lata put by accused Raj Kumari impersonating as Swarn Lata.

244. Ex.PW24/D27 also bears the forged and fabricated signatures of Swarn Lata, put by accused Raj Kumari impersonating as Swarn Lata. Similarly, Ex.PW24/D8 bears the forged and fabricated signatures of Swarn Lata by accused Raj Kumari impersonating as Swarn Lata.

245. Ex.PW2/61 is the document, executed by accused Ashok Kumar Singhal.

246. Ex.PW2/62 is the account opening form vide which, account of accused Raj Kumari impersonating as Swarn Lata was opened. The photograph of accused Raj Kumari, admittedly, was affixed on the same.

247. Ex. PW2/6 is the unchallenged investigation report of P.K. Batra which clearly provides that at the request of accused (A1), Ravinder Kumar introduced Swarn Lata {impersonated by accused (A5)} while opening the new account of Swarn Lata. Accused N. Rajaram, admittedly, did not give any explanation regarding this during CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 123 of 185 pages 124 CBI case . No.13/11 investigation by Mr. Batra as is evident from the said report.

248. In Ex.PW2/64 (the investigation report) following lapses were clearly reported:

(i) The Branch Manager (i.e. A1) had not done any credit investigation.

(ii) Accused (A1) relied upon the photocopies of certificates and blindly acted on the same.

(iii) Accused (A1) without enclosing any report stated that he made enquiry at nearby offices.

(iv) The letter sent to mortgagor was not sent by accused (A1) by registered post with A/D.

(v) Proper independent introduction for opening account of Ms. Swarn Lata was not obtained. The introducer stated that he gave introduction at the request of accused (A1) and accused (A1) did not render any explanation, in this regard.

249. Ex.PW28/DX5 (D103) is the statement of account of Shree Ram Polychem (for the period from 27.09.01 to 31.03.02). This account does not show that the goods allegedly supplied to accused (A2) & (A3) were either purchased or were sold to them i.e. accused persons (A6) & (A7).

CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 124 of 185 pages 125 CBI case . No.13/11

250. Ex.PW7/L (D113), extract of manual of industries provides inspection of stock As soon as OCC account is opened and goods are hypothecated, the Branch Manager should check the stock the same day before permitting drawings. Thereafter, inspection is to be carried out once in a month. This was not adhered to by accused (A1) for the obvious reason that he wanted to give unwarranted pecuniary advantage to accused (A2) & (A3), dishonestly and wanted to cheat the bank.

251. Ex.PW18/E (D118) is the conveyance deed in favour of Amit Modi, executed on 22.11.95 i.e. much prior to December, 2012 when the same property was mortgaged to the bank fraudulently in this case.

252. It is well settled that criminal conspiracy can be proved by the prosecution by leading the circumstantial evidence. The following case law illustrates this fully:

253. 'Conspiracies are not hatched in the open. The offence of conspiracy can always be proved by circumstantial evidence also' {2011(4) RCR (Criminal) P 84 SC}.

CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 125 of 185 pages 126 CBI case . No.13/11

254. It may not be possible to prove the agreement between the conspirators by direct proof but the meeting of minds of the conspirators can very well be inferred from the circumstances proved by the prosecution. {State of Punjab vs. Jurnail Singh, 2011(3) RCR (Criminal) 244 (Punjab & Haryana) (DB)}.

255. 'Act or action of one of the accused can be used against the other accused in case of conspiracy by virtue of section 10 of the Evidence Act' {Mohan Singh vs. State of Bihar 2011(4) RCR(Criminal) 84 SC}.

256. In the case law reported as Firozuddin Basheeruddin (2001) 7 SCC 596, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :

"All conspirators are liable for crimes committed in furtherance of the conspiracy by any member of the group, regardless of whether liability would be established by the law of complicity. The law punishes conduct that threatens to produce the harm, as well as conduct that has actually produced it. Conspirators may be tried and punished for both the conspiracy and the completed crime".

CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 126 of 185 pages 127 CBI case . No.13/11

257. In the case law reported as Hashim (K) 2005 Cri LJ 143 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "for an offence punishable under section 120B, the prosecution need not necessarily prove that the perpetrators expressly agree do to or cause to be done illegal act; the agreement may be proved by necessary implication".

258. In the case law reported as (2001) 4 Crimes 247 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "to prove conspiracy, it is not necessary that there should be direct communication between each conspirer and every other but the criminal design alleged must be common to all".

259. It has been held in the case law reported as Firozuddin Basheeruddin (2001) 7 SCC 596 that "the rationale of conspiracy is that the required objective manifestation of disposition to criminality is provided by the act of agreement. Conspiracy is a clandestine activity. Persons generally do not form illegal covenants openly. In the interest of security, a person may carry out his part of a conspiracy without even being informed of the identity of his coconspirators. An agreement of this kind can rarely be CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 127 of 185 pages 128 CBI case . No.13/11 shown by direct proof, it must be inferred from circumstantial evidence of what lies in their minds".

260. It was further observed in the aforesaid judgment that "Regarding admissibility of evidence, loosened standards prevail in a conspiracy trial. Contrary to the usual rule, in conspiracy prosecutions, any declaration by one conspirator, made in furtherance of a conspiracy and during its pendency, is admissible against each co conspirator. Despite the unreliability of hearsay evidence, it is admissible in conspiracy prosecutions. Thus conspirators are liable on agency theory for statements of co conspirators, just as they are for the overt acts and crimes committed by their confrers".

261. In this case, charge was framed under section 120B IPC read with sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and section 13(i)(d) read with section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against all the accused persons and charge under section 13(i) (d) read with section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in addition, against accused N. Rajaram, under section 419 IPC against accused Raj Kumari, under sections 420 IPC and 471 IPC CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 128 of 185 pages 129 CBI case . No.13/11 against accused H.C. Garg, under section 420 IPC, 467 IPC, 468 IPC and 471 IPC against accused persons namely, Ashok Kumar Singhal, Neeraj Kumar, Deepak Kumar, Raj Kumari, Ram Das Gupta and Manish Gupta and under sections 420 IPC, 468 IPC, 471 IPC, under section 120B read with sections 420, 468 & 471 IPC and under section 13(i)(d) read with section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was framed accused Ram Das Gupta and Manish Gupta.

262. The prosecution has, thus, proved its case by way of overwhelming evidence, as discussed herein above, as against the accused persons.

263. The striking evidence proved against each accused can further be reiterated, in brief, even at the cost of repetition, as under:

264. Evidence against accused N. Rajaram (A1)

(i) Vide Ex.PW2/29, admittedly, accused (A1) and M. R. Bhatt (not prosecuted for want of sanction) allegedly conducted physical verification of the property at 184, Saini Enclave, Vikas Marg, New Delhi, on 28.10.2001. The CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 129 of 185 pages 130 CBI case . No.13/11 accused (A2) and (A3) introduced themselves for the first time vide their request made in this case on 2.11.2001. Therefore, even prior to the request made by accused (A2) and (A3), inspection of the godown and property was made. On the face of it, it appears that the foundation for well organised criminal conspiracy was laid even before the request for grant of bank facilities in this case was received in the bank on 2.11.2001, obviously to execute towards the criminal conspiracy already hatched.

(ii) Further, accused (A1) and M. R. Bhatt do not appear to have conducted actually, proper inspection of the property offered for mortgage, inasmuch, as they never obtained the copies of electricity bill, water bill, etc. from the owner or the person found in possession. They did not mention in the report any name of neighbour or reputed person of the locality from whom they were required to enquire as to the genuineness of the possession of the said property by its owner nor they obtained the signatures of owner found at the spot. This inspection allegedly was also done on 28.10.2001, much prior to the date of request i.e. 02.11.2001. How accused (A1) and M.R. Bhatt knew about the location and other details of the property and its CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 130 of 185 pages 131 CBI case . No.13/11 owner on 28.10.2001 remains only a mystery. It is pertinent to mention that in this case accused A5 Raj Kumari, impersonated as Swarn Lata, who was shown as the owner of the property documents and admittedly met (A1) at the spot. This indicates that (A5) was already known to (A1) prior to 02.11.2001, the date of application for loan.

(iii) Ex.PW7/C is the circular of the bank dated 15.3.2001, which deals with Equitable Mortgage Transactions (EMTs) and the necessary safe guards to be taken. This circular specifically provides that in cases where guarantor is a third party, it is a condition precedent that he should be a person, who is holding an account in the same branch, his proof of residence should be ascertained by communicating with guarantor through registered letter with acknowledgment due. Physical verification of the property offered as collateral security should be mandatorily done and credit proposals are to be evaluated on the merits of the proposals rather than on the basis of value of the property offered by way of EMT. It has specifically been provided that when the guarantor does not have an account in the branch, a new account should be opened scrupulously following the bank procedure for CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 131 of 185 pages 132 CBI case . No.13/11 opening the account. Further, it has been provided in para 3 (ii) that the branch should send a registered letter with acknowledgment due, in duplicate, to the third party (i.e. owner of the property which is being offered under EMT as collateral security) in the proforma prescribed under the said circular, to confirm. It is further provided that the acknowledgment card should be preserved alongwith the related documents. The said guidelines were required to be followed to avoid any fraud. It was, however, clearly flouted by accused (A1), in as much as, no AD card was sent along with the letter and the letter was not in the prescribed format ( i.e. the letter and willingness being on the same page) for the obvious reason that it would have brought the truth on surface. Therefore, no such A/D card was found on record.

(iv) The standard proforma of the letter, enclosed with the circular, was required to be sent by the bank to the guarantor and in the said proforma it has been specifically mentioned that "we request you to confirm your willingness to offer the above said property as security by way of Equitable Mortgage Transaction (EMT) to us for the purpose indicated above by returning the CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 132 of 185 pages 133 CBI case . No.13/11 duplicate copy of this letter duly signed by you in the place provided for the same. This would enable us to undertake further processing of the proposal submitted by the subject party". Below the space for signatures of the Manager/Senior Manager, in the printed draft declaration it has been provided that "I/We expressly convey my/our willingness to offer the property, details of which are given above, as collateral security by way of EMT in favour of your bank for credit facility if any to be permitted by you to be subject party." Below the said declaration, space has been provided for signatures of the guarantor and for mentioning place and date of signature. This was not adhered to in this case by accused (A1).

(v) In the present case, a letter, under the signatures of accused (A1) as Manager, Canara Bank, is shown to have been sent by registered post to the guarantor, Smt. Swarn Lata D/o Harish Chander, at A54, Shalimar Garden, Sahibabad, UP. But in the Ex. PW7/B i.e. office copy of the said letter, it is mentioned at portion B "By Registered Post" which is not in conformity with the above said circular, Ex.PW7/C, as per the prescribed procedure, it should have been "By Registered Post with AD".

 CBI vs. N. Rajaram &  Ors.                                                     133 of 185 pages
                                                      134
                                                                           CBI case . No.13/11 




       (vi)    Further, to the contrary to the circular,  Ex. PW7/C,

the letter and the draft consent para has been typed on separate and distinct page, whereas it should have been on the same page below the signatures of the branch manager. It was thus in violation of the circular, Ex. PW7/C. It is clear from the evidence on record that neither the alleged letter, office copy of which is Ex.PW7/B, was actually sent by the "Registered Post" as no entry was found in the concerned Tappal Register of the branch, nor the said letter has been shown, on the face of it, to have been sent with 'Acknowledgment Due Card' nor any AD Card, showing its receipt by Swarn Lata actually was available in the bank record. All this were not there as the accused persons were unitedly defrauding the bank.

(vii) Ex.PW2/23 is the letter addressed to Manager, Canara Bank, Mayapuri dated 12.12.2001, which came in the bank alongwith willingness in the name of Swarn Lata as Guarantor on the letterhead of the Canara Bank instead of on duplicate of the letter sent by the bank. In the said letter, collumns for date and place of signatures were left blank. The said letter, Ex.PW2/23, neither bear any CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 134 of 185 pages 135 CBI case . No.13/11 marking by Chief Manager to Credit Manager (i.e. A1) nor bear any stamp or date of receipt section. Still the accused N. Rajaram (A1) did not raise any objection to the receipt of this kind of consent/willingness from the guarantor being in the utter violation of the provisions of the circular, Ex.PW7/C. Obviously, it was all because of the reason that accused N. Rajaram (A1) was hand in glove with his other coconspirators.

(viii) Ex.PW7/L is the attested copy of Manual Instructions, Mark X - copy of Circular No. 149/99 dated 18.6.1999 and Mark X1 is the Circular No.95/2000 dated 9.5.2000, which are not disputed and have been referred to by PW7 - Shri S. K. Bansal, Sr. Manager, Canara Bank, in his deposition. The same deals with the processing and sanctioning of the OCC and ILC limits and the instructions contained in the above circulars have been clearly violated by accused N. Rajaram (A1) to cause pecuniary gains to others. PW 7 has specifically deposed that for taking up proposal for Rs.10 lacs and above, assessment should be based on audit financial statements, sales tax and income tax assessment orders, past dealing of the applicant with the branch or with other bank. He further deposed that at CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 135 of 185 pages 136 CBI case . No.13/11 the time of releasing the first limit, the party is required to submit stock statement before disbursal and genuineness of the availability of the stock shown in the stock statement must be verified by visiting the place where the stock is kept by credit Manager or other officer of the bank. But in the present case, both the limits were sanctioned on 13.12.2001 and on the same date OCC limit was released and party started using the same without complying the requisite conditions of verification of the stock.

(ix) Ex. PW 11/C, Ex. PW11/D & Ex.PW24/D30 to Ex. PW24/D44 are the various cheques, which show that the cheques for various amounts under OCC limit were being issued to the parties other than those, which were mentioned in the list of suppliers, submitted with the request letter/ application for OCC limit. But accused (A1) did not raise any objection to the same. Similarly, the request for opening ILC for Rs.11,04,000/ and Rs. 8,14,000/ on two occasions in the name of M/s Shree Ram Polychem Pvt. Ltd. by M/s Kanika Chemicals India, was for a supplier, which was not mentioned in the list of suppliers submitted in the bank but no objection was raised by accused (A1). Further, as per Ex.PW2/51, Ex.PW CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 136 of 185 pages 137 CBI case . No.13/11 2/53 and Ex.PW2/54, drawing power allowed to the borrower was much more than the sanctioned limit as drawing power was dishonestly calculated as Rs.44,94,200 by accused (A1) against the sanctioned limit of Rs.25 lakhs.

(x) Ex.PW2/51 is the first stock statement dated nil, submitted by accused (A2) on behalf of M/s Kanika Chemicals India, which shows the stocks of resin and PVC granules, totaling worth of Rs.31,71,975/ although the add up value of stock under 5 heading, comes to Rs.21,62,535/ only. This shows false representation on the part of (A2) & (A3) to obtain enhanced drawing limits by showing higher amount of goods available in their godown, falsely, for hypothecation. Still further, on the back side of said proforma of the stock statement in the space for 'signatures of official' who may have checked the stock with reference to this stock statement, accused 'Mr. N. Rajaram' is mentioned with a comment "stock verification was done on 8.12.2001". It was absurd to verify the stocks as on 30.11.2001 on 8.12.2001. It is also pertinent to point out here that the stock statement itself has been shown to have been received in the bank on 12.12.2001 (as per CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 137 of 185 pages 138 CBI case . No.13/11 the stamp of the receipt of the bank). As such, there was no occasion to verify the same with the stock available in the godown at Ghaziabad four days prior, as the receipt of the stock statement was on 12.12.2001. Despite the above inconsistencies and inflation of value in the stock statement, accused (A1) did not object but signed on the back side of the said stock statements as 'Manager of the Branch'. Accused (A1) dishonestly, while calculating the drawing limits for the party, has taken into account the false and enhanced value of stock amounting to Rs. 44,94,200/, which was not even verified authentically and thereby dishonestly facilitated the party i.e. M/s Kanika Chemical India to utilize full limits of Rs.25 lakhs under OCC and ILC. Further, the partner of M/s Kanika Chemical India also withdrew the whole amount available under the OCC limit and Rs.19,18,000 under the 2 ILCs from the bank within short span of 2025 days without actually purchasing any material either under OCC limit or ILC.

(xi) Ex.PW2/52, which is the second stock statement submitted by the party dated 1.2.2002 for the stocks as on 31.1.2002, shows the opening stock worth of Rs.37,35,650 and the closing stock worth of Rs.44,71,260 at the godown CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 138 of 185 pages 139 CBI case . No.13/11 of the party at 86 Sec. 5, Rajinder Nagar, Sahibabad, whereas in the previous report Ex.PW2/51, the closing stock worth of Rs.31,71,915 has been reflected, which is contrary to the Ex.PW2/52. In the column no. 4 on the overleaf of Ex.PW2/52, date of inspection of stocks has been mentioned as 2.3.2003 in respect of the stock position dated 31.1.2002, instead of the stock position of the date of inspection. The inspection report was, therefore, bogus. The space for signing of the manager, date and place have been left blank and no officer had signed the same. Column No. 5, in respect of insurance details, has also been left blank by the party.

(xii) That as per laid down prescription to ensure the availability of sufficient primary security in the form of hypothecation of stocks available in the godown, the physical inspection of the stocks at godown of the party at Ghaziabad was required to be done twice. Firstly, it should have been done on 12/13.12.2001 as the date of sanction of limits was 13.12.2001 and secondly after the sanction but before releasing the amount. But, to the contrary of the provisions, no physical inspection was done on 12.12.2001 soon before the sanction or on 13.12.2001 CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 139 of 185 pages 140 CBI case . No.13/11 and thereafter before releasing the amount of limits. In this regard, inspection dated 28.10.2001, Ex.PW2/27, alongwith inspection certificate Ex.PW2/29 was done much prior to the date of sanction i.e. 13.12.2001 and even prior to receipt of request of M/s Kanika Chemical India for granting OCC and ILC limit vide the request letter, Ex. PW2/8.

(xiii) In the column no. 2 of the second stock inspection dated 15.2.2002, Ex.PW2/28, stock as on 'January 2002' has been mentioned instead of any specific date and in the column no.4 i.e. date of inspection, the date '15.2.2002' has been mentioned. This shows that as to how the stock available in January 2002 (no specific date has been mentioned) was inspected on 15.2.2002. In the column no. 7 (b), instead of mentioning the quantity or value of stock physically available in the godown, only 'adequate' vaguely has been mentioned. The column No. 7(d) in respect of old/ obsolete stock have been left blank and just above the signatures, the officer who allegedly inspected the stocks has mentioned that "accounts books were not shown by the party". But accused N. Rajaram (A1) instead of taking objection or immediate steps as per provisions, CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 140 of 185 pages 141 CBI case . No.13/11 only remarked on the said report as "advised the party to show the account books". All this is indicative of the fact that stock inspection was merely an eye wash and to cause pecuniary gain to the coaccused persons, norms were flouted.

(xiv) Further, none of the above reports, reflect any observation or statement as to how the fact has been verified. That the godown at 86 Sec 5, Rajender Nagar, Sahibabad, UP, was in fact, the gown of M/s Kanika Chemical India and of nobody else. Though it is mentioned at Sl. No. 12 on page 4 of the request letter Ex.PW2/8 that rent agreement of godown and rent receipt has been enclosed alongwith the letter, but in fact no such rent agreement or rent receipt were enclosed with the letter but accused (A1) did not raise any objection on this crucial deficiency in the documents at the time of processing the proposals. He, in fact, was all out to execute the illegal and criminal conspiracy entered into amongst coaccused persons.

(xv) Regarding dispatch of the letter dated 30.11.2001, Ex.PW 7/D, addressed to Smt. Swarn Lata, which is signed CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 141 of 185 pages 142 CBI case . No.13/11 by A1, there is no entry in the Tappal Register/courier Book ledger of the branch for the period 21.9.2001 to 15.6.2002. The office copy of the said letter, which does not have any mention of having sent the said letter with Acknowledgment Due Card, shows that accused (A1) deliberately did not send the said letter to the guarantor through a registered AD letter and created a favourable situation for commission of the offences, so that the accused persons could place on record a bogus consent of guarantor in the name of Swarn Lata with the forged signatures of Swarn Lata by accused (A5) in the bank record creating a false record about the confirmation of residential address and consent of the actual guarantor. (xvi) In para 11 of the Legal Search Report approval, Ex. PW2/31, it has been wrongly mentioned that upto date tax paid receipts of the property, which is being mortgaged, are available whereas the house tax receipt dated 27.8.2001 only was available and was not having any ticket affixed thereon in token of receipt of cash amount of Rs.1200. It indicates that it was prima facie a doubtful and bogus receipt. In the column no. 8 of the report dated 3.12.2001, it has also been falsely mentioned that title deeds are/will CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 142 of 185 pages 143 CBI case . No.13/11 be deposited at least one day earlier than the date on which mortgage papers were obtained as the title deeds. This report was prepared by accused (A1) and his signatures at point B on the last page of the report have been identified by PW2.

(xvii) In the valuation report report, Ex. PW 2/32 at internal page No. 5 under the declaration of the Assessee dated 22.11.2001, the space for signatures of the Assessee (i.e. the owner of the property) has been left blank, which indicates that the so called Swarn Lata was not available at the time of assessment but despite the said deficiency, A1 processed and favourably recommended the said report.

(xviii) At the time of physical verification of the property on 28.10.2001 in respect of property at 184, Saini Enclave, Vikas Marg, New Delhi, which was to be taken as collateral security, neither the signatures of the occupant Swarn Lata was obtained on the certificate, Ex. PW 2/29, nor any copy of water bill, electricity bill / other documents showing the possession and title of the property was obtained from the so called Swarn Lata nor any name or CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 143 of 185 pages 144 CBI case . No.13/11 details of the persons from whom accused (A1) made enquiry about the title and possession of the property, has been mentioned in the certificate. This indicates that certificate, Ex.PW2/29, was created/manipulated in pursuance of criminal conspiracy. Further, physical verification certificate was kept ready with favourable report on 28.10.2001 itself even prior to the first request for loan was made on 02.11.2001 by the party. Accused (A1) is the signatory to Ex.PW2/29.

(xix) The conditions mentioned in para 2 & 3 for clearing ILC and para 5 & 14A relating to 'nature of transport' and 'insurance' of Ex.PW24/14 i.e. Agreement for Opening ILC, were dishonestly ignored by (A1) N. Rajaram while accepting and passing the ILC papers.

(xx) Signatures of accused (A1) have been identified by witnesses including PW9 Ashok Kumar Marwah on the documents like appraisal noteEx.PW2/25 at Q21, office note, recommendation, format for reporting sanction i.e. Ex. PW2/26 at Q23; letter dated 29.11.2001Ex. PW 2/30; cheque list dated 3.12.2001-Ex.PW2/31; agreement of letter of credit-Ex.PW24/D15, hypothecation papers CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 144 of 185 pages 145 CBI case . No.13/11 Ex.PW9/A1, etc. As per GEQD handwriting expert, Shimla, the questioned writings have been written by the accused (A1), N. Rajaram, whose specimen writing are on S 1 to S8. This indicates positive involvement of accused (A1) in the alleged offences as against them. Accused (A1), therefore, in pursuance to the criminal conspiracy, criminally misconducted and cheated the bank using forged and fabricated documents and committed offences punishable under section 120(B) IPC read with sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, besides offences under sections 420, 471 IPC and under section 13 (1) (d) read with section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

265. It has been authoritatively held that :

"Manager of the Bank responsible for the sanction of a loan is much more responsible to sanction the loan and to see all documents complete and in order and that the same are valid. It is his responsibility to examine the complete record and then sanction the loan. If there is an allegation of grant of loan on the basis of forged/fabricated documents, it is not a case of mere negligence. It is a case of conspiracy."

CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 145 of 185 pages 146 CBI case . No.13/11 {R.K. Tyagi vs. The ChairmancumManaging Director, 2011(7) RCR (Criminal) 2497 (Punjab & Haryana)relied upon}.

266. In 'Tara Chand Vyas vs. Chairman & Disciplinary Authority (1997) 4 SCC 565', the Hon'ble Apex Court observed 'The banking business and services were nationalized to achieve the objects of economic empowerment of weaker sections of the people as a part of social and economic justice. The nationalized banks, therefore, are the prime sources and pillars for establishment of socioeconomic justice for the weaker sections. The employees and officers working in the banks are not merely the trustees of the society, but also bear the responsibility and owe duty to the society for effectuation of socioeconomic empowerment. The banking business and services are vitally affected by catastrophic corruption. It is required to eradicate corruption to properly channelize the use of public funds, the live wire for effectuation of socio economic justice in order to achieve the CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 146 of 185 pages 147 CBI case . No.13/11 constitutional goal set in the preamble to the constitution and to see that the corruption conduct of the officers do not degenerate the efficiency of service leading to denationalization of the banking system.'

267. In the case law reported as R. Venkata Krishnan vs. CBI, AIR 2000 SC 1812 it was held that that 'though it is true, that all the funds diverted were subsequently returned to NHB and no loss had thereby occasioned either to UCO Bank or the NHB but it must not be forgotten that white collar crimes of such a nature affect the whole society even though they may not have any victims. The conviction under section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was justified and was held'.

268. Evidence against accused Ashok Kumar Singhal (A2) and Neeraj Kumar(A3)

(i) Request letter, Ex. PW2/8, dated 2.11.2001, under the signatures of accused (A2) was submitted for accused (A2) & (A3) to the bank alongwith false and forged documents to cheat the bank.

 CBI vs. N. Rajaram &  Ors.                                                     147 of 185 pages
                                                      148
                                                                           CBI case . No.13/11 




       (ii)     Photocopies   (D2   iviii   &   xvii)   reflecting   audited

balance sheets, etc., showing that the same were duly certified by Chartered Accountants Goyal Gupta and Associates, were forged as no such firm of the Chartered Accountants was exiting or even registered after 1992. As per Ex.PW 6/A i.e. the letter dated 4.3.2004 of Institute of Chartered Accountant of India, the firm M/s Goyal Gupta & Associates was already closed w.e.f. 7.11.1992 and testimony of PW2P.K. Batra and his investigation report, Ex.PW2/64 has established on record that the said firm was not functioning at the given/registered address during the relevant period.

(iii) Letter Ex.PW20/A and testimony of PW20Gajraj Singh, STO, shows that the photocopies of sale tax papers (D2 ixxvi), which were submitted with request letter dated 2.11.2001, were copies of forged documents as the same were not issued by the said authority.

(iv) Some necessary columns in the photocopies of the Income Tax Returns (D2 xviii) submitted by accused (A2) are shown to have been left blank and even impression of CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 148 of 185 pages 149 CBI case . No.13/11 seal of receipt with date of income tax authority is missing on copy of one of the returns and income particulars are not tallying with the balance sheet and sale tax papers of M/s Kanika Chemicals, India, hence the same, on the face of it, were bogus documents.

(v) The place of business of M/s Kanika Chemical India had been falsely mentioned in photocopy of the Partnership Deed relied upon and furnished by accused (A2) & (A3) as "86 Sec., Rajender Nagar, Sahibad, UP"

whereas in the request letter, the address/place at "103, Ist Floor, Swastik Tower, Jaina Complex (behind Natraj Cinema), New Delhi 15" and godown at "86 Rajender Nagar, Sec.5, Ghaziabad, UP" had been mentioned.

(vi) The request letter for loan was dated 2.11.2001 and was moved in the bank on 02.11.2001 admittedly, whereas its annexures i.e. three certificates of Nikhil Trading Co., Ashish & Co and Jai Dayal Industries are of dated 22.11.2001, 23.11.2001 and 24.11.2001, respectively. This show on the face of it that false and fabricated documents were generated in advance and were submitted in bank by accused (A2) & (A3).

CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 149 of 185 pages 150 CBI case . No.13/11

(vii) Statement of Account of CA No.1616 of Bharat Overseas Bank, Vaishali, Shahibad of M/s Kanika Chemical India Ltd., from 1.1.2001 to 27.11.2001 showing the balance of Rs.17 lakhs, which is only photocopy of computer print out and was admittedly submitted by accused (A2) & (A3), was totally false/bogus as the same did not bear signatures or seal/stamp of the concerned bank and as per testimony of PW22, there was no branch of Bharat Overseas Bank at Sahibabad during the relevant period. Though, the party has opened said account no. CA No. 1616 with Bharat Overseas Bank on 27.7.2001 but it was at Vaishali/Ghaziabad branch and not at Sahibabad and the maximum standing balance ever was Rs.5,800/ and not Rs.17 lakhs as shown in the said statement of accounts. Accused persons (A2) & (A3) thus, furnished false and fabricated copy of the bank statement to fraudulently obtain loan facilities.

(viii) In the request letter, Ex.PW2/8, under the heading "godown facilities", office and godown were shown on rent at Moti Nagar, New Delhi and Sahibabad respectively.

However, neither the copy of rent agreement in respect of CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 150 of 185 pages 151 CBI case . No.13/11 godown premises nor any rent receipt of either of the premises were made available to the bank. There is nothing in inspection report to show that the godown was in possession and in what capacity was with M/s Kanika Chemicals India of accused (A2) & (A3).

(ix) The copy of the rent agreement dated 25.3.1998 in respect of the office premises at Swastik Tower, Jaina Complex, Basai Dara Pur Road, New Delhi, was only for 22 months (as per para 4) and the same had already expired as no evidence or proof regarding renewal of the said rent deed or any receipt after the expiry date was submitted by the party to the bank. Further, since the said rent deed was for more than one year, the same was required to be compulsorily registered, but the copy of the said agreement clearly indicated that it was unregistered. Such an agreement is not enforceable under the law and was needed to be thrown out outrightly. In any case, accused (A2) & (A3) used tenancy agreement which was not in force at the relevant time when request for loan was made.

(x) It has been mentioned by A2 in the request letter, Ex.PW2/8, under the heading 'other information' that "we CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 151 of 185 pages 152 CBI case . No.13/11 are basically dealing in plastic granules and polyster resin. We are purchasing the same from Madan Stores Pvt. Ltd., Jai Dayal Industries, etc.(detailed list enclosed). The major buyer are MM Associates Pvt. Ltd., Ram Trading Company, Das Gupta & Company etc.(detailed list enclosed)." But in the above two lists, neither the name of supplier Jai Dayal Industries nor name of above buyersMM Associates Pvt. Ltd., Ram Trading Company, etc. were mentioned. It shows malafide intention of accused (A2) while submitting the documents and accused (A1), who dishonestly overlooked the major contradictions while scrutinizing the documents.

(xi) The name of the Nikhil Trading Company and Jupiter Trading (India), which were the proprietary concern of accused (A2) and (A3) respectively, were dishonestly included in the list of suppliers so that the OCC limit may be siphoned off without making actual purchase of the material. The seven cheques amounting to Rs.20,67,610/ in favour of said Nikhil Trading Company of accused (A2) and two cheques amounting to Rs.4,65,660/ duly proved on record favouring Jupiter Trading company of accused (A3), were issued within 10 days of sanctioned limit of Rs.

CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 152 of 185 pages 153 CBI case . No.13/11 25 lakhs, from the OCC account No. 10301, Canara Bank, Maya Puri of M/s Kanika Chemicals India. The sanctioned limit had thus been misappropriated by the accused persons (A2) & (A3) under the cheque No. 556718 dated 19.12.2001 for Rs.4 lakhs, cheque No. 382563 dated 15.12.2001 for Rs.1.5 lakhs, cheque No. 527753 dated 5.1.2002 for Rs.5 lakhs, all favouring Raj Exports of Ms. Raj Singhal, wife of accused (A2), Ashok Kumar Singhal. It shows that accused persons (A2) and (A3) have siphoned off the amount of OCC limit without actually purchasing the material from genuine suppliers. All this was pre meditated by accused (A2) & (A3) from the very beginning to cheat the bank.

(xii) Vide cheque no. 565461 dated 21.12.2001 and cheque no.5654600 dated 9.12.2002 duly proved on record amount of Rs.2,76,000/ and Rs.2,03,500/ respectively, were utilized for the preparation of bank draft for the purposes other than those for which the limits were sanctioned to M/s Kanika Chemicals India of accused persons (A2) and (A3).

(xiii) Under the ILC Limit of Rs.25 lakhs sanctioned to CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 153 of 185 pages 154 CBI case . No.13/11 M/s Kanika Chemicals, PVC granules have been shown to have been purchased under LC No.38/01 dated 21.12.2001 amounting to Rs.11.04,000/ and L.No. 3/02 dated 19.1.2002 amounting to Rs.8,14,000/ respectively from M/s Shree Ram Polychem Pvt. Ltd., which was totally unknown firm to the bank and whose name was also not mentioned in the list of suppliers submitted by (A2) and (A3) with their request letter. But accused (A1) accepted and passed these papers on behalf of the bank, without raising any objections as to why a new supplier other than out of the list was coming in the picture and was overlooked. The deficiencies in the documents submitted by M/s Shree Ram Polychem Pvt. Ltd., such as delivery notes on their letter head instead of genuine delivery receipts was also ignored. Accused (A1) did not insist upon submission of lorry receipts/goods receipts, insurance papers evidencing actual physical delivery of the goods in pursuance to the criminal conspiracy to cheat the bank.

(xiv) Accused (A2) and (A3), at the time of opening of ILC, dishonestly misrepresented the point of origin and destination of goods as from "Delhi to Delhi", whereas CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 154 of 185 pages 155 CBI case . No.13/11 M/s Kanika Chemicals India was having its godown admittedly at Ghaziabad in UP and not in Delhi. So the goods were required to be transported to the godown at Ghaziabad to create a charge on them as primary security/hypothecated for the bank. But accused (A1) dishonestly overlooked this crucial aspect at the behest of accused (A2) and other co accused persons and allowed 2 ILC to be opened mentioning the place of origin and destination as from 'Delhi to Delhi'.

(xv) The certificate dated 22.11.2001, which is Ex.PW2/18, submitted by accused (A2) at the time of submission of request letter in the bank, is a forged certificate as signatures of proprietor of Nikhil Trading Company appearing on it inside the stamp are different from those which are appearing on the cheque 556718 dated 19.12.2001, Ex.PW11/C, was duly issued by the proprietor of the Nikhil Trading Company. (xvi) Accused persons (A2) and (A3) brought accused (A5), Raj Kumari before the bank as guarantor for loan of Rs.50 lakhs and dishonestly impersonated her as Swarn Lata wife of R. S. Saini. Accused (A2) and (A3) also CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 155 of 185 pages 156 CBI case . No.13/11 submitted the forged document, Ex.PW2/57, as original Perpetual sub Lease Deed dated 3.4.1976, which is shown as registered on 15.6.1976 and forged original house tax receipt dated 27.9.2001, Ex.PW2/59, in the bank by impersonating and using the accused (A5), illegally. (xvii) As per GEQD Handwriting Expert's opinion, which was unchallenged, various questioned writing at encircled portions have been written by accused (A2) Ashok Kumar Singhal, whose specimen writing are S19 to S23, which are Ex.PW24/D7375. GEQD Handwriting Expert has also opined that various questioned writing at encircled portions have been written by accused (A3) Neeraj Kumar, whose specimen writing are S24 to S30, which are Ex.PW 24/D7682. Both these accused persons, thus, committed offence punishable under section 120B IPC read with sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC read with section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, besides offences under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.

269. Evidence against accused Deepak Kumar (A4) (Since deceased) which can be read against other coaccused CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 156 of 185 pages 157 CBI case . No.13/11 persons by virtue of section 10 of the Evidence Act, even though the proceedings against accused (A4) had abated.

(i) As per GEQD Handwriting Expert opinion, questioned writings at encircled portions Q94, 95, 96, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103 & 104 on Ex.PW2/57 i.e. original perpetual sub lease deed, which was submitted in the bank by accused (A5), Raj Kumari alongwith coaccused Ashok Kumar Singhal and Neeraj Kumar on 12.12.2001, have been written by accused (A4) Deepak Kumar, whose specimen writings are S31 to S97 (Ex.24/D83 145).

(ii) Thus, Ex.PW2/57 was forged by accused persons (A4) and (A5) alongwith (A2) and (A3) for the purpose of cheating and they all used the same as genuine by submitting the same in the bank for creating a false Equitable Mortgate to cheat the bank for getting sanctioned the loan limits and also for disbursal of OCC limit and ILC limit.

270. Evidence against accused Raj Kumari (A5)

(i) Accused (A5) Raj Kumari on 12.12.2001 by impersonating herself as Swarn Lata w/o R. S. Saini, CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 157 of 185 pages 158 CBI case . No.13/11 submitted forged perpetual sub lease deed, Ex.PW2/57, as genuine original perpetual sub lease deed, for the property at 184, Saini Enclave and mortgaged the same with the bank as collateral security with fake house tax receipt Ex.PW2/59, forged permission letter of DDAEx.PW2/60 and forged affidavit in the name of Swarn Lata, Ex.PW2/58. She forged the signatures of Swarn Lata by signing the letter dated 13.12.2001, Ex.PW2/55.

(ii) On 12.12.2001, accused (A5) impersonated herself as Swarn Lata at the time of opening of account No.SB 10185, Ex.PW2/62 and forged signatures of Swarn Lata at point Q1 and Q2 on 12.12.2001. PW13 Satish Sikri has deposed in his testimony that on 12.12.2001 at the time of opening of said account, account openerSwarn Lata had signed the opening form in his presence and he had identified accused (A5), Raj Kumari as the same lady, who had introduced herself as Swarn Lata while opening the said account. PW 13 also identified the photograph of the account opener on the said form, Ex.PW2/62 at point A.

(iii) Smt. Swarn Lata, who has been examined as PW14, deposed that she never visited the Canara Bank, Maya Puri CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 158 of 185 pages 159 CBI case . No.13/11 and denied having signed the papers including Ex. PW2/33Guarantee Agreement, Ex.PW2/57 Perpetual SubLease Deed at point A and Ex.PW2/62 the Account Opening form.

(iv) PW23Venugopal, who lived in Flat No. A54/D1, Delux Apartment, Shalimar Garden Ext. Sahibabad, Gaziabad, UP, for seven years, deposed that there were 17 flats only and no lady by the name of Swarn Lata used to reside in any of the flats. He further deposed that accused Deepak Kumar was residing on the top of his flat and he identified the accused Deepak Kumar (who was alive at that time) in the court as the said Deepak Kumar. The address of Swarn Lata, therefore, given by accused (A5) was fake.

(v) Opinion of GEQD, Shimla, has also established incriminating role of accused (A5). According to his (expert's opinion) report, questioned writings on different documents at encircled portions have been written by accused Raj Kumari (A5), whose specimen signatures are S14 to S18, Ex.PW24/D66 70.

 CBI vs. N. Rajaram &  Ors.                                                    159 of 185 pages
                                                     160
                                                                          CBI case . No.13/11 

       (vi)    It   is,   thus,   clear   that   accused   Raj   Kumari,   in

pursuance to the criminal conspiracy with co accused persons, impersonated herself as Swarn Lata and gave her false address as A54, Shalimar Garden, Sahibabad and forged the signatures of Swarn Lata and submitted forged documents alongwith willingness letter under the name of Swan Lata to show that the registered letter copy of which is Ex.PW7/B, was received by her at A54, Shalimar Garden, Sahibabad, UP and cheated the bank. She has, thus, committed offences punishable under section 120B IPC read with sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC read with section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, besides offences under sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.

271. Evidence against accused Hukum Chand Garg (A6)

(i) Accused (A6) had, admittedly, submitted his report, Ex.PW2/DX1 on 22.11.2001 after allegedly claiming having investigated the record in the sub Registrar office, Delhi on 20.11.2001. In Ex.PW2/DX1, accused (A6) had mentioned that he visited the office of Sub Registrar, Seelampur & Sub Registrar, Geeta Colony but only one receipt was filed by him to the bank and appears on CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 160 of 185 pages 161 CBI case . No.13/11 record. On the other hand, he stated that after seeing the record of Sub Registrar, Delhi, he found the things in order. This clearly indicates that without visiting the office of Sub Registrar concerned he manipulated false report. In the column 'documents on the basis of which legal search was made' in his report, documents (1) Original perpetual sub lease deed (a fake document) in respect of property No. 184, Saini Enclave dated 15.6.1976 and (2) Original House Tax Receipt dated 27.9.2001(a fake document), have been mentioned and it was claimed that he was having these original documents at the time of making the legal search. Accused (A6) in his report in the relevant column has also allegedly verified the property in question to have been duly mutated/entered in the concerned revenue record and that Swarn Lata to be in physical possession of the property in question. Both these facts, in fact, were false to the knowledge of accused (A6) as the property had already been sold to one Mr. Amit Modi in year 1992 and was recorded as free hold in his name. The accused (A6) has qualified his verification by mentioning "as per the original house tax receipt dated 27.9.2001" but the same does not appear to be proper justification since the said house tax receipt was never verified (in fact it was also a CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 161 of 185 pages 162 CBI case . No.13/11 fake document) then how it could be the basis for verification of the facts of physical possession and mutation by its owner.

(ii) According to the record of the bank, the original perpetual lease deed and original House Tax receipt were filed by the mortgagor/owner in the bank only on 12.12.2001 and her affidavit is also dated 27.11.2001. The bank itself did not possess these two original documents and, therefore, could not give the same to accused (A6) prior to 12.12.2001 when for the first time the alleged owner appeared with the original documents before the bank to give her consent and affidavit dated 27.11.2001. It is, therefore, clear that accused (A6) and accused (A5) were hand in glove and the said documents were made available to accused (A6) by accused (A5) or accused (A6) clandestinely obtained these two original documents from accused(A5) and or other coaccused persons in pursuance to the criminal conspiracy and made false and dishonest legal search report to benefit coaccused persons in terms of the alleged criminal conspiracy.

CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 162 of 185 pages 163 CBI case . No.13/11

(iii) Accused (A6), in his another letter on his letterhead dated 12.12.2001 {though not exhibited but available on record and bear the stamp of the bank in token of being received in the bank from this accused and which was made available by the the bank to the IO} has mentioned in his own handwriting that the original perpetual sub lease deed (which was forged) has been seen and scrutinized by him with original deed at the Sub Registrar Office and the same is genuine. This indicates that even on 12.12.2001 he was in the bank with accused (A5) and other coaccused persons to ensure commission of the alleged offences. The certified copy of the original title deed, proved on record, clearly show that this document and house tax receipt, relied upon by accused (A6), were forged.

(iv) In the said legal search report and certificate dated 12.12.2001, accused (A6) has not mentioned about any reference, date or letter of the bank, in pursuant to or on the asking of which he made legal search and then reported the correctness of the original title deed to be taken as equitable mortgage in the bank. It shows that he without asking of the bank, in pursuance to a criminal conspiracy, CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 163 of 185 pages 164 CBI case . No.13/11 already hatched, gave the said fake report and certificate.

(v) Further, the amount of fees for giving report is required to be paid by the bank after debiting it from the account of the party but it has not been debited in the account of the party i.e. M/s Kanika Chemicals (Ex.PW7/D and Ex.PW7/F clearly demonstrate this) nor there is any indication that it was claimed by him from the bank. This further reiterate the fact that accused (A6) was fully involved with the other accused persons i.e. (A1), (A2), (A3) & (A5) to commit the offences in this case and did not bother to charge the nominal fees from the bank for the report submitted by him for obvious reason of having driven substantial pecuniary gains from the party, otherwise. Accused (A6) has admitted having given report in question to the bank even in his statement under section 313 Cr. PC.

272. The report of the accused (A6) under the circumstances proved his active complicity and participation to hatch the criminal conspiracy and then defraud and cheat the bank by using forged documents.

CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 164 of 185 pages 165 CBI case . No.13/11

273. It has been authoritatively held that 'Where element of deception existed from the very beginning, prima facie case against the accused of deception is made out {Vijaynatraj vs. State, 2011(4) MLJ(Criminal) 369}.'

274. The case law reported as CBI Hyderabad vs. K. Narayana Rao, JT 2012(9) SC 359 does not help the accused (A6) in view of the circumstances proved in this case that accused (A6) was hand in glove with the other conspirator accused persons to defraud the bank. In this very case, Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in this very case that ' It is made clear that if there is a link or evidence to connect the accused with other conspirators for causing loss to the institutions, undoubtedly, the prosecuting authorities are entitled to proceed under criminal prosecution".

275. Accused (A6) in this case was, thus, active participant in the crime to defraud the bank, without any pale of doubt and committed offence punishable under section 120B IPC read with sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC read with section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, besides offences under sections 420 & 471 IPC.

CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 165 of 185 pages 166 CBI case . No.13/11

276. It has been held that 'where element of deception existed from the beginning, case of deception made out against the accused. {2012(6) RCR (Criminal) 1553 (Madras)}.'

277. Evidence against accused Ram Das Gupta (A7) and Manish Gupta (A8)

(i) Accused (A7) Ram Das Gupta and (A8) Manish Gupta, who were the Directors of M/s Shree Ram Polychem P Ltd. in pursuant to criminal conspiracy with other co accused persons, got issued two LCs of Rs. 11,04,000 and Rs.8,14,000/ in favour of M/s Shree Ram Polychem Pvt. Ltd. and also raised false and fabricated bills without supplying any material and received payment for the same.

(ii) M/s Shree Ram Polychem Pvt. Ltd. claimed to have purchased the material from M/s I P Enterprises (non existent) under the bills/cash memos No. 205 dated 18.12.2001, which is Ex. PW28/DX2; No. 203 dated 18.12.2001, which is Ex.PW28/DX3 and No. 104 dated 22.10.2001 and, thereafter, allegedly sold the said material to M/s Kanika Chemicals India vide invoice No.07 dated CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 166 of 185 pages 167 CBI case . No.13/11 22.12.2001.

(iii) The bills, submitted by them for supply of material to M/s Kanika Chemicals India, are false and bogus as there are inherent contradictions in their records of account. PW29 has proved in his deposition that the firm, M/s I. P. Enterprises was not existing or functioning in the year 200102 at the address which was given in the four sale invoices, vide which M/s Shree Ram Polychem Pvt. Ltd. allegedly purchased the material. Once the said M/s I.P. Enterprises did not exist at that address there could be no purchase of the said material from a nonexistent enterprise and the supply of the same to M/s Kanika Chemicals India was only a fake transaction shown by accused (A7) & (A8) in connivance with (A1), (A2) & (A3).

(iv) That, a computer printout, Ex.DW2/A, has been placed on record through examination of DW2 by accused persons (A7) and (A8) themselves, showing that I. P. Enterprises was registered with the concerned Tax Department, whose registration was cancelled after 2001. However, on bare perusal of the same, it is clear that the CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 167 of 185 pages 168 CBI case . No.13/11 said document has different address than the address which has been mentioned on the admitted invoices and proved on record which pertains to M/s Shree Ram Polychem Pvt. Ltd. In the Ex.DW2/A, the address of the alleged I. P. Enterprises has been mentioned as 'WZ 67A, Sant Garhi, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi', whereas in the invoices of I. P. Enterprises where from the goods were claimed to have been purchased by accused (A7) & (A8), its address has been shown as WZ 304 DDA Colony, Khayala, New Delhi (a non existent concern). It shows that the firm, which was registered with VAT Authorities having the similar name, was distinctively other different firm. The defence evidence led by DW2, therefore, only supports the version given by PW29 and exposes the fraud played by accused persons (A7) & (A8) of using fake invoices of M/s I.P. Enterprises.

(v) As per the testimony of PW29 Balvinder Singh, M/s I. P. Enterprises was not existing at the given address i.e. WZ 304, J. J. Colony, Khyala, New Delhi. He categorically stated that he purchased the property No. E 304, J. J. Colony Khyala, New Delhi 18, in August 1999 and sold the same in 2006 and he never let out the said property to CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 168 of 185 pages 169 CBI case . No.13/11 anyone or to any Rakesh Kumar. Neither he knows any Rakesh Kumar nor the firm I P Enterprises ever existed at the said premises nor any address specifically described as WZ 304, J. J. Colony, Khayala, New Delhi, existed.

(vi) Had the accused (A7) and (A8), in fact, purchased/procured the material in question from some I. P. Enterprises for supplying the same to M/s Kanika Chemicals India, then once it was shown by the prosecution that the said I.P. Enterprises did not exist at the given address, the burden shifted on to the accused persons (A7) & (A8) under section 106 of the Evidence Act to prove that the material was supplied as it was within their special knowledge. They have failed to do so. On the other hand, accused (A7) & (A8) produced and examined DW2 only to confirm the prosecution version that M/s I.P. Enterprises did not exist at the given address.

(vii) Further, in the Statements of accounts of M/s I. P. Enterprises, whose authorized signatory has been shown as one Rakesh Kumar, no entry has been reflected of the credit of the amount shown in the said invoices of M/s I.P. Enterprises during the period of purchase by M/s Shree CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 169 of 185 pages 170 CBI case . No.13/11 Ram Polychem from M/s I. P. Enterprises.

(viii) That for showing the proof of actual physical delivery of material, two delivery certificates were submitted in the bank by the party, which were bogus because for the purpose of actual physical delivery of thousands of tons of goods even in the same city, it would require transport/many trucks and actual delivery document in that case would be the delivery challans of the trucks but the same are conspicuous by its absence. Admittedly, there is no mention of any transporter, packing list, etc. either on the bills/cash memos allegedly issued by M/s I. P. Enterprises or on the final invoices submitted by M/s Shree Ram Polychem Pvt Ltd. It shows that these transactions were fake and were on papers only to illegally get the money released in the form of ILCs.

(ix) At the time of opening of ILCs, on the two proforma invoices of M/s Shree Ram Polychem Pvt Ltd., admittedly it was mentioned that sales tax and other charges would be in addition to the amount mentioned therein but in the final invoices no amount of tax/packing charges were added and only word 'tax paid' was mentioned in the CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 170 of 185 pages 171 CBI case . No.13/11 invoice and no detail of the tax including what amount and who had paid it and with what authority it was ultimately deposited, has been mentioned. As accused persons (A7) & (A8) had special knowledge of all these facts, they were obliged under the law to prove this under section 106 of the Evidence Act but they failed.

278. In the case law, reported as Sawal Das vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1974, SC Page 778, it has been observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that the 'burden of proving the plea specifically set up by accused which may absolve him from criminal liability certainly rests upon him'.

279. Further, in the case law reported as State of Haryana vs. Ram Swaroop (2002) 7 SCC page 250 and State of Punjab vs. Karnail Singh (2003) 11 SCC Page 271, it has been observed that 'the facts within the special knowledge of accused, if any, not satisfactorily explained, it is a factor against the accused, relevant while considering the totality of the circumstances'.

280. All this was because (A7) & (A8) in connivance with (A2) & (A3) were all out to cheat the bank.

 CBI vs. N. Rajaram &  Ors.                                                    171 of 185 pages
                                                      172
                                                                           CBI case . No.13/11 




       (x)     In the stock inspection conducted by the bank in its

report dated 15.2.2002, which is Ex.PW2/28, there is no indication of quantity, nature and value of stock supplied by accused (A7) & (A8) to accused (A2) & (A3). Admittedly, accused (A2) & (A3) never made out a case that prior to 15.02.2002 and prior to the alleged supply, they had sold the goods which were supplied. This shows that in fact accused (A7) & (A8) did not supply the alleged goods and the alleged transaction was fake.

(xi) The alleged stock register, admittedly, handed over by M/s Shree Ram Polychem Pvt. Ltd. and appear on record is apparently a bogus document as there are no regular entries in it to show that it was authentically maintained in the regular course of business. Whichever entries exist in the same do not match with the account book entries. There appear cuttings on entries for 18.1.2001 to 15.3.2001(Page 6-9), which shows that the same were made on 15.3.2001 to adjust some inserted entries on page 5. The entries showing the receipt of material for I P. Enterprises on 18.2.2001 and dispatched to M/s Kanika Chemicals India on 22.2.2001 have been CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 172 of 185 pages 173 CBI case . No.13/11 made at page 15 instead of at page 4, where these should have been recorded in the normal course. It clearly shows that entries at page 15 were inserted later on as an afterthought and manipulation.

(xii) M/s Shree Ram Polychem Pvt. Ltd. allegedly made the payment of about Rs.20 lakhs to M/s I P. Enterprises, in cash, instead of cheque which is not permissible under the Law of Income Tax. False plea appears to have been taken by accused (A7) & (A8) as an afterthought to cover up the mischief because it was a fake transaction on paper only. Even otherwise, Ex.PW16/A1 to Ex.PW16/A7 are the cheques issued by accused (A7) & (A8) in the name of M/s I.P. Enterprises and are of much smaller amount that is Rs.8.14 Lakhs and Rs.11.04 Lakhs. It, therefore, does not appeal to logic that accused (A7) and (A8) would have made huge payment in cash and smaller payments through cheque. The plea of having made payment in cash by accused (A7) & (A8) is thus patently false.

(xiii) The signatures of accused (A7), Ram Das Gupta appearing on the various documents like Ex.PW25/C i.e. Account Opening Form of M/s Krishna Chemical India, CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 173 of 185 pages 174 CBI case . No.13/11 Ex. PW16/A5 - cheque No.143306; Ex.PW24/B & Ex.PW 24/D153 (i.e. Account Opening Form and Specimen Signatures Card of account No.31199 of M/s Shree Ram Polychem Pvt. Ltd. in Canara Bank); on Ex.PW16/A 11 (i.e. Cheque No. 143339 as one of the Directors of M/s Shree Ram Polychem Pvt. Ltd. and on Ex.PW25/B i.e. account opening form (as introducer of account of Rakesh Kumar as Proprietor of I. P. Enterprises) appears to have been made by one and the same person. It shows that supplies, which has been shown from M/s Krishna Chemicals India to M/s Shree Ram Polychem Pvt. Ltd., are not actual supplies but only on papers just to rotate the money. The above stated signatures can be compared under section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act by the court with the admitted and proved signatures of the accused on other documents available on record.

(xiv) It is also clear that the account of CA No.970 dated 7.9.1999 with Karur Vysya Bank, in the name of I. P. Enterprises (nonexisting firm), was got opened, vide Ex.PW25/B at the fake address of Khyala, New Delhi, through (by introducing) one of the Directors of M/s Shree Ram Polychem Pvt. Ltd {i.e. accused (A7)}. For the CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 174 of 185 pages 175 CBI case . No.13/11 purpose of cheating and rotating the money through fake paper transactions without actual purchase/sale of PVC Granules and resin.

(xv) In Ex.PW28/DX5 i.e. the certified copy of the statement of account of M/s Shree Ram Polychem Pvt. Ltd. of account No. OD 50542, Canara Bank, DDU Marg, New Delhi, there is no entry for payment to the tune of Rs. 24,000/ or Rs.10,32,000 on or around 18.12.2001 or of Rs. 9,79,575 on or around 22.10.2001 to M/s I. P. Enterprises. Even, there is no entry showing any such payment to M/s I.P. Enterprises on 22.12.2001 or 19.1.2001 or afterwards, showing that the transaction of supply of goods to accused (A2) & (A3) was fake one.

(xvi) As per the opinion of GEQD, Shimla, Ex.PW24/D164, the questioned writings at encircled portion Q293 & Q294 have been written by A7Ram Das Gupta, whose specimen writings are S104 to S109. Further the opinion of GEQD, Shimla, Ex.PW24/D165, shows that the questioned writings at encircled portion Q292 have been written by accused (A8) Manish Gupta, whose admitted writings are A1 to A6 and whose CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 175 of 185 pages 176 CBI case . No.13/11 signatures are available on account opening form/ specimen signatures card. The expert's opinion, also, therefore, corroborates and proves the involvement of the accused persons (A7) & (A8) in the alleged crime. Both these accused persons, thus, committed offence punishable under section 120B IPC read with sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC read with section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, besides offences under sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC.

281. All the accused persons thus cheated the bank using forged and fabricated documents in pursuance to a well crafted conspiracy. It has been held by our own High Court that 'where the accused obtained loan from the bank by producing forged documents, the method adopted by the accused to get the loan cannot be accepted as offences under section 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC are attracted {Hardayal Gumber vs. CBI, 2011 (9) AD (Delhi)}'.

282. In the case law reported as Devender Kumar Singla vs. Baldev Krishan Singla, 2004 Cri LJ 1774 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed the following points as essential ingredients to attract section 420 IPC:

 CBI vs. N. Rajaram &  Ors.                                                       176 of 185 pages
                                                       177
                                                                            CBI case . No.13/11 

       1. Cheating;

2.Dishonest inducement to deliver property or to make, alter or destroy any valuable security or anything which is sealed or signed or is capable of being converted into a valuable security, and

3.Mens rea of the accused at the time of making the inducement. The making of a false representation is one of the ingredients for the offence of cheating under section

420."..

283. In the case law reported as AIR 2004 SC 3229, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :

"For an offence under section 471, one of the necessary ingredients is fraudulent and dishonest use of the document as genuine. The act need not be both dishonest and fraudulent".

284. It has been asserted by the defence during the course of arugments that there are defects in the investigation. It is true that the present case has not been very effectively and professionally investigated by the Investigating Officer. Had it been investigated effectively much more could have come on the surface and much larger rackets could have CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 177 of 185 pages 178 CBI case . No.13/11 been unearthed, regarding the fraud in the bank. However, so long as case of the prosecution on the basis of circumstances and documents, established and available on record is concerned, the defect, if any, in the investigation does not help the present accused persons at all. It is well settled that a person may tell a lie but the documents and circumstances will not.

285. Regarding defective investigation, it has been held that 'It would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect as to do so would tentamount to playing into the hands of the investigation officer if the investigation is designedly defective. The prosecution evidence is required to be examined 'de hors' such ommission to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not'.{Dayal Singh vs. State of Uttranchal, 2012 AIR(SC) 3046}.

286. It has been held that 'That there were lacunas in investigation does not mean that incriminating evidence, if any, appearing against accused persons has to be ignored'.{Tejpal vs. State, 2012(6) RCR Criminal 798 Delhi(DB)}

287. In the case law reported as State vs. Santosh Kumar Singh, 2006(4) Crimes 782 (Del), the CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 178 of 185 pages 179 CBI case . No.13/11 Hon'ble High Court has held that 'Courts should not be influenced by suspicious roles played by the investigation officer during investigation and criminal justice should not be made a casualty for wrongs committed by investigation officers.'

288. In the case law reported as Dhanraj Singh 2004 Cri LJ 1807 (SC), it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that 'In the case of a defective investigation the court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence. But it would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect; to do so would tantamount to plying into the hands of the investigating officer if the investigation is designedly defectively. The contaminated conduct of officials should not stand on the way of evaluating the evidence by the courts; otherwise the designed mischief would be perpetuated and justice would be denied to the complainant party. Then the faith and confidence of the people would be shaken not only in the law enforcing agency but also in the administration of justice'.

289. In the case law reported as 2007 Cri LJ 758(SC), it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that 'Defective investigation may discredit the CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 179 of 185 pages 180 CBI case . No.13/11 prosecution, but prosecution evidence may not necessarily be discarded on the ground. If the evidence is otherwise reliable and trustworthy, the court may convict the accused. Reminiscence of investigating officer will not ipso facto weaken the case of the prosecution'.

290. All the accused persons thus entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat the bank by using forged and fabricated documents and committed offence punishable under section 120B IPC read with section 419, 420,467, 468, 471 IPC read with section 13(i)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The accused Ashok Kumar Singhal (A2) and Neeraj Kumar(A3) furnished the copies of fake and forged Audit Balance Sheets, Audit Reports, Sales Tax Assessment Orders etc pertaining to M/s Kanika Chemicals India, forged and fabricated Statements of Account of Bharat Overseas Bank Ltd., forged and fabricated Lease Deed of Property No. 184, Saini Enclave, Vikas Marg, New Delhi, in the name of Smt. Swarn Lata, where accused Raj Kumari impersonated as Smt Swarn Lata and thus committed offences punishable under section 420, 468, 467 & 471 IPC, in addition. In pursuance of the criminal conspiracy with all the accused CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 180 of 185 pages 181 CBI case . No.13/11 persons, accused Deepak Kumar (since deceased) arranged fake and forged documents of the property, stated above, in the name of Smt. Swarn Lata, which was forged Perpetual Sale Deed and which has been established by GEQD positive opinion regarding writing of deceased Deepak Kumar.

291. Accused Raj Kumari appeared in the bank and after impersonating fraudulently opened Savings Bank Account in the name of Swarn Lata and executed fraudulently other relevant document to cheat the bank. While impersonating as Swarn Lata she gave false affidavit, undertakings and willingness as mortgagor for the property at 184, Saini Enclave, Vikas Marg, New Delhi and forged the documents signing as Swarn Lata. She thus committed offences punishable under section 419, 420, 468 & 471 IPC, in addition.

292. Accused N. Rajaram (A1), without making credit verification, processed and recommended the sanction of OCC limits and ILC of Rs.25 lakhs each (total Rs.50 lakhs). Not only this, accused N. Rajaram alongwith M. R. Bhatt (for whom sanction was mischievously with held by the CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 181 of 185 pages 182 CBI case . No.13/11 Bank and no cognizance could be taken by the court), the then Chief Manager, allowed the withdrawal of the sanction limit from the OCC account and ILC account within a short period of 20 days with a view to favour M/s Kanika Chemical India and which loan account was siphoned away by accused Ashok Kumar Singhal and Neeraj Kumar to the accounts of Jupiter Traders and Nikhil Traders maintained at Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Delhi. The said fictitious firms, namely, Jupiter Traders and Nikhil Traders were floated by the accused Neeraj Kumar and Ashok Kumar Singhal respectively. The amount siphoned off away into their accounts, were later on withdrawn by the accused Ashok Kumar Singhal and Neeraj Kumar for their personal use without doing any business. Further, an amount of Rs.1.5 lakh was transferred in the account of Smt. Raj Singhal, wife of Ashok Kumar Singhal, which account was maintained at IDBI Bank, New Delhi. Still further, four lakhs were paid from the account of Nikhil Traders to Smt. Raj Singhal.

293. Accused N. Rajaram accepted false and fabricated letters stating to have been issued by the Bharat Overseas Bank Ltd., Sahibabad, regarding the credibility of M/s Kanika CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 182 of 185 pages 183 CBI case . No.13/11 Chemicals India. He further accepted false and fabricated letters, stated to have been issued by DDA, for granting permission for mortgaging the property at 184, Saini Enclave, New Delhi.

294. Accused N. Rajaram abused his official position as public servant and accepted and used the forged documents submitted by accused Ashok Kumar Singhal and Neeraj Kumar and Raj Kumari. He facilitated in opening of account by accused Raj Kumari in the name of Smt. Swarn Lata by requesting Shri Ravinder Kumar, an existing customer of the Bank to introduce her account. He thus committed offences punishable under section 420 and 471 IPC besides offences under section 13(i)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

295. Accused H. C. Garg, in pursuance to the criminal conspiracy, furnished using the forged documents the bogus legal search report confirming that the property belonged to Smt. Swarn Lata, whereas the property was already transferred to one Shri Amit Modi on 28.12.1992 and was converted into free hold property in the name of said Amit Modi. Conveyance Deed, in the name of Amit CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 183 of 185 pages 184 CBI case . No.13/11 Modi, was already registered with the Sub Registrar on 23.11.1995. He actively colluded with accused (A5) and other accused persons to defraud the bank and committed offences punishable under section 420 and 471 IPC, in addition.

296. Subsequently, accused Ashok Kumar Singhal and Neeraj Kumar entered into criminal conspiracy with Radheyshyam Gupta and Manish Gupta, both Directors of Shree Ram Polychem Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi and in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy, accused Ashok Kumar Singhal and Neeraj Kumar requested Canara Bank, to issue two letters of credit amounting to Rs.11.04 Lakh and 8.14 Lakh respectively, in favour of said Shree Ram Polychem Pvt. Ltd. without supply of any goods or material and cheated the bank to the tune of Rs. 19,18,000/. That both the accused Ram Das Gupta and Manish Gupta raised false and fabricated bills for the aforesaid amount without supplying any material to M/s Kanika Chemical India. Accused Ram Das Gupta (A7) and accused Manish Gupta (A8) committed offences punishable under section 420, 468 and 471 IPC, in addition.

CBI vs. N. Rajaram & Ors. 184 of 185 pages 185 CBI case . No.13/11

297. All accused persons had caused wrongful loss to the tune of Rs.36.36 Lakh to the public bank and corresponding gain to themselves and others.

298. All accused persons for the aforesaid offences as mentioned above are hereby, convicted.

299. Let the convicts be heard on the point of sentence on 27.05.2013.




Announced in the open court                          ( N. K. Kaushik )
on 18.05.2013                                   Special Judge, PC Act CBI
                                                 Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.




 CBI vs. N. Rajaram &  Ors.                                                   185 of 185 pages

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi District Court

Cbi vs . 1. N. Rajaram (A­1), on 28 May, 2013

Cbi vs . 1. N. Rajaram (A1), on 28 May, 2013