Delhi District Court
Cbi vs . Sohan Lal Saluja Etc. on 8 May, 2013
AC No. 35/11/01
CBI Vs. Sohan Lal Saluja Etc.
1
IN THE COURT OF RAJIV MEHRA
SPECIAL JUDGE CBI (PC ACT)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : EAST DISTRICT
DELHI
AC No. 35/11/01
CBI
VERSUS
Sohan Lal Saluja Etc.
ORDER ON CHARGE
1.In the present case ten accused persons S/Sh. Sohan Lal Saluja (A1), Rajesh Vinay Kumar Bhasin (A2), Kiran Dua (A3), Neelam Rani (A4), K.L. Nagpal (A5), Rajeev Gupta (A6), R.K. Srivastava (A7), Sunil Bhalla (A8), P.K. Aggarwal (A9) and A.V. Nair (A10) are facing trial for the offence under Section 120- B/420/467/468/471 IPC and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1)
(d) PC Act 1988.
2. A1 Sohan Lal Saluja is a Public Servant and all others are the private persons. Out of the ten accused A2 and A8 are P.O. whereas A5 K.L. Nagpal is since deceased. Accused N.K. Gupta AC No. 35/11/01 CBI Vs. Sohan Lal Saluja Etc. 2 was also a bank official and was posted as a Field Officer during the relevant time. He has been kept in Column No.2 of the charge sheet. He has not been sent for trial.
3. The case of the CBI is that a private limited company by the name of Gautam Budha Trade Links Limited (GBTL) was incorporated on 10.7.95 under the Indian Companies Act 1956 by Sh. Rajinder Tyagi (PW-38) and his father Ram Niwas Tyagi. Subsequently as per agreement with Sh. R.V.K. Bhasin (A2), happened to be a friend of Rajinder Tyagi PW-38 both the directors of the company resigned and Sh. R.V.K. Bhasin and Smt. Kiran Dua took over as new Directors on 1.9.95.
4. The further case is that GBTL through its director R.V.K. Bhasin (A2) approached SBI Rajouri Garden Branch vide application dated 15.5.96 for export credit facilities of 87 Lacs under different heads as detailed in charge sheet. The company also offered a collateral security of a four storey commercial property at E-59, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi belonging to Smt. Neelam Rani (A4).
5. The further case is that this loan application of GBTL was processed by Sh. N.K. Gupta Asst. Manager (loans) who conducted pre sanction survey alongwith S.L. Saluja and the limits to the tune of AC No. 35/11/01 CBI Vs. Sohan Lal Saluja Etc. 3 Rs. 80 lac were sanctioned by Sh. S.L. Saluja A1 officiating Asst. General Manager SBI Rajouri Garden on 6.7.95 under his discretionary powers.
6. The investigation revealed that the bank took title deeds of the property at E-59, Jawahar Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi in the name of Neelam Rani W/o Sh. K.L. Nagpal (A5 since deceased ) as collateral security. The search report was also obtained showing that chain of the property is complete and property is free from encumbrances. Smt. Neelam Rani (A4) also furnished one affidavit signed on 24.6.96 that she is the owner of the above property and the same is un-encumbered till the bank loan was given by SBI Rajouri Garden.
7. The case of the CBI is that Sh. K.L. Nagpal A5 husband of Neelam Rani Nagpal (A4) was running a firm by the name of M/s Nuchem Plast and was mainly doing PVC training. The investigation revealed that the sale deed deposited with SBI Rajouri Garden was forged as Smt. Neelam Rani (A4) had already deposited the original sale deed of the property no. E-59, Jawahar Park, Laxmi Nagar Delhi in Canara Bank Lajpat Nagar way back in 1985 for a loan taken by UP Airways and the said deed was still lying with the bank. The same was seized during investigation by CBI in this case which is AC No. 35/11/01 CBI Vs. Sohan Lal Saluja Etc. 4 D-8. The other forged deed was created in respect of the same property and was deposited as collateral security in sanction of loan obtained by M/s Sundram Overseas a firm owned by Smt. Deep Shikha Bhasin and Sh. R.V.K. Bhasin (A2). Directors of M/s GBTL and Sh. Rajiv Gupta (A6) at Punjab and Sind Bank Scindia House New Delhi. The guarantor of this loan was again Smt. Neelam Rani (A4).
8. The case of the CBI in the charge sheet is that Sh. R.V.K. Bhasin (A2) on 8.7.96. submitted bills to the tune of US dollars 26400/- to Rajouri Garden branch for purchases against FBP Limit. The documents were forwarded to SBI Najafgarh Branch (Link Branch). The discrepancies pointed out were rectified by Sh. S.L. Saluja A1 present in the Najafgarh Branch and A1 also gave undertaking on a letter dated 8.7.96 that bill may be purchased at our risk and responsibility as a special case. These bills were purchased on 10.7.96 and a sum of Rs. 9,27,960/- was remitted to Rajouri Garden Branch through Bankers Cheque no. 494368 for Rs. 9,19,658/- after deducting SBI Najafgarh Road branch charges. The due date for the payment of the bill was 30.7.96. But the bills were not paid on due date but they were paid on 12.9.96 and 9.10.96. The case of the CBI Is that the amount of Rs. 9,19.858.19 Paisa in respect of the above bills was released to GBTL by SBI Rajouri AC No. 35/11/01 CBI Vs. Sohan Lal Saluja Etc. 5 Garden on 11.7.96 and this amount was withdrawn in the form of cash amounting to Rs. 3 lac vide cheque no. 876512 and cheque no. 876510 for Rs. 6 lac was issued in favour of M/s Sanjeev International a firm owned by Sh. Rajeev Gupta (A6) brother in law of Sh. R.P.K Bhasin A2. Again on 15.7.96 Sh. S.L. Saluja (A1) approached SBI Najafgarh gargarh Branch for purchase of bills for US Dollars 28,400/- submitted by M/s GBTL through their FBP Limit which had already been discounted at SBI Rajouri Garden. The discrepancies pointed out were rectified by Sh. Saluja A1 and bills were purchased for Rs. 10,08,200/- on 17.7.96 and a sum of Rs. 9,99,519 was released against the bill to M/s GBTL on 18.7.96 and it was withdrawn in the form of cash amounting to Rs. 4 lacs through cheque and Rs. 5,95,298/- through cheque no.876517 favouring M/s Sanjeev International owned by Rajeev Gupta (A6). The documents were sent to United bank limited Sharjah UAE for realization and were returned unpaid stating that the drawee has refused payment. The further case of the CBI is that on 17.7.96 SBI Rajouri Garden after discounting bills for US Dollars 28,000/- approached Najafgarh branch the documents were purchased and a sum of Rs. 9,95,400/- was sent to Rajouri Garden Branch. A sum of Rs. 9,86,811/- in respect of this bill was released by SBI Rajouri Garden to GBTL on 19.7.96. This amount was withdrawn in the form of cash amounting to Rs. 3 lac and Rs. 6,50,325/- for which a cheque was prepared AC No. 35/11/01 CBI Vs. Sohan Lal Saluja Etc. 6 favouring Sanjeev International. As per the case of CBI the payment of half of the bill i.e. US Dollars 14,000/- (realized amount US Dollars 13,955/-) was received on 7.10.96 and was marked and remaining amount was not received and non payment was reported to RBI.
9. The charge sheet also contain the instance when Sh. R.V.K. Bhasin A2 vide his letter dated 25.7.96 requested AGM (A1) SBI Rajouri Garden New Delhi for release of EPC to the extent of Rs. 15 lacs as the goods were ready at Bombay for dispatch to Delhi for fabrication. The EPC amount was released on 27.7.96 in the current account no. 71730 of M/s GBTL which was withdrawn by way of cheque no. 876524 dated 25.7.96 favouring M/s Siddharth Trading Company for Rs. 10 lac having an account at Bank of Rajasthan Karol Bagh opened by R.K. Srivastava A7 who used to work for R.V.K. Bhasin A2.
10. The charge sheet narrates that R.V.K. Bhasin (A2) submitted bills for US Dollars 1,12,000/- alongwith Air Way bill no. 229-34604496 of M/s Kuwait Air Ways to the SBI Rajouri Garden for the adjustment of above said EPC limit. A2 Mr. Bhasin did not submit GR forms as proof of the goods have been sent abroad and A1 Saluja sent these bills without ensuring the GR forms have been collected. The bills were subsequently returned from UCO Bank AC No. 35/11/01 CBI Vs. Sohan Lal Saluja Etc. 7 Singapore as the overseas buyer refused to pay the bills.
11. The case of the CBI in the charge sheet is that Mr. Bhasin (A2) through Mr. S.K. Bhalla (A8) got issued Air Way bill of Kuwait Air Ways by submitting invoice and packing list of M/s Cargo Systems owned by PW-23 Sh. Daljeet Singh. Mr. Bhalla (A8) was an old customer of PW-23 Daljeet Singh. The case of the CBI is that Mr. Bhasin A2 with a view to cheat the bank deposited the original Air Way bill alongwith other supportive documents except GR forms and simultaneously got a false report lodged with PS Tilak Nagar intimating that the said Air way bill has been lost in transit. The case of the CBI is that Mr. Bhasin A2 did not deposit the consignment mentioned in the invoice and packing list with M/s Cargo System for export to the foreign buyer as a result the proceeds in respect of the bills sent to UCO Bank were not received.
12. The further case of the CBI put up in the charge sheet is that as per the bank rules S.L. Saluja A1 was authorized to purchase cheques worth Rs. 10 lac under his discretionary powers in special case but without involving the field officer and proper sanction indulged in purchase of 67 cheques aggregating more than Rs. 4.54 crores under DDRR. One cheque amounting to Rs. 9,83,500.50 of M/s Comet Glass Ltd. issued by P.K. Aggarwal (A9) and A.Nair (A10) AC No. 35/11/01 CBI Vs. Sohan Lal Saluja Etc. 8 favouring GBTL which was purchased by the bank, has remained unpaid.
13. The case of the CBI is that all the cheques purchased were authorized by Sh. Saluja A1 and the amount was credited to the current account no. 71720 of M/s GBTL. It has been alleged in the charge sheet that Saluja A1 purchased the local cheques beyond his discretionary powers which are detailed at Page 6 of the charge sheet and indicates the abuse of official position by A1. These cheques as shown in the charge sheet were issued by M/S Goel Enterprises, M/s Nuchem Plast, Rajiv Gupta, Mudra Capitals and R.V. Investments.
14. The case in the charge sheet is that 42 cheques aggregating more than Rs. 280 Lacs were paid for issuing of bankers cheque/draft by allowing overdraft by Sh. Saluja A1 beyond his discretionary powers on different dates from 19.9.96 to 30.10.96. He also allowed issue of bank draft favouring Commissioner of Customs Kandla Port on Kandla Branch by authorizing clean overdrafts without ascertaining as to why GBTL were getting draft issued in the name of Commissioner of Customs Kandla Port when the firm was dealing with exports. The allegation in the charge sheet is that A1 also did not check the transactions of GBTL with the firms not AC No. 35/11/01 CBI Vs. Sohan Lal Saluja Etc. 9 connected with the business activities of the company which could have shown that borrowers were less involved in export related business and they were involved in manipulating finance activities.
15. The allegation in the charge sheet is that out of 67 cheques purchased in DDRR, 64 aggregating more than Rs. 4 crores 30 lacs were purchased from the parties on whom no opinion report was complied and drawees had nominal balance in their account on the date of issue of the said cheque and thus resorted to kite flying /accommodation to the payee of the cheques. The allegation is that these transactions clearly indicate that the transactions were not genuine to the unit of A2 alongwith K.L. Nagapal A5 Proprietor of Nuchem Plast and other firms namely Avishkar Enterprise, A.M. Enterprise and Goyal Enterprise managed by K.L. Nagpal.
16. The allegation is that investigation revealed that accounts of M/s Goel Enterprise was opened by one Arvind on introduction of K.L. Nagpal at SBI Rana Partap Bagh, New Delhi. The account of Avishkar Enterprise was opened on introduction of K.L. Nagpal by one Sunil Kumar with address at 10875, Idgah Road, Church Road, New Delhi. The accounts of A.M. Enterprise was opened by one Rakesh Kumar on the introduction of one Satish Bakshi as per the request of K.L. Nagpal and most of the writings on the cheques are AC No. 35/11/01 CBI Vs. Sohan Lal Saluja Etc. 10 of K.L. Nagpal and his son Amit Nagpal. The photo available on the account opening form of M/s A.M. Enterprises is of Kishan Lal Nagpal brother of K.L. Nagpal and not of Rakesh Kumar who has confirmed that the account was opened in the name of Rakesh Kumar at the behest of K.L. Nagpal A5 who used to operate the account. The case of the CBI is that the writings on the cheques and deposits slips confirms that all the above three firms were being managed by K.L. Nagpal A5 and all the above three firms alongwith M/s Nuchem Plast which was being exclusively operated by K.L. Nagpal (A5) were indulged in kite flying of bank funds. They have not been found existing at the given address and their whereabouts were not known except of Kishan Lal Nagpal brother of A5 whose identity has since been established.
17. The case of the CBI is that out of the total cheques purchased on discount basis by the bank 13 cheques amounting to Rs. 83,26,500/- were returned unpaid. Despite the return of the cheques issued by Goel Enterprises on SBI Rana Partap Bagh on 16.10.96 amounting to Rs. 9 lacs and on 18.10.96 for Rs. 15,50,000/- four cheques issued by the same drawer were purchased on 30.10.96 aggregating more than Rs. 37 Lacs by Saluja A1 which were returned on 4.11.96. The allegation is that Sh. Saluja A1 also purchased the cheque issued by Rajiv Gupta (A6) of M/s Sanjeev AC No. 35/11/01 CBI Vs. Sohan Lal Saluja Etc. 11 International on 17.10.96 which was return unpaid. Despite this, cheques amounting to Rs. 9,80,000/- relating to the same party was purchased on 23.10.96. These act of Sh. Saluja A1 shows gross misuse of powers by him giving undue favour to M/s GBTL.
18. The case put up in the charge sheet is that due to above acts of the accused persons the bank has suffered loss to the tune of Rs. 54,91.868.66 paisa on account of bill discounting in current account no. 71730 and Rs. 10,83,346.43 paisa on account of EPC as on 31.12.96.
19. It is submitted by the Ld. PP that at the relevant time A1 was working as Asst. General Manager (AGM) SBI Rajouri Garden Branch. A2 and A3 are the Directors of the company Gautam Budha Trade Links (GBTL) who had applied for the grant of different exports finance limits which were sanctioned to them to the tune of Rs. 80 Lacs fraudulently and dishonestly on 6.7.96 by A1 under his discretionary power without proper appraisal. It is submitted that A1 by misusing his discretionary powers indulged in purchase of cheques under DDRR. It is submitted that A4 is the wife of A5 since deceased. A4 submitted forged title deed of the property no.E-59, Laxmi Nagar and she also submitted her affidavit that property is clear without encumbrance when it was not so. It is submitted that AC No. 35/11/01 CBI Vs. Sohan Lal Saluja Etc. 12 A5 is known to A2 since beginning and both were involved in different trade and transactions and amount in the present case has been withdrawn and siphoned of by active participation of A5 through Nuchem Plast of which he was an exclusive owner and also with the help of the other firms where A5 was actively involved by proxy. It is submitted that A6 is the brother in law of A2 and the money has been siphoned of also by the active participation of M/s Sanjeev International owned by A6. It is submitted that A7 R.K. Srivastava is a Charted Accountant by profession and he was known to A2 since old and his firm M/s Siddharth Trading Company was also involved in conspiracy with other accused in the present case and amount released under EPC Limit has been siphoned of by issuing a cheque in favour of M/s Siddharth Trading Company. It is submitted that A8 S.K. Bhalla (PO) was also working for A2 and similarly A9 and A10 who were the Directors of M/s Comet Glass were also having their role in conspiracy as one of the cheque of the amount of rupees more than 9 Lac was discounted by the bank through A1 to benefit A2 when there was not sufficient fund in the bank account of M/s Comet Glass.
20. Regarding forgery it is submitted by the Ld. PP that statement of (PW-40) Sh. Hans Raj Arora Advocate is relevant. This witness Hansraj Arora is one of the witness to the original title deed AC No. 35/11/01 CBI Vs. Sohan Lal Saluja Etc. 13 of property bearing no. E-59 Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. This witness was shown by the IO four sale deeds of property E-59, Laxmi Nagar in the name of A4 smt. Neelam Rani and as per PW-40 out of these four sale deeds the sale deed submitted to Canara Bank bear the signatures of this witness and the sale deed submitted to Punjab and Sind Bank and SBI in the present case and Delhi Finance Corporation of the said property does not bear his signature. As per this witness sale deed of this property submitted to Canara Bank is a genuine title deed and rest three are forged. In the present case according to the PP we are concerned with sale deed (D-7) used in SBI which is forged.
21. Ld. PP has also been referring to the statement of PW-6 Surinder Singh an employee in the office of Sub Registrar-IV, Seelampur office. PW-6 handed over certified copy of the sale deed in respect of property E-59, Jawahar Park, Laxmi Nagar in the name of A4.
22. According to the PP during investigation the statement of Sub Registrar Rajender Singh (PW-36) of the office of Sub Registrar Seelampur was also recorded by the CBI. The statement of this witness shows that he was also shown the sale deed of this property bearing No. E-59, Laxmi Nagar and after having seen the sale deed AC No. 35/11/01 CBI Vs. Sohan Lal Saluja Etc. 14 particularly the back side where the sub Registrar generally signs. This witness PW-36 confirmed that the signatures are not his signatures and have been forged by some one. As per PW-36 only sale deed submitted to Canara Bank is genuine and he has confirmed his signature at the back of the sale deed. Regarding the rest including SBI the signatures according to this witness were forged. The statement of the PW-36 shows that forged documents were used for obtaining credit facility from SBI of which A1 was AGM.
23. The Ld. PP has also been referring to statement of PW-3 V.K. Bajaj of Delhi Finance Corporation who had handed over sale deed of the property to CBI. As per this witness loan was sanctioned to Pallavi Rasayean but was not disbursed for certain reasons. As per this witness party deposited title deed of E-59, Jawahar Park, Laxmi Nagar standing in the name of A4 as collateral security.
24. He has also been referred to the statement of PW-27 V.P. Desai proprietor of M/s Pallave Udyog. According to the witness one Rajesh Gogna told him that K.L. Nagpal (A5) used to arrange property for mortgage for money consideration. As per this witness he alongwith Sh. Gogna visited the place of K.L. Nagpal (A5) and paid him Rs. 15,000/- for this purpose as advance out of total consideration of Rs. 2.5 lac and balance amount was paid next day.
AC No. 35/11/01 CBI Vs. Sohan Lal Saluja Etc. 15 As per this witness K.L. Nagpal (A5) handed over the property papers of E-59, Jawahar Park, Laxmi Nagar which he deposited with Delhi Finance Corporation. Sh. Rajesh Gogna has been examined by the CBI as PW-31.
25. The case of the CBI is that all the accused since beginning were known to each other. Even A1 Bank Officer was very much known to the other accused. PP is referring to the statement of PW-38 Rajender Tyagi and statement of other bank officers as relevant to show that there was a criminal conspiracy from the very beginning in this case.
26. A2 and A3 are the Directors of Gautam Budha Trade Links. Ld. PP is referring to statement of (PW-38) Rajender Tyagi in support. The statement of (PW-38) shows that A2, A3, A6 and A7 were known to each other from the very beginning and they were in business terms with each other. The company Gautam Budha Trade Links, as per the statement of PW-38, was initially founded by Rajender Tyagi (PW-38) and his father and subsequently it was transferred to A2 and thereafter A2 and A3 became Directors of the company. This company is involved in the present case. This is the whole relevance of the statement of PW-38. This also shows that conspiracy between the accused persons started initially somewhere AC No. 35/11/01 CBI Vs. Sohan Lal Saluja Etc. 16 in 1996.
27. Ld. PP is also relying upon statement of (PW-34) P.K. Pathak AGM SBI HQ. The CBI from the statement of PW-34 gets the date of incorporation of Gautam Budha Trade Links and also about the dates when A2 and A3 became Directors in this company. Gautam Budha Trade Links is applicant for credit facility before the SBI Rajouri Garden. PW-34 is officer of SBI. This witness has stated that Gautam Budha Trade Links was formed on 10.07.1995 as per the documents furnished to the bank by Rajender Tyagi PW-38 and Ram Niwas both son and father who started this company initially. As per this witness on the basis of Form No. 32 submitted before the Registrar of the Companies copy of which was also furnished to the bank shows that earlier Directors had resigned and A2 and A3 became additional Directors w.e.f. 01.09.1995.
28. (PW-16) Smt. Pushpa was working as a Typist/Telephone Operator in Impression International. In her statement given to the CBI she says that she joined the office of Mr. Bhasin A2 in the year 1994 as a typist and was also working as a telephone operator. According to the witness, A3, A6 and A7 used to visit their office. This witness says later on office was shifted to Gupta Place, Rajouri Garden where the office of Gautam Budha Trade Links was AC No. 35/11/01 CBI Vs. Sohan Lal Saluja Etc. 17 functioning. As per this witness, A6 Rajiv Gupta and previous Director Rajender Tyagi PW-38 were also sitting in the office. As per this witness Kishori Lal Nagpal A5 since deceased happened to be a friend of A2 Mr. Bhasin and A5 was also visiting the office. As per this witness A1 Mr. Saluja was also visiting this office of Gautam Budha Trade Links alongwith one N.K. Gupta who was a bank officer. N.K. Gupta was named in the FIR but not prosecuted for want of evidence. His name has been mentioned in column no. 2 in the charge sheet as an accused not sent for trial. This witness says that she used to visit the bank concerned and was dealing with the bank business of Gautam Budha Trade Links. The witness was meeting to A1 as per the directions of A2 Mr. Bhasin.
29. The role of A4 and A5 is that both of them were in the habit of providing forged deeds to others for obtaining credit facilities and A4 also used to file her affidavit to confirm that this is her property in every transaction. A5 was also connected with other firms whose cheques were used to be purchased by A1 after the sanction of credit limits to Gautam Budh Trade Links whose Directors are A2 and A3.
30. In order to show the involvement of A5 it is submitted that A5 Kishori Lal since deceased was known to A2. He is relying upon AC No. 35/11/01 CBI Vs. Sohan Lal Saluja Etc. 18 the statement of PW39 namely Anil Mahajan who is a trader in PVC etc. As per the statement of PW-39 in the year 1995 K.L. Nagpal (A5) contacted him and purchased PVC Tapes etc. As per this witness he also introduced with him owners of AM Enterprises, Goel Enterprises and Avishkar Enterprises as his close associates. As per this witness A5 also introduced R.V.K. Bhasin (A2) to him. According to Ld. PP the statement of PW-39 shows that A2 and A5 both were known to each other since 1995 as they were engaged in certain trades and transactions.
31. According to the Ld. PP there were number of trades in the name of A5. In the present case A5 is the proprietor of Nuchem Plast and he is also concerned with other firms whose cheques have been purchased by SBI (A1) in the present case. The Ld. PP has also been referring to the statement of PW-32 Rajinder Sharma, PW-43 Krishan Lal Nagpal (brother of A5) and also to the statement of PW-45 Amit (Son of A5). The statement of PW-45 is that his father K.L. Nagpal is the owner of Nuchem Plast and he also used to do the banking business in respect of M/s Goel Enterprises, M/s Avishkar Enterprises and M/s AM Enterprises as per the direction of his father though he never met with the owners of these firms. Ld. PP is also referring to the statement of PW-26 Satish Bakshi which is to the effect that Ajay Nagpal the brother in law had asked him to open a AC No. 35/11/01 CBI Vs. Sohan Lal Saluja Etc. 19 firm by the name of AK Enterprises. As per this witness this firm was opened on the advice of K.L. Nagpal (A5). As per this witness K.L. Nagpal (A5) used to come to his brother in law. As per this witness in the year 1995 on the request of A5 he had given his introduction on the account opening form of AM Enterprises opened in the name of Rakesh Kumar.
32. There is also one credit limit of (Foreign Bill purchase) which was sanctioned in the case. In this connection the role of A8 Sunil Bhalla PO has been highlighted. According to PP A8 is also a conspirator in this case. In this regard he is relying upon statement of (PW-23) Daljeet Singh, Freight Forwarding Agent of Clearing House Agent of M/s Uniqua Freight Movers Custom House Agent, Nehru Place, Delhi in the name of M/s Cargo Systems. In his statement (PW-23) has said that he has been shown the original airway bill of Kuwait Airways issued by M/s Cargo system for exporting garments of Gautam Budh Trade Links firm involved in the present case. As per this witness he has old business dealings with Gautam Budh Trade Links. According to the witness A8 approached him for shipment of readymade export garments of M/s Gautam Budh Trade Links and told that company is exporting huge quantity of garments and other items to Gulf Countries. According to this witness, A8 Sunil Bhalla gave him a list alongwith invoice and asked AC No. 35/11/01 CBI Vs. Sohan Lal Saluja Etc. 20 him to issue airway bill. This witness accordingly gave him airway bill of Kuwait airways. According to the witness A8 asked him to give the first copy of airway bill so that he could show the same to the party. As Sh. Bhalla was his old business associate the witness gave him first copy of airway bill on request. This witness further says that this airway bill was not returned for quite some time. This witness asked A8 about the said bill. According to the witness A8 then told him that airway bill has been handed over to A2 and A2 told him that this airway bill has been lost and he has filed a complaint with the police. According to this witness he told A8 to give a copy of police report so that necessary indemnity bond would be given to the clearing house agent. A8 then told the witness that he would collect the police report from Sh. Bhasin A2. The witness further says that thereafter A8 came to his office and handed over the copy of police report lodged by one Rajender Kumar of Gautam Budh Trade Links with SHO Tilak Nagar. The witness further says that upon receipt of the police report this witness issued indemnity bond to M/s Unica Freight Movers indemnifying them from any loss, damage or any such matter whatsoever arising out of the original three airway bills which were returned to Kuwait Airways Authorities. The witness further says that after having seen the airway bill he confirmed that this is the same airway bill issued by him in favour of M/s Gautam Budh Trade Links in favour of M/s Gautam Budh Trade Links. According to the witness AC No. 35/11/01 CBI Vs. Sohan Lal Saluja Etc. 21 in this case Gautam Budh Trade Links had not deposited the goods with them and as such the question of forwarding the same to custom does not arise. As per this witness the airway bill has been prepared by him only because of A8. As per this witness the original airway bill was not returned by the party and as such GR form could not be prepared, filed with the custom authorities which are requirement of exporting of goods.
33. According to the PP just to avail facility forged documents were prepared and also the intimation given by the police shows that original has been lost. The statement of this witness shows the role of A8 in the transaction. According to the Ld. PP A8 joined the conspiracy which was already in existence and was party to it alongwith other co-accused.
34. The role of A9 and A10 is that they had issued one cheque from out of the account of Commet Glass Company of which they were the directors to Gautam Budh Trade Links which was purchased by A1 and amount was released though the drawer had no sufficient funds in his accounts. A9 and A10 are the Directors of Commet Glass, Ferozabad.
AC No. 35/11/01 CBI Vs. Sohan Lal Saluja Etc. 22
35. The PP for CBI in support has been relying upon file (D-2) where application dated 15.05.1996 of Gautam Budh Trade Links addressed to AGM, State Bank of India, Rajouri Garden is available with all its annexures, project report and also alongwith the relevant documents of the company. The name of the directors have been shown in this file as A2 and A3. The request is for the grant of credit facilities to the tune of Rs.57 Lacs as funded and Rs.30 Lacs as non funded. In this very application there is a reference of collateral security of a four storey commercial plot with 2520 Sq. feet covered area of E-59 Laxmi Nagar, Delhi belonging to Smt. Neelam Rani A4 and the present market value of the property was mentioned as Rs. 75 Lacs approximately.
36. (D-7) is the photocopy of forged sale deed in respect of the property in question E-59, Laxmi Nagar. This sale deed was used in the present case in SBI. With regard to this relevant statement is of witness PW-36 Sub Registrar who has stated that it does not bear his signature.
37. (D-8) is photocopy of another document marked as CAB i.e. Canara Bank. The Sub Registrar PW-36 has stated about this document D-8 that this deed is genuine and confirms his signature on the same on the back side.
AC No. 35/11/01 CBI Vs. Sohan Lal Saluja Etc. 23
38. (D-9) is the photocopy of another document marked PSB i.e. Punjab & Sind Bank. This is also not a genuine document as stated by PW-36 and also the counsel Sh. Hansraj Arora (PW-40) who had prepared the drafts.
39. It is submitted by the Ld. PP that the object was to defraud the State Bank of India of which A1 was AGM. PP for CBI submits that charge be framed against all the accused u/s 120B r/w 420/467/468/471 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) P.C. Act. A separate charge for the offence u/s 420 IPC against A2 and A3 in pursuance of criminal conspiracy, for a charge u/s 467/468/471 IPC in pursuance of criminal conspiracy against A4, and also u/s 471 IPC against A2 and A3 as they have submitted forged documents to Gautam Budh Trade Links for obtaining credit facility from the bank and charge also u/s 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of P.C. Act, 1988 against accused A1 for obtaining pecuniary advantage to the extent mentioned in the charge sheet for self and others by using corrupt and illegal means or by otherwise abusing his official position. Since A5 is dead no charge can be framed against him but his name would appear in the charge describing his role in the charge sheet.
AC No. 35/11/01 CBI Vs. Sohan Lal Saluja Etc. 24
40. Sh. Jitender Sethi, counsel for A1 :
His arguments are two fold. A1 was AGM of SBI, Rajouri Garden Branch. In this case there were three categories in which the loan has been sanctioned. One is bill discounting with a maximum limit of Rs.30 Lacs. The second category is Export Packaging Credit (EPC) where the limit sanction was of Rs.20 Lacs but out of it only 10 lacs were given to A2. The third category is Demand Draft Receiving (DDR).
41. It is submitted by the defence counsel that in case of A1 it was a transaction of Rs.4.64 crores out of which bank has already realized Rs.4.01 crores and against the balance amount of Rs.54 Lacs the bank has secured a collateral security which as per the valuation report was having value of Rs.75 Lacs. It is submitted that out of amount of Rs.54 Lacs the bank has already recovered a part amount of Rs.27 Lacs and only a balance amount of Rs.27 Lacs is remaining. It is submitted that at the best it is a civil matter of recovery and in case of non realization of amount the bank may recover the same by obtaining a collateral security or as per civil law. It is submitted by the defence counsel that being AGM A1 has called for a report from the lawyer of the bank of non encumbrances and has also obtained valuation report from the approved valuer from the panel of bank and as per that lawyer report the property which was AC No. 35/11/01 CBI Vs. Sohan Lal Saluja Etc. 25 mortgaged in this case bearing no. E-59, Laxmi Nagar is free from encumbrances. A1 has secured the bank interest. There is no question of cheating on his part.
42. Secondly it is argued by him that as A1 has followed the proper procedure he has obtained the permission from head office where he has pointed out that he wanted to grant the facility of cheque discounting limit, export credit limit and bill discounting limit and was instructed to go ahead as per procedure. A1 also obtained report of Field Officer certifying about the property. The ld. defence counsel has also been relying upon the statement of accounts alongwith application to show that there were transactions worth Rs. 4.54 crores between the bank and party and as and when there was any dishonouring of the cheque, the amount against the same was being deposited immediately by the party Gautam Budha Trade Links or was being adjusted against his existing credit limit sanctioned to him by the bank. It is submitted by him that as per the case of the CBI the bank kept on giving the credit facility with the conspiracy of A1 to GBTL despite the fact that there were repeated dishonouring of the cheques but this fact is contrary to the statement of accounts showing each transaction during that period.
AC No. 35/11/01 CBI Vs. Sohan Lal Saluja Etc. 26
43. The Ld. counsel is relying upon Century Cotton Mills vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1972 SC 545 (para 21 and 22) it was held in this case that court has not to act upon the report of the police at the time of charge, they have to apply their judicial minds while framing the charge. It is a crucial stage. It was held in the judgment that the responsibility of framing of charge is that of court and it is to be judiciously considered. It must not blindly adopt the version of the prosecution.
44. It is submitted by the ld. Counsel that if there are two possible views shown to the court then the court would be justified in discharging the accused. It is submitted by him that CBI in the present case has come out with their own version against the accused but A1 with the documents produce on record shows that all the duties performed by him were in the official course of business.
45. He has also been referring to the judgment in the matter of Union of India vs. P.K. Samal AIR 1979 CRI.L.J. 154. It was held in this case that two views are equally possible and if the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion or any grave suspicion against the accused he will be fully within his rights to discharge the accused.
AC No. 35/11/01 CBI Vs. Sohan Lal Saluja Etc. 27
46. It is submitted by the counsel that in the present case A1 has acted according to the guidelines issued by the RBI and if by following those guidelines some loss is caused to the bank and some gain to the other party that does not amount to cheating. The Ld. Counsel has been relying upon para 27 of the judgment reported in SBI Murthy vs. State 2009 CRI.L.J. 3930 SC.
47. Shri Ajit Singh, counsel for A3 and A4.
It has been submitted by the counsel that A3 was Director of Gautam Budha Trade Links. According to the counsel A3 has no role to play in any of the business activities. Regarding A3 it has been submitted by the counsel that she is only a sleeping partner in Gautam Budha Trade Links. There is no document which shows the involvement of A3 with the offence alleged in the charge sheet.
48. According to the counsel the only role of A4 is that she is the owner of the property which has been mortgaged with the bank and this property was purchased by her husband A5 in her name. According to the counsel A4 has no source of income. She is a housewife and qualified upto 12th class only. This property according AC No. 35/11/01 CBI Vs. Sohan Lal Saluja Etc. 28 to the counsel was mortgaged with the bank and A5 has obtained a loan. According to the counsel A4 has no involvement at all at any point of time and also there is no allegation against her except at page 4 of the charge sheet to the effect that A4 has entered into a conspiracy and has deposited forged title deeds with the bank. According to the counsel A4 has never visited to the office of Gautam Budha Trade Links the same is not even the allegation anywhere against A4 in the entire charge sheet. According to the counsel A4 even does not know or had any source to know whether the title deeds submitted with the bank in connection with the mortgage of the property if at all were forged. According to the counsel in absence of any overt act in addition to meeting of mind she cannot be attributed with the charge of conspiracy at all.
49. Sh. Atul Kumar, counsel for A6 :
It is submitted by the counsel that A6 is brother in law of A2 Rajesh Kumar Bhasin. According to him the charge sheet shows that there are two beneficiaries out of the whole transaction. They are A2 and A5. A2 is absconding whereas A5 is since deceased.
50. According to the defence counsel as per the allegations in the charge sheet the role of A6 has been mentioned after R.V.K. AC No. 35/11/01 CBI Vs. Sohan Lal Saluja Etc. 29 Bhasin A2 withdrew amount of Rs.5,95,298/- from the account of Sanjiv International of which A6 was the operator. According to the counsel the whole transaction has taken place according to the Banking Laws and Regulations. The bills have been purchased even as per the allegation in the charge sheet against FPP limit and the amount has been released to A2 R.V.K. Bhasin of Gautam Budha Trade Links. It is submitted by the counsel that after the amount has been got released on the instructions of A2 in favour of Sanjiv International no offence is made out at all. According to the counsel this amount has been released because Gautam Budha Trade Links was purchasing the material from Sanjiv International.
51. According to the counsel if for the reason of business transaction this amount has been got released in favour of Sanjiv International it does not make out any offence at all against A6 Rajiv Gupta. According to the counsel there is no allegation of dishonest intention or any deception by Rajiv Gupta A6 in getting released this amount. There is no allegation that Rajiv Gupta has induced or deceived the bank to release the amount.
52. It is submitted by the counsel that the second allegation against A6 at page 6 of the charge sheet is that there are some cheques which have been purchased by the bank which are AC No. 35/11/01 CBI Vs. Sohan Lal Saluja Etc. 30 unrelated to the business of Gautam Budha Trade Links. It is submitted by the counsel that R.V.K. Bhasin A2 is brother in law of A6. It is submitted by the counsel that A6 has given some cheques to A2 which have been got discounted by A2 through bank. No offence can be attributed to A6 for the same. According to the counsel in business practice these are known as accommodation cheques. According to the counsel PW38 Rajender Tyagi has given the similar accommodation cheques but he has not been made as an accused.
53. It is submitted by the counsel that simply for the reason of faults of A2, A6 cannot be prosecuted and punished. Even (PW38) Rajender Tyagi in his statement has stated that A6 was not having any independent business of his own and he only used to work with Mr. Bhasin A2. According to the counsel it is Mr. Bhasin A2 who is the main accused and A6 is only victim. A2 according to him has misused the relations.
54. The next allegation against A6 at page 9 of charge sheet is that Sh. Saluja A1 has purchased the cheque issued by A6 on 17.10.1996 which was returned unpaid but still a cheque of Rs. 9,80,000/- was purchased on 23.10.1996 which would show the dishonest intention of A1 to cause pecuniary gain to Gautam Budha AC No. 35/11/01 CBI Vs. Sohan Lal Saluja Etc. 31 Trade Links and with a view of help R.V.K. Bhasin A2. It is submitted by the counsel that even as per this allegation there is no benefit to A6.
55. According to the counsel further on 22.10.1996 A6 has made the payment and again on 23.10.1996 if the bank has purchased the cheque then where is the dishonest intention on his part. According to the counsel these facts have been suppressed in the charge sheet.
56. Sh. Praveen Jha, counsel for A9 :
It is submitted by the defence counsel that name of A9 nowhere appears in the entire charge sheet. His name does not even appear in the FIR.
57. According to the counsel the prosecution story begins with the statement of PW-38 Rajender Tyagi. According to the counsel this statement of PW-38 is an integral part of charge sheet but name of A9 does not appear anywhere in the statement of PW-38 Rajender Tyagi. Rather the prosecution itself has relied on the statement of PW-38 and the name of all the accused except A9 has been mentioned in the statement of PW-38. The reliance of CBI is that the AC No. 35/11/01 CBI Vs. Sohan Lal Saluja Etc. 32 persons named in the statement of PW-38 are the only conspirators and thereby the loan has been sanctioned with the public institution i.e. concerned bank.
58. It is submitted by the counsel that M/s Commet Glass Company is a public limited company which was got registered in the office of ROC in the year 1991 much prior to the transactions revealed herein in this case. According to him A9 is Chartered Accountant who has qualified as CA in the year 1984. The counsel submits that the alleged cheque issued as mentioned last para page 12 of charge sheet for a sum of Rs.9,83,500.50 was not issued to the accused even as accommodation cheque rather it was issued to him in the course of business transaction. According to the counsel A9 is holding a company in the name of M/s Commet Glass Limited situated at Ferozabad and A9 has his office at Kalkaji, New Delhi where A2 had come to his office and has represented himself as a General Merchant in terms of trade of export and import and thereby he ensured that he can supply the company the required necessary ingredients named Soda S which is required for the production of glass in day to day business activities in the company of A9. According to the counsel A2 convinced A9 saying that quality of Soda S which he would import and supply to A9 and A10 will be of a better quality then available in Indian Market and at a cheaper rate and in AC No. 35/11/01 CBI Vs. Sohan Lal Saluja Etc. 33 confidence A9 has issued a cheque of the abovesaid amount for supply on terms that the moment the consignment will be delivered to his office then he can produce the same cheque for clearance with the necessary information to them which according to the counsel A9 never received nor he even received the consignment. According to the counsel A2 never conveyed to A9 about the consignment.
59. Sh. G.K. Seth, counsel for A7 and A10 :
60. The counsel submits that he is adopting the arguments for A10 advanced by the counsel for A9. Case of A10 is identical to the case of A9.
61. The counsel submits that there is no evidence at all on record to show any conspiracy between A9, A10 and A2. There is no financial gain to A9 and A10 and no recovery has been effected from them. They have been implicated as accused just because they have issued one cheque. According to the defence counsel there are more instances referred to in the charge sheet itself where the cheques have been issued by the other parties which have been discounted by A2 but the other parties have not been made as accused. The counsel submits that A9 and A10 too be treated on the basis of parity.
AC No. 35/11/01 CBI Vs. Sohan Lal Saluja Etc. 34
62. It is submitted by Ld. Defence counsel that nowhere in the charge sheet there is any allegation against A7 except stating that A7 is a part of conspiracy. According to the counsel the role of A7 in the alleged conspiracy has not been mentioned. According to the defence counsel going by the allegation in the charge sheet, money was released to A2 only. It was withdrawn by A2 alone and there was no role of A7 in the entire prosecution story so alleged by the CBI. A7 is neither the beneficiary nor has played any role. According to the counsel there was no reason for A2 to be in conspiracy with A7 because the money was already transferred in the account of GBTL of which A2 was Managing Director. According to the counsel this money could have been withdrawn by A2 himself. There was no reason to transfer this amount to Sidhartha Trading Company as alleged. It is submitted by the defence counsel that even no prima facie case of conspiracy as alleged in the charge sheet is made out against A7.
63. I have heard the Ld. PP and also the defence counsels at length and have gone through the entire case file and documents carefully.
AC No. 35/11/01 CBI Vs. Sohan Lal Saluja Etc. 35
64. Section 239 Cr.P.C is the relevant provision on the point. As per this provision if upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under Section 173 Cr.P.C and making such examination, if any, Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and accused an opportunity of being heard the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing.
65. In State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi 2005(1) JCC 109 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that at the time of framing of the charge or taking cognizance the accused has no right to produce any material. At the time of framing of charge the court is only to confine itself to charge sheet and documents and in the light of the same if any case is made out charge is to be framed otherwise he would be discharged. The documents relied upon by the accused in defence may not be considered at this stage of framing of charge.
66. As may be seen from the judgment as referred above at the stage of framing of charge the court is supposed to see whether the charge is groundless or not and for this purpose the report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. and evidence collected in the course of the investigation are the only material which the court is supposed to go through.
AC No. 35/11/01 CBI Vs. Sohan Lal Saluja Etc. 36
67. In the present case as may be noted from the records there is sufficient evidence and material to indicate that there is a reasonable ground to believe that a criminal conspiracy existed between the accused persons who has been sent up for trial. The things said or acts done by conspirators bind each other u/s 10 of Evidence Act. If we move in the reverse order than it may be noted that in the case of A9 and A10 there was one cheque only which was issued by Commet Glass Company without funds. When it was sent for clearing it was returned unpaid for want of funds. It was an illegal act on the part of A9 and A10 to issue a cheque without provision for sufficient funds in the account. This cheque according to the CBI was given to A2 and was purchased by A1 in the account of GBTL and the benefit goes to the company. A8 is P.O. He has worked for the company GBTL. The role of A8 is covered by the statement of PW23. He procured an airways bill of Kuwait Airways. He passed on the same to A2. This shows that A8 was working for A2.
68. A7 is a Chartered Accountant. He is friend of A2 and working for him. He is present right from the very inception with the company or firm. His name appears in the evidence of PW-38 Rajender Singh Tyagi and shows his involvement right from the very beginning. A7 was having a firm M/s Sidharth Trading Company in AC No. 35/11/01 CBI Vs. Sohan Lal Saluja Etc. 37 his own name and amount deposited in the account of GBTL against FPB was withdrawn through Siddharth Trading of A7. The allegation against A7 is at page 5 of the charge sheet para 2 to the effect that the amount against limit of Rs.10 Lac was credited in the current account of GBTL and was siphoned through M/s Sidharth Trading Company of A7.
69. In connection with A7 statement of PW9 N.K. Handa is for involvement of three cheques dated 24.10.1996, 25.10.1996 and 26.10.1996. The money was credited to the account of GBTL and from there it was siphoned to Sidharth Trading Company of A7.
70. A6 is brother-in-law of A2. He was having firm in the name of Sanjeev International. There are number of cheques details of which have been given at page 8 of charge sheet. His involvement is covered by the statement of PW9 N.K. Handa. How his firm was used has been stated in that statement. The firms of A6 have been used number of times. It was having an active role.
71. A5 K.L. Nagpal (since deceased). He was the proprietor of M/s Nuchem Plast and was also involved with the banking operation of Goel Enterprises, AM Enterprises and Avishkar Enterprises in whose favour the cheques were discounted by A2 repeatedly. The AC No. 35/11/01 CBI Vs. Sohan Lal Saluja Etc. 38 relevant evidence is of PW37 Jeewan Lal Accountant. Statement of PW9 N.K. Handa gives the details of the cheques issued from the firms of A5. The statement of PW38 shows the involvement of PW5 K.L. Nagpal.
72. A4 Ms. Neelam is the wife of A5. The property was in her name. Forged documents of property were prepared for security. The statementof PW36 Rajender Singh Registrar and PW40 Hansraj Advocate are relevant to show the involvement of A4. A4 is furnishing her affidavit certifying that the property is free from encumbrances to the different parties. There is sufficient evidence against her to show her involvement.
73. The role of A3 Kiran Dua is covered by the statement of PW38 showing her involvement since 1995-96. Statement of PW9 N.K. Handa is also giving reference to her name as being one of the Director of company and her signatures are also being used in GBTL. She is one of the Director of the company and also beneficiary.
74. In Yashpal Mittal Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1977 SC 2433 it was held in para 9 that offence of conspiracy u/s 120-A IPC is a distinct offence. The very agreement concert or league is the AC No. 35/11/01 CBI Vs. Sohan Lal Saluja Etc. 39 ingredient of the offence. It was held that it is not necessary that all the conspirators must know each and every detail of the conspiracy as long as they are co-conspirators in the must object of the conspiracy. It was held that there may be so many devices and techniques to achieve the common goal of the conspiracy and there may be division of performance in the chain of action with one object to achieve the rule end of every collaborator must be aware and in which each one of them must be interested. It was held that there must be unity of object or purpose but there may be plurality of means sometimes even unknown to one another amongst the conspirators.
75. In State of H.P. vs. Krishan Lal Pradhan AIR 1987 SC 773 para 8 it was held that the offence of criminal conspiracy consists of a meeting of mind of two or more persons for agreeing to do or causing to be done an illegal act or an act of illegal means and the performance of an act in terms thereof. It was held if pursuant to the criminal conspiracy the conspirators commit the several offences then all of them will be liable for the offence even if some of them had not actually participated in the commission of the offence.
76. In Ajay Aggarwal vs. UOI 1993 (3) SCC 609 it was held that criminal conspiracy is a substantive offence different from the AC No. 35/11/01 CBI Vs. Sohan Lal Saluja Etc. 40 offence to commit with the conspiracy was entered into offence when complete it is a continuing offence and would endure till it is executed, rescinds or frustrated by choice or necessity each conspirator need not know all the details of the schemes.
77. On consideration of the evidence and material in this case it may be noted that prima facie there appears to be a complete chain to show the criminal conspiracy to defraud the bank. The bank has suffered a loss as per the allegations of Rs.65.74 Lacs. The return of the money to the bank cannot dilute the offence or absolve the criminal offence. This offence of cheating and fraud is completed as soon as the property is delivered/transferred.
78. In the instant case the CBI has brought on record the sufficient material against the accused persons to show that they have acted in conspiracy with each other in order to commit further offence as alleged in the charge sheet. In pursuance of the criminal conspiracy the bank has actually been defrauded and the conspiracy which was initiated or came into existence between certain accused persons and joined by some other accused persons also when the conspiracy was already in continuance or in existence. The role of Sunil Bhalla A8 falls into this category. A9 and A10 had also issued one cheque. They joined when the conspiracy was in continuance AC No. 35/11/01 CBI Vs. Sohan Lal Saluja Etc. 41 and in existence and it is quite immaterial whether they were present at the time when the conspiracy between A1 to A7 was in continuance. As may be noted A9 and A10 have issued one cheque in pursuance of the conspiracy which was purchased by A1 in the account of GBTL A2 and A3 and the amounts were credited subsequently and it was found that the bank of A9, 10 had no sufficient funds.
79. Since A5 is no more, therefore, no charge be framed against him but his name would figure in the charge of conspiracy against other accused to show that he was also one of the party to the offence of conspiracy.
80. A2 is P.O. and A8 is also P.O. but charge to be framed against both of them showing as absconders and if sufficient material is against them on record for the charge then prosecution evidence is also to be recorded u/s 299 Cr.P.C. which permits recording of the evidence against both of them even in their absence.
81. On the material produced by the CBI the charge is to be framed for the offence u/S 120-B r/w Section 420/467/468/471 IPC and further 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) P.C. Act against all the accused excluding A5. The substantive charge of 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) AC No. 35/11/01 CBI Vs. Sohan Lal Saluja Etc. 42 of the P.C. Act be framed against A1 Sh. Sohan Lal Saluja/public servant for obtaining pecuniary advantage. Charge of cheating u/S 420 IPC in pursuance of the conspiracy be framed against A2 (P.O.) and A3 Kiran Dua, the Directors of GBTL. Charge u/S 467 IPC be framed against A4 and A5 but no charge to be framed against A5 as he is deceased. Charge u/S 468 IPC be framed against A4 and A5. Charge u/S 471 IPC be framed against A2 and A3 for using forged documents when they submitted forged sale deed for the purpose of obtaining credit facility from the bank.
82. ORDER IS MADE ACCORDINGLY.
Dictated and announced in the open Court on 8.5.2013.
( RAJIV MEHRA ) SPECIAL JUDGE CBI (PC ACT) EAST DISTRICT KKD COURTS: DELHI AC No. 35/11/01 CBI Vs. Sohan Lal Saluja Etc. 43 AC No. 35/11/01 CBI Vs. Sohan Lal Saluja Etc. 44