Delhi District Court
Cbi vs (I) Smt. Urmila Sharma @ on 17 September, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANIL KUMAR SISODIA
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT)(CBI)-07:
ROUSE AVENUE COURTS: DELHI
CNR No. DLCT11-000115-2019
CC No. 04/2019
RC No. 220 (E0018)/2015/CBI/EOU-VI/EO-II/ND
Sections: 120-B r/w Section 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC
and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of P.C. Act, 1988
CBI Versus (i) Smt. Urmila Sharma @
Urmila Rani
W/o Shri Satish Kumar Sharma,
R/o House No.847, Narender
Nagar, Gali No. 1, Sonepat,
Haryana. (Accused No.1)
(ii) Om Prakash
S/o Shri Suraj Bhan
R/o Village & Post Office
Ratdhana, Sonepat, Haryana.
(Accused No.2)
(iii) Shri Satish Kumar Sharma
S/o Shri Suraj Bhan
R/o House No. 847, Narender
Nagar, Gali no. 1, Sonepat
Haryana. (Accused No.3)
(iv) Shri Vijay Pal
S/o Shri Suraj Bhan
R/o House No. 29, Gali No. 3,
Patel Nagar, Sonepat, Haryana.
Permanent Address V & PO-
Ratdhana, Sonepat, Haryana.
(Accused No.4)
CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 1 of 119
(v) Sumit Sharma
S/o Shri Suresh Chand
R/o V & PO Ratdhana, Sonepat,
Haryana. (Accused No.5)
(vi) Shri Sharad Kumar Mishra
S/o Late G.S. Mishra
R/o 101, Sanjana Appartment,
Bejai New Road, Manglore.
Permanent Address 28A/8,
Sarvodayanagar, Allahpur,
Allahabad, UP. (Accused No.6)
Date of Institution : 15.09.2016
Judgment reserved on : 21.08.2019
Date of Judgment : 17.09.2019
Memo of Appearance:
Sh. A.K.Rao, Ld.Sr.PP for CBI,
Sh. Y.Kohl, Ld.Counsel for A-1 to A-5
Sh.G. K. Singh, Ld.Counsel for A-6
JUDGMENT:-
PROSECUTION VERSION
1. This case is registered on the complaint of Sh. Rathnakara, Deputy General Manager, Corporation Bank, Zonal Office, Delhi (South) against accused persons alleging that accused persons entered in criminal conspiracy amongst themselves and unknown others to secure a term loan of ₹400 Lakhs from the Corporation Bank, Maya Puri Branch for construction and renovation of a school building on the basis of forged and fabricated documents. The loan CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 2 of 119 turned NPA and bank suffered wrongful financial loss to the tune of ₹369.80 Lakhs and interest thereupon.
2. The investigation revealed that M/s Shyam Memorial Welfare Society, Sonepat (hereinafter referred to as "the society") had purchased five properties from Sh. Sanjay Choudhary and Rakesh Choudhary of Sonepat in the year 2007 vide sale deeds dated 31.10.2007. Urmila Sharma (A-1), Secretary of the society had signed the sale deeds on behalf of the society. The society had also purchased one property from Sh. Mansukh resident of Sonepat vide sale deed no.2786 dated 19.6.2008. Satish Kumar Sharma (A-3) had purchased one plot measuring 208 sq. yards, situated at Narender Nagar, Lehrara, Sonepat from Sh. Suresh Kumar Pruthi vide sale deed bearing no. 1814 dated 12.6.1998.
3. The investigation has revealed that A-3, Founder-cum-Auditor of the society, and then principal of Shyam Memorial Sr. Sec. School, Sonepat (hereinafter referred to as "the school") had sold the said school along with the society to Sh. Pradeep Kumar Jain for ₹2.25 Crores. They did not make any agreement for sale of the school. Sh. Pradeep Kumar Jain made payment of the amount through nine cheques of ₹25 Lakhs each from the account of M/s Jai Shree Trading Corporation, four cheques were favouring A-3 and five cheques were favouring A-1. The meeting of the society was held on 21.05.2008 and Sh. Pradeep Kumar Jain along with his family members, were enrolled as new members of the society. The election of new management of the society was held on 06.06.2008. Sh. Pradeep Kumar Jain was elected as President, Sh. Jai Kumar Jain was elected as Vice President and Sh. Rajesh Jain was elected as Secretary, etc. The new CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 3 of 119 management held meeting on 12.06.2008 wherein A-1 to A-4 and five other members of the society resigned and it was decided in the meeting that A-3 would continue as the member of the school. A-3 had handed over all documents pertaining to society including six original sale deeds pertaining to the school to Sh. Pradeep Kumar Jain, who had become President of the society in the year 2008. After resignation from the management committee of the society, A-1 to A-4 and other members of the earlier society had nothing to do with the business of the society and they had no right to use the name of the society any more.
4. The investigation has revealed that on 12.12.2012, A-3 submitted a term loan application along with supported documents for sanction of term loan of ₹454 Lakhs to the society for construction and renovation of the school building to Sharad Kumar Mishra (A-6), the then Branch Manager at Maya Puri Branch, New Delhi. Application was signed by A-3 as Founder-cum-auditor of the society, A-1 as Secretary of the Society, A-2 as Treasurer. The collateral security was EMG of school property belonging to the society valued at ₹4.5 Crores and residential property of A-3 situated at Narendra Nagar, Sonepat.
5. The investigation has revealed that photo copy of the audit report dated 06.07.2012 for the assessment year 2012-13 audit report dated 20.07.2011 for the assessment year 2011-12 submitted with the loan application were fake/fabricated. The documents accompanying loan application were never scrutinized or verified by A-6. A-6 vide his forwarding-cum-recommendation letter dated 17.01.2013 had forwarded the term loan application along with supported documents, legal opinion, due diligence and valuation of property to Zonal Office for CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 4 of 119 processing and sanction of loan. The appraisal note was prepared by Sh. Pawan Arya, Chief Manager on the basis of documents submitted by A-6 and same was submitted to credit approval grid for consideration. The Credit approval grid sanctioned the term loan of ₹4 Crores to the society on terms and conditions mentioned in approval note dated 18.02.2013. The agreement for term loan dated 27.02.2013 was executed between the society and bank. A-1 signed the documents being secretary of the society and A-6 being manager signed on behalf of the Corporation Bank. The guarantee agreement dated 27.02.2013 was executed between the society represented by A- 1 to A-3 and Ishwar Singh and Corporation Bank. A-1 to A-3 and Ishwar Singh also signed as personal guarantors in the bank. The common deed of hypothecation of movable/assets/debts dated 27.02.2013 was executed by the society in favour of the bank. A letter of undertaking/declaration from the borrower dated 27.02.2013 executed by the society was signed by A-1 as Secretary of the society. The General Power of Attorney for book debts and supply dated 27.02.2013 was also signed by A-1 as Secretary of the society.
6. The investigation also revealed that after receiving term loan, A-1 has submitted fake/fabricated sale deeds in respect of the properties and A-3 submitted fake/fabricated sale deed in respect of his residential property, which were collateral security in the term loan. Out of these seven sale deeds submitted with the bank, six were made on non-judicial stamp papers issued by Treasury Office, Sonepat and by stamp vendor at Sonepat on 04.03.2013 and 05.03.2013. These sale deeds were taken on record on 27.02.2013 even before issuance of non-judicial stamp papers by treasury office by A-6, the then Branch Manager in connivance with A-1 to A-3. The sale deeds were never CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 5 of 119 properly scrutinized/verified by A-6. The discrepancy in the sale deeds was obvious and eye catching. The discrepancy was so loud and clear that it would have raised alarm in the mind of A-6 or officer concerned, immediately by merely looking at it.
7. The investigation has revealed that A-1 and A-3 had signed knowingly on five sale deeds as purchaser of property and hatched conspiracy to make forged sale deeds. Similarly, A-3 had knowingly signed one sale deed as purchaser of the property. A-4, brother of A-3 (who is also Principal of the School) knowingly signed five sale deeds as witness and hatched criminal conspiracy along with A-1 and A-3 to make forged sale deeds.
8. The investigation has revealed that A-1 and A-2 being Secretary and Treasurer of the society have submitted account opening form for opening current account in the name of the society on 16.01.2013 in Corporation Bank, Maya Puri branch. A-6 permitted opening of the current account without being introduced by any one. The loan disbursement request letter executed by A-1 and A-2 and submitted by A-3, was allowed by A-6. The loan amount was transferred from term loan account to current account in the name of the society. The entire limit was disbursed within a short span without verifying the end use of the fund by A-6. The loan amount was not debited to third party and was directly disbursed to the current account of the society which was utilized by A-3, whereas as per rules, the loan amount should be disbursed to the third party.
9. The investigation has further revealed that A-3 had submitted bills of ₹5,76,28,995.60/- on different dates in order to show CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 6 of 119 expenditure incurred on school building and to prove end use of the loan amount. Most of the bills submitted by A-3, were prepared by A- 5 Sumit Sharma, proprietor of M/s Sharma Contractors. These bills were never verified by A-6. A-5 is nephew of A-3. A-5 had started M/s Sharma Contractors in the year 2013 in the name of A-5 and had opened a current account with HDFC Bank, Sonepat. A-5 had prepared false bills in the name of M/s Sharma Contractors on the directions of his uncle A-3, for submitting in the bank. Payments of bills were received in the current account of M/s Sharma Contractors from the loan account of the society. A-5 used to withdraw cash from the current account and used to handover to A-3. A-5 had not maintained any account, stock register, purchase bills, details of employees of M/s Sharma Contractors and had also not filed Income Tax returns of M/s Sharma Contractors, which shows that M/s Sharma Contractors was dummy firm which was created merely for cheating the bank by A-3.
10. The investigation has revealed that 3 fake bills of ₹52,37,946/- of M/s Home 121 Solution were submitted by A-3 to the bank to prove end use of loan amount. M/s Home 121 Solution was a non-existing firm. These bills were never scrutinized/verified by A-6.
11. The investigation has revealed that as on 20.07.2013 the bank had disbursed an aggregate sum of ₹389.67 Lakhs. Due to non- payment of installments, account slipped into NPA on 29.10.2014. Thereafter, bank served legal notice under SARFAESI Act on 13.11.2014 and took symbolic possession of the mortgaged properties on 06.02.2015 but SARFAESI notice was published in local news paper on 11.02.2015. The bank received letter dated 02.05.2015 from UCO Bank, Parliament Street, New Delhi stating that they have also CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 7 of 119 sanctioned loan of ₹200 Lakhs to M/s Pt. Chandu Ram Education Society Sonepat on 13.01.2014 against security of a residential property which was also mortgaged to the bank standing in the name of A-3.
12. The investigation has revealed that borrower had submitted sale deeds purported to be original on 27.02.2013 and verification of sale deeds was done on the same day by Sh. Vivek Jain, panel advocate in the bank, without verifying the record of Sub-Registrar, Sonepat on the directions of A-6, after sanctioning of the loan.
13. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was submitted before the court on 15.09.2016.
COGNIZANCE AND CHARGES
14. Cognizance was taken by the court on 22.09.2016 and the accused persons were directed to be summoned.
15. Arguments on charge were heard and vide order dated 23.02.2017, charge for commission of offences under Sections 420/467/468/471 r/w Section 120-B IPC against the accused Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani (A-1), Om Prakash (A-2) and Satish Kumar Sharma (A-3); charge for commission of offences under Section 467/468 r/w Section 120-B IPC against accused Vijay Pal (A-4); charge under Section 468/471 r/w Section 120-B IPC against accused Sumit Sharma (A-5); charge under Section 420/471 r/w 120-B IPC and 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) PC Act against accused Sharad Kumar Mishra (A-
6); and further charge under Sections 120-B IPC r/w Sections CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 8 of 119 420/467/468/471 IPC and 13 (1) (d) r/w Section 13 (2) of PC Act was framed against all the six accused persons on 10.03.2017 to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
16. Prosecution has examined 40 witnesses in support of its case. These witnesses can be broadly classified as under:-
(A) COMPLAINANT
17.1 PW-32 Sh. Rathnakaran, Deputy General Manager, Head Office, Mangalore is the complainant in the case and he has proved his complaint given to CBI, on the basis of which FIR was registered.
(B) OFFICIALS FROM BANK 17.2 PW-1 Mithlesh Kumar Jha, Assistant General Manager, UCO Bank has deposed that in January 2014 a term loan of ₹ 2 crore was sanctioned to M/s Pt. Chandu Ram Education Society Sonepat and the said loan was disbursed in March, 2014 and declared NPA in October 2014. He further deposed that A-3 Satish Kumar Sharma stood as guarantor and deposited original title deed of his residential property situated at Narender Nagar, Sonepat as collateral security.
17.3 PW-2 Akhilesh Kumar, Assistant Manager, Corporation Bank, Ghitorni Branch, Delhi has proved the specimen signature/handwritings of A-1 Urmila Sharma and A-3 Satish Kumar Sharma obtained by CBI.
17.4 PW-3 Anuarag Anand, Clerk Corporation Bank, Lodhi
CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 9 of 119
Road Branch, Delhi has proved the specimen
signature/handwriting of Om Prakash(A-2) and Ishwar Singh
obtained by CBI.
17.5 PW-6 Pawan Kumar, Assistant Manager, HDFC Bank,
Model Town, Sonepat has proved the computer print out of statement of account of M/s Sharma Contractors from 02.03.2013 to 02.02.2016. He also proved the original documents such as account opening form, instant account acknowledgment, Nominee Addition Form, Attested copy of PAN of Sumit Sharma (A-5) Proprietor of M/s Sharma Contractors.
17.6 PW-11 Smt. Niti Saini, Manager (Law), Corporation Bank has deposed about her duties as Law Manager in Zonal Office and the safeguards regarding title verification of documents. She proved her signature on the scrutiny of legal opinion given by her.
17.7 PW-12 Sudhir Pardhan, Retd. Dy. General Manager, Corporation Bank has deposed regarding the procedure followed by Grid Committee for approval of loan received from Centralized Credit Processing Central (CCPC). He identified his signature on appraisal note prepared by CCPC, Delhi South for sanctioning of loan of ₹ 4 crore to the Society and the observation made by the Grid Committee.
17.8 PW-20 Smt. Nita Malik Assistant Manager, Corporation Bank was partly recorded on 22.05.2017. Thereafter this witness was dropped by Prosecution vide order dated 25.07.2018.
CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 10 of 11917.9 PW-21 Pawan Arya s/o Sh. M. Raghvendra (erstwhile Sr. Manager, Corporation Bank) has proved the appraisal note for sanction of term loan of ₹ 4 crore for construction of additional school building for girls at Sonepat and deposed that this note was prepared by him for approval of credit grid. After clearance from the credit grid, appraisal note was submitted to Zonal level Credit Committee and it had sanctioned term loan of ₹ 4 crore to the Society.
17.10 PW-26 Ms. Saroj Bala Gehlawat, Branch Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, Sonepat had handed over the copies of statements of account of A-3 Satish Kumar and A-1 Urmila maintained in her branch along with copies of account opening forms, KYC documents and certificates u/s 65-B of Evidence Act r/w Section 2-A of Bankers' Books of Evidence Act to CBI vide letter Ex.PW26/A. 17.11 PW-31 Krishan Kumar, Chief Manager, Corporation Bank, Zonal Office, Delhi South, New Delhi has deposed about the process of sanctioning of loan and the procedure how the sanctioned loan amount has to be disbursed. He also handed over "Term Loan Manual" and "Group Credit Policy" of Corporation Bank to CBI vide memo dated 27.01.2016.
17.12 PW-33 Ravindra Prakash, Sr. Manager, Corporation Bank has deposed about sanction of loan of ₹ 4 crore to the society and the loan became NPA and notices were issued to borrowers for recovery. During verification of the title deeds by empaneled advocates, the same were found to be not as per the CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 11 of 119 copies available in the records of office of Sub Registrar Sonepat. Action under SARFAESI Act was taken and during that time it was revealed that A-3 also mortgaged the same property to UCO Bank. He also handed over 88 documents pertaining to the society to CBI vide seizure memo dated 18.01.2016. He also proved 14 documents handed over by Sh. Manik Chand to CBI vide seizure memo and 34 documents handed over by him to CBI vide another seizure memo and the letter written by him to CBI vide which he had handed over 7 documents to CBI. He also proved the statement of accounts and various documents of the society executed by the accused persons in the bank for obtaining the loan and the memorandum of deposit of title deeds and credit sanction intimation.
(C) PUBLIC WITNESSES 17.13 PW-4 Satbir Singh s/o Late Mansukh has deposed that his father had sold plot measuring 128 sq. yds in Panchsheel colony behind ITI, Sonepat vide sale deed and identified the photo of his father on certified copy of sale deed D-95. He denied the photo of his father on the sale deed D-139. He also proved the death certificate of his father Ex.PW4/B and production-cum- seizure memo dated 22.03.2016 Ex.PW4/A. 17.14 PW-5 Kapil Kumar s/o Ratan Lal has proved the specimen signature/handwriting of (A-5) Sumit Sharma obtained by CBI.
17.15 PW-7 Smt. Birmati w/o Jai Kishan Sharma has deposed that her brother Satish Kumar (A-3) had made her and her husband member of the Society but she had not actively CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 12 of 119 participated in its working and her brother was running the society.
17.16 PW-8 Praveen Jain s/o Jai Kumar Jain has deposed that his brother Pradeep Jain made him member of M/s Shyam Memorial Welfare Society and Pradeep Jain was elected as President of the Society. He also proved his membership form and identified the signature of his brother Pradeep Jain on the letter dated 12.06.2009.
17.17 PW-9 Karan Chawla s/o Ravinder Chawla has proved the certificates dated 22.04.2015 in respect of verification of six sale deeds in favour of M/s Shyam Memorial Welfare Society and Sale deed in favour of Satish Kumar (A-3). He also deposed that there were discrepancies in the documents and contents, photograph, stamp duty, signatures on the certified copies were not matching with original documents lying with the bank.
17.18 PW-10 Naresh Chand Gupta s/o Sh. Jyoti Swaroop has deposed that no firm with the name of M/s Home 121 Solution was running at C-84, 1-B, Sushant Lok, Phase-I, Gurgaon.
17.19 PW-13 Sh. Kapil Puniani s/o Ramesh Chandra, AR of M/s Ramesh Chandra Associates has deposed that he was associated with Corporation Bank as empanelled approved valuer since June, 2010 and proved the valuation report given by him in respect of the properties mentioned therein.
17.20 PW-14 Vivek Jain, Advocate has deposed that he was empanelled with Corporation Bank for court matters and legal work CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 13 of 119 and used to verify the title documents received from bank. He proved his reports regarding verification of title deeds of the properties of M/s Shyam Memorial Welfare Society, Legal Audit Report dated 27.02.2013 and encumbrance certificates dated 13.05.2013 17.21 PW-15 Neer Ahlawat, Advocate has deposed that the signatures at points 'A' and 'B' on the record register of stamp vendor Sh. Umesh Batra, in token of having received stamp papers on behalf of M/s Shyam Memorial Varisth Madhyamik Vidhyalaya, Sonepat were not his signatures.
17.22 PW-16 Samrender Kumar Advocate has proved his legal opinions dated 17.01.2013, supplementary legal opinions dated 26.02.2013 and 12.01.2015 in respect of the properties of Shyam Memorial Welfare Society and residential property of A-3 Satish Kumar Sharma on behalf of Corporation Bank.
17.23 PW-17 Vikas Garg, Director of M/s Solomon Consultant Pvt. Ltd has deposed that he was C.A. and had started his company which was empaneled by Corporation Bank for due diligence. He proved the due diligence report (D-7) of M/s Shyam Memorial Welfare Society which was given on the basis of the documents provided by the Bank.
17.24 PW-19 Umesh Batra s/o Late Sh. Lajpat Rai has deposed that he was working as Stamp vendor at Tehsil Complex Sonepat since 2007. He identified the various stamp papers issued by him on which the sale deeds no. 6319, 6315, 6318, 6320, 6316, CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 14 of 119 in favour of M/s Shyam Memorial Welfare Society were executed. He deposed that the stamp papers except the stamp papers of ₹ 25000/- denomination each on the sale deeds were issued by him. He also proved the relevant pages of his record register for issuing the stamp papers containing relevant entries.
17.25 PW-22 Rajesh Kumar Arora, CA s/o Late Sh. Krishan Chand Arora has deposed that he had prepared the audit reports of M/s Shyam Memorial Welfare Society for the FY 2008-09 & 2009-2010. He deposed that the audit reports for the FY 2010-11, 2011-12 were not prepared by him and were having his forged seal and signatures.
17.26 PW-23 Rajeev Bhardwaj s/o Rajput Bachchan Singh has proved the specimen signature/handwritings of A-3 Satish Kumar Sharma obtained by CBI in his presence.
17.27 PW-24 Rajesh Kumar s/o Suraj Bhan is brother of A-3 Satish Kumar. The statement of this witness was partly recorded on 23.05.2017. Thereafter this witness was dropped by Prosecution vide order dated 25.07.2018.
17.28 PW-27 Smt. Poonam Jain w/o Surender Jain has deposed that at the instance of her elder brother Pradeep Jain, she became member of the Society and in 2008 election of society she was elected as Treasurer and she attended the meeting dated 06.06.2008, 12.06.2008. She also deposed that the old members submitted their resignation. When new management demanded possession of school, A-3 lodged FIR but she was not aware if CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 15 of 119 closure report was filed by police in FIR. After her enrolment, society did not apply for loan of ₹ 4 crore with Corporation Bank, Mayapuri.
17.29 PW-28 Rakesh Choudhary s/o Jaipal Choudhary has deposed that the Society was floated by his father and the said society had constructed the school in Sonepat. A-1 and A-3 had purchased the said school from him and his brother. He identified the sale deeds executed by him and his brother as Ex.PW28/A-1 to A-5(D-189 to D-193). He deposed that the sale deeds D- 133(Mark28/B-1), D-135(Mark28/B-2), D-137(Mark28/B-3), D- 141(Mark28/B-4) and D-143(Mark28/B-5) were not genuine sale deeds.
17.30 PW-29 Sanjay Choudhary s/o Jaipal Choudhary is the brother of PW28 and his deposition is identical to the deposition of PW28.
17.31 PW-30 Pradeep Jain s/o Jai Kumar Jain has deposed that he had purchased the Society as well as the school at Sonepat from accused no. 3 and paid ₹ 2.25 crore through the account of M/s Jai Shree Trading Corporation owned by Vandana Kumari. Later on, on the request of A-3, the amount was construed as loan and A-3 agreed to pay interest and handed over sale deeds of the school property as security. When A-3 failed to repay the amount, he brought his own management and made request before Registrar to change the constitution but A-3 filed protest petition before Registrar but later on admitted his liability. A-3 also filed FIR against him and his family members in Sonepat wherein police filed CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 16 of 119 closure report. He handed over the sale deeds and other documents to CBI vide production-cum-receipt memo dated 19.08.2016. At CBI Office, he came to know that A-3 had taken loan of ₹ 4 crore from Corporation Bank, Mayapuri.
17.32 PW-34 Sh. Suresh Kumar Pruthi has deposed that he had sold one plot situated at Narender Nagar, Sonepat to A-3 vide sale deed D-96(Ex.PW-18/I) on 12.06.1998. He denied having executed sale deed D-145(Ex.PW33/B-58) and deposed that it is forged document and it does not bear his signature or photograph.
17.33 PW-35 Sh. Subhashish Gupta s/o Sh. R.N. Gupta has deposed that he had purchased shop bearing no. 23-A, No. 9-B, Nehru Complex, Pandav Nagar in 2012 and had rented out the same to Kamal Chaurasia who remained in possession till he had sold the said shop in 2017. He deposed that he had not heard the name of M/s Home 121 Solutions in context of his shop or with respect to the tenancy created by him. After seeing the invoices of M/s Home 121 Solutions, he deposed that he was unable to say why address of his shop was used by it.
(D) OFFICIAL WITNESSES FROM OTHER DEPARTMENTS 17.34 PW-18 Rajender Singh, clerk in DC Office has deposed that earlier he was working in the office of Sub-Registrar Sonepat. He identified his signature on production-cum-seizure memo vide which he had handed over various documents to CBI. He also identified the signature of Sub-Registrar Vikas Singh on the five sale deeds dated 31.10.2007 and sale deeds dated 19.06.2008 and 12.06.1998.
CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 17 of 11917.35 PW-25 Rajender Kumar Rana s/o Samunder Singh, Joint Director-cum-District Registrar Firms & Societies had handed over list of members of SMWS to CBI vide letter Ex. PW25/A. He deposed that the list of members was prepared from the record available in his office.
17.36 PW-36 Nitish s/o Jagdish Chander, Assistant Treasurer, Treasury at Sonepat has deposed that he had handed over certified copies of relevant pages of sale register for the period 24.12.2012 to 08.05.2013 to CBI vide seizure memo dated 22.03.2016. He also deposed that vide seizure memo dated 04.05.2016 he had handed over original challan for issuing non judicial paper in name of the Society to CBI. He also deposed that 5 non judicial stamp papers of ₹ 25,000/- each and one non judicial stamp paper of ₹ 10,000/- was sold on 04.03.2013. He also deposed that the stamp in English "Asstt. Treasurer, SONEPAT" on the back side of aforesaid stamp papers was not genuine.
17.37 PW-39 Sh. Fakir Chand s/o Late Sh. Darayao Singh has deposed that during 2005-2008, he remained posted as Tehsildar/Sub-Registrar in Sonepat. He identified his signatures on the sale deed (D-95) Ex.PW-18/H and deposed that it was duly registered in their records. However, he deposed that the sale deed D-139(Ex.PW-33/B-54) does not bear his signature and was not registered in their records.
(E) EXPERTS FROM CFSL 17.38 PW-38 Sh. Ramesh Chandra, Scientist-B, CFSL, CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 18 of 119 Chandigarh has proved his report Ex.PW-38/B on the questioned documents after comparing the same with the specimen/standard signatures made available by CBI.
(F) SANCTIONING AUTHORITY 17.39 PW-37 Sh. Sudershan Kumar Mehta s/o Sh. Dwarka Das Mehta, Deputy General Manager, Delhi South Zone, Corporation Bank, Delhi has proved sanction for prosecution Ex.PW-37/A accorded by him against A-6 Sh. Sharad Kumar Mishra.
(G) INVESTIGATING OFFICER / CBI OFFICIALS 17.40 PW-40 Inspector Harvinder Singh, CBI is the IO of the case and he has deposed about the investigation conducted by him in the case.
Thereafter, PE was closed.
STATEMENTS OF ACCUSED & DEFENCE EVIDENCE
18. Statements of accused persons were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C af- ter completion of prosecution evidence.
18.1 Accused No. 1 Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani has admitted that she was Secretary of M/s Shyam Memorial Welfare Society and the said society had purchased six properties vide sale deed Ex. PW18/C to Ex.PW18/H (D-91 to D-95). She has also admitted that the said society along with the school was purchased by her husband Satish Kumar Sharma(A-3) from PW28 Rakesh Choudhary and PW29 Sanjay Choudhary in the year 2006 and the original sale deeds were CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 19 of 119 handed over to her husband. She also admitted that the society had applied for term loan of ₹ 454 lakhs for its school project, to Corpora - tion Bank, Mayapuri Branch, New Delhi and term loan of ₹ 400 lakhs was sanctioned by the bank. She also admitted that she had furnished six undertakings/declarations in respect of the six properties owned by the society along with the application and her husband (A-3) had also furnished undertaking/declaration in respect of plot measuring 208 sq. yds in Narender Nagar, Sonepat. She further admitted that the loan was disbursed to the society in the account opened with the Corpora- tion Bank, Mayapuri Branch, Delhi and an amount of ₹ 3,89,67,000/- was disbursed to the society by 20.07.2013. She also admitted that she had submitted 77 bills totaling ₹ 2,31,31,071.79 vide letter dated 22.04.2013; 18 bills totaling ₹77,86,018.05 vide letter dated 02.05.2013; 38 bills totaling ₹1,46,61,497.61 vide letter dated 02.05.2013; and 4 bills totaling ₹1,02,05,446.00 vide list of bills dated 10.07.2013. She also admitted that the aforesaid loan account was de- clared NPA as society failed to repay the term loan and when action was taken under SARFAESI Act, UCO Bank informed that the same property was mortgaged with them. She however, denied that in 2008, PW30 Pradeep Jain had approached her husband (A-3) and there was a verbal deal between them for sale of the society. She also denied that later on the amount of ₹ 2.25 crore was construed as loan and her husband had agreed to pay interest on the aforesaid amount and as a security for the loan, A-3 obtained the resignation of all the office bear- ers of the society and also handed over the original sale deeds of the properties of the society to PW30 Pradeep Jain. She also denied that PW30 brought his own management and requested the Registrar to change the constitution which was objected by her husband. She stated that PW30 never paid any single penny to the accused and CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 20 of 119 hence there was no question of any repayment or handing over the possession of the school. She also denied that she along with other ac- cused persons had cheated the bank and had submitted forged and fabricated property documents and bills with the bank. She claimed that false and fabricated case had been filed against her and sought permission to file written statement u/s 313 (5) Cr.P.C In the written statement, she claimed that she was not well con- versant with the English language and she was not much aware about the loan related documents and had signed the documents wherever the bank officials had asked her to do so. She further stated that the loan amount was used for the purpose for which it was obtained i.e. construction of school building and original documents were submitted with the bank through Vijay Goel, Chartered Accountant. She further stated that she did not have any written transaction or agreement with Pradeep Jain. A sum of ₹ 2.25 crore was borrowed from Ms. Vandana for the purpose of purchase of furniture and office equipments itself against which her husband (A-3) had issued nine cheques of ₹ 25 lakh each in favour of Ms Vandana. Ms. Vandana filed cases u/s 138 NI Act against her and her husband which were compounded on the payment of entire loan. She further claimed that a sum of ₹ 2.5 crores had al - ready been paid to Corporation Bank and thereafter the bank initiated recovery proceedings before the DRT which were still pending and there was no conspiracy or cheating or misappropriation of funds or use of forged documents by the accused in any manner.
18.2 Accused no. 2 Om Prakash has admitted that he was the trea- surer of M/s Shyam Memorial Welfare Society. He has also taken simi- lar stand as that of A-1 Urmila and has admitted that the aforesaid soci- ety was purchased by A-3 Satish Kumar Sharma from PW28 Rakesh CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 21 of 119 Choudhary and PW29 Sanjay Choudhary in the year 2006 and the original sale deeds were handed over to A-3 Satish Kumar Sharma. He also admitted that the society had purchased six properties vide sale deeds Ex. PW18/C to Ex. PW18/H. He also denied any sale transaction of the society along with the school building to Sh. Pradeep Jain or that the society was handed over to Pradeep Jain after change of manage- ment. He claimed that PW30 had not paid a single penny,hence, there was no question of any repayment or giving physical possession of the school to PW30. He further admitted that the society had taken loan of ₹ 4 crore from Corporation Bank, Mayapuri, Delhi and he had signed the loan application and executed the various loan documents. He fur- ther admitted that the society failed to repay the term loan and the loan was declared NPA. He also denied that he had cheated the bank or had submitted forged and fabricated documents for obtaining the loan. He claimed that false and fabricated case had been filed against him and sought permission to file written statement u/s 313 (5) Cr.P.C In the written statement, he claimed that he was working as Cashier with the society and was authorized to sign the cheques. He had no role to play in obtaining the loan nor he had signed any docu- ments pertaining to loan with the bank. The said loan was obtained for purpose of construction of new school building and for renovation of the old building. He further deposed that he neither had any role nor had any knowledge as regards the another loan of ₹ 2 crore from UCO Bank.
18.3 Accused no. 3 Satish Kumar Sharma, in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C has admitted that he was the Founder-cum-Auditor of M/s Shyam Memorial Welfare Society and the said society had purchased six properties vide sale deed Ex. PW18/C to Ex.PW18/H (D-91 to D-
CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 22 of 11995). He has also admitted that the said society along with the school was purchased by him from PW28 Rakesh Choudhary and PW29 San- jay Choudhary in the year 2006 and the previous title deeds were handed over to him along with the management of the school. He also admitted that the society had applied for term loan of ₹ 454 lakhs for its school project, to Corporation Bank, Mayapuri Branch, New Delhi and term loan of ₹ 400 lakhs was sanctioned by the bank. He also admitted that his wife Urmila Sharma had furnished six undertakings/declara- tions in respect of the six properties owned by the society along with the application and he had also furnished undertaking/declaration in re- spect of plot measuring 208 sq. yds in Narender Nagar, Sonepat. He further admitted that the loan was disbursed to the society in the ac- count opened with the Corporation Bank, Mayapuri Branch, Delhi and an amount of ₹3,89,67,000 was disbursed to the society by 20.07.2013. He also admitted that A-1 Urmila Sharma had submitted 77 bills totaling ₹2,31,31,071.79 vide letter dated 22.04.2013; 18 bills totaling ₹77,86,018.05 vide letter dated 02.05.2013; 38 bills totaling ₹1,46,61,497.61 vide letter dated 02.05.2013; and 4 bills totaling ₹1,02,05,446.00 vide list of bills dated 10.07.2013. He also admitted that the aforesaid loan account was declared NPA as society failed to repay the term loan and when action was taken under SARFAESI Act, UCO Bank informed that the same property was mortgaged with them. He however, denied that in 2008 PW30 Pradeep Jain had approached him and there was a verbal deal between them for sale of the society. He also denied that later on the amount of ₹ 2.25 crore was construed as loan and he had agreed to pay interest on the aforesaid amount and as a security for the loan, he obtained the resignation of all the office bearers of the society and also handed over the original sale deeds of the properties of the society to PW30 Pradeep Jain. He also denied CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 23 of 119 that PW30 brought his own management and requested the Registrar to change the constitution which was objected by him. A-3 Satish Sharma stated that PW30 never paid any single penny to the accused and hence there was no question of any repayment or handing over the possession of the school. He also denied that he along with other ac- cused persons had cheated the bank and had submitted forged and fabricated property documents and bills with the bank. He claimed that false and fabricated case had been filed against him and sought per- mission to file written statement u/s 313 (5) Cr.P.C In the written statement, he claimed that he stood as a guarantor in the loan obtained by his wife A-1 Urmila Sharma from Corporation Bank and they had submitted that original sale deed of their house, school property along with jamabandi and revenue record with the bank through their CA Vijay Goel much prior to disbursement of loan. After obtaining the loan, the contract was given to M/s Sharma Contractors for construction of school building and renovation and old school block which was carried out by the contractor. In between, due to lack of funds, EMI could not be paid in time and the loan became NPA but even thereafter they had paid ₹1.25 crore to the bank and in the mean - while bank initiated recovery proceedings before DRT. He further stated that a sum of ₹ 2.25 crore was borrowed from Ms. Vandana for the purpose of purchase of furniture and office equipments itself against which he and his wife had issued nine cheques of ₹ 25 lakh each. Ms. Vandana filed cases u/s 138 NI Act against him and his wife which were compounded on the payment of entire loan. He further stated that stamp papers for the forged sale deed might have been purchased by Pradeep Jain and the original documents were replaced with forged one by him in connivance with bank officials after disburse- ment of loan.
CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 24 of 119He further stated that another loan of ₹2 crore was obtained from UCO Bank on behalf of Chandu Ram Society for purchase of Brahm Shakti Model School Sonepat by him and co-accused Vijay Pal (A-4) however, from the said loan, property were purchased and the original documents of the property worth ₹10 crore were deposited with the said bank. He further stated that from the said loan amount ₹ 40 lacs was paid to the bank and an amount of ₹ 1.05 crore was paid to the ASREC Company which was recovery agent of UCO Bank and UCO Bank had initiated proceedings u/s 138 NI Act for the balance amount of this loan amount and there was no conspiracy or cheating or misap- propriation of funds or use of forged documents by the accused in any manner.
18.4 A-4 Vijay Pal has also taken a similar stand. He has admitted that he was member of M/s Shyam Memorial Welfare Society and the said society had purchased six properties vide sale deed Ex. PW18/C to Ex.PW18/H (D-91 to D-95). He has also admitted that the said soci- ety along with the school was purchased by A-3 Satish Kumar from PW28 Rakesh Choudhary and PW29 Sanjay Choudhary in the year 2006 and the previous title deeds were handed over to A-3 Satish Ku- mar along with the management of the school. He also admitted that the society had applied for term loan of ₹ 4.5 crore for its school project, to Corporation Bank, Mayapuri Branch, New Delhi and term loan of ₹ 400 lakhs was sanctioned by the bank. He also admitted that A-1 Urmila Sharma had furnished six undertakings/declarations in re- spect of the six properties owned by the society along with the applica- tion and A-3 Satish Kumar had also furnished undertaking/declaration in respect of plot measuring 208 sq. yds in Narender Nagar, Sonepat. He further admitted that the loan was disbursed to the society in the ac-
CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 25 of 119count opened with the Corporation Bank, Mayapuri Branch, Delhi and an amount of ₹3,89,67,000 was disbursed to the society by 20.07.2013. He also admitted that A-1 Urmila Sharma had submitted 77 bills totaling ₹2,31,31,071.79 vide letter dated 22.04.2013; 18 bills totaling ₹77,86,018.05 vide letter dated 02.05.2013; 38 bills totaling ₹1,46,61,497.61 vide letter dated 02.05.2013; and 4 bills totaling ₹1,02,05,446.00 vide list of bills dated 10.07.2013. He admitted that the aforesaid loan account was declared NPA as society failed to repay the term loan. However, he showed ignorance that when action was taken under SARFAESI Act, UCO Bank informed that A-3 Satish Kumar had mortgaged the same property with them. He however, denied that in 2008 PW30 Pradeep Jain had approached A-3 Satish Kumar and there was a verbal deal between them for sale of the society. He also denied that later on the amount of ₹ 2.25 crore was construed as loan and A-3 Satish Kumar had agreed to pay interest on the aforesaid amount and as a security for the loan, A-3 Satish Kumar obtained the resignation of all the office bearers of the society and also handed over the original sale deeds of the properties of the society to PW30 Pradeep Jain. He also denied that PW30 brought his own management and requested the registrar to change the constitution which was ob- jected by A-3 Satish Sharma. He stated that he had no dealing with PW30 Pradeep Jain and PW30 never paid any single penny to the ac- cused and hence there was no question of any repayment or handing over the possession of the school. He also denied that he along with other accused persons had cheated the bank and had submitted forged and fabricated property documents and bills with the bank. He claimed that false and fabricated case had been filed against him and sought permission to file written statement u/s 313 (5) Cr.P.C In the written statement, he claimed that he was a member of CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 26 of 119 M/s Shyam Memorial Welfare Society and was working as Principal of Shyam Memorial Sr. Secondary School. He neither had any role in ob- taining the bank loan from Corporation Bank nor he had signed any loan documents. However, the loan obtained from Corporation Bank had been utilized for the purpose of construction of school building and renovation of old school building. He further stated that another loan of ₹ 2 crore was obtained from UCO Bank on behalf of Chandu Ram Edu - cational Society for purchase of Brahm Shakti Model School Sonepat by him and A-3 Satish Kumar Sharma. However, from the said loan, property were purchased and the original documents of the property worth ₹ 10 crore were deposited with the said bank. He further stated that from the said loan amount ₹ 40 lacs was paid to the bank and an amount of ₹ 1.05 crore was paid to ASREC Company which was recov - ery agent of UCO Bank and UCO Bank had initiated proceedings u/s 138 NI Act for the balance amount of this loan amount and there was no conspiracy or cheating or misappropriation of funds or use of forged documents by the accused in any manner.
18.5 A-5 Sumit Sharma in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C has admit- ted that he was member of M/s Shyam Memorial Welfare Society and the said society had purchased six properties vide sale deed Ex. PW18/C to Ex.PW18/H (D-91 to D-95). He has also admitted that the said society along with the school was purchased by A-3 Satish Kumar Sharma from PW28 Rakesh Choudhary and PW29 Sanjay Choudhary in the year 2006 and the previous title deeds were handed over to A-3 Satish Kumar Sharma along with the management of the school. He showed ignorance regarding the fact that society had applied for term loan of ₹ 4.5 crore for its school project, to Corporation Bank, Mayapuri Branch, New Delhi. He however, admitted that A-1 Smt. Urmila Rani CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 27 of 119 furnished six undertakings/declarations in respect of the six properties owned by the society along with the application and A-3 Satish Kumar Sharma had also furnished undertaking/declaration in respect of plot measuring 208 sq. yds in Narender Nagar, Sonepat. He also showed ignorance regarding execution of the loan documents by his co-ac- cused and denied that he also executed the loan documents. He also admitted that A-1 Urmila Sharma had submitted 77 bills totaling ₹ 2,31,31,071.79 vide letter dated 22.04.2013; 18 bills totaling ₹77,86,018.05 vide letter dated 02.05.2013; 38 bills totaling ₹1,46,61,497.61 vide letter dated 02.05.2013; and 4 bills totaling ₹1,02,05,446.00 vide list of bills dated 10.07.2013.He also admitted that a sum of ₹3,35,40,000/- was transferred from the account of the society to the current account of his firm M/s Sharma Contractors main- tained in HDFC Bank, Sonepat through RTGS and a sum of ₹ 4,42,800/- was transferred to the account of M/s J.K. Cement Ltd in PNB through RTGS. He showed ignorance that the aforesaid loan ac- count was declared NPA as society failed to repay the term loan and when action was taken under SARFAESI Act, UCO Bank informed that the same property was mortgaged with them. He showed ignorance that in 2008 PW30 Pradeep Jain had approached A-3 Satish Kumar Sharma and there was a verbal deal between them for sale of the soci- ety. He denied that later on the amount of ₹ 2.25 crore was construed as loan or that A-3 Satish Kumar Sharma had agreed to pay interest on the aforesaid amount and as a security for the loan. He further denied that A-3 Satish Kumar Sharma obtained the resignation of all the office bearers of the society and also handed over the original sale deeds of the properties of the society to PW30 Pradeep Jain. However, he showed ignorance that PW30 brought his own management and re- quested the Registrar to change the constitution which was objected by CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 28 of 119 A-3 Satish Kumar Sharma. He stated that PW30 never paid any single penny to the accused and hence there was no question of any repay- ment or handing over the possession of the school. He also denied that he along with other accused persons had cheated the bank and had submitted forged and fabricated property documents and bills with the bank. He claimed that false and fabricated case had been filed against him and sought permission to file written statement u/s 313 (5) Cr.P.C.
In his written statement, A-5 has claimed that he had no role to play in obtaining any loan from any bank for Shyam Memorial Welfare Society or Pandit Chandu Ram Education Society. He stated that he entered into a contract with Shyam Memorial Welfare Society for con- struction of building and had carried out work properly and completed the construction of the school building. He further stated that he had purchased building material from different persons and made payment for the receipt of goods, materials like 10 air conditioners, one gen set against a bill which he had submitted with the address thereof and the payments were made by him through RTGS to Sushil Saroagi and there was no conspiracy or cheating or misappropriation of funds or use of forged documents by the accused in any manner.
18.6 A-6 Sharad Mishra, in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C admitted that he joined the Corporation Bank, Mayapuri Branch, Delhi as Sr. Manager in July, 2012 and left in August, 2014. He also admitted that Shyam Memorial Welfare Society had submitted application for term loan of ₹ 454 lakhs for the renovation of existing building and construc - tion of new building through A-1 and A-2 along with the relevant docu- ments. He also admitted that A-1 Urmila Sharma had furnished six un- dertakings/declarations in respect of the six properties owned by the society along with the application and A-3 Satish Kumar had also fur-
CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 29 of 119nished undertaking/declaration in respect of plot measuring 208 sq. yds in Narender Nagar, Sonepat and stated that the same were submitted on 27.02.2013 along with original property documents before disburse- ment of loan and the documents submitted by borrowers of the society were verified by the bank empaneled due diligence agency. He showed ignorance regarding the transaction between A-3 Satish Kumar and PW30 Pradeep Jain with respect to the society and the change of man- agement. He also admitted that loan of ₹ 4 crore was sanctioned to the society and was disbursed after execution of loan documents by the co-accused in a loan account and by 20.07.2013 an amount of ₹ 3,89,67,000/- was disbursed to the society. He further admitted that A- 1 Urmila Sharma had submitted 77 bills totaling ₹ 2,31,31,071.79 vide letter dated 22.04.2013; 18 bills totaling ₹77,86,018.05 vide letter dated 02.05.2013; 38 bills totaling ₹1,46,61,497.61 vide letter dated 02.05.2013; and 4 bills totaling ₹1,02,05,446.00 vide list of bills dated 10.07.2013.He also admitted that the aforesaid loan account was de- clared NPA as society failed to repay the term loan and when action was taken under SARFAESI Act, UCO Bank informed that the same property was mortgaged with them. He claimed that he has been falsely implicated in the case and sought permission to file written statement u/s 313 (5) Cr.P.C.
In his written statement u/s 313 (5) Cr.P.C, A-6 Sharad Mishra has explained the role of the branch in processing/appraisal of the loan application and has stated that after carrying out due diligence branch head has to forward the proposal with required documents to Zonal Of- fice for processing/appraisal/ sanction of loan and if the loan is sanc- tioned, the credit sanction intimation is sent to the branch for documen- tation, disbursement and post disbursement supervision. He also ex- plained the procedure followed in the case of Shyam Memorial Welfare CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 30 of 119 Society. He also stated that after the sanction of the loan, the loan was disbursed after verification of the documents by the empanelled lawyers and after the disbursement of the loan, the utilization of the loan was properly followed and valuation report was submitted on 08.05.2013. The loan was declared NPA after he was transferred to another branch and thereafter, it was revealed that the original sale deed with the bank did not match the certified copy obtained from the Registrar Office and CBI investigation revealed that the original sale deeds were not in accordance with the records of the Registrar Office. He also claimed that the sanction for prosecution has been given against him without application of mind and he acted as per the rules and practice in the bank. He also claimed that DRT in its final order dated 23.12.2017 decided the case in favour of the bank and defen- dants were directed to pay 4,15,67,110.00 to the bank with 14% inter- est. A-6 also claimed that he was an ex-service man and had worked in Indian Navy for 15 years and received various awards. He dis- charged his duties with utmost devotion and dedication and has been wrongly implicated in this case.
19. All the accused persons have preferred to lead evidence in their defence. Accused no. 1 to 6 have examined the following witnesses in support of their case:-
I) DW-1 HC Chand Singh, PS City Sonepat to prove the copy of FIR no. 427/2010, u/s 406/420/467/468 IPC r/w Section 65 & 66 of IT Act at PS City Sonepat.
II) DW-2 Vimal Kumar, DGM, Corporation Bank, Circle Audit Office for explaining the procedure of sanction of loan over ₹ 1 crore. III) DW-3 Subhash Kumar, Chief Manager, Corporation Bank, Maya-
puri, SME Branch, New Delhi to prove the order dated 23.12.2017 CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 31 of 119 passed by DRT-I in OA No. 90/16 titled as Corporation Bank Vs Shyam Memorial Welfare Society & Ors. attested copy of computer screen shots of receipt and acceptance of original title deeds, attested copy of key register of the strong room for the period 17.12.2012 to 14.03.2016 where original title deeds are kept, audit report pertaining to loan ac- count pertaining to M/s Shyam Memorial Welfare Society. IV) DW-4 Sh. Chandraketu Kumar, Sr. Manager Corporation Bank, Vigilance Cell to prove the certified copy of CBI letter dated 01.08.2016 seeking sanction for prosecution against A-6, circular nos. 590/2007 dated 14.08.2007, 223/2003 dated 18.06.2003 and 667/2011 dated 18.09.2011.
Thereafter DE was closed.
RIVAL CONTENTIONS ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
20. Ld. Sr. PP for CBI has argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts. He has argued that in the present case, complaint was filed by Corporation Bank through its DGM Sh. Rathnakara in which it was alleged that A-1 to A-5 applied for term loan of ₹ 454 lakh on behalf of the society for construction and renovation of school building and term loan of ₹400 lakh was sanctioned. The society failed to repay the loan to the bank in time and the loan was declared NPA. When the bank tried to recover the loan it discovered the fraud played by A-1 to A-5 upon the bank in conspiracy with A-6 who was the Branch Manager of Corporation Bank at the relevant time.
CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 32 of 11921. It was further argued that when the matter was investigated by CBI, it was revealed that A-1 to A-5 had purchased five properties vide registered sale deeds no. 6315, 6316, 6318, 6319 and 6320 dated 31.10.2007 from Sh. Sanjay Choudhary and Sh. Rakesh Choudhary in the name of the society and one property was purchased in the name of the society from Mansukh vide sale deed no. 2706 dated 19.06.2008. It was further revealed that A-3 had also purchased one plot in his own name from S.K. Pruthi vide sale deed no. 1814 dated 12.06.1998.
Ld. Sr. PP further submitted that during investigation, it was also revealed that in the year 2008, A-3 had sold the society along with the school to Sh. Pradeep Kumar Jain for a sum of ₹ 2.25 crores and the new management was elected on 06.06.2008 and the old members of the society had resigned in a meeting dated 12.06.2008, however, A-3 continued as Principal of the school. The six sale deeds of immovable properties in the name of the society were also handed over to Sh. Pradeep Jain in 2008. It was further argued that on 12.12.2012, A-3 filed application for term loan of ₹ 454 lakh for construction and renovation of school building along with audit reports dated 20.07.2011 and 06.07.2012 which were later on found to be forged and fabricated. He argued that the loan application was not properly scrutinized by A-6 and on the recommendation of A-6, Centralized Credit Processing Centre sanctioned term loan of ₹400 lakh. It was also argued that the loan documents viz. agreement of term loan, common deed of hypothecation, guarantee agreement, letter of undertaking/declaration, GPA for book debts and supply etc were executed on 27.02.2013. A-1 to A-3 also submitted 6 original sale deeds of the society and A-3 stood as a guarantor and submitted sale deed of his residential property as collateral security. These sale deeds were later on found to be forged CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 33 of 119 and fabricated.
The loan amount was disbursed to the tune of ₹ 3,89,67,000/- to the society and A-1 to A-5 submitted bills for the construction carried out by them which were later on found to be fake and fabricated. It was argued that A-5 Sumit Sharma was shown as proprietor of M/s Sharma Contractors who issued fake bills. Three fake bills of M/s Home 121 Solution to the tune of ₹52,37,946/- were also submitted and the said firm was found to be non existent. It was also argued that when the society failed to repay the loan, notice under SARFAESI Act was issued on 13.11.2014 and symbolic possession of the collateral security was also taken. The notice was got published in the newspaper on 11.02.2015 when UCO Bank vide its letter dated 02.05.2015 informed that loan of ₹ 200 lakh had also been obtained and the collateral security of same residential property of A-3, i.e., residential property which was mortgaged to Corporation Bank was given to them. Investigation revealed that A-3 had given the collateral security of the same property to UCO Bank, Parliament Street. It was also argued that due to the fraudulent acts and conduct of the accused persons, Corporation Bank suffered loss to the tune of ₹ 369.80 lakhs.
22. Ld. Sr. PP argued that in order to prove its case, prosecution has examined 40 witnesses. PW32 is the complainant who has proved the complaint filed by him as Ex.PW32/A (D-2). Sanction for prosecution against A-6 has been proved by the Sanctioning Authority PW37 Sh. S.K. Mehta as Ex.PW37/A. PW33 Ravinder Prakash, Sr. Manager proved the seizure memo Ex.PW33/A (D-3) vide which he had handed over the documents D-4 to D-74 and D-132 to D-148 to the IO and seizure memo Ex.PW33/C vide which he had handed over the documents D-76 to D-87, D-149 & D-187 to the IO. He also proved the CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 34 of 119 seizure memo Ex.PW33/E vide which he proved the documents D-150 to D-182 and D-118 and seizure memo Ex.PW33/G vide which he had handed over documents D-114 to D-116 and D-183 to D-186 to the IO.
23. It was further argued that the original sale deeds of the properties in the name of the society were seized by the IO from the possession of PW30 Pradeep Jain and in order to prove these sale deeds, prosecution has examined PW28 Rakesh Choudhary, PW29 Sanjay Choudhary and PW4 Satbir s/o Late Mansukh who had not only identified the original sale deeds but also denied having executed the forged sale deeds. It was also argued that the forged sale deeds placed with the bank by A-1 to A-3 were prepared at a later date which is apparent from the date of purchase of the stamp papers used for preparing these sale deeds as also from the denomination of the stamp papers. In order to prove the forgery/fabrication of the sale deeds, prosecution has examined PW15 Neer Ahlawat Advocate who had purportedly purchased the stamp papers, PW19 Umesh Kumar Batra stamp vendor from whom the stamp papers (except for the denomination of ₹25,000/-) were purchased, PW36 Nitish, Assistant Treasurer, Sonepat from where the stamp papers of the denomination of ₹25,000/- were purchased and PW39 Fakir Chand, the then Tehsildar/Sub-Registrar who has deposed that the sale deed Ex.PW33/B-54 (D-139) does not bear his signatures.
24. Ld. Sr. PP further argued that in order to prove the other forged documents like audit reports submitted by A-1 to A-3 with the bank, prosecution has examined PW22 Rajesh Kumar Arora who has categorically deposed that the audit reports of the society for the financial year 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 were not prepared by him and CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 35 of 119 the same were having his forged seal and signatures.
25. Ld. Sr. PP also submitted that apart from the aforesaid forged documents submitted by the accused with the bank, the accused persons had also submitted fake and forged bills to show the utilization of the loan amount disbursed to them. The accused persons submitted three fake bills of the firm M/s Home 121 Solutions which was a nonexistent firm. It was argued that prosecution has examined PW10 Naresh Chand Gupta, the owner of property no.C-84, 1-B, Sushant Lok Phase-I, Gurgaon and he has deposed that no firm with the name of M/s Home 121 Solutions was running at the said address and he did not know about the said firm or any person related to it. It was submitted that prosecution also examined PW35 Subhashish Gupta who also deposed that he had not heard the name of M/s Home 121 Solutions in context of his shop no. 23-A, No.9-B, Nehru Complex Pandav Nagar nor he had created any tenancy in favour of the said firm. Ld. Sr. PP further argued that almost all the remaining bills, except a few, were issued by A-5 Sumit Sharma, proprietor of M/s Sharma Contractors and GEQD report has proved the signatures of A- 5 on the said bills. It was argued that the firm of A-5 was created only to commit the fraud and A-5 did not produce any documents to substantiate his claim that his proprietorship firm was doing business or was filing income tax returns despite notice given by the IO u/s 91 Cr.P.C. Even the bank account of the proprietorship firm of A-5 with HDFC Bank was opened on the same day on which the term loan was sanctioned and the maximum withdrawal from the said account were in cash which shows that the said account was opened only for the purpose of siphoning of the money.
CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 36 of 11926. Ld. Sr. PP has further argued that A-3 Satish Kumar Sharma also committed fraud with the Corporation Bank as he mortgaged the forged sale deed of his residential property with the Corporation Bank. He submitted that PW1 Mithlesh Kumar Jha from UCO Bank has also confirmed that the same property was mortgaged with UCO Bank in 2014, in para 6 of his examination-in-chief.
27. Ld. Sr. PP for CBI has further argued that A-6 is guilty of criminal misconduct as he did not follow the procedure by the Bank in grant of term loan. It was argued that PW31 Krishan Kumar was examined by the prosecution who explained the procedure for grant of term loan and also handed over to IO 'Term Loan Manual' and 'Group Credit Policy' of Corporation Bank. Prosecution also examined PW14 Vivek Jain and PW16 Samrender Kumar who had given legal opinion on the copies of the sale deeds submitted by A-1 to A-3 along with the loan application. Prosecution has also examined PW11 Niti Saini, Law Officer of Bank and she has deposed that the certified copies of the title documents should be obtained from the office of Sub-Registrar by the advocate verifying the title deeds and compare the same with the original documents and thereafter give certificate to that effect. However, in the present case, the Branch Manager did not ask the advocates to obtain the certified copies of the title deeds from the office of Sub-Registrar for comparing with the originals and had it been done, the fraud would have been exposed at the initial stage itself.
28. Ld. Sr. PP further argued that prosecution also examined PW8 Parveen Jain, PW27 Poonam Jain and PW30 Pradeep Jain to prove the transfer of management of the society from A-1 to A-5 to Pradeep Jain. He further argued that PW25 Rajinder Kumar Rana, Joint CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 37 of 119 Director-cum- District Registrar, Firms and Society, Sonepat has also proved on record the letter dated 20.07.2016 containing the list of members of the Society and has proved that the management of the society had changed hands in June 2008 itself.
29. Ld. Sr. PP has argued that after the sale of the society and school to Pardeep Kumar Jain, A-3 had handed over the original title deeds of the properties of the society to PW30 Pradeep Kumar Jain and the accused persons were not the office bearers/members of the society and were not entitled to apply for the loan on behalf of the society. A-1 to A-3 further submitted forged sale deeds to the bank. He further argued that the connivance of the bank official (A-6) and A-1 to A-5 is also apparent from the fact that the disbursement of the loan started from 28.02.2013 itself and almost entire loan was disbursed within four months without properly supervising the utilization of loan amount and without properly verifying the bills submitted by A-1 to A-3 showing utilization of funds. He also argued that A-6 failed to properly supervise the entire transactions and did not obtain certified copies of the title deeds mortgaged with the bank from the office of Sub- Registrar. The loan was sanctioned and disbursed in violation of the Term Loan Manual which resulted in loss of 3.89 crores to the bank. He argued that the prosecution has proved the charges against accused persons beyond reasonable doubts ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF A-1 TO A-5
30. Ld. Counsel for A-1 to A-5 has argued that as per the charge sheet, the prosecution has alleged that A-1 to A-5 sold the society and the school to Sh. Pradeep Kumar Jain for a sum of ₹ 2.25 crores CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 38 of 119 without making any agreement and A-3 had also handed over all the documents of the society including the six original sale deeds of the school to Pradeep Kumar Jain in the year 2008 and after resignation by the management committee members they no more had the right to use the name of society. It was submitted that no documents have been placed on record to show that when the society was sold by A-3 to Sh. Pradeep Kumar Jain. Prosecution has not placed any agreement to sell on record. It was further argued that no payment was made by Pradeep Jain to A-1 or A-3. It was argued that the nine cheques of ₹ 25 lakhs each were issued from the account of M/s Jai Shree Trading Corporation which was owned by Ms. Vandana. Five cheques were issued in the name of A-1 Urmila Rani and four cheques were issued in the name of A-3 Satish Kumar. It was argued that when no payment was made by Pradeep Jain, how he could claim the ownership of the society and the school. It was further argued that Ms. Vandana who had issued the cheques, had later on filed cases u/s 138 NI Act against the accused persons for recovery of cheque amount and the matters were settled between the parties and therefore, there was no question of selling the society or the school to Pradeep Kumar Jain who had no concern with the same.
31. Ld. Counsel for A-1 to A-5 further argued that as per the charge- sheet new members were enrolled in the society on 21.05.2008, elections were held in the society on 06.06.2008 in which Pradeep Jain Kumar and his associates were elected as office bearers of the society and on 12.06.2008 a meeting was held wherein old members submitted their resignations. It was argued that no records or minutes of meeting were produced by the prosecution or Pradeep Kumar Jain despite claiming that original records were in his possession. It was CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 39 of 119 further argued that on 05.06.2008 Ishwar Singh was the President of the society but there is no document in his handwriting or bearing his signature regarding change in the membership of the society. It was further argued that PW25 Rajender Kumar Rana in his cross examination, admitted that on the basis of record available it is not possible to tell that when the corresponding change of members of the society was made in the records of the Registrar. It was also argued that no original minutes of meeting dated 21.05.2008, 06.06.2008 and 12.06.2008 have been filed and proved by the prosecution or PW30 in support of their claim. It was also argued that the conduct of PW30 Pradeep Kumar Jain in allowing A-3 to continue as Principal of school after change in the management of society is beyond comprehension despite the fact that Pradeep Kumar Jain and his associates were not allowed to enter in the school building and possession of the school building was not handed over to him.
32. It was further argued by Ld. Defence counsel for A-1 to A-5 that on 12.12.2012, term loan application was submitted by A-1 for construction and renovation of the school building and the said loan was sanctioned. It was submitted that there is no evidence on record to show that the property of A-1 was mortgaged as collateral. It was also argued that the documents submitted by the accused persons were duly verified by the panel lawyers of the bank and the same were found in order. Even the original documents submitted by the accused persons after the approval of the loan, were also duly verified by the panel lawyers of bank and the same were found to be correct. The loan was disbursed on 28.02.2013. Thereafter, periodic inspections were carried out by the bank officials which show that construction of school building was in progress. The valuer of the bank also duly CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 40 of 119 verified the properties and issued valuation certificate..
33. It was further argued that as per the prosecution the forged title deeds were submitted on 27.02.2013 whereas forged title deeds on the judicial stamp papers dated 04.03.2013 and 05.03.2013 could not have been prepared on 27.02.2013 and there was no occasion for the accused persons to submit forged title deeds when original documents submitted were found to be in order by the panel lawyer of the bank. It was argued that PW-19 Umesh Kumar Batra deposed that he had issued the stamp papers except the stamp papers denomination of ₹ 25,000/- in the name of Shyam Memorial Welfare Society on 05.03.2013. Similarly, PW36 Nitish has deposed that the non judicial papers of ₹ 25,000/- denomination were issued by him on 04.03.2013. He also deposed that the stamp of "Sahyak Khajanchi Sonepat" (in Hindi) was put and same is genuine, however, the stamp appearing in English on the reverse side having inscription as "Asstt. Treasurer, Sonepat" is not a genuine stamp and was not put by him on any of the sold stamp papers. It was argued that there was no occasion or motive for the accused persons to purchase more stamp papers and prepare forged sale deeds when the loan had already been disbursed to them on 28.02.2013. It was also argued that PW19 Umesh Kumar Batra has deposed falsely under the pressure of CBI. It was argued that the stamp papers worth ₹ 25,000/- were purchased in 2007 then how is it possible that the same were used in the year 2013 i.e., after the expiry of validity of six month of the stamp papers. It was also submitted that there is no evidence on record to show that A-1 & A-3 submitted or changed the sale deeds after the disbursement of the loan. Rather, there is an admission by the panel lawyers of the Corporation Bank regarding proper verification of the documents.
CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 41 of 11934. Ld. Counsel for A-1 to A-5 further argued that the prosecution has alleged that A-6 misconducted himself as instead of disbursing the loan to the third party, the same was directly disbursed to the society. He argued that there is no bar in disbursing the loan amount in favour of the society as loan account was opened in the name of the society in which the amount was disbursed and there is no irregularity committed by A-6. It was further argued that the bank officials inspected the property and submitted their progress reports as well as photographs. It was argued that Manik Chand who had accompanied A-6 for inspection of the property, has not been examined by the prosecution for the reasons best known to it and hence, adverse inference should be drawn against the prosecution. It was argued that building was not inspected by the IO nor he had noted down any deficiencies in the construction, furniture or other equipments in the school. It was argued that all the payments were made to the contractor by cheques/RTGS and to the vendors for supply of construction of material as well as equipments. As regards, the non existence of firm M/s Home 121 Solutions, it was argued that the payments to the said firm were already made by way of cheques/RTGS. It is not the case of the prosecution that the material was not supplied by the firm M/s Home 121 Solutions. It was argued that once the payment was made through the bank to M/s Home 121 Solutions, it was the duty of the IO to have verified the bank's statements from the bank accounts of M/s Home 121 Solutions which has not been done despite the details of bank account being mentioned in the statements.
35. It was argued that the name of A-6 is not mentioned in the FIR. It was argued that as regards the story of UCO Bank by the CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 42 of 119 prosecution, the said loan was for a different society i.e. M/s Pt. Chandu Ram Education Society which has been admitted by PW-1 in his deposition. It was further argued that the names of the office bearers of the society were not mentioned in the notice published by Corporation Bank then how UCO Bank came to know that the office bearers of M/s Pt. Chandu Ram Education Society and the present society were the same. It was further argued that as per the case of the prosecution, original title documents of the residential property of A- 3 Satish Kumar Sharma were deposited with Corporation Bank as well as UCO Bank which is not possible as the original sale deed was in possession of either Pradeep Jain or Corporation Bank.
36. Ld. Counsel for A-1 to A-5 further argued that as per the check list prepared by the Bank, originals were submitted in the bank and the IO failed to collect the said original documents. It was further argued that the applications for membership of the society should have been in the possession of the Registrar and not with Pradeep Jain and documents do not mention as to when the application was submitted. According to Pradeep Kumar Jain, the society was purchased in 2008 and application was filed in 2009 and the case was registered in 2015. In said sequence of events, where was the occasion with Pradeep Kumar Jain to attest these documents in the year 2010. It was argued that the signatures of previous members of the society on resignation applications are forged but I.O. did not send the same to CFSL for comparison. It was further argued that PW30 Pradeep Jain admitted that he knew Ms. Vandana but she did not appear as a witness in the case. Further, Vandana filed a case for recovery of ₹ 2.25 crore and the matter was settled in the court but IO did not file the statements recorded in the court. Pradeep Jain also failed to explain as to how he CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 43 of 119 obtained the original sale deeds of the society which he had handed over to the IO vide Production cum Seizure Memo dated 19/08/2016 Ex. PW30/A. It is also surprising that Pradeep Jain did not file any complaint with the police for obtaining the possession of the school nor he produced original documents of the society in the court. PW30 also admitted in his cross examination that there was no direct transaction between him, A-1 and A-3. PW-30 also failed to explain as to why the resignations of the previous members obtained in the meeting dated 12.06.2008 were kept by him for one year and were not submitted to the Registrar. PW30 also failed to explain when there was no transaction between him, A-1 and A-3 then in what capacity he retained the original title deeds and claimed the ownership of the society.
37. Ld. Counsel for A-1 to A-5 further argued that the CFSL report given by PW-38 has not given any opinion on the questioned signatures of Urmila Sharma and Vijay Pal on the forged documents. It was also argued that there is no evidence on record to show that A-1, A-3 and A-4 had signed on the forged documents. He further argued that the IO of the case deliberately concealed material facts and documents and did not produce the evidence found favourable to the accused persons. It was argued that IO did not examine Sushil Saraogi whereas the statement of account shows that cheques were issued from the account in favour of Sushil Saraogi. Similarly, Ms. Vandana who had advanced loan to A-1 and A-3 was neither interrogated by the IO nor she was cited as a witness in the case. It was argued that CA Vijay Goel who had helped A-1 to A-5 in procuring the loan was not cited as a witness despite the fact that IO had examined him during the course of investigation. Counsel for A-1 to A-5 argued that from the evidence available on record, prosecution has CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 44 of 119 failed to prove the charges against the accused persons. He submitted that no offence u/s 467/468/471 IPC is made out against any of the accused persons in view of the report of the CFSL. It was further argued that offence u/s 420 IPC is also not made against any of the accused persons as they had no intention to cheat anyone. The accused persons had paid the amount initially as well as when the account had gone NPA. Bank has already filed case in DRT for recovery of the outstanding dues and there was no element of criminality involved in the entire transaction. He further argued that there is not an iota of evidence on record to show that accused persons had conspired with each other to commit the offences of cheating and forgery or had used forged documents as genuine. A prayer was made for acquittal of accused persons.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF A-6
38. Ld. Counsel for A-6 has argued that the prosecution has alleged that A-6 entertained the applications for loan from A-1 to A-5 on behalf of the society who were not the office bearers of the society. It was argued that PW25 Rajender Kumar Rana in his cross examination by Ld. Counsel for A-1 to A-5 has deposed that on the basis of the record it is not possible to say as to when the corresponding changes of members of the society was made in the record of register. Ld. Counsel for A-6 also referred to the due diligence report by Solomon Consulting Pvt. Ltd. dated 19.01.2013 and argued that the documents were duly handed over to the due diligence agency which conducted the due diligence and gave its report wherein it was stated that the accused persons were the office bearers of the society on the date of visit i.e. 04.01.2013. He also referred to DW4 and argued that report CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 45 of 119 was given by the due diligence agency on the prescribed proforma given in the guidelines Ex. DW4/D. It was argued that DW22 Rajesh Kumar Arora also deposed that there was no change in the membership of the society during the year 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. He also argued that PW31 and DW2 have also deposed that the Branch Manager is not required go to the office of the Registrar to verify the status of the membership of the society. Reference was also made to para 10 of the order dated 23/12/2017 passed by DRT Ex. DW3/A to support his arguments that the members of the society were the same as accused persons. He also referred to D-9 i.e., the site visit by A-6 and other bank officials in this regard wherein they met accused Satish Sharma and Vijay Pal as members of the society. He also argued that D-61 i.e., the copy of confidential report dated 26.02.2013 from Canara Bank, Sonepat also showed that the society was in the name of accused persons and thus, there was nothing on record to doubt about genuineness of accused persons not being the part of management of the society. Similarly, reference was made to the confidential report given by State Bank of India which showed that the account of the society was operating since 2009. Ld. Counsel for A-6 has argued that A-6 had no knowledge regarding the alleged transfer of the society to Pradeep Jain in the year 2008 and A-6 came to know about this fact much later.
39. Ld. Counsel for A-6 also submitted that prosecution has further alleged that the documents submitted by the accused persons along with their loan applications were not scrutinized. It was argued that the Credit Manager is responsible for segregation of the documents submitted by the applicant. Thereafter, legal documents were sent to panel lawyers for scrutiny and other documents are sent to due CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 46 of 119 diligence agency for verification and the report. It was argued that the prosecution has examined PW11 Niti Saini, PW12 Sudhir Pradhan, PW21 Pawan Arya, PW31 Krishan Kumar, PW32 Rathnakaran, PW33 Ravindra Prakash from bank and none of these witnesses have raised any objection on the process adopted for verification of the documents by panel lawyers and due diligence agency. PW31 Krishan Kumar and PW32 Rathnakaran in their cross examination deposed that they had no personal knowledge about the facts of the present case. It was also argued that PW12 Sudhir Pradhan, PW21 Pawan Arya had dealt with the loan file and had personal knowledge about the facts and even they did not find any irregularity in the proposal sent by A-6 for their approval. PW11 Niti Saini who was the Law Officer of the Bank has also deposed that the verification of the original documents form part of legal opinion and has to be done by advocate by obtaining the certified copies of the documents from the office of Sub-Registrar and comparing the same in Branch with the original documents. It was argued that the legal opinion with regard to the chain of title documents was given by PW16 Samrender Kumar Advocate and he has deposed in his cross examination that he had given his legal opinion in the same format that was followed by him in giving opinion regarding all the cases. He also deposed that he had given supplementary opinion regarding three properties on the request of Branch Manager. It was also argued that PW11 Niti Saini had given the legal opinion D-58, however, she had not mentioned in her report that one of the safeguard is to get the original title documents verified by the advocate by obtaining certified copies of the same from the office of Sub-Registrar and comparing it with the original documents and then give a certificate to this effect. Ld. Counsel for A-6 also argued that as per para 5.2 of the circular no. 317/2010 dated CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 47 of 119 20.04.2010 (Ex.DW4/E), the Branch cannot direct a lawyer to do verification in a particular manner and the same has to be done by the lawyer as per his professional skills. It was argued that there is nothing on record to show that the documents were not properly scrutinized by the Branch or that A-6 has misconducted himself in any manner.
40. Ld. Counsel for A-6 further argued that A-6 had no power to sanction the loan which had to be sanctioned by the Zonal Office. The only role and responsibility of the Branch Manager after collecting documents and due diligence is to send his recommendation to Centralized Credit Processing Centre (CCPC). It was argued that as per circular no. 590/2007 Ex. DW4/B-1, the appraisal and evaluation of the proposal is done by CCPC and there are three bodies to evaluate the proposal i.e. CCPC, Credit Grid and ZLCC. It was argued that PW21 Pawan Arya from CCPC prepared the appraisal note and no irregularity was found by him. It was further argued that there are checks and balances at every stage of appraisal of the proposal and in case any discrepancies are noticed at any stage, the proposal can be returned to the Branch or clarification can be sought but no such action was taken by CCPC, Credit Grid and ZLCC. It was argued that the Term Loan Manual (D-205) describes the procedure for disbursement, supervision and follow up. PW2 and PW31 have reiterated the Term Loan Manual in their testimonies and PW31 in para 7 of his examination-in-chief has deposed that the amount can be released in the current account of the borrower but the branch should monitor that immediately such amount is transferred by the borrower to the third party account and small payments can still be disbursed through the account of borrower and need not be directly made to the third party.
CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 48 of 11941. Counsel for the A-6 has further argued that Credit Sanction Intimation (D-146) Ex. PW33/B-59 shows that the loan was sanctioned on 22.02.2013 and the due date for renewal was February, 2014. After the receipt of credit sanction intimation, the borrowers and lawyer were called to the branch to complete the documentation. The borrowers and lawyer visited the branch on 27.02.2013 and completed the formalities and signed the loan documents. It was argued that the terms of the loan were decided by the zonal office and there was repayment holiday period of 12 months. Clause 7 was inserted as the construction was already going on when the loan was applied by the borrowers and the capital expenditure already incurred had to be reimbursed by retaining stipulated margin. It was argued that as per the circular no. 317/2010 Ex. DW4/E, the lawyer was required to visit the branch and verify the original title documents in the prescribed format and certificate was to be obtained by the branch from the advocate in this regard before the disbursement of the loan. It was argued that PW14 Vivek Jain verified the title deeds and gave his reports Ex.PW14/A to Ex. PW14/H, and legal audit report Ex.PW14/J. He also gave encumbrance certificates Ex. PW14/K to Ex. PW14/Q. Counsel for A-6 also argued that A-6 was not working alone and as per the practice followed in the banks, Ms. Nita Malik also signed the covering schedule for the loan documents Ex.PW33/B-44 and certificate on compliance dated 27.04.2013 Ex.PW33/D-3. He further argued that the relevant entries were made in the computer on 28.02.2013 itself and the screen shots have been proved on record as Ex. DW3/B. The key register containing the names of the persons with whom the key of the strong room of the branch where original title documents were kept has been proved as DW3/C. After the transfer of Ms. Nita Malik, Sh. Manik Chand, Credit Officer signed the CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 49 of 119 renewal/review of Term Loan Documents dated 14.02.2014 along with A-6. However, the prosecution neither examined Manik Chand and Ms. Nita Malik was dropped from the list of witnesses. He argued that non examination of PW Nita Malik and Manik Chand by the prosecution in support of his case raises serious doubts on the case of the prosecution. It was argued that these witnesses were necessary to unfold the narrative of the incident and in adverse inference should be drawn against the prosecution for withholding such material witnesses. Ld. Counsel for A-6 has placed reliance on the judgment of Govindaraju @ Govinda Vs State AIR 2012 SC 1292 in support of his arguments.
42. Counsel for A-6 has also argued that testimony of PW14 Vivek Jain would show that he was following the same procedure for verification of title deeds in all the cases and there is no evidence on record to show that A-6 had asked him to verify the documents in any particular manner. It was also argued that the title deeds were again got verified from PW-9 Karan Chawla Advocate on 22.04.2015 as there was general directions to all the branches to verify the title documents once again and for the first time the bank came to know that the title deeds submitted by the borrowers were forged/fake documents. PW9 Karan Chawla also deposed in his cross examination that beyond the discrepancies of contents, stamp duty, signature and photographs no other glaring discrepancy was there. It was further argued that the original title deeds were seized from PW30 on 19.08.2016 but there is no evidence to show as to when these documents had reached in the hands of PW30. It was further argued that the original title documents were submitted by the borrowers on 27.02.2013 and these documents were not in the custody of A-6 but they were in the custody of officials CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 50 of 119 of the branch. It was also argued that the loan was declared NPA after transfer of A-6 and the IO Harvinder Singh has also admitted in his cross examination that Ravinder Prakash was not the Branch Head at the time of sanction of the loan.
43. Counsel for A-6 has further argued that no witness has deposed that discrepancies in the documents was glaring and eye catching, the auditors did not point out any discrepancy in their reports. He further argued that PW12 Sudhir Pradhan and DW2 Vimal Kumar have also deposed that the branch manager was not competent to verify the genuineness of the title deeds. He further argued that as regards the opening of current account without introducer, there was no bar that current account cannot be opened without introduction. PW31 Krishan Kumar and DW2 Vimal Kumar have deposed that current account can be opened without introducer. It was also argued that there was no mandate in the Term Loan Manual that the payment should be released in favour of third party only. PW31 and DW2 have deposed that it depends on the purpose for which term loan has been sanctioned. It was further argued that as per the terms and conditions of the credit sanction intimation report, since the borrowers had already undertaken the construction work, the amount had to be reimbursed to them and therefore, there was no fault on the part of A-6 in releasing the loan amount in the current account of the borrowers.
44. Ld. Counsel for A-6 has argued that the allegation of the prosecution that the loan was disbursed within the short span of period and without proper supervision by A-6 are also incorrect and without any basis. He has submitted that as per the memorandum dated 18.02.2013 submitted to the ZLCC, the target date of completion of CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 51 of 119 building was April, 2013 and as per the project report D-76, the period of construction of the building was six months i.e. from 01.01.2013 to 30.06.2013 and the new session had to start from April, 2013 therefore, the period of construction was reduced by the Bank from June, 2013 to April, 2013 and loan was required to be disbursed in short span of time for completion of the construction as the source of repayment of the loan was the fees received from the students studying in the school and therefore, there was no mala fide on the part of A-6 in quick disbursal of the loan to the borrowers.
45. Counsel for A-6 also argued that the prosecution has wrongly alleged that the bills of the builder were wrongly transferred. It was argued that the amount was transferred to the contractors through RTGS which is safest mode of payment and the amount paid can be easily tracked. He submitted that the RTGS vouchers were drawn in favour of M/s Sharma Contractors and not to any individual and all the payments were made against the bills. The borrowers had placed on record letters dated 14.02.2013 and 13.02.2013 (D-115 and D-116) awarding contract to Home 121 Solutions and M/s Sharma Contractors respectively. It was also argued that M/s Sharma Contractors had been a registered contractor with Municipal Committee Sonepat since 20.04.2005 and was also registered with PWD since 20.04.2005. He also argued that money was also transferred to M/s Home 121 Solutions through RTGS. It was argued that the allegations of prosecution that Home 121 Solutions was a non existing firm are also without any basis. It was argued that the goods were duly supplied by the firm and the same was also reported in the visits of the bank officials. Merely because IO could not trace the owner of the firm, it cannot be said that the firm was non existent or the bills were fake.
CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 52 of 11946. Counsel for A-6 also argued that the prosecution has alleged that the loans were not utilized for the end use and the funds were diverted by the accused persons. However, these allegations are also without any basis. It was argued that as per the bank, the end use of the term loan is explained in the project report (D-76) submitted by the borrowers. The same facts were again recorded in the memorandum to ZLCC dated 18.02.2013 (D-68) on page 472 i.e. for construction of new building comprising of basement, ground floor and three floors, furniture, computers, lab equipments, buses (two) etc and were again reiterated in credit sanction intimation on page 1114. It was argued that three valuation reports were obtained by the bank on 31.12.2012 (D-63) 14.01.2013 (D-64) and 08.05.2013 (D-78). The report dated 31.12.2012 gave market value of institutional property as ₹ 743 lacs and distress sale value of property as ₹ 635 lacs. The report dated 14.01.2013 gave market value of the residential property as ₹ 83,44,000/- and distress sale value of the property as ₹70,90,000/- and the report dated 08.05.2013 shows that ₹1.70 crore had been spent on the construction of the property as on 07.05.2013. It was also argued that besides above, the bank officials also visited the site number of times and gave their reports dated 03.07.2013, 28.01.2014, 19.08.2014, 16.10.2014 and 01.11.2014 which showed that the loan was being properly utilized by the borrowers towards the end use.
47. Ld. Counsel for A-6 further argued that every loan carries some risks and in the present case also the risk factors were duly recorded in the appraisal note prepared by PW-21 Pawan Arya. It was argued that the loan was declared NPA for the first time on 29.10.2014 and thereafter on 31.03.2015 as the payments made by the borrowers were CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 53 of 119 insufficient. It was argued that there was no conspiracy between A-6 and the borrowers and the loan account slipped into NPA due to business losses. It was also argued that the prosecution has not been able to produce any evidence to show that there was any conspiracy between A-6 and borrowers. He also argued that an honest though erroneous or exercise of power or an indecision is not abuse of power. He argued that A-6 had acted honestly and there was no abuse of power by him in discharge of his official duties. Counsel for A-6 placed reliance on the judgment of Trilochan Dev Sharma Vs State of Punjab AIR 2001 SC 2524 in support of his aforesaid arguments. Ld. Counsel for A-6 has further argued that A-6 has examined three witnesses in his defence evidence to prove the various circulars and guidelines to show that A-6 had acted in accordance with the procedures prescribed by the bank. He also argued that the defence witnesses are entitled to equal treatment and equal respect as that of the prosecution. The issue of credibility and the trustworthiness ought also to be attributed to the defence witnesses at par with that of the prosecution. Counsel for A-6 relied upon the judgment of State of Haryana Vs Ram Singh AIR 2002 SC 620 in support of his arguments.
48. Lastly, counsel for A-6 has argued that in the present case no vigilance inquiry was held against A-6 by the bank for his alleged misconduct. It was argued that the sanction for prosecution against A- 6 was granted by the Competent Authority without application of mind. He has argued that CBI had sent draft sanction to the Chief Vigilance Officer along with the letter Ex. DW4/A-1 and a perusal of the sanction order and the draft sanction would show that the sanction order Ex. PW37/A is a copy of the draft sanction and the same mistakes have been incorporated in the sanction order which were there in the draft CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 54 of 119 sanction. It was argued that the CBI manual para 22.16 provides that the statement of witnesses have to be sent along with the request to accord sanction for prosecution but no such statement of the witnesses were sent to the Competent Authority. It was argued that the sanction granted by the Competent Authority is invalid. Reliance in this regard has been placed on CBI Vs Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (2014) 14 SCC
295.
49. In rebuttal, Ld. Sr. PP for CBI has submitted that A-1 to A-5 were not competent to apply for the loan in the name of the society after the management of the society was changed in the name of Pradeep Jain and his associates in the records of Registrar of Societies. It was further argued that the accused persons had not led any evidence to show as to how and when the original sale deeds were changed from the bank as has been alleged by them. It was further argued that only the sale deeds of six properties belonging to the school were handed over to Pradeep Jain by A-3. However, the title deeds of residential property of A-3 remained with him but he still filed forged sale deed in the bank in respect of his residential property as collateral security which shows that accused persons had acted with fraudulent intentions. He further argued that PW22 has categorically deposed about the forged audit reports deposed by A-1 to A-3 with Corporation Bank along with the loan application.
Ld. Sr. P.P. further argued that A-5 did not produce the documents demanded by the IO under Section 91 Cr.P.C which reflects his conduct and dishonest intentions. Not only this, the bank account of A-5 was opened on the same day on which the loan was approved to the society and maximum amount from the account was withdrawn by cash which further indicates towards the existence of conspiracy CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 55 of 119 between A-1 to A-5 to siphon off the money received from the loan account of the society. He further argued that the bills deposited with the bank to show the utilization of loan amount were found to be fake/bogus.
50. In rebuttal to the arguments of Ld. Counsel for A-6, Ld. Sr. PP has submitted that merely because draft sanction was sent by CBI to the sanctioning authority, it does not show that there was non- application of mind by the sanctioning authority. It was argued that the sanction was accorded by competent authority after due application of mind. In support of his arguments, reliance was placed on the judgment of C.S. Krishnamurthy Vs State of Karnataka AIR 2005 SC 2790. He argued that sanction granted by the competent authority was proper and valid.
Ld. Sr. PP further argued that A-6 had not done the KYC properly. No inquiry was done from the office of Registrar of the Society to verify whether A-1 to A-5 were the officer bearers of the society on the date of loan application to the bank. It was further argued that the mutation in the revenue record can be done on the basis of third copy of the sale documents also and the originals are not required to be produced before the revenue authority. It was further argued that the verification of the title documents by the lawyers on the same day on which they were supplied the copies of the title documents without obtaining certified copies from the office of Sub- Registrar also creates doubt in the mind that the verification was merely an eye wash and was done to complete the formalities. He further argued that the settlement of the dispute between the parties does not wipe off the offence committed by the accused persons. It was submitted that prosecution has proved its case against all the CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 56 of 119 accused persons.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
51. At the outset, it is pertinent to mention certain facts of the case which are not at all disputed by the prosecution or the accused per- sons:-
(a). That M/s Shyam Memorial Welfare Society was established by late Sh. Jai Pal Choudhary in 1987 and Shyam Memorial School was es- tablished under the said society.
(b). That in the year 2006, A-3 Satish Kumar Sharma had purchased the society and school from Sanjay Choudhary and Rakesh Choud-
hary (both sons of late Sh. Jai Pal Choudhary) and the management of the school was handed over to him along with all the documents and A- 3 Satish Kumar Sharma came up with new management.
(c). That in the year 2007, society purchased five plots of land/property vide registered sale deeds no. 6315, 6316, 6318, 6319 & 6320 all dated 31.10.2007 Ex.PW28/A-1 (D-189), Ex.PW28/A-2 (D-190), Ex.PW28/A-3 (D-191), Ex.PW28/A-4 (D-192) and Ex.PW28/A-5 (D-
193) in Panchsheel Colony behind ITI, Near Milton Gate, Sonepat from Sanjay Choudhary and Rakesh Choudhary through A-1 Smt. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani.
(d). The society also purchased another property/plot vide registered sale deed no. 2706 dated 19.06.2008 Mark PW4/3 (D-194) in Panchsheel Colony behind ITI, Near Milton Gate, Sonepat from Sh. Mansukh Ram through A-1 Smt. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani.
(e). A-3 purchased plot measuring 208 sq. yds situated in abadi Naren- der Nagar, Kila No. 28/20/2, Sonepat vide registered sale deed no. 1814 dated 12.06.1998 Ex. PW18/I (D-96) from Sh. Suresh Kumar CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 57 of 119 Pruthi.
(f). The society submitted application for term loan Ex.PW33/B-1 (D-4) of ₹ 454 lakhs for renovation of existing building and construction of new school building to Corporation Bank, Mayapuri, SME Branch and the said application was signed by A-1 Urmila Sharma as Secretary, Ishwar Singh as President, Om Prakash (A-2) as Treasurer and A-3 Satish Sharma as guarantor of the society. The society also submitted documents i.e. certified copy of resolution Ex.PW33/B-2 (D-5); memo- randum of society Ex. PW33/B-4 (D-8); statement showing assets and liabilities Ex.PW33/B-6 (D-10) and copies of title documents of the properties in the name of the society along with the loan application.
(g). Smt. Urmila Sharma (A-1) also furnished six undertakings/declara- tions (D-14, D-17, D-28, D-29, D-34 & D-43) all dated 29.01.2013 in respect of six properties owned by the society and Satish Sharma (A-3) furnished undertaking/declaration dated 29.01.2013 Ex.PW33/B-33 (D-
50) in respect of his residential property at Narender Nagar along with the loan application to the Corporation Bank.
(h). A-6 Sharad Kumar Mishra was posted as Branch Manager with Corporation Bank, Mayapuri Branch, Delhi from July, 2010 till August, 2014 when the loan application was filed by the society.
(i). The loan application of the society was processed, valuation report of the property, due diligence report and verification reports regarding title of the properties were obtained and term loan of ₹ 400 lakhs was sanctioned to the society.
(j). A-6 Sharad Kumar Mishra informed the society regarding sanction of the loan vide Credit Sanction Intimation dated 22.02.2013 Ex. PW33/B-59 (D-146) and the intimation was acknowledged by Ishwar Singh, Smt. Urmila Sharma (A-1) and Om Prakash (A-2).
(k). Ishwar Singh, A-1 Urmila Sharma, A-2 Om Prakash and A-3 Satish CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 58 of 119 Kumar Sharma executed agreement for term loan and guarantee agreement; A-1 Urmila Sharma also executed common deed of hy- pothecation of movable assets, letter of undertaking/declaration from the borrowers, general power of attorney of book debts and supply bills all dated 27.02.2013 on behalf of the society and in favour of Corpora- tion Bank, Mayapuri, Delhi.
(l). On 27.02.2013 A-1Urmila Sharma deposited six title deeds in favour of the society with Corporation Bank vide six memorandum of deposit of title deeds (D-132, D-134, D-136, D-138, D-140, D-142) duly signed by her. A-3 Satish Kumar also deposited title deeds of his plot and building measuring 208 sq. yds at Narender Nagar, Sonepat vide memorandum of deposit of title deeds (D-144) dated 27.02.2013 duly signed by him.
(m). An account no. TLS/01/130003 was opened on 28.02.2013 in Cor- poration Bank in the name of the society and account opening form for the same was submitted by A-1 Smt. Urmila Sharma and A-2 Om Prakash and the sanctioned loan was disbursed in this account and a sum of ₹ 3,89,67,000/- was disbursed to the society by 20.07.2013.
(n). The aforesaid loan amount was credited in another current ac- count of the society bearing account no.CBCA/01/050048 opened in Corporation Bank, Mayapuri Branch, Delhi on 16.01.2013.
(o) A-6 Sharad Kumar Mishra issued certificate dated 27.04.2013 on compliance of terms and conditions of sanction of credit facilities.
(p). A-1 Smt. Urmila Sharma vide letter dated 22.04.2013 submitted 77 bills, vide letter dated 02.05.2013 submitted 18 bills and vide list of bills dated 02.05.2013 submitted 38 bills and vide list of bills dated 10.07.2013 submitted 4 bills to the Corporation Bank towards the uti- lization of the funds.
(q). That the society failed to repay the term loan and the account was CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 59 of 119 declared NPA and action was taken by the Bank against the society un- der SARFAESI Act.
52. From the perusal of chargesheet, evidence adduced by the par- ties and documents available on record, the following points for deter- mination arise in the present case which requires consideration:-
(i). Whether A-3 Satish Sharma had sold/transferred the society to Sh. Pradeep Kumar Jain in the year 2008 and had also handed over the original title documents/sale deeds of the properties of the school to Pradeep Kumar Jain?
(ii). Whether A-1 to A-5 were not entitled to apply for the loan from Corporation Bank on behalf of the soci-
ety in the year 2012 after the same was transferred to Sh. Pradeep Kumar Jain and new governing body was elected?
(iii) Whether the six purportedly original sale deeds in respect of the properties of society bearing registration no. 6319 Mark 28/B-1 (D-133); bearing registration no. 6315 Mark 28/B-2 (D-135); registration no. 6318 Mark 28/B-3 (D-137); bearing registration no.2706 dated 19.06.2008 Ex.PW33/B-54 (D-139); bearing reg- istration no.6320 Mark 28/B-4 (D-141); bearing regis- tration no. 6316 Mark 28/B-5 (D-143) and the sale deed in respect of residential property of A-3 Satish Kumar Sharma bearing registration no.1814 dated 12.06.1998 Ex.PW33/B-58 (D-145) seized by the IO from Corporation Bank vide seizure memo dated 18.01.2016 Ex.PW33/A (D-3) are genuine or forged CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 60 of 119 documents?
(iv) Whether A-1 to A-5 filed forged and fabricated title deeds of the properties of the society with Corporation Bank for obtaining the loan?
(v). Whether A-1 to A-5 had filed/submitted fake bills with the Corporation Bank to show utilization of the loan amount and cheated the bank?
(vi) Whether A-6 was involved in the criminal conspir- acy with other accused persons and while holding of- fice as Public Servant abused his official position and obtained pecuniary advantage or valuable thing for an- other person without any public interest?
ROLE OF A-4 VIJAY PAL
53. Before dealing with the aforesaid points for determination, I would like to discuss about the role of A-4 Vijay Pal. He is the brother of A-3 Satish Kumar Sharma and Principal of Shyam Memorial Senior Secondary School, Sonepat.
54. According to the chargesheet, the allegations against A-4 Vijay Pal are that he knowingly signed on the five sale deeds as a witness and hatched criminal conspiracy along with Satish Kumar Sharma and Smt. Urmila to prepare forged sale deeds of the society. No other role has been assigned to him by the IO in the chargesheet.
55. A bare perusal of record would show that his signatures are appearing as one of the witnesses on five sale deeds i.e. sale deed (D-
133) Mark 28/B-1 at points Q-8 and Q-12; sale deed (D-135) Mark CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 61 of 119 28/B-2 at points Q-20 and Q-27; sale deed (D-137) Mark 28/B-3 at points Q-36 and Q-40; sale deed (D-141) Mark 28/B-4 at points Q-59 and Q-64; and sale deed (D-143) Mark 28/B-5 at points Q-77 and Q-
84. Apart from signing on these sale deeds as a witness, no role has been attributed to him in the criminal conspiracy between the accused persons to cheat the bank or in using the forged documents as gen- uine for obtaining the loan from the bank or siphoning of the loan amount disbursed by the bank.
56. During the investigation, IO had obtained specimen signatures/handwriting of Vijay Pal (S-31 to S-40) Ex.PW40/F in the presence of Krishan Kumar Gahlawat. These specimen signatures/handwriting along with the specimen signatures/handwriting of other accused persons were sent to CFSL along with the documents for comparison.
57. PW38 Sh. Ramesh Chander appeared in the witness box and proved his report Ex.PW38/B. Perusal of the report shows that PW38 has observed in para 5 of the report that it has not been possible to ex- press any opinion regarding the authorship of the questioned signa- tures marked Q-8, Q-12, Q-20, Q-27, Q-37, Q-40, Q-59, Q-64, Q-77 and Q-84 appearing on the forged sale deeds in comparison with the standard signatures/handwriting marked S-31 to S-40. Thus, there is no positive evidence to establish that the aforesaid questioned signa- tures on the forged sale deeds D-133, D-135, D-137, D-141 and D-143 were put by A-4 Vijay Pal.
58. As already noted, no other role has been attributed to A-4 Vijay Pal in the criminal conspiracy nor any of the prosecution witness has CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 62 of 119 deposed against him during the trial. Hence, there is no evidence at all against A-4 Vijay Pal to hold him guilty for the charged offences.
59. Now I shall deal with the aforesaid points for consideration one by one.
(i). Whether A-3 Satish Sharma had sold/transferred the society to Sh. Pradeep Kumar Jain in the year 2008 and had also handed over the original title documents/sale deeds of the properties of the school to Pradeep Kumar Jain?
60. It was submitted by Ld. Sr. PP that in the year 2008, A-3 Satish Kumar Sharma had sold the society and the school along with its prop- erties to Sh. Pradeep Kumar Jain for a sum of ₹ 2.25 crore and had handed over the documents of the society along with six original sale deeds of the properties of the society to Sh. Pradeep Kumar Jain. It was further submitted that original sale deeds of properties of the soci- ety were seized by the IO from Pradeep Kumar Jain vide production- cum-seizure memo dated 19.08.2016(D-188) Ex.30/A. Ld.Sr.PP also placed on reliance on the testimonies of PW27 Poonam Jain, PW30 Pradeep Jain and PW8 Pravin Jain.
61. Ld. Counsel for A-1 to A-5 vehemently denied that A-3 had ever sold the society along with the immovable properties of the society to Pradeep Kumar Jain. He has argued that there was no transaction be- tween Pradeep Kumar Jain and accused no.3 at any point of time. No money was ever paid by Pradeep Kumar Jain to A-3 Satish Kumar Sharma. He argued that Satish Kumar Sharma had taken a loan of ₹ 2.25 crore from Ms. Vandana, proprietor of M/s Jai Shree Trading Cor-
CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 63 of 119poration and she had advanced the loan by way of nine cheques of ₹ 25 lakhs each from the account of the firm. Five cheques were issued in the name of A-1 Urmila Rani and four cheques were issued in the name of Satish Kumar Sharma. It was further argued that a written agreement was executed between the parties and A-3 had given ad- vance cheques to Vandana which were dishonoured on encasement and Vandana had filed case u/s 138 NI Act which were later on settled between the parties i.e. Vandana and A-3 Satish Kumar.
62. A careful perusal of testimony of PW30 Pradeep Jain would show that he has almost admitted the version given by counsel for A-1 to A-5. In his examination in chief itself, PW30 has admitted that the amount was paid by him from the account of M/s Jai Shree Trading Corporation which was owned by Ms. Vandana Kumari with whom he was having the business dealings for purchase of the school as well as society. He further deposed that later on the said amount was con- strued as loan as A-3 Satish Sharma was not interested to sell the school and he had agreed to pay the interest. PW30 had also admitted in his examination in chief that he was not having the physical posses- sion of the school and the A-3 was in possession of the school and he had neither repaid the amount nor had given the physical possession of the school. PW30 further deposed that he had asked him to han- dover the sale deeds of the property over which school has been built. He proved the sale deeds handed over by Satish Sharma (A-3) to him and which were handed over by him to CBI vide memo Ex.PW30/A as Ex. PW28/A-1 to A-5 and Mark PW4/3(D-189 to D-194). He further de- posed that A-3 Satish Sharma got an FIR bearing no. 13/10(D-198) Mark PW30/D registered against him and his family members at PS Civil Lines, Sonepat and after investigation, police filed report in his CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 64 of 119 favour. A-3 Satish Sharma lodged a protest petition before the con- cerned court but eventually admitted before the court the correctness of PW30's case. In the cross examination by counsel for A-1 to A-5, he admitted that no paper was given to him when there was verbal talk re- garding the sale. He also admitted that there was no agreement in writing with him. He further admitted that there was no question of there being any loan agreement between him and A-3 Satish and vol- unteered that it was with Vandana. PW30 further admitted that the cheques were given to the accused from the account of M/s Jai Shree Trading Corporation and all cheques were signed by Vandana and he further admitted that in lieu of such loan accused had also given ad- vance cheques. He also admitted that those cheques were dishon- oured and case u/s 138 NI was filed by Ms. Vandana. However, he de- nied that the complaint case had been disposed of as settled.
63. The testimony of PW27 Poonam Jain and PW8 Praveen Jain would show that they had not deposed anything regarding the sale of the society by A-3 Satish Sharma to PW30 Pradeep Jain and hence, their testimonies do not have any bearing on this aspect of the case.
64. Counsel for A-1 to A-5 has vehemently argued that when there was no transaction with Pradeep Jain, leave apart sale transaction of society and the school, there was no reason or occasion for A-3 Satish Sharma to hand over the six original sale deeds to Pradeep Jain. He argued that the original sale deeds were never handed over by A-3 Satish Sharma to Pradeep Jain and the same were deposited with Cor- poration Bank for sanction of loan and Pradeep Jain in connivance with the bank officials has taken away the original sale deeds of the society from the bank and replaced forged sale deeds in their place.
CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 65 of 11965. From the perusal of the evidence and documents available on record, it is evident that there was no written document executed be- tween the parties regarding the sale of society and the school. In India, immovable property worth more than ₹ 100 cannot be transferred with- out a registered document. In the absence of any registered document executed between the parties, there can be no transaction of immov- able properties in view of Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act. Fur- ther, PW30 himself has admitted that no consideration was paid by him for the sale of the society and the school. Rather, he admitted that there was a loan transaction between A-3 Satish Sharma and Ms. Vandana, proprietor of M/s Jai Shree Trading Corporation. PW30 him- self has proved on record the loan agreement(D-197) Ex.PW30/C dated 21.06.2008 executed between Smt. Urmila Rani (A-1) and Satish Kumar (A-3) on one part and Ms. Vandana on the second part. Hence, in view of the aforesaid documentary evidence coupled with the admis- sion of PW-30 Pradeep Jain, I am of the considered opinion that there was no sale transaction of the society and the school between PW30 Pradeep Jain and A-3 Satish Sharma.
66. However, A-1 and A-3 have not adduced any evidence on record which may show that PW30 Pradeep Jain had obtained the original sale deeds of the properties of the school from Bank in con- nivance with some bank officials. On the other hand, there is documen- tary evidence which indicates that the sale deeds were handed over by A-3 Satish Sharma to Pradeep Jain.
It is pertinent to note here that the five original sale deeds dated 31.10.2007 bearing no.6315 Ex.PW28/A-1 (D-189); 6316 Ex.PW28/A-2 (D-190); 6318 Ex.PW28/A-3 (D-191); 6319 Ex.PW28/A-4 (D-192) and CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 66 of 119 6320 Ex.PW28/A-5 (D-193) and sale deed no.2706 dated 19.06.2008 Mark PW4/3 (D-194) in respect of the immovable property of the school were seized by the IO from the possession of Sh. Pradeep Jain on 19.08.2016 vide production-cum-seizure memo Ex. PW30/A (D-188) along with other documents. Entire cross examination of PW30 Pradeep Jain would show that counsel for A-1 to A-5 has not given any suggestion to him that these original sale deeds were not seized by the IO from his possession. PW40 Inspector Harvinder Singh is the IO of the case. He has also corroborated in his examination in chief that he had collected six genuine/original sale deeds from Sh. Pradeep Jain vide memo Ex.PW30/A (D-188). Counsel for A-1 to A-5 has also not given any suggestion to PW40 Inspector Harvinder Singh disputing the seizure of the aforesaid six original sale deeds from Sh. Pradeep Jain vide production-cum-seizure memo Ex.PW30/A (D-188). Rather, in para 36 of the cross examination IO has further reiterated that Mr. Pradeep Jain also handed over six original sale deeds vide seizure memo dated 19.08.2016 exhibited as Ex.PW30/A. Hence, there is no reason to doubt the fact that aforesaid six sale deeds were seized by the IO from the possession of Pradeep Jain.
67. Besides the seizure of aforesaid six sale deeds, other docu- ments were also seized by the IO on 19.08.2016 vide seizure-cum- production memo Ex.PW30/A. One bunch of these documents is D- 198 which contains copy of FIR no. 13/10 registered on 14.01.2010 at PS Civil Lines Sonepat u/s 419/420/467/468/471/474/120-BIPC and copies of proceedings in the court of Ms. Ankita Sharma, JMIC, Sonepat in criminal case no. 212.RT containing the statement of A-3 Satish Kumar Sharma and order sheet dated 05.02.2014. Seizure of these documents by the IO from Pradeep Jain are also not in dispute.
CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 67 of 11968. PW30 Pradeep Kumar Jain, in para 7 of his examination in chief, has deposed:-
"Immediately thereafter accused Satish Sharma got an FIR registered against him and his family members in Sonepat. Such FIR no. 13/2010 PS Civil Lines. After investigation, a police report was filed before the court which was in their favour. Accused Satish had also lodged a protest petition before the concerned court but eventually admit- ted before the court the correctness of their case".
The copy of this FIR along with court proceedings was marked by him as Mark PW30/D (D-198, 11 pages). During his cross examina- tion, Counsel for A-1 to A-5 has not put any question to him on this FIR nor any suggestion has been given him that the copy of FIR is incorrect or fabricated. Even PW40 IO Inspector Harvinder Singh, when cross examined by counsel for A-1 to A-5, admitted that an FIR has been lodged against Pradeep Jain regarding forgery of documents and change of his management by Pradeep Jain and his family members including some employees of the Office of Registrar of Firms and Soci- eties which further confirms the fact that aforesaid FIR was got regis- tered by A-3 Satish Kumar Sharma against Pradeep Jain and others.
69. A-3 Satish Kumar Sharma also admitted this fact in reply to question no. 22 when he was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. For ready reference, Question 22 of his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C is repro- duced herein below:-
"Q. 22. It is in evidence against you that PW30 fur- ther deposed that immediately thereafter you lodged an FIR no. 13/2010 against PW30 and his family members at PS Civil Lines and after investigation, the police filed report in favour of PW30 and you lodged a protest petition before the court but eventu-CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 68 of 119
ally admitted the correctness of PW30 before the concerned court. What have you to say?
Ans. It is correct."
Thus, there is a clear admission on the part of A-3 Satish Kumar Sharma that FIR no. 13/10 Mark PW30/D was got registered by him against Pradeep Jain and others. In view of the categorical admission by Satish Kumar Sharma (A-3), the copy of the FIR no. 13/10 can be read in evidence against him.
70. A bare perusal of FIR no. 13/10 (Mark PW30/D) shows that FIR was registered by Satish Kumar Sharma as Founder-cum-Auditor of Shyam Memorial Welfare Society. It further shows that A-3 had stated in this FIR that on the assurance and inducement of Pradeep Jain to arrange margin money for temporary period for the purpose of arrang- ing the finance, he had even handed over the original documents/reg- istry papers pertaining to the various properties papers of the society as well as of his wife Smt. Urmila.
Aforesaid facts and circumstances clearly establish beyond any doubt that the aforesaid six original sale deeds of the society were handed over by accused no. 3 Satish Sharma himself to PW30 Pradeep Jain.
(ii). Whether A-1 to A-5 were not entitled to apply for the loan from Corpo- ration Bank on behalf of the society in the year 2012 after the same was transferred to Sh. Pradeep Kumar Jain and new governing body was elected?
71. Ld. Sr. PP has argued that A-1 to A-5 misrepresented the bank by filing application for term loan Ex.PW33/B-1 (D-4) on behalf of the society by representing themselves to be the office bearers/members CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 69 of 119 of the society on the date of filing of this application, knowing fully well that they were not the office bearers of the society in the records of Registrar of societies and thus, induced the bank to sanction loan to the society.
Ld. Sr. PP has relied upon the testimony of PW25 Rajender Kumar Rana, Joint Director-cum-District Registrar, Firms & Societies, Sonepat who has proved the letter dated 20.07.2016 Ex.PW25/A (D-
200) issued under his signatures, giving details of the office bearers of the society as per office record w.e.f. 05.06.2008. Ld. Sr. PP also relied upon the statement of PW8 Praveen Jain who proved his application for membership of the society as Ex.PW8/A (D-196 page 1583) and de- posed that he had become member of the society. Reliance was also placed on testimony of PW-27 Poonam Jain who also deposed that she became member of the society on the asking of his brother Pradeep Jain and became treasurer in the election of the society held in the year 2008. PW-27 identified her signature on the minutes of meeting dated 06.06.2008 Mark PW8/1 (page 4 of D-195) and minutes of meeting dated 12.06.2008 (on the back of page 5 of D-195) which were attended by her. Ld. Sr.PP also argued that PW30 Pradeep Jain has also deposed that he had given letter dated 12.06.2009 addressed to District Registrar, Firms & Societies, Sonepat, already marked as Mark PW8/1 (D-195) and identified his signature. He also proved the bunch of loose papers containing membership application Ex.PW30/B (which also included Ex.PW8/A). It was argued that these documents particularly the letter Ex.PW25/A clearly establish that A-1 to A-5 were not the members/ office bearers of the society.
72. Ld. Counsel for A-1 to A-5 has vehemently disputed this fact and has submitted that A-1 to A-5 were the office bearers/members of the CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 70 of 119 society. It was argued that as per the case of prosecution, on 21.05.2008 new members were enrolled in the society, on 06.06.2008 elections were held and Pradeep Jain and his associates were elected as office bearers and on 12.06.2008 new management committee held meeting and old members of the society submitted their resignation and the record remained with them. He argued that Ex.PW25/A shows that new office bearers of the society were w.e.f 05.06.2008, however, PW25 in his cross examination deposed that on the basis of available record, it is not possible to tell when the corresponding change of members of society was made in the record of the register. He further argued that Ishwar Singh was the President on 05.06.2008 but no doc- uments in his handwriting or signature has been produced by the pros- ecution regarding change of membership. He also argued that there is contradiction in the testimony of the witnesses whether election was held on 05.06.2008 or 06.06.2008. He further argued that the applica- tions for membership Ex.PW30/B (D-196) (page 1572 to 1582) do not mention the date when the same were submitted. It was further argued that all the signatures on the resignation applications by previous mem- bers are forged and fabricated but the same were not sent to CFSL by IO for comparison. It was also argued that the conduct of Pradeep Jain in allowing A-3 to continuing as Principal despite the fact that they were not allowed to enter the school premises also creates doubts on the prosecution story. It was argued that Pradeep Jain did not produce the original minutes of meeting dated 21.05.2008, 06.06.2008 and 12.06.2008 in the court nor IO produced the said record in the court. He further argued that according to Pradeep Jain, new office bearers were elected on 06.06.2008 and the previous members of the society resigned on 12.06.2008 but there is no explanation as to why he did not submit the application for change of office bearers till 12.06.2009.
CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 71 of 119It was argued that the testimony of PW8 & PW27 would show that they are not aware of the complete facts and have deposed merely at the instance of their brother Pradeep Jain. It was argued that Pradeep Jain has committed fraud upon A-1 to A-5 and he tried to take control of the society as well as the school fraudulently. Counsel for A-1 to A-5 also argued that after the loan application was submitted to Corpora- tion Bank, due diligence was conducted by the Due Diligence Agency, report was also sought from the banks of the society which showed that A-1 to A-5 were the office bearers of the society and had rightly ap- plied for the loan on behalf of the society.
73. At the outset, it is pertinent to note here that in the entire cross examination of PW25 Rajender Kumar Rana, no suggestion has been given to the witness that the letter Ex.PW25/A is a false and fabricated document or that the office bearers of the society shown therein were not the true office bearers of the society. Thus, the genuineness and correctness of the contents of letter Ex. PW25/A stands duly estab- lished. As regards the contradiction in the date 05.06.2008 and 06.06.2008 is concerned, PW30 Pradeep Jain in his cross examination by counsel for A-1 to A-5 has categorically deposed that there is cleri- cal mistake in the list of Managing Committee members (available at page 14 of D-195) and the date should have been 06.06.2008 instead of 05.06.2008. He also categorically deposed that there was no meet- ing on 05.06.2008 although it was agreed, which makes it clear that the elections were held on 06.06.2008 and not on 05.06.2008 and the list of Managing Committee members was effective from 06.06.2008. PW-30 Pradeep Jain, in his cross-examination has also explained that he had submitted the papers to Registrar on 12.06.2009 i.e., one year after resignations were given by the previous office bearers/members CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 72 of 119 of the society as they waited for the payment on the basis of verbal set- tlement but since no payment was made, he had submitted the papers.
As regards the submission of counsel for A-1 to A-5 that signa- tures on the resignation of old office bearers of the society were forged and fabricated, it is pertinent to note herein that even though A-3 filed an FIR bearing no. 13/10 against Pradeep Jain and his associates and officials of District Registrar of Society but nothing came out during the investigation of the said case and police filed cancellation report. A-3 Satish Kumar filed a protest report but did not pursue the same to its logical conclusion, for the reasons best known to him and with drew the same. The conduct of A-3 Satish Kumar Sharma in withdrawing the protest petition instead of contesting it vigorously and getting the cul- prits punished, is also beyond comprehension. Not only this, none of the previous office bearers of the society has filed any complaint re- garding forgery of his/her signature on the resignation letters nor any one of them, including A-3, has appeared in the witness box to depose on oath that his/her signatures on resignation were forged and fabri- cated. A-1 to A-5 have also not examined any witness or produced any document to substantiate their claim that their resignation letters were forged and fabricated by Pradeep Jain or his associates. It is also per- tinent to note here that the letter Ex. PW25/A was issued by PW25 on 20.07.2016 and till that date, Pradeep Jain and his associates were be- ing shown as office bearers of the society in the records of Registrar of Firms & Societies. Despite being aware of these facts since June 2008, no steps were taken by the accused persons for rectification of records of Registrar of Firms & Societies by filing any petition or appeal.
Hence, considering the overall facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has established that A-1 to A-5 were fully aware that they were not the office bearers/members of the CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 73 of 119 society on the date of filing of loan application with Corporation Bank and they were not entitled to file any such application on behalf of the society. However, in furtherance of their criminal conspiracy to cheat the bank, they filed loan application on behalf of the society falsely representing themselves to be members/office bearers of the society and thus misrepresented the Corporation Bank to induce it to grant loan in the name of the society.
(iii) Whether six original sale deeds in respect of the properties of society bearing registration no. 6319 Mark 28/B-1 (D-133); bearing registration no. 6315 Mark 28/B-2 (D-135); registration no. 6318 Mark 28/B-3 (D-137); bearing registration no. 2706 dated 19.06.2008 Ex.PW33/B-54 (D-139); bearing registration no. 6320 Mark 28/B-4 (D-141); bearing registration no. 6316 Mark 28/B-5 (D-143) and the sale deed in respect of residential prop- erty of A-3 Satish Kumar Sharma bearing registration no. 1814 dated 12.06.1998 Ex.PW33/B-58 (D-145) seized by the IO from Corporation Bank vide seizure memo dated 18.01.2016 Ex.PW33/A (D-3) are genuine or forged documents?
74. In order to set the records straight and to avoid any confusion at a later stage, it is pertinent to note here that there are three sets of sale deeds available on the judicial file as detailed herein below:-
(A) The first set of sale deeds consists of certified copies of sale deeds which were handed over by PW18 Rajinder Singh, Clerk in the office of Sub-Registrar Sonepat, Haryana vide letter dated 05.02.2016 (D-89) Ex.PW18/B in response to the letter written by IO dated 02.02.2016. These sale deeds were seized by the IO Inspector Harvin-
der Singh vide production-cum-receipt memo dated 08.02.2016 Ex.PW18/A (D-88). The details of these sale deeds are as under:-
CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 74 of 119(i) Certified copy of sale deed of plot measuring 758.50 sq. yds bearing registration no. 6315 dated 31.10.2007 executed in favour of the soci-
ety by Mr. Rakesh Choudhary & Sanjay Choudhary exhibited as Ex.PW18/C (D-90).
(ii) Certified copy of sale deed of plot measuring 224 sq. yds bearing registration no. 6316 dated 31.10.2007 executed in favour of the soci- ety by Mr. Rakesh Choudhary & Sanjay Choudhary exhibited as Ex.PW18/D (D-91).
(iii) Certified copy of sale deed of plot measuring 195 sq. yds bearing registration no. 6318 dated 31.10.2007 executed in favour of the soci- ety by Mr. Rakesh Choudhary & Sanjay Choudhary exhibited as Ex.PW18/E (D-92).
(iv) Certified copy of sale deed of plot measuring 400 sq. yds bearing registration no. 6319 dated 31.10.2007 executed in favour of the soci- ety by Mr. Rakesh Choudhary & Sanjay Choudhary exhibited as Ex.PW18/F (D-93).
(v) Certified copy of sale deed of plot measuring 420 sq. yds bearing registration no. 6320 dated 31.10.2007 executed in favour of the soci- ety by Mr. Rakesh Choudhary & Sanjay Choudhary exhibited as Ex.PW18/G (D-94).
(vi) Certified copy of sale deed of plot measuring 128 sq. yds bearing registration no.2706 dated 19.06.2008 executed in favour of the society by Mansukh Ram exhibited as Ex.PW18/H (D-95).
(vii) Certified copy of sale deed of plot measuring 208 sq. yds in Naren- der Nagar bearing registration no.1814 dated 12.06.1998 executed in favour of Satish Kumar (A-3) by Suresh Kumar Pruthi exhibited as Ex.PW18/I (D-96).
PW18 Rajinder Singh appeared in the witness box and proved the aforesaid sale deeds. He was not cross examined by accused per-
CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 75 of 119sons. Hence, his testimony has to be accepted as correct.
(B) The second set of sale deeds consist of six original sale deeds which were seized by the IO from PW30 Pradeep Jain vide production- cum-receipt memo dated 19.08.2016 (D-188) Ex. PW30/A. The details of the six sale deeds are as under:-
(i) Original sale deed of plot measuring 758.50 sq. yds bearing registra-
tion no. 6315 dated 31.10.2007 in favour of the society by Mr. Rakesh Choudhary and Sanjay Choudhary exhibited as Ex.PW28/A-1 (D-189).
(ii)Original sale deed of plot measuring 224 sq. yds bearing registration no. 6316 dated 31.10.2007 in favour of the society by Mr. Rakesh Choudhary and Sanjay Choudhary exhibited as Ex.PW28/A-2 (D-190).
(iii) Original sale deed of plot measuring 195 sq. yds bearing registra- tion no. 6318 dated 31.10.2007 in favour of the society by Mr. Rakesh Choudhary and Sanjay Choudhary exhibited as Ex.PW28/A-3 (D-191).
(iv) Original sale deed of plot measuring 400 sq. yds bearing registra- tion no. 6319 dated 31.10.2007 in favour of the society by Mr. Rakesh Choudhary and Sanjay Choudhary exhibited as Ex.PW28/A-4 (D-192).
(v) Original sale deed of plot measuring 420 sq. yds bearing registra- tion no. 6320 dated 31.10.2007 in favour of the society by Mr. Rakesh Choudhary and Sanjay Choudhary exhibited as Ex.PW28/A-5 (D-193).
(vi) Original sale deed of plot measuring 128 sq. yds bearing registra- tion no. 2706 dated 19.06.2008 in favour of the society by Mansukh Ram exhibited as Mark PW4/3 (D-194).
As noted in the foregoing paras, I have already reached the con- clusion that these documents were handed over by A-3 Satish Kumar to PW30 Pradeep Jain. It is also important to note here that during the cross examination of PW30 Pradeep Jain as well as PW40 Inspector Harvinder Singh, no suggestion was given by Ld. counsel for A-1 to A-5 CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 76 of 119 that these sale deeds were not seized from PW30 or that the same were forged and fabricated documents.
The genuineness of these sale deeds has also been established by the testimonies of PW4 Satbir Singh who has deposed that D-194 is the original of certified copy of the sale deed (D-95) exhibited as Ex. PW18/H. Similarly, PW28 Rakesh Choudhary and PW29 Sanjay Choudhary have also identified the aforesaid five sale deeds as the ti- tle documents which were executed by them and also identified the certified copy of these sale deeds as Ex.PW18/C to Ex.PW18/G. Hence, there does not remain an iota of doubt that the sale deeds Ex.PW28/A-1 to Ex.PW28/A-5 and Mark PW4/3 (D-189 to D-194) are the genuine sale deeds of the property of the school of the society M/s Shyam Memorial Welfare Society.
(C ) The third set of sale deeds consists of seven purportedly original sale deeds which were handed over by PW33 Sh. Ravinder Prakash Sr. Manager, Corporation Bank to the IO vide seizure memo dated 18.01.2016 Ex. PW33/A (D-3). The details of the sale deeds are as un- der:-
(i) Purported original sale deed of plot measuring 400 sq. yds bearing registration no. 6319 dated 31.10.2007 apparently executed in favour of the society by Mr. Rakesh Choudhary & Sanjay Choudhary marked as Mark 28/B-1 (D-133).
(ii) Purported original sale deed of plot measuring 758.5 sq. yds bear-
ing registration no. 6315 dated 31.10.2007 apparently executed in favour of the society by Mr. Rakesh Choudhary & Sanjay Choudhary marked as Mark 28/B-2 (D-135).
(iii) Purported original sale deed of plot measuring 195 sq. yds bearing registration no. 6318 dated 31.10.2007 apparently executed in favour of the society by Mr. Rakesh Choudhary & Sanjay Choudhary marked CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 77 of 119 as Mark 28/B-3 (D-137).
(iv) Purported original sale deed of plot measuring 128 sq. yds bearing registration no. 2706 dated 19.06.2008 apparently executed in favour of the society by Mansukh Ram exhibited as Ex.PW33/B-54 (D-139).
(v) Purported original sale deed of plot measuring 420 sq. yds bearing registration no. 6320 dated 31.10.2007 apparently executed in favour of the society by Mr. Rakesh Choudhary & Sanjay Choudhary marked as Mark 28/B-4 (D-141).
(vi) Purported original sale deed of plot measuring 224 sq. yds bearing registration no. 6316 dated 31.10.2007 apparently executed in favour of the society by Mr. Rakesh Choudhary & Sanjay Choudhary marked as Mark 28/B-5 (D-143).
(vii) Purported original sale deed of plot measuring 208 sq. yds in Narender Nagar, Sonepat bearing registration no. 1814 dated 12.06.1998 apparently executed in favour of Satish Kumar (A-3) by Shri Suresh Kumar Pruthi exhibited as Ex.PW33/B-58 (D-145).
Ld. Sr. PP for CBI has argued that these seven sale deeds are forged and fabricated documents. He has relied upon the statements of PW19 Umesh Batra, PW25 Rajinder Kumar Rana, PW28 Rakesh Choudhary, PW29 Sanjay Choudhary, PW34 Suresh Kumar Pruthi, PW36 Nitish, PW39 Fakir Chand and PW4 Satbir Singh in support of his arguments. He has submitted that the signatures of the executants on these documents are forged, the stamp papers on which these sale deeds have been purchased in the year 2013 whereas these docu- ments purport to be of the year 2007 which is not possible.
75. PW4 Satbir Singh s/o Mansukh Ram after seeing the sale deed (D-139) Ex. PW33/B-54 deposed that the photo of seller printed on the last page of the sale deed at point 'A' was not of his father. After see-
CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 78 of 119ing the certified copy of the sale deed (D-95), he deposed that the photo of seller printed on the last page of the sale deed at point 'A' was of his father. He also deposed that D-194 Mark PW4/3 was the original of Mark PW4/2. In the cross examination by Ld. Counsel for A-1 to A- 5, no suggestion was given to the witness that sale deed D-139 was the original and genuine sale deed.
PW39 Fakir Chand, the then Sub-Registrar Sonepat has also de- posed that the sale deed (D-139) already Ex.PW33/B-54 does not bear his signature at point 'X' and the same was not registered in the record of his office. He also deposed that the certified copy of the sale deed (D-95) Ex.PW18/H was bearing his signature at point 'X'. In his cross examination, no suggestion was given to him that the sale deed Ex. PW33/B-54 was genuine document and registered in the office of sub- Registrar.
76. PW28 Rakesh Choudhary and PW29 Sanjay Choudhary ap- peared in the witness box and deposed that the sale deeds D-133, D- 135, D-137, D-141 and D-143 marked as Mark PW28/B-1 to Mark PW28/B-5 respectively were forged and fabricated documents and were not genuine sale deeds. They further deposed that the sale deeds D-189, D-190, D-191, D-192 and D-193 Ex.PW28/A-1 to Ex. PW28/A-5 respectively were the original sale deeds and the certified copies of these sale deeds were exhibited as Ex.PW18/C to Ex.PW18/G. PW29 deposed in his cross examination that the sale deeds Mark PW28/B-1 to Mark PW28/B-5 were bearing his forged sig- natures. No suggestion was given to these witnesses also that sale deeds Mark PW28/B-1 to Mark PW28/B-5 were the original and gen- uine sale deeds.
CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 79 of 11977. PW34 Suresh Kumar Paruthi has also deposed that the sale deed (D-145) Ex.PW33/B-58 was forged and duplicate and it neither bears his signature nor bears his photograph. He also deposed that the certified copies of the sale deed (D-96) Ex.PW18/I was the same sale deed vide which he had sold his property situated at Narender Na- gar Sonepat to A-3 Satish Kumar on 12.06.1998. This witness was not at all cross examined by the accused persons and hence his testimony has to be accepted as correct.
It is also pertinent to note here that the signature of A-3 Satish Kumar Sharma at points Q-88 and Q-89 appearing on the sale deed (D-145) Ex.PW33/B-58 were sent to CFSL for comparison with the specimen signatures/handwriting obtained by the IO during investiga- tion. The CFSL report Ex.PW38/B shows that questioned signatures Q- 88 and Q-89 have tallied with the specimen signatures S-41 to S-62 and S-75 to S-93 of A-3 Satish Kumar Sharma. However, PW38 Ramesh Chander has observed in para 5 of the report that it has not been possible to express any opinion regarding the authorship of the questioned signatures marked Q-7-A, Q-10, Q-22, Q-25, Q-34, Q-38, Q-45, Q-46, Q-57, Q-62, Q-75, Q-77 and Q-82 appearing on the forged sale deeds D-133, D-135, D-137, D-139, D-141 and D-143 in compari- son with the standard signatures/handwriting of A-1 Urmila marked S-1 to S-10.
78. PW19 Umesh Batra, who was the stamp vendor, has deposed that the stamp papers (except the stamp papers of the denomination of ₹ 25,000/-) used on the sale deeds D-133, D-135, D-137, D-141 and D-143 marked as Mark PW28/B-1 to Mark PW28/B-5 respectively were issued by him on 05.03.2013 in the name of the society. He also proved the stamp papers sold by him as Ex.PW19/A (colly) to CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 80 of 119 Ex.PW19/E (colly). He also deposed that the stamp of "Asst. Trea- surer Sonepat" was not there when he sold the stamp papers and fur- ther deposed that when the stamp papers are sold by vendor like him, the stamp of "Asst. Treasurer Sonepat" will not be there. In the cross examination by counsel for A-1 to A-5, he denied the suggestion that if the stamp paper of more than ₹ 100, even if sold to vendor, it has to be stamped as "Asst. Treasurer Sonepat".
79. PW36 Nitish, Asstt. Treasurer, Treasury office Sonepat has proved production-cum-receipt memo dated 04.05.2016 (D-110) Ex.PW36/B vide which IO had seized original challans for issuance of non judicial paper in the name of the society and the challans have been proved as Ex. PW36/B-1 and Ex.PW36/B-2. He also proved pro- duction-cum-receipt memo dated 22.03.2016 (D-108) as Ex.PW36/A and the relevant pages of the register for a period 24.12.2012 to 08.05.2013 as Ex.PW36/A-1 to Ex.PW36/A-3. He further deposed that non judicial stamp papers of ₹ 25000/- printed on stamp paper no. A- 534862, A-534858, A-534859, A-534861, A-534860 and A-534853 and non judicial stamp paper of ₹ 10000 printed on stamp paper no. 607652 were sold on 04.03.2013. He deposed that these stamp pa- pers were affixed with the sale deeds which are dated 31.10.2007 and stamp papers of ₹ 10000 denomination was affixed with the sale deed dated 19.06.2008 which is not possible. He also deposed that on all the stamp papers sold by him stamp of "Sahayak Khajanchi Sonepat" (in Hindi) was affixed and the same is genuine but the stamp appearing in English on the reverse side having inscription as "Asstt. Treasurer Sonepat" is not genuine stamp and was not put by him. He further deposed that all the stamp papers shown to him of the denomination of ₹ 25000 and all the stamp papers contained in sale CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 81 of 119 deed Ex.PW33/B-54 were sold by him and bears his initial. In the cross examination by counsel for A-1 to A-5, no suggestion was given that the above said stamp papers were not sold on 04.03.2013 or that the same was sold in the year 2007 and 2008 respectively when the sale deeds Mark PW28/B-1 to Mark PW28/B-5 and Ex. PW33/B-54 were purportedly executed.
80. From the perusal of the testimonies of aforesaid witnesses and the documents on record, I am of the considered opinion that prosecu- tion has established beyond reasonable doubt that the six original sale deeds in respect of the properties of society bearing registration no. 6319 Mark 28/B-1(D-133); bearing registration no. 6315 Mark 28/B- 2(D-135); registration no. 6318 Mark 28/B-3(D-137); bearing registra- tion no. 2706 dated 19.06.2008 Ex.PW33/B-54(D-139); bearing regis- tration no. 6320 Mark 28/B-4(D-141); bearing registration no. 6316 Mark 28/B-5(D-143) and the sale deed in respect of residential prop- erty of A-3 Satish Kumar Sharma bearing registration no. 1814 dated 12.06.1998 Ex.PW33/B-58 (D-145) are forged and fabricated docu- ments.
(iv) Whether A-1 and A-3 filed forged and fabricated title deeds of the prop- erties of the society and forged audit reports of the society with Corporation Bank for obtaining the loan?
81. Ld. Sr. P.P. has argued that the A-1 and A-3 had deposited forged audit reports of the society and six forged and fabricated title deeds of the properties of the society and one forged and fabricated ti- tle deed of residential property of A-3 Satish Sharma. He argued that initially A-1 & A-3 had deposited photocopies of title deeds with the CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 82 of 119 loan applications which were verified by panel lawyers of the bank and after the loan was sanctioned, forged and fabricated title deeds were deposited with the bank. He argued that since A-1 & A-3 were not in possession of the original title deeds of the properties of the society, they obtained forged and fabricated title deeds and deposited the same with the bank. A-3 Satish Kumar also deposited forged and fabricated title deed of his residential property with the bank as collateral security.
82. Ld. Counsel for A-1 to A-5 has vehemently disputed the submis- sions made by Ld. Sr. PP for CBI. He argued that A-1 and A-3 had de- posited original documents with the bank after the loan was sanc- tioned to the society and these documents were duly verified by panel lawyer of bank PW14 Vivek Jain Advocate and the same were found to be correct and only thereafter the loan was disbursed on 28.02.2013. He further argued that even as per the case of the prosecution, original documents were submitted on 27.02.2013 whereas the forged title deeds were prepared on the non-judicial stamp papers dated 04.03.2013 and 05.03.2013 and the same could not have been filed on 27.02.2013. He further argued that there was no occasion for A-1 and A-3 to submit forged and fabricated documents when the original docu- ments were submitted by them and the same were found to be in order by panel lawyer of bank. It was further argued that in all probabilities, Pradeep Jain might have replaced the original documents with forged and fabricated documents in connivance with some bank officials. As regards filing of the forged audit reports by the accused persons, it was submitted that PW22 Rajesh Arora has deposed under pressure of CBI and IO did not obtain the signature of PW22 Rajesh Arora nor obtained the facsimile of his seal and did not send any documents to CFSL for comparison of original and forged documents and there is nothing to CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 83 of 119 show that the audit reports filed by the accused persons were forged and fabricated.
83. Firstly, I shall deal with the filing of forged and fabricated audit re- ports with the bank for obtaining the loan on behalf of the society. It is not in dispute that Ishwar Singh, A-1 Urmila, A-2 Om Prakash and A-3 Satish Kumar had applied for term loan on behalf of the society and had filed application Ex.PW33/B-1(D-4) which was duly signed by them. This application was also accompanied by various documents such as certified copy of resolution Ex.PW33/B-2(D-5), copy of memo- randum of society Ex.PW33/B-4(D-8), list of governing body of the so- ciety, statement of assets and liabilities of the society Ex.PW33/B-6(D-
10), six undertakings/declarations by A-1 in respect of the properties of the society and copies of ITRs of the society Ex.PW33/B-42 (D-65).
84. The copies of ITRs along with audit reports submitted by the society pertain to the years 2012-2013, 2011-2012 and 2010-2011. Prosecution has examined PW22 in respect of these ITRs and audit re- ports. PW22 has deposed that he gave audit reports for the year 2009- 2010 and issued the audit form 10-B for exemption of tax liability and he had prepared the audit report on the basis of documents provided by A-3 Satish Kumar Sharma. When he was shown the ITRs for the assessment years (A.Y.) 2012-2013, 2011-2012 and 2010-2011 per- taining to the society, he deposed that he had audited the books of ac- counts of the society for financial years 2008-09 and 2009-10 and is- sued the audit report dated 20.07.2010. He further deposed that the audit report annexed with the Income tax returns for financial years (F.Y.) 2011-12 and 2010-11 were not prepared by him and the same were having forged seal and signature from pages 376 to 381 and 390 CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 84 of 119 to 395 of D-65 at point 'A'. He further deposed that he had given the audit report for the financial years (F.Y.) 2008-09 and 2009-10 and thereafter the society was not his client and he had not given any audit reports in the name of the society or in the personal name of the ac- cused persons. Nothing material has come out from the cross exami- nation of this witness which may create any doubt on his credibility.
In my considered opinion, merely because IO did not obtain the opinion of CFSL on the forged audit reports will not make much differ- ence when the author of the documents himself has appeared in the witness box and has categorically denied having prepared the audit re- port for the financial years 2010-11 and 2011-12 for the society. Hence, in view of the categorical deposition of PW22, there remains no doubt that A-1 to A-3 had used forged and fabricated audit reports for the F.Y. 2010-11 & 2011-12 as genuine documents and filed them to obtain loan from Corporation Bank.
85. Now I shall deal with the issue whether A-1 Urmila Sharma and A-3 Satish Kumar Sharma filed forged and fabricated title deeds with Corporation Bank for obtaining term loan on behalf of the society. Again, it is not in dispute that after initial verification of the photocopies of the documents along with the loan application, loan was sanctioned by the bank on 22.2.2013. Accused persons appeared in the branch and completed the formalities by executing various loan documents such as loan agreement, guarantee agreement, common deed of hy- pothecation of movable assets, letter of undertaking/declaration from the borrower, GPA for book debts etc. Besides other documents, ac- cused no.1 Urmila also executed six memorandum of deposit of title deeds in respect of deposit of the properties of the society, i.e. D- 132(Ex.PW33/B-50), D-134(Ex.PW33/B-51), D-136(Ex.PW33/B-52), D-
CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 85 of 119138(Ex.PW33/B-53),D-140(Ex.PW33/B-55) and D-142(Ex.PW33/B-56). Accused No. 3 Satish Kumar Sharma also executed memorandum of deposit of title deed D-144(Ex.PW33/B-57) in respect of his residential property measuring 208 sq. yards situated at Narender Nagar, Sonepat. According to the documents available on judicial file, A-1 Urmila and A-3 Satish Kumar Sharma deposited 7 title deeds D- 133(Mark-28/B-1), D-135(Mark-28/B-2), D-137(Mark-28/B-3), D- 139(Ex.PW33/B-54), D-141(Mark-28/B-4), D-143(Mark-28/B-5) and D- 145(Ex.PW33/B-58) with Corporation Bank.
As noted above, the aforementioned 7 sale deeds were later on seized by the IO from the bank and they have been found to be forged and fabricated sale deeds. None of the witnesses appearing on behalf of the bank have deposed if A-1 and A-3 had deposited any other orig- inal sale deeds with the Bank apart from the aforementioned sale deeds D-133(Mark-28/B-1), D-135(Mark-28/B-2), D-137(Mark-28/B-3), D139(Ex.PW33/B-54), D-141(Mark-28/B-4), D-143(Mark-28/B-5) and D-145(Ex.PW33/B-58) deposited vide memorandum of deposit of title deeds.
86. I have already come to conclusion in the foregoing paras that six original sale deeds of the properties of the society, i.e. D-189 to D-194 (Ex. PW 28/A-1 to A-5 and Mark PW 4/C) were handed over by A-3 Satish Kumar Sharma to Pradeep Jain in the year 2008 and these sale deeds were seized by the IO from the possession of PW-30 Pradeep Jain on 19.8.2016 vide production-cum-seizure memo Ex. PW 30/A (D-188). These facts establish beyond any doubt that A-1 and A-3 were not in possession of original sale deeds i.e. D-189 to D-194 (Ex. PW 28/A-1 to A-5 and Mark PW 4/C) in the year 2012 when the loan application was filed with the Bank or on 27.2.2013 when the memo-
CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 86 of 119randum of deposit of title deeds were executed by them in favour of the bank. Hence, the plea of A-1 Urmila and A-3 Satish Kumar Sharma that they had deposited original title deeds with the bank is totally ruled out.
87. So far as the question of deposit of title deeds of residential property of A-3 is concerned, perusal of record would show that even the said sale deed Ex.PW33/B-58(D-145) seized by the IO from the bank is found to be a forged and fabricated document. The original sale deed pertaining to residential property of A-3 was not handed over to Pradeep Jain at any point of time and it should have been in the cus- tody of accused No. 3 himself. At this juncture, it will be beneficial to refer to the testimony of PW-1 Mithilesh Kumar Jha of UCO Bank, Par- liament Street, New Delhi. He has deposed that in January 2014, a term loan of ₹ 2 Crores was sanctioned to M/s Pandit Chandu Ram Education Society, Sonepat by UCO Bank, Parliament Street, New Delhi. He further deposed that on 2.5.2015, he wrote a letter Ex.PW- 1/A (D-118) to Branch Head, Corporation Bank, Maya Puri Branch for verification of title deeds of collateral security for account of M/s Shyam Memorial Education Society and he had also sent an attested true copy of the sale deed alongwith the letter to Corporation Bank. He has also deposed that the copy of the sale deed was attested by him after comparing it with the original which was lying with the bank (i.e. UCO Bank). The attested copy of the sale deed was proved by him as Ex. PW-1/B (part of D-118).
88. A bare perusal of copy of the sale deed Ex.PW-1/B would show that this sale deed was executed by Sh. Suresh Kumar Pruthi in favour of A-3 Satish Kumar son of Suraj Bhan in respect of plot of land mea- suring 208 sq. yards in Killa No. 28/20/2, Hadud, Narender Nagar, CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 87 of 119 Lehrara, Sonipat, Haryana bearing registration no. 1814 dated 12.6.1998. A comparison of the copy of sale deed Ex.PW-1/B with the certified copy of the sale deed Ex.PW-18/I (D-96) of this very property which was seized by the IO vide production-cum-seizure memo dated 8.2.2016 Ex.PW-18/A (D-88) would show that the two are identical in all respects.
89. Perusal of cross-examination of PW-1 by counsel for A-1 to A-5 would show that he has not at all disputed the fact that the original sale deed pertaining to plot of land measuring 208 sq. yards in Killa No. 28/20/2, Hadud, Narender Nagar, Lehrara, Sonipat, Haryana bearing registration no. 1814 dated 12.6.1998 of A-3 Satish Kumar was de- posited with UCO Bank as collateral security for the loan of Pt. Chandu Ram Educational Society. He has also not disputed the fact that A-3 Satish Kumar and A-1 Smt. Urmila and A-4 Vijay Pal had given personal guarantee in the loan of Pt. Chandu Ram Educational Society. Hence, from the testimony of PW-1 it is established beyond any doubt that A-3 Satish Kumar had deposited his original sale deed in respect of his residential property situated on land measuring 208 sq. yards in Killa No. 28/20/2, Hadud, Narender Nagar, Lehrara, Soni- pat, Haryana bearing registration no. 1814 dated 12.6.1998 with UCO Bank as collateral security in the year 2014.
90. This makes it absolutely clear that the sale deed Ex.PW33/B- 58(D-145) deposited by A-3 with Corporation Bank vide memorandum of deposit of title deed Ex. PW 33/B-57 (D-144) was not an original document but was a forged and fabricated document. It also falsifies the stand of A-1 and A-3 that Pradeep Jain must have taken out the original title deeds from the Corporation Bank in connivance with the CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 88 of 119 officials of Corporation Bank and replaced them with forged and fabri- cated title deeds. Had it been so, A-3 Satish Kumar would not have been in possession of the original title deed of his property and he could not have deposited the same with UCO Bank in the year 2014.
91. The counsel for A-1 to A-5 also submitted that the forged sale deeds were prepared on the stamp papers purchased on 4.3.2013 and 5.3.2013 and the same could not have been deposited with the bank on 27.2.2013. In my considered opinion, he is correct to the extent that the documents which were forged and fabricated after 4 th & 5th March, 2013 could not have been deposited in the bank on 27.2.2013. How- ever, since A-1 and A-3 were not even in possession of the six original sale deeds D-189 to D-194 (Ex. PW 28/A-1 to A-5 and Mark PW 4/C) on 27.2.2013 as the same were in possession of PW-30 Pradeep Jain, there was no possibility that A-1 and A-3 could have filed the original sale deeds with the Corporation Bank on 27.2.2013. Hence, taking entire facts and circumstances in to consideration, the only inevitable conclusion which can be drawn is that A-1 and A-3 in conspiracy with A-6, the then Branch Manager, had merely executed the memoran- dum of deposit of title deeds on 27.2.2013 and no title deeds were de- posited with the bank on that day and A-6, in furtherance of the crimi- nal conspiracy, used his influence and official position to obtain legal opinion from PW-14 Vivek Jain on the same day and disbursed the loan on very next day whereas the forged and fabricated title deeds D- 133 (Mark 28/B-1), D-135 (Mark 28/B-2), D-137 (Mark 28/B-3), D-139 (Ex. PW 33/B-54), D-141 (Mark 28/B-4), D-143 (Mark 28/B-5) and D- 145 (Ex. PW 33/B-58) were deposited in the bank at some later date.
92. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opin-
CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 89 of 119ion that prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that A- 1 and A-3 used as genuine, forged and fabricated title deeds of the properties of the society and of residential property of A-3 and forged and fabricated audit reports of the society for the financial years 2010- 11 & 2011-12 and deposited the same with Corporation Bank for in- ducing the bank to sanction loan to them.
(v). Whether A-1 had submitted fake bills on behalf of the society with Cor- poration Bank to show utilization of the loan amount and cheated the bank?
93. Ld. Sr. PP for CBI has argued that after the sanction and dis- bursement of the loan to the society, A-1 Urmila submitted 77 original bills vide letter dated 22.04.2013 Ex.PW33/H-4 (D-183), 18 original bills vide letter dated 02.05.2013 Ex.PW33/H-5 (D-184), 38 original bills vide list of bills dated 02.05.2013 Ex.PW33/H-6 (D-185) and 4 bills vide list of bills Ex.PW33/H-7 (D-186) and 38 bills vide list of bills pertaining to the period 02.09.2012 to 13.02.2013 to show the utilization of the amount by the society. He argued that the three bills of M/s Home 121 Solutions dated 06.05.2013, 02.05.2013 and 03.05.2013 are forged and fabricated bills as this firm is not in existence. He also argued that the bills submitted by M/s Sharma Contractors, which was proprietor- ship firm of A-5 Sumit Sharma are false and fake bills and the same have been issued by A-5 Sumit Sharma in conspiracy with other ac- cused persons to siphon of the loan amount disbursed by the Corpora- tion Bank.
94. Ld. Counsel for A-1 to A-5 has vehemently opposed the submis- sion made by Ld. Sr. PP. He has argued that the bills submitted by the accused persons were duly verified by the Bank and the payments CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 90 of 119 were made to the contractor by RTGS and cheques in their accounts. He argued that payments to M/s Home 121 Solutions were also made by way of cheques/RTGS. It was argued that it is not the case of prose- cution that material was no supplied by the firm M/s Home 121 Solu- tions and once the payments were made through RTGS, it was the duty of the IO to verify the accounts of M/s Home 121 Solutions from the Bank which has not been done despite the bank details being men- tioned in the statement of accounts of the society.
95. Firstly, I shall deal with the three bills of M/s Home 121 Solutions submitted by the accused persons to the Bank. Perusal of the record shows that the society through A-1 Urmila had placed contract for sup- ply of furniture, diesel generator set, computer systems, air conditioner etc. with M/s Home 121 Solutions vide letter dated 14.02.2013 Ex.PW33/H-2 (D-115). M/s Home 121 Solutions had issued three bills dated 06.05.2013, 02.05.2013 and 03.05.2013 totaling to ₹ 52,37,946/- for the goods supplied by it and on 29.04.2013 a sum of ₹ 11,78,350/- was paid from the bank account of the society. Ld. Sr. PP has relied on the testimonies of PW35 Subhasish Gupta and PW10 Naresh Chand Gupta to argue that no firm with the name of Home 121 Solu- tions was running on the addresses mentioned in three bills/invoices and has submitted that these bills are forged and fabricated docu- ments.
96. Merely because IO could not locate the firm on the addresses given in the bills is not sufficient to prove that the bills issued by Home 121 Solutions are forged and fabricated. It is pertinent to mention here that the payment of the bills was made to the firm from the bank ac- count of the society in the Corporation Bank bearing no.
CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 91 of 119CBCA/01/050084 on 29.04.2013 as reflected in the account statement Ex.PW33/B-49 (D-74). No efforts have been made by the IO to verify the aforesaid transaction. There was possibility of finding out the ad- dress of the firm as well as the name of its owner from the bank in which this firm was maintaining its account but no efforts were made by the I.O. in this direction. Further there is no investigation by the I.O. to ascertain whether the goods/articles mentioned in the three bills were actually supplied by the firm to the society or not. In the absence of any such investigation, I am of the considered opinion that it cannot be held conclusively that the firm M/s Home 121 Solutions was a non ex- isting firm or that three bills issued in the name of the said firm were forged and fabricated bills.
97. Ld. Sr. PP has also submitted that the bills issued by M/s Sharma Contractors towards the construction of the building are also fake bills and they have been falsely prepared to show utilization of the funds disbursed by the Bank. He also argued that as per the evidence available on record, the loan amount was transferred by Corporation Bank firstly in the Term Loan Account of the society and from there it was transferred to CBCA account of the society. Thereafter, money was transferred from CBCA account of the society to the account of M/s Sharma Contractors maintained at HDFC Bank, Sonepat. He ar- gued that PW6 Pawan Kumar, Assistant Manager, HDFC Bank has proved the production-cum-receipt memo Ex. PW6/A (D-106) vide which he had handed over the documents mentioned therein to the IO of the case. He also proved the statement of account of M/s Sharma Contractor from 02.03.2013 to 02.02.2016 as Ex.PW6/C and the certifi- cate accompanied with it as Ex.PW6/B (D-107). This witness has also proved the letter dated 08.03.2016 Ex. PW6/D (D-105) vide which origi-
CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 92 of 119nal documents were handed over by the Bank to the IO. He proved the original account opening form, instant account acknowledgment, nomi- nee addition form, customer undertaking to account opening for current account and KYC report taken out by the Bank from KYC portal as Ex.PW6/E (colly). He also proved the documents submitted by A-5 i.e. Annexure A dated 27.02.2013, copy of original cheque of ₹ 50,000/-, permission for carrying out business issued by Municipal Committee Sonepat and building construction certificate issued by PWD and at- tested copy of PAN of A-5 Sumit Sharma, proprietor of Sharma Con- tractor as Ex.PW6/F(colly). He argued that this account was opened on 02.03.2013 i.e. after the accused persons had filed loan application with Corporation Bank. He also argued that perusal of statement of the account Ex.PW6/C would show that the maximum amount has been withdrawn in cash through ATM or bearers' cheques. He argued that the amount was withdrawn by A-5 Sumit Sharma in cash from this ac- count and was handed over to other accused persons who siphoned it. He argued that perusal of the bills issued by A-5 would show that the same have been issued between the period 02.03.2013 to 25.05.2013 and there are also bills for the period 02.09.2012 to 13.02.2013 i.e. even before the contract of construction of building was awarded to M/s Sharma Contractors by the society which prove that these bills were fake and were falsely issued.
98. Counsel for A-1 to A-5 has argued that A-5 was working as a building contractor since 2005 and the firm of A-5 was duly registered with PWD since April, 2005. It was further argued that firm of A-5 had also obtained permission to carry out the business since 20.04.2005 by the Municipal Committee Sonepat. He argued that it is not the case of the prosecution that the building was not constructed or that the mate-
CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 93 of 119rial mentioned in the bills was not used in the construction of the school building. He argued that the bank officials had inspected the site from time to time and no discrepancies were observed by them. The bank officials had filed their inspection reports in this regard which are avail- able on record. It was argued that no investigation was carried out by the IO on this aspect. No list was prepared by him as to what work had been done and what was left out. He argued that IO PW40 in his cross examination has admitted that when he visited the school during in- vestigation, it was a three-four storey building and there were two build- ings. School was being run in one building and other was under con- struction. He further admitted that as per the valuation report dated 08.05.2013 Ex. PW33/D-4 (D-78) the cost of construction was esti- mated as 1.66 crores. He also deposed that the school building was being got constructed by the accused persons. He argued that the bills issued by M/s Sharma Contractors were genuine bills and the material mentioned therein was consumed in the construction/renovation of the school buildings.
99. At the outset it will be important to note that A-5 Sumit Sharma has not challenged/disputed the bills issued by him in the name of his firm M/s Sharma Contractors in favour of the society. It is also an ad- mitted fact that A-5 is a close relative (nephew) of A-3 Satish Kumar Sharma and he was also a member of the society. According to build- ing construction certificate dated 24.04.2005 issued by PWD Sonepat, M/s Sharma Contractors was allotted registration no. 2005/2420/2-k/C- A/24/4 and the Municipal Committee Sonepat had issued permission to carry out the business of construction of all types of building to M/s Sharma Contractors and the firm started from 20.04.2005 but there is no evidence on record to show that the firm M/s Sharma Contractors CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 94 of 119 was carrying out the business of construction of buildings. In fact, the firm was not even having a bank account in its name prior to opening of bank account in HDFC Bank. This fact is established from Annex- ure-A dated 27.02.2013 [part of Ex.PW6/F (colly)] which is a declara- tion on the letterhead of M/s Sharma Contractors given by A-5 as its proprietor that the firm does not have any existing bank account on the date of declaration. It is difficult to believe that a firm would be carrying out business since 2005 without having a bank account in its name.
100. During investigation of the case, IO issued a notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C dated 16.05.2016 (D-124) to A-5 asking him to produce tax re- turns and VAT returns for the year 2012-13 onwards of M/s Sharma Contractors, Stock Statement/Stock Register of M/s Sharma Contrac- tors for the year 2012-13 onwards, building material purchase bills for construction of school building of the society, duplicate bills of building material sold to the society and payment received from the society against the bills, lorry receipts and gate pass of godown from where material was purchased and the list of employees/staff of M/s Sharma Contractors from the year 2013 onwards. In reply to this notice, A-5 Sumit Sharma has replied that he was not having any documents de- manded by the IO and he cannot produce the same before the IO. This reply given by A-5 raises serious doubts whether the firm M/s Sharma Contractors was at all doing any business prior to 2012-13. If a firm is engaged in construction activities involving turnover of crores of rupees, it must be having sales tax/VAT number, it must be paying in- come tax/service tax to the govt. and maintaining proper books of ac- counts, stock registers etc. but no such documents have been pro- duced by A-5 Sumit Sharma either before the IO during investigation nor he has summoned the record from the concerned departments dur-
CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 95 of 119ing trial which raises serious doubts in the mind.
101. Perusal of the statement of account of M/s Sharma Contractors in HDFC Bank, Model Town Sonepat shows that this account has been opened only on 02.03.2013 i.e. after A-1 to A-5 submitted loan applica- tion form with Corporation Bank in the year 2012. It is difficult to believe that A-5 was carrying out construction business in the name of his firm M/s Sharma Contractors without having any bank account in its name and without paying any taxes to the government. Had it not been so, the firm should have been maintaining its bank account, books of ac- counts, ledgers, stock registers, statutory records of the employees engaged by it to run the business activities of the firm and it should have been filing statutory returns like VAT returns, service tax returns and income tax returns etc. In the absence of any such records being maintained by the firm, it becomes difficult to believe that it was en- gaged in construction activities since 2005 and it gives rise to an infer- ence that M/s Sharma Contractors was merely existing on papers and was not doing any construction activities. From these facts and cir- cumstances, inference can also be raised that contract of construction of school was awarded to M/s Sharma Contractors by the office bear- ers of the society in furtherance of their criminal conspiracy to siphon of the loan amount released by Corporation Bank otherwise why society would award the contract of construction of school building to a firm which had practically no experience and track record in the field of construction of buildings.
102. Now I will deal with the bills issued by A-5 in the name of M/s Sharma Contractors. A bare perusal of the record would show that the firm M/s Sharma Contractors was awarded contract for construction of CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 96 of 119 new school building by the society vide its letter dated 13.02.2013 (D-
116) Ex.PW33/H-3 and according to this letter, the work was to be completed before 31.08.2013. However, perusal of the bills filed by A- 1 with the bank would show that 38 bills have been filed with the bank which are of the period 02.09.2012 to 13.02.2013. The question arises that how these bills have been raised by M/s Sharma Contractors on the society when the firm was not even awarded the contract to con- struct the building in the year 2012. No oral or documentary evidence has been placed on record to show that M/s Sharma Contractors was carrying out the construction of the building even prior to the award of contract vide letter dated 13.02.2013. No explanation is forthcoming with regard to these bills either from the society or from A-5. Apart from the aforesaid 38 bills, there are other bills issued by M/s Sharma Con- tractors between the period 02.03.2013 to 25.05.2013. Perusal of these bills shows that most of them relate to the sale of the building material by M/s Sharma Contractors to the society. These bills do not mention any sale tax/ VAT registration number even though in all these bills tax has been charged by the firm on the articles sold to the society. However, A-5 has not placed on record any documentary evidence to show that M/s Sharma Contractors was registered with VAT/Sale Tax Department nor A-5 has filed copies of returns to show that he had de- posited the tax collected by the firm with the Govt. authorities. Not only this, the bills are not issued in sequence/serial number. For example bill numbers 551 to 590 have been issued between the period 02.03.2013 to 15.03.2013 whereas the bill numbers 502 to 546 have been issued between the period 17.03.2013 to 02.04.2013.
Furthermore, A-5 in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C has stated that he had purchased the building material from different persons and made payment for the goods/materials. If this was so, there was no CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 97 of 119 occasion for A-5 to issue the bills in the name of his firm showing sale of building material to the society. A-5 could have simply submitted the Bills/Tax invoices from the persons/firms/companies from whom he had purchased those articles to the society. No such bill/Tax invoices, have been submitted by him to the society. He has also not produced any receipts for the payments made by him for purchase of construc- tion material against those bills. This clearly indicates that these fake bills have been prepared by A-5 show utilization of loan amount and nothing else.
103. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I have no hesitation to arrive at a conclusion that A-5 had prepared fake, false and fabricated bills on the Bill Book of M/s Sharma Contractors in fur- therance of criminal conspiracy with other accused persons and handed over the same to A-1 to A-3 who submitted the same with the Bank to show the utilization of the loan amount.
(vi) Whether A-6 was involved in the criminal conspiracy with other accused persons and while holding office as Public Servant abused his official posi- tion and obtained pecuniary advantage or valuable thing for another person without any public interest?
104. Ld. Sr. PP has argued that A-6 Sharad Kumar Mishra was the Branch Manager of Corporation Bank, Mayapuri during the period 2012 to August, 2014 and he was responsible for the overall functioning of the Branch. He further argued that the loan application was filed by ac- cused persons on behalf of the society for Term Loan which was enter- tained by him without properly verifying that they were not the office bearers of the society at the time of applying the loan and were not en-
CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 98 of 119titled to apply on behalf of the society. It was argued that even the doc- uments submitted by the accused persons along with the loan applica- tion were not properly scrutinized and A-6 recommended the applica- tion and forwarded the same to the Zonal Office without proper scru- tiny. It was submitted that the legal opinion given by the penal lawyers without obtaining the certified copies from the office of Sub-Registrar and had it been done, the fraud played by A-1 to A-5 would have been disclosed there itself. It is further argued that even after the loan was sanctioned, the documents were not properly verified and in fact there was no original documents submitted along with the memorandum of deposit of title deeds and A-6 in conspiracy with other accused persons obtained false report from PW14 Vivek Jain on the very next day, first installment of loan amount was disbursed to the accused persons and substantial loan amount was disbursed within a short period and with- out proper verification of the bills submitted by the accused persons. A- 6 also failed to maintain proper check on the utilization of the loan amount disbursed which resulted in diversion of the funds. It was ar- gued that sanction for prosecution against A-6 has been duly proved by PW37 Sudarshan Kumar Mehta as Ex.PW37/A.
105. Counsel for A-6 has vehemently argued that A-6 has acted in terms of the circulars issued by the RBI and the Term Loan Manual and Group Credit Policy issued by the Corporation Bank and has acted dili- gently throughout the process of sanctioning, disbursement and the end utilization of loan. It was argued that A-6 has obtained due dili- gence report from M/s Solomon Consulting Pvt. Ltd in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Bank and in the prescribed format. A-6 had also obtained confidential reports from Canara bank and State Bank of India with respect to the accounts of the society. Counsel for CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 99 of 119 A-6 also argued that PW22 Rajesh Kumar Arora had also deposed that there was no change in the membership of the society during 2008- 2009 and 2009-2010. He argued that DW2 Sh. Vimal Kumar, DGM, Corporation Bank has also deposed that the job of verification of title documents of the borrowers is assigned to the empanelled advocates. The empanelled due diligence agency(DDA) verify the correctness of the borrowers, their financial and account statements submitted by the borrowers. They also verify about the partners/office bearers, if the borrower is a partnership firm/society. It was argued that the Branch Manager is not supposed to go to the office of Sub-Registrar to verify the title documents. He argued that PW31 Krishan Kumar also reiter- ated that in case borrower is a society, the bank will take opinion of concerned empanelled advocate instead of making any direct inquiry from the concerned Registrar of Societies. He also relied upon the or- der of DRT Ex.DW3/A to argue that the members of the society shown in the order are the same as the accused persons and hence, there was nothing doubtful regarding the genuineness of accused persons. It was argued that A-6 had no knowledge regarding the transfer of the society to Pradeep Jain in the year 2008 and he came to know about it later on. He argued that there was no criminal intention on the part of A-6 and he was not in any criminal conspiracy with other accused per- sons.
106. Counsel for A-6 also argued that as per the procedure, docu- ments submitted by the accused persons along with the loan applica- tion were segregated by the Credit Manager and the legal documents were sent to panel advocates for scrutiny and other documents were sent to Due Diligence Agency. Counsel for A-6 argued that prosecution has examined PW11 Niti Saini, PW12 Sudhir Pradhan, PW21 Pawan CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 100 of 119 Arya, PW31 Krishan Kumar, PW32 Rathnakaran and PW33 Ravindra Prakash from Corporation Bank but none of these witnesses have de- posed that the documents were not properly verified by A-6. PW12 Sudhir Pradhan and PW21 Pawan Arya, who had dealt with the loan file and had personal knowledge about the case, did not find any irreg- ularities in the proposal forwarded by A-6. PW11 Niti Saini who was the Law Officer had scrutinized the legal opinion in respect of the title documents of the properties based on title documents and even she did not find any irregularity. He argued that all the relevant documents were sent along with the forwarding letter by Corporation Bank dated 17.01.2013 to the Zonal Office. Counsel for A-6 further argued that le- gal opinion on the title documents was obtained as per the prevalent circulars and guidelines issued by the Bank from time to time. It was ar- gued that before disbursement of loan, branch had obtained certificate from the advocate that he had visited the branch and had verified the original title deeds and the same were in order and without such certifi- cate, the loan shall not be disbursed.
107. Counsel for A-6 argued that A-6 had no power to sanction the loan and the loan has to be sanctioned by Zonal Office. The role of A-6 was limited to sending the documents after due diligence to CCPC. It was argued that as per circular no. 590/2007 dated 14.08.2007 Ex. DW4/B-1, the appraisal of credit proposals is done by CCPC estab- lished at Zonal Offices. If the proposal is found viable the same is sent to Head Office/Zonal Office which accords sanction to the proposal and the same is sent back to the Branch for carrying out disbursal of the loan. In case the proposal is not found viable, the same is returned to the Branch. In the present case, PW21 Pawan Arya from CCPC pre- pared the proposal and no irregularity was found and the same was CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 101 of 119 forwarded to ZLCC which sanctioned the loan. It was argued that the role and responsibility of the Branches as well as CCPC and Head Of- fice/Zonal Office have been defined in the aforesaid circular.
108. Counsel for A-6 further argued that loan was sanctioned vide credit sanction intimation report Ex. PW33/B-59 (D-146) on 22.02.2013 and due date for renewal of the loan was February, 2014. After receipt of credit sanction intimation, borrowers and lawyers were called to the branch and they visited the branch on 27.02.2014 and loan documents were executed. It was argued that Annexure-I to Ex.PW33/B-39 con- tains the terms and conditions decided by the Zonal Office and it pro- vided for repayment holiday period of 12 months. It also provided for reimbursement of capital expenditure already incurred as construction was already going on when borrower applied for the loan. It also pro- vided for legal opinion on the immovable properties offered as primary/collateral shall be approved by the Law Officer attached to the legal services division and documentation formalities to be completed under due legal advice. It also provided for legal audit of the docu- ments within 30 days from the date of release of facilities. It was ar- gued that PW14 Vivek Jain gave his legal opinion on the immovable properties and legal audit report (D-62) Ex. PW14/J dated 27.02.2013. It also provided encumbrance certificates dated 13.05.2013 Ex.PW14/K and Ex.PW14/K-1 to Ex.PW14/Q and Ex.PW14/Q-1 (D-81 to D-87).
109. Counsel for A-6 has argued that the original title deeds were deposited by the accused persons as per the memo of deposit of title deeds on 27.02.2013 itself and the same was mentioned in covering schedule for loan documents Ex.PW33/B-4 (D-69) and certificate of CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 102 of 119 compliance was filed vide letter dated 27.04.2013 (D-77) Ex.PW33/D-
3. It was argued that these documents were also signed by Neeta Ma- lik but she has not been examined by the prosecution and in adverse inference should be raised against the prosecution. It was also argued that the entry of deposit of title deeds were also entered in the com- puter and the attested copies of the computer screen shots of the en- tries have been proved as Ex.DW3/B by DW3 Sh. Subhash Kumar. It was also argued that the attested copy of the key register of the strong room for the period 17.12.2012 to 14.03.2016 has been proved as EX. DW3/C (colly.). He argued that D-80 regarding renewal/review of term loan document dated 14.02.2014 Ex.PW33/D-6 also does not mention about any irregularity and the same was signed on 14.02.2014 by Manik Chand and A-6. However, the prosecution has not examined Manik Chand.
110. It was further argued by counsel for A-6 that there is no evi- dence to show that A-6 was in criminal conspiracy with other accused persons. Testimony of PW14 Vivek Jain does not show that he was asked by A-6 to do verification in a particular manner and he has de- posed that he was following the same process in all the cases. It was also argued that verification of title documents by Advocate Karan Chawla was done on general direction to all the branches to again veri- fying the title deeds and for the first time the bank discovered that the title deeds filed by the accused persons were forged and fabricated when Karan Chawla submitted his report dated 22.04.2015 Ex.PW9/A and Ex.PW9/B (D-66). It was argued that there was no glaring and eye catching discrepancies as mentioned by PW9 Karan Chawla in his deposition. It is also argued that original title deeds were recovered from PW30 Pradeep Jain on 19.08.2016 and there is no evidence to CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 103 of 119 show that when these documents had reached in the hands of Pradeep Jain. It was also argued that the title documents were not in the custody of Branch Manager but the same were in the custody of the officials of the Branch.
111. Counsel for A-6 argued that the loan had been disbursed in short period as the same was requirement of the loan approval. Ac- cording to D-68 Ex.PW12/A the target date of completion of building was April, 2013 and therefore, the loan was to be disbursed in a short span of period so that the building is completed and the school starts functioning from the new session as repayment of the loan was from the fees deposited by the students.
112. Counsel for A-6 has further argued that the amount was trans- ferred to the third party i.e. the builder, vendors, etc. by RTGS which is the safest mode of transfer of money and the amount transferred can be tracked any time. It was argued that the RTGS vouchers were in favour of M/s Sharma Contractors and not in favour of any individual and all the payments were made against the bills. It is also argued that A-1 to A-5 filed letters awarding contracts on behalf of the society to M/s Sharma Contractors and M/s Home 121 Solutions. It was also ar- gued that the goods had been duly supplied by the vendors which are also reported in the site visit reports of the bank officials. He also ar- gued that there is no diversion of funds and as per the valuation re- ports dated 31.12.2012 (D-63), valuation report dated 14.01.2013 (D-
64) and valuation report dated 08.05.2013 (D-78) show that ₹ 1.7 crore was spent on construction. It was also argued that the branch officials also visited the site and gave their reports dated 03.07.2013, 28.01.2014 and 19.08.2014. The successor management of the bank CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 104 of 119 also visited the site on 16.10.2014 and 01.11.2014 and furnished its re- port. It was argued that the defaults in repayment of loan were due to various factors and cannot be attributed to any criminal intention.
113. At the outset, it may be noted that there is no dispute to the fact that accused no.6 was the branch manager of the Corporation Bank, Mayapuri during the relevant time when term loan was applied on behalf of the society by A-1 to A-5. It is also not in dispute that the term loan was sanctioned and loan was also disbursed to the society and the society failed to repay the loan within time.
114. The question which arises for consideration is whether A-6 was in conspiracy with other accused persons in sanction of the loan, its disbursement and siphoning of or not. It is well settled that there can hardly be any direct evidence of conspiracy as the conspiracies are hatched in darkness. A criminal conspiracy can be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the case and the manner in which the ac- cused persons have acted in pursuance of the conspiracy.
115. As noted in the foregoing paragraphs, this court has already come to the conclusion that the original title deeds of the immovable properties of the society i.e. the sale deeds Ex.PW28/A-1 to Ex. PW28/A-5 and Mark PW4/3 (D-189 to D-194) were handed over by A-3 Satish Kumar Sharma to PW30 Pradeep Jain in the year 2008 itself and therefore A-1 and A-3 were not in possession of original docu- ments at the time of applying for term loan. This court has also come to the conclusion that in the record of Registrar of Society, Sonepat, the names of office bearers had been changed in the year 2009 itself and A-1 to A-5 were not the members/office bearers of the society in the CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 105 of 119 year 2012, as per the letter dated 20.07.2016 issued by District Regis- trar Firms and Societies (D-200) Ex.PW25/A when application for term loan was filed with the bank for obtaining term loan of ₹ 454 lakhs. Hence, A-1 to A-4 were not entitled to apply for the loan on behalf of the society.
116. The arguments advanced by counsel for A-6 that A-6 had fol- lowed the procedure prescribed by the bank and had got conducted due diligence and obtained legal opinion about the title deeds from the empanelled lawyers and due diligence agency, does not hold ground, if we look at these documents carefully. The initial legal opinions on the title documents were given by PW16 Samrender Kumar, Advocate vide his reports Ex.PW16/A to Ex. PW16/J (colly). He has given these re- ports on the basis of photocopies provided to him by the bank. A bare perusal of the legal opinion would show that he has given the opinion only on the basis of copies of title deeds provided by the bank and he did not obtain certified copies of the title deeds from the office of Sub- Registrar to compare them with the photocopies provided by the bank. It is surprising as to how legal opinion has been given by PW16 re- garding the valid, legal and marketable title of the society over the property without even looking at the original documents or without comparing the copies of same with the certified copies obtained from the office of Sub-Registrar.
117. Similarly, the due diligence report of the society has been given by M/s Solomon Consulting Pvt. Ltd vide its report Ex.PW17/A (D-7). PW17 Sh. Vikas Garg, Director of the company appeared in the wit- ness box and has deposed that Sh. Narender Singh, Finance Execu- tive had visited the properties and he had given the report on the for-
CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 106 of 119mat provided by the bank. Perusal of the report Ex.PW17/A shows that it is based on the financial records and explanations given by the Di- rector of M/s Shyam Memorial Welfare Society who is none other than A-3 Satish Kumar Sharma. It is but natural that A-3 would not have given any information which was adverse to him or the society. Due diligence agency did not bother to verify the facts either from Registrar of Society as regards the members/office bearers of the society nor it approached the CA of the society who had prepared the balance sheets and audit reports for the relevant period to ascertain its gen- uineness. Even the confidential reports issued by Canara Bank Ex.PW33/B-69 (D-61) and credit report of State Bank of India dated 28.02.2013 would show that the accounts with these banks were got opened in December, 2009 and June, 2009 i.e. after the management of the society had changed hands from A-3 Satish Kumar to Pradeep Jain. Again, it is clear that at the time of opening these accounts, A-3 had concealed the factum of change in management of the society in 2008 from the banks otherwise these banks would not have opened the accounts in the name of the society on his request.
118. Perusal of record also shows that A-6 had forwarded the pro- posal received from the society to Dy. General Manager, Corporation Bank, Zonal Office-Delhi-South, New Delhi vide letter dated 17.01.2013 recommending the proposal for sanction. It has been stated in the let- ter "We confirm the KYC complied with and original documents verified with original while booking the proposal". It is surprising as to how A-6 had verified the copies of title deeds from the originals as the same were not available with A-1 and A-3 at the time of filing of loan application and the forged title deeds i.e. D-133 (Mark 28/B-1), D-135(Mark 28/B-2), D-137(Mark 28/B-3), D-139 (Ex. PW33/B-54), D-
CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 107 of 119141(Mark 28/B-4), D-143(Mark 28/B-5) were not even in existence on that day. These facts show that A-6 had written the aforesaid lines in the letter dated 17.01.2013 without even seeing the original title deeds. Hence, an inference can be raised that he had done so as he was in conspiracy with other accused persons.
119. According to the case of prosecution, loan was sanctioned to the society vide Credit Sanction Intimation dated 22.02.2013 (D-146) Ex. PW33/B-59. Thereafter, loan documents were executed and A-1 and A-3 deposited the original title documents vide memorandum of deposit of title deeds D-132, D-134, D-136, D-138, D-140, D-142 and D-144 (all dated 27.02.2013). However, as noted in the foregoing paras, there were no original title deeds available with accused per- sons to deposit with the bank on 27.02.2013 as the original title deeds of the properties of the society i.e. D-189 to D-194 were in possession of Pradeep Jain and the forged and fabricated title deeds D-133, D- 135, D-137, D-139, D-141 and D-143 were not even in existence.
Hence, the verification reports of original title deeds given by PW14 Vivek Jain vide his reports Ex.PW14/C, Ex. PW14/D, Ex.PW14/E, Ex. PW14/F, Ex.PW14/G and Ex. PW14/H was false of the face of it and he had given the reports without even seeing the original title deeds. This fact is admitted by PW-14 Vivek Jain in his cross ex- amination itself where he admitted that original documents were not given to him by the bank. He also admitted that he had mentioned that the title deeds were genuine on the basis of entry in the Index register of Sub-Registrar office and earlier legal report. He also deposed that he had given the report as per the format of the bank and he used to mention that title deeds were genuine on the basis of entry in the Index register of Sub Registrar office and earlier legal report. He also admit-
CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 108 of 119ted that in other cases also he had given the reports on the same basis and he had not seen title deeds of these properties in the bank. This admission on the part of PW14 Vivek Jain further fortifies the conclu- sion arrived at by this court that the originals were not available with the accused persons or the bank on 27.02.2013 and the verification of title deeds by PW14 was done by him without seeing the original docu- ments/title deeds and this was in blatant violation of the circular no. 317/2010 Ex.DW4/E, which provides that before disbursing the loan, the branch shall obtain a certificate from the advocate that he visited the branch and verified the original title deeds and the same were found in order. When no original title deeds were made available to PW-14 Vivek Jain Advocate, how he could have verified them to be in order. It is also surprising as to how PW14 verified the seven title deeds on the same day in the absence of original documents and with- out even obtaining the certified copies of the documents from Sub- Registrar. Hence, the aforesaid verification reports given by PW14 ap- pears to have been procured by A-6 for disbursement of loan to the so- ciety and this circumstance clearly shows that A-6 was in criminal conspiracy with other accused persons. Counsel for A-6 has also placed reliance on the computer screen shots exhibited as Ex. DW3/B to argue that the title deeds were duly entered in the computer records of the bank on 28.02.2013. This argument is again of no help to A-6 for two simple reasons, firstly the entries in the computer records were not possible in the absence of the original documents with the bank and secondly Ex.DW3/B cannot be looked into, being inadmissible in the absence of Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act.
120. The arguments advanced by counsel for accused persons that Pradeep Jain might have obtained the original title documents from the CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 109 of 119 bank in connivance with other bank officials is also devoid of any merits in view of the fact that A-6 himself has examined DW3 Subhash Kumar who has produced on record the attested copy of key register of the strong room for the period 17.12.2012 to 14.03.2016 where original title documents were kept after receiving from the borrowers. The register shows that the key of the strong room always remained in the custody of two bank officials. Therefore, the fact as to when the original title documents were kept in the strong room and when the same were taken out, was a fact within the knowledge of A-6/bank officials and burden of proving this fact rested on A-6 but no such evidence has been led by the accused persons. On the other hand, prosecution has proved on record by leading cogent and positive evidence that PW-30 Pradeep Kumar Jain was in possession of the original title deeds of the property of the society during 2008 to 2016. Non-examination of Nita Malik or Manik Chand by prosecution is of no consequence, when prosecution has been able to prove its case by adducing other wit- nesses/documentary evidence. It is not at all mandatory for a party to examine all the witnesses cited by it, if its case stands proved by ex- amining some of the witnesses also.
121. As regards the question of disbursement of loan within a short span of about four months is concerned, no doubt, as per the project report D-76 Ex.PW33/D-1, the period of construction was given as 01.01.2013 to 30.06.2013 which was reduced to April, 2013 by the ap- praisal note dated 18.02.2013 (D-68) Ex.PW12/A and the loan was re- quired to be disbursed in a short span but at the same time it was the responsibility of A-6 to ensure that the loan is disbursed proportionate to the construction undertaken by the society. The site has been vis- ited by the bank officials on 03.07.2013; 28.01.2014 and 19.08.2014 CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 110 of 119 vide their respective unit visit reports Ex.PW33/B-5 (D-9). Perusal of these reports would show that even though maximum amount of loan has been disbursed by 20th July, 2013 but the construction remained incomplete till the visit report dated 19.08.2014 which shows that there was no proper check or control over the construction being undertaken by the society and the amount of loan released to it. A-6 being the Branch Manager was responsible to ensure that after disbursal of the loan amount, the same is properly utilized before further installment of loan amount is released to the borrower. However, A-6 failed to exer- cise proper supervision in this regard which ultimately resulted in loss to the bank.
122. Further the case of the prosecution is that A-6 failed to verify the bills submitted by A-1 to A-3 and maximum bills were submitted by A-5 being proprietor of M/s Sharma Contractors which were later on found to be false and fake and A-6 failed to verify the bills submitted by the accused persons. Arguments by counsel for A-6 that all the trans- actions were through RTGS and in the name of the firm and the pay- ments were made against the bills are not sufficient to absolve A-6 of his liability to properly supervise the utilization of the loan amount. As noted in the foregoing paras, even though A-5 did not sell the building materials/articles to the society, he submitted the bills from the bill book of M/s Sharma Contractors showing sale of construction materials/building articles to the society. Further, the bills were not in proper serial numbers e.g. bill number 551 to 590 have been issued between the period 02.03.2013 to 15.03.2013 whereas the bill num- bers 502 to 546 have been issued between the period 17.03.2013 to 02.04.2013. Further, VAT/Tax was charged in the bills but the bills did not mention the GST/VAT registration number of M/s Sharma Contrac-
CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 111 of 119tors. Further, there were bills issued by M/s Sharma Contractors for the period even before it was awarded contract for construction of the building by the society. A-6 could have easily noticed all these discrep- ancies/irregularities in the bills submitted by A-3 and could have taken preventive action. However, A-6 overlooked these irregularities/dis- crepancies in the bills which further points towards the involvement of A-6 in the criminal conspiracy with the other accused persons.
123. In view of the above said facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubts that A-6 was in criminal conspiracy with accused persons and in furtherance of the conspiracy he actively played role in the recommen- dation of sanction of loan to the society and disbursed the loan without original title deeds being deposited by A-1 and A-3. He further, ig- nored/overlooked the fake bills submitted by A-1 on behalf of society showing utilization of funds and thus allowed the public money to be si- phoned of. Thus A-6, being a public servant, abused his official position to obtain pecuniary advantage to other accused persons and thereby cause wrongful loss to the bank.
SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION OF ACCUSED No.6
124. Now I shall deal with the sanction order Ex.PW37/A vide which competent authority has granted sanction for prosecution of A-6 Sharad Kumar Mishra.
125. Counsel for A-6 has challenged the sanction order Ex. PW37/A on the ground that draft sanction was provided by CBI to the Chief Vigi- lance Officer of the Bank and the competent authority without applying CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 112 of 119 its mind accorded sanction for prosecution against A-6 which is evident from the fact that the sanction order is identical copy of draft sanction and the same mistake which appear in the draft sanction also find place in the sanction order which shows that there was no application of mind by the competent authority. It was also argued that the state- ment of the witness recorded by the IO were not sent along with re- quest to accord sanction for prosecution and the same has caused prejudiced to the accused and the sanction order is illegal. Reliance was placed on the judgment of CBI Vs Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (supra) to argue that CBI has not complied with para 22.16 of CBI Manual.
126. Ld. Sr. PP for CBI has argued that in view of Section 19 (3) (b) of Prevention of Corruption Act, sanction does not become vitiated merely because there is any omission, error or irregularities in the mat- ter of according sanction, that does not affect the validity of the pro- ceedings unless the court records the satisfaction that such error, omission or irregularities has resulted in failure of justice. It was argued that PW-37 Sh. Sudershan Kumar Mehta has appeared in the witness box and has deposed that the material was placed before him and after perusing the records and applying his mind he had accorded the sanc- tion for prosecution of A-6 Sharad Kumar Mishra. Ld Sr.P.P. has argued that sanction order does not get vitiated merely because it is identical to the draft sanction order. Reliance has been placed by Ld. Sr. PP on the judgment of C.S. Krishnamurthy Vs State of Karnataka (supra) wherein it was held that sanction is not required to be given in a partic- ular form and the ratio is sanction order should speak for itself and in case the facts do not so appear, it should be proved by leading evi- dence that all the particulars were placed before the sanctioning au-
CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 113 of 119thority for due application of mind.
127. As regards application of mind by sanctioning authority, in State of Maharashtra through CBI Vs Mahesh Jain, 2013 (8) SCC 119 fol- lowing principles were culled out :-
"14.1 It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that the valid sanction has been granted by the sanctioning authority after being satisfied that a case for sanction has been made out.
14.2 The sanction order may expressly show that the sanctioning authority has perused the material placed before it and, after consideration of the circumstances, has granted sanction for prosecution.
14.3 The prosecution may prove by adducing the evidence that the material was placed before the sanctioning authority and its satisfaction was arrived at upon perusal of the material placed before it.
14.4 Grant of sanction is only an administrative function and the sanctioning authority is required to prime facie reach the satisfaction that relevant facts would constitute the offence.
14.5 The adequacy of material placed before the sanctioning authority cannot be gone into by the court as it does not sit in appeal over the sanction order.
14.6 If the sanctioning authority has perused all the materials placed before it and some of them have not been proved that would not vitiate the order of sanction.
14.7 The order of sanction is a pre-requisite as it is intended to provide a safeguard to a public servant against frivolous and vexatious litigants, but simultaneously an order of sanction should not be construed in a pedantic manner and there should not be a hyper-technical approach to test its validity."
It was further held that :
CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 114 of 119"True it is, grant of sanction is a sacrosanct and sacred act and is intended to provide a safeguard to the public servant against vexatious litigation but simultaneously when there is an order of sanction by the competent authority indicating application of mind, the same should not be lightly dealt with. The flimsy technicalities cannot be allowed to become tools in the hands of an accused."
128. Thus, grant of sanction is an administrative function and only prima facie satisfaction of the sanctioning authority is needed. The adequacy or inadequacy of material placed before the sanctioning authority cannot be gone into by the court as it does not sit in appeal over the sanction order and when there is an order of sanction by the competent authority indicating application of mind, the same should not be lightly dealt with. Also, flimsy technicalities cannot be allowed to become tools in the hands of accused. In view of the above discussion, it cannot be said that the order of sanction for prosecution of accused is not valid or illegal.
129. In the present case, the prosecution has proved the original sanction order Ex.PW-37/A by examining the competent authority i.e., PW-37 Sh. Sudarshan Kumar Mehta, Deputy General Manager. A bare perusal of his testimony would show that he had granted the sanction after going through the material placed before him and after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and going through the statements of the witnesses, documents and draft charge-sheet. In his cross examination by counsel for A-6, he has deposed that he had personally perused the relevant material before according sanction for prosecution. He denied the suggestion that he had given the sanction without going through any material and on the basis of surmises and CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 115 of 119 conjectures. He also denied the suggestion that he had received the draft sanction order and merely relying on the contents of such draft sanction, he had appended his signature on already prepared sanction order by his Department at the behest of CBI. He also denied the sug- gestion that he had accorded the sanction mechanically and without perusing any material. He also denied the suggestion that there was no act or omission even the act of negligence on the bank official Sh. Sharad Kumar Mishra.
130. Counsel for A-6 has argued that Ex.DW4/A shows that the Chief Vigilance Officer had received draft sanction order along with the letter dated 01.08.2016 and the witness has falsely denied having re- ceived any draft sanction order. It was argued that sanction order Ex. PW37/A is verbatim the same as draft sanction order provided by the CBI which shows that the competent authority had not applied its mind and had signed the sanction order mechanically.
131. A careful perusal of the statement of PW37 would show that he has categorically denied the suggestions that he had not perused the material and had mechanically signed the sanction order which was prepared on the basis of draft sanction order. Perusal of sanction or- der Ex.PW37/A shows that it is very expressive and the facts men- tioned therein are eloquent for prima facie constituting offence u/s 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1)(d)of PC Act, 1988 and offences u/s 120-B r/w Section 420/467/468/471 IPC. Therefore, the arguments by counsel for A-6 that particular material was not placed before the sanctioning authority and sanctioning authority has not applied its mind becomes unsustainable.
CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 116 of 119132. The object behind the requirement of grant of sanction to pros- ecute a public servant need not detain the court save and except to re- iterate that the provisions in this regard either under the Code of Crimi- nal Procedure or the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are designed as a check on frivolous, mischievous and unscrupulous attempts to prosecute a honest public servant for acts arising out of the discharge of duty and also to enable him to efficiently perform the wide range of duties cast on him by virtue of his office. The test, therefore, always is whether the act complained of has a reasonable connection with the discharge of official duties by the Government or the public servant. If such connection exists and the discharge or exercise of the govern- mental function is, prima facie, founded on the bona fide judgment of the public servant, the requirement of sanction will be insisted upon so as to act as a filter to keep at bay any motivated, ill-founded and frivo- lous prosecution against the public servant. However, realising that the dividing line between an act in the discharge of official duty and an act that is not, may, at times, get blurred thereby enabling certain unjusti- fied claims to be raised also on behalf of the public servant so as to derive undue advantage of the requirement of sanction, specific provi- sions have been incorporated in Section 19 (3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act as well as in Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Proce- dure which, inter alia, make it clear that any error, omission or irregular- ity in the grant of sanction will not affect any finding, sentence or order passed by a competent court unless in the opinion of the court a failure of justice has been occasioned.
133. In the present case, the facts contained in the sanction order Ex.PW37/A read with the testimony of PW37 Sh. Sudarshan Kumar Mehta makes it clear that sanction was properly accorded after due ap-
CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 117 of 119plication of mind and merely because sanction has been accorded in the format provided by the CBI, does not make the sanction invalid. In Balaram Swain Vs State of Orissa 1991 Supp. (1) SCC 510 it was observed that where the sanctioning authority had stated on oath that it had perused the consolidated report of vigilance and fully applied its mind and thereafter issued sanction, the fact that entire record was not looked into, was held to be not fatal to the sanction.
134. Once there is cogent evidence that the sanctioning authority has independently applied its mind and has accorded the sanction, the same has to be treated as a valid sanction and adequacy or inade- quacy of material placed before the sanctioning authority cannot be gone into by the court as it does not sit in appeal over the sanction or- der. Hence, in view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the sanction order Ex.PW37/A cannot be held to be invalid merely because the sanctioning authority has adopted the same format for according sanction which was supplied by CBI.
CONCLUSION
135. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has proved its case against accused No.1,2,3,5,and 6 beyond reasonable doubt. However, prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against A-4.
Accordingly, the final judgment w.r.t different accused in this case is summarised as under:
(i) Accused No.1 Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani and Accused no. 2 Om Prakash stand convicted for the offences u/s 120-B IPC r/w Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC and Sec.13 (1) (d) r/w Section 13 (2) of PC Act. They are also convicted for the sub-
stantive offences under sections 420 and 471 IPC. Accused Ur-
CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 118 of 119mila Sharma @ Urmila Rani and accused no. 2 Om Prakash are acquitted for the offences under section 467/468 IPC as prose- cution has failed to prove that they had forged the sale deeds of the society.
(ii) Accused No.3 Satish Kumar Sharma stands convicted for the offences u/s 120-B IPC r/w Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC and Sec.13(1)(d) r/w Section 13 (2) of PC Act. He also stands con- victed for the substantive offences under sections 420,467 and 471 IPC.
(iii) Accused No.5 Sumit Sharma stands convicted for the of-
fences u/s 120-B IPC r/w Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC and Sec.13 (2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act. He also stands con- victed for the substantive offences under sections 468 and 471 IPC.
(iv) Accused No.6 Sharad Kumar Mishra stands convicted for the offences u/s 120-B IPC r/w Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC and Sec.13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1)(d) of PC Act. He also stands con- victed for the substantive offences under sections 420 and 471 IPC and Sec.13 (1) (d) r/w Section 13 (2) of PC Act.
(v) Accused No.4 Vijay Pal stands acquitted for the offences under section 120-B IPC r/w Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC and Sec.13(2) r/w Section 13 (1)(d) of PC Act as well as substantive offences under section 467/468 IPC.
Accused no. 4 Vijay Pal is directed to furnish bail bonds u/s 437A Cr.P.C.
Let the convicts be heard on the point of sentence.
Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR ANIL KUMAR SISODIA SISODIA Date: 2019.09.18 15:30:28 +0530 Announced in the open court (ANIL KUMAR SISODIA) On 17th day of September, 2019 Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI)-07 Rouse Avenue Courts: New Delhi CC No. 04/2019 CBI Vs. Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Rani Page 119 of 119