Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Sangeeta Shah Etc 1 Of 39 on 10 April, 2012
IN THE COURT OF MANOJ JAIN, SPECIAL JUDGE,
CBI (PC ACT), SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS,
NEW DELHI.
CC No. 47/2011
CBI
Versus
1 Ms. Sangeeta Shah
2 Padamakar Kumar Srivastava @ Papluji
3 Anil Kumar Sukumara Panicker
4 Arvind Rai C. Shah
5 Hemant Kumar Senapati
6 Ms. Padma Gill
7 Musafir Prasad @ Rattan
8 Prem Shankar Jha
9 Mani Kant Tula @ M. K. Tula
10 Parveen Kumar Gupta @ P. K. Gupta
11 M/s Hindustan Polychm Pvt. Ltd.through director
P. K. Srivastava.
Date of filing of charge sheet. :27.05.2008
Date of receiving the case on transfer :16.11.2011
Date of conclusion of arguments on charge :02.03.2012
Date of order on charge :10.04.2012
ORDER ON CHARGE
1 There are eleven accused persons and for the sake of
convenience, accused Smt. Sangeeta Shah would be referred to as
A1, accused Padmakar Kumar Srivastava @ Papluji would be referred
to as A2, accused Anil Kuma Sukumara Panicker @ A. K. S. Panicker
CBI Vs Sangeeta Shah etc 1 of 39
CC 45/2011
as A3, accused Arvind Rai C Shah @ A. R. C. Shah as A4, accused
Hemanta Kumar Senapati @ H. K. Senapati as A5, accused Smt.
Padma Gill as A6, accused Musafir Prasad @ Rattan as A7, accused
Prem Shankar Jha @ P. S. Jha as A8, accused Mani Kant Tula @ M. K.
Tula as A9, accused Parveen Kumar Gupta @ P. K. Gupta as A10 and
accused M/s Hindustan Polychem Pvt. Ltd would be referred to as
A11.
2 All the eleven accused persons have been charge
sheeted by CBI for commission of offences u/s 120 B r/w 420, 465,
468 and 471 of IPC and U/S 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of
Corruption Act and also substantive offences thereof.
3 It will not be out of place to mention here that accused
Anil Shah, Director of A11 company was also one of the accused
but since he died even before the registration of case, proceedings
against him stood abated and he was not sent up to face trial.
4 It will also be equally pertinent to mention that as far as
Anil Kumar Sharma, Sunil Murgai and Shashi Bhushan Tiwari are
concerned, their involvement and complicity was ascertained but
they all three were taken as approver in the present case and were
granted pardon by the court. Therefore, their names have been
mentioned in column no. 12 of the charge sheet and they are cited as
prime witnesses.
5 As per the case of prosecution, all the accused persons
entered into a criminal conspiracy during the year 1997 and onwards,
CBI Vs Sangeeta Shah etc 2 of 39
CC 45/2011
the object of which was to cheat Industrial Finance Branch (IFB) of
State Bank of India(SBI), New Delhi to the tune of Rs.30.50 crores in
the matter of credit facilities.
6 A11 company was earlier known as M/s Apros Trading
Company Pvt. Ltd. (M/s ATPL) Deceased Anil Shah, A2 besides
one Smt. Punam Dass were the first directors of said company and
after Punam Dass resigned from directorship, A1 became director
on 10.9.1998. Said company changed its name to M/s Hindustan
Polychem Pvt. Ltd (HPPL) on 21.7.1999 and such name stood
changed to M/s Hindustan Tradex Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd. (HTMPL)
in 2001.
7 A11 was engaged in merchant trade covering export,
import and international trading activities and later turned to trading
in PVC resin. M/s ATPL submitted an application dated 28.2.1997
addressed to Managing Director, SBI, Mumbai requesting for credit
facilities of Rs.5.50 crores. Such proposal was considered but did
not find favour and resultantly rejected on 22.7.97 by Delhi office of
SBI. However, Anil Shah submitted a fresh proposal with some
amendments and then credit facilities were sanctioned to M/s ATPL
on 31.10.97. It will not be out of place to mention here that such
credit facilities were enhanced on five occasions. Chart herein below
would reflect the same.
31.10. 5.9.98 2.9.99 21.2. 19.8. 22.5.01
97 2000 2000
i)Fund 1.40 0.40 1.00 1.00 (1.00) (1.00)
CBI Vs Sangeeta Shah etc 3 of 39
CC 45/2011
based crore crore crore crore crore crore
a)EPC included included
below below
b)Cash 0.40 1.75 2.25 2.25 6.00 6.00
Credit crore crore crore crore crore crore
c)Bill 1.30 -- -- -- -- --
discountin crore
g
ii)Non- 1.35 5.25 9.50 9.50 15.00 14.50
Fund crore crore crore crore crore crore
based 4.00 (for 4.00
LC Adhoc 6 crore
limit months) (opened
on
30.3.01)
Total 4.45 7.40 12.75 16.75 21.00 24.50
crore crore crore crore crore crore
8 As per the case of prosecution various group
companies/firms were opened up by A11 M/s HPPL for usurping the
funds by opening letters of credit (LC) in favour of some bogus/non-
existent companies. Some of these companies were existing on
papers only and the facilities obtained from the bank by A 11 M/s
HPPL were diverted to these companies. According to
prosecution, following 20 companies, as per Annexure A of charge
sheet, were created.
Sl. no. Name of the Name of the Authorized Director/ Relationship
Co. Bank & the A/c Signatory Proprietor with HPPL &
no. Anil Shah
1 Shriram Vinyl 1)ICICIBank-CP Anil Kumar @ Anil Kumar Field boy of
Industries A/c no. Hanuman @ Hanuman M/s HPPL
(SRVI) 000705002222 PW2 PW2
CBI Vs Sangeeta Shah etc 4 of 39
CC 45/2011
opened on
20.9.01
2)A/c no. Do Do Do
1400301046067
Bank of
Rajasthan Ltd.
Janpath opened
on 26.04.2001
3) Canara Bank-
CP A/c no. Do Do Do
CA15800 opened
on 1.12.2000
4)Union Bank CP
A/c no.29663
opened on 8.6.01 Do Do Do
2 M/s AKS Union Bank-CP 1) Yogesh 1) Anil 1) Anil Shah
Polymers Pvt. A/c no.11440 Dubey & Shah period period from
Ltd opened on 8.5.99 P.K. from 2.12.98 2.12.98 to
Srivastava to 01.04.99 01.04.99
(A2) jointly
operated 2) Dinesh 2) Dinesh
from 8.5.99 Dhawan Dhawan
to Jan 2000 (since period from
deceased) 02.12.98 to
2)A.K.S. period from 12.04.01
Panikar (A3) 02.12.98 to
from Jan 12.04.01 3)PK
2000 to till Srivastava
date 3)PK period from
Srivastava 01.04.99 to
period from 09.11.01
01.04.99 to
09.11.01 4)Satyajeet
4) Satyajeet Singh
Singh Gaikwad
Gaikwad period from
period from 01.04.99 to
01.04.99 to 12.12.01
12.12.01
5)Smt Ruma
5)Smt Ruma Srivastava
Srivastava( period from
wife of 01.04.99 to
A2/PW 26) 09.11.01
CBI Vs Sangeeta Shah etc 5 of 39
CC 45/2011
period from
01.04.99 to 6)Staff of
09.11.01 Anil Shah in
Super cab
6)Satish cable
Ahuja
Bank of
Rajasthan Ltd
Janpath a/c no. A. K. S. Do Do
1100030111017 Panikar(A3)
4 dt. 26.2.02
3 M/sPower-net Citi Bank-CP A/c Sangeeta 1. 1.Sangeeta
Information no. 0424081-221 Shah (A1) & Sangeeta Shah is wife
Services Ltd. dt. 19.4.01 Parveen Shah of Anil Shah,
Kumar(PW40 2. Indeerjee Pankaj Shah
) Jointly 3.Anshumali is brother of
Bhushan Anil Shah,
4.P.K.Sriva Bonani Shah
stava is wife of his
5. Pankaj younger
Shah brother and
6. Bonani others are
Shah Director of
Powernet
who wee
the friends
of Anil Shah
Bank of Padma Gill Do P. A. to Anil
Rajasthan Ltd A/c (A6) Shah
no.
1400301110174
dt. 26.2.02
4 M/s Yogi Canara Bank-CP 1.Anil Shah 1. Anil Shah Director/Frie
Trading A/c no.15365 dt from 29.2.96 & Raj nds of Anil
Company 29.2.1996 Ajmera after Shah.
2. A. R. C. that Raj Sangeeta
Shah(A4) resigned Shah is wife
from 21.5.98 Sangeeta of Anil Shah.
Shah A. R. C.
appointed Shah is
director uncle of Anil
after that on Shah.
CBI Vs Sangeeta Shah etc 6 of 39
CC 45/2011
22.9.2000
Sangeeta
Shah
resigned
and P. K.
Srivastava
appointed
director
Allahabad Bank- 1. Anil from On 5.12.03
CP A/c no.270 6.8.01to Sangeeta
dt. 6.8.01 1.12.03, Shah again
2.H.K.Senapa appointed
ti (A5)from as Director. H.K.Senapat
6.8.01 to i is the staff
10.10.01 of Anil Shah.
3.P. K 2.Sangeeta
Srivastava Shah is the
(A2) & wife of Anil
Sangeeta Shah
Shah (A1)
from 8.12.03
to till date
5 M/sSuper Cab Bank of Parveen 1.Anil Shah Parveen
Cable Pvt. Rajasthan A/c no. Kumar 2.P.K. Kumar Staff
Ltd. 46894 dt. (PW40) Srivastava & CA of Anil
12.4.01 Shah's
Company
Do Do Do Do
6 M/s Trishul Canara Bank-CP Pankaj Shah Proprietor Brother of
Trading Co. A/c No.15501 dt. Anil Shah
8.4.97
A/c no. 5621 PNB Do Do Do
Tri Nagar opened
on 9.10.2001
7 M/s Yogi Tele Canara Bank-CP P. K. Proprietor Friend of
Film A/c no.15758 dt. Srivastava Anil Shah &
30.3.2000 (A2) Director of
HPPL
8 M/s J. P. Canara Bank-CP Shashi Proprietor Staff of Anil
CBI Vs Sangeeta Shah etc 7 of 39
CC 45/2011
Polymers A/c no.15780 dt. Bhushan Shah
14.7.2000 Tiwari
(PW3)
9 M/s C. J. Canara Bank-CP Chiranjiv Proprietor Staff of Anil
Polymers A/c no.15627 dt. Singh(PW44) Shah
20.5.98
10 M/s Reham Canara Bank-CP Dinesh Proprietor Friend of
Nazar A/c 25634 Dhawan Anil Shah
Polymeres & (already died)
Chemicals
PNB Tri Nagar A/c Do Do Do
no.5292 opened
in the year 1995
11 M/sVega Canara Bank-CP Pankaj Shah Proprietor Brother of
Clock Pvt.Ltd. A/c no.25572 dt. (PW 34) Anil Shah
28.2.95
12 M/sAqua Canara Bank-CP Anil Shah Director Self
Cross Pvt.Ltd. A/c no.15252
PNB Tri Nagar A/c Padma Gill Do Do
no.5644 & Anil Shah
13 M/sAqua 1.Canara Bank Anil Shah 1.Anil Shah Wife of Anil
Travel Pvt. A/c no.23668 2.Sangeeta Shah
Ltd. 2.Bharat Shah
Overseas Bank Director
Rajendra Nagar
CA 28695 from
4.6.02
14 M/s PNB-CP New 1. A. K. S. 1. A. K. S. Staff of Anil
Hindustan Delhi, CA 2429 Panikar(A3) Panikar Shah &
Irrigation from 2.Anil Kumar 2.Anil Kumar Manish is
Equipment Sharma,PW2 Sharma Mama's son
Pvt. Ltd. 3.Manish 3.Manish of Anil Shah
Rooprail(PW Rooprail
37)
15 M/s Priyanka Union Bank of Mussafir Proprietor Computer
Polymers India A/c no. Prasad @ staffof HPPL
26269 dt. Rattan( A7)
17.11.2000
16 M/s Marshal Union Bank of Ashok Nayak Ashok Accountant
Polymers India A/c no. (PW 32) Nayak of M/s HPPL
23313 dt.
CBI Vs Sangeeta Shah etc 8 of 39
CC 45/2011
3.8.2000
17 M/s Karan Union Bank of Sunil Proprietor Staff of
Fabrics India C.P. A/c Murgai(PW1) Aqua travel
no.21221 dt. Sangeeta
17.8.2000 Shah's
company
18 M/s Bihariji Bank of A. K. S. 1.Dinesh Friends of
AgroTech Pvt. Rajasthan A/c Panikar (A3) Dhawan Anil Shah &
Ltd. No. 46096 dt. 2. Lalatendu Staff of M/s
18.1.2001 Biswas HPPL
3.Padma
Gill (A6)
IDBI Bank- CP Do Do Do
New Delhi A/c
30506 dt.
13.2.01
19 M/s Pashupati Bank of A.K.S. Panikar A.K.S. G.M.
Polymers Rajasthan (A3) Panikar (Marketing)
Janpath A/c no. proprietor in M/s HPPL
45871 dt. the
22.7.01 company of
Anil Shah
20 M/s Muko Canara Bank-CP A.R.C. Shah - A.R.C.Shah
Plast Pvt. Ltd A/c no.25517 (A4) is G. M.
Finance of
HPPL &
uncle of Anil
Shah
9 M/s HPPL (A11) opened various LCs in favour of M/s
AKS Polymers from April 1999 and also in favour of M/s Shree Ram
Vinyl Industries from December 2000. 74 LCs were opened by
accused company during 11.1.1999 to 31.12.1999 in favour of M/s
AKS Polymers when accused company was known as M/s Apros
Trading Company (M/s ATPL) and later on from 01.01.2000 to
31.12.2001 also various LCs were opened by A11 company in favour
of M/s AKS Polymers, M/s Indian Petrochemicals Ltd (M/s IPCL), M/s
CBI Vs Sangeeta Shah etc 9 of 39
CC 45/2011
Rehem Nazar Polymers & Chemicals (M/s RNPC) and M/s Sri Ram
Vinyl Industries (M/s SRVI). As already noticed above facilities
obtained through LCs were diverted to these companies and from
there funds were withdrawn.
10 As regards M/s AKS Polymers, it was learnt that such
company was not traceable at its alleged registered address and
there was not any underlying commercial transaction either. A9,
who was then AGM, SBI, dishonestly and fraudulently had given
wrong and incorrect reports vide notes dated 6.9.2000 and 9.9.2000
mentioning therein that M/s AKS Polymers existed at the given
address of Vishwas Nagar whereas the investigation revealed that
said firm never existed at said address. Funds of the bank were not
utilized for the purpose for which such funds had been sanctioned
and rather these were used for purchasing and acquiring assets in
the names of the companies in which deceased Anil Shah and his
associates were directors. Properties like 1209, Kailash Building,
1210 and 1211 Kailash Building, 309 Kanchanjuga Building and Som
Vihar, R. K. Puram were purchased and total sum of Rs.
1,34,98,000/- was spent on such purchase. Such purchase was
from the facilities granted by the bank.
11 Moreover, as per the bank's stipulation fixed assets were
to be purchased by A11 only after the approval of the bank in
writing and no such approval was ever obtained by A11 from the
bank. A9 Sh. M. K. Tula was working as AGM Grade-1 in SBI,
Industrial Finance Branch and A10 P. K. Gupta was Manager/Credit
Officer and they both had conspired with their co accused. They
CBI Vs Sangeeta Shah etc 10 of 39
CC 45/2011
both abused their official position as public servants in the matter
of sanction and release of credit facilities and thereby conferred
undue pecuniary advantage to A11 company and corresponding
loss to the tune of Rs.30.50 crores to the bank.
12 A10 P. K. Gupta, in pursuance to criminal conspiracy on
14.12.2000 recommended opening of LCs in favour of M/s SRVI
and A9 M. K. Tula also allowed opening of LCs on the same date.
Opinion report in respect of M/s SRVI was not obtained willfully as
the public servants knew that the firm address was residence of a
Peon of accused company. A10 P. K. Gupta had also put up a note
dated 16.7.2001 to AGM K. S. Dinesh for allowing adhoc limit of 4
crores to M/s HPPL A11 over and above the normal sanctioned LC
limit of Rs.14.50 crores and according to the investigation at the time
of opening of LCs, the account of A11 was irregular. Both the
public servants accused also allowed A11 to receive material at
their request through non-IBA approved transporters and due to such
motivated exemption given by public servants, A11 company
started submitting forged and fabricated invoices and Motor
Transport Receipts of M/s Pandit Transport Company which was a
non-IBA approved transporter. During the investigation M/s Pandit
Transporter also confirmed that it had not transported any such
material as mentioned in the lorry receipts and denied the
genuineness of such lorry receipts. Both the public servants also
recommended sanction of adhoc NFB (non fund based) limit of Rs.4
crores and recommended release of Rs. 2 crores LC limit in
anticipation of sanction and further recommended to Circle Credit
Committee for enhancement of limit and in such note A9 M. K. Tula
CBI Vs Sangeeta Shah etc 11 of 39
CC 45/2011
had appraised that no LC had devolved while in fact some of the
LCs had devolved.
13 Both the public servants had also dishonestly accepted
the inflated valuation report in order to ensure that A11 company
got higher credit facilities from the bank. Both the public servants
very well knew that the account of HPPL was irregular and they
both had allowed drawings to accused company against uncleared
funds with a view to confer undue pecuniary advantage to accused
company. There are various allegations on record showing that that
had also availed personal favours.
14 According to the case of prosecution though A1 had
resigned from the directorship of the company on 17.3.1999 yet
she was actively controlling the act and conduct of A11 company
and its group companies. She was also director/authorized signatory
in M/s Yogi Trading Company, M/s Power Net Information Pvt. Ltd and
M/s Aqua Travel Pvt. Ltd. and she had withdrawn huge money.
15 A4 A. R. C. Shah was ex-employee of Union Bank of
India and had good knowledge of banking system and he helped in
diversion of the funds and played a major role in facilitating the
opening of many accounts of group companies. A6 Padma Gill, A7
Musafir Prasad @ Rattan knowingly, in terms of conspiracy,
became proprietors of non-existent firms and thereby facilitated
act of siphoning off . As far as A8 Prem Shankar Jha is concerned, he
had signed on false letters indicating dispatch of goods and had
also signed the invoices accompanying LCs whereas no material
CBI Vs Sangeeta Shah etc 12 of 39
CC 45/2011
was transported through such invoices and such receipts and
invoices were used for discounting of LCs.
16 A 5 H. K. Senapati was Senior Accountant in A11
company and the proforma of lorry receipt/invoices had been printed
at his behest and he was the one who had got the blank cheques
signed by the so called proprietors of the bogus/non-existent
companies. He had also allegedly purchased a company M/s Bihariji
Agro Tech and A6 Padma Gill was made one of the directors in
such company and A3 A. K. S. Panikar was made authorized
signatory in that firm. A5 H. K. S. Senapati also opened an account
in the name of M/s Bihariji Agro Tech in IDBI bank and forged
signatures of one Lalu Tendu Biswas who was later found to be a
fictitious and non-existent person. He also forged signatures of
Dinesh Dhawan since expired as well as signed as Anil Shah on some
LCs. M/s Bihariji Agro Tech was approached to show false
transactions between the said company and accused company and
several cheques were issued on behalf of M/s Bihariji Agro Tech to
the account of HPPL and on the basis of such false transactions, LCs
were issued whereas later on such cheques bounced due to
insufficient funds.
17 As already noticed above, Anil Kumar Shah @ Hanuman,
Sunil Murgai and Shashi Bhushan Tiwari were found involved during
the investigation but they spilled beans and their statements were
got recorded u/s 164 Cr. PC and they were taken as approver.
GEQD reports also indicts A5, A7 and A8. Thus according to the
case of prosecution all the 11 accused with the help of deceased Anil
CBI Vs Sangeeta Shah etc 13 of 39
CC 45/2011
Shah entered into criminal conspiracy and cheated SBI and caused
loss of 30.50 crores to the bank.
18 Charge sheet was filed in the court on 27.5.2008 and
cognizance was taken by the court on 3.7.2008 and accused were
accordingly ordered to be summoned.
19 Case was received on transfer by this court on
16.11.2011. Arguments on charge have been heard.
20 It will not be out of place to mention here that written
submissions have also been placed on record on behalf of most of the
accused.
21 Mr. V Madhukar, ld. Defence counsel has addressed
arguments on behalf of A3 and A5. As far as A5 is concerned, it
has been argued that he was a lowly ranked accountant in the
company owned by Anil Shah and was never in any position to
enter into any conspiracy and that he did not forge any documents.
Further that, in capacity of his being an employee of Anil Shah, he
might have filled certain LC opening forms but he never signed on
those forms as Anil Shah or forged the signatures of Anil Shah.
According to Sh. Madhukar, merely by filling up the forms neither
did he commit any offence nor was there any occasion to cause any
loss to the bank in question. It has also been asserted that CFSL
report pertaining to hand writing and signatures cannot be
considered as there is no explanation from the side of prosecution
as to why the admitted signatures of Anil Shah were also not sent
CBI Vs Sangeeta Shah etc 14 of 39
CC 45/2011
to FSL for necessary comparison in order to completely rule out that
said signatures were not of Anil Shah. Moreover, when LC forms were
submitted before the bank, the concerned bank official must have
tallied the signatures on such LC opening forms with the admitted
signatures of Anil Shah as available in the bank and had there
been any forgery, it would have come to the knowledge of bank
officials immediately and this fact itself also indicates that such
signatures on LC forms were genuine signatures of Anil Shah. My
attention has also been drawn towards the statement of PW2 Anil
Kumar Sharma who rather named other accused as the main
culprits. It has also been contended that A5 has been picked up
arbitrarily whereas other similarly placed employees of Anil Shah
have been shown witnesses.
22 On behalf of A3, it has been argued that he was
marketing manager under Anil Shah and was not involved in any
conspiracy at all. My attention has been drawn towards para 27 of
the charge sheet and on the strength of the same it has been
asserted that as per the allegation, some part of the money in
question was rotated through account of M/s AKS Polymers of
which A3 was proprietor/authorized signatory and merely because
some amount was routed or rotated through such bank account, it
cannot be inferred that he was part of conspiracy or that he had
gained or retained anything out of any such transaction. It has also
been contended that neither any wrongful gain or wrongful loss is
there to anyone. According to Mr. Madhukar, there is no element of
conspiracy. It has been finally argued that on the basis of such
vague allegations, prosecution cannot secure conviction and
CBI Vs Sangeeta Shah etc 15 of 39
CC 45/2011
therefore, it would be travesty of justice if accused is asked to
undergo trial.
23 Mr. Mohit Mathur, ld defence counsel has addressed
arguments on behalf of A1. According to him even as per the
admitted case of prosecution, the relationship between accused
Sangeeta Shah and her husband (since deceased) was strained as
her husband Anil Shah was having some extra-marital affair. In
order to buttress his such contention, he has drawn my attention
towards statement of PW2 and PW36, which, according to Mr. Mathur,
reflect that Sangeeta Shah had no concern with the business of her
husband Anil Shah and was rather settled in US and had come to
India on very few occasions. It has also been argued that before
registration of FIR on 8.3.04, CBI must have done some preliminary
inquiry and thereafter only the FIR must have been recorded and in
the FIR the relevant period of occurrence has been shown 1997 to
2002 and that there is no explanation as to why in the charge sheet
and as per statements of witnesses, various transactions post 2002
have been unnecessarily connected with accused Sangeeta Shah.
24 It has also been stressed that any Director of any
company can be made vicarious liable if such company is also
prosecuted and CBI is trying to connect accused with the affairs of
M/s Yogi Trading Company but fact remains that M/s Yogi Trading
Company is not before the court as accused.
25 According to Sh. Mathur, it was only after the
unfortunate death of her husband, Sangeeta Shah had become
CBI Vs Sangeeta Shah etc 16 of 39
CC 45/2011
director and thereafter she had withdrawn money by self cheques
and other cheques simply in order to clear legitimate dues. Some of
the dues were towards the salaries of employees of her husband and
some of the cheques were even collected by PW36 by post which
were towards electricity bills, telephone bills etc and issuance of
such cheques doesn't make her liable.
26 Further that, there is no material on record which may
show that accused had any dealing with other co accused or any
bank official at any prior point of time. Guarantees given by her
are her personal guarantees and the bare fact that she had
furnished those, cannot impute criminality.
27 It has also been argued that merely because subsequent
to the death of her husband, Sangeeta Shah had entered into any
rent agreement and had collected rent from the tenant and
deposited the same in the bank and withdrew the same
subsequently cannot even remotely suggest that she was part of any
conspiracy. Mr. Mathur has drawn my attention towards various
documents including D 459 and 460 and has also taken me through
the statements of various witnesses including PW4, PW5, PW7, PW27,
PW31, PW32 and PW33. According to him, statements of these
material witnesses rather indicate that accused Sangeeta Shah was
never in picture at earlier stage and, therfore, she cannot be asked
to face trial merely because she happened to be the wife of accused
Anil Shah.
28 It has also been claimed that PW1, PW2 and PW3 could
CBI Vs Sangeeta Shah etc 17 of 39
CC 45/2011
not have been made approvers because they never made any
inculpatory statement. Mr. Mathur has also placed reliance on
various judgments in order to show that charge cannot be framed
only on the basis of suspicion and it has been argued that if two
views are possible even at the stage of charge, court should go for
view which favours defence and that for the purposes of inferring
conspiracy there has to be meeting of minds which is apparently
lacking in the present case. He has also argued that there cannot be
any meeting of mind with a dead man. Further that, there are no
ingredients to make out case under any substantive offence like 420,
468 and 471 IPC either and that there is no wrongful loss to the bank
and as argued by other counsels, matter has already been amicably
settled with the bank.
29 Sh. R.N.P. Sinha has argued on behalf of A10 P. K.
Gupta and according to him, accused has been falsely implicated in
the present case and that he was not even named in original FIR. It
has also been claimed that as per the statement of PW8 Arvind
Kaushal recorded by prosecution, the account in question was being
handled by such Arvind Kaushal and Sh. P. K. Gupta took charge
only in the year 1999 from him and therefore he cannot be
blamed for any act happening prior to 1999.It has also been claimed
that at the alleged initial time i. e. in the year 1997, A10 was posted
in different branch and he joined the branch in July, 1999 only.
Sanction accorded by concerned competent authority has been
labelled as invalid as it is not bearing date on each page and has not
been sent on the letterhead either. It has also been argued that the
sanctioning authority has not applied its mind and sanction has been
CBI Vs Sangeeta Shah etc 18 of 39
CC 45/2011
granted while misinterpreting the facts and simultaneously it has
also been contended by Sh.Sinha that there is nothing on record that
any particular document was forged by A10 P. K. Gupta or that
forgery had been committed by him or in connivance with other co-
accused. He has also taken me through the statements of various
witnesses in support of his contention.
30 Sh. Pawan Narang, Ld. Defence counsel has
defended A9 M. K. Tula. His prime contentions can be summarized
as under:
i) He had joined the present branch in June 1999 and
therefore, he cannot be said to be connected with any alleged
conspiracy which had taken place prior to June 99 and particularly in
97 as per the allegations appearing on the charge sheet.
ii) Even otherwise he was posted in credit division
whereas the opening of LC was exclusively job of operation
division.
Iii) There is nothing to show that MK Tula had knowingly
accepted the inflated valuation report. In this regard my attention
has been drawn towards the statements of PW9 to PW 12.
iv) Valuation had been done by empanelled valuers and
MK Tula had no reason to disbelieve the report submitted by such
valuer.
v) There is allegation in the air only that the reports were
inflated whereas there is no evidence-whether oral or documentary
to show that the reports were inflated actually.
vi) Even as per the reports submitted by him on 6.9.2000
(D 391) and 9.9.2000 (D 392) it becomes apparent that accused
CBI Vs Sangeeta Shah etc 19 of 39
CC 45/2011
MK Tula was not under influence of any other and has rather
placed correct picture before his superior and recommended that
LC should not be opened.
vii) As regards opening of LC in favour of M/s SRVI, it
has been reiterated that job profile of MK Tula was not related to
opening of LC as he was in credit division and not in operation
division. In this regard attention of the court has been drawn
towards D 18 and D 19.
viii) Moreover, accused MK Tula was not having the final
say in the matter as final recommendation was in the hands of
GM/Chief GM/Circle Credit Committee.
ix) Procedure of opening of LC as detailed by PW 75
and 78 has not been flouted and there is no material on record
which may suggest that he was involved in any conspiracy.
Moreover, there was no default of any nature whatsoever in regard
to LC during the tenure of MK Tula.
x) As regards allowing lorry receipts of Non-IBA
approved transporter, it was permissible as the delivery was within
local limits of Delhi and therefore, there was neither anything new
nor anything wrong even if lorry receipt of Non-IBA approved
transporter had been accepted.
xi) As regards the installation of computer, neither any
such computer has been recovered nor is there any invoice
containing signatures of accused in token of receipt of computer.
xii) Brother of accused MK Tula was under the
employment in the company of Anil Shah but there was never any
sort of influence.
CBI Vs Sangeeta Shah etc 20 of 39
CC 45/2011
31 Sh. Umesh Kumar has addressed arguments on behalf
of A7 Musafir Prasad @ Ratan and A-6 Padma Gill. He has
contended that A7 was merely a computer operator who, under the
directions of his superior, had signed on some documents. It has
been argued that this was done so that he did not lose his job and
was not in terms or part of any conspiracy. It has also been argued
that he is not related even remotely with the opening of any of the
LCs and though transport receipts were filled by him but those were
filled by him as per the directions of his employers, namely, A4
Arvind Rai C. Shah and A5 Hemant Kumar Senapati. He has also
drawn my attention towards testimony of PW30, PW89 and PW90 and
also towards the statement of approver Anil Sharma. According to
him, CBI has chosen to treat the persons similarly situated in a
different manner as the role assigned to PW30 is also virtually at par
with the role of A4 but despite that A4 has been made an accused
and PW30 Ramesh Singh Rana has been shown as witness. It has
been argued that he is not part of any conspiracy neither beneficiary
and, therefore, he is entitled to be discharged.
32 As regards A6, it has been claimed that she merely a
receptionist in the company. She was not the lone authorized
signatory but only a joint authorized signatory. It has been claimed
that she wasn't beneficiary from any angle whatsoever and had no
role to play in financial dealings. It has also been claimed that there
is no material on record to show her participation much less active
participation.
33 Sh. S.P.M. Tripathi, ld defence counsel has addressed
CBI Vs Sangeeta Shah etc 21 of 39
CC 45/2011
arguments on behalf of A2 and A11. He has contended that A2 had
no role with the operation of A11 company. According to him, he was
merely shown director on papers and there is no allegation or overt
act attributed to him. According to him, A2 has already settled with
bank through its assignee and, therfore also, nothing is now left in
the matter.
34 Other two accused A4 and A8 have also claimed that
they have been unnecessarily dragged into the case as accused. Sh.
Anil Goyal, ld. Defence counsel has defended A4 and according to
him, there is no material on record showing involvement of A4.
35 Ld. PP has, on the other hand, refuted all the contentions
raised by defence counsels and has contended that all the accused
have been rightly charge sheeted and they all deserve to be
charged for the offences they have been sent up to face trial.
According to Ld. PP, each of the accused has a role to play and
there is clear-cut meeting of minds. There is alarming loss to
exchequer as the bank was defrauded to the tune of Rs.30.50
crores. As regards A1, according to Ld. PP, even if she was not the
director at the relevant time, her complicity stands substantiated in
view of the statements of witnesses recorded during the
investigation and also in view of her own conduct as when the
matter was under investigation, she chose to fled India via Nepal
and vanished and this fact by itself shows malafide on her part.
She had been actively participating in the affairs of the company
and stood guarantor from time to time by submitting personal
guaranties and there is no question of there being any sort of
CBI Vs Sangeeta Shah etc 22 of 39
CC 45/2011
marital discord between her and her husband. It has been
reiterated that both the concerned bank officials conspired with
their co accused and recommended for opening of LCs by abusing
their official position. Though the facilities were earlier applied in the
year 1997 but the criminality emanates from the manner in which
the LCs were got opened. Both the public servants-accused
allowed the opening of LCs in favour of non-existent firms and
before opening of LCs they did not obtain credit/opinion report
about the capability of supply of material of such non-existent
firms like M/s SRVI . They both had recommended for sanction of
adhoc NFB ILC limit of Rs.4 crores for 180 days and also
recommended for release of Rs. 2 crores LC limit in anticipation of
sanction and also recommended to Circle Credit Committee for
enhancement of limit of M/s HPPL from Rs.3.25 crores to Rs.6
crores and in such note, both the accused had dishonestly
mentioned that no LC had ever devolved whereas some of the LCs
had already devolved. Moreover, A11 company was not eligible
for grant of further credit facilities in the form of opening of fresh
LCs because its account was irregular and had already exceeded
the sanctioned limits and such fact was also ignored and
disregarded by both public servants which per se indicates dishonest
intention and moreover the factum of their accepting pecuniary
advantage also shows their involvement.
36 I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival
contentions and carefully perused the exhaustive charge sheet and
also taken note of the statements of witnesses and the documents
relied upon.
CBI Vs Sangeeta Shah etc 23 of 39
CC 45/2011
37 Let me first briefly note about the role and the alleged
involvement of both the public servants-accused.
38 Defence cannot take out any mileage from the fact
that such public servants were not named in the FIR. FIR need not
be encyclopedia of the case. It is rather one of the very first
document and starting point of investigation. It cannot be said that
if any person is not named in FIR then such person cannot be
charge sheeted. As far as A10 (accused P. K. Gupta) is concerned,
admittedly he joined the concerned branch in 1999. A9 (M. K. Tula)
had also joined the said branch in June, 1999. Undoubtedly
facilities were sought to be availed for the first time by A11
company in the year 1997. However, it has already been noticed
that such facilities were extended from time to time and though the
facilities were sanctioned earlier on 31.10.1997 yet both the public
servants cannot take shelter behind the fact that they were not in
the concerned branch in the year 1997. All important issue in the
present case is the manner in which the LCs were opened in favour
of non-existent firms and the manner in which the amount was
siphoned off. Opening of LCs started taking place from the year
1999 onwards and at that time both these public servants were at the
helm of the affairs. According to Sh. Narang, A9 was posted in
Credit Division whereas the opening of LCs was exclusively the job
of operation division and moreover A9 had done his job diligently
and his opinion was not the final one as the final recommendation
was in the hands of superior officers. He has also claimed that there
is no flouting of any procedure and that no computer was ever
CBI Vs Sangeeta Shah etc 24 of 39
CC 45/2011
received by A9 as alleged illegal gratification.
39 I need not remind myself that case is at the stage of
consideration of charge. The Court, at the stage of consideration of
charge, is not required to undertake an elaborate inquiry in sifting
and weighing the materials. Nor is it necessary to delve deep into
various aspects. All that the Court has to consider is whether the
evidentiary material on record, if generally accepted and if goes
uncontroverted, would reasonably connect the accused with the
crime and would result in conviction or not. If the answer is in
affirmative, then the court would be justified in framing charges. In
State of Delhi v. Gyan Devi and Ors. (2000) 8 SCC 239, the
Apex Court has reiterated that at the stage of framing of charge the
trial court is not to examine and assess in detail the materials placed
on record by the prosecution and is not required to appreciate the
evidence and arrive at the conclusion that the materials produced are
sufficient or not for convicting the accused. In State of Bihar v.
Ramesh Singh, (1977) 4 SCC 39, considering the scope of
Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, it was held by the Apex Court that
at the stage of framing of charge, it is not obligatory for the Judge to
consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the
facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the
accused or not. At that stage, the court is not to see whether, there is
sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is
sure to end in his conviction. Strong suspicion, at the initial stage of
framing of charge, is sufficient to frame the charge and in that event
it is not open to say that there is no sufficient ground proceeding
against the accused
CBI Vs Sangeeta Shah etc 25 of 39
CC 45/2011
40 I have seen statement of PW86 Sh. Sarad Roshyan. He
had joined M/s Vinmark Computers as Sr. Engineer and he has
categorically claimed that he had installed computer in the house
of M. K. Tula (A9) and it was done at the instruction of H. K. Senapati
(A5). During investigation, PW Sarad Roshyan was also shown
delivery challan book of M/s Vinmark Computers and as per challan
dated 24.9.99, though the challan was in the name of Pankaj Shah
(PW34) but the delivery was made to Sh. M. K. Tula in his house.
According to him, he had not received any payment from A9 M. K.
Tula for said installation of computer and at the time of installation,
accused M. K. Tula, his wife and children were also present and they
refused to sign the challan bill and claimed that it would be signed
by Mr. Senapati. He has also claimed that later the payment was
received from the account of M/s Trishul Trading. According to him,
this computer was once repaired and even the repair charges were
borne by accused H. K. Senapati. It would also be appropriate to see
the statements of PW94 Deepak Kumar Jha and PW99 Jitender
Chopra. According to PW94 Sh. Deepak Kumar, transportation
facility was availed by accused M. K. Tula (A9) and the vehicles had
been booked by accused H. K. Senapati (A-5) and on various
occasions though the journey was undertaken by M. K. Tula, the
payment was not made by Sh. M. K. Tula (A-9) and rather all the
payment towards journeys was made by accused H. K. Senapati
(A-5) from the account of M/s Aqua Cross Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.
Statement of PW94 Jitender Chopra reveals that Sunil Murgai (PW1)
had purchased tickets of Hotel Le Meridian for the New Year Eve
celebration on 31.12.2000. PW1 Sunil Murgai has also deposed that
CBI Vs Sangeeta Shah etc 26 of 39
CC 45/2011
he had purchased such tickets at the instruction of Anil Shah and
payment was also made by Anil Shah in cash for couple tickets and
then these tickets were given to P. K. Gupta (A-10). So much so, P.K.
Gupta (A10) got lucky draw from such ticket and then Anil Shah
directed Sunil Murgai to help him for getting visa for going to
Australia.
41 I have seen statements of concerned bank officials i. e.
PW5 Sh. Sunil Pant, PW6 Sh. Chirayathu Mothom Ramachandra Iyer
@ C. R. Radhakrishanan, PW7 Sh. Ashok Kini and PW8 Sh. Arvind
Kaushal. Their statements relates to initial rejection of proposal
submitted by A11 company and subsequent recommendation/
sanction on 31.10.1997. I have also seen statements of PW60 Sh.
Arun Dewan, PW61 Sh. Desh Bandhu Kataria, PW63 Sh. Satish Kumar
Nagpal, PW64 Sh. Kalpathy Sankaran Dinesh @ K. S. Dinesh and
PW75 Sh. Wunnava Venugopal Venkata Ramana @ WVGV Ramana
and statements of these witnesses clearly indicate the involvement
of both the public servants. Statement of PW76 Sh. Sandeep
Khajuria also indicates that accused M. K. Tula (A9) had submitted
a false report to the effect that M/s A. K. S. Polymers was having
correct address at Viswas Nagar whereas such fact was later on
found to be wrong. Statement of PW14 Sh. Jainender Jain, PW16 Sh.
Jagdish Chander Sharma, PW17 Sh. Rajender Singh and PW18 Sh.
Khub Chand would also reveal that no company with the name of
M/s A. K. S. Polymers was being run at the address of Viswas Nagar.
Similarly, statement of PW15 reveals that no firm with the name of
M/s Priyanka Polymers was being run at the address of Mandawali,
Fazal Pur, Delhi-92. I have seen D390 which is report of Dun and
CBI Vs Sangeeta Shah etc 27 of 39
CC 45/2011
Bradstreet which reveals that no such company was located at the
address given by the bank or at the registered address. It has been
argued by the defence that reports dated 6.9.2000 (D391) and
9.9.2000 (D392) are not contradictory reports and therefore, public
servants cannot be said to be in connivance. However, this is not
correct. Perusal of D392 would reveal that as per the public servant
M. K. Tula (A-9), he had been able to find the address and found the
company doing business. Thus the reports given by him as contained
in D391 and D392 do not portray the correct picture. Thus it
becomes very much apparent that the conduct of both the public
servants was not above-board. They both had received illegal
gratification- be it in the form of personal computer or in the shape
of availing transport facility. I also cannot lose sight of the fact that
Ashutosh Tula (brother of A9 M. K. Tula) was employed with M/s
Super Cab Cables Pvt. Ltd. and this was also a device to obtain
pecuniary advantage.
42 Now it would be appropriate to turn to the statements of
PW1 Sunil Murgai, PW2 Anil Sharma and PW3 Shashi Bhushan Tiwari.
Sunil Murgai had joined M/s Aqua Travel as Senior Manager,
Administration and according to him A5 H. K. Senapati was very close
to Anil Shah. He has also given details about various other
companies of Anil Shah. He has also claimed that no company with
the name of M/s Hindustan Irrigation Equipment Pvt. Ltd. functioned
from his address and no business transaction took place from such
address though the address of such company was that of his own
residential premises. According to him, he had also opened an
account in the name of M/s Karan Fabrics in which he was shown as
CBI Vs Sangeeta Shah etc 28 of 39
CC 45/2011
proprietor and this was done by him at the instance of Anil Shah, A5
H. K. Senapati and the account opening form was got filled by A4
Arvind Shah and blank cheque book of 100 cheques was got signed
by him.
43 As regards A1 Sangeeta Shah also, PW1 Sunil Murgai has
claimed that she had withdrawn Rs.80 lacs approximately from
Centurion Bank, Connaught Place from account of M/s Aqua Travels
before she went to USA. Similarly, according to PW2 Anil Kumar
Sharma who was merely a field boy, account in the name of M/s SRVI
was opened with Union Bank of India, Connaught Place and he
identified his signatures and photograph on the opening form and he
also claimed that he had signed cheques which were filled in by A5
H. K. Senapati, A3 A. R. C. Shah and A6 Padma Gill. He has also
claimed that M/s Priyanka Polymers, M/s Marshal Polymers, M/s Bihari
Ji Agro Teck, M/s Hindustan Irrigation Equipment, M/s Karan Fabrics,
M/s A. K. S. Polymers, M/s Pasupati Polymers and M/s Sriram Vinyl
Industries were non-existing firms. According to him, A4, A5 and A6
were the main persons who used to look after the business of the
company and the transactions thereof and they used to take out
heavy amount of the cash from the bank. PW3 Shashi Bhushan
Tiwari has also claimed that there were bogus/paper companies
which had been opened by Anil Shah with his staff and these
companies did not do any business. He also claimed that he was
shown proprietor of M/s J. P. Polymers at the time of account opening
and this was done by him at the instance of accused A5 H. K.
Senapati. I have seen statements of various other employees of Anil
Shah. These include PW27 Yogesh Dubey, PW30 Ramesh Rana,
CBI Vs Sangeeta Shah etc 29 of 39
CC 45/2011
PW31 Omkar, PW32 Ashok Nayak, PW33 Usha Sharma, PW39 Kishore
Kumar Pahlaj and PW41 Vipul Jain and their statements also indicate
that non-existent firms were opened and the money was
accordingly rotated/siphoned off.
44 PW23 Laxman Singh and PW24 Vijay Kumar have
claimed that the invoices in question purportedly issued by M/s
Pandit Transport Company were forged invoices.
45 According to Sh. Madhukar, A5 H. K. Senapati was a
lowly ranked accountant and was never in any position to conspire.
However, the statements of witnesses, as already referred, show to
the contrary. Rather as per the allegations, he had forged the
signatures of Anil Shah on 8 LCs and even the proforma of lorry
receipts/invoices of M/s Pandit Transport Company, which was later
on found to be forged, was printed at his behest. Reference be
made to statements of PW89 Alok Seth and PW90 Hanumant Parsad.
He is found to be the person who had obtained blank cheques duly
signed by the so called proprietors of the false/bogus/non-existent
companies like M/s A. K. S. Polymers, M/s SRVI. He purchased M/s
Bihari Ji Agro Tech from PW108 Om Parkash Bhatia for fraudulent
diversion of funds and in said company A6 Padama Gill was made
one of the director along with Dinesh Dhawan (since deceased) and
as per GEQD opinion contained in D113, he had forged signatures of
one non-existent person in the name of Laltendu Viswas. As per
report of GEQD, it also becomes apparent that all the bills
pertaining to Pandit Transport Company as contained in D415 to
D420, were found forged and were found in the hand of A5 H. K.
CBI Vs Sangeeta Shah etc 30 of 39
CC 45/2011
Senapati. He was the one who had made the payment of computer
installed at the residence of A9 M. K. Tula and he had also provided
transportation/taxi services to both public servants.
46 According to Sh. Madhukar, A3 was only a marketing
manager and was not involved in any conspiracy. However, it is
admitted fact that he was found to be authorized signatory in
bogus/non-existent firms M/s A. K. S. Polymers. He was also found
proprietor of M/s Pashupati Polymers and was instrumental in
diverting the funds of LC and CC which was opened by M/s HPPL. He
was also authorized signatory of M/s Hindustan Irrigation Equipment
Pvt. Ltd. and its director as well and account of said company
maintained with PNB Connaught Place was used for siphoning of
bank funds and also for purchasing immovable property i. e. 1209,
Kailash Building, Connaught Place, New Delhi. He is also found to be
authorized signatory in M/s Bihariji Agro Tech and from the allegations
appearing on record, it cannot be said that he was not part of the
conspiracy.
47 As regards A2 Sh. P. K. Srivastava, he was shown director
of non existing company i. e. M/s A. K. S. Polymers. He was also
director of A11 company and cannot run away from his liability.
According to the stand of A2, he cannot be made liable merely due
to the fact that he was the director. He is admittedly director of A11
company which had applied for various facilities. He was also director
of a non-existent company M/s A. K. S. Polymers and as already
noticed, account of such company was used for siphoning off. It
cannot be said that since the transaction was banking transaction,
CBI Vs Sangeeta Shah etc 31 of 39
CC 45/2011
case is of civil nature involving mere breach of trust. There need not
be any direct evidence with respect to his being also one of the
actual beneficiaries. Being director, he was having full control over
the company affairs. As already noticed above, M/s A. K. S. Polymers
was a bogus company. It did not do any transaction. It was not found
existing at the registered address. Transactions done by such
company are paper transactions and accommodative in nature and
being director of A11 company as well as of M/s A. K. S. Polymers, it
cannot he heard from A2 that he cannot be hauled up merely
because of his being a director. It is not a case of one or two or
stray transactions. As many as 97 LCs were allowed to be opened in
the name of M/s A. K. S. Polymers without any underlying
commercial transaction. His wife Ruma Srivastava has also been
shown director. She is cited as PW27 and according to her there
were family relations between her family and family of Anil Shah.
She never claimed that she herself was actively or otherwise
involved with the affairs of M/s A. K. S. Polymers and if that being so,
everything must have been done with the knowledge and consent of
A2 being the other director of M/s A. K. S. Polymers. He remained
director for the crucial period between 1999 and 2001. Though one
Satyajeet Singh Gayakwad was shown director of said company, yet
fact remains that as per the investigation, he was never the director.
He has been examined as PW28 and he has categorically claimed
that he had no knowledge about his being ever director of M/s A. K.
S. Polymers. According to him, Anil Shah must have fraudulently
copied his signatures or acquired his signatures.
48 As regards A4 A. R. C. Shah, it has already been noticed
CBI Vs Sangeeta Shah etc 32 of 39
CC 45/2011
that he was authorized signatory of non existent firm M/s A. K. S.
Polymers and was also proprietor of M/s Pasupati Polymers, M/s
Hindustan Irrigation Equipment Pvt. Ltd. He was also authorized
signatory in M/s Bihari Ji Agro Tech and as per the case of
prosecution these group companies were instrumental in siphoning
off bank funds. Accusing finger towards him has also been raised by
PW1 Sunil Murgai, PW2 Anil Sharma, PW3 Shashi Bhushan Tiwari,
PW31 Onkar, PW33 Usha Sharma, PW39 Kishore Kumar and PW41
Vipul Jain.
49 As regards A7, according to ld. Defence counsel, he was
merely a computer operator and signed some documents so that
his job was protected and therefore, it has been argued that he was
not part of any conspiracy. However, I am not impressed with such
contention. He had no reason to succumb to the pressure of his
employer more so when asked to do an illegal job. He has also been
shown as proprietor of non existent firm M/s Priyanka Polymers and
he is the one who had prepared the letter heads of M/s SRVI, M/s
Bihari Ji Agro Tech, M/s A. K. S. Polymers, M/s Priyanka Polymers and
M/s Pasupati Polymers and he had written false motor transport
receipts on behalf of M/s Pandit Transport Company. Thus his
complicity cannot be ruled out. Undoubtedly, some persons turned
approver but A7 cannot take shelter behind such fact. PW 32 Ashok
Nayak has also claimed that A7 was employee of Anil Shah and he
was made proprietor in bogus company. I have also the benefit of
report of CFSL/Forensic Computer Examination Report dated
30.11.2005 contained in D429.
CBI Vs Sangeeta Shah etc 33 of 39
CC 45/2011
50 A6 Padma Gill is also found to be involved in the
opening and discounting of LC no. 288 and LC no. 291 which were of
substantial amount i. e. Rs.1.78 crores. Such LCs were opened in
the name of non-existent firm i. e. M/s SRVI. She was also
authorized signatory of CC account of accused company with SBI as
well as with HDFC bank and as per the bank norms only one
account on behalf of company could have been opened. She was
also found authorized signatory of account related to M/s Aqua
Cross Enterprises Pvt. Ltd and M/s Powernet Information Ltd and
these accounts were used for the purposes of siphoning off.
51 A8 P. S. Jha had signed as authorized signatory of M/s
SRVI and signed letter D51 dated 25.8.2008 regarding dispatch of
material to A11 company and he has also signed the invoices and
submitted motor transport receipts which were found forged. I have
seen D51 page 28 and as per prosecution, this letter was written by
accused P. S. Jha whereby he wrongly reported dispatch of material.
To the same effect is the letter signed by P. S. Jha at Q44 contained in
D42 at page 5 and D43 (photocopy). I have also seen bills and
invoices purported to be of M/s Pandit Transport Company which
were later found to be forged and which are contained in D415 to
D420 and according to prosecution, these bills were found forged
and invoices pertaining to such bills were prepared by A8 P. S. Jha.
As per para 17 of charge sheet, 10 LCs were opened by A11
company on M/s SRVI in the year 2001. These were worth Rs.20
crores and with respect to all these 10 LCs, dispatch of material was
confirmed by none other than A8 P S Jha. Thus his complicity also
cannot be ruled out.
CBI Vs Sangeeta Shah etc 34 of 39
CC 45/2011
52 As regards A1, it has already been noticed above that
she had stood guarantor for A11 company and when enhancement
was sought from time to time , she again gave personal guarantee.
Thus it cannot be said that since she was not director of A11
company at the relevant time, she had no blame to take. Had there
been any marital discord between her and her husband, she would
not have given her personal guarantee at all? There is serious
allegation that she had withdrawn huge money and then her conduct
of running away from Nepal cannot be taken casually or lightly. She
was the director of M/s Powernet Information Service Ltd, M/s Yogi
Trading Company and M/s Aqua Travel Pvt. Ltd. Undoubtedly, the
mere fact that she might have withdrawn some amount for the
purposes of salary or electricity dues cannot make her liable but
there are various other serious allegations as already noticed above.
As per PW1 Sunil Murgai, Sangeeta Shah had withdrawn about Rs.80
lacs from Centurion Bank, Connaught Place from the account of M/s
Aqua Travel and as per the case of prosecution, the facilities
obtained by A11 company were siphoned of and the funds were
rotated to other group companies including M/s Aqua Travel and
therefore, she is also a beneficiary in the present case. I have seen
D442 to D453 and it become apparent that when the facilities were
extended from time to time, A1 and A2 both consented for such
extension and continued to stand guarantors in their personal
capacity.
53 Report of GEQD is contained in D113 which also speaks
CBI Vs Sangeeta Shah etc 35 of 39
CC 45/2011
in favour of prosecution.
54 Anil Shah has already died and his date of death is
1.12.2003 and his death certificate is D111.
55 Sanction qua both the public servants-accused has already been obtained and is part of the charge sheet and per se shows consideration of material by sanctioning authority and at this primary stage of the matter, it cannot be agitated that the sanction was mechanical or that it was without application of mind or that improper.
56 It also really does not matter even if the matter has been amicably settled with the bank. Any such compromise, on civil side, cannot negate the criminal conspiracy and penal action.
57 Thus, on the basis of exhaustive allegations appearing in charge sheet, statements of witnesses and documents, it can be deciphered that there was a systematic plan to first get the facilities sanctioned and then to divert the same. To achieve such purpose, bogus companies/ nonexistent companies like M/s A. K. S. Polymers, M/s SRVI, M/s Priyanka Polymers were created. Funds were also diverted to group companies. As regards M/s RNPC, one Dinesh Dhawan was made proprietor on papers. He has already died and his wife Mani Dhawan (PW 105) has levelled allegation against Anil Shah. As according to her, the entire money, in the name of that firm had been invested by Anil Shah. On some occasions, funds were shown transferred back to A11 company. For instance, 10 LCs CBI Vs Sangeeta Shah etc 36 of 39 CC 45/2011 were opened by A11 company on M/s SRVI amounting to Rs.20 crores in 2001. These were got discounted immediately by the beneficiary i. e. M/s SRVI and then M/s SRVI transferred the funds by cheques to another concern i. e. M/s A. K. S. Polymers and then funds were transferred by M/s A. K. S. Polymers to account of A11 company. This was done with a plan. The purpose was two-fold. Firstly, it was to reduce the irregularity in the account and secondly to reduce the debit balance in the CC account of A11 company. Out of said 10 LCs worth Rs.17.21 crores, A11 company got back Rs. 12.85 crores but that rather shows the malafide intention automatically as the transactions were clearly paper transactions and were of accommodative nature.
58 75 LCs worth Rs.60 crores were opened from 3.1.2000 to 23.12.2000 by A11 company in favour of M/s A. K. S. Polymers, M/s SRVI, M/s IPCL and M/s RNPC. Amount under LCs was credited and then transferred to other sister concerns of A11 company which indicates that LC s were not opened on account of any business.
59 A criminal conspiracy is virtually a partnership in crime. In each conspiracy, a joint or mutual agency for the prosecution of a common plan exists. Thus, if two or more persons enter into a conspiracy, any act done by any of them pursuant to such agreement is held as act of each of them and they are jointly responsible thereof. This means that everything said, written or done by any of the conspirators in execution or furtherance of the common purpose is deemed to have been said, done, or written by each of them. Such an unlawful agreement need not be formal or express, but may be CBI Vs Sangeeta Shah etc 37 of 39 CC 45/2011 inherent in and inferred from the circumstances, acts and conduct of the conspirators. Since a conspiracy is hatched in private or in secrecy, it is rarely possible to establish a conspiracy by direct evidence. Therefore, on most of the occasions, it has to be inferred from the circumstances and the conduct of the accused persons. It is also not necessary that all conspirators should agree to the common purpose at the same moment. Some may join with other conspirators at any time before the consummation of the intended objective and even in such a situation, they all are equally responsible. What part each conspirator is to play may not be known to everyone or the fact as to when a conspirator joined the conspiracy and when he left. It is sufficient if it is shown that the illegal act was committed and the accused had some role in completion of illegal act. What is to be seen is whether there was a common design and if there was a common design, did the accused perform any part in the common design or omitted to perform his duties so that common design was accomplished.
60 In the present case, in view of my foregoing discussion, I am of the considered opinion that there existed a criminal conspiracy amongst all accused along with Anil Shah the object of which was to cheat bank. Forged bills and invoices were prepared. Bogus companies were floated. Pecuniary advantage was showered on A9 and A10 and they abused their official position to assist their co- accused. The loss to the bank is mammoth.
61 Keeping in mind the material on record, documents and
CBI Vs Sangeeta Shah etc 38 of 39
CC 45/2011
statements of witnesses and the legal scenario, I am of the view that all accused persons are liable to be charged for offences u/s 120 B IPC r/w 420, 468,471 IPC r/w 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act. A9 and A10 would also liable to be charged for substantive offences u/s 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act. Similarly, remaining accused would also face trial for substantive offences u/s 420, 468,471 IPC.
62 Let charges be framed accordingly.
Announced in the open MANOJ JAIN
On 10.04.2012 Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI)
South District, Saket Courts,
New Delhi
CBI Vs Sangeeta Shah etc 39 of 39
CC 45/2011