Punjab-Haryana High Court
S.C.Girotra vs State (Cbi) Punjab on 8 March, 2011
Author: Jora Singh
Bench: Jora Singh
Crl.Appeal No. 628-SB of 1994 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Crl.Appeal No.628-SB of 1994
Date of decision: 8.3.2011
S.C.Girotra
... Appellant
Versus
State (CBI) Punjab
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH.
Present: Mr.Pankaj Bhardwaj, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr.Ajay Kaushik, Advocate,
for CBI.
...
JORA SINGH, J.
This criminal appeal was preferred by S.C.Girotra to challenge the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.11.1994 passed by Special Judge, CBI, Punjab, Patiala, in CC No. 46/T/87/20.11.1989, arising out of RC No. 6/85 under Sections 120-B/420/468/471 IPC and under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act (for short, `the Act'), SPE, Chandigarh.
By the said judgment, he was convicted Section 5(2) of the Act and Section 420 IPC, and was sentenced to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for one month under Section 5(2) of the Act, and to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for one month under Section 420 IPC. However, both the Crl.Appeal No. 628-SB of 1994 2 sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Co-accused Naresh Inder Singh Chauhan was acquitted of the charge levelled against him. Against acquittal, no appeal by the State.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that in the year 1983-84, S.C.Girotra was Branch Manager of United Commercial Bank, Naya Gaon. On 16.3.1983, he had sanctioned term loan of Rs.25,000/- in the name of P.K.Khanna of M/s Paul Industries, 114, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh. Payment was made vide Draft No. 1/83/895482 dated 16.3.1983 issued in favour of M/s Naveen Engineering and Chemical Industries, drawn on B.O. United Commercial Bank, Model Town, New Delhi. In fact, there was no person of the name of P.K.Khanna shown as Proprietor of M/s Paul Industries, 114, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh. Loan was sanctioned in the name of fictitious person. In Plot No.114, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh, M/s Shivalik Rubber Industries was in existence. N.S.Chauhan, brother-in-law of S.C. Girotra, was the Proprietor of above said firm. Accused accepted blank application for loan, promissory note, D.P.Note and other security documents, alleged to be signed by P.K.Khanna. Guarantee deed was also blank. There was no address of the loanee on the documents. Ashok Mohan was shown as the guarantor. M/s Naveen Engineering and Chemical Industries received Rs.3500/- in cash in the account of M/s Paul Industries as advance and subsequently above said firm supplied machinery vide bill dated 18.3.1983 in the name of M/s Paul Industries, after receiving payment of Rs.25,000/- as per draft and also transferred Rs.10,000/- from the account of M/s Shivalik Rubber Industries. Rs.10,000/- was received by M/s Naveen Engineering and Chemical Industries from M/s Shivalik Rubber Industries. Crl.Appeal No. 628-SB of 1994 3 M/s Naveen Engineering and Chemical Industries, had also supplied material on 2.7.1982 being used by rubber industries vide Bill No. 8 and on 27.12.1982 vide Bill No.32 paid Rs.1820/- and Rs.1924/-, respectively, to M/s Shivalik Rubber Industries. During investigation, it was found that loan of Rs.25,000/- was sanctioned in favour of M/s Paul Industries on 16.3.1983. Draft worth Rs.25,000/- dated 16.3.1983 was issued in the name of M/s Naveen Engineering and Chemical Industries. Amount of draft and Rs.3500/- in cash was received by M/s Naveen Engineering and Chemical Industries from M/s Paul Industries. M/s Shivalik Rubber Industries was functioning in Plot No.114, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh. N.S. Chauhan was the Proprietor of the above said firm. Rs.10,000/- was transferred from the account of M/s Shivalik Rubber Industries in the account of M/s Paul Industries and machinery was dispatched to M/s Paul Industries. N.S. Chauhan had also received spare parts from M/s Naveen Engineering and Chemical Industries but all the documents were lying blank in the bank. Borrower was not known to Ashok Mohan. Ashok Mohan had signed blank papers on the request of the accused. Loan amount with interest was repaid to the bank on 31.7.1984 and 24.1.1985. Rupinder Singh, from whom some machinery was alleged to have been purchased by M/s Shivalik Rubber Industries, produced some documents relating to the purchases of machinery by M/s Paul Industries. Loan file of M/s Paul Industries was destroyed. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in Court.
Accused was charged under Sections 120-B/420/468/471 IPC and under Section 5(2) of the Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Crl.Appeal No. 628-SB of 1994 4
In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined number of witnesses.
PW1 J.R.Sharma, Manager Credit, UCO Bank, Chandigarh, stated that in the month of June, 1985, specimen signatures/writing of Ashok Mohan was taken by Inspector, CBI, in his presence. He had also handed over original file of M/s Shivalik Rubber Industries to Inspector, CBI.
PW2 R.K.Seth, Chief Cashier, UCO Bank, Naya Gaon, stated that he was Chief Cashier of UCO Bank, Naya Gaon, since December, 1983. On 1.7.1985, he produced pay in slips (Ex.PW2/1 and Ex.PW2/2) to Inspector, CBI.
PW3 Ravi Parkash, Officer, UCO Bank, stated that in the month of February, 1986, he was Assistant Manager, UCO Bank, Naya Gaon. Accused was the Manager. After S.C.Girotra, S.P. Lomesh joined as Manager on 19.2.1986. Specimen signatures/writing of accused were obtained by Inspector, CBI.
PW4 Kewal Singh stated that on 24.2.1986, specimen signatures/writing of N.S. Chauhan were obtained by Inspector, CBI, in his presence.
PW5 Som Nath, Economic Investigator, stated that he was posted in the office of General Manager, District Industries Centre, Chandigarh. Industrial Plot No.114, Phase-II, Industrial Area, Chandigarh, was allotted to Gurdev Singh, Proprietor of S.D.G. Industries. No industry by the name of Paul Industries was ever registered with the Industries Department in the year 1983 or after that. There were only two industries functioning in Industrial Plot No.114, i.e., S.D.G. Industries, and M/s Crl.Appeal No. 628-SB of 1994 5 Shivalik Rubber Industries. N.S.Chauhan was the proprietor of M/s Shivalik Rubber Industries, and Gurdev Singh was the proprietor of S.D.G. Industries. Letter (Ex.PW5/A) dated 22.11.1985 was handed over to the IO.
PW6 Gurdev Singh stated that he was sole proprietor of S.D.G. Industries and was carrying on business in Plot No.114, Phase-II, Industrial Area, Chandigarh. He was the owner of the plot. Back portion of the plot was let out to M/s Shivalik Rubber Industries in the year 1980. Raj Pal and Jawala Parshad were the partners of above said industry. N.S. Chauhan had paid Rs.50,000/- as earnest money for the purchase of plot but plot could not be sold because full payment was not arranged. Advance money was adjusted towards future rent. No part of Plot No.114 was let out to M/s Paul Industries. Copy of lease deed was handed over to Inspector, CBI, and the same was taken into police possession vide separate memo attested by him.
PW7 Raj Pal stated that he was working with M/s Shivalik Traders. He was partner in M/s Shivalik Rubber Industries. His wife was the sole proprietor of M/s Shivalik Traders. In M/s Shivalik Rubber Industries, second partner was Jawala Parshad. Said firm was dissolved and after that, N.S. Chauhan was carrying on business in the name and style of M/s Shivalik Rubber Industries. He had no dealing with M/s Naveen Engineering and Chemical Industries. Mrs. Kanta was also partner in M/s Shivalik Rubber Industries. Jawala Parshad and Kanta were the sleeping partners.
PW8 Sat Parkash Lomesh stated that he was Branch Manager of UCO Bank, Naya Gaon. Photocopies of record were produced before Crl.Appeal No. 628-SB of 1994 6 CBI. Record was taken into police possession. Photocopies are Ex.PW8/1 to Ex.PW8/11. Ex.PW8/12 was also taken into police possession signed by him. Ex.PW8/13 is the copy of loan amount of M/s Paul Industries. Documents (Ex.PW8/14 to Ex.PW8/28) were also taken into police possession. Earlier the accused was Branch Manager of UCO Bank, Naya Gaon, and after him, he joined as Branch Manager. Account of M/s Paul Industries was opened on 14.3.1983. Draft (Ex.PW8/4) was issued in favour of M/s Naveen Engineering and Chemical Industries. Draft was issued by B.V.Bhatia. Rs.25,000/- was debited in the account of M/s Paul Industries on 16.3.1983. Original file of M/s Paul Industries was not available in the bank. Certificate (Ex.PW8/12) was issued.
PW9 Rajinder Pal stated that cheque (Ex.PW8/23) was previously a crossed cheque and was to be deposited in the account of the payee but the accused cancelled the crossing of cheque and made a bearer cheque. Payment was made to Rupinder Singh, Proprietor of the payee. Second cheque was in the name of M/s Shivalik Rubber Industries. B.B.Bhatia had cancelled crossing of the cheque and payment was credited in the name of the payee.
PW10 B.B.Bhatia stated that he was Assistant Manager of UCO Bank, Naya Gaon, from 1981 to 1985. Accused was Manager in the month of March, 1984. N.S. Chauhan, Proprietor of M/s Shivalik Rubber Industries, was the real brother-in-law of the accused. Jawala Parshad, Raj Pal and Kanta were the other partners of M/s Shivalik Rubber Industries. Later on, this firm was taken over by Rupindera Stone Crusher. Rupinder Singh was enjoying cash credit limit and term loan in the name of M/s Rupindera Stone Crusher. M/s Shivalik Rubber Industries was taken over Crl.Appeal No. 628-SB of 1994 7 by N.S. Chauhan from Rupindera Stone Crusher.
PW11 Subhash Dey stated that he had compared disputed signatures on different documents with specimen signatures. Disputed signatures of N.C. Chauhan, S.C. Girotra and Rupinder Singh were found tallying with their specimen signatures.
PW12 Rupinder Singh Grewal stated that he was proprietor of M/s Rupindera Stone Crusher. Loan was obtained for the car and stone crusher. He had given his signatures on blank forms. M/s Shivalik Rubber Industries was owned by Jawala Parshad, Raj Pal and Kanta. He had purchased share of Jawala Parshad through S.C.Girotra. Documetns were executed to purchase the share. Then S.C.Girotra approached him by saying that his brother-in-law N.S.Chauhan wanted to purchase the share. Then he had sold his share to N.S. Chauhan. Firm had taken loan.
PW13 Ashok Mohan Bansal stated that S.C.Girotra, Manager of UCO Bank, Naya Gaon, was known to him because he had account in the said bank. Guarantee deed (Ex.PW8/16) was signed by him at the instance of S.C.Girotra. Guarantee deed was blank when signed by him. While obtaining his signatures on the guarantee deed, Bank Manager told that guarantee deed is qua loan of Rs.25,000/-. He had not met the loanee. After transfer of the accused, Rs.25,000/- was paid to him by the accused and payment was deposited in the bank vide pay in slip (Ex.PW2/1). Again accused had paid Rs.10,913/- to him and payment was deposited by him as per pay in slip (Ex.PW2/2), which bears his signatures.
PW14 DSP Makhan Singh is the Investigating Officer.
After close of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied all the Crl.Appeal No. 628-SB of 1994 8 prosecution allegations and pleaded to be innocent.
Defence version of the accused was that he was falsely implicated in this case.
Opportunity was given to lead evidence but no defence was led.
After hearing learned PP for the State, learned defence counsel for the appellant and from the perusal of evidence on the file, appellant was convicted and sentenced as stated aforesaid.
I have heard learned defence counsel for the appellant, learned State counsel and have gone through the evidence on the file.
Learned defence counsel for the appellant argued that in the year 1983-84, appellant was the Manager of UCO Bank, Naya Goan. Loan of Rs.25,000/- was sanctioned on 16.3.1983 in favour of M/s Paul Industries. Draft dated 16.3.1983 worth Rs.25,000/- was issued in the name of M/s Naveen Engineering and Chemical Industries. Guarantee deed was executed by PW13 Ashok Mohan. Rs.25,000/- was deposited on 31.7.1984 and remaining payment as interest was deposited on 24.1.1985. Pay in slips were filled by the guarantor. After transfer of the appellant, charge was handed over to S.P.Lomesh. When S.P.Lomesh was the Manager of the Bank, then Rs.25,000/- was deposited on 31.7.1984 but after deposit of loan amount with interest, present FIR was registered on the allegations that loan was sanctioned in the name of fake person. If loan was sanctioned in the name of fake person, then before registration of FIR, there was no idea to deposit loan amount with interest. After payment was made to Ashok Mohan, to deposit in the bank, then there was no idea to fill pay in slips (Ex.PW2/1 and Ex.PW2/2). According to the story, machinery Crl.Appeal No. 628-SB of 1994 9 was sent by M/s Naveen Engineering and Chemical Industries to M/s Paul Industries but no employee of M/s Naveen Engineering and Chemical Industries appeared with record that machinery was not booked and on receipt of payment, machinery was not sent to M/s Paul Industries. Gurdev Singh is the owner of Industrial Plot No.114, Phase-II, Industrial Area, Chandigarh. Gurdev Singh while appearing as PW6, then stated that back portion of the plot was let out to M/s Shivalik Rubber Industries. Raj Pal and Jawala Parshad were the partners of the above said firm. Plot was not let out to M/s Paul Industries but admitted that Rupinder Singh was carrying on business in the said plot and he worked under the name of M/s Paul Industries. PW7 Raj Pal in cross-examination stated that he cannot tell whether M/s Shivalik Rubber Industries was purchased by Rupinder Singh and he was paying rent to Gurdev Singh. M/s Shivalik Rubber Industries was never registered. He cannot tell whether M/s Paul Industries was carrying on business in Plot No.114 and P.K.Khanna was the proprietor. Loan cases are received through Industries Department. Loan cases are processed by the Industries Department, then recommended for sanction by the Manager. S.P.Lomesh had succeeded the appellant as Manager of UCO Bank, Naya Gaon. AS PW8, he stated that draft was issued by B.B.Bhatia in favour of M/s Naveen Engineering and Chemical Industries. Account of M/s Paul Industries was opened on 14.3.1983. All documents were produced before Inspector, CBI, and were taken into police possession. Loan applications of unemployed educated youths are entertained by the Industries Department. After the applications are processed by the Industries Department, then applications are recommended to the bank for sanction of loan. In the bank, applications are scrutinized by the Advance Crl.Appeal No. 628-SB of 1994 10 Officer or Assistant Manager. He cannot say who had sanctioned the loan. Loan file was handed over to him by the appellant on 15.5.1984.
PW10 B.B.Bhatia, Assistant Manager, stated that debit voucher was signed by the appellant. He had signed this voucher. Entry was made in DD Register on 16.3.1983. Entry was signed by him. Debit voucher was prepared by the Clerk and was signed by him and the appellant. After transfer of the appellant, documents were handed over to S.P.Lomesh. Ex.PW6/A is the charge report. Pay in slips (Ex.PW2/1 and Ex.PW2/2) were filled by Ashok Mohan. Payment was also deposited by Ashok Mohan. At the time of execution of documents, loanee and guarantor were present. Guarantee deed was executed by Ashok Mohan. Ashok Mohan was present at the time of disbursement of loan. Guarantee deed was executed in his presence.
Ashok Mohan as PW13 stated that he was the guarantor but he signed blank guarantee deed. Ashok Mohan had account in the bank. There was no idea to sign blank guarantee deed. If the loan was sanctioned by the appellant and if the loanee was a fake person, then there was no idea to deposit payment by the guarantor. Ashok Mohan was challaned but later on, he was discharged. To save himself, Ashok Mohan wrongly stated that payment was made by the appellant and after receipt of payment, by filling pay in slips, payment was deposited in the bank. IO admitted that he came to know about the missing file on 11.6.1985 for the first time. Guarantor deposited payments on 31.7.1984 and 24.1.1985. Appellant had handed over charge to S.P.Lomesh on 15.5.1984. Argued that first of all, no evidence that loanee was a fake person. No record from M/s Naveen Engineering and Chemical Industries that machinery was not sent against Crl.Appeal No. 628-SB of 1994 11 payment. Rupinder Singh was carrying on business in the name and style of M/s Paul Industries on the back side of Industrial Plot No.114, Phase-II, Industrial Area, Chandigarh. So, nothing to presume that M/s Paul Industries was not in existence. If the loan was advanced to a fake person, then there was no idea to deposit payment before registration of the FIR. When charge was handed over by the appellant to S.P.Lomesh on 15.5.1984, then original documents were in the custody of S.P.Lomesh, but original documents were not produced. S.P.Lomesh was also in trouble. Father-in-law of the appellant was the DSP in CBI. S.P.Lomesh was pressurizing the appellant to request his father-in-law to help him. When appellant failed to oblige him, then S.P.Lomesh felt offended and stated that loan was sanctioned in the name of fake person. Except one document signed by the appellant, no other document was in the hand of the appellant. After the loan case is processed by the lower employee, then file is put up before the Manager for sanction. After sanction by the Manager, then file is forwarded to the Divisional Manager. Only after the sanction is accorded by the Divisional Manager, the loan is sanctioned. When appellant was not to get any pecuniary benefit, then there was no reason to sanction loan in favour of a fake firm, which was not in existence.
Learned counsel for the CBI argued that appellant was the Manager at the relevant time. Appellant had sanctioned loan in the name of P.K.Khanna, Proprietor of M/s Paul Industries. Payment was by way of draft dated 16.3.1983 to M/s Naveen Engineering and Chemical Industries. Loan documents were blank. On the request made the appellant, Ashok Mohan had signed guarantee deed. M/s Naveen Engineering and Chemical Industries received Rs.3500/- in cash for supplying material to M/s Paul Crl.Appeal No. 628-SB of 1994 12 Industries. Rs.10,000/- was transferred from the account of M/s Shivalik Rubber Industries and Rs.10,000/- was shown as received as advance by M/s Naveen Engineering and Chemical Industries. When appellant came to know that secretly investigation was going on regarding sanction of loan, then payment was made to the guarantor. Guarantor had deposited payment on two dates. If the loanee was a genuine person, then he could easily be produced in defence.
According to the story, in the year 1983-84, appellant was serving as Manager of UCO Bank, Naya Gaon. On 16.3.1983, loan of Rs.25,000/- was sanctioned in the name of P.K.Khanna, Proprietor of M/s Paul Industries and payment of Rs.25,000/- was by way of draft dated 16.3.1983 issued in favour of M/s Naveen Engineering and Chemical Industries. Loan was sanctioned in favour of fake firm. M/s Paul Industries was not in existence, whereas defence version of the appellant was that he was falsely implicated. Now the question is whether loan was sanctioned in favour of a fake firm.
Industrial Plot No.114, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh, was allotted to Gurdev Singh, Proprietor of S.D.G. Industries. This fact is clear from the statement of PW5 Som Nath. PW5 Som Nath stated that in Industrial Plot No.114, two industries were carrying on business. One was S.D.G. Industries and second was M/s Shivalik Rubber Industries.
Gurdev Singh, owner of Plot No.114, appeared as PW6 and stated that he was Proprietor of S.D.G. Industries. Back portion of the plot was let out to M/s Shivalik Rubber Industries. Jawala Parshad and Raj Pal were partners of M/s Shivalik Rubber Industries. No portion of the plot was let out to M/s Paul Industries but he did not state a word that M/s Paul Crl.Appeal No. 628-SB of 1994 13 Industries never functioned. In cross-examination, he admtited that Rupinder Singh was carrying on business in Plot No.114. Lastly admitted that Rupinder Singh was working under the name and style of M/s Paul Industries.
PW7 Raj Pal stated that his wife was the Proprietor of M/s Shivalik Traders. M/s Shivalik Traders was carrying on business at a distance of 4 km from M/s Shivalik Rubber Industries. She was the partner in M/s Shivalik Rubber Industries. Jawala Parshad was the second partner. After he had left the above said firm, then N.S. Chauhan was carrying on business in the name and style of M/s Shivalik Rubber Industries. M/s Shivalik Rubber Industries was not registered at any stage. He cannot say whether M/s Shivalik Rubber Industries was sold to Rupinder Singh and he was paying rent to Gurdev Singh. He cannot tell whether M/s Paul Industries was carrying on business in Plot No.114, Industrial Area Phase- II, Chandigarh, and P.K.Khanna was the Proprietor of the firm. Rupinder Singh as PW12 stated that he was the Proprietor of Rupindra Stone Crusher. He had taken loan from the bank by signing blank papers. M/s Shivalik Rubber Industries was owned by Jawala Parshad, Raj Pal and Kanta. He had purchased the share of Jawala Parshad but no document was executed regarding purchase of share. Share was sold to N.S. Chauhan. P.K.Khanna, Proprietor of M/s Paul Industries, was not known to him. So, one thing is clear from the statements of Som Nath, Gurdev Singh, Raj Pal and Rupinder Singh that back portion of Plot No.114, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh, was let out to M/s Shivalik Rubber Industries. Jawala Parshad, Raj Pal and Kanta were the partners. Share of Jawala Parshad was purchased by Rupinder Singh. Rupinder Singh was carrying on business in Crl.Appeal No. 628-SB of 1994 14 Plot No.114, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh, in name of M/s Paul Industries.
Admittedly, appellant was the Manager of UCO Bank, Naya Gaon, on 16.3.1983 but the question is whether loan was sanctioned by him. PW7 Raj Pal in cross-examination stated that loan cases are received from the Industries Department. Loan cases are processed by the Industries Department, then recommended for sanction by the Manager. S.P.Lomesh joined as Manager of UCO Bank, Naya Gaon, after the appellant. S.P.Lomesh in cross-examination also admitted that loan applications of unemployed educated youths are entertained and processed by the Industries Department, then cases are recommended to the bank for sanction. In the bank, loan cases are processed by the Advance Officer or Assistant Manager. PW3 Ravi Parkash, employee of the bank, also stated that loan applications are sanctioned by Divisional Manager. File is put up before the Divisional Manager, then order is to be passed. PW2 R.K.Seth, Chief Cashier, also admitted that B.B.Bhatia was Assistant Manager. He was dealing with the loan cases. Loan cases were put up before the Manager, i.e., the appellant. Then after sanction by the Manager, file is put up before the Divisional Manager for sanction. Before that, Manager cannot disburse the amount. B.B.Bhatia while appearing as PW10, then stated that Ashok Mohan was the guarantor. Entry of the draft was made in DD Register on 16.3.1983. Entry was signed by him. Debit voucher was prepared by the Clerk and was signed by him and the appellant. Except one document, i.e., draft, no other document is in the hand of the appellant. So, prosecution cannot argue that after getting blank documents, loan was sanctioned by the appellant because when the loan application is moved, Crl.Appeal No. 628-SB of 1994 15 then the same is processed at different levels. Firstly, loan case is dealt with by the Industries Department, then on the recommendation of the Industries Department, loan case is sent to the bank for sanction. In the bank, loan case is processed by the Advance Officer or Assistant Manager. After sanction, loan file is put up before Divisional Manager. As per sanction by the Divisional Manager, then payment is made through draft. In the present case, loan documents were executed. Ashok Mohan had executed guarantee deed (Ex.PW8/16), in the presence of B.B.Bhatia. B.B.Bhatia as PW10 admitted that debit voucher was signed by the appellant. He had sent this debit voucher. Entry was made in DD issue register on 16.3.1983, signed by him. Ashok Mohan, Guarantor, was present at the time of disbursement of loan in his presence. Pay in slips (Ex.PW2/1 and Ex.PW2/2) were filled by Ashok Mohan. That means, appellant alone was not competent to sanction loan.
As discussed earlier, loan was sanctioned on 16.3.1983. Payment was made through draft in favour of M/s Naveen Engineering and Chemical Industries but no employee of above said firm appeared on behalf of prosecution to state that payment was not received or machinery was not sent to M/s Paul Industries. Guarantee deed was executed by Ashok Mohan. Ashok Mohan while appearing in Court, then stated that he was Guarantor but stated that he had signed blank guarantee deed, but statement of Ashok Mohan is not correct one. Appellant was not to get anything if loan is sanctioned in favour of M/s Paul Industries because payment was through draft in favour of M/s Naveen Engineering and Chemical Industries. Rs.25,000/- was deposited on 31.7.1984 and remaining payment, i.e., interest on 24.1.1985. Pay in slips are in the hand of Crl.Appeal No. 628-SB of 1994 16 guarantor. Payment was deposited by the guarantor. Allegation of the guarantor is that payment was made by the appellant and after receipt of payment from the appellant, payment was deposited in the bank, but this part of the statement of the guarantor is not correct one because appellant had no concern with M/s Paul Industries. Nothing was purchased by the appellant from the above said firm. Guarantor was not illiterate. If loanee was not known to the guarantor, then there was no idea to execute guarantee deed. After executing guarantee deed or documents, it is very easy to state that documents were blank. Guarantor or loanee is to sign blank documents if they were to get any benefit. If the loan was sanctioned in the name of fake firm, then there was no idea to deposit payment on 31.7.1984 and 24.1.1985 by filling pay in slips.
After the transfer of the appellant, charge was handed over to S.P.Lomesh on 15.5.1984. Ex.PW6/E is the copy of charge report. While handing over charge, loan documents were in the custody of S.P.Lomesh. If loan file of M/s Paul Industries was not handed over to S.P.Lomesh while handing over charge on 15.5.1984, then there was no idea to sing the charge report by S.P.Lomesh, or by signing charge report, a note could easily be given that loan file of M/s Paul Industries is not given in charge. After the charge was handed over to S.P.Lomesh on 15.5.1984, then Rs.25,000/- was deposited on 31.7.1984 and remaining payment on 24.1.1985. When appellant was not the Manager of UCO Bank, Naya Gaon, at the time of deposit of payment and there was no case against the appellant, then there was no idea to firstly pay Rs.25,000/- to the guarantor on 31.7.1984 with a request to deposit the same and remaining payment on 24.1.1984 with the same request to deposit the payment in the bank. Guarantor could easily Crl.Appeal No. 628-SB of 1994 17 request the appellant to deposit the payment because payment can be deposited by any one in the account of loanee.
S.P.Lomesh in cross-examination admitted that loan files were handed over to him on 15.5.1984. IO stated that for the first time, he came to know about the missing file on 11.6.1985. Appellant had left the charge on 15.5.1984. Record was handed over to S.P.Lomesh. After the charge was handed over to S.P.Lomesh, then he was responsible for the missing record. Without record, nothing to presume that all the documents were blank. Before deposit of loan amount with interest, no case was registered against the appellant. So, at the time of deposit of payment, appellant cannot presume that in future, case is to be registered against him and to avoid criminal liability, deposit payment in the bank through guarantor. After deposit of entire payment with interest, FIR got registered simply on the allegation that loan was sanctioned in favour of a fake firm. S.P.Lomesh in examination-in-chief stated that loan was sanctioned by the appellant but admitted that draft was issued by B.B.Bhatia in favour of M/s Naveen Engineering and Chemical Industries. S.P.Lomesh admitted that D.R. Chauhan was the father-in-law of the appellant. He was serving as DSP in CBI. Suggestion was given to S.P.Lomesh that he had received summons from CBI and he had contacted D.R.Chauhan, father-in-law of the appellant. That means, secret enquiry was being conducted by CBI against S.P.Lomesh and to protect him, he had contacted father-in-law of appellant through appellant but when appellant refused to oblige S.P.Lomesh, then S.P.Lomesh stated that loan file of M/s Paul Industries was missing. When loan file of M/s Paul Industries was handed over to S.P.Lomesh, then he was to produce the same before the CBI. In the absence of original Crl.Appeal No. 628-SB of 1994 18 documents, it is very easy to say orally that loan was sanctioned in the name of fake firm.
Ashok Mohan was also challaned in the present case but later on, he was discharged. To avoid action, Ashok Mohan stated that he had signed blank guarantee deed at the instance of appellant and later on, payment was made by the appellant and that payment was deposited with the bank through pay in slips (Ex.PW2/1 and Ex.PW2/2).
Back portion of Industrial Plot No.114, Industrial Area, Phase- II, Chandigarh, owned by Gurdev Singh, was let out to M/s Shivalik Rubber Industries. Jawala Parshad was one of the partners in the said firm but share of Jawala Parshad was purchased by Rupinder Singh. Rupinder Singh was carrying on business in plot No.114 in the name and style of M/s Paul Industries and this fact was admitted by Gurdev Singh, owner of Plot No.114, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh. Raj Pal was also one of the partners in M/s Shivalik Rubber Industries but he stated that he cannot tell whether M/s Paul Industries was carrying on business in Plot No.114, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh, or not and whether P.K.Khanna was the proprietor of M/s Paul Industries. No case of the prosecution that only the registered firm can take loan. Raj Pal, partner of M/s Shivalik Rubber Industries, stated that this industry was never registered but M/s Shivalik Rubber Industries had taken loan from the bank. That means, M/s Paul Industries was not registered one. Rupinder Singh was carrying on business in the name of M/s Paul Industries. So, M/s Paul Industries was not fake firm. If firm was fake, then there was no idea to deposit payment on different dates by the guarantor. No pecuniary gain to the appellant or loss to the bank.
Crl.Appeal No. 628-SB of 1994 19
In view of all discussed above, I am of the opinion that evidence on the file was not rightly scrutinized by the trial Court. Impugned judgment suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same set aside. Appellant is acquitted of the charge levelled against him.
Appeal is accordingly allowed.
8.3.2011 ( JORA SINGH ) pk JUDGE