Delhi District Court
Cbi vs . Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. on 17 December, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH SYAL, SPECIAL JUDGE, (PC ACT)
& (CBI)-03, SOUTH WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA, NEW DELHI
CBI Case No. 19/12
RC No. SI8 2000 E 0003
In re:
Central Bureau of Investigation
Vs.
1. Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd.,
11, Hauz Khas Village,
New Delhi.
Now at :-
253, Shahpur Jat,
Panchsheel Shopping Complex,
New Delhi.
(Represented by accused No. 2, Nandita Bakshi)
2. Nandita Bakshi,
W/o Sh. Rajeev Bakshi,
R/o C-349, Defence Colony,
New Delhi - 110024.
3. Vivek Sood,
S/o Late Sh. Lalit Krishan Sood,
R/o Flat No. 269, Sector - A,
Pocket -C, Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi - 110070.
4. Smt. Sushila Kumari,
W/o Sh. R.N. Nangia,
R/o 23/262, Trilok Puri,
CBI Case No. 19/12 17-12-2014 1 of 70
CBI Vs. Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Delhi.
(Proceedings abated)
5. Shafique-Ur-Rehman,
S/o Late Sh. Fazlur Rehman Khan,
R/o Flat No. 7, Block No. F,
Nizamuddin West,
New Delhi - 110013.
6. G.R. Meena,
S/o Sh. Ram Sahai Meena,
R/o 48, Jamuna Puri Colony,
Murli Pura Scheme,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
Date of Institution of Case : 14-12-2001
Date on which Judgment was reserved : 13-12-2014
Date on which Judgment was delivered : 17-12-2014
JUDGMENT
Facts 1.1 This case was registered on 31-08-2000 on source information alleging that accused No. 2, Nandita Bakshi and accused No. 3, Vivek Sood, Directors of Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., 11 Hauz Khas Village, New Delhi, now situated at 253, Shahpur Jat, Opp. Panchsheel Shopping Complex, New Delhi entered into a criminal conspiracy with accused No. 4, Smt. Sushila Kumari, accused No. 5, Shafique-Ur-Rehman and accused No. 6, Govind CBI Case No. 19/12 17-12-2014 2 of 70 CBI Vs. Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Ram Meena, during the year 1997-98, to cheat State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as SBBJ), Nehru Place Branch, New Delhi. In pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy, accused No. 2, Nandita Bakshi and accused No. 3, Vivek Sood fraudulently and dishonestly obtained various credit facilities to the tune of Rs 170 lacs on the basis of fake/forged documents including financial statements, asset and liability statements and sale deed of property on which equitable mortgage was created through a fictitious guarantor, accused No. 4, Smt. Sushila Kumari. An amount of Rs. 1.45 crores was outstanding against the accused at the time of registration of this case.
1.2 Investigation revealed that accused No. 1, Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. was incorporated on 28-04-1998. Accused No. 2, Nandita Bakshi and accused No. 3, Vivek Sood are the promoter shareholders/Directors of the company. Accused No. 2, Nandita Bakshi, vide her application dated 18-02-1998 applied for credit facilities i.e. Export Packing Credit (herein after referred to as EPC) (Hyp) of Rs. 60 lacs, Foreign Bill Purchase (herein after referred to as FBP)/Foreign Bill Discounting (herein after referred to as FBD) (Docy) of Rs. 80 lacs, Letter of Credit (herein after referred to as LC) of Rs. 30 lacs, overall ceiling on fund base of Rs. 95 lacs and Bank guarantee of Rs. 10 lacs to SBBJ, Nehru Place Branch, New Delhi along with attested/certified photocopies of financial statements, assets and liability statements, balance sheet, certified by one Sh Ashok Goel of M/s Goel & Jolly, Chartered Accountants, sale deed of property No. M-289, G.K., Part-II, New Delhi owned by one Smt Surjeet Kaur Gill w/o Dr. T.S. Gill R/o Kanganwal, Punjab and its CBI Case No. 19/12 17-12-2014 3 of 70 CBI Vs. Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
valuation report dated 19-05-1998 by Sh V.P. Aneja, Govt. approved Valuer. In pursuance of the said conspiracy, accused No. 6, G.R. Meena, while working as Manager (C&I), SBBJ, Nehru Place Branch, New Delhi accepted the above documents and processed and recommended the proposal for sanction of the said credit facilities without verifying the genuineness of the documents and without directly getting the valuation of the said property done. Further, he unauthorizedly accepted the legal search report of Sh Praveen Kalra, Advocate in respect of the above property. The proposal was sanctioned by SBBJ, Zonal Office. It was conveyed by Sh Ranjeet Sinha, Chief Manager, Advances vide letter dated 04-07-1998. The sanction was conveyed to the party on 07-07-98 by accused No. 6, Sh G.R. Meena.
1.3 Accused No. 2, Nandita Bakshi and accused No. 3, Vivek Sood, being directors of Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. and accused No. 4, Smt. Sushila Kumari W/o Sh. R.L. Nangia, executed/signed the loan documents in presence of accused No. 6, G.R. Meena on 14-07-1998. Accused No. 4, Smt. Sushila Kumari impersonated as Smt. Surjeet Kaur W/o Dr. T.S. Gill, the actual owner of the property in question. She also affixed her photograph on the bank documents along with accused No. 2, Nandita Bakshi and accused No. 3, Vivek Sood. They have also submitted forged sale deed dated 28-01-1974 of the said property which was accepted by accused No. 6, G.R. Meena without verifying the credentials of the guarantor and the genuineness of the documents.
1.4 Further, on the request of the party, the said limit was enhanced CBI Case No. 19/12 17-12-2014 4 of 70 CBI Vs. Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
on 20-08-1998, on the recommendation of accused No. 6, G.R. Meena, by Zonal Office, SBBJ, Nehru Place Branch, New Delhi as EPC (HYP) of Rs.85 lacs, FBP/FBD (Docy) of Rs. 80 lacs, LC DA/DP of Rs. 45 lacs and ceiling on fund base of Rs. 120 lacs. Loan documents were executed by accused No. 2, Nandita Bakshi, accused No. 3, Vivek Sood and the impostor, accused No. 4, Smt. Sushila Kumari in presence of accused No. 6, G.R. Meena. Accordingly, accused No. 2, Nandita Bakshi and accused No. 3, Vivek Sood opened Current Account No. 734 and EPC Account No. 136 on 14-07-1998 under the authority of accused No. 6, G.R. Meena.
1.5 It was revealed that neither M/s Goel & Jolly, Chartered Accountants were registered with the Institute of Chartered Accountant, New Delhi on the given address i.e. 4965, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, nor any person named Ashok Goel was ever its partner/employee. The valuation of the property No. M-289, G.K. Part-II, New Delhi was got done by Sh. V.P. Aneja, a Govt. Approved Valuer, through his engineer Mr. Anuj Beotra, at the behest of accused No. 5, Shafique-Ur-Rehman, on the basis of photocopy of property documents supplied to him by accused No. 5, Shafique-Ur-Rehman. The report was submitted for general reason and not for specific purpose. Accused No. 6, G.R. Meena has unauthorizedly obtained legal search report of the said property from Mr. Praveen Kalra, Advocate, in which it is mentioned that the property in question is free from all encumbrances. However, no such document was being maintained in the office of Sub- Registrar-III, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi to show whether the said property was mortgaged with any authority or not. Neither any official letter for getting legal CBI Case No. 19/12 17-12-2014 5 of 70 CBI Vs. Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
search report from Sh. Praveen Kalra nor any letter to Sh. V.P. Aneja, Govt. Approved Valuer for getting valuation report was issued from the bank by accused No.6, G.R. Meena. These reports were received and accepted by him unauthorizedly.
1.6 Accused No. 5, Shafique-Ur-Rehman arranged presence of accused No. 4, Mrs. Sushila Kumari, who impersonated as Mrs. Surjeet Kaur Gill, actual owner of the property in question. She had also executed the bank documents in the name of Smt. Surjeet Kaur Gill. For this, accused No. 5, Shafique-Ur-Rehman had received Rs. 4.89 lacs through bank transaction from accused No. 2, Nandita Bakshi in his account at PNB, Nizamuddin Branch, New Delhi. Investigation revealed that an amount of Rs. 29,46,547/- was siphoned off by Mrs. Nandita Bakshi and Mr. Vivek Sood by opening LCs in favour of their non-existent sister concerns M/s SKV Exports and Trading Co., New Delhi by discounting the LCs through M/s Kotak Mahindra Finance Pvt. Ltd./ Sakura Bank, New Delhi without any genuine trade transaction. Similarly, an amount of Rs. 27,20,463/- was also outstanding against purchase of foreign bill of their sister concerns M/s Itinerant Jewellers Pt., Singapore.
1.7 Thus, accused No. 2, Nandita Bakshi and accused No. 3, Vivek Sood, being directors of accused No. 1, Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, in pursuance of a criminal conspiracy with accused No. 4, Smt. Sushila Kumari, accused No. 5, Shafique-Ur-Rehman and accused No. 6, G.R. Meena have caused wrongful loss to the bank of Rs. 1,44,32,220/-, plus interest, as on 01-11-2000, and corresponding wrongful gain to themselves.
CBI Case No. 19/12 17-12-2014 6 of 70 CBI Vs. Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
The bank has already filed civil suit for Rs. 1,68,95,171/- on 15-01-2001 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, New Delhi.
1.8 Sanction u/s 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (herein after referred to as PC Act) for prosecution of accused No. 6, G.R. Meena was obtained. On conclusion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed against accused No. 1, Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., accused No. 2, Nandita Bakshi, accused No. 3, Vivek Sood, accused No. 4, Smt. Sushila Kumari, accused No. 5, Shafique-Ur-Rehman and accused No. 6, G.R. Meena u/s 120 B r/w sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and section 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1)
(d) of PC Act and substantive offences under sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and section 471 IPC and section 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act.
2.1 Cognizance was taken and accused persons were summoned. On their appearance, copies in terms of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were supplied to the accused persons. Accused No. 1, Swati Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. is being represented by accused No. 2, Nandita Bakshi.
Charges 3.1 On 19-04-2003 and 26-04-2003, my Ld. Predecessor framed charges against the accused persons as under :-
a) against all the accused persons, u/s 120-B r/w sections 419/420/467/471 IPC and section 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act,
b) against accused No. 1, Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., accused No. 2, CBI Case No. 19/12 17-12-2014 7 of 70 CBI Vs. Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Nandita Bakshi and accused No. 3, Vivek Sood u/s 420 and 471 IPC,
c) against accused No. 6, G.R. Meena u/s 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act,
d) against accused No. 4, Sushila Kumari u/s 419, 467, 471 and 420 IPC.
The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial.
3.2 Admission/Denial of the documents was carried out on 06-09-2003.
3.3 During the trial, accused No. 4, Smt. Sushila Kumari expired and proceedings against her abated on 05-01-2013. Though proceedings against her abated and she is not before the Court, I am constrained to deal with the evidence, adduced by the prosecution against her also because of the charge of conspiracy and joint trial.
Prosecution Evidence 4.1 Prosecution has examined 34 witnesses. Nine witnesses are from SBBJ, namely PW 2 Sh. B.K. Bansal, Assistant Manager, SBBJ, Nehru Place, New Delhi, PW 10 Sh. R.S. Chauhan, Deputy Manager, SBBJ, Nehru Place, New Delhi, PW 12 Sh. K.N. Mishra Gopal, Chief Manager, SBBJ, Nehru Place, New Delhi, PW 16 Sh. K.R. Srikantan, Chief General Manager, SBBJ, Head Office Jaipur, PW 21 Sh. C.R. Dass, Manager, SBBJ, Zonal Office, Delhi , PW22 Sh. R.C. Banger, Clerk, SBBJ, Nehru Place, New Delhi, PW 25 Sh. B.D. Meena, Assistant Manager, SBBJ, Nehru Place, New Delhi, CBI Case No. 19/12 17-12-2014 8 of 70 CBI Vs. Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
PW 26 Sh. H.C. Grover, Chief Manager, SBBJ, Nehru Place, New Delhi and PW 27 Sh. A.K. Garg, Assistant Manager, SBBJ, Nehru Place, New Delhi.
4.2 Twelve witnesses are from other banks/Govt. Offices etc. namely PW1 Sh. G.C. Chopra, UDC, Office of Sub Registrar-III, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi, PW 6 Sh. A.K. Jain, Sub Registrar, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi, PW 31 Sh. B.D. Dhawan, Sub Registrar, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi, PW 7 Sh. S.C. Daver, Branch Manager, UCO Bank, Jugiana Branch, Ludhiana, PW 9 Sh. Jasmer Singh, Sr. Law Manager, DLF Universal Ltd., PW 13 Sh. Anuj Kumar Lakra, Regional Manager, M/s Kotak Mahindra Finance Ltd., PW 15 Sh. L.K. Bansal, Branch Manager, PNB, Nizamuddin, New Delhi, PW 17 Sh. Ahsan Rizvy, Assistant Accountant, Bombay Mercantile Cooperative Bank, Delhi, PW 18 Sh. Sandeep Kulshreshth, Assistant Manager, (Customer Services), Citi Bank, PW 20 Sh. G.G. Soma Sekhar, Dy. Secretary, Institute of Chartered Accountants, PW 28 Sh. Sanjeev Malhotra, Sr. Manager, Operations Branch, Sakura Bank, Barakhamba Road Branch, New Delhi and PW 29 Sh. G.K. Gupta, Assistant Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi & Haryana.
4.3 PW 3 Sh. Sanjeev Aggarwal is Chartered Accountant, PW 4 Sh. Anuj Beotra is Valuer, PW 8 Sh. Vinay Goyal is from M/s Goel & Jolly, Chartered Accountants and PW 30 Sh. Praveen Kalra is an Advocate. PW 5 Sh. Ravinder Pal Singh s/o Smt. Surjeet Kaur, PW 11 Dr. Om Prakash Solanki, PW 14 Sh. Atul Jain of Rapid Financial Solution and PW 23 Sh. Arvind Mishra are other private witnesses. PW 19 Dr. Ravinder Sharma is GEQD. PW 24 H.C. Krishan Kumar, PW 32 Insp. S.P. Singh, PW 34 Sh. Ajeet CBI Case No. 19/12 17-12-2014 9 of 70 CBI Vs. Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Kumar Singh and PW 33 Sh. S.S. Yadav were involved in the investigation.
Statement of Accused Persons 5.1 Statements of all the accused persons were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Accused No. 2, Nandita Bakshi has given statement on her behalf as well as on behalf of accused No. 1, Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd.
5.2 Accused No. 2, Nandita Bakshi has, inter-alia, stated that Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. was a 100% export oriented company with its legal registration and an Import Export Code. The bank had a margin of Rs. 58,00,000/- for their LC Account and over 1.76 crores Rupees were remitted from the buyers. All shipments were reported to the Reserve Bank of India and the company was never black listed by any Govt. Agency. She further stated that a false case has been registered against her and her company. Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. has carried out business transactions under the ambit of law. All financial transactions were reported to the Registrar of Companies as well as to the Reserve Bank of India. All exports were done according to the rules of Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Commerce and Gem & Jewellery Export Promotion Council. The advances availed from SBBJ were according to banking norms laid down by the Reserve Bank of India. Finally there is no liability on the company as well as the guarantors of Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. The entire payment was made as per the terms of settlement reached with the bank in 2008.
CBI Case No. 19/12 17-12-2014 10 of 70 CBI Vs. Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 5.3 Accused No. 3, Vivek Sood has, inter-alia, stated that a false
case has been registered against him. He is innocent. He also stated that Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. has carried out the business transactions within the ambit of law. All financial transactions were reported to the Reserve Bank of India. All exports were done according to the rules of Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Commerce and Gem & Jewellery Export Motion Council. The advances availed from SBBJ were according to the norms laid down by Reserve Bank of India.
5.4 Accused No. 5, Shafique-Ur-Rehman has stated, inter-alia, that in the month of August 2001, CBI Officers, Insp. S.S. Yadav and Sh. Devender Singh, DSP were harassing him and his family and visiting their house at odd hours and abusing them. They were pressurizing him to become a State witness in this case and in other connected cases. He moved an application dated 22-08-2001 against the above CBI Officers in the court of Ld. CMM, Tis Hazari. On the notice of this application, Insp. S.S. Yadav, Sh. Devender Singh, DSP and Sh. Sanjay Avasthi, SP appeared before the court of Ld. CMM, Tis Hazari. They had brought two public witnesses with them who were outside the court room. One of them was PW 4 Sh. Anuj Kumar Beotra. He was shown to them outside the court room. The application was disposed off with certain directions. When he came out of the court, he was threatened by the above CBI Officers that he would be falsely implicated in one case after every two months. Sh. Devender Singh, IO said that he was the first person in the history of CBI who had dared to file an application against CBI Officers. Due to the aforesaid reason,he has been falsely CBI Case No. 19/12 17-12-2014 11 of 70 CBI Vs. Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
implicated in this case by the CBI.
5.5 Accused No. 6, G.R. Meena has, inter-alia, stated that investigation was done in a biased manner and statements of all the witnesses are fabricated. The Investigating Officer has intentionally not obtained Bank's Circulars/instructions, including those relating to delegation of powers. In this case, he was neither the sanctioning authority nor the Branch Head at the relevant period. He had not accepted the title deeds of the property mortgaged in this case. He signed the loan documents in discharge of his official duties in due course of business. He has been falsely implicated in this case. He is innocent.
Defence evidence 6.1 Accused No.5, Shafique-Ur-Rehman has examined one witness in his defence, namely, DW 1 Sh. Kamal Lal Meena, AGM, SBBJ, Nehru Place, New Delhi. Remaining accused persons have not examined any witness in their defence.
Arguments on behalf of CBI 7.1 Sh. U.S. Prasad, Ld. Special P.P. has submitted that PW 2 Sh. B.K. Bansal, PW 10 Sh. R.S. Chauhan, PW 12 Sh. K.N. Mishra Gopal, PW 21 Sh. C.R. Dass, PW 22, Sh. R.C. Banger, PW 25 Sh. B.D. Meena, PW 26 Sh. H.C. Grover, PW 27 Sh. A.K. Garg, PW 13 Sh. Anuj Kumar Lakra, PW 14 Sh.
CBI Case No. 19/12 17-12-2014 12 of 70 CBI Vs. Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Atul Jain, PW 17 Sh. Ahsan Rizvy and PW 28 Sh. Sanjeev Malhotra have proved the sanction and disbursal of various credit facilities to accused No. 1, Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., which is also not disputed. Further, from the evidence of PW 5 Sh. Ravinder Pal Singh, PW 7 Sh. S.C. Daver, PW 9 Sh. Jasmer Singh, PW 1 Sh. G.C. Chopra, PW 6 Sh. A.K. Jain, PW 31 Sh. B.D. Dhawan and PW 24 Sh. Krishan Kumar, it is clear that the sale deed Ex. PW 5/5 is forged. PW 2 Sh. B.K. Bansal also proved that accused No. 4, Smt. Sushila Devi had impersonated as Surjeet Kaur while submitting/executing various documents in the bank. He further submits that PW 8 Sh. Vinay Goel of M/s Goel & Jolly had proved that the certificates purportedly given by M/s Goel & Jolly were forged.
7.2 Ld. Special P.P. also contends that PW 4, Sh. Anuj Beotra has proved that it was at the instance of accused No. 5, Shafique-Ur-Rehman that valuation report was given. He further argues that such a cheating with bank could not have been possible without the conspiracy between the private accused persons and accused No. 6, G.R. Meena. He, thus submits that prosecution has been able to prove its case against all the accused persons beyond a reasonable doubt. Ld. Special P.P. has relied upon Ajay Aggarwal Vs. Union of India, 1993 (3) SCC 609, State of Maharashtra Vs. Som Nath Thapa, 1996 (4) SCC 659, E.K. Chadrasenan Vs. State of Kerala, 1995 (2) SCC 99, Firozuddin Bashirudin and Others Vs. State of Kerala, 2001 (7) SCC 576, CBI Vs. Ravi Shankar Prasad, 2009 Cri. L.J. SC 3437, Sushil Suri Vs. CBI, 2011 (5) SCC 708, State of U.P. Vs. Krishna Master and others, AIR 2010 SC 3071, Kesho Ram Bora Vs. State of Assam, AIR 1978 CBI Case No. 19/12 17-12-2014 13 of 70 CBI Vs. Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
SC 1096, Bank of India Vs. Yeturi Marandi Shankar Rao, AIR 1987 SC 821, Kirender Sarkar Vs. State of Assam, AIR 2009 SC 2513, Siddharth Vashisth @ Manu Sharma Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, 2010 (2) AD Crl. (SC) 645 and Jaipal Vs. State, 2011, Cr.LJ 4444 Delhi.
Arguments on behalf of Accused No. 1, Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd, accused No. 2, Nandita Bakshi and accused No. 3, Vivek Sood.
8.1 Sh. P.B.A. Srinivasan, Ld. Counsel for accused No. 1, Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd, accused No. 2, Nandita Bakshi and accused No. 3, Vivek Sood has argued that FIR has not been proved since its author Ms. S. Sundari Nanda has not been examined. He submits that no case u/s 420 IPC is made out because even before registration of FIR, substantial amount has been repaid. Ld. Counsel submits that he is not disputing the sanction and disbursal of various credit facilities to accused No. 1, Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. and submission/execution of various documents by accused No. 2, Nandita Bakshi and accused No. 3, Vivek Sood. They had not hidden anything about their sister concerns from the bank. He contends that precursor of the present loan account was the loan account of Swati Exports which was running successfully. Additional loan was given in this case only because of satisfactory running of Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. Ld. counsel further contends that the documents i.e. sale deed in question and the certificates by M/s Goel & Jolly have not been proved to be forged documents by the prosecution. Even if the said documents are found to be forged, accused No. 2, Nandita Bakshi and accused No. 3, Vivek Sood had no CBI Case No. 19/12 17-12-2014 14 of 70 CBI Vs. Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
knowledge of the same.
8.2 He also contends that the testimony of PW 8 Sh. Vinay Goel is not sufficient to conclude that certificates placed at pages 124 and 158 to 162 of Ex. PW2/9 of Goel & Jolly were forged since he had himself not produced copy of his license as a Chartered Accountant or any document regarding constitution of M/s Goel & Jolly. Further, PW 20 Sh. G.G. Soma Sekhar was never asked by the CBI whether Ashok Goel was a bonafide member of Institute of Chartered Accountant or not.
8.3 He also argues that prosecution has not been able to prove that the sale deed, Ex. PW5/5 is forged since they had not produced the genuine original sale deed, if any. The copy of sale deed, Ex. PW1/B produced by PW1 is only copy of a certified copy which cannot prove the execution of the original of the said document. In this regard he has relied upon Smt. Rekha Rana and Ors. Vs. Smt Ratnashree Jain, AIR 2006 MP 107.
8.4 It is further argued that PW 6 Sh. A.K. Jain was not shown Ex. PW1/B so that he could state whether it was he who had registered the said document so as to infer that Ex. PW5/5 was not registered by him. In the GEQD report, Ex. PW19/43, there is no mention about signature of Sh. A.K. Jain on Ex. PW1/B. He also argues that number of copies of sale deeds have been produced by the prosecution viz. Ex. PW5/5 which is alleged to be forged, Ex. PW1/B which is copy of the certified copy allegedly kept in the office of Sub Registrar, Ex. PW5/8 which is a copy of the sale deed allegedly CBI Case No. 19/12 17-12-2014 15 of 70 CBI Vs. Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
handed over by PW 5 Sh. Ravinder Pal Singh to CBI and there are two other sale deeds which have not been exhibited. However, none of the said sale deeds matches with one another and thus it is not clear as to which one according to the prosecution is genuine. Further, PW5 Sh. Ravinder Pal Singh, who is son of Smt. Surjeet Kaur did not say that Ex. PW5/5 is forged. There is no opinion of GEQD on any writing on Ex. PW5/5. The bank had taken search report as well as valuation report in respect of the property in question wherein no defect was found.
8.5 Ld. counsel further submits that many vital witnesses viz. AGM who sanctioned the loan, Sh. P.R. Kanther who was Chief Manager, SBBJ, Nehru Place, New Delhi, Sh. R.K. Jain, the other GEQD, who examined the questioned documents etc. and Sh. V.P. Aneja, the valuer who has given the valuation report, Ex. PW2/119 have not been examined by the prosecution. There is no conspiracy with accused No. 6, G.R. Meena because other officers of SBBJ i.e. Sh. P.R. Kanther, who forwarded the proposal to Zonal Office and AGM, Zonal Office have not been made accused and it was not possible to conspire with accused No. 6, G.R. Meena alone to cheat the bank. Thus, prosecution has failed to prove any charge against the accused persons. Ld. Counsel has also relied upon Cogent Ventures (India) Ltd Vs. Raj Karan (through Lrs), (ARB.P.335/2006 & A.A. Nos. 7818, 11180/2006, 3692-3693, 6512/2009,7301 & 16738/2011, decided on 08-02-2012), Syed Samsudeen Vs. State (Crl.R.C. No. 1130 of 2009 decided on 13-09-2012), Basrur Venkata Row Vs. Unknown, 14 Ind Cas 418, Smt. Rekha Rana and Ors. Vs. Smt Ratnashree Jain, (supra), Dr. Vimla Vs. Delhi CBI Case No. 19/12 17-12-2014 16 of 70 CBI Vs. Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Administration, 1963 AIR 1572, Ishwari Prasad Mishra Vs. Mohhammad Isa, AIR 1963 SC 1728, Bhonu Lal Chaoudhary Vs. Mr. W.A. Vincent and Ors, 65 Ind Cas 882, Madhavlal Manishanker Trivedi Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1960 MP 269, Peary Lal and Ors. Vs. Emperor, 75 Ind Cas 148, Haider Ali Pradhania and Anr. Vs. Emperor, 18 Ind Cas 881, Roman Catholic Mission Vs. State of Madras, AIR 1966 SC 1457, Sri Lakni Baruan and Ors. Vs. Sri Padma Kalita & Ors, AIR 1253 JT 1996 (3) 268, Abdul Kareem Madar Sahab Vs. State of Mysore, AIR 1979 SC 1506, Manilal Vs. State of Kerala, 1998 Cri.L.J. 3785, Rabindra Kumar Dev Vs. State of Orissa, 1977 AIR 170, Suresh Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2003 (4) Mhlj 898, Ishari Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr., 1997 Cri LJ 2222 and National Insurance Company Limited Vs. K. Yadamma and Ors., 2005 (3) ALD 643.
Arguments on behalf of Accused No. 5, Shafique-Ur-Rehman.
8.6 Sh. Islam Khan, Ld. Counsel for accused No. 5, Shafique-Ur- Rehman has not disputed that the said accused has received Rs. 1,74,000/- vide cheque dated 17-11-1997, Ex. PW15/C from Kamayani Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. and a sum of Rs. 3,15,000/- vide credit slip dated 15-11-1997, Ex. PW15/B from Balaji Exports. He submits that the amount received from Kamayani Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. was on account of gold sold by accused No. 5, Shafique-Ur-Rehman to Kamayani Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. He contends that the payments were received by him in November 1997 whereas accused No. 1, Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. was incorporated on 28-04-1998. Thus, there is CBI Case No. 19/12 17-12-2014 17 of 70 CBI Vs. Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
no connection between the said payment and the present case.
8.7 He further argues that the testimony of PW 4 Sh. Anuj Kumar Beotra cannot be relied upon since he has deposed falsely at the instance of CBI. He contends that in the month of August 2001, CBI Officers, Insp. S.S. Yadav and Sh. Devender Singh, DSP were harassing him and his family and visiting their house at odd hours and abusing them. They were pressurizing him to become a State witness in this case and in other connected cases. He moved an application dated 22-08-2001 against the above CBI Officers in the court of Ld. CMM, Tis Hazari. On notice of this application, Insp. S.S. Yadav, Sh. Devender Singh, DSP and Sh. Sanjay Avasthi, SP appeared before the court of Ld. CMM, Tis Hazari. They had brought two public witnesses with them, who were outside the court room. One of them was PW 4 Sh. Anuj Kumar Beotra. He was shown to them outside the court room. His application was disposed off with certain directions. When he came out of the court, he was threatened by the above CBI Officers that he would be falsely implicated in one case after every two months. Sh. Devender Singh said that he was the first person in the history of CBI who had dared to file an application against CBI Officers. Due to the aforesaid reason,he has been falsely implicated in this case by the CBI . He also argues that since Ms. S. Sundari Nanda, the author of FIR has not been examined, the said FIR has not been proved. Ld. counsel has relied upon T.T. Anthony Vs. State of Kerala & Others, (2001) 6SCC 181 to argue that two FIRs on the same facts cannot be registered. However, in the present case, four FIRs were registered on the same facts. He thus contends that prosecution has failed to prove its case against CBI Case No. 19/12 17-12-2014 18 of 70 CBI Vs. Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
accused No. 5, Shafique-Ur-Rehman.
Arguments on behalf of Accused No. 6, G.R. Meena 8.8 Sh. Arvind Singh, Ld. counsel for accused No. 6, G.R. Meena has argued that the said accused had merely discharged his official duty while processing the loan application and disbursing the loan amount. He was not the sanctioning authority. The loan had been sanctioned by Zonal Office. He processed the loan proposal after all the required documents were submitted. Valuation report and search report were obtained. He forwarded the proposal to Sh. P.R. Kanther, Chief Manager, who further forwarded it to the Regional Office. Various loan documents were executed and loan amount was disbursed after creating charge. When loan documents were executed, Sh. P.R. Kanther, Chief Manager was also present and all actions of accused No. 6, G.R. Meena were in the knowledge of Sh. P.R. Kanther. PW 2 Sh. B.K. Bansal has also signed on the loan documents. In the entire evidence not a single violation/lapse on the part of accused No. 6, G.R. Meena has been pointed out. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the said accused and he may be acquitted.
8.9 The general propositions of law laid down in the judgments cited by the parties have not been disputed.
Points for Determination CBI Case No. 19/12 17-12-2014 19 of 70 CBI Vs. Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 9.1 I have heard all the parties and have also perused the record. In
the instant case, the following points are required to be determined:-
A. Charge u/s 120-B r/w sections 419, 420, 467, & 471 IPC r/w section 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act against accused No. 1, Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. (represented by accused No. 2, Ms. Nandita Bakshi), accused No. 2, Nandita Bakshi, accused No. 3, Vivek Sood, accused No. 4, Sushila Kumari, accused No. 5, Shafique-Ur-Rehman and accused No. 6, G. R. Meena.
(i) Whether during the period February, 1998 to July, 1998, at New Delhi, accused No. 1, Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., through its Director Ms. Nandita Bakshi, accused No. 2, Nandita Bakshi, accused No. 3, Vivek Sood, accused No. 5, Shafique-Ur-Rehman and accused No. 6, G. R. Meena entered into an agreement?
(ii) If so, whether they had agreed to cheat SBBJ, Nehru Place, New Delhi by deceiving and fraudulently inducing it to sanction various credit facilities i.e. EPC (Hyp) of Rs. 85,00,000/-, FBP/FBD (Docy) of Rs. 80,00,000/-, LC DA/DP of Rs. 45,00,000/- with ceiling on fund base of Rs. 120 lacs, in favour of accused No. 1, Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., on the basis of misrepresentation, impersonation and forged/bogus/false documents, including valuable security, and by using as genuine such documents and by commission of criminal misconduct by public servant i.e. accused No. 6, G. R. Meena?
(iii) If so, whether in pursuance of the said agreement, accused No. 2, Nandita Bakshi and accused No. 3, Vivek Sood obtained various credit facilities i.e. EPC (Hyp) of Rs. 85,00,000/-, FBP/FBD (Docy) of Rs.
CBI Case No. 19/12 17-12-2014 20 of 70 CBI Vs. Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
80,00,000/-, LC DA/DP of Rs. 45,00,000/- and ceiling on fund base of Rs. 120 lacs, on the basis of forged/false documents, including valuable security, viz.
Sale deed dated 22-01-1094, Ex.PW5/5 purportedly executed in favour of Smt. Surjeet Kaur, W/o Dr. T.S. Gill, R/o Kangarwal Garden Colony via Sonehwal (sic Sahnewal), Ludhiana, various documents signed by accused No. 4, Sushila Kumari, who impersonated as Surjeet Kaur, owner of Property No. M-289, G. K. Part - II, New Delhi, and documents purportedly signed by one Ashok Goel as partner of Goel and Jolly, Chartered Accountants and accused No. 6, G. R. Meena being a public servant, abusing his position as a public servant to obtain pecuniary advantage for accused No. 1, Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., a sum of Rs.1,68,95,171/- being outstanding as on 15-01-2001?
B. Charge u/s 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act against accused No. 6, G. R. Meena.
(i) Whether during the period February, 1998 to July, 1998, accused No. 6, G. R. Meena was a public servant i.e. Manager, SBBJ, Nehru Place, New Delhi?
(ii) If so, whether during the above period at Delhi, accused No. 6, G. R. Meena obtained various credit facilities i.e. EPC (Hyp) of Rs. 85,00,000/-, FBP/FBD (Docy) of Rs. 80,00,000/-, LC DA/DP of Rs. 45,00,000/- and ceiling on fund base of Rs. 120 lacs for accused No. 1, Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., and caused corresponding loss to SBBJ by recommending the claim proposal for the above credit facilities, on the basis of false/forged/bogus documents, misrepresentation and impersonation, for grant of above facilities, which were sanctioned on his recommendations?
CBI Case No. 19/12 17-12-2014 21 of 70 CBI Vs. Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
(iii) If so, whether accused No. 6, G. R. Meena did as above by use of illegal means and/or abuse of his official position?
C. Charge u/s 420 IPC against accused No. 1, Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., accused No. 2, Nandita Bakshi, and accused No. 3, Vivek Sood.
(i) Whether during the period February, 1998 to July, 1998, at New Delhi, accused No. 1, Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., accused No. 2, Nandita Bakshi, and accused No. 3, Vivek Sood, deceived SBBJ, Nehru Place, New Delhi?
(ii) If so, whether the aforesaid accused persons, had induced SBBJ, Nehru Place, New Delhi to sanction credit facilities i.e. EPC (Hyp) of Rs. 85,00,000/-, FBP/FBD (Docy) of Rs. 80,00,000/-, LC DA/DP of Rs. 45,00,000/- and ceiling on fund base of Rs. 120 lacs, in favour of accused No. 1, Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. on the basis of false/bogus/forged documents i.e. Sale deed dated 22-01-1974, Ex.PW5/5, purportedly executed by DLF through its Secretary, Sh. Ram Kishan Jain, in favour of Smt. Surjeet Kaur, W/o Dr. T.S. Gill in respect of property No. M-289, G.K., Part-II, New Delhi, various documents signed by Sushila Kumari as Surjeet Kaur, owner of property No. M-289, G. K. Part - II, New Delhi and photocopy of certificate, placed at page 124, photocopy of statement of assets and liabilities as on 31-03-1998 placed at pages 158 to 160, photocopy of provisional profit and loss account placed at page 161 and photocopy of provisional balance sheet placed at page 162, of register, Ex.PW2/9, purportedly given by Goel & Jolly, Chartered Accountants and signed by one Ashok Goel as Partner of Goel Jolly, Chartered Accountants?
(iii) If so, whether the above named accused persons, had induced SBBJ, CBI Case No. 19/12 17-12-2014 22 of 70 CBI Vs. Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Nehru Place, New Delhi as above dishonestly/ fraudulently?
(iv) If so, whether the aforesaid amount was credited in the account of accused No. 1, Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd.?
D. Charge u/s 471 IPC against accused No. 1, Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., accused No. 2, Nandita Bakshi, accused No. 3, Vivek Sood.
(i) Whether during the period February, 1998 to July, 1998, at New Delhi, accused No. 1, Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., accused No. 2, Nandita Bakshi and accused No. 3, Vivek Sood used false/forged/bogus documents i.e. Sale deed dated 22-01-1974, Ex.PW5/5, purportedly executed by DLF through its Secretary, Sh. Ram Kishan Jain, S/o Sh. Banarsi Das, in favour of Smt. Surjeet Kaur, W/o Dr. T.S. Gill, in respect of property No. M-289, G.K., Part-II, New Delhi, various documents signed by Sushila Kumari as Surjeet Kaur, owner of property No. M-289, G. K. Part - II, New Delhi and photocopy of certificate, placed at page 124, photocopy of statement of assets and liabilities as on 31-03-1998 placed at pages 158 to 160, photocopy of provisional profit and loss account placed at page 161 and photocopy of provisional balance sheet placed at page 162, of register, Ex.PW2/9, purportedly given by Goel & Jolly, Chartered Accountants and signed by one Ashok Goel as Partner of Goel Jolly, as genuine for inducing SBBJ, Nehru Place, New Delhi to sanction various credit facilities i.e. EPC (Hyp) of Rs. 85,00,000/-, FBP/FBD (Docy) of Rs. 80,00,000/-, LC DA/DP of Rs. 45,00,000/- and ceiling on fund base of Rs. 120 lacs, in favour of accused No. 1, Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd.?
(ii) If so, whether above named accused persons used the aforesaid documents as genuine knowing or having reason to believe the same to be CBI Case No. 19/12 17-12-2014 23 of 70 CBI Vs. Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
forged?
(iii) If so, whether the above named accused persons did so fraudulently or dishonestly?
10.1 It is pertinent to refer to Sec. 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as 'IEA') which define the terms 'proved', d ' isproved' and 'not proved' as under :-
" ' Proved'- A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists"
" ' Disproved'- A fact is said to be disproved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes that it does not exist, or considers its non-existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it does not exist."
"'Not proved'-A fact is said not to be proved when it is neither proved nor disproved."
10.2 It is well settled that the word 'proof' means anything which serves, either immediately or mediately to convince the mind of the truth or falsehood of a fact or proposition; and the proofs of matters of fact in general are our senses, the testimony of witnesses, documents and the like. " Proof"
does not mean proof to rigid mathematical demonstration, because that is CBI Case No. 19/12 17-12-2014 24 of 70 CBI Vs. Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
impossible; it means such evidence as would induce a reasonable man to come to the conclusion [vide Emperor vs. Shafi Ahmed, (1925) 31 Bom. LR 515]. Further, Sec. 134 of IEA stipulates that no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact.
10.3 In human affairs, everything cannot be proved with mathematical certainty and the law does not require it. Legal proof is something different from moral certainty about the guilt of an accused person. Suspicion, however, great, cannot take the place of legal proof. A moral conviction, however strong or genuine, cannot amount to a legal conviction supportable in law. The well known rule of criminal justice is that " fouler the crim e, higher the proof." [ vide Sharad Birdhichand vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622].
10.4 In criminal matters, the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. A benefit of doubt is the condition of the mind which exists where the judges cannot say that they feel an abiding condition, a moral certainty of the truth of the charge. It must not be a mere doubt of a vacillating mind that has not the moral courage to decide upon a difficult and complicated question and therefore, takes shelter in an idle scepticism (vide 1977 CrLJ 59).
10.5 It is well settled that the burden of proof in a criminal trial never shifts and it is always the burden of the prosecution to prove its case beyond CBI Case No. 19/12 17-12-2014 25 of 70 CBI Vs. Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence. However, the rule in section 106 of the Act would apply when the facts are 'especially within the knowledge of the accused' and it would be impossible or at any rate disproportionately difficult for the prosecution to establish such facts which are 'especially within the knowledge of the accused'. The prosecution is not required to eliminate all possible defences or circumstances which may exonerate him. If certain facts are in the knowledge of the accused then he has to prove them. Of course the prosecution has to prove prima facie case in the first instance. In this regard reference can be made to Murlidhar vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2005 SC 2345, State of Punjab vs. Karnail Singh, (2003) 11 SCC 271, Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs. State of Maharashtra, 2007 Cr LJ 20 (SC), Santosh Kumar Singh vs. State, (2010) 9 SCC 747 and Ram Singh vs. State, 2011 Cr LJ 618 (Raj.), AIR 1959 SC 1390, AIR 1937 Rang 83, 1968 Cri LJ 848, AIR 1967 Mys 79 and 1964 (1) Cri LJ 688.
10.6 It is also pertinent to refer to Sec 313 (4) of the Cr.P.C. which stipulates that the answers given by the accused, in his statement under this section, may be taken into consideration in such enquiry or trial, and put in evidence for or against him in any other enquiry into, or trial for, any other offence which such answers may tend to show he has committed. It is well settled that admission or confession of the accused in the statement under section 313, Cr PC in the course of trial can be acted upon and the court can rely on these confessions to proceed to convict him. In this regard reference can be made to Dharnidhar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2010) 7 SCC 759 and State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdev Singh, AIR 1992 SC 2100.
CBI Case No. 19/12 17-12-2014 26 of 70 CBI Vs. Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 10.7 Further, the evidence of one accused or admission or action or
statement made by one of the accused can be used as evidence against the other by virtue of Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act. In this regard reference can be made to Tribhuvan Nath Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 450 and Kehar Singh v State, AIR 1988 SC 1883 10.8 It is also well settled that criminal conspiracy is often hatched in secrecy and for proving the offence, substantial direct evidence may not be available. An offence of criminal conspiracy can also be proved by circumstantial evidence. However, it cannot be deemed to have been established on mere suspicion and surmises or inferences which are not supported by cogent evidence. Where the prosecution case rests merely on circumstantial evidence, the facts established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. However, on the basis of evidence led by prosecution, if two views are possible, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and other to his innocence, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted. In this regard, reference can be made to Saju vs. State of Kerala, (2001) 1 SCC 378, Sherimon vs. State of Kerala, (2011) 10 SCC 768, P.K. Narayanan vs. State of Kerala, (1995) 1 SCC 142, State of M.P. vs. Sheetla Sahai, 2009 Cr. LJ 4436, Shivaji Saheb Rao Bobde vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 2622, Harendra Narain Singh vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 1842, Baboo Ram, vs. State, 1996 Cri LJ 483 and N. Rajendra Prasad Bhat vs. State, 1996 CBI Case No. 19/12 17-12-2014 27 of 70 CBI Vs. Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Cri LJ 258.
10.9 The essence of conspiracy is unlawful combination and the complicity of the accused has to be decided after considering all the circumstances proved, before, during and after occurrence. Agreement between the conspirators may also be proved by necessary implication. It is not necessary that each member of a conspiracy must know all the details of the conspiracy. Facts established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused. It does not mean that each and every hypothesis suggested by accused must be excluded by proved facts. In this regard, reference can be made to Chaman Lal vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2009 SC 2972, R.K. Dalmia vs. The Delhi Administration, AIR 1962 SC 1821, Muriappan vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2010 SC 3718 and Firozuddin Basheeruddin vs. State of Kerala, (2001) 7 SCC 596.
10.10 It is also pertinent to refer to section 45 of the IEA which provides as under:-
" 45. Opinions of experts.- When the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law, or of science, or art, or as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions, the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, or in questions as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions are relevant facts. Such persons are called experts."
10.11 The weight that ought to be attached to the opinion of an expert CBI Case No. 19/12 17-12-2014 28 of 70 CBI Vs. Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
is a different matter from its relevancy. The Act only provides about the relevancy of expert opinion but gives no guidance as regards its value. In Murari Lal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1980 AIR 531, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held, " We are firmly of the opinion that there is no rule of law, nor any rule of prudence which has crystalized into a rule of law, that opinion evidence of a handwriting expert must never be acted upon, unless substantially corroborated. But, having due regard to the imperfect nature of the science of identification of handwriting, the approach, as we indicated earlier, should be one of caution. Reasons for the opinion must be carefully probed and examined. All other relevant evidence must be considered. In appropriate cases, corroboration may be sought. In cases where the reasons for the opinion are convincing and there is no reliable evidence throwing a doubt, the uncorroborated testimony of an handwriting expert may be accepted. There cannot be any inflexible rule on a matter which, in the ultimate analysis, is no more than a question of testimonial weight. We have said so much because this is an argument frequently met with in subordinate courts and sentences torn out of context from the judgments of this Court are often flaunted."
10.12 It is in the light of the above position of law that evidence is to be appreciated.
Appreciation of Evidence 11.1 CBI Case No. 19/12 17-12-2014 29 of 70 CBI Vs. Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (A) From the evidence of PW2, Sh. B.K. Bansal, Assistant Manager,
SBBJ, Nehru Place, PW10 Sh. R.S. Chauhan, Dy. Manager, SBBJ, Nehru Place, PW12 Sh. K.N. Mishra Gopal, Chief Manager, SBBJ, Nehru Place, PW27 Sh. A.K. Garg, Assistant Manager, SBBJ, Nehru Place, PW29 Sh. G.K. Gupta, Assistant Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana, PW16 Sh. K.R. Srikantan, Chief General Manager, SBBJ, Head Office, Jaipur, PW13 Sh. Anuj Kumar Lakra of M/s Kotak Mahindra Finance Limited, PW14 Sh. Atul Jain of M/s Rapid Financial Solution, PW17 Sh. Ahsan Rizvi, Assistant Accountant, Bombay Mercantile Cooperative Bank, PW28 Sh. Sanjeev Malhotra, Sr. Manager, Operations Branch, Sakura Bank, PW30 Sh. Praveen Kalra, Advocate, PW4 Sh. Anuj Beotra, Valuer and PW19 Dr. Ravinder Sharma, GEQD, the following facts have emerged, inter-alia, with regard to sanction and disbursal of various credit facilities to accused No. 1, Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd.:-
i) During the period February 1998 to July 1998, accused No. 6, G.R. Meena was a public servant i.e. Manager, SBBJ, Nehru Place, New Delhi.
ii) Earlier M/s Swati Exports, with accused No. 2, Nandita Bakshi as its Proprietor, was having Account No. 665 at SBBJ, Nehru Place, New Delhi, and Account Opening Form, Ex.PW2/46, bears photograph and signatures of the said accused.
iii) M/s Swati Exports was sanctioned EPC (Hyp) of Rs. 15 lacs, CBI Case No. 19/12 17-12-2014 30 of 70 CBI Vs. Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
FBP/FBD (Docy) of Rs. 35 lacs, with ceiling on fund based limit of Rs. 35 lacs, letter of credit (DA/DP) of Rs. 15 lacs and bank guarantee of Rs. 10 lacs vide letter dated 14-03-1998, Ex.PW2/47.
iv) Accused No. 1, Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. was incorporated on 28-04-1998, vide Certificate of Incorporation, Ex. PW29/A and Memorandum and Article of Association, Ex.PW2/89 and accused No. 2, Nandita Bakshi and accused No. 3, Vivek Sood are the Directors of the said company.
v) Accused No. No. 2, Nandita Bakshi and accused No. 3, Vivek Sood passed a resolution dated 30-04-1998 for opening a Current Account in SBBJ, Nehru Place, New Delhi, wherein No. 2, Nandita Bakshi and accused No. 3, Vivek Sood were authorized to operate the account.
vi) Accused No. 1, Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. opened Current Account bearing No. 734 in SBBJ, Nehru Place, New Delhi, and Account Opening Form, Ex.PW2/4 and Specimen Signature Card, Ex.PW2/5 bear photographs as well as signatures of No. 2, Nandita Bakshi and accused No. 3, Vivek Sood.
vii) Accused No. 1, Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. opened Current Account bearing No. CC 136 in SBBJ, Nehru Place, New Delhi, vide Account Opening Form, Ex.PW2/1 and Specimen Signature Card, Ex.PW2/3, signed by No. 2, Nandita Bakshi and accused No. 3, Vivek Sood.
CBI Case No. 19/12 17-12-2014 31 of 70 CBI Vs. Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ix) Sh. Praveen Kalra, Advocate has given 'Lawyers Opinion Note
Equitable Mortgage' dated 20-06-1998, Ex.PW2/20 with regard to property No. 289, Block No M, G.K., Part- II, New Delhi.
x) Sh. Praveen Kalra, Advocate has also given search report dated 20-06-1998, Ex.PW2/21.
xi) Sh. V.P. Aneja, Valuer has given valuation report, dated 19-05-1998, Ex.PW4/1 (also marked Ex.PW2/119) in respect of property No. M-289, G.K., Part-II, New Delhi.
xii) Accused No. 6, G.R. Meena has given opinion report on accused No. 3, Vivek Sood, Ex.PW2/13
xiii) SBBJ, Nehru Place Branch vide its letter dated 16-06-1998, Ex.PW2/11, sent an advance proposal, Ex.PW2/12 for fund based and non fund based export credit limit of Rs. 95 lacs and Rs. 30 lacs respectively to the AGM, SBBJ, Zonal Office, Delhi.
xiv) Vide letter dated 04-07-1998, Ex.PW2/84, SBBJ, Region - I, Delhi Zone, conveyed sanction of fund based EPC of Rs. 60 lacs, FBP/FBD (Docy) of Rs. 80 lacs, with ceiling on fund based limits of Rs. 95 lacs and non fund based LC (Docy) of Rs. 30 lacs.
CBI Case No. 19/12 17-12-2014 32 of 70 CBI Vs. Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. xv) The aforesaid sanction was conveyed to Swati Fine Jewellery
Pvt. Ltd. by SBBJ, Nehru Place, New Delhi vide their letter dated 07-07-1998, Ex.PW2/14 along with terms and conditions, Ex.PW2/15 thereof. The same are signed by accused No. 2, Nandita Bakshi, accused No. 3, Vivek Sood and the purported guarantor Smt. Surjeet Kaur. In letter dated 07-07-1998, Ex.PW2/14, there is a reference of application of accused No. 1, Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. for sanctioning of working capital requirements. However, no date of the application is mentioned and the same is also not on record.
xvi) Vide Letter dated 18-08-1998, Ex. PW2/41, SBBJ, Nehru Place, New Delhi conveyed sanction of one time ad-hoc EPC limit of Rs. 25 lacs and demand (Docy) letter of credit limit of Rs. 15 lacs for a period of 90 days over and above the sanctioned limits on existing terms and conditions to accused No. 1, Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. The same is signed by accused No. 6, G.R. Meena and it also bears signatures of accused No. 2, Nandita Bakshi, accused No. 3, Vivek Sood and the purported guarantor Smt. Surjeet Kaur.
xvii) Accused No. 1, Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., accused No. 2, Nandita Bakshi and accused No. 3, Vivek Sood, had inter-alia, submitted/executed the following documents with SBBJ, Nehru Place, New Delhi, with regard to the aforesaid credit facilities :-
a) Sale deed dated 22-01-1974, Ex.PW5/5, (also marked PW2/18) purportedly executed by DLF through its Secretary, Sh. Ram Kishan Jain, S/o Sh. Banarsi Das, R/o F/6, Model Town, Delhi in favour of Smt. Surjeet Kaur, CBI Case No. 19/12 17-12-2014 33 of 70 CBI Vs. Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
W/o Dr. T.S. Gill, R/o Kangarwal Garden Colony via Sonehwal, Ludhiana in respect of property No. M-289, G.K., Part-II, New Delhi,
b) Photocopy of certificate, placed at page 124, photocopy of statement of assets and liabilities as on 31-03-1998 placed at pages 158 to 160, photocopy of provisional profit and loss account placed at page 161 and photocopy of provisional balance sheet placed at page 162, of register, Ex.PW2/9, purportedly given by Goel & Jolly, Chartered Accountants and signed by one Ashok Goel as Partner of Goel & Jolly,
c) Agreement of loan dated 07-07-1998, Ex.PW2/16, signed by accused No. 2, Nandita Bakshi and accused No. 3, Vivek Sood,
d) Deed of guarantee dated 07-07-1998, Ex.PW2/17 which bears photographs, and signatures of accused No. 2, Nandita Bakshi, accused No. 3, Vivek Sood and the purported guarantor Smt. Surjeet Kaur,
e) Inland Letters, Ex.PW2/22 to Ex.PW2/25, written to SBBJ, Nehru Place by the purported guarantor Smt. Surjeet Kaur,
f) Supplemental agreement of loan for increase in the overall limit dated 20-08-1998, Ex.PW2/42 signed by accused No. 2, Nandita Bakshi and accused No. 3, Vivek Sood, and
g) Letter regarding grant of individual limit within the overall limits CBI Case No. 19/12 17-12-2014 34 of 70 CBI Vs. Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
dated 20-08-1998, Ex.PW2/45 signed by accused No. 2, Nandita Bakshi, accused No. 3, Vivek Sood and the purported guarantor Smt. Surjeet Kaur.
(B)
i) Statement of Account of Current Account No. 734 of accused No. 1, Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. for the period 01-01-1997 to 30-08-2000, certified under The Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891 is Ex.PW 2/6.
ii) Statement of Account of CC No. 136 of accused No. 1, Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. for the period 01-07-1998 to 30-08-2000, certified under The Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891 is Ex.PW 2/7.
(C) The following LCs were opened at SBBJ, Nehru Place, New Delhi:-
i) LC bearing No. ILC/NP 012/99 dated 06-04-1999, Ex.PW2/65 for an amount of Rs. 6,98,745/- in favour of SKV Exports and Trading Pvt.
Ltd., Laxmi Nagar, Delhi on request letter dated 30-03-1999, Ex.PW2/62 of accused No. 1, Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., signed by accused No. 3, Vivek Sood, application and guarantee for letter of credit, Ex.PW2/63, purchase order No. 98-99/XII/002 dated 27-03-1999, Ex.PW2/66 and proforma invoice dated 27-03-1999, Ex.PW2/68. Vide letter dated 06-04-1999, Ex.PW2/64 of SBBJ, Nehru Place, New Delhi, the LC was sent to UCO Bank, Parliament Street, New Delhi, advising them that they (SBBJ) will reimburse as per their instructions on due date provided terms and conditions of LC are strictly CBI Case No. 19/12 17-12-2014 35 of 70 CBI Vs. Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
complied with.
ii) LC bearing No. ILC/NP 22/99 dated 22-04-1999, Ex.PW10/2 for an amount of Rs. 12,98,159/- in favour of SKV Exports and Trading Pvt. Ltd., Laxmi Nagar, Delhi on request letter dated 21-04-1999, Ex.PW2/74 of accused No. 1, Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., signed by accused No. 3, Vivek Sood, application and guarantee for letter of credit, Ex.PW2/69, purchase order No. 1999-2000/I/001 dated 20-04-1999, Ex.PW2/71 and proforma invoice dated 20-04-1999, Ex.PW2/73. Vide letter dated 22-04-1999 of SBBJ, Nehru Place, New Delhi, the LC was sent to UCO Bank, Parliament Street, New Delhi, advising them that they (SBBJ) will reimburse as per their instructions on due date provided terms and conditions of LC are strictly complied with.
iii) LC bearing No. ILC/NP/33/99 dated 14-05-1999, Ex.PW2/80 for an amount of Rs. 9,99,643/- in favour of SKV Exports and Trading Pvt. Ltd., Laxmi Nagar, Delhi on request letter dated 14-05-1999, Ex.PW2/76 of accused No. 1, Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., signed by accused No. 3, Vivek Sood, application and guarantee for letter of credit, purchase order No. 99-2000/II/001 dated 13-05-1999, Ex.PW2/81 and proforma invoice dated 13-05-1999, Ex.PW2/78. Vide letter dated 14-05-1999, Ex.PW2/79 of SBBJ, Nehru Place, New Delhi, the LC was sent to UCO Bank, Parliament Street, New Delhi, advising them that they (SBBJ) will reimburse as per their instructions on due date provided terms and conditions of LC are strictly complied with.
CBI Case No. 19/12 17-12-2014 36 of 70 CBI Vs. Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (D) The following Banker's Cheques were issued by SBBJ, Nehru Place, New Delhi in favour of Sakura Bank :- i) Cheque No. 305262 dated 08-06-1999, Ex.PW10/3 for Rs. 6,98,745/-, ii) Cheque No. 305390 dated 22-06-1999, Ex.PW10/4 for Rs. 12,98,159/-, and iii) Cheque No. 305614 dated 13-07-1999, Ex.PW10/5 for Rs. 9,99,643/-. (E) Accused No. 2, Nandita Bakshi had issued, inter-alia, the
following cheques from Current Account No. 734 of accused No. 1, Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. :-
i) Cheque No. 702303 dated 14-07-1998, Ex.PW2/53 for Rs. 20,00,938/-
in favour of, "yourself",
ii) Cheque No. 702302 dated 14-07-1998, Ex.PW2/54 for Rs. 44,66,369/- in favour of, "yourself",
iii) Cheque No. 702307 dated 20-07-1998, Ex.PW2/55 for Rs. 7,60,380/- in favour of, "yourself",
iv) Cheque No. 702310 dated 21-07-1998, Ex.PW2/56 for Rs. 4,55,228/- in favour of, "yourself", CBI Case No. 19/12 17-12-2014 37 of 70 CBI Vs. Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
v) Cheque No. 702320 dated 08-09-1998, Ex.PW2/57 for Rs. 8,00,400/- in favour of, "yourself" for issuance of a Pay order in favour of Banarasi Dass & Sons for Rs. 8,00,000/-,
vi) Cheque No. 702323 dated 09-09-1998, Ex.PW2/58 for Rs. 8,00,400/- in favour of, "yourself" for issuance of a Banker's Cheque in favour of Nupur Enterprises for Rs. 8,00,000/-,
vii) Cheque No. 702318 dated 12-10-1998, Ex.PW2/59 for Rs. 8,60,430/- in favour of, "yourself" for issuance of a Pay Order in favour of Nupur Enterprises for Rs. 8,60,000/-,
viii) Cheque No. 702325 dated 13-10-1998, Ex.PW2/60 for Rs. 9,00,450/- in favour of, "yourself" for issuance of a Pay Order in favour of Nupur Enterprises for Rs. 9,00,000/-, and
ix) Cheque No. 702329 dated 15-10-1998, Ex.PW2/61 for Rs. 9,00,450/- in favour of, "yourself for D/D" for issuance of a Pay Order in favour of Nupur Enterprises for Rs. 9,00,000/-.
(F) PW 16 Sh. K.R. Srikantan, Chief General manager, SBBJ, Head Office, Jaipur had passed sanction order dated 03-12-2001, Ex.PW16/A u/s 19 of the P.C. Act for prosecution of accused No. 6, G.R. Meena.
CBI Case No. 19/12 17-12-2014 38 of 70 CBI Vs. Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
From the cross- examination of evidence of PW2, Sh. B.K. Bansal, PW10 Sh. R.S. Chauhan, PW12 Sh. K.N. Mishra Gopal, PW27 Sh. A.K. Garg, PW29 Sh. G.K. Gupta, PW16 Sh. K.R. Srikantan, PW13 Sh. Anuj Kumar Lakra, PW14 Sh. Atul Jain, PW17 Sh. Ahsan Rizvi, PW28 Sh. Sanjeev Malhotra, PW30 Sh. Praveen Kalra, PW4 Sh. Anuj Beotra and PW19 Dr. Ravinder Sharma, admission/denial of documents, statements of accused persons as well as the arguments advanced on behalf of the accused persons, it is clear that the aforesaid facts have not been disputed by the accused persons.
12.1 PW 21 Sh. C.R. Das, Manager, Zonal Officer, SBBJ, PW 22 Sh. R.C. Banger, Clerk, SBBJ, PW 25 Sh. B.D. Meena, Asstt. Manager, SBBJ, Nehru Place, New Delhi and PW 26 Sh. H.C. Grover have deposed about handing over documents to Sh. Devnder Singh, SDP, CBI.
12.2 PW 23 Sh. Arvind Mishra who had earlier worked with M/s Kamayani Fine Jewellery Ltd. has deposed that SKV Exports were also in the business of exports. The office of SKV Exports was somewhere in Laxmi Nagar. It was in actual existence and was functioning. This witness has not supported the prosecution case and was thus cross examined by the Ld. Special P.P. However, during his cross examination nothing in favour of prosecution could be elicited as he denied various suggestions given by Ld. Special P.P. on the lines of his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C., Ex.PW34/A. PW 34 Sh. A.K. Singh has testified about recording statement of Arvind Mishra, Ex.
PW34/A u/s 161 Cr. P.C. CBI Case No. 19/12 17-12-2014 39 of 70 CBI Vs. Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 12.3 PW 33 Sh. S.S. Yadav deposed about registration of FIR, Ex.
PW33/A, his assisting Sh. Devender Singh, DSP in the investigation of the case. He deposed about production memo dated 11-06-2001, Ex. PW33/L, vide which PW 10 Sh. R.S. Chauhan, Deputy Manager, SBBJ, Nehru Place, New Delhi has handed over certain Bills of Exchange and noted and protested notes to him.
12.4 PW 33 Sh. S.S. Yadav has also deposed about specimen signatures of, inter-alia, accused No. 4, Sushila Kumari, Mark S-71 to S-83, Ex. PW19/19 to Ex. PW19/31, obtained by Sh. Devender Singh, DSP. Sh. Devender Singh could not be examined as he had expired. However, PW 22 Sh. R.C. Banger deposed that the said signatures were taken in his presence. During his cross examination, he deposed that Chief Manager of their bank had received a telephone call from CBI, where after he was directed to visit CBI office for the purpose of joining investigations at that time. Before his reaching the CBI office accused No. 2, Nandita Bakshi, accused No. 5, Shafique-Ur-Rehman and accused No. 4, Sushila were already present. All three of them were asked to given specimen signatures in his presence. He was posted in Nehru Place Branch and had seen Nandita Bakshi coming in the branch. He had made entry in the visitor's register in the CBI office. He denied that specimen signatures were not taken in his presence. He also denied that he was deposing falsely at the behest of CBI.
12.5 PW 33 Sh. S.S. Yadav further testified about photocopy of letter CBI Case No. 19/12 17-12-2014 40 of 70 CBI Vs. Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
dated 15-05-2001, Mark PW33/18 (colly) written by Sh. Sanjay Awasthi, the then S.P., CBI to the GEQD, Shimla, vide which the questioned writing, specimen writing, admitted writing and questionnaire were sent for examination and opinion to GEQD and letter dated 10-08-2001 (D-132), Ex. PW19/45, of Deputy Government Examiner written to the S.P., CBI, vide which the opinion dated 09-08-2001 was sent.
12.6 PW 19 Dr. R. Sharma, GEQD has testified that the documents of this case had been received in the laboratory through SP CBI SIU-VIII, New Delhi memo dated 15-05-2001 along with the questioned documents. He also deposed that the specimen documents supplied for comparison and marked as S71 to S83, are Ex. PW19/19 to Ex. PW19/31. He further stated that after thorough examination, he came to the conclusion which is recorded in opinion CX76/2001, dated 09-08-2001, Ex.PW19/43, which bears his signatures as well as signatures of Late Sh. R.K. Jain, Deputy Govt. Examiner of Question documents, who has also examined this case independently and come to the same conclusion. He also testified that he has also submitted detailed reasoning, Ex. PW19/44 in support of his opinion which also bears his signatures. He also stated that after examination, the opinion was sent to SP, CBI, New Delhi vide forwarding letter dated 10-08-2001, Ex.PW19/45.
12.7 During his cross examination, he stated that both late Shri R.K. Jain and he had given a joint opinion, Ex. PW-19/43. He was the main Examiner in this case and therefore, he had given the detailed reasons, Ex. PW-19/44 in support of the opinion, Ex. PW-19/43. He admitted that no CBI Case No. 19/12 17-12-2014 41 of 70 CBI Vs. Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
admitted signatures were supplied by the CBI to him. He had examined the questioned writing and signatures by using hand magnifier lens, angle poised lens, video spectral comparator and various light instruments containing ultra violet and infra red rays. He also admitted that in this case, he had not taken enlarged photographs of the questioned documents. He voluntarily stated that there is facility in Video Spectral Comparator to enlarge the original documents which can then be examined. In the instruments used by him, there was no facility for generation of automatic report. In the video spectral comparator, there is a provision for storage of data which can be used, later on. He further voluntarily stated that at the time of examination of documents, he had prepared rough notes, which he had used while giving the opinion. He had not submitted the rough notes to the CBI or to the Court. He admitted that he had prepared the detailed reasons, Ex. PW-19/44 after receipt of summons from the Court. He further stated that first, they examine and compare all the standard writing and signatures in order to ensure that the same are of the same person and then, compare these with the questioned writing or signatures. He also stated that there is no need to prepare any Chart of features of the standard writing/signatures since the original writing/signatures are available. He denied that the reasons, Ex. PW-19/44 have been wrongly prepared since, these were prepared about ten years after the examination of the documents in question. He admitted that in his reasoning, Ex. PW-19/44, he has not mentioned the shade of ink, pen lifting and the angle of the letters. He voluntarily stated that since, this was a case of freely given handwriting/ signatures, which is called simple forgery, pen lifting was not relevant. Pen lifting occurs in cases of traced forgery, copied CBI Case No. 19/12 17-12-2014 42 of 70 CBI Vs. Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
simulated forgery, etc. He denied that he has given wrong report and reasoning.
13.1 PW 2 Sh. B.K. Bansal deposed that Ex. PW2/17 is the deed of guarantee signed by accused No.2, Nandita Bakshi and accused No. 3, Vivek Sood. It was also signed by accused No. 4, Sushila Devi as Surjit Kaur W/o Sh. T.S. Gill. The document was signed in his presence and photographs of the persons who executed the document have been affixed on the document. This witness has identified accused No. 4, Sushila Devi in the court. He further deposed that the photograph of Nandita Bakshi is A, photograph of Vivek Sood is B and photograph of Sushila Devi is C. Accused No. 4, Sushila Devi signed this document at points Q 215, Q221A, Q225, Q227, Q231, Q233, Q237, Q239, Q243, Q245, Q248, Q251 and Q254 in his presence. He further testified that accused No. 4, Sushila Devi was accompanied by accused No. 2, Nandita Bakshi and accused No. 3, Vivek Sood. She had given her name to them as Surjit Kaur W/o Sh. T.S. Gill. Accused No. 4, Sushila Devi also brought the sale deed, Ex. PW2/18 when she came to the bank accompanied by accused No. 3, Vivek Sood and accused No. 2, Nandita Bakshi. They did not make any inquiry from accused Sushila Devi as regard ownership of House No. M-289, Greater Kailash II, as she had brought the sale deed with her. Accused No. 3, Vivek Sood and accused No. 2, Nandita Bakshi had told them that the lady accompanying them was Surjit Kaur w/o T.S. Gill and owner of property No. M-289, G.K.II, New Delhi. Accused No. 4, Sushila Devi was present when this statement was made by accused No. 2, Nandita Bakshi and accused No. 3, Vivek Sood.
CBI Case No. 19/12 17-12-2014 43 of 70 CBI Vs. Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 13.2 PW2 Sh. B.K. Bansal also testified that Ex. PW 2/22 is the letter
got signed from the guarantor in the bank at Q 223 and Q 224. This letter was given to the guarantor and was later on sent to the bank by post. Ex. PW2/23 is another letter signed by the guarantor at Q 275 and Q 276. Ex. PW2/22 and Ex. PW 2/23 were signed by accused No. 4, Sushila Devi in his presence. Ex. PW2/24 and Ex. PW2/25 are letters to the bank signed by accused No. 4, Sushila Devi as Smt. Surjit Kaur in his presence. He further stated that Ex. PW2/41 is the letter to the bank signed by accused No. 2, Nandita Bakshi, accused No. 3, Vivek Sood and accused No. 4, Sushila Devi as Smt. Surjit Kaur. Letter Ex. PW 2/41 was signed in his presence and accused No. 4, Sushila Devi signed as Smt. Surjit Kaur at Q291 A. 13.3 PW 2 Sh. B.K. Bansal further testified that Ex. PW 2/42 is supplementary agreement of hypothecation signed by accused No. 2, Nandita Bakshi, accused No. 3, Vivek Sood and accused No. 4, Sushila Devi as Smt. Surjit Kaur on each page. This document was also signed in his presence and accused No.4, Sushila Devi signed as Smt. Surjit Kaur at Q337, Q340, Q341, Q346, Q349 and Q353. Ex. PW2/45 is the letter regarding grant of individual limit. It bears signature of accused No. 2, Nandita Bakshi and accused No. 3, Vivek Sood as well as signature of accused No. 4, Sushila Devi as Smt. Surjit Kaur on each page. This document was also signed in his presence and accused No. 4, Sushila Devi signed as Smt. Surjit Kaur at Q320, Q325, Q328 and Q329. He also stated that Ex. PW 2/120 is the letter signed by accused No. 2, Nandita Bakshi and accused No. 3, Vivek Sood as CBI Case No. 19/12 17-12-2014 44 of 70 CBI Vs. Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
well as by accused No. 4 Sushila Devi as Smt. Surjeet Kaur in his presence. Accused No. 4, Sushila Devi signed at Q258, Q252, Q278 in his presence. He also testified that accused No. 4, Sushila Kumari who was brought to the bank by accused No. 2, Nandita Bakshi and accused No. 4, Vivek Sood as Smt. Surjeet Kaur, owner of M-289, GK-II, New Delhi, was being addressed by accused No. 2, Nandita Bakshi as aunty. The body of confirmation letter is in his hand whereas the address of Smt. Surjeet Kaur on it has been written by accused No. 6, G.R. Meena.
13.4 During his cross-examination on behalf of accused No. 4, Sushila Kumari, PW 2 Sh. B.K. Bansal stated that the deed of guarantee was signed on 20-08-1998. Accused No. 2, Nandita Bakshi, accused No. 3, Vivek Sood and Smt. Surjeet Kaur Gill i.e. accused No. 4, Sushila Kumari came to him in the morning at about 11:00 A.M. Accused No. 6, G.R. Meena did not in his presence ask for any identification papers or proof of identity from Sushila Kumari @ Surjit Kaur Gill. He denied that accused Sushila Kumari never visited their bank on the dates mentioned by him. He further denied that accused Sushila Kumari did not sign any document in his presence or that all these documents duly signed by the parties were already in the file of the bank or that accused Sushila Kumari never visited their bank and did not sign any document.
13.5 The above testimony of PW 2 Sh. B.K. Bansal has gone unimpeached and unrebutted. There is no reason to disbelieve his testimony.
CBI Case No. 19/12 17-12-2014 45 of 70 CBI Vs. Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 13.6 Besides direct evidence of PW2 Sh. B.K. Bansal, the fact that
accused No. 4, Sushila Kumari had signed on the above documents at points Q215, Q221A, Q225, Q227, Q231, Q233, Q237, Q239, Q243, Q245, Q248, Q251, Q254, Q258, Q278, Q291A, Q320, Q325, Q328, Q329, Q337, Q340, Q341, Q346, Q349, Q353 and Q371 to Q383 has also been corroborated by PW 19, Dr. Ravinder Sharma vide his report, Ex.PW19/43, which is supported by reasons, Ex.PW19/44.
13.7 From the aforesaid evidence, it is clear that accused No. 4, Sushila Kumari impersonated as Smt. Surjit Kaur and forged various loan documents by signing as Surjit Kaur.
13.8 It can be observed that the purported sale deed dated 22-01-1974, Ex.PW5/5 (also Ex.PW2/18) executed by Sh. Ram Kishan Jain, for DLF, in favour of Smt. Surjeet Kaur, W/o Dr. T.S. Gill, R/o Kangarwal Garden Colony, Sonehwal, Ludhiana in respect of plot No. 289, Block No. M, G.K., Part-II, bear signatures of the purported vendor i.e. Sh. Ram Kishan Jain, two witnesses namely Sh. K.P. Singh, R/o House No. 127, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi and Sh. Manoj Singh, R/o House No. 7127, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi and Sh. A.K. Jain, Sub Registrar, New Delhi.
13.9 PW 6 Sh. A.K. Jain, who served as Sub Registrar, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi from 1971 to 1976, testified that on the document, Ex.PW5/5 i.e. Sale Deed pertaining to property No. M 289 Block No. M, Greater Kailash, part II, at points A, B and C, the signature purported to be of Sub Registrar, CBI Case No. 19/12 17-12-2014 46 of 70 CBI Vs. Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
New Delhi are not his. He also stated that Ex.PW5/5 is a fake document and this is evident from the fact that the stamp of Collector of Stamps of Govt. of NCT of Delhi has been affixed on these adhesive stamps at the time of getting this document stamped from the office of Collector of Stamp, Delhi in the year 1972. The document was executed on 22nd January 1974, whereas NCT Act of Delhi was passed by the Parliament in 1993. Thus, how could a document executed in 1972 reveal stamp of NCT of Delhi in the year 1972. He further stated that on Ex.PW5/5, the total stamp duty paid on the Sale Deed is of Rs. 255/- whereas duty required to be paid on this Sale Deed should be Rs. 675/- which includes the stamp duty as well as Corporation duty payable on Sale Deed. There is no endorsement for having paid the amount of Corporation Duty of Rs. 420/-. On these grounds, he can say that this is not the valid document under the law. He also testified that during the course of investigation, he has also given his specimen signatures to the IO Sh. T. Punithamani. His specimen signatures appearing on S100 to S109 are Ex.PW6/A to Ex.PW6/J. During his cross-examination, PW 6 Sh. A.K. Jain admitted that whenever he was on leave, some other officer/registering authority of other district was deputed to look after the work. He admitted that whosoever is working in his place, (being on leave), will sign the document presented before him.
The testimony of PW 6 Sh. A.K. Jain has gone unimpeached.
13.10 PW 5 Sh. Ravinder Pal Singh, S/o Mrs. Surjeet Kaur Gill deposed that his mother expired in the year 2002. At the time of her death, her age was 86. He is acquainted with the signatures of his mother as he has CBI Case No. 19/12 17-12-2014 47 of 70 CBI Vs. Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
seen her writing and signing the documents. He has also deposed about Account opening form, Ex. PW 5/1 and Specimen Signature Card, Ex.PW5/2, in respect of account No. 9268 of Smt. Surjit Kaur Gill at UCO Bank, Jugiana Branch, Distt. Ludhiana, bearing the photograph and signature of his mother. He further testified that letter, Ex. PW 5/3 was written by him, which also bears the thumb impression of his mother and also bears her signature, as she could sign at that time. Vide Ex. PW5/3, it was intimated to the Manager, UCO Bank, Jugiana Branch that due to stroke, right side body of Smt. Surjeet Kaur Gill was semi paralyzed and she was unable to sign any document. It was further intimated that she will be using her thumb impression for withdrawing her pension. He also stated that letter, Ex. PW 5/C sent to the Manager, UCO Bank Jugiana on 08-08-1996 also bear the photograph of his mother at point A and her signatures at point B. He further stated that plot No. M 289, situated at Greater Kailash, New Delhi belonged to his mother. Vide Sale deed, dt. 22-01-1974, Ex. PW 5/5, plot No. M 289, G.K. II, New Delhi was purchased by his mother Smt. Surjeet Kaur from M/s DLF United Ltd. on payment of Rs.8,400/- as a cost of the land. His mother never mortgaged the said plot to SBBJ or any other bank in regard to the loan sanctioned in favour of Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd.
13.11 PW 5 Sh. Ravinder Pal Singh further stated that on the document Ex. PW 2/14, (letter dated 07-07-1998 of SBBJ, Nehru Place, New Delhi), the signatures appearing at points K, L, S, T, U, V, W and X are not his mother's signatures. He also testified that on the Deed of Guarantee for over all limit, Ex. PW 2/17, the photograph affixed at portion C is not of his mother CBI Case No. 19/12 17-12-2014 48 of 70 CBI Vs. Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Mrs. Surjeet Kaur Gill and the signatures appearing at portions A, B, C, D, E, F and G are not his mother's signatures. He also stated that on the letter regarding grant of individual limit, Ex. PW 5/6, the signatures appearing at portions A and B are not his mother's signatures. He also testified that on the documents Ex. PW 2/22, Ex. PW 2/23 and Ex. PW 2/24, (letters purportedly signed by Smt. Surjeet Kaur), the signatures appearing at portions A and B are not his mother's signatures. The signature appearing at portion A on Ex. PW 2/24 is also not the signature of his mother Smt. Surjeet Kaur Gill. Similarly, the signature appearing at point A on Ex. PW 2/25 (letter purportedly signed by Smt. Surjeet Kaur), is also not the signature of his mother Smt. Surjeet Kaur Gill.
13.12 PW 5 Sh. Ravinder Pal Singh also stated that vide receipt memo, Ex. PW 5/7, which bears his signatures at point A, he had handed over photocopy of sale deed, dt. 22-01-1974, Ex. PW5/8 of plot No. M 289, GK II, New Delhi to Sh. Devinder Singh, DSP, CBI. Ex. PW5/8 also bears his signatures on each page at point A. 13.13 During his cross examination, PW 5 Sh. Ravinder Pal Singh stated that his mother used to write with right hand. He does not think that she never (sic ever) used her left hand for signing and writing. He always had been living in Delhi but his mother used to live in village Kangarwal in Ludhiana District. He was visiting her every month for taking care of her and the farm. He further stated that Ex. PW5/2 is the specimen signature card which has been signed by his mother in his presence. He does not remember CBI Case No. 19/12 17-12-2014 49 of 70 CBI Vs. Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
whether any other document was signed by her in his presence. This house i.e. property M-289, G.K.-II has been constructed last year and sold by him. The property had been mutated in his name after his mother's death on the basis of her will. He denied that the document D-15 i.e. Ex. PW2/22, Ex. PW2/23 and Ex. PW2/24 also bear signatures of his mother.
Nothing affecting his testimony could be elicited during the cross-examination of PW 5 Sh. Ravinder Pal Singh.
13.14 PW 7 Sh. S.C. Daver, Branch Manager, UCO Bank, Jugiana Branch, Ludhiana, Punjab, where Smt. Surjeet Kaur was having saving bank account No. 9268, had deposed about handing over the following documents to the IO vide receipt memo, Ex. PW7/1 :-
i) Account opening form, Ex.PW5/1 of SB Account No. 9268 of Smt. Surjeet Kaur, which also bear photograph of Smt. Surjeet Kaur.
ii) Specimen signature card, Ex.PW5/2. iii) Letter, Ex.PW5/3 bearing signature of Smt. Surjeet Kaur. iv) Application for family pension scheme, Ex.PW7/2, v) Letter, dated 08-08-1996, Ex.PW5/4 of Smt. Surjeet Kaur, regarding payment of pension, 13.15 During his cross- examination, PW 7, Sh. S.C. Daver stated that
the account of Mrs. Surjeet Kaur Gill was opened prior to his joining the Branch. Signatures at points B on Ex.PW5/1 and Ex.PW5/2 were not put in his presence. However, signatures at point A on Ex.PW5/3 was put by the account holder before him and she had also put thumb impression before him.
CBI Case No. 19/12 17-12-2014 50 of 70 CBI Vs. Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
He also deposed that it is apparent that there is a difference in the manner of writing of the signature of Smt. Surjeet Kaur at point A on Ex.PW5/3 and signatures appearing at points B on Ex.PW5/2 and 5/1. He volunteered to say that this was for the reason, as far as he recollects, that she has suffered an accident and had also written letter, Ex.PW5/3 to the said effect and that is why her thumb impression had been taken.
The testimony of PW 7 Sh. S.C. Daver has also gone unimpeached.
13.16 PW 9 Sh. Jasmer Singh who was working as Sr. Law Manager in DLF Universal Ltd., New Delhi in the year 2000 has testified about handing over a photocopy of sale deed dated 22-01-1974, Mark A, of plot No. 289, Block M, measuring 400 Sq. yards in the name of Smt. Surjit Kaur W/o Dr. T.S. Gill R/o Kanganwal Garden Colony via Sanewal, Ludhiana, Punjab for Rs.8,400/-, to Sh. Devinder Singh, DSP, CBI vide letter dated 30-10-2000. Ex. PW 9/A. He further stated that the photocopy of sale deed which was given by him was made available from the office record of DLF Universal Ltd.
This witness was not cross-examined by any accused.
13.17 PW1 Sh. G.C. Chopra who was posted as UDC in the office of the Sub-Registrar III, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi during the period July 2000 to November 2001, has testified about handing over attested/certified copy of sale deed dated 28-01-1974, Ex. PW1/B to Sh. Devender Singh, Deputy SP, CBI vide production memo Ex. PW1/A. He further stated that Ex. PW1/B bears his initial at point B/1 for preparing the copy. Sh. B.D. Dhawan, Sub CBI Case No. 19/12 17-12-2014 51 of 70 CBI Vs. Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Registrar had attested the sale deed and had signed at point B/2. B/3 is the writing under his hand. The relevant record in respect of the sale deed was being maintained by him and the same was in his custody at that time. During his cross- examination, he stated that he does not have authority to issue the certified copy. He issued/prepared the same only on being asked. He denied that it is not the true copy of the same sale deed. He admitted that the photocopy of Ex.PW1/B had not been prepared from the original but it had been prepared from the copy which was available in their record.
The testimony of PW 1 Sh. G.C. Chopra has gone unimpeached. 13.18 PW 31 Sh. B.D. Dhawan, who was was working as Sub
Registrar, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi in the year 2000 has testified about certifying copy of the sale deed, dated 23-01-1974, Ex.PW1/B to be a true copy when the same was put up to him by Sh. G.C. Chopra, Record Keeper along with the original.
Nothing affecting the above testimony could be elicited during his cross- examination.
13.19 Further, PW 24 Sh. Krishan Kumar who was working in EO VIII Branch of the CBI as a Head Constable in the year 2001-02 deposed that Shri Devender Singh, DSP, CBI has given him two notices, Ex. PW24/A and Ex. PW24/B under Section 160 Cr.P.C. addressed to Shri K.P. Singh, House No. 127, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi and Shri Manoj Singh, House No. 7127, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi for service upon the said persons. However, CBI Case No. 19/12 17-12-2014 52 of 70 CBI Vs. Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
neither the said addresses nor the said persons could be found. He accordingly gave his report on the said notices. The notices Ex. PW 24/A and Ex. PW 24/B bears his report at points A respectively and his signatures at points B respectively. He further stated that the addresses given in the notices were not found correct. During his cross- examination, he admitted that since the addresses given in the notices were not complete, he could not find the same. He denied that he had not gone to the spot for service of the above notices. He also denied that the address given in the notices were correct.
13.20 From the above evidence, it is clear that it was accused No. 4, Sushila Kumari, who impersonated as Smt. Surjeet Kaur and executed various loan documents as Surjeet Kaur. She also posed as Smt. Surjeet Kaur, mentioned in the sale deed, Ex.PW5/5. PW 6 Sh. A.K. Jain who was the concerned Sub Registrar has categorically stated that Ex.PW5/5 does not bear his signature. The addresses of the witnesses mentioned in the sale deed, Ex.PW5/5 were also found to be non- existing. Further, a comparison of the sale deed, Ex.PW5/5 submitted on behalf of accused No. 1, Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd, in the bank with a copy of the sale deed, Ex.PW5/8 produced by PW 5 Sh. Ravinder Pal Singh and copy of the sale deed, Ex PW1/B produced by PW1 Sh. G.C. Chopra reveal that they are quite different. The witnesses mentioned in the sale deed Ex.PW5/8 and Ex. PW1/ B are Sh. Saheb Singh and Sh. Amrit Lal Jain whereas, in the forged sale deed, Ex.PW5/5, the witnesses mentioned are Sh. K.P. Singh and Sh. Manoj Singh. Thus, there is no doubt that the sale deed, Ex.PW5/5 (also marked Ex.PW2/18) is a forged document.
CBI Case No. 19/12 17-12-2014 53 of 70 CBI Vs. Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 14.1 It is observed that photocopy of certificate, placed at page 124,
photocopy of statement of assets and liabilities as on 31-03-1998, placed at pages 158 to 160, photocopy of provisional profit and loss account placed at page 161 and photocopy of provisional balance sheet placed at page 162, of register, Ex.PW2/9, purportedly prepared by Goel & Jolly, Chartered Accountants have been signed by one Ashok Goel as Partner of Goel & Jolly.
14.2 In this regard, PW 8 Sh. Vinay Goyal has testifed that he is a practicing Chartered Accountant. His regd. No. is 81815 issued from Institute of Chartered Accountant of India, New Delhi. The name of his firm was M/s Goyal and Jolly at 4/1, Desh Bandhu Gupta Road, Paharganj, New Delhi. The other partners of M/s Goyal & Jolly, from time to time were Mr. N.K. Jolly, Rakesh Goyal, A.K. Singhal and G.P. Aggarwal. Sh. Ashok Goyal was never associated as a partner in the aforesaid firm. He also stated that the certificate available on page No. 124, statement of assets and liabilities on page No. 158 to 160, provisional profit and loss account on page No. 161 and provisional balance sheet available on page No. 162, in file Ex. PW 2/9 was not issued by his firm M/s Goyal & Jolly, Chartered Accountants. He further testified that he has also written a letter, Ex. PW8/A to Sh. Devinder Singh, DSP, CBI SIU VIII, New Delhi stating that Sh. Ashok Goyal was not their associate/partner. During his cross - examination, he stated that there was a partner called Mr. Naresh Kumar Jolly in his partnership firm M/s Goyal & Jolly. There can only be one firm by one name and there cannot be any other CBI Case No. 19/12 17-12-2014 54 of 70 CBI Vs. Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
firm by the name of M/s Goyal & Jolly. Naresh Kumar Jolly left his partnership firm somewhere in the year 1995. The said Mr. Naresh Kumar Jolly after leaving his firm started another firm in the name of Jolly & Co.
The testimony of PW 8 Sh. Vinay Goel has gone unimpeached.
14.3 PW 20 Sh. G.G. Somasekhar, who was working as Dy.
Secretary, Institute of Chartered Accountant at Inderprastha Marg, New Delhi in the year 2001, deposed that they admit the members who are called Chartered Accountant and they issue certificate of practice to such members. Any member of the institute who holds certificate of practice only can perform attest functions under the Companies Act. In connection with CBI Investigation in RC3-6/2000, he had addressed a letter, Ex.PW20/A to DSP, CBI under his signatures in accordance with records. This letter bears his signatures at point A. He had informed the CBI that Sh. Ashok Goel was not a partner in M/s Goel and Jolly, a Chartered Accountant firm. During his cross- examination, he stated that the bonafide member of the Institute who is eligible to practice can practice as a partner or as an individual before getting it registered with the Institute within the mandatory period of 30 days. Within this period, the said firm has to comply with the requirement as per the Act. He admitted that in the inquiry made by the CBI in the present case, they had not asked whether the said Sh. Ashok Goel was a bonafide member of the Institute or not, except the query regarding his partnership with Goel and Jolly, Chartered Accountant Firm.
The testimony of this witness has also gone unimpeached.
CBI Case No. 19/12 17-12-2014 55 of 70 CBI Vs. Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 14.4 PW 32 SI S.P. Singh of SIU-VIII, CBI, New Delhi, deposed that Sh. Devender Singh, DSP, CBI gave him a notice, dated 15-01-2001,
Ex.PW32/A, under Section 160 Cr.P.C., in the name of Sh. Ashok Goel, Partner, M/s Goel & Jolly (CA) for service upon him. He had accordingly gone for service of the notice on 16-01-2001 to the given address at 4965, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, Delhi. When he went to Dev Nagar, he made inquiries and came to know that the said address did not exist at Dev Nagar. He also went to House no. 4965 in the nearby Shiv Nagar where nobody by the name of Ashok Goel was available. He had accordingly given his report, Ex. PW32/B on the backside of Ex.PW32/A. He also identified signatures of late Sh. Devender Singh on Ex.PW32/A which are at point A. During his cross- examination, he denied that Shiv Nagar is part of Dev Nagar. He further stated that he had visited the given house No. at Shiv Nagar. In the said house, nobody by the name of Ashok Goel was residing. He had gone to Shiv Nagar since House No. 4965 was not existing in Dev Nagar and Shiv Nagar was adjoining Dev Nagar. Dev Nagar and Shiv Nagar are contiguous localities. No dent could be made in the testimony of PW 32 Insp. S.P. Singh, during his cross-examination. However, there is no document on record which reveal address of Goel & Jolly as 4965, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. Ld. Special P.P. submitted that the said address was taken from record of the connected cases bearing C.C. No. 21/12, titled CBI Vs. Vivek Sood & Others.
14.5 From the testimonies of the above witnesses, prosecution has been able to prove that no person named Ashok Goel was a partner of M/s Goel & Jolly and the said firm was not existing at 4965, Dev Nagar, Karol CBI Case No. 19/12 17-12-2014 56 of 70 CBI Vs. Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Bagh, Delhi. If there was any such person, it was especially within the knowledge of the accused persons. The prosecution having prima-facie, established its case, it was for the accused persons to show who was Sh. Ashok Goel who had purportedly signed the above documents. The accused persons have failed to do so. Thus, the necessary inference is that the documents purportedly signed by Sh. Ashok Goel as partner of M/s Goel & Jolly viz. photocopy of certificate, placed at page 124, photocopy of statement of assets and liabilities as on 31-03-1998 placed at pages 158 to 160, photocopy of provisional profit and loss account placed at page 161 and photocopy of provisional balance sheet placed at page 162, of register, Ex.PW2/9 are forged documents.
15.1 Accused No. 1, Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., accused No. 2, Nandita Bakshi and accused No. 3, Vivek Sood had tried to argue that even if the sale deed, Ex.PW5/5 and the documents certified by Sh. Ashok Goel, Partner of Goel & Jolly, Chartered Accountants are found to be forged, they had no knowledge of the same. This argument is not tenable. A borrower cannot plead ignorance about the identity of the guarantor, the title deeds of the property offered as collateral security or the identity of the person/ Chartered Accountant who had certified their documents or the genuineness of the documents submitted/executed by him. From the evidence led by prosecution, it is clear that accused No. 1, Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., accused No. 2, Nandita Bakshi and accused No. 3, Vivek Sood had by deceiving and dishonestly/ fraudulently inducing SBBJ, obtained various credit facilities i.e. EPC (Hyp) of Rs. 85,00,000/-, FBP/FBD (Docy) of Rs.
CBI Case No. 19/12 17-12-2014 57 of 70 CBI Vs. Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
80,00,000/-, LC DA/DP of Rs. 45,00,000/- and ceiling on fund base of Rs. 120 lacs in favour of accused No. 1, Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., inter-alia, on the basis of forged documents i.e. sale deed, Ex.PW5/5, various documents signed by accused No. 4, Sushila Kumari as Smt. Surjeet Kaur and documents purportedly signed by Sh. Ashok Goel, partner, M/s Goel & Jolly and by misrepresenting that accused No. 4, late Smt. Sushila Kumari was Smt. Surjeet Kaur, owner of property No. M-289, G.K., Part-II, New Delhi. They also fraudulently or dishonestly used the aforesaid forged documents as genuine for inducing SBBJ, Nehru Place, New Delhi to sanction the aforesaid credit facilities knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged.
16.1 Regarding the role of accused No. 5, Shafique-Ur-Rehman, PW 4 Sh. Anuj Beotra deposed that during the year 1998, he was working with Sh. V.P. Aneja, Govt. Registered Valuer having office at C-2/19, Janak Puri, New Delhi-58. He is also a qualified Civil Engineer and having Diploma in Civil Engineering. Being a valuer, normally they conducted physical inspection of the immovable property for giving valuation certificate as desired by bank or client. He further stated that he has given valuation report, Ex. PW4/1 in respect of the property i.e. a plot situated at M-289, Greater Kailash, Part II, New Delhi on 19-05-1998. This valuation report has been given by him on the instructions of accused No. 5, Shafique-Ur-Rehman. He has identified accused No. 5, Shafique-Ur-Rehman. He also stated that accused No. 5, Shafique-Ur-Rehman had given him a photocopy of the sale deed of the above said property with a request to give valuation report. Accordingly, he visited the site for inspection of the property. At the time of the inspection of CBI Case No. 19/12 17-12-2014 58 of 70 CBI Vs. Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
the property, accused No. 5, Shafique-Ur-Rehman was also present at the site. He also stated that this valuation report was prepared by him for open purpose as asked by accused No. 5, Shafique-Ur-Rehman.
16.2 During his cross- examination, PW 4 Sh. Anuj Beotra admitted that the details of the property are furnished by the bank along with the request letter in most cases for purposes of valuation but in some cases verbal instructions are given on telephone. In this case, he has not received either verbal or oral instructions by the bank. It was on the request of accused No. 5, Shafique-Ur-Rehman that this valuation was done. Fees in this case had been paid to him by accused No. 5, Shafique-Ur-Rehman. He was paid about Rs. 800/- to 1000/- as fee but no receipt was given as it was not asked. He denied that accused No. 5, Shafique-Ur-Rehman had not given any request to him to valuate the property and his report is false. He admitted that as per the papers of the property shown to him by accused No. 5, Shafique- Ur-Rehman, the owner of the property was one Smt. Surjeet Kaur Gill. He admitted that in the abbreviation mentioned in the reference No. column 'O' refers to Open i.e. it will not be used for the bank purposes, SKG is the abbreviation of Surjeet Kaur Gill and SKR is the abbreviation of accused No. 5, Shafique-Ur-Rehman. He denied that this report has been made at the asking of Smt. Surjeet Kaur Gill. He voluntarily stated that he had never met Surjeet Kaur Gill. He denied that accused No. 5, Shafique-Ur-Rehman had not shown him photocopy of sale deed. He also stated that there was no panel system in the SBBJ and V.P. Aneja was not on their panel.
The testimony of this witness has gone unimpeached.
CBI Case No. 19/12 17-12-2014 59 of 70 CBI Vs. Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 16.3 PW 11 Sh. Om Prakash Solanki, who was running a medical
store under the name and style of M/s Solanki Medical Store at Trilok Puri, Delhi, in the year 1982 deposed that Mr. R.M. Nangia and Smt. Sushila Kumari were his neighbours and they used to visit his clinic for taking medicines. He also knew one Dharmender son of Sh. Babu Lal who was staying at Kalyan Puri and he used to come to his clinic too. Dharmender was working as Peon in the office of Yusuf Rehman. However, the witness had pointed towards accused No. 5, Shafique-Ur-Rehman and said that he was the same person. He further deposed that Dharmender introduced him with accused No. 5, Shafique-Ur-Rehman. Accused No. 5, Shafique-Ur-Rehman was dealing in finance i.e. he used to get the loan sanctioned from the bank to the needy person on security of properties. He further stated that Mr. R.N. Nangia owned a plot in the area of Yamuna Bank and he wished to take a loan by pledging the said plot of land. He introduced Mr. R.N. Nangia to accused No. 5, Shafique-Ur-Rehman through Dharmender as Shri R.N. Nangia was seeking loan on the basis of the said plot. He knew accused Sushila Kumari who is wife of Sh. R.N. Nangia. During his cross- examination, he stated that he was taken by Dharmender to the office of Shafique-Ur- Rehman Nizamujddin, New Delhi. He does not know the exact address of the office of accused Shafique-Ur-Rehman. He denied that he is deposing falsely or that accused Shafique-Ur-Rehman never had any office at Nizamujddin, New Delhi. He further denied that he has identified accused Shafique-Ur-Rehman in the court at the instance of CBI.
No dent has been made in the testimony of PW 11 Dr. Om CBI Case No. 19/12 17-12-2014 60 of 70 CBI Vs. Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Prakash Solanki during his cross-examination.
16.4 PW 15 Sh. L.K. Bansal, who was posted as Branch Manager in PNB, Nizamuddin, New Delhi in 2001, deposed about handing over following documents to the CBI vide letter dated 06-07-2001, Ex.PW15/A:-
(i) Photocopy of credit slip, dated 15-11-1997, Ex.PW15/B, duly certified by him, vide which cheque No. 297455 for Rs. 3,15,000.00 of Citi Bank, Delhi was deposited in account No. 18670 of accused No. 5, Shafique- Ur-Rehman
(ii) Photocopy of cheque No. 901552, dated 17-11-1997, Ex.PW15/C for Rs. 1,74,000/- issued by accused No. 2, Nandita Bakshi for Kamayani Fine Jewellery.
(iii) Photocopy of credit slip dated 17-11-1997, Ex.PW15/D for Rs. 1,74,000/- in the name of accused Safique-Ur-Rehman.
(iv) Statement of Account No. 18670, Ex.PW15/E in the name of accused Shafique-Ur-Rehman at PNB, Nizamuddin Branch, New Delhi and
(v) Statement of Account No. 18670 in the name of accused No. 5, Shafique-Ur-Rehman, Ex. PW15/F. He further stated that the Account was maintained by accused Shafique-Ur-Rehman till 31-05-2000.
16.5 During his cross-examination, PW 15 Sh. L.K. Bansal stated that he was not posted in the bank at the time of opening of the account by Shafique-Ur-Rehman. He admitted that he cannot identify the photograph of Shafique-Ur-Rehman. However, he was saying only on the basis of CBI Case No. 19/12 17-12-2014 61 of 70 CBI Vs. Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
attestation done on the photograph. He admitted that cheque, Ex.PW15/C dated 15-07-1997 was issued by company M/s Kamayani Fine Jewellery. The credit voucher, Ex.PW15/B dated 15-11-1997 belongs to some other cheque but does not belong to Ex.PW15/C. The testimony of this witness has also gone unimpeached.
16.6 PW 18 Sh. Sandeep Kulshreshth, who was working in Citi Bank, Jeevan Bharati Building as Asstt. Manager (Customer Services) in December 2001, testified about handing over following documents to Mr. Devender Singh, DSP, CBI, vide letter, dated 12-12-2001, Ex.PW 18/A:-
(i) Copy of seizure memo dt. 22-8-2001,Ex. PW18/B vide which, documents mentioned therein, were handed over by him to Shri Lakhi Prasad, Addl. Supdt. Of Police, CBI,
(ii) Photocopy of Manager's cheque bearing No. 297455 dt.
15-11-1997, Mark PW18/1 for Rs. 3,15,000/-, issued by Citi Bank in favour of Shafique-Ur-Rehman,
(iii) Photocopy of the Audit and Register copy of the above Manager's cheque,
(iv) Photocopy of cheque No. 070588, dated 15-11-1997, Ex. PW18/3 issued from account No. 0414403018 dt. 15-11-1997, issued in favour of " yourself" for Rs. 3,15,000/- giving instructions to the Bank to issue Manager's cheque.
He further deposed that the above documents have been certified by him to be true copies. Account No. 0414403018 was a current account in the name of M/s Balaji Exports. The beneficiary of the Mananger's CBI Case No. 19/12 17-12-2014 62 of 70 CBI Vs. Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
cheque was Shafique-Ur-Rehman. In their Bank, Manager's cheque is same as a demand-draft or a pay-order. During his cross-examination, he stated that he can not identify signatures on cheque No. 070588 issued from the account No. 041403018, Mark PW 18/1. He admitted that in his letter Ex. PW 18/A, it is recorded that M/s Balaji Exports belongs to Vijay Kumar Jha.
16.7 The testimonies of PW 4 Sh. Anuj Beotra, PW 11 Dr. Om Prakash Solanki, PW 15 Sh. L.K. Bansal and PW 18 Sh. Sandeep Kulshreshth have gone unimpeached. The documents about which PW 15 Sh. L.K. Bansal and PW 18 Sh. Sandeep Kulshreshth have deposed, have not been disputed by accused No. 5, Shafique-Ur-Rehman. When the evidence of PW 15 Sh. L.K. Bansal and PW 18 Sh. Sandeep Kulshreshth regarding the said documents was put to accused No. 5, Shafique-Ur-Rehman, he stated that it was a matter of record. During the arguments also, accused No. 5, Shafique-Ur-Rehman has not disputed receipt of Rs.1,74,000/- from Kamayani Fine Jewellery and receipt of Rs. 3,15,000/- from Balaji Exports. Further, no malice has been alleged between PW 4 Sh. Anuj Beotra or PW11 Dr. Om Prakash Solanki and accused No. 5, Shafique-Ur-Rehman. There is no reason to disbelieve their testimonies. From the evidence led on record, it is clear that accused No. 5, Shafique-Ur-Rehman was not only earlier known to accused No. 2, Nandita Bakshi and accused No. 3, Vivek Sood but he had obtained valuation report, Ex.PW2/119 (also Ex.PW4/1) for the said accused persons. He had given a photocopy of the sale deed of property No. M-289, G.K., Part-II, New Delhi to PW 4 Sh. Anuj Beotra and he was also present along with PW 4 Sh. Anuj Beotra at the time of inspection of the said property.
CBI Case No. 19/12 17-12-2014 63 of 70 CBI Vs. Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
There was no instruction from the bank for valuation of the said property and it was at the request of accused No. 5, Shafique-Ur-Rehman that the valuation was done by PW 4 Sh. Anuj Beotra. It appears that accused No. 5, Shafique-Ur-Rehman was also paid for the same. The said valuation report has been used by accused No.1, Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd, accused No. 2, Nandita Bakshi and accused No. 3, Vivek Sood for obtaining various credit facilities from the bank. No explanation has come from accused No. 5, Shafique-Ur-Rehman as to why he had obtained the aforesaid valuation report. The contention of accused No. 5, Shafique-Ur-Rehman that PW 4 Sh. Anuj Beotra has deposed at the instance of CBI or that he received money from Kamayani Fine Jewellery or Balaji Exports on account of sale of gold does not inspire confidence. No suggestion has been given to PW 4 Sh. Anuj Beotra that he was shown accused No. 5, Shafique-Ur-Rehman at Tis Hazari Court. Thus, contention of Ld. counsel for accused No. 5, Shafique-Ur- Rehman in this regard appears to be an afterthought. The circumstances brought on record lead to the only inference that accused No. 5, Shafique-Ur- Rehman was a party to the conspiracy with accused No. 1, Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., accused No. 2, Nandita Bakshi, accused No. 3, Vivek Sood and accused No. 6, G.R. Meena to cheat the bank.
16.8 The deposition of DW 1 Sh. Kamal Lal Meena, AGM, SBBJ, Nehru Place, New Delhi, to the effect that in case collateral security is taken, valuation report is obtained from an empaneled valuer and that the bank does not accept valuation got done by borrower on his own is of no help to accused No. 5, Shafique-Ur-Rehman.
CBI Case No. 19/12 17-12-2014 64 of 70 CBI Vs. Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 17.1 Accused No. 6, G.R. Meena had processed and recommended the loan proposal of accused No. 1, Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. vide
advance proposal, Ex.PW2/12. He has also given opinion report, dated 16-06-1998, Ex.PW2/13 on accused No. 3, Vivek Sood and opinion report, dated 16-06-1998 Ex.PW2/85 on accused No. 2, Nandita Bakshi and opinion report, Ex.PW2/86 dated 04-07-1998 on the purported guarantor Smt. Surjeet Kaur. He has not disputed his signatures on the above documents. In the opinion report, Ex.PW2/86, given by accused No. 6, G.R. Meena with respect to Smt. Surjeet Kaur, W/o Sh. T.S. Gill, her permanent address has been given as " Kangarwal Garden Colony, 49, Sanewala, Ludhiana" and her Delhi address has been mentioned as " House No. 262/263, Trilok Puri, New Delhi - 91" . During clarifications, accused No. 6, G.R. Meena submitted that the said address was taken from a copy of Ration Card of the said guarantor. However, the same is not on record. As earlier held, the said Smt. Surjeet Kaur never stood as a guarantor for accused No. 1, Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. Rather, accused No. 4, Sushila Kumari had impersonated in the bank as Smt. Surjeet Kaur. If accused No. 6, G.R. Meena was not a party to the conspiracy and due diligence was shown by him, the true identity of accused No. 4, late Smt. Sushila Kumari could have been easily ascertained. PW 2, Sh. B.K. Bansal has categorically deposed about signing of various documents pertaining to the loan in question by accused No. 6, G.R. Meena. The fact that Sh. P.R. Kanther had sent the proposal to the Zonal Office or that during the working transaction with accused No. 1, Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., various other officers of the bank including Mr. R.S. Chauhan and CBI Case No. 19/12 17-12-2014 65 of 70 CBI Vs. Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
A.K. Garg also signed on behalf of the bank at different times or that accused No. 6, G.R. Meena used to function under the direction and within knowledge of Sh. P.R. Kanther does not dilute the liability of accused No. 6, G.R. Meena. Further, PW 10 Sh. R.S. Chauhan has deposed that accused No. 6, G.R. Meena was sanctioning authority for the LCs since he was Incharge of Credit and Investment Department. Accused No. 6, G.R. Meena unauthorizedly accepted the Lawyers' Opinion, Ex.PW2/20 and legal search report, Ex. PW2/21 of the property in question from Sh. Praveen Kalra, Advocate. There was no written request by the bank to Sh. Praveen Kalra to give any opinion/report. Similarly, Sh. V.P. Aneja who had given report, Ex.PW2/119, (also Ex.PW4/1) was also not asked by the bank to give any valuation. But their reports were accepted by accused No. 6, G.R. Meena. The aforesaid circumstances lead to the inference that accused No. 6, G.R. Meena was a party to the conspiracy with accused No. 1, Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., accused No. 2, Nandita Bakshi and accused No. 3, Vivek Sood to cheat SBBJ.
18 It has also been argued on behalf of the accused persons that on the same facts that four FIRs i.e. RC No. 3E/2000, i.e. the present case, RC No. 4E/2000, RC No. 5E/2000 and RC No. 6E/2000 have been registered which is not permissible as per law laid down in T.T. Anthony Vs. State of Kerala and Others (supra). Ld. P.P submits that facts of all the four cases are different. Admittedly, the borrower companies/firm and the loan account are different in all the aforesaid four cases. Thus, the above contention of the accused persons is not tenable.
CBI Case No. 19/12 17-12-2014 66 of 70 CBI Vs. Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Conclusions 19.1 In view of the aforesaid discussions, it is considered that the
prosecution has been able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that,
a) all the accused persons namely, accused No. 1, Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., accused No. 2, Nandita Bakshi, accused No. 3, Vivek Sood, accused No. 5, Shafique-Ur- Rehman and accused No. 6, G.R. Meena entered into a conspiracy to cheat SBBJ, Nehru Place, New Delhi by dishonestly/ fraudulently inducing it to sanction various credit facilities i.e. EPC (Hyp) of Rs. 85,00,000/-, FBP/FBD (Docy) of Rs. 80,00,000/-, LC DA/DP of Rs. 45,00,000/- and ceiling on fund base of Rs. 120 lacs in favour of accused No. 1, Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., inter-alia, on the basis of forged documents i.e. Sale deed dated 22-01-1974, Ex.PW5/5, purportedly executed by DLF through its Secretary, Sh. Ram Kishan Jain, in favour of Smt. Surjeet Kaur, W/o Dr. T.S. Gill, R/o Kangarwal Garden Colony via Sonehwal, Ludhiana in respect of property No. M-289, G.K., Part-II, New Delhi, various documents signed by Sushila Kumari as Surjeet Kaur, owner of property No. M-289, G. K. Part - II, New Delhi and photocopy of certificate, placed at page 124, photocopy of statement of assets and liabilities as on 31-03-1998 placed at pages 158 to 160, photocopy of provisional profit and loss account placed at page 161 and photocopy of provisional balance sheet placed at page 162, of register, Ex.PW2/9, purportedly given by Goel & Jolly, Chartered Accountants and signed by one Ashok Goel as Partner of Goel & Jolly, by fraudulently or dishonestly using the aforesaid forged documents as genuine, for inducing CBI Case No. 19/12 17-12-2014 67 of 70 CBI Vs. Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
SBBJ, Nehru Place, New Delhi to sanction the aforesaid credit facilities, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged, and by misrepresenting that accused No. 4, Sushila Kumari was Smt. Surjeet Kaur, owner of property No. M-289, G.K., Part-II, New Delhi, and by commission of criminal misconduct by the public servant i.e. accused No. 6, G.R. Meena.
b) accused No. 6, being a public servant i.e. Manager, C & I, SBBJ, Nehru Place, New Delhi, by illegal means and/or abuse of his official position, obtained pecuniary advantage i.e. the aforesaid credit facilities for accused No. 1, Swati Fine Jewellary Pvt. Ltd. and caused loss to the tune of Rs. 1,44,32,220/-, as on 01-11-2000, plus interest, to SBBJ by recommending the loan proposal on the basis of forged documents, misrepresentation, and impersonation which was sanctioned on his recommendation.
c) accused No. 1, Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., accused No. 2, Nandita Bakshi and accused No. 3, Vivek Sood deceived and dishonestly/fraudulently induced SBBJ, Nehru Place, New Delhi to sanction various credit facilities i.e. EPC (Hyp) of Rs. 85,00,000/-, FBP/FBD (Docy) of Rs. 80,00,000/-, LC DA/DP of Rs. 45,00,000/- and ceiling on fund base of Rs. 120 lacs, in favour of accused No. 1, Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., inter-alia, on the basis of forged documents i.e. Sale deed dated 22-01-1974, Ex.PW5/5, purportedly executed by DLF through its Secretary, Sh. Ram Kishan Jain, in favour of Smt. Surjeet Kaur, W/o Dr. T.S. Gill, R/o Kangarwal Garden Colony via Sonehwal, Ludhiana in respect of property No. M-289, G.K., Part-II, New Delhi, various documents signed by Sushila Kumari as Surjeet Kaur, owner of property No. M-289, G. K. Part - II, New Delhi and photocopy of certificate, placed at page 124, photocopy of statement of assets and liabilities as on 31-03-1998 placed CBI Case No. 19/12 17-12-2014 68 of 70 CBI Vs. Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
at pages 158 to 160, photocopy of provisional profit and loss account placed at page 161 and photocopy of provisional balance sheet placed at page 162, of register, Ex.PW2/9, purportedly given by Goel & Jolly, Chartered Accountants and signed by one Ashok Goel as Partner of Goel Jolly, and by fraudulently or dishonestly using the aforesaid forged documents as genuine for inducing SBBJ, Nehru Place, New Delhi to sanction the aforesaid credit facilities knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged.
19.2 The points at para 9 are decided accordingly.
19.3 In view of the aforesaid, it is held that :-
a) All the accused persons namely accused No. 1, Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., accused No. 2, Nandita Bakshi, accused No. 3, Vivek Sood, accused No. 5, Shafique-Ur-Rehman and accused No. 6, G.R. Meena are guilty for commission of offence punishable u/s 120-B r/w sections 420 and 471, r/w sections 467/468 IPC, and section 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act and they are convicted accordingly.
b) Accused No. 6, G.R. Meena is also guilty for commission of offence punishable u/s 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act and he is convicted accordingly.
c) Accused No. 1, Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. is also guilty for commission of offences punishable (i) u/s 420 IPC and (ii) section 471 r/w sections 467/468 IPC and it is convicted accordingly.
d) Accused No. 2, Nandita Bakshi is also guilty for commission of offences punishable (i) u/s 420 IPC and (ii) section 471 r/w sections 467/468 IPC and she is convicted accordingly.
CBI Case No. 19/12 17-12-2014 69 of 70 CBI Vs. Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. e) Accused No. 3, Vivek Sood is also guilty for commission of offences
punishable (i) u/s 420 IPC and (ii) section 471 r/w sections 467/468 IPC and he is convicted accordingly.
20 Let the convicts be heard on the point of sentence on 18-12-2014.
Announced in the Open Court today on 17th Day of December, 2014 (Rakesh Syal) Spl. Judge, (PC Act) & (CBI) -03, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.
CBI Case No. 19/12 17-12-2014 70 of 70 CBI Vs. Swati Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.