Delhi District Court
The Project Report Ex. P309 Submitted Is ... vs . 1) Virender Verma on 7 June, 2016
1
IN THE COURT OF BHUPESH KUMAR,
SPL. JUDGE, (PC ACT) CBI-01, (SOUTH)
SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
CC No.15/2013
RC No.14(A)/1994
Unique Case ID No. : 02406R0031781998
C.B.I.
vs. 1) Virender Verma
Prop.of M/s M.H.Enterprises,
245/A-1, Devli Road,
Khanpur, New Delhi.
Presently at 473, Sarita Vihar,
N.Delhi
2) P.D.Maher (since dead)
Prop.of M/s Lumbani
Boutique, 245/A-1, Devli
Road, Khanpur,
New Delhi.
Presently c/o Amarpali
Boutique,
142, Zamrudpur, N.Delhi.
3) Mrs. S.Verma (Discharged)
H.no.164, sector 7A,
Faridabad.
4) K.L.Bhasin,
the then Branch Manager,
New Bank of India, Defence
Colony, N.Delhi
r/o E-B-46, SPS Flats, G-8
Areas, Rajouri Garden,
N.Delhi.
CC No.15/13 (Bhupesh Kumar)
CBI vs Virender Verma & anr. Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South)/New Delhi/07.06.2016
2
5) D.K.Gupta (Discharged)
The then Regional Manager,
Regional office, New Bank of
India, N.Delhi.
Present - 64 DDA, SFS,
Phase III, Delhi-52
6) A.R.Lamba (since dead)
The then Dy.G.M.,
New Bank of India,
N.Delhi
r/o H-48, Kirti Nagar, New
Delhi.
7) Mrs.Anjali Verma
(Discharged)
W/o Sh.Varinder Verma,
R/o 473, Sarita Vihar,
New Delhi.
RC No. : 14(A) 1994/CBI/ACB/ND
U/Sections : Under Sections 120B r/w Sections
419/420/467/468/471 IPC and r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)
of PC Act, 1988
Date of Institution : 12.01.1998
Arguments Heard on : 23.05.2016
Date of Judgment : 07.06.2016
Appearances :
Mr.Navin Giri, Ld. PP for CBI
Mr.Bhavook Chauhan, Ld. Counsel for A-1
Mr.Yogwardhan, Ld. Counsel for A-4
JUDGMENT
1. Brief facts of the matter are that CBI has received secret information that accused persons i.e. Virender Verma (A-1), Proprietor of M/s M.H.Enterprises; P.D.Maher (A-2),Proprietor of CC No.15/13 (Bhupesh Kumar) CBI vs Virender Verma & anr. Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South)/New Delhi/07.06.2016 3 M/s Lumbani Boutique and Mrs. S. Verma (A-3) entered into criminal conspiracy with other accused persons i.e. K.L. Bhasin(A-4), Branch Manager New Bank of India, Defence Colony, D.K.Gupta (A-5) Regional Manager, New Bank of India and A.R.Lamba-DGM (A-6), New Bank of India with object to cheat the bank. In pursuance thereof Virender Verma, proprietor of M/s M.H.Enterprises applied to avail term loan of Rs.2.80 lacs, cash credit limit for Rs.17.20 lac and BP/BD limit of Rs.14.90 lac with New Bank of India, on the basis of false and forged documents. In further pursuance thereof, false proposal and collateral security were submitted by M/s M.H. Enterprises which was fraudulently and dishonestly accepted by K.L.Bhasin, Branch Manager for sanction of the said loans. At regional office Mr.D.K.Gupta, the then Regional Manager despite queries raised by the dealing official and Mr.A.R.Lamba, the then DGM sanctioned the loan illegally on 10.11.89. Mr.K.L.Bhasin, Branch Manager released the loan on the same day i.e. 10.11.89.
After getting the said credit facility, M/s M.H. Enterprises presented bogus hundis for a sum of Rs.4,07,372.50 drawn on M/s P.D. Marketing & Consultants, worth of Rs.5,06,410/- and Rs.8,04,136.90 drawn on M/s Lumbani Boutique and worth of Rs.4,37,258/- drawn on M/s Clairvoyance Marketers, NIT Faridabad, which were discounted by Sh.K.L.Bhasin on 23.03.1990, 05.01.1990, 27.02.1990 and 01.02.1990 and caused wrongful loss to the bank to the tune of Rs.61.0 lac. The firms M/s M.H. Enterprises, M/s Lumbani Boutique and M/s P.D. Marketing & Consultants were bogus and non-existent firms whereas Mr.P.D.Maher, proprietor of M/s Lumbani Boutique and Mrs.S.Verma were guarantor of M/s M.H. CC No.15/13 (Bhupesh Kumar) CBI vs Virender Verma & anr. Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South)/New Delhi/07.06.2016 4 Enterprises.
On the basis of said source information, FIR under Section 120-B/420/467/468 r/w Section 471 and Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) was registered against the accused Virender Verma, proprietor of M/s M.H. Enterprises; P.D.Maher, proprietor of M/s Clairvoyance Marketers, Mrs.S. Verma; K.L.Bhasin, Branch Manager; D.K.Gupta, Regional Manager; and A.R.Lamba, Dy.G.M. New Bank of India. Thereafter, investigation of the matter was carried out and during investigation, it was found that when initially loan proposal was forwarded by accused K.L.Bhasin (A-4) to Regional Office, Smt.Neeta Dhawan, Jr. Manager working on loan seat at Regional Office has observed following shortcomings in the loan application :-
1. Provisional balance sheet of the firm.
2. Name of the introducer of the account.
3. copy of rent agreement and rent receipt hired by the firm.
4. The unit is in Nangloi and residence is in Faridabad why they have applied for loan from Defence Colony branch.
5. In from L-107 under the head business address party has given two address clarification required.
6. S.S.I. registration certificate
7. Details of experience of Sh.P.D.Mehar where did he got experience in garments.
8. Pre-sanction inspection report on party/proprietor Guarantor.
9. Basis for projected sale of Rs.143 lakhs. Proposed period of stocking, raw materials and finished goods seems to be on very high side.
Sh.Ashok Kumar, the then Manager (Loan) gave following comments on the above note :-
1. 85% capacity utilisation in the first year is quit high.
CC No.15/13 (Bhupesh Kumar)
CBI vs Virender Verma & anr. Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South)/New Delhi/07.06.2016
5
2. Area of factory land is not given.
3. L-200 (R) Sunday creditors taken as NIL which sound un-realistic.
4. Income tax returns of Proprietor and Guarantors for the last three years and assessment orders of Proprietor of latest years and available besides details of experience of Sh.P.D.Maher where did Sh.P.D.Maher had his experience in garment.
With this note of Sh.Ashok Kumar, Manager (Loan), file was put up before the Regional Manager, Mr.D.K.Gupta (A-5), who gave his remarks as "raise the queries". The reply from the party through branch was sought, which was raised by note dated 27-28/10/89. The letter reached branch office on 16.11.1989, but the investigation revealed that A-1 has submitted reply to the queries on 30.10.1989 which shows that accused were interested in getting the loan sanction in hurried manner. As per report dated 02.11.1989, K.L.Bhasin (A-4) conducted pre-sanction inspection and submitted the reply to queries on 03.11.1989. Letter No. ROD 189: .31080 was typed on 08.11.89 as per date typed on it, which reached branch on 16.11.1989 but the reply was submitted on 03.11.1989 by the branch to this letter. There is no justification on record as to why reply was submitted by A-1 and A-4 even before the receipt of RO's letter in the branch. On receipt of letter from Mr. K.L.Bhasin (A-4) in the regional office, Mrs. Neeta Dhawan, officer in RO again pointed out shortcomings which were yet to be fulfilled on the reverse of the letter of Sh.Ashok Kumar, Manager (Loan) in RO also marked the same note to Sh.D.K.Gupta (A-5) for removing these shortcomings R.O. should have asked the branch for compliance but instead A-5 remarked to put up detailed CC No.15/13 (Bhupesh Kumar) CBI vs Virender Verma & anr. Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South)/New Delhi/07.06.2016 6 sanction note with stipulation. On this credit facilities on 08.11.89 as proposed by A-1 Smt. Neeta Dhawan wrote "the recommendation and the following credit facilities were sanction by Sh.A.R.Lamba, DGM (i) Term Loan Rs.2.80 lacs (ii) cash credit Rs.17.20 lacs (iii) BD/BP limit Rs.14.90 lacs. Term loan was sanctioned for Rs.2.80 lac. But K.L.Bhasin (A-4) released an amount on 10.11.1989 in excess of the sanctioned loan and sought sanction after more than one month i.e. 28.12.89 for enhancement of term loan from 2.80 lac to 3.0 lac.
A-4 being Branch Manager did not obtain the documentary evidence,if A-1 was capable of raising the capital of Rs.3.75 lac and proposed unsecured loan. A-4 has not even obtained the SSI certified and has not carried out pre-sanction inspection before the disbursement of loan of Rs.3.00 lac. As per procedure, the margin money of term loan is required to be deposited by the party on the day of release of term loan. But the said procedure was not followed by A-4 before the loan was disbursed.
A-1 was already availing credit facilities in the name of M/s Verma Udyog from Oriental Bank of Commerce (OBC), New Friends Colony, where A-2 and A-3 stood guarantor against the said credit facility. In the present matter also, A-2 and A-3 stood guarantor for A-1 but they did not disclose this fact to the bank that they already stood guarantors for A-1 in the Oriental Bank of Commerce.
In this matter when A-1 applied for various facilities for setting up the unit under the name and style of M/s M.H.Enterprises, at A-26, Nangloi Extension, new Delhi, he has CC No.15/13 (Bhupesh Kumar) CBI vs Virender Verma & anr. Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South)/New Delhi/07.06.2016 7 submitted rent deed executed between Sh.Richh Pal stated to be owner of the said property and A-1. But during verification the said address was found to be non existent and the deed was also found to be bogus and forged document.
In respect to A-5 D.K.Gupta, it revealed that before putting note on the loan proposal "we may put detailed sanction note with stipulation" he has not taken care of the shortcomings pointed by Smt.Neeta Dhawan and Sh.Ashok Kumar on the loan proposal.
During investigation it was further revealed that A-1 had certain business dealing and has got discounted certain bills with five firms namely M/s Kalra Machinery Supplies Company, M/s Lumbani Boutique, M/s A.V.Apparels, M/s Clairvoyance Marketers, and M/s P.D.Marketing and Consultants, but all these firms were found to be non-existent and bogus.
In regard to investigation of the documents pertaining to account opening in the name of M/s Kalra Machinery with Bharat Overseas Bank, New Delhi, it was found that the said account was opened at the instance of one Sh.Purshottam Kumar. But on further enquiry it revealed that A-2 P.D.Maher has impersonated as Purshottam Kumar because the signatures on the account opening form and loose chqeues were found to be of A-2 when the same were sent for handwriting expert opinion. Further the handwriting on pay-in slip for depositing of Rs.1000/- as initial deposit in the said account, handwriting on the body of loose cheque, application for obtaining loose cheques, were found to be of A-1.
Further, in respect to the firm namely M/s Lumbani Boutique having its account in SBI, Ambedkar Nagar, it was found CC No.15/13 (Bhupesh Kumar) CBI vs Virender Verma & anr. Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South)/New Delhi/07.06.2016 8 that it was also a bogus firm and the account in the name of M/s Lumbani Boutique was opened by A-2 P.D.Maher, who was employee of A-1. During investigation in regard to firm namely M/s A.V. Apparels International, it revealed that this firm was also non-existent. As per the account opening form on this firm with account no. CA 995 in Bharat Overseas Bank, it was found that Mrs.Anjali Verma (A-7), wife of A-1 was proprietor of the firm. The address of the firm on account opening form was mentioned as 245, Deoli Road, Khanpur, but during investigation it was found that no such firm exist at the said address. Further it is found that A-7 has executed an attorney in favor of A-1 to operate the account.
The investigation further revealed that firms namely M/s Clairvoyance Marketers at 2B 55, NIT Faridabad and M/s P.D.Marekting and Consultant were also found to be non-existent. The investigation further revealed that after sanctioning of the term loan of Rs.3.0 lac, on 10.11.89 a draft of Rs.2,11,220/- was issued in favor of M/s Kalra Machinery Supplies Company and pay order of Rs.88,780/- was issued in favor of M/s India Industries Garments Machinery Ltd. But A-1 got the draft dated 10.11.89 in favor of M/s Kalra Machinery canceled and obtained pay order dated 23.11.89 in favor of said company. Likewise, the pay order dt.10.11.1989 issued in favor of M/s India Industries Garments Machinery Ltd. canceled and obtained draft dated 27.11.1989 in favor of M/s India Agencies, Bangalore. The amount deposited in the account of M/s Kalra Machinery was withdrawn in cash vide loose cheque dated 11.12.1989.
CC No.15/13 (Bhupesh Kumar)
CBI vs Virender Verma & anr. Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South)/New Delhi/07.06.2016
9
The investigation further revealed that a sum of Rs.3.0 lac was deposited in the account of M/s Lumbani Boutique which was later on withdrawn and was deposited in the account of M/s Verma Udyog belonging to A-1.
On account of BD/BP and cash credit facilities, the investigation revealed that A-1 on the basis of forged and bogus bills has availed the said facility and A-4 while granting the said facilities has violated the norms of the bank.
In this respect it has revealed that A-1 on 2.1.1990 presented four bills of a sum of Rs.5,06,410/- alongwith challan bills and accepted hundis drawn on non-existing firm M/s Lumbani Boutique and A-4 ordered for the discount of the said bills and accordingly the said amount i.e. Rs.5,06,410/- was debited to BD account.
A-1 has also presented other three bills on 31.01.1990 for a total sum of Rs.4,37,258/- drawn on non-existing firm M/s Clairvoyance Marketers and these bills were discounted by A-4 K.L.Bhasin and accordingly a sum of Rs.4,37,258/- was debited to BD account and a sum of Rs.3,73,878/- was credited in the account of non-existing firm M/s M.H.Enterprises after deducting margin money, interest and bank charges. These bill were sent for collected to Syndicate Bank, Hauz Khas, New Delhi, on 19.1.1990.
Further A-1 has also presented four bills of a sum of Rs.6,57,248/- drawn on non-existing firm M/s Lumbani Boutique. A-4 has ordered for the discount of said four bills and in pursuance of said order, a sum of Rs.5,62,113.40 was credited to the account of M/s M.H.Enterprises after deducting margin money, bank CC No.15/13 (Bhupesh Kumar) CBI vs Virender Verma & anr. Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South)/New Delhi/07.06.2016 10 charges and interest etc. Further A-1 submitted three bills drawn on non-existing firm M/S P.D.Marketing and Consultant for discounting. A-4 has ordered for the same and accordingly a sum of Rs.4,07,372.50 were debited to the account of M/s M.H.Enterprises after deducting margin money etc. However, the said three BDs were returned on 5.5.90 by SBI Janpath and a sum of Rs.4,07,372.50 alongwith interest and return charges were debited to the account of M/s M.H. Enterprises on 6.7.1990.
During investigation it was further revealed that out of eight bills forwarded to SBI, Madangir on 27.2.1990 for collection, seven hundis/BDs were returned unpaid. The amount of Rs.10,34,919.40 was debited to account of M/s M.H. Enterprises on 18.8.1990. Similarly, three BDs were returned by Syndicate Bank and the amount of Rs,4,58,033/- was debited in the account of M/s M.H. Enterprises.
It has also come out that a cheque no. 868066 dated 4.1.1990 signed by A-7 as proprietor of M/s A.V.Apparels International, but the cheque amount of a sum of Rs.40,609/- was collected by A-1.
The investigation further revealed that A-1 vide letter dated 8.2.1990 addressed to Director DGS & D, New CGO building Bombay and D/O Inspection (Source) Bharat Sarkar, has changed the name of the firm M/s Verma Udyog to M/s M.H.Enterprises which shows that there was no genuine firm in the name of M/s M.H. Enterprises. Further A-1 tried to get loan from UP Finance Corporation (UPFC).
CC No.15/13 (Bhupesh Kumar)
CBI vs Virender Verma & anr. Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South)/New Delhi/07.06.2016
11
The investigation was culminated into chargsheet under Section 120B/420/467/468/471 of IPC and 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 was filed against A-1 to A-7 for cheating the bank to the tune of Rs.54,18,602.55 and the same was filed in the Court.
Sanction to prosecute the public servants/bank officials i.e. A-4 K.L.Bhasin, A-5 D.K.Gupta and A-6 A.R.Lamba was not given by competent authority on the ground that all these were already dismissed from the service.
2. All the accused were summoned. Before the accused were heard on the point of charge, accused P.D.Maher (A-2) and A.R.Lamba (A-6) died and the proceedings against both of them were abetted vide order dated 12.07.2005 by my Ld Predecessor Court.
Accused Mrs. S.Verma (A-3) was discharged by my Ld Predecessor vide order dated 13.03.2007.
Formal charge U/S 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 was framed against accused K.L.Bhasin (A-4) and D.K.Gupta (A-5). Charge under Section 420/467/468/471 r/w Section 120B of IPC was framed against accused Virender Verma (A-1). Charge U/S 467/468/471/419/420 r/w 120B IPC and read with Section 13(1)(d) of P.C.Act was framed against A-1 Virender Verma, A-4 K.L.Bhasin, A-5 D.K.Gupta and A-7 Anjali Verma by my Ld Predecessor Court on 16.03.2007. But all the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trail.
Accused D.K.Gupta and Anjali Verma approached the CC No.15/13 (Bhupesh Kumar) CBI vs Virender Verma & anr. Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South)/New Delhi/07.06.2016 12 Hon'ble High Court against the order of framing of charge and vide order dated 03.04.2008, both of them were discharged by Hon'ble High Court.
Number of documents were put to accused Virender Verma and K.L.Bhasin U/S 294 read with Section 313 Cr.P.C and they have admitted various documents.
3. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE The prosecution has examined 55 witnesses in support of its case. 3.1 PW1 is Sh Jai Pal Singh. He has stated to the fact that in the year 1991 he had rented out three rooms and verandah of first floor of his house to Virender Verma on a monthly rent of Rs 800/- per month. In addition to these rooms Virender Verma had also taken rent accommodation from his brother. Accused had not paid room rent for six months and after six months he vacated and kept only one room. He kept the one room for the next three months. During cross examination the witness submitted that his house is situated in the Lal Dora area of Khanpur. Virender had taken on rent three rooms from this witness as well as three rooms from his brother and verandah. Virender was running a stitching factory under the name and style of M.H.Enterprises and around 40-45 workers were working therein. There were around 50-55 sewing machine, cutting machine and fussing machine. No written agreement was executed. Accused occupied the premises of his brother till November 1991.
CC No.15/13 (Bhupesh Kumar)
CBI vs Virender Verma & anr. Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South)/New Delhi/07.06.2016
13
3.2 PW2 is Sh Shakeel Ahmed. The witness submitted that he is partner in Veena Enterprises alongwith his mother. The witness further submitted to the effect that he alongwith his mother had introduced the account in the name of Clairvoyance Marketers, 245/1, Devli Road, Khanpur, New Delhi. The witness has identified his signatures at point A and signatures of his mother at point B on Ex. PW2/A. He further submitted that he had introduced this account at the instance of his father as his father knew the account holder but he did not know him.
3.3 PW3 is Sh Om Prakash Gupta, who was posted in the recovery cell of PNB, Manjusha Building, Nehru Place in the year 1995. He has submitted to the fact that as per Ex. PW3/A (D-68) he has handed over documents Ex. PW3/A-1 to Ex. PW3/A5 to CBI. The witness further submitted that he has also handed over invoice Ex. PW3/A6 (D-217) to the CBI. The witness further submitted that two sheets dated 10.11.1989 regarding M/S M.H.Enterprises Ex. PW3/B bears his signatures at point A. Ex. P366 (already admitted) bears his signatures at point A. The letter dated 11.11.1989 Ex. PW3/C also bears his signatures at point A. During cross examination this witness submitted that he had only handed over the documents to the CBI but he has no personal knowledge about the facts of the case.
3.4 PW4 is Sh Narender Mohan Jha. He has submitted to the effect that on 26.02.1994 he went to the office of CBI and as per CC No.15/13 (Bhupesh Kumar) CBI vs Virender Verma & anr. Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South)/New Delhi/07.06.2016 14 the directions of CBI officials he alongwith other CBI officials went for search of a house in Karol Bagh but the same could not be located and they returned back. Ex. PW4/A (D5) bears his signatures at point A. The witness has also identified his signatures on Ex. PW4/B (D6) at point A. During cross examination the witness submitted that CBI used to call him to join investigation off an on but he could not tell the number of cases in which he joined the investigation with CBI.
3.5 PW5 is Smt Veena. This witness has deposed to the effect that in the year 1982-83 her husband was doing fabrication work in the name of M/S Shabina Enterprises. Thereafter, a new firm in the name of Veena Enterprises started and a bank account in the name of above firm was opened which is Ex. PW5/A and bears her signatures at point A. The witness also identified her signatures at point A on partnership deed Ex. PW5/B. 3.6 PW6 Sh Phool Chand Sharma was posted as Manager, Credit Union, Bank of India, Zonal Office, Connaught Place, New Delhi in the year 1991. The witness submitted to the effact that in the month of May 1991 Virender Verma visited zonal office after meeting with Sh S.G.Gahate the then DGM submitted for CC hypothetication of Rs 24.73 lacs and bill limit of 21.60 lacs to M/S M.H.Enterprises. As per process, zonal officer had initially asked Deputy Manager Technical K.K.Maghani and V.K.Bakshi to submit feasibility report for CC No.15/13 (Bhupesh Kumar) CBI vs Virender Verma & anr. Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South)/New Delhi/07.06.2016 15 consideration of request of Virender Verma in this respect. In the meantime Virender Verma again approached Sh Gahate for realising cash credit limit which was sanctioned temporarily to the limit of two lacs to M/S M.H.Enterprises. Intimation in this regard was sent to the branch. The witness further submitted that Virender Verma had again approached Mr Gahate for purchase of cheque for a sum of Rs 96000/- but it was returned unpaid with the reasons 'insufficient funds'. As against the said outstation purchased cheque of Rs 96000/- as advance of Rs 45000/- was permitted by Mr Gahate. The cheque was issued by some party at Surajpur District, Ghaziabad, UP. Regular proposal for CC Hypothetication and bill limit was declined. During cross examination witness has submitted that he had not declined the proposal of CC limit and same was declined by DGM Mr Gahate. He further stated that he was not aware if the amount of dishonoured cheque was made good by the party after receiving payments from M/S Vada Apparels.
3.7 PW7 is Sh Kamal Singh. He is a witness from UP Financial Corporation, Ghaziabad and submitted that in the year 1991 he was working as Manager Technical with UP Financial Corporation. On 24.08.1991 at the instructions of his superior Mr A.K.Avasthi (Deputy Senior Manager, Technical/Regional Manager) visited the address of M/S Kalra Machinery Supplier Company, Gurudwara Road, Punjabi Bagh Colony, Faridabad, Haryana. After inquiry in the vicinity he came to know that no such company/ firm was in existence at the given address. He CC No.15/13 (Bhupesh Kumar) CBI vs Virender Verma & anr. Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South)/New Delhi/07.06.2016 16 has reported his seniors in this regard. Witness further submitted that Mr A.K.Avasthi has written letter Ex. PW7/A (D65) to the promoters of M/S M.H.Enterprises. During cross examination this witness submitted that he cannot tell about the landmarks of the address he has visited at Faridabad. He has not noted down the names and address of the persons from whom he had made enquiries with regard to the existence of the company/firm at the address. It was suggested to the witness that M/S Kalra Machinery Supplies was in existence and was manufacturing unit selling sewing machines at relevant time but the suggestion was declined.
3.8 PW8 is Sh V.K.Bhatia, who was working as Assistant Manager, PNB Defence Colony in the year 1994. The witness has submitted that he has handed over certain documents pertaining to M/S M.H.Enterprises to CBI vide production cum seizure memo Ex. PW8/A (D340). The witness has also identified his signatures as well as signatures of Sh N.C.Gupta on statement of account of term loan, statement of bills, cash credit limit of CC 132 etc Ex. P106 at point A and B respectively. The witness has further identified his signatures on Ex. PW8/A-1 (D368) and also identified his signatures at point A on list of various DDs returned in the account of M/S M.H.Enterprises Ex. PW8/A-1. The witness further submitted that the statement of account Ex. PW8/A2 (10 pages collectively) bears his signatures at point A on each page. During cross examination the witness has submitted that he has CC No.15/13 (Bhupesh Kumar) CBI vs Virender Verma & anr. Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South)/New Delhi/07.06.2016 17 no personal knowledge about the transaction in the matter.
3.9 PW9 is Sh Manohar Lal. He has submitted that in the year 1994 he was working as Officer Recovery Cell, PNB 57, Manjusha Building, Nehru Place, New Delhi. He has handed over certain documents to CBI vide seizure memo dated 13.08.1994 Ex. PW9/A (D56). The witness further submitted that vide seizure memo dated 01.08.1994 Ex. PW9/B he had produced the documents to the CBI. The photocopy of account opening form Mark PX-1 of account no. 132 does not bear the name of introducer. The witness further submitted that as per production cum seizure memo dated 08.08.1994 Ex. PW9/C he has handed over certain documents to CBI in CGO Complex.
3.10 PW10 is Sh Hansraj who was working as Daftari in Bharat Overseas Bank, GGK-I branch, New Delhi since 1985. The witness submitted that on the instructions of Sh S.K.Bagri he has handed over document to CBI as per production cum seizure memo Ex. PW10/A (D104). The witness further submitted that by virtue of Ex. PW10/A he had handed over CBI letter dated 22.12.1995 alongwith original copy of mandate of account of A.B.Apparel International issued by Ms Anjali in favour of Virender Verma.
3.11 PW11 is Sh Rufus Nardener Toppo. He has submitted that in the year 1995 he was Cash Officer in SBI in Ambedkar Nagar branch. Vide production cum seizure memo Ex. PW11/A (D52) CC No.15/13 (Bhupesh Kumar) CBI vs Virender Verma & anr. Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South)/New Delhi/07.06.2016 18 he had handed over the documents to CBI. The witness further submitted that as per bill register, 8 bills were received in the branch from New Bank of India, Defence Colony in respect of M/S Lumbani Boutique. Entries in respect of M/S Lumbani Boutique regarding local collection bills (LSC) were made in the bill register handed over by him to CBI. The bills pertaining to M/S Lumbani Boutique were advised to the payee for payment of bills within stipulated period. The bank had received two sets of four bills on two occasions for payment whereas only one bill amounting to Rs 1,87,201/- was honoured by the party and rest of all the bills were returned back as the same were not accepted by the party.
3.12 PW12 is Sh Suresh Kumar Pathrella. He has submitted that in the year 1995 he was working as Chief Manager in Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony, New Delhi and during said period the CBI had seized some documents from him relating to M/S Verma Udyog. The witness further submitted that as per production cum seizure memo dated 21.10.1995 Ex. PW12/A photocopy of the plaint dated 03.12.1992 in recovery suit no. 735 of 1992 titled as Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs M/S Verma Udyog alongwith necessary documents were handed over to the CBI.
3.13 PW13 is Sh Jawagar Lal Gandhi in whose presence CBI has taken the specimen handwriting of P.D.Maher on 29.03.1994. The witness further submitted that 12 sheets of handwriting and CC No.15/13 (Bhupesh Kumar) CBI vs Virender Verma & anr. Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South)/New Delhi/07.06.2016 19 signature of P.D.Maher are Ex. PW13/A (D332) and same bears his signatures at point A on each sheet.
3.14 PW14 is Sh S.K.Dua. He has submitted that he has joined New Bank of India in November 1996 as Clerk cum Typist and he remained posted in loan section, regional officer, Delhi from 1986 to 1991. His duty was to receive letter from his office and then same were marked to the specified officer for necessary action at their end. This witness further submitted that Ex. PW14/A is consisting of two sheets and he can identify his handwriting and date written on it as 30.11 at point A. The witness further submitted that on first page of D226 the date has been altered from 08.11.1989 to 02.11.1989 but the same was not done by him. He further stated that regarding date mentioned at point A the same is expected date of reply which was put by him before sending it for necessary action. During cross examination the witness submitted that he has seen the second page Ex. PW14/A in the court and he does not remember if the same was shown to him in the office of CBI or not at the time of recording of his statement.
3.15 PW15 is Smt Renu Mahajan. She has submitted that she joined New Bank of India in the year 1981 as Clerk and was posted in regional office in 1988 and she remained there till 1993. During her tenure in regional office she remained posted in various departments like Developments, Complaints, Loans etc. The witness further submitted that while working in loan CC No.15/13 (Bhupesh Kumar) CBI vs Virender Verma & anr. Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South)/New Delhi/07.06.2016 20 section she was attached to Mrs Neeta Dhawan for some time. She used to do typing work after taking shorthand dictations. This witness further submitted that letter Ex. PW14/A is with regard to the loan proposal of M/S M.H.Enterprises. She has further submitted that alteration on date at point B (from 08.11.1989 to 02.11.1989) was not done by her. The witness further submitted that alteration on the original letter of the same Ex. PW15/A, at point A was not done by her. During cross examination by Ld counsel for A-1 witness submitted that she has not stated before the CBI that she had not altered the date. It was suggested to the witness that she was giving a deliberate reply with regard to the alteration of date which was denied by her. During cross examination by Ld counsel for A-4 the witness submitted that she was shown Ex. PW14/A and PW15/A first time when her statement was recorded U/S 161 Cr.P.C by the CBI.
3.16 PW16 is Sh Sumesh Khanna. He has submitted to the fact that in the year 1989 he was posted in New Bank of India, Defence Colony branch, New Delhi as Officer. Witness was shown Ex. PW16/A (D584) to which he has submitted that it is a letter written to Regional Manager regarding loan proposal of M/S M.H.Enterprises and the same has been signed by K.L.Bhasin, the then Branch Manager. He further submitted that he can identify the signatures of K.L.Bhasin as he had worked with him. The witness further submitted that he left the bank in the year 1994 and as such he has faint recollection of CC No.15/13 (Bhupesh Kumar) CBI vs Virender Verma & anr. Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South)/New Delhi/07.06.2016 21 the procedure of the bank. He did not remember if K.L.Bhasin processed the file or not. The memorandum of credit proposal is Ex. PW25/A. The witness further submitted that in pursuance of letter dated 10.11.1989 Ex. PW16/A regional office sanction credit facility of term loan of Rs 2.80 lacs, cash credit Rs 17.20 lacs and BP/BD of Rs 14.90 lacs in terms of the details mentioned in th said letter. The loan application Ex. PW16/B (D592) was duly filled by him in his own handwriting and rest of the columns were typed by the party. Ex. P373 (D595) is a reply given by the party to a query raised by regional office. The witness has identified the signatures of K.L.Bhasin on cheques, Ex. P167, P171 to P176, P181, P182, P186, P193, P194, P217, P242 and P243.
During cross examination on behalf of accused K.L.Bhasin witness submitted that whenever loan proposal was received from prospective borrower or any existing borrower it was his duty to process the proposal in its initial stage. He had filed up credit report on individuals in respect of the proprietor of the borrower firm M/S M.H.Enterprises as that of Smt S.Verma and Sh P.D.Maher guarantor of proposed loan. The proposed loan of M/S M.H.Enterprises was for SSI unit (Small Scale Industries). Ex. P351 (D594) is inspection report of on verification of physical aspect of loan proposal plus guarantor conducted on 02.11.1989 and the same is in his handwriting and bears his signatures at point A. The other signatory on the said document is K.L.Bhasin whose signature he has identified at point B. Ex. P354 (D609) is inspection report of M/S CC No.15/13 (Bhupesh Kumar) CBI vs Virender Verma & anr. Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South)/New Delhi/07.06.2016 22 M.H.Enterprises conducted on 27.05.1990 and the same is in his handwriting which also bears the signatures of Sh K.L.Bhasin at point B. PW19/X2 (D645) is inspection report of M/S M.H.Enterprises conducted on 18.03.1991. The witness further submitted that Ex. P166, P169, P170, P178, P183, P186, P187, P192, P197, P198, P209, P202, P204, P206, P208 to P213, P218 to P220, P222, P223, P226 and P227 does not bear his signatures or signatures of K.L.Bhasin. During cross examination by Ld counsel for accused Virender Verma the witness submitted that during his posting in the branch one Mr Joginder Singh was posted as Assistant Manager. The cheques issued by M/S M.H.Enterprises were either passed by K.L.Bhasin or Joginder Singh or by him.
3.17 PW17 is Sh Banwari Lal Sikka. The witness submitted that from April 1989 to June 1991 he was working as Accountant, SBI Chanderlok Building, Janpath. The witness has brought on record letter dated 05.05.1990 issued by him as Ex. PW17/A. The letter is regarding reply to New Bank of India about return of BD No. 128/90, 129/90 and 130/90 dated 23.03.1990. The witness further submitted that he was informed that SBI do not have any arrangements with M/s P.D.Marketing and Consultancy. The relevant BDs are collectively Ex. PW17/B and the other relevant BD is Ex. P346.
3.18 PW18 is Sh A.V.Taneja. He has submitted that in October 1992 he was posted as Deputy Manager in Ambedkar Nagar CC No.15/13 (Bhupesh Kumar) CBI vs Virender Verma & anr. Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South)/New Delhi/07.06.2016 23 branch, Sector III. The witness as brought on record the seizure memo dated 25.10.1995 (D81) as Ex. PW18/A and submitted that vide this seizure memo he has produced letter dated 20.10.1995 Ex. PW18/B to the CBI. The witness further submitted that copy of pay in slip Ex. PW18/C was also handed over to the CBI.
3.19 PW19 is K.Poornam. This witness submitted that in the month of September 1993 New Bank of India was merged in PNB and he retired as Deputy General Manager from PNB. He has explained the general procedure adopted by the bank while sanctioning of credit facility etc and further submitted that vide order dated 16.10.1989 Ex. PW16/A the Defence Colony branch of New Bank of India moved a proposal of parties for obtaining various facilities of term loan, cash credit etc. This witness further submitted that certain discrepancies were observed by the regional office while appraising the credit facility to M/S M.H.Enterprises vide letter dated 02.11.1989 Ex. PW14/A. Vide letter dated 03.11.1989 Ex. P350 the Branch Manager of Defence Colony New Bank of India sent detail reply submitted by M/S M.H.Enterprises. The proposal was approved by the then Regional Head Mr A.R.Lamba and Mr D.K.Gupta the then Regional Manager. The copy of sanction letter is dated 10.11.1989. Vide letter dated 30.11.1989 Ex. P352 was received from Defence Colony Branch regarding certain clarifications from M/S M.H.Enterprises. The witness further submitted that in normal due course inspection of property/assets is required to CC No.15/13 (Bhupesh Kumar) CBI vs Virender Verma & anr. Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South)/New Delhi/07.06.2016 24 be done before sanction. The proprietors have declared a sum of Rs 4,93,000/- by way of bank balance, FDR and cash in hand and same was verified vide letter dated 03.11.1989. The witness further submitted that vide Ex. PW16/A the Manager of New Bank of India had sent proposal for sanction of term loan amounting to Rs 3.0 lacs, cash credit hypothetication to the limit of Rs 17.20 lacs and base purchase/bill discounting limit of Rs 14.90 lacs. The witness further submitted that he has gone through the record and as per the same he has pointed out the following discrepancies with regard to letter dated 16.10.1989 Ex. PW16/A :-
1. The project report Ex. P309 submitted is that of the proprietor M/S M.H.Enterprises and not by any independent consultant.
2. The loan area and the building area where the factory was to be located is not mentioned in the project report since the factory was to be located in a rented premises.
3. The details of raw material required have not been mentioned in the said project report.
4. The experience of the proprietors in this line is not mentioned. He had only undergone marketing training in Pepsi Cola.
5. The projected figures of sales have been accepted without any verification.
6. The marketing details given in the project report were general terms and cannot be verified.
7. The branch had not submitted the inspection report and verification report to the physical aspects of the loan proposals. 8. The provisional balance sheet has not been submitted.
9. The registration certificate of SSI Unit was not submitted.
The previous three years income tax return of the proprietor and guarantor were not submitted alongwith the proposal. The CC No.15/13 (Bhupesh Kumar) CBI vs Virender Verma & anr. Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South)/New Delhi/07.06.2016 25 witness further submitted that as per letter dated 29.11.1990 (D264) Senior Manager, New Bank of India, Defence Colony, has not obtained certificate of legal advisor regarding the correctness of the loan documents. However, there are remarks of Mr R.K.Chadda, the then legal advisor on form L122 Ex. P356 to the fact that documents were perused and were found in order. The witness further stated that as per record the term loan in this case was sanctioned on 10.11.1989 for a sum of Rs 2.80 lac, cash credit for a sum of Rs 17.20 lacs, BP/BD for a sum of Rs 14.90 lacs. The inspection report dated 30.05.1990 was already on record as Ex. P354. The witness further submitted that inspection report dated 20.12.1990 and 20.03.1991 are Mark PW19/X1 and PW19/X2 respectively. The witness further submitted that vide letter dated Ex.P-350 Branch Manager, Defence Colony replied to various queries alongwith provisional balance sheet as on 30.10.1989 and pre-sanction inspection report of the party and guarantor. As per Ex. P351 the regional office has pointed out certain shortcomings i.e. 1. Non submissions of SSI Certificate, 2. Previous experience of the party, 3. pre-sanction inspection of the asset of the firm, 4. Details of the land were not given, and 5. IT returns.
He has further submitted that vide letter dated 30.10.1989 it was stated that SSI certificate would receive in a day or two. It has been further submitted that regarding pre-sanction, he states that the bank has to carry out inspection of assets of the applicant and guarantor and if the inspection is not carried, then the sanctioning authority should not grant the sanction. The CC No.15/13 (Bhupesh Kumar) CBI vs Virender Verma & anr. Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South)/New Delhi/07.06.2016 26 witness was cross examined at length and the same would be discussed at the time of appreciation of evidence.
3.20 PW20 is Sh M.P.Gupta. He has stated that in the year 1996 he was working as Assistant Post Master, Andrews Ganj, New Delhi. The witness has brought on record the letter dated 05.02.1996 signed by Sh Rattan Dass, the then Post Master as Ex. PW20/A. The witness has further submitted that vide seizure memo Ex. PW20/B he has handed over certain documents to the CBI. The witness has also brought on record the report of Public Relation Inspector Ex. PW20/C and the letter received from CBI office which bears his signatures at point A and same as Ex. PW20/D. During cross examination the witness submitted that he has not gone personally to Shahpur Jat for carrying of the enquiry. No document bearing the details of residents examined at Shahpur Jat with regard to the address in question was shown or produce before him by the Inspector who conducted the enquiry. It was suggested to the witness that Ex. PW20/A is incorrect document prepared at the instance of CBI but the suggestion was denied.
3.21 PW21 is Sh N.K.Aggarwal, posted as Public Relation Inspector, Ballabgarh in the year 1996. The witness has submitted that letter dated 19.01.1996 Mark PW21/A was sent by Senior Superintendent Post Office Faridabad to R.S.Tokas, CBI Inspector. He has further submitted that letter dated 23.01.1996 Ex. PW21/B was also sent by Senior Superintendent CC No.15/13 (Bhupesh Kumar) CBI vs Virender Verma & anr. Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South)/New Delhi/07.06.2016 27 Post Office to R.S.Tokas CBI Inspector. On 18.01.1996 on the instructions of his senior officer he conducted verification of the address of M/S Kalra Machinery Supply Company, Gurudwara Road, Faridabad and after verification he has submitted the report to his superior officer. The photocopy of the report is Mark X. The witness further submitted that as per verification the said company was not traceable at the address given in the concerned locality. During cross examination the witness submitted it to be correct that reasons submitted by him in not able to trace out the said company was that the complete address of the company was not provided.
3.22 PW22 is Sh Joginder Singh and he has submitted that in the year 1991 he was working as Assistant Manager, New Bank of India, Umra Gate, Muradabad. The cheque no. 868034 dated 06.12.1989 Ex. P68 was issued in favour of M/S S.K.Loyalka Collar Manufacturer. The cheque bearing no. 868041 dated 06.12.1989 Ex. P66 was issued in favour of M/S Textiles. The cheque bearing no. 868036 Ex. P69 dated 06.12.1989, cheque no. 868057 dated 21.12.1989 Ex. P338 and cheque no. 868066 dated 04.01.1990 were issued in favour of M/S A.V.Appreals. The cheque no. 868069 Ex. PW22/B is in favour of M/S Clairvoyance Marketers. However, payments of all the cheques was taken by Virender Verma and his signatures appear at point A on the above cheques. The witness was not cross examined. However, on the application U/S 311 Cr.P.C the witness was recalled for his cross examination. On 11.4.16 i.e. date fixed for CC No.15/13 (Bhupesh Kumar) CBI vs Virender Verma & anr. Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South)/New Delhi/07.06.2016 28 his cross examination, Dr Randhir, the son of the witness was also present in the court and submitted that the witness is suffering from CLA and cellutius and is 80 years old and has age related memory problems. In order to ascertain the competency of the witness certain questions were put to him and from the replies made by the witness it was observed that the witness was enough competent to depose in the court and his cross examination was recorded on oath. However, the same would be considered at the relevant time of appreciation of evidence.
3.23 PW23 is Sh S.Srinivasan, retired Chief Manager UCO Bank and he has submitted to the effect that on 01.08.1994 he was working as Senior Manager, Delhi High Court and vide seizure memo Ex. P328 he has produced certain documents to the CBI which included account opening form of account no. 535 pertaining to Ms Anjali Verma. The account opening form is Ex. P330 and specimen signature of Ms Anjali Verma is Ex. P329.
3.24 PW24 is Sh N Ashok Kumar. He has submitted that on 26.02.1994 he was posted as Vigilance Inspector in SAIL at Delhi and on the said date he was directed to report to CBI office. He has joined investigation with the IO and proceeded for Karol Bagh area for search of the premises but the premises could not be found. The memo Ex. PW4/B dated 26.02.1994 was prepared while conducting search of M/S P.D.Marketing CC No.15/13 (Bhupesh Kumar) CBI vs Virender Verma & anr. Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South)/New Delhi/07.06.2016 29 and Consultant. During cross examination the witness submitted that he does not remember the address of the premises where they had gone to conduct the raid on the date in question.
3.25 PW25 Ms. Neeta Dhawan is the witness who was posted at regional office at the relevant time when the proposal was referred to them for scrutinizing. The witness raised certain queries which were not completed or properly complied before sanctioning the loan by the concerned bank officials. The witness has brought on record all the documents prepared during the process of sanction of the loan. The witness was cross examined at length and testimony of this witness shall be considered at the time of appreciation of the evidence.
3.26 PW-26 is Sh.Ashok Kumar. He was also posted at regional office and raised certain queries. The evidence of this witness shall also be looked into at the time of appreciation of evidence.
3.27 PW27 is Sh Devi Ram. He has submitted to the effect that Dharamvir and Jaipal are his brothers and all three of them are residing in equal portion of house no. 229 measuring around 3000 sq. yards since 1995. The portion which he occupied also includes a basement. He let out first floor of the house to Virender Verma in the year 1991-1992 @ Rs 7000/- per month for commercial purposes where Virender Verma had started running firm in the name of M/S M.H.Enterprises. After about one year Virender Verma had also taken some portion of the CC No.15/13 (Bhupesh Kumar) CBI vs Virender Verma & anr. Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South)/New Delhi/07.06.2016 30 property belonging to his brother Jaipal on rent. In the said portion also accused Virender Verma installed his machines and sometimes after removing machines he had induced his chowkidar. After 2-3 years is brother got his portion vacated. In the year 1992 accused Virender Verma had given him two cheques of Rs 20,000/- each, i.e. for the month of December 1991 and January 1992. The photocopies of the cheque dated 20.12.1991 and 10.01.1992 were shown to the witness and he submitted that these were the same cheques issued by accused Virender Verma. The witness further submitted that he had made efforts to trace the original cheques but the same are not traceable. In view of the statement of the witness Ld PP for CBI sought permission of the court to allow the prosecution to lead secondary evidence in respect of the said cheques as photocopies were on record. The request was allowed and the photocopies of the cheques were allowed to be taken on record as Ex. PW27/1 and Ex. PW27/2. During cross examination by Ld counsel for accused Virender Verma the witness has submitted that accused Virender Verma was running stitching factory from the said premises.
3.28 PW28 is Sh Ramesh Kumar Gupta. He has submitted that in the year 1993-1994 he was posted as Manager in Bharat Overseas Bank, Greater Kailash Branch, New Delhi and as per production cum seizure memo Ex. P326 following documents were produced from bank record and seized by the CBI :-
i. Specimen signature form of AB Apparels International.
CC No.15/13 (Bhupesh Kumar)
CBI vs Virender Verma & anr. Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South)/New Delhi/07.06.2016
31
ii. Account opening form of AB Apparels International. iii.Statement of account of AB Apparels International of Account No.
995. iv. Specimen signature from Kalra Machinery Supply Company.
v. Account opening form of Kalra Machinery Supply Company. vi. Statement of account of Kalra Machinery Supply Company of Account No. 1052.
On showing documents D242 to D248 the witness further submitted that he had handed over these document to the CBI from the bank record. The document D242 is account opening form of M/S Kalra Machinery Supply Company and the same was taken on record as Ex. PW28/A, D243 is specimen signatures on behalf of M/S Kalra Machinery Supply Company and the same was taken on record as Ex. PW28/B, D246 is Ex. PW28/C, D247 is cheque dated 11.12.1989 for a sum of Rs 2,10,000/- in favour of 'self' is Ex. PW28/D and D248 is a letter dated 11.12.1989 from M/S Kalra Machinery Supply Company to the Manager of the bank for issuance of loose cheques and same is Ex. PW28/E. The witness further submitted that signatures of Virender Verma were taken in his presence by the CBI on the sheets Ex. PW28/F and the specimen handwriting signatures of Mr. Maher were also taken by the CBI in his presence on Ex. PW28/G (66 sheets collectively). During cross examination by Ld counsel for accused Virender Verma witness submitted that no permission from the Magistrate or any court was taken for taking specimen handwriting of the accused.
3.29 PW29 is Sh Ramesh Chander Malhotra. He has submitted to the effect that in the year 1990 he was posted at New Bank of CC No.15/13 (Bhupesh Kumar) CBI vs Virender Verma & anr. Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South)/New Delhi/07.06.2016 32 India Defence Colony Branch. In the month of May 1990 he conducted an inspection of stocks on behalf of branch alongwith his Manager and Accountant. Inspection report is Ex. P358. According to the report inspection was conducted by the officers and the turnover in the account was reflected to be very poor and there was no transaction in the month of April and May 1990. No stock register and books were shown to him. He identified the stock register as Ex. P313.
During cross examination witness submitted that no inspection of the stock had been conducted prior to the inspection conducted by him. The witness further submitted that the stock inspection report dated 02.11.1989 which is available on record is Ex. P364. During cross examination by Ld counsel for accused Virender Verma the witness submitted that he do not remember if M.H.Sales Corporation had been regularly submitting the stock statement to the bank.
3.30 PW30 is Sh R.Rajamohan. He has submitted that he joined Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony Branch from September 1989 to first week of April 1994. The firm M/S Verma Udyog was already having an account with the branch. The firm was having its factory at Faridabad and office at Khanpur. Mr Verma was proprietor of the firm. When he joined the bank the books of accounts reflected that the company was having an account but the operation of the same was not satisfactory. As per the banking term the account was 'sticky'. The party was giving continuous promise for repayment CC No.15/13 (Bhupesh Kumar) CBI vs Virender Verma & anr. Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South)/New Delhi/07.06.2016 33 and regularization of the account but nothing fruitful emerged despite efforts from their bank. After all efforts were made and no result was obtained the bank was constrained to file a suit against the party for a sum of Rs 37.84 lacs. The witness further submitted that Ex. PW12/A bears his signatures at point A. 3.31 PW31 is Smt Sharda Grover, retired officer of PNB Noida.
She has submitted to the fact that debit voucher Ex. PW31/A bears her signatures at point A. The witness was shown debit voucher of M/S M.H.Enterprises presented four bills totaling Rs 5,06,410/- and on looking at the same the witness submitted that since the bills were within the sanction limit, the same were discounted and amount was credited in the account of M/S M.H.Enterprises. The witness further submitted that as per direction of K.L.Bhasin the bills were discounted and she has signed the debit voucher for a sum of Rs 5,06,410/- which was debited to the BD account. The witness has further brought on record the bills drawn on Clairvoyance Marketers as Ex. PW31/B1 to Ex.PW31/B4; pay in slips of Rs 1,43,299.40/-, Rs 2,26,200/- and Rs 1,87,201/- as Ex. PW31/D1 to Ex. PW31/D4. The other three pay in slips D327 to D329 were brought on record as Ex. PW31/E1 to E3. The witness further submitted that as per the official procedure the bills are discounted under the instructions of Manager K.L.Bhasin. Debit voucher Ex. D326 was brought on record by this witness as Ex. PW31/F. The witness was cross examined at length and the same shall be looked into at the time of appreciation of evidence.
CC No.15/13 (Bhupesh Kumar)
CBI vs Virender Verma & anr. Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South)/New Delhi/07.06.2016
34
3.32 PW32 is Sh S.Sridharan, Senior Manager, Canara Bank,
Chennai. He has submitted that on 12.12.1995 he has handed over the account opening form of SB Account No. 5276 in the name of Anjali Verma as well as her specimen signature card to the CBI vide production cum seizure memo dated 12.12.1995 Ex. PW32/A. 3.33 PW33 is Sh A.M.Kapoor, Senior Manager, Syndicate Bank.
He has submitted that on 03.02.1990 three bills drawn on M/S Clairvoyance Marketers for an amount of Rs 1,24,800/- ; Rs 1,42,896/- and Rs 1,69,562/- were presented by New Bank of India, Defence Colony and the same were received for collection. The witness identified documents Ex. PW33/A-1 to A3. He has further submitted that due date for collection being 90 days expired on 22.04.1990. He further submitted that as per official procedure he must have given the party reminder but since there was no response the bills were returned to New Bank of India, Defence Colony Branch on 21.05.1990. Party M/S Clairvoyance Marketers had opened an account in their bank but the account has been closed. During cross examination by Ld counsel for accused Virender Verma witness submitted that the proprietor of M/S Clairvoyance Marketers has submitted an application dated 20.07.1990 for closing the account.
3.34 PW34 is Sh Harpal Singh Passricha. He has submitted that in the year 1992 he has started the firm M/S Navyug Sewing CC No.15/13 (Bhupesh Kumar) CBI vs Virender Verma & anr. Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South)/New Delhi/07.06.2016 35 Machine Company at 4/356A, Govindpuri, Kalkaji, New Delhi. He further submitted that he know one P.D.Maher who was associated with the firm M/S M.H.Enterprises which had the same address as that of his fathers shop. He purchased a cutting machine Eastman Model 629, 8 inch and he paid Rs 20,000/- for the same. This witness was cross examined at length and same would be considered at the time of appreciation of evidence.
3.35 PW35 is Sh Mohan Lal. The witness submitted to the fact that from August 1985 to August 1990 he was posted as Accountant Officer, SBI, Madangir, Ambedkar Nagar, Sector 3. During his service tenure he has done banking transactions with the party called M/S Lumbani Boutique. Certain bills were drawn on said company from New Bank of India and sent to their bank for realization. He further submitted that so far as he remembers, out of all the bills presented for realization only one bill was actually released. The said bill is Ex. PW18/C. The other bills were returned unrealized with letter Ex. PW35/A. The letter dated 16.06.1990 signed by him is Ex. PW35/B. In pursuance of this letter certain bills were returned being unrealized.
3.36 PW36 is Sh Onkar who was working as Clerk with Syndicate Bank, Mayapuri Branch in the month of August 1994. The witness has deposed to the fact that on 09.08.1994 in view of production cum seizure memo Ex. PW36/A and another production cum seizure memo dated 22.08.1994 Ex. PW36/B CC No.15/13 (Bhupesh Kumar) CBI vs Virender Verma & anr. Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South)/New Delhi/07.06.2016 36 certain documents were handed over to the CBI and both the documents bear his signatures at point A. 3.37 PW37 Sh Manmohan Gupta, SSO, Vigilance, ESIC, Head Quarter Office, CIG Road, New Delhi, is the witness who has joined the investigation with the CBI and submitted that search was made at house no. 473, Pocket A, Sarita Vihar vide search cum seizure memo Ex. P2 and it bears his signatures at point A. 3.38 PW38 is Sh Yashpal Arora, Insurance Agent who stood introducer for Ms Anjali Verma at the time of opening of her account with Canara Bank, Ballabgarh and he has identified the account opening form and specimen card of account no. 5276 pertaining to Ms Anjali Verma as Ex. PW332 and Ex. PW331 respectively. The witness further submitted that he introduced the account as he knew Virender Verma and his entire family.
3.39 PW39 is Sh H.L.Arora, retired Senior Manager of PNB. He has submitted that in the year 1990 he joined New Bank of India, Defence Colony and it was noticed by him that there was no operation in the account of M/S M.H.Enterprises and the account had become sticky. The witness has further identified his inspection note dated 20.12.1990 and submitted that he had inspected the party M/S M.H.Enterprises through the accountant. The inspection note was brought on record by this witness as Ex. PW39/A. He further submitted that in pursuance of inspection report, the inspection note was forwarded by him CC No.15/13 (Bhupesh Kumar) CBI vs Virender Verma & anr. Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South)/New Delhi/07.06.2016 37 to the Head Office. The witness was cross examined by Ld PP for CBI on the ground that he was resiling from his earlier statement. During cross examination by Ld PP for CBI the witness submitted that he do not remember if prior to inspection dated 20.12.1990 there was only one inspection which was conducted by the branch on 27.05.1990. He has further deposed it to be correct that as per bank norms, the inspection should be conducted on monthly basis. He did not remember if any inspection was conducted between November 1989, when the loan was sanctioned and realized in May 1990. He also did not remember that inspection was carried out only after the account had become sticky. The witness has further submitted that vide letter dated 29.11.1990 Ex. PW39/XA he has put all the facts regarding this account to Head Office. The bills discounted by the bank in respect of M/S M.H.Enterprises has not arisen on genuine trade transaction. The witness further submitted that he was informed by the Head Office that parties were also non existent but he was not sure about this. He further stated that he do not know any P.D.Maher one of the employee of M/S M.H.Enterprises who stood guarantor and became proprietor of bogus firm M/S P.D.Marketing and Consultant. The witness has also deposed about various facilities sanctioned to M/S M.H.Enterprises and further submitted that he do not remember if the loan was sanctioned and disbursed on 10.11.1989. The term loan of Rs 3 lacs for purchase of machinery but he does not remember whether the machinery was to be purchased from M/S Kalra Machinery Supply and Company and M/S India CC No.15/13 (Bhupesh Kumar) CBI vs Virender Verma & anr. Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South)/New Delhi/07.06.2016 38 Industrial Garments. It is correct that the amount drawn by M/S M.H.Enterprises from cash credit limit was mis-utilized by the accused because the sale proceeds were never credited back in the same account and whatever credit is in the said account is either by way of cash deposit or discounting proceedings of Hundis. It is correct that M/S Clairvoyance Marketers, M/S P.D.Marketing and Consultant and M/S Lumbani Boutique were not paid by the drawee and were debited to CC account of the parties. It is correct that non payment by the drawee was not informed by the Branch Manager to the Head Office. He came to know that the bank was defrauded and the drawees were bogus from the enquiry officer. He also heard that these bogus firms were floated by M/S M.H.Enterprises themselves. It is correct that eight bills drawn on M/S Lumbani Boutique were discounted by the then Branch Manager K.L.Bhasin. He does not remember if K.L.Bhasin has taken credit report from the bank of M/S Lumbani Boutique. He does not remember if out of the eight bills the payment was received only of one. Three bills of M/S Clairvoyance Marketers were discounted by accused K.L.Bhasin but payment of none of the bills were received by the bank. The Janpath Branch advised K.L.Bhasin to present these bills to Karol Bagh Branch but K.L.Bhasin did not present these bills to Karol Bagh Branch and kept the same in his branch. During cross examination by Ld counsel for Virender Verma the witness submitted to the fact that he did not remember if he has showed any instruction of the bank to CBI that monthly inspection is to be conducted. The report from CC No.15/13 (Bhupesh Kumar) CBI vs Virender Verma & anr. Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South)/New Delhi/07.06.2016 39 M/S M.H.Enterprises were used to be received but he cannot say if they were received regularly or not. It was suggested to the witness that sale proceeds which received by M/S M.H.Enterprises were duly deposited in the cash credit account and the same were not mis-utilized. He is not aware if M/S M.H.Enterprises has paid off all the outstanding to the bank by disposing of the same collateral security offered to the bank initially with due permission of the bank. During cross examination by Ld counsel for accused K.L.Bhasin the witness submitted that there were other sticky accounts alongwith M/S M.H.Enterprises but he does not remember the name of such accounts. He does not remember as to how many times he conducted the inspection of M/S M.H.Enterprises. He cannot say if he has found any raw material during inspection. The witness further submitted it to be correct that all the legal documents regarding sanction and disbursement of the loan in the present case were in order and only because of this he could file the suit. He does not remember the status of machinery and raw material at the time of sanction of loan but there was sufficient equitable mortgage to cover the loan amount.
3.40 PW40 is Sh Swadesh Kumar who was posted as Postman in Andrews Ganj Post Office in the year 1995. He has submitted that letter Ex. PW40/A addressed to the proprietor of M/S Lumbani Boutique 1341/5, Shahpur Jat, New Delhi was marked to him to deliver the same at the said address but when he went there no such address was found. Hence, he has reported in red CC No.15/13 (Bhupesh Kumar) CBI vs Virender Verma & anr. Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South)/New Delhi/07.06.2016 40 ink "incomplete address" on the back of the said letter.
3.41 PW41 is Sh Jagdish who was posted as Postman in Andrews Ganj Post Office in the year 1995. He has submitted to the fact that he had accompanied Swadesh Kumar for delivery of letter Ex. PW40/A at the given address but there was no such address.
3.42 PW42 is Sh Ranvir Singh, Postman from Nangloi Post Office and submitted to the fact that he was working in Nangloi Post Office for the last 23 years. He has submitted that on 21.11.1995 letters addressed to Sh Randhir Singh, 28/3A, Nangloi Extension, Delhi; to Sh Richpal Singh R/o H.No. A26, Nangloi Extension, Delhi and to Sh Hari Singh, 65, Phase I, Nangloi, Delhi were marked to him for delivery but all the above addresses could not be located and he has made report on the back of the letters "incomplete address". All the three undelivered letters were identified by him as Ex. PW42/A to C respectively.
3.43 PW43 Sh Manovar Ali is Administrative Manager in India Industrial Garment Machine Pvt. Ltd and submitted to the fact that invoice dated 09.10.1989 Ex. PW3/A5 pertains to India Agencies sister concern of India Industrial Garment Machine Pvt. Ltd and as per this invoice the machinery has been shown to have been supplied to M/S M.H.Enterprises but he does not know whether payment against this bill was received or not.
CC No.15/13 (Bhupesh Kumar)
CBI vs Virender Verma & anr. Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South)/New Delhi/07.06.2016
41
3.44 PW44 is Sh V.N.Sehgal who was posted as Director, CFSL,
CBI in the year 1996 and submitted to the fact that CFSL report Ex. PW44/A was prepared by Sh V.K.Khanna working in CFSL CBI as senior officer. The witness has further submitted that he has forwarded the report to CBI vide his letter Ex. PW44/B. During cross examination he has submitted that he does not have any personal knowledge regarding inspection conducted by Sh V.K.Khanna as the same was conducted in document etc. 3.45 PW45 is Sh Suresh Chandra. He has submitted that on 05.08.1994 while he was posted as Clerk in Syndicate Bank, Nangal Rai Branch, New Delhi he has handed over certain documents to CBI vide seizure memo dated 05.08.1994 Ex. PW45/A. 3.46 PW46 is Sh B.K.Bakshi who was posted as Officer in Vigilance Cell of PNB Head Quarter at Bhikaji Cama Place in the year 1994. The witness submitted that he has handed over certain files of this case to CBI vide production cum seizure memo. The seized files included the correspondence file Ex. PW46/A-1 of M/S M.H.Enterprises maintained with New Bank of India. The Hundi file Ex. PW46/A2 of M/S M.H.Enterprises and correspondence file Ex. PW46/A2 of M/S M.H.Enterprises.
3.47 PW47 is Sh P.K.Chotni and he was posted as officer in PNB Defence Colony Branch in the year 1995. The witness has CC No.15/13 (Bhupesh Kumar) CBI vs Virender Verma & anr. Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South)/New Delhi/07.06.2016 42 brought on record the production cum seizure memo dated 31.11.1995 as Ex. PW47/A vide which he has handed over letter Ex. PW47/A-1 alongwith cheque details to CBI.
3.48 PW48 is Sh V.K.Khanna and he was posted as Senior Scientific Officer Grade-I in CFSL in the year 1996. He has submitted that in pursuance of letter dated 09.01.1996 Ex. PW48/A of CBI and letter dated 05.02.1996 Ex. PW48/B he has examined documents and submitted his opinion Ex. PW44/A. 3.49 PW49 is Sh Jagdish Sharma. He has submitted to the fact that in the year 1995-1996 he was posted as Public Relation Inspector, Nangloi. In response to letter dated 15.01.1996 Ex. PW49/A by the IO he has verified the three addresses, i.e. Randhir Singh, 28/3A, Nangloi Extension, Delhi-41; Richpal Singh S/o Subedar Singh, H.No. A-26, Nangloi Extension, Delhi and Hari Singh, 65 Phase I, Nangloi Extension, Delhi. The witness further submitted that above addresses were found to be non-existent. His report is Ex. PW49/B which bears his signatures at point A. 3.50 PW50 is Sh Kanwar Singh. He has submitted that during year 1990-2001 he was posted as Halkar Patwari of Village Bandhwari. The witness submitted that sale deed registered dated 27.12.1989 qua sale of 8 Bigha 0 Biswa of Village Bandhwari was sold by Duli Chand etc to Smt Anjali and that document is Mark PW50/X1. The witness further submitted CC No.15/13 (Bhupesh Kumar) CBI vs Virender Verma & anr. Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South)/New Delhi/07.06.2016 43 that land was Gair Mumkin Pahaad and there was no cultivation. The witness has further brought on record the intkal (mutation) pertaining to Khasra No. 73 of Village Bandhwari measuring 4682 Bigha and 9 Biswa as Ex. PW50/A. The witness further submitted that the said land was divided amongst the residents of the village vide Intekaal No. 640. Once the same was divided amongst the residents they can sell their respective portions.
3.51 PW51 is Inspector C.K.Sharma. He has submitted to the fact that earlier the investigation of this matter was carried out by Inspector R.S.Tokas and when Inspector R.K.Tokas repatriated to his parent organization the investigation was handed over to him but by that time the investigation was almost complete. The witness further submitted that he has prepared the chargesheet with the assistance of Inspector R.S.Tokas who was called from CISF. The sanction was not required in this case as before sanction K.L.Bhasin, D.K.Gupta (discharged) and A.R.Lamba (since died) by that time had been removed from the service. He has filed the chargesheet in this case. The witness was cross examined at length and the same would be considered at the time of appreciation of the evidence.
3.52 PW52 is Smt Sujata Nair. She has submitted to the effect that during the period 1995-1996 she was posted as Senior Manager, Syndicate Bank, Hauz Khas Branch. She has submitted to the fact that on 21.11.1995 she has handed over CC No.15/13 (Bhupesh Kumar) CBI vs Virender Verma & anr. Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South)/New Delhi/07.06.2016 44 letter dated 21.11.1995 alongwith photostate copy of page no. 151 of inward bill collection ledger to CBI vide production cum seizure memo Ex. PW52/A. The entries in the said document show return of some bill drawn on a particular party which had not paid the bills within the stipulated time. The witness has identified the invoice dated 21.04.1990 for a sum of Rs 1,90,562/- as Ex. PW52/B1. The witness has further brought on record three invoices of M/S M.H.Enterprises Ex. PW52/B1, Ex. PW52/C1 and Ex. PW52/D1. The witness further submitted that for the payment the bills Ex. PW52/B2, Ex. PW52/C2 and Ex. PW52/D2 to their bank for collection by New Bank of India but the said bills were returned on the receipt "payment not forthcoming".
3.53 PW53 is Sh R.K.Hazrati. He has submitted to the fact that during the year 1992-1993 he was posted as Manager in Vigilance Department of erstwhile New Bank of India. In the present case he conducted vigilance of Defence Colony Branch of New Bank of India in the year 1991 and after completion of inspection he has submitted his report to vigilance department. The witness further submitted that he has also conducted vigilance inspection of M/S M.H.Enterprises apart from other accounts. For the inspection of M/s M.H.Enterprises he had gone to Khanpur, Delhi to visit their factory where he met P.D.Maher who has stated that Manager of the firm. P.D.Maher was also guarantor of the credit facilities granted to the said firm. At that time proprietor of the firm Virender Verma was not CC No.15/13 (Bhupesh Kumar) CBI vs Virender Verma & anr. Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South)/New Delhi/07.06.2016 45 available. On his asking P.D.Maher stated that the books of accounts were not available. The witness further submitted that no manufacturing activity was being carried out at the said factory. There were certain Hundis drawn by M/S M.H.Enterprises drawn on M/S Lumbani Boutique and M/S P.D.Marketing which were discounted by the branch but were returned unpaid. It was observed that P.D.Maher had accepted the Hundis as proprietor of these firm. During his visit P.D.Maher submitted that no goods were supplied and the Hundis were accepted on the instructions of Mr Verma proprietor of M/S M.H.Enterprises. He tried to visit M/S Lumbani Boutique and M/S P.D.Marketing but they were not found in existence. On account of statement of assets and returns of M/S M.H.Enterprises the witness further submitted to the fact that Mr Verma has not shown how much amount has been invested by him in the said firm. The witness was cross examined at length. However, the same would be discussed at the time of appreciation of evidence.
3.54 PW54 is Sh R.S.Tokas, the IO of the case. During examination in chief the witness expired and since accused have not got any opportunity to cross examine this witness hence in view of the principal of natural justice the evidence of this witness cannot be read in evidence.
3.55 PW55 is Sh R.L.Bhatt, Deputy Superintendent CBI. He has submitted to the fact that in the year 1991 after completion of CC No.15/13 (Bhupesh Kumar) CBI vs Virender Verma & anr. Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South)/New Delhi/07.06.2016 46 his training he was posted in CBI ACB New Delhi as Sub Inspector and Sh R.S.Tokas was posted as inspector in ACB on deputation from CISF. He has assisted IO in many cases as member and as such he is familiar with the handwriting and signatures and identified the same. Number of documents prepared by IO R.S.Tokas during investigation were shown to this witness and witness has identified the signatures of Sh R.S.Tokas on all the documents. The witness was cross examined at length. However, the same would be discussed at appropriate stage of appreciation of evidence.
PE was closed.
4. Statement of both the accused were recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C.
A-1 Virender Verma in his statement in respect to the discrepancies raised by regional office on his loan proposal has submitted the discrepancies to be incorrect and further submitted that only information and clarifications were sought. On account of handwriting expert report Ex.PW44/B, A-1 stated that he has no knowledge about the same. In respect to non delivery of letters Ex.PW42/A to Ex.PW42/C, A-1 has replied that at relevant time there were three extensions in Nangloi and said letters did not bear the extension number. In respect to bills/hundis submitted by A-1 with bank for remittance and non-realization of bills/hundis, A-1 has either replied the same to be matter of record or that he does not know the same. In response to non-existent of M/s Kalra Machinery Supplies Co., Gurdwara Road, Punjabi Bagh Colony, A-
CC No.15/13 (Bhupesh Kumar)
CBI vs Virender Verma & anr. Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South)/New Delhi/07.06.2016
47
1 has stated that company was in existence in the year 1990-91 and was selling sewing machines. On account of grant of credit facility being term loan of Rs.2.80 lac, cash credit limit of Rs.17.20 lac and BD/BP of Rs.14.90 lac, A-1 has not denied the same and submitted that it is matter of record. A-1 has not denied the existence of M/s Verma Udyog in his name and its liability to repay the loan to Oriental Bank of Commerce as came in the evidence of PW-30 and has stated that it is matter of record. He has further submitted that when New Bank of India and Punjab National Bank merged, some dispute arose between the trade unions of those banks and pursuant to the same, frivolous complaints were filed. He further explained that M/s M.H.Enterprises suffered loss in the business and as such he could not repay the loan amount in time but loan was satisfied by disposing of collateral security with the permission of bank. The complete principle amount with interest was repaid to the bank, as per policy of RBI and no waiver was sought for the same. The other incriminating evidence came on record against him was also read over to him and he has denied the same and impleaded innocence. A-1 further submitted that he wants to lead defence evidence.
A-4 K.L.Bhasin in response to sending the loan proposal of M/s M.H.Enterprises to regional office has replied the same to be matter of record and further submitted that loan was sanctioned at regional office by higher authorities duly scrutinizing the loan proposal independently and A-4 had no role to play in the same. In regard to grant of approval for encashment of different cheque in favor of M/s M.H.Enterprises, A-4 submitted that cheque/bills were CC No.15/13 (Bhupesh Kumar) CBI vs Virender Verma & anr. Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South)/New Delhi/07.06.2016 48 duly verified/scrutinized by dealing officers and they had placed the same before A-4 for approval. In regard to discrepancies pointed out by regional office in respect to loan proposal of M/s M.H.Enterprises, the witness submitted that the same were rectified and regional office was satisfied with reply of branch. A-4 has further denied all the incriminating evidence came on record against him and further submitted that he does not want to lead any defence evidence.
5. DEFENDANT EVIDENCE.
5.1 Sh Ajay Kumar was examined as DW1. The witness has brought the record of TA-202/02 of case titled as New Bank of India Vs M/S M.H.Enterprises and others. He has brought the original record of the plaint filed by New Bank of India, application of withdrawal of OA, alongwith supporting affidavit filed by PNB and photocopy of the order dated 17.02.1010 as Ex. DW1/A to C respectively. During cross examination by Ld PP for CBI the witness submitted that he has no personal knowledge whether any interest loss has been caused to the bank in this settlement.
DE was closed.
6. I have heard the arguments of Sh.Navin Giri, Ld. PP for CBI, Sh.Bhavook Chauhan, Ld. Counsel for A-1 and Sh.Yogwerdhan, Ld. Counsel for A-4 besides going through the written submissions as well as material available on record.
CC No.15/13 (Bhupesh Kumar)
CBI vs Virender Verma & anr. Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South)/New Delhi/07.06.2016
49
7. Ld. PP for CBI has submitted that A-1 Virender Verma in order to obtain different loan facilities from New Bank of India, Defence Colony has submitted loan application, wherein, he has mentioned to set up unit under the name and style of M/s M.H.Enterprises at non-existing address of the premises as A-26, Nangloi Extension, New Delhi. Alongwith the application, he has also submitted rent deed of said premises executed between him and one Richh Pal Singh. But on verification by IO through registered postal letter, it was found that the address of premises as A-26, Nangloi was incomplete address. This fact has been substantiated by postman PW-42 Ranvir Singh and Public Relation Officer PW-49 Jagdish Sharma who have brought on record undelivered letters Ex.PW42/A to Ex.PW42/C posted at the addresses mentioned in rent deed. It shows that A-1 has submitted wrong address and bogus and forged documents alongwith the loan application in order to defraud the bank.
On the other hand, ld. Counsel for A-1 has submitted that the address of the premises as mentioned by A-1 in the loan application was correct. In regard to undelivered letters, it has been vehemently submitted that in case the registered letters posted at said addresses and if return undelivered on account of incomplete addresses, does not prove that the addresses as mentioned in the loan application or rent deed were non-existent. On account of rent deed, it has been submitted that it was genuine one.
Heard on this score and material perused.
It is admitted fact that A-1 has submitted project report Ex.P-308 with Sr.Manager, New Bank of India, Defence colony to CC No.15/13 (Bhupesh Kumar) CBI vs Virender Verma & anr. Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South)/New Delhi/07.06.2016 50 set up manufacturing unit under the name and style of M/s M.H.Enterprises at A26 Nangloi Extn. Phase I, Delhi. As per case of prosecution, the said address was not in existence and in order to prove this fact the prosecution has examined PW42 Ranvir Singh, Postman, Nangloi Post Office who has deposed to the effect that three letters were marked to him on 21.11.95 for the delivery. The first letter Ex.PW42/A was addressed to Sh.Randhir Singh, r/o 28/3A, Nangloi Extn. Delhi, second letter Ex. PW42/B was addressed to Sh.Richh Pal Singh, r/o H.No.A 26, Nangloi Extn. and the third letter Ex. PW42/C was addressed to Sh.Hari Singh, r/o 65 Phase I, Nangloi. During cross-examination, the witness has submitted that at the relevant time there were three extensions in the Nangloi area. The witness further submitted that the same were not delivered as the given addresses were incomplete and he made endorsement in this regard on all these letters.
On the other hand, the prosecution has examined PW 16 Sumesh Khanna posted as Officer in the New Bank of India, Defence Colony branch in the year 1989. During cross-examination he has admitted inspection report dated 2.11.89 as Ex.P-351 of the verification of physical aspect of loan proposal of the premises i.e. A-26, Nangloi Extn. Phase I. It shows the evidence lead by prosecution in regard to verification of address of the unit is contradictory, as on one hand, PW42 Postman, states the address i.e. A-26, Nangloi Extn. Phase I as non-existent and on the other hand, verification report dated 02.11.89 Ex.P-351 of the premises shows that the address i.e. A-26, Nangloi Extn. Phase I, Delhi at the time of pre-sanction verification CC No.15/13 (Bhupesh Kumar) CBI vs Virender Verma & anr. Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South)/New Delhi/07.06.2016 51 was in existence. The version of A-1 is that the address of unit as A-26, Nangloi Extn.Phase I is correct. It is well settled law of land that in case two versions comes on record, the version favoring the accused shall be read in evidence. The reliance in this regard can be made in case Harchand Singh vs State of Haryana, AIR 1974 SCC 344. Hence, the evidence of PW-16 Sumesh Khanna who has brought on record the pre-verification report dated 16.10.89 Ex.P- 351 showing address of unit at A-26 Nangloi, can not be discarded and consequently the plea of the prosecution that the said address was non-existent cannot be accepted.
On account of rent deed Ex.P-311, as discussed earlier, IO has posted letters to the lessor of the property and two attesting witnesses on the same addresses as mentioned in rent deed Ex.P-
311. But all the three letters Ex. PW42/A to PW42/C were not delivered being incomplete addresses. Here it is necessary to mention Section 106 of India Evidence Act, which is as under :-
Section 106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge. - When any fact especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
In case Sucha Singh vs State of Punjab, (2001) 4 SCC 375, Hon'ble Supreme Court has, inter alia, held as under :
"We pointed out that Section 106 of the Evidence Act is not intended to relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, but the section would apply to cases where the prosecution has succeeded in proving facts for which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts, unless the accused by virtue of special knowledge regarding such facts failed to offer any explanation which might drive the court to draw CC No.15/13 (Bhupesh Kumar) CBI vs Virender Verma & anr. Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South)/New Delhi/07.06.2016 52 a different inference."
Reverting to the present matter, it is admitted fact that A-1 himself attached rent deed Ex.P-311 when he had replied the queries raised by Regional office vide letter dated 30.10.1989 Ex.P-
371. The prosecution has brought on record the said rent deed as Ex.P-311 and A-1 has admitted this document, meaning by he has not disputed the genuineness of the document. IO had made efforts to trace the parties to rent deed by posting letters on the addresses mentioned in rent deed, but without any fruitful result. Under these eventualities, it is found that by bringing the original document on record, the prosecution has released initial burden of proof. Now the burden shifts to A-1 to prove that the rent deed Ex.P-311 is genuine document because document belongs to him as he had submitted it with the bank and has also admitted it. But he has not examined lessor or any of the attesting witness to prove the genuineness of the rent deed Ex.P-311 nor he has brought on record any other material in this respect. Under these circumstances, it is found that rent deed Ex.P-311 is a forged and fabricated document used by A-1 at the time of obtaining loan from the bank. Since the document also bears signature of A-1 and this fact has also not been disputed, therefore, the Court has no hitch to reach at conclusion that the rent deed Ex.P-311 was even forged by A-1.
8. Next contention of ld. PP for CBI is that A-1 has never setup unit under the name and style of M/s M.H.Enterprises is proved from the letter dated 08.02.1990 Ex.P-94 vide which A-1 has CC No.15/13 (Bhupesh Kumar) CBI vs Virender Verma & anr. Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South)/New Delhi/07.06.2016 53 prayed Director office of Director of Supply for change of his firm name M/s Verma Udyog to M/s M.H.Enterprises. It has been further submitted that M/s Verma Udyog was already in existence in the year 1988 and A-1 has obtained different loan facilities from the bank to set up M/s M.H.Enterprises in the last of 1989, on the basis of old unit M/s Verma Udyog.
On the other hand, ld. Counsel for A-1 has submitted that M/s M.H.Enterprises was in existence and was running business from Devli village which is proved from the evidence of prosecution witnesses i.e. PW-1 Jaipal Singh and PW27 Deviram. In evidence of PW1, this witness in unmistakable terms has stated that in the year 1991 A-1 was running stitching factory under the name and style of M/s M.H.Enterprises in the premises rented out by him and his brother to A-1. It is further submitted that evidence of PW27 Deviram, brother of PW1 is corroborating the evidence of PW1 in this regard. On the basis of these submissions it has been submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish the fact that A-1 has never run the unit under the name and style of M/s M.H.Enterprises.
Heard on this account and material perused.
In this respect it is found that Ex.P-74 (admitted document) is the current account opening form dated 09.03.88 submitted by A- 1 with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Nehru Place to open the account in the name of M/s Verma Udyog Readymade Garments Manufacturer at 245/A-1, Devli Road, Khanpur, New Delhi, which reflects that A-1 was running manufacturing unit under the name and style of M/s Verma Udyog. It is also admitted fact that in this CC No.15/13 (Bhupesh Kumar) CBI vs Virender Verma & anr. Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South)/New Delhi/07.06.2016 54 matter A-1 has opened an another account with New Bank of India in present matter and had applied for the loan to set up another unit under the name and style of M/s M.H.Enterprises.
Before proceeding ahead, here it is necessary to scrutinize the evidence of PW-1 Jaipal Singh and his brother PW-27 Deviram. As per evidence PW-1, he has rented out three rooms and a verandah to A-1 in the year 1991, but after six months A-1 had kept only one room in his possession and vacated the rest of the portion. He further deposed that one room was kept by him only for the next three months. During cross-examination the witness has submitted that A-1 was running stitching factory under the name and style of M/s M.H.Enterprises. On the other hand, as per evidence of PW-27 Deviram, A-1 has taken his portion of the property in the year 1991-92 for commercial purpose to run firm in the name of M/s M.H.Enterprises. From the careful scrutiny of evidence of both these witnesses, it reflects that A-1 has taken the property on rent from PW1 Jaipal Singh and PW-27 Devi Ram in the year 1991. However, the reply dated 30.10.1989 Ex.P-373 given by A-1 to the Sr.Manager of the bank to queries raised by Regional Office vide letter Ex.PW15/A shows that by the said date A-1 had already taken the property at Khanpur on rent. Here it is further necessary to mention one of relevant query raised vide letter Ex.PW15/A :-
"The unit is situated in Nangloi and residence of the proprietor is in Faridabad. Please comment as to how they have applied limits from your branch."
The reply in this respect given by A-1 vide reply Ex. P-373 CC No.15/13 (Bhupesh Kumar) CBI vs Virender Verma & anr. Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South)/New Delhi/07.06.2016 55 dated 30.10.1989 is as under :-
"Regarding our choice of selecting Defence Colony Branch, it is so because it is in between our factories in Khanpur and Nangloi. Also it is within close proximity from our Head Office at Khanpur."
The project report Ex.P-309 shows the office and factory address of M/s M.H.Enterprises as A-26, Nangloi Extensions, Phase I, Delhi, which shows that by that time he intended to take loan facility for his unit M/s M.H.Enterprises at A-26, Nangloi Extensions, Phase I, Delhi only. But when the query regarding proximity of location of factory at Nangloi and the residence of A-1 at Faridabad was raised, A-1 came forward with explanation, in his reply dated 30.10.1989 Ex.P-373 that he has head office at Khanpur and factories at Khanpur and Nangloi. From all these documents, one fact remain on record that A-1 in reply to queries, for the first time has mentioned his head office and factory at Khanpur, whereas in the original proposal he has mentioned the address of his office and factory at Nangloi.
However, the pre-sanction verification report dated 03.11.1989 Ex.P 351 reflects that the pre-sanction verification was also conducted at 245/A-1, Khanpur, New Delhi. But the question arises whether the conduct of A-1 in respect of furnishing the address of M/s M.H.Enterprises at 245/A-1, Khanpur is free from all suspicions. In this regard, it is found that as per admitted current account opening form Ex.P 74 (D 195), A-1 has applied for opening of account with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Nehru Place, in the name of M/s Verma Udyog and has furnished the address of CC No.15/13 (Bhupesh Kumar) CBI vs Virender Verma & anr. Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South)/New Delhi/07.06.2016 56 his firm as 245/A-1, Deoli Road, Khanpur. The prosecution has examined PW-30 Sh.R. Rajamohan who remained posted as probationary officer from September, 1989 to 1st April, 1994 with Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony branch. Here it is necessary to reproduce relevant portion of evidence of this witness which is as under :-
When I joined the branch during the period September 1989 to 1st week of April, 1994, the firm M/s Verma Udyog was already having an account with the branch. ...... When I joined the bank, the books of accounts of my bank reflected that the company was having an account the operation of which was not satisfactory. In the banking terms the account was sticky which means, proving difficult of recovery of loan advanced to party. The party was giving continuous promises for repayment......... After all efforts were made and no result was obtained, the bank was constrained to file suit against the party, which was for about Rs.37.84 lac.
The witness was cross examined at length, but no explanation of the witness was called in regard to taking of loan by M/s Verma Udyog from Oriental Bank of Commerce, prior to September, 1989. Hence, the evidence of this witness in this regard remained un-controverted and un-impeached. It transpires that when A-1 has applied for another loan on 16.10.1989 from New Bank of India, he was already having liability to repay the loan obtained from Oriental Bank of Commerce. The Ex.PW16/B (D592) is the loan application dt.16.10.1989 of A-1 made to New Bank of India, wherein, it has not been mentioned that A-1 has already taken loan from Oriental Bank of Commerce. It means A-1 has concealed the fact of taking loan from Oriental Bank of Commerce for the firm M/s Verma Udyog when he applied for another loan for the firm M/s M.H.Enterprises. As matter of record CC No.15/13 (Bhupesh Kumar) CBI vs Virender Verma & anr. Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South)/New Delhi/07.06.2016 57 the addresses of the factory premises of both the firms has been mentioned as 245/A1, Khanpur. Delhi.
The prosecution has brought on record another important document i.e. Ex.P-94 (admitted letter) dated 08.02.1990 written by A-1. The contents of the said letter are as under : -
Dated 8th Feb 90 The Director, Office of the Director of Supplies, DGS & D, New CGO Building, 5th Floor, New Marine Lines, Bombay.
Sub ; Change of our Firm;s name from M/s VERMA UDYOG to M/s M.H.ENTERPRISES Sir, through this letter we wish to bring to your kind notice that due to some sentimental and religious reasons we are changing our firm's name from M/s VERMA UDYOG to M/s M.H.ENTERPRISES. However the constitution of the new firm shall remain the same, i.e. sole proprietory concern with Mr.Verinder Verma as the sole proprietor.
We have sent information of this change to all concerned Deparments and Agencies. We therefore request your goodlself to kindly have this change noted in your records. Kindly inform us if you require any other information or supporting documents regarding this change.
Thanking you and assuring you the best of our
cooperation always, we remain.
Yours faithfully,
For M.H.ENTERPRISES
(Signed by Verinder Verma)
Prop.
As discussed earlier, PW-14 Sumesh Khanna alongwith A-4 CC No.15/13 (Bhupesh Kumar) CBI vs Virender Verma & anr. Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South)/New Delhi/07.06.2016 58 have carried out pre-sanction verification vide Ex.P351 (D594) on 03.11.89. It means if the bank officials visited the premises at 245/A-
1, Khanpur, New Delhi, the unit of M/s Verma Udyog was already running at the said premises. Here the conduct of A-1 is not free from suspicions because first he has taken loan from Oriental Bank of Commerce for M/s Verma Udyog and thereafter, he has taken loan from New Bank of India, for M/s M.H.Enterprises by concealing the fact that he is already running another unit under the name and style of M/s Verma Udyog from the same premises. Once he was granted loan for M/s M.H.Enterprises, he has changed the name of M/s Verma Udyog to M/s M.H.Enterprises, as per aforesaid letter Ex.P-94. All these circumstances reflect that A-1 never run any business under the name and style of M/s M.H.Enterprises from 245/A-1, Khanpur, New Delhi, but he has shown his old unit, if being run under the name and style of M/s Verma Udyog from the said premises, during the pre- sanction visit by bank officials. Considering the entire chain of evidence on this score, I find substance in the contention of Ld. PP for CBI that M/s M.H.Enterprises never came in existence.
9. The next contention of Ld. PP for CBI is that A-1 has raised certain forged and fabricated bills with New Bank of India for discounting pertaining to certain non-existent firms. One of the firm was M/s Kalra Machinery Supplies Co. having its account with Bharat Overseas Bank. The account was opened in the name of Purshottam Kumar, but P.D.Maher one of the employee of A-1 has impersonated as Purshottam Kumar and signed the account opening form and loose cheques recovered by CBI. It has been further CC No.15/13 (Bhupesh Kumar) CBI vs Virender Verma & anr. Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South)/New Delhi/07.06.2016 59 contended that on the body of the account opening form and handwriting on the body of cheque belongs to A-1 which shows that virtually the account was opened by A-1 and that there was conspiracy between P.D.Maher and A-1 and in pursuance of conspiracy they have opened the account in the name of Purshottam Kumar to establish a firm M/s Kalra Machinery Supplies Co. which never came into existence. Ld. Counsel for CBI further submitted that bills raised upon M/s Kalra Machinery Supplies Co. were also false and fabricated. It has been further submitted that A-1 has submitted false invoice Ex.PW3/A6 qua purchase of machinery to the tune of Rs.2,81,627.50 in the name of M/s Kalra Machinery Supplies Co. It has been further contended that M/s Kalra Machinery Supplies Co. was not in existence at the given address, as per evidence of PW-7 Mr.Kamal Singh and PW-21 Mr.N.K.Agarwal.
On the other hand, ld. Counsel for A-1 has submitted that P.D.Maher has already died, therefore, no evidence, if came on record against him can be read in evidence. It has been further submitted that only because certain bills were not realized, it cannot be presumed that M/s Kalra Machinery Supplies Co. was not in existence. In regard to invoice Ex.PW3/A6 it has been submitted that the same is genuine one and M/s Kalra Machinery Supplies Co. was in existence.
In respect to M/s P.D. Marketing & Consultants, Karol Bagh, it has been contended by Ld.PP for CBI that the prosecution has examined PW-4 Narender Mohan Jha and PW-24 N. Ashok Kumar both independent witnesses joined to the investigation for purpose of locating firm M/s P.D. Marketing & Consultants at given CC No.15/13 (Bhupesh Kumar) CBI vs Virender Verma & anr. Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South)/New Delhi/07.06.2016 60 address. But both these witnesses have submitted that they have searched the area but the premises of M/s P.D. Marketing & Consultants was not found, which reflects that this company never came into existence. It has been further contended that bill discounting pertaining to M/s P.D. Marketing & Consultants was sent for realization to SBI, Chanderlok, Janpath but it was not realized on the ground that the bank had no arrangement with M/s P.D. Marketing & Consultants which shows that this firm was non-existent and A-1 has filed the forged and fabricated bills/hundis of this firm.
On the other hand, ld. Counsel for A-1 has submitted that only on the ground that bills were not realized, it cannot be presumed that M/s P.D. Marketing & Consultants was non-existent firm. It has been vehemently submitted that M/s P.D. Marketing & Consultants was in existence and that is why the account was opened in its name with SBI, Chanderlok Building, Janpath. It has been further submitted that no reliance can be made on evidence of PW-4 and PW-24. It has been further submitted that P.D.Maher, proprietor of M/s P.D. Marketing & Consultants has already died, therefore, no findings against him can be passed.
In respect of M/s Lumbani Boutique, Ld. PP for CBI has submitted that proprietor of this company was also P.D.Maher and during investigation when registered letters were posted to ascertain the address of this firm, it was returned undelivered with remarks incomplete address, as per evidence of PW40 Swadesh Kumar, Postman who has brought undelivered letter on record as Ex.PW40/A. It has been further contended that certain bills raised on M/s Lumbani CC No.15/13 (Bhupesh Kumar) CBI vs Virender Verma & anr. Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South)/New Delhi/07.06.2016 61 Boutique were not realized and were returned unpaid which shows that this firm was non-existent.
On the other hand, ld. Cousnel for A-1 has submitted that one of the bill raised upon M/s Lombani Boutique wad duly realized whihc itself shows that this company was in existence and the bills were genuine.
In respect to M/s Clairvoyance Marketers it has been submitted that it was also non-existent firm because bills raised on this company through Syndicate Bank were also returned unrealized. It has been further contended that A-1 has issued cheque dated 4.1.1990 Ex.PW22/B being Proprietor of M/s M.H.Enterprises, but the cheque amount was withdrawn by A-1 himself in individual capacity.
On the other hand, ld. Counsel for A-1 has submitted that in case A-1 has withdrawn the amount of the cheque Ex.PW22/B, this does not prove that M/s Clairvoyance Marketers was not in existence.
10. Heard on these aspects besides going through the material available on record.
It has not been disputed that Mr.P.D.Maher, alleged to be proprietor of all these firms has already died and proceedings against him have been abated vide order dated 12.07.2005 of my Ld. Predecessor Court. At this juncture, the question arises whether the evidence came on record against P.D.Maher can be looked into in these circumstances.
CC No.15/13 (Bhupesh Kumar)
CBI vs Virender Verma & anr. Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South)/New Delhi/07.06.2016
62
In case Vinayak Narayan Deoshtali vs CBI (2015) 4 SCC 353, Hon'ble Supreme Court has, inter alai, held as under :-
So far as accused 3 (Harshad S Mehta) is concerned, he died on 31.12.2001 during pendency of trial...... We are, therefore, of the considered view that the appellant was part of the conspiracy in facilitating trading of SGL securities to the benefit of Accused 3 (Harshad Mehta) and in the process, abused his official position and violated the provisions of banking laws. The facts and circumstances of the case clearly show the participation of the appellant in the criminal acts and misuse of his official position. In our opinion, the prosecution has successfully proved the nexus between the accused. The ingredients of the offences for which the accused is charged have also been established beyond all reasonable doubt by the prosecution by adducing voluminous documentary evidence as well as oral evidence.
In the light of this judgment, it is found that in order to ascertain the conspiracy, the material came on record even against the dead conspirator can be looked into. Whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving this fact or not, shall be discussed later on at appropriate stage.
In respect to firm M/s Kalra Machinery Supplies Company, evidence of PW 28 Ramesh Kumar Gupta, Manager of Bharat Overseas Bank has been perused. He is the witness who has, inter alia, handed over the account opening form of M/s Kalra Machinery Supplies Company Ex.PW28/A (D243), pay-in-slip Ex.PW28/C and loose cheque Ex.PW28/D to CBI.
Further material reveals that all these documents were sent for handwriting expert opinion. As per handwriting expert report CC No.15/13 (Bhupesh Kumar) CBI vs Virender Verma & anr. Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South)/New Delhi/07.06.2016 63 Ex.PW44/A brought on record by PW-44 Mr.V.N.Sehgal and PW-48 handwriting expert Mr.V.K.Khnna, the questioned handwriting Q241, Q242 on account opening form Ex.PW28/A, questioned handwriting Q252A on pay-in-slip Ex.PW28/C and questioned handwriting Q253 Ex.PW28/D on loose cheque, belongs to A-1.
Further as per prosecution, deceased P.D.Maher by impersonating as Purshottam Kumar has opened the bank account in the name of Kalra Machiery. As per evidence of PW28 Ramesh Kumar, the specimen handwriting Ex.PW28/G of P.D.Maher was also taken in his presence. The material further perused that the questioned signatures on account opening form Ex.PW28/A reflects the questioned signatures of the depositor at Q244, 243 and 245, and loose cheque Ex.PW28/D as Q 254 were sent for handwriting expert opinion. As per handwriting export report Ex.PW44/A, the said signatures belongs to P.D.Maher.
As matter of record, PW-48 handwriting expert Mr.V.K.Khanna further stated that he has given his opinion being handwriting expert and his long experience. The witness was not cross examined at all, hence, there is no reason to doubt the evidence of this witness that he has given the opinion being handwriting expert.
Ld. Counsel for A-1 has also contended that handwriting expert opinion report cannot be admitted in evidence because no prior permission of the concerned Magistrate was obtained before obtaining specimen signatures of A-1.
On this score, without going into detailed discussions, it is found that specimen handwriting was taken on 05.06.95 and during said period there was no requirement in Cr. P.C. to obtain permission CC No.15/13 (Bhupesh Kumar) CBI vs Virender Verma & anr. Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South)/New Delhi/07.06.2016 64 from the Magistrate before obtaining specimen handwriting. The amendment in Cr. P.C. in this respect has been made on 23.06.2006 when section 311A was incorporated in the Cr. P.C.. Hence, the arguments of ld. Counsel for A-1 on this score are found to be without any force.
Before proceeding ahead, here it is necessary to re-produce Section 120-B of IPC, which is as under :
120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy. - (1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, {imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment or either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.
In case Mohd.Amit vs CBI (2008) 15 SCC 49, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held to the effect that for the purpose of establishing or proving the charge of conspiracy, it is not necessary that there should be knowledge of who are other conspirators and of the detailed stages of the conspiracy. The necessary requisite is knowledge of the main object and purpose of the conspiracy.
Reverting to the present matter, it is found that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the fact that A-1 has filled the body of account opening form in his own handwriting when deceased P.D.Maher by impersonating as Purshottam Kumar opened the account in the name of the firm M/s Kalra Machinery Supplies Co.. It CC No.15/13 (Bhupesh Kumar) CBI vs Virender Verma & anr. Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South)/New Delhi/07.06.2016 65 shows that at relevant time, A-1 had the knowledge of act of deceased P.D.Maher impersonating himself as Purshottam Kumar and this fact is sufficient to prove criminal conspiracy between A-1 and A-2 (deceased P.D.Maher).
Further in respect of M/s Kalra Macinery and Supplies Co., prosecution has examined PW-7 Mr. Kamal Singh from UPFC, Ghaziabad. He has submitted that he has visited the address of M/s Kalra Machinery and Supplies Co., Gurudwara Road, Punjabi Bagh Colony, Faridabad, Haryana but from the vicinity, he came to know that the firm was not in existence. During his cross examination it was suggested to the witness that the firm was existing at given address and that he never visited the firm at given address, but the suggestions were denied. Apart from putting mere suggestions, there is nothing in cross examination of this witness which suggest that firm was in existence and functioning at given address. PW-21 is Sh.N.K.Agarwal, Public Relation Inspector, Ballabhgarh Post office and submitted that on instructions of his senior he has conducted verification of said firm at Faridabad, but the said firm was not traceable at given address of in the concerned locality. There is nothing in cross examination of this witness which casts suspicion regarding trustworthiness of evidence of this witness in this respect. There is no ground to doubt the evidence of both these witnesses. Hence it is found that M/s Kalra Machinery & Supplies Co. never came into existence and it was a fictitious firm.
The bill of M/s Kalra Machinery Supplies Co. of a sum of Rs.2,81,627.50 as Ex.PW3/A6. The bill was sent for handwriting expert opionion as Q479. But handwriting expert has not given any CC No.15/13 (Bhupesh Kumar) CBI vs Virender Verma & anr. Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South)/New Delhi/07.06.2016 66 opinion on this handwriting, on the ground of lack of standard writing. PW-3 Omprakash Gupta, employee of PNB has brought this document on record by stating that he has handed over this document to CBI. But there is no other document on record to show that actually who has submitted this document to bank. Under these circumstances, it cannot be presumed that A-1 has prepared or used the invoice Ex.PW3/A6 pertaining to M/s Kalra Machinery Supplies Co..
11. In respect to M/s Clairvoyance Marketers, three bills were drawn i.e. bill no.113/90 for a sum of Rs.1,69,562/- Ex.PW52/B2, 114/90 for a sum of Rs.1,42,896/- Ex.PW52/C2 and 115/90 for a sum of Rs.1,24,800/- Ex. PW52/D2. As per evidence of PW22, the cheque dated 04.1.1990 Ex.PW22/B was issued in favor of M/s Clairvoyance marketers by A-1 being proprietor of M/s M.H.Enterprises. The handwriting on the body of the cheque and signature on it were sent for handwriting expert as Q337 and as per handwriting expert report Ex.PW44/A, the same bears signatures of A-1. However, on the overleaf of cheque bears signature of A-1, which shows that the payment of cheque amount was actually received by A-1. This fact has not been controverted by A-1 at any stretch of time. Here the question arises that why A-1 received the cheque amount in individual capacity of the same cheque issued by him in the name of M/s Clairvoyance Marketers being proprietor of M/s M.H.Enterprises. This fact proves that actually M/s Clairvoyance Marketers was not in existence and A-1 was even operating the account of said firm.
12. In respect to M/s P.D.Marketing & Consultants, it has CC No.15/13 (Bhupesh Kumar) CBI vs Virender Verma & anr. Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South)/New Delhi/07.06.2016 67 been found that PW17 Banwari Lal Sikka has brought on record three BD bearing nos.128/90 to 130/90 of total sum of Rs.4,07,372.50, dated 23.3.1990 as Ex.PW17/B. In respect to the verification of address of M/s P.D.Marketing & Consultants the prosecution has examined PW-4 Narender Mohan Jha and PW-24 Ashok Kumar and both these witnesses have categorically stated that firm was not traceable in the area of Karol Bagh. PW-4 further submitted that he has signed memo Ex.PW4/B in this respect which bears his signature at point A and PW24 submitted that the memo Ex.PW4/B bears his signature at point B. The evidence of both these witnesses has corroborated with evidence of PW53 R.K.Hazrati who has stated that he has tried to find M/s P.D.Marketing & Consultants at Karol Bagh but could not found its existence. The evidence in this respect is sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that M/s P.D.Marketing & Consultant was non-existent firm.
13. In respect to M/s Lumbani Boutique, it has been found that four bills i.e. 124/90 of a sum of Rs.1,00,548/-, 125/90 for a sum of Rs.1,43,299/-, 126/90 for a sum of Rs.2,26,200/- and 127/90 for a sum of Rs.1,87,201/- were raised for remittance. Out of said bills only one bill no.127/90 was realized. The return of bills have been proved as Ex.PW35/A. In order to prove that M/s Lumbani Boutique was non- existent firm, the prosecution has examined three witnesses i.e. PW40 Swadesh Kumar, Post Master who submitted to the effect that letter dt.21.11.95 addressed to proprietor of M/s Lumbani Boutique at 1341/5 Shahpur Jat was marked to him for delivery but due to CC No.15/13 (Bhupesh Kumar) CBI vs Virender Verma & anr. Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South)/New Delhi/07.06.2016 68 incomplete address, the same could not be delivered and he made endorsement 'incomplete address' on the undelivered letter Ex.PW40/A. The witness was not cross examined at all, hence, his evidence remained uncontroverted. PW41 submitted that he alongwith Mr.Swadesh Kumar went to deliver the letter Ex.PW40/A as he had recently joined. But it was not delivered due to incomplete address. He was also not cross examined, hence, evidence of this witness also remained uncontroverted.
PW53 is R.K.Hazrati, Retired Manager, who was vigilance officer of the bank and submitted to the effect that the address of Lumbani Boutique at Shahpur Jat was not found in existence. The witness was cross examined at length, but apart from putting mere suggestion that he has not visited at the given address of M/s Lumbani Boutique, no further explanation of this witness was called. In the absence of any material fact, putting mere suggestion to a witness is of no consequences.
On the basis of the un-impeached and un-controverted evidence of PW-40, PW-41 and PW-53, hence, it stands proved that the firm M/s Lumbani Boutique was not in existence at the given address.
14. The above discussion leads to conclusion that all the four firms i.e. M/s Kalra Machinery Supplies Co., M/s Lumbani Boutique, M/s P.D. Marketing & Consultants and M/s Clairvoyance Marketers were non-existent and fictitious firms. Under these circumstances, the Court has no hitch to reach at conclusion that the bills/hundis in the name of M/s Lumbani Boutique, M/s P.D. Marketing & Consultants CC No.15/13 (Bhupesh Kumar) CBI vs Virender Verma & anr. Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South)/New Delhi/07.06.2016 69 and M/s Clairvoyance Marketers, as discussed earlier remitted by A-1 from the bank were forged. The different bills/hundis were brought on record and the questioned handwriting of A-1 on all these bills/hundis were sent for handwriting expert opinion from Q1 to Q151 and as per handwriting expert opinion, all these handwriting/signatures belong to A-1. Since the bills/hundis bear signatures and handwriting of A-1, therefore, it also stands prove that A-1 has prepared all these forged bills/hundis with intention to use the same as security to obtain money from the New Bank of India.
15. Ld. PP for CBI has submitted that A-4 K.L.Bhasin being Branch Manager of New Bank of India has abused his official position and in criminal conspiracy with A-1 has flouted the set principles of the bank and recommended the loan proposal of A-1 to the Regional Office without verifying the documents, premises where A-1 intended to setup the factory etc. It has been further contended that when A-4 has referred the loan proposal to the Regional Office, the concerned officials i.e. PW-25 Smt.Neeta Dhawan, Jr. Manager working on loan seat at Regional Office has raised certain queries. The matte was further dealt with by PW-26 Sh.Ashok Kumar, the then Manager, Loan at regional office and he has also given certain comments on the loan proposal. On the basis of the queries raised by PW-25 Neeta Dhawan and PW-26 Ashok Kumar, the reply was sought from the party through the branch. The letter Ex.PW14/A in this respect was written by the Regional Office which reached at the branch on 16.11.89. But A-4 being Branch Manager submitted reply to queries on 03.11.89, meaning by the reply was submitted by A-4 CC No.15/13 (Bhupesh Kumar) CBI vs Virender Verma & anr. Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South)/New Delhi/07.06.2016 70 even before the letter of Regional Office reached at his branch on 16.11.1989. It has been further contended that A-4 in order to show that he has received the letter Ex.PW14/A from the regional office before sending reply has changed the date of letter as 8.11.89 in place of original date i.e. 2.11.89. It reflects that A-4 has acted in hurried manner by abusing his official position in order to give undue monetary benefits to A-1 in pursuance of criminal conspiracy.
On the other hand, ld. Counsel for A-4 has submitted that A- 4 has genuinely without any malafide intention has processed the loan application of A-1. It has been further submitted that A-4 was not empowered to sanction the loan of A-1, hence, he has simply referred the loan application to Regional Office for sanction. At regional office, certain queries were raised, which was communicated to A-1 and A-1 has accordingly replied the queries. The said reply of A-1 was sent to regional office, where the loan was sanctioned after considering the case. On the basis of these submissions, it has been contended that A-4 has adopted proper procedure while dealing with loan proposal of A-1 and has not acted in hurried manner or in criminal conspiracy with A-1.
In this regard it is found that as per prosecution when the queries were raised at regional office, the same were communicated to Branch Manager vide letter Ex.PW14/A (D226) which is dated 02.11.89, but the said date was changed to 8.11.89 by A-4. In this respect it is found that the letter Ex.PW14/A was sent for handwriting expert as questioned document Q 222. But no opinion was given by the handwriting expert on this score. Further, prosecution has not produced any dispatch register of regional office or the inward CC No.15/13 (Bhupesh Kumar) CBI vs Virender Verma & anr. Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South)/New Delhi/07.06.2016 71 register maintained at branch qua the movement of the letter. Moreover, Ex.PW14/A is the carbon copy of the original letter which was seized from the regional office. There is no evidence on record that this copy was accessible to A-4 at regional office from where the inference can be drawn that A-4 might have tampered the date, on this document. Under these circumstances, liability of A-4 cannot be fixed for the change of date from 2.11.89 to 8.11.89 on Ex.PW14/A. Further, there is no material on record which proves that the letter Ex.PW14/A was sent on 16.11.1989 from the regional office. There is no clear evidence on the score that when the queries were communicated to branch office. Under these eventualities, in case reply to the queries were sent on 03.11.1989, this cannot be termed that A-4 has acted in hurried manner.
16. It has been further submitted by Ld. PP for CBI that pre-
sanction visit was not conducted by A-4. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for A-4 has submitted that pre-sanction verification was conducted on 03.11.89 as Ex.P-351 by A-4.
On this score it is found that PW16 Sumesh Khanna has, inter alia, submitted that he has carried out pre-sanction visit at A-26, Nangloi Extn. Phase I and at 245/A-1, Khanpur, New Delhi vide pre- sanction report dated 03.11.1989 Ex.P 351 (D594). The material further shows that loan was sanctioned by regional office on 10.11.89. Hence, the contention of Ld. PP for CBI is without any force that pre- sanction visit was not conducted.
One of the contention of Ld. PP of CBI is that A-4 being Branch Manager was required to carry out pre-sanction visit before CC No.15/13 (Bhupesh Kumar) CBI vs Virender Verma & anr. Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South)/New Delhi/07.06.2016 72 referring the loan proposal to regional office. In this respect, no doubt, A-4 has not carried out any such inspection before referring the matter to regional office. But the prosecution has not brought on record any material viz. bye-laws or rule and regulation of bank or guidelines of RBI to substantiate its contentions in this respect. Under these circumstances, in the absence of any such material, it cannot be presumed that A-4 has violated any such mandatory provisions by not conducting any pre-sanction verification before referring the loan proposal to regional office.
17. Ld. PP for CBI has further vehemently submitted that the credit facility to the tune of Rs.2.80 lac was issued by the regional office, whereas A-4 has granted credit facility to the tune of Rs.3.0 lac to A-1 for which he was not empowered.
On the other hand, ld. counsel for A-4 has submitted that A- 4 has sanctioned the credit facility to the tune of Rs.3.0 lac because it was within his power as in such type of matters, the Manager has been empowered to enhance the credit facility upto 10%.
On this score, it has been found that prosecution has not brought on record any evidence to show that enhancing such facility was not within the power of A-4. In the absence of any such material, it cannot be presumed that A-4 enhanced the credit facility with malafide intention or in criminal conspiracy with A-4. Hence the arguments of Ld. PP for CBI on this aspect also found to be without any force.
18. Next contention of ld. PP for CBI is that A-4 knowingly in CC No.15/13 (Bhupesh Kumar) CBI vs Virender Verma & anr. Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South)/New Delhi/07.06.2016 73 conspiracy with A-1 has remitted the false and fabricated bills / hundis submitted by A-1 with bank.
On the other hand, ld. Counsel for A-4 has contended that once the BD facility was sanctioned by the regional office, A-4 being Manager of the branch had no other option except to remit the bills/hundis within the sanctioned BD limit.
In this respect evidence of PW-16 Sumesh Khanna has been perused. Here it is necessary to reproduce the relevant portion of cross-examination of PW-16 which is as under : -
It is correct that during my posting in branch, one Mr. Joginder Singh was posted as Assistant Manager. It is correct that all the cheques issued by M/s M.H.Enterprises were passed either by K.L.Bhasin, Joginder Singh or myself.
From the evidence of PW-16, it reflects that A-4 was not the only officer dealt with the account of M/s M.H.Enterprises. Apart from this, during cross-examination, number of cheques and other documents were brought on record during cross-examination of PW- 16 which again shows that apart from A-4, other officers including PW-16 have passed the balance/limit permitted to M/s M.H.Enterprises. Further, the substance has been found in the contentions of ld. Counsel for A-4 that once the BD limit was sanctioned in favor of A-1, A-4 being Branch Manager, had no other option to remit the same, if the same were within the limit.
19. This discussion leads to conclusion that the prosecution has failed to bring on record any cogent, consistent and legally admissible evidence against A-4 K.L.Bhasin. Hence, by giving benefit of doubt, CC No.15/13 (Bhupesh Kumar) CBI vs Virender Verma & anr. Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South)/New Delhi/07.06.2016 74 he stands acquitted for the offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act and for offence under Section 120B IPC r/w Section 467/468/471/419/420 IPC.
In respect to A-1 Virender Verma, it is found that the prosecution has succeeded in proving beyond reasonable doubt that he was in agreement or criminal conspiracy with deceased A-2 P.D.Maher (since deceased) when P.D.Maher opened account in Bharat Overseas Bank in the name non-existent firm M/s Kalra Machinery Supplies Co. by impersonating as Purshottam Kumar, that A-1 has used forged and fabricated rent deed Ex.P-311 at the time of obtaining loan and other facilities from the New Bank of India, that A-1 has also cheated the bank by using the unit of old firm M/s Verma Udyog for obtaining loan and other facilities from New Bank of India. Further the prosecution has also succeeded in proving that A-1 has prepared forged bills/hundis drawn on non-existent firms namely M/s P.D. Marketing & Consultants, M/s Lumbani Boutique and M/s Clairvoyance Marketers and illegally submitted the same in the New Bank of India for remittance. Accordingly, A-1 Virender Verma is hold guilty under Section 419/420/467/468/471 r/w Section 120-B IPC.
20. Let A-1 Virender Verma be heard on point of sentence on next date of hearing.
Announced in the Open Court (Bhupesh Kumar)
today on 07.06.2016 Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South)
Saket Courts : New Delhi
CC No.15/13 (Bhupesh Kumar)
CBI vs Virender Verma & anr. Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South)/New Delhi/07.06.2016