Bangalore District Court
Central Bureau Of Investigation vs B.Suryanarayana Hebbar on 30 September, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE XLVI ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL
JUDGE FOR CBI CASES (CCH-47) AT BENGALURU
Dated this the 30th day of September, 2015.
PRESENT:
Shri K.H.MALLAPPA, B.A.,LL.B.,
XLVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge
and Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases,
Bengaluru.
SPECIAL CRIMINAL CASE No.69/2010
COMPLAINANT : Central Bureau of Investigation,
A.C.B.,Bengaluru
(By Public Prosecutor)
-VERSUS-
ACCUSED-1 : B.Suryanarayana Hebbar,
S/o.B.Sadashiva Hebbar,
Aged 60 years,
r/o.House No.142, 13th Main,
BTM 1st Stage,
Bengaluru - 560 068.
ACCUSED-2 : V.Srivatsan,
S/o.K.Venkatasubbaiah,
Aged 59 years,
House No.856-B, 10th Main,
6th Cross, Block-2,
BSK 1st Stage,
Bengaluru-50.
ACCUSED-3 : G.A.Muniraju,
S/o.Late Annayappa,
-2- Spl.C.C.69/2010
Aged 40 years,
Managing Director,
M/s.Manjunatha Land Developers
& Constructions Pvt.Ltd.,
Indiranagar,
Bengaluru-560 038.
r/o.No.39, 5th Cross,
Narasimaiah Layout,
Vijanapura,
Bengaluru-16.
ACCUSED-4 : D.Nelson,
S/o.D.Fredrick Doss,
Aged 39 years,
Private Person. Worked for
M/s.Manjunatha Land Developers
& Constructions Pvt.Ltd.,
Indiranagar,
Bengaluru-560 038.
r/o.No.527, 2nd "B" Cross,D-Block,
Annaiya Reddy Layout,
Dodda Banaswadi,
Bengaluru-560 043.
ACCUSED-5 : Ganajit Sarma,
S/o.B.N.Sarma
Aged 39 years,
Worked as Technical Leader in
M/s.Huawei Technology India
Pvt.Ltd., Leela Place,
Bengaluru.
r/o.House No.54, Flat No. T-12,
Lake City Residency,
T.C.Pallaya, Behind Garden City
College, K.R.Puram,
Bengaluru-36.
-3- Spl.C.C.69/2010
ACCUSED-6 : B.Murali,
S/o.Balasubramanin,
Aged 37 years,
Worked as User Admn.
Analyst in M/s.IBM India Pvt.Ltd.,
Koramangala,
Bengaluru.
r/o.House No.59, Charal House
Opp:Valasaravakkam Panchayat,
Valasaravakkam,Channai.
Tamil Nadu.
ACCUSED-7 : L.Ramamurthy,
S/o.Lakshmaiah,
Aged 48 years,
Worked as Quality Manager in
M/s.Capital Mercury Apparels
Pvt.Ltd.,
Bengaluru.
r/o.House No.22/1, 3rd Cross,
Lingayana Pallya,
Ulsoor,
Bengaluru-08.
ACCUSED-8 : Smt.V.Dakshayani,
D/o.D.Venugopal,
Aged 45 years,
Worked as Admn. Officer in
M/s.Celtycs Management Pvt.Ltd.,
Bengaluru.
r/o.No.9, Lewis Road,
Cook Town,
Bengaluru-05.
ACCUSED-9 : Suhas Ratnakar Chavan,
S/o.Ratnakar Chavan,
Aged 35 years,
Worked as System Operation
Specialist in M/s.IBM Globel
-4- Spl.C.C.69/2010
Services India Pvt.Ltd.,
Bengaluru.
r/o.No.8, Char Bungla Mhada
Anderi (West), Mumbai.
ACCUSED-10 : Brendon Mendonca,
S/o.Bendo Mendonca,
Aged 37 years,
Worked as Computer Operator/
System Analyst in
M/s.Affiliated Computer Services
Pvt.Ltd., ITPL,
Bengaluru.
r/o.No.959, Scorpion,
Chikka Nanjundappa Road,
R.S.Palya, Maruti Seva Nagar,
Bengaluru.
1. Date of Commission of : During the period
Offence from 28.4.2004 to
30.7.2007.
2. Date of Report of Offence : 31.3.2009
3. Name of the complainant : On Complaint
4. Date of recording of : 30.4.2012
Evidence
5. Date of closing Evidence : 13.10.2014
6. Offences complained of : 120-B r/w.420, 468
& 471 IPC and
Sec.13(2) r/w.13 (1)
-5- Spl.C.C.69/2010
(d) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988.
7. Opinion of the Judge : Accused are
acquitted u/S.235(1)
of Cr.P.C. for the
offence punishable
u/Ss.
120-B r/w.420, 468
& 471 IPC and
Sec.13(2) r/w.13 (1)
(d) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988.
8. State represented by : Public Prosecutor
9. Accused defended by A-1 & 2 by Sri SGS,
Adv.
A-3 by Sri RNN, Adv.
A-4 by Sri D.R.,Adv.
A-5 by Sri JTR, Adv.
A-7 by Sri PCS, Adv.
A-8 by Sri SRR, Adv.
A-9 by Sri A.C., Adv.
A-10 by Sri
SNS/SVR, Advs.
JUDGMENT
This Charge Sheet is filed by the Complainant CBI/ACB/Bengaluru against the accused for the offences punishable u/S.120B r/w.468, 471 and 420 IPC and u/S.13(1)(d) r/w.13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
-6- Spl.C.C.69/2010
2. The brief facts of the case of the
prosecution are that:-
(i) The accused No.1 B.S.N.Hebbar being public servant, working as Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Indiranagar Branch, Bengaluru during the period from 28.4.2004 to 30.7.2007 and accused NO.2 - K.Srivatsan working as Senior Manger (Advances), Canara Bank, Indiranagar Branch, Bengaluru, during the period from 25.8.2004 to 22.8.2006 had entered into criminal conspiracy with accused No.3 - G.A.Muniraju, Managing Director of M/s.Manjunatha Land Developers & Constructions Pvt.Ltd., No.849, 4th Main, 12th Cross, Indira Nagar, 1st Stage Bengaluru; accused No.4 D.Nelson r/o.No.527, 2nd "B" Cross, D Block, Annaiah Reddy Layout, Bengaluru, in the identification of Customers for the purchase of 6 apartments and to avail housing loans from Canara Bank, Indiranagar Branch, Bengaluru and also with accused No.5 - Ganajit Sarma, accused No.6 - B.Murali, accused No.7 - L.Ramamurthy and accused No.8, Smt.V.Dakshayani, accused No.9 - Suhas Ratnakar Chavan and accused No.10 - Brendon Mendonca and agreed to do and causes to be done illegal acts of forging loan documents, making use of
-7- Spl.C.C.69/2010 such documents as genuine with an intention to cheat the Bank in connection with the following loans:-
Sl. Name and Date of Date of Loan
No. address of submission sanction amount
the borrower of (In
application Rs/lakhs)
1. Sri Ganajit 9.12.2005 19.12.2005 40.7
Sarma,
Technical
Leader
M/s.Huawei
Tech.India
Pvt.Ltd., Leela
Palace,
Bengaluru
2. Sri B.Murali, 9.12.2005 19.12.2005 40.7
User Admn.
Analyst
M/s.IBM India
Pvt.Ltd.,
Bengaluru
3. Sri L.Rama- 10.12.2005 19.12.2005 35.3
Murthy,
Quality
Manager,
Capital
Mercury
Apparels,
Bengaluru
4. Smt.V.Daksha 10.12.2005 19.12.2005 36.6
yani,
Administrative
Officer,
M/s.Celtycs
Management
Service
Pvt.Ltd.,
Bengaluru.
-8- Spl.C.C.69/2010
5. Sri Suhas 10.12.2005 3.1.2006 36.6
R.Chavan,
System
Ops.Specialist
M/s.Globel
Services India
Pvt.Ltd.,
Bengaluru.
6. Sri Brendon 10.12.2005 5.1.2006 36.6
Mendonca,
System
Analyst/Comp
uter Operator,
M/s.Affiliated
Computer
Services
Pvt.Ltd.,
Bengaluru.
Total 226.5
(ii) and sanctioned the loan and thereby cheated the Bank by corrupt and illegal means to obtain pecuniary advantages to themselves and corresponding loss to the Bank. In furtherance of criminal conspiracy during the period from 2004 to 2007 fraudulently and dishonestly forged the documents such as salary certificates, Form NO.16/income tax returns, appointment letters and transactional statement of salary accounts of all the borrowers in connection with the loans and in furtherance of criminal conspiracy fraudulently and dishonestly forged the documents with an intention to
-9- Spl.C.C.69/2010 cheat the Bank and dishonestly and fraudulently made use of the forged documents as genuine document. In furtherance of criminal conspiracy accused Nos.1 to 10 entered into criminal conspiracy to cheat the Canara Bank, Indiranagar Branch, Bengaluru and in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy, accused No.3 - G.A.Muniraju opened a Current Account bearing No.ANCA000011957 in the name of M/s.Manjunatha Land Developers & Constructions Pvt.Ltd. at Canara Bank, Indiranagar Branch, Bengaluru, on 3.6.2005 and introduced accused No.5, Ganajit Sarma and five others for opening S.B. Accounts in their names for which accused No.1 - B.S.N.Hebbar and accused No.2 had made no made no efforts to cause verification into proof of identity and proof of address submitted along with the account opening form and accused No.2 - K.Srivatsan had sent reference to City Bank, M.G.Road Branch, Bengaluru, ICICI Bank Ltd., Koramangala Industrial Estate Branch, Bengaluru, M/s.Doxado M.Technologies Pvt.Ltd., Centurion Bank, Infantry Road Branch and Coles Park Branch, Bengaluru and accused Nos.1 and 2 fraudulently concealed the said information and made favourable recommendation for sanctioning of the loan and though accused Nos.5 to 10 were not having sufficing paying capacity, joined hands with accused No.3 and
- 10 - Spl.C.C.69/2010 his associates and submitted inflated salarly slips thereby making accused eligible for higher amount of loan and accused No.4 had helped in preparing false salary certificates in favour of 6 borrowers with inflated salary and accused No.4 had also managed to forge the statements of accounts and Form No.16 of the 6 borrowers in connivance with the said borrowers and 6 borrowers accused Nos.6 to 10 stood as guarantors for each other's loan and hence the exercise of obtaining the third party guarantee did not meet the basic purpose of securing the loan and further accused Nos.1 and 2 disbursed the housing loan without collecting the margin money of 15% from the borrowers and also failed to obtain irrevocable mandate from the borrower for deduction from the salary towards the repayment of loan, to collect IT returns filed by the borrowers and to cross check salary particulars of the borrowers with the Income Tax authorities to ascertain the bona fide of the same etc. and further accused Nos.1 and 2 recommended for sanction of the loan based on the first valuation report submitted by the registered valuer who was not on the panel of the Bank and the payments towards the valuation was made by accused No.3 and the eligibility limit was computed in excess of 85% of the asset values and officials of the Canara Bank,
- 11 - Spl.C.C.69/2010 Indiranagar Branch, Bengaluru had obtained the accused valuation report given by the builder and had computed the eligibility limit of the individual borrowers without obtaining independent valuation report from the panel of the valuers and thus made use of forged documents as genuine to induce the Bank to sanction the loan and thereby accused have committed the offence punishable u/Ss.120B r/w.420, 468 & 471 IPC and under Section 13(2) r/w.13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, 1988.
3. After filing charge-sheet Court took cognizance of the offences alleged against accused and all these accused appeared before the Court through their counsels and got enlarged on bail and contested the prosecution case. The provision of Section 207 of Cr.P.C. was complied by furnishing copy of charge-sheet and concerned documents to accused.
4. My learned predecessor in office, after hearing both sides and on going through the charge- sheet material, framed charge against accused for the offence punishable U/s.120(B), 468, 471 and 420 of IPC and further under section 13(1)(d) r/w.13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, wherein all the
- 12 - Spl.C.C.69/2010 accused have not pleaded guilty and claimed to be tried. Then this Court called upon the prosecution to adduce evidence of its witnesses to prove the guilt against accused.
5. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined 25 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 25 and got marked 173 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.173 and closed its side.
6. Thereafter, statement of the accused as required U/s.313 of Cr.P.C. recorded, wherein all the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances which goes against them. The defence of the accused is total denial of the prosecution case, they are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case.
7. On behalf of the accused, DW1 and DW2 were examined and got marked Exs.D1 to Ex.D14.
8. I have heard the arguments of learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned Counsel for accused Nos.1 to 10 apart from perusing their written arguments.
- 13 - Spl.C.C.69/2010
9. The points that arise for determination in this case are as follows:-
(1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that Accused Nos.1 and 2 being public servants, had criminal conspiracy with accused Nos.3 and 4 in sanctioning loan on the inflated salary slips/Form No.16 of accused Nos.5 to 10 for pecuniary gain and caused loss to the Canara Bank, Indiranagar Branch, as alleged by prosecution?
(2) What Order?
10. Findings of this Court on the above points are as follows:-
Point-1: In the Negative Point-2: As per final Order.
For the following:-
REASONS
11. Point No.1:- PW1, who worked as Vigilance Officer, Vigilance Section, Vigilance Wing, Canara Bank, Head Office, Bengaluru from July-2008, has admitted in the cross-examination that
- 14 - Spl.C.C.69/2010 Indiranagar Branch is a large Branch and it was termed as VLB and in his career he never worked in very large Branch. He admits in his cross- examination that three tier managerial administration was in practice as per the circular and he identified a photocopy of circular bearing No.LDGM.3/99 dated 28.9.1999 as Ex.D1. Further, he admits that the managerial portfolio is fixed by the Chief Manager in very large Branch. In Indiranagar Branch A-1 was officiating as Chief Manager though he was Divisional Manager in cadre and A-2 was immediate Officer to A- 1 and he was reporting to A-1.
12. Further PW1 admits in his cross-
examination that he did not verify the individual roles of A-1, A-2 and other Officers during his inspection. Further he admits that loan proposals were processed by A-2, loan application processing includes evaluation of credit worthiness and eligibility of the proposed borrower, in the said process, collection of necessary papers and evaluate them and evaluation can be done by taking assistance of other functional Managers. Further he admits that the housing loans involved in this case were sanctioned in furtherance to loan mela organized at the behest of the Circle Office. Further he admits that in the loan mela organized at
- 15 - Spl.C.C.69/2010 Bengaluru in Kanteerava Stadium, the application for housing loans in respect of this case were accepted along with salary slips with an endorsement "in principle sanction" and forwarded to Indiranagar Branch. The General Manager of Circle Officer has sanctioned the housing loans involved in this case. Further he admits that for all the housing loans, the Bank had obtained the intended flat that would be constructed in the project for which the finance was made available, there was a collateral security of the very same flat and letter evidencing deposit of title deeds had been obtained by the Bank. Likewise, one guarantee was also obtained to secure the loan. Further he admits that the title deeds of the flat on which the apartment by name "Manju Anugraha" was sought to be constructed was got verified by the panel advocate of the Bank and before disbursement of the loan amount, the title of the property was got convinced by the Branch and also the Circle Office. At that juncture, their panel advocate did not find any deficiency in the title. In other words, the loan was secured in its entirety.
13. Further PW1 admits in his cross-
examination that the Project Manju Anugraha is near HAL Airport. At that juncture, there was ample
- 16 - Spl.C.C.69/2010 demand for the residential flat and as such land value was in its peak and without obtaining the housing loan, it was practically impossible for a middle class person to own a flat. As such, there was huge competition among the Nationalized Banks to lend housing loans. The higher Officials had also fixed retail lending targets for its branches. To promote the retail lending in full swing, a team was formed by the Circle Office, which would be usually present in loan melas. Sufficient publicity was given through print and Electronic media, the Circle Office had circulated a list of approved housing projects for which the loans could be processed which list included Manju Anugraha Project also. Further he admits that the loans involved in this case became irregular within a short span of time and they were classified as non- performing assets and necessary action under Securitisation Act was also initiated and flats were repossessed and physical possession of the flats was with the Bank. Further he admits that, soon after the Bengaluru Airport was shifted to Devanahalli, the land value in and around HAL Airport reduced considerably which affected several incomplete projects. Before disbursing the loan amount, the valuation of the land and intended flats was got done by A.R.Dhanankar & R.K.Makhija & Co. Further he admits that one
- 17 - Spl.C.C.69/2010 A.S.Patil of their Bank had inspected the Indiranagar Branch and gave a interim report to Head Office regarding the housing loan transactions involved in this case.
14. Further PW1 admits in his cross-
examination that A-3 had not obtained any loan including the amenities loan for Manju Anugraha project from Canara Bank. Further he admits that individual buyers had obtained housing loans and there was no project finance for aforesaid project. Further he admits that individual buyers had entered into a sale agreement with A-3 apart from tripartite agreement. In pursuance of sale agreements, A-3 had executed registered sale deeds to the respective buyers for the similar consideration as is shown in sale agreements. Further he admits that at the time of loan application, he was not aware of stage of the construction, he did not verify the stage of construction from the records and he did not obtain valuation of entire project. Further he admits that the sale consideration was decided inter se between A-3 and individual buyers and Bank had no say in it. It was elicited from the mouth of this witness that he did not verify from the individual flat owners as to what exactly is the amount paid by them to A-3 and he did
- 18 - Spl.C.C.69/2010 not verify the balance sheet of A-3 or his books of account. He did not record the statements of A-1 or A-3 or any other Officer including sanctioning Officer of the Bank during his inspection.
15. Further PW1 admits in his cross-
examination that in respect of all 12 housing loan accounts, the Branch did not have the power to sanction and Circle Office was the sanctioning authority and the Officer of the Branch has to perform different roles. Further he admits that the sanctioning authority namely General Manager takes the decision to grant or refuse a loan proposal based on the recommendation of the Branch. Further he admits that loans were sanctioned by Circle Office, as there was no infirmities per se in the loan proposals. Further he admits that Branch had obtained margin money by accepting the receipts issued by A-3 and nobody in the Bank noticed the infirmities in the documents submitted by the borrowers till the account became non-performing asset. Further he admits that the periodical inspection to the project depicted the development of the project and accordingly disbursements were made. He further admits that he did not enquire the borrowers before submitting Ex.P1 and there is no necessity for the borrower to obtain
- 19 - Spl.C.C.69/2010 entire sale consideration as loan and the borrower may obtain portion of the sale consideration. Further he admits that A-5 was drawing net salary of RS.80,944/- per month for the month of Sept-2005 and the salary certificate furnished by A-5 had been scrutinized by the Bank and the Bank did not sought any such clarification from employer of A-5.
16. PW2 is the Chief Vigilance Officer in Canara Bank from July-2006 to July-2009, has admitted in his cross-examination that before lodging Ex.P42, he did not peruse the confidential records of A-1 and A-2 and Manju Anugraha Apartments was approved project by the Bank. By the time the loans were sanctioned, the project was complete in all respects and was ready for occupation and the possession of the flats were also delivered to respective loanees. Further he admits that he did not got it estimate the asset value of the flats from an approved valuer and the loss estimated in Ex.P42 is his own estimation based on Ex.P16 as marked in Spl.C.C.No.68/2010. Further he admits that he did not enquire A-1 and A-2 before lodging Ex.P42 and he did not verify all the files minutely to form an opinion that A-1 and A-2 failed to comply the post sanction conditions. Further PW2 admits that
- 20 - Spl.C.C.69/2010 loanees furnished statement of account of their Bank accounts in different Banks along with the loan proposal. He has not appended the communication received from Chairman authorizing him to lodge the complaint vide Ex.P42 at the time of filing the complaint. Further he admits that Form No.16 furnished by A-1 for the year 2004-05 is genuine. Further he admits that monthly salary of A-5 was Rs.80,944/-.
17. PW3 who worked as Manager in Canara Bank, Indiranagar Branch, Bengaluru from August- 2008 to October-2009 has deposed with respect to the documents pertaining to 12 housing loan transaction in respect of the project of 'Manju Anugraha Apartments' on three different dates.
18. PW4, who worked as Assistant General Manager in Circle Office, Canara Bank, Bengaluru from the year 2002 to 2006 has deposed with respect to sanction of 12 housing loans and production of loan documents to CBI.
19. PW5, who worked as Chief Manger in Canara Bank, Indiranagar Branch, Bengaluru from July-2007 to Jan-2011, has admitted in his cross-
- 21 - Spl.C.C.69/2010 examination that Indiranagar Branch is classified as very large Branch and as a Branch head, he had to discharge the duty of supervising, monitoring, controlling and administrative functions the entire Branch including advances. He identifies attested copy of the communications fixing the responsibilities as per Exs.D1 and D2. Further he admits that the project "Manju Anugraha" developed by A-3 was approved in principle during the loan mela organized by the Circle Office. Further he admits that the flats were completely constructed and repayment of the loan installments had commenced by the time he took charge of Indiranagar Branch. Further he admits that during his tenure, there was no pending registration of any of the flats nor any pending creation of equitable mortgage. Further he admits that all the loans were secured loans and the Branch was regularly inspected and usual reports were submitted to the higher authorities.
20. Further PW5 admits in the cross-
examination that he did not notice any report by the regular inspectors regarding any deficiency in documentation or otherwise. Any short comings or non-compliance by the subordinates during the period of outgoing Branch head need to be regularized at the
- 22 - Spl.C.C.69/2010 instructions of the incoming Branch head. Further he admits that the flats which were repossessed by them under Secularization Act were sought to be sold in public auction as per provisions of the Act. Further he admits that during his tenure as a Branch Manager in Indirananagr, he has sanctioned few housing loans which were in limits of Branch and also forwarded few proposals for sanction at Circle Office level and in such circumstances, it is the Senior Manager who was putting up the appraisal note to him. Further it is elicited from the mouth of this witness that it might be true that it is A-2 and Sunil Kumar who were looking after the post sanction compliance in all the loan transactions. In June 2008, the above loans have been classified as non-performing assets. Further he admits that borrowers by name Dakshayini A-8 and Ramamurthy A-7 had requested the Bank to sell their flats and recover the outstanding amount even before he took charge of the Indiranagar Branch. He has admitted that a disciplinary enquiry was initiated against him and minor penalty was imposed on him for not taking immediate steps in timely recovering the outstanding in respect of loan account of A-8 and A-7. Further he admits that A-2 had addressed a letter to Centurion Bank as a part of due diligence process before appraising the housing loan proposal of
- 23 - Spl.C.C.69/2010 A-6. Further he admits that all the loans were granted to individual borrowers and the project "Manju Anugraha" was developed on a land which had valid title and that all the borrowers are genuine borrowers. Further it is elicited that in the year 2009, he was the Branch head at Indiranagar Branch and to regularize the account he had taken the assistance of A-3 and A-3 offered additional security in respect of the housing loans.
21. PW6 who worked as Deputy General Manager in Circle Office, Canara Bank, Bengaluru from Dec-2004 to June-2007 has admitted in the cross- examination that there was an interim report submitted by Sri A.S.Patil regarding the discrepancies found in compliance of post-sanction terms and conditions by Indiranagar Branch and thereafter, he got inspected the Branch by another Officer Smt.Aparna after the receipt of interim report submitted by Sri A.S.Patil. He identified a photocopy attested by the Bank is marked as Ex.D3. Further he admits that as per the outstanding instructions and directions of the Bank, the project of A-3 was an approved project.
- 24 - Spl.C.C.69/2010
22. PW7, who worked as Senior Manager, Indiranagar Branch from 2007 to 2010 has admitted in the cross-examination that they did not obtain any written communication from ICICI Bank and there was no impediment for the same.
23. PW8, who worked as an Officer in Indiranagar Branch, Canara Bank, from June-2005 to March-2006 has admitted in his cross-examination that he has no documents to show that A-2 had instructed him to fill up in particulars of Exs.P48, P49 to P51, P41(a), P24, P26, P27 and P28. He admits that as per Ex.D4, to open a current account or savings bank account, any other account holder of bank who has not completed one year of account holdership can introduce a new account.
24. PW9, who worked as Asst.General Manager in Circle Office, Canara Bank, Bengaluru from May- 2004 to Sept-2006, has admitted in his cross- examination that in respect of all the six housing loans sanctioned by Circle Office, the Branch had sent the compliance reports depicting the due compliance of sanction terms.
- 25 - Spl.C.C.69/2010
25. PW10, who worked as Manager in
Vyalikaval Branch, Canara Bank, during the year 2005-06 has deposed with respect to loan mela organized by their Bank in Kanteerava Stadium in the year 2005.
26. PW11 who worked as an Officer in Kumara Park West Branch, Canara Bank, during the year 2005-06 has deposed with respect to loan mela organized by their Bank in Kanteerava Stadium in the year 2005.
27. PW12 who is working in Citi Bank, Bengaluru, has deposed that in the year 2009 he was enquired by the CBI Officials about the account of Sri Ganajith Sharma - A5 held in their Bank.
28. PW13 who was Sub-registrar in Krishnarajapuram from 2008-2010 has deposed with respect to providing certified copies of registered documents pertaining to flats and its encumbrance as per the requisition of Inspector of CBI.
29. PW14, who was Postmaster in Viveknagar Post Office, Bengaluru from 2008 to 2011 has deposed
- 26 - Spl.C.C.69/2010 with respect to non-serving of registered post addressed to one Ganajit Sarma.
30. PW15, who was working as Consultant to Manjunatha Land Developers (P) Ltd., has admitted in his cross-examination that Canara Bank has got free Website. A person in need of loan can very well download the application format through website and in the present case he had collected the application format for loan on behalf of the borrowers. Further he admits that in respect of the present loan transaction, he has personally collected the documents pertaining to respective borrowers. He further admits that A-5 had not approached him and asked him to print any forms or documents.
31. PW16, who worked as Chief Manager in ICICI Bank from 2008 to 2010 has deposed with respect to the production of the documents to CBI on request by CBI in 2010.
32. PW17 who is an Asst.Engineer, who was serving as a Draft Man in the Office of BBMP, Mayohall, Bengaluru, during 2008-09 has deposed with respect to production of approved drawings pertaining to A-3 to CBI.
- 27 - Spl.C.C.69/2010
33. PW18, who was working as Junior Technical Assistant in the Office of Registrar of Companies during 2009, has deposed with respect to the production of certified copies of Certificate of Incorporation, Memorandum of Association and Articles of Associating pertaining to DOXADO Management Technologies Pvt.Ltd. Bengaluru to CBI.
34. PW19, who was Valuer has admitted in his cross-examination that even now he is in the Panel of Canara Bank Valuers. The Builder approached him to the Valuation Report for the purpose and he wanted that report for his own purpose and for financial assistance. Further he admits that he has referred to plan dated 13.3.2007 and that he has given report on 15.7.2007. Further he admits that within 4 months, it is not possible to complete construction of 95% of building. The said plan referred to by him could be a revised plan also.
35. PW20 is also a Valuer-cum-Arbitrator, who has deposed with respect to the valuation made by him in respect of Manjusri Apartments situated at Kaggadasapura, Krishnarajapura Hobli, Bengaluru, in the month of Nov-2008. In the cross-examination he
- 28 - Spl.C.C.69/2010 has admitted that he has not indicated in his report about the amount required for completion of building as per plan. Further he admits that apartment cannot be sold without selling the undivided share in the land. Further he admits that it is also not possible to buy the only undivided share in the land. Further he admits that he has not said anything in his report about the plans changed by the Builder and he has not taken into account the pent house situated at the building for valuation purpose. Further he admits that he received letter from Chief Manager PW5 for making valuation of the property in question. While valuing the property, which is under distress sale, the valuation will be made consecutively. It is elicited that he do not base his valuation on the valuation fixed by the P.W.D.
36. PW21 is another Valuer, who has deposed with respect to the valuation made by him in respect of Apartment bearing Khata No.29, situated at 6th Cross, Kaggadasapura Main Road, Bengaluru. He admits in his cross-examination that valuation report given by him is in respect of entire project and that it is not for single apartment. He further admits that he has stated before the CBI Officer as "Cost of the flats has come down basically due to 3 reasons : 1)
- 29 - Spl.C.C.69/2010 Recession, 2) Shifting of Airport and 3) Down fall in the IT sector.
37. PW22 who is working as Administrative Officer, Celtycs, since 2006 has deposed with respect to handing over employment details and salary statements of Smt.V.Dhakshayani.
In the cross-examination he admits that CBI did not issue any notice to him, he has not seen Smt.Dhakshayani personally and even before he joined the Institution, she had left the Institution.
38. PW23 who is working in ACS since 10 years has deposed that A-10 is an ex-employee of their Institution and the CBI Officials have enquired about the salary particulars of A-10.
39. PW24 is Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, Hyderabad. He has admitted in the cross-examination that some of the questioned documents were photocopies. It is elicited from the mouth of this witness that he concluded his report on 11.12.2009 and for examining the documents, he had about 32 to 33 days time as per Ex.P200 and during this period he examined around 1000 documents, which include questioned and admitted documents.
- 30 - Spl.C.C.69/2010
40. PW25 who has worked General Manager (H.R.) in Canara Bank, Head Office, Bengaluru from October-2009 to Sept-2012 has deposed with respect to issuing Sanction Letter to prosecute A-2 as per Ex.P172.
41. The evidence of PW22 recorded in Spl.C.C.No.68/10 and copy of the said deposition has been kept in this case for reference has deposed with respect to the investigation done by him and seizing of documents in his examination-in-chief. He admits in the cross-examination that for one FIR, he has filed 2 charge sheet bearing No.Spl.CC 68/2010 and Spl.CC 69/2010. He admits that there are 12 borrowers in these cases, except 4 or 5, all those borrowers were working in various departments. Further he admits that during his interrogation, all those borrowers admitted that they borrowed amount for purchasing apartments that were under construction by A-3. Further he admits that there was no impersonation in respect of those borrowers. Further he admits that Canara Bank had organized a Hub Loan Mela for sanctioning those loans and Indiranagar Branch had not organized that loan mela at its level. It is elicited that in that Hub, the borrowers had to fill up an
- 31 - Spl.C.C.69/2010 application and to declare about their income and thereafter, by sanctioning principal, the applications were sent to the concerned Branch. Further he admits that many of the borrowers, such as Suhas Rathnakar Chauhan (A-9 in Spl.C.C.No.69/2010), Saroja Rajappa Dhotre (A-6 in Spl.C.C.No.68/2010) and Brendon Mendonca (A-10 in Spl.C.C.No.69/2010), had not gone to the Hub. Further he admits that Ex.P261 of Spl.C.C.No.68/2010 consists of list of names of persons, to whom spot approval of loans were made in the Hub at Pages-139 and 140. Further he admits that Indiranagar Branch has been treated as very large Branch in business; accused No.1 was the Chief Manager and accused No.2 was the Manger of Advance Department in that Branch during relevant period. Further he admits that A-2 was assisted by Functional Managers and Clerks during that period. Further he admits that Form No.16 produced by A-5 to the Bank relating to January-2005 to March-2005 is genuine. Further it is elicited that it may be a fact that while executing documents at the time of sanctioning loan, documents pertaining to future instructions and transactions will also be executed. Further he admits that during his interrogation, A-9 denied execution of letter dated 6.3.2006 as per Ex.P27. Further he admits that based on the
- 32 - Spl.C.C.69/2010 information given by the borrowers in the Housing Loan Stall, respective loan application will be sent to the concerned branches after according sanction in principle. Further he admits that borrowers of these cases are defaulters and the borrowers who have repaid the loan, are not the accused in these cases.
42. DW1 who was working as Asst.General Manager in Housing Finance Branch, Canara Bank, Bengaluru, from 2006 to 2007, has deposed that after receipt of the report she went to verify the report, vefied the records and submitted her report to Zonal Office as per Ex.D3.
In the cross-examination she has deposed that she has noted all the observations made by her in Ex.D3 and contents of that document are true and correct.
43. DW2 - Sr.Manager, Circle Office, Bengaluru has deposed that he has been authorized to produce documents as per authorization letter Ex.D7 and he has produced the attested copies of the 1) Confidential Letter dated 9.12.2009 written by General Manager, Chief Vigilance Officer to the General Manager, Canara Bank, who was the Disciplinary Authority; 2) Letter dated 16.12.2009
- 33 - Spl.C.C.69/2010 written by the GM and CVO to GM, Canara Bank, IR Section; 3) Letter dated 29.12.2009 written by the Disciplinary Authority to the General Manager and CVO 4) Letter dated 31.12.2009 written by the Divisional Manager to the Asst.General Manager 5) Interim report dated 22.9.2006 with annexures 6) Inspection report with covering letter dated 17.11.2006 given by Smt.S.Aparna, AGM to the DGM and 7) Closure of Inspection report dated 18.10.2008 given by Sr.Manager to Canara Ban, Indiranagar Branch as per Exs.D8 to D14.
44. On perusal of the evidence discussed above, it is evident that the housing loans of the borrowers in this case were sanctioned in principle by the Circle Office and A-1 and A-2 have done their duties as per the Circulars issued by their higher Officers and nowhere it is disclosed that A-1 and A-2 had criminal conspiracy with accused Nos.3 and 4 and prosecution has not at all produced any material to prove that accused Nos.5 to 10 have submitted inflated Salary slips/Form No.16. Moreover, prosecution has not at all produced what was their actual Salary and Form No.16 in order to come to conclusion that they have submitted inflated Salary
- 34 - Spl.C.C.69/2010 slips and Form No.16 and absolutely there are no materials to prove that accused Nos.1 and 2 had criminal conspiracy with accused Nos.3 and 4 with a view to defraud Canara Bank and enrich themselves and as such, absolutely there are no material to prove criminal conspiracy u/S.120B IPC and forging of document for the purpose of securing housing loan, using same as genuine document as contended in 468 and 471 of IPC and there are no materials to prove that accused Nos.1 to 3 have cheated Canara Bank as required u/S.420 IPC. Moreover, prosecution has not at all produced any materials against A-1 and A-2 in order to attract Section 13(1) (d) r/w.13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as ingredients of Section 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are not at all forthcoming in the entire evidence of prosecution and I am unable to accept the arguments of learned Public Prosecutor and I am constrained to accept the arguments of Counsel for accused. The prosecution has failed to prove that accused Nos.1 to 3 had criminal conspiracy with accused Nos.4 to 10 in order to defraud Canara Bank and enrich themselves, as alleged by prosecution. Hence, I answer the above point in the I answer point No.1 in 'negative'.
- 35 - Spl.C.C.69/2010
45. Point No.2 :- In view of my findings on point No.1, I proceed to pass the following:-
: ORDER :
Acting U/s.235 (1) of Cr.P.C. accused Nos.1 to 10 are hereby acquitted for the offence punishable U/s.120(B) r/w. 468, 471 and 420 IPC and for the offence punishable under section 13 (1) (d) r/w.U/s.13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Accordingly bail bonds and surety bonds of accused Nos.1 to 10 stand cancelled.
(Dictated to Judgment Writer, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected, signed then pronounced by me in the open court today i.e., on 30th day of September, 2015.) (K.H.MALLAPPA) XLVI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases, Bengaluru.
- 36 - Spl.C.C.69/2010
ANNEXURE
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT:
P.W.1 Sri. G.S.Ravi Sudhakar 30-04-2012, P.W.2 K.B.Jayaprakash 7.8.2013 P.W.3 C.V.Shyamasundar 7.8.2013 P.W.4 Balakrishna Shenoy 22.8.2013 P.W.5 K.Rathinam 4.9.2013 P.W.6 S.Padmanabhan 29.11.2013 P.W.7 Joseph Mathew 29.11.2013 P.W.8 Sunil Kumar 12.12.2013 P.W.9 A.G.Gururaja Murthy 3.1.2014 P.W.10 N.G.Purushothama Raju 20.1.2014 P.W.11 N.Nagesh 20.1.2014 P.W.12 Amith Mathur 20.1.2014 P.W.13 Krishna S.Naik 19.3.2014 P.W.14 V.P.Mohan 19.3.2014 P.W.15 K.Chandrashekar 19.3.2014 P.W.16 Bharath Babu P. 21.4.2014 P.W.17 Mohammed Jaffer Sadiq 21.4.2014 P.W.18 C.Jayakumara 4.8.2014 P.W.19 R.K.Makhija 4.8.2014
- 37 - Spl.C.C.69/2010 P.W.20 K.N.Narayana Iyengar 8.9.2014 P.W.21 A.R.Dhanankar 8.9.2014 P.W.22 Surendra Kumar 8.9.2014 P.W.23 Niranjan 9.9.2014 P.W.24 A.Balasami 10.9.2014 P.W.25 Arun Kumar Nahar 12.9.2014 PW22-CW26 In Spl.C.C.No.68/2010 Basavaraj Magadum LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED :
D.W.1 Smt.Aparna 9.3.2015
D.W.2 Jaleesh Dinakaran 20.3.2015
LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT :
Ex.P.1 Investigation report
Ex.P.1(a) Signature of witness
Ex.P.2 Covering Letter
Ex.P.2(a) Signature of witness
Ex.P.3 Account opening form
Ex.P.3(a) Signature of A-3
Ex.P.3(b) Signature of A-5
Ex.P.4 Application of A-5
- 38 - Spl.C.C.69/2010
Ex.P.5 Loan application dtd.9.12.2005
Ex.P.5(a) Writings found on Page No.8
Ex.P.6 Copy of Form-16
Exs.P.7 to True copy of statement of accounts
P.10
Ex.P.11 Covering letter of Huawai Technologies
India Pvt.Ltd.
Exs.P.12 to Three salary slips
14
Ex.P.15 Income Tax statement
Ex.P.16 Account opening form
Ex.P.16(a) Signature of A-3
Ex.P.16(b) Signature of A-6
Ex.P17 Specimen signature card
Ex.P.17(a) Signature of A-6
Ex.P18 Housing loan application
Ex.P19 Detailed loan application dt.9.12.2005
Ex.P19(b) Writings found on Page No.8
Ex.P20 to 3 Salary slips
P22
Ex.P23 Statement of account
Ex.P24 File pertaining to L.Rama Murthy with
loan document
Ex.P.24(a) SB Account opening form of A-7
Ex.P.24(b) Specimen signature card of A-7
Ex.P.24(c) Housing loan application of A-7
Ex.P.24(d) Three salary slips
Ex.P.24(e) Copy of statement of account
Ex.P.24(f) Form No.16
Ex.P.24(g) Certification of loan papers
Ex.P.24(h) Processing slip
Ex.P.24(i) Spot Inspection report
Ex.P.24(j) Rating sheet
Ex.P.24(k) Letter dtd.15.12.2005
Ex.P.24(l) Memo
Ex.P.24(m) Note
Ex.P.24(n) Signature of A-1
- 39 - Spl.C.C.69/2010
Ex.P.24(o) Signature of A-1
Ex.P24(p) Certificate of compliance
Ex.P24(q) Signature of A-2
Ex.P24(r) Signature of Sunil Kumar
Ex.P24(s) Writings found on page No.8
Ex.P24(21) Signature of witness
Ex.P24(22) Signature of A2
Ex.P24(e-1) Signature of Ranganath Ex.P25 Letter of HDFC Bank Ex.P26 Loan papers of A-8 Ex.P.26(a) SB Account opening form Ex.P.26(b) Specimen signature of A-8 Ex.P.26(c) Loan application Ex.P.26(d) Salary slip Ex.P.26(e) Memo Ex.P.26(f) Certificate of compliance Ex.P.26(g) Note Ex.P.26(h) Signature of A-1 Ex.P.26(i) Signature of A-1 Ex.P26(j) Writings found on page No.8 Ex.P26(k1) Signature of witness Ex.P26(k2) Signature of A-2 Ex.P26(f1) Signature of witness Ex.P26(f2) Signature of A-2 Ex.P26(e-1) Signature of Ranganath Ex.P.27(c) Housing loan application Ex.P.27(d) Salary slip Ex.P.27(e) Statement of account Ex.P.27(f) Memo Ex.P.27(g) Note Ex.P.27(h) Signature of A-1 Ex.P.27(i) Signature of A-1 Ex.P.27(l) Letter dtd.6.8.2006 Ex.P.27(m) Letter dtd.28.2.2006 Ex.P.27(n) Letter dtd.21.7.2007 Ex.P.27(o) Letter dtd.23.2.2007 Ex.P.27(k1) Signature of witness
- 40 - Spl.C.C.69/2010 Ex.P.27(k2) Signature of A-2 Ex.P27(f-1) Signature of Ranganath Ex.P.28 File of A-10 along with loan papers Ex.P.28(a) SB Account opening form Ex.P.28(b) Specimen signature card Ex.P.28(c) Housing loan application of A-10 Ex.P.28(d) Salary slips Ex.P.28(e) Statement of account Ex.P.28(f) Memo Ex.P.28(g) Note Ex.P.28(h) Signature of A-1 Ex.P.28(i) Signature of A-1 Ex.P28(p) Writings found on page No.8 Ex.P.28(k1) Signature of witness Ex.P.28(k2) Signature of A-2 Ex.P28(f-1) Signature of Ranganath Ex.P29 File Ex.P30 Receipt memo Ex.P31 Pay-in-slip Ex.P32 Receipt memo Ex.P33 to Sale deeds Ex.P38 Ex.P39 Receipt memo Ex.P40 Sanction of loan Ex.P40(a) Signature of Ranganath Ex.P41 Sanction of loan Ex.P.41(a) Certificate of compliance Ex.P.41(b) Signature of witness Ex.P.41(c) Signature of A-2 Ex.P41(d) Signature of Ranganath Ex.P42 Certified copy of the complaint dt.31.3.2009 Ex.P43 Appraisal Note Ex.P43(a) Signature Ex.P43(b) Signature Ex.P44 Appraisal Note Ex.P44(a) Signature
- 41 - Spl.C.C.69/2010 Ex.P44(b) Signature Ex.P45 5 signed blank Cheques Ex.P45(a) Valuation report Ex.P45(b) Signature of witness Ex.P45(c) Manju Anugraha report Ex.P45(d) Signature of witness Ex.P46 Signed blank Cheques Ex.P47 Signed blank Cheques Ex.P48 File Ex.P48(a) Signature of witness Ex.P48(b) Signature of A-2 Ex.P49 File Ex.P49(a) Signature of witness Ex.P49(b) Signature of A-2 Ex.P50 File Ex.P50(a) Signature of witness Ex.P50(b) Signature of A-2 Ex.P51 File Ex.P51(a) Signature of witness Ex.P51(b) Signature of A-2 Ex.P52 Request letter Ex.P52(a) Signature of witness Ex.P52(b) Account opening form of A-5 Ex.P53 Request letter Ex.P53(a) Signature of witness Ex.P53(c) Statement of account Ex.P54 Request letter Ex.P54(a) Signature of witness Ex.P54(b) Account opening form of A-9 Ex.P54(c) Statement of account Ex.P55 Envelope Ex.P55(a) Endorsement Ex.P56 Covering letter Ex.P56(a) Signature of witness Ex.P57 Account opening form of A-10 Ex.P58 Account opening form of A-6 Ex.P59 Statement of account of A-10
- 42 - Spl.C.C.69/2010 Ex.P59(a) Signature of witness Ex.P60 Statement of account of A-6 Ex.P60(a) Signature of witness Ex.P61 Sanction Plan Ex.P62 Revised plan Ex.P63 Revised plan Ex.P64 Receipt memo Ex.P64(a) Signature of witness Ex.P65 A.R.Dhanankar's Valuation report Ex.P65(a) Signature of witness Ex.P66 Letter dtd.5.11.2009 Ex.P67 Letter dtd.5.11.2009 Ex.P68 to Salary statement P74 Ex.P75 Receipt memo Ex.P75(a) Signature of witness Ex.P76 Letter dtd.5.11.2008 Ex.P76(a) Signature of witness Ex.P77 Letter dtd.5.11.2008 Ex.P77(a) Signature of witness Ex.P78 Form No.16 Ex.P79 Form No.12B Exs.P80 to Specimen signature of Ganajit Sharma P90 Exs.P91 to Specimen signature of Murali P102 Exs.P103 to Specimen signature of L.Ramamurthy P114 Exs.P115 to Specimen signature of Dakshayani(A8) P126 Exs.P127 to Specimen signature of Suhas P138 Rathnakar Chavan(A9) Exs.P139 to Questioned documents relating to A-5, P151 Ganajith Sharma Ex.P152 The document consisting of portions-
Q39 Ex.P153 The document consisting of portions-
- 43 - Spl.C.C.69/2010
Q205, Q206
Ex.P154 The document consisting of portions-
Q207
Ex.P155 The document consisting of portions-
Q209 to Q219
Ex.P156 The document consisting of portions-
Q220 to Q223
Ex.P157 The document consisting of portions-
Q224 to Q233
Ex.P158 The document consisting of portions-
Q234 to Q256
Ex.P159 The document consisting of portions-
Q257 to Q266
Ex.P160 The document consisting of portions-
Q267 & Q268
Ex.P161 The document consisting of portion-
Q270
Ex.P162 The document consisting of portion-
Q271
Ex.P163 The document consisting of portion-
Q272
Ex.P164 The document consisting of portion-
Q273
Ex.P165 The document consisting of portion-
Q287
Ex.P166 The document consisting of portions-
Q838 & Q839
Ex.P167 The document consisting of portion-
Q840
Ex.P168 The document consisting of portion-
Q841
Ex.P169 The document consisting of portion-
Q845
Ex.P170 The document consisting of portion-
Q846 & Q847
Ex.P171 Amendment of Resolution
Ex.P172 Sanction Order
Ex.P172(a) Signature of witness
- 44 - Spl.C.C.69/2010 to P.172(d) Ex.P173 Letter dtd.31.12.2009 LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED :
Ex.D.1 Copy of question paper for the year 2006-07 Ex.D.2 Copy of question paper for the year 2005-06 Ex.D.3 Interim report of Smt.Aparna, AGM Ex.D.4 Copy of manual instructions on current and Savings Bank account Ex.D.5 Letter dtd.20.9.2005 Ex.D.6 Copy of interim report Ex.D.7 Authorization letter given by Canara Bank to Jaleesh Dinakaran Ex.D.8 Confidential report dtd.9.12.2009 Ex.D.9 Letter dtd.16.12.2009 written by GM & Chief Vigilance Officer to GM, Canara Bank, IR Section Ex.D.10 Letter dtd.29.12.2009 written by Disciplinary Authority to the GM & Chief Vigilance Officer Ex.D.11 Letter dtd.31.12.2009 written by Divisional Manager to the Asst.General Manager Ex.D.12 Interim report dtd.22.9.2006 Ex.D.13 Inspection report Ex.D.14 Closure of Inspection report dtd.18.10.2008.
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT :
- Nil -
- 45 - Spl.C.C.69/2010 LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED :
- Nil -
(K.H.MALLAPPA) XLVI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases, Bengaluru.