Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Rajinder Pradhan on 22 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. T. PRIYADARSHINI, CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS, NEW DELHI
CBI Vs. RAJINDER PRADHAN AND OTHERS
Case No. : CBI/124/2019
FIR/RC No : RC 14S/1994 (CBI)
U/s : Section 120B r/w
Section 419/420/467/468/471
IPC
Name of Branch : CBI/SC-III/ND
JUDGMENT
a) Unique Case ID No. : CNR No. DLCT12-000433-2019
b) The date of commission : During the year 1993-94
c) Name of the Complainant : Inspector Ashesh Kumar
d) Name, parentage & address : 1) A1 Rajinder Pradhan (convicted on his plea of guilt vide order dated 24.12.2024.
2) A2 Mamraj Chauhan (abated vide order dated 01.03.2025
3) A3 Jai Chander Singh (convicted on his plea of guilt vide order dated 24.12.2024
4) A4 Ravi Mohan Kapoor S/o Dr. N.N. Kapoor, aged about 81 years R/o House No. 22, RPS Colony, Khan Pur, New Delhi
5) A5 Ms. Anjalil Gupta (convicted on her plea of guilt vide order dated 01.11.2001) Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date:
CBI/ 124/2019 CBI vs. Rajinder Pradhan & Ors Page No. 1 of 47 2025.12.23 15:28:01 +0530
6) A6 Ms. Shalini (convicted on her plea of guilt vide order dated 01.11.2001)
7) A7 B. K. Pradhan (declared PO vide order dated 31.07.1996)
8) A8 Sandeep Jain (convicted by his plea of guilt vide order dated 24.12.2024).
e) Offences complained of : 120B r/w Sections 419/420/467/468/471 IPC
f) The plea of the accused(s) : Pleaded not guilty
g) Final Judgment : Acquittal
h) Date of institution of case : 17.09.1996
i) Date of Judgment : 22.12.2025 BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION
1. Accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor (A4) is facing trial for the commission of offences punishable under Section 120B r/w Sections 419/420/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") with allegations that during the year 1993-94, he alongwith co-accused namely B.K. Pradhan (declared as proclaimed offender vide order dated 31.07.1996), Rajinder Pradhan (convicted vide order dated 24.12.2024 pursuant to an application filed for pleading guilty), Mamraj Pradhan (abated vide order dated 01.03.2025), Jai Chander Singh (convicted vide order dated 24.12.2024 pursuant to an application filed for pleading guilty), Sandeep Jain (convicted vide order CBI/ 124/2019 CBI vs. Rajinder Pradhan & Ors Page No. 2 of 47 Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2025.12.23 15:27:40 +0530 dated 24.12.2024 pursuant to an application filed for pleading guilty), Anjali Gupta (convicted vide order dated 02.11.2001 pursuant to an application filed for pleading guilty), B.K. Pradhan (declared as PO 31.07.1996) and Shalini (convicted vide order dated 02.11.2011 pursuant to an application filed for pleading guilty) agreed to cheat Sh. K.L. Kumar, Sh. Rakesh Kher and Sh. Sunil Aggarwal to the tune of Rs.18,00,500/- by forging share certificates (which are valuable securities) of M/s Hindustan Liver Limited, Cieba Geigy, Reliance Textile and Larsen Tuobro, by forging cheques and preparing fake letter heads purportedly issued by/in the name of M/s B.K. Chemicals, a non-
existing firm and used the said forged documents for the purpose of cheating, knowing them to be false.
Final report filed by CBI
2. The present RC was registered basis a complaint filed by Mr. Ashesh Kumar, Inspector, CBI Patna alleging that during the house search of accused B.K. Pradhan, in connection with RC No. 2(S)/94- Patna, one person Mr. K.L. Kumar was found there in possession of share certificates of Hindustan Lever Limited and Larsen Toubro Limited. On enquiry, said Mr. K.L. Kumar stated that he had come to accused B.K. Pradhan to lodge his complaint that the share certificates sold to him by accused B.K. Pradhan were declared counterfeit by the company and were returned without effecting transfers. The share certificates were seized and it was noted that some of the certificates were to be transferred from one Jai Chander Singh to Sh. K.L. Kumar and the remaining Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI CBI/ 124/2019 CBI vs. Rajinder Pradhan & Ors Page No. 3 of 47 PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2025.12.23 15:28:11 +0530 certificates were to be transferred by Sh. Dhananjay Prasad to Sh. K.L. Kumar.
3. Investigation revealed that during the year 1993, accused persons were parties to a conspiracy to cheat Sh. K.L. Kumar (Proprietor of S.K. Financial Services), Rakesh Kher, Sunil Kumar Aggarwal, Hindustan Lever Limited, Larsen and Toubro Limited, Reliance and Textile Limited and Hindustan Ciba-Geigy Limited by forging and fabricating 54 share certificates of Hindustan Lever Limited, 01 share certificate of Hindustan Ciba-Geigy Limited, 5 share certificates of Reliance Textile and 57 share certificate of Larsen and Toubro Limited. The aforesaid forged share certificates were sold to Sh. K.L. Kumar, Sh. Sushil Aggarwal and Sh. Rakesh Kher to the tune of Rs.6,75,500/-, Rs.1,25,000/- and Rs1,00,000/- respectively.
4. Investigation further revealed that on 24.11.1993, accused B.K. Pradhan pledged 300 shares purported to have been issued by Hindustan Lever Limited with Sh. K.L. Kumar against the loan of Rs.75,000/- which was paid through cheque. Further, on 11.01.1994, accused B.K. Pradhan pledged 200 shares purported to have been issued by Hindustan Lever Limited, which were in his name and his firm's name M/s B.K. Chemicals with Sh. K.L. Kumar against the loan of Rs.75,000/- in cash and Rs.25,000/- by way of cheque. Accused B.K. Pradhan pledged 50 shares purported to have been issued by Hindustan Lever Limited, which were in his name and his firm's name M/s B.K. Chemicals with Sh. K.L. Kumar against the loan of Rs.12,000/- in cash on 14.01.1994.
Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2025.12.23
CBI/ 124/2019 CBI vs. Rajinder Pradhan & Ors Page No. 4 of 47
15:28:17 +0530
5. Accused B.K. Pradhan along with accused Mam Raj transacted shares purported to have been issued by Hindustan Lever Limited in favour of Sh. K.L. Kumar for payment of an amount totaling to Rs.3,18,500/-. For the said transaction, accused Mam Raj represented himself as Dhananjay Prasad Singh.
6. On 27.01.1994, accused B.K. Pradhan transacted 200 shares purported to have been issued by Hindustan Lever Limited in the name of accused Jai Chander Singh in favour of Sh. K.L. Kumar for payment of an amount totaling to Rs.98,000/-.
7. On 10.11.1993 and 17.02.1994, accused B.K. Pradhan pledged about 1400 and 200 shares respectively purported to have been issued by Larsen Toubro in the name of accused B.K. Pradhan and his firm M/s B.K. Chemical in favour of Sh. K.L. Kumar against a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.25,000/- respectively. Further, accused B.K. Pradhan pledged 05 shares of Hindustan Ciba, 250 shares of Reliance Industry and 900 shares of Larsen Toubro with Sunil Kumar Aggarwal in the month of December 1993 and January 1994 in lieu of loan of Rs.10,00,000/-
8. Accused B.K. Pradhan pledged 230 shares purported to have been issued by Hindustan Lever Limited and 350 shares purported to have been issued by Larsen and Toubro Limited with Mr. Rakesh Kher against the loan of Rs.1,25,000/-. During the month of June-July 1994, accused B.K. Pradhan pledged 560 shares purported to have been issued by T PRIYADARSHINI CBI/ 124/2019 CBI vs. Rajinder Pradhan & Ors Page No. 5 of 47 Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.12.23 15:28:23 +0530 Hindustan Lever Limited with Mr. Sunil Kumar Aggarwal.
9. With respect to specific roles of the accused persons, it is averred in the charge sheet that accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor facilitated accused B.K. Pradhan in opening Saving Bank Account with Vijaya Bank, Krishna Park, New Delhi under the introduction of Mr. Mahesh Chand. It is further averred that accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor was also instrumental in opening saving bank account of accused Jai Chander Singh in the same branch and saving bank account in the name of Dhananjay Prasad (impersonated by accused Mam Raj Chauhan) in the same bank. Both the accounts were introduced by accused Jai Chander Singh. These accounts were utilized for encashment of the cheques received against the pledge and sale of the share certificates. Accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor facilitated opening of a current account in favour of accused B.K. Pradhan in the name of his fictitious firm M/s B.K. Chemicals in State Bank of India which was introduced by Mr. Ranjeet Singh, an acquaintance of accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor. Accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor also facilitated opening of bank account of M/s B.K. Chemicals in Punjab National Bank on the introduction of Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sharma, an acquaintance of accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor. Accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor also collected Rs.11,000/- and Rs.50,000/- against the self cheques issued by accused B.K. Pradhan.
10. During investigation, the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, Shimla has given positive opinion about the authorship of the writings of the accused persons including accused Ravi Mohan T PRIYADARSHINI CBI/ 124/2019 CBI vs. Rajinder Pradhan & Ors Page No. 6 of 47 Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.12.23 15:28:30 +0530 Kapoor on the questioned documents.
11. During investigation, it was revealed that M/s B.K. Chemicals was a sick unit at Bihar and accused B.K. Pradhan was not the proprietor of any B.K. Group of Industry. It was also revealed that accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor used to pose himself as Director Finance of B.K. Group of Industry.
12. It is alleged in the charge sheet that accused persons conspired with each other and cheated Mr. K.L. Kumar, Mr. Sunil Kumar Aggarwal and Mr. Rakesh Kher to the tune of Rs.6,75,500/-, Rs.10,00,000/- and Rs.1,25,000/- respectively by preparing, pledging and selling forged and fabricated share certificates purported to have been issued by Hindustan Lever Limited, Larsen and Toubro Limited, Reliance Industry and Hindustan Ciba Geigy Limited and have been charged for the offences under Sections 120B r/w Sections 419/420/467/468/471 IPC.
Course of Proceedings
13. After culmination of investigation, instant charge sheet was filed for the commission of offences punishable under section 120B r/w section 419/420/467/468/471 IPC. Thereafter, cognizance was taken on 29.06.1998 and the aforesaid accused persons were summoned to face trial. Accused persons namely Sandeep Jain, Ravi Mohan Kapoor, Anjali Gupta and Shalini were admitted to bail vide order dated 21.08.1998. Later on, accused persons namely Mam Raj Chauhan, Rajinder Pradhan CBI/ 124/2019 CBI vs. Rajinder Pradhan & Ors Page No. 7 of 47 T PRIYADARSHINI Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.12.23 15:28:38 +0530 and Jai Chander Singh were also admitted on bail vide order dated 18.12.1998, 06.02.1999 and 21.11.1998 respectively. Thereafter, copy of the chargesheet was supplied to them and scrutiny of documents was completed qua all the accused persons.
14. On 02.11.2001, charge for the offences punishable under Section 120B r/w Sections 419/420/467/468/471 IPC was framed against the accused Anjali Gupta and Ms. Shalini to which they pleaded guilty and were convicted for the said offences. Thereafter, on 12.04.2002, charge for the offences punishable under Section 120B r/w Sections 419/420/467/468/471 IPC was framed against the remaining accused persons. Additionally, charge was framed under Section 419 and 420 IPC against accused Mam Raj Chauhan, under Section 420 IPC against accused Jai Chander Singh and under Section 471 IPC against accused Mam Raj Chauhan and Jai Chander Singh. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, matter proceeded for recording of prosecution evidence.
15. During trial, on 24.12.2024, accused Rajinder Pradhan, Jai Chander Singh and Sandeep Jain pleaded guilty for the charges framed against them. Accordingly, they were convicted and awarded sentence on 24.12.2024. Further, proceedings have abated on 01.03.2025 against accused Mam Raj Chauhan. Accused B.K. Pradhan was declared proclaimed offender on 31.07.1996.
Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2025.12.23
15:28:43 +0530
CBI/ 124/2019 CBI vs. Rajinder Pradhan & Ors Page No. 8 of 47
Prosecution Evidence
16. Prosecution has examined nineteen witnesses in support of its case.
PW-1 Sh. Ashesh Kumar, Inspector CBI deposed that while investigating case RC No. 2(S)/94-Patna, he conducted search in the house of accused B.K. Pradhan at Shalimar Apartments, South Extension, New Delhi. During search, he found one person namely Sh. K.L. Kumar in the house, who was complaining to accused B.K. Pradhan that the share certificates of Hindustan Lever Limited, which he had purchased through accused B.K. Pradhan were declared counterfeit by the company. Thereafter, on his instructions, Inspector Nagender Prasad seized the counterfeit share certificates and letters of the company from Sh. K.L. Kumar and prepared the seizure memo on 01.03.1994. PW1 identified his writing and signatures on the seizure memo and exhibited the same as Ex. PW1/A. PW1 deposed that since the documents seized indicated commission of cognizable offence, he sent a complaint dated 05.07.1994, which is Ex. PW1/C to SP, CBI, New Delhi. The said witness was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsels for accused persons.
17. PW-2 Sh. Awdesh Kumar Singh deposed that he was called by the CBI officials at CGO Complex, Lodhi Road during investigation of this case. He deposed that he knew accused B.K. Pradhan because they belong to the same village in Patna, Bihar. He was working with Singh Security Services for a period of 4-5 years and in search of a new job, he reached Bhilwara, Rajasthan. He contacted accused B.K. Pradhan regarding a job and accused B.K. Pradhan assured him that he would CBI/ 124/2019 CBI vs. Rajinder Pradhan & Ors Page No. 9 of 47 Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.12.23 15:28:50 +0530 arrange a new job for him in New Delhi. Accordingly, PW2 reached New Delhi in January 1994 and contacted accused B.K. Pradhan. Thereafter, he joined as personal assistant of accused B.K. Pradhan's firm and worked there for a period of three months. Later on, he married in Nagpur and thereafter returned, to New Delhi. On 03.03.1994, he heard that there was a raid conducted by the CBI at accused B.K. Pradhan's firm relating to fraud cases and also heard that accused B.K. Pradhan was arrested by the CBI. He also deposed that he knew accused Jai Chander Singh and Ravi Mohan Kapoor as they were working with accused B.K. Pradhan. He correctly identified accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor in the Court. He also identified his signatures on the cheques of Rs.75,000/-, Rs.10,000/- and Rs.10,000/- respectively. The cheques have been Ex. PW13/2, PW13/4 and Ex. PW13/5. He also identified his signatures on the pay in slips of Vijaya Bank dated 07.02.1994, 08.02.1994, 08.02.1994, 09.02.1994 for an amount of Rs.1,05,000/-, Rs.14,000/-, Rs.98,000/- and Rs.98,000/- respectively and the said pay in slips have been exhibited as PW13/6, Ex. PW13/27, Ex. PW13/28 and Ex. PW13/29. PW2 further deposed that accused B.K. Pradhan used to give share certificates to his driver and accused persons Jai Chander Singh and Ravi Mohan Kapoor and used to direct them that these certificates be carried in an envelop or under the papers and he took photocopies of above said share certificates. PW2 also deposed that accused B.K. Pradhan directed him to write Dhananjay Prasad and Jai Chander Singh on 3-4 share certificates. The said witness was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsels for accused persons. Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2025.12.23 15:28:55 +0530 CBI/ 124/2019 CBI vs. Rajinder Pradhan & Ors Page No. 10 of 47
18. PW-3 Sh. Kasturi Lal Kumar deposed that he is working in a business of sale and purchase of shares through main broker. He deposed that in first week of November 1993, his neighbour namely Sh. Mukesh Abhichandani introduced his friend Sh. Deepak Bhojwani, who was dealing in car hire services with accused B.K. Pradhan. Sh. Mukesh Abhichandani informed that Sh. Deepak Bhojwani and accused B.K. Pradhan were coming with shares for loan and financing purposes. He described all the terms and conditions to them. Thereafter, accused B.K. Pradhan showed him shares of Larsen and Toubro and Hindustan Lever Limited, which were in the name of accused B.K. Pradhan and B.K. Chemicals. Accused B.K. Pradhan also brought the letter of terms and conditions signed by him and on behalf of his firm B.K. Chemicals. Sh.
Deepak Bhojwani signed a letter as a witness. To satisfy that signatures are genuine, accused B.K. Pradhan produced a letter from the Bank attesting the signatures and a page of his passport with photograph. On request, PW3 prepared a list of shares to be kept as a security and accused B.K. Pradhan signed the same. PW3 issued two cheques of Rs.50,000/- each drawn on SBI Asian Games Village Complex Branch. Accused B.K. Pradhan issued a posted cheque no.741047 of Rs.1,00,000 for refund of loan as the loan was for a period of three months. On 20.11.1993, accused B. K. Pradhan again contacted him and a loan of Rs.75,000/- was advanced against 300 shares of Hindustan Lever Limited, which were worth Rs.1,50,000/- as security. Accused B.K. Pradhan also wrote a letter in his favor submitting that he is mortgaging 300 shares for a loan of Rs.75,000/- to be repaid in a period of three months. Accused B.K. Pradhan also issued a post dated cheque no.
CBI/ 124/2019 CBI vs. Rajinder Pradhan & Ors Page No. 11 of 47
Digitally signed
by T
T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2025.12.23
15:29:01 +0530
741058 of Rs.75,000/- dated 23.02.1994 in lieu of repayment. He identified his signature on the seizure memo which is already Ex. PW1/A. Vide letter no. REF/TRF.MW.RSD dated 20.02.1994 of M/s Hindustan Lever Limited (already Ex. PW1/B), PW3 was informed that the share certificates were forged, hence, cannot be transferred. PW3 has also exhibited separate letters of M/s S.K. Finance services dated 10.02.1994 requesting Hindustan Lever to execute the transfer deeds and share certificate in favor of his daughters Kavita Kumari, Sangeeta Arora and his wife Santosh Kumari, as Ex. PW3/A, Ex. PW3/D, Ex. PW3/G and Ex. PW3/J respectively. PW3 has also exhibited share transfer deeds/forms for 50, 100 and 50 shares respectively, two share transfer deeds/forms for 100 shares each, share transfer deeds/forms for 25, 50 and 25 shares, two shares transfer deeds/forms for 100 each shares as Ex. PW3/B, Ex. PW3/E (colly), Ex. PW3/H (colly) and Ex.PW3/K (colly). PW3 has also exhibited share certificates of Hindustan Lever Limited as Ex. PW3/C, Ex. PW3/F (colly), Ex. PW3/I (colly) and Ex. PW3/L(colly). PW3 was not cross examined by Ld. Counsels for accused persons.
19. PW-4 Sh. Sunil Kumar Aggarwal deposed that in the year 1993, his brother-in-law called him from Jaipur asking that his friend Mr. C.K. Joshi required an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. On 16.12.1993 at about 7:00 p.m., accused B.K. Pradhan, Mr. Dinesh Kumar and his wife came to PW4's house and as per the agreement, PW4 gave Rs.2,00,000/- to accused B.K. Pradhan at interest @ 36% per annum. As security, accused B.K. Pradhan gave 800 shares of Larsen and Toubro and 05 shares of Hindustan Ciba Giegy and 250 shares of Reliance Industries together Digitally signed by T CBI/ 124/2019 CBI vs. Rajinder Pradhan & Ors Page No. 12 of 47 T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2025.12.23 15:29:29 +0530 with share transfer form and also gave a post dated cheque of Rs.2,00,000/-, bearing no. 741066 dated 16.06.1994. On 14/15.12.1993, PW4 received phone from one Mr. Joshi stating that one of his friends wants to establish a factory. On 01.01.1994, Mr. Joshi again called PW4 and told him that there is shortage of money of Rs.3,00,000/- for establishing the factory by accused B.K. Pradhan. PW4 gave Rs.3,00,000/- in cash to accused B.K. Pradhan at the interest of 36% per annum for a period of six months. Accused B.K. Pradhan also gave PW4 share certificates of Larsen and Toubro, Hindustan Lever, Hindustan Ciba and Reliance Company as security. These shares certificate were for 900 shares, 05 shares, 565 shares, 250 shares as security along with share transfer forms which were signed by accused B.K. Pradhan. Accused B.K. Pradhan had also given PW4 two letters dated 16.12.1993 (Ex.
PW4/A) and letter dated 27.01.1994, which is Ex. PW4/B. Post dated cheques already Ex. PW13/40 to Ex. PW13/44 were given PW4 by accused B.K. Pradhan. Different share certificates of different companies were given to him along with share transfer forms by accused B.K. Pradhan (Ex. PW13/46 to Ex. PW13/114). A partnership agreement was also executed between accused B.K. Pradhan and PW4, which is Ex. PW4/C (colly) and pursuant to said agreement, 10% of share in the factory was given to PW4. Accused B.K. Pradhan had given PW4 several post dated cheques, however, he did not present the same because in the month of March, he came to know that accused B.K. Pradhan was arrested by CBI. Further, he came to know from Mr. Dinesh and Mr. Joshi that the aforesaid share certificates are forged. He contacted the CBI and handed over the share certificates to the CBI. PW4 was not cross CBI/ 124/2019 CBI vs. Rajinder Pradhan & Ors Page No. 13 of 47 Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2025.12.23 15:29:36 +0530 examined by Ld. Counsels for the accused persons.
20. PW-5 Sh. Mahesh Chand deposed that accused persons namely B.K. Pradhan and Jai Chander Singh were introduced by him for opening of a bank account in Vijaya Bank, New Krishna Nagar, Delhi. He did not know them personally. However, he came to know about the said accused persons through one Mr. Dinesh who was the husband of his colleague Smt. Lata. PW5 exhibited two separate account opening forms as Ex. PW5/A and Ex. PW5/B. PW4 was not cross examined by Ld. Counsels for accused persons.
21. PW-6 Rakesh Kher deposed that in the year 1993-1994, he was doing the business of Tour and Travels in the name and style of Jai Tour and Travels, Green Park. Accused B.K. Pradhan hired his car for a period of one year. One day, accused B.K. Pradhan came to him and stated that he was badly in need of money for medical treatment. Accused B.K. Pradhan proposed to keep shares of Hindustan Lever Limited and Larson and Toubro as a security in lieu of a loan of Rs.1,25,000/- in cash. Accused B.K. Pradhan also issued a post dated cheque dated 06.07.1994, which is Ex. PW6/1. Accused B.K. Pradhan also gave PW6 280 shares of Hindustan Lever Limited and 350 shares of Larson and Toubro Limited, which are Ex. PW6/2 and Ex. PW6/15. Accused B.K. Pradhan also gave PW6 blank share transfer certificate, which were 15 in number in favour of PW6 as security for non-payment of dues. The said documents are Ex. PW6/16 to Ex. PW6/28. The blank letterhead in the name of B.K. Group of Industries has been exhibited as Ex. PW6/29. When PW6 presented CBI/ 124/2019 CBI vs. Rajinder Pradhan & Ors Page No. 14 of 47 Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2025.12.23 15:29:43 +0530 the said cheque for encashment, the same was returned by the bank. PW6 handed over all the aforesaid certificates alongwith transfer forms, cheque and the blank letterhead issued by B.K. Group Industries to CBI vide receipt memo dated 19.01.1995 which is Ex. PW6/30. PW6 was not cross examined by Ld. Counsels for accused persons.
22. PW-7 Sh. Nar Singh Das deposed that since 1992-93 till 1995, he remained posted at Tigri Branch of SBI as a Branch Manager. After seeing D-4/specimen signature form (Ex.PW7/1), PW7 deposed that the form relates to the current account of B.K. Chemicals, through Proprietor B.K. Pradhan. PW7 deposed that the introducer of the said account was Sh. Ranjeet Singh. PW7 also saw the ledger sheet which is Ex. PW7/2 and deposed that said sheet pertain to the current account no. 624 of B.K. Chemicals. On seeing the same, PW7 deposed that on 08.09.1993, Rs.2,00,000/- were credited in the account by clearing. On 09.09.1993, vide cheque no. 679 and 684, Rs.10,000/- each were debited from the account. On 13.09.1993, vide cheques nos. 686,676,677,697,696 and 685, an amount of Rs.10,000/-, Rs.50,000/-, Rs.11,000/-, Rs.73,000/-, Rs.21,065/- and Rs.20,000/- respectively were debited from the account. On 14.09.1993 and 28.10.1993, an amount of Rs.80,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- respectively were credited in the account by clearing. On 17.09.1993 and 20.09.1993, an amount of Rs.75,000/- and Rs.5,500/- respectively were debited from the account by cash. On 29.10.1993, an amount of Rs.5,500/-, Rs.77,300/- and Rs.7,000/- respectively were debited from the account by cash. On 30.10.1993, Rs.7,000/- was debited from the account by cash. On seeing the cheques, which are 16 in number, PW7 deposed that they are of State Bank of India of Tigri CBI/ 124/2019 CBI vs. Rajinder Pradhan & Ors Page No. 15 of 47 Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2025.12.23 15:29:50 +0530 Branch and exhibited the said cheques as Ex. PW7/A1 to Ex. PW7/A16. On seeing vouchers of SBI, which are five in number, he deposed that the said vouchers are related to current account of B.K. Chemicals and exhibited them as Ex. PW7/B1 to Ex. PW7/B5. PW7 was not cross examined by Ld. Counsels for accused persons.
23. PW-8 Sh. Yogesh Kumar deposed that on 25.08.1994, he had handed over documents to Inspector CBI Sh. Ramesh Kumar and receipt memo which is Ex.PW8/1 was prepared in this regard. After seeing the statement of account of Punjab National Bank, Regal Building, PW8 deposed that the same pertains to the current account of B.K. Chemicals with account no. 8753 which is Ex. PW8/3, which also bears specimen signatures of accused B.K. Pradhan. PW8 exhibited the account opening form of B.K. Chemicals as Ex. PW8/4. He deposed that one Sh. Anil Kumar stood as an introducer to the bank account. PW8 also identified the cheque book issued to the account holder with serial no. 337426 to 337450 on 17.09.1993. PW8 deposed that cheque no. 337430 favouring Mr. K.L. Kumar for an amount of Rs.27,625/- dated 05.04.1994 was presented in SBI, Hauz Khas which was returned with remarks "Insufficient Funds" on 09.04.1994. PW8 was not cross examined by Ld. Counsels for the accused persons.
24. PW-9 Sh. Mukesh Abhichandani deposed that in the year 1994-95, the victim Sh. K.L Kumar used to deal in the business of share market.
PW9 knew one Sh. Deepak Bhojwani who came to him with the enquiry regarding persons, who can advance loan against shares as accused B.K. CBI/ 124/2019 CBI vs. Rajinder Pradhan & Ors Page No. 16 of 47 Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.12.23 15:30:11 +0530 Pradhan is in need of money. PW9 suggested that Sh. K. L. Kumar can finance him against the shares on interest. In February-March 1994, K.L. Kumar told PW9 that accused B.K. Pradhan had given him fake and forged share certificates. Thereafter, PW9 alongwith Sh. Deepak Bhojwani and Sh. K. L. Kumar went to the house of accused B.K. Pradhan, however, he was not found there. Again in the morning, they went to the house of accused B.K. Pradhan and while they were asking him to return the money, CBI officials conducted a raid at his residence. They were also asked to remain there during investigation. Later on, CBI officials took Sh. K.L. Kumar with them for the recovery of the said forged and fake share certificates. The witness was duly cross-examined by Ld. counsels for accused persons.
25. PW-10 Sh. Ajit Kumar Sahijwani identified the signature of Sh. R.S. Rajora, who was the Bank Officer of SBI Asian Village Complex, on the receipt memo regarding receipt of cheques. He deposed that he can identify the signatures of Sh. R.S. Rajora as he has worked with him. The receipt memos are Ex. PW10/1 and Ex. PW10/2. PW10 also identified the signature of Sh. V.K. Johar on the bank statement of Sh. K. L. Kumar bearing account no. 5111, which is Ex. PW10/3. PW10 was not cross examined by Ld. Counsels for the accused persons.
26. PW-11 Sh. Ranjeet Singh deposed that he is running a business of Sheet Metal at Khanpur, New Delhi. He knew accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor as he was into the business of supplying of Cooler Motors and Pumps and he used to purchase pumps and motors from him. PW11 Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.12.23 15:30:17 +0530 CBI/ 124/2019 CBI vs. Rajinder Pradhan & Ors Page No. 17 of 47 deposed that he had signed the account opening form of B.K. Chemicals (Ex. PW7/1) as an introducer. He knew accused B.K. Pradhan through his friend/accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor. PW11 correctly identified the accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor present in the Court. PW11 stated that he did not know accused B.K. Pradhan before signing the account opening form as an introducer and also stated that accused B.K. Pradhan filled in the account opening form in his own writing in his presence in the bank. When accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor and Bank Officer told him regarding the bouncing of cheques of B.K. Chemicals, PW11 withdrew his introduction by writing a letter to the bank. PW11 was duly cross examined by Ld. counsels for accused persons.
27. PW-12 Sh. Kastoori Lal Grover deposed that in the year 1991, he retired from the Central Bank of India. PW12 deposed that he knew accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor through his cousin Sh. Jagdish Sethi. PW12 stated that he met accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor as he had told him that he can get the work regarding the distribution of Titric Acid through accused B.K. Pradhan. Since, PW12 wanted an agency for his son Sh. Ajay Grover, PW12 alongwith accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor and Jagdish Sethi met accused B.K. Pradhan and there PW12 entered into an agreement with accused B.K. Pradhan for the distribution of Titric Acid for his son, which is Ex.PW12/5. PW12 was told by accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor to deposit Rs.5,00,000/- for the said purpose. On 18.08.1993, PW12 gave a banker's cheque no. 132571 dated 17.08.1993 to the tune of Rs.51,000/- to accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor. Thereafter, PW12 gave banker's cheque T PRIYADARSHINI no. 132578, 113492 and 79628 of different amounts to accused B.K. Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.12.23 15:30:23 +0530 CBI/ 124/2019 CBI vs. Rajinder Pradhan & Ors Page No. 18 of 47 Pradhan, totaling to Rs.3,49,000/-. PW12 also handed over a cheque to accused B.K. Pradhan amounting to Rs.1,00,000/-. All these payments were made to accused B.K. Pradhan in the presence of accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor and Jagdish Sethi in his office at Uday Park, Delhi. Accused B.K. Pradhan also issued receipts to acknowledge the said payments which are Ex. PW12/1 to Ex. PW12/4. PW12 handed over all the documents to CBI by receipt memo D-10, which is Ex. PW12/6. PW12 deposed that in all the transactions, accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor was the middle man. Later on, PW12 came to know that accused B.K. Pradhan was a cheater and involved in a criminal case of CBI. PW12 was duly cross-examined by Ld. counsels for accused persons.
28. PW-13 Dr. B.A. Vaid deposed that documents of this case were received in his laboratory from S.P., CBI, SCB, New Delhi vide letters no.3/14/94/SPL/DLI/4908 dated 06.11.1995, 03/13/94/SPL/DLI/5578 dated 03.12.1995, 3/13/94/SPL/DLI/5596 dated 06.12.1995 and 3/14/94/SPL/DLI/2525 dated 21.05.1996. The above said letters alongwith annexures are Ex. PW13/A(colly), Ex. PW13/B (colly), Ex.PW13/C (colly) and Ex. PW13/D (colly) respectively. He had also examined specimen and admitted writing and signatures purportedly of Ravi Mohan Kapoor, Rajinder Pradhan, Mamraj Pradhan, Jai Chander Singh, Sandeep Jain, Anjali Gupta, Shalini, Sh. Dinesh Upreti, Sh. Avdesh Kumar Singh, Sh. Arun Kumar and Sh. Jagdish Lal Sethi. The abovesaid specimen signatures and writing are D-27 to D-39, which are Ex. PW13/E (colly). PW13 filed his report/opinion no. CX 187/95 dated Digitally signed by T 27.12.1995 and its supplementary opinion of even number dated T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2025.12.23 15:30:29 +0530 CBI/ 124/2019 CBI vs. Rajinder Pradhan & Ors Page No. 19 of 47 25.07.1996. The report/opinions are Ex.PW13/F (colly). The reasons for the opinion were separately exhibited as Ex. PW13/G (colly). PW13 was duly cross-examined by Ld. counsels for accused persons.
29. PW-14 Sh. Purshottam Chopra deposed that he was living on the ground floor and he knew accused B.K. Pradhan being his tenant during the year 1993-94 at his house i.e. 52, Uday Park, First floor, New Delhi on monthly rent. He deposed that no office in the name of B.K. Group of Industries or any other office for being run by accused B.K. Pradhan.
PW14 was not cross examined by Ld. Counsels for the accused persons.
30. PW-15 Sh. Rakesh Goswami deposed that in the year 1994, he was engaged in spiritual work (Dharam Guru). PW15 met accused B.K. Pradhan through Mr. Neerav Aggarwal at his residence where some rituals were performed. PW15 met the accused B.K. Pradhan 3-4 times at his residence. Mr. Neerav Aggarwal requested PW15 that accused B.K. Pradhan wanted to open his bank account in any nationalized bank. PW15 talked to Mr. Anil Tiwari regarding the same. Mr. Anil Tiwari acted as introducer in the bank the account of accused B.K. Pradhan in Punjab National Bank at Regal Building, Sansad Marg, Delhi. PW15 knew Sh. Neerav Aggarwal through his younger brother Sh. Sanjay Aggarwal. PW15 was duly cross-examined by Ld. counsels for accused persons.
31. PW-16 Sh. Neerav Aggarwal deposed that in the year 1994, he was running the business of Steel Trading. PW16 stated that he knew accused Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2025.12.23 15:30:35 +0530 CBI/ 124/2019 CBI vs. Rajinder Pradhan & Ors Page No. 20 of 47 B.K. Pradhan through Mr. V. K. Anand and had met him 3-4 times at South Delhi. Accused B.K. Pradhan told PW16 that he wanted to establish a factory and PW16 offered to provide raw materials of Steel to accused B.K. Pradhan. Accused B.K. Pradhan asked PW16 regarding opening of a bank account. PW16 talked to Mr. Rakesh Goswami, who suggested the name of Mr. Anil Tiwari. Mr. Anil Tiwari acted as introducer of the bank account of accused B.K. Pradhan in Punjab National Bank, Branch Regal Building, CP. PW16 was not cross examined by Ld. Counsels for the accused persons.
32. PW-17 Sh. Satyabir Singh deposed that in the month of December 1995, he had gone to CBI office as an independent witness of the exercise of obtaining the specimen signatures of accused persons by the CBI. PW17 identified his signature as well as specimen writing/signature of accused Rajinder Pradhan from S296 to S321. PW17 deposed that CBI obtained the specimen handwriting/signature of accused Rajinder Pradhan in his presence. PW17 was not cross examined by Ld. Counsels for the accused persons.
33. PW-18 Sh. R.C.P Sinha deposed that he came to know and met accused B.K. Pradhan through his father. He deposed that he knew accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor since 1980 when he was running an electrical shop and PW18 used to purchase electronic items from that shop. PW18 stated that he was not aware about the facts of the present case. PW18 was not cross examined by Ld. Counsels for the accused persons. Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2025.12.23 15:30:40 +0530 CBI/ 124/2019 CBI vs. Rajinder Pradhan & Ors Page No. 21 of 47
34. PW-19 Sh. Sanjeet Kumar Srivastava deposed that he used to work as a driver with accused B.K. Pradhan. PW19 stated that accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor used to work at the same place with accused B.K. Pradhan and used to handle miscellaneous matters of accused B.K. Pradhan. He further clarified that he did not know the exact nature of work done by accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor and stated that the said accused used to accompany accused B.K. Pradhan as and when required by him. He also deposed that accused Jai Chander Singh used to work with accused B.K. Pradhan. He further deposed that accused persons namely B.K. Pradhan, Ravi Mohan Kapoor and Jai Chander Singh used to have frequent discussions in a room separately, however, PW19 was not aware of the nature of the discussions. He further deposed that accused B.K. Pradhan had also given money in the marriage of daughter of accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor. PW19 was duly cross-examined by Ld. counsels for accused persons. Thereafter, PE was closed on 04.12.2025.
Statement of Accused
35. Statement of accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") was recorded on 12.12.2025. In his statement, accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor stated that he has not indulged in any illegal activity and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He chose to not lead DE. Accordingly, DE was closed on 12.12.2025. An additional statement of the accused was recorded on 17.12.2025. T Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2025.12.23 15:30:46 +0530CBI/ 124/2019 CBI vs. Rajinder Pradhan & Ors Page No. 22 of 47 Final Arguments
36. Thereafter, final arguments in the matter were heard on behalf of both the sides on various dates of hearing. I have heard Ld. PP for the CBI/ Prosecution, Ld. Counsel for the accused and have also carefully gone through the case file including the judgments relied upon and written final arguments of the prosecution.
Legal provisions
37. The cardinal principle of criminal law cannot be forgotten that the prosecution has to prove its case against accused beyond all reasonable doubts. The standard of proof is not the preponderance of probabilities but proof beyond reasonable doubt. Initial burden of proof as regards prosecution in criminal trial is upon the prosecution and it never shifts upon the accused. It is well settled legal proposition that any benefit of doubt goes in favor of the accused.
38. In the present case, charge for the commission of offences punishable under Section 120B r/w Sections 419/420/467/468/471 IPC was framed against accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor and it is necessary to briefly discuss the existing provisions of law relating to the offences in question.
39. Section 420 IPC deals with cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. It is reproduced as under:-
"420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.--
CBI/ 124/2019 CBI vs. Rajinder Pradhan & Ors Page No. 23 of 47 Digitally signed
by T
T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2025.12.23
15:31:09 +0530
Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
40. In Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy and others vs. Sudha Seetharam and others (2019 INSC 216), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that:
"The ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 420 are as follows:
i. a person must commit the offence of cheating under Section 415; and ii. the person cheated must be dishonestly induced to
(a) deliver property to any person; or
(b) make, alter or destroy valuable security or anything signed or seal and capable of being converted into valuable security".
41. Cheating is an essential ingredient for an act to constitute an offense under Section 420 and is defined under Section 415 of Penal Code. Section 415 of Penal Code reads as:
"Section 415. Cheating - Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to T PRIYADARSHINI CBI/ 124/2019 CBI vs. Rajinder Pradhan & Ors Page No. 24 of 47 Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.12.23 15:31:16 +0530 deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property or intentionally induces the persons so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation, property, is said to "cheat".
42. The ingredients to constitute an offence of cheating are as follows:
i. There should fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him;
ii. (a) the person so induced should be intentionally induced to delivery any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or (b) the person so induced should be intentionally induced to do or to omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and iii. in case covered by (ii) (b) above, the act or omission should be one, which cause or likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property.
43. A fraudulent or dishonest inducement is an essential ingredient for offence. To constitute the offence of cheating, it is not necessary that the deception should be by express words, but it may be by conduct or implied in the nature of transactions itself. Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.12.23 15:31:21 +0530 CBI/ 124/2019 CBI vs. Rajinder Pradhan & Ors Page No. 25 of 47
44. Forgery is defined under Section 463 IPC. It is reproduced as under :-
"Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery".
45. The making of false document is defined under Section 464 IPC. It is reproduced as under, so far as relevant:-
"464. Making a false document: - A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record -
First - Who dishonestly or fraudulently -
(a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document;
(b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record;
(c) affixes any [electronic signature] on any electronic record;
(d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the [electronic signature],with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document, electronic record or [electronic signature] was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.12.23 15:31:27 +0530 CBI/ 124/2019 CBI vs. Rajinder Pradhan & Ors Page No. 26 of 47 made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed"
46. In order to constitute forgery, the first essential is that the accused should have made a false document. The false document must be made with an intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any class of public or to any community. Further the expression "intent to defraud"
implies conduct coupled with intention to deceive or thereby to cause injury. In other words, defraud involves two conceptions namely, the deceit and injury to the person deceived, that is infringement of some legal right possessed by him but not necessarily deprivation of property. The term 'forgery' as used in the statute is used in its ordinary and popular acceptation. The definition of the offence of forgery declares the offence to be completed when a false document or false part of a document is made with specified intention. The relevant questions are (i) is the document false; (ii) is it made by the accused; and (iii) is it made with an intent to defraud. If all the questions are answered in the affirmative, the accused is guilty. In order to constitute an offence of forgery the documents must be made dishonestly or fraudulently. But dishonest or fraudulent are not tautological. Fraudulent does not imply the deprivation of property or an element of injury. In order to be fraudulent, there must be some advantage on the one side with a corresponding loss on the other. Every forgery postulates a false document either in whole or in part, however, small. The intent to commit forgery involves an intent to cause injury. A person makes a false document who dishonestly or fraudulently signs with an intent or cause to believe that the document was signed by a person whom he knows it was not signed. Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.12.23 15:31:34 +0530 CBI/ 124/2019 CBI vs. Rajinder Pradhan & Ors Page No. 27 of 47
47. Section 24 of the Penal Code defines "dishonestly" as whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing dishonestly. Further, "Fraudulently" is defined in Section 25 IPC. A person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise. The word "defraud" includes an element of deceit. Deceit is not an ingredient of the definition of the word "dishonestly" while it is an important ingredient of the definition of the word "fraudulently". The former involves a pecuniary or economic gain or loss while the latter by construction excludes that element. Further, the juxtaposition of the two expressions "dishonestly" and "fraudulently" used in the various sections of the Code indicates their close affinity and therefore, the definition of one may give colour to the other.
48. 467. Forgery of valuable security, will, etc.--
Whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2025.12.23
15:31:41 +0530
CBI/ 124/2019 CBI vs. Rajinder Pradhan & Ors Page No. 28 of 47
49. Punishment for forgery for the purpose of cheating is defined in Section 468 IPC. It is reproduced as under:-
"Whoever, commits forgery, intending that the [document or electronic record forged] shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a terms which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
50. Section 471 IPC deals with using of forged documents as genuine. It is reproduced as under:
"471. Using as genuine a forged [document or electronic record].
--Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any [document or electronic record] which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged [document or electronic record], shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such [document or electronic record."
51. Section 120A of IPC defines criminal conspiracy and 120B pro- vides for punishment of criminal conspiracy.
"120A. Definition of criminal conspiracy.-- When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done, (1) an illegal act, or (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy: Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.12.23 15:31:49 +0530 CBI/ 124/2019 CBI vs. Rajinder Pradhan & Ors Page No. 29 of 47 Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act be-
sides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agree- ment in pursuance thereof.
Explanation. It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object.]"
52. It is well settled principle of law that to prove the charge of conspiracy, within the ambit of Section 120-B, it is necessary to establish that there was an agreement between the parties for doing an unlawful act. At the same time, it is to be noted that it is difficult to establish conspiracy by direct evidence at all, but at the same time, in absence of any evidence to show meeting of minds between the conspirators for the intended object of committing an illegal act, it is not safe to hold a person guilty for offences under Section 120-B of IPC. A few bits here and a few bits there on which prosecution relies, cannot be held to be adequate for connecting the accused with the commission of crime of criminal conspiracy. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parveen Vs. State of Haryana Criminal Appeal no. 1571 of 2021 has observed that "it is not safe to hold a person guilty for offences under Section 120B I.P.C. in absence of any evidence to show a meeting of minds between the conspirators for the intended object of committing an illegal act".
Findings
53. The accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor has been charged for the offences punishable under Sections 120B r/w Sections 419/420/467/468/471 IPC. As per the charge framed on 12.04.2002, T Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.12.23 15:31:56 +0530 CBI/ 124/2019 CBI vs. Rajinder Pradhan & Ors Page No. 30 of 47 accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor in criminal conspiracy with other accused persons has agreed to cheat Sh. K.L. Kumar, Sh. Rakesh Kher, Sh. Sunil Aggarwal by forging share certificates of M/s Hindustan Level Limited, Cieba, Geigy, Reliance Textile and Larsen and Toubro, cheques, letter heads purportedly issued in the name of M/s B.K. Chemicals (a non- existing firm) and using them as genuine for the purpose of cheating the aforesaid victims.
54. On the aspect of criminal conspiracy, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Vinay Jain vs State and another (Decision dated 13.02.2015 in Crl. M.C.4792/2014) has observed that:
"21. On perusal of Section 120-A of IPC, it is manifestly clear that for imputing a person as a 'conspirator' there has to be existence of 'an agreement' between two more persons either to do 'an illegal act' or to do a 'legal act through illegal means'. Since, legislature has not provided any deeming provision to draw presumption in favour of existence of conspiracy, the prosecution cannot be absolved of the responsibility of bringing sufficient circumstances pointing towards existence of an agreement amongst the conspirators do to an 'illegal act' or 'a legal act through illegal means'. Apart from commission of 'act', prosecution is also vested with a responsibility to bring evidence on record of the crime committed in pursuance of 'an agreement' made between the accused persons who were parties to the alleged conspiracy. It is well settled proposition of law that an offence of conspiracy cannot be deemed to have been established on mere suspicion, surmises or CBI/ 124/2019 CBI vs. Rajinder Pradhan & Ors Page No. 31 of 47 T PRIYADARSHINI Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.12.23 15:32:02 +0530 inferences which are not supported by cogent or acceptable evidence."
55. As regards the offence of criminal conspiracy under section 120A IPC offence of criminal conspiracy is committed when two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done an illegal act or legal act by illegal means. Offence of criminal conspiracy is exception to the general law where intent alone does not constitute crime. It is intention to commit crime and joining hands with persons having the same intention. Not only the intention but there has to be agreement to carry out the object of intention, which is an offence. It would not be enough for the offence of conspiracy when some of the accused merely entertained a wish, howsoever, horrendous it may be, that offence is committed. Conspiracy is hatched in private or in secrecy. It is rarely possible to establish a conspiracy by direct evidence. Usually, both the existence of the conspiracy and its objects have to be inferred from the circumstances and the conduct of the accused.
56. When two or more persons agree to commit a crime of conspiracy then regardless of making or considering any plans for its commission, and despite the fact that no step is taken by any such person to carry out their common purpose, a crime is committed by each and every one who joins in the agreement. To prove the charge of conspiracy it is not necessary that intended crime was committed or not. If committed it may further help prosecution to prove the charge of conspiracy. What part each conspirator is to play may not be known to everyone or the fact as to when a conspirator joined the conspiracy and when he left.
CBI/ 124/2019 CBI vs. Rajinder Pradhan & Ors Page No. 32 of 47 Digitally signed
by T
T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2025.12.23
15:32:08 +0530
57. A conspiracy thus is a continuing offence and continues to subsist and is committed wherever one of the conspirators does an act or series of acts. As long as its performance continues, it is a continuing offence till it is executed or rescinded or frustrated by choice or necessity. A crime is committed as soon as the agreement is made, but it is not a thing of the moment. This means that everything said, written or done by any of the conspirator in execution or any part of it is deemed to have been said, done and written by each of them.
58. In a case reported as V. R. Nedunchezhian Vs. State: 2000 Cr.L.J.976 Their Lordships observed in para 69 as under:
"It is true that the conspiracy may be a chain; where each party performs even without the knowledge of the other, a role that aids or abets succeeding parties in accomplishing the criminal objectives of the conspiracy."
59. In the case of Ajay Aggarwal Vs. Union of India & Ors: JT 1993 (3) SC 203 it has been observed that it is not necessary that each conspirator must know all the details of the scheme nor be a participant at every stage. It is necessary that they should agree for design or object of the conspiracy.
60. It has been argued by the Ld. PP for CBI that the circumstances showing criminal conspiracy and that the accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor was a co-conspirator are as following: Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2025.12.23 15:32:14 +0530 CBI/ 124/2019 CBI vs. Rajinder Pradhan & Ors Page No. 33 of 47
a) Firstly, in the charge sheet, it has been averred that accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor facilitated accused B.K. Pradhan in opening Savings Bank Account with Vijaya Bank, Krishna Park, New Delhi under the introduction of Mr. Mahesh Chand. It is further averred that accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor was also instrumental in opening saving bank account of accused Jai Chander Singh in the same branch and saving bank account in the name of Dhananjay Prasad (impersonated by accused Mam Raj Chauhan) in the same bank. Both the accounts were introduced by accused Jai Chander Singh. Accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor facilitated opening of a current account in favour of accused B.K. Pradhan in the name of his fictitious firm M/s B.K. Chemicals in State Bank of India which was introduced by Mr. Ranjeet Singh, an acquaintance of accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor. Accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor also facilitated opening of bank account of M/s B.K. Chemicals in PNB on the introduction of Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sharma an acquaintance of accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor. These accounts were utilized for encashment of the cheques received against the pledge and sale of the share certificates.
b) Secondly, accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor also collected Rs.11,000/- and Rs.50,000/- against the self cheques issued by accused B.K. Pradhan. It is stated that the accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor has admitted the cheques in his statement under Section 294 of the Code. It is argued by Ld. PP for CBI that the said payments have been received by accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor in lieu of acting as a part of the conspiracy. It is also argued that CBI/ 124/2019 CBI vs. Rajinder Pradhan & Ors Page No. 34 of 47 Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2025.12.23 15:32:32 +0530 accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor has not explained why said payments have been received by him.
c) Thirdly, as mentioned in the charge sheet, it was revealed during investigation that accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor used to pose as Director Finance, B.K. Group of Industry. It was also revealed that M/s B.K. Chemicals was a sick unit at Bihar and accused B.K. Pradhan was not the proprietor of any B.K. Group of Industry
d) Fourthly, PW2 Awdesh Kumar Singh deposed in his evidence that he knew accused Jai Chander Singh and Ravi Mohan Kapoor as they were working with accused B.K. Pradhan. PW2 further deposed that accused B.K. Pradhan used to give share certificates to his driver and accused persons Jai Chander Singh and Ravi Mohan Kapoor and used to direct them that these certificates be carried in an envelop or under the papers and he took photocopies of above said share certificates. It is argued by Ld. PP for CBI that the fact that accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor was surreptitiously carrying forged share certificates given by accused B.K. Pradhan shows that accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor was a co-
conspirator.
e) Fifthly, PW-11 Ranjeet Singh has deposed that he knew accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor as he was into the business of supplying of Cooler Motors and Pumps and he used to purchase pumps and motors from him. PW11 also deposed that he had signed the account opening form of B.K. Chemicals (Ex. PW7/1) as an introducer. He knew accused B.K. Pradhan through his T PRIYADARSHINI Digitally signed by T CBI/ 124/2019 CBI vs. Rajinder Pradhan & Ors Page No. 35 of 47 PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.12.23 15:32:39 +0530 friend/accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor. PW11 correctly identified the accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor present in the Court. PW11 stated that he did not know accused B.K. Pradhan before signing the account opening form as an introducer and also stated that accused B.K. Pradhan filled in the account opening form in his own writing in his presence in the bank. He also deposed that when accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor and Bank Officer told him regarding the bouncing of cheques of B.K. Chemicals, PW11 withdrew his introduction by writing a letter to the bank. The Ld. PP for CBI has argued that the fact that accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor facilitated opening of bank accounts by introducing accused B.K. Pradhan with the introducer i.e. PW11 indicates that he was a part of the conspiracy.
f) Sixthly, PW12 deposed that he was introduced to accused B.K. Pradhan through accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor and they entered into an agreement for the distribution of Titric Acid and payments totaling to Rs.5,00,000/- were made by PW12 in the presence of accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor in this regard.
g) Seventhly, PW19 Sanjeet Kumar Srivastava (driver of accused B.K. Pradhan) deposed that accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor used to work at the same place with accused B.K. Pradhan and handle his miscellaneous matters. He also deposed that he did not know the exact nature of work done by accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor and stated that the said accused used to accompany accused B.K. Pradhan as and when required by him. He further deposed that accused persons namely B.K. Pradhan, Ravi Mohan CBI/ 124/2019 CBI vs. Rajinder Pradhan & Ors Page No. 36 of 47 Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2025.12.23 15:32:45 +0530 Kapoor and Jai Chander Singh used to have frequent discussions in a room separately, however, PW19 was not aware of the nature of the discussions. He further deposed that accused B.K. Pradhan had also given money in the marriage of daughter of accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor. Nothing material was elicited from the cross- examination of PW19.
61. The Ld. PP for CBI has relied upon State of Uttar Pradesh vs. M. K. Anthony (1985 1 SCC 505), Lahu Kamlakar Patil and another vs. State of Maharashtra (2013 6 SCC 417), Behari Prasad vs. State of Bihar (1996 SCC (2) 317), Brajendra Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2012 4 SCC 289), Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs. State of Maharashtra (2006 10 SCC 681), Shamsher Singh Verma vs. State of Haryana (2016 15 SCC
485), P. C. Purushothama Reddiar vs. S. Perumal (1972 1 SCC 9), Padum Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2020 3 SCC 35), Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy vs. CBI (2013 7 SCC 439), Ram Gulam Chaudhury and others vs. State of Bihar (AIR 2001 SC 2842), Ram Narain Popli vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (AIR 2003 SC 2748), Pramod Kumar Manocha vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (Criminal Appeal No. 1141 of 1999), Vinayak Narayan Deosthali vs. Central bureau of Investigation and others (Decision dated 05.11.2014 in Criminal Appeal No. 346 of 2004), Harshad S. Mehta vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (1992 CriLJ 4032), Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Ambuj Sushil Kumar Jain (Decision dated 9.12.2011 of Delhi High Court in Crl. M.C. 4102/2011), Kehar Singh and others vs. State (Delhi Admn) (1988 AIR 1883 SC), Shivnarayan Laxminarayan Joshi and others vs. State of Maharashtra T PRIYADARSHINI Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.12.23 15:32:50 +0530 CBI/ 124/2019 CBI vs. Rajinder Pradhan & Ors Page No. 37 of 47 (AIR 1980 SC 439) and State of Maharashtra vs. Loonkaran Hansraj and others (Criminal Appeal No. 251 and 252 of 1973).
62. The Ld. Counsel for accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor has argued the following in rebuttal to the averments of the prosecution:
a) Firstly, it is argued that PW5 Mr. Mahesh Chand has admitted that he acted as an introducer of the bank account maintained by the accused B. K. Pradhan in Vijaya Bank, Krishna Nagar which was used for the purpose of depositing the cheques issued by the victims. It is averred that whilst PW5 has been summoned as witness, accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor has been summoned as an accused which belies logic.
b) Secondly, it is argued that none of the witnesses have deposed that accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor was involved in the conspiracy to forge share certificates. It is further argued that none of the victims have deposed about the involvement of accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor.
c) Thirdly, it is argued that while accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor has been arraigned as an accused for referring introducers for opening of bank account in favour of accused B.K. Pradhan, the actual introducers have not been arraigned as an accused.
d) Fourthly, it is argued that the investigating agency has not arraigned persons such as Dinesh (who introduced accused B.K. Pradhan to PW5 Mahesh Chand) as accused. It is pointed out that T PRIYADARSHINI victim Sunil Kumar Aggarwal (PW4) has deposed that accused Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.12.23 15:32:54 +0530 CBI/ 124/2019 CBI vs. Rajinder Pradhan & Ors Page No. 38 of 47 B.K. Pradhan visited him along with one Dinesh Kumar and Rs.
2,00,000/- was given to accused B. K. Pradhan in the presence of said Dinesh Kumar. However, no investigation has not been conducted qua said Dinesh Kumar. Similarly, victim Sh. K.L Kumar (PW2) was introduced to accused B.K. Pradhan by one Deepak Bhojwani, however, no investigation has been done qua said Deepak Bhojwani as well. It is further argued that he has deposed that he, on the directions of accused B.K. Pradhan, wrote the names Dhananjay Prasad and Jai Chander Singh on some share certificates. It is argued that despite admission of forgery, neither the investigating agency arraigned him as an accused nor the prosecuting agency moved an application under Section 319 of the Code to summon PW2 as an additional accused.
e) Fifthly, with respect to PW11 Ranjeet Singh, it is stated that said PW11 has deposed that he knew accused B.K. Pradhan through his friend/accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor. It is stated that nowhere PW11 has deposed that accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor requested him to act as an introducer for accused B. K. Pradhan.
f) Sixthly, it is argued that PW15 Sh. Rakesh Goswami deposed that PW16 Sh. Neeraj Aggarwal requested PW15 to facilitate opening of a bank account for accused B. K. Pradhan in a nationalised bank. PW15 also deposed that he spoke to one Mr. Anil Tiwari to act as an introducer in Punjab National Bank. It is argued that the prosecution has failed to explain why said Anil Tiwari who acted as an introducer or Mr. Neeraj Aggarwal or PW15 Rakesh Goswami who requested Anil Tiwari to act as an T Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2025.12.23 15:32:59 +0530CBI/ 124/2019 CBI vs. Rajinder Pradhan & Ors Page No. 39 of 47 introducer for accused B.K. Pradhan have not been arraigned as an accused when the primary allegation against accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor is that he facilitated bank account opening of accused B.K. Pradhan.
63. Ld. Counsel for accused persons have relied upon Paramjeet Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand (AIR 2011 SC 200), Nar Singh vs. State of Haryana (Decision dated 11.11.2014 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (Crl.) 8852 of 2013) and Neeraj Dutta vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) (2023 4 SCC 731).
64. The issue to be determined is whether the aforesaid circumstances sufficiently point towards existence of an agreement amongst accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor and the other accused persons to do an 'illegal act' or 'a legal act through illegal means'. It is the case of the prosecution that the 'illegal act' which was agreed to be done by the accused persons is the dishonest inducement of victims namely, Sh. K.L. Kumar, Sh. Rakesh Kher and Sh. Sunil Aggarwal by forging share certificates of M/s Hindustan Liver Limited, Cieba Geigy, Reliance Textile and Larsen Toubro.
65. It is an admitted position that accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor was well acquainted with accused B.K. Pradhan. It has also been proven by the prosecution that accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor used to accompany accused B.K. Pradhan. The prosecution has heavily relied upon the CBI/ 124/2019 CBI vs. Rajinder Pradhan & Ors Page No. 40 of 47 T PRIYADARSHINI Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.12.23 15:33:05 +0530 testimony of PW2 Awdesh Kumar Singh who has deposed that accused B.K. Pradhan used to give share certificates to his driver and convict Jai Chander Singh and accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor and used to direct them that these certificates be carried in an envelope or under the papers and he took photocopies of above said share certificates. It is averred that carrying around forged certificates shows that accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor was a co-conspirator. This reliance on PW2 is negatived on account of two reasons. Firstly, the evidence of PW2 does not inspire confidence as he has admitted that at the instance of accused B.K. Pradhan, he forged share certificates by writing the names "Dhananjay Prasad Singh" and "Jai Chander Singh" in the share certificates. Therefore, it appears that PW2 was a co-conspirator and a clean chit has been given by the CBI to him for reasons which have not been given. Secondly, even if it is admitted that accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor used to carry the purportedly forged certificates in envelopes, the prosecution has not discharged its onus and established how that renders him criminally culpable for criminal conspiracy to cheat and forge documents. The judgments relied upon by the prosecution with respect to circumstantial evidence does not aid its case as the circumstantial evidence are sparse and inadequate.
66. Further, there is no evidence on record to prove that accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor was aware that the share certificates were forged by accused B.K. Pradhan and other associates. The judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Padum Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2020 3 SCC Digitally signed
35) relied upon by Ld. PP for CBI is not applicable as there is no by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.12.23 15:33:09 +0530 CBI/ 124/2019 CBI vs. Rajinder Pradhan & Ors Page No. 41 of 47 allegation or evidence that the forged documents were used by accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor. Accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor cannot be convicted merely because he was working with or associated with accused B.K. Pradhan. Furthermore, none of the victims nor PWs have deposed re: any role played by accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor in forging the share certificates.
67. The argument of the Ld. PP for CBI that the two self cheques of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.11,000/- withdrawn by accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor is proof of remittance / transfer of cheating proceeds to accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor is grossly inadequate to convict the accused as there is no evidence, direct or indirect, that accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor was a co- conspirator. The Ld. PP for CBI has relied upon Shamsher Singh Verma vs. State of Haryana (2016 15 SCC 485) and has argued that admission of the self cheques signed on the back side by accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor in his statement under Section 294 of the Code means that formal proof of the said cheques and receipt is dispensed with. Even if said payments were received from the bank account of accused B. K. Pradhan by accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor, in view of depositions of independent PWs that accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor was engaged in the business of electric products, it cannot be ruled out that the purported receipts by accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor had nothing to do with the cheating of victims' basis forged share certificates.
68. Additionally, the deposition of PW12 relied upon by the Ld. PP for establishing that accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor was acting as a co- Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.12.23 15:33:17 +0530 CBI/ 124/2019 CBI vs. Rajinder Pradhan & Ors Page No. 42 of 47 conspirator is not persuasive as PW12 has deposed about a partnership agreement re: distribution of Titric acid with accused B. K. Pradhan which was arranged by accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor and his deposition does not talk about the transaction pertaining to forgery of share certificates. The accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor having worked as a middle man in this transaction, does not automatically lead to a conclusion that he was acting as a middle man in the cheating transaction especially in the absence of any evidence in this regard.
69. It is also pertinent to note that the investigating agency has cherry picked accused persons and has conducted the investigation in a partisan manner. The case set up against accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor is particularly flimsy and without any substance. Whilst the Ld. PP for CBI has argued that the two self cheques of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.11,000/- withdrawn by accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor is proof of remittance / transfer of cheating proceeds, the prosecuting agency is silent on the role of PW2 Awdesh Kumar Singh who has admitted collection of Rs.1,15,000/- from accused B.K. Pradhan's bank account. Whilst accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor is being castigated by the prosecution for requesting PW11 Ranjeet to act as an introducer for opening accused B.K. Pradhan's bank account, no action has been taken against PW16 Neerav Aggarwal who requested PW15 Rakesh Goswami to facilitate opening a bank account for accused B.K. Pradhan through one Anil Tiwari. In fact, PW11 Ranjeet Singh has not even clearly deposed that accused Ravi T PRIYADARSHINI Mohan Kapoor requested him to act as an introducer to the bank account Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.12.23 15:33:22 +0530 CBI/ 124/2019 CBI vs. Rajinder Pradhan & Ors Page No. 43 of 47 of accused B.K. Pradhan.
70. It is pertinent to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in John Pandian vs. State (2010 14 SCC 129) held that once the link between co-conspirators is lost, the conspiracy cannot be established. In the present case, the alleged link is weak and broken as the purported link is proposed to be established only through the fact that accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor purportedly helped accused B.K. Pradhan to open bank accounts. Was accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor even aware that the said bank accounts will be utilized by accused B.K. Pradhan for depositing cheating proceeds? Further, the subsequent conduct of accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor is relevant as per Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and said subsequent conduct was accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor informing PW11 Ranjeet to withdraw his introduction from the said bank account after realising the illegal acts of accused B.K. Pradhan.
71. In Ram Narain Popli vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (AIR 2003 SC 2748), it was observed that:
"The most important ingredient of the offence being the agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act. In a case where criminal conspiracy is alleged, the court must inquire whether the two persons are independently pursuing the same end or they have come together to pursue the unlawful object. The former does not render them conspirators but the latter does. For the offence of conspiracy some kind of physical manifestation of an agreement is CBI/ 124/2019 CBI vs. Rajinder Pradhan & Ors Page No. 44 of 47 Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2025.12.23 15:33:28 +0530 required to be established."
72. Perusal of testimonies of prosecution witnesses in the present case would reveal that there is no evidence on record which proves the fact that there was prior meeting of minds between the accused B.K. Pradhan, accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor and other convicts for the intended object of committing an illegal act. The prosecution has failed to prove the charge of criminal conspiracy against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. An offence of criminal conspiracy cannot be deemed to have been established on the mere suspicion or inference which are not supported by any cogent evidence as to whether there was a prior meeting of mind or an agreement to do an illegal act. In view of the above, I hold that the aspect of criminal conspiracy has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt for which benefit is being given to the accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor. Leave apart agreement to carry out an illegal act, even intention to commit the crime has not been successfully attributed to accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor. From the circumstances and conduct of the accused, existence of conspiracy cannot be inferred.
73. As held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in a plethora of cases including Kali Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (1973 2 SCC 808), it is one of the cardinal principles which has always to be kept in mind in our system of administration of criminal justice is that a person arraigned as an accused is presumed to be innocent unless that presumption is rebutted by the prosecution by production of evidence as may show him to be guilty Digitally signed by T T CBI/ 124/2019 CBI vs. Rajinder Pradhan & Ors Page No. 45 of 47 PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.12.23 15:33:33 +0530 of the offence with which he is charged. The burden of proving the guilt of the accused is upon the prosecution and unless it relieves itself of the burden, the Court cannot record a finding of the guilt of the accused. Further, if two views are possible, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused has to be accepted.
74. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is quite clear that the basic premise on which the CBI was prosecuting the instant case stands on a shaky footing, due to which it has fallen like a pack of cards. The CBI has not conducted an impartial and thorough investigation and has joined persons as accused / witnesses on the basis of a whim which remains unexplained. It is also regrettable to note that this is the oldest case of this Court and the accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor has been facing trial since last 29 years in this matter where evidence against him is scarce and inadequate. Additionally, the fact that accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor was summoned as a accused, whereas persons like PW2 who actually played a role in the conspiracy were summoned as a witness is arbitrary. Furthermore, the fact that other persons who played a similar role of assisting the accused B.K. Pradhan in opening bank accounts were summoned as witnesses while Mr. Ravi Mohan Kapoor was summoned as an accused remains lamentably unexplained by the investigating agency.
75. Considering the aforesaid discussion, given facts and circumstances, the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, this Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.12.23 15:33:39 +0530 CBI/ 124/2019 CBI vs. Rajinder Pradhan & Ors Page No. 46 of 47 court is of the view that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the offences for which charges were framed against accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor. Hence, accused Ravi Mohan Kapoor is acquitted of the offences punishable under 120B r/w Sections 419/420/467/468/471 IPC thereof i.e. the offences for which he was charged with.
Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINIAnnounced in the open Court T PRIYADARSHINI Date:
on 22nd day of December, 2025 2025.12.23
15:33:43 +0530
(T. Priyadarshini)
CJM/RADC/New Delhi
22.12.2025
CBI/ 124/2019 CBI vs. Rajinder Pradhan & Ors Page No. 47 of 47