Delhi District Court
Cc No.56/2019 Cbi vs . V.K.Jain Etc. Page No.1 Of 126 on 7 June, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY GUPTA,
SPECIAL JUDGE, PC ACT (CBI)-03,
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT, NEW DELHI
CNR NO. DLCT11000281/2019
Registration/CC No. 56/2019 (Old No.5/2015)
RC. No. 7(A)/1994
PS: CBI/SIU/VIII/New Delhi
In re:
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
Versus
(1) Vinay Kumar Jain (Accused No.1)
S/o Late T.C.Jain
Ex. Branch Manager
Bank of Maharashtra
Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch
Delhi.
R/o A-74, Ram Prashtha
Ghaziabad, UP
(2) Dalip Kumar Gupta (Since P.O.) (Accused No.2)
S/o Late Sh Hansraj Gupta
R/o 496/A, Bhola Nath Nagar,
Shahdara, Delhi-110032
(Private person and Partner in
M/s P.D. Enterprises, M/s Strip India and
Director in M/s Chaitanya
Powerlines Pvt.Ltd.
(3) Gulshan Kumar Gupta (Since P.O.) (Accused No.3)
S/o Late Sh. Hansraj Gupta
R/o 496/A, Bhola Nath Nagar
Shahdara, Delhi-110032
(Private person and proprietor of
M/s G.K.Electronics & Partner in
CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.1 of 126
M/s Mohit Enterprises as well as
M/s Diamond Cables and Conductors
(4) Praveen Kumar Gupta (Accused No.4)
S/o Late Hansraj Gupta
R/o 496/A, Bhola Nath Nagar
Shahdara, Delhi-110032
Proprietor of M/s Pragati Conductors &
Partner in M/s Nitin Wire Industries &
Kamal Enterprises
(5) Devender Kumar Gupta (Since P.O) (Accused No.5)
S/o late Hansraj Gupta
R/o 496/A, Bhola Nath Nagar,
Shahdara, Delhi-110032
(Private person and Partner in
M/s G.K.industrial Corporation and
M/s Uma Super Insulation)
(6) M/s Uma Super Insulations (Accused No.6)
(Through A-5)
Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara
Delhi-110032
(7) M/s Kamal Enterprises (Accused No.7)
(Through A-4)
Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara
Delhi-110032
(8) M/s Diamond Cables & (Accused No.8)
Conductors
(Through A-3)
Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara
Delhi-110032
(9) M/s Mohit Enterprises (Accused No.9)
(Through A-3)
Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara
Delhi-110032
CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.2 of 126
(10) M/s P.D. Enterprises (Accused No.10)
(Through A-2)
Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara
Delhi-110032
(11) M/s Strip India (Accused No.11)
(Through A-2)
Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara
Delhi-110032
(12) M/s Nitin Wire Industries (Accused No.12)
(Through A-4)
Bhola Nath Nagar, Shadara
Delhi-110032
(13) M/s Chaitanya Powerlines (P)Ltd (Accused No.13)
(Through A-2)
Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara
Delhi-110032
(14) M/s G.K Industrial Corporation (Accused No.14)
(Through A-5)
Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara
Delhi-110032
Date of institution : 04.12.1998.
Date on which judgment was reserved : 30.05.2023
Date of judgment : 07.06.2023
JUDGMENT
1. The accused Vinay Kumar Jain (Accused No. 1/A-1) had filed a criminal miscellaneous Crl. M.C. 477/2016 titled as Vinay Kumar Jain Vs. C.B.I before Hon'ble High Court seeking quashing of the proceedings of this case on the ground of double jeopardy. On 14.11.2018, the accused withdrew his aforesaid petition and had sought liberty to agitate the said issue CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.3 of 126 before this Court. Thereafter, on dated 21.02.2019, in view of the submissions of Ld. Defence Counsel several legal issues were noted down for consideration and one of the said issues was the issue of double jeopardy. Since the further fate of the present case is dependent on the disposal of this very issue, therefore, the argument on this issue have been heard from Ld. Sr.PP and Ld. Defence Counsels of A-1 and A-4.
2. For the appropriate disposal of this issue, the relevant aspects of the matter are required to be specified. On 19.05.1994, a written complaint (Ex.PW13/S-2) was made by Sh. R.B.Rane, DGM, Bank of Maharashtra, Northern Zone, Ajmal Khan Road, New Delhi on the basis of which RC No.7(A)/1994 (Ex.PW8/A) was registered on 23.08.1994. The entire investigation qua all the allegations made in the complaint/FIR was completed in one go and at the same time and after completion of investigation on dated 04.12.1998, two separate charge-sheets were filed. One of the charge-sheets (CC No.6/15) was filed in regard to the clearing of cheques issued by accused persons (A2 to A5) which has already been decided vide order dated 03.06.2016 and the other one (the present charge-sheet) was filed in regard to the issuance of pay orders and letter of credits. Both the charge-sheets were filed on the same day and the case pertaining to the charge-sheet (CC No.6/15) has already been decided, therefore, for the purpose of reference in this Judgment, the decided CC number/Charge- sheet is referred as "the First Charge-sheet/decided charge-
CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.4 of 126 sheet/decided case" and the charge-sheet in the present case is being referred as "the Second/another charge-sheet".
3. It has been submitted on behalf of accused persons (A1 and A4) that both the charge-sheets are part and parcel of the same case and since accused persons (A1 and A4) have already been tried and convicted in one of the cases i.e. the case/charge-sheet no.6/15 (First Charge-sheet) therefore, in view of the provisions of article 20 of Constitution of India and Section 300 (2) Cr.P.C the accused cannot be tried again for the same offences. Thus, in order to find out whether both the cases are based upon the same facts and circumstances (same cause of action), it is to be seen how both these cases (charge-sheets) originated and for this purpose the facts and circumstances of both the cases, the contents of the complaint, FIR and both the charge-sheets are required to be gone into. Hence, the contents of the above record are required to be mentioned here in verbatim. However, before mentioning the contents of the above mentioned record, the allegations specified against the accused persons in both the cases are being briefly discussed here. Broadly, the case of the prosecution is that during the period w.e.f.May 1986 to Sept. 1991, accused V.K.Jain (A-1) was the Branch Manager of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi and he hatched a conspiracy with the accused persons who are none other than the family members and close relatives and in pursuance to the said conspiracy, A-1 illegally issued several pay orders though CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.5 of 126 the accused persons did not have sufficient balance in their bank accounts for having those pay orders issued. Allegedly, A- 1 also issued several letters of credit thereby flouting settled banking norms and without keeping any security against the same and allowed accused to enjoy bank credit without sanction. Besides, A-1 also permitted encashment of several cheques issued by accused persons though accused persons were not having sufficient balance in their respective bank accounts and in order to provide the said financial help, A-1 illegally debited the bank's own account (CHR etc) and debited the same several times by illegally preparing certain vouchers and in this manner, he let the accused enjoy the funds of the bank till the time the accused persons actually deposited the requisite amount in their bank accounts. It is further alleged that A-1 also prepared false accounts and in this manner, A-1 and accused persons have caused loss of considerable interest amount. The allegations made in both the charge-sheets are not being discussed separately as the entire contents of both the charge-sheets are required to be reproduced for comparison and for the appropriate disposal of the issue in hand.
4. In regard to the alleged illegal acts committed by the accused persons, a complaint was made by DGM of the complainant bank. The contents of the complaint are as under:-
"AX26/VIG/1140/94 May 19,1994
The Dy. Inspector General of Police
Central Bureau of Investigation
SIC(III)
CGO Complex
CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.6 of 126
New Delhi.
Dear Sir,
RE : Complaint against Mr. V.K. Jain the then Branch
Manager , Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch and others.
We want to bring to your knowledge the following facts regarding the fraud committed at our Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, Delhi during May 1986 to Sept. 1991. Mr. V.K. Jain was working as Branch Manager, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar from 7.5.1986 to 27 Sept. 1991. During his posting as such he entered into criminal conspiracy and committed the following acts of willful omission/commission.
1. He has fraudulently, unauthorisedly without adhering to prescribed procedure of the bank, without making any record of such transactions and without reporting to higher authorities issued various letters of credit. He has kept some of the documents received under said letter of Credits with him under his private custody without recording in books of accounts thus, further concealing the facts. He has thus allowed customers to enjoy bank credit without sanction and cost. Total No. of such L/Cs. Amt. Of such L/Cs issued.
18 Rs. 83.29 Lacs.
2. He has issued pay orders of the bank without receiving value consideration/without debiting to purchaser's account and debiting such pay orders amount fraudulently to Office a/c namely Clearing House Receivable (CHR), Local Bank Reconciliation A/C (LBRC) and/or CO Reconciliation A/c (CO MAIN) and substituting by way of cheques drawn by parties on who's behalf P.O. were issued while reversing the debits made earlier to office account. He has thus allowed customers to enjoy bank funds without sanction and cost.
Total No. of such P.O. issued Total Amt.Of such P.O. issued.
38 Rs. 202.86 Lacs.
3. He has allowed various customers to enjoy Bank funds without sanction and cost by debiting cheques drawn by them against their account maintained with the Branch fraudulently to office account namely Clearing House Receivable a/c and Local Branch Reconciliation A/c, when presented for payment and removing the said cheques even from Bank's records. Office A/c Total No. of such Entries Total Amt. Of such entries.
CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.7 of 126
Clearing House 368 1990.04 Lacs
receivable a/c
Local Branch 16 1021.20 Lacs
reconciliation a/c
4. He has fraudulently debited the Clearing House Receivable and Local Branch Reconciliation a/c and made credit available in various customer's a/c by way of releasing credit vouchers without any valuable consideration resulting in thereby fictitious credit to customer's account and debit to office account. He has thus in criminal conspiracy with various such customers allowed them to enjoy bank's funds without sanction and cost thereby causing loss of revenue to the bank to the tune of Rs.172.38 lacs upto 15.5.94.
5. He has issued Short Term Deposit receipts by debiting Clearing House Receivable a/c against Cheques received for collection before actually lodging the cheques for collection and receiving the proceeds thereof. Thereafter on dishonour of cheques when sent for collection debited the same to Clearing House Receivable a/c and allowed the Short Term Deposits to continue. Similarly he has issued STDRs against cheques received for collection before realising the proceeds to the debit of Inland Remittances a/c.
Total No. of such Amt. Of such STDRs
STDRs issued. issued
5 19.00 lacs.
6. He has removed/replaced ledgers and tampered with office records with a view to conceal the fraudulent transactions.
7. He has willfully concealed, suppressed material facts, fraudulent transactions by not reporting to higher authorities and on several occasions mis represented the material facts to higher authorities.
8. He has allowed fictitious credits by making funds available to various customers and not charging interest and commission thereby resulting a loss of revenue to the bank.
9. He has destroyed branch records on 17.6.1989 and 22.11.90 contrary to laid down instructions contained in office Procedure Book regarding preservation/destruction of office record. Some of the records destroyed also contained irregular/fraudulent transactions.
By misusing his official position in conspiracy with following parties.
CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.8 of 126
S.No. Name of Parties Proprietor/Partner
a. M/s G.K.Electronics Gulshan Kumar
10, Bholanath Nagar, Delhi-32
b. M/s Uma Super Insulations
10 Bholanath Nagar, Shahdara
Delhi-110032
c. M/s Pragati Conductors 1476, Parveen Kumar
Bholanath Nagar, Shahdara Gupta
Delhi-32
d. M/s Kamal Enterprises 10, Parveen Gupta &
Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Smt.Kamal Gupta
Delhi-32
e. M/s G.K Industrial Devender Gupta
Corporation, 13 Bholanath & Urmila Devi
Nagar, Shahdara,Delhi-32
f. M/s Diamond Cable Gulshan Gupta &
Conductors 13, Bolanath Menu Gupta
Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-32
g. M/s Mohit Enterprises, 5, Gulshan Gupta &
Bolanath Nagar, Shahdara, Hansraj Gupta
Delhi-110032
h. M/s P.D Enterprises, 10, Dalip Gupta &
Bholanath Nagar, Shahdara, Anuradha Gupta
Delhi-32
i. M/s Jesica Exports Parveen Kumar
Gupta
j. M/s Strip India, 13 Bholanath Dalip Kumar
Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-32 Gupta & Pradeep
Goel
k. M/s Nitin Wire Industries, 10,
Bholanath Nagar, Shahdara,
Delhi-32
l. M/s Chaitanya Power Lines Directors:
Pvt.Ltd., 13, Bholanath Nagar, 1.Dilip Gupta
Shahdara, Delhi-32 2.Pradeep Goel
Mr. V K Jain by his fraudulent action has caused undue pecuniary loss to the extent of Rs.172.38 Lacs (calculated as per quarterly compounding applicable rate of interest from time to CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.9 of 126 time upto 15 May 1994) to the Bank and corresponding wrongful gain to himself and other parties as referred in this complaint.
You are requested to register the case against Mr. V.K.Jain and parties as stated above (a to l) and investigate.
Yours faithfully, For & On behalf of Bank of Maharashtra Dy. General Manager"
5. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, the following FIR/RC No. 7(A)/1994 was registered. The contents of said FIR/RC are reproduced as under:-
First Information Report.
RC 7(A)/94-SIU (VIII) Dated 23.08.1994, 4 00.p.m Place of Occurrence: New Delhi Date and time of Occurrence May 1986 to Sept 1991 Name of the Complainant & Informant: Sh. R.B.Rane, DGM, Bank of Maharashtra, Northern Zone, 6-30/31, W.E.A, Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi-110005 Offence:- Section 120 B r/w 420, Sec. 204,468,471, 477A of IPC & Sec. 5(1) (d) of PC Act, 1947 and Sec. 13 (1) (d) of PC Act, 1988 and substantive offences U/s 420, 204, 468, 471 & 477 A IPC & Secc. 5 (1) (d) of PC Act, 1947 & Sec. 13 (1) (d) of PC Act, 1988.
Name and Address of Accused:-
1. Sh. V.K. Jain, the then Branch Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi.
2. M/s G.K. Electronics, Partner Sh. Gulshan Kumar, 10 Bholanath Nagar, Shahdra, Delhi-32.
3.M/s Uma Super Insulations, 10 Bholanath Nagar, Shahadara, Delhi-32.
4. M/s Pragati Conductors, Partner Sh. Praveen Kumar Gupta, 1476, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-32.
5. M/s Jesica Exports, Partner Sh. Parveen Kumar Gupta & Kamal Gupta.
CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.10 of 126
6. M/s Kamal Enterprises, Partner Sh. Parveen Kumar Gupta & Smt. Kamal Gupta, 10 Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-32.
7. M/s Diamond Cabel Conductors, Partner S/Sh. Gulshan Gupta & Meenu Gupta.
8. M/s Mohit Enterprises, Partners S/Sh. Gulshan Gupta & Hansraj Gupta.
9.M/s P.D. Enterprises, Partners S/Sh. Dalip Gupta & Anuradha Gupta, 10 Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdra, Delhi-32.
10. M/s Strip India, Partners S/Sh. Dalip Kumar Gupta & Pardeep Goel.
11. M/s Nitin Wire Industries, 10 Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdra, Delhi-32.
12. M/s Chaitanya Power Lines Pvt. Ltd. Partners S/Sh. Dilip Gupta & Pardeep Goel, 13, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdra, Delhi-
32.
13. M/s G.K. Industries Corp. Partners Devender Kumar Gupta & Urmila Devi, 13, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-32.
Information :
Complaint No. AX26/VIG/1140/94 dated. 19th May, 1994 received from Shri R.B. Rane, Deputy General Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, Regional Office, 6-30/31, WEA, Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi addressed to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, SIC (III), CGO Complex, New Delhi received through letter No. AX/26/VIG/1141/94/418 dated 19th May, 1994 of Shri. R.B. Rane is produced below:
The Dy. Inspector General of Police Central Bureau of Investigation SIC(III) CGO Complex New Delhi.
Dear Sir, RE: Complaint against Mr. V.K. Jain the then Branch Manager , Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch and others.
We want to bring to your knowledge the following facts regarding fraud committed at our Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, Delhi during May 1986 to Sept. 1991.
Mr. V.K. Jain was working as Branch Manager, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar from 7.5.1986 to 27 Sept. 1991. During his posting as CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.11 of 126 such he entered into criminal conspiracy and committed the following acts of willful omission/commission.
1. He has fraudulently, unauthorisedly without adhering to prescribed procedure of the bank, without making any record of such transactions and without reporting to higher authorities issued various letters of credit. He has kept some of the documents received under said letter of Credits with him under his private custody without recording in books of accounts thus, further concealing the facts. He has thus allowed customers to enjoy bank credit without sanction and cost. Total No. of such L/Cs. Amt. Of such L/Cs issued. 18 Rs. 83.29 Lacs.
2. He has issued pay orders of the bank without receiving value consideration/without debiting to purchaser's account and debiting such pay orders amount fraudulently to Officer a/c namely Clearing House Receivable (CHR), Local Bank Reconciliation A/C (LBPC) and/or CO Reconciliation A/c (CO MAIN) and substituting by way of cheques drawn by parties on who's behalf P.O. were issued while reversing the debits made earlier to office account. He has thus allowed customers to enjoy bank funds without sanction and cost.
Total No. of such P.O.issued Total Amt. Of such P.O. issued.
38 Rs. 202.86 Lacs.
3. He has allowed various customers to enjoy Bank funds without sanction and cost by debiting cheques drawn by them against their account maintained with the Branch fraudulently to office account namely Clearing House Receivable a/c and Local Branch Reconciliation A/c when presented for payment and removing the said cheques even from Bank's records. Office A/c Total No. of such Entries Total Amt. Of such entries.
Clearing House 368 1990.04 Lacs
receivable a/c
Local Branch 16 1021.20 Lacs
reconciliation
4. He has fraudulently debited the Clearing House Receivable and Local Branch Reconciliation a/c and made credit available in various customer's a/c by way of releasing credit vouchers without any valuable consideration resulting in thereby fictitious credit to customer's account and debit to office account. He has thus in criminal conspiracy with various such customers allowed CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.12 of 126 them to enjoy bank's funds without sanction and cost thereby causing loss of revenue to the bank to the tune of Rs.172.38 lacs upto 15.5.94.
5. He has issued Short Term Deposit receipts by debiting Clearing House Receivable a/c against Cheques received for collection before actually lodging the cheques for collection and receiving the proceeds thereof. Thereafter on dishonour of cheques when sent for collection debited the same to Clearing House Receivable a/c and allowed the Short Term Deposits to continue. Similarly he has issued STDRs against cheques received for collection before realising the proceeds to the debit of Inland Remittances a/c.
Total No. of such Amt. Of such
STDRs issued. STDRs issued
5 19.00 lacs.
6. He has removed/replaced ledgers and tampered with office records with a view to conceal the fraudulent transactions.
7.He has wilfully concealed, suppressed material facts, fraudulent transactions by not reporting to higher authorities and on several occassions mis represented the material facts to higher authorities.
8. He has allowed fictitious credits by making funds available to various customers and not charging interest and commission thereby resulting a loss of revenue to the bank.
9.He has destroyed branch records on 17.6.1989 and 22.11.90 contrary to laid down instructions contained in office Procedure Book regarding preservation/destruction of office record. Some of the records destroyed also contained irregular/fraudulent transactions.
By misusing his official position in conspiracy with following parties. S.N Name of the Parties Proprietor/partner a. M/s G.K. Electronics, 10, Bhola Nath Nagar, Gulshan Kumar Shahdara, Delhi-32.
b. M/s Uma Super Insulation, 10,Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-32 c. M/s Pragati Conductors, 476, Bhola Nath Nagar,, Parveen Kumar Gupta.
Shahdara, Delhi-32
d. M/s Kamal Enterprises 10,Bhola Nath Nagar,, Parveen Gupta & Smt.
CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.13 of 126
Shahdara, Delhi-32 Kamal Gupta.
e. M/s G.K. Industrial Corporation 13 Bhola nath Devender Gupta & Urmila
Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-32 Devi.
f. M/s Diamond cable Conductors 13 Bhola Nath Gulshan Gupta & Menu
Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-32 Gupta.
g. M/s Mohit Enterprises, 5 Bhola Nath Nagar,, Gulshan Gupta & Hansraj
shahdara, Delhi-32 Gupta.
h. M/s P.D.Enterprises, 10 Bhola Nath Nagar,, Delip Gupta & Anuradha
Shahdara, Delhi-32 Gupta.
i. M/s Jesica Exports Parveen Kumar Gupta
j. M/s Strip India, 13 Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Dilip Kr.Gupta & Pradeep
Delhi-32 Goel.
k. M/s Nitin Wire Industries, 10 Bhola Nath Nagar, -do-
Shahdara, Delhi-32
l. M/s Chaitanya Power Lines, Pvt. Ltd, 13 Bhola Directors
Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-32
1. Dilip Gupta
2. Pradeep Goel.
Mr. V.K.Jain by his fraudulent action has caused undue pecuniary loss to the extent of Rs.172.38 lacs (calculated as per quarterly compounding applicable rate of interest from time to time upto 15 th May 1994) to the Bank and corresponding wrongful gain to himself and other parties as referred in this complaint.
You are requested to register the case against Mr. V.K.Jain and parties as stated above (a to l) and investigate. Yours faithfully sd/-
FOR & ON BEHALF OF BANK OF MAHARASHTRA DY GENERAL MANAGER."
CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.14 of 126 The above facts disclose the prima-facie commission of an offence u/s 120B r/w 420, 204, 468, 471, 477A of IPC & Sec.5 (1) (d) of PC Act, 1947 and Sec.13 (1) (d) of PC Act, 1988 and substantive offences u/s 420, 204, 468, 471 & 477A 1PC & Sec.5 (1) (d) of PC Act, 1947 and Sec.13 (1) (d) of PC Act, 1988, against Shri V.K. Jain and others as mentioned above. A case is, therefore,"
6. The allegations made in the complaint were investigated into and after completion of investigation, two separate charge-sheets were filed on 04.12.1998. One of the charge-sheets (first charge-sheet/decided case) was filed qua encashment of cheques and the other one (the present case/second charge-sheet) was filed qua issuance of pay orders and letter of credits. Both the charge-sheets were separately registered and separate trial was held in both the cases. The trial in the first case got completed and the first charge-sheet has been disposed off by Ld. Special Judge (PC Act) vide order dated 03.06.2016. The trial is also complete in the second charge-sheet (second case) and now at the final stage, the issue of double jeopardy has been raised by the accused persons. Thus, the contents of both the charge-sheet are required to be reproduced. The contents of present charge sheet/second charge sheet (CC No.5/2015, New No.56/2019) are as under:-
Name of Accused
1. Vinay Kumar Jain s/o Late Sh T.C.Jain Ex.Branch Manager, Bank of Maharashtra Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, Delhi R/o A-74, Ram Prastha, Ghaziabad, U.P. (Public Servant)
2. Dalip Kumar Gupta s/o Late Sh. Hans Raj Gupta R/o 496/A, Bhola Nath Nagar Shahdara, Delhi-110032 (private person and Partner in CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.15 of 126 M/s P.D. Enterprises, M/s Strip India & Director in M/s Chaitanya Powerlines Pvt.Ltd.)
3. Gulshan Kumar Gupta s/o Late Sh. Hans Raj Gupta R/o 496/A, Bhola Nath Nagar Shahdara, Delhi-110032 (private person and Proprietor of M/s G.K.Electronics & Partner in M/s Mohit Enterprises as well as M/s Diamond Cables and Conductors)
4. Parveen Kumar Gupta s/o Late Sh. Hans Raj Gupta.
R/o 496/A, Bhola Nath Nagar Shahdara, Delhi-110032 (private person and Proprietor of M/s Pragati Conductors and Partner in M/s Nitin Wire Industries and M/s Kamal Enterprises)
5. Devender Kumar Gupta s/o Late Sh. Hans Raj Gupta. R/o 496/A, Bhola Nath Nagar Shahdara, Delhi-110032 (private person and Partner in M/s G.K.Industrial Corporation and M/s Uma Super Insulation)
6. M/s Uma Super Insulation, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-32 (Through A-5).
7. M/s Kamal Enterprises, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-32. (Through A-4)
8. M/s Diamond Cables and conductors, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-32. (Through A-3)
9. M/s Mohit Enterprises, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-32. (Through A-3).
10.M/s P.D. Enterprises, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-32. (Through A- 2).
11.M/s Strip India, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-32. (Through A-2).
12.M/s Nitin Wire Industries, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-32 (Through A-4).
13.M/s Chaitanya Powerline (P) Ltd. Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-32 (Through A-2).
14.M/s G.K. Industrial Corporation, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-32 (Through A-5) The case RC 7(A)/94 was registered on 23.8.94 on written complaint by Shri R. B. Rane, DGM, Bank of Maharashtra, Northern Zone, Ajmal Khan Road, New Delhi u/s 120B r/w 420,Sec. 204, 468, 471 of IPC & Section 5(1)(d) of PC Act, 1947 and Sec. 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 and Substantive Offences U/s 420, Sec. 204, 468, 471, 477A of IPC & Sec. 5(1)(d) of PC Act, 1947 and Sec. 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988, with the allegation that Shri V. K. Jain. (A-1) while working as Branch Manager, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi Bank of Maharashtra during May 1986 to September, 1991 entered into criminal conspiracy with S/Shri Dalip Kumar Gupta (A-2), Gulshan Kumar Gupta (A-
3), Parveen Kumar Gupta (A-4), and Devender Kumar Gupta (A-
CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.16 of 126
5), and in furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy Shri V.K. Jain (A-1) fraudulently, unauthorizedly, without adhering to prescribed procedure of the bank and by abusing his official position, issued total 18 LCs (letters of Credit) amounting to Rs. 83.29 lacs on behalf of accused private parties i.e. M/s Diamond Cables & Conductors (A-8), M/s G K Industrial Corporation (A-
14). M/s Nitin Wire Industries (A-12), M/s Chaitanya Powerline (P) Ltd. (A-13), M/s P. D. Enterprises (A-10), M/s Uma Super Insulation (A- 6), M/s Mohit Enterprises (A-9) and M/s Kamal Enterprises (A- 7). Further Shri V. K. Jain (A-1) had willfully kept some of the documents received under said letters of credit with him without recording the same in the books of A/cs and thus, allowed accused parties to enjoy Bank Credit facilities without sanction and cost. That Shri V K Jain (A-1) issued 38 pay orders amounting to Rs. 202.86 lacs without receiving value consideration/without debiting to purchaser's account and debited such pay orders amount fraudulently to office account namely clearing house receivable (CHR), local branch reconciliation account (LBRC and central office reconciliation(Co Main) and subsequently substituting the amount by way of cheques drawn by accused parties on whose behalf pay orders were issued and thus by abusing his official position, Shri V. K. Jain (A-1) allowed the accused parties to enjoy bank funds without sanction and cost. That in furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy Shri V. K. Jain (A-1) fraudulently and dishonestly, debited the CHR and LBRC account of the branch and made credits available in the account of accused private parties by way of releasing credits vouchers without any valuable consideration resulting in fictitious credits amounting to Rs. 172.38 lacs in their accounts by debiting the office accounts. Hence he allowed the accused parties to enjoy bank funds without sanction and cost.
Shri. V.K. Jain removed/replaced ledger of the bank and also tempered with the office record with a view to conceal the fraudulent transactions referred above. Shr. V.K. Jain willfully concealed, suppressed material facts and fraudulent transactions by not reporting to higher authorities.
Shri. V.K. Jain allowed fictitious credits by making funds available to various customers and not charging interest and commission thereby resulting loss of revenue to the bank. That the above mentioned fraudulent acts of omission/commission on the part of Shri. V.K. Jain (A-1) has caused undue pecuniary loss to the extent of Rs. 172.38 lacs to the bank and corresponding gain to himself and other private parties accused in this case. The investigation has revealed that in furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy Shri. V.K. Jain, by abusing his official position and without adhering the prescribed procedure of the CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.17 of 126 bank and without making a record of such transaction, fraudulently issued 22 Lacs amounting to Rs. 112.75 lac on behalf of Diamond Cable and Conductors (A-8), M/s G.K. Industrial Corporation (A-14), M/s Nitin Wire Industries (A-12), M/s Chaitanya Power Line (A-13), M/s P.D. Enterprises (A-10), M/s Uma Super Insulation (A-6), M/s Mohit Enterprises (A-9) and M/s Kamal Enterprises (A-7). All these L.Cs were issued in favour of one company namely, M/s BALCO Limited, Bilaspur. All the aforesaid parties, on behalf of whom the LCs were issued, were the family concerns of the accused S/Shri Dilip Kumar Gupta, Gulshan Kumar Gupta, Praveen Kumar Gupta and Devender Kumar Gupta. The details of the said LCs are as under:-
Sr. LC no. & Amount On behalf of Beneficiary No.
1. LC No. 1082B M/s Diamonds BALCO Ltd., Rs. 7,50,000/- Cables & Bilaspur Conductors
2. LC No. 1201B M/s Diamond BALCO Ltd., Rs. 11,00,000/- Cables & Bilaspur Conductors
3. LC No. 1083 B M/s G.K. BALCO Ltd., Rs. 2,50,000/- Industrial Bilaspur Corporation
4. LC No. 1086B M/s G.K. BALCO Ltd., Rs. 5,00,000/- Industrial Bilaspur Corporation
5. LC No. 1207 B M/s G.K. BALCO Ltd., Rs. 5,50,000/- Industrial Bilaspur Corporation
6. LC No. 1211B M/s G.K. BALCO Ltd., Rs. 5,50,000/- Industrial Bilaspur Corporation
7. LC No. 1106B M/s Nitin Wire BALCO Ltd., Rs. 2,75,000/- Industry Bilaspur
8. LC No. 1166B M/s Nitin Wire BALCO Ltd., Rs. 5,50,000/- Industry Bilaspur CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.18 of 126
9. LC No. 1202B M/s Nitin Wire BALCO Ltd., Rs. 5,50,000/- Industry Bilaspur
10. LC No. 1210 B M/s Nitin Wire BALCO Ltd., Rs. 5,50,000/- Industry Bilaspur
11. LC No. 1084B M/s Chaitanya BALCO Ltd., Rs. 4,75,000/- Powerlines Bilaspur
12. LC No. 1105B M/s Chaitanya BALCO Ltd., Rs. 2,75,000/- Powerlines Bilaspur
13. LC No. 1164B M/s Chaitanya BALCO Ltd., Rs. 5,50,000 Powerlines Bilaspur
14. LC No. 1185B M/s Chaitanya BALCO Ltd., Rs. 5,50,000/- Powerlines Bilaspur
15. LC No. 1209B M/s Chaitanya BALCO Ltd., Rs. 5,50,000/- Powerlines Bilaspur
16. LC No. 1203B M/s P.D. BALCO Ltd., Rs. 5,50,000/- Enterprises Bilaspur
17. LC No. 1085B M/s P.D. BALCO Ltd., Rs. 5,00,000/- Enterprises Bilaspur
18. LC No. 1165B M/s P.D. BALCO Ltd., Rs. 5,50,000/- Enterprises Bilaspur
19. LC No. 1107B M/s Uma Super BALCO Ltd., Rs. 2,75,000/- Bilaspur Insulation
20. LC No. 1208B M/s Uma Super BALCO Ltd., Rs. 5,50,000/- Insulation Bilaspur
21. LC No. 1108B M/s Mohit BALCO Ltd., Rs. 2,75,000/- Enterprises Bilaspur
22. LC No. 1204B M/s Kamal BALCO Ltd., Rs. 5,50,000/- Enterprises Bilaspur CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.19 of 126 Letter of Credit as disclosed during investigation, carries a promise or an undertaking by the issuing banker on behalf of its customer/purchaser to the supplying of goods that bill drawn under L/C in respect of goods supplied, will be honoured/paid on due date if the documents are in accordance with terms of L/C. For opening an L/C, the buyer/customer are in accordance with terms of L/C. For opening an L/C, the buyer/customer approaches his bank and gives an application/request. Then the bank makes a commercial appraisal about credit worthiness of the buyer and if found satisfactory, agrees to issue letter of credit. Bankers normally take some cash margin for securing L/C transaction. If found necessary then some collateral security is also stipulated. Then it is required to be entered in branch sanction register and to be reported to the Regional Manager.
The customer/borrower is required to execute L/C agreement undertaking to pay the amount of goods and bank charges. When the documents under L/C are received by the issuing bank, these are first recorded in IBC register under documents received under L/C. If there is a credit balance in current account of the party, the amount is recovered from the party and payment is made to the supplier's bank. If there is no balance available in current account of buyer, then the procedure is to open a forced loan account in the name of borrower for making payment to the supplier. Such forced loan accoount opened is required to be reported to the Regional Manager. Forced loan is subsequently recovered from the buyer/customer alongwith bank interest and charge.
For opening letter of credit, a request letter should be obtained from the party requesting for opening of L/C on their behalf, giving details of their requirement such as name of the beneficiary, date of shipment and negotiation, sight/usance period alongwith other relevant documents incorporating name of negotiating bank/branch. After receipt of the request credit assessment is made out to ascertain the requirement of L/C by the bank. If request is found to be commercially viable, then if the amount of L/C is within Branch Manager's sanctioning power, then the sanction by the branch otherwise the proposal for opening L/C alongwith the recommendation of the branch are submitted to the Regional Office for their sanction. Sh. V.K. Jain (A-1), in furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy deliberately flouted the above established norms and opened 22 letter of credits on behalf of accused parties. Investigation has revealed that the following proprietorship/partnership firms and Pvt. Ltd., companies were maintaining their current account in Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch:-
CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.20 of 126
1.M/s G.K. Electronics was the proprietorship concern of Shri Gulshan Kumar Gupta (A-3) having current account No. 559 with Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, Delhi.
2.M/s Uma Super Insulation was the partnership concern of Shri Devender Kumar Gupta (A-5) having current account No. 576 with Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, Delhi.
3.M/s Kamal Enterprises was the partnership concern of Shri Praveen Kumar Gupta (A-4) and Smt. Kamal Gupta having current Account No. 802 with Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, Delhi..
4.Ms. Pragati Conductors was the proprietorship concern of Shri Praveen Kumar Gupta (A-4) having current account No. 633 with Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, Delhi.
5.M/s G.K. Industrial Corporation was the partnership concern of Shri Devender Kumar Gupta (A-5) and Smt. Urmila Devi having current account No. 786 with Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, Delhi.
6.M/s Diamond Cables and Conductors was the partnership concern of Shri.Gulshan Kumar Gupta (A-3) and Smt. Meenu Gupta having current account No. 1009 with Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, Delhi.
7. M/s Mohit Enterprises was the partnership concern of Shri Gulshan Kumar Gupta (A-3) and Late Shri Hansraj Gupta having current account No. 803 with Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, Delhi.
8.M/s P.D. Enterprises was the partnership concern of Shri Dalip Kumar Gupta (A-2) and Smt. Anuradha Gupta having current account No. 712 with Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, Delhi.
9.M/s Strip India was the partnership concern of Shri Dalip Kumar Gupta (A-2) with Shri Pradeep Goyal having current account No. 5085 with Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, Delhi.
10.M/s Nitin Wire Industries was the partnership concern of Shri Dalip Kumar Gupta (A-2) with one Shri Pradeep Goyal, Delhi.
11.M/s Chaitanya Power Line Pvt. Ltd., was a private Ltd.
Company managed by Shri Dalip Kumar Gupta (A-2) having current account No. 806 with Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, Delhi.
PAY ORDERS The second allegation, according to the FIR was the issue of 38 pay orders with the total amount of Rupees 202 lacs by Shri CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.21 of 126 V.K. Jain (A-1) without receiving the consideration and without debiting the purchaser's account. In this regard, the investigation has revealed that Shri V.K. Jain had issued 36 pay orders (instead of 38, as per the FIR) in the name of MMTC and SBI. As a matter of rule, the pay orders are issued by the bank either on receipt of cash or by debiting the account of the concerned party. But in case of these pay orders, neither of the two things happened and instead, Shri V.K. Jain (A-1) fraudulently debited the local branch account or GL local branch account or CHR accounts. The in-depth investigation, in this regard, further revealed that M/s. G.K. Industrial Corporation (A-14), M/s. G.K. Electronics, M/s. P.D. Enterprises (A-10), M/s. Kamal Enterprises (A-7), M/s. Pragati Conductors, M/s. Mohit Enterprises (A-9), M/s. Diamond Cables and Conductors Co. (A-8), M/s. Uma Super Insulation (A-6) and M/s. Nitin Wire Industries (A-12) (all accused firms) has the dealing with MMTC, New Delhi and NALCO, Bhubaneshwar and were purchasing copper and aluminum wire rods respectively from them. These pay orders ultimately got deposited into the accounts of MMTC or NALCO, Bhubaneshwar on account of purchase of the above material by the aforesaid parties. The oral and documentary evidence collected during investigation has proved that the above accused parties used to furnish cheques of the amounts corresponding to the pay orders, only after the payments on account of the pay orders had been made by bank of Maharashtra. The time gap between the date of payment and the date of adjustment varied from about one month to around 6 months. In case of some of the pay orders, however, this time gap was even more. As the amount of such pay orders was deposited by the parties, and there was no monetary loss to the bank on behalf of the amount of the pay orders, the bank did incur loss on behalf of the interest due to the time gap. The investigations revealed that the total loss of interest on this account was Rs. 22,69,399/-.
During investigation, out of the said 36 pay orders, only 14 pay orders, in original, could be collected. The GEQD opinion thereupon has confirmed that these were issued under the signatures of Shri V.K. Jain (A-1). The GEQD opinion has also confirmed that the writings on these pay-orders were also of Shri V.K. Jain. A flow chart (Annexure-I) prepared by Shri L.M. Lokhande, Manager, Regional Office Bank of Maharashtra (D-
223) clearly brings out the position, as regards the pay orders. Investigation has revealed that Sh. V.K. Jain (A-1) on 22.11.90 had prepared in his writings and signature, the following six pay orders favouring State Bank of India, Shadhra Anaj Mandi Branch.
CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.22 of 126 S No Pay Order No. Amount In Rs. Bank in which the pay order was deposited and paid
1. 575,344 Rs. 4,57,795.05 p State Bank of India Shahdra Anaj Mandi Branch
2. 575,335 Rs. 4,55,767.30 p do
3. 575,336 Rs. 4,53,644.95 p do
4. 575,337 Rs. 6,47,018.07 P do
5. 575,338 Rs. 4,54,069.65P do
6. 575,339 Rs. 4,53,833.15P do It is revealed that Entries regarding issuance of such pay orders are available pay order register alongwith others vide item No. 191 at page 16. But on this date the total pay orders issued were for Rs. 1,32,49,990.30p., but Sh. V.K. Jain (A-1)has fraudulently recorded entry of Rs. 1,03,27,862.30p iIn the relevant head i.e. bills payable/pay order in cash book item No. 215/155 and entry of the amount of Rs. 29,22,128.17p. i.e. the amount of above referred six pay orders has not been recorded in the relevant column in the cash book. Further these pay order were presented for payment on 24.11.90 when entry to this effect was recorded in the pay order register item No. 191 (page 17 and 18) showing payment of said pay order. Sh. V.K.Jain fraudulently recorded entry of Rs. 29,22,128.17p under the head local branches in the cash book item No. 215/157 without actually receipt of payment from the party. He had also altered the entry of Rs. 53,52,584.50p by cutting original figure and thus reducing the total amount in the head bills payable which is the proper head related to pay order. From the above it is established that Sh. V.K. Jain (A-1) had issued the said six pay orders without actual consideration and had made payment on 24.11.90 from the head local branches of the bank without actually receiving the payment from the private parties but made the payment from the office account of the bank by making fraudulent alteration/cuttings in original figures under his own hand writing. He had fraudulently and dishonestly credited the local head branches account by debiting another office account i.e. clearing house receivable (CHR) on 29.12.90. In the instant case, the six pay orders in original are available but the relevant document i.e. CHR register for the period 1.7.90 to December, 1990 are not available for investigation. However the recovery of Pay Orders amount was made on/after 20.9.91 (The date when the fraud was caught by Bank Authorities) from the accused persons CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.23 of 126 S/Sh. Dilip Kumar Gupta, Gulshan Kumar Gupta, Praveen Kumar Gupta and Devender Kumar Gupta.
Investigation has further disclosed that Sh. V.K. Jain had issued the following Pay Orders which were paid to Canara Bank, BS Zafar Marg, Delhi and SBI, Nirankari Colony Branch, Delhi on 4.9.90. S No Pay order No. & date Amount in Rs. Beneficiary
1. 052807/30.8.90 4,30,236/- MMTC of India Ltd., Canara Bank, B.S. Zafar Marg.
N.Delhi
2. 052822/1.9.90 4,50,992.50/- State Bank of India.
Sant Nirankari Colony,Kingsway Camp, Delhi
3. 052823/1.9.90 4,52,641.67/- do
4. 052824/1.9.90 4,41,563.12/- do
5. 052825/1.9.90 4,52,249.21/- do On the basis of bills payable register of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, vide item No. 190, Sh Lokhande has confirmed that the above mentioned pay orders were paid on 4.9.90. and entries to this effect are available at page 154 of the register. For making payment of these pay orders on 4.9.90, Sh. V.K. Jain (A-1) fraudulently and dishonestly debited the CHR account of the branch on 4.9.90 by the consolidated amount of Rs. 22,27,682.50p and entry to this effect is available at page No. 255 of item No. 181 i.e. miscellaneous supplementary register of the branch. It is evident from the above that for issuing and making payment to these 5 pay orders favouring SBI and MMTC, no consideration have been received by the bank. Sh. Lokhande has also proved that pay order 052870 dated 9.9.90 for Rs. 18,33,688.80p issued in favour of State Bank of India, Sant Nirankari Colony,Delhi, was prepared and signed by Sh. V.K.Jain (A-1). He further confirmed that for issuing the said pay order, an entry has been made in the pay order register vide item 190 at page
158. This pay order on being presented by State Bank of India was paid on 14.9.90 and entry in respect of payment of said pay order is available at page 159 of pay order register. He further confirmed that on 14.9.90 for facilitating the payment of the said pay order, the CHR account of the branch has been debited for a sum of Rs. 18,35,688.80 p and entry to this effect is available at page 273 of miscellaneous supplementary register vide item No. 181. On the basis of available records the adjustment of the said pay order is neither available in the cash book nor the CHR account i.e. miscellaneous supplementary register of the branch.
CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.24 of 126 He has further proved that the pay order dated 13.9.90 No. 052880 for a sum of Rs.9,58,720.50p was paid to Canara Bank, B.S. Zafar Marg, Delhi on 13.9.90 i.e. on the date the pay order was issued. An entry has been made in the pay order register item No. 190 at page 159 and the same was made on 15.9.90. which entry is available at page 160 of the said pay order register. For facilitating payment of the said pay order Sh. V.K.Jain (A-1) has fraudulently and dishonestly debited the CHR account of the branch on 15.9.90 which entry is available in miscellaneous supplementary register item No. 181 at page 275.
On 23.8.90 pay order No. 052776 for an amount of Rs. 9,26,221.50 was issued from Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar favouring MMTC of India Ltd. This pay order has been prepared and signed by Sh. V.K. Jain the then Manager and the entries have been made in the pay order register vide item No. 190 at page 138. However, the amount was not credited to General Ledger Bill Payable Account which is done at the time of issuance of pay order. On 28.8.90 the said pay order was paid on being presented by Canara Bank, B.S. Zafar Marg, New Delhi through clearing by debiting general ledger pay order issue account. However, no corresponding credit has been received on 23.8.90 i.e. the date of issuance of pay order, it is evident the pay order has been issued without consideration. Thus the said pay order was issued by Sh. V.K.Jain (A-1) unauthorizedly and without receipt of any consideration for the same to give benefit to the accused and the corresponding loss to the bank.
The original instruments (Pay Orders) could not be made available during investigation for 22 Pay Orders. Six cases out of these are discussed hereunder, which are mentioned at Sl. No. 1 to 6 in the chart signed by the Bank Officer Shri Lokhande. Since, the original instruments are not available, the exact date of issue of the Pay Orders could not be known. However, these Pay Orders were received for payment on 25th January 1989 and the payment was made on the same day. The evidence for this is available in the RBI schedules. As a matter of rule, the entry on account of 6 Pay Orders would have come in the Bills Payable Register on that particular date, but no such entry are found there. However, in the Day Book, total sum of these Pay Orders has been debited to the account of local branch. The total amount of these 6 Pay Orders is Rs. 23,80,933.27. This bogus entry in the Day Book confirmed to be in the writing of Shri. V.K. Jain (A-1). These 6 Pay Orders were presented for payment by Canara Bank, Bahadurshah Jaffar Marg and the beneficiary was MMTC. The examination of records of MMTC and the oral evidence of the MMTC as well as Canara Bank officials have revealed that these were adjusted against the purchase of Copper Wire made by M/s G.K. Industrial Corporation, M/s G.K. Electronics, M/s P.D. Enterprises, M/s CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.25 of 126 Kamal Enterprises, M/s Pragati Conductors and M/s Mohit Enterprises.
Investigation could also establish that 6 cheques were received by the bank from the six private parties mentioned above. These cheques were of the corresponding amount of Pay Orders in question. According to normal bank procedure, the parties account would have been debited on account of these cheques and bills payable account would have been credited. But since in these cases, while issuing the Pay Orders no entry was made in the bank record, and while making the payment, the local branches account was debited, the credit of these cheques was given of Local Branches account.
Investigation has thus revealed that the total number of 22 Pay Orders which original instruments are not available on records of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi, were adjusted by the accused private parties in the following manner :-
Sl. Pay order Amount in Paid by Present Date of Party's name No. No. And Rs. Debit to ed by adjustment which Dt. account the with account was date of amount. debited for Payme adjustment nt with their Ch.
No.
1. 939,537 430092/34p Local Canara 25.2.89 G.K. Br. A/c Bank Industrial B.S. 430092/34 Corp. Ch.No. Zafar p 401080 Marg, issued by N.D. Smt. Urmila 25.1.89 Devi (partner)
2. 939,540 430077/50p -do- -do- 25.2.89 G.K Electronics 430077/50 Ch. No. p 399174 issued by Sh.
Gulshan Kumar Gupta (A-3) CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.26 of 126
3. 939,539 430077/50p -do- -do- 25.2.89 P.D. Enterprises 430077/50 Ch. No. p 401540 issued by Sh.
Dalip Kumar Gupta (A-2).
4. 939,543 347074/32p -do- -do- 25.2.89 Kamal Enterprises 347074/32 Ch. No. 401420 issued by Sh.
Praveen Kr.
Gupta (A-4)
5. 939,542 430082/50p -do- -do- 25.2.89 Pragati Conductors 430082/50 Ch. No. p 401939 issued by Sh.
Praveen Kr.
Gupta (A-4)
6. 939,541 313529/11p -do- -do- 25.2.89 Mohit Enterprises 313529/11 Ch. No. p 399360 issued by Sh.
Gulshan Kumar Gupta (A-3).
7. 940,343 2187280/84 G/L. SBI 13.3.90 Pragati p CHR Khureji Conductors Khas 2187280/8 Ch. No. Br. 4p 562618 9.6.89 issued by Sh.
Praveen Kumar Gupta (A-4).
8. 425,382 205000/00p -do- Canara 2.7.88 G.K. Bank Electronics E.P 205000/00 Ch. NO Nagar p 399061 1.7.88 issued by Sh.
CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.27 of 126 Gulshan Kumar Gupta (A-3)
9. 425,383 962400/00p -do- -do- 2.7.88 G.K. Industrial 962400/00 Corp. Ch.
p No. 401020 issued by Smt. Urmila Devi. 10. 940,137 247892/48 G/L Canara 16.5.89 G. K. p CHR Bank Electronics 247892/48 Ch. No. B.S.Z p 399120 Marg issued by Sh. 26.04.8 Gulshan 9 Kumar Gupta (A-3) 11. 940,138 267347/11p -do- -do- 16.5.89 Mohit Enterprises 267347/11 Ch. No. p 399395 issued by Sh. Gulshan Kumar Gupta (A-3) 12. 940,136 295956/86p -do- -do- 16.5.89 Kamal Enterprises 295976/86 Ch. No. p 401443 issued by Sh. Praveen Kumar Gupta (A-4) 13. 940,135 442966/96p -do- -do- 16.5.89 P.D. Enterprises 442966/96 Ch. No. p 401561 issued by Sh. Dalip Kumar Gupta (A-2) CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.28 of 126 14. 940,134 440,150 -do- -do- 16.5.89 G.K. Industrial Co. 440150/00 Ch. No. p 401095 issued by Sh. Devender Kumar Gupta (A-5) 15. 267,918 295956/00p -do- -do- 16.5.89 Kamal Enterprises 10.5.89 295976/00 Ch. No. p 401444 issued by Sh. Praveen Kumar Gupta (A-4). 16. 267,920 440150/00p -do- -do- 16.5.89 P.D. Enterprises 440150/00 ch. No. p 401562 issued by Sh. Dalip Kumar Gupta (A-2) 17. 267,922 267347/00p G/L Canara 16.5.89 Mohit CHR Bank Enterprises B.S. Z 267347/00 Ch. No. Marg p 399395 10.5.89 issued by Sh. Gulshan Kumar Gupta (A-3). 18. 267,921 247,893 -do- Canara 16.5.89 G.K. Bank Electronics B.S.Z 247893/00 Ch. No. Marg p 399211 issued by Sh. 26.4.89 Gulshan Kumar Gupta (A-3) 19. 267,919 440150/00p -do- -do- 16.5.89 G.K. Industrial Corp. Ch. CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.29 of 126 440150/00 No. 401094 p issued by Sh. Devender Kumar Gupta (A-5) 20. 941,030 929159/85p -do- SBI I.P 13.3.90 G.K. Est. Industrial 27.10.8 929159/85 Corp. Ch. 9 p No. 401202 issued by Sh. Devender Kumar Gupta (A-5) 21 51153/ 744234/42p -do- SBI 13.2.90 Diamond 27.1.90 Delhi Cables ch. Univer 744234/42 No. 560113 sity p issued by Sh. Gulshan BR Kumar Gupta 31.1.90 (A-3) 22. 51152/ 414750/85p -do- SBI 13.2.90 G.K. 27.1.90 Sant Industrial Nirank 414750/85 Corp. Ch. ari p No. 401190 Colony issued by Smt. Urmila 30.1.90 Devi.
The above modus operandi indicates that Shri V.K. Jain (A-1) in conspiracy with other accused persons had issued Pay Orders illegally and the parties later on reimbursed the amount by their cheques. In all these accounts undue favour was shown by Shri V.K. Jain (A-1) by abusing his official position as public servant to the accused private parties.
Investigation could establish that the parties had reimbursed amounts of these Pay Orders to the bank in 22 cases out of 36 by separate cheques which can be taken as an evidence of criminal conspiracy against them. In case of rest of 14 Pay Orders also, the oral evidence has clarified that the recovery of original Pay Orders amount has been made by the bank. Thus monetary loss to the bank is in respect of the amount of interest on the CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.30 of 126 principal for the interim period. It has been quantified by Shri Lokhande in the chart as Rs. 22,69,399/-.
Fraudulent credits by debiting CHR or Local Branch Reconciliation Account and credit given to various accounts:-
Investigation with regard to creating fictitious debits in local branch reconciliation account (LBRC) and affording corresponding fictitious credits in the accounts of accused firms, it has been revealed that on 23.11.90 Sh. V.K. Jain (A-1) passed 14 fake credit vouchers for a total sum of Rs. 1,40,00,000/- and afforded credits to the accounts of accused firms as under:-
1. Pragati Conductors (A-4) - Rs. 37,00,000/-
2. G.K Industrial Corp. (A-13)- Rs. 19,05,000/-
3. Kamal Enterprises (A-6)- Rs. 11,00,000/-
4. Mohit Enterprises (A-8)- Rs. 36,45,000/-
5. P.D. Enterprises (A-9)- Rs. 12,00,000/-
6. Diamond Cables (A-7)- Rs. 24,50,000/-
Sh. D.K. Bhardwaj, Manager, Bank of Maharashtra has proved that on 22.11.90 there was a total outward clearing of the branch to the tune of Rs. 23,26,401.70p that means no such cheques for the total amount of Rs. 1,40,00,000/- favouring accused firms were received in the branch and that on the same day Sh. V.K. Jain (A-1) had debited fraudulently of Rs. 1,40,00,000/- to local branch reconciliation branch account (LBRC) whereas the original debits to LBRC in the branch on that day was of Rs. 1,23,032/- only but the same has been inflated in the cash book by a sum of Rs. 1,40,00,000/-. The false credit to the parties account is available in the ledger vide No 41 and the debit entries are available in LBRC supplementary (item No. 116 dated 23.11.90) and the cash book (item No. 215 at page 156). The credits had gone to the accounts of above accused firms and the corresponding debit was given to the Local Branch Reconciliation account on 23.11.90. The GEQD opinion has confirmed that these vouchers were passed by Shri VK Jain (A-
1) and the entries were also under his handwriting. The investigation has confirmed that the above amount of Rs. 140 lacs was adjusted to the extent of Rs. 80 lac vide three different cheques dated 7.12.90 drawn on the account of M/s. Diamond Cables & Conductors (A-8), M/s. Mohit Enterprises (A-9) and M/s. G K Industrial Corporation (A-14). Another sum of Rs. 60 lac was finally recovered from accused no. A-2 to A-5, after the fraud surfaced. Shri D K Bhardwaj, Manager, Bank of Maharashtra in his statement has stated that the Bank had suffered a loss of Rs. 9.88 lac by way of interest on above CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.31 of 126 fictitious credits. Thus, the total loss of interest suffered by Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi on account of fraudulent issuance of pay orders on behalf of accused firms and also fictitious credits given to them was to the extent of Rs. 32.57 lacs.
The aforesaid facts reveal commission of offences by U/s 120B IPC r/w Sec. 418, 420, 468, 471, 477(A) IPC and Sec. 5(2) r/w 5(1)(d) of PC Act, 1947 and Sec. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)) of PC Act, 1988 and Substantive offences U/s 418, 420, 468, 471, 477(A) IPC and Sec. 5(2) r/w 5(1)(d) of PC Act, 1947 and Sec. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988. against S/Shri V.K. Jain (A-1), Dalip Kumar Gupta (A-2), Gulshan Kumar Gupta (A-3), Parveen Kumar Gupta (A-4) and Devender Kumar Gupta (A-5), M/s. Uma Super Insulation (A-6), M/s. Kamal Enterprises (A-7), M/s. Diamond Cables & Conductors (A-8), M/s. Mohit Enterprises (A-9), M/s. P D Enterprises (A-10), M/s. Strip India (A-11), M/s. Nitin Wire Industries (A-12), M/s. Chaitanya Powerlines Pvt. Ltd. (A-13) and M/s. G K Indl. Corp. (A-14). Sanction for prosecution shall not be required as Shri V.K. Jain (A-1) has been dismissed from bank service.
During the course of investigation, no incriminating evidence was found against M/s Jesica Exports, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi for the reasons that the account opening form was not available in bank record and transaction has also not taken place in this account.
It is, therefore, prayed that the cognizance may kindly be taken and the accused be summoned and tried as per law. List of witnesses of documents are enclosed with this chargesheet and additional list of documents and statement of witnesses could be submitted if necessary in the interest of justice.
7. The contents of first charge-sheet are as under:-
Charge-sheet RC 7(A)/1994 (CC No.6/2015) "Name of accused persons.
1.Vinay Kumar Jain s/o Late Sh T.C.Jain Ex.Branch Manager, Bank of Maharashtra Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, Delhi R/o A-74, Ram Prastha, Ghaziabad, U.P. (Public Servant)
2. Dalip Kumar Gupta s/o Late Sh. Hans Raj Gupta R/o 496/A, Bhola Nath Nagar Shahdara, Delhi-110032 (private person and Partner in M/s P.D. Enterprises, M/s Strip India)
3. Gulshan Kumar Gupta s/o Late Sh. Hans Raj Gupta CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.32 of 126 R/o 496/A, Bhola Nath Nagar Shahdara, Delhi-110032 (private person and Proprietor of M/s G.K.Electronics & Partner in M/s Mohit Enterprises)
4. Parveen Kumar Gupta s/o Late Sh. Hans Raj Gupta.
R/o 496/A, Bhola Nath Nagar Shahdara, Delhi-110032 (private person and Proprietor of M/s Pragati Conductors and Partner in M/s Kamal Enterprises)
5. Devender Kumar Gupta s/o Late Sh. Hans Raj Gupta. R/o 496/A, Bhola Nath Nagar Shahdara, Delhi-110032 (private person and Partner in M/s G.K.Indl Corporation and M/s Uma Super Insulation)
6. M/s Uma Super Insulation, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-32 (Through A-5).
7. M/s Kamal Enterprises, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-32. (Through A-4)
8. M/s Mohit Enterprises, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-32. (Through A-3).
9. M/s P.D. Enterprises, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-32. (Through A- 2).
10.M/s Strip India, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-32. (Through A-2).
11.M/s G.K. Industrial Corporation, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-32. (Through A-5).
Accused not sent up for trial
1. M/s Jesica Exports, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi
2. M/s. Daimond Cable & Conductors, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi
3. M/s Nitin Wire Industries, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi
4. M/s Chaitanya Powerlines Pvt.Ltd., Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi The case RC 7(A)/94 was registered on 23.08.1994 on a written complaint by Sh. R.B.Rane, DGM, Bank of Maharashtra, Northern Zone, Ajmal Khan Road, New Delhi u/s 120-B r/w Sec.204, 468, 471, 477-A of IPC and Sec. 5(1) (d) of PC Act, 1947 and Sec. 13(1) (d) of PC Act, 1988 and Substantive Offence u/s 420, Sec.204, 468, 471, 477A of IPC & Sec. 5(1) (d) of PC Act, 1947 and Sec. 13(1) (d) of P.C Act, 1988, with the allegations that Sh V.K.Jain (A-1) while working as Branch Manager, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi, Bank of Maharashtra during May 1986 to Sept. 1986 entered into criminal conspiracy with Sh Dalip Kumar Gupta (A-2), Gulshan Kumar Gupta (A-3), Parveen Kumar Gupta (A-4) and Devender Kumar Gupta (A-5) and in furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy Sh. V.K.Jain (A-1) fraudulently, dishonestly, without adhering to prescribed procedure of the bank and by abusing his official position as public servant allowed them to enjoy bank CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.33 of 126 funds to the fund of Rs.20.00 Crores without sanction and cost, by way of debiting cheques drawn by them against office accounts of the said bank i.e. CHR/LBRC and central office reconciliation accounts.
According to the FIR, in total, 384 cheques were passed for payment by Sh. V.K.Jain (A-1) without debiting the amounts against their account. Instead, Sh. Jain debited the office accounts namely, CHR account or local branch reconciliation account. Total amount involved, according tot the FIR was to the tune of Rs.20.00 Crores.
Keeping in view the volume of work involved into the investigation of all these 384 instances, the investigation was restricted to sample checking. 25 instances involving amount of Rs.89,53,867/- could be covered during investigation. The criteria for sampling which was adopted was the availability of relevant documents i.e. the cheques in original, RBI schedules, cash book entries, statement of account of parties and the relevant vouchers.
The investigation into these 25 instances has revealed that the cheques were cleared/paid by the bank without debiting the concerned parties accounts maintained in the bank. Instead, the amount was debited to CHR account which was a nominal account. The investigation also has revealed that on the date when these cheques were passed (the date of debiting the CHR account), the balance available in the parties accounts were sufficient for passing the payment. Later on, after a period ranging from one day to 138 days (depending on the availability of funds in the parties account), the parties account was debited and the CHR account would be given the credit to make the adjustment complete. It clearly shows the conspiracy between Sh. V.K. Jain (A-1) with Accused no.2 to accused no.5 whereby he allowed the bank funds to these parties causing interest loss to the bank. On account of these 25 instances, the interest loss to the bank, as worked out during investigation by Sh. Pahuja, comes to the tune of Rs.1,86,953/-.
Investigation disclosed that on 12.04.1989, Sh. Parveen Kumar Gupta (A-4) Proprietor of M/s Pragati Conductors vide Account No.633 issued cheque no. 401498 for Rs.5.00 Lac and cheque no. 401985 for Rs.2.50 Lac in favour of M/s Paper Conductors. These two cheques were presented by Bank of India, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, Delhi through clearing on 13.04.1989 for payment and the same were paid by the bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, Delhi. Both these cheques were passed for payment fraudulently and dishonestly by Sh.V K Jain CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.34 of 126 (A-1) and abused his official position as public servant to give pecuniary advantage to Accused no.4, while account of M/s Pragati Conductors vide Account No.633 was having a meager balance of Rs.1516 on 13.04.1989. Similarly, Sh. Dalip Kumar Gupta (A-2) Managing Partner of M/s Strip India vide Account No. 5085 issued a cheque no. 399905 dated 12.04.1989 for Rs.7,50,000/- in favour of M/s Kansal Metal. This cheque was also presented by Bank of India, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg for payment and the same was paid on 13.04.1989. On this date the current account no. 5085 of M/s Strip India was maintaining a debit balance (no credit balance) of Rs.97,670). The above three cheques issued by Sh. Parveen Kumar Gupta (A-4) and Sh Dalip Kumar Gupta (A-2) were passed by Sh. V.K.Jain (A-1) for payment by debiting the CHR account of the branch. Subsequently on 27.06.1989, in the event of availability of funds in these two accounts namely M/s Pragati Conductors and M/s Strip India, the funds were transferred to the CHR account and debit entries were adjusted by Sh. VK Jain (A-1) and thereby causing interest loss of Rs.61,643/- on account of fraudulent passing and payment of these three cheques.
Investigation disclosed that on 16.06.1989, Sh. Parveen Kumar Gupta (A-4) Proprietor of M/s Pragati Conductors vide Account No. 633, issued a cheque No. 286913 for Rs.7,50,000/- in favour of M/s Hindustan Metal Industries. This cheque was presented to Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, Delhi through clearing for payment by Bank of India, Mayur Vihar Branch, Delhi on 19.06.1989 and the same was fraudulently passed for payment by Sh. V.K.Jain (A-1) and paid on 20.06.1989 while the current account of M/s Pragati Conductor was having a balance of Rs.1,21,516/- only. Similarly, on 16.06.1989 itself Sh. Praveen Kumar Gupta (A-4), Partner in M/s Kamal Enterprises vide account no. 802 issued cheque no. 401358 for Rs.4,50,000/- in favour of M/s Hindustan Metal Industries and another cheque no. 401359 for Rs,3,00,000/- in favour of M/s Shakti Metal. These two cheques were presented to Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, Delhi through clearing by Bank of India, Mayur Vihar Branch, Delhi for payment and the same were fraudulently passed by Sh. V.K.Jain (A-1) and paid on 20.06.1989. Investigation has also disclosed that the above three cheques issued by Sh. Parveen Kumar Gupta (A-4) were passed for payment by Sh. V.K.Jain (A-1) by fraudulently debiting the CHR account of the branch whereas on 20.06.1989, the accounts of M/s Pragati Conductors and M/s Kamal Enterprises were maintaining insufficient balance. Subsequently on 23.06.1989 in the event of availability of funds in these two accounts, the debit entries to CHR were adjusted by Sh. VK Jain (A-1) by transfer of funds from these CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.35 of 126 two current accounts M/s Pragati Conductors and M/s M/s Kamal enterprises. Debit and credit vouchers and entries in day books on these dates are in the hand writings of Sh. VK Jain (A-1). Thus, the bank was put to an interest loss of Rs.2466/- on account of fraudulent passing the payment of above three cheques by Sh. VK Jain (A-1) by abusing his official position as Manager of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, Delhi.
Investigation further disclosed that Sh. Dalip Kumar Gupta (A-
2) on 27.6.87, issued cheque no.142583 for Rs.2,50,000/- in favour of M/s Om Sons Wire Industries. Cheque No.142584 for Rs.2,50,000/- in favour of M/s Om Sons Wire Industries and Cheque No. 142585 for Rs.1,50,000/- in favour of Ms/ Shakti Cables. These three cheques Sh. Dalip Kumar Gupta (A-2) issued from the current account no.712 of M/s P.D Enterprises, signing as partner in this firm. Similarly, Sh. Devender Kumar Gupta (A-5) partner in M/s Uma Super insulation issued another cheque no.251166 dated 28.06.87 for Rs.2,00,000/- in favour of M/s Super Industries. The above three cheques issued from the account of M/s P.D Enterprises vide account no. 712 were presented in clearing by UCO Bank, New Subzi Mandi Branch, Delhi and State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Delhi for payment on 01.07.1987 and the same was fraudulently passed and paid on 01.07.1987 while the account of M/s P.D Enterprises vide account no. 712 was having a debit balance (not credit balance) of Rs.1,93,783/- on that day. But Sh. VK Jain (A-1) fraudulently and dishonestly passed these payments by debiting the CHR head account of the branch and subsequently on 31.07.87, in the event of availability of funds in this account, the debit entries to CHR head were adjusted. The cheque no. 251166 for Rs.2,00,000/- issued from the account of M/s Uma Super Insulation when presented for payment by Canara Bank, Vivek Vihar, Delhi through clearing was fraudulently passed by Sh. V.K.Jain (A-1) and paid on 01.07.1987 by debiting the CHR head of the branch while the current account of M/s Uma Super Insulation on that day was having a debit balance (not credit balance) of Rs.88,929/-. It was on 31.07.87, in the event of availability of funds in this account, the debit entry to CHR head was adjusted through transfer of funds. However, Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch incurred a total interest loss of Rs.13,973/- on account of fraudulent passing and payment of above four cheques issued from the account of M/s P.D Enterprises (A-9) and M/s Uma Super Insulation (A-6).
Investigation further disclosed that Sh Gulshan Kumar Gupta (A-3) Proprietor of M/s G.K. Electronics., issued cheque no. 135378 dated 18.06.87 for Rs.2,00,000/- in favour of M/s CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.36 of 126 Sanjeev Metal Udyog, Cheque No. 135379 dated 19.06.1987 for Rs.2,25,000/- in favour of S K Metal Co and cheque no. 135381 dated 19.06.1987 for Rs.1,25,000/- in favour of M/s Star Aluminum. These three cheques when presented to Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, Delhi through clearing for payment on 20.06.87, the current account of M/s GK Electronics vide account no.559 was having only a marginal balance of Rs.19,127/- but Sh VK Jain (A-1) fraudulently and dishonestly passed these three cheques for payment by debiting the CHR Head of the branch and subsequently in the event of availability of funds in this account on 28.06.87, the above debit entries to CHR head were adjusted through transfer of funds from this account. However, Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, Delhi incurred interest loss of Rs.2410/- on account of fraudulent passing and payment of these three cheques drawn on account of M/s G.K. Electronics.
Investigation disclosed that on 17.07.1987, Sh. Gulshan Kumar Gupta (A-3) issued a cheque no. 135397 of Rs.6,17,303.25 from the current account of Ms/ G.K. Electronics at Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, Delhi, in favour of M/s Om Sons Wire Industry. The said cheque was presented through clearing by State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Delhi for payment and the same was passed for payment by Sh.V.K Jain (A-1) on 18.07.87 by fraudulently debiting CHR Head of the branch. On that date the current account of M/s G K Electronics vide account no. 559 was having a debit balance (not credit balance) of Rs.2,24,752/-) even then the cheque for Rs.6,17,303/25 was passed by Sh. V K Jain (A-1) unauthorizedly and fraudulently. On 25.07.1987 in the event of availability of funds in the account of M/s GK Electronics, the aforesaid debit entry to CHR Head was adjusted by transfer of funds. However, the Bank suffered interest loss of Rs.2368/- due to misuse of official position by Sh. VK Jain (A-1) as Manager of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, Delhi.
Investigation disclosed that on 30.01.87, Sh. Gulshan Kumar Gapta (A-3) Proprietor of M/s G.K. Electronics issued a cheque no.144996 for Rs.6,80,064/- in favour of MMTC India Ltd. The said cheque was presented through clearing by State of Bank of India, Rajendra Place, New Delhi for payment on 10.02.87 and the same was paid by Sh. V.K Jain (A-1) by fraudulently debiting the CHR head of the branch. On that day, the current account of M/s G.K. Electronics vide account no.559 was having a nominal balance of Rs.17,070/-even then the said cheque was fraudulently passed for payment by Sh. V K Jain (A-1) to give benefit to the accused firm. Subsequently on 28.06.1987 in the event of availability of funds in the account of CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.37 of 126 Ms. GK Electronics, the debit entry to CHR head was adjusted through transfer of funds from the current account of M/s GK Electronics. However, the Bank was put to an interest loss of Rs.51,424/- due to abuse of official position by Sh V.K Jain (A-
1).
Investigation further disclosed that on 11.06.1987 Sh Dalip Kumar Gupta (A-2) Partner in M/s P.D Enterprises vide current account no. 712 issued a cheuqe for Rs.3,80,000/- in favour of M/s Super Industries. The said cheque was presented by Canara Bank, Vivek Vihar Branch, Delhi through clearing for payment and the same was passed and paid on 12.06.87 by Sh.VK Jain (A-1) fraudulently by debiting CHR Head of the Branch. On that day the current account of M/s P D Enterprises was having a debit balance (not credit balance) of Rs.2,04,672/-, even then the cheque of this party was passed for payment by Sh V K Jain (A-
1). Subsequently, on 27.6.87 in the event of availability of funds in the current account of M/s P D Enterprises, the aforesaid debit entry to CHR was adjusted through transfer of funds from the aforesaid current account. However, the Bank incurred interest loss of Rs.2924/- due to abuse of official position by Sh. V K Jain (A-1) as Manager of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, Delhi.
Investigation disclosed that on 02.02.88, Sh Devender Kumar Gupta (A-5) Partner in M/s GK Industrial Corporation (A-11) issued a cheque no.266471 for Rs.4,75,000/- in favour of M/s Om Sons Wire Industries. The said cheque was presented through clearing for payment by Andhra Bank, Vishwas Nagar Branch, Delhi and the same was passed for payment on 04.02.1988 by Sh. V.K.Jain (A-1) by fraudulently debiting the CHR head of the branch. On that day the current account of M/s G.K Industrial Corporation (A-11) vide account no.786 was having a nominal balance of Rs.29,639/-. Subsequently on 30.3.88, in the event of availability of funds in the account of M/s G K Indul. Corp (A-11) the debit entry to CHR head was adjusted by transfer of funds from the account of M/s GK Industrial Corporation (A-11). Similarly, on 2.2.88, Sh Parveen Kumar Gupta (A-4), Partner in M/s Kamal Enterprises (A-7) issued a cheque no. 266431 for Rs.4,25,000/- in favour of M/s Universal Machine. The said cheque was presented through clearing by Andhra Bank, Vishwas Nagar, Delhi for payment and the same was passed for payment by Sh V.K Jain (A-1) by fraudulently debiting CHR head of the branch. On that day, the current account no. 802 of M/s Kamal Enterprises (A-7) was having a debit balance ( not credit balance) of Rs.1,37,283/- even then Sh V.K.Jain (A-1) fraudulently and dishonestly passed the aforesaid cheque for Rs.4,25,000/- for payment. The CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.38 of 126 aforesaid debit entry to CHR head of the Branch was adjusted on 30.3.88 by transfer of funds from the current account of M/s Kamal Enterprises (A-7) vide account no.802. However, the bank was put to total interest loss of Rs.26,630/- on account of fraudulent passing of these two cheques by debit to CHR account of the branch.
Investigation disclosed that on 29.2.88, Sh. Gulshan Kumar Gupta (A-3) Prop. Of M/s G.K.Electronics vide account no. 559 issued a cheque no.399011 for Rs.2,50,000/- in favour of M/s Om Sons Wire Industries. The said cheque was presented by Andhra Bank, Viswas Nagar Branch, Delhi through clearing for payment and the same was paid by Sh. VK Jain (A-1) on 5.3.88 by fraudulently debiting CHR Head of the branch. On that day, the current account of M/s GK Electronics vide account no.559 was having a nominal balance of Rs.2485/-, even then the said cheque for Rs.2,50,000/- was passed and paid by Sh. V.K Jain (A-1). Subsequently, on 30.3.88 in the event of availability of funds in the current account of M/s G.K Electronics, the said debit entry to CHR Head was adjusted by transfer of funds from the current account no.559 of M/s G.K.Electronics. Similarly on 29.2.88 Sh Parveen Kumar Gupta (A-4) Prop. Of M/s Pragati Conductors vide account no. 633 issued a cheque no. 397647 for Rs.2,40,000/- in favour of M/s Universal Machine. The said cheque was presented through clearing for payment by Andhra Bank, Viswas Nagar Branch, Delhi and the same was passed for payment by Sh. V.K.Jain (A-1) on 5.3.88 by fraudulently debiting CHR Head of the branch. On that day the current account of M/s Pragati Conductors vide account no. 633 was having a nominal balance of Rs.1475/- even then Sh VK Jain (A-1) fraudulently and dishonestly passed and paid the cheque of Rs.2,40,000/-. Subsequently, on 30.3.88, in the event of availability of funds in the current account of M/s Pragati Conductors, the debit entry to CHR head was adjusted by Sh. VK Jain (A-1) illegally by transfer of funds from the current account no. 633 of M/s Pragati Conductors. In the same manner on 28.2.88 Sh Parveen Kumar Gupta (A-4) partner of M/s Kamal Enterprises (A-7) issued the cheque no. 266442 for Rs.5,10,000/- in favour of M/s Om Sons Wire Industries. The said cheque was presented through clearing for payment by Andhra Bank, Viswas Nagar Branch, Delhi and the same was passed for payment by Sh. VK Jain on 5.3.88 by fraudulently debiting CHR head of the branch. On that day the current account no. 802 of M/s Kamal Enterprises was having a nominal balance of Rs.771/- even then the cheque for Rs.5,10,000/- was passed by Sh. VK Jain (A-1). Subsequently, on 30.3.88 in the event of availability of funds in the current account no. 802 of M/s Kamal Enterprises, the debit entry to CHR head was CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.39 of 126 adjusted through transfer of funds from the current account of M/s Kamal Enterprises. Investigation has also disclosed that on 29.2.88, Sh Gulshan Kumar Gupta (A-3) of M/s Mohit Enterprises (A-8) vide account no. 803, issued a cheque no. 265999 for Rs.2,49,500/- in favour of M/s Om Sons Wire Industry. The said cheque was presented through clearing for payment by Andhra Bank, Viswas Nagar Branch, Delhi and the same was passed for payment by Sh. V K Jain (A-1) on 5.3.88 by fraudulently debiting the CHR head of the branch. On that day the current account of M/s Mohit Enterprises was having insufficient balance of Rs.35,458/- even then the said cheque for Rs.2,49,500/- was passed by Sh. V K Jain unauthorizedly and by abusing his official position. Subsequently in the event of availability of funds in the current account of M/s Mohit Enterprises, the debit entry in the CHR head was adjusted through transfer of funds from the current account of M/s Mohit Enterprises. However, the bank incurred interest loss of Rs.17,116/- on account of fraudulent passing of above four cheques on 5.3.88.
Investigation has further revealed that on 2.3.88 Sh Parveen Kumar Gupta (A-4) the Partner in M/s Kamal Enterprises (A-7) vide account no. 802 issued a cheque no.266443 in favour of M/s Om Sons Wire Industries. The said cheque was presented through clearing for payment by State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Delhi and the same was passed and paid by Sh. VK Jain (A-1) unauthorizedly, by fraudulently debiting CHR head of the Branch. On that day, the current account of M/s Kamal Enterprises (A-7) vide account no.802 was having a nominal balance of Rs.771/- even then the said cheque was paid by Sh. VK Jain on 9.3.88. Subsequently, in the event of availability of funds in the current account of M/s Kamal Enterprises, the debit entry in the CHR head was adjusted on 30.3.88 by transfer of fund from the current account of M/s Kamal Enterprises. However, the bank was put to interest loss of Rs.2301/- on account of this fraudulent payment and misuse of official position by Sh V K Jain (A-1).
Investigation has also disclosed that on 23.3.88 Sh Gulshan Kumar Gupta (A-3) Prop. Of M/s G.K.Electronics issued a cheque no. 399023 for Rs.1,60,000/- in favour of Bharat Aluminum Company. The said cheque was presented through clearing for payment and the same was passed and paid on 29.3.88 by Sh. VK Jain (A-1) by fraudulently debiting CHR head of the branch. On that day, the current account of M/s GK Electronics vide account no.559 was having the balance of Rs.34,999/-, even then the cheque was passed for payment. Subsequently, on 30.3.88, in the event of availability of funds in CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.40 of 126 the account of M/s GK Electronics, the debit entry to CHR head was adjusted. However, the bank incurred interest loss of Rs.87/- on the said fraudulent payment.
Investigation has further revealed that on 27.2.88, Smt. Urmilla Devi, Partner in M/s GK Industrial Corporation (A-11) issued a cheque no.266481 for Rs.3,67,000/-. The said cheque was presented through clearing Allahabad Bank, Daryaganj Branch, Delhi for payment and the same was passed and paid by Sh. VK Jain (A-1) on 1.3.88 by fraudulently debiting CHR head of the branch. On that day the current account of M/s. GK Industrial Corporation (A-11) vide account no.786 having a nominal balance of Rs.436/- only, even then the cheque for Rs,3,67,000/- was passed for payment. The said entry in the CHR head was subsequently adjusted by Sh VK Jain (A-1) on 19.3.88 by transfer of funds from the current account of M/s GK Industrial Corporation (A-11). However, the bank incurred interest loss of Rs.3620/- due to abuse of official position by Sh. VK Jain (A-1) as Manager of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, Delhi. Thus, the total loss caused to the Bank was Rs.1,86,953/-.
The aforesaid facts disclosed commission of offences u/s 120B IPC r/w Sec 418, 420, 468, 471, 477(A) IPC and Sec.5(2) r/w 5(1)(d) of PC Act, 1947 and Sec. 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of PC Act, 1988 and Substantive offences u/s 418, 420, 468, 471, 477(A) IPC and Sec. 5(2) r/w 5(1) (d) of PC Act 1947 and Sec. 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of PC Act 1988 against Sh VK Jain (A-1), Dalip Kumar Gupta (A-2), Gulshan Kumar Gupta (A-3), Parveen Kumar Gupta ( A-4) and Devender Kumar Gupta (A-5), M/s Uma Super Insulation (A-6), M/s Kamal Enterprises (A-7) M/s Mohit Enterprises (A-8), M/s P.D. Enterprises (A-9), M/s Strip India (A-10) and M/s GK Indl. Corp. (A-11).
During the course of investigation, it was found that no clearing cheques issued from the account of M/s Jesica Exports, M/s Diamond Cables and Conductors, M/s Nitin Wire Industries and M/s Chaitanya Powerlines Pvt. Ltd. were passed for payment fraudulently and without debiting their respective accounts.
It is therefore, prayed that the cognizance may kindly be taken and the accused be summoned and tried as per law. List of witnesses of documents are enclosed with this charge-sheet and additional list of documents and statement of witnesses could be submitted if necessary in the interest of justice".
CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.41 of 126
8. The contents of list of witnesses as well as the list of documents in both the cases are also required to be compared and thus the same are required to be specified here for the purpose of comparison. The same are reproduced as under:-
LIST OF WITNESSES in CC NO.56/19
1. Sh. S.M. Lal, Chief Manager, Inspection & Audit, Bank of Maharashtra, Lok Mangal, 1501, Shivaji Nagar, Pune-5.
2. Sh. D.K. Bhardwaj, Sr. Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, Regional Office, New Delhi.
3. Sh. R.K. Pahuja, Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, East Patel Nagar Branch, N. Delhi.
4. Sh. N.M. Lokhande, Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, Regional Office, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
5. Sh. V.P. Bhadola, Dy. Manager, Finance, MMTC, New Delhi.
6. Sh. O.P. Kabirpanthy, Sr. Manager, Canara Bank, East Patel Nagar Branch, New Delhi.
7. Sh. S.K. Khaneja, Sr. Manager, Canara Bank, B. S. Zafar Marg, N. Delhi.
8. Sh. R.P Sharma, Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Shahdara Anajmandi Delhi Branch.
9. Sh. J.S. Duggal, Manager, SBI, Sant Nirankari Colony, Delhi.
10.Sh. J.K. Bhalla, AGM, SBI, Delhi University Branch.
11. Sh. Anil Sharma, Manager, State Bank of India, Khurejikhas Branch Delhi.
12. Sh. B.K. Mishra, Dy. Manager , NALCO, Bhubaneshwar Branch
13. Sh. A.K. Dora, Manager (marketing), NALCO, Bhubaneshwar.
14. Sh. R.K. Khurana, Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar, Branch, Delhi.
15. Shri Anil Kumar Singh, Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, Vivek Vihar Branch.
16. Shri Mohinder Singh, Asstt. GEQD, Shimla.
17. Devinder Singh, DSP, CBI, SIU-VIII, New Delhi.
CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.42 of 126
18. A.K. Singh, Inspector, CBI, SIU-VIII, New Delhi.
LIST OF WITNESSES IN CC NO.6/15 (RC 7(A)/94- CBI/SIU. VIII/NEW DELHI)
1.Sh S.M.Lal, Chief Manager, Inspection & Audit, Bank of Maharashtra, HO Lok Mangal, 1501, Shivaji Nagar, Pune-5
2. Sh DK Bhardwaj, Sr. Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, Regional Office, New Delhi.
3. Sh R.K.Pahuja, Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, East Patel Nagar Branch, New Delhi
4. Sh N.M.Lokhande, Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, Regional Office, Karol Bagh, New Delhi
5. Sh R.K.Khurana, Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, Delhi.
6 Sh Anil Kumar Singh, Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, Vivek Vihar Branch.
7. Sh Mohinder Singh, Asstt. GEQD, Shimla.
8. Sh Devinder Singh, DSP, SIU-VIII, New Delhi
9. Sh A.K.Singh, Inspector, CBI SIU-VIII, New Delhi LIST OF DOCUMENTS (CC No.6/15)
1. Cheque No. 266431 dated 2/2/88 for Rs. 4,25,000/- drawn on Account No. 802 of Kamal Enterprises with Bank of Maharashtra Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi favouring M/s Universal Machine.
2. Cheque No. 266442 dated 28/2/88 for Rs. 5,10,000/- drawn on Account No. 802 of Kamal Enterprises with Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi favouring M/s Om Sons Wire Industry.
3. Cheque No. 266443 dated 2/3/88 for Rs. 2,00,000/- drawn on Account No. 802 of Kamal Enterprises with Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi favouring M/s Om Sons Wire Industry,
4. Cheque No. 401359 dated 16/6/89 for Rs. 3,00,000/- drawn on Account No. 802 of Kamal Enterprises with Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi favouring M/s Shakti Metal, CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.43 of 126
5. Cheque No. 401358 dated 16/6/89 for Rs. 4,50,000/- drawn on Account No. 802 of Kamal Enterprises with Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi favouring M/s Hindustan Metal Industry,
6. Cheque No. 142574 dated 11/6/87 for Rs. 3,80,000/- drawn on Account of M/s P.D. Enterprises with Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi favouring M/s Super Industries,
7. Cheque No. 142584 dated 27/6/87 for Rs. 2,50,000/- drawn on Account of M/s P.D. Enterprises with Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi favouring M/s Om Sons Wire Industry,
8. Cheque No. 142583 dated 27/6/87 for Rs. 2,50,000/- drawn on Account of M/s P.D. Enterprises with Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi favouring M/s Om Sons Wire Industry,
9. Cheque No. 142585 dated 27/6/87 for Rs. 1,50,000/- drawn on Account of M/s P.D. Enterprises with Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi favouring M/s Shakti Cable,
10. Cheque No. 135378 dated 18/6/87 for Rs. 2,00,000/- drawn on Account of M/s G.K. Electronics with Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi favouring M/s Sanjeev Metal Udyog.
11. Cheque No. 135379 dated 19/6/87 for Rs. 2,25,000/- drawn on Account of M/s G.K. Electronics with Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi favouring S.K. Metal Company.
12. Cheque No. 135381 dated 19/6/87 for Rs. 1,25,000/- drawn on Account of M/s G.K. Electronics with Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi favouring Star Aluminium Corporation.
13. Cheque No. 135397 dated 17/7/87 for Rs. 6,17,303.25p drawn on Account of M/s G.K. Electronics with Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi favouring Om Sons Wire Industry.
14. Cheque No. 399011 dated 29/2/88 for Rs. 2,50,000/- drawn on Account of M/s G.K. Electronics with Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi favouring Om Sons Wire Industry.
CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.44 of 126
15. Cheque No. 399023 dated 23/3/88 for Rs. 1,60,000/- drawn on Account of M/s G.K. Electronics with Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi favouring Bharat Aluminium Company.
16. Cheque No. 397647 dated 29/2/88 for Rs. 2,40,000/- drawn on Account No.633 of M/s Pragati Conductors with Bank of Maharashtra, Dr Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi favouring Universal Machine.
17. Cheque No. 401984 dated 12/4/89 for Rs. 5,00,000/ drawn on Account No.633 of M/s Pragati Conductors with Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukheriee Nagar Branch, New Delhi favouring Paper Conductor.
18. Cheque No. 401985 dated 12/4/89 for Rs. 2,50,000/ drawn on Account No. 633 of M/s Pragati Conductors with Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi favouring Paper Conductor.
19. Cheque No. 286913 dated 16/6/89 for Rs. 7,50,000/- drawn on Account No.633 of M/s Pragati Conductors with Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi favouring Hindustan Metal Industry.
20. Cheque No. 265999 dated 29/2/88 for Rs. 2,49,500/- drawn on Account No.803 of M/s Mohit Enterprises with Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi favouring Om Sons Wire Industry.
21. Cheque No. 266481 dated 27/2/88 for Rs. 3,67,000/- drawn on Account No. 786 of M/s G.K. Industrial Corporation with Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi favouring Tara Manik Cables Pvt. Ltd.
22. Cheque No. 399905 dated 12/4/89 for Rs 750,000/- drawn on Account No. 5085 of M/s Strip India with Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar- Branch, New Delhi favouring Kansal Metal.
23. Cheque No. 144996 dated 30.1 87 for Rs. 6,80,064/- drawn on Account No. 559 of M/s G.K. Electronics with Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi favouring MMTC of India Ltd.
24. Cheque No. 251166 dated 28.6.87 for Rs. 2,00,000/- drawn on Account of M/s Uma Super Insulation with Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi favouring M/s. Super Industries.
CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.45 of 126
25. Cheque No. 266471 dated 2.2.88 for Rs. 4,75,000/- drawn on Account No.786 of M/s G.K. Industrial Corporation with Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi favouring M/s. Om Sons Wire Industries.
26. Credit Voucher dated 22/11/90 of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi for Rs. 5,00,000/ favouring account No. 663(632) of M/s Pragati Conductors.
27. Credit Voucher dated 22/11/90 of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee NagarBranch, New Delhi for Rs. 15,00,000/- favouring account No. 663(633) of M/s Pragati Conductors.
28. Credit Voucher dated 22/11/90 of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi for Rs. 15,00,000/- favouring account No. 663 of M/s Pragati Conductors.
29. Credit Voucher dated 22/11/90 of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi for Rs. 2,00,000/- favouring account No 663 of M/s Pragati Conductors.
30. Credit Voucher dated 22/11/90 of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi for Rs. 5,05,000/- favouring account No. 786 of M/s G.K. Industrial Corporation.
31. Credit Voucher dated 22/11/90 of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi for Rs. 14,00,000/- favouring account No. 786 of M/s G.K. Industrial Corporation.
32. Credit Voucher dated 22/11/90 of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi for Rs. 13,00,000/- favouring account No. 803 of M/s Mohit Enterprises.
33. Credit Voucher dated 22/11/90 of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi for Rs. 11,00,000/- favouring account No. 802 of M/s Kamal Enterprises.
34. Credit Voucher dated 22/11/90 of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi for Rs. 12,50,000/- favouring account No. 803 of M/s Mohit Enterprises.
35. Credit Voucher dated 22/11/90 of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi for Rs. 10,95,000/- favouring account No. 803 of M/s Mohit Enterprises.
36. Credit Voucher dated 22/11/90 of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi for Rs. 5,00,000/ favouring account No. 910 of M/s P.D. Enterprises.
CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.46 of 126
37. Credit Voucher dated 22/11/90 of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi for Rs. 7,00,000/- favouring account No. 910 of M/s P.D. Enterprises.
38. Credit Voucher dated 22/11/90 of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi for Rs. 12,00,000/ favouring account No. 1009 of M/s Diamond Cables.
39. Credit Voucher dated 22/11/90 of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi for Rs. 12,50,000/- favouring account No. 1009 of M/s Diamond Cables.
40. Dedit Voucher dated 1/7/88 of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi for Rs 35,76,109.02 favouring G/ LCHR.
41. Credit Voucher dated 2/7/88 of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi for Rs. 11,67,400/- favouring G/LCHR.
42. Credit Voucher dated Nil of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi for Rs. 7,50,000/- favouring account G/LCHR and Marked A-1.
43. Debit Voucher dated 23.1.88 of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi for Rs. 2,00,000/- favouring account G/LCHR and Marked A-2.
44. Credit Voucher dated 27.1.88 of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi for Rs. 2,00,000/- favouring account GLCHR and Marked A-3.
45. Credit Voucher dated 31.1.88 of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi for Rs. 18,00,000/ favouring account G/LCHR and Marked A-4.
46. Debit Voucher dated 23.2.88 of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi for Rs. 3,12,117.26 favouring account GLCHR and Marked A-5.
47. Credit Voucher dated 26.2.88 Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi for Rs. 5,12,117.26 favouring account GLCHR and Marked A-6.
48. Credit Voucher dated 28.2.88 of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi for Rs. 6,00,000/ favouring account GLCHR and Marked A-7.
49. Debit Voucher dated 1.3.88 of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi for Rs. 3,67,000/- favouring account GLCHR and Marked A-8.
CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.47 of 126
50. Debit Voucher dated 5.3.88 of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi for Rs 25,78,047.10 favouring account GLCHR and Marked A-9.
51. Credit Voucher dated 19.5.88 of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi for Rs. 1,62,485/- favouring account GI CHR and Marked A-10.
52. Debit Voucher dated 10.2.87 of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi for Rs. 6,80, 064/- favouring account GLCHR and Marked Q-124.
53. Debit Voucher dated 31.3.87 of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi for Rs. 6,60,000/- favouring account GLCHR and Marked Q-125.
54. Credit Voucher dated 31.3.87 of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukheriee Naaar Branch, New Delhi for Rs. 6,60,000/- favouring account GLCHR and Marked Q-126.
55. Debit Voucher dated 20.6.87 of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi for Rs. 5,50,000/ favouring account GLCHR and Marked Q-127.
56. Credit Voucher dated 13.6.87 of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi for Rs. 3,80,000/- favouring account GLCHR and Marked Q-128.
57. Credit Voucher dated 28.6.87 of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi for Rs. 5,50,000/ favouring account GLCHR and Marked Q-129.
58. Credit Voucher dated 28.6.87 of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi for Rs. 6,80,064/ favouring account GLCHR and Marked Q-130.
59. Debit Voucher dated 1.7.87 of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi for Rs. 8,50,000/ favouring account GLCHR and Marked Q-131.
60. Debit Voucher dated 18.7.87 of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi for Rs. 6,17,303.25 favouring account GLCHR and Marked Q-132.
61. Credit Voucher dated 31.7.87 of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi for Rs 8,50,000/- favouring account GI CHR and Marked Q-133.
62. Debit Voucher dated 1.8.87 of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi for Rs. 5,00,000/- favouring account GI CHR and Marked Q-134.
CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.48 of 126
63. Credit Voucher dated 30.3.88 of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi for Rs. 25,09,500/- favouring account GLCHR and Marked Q-135.
64. Debit Voucher dated 13.4.89 of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi for Rs. 40,06,718.32 favouring account GI CHR and Marked Q-136.
65. Account Opening Form for the account No. 559 dated 3/5/86 of M/s G.K. Electronics of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukheriee Nagar Branch. Delhi alongwith letter of proprietorship containing red encircled questioned signatures marked Q-137, Q-138 and Q-
139.
66. Account Opening Form for the account No. 633 dated 2/8/86 of M/s Pragati Conductors of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, Delhi alongwith letter of proprietorship containing red encircled questioned signatures marked Q-140, Q-141 and Q-
163.
67. Account Opening Form for the account No. 712 dated 13/3/87 of M/s P.D. Enterprises of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, Delhi alongwith letter of partnership containing red encircled questioned signatures marked Q-144. Q-145. Q-146 and Q-165.
68. Account Opening Form for the account No. 786 dated 2/9/87 of M/s G.K. Industrial Corporation of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, Delhi alongwith letter of partnership containing red encircled questioned signatures marked Q-147, Q- 148 and Q-149.
69. Account Opening Form for the account No. 802 of M/s Kamal Enterprises of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, Delhi alongwith letter of partnership containing red encircled questioned signatures marked Q-150, Q-151, Q-152 and Q-166.
70. Account Opening Form for the account No. 803 of M/s Mohit Enterprises of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, Delhi alongwith letter of partnership containing red encircled questioned signatures marked Q-153, Q-154, Q-155 and Q-167.
71. Account Opening Form for the account No. 1009 dated 7/2/89 of M/s Diamond Cables & Conductors of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, Delhi alongwith letter of partnership containing red encircled questioned signatures marked Q-156, Q- 157 and Q-168.
72. Letter of partnership (photocopy) for account No. 5073 dated 22/3/87 of Bank of Maharashtra in the name of M/s G.K. CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.49 of 126 Enterprises containing red encircled questioned signatures marked Q-158.
73. Letter of partnership (photocopy) for account No. 5085 dated 30/10/87 of Bank of Maharashtra in the name of M/s Strip India containing red encircled questioned signatures marked Q-159.
74. Account opening form for the current account No. 789 in the name of Shri Dalip Kumar at Bank of Maharashtra, Vivek Vihar Branch containing questioned signatures red encircled and marked Q-160 & Q-169.
75. Account opening form for the current account No. 816 dated 28/10/85 in the name of M/s G.K. Electronics at Bank of Maharashtra, Vivek Vihar Branch containing questioned signatures red encircled and marked Q-161 & Q-170.
76. Account opening form for the current account in the name and style of M/s Yati Chit Fund & Finance Co. Pvt. Ltd. at Bank of Maharashtra, Vivek Vihar Branch containing questioned signatures red encircled and marked Q-162 & Q-171.
77. Certified statement of A/c of M/s. Uma Super Insulation vide A/c No. 576/71 (Cash Credit) for the period 8th August, 1966 to 25.7.87.
78. Certified statement of A/c of M/s. Mohit Enterprises vide A/c No. 803 for the period 29.9.87 to 30.9.91.
79. Certified statement of A/c of M/s. G. K. Electronics vide A/c No. 559 for the period 3.5.86 to 30.9.91.
80. Certified statement of A/c of M/s. Diamond Cables & Conductors vide A/c No. 1009 for the period 7.2.89 to 30.4.91.
81. Certified statement of A/c of M/s. G.K. Industrial Corporation vide A/c No. 786 for the period 1.1.88 to 26.5.91.
82. Certified statement of A/c of M/s. Kamal Enterprises vide A/c No. 802 for the period 29.9.87 to 31.3.91.
83. Certified statement of A/c of M/s. P.D. Enterprises vide A/c No. 712 for the period 13.3.87 to 31.3.91. This A/c statement includes CC A/c No. 74 and Current A/c 910.
84. Certified statement of A/c of M/s. Strip India vide A/c No. 813/5085 for the period 16.10.87 to 30.9.89.
85. Certified statement of A/c of M/s. Pragati Conductors vide A/c No. 633 for the period 2.8.86 to 31.3.91.
CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.50 of 126
86. Transfer Scroll of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, Delhi for the period 3/1/89 to 15/6/89 vide MR No. 27/96 and item No. 149 containing red encircled questioned writings at page No. 107 and marked Q-84(A).
87. Misc. Supplementary Register of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch for the period 1/1/88 to 23/6/88 vide MR No. 27/96, item No. 176 containing red encircled questioned writings Q-85 at page No. 75, Q-86 at page No. 115, Q-87 at page No. 121, Q-88 at page No. 136 and Q-89 at page No. 154.
88. Misc. Supplementary Register of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch for the period 24/6/88 to 17/12/88 vide MR No. 27/96, item No. 177 containing red encircled questioned writings Q-90 at page No. 15.
89. Misc. Supplementary Register of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch for the period 18/12/88 to 7/6/89 vide MR No. 27/96, item No. 178 containing red encircled questioned writings Q-91 at page No. 205, Q-92 at page No. 229, and Q-93 at page No. 262.
90. Misc. Supplementary Register of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch for the period 1/10/89 to 27/3/90 vide MR No. 27/96, item No. 180 containing red encircled questioned writings Q-94 at page No. 199, Q-95 at page No. 201, Q-96 at page No. 217 and Q-97 at page No. 268.
91. Misc. Supplementary Register of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch for the period 28/3/90 to September, 1990 vide MR No. 27/96, item No. 181 containing red encircled questioned writings Q-98 at page No. 255, Q-99 at page No. 273 and Q-100 at page No. 275.
92. Misc. Supplementary Register of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch for the period 29/7/88 to 31/5/89 vide MR No. 27/96, item No. 189 containing red encircled questioned writings Q-101 at page No. 173, and Q-102 at page No. 178.
93. Misc. Supplementary Register of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch for the period 4/4/90 to 13/11/90 vide MR No. 27/96, item No. 190 containing red encircled questioned writings Q-103 at page No. 138, Q-104 at page No. 158 and Q-105 at page No. 159.
94. Bills Payable Register of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, Delhi for the period 14/11/90 to 17/7/90 vide MR No. 27/96 and item No. 191 containing red encircled writings at page 16 and marked Q-106.
CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.51 of 126
95. Bills Payable Register of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, Delhi for the period 9/3/88 to 3/12/88 vide MR No. 27/96 and item No. 194 containing red encircled writings at page 142 (140) and marked Q-107.
96. Cash Book of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, Delhi for the period 1/1/88 to 28/1/89 vide MR No. 27/96 and item No. 213 containing red encircle questioned writings at page No. 149 and marked Q-108, red encircled questioned writings at page No. 150 and marked Q-109 & Q-110 and red encircled questioned writings at page No. 319 and marked Q-111.
97. Cash Book of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, Delhi for the period 29/1/89 to 13/5/90 vide MR No. 27/96 and item No. 214 containing red encircled questioned writings marked Q-112 at page No. 24, Q-113 at page No. 74, red encircled Q-114 at page No. 90, red encircled Q-115 at page No. 110, red encircled Q-116 at page No. 250 and red encircled Q-117 at page No. 275.
98. Cash Book of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, Delhi for the period 16/5/90 to 11/6/91 vide MR No. 26/96, Item No. 215 containing red encircled questioned writings at page No. 92 and marked Q-118, red encircled Q-119 at page No. 101, red encircled Q-120 at page No. 102, red encircled Q-121 at page No. 155, Q-121(A) at page No. 156 and red encircled Q-122 and Q-123 at page No. 157 of the register.
99. Central Office Supplementary for the period 9.5.89 to 23.8.89.
100. Local Central Office Supplementary for the period 3.1.88 to 31.3.89.
101. Local Central Office Supplementary for the period 1.1.90 to 31.3.91.
102. Miscellaneous supplementary for the period 8.6.89 to 13.7.89. (Entries dated 20.06.89 to 27.6.89).
103. Bills payable register for the period 28.8.87 to 29.7.88. (Page
185).
104. Flow Chart in respect of 25 cheques presented in clearing, debited to office account, CHR Account and subsequently credited to the office account, GLCHR along with loss of interest prepared by Shri. M.M Lokhande.
105. GEQD opinion vide No. CX107/98 dated 11.9.98 in RC 7A/94/SIU-VIII.
CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.52 of 126 List of Documents in RC 7 (A)/94 CBI/SIU/ VIII/New Delhi. (CC No.56/2019)
1. First Information Report dated 23.8.94 in RC 7 (A)/94- CBI/SIU/VIII, New Delhi.
2. Copy of letter of credit No. 1082B for Rs. 7,50,000/- issued on behalf of M/s Diamond Cables and Conductors and in favour of BALCO Ltd.
3. Copy of letter of credit No. 1201B for Rs. 11,00,000/- issued on behalf of M/s Diamond Cables and Conductors and in favour of BALCO Ltd.
4. Copy of letter of credit No. 1083B for Rs. 2,50 000/- issued on behalf of M/S G.K. Industrial Corporation and in favour of BALCO Ltd.
5. Copy of letter of credit No. 1086B for Rs. 5,00,000/- issued on behalf of M/S G.K. Industrial Corporation and in favour of BALCO Ltd.,
6. Copy of letter of credit No. 1207B for Rs. 5,50,000/- issued on behalf of M/S G.K. Industrial Corporation and in favour of BALCO Ltd.,
7. Copy of letter of credit No. 1211B for Rs. 5,50,000/- issued on behalf of M/S G.K. Industrial Corporation and in favour of BALCO Ltd.
8. Copy of letter of credit No. 1106B for Rs. 2,75,000/- issued on behalf of M/s Nitin Wire Industry and in favour of BALCO Ltd.
9. Copy of letter of credit No. 1166B for Rs. 5,50.000/- issued on behalf of M/s -Nitin Wire Industry and in favour of BALCO Ltd.,
10. Copy of letter of credit No. 1202B for Rs. 5,50,000/- issued on behalf of M/s Nitin Wire Industry and in favour of BALCO Ltd.,
11. Copy of letter of credit No. 1210B for Rs. 5,50,000/- issued on behalf of M/s Nitin Wire Industry and in favour of BALCO Ltd.
12. Copy of letter of credit No. 1084B for Rs. 4,75,000/- issued on behalf of M/s Chaitanya Powerlines and in favour of BALCO Ltd.
13. Copy of letter of credit No. 1105B for Rs. 2,75,000/- issued on behalf of M/s Chaitanya Powerlines and in favour of BALCO Ltd.
CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.53 of 126
14. Copy of letter of credit No. 1164B for Rs. 5,50,000/- issued on behalf of M/s Chaitanya Powerlines and in favour of BALCO Ltd.
15. Copy of letter of Credit No. 1185 B for Rs. 5,50,000/- issued on behalf of M/s Chaitanya Powerlines and in favour of BALCO Ltd.
16. Copy of letter of Credit No. 1209 B for Rs. 5,50,000/- issued on behalf of M/s Chaitanya Powerlines and in favour of BALCO Ltd.
17. Copy of letter of Credit No. 1203B for Rs. 5,50,000/- issued on behalf of M/s P.D. Enterprises and in favour of BALCO Ltd.
18. Copy of letter of Credit No. 1085B for Rs. 5,00,000/- issued on behalf of M/s P.D. Enterprises and in favour of BALCO Ltd.
19. Copy of letter of Credit No. 1165B for Rs. 5,50,000/- issued on behalf of M/s P.D. Enterprises and in favour of BALCO Ltd.
20. Copy of letter of Credit No. 1107B for Rs.2,75,000 /- issued on behalf of M/s Uma Super Insulation and in favour of BALCO Ltd.
21. Copy of letter of Credit No. 1208B for Rs. 5,50,000/- issued on behalf of M/s Uma Super Insulation and in favour of BALCO Ltd.
22. Copy of letter of Credit No. 1108 B for Rs. 2,75,000/- issued on behalf of M/s Mohit Enterprises and in favour of BALCO Ltd.
23. Copy of letter of Credit No.1204 B for Rs. 5,50,000/- issued on behalf of M/s Kamal Enterprises and in favour of BALCO Ltd.
24. Pay order No 3747/90/052776 dated 23/8/90 for Rs 9,26,221.50p drawn on Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi and favouring MMTC of India Ltd.
25. Pay order No. 3777/90/052807 dated 30/8/90 for Rs. 4,30,236/- drawn on Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi and favouring MMTC of India Ltd.
26. Pay order No 3191/90/052822 dated 1/9/90 for Rs. 4,50,992.50p drawn on Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi and favouring State Bank of India, Sant Nirankari Colony, Delhi.
27. Pay order No. 3192/90/052823 dated 1/9/90 for Rs. 4.52,641.67p drawn on Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi and favouring State Bank of India, Sant Nirankari Colony, Delhi.
CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.54 of 126
28. Pay order No. 3193/90/052824 dated 1/9/90 for Rs. 4,41,563.12p drawn on Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi and favouring State Bank of India, Sant Nirankari Colary, Delhi.
29. Pay order No. 3194/90/052825 dated 1/9/90 for Rs. 4,52,249.21p drawn on Bank of Maharashtra Dr. Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi and favouring State Bank of India, Sant Nirankari Colony, Delhi.
30. Pay order No. 3838/90/052870 dated 9/9/90 for Rs. 18.33,688.80p drawn on Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi and favouring State Bank of India, Sant Nirankari Colony, Delhi.
31. Pay Order No. 3847/90/052880 dated 13/9/90 for Rs. 9,58,720.50p drawn on Bank of Maharashtra, Mukherjee Nagar Branch, Delhi and favouring MTC of India Ltd.
32. Pay Order No. 4284/90/575335 dated 22/11/90 for Rs. 4,55,767.30p drawn on Bank of Maharastra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, Delhi and favouring State Bank of India.
33. Pay Order No. 4283/90/575344 dated 22/11/90 for Rs. 4,57,795.05p drawn on Bank of Maharastra. Dr Mukherjee Nagar Branch, Delhi and favouring State Bank of India.
34. Pay Order No 4288/90/575339 dated 22/11/90 for Rs. 4,53,833.15p drawn on Bank of Maharastra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, Delhi and favouring State Bank of India.
35. Pay Order No. 4287/90/575338 dated 22/11/90 for Rs. 4,54,069.65p drawn on Bank of Maharastra. Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, Delhi and favouring State Bank of India.
36. Pay Order No 4286/90/575337 dated 22/11/90 for Rs. 6,47,018.07p drawn on Bank of Maharashtra. Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, Delhi and favouring State Bank of India.
37. Pay Order No. 4285/90/575336 dated 22/11/90 for Rs. 4,53,644.95p drawn on Bank of Maharashtra Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, Delhi and favouring State Bank of India.
38. Cheque No. 401420 dated 25/2/89 for Rs. 3,47,074.32p drawn on Account No. 802 of Kamal Enterprises with Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch. New Delhi favouring yourself.
39. Cheque No. 401443 dated 16/5/89 for Rs. 2,95,976.86p drawn on Account No. 802 of Kamal Enterprises with Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi favouring yourself.
CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.55 of 126
40. Cheque No. 401444 dated 16/5/89 for Rs. 2,95,976/- drawn on Account No 802 of Kamal Enterprises with Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi favouring yourself.
41. Cheque No. 401540 dated 25/2/89 for Rs 4,30,077.50p drawn on Account of M/s P.D. Enterprises with Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi favouring yourself.
42. Cheque No. 401562 dated 16/5/89 for Rs. 4,40,170/- drawn on Account of M/s P.D. Enterprises with Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi favouring yourself.
43. Cheque No. 401561 dated 16/5/89 for Rs. 4,43,016.96p drawn on Account of M/S P.D. Enterprises with Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch New Delhi favouring yourself.
44. Cheque No. 560113 dated 7.2.90 for Rs. 7,44,254.42 drawn on Account of M/s Diamond Cables & Conductors with Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi favouring yourself.
45. Cheque No. 399061 dated 1/7/88 for Rs. 2,05,009/- drawn on Account of M/s G.K. Electronics with Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi favouring yourself.
46. Cheque No 399174 dated 25/2/89 for Rs. 4,30,077.50p drawn on Account of M/s G K. Electronics with Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi favouring yourself.
47. Cheque No. 399210 dated 16/5/89 for Rs. 2,47,912.48p drawn on Account of M/s G.K. Electronics with Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch New Delhi favouring yourself.
48. Cheque No. 399211 dated 16/5/89 for Rs. 2,47,913/- drawn on Account of M/S G.K. Electronics with Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi favouring yourself.
49. Cheque No. 401939 dated 25/2/89 for Rs. 4,30,082.50p drawn on Account No. 633 of M/s Pragati Conductors with Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi favouring yourself.
50. Cheque No. 562618 dated 2/3/90 for Rs. 21,87,300.84p drawn on Account No. 633 of M/s Pragati Conductors with Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch. New Delhi favouring yourself.
51. Cheque No. 399360 dated 25/2/89 for Rs. 3,13,529.11p drawn on Account No. 803 of M/s Mohit Enterprises with Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi favouring yourself.
CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.56 of 126
52. Cheque No. 399395 dated 16/5/89 for Rs. 2,67,367.11p drawn on Account No. 803 of M/s Mohit Enterprises with Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi favouring yourself.
53. Cheque No. 399396 dated 16/5/89 for Rs. 2,67,367/- drawn on Account No. 803 of M/s Mohit Enterprises with Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi favouring yourself.
54. Cheque No. 401080 dated 25/2/89 for Rs. 4,30,092.34p drawn on Account No. 786 of M/s G.K. Industrial Corporation with Bank of Maharashtra Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi favouring yourself.
55. Cheque No. 401020 dated 1/7/88 for Rs. 9,62,410/- drawn on Account No. 786 of M/s GK. Industrial Corporation with Bank of Maharashtra. Dr Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi favouring yourself.
56. Cheque No 401095 dated 16.5 89 for Rs. 4,40,170/- drawn on Account No. 786 of M/s. G. K. Industrial Corporation with Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi favouring yourself.
57. Cheque No 401094 dated 16.5.89 for Rs. 4,40,170/- drawn on Account No. 786 of M/s. G. K. Industrial Corporation with Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi favouring yourself.
58. Cheque No 401190 dated 7.2.90 for Rs. 4,14,770. 85 drawn on Account No.786 of M/s. G. K. Industrial Corporation with Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi favouring yourself.
59. Cheque No 401202 dated 2.3.90 for Rs. 9,29,179.85 drawn on Account No. 786 of M/s. G. K. Industrial Corporation with Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi favouring yourself.
60. Cheque No. 266431 dated 2/2/88 for Rs. 4,25,000/- drawn on Account No. 802 of Kamal Enterprises with Bank of Maharashtra Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi favouring M/s Universal Machine.
61. Cheque No. 266442 dated 28/2/88 for Rs. 5,10,000/- drawn on Account No. 802 of Kamal Enterprises with Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi favouring M/s Om Sons Wire Industry.
62. Cheque No. 266443 dated 2/3/88 for Rs. 2,00,000/- drawn on Account No. 802 of Kamal Enterprises with Bank of CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.57 of 126 Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi favouring M/s Om Sons Wire Industry,
63. Cheque No. 401359 dated 16/6/89 for Rs. 3,00,000/- drawn on Account No. 802 of Kamal Enterprises with Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi favouring M/s Shakti Metal,
64. Cheque No. 401358 dated 16/6/89 for Rs. 4,50,000/- drawn on Account No. 802 of Kamal Enterprises with Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi favouring M/s Hindustan Metal Industry,
65. Cheque No. 142574 dated 11/6/87 for Rs. 3,80,000/- drawn on Account of M/s P.D. Enterprises with Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi favouring M/s Super Industries,
66. Cheque No. 142584 dated 27/6/87 for Rs. 2,50,000/- drawn on Account of M/s P.D. Enterprises with Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi favouring M/s Om Sons Wire Industry,
67. Cheque No. 142583 dated 27/6/87 for Rs. 2,50,000/- drawn on Account of M/s P.D. Enterprises with Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi favouring M/s Om Sons Wire Industry,
68. Cheque No. 142585 dated 27/6/87 for Rs. 1,50,000/- drawn on Account of M/s P.D. Enterprises with Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi favouring M/s Shakti Cable,
69. Cheque No. 135378 dated 18/6/87 for Rs. 2,00,000/- drawn on Account of M/s G.K. Electronics with Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi favouring M/s Sanjeev Metal Udyog.
70. Cheque No. 135379 dated 19/6/87 for Rs. 2,25,000/- drawn on Account of M/s G.K. Electronics with Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi favouring S.K. Metal Company.
71. Cheque No. 135381 dated 19/6/87 for Rs. 1,25,000/- drawn on Account of M/s G.K. Electronics with Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi favouring Star Aluminium Corporation.
72. Cheque No. 135397 dated 17/7/87 for Rs. 6,17,303.25p drawn on Account of M/s G.K. Electronics with Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi favouring Om Sons Wire Industry.
CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.58 of 126
73. Cheque No. 399011 dated 29/2/88 for Rs. 2,50,000/- drawn on Account of M/s G.K. Electronics with Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi favouring Om Sons Wire Industry.
74. Cheque No. 399023 dated 23/3/88 for Rs. 1,60,000/- drawn on Account of M/s G.K. Electronics with Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi favouring Bharat Aluminium Company.
75. Cheque No. 397647 dated 29/2/88 for Rs. 2,40,000/- drawn on Account No.633 of M/s Pragati Conductors with Bank of Maharashtra, Dr Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi favouring Universal Machine.
76. Cheque No. 401984 dated 12/4/89 for Rs. 5,00,000/ drawn on Account No.633 of M/s Pragati Conductors with Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukheriee Nagar Branch, New Delhi favouring Paper Conductor.
77. Cheque No. 401985 dated 12/4/89 for Rs. 2,50,000/ drawn on Account No. 633 of M/s Pragati Conductors with Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi favouring Paper Conductor.
78. Cheque No. 286913 dated 16/6/89 for Rs. 7,50,000/- drawn on Account No.633 of M/s Pragati Conductors with Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi favouring Hindustan Metal Industry.
79. Cheque No. 265999 dated 29/2/88 for Rs. 2,49,500/- drawn on Account No.803 of M/s Mohit Enterprises with Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi favouring Om Sons Wire Industry.
80. Cheque No. 266481 dated 27/2/88 for Rs. 3,67,000/- drawn on Account No. 786 of M/s G.K. Industrial Corporation with Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi favouring Tara Manik Cables Pvt. Ltd.
81. Cheque No. 399905 dated 12/4/89 for Rs 750,000/- drawn on Account No. 5085 of M/s Strip India with Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar- Branch, New Delhi favouring Kansal Metal,
82. Cheque No. 144996 dated 30.1 87 for Rs. 6,80,064/- drawn on Account No. 559 of M/s G.K. Electronics with Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi favouring MMTC of India Ltd.
83. Cheque No. 251166 dated 28.6.87 for Rs. 2,00,000/- drawn on Account of M/s Uma Super Insulation with Bank of CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.59 of 126 Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi favouring M/s. Super Industries.
84. Cheque No. 266471 dated 2.2.88 for Rs. 4,75,000/- drawn on Account No.786 of M/s G.K. Industrial Corporation with Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi favouring M/s. Om Sons Wire Industries.
85. Credit Voucher dated 22/11/90 of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi for Rs. 5,00,000/ favouring account No. 663 of M/s Pragati Conductors.
86. Credit Voucher dated 22/11/90 of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi for Rs. 15,00,000/- favouring account No. 663 of M/s Pragati Conductors.
87. Credit Voucher dated 22/11/90 of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi for Rs. 15,00,000/- favouring account No. 663 of M/s Pragati Conductors.
88. Credit Voucher dated 22/11/90 of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi for Rs. 2,00,000/- favouring account No 663 of M/s Pragati Conductors.
89. Credit Voucher dated 22/11/90 of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi for Rs. 5,05,000/- favouring account No. 786 of M/s G.K. Industrial Corporation.
90. Credit Voucher dated 22/11/90 of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi for Rs. 14,00,000/- favouring account No. 786 of M/s G.K. Industrial Corporation.
91. Credit Voucher dated 22/11/90 of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi for Rs. 13,00,000/- favouring account No. 803 of M/s Mohit Enterprises.
92. Credit Voucher dated 22/11/90 of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi for Rs. 11,00,000/- tavouring account No. 802 of M/s Kamal Enterprises.
93. Credit Voucher dated 22/11/90 of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi for Rs. 12,50,000/- favouring account No. 803 of M/s Mohit Enterprises.
94. Credit Voucher dated 22/11/90 of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi for Rs. 10,95,000 favouring account No. 803 of M/s Mohit Enterprises.
95. Credit Voucher dated 22/11/90 of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi for Rs. 5,00,000/ favouring account No. 910 of M/s P.D. Enterprises.
CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.60 of 126
96. Credit Voucher dated 22/11/90 of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi for Rs. 7,00,000/- favouring account No. 910 of M/s P.D. Enterprises.
97. Credit Voucher dated 22/11/90 of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi for Rs. 12,00,000/ favouring account No. 1009 of M/s Diamond Cables.
98. Credit Voucher dated 22/11/90 of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi for Rs. 12,50,000/- favouring account No. 1009 of M/s Diamond Cables.
99. Debit Voucher dated 1/7/88 of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi for Rs 35,76,109. 02 favouring G/ LCHR.
100. Credit Voucher dated 2/7/88 of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi for Rs. 11,67,400/- favouring G/LCHR.
101. Credit Voucher dated Nil of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi for Rs. 7,50,000/- favouring account G/LCHR and Marked A-1.
102. Debit Voucher dated 23.1.88 of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi for Rs. 2,00,000/- favouring account G/LCHR and Marked A-2.
103. Credit Voucher dated 27.1.88 of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi for Rs. 2,00,000/- favouring account GLCHR and Marked A-3.
104. Credit Voucher dated 31.1.88 of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi for Rs. 18,00,000/ favouring account G/LCHR and Marked A-4.
105. Debit Voucher dated 23.2.88 of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi for Rs. 3,12,117.26 favouring account GLCHR and Marked A-5.
106. Credit Voucher dated 26.2.88 Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi for Rs. 5,12,117.26 favouring account GLCHR and Marked A-6.
107. Credit Voucher dated 28.2.88 of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi for Rs. 6,00,000/ favouring account GLCHR and Marked A-7.
108. Debit Voucher dated 1.3.88 of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi for Rs. 3,67,000/- favouring account GLCHR and Marked A-8.
CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.61 of 126
109.Debit Voucher dated 5.3.88 of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi for Rs 25,78,047.10 favouring account GI CHR and Marked A-9.
110. Credit Voucher dated 19.5.88 of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi for Rs. 1,62,485/- favouring account GI CHR and Marked A-10.
111. Debit Voucher dated 10.2.87 of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi for Rs. 6,80, 064/- favouring account GLCHR and Marked Q-124.
112. Debit Voucher dated 31.3.87 of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi for Rs. 6,60,000/- favouring account GLCHR and Marked Q-125.
113. Credit Voucher dated 31.3.87 of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukheriee Naaar Branch, New Delhi for Rs. 6,60,000/- favouring account GLCHR and Marked Q-126.
114. Debit Voucher dated 20.6.87 of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi for Rs. 5,50,000/ favouring account GLCHR and Marked Q-127.
115. Credit Voucher dated 13.6.87 of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi for Rs. 3,80,000/- favouring account GLCHR and Marked Q-128.
116. Credit Voucher dated 28.6.87 of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi for Rs. 5,50,000/ favouring account GLCHR and Marked Q-129.
117. Credit Voucher dated 28.6.87 of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi for Rs. 6,80,064/ favouring account GLCHR and Marked Q-130.
118. Debit Voucher dated 1.7.87 of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi for Rs. 8,50,000/ favouring account GLCHR and Marked Q-131.
119. Debit Voucher dated 18.7.87 of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi for Rs. 6,17,303.25 favouring account GLCHR and Marked Q-132.
120.Credit Voucher dated 31.7.87 of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi for Rs 8,50,000/- favouring account GI CHR and Marked Q-133.
121.Debit Voucher dated 1.8.87 of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi for Rs. 5,00,000/- favouring account GI CHR and Marked Q-134.
CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.62 of 126
122.Credit Voucher dated 30.3.88 of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi for Rs. 25,09,500/- favouring account GLCHR and Marked Q-135.
123. Debit Voucher dated 13.4.89 of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi for Rs. 40,06,718.32 favouring account GI CHR and Marked Q-136.
124.Account Opening Form for the account No. 559 dated 3/5/86 of M/s G.K. Electronics of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukheriee Nagar Branch. Delhi alongwith letter of proprietorship containing red encircled questioned signatures marked Q-137, Q-138 and Q-139.
125.Account Opening Form for the account No. 633 dated 2/8/86 of M/s Pragati Conductors of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, Delhi alongwith letter of proprietorship containing red encircled questioned signatures marked Q-140, Q-141 and Q-163.
126.Account Opening Form for the account No. 712 dated 13/3/87 of M/s P.D. Enterprises of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, Delhi alongwith letter of partnership containing red encircled questioned signatures marked Q-144. Q-145. Q-146 and Q-165.
127.Account Opening Form for the account No. 786 dated 2/9/87 of M/s G.K. Industrial Corporation of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, Delhi alongwith letter of partnership containing red encircled questioned signatures marked Q-147, Q-148 and Q-149.
128.Account Opening Form for the account No. 802 of M/s Kamal Enterprises of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, Delhi alongwith letter of partnership containing red encircled questioned signatures marked Q- 150, Q-151, Q-152 and Q-166.
129.Account Opening Form for the account No. 803 of M/s Mohit Enterprises of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, Delhi alongwith letter of partnership containing red encircled questioned signatures marked Q- 153, Q-154, Q-155 and Q-167.
130.Account Opening Form for the account No. 1009 dated 7/2/89 of M/s Diamond Cables & Conductors of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, Delhi alongwith letter of partnership containing red encircled questioned signatures marked Q-156, Q-157 and Q-168.
131.Letter of partnership (photocopy) for account No. 5073 dated 22/3/87 of Bank of Maharashtra in the name of M/s CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.63 of 126 G.K. Enterprises containing red encircled questioned signatures marked Q-158.
132.Letter of partnership (photocopy) for account No. 5085 dated 30/10/87 of Bank of Maharashtra in the name of M/s Strip India containing red encircled questioned signatures marked Q-159.
133.Account opening form for the current account No. 789 in the name of Shri Dalip Kumar at Bank of Maharashtra, Vivek Vihar Branch containing questioned signatures red encircled and marked Q-160 & Q-169.
134.Account opening form for the current account No. 816 dated 28/10/85 in the name of M/s G.K. Electronics at Bank of Maharashtra, Vivek Vihar Branch containing questioned signatures red encircled and marked Q-161 & Q-170.
135.Account opening form for the current account in the name and style of M/s Yati Chit Fund & Finance Co. Pvt. Ltd. at Bank of Maharashtra, Vivek Vihar Branch containing questioned signatures red encircled and marked Q-162 & Q-
171.
136.Certified statement of A/c of M/s. Uma Super Insulation vide A/c No. 576/71 (Cash Credit) for the period 6th August, 1966 to 25.7.87.
137.Certified statement of A/c of M/s. Mohit Enterprises vide A/c No. 803 for the period 29.9.87 to 30.9.91.
138.Certified statement of A/c of M/s. G. K. Electronics vide A/c No. 559 for the period 3.5.86 to 30.9.91.
139.Certified statement of A/c of M/s. Diamond Cables & Conductors vide A/c No. 1009 for the period 7.2.89 to 30.4.91.
140.Certified statement of A/c of M/s. G.K. Industrial Corporation vide A/c No. 786 for the period 1.1.88 to 26.5.91.
141.Certified statement of A/c of M/s. Kamal Enterprises vide A/c No. 802 for the period 29.9.87 to 31.3.91.
142.Certified statement of A/c of M/s. P.D. Enterprises vide A/c No. 712 for the period 13.3.87 to 31.3.91. This A/c statement includes CC A/c No. 74 and Current A/c 910.
143.Certified statement of A/c of M/s. Strip India vide A/c No. 813/5085 for the period 16.10.87 to 30.9.89.
144.Certified statement of A/c of M/s. Pragati Conductors vide A/c No. 633 for the period 2.8.86 to 31.3.91.
CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.64 of 126
145.Transfer Scroll of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, Delhi for the period 3/1/89 to 15/6/89 vide MR No. 27/96 and item No. 149 containing red encircled questioned writings at page No. 107 and marked Q-84(A).
146.Misc. Supplementary Register of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch for the period 1/1/88 to 23/6/88 vide MR No. 27/96, item No. 176 containing red encircled questioned writings Q-85 at page No. 75, Q-86 at page No. 115, Q-87 at page No. 121, Q-88 at page No. 136 and Q-89 at page No. 154.
147.Misc. Supplementary Register of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch for the period 24/6/88 to 17/12/88 vide MR No. 27/96, item No. 177 containing red encircled questioned writings Q-90 at page No. 15.
148.Misc. Supplementary Register of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch for the period 18/12/88 to 7/6/89 vide MR No. 27/96, item No. 178 containing red encircled questioned writings Q-91 at page No. 205, Q-92 at page No. 229, and Q-93 at page No. 262.
149.Misc. Supplementary Register of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch for the period 1/10/89 to 27/3/90 vide MR No. 27/96, item No. 180 containing red encircled questioned writings Q-94 at page No. 199, Q-95 at page No. 201, Q-96 at page No. 217 and Q-97 at page No. 268.
150.Misc. Supplementary Register of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch for the period 28/3/90 to September, 1990 vide MR No. 27/96, item No. 181 containing red encircled questioned writings Q-98 at page No. 255, Q-99 at page No. 273 and Q-100 at page No. 275.
151.Misc. Supplementary Register of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch for the period 29/7/88 to 31/5/89 vide MR No. 27/96, item No. 189 containing red encircled questioned writings Q-101 at page No. 173, and Q-102 at page No. 178.
152.Misc. Supplementary Register of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch for the period 4/4/90 to 13/11/90 vide MR No. 27/96, item No. 190 containing red encircled questioned writings Q-103 at page No. 138, Q-104 at page No. 158 and Q-105 at page No. 159.
153.Bills Payable Register of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, Delhi for the period 14/11/90 to 17/7/90 vide MR No. 27/96 and item No. 191containing red encircled writings at page 16 and marked Q-106.
CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.65 of 126
154.Bills Payable Register of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, Delhi for the period 9/3/88 to 3/12/88 vide MR No. 27/96 and item No. 194 containing red encircled writings at page 142 and marked Q-107.
155.Cash Book of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, Delhi for the period 1/1/88 to 28/1/89 vide MR No. 27/96 and item No. 213 containing red encircle questioned writings at page No. 149 and marked Q-108, red encircled questioned writings at page No. 150 and marked Q-109 & Q-110 and red encircled questioned writings at page No. 319 and marked Q-111.
156.Cash Book of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, Delhi for the period 29/1/89 to 13/5/90 vide MR No. 27/96 and item No. 214 containing red encircled questioned writings marked Q-112 at page No. 24, Q-113 at page No. 74, red encircled Q-114 at page No. 90, red encircled Q-115 at page No. 110, red encircled Q-116 at page No. 250 and red encircled Q-117 at page No. 275.
157.Cash Book of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, Delhi for the period 16/5/90 to 11/6/91 vide MR No. 26/96, Item No. 215 containing red encircled questioned writings at page No. 92 and marked Q-118, red encircled Q- 119 at page No. 101, red encircled Q-120 at page No. 102, red encircled Q-121 at page No. 155, Q-121(A) at page No. 156 and red encircled Q-122 and Q-123 at page No. 157 of the register.
158.IBC Register of Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi for the period 27.9.91 to 23.2.92 (relevant pages 13, 15 and 19).
159.RBI Schedule dated 29.6.88, 24.1.89, 25.4.89, 9.5.89 and 8.6.89 for inward clearing received in Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi.
160.Central Office Supplementary for the period 9.5.89 to 23.8.89 ( Entry dated 9.6.89)
161.Local Central Office Supplementary for the period 3.1.88 to 31.3.89 (Entries dated 25.1.89 and 25.2.89).
162.Local Central Office Supplementary for the period 1.1.90 to 31.3.91. ( entries dated 24.11.90)
163.Miscellaneous supplementary for the period 8.6.89 to 13.7.89. (Entries dated 20.06.89 to 27.6.89).
164.Bills payable register for the period 28.8.87 to 29.7.88. (Page 185).
CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.66 of 126
165.Certified extract of advance payment register of MMTC Pages 162 and 180 for the year 1990-91.
166.Certified extract of valuable register Pages 4,23 and 24 of MMTC for the year 1989-90.
167.Certified extract of sales day book pages 9,10,11,38 and 39 for the period 1989-90 and also the extract of sales day book for the period July, 1988 page 105 (only).
168.Certified extract of the register of bills sent for collection of MMTC pages 29, 30 and 31 for the period 1988-89.
169.Certified extract of cash of MMTC, Regional Office, Delhi for the year 1988-89 (pages 128 and 130).
170.Copy of the clearing waste book of Canara Bank, B.S. Zafar Marg for 25.1.89.
171.Certified copies of the bill discounting register of Canara bank, B.S. Zafar Marg indicating discounting of six bills of MMTC on 13.1.89 and credits given to MMTC on that day.
172.Statement of account of MMTC for 26.04.89 with Canara Bank, B.S. Zafar Marg.
173.Statement of account of MMTC for 10.5.89, 28.8.89, 4.9.90, 15.9.90 showing deposit of pay orders of Bank of Maharashtra.
174.Original pay in slip of MMTC vide No. 340 to 344 and slip No. 55, 73 and 202.
175.Original pay in slip dated 29.6.88 of Canara Bank East Patel Nagar Branch for Rs. 9,62,400/- and Rs. 2,05,000/- alongwith the letter dt. 17.3.88 of Branch Manager Sh. Om Prakash Kabirpanthy.
176.Certified Copy of envoice No. CER 2669 dt. 20.08.90 for Rs. 4,51,800/- of NALCO in favour of M/s P.D. Enterprises.
177.Certified copy of envoice No. CER 2646 dt. 18.8.90 for Rs. 4,55,867/- of NALCO in favour of M/s Uma Super Insulation.
178.Certified copy of envoice of CER 2647 dt. 18.8.90 for Rs. 4,55,119/- of NALCO in favour of M/s Diamond Cables and Conductors.
179.Certified copy of envoice No. CWR 3792 dt. 4.12.89 for Rs. 3,57,982/ - of NALCO in favour of M/s Diamond Cables.
180.Certified copy of envoice No. CER 3788 dt. 4.12.89 for Rs. 3,69,638/- of NALCO in favour of M/s Diamond Cables.
CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.67 of 126
181.Certified copy of envoice No. CER 2645 dt. 18.8.90 for Rs. 4,55,446/-of - NALCO in favour of M/s P.D. Enterprises.
182.Certified copy of envoice No. CER 4063 dt. 14.12.89 for Rs. 4,08,313/- of NALCO in favour of M/s G.K. Industrial Corporation.
183.Certified copy of envoice No. CER 24260 dt. 31.10.90 for Rs. 4,49,602- of NALCO in favour of M/s Nitin Wire Industry.
184.Certified copy of envoice No. CER 4261 dt. 31.10.90 for Rs.4,53,716/- of NALCO in favour of M/s G.K. Industrial Corporation.
185.Certified copy of envoice No. CER 4262 dt. 31.10.90 for Rs.4,51,706/- of NALCO in favour of M/s P.D. Enterprises.
186.Certified copy of envoice No. CER 4263 dt. 31.10.90 for Rs. 6,41,280/- of NALCO in favour of M/s Uma Super Insulation.
187.Certified copy of envoice No. CER 4264 dt. 31.10.90 for Rs. 4,49,789/- of NALCO in favour of M/s Diamond Cables.
188.Certified copy of envoice No. CER 4265 dt. 31.10.90 for Rs. 4,50,023/- of NALCO in favour of M/s Kamal Enterprises.
189.Certified copy of envoice No. CER 2577 dt. 16.8.90 for Rs. 4,47,592/- of NALCO in favour of M/s Diamond Cables.
190.Certified copy of envoice No. CER 2576 dt. 16.8.90 for Rs. 4,49,228/- of NALCO in favour of M/s Uma Super Insulation.
191.Certified copy of envoice No. CER 2609 dt. 17.8.90 for Rs. 4,38,429/- of NALCO in favour of M/s Kamal Enterprises.
192.Certified copy of envoice No. CER 2529 dt. 14.8.90 for Rs. 4,49,041/- of NALCO in favour of M/s Kamal Enterprises.
193.Certified copy of envoice No. CER 0095 dt. 13.4.89 for Rs. 11,23,817/- of NALCO in favour of M/s Diamond Cables.
194.Certified copy of envoice No. CER 0116 dt. 14.4.89 for Rs. 10,07,748/- of NALCO in favour of M/s Diamond Cables.
195.Certified extract of pages 17,37 and 38 of DD Bills purchase register No. 96 of SBI main branch. BBSR in respect of bill nos 2625, 2666 and 2663 of NALCO.
CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.68 of 126
196.Certified extracts of pages 20 of DD (bill) purchase register no. 66 of SBI main branch. BBSR in respect of bill nos 3915 and 3916 of NALCO.
197.Certified extracts of page no. 1 of DD (bill) purchase register no. 97 of SBI main branch in respect of bill no. 2694 of NALCO.
198.Certified extracts of page no. 15 of DD (bill) purchase register no. 69 of SBI main branch in respect of bill no. 4204 of NALCO.
199.Certified extracts of pages 30,31 and 32 of DD (bills) purchase register no. 107 of SBI main branch BBSR in respect of bill no. 3751, 3752, 3753, 3754, 3755 and 3756 (total 6 bills) of NALCO.
200.Certified extracts of page no. 25 of DD (bills) purchase register no. 95 of SBI main branch, BBSR in respect of bill no. 2541 and 2542 of NALCO.
201.Certified extract of page no. 33 of DD (bill) purchase register no. 95 of SBI main branch, in respect of bills 2557 and 2558 of NALCO.
202.Certified extracts of page no. 36 and 44 of DD (bills) purchase register no. 37 of SBI main branch BBSR in respect of bill nos 1053 and 1068 respectively.
203.Certified copy of Associate Banks local short credit register page No. 7 and 8 alongwith certified copy of Schedule No. 3 dated 24.11.90 of SBI, Shahdara, Anajmandi Branch.
204.Realisation Schedule No. 29 of SBI Bhubaneswar Branch in respect of DD Bill no. 4209/89 dt. 27.12.89 for Rs. 4,14,750.85p received in SBI, Sant Nirankari Branch, Delhi.
205.Realisation schedule no. 74 of SBI, Bhubaneshwar Branch, in respect of DD Bill No. 4666 dt. 27.8.90 for Rs. 4,59,742.99p received in SBI, Sant Nirankari Branch, Delhi.
206.Realisation schedule no. 76 of SBI Bhubaneshwar Branch in respect of DD Bill No. 7668 dt. 27.8.90 for Rs. 4,58,988.58p received in SBI, Sant Nirankari Branch, Delhi.
207.Realisation schedule no. 2 of SBI Bhubaneshwar Branch in respect of DD Bill No. 2694 dt. 29.8.90 for Rs. 4,58,905.66p received in SBI, Sant Nirankari Branch, Delhi.
208.Realisation schedule no. 33 of SBI Bhubaneshwar Branch in respect of DD Bill No.2625 dt. 25.8.90 for Rs. 4,56,051.57p received in SBI, Sant Nirankari Branch, Delhi.
CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.69 of 126
209.Realisation Schedule No. 49 of SBI Bhubaneshwar Branch in respect of DD Bill No.2541/90 dt. 21.8.90 for Rs. 4,50,992.50p received in SBI, Sant Nirankari Branch, Delhi.
210.Realisation Schedule No. 50 SBI Bhubaneshwar Branch in respect of DD Bill No.2542 dt. 21.8.90 for Rs. 4,52,641.67p received in SBI, Sant Nirankari Branch, Delhi.
211. Realisation Schedule No. 65 SBI, Bhubaneshwar Branch in respect of DD Bill No.2557 dt. 22.8.90 for Rs. 4,41,563.12p received in SBI, Sant Nirankari Branch, Delhi.
212.Realisation Schedule No. 66 SBI Bhubaneshwar Branch in respect of DD Bill No.2558 dt. 22.8.90 for Rs. 4,52,249.21p received in SBI, Sant Nirankari Branch, Delhi.
213.Certified extract of branch clearing general account schedule no. 3 of SBI Sant Nirankari Colony Branch for page no. 47 dt. 30.1.90 received in SBI Sant Nirankari Branch, Delhi.
214.Certified extract of branch clearing general account schedule no. 3 of SBI Sant Nirankari Colony Branch for page no. 62 dt. 6.9.90 received in SBI Sant Nirankari Branch, Delhi.
215.Certified extract of branch clearing general account schedule no. 3 of SBI Sant Nirankari Colony Branch for page no. 64 dt. 14.9.90 received in SBI Sant Nirankari Branch, Delhi.
216.D.D.B.R. Schedule No. 70 dt. 15.4.89 in respect of D.D.B. no. 1053/89 of SBI Bhubaneshwar Branch for Rs. 11,26,676.75p received in SBI, Khureji Khas Branch, Delhi.
217.D.D.B.R. Schedule No. 85 dt. 17.4.89 in respect of D.D.B. no. 1868/89 of SBI Bhubaneshwar Branch for Rs. 10,10,317.50p received in SBI, Khureji Khas Branch, Delhi.
218.Letter dt. 7.6.89 of the Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar, Branch, addressed to the Manager, SBI, Khureji Khas, Delhi-51 in respect of LSC No. 526.
219.Certified extract of Branch Schedule No. 3 of the Branch for Dt. 12.6.89.
220.D/D (bills) Purchased Realisation Schedule No. 40 dt. 12.12.89 of SBI/ C & I Division, NALCO Cell, Bhubaneshwar for the bill amounting Rs. 3,70,688/- received in SBI, Delhi University Branch, Delhi.
221.D/D (bills) Purchased Realisation Schedule No. 39 dt. 12.12.89 fo SBI/ C & I Division, NALCO Cell, CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.70 of 126 Bhubaneshwar for the bill amounting Rs. 3,59,032/- received in SBI, Delhi University Branch, Delhi.
222.Certified Clearance Sheet Dt. 31.1.90 received in SBI Service Branch, Delhi.
223.Flow Chart in respect of 36 pay orders on unauthorizedly issued from Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi without any consideration and the loss of interest prepared by Shri. N.M. Lokhande, Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, Regional Office, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
224.Flow Chart in respect of 25 cheques presented in clearing, debited to office account, CHR Account and subsequently credited to the office account, GLCHR along with loss of interest prepared by Shri. N.M Lokhande.
225.GEQD opinion vide No. CX107/98 dated 11.9.98 in RC 7A/94/SIU-VIII.
9. In the present case (CC No.56/19), initially charges were framed against accused Praveen Kumar Gupta on 07.12.2005 by the then Ld. Special Judge u/s 120-B IPC r/w Sec.418, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 5(2) r/w 5(1) (d) of P.C. Act, 1947 corresponding section 13(2) r/w Sec.13(1) (d) of P.C. Act, 1988. At the time of framing of charge against accused Praveen Kumar Gupta, accused V.K. Jain was a Proclaimed Offender in this case (A-1 was declared P.O. on 27.03.2004). Thereafter, accused V.K.Jain (A-1) surrendered before the Court and thereafter charges were framed against him on 23.01.2012 by the then Ld. Special Judge, CBI-01 U/s 120-B r/w 418, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 477A of IPC and Sec. 5(1) (d) r/w Sec.5(2) of P.C. Act 1947 and also corresponding Sec.13(1) (d) r/w 13(2) of P.C Act 1988. Similarly, charges have also been framed on 07.12.2005 in the decided case (bearing CC No. 6/15) against accused Praveen Kumar Gupta CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.71 of 126 by the then Ld. Special Judge u/s 120-B IPC r/w Sec 418, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) P.C Act. In this case also, at the time of framing of charge against accused Praveen Kumar Gupta, accused V.K.Jain (A-1) was a Proclaimed offender in this case also and after A-1 surrendered the charges were also framed against him on 23.01.2012 u/s 120-B IPC r/w Sec.418, 420, 468, 467, 471 and 477-A IPC and Sec.5(1)(d) r/w 5(2) of P.C Act 1947 and also corresponding under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of the P.C Act. On going through the charges framed in the case in hand (CC No.56/19) and decided case (CC No.6/15). As per record, the charges in both the cases were framed on the same day and under same sections of IPC and P.C Act.
10. Though, for the purpose of deciding the issue of double jeopardy the discussions on the statements of the witnesses examined in the present case is not as such required, however, some of the contents of the statement of some of the witnesses are also relevant, therefore, same are also being briefly discussed keeping in view of the aspect of double jeopardy. The testimony of the 17 witnesses examined in the present case is briefly discussed as under:-
(10.1). PW1 Sh. R.K.Pahuja is the Sr.Manager of Bank of Maharashtra. PW1 had worked with A-1 in the same branch for a period of about two months from July 1991 to Sept. 1991. This witness was examined to bring on record the procedure related to the issuance of letter of credit, pay order and to put on CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.72 of 126 record the allegations about illegally clearing of the cheques by A-1. In the initial part of his testimony, PW 1 has explained the procedures about the issuance of aforesaid instruments and in remaining part of his testimony (which is the substantial part of his testimony) he has mainly brought on record the substantial number of cheques which were issued by accused persons and were illegally (allegedly) cleared by A-1.
(10.2). PW2 is Sh Om Prakash Kabirpanthi. PW2 is the retired Chief Manager of Canara Bank, Rajouri Garden Branch. This witness was examined in order to bring on record the facts related to the deposit of two pay orders in the current account of MMTC. As per prosecution case, some of the subject pay orders were issued in favour of MMTC and these pay orders were deposited in the bank account of MMTC, which was existing in the said bank in the year 1988.
(10.3). PW3 Sh. V.P.Bhadola is the Employee of MMTC and this witness was examined to bring on record certain invoices against which the goods were sold to the accused persons and besides, he was also examined to bring on record the fact that the payment against the said invoices was received by MMTC in advance.
(10.4). PW4 Sh Jagtar Singh Duggal is the retired Chief Manager of State Bank of India, Janakpuri Branch who remained posted there from 1998 to 1999. This witness has CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.73 of 126 brought on record two pay orders which were issued by Bank of Maharashtra, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, New Delhi and were deposited in their bank for clearing. PW4 has also brought on record the documents related to realization of certain bills which were drawn by M/s NALCO in favour of the firms of accused persons. The branch of PW4 had realized the bill amount from the branch of A-1 and remitted the said payment to SBI Bhuvneshwar Branch from where these bills were raised.
(10.5). PW5 is S.K. Khaneja, Sr. Manager, Canara Bank, Dilshad Garden. Some of the pay orders which were illegally (allegedly) issued by A-1 were submitted in said branch of Canara Bank. PW5 has brought on record certain bills which were raised by MMTC against the firms of accused persons and payment of these six bills were realized and were remitted to MMTC.
(10.6). PW6 Sh. Raj Pal Sharma is the retired Assistant General Manager of SBI. This witness has brought on record six pay orders which were issued by Bank of Maharashtra, Mukherjeee Nagar and were deposited in their bank and their bank had received the payment. This witness has also brought on record certain bills qua which the payment was collected by their bank and was remitted to NALCO, (the drawee of these bills).
CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.74 of 126 (10.7). PW7 Sh. Anil Kumar Singh was posted as Branch Manager in the Dr. Mukherjee Nagar branch of Bank of Maharashtra w.e.f 1993 to 1996. PW-7 had worked with A-1 and therefore, he was examined to identify the handwriting of A-1 and to bring on record certain pay orders which were issued by A-1. PW-7 has also brought on record certain cheques which were issued by the accused persons for issuance of the pay orders. He has also brought on record one of the cheques Ex.PW17/D-18 which was passed by A-1. He has also brought on record the account opening forms of the some of the firms of accused persons.
(10.8). PW8 Sh. R.K. Khurana was posted at Dr. Mukherjee Nagar branch of Bank Of Maharashtra w.e.f July 1996 to August 1999. This witness was examined in order to bring on record the account statements pertaining to the bank accounts of accused persons which he had provided to the CBI during investigation.
(10.9). PW9 Sh. J. K. Bhalla was posted as Assistant General Manager of State Bank of India, Delhi University branch and during investigation he had provided the bills which were received by their branch from SBI Bhuvaneshwar for collection of payment of the requisite amount. The said bills were drawn by M/s National Aluminum Company Ltd. PW9 deposed that after collecting the payment, the same was remitted to the concerned branch of SBI.
CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.75 of 126 (10.10). PW10 Anil Kumar Dora is the Manager (Marketing) of M/s National Aluminum Co., Bhuvaneshwar. This witness was examined to bring on record 19 commercial invoices which were provided by their company to the CBI. These are the commercial invoices through which aluminum was sold to different parties whose particulars have been specified in the bills itself.
(10.11). PW11 Sh Mohinder Singh is the handwriting expert and this witness was examined in order to bring on record his opinion which was provided by him after examining the pay orders as well as cheques submitted before him for examination. This witness has brought on record all the pay orders and also the cheques which were issued by the accused persons for preparation of the pay orders. He has also brought on record the cheques which were issued by the accused persons and cleared by A-1.
(10.12). PW12 Sh. Dinesh Kumar Bhardwaj is the retired Sr.Manager of Bank of Maharashtra. This witness was examined in order to bring on record the details of the allegations against A-1 as well as other accused persons. PW12 represented the department as a presenting officer in the inquiry which was held against A-1. This witness was examined to bring on record the credit vouchers which are related to the bank accounts of the accused persons and were prepared by A-
CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.76 of 126
1. This witness was also examined to bring on record some of the cheques which were cleared by A-1 though there was no sufficient balance in the accounts of A-2 to A-5/their firms and companies. He gave his deposition about ten such cheques.
(10.13). PW13 Sh N.M.Lokhande is the Sr.Manager of Bank of Maharashtra. PW13 was examined in order to identify the hand writing and signature of A-1. He was also examined to bring on record the procedure which, at the relevant time, was in place for issuance of pay orders. This witness was also examined in order to bring on record the cheques which were issued by the accused persons for issuance of the pay orders. This witness was also examined to bring on record some of the cheques which were issued by the accused and were cleared by A-1. This witness has also brought on record three of such cheques. Basically, this witness was examined by the prosecution in order to bring on record all the allegations about which the complaint (Ex.PW13/S-2) was made. Besides the pay orders and cheques, this witness has brought on record several other documents.
(10.14). PW14 is Sh.Suresh Kumar Goel. This witness had taken over the charge of Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch of Bank Of Maharashtra in the year 1991. PW14 had conducted the inquiry regarding working of the said branch. He deposed in detail about the procedure meant for issuance of pay orders and letter of credit.
CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.77 of 126 (10.15). PW15 Sh. Anil Sharma was posted as Manager of SBI, Khureji Khas Branch, Delhi from 1996 to 1998. This witness was examined to bring on record two bills which were raised by NALCO Ltd. Said branch of SBI had collected the payment of these bills and remitted the same to Bhuvaneshwar Branch.
(10.16). PW16 Sh B.K.Mishra was posted as Dy. Manager, NALCO Cell, SBI Main Branch, Bhuvaneshwar from 01.08.1996 to 26.06.1998. PW16 had handed over certain documents to CBI during investigation. This witness was examined to bring on record certain documents which were processed by their branch for collection of the payment of bills.
(10.17). PW17 Sh Ajit Kumar Singh is the IO of this case who filed the charge-sheet after completion of investigation.
11. The testimony of the witnesses examined in the case of first charge-sheet is also briefly discussed as under:-
(11.1). PW1 is Sh R.K.Pahuja. This witness has given the similar evidence which he has given in the present case. To avoid repetition, his testimony is not being discussed here. In this case, first charge-sheet (disposed of case), he deposed about the cheques which were issued by the accused persons (A2 to A5) qua issuance of pay orders for which the first charge-sheet has been filed.
CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.78 of 126 (11.2). PW2 is Sh. N.M.Lokhande. This witness was examined in the present case as PW13. He has also given his evidence on the similar lines of his evidence given in the present case. It is also clear that in the first case also he has deposed about the issuance of pay orders for which the present charge-sheet has been filed.
(11.3). PW3 is Sh.Anil Kumar Singh. He has been examined in the present case as PW7 and he has deposed on the similar lines of the deposition made in the present case. It is clear from his testimony that he has also deposed about the pay orders which were issued under the signature of A-1 as well as some of the cheques which were issued by the A-2 to A-5 qua the pay orders.
(11.4). PW4 Sh.R.K.Khurana is the same witness who has been examined in the present case as PW8 and he has also given his evidence on the similar lines of the deposition made in the present case and therefore, the same is not being repeated here for the sake of brevity.
(11.5). PW5 Sh.Mohinder Singh is the handwriting expert. He has been examined in the present case as PW11. He has also deposed on the similar lines of his deposition made in the present case. He has also deposed about all the documents including pay orders, cheques and credit vouchers which were examined by him.
CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.79 of 126 (11.6). PW6 Sh. Dinesh Kumar Bhardwaj has been examined in the present case as PW12. PW6 has given his evidence on the similar lines of the deposition made in the present case and therefore, the same is not being repeated here for the sake of brevity. It is also clear from his testimony given in decided case that he gave his deposition about the cheques and it is further clear that the original of those cheques about which he gave his deposition in the decided case have been filed in the present case.
(11.7). PW7 is Sh.Suresh Kumar Goel. He was examined in the first case as PW-14. He has given his evidence on the similar lines of the deposition given in the present case and therefore, the same is not being repeated here for the sake of brevity.
(11.8). PW8 Sh. Ajit Kumar Singh is the IO of this case who after completion of the investigation had filed both the charge- sheets.
12. The arguments on the issue of Double Jeopardy have been heard at length. Ld. Sr.PP for CBI has submitted that in the present case, two charge-sheets were required to be filed for the following reasons:-
a). That first charge-sheet was filed qua cheques and 2nd charge sheet was filed qua issuance of pay orders and Letter of Credits.
CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.80 of 126
b). That both the charge-sheets are separate and distinct and about distinct offence as it is submitted that for each transaction i.e. for issuance of each pay order, there is separate conspiracy likewise for issuance of LC and likewise for allowing encashment of each cheque same analogy was applied and therefore, it was submitted that each transaction is an independent transaction and which is to be treated as separate and distinct offence.
c). That all the pay orders, LC and cheques were issued at different point of time and were not issued together.
d). That section 300 Cr.P.C also does not apply to the present case as the case which has been decided was for cheques and the present case which is pending is for different instrument i.e. Pay Order and Letter of Credits.
e). Thus, it is submitted that the transactions in the present case are different transaction qua different instruments and it took place at different point of time. In support of his contentions, Ld. Sr.PP has relied upon the Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Faujdar Singh Vs. Statse of U.P. 2015 SCC Online All 4183, Asit Kumar Adak Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation 2015 SCC Online Cal 5045 and Gobinda Chandra Mukherjee @ Gobinda Mukherjee Vs. C.B.I, ACB, Kolkata (CRR 1893 of 2018).
CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.81 of 126
13. Ld. Counsel for Accused (A-1), has referred to the contents of the charge-sheets, evidence as well as written arguments and case laws relied upon by him. Ld. Defence Counsel submitted that the present case is squarely covered by section 300 (1) Cr.P.C as well as Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. Ld. Counsel has referred to the Judgements relied upon by him. He also submitted that the offences mentioned in both the charge-sheets form part of the same transaction. It is submitted that qua both the charge- sheets, same FIR has been registered and they are the result of the same investigation. It is further submitted that the accused persons as well as witnesses are same and same evidence has been led in both the cases. He submitted that as per allegations, A-1 had benefited the accused persons through different modes and there is proximity and continuity of the transactions as this happened during the single tenure of the accused (A-1) in the same branch. He submitted that there was no break or gap between the said transactions. Ld. Counsel also submitted that A-1 has filed a petition seeking quashing of the present proceedings on some other aspect and vide order dated 07.10.2020, the Hon'ble High Court has directed the trial Court to proceed with the case and to pronounce the Judgment and it has been further directed by the Hon'ble High Court that the accused shall not be taken into custody in case he is held guilty and in this regard, Ld. Counsel for A-1 as well as A-4 have also filed their respective applications. In support of his contentions, Ld. Defence Counsel has relied upon the Judgements titled CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.82 of 126 Chandini Srivastava Vs. CBI 2016 SCC Online Del 860, Shamshad Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. , C.B.I Vs. Vinay Kumar Jain etc 2022 SCC Online SC 1768, A Sivvaprakash Vs. State of Kerala (2016) 12 SCC 273, C. Chenga Reddy & Ors Vs. State of A.P. AIR 1996 SC 3390, C.K Jaffer Sharief Vs. State (Through CBI) (2013) 1 S.C.C 205, Kolla Veera Raghav Rao Vs. Gorantla Venkateswara Rao& Anr (2011) 2 SCCC 703, Kadiri Kunhahammad Vs. State of Madras AIR 1960 SC 661, Maqbool Hussain Vs. State of Bombay 1953 SCR 730, Muhammed Musaliya Vs. The Detective Inspector CBCID, M Murugappan Vs. the State Crl.Rev.No.426 & 427 of 2007 and T.P.Gopalakrishnan Vs. State of Kerala (Crl. Appeal No.187-188 of 2017).
14. Ld. Counsel for A-4 did not separately address the arguments and he has relied upon the submissions made on behalf of A-1.
15. The issue of double jeopardy is based upon the provisions of Article 20(2) of Constitution of India and Sec.300 (1) Cr.P.C which have been reproduced herein below:-
Article 20 of the Constitution
20. Protection in respect of conviction for offences (2) No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.
CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.83 of 126 Section 300 (1) Cr.P.C.
300. Person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for same offence.
(1) A person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made under sub- section (1) of section 221, or for which he might have been convicted under sub- section (2) thereof.
16. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anju Chaudhary Vs. State of U.P. (2013) 6 SCC 384 that there cannot be any straight jacket formula and therefore, whether two acts form part of the same transaction or not has to be seen from the facts and circumstances of each case. The relevant paras of the above referred Judgement are being reproduced herein below:-
"40. It is true that law recognizes common trial or a common FIR being registered for one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction as contemplated under Section 220 of the Code. There cannot be any straight jacket formula, but this question has to be answered on the facts of each case. This Court in the case of Mohan Baitha v. State of Bihar [(2001) 4 SCC 350], held that the expression 'same transaction' from its very nature is incapable of exact definition. It is not intended to be interpreted in any artificial or technical sense. Common sense in the ordinary use of language must decide whether or not in the very facts of a case, it can be held to be one transaction.
41. It is not possible to enunciate any formula of universal application for the purpose of determining whether two or more acts constitute the same transaction. Such things are to be gathered from the circumstances of a given case indicating proximity of time, unity or proximity of place, continuity of action, commonality of purpose or design. Where two incidents are of different times with involvement of different persons, CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.84 of 126 there is no commonality and the purpose thereof different and they emerge from different circumstances, it will not be possible for the Court to take a view that they form part of the same transaction and therefore, there could be a common FIR or subsequent FIR could not be permitted to be registered or there could be common trial.
42. Similarly, for several offences to be part of the same transaction, the test which has to be applied is whether they are so related to one another in point of purpose or of cause and effect, or as principal and subsidiary, so as to result in one continuous action. Thus, where there is a commonality of purpose or design, where there is a continuity of action, then all those persons involved can be accused of the same or different offences "committed in the course of the same transaction".
17. In view of the settled law, no person can be prosecuted and punished twice for the same offence. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that no person can be tried and convicted for the same offence as well as for different offences when other case is based on the SAME FACTS. In this regard the relevant para of the Judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kolla Veera Raghav Rao Vs. Gorantla Venkateswara Rao& Anr (2011) 2 SCC 703 is reproduced as under:-
"Thus, it can be seen that Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C. is wider than Article 20(2) of the Constitution. While, Article 20(2) of the Constitution only states that 'no one can be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once', Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C. states that no one can be tried and convicted for the same offence or even for a different offence but on the same facts".
18. In order to see whether the instances mentioned in both the cases form part of the same transaction, the test of sameness is to be applied. On the issue of sameness, in the case CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.85 of 126 of Shamshad Ahmad Vs. State of U.P., the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has discussed two cases of Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the accused. The relevant paras of the said Judgement reads as under:-
17. Sri Singh has further submitted that in an identical circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court has interpreted the 'Test of Sameness'. He cited the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in re:
Babubhai vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2010) 12 SCC 254 referring para-21, which reads as under:-
"21....whether both the FIRs relate to the same incident in respect of the same occurrence or are in regard to the incidents which are two or more parts of the same transaction.
The Supreme Court further held that if the answer to above question is in the affirmative, then the second FIR is liable to be quashed."
18. He has also cited the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in re: Anju Chaudhary vs. State of U.P. reported in (2013) 6 SCC 384 referring para-22, which reads as under:-
"22......The possibility that more than one piece of information is given to the police officer in charge of a police station, in respect of the same incident involving one or more than one cognizable offences, cannot be ruled out. Other materials and information given to or received otherwise by the investigating officer would be statements covered under Section 162 of the Code. The Court in order to examine the impact of one or more FIRs has to rationalise the facts and circumstances of each case and then apply the test of ''sameness' to find out whether both FIRs relate to the same incident and to the same occurrence, are in regard to incidents which are two or more parts of the same transaction or relate completely to two distinct occurrences. If the answer falls in the first category, the second FIR may be liable to be quashed."
19(i). In a recent case titled as T.P. Gopalakrishnan Vs. State of Kerala (2022 SCC Online SC 1768) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made the following observations as to under what circumstances the provisions of Article 20 of the CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.86 of 126 Constitution and 300 Cr.P.C would come into play. The relevant paras are reproduced as under:-
"21. It would also be useful to discuss on the importance of Section 300 of the CrPC. The said provision has been extracted hereinunder for ready reference:
"Section 300 CrPC- Person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for same offence. (1) A person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made under sub-section (1) of section 221, or for which he might have been convicted under sub-section (2) thereof.
(2) A person acquitted or convicted of any offence may be afterwards tried, with the consent of the State Government, for any distinct offence for which a separate charge might have been made against him at the former trial under sub-
section (1) of section 220.
(3) A person convicted of any offence constituted by any act causing consequences which, together with such act, constituted a different offence from that of which he was convicted, may be afterwards tried for such last mentioned offence, if the consequences had not happened, or were not known to the Court to have happened, at the time when he was convicted.
(4) A person acquitted convicted of any offence constituted by any acts may, notwithstanding such acquittal or conviction, be subsequently charged with, and tried for, any other offence constituted by the same acts which he may have committed if the Court by which he was first tried was not competent to try the offence with which he is subsequently charged.
(5) A person discharged under section 258 shall not be tried again for the same offence except with the consent of the CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.87 of 126 Court by which he was discharged or of any other Court to which the first mentioned Court is subordinate.
(6) Nothing in this section shall affect the provisions of section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897) or of section 188 of this Code.
Explanation.--The dismissal of a complaint, or the discharge of the accused, is not an acquittal for the purposes of this section."
27. There are three conditions for the application of the clause. Firstly, there must have been previous proceeding before a court of law or a judicial tribunal of competent jurisdiction in which the person must have been prosecuted. The said prosecution must be valid and not null and void or abortive. Secondly, the conviction or acquittal in the previous proceeding must be in force at the time of the second proceeding in relation to the same offence and same set of facts, for which he was prosecuted and punished in the first proceeding. Thirdly, the subsequent proceeding must be a fresh proceeding, where he is, for the second time, sought to be prosecuted and punished for the same offence and same set of facts. In other words, the clause has no application when the subsequent proceeding is a mere continuation of the previous proceeding, for example, where an appeal arises out of such acquittal or conviction. In order to sustain a plea of double jeopardy, it must be shown that all the aforesaid conditions of this clause are satisfied, vide S.A. Venkataraman.
28. What is to be noted here is that both these provisions, i.e., Section 300 of the CrPC and Article 20 of the Constitution of India use the term 'same offence'. Before dealing with the issue at hand, it is necessary to understand what the term 'same offence' means and includes. The term 'same offence' in simple language means, where the offences are not distinct and the ingredients of the offences are identical. Where there are two distinct offences made up of different ingredients, the embargo under Article 20 of the Constitution of India, has no application, though the offences may have some overlapping features. The crucial requirement of Article 20 is that the offences are the CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.88 of 126 same and identical in all respects, vide State (N.C.T. of Delhi) vs. Navjot Sandhu (2005) 11 SCC 600".
19(ii). In the said case, the appellant had assailed his conviction in two cases which were registered for misappropriation of funds. The appellant had already been prosecuted for the misappropriation of funds for the same period and subsequently, two more cases were registered as two more instances of misappropriation had come to light during further audit and in this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court made the following observation in para '40'.
"40. It would not be wrong to say that the charges framed against the accused reveal that there were several acts of misappropriation and falsification of accounts however the same were committed in the same transaction as the one for which he was prosecuted in the year 1999. The series of acts alleged against him are so connected to one another".
20. Thus, whenever, the several acts of misappropriation and falsification of account have been committed in the same transaction then for the purpose of cause of action all the such acts have to be treated as one act. Thus, for all such acts, the accused can be prosecuted only through one single case.
21. In another case titled Chandini Srivastava Vs. CBI & Ors., it has been held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that in order to ascertain whether the subsequent case is based upon the same transaction, it has to be ascertained whether offence arisen out of the acts are so connected together as to form the same transaction in order to club them together. It was further CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.89 of 126 held that if offences alleged involve similar system and persons and there is a hint of continuity of action then it will be treated as part of the same transaction. The relevant para no.23, 24 and 25 of the said Judgement is reproduced as under:-
"23. In Mohan Baitha vs. State of Bihar, AIR 2001 SC 1490, the Supreme Court interpreted Section 220 of the Code and observed as hereunder:-
"It may be noticed that under Section 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, offences more than one committed by the same persons could be tried at one trial, if they can be held to be in one series of acts, so as to form the same transaction. The expression "same transaction" from its very nature is incapable of an exact definition. It is not intended to be interpreted in any artificial or technical sense. Common sense and the ordinary use of language must decide whether on the facts of a particular case, it can be held to be in one transaction. It is not possible to enunciate any comprehensive formula of universal application for the purpose of determining whether two or more acts constitute the same transaction. But the circumstances of a given case indicating proximity of time, unity or proximity of place, continuity of action and community of purpose or design are the factors for deciding whether certain acts form parts of the same transaction or not. Therefore, a series of acts whether are so connected together as to form the same transaction is purely a question of fact to be decided on the aforesaid criteria".
24. The broad test, therefore, for ascertaining whether offences charged form part of the same transaction is whether the other set of offences, even though distinct and separate, have been committed for facilitating the commission of the main offence. If the offences alleged involve similar system or persons and there is a hint of continuity of action, it is then part of the same transaction. If the substratum of the series of acts is common, then those acts do constitute same transaction.
25. The allegation in the FIR No. RC/AC-1/2011/A0001 is that reliable information was received that B.L.Bajaj was CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.90 of 126 acting as a middleman for obtaining bribe money from respondent Nos.5, 6 & 7 for providing them undue favours through Mr.A.K.Srivastava, Chairman cum Managing Director, NALCO and then converting such bribe money into tangible form of gold for facilitating its delivery; for which bank account was opened with locker facilities by impersonating and using fake documents. The only purpose for impersonation and using of forged documents could be to provide a safe cover for A.K.Srivastava and Chandni Srivastava in accepting bribe money.
22(i). In support of his arguments, Ld. Defence Counsel has cited the Judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court titled as M. Murugappan Vs. The State, Represented by the Inpsector of Police, SPE/CBI/ACB/Chennai (Crl. Rev.Petition Nos.426 & 427 of 2007). The facts of this case are quite similar to the facts of present case if are seen from the point of view of the issue of "SAMENESS". In this matter allegation against the petitioner was that while serving as a clerk in SBI, he fraudulently prepared the bogus FCR receipts, fabricated telex messages, made entry of telex transfer of foreign exchange into the NRI accounts (opened by him in the name of Kasampum, Purtuha Murgapam) to siphon of the money fraudulently credited by him into these accounts. Thus, the allegation was that he cheated the bank by the said fraudulent transactions. In this matter, 4 FIRs were registered and three final reports were filed. The petitioner contended before Hon'ble High Court that in all the said three charge-sheets, the cause of action is same, documents are same and witnesses are same and thus, after filing the charge-sheet in CC No. 63/01 qua some of the transactions, the IO ought to have resorted to the provisions of CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.91 of 126 Section 173 (8) of Cr.PC regarding other two charge-sheets but they filed separate final reports which is not permissible in the eyes of law. It was contended that the prosecution of the petitioner in subsequent two charge-sheets i.e. CC No. 56/03, CC no. 14/2004 would amount to dobule jeopardy and will be against constitutional protection of Fundamental Articles under Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution. To justify filing of three separate charge-sheets, the CBI submitted that different types of illegal activities were committed by the Revisionist to transfer and siphon of the funds.
22(ii). In the said cases, though all the transactions formed part of the initial complaint which was made on 10.11.97, however, initially, for making false credits into the four different accounts the charge-sheet was filed in CC no. 63/01 and then for misappropriation of funds two final reports in CC No. 56/03 (USD 8415 ) for CC no. 14/04 (USD 3645) were filed. After considering the entire material, Hon'ble High Court made the following observations in Para No. 25 which is reproduced as under :-
"It is not the case of the prosecution that the offences alleged in these two cases namely, C.C No.56 of 2003 and C.C.No.14 of 2004 are distinct and discovered as a result of subsequent investigation. In fact, the offences stated in these two cases are out come of the First Information Report registered prior to registration of the complaint by CBI in R.C.No.40 of 2002. Therefore, the exception mentioned in Section 300(3) Cr.P.C., does not attract to the facts of the case".
CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.92 of 126 22(iii). In the said case, Hon'ble High Court held that in the first case itself all the allegations regarding entire siphoning off was made and in the subsequent two charge-sheets, the allegations were same as it was about misappropriation of amount only. Thus, it was held that since the allegations were already there in the first charge-sheet, no separate charge-sheet qua part of the same could have been filed.
23. So, in view of the settled preposition of law, it is to be seen whether in the present case all the transaction were (allegedly) carried out by A-1 in favour of accused No.2 to accused no.5 (either by issuing pay orders, LC or by allowing encashment of cheques), form part of the same transaction and in order to assess the same, the entire record of the case together with the facts and circumstances as spelled out in both the charge-sheets are required to be considered together. Before making discussions on the allegations mentioned in both the charge-sheets, it is deemed necessary to specify that herein in this order all the allegations made in the complaint/RC and charge-sheets as well as evidence have been discussed only to see the issue of sameness. Therefore, it is specified that no opinion has been formed on the merits of the allegations which is even otherwise not required for carrying out the test of sameness.
24. In order to find out whether the present case (charge- sheet) is hit by the principal of double jeopardy the "Test of CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.93 of 126 Sameness" is to be applied. Thus, it is to be seen whether both the charge-sheets pertain to the same incident/occurrence (same cause of action) or not. As per record, after the entire alleged fraudulent transactions carried out by A-1 in connivance with other accused persons came to light, only one single complaint was filed qua all the transactions as allegedly, A-1 had carried out all those transactions in favour of the same accused persons and during the same period. Since, the entire fraud was detected at once, therefore, one single complaint qua all the fraudulent transactions was filed and accordingly, CBI had also registered one single case against the accused persons. As such, at the outset itself it can be said that in case, each transaction of issuance of pay order, LC as well as clearing of cheque would have been treated as separate occurrence/transaction/offence, then first of all, a separate complaint would have been lodged and secondly, separate cases would have been registered qua each transaction, however, it is clear from the record that one single complaint was made by the bank qua all the alleged fraudulent transactions and in pursuance to the same, one single case was registered, seemingly, treating all the transactions as part and parcel of the same conspiracy (allegedly) hatched amongst the accused persons. It is clear from the allegations that conspiracy was hatched to provide the financial help to the accused persons through different modes. The different ways of providing illegal financial assistance to the accused persons also not to be treated to be a separate and distinct offence, if all transactions form part of same transaction. Further, each CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.94 of 126 transaction carried out in the present case cannot be treated to be a separate offence, as in case, this interpretation is given, this will only lead to anomaly. Moreover, accepting this interpretation would also be beyond the settled legal prepositions. In case, the issuance of each class of instrument would have been treated as separate incident/occurrence of distinct offence then in that case at least three cases would have been registered and for each case a separate charge-sheet (three charge-sheets) would have been filed which is not the scenario in the present case. As already discussed, qua two types of instruments one single charge-sheet has been filed (the present one) and qua the 3rd type of instrument i.e. cheques, separate charge-sheet (decided case) has been filed.
25. Thus, the action on the part of the bank in making one single complaint as well as on the part of the CBI in registering one case qua all the transactions shows that since inception the entire case was treated as one single case, yet, two separate charge-sheets were filed and moreover no reason, has been put forth by the CBI for filing two separate charge-sheets.
26. Furthermore, in order to see whether the transactions mentioned in both the charge-sheets are part of same transaction or different transactions, it must be seen whether the series of acts of both the charge-sheets are such which form part of same transaction. Thus, all the transactions should be CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.95 of 126 connected with each other and should not be independent transactions, only then it would form part of same transaction. If each transaction is an independent transaction and unconnected with the other one, then it has to be treated as a separate transaction. The present case is a similar case where all the alleged fraudulent acts of A-1 can be said to form part of same transaction as have been done under the same umbrella and were part and parcel of same conspiracy which is clear from the dates of transactions which took place from the period of 1986 to 1991. All these transactions had taken place during the same period. It is further clear that the accused persons had allegedly hatched a conspiracy in which A-1 had agreed to provide financial buffer/benefit to the rest of the accused No.2 to A5 (A-6 to A14 companies/firms being represented through A2 to A5) and in pursuance to the conspiracy, A-1 provided said financial help by debiting clearing house recoverable account (CHR) and local bank reconciliation account (LBRC) and reconciliation account of Bank. Thus, allegedly the sole motive of the conspiracy was to provide financial buffer to the A-2 to A-5 which was allegedly provided by the accused (A-1) through three different modes and these three different modes were channelized during the same period of time. It is clear that during the same period, sometimes, the pay order was issued, sometimes, LC was issued and sometimes, cheques were cleared and it is not the case of prosecution that initially (or separately), the conspiracy was hatched for issuance of pay orders and after this LCs were got issued, thereafter, cheques CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.96 of 126 were got cleared. All these three kinds of transactions were sometimes happening simultaneously, sometimes intermittently and sometimes were overlapping but one thing is clear that all these transactions were taking place during the same period and thus, it can be said that in whatever manner the financial help was required (i.e. if LC was required LC was issued, if pay orders were required pay orders were issued, if cheques were to be cleared, cheques were cleared) was provided by A-1 to A2 to A5. Thus, in view of these discussions, it is also clear that all these transactions were overlapping each other.
27. It is clear from the sequence of events i.e. issuance of pay orders as well as issuance of cheques by the accused in favour of 3rd party that these transactions were taking place in continuity as sometimes cheques were issued by the accused for the purpose of issuance of pay orders and sometime cheques were issued by the accused in favour of 3rd party. As per complaint, the transactions related to LC, Pay Order and Cheques had taken place from May 1986 to Sept. 1991 and during this period 384 cheques issued by the accused persons were dealt with and out of these cheques the instances qua 25 cheques were mentioned in the decided charge-sheet. Some of the instances can be quoted here by specifying the exhibit numbers of these documents. Ex.PW5/A-40 is the cheque dated 25.02.1989 which was issued for issuance of pay orders and cheques Ex.PW2/O1 and Ex.PW2/O2 both dated 12.04.1989 were issued by the accused persons in favour of 3rd party. CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.97 of 126 Cheque Ex.PW7/D-10 was issued for issuance of pay order on 16.05.1989 and cheque Ex.PW2/P-1 was issued on 16.06.1989 in favour of 3rd party. So, all these transactions were taking place in continuity and after a short interval and there seems to be no segregation of these transactions when these transactions are seen collectively. On going through these documents, it cannot be said that all these transactions qua LC, pay order and clearing of cheques happened individually, independently and separately. It is clear from these instruments that these were dealt with in close proximity of time. As far as the case of pay orders is concerned, it is clear that the pay order Ex.PW7/D-1 was issued on 23.08.1990, Ex.PW7/D-2 was issued on 30.08.1990, Ex.PW4/A1 was issued on 01.09.1990, Ex.PW4/A- 5 was issued on 09.09.1990 and Ex.PW7/D-3 was issued on 13.09.1990. Likewise, (cheques issued in favour of 3 rd party), Cheque Ex.PW5/A82 was issued on 28.02.1988, Ex.PW5/A83 on 02.03.1988, Ex.PW5/A-30 on 11.06.1987, Ex.PW2/P-1 on 16.06.1989, Ex.PW5/A-31 on 27.06.1987, Ex.PW5/A-33 on 27.06.1987. Likewise, as per IBC register (Ex.PW1/16), the LCs pertaining to the present matter were also issued during the same period (1986-91) and record pertaining to these LCs have been brought on record through IBC register Ex.PW1/16. It is further clear from the Ex. PW2/P2 and Ex. PW3/P3 that two cheques which were allegedly debited (allowed to be encashed without sufficient balance in the account of the accused) are of dated 16.06.1989. This clearly shows that during the same period A1 was (allegedly) illegally providing all different kinds CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.98 of 126 of financial help to A-2 to A-5 by illegally using the bank money. It is clear that bank's credit was sometimes used for issuance of pay orders, sometimes for issuance of letter of credit and sometimes the cheques issued by accused persons were cleared although sufficient amount was not available in the respective accounts of the accused persons. All the above referred transactions shows that these transactions took place in very close proximity of time which shows continuity of the transactions and consequently, it can be very easily said that all these transactions form part of the transaction and thus constitutes same cause of action.
28. Thus, it can be said that in pursuance to the conspiracy, which was hatched for providing the financial buffer, A-1 provided the requisite financial help to the accused No.2 to 5 through the said three different modes. There is nothing on record to show that all these transactions happened independently. Thus, under these circumstances, it cannot be said that for each cheque, pay order and LC, an independent and separate conspiracy was hatched.
29. It is clear that the RC was registered on the basis of complaint made by Sh. R.B.Rane, the DGM of the Bank and it is further clear from the contents of RC that complaint was about all the illegal acts allegedly committed by A-1 for favouring the accused No.2 to 5. Thus, under these circumstances, the entire investigation ought to have been done to ascertain and find out the truthfulness of these allegations CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.99 of 126 and in case, it is found that A-1 had extended the illegal benefits to the accused persons by the aforesaid three modes i.e. issuance of Letter of Credits, Pay Orders and clearing of the cheques, then all the efforts ought to have been made to complete the investigation qua all the allegations and combine all the incriminating material in one single charge-sheet and if it was not possible for any tenable reason, the IO was duty bound to at least specify in any one of the charge-sheets, the reason for not filing the one single charge-sheet qua all the allegations. The IO filed the two separate charge-sheets, one of them is qua the allegations of encashment of some of the cheques (decided case) and the other one (present case) is in regard to the issuance of Pay Orders and Letter of Credit which was not the appropriate and proper legal course of action under the facts and circumstances of the present case. Moreover, no reason for such a course of action adopted by the I.O has been put forth.
30. The submissions put forth by Ld. Sr.PP for filing the two charge-sheets is that the present charge-sheet is qua issuance of Letter of Credit and Pay Orders and the decided charge-sheet was qua clearance of cheques. This Court does not find any substance in these submissions as allegedly, the offence of cheating and forgery was committed by A-1 in order to provide financial benefits to the other accused persons and financial benefits have been extended (by using the bank's own accounts) qua three different modes of instruments and three different modes cannot be treated to be separate and distinct CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.100 of 126 offences, if they form part of same transaction/cause of action. Furthermore, if that would have been the case then IO himself would have (rather must have) filed three charge-sheets for three kinds of distinct charges/offences instead of one single charge-sheet for the two instruments i.e. Letter of Credit and Pay Orders. It is clear that in the present matter, IO has filed present charge-sheet qua issuance of Letters of Credit and Pay Orders and IO filed another charge-sheet (decided) qua clearance of cheques. So, action on the part of IO itself shows that two separate charge-sheets have not been filed as they relate to separate transactions rather the two separate charge- sheets have been filed without any rhyme or reason. Furthermore, it is not the case of the prosecution that for each offence, there was a separate conspiracy. Even otherwise, it cannot be the case of the prosecution as qua all the transactions accused are same and nature of modus operandi for providing of benefits is also the same. If each and every transaction would be independent and would have been treated as an independent offence as submitted by the Ld. Sr.PP, then firstly, separate complaints would have been made/taken and then separate FIRs would have been registered qua each instrument. Consequently, for each L.C, Pay Order and Cheque clearance, a separate charge-sheet would have been filed. But same would not be permissible if these transactions forms part of same transaction and also when these were neither independent and nor separate transactions. It is clear from both the charge-sheets and complaints that it is the same modus operandi through which CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.101 of 126 financial benefits of different nature were provided (allegedly) by A-1 to rest of the accused persons. As per prosecution case, A-1 used to debit Clearing House Receivable (CHR), Local Bank Reconciliation A/C (LBRC) and/or CO Reconciliation A/c (CO MAIN) (Bank's own account) in order to issue Pay Orders and for Clearing of Cheques as respective bank accounts of accused persons used to do not have sufficient funds for issuance of said instruments. Thus, legally and technically one single charge-sheet ought to have been filed and even if separate charge-sheets were required to be filed as has been filed in the present case, yet both the charge-sheets ought to have been clubbed and a common trial/single trial ought to have been conducted in both the cases. It is further clear that the Bank Manager (A-1) who allegedly committed the said fraud as well as the accused persons (A-2 to A-5) who connived with the Bank Manager and received illegal benefits are same. It is also clear that all transactions are also related to the same parties and are of the same period. It is also clear that the offences committed by accused persons are of similar in nature. As per settled law, the accused persons cannot be tried more than once for the same offence. Thus, going by the same analogy, the accused persons cannot be tried separately through two cases (two charge-sheets) by segregating some of the transactions which form part of the same transaction.
31. It is also clear that the private accused persons (Accused No.2 to Accused No.5 and A-6 to A-14 are their CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.102 of 126 firms/companies) are real brothers and they all are part of the same family. It is also not the case of prosecution that these accused persons are different and distinct, and separate and distinct transactions had taken place between them and A-1. Thus, even as per prosecution all of them had connived together to obtain the illegal financial help from A-1 which is also clear that the subject cheques were issued by all the accused persons (A-2 to A-5 on behalf of their companies/firms). Thus, even as per prosecution all accused persons together hatched a conspiracy with A-1. The said financial help was provided by A-1 to A-2 to A-5 from the period w.e.f 1986-1991. It is clear from the dates of transactions mentioned in the compliant/FIR/ Charge-sheet that all the transactions were happening in continuity and it is neither the case of Prosecution nor anything of this sort has been specified in the charge-sheet by the CBI that the conspiracy to obtain the financial help through said three different modes was hatched separately and in different point of time. All these transactions took place during the said period and this shows that the A-1 provided the financial help to the accused persons in whatever manner they required during the said point of time. Thus, it can be said that there is a continuity of action qua transactions happened in this case and therefore one single charge-sheet ought to have been filed qua all the said transactions especially, when entire investigation got completed at the same point of time. The IO could have filed two separate charge-sheets, in case, there was no continuity of action about the said transactions and both sets of transactions CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.103 of 126 which have been mentioned in these two charge-sheets would be unconnected and would have happened separately and independently.
32. It is clear that in the complaint as well as in the FIR, the discussion of all the instruments/ transactions have been made, however, surprisingly in the present charge-sheet (case in hand) IO made a discussion only about letters of credit (LC) and pay orders as if the case was registered only qua these two instruments and the transactions qua cheques are independent and separate transactions. Likewise in another charge-sheet (decided case), only the discussion in regard to encashment of cheques was made and IO neither in the present case nor in the decided case made a discussion about the instruments of other charge-sheet though all the instruments were part and parcel of the same complaint/RC. It seems that he has filed the two separate charge-sheets as if separate cases were registered qua both the sets of transactions. Even if one/single case was registered yet the IO could have filed the separate charge-sheet qua the cheques but only when the transactions qua clearing of cheques would have been separate and independent transactions. Furthermore, if the transactions qua all the instruments would have been separate and independent then the IO would have filed the three charge-sheets qua all the three different sets of instruments. But, it is clear that as far as two types of instruments are concerned, the present charge-sheet was filed and for the 3rd type of instrument decided charge-sheet was filed.
CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.104 of 126
33. It is further clear from the perusal of both the charge- sheets that the investigation was completed in one go qua all the allegations made in the complaint/RC which fact is clear from the perusal of the first page of the charge-sheets as the same were forwarded for filing before the Court on 04.12.1998. The present charge-sheet was prepared qua the issuance of Pay Orders and Letters of Credit and the other one was about the encashment of Cheques and both were filed before the Court on the same day. Since separate charge-sheets were filed (which were off shoots of the same RC Number), therefore, both the charge-sheets were separately registered and separate trial was held in both the cases. Since on the basis of one single complaint, one single RC case was registered and since the entire investigation was completed in one go (which relates to the entire subject matter), one single charge-sheet ought to have been filed. If all the transactions would be separate, individual and independent then same would have reflected in the actions of the IO, taken by him, in this regard. It is clear that qua two instruments, IO has filed one single charge-sheet (present case) and for 3rd type of instrument, a separate charge-sheet (decided case) was filed which clearly shows a whimsical approach of the IO because in none of the charge-sheets it has been mentioned that the conspiracy qua the issuance of the pay order and LC was hatched separately (also at a different point of time) from the conspiracy hatched for encashment of cheques. No such averment has been made in any of the charge-sheets. It is clear from the perusal of both the charge-sheets that without CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.105 of 126 citing any reason, the first charge-sheet was filed for two instruments and 2nd charge-sheet was filed for 3rd instrument. IO has not made any discussion in the 2nd charge-sheet as to why separate charge-sheet was prepared about the encashment of the cheque when the investigation was completed together qua all the allegations mentioned in the complaint/RC. Thus, all these facts clearly establish that here in this case, as already discussed in the forgoing paras, that all the offences form part of the same transaction as they are result of sole conspiracy which was hatched for obtaining/providing all sorts of illegal financial help as specified in the complaint. Thus, in view of the settled provisions of Section 220 Cr.P.C, one single charge-sheet ought to have been filed for two reasons, firstly because in the instant case, the investigation was completed qua all the aspects at the same point of time and secondly, all the transactions mentioned in both the charge-sheets form part of same transaction. Thus, there was no reason for filing two separate charge-sheets. There may be a case where some offence which forms part of the same transaction comes to the notice subsequent to the registration of the FIR and investigation qua those remain pending at the time of filing of charge-sheet qua the offences mentioned in the FIR then definitely a supplementary charge- sheet is required to be filed qua rest of the offences however, such a supplementary charge-sheet is required to be attached with the main charge-sheet and accused is to be tried together for all the offences as the same were committed by him in the same series of action. Here, in the present case, the situation in CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.106 of 126 hand is on the far better footing as all the offences were allegedly committed during the same period of time and were also reported together and investigation qua the same was also completed together as already discussed in detail in the forgoing paras. Thus, under these circumstances, firstly, the IO was bound to file one single charge-sheet and secondly, in case for any justifiable reason, the separate charge-sheet was required to be prepared qua the cheques then IO ought to have specified either of the charge-sheet as supplementary charge- sheet u/s 173(8) Cr.P.C and not as an independent charge-sheet which could have only been filed when the facts and circumstances/offences of both the charge-sheets would have been either totally unconnected with the other one or would be about the offences which took place separately, individually and independently.
34. It is further clear that in the documents of both the cases (the present charge sheet as well as the disposed off charge-sheet) averments about the cheques was made which according to disposed off charge-sheet was the subject matter of disposed off case only. It is further clear from the list of documents that particulars of all the cheques which as per prosecution are the subject matter of the decided charge-sheet have also been mentioned in the list of documents of the present case. Furthermore, all the aforesaid original cheques (about which decided charge-sheet is filed) have been filed alongwith the present charge-sheet. This particular fact also shows that the CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.107 of 126 matter is one and same and despite that two separate charge- sheets were filed.
35. It is clear from the evidence led in the present case that besides the other allegations, PW1 has also deposed about the allegations of clearing of cheques of A-2 to A-5 by A-1 despite the fact that the respective bank accounts of the accused were not having sufficient balance. He has brought on record the details of those cheques in his testimony. Some of the cheques which have been brought on record by PW1 are cheques no.401984 Ex.PW1/1 (Ex.PW2/O-1), cheques no. 401985 Ex.PW1/3 (Ex.PW2/O-2) and cheques no.399905 Ex.PW1/5 (Ex.PW2/O-3). This clearly shows that the allegations against A-1 regarding permitting encashment of the cheques issued by the co-accused persons (though the co- accused person's were not having sufficient balance in their respective bank accounts) have been discussed by PW1 in his examination-in-chief of the present case also. In case the present case would have been a separate and independent matter, then the witnesses would have confined their evidence to the factum of issuance of the LC and pay orders. This further shows that the allegations against the accused persons form part of the same transaction and were inseparable as far as the cause of action for institution of criminal proceedings was concerned.
36. It is clear from the testimony of PW1 recorded on 07.08.2008 (at page no.4 in the disposed off charge-sheet) that CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.108 of 126 PW1 has deposed that A-1 had issued various letters of credit without having sanctioning powers. Likewise PW2 in his evidence dated 23.10.2008 deposed about issuance of pay orders by A-1. Likewise PW3 has also specified the particulars of certain pay orders which were issued under the signatures of A-1. PW5 who is the handwriting expert has brought on record all the pay orders which were issued under the signatures of A-
1. It is further clear from the evidence of PW7 that he has specified the procedure in detail for issuance of letters of credit though the disposed off charge-sheet was filed only in respect of encashment of cheques. In case the disposed off case would have been separate and independent case and had no concern with the present case then there was no reason for PW8 to specify the procedure of issuance of letter of credit which as per prosecution is subject matter of the present case only.
37. Likewise situation is same in the present case. Here in this case, PW7 has discussed about cheque no. 135397 Ex.PW7/D18 and Cheque No.401984, 401985 & 399905 Ex.PW2/O-1, Ex.PW2/O-2 and Ex.PW2/O-3 respectively. Likewise, PW11 also discussed about all the documents including the cheques. Likewise, PW12 has also discussed about several cheques. Thus, it is clear that the witnesses examined in the present case have also given their evidence about the cheques for which the disposed of charge-sheet has been filed. The prosecution has relied upon the same sets of documents in both the cases and it is admitted position of facts CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.109 of 126 that all the documents (cheques for which the charge-sheet in the decided case has been filed) have been filed in the present case and admittedly, for the purpose of adjudication of the decided case, the documents (original) attached with the present charge-sheet have been considered.
38. Thus, it is clear from the aforesaid discussions that witnesses examined in both the cases have given their evidence in regard to all the allegations about which the original complaint was made and about which the case was registered. The aforesaid conduct on the part of the IO regarding citing the same witnesses/similar evidence/common evidence in both the charge-sheets clearly shows that it is the same cause of action on the basis of which one single complaint was made and consequently, one single case was registered.
39. On the issue of sameness, the contents of order dated 10.05.2016 (passed in the decided case) are very relevant. Order dated 10.05.2016, shows that the common evidence was led in both the matters which fact also fortify that both the charge-sheets are part and parcel of same series of acts. If both the charge-sheets would be for separate, individual and independent offences then by all means separate and specific evidence pertaining to each case would have been led by the prosecution and such a directions that the evidence led in one case will be read in the other case would not have been passed on the request of prosecution as well as Ld. Defence counsel.
CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.110 of 126 Thus, for ready reference, the relevant order (dated 10.05.2016) is reproduced as under:-
"CC No.8(A)/1994 CBI/SIU-VII/ND CBI Vs. V.K.Jain and Ors.CC No.06/15
10.05.2016 Present: Sh. J.S.Wadia, PP for CBI with HIO Insp. Rakesh Kumar Accused V.K.Jain and Praveen Kumar Gupta are present on bail alongwith Ld. Counsel Sh H.R. Dhamija It is stated by Ld. Defence Counsel as well as by Ld. Prosecutor for CBI that the common evidence was recorded in both the cases bearing CC No.05/15 and 06/15 and the copies of statement of witnesses recorded in one case were also kept in another case and vice versa. Therefore, it will be in the interest of justice that the evidence recorded in one case be also read as evidence in another case, as both are interconnected with each other and overlapping. Request allowed.
It is also pointed out by Ld.PP for CBI that certain exhibit marks put on certain documents which have been proved in the testimony of witnesses recorded in CC No.06/15 have been marked in original documents kept in CC No.05/15. Therefore, he submits that the exhibit marks put on certain documents which have been put in one case (though pertaining to other case) may be read as exhibited documents in other case and vice versa, to which Ld. Defence Counsel has no objection. The said request is also allowed in the interest of justice.
Ld. SPP also submits as a abundant caution and in order to avoid confusion, the exhibit marks were put on photocopies of certain documents during evidence. The original of which were placed in CC No.05/15. However, due to inadvertence certain exhibit marks could not be put on certain photocopies in CC No.06/15. He prays said exhibits marks on photocopies (though mentioned in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses) be allowed to be put in CC No.06/15, to which also Ld. Defence Counsel has no objection, as originals are already there in CC no.05/15. Same request is also allowed in the interest of justice.
It is also pointed out by Ld. Spl.PP for CBI that all the original cheques, Vouchers, Pay Orders and LCs and all other documents have been kept in CC No. 05/15 and only photocopies have been put in CC No.06/15. Therefore, the CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.111 of 126 Court should see the original of the documents while deciding the case CC No. 06/15, as that in CC No.05/15. Same is also stated by Ld. Defence Counsel be allowed to be done in the interest of justice.
Further part final arguments heard on behalf of both the accused persons.
Put up for remaining final arguments on 11.05.2016".
40. Thus, it is clear from the above referred order passed on dated 10.05.2016 that common evidence was lead in both the cases. It is also clear from the said order that all the original documents i.e. original cheques, vouchers, pay orders and LCs and other relevant documents have been kept in CC No. 5/15 (the old case number of the present charge-sheet) and only photocopies have been placed in CC No. 6/15 (decided charge sheet). This shows that same documents have been relied upon by the prosecution in both the cases. It is not that the name of witnesses are same rather it is admitted fact that the evidence is also the same and the documents are also common. Facts of both the cases (charge-sheets) are overlapping and showing that these are not separate cases but part and parcel of one and same case.
41. It is also clear from the evidence of prosecution witnesses especially, from the evidence of PW Sh Dinesh Kumar Bhardwaj (examined as PW12 in the present case and PW6 in the decided case) that all the accused persons are from the same family. Thus, even if A-1 would have allegedly provided either another kind of financial help (to A-2 to A-5) or the financial help in any other way or by any other mode yet it CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.112 of 126 would have formed part of the same transaction as these would only be different ways of executing the conspiracy for providing financial buffer/help.
42. Neither it is the case of the prosecution nor it can be assumed and moreover it would be beyond comprehension to believe and assume under the facts and circumstances of the present case that for each instrument i.e pay order, letter of credit and a cheque, a separate conspiracy would have been hatched. It is clear that there is continuity of action qua all the transactions carried out in this case. Once A-1 had already connived with the accused persons, it cannot be the scenario that every time whenever they needed a pay order issued (without having sufficient balance) they would have approached A-1 and hatched a fresh conspiracy likewise, similar will be the situation qua issuance of letters of credit and encashment of cheques. Once accused persons had entered into the conspiracy for obtaining illegal financial help (which was basically for illegally obtaining the encashment of the said instruments without having sufficient balance in their respective bank account and also for issuance of the said instruments without compliance of rules and regulations) then whenever they would need any sort of financial help, they would avail the same in connivance and with the help of A-1 as when already there is a meeting of mind qua the same kind of illegal transactions then there cannot be a fresh conspiracy for all the future similar kinds of transactions which are to be carried out CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.113 of 126 for the same purpose. It is like that once the accused persons started conducting themselves in pursuance to their conspiracy, then whenever accused no.2 to 5 needed the illegal financial help, A-1 provided the same during his tenure in the said bank. So, it cannot be said that every now and then like in the gap of one day, two days, three days or seven days, the accused would approach A-1 and hatch a fresh conspiracy for getting the similar kind of instrument issued again (for obtaining similar illegal benefits). The fact that all the illegal transactions (allegedly) specified in both the charge-sheets were carried out in pursuance to the same conspiracy is clear from the record also. It is clear from the contents of the complaint dated 19.05.1994 (Ex.PW13/S-2) which is the foundation of both the charge-sheets that all the alleged fraudulent transactions (qua issuance of Letter of Credit, Pay Orders and Encashment of Cheques) were carried out by the accused persons (same accused persons) during the same period (May 1986 to September 1991) and under the same conspiracy, however, without citing any reason, IO has segregated these inseparable transactions (as far as cause of action for initiating criminal action is concerned) and has filed two separate charge-sheets. The relevant paras of the complaint (Ex.PW13/S-2), perusal of which clearly shows that all the fraudulent transactions were carried out in pursuance to the same conspiracy are reproduced as under:-
"We want to bring to your knowledge the following facts regarding the fraud committed at our Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Branch, Delhi during May 1986 to Sept. 1991.
CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.114 of 126 Mr. V.K. Jain was working as Branch Manager, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar from 7.5.1986 to 27 Sept. 1991. During his posting as such he entered into criminal conspiracy and committed the following acts of willful omission/commission.
43(i). A revision petition based upon the similar sorts of facts and circumstances was filed before Hon'ble Madras High Court in the matter of M.Murugappan Vs. The State Represented by The Inspector of Police, SPE/CBI/ACB/ Chennai. In this matter also, the issue of double jeopardy was raised and the accused had sought his discharge in subsequently registered two cases. Since the facts and circumstances of the said case (M.Murugappan) were almost similar and therefore, the same are required to be discussed in detail in order to specify as to what observations have been made by Hon'ble High Court on the issue of double jeopardy when the subsequently instituted prosecution is based upon the similar facts and circumstances. All the relevant paras of the said Judgement including the facts and circumstances, submissions of Ld. Counsel, Ld. Special Public Prosecutor for CBI on the aspect of double jeopardy are discussed and reproduced as under:-
"2. The petitioner herein while facing trial in C.C.No.63 of 2001 for offences under Sections 120 B r/w 420, 468 r/w 471, 467 r/w 471, 477 A, 406, 381, 201 IPC and r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, the respondent herein filed two final reports on completion of investigation on same set of facts but different transactions. The Trial Court took the case on file and assigned C.C.No.56 of 2003 and C.C.No.14 of 2004.
3. The petitioner contention is that, C.C.No.63 of 2001 which is the out come of investigation made by CBI based on source CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.115 of 126 information alleging that the petitioner while serving as clerk in the SBI, Ambattur Industrial Estate Branch, Chennai-50 had fraudulently prepared bogus FCR Receipts, fabricated telex messages showing telex transfer of foreign exchange into the NRE accounts opened by him in the name of Kannappan and Punitha Murugappan to siphon the money fraudulently credited into it. Thereby cheated SBI to a tune of Rs.31,59,769.80.
4. This case was based on the four First Information Reports registered by CBI on 13.01.1998 in FIR RC 1(A) 98/CBI/ACB/Chennai to 4 (A) 98 CBI/ACB/Chennai. Earlier, with same allegation based on the complaint given by S.Rajan, Assistant General Manager, SBI, Ambattur Industrial Estate Branch on 10.11.1997, the E-2 Ambattur Estate Police registered FIR on Crime No.913 of 1997 u/s 406, 408, 465 IPC and the petitioner was taken into custody of the police and later released on bail. The investigation of case was subsequently transferred to DCB, St. Thomas Mount, Chennai and taken up for investigation in Crime No. 27 of 1997 dated 27.12.1997.
5. Pursuant to the Government Order in G.O.M.s No. 318 dated 12.04.2002, CBI took up the investigation and filed final report and also cognizance taken by the court as C.C.No. 56 of 2003 on 29.08.2003 and C.C.No. 14 of 2004 on 21.04.2002. The subject matter of C.C.No.56 of 2003 is with regard to a single transaction of USD 8145 alleged to have been credited into the NRE Account No. 195 in the name of Kannappan, based on fake telex message as if SBI, New York adviced for credit this amount into the account of Kannappan.
6. The subject matter of C.C.No. 14 of 2014 is in respect of alleged fake telex message from SBI, New York Branch dated 16.10.1996 for credit advice of USD 3645 fraudulently credited into the account of Smt. Punitha Murugappan in Account No.C- 36/7105 and telex message of SBI, New York Branch dated 04.02.1997 for credit advice for USD 10291.20. into the account of Smt.Punitha Murugappan.
7. The petitioner contents that the investigation officer in all the three cases C.C.No. 63/01, C.C.No.56/03 and C.C.No.14/04 is one and the same. Documents relied and witnesses are same. No additional or new witnesses or documents relied by the prosecution in the subsequent cases C.C.No. 56/03 and C.C.No. 14/04. The three transactions which are subject matter of these cases are known to the investigating officer when he filed final report in C.C.No.63/01. When no new material found subsequent to the filing of final report u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C, without resorting to section 173(8) of Cr.P.C the prosecution has selectively taken few transactions and had filed separate final reports which is unknown to criminal law.
CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.116 of 126
8. The cause of action is same and witnesses are common. Having taken up the investigation and filed final report comprising the entire facts, no further prosecution is sustainable and charge cannot be framed.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that earlier when trial in C.C.No.63/01 was in progress the petitioner filed petitions to charge and try the accused along with C.C.No. 63/01. But the trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that already 20 witnesses in C.C.No. 63/01 had been examined, if joint trial is ordered these witnesses have to be recalled and examined further which will cause enormous delay. The subsequent final report are in respect of omitted act committed by the accused. Hence taking into consideration of all the facts, the trial court declined to entertain the request for joint trial. Pointing out the overlapping and illegality in subsequent final reports for same offence, without resorting to Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C and permission for further investigation, charge sheet was laid, hence discharge petitions was filed before the trial Court, however it was dismissed hence same is impugned in the present Revision Petitions. Meanwhile, the trial in C.C.No.63/01 completed and ended in conviction on 30.07.2014 and the appeal against conviction is pending before High Court in Crl.A.No.420/2014. Having tried and held guilty, for the same set of facts, fresh prosecution for same offence cannot be initiated.
10. The learned counsel submits that while the petitioner had been tried for the charges which covers the subject matter of C.C.No.56/03 and C.C.No. 14/04, he cannot be again tried for same offence in view of the bar under section 300 Cr.P.C.
11. To substantiate his submission, the learned counsel drew the attention of this court to the charges framed in the concluded case C.C.No.63/2001 and the final reports filed by the prosecution in C.C.No.56/03 and C.C.No.14/04. Wherein he pointed out that the charges 1,3,9,14,19,26,27,29 and 33 includes the transactions which are subject matter of C.C.No.56/03 and C.C.No.14/04. While so even if the transactions are omitted to be included, in the previous case those transactions cannot be tried separately which will amount to double jeopardy and against the constitutional protection of fundamental Right under article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution".
43(ii). In view of the aforesaid discussions, Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that the cause of action in the CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.117 of 126 previously filed case i.e. CC No.63/01 and in the cases No. CC No.65/03 and 14/04 are same and witnesses are also common. Thus, it was submitted that the subsequent two charge-sheets ought to have been treated as supplementary charge-sheets u/s 173(8) Cr.P.C. In order to justify filing of two charge-sheets, Ld. Special Public Prosecutor has made the following submissions:-
13. The learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted as for the above act of crime, the petitioner was tried in C.C.No.63/01, in that trial the offence cheating through the fake telex message dated 26.06.1997 for transfer of 8145 USD into the account of Kannappan and fraudulent credit into the account of Smt. Punitha Murugappan through fake Telex message dated 16.10.1996 for USB 3645 and fake telex message dated 04.02.1997 for 10,291 USD are not included. They are exclusively dealt in C.C.No.56/03 and C.C.No.14/04. These offences came to light earlier through the complaint by Rajan, Assistant General Manager and was probed by local police in Crime No.913/97 then transferred to DCB, St.Thomas Mount and later to CBI. While conducting investigation in RC 1(A) to 4 (A) /CBI/ACB/Chennai, these transactions came to the notice of the IO, since these transactions were already subject matter under investigation by local police so they were excluded in the final report filed in RC 1 (A) to 4(A) 98/CBI/ACB/Chennai.
Only after filing final report and court taking cognizance in C.C.No.63/2001, the State Government vide G.O.M.S.No.918 dated 12.04.2002 transferred the investigation of Crime No.913/97 so far investigated by state to the CBI which in turn, took up the investigation registered as RC No. 40(2) 2002/CBI/ACB/Chennai. Which culminated in filing later of two final reports and cognizance taken by the Trial Court in C.C.No.56/03 and C.C.No.14/04. There is no legal infirmity in the procedure of filing separate final reports independently instead of resorting to Section 173 (8) of Cr.P.C and no ground to discharge the accused for the said reason.
43 (iii). Thus, Ld. Special Public Prosecutor submitted that the transactions specified in second charge-sheet came to the notice while conducting investigation in respect of four RCs CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.118 of 126 which were registered by CBI initially. Since the investigation was being conducted by local police therefore, they were not made part of the initial charge-sheet and after investigation qua these transactions was transferred to CBI, these two charge- sheets were filed. Thus, it is clear that main reason put forth for filing the separate two charge-sheets was that the investigation qua these two cases was completed subsequent to filing of the main charge-sheet i.e. CC No.63/01.
43(iv). The Hon'ble High Court has observed that the allegations regarding the misappropriation of funds were specified by the bank authorities in complaint dated 27.12.1997 and it is also observed by the Hon'ble High Court as to how for the misappropriation of funds, different charge-sheets were filed. The relevant para are reproduced as under:-
15. From the records relied by the petitioner this court finds that the crime come to light initially through the complaint of S.Rajan, Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Ambuttur Estate, Chennai-15 dated 27.12.1997. In this complaint it is alleged that the petitioner herein Mr.Murugappan son of Maiappan working as clerk/ typist in the CIT division as misappropriated funds by falsifying Telex Message and diverted those money into the following accounts:
1.NRS 195 in the name of Sri.M.Kanappan
2. SB 25122 in the name of Smt. Punitha Ramanathan
3. NRE 173 in the name of Sri.Ramasamy Chettair and Kalaiarasan Chettiar
4. CA/C 38571 in the name of Smt. Punitha Ramanathan.
16. Further, it is also mentioned in the complaint the total amount diverted and the names of the beneficiary. This complaint has been initially taken on file by District Crime Branch Chengleput in C.C.No. 27 of 97 later transferred to C.B.I in RCMA1 20002A0040 dated 26.08.2002 as per the Government Order in G.O.M.s.No. 318 dated 12.04.2002.
CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.119 of 126
17. The Four First Information Reports RC 1(A)/CBI/ACB/Chennai to RC 4(A)/CBI/ACB/Chennai dated 13.01.1998, culminated in C.C.No.63 of 2001 also in respect of fake telex messages and false credits into the above mentioned four different accounts in which the accused has misappropriated huge sum based on the false Telex Messages.
18. While, the final report in C.C.No.56 of 2003 is about misappropriation of USD 8145 into the account of Kannappan the Subject matter of C.C.No.14 of 2004 is in respect of 3645 USD being misappropriated through the account of Punitha Murugappan based on the Telex Message dated 16.10.1996 and the fraudulent transactions pertaining to fake Telex Message dated 04.02.1997 in respect of misappropriating 10,291.20 US Dollars into the account of Punitha Murugappan.
19. The above transactions forms part of the complaint of Mr.Rajan dated 10.11.1997 which was taken up for investigation by the Ambuttur Estate Police initially and later transferred to C.B.I.
20. The Trial Court while considering the discharge petition has found that there is overlapping, but certain transactions were omitted, therefore the trial court has concluded those omitted transactions forms part of the subsequent trial in C.C.No.56 of 2003 and C.C.No.14 of 2004. Therefore for those transactions the petitioner accused is liable to be tried independently".
43 (v). So, it is clear that as per prosecution, the subsequent two charge-sheets were filed qua the misappropriated amount which could not be incorporated in the first charge-sheet. It has been further observed in para 23 of the Judgement as to how charges of subsequent two cases are similar and relates to the charges about which initial charge-sheet was already filed. In order to see that the facts and circumstances are overlapping and repeating, the charges framed in first case were also discussed in detail. It was observed by the Hon'ble High Court that offences under which the subsequent charge-sheets were filed were part and parcel of the first initial FIR. In this regard, CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.120 of 126 the observations made by the Hon'ble High Court in para 25, 27, 28 and 30 are relevant which are reproduced as under. The Hon'ble High Court has discharged the accused in the subsequent charge-sheet.
25. It is not the case of the prosecution that the offences alleged in these two cases namely, C.C.No.56 of 2003 and C.C.No.14 of 2004 are distinct and discovered as a result of subsequent investigation. In fact, the offences stated in these two cases are out come of the First Information Report registered prior to registration of the complaint by CBI in R.C.No.40 of 2002.
Therefore, the exception mentioned in Section 300 (3) Cr.P.C., does not attract to the facts of the case.
27. This Judgment explains when subsequent prosecution is permissible and when not permissible. In case of misappropriation if the previous trial is in respect of gross sum between two days, the subsequent trial for the amount not included in the gross sum is impermissible whereas if the earlier trial is for specific sum of money received on specific date the subsequent trial for the gross sum excluding the specific sum is permissible.
28. The Principle laid in the above judgment is applied to the facts of the case in hand, the previous trial is in respect of gross sum whereas the subsequent trial in C.C.No. 56 of 2003 and C.C.No. 14 of 2004 in respect of specific sum. Therefore, the judgment rendered in In re Appadurai Ayyar will apply to the facts of the case and therefore, the Principle of double jeopardy gets attracted.
30. As discussed, going by the facts of the case, in all these three cases the facts are common, documents are same and no additional new witnesses to be examined. Therefore, no different charge other than what framed and tried in C.C.No.63 of 2001 could be framed in C.C.No.56 of 2003 and C.C.No.14 of 2004 except the amount misappropriated. Therefore, apart from double jeopardy, issue estoppel also gets attracted in this case".
44. Thus, in view of the settled law, if several transactions form part of the same cause of action and are covered within the umbrella of same offence then it is not CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.121 of 126 the choice of the prosecution to split any transaction to file multiple charge-sheets (one charge-sheet for some of the transactions and other for rest of the transactions) and prosecution is bound to file one single charge-sheet after the time entire investigation is complete and if some investigation is pending and charge-sheet is yet to be filed then for rest of the transactions for which further investigation is pending a supplementary charge-sheet can be filed that too if it pertains to the same cause of action and no independent charge-sheet is to be filed and such a charge-sheet is to be treated as charge-sheet u/s 173(8) Cr.P.C.
45. Thus, in view of the settled legal preposition for the issue of double jeopardy, it is not to be seen as to how many transactions were carried out by A-1 in connivance with other accused persons and it is to be seen as to what is the basic offence and here the basic offence is committing fraud and forgery by misusing the bank funds thereby forging certain vouchers to favour the accused persons (A-2 to A5). Thus, even if A-1 is found guilty qua one illegal transaction, he will be convicted for the same offence even when rest of the transactions could not be proved against him. As per prosecution case, A-1 favoured the accused through different nature of multiple illegal transactions by illegally using the bank funds from bank's own three different accounts. Thus, A-1 is to be jointly tried for all his fraudulent acts if these form part CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.122 of 126 of the same transaction/cause of action which is the scenario in the present case. Thus, A-1 cannot be separately tried even for one of the illegal transactions as the same is part and parcel of a bunch of the transactions and therefore, the same is not detachable for the purpose of cause of action and also for treating the same to be a distinct and separate offence. Thus, A1 and other accused persons ought to have been tried in one single charge-sheet which ought to have been filed qua all the alleged illegal transactions. But in the instant case, the prosecution chose to file two charge-sheets and accused persons were tried separately in both the charge-sheets/cases. The accused persons (A-1 and A-4) have already been convicted in the charge-sheet which was filed qua the transactions of cheques and therefore, the accused persons cannot be again(separately) tried for the same offence for rest of the transactions as they relate to the same cause of action.
46. In the matter of Anju Chaudhary Vs. State of U.P. (2013) 6 SCC 384, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that there cannot be any straight jacket formula and therefore, whether two acts form part of the same transaction or not has to be seen from the facts and circumstances of each case. The Judgments relied upon by the Ld. Sr.PP for CBI have been perused. It is most respectfully observed that the Judgement cited by the Ld. Sr.PP are not applicable to the peculiar fact of the present case and these are distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case.
CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.123 of 126
47. In view of these discussions, it is clear that either IO ought to have filed one single charge-sheet qua all the transactions and even if two separate charge-sheets were filed segregating the aforementioned transactions yet both the charge-sheets were required to be clubbed and tried together for the reasons which can be summed up as under :-
i). As discussed, all the transactions mentioned in both the charge-sheets form part of the same transaction and were carried out in pursuance to the same cause of action/similar conspiracy.
ii). Conspiracy was hatched between the same sets of accused persons i.e. A-1 (on one hand) with other co-
accused No.2 to 5 (on the other hand) who are none other than the part and parcel of the same family which fact is clear from the contents of complaint as well as from the deposition of prosecution witnesses (PW6 - in decided case and PW12-in the present case) .
iii). The transactions happened in close proximity of time and in continuity and are overlapping each other. Like for instance, i.e. on first day of month LC was issued, on the 5thday pay order was issued, again on 10th day LC was issued and then on 15th day cheque was encashed and then on 28th day pay order was issued then cheque was encashed and then LC was issued and so on.
iv). As per charge-sheet, the accused persons have committed same offences in both the cases, though, it does not make much difference and the prosecution would have had a legal right to file two separate charge-sheets qua the accused persons if they would have committed similar offence but when same were not based upon the similar ingredients/ cause of action/ facts and Circumstances.
v). The common evidence based upon the common material was led in both the cases though in the present case some CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.124 of 126 additional witnesses were examined. However, it is clear that since both the cases are interconnected therefore, vide order dated 10.05.2016 (passed in decided case), the request of both the sides that the evidence led in one case may be read in another case, was accepted.
48. Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances discussed in the foregoing paras, it is held that the accused persons (A1 and A4) ought to have been tried through one single charge-sheet, however, two separate charge-sheets were filed qua the same offence(offences) and it is admitted position of fact that the accused persons (A1 and A4) have already been convicted for the same offences in the CC No.06/15. As per Article 20(2) and Section 300 (1) Cr.P.C, the subsequent prosecution of the accused persons for the same offence for which they have already been tried and convicted is prohibited under law as it amounts to double jeopardy. Therefore, the present proceedings are liable to be closed as the same is prohibited under law. Consequently, the accused persons (A-1 Vinay Kumar Jain and A-4 Praveen Kumar Gupta) are liable to be acquitted and accordingly, they are acquitted of the present case. It is made clear that the present order is being passed only qua accused No.A-1 and A-4 and the prosecution is at liberty to revive the same as and when the remaining accused persons (A- 2, A-3 and A-5), who have been declared P.O are arrested or they surrender before the Court.
49. Both the accused A-1 Vinay Kumar Jain and A-4 Praveen Kumar Gupta are directed to furnish bail bonds in the CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.125 of 126 sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with a surety of the like amount each in view of the provisions contained u/s 437-A Cr.P.C.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the Open Court on 07.06.2023 AJAY Digitally signed by AJAY GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2023.06.07 16:59:32 +0530 (Ajay Gupta) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-03, RADC/New Delhi/07.06.2023 CC No.56/2019 CBI Vs. V.K.Jain etc. Page No.126 of 126