Delhi District Court
Cbi vs (1)Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla on 22 July, 2020
IN THE COURT OF SH.SHAILENDER MALIK, SPECIAL JUDGE (PC
ACT), CBI, COURT NO.407, ROUSE AVENUE COURT, NEW DELHI
C.C. NO.37/2019
Unique Case ID No.DLCT110000812019
CBI VERSUS (1)Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla
Son of Beg Ram
R/o RZ11A/266, M Block, West Sagar
Pur, New Delhi.
(2)Smt.Alka Devi
Wife of Rajiv Kumar
R/o RZ11A/266, M Block, West Sagar
Pur, New Delhi.
(3)Smt.Rajinder Kaur
Wife of Manjeet Singh
R/o B39, Fateh Nagar, Near Sahbjada
Gurudwara, Jail Road, New Delhi
(Proclaimed Offender)
(4)Manjeet Singh
S/o of Surat Singh
R/o H.No.68, Village Bindapur, Uttam
Nagar, New Delhi.
(5)R.K. Sharma
Son of Sant Lal Sharma
R/o Flat No.81, GH14, Paschim Vihar,
New Delhi.
(6)Ashok Jain
Son of Prem Chand Jain
R/o C7/298, Keshav Puram, Lawrence
Road, New Delhi35.
(7)Rajeev Kumar Soni @ Rajesh Dhiraj
Lal Soni
Son of Dhiraj Lal Soni
CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 1
R/o 203, Madhav Apartment,
Gundaward, Rajkot2, Gujarat.
(8)Sandeep Jain
Son of Ashok Jain
R/o C7/298, Keshav Puram, Lawrence
Road, New Delhi35.
Date of Institution : 31.12.2011
Date of judgment reserved : 08.07.2020
Date of judgment pronounced: 22.07.2020
JUDGEMENT
1. Prosecution in the present matter was initiated by registration of FIR vide RC No. EOUI2007E005 CBI ND dated 27.09.2010 on the complaint of Sh.R.K. Pandey, Deputy Manager, State Bank of Patiala dated 15.09.2010 for offence under Section 120B read with 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC originally against accused Rajiv Kumar s/o Beg Ram and his wife Smt. Alka Devi.
2. After the completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in this case against eight accused persons i.e. Rajiv Kumar s/o Beg Ram (A1), Smt.Alka Devi w/o Rajiv Kumar (A2), Rajinder Kaur w/o Manjeet Singh (A3), Manjeet Singh s/o Surat Singh (A4), R.K. Sharma s/o Sant Lal Sharma (A5), Ashok Jain s/o Prem Chand Jain (A6), Rajeev Kumar Soni @ Rajesh Dhiraj Lal Soni (A7) and Sandeep Jain s/o Ashok Jain (A8).
Prosecution Case
3. Allegations appearing in FIR are that Rajiv Kumar (A1), proprietor of M/s Dalshan Adhesives availed cash credit (Hypothecation) limit of Rs.1.50 CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 2 crores on 27.08.2007 from State Bank of Patiala, Shastri Bhawan Branch, New Delhi, on the basis of fake title deeds of two properties mortgaged as well as collateral securities, only with the intention to cheat the bank. Wife of accused Rajiv Kumar namely Alka Devi (A2) allegedly mortgaged two more properties as collateral securities against the aforesaid CC(H) limit of Rs.1.50 crores by depositing fake title deeds of properties on 20.02.2008. Later said CC(H) account of firm M/s Dalshan Adhesives was declared NPA on 30.09.2008 with outstanding of Rs.159.02 lacs.
4. During the investigation it was revealed that accused R.K. Sharma (A5) while posted as Chief Manager in State Bank of Patiala, Shastri Bhawan Branch came in contact with Sh.H.K. Sharma (PW4), Chartered Accountant of M/s Gillard Radio Products Private Limited, whose account was in the same bank branch. Accused R.K. Sharma requested Sh.H.K. Sharma, Chartered Accountant to recommend some cases of advances so as to enhance the business of the branch of Bank.
5. It further came in the allegations that Sh.H.K. Sharma (PW4) had met with accused Ashok Jain (A6) through his client Rajender Sharma (PW12), proprietor of M/s Raj Kamal Wire Industries. Therefore Sh.H.K. Sharma introduced Ashok Jain (A6) with R.K. Sharma(A5), Chief Manager of the bank. Ashok Jain (A6) submitted a proposal for obtaining CC limit from State Bank of Patiala, Shastri Bhawan Branch for his firm M/s Yogesh Trading Company through CA H.K. Sharma. However the said limit was not sanctioned to his firm as A6 Ashok Jain could not complete the bank formalities/requirements. Later A6 Ashok Jain and PW4 H.K. Sharma introduced Rajeev Kumar Soni @ Rajiv Dhiraj Lal Soni (A7) with R.K. Sharma (A5) for loan facility of the firm of A7 M/s S.K. Enterprises. A5 R.K. Sharma advised him to submit a proposal CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 3 in the bank for availing CC loan. On the request of A6 Ashok Jain, PW4 H.K. Sharma prepared a loan proposal of A7 Rajeev Kumar Soni's firm M/s S.K. Enterprises for CC(H) facility of Rs.1.5 cr. Said loan proposal was recommended by A5 R.K. Sharma and loan was sanctioned by Zonal Office of the bank.
6. As per the prosecution allegations after about 2/3 months of sanction of aforesaid loan, A6 Ashok Jain somewhere in July 2007 introduced Rajiv Kumar (A1) with PW4 H.K. Sharma CA and requested him to prepare a proposal for mortgage loan for firm of A1 M/s Dalshan Adhesives. Ashok Jain (A6), Rajiv Kumar (A1) and PW4 H.K. Sharma, allegedly contacted A5 R.K. Sharma, Chief Manager of State Bank of Patiala, Shastri Bhawan Branch for loan facility for firm of A1 M/s Dalshan Adhesives. Accused R.K. Sharma asked Rajiv Kumar (A1) to give him photocopies of sale deeds of properties proposed to be mortgaged with the bank and also asked to submit a loan proposal. Accordingly, PW4 H.K. Sharma, CA prepared a loan proposal for firm M/s Dalshan Adhesives for CC(H) limit of Rs.1.5 crores based on the documents provided by A6 and A1.
7. It is further in the allegations that in the meantime on 31.07.2007 A5 R.K. Sharma, Chief Manager of State Bank of Patiala contacted office of M/s Chaney & Associates, an approved valuer on the bank panel for valuation of two properties proposed for mortgage with the bank by A1 Rajiv Kumar for loan facility for his firm. Details of those two properties are:
(i) Plot measuring 500 sq. yards out of Khasra No.542, Mandoli, Shahdara, Delhi in the name of Rajiv Kumar s/o Beg Ram (referred as first property).CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 4
(ii) Plot measuring 6 canal 3 marla (3700 sq. yards) situated at Khewat no.43 min./38/39, khata no.6, kila no.7, Village Parnala, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar in the name of Rajiv Kumar s/o Beg Ram (referred as second property).
8. As Sh.Jagpal Singh Chaney, proprietor of M/s Chaney & Associates had gone abroad during those days, Sh.Satish Kumar, Assistant Architect of the said firm visited the site of the first property on 31.07.2007 in the presence of A1 Rajiv Kumar. Thereafter A1 took said Satish Kumar to the site of second property on the same day. After inspection valuation report dated 13.08.2007 along with photographs of the abovesaid two properties were submitted by the said firm to the bank.
9. It is further alleged that on 01.08.2007 accused R.K. Sharma (A5) called PW17 Jitender Kumar, panel Advocate in the bank and handed over him copies of sale deeds of aforesaid two properties. On the verbal instructions of A5 R.K. Sharma panel Advocate Jitender Kumar filed legal scrutiny report of above mentioned two properties on the basis of photocopies of title deeds so provide to him by A5. Panel advocate Jitender Kumar reported that there was no legal impediment for creation of mortgage under the applicable law/rules. Jitender Kumar, suggested that Bank official should carry out site visit of those properties and affidavit of Rajiv Kumar (A1) be taken that he will not sell/ transfer the aforesaid two properties in favour of anyone else without the knowledge of the bank. Further it was alleged that a request in writing on prescribed format for such legal scrutiny of aforesaid properties was given by A5 R.K. Sharma to Jitender Kumar, Advocate after about 4½ months and got acknowledged without date on the said written request.
CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 510. Prosecution allegations further are that sale deed no.1139 dated 18.04.2007 (first property) as submitted by A1 as collateral security was purportedly executed by Smt.Premlata Gupta w/o Gauri Shankar Gupta (vendor) in favour of accused Rajiv Kumar (A1). Sale deed was shown executed in the presence of two witnesses namely Vinay Kumar and R.K. Singh Tomar. Whereas it came in the investigation that aforesaid vendor Smt. Premlata Gupta had already expired on 09.09.2002. A3 Rajinder Kaur impersonated as Smt.Premlata Gupta and signed the said sale deed as vendor to execute and got it registered in favour of A1 Rajiv Kumar. PW19 Sh.Gauri Shankar Gupta, husband of Smt. Premlata Gupta denied the signatures and photograph of his wife on the said sale deed. Similarly, witness of the said sale deed namely R.K. Singh Tomar also denied having known to purchaser or the seller. It further came from the statements of the witnesses that witnesses to the said sale deed were present and stated that A3 Rajinder Kaur executed and signed the said document as Smt. Premlata Gupta. Second witness to that sale deed was Vinay Kumar (PW43) who happens to be brother of A1 Rajiv Kumar who denied to know the vendor and further stated that photograph of Smt. Premlata Gupta was pasted on the said document along with photograph of his brother A1 Rajiv Kumar as vendee. It further came during the investigation that in fact property in question was owned by one Rajender Sharma (PW12) who had purchased the same from one Rajni Khandelwal (PW3) and said Rajni Khandelwal (PW3) had purchased the same from Smt. Premlata Gupta. Said Rajender Sharma (PW12) was stated to be still the owner of the property during the investigation of this matter.
11. Prosecution case further is that on receipt of legal scrutiny report dated 03.08.2007 and valuer report dated 03.08.2007, A5 R.K. Sharma directed CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 6 witness Smt.Sushma Sindhwani (PW34) to prepare a opinion report and on the verbal instructions of A5 R.K. Sharma PW34 Smt. Sushma Sindhwani mentioned in the Manager's report column that A1 Rajiv Kumar is reported to be honest, active and hard working. Such report was signed by A5 R.K. Sharma and in that manner opinion report was finalized. It is thereafter on 14.08.2007 A1 Rajiv Kumar submitted an application for CC(H) loan of Rs.1.5 crores along with supporting documents and as per the allegations A5 R.K. Sharma without taking CIBIL report and without properly verifying the genuineness of the documents, he recommended and forwarded the loan proposal to Zonal Office Committee. On 20.08.2007 certain queries were raised from the Zonal Office, State Bank of Patiala, which were answered by A5 R.K. Sharma and thereafter CC(H) limit of Rs.1.5 crores was sanctioned by ZOCC to the firm of A1 Rajiv Kumar M/s Dalshan Adhesives.
12. After sanction of the loan Current Account No.65024864018 was opened by A1 Rajiv Kumar in the name of his firm M/s Dalshan Adhesives on 23.08.2007. A7 Rajeev Kumar Soni, proprietor of M/s S.K. Enterprises who was also holding CC(H) account in the same bank stood introducer in the opening of above mentioned current account of A1 Rajiv Kumar. It is alleged that as per banking norms introducer should have six months old satisfactory account in the bank, whereas account of firm of A7 Rajeev Kumar Soni was only two months old.
13. After the sanction of CC(H) loan in favour of M/s Dalshan Adhesives of A1 Rajiv Kumar, a sum of Rs.1,54,20,250/ was withdrawn from the above said current account between period from 27.08.2007 to 07.09.2007 either by way of cash withdrawal by A1 Rajiv Kumar or by transfer of money to the firm of A7 CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 7 Rajeev Kumar Soni namely M/s Ganpati Traders, M/s Rajeev Enterprises etc. without actually business transaction of M/s Dalshan Adhesives.
14. Since the CC(H) of A1 Rajiv Kumar's firm was not satisfactory right from the beginning, as per allegations Smt.Alka Devi (A2) wife of Rajiv Kumar (A1) on 20.02.2008 mortgaged following two properties to the bank by depositing fake and false sale deeds of those properties as guarantee for said CC(H) limit of Rs.1.5 crores sanctioned in favour of her husband Rajiv Kumar (A1), proprietor of M/s Dalshan Adhesives:
(a) Property/Plot of land no.46 and 47 measuring 160 sq. yards (80 sq. yards each) out of Khasra No.929 of Village Nawada, presently known as Patel Garden, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi (referred as property A).
(b) Property measuring 4 kanal 17 marla, khewat no.714 min, Khatoni No.848 and Kila No.170/6 (80), 170/15/1 (115) situated at Village Ismaila, Tehsil Sampla (referred as property B).
15. So far as property (A), as referred above regarding which sale deed no.24436 dated 10.12.2007 was deposited by A2 Alka Devi. Such sale deed was purportedly executed between Manjeet Singh (A4) s/o Surat Singh as vendor and A2 Alka Devi wife of Rajiv Kumar (A1) being vendee, in the presence of two witnesses namely A1 Rajiv Kumar and Naresh Kumar son of Ram Dhan (PW5). As per prosecution allegations one deed writer namely Girdhari Lal @ Ravi (PW41) made changes/ cutting in that property (a) on Khasra no.929 from 13/9/1 as well as by making cutting/changes on Village Nawada in place of Village Kakrola, changes were also made with regard to SR Office Janakpuri from Kapashera and name of recorded owner was also CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 8 changed in that sale deed no.24436, thereafter both Manjeet Singh (A4) and Alka Devi (A2) put their signatures on the cuttings to attest the same on page no.3, 4, 5 and 6 and thereafter said sale deed was got registered on 10.12.2007 before SRII, Janakpuri, New Delhi.
16. In respect of property (b) sale deed no.1904 dated 17.12.2007 was purportedly executed by Smt.Vidya Devi as vendor in favour of Alka Devi (A2) as vendee in the presence of witnesses Randhir Singh and Rohtash Singh. As per that document vendee A2 Alka Devi issued a post dated cheque of Rs.15 lacs to the vendor, which however returned dishonoured with remarks "payment stopped by drawer". As per allegations such amount of sale consideration was never paid by A2 Alka Devi to Smt.Vidya Devi, as such property B so mortgaged by A2 Alka Devi was a disputed property.
17. Even after depositing of above said sale deeds of two other properties by A2 Alka Devi as guarantor with the bank, the account of the firm of A1 M/s Dalshan Adhesives had never been regular. Investigation revealed that money was illegally withdrawn/ transferred from the above said CC(H) account within very short span of period. Amount of Rs.32,93,500/ was withdrawn by Rajiv Kumar (A1) from the said CC(H) account as cash withdrawal during the period 27.08.2007 to 13.09.2007 either himself or through Rajeev Kumar Soni (A7) by issuing cheque in the name of self or Rajeev Kumar Soni. Amount of Rs.83,54,750/ was transferred through various cheques to current account no.629002100140111 of M/s Ganpati Traders of Rajeev Kumar Soni (A7) having account in Punjab National Bank, Rajender Nagar during the period 29.08.2007 to 07.09.2007. Amount of Rs.27,72,800/ was transferred on 29.07.2007 to current account no.459 of M/s Rajeev Enterprises which was also a firm of A7 Rajeev Kumar Soni having that account in Jain Cooperative Bank CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 9 Limited, Karol Bagh. An amount of Rs.10 lacs was paid to one Pradeep Khatri (PW9) through two cheques on 05.09.2007 and 07.09.2007 towards the cost of land, after sanction of above said CC(H) limit. As such total amount of Rs.1,54,21,050/ was withdrawn/transferred from the account of M/s Dalshan Adhesives as per following details :
Date Particulars Cheque Amount Amount Remarks
No. Withdrawal deposited
(Debit) Rs. (Credit)Rs.
27.08.2007 Cash 158509 19,00,000 Cash withdraw through
withdrawal Rajeev Kumar Soni
29.08.2007 Cash 158510 8,00,000 Self through Rajeev Kumar
withdrawal
31.08.2007 Cash 158516 4,50,000 Cash withdraw through
withdrawal Rajeev Kumar Soni
11.09.2007 Cash 158525 1,00,000 Cash withdraw through
withdrawal Ashok Sharma
13.09.2007 Cash 158524 43,500 Cash withdraw through
withdrawal Rajeev Kumar Soni
Total 32,93,500
29.08.2007 To M/s 158503 14,29,680 Cheque deposited by
Ganpati Rajeev Kumar Soni in his
Traders firm M/s Ganpati Traders,
A/c No.629002100140111
in PNB, Rajender Nagar.
29.08.2007 Do 158506 16,48,140 Do
29.08.2007 Do 158505 11,70,550 Do
29.08.2007 Do 158504 15,32,854 Do
29.08.2007 Do 158507 14,45,976 Do
09.09.2007 Do 158519 70,510 Do
09.09.2007 Do 158515 4,15,400 Do
CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 10
09.09.2007 Do 158517 2,29,700 Do
07.09.2007 Do 158522 2,02,960 Do
07.09.2007 Do 158523 2,08,980 Do
Total 83,54,750
29.08.2007 To M/s 158509 14,97,700 Cheque deposited by
Rajeev Rajeev Kumar Soni in his
Enterprises firm M/s Rajeev
Enterprises, Current A/c
No.459 in Jain Co
operative Bank Ltd., Karol
Bagh, New Delhi
29.08.2007 Do 158508 12,75,100 Do
Total 27,72,800
05.09.2007 To Pradeep 158520 5,00,000 Ashok Jain had given the
Rathi blank signed cheque to
Rajeev Kumar Soni for
issue in favour of Pradeep
Rathi
07.09.2007 Do 158521 5,00,000 Do
Total 10,00,000
18. Prosecution further alleges that account no.629002100140111 of M/s Ganpati Traders with PNB, Rajender Nagar was opened on 31.07.2007 and was closed on 16.10.2007. Total amount of Rs.83,54,750/ was transferred to said account of M/s Ganpati Traders, out of which Rs.74,50,000/ was withdrawn by cash during the period from 30.08.2007 to 12.10.2007 by Rajeev Kumar Soni (A7), whereas a sum of Rs.6,18,401/ was transferred from the said account of Ganpati Traders through four cheques to account no.50219462231 of M/s S.K. Enterprises of accused Rajeev Kumar Soni (A7) with State Bank of Patiala, CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 11 Shastri Bhawan Branch during the period from 05.09.2007 to 13.09.2007. Amount of Rs.2,12,630/ was transferred back by two cheques to the account of M/s Dalshan Adhesives on 13.09.2007. As such total amount of Rs.82,81,033/ was diverted from the account of M/s Dalshan Adhesives without their being any genuine trade transaction.
19. Similarly, subsequent to the transfer of sum of Rs.27,72,800/ from the account of M/s Dalshan Adhesives, to the account no.0030033000459 of M/s Rajiv Enterprises in Jain Cooperative Bank Ltd., Karol Bagh, amount of Rs.25 lacs was withdrawn by cash by Rajeev Kumar Soni (A7) on 31.08.2007 and amount of Rs.2,70,900/ was transferred back to the account of M/s Dalshan Adhesives on 03.09.2007 by two cheques.
20. During the investigation of the matter CBI got recorded the statements of Ajay Kumar Goel, Rajiv Goel and H.K. Sharma, Chartered Accountant under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate on 16.09.2011 and 02.11.2011. Witness Ajay Kumar Goel in his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. stated that in order to recover outstanding amount from accused Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla (A1), accused Ashok Jain (A6) along with his son Sandeep Jain (A8) got forgery of property papers of immovable property i.e. first property of Mandoli, Shahdara, Delhi in the name of Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla(A1). Witness further stated that firm M/s Dalshan Adhesives was a non functional firm and similarly all account of three nonfunctional firms i.e. M/s Ganpati Traders, M/s Rajeev Enterprises and M/s S.K. Enterprises were in the name of Rajeev Kumar Soni @ Rajesh Dhiraj Lal Soni (A7). Those accounts were got opened in furtherance of criminal conspiracy involving accused Ashok Jain (A6) and R.K. Sharma (A5), then Chief Manager of State Bank of Patiala, Shastri Bhawan who sanctioned CC(H) limit of Rs.1.5 crores in favour CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 12 of M/s Dalshan Adhesives on the basis of forged documents. It further came in the statement of witness Ajay Kumar Goel and Rajiv Goel that after sanction of CC(H) limit money from the said CC(H) account was siphoned off by accused Ashok Jain (A6), in connivance with accused Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla (A1) by getting the blank cheques from him and deposited the same in various accounts of firms of accused Rajeev Kumar Soni (A7) and thereafter money was withdrawn from those accounts of firms of accused Rajeev Kumar Soni (A7). Money was routed through various accounts from the account of M/s Dalshan Adhesives, in order to avoid detection of fraud whereas there was no actual business transaction done by M/s Dalshan Adhesives.
21. It further came in the statement of above mentioned witness that accused Ashok Jain (A6) paid a sum of Rs.1 lac to accused R.K. Sharma (A5), then Chief Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Shastri Bhawan beside 10% of commission of CC(H) limit. It further came in the investigation that accused R.K. Sharma (A5) allowed overdraft limit of Rs.3 lacs through Vinay Kumar, brother of accused Rajiv Kumar (A1) for regularizing CC(H) limit of M/s Dalshan Adhesives. When Vinay Kumar stated to be proprietor of M/s Amar Polymers & Dyes could not adjust the overdraft account, A5 R.K. Sharma reversed the entries. From the statements of different witnesses it revealed that accused R.K. Sharma (A5) allowed opening of various firms's accounts owned by family members and friends of accused Rajiv Kumar (A1) on his introduction, only to rotate the transaction and to avoid the detection of fraud in the CC(H) limit of M/s Dalshan Adhesives.
22. Prosecution has alleged that during the period from December 2006 to April 2009 while accused R.K. Sharma (A5) was posted as Chief Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Shastri Bhawan, he entered into a criminal conspiracy CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 13 with other accused persons Rajiv Kumar (A1), Alka Devi (A2), Rajinder Kaur (A3), Manjeet Singh (A5), Ashok Jain (A6), Rajeev Kumar Soni @ Rajesh Dhiraj Lal Soni (A7) and Sandeep Jain (A8) and in pursuance of the said conspiracy he abused his official position being Chief Manager in the above mentioned bank and sanctioned CC(H) limit to the firm of A1 Rajiv Kumar without following proper procedure and guidelines of the bank and without verifying about the immovable properties mortgaged as collateral security for the said loan and without examining the documents of those properties.
23. After filing of the charge sheet ld. Predecessor of this Court taking into consideration entire material placed on the judicial record took the cognizance of the matter and summoned the accused persons. Copy of charge sheet was supplied to all the accused persons in terms of Section 207 Cr.P.C.
24. Taking into consideration the entire material, statements of witnesses and documents placed on the judicial record, ld. Predecessor of this court vide order dated 27.04.2013 ordered for framing of charge for offender under Section 120B read with Section 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against all the accused persons on 14 counts. Charge was also framed separately under Section 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC as against accused Rajiv Kumar (A1) and Alka Devi (A2) as well as under Section 419, 420, 467, 468 IPC as against accused Rajinder Kaur (A3), a separate charge for offender under Section 420, 467, 468 IPC was framed as against accused Manjeet Singh (A4), a separate charge under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988 was framed as against accused R.K. Sharma (A5), charge was also framed separately as against accused Ashok Jain (A6) for offence under Section 420 IPC and separate charge was also framed as against accused Rajeev Kumar Soni @ CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 14 Rajesh Dhiraj Lal Soni (A7) under Section 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty to different charges as mentioned above and claimed trial.
25. After the framing of charge during the course of trial while evidence of prosecution witnesses was being recorded, Smt.Rajinder Kaur (A3) stopped appearing and was ultimately declared Proclaimed Offender on 01.07.2014.
26. In order to substantiate the charge prosecution has examined total 50 witnesses. Precise discussion of evidence of these witnesses will be done later in the judgment.
27. After completion of prosecution evidence all the incriminating evidence as come in the statements of different prosecution witnesses, was separately put to the accused persons as per Section 313 Cr.P.C. In response to different incriminating evidence put to the accused persons, accused Rajiv Kumar (A1) gave his response by way of affidavit wherein A1 while denying the evidence so put to him, took the plea that in year 200506 he was suffering from financial crisis. He states that at the instance of his coaccused Ashok Jain and with the help of his friend Hari Kishan Sharma, Chartered Accountant he has taken a credit limit of Rs.1.5 crores from State Bank of Patiala, Shastri Bhawan by mortgaging two of his genuine properties; one being Khasra No.541, Mandoli, Shahdara and other being Khewat no.43 min., 38/39, khata no.6, kila no.7, Village Parnala, Bahadurgarh. Accused states that he took the loan with the intention to pay back the outstanding amount with interest and getting his properties free from the bank but he was unaware of the fact that he was being entrapped by Ashok Jain.
CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 1528. Rajiv Kumar A1 further stated that while he was having normal conversation with coaccused Ashok Jain (A6) he told him that he was looking for a new place for opening a godown. Later Ashok Jain took him to Mandoli, Shahdara and introduced with one lady stated to be Smt.Prem Lata Gupta by saying that she is his cousin's wife. Ashok Jain further told him that his cousin has expired and his wife intends to sell her property as she is in need of money. He stated that accused Ashok Jain further told him that his property is good to make a godown as it is surrounded with small factories. A1 stated that he had seen the documents of the said property as shown to him by the said lady calling herself as Smt.Prem Lata Gupta and he liked the property and thereafter on 18.04.2007 a sale deed was got registered in his name and he paid Rs.10 lacs. Accused further states that it is only during the investigation conducted by CBI he came to know that lady so introduced to him by coaccused Ashok Jain was not actually Smt.Prem Lata Gupta and her actual namely was Rajinder Kaur. Rajiv Kumar stated that he was totally unaware of the fact that he was cheated by his coaccused Ashok Jain (A6) only with the motive to grab entire loan amount sanctioned to him. Accused Rajiv Kumar (A1) stated about his ignorance of changes/forgery made in the sale deed. He stated that such changes of khasra number, village etc. were made by accused Manjeet Singh. Accused Rajiv Kumar (A1) further denied that his wife Alka Devi had ever taken any guarantee for the loan in question in the bank. He stated that original papers of properties of his wife Alka Devi were with Chartered Accountant H.K. Sharma who had misused such papers.
29. Accused Rajiv Kumar (A1) while denying or expressing ignorance of certain facts put to him has further stated that he owed only Rs.15 lacs towards Ashok Jain and once Ashok Jain (A6) came to his house with 13/15 persons CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 16 along with Ajay Goel. Accused states that Ashok Jain (A6) took him, his younger brother Vinay and his wife Alka Devi as well as his children forcibly along with him to his office at Karol Bagh in 4/5 cars. In his office at Karol Bagh, Ashok Jain put gun on his head and on his children's head and asked him and his wife to sign about 15/20 stamp papers as well as 15/20 blank papers including certain bank forms. Accused Rajiv Kumar (A1) states that accused Ashok Jain threatened him, his wife and children to face dire consequences if he or anyone else would file any police complaint against him as he would kill his small children. A1 further states that later he and his wife were left with no option except to obey directions of accused Ashok Jain. He states that entire amount of loan was enjoyed by Ashok Jain. Accused Rajiv Kumar further states that entire process and documentation for taking CC limit from the bank was initiated by CA H.K. Sharma, he was one of the persons who made fake documents but had not been made accused in the present case. A1 further states that all the acts for obtaining the said loan in his name were done at the desire of Ashok Jain (A6). Other facts and evidence, put to him were denied and accused took the plea of innocence and false implication in the present matter.
30. Accused Alka Devi (A2) in her statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has also either denied all the incriminating circumstances put to her or expressed her ignorance about those evidence. A2 Alka Devi stated that she had never given any guarantee in the bank for the loan of her husband's firm. She stated that she never executed any deed of guarantee with the bank. She expressed her ignorance as to how accused R.K. Sharma had arranged her property papers as she states that original papers of the same were with CA H.K. Sharma (PW4). Accused Alka Devi denied commission of forgery in the sale deeds. She stated that on the instructions of accused Manjeet Singh (A4) CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 17 PW41 Girdhari Lal made changes/alterations in the sale deed and all the details were given and shared by Manjeet Singh. Accused Alka Devi further stated that accused Ashok Jain had kidnapped her, her husband, brother of her husband as well as her children when Ashok Jain came to her house along with 13/15 persons including witness Ajay Goel. Accused Alka Devi further stated that accused Ashok Jain took them forcibly to his office at Karol Bagh. She states that in the said office at Karol Bagh accused Ashok Jain put a gun on the head of her husband and children and asked her husband to sign 15/20 stamp papers and 15/20 blank papers.
31. Accused Alka Devi further states that accused Ashok Jain had threatened her husband as well as her that he would kill her husband and children if any complaint is filed with the police, therefore she and her husband had no option except to obey the directions of accused Ashok Jain. Accused Alka Devi further stated that all the monetary benefits from the loan granted to the firm of her husband were enjoyed by accused Ashok Jain. Accused Alka Devi further stated that her husband Rajiv Kumar met with PW46 Rakesh Ahlawat and co accused Manjeet Singh in the office of accused Ashok Jain. It is accused Ashok Jain who had introduced her husband with them by stating that they are his friends. It is stated that after a span of time PW46 Rakesh Ahlawat shared good relationship with her husband and PW46 used to take friendly loan from her husband from time to time and used to return the same.
32. Accused Alka Devi stated that her husband was supposed to take Rs.11 lacs from PW46 Rakesh Ahlawat which he was unable to return. Thus PW46 offered her husband to buy his property situated in Patel Nagar. Accused Alka Devi states that she along with her husband saw the property and liked the same and thereafter PW46 Rakesh Ahlawat told her husband that property has been CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 18 gifted to him by his fatherinlaw but it has not been mutated in his name. Accused Alka Devi stated that PW46 told that agreement to sell and GPA were under the name of Manjeet Singh and thereafter on 10.12.2007 sale deed was registered with sale consideration of Rs.21,35,000/. She states that since her husband was supposed to take Rs.11 lacs from PW46 Rakesh Ahlawat, therefore he has paid a sum of Rs.10,35,000/ to Manjeet Singh and PW46 Rakesh Ahlawat. Accused Alka Devi denied commission of any forgery or alteration in the sale deed and took the plea of being falsely implicated in the present case.
33. Accused no.4 Manjeet Singh in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. in response to incriminating circumstances put to him, denied different evidence. He stated that on 10.12.2007 one sale deed was executed in respect of property no.56/57, Patel Garden, Kakrola, New Delhi between him and accused Alka Devi. Accused Manjeet Singh stated that the said sale deed was subsequently tampered with without his knowledge which is Ex.PW5/A. Accused Manjeet Singh expressed his ignorance as to who made the changes/forgery in the sale deed in respect of above mentioned property. He stated that Patel Garden is near Village Kakrola and Village Nawada and he does not own any property in Village Nawada. Accused Manjeet Singh while denying the evidence has taken plea of having been falsely implicated. He stated that he has never been connected to any conspiracy in duping the bank and has never received any illegal money out of any such conspiracy. He stated that he has genuinely sold Kakrola property but tampering in the said sale deed was without his knowledge.
34. Accused no.5 R.K. Sharma in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. also denied the incriminating circumstances put to him wherein he states that a false case CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 19 has been registered against him and he has not done anything wrong. He states that CBI has made him a scapegoat and falsely implicated him in this case. A5 stated that he has been an honest officer of the bank and never conspired with any private accused persons nor has received any favour from the accused or anybody else for giving any favour or misusing his official position. While denying the different incriminating circumstances put to him, R.K. Sharma took a plea that loan in question was given as per banking norms. He stated that the documents of loan were processed by Smt.Sushma Rani and the Advocate on the panel of the bank had verified the property and had given satisfactory report. Property was also valued from the official valuer and loan was recommended as per banking norms. A5 further stated that he visited the property of the borrower and found stock to be sufficient. He states that accused later gave stock statement which he entered in the stock register of the bank. A5 stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case.
35. Accused no.6 Ashok Jain in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. also denied all the incriminating circumstances came in the evidence. A6 stated that he does not know any lady by name Prem Lata nor has ever met her. He stated that he had no concern with Prem Lata. Accused Ashok Jain though admits knowing PW4 H.K. Sharma, however he states that he met with him through Rajinder Kumar Sharma. Accused Ashok Jain denied that he introduced R.K. Sharma (A7) to PW4 or ever requested for a loan for Rajeev Kumar Soni. Accused Ashok Jain further denied that he ever introduced A1 Rajiv Kumar to PW4. A6 further stated that he has no concern with A1 Rajiv Kumar or with his firm M/s Dalshan Adhesives. While denying or expressing ignorance of the circumstances put to him, accused Ashok Jain simply stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case.
CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 2036. Accused no.7 Rajeev Kumar Soni also denied all the circumstances put to him in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He stated that he was working with A6 Ashok Jain as his helper and his real and correct name is Rajesh Dhiraj Lal Soni. He states that as a part of his duty he visited the bank and other private parties. He stated that on the directions of Ashok Jain he used to sign/make rough signatures on certain papers in the name of "Rajeev Kumar Soni". A7 further states that he does not know any party or person with whom Ashok Jain used to deal. Accused also expressed his ignorance about the witnesses Ajay Goel, Rajiv Goel and Hari Kishan Sharma. He states that he has no concern with S.K. Enterprises, Ganpati Traders, Rajiv Enterprises or any saving account in the name of Rajeev Kumar Soni with Jain Cooperative Bank Limited. Accused Rajesh Dhiraj Lal Soni has further stated that during his employment with Ashok Jain, Ajay Goel and Rajiv Goel used to give him certain self cheques for withdrawing money from the bank and he did his job and handed over money after withdrawing to Ashoj Jain, Ajay Goel and Rajiv Goel. He stated that he does not have any concern regarding loan in question and has been falsely implicated in the present case.
37. Accused no.8 Sandeep Jain also denied the entire evidence put to him in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied to have any relation with A1 Rajiv Kumar or with the transaction if any in respect of his firm M/s Dalshan Adhesives. A8 stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He though admitted of having a joint locker with Ankush Jain, however he denied that he has any concern with the transaction regarding operation of the said locker. While denying different evidence, A8 stated that he had never taken any money nor any amount was paid to him or his father CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 21 Ashok Jain. He states that he has been falsely implicated in this case and had no concern with the loan in question.
38. None of the accused except accused no.7 has led any evidence in defence. A7 though has examined one witness D7W1 Sh. Sanjay Chaddha.
Discussion of Prosecution Evidence
39. In following few paragraphs, I would precisely discuss evidence of different witnesses examined by the prosecution.
40. PW1 Sh.R.K. Pandey, DGM, State Bank of Patiala is complainant who lodged the complaint Ex PW1/A with CBI against accused Rajiv Kumar, proprietor of M/s Dalshan Adhesives. PW2 Parveen Gupta testified that he knew Smt.Prem Lata Gupta wife of Gauri Shankar Gupta. Upon seeing one GPA Ex.PW2/A dated 24.03.1982 (D8) PW2 stated that he never signed the same as a witness purportedly executed by Tej Pratap Singh in favour of Smt. Prem Lata Gupta. GPA is part of sale deed dated 18.04.2007 which is Ex.PW2/B, purportedly executed by Smt. Prem Lata Gupta in favour of A1 Rajiv Kumar in respect of property measuring 500 sq. yards of Mandoli, Shahdara (first property).
41. PW3 Smt. Rajni Khandelwal deposed that she purchased the land from Smt. Prem Lata Gupta wife of Gauri Shankar Gupta, about 25/26 years ago. On seeing sale deed Ex.PW2/B (purportedly executed by Smt. Prem Lata Gupta in favour of A1 Rajiv Kumar), witness stated that the said deed does not bear the photograph of Smt. Prem Lata Gupta from whom she (PW3) purchased the land. Witness stated that she met with Smt. Prem Lata Gupta on 2 or 3 CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 22 occasions. Witness further stated that she later sold the said land to some person by name "Mr.Sharma".
42. PW4 Hari Kishan Sharma testified that he is Chartered Accountant by profession and had been visiting different banks in relation to his work. He deposed that in 2007 he visited State Bank of Patiala, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi branch on the request of his client Gillard Radio Products Private Limited as some loan application/proposal of his client was pending in the said branch. PW4 testified that he met with R.K. Sharma (A5), then Chief Manager in that bank, to whom he gave clarification regarding loan proposal of his client. PW4 further deposed that he knew A6 Ashok Jain as he was introduced to him by his client Rajender Kumar Sharma. PW4 deposed that A5 R.K. Sharma, Chief Manager of the Bank told him that since he had loan targets to achieve and therefore he requested to refer some loan proposals of good customers/parties. PW4 says that A6 Ashok Jain requested him to help for some loans. He says that Ashok Jain had already taken one loan for his firm M/s Yogesh Trading Company from Bank of Baroda. On the request of Ashok Jain he prepared a proposal for enhancement of said loan to the tune of Rs.2 crores which was submitted in State Bank of Patiala, Shastri Bhawan. PW4 says that however such proposal for enhancement of loan as submitted on behalf of A6 Ashok Jain could not materialize in State Bank of Patiala as Ashok Jain could not submit necessary documents required by the bank. PW4 says that he charged the necessary professional fee for preparing such proposal for enhancement of loan.
43. PW4 further testified that later Ashok Jain again contacted him and came with one Rajeev Kumar Soni @ Rajesh Dhiraj Lal Soni (whom witness has identified in the court), stated to be proprietor of M/s S.K. Enterprises. PW4 says that both Ashok Jain and Rajeev Kumar Soni told him that they had CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 23 already talked with R.K. Sharma, Chief Manager of State Bank of Patiala regarding loan. They requested PW4 to prepare the proposal for loan on behalf of firm M/s S.K. Enterprises of Rajeev Kumar Soni. PW4 says that on the basis of audited balance sheet of previous year of the firm M/s S.K. Enterprises, he prepared the proposal which was submitted in the bank and PW4 stated to have received his professional fee @ 2% of the total loan amount. Witness states that he had visited State Bank of Patiala, Shastri Bhawan along with accused Ashok Jain and Rajeev Kumar Soni for clarification of certain queries.
44. PW4 further testified that accused Ashok Jain again came to him along with A1 Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla (identified by PW4 in the court), stated to be proprietor of M/s Dalshan Adhesives. Witness deposed that both Ashok Jain and Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla requested him to prepare a proposal for loan and stated that they had already talked in this regard with R.K. Sharma, Chief Manager of State Bank of Patiala for grant of loan. Witness stated that he prepared the loan proposal for the firm of A1 Rajiv Kumar on the basis of audited balance sheet of M/s Dalshan Adhesives and prepared projected balance sheet and CMA data with the proposal. Regarding such loan proposal also PW4 stated to have charged 2% as commission of the loan amount which was paid by accused Ashok Jain in cash in the presence of A1 Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla. In respect of that loan proposal also PW4 stated to have visited State Bank of Patiala along with accused Ashok Jain and Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla on 2/3 occasions and met with A5 R.K. Sharma and his subordinate Smt.Usha Rani, Assistant Manager and clarified heir queries.
45. PW4 states that later he received a telephonic call from accused R.K. Sharma, Chief Manager informing that loan account of M/s Dalshan Adhesives was not regular. He told that accused Ashok Jain was already arrested by police CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 24 in some jhuggi scam whereas A1 Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla was not picking telephone calls and accused R.K. Sharma requested him (PW4) for advice. PW4 says that accused Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla also contacted him on telephone and he requested for his advice as he stated that he had one or two other properties which he could submit for regularizing the loan account. PW4 says that he advised Rajiv Kumar to contact Chief Manager of the bank. PW4 states that he did not sign the loan proposal prepared by him as it was not required, however witness identifies the loan proposal and other documents (D7/53 to
62) Ex.PW4/A. Witness further states that during investigation of this case he made a statement Ex.PW4/B under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Ld. MM.
46. PW5 Naresh Kumar s/o Ram Dhan deposed that he worked as sweeper in at District Centre, Janak Puri and later in the day worked with a photographer. PW5 deposed that one Rajiv used to come at the shop of the photographer where he used to work and asked him to sign certain documents. On seeing the sale deed dated 10.12.2007 (D10), witness identifies his signatures, name and address at point A executed between Manjeet Singh and Alka Devi which is Ex.PW5/A. Witness identified A1 Rajiv Kumar in the Court. PW6 Jasvir Singh testified that while he was working as Chief Vigilance Officer in State Bank of Patiala, Head Office, Patiala, Punjab, he forwarded sanction for prosecution of sanctioning authority, for prosecution of accused R.K. Sharma. Said forwarding letter dated 27.12.2011 is Ex.PW6/A (D35). He deposed that sanction for prosecution was granted by Sh.A.K. Basu, Chief General Manager of the bank.
47. PW7 Kamal Kishore @ Monu deposed that in 2007 while he was pursuing his graduation he started sitting at the office of his uncle (mausa) Deepak Kumar who used to work as deed writer at Sunder Nagri, Delhi. PW7 deposed that one day his uncle Deepak Kumar asked him to go Preet Vihar, CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 25 Delhi and bring a lady by name Smt. Prem Lata to Sunder Nagri court. Said Deepak Kumar stated to have given him his mobile phone. PW7 says that when he reached at Preet Vihar a telephonic call was received on the mobile phone of Deepak Kumar and one person asked him where he is? He informed him that he is standing at Preet Vihar. After some time said person (uncle) came there with one lady Smt. Prem Lata and told him that he has to take her to Sunder Nagri court. Witness says that he do not know the name of said person whom he had met at Preet Vihar. PW7 further says that he took that lady to Sunder Nagri court and his uncle Deepak Kumar met him outside the court where his uncle took that lady inside the court. Witness says that he can identify the lady whom he had taken to Sunder Nagri court. Witness identified in the court accused Rajinder Kaur to be the same lady whom he had taken to Sunder Nagri court as Smt. Prem Lata.
48. PW8 R.C. Rahi testified that he was posted as Sub Registrar in Shahdara/Seemapuri, Delhi and during investigation of this case he handed over some documents i.e. sale deed to Inspector of CBI. On seeing the document (D
29) Ex.PW8/A witness identifies the letter dated 15.06.2011 vide which he had handed over certified copy of two sale deeds which are D29(i) and D29(ii). On seeing those documents witness identifies the same sale deed which he had handed over to the Inspector of CBI. Those sale deeds are Ex.PW8/B and Ex.PW8/C respectively. Witness further deposed that a sale deed bearing registration no.1139 dated 18.04.2007 in respect of property measuring 500 sq. yards, khasra no.541, Mandoli sold by Smt. Prem Lata Gupta to Rajiv Kumar s/o Beg Ram and another sale deed is dated 03.07.2007 in respect of property sold by Smt. Prem Lata Gupta to Rajiv Kumar s/o Dhiraj Lal.
CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 2649. PW9 Pradeep Rathi testified that he sold his agricultural land to accused Rajiv Kumar measuring 6 kanals and 3 marlas at Village Parnala and executed a sale deed Ex.PW9/A in favour of Rajiv Kumar on 25.10.2007 (D9). He says that he sold that property to accused Rajiv Kumar for a total sale consideration of Rs.31 lacs however in the sale deed sale consideration was shown as Rs.19,22,000/. PW9 says that Rajiv Kumar (A1) made payment of Rs.2 lacs. Later accused Ashok Jain handed over him two cheques of Rs.5 lacs each in the presence of acused Rajiv Kumar towards the remaining payment of sale consideration which were cleared by the bank in his account in HDFC bank. Those cheques are Ex.PW9/B & C signed by accused Rajiv as proprietor of M/s Dalshan Adhesives. PW9 further deposed that accused Rajiv Kumar did not make the remaining payment of sale consideration and even cheques given by accused Rajiv Kumar for remaining payment returned dishonoured.
50. PW10 Ved Ram, UDC, North MCD testified that specimen signatures/hand writing/finger prints of accused Manjeet Singh were taken in his presence. On seeing D19 (178 to 186) witness identifies the sheets of specimen signatures and hand writing of accused Manjeet Singh (S168 to S
177) Ex.PW10/A and also identified the sheets of finger prints of accsued Manjeet Singh at pages 187 to 189 of D19 (S77 to S79) which are Ex. PW10/B (Colly.).
51. PW11 Ram Lal Wadhwa Deputy Manager in State Bank of Patiala at the relevant time proved account opening form of current account no.65024864018 in the name of M/s Dalshan Adhesives as Ex PW11/A. He deposed that such opening of account was introduced by A7 Rajeev Kumar Soni as proprietor of M/s S.K. Enterprises having current account no.65021946223. Witness further identified the signatures of A1 and Sh. R.K. Sharma, Chief Manager at point D. CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 27
52. PW12 Rajender Sharma deposed that he runs a factory in the name and style of M/s Raj Kamal Wire Industries and stated to have purchased property measuring 500 sq. yards bearing khasra no.541, Village Mandoli, Shahdara from one Smt.Rajni Khandelwal (PW3), in year 1988. On seeing the sale deed Ex.PW2/B purportedly executed by Smt. Prem Lata Gupta in favour of Rajeev Kumar, PW12 says that said deed does not bear his signatures and is a forged document. He states that original sale deed of the same property is in his possession as he still owns that property.
53. PW13 Satish Kumar deposed that he has been working as Assistant Architect in M/s Chaney & Associates since 2006 and Sh.J.S. Chaney is the proprietor of the above said firm. He deposed that valuation report in respect of property being plot of Khasra No.541, Mandoli, Shahdara, Delhi dated 31.07.2007 bears signatures of Sh.J.S. Chaney at point A which is Ex.PW13/A. PW13 deposed he went for inspection of the above said property on call of accused R.K. Sharma, the then Chief Manager of State Bank of Patiala, Shastri Bhawan who made a call and requested him for inspection and valuation of the said property. PW13 says that R.K. Sharma talked to him telephonically and he got PW13 coordinated with Rajiv Kumar whom PW13 identified in the court. PW13 further says that he informed in this regard to J.S. Chaney and he instructed for carrying out inspection of the said property. PW13 says that when he went to above mentioned property accused Rajiv Kumar was present there and he inspected the same and prepared the inspection report which was signed by J.S. Chaney. PW13 further deposed regarding valuation report in respect of immovable property of Village Parnala, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar. Such valuation report dated 31.07.2007 Ex.PW13/B also bears the CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 28 signatures of J.S. Chaney. Regarding this report also PW13 deposes that he had gone to that property for inspection along with accused Rajiv Kumar.
54. PW14 Omprakash deposed that he is resident of Village Nawada and though he does not know exactly the location but Patel Garden is in village Kakrola and not in village Nawada.
55. PW15 A.D. Shah, Senior Scientific Officer of CFSL and Finger print expert in CFS deposed regarding sale deed Ex.PW2/B (D8) purportedly bearing finger prints of Rajiv Kumar, document D10 already Ex.PW5/A purported bearing finger prints of accused Alka Devi and Manjeet Singh. PW15 further deposed regarding document D11 purportedly bearing questioned finger prints of Alka Devi which is Ex.PW15/A. Specimen finger prints of accused Rajiv Kumar being three sheets S1 to S3 (D19, internal page 11 to 13) is Ex.PW15/B. Specimen finger prints of Smt.Alka Devi being S4 to S6 are Ex.PW15/C (D19, internal page 14 to 16) and specimen finger prints of accused Smt.Rajender Kaur S245 to S247 is Ex.PW15/D (D21), specimen finger prints of accused Manjeet Singh is already Ex.PW10/B being S177 to S179. PW15 further deposes that he examined the specimen and questioned finger prints of the above mentioned persons and prepared his report dated 23.08.2011 and sent the same by a forwarding letter dated 20.09.2011 which is Ex.PW15/E and report of the witness is Ex.PW15/F which is also annexed with enlarged photographs, questioned and specimen finger prints etc.
56. PW16 K.C. Srivastava from Punjab National Bank deposed that he provided statement of account from 31.07.2007 to 16.10.2007 as Ex.PW16/A pertaining to current account no.0629002100140111 in the name of M/s Ganpati Traders to IO.
CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 2957. PW17 Jitender Kumar Advocate deposed as Panel Advocate of State Bank of Patiala, Delhi Zone, he submitted many legal search reports. He proved legal search report dated 03.08.2007 (D7) as Ex PW17/A in respect of property being part of Khasra No.541 measuring 500 sq. yards stated to be owned by Rajiv Kumar s/o Beg Ram Singh (A1) pertaining to sale deed no.1139 dated 18.04.2007. PW17 deposed that he visited the office of Sub RegistrarIV, Seelampur, Delhi and deposited the inspection fee of Rs.15/ and then prepared the above mentioned report. PW17 further deposed regarding legal search report dated 03.08.2007 as Ex.PW17/C in respect of property plot measuring 6 Kanal 3 Marla in Khewat No.43 min/38/39, Khata No.46, Kila No.7, situated at Village Parnala, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar, Haryana owned by Shri Rajiv Kumar s/o Shri Beg Ram Singh being sale deed no.7211 dated 25/01/2007. Witness deposed that in respect of said report he visited the office of Sub Registrar Bahadurgah and for inspection/verification, he deposited the necessary fee, the receipt of which is Ex.PW17/D.
58. PW17 further deposes regarding legal search report dated 06.01.2008 as Ex.PW17/E in respect of property bearing plot no.56 and 57, measuring 133.78 sq. mtrs. out of khasra no.929 situated in village Nawada, Abadi known as Patel Garden, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi owned by Smt. Alka Devi (A2). Such legal search report is. Witness deposed that he deposited the inspection fee vide receipt Ex.PW17/F and after inspection/verification of record by he prepared the above mentioned report. PW17 further deposed regarding legal search report dated 22.01.2008 Ex.PW17/G (D7 internal page 152 to 157) in respect of property measuring 9 Kanal 15 Marla out of Khewat No.714 min, Khatoni No.848, Kila No.170/6, 170/15/1 of Village Ismaila, Tehsil Sanpla, District Rohtak, Haryana owned by Smt. Alka Devi. Regarding such inspection also CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 30 witness stated to have filed the receipt of the inspection. PW17 says that he had filed the above mentioned four reports to R.K. Sharma, the then Chief Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Shastri Bhawan.
59. PW18 Vishal Gupta deposed that he worked as Chief Manager in State Bank of Patiala, Shastri Bhawan Branch, New Delhi from 18.05.2009 to August 2010. PW18 stated to have succeeded A5 R.K. Sharma in the said branch of State Bank of Patiala. Witness says that Smt. Sushma was posted and working as Assistant Manager in the said Branch. After seeing the document D7 (internal page 1 to 84) witness identified to be the same as applicationcum appraisal form of mortgage loan in favour of M/s Dalshan Adhesives, proprietor of which was A1 Rajiv Kumar. Same is Ex.PW18/A. PW18 further deposed regarding sanction order for sanctioning of cash credit limit of Rs.1.5 crores in favour of M/s Dalshan Adhesives which is Ex.PW18/B. Witness further deposed regarding title inspection reports pertaining to the property of Smt.Alka Devi. Said title investigation report also bears the signatures of R.K. Sharma and is Ex.PW18/C.
60. PW18 deposed that when he took over as Chief Manager, account of M/s Dalshan Adhesives was found to be Non Performing Asset and therefore he checked the documents of the property, with a view to realize the funds of the bank. PW18 says that he along with Assistant Manager Smt. Sushma visited four properties given as mortgage/collateral security. PW18 says that when he visited plot measuring 500 sq. yards out of Khasra No.541, Mandoli, Shahdara, he found a servant of one Rajender Sharma and after enquiry from the said servant PW18 reached to Rajender Sharma who told that he is owner of the said property and showed him the documents of title along with chain of documents of that property.
CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 3161. In respect of plot measuring Kanal 3 Marla, of Village Parnala, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, PW18 states that when he visited there he found one portion of 200 sq. yards of that property was already sold and was not in possession/ownership of Rajiv Kumar. Moreover that property was not demarcated. PW18 further says that in respect of property/plot no.56 & 57, measuring 160 sq. yards, out of Khasra no.929, Vilalge Nawada, known as Patel Garden, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi owned by Smt.Alka Devi, it was found that property in question so mentioned to be located in Patel Garden, Nawada whereas locality Patel Garden and Khasra number of the property as mentioned in the title deed was not found in Village Nawada whereas such khasra number was of Village Kakrola. Since khasra number and location of the property was not correct as mentioned in the title deed, therefore property could not be identified and sold by the bank. As such title deed so submitted by Smt. Alka Devi and Rajiv Kumar in respect of that property was found to be forged by tampering Khasra number and place of property.
62. PW18 further deposed that in respect of additional property mortgaged being 4 kanals 17 Marlas, Khewat No.714 of Village Ismailia, Tehsil Sampla, District Rohtak, Haryana, it was found that said property was not properly demarcated. Moreover cheques given in respect of that property towards the payment of sale consideration by Alka Devi, were returned dishonoured. PW18 further says that Alka Devi was not in possession of that property and therefore said property could not be sold by the bank. PW18 further deposed that he also inspected the location of the godown and stocks as per the record given by accused Rajiv Kumar with the bank. On inspection he found that at the location near Peera Garhi though there was a godown but there was no stock as per the details by A1 Rajiv Kumar. PW18 further says that he visited the residential CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 32 address of accused Rajiv Kumar as given in the bank record, which was in the area of Uttam Nagar where he found that property was found locked and on enquiry from the neighbours it was found that accused Rajiv Kumar and his family had already left that house.
63. PW19 Gauri Shankar Gupta deposed that Smt. Prem Lata Gupta was his wife who expired on 09.09.2002. Witness says that he can identify signatures and photograph of his wife. Upon shown sale deed Ex.PW2/B witness states that the above said document does not bear the photograph of his wife Smt. Prem Lata Gupta at point A. PW19 further states that at point Q45 to Q60 signature are also not of his wife Smt. Prem Lata Gupta. After going through the sale deed Ex.PW2/B which was pertaining to Khasra No.541, Village Mandoli, Shahdara, PW19 states that his late wife had purchased the said property around year 1982 and later his wife had sold that property to Smt. Khandelwal after about 6/7 years. PW19 specifically says that sale deed Ex.PW2/B was never executed by his wife Smt. Prem Lata Gupta in favour of Rajiv Kumar and same is a forged document.
64. Upon being shown productioncumseizure memo (D15), PW19 deposed that vide seizure memo Ex.PW19/A (D15, 1) he handed over to the Investigating Officer photograph of his wife Smt. Prem Lata Gupta. He proved election identity card of his wife Smt. Prem Lata Gupta to IO as Ex.PW19/C (D
15)(2). PW19 further says that he had also handed over the death certificate of Smt. Prem Lata Gupta to the IO which is Ex.PW19/D.
65. PW20 Chandra Shekhar Giri testified that in his presence specimen signatures of a lady were taken by the Investigating Officer. On being shown document D21 sheets S236 to S244, witness identified the specimen CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 33 signatures of accused Rajender Kaur and proved those sheets collectively as Ex.PW20/A. PW20 deposed that accused Rajender Kaur gave thumb impressions and hand impressions in forensic division of CFSL in his presence which are in document D21 (internal page 14 to 16) already Ex.PW15/D.
66. PW21 Jeet Singh, Senior Scientific Officer, CFSL, CBI, handwriting expert examined documents vide letters Ex PW21/ A to C and gave his opinion which is Ex.PW21/D. PW21 went on to testify that he examined specimen hand writing/signatures with questioned hand writing and signatures. He deposed that he examined specimen signatures/hand writing of Rajiv Kumar S10 to S 141 (D19), specimen signatures/hand writing of Alka Devi S142 to S157, specimen signatures/hand writing of Vinay Kumar S158 to S167 and specimen signatures/hand writing of Rajesh Dhiraj Lal Soni @ Rajeev Kumar Soni S180 to S235 which are Ex.PW21/F1 to Ex.PW21/F4 respectively. PW21 further deposed that he also examined specimen signatures/hand writing of Manjeet Singh S168 to S176 already Ex.PW10/A as well as specimen signatures/hand writing of Rajender Kaur S236 to S244 already Ex.PW20/A. In his further examination PW21 also gave details of different documents he had examined, in a detailed tabulation form and after examining all specimen and questioned documents, witness stated to have given his opinion in his report Ex.PW21/D in para VII, VIII and IX.
68. PW22 Sri Kanwar, Clerk from Syndicate Bank deposed that in his presence specimen signatures/hand writing of accused Rajesh Dhiraj Lal Soni @ Rajeev Kumar Soni were taken which are S180 to S235, already Ex.PW21/F4 (collectively).
CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 3469. PW23 Mahender Sharma deposed that he has been residing in Village Kakrola, Najafgarh Road, Delhi since his birth. He says that his grandfather is Amar Singh who was blessed with five sons including his father Inder Singh and four uncles. He deposes that his father and uncles had inherited the agricultural land of their father, which was later sold about 30/35 years ago and locality Patel Garden colony is in Village Kakrola on the same land which was sold by his father and uncles. PW23 further says that upon receipt of summons he checked the relevant khasra number and came to know that out of khasra no.16/9/1 sold by his father and uncles, Patel Garden colony was built up in Village Kakrola.
70. PW24 A.K. Basu, Chief General Manager, State Bank of Patiala while working as Chief General Manager in State Bank of Patiala, Head Office, Patiala, Punjab, accorded sanction dated 27.12.2011 for prosecution of accused R.K. Sharma which is Ex.PW24/A.
71. PW25 Jaswant Singh deposed that land measuring 4 kanal located in Village Ismaila, District Rohtak, Haryana was owned by Smt. Vidya Devi. PW25 met with Rajiv Kumar and his wife Smt.Alka Devi as they came to his office and requested to purchase a piece of land. PW25 stated to have mediated regarding sale of above mentioned land of 4 kanal in Village Ismaila which was sold by Smt.Vidya Devi to A2 Alka Devi. PW25 says that after the execution of sale deed cheque given by Alka Devi towards payment of sale consideration got dishonoured. Therefore, vendor Vidya Devi approached him (PW25) and demanded price of land. PW25 deposed that he being mediator took responsibility and made the payment of Rs.25 lacs toVidya Devi. PW25 further CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 35 deposed that accused Rajiv Kumar paid the part of the amount of Rs.2 lacs after about 14 months of transaction and thereafter did not make any payment.
72. PW26 Chal Than Thieng from April 2011 was posted as Assistant VAT Officer in Trade and Tax Department of Government of NCT of Delhi. Upon being shown letter dated 26.09.2011 (D31), PW26 identifies her signatures at point A and that letter is Ex.PW26/A. Witness says that by that letter she informed to the Investigating Officer that M/s Dalshan Adhesives was issued registration no.07210304985 on 01.02.2006 by the office of Value Added Tax. PW26 says that she further informed that from period 01.02.2006 to 06.12.2007 M/s Dalshan Adhesives did not file any return, despite issuance of show cause notice from their department and thereafter registration of the said firm was cancelled on 06.12.2007. Witness further deposed regarding nonfiling of returns of different dates as mentioned in the letter Ex.PW26/A. Witness proved the copy of cancellation of registration (D31, Page 2) which is Ex.PW26/B.
73. PW27 Pushp Lata, Manager, Jain Cooperative Bank deposed regarding productioncumseizure memo dated 16.11.2010 bearing signatures of Sandeep Jain, Clerk in Jain Cooperative Bank through which credit voucher and cheques as mentioned in the memo Ex.PW27/A were handed over to the Investigating Officer of this case. PW27 deposed regarding a letter dated 16.11.2010 bearing the signatures of Naveen Gupta, the then Branch Head of the above mentioned Bank which is Ex.PW27/B through which cheques mentioned in the letter were handed over to the IO. Similarly PW27 deposed that vide letter dated 09.11.2010 bearing signatures of the then Branch Head, certified copy of statement of account, specimen signature card and statement of current account No.459 of M/s Rajeev Enterprises and related documents were handed over to the IO of this case.
CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 3674. PW27 deposed regarding specimen signature card Ex.PW27/D of current account No.459 of M/s Rajeev Enterprises, the proprietor of which was Rajeev Kumar s/o Dheeraj Lal Soni. Witness also deposed regarding account opening application form of M/s Rajeev Enterprises which is Ex.PW27/E. PW27 further deposed regarding credit voucher dated 28.08.2007 of Rs.12,75,100/ through which cheque no.158508 drawn on State Bank of Patiala, Shastri Bhawan was deposited for clearance in account no.459 of M/s Rajeev Enterprises in their bank i.e. Jain Cooperative Bank Ltd. The said credit voucher dated 28.08.2007 is Ex.PW27/D1.
75. PW27 further says that cheque no.158508 was issued by M/s Dalshan Adhesives from its account no.6502498380 of State Bank of Patiala, Shastri Bhawan and amount of Rs.12,75,100/ was credited in the account of firm M/s Rajeev Enterprises maintained in their bank. The said cheque is Ex.PW27/D2. PW27 further deposed regarding another credit voucher dated 28.08.2007 of Rs.14,97,700/ regarding deposit of cheque no.158509 of State Bank of Patiala, Shastri Bhawan for clearance of amount in the current account no.459 of M/s Rajeev Enterprises. That voucher is Ex.PW27/D3 and the said cheque is Ex.PW27/D4. Witness also deposed that above said cheque no.158509 was issued by the firm M/s Dalshan Adhesives from the above mentioned account of State Bank of Patiala and amount of Rs.14,97,700/ was credited in the account of M/s Rajeev Enterprises in their bank.
76. PW27 also deposed that cheque no.081520 dated 31.08.2007 was issued from account no.459 of M/s Rajeev Enterprises in favour of "self" for sum of Rs.8 lacs. Said cheque is Ex.PW27/D5. PW27 also deposed about cheque no.081521 dated 31.08.2007 issued from the same account no.459 of M/s Rajeev Enterprises in favour of "self" for a sum of Rs.9 lacs which is CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 37 Ex.PW27/D6. PW27 further deposed that cheque no.081519 dated 31.08.2007 issued from the same account no.459 by M/s Rajeev Enterprises in favour of "Self" for a sum of Rs.8 lacs which is Ex.PW27/D7.
77. PW27 further deposed that cheque no.081523 dated 31.08.2007 was issued from current account no.459 by M/s Rajeev Enterprises in favour of M/s Dalshan Adhesives for a sum of Rs.1,28,590/ which is Ex.PW27/D8. PW27 also deposes regarding another cheque no.081522 dated 31.08.2007 issued from account no .459 of M/s Rajeev Enterprises in favour of M/s Dalshan Adhesives for Rs.1,42,310/ which is Ex.PW27/D9. PW27 proved statement of account Ex.PW27/F of current account no.459 of M/s Rajeev Enterprises maintained with Jain Cooperative Bank, Faiz Road, Karol Bagh for the period from 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008 and from 01.04.2008 to 08.11.2010.
78. PW28 Sunil Kumar, Senior Manager of UCO Bank, Kandhla District, Shamli, U.P deposed he handed over the documents to the Investigating Officer of the CBI vide production cum seizure memo dated 03/10/2011as Ex.PW28/A. PW28 deposes that by said seizure memo specimen signature card, account opening form and documents annexed with form of Ankush Jain bearing saving account no.16509 in UCO Bank, application for hiring of locket no.64 and related documents were furnished to the Investigating Officer. Witness further deposed that he furnished to IO specimen signature card and application form for opening of account no.16509 of Sh. Ankush Jain [D33(I)], which are exhibited as Ex.PW28/B & C respectively. He also furnished application with affidavit for hiring of locker no.64 [D33(II)] in the joint names of Sh. Ankush Jain and Sandeep Kumar, which is Ex.PW28/D (Colly.) which also bears the photograph of joint account holders at point encircled A. PW28 further deposes that he also handed over to IO statement of account of account no.16509 [D CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 38 33(III)] of Shri Ankush Jain duly certified by by certificate under Banker's Book Evidence Act and same is Ex.PW28/E (two pages). Witness further deposes that he also handed over to IO certified copy of locker operation register pertaining to locker no.64 [D33(IV)] duly certified and same is Ex.PW28/F (two pages). Witness deposes that as per Ex.PW28/A, locker no.64 was opened on 01/09/2007 and as per Ex.PW28/D, the said locker was surrendered. Witness further deposes that on the day when documents were furnished to IO i.e. on 03/10/2011, the locker no.64 had already been surrendered to the bank.
79. PW29 Lakhbir Singh testified that his late father Kulbir Singh had two brothers namely Gurdeep Singh and Mukhtiyar Singh and two sisters namely Rajinder Kaur and Narinder Kaur. PW29 identified accused Rajinder Kaur in the court to be his real aunt (bua). After seeing the document D8 Ex.PW2/B i.e. sale deed witness (PW29) identified the photograph of his aunt Rajinder Kaur on that document at point A. Witness further deposed that in the said sale deed name of his aunt Rajinder Kaur has been mentioned as Smt.Prem Lata Gupta. PW29 further says that election identity card Ex.PW29/A [D32(I)] bears correct name of his aunt along with her husband's name as well as residential address which he identifies to be correct.
80. PW30 Gulshan Kumar Girdhar as Deputy Manager in Zonal Office, Credit Committee (ZOCC), State Bank of Patiala, Lodhi Road, NBCC Place, New Delhi from 4/5.06.2008 to 06.05.2011 handed over of relevant documents to IO regarding sanction order, minutes of meeting and correspondence regarding sanction of limit of Rs.1.50 crores to firm by name M/s Dalshan Adhesives by seizure memo dated 25.11.2010 bearing signatures of PW30, Ex.PW30/A. PW30 says that vide letter dated 22.11.2010 Ex.PW30/B, he CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 39 handed over minutes of meeting along with correspondence and sanction letter dated 21.08.2007 for loan of Rs.1.50 crores in favour of M/s Dalshan Adhesives by ZOCC which is Ex.PW30/C and another minutes of meeting which is Ex.PW30/D.
81. PW31 Kamal Punia deposed that while Girdhari Lal was working as documents registration/deed writer in the office of Sub Registrar Janak Puri and Kapashera, in December 2007 on the instructions of Girdhari Lal he along with accused Rajiv Kumar and his wife Alka Devi had gone to the office of Sub Registrar Kapashera for registration of some documents in respect of some property. PW31 further says that he is unable to recollect the details of that property and due to certain objections in the office of Sub Registrar those documents could not be registered.
82. PW32 S.S. Suhag, then Chief Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Shastri Bhawan Branch identified the signatures of said Sh.I.P. Gulati as he had seen him signing and writing. PW32 then refers to production cum seizure memo dated 11.10.2010 bearing signatures of above mentioned Sh.I.P. Gulati. Witness deposed that vide the above said productioncumseizure memo Sh.I.P. Gulati had handed over various circulars, current account opening form pertaining M/s Dalshan Adhesives and account opening form of CCH of M/s Dalshan Adhesives, documents relating to loan sanction conveyed to M/s Dalshan Adhesives and other correspondence and documents. This seizure memo is Ex.PW32/A. PW32 further states that while he was posted in the above said branch he has been looking after the duty of Chief Manager Advances like Home Loan, Car Loan, Personal Loan and Education Loan etc. He states that from time to time circulars/standing orders used to be issued by the bank in respect of different categories of loans. PW32 refers to circular dated CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 40 22.12.2008 and 21.08.2007 issued by State Bank of Patiala regarding mortgage loan for traders etc. Such circulars are collectively exhibited as Ex.PW32/B (D
4).
83. PW32 further testified that CCH account is pertaining to the loan granted on working capital of the trade/business where goods/stocks are hypothecated along with other securities like title deals of immovable properties. He stated that concerned Manager/Chief Manager of the bank takes legal search report from panel Advocate. Panel advocate is required to give that report after verifying the legal title, ownership and nonencumbrance or any other legal aspect of the person shown in title deeds. PW32 further says that Manager or any field officer is also required to visit at the site of the property to verify the details in respect of the property, possession and title and general valuation etc.
84. PW32 further sdeposed that documents already exhibited as Ex.PW18/A to C, Ex.PW17/ A to C and Ex.PW13/A are pertaining to correspondence/documents of CCH loan account of M/s Dalshan Adhesives which were handed over to the IO of this case and were covered under the circulars as referred above. PW32 referred to letter dated 22.10.2010 bearing signatures of Sh.I.P. Gulati which is as Ex.PW32/D through which certain letters/ documents pertaining to loan account in question were handed over to CBI. PW32 also refers to letter dated 06.08.2011 vide which PW32 had handed over letters/ documents pertaining to loan in question. Witness stated that he had attested those letters so handed over by him to IO by his signatures/initials, which are collectively Ex.PW32/F.
85. PW33 Ravish Chand Jain deposed that in the year 1981 he purchased one bigha land measuring 1008 sq. yards out of Khasra no.541 of Village Mandoli, CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 41 Ilaqa Shahdara from one Tej Pratap. Witness further says that later in 1982 he sold 500 sq. yards of the said land to one Smt.Prem Lata Gupta. He deposed that he executed agreement to sell and other documents in favour of Smt. Prem Lata Gupta and he can identify those documents. Upon shown document D8 (page 8 to 10) already exhibited as Ex.PW2/A which is General Power of Attorney, PW33 says that documents does not bear his signatures at point B and he never executed that Power of Attorney and same is forged in his name and his signatures have also been forged. On seeing document D8 (page 11 and
12) i.e. agreement to sell in respect of 500 sq. yards of Mandoli Village, regarding that document also PW33 says that it does not bear his signatures at point A and such agreement to sell has also been forged in his name and his signatures are also forged. That document is Ex.PW33/A.
86. PW33 when shown document D8 (page 13 and 14) i.e. Special Power of Attorney in respect of same land of 500 sq. yards of Vilalge Mandoli, witness again testified that such document does not bear his signatures at point A and same is not the Power of Attorney executed by Tej Pratap Singh in his favour. Witness says that this attorney has been forged by someone which is Ex.PW33/B. Upon seeing document D8 (page 15 and 16) which is an agreement to sell of same land measuring 500 sq. yards of Village Mandoli, witness says that this document does not bear his signatures and same is not the agreement to sell executed by Tej Pratap Singh in his favour and the same is forged. The said agreement to sell is Ex.PW33/C.
87. PW34 Smt. Sushma Rani, Deputy Manager in State Bank of Patiala. PW34 testified that she remained posted as Assistant Manager in State Bank of Patiala, Shastri Bhawan branch from 18.05.2006 to 17.05.2011. She says that she had duty to assist Chief Manager in case of advances and she was mainly CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 42 looking after the work of pertaining to the advances in the category of SIB (Small Industrial Business), C& I (Commercial and Institutes) etc. Witness deposed that initially when she joined one Umesh Madan was Chief Manager in the said branch and later accused R.K. Sharma succeeded as Chief Manager in the said branch. PW34 says that she can identify the signatures of R.K. Sharma as she had seen him signing and writing. PW34 further identifies accused Rajiv Kumar (A1) and stated that he had taken loan from the branch of the bank as proprietor of M/s Dalshan Adhesives. PW34 further says that accused R.K. Sharma (A5), then Chief Manager introduced A1 Rajiv Kumar to her and instructed her that his loan proposal is to be processed. Witness further testified that A5 R.K. Sharma told her that he has already verified the properties etc. and KYC norms of accused Rajiv Kumar and instructed her to scrutinize other documents. PW34 says that accused R.K. Sharma further told her that he had already asked Jitender Kumar empanelled Advocate of the bank for legal opinion in respect of the properties of accused Rajiv Kumar proposed to be mortgaged and has also asked M/s Chaney & Associates to submit valuation report in respect of those properties.
88. PW34 further deposed that she gave a bio data form to accused Rajiv Kumar to fill up the same. Upon seeing document D7, PW34 identifies it to be an applicationcumappraisal form in respect of loan in question and identifies the signatures of accuse Rajiv Kumar having been signed in her presence at point Q242, Q243 and Q244. PW34 states that said form is the part of document already exhibited as Ex.PW18/A and applicationcumappraisal form was separately exhibited as Ex.PW34/A. On seeing document D7 (page 4 and
5) which is a bio data form, PW34 says that it was filled up by accused Rajiv Kumar and signed in her presence at point Q245, which is Ex.PW34/B. On CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 43 seeing document D7 (page 6 to 8) which is another bio data form for SE loan pertaining to M/s Dalshan Adhesives, PW34 says that it was filled up in the hand writing of PW34 and signed by A1 Rajiv Kumar in her presence at point Q245 and Q246 having photograph of accused Rajiv Kumar at point X, which is Ex.PW33/C.
89. On seeing document D7 (page 9 to 30) which are photocopy of balance sheet of M/s Dalshan Adhesives along with annexures, PW34 states that these documents were submitted by accused Rajiv Kumar and he put his signatures on all these documents in her presence. These documents are collectively Ex.PW34/D. Similarly on seeing documents D7 (page 43 to 45) PW34 has also deposed that these are photocopy of Saral form bearing signatures of accused Rajiv Kumar one each page, which is Ex.PW34/E. Witness further deposed that DVAT06 form and Central State Tax registration of M/s Dalshan Adhesives, submitted by A1 Rajiv Kumar to PW34 and put his signatures in her presence, which are Ex.PW34/F. PW34 further deposes regarding computerized copy of CMA data submitted to the bank by A1 Rajiv Kumar which is already Ex.PW4/A and A1 Rajiv Kumar signed the same in her presence. PW34 also deposes regarding photocopy of rent agreement pertaining to godown of Rajiv Kumar which he had submitted to the bank. PW34 deposes that the said rent agreement also bears the signatures of accused Rajiv Kumar at point A and that document is Ex.PW34/G (D7, page 63 and 64). Similarly PW34 further refers to statement of account of different banks submitted by accused Rajiv Kumar along with his loan application, photocopy of computer generated receipts of deposit of tax with Municipal Corporation of Delhi bearing signatures of accused Rajiv Kumar which are Ex.PW34/H and Ex.PW34/J respectively. PW34 also testifies regarding photocopy of letter pertaining to mutation of CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 44 property (proposed to be mortgaged) bearing signatures of accused Rajiv Kumar at point A which is Ex.PW34/K as well as well as letter dated 16.08.2007 addressed to Chief Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Shastri Bhawan branch on the letter head of M/s Dalshan Adhesives bearing signatures of accused Rajiv Kumar at point Q285, which is Ex.PW34/L. PW34 deposes that by the said letter accused Rajiv Kumar gave the undertaking in the bank that the funds provided under the loan by the bank, would be used only for business.
90. PW34 further deposes that page 120 and 121 of D7 is the opinion report prepared by her and his in her hand writing which she had submitted to Chief Manager R.K. Sharma, which is Ex.PW34/M. PW34 further deposes regarding appraisal form prepared by her (D7 page 124 and 125) bearing her initials at point A as well as initials of accused R.K. Sharma at point B and of R.K. Rattan, then DGM at point C. Such appraisal form is Ex.PW34/N. PW34 also deposes regarding letter dated 20.08.2007 received through fax from State Bank of Patiala, Zonal Office addressed to DGM Shastri Bhawan branch regarding certain queries in the loan proposal pertaining to M/s Dalshan Adhesives. Witness says that accused R.K. Sharma instructed her to send reply to the said letter and accordingly she prepared the reply which is at page 130 and 131 of document D7. Letter and reply is collectively Ex.PW34/O. PW34 deposes that internal page 126 i.e. certificate from branch Manager dated 14.08.07 was also sent to ZOCC, New Delhi alongwith internal page 130 & 131 which are part of Ex.PW34/O and the said certificate bears signatures of PW34 at point A and signatures of accused R.K. Sharma at point B, which is is Ex.PW34/P (part of D7, page 126). PW34 deposes regarding documents which are appraisal and memorandum (D17 page 9 to 12) which were sent from the branch to Zonal Office, Credit Committee, Delhi for sanction of cash credit limit to M/s Dalshan CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 45 Adhesives and it bears the signatures of accused R.K. Sharma at point A as well as signatures of R.K. Ratan at point B. Such documents are Ex.PW34/Q.
91. PW34 further deposes that sanction of cash credit limit to M/s Dalshan Adhesives of Rs.1.50 crores under the mortgage loan scheme was received from ZOCC with the remarks. PW34 further deposes that the said sanction order is already Ex.PW30/C & D (D7, page no.134 and 135, page no.36 and 37 respectively). PW34 further says that original letter was prepared to inform to accused Rajiv Kumar regarding sanction of cash credit limit. Said letter is already Ex.PW18/B and on receipt of that letter, accused Rajiv Kumar acknowledged by putting his signatures on the same. PW34 further deposed that after completion of all the formalities of completion of documents by the borrower CC account was opened in the name of M/s Dalshan Adhesives through its proprietor accused Rajiv Kumar. Account opening form was filled by PW34 and signed by accused Rajiv Kumar and same was approved by accused R.K. Sharma. That account opening form is already Ex.PW21/G5 and witness identifies the signatures of accused Rajiv Kumar at point Q116 and Q117.
92. PW34 further says that when the proposal of M/s Dalshan Adhesives for advance was under consideration by ZOCC, on the instructions of R.K. Sharma and on the request of accused Rajiv Kumar a current account was opened in the branch in the name of M/s Dalshan Adhesives through its proprietor Rajiv Kumar and said account was opened on 22.08.2007. The account opening form regarding that account is Ex.PW11/A and specimen signature card is Ex.PW5/B. PW34 says that accused Rajiv Kumar had put his signatures on the said account opening form and specimen signature card at point Q108, Q107 and Q118 respectively in her presence. PW34 further says that opening of said current CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 46 account was introduced by accused Rajeev Kumar Soni, proprietor of M/s S.K. Enterprises who signed in her presence at point N on that application form.
93. PW34 further deposed that in respect of loan in favour of M/s Dalshan Adhesives, its proprietor Rajiv Kumar submitted documents pertaining to two properties i.e (i) property no.541, Mandoli, Shahdara, Delhi; (ii) property in Village Parnala, Bahadurgarh, Haryana. PW34 says that at the time of sanction of loan above mentioned properties were not inspected by her as she did not carry the inspection of the said properties as accused R.K. Sharma stated to have already carried inspection of those properties as told to her and R.K. Sharma mentioned about his inspection of the above mentioned properties in inspectioncumdiary maintained in the bank. On seeing document D7 (page 127 and 128) which is photocopy of hypothecationcumdiary register bearing initials of accused R.K. Sharma at point A which is marked as Mark X, PW34 says that such entry was made by accused R.K. Sharma.
94. PW34 went on to depose about the statement of account pertaining to period from 20.08.2007 to 13.10.2008 of CC account no.65024983830 of M/s Dalshan Adhesives (D6). Witness states that said statement of account was generated from the computer record of the bank and was authenticated by her by putting her signatures and official seal. Such statement of account was handed over to the IO which is Ex.PW34/T. PW34 further says that statement of account was also supported with certificate under Bankers's Book of Evidence Act which is Ex.PW34/T1. PW34 further says that immediately after sanction of loan within one month bad signs came to light about the loan account of M/s Dalshan Adhesives as interest was not paid and there were very low credits. PW34 further says that entire credit limit was availed by the borrower. She stated to have brought that fact to the notice of accused R.K. CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 47 Sharma that borrower was withdrawing entire credit limit, but accused R.K. Sharma told her that borrower was purchasing the stocks and therefore he was withdrawing the amount.
95. PW34 further says that letters/reminders were sent to accused Rajiv Kumar for deposit of amount of interest and regularizing the account. Thereafter accused R.K. Sharma arranged two properties as additional securities which were in the name of Smt. Alka Devi wife of accused Rajiv Kumar. PW34 says that title deeds of those two properties in the name of Smt.Alka Devi were handed over to her by accused R.K. Sharma for creating of mortgage and no person was present at that time. Witness further says that for execution of relevant documents in respect of mortgage of above mentioned two properties Smt.Alka Devi came in the bank and executed documents in her presence. Witness identified A2 Smt.Alka Devi in the court.
96. PW34 further says that in November 2007 she along with accused R.K. Sharma visited the property mortgaged by accused Rajiv Kumar located at Mandoli, Shahdara. Witness says that borrower Rajiv Kumar had also accompanied them. PW34 says that she observed that there was nothing at the spot except a boundary wall and accused R.K. Sharma told her that accused Rajiv Kumar is going to shift his godown at that place.
97. PW34 further says that she had visited those four properties along with Sh.Vishal Gupta, then Chief Manager of the branch. Witness says that when she had visited at the property of Mandoli, Shahdara along with Sh.Vishal Gupta, the then Chief Manager of the branch, they found that one Chowkidar there who informed that said property is owned by Rajinder Kumar Sharma.
CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 48PW34 further says that said Rajinder Sharma had also shown the documents of title in his name regarding that property of Mandoli.
98. PW34 says that other property mortgaged with the bank was situated at Village Parnala, Bahadurgarh which was also shown in the ownership of accused Rajiv Kumar, however at the time of their visited it was revealed that portion of 200 sq. yards of the property of Village Parnala had already been sold. Property though was shown in the name of accused Rajiv Kumar but the same was not demarcated.
99. PW34 further says that third property in the name of A23 Alkad Devi wife of Rajiv Kumar was also visited by them (PW34 and Vishal Gupta), it was situated at Patel Garden, Najafgarh Road, Delhi. PW34 says that at the time of their visit it was revealed that khasra number as mentioned in the title documents deposited with the bank were not correct and said khasra number did not fall in Village Nawada but were falling in Village Kakrola. Witness further says that it was also noticed that there was some tampering in the title deed where khasra number were mentioned and forgery was done. Said property therefore was not identifiable at the location as mentioned in the title deed. PW34 further says that fourth property in question was located in Village Ismailia, Sampla, Haryana which was mortgaged by A2 Alka Devi to the bank. At the time of their visit to that fourth property, it was revealed that said property was also not demarcated and it was also revealed that Smt. Alka Devi had issued some cheques to the seller of that property at the time of purchasing it, but those cheques were dishonoured. Witness further stated that accused Alka Devi was also not found in possession of that property.
CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 49100. PW35 I.P. Gulati deposed that he was posted as Chief Manager (Personal Banking) from April 2008 to April 2011 in State Bank of Patiala, Shastri Bhawan branch. Witness stated that he had handed over certain documents along with letter under his signatures to the IO of CBI. Upon being shown D28 (page 1 and 2) which is a letter dated 22.10.2010, PW35 identifies his signatures thereon, said letter is already Ex.PW32/D. Witness says that he had handed over the documents as mentioned therein to the IO of the CBI which are certificate under Bankers' Book of Evidence Act, statement of account of account no.65024864018 of M/s Dalshan Adhesives and copy of audit report. The certificate under Bankers' Book of Evidence Act D28(1) is Ex.PW35/A, statement of account of M/s Dalshan Adhesives is computer generated copy bearing signatures of officer of the bank Smt. Sushma, same is Ex.PW35/B. Audit report of M/s Dalshan Adhesives is Ex.PW35/C. PW35 further refers to statement of account of account no.65030835339 of Bharat Chemicals and Dyes Trading Company (D28)(4) which is Ex.PW35/D, statement of current account no.65030813847 of Amar Polymers and Dyes is Ex.PW35/E, statement of account of Bharat Trading Company having account no.65032101952 attested under Bankers's Book of Evidence Act is Ex.PW35/F, photocopy of list of panel advocates and valuers taken from the Zonal office of State Bank of Patiala are Ex.PW35/G & G1 respectively. PW35 further states about production cumseizure memo dated 11.10.2010 bearing his signatures at point A vide which he had handed over documents as mentioned therein to Inspector Satya Pal, IO of CBI. PW35 also refers to report of approved valuer Rakesh Kumar Madan which is Ex.PW35/H and another report of valuer Rakesh Kumar Madan which is Ex.PW35/H1. Witness also deposes regarding different circulars handed over by him to IO of CBI which are already collectively exhibited as Ex.PW34/B (D4). Witness also refers to productioncumseizure memo dated CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 50 28.10.2010 bearing his signatures at point A vide which he had handed over certain documents to IO as well as a letter dated 28.10.2010 bearing his signatures and IO had formally seized documents mentioned therein.
101. PW36 Ajay Kumar Goel deposed that he took a loan from Canara Bank, Chandni Chowk branch in 2005 for his business, for a sum of Rs.70 lacs and he had taken the said loan with the help of accused Ashok Jain. Witness further states that in January 2006 he had taken another loan of Rs.75 lacs from Canara Bank, Chandni Chowk in the name of his firm S & S Associates and that loan/CC limit was also taken by him with the help of accused Ashok Jain. PW36 says that in respect of those loans taken by him with the help and influence of accused Ashok Jain, he had handed over application for loan along with documents to Ashok Jain and all other steps were taken by him with the bank officers to arrange the loan. PW36 went on to testify that he suffered losses in his business due to sealing of buildings in Delhi and therefore he started meeting accused Ashok Jain in his office at Karol Bagh to discuss the ways and means to pay the loan amount taken from Canara Bank.
102. PW36 says that in the year 2007 he along with accused Ashok Jain and Subhash Gupta had visited the house of accused Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla at Uttam Nagar. PW36 says that they visited the house of A1 Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla as accused Ashok Jain had to take his dues of about Rs.2/3 crores from accused Rajiv Kumar and demanded the said amount from Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla. PW36 further states that accused Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla, his wife Smt. Alka Devi and his children came with them to the office of accused Ashok Jain at Karol Bagh. In that office of accused Ashok Jain at Karol Bagh, accused Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla and his wife Alka Devi talked in a closed room and thereafter CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 51 they reached to some settlement and later accused Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla and his wife went away.
103. PW36 further testified that when he used to visit the office of accused Ashok Jain at Karol Bagh, in his presence there were some negotiations/talks between accused Ashok Jain and Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla regarding taking of loan from a bank and ultimately a loan of Rs.1.5 crores was got sanctioned in the name of accused Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla from State Bank of Patiala, Shastri Bhawan and said loan was got sanctioned in the name of a firm M/s Dalshan Adhesives of which accused Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla was proprietor. PW36 says that he had accompanied with the valuer and accused Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla at the site of two properties which were mortgaged in the bank for the purpose of taking the loan of firm M/s Dalshan Adhesives.
104. PW36 says that one property was located in Mandoli, Shahdara and other was agricultural land of Bahadurgah. Witness further says that later he came to know that one person namely Bittu @ Raj Kanwal Sharma came in the office of accused Ashok Jain and PW36 came to know that in fact property of Mandoli, Shahdara which was mortgaged to the bank, actually belonged to said Bittu @ Raj Kanwal Sharma who was old friend of accused Ashok Jain. PW36 says that accused Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla told him that title deed of property of Mandoli, Shahdara was used for the purpose of taking loan as forged documents were got prepared as the documents regarding that property were prepared in the name of accused Rajiv Kumar with the help of Deepak, a deed writer. PW36 also states that for the purpose of arranging the loan in question a 10% commission was to be given to H.K. Sharma, C.A. CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 52
105. PW36 went on to testify that one day accused Ashok Jain went with him in a car and reached at the house of accused R.K. Sharma. Accused Ashok Jain put the cash amount of Rs.One lac in an envelope in his presence and told him that he is going to hand over the said amount to R.K. Sharma. PW36 says that he waited outside the society of residence of accused R.K. Sharma at Paschim Vihar and accused Ashok Jain went inside the said society. He does not know whether actually the said amount of Rs.One lac was handed over by accused Ashok Jain to accused R.K. Sharma. PW36 says that accused Ashok Jain told him that accused R.K. Sharma was not available in his residence and Ashok Jain talked with R.K. Sahrma over the phone and further told that the amount of Rs.One lac was handed over to wife of accused R.K. Sharma who met at his residence.
106. PW36 further deposed that he had visited State Bank of Patiala, Shastri Bhawan branch 5/7 times after the sanction of loan in question in favour of firm of accused Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla. He deposed that once he along with accused Rajeev Kumar Soni had gone outside State Bank of Patiala, Shastri Bhawan branch when he was called there by accused Ashok Jain. Witness says when he reached outside the bank accused Ashok Jain and Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla were already there. Witness states that he remained outside the bank building and accused Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla and Rajeev Kumar Soni went inside the bank and withdrew the amount of Rs.19 lacs and came outside the bank and thereafter they went to house of accused Rajeev Kumar Soni at Shastri Park. PW36 says that at that place there was some settlement between accused Ashok Jain and Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla and amount of Rs.9 lacs was taken by accused Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla and remaining amount of Rs.10 lacs was left at Shastri Nagar.
CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 53107. PW36 further says that accused Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla handed over his blank cheques after signing the same from the cheque book pertaining to the loan amount of his firm M/s Dalshan Adhesives and those cheques were given by him to pay the outstanding amount between him and accused Ashok Jain. PW36 says that accused Ashok Jain gave some of those blank cheques to accused Rajeev Kumar Soni to encash the same from the bank. Witness states that accused Rajeev Kumar Soni was running three firms by name M/s S.K. Enterprises, M/s Ganpati Traders and M/s Rajiv Enterprises. Witness states that the account of M/s Rajiv Enterprises was in Jain Cooperative Bank, Karol Bagh and account of M/s Ganpati Traders was in Punjab National Bank, Rajender Nagar.
108. PW36 went on to testify that he had also visited Jain Cooperative Bank along with accused Rajeev Kumar Soni when he remained outside the bank and accused Rajeev Kumar Soni went inside the bank and withdrew the cash amount which he handed over to accused Sandeep Jain son of accused Ashok Jain. PW36 says that he came to know that total amount of Rs.57 lacs was withdrawn from the account of said firm.
109. PW36 further states that he can identify the signatures of accused Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla as well as of accused Rajeev Kumar Soni. Upon showing document D14(1) i.e. cheque dated 27.08.2007 drawn on State Bank of Patiala, Shastri Bhawan for a sum of Rs.19 lacs, PW36 identifies the signatures of accused Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla at point Q241. Similarly witness also identifies the signatures of accused Rajeev Kumar Soni at point X and X1 on cheque dated 27.08.2007 on the overleaf. PW36 also identifies the signatures of accused Rajeev Kumar Soni on front and back side of documents Ex.PW21/G47 to G53 which are different cheques. PW36 testifies that from the CC account of CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 54 Rajiv @ Hakla at State Bank of Patiala, Shastri Bhawan money was transferred to current account of firms of acused Rajeev Kumar Soni namely Ganpati Traders at PNB, Rajender Nagar, wherefrom accused Rajeev Kumar Soni made withdrawal of cash on the instructions of accused Ashok Jain and Sandeep Jain. Witness states that accused Rajeev Kumar Soni had withdrawn Rs.63 lacs on one day and Rs.25 lacs next date from PNB, Shankar Road/Rajender Nagar and from Jain Cooperative Bank respectively and out of this money Rs.57 lacs was handed over to Sandeep Jain and Rajeev Goel.
110. PW36 further deposed that later he came to know that accused Rajeev Kumar Soni came from Bombay and his real name was Rajesh and he was working for accused Ashok Jain. There was actually no business transaction between M/s Dalshan Adhesives and the firms of accused Rajeev Kumar Soni. PW36 says that those firms of accused Rajeev Kumar Soni were made only on the instructions of accused Ashok Jain. Witness further states that at the instructions of accused Ashok Jain a CC limit for firm of Rajeev Kumar Soni was also got sanctioned from State Bank of Patiala, Shastri Bhawan for a sum of Rs.1.5 crores with the help of Chartered Accountant H.K. Sharma and as per his knowledge for that loan also a commission @ 6% was given to CA H.K. Sharma. Witness states that he was only a worker and driver with Rajeev Kumar Soni and used to accompany accused Rajeev Kumar Soni. PW36 in his deposition recorded on 04.06.2019 states that property of Mandoli was actually arranged by Ashok Jain and he came to know that the said property of Mandoli, Shahdara was in fact in the name of Rajender Sharma or his wife and with the help of Deepak Kumar (deed writer) on the instructions of accused Ashok Jain sale deed pertaining to that property was prepared in the name of accused Rajiv CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 55 Kumar @ Hakla by impersonating through a woman as seller by name Prem Lata Gupta and brother of Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla was also the witness.
111. PW36 further testified that for the purpose of loan in question the property of Mandoli was inspected once by accused R.K. Sharma along with Ashok Jain and at the time of inspection of that property key of the property was with the owner namely Rajender Sharma. Witness states that valuaton of both the properties of Bahadurgah and Mandoli was got done by one Satish Kumar of M/s Channey & Associates alogn with accused Rajiv Kumar and him (PW36). PW36 further says that godown at Swarn Park, Mundka which belonged to accused Ashok Jain was given on rent to accused Rajiv Kumar for keeping certain articles in that godown. Witness states that he came to know that a commission @ 10% was given to the Manager of the bank R.K. Sharma as well as CA H.K. Sharma for the purpose of getting the CC limit in question sanctioned from State Bank of Patiala.
112. PW36 deposed that he went with accused Rajeev Kumar Soni to PNB, Shankar Road as well as to Jain Cooperative Bank, Karol Bagh for withdrawing the money at the instructions of accused Ashok Jain. Witness stated that from PNB a sum of Rs.63 lacs was withdrawn by Rajeev Kumar Soni and that amount was handed over to accused Sandeep Jain and at that time Rajiv Goel was with him. Witness deposed that he went with accused Rajeev Kumar Soni to Jain Cooperative Bank wherefrom a sum of Rs.24/25 lacs was withdrawn by accused Rajeev Kumar Soni. On the instructions of accused Ashok Jain said amount was handed over to accused Sandeep Jain.
113. PW36 further says that accused Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla gave a sum of Rs.10 lacs by way of two cheques to Pradeep Kumar as accused Rajiv Kumar @ CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 56 Hakla owed that money to Pradeep Kumar in connection with some property matter. Witness states that accused Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla had also withdrawn sum of Rs.8 lacs in cash from the loan account for his personal use. Accused Ashok Jain had earlier directed accused Rajeev Kumar Soni to make certain transactions from the CC account of M/s Dalshan Adhesives. But when accused Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla had withdrawn amount of RS.3/4 lacs from that CC account without informing anyone, thereafter accused Ashok Jain told him (PW36) and Rajeev Kumar Soni not to make any other transaction regarding the account of M/s Dalshan Adhesives and not to deal with it.
114. PW36 further testified that three firms of accused Rajeev Kumar Soni namely M/s S.K. Enterprises, M/s Rajiv Enterprises and M/s Ganpati Traders actually had no business transaction with the firm of accused Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla M/s Dalshan Adhesives. PW36 further testifies that he was produced before the Ld. MM where his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded, which is Ex.PW36/PX. PW36 further says that he had stated in his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that Ashok Jain after his return from the house of accused R.K. Sharma told him that he had handed over the envelope containing Rs.One lac to the wife of accused R.K. Sharma.
115. PW37 Piyush Rastogi, Chartered Accountant deposed that he does not know any person by name of Rajiv Kumar (A1), no such person by the name of Rajiv Kumar has ever been his client. Witness says that no firm by name M/s Dalshan Adhesives has ever been his client for any purpose and he had not performed any profession job for such firm. On seeing the document D7 (internal page 9 to 30) already Ex.PW34/D, documents pertaining to M/s Dalshan Adhesives, PW37 says that these documents neither bear his signatures nor bear his official seal as PW37 says that someone has forged his signatures CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 57 and official seal at point X. Similarly on seeing the document D7 (page 31 to
42) i.e. photocopies of documents relating to M/s Dalshan Adhesives, PW37 says that these documents also do not bear his signatures/initials or his official seal at point X. Witness says that those documents have been forged by someone in his name, which are collectively Ex.PW37/A.
116. PW38 Naresh Kumar deposed that Smt.Angrezo Devi is his mother who purchased plot no.57, measuring 80 sq. yards of Patel Garden, Village Kakrola. The said plot was sold by one Hari Singh to his mother for sale consideration of Rs.10,000/ in year 1988 by way of GPA.
117. PW39 Insp. J.B. Lakra deposed that during the investigation of that case he seized the original voter identity card of Rajeev Kumar Soni @ Rajesh Dhiraj Lal Soni and original of voter identity card has been filed by; him with the charge sheet. PW39 deposed that he handed over photocopy of said identity card of said accused Rajeev Kumar Soni @ Rajesh Dhiraj Lal Soni from the record. Witness identified the photocopy of the voter identity card of Rajeev Kumar Soni @ Rajesh Dhiraj Lal Soni, same is Ex.PW39/A. PW39 further says that during the investigation of that case it revealed that name of the accused reflected as Rajeev Kumar Soni in the loan documents was not correct and he informed that his correct name is Rajesh Soni and he produced his voter identity card.
118. PW40 Suraj Prakash joined the investigation and in his presence specimen signatures of Rajiv Kumar were taken by the IO. On seeing document D19 already exhibited as Ex.PW21/F1 (S10 to S141), PW40 says that all these sheets bear specimen signatures/hand writing of accused Rajiv Kumar and also bear his signatures at point B. PW40 further says that one independent witness CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 58 Sher Singh in FCI was also present along with him who signed the above said sheets Ex.PW21/F1 in his presence.
119. PW41 Girdhari Lal @ Ravi Kumar deposed that since 1995 he has been running a shop of typing work and preparation of documents in the name and style of R.K. Associates at District Centre, Janak Puri. Upon being shown document D10 already Ex.PW5/A, PW41 identified that such sale document was typed by him on the computer but those documents do not bear his signatures or the seal of his shop/firm. He stated that from the drafting of the said documents he identifies that same was typed by him. PW40 says that for the purpose of preparing sale documents accused Rajiv Kumar came to his shop as he was referred by someone and on his instructions he prepared the said sale documents already Ex.PW5/A. Witness identifies accused Rajiv Kumar in the court. PW41 further says that apart from typing the documents he also sent the documents to the office of Sub Registrar or Patwari for completion of other formalities and on the request of A1 Rajiv Kumar he sent the said sale document Ex.PW5/A to Halka Patwari of Kapashera through one of his employee namely Kamal Punia. PW41 says that said sale deed was however returned by Patwari after making certain objections and therefore he returned those documents to accused Rajiv Kumar. PW41 further says that after 2/3 days accused Rajiv Kumar came to his shop along with fard and requested him to make changes of khasra number in the said sale document Ex.PW5/A after applying fluid. PW41 says that he told accused Rajiv Kumar that if Khasra numbers are changed in the sale document by using fluid that document would be useless as cutting etc. is not permissible. Witness states that accused Rajiv Kumar still told him to make the changes of khasra number as per his instructions and accordingly he retyped/ changed khasra number in the said sale CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 59 document Ex.PW5/A. Witness states that he advised accused Rajiv Kumar to get the signatures of seller and purchaser of the property on said cutting/addition alteration in the said sale document, otherwise that document would not be legally admissible. Witness states that none other person than accused Rajiv Kumar came to him. He states that none of the party or accused Rajiv Kumar had signed that sale deed Ex.PW5/A in his presence.
120. PW42 Deepak Sinha deposed that in his presence finger prints, specimen signatures/hand writing Ex.PW21/ F2 & F3 of two persons namely Smt.Alka Devi and Vinay Kumar were taken. that specimen signature of accused Alka Devi were also taken in his presence on sheets S142 to S157.
121. PW43 Vinay Kumar deposed he is brother of accused Rajiv Kumar (A1). PW43 after seeing the document D28 (5) (internal page 18 to 24( identifies account opening form of M/s Amar Polymers and Dyes. PW43 says that above said account was got opened in the bank in the name of above mentioned firm at the instance of his brother Rajiv Kumar. PW43 says that it was opened by Chief Manager of the bank Sh.R.K. Sharma (A5). PW43 says that the opening of the above said account was introduced by A1 Rajiv Kumar as proprietor of M/s Dalshan Adhesives. Witness identifies his signatures as well as his photograph on the account opening form at points A and B. Witness further says that he never opened any such firm by name M/s Amar Polymers and Dyes and the account in the name of above mentioned firm was opened only at the instance of accused Rajiv Kumar, PW43 says that he had no concern with the said firm or the account ever. Witness further says that he received a cheque book from the bank in respect of above mentioned account and his brother had taken signatures on the various cheques and took all the signed cheques from him. Witness identifies the said account opening form as Ex.PW21/G65. The CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 60 other documents furnished at the time of opening of said account are Ex.PW43/A.
122. PW43 further testified after seeing the sale deed Ex.PW2/B that the above said sale deed dated 18.04.2007 bearing his signatures as witness at point B as well as thumb impressions at point C. Witness says that said property was purportedly purchased at the instance of accused Ashok Jain. In his deposition recorded on 07.08.2019 PW43 further testifies that upon receipt of a notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C. from the IO of this case, he produced certain documents which were seized by the IO vide productioncumseizure memo dated 09.11.2011 which is Ex.PW49/X8. Witness after seeing the document D 34 i.e. photocopy of sale deed dated 10.12.2007 in respect of plot no.5657, measuring 160 sq. yards along with chain of documents purportedly shown in the name of his sisterinlaw accused Alka Devi wife of Rajiv Kumar. These documents are Ex.PW49/X9 to X13 and Ex.PW45/A to E.
123. PW44 R.P. Dhanda deposed that he joined the investigation and produced certain documents which were seized by the IO vide productioncum seizure memo (D27), witness identifies the said documents bearing his signatures at point A, which is Ex.PW44/A. PW44 says that vide said memo he produced certain documents as mentioned therein. Witness also identifies letter dated 08.12.2010 forwarded by him to the IO of the CBI which is Ex.PW44/B, witness also identifies the copy of specimen signature of sole proprietor of the firm, the account of which being operated in the branch which is Ex.PW44/C. Witness also identifies different cheque nos.920059 to 920065 (already exhibited as Ex.PW21/G47 to G53, cheque nos.920074 to 920076 (already exhibited as Ex.PW21/G55, G57 & G58.
CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 61124. PW45 Subhash Sehrawat deposed that his father had been into property dealing business and his father had purchased one plot in Patel Garden, Dwarka More, Kakrola measuring 150 sq. yards and later his father had given said plot to his brotherinlaw Rakesh Ahlawat. After seeing the document D34 witness identifies the GPA Ex.PW45/A, photocopy of agreement to sell Ex.PW45/B, photocopy of affidavit Ex.PW45/C, receipt Ex.PW45/D and deed of will Ex.PW45/E. Witness states that such property was situated in an unauthorized colony. PW46 Rakesh Ahlawat deposed that his fatherinlaw Hari Singh told him that he owns a piece of land measuring 160 sq. yards at Patel Garden, Kakrola and after about 1½ year, his fatherinlaw Hari Singh asked for his help in disposing of the said plot for a good price and for that purpose PW46 stated to have introduced one Manjeet Singh to his fatherinlaw who was interested to purchase that place. Witness deposed that certain documents were executed between his fatherinlaw Hari Singh and accused Manjeet Singh. Witness identified accused Manjeet Singh in the court and further after seeing the document D34 already Ex.PW45/D and also other documents of D34 (page no.17 to 41) i.e. copy of deed of will, GPA, agreement to sell, receipt etc., witness states that he cannot confirm anything about those documents. After seeing the document Ex.PW5/A witness stats that said sale deed dated 10.12.2007 bears the signatures of accused Manjeet Singh. Witness further says that he knows accused Rajiv Kumar as he was his friend and interested to purchase the property and he (PW46) introduced Manjeet Singh with Rajiv Kumar for the deal and sale deed was executed between Manjeet Singh and wife of Rajiv Kumar. PW46 further says regarding certain marking/cutting in the sale deed and Manjeet Singh had signed in the presence of the witness on those marked places. Witness identifies the sale deed Ex.PW5/A (D10) and states that he had noticed that at the place of khasra no.13/9/11 and revenue CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 62 estate of Village Kakrola as mentioned in the original documents, someone changed the khasra number as 929 and village from Kakrola to Nawada.
125. PW47 Vishwa Mohan Verma deposed that he was working as financial consultant and seen Chartered Accountant Piyush Rastogi signing and writing and therefore he can identify his signatures and official seal. On seeing the document D7 already Ex.PW34/D, witness says that said document does not bear stamp and signatures of Piyush Rastogi which are balance sheets of firm M/s Dalshan Adhesives and other financial documents. PW47 says that these documents are false and forged and name and stamp of CA Piyush Rastogi has been used on the documents.
126. PW48 Rajiv Goel identified the accused Ashok Jain and Sandeep Jain as well as A1 Rajiv in the Court and deposed that he knew accused Ashok Jain since 2003. Witness states that due to sealing in year 2000 he suffered heavy losses in his business and his elder brother Deepak Gupta required funds. PW48 though admitted that he gave the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Ld. MM which is Ex.PW48/PX but he did not support prosecution case. Since witness did not deposed in accordance with his previous statement given to the CBI as well as under Section 164 Cr.P.C. recorded before the Ld. MM, Ld. PP for CBI therefore sought permission to crossexamine the witness in terms of Section 154 of the Evidence Act. In the crossexamination by the ld. PP for CBI witness deposed that during the investigation he visited the CBI office for 20/25 times. He admitted that his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded by Ld. MM at Tis Hazari. PW48 thereafter denied all the material facts as stated in his previous statements.
CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 63127. PW49 Investigating Officer Satpal Kapoor deposed that he carried out the investigation of the present case and conducted searches & collected different documents from the banks and other authorities. He referred to the complaint dated 15.09.2010 received in the office of SP, CBI, EO Unit I on the basis of which FIR was registered against accused Rajiv Kumar and Alka Devi. Said FIR is Ex.PW49/A. Witness also referred to different documents pertaining to loan in question seized by him vide productioncumseizure memo dated 11.10.2020 already exhibited as Ex.PW32/A. He also collected State Bank of Patiala's circular dated 27.09.2006 (D4) already exhibited as Ex.PW32/B. Witness also referred different documents including sale deeds of properties mortgaged with the loan in question as well as documents pertaining to PNB, New Rajender Nagar Branch as well as Jain Cooperative Bank, Karol Bagh Branch of the firms of accused Rajesh Dhiraj Lal Soni wherein money of the loan in question was transferred and later money was withdrawn in cash. IO further deposes regarding taking specimen signatures of accused Rajiv Kumar, Alka Devi, Vinay Kumar, Rajinder Kaur, Manjeet Singh as well as Rajesh Dhiraj Lal Soni in the presence of independent witnesses and questioned documents as well as specimen signatures/ hand writing were sent to expert for taking the opinion. Witness has also deposed regarding collecting opinion from CFSL expert, CBI and also deposed regarding recording of statements of witnesses H.K. Sharma, Ajay Goel and Rajiv Goel before the Ld. MM under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
128. PW50 Sh.Viplav Dabas, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate recorded statements U/s 164 Cr.P.C of Rajiv Goel as Ex.PW48/PX and statement of Ajay Kumar Goel is as already Ex.PW36/PX.
CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 64129. Heard ld. PP for CBI and ld. Counsels for accused persons. Initially part final arguments were heard. However, in meantime due to spread of Covid19 pandemic, Government of India ordered lockdown. Therefore courts remained closed. Remaining arguments in the present case were heard through Video Conferencing on 08.06.2020, 09.06.2020, 16.06.2020, 22.06.2020 and 25.06.2020. I have also gone through written arguments filed by counsel for accused no.1 & 2, counsel for accused no.5, counsel for accused no.6 & 8 whereas ld. Counsel for accused no.7 submits that statement given on behalf of accused no.7 under Section 313 Cr.P.C. may be taken up as his written arguments.
Criminal Conspiracy
130. Before proceeding to examine evidence on record to assess whether charge as framed against each of the accused person is proved or not, since there is one common charge against each of the accused person for offences U/s 120B read with Section 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, let us find out at the outset whether there was a conspiracy to commit crime.
138. Essence of the offence of criminal conspiracy is the fact of combination by agreement. The agreement may be expressed or implied. The conspiracy arises and the offence is committed as soon as the agreement is made. The actus reus in a conspiracy is the agreement to execute the illegal conducts not the execution of it. Following are the ingredients of the offence of conspiracy:
(a) There must be an agreement between two or more persons who are alleged to conspire.CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 65
(b) The agreement should be to do, or cause to be done:
(i) an illegal act
(ii) an act, which is though not illegalbyillegal means.
139. In view of proviso, distinction is drawn between an agreement to commit an offence and an agreement of which either object or means employed are illegal but does not constitute the offence. In case of an agreement is necessary. But in case of an agreement to do an act, which would not amount to an offence, some overt act besides the agreement must be proved to establish the charge of criminal conspiracy.
140. In State of Kerala V P. Sugathan, 2000(4) Recent Criminal Reporter 369 Supreme Court while discussing offence of criminal conspiracy and provision under section 10 of Indian Evidence Act observed as:
"Offence of criminal conspiracy can be established by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. Section 10 o Evidence Act introduces the doctrine of agency and will be attracted only when court is satisfied that there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offence.... To prove criminal conspiracy, there must be evidence direct or circumstantial to prove that there was an agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence, there must be the meeting of mind resulting in ultimate decision taken by conspirator regarding commission of an offence and where factum of conspiracy is sought to be inferred from circumstances, prosecution has to show that circumstances giving rise to conclusive and irresistible inference of an agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence.... A few hits here and few hits from there, on which prosecution relies cannot be held to be adequate for connecting the accused with commission of crime of criminal conspiracy. The circumstances relied for drawing an inference should be CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 66 prior in time than actual commission offences in furtherance of alleged conspiracy.... Law of conspiracy in India is in line with the English law by making an overt act inessential when conspiracy is to commit any punishable offence"
141. Recently in State through Central Bureau of Investigation v. Dr. Anup Kumar Srivastava AIR 2017 SC 3698. Apex Court has explained offence of criminal conspiracy by observing as: "Conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act or an act which is not illegal by illegal means. Object behind conspiracy is to achieve ultimate aim of conspiracy. For a charge of conspiracy means knowledge about indulgence in either an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means is necessary. In some cases, intent of unlawful use being made of the goods or services in question may be inferred from knowledge itself. This apart, prosecution has not to establish that a particular unlawful use was intended, so long as goods or service in question could not be put to any lawful use. Finally, when ultimate offence consists of a claim of actions, it would not be necessary for prosecution to establish, to bring home charge of conspiracy, that each of conspirators had knowledge of what collaborator would do.
142. So legal proposition on the issue emerges to the effect that :
i. Conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act or an act which is not illegal by illegal means. The object behind the conspiracy is to achieve the ultimate aim of conspiracy. In order to achieve the ultimate object, parties may adopt many means. Such means may constitute different offences by themselves, but so long as they are adopted to achieve the ultimate object of the conspiracy, they are also acts of conspiracy. ii. For an offence of conspiracy, it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that conspirators expressly agreed to do an illegal act, the agreement may be proved by necessary implication.CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 67
iii. It is also not necessary that each member of the conspiracy should know all the details of the conspiracy. Conspiracy is a continuing offence.
iv. The conspiracy may be a general one and a smaller one which may develop in successive stages. It is an unlawful agreement and not its accomplishment, which is the gist/essence of the crime of conspiracy.
v. In order to determine whether the conspiracy was hatched, the court is required to view the entire agreement and to find out as in fact what the conspirators intended to do.
vi. Section 10 of Evidence Act renders anything said, done or written by anyone of the conspirators in reference to their common intention as a relevant fact, not only as against each of the conspirators but for proving the existence of the conspiracy itself. However it applies when prima facie evidence of the existence of a conspiracy is given and accepted.
143. Keeping in mind the above discussed legal preposition in mind if we examine the facts and evidence on the judicial record for charge of criminal conspiracy, as noted above prosecution story starts with the facts that accused R.K. Sharma while he was posted as Chief Manager in State Bank of Patiala, Shastri bhawan branch requested PW4 CA H.K. Sharma to recommend some cases for advances so as to enhance the business of bank. Thereupon it is the version of PW4 H.K. Sharma that since he met with the accused Ashok Jain (A6) through his client PW12 Rajender Sharma, proprietor of M/s Rajkamal Wire Industries, PW4 had given a proposal on the asking of A6 Ashok Jain for enhancement of loan for his firm M/s Yogesh Trading Company in the said branch of A5 R.K. Sharma. That proposal as per PW4 could not materialize for noncompliance of certain formalities/requirements by A6. Thereafter PW4 deposes that accused Ashok Jain again met him and introduced accused Rajiv Kumar Soni @ Rajesh Dhiraj Lal Soni (A7 herein) for taking loan facility for CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 68 the firm of A7 M/s S.K. Enterprises. It is undisputed fact rather matter of record that for the firm of Rajeev Kumar Soni (A7) M/s S.K. Enterprises one CC(H) facility of Rs.1.5 crores was sanctioned from the same bank branch. This court can take judicial cognizance of the fact that in respect of that loan transaction also fraud was committed and on separate complaint CBI registered RC No.071/2010/E0008/EOI/CBI/ND, the trial of that matter is also pending in this court in which A7, A6, A1 and A8 are accused beside others.
144. Then comes the version regarding loan in question and as per PW4 somewhere in July 2007 A6 Ashok Jain introduced A1 Rajiv Kumar to PW4 and asked for preparing a loan proposal for the firm of A1 M/s Dalshan Adhesives. That loan was also recommended and sanctioned by the same bank in the same branch.
145. So it is accused no.1 Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla who with the help of accused Ashok Jain furnished the loan application for his firm M/s Dalshan Adhesives and CC(H) facility of Rs.1.5 crores was sanctioned, on the mortgage of two properties. That loan was never repaid. Resultantly, public money was misappropriated. The first and foremost aspect to be noted for considering the charge of criminal conspiracy is that the firm of A1 M/s Dalshan Adhesives never did any business at all after availing CC(H) facility. PW26 who is an officer of Trade and Tax Department, proved letter Ex.PW26/A informing from his official record that firm M/s Dalshan Adhesives was registered for VAT in February 2006 and did not furnish return for Value Added Tax for 20062007, despite issuance of show cause notice from Department and then registration of firm was cancelled for VAT in December 2007 vide document Ex.PW26/B. The documents show that said firm did not carry on any business. It came in the evidence of PW32 that CC(H) facility is loan granted on working capital of CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 69 trade/business for which goods/stocks are hypothecated along with other securities. Whereas in this case business was never transacted by the firm M/s Dalshan Adhesives and the amount of loan was withdrawn/diverted to different accounts within short period of time.
146. It came in the evidence that before sanction of CC(H) facility, one current account no.65024864018 was opened in the name of A1 Rajiv Kumar's firm M/s Dalshan Adhesives on 23.08.2007. PW11 Ram Lal Wadhwa has deposed that such opening of current account was introduced by A7 Rajeev Kumar Soni, who was having a current account in the same bank branch, in the name of his firm M/s S.K. Enterprises. Account opening form Ex.PW11/A establishes this fact. Further it is matter of record loan was sanctioned on 27.08.2007 and a total sum of Rs.1,54,20,250/ was diverted/withdrawn from 27.08.2007 to 07.09.2007. Important in this context to note that money was transferred from the loan account of M/s Dalshan Adhesives to firms M/s Ganpati Traders, M/s Rajeev Enterprises proprietor of which was Rajeev Kumar Soni (A7), without any actual business transaction between these firms of A1 and A7. Though the facility was of CC(H) but out of that loan account a sum of Rs.8,00,000/ were withdrawn by A1 and Rs.19 lacs were withdrawn by A7 without any justification or lawful reasons. Similarly money was also given from the loan account to one Pradeep Rathi (PW9) by two cheques of Rs.5 lacs each signed by A1 towards the payment of part of sale consideration of agricultural property of village Parnala, Bahadur Garh. PW9 had stated that those cheques were handed over to him by accused Ashok Jain and signed by A1 as proprietor of M/s Dalshan Adhesives. Such amount of Rs.10 lacs could not have been used out of the loan account for payment of sale consideration of a property which was already mortgaged with the bank.
CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 70147. All the above mentioned facts are substantially undisputed by A1 and A7 and are rather matter of record, therefore these facts and evidence indicate a prior concert/agreement between A1 and A7 to misuse the amount out of the CC(H) loan account without any business purpose. Without going into much details of cheating and forgery etc. at this stage, it is important here to note that four properties were mortgaged for this loan account. Two properties were mortgaged by A1 Rajiv Kumar at the time of taking loan which are (i) Plot of 500 sq. yards of khasra no.542, Mandoli, Shahdara, purportedly owned by A1 Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla. Whereas it is established on the record from evidence of different witnesses including PW2, PW3, PW7, PW8, PW12, PW19, PW33 etc. showing that said property was actually not belonging to accused Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla and documents of title in his name pertaining to that property were forged. As per that sale deed property was purportedly sold by Smt. Prem Lata Gupta to A1 Rajiv Kumar, whereas PW19 Gauri Shankar Gupta, husband of Smt. Prem Lata Gupta has deposed that his wife had already expired on 09.09.2002. PW12 Rajender Sharma has stated unequivocally that he is the owner of that property having purchased the same from PW3 Rajni Khandelwal. Another property given in mortgage to the loan by A1 is an agricultural land of Khewat no.43 min., killa no.7 of Village Parnala, Tehsil Bahadur Garh, District Jhajjar. No doubt that property was genuinely in the name of A1 Rajiv Kumar but PW9 Pradeep Rathi had stated that he though sold the said property to accused Rajiv Kumar by executing a sale deed dated 25.10.2007 Ex.PW9/A but the entire sale consideration amount for that property was not paid.
148. Fabrication of sale deed of Mandoli property furnished by A1 to bank would be more elaborately discussed later in the judgment and this fact is mentioned here only to highlight the element of conspiracy. As noted above, the CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 71 loan amount was diverted/withdrawn from the loan account from 27.08.2007 to 07.09.2007. It is thereafter wife of A1 namely accused Alka Devi (A2) furnished title documents of two properties as additional mortgage. One of the title documents was in respect of plots no.46, 47 measuring 160 sq. yards of khasra no.929 in village Nawada locality known as Patel Garden and other property is of agricultural land in village Ismaila, Tehsil Sampla, Rohtak, Haryana. In respect of property of village Nawada, Patel Garden, there is sufficient evidence on the record to show cutting/forgery done on the document by changing the khasra number, name of village and then that document was got registered and was furnished in the bank. Similarly in respect of Property B of Village Ismaila, Sampla furnished by A2 Alka Devi, though document were genuinely executed in favour of A2 Alka Devi, but she did not pay complete sale consideration and was not found in possession of the same
149. it would be appropriate here to examine controversy as to whether A2 Alka Devi stood guarantor for the loan transaction or not. Accused Rajiv Kumar and his wife both have denied giving of any guarantee by A2 Alka Devi for loan in question. In this context first of all it is important to note evidence of PW34 Smt.Sushma, who in her deposition stated that when loan amount of M/s Dalshan Adhesives was irregular and did not regularise despite sending of letter/reminder etc., then A5 R.K. Sharma arranged two properties as additional security which were in the name of A2 Alka Devi. PW34 states that for the execution of relevant documents for additional mortgage A2 Alka Devi came in the bank and then executed documents in her presence. PW34 also identify A2 Alka Devi in the court during her deposition.
150. Counsel for accused no.1 & 2 Sh.Alphi Chugh submitted that Alka Devi never furnished the guarantee for the loan in question. It is also stated in the CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 72 statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. of A2 Alka Devi that she never executed any deed of guarantee with the bank and has stated that original papers of those properties 'A' and 'B' were with CA H.K. Sharma (PW4). Counsel for accused no.1 & 2 also referred to crossexamination of PW49 IO Satpal Kapoor who has admitted in his crossexamination that the documents given by the bank and seized by him during the investigation there was no document like deed of guarantee.
151. No doubt IO stated that he did not seize documents of deed of guarantee and therefore same is also not on the record, but this fact in itself is not sufficient to conclude that there was never any guarantee furnished by A2 Alka Devi simply because there could not have been any person, other than A1 Rajiv Kumar or A2 Alka Devi who could furnish the title documents of those properties A and B. Moreover, it is in evidence of PW34 that documents of guarantee were executed in her presence by A2 Alka Devi. Important to note here is that such deposition of PW34 remained unrebutted so far as against A1 & A2 as the counsel for these accused persons did not crossexamine PW34 at all which impliedly means that her deposition was admitted so far as against A1 & A2. Moreover there is no reason for disbelieving such version given by PW34 merely because of lapses on the part of IO for not seizing the relevant documents because IO was required to ascertain as to whether any document of guarantee was actually executed in the bank or not. If executed, where have those documents disappeared? If no such document was ever executed, then how and in what circumstances those title deeds of properties A and B of Alka Devi came in possession of the bank? If such aspects have not been cleared in the investigation, that fact ipso facto does not go in favour of A2. Moreover if according to A2 Alka Devi such documents/title deeds of properties (a) & (b) were in possession of CA H.K. Sharma (PW4), she failed to explain as to how CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 73 such documents were lying with PW 4 and how and why did he give those documents to the bank. Onus in this regard was on A2 Alka Devi under Section 106 Evidence Act to prove those facts which were in her knowledge. Moreover at the time of evidence of PW4 H.K. Sharma nothing in this regard was put to that witness by way of any suggestion.
152. Besides this there are other evidence on the record showing prior understanding/agreement between A1 and A2. First of all let us take up property (A) documents i.e. property of Plot No.56 & 57, as per documents showing to be in khasra no.929 of Village Nawada, locality known as Patel Garden, Najafgarh Road, Delhi. It is matter of record that there was cutting and forgery in the document by changing the khasra number, village name and then such document was got registered from the Office of Sub Registrar Janak Puri when the Office of Sub Registrar Kapashera denied the registration of such documents.
153. PW14 Om Prakash deposed that locality Patel Garden is not situated in Village Nawada and rather is in Village Kakrola. PW23 Mahender Sharma who is resident of village Kakrola has deposed that his father and uncles had owned land comprised in khasra no.16/9/1 of Village Kakrola, which was sold by them and on that land locality known as Patel Garden is situated in Kakrola. This fact is established on the record and not disputed by anyone that locality Patel Garden is in village Kakrola and not in village Nawada, so the first element of forgery in the title document of property (a) is mentioning of Patel Garden in Village Nawada and changing of khasra number.
154. PW5 Naresh Kumar who used to work with the photographer of District Centre Janak Puri has deposed that A1 Rajiv Kumar came to the shop of that CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 74 photographer and obtained his signatures as witness on certain documents. PW5 upon showing D10 sale deed dated 10.12.2007 of property (a) executed between Alka Devi and Manjeet Singh, witness identifies his signatures and document is Ex.PW5/A.
155. PW31 Kamal Punia deposed that while he was working with Girdhari Lal (PW41) who worked as deed writer/document registration in office of Sub Registrar Janak Puri and Kapashera, in December 2007 on the instructions of Girdhari Lal he along with A1 Rajiv Kumar and his wife A2 Alka Devi went to the office of Sub Registrar Kapashera for registration of some title documents of some property, the details of which witness could not recollect. However PW31 stated that for certain objections those title documents were not registered in the Office of Sub Registrar Kapashera. PW41 Girdhari Lal says that document Ex.PW5/A i.e. sale deed was typed by him in his computer, when A1 Rajiv Kumar came to his shop for preparing that sale deed. PW41 has also identified the accused in the court and further deposes that on the request of A1 Rajiv Kumar he sent his employee PW31 Kamal Punia to Office of Kapashera for registration of sale deed but said document was returned for certain objection. Thereafter after 2/3 days accused Rajiv Kumar again came to his shop and requested him to change the khasra number in the sale deed Ex.PW5/A by applying fluid. PW41 further says that he told A1 Rajiv Kumar that if khasra numbers are changed in the sale deed by applying fluid, that document would be useless as cuttings are not permissible. According to PW41 A1 Rajiv Kumar still insisted him to change the khasra number and on his instructions he retyped the khasra number on that sale deed Ex.PW5/A. Witness further says that he advised A1 to get the seller seller and purchasers initials on the CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 75 cutting/alteration in the said sale deed, otherwise that document would not be legally admissible.
156. It be noted that nothing came in crossexamination of PW31 and PW41 to disbelieve their version which corroborates each other. So deposition of PW31 and PW41 clearly shows that A1 actively participated in getting a sale deed prepared and it was A1 Rajiv Kumar who carried out the alterations in the document Ex.PW5/A to change the khasra number from 13/09/1 to 929 as well as to change the name of village Kakrola to Nawada. It is also a matter of record that this document Ex.PW5/A was got registered in office of Sub Registrar Janak Puri with the initials of A2 and A4 on the cutting/alteration in the document. A1 Rajiv Kumar himself is witness to this sale deed Ex.PW5A beside PW5. So there is sufficient evidence to show complicity of A1 & A2 in preparing a document which mention wrong khasra number and wrong village name and getting it registered. Apparently such document was prepared only for using the same in the bank for loan in question.
157. Now property (B) i.e. agricultural land of Village Ismaila, Tehsil Sampla. In respect of this property PW25 Jaswant Singh has deposed that the said property of Village Ismaila, District Rohtak was owned by Smt. Vidya Devi and PW25 says that A1 Rajiv Kumar along with his wife Alka Devi met him in his office for purchase of some land. PW25 stated to have negotiated/mediated in sale of said land of village Ismaila by Smt.Vidya Devi in the name of A2 Alka Devi. PW25 however says that cheques given by Alka Devi towards the payment of sale consideration for purchase of that property, returned dishonoured. PW25 further says that when vendor Vidya Devi approached him and demanded the price of her land, he being mediator stated to have paid Rs.25 lacs to the vendor Vidya Devi. PW25 also says that later A1 Rajiv Kumar paid CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 76 him amount of Rs.2 lacs only after 14 months of transaction and did not pay the remaining amount.
158. Thus evidence of PW25 also indicates that A1 & A2 together purchased the land of village Ismaila, Rohtak and after execution of sale deed, entire payment of sale consideration was not paid as cheques furnished by A2 returned dishonoured. This witness has not been crossexamined on behalf of accused no.1 and 2 except by giving one suggestion to the witness that Rajiv Kumar made the entire payment of sale consideration in cash. But fact is that the property documents were executed in the name of A2 Alka Devi.
159. Thus from the above discussions of evidence of different witnesses it is clear that A1 & A2 were very much in hand in gloves in getting documents of Property (a) and (b) prepared, which were later furnished in the bank. No doubt such documents were given as additional mortgage by guarantee of A2 Alka Devi at the stage when the account of loan in question was already irregular and money had already been withdrawn but it appears that such additional mortgage was created only to prolong the recovery process from the bank and to mislead the bank authorities. Thus, there is sufficient evidence on record to show conspiracy of A1 Rajiv Kumar and A2 Alka Devi besides others in commission of crime.
160. Since A3 was declared Proclaimed Offender, there is no need for giving any findings as to the complicity of A3 in the offence of criminal conspiracy. It would be sufficient to just refer the evidence of PW7 Kamal Kishore who identified her in the court, to be the one who appeared as Prem Lata Gupta at the time of registration of sale documents of Mandoli. PW29 is another witness who was nephew of A3 Smt.Rajinder Kaur and identified the photograph of his CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 77 aunt on sale deed Ex.PW2/B for Mandoli property, used by A1 for taking the loan in question.
161. Now let is discuss role of accused no.4 Manjeet Singh in conspiracy. Precise prosecution allegations as against A4 Manjeet Singh are that he executed sale deed no.24436 dated 10.12.2007 for property/plot no.56 and 57, measuring 160 sq. yards (80 sq. yards each) stated to be in khasra no.929 of Village Nawada, locality known as Patel Garden, Najafgarh Road, Delhi, in favour of A2 Alka Devi. This sale deed was got registered before Sub Registrar Janak Puri in which there were two witnesses, one is A1 Rajiv Kumar and another is PW5 Naresh Kumar. It came in evidence that such sale deed dated 10.12.2007 Ex.PW5/A was forged document as cutting/alteration was made in the document before its registration by mentioning khasra no.929 after deleting khasra no.13/09/1 as well as to mention village Nawada in place of village Kakrola. As such A4 allegedly conspired with A1 & A2 in getting such alteration/changes made in the said document and got it registered from the Office of Sub Registrar Janak Puri.
162. It has been already established that in fact locality Patel Garden is in village Kakrola and not in Nawada. This fact is otherwise not disputed. In continuity to above discussed evidence, if we consider evidence of PW45 Subhash Sehrawat who stated that his father late Hari Singh had purchased the plot in Patel Garden, Dwarka More, Kakrola which Hari Singh had given to his soninlaw Rakesh Ahlawat (brother in law of PW45). PW45 then refers to copy of sale documents being part of D34 i.e. GPA, agreement to sell, affidavit, receipt & Will as Ex.PW45/A to E. Perusal of these documents would show that same were executed by late Hari Singh in favour of A4 Manjeet Singh and not in favour of brotherinlaw of PW45 namely Rakesh Ahlawat.
CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 78163. This Rakesh Ahlawat appeared in the witness box as PW46. Evidence of PW46 is most material in the context of allegations as against A4. PW46 Rakesh Ahlawat states that he got married with daughter of late Hari Singh and his fatherinlaw was owning a piece of land measuring 160 sq. yards of Patel Garden, Kakrola. PW46 says that his fatherinlaw asked for his help in disposing of that plot at good price. Thereupon PW46 stated to have introduced Manjeet Singh (A4) to his fatherinlaw, as Manjeet Singh was interested in buying that plot. PW46 says that certain documents were executed in favour of Manjeet Singh by Hari Singh. Upon showing documents as referred above Ex.PW45/A to Ex.PW45/D, PW46 did not identify the photograph of Manjeet Singh on those documents by stating that it was a photocopy and photograph is dim.
164. When PW46 was shown D10 sale deed dated 10.12.2007 Ex.PW5/A executed by Manjeet Singh in favour of A2 Alka Devi, witness identifies the photograph of Manjeet Singh as well as his signatures at point A on each page. PW46 further testified that A1 Rajiv Kumar was his friend and interested in purchasing the property and he introduced Manjeet Singh with Rajiv Kumar for deal. He states that property details were earlier given by Manjeet Singh to Rajiv Kumar. After couple of days Rajiv Kumar contacted PW46 to call Manjeet Singh for his signatures. PW46 says that certain markings were already made in the draft sale deed and seller and buyer had to sign on those marked places. PW46 says that Manjeet Singh signed the said sale deed Ex.PW5/A on those marked places. Witness says that A1 informed him that registry of the said property was to be done before sub Registrar Kapashera but due to certain objections raised by the Patwari, registry could not be done in Kapashera. PW46 says that later he was informed that registry of that property CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 79 can be done in Office of Sub Registrar Janak Puri and PW46 went to the Registrar Office of Janak Puri where Manjeet Singh also came.
165. PW46 in his deposition recorded on 04.06.2019 stated that his fatherin law Hari Singh was owner of plot no.56 and 57 measuring 160 sq. yards being part of khasra no.13/9/1 of village Kakrola, known as Patel Garden. On seeing the sale deed Ex.PW5/A, PW46 noticed that in place of khasra no.13/9/1, khasra no.929 has been mentioned and in place of village Kakrola, village Nawada is mentioned.
166. Thus from the above discussed evidence of PW45 and PW46 the fact that area of Patel Garden is in village Kakrola and not in Nawada is again corroborated. It is also evident from the testimony of PW46 that Manjeet Singh appeared before the Sub Registrar Janak Puri when sale deed Ex.PW5/A was got registered and alteration/changes were already made in that document as is reflected from the evidence of PW41.
167. Ld. Counsel for A4 Sh.R.S. Gulia vehemently argued that A4 Manjeet Singh was never involved in cutting/alteration of the sale deed which was in fact done after the registration of a document of property for Kakrola village and changes of khasra number and village name might have been done by someone to misuse the document. As such there is no evidence for proving conspiracy as against A4 Manjeet Singh. He further argued that even otherwise taking the prosecution story on the face of it offence of conspiracy is to be done for commission of a crime. Whereas in this case the offence had already been committed as the loan in question was already sanctioned and money had already been misappropriated, by the time when the document of property (a) were furnished in the bank. Counsel for accused no.4 also referred to cross CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 80 examination of IO PW49. While relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in State vs. Nalini and others (1999) 5 SCC 253, another judgment of Delhi High Court in S. Ram Yadav vs. CBI and others 2014 (1) JCC 343. It is argued that when there is no evidence of any financial gain by A4 and no evidence to show that cutting/alteration was done by A4 and there is no evidence that because of the property document of property A loan was granted, charge of conspiracy does not establish as against A4 Manjeet Singh.
168. Having assessed the evidence as discussed above in the light of submissions made by ld. Counsel for accused no.4, while there is no denial to the fact that sale deed Ex.PW5/A was furnished by A2 as additional mortgage as a guarantor along with another title documents of property (B). By then loan was already sanctioned in favour of A1 on the security of two other property documents. However it is also matter of record that at the time when A2 Alka Devi furnished guarantee by security of two additional properties documents including sale deed Ex.PW5/A, loan was not declared NPA. No doubt loan account was irregular. On entire assessment of the facts and evidence it would be rather evident that additional securities were given by A2 as guarantor only to prolong the process of recovery of loan amount and to misguide the bank authorities. As such commission of crime does not culminate only by the date when loan was taken. Object of conspiracy can be understood to be limited until taking of loan rather it continued even there after. It was a continuous offence from taking a loan on the basis of fabricated documents and then diverting the loan amount and also to screen/conceal giving of fabricated documents so as to prolong the recovery proceedings by bank. Therefore one cannot argue that the crime had already been committed and therefore A4 could not be party to a conspiracy. Judgment of State vs. Nalini and others (supra) as relied upon by CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 81 ld. Counsel for A4 was on altogether different factual context. No doubt it was observed while explaining the scope of Section 120A IPC that "acts subsequent to achieving the object of conspiracy may tend to prove that a particular accused was party to conspiracy. Once the object of the conspiracy has been achieved any subsequent act which may be unlawful, would not made the accused as part of the conspiracy like giving shelter to an absconder...."
169. Judgment so relied upon was of well known case of Rajiv Gandhi murder and Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering the scope of offence of criminal conspiracy in the light of facts of that case. Rather in that judgment it was observed that when the object of the conspiracy is not completed, any act done towards achieving the object of conspiracy would come within the purview of offence punishable u/s 120B IPC. In the instatnt case object was not simply to take the loan, object was also to misappropriate the money of loan/public money and also to screen filing of fabricated documents on the basis of which loan was obtained. Therefore a line cannot be drawn immediately on taking of loan that any act done subsequent thereto, would not come within the purview of offence of criminal conspiracy.
170. Similarly another judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in S.Ram Yadav's case (supra), Hon'ble Court had noted that legal search report given by a lawyer/accused was filed to the bank subsequent to recommendation of credit facility. Therefore in the light of the facts of that case it was held by the Hon'ble Court that once the bank had already awarded the credit facility without going through the legal search report of the accused advocate, therefore it cannot be said that accused advocate was in connivance or in conspiracy with coaccused. Evidently facts of that case were altogether different as court was only considering that the legal search report furnished by that advocate/accused CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 82 was not the basis for grant of loan facility, therefore that person cannot be considered to be part of conspiracy. In this case the document Ex.PW5/A purportedly executed by A4 Manjeet Singh in favour of A2 was very much used by the bank when A2 Alka Devi stood guarantor. No doubt Alka Devi became guarantor when the loan account was already irregular, this was rather an unfortunate situation but one cannot say that there was no connivance of A2 or A4 at all in the commission of crime.
171. Therefore those judgments as relied upon by ld. Counsel for A4 cannot be of any use in the present case. It was also argued that since A4 Manjeet Singh was not the beneficiary of any monetary gain, therefore he cannot be considered to be part of criminal conspiracy. Such submission to my mind is also not acceptable in the light of legal proposition as laid down by Apex Court in the judgment of State vs. Nalini and others (supra), relied upon by counsel for A4. In para 583 of that judgment certain principles regarding offence of criminal conspiracy have been laid down. It was inter alia laid down that since conspiracy is hatched in privacy and secrecy, therefore there cannot be direct evidence to prove conspiracy and its object are to be inferred from the circumstances and conduct of the accused in each case. In this case also there could not have been any direct evidence of monetary gain by A4 when the conspiracy was hatched among all the accused. If the active involvement of each of the accused towards the achieving the object of conspiracy is proved, by necessary implication it can be stated that there was some driving force for being part of such conspiracy. As such nonavailability of direct evidence for availing financial benefits may not ipso facto goes to show that A4 was never involved in the conspiracy.
CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 83172. Now coming to the evidence as discussed above perusal of the sale deed Ex.PW5/A would show that it was registered before Sub Registrar Janak Puri. Important to note here is that prior to this document there was no registered document at all in respect of property which is situated in village Kakrola. I want to highlight that if cuttings and alterations in khasra number and village in the sale documents be kept aside for time being, very registration of this document Ex.PW5/A is surrounded with mischievous circumstances and is nothing but a fabricated one. Such document could not have been registered even before Sub Registrar Janak Puri. Perusal of this sale deed Ex.PW5/A would show that A4 Manjeet Singh executed that sale deed as attorney of Hari Singh (vide GPA Ex.PW45/A as discussed above), said Hari Singh was also not the registered owner, he was also holder of attorney from Angrezo Devi (PW38 stated that Angrezo Devi sold to Hari Singh by documents like GPA etc.). GPA Ex.PW45/A in favour of Manjeet Singh was of year 2000 whereas sale deed Ex.PW5/A executed by A4 Manjeet Singh as attorney was of December 2007. Attorney in favour of late Hari Singh or in favour of Manjeet Singh was also not registered and was simply notarized. It appears that since the property even of village Kakrola was in an unauthorized area of Delhi, for which registration of sale deed was not permissible, therefore there was chain of documents of notarized GPA, agreement to sell etc. only. It is hard to understand as to how Manjeet Singh could execute any sale deed and get it registered in favour of A2. Since the property was in an unauthorized area, Sub Registrar of Janak Puri flouted the rules in allowing registration of such document Ex.PW5/A. So the very execution and registration of sale deed Ex.PW5/A was against the law when there were no legal documents of title in favour of Hari Singh or for that matter in favour of Manjeet Singh.
CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 84173. Now coming to the aspect of making cutting and alteration. PW41 has already stated about this and nothing came in his crossexamination to disbelieve the version of PW41 regarding making of cutting/alteration in the sale document at the instructions of A1. PW46 then further proves that with such cutting and alteration that document was presented before Sub Registrar Janak Puri and Manjeet Singh appeared before Sub Registrar along with A2 as purchaser and A1 as witness to that document. Evidence of PW46 therefore establish the making of alteration and cuttings in the document before it was presented for registration. Evidence of PW46 and other witnesses get corroboration from the expert witness. PW15 is A.D. Shah who is finger print expert who in his opinion Ex.PW15/F (D23) in column IVa, b, c and d stated that questioned finger print impressions of accused Manjeet Singh at Q87, Q88, Q88a, Q88b, Q88c, Q89, Q90, Q90a, Q90b, Q90c on sale deed dated 10.12.2007 Ex.PW5/A matched with specimen finger print impressions of Manjeet Singh S177 to S179.
174. Besides this expert hand writing expert PW21 Jeet Singh also gave his report which is Ex.PW21/D (D22/220). Perusal of report of hand writing expert shows that in column no.IV of the report expert mentioned about examining the specimen signatures S168 to S176 of Manjeet Singh with questioned signatures as Q91 to Q106 in sale deed Ex.PW5/A. He concluded in his report after giving reasoning in sub paras 1 to 14 that there was no fundamental difference between both set of questioned and specimen English signatures of accused Manjeet Singh. As such as per the report of GEQD PW15 and PW21 the signatures and thumb impression of Manjeet Singh were put at the time of registration of that document which matched with the specimen thumb impressions and signatures respectively. Similar is the report with regard CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 85 to thumb impressions/signatures of A1 Rajiv Kumar and A2 Alka Devi. As such the evidence establishes the active connivance of accused Manjeet Singh along with A1 and A2 to fabricate the document Ex.PW5/A so that same may be used in the bank. I therefore conclude that offence of criminal conspiracy is made out as against A4 Manjeet Singh as well.
175. Now coming to role of A5 R.K. Sharma. Precise allegations as against A5 are that he was Chief Manager of the bank at the time when loan in question was processed and he recommended for sanction. Prosecution has alleged that A5 R.K. Sharma was in conspiracy with other private accused persons and helped them in getting the loan amount sanctioned. It is also in the allegations that it is A5 R.K. Sharma who influenced his colleague PW34 Smt. Sushma in getting the account opened and processing the loan documents. It is further alleged that A5 R.K. Sharma gave positive opinion about loan account and recommended the loan application of A1 Rajiv Kumar for grant of CC(H) facility of Rs.1.5 crores. It is further alleged that CBI during the investigation got recorded the statement of three witnesses H.K. Sharma (PW4), Ajay Kumar Goel (PW36) and Rajiv Goel (PW48) under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It is in the statement of Ajay Kumar Goel and Rajiv Goel they stated that Ashok Jain informed Ajay Kumar Goel that he visited the house of A5 R.K. Sharma and paid Rs.One lac to the wife of A5. It is also in the statement of these witnesses that a 10% commission was given to A5 R.K. Sharma on the loan amount. In view of such allegations as came in the statements of the witnesses charge for offence under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988 was added against A5 being the only public servant among the accused persons.
176. Taking the allegations and the evidence on the face of it, first and foremost aspect which I think is important to be taken note of for the purpose of CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 86 offence of criminal conspiracy qua A5 R.K. Sharma is that the loan in question was not recommended only by R.K. Sharma (A5). It came in the evidence of PW34 Smt. Sushma that loan in question was also recommended by Sh.R.K. Rattan who was working as DGM in the same branch beside A5 R.K. Sharma. As such A5 R.K. Sharma was not the only person who recommended the loan. Two people recommended the loan in question i.e. Mr.R.K. Rattan, then DGM and Mr.R.K. Sharma (A5), Chief Manager in the branch but important aspect is that R.K. Rattan DGM has not been joined in the investigation at all for reasons best known to the prosecution. Nonjoining of R.K. Rattan working DGM in the same branch and being one of the recommending authority was certainly very vital for prosecution because liability cannot be fastened upon only one person among two recommending officers of the bank when said R.K. Rattan DGM was senior to A5. That person has been completely withheld by prosecution. Neither he has been made accused nor witness by the prosecution. IO did not bother to join him in the investigation to examine the circumstances as to under which the loan was recommended.
177. IO Insp. Satpal Kapoor (PW49) was specifically asked in this regard in his crossexamination in his deposition recorded on 04.09.2019 wherein PW49 admits that he came to know in the investigation that then DGM R.K. Rattan was also one of the recommending authority in the bank for the loan in question. He further admits that he did not interrogate said DGM R.K. Rattan during the investigation. Witness voluntarily stated that he did not feel necessary to interrogate him in the investigation. Such explanation given by the IO speaks volumes for nonjoining the most material person in the investigation. If loan was not laible to be recommended and was based on fabricated documents then the liability was equally upon Mr.R.K. Rattan who was senior CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 87 in designation in the same branch and on that point of view it was all the more important to examine him to assess as to under in what circumstances the loan was recommended.
178. It is undisputed fact that A5 R.K. Sharma while working as Chief Manager in the branch only recommended the sanctioning of loan and he was not the sole recommending authority as discussed above. Loan was to be ultimately sanctioned after independent examination by ZOCC. PW30 Gulshan Kumar Girdhar has appeared in the witness box who was working as Deputy Manager in Zonal Office, Credit Committee (ZOCC), State Bank of Patiala. This witness stated that advances beyond the jurisdiction of AGM were required to be sanctioned by ZOCC. Recommendation for sanction of loan was to be forwarded to ZOCC for consideration from Regional office or concerned branch of the bank. PW30 then proves the minutes of meeting in which the sanction for limit to M/s Dalshan Adhesives was approved by ZOCC which is Ex.PW30/B and sanction letter dated 21.08.2007 signed by Sh.Haritash, Chief Manager, ZOCC is Ex.PW30/C. Sanction was also signed by Sh.Sube Singh, Chief Manager ZOCC, Sh.A.K. Maheshwari AGMI and Sh.Gurnam Singh AGMII. This witness in crossexamination recorded on 24.10.2013 has stated that ZOCC would scrutinize the proposal which would be done by an officer of rank of Deputy Manager and Chief Manager. In the meeting of ZOCC the members would discuss the proposal sent to it and thereafter decision is to be taken by the committee regarding sanction of loan. In this case admittedly loan was sanctioned by ZOCC without noting any irregularity.
179. Now coming to evidence to examine if there are any circumstances to establish the connivance or proximity of accused A5 R.K. Sharma or not with other accused persons. The first evidence in this regard is of PW4 H.K. CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 88 Sharma, CA who deposed that in the year 2007 when he once visited State Bank of Patiala, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi regarding a loan proposal of his client M/s Gillard Radio Products Private Limited, after briefing to bank officers, A5 R.K. Sharma working as Chief Manager in the said branch told him that loan targets of the bank are very low and he requested to refer some customers/parties seeking bank loan. PW4 went on to testify that since his one of the client namely Rajender Kumar Sharma (PW12) had introduced A6 Ashok Jain to him, on the request of Ashok Jain he made propose for enhancement of loan facility on behalf of Ashok Jain's firm M/s Yogesh Trading Company. As per PW4 that proposal was however could not materialize as Ashok Jain could not submit necessary documents required by the bank officers.
180. PW4 says that Ashok Jain again contacted him when he came with one Rajeev Kumar Soni @ Rajesh Dhiraj Lal Soni (A7) and on the request of them he prepared a loan proposal for the firm of Rajeev Kumar Soni's namely M/s S.K. Enterprises. PW4 says that they (A6 and A7) told him that they have already talked to Sh.R.K. Sharma in this regard. PW4 says that he prepared the loan proposal on the basis of audited balance sheet of the said firm and he charged his professional fee @ 2% of the total loan amount which was paid by accused Ashok Jain in the presence of accused Rajeev Kumar Soni.
181. PW4 then says regarding the loan in question. He states that Ashok Jain again contacted him along with A1 Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla and on their request PW4 stated to have prepared proposal for the firm of Rajiv Kumar M/s Dalshan Adhesives. This time also both Ashok Jain and Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla told PW4 that they had already talked regarding that loan proposal with R.K. Sharma, Chief Manager of the bank. PW4 says he prepared that loan proposal again on the basis of audit balance sheet as furnished to him and he prepared a CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 89 projected balance sheet with CMA data for loan proposal of the firm M/s Dalshan Adhesives for a sum of Rs.1.5 crores and he charged his professional fee @ 2% of the loan amount which was paid by accused Ashok Jain I the presence of Rajiv Kumar. PW4 says that later when the loan in question became irregular accused R.K. Sharma, Chief Manager informed him in this regard and he also informed that Ashok Jain had already been arrested by the police in another jhuggi scam.
182. Taking such testimony of PW4 on the face of it his evidence does not indicate in any manner any concert or proximity of A5 with other accused persons. PW4 rather admitted that he prepared the loan proposal for loan in question by charging the professional fee @ 2% of the loan amount. He also admits in his crossexamination that it is quite often loan proposal to be filed in the bank through Chartered Accountant and he being CA had prepared may loan proposals for his different clients for different banks. PW4 also admits that before preparing the loan proposal Chartered Accountant is also duty bound to scrutinize the documents carefully and in case of M/s Dalshan Adhesives he carefully scrutinized all the documents submitted by the party before him.
183. The fact that PW4 stated that Ashok Jain and Rajiv Kumar told him that they had already talked with R.K. Sharma for the loan proposal, is only a hearsay evidence which cannot be made basis for coming to a specific conclusion. Pw 4 did not state from his knowledge of facts, he stated that A1 and A6 so told him. Otherwise also this version of Pw 4 is contradictory to version given by him in his statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C, wherein he stated he along with A1 and A6 went to talk to A5 RK Sharma.
CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 90184. PW11 is Ram Lal Wadhwa who was working as Deputy Manager in the same branch. He stated regarding opening of current account in the name of M/s Dalshan Adhesives. He stated that account opening form was signed by A1 Rajiv Kumar as proprietor of the firm and A7 Rajeev Kumar Soni as introducer being proprietor of firm M/s S.K. Enterprises. Such account opening form was also signed by A5 R.K. Sharma at point D. Such account opening form is Ex.PW11/A. This witness in his crossexamination admitted that in case of opening of fresh bank account formalities of taking signatures of applicant and introducer and the verification of their identities are being carried out by the subordinate officers of the bank and the matter is put up before the Chief Manager for approval only after completion of formalities.
185. PW13 Satish Kumar who was working as Assistant Architect in M/s Chaney & Associates deposed regarding preparing of valuation report in respect of property of Mandoli, Shahdara (Property 1) which is Ex.PW13/A as well as property of Village Parnala, Bahadur Garh, District Jhajjar (Property 2) and such report is Ex.PW13/B. I have already discussed the evidence of PW13 above. This witness simply stated that he prepared such valuation reports which was signed by J.S. Chaney, as J.S. Chaney was on the panel of the bank and such valuation report was given on the instructions of A5 R.K. Sharma. PW17 is Jitender Kumar panel Advocate who gave legal search report in respect of property 1 and 2, documents furnished at the time of taking loan as well as property A and B documents furnished by the guarantor A2 Alka Devi. I have already discussed the evidence of PW17 above wherein he stated that he on the instructions of A5 R.K. Sharma, Chief Manager prepared the legal search report in respect of property documents as he was on the panel of the bank.
CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 91186. Now considering the evidence of PW11, 13 & 17. There is not even an iota of evidence showing any connivance or proximity of A5 R.K. Sharma with other accused persons. It is rather admitted by PW34 Smt.Sushma that it was in accordance with the bank guidelines/protocol to take legal search report from the panel lawyer and valuation report from the approved valuer on the panel of the bank. As such PW13 & PW17 have given respective reports regarding property documents being on the panel of the bank. If the property documents of Mandoli were forged and fabricated, it was rather the duty of the panel Advocate PW17 Jitender Kumar to note the irregularities if any found in the title documents of the property. Legal search reports of PW17 Ex.PW17/A, C, E & G did not note any irregularity in the title documents so furnished for taking of loan. Similar is the case with valuation report Ex.PW13/A & B. No doubt it revealed later when the loan account in question went irregular that property documents of Mandoli, Shahdara property and documents of property
(a) given by A2 Alka Devi as guarantor were found to be forged and fabricated, whereas property documents of Village Parnala, Bahadur Garh and of Village Ismaila, Rohtak were also not clear for the want of complete payment of sale consideration. As such the legal search reports of PW17 Jitender Kumar were not correct.
187. Generally the legal search report would be relied upon by the Bank authorities while processing any loan. Therefore taking such evidence on the face of it one cannot assume that R.K. Sharma (A5) was in any manner involved in getting such reports. PW17 in his crossexamination admits that he prepared his legal search with professional care and diligence and bank officials rely on the legal search report of the advocates, beside other documents. As such when legal search report did not point out any irregularity in the title documents, it CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 92 would be far fetched to fasten the liability of A5 regarding having any proximity or agreement with other coaccused persons rather it appears that A5 R.K. Sharma being Chief Manager of the bank followed all the guidelines at the time when the loan was being processed by his colleague PW34 Smt. Sushma.
188. PW18 Vishal Gupta deposed that when he joined the office, the loan account of M/s Dalshan Adhesives was not regular and therefore for the purpose of initiating the process of recovery for the bank he along with Assistant Manager Smt. Sushma (PW34) went to property of Mandoli, Shahdara as well as of Village Parnala, Tehsil Bahadur Garh, District Jhajjar give at the time of loan as well as two additional properties of Village Nawada, Delhi and Village Ismaila, Rohtak. Thereafter this witness went on to testify the illegalities found as property of Mandoli was owned by Rajender Sharma and not by A1 Rajiv Kumar and he further noted on the inspection that title documents in respect of property of Village Nawada was also fabricated by changing the khasra number and village name. Whereas other two properties were also not cleared as possession of those properties was not with A1 & A2 respectively nor they paid entire sale consideration in respect of those properties. This witness in his crossexamination admitted that he went through entire file of loan in question sanctioned to M/s Dalshan Adhesives and he admitted that credit facility was sanctioned in accordance with rules applicable in the office and he did not find violation of any rules and regulations.
189. Next relevant witness qua A5 R.K. Sharma is PW32 S.S. Suhag from Bank who proved the productioncumseizure memo dated 11.10.2010 Ex.PW32/A vide which then Chief Manager I.P. Gulati furnished to the IO various bank circulars, current account opening form of M/s Dalshan Adhesives. He also testified that CC(H) loan granted to M/s Dalshan Adhesives CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 93 was under a scheme and was covered with circular Ex.PW32/A. This witness also proved another letter dated 06.08.2011 Ex.PW32/E vide which certain documents pertaining to loan in question were handed over to the IO.
190. PW34 Smt. Sushma Rani also deposed that she processed the loan application on the instructions of accused R.K. Sharma. She stated that R.K. Sharma told her that he had already verified the property and KYC norms of accused Rajiv Kumar and instructed her to scrutinize other documents like financial statements, income tax records and balance sheet etc. She repeatedly stated that on the instructions of A5 R.K. Sharma she carried out steps in respect of loan in question of A1.
191. However, when she was crossexamined she admitted that before accepting the title documents as collateral security the report of the panel Advocate is to be taken in respect of verification of properties and properties are to be visited by the bank officers. She further stated that at the time of opening of account in the name of M/s Dalshan Adhesives through A1 Rajiv Kumar she complied with KYC norms and took all the relevant documents as per banking procedure.
192. PW34 admitted that while processing the loan application to assist R.K. Sharma (A5) she did not notice any illegality or deficiency in the loan application or the documents submitted by the party. She admitted that title deeds of two original securities were dealt by her at the time of processing the loan and as normal banking procedure title deeds of the documents proposed to be mortgaged by the party, are to be verified through panel Advocate of the bank. She admits that legal opinion report submitted by Jitender Kumar, Advocate (PW7) and in the valuation report submitted by M/s Chaney & CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 94 Associates she did not notice any illegality or deficiency in the reports. She stated that physical verification of those two properties were carried out by accused R.K. Sharma.
193. PW34 further admitted that opinion report Ex.PW34/M bears her signatures at point A beside the signature of R.K. Sharma at point B. She further stated that remarks in the opinion report Ex.PW34/M are in her hand writing. She further stated that during processing of loan and going through the valuation report, legal search report and the documents, she did not entertain any doubt in her mind about the genuineness of the party or the reports so filed. She admitted that the recommendation for loan in question for M/s Dalshan Adhesives was from two recommending authorities, one was accused R.K. Sharma and other was DGM R.K. Rattan. She admitted that R.K. Rattan was senior to A5 R.K. Sharma. PW34 in her crossexamination further stated that before sanctioning of loan ZOCC has to put certain queries and reply to those queries of ZOCC was prepared by her as per the instructions of R.K. Sharma. She admits that A5 R.K. Sharma in his capacity as Chief Manager in the bank took all the preventive steps to safeguard the account when it was felt that account of M/s Dalshan Adhesives was becoming irregular or NPA. Upon putting a specific question, witness admitted that R.K. Sharma did not commit any illegality or irregularity in processing or recommending the loan in question for M/s Dalshan Adhesives.
194. Thus reading the entire testimony of PW34 including the cross examination as discussed above, would give an impression that although witness tries to emphasize that she took all the steps in processing of loan in question as Assistant Manager in the branch, on the instructions of A5 R.K. Sahrma, then Chief Manager in the said branch. However at the same time she CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 95 admitted in her cross examination that she independently examined the merits and demerits of the instructions so given to her by R.K. Sharma and followed the same as per merits. She admitted that there was never any pressure on her from R.K. Sharma or any other officer in processing or recommending the loan in question. She stated that she personally did not find illegality or irregularity at the time when loan documents were being processed. As such testimony of PW34 established that there was no element of prior meeting of mind or R.K. Sharma was in league or connivance with A1 or A2 or any other accused persons.
195. No doubt one may notice that there were certain lapses at the time when the loan was being processed or even after the sanctioning of loan, but after evaluating the entire evidence on the record, Ifind that there is lack of evidence to show that R.K. Sharma in any manner was party to the conspiracy along with other accused persons. There may be a zeal on the part of Chief Manager of the bank in the branch for processing the loan as certain targets of loan used to be given to the officer of the bank for increasing the business of the bank and out of that zeal some irregularities might have been committed, but one cannot conclude the involvement of accused R.K. Sharma in the absence of sufficient evidence, merely because ultimately a fraud was committed with the bank by other private persons.
196. Now coming upon the allegations regarding giving of commission @ 10% of the loan amount and Rs.One lac at the house of R.K. Sharma, allegations regarding payment of commission and Rs.One lac came in the statements of witnesses PW36 Ajay Kumar Goel and PW48 Rajiv Goel recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Therefore their evidence becomes relevant. PW36 in his testimony deposed that one day accused Ashok Jain went CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 96 with him in a car and reached at the house of R.K. Sharma at Paschim Vihar and accused Ashok Jain put the cash amount of Rs.One lac in an envelope in his presence and told him that he is going to hand over the said amount to R.K. Sharma. PW36 says that he waited outside the society premises and accused Ashok Jain went inside the said society. PW36 says that he does not know whether actually the said amount of Rs.One lac was handed over by accused Ashok Jain to accused R.K. Sharma or not. PW36 says that accused Ashok Jain told him that accused R.K. Sharma was not available in his residence and told that he talked with R.K. Sharma over the phone and Ashok Jain stated to have told that wife of R.K. Sharma met him at his residence.
197. In his crossexamination PW36 deposed that fact regarding payment of 10% commission on the loan amount was told to him by Ashok Jain. PW36 further says that he was told that 10% of the commission was to be given to H.K. Sharma, Chartered Accountant for payment to be made to Manager of State Bank of Patiala. PW36 admitted that he never seen making the payment of such 10% commission to R.K. Sharma (A5). Regarding visit to the house of R.K. Sharma in the car along with accused Ashok Jain, PW36 in his cross examination stated that he does not remember the name of the Society in which the house of R.K. Sharma was situated. He stated that he parked the car outside the gate of the Society and he do not know the flat number of house of accused R.K. Sahrma. He stated that he never entered in the Society premises. He deposed that he had no knowledge what accused Ashok Jain had done in the house of R.K. Sharma as he had gone there alone. PW36 further says that he is not aware whether accused Ashok Jain had actually gone to the house of accused R.K. Sharma or not and he stated the facts in his examinationinchief only on the basis what accused Ashok Jain had informed him.
CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 97198. From such testimony of PW36, it is evident that he is not a witness to any such transaction of payment being made to A5 and hence, allegation regarding payment of alleged 10% commission on the loan amount or Rs.One lac is not proved. At best, version of PW36 regarding visiting the house of R.K. Sharma and giving Rs.One lac by accused Ashok Jain in an envelope to the wife of accused R.K. Sharma is only on hearsay evidence and has to be disregarded.
199. PW48 Rajiv Goel turned hostile and not even a single word was stated by this witness as against accused R.K. Sharma. In his testimony nothing has come regarding payment of commission or Rs.One lac. Thus from the above discussion of evidence this Court finds itself to be constrained to observe that evidence so far against accused R.K. Sharma is lacking for proving the charge of criminal conspiracy or even for that matter offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act.
201. Now, coming to role of accused Ashok Jain (A6) in criminal conspiracy. In view of discussions above, I find that offence of criminal conspiracy as against A6 Ashok Jain is made out for following reasons:
(i) PW4 H.K. Sharma in his testimony stated that A6 Ashok Jain was introduced to him by his client Rajender Kumar Sharma (PW12).
It is matter of record that one of the property kept mortgaged for loan in question i.e. of Mandoli, Shahdara, Delhi was in fact found to be under the ownership of PW12 who was known to A6 Ashok Jain.
(ii) PW4 CA H.K. Sharma further deposed that it is on the request of A6 Ashok Jain he prepared a proposal for enhancement of a loan taken form Bank of Baroda for his firm M/s Yogesh Trading in CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 98 State Bank of Patiala, Shastri Bhawan branch. Such proposal however could not materialize as A6 Ashok Jain failed to furnish certain documents required by the bank.
(iii) PW4 H.K. Sharma has also deposed that after some days A6 Ashok Jain came along with A7 Rajeev Kumar Soni for making a proposal for his firm M/s S.K. Enterprises. H.K. Sharma stated to have prepared proposal for that firm. A6 paid the professional fee of PW4 H.K. Sharma on behalf of A7 for that transaction and loan was granted to the firm of A7 from the same bank.
(iv) PW4 further testified that after few days A6 Ashok Jain again came along with A1 Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla and this time asked PW4 for preparing the proposal of loan for firm M/s Dalshan Adhesives. A6 and A1 provided audited balance sheet of M/s Dalshan Adhesives, on the basis of which CA H.K. Sharma prepared the proposal with CMA data and then on that proposal loan in question was sanctioned. In respect of preparing such proposal for loan facility, PW4 stated to have charged his professional fee which was again paid by A6 Ashok Jain in the presence of A1 Rajiv Kumar.
(v) PW9 Pradeep Rathi has stated that he sold his agricultural land of village Parnala to accused Rajiv Kumar by sale deed dated 25.10.2007. Sale documents of this property was kept as mortgage for loan in question. Whereas PW9 had stated that entire amount of sale consideration was not paid by A1 Rajiv Kumar as he simply paid Rs.2 lacs. However later after sanctioning of the loan in question, according to PW9 it is A6 Ashok Jain who handed over CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 99 two cheques of Rs.5 lacs each to him drawn on the loan account of M/s Dalshan Adhesives, in the presence of A1 Rajiv Kumar.
(vi) At the time of filing the proposal for loan in question it was shown in the documents that the godown of M/s Dalshan Adhesives is at B70/C, Sanwan Park, Mundka. Rent agreement in respect of such godown was filed in the bank for showing the godown of the firm. This rent agreement is Ex.PW34/G (D7/63, 64). This copy of rent agreement so file with the bank is between wife of A6 Ashok Jain and A1 Rajiv Kumar.
(vii) Such rent agreement was only a sham document and there was never any godown for the firm of A1 & A6 helped in preparing such document. This fact get corroboration from the evidence of PW18 Vishal Gupta who stated that he inspected the godown at the address as mentioned in the documents of loan, somewhere near Peera Garhi, Delhi, wherein there was no stock lying in that godown.
(viii) As noted above that after sanction of the loan in question money was withdrawn or diverted to two firms of A7 Rajeev Kumar Soni namely M/s Ganpati Traders and M/s Rajeev Enterprises. This firm M/s Ganpati Traders is the same firm regarding which accused Ashok Jain sought the loan enhancement in State Bank of Patiala, which according to PW4 could not materialize as Ashok Jain failed to furnish relevant documents. A7 Rajeev Kumar Soni is the same person with whom A6 went to PW4 H.K. Sharma for arranging a loan for his firm M/s S.K. Enterprises.
CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 100(ix) PW36 Ajay Kumar Goel also testified that in year 2005 A6 Ashok Jain helped him for arranging a loan from Canara Bank, Chandni Chowk. Similarly in January 2006 PW36 stated to have taken another loan from Canara Bank with the help of Ashok Jain. This PW36 in his deposition has also deposed that in year 2007 he along with Ashok Jain and others visited to the house of A1 Rajiv Kumar at Uttam Nagar, as A6 Ashok Jain had to take some dues of about Rs.2/3 crores from A1 Rajiv Kumar and he demanded his amount from him.
(x) PW36 inter alia deposed that A6 Ashok Jain along with some other persons brought A1 Rajiv Kumar, his wife A2 Alka Devi and his children to his office at Karol Bagh. PW36 stated that thereafter some arrangement was arrived at between A6 Ashok Jain and A1 Rajiv Kumar regarding taking the loan from the bank in the name of A1 Rajiv Kumar so that he may pay the outstanding to A6 out of loan amount. PW36 stated that in pursuance to such arrangement loan in question was taken in the name of firm M/s Dalshan Adhesives, of which A1 was proprietor.
(xi) PW36 in his deposition also stated that he came to know that property of Mandoli, Shahdara, Delhi given as mortgage for loan in question was in fact owned by Bittu @ Raj Kanwal Sharma who used to come to the office of A6 Ashok Jain at Karol Bagh and was old friend of A6 Ashok Jain.
(xii) PW36 inter alia stated that he was called by Ashok Jain to reach State Bank of Patiala, Shastri Bhawan. When he reached there A7 CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 101 Rajeev Kumar Soni and A1 Rajiv @ Hakla were also present there beside A6. Witness stated that he remained outside the bank building and A1 and A7 went inside the bank and withdrew a cash amount of Rs.19 lacs from the bank and came out. From there they went to residence of A7 Rajeev Kumar Soni, where as per the settlement between A6 and A1, A1 Rajiv took Rs.9 lacs out of those Rs.19 lacs. Rs.10 lacs were kept in the house of A7.
Moreover A1 Rajiv Kumar handed over blank cheques with his signatures of loan account of M/s Dalshan Adhesives to Ashok Jain (A6). Ashok Jain gave some of those blank cheques to A7 Rajeev Kumar Soni to get those cheques encashed from the bank.
(xiii) Above mentioned factual aspects as deposed by PW36 get corroboration from the fact that the money from the loan account in question was diverted to two firms of A7 Rajeev Kumar Soni who withdrew the money in cash from the account of his those firms immediately after transfer of money.
(xiv) PW48 is Rajiv Goel who in his deposition recorded on 16.12.2017 stated that A6 Ashok Jain helped him as well as his brother for arranging the loan from the banks. PW48 further stated that A6 Ashok Jain and A1 Rajiv had worked together.
(xv) PW48 in his deposition dated 07.04.2018 stated that A6 Ashok Jain had once taken him to the factory of A1 Rajiv Kumar, proprietor of M/s Dalshan Adhesives and gave him offer to do chemical business with him, to which PW48 refused. This witness also deposed that CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 102 A1 Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla used to meet him (PW48) at the office of Ashok Jain at Karol Bagh.
(xvi) PW48 thereafter started expressing ignorance of facts relating to the facts of the present case and turned hostile, therefore was cross examined by ld. PP for CBI. Fact remains from the testimony of PW48 it is not disputed by even PW48 that A1 Rajiv Kumar and A6 Ashok Jain were in association with each other.
202. Above mentioned circumstances coupled with the statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. of A1 & A2 as well as A7 go to show that there was active involvement of A6 Ashok Jain along with A1, A2 and A7 in getting the loan processed, sanctioned and thereafter appropriating the amount from the loan account. As such there is sufficient evidence on the record proving the offence of criminal conspiracy as against A6 Ashok Jain.
203. Ld. Counsel for accused no.6 has submitted that PW12 Rajender Sharma never deposed that he introduced Ashok Jain to CA H.K. Sharma. He submitted that PW4 H.K. Sharma in his deposition had simply stated that accused Rajeev Kumar Soni (A7) along with Ashok Jain approached him, only after they had already talked with R.K. Sharma (A5) in respect of grant of loan. He submits that such deposition of PW4 was altogether contradictory to the case of CBI wherein it was alleged that A7 Rajeev Kumar Soni and A6 Ashok Jain approached H.K. Sharma for loan and thereafter they contacted R.K. Sharma along with H.K. Sharma.
204. Such submission of ld. Counsel for A6 to my mind does not bear much relevance because Rajender Sharma (PW12) when appeared in the witness box his deposition was only with regard to establishing that he was the owner of CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 103 Mandoli property. Moreover PW12 in his crossexamination stated that he knew A6 Ashok Jain. Therefore it hardly makes any difference if PW12 had not stated about him introducing Ashok Jain to CA H.K. Sharma. Similarly the contradiction as to whether A6 Ashok Jain and A7 Rajeev Kumar Soni firstly met with CA H.K. Sharma or A5 R.K. Sharma Chief Manager of the Bank. First of all there is no contradiction as such on this aspect, even if there are some difference in the version, same are not having much bearing in the facts of the case when it is not disputed that A6 along with A7 met with CA H.K. Sharma and got prepared a loan proposal for the firm of A7 Rajeev Kumar Soni from the same bank.
205. Ld. Counsel for A6 pointed out similar contradictions regarding A1 Rajiv Kumar and Ashok Jain approaching PW4 H.K. Sharma only after they had already talked with R.K. Sharma (A5). He submits that this version of PW4 is contradictory to the case of CBI. I have already noted above that certain difference in the version are bound to occur in the testimony of any witness but important to see while assessing the evidence is whether the contradiction goes to very root of the matter or is for a material aspect or not. Difference in the version of PW4 as to whether A6 & A1 had met with him earlier or later to meeting with A5, does not have much bearing in the facts of the present case. Specifically when in the crossexamination of PW4 it is not disputed by giving any suggestion to the witness that A6 Ashok Jain along with A7 Rajeev Kumar Soni and on subsequent occasion A6 Ashok Jain along with A1 Rajiv Kumar met with CA H.K. Sharma for getting the loan proposal prepared.
206. Counsel for A6 has also pointed out contradiction that H.K. Sharma in his examination in chief stated that he charged Rs.50,000/ from Ashok Jain for preparing the loan proposal whereas in his crossexamination he deposed that he CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 104 charged only Rs.25,000/ from Ashok Jain. For the reasons as stated above, this difference of version occurring in the testimony of PW4 has no relevance when it is not disputed on behalf of A6 that he paid the professional fee to PW4.
207. Ld. Counsel for A6 has argued that there is no documentary evidence on the record to show that Ashok Jain prepared forged document with regard to property of khasra no.542, Mandoli, Shahdara, in the name of A1 Rajiv Kumar. On this aspect I agree with ld. Counsel for the accused that there is no documentary evidence on the record showing commission of forgery by Ashok Jain regarding documents of Mandoli prepared. However that fact does not in itself absolve the involvement of A6 Ashok Jain in commission of offence of criminal conspiracy with other accused persons. I have already noted above that offence of criminal conspiracy is committed in secrecy and accused involved in the conspiracy act towards a common object and in that process different accused perform different acts towards their common object. In the instant case even if there is no evidence on the record regarding commission of forgery by accused Ashok Jain that does not mean that there was no criminal conspiracy at all among the accused persons. I have already noted above different evidences coming on the record showing circumstances of involvement of accused Ashok Jain in the criminal conspiracy to obtain the loan only with the intention to misappropriate the amount for personal gain.
208. Counsel for accused Ashok Jain further argued that there is no evidence to show that money of loan amount was siphoned off by Ashok Jain. He submitted that in fact accused Ashok Jain was in judicial custody in another case from 06.09.2007 to 06.11.2007 as stated by PW36 in his cross examination. This aspect was very material showing the innocence of A6 Ashok Jain, whereas IO PW49 in his crossexamination admitted that he had CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 105 not verified the fact that accused Ashok Jain was in judicial custody during the relevant period or not. Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that investigation in the present matter was not fair and impartial. He submitted that certain persons who were involved in the crime have been made witness in the present case whereas accused Ashok Jain and his son Sandeep Jainn have been falsely implicated. He relied upon judgment of Apex Court in Manu Sharma vs. State (2010) 6 SCC 1, Mohan Lal vs. State of Punjab 2018 SCC OnLine SC 934 regarding implication when the investigation in the matter is not fair.
209. Having considered such submissions which is on the face of it very convincing but careful examining the evidence and facts on record would show that the loan in question was granted on 27.08.2007 and money from the loan account of M/s Dalshan Adhesives was either withdrawn or diverted to two accounts of the firm of A7 Rajeev Kumar Soni during the period from 27.08.2007 to 07.09.2007. Admittedly by 06092007 accused Ashok Jain was not in judicial custody. Moreover if Ashok Jain remained in judicial custody for any particular period of time it was for him to lead evidence in this regard in defence to prove on the record by direct evidence. Mere reference of cross examination of PW36 dated 06.06.2019 wherein that witness stated that Ashok Jain was in judicial custody from 06.09.2007 to 06.11.2007, cannot be taken to be a concrete evidence for proof of that fact. Period of custody of accused Ashok Jain in any case could have been proved by public record. No such evidence has been led in the present case. Even otherwise taking into consideration the mode and the manner in which money was diverted to the accounts of the firms of A7 and thereafter withdrawing the money from those accounts immediately, would have not made any difference with regard to CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 106 involvement of A6 in the criminal conspiracy to cheat the bank if he was in judicial custody during that period.
210. While agreeing with the submissions of Ld. Counsel for A6 that there were certain lapses in the investigation of IO, but it be noted that it is not that in each and every case if there were some lapses in the investigation, that would ipso facto not lead to the acquittal of the accused. Court may find certain flaws in the investigation but ultimately it is evidence on the judicial record which would be taken into consideration to see if charge for any offence is proved or not. Fault in the investigation no doubt as noted in the above mentioned judgments of Apex Court in many situations create doubt about the very involvement of the accused and on that point benefit of doubt can certainly be given to the accused. However where even if there are lapses in the investigation but at the same time sufficient evidence on the record, pointing towards the involvement of the accused for commission of offence, in that situation merely pointing out of fault in the investigation would not automatically outweigh the convincing evidence on the record. Therefore the judgments as relied upon, though hold a legal proposition but cannot be applied in the peculiar circumstances of the present case.
211. I have already given my findings above with regard to involvement of A7 Rajeev Kumar Soni in the offence of criminal conspiracy, while I was examining the case of A1 for that offence.
212. Now I take up the case of A8 Sandeep Jain for his involvement if any in the offence of criminal conspiracy. Precise allegations so far as against accused Sandeep Jain are that substantial amount of loan in question was diverted to the accounts of two firms of A7 and thereafter money was withdrawn by A7 and CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 107 handed over to Sandeep Jain who kept the same in his locker at Kandhla, Shamli.
213. Taking into consideration entire evidence as come on the judicial record, allegations so far as against accused Sandeep Jain have not been proved. First of all there is no recovery of money from the locker which was in joint name of accused Sandeep Jain and Ankush Jain. One witness examined by prosecution in this regard is PW28 who proved that account no.16509 in UCO bank, Kandla, District Shamli, U.P. was in the name of one Ankush Jain. In the same bank there was one locker no.64 which however in the joint name of Ankush Jain and A8 Sandeep Jain. Application for opening of that locker is Ex.PW28/D, copy of locker operation register pertaining to said locker no.64 in that bank is Ex.PW28/F. As per Ex.PW28/A the said locker no.64 was opened on 01.09.2007. Going through the document Ex.PW28/F shows that the locker was not operated by Sandeep Jain. Even otherwise operation of the locker in itself does not establish that money of the loan in question was kept in that locker. There is no evidence in the shape of any CCTV footage etc. showing that it is Sandeep Jain who had kept the money of loan in question in that locker. That document only shows that locker was operated by Ankush Jain on different dates and nothing beyond. Such document in itself was insufficient to establish that said locker was used for keeping the money. Important aspect in this regard is that Mr.Ankush Jain in whose joint name that locker was, was not joined in the investigation by the IO. Such lapse on the part of IO to collect some cogent evidence proving directly or by circumstances regarding keeping of money in that locker, certainly creates a doubt about the involvement of accused Sandeep Jain in the conspiracy. Besides evidence of PW28 there is nothing on the record as against accused Sandeep Jain. Evidence of PW28 is CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 108 not convincing enough to bring to any conclusion. Consequently I find that charge of criminal conspiracy as against accused Sandeep Jain is not proved.
214. Having concluded about the involvement of each of the accused in the offence of criminal conspiracy. Let us now separately consider each of those accused persons to examine commission of other offences for which they have been charged with.
A1 Rajiv Kumar
215. There is a common charge for A1 Rajiv Kumar along with his other co accused for offence u/s 120B read with 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC as well as u/s 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, which is only for A5 R.K. Sharma. There is a separate charge as against accused no.1 Rajiv Kumar for substantive offence u/s 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.
216. It has already been held that there is sufficient evidence available on the record showing involvement of accused Rajiv Kumar into the offence of criminal conspiracy with other accused persons. Now question for consideration is if other offences, for which accused Rajiv Kumar (A1) has been charged with are made out or not. At the time when A1 moved an application for grant of CC(H) facility he deposited title deeds of two properties as security/mortgage. One of those properties was plot measuring 500 sq. yards in khasra no.542, Mandoli, Shahdara, Delhi. The title deed so deposited with the bank by A1 is Ex.PW2/B. Perusal of this document would show that this property has been purportedly sold by vendor by name Prem Lata Gupta in favour of A1. I have already noted above that by the date of this sale deed i.e. 18.04.2007 lady who was actual owner of the property namely Prem Lata Gupta CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 109 had already expired. Her husband Gauri Shankar Gupta has appeared in the witness box as PW19 and stated so. Secondly, this document Ex.PW2/B bears the photograph of a lady who was ot Prem Lata Gupta. In fact accused no.3 Smt.Rajinder Kaur impersonated as Prem Lata Gupta. Sufficient evidence in the shape of PW7 Kamal Kishore as well as PW29 Lakhbir Singh who is nephew of A3 Rajinder Kaur, who identified the photograph of a document Ex.PW2/B to be of Rajinder Kaur. As such evidence show that Rajinder Kaur impersonated as Prem Lata Gupta at the time when the above mentioned sale deed Ex.PW2/B was got executed and registered before Sub Registrar in which A1 Rajiv Kumar also signed as vendee knowingly well that he had not purchased the property in question and also knowing that the lady who appeared as a vendor was actually someone else.
217. PW2 Praveeen Gupta who knew late Prem Lata Gupta wife of Gauri Shankar Gupta also identified the GPA Ex.PW2/A which was made a part of chain of documents of title along with sale deed Ex.PW2/B. PW2 stated that this document does not bear his signatures at point A as purportedly shown in that document. Similar is the reply of PW2 with regard to sale deed Ex.PW2/B. A reference in this context can also be given to evidence of PW3 Smt.Rajni Khandelwal who had actually purchased the land from genuine owner Prem Lata Gupta in her lifetime. PW3 also identified that sale deed Ex.PW2/B as relied upon by A1 for his loan in question, was not a genuine document and she also identified that the sale deed does not bear the photograph of genuine Prem Lata Gupta. I have already discussed the evidence of PW12 Rajender Sharma who was the current owner of the property in question at he time of investigation of this case who had purchased the property from PW3 Rajni Khandelwal.
CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 110218. Forgery of sale document Ex.PW2/B is also reflected from the evidence of PW8 R.C. Rahi who being Sub Registrar in the office of Shahdara/Seemapuri furnished two sale deeds D29 (i) and (ii) Ex.PW8/B and Ex.PW8/C respectively. One of the sale deed Ex.PW8/B is purportedly executed by Prem Lata Gupta, whereas the photograph is of A3 Rajinder Kaur and said sale deed in respect of same property is in favour of Rajiv Kumar s/o Dheeraj Lal i.e A7. This sale deed is also registered in Sub Registrar Office. PW8 also handed over another sale deed of same property which is Ex.PW8/C, this is the same document which was relied upon by A1 Rajiv Kumar and is also exhibited as Ex.PW2/B. So the evidence of PW8 clinches the fact that the sale deed relied upon by A1 is nothing but a fabricated and forged document. This fact is also getting corroboration from expert opinion. PW15 is finger print expert A.D. Saha from CFSL who in his report Ex.PW15/F stated that questioned finger print impressions of A1 at Q2 to Q14 were found identical with specimen left thumb impression of Rajiv Kumar s/o Beg Ram S1 to S3. Similarly left thumb impression of A3 Smt.Rajinder Kaur who put such thumb impression as Prem Lata Gupta on the document being Q31 to Q44 on the sale deed Ex.PW2/B/Ex.PW8/C were also found identical with specimen thumb impression of A3 Smt.Rajinder Kaur being S245 to S247. In this sale deed brother of A1 namely Vinay Kumar (PW43) has put thumb impression/signatures as witness. Expert report also corroborates his thumb impression/signatures. Moreover PW43 in his deposition also admitted that he signed the said sale deed Ex.PW2/B as a witness. PW43 further stated that said property was purchased through Jain uncle, when he identified A6 accused Ashok Jain. PW43 says that he does not know that such sale documents were genuine or not.
CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 111219. Hand writing expert report is Ex.PW21/D. As per this report questioned signatures of Rajiv Kumar Q15 to Q26 were found matched with specimen signatures/writing of A1 Rajiv Kumar being S10 to S48. Thus, the above discussion clearly shows that A1 fabricated the said sale deed Ex.PW2/B by putting his signatures in which A3 impersonated as Prem Lata Gupta/vendor.
220. Another property document relied upon by A1 were of plot measuring 6 kanal, 3 marla of Village Parnala, Tehsil Bahadur Garh, District Jhajjar. No doubt this document was genuinely executed in favour of A1 Rajiv Kumar. However PW9 Pradeep Rathi has deposed that he executed the sale deed Ex.PW9/A in favour of Rajiv Kumar for total sale consideration of Rs.31 lacs, though in sale document sale consideration was shown as Rs.19,22,000/. PW9 however stated that A1 did not make complete payment of sale consideration and he simply paid only Rs.2 lacs. Later Ashok Jain handed over two cheques of Rs.5 lacs each which were drawn from the loan account in question, given to PW9 towards the part payment of sale consideration. In the crossexamination PW9 admitted that he did not make any complaint to the police in respect of nonpayment of entire sale consideration for sale deed Ex.PW9/A. Ld. Counsel for A1 has relied upon such crossexamination of PW9 with much emphasis. However, I find that no doubt the sale deed may not be considered to be not genuine but at the same time evidence of PW9 indicates that Rajiv Kumar cheated the vendor PW9 by not making the complete payment. Moreover A1 Rajiv Kumar was also not found in possession of the property. As such both the property documents as relied upon for the loan in question for security/mortgage were in respect of such property, from which bank could not recover the dues of loan in question.
CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 112221. Above said evidence clearly show that A1 cheated the bank by using a forged and fabricated document of Mandoli property and property documents of another property of which he was not in possession. It would be appropriate here to precisely discuss here the offence of cheating. Offence of Cheating is defined under section 415 of Penal Code as:
"Whoever, by deceiving any person fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property, to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, reputation or property is said to "Cheat".
Explanation: A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this Section."
222. Perusal of the aforesaid section would show that it can be conveniently divided into two parts. The first part makes it necessary that the deception by the accused of the person deceived must be fraudulent or dishonest. Such deception must induce the person deceived to: either (a) deliver property to any person; or (b) consent that any person shall retain any property. The second part also requires that the accused must by deception intentionally induce the person deceived either to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit, if he was not so deceived. Furthermore, such act or omission must cause or must be likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property. In order to constitute the offence of cheating, the intention to deceive should be in existence at the time when the inducement was offered. In order to constitute an offence the ingredients of cheating are : CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 113
(i)There should be a fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him.
(ii)The person so deceived should be induced to deliver any property to any person.
(iii)To consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which if he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputa tion or property.
223. In the present case besides using fabricated documents for obtaining loan there is evidence to show that money was illegally diverted, withdrawn by A1 Rajiv Kumar as well as his coaccused A7 Rajeev Kumar Soni. Loan in ques tion was sanctioned on 27.08.2007 and immediately thereafter till 13.09.2007 entire amount of Rs.1.5 crores was either diverted or withdrawn. On 29.08.2007 A1 Rajiv Kumar withdrawn Rs.8 lacs himself from the loan ac count. On 05.09.2007 total amount of Rs.10 lacs were also debited from the loan account by two cheques of Rs.5 lacs each in favour of Pradeep Rathi (PW9). Statement of account of CC account no.65024983830 of M/s Dalshan Adhesives (D6) Ex.PW34/T establishs this fact. Important to note here that CC(H) loan account is always stock based facility, whereas in this case money was withdrawn by A1 and was appropriated for personal use. This clearly show that A1 never had intention to repay the loan account right from the day one when the loan was sanctioned in favour of his firm M/s Dalshan Adhesives.
224. It stands established that firm of A1 M/s Dalshan Adhesives never did any business. The godown shown in the loan documents, rented by the wife of CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 114 A6 to A1 when inspected by Chief Manager PW18 Vishal Gupta he did not find any stock in that godown. VAT return for this firm was never furnished with the department. All these facts clearly show that atleast for during relevant pe riod when the money form the loan account was diverted/withdrawn there was no business activity of firm M/s Dalshan Adhesives.
225. It is in evidence that a total amount of Rs.83,54,750/ was transferred through various cheques to current account of M/s Ganpati Traders of A7 Ra jeev Kumar Soni in Punjab National Bank, Rajinder Nagar. PW44 R.P. Dhanda from Punjab National Bank, New Rajinder Nagar branch has produced relevant documents during investigation vide seizure memo Ex.PW44/A including state ment of account of current account no.0629002100140111 of M/s Ganpati Traders for period of 31.07.2007 to 16.10.2007. Said statement of account is also on the record along with Ex.PW44/A and certificate under Bankers' Book of Evidence Act. Perusal of this statement of account coupled with cheques Ex.PW21/G47 to G53 and credit vouchers already exhibited as Ex.PW21/G55 to G58 clearly show transfer of total amount of Rs.83,54,750/ from the loan account in question to current account of M/s Ganpati Traders. Statement of account also indicates along with evidence of PW44 that cash was withdrawn immediately after the amount was credited to the current account of M/s Gan pati Traders by its proprietor who is A7 Rajeev Kumar Soni. Neither A1 nor A7 have been able to lead any evidence to show that there was any business activity between these two firms.
226. Similarly, total amount of Rs.27,72,800/ was transferred to current ac count no.459 of M/s Rajeev Enterprises in Jain Cooperative Bank, Karol Bagh. PW27 Pushp Lata from Jain Cooperative Bank had proved different entries of credit of amount from the loan account in question to current account of M/s CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 115 Rajeev Enterprises. Statement of account Ex.PW27/F of current account of M/s Rajeev Enterprises clearly shows diversion of money from the loan account to the current account of firm of A7. The statement of account also indicate that money was withdrawn in cash immediately after the amount was credited to the account of M/s Rajeev Enterprises and said money was withdrawn by the ac count holder i.e. A7 Rajeev Kumar Soni.
227. Thus from the above discussions, it becomes evident that ingredients for offence of cheating is made out qua A1 Rajiv Kumar. He also committed the offence of forgery by knowingly signing and getting registered a document of which A3 impersonated as Prem Lata Gupta and got that document registered apparently to obtain the loan in question. Not only this A1 also actively re mained involved in fabricating another sale document which was in the name of his wife A2 Alka Devi i.e property document of plot no.46 and 47, shown to be part of khasra no.929, village Nawada, Patel Garden, Najafgarh road. It is in evidence showing on the record that it is A1 Rajiv Kumar who obtained the sig natures of PW5 Naresh Kumar on that document without knowing that who was the vendor as per that document. Similarly as per the evidence of PW31 and PW41 as well as evidence of PW45 and PW46 have been discussed above to show as to how the sale deed dated 10.12.2007 Ex.PW5/A was fabricated and got registered from Sub Registrar Janak Puri. As such A1 have also been in volved in fabricating a document Ex.PW5/A (D10).
228. Offence of forgery involves knowingly creating a false document. Sec tion 465 IPC provides punishment for the commission of the offence of forgery. Section 463 defines offence of 'forgery', whereas sections 465 to 471 define an aggravated form of forgery. Reading of section 463 IPC indicates that in order to constitute 'forgery" the first essential is that the accused should have made a CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 116 false document. The false document must be made with intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any class of public or to any community.
229. Then section 464 IPC substantiates by providing as to when a false document could be said to have been made for the purpose of committing an offence of 'forgery'. As per Sec. 464 of the Penal Code, a person is said to make a false document who dishonestly or fraudulently makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document. The definition of a "false document" contained in S. 464, I.P.C., would show that a person is said to make a false document under Cl. (1), if any signature, mark, writing etc. of another is made with requisite mens rea, or under Cl.(2) if a document is materially altered unauthorized or under Cl. (3) if a document is got executed from a person of unsound mind or intoxicated person or a person who from deception practiced on him does not know the contents of the document. Important here to keep in mind Explanation 2 attached to section 464 IPC providing "The making of a false document in the name of a fictitious person, intending it to be believed that the document was made by a real person, or in the name of a deceased person, intending it to be believed that the document was made by the person in his lifetime, may amount to forgery'.
230. Section 464 defines one of the ingredients of forgery i.e., making of a false document. Thus in order to sustain a conviction under Section 465, first it has to be proved that forgery was committed under Section 463, implying that ingredients under Section 464 should also be satisfied. Therefore unless and un til ingredients under Section 463 are satisfied a person cannot be convicted un der Section 465 by solely relying on the ingredients of Section 464, as the of fence of forgery would remain incomplete.
CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 117231. Since A1 has also used the fabricated document i.e. sale deed Ex.PW2/B as well as document Ex.PW5/A when same was given by his wife A2 as a guar antor being additional mortgage. As such I also conclude that offence u/s 471 IPC is also made out as against A1. I therefore hold accused Rajiv Kumar (A1) son of Beg Ram to be guilty for offence u/s 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Sec tion 120B IPC.
A2 Alka Devi
232. Accused Alka Devi has already been found to be invovled in offence of criminal conspiracy along with her husband A1 Rajiv Kumar as well as other coaccused i.e. A4 Manjeet Singh, A6 Ashok Jain, A7 Rajeev Kumar Soni. From the evidence already discussed above it is established on the record that A2 Alka Devi furnished property documents of two properties, one being Prop erty A i.e. property documents of plot no.46 and 47 stated to be part of khasra no.929 of Village Nawada, Delhi. I have already discussed above that this doc ument was nothing but a fabricated document created by A2 with the help of her husband A1 Rajiv Kumar as well as A4 Manjeet Singh. Apparently, this docu ment was used to prolong the recovery proceedings of the bank. Property B i.e. property of Village Ismaila, Tehsil Sampla. Title documents of this document though were found to be genuine but again evidence in the shape of PW25 Jaswant Singh establish on the record that although sale deed was executed in the name of A2 but entire sale consideration for that property was not paid to vendor Smt.Vidya Devi. Moreover A2 was in the possession of that property. Thus I find for the reasons already discussed above that A2 Alka Devi is guilty for offence u/s 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120B IPC.
CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 118A4 Manjeet Singh
233. While discussing role of A4 in conspiracy, it has come in evidence that accused Manjeet Singh was involved in creating a document i.e. sale deed dated 10.12.2017 Ex.PW5/A which mention incorrect khasra number and village name. As such his involvement is proved for offence u/s 467, 468 read with 120B IPC. However there is no evidence on the record for offence of cheating as against A4.
A5 R.K. Sharma
234. Earlier in the judgment, it stands concluded that there is not sufficient ev idence on the record qua A5 R.K. Sharma for proving his involvement in the of fence of criminal conspiracy. He being the only public servant among the ac cused persons, is also facing the charge for offence u/s 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of P.C. Act, 1988. Therefore question for consideration is if there is evidence available on the record proving the charge of P.C. Act against the accused. Without repeating the evidence again, it is noted that the evidence of PW36 is hearsay and unworthy of any credence. PW48 did not support prosecution case. There is no evidence on the record of any demand of money from accused R.K. Sharma or payment of any commission or money to him. Even if there may not be any evidence regarding demand or payment of illegal gratification in the shape of commission etc. There is no sufficient evidence showing misuse of of ficial position by accused R.K. Sharma. As noted above that the loan was pro cessed by PW34 Sushma at the instructions of A5, strictly as per the norms of the bank. This fact was even admitted by PW34. Moreover loan was recom mended not only by A5 R.K. Sharma but also by Mr.R.K. Rattan who was posted as DGM in the same branch of the bank and was senior to A5 R.K. CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 119 Sharma. Loan was also sanctioned by ZOCC. PW30 also admitted in his evi dence that before sanction of the loan ZOCC also verify all the loan documents etc. at its level. As such there may be certain lapses but there is no sufficient evidence to fasten the criminal liability for offence u/s 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of P.C. Act as against A5 R.K. Sharma.
A6 Ashok Jain
235. With regard to accused Ashok Jain (A6), his involvement stands estab lished in the offence of criminal conspiracy. I have already noted above evi dence of PW4 CA H.K. Sharma as well as other witnesses to show that it is none else than accused Ashok Jain who was instrumental in getting the loan in question sanctioned. Thereafter the evidence of PW36 Ajay Kumar Goel is rel evant in this regard. PW36 has deposed that it is accused Ashok Jain who helped him in getting loan sanctioned from Canara bank. Similarly it came in the evidence of PW4 H.K. Sharma that it is accused Ashok Jain who helped A7 Rajeev Dhiraj Lal Soni for getting a loan processed and sanctioned from same bank i.e. State Bank of Patiala, Shastri Bhawan branch. This court can take ju dicial notice of the fact that even in that loan transaction also fraud was commit ted and that loan was not repaid. CBI registered the FIR in respect in that loan transaction also and charge sheet has been filed against accused Ashok Jain in that case. It also came in the evidence of PW36 as well as PW48 that it is ac cused Ashok Jain who helped the brother of PW48 in getting the loan arranged from a bank. PW48 inter alia also stated that accused Ashok Jain was involved along with one Ashok Malhotra in a jhuggi scam.
236. PW43 Vinay Kumar brother of A1 Rajiv Kumar has also deposed in his examination in chief that it is accused Ashok Jain who was friend of his brother CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 120 Rajiv Kumar. PW43 stated that accused Ashok Jain kidnapped him and beaten him, though he did not file any complaint to the police in this regard as accused Ashok Jain threatened him with dire consequences.
237. PW36 in his deposition inter alia stated that after the sanction of loan in question in favour of firm of accused Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla, he once visited the State Bank of Patiala, Shastri Bhawan branch along with Rajiv Kumar Soni. PW36 stated that on that day accused Ashok Jain along with accused Rajiv Ku mar @ Hakla met him outside the building of above said bank. PW36 went on stating that he remained outside the building of bank when accused Rajeev Ku mar Soni and Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla went inside the bank and Rajeev Kumar Soni withdrew Rs.19 lacs from the said account. PW36 also stated that there after they all went to house of Rajeev Kumar Soni at Shastri Nagar and there had been some settlement between accused Ashok Jain and Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla. Accused Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla had kept Rs.9 lacs with him whereas re maining Rs.10 lacs were left at the house of Rajeev Kumar Soni at Shastri Na gar. PW36 says that Rajiv Kumar then handed over blank cheques of the loan account of M/s Dalshan Adhesives, after signing them, to accused Ashok Jain. PW36 stated that then Ashok Jain handed over some of those blank cheques with signatures of A1 to accused Rajeev Kumar Soni to encash the same from the bank.
238. While I pause further discussion of evidence of PW36, important in this context to note that such testimony of PW36 get corroboration from the fact that money from the loan account of M/s Dalshan Adhesives stood transferred/di verted to accounts of two firms namely M/s Ganpati Traders and M/s Rajeev Enterprises. I have also discussed the evidence showing that immediately after credit of amount to the account of the above mentioned two firms of A7, A7 CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 121 withdrew the amount in cash. So the testimony of PW36 that it is accused Ashok Jain who handed over to A7 Rajeev Kumar Soni blank signed cheques of loan account of M/s Dalshan Adhesives. So there is direct as well as circum stantial evidence clearly showing that accused Ashok Jain connived with A1 and A7 for diverting the money of loan account and then withdrawing the same through Rajeev Kumar Soni.
239. In this context it is important to note that when all the above discussed evidence and other incriminating evidence were put to accused Rajeev Kumar Soni, he stated that he was only an employee of accused Ashok Jain and he acted on the direction of accused Ashok Jain. Accused Rajeev Kumar Soni ad mitted in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. that he during his employment with ac cused Ashok Jain went along with Ajay Goel for withdrawing money from the bank. After withdrawing the money from the bank he handed over the same to accused Ashok Jain.
240. While it is true that Rajeev Kumar Soni himself did not appear in the wit ness box to substantiate those facts which he stated in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. But it is matter of record that A7 Rajeev Kumar Soni examined one witness in defence D7W1 Sanjay Chadha who stated that he knew accused Ra jesh Dhiraj Lal Soni, since the time he used to work in Mumbai. D7W1 further stated that later Rajesh Dhiraj Lal Soni started working in Delhi under the em ployment of accused Ashok Jain. D7W1 also identified the accused Ashok Jain in the court. D7W1 further stated that documents relating to identity of A7 Ra jesh Dhiraj Lal Soni used to be with accused Ashok Jain while he was working with him. On reply to a specific question D7W1 further deposed that it is ac cused Ashok Jain who used the documents of identity of Rajesh Dhiraj Lal Soni to convert his name as Rajeev Dhiraj Lal Soni. Beside ld. PP for CBI D7W1 CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 122 was also crossexamined on behalf of accused Ashok Jain. However there is no suggestion given to the witness that accused A7 Rajesh Dhiraj Lal Soni @ Ra jeev Dhiraj Lal Soni was never in the employment of accused Ashok Jain.
241. Thus from the above discussion of evidence and other circumstances, it is established that accused Ashok Jain used A1, A2, A7 for getting the loan sanc tioned and diverting the money from the loan in question. Apparently he did so for his ultimate benefit of misusing the money. Fact remains that there is suffi cient evidence showing fraudulent intention of accused Ashok Jain to deceive the bank and to get the money of loan diverted to different accounts. As such, accused Ashok Jain is guilty of offence under Section 420 IPC read with Sec tion 120B IPC and I hold him so.
A7 Rajeev Kumar Soni @ Rajesh Dhiraj Lal Soni
242. I have already noted above different evidence against him proving his in volvement in criminal conspiracy. Beside the evidence already discussed above the first and foremost aspect to be noted is that from the loan account of M/s Dalshan Adhesives it is accused Rajeev Kumar Soni who withdrew sum of Rs.19 lacs on 27.08.2007. There is no explanation at all in this regard from A7. This fact is not only established from the statement of account of CC account of M/s Dalshan Adhesives Ex.PW34/T but also get corroboration from evidence of PW36. Nothing came in the crossexamination either of PW34 or of PW36 to disbelieve the fact regarding withdrawing of Rs.19 lacs by A7 from the loan ac count of M/s Dalshan Adhesives. I have already noted above the mode and the manner in which the money from the loan account of M/s Dalshan Adhesives was transferred to two firms namely M/s Ganpati Traders and M/s Rajeev En terprises, which according to bank record of PNB, Rajinder Nagar as well as CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 123 Jain Cooperative Bank of Karol Bagh, proprietor of these firms was none else than A7.
243. A7 Rajeev Kumar Soni @ Rajesh Dhiraj Lal Soni stated that he did so on the instructions of accused Ashok Jain being his employee but this fact in itself does not establish his innocence. Thus from the discussion of the evidence I find that A7 cheated the bank and therefore is guilty u/s 420 read with 120B IPC.
Conclusion
244. Keeping in view the above discussed facts and circumstances and discus sion of evidence exhaustively, it is hereby held that the prosecution has been successful in establishing the guilt of A1, A2, A4, A6 and A7 for commission of offence punishable under Section 120B IPC. Prosecution has also been success ful in establishing commission of substantive offence by A1 Rajiv Kumar under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 read with 120B IPC; A2 Alka Devi under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120B IPC; A4 Manjeet Singe under Sec tion 467, 468 read with 120B IPC; A6 Ashok Jain under Section 420 IPC read with Section 120B IPC; and A7 Rajeev Kumar Soni @ Rajesh Dhiraj Lal Soni under Section 420 read with 120B IPC. They are convicted accordingly for the above said offences.
245. However, prosecution has miserably failed to establish the commission of any offence charge as against accused no.5 R.K. Sharma and accused no.8 Sandeep Jain. They are acquitted from the charges framed against them.
Announced in the open Court (Shailender Malik)
on July 22nd, 2020 Special Judge (PC Act) CBI
Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi
CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 124