Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Rakesh Kumar Bhatia & Ors. on 29 January, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH.KANWAL JEET ARORA:
SPECIAL JUDGE, CBI (P.C.ACT), DWARKA COURTS,
NEW DELHI.
Case No.: R.C3(E)/99/EOWII/ DLI
dated 17.12.1999
U/s : 120 B r/w section 419, 420, 467
& 471 IPC r/w section 13(2) read with
section 13(1) (d) of P.C.Act, 1988.
In the matter of:
CBI v/s Rakesh Kumar Bhatia & Ors.
C.C. No. 44 / 2011.
Statement of accused Rakesh Kumar Bhatia,
S/o: Late Shri Sohan Lal Bhatia,
R/o: F186A, MIG Gate Enclave, Delhi.
{Proprietor of M/s USR Exports, Delhi}
Statement under section 313 Cr.P.C.
{Without oath}
Que. No.1: It has come in evidence against you that you,
Rakesh Kumar Bhatia, were a businessman, running your
business as sole proprietor of M/s USR Exports Delhi and
your coaccused A.Maillappa Rai was posted as Manager, FED
Vijaya Bank, H.Surendra Shetty as Assistant General
Manager, Vijaya Bank, K.Vasanth Kumar Shetty, as Chief
Manager, H.Balakrishna Shetty as Senior Manager Incharge,
FED, Vijaya Bank, whereas coaccused Vijender Kumar was
on the Panel on Vijaya Bank as Valuer. What you have to say?
Ans.: I had my current account in the name of M/s USR
Exports with the bank wherein said officers of the bank were also
posted. However, I have no knowledge personal or otherwise, about
Sh.Vijender Kumar.
Que. No.2 : It has come in evidence against you that you
on 24.11.1996 had submitted an application Ex.PW.15/A,
Ex.PW.33/B with Vijaya Bank, seeking various credit facilities
for the purposes of export of readymade garments. What you
have to say?
Ans.: I did apply for credit facilities from Vijaya Bank.
Que. No.3 : It has come in evidence against you that in
support of your application Ex.PW.15/A, you had produced
your coaccused Jiya Lal as your guarantor, impersonating
him as one "Ram Narayan" and claiming him to be the owner
of property measuring 100 square yards bearing plot no.25,
Mohalla Dillai, Abadi Shiv Nagar, Shahadara, which he
acquired by virtue of a Sale Deed dated 28.01.1966 executed
in his favor by one Charan Dass. What you have to say?
Ans.: One Mr.Manish Gupta introduced me to Ram
Narayan who was ready to give security in my account. I have no
knowledge of the property given as security by Ram Narayan. I also
have no knowledge about the property papers which were given by
Ram Narayan to the Bank directly in as much as I was only borrower
and Ram Narayan was the guarantor and mortgagor.
Que. No.4 : It has come in evidence against you that you
and your coaccused Jiya Lal, impersonating himself as Ram
Narayan, in support of your claim as owner of said property
which you offered as collateral security to your application
Ex.PW.15/A, produced a receipt of house tax Ex.PW.1/1,
purporting to be issued by MCD. Besides which, you had
submitted an affidavit and indemnity bond executed by co
accused Jiya Lal as Ram Narayan, in support of guarantee to
the credit facility in your favor. What you have to say?
Ans.: As I submitted hereinabove that one Mr.Manish Gupta
introduced me to Ram Narayan who was ready to give security in my
account. I do not know any Jiya Lal Arora. I have no knowledge of
the property given as security by Ram Narayan. I was never the
owner of the alleged property, so I have no knowledge about the
property papers which were given by Ram Narayan to the Bank
directly in as much as I was only borrower and Ram Narayan was the
guarantor and mortgagor. Property Papers / MCD Receipts /
Indemnity Bond / Affidavit were given by Ram Narayan to the Bank
directly. I have no knowledge about the property or its papers.
Que. No.5 : It has come in evidence against you that you,
in support of your application Ex.PW.15/A had filed balance
sheets of the previous years ending on 31.03.1995, 31.03.1996
and also the proposed / projected balance sheets for the year
ending 31.03.1997 and 31.03.1998, statement of assets and
liabilities as well as statement of said guaranteer Ram
Narayan Ex.PW.15/A1 to Ex.PW.15/A6. What you have to say?
Ans.: So far as Ex.PW.15/A1 to Ex.PW.15/A5 is
concerned, these were my balance sheets and / or projected balance
sheets which were given by me to the Bank. I have no knowledge
about Ex.PW.15/A6 the alleged statement of Ram Narayan.
Que. No.6 : It has come in evidence against you that you,
through deposition of PW21 Sh.S.B.Shori, Chartered
Accountant of M/s USR Exports that he had proposed Ex.PW.
15/A1 to Ex.PW.15/A4 and issued certificate Ex.PW.21/1 and
raised bills dated 25.11.1996 Ex.PW.21/3, bill dated 24.10.1996
Ex.PW.21/4, bill dated 25.11.1996 Ex.PW.21/5 and bill dated
16.10.1996Ex.PW.21/6 and received payments against them from you accused Rakesh Kumar Bhatia, being proprietor of M/s USR Exports. What you have to say?
Ans.: I have no knowledge. Que. No.7 : It has come in evidence against you that on
the basis of figures shown by you in the previous and proposed / projected balance sheets so submitted with the bank, your coaccused A.M.Rai, Manager FED, without seeking any explanation or proof with respect to the figures, processed the same vide process note dated 22.01.1997 Ex.PW. 15/A9 and recommended it to other coaccused H.Balakrishna Shetty, the then Senior Manager, who forwarded it to the co accused Vasantha Kumar Shetty, the then Chief Manager. What you have to say?
Ans.: My previous and projected balance sheets were true and correct. I have no knowledge about the banking procedure. Que. No.8 : It has come in evidence against you that your coaccused Vasantha Kumar Shetty, the then Chief Manager, submitted the said application of M/s USR Exports to your coaccused H.Surendra Shetty, Additional General Manager of Vijaya Bank, who sent the same back to co accused Vasantha Kumar Shetty, as the decision on said application was within the financial powers of coaccused Vasantha Kumar Shetty as per circular issued by Vijaya Bank. What you have to say?
Ans.: I have no personal knowledge. Que.No.9 : It has come in evidence against you that
before taking action on the said application Ex.PW.15/A, bank had obtained legal opinion as well as valuation with respect to the property offered as 'collateral security' from the panel Advocate Sh.K.K.Khurana and the approved valuer on the panel of the bank, ie. coaccused Vijender Kumar. What you have to say?
Ans.: I have no personal knowledge about banking procedure and practice.
Que No.10 : It has come in evidence against you that Sh.K.K.Khurana, Panel Lawyer of Vijaya Bank, submitted legal scrutiny report dated 17.12.1996 Ex.PW.15/A70 and Ex.PW.15/DA1, pertaining to the said property and also submitted the "Nil Encumbrances Certificate" Ex.PW.20/A on the basis of Sale Deed registered with the office of Sub Registrar dated 28.01.1966, without physically verifying the property. What you have to say?
Ans.: I have no personal knowledge about banking procedure and practice.
Que. No.11 : It has come in evidence against you that your coaccused Vijender Kumar, the approved valuer on the panel of Vijaya Bank was asked to submit the valuation report with respect to the property ie. Plot No.25, Mohalla Dillai, Abadi Shiv Nagar, Shahadara, purported to be in the name of one Ram Narayan. What you have to say?
Ans.: I have no personal knowledge. Que. No.12 : It has come in evidence against you that
your coaccused Vijender Kumar had submitted his valuation report dated 02.01.1997 Ex.PW.32/G29, valuing a nonexistent property of Rs.42,63,500/.What you have to say?
Ans.: I have no personal knowledge. Que. No.13 : It has come in evidence against you that
your coaccused Vijender Kumar infact had valued property bearing no.E7/A10, Krishna Nagar, which infact belonged to one Harbans Lal Sethi and wrongly shown in his report to be the value of Plot No.25, Mohalla Dillai, Abadi Shiv Nagar, Shahadara. What you have to say?
Ans.: I have no personal knowledge as I was only a borrower. I was neither owner of the property nor the mortgagor. Que. No.14 : It has come in evidence against you that your coaccused A.Maillappa Rai, merely on the basis of valuation report dated 02.01.1997 of coaccused Vijender Kumar and legal scrutiny report Ex.PW.15/A70 recommended and forwarded the application Ex.PW.15/A to coaccused H.Balakrishna Shetty, Sr.Manager, who forwarded it to K.Vasanth Kumar Shetty, the other coaccused, who sanctioned the same vide sanction order dated 26.03.1997 whereby packing credit limit to the tune of Rs.15 lakhs FDBP/FWDBP to the tune of Rs.20 lakhs and FLC / ILC to the tune of Rs.10 lakhs was sanctioned. What you have to say? Ans.: It is incorrect. I was informed that my credit facilities were sanctioned on the basis of my previous and projected balance sheets.
Que. No.15 : It has come in evidence against you that your coaccused A.Maillappa Rai, H.Balakrishna Shetty and K.Vasanth Kumar Shetty, had sanctioned the loan / credit facilities in favor of M/s USR Exports in disregard to Circular Bearing No.191/96 dated 06.11.1996 of Vijaya Bank Ex.PW. 15/A45 and failed to physically verify the property offered as collateral security. What you have to say?
Ans.: I do not have any personal knowledge about the same.
Que. No.16 : It has come in evidence against you that after the sanction of credit limits by the bank, you accused Rakesh Kumar Bhatia, had executed the loan documents in favor of the bank which are Ex.PW.15/A10 to Ex.PW.15/A13, which were signed by you. Besides that, you had also executed the documents for packing credit limits dated 26.03.1997 Ex.PW.15/A14 to Ex.PW.15/A21, which were signed by you as well as your coaccused Jiya Lal, impersonating as Ram Narayan, the guaranteer. What you have to say? Ans.: I signed loan documents separately. I have no knowledge when Ram Narayan signed the alleged documents. Que. No.17 : It has come in evidence against you that you accused Rakesh Kumar Bhatia, along with your coaccused Jiya Lal, impersonating as Ram Narayan, the guaranteer had executed, delivery note Ex.PW.15/A10, Demand Promissory Note Ex.PW.15/A11, Repayment Letter Document Ex.PW. 15/A12, Letter of Hypothecation Ex.PW.15/A13, Take Delivery Note Ex.PW.15/A14, D.P.Note E.xPW.15/A15, Repayment letter document Ex.PW.15/A16, Packing Credit Agreement Ex.PW. 15/A17, Hypothecation of goods Ex.PW.15/A19, Letter of proprietorship Ex.PW.15/A20, Authorization Letter Ex.PW. 15/A21, Letter of Guarantee Ex.PW.32/C1 to Ex.PW.32/C6, all dated 26.03.1997, in favor of Vijaya Bank. What you have to say?
Ans.: I signed loan documents separately. I have no knowledge when Ram Narayan signed the alleged documents. Que. No.18 : It has come in evidence against you that the property purportedly belonging to Ram Narayan which was offered by you as "collateral security" finds mentioned on process note Ex.PW.15/A9 and was mortgaged by you with the bank on 04.01.1997 by deposit of the title deeds. What you have to say?
Ans.: I never mortgaged any property as 'collateral security' as I was only the borrower.
Que. No.19 : It has come in evidence against you that you accused Rakesh Kumar Bhatia, then submitted a request letter dated 21.05.1997 Ex.PW.33/D, Ex.PW.15/A22 with the bank for enhancing the credit facilities already sanctioned on 26.03.1997. What you have to say?
Ans.: Yes, it is correct. Que. No.20 : It has come in evidence against you that you
that the said application of yours Ex.PW.15/A22 was processed by your coaccused A.Maillappa Rai, who forwarded it to coaccused H.Balakrishna Shetty, who recommended and forwarded it to coaccused K.Vasanth Kumar Shetty, who inturn forwarded it to coaccused H.Surendra Shetty, the then AGM, who finally approved and sanctioned the enhanced limits in your favor on 29.05.1997. What you have to say?
Ans.: I do not have any knowledge about the banking procedure. However, the enhanced limit was sanctioned in my favor on 29.05.1997.
Que. No.21 : It has come in evidence against you that on the basis of sanction of enhanced credit facilities in favor of M/s USR Exports, the limits of packing credit was enhanced from 15 lakhs to 30 lakhs, FUDBP / FDBP limits from 20 lakhs to 50 lakhs and FLC / ILC from 15 lakhs to 25 lakhs and your coaccused H.Surendra Shetty, while enhancing the credit facilities did not physically inspect the property offered as collateral security and violated circular dated 06.11.1996 of the bank Ex.PW.15/A45. What you have to say? Ans.: I have no personal knowledge about this fact. Que. No.22 : It has come in evidence against you that PW27 Sh.Sudhakar Hegde, the then Chief Manager with Vijaya Bank had deposed the prevalent procedural aspects pertaining to grant of loan facilities by the bank on application of the parties. What you have to say? Ans.: I do not have any knowledge about the banking procedure and practice.
Que. No.23 : It has come in evidence against you that through deposition of PW27 that "PCL" stands for Packing Credit Limit, which can be granted to the party for procuring goods for export purposes. What you have to say? Ans.: I do not have any knowledge about the banking procedure and practice.
Que. No.24 : It has come in evidence against you that you through deposition of PW27, that for the same, party is required to open a current account with the bank and alongwith loan application, it is required to submit statement of assets and liabilities, balance sheet for current financial year and two future projected years along with Income Tax Returns for last three years. What you have to say? Ans.: I do not have any knowledge about the banking procedure and practice.
Que. No.25 : It has come in evidence against you through deposition of PW27, that party is then asked to submit copies of documents offered for collateral securities. The concerned Manager (Loans) then ascertains the documents and submit the same to the approved panel lawyers of the bank for verification of the property and after getting the legal security report the valuation of the collateral security is got done from approved valuer. What you have to say? Ans.: I do not have any knowledge about the banking procedure and practice.
Que. No.26 : It has come in evidence against you through deposition of PW27, that the concerned officer after getting the valuation report processes the loan application and submit the process note with recommendations to sanctioning authority which may be branch head, Regional Head or the Head Office depending upon the limit sought for by the party. What you have to say?
Ans.: I do not have any knowledge about the banking procedure and practice.
Que. No.27 : It has come in evidence against you through deposition of PW27, that once the loan is sanctioned, the manager of loan department, then takes all the necessary documents. Further, before release of packing credit limit, the borrower has to submit confirmed orders, letters of credit and in cases of confirmed order, bank is required to take credit report of the buyers from their bankers. What you have to say?
Ans.: I do not have any knowledge about the banking procedure and practice.
Que. No.28 : It has come in evidence against you through deposition of PW27, that only after receipt of the credit report, the bank will release PCL by taking specific request of the borrower, coupled with his stock statement. Further PCL should be closed by discounting / negotiating export bill by the bank submitted by the borrower after exporting the goods. What you have to say?
Ans.: I do not have any knowledge about the banking procedure and practice.
Que. No.29 : It has come in evidence against you through deposition of PW27 that the officer processing the application for Packing Credit Limit is required to make calculations according to value of export order, capacity of borrower to handle the export order and the collateral security and normally bank keeps 25% margin on the order with the borrower, which can be lower with respect to an exporter having large exports.What you have to say? Ans.: I do not have any knowledge about the banking procedure and practice.
Que. No.30 : It has come in evidence against you through deposition of PW27, that bank is also required to check Import Export Code Number and before releasing, the packing credit limit, it is to be checked from ECGC as to whether the borrower is in the list of defaulters or not. The Manager (Loans) is also supposed to obtain credit report of foreign buyers through their bankers. What you have to say? Ans.: I do not have any knowledge about the banking procedure and practice.
Que. No.31 : It has come in evidence against you through deposition of PW27 that Packing Credit Limit can be sanctioned to L.C., for export in addition to export orders and if so granted, the details of PCL sanction is endorsed on the back side of LC. What you have to say?
Ans.: I do not have any knowledge about the banking procedure and practice.
Que. No.32 : It has come in evidence against you through deposition of PW27 that FED1190 is the form on which approval of branch manager is obtained before releasing the Packing Credit Limit. What you have to say?
Ans.: I do not have any knowledge about the banking procedure and practice.
Que. No.33: It has come in evidence against you through deposition of PW27 that FDBP / FUDBP are "Foreign Demand Bill Purchase" / "Foreign Usance Demand Bill Purchase", are registers in which details of export bills, submitted by the party and verified by the bank officer are entered and original bill is then sent to the Buyer's Banker. What you have to say?
Ans.: I do not have any knowledge about the banking procedure and practice.
Que. No.34 : It has come in evidence against you through deposition of PW27 that FLC / ILC means "Foreign Letter of Credit / Inland Letter of Credit", which are issued for the purposes of importing goods from foreign countries and ILCs are for purchasing goods in India itself. What you have to say? Ans.: I do not have any knowledge about the banking procedure and practice.
Que. No.35: It has come in evidence against you through deposition of PW27 that LAD / IAB means "Loan against documents / Inland Advance Bill". Whenever a foreign LC is issued, the bank has to made payment on receipt of bills against LC, which is normally done by debiting the parties current account and if funds in same are insufficient then bank makes the payment by debiting LAD Account of the party. It is further come in evidence that similarly IAB is maintained with respect to Inland LC. What you have to say? Ans.: I do not have any knowledge about the banking procedure and practice.
Que. No.36 : It has come in evidence against you through deposition of PW27 that while processing the packing credit limit application, the concerned officer of the bank has to take into consideration the applicable interest rates prevalent at that time and bank also insists for term deposit and normally 75% cash margin is insisted for the letter of credit. What you have to say?
Ans.: I do not have any knowledge about the banking procedure and practice.
Que. No.37 : It has come in evidence against you through deposition of PW15 Sh.M.Sudhakar Shetty, Chief Manager, Vijaya Bank that immediately on grant of enhanced credit facilities, fresh bills submitted by you accused R.K.Bhatia, were purchased by the bank through your coaccused A.Maillappa Rai, H.Balakrishna Shetty, K.Vasanth Kumar Shetty and H.Surendra Shetty, vide memorandum of sanction dated 29.05.1997 Ex.PW.15/A23 and Memorandum of Sanction dated 10.06.1997 Ex.PW.15/A24 amounting to Rs.25.02 lakhs. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is a matter of record. Que. No.38 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW15 that, you accused R.K.Bhatia filed a request application Ex.PW.15/A33, for first Packing Credit Release, amounting to Rs.4,60,000/ on the basis of LC of United Bank Limited, Dubai in the name of M/s Cordinal Trading Dubai, which was processed by your coaccused H.Balakrishna Shetty, K.Vasanth Kumar Shetty and H.Surendra Shetty vide process note Ex.PW.15/A34 and the same was accordingly released and you accused R.K.Bhatia executed a corresponding Promisory Note dated 26.03.1997 in favor of the bank Ex.PW.15/A25. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is a matter of record. Que. No.39 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW15 that, second Packing Credit Limit was released on 04.04.1997 for Rs.6,12,000/ on LC of Union Bank Limited, Dubai on the basis of request letter dated 04.04.1997 Ex.PW.15/A27 submitted by you accused R.K.Bhatia with Vijaya Bank and processed by your coaccused H.Balakrishna Shetty, K.Vasanth Kumar Shetty and H.Surendra Shetty vide process note Ex.PW.15/A26. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is a matter of record. Que. No.40 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW15 that, you accused R.K.Bhatia for M/s USR Exports then requested Vijaya Bank, seeking release of PCL for Rs.20 lakhs vide your application Ex.PW.15/A28 dated 08.09.1997 which was released and you accused R.K.Bhatia, had executed a demand promisory note Ex.PW.15/A29 to that effect. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is a matter of record. Que. No.41 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW15 that, you accused R.K.Bhatia, vide your request letter dated 26.09.1997 Ex.PW.15/A30 requested for release of Packing credit limit for Rs.10 lacs, on which the process note was initiated by one Shashidhar, Manager, Foreign Exchange Department and routed through your co accused H.Balakrishna Shetty and K.Vasanth Kumar Shetty and was finally approved by Raviraj Shetty on 29.09.1997, vide process note Ex.PW.15/A31 and you accused R.K.Bhatia executed a corresponding demand promisory note Ex.PW. 15/A32 to that effect. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is a matter of record. Que. No.42 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW15 that, you accused R.K.Bhatia vide your application dated 20.09.1997 on behalf of M/s USR Exports had requested Vijaya Bank, for opening of LC in favor of M/s H.L.Rakesh Hosiery for Rs.2 lacs, ie Ex.PW.15/A35 which was processed by Assistant Manager Ram Nath and routed through your coaccused H.Balakrishna Shetty and K.Vasanth Kumar Shetty and was approved by Ravi Raj Shetty vide process note Ex.PW.15/A36 and the ILC application of yours ie.Ex.PW.15/A37. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is a matter of record. Que. No.43 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW15 that, you Rakesh Kumar Bhatia on 01.10.1997 requested Vijaya Bank on behalf of M/s USR Exports for 2 LCs in favor of M/s L.K.Fabrics Ludhiana, which is Ex.PW.15/A39, the said application was processed by Assistant Manager Ram Nath and routed through your co accused H.Balakrishna Shetty and K.Vasanth Kumar Shetty and was approved by Raviraj Shetty vide process note dated 03.10.1997 Ex.PW.15/A39. ILC Application for Rs.7,67,500/ submitted by you accused R.K.Bhatia, is Ex.PW.15/A40 and for Rs.6,36,000/ is Ex.PW.15/A41. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is a matter of record. Que. No.44 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW15 M.Sudhakar Shetty, the then Chief Manager Vijaya Bank that, while he was so posted as Senior Manager, Regional Foreign Exchange Cell, he was called upon by the bank to conduct investigations with respect to the account of M/s USR Exports and he after making the investigations had submitted his report Ex.PW.15/A8 which he had sent along with forwarding letter Ex.PW.15/A7 to the Regional Office of the bank. What you have to say? Ans.: I do not have any idea as to whether PW15 was so directed by the bank.
Que. No.45 : It has come in evidence against you through deposition of PW15 that, at the time of enhancement of credit facilities to you accused R.K.Bhatia, proprietor of M/s USR Exports, your coaccused H.Surendra Shetty, K.Vasanth Kumar Shetty, H.Balakrishna Shetty and A.Maillappa Rai, had not asked for any additional collateral security and all the lapses committed by your coaccused during processing of the application for Credit Facilities and also at the time of release of the facilities were mentioned by PW15 in his report Ex.PW.15/A8. What you have to say?
Ans.: I do not have any idea as to what PW15 has stated in his report as I am not aware about the banking practice and procedures.
Que. No.46 : It has come in evidence against you through deposition of PW15 that, out of the four packing credit limit releases to you accused R.K.Bhatia, only one packing credit limit release was adjusted whereas remaining became "overdue" which resulted in outstanding of Packing Credit Limit amounting to Rs.29,97,000/ as on 29.09.1997, as is depicted in certified copy of statement of account Ex.PW. 15/A42, certified by Sudhakar Hegde, Manager, Barakhamba Road Branch of M/s Vijaya Bank. What you have to say? Ans.: I do not remember. However, on a later date I have made all the payments to the bank towards full and final settlement and further, bank has given me 'No Dues Certificate" to me as well.
Que. No.47 : It has come in evidence against you through deposition of PW15 that, certified copies of statement of account with respect to outstanding bill of your firm ie M/s USR Exports, is Ex.PW.15/A43 and that of crystalized export bill is Ex.PW.15/A44 which were certified by Sudhakar Hegde, Manager of Vijaya Bank. What you have to say? Ans.: The outstanding payment which was there, was subsequently realized on receipt of payment from the foreign buyers through its banker and nothing remained outstanding as on date against me, in favor of the bank.
Que. No.48 : It has come in evidence against you through deposition of PW15 that, as per the Head Office Guideline as laid down in Circular no.191/96 dated 06.11.1996 Ex.PW.15/A45 the branch manager is required to physically inspect the property offered by the borrower, as collateral security. What you have to say?
Ans.: I do not know about any such circular.
Que. No.49 : It has come in evidence against you through deposition of PW15 that,as per credit management selected guidelines Ex.PW.15/A48, no frequent enhancement should be considered without proper justification, regard is to be given to the past performance of the exporter but in this case, it was done by your coaccused H.Surendra Shetty, K.Vasanth Kumar Shetty, H.Balakrishna Shetty, and A.Maillappa Rai without physical inspection of plot and releases were made despite the fact that 8 bills were unpaid, details of which is Ex.PW.15/A49. What you have to say?
Ans.: There were never frequent enhancement in my case. It was done only once and that too on the basis of my past performance and on the basis of supporting documents submitted by me along with the loan application in the form of projected and proposed balance sheets. I do not have any knowledge about the banking procedure and practice.
Que. No.50 : It has come in evidence against you through deposition of PW15 that you accused R.K.Bhatia had submitted bills Ex.PW.15/A51 with the bank and a letter dated 11.02.1998 Ex.PW.15/A50 was received from Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank by Vijaya Bank whereby they were informed about return of unpaid bills. What you have to say? Ans.: The outstanding payment which was there, was subsequently realized on receipt of payment from the foreign buyers through its banker and nothing remained outstanding as on date against me, in favor of the bank. Bank has given me "No Dues Certificate".
Que. No.51 : It has come in evidence against you through deposition of PW15 that, you accused R.K.Bhatia had submitted bills Ex.PW.15/A58, Ex.PW.15/A60 and Ex.PW. 15/A63, Ex.PW.15/A65, Ex.PW.15/A67 and Ex.PW.15/A69 which were accepted by foreign buyers vide Ex.PW.15/A59, Ex.PW.15/A61, Ex.PW.15/A62, Ex.PW.15/A64, Ex.PW.15/A66, Ex.PW.15/A68, but all were return unpaid and were intimated so to Vijaya Bank vide letter Ex.PW.15/A50. What you have to say?
Ans.: The outstanding payment which was there, was subsequently realized on receipt of payment from the foreign buyers through its banker and nothing remained outstanding as on date against me, in favor of the bank. Bank has given me "No Dues Certificate".
Que. No.52 : It has come in evidence against you through deposition of PW15 that, you accused R.K.Bhatia had made huge cash withdrawals from the said Packing Credit Loan Account of M/s USR Exports and the same were permitted by your coaccused H.Surendra Shetty, K.Vasanth Kumar Shetty, H.Balakrishna Shetty and A.Maillappa Rai against Packing Credit Loan Releases. What you have to say?
Ans.: I did make cash withdrawals but the same were made by me for purchasing raw material and towards other business expenses.
Que. No.53 : It has come in evidence against you through deposition of PW33 Sh.Rajiv Shetty (Retired) A.G.M of Vijaya Bank, that when the credit facility extended to M/s USR Exports became irregular, Sh.Vipin Kumar, Manager (Credit) PW3, was deputed to physically verify the property offered by you accused R.K.Bhatia and your coaccused Jiya Lal impersonating as Ram Narayan as collateral security and the said officer gave his report Ex.PW.3/1 that no such property existed. What you have to say?
Ans.: I never offered any property as "collateral security". Ram Narayan, the guarantor had offered the collateral security. I do not have any knowledge regarding appointment of any officer by the bank for physical verification of this property. Que. No.54 : It has come in evidence against you through deposition of PW33 that subsequently the bank entrusted the empanelled lawyer Sh.Rajesh Rattan PW12, to submit his report regarding collateral security, who submitted his report Ex.PW.12/B stating that Ram Narayan is not the owner of said property and in fact, no property is in existence. He gave his report on the basis of local inspection and inspection of records of subregistrar's office vide receipt Ex.PW.12/A. What you have to say?
Ans.: I never offered any property as "collateral security". Ram Narayan, the guarantor had offered the collateral security. I do not know about the appointment of panel lawyer by the bank for furnishing any legal scrutiny report. Que. No.55 : It has come in evidence against you through deposition of PW33 that the loan file pertaining to your firm M/s USR Exports is Ex.PW.33/A, the application for loan is Ex.PW.33/B (earlier exhibited as Ex.PW.15/A), process note is Ex.PW.33/C (earlier exhibited as Ex.PW.15/A9) and the certificate of loan paper obtained in compliance of the sanction terms bearing signatures of your coaccused H.Balakrishna Shetty is Ex.PW.33/D. What you have to say? Ans.: I do not have any personal knowledge about banking practice and procedure. However it is correct that I had filed a loan application.
Que. No.56 : It has come in evidence against you that the valuation report submitted by your coaccused Vijender Kumar dated 02.01.1997 Ex.PW.32/G29, is also part of the loan file Ex.PW.33/A. It has further come in evidence against you that your coaccused Vijender Kumar was given a notice by PW33 Rajeev Shetty on 15.12.1998 Ex.PW.33/G for his remarks when the bank came to know of the fact that no such property is in existence. What you have to say?
Ans.: I do not have any knowledge about the file maintained by the bank and also with respect to the documents in the said file.
Que. No.57 : It has come in evidence against you that PW33 Rajeev Shetty then reported the matter to Chief Vigilance Officer of the bank vide his report dated 02.02.1998, which is Ex.PW.33/F. What you have to say?
Ans.: I do not have any knowledge about the file maintained by the bank and also with respect to the documents in the said file.
Que. No.58 : It has come in evidence against you through the deposition of PW16 Ravi Joshi, Manager, Vijaya Bank that "XOS" is the statement of "overdue export bills" for which payment is not received from the parties, and the said statement is reported to RBI. It has further come in evidence against you that, in case of your firm M/s USR Exports also, it was reported to RBI and RBI through letters dated 10.08.2000 Ex.PW.16/1 and Ex.PW.16/2 reported it to CBI. What you have to say?
Ans.: I do not have any personal knowledge about the same.
Que. No.59 : It has come in evidence against you that Sh.B.R.Chandrashekar, General Manager cum Chief Vigilance Officer of Vijaya Bank, then lodged the complaint Ex.PW.14/A with CBI on the basis of which FIR bearing no.RC3(E)/99 EOWII/DLI dated 17.12.1999 Ex.PW.39/A was registered and was entrusted for investigations to Inspector S.S.Atwal. What you have to say?
Ans.: I do not know. A false complaint was made on the basis of which a false FIR was registered.
Que. No.60 : It has come in evidence against you that IO Inspector S.S.Atwal, then took into possession the relevant documents from Vijaya Bank vide seizure memo dated 21.12.1999, 22.12.1999 and 14.06.2000 from PW38 G.K.Bhatt, the then Senior Manager vide Ex.PW.38/A, Ex.PW.38/B and Ex.PW. 38/C respectively, which included the file pertaining to credit facilities extended to your firm M/s USR Exports Ex.PW.33/A including the loan application Ex.PW.33/B, Process Note Ex.PW.33/C and application for enhancement of limit Ex.PW. 33/D. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is a matter of record. Que. No.61 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW38 Sh.G.K.Bhatt that the file Ex.PW.33/A also contain the report of your coaccused Vijender Kumar regarding valuation of property at plot no.25, Khasra 634, Mohalla Dillai, Abadi Shiv Nagar, Shahadara Ex.PW.32/G29. Further, the file contains the Legal Report Ex.PW.12/B submitted by panel lawyer Sh.Rajesh Rattan, along with the inspection receipt Ex.PW.12/A of the office of Subregistrar, submitted along with the legal report. What you have to say? Ans.: I have no knowledge as to what documents were taken into possession by the IO from the bank. Que. No.62 : It has come in evidence against you that PW38 Sh.G.K.Bhatt, had handed over certified copy of Packing Credit Loan Register of your firm ie. M/s USR Exports Ex.PW.38/D, Certified copy of Letter of Credit Register Mark Y, Certified copy of Bill Liability Register Ex.PW.38/E, Certified copy of Liability Register of Letter of Credit Ex.PW.38/F, Certified copy of Bill Liability Register (Inland Advance Bills) under Letter of Credit Ex.PW.38/G and Certified copy of packing credit liability register Ex.PW.38/H, to IO Inspector S.S.Atwal. What you have to say?
Ans.: I have no knowledge about the same. Que. No.63 : It has come in evidence against you that on
inquiry by the IO, regarding duties of various officers of the bank along with their period of posting, reply dated 11.10.2000 Ex.PW.38/I was submitted to CBI by the bank, under signatures of PW33 Rajeev Shetty. What you have to say?
Ans.: I have no knowledge about the same. Que No.64 : It has come in evidence against you that IO
had taken certain other documents in possession from Vijaya Bank vide seizure memo dated 17.08.2000 Ex. PW39/B, seizure memo dated 25.01.2000, Ex. PW39/C, seizure memo dated 08.02.2000 Ex. PW39/D, seizure memo dated 30.10.2000 Ex. PW39/E. Besides which he took into possession certain documents from office of you accused R.K.Bhatia i.e. of M/s U.S.R. Exports vide seizure memo dated 14.02.2000 Ex. PW37/A. What you have to say ?
Ans. : No documents were taken into possession by the IO from my office in my presence. However, it is a matter of record regarding documents taken into possession by the IO. Que No.65 : It has come in evidence against you that IO during the course of investigations had taken into possession documents from M/s Om Goods Carrier vide seizure memo dated 30.06.2000 Ex. PW39/F, from Sh. Rakesh Yadav, Airport Manager vide seizure memo dated 31.08.2000 Ex. PW39/G, Sh.D.N.Bhatt vide seizure memo dated 29.08.2000 Ex. PW39/H, Prakash Chand Daftari of Vijaya Bank vide seizure memo dated 07.12.2000 Ex. PW39/I, Sh. Surinder Manuja vide seizure memo dated 05.02.2001 Ex. PW39/J, Sh. Sudhakar Shetty PW15 vide seizure memo dated 21.08.2000 Ex. PW15/A47 and B.M.Appanna vide seizure memo dated 30.10.2000 Ex. PW39/K. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I have no knowledge. Que No.66 : It has come in evidence against you that IO
made inquiries about the house fax receipt Ex. PW1/1 submitted by your coaccused Jiya Lal with the bank while impersonating as Ram Narayan pertaining to property situated in Khasra No. 634, Shiv Nagar, Shahdara and got a letter Ex. PW39/L dated 02.05.2000 from Sh.P.K.Gupta, Controller Printing and Stationary, MCD stating that the said receipt is fake and false. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I do not have any knowledge. Que No.67 : It has come in evidence against you that IO
also made inquiries about receipt Ex. PW1/1 from MCD Shahdara North and Shahdara South. PW7 Hakim Rai Arora working as Superintendent in House Tax Department of MCD Shahdara North deposed that pursuant to receipt of letter Ex. PW7/1 from CBI, they replied vide reply Ex. PW7/2 and stated that Ex. PW1/1 was never issued from their office as they issue receipt giving specific number of property and are not issuing against Khasra number. Further the receipt number used to be printed by machine which is not so in Ex. PW1/1. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I have no knowledge. Que No.68 : It has come in evidence against you that
PW1 Sh.O.P.Mahajan, Dy. Assessor and Collector, MCD, Shahdara South Zone during the course of his deposition had deposed that they used to issue receipt against specific property number and ledger folio number but it is not so in Ex. PW1/1. PW1 further deposed that receipt number is always printed on the receipt and is never written in hand, therefore, the receipt Ex. PW1/1 is a forged receipt for which they had informed CBI pursuant to the query which they had received vide their reply Ex. PW1/2. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I have no knowledge. Que No.69 : It has come in evidence against you through
the deposition of PW4 Anil Kumar Patwari that pursuant to receipt of letter dated 20.04.2000 from CBI Ex. PW4/3, he had prepared a report Ex. PW4/2 on the basis of official records stating that Khasra no. 634 of Village Chandrawali was divided in the year 1960 under mutation no. 3920 and as per mutation and Khasra Girdawari Ex. PW4/4 names of neither Charan Dass nor Ram Narayan finds mention in the same and this report was forwarded to CBI by the then SDM vide his letter Ex. PW4/1. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I have no knowledge. Que No.70 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW5 Sh. Satnam Singh, the President of BJP Shahdara that no person by the name of Ram Narayan S/o Raj Narayan lives in old Tejab Mill, Shahdara nor there is any mention of such name in the electoral roll Ex. PW5/1. What you have to say ?
Ans. : It is incorrect. Que No.71 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW6 Tilak Kheda who is running a shop in the locality of Old Tejab Mill, Shahdara under the name of M/s Jai Mata Soap that no person by the name of Ram Narayan S/o Raj Narayan ever resided in the area of Old Tejab Mill, Shahdara. What you have to say ?
Ans. : It is incorrect. Que No.72 : It has come in evidence against you that
through deposition of PW13 Shatrughan Poddar that a sale deed dated 28.01.1966 was executed by one Charan Dass in favour of Ram Narayan R/o Old Tejab Mill, Shahdara with respect to plot no. 25, measuring 100 sq.yards out of Khasra no. 634, Village Dillai, Abadi Shiv Nagar, Shahdara, copy of which is Ex. PW13/B and copy of its entry in the records of SubRegistrar is Ex. PW13/A. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I do not have any knowledge. Que No.73 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW26 Bulak Raj that the sale deed Ex. PW26/A with respect to plot no. 25, Khasra 634 was signed by him as a witness at instance of one Charan Dass, at his shop itself and he had not gone to the office of Sub Registrar for the same. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I have no knowledge. Que No.74 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW23 Ashwani Sharma that property bearing no. 45/2, Azad Nagar, Krishna Nagar was owned by his father in law, Ram Nath Sharma after having purchased it from Sunny Kalra vide Power of Attorney dated 21.01.1998 Ex. PW23/A, Agreement to Sell dated 24.01.1998 Ex. PW23/B, Will dated 24.01.1998 Ex. PW23/C and receipt dated 24.01.1998 Ex. PW23/D, irrevocable General Power of Attorney dated 21.01.1998 Ex. PW23/E. These documents were executed by Sunny Kalra on the basis of agreement dated 07.04.1993 Ex. PW23/F executed in his favour by the previous owner. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I have no knowledge. Que No.75 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW24 Jagmohan Aggarwal that property no. A45/2, East Azad Nagar, Shahadara was purchased by him and his brothers Anil and Sanjay alongwith their mother Smt. Ram Murti vide sale deeds Ex. PW24/A, Ex. PW24/B & Ex. PW24/C all dated 11.10.1993 executed by one Desh Raj as attorney of Abid Ali in their favour. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I have no knowledge. Que No.76 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW2 Harbans Lal Sethi that property no. E7/A10, Krishna Nagar is a three storied building occupied by him and his brothers and is owned by his mother and that they never got this property valued from anyone at any point of time. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I have no knowledge. Que No.77 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW36 Amit Talwar that he is residing in property no. E7/A10 known as Sethi Building, Krishna Nagar which was owned by his maternal grandfather and they never got this property valued at any point of time. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I have no knowledge. Que No.78 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW25 Desh Raj that he is running a tent house by the name of M/s Khurana Tent House from a shop E7/A10, Sethi Building, Krishna Nagar. He deposed that this building belong to one Vidya Prakash Sethi and his son Harbans is looking after this property and no person by the name of Ram Narayan ever resided in this building. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I have no knowledge about the same. Que No.79 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW11 Sh. R.P.Gupta, the notary public that the signatures on encircled portion 'A' on affidavit Ex. PA of one Ram Narayan, are not his signatures as he had not attested this affidavit and that his specimen signatures Ex. PW11/A1 to A9 were obtained by CBI. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I have no knowledge. Que No.80 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW8 Sh. Ravinder Bhatia, G.M., Canara Bank and PW9 Kalyan Singh, Manager, SBI, that both of them joined investigations with CBI on 30.05.2002 and on that day specimen signatures and handwriting of your coaccused Jiya Lal were taken on 30 sheets as Ex. PW8/1 to Ex. PW8/30 and your specimen signatures and handwriting was taken on 49 sheets Ex. PW8/31 to Ex. PW8/79. What you have to say ? Ans. : So far as my specimen signatures are concerned, it is correct. I am not aware of the proceedings regarding specimen signatures of other accused.
Que No.81 : It has come in evidence against you through deposition of PW17 S.A.Bambari working with Bank of Baroda that, he joined investigations with Investigating Officer Inspector S.S.Atwal on 10.03.2000 and Investigating Officer in his presence had obtained specimen signatures of your coaccused Vijender Kumar on 7 sheets as Ex. PW17/1 to Ex. PW17/7. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I have no knowledge. Que No.82 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW18 Sh. H.K.Srivastava working with Bank of Baroda that he had joined investigations with IO Inspector S.S.Atwal and in his presence IO had obtained specimen signatures of D.N.Goel Ex. PW18/1 to Ex. PW18/11 and that of your coaccused Jiya Lal as 'Ram Narayan' on Ex. PW18/12 to Ex. PW18/27. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I have no knowledge. Que No.83 : It has come in evidence against you that IO
Inspector S.S.Atwal had also joined PW34 K.K.Khanna, Dy. Manager, SBI during investigations and specimen signatures of your coaccused Jiya Lal Ex. PW18/12 to Ex. PW18/27 were obtained in presence of PW34 and PW18. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I have no knowledge. Que No.84 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW19 Sh. D.N.Bhatt and PW40 L.S.Rawat that they were working as Cargo Clearing Agents under the name of M/s Rawat Air Linkers and were functioning on the basis of authorization of M/s P.D. Eshwaran who was "Licensed Custom Clearing Agent" and on the basis of same PW40 used to get the custom clearance for the customers through his employee PW19 D.N.Bhatt for which they use to get commission from the airlines through which they used to send the consignment. What you have to say ?
Ans. : It is a matter of record. Que No.85 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW19 & PW40 that vide G.R. Form Ex. PW19/1, Ex. PW19/2 both dated 23.05.1997, Ex. PW19/3, Ex. PW19/4 both dated 21.05.1997, Ex. PW19/5 dated 28.05.1997, Ex. PW19/6 dated 30.05.1997, Ex. PW19/7 dated 28.05.1997, Ex. PW19/8 dated 24.05.1997, Ex. PW19/9 dated 23.05.1997 and Ex. PW19/11 dated 24.05.1997 goods of your firm ie. M/s USR Exports, were sent to Ms/ V.K.International and the destination was Moscow, whereas as per G.R.Form Ex. PW19/10 dated 26.05.1997, goods of your firm ie. M/s USR Exports, were sent to M/s Turgeneva Cristina and destination was Tashkent, Uzbekistan and their corresponding shipping bills are Mark X to X6. What you have to say ?
Ans. : It is a matter of record. Q.86 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW22 Leonard D'Souza working as Accountant with GSA of Uzbekistan Airways that your firm ie. M/s USR Exports had exported the consignment vide bill dated 26.05.1997 to Turgeneva Kristina Tashkent, Uzbekistan which is Ex. PW22/1, G.R. Form Ex. PW22/2 and shipping bill Ex. PW22/3. What you have to say ?
Ans. : It is a matter of record.
Que No.87 : It has come in evidence against you through deposition of PW10 Nand Kishore Gupta, Partner of M/s Union Roadways Corporation that he is in the business of transport and is transporting goods to various places and their firm is approved by Indian Banks Association and as such the employees of the bank can get reimbursement against the receipt issued by their firm for the goods booked with them for transportation. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I do not know. Que No.88 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW10 Nand Kishore Gupta that consignment note bearing no. 3919 dated 28.05.1997 for Rs.16,225/ and consignment note bearing no. 3920 dated 29.05.1997 for Rs. 28,425/ and corresponding cash receipts no. 7234 dated 28.05.1997 and 7235 dated 29.05.1997 Ex. PW10/1 to Ex. PW10/4 respectively were issued by his firm on his instructions at request of your coaccused A.M.Rai, whereas no goods were in fact, transported vide these consignment notes and no payment was received by PW10 from your coaccused A.M.Rai against the cash receipts Ex. PW10/3 and Ex. PW10/4. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I do not know. Que No.89 : It has come in evidence against you that
consignment note Ex. PW10/1 was prepared by PW30 Mohnan, an employee of PW10 at his instructions, whereas Ex. PW10/2 was prepared by PW35 Suresh Kumar, another employee of PW10 at his instructions and cash receipt Ex. PW10/3 and Ex. PW10/4 were also prepared by Suresh Kumar PW35 on instructions of PW10 Nand Kishore and after preparation, the same were handed over to PW10 from whom the same were collected by you accused R.K.Bhatia. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I had collected the consignment notes and cash receipts from PW10 at instance of accused A.M.Rai as office of M/s Union Roadways Corporation was adjacent to my residence and I had handed over the same to him subsequently.
Que No.90 : It has come in evidence against you that the photocopies of Ex. PW10/1 to Ex. PW10/4 are Ex. PW30/A to Ex. PW30/D which as per deposition of PW30 and PW35 were issued by them on instructions of their employer mentioning date of 28.05.1997 and 29.05.1997 after the issuance of consignment notes Ex. PW10/5 and Ex. PW10/6 dated 06.06.1997 and 11.06.1997 & corresponding cash receipts Ex. PW10/7 and Ex. PW10/8 and that vide consignment notes Ex. PW10/1 and Ex. PW10/2 no goods were transported and against cash receipts Ex. PW10/3 and Ex. PW10/4 no amount was received by PW10 from you accused R.K.Bhatia or from your coaccused A.M.Rai. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I do not know. Que No.91 : It has come in evidence against you that IO
Inspector S.S.Atwal had taken those documents of M/s Union Roadways Corporation in possession from PW10 vide seizure memo dated 12.06.2000 Ex. PW10/9. What you have to say ?
Ans. : It is a matter of record. Que No.92 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW37 Ripu Daman Sehgal that he had been working as accountant with the firm of you accused R.K.Bhatia and IO Inspector S.S.Atwal had taken into possession certain documents from your office vide seizure memo Ex. PW37/A, which includes document Ex. PW30/A receipt of M/s Blue Dart Ex. PW37/B and a file Ex. PW37/C and another file Ex. PW37/E. What you have to say ? Ans. : It is a matter of record. However, I obtained photocopy of Blue Dart Courier Receipt at the instance of Sh.A.M.Rai.
Que No.93 : It has come in evidence against you accused R.K.Bhatia that PW37 your employee had identified your signatures on Ex. PW32/G13, Ex. PW15/A, Ex. PW21/2, Ex. PW15/A4 as well as on Ex. PW37/D1 to Ex. PW37/D9. What you have to say ?
Ans. : It is a matter of record. Que No.94 : It has come in evidence against you accused
R.K.Bhatia that PW37 your employee had further identified your signatures on Ex. PW15/A30, Ex. PW32/G20, Ex. PW15/A27, Ex. PW32/G24, Ex. PW32/G25, Ex. PW15/A10, Ex. PW15/A11, Ex. PW15/A12 to Ex. PW15/A21. What you have to say ?
Ans. : It is a matter of record. Que No.95 : It has come in evidence against you accused
R.K.Bhatia that your employee PW37 had further identified your signatures on Ex. PW32/G1, Ex. PW32/G21, Ex. PW37/D10, Ex. PW37/D11, Ex. PW37/D12, Ex. PW37/D13, Ex. PW32/F95, Ex. PW32/G28 to Ex. PW15/A40 and Ex. PW15/A41. What you have to say ?
Ans. : It is a matter of record.
Que No.96 : It has come in evidence against you accused R.K.Bhatia that your employee PW37 did identified your signatures on cheques Ex. PW32/F36, Ex. PW32/F52, Ex. PW32/F64, Ex. PW32/F79, Ex. PW32/F84, Ex. PW32/F85, Ex. PW32/F86, Ex. PW32/F48, Ex. PW32/F53, Ex. PW32/F54, Ex. PW32/F60 and Ex. PW32/A94. What you have to say ?
Ans. : It is a matter of record. Que No.97 : It has come in evidence against you that IO
Inspector S.S.Atwal thereafter had sent the specimen signatures of you accused R.K.Bhatia and your coaccused Jiya Lal and Vijender Kumar and also that of R.P.Gupta and D.N.Goel alongwith the questioned documents to GEQD for expert opinion. What you have to say ?
Ans. : It is a matter of record. Que No.98 : It has come in evidence against you that
pursuant to receipt of questioned, admitted and specimen signatures submitted by S.P., CBI, EOUII vide Memo dated 29.06.2000, the documents were examined by Sh.V.K.Khanna, Principal Scientific Officer with the help of Scientific aid who gave his report dated 27.12.2000 Ex. PW32/A and Ex. PW32/B. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I do not know.
Que No.99 : It has come in evidence against you that IO Inspector S.S.Atwal collected details of the bills purchased by the bank vide letter Ex.PW.39/M and further IO was informed about structure of Vijaya Bank along with details of the officers posted as various levels in different categories of branches vide letter Ex.PW.15/A46 and had also collected various circulars issued by Vijaya Bank from time to time for working of its officers vide letter Ex.PW.39/N. What you have to say?
Ans.: I do not know. Que.100: It has come in evidence against you that IO
Inspector S.S.Atwal recorded statement of witnesses, collected documents including expert opinion Ex. PW32/A and Ex. PW32/B and thereafter he had approached the competent authorities for getting the necessary sanction for prosecution against your co accused H.Balakrishna Shetty, K.Vasanth Kumar Shetty, H.Surendra Shetty and A.M.Rai. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I do not know. Que No.101 : It has come in evidence against your co
accused Vasanth Kumar Shetty through deposition of PW28 Sh. K.Amarnath Shetty, G.M. (Personal) of Vijaya Bank that, he being competent authority to remove your coaccused K.Vasanth Kumar Shetty from the services, after going through the report submitted by CBI including statement of witnesses and documents collected satisfied himself and then passed the sanction order Ex. PW28/A granting sanction for prosecution of your coaccused. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I do not know. Que No.102 : It has come in evidence against your co
accused H.Balakrishna Shetty and A.M.Rai through deposition of PW29 Sh.K.Jayakar Shetty, Deputy G.M (Personnel), Vijaya Bank, being competent authority to remove them from the services, after going through the report submitted before him by CBI including the statement of witnesses coupled with the documents satisfied himself that material is sufficient for grant of sanction for prosecution against both your coaccused, passed the sanction order dated 01.09.2001 Ex. PW29/A against your co accused H.Balakrishna Shetty and sanction order dated 10.09.2001 Ex. PW29/B against your coaccused A.M.Rai. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I do not know. Que No.103 : It has come in evidence against your co
accused H.Surendra Shetty through the deposition of PW31 Sh.Miachel Bastian posted as Executive Director of Vijaya Bank, being the competent authority to remove your co accused from the services, after going through the report received from CBI including the documentary evidence collected and statement of witnesses recorded satisfied himself that the same is sufficient for grant of sanction for prosecution of your coaccused and accordingly passed the sanction order Ex. PW31/A. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I do not know. Que No.104 : It has come in evidence against you that IO
Inspector S.S.Atwal on conclusion of investigations and after getting the necessary sanction orders from the competent authorities had filed the present charge sheet for your trial. What you have to say ?
Ans. : It is a matter of record. Que No.105 : Why this case against you ? Ans. : I applied for credit facilities with the bank which
were granted to me on the basis of my credibility, previous balance sheets and projected balance sheets. Even after the grant of credit facilities based on my previous business performances, bank enhanced my credit facilities at my request. Due to availment of these credit facilities by me, bank incurred no loss. In fact, bank gained / earned lakhs of rupees by way of interest and other bank charges / bank debited in my account. Even in cases where my payments were delayed from the foreign buyers, bank did not loose any money, but in fact charged and recovered extra money in the shape of interest debited to my account. I was only a borrower. I was not a mortgagor in this case. As I informed to CBI, Ram Narayan was introduced to me by one Mr.Manish Gupta, who was my associate in local sale of export rejected goods. I did not know Ram Narayan personally. So far as the alleged bank's loss is concerned, even otherwise on a later date, I have paid the bank fully and completely in full and final settlement as demanded by the bank to which the bank has also issued me "No Dues Certificate". I undertake to produce this certificate as and when so directed by this Hon'ble Court. So there is no case against me.
Que No.106 : Why PW's have deposed against you ? Ans. : They are false and interested witnesses. Que No.107 : Do you want to say anything else ? Ans. : I am innocent as I was only a borrower and had applied with the bank for credit facilities which was granted to me on the basis of my credentials and past record. Even otherwise at that time, there was no requirement of furnishing any collateral security for the purposes of export business. I have also paid all the outstanding amount to the bank with interest as claimed by the bank in full and final settlement and have also been issued "No Dues Certificate".
Que No.108 : Do you want to lead evidence in your defence ?
Ans. : Yes.
RO & AC {KANWAL JEET ARORA} SPECIAL JUDGE : CBI (P.C.ACT) DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
29.01.2013 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx IN THE COURT OF SH.KANWAL JEET ARORA:
SPECIAL JUDGE, CBI (P.C.ACT), DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
Case No.: R.C3(E)/99/EOWII/ DLI dated 17.12.1999 U/s : 120 B r/w section 419, 420, 467 & 471 IPC r/w section 13(2) read with section 13(1) (d) of P.C.Act, 1988.
In the matter of: CBI v/s Rakesh Kumar Bhatia & Ors.
C.C. No. 44 / 2011.
Statement of accused H.SURENDRA SHETTY, S/o: Late Sh.A.Sanjiv Shetty, R/o: 1061, Vijaya Bank, Lay Out, Sunder Ram Shetty Nagar, Bannerghatta, Bangalore.
{Earlier working as AGM Vijaya Bank, Barakhamba Road Branch, New Delhi.} Statement under section 313 Cr.P.C.
{Without oath} Que. No.1: It has come in evidence against you that your coaccused, Rakesh Kumar Bhatia, was a businessman, running his business as sole proprietor of M/s USR Exports Delhi and you accused H.Surendra Shetty were posted as Assistant General Manager, Vijaya Bank and your coaccused A.M.Rai was posted as Manager, FED Vijaya Bank, K.Vasanth Kumar Shetty, as Chief Manager, H.Balakrishna Shetty as Senior Manager Incharge, FED, Vijaya Bank, whereas co accused Vijender Kumar was on the Panel on Vijaya Bank as Valuer. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is correct. Que. No.2 : It has come in evidence against you that
your coaccused R.K.Bhatia, on 24.11.1996 had submitted an application Ex.PW.15/A, Ex.PW.33/B with Vijaya Bank, seeking various credit facilities for the purposes of export of readymade garments. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is a matter of record. Que. No.3 : It has come in evidence against you that
your coaccused R.K.Bhatia, in support of his application Ex.PW.15/A, had produced coaccused Jiya lal, as his guarantor and he impersonated as one "Ram Narayan" and claimed himself to be the owner of property measuring 100 square yards bearing plot no.25, Mohalla Dillai, Abadi Shiv Nagar, Shahadara, having acquired by virtue of a Sale Deed dated 28.01.1966 executed in his favor by one Charan Dass. What you have to say?
Ans.: I was not aware, and could not have discovered that accused Jiya Lal was impersonating as Ram Nayaran. Que. No.4 : It has come in evidence against you that your coaccused Jiya Lal, impersonated himself as Ram Narayan, in support of the claim as owner of said property which he offered as collateral security to the application of your coaccused R.K.Bhatia Ex.PW.15/A, produced a receipt of house tax Ex.PW.1/1, purporting to be issued by MCD. Besides which, your coaccused Jiya Lal had submitted an affidavit and indemnity bond executed by him as Ram Narayan, in support of guarantee to the credit facility in favor of your co accused R.K.Bhatia. What you have to say?
Ans.: I did not know that accused Jiya Lal was impersonating as Ram Narayan. As regards the above said documents it was not a part of my duties to have examined or scrutinized the same.
Que. No.5 : It has come in evidence against you that your coaccused R.K.Bhatia in support of his application Ex.PW.15/A had filed balance sheets of the previous years ending on 31.03.1995, 31.03.1996 and also the proposed / projected balance sheets for the year ending 31.03.1997 and 31.03.1998, statement of assets and liabilities as well as statement of your coaccused Jiya Lal impersonating as guarantor Ram Narayan Ex.PW.15/A1 to Ex.PW.15/A6. What you have to say?
Ans.: I did not know that accused Jiya Lal was impersonating as Ram Narayan. As regards the above said documents it was not a part of my duties to have examined or scrutinized the same because these documents were to be examined and scrutinized by the concerned section / loan section of the bank. Que. No.6 : It has come in evidence against you through deposition of PW21 Sh.S.B.Shori, Chartered Accountant of M/s USR Exports that he had prepared Ex.PW.15/A1 to Ex.PW. 15/A4 and issued certificate Ex.PW.21/1 and raised bills dated 25.11.1996 Ex.PW.21/3, bill dated 24.10.1996 Ex.PW.21/4, bill dated 25.11.1996 Ex.PW.21/5 and bill dated 16.10.1996 Ex.PW. 21/6 and received payments against them from your co accused Rakesh Kumar Bhatia, being proprietor of M/s USR Exports. What you have to say?
Ans.: As regards the above said documents it was not a part of my duties to have examined or scrutinized the same. It was for the officials in the loan section to have examined and scrutinized these. Que. No.7 : It has come in evidence against you that on the basis of figures shown by your coaccused R.K.Bhatia in the previous and proposed / projected balance sheets so submitted with the bank, your coaccused A.M.Rai, Manager FED, without seeking any explanation or proof with respect to the figures, processed the same vide process note dated 22.01.1997 Ex.PW.15/A9 and recommended it to other co accused H.Balakrishna Shetty, the then Senior Manager, who forwarded it to the coaccused Vasantha Kumar Shetty, the then Chief Manager. What you have to say?
Ans.: The note sent by Mr.A.M.Rai is a matter of record, and only he can answer a question regarding that. However, the original loan was not sanctioned by me. Further, my comment on the said note may be read, by which I stated that the proposed limits are coming under the revised delegation of landing power of the Chief Manager as per the Circular no. 17/97, and he may take suitable steps.
Que. No.8 : It has come in evidence against you that your coaccused Vasantha Kumar Shetty, the then Chief Manager, submitted the said application of M/s USR Exports to you accused H.Surendra Shetty, Additional General Manager of Vijaya Bank and you sent the same back to co accused Vasantha Kumar Shetty, as the decision on said application was within the financial powers of coaccused Vasantha Kumar Shetty as per circular issued by Vijaya Bank. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is correct. Que.No.9 : It has come in evidence against you that
before taking action on the said application Ex.PW.15/A, bank had obtained legal opinion as well as valuation with respect to the property offered as 'collateral security' from the panel Advocate Sh.K.K.Khurana and the approved valuer on the panel of the bank, ie. coaccused Vijender Kumar. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is correct. The bank was required to take into account the reports of its Approved Legal Advisor and Approved Valuer. Que No.10 : It has come in evidence against you that Sh.K.K.Khurana, Panel Lawyer of Vijaya Bank, submitted legal scrutiny report dated 17.12.1996 Ex.PW.15/A70 and Ex.PW.15/DA1, pertaining to the said property and also submitted the "Nil Encumbrances Certificate" Ex.PW.20/A on the basis of Sale Deed registered with the office of Sub Registrar dated 28.01.1966, without physically verifying the property. What you have to say?
Ans.: The report of the said Advocate is a matter of record. It never came to my knowledge nor could I have discovered despite due diligence that the said report by the said Advocate had been submitted by him without physically verifying the property. It was not a part of my duty to have myself physically verified the relevant property. In this connection Chairman's Circular No. 5/93 dated 22.04.1993 may be perused.
Que. No.11 : It has come in evidence against you that your coaccused Vijender Kumar, the approved valuer on the panel of Vijaya Bank was asked to submit the valuation report with respect to the property ie. Plot No.25, Mohalla Dillai, Abadi Shiv Nagar, Shahadara, purported to be in the name of one Ram Narayan. What you have to say? Ans.: It is a matter of record. However, it was not the part of my duties to have scrutinized the said report. Que. No.12 : It has come in evidence against you that your coaccused Vijender Kumar had submitted his valuation report dated 02.01.1997 Ex.PW.32/G29, valuing a nonexistent property of Rs.42,63,500/.What you have to say? Ans.: I do not know. It was not a part of my duties to have scrutinized the said valuation report. It never came to my knowledge during the relevant period that the said report was defective in any manner.
Que. No.13 : It has come in evidence against you that your coaccused Vijender Kumar infact had valued property bearing no.E7/A10, Krishna Nagar, which infact belonged to one Harbans Lal Sethi and wrongly shown in his report to be the value of Plot No.25, Mohalla Dillai, Abadi Shiv Nagar, Shahadara. What you have to say?
Ans.: I do not know. It was not a part of my duties to have scrutinized the said valuation report. It never came to my knowledge during the relevant period that the said report was defective due to the above said reason.
Que. No.14 : It has come in evidence against you that your coaccused A.Maillappa Rai, merely on the basis of valuation report dated 02.01.1997 of coaccused Vijender Kumar and legal scrutiny report Ex.PW.15/A70 recommended and forwarded the application Ex.PW.15/A to coaccused H.Balakrishna Shetty, Sr.Manager, who forwarded it to K.Vasanth Kumar Shetty, the other coaccused, who sanctioned the same vide sanction order dated 26.03.1997 whereby packing credit limit to the tune of Rs.15 lakhs FDBP/FUDBP to the tune of Rs.20 lakhs and FLC / ILC to the tune of Rs.10 lakhs was sanctioned. What you have to say? Ans.: It is incorrect. The other officers of the bank did not raise the credit limit or allowed further financial accommodation merely on the basis of the above said legal opinion and valuation report.
Que. No.15 : It has come in evidence against you that your coaccused A.Maillappa Rai, H.Balakrishna Shetty and K.Vasanth Kumar Shetty, had sanctioned the loan / credit facilities in favor of M/s USR Exports in disregard to Circular Bearing No.191/96 dated 06.11.1996 of Vijaya Bank Ex.PW. 15/A45 and failed to physically verify the property offered as collateral security. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is incorrect that any of the said bank officials disregarded the instructions in the said circular. In fact, by way of abundant caution, the branch had taken collateral security while granting financial accommodation towards export credit, whereas under the instructions contained in the said circular, the branch was not required to do so. In this regard, HO Circular No. 71/00 dated 28.03.2000 may be perused.
Que. No.16 : It has come in evidence against you that after the sanction of credit limits by the bank, your co accused Rakesh Kumar Bhatia, had executed the loan documents in favor of the bank which are Ex.PW.15/A10 to Ex.PW.15/A13, which were signed by him. Besides that, your coaccused R.K.Bhatia had also executed the documents for packing credit limits dated 26.03.1997 Ex.PW.15/A14 to Ex.PW. 15/A21, which were signed by him as well as your coaccused Jiya Lal, impersonating as Ram Narayan, the guarantor. What you have to say?
Ans.: The above said documents were signed by R.K.Bhatia at the relevant departments, and not before me. I was not aware that Jiya Lal was impersonating as Ram Narayan.
Que. No.17 : It has come in evidence against you that your coaccused Rakesh Kumar Bhatia, along with other co accused Jiya Lal, impersonating as Ram Narayan, the guarantor had executed, delivery note Ex.PW.15/A10, Demand Promissory Note Ex.PW.15/A11, Repayment Letter Document Ex.PW.15/A12, Letter of Hypothecation Ex.PW.15/A13, Take Delivery Note Ex.PW.15/A14, D.P.Note E.xPW.15/A15, Repayment letter document Ex.PW.15/A16, Packing Credit Agreement Ex.PW.15/A17, Hypothecation of goods Ex.PW. 15/A19, Letter of proprietorship Ex.PW.15/A20, Authorization Letter Ex.PW.15/A21, Letter of Guarantee Ex.PW.32/C1 to Ex.PW.32/C6, all dated 26.03.1997, in favor of Vijaya Bank. What you have to say?
Ans.: The above said documents were signed by R.K.Bhatia at the relevant departments, and not before me. I was not aware that Jiya Lal was impersonating as Ram Narayan.
Que. No.18 : It has come in evidence against you that the property purportedly belonging to Ram Narayan which was offered by your coaccused Jiya Lal as "collateral security"
finds mentioned on process note Ex.PW.15/A9 and was mortgaged by your coaccused R.K.Bhatia with the bank on 04.01.1997 by deposit of the title deeds. What you have to say? Ans.: I was not aware that Jiya Lal was impersonating as Ram Narayan. The title deeds must have been deposited before the relevant department of the bank.
Que. No.19 : It has come in evidence against you that your coaccused Rakesh Kumar Bhatia, then submitted a request letter dated 21.05.1997 Ex.PW.33/D, Ex.PW.15/A22 with the bank for enhancing the credit facilities already sanctioned on 26.03.1997. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is correct. Que. No.20 : It has come in evidence against you that you
that the said application of your coaccused R.K.Bhatia Ex.PW.15/A22 was processed by your coaccused A.Maillappa Rai, who forwarded it to coaccused H.Balakrishna Shetty, who recommended and forwarded it to coaccused K.Vasanth Kumar Shetty, who inturn forwarded it to you accused H.Surendra Shetty, the then AGM and you finally approved and sanctioned the enhanced limits in favor of M/s USR Exports on 29.05.1997. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is correct. Que. No.21 : It has come in evidence against you that on
the basis of sanction of enhanced credit facilities in favor of M/s USR Exports, the limits of packing credit was enhanced from 15 lakhs to 30 lakhs, FUDBP / FDBP limits from 20 lakhs to 50 lakhs and FLC / ILC from 15 lakhs to 25 lakhs and you accused H.Surendra Shetty, while enhancing the credit facilities did not physically inspect the property offered as collateral security and violated circular dated 06.11.1996 of the bank Ex.PW.15/A45. What you have to say? Ans.: It was not my duty to physically inspect the property offered as collateral security. Further, the relevant branch was categorized as an exceptionally large branch, it was the biggest in India, its set up was different from other branches, and was govern by the Chairman's Circular No. 5/93 dated 22.11.1993. There was no violation of Circular exhibited as Ex. PW15/A45. Que. No.22 : It has come in evidence against you that PW27 Sh.Sudhakar Hegde, the then Chief Manager with Vijaya Bank had deposed the prevalent procedural aspects pertaining to grant of loan facilities by the bank on application of the parties. What you have to say? Ans.: In my opinion PW27 did not fully depose about the procedural aspects, as well as the discretions available to the bank officials.
Que. No.23 : It has come in evidence against you that through deposition of PW27 that "PCL" stands for Packing Credit Limit, which can be granted to the party for procuring goods for export purposes. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is correct. Que. No.24 : It has come in evidence against you that you
through deposition of PW27, that for the same, party is required to open a current account with the bank and alongwith loan application, it is required to submit statement of assets and liabilities, balance sheet for current financial year and two future projected years along with Income Tax Returns for last three years. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is correct. Que. No.25 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW27, that party is then asked to submit copies of documents offered for collateral securities. The concerned Manager (Loans) then ascertains the documents and submit the same to the approved panel lawyers of the bank for verification of the property and after getting the legal security report the valuation of the collateral security is got done from approved valuer. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is correct. Que. No.26 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW27, that the concerned officer after getting the valuation report processes the loan application and submit the process note with recommendations to sanctioning authority which may be branch head, Regional Head or the Head Office depending upon the limit sought for by the party. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is correct. Que. No.27 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW27, that once the loan is sanctioned, the manager of loan department, then takes all the necessary documents. Further, before release of packing credit limit, the borrower has to submit confirmed orders, letters of credit and in cases of confirmed order, bank is required to take credit report of the buyers from their bankers. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is correct. However, there is a discretion available to the bank officers in respect of asking the credit report of the buyers from their bankers.
Que. No.28 : It has come in evidence against you through deposition of PW27, that only after receipt of the credit report, the bank will release PCL by taking specific request of the borrower, coupled with his stock statement. Further PCL should be closed by discounting / negotiating export bill by the bank submitted by the borrower after exporting the goods. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is correct but exceptions can be made. Que. No.29 : It has come in evidence against you through deposition of PW27 that the officer processing the application for Packing Credit Limit is required to make calculations according to value of export order, capacity of borrower to handle the export order and the collateral security and normally bank keeps 25% margin on the order with the borrower, which can be lower with respect to an exporter having large exports. What you have to say? Ans.: It is correct but there is no hard and fast rule that the bank shall keep 25% of the value of the export order towards its margin.
Que. No.30 : It has come in evidence against you through deposition of PW27, that bank is also required to check Import Export Code Number and before releasing, the packing credit limit, it is to be checked from ECGC as to whether the borrower is in the list of defaulters or not. The Manager (Loans) is also supposed to obtain credit report of foreign buyers through their bankers. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is correct. Que. No.31 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW27 that Packing Credit Limit can be sanctioned to L.C., for export in addition to export orders and if so granted, the details of PCL sanction is endorsed on the back side of LC. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is correct. Que. No.32 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW27 that FED1190 is the form on which approval of branch manager is obtained before releasing the Packing Credit Limit. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is correct. Que. No.33: It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW27 that FDBP / FUDBP are "Foreign Demand Bill Purchase" / "Foreign Usance Demand Bill Purchase", are registers in which details of export bills, submitted by the party and verified by the bank officer are entered and original bill is then sent to the Buyer's Banker. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is correct. Que. No.34 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW27 that FLC / ILC means "Foreign Letter of Credit / Inland Letter of Credit", which are issued for the purposes of importing goods from foreign countries and ILCs are for purchasing goods in India itself. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is correct. Que. No.35: It has come in evidence against you through deposition of PW27 that LAD / IAB means "Loan against
documents / Inland Advance Bill". Whenever a foreign LC is issued, the bank has to made payment on receipt of bills against LC, which is normally done by debiting the parties current account and if funds in same are insufficient then bank makes the payment by debiting LAD Account of the party. It is further come in evidence that similarly IAB is maintained with respect to Inland LC. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is correct. Que. No.36 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW27 that while processing the packing credit limit application, the concerned officer of the bank has to take into consideration the applicable interest rates prevalent at that time and bank also insists for term deposit and normally 75% cash margin is insisted for the letter of credit. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is incorrect that normally 75% cash margin is insisted for the letter of credit by the bank.
Que. No.37 : It has come in evidence against you through deposition of PW15 Sh.M.Sudhakar Shetty, Chief Manager, Vijaya Bank that immediately on grant of enhanced credit facilities, fresh bills submitted by your coaccused R.K.Bhatia, were purchased by the bank through your coaccused A.Maillappa Rai, H.Balakrishna Shetty, K.Vasanth Kumar Shetty and you accused H.Surendra Shetty, vide memorandum of sanction dated 29.05.1997 Ex.PW.15/A23 and Memorandum of Sanction dated 10.06.1997 Ex.PW.15/A24 amounting to Rs.25.02 lakhs. What you have to say? Ans.: It is correct. The enhancement of credit facilities were granted after complying with all banking prudential norms. Que. No.38 : It has come in evidence against you through deposition of PW15 that, your coaccused R.K.Bhatia filed a request application Ex.PW.15/A33, for first Packing Credit Release, amounting to Rs.4,60,000/ on the basis of LC of United Bank Limited, Dubai in the name of M/s Cordinal Trading Dubai, which was processed by your coaccused H.Balakrishna Shetty, K.Vasanth Kumar Shetty and you accused H.Surendra Shetty vide process note Ex.PW.15/A34 and the same was accordingly released and your co accused R.K.Bhatia executed a corresponding Promisory Note dated 26.03.1997 in favor of the bank Ex.PW.15/A25. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is correct. Que. No.39 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW15 that, second Packing Credit Limit was released on 04.04.1997 for Rs.6,12,000/ on LC of Union Bank Limited, Dubai on the basis of request letter dated 04.04.1997 Ex.PW.15/A27 submitted by your coaccused R.K.Bhatia with Vijaya Bank and processed by your coaccused H.Balakrishna Shetty, K.Vasanth Kumar Shetty and you accused H.Surendra Shetty vide process note Ex.PW.15/A26. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is correct. Que. No.40 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW15 that, your coaccused R.K.Bhatia for M/s USR Exports then requested Vijaya Bank, seeking release of PCL for Rs.20 lakhs vide his application Ex.PW.15/A28 dated 08.09.1997 which was released and your coaccused R.K.Bhatia, had executed a demand promisory note Ex.PW. 15/A29 to that effect. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is correct. Que. No.41 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW15 that, your coaccused R.K.Bhatia, vide his request letter dated 26.09.1997 Ex.PW.15/A30 requested for release of Packing credit limit for Rs.10 lacs, on which the process note was initiated by one Shashidhar, Manager, Foreign Exchange Department and routed through your co accused H.Balakrishna Shetty and K.Vasanth Kumar Shetty and was finally approved by Raviraj Shetty on 29.09.1997, vide process note Ex.PW.15/A31 and your coaccused R.K.Bhatia executed a corresponding demand promisory note Ex.PW. 15/A32 to that effect. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is correct. Que. No.42 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW15 that, your coaccused R.K.Bhatia vide his application dated 20.09.1997 on behalf of M/s USR Exports had requested Vijaya Bank, for opening of LC in favor of M/s H.L.Rakesh Hosiery for Rs.2 lacs, ie Ex.PW.15/A35 which was processed by Assistant Manager Ram Nath and routed through your coaccused H.Balakrishna Shetty and K.Vasanth Kumar Shetty and was approved by Ravi Raj Shetty vide process note Ex.PW.15/A36 and the ILC application of your coaccused R.K.Bhatia ie.Ex.PW.15/A37. What you have to say? Ans.: I stood promoted as Dy. General Manager and was posted to Bangalore, Regional office as Regional Head at the material time. Que. No.43 : It has come in evidence against you through deposition of PW15 that, your coaccused Rakesh Kumar Bhatia on 01.10.1997 requested Vijaya Bank on behalf of M/s USR Exports for 2 LCs in favor of M/s L.K.Fabrics Ludhiana, which is Ex.PW.15/A39, the said application was processed by Assistant Manager Ram Nath and routed through your co accused H.Balakrishna Shetty and K.Vasanth Kumar Shetty and was approved by Raviraj Shetty vide process note dated 03.10.1997 Ex.PW.15/A39. ILC Application for Rs.7,67,500/ submitted by your coaccused R.K.Bhatia, is Ex.PW.15/A40 and for Rs.6,36,000/ is Ex.PW.15/A41. What you have to say? Ans.: I stood promoted as Dy. General Manager and was posted to Bangalore, Regional office as Regional Head at the material time. Que. No.44 : It has come in evidence against you through deposition of PW15 M.Sudhakar Shetty, the then Chief Manager Vijaya Bank that, while he was so posted as Senior Manager, Regional Foreign Exchange Cell, he was called upon by the bank to conduct investigations with respect to the account of M/s USR Exports and he after making the investigations had submitted his report Ex.PW.15/A8 which he had sent along with forwarding letter Ex.PW.15/A7 to the Regional Office of the bank. What you have to say? Ans.: I stood promoted as Dy. General Manager and was posted to Bangalore, Regional office as Regional Head at the material time. Que. No.45 : It has come in evidence against you through deposition of PW15 that, at the time of enhancement of credit facilities to your coaccused R.K.Bhatia, proprietor of M/s USR Exports, you accused H.Surendra Shetty and other co accused K.Vasanth Kumar Shetty, H.Balakrishna Shetty and A.Maillappa Rai, had not asked for any additional collateral security and all the lapses committed by your coaccused during processing of the application for Credit Facilities and also at the time of release of the facilities were mentioned by PW15 in his report Ex.PW.15/A8. What you have to say? Ans.: It was not an essential requirement that for export credit any additional collateral security was to be taken, in view of the relevant circular cited above.
Que. No.46 : It has come in evidence against you through deposition of PW15 that, out of the four packing credit limit releases to your coaccused R.K.Bhatia, only one packing credit limit release was adjusted whereas remaining became "overdue" which resulted in outstanding of Packing Credit Limit amounting to Rs.29,97,000/ as on 29.09.1997, as is depicted in certified copy of statement of account Ex.PW. 15/A42, certified by Sudhakar Hegde, Manager, Barakhamba Road Branch of M/s Vijaya Bank. What you have to say? Ans.: I stood relieved from the relevant branch w.e.f. 02.08.1997 and was promoted as Dy. General Manager, was posted to Bangalore, Regional office as Regional Head at the material time. I therefore, cannot say anything about the above said report. Que. No.47 : It has come in evidence against you through deposition of PW15 that, certified copies of statement of account with respect to outstanding bill of the firm of your coaccused R.K.Bhatia ie M/s USR Exports, is Ex.PW.15/A43 and that of crystalized export bill is Ex.PW.15/A44 which were certified by Sudhakar Hegde, Manager of Vijaya Bank. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is incorrect. I stood relieved from the relevant branch w.e.f. 02.08.1997 and was promoted as Dy. General Manager, was posted to Bangalore, Regional office as Regional Head at the material time. I therefore, cannot say anything about the outstandings. Que. No.48 : It has come in evidence against you through deposition of PW15 that, as per the Head Office Guideline as laid down in Circular no.191/96 dated 06.11.1996 Ex.PW.15/A45 the branch manager is required to physically inspect the property offered by the borrower, as collateral security. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is incorrect. There was no requirement to physically inspect the property offered by the borrower as collateral security by the Branch Head of the said branch, since it was an exceptionally large branch and was governed by a different set of instructions. Que. No.49 : It has come in evidence against you through deposition of PW15 that,as per credit management selected guidelines Ex.PW.15/A48, no frequent enhancement should be considered without proper justification, regard is to be given to the past performance of the exporter but in this case, it was done by you accused H.Surendra Shetty, and other co accused K.Vasanth Kumar Shetty, H.Balakrishna Shetty, and A.Maillappa Rai without physical inspection of plot and releases were made despite the fact that 8 bills were unpaid, details of which is Ex.PW.15/A49. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is incorrect. Que. No.50 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW15 that your coaccused R.K.Bhatia had submitted bills Ex.PW.15/A51 with the bank and a letter dated 11.02.1998 Ex.PW.15/A50 was received from Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank by Vijaya Bank whereby they were informed about return of unpaid bills. What you have to say? Ans.: At the material time I stood relieved from the relevant branch w.e.f. 02.08.1997. Subsequently, the money was received by the bank from the foreign buyer.
Que. No.51 : It has come in evidence against you through deposition of PW15 that, your coaccused R.K.Bhatia had submitted bills Ex.PW.15/A58, Ex.PW.15/A60 and Ex.PW. 15/A63, Ex.PW.15/A65, Ex.PW.15/A67 and Ex.PW.15/A69 which were accepted by foreign buyers vide Ex.PW.15/A59, Ex.PW.15/A61, Ex.PW.15/A62, Ex.PW.15/A64, Ex.PW.15/A66, Ex.PW.15/A68, but all were return unpaid and were intimated so to Vijaya Bank vide letter Ex.PW.15/A50. What you have to say?
Ans.: At the material time I stood relieved from the relevant branch w.e.f. 02.08.1997. Subsequently, the money was received by the bank from the foreign buyer.
Que. No.52 : It has come in evidence against you through deposition of PW15 that, your coaccused R.K.Bhatia had made huge cash withdrawals from the said Packing Credit Loan Account of M/s USR Exports and the same were permitted by you accused H.Surendra Shetty, and other co accused K.Vasanth Kumar Shetty, H.Balakrishna Shetty and A.Maillappa Rai against Packing Credit Loan Releases. What you have to say?
Ans.: Since R.K.Bhatia had represented himself as a trader purchasing merchandise from the market, he could be permitted to make occasional cash withdrawals for procurement of goods. Que. No.53 : It has come in evidence against you through deposition of PW33 Sh.Rajiv Shetty (Retired) A.G.M of Vijaya Bank, that when the credit facility extended to M/s USR Exports became irregular, Sh.Vipin Kumar, Manager (Credit) PW3, was deputed to physically verify the property offered by your coaccused R.K.Bhatia and your coaccused Jiya Lal impersonating as Ram Narayan as collateral security and the said officer gave his report Ex.PW.3/1 that no such property existed. What you have to say?
Ans.: By that time I stood relieved from that relevant branch. The report is a matter of record.
Que. No.54 : It has come in evidence against you through deposition of PW33 that subsequently the bank entrusted the empanelled lawyer Sh.Rajesh Rattan PW12, to submit his report regarding collateral security, who submitted his report Ex.PW.12/B stating that Ram Narayan is not the owner of said property and in fact, no property is in existence. He gave his report on the basis of local inspection and inspection of records of subregistrar's office vide receipt Ex.PW.12/A. What you have to say?
Ans.: By that time I stood relieved from that relevant branch. The report is a matter of record.
Que. No.55 : It has come in evidence against you through deposition of PW33 that the loan file pertaining to firm of your coaccused R.K.Bhatia ie. M/s USR Exports is Ex.PW. 33/A, the application for loan is Ex.PW.33/B (earlier exhibited as Ex.PW.15/A), process note is Ex.PW.33/C (earlier exhibited as Ex.PW.15/A9) and the certificate of loan paper obtained in compliance of the sanction terms bearing signatures of your coaccused H.Balakrishna Shetty is Ex.PW.33/D. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is a matter of record. Que. No.56 : It has come in evidence against you that the
valuation report submitted by your coaccused Vijender Kumar dated 02.01.1997 Ex.PW.32/G29, is also part of the loan file Ex.PW.33/A. It has further come in evidence against you that your coaccused Vijender Kumar was given a notice by PW33 Rajeev Shetty on 15.12.1998 Ex.PW.33/G for his remarks when the bank came to know of the fact that no such property is in existence. What you have to say?
Ans.: I stood relieved from the said branch at the material time. The report is a matter of record.
Que. No.57 : It has come in evidence against you that PW33 Rajeev Shetty then reported the matter to Chief Vigilance Officer of the bank vide his report dated 02.02.1998, which is Ex.PW.33/F. What you have to say?
Ans.: By that time I stood relieved from that relevant branch. The report is a matter of record.
Que. No.58 : It has come in evidence against you through the deposition of PW16 Ravi Joshi, Manager, Vijaya Bank that "XOS" is the statement of "overdue export bills" for which payment is not received from the parties, and the said statement is reported to RBI. It has further come in evidence against you that, in case of firm of your coaccused M/s USR Exports also, it was reported to RBI and RBI through letters dated 10.08.2000 Ex.PW.16/1 and Ex.PW.16/2 reported it to CBI. What you have to say?
Ans.: By that time I stood relieved from that relevant branch. The report is a matter of record.
Que. No.59 : It has come in evidence against you that Sh.B.R.Chandrashekar, General Manager cum Chief Vigilance Officer of Vijaya Bank, then lodged the complaint Ex.PW.14/A with CBI on the basis of which FIR bearing no.RC3(E)/99 EOWII/DLI dated 17.12.1999 Ex.PW.39/A was registered and was entrusted for investigations to Inspector S.S.Atwal. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is a matter of record. Que. No.60 : It has come in evidence against you that IO
Inspector S.S.Atwal, then took into possession the relevant documents from Vijaya Bank vide seizure memo dated 21.12.1999, 22.12.1999 and 14.06.2000 from PW38 G.K.Bhatt, the then Senior Manager vide Ex.PW.38/A, Ex.PW.38/B and Ex.PW. 38/C respectively, which included the file pertaining to credit facilities extended to the firm of your coaccused R.K.Bhatia ie. M/s USR Exports Ex.PW.33/A including the loan application Ex.PW.33/B, Process Note Ex.PW.33/C and application for enhancement of limit Ex.PW.33/D. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is a matter of record. Que. No.61 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW38 Sh.G.K.Bhatt that the file Ex.PW.33/A also contain the report of your coaccused Vijender Kumar regarding valuation of property at plot no.25, Khasra 634, Mohalla Dillai, Abadi Shiv Nagar, Shahadara Ex.PW.32/G29. Further, the file contains the Legal Report Ex.PW.12/B submitted by panel lawyer Sh.Rajesh Rattan, along with the inspection receipt Ex.PW.12/A of the office of Subregistrar, submitted along with the legal report. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is a matter of record. Que. No.62 : It has come in evidence against you that
PW38 Sh.G.K.Bhatt, had handed over certified copy of Packing Credit Loan Register of the firm of your coaccused R.K.Bhatia ie. M/s USR Exports Ex.PW.38/D, Certified copy of Letter of Credit Register Mark Y, Certified copy of Bill Liability Register Ex.PW.38/E, Certified copy of Liability Register of Letter of Credit Ex.PW.38/F, Certified copy of Bill Liability Register (Inland Advance Bills) under Letter of Credit Ex.PW.38/G and Certified copy of packing credit liability register Ex.PW.38/H, to IO Inspector S.S.Atwal. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is a matter of record. Que. No.63 : It has come in evidence against you that on
inquiry by the IO, regarding duties of various officers of the bank along with their period of posting, reply dated 11.10.2000 Ex.PW.38/I was submitted to CBI by the bank, under signatures of PW33 Rajeev Shetty. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is a matter of record. Que No.64 : It has come in evidence against you that IO
had taken certain other documents in possession from Vijaya Bank vide seizure memo dated 17.08.2000 Ex. PW39/B, seizure memo dated 25.01.2000, Ex. PW39/C, seizure memo dated 08.02.2000 Ex. PW39/D, seizure memo dated 30.10.2000 Ex. PW39/E. Besides which he took into possession certain documents from office of your coaccused R.K.Bhatia i.e. of M/s U.S.R. Exports vide seizure memo dated 14.02.2000 Ex. PW37/A. What you have to say ?
Ans. : It is a matter of record. Que No.65 : It has come in evidence against you that IO
during the course of investigations had taken into possession documents from M/s Om Goods Carrier vide seizure memo dated 30.06.2000 Ex. PW39/F, from Sh. Rakesh Yadav, Airport Manager vide seizure memo dated 31.08.2000 Ex. PW39/G, Sh.D.N.Bhatt vide seizure memo dated 29.08.2000 Ex. PW39/H, Prakash Chand Daftari of Vijaya Bank vide seizure memo dated 07.12.2000 Ex. PW39/I, Sh. Surinder Manuja vide seizure memo dated 05.02.2001 Ex. PW39/J, Sh. Sudhakar Shetty PW15 vide seizure memo dated 21.08.2000 Ex. PW15/A47 and B.M.Appanna vide seizure memo dated 30.10.2000 Ex. PW39/K. What you have to say ?
Ans. : It is a matter of record. Que No.66 : It has come in evidence against you that IO
made inquiries about the house fax receipt Ex. PW1/1 submitted by your coaccused Jiya Lal with the bank while impersonating as Ram Narayan pertaining to property situated in Khasra No. 634, Shiv Nagar, Shahdara and got a letter Ex. PW39/L dated 02.05.2000 from Sh.P.K.Gupta, Controller Printing and Stationary, MCD stating that the said receipt is fake and false. What you have to say ? Ans. : It is a matter of record. I myself never had any occasion to examine or scrutinize these documents. Que No.67 : It has come in evidence against you that IO also made inquiries about receipt Ex. PW1/1 from MCD Shahdara North and Shahdara South. PW7 Hakim Rai Arora working as Superintendent in House Tax Department of MCD Shahdara North deposed that pursuant to receipt of letter Ex. PW7/1 from CBI, they replied vide reply Ex. PW7/2 and stated that Ex. PW1/1 was never issued from their office as they issue receipt giving specific number of property and are not issuing against Khasra number. Further the receipt number used to be printed by machine which is not so in Ex. PW1/1. What you have to say ?
Ans. : It is a matter of record. I myself never had any occasion to examine or scrutinize these documents. Que No.68 : It has come in evidence against you that PW1 Sh.O.P.Mahajan, Dy. Assessor and Collector, MCD, Shahdara South Zone during the course of his deposition had deposed that they used to issue receipt against specific property number and ledger folio number but it is not so in Ex. PW1/1. PW1 further deposed that receipt number is always printed on the receipt and is never written in hand, therefore, the receipt Ex. PW1/1 is a forged receipt for which they had informed CBI pursuant to the query which they had received vide their reply Ex. PW1/2. What you have to say ? Ans. : It is a matter of record. I myself never had any occasion to examine or scrutinize these documents. Que No.69 : It has come in evidence against you through the deposition of PW4 Anil Kumar Patwari that pursuant to receipt of letter dated 20.04.2000 from CBI Ex. PW4/3, he had prepared a report Ex. PW4/2 on the basis of official records stating that Khasra no. 634 of Village Chandrawali was divided in the year 1960 under mutation no. 3920 and as per mutation and Khasra Girdawari Ex. PW4/4 names of neither Charan Dass nor Ram Narayan finds mention in the same and this report was forwarded to CBI by the then SDM vide his letter Ex. PW4/1. What you have to say ?
Ans. : It is a matter of record. Que No.70 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW5 Sh. Satnam Singh, the President of BJP Shahdara that no person by the name of Ram Narayan S/o Raj Narayan lives in old Tejab Mill, Shahdara nor there is any mention of such name in the electoral roll Ex. PW5/1. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I do not know. Que No.71 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW6 Tilak Kheda who is running a shop in the locality of Old Tejab Mill, Shahdara under the name of M/s Jai Mata Soap that no person by the name of Ram Narayan S/o Raj Narayan ever resided in the area of Old Tejab Mill, Shahdara. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I do not know. Que No.72 : It has come in evidence against you that
through deposition of PW13 Shatrughan Poddar that a sale deed dated 28.01.1966 was executed by one Charan Dass in favour of Ram Narayan R/o Old Tejab Mill, Shahdara with respect to plot no. 25, measuring 100 sq.yards out of Khasra no. 634, Village Dillai, Abadi Shiv Nagar, Shahdara, copy of which is Ex. PW13/B and copy of its entry in the records of SubRegistrar is Ex. PW13/A. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I do not know. Que No.73 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW26 Bulak Raj that the sale deed Ex. PW26/A with respect to plot no. 25, Khasra 634 was signed by him as a witness at instance of one Charan Dass, at his shop itself and he had not gone to the office of Sub Registrar for the same. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I do not know. Que No.74 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW23 Ashwani Sharma that property bearing no. 45/2, Azad Nagar, Krishna Nagar was owned by his father in law Ram Nath Sharma after having purchased it from Sunny Kalra vide Power of Attorney dated 21.01.1998 Ex. PW23/A, Agreement to Sell dated 24.01.1998 Ex. PW23/B, Will dated 24.01.1998 Ex. PW23/C and receipt dated 24.01.1998 Ex. PW23/D, irrevocable General Power of Attorney dated 21.01.1998 Ex. PW23/E. These documents were executed by Sunny Kalra on the basis of agreement dated 07.04.1993 Ex. PW23/F executed in his favour by the previous owner. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I do not know. Que No.75 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW24 Jagmohan Aggarwal that property no. A45/2, East Azad Nagar, Shahadara was purchased by him and his brothers Anil and Sanjay alongwith their mother Smt. Ram Murti vide sale deeds Ex. PW24/A, Ex. PW24/B & Ex. PW24/C all dated 11.10.1993 executed by one Desh Raj as attorney of Abid Ali in their favour. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I do not know. Que No.76 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW2 Harbans Lal Sethi that property no. E7/A10, Krishna Nagar is a three storied building occupied by him and his brothers and is owned by his mother and that they never got this property valued from anyone at any point of time. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I do not know. Que No.77 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW36 Amit Talwar that he is residing in property no. E7/A10 known as Sethi Building, Krishna Nagar which was owned by his maternal grandfather and they never got this property valued at any point of time. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I do not know. Que No.78 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW25 Desh Raj that he is running a tent house by the name of M/s Khurana Tent House from a shop E7/A10, Sethi Building, Krishna Nagar. He deposed that this building belong to one Vidya Prakash Sethi and his son Harbans is looking after this property and no person by the name of Ram Narayan ever resided in this building. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I do not know. Que No.79 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW11 Sh. R.P.Gupta, the notary public that the signatures on encircled portion 'A' on affidavit Ex. PA of one Ram Narayan, are not his signatures as he had not attested this affidavit and that his specimen signatures Ex. PW11/A1 to A9 were obtained by CBI. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I do not know. Que No.80 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW8 Sh. Ravinder Bhatia, G.M., Canara Bank and PW9 Kalyan Singh, Manager, SBI, that both of them joined investigations with CBI on 30.05.2002 and on that day specimen signatures and handwriting of your coaccused Jiya Lal were taken on 30 sheets as Ex. PW8/1 to Ex. PW8/30 and specimen signatures of your coaccused R.K.Bhatia and handwriting was taken on 49 sheets Ex. PW8/31 to Ex. PW8/79. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I do not know. Que No.81 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW17 S.A.Bambari working with Bank of Baroda that, he joined investigations with Investigating Officer Inspector S.S.Atwal on 10.03.2000 and Investigating Officer in his presence had obtained specimen signatures of your coaccused Vijender Kumar on 7 sheets as Ex. PW17/1 to Ex. PW17/7. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I do not know. Que No.82 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW18 Sh. H.K.Srivastava working with Bank of Baroda that he had joined investigations with IO Inspector S.S.Atwal and in his presence IO had obtained specimen signatures of D.N.Goel Ex. PW18/1 to Ex. PW18/11 and that of your coaccused Jiya Lal as 'Ram Narayan' on Ex. PW18/12 to Ex. PW18/27. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I do not know. Que No.83 : It has come in evidence against you that IO
Inspector S.S.Atwal had also joined PW34 K.K.Khanna, Dy. Manager, SBI during investigations and specimen signatures of your coaccused Jiya Lal Ex. PW18/12 to Ex. PW18/27 were obtained in presence of PW34 and PW18. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I do not know. Que No.84 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW19 Sh. D.N.Bhatt and PW40 L.S.Rawat that they were working as Cargo Clearing Agents under the name of M/s Rawat Air Linkers and were functioning on the basis of authorization of M/s P.D. Eshwaran who was "Licensed Custom Clearing Agent" and on the basis of same PW40 used to get the custom clearance for the customers through his employee PW19 D.N.Bhatt for which they use to get commission from the airlines through which they used to send the consignment. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I do not know. Que No.85 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW19 & PW40 that vide G.R. Form Ex. PW19/1, Ex. PW19/2 both dated 23.05.1997, Ex. PW19/3, Ex. PW19/4 both dated 21.05.1997, Ex. PW19/5 dated 28.05.1997, Ex. PW19/6 dated 30.05.1997, Ex. PW19/7 dated 28.05.1997, Ex. PW19/8 dated 24.05.1997, Ex. PW19/9 dated 23.05.1997 and Ex. PW19/11 dated 24.05.1997 goods of the firm of your coaccused R.K.Bhatia ie. M/s USR Exports, were sent to Ms/ V.K.International and the destination was Moscow, whereas as per G.R.Form Ex. PW19/10 dated 26.05.1997, goods of the firm of your coaccused R.K.Bhatia ie. M/s USR Exports, were sent to M/s Turgeneva Cristina and destination was Tashkent, Uzbekistan and their corresponding shipping bills are Mark X to X6. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I do not know. Q.86 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW22 Leonard D'Souza working as Accountant with GSA of Uzbekistan Airways that the firm of your co accused ie. M/s USR Exports had exported the consignment vide bill dated 26.05.1997 to Turgeneva Kristina Tashkent, Uzbekistan which is Ex. PW22/1, G.R. Form Ex. PW22/2 and shipping bill Ex. PW22/3. What you have to say ?
Ans. : It is a matter of record.
Que No.87 : It has come in evidence against you through deposition of PW10 Nand Kishore Gupta, Partner of M/s Union Roadways Corporation that he is in the business of transport and is transporting goods to various places and their firm is approved by Indian Banks Association and as such the employees of the bank can get reimbursement against the receipt issued by their firm for the goods booked with them for transportation. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I do not know. Que No.88 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW10 Nand Kishore Gupta that consignment note bearing no. 3919 dated 28.05.1997 for Rs.16,225/ and consignment note bearing no. 3920 dated 29.05.1997 for Rs. 28,425/ and corresponding cash receipts no. 7234 dated 28.05.1997 and 7235 dated 29.05.1997 Ex. PW10/1 to Ex. PW10/4 respectively were issued by his firm on his instructions at request of your coaccused A.M.Rai, whereas no goods were in fact, transported vide these consignment notes and no payment was received by PW10 from your coaccused A.M.Rai against the cash receipts Ex. PW10/3 and Ex. PW10/4. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I do not know. Que No.89 : It has come in evidence against you that
consignment note Ex. PW10/1 was prepared by PW30 Mohnan, an employee of PW10 at his instructions, whereas Ex. PW10/2 was prepared by PW35 Suresh Kumar, another employee of PW10 at his instructions and cash receipt Ex. PW10/3 and Ex. PW10/4 were also prepared by Suresh Kumar PW35 on instructions of PW10 Nand Kishore and after preparation, the same were handed over to PW10 from whom the same were collected by your coaccused R.K.Bhatia. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I do not know. Que No.90 : It has come in evidence against you that the
photocopies of Ex. PW10/1 to Ex. PW10/4 are Ex. PW30/A to Ex. PW30/D which as per deposition of PW30 and PW35 were issued by them on instructions of their employer mentioning date of 28.05.1997 and 29.05.1997 after the issuance of consignment notes Ex. PW10/5 and Ex. PW10/6 dated 06.06.1997 and 11.06.1997 & corresponding cash receipts Ex. PW10/7 and Ex. PW10/8 and that vide consignment notes Ex. PW10/1 and Ex. PW10/2 no goods were transported and against cash receipts Ex. PW10/3 and Ex. PW10/4 no amount was received by PW10 from your coaccused R.K.Bhatia or from your coaccused A.M.Rai. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I do not know. Que No.91 : It has come in evidence against you that IO
Inspector S.S.Atwal had taken those documents of M/s Union Roadways Corporation in possession from PW10 vide seizure memo dated 12.06.2000 Ex. PW10/9. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I do not know. Que No.92 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW37 Ripu Daman Sehgal that he had been working as accountant with the firm of your co accused R.K.Bhatia and IO Inspector S.S.Atwal had taken into possession certain documents from your office vide seizure memo Ex. PW37/A, which includes document Ex. PW30/A receipt of M/s Blue Dart Ex. PW37/B and a file Ex. PW37/C and another file Ex. PW37/E. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I do not know. Que No.93 : It has come in evidence against your co
accused R.K.Bhatia that PW37 his employee had identified his signatures on Ex. PW32/G13, Ex. PW15/A, Ex. PW21/2, Ex. PW15/A4 as well as on Ex. PW37/D1 to Ex. PW37/D9. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I do not know. Que No.94 : It has come in evidence against your co
accused R.K.Bhatia that PW37 his employee had further identified his signatures on Ex. PW15/A30, Ex. PW32/G20, Ex. PW15/A27, Ex. PW32/G24, Ex. PW32/G25, Ex. PW15/A10, Ex. PW15/A11, Ex. PW15/A12 to Ex. PW15/A21. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I do not know. Que No.95 : It has come in evidence against your co
accused R.K.Bhatia that his employee PW37 had further identified his signatures on Ex. PW32/G1, Ex. PW32/G21, Ex. PW37/D10, Ex. PW37/D11, Ex. PW37/D12, Ex. PW37/D13, Ex. PW32/F95, Ex. PW32/G28 to Ex. PW15/A40 and Ex. PW15/A41. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I do not know. Que No.96 : It has come in evidence against your co
accused R.K.Bhatia that his employee PW37 did identified his signatures on cheques Ex. PW32/F36, Ex. PW32/F52, Ex. PW32/F64, Ex. PW32/F79, Ex. PW32/F84, Ex. PW32/F85, Ex. PW32/F86, Ex. PW32/F48, Ex. PW32/F53, Ex. PW32/F54, Ex. PW32/F60 and Ex. PW32/A94. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I do not know. Que No.97 : It has come in evidence against you that IO
Inspector S.S.Atwal thereafter had sent the specimen signatures of your coaccused R.K.Bhatia and you accused Jiya Lal and coaccused Vijender Kumar and also that of R.P.Gupta and D.N.Goel alongwith the questioned documents to GEQD for expert opinion. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I do not know. Que No.98 : It has come in evidence against you that
pursuant to receipt of questioned, admitted and specimen signatures submitted by S.P., CBI, EOUII vide Memo dated
29.06.2000, the documents were examined by Sh.V.K.Khanna, Principal Scientific Officer with the help of Scientific aid who gave his report dated 27.12.2000 Ex. PW32/A and Ex. PW32/B. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I do not know.
Que No.99 : It has come in evidence against you that IO Inspector S.S.Atwal collected details of the bills purchased by the bank vide letter Ex.PW.39/M and further IO was informed about structure of Vijaya Bank along with details of the officers posted as various levels in different categories of branches vide letter Ex.PW.15/A46 and had also collected various circulars issued by Vijaya Bank from time to time for working of its officers vide letter Ex.PW.39/N. What you have to say?
Ans.: I do not know. Que No.100 : It has come in evidence against you that IO
Inspector S.S.Atwal recorded statement of witnesses, collected documents including expert opinion Ex. PW32/A and Ex. PW32/B and thereafter he had approached the competent authorities for getting the necessary sanction for prosecution against you accused H.Surendra Shetty and other co accused H.Balakrishna Shetty, K.Vasanth Kumar Shetty and A.M.Rai. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I do not know. Que No.101 : It has come in evidence against your co
accused Vasanth Kumar Shetty through deposition of PW28 Sh. K.Amarnath Shetty, G.M. (Personal) of Vijaya Bank that, he being competent authority to remove your coaccused K.Vasanth Kumar Shetty from the services, after going through the report submitted by CBI including statement of witnesses and documents collected satisfied himself and then passed the sanction order Ex. PW28/A granting sanction for prosecution of your coaccused. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I do not know. Que No.102 : It has come in evidence against your co
accused H.Balakrishna Shetty and A.M.Rai through deposition of PW29 Sh.K.Jayakar Shetty, Deputy G.M (Personnel), Vijaya Bank, being competent authority to remove them from the services, after going through the report submitted before him by CBI including the statement of witnesses coupled with the documents satisfied himself that material is sufficient for grant of sanction for prosecution against both your coaccused, passed the sanction order dated 01.09.2001 Ex. PW29/A against your co accused H.Balakrishna Shetty and sanction order dated 10.09.2001 Ex. PW29/B against your coaccused A.M.Rai. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I do not know. However, no valid sanction has been accorded to my prosecution.
Que No.103 : It has come in evidence against you accused H.Surendra Shetty through the deposition of PW31 Sh.Miachel Bastian posted as Executive Director of Vijaya Bank, being the competent authority to remove you from the services, after going through the report received from CBI including the documentary evidence collected and statement of witnesses recorded satisfied himself that the same is sufficient for grant of sanction for your prosecution and accordingly passed the sanction order Ex. PW31/A. What you have to say ?
Ans. : It is incorrect. The sanction for my prosecution is invalid and a nullity in the eyes of law.
Que No.104 : It has come in evidence against you that IO Inspector S.S.Atwal on conclusion of investigations and after getting the necessary sanction orders from the competent authorities had filed the present charge sheet for your trial. What you have to say ?
Ans. : It is a matter of record. Que No.105 : Why this case against you ? Ans. : It is an unjustified and false case. Que No.106 : Why PW's have deposed against you ? Ans. : They have incorrectly and falsely deposed against me under the pressure of CBI. Que No.107 : Do you want to say anything else ? Ans. : Yes, I am innocent. I have not committed any
offence either individually, or inconjunction with any other accused persons. I have not been in conspiracy with any other accused. I have taken all decisions in relation to the banking transactions related to the above titled case, in accordance with the instructions and guidelines issued by the Head Office of the Bank and the RBI from time to time, and have kept in mind the prudential banking norms at all stages. I have discharged my duties honestly and with integrity at all times, and immediately after the conclusion of the transactions in relation to the above said case, my efforts were appreciated and I earned the promotion to the postof Dy. General Manager, as Regional Head, Bangalore, which is a very prestigious assignment.
I further add that the account of M/s USR Exports has been settled under the one time settlement scheme of the bank after the creditor party deposited a sum of Rs.44,12,536/ with the bank vide letter no. CV/RR/SS/G681 dated 30.06.2012, signed by General Manager (Credit RR) Head Office, Bangalore, Vijaya Bank. Que No.108 : Do you want to lead evidence in your defence ?
Ans. : Yes.
RO & AC {KANWAL JEET ARORA} SPECIAL JUDGE : CBI (P.C.ACT) DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
29.01.2013 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx IN THE COURT OF SH.KANWAL JEET ARORA:
SPECIAL JUDGE, CBI (P.C.ACT), DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
Case No.: R.C3(E)/99/EOWII/ DLI dated 17.12.1999 U/s : 120 B r/w section 419, 420, 467 & 471 IPC r/w section 13(2) read with section 13(1) (d) of P.C.Act, 1988.
In the matter of: CBI v/s Rakesh Kumar Bhatia & Ors.
C.C. No. 44 / 2011.
Statement of accused K.VASANTH KUMAR SHETTY, S/o: Late Shri Krishna Shetty K., R/o: Vaishnavi No.1304, Gowri Apartments, New Bel Road, Ramakrishna Garden, Bangalore. {Earlier working as Chief Manager, Vijaya Bank, Barakhamba Road Branch, New Delhi.} Statement under section 313 Cr.P.C.
{Without oath} Que. No.1: It has come in evidence against you that your coaccused, Rakesh Kumar Bhatia, was a businessman, running his business as sole proprietor of M/s USR Exports Delhi and you accused K.Vasanth Kumar Shetty was posted as Chief Manager and your coaccused A.M.Rai was posted as Manager, FED Vijaya Bank, H.Surendra Shetty as Assistant General Manager, Vijaya Bank, H.Balakrishna Shetty as Senior Manager Incharge, FED, Vijaya Bank, whereas co accused Vijender Kumar was on the Panel on Vijaya Bank as Valuer. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is correct. Que. No.2 : It has come in evidence against you that
your coaccused R.K.Bhatia, on 24.11.1996 had submitted an application Ex.PW.15/A, Ex.PW.33/B with Vijaya Bank, seeking various credit facilities for the purposes of export of readymade garments. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is a matter of record. Que. No.3 : It has come in evidence against you that
your coaccused R.K.Bhatia, in support of his application Ex.PW.15/A, had produced coaccused Jiya Lal as his guarantor and he impersonated as one "Ram Narayan" and claimed himself to be the owner of property measuring 100 square yards bearing plot no.25, Mohalla Dillai, Abadi Shiv Nagar, Shahadara, having acquired by virtue of a Sale Deed dated 28.01.1966 executed in his favor by one Charan Dass. What you have to say?
Ans.: I was not aware and could not have discovered that accused Jiya Lal was impersonating as Ram Narayan. Que. No.4 : It has come in evidence against you that your coaccused Jiya Lal, impersonated himself as Ram Narayan, in support of the claim as owner of said property which he offered as collateral security to the application of your coaccused R.K.Bhatia Ex.PW.15/A, produced a receipt of house tax Ex.PW.1/1, purporting to be issued by MCD. Besides which your coaccused Jiya Lal had submitted an affidavit and indemnity bond executed by him as Ram Narayan, in support of guarantee to the credit facility in favor of your co accused R.K.Bhatia. What you have to say?
Ans.: I was not aware and could not have discovered that accused Jiya Lal was impersonating as Ram Narayan. As regards the above said document it was not the part of my duties to examine or scrutinize.
Que. No.5 : It has come in evidence against you that your coaccused R.K.Bhatia in support of his application Ex.PW.15/A had filed balance sheets of the previous years ending on 31.03.1995, 31.03.1996 and also the proposed / projected balance sheets for the year ending 31.03.1997 and 31.03.1998, statement of assets and liabilities as well as statement of your coaccused Jiya Lal impersonating as guarantor Ram Narayan Ex.PW.15/A1 to Ex.PW.15/A6. What you have to say?
Ans.: I did not know that accused Jiya Lal was impersonating as Ram Narayan. As regards the above said documents it was not a part of my duties to have examined or scrutinized the same because these documents were to be examined and scrutinized by the concerned section / loan section of the bank. Que. No.6 : It has come in evidence against you through deposition of PW21 Sh.S.B.Shori, Chartered Accountant of M/s USR Exports that he had prepared Ex.PW.15/A1 to Ex.PW. 15/A4 and issued certificate Ex.PW.21/1 and raised bills dated 25.11.1996 Ex.PW.21/3, bill dated 24.10.1996 Ex.PW.21/4, bill dated 25.11.1996 Ex.PW.21/5 and bill dated 16.10.1996 Ex.PW. 21/6 and received payments against them from your co accused Rakesh Kumar Bhatia, being proprietor of M/s USR Exports. What you have to say?
Ans.: As regards the above said documents it was not a part of my duties to have examined or scrutinized the same. It was for the officials in the loan section to have examined and scrutinized these. Que. No.7 : It has come in evidence against you that on the basis of figures shown by your coaccused R.K.Bhatia in the previous and proposed / projected balance sheets so submitted with the bank, your coaccused A.M.Rai, Manager FED, without seeking any explanation or proof with respect to the figures, processed the same vide process note dated 22.01.1997 Ex.PW.15/A9 and recommended it to other co accused H.Balakrishna Shetty, the then Senior Manager, who forwarded it to you accused Vasantha Kumar Shetty, the then Chief Manager. What you have to say?
Ans.: The note sent by Mr.A.M.Rai is a matter of record, and only he can answer a question regarding that. Further, my comment on the said note may be read, by which I stated that the process note may be put up before the AGM, being the branch head. Subsequently, the then AGM has returned the process note to me with the observation that the limits sought are coming under the revised delegation of landing power of the Chief Manager as per the Circular no. 17/97, and he may take suitable steps. I had made certain relevant observation to protect the interest of the bank in the said document which may be taken into account.
Que. No.8 : It has come in evidence against you that you accused Vasantha Kumar Shetty, the then Chief Manager, submitted the said application of M/s USR Exports to your co accused H.Surendra Shetty, Additional General Manager of Vijaya Bank, who sent the same back to you as the decision on said application was within your financial powers, as per circular issued by Vijaya Bank. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is correct. Que.No.9 : It has come in evidence against you that
before taking action on the said application Ex.PW.15/A, bank had obtained legal opinion as well as valuation with respect to the property offered as 'collateral security' from the panel Advocate Sh.K.K.Khurana and the approved valuer on the panel of the bank, ie. coaccused Vijender Kumar. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is correct. The bank was required to take into account the reports of its Approved Legal Advisor and Approved Valuer. Que No.10 : It has come in evidence against you that Sh.K.K.Khurana, Panel Lawyer of Vijaya Bank, submitted legal scrutiny report dated 17.12.1996 Ex.PW.15/A70 and Ex.PW.15/DA1, pertaining to the said property and also submitted the "Nil Encumbrances Certificate" Ex.PW.20/A on the basis of Sale Deed registered with the office of Sub Registrar dated 28.01.1966, without physically verifying the property. What you have to say?
Ans.: The report of the said Advocate is a matter of record. It never came to my knowledge nor could I have discovered despite due diligence that the said report by the said Advocate had been submitted by him without physically verifying the property. It was not a part of my duty to have myself physically verified the relevant property. In this connection Chairman's Circular No. 5/93 dated 22.04.1993 may be perused.
Que. No.11 : It has come in evidence against you that your coaccused Vijender Kumar, the approved valuer on the panel of Vijaya Bank was asked to submit the valuation report with respect to the property ie. Plot No.25, Mohalla Dillai, Abadi Shiv Nagar, Shahadara, purported to be in the name of one Ram Narayan. What you have to say? Ans.: It is a matter of record. However, it was not the part of my duties to have scrutinized the said report. Que. No.12 : It has come in evidence against you that your coaccused Vijender Kumar had submitted his valuation report dated 02.01.1997 Ex.PW.32/G29, valuing a nonexistent property of Rs.42,63,500/.What you have to say? Ans.: I do not know. It was not a part of my duties to have scrutinized the said valuation report. It never came to my knowledge during the relevant period that the said report was defective in any manner.
Que. No.13 : It has come in evidence against you that your coaccused Vijender Kumar infact had valued property bearing no.E7/A10, Krishna Nagar, which infact belonged to one Harbans Lal Sethi and wrongly shown in his report to be the value of Plot No.25, Mohalla Dillai, Abadi Shiv Nagar, Shahadara. What you have to say?
Ans.: I do not know. It was not a part of my duties to have scrutinized the said valuation report. It never came to my knowledge during the relevant period that the said report was defective due to the above said reason.
Que. No.14 : It has come in evidence against you that your coaccused A.Maillappa Rai, merely on the basis of valuation report dated 02.01.1997 of coaccused Vijender Kumar and legal scrutiny report Ex.PW.15/A70 recommended and forwarded the application Ex.PW.15/A to coaccused H.Balakrishna Shetty, Sr.Manager, who forwarded it to you accused K.Vasanth Kumar Shetty and you sanctioned the same vide sanction order dated 26.03.1997 whereby packing credit limit to the tune of Rs.15 lakhs FDBP/FUDBP to the tune of Rs.20 lakhs and FLC / ILC to the tune of Rs.10 lakhs was sanctioned. What you have to say?
Ans.: I sanctioned the credit limits sought subject to certain conditions to be fulfilled before release of the credit facilities. These conditions were indicated by me on the relevant process note. Que. No.15 : It has come in evidence against you that your coaccused A.Maillappa Rai, H.Balakrishna Shetty and you accused K.Vasanth Kumar Shetty, had sanctioned the loan / credit facilities in favor of M/s USR Exports in disregard to Circular Bearing No.191/96 dated 06.11.1996 of Vijaya Bank Ex.PW.15/A45 and failed to physically verify the property offered as collateral security. What you have to say? Ans.: It is incorrect that any of the said bank officials disregarded the instructions in the said circular. In fact, by way of abundant caution, the branch had taken collateral security while granting financial accommodation towards export credit, whereas under the instructions contained in the said circular, the branch was not required to do so. In this regard, HO Circular No. 71/00 dated 28.03.2000 may be perused.
Que. No.16 : It has come in evidence against you that after the sanction of credit limits by the bank, your co accused Rakesh Kumar Bhatia, had executed the loan documents in favor of the bank which are Ex.PW.15/A10 to Ex.PW.15/A13, which were signed by him. Besides that, your coaccused R.K.Bhatia had also executed the documents for packing credit limits dated 26.03.1997 Ex.PW.15/A14 to Ex.PW. 15/A21, which were signed by him as well as your coaccused Jiya Lal, impersonating as Ram Narayan, the guarantor. What you have to say?
Ans.: The above said documents were signed by R.K.Bhatia at the relevant departments, and not before me. I was not aware that Jiya Lal was impersonating as Ram Narayan.
Que. No.17 : It has come in evidence against you that your coaccused Rakesh Kumar Bhatia, along with your coaccused Jiya Lal, impersonating as Ram Narayan, the guarantor had executed, delivery note Ex.PW.15/A10, Demand Promissory Note Ex.PW.15/A11, Repayment Letter Document Ex.PW.15/A12, Letter of Hypothecation Ex.PW.15/A13, Take Delivery Note Ex.PW.15/A14, D.P.Note E.xPW.15/A15, Repayment letter document Ex.PW.15/A16, Packing Credit Agreement Ex.PW.15/A17, Hypothecation of goods Ex.PW. 15/A19, Letter of proprietorship Ex.PW.15/A20, Authorization Letter Ex.PW.15/A21, Letter of Guarantee Ex.PW.32/C1 to Ex.PW.32/C6, all dated 26.03.1997, in favor of Vijaya Bank. What you have to say?
Ans.: The above said documents were signed by R.K.Bhatia at the relevant departments, and not before me. I was not aware that Jiya Lal was impersonating as Ram Narayan.
Que. No.18 : It has come in evidence against you that the property purportedly belonging to Ram Narayan which was offered by your coaccused Jiyal Lal as "collateral security"
finds mentioned on process note Ex.PW.15/A9 and was mortgaged by your coaccused R.K.Bhatia with the bank on 04.01.1997 by deposit of the title deeds. What you have to say? Ans.: I was not aware that Jiya Lal was impersonating as Ram Narayan. The title deeds must have been deposited before the relevant department of the bank.
Que. No.19 : It has come in evidence against you that your coaccused Rakesh Kumar Bhatia, then submitted a request letter dated 21.05.1997 Ex.PW.33/D, Ex.PW.15/A22 with the bank for enhancing the credit facilities already sanctioned on 26.03.1997. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is correct. Que. No.20 : It has come in evidence against you that you
that the said application of your coaccused R.K.Bhatia Ex.PW.15/A22 was processed by your coaccused A.Maillappa Rai, who forwarded it to coaccused H.Balakrishna Shetty, who recommended and forwarded it to you accused K.Vasanth Kumar Shetty, and you inturn forwarded it to co accused H.Surendra Shetty, the then AGM, who finally approved and sanctioned the enhanced limits inyour favor on
29.05.1997. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is correct. Que. No.21 : It has come in evidence against you that on
the basis of sanction of enhanced credit facilities in favor of M/s USR Exports, the limits of packing credit was enhanced from 15 lakhs to 30 lakhs, FUDBP / FDBP limits from 20 lakhs to 50 lakhs and FLC / ILC from 15 lakhs to 25 lakhs and your coaccused H.Surendra Shetty, while enhancing the credit facilities did not physically inspect the property offered as collateral security and violated circular dated 06.11.1996 of the bank Ex.PW.15/A45. What you have to say? Ans.: It was not my duty to physically inspect the property offered as collateral security, nor was I instructed by any higher officer to do so. Further, the relevant branch was categorized as an exceptionally large branch, it was the biggest in India, its set up was different from other branches, and was govern by the Chairman's Circular No. 5/93 dated 22.11.1993, wherein the duties and responsibilities of various officers were spelt out in detail. There was no violation of Circular exhibited as Ex. PW15/A45, on my part. Que. No.22 : It has come in evidence against you that PW27 Sh.Sudhakar Hegde, the then Chief Manager with Vijaya Bank had deposed the prevalent procedural aspects pertaining to grant of loan facilities by the bank on application of the parties. What you have to say? Ans.: In my opinion PW27 did not fully depose about the procedural aspects, as well as the discretions available to the bank officials.
Que. No.23 : It has come in evidence against you that through deposition of PW27 that "PCL" stands for Packing Credit Limit, which can be granted to the party for procuring goods for export purposes. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is correct. Que. No.24 : It has come in evidence against you that you
through deposition of PW27, that for the same, party is required to open a current account with the bank and alongwith loan application, it is required to submit statement of assets and liabilities, balance sheet for current financial year and two future projected years along with Income Tax Returns for last three years. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is correct. Que. No.25 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW27, that party is then asked to submit copies of documents offered for collateral securities. The concerned Manager (Loans) then ascertains the documents and submit the same to the approved panel lawyers of the bank for verification of the property and after getting the legal security report the valuation of the collateral security is got done from approved valuer. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is correct. Que. No.26 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW27, that the concerned officer after getting the valuation report processes the loan application and submit the process note with recommendations to sanctioning authority which may be branch head, Regional Head or the Head Office depending upon the limit sought for by the party. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is correct. Que. No.27 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW27, that once the loan is sanctioned, the manager of loan department, then takes all the necessary documents. Further, before release of packing credit limit, the borrower has to submit confirmed orders, letters of credit and in cases of confirmed order, bank is required to take credit report of the buyers from their bankers. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is correct. However, there is a discretion available to the bank officers in respect of asking the credit report of the buyers from their bankers.
Que. No.28 : It has come in evidence against you through deposition of PW27, that only after receipt of the credit report, the bank will release PCL by taking specific request of the borrower, coupled with his stock statement. Further PCL should be closed by discounting / negotiating export bill by the bank submitted by the borrower after exporting the goods. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is correct but exceptions can be made. Que. No.29 : It has come in evidence against you through deposition of PW27 that the officer processing the application for Packing Credit Limit is required to make calculations according to value of export order, capacity of borrower to handle the export order and the collateral security and normally bank keeps 25% margin on the order with the borrower, which can be lower with respect to an exporter having large exports.What you have to say? Ans.: It is correct but there is no hard and fast rule that the bank shall keep 25% of the value of the export order towards its margin.
Que. No.30 : It has come in evidence against you through deposition of PW27, that bank is also required to check Import Export Code Number and before releasing, the packing credit limit, it is to be checked from ECGC as to whether the borrower is in the list of defaulters or not. The Manager (Loans) is also supposed to obtain credit report of foreign buyers through their bankers. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is correct. Que. No.31 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW27 that Packing Credit Limit can be sanctioned to L.C., for export in addition to export orders and if so granted, the details of PCL sanction is endorsed on the back side of LC. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is correct. Que. No.32 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW27 that FED1190 is the form on which approval of branch manager is obtained before releasing the Packing Credit Limit. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is correct. Que. No.33: It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW27 that FDBP / FUDBP are "Foreign Demand Bill Purchase" / "Foreign Usance Demand Bill Purchase", are registers in which details of export bills, submitted by the party and verified by the bank officer are entered and original bill is then sent to the Buyer's Banker. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is correct. Que. No.34 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW27 that FLC / ILC means "Foreign Letter of Credit / Inland Letter of Credit", which are issued for the purposes of importing goods from foreign countries and ILCs are for purchasing goods in India itself. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is correct. Que. No.35: It has come in evidence against you through deposition of PW27 that LAD / IAB means "Loan against
documents / Inland Advance Bill". Whenever a foreign LC is issued, the bank has to made payment on receipt of bills against LC, which is normally done by debiting the parties current account and if funds in same are insufficient then bank makes the payment by debiting LAD Account of the party. It is further come in evidence that similarly IAB is maintained with respect to Inland LC. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is correct. Que. No.36 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW27 that while processing the packing credit limit application, the concerned officer of the bank has to take into consideration the applicable interest rates prevalent at that time and bank also insists for term deposit and normally 75% cash margin is insisted for the letter of credit. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is incorrect that normally 75% cash margin is insisted for the letter of credit by the bank.
Que. No.37 : It has come in evidence against you through deposition of PW15 Sh.M.Sudhakar Shetty, Chief Manager, Vijaya Bank that immediately on grant of enhanced credit facilities, fresh bills submitted by your coaccused R.K.Bhatia, were purchased by the bank through you accused K.Vasanth Kumar Shetty and other coaccused A.Maillappa Rai, H.Balakrishna Shetty, and H.Surendra Shetty, vide memorandum of sanction dated 29.05.1997 Ex.PW.15/A23 and Memorandum of Sanction dated 10.06.1997 Ex.PW.15/A24 amounting to Rs.25.02 lakhs. What you have to say? Ans.: It is correct. The enhancement of credit facilities were granted after complying with all banking prudential norms. Que. No.38 : It has come in evidence against you through deposition of PW15 that, your coaccused R.K.Bhatia filed a request application Ex.PW.15/A33, for first Packing Credit Release, amounting to Rs.4,60,000/ on the basis of LC of United Bank Limited, Dubai in the name of M/s Cordinal Trading Dubai, which was processed by you accused K.Vasanth Kumar Shetty and your coaccused H.Balakrishna Shetty and H.Surendra Shetty vide process note Ex.PW. 15/A34 and the same was accordingly released and your co accused R.K.Bhatia executed a corresponding Promisory Note dated 26.03.1997 in favor of the bank Ex.PW.15/A25. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is correct. Que. No.39 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW15 that, second Packing Credit Limit was released on 04.04.1997 for Rs.6,12,000/ on LC of Union Bank Limited, Dubai on the basis of request letter dated 04.04.1997 Ex.PW.15/A27 submitted by your coaccused R.K.Bhatia with Vijaya Bank and processed by you accused Vasanth Kumar Shetty and other coaccused H.Balakrishna Shetty and H.Surendra Shetty vide process note Ex.PW.15/A26. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is correct. Que. No.40 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW15 that, your coaccused R.K.Bhatia for M/s USR Exports then requested Vijaya Bank, seeking release of PCL for Rs.20 lakhs vide his application Ex.PW.15/A28 dated 08.09.1997 which was released and your coaccused R.K.Bhatia, had executed a demand promisory note Ex.PW. 15/A29 to that effect. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is correct. Que. No.41 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW15 that, your coaccused R.K.Bhatia, vide his request letter dated 26.09.1997 Ex.PW.15/A30 requested for release of Packing credit limit for Rs.10 lacs, on which the process note was initiated by one Shashidhar, Manager, Foreign Exchange Department and routed through your co accused H.Balakrishna Shetty and you accused K.Vasanth Kumar Shetty and was finally approved by Raviraj Shetty on 29.09.1997, vide process note Ex.PW.15/A31 and your co accused R.K.Bhatia executed a corresponding demand promisory note Ex.PW.15/A32 to that effect. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is correct. Que. No.42 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW15 that, your coaccused R.K.Bhatia vide his application dated 20.09.1997 on behalf of M/s USR Exports had requested Vijaya Bank, for opening of LC in favor of M/s H.L.Rakesh Hosiery for Rs.2 lacs, ie Ex.PW.15/A35 which was processed by Assistant Manager Ram Nath and routed through you accused K.Vasanth Kumar Shetty and your co accused H.Balakrishna Shetty and was approved by Ravi Raj Shetty vide process note Ex.PW.15/A36 and the ILC application of your coaccused R.K.Bhatia ie.Ex.PW.15/A37. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is a matter of record. Que. No.43 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW15 that, your coaccused Rakesh Kumar Bhatia on 01.10.1997 requested Vijaya Bank on behalf of M/s USR Exports for 2 LCs in favor of M/s L.K.Fabrics Ludhiana, which is Ex.PW.15/A39, the said application was processed by Assistant Manager Ram Nath and routed through you accused K.Vasanth Kumar Shetty and other coaccused H.Balakrishna Shetty and was approved by Raviraj Shetty vide process note dated 03.10.1997 Ex.PW.15/A39. ILC Application for Rs. 7,67,500/ submitted by your coaccused R.K.Bhatia, is Ex.PW. 15/A40 and for Rs.6,36,000/ is Ex.PW.15/A41. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is a matter of record. Que. No.44 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW15 M.Sudhakar Shetty, the then Chief Manager Vijaya Bank that, while he was so posted as Senior Manager, Regional Foreign Exchange Cell, he was called upon by the bank to conduct investigations with respect to the account of M/s USR Exports and he after making the investigations had submitted his report Ex.PW.15/A8 which he had sent along with forwarding letter Ex.PW.15/A7 to the Regional Office of the bank. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is a matter of record. Que. No.45 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW15 that, at the time of enhancement of credit facilities to your coaccused R.K.Bhatia, proprietor of M/s USR Exports, you accused K.Vasanth Kumar Shetty and your coaccused H.Surendra Shetty, H.Balakrishna Shetty and A.Maillappa Rai, had not asked for any additional collateral security and all the lapses committed by your coaccused during processing of the application for Credit Facilities and also at the time of release of the facilities were mentioned by PW15 in his report Ex.PW.15/A8. What you have to say? Ans.: It was not an essential requirement that for export credit any additional collateral security was to be taken, in view of the relevant circular cited above.
Que. No.46 : It has come in evidence against you through deposition of PW15 that, out of the four packing credit limit releases to your coaccused R.K.Bhatia, only one packing credit limit release was adjusted whereas remaining became "overdue" which resulted in outstanding of Packing Credit Limit amounting to Rs.29,97,000/ as on 29.09.1997, as is depicted in certified copy of statement of account Ex.PW. 15/A42, certified by Sudhakar Hegde, Manager, Barakhamba Road Branch of M/s Vijaya Bank. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is a matter of record. Que. No.47 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW15 that, certified copies of statement of account with respect to outstanding bill of the firm of your coaccused R.K.Bhatia ie M/s USR Exports, is Ex.PW.15/A43 and that of crystalized export bill is Ex.PW.15/A44 which were certified by Sudhakar Hegde, Manager of Vijaya Bank. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is a matter of record. Que. No.48 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW15 that, as per the Head Office Guideline as laid down in Circular no.191/96 dated 06.11.1996 Ex.PW.15/A45 the branch manager is required to physically inspect the property offered by the borrower, as collateral security. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is incorrect. There was no requirement to physically inspect the property offered by the borrower as collateral security by the Branch Head of the said branch, since it was an exceptionally large branch and was governed by a different set of instructions. Que. No.49 : It has come in evidence against you through deposition of PW15 that,as per credit management selected guidelines Ex.PW.15/A48, no frequent enhancement should be considered without proper justification, regard is to be given to the past performance of the exporter but in this case, it was done by you accused K.Vasanth Kumar Shetty, and other coaccused H.Surendra Shetty, H.Balakrishna Shetty, and A.Maillappa Rai without physical inspection of plot and releases were made despite the fact that 8 bills were unpaid, details of which is Ex.PW.15/A49. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is incorrect. Que. No.50 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW15 that your coaccused R.K.Bhatia had submitted bills Ex.PW.15/A51 with the bank and a letter dated 11.02.1998 Ex.PW.15/A50 was received from Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank by Vijaya Bank whereby they were informed about return of unpaid bills. What you have to say? Ans.: It is a matter of record. I was also not directly concerned with this development.
Que. No.51 : It has come in evidence against you through deposition of PW15 that, your coaccused R.K.Bhatia had submitted bills Ex.PW.15/A58, Ex.PW.15/A60 and Ex.PW. 15/A63, Ex.PW.15/A65, Ex.PW.15/A67 and Ex.PW.15/A69 which were accepted by foreign buyers vide Ex.PW.15/A59, Ex.PW.15/A61, Ex.PW.15/A62, Ex.PW.15/A64, Ex.PW.15/A66, Ex.PW.15/A68, but all were return unpaid and were intimated so to Vijaya Bank vide letter Ex.PW.15/A50. What you have to say?
Ans.: These circumstances were not brought to my knowledge. However, I subsequently learnt that the amount due against these bills was remitted by the foreign buyers by the bank. Que. No.52 : It has come in evidence against you through deposition of PW15 that, your coaccused R.K.Bhatia had made huge cash withdrawals from the said Packing Credit Loan Account of M/s USR Exports and the same were permitted by you accused K.Vasanth Kumar Shetty, and other coaccused H.Surendra Shetty, K.Vasanth Kumar Shetty, H.Balakrishna Shetty and A.Maillappa Rai against Packing Credit Loan Releases. What you have to say?
Ans.: Since R.K.Bhatia had represented himself as a trader exporter, purchasing merchandise from the market, he was eligible to make occasional cash withdrawals for procurement of goods, as per the rules of the bank.
Que. No.53 : It has come in evidence against you through deposition of PW33 Sh.Rajiv Shetty (Retired) A.G.M of Vijaya Bank, that when the credit facility extended to M/s USR Exports became irregular, Sh.Vipin Kumar, Manager (Credit) PW3, was deputed to physically verify the property offered by your coaccused R.K.Bhatia and coaccused Jiya Lal impersonating as Ram Narayan as collateral security and the said officer gave his report Ex.PW.3/1 that no such property existed. What you have to say?
Ans.: By this time I stood transfered to some other branch of the bank.
Que. No.54 : It has come in evidence against you through deposition of PW33 that subsequently the bank entrusted the empanelled lawyer Sh.Rajesh Rattan PW12, to submit his report regarding collateral security, who submitted his report Ex.PW.12/B stating that Ram Narayan is not the owner of said property and in fact, no property is in existence. He gave his report on the basis of local inspection and inspection of records of subregistrar's office vide receipt Ex.PW.12/A. What you have to say?
Ans.: By this time I stood transfered to some other branch of the bank. The report is a matter of record.
Que. No.55 : It has come in evidence against you through deposition of PW33 that the loan file pertaining to firm of your coaccused R.K.Bhatia ie. M/s USR Exports is Ex.PW. 33/A, the application for loan is Ex.PW.33/B (earlier exhibited as Ex.PW.15/A), process note is Ex.PW.33/C (earlier exhibited as Ex.PW.15/A9) and the certificate of loan paper obtained in compliance of the sanction terms bearing signatures of your coaccused H.Balakrishna Shetty is Ex.PW.33/D. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is a matter of record. Que. No.56 : It has come in evidence against you that the
valuation report submitted by your coaccused Vijender Kumar dated 02.01.1997 Ex.PW.32/G29, is also part of the loan file Ex.PW.33/A. It has further come in evidence against you that your coaccused Vijender Kumar was given a notice by PW33 Rajeev Shetty on 15.12.1998 Ex.PW.33/G for his remarks when the bank came to know of the fact that no such property is in existence. What you have to say?
Ans.: I stood relieved from the said branch at the material time. The report is a matter of record.
Que. No.57 : It has come in evidence against you that PW33 Rajeev Shetty then reported the matter to Chief Vigilance Officer of the bank vide his report dated 02.02.1998, which is Ex.PW.33/F. What you have to say?
Ans.: By that time I stood relieved from that relevant branch. The report is a matter of record.
Que. No.58 : It has come in evidence against you through the deposition of PW16 Ravi Joshi, Manager, Vijaya Bank that "XOS" is the statement of "overdue export bills" for which payment is not received from the parties, and the said statement is reported to RBI. It has further come in evidence against you that, in case of firm of your coaccused M/s USR Exports also, it was reported to RBI and RBI through letters dated 10.08.2000 Ex.PW.16/1 and Ex.PW.16/2 reported it to CBI. What you have to say?
Ans.: By that time I stood relieved from that relevant branch. The report is a matter of record.
Que. No.59 : It has come in evidence against you that Sh.B.R.Chandrashekar, General Manager cum Chief Vigilance Officer of Vijaya Bank, then lodged the complaint Ex.PW.14/A with CBI on the basis of which FIR bearing no.RC3(E)/99 EOWII/DLI dated 17.12.1999 Ex.PW.39/A was registered and was entrusted for investigations to Inspector S.S.Atwal. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is a matter of record. Que. No.60 : It has come in evidence against you that IO
Inspector S.S.Atwal, then took into possession the relevant documents from Vijaya Bank vide seizure memo dated 21.12.1999, 22.12.1999 and 14.06.2000 from PW38 G.K.Bhatt, the then Senior Manager vide Ex.PW.38/A, Ex.PW.38/B and Ex.PW. 38/C respectively, which included the file pertaining to credit facilities extended to the firm of your coaccused R.K.Bhatia ie. M/s USR Exports Ex.PW.33/A including the loan application Ex.PW.33/B, Process Note Ex.PW.33/C and application for enhancement of limit Ex.PW.33/D. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is a matter of record. Que. No.61 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW38 Sh.G.K.Bhatt that the file Ex.PW.33/A also contain the report of your coaccused Vijender Kumar regarding valuation of property at plot no.25, Khasra 634, Mohalla Dillai, Abadi Shiv Nagar, Shahadara Ex.PW.32/G29. Further, the file contains the Legal Report Ex.PW.12/B submitted by panel lawyer Sh.Rajesh Rattan, along with the inspection receipt Ex.PW.12/A of the office of Subregistrar, submitted along with the legal report. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is a matter of record. Que. No.62 : It has come in evidence against you that
PW38 Sh.G.K.Bhatt, had handed over certified copy of Packing Credit Loan Register of the firm of your coaccused R.K.Bhatia ie. M/s USR Exports Ex.PW.38/D, Certified copy of Letter of Credit Register Mark Y, Certified copy of Bill Liability Register Ex.PW.38/E, Certified copy of Liability Register of Letter of Credit Ex.PW.38/F, Certified copy of Bill Liability Register (Inland Advance Bills) under Letter of Credit Ex.PW.38/G and Certified copy of packing credit liability register Ex.PW.38/H, to IO Inspector S.S.Atwal. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is a matter of record. Que. No.63 : It has come in evidence against you that on
inquiry by the IO, regarding duties of various officers of the bank along with their period of posting, reply dated 11.10.2000 Ex.PW.38/I was submitted to CBI by the bank, under signatures of PW33 Rajeev Shetty. What you have to say?
Ans.: It is a matter of record. Que No.64 : It has come in evidence against you that IO
had taken certain other documents in possession from Vijaya Bank vide seizure memo dated 17.08.2000 Ex. PW39/B, seizure memo dated 25.01.2000, Ex. PW39/C, seizure memo dated 08.02.2000 Ex. PW39/D, seizure memo dated 30.10.2000 Ex. PW39/E. Besides which he took into possession certain documents from office of your coaccused R.K.Bhatia i.e. of M/s U.S.R. Exports vide seizure memo dated 14.02.2000 Ex. PW37/A. What you have to say ?
Ans. : It is a matter of record. Que No.65 : It has come in evidence against you that IO
during the course of investigations had taken into possession documents from M/s Om Goods Carrier vide seizure memo dated 30.06.2000 Ex. PW39/F, from Sh. Rakesh Yadav, Airport Manager vide seizure memo dated 31.08.2000 Ex. PW39/G, Sh.D.N.Bhatt vide seizure memo dated 29.08.2000 Ex. PW39/H, Prakash Chand Daftari of Vijaya Bank vide seizure memo dated 07.12.2000 Ex. PW39/I, Sh. Surinder Manuja vide seizure memo dated 05.02.2001 Ex. PW39/J, Sh. Sudhakar Shetty PW15 vide seizure memo dated 21.08.2000 Ex. PW15/A47 and B.M.Appanna vide seizure memo dated 30.10.2000 Ex. PW39/K. What you have to say ?
Ans. : It is a matter of record. Que No.66 : It has come in evidence against you that IO
made inquiries about the house fax receipt Ex. PW1/1 submitted by your coaccused Jiya Lal with the bank while impersonating as Ram Narayan pertaining to property situated in Khasra No. 634, Shiv Nagar, Shahdara and got a letter Ex. PW39/L dated 02.05.2000 from Sh.P.K.Gupta, Controller Printing and Stationary, MCD stating that the said receipt is fake and false. What you have to say ? Ans. : It is a matter of record. I myself never had any occasion to examine or scrutinize these documents. Que No.67 : It has come in evidence against you that IO also made inquiries about receipt Ex. PW1/1 from MCD Shahdara North and Shahdara South. PW7 Hakim Rai Arora working as Superintendent in House Tax Department of MCD Shahdara North deposed that pursuant to receipt of letter Ex. PW7/1 from CBI, they replied vide reply Ex. PW7/2 and stated that Ex. PW1/1 was never issued from their office as they issue receipt giving specific number of property and are not issuing against Khasra number. Further the receipt number used to be printed by machine which is not so in Ex. PW1/1. What you have to say ?
Ans. : It is a matter of record. I myself never had any occasion to examine or scrutinize these documents. Que No.68 : It has come in evidence against you that PW1 Sh.O.P.Mahajan, Dy. Assessor and Collector, MCD, Shahdara South Zone during the course of his deposition had deposed that they used to issue receipt against specific property number and ledger folio number but it is not so in Ex. PW1/1. PW1 further deposed that receipt number is always printed on the receipt and is never written in hand, therefore, the receipt Ex. PW1/1 is a forged receipt for which they had informed CBI pursuant to the query which they had received vide their reply Ex. PW1/2. What you have to say ? Ans. : It is a matter of record. I myself never had any occasion to examine or scrutinize these documents. Que No.69 : It has come in evidence against you through the deposition of PW4 Anil Kumar Patwari that pursuant to receipt of letter dated 20.04.2000 from CBI Ex. PW4/3, he had prepared a report Ex. PW4/2 on the basis of official records stating that Khasra no. 634 of Village Chandrawali was divided in the year 1960 under mutation no. 3920 and as per mutation and Khasra Girdawari Ex. PW4/4 names of neither Charan Dass nor Ram Narayan finds mention in the same and this report was forwarded to CBI by the then SDM vide his letter Ex. PW4/1. What you have to say ?
Ans. : It is a matter of record. Que No.70 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW5 Sh. Satnam Singh, the President of BJP Shahdara that no person by the name of Ram Narayan S/o Raj Narayan lives in old Tejab Mill, Shahdara nor there is any mention of such name in the electoral roll Ex. PW5/1. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I do not know. Que No.71 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW6 Tilak Kheda who is running a shop in the locality of Old Tejab Mill, Shahdara under the name of M/s Jai Mata Soap that no person by the name of Ram Narayan S/o Raj Narayan ever resided in the area of Old Tejab Mill, Shahdara. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I do not know. Que No.72 : It has come in evidence against you that
through deposition of PW13 Shatrughan Poddar that a sale deed dated 28.01.1966 was executed by one Charan Dass in favour of Ram Narayan R/o Old Tejab Mill, Shahdara with respect to plot no. 25, measuring 100 sq.yards out of Khasra no. 634, Village Dillai, Abadi Shiv Nagar, Shahdara, copy of which is Ex. PW13/B and copy of its entry in the records of SubRegistrar is Ex. PW13/A. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I do not know. Que No.73 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW26 Bulak Raj that the sale deed Ex. PW26/A with respect to plot no. 25, Khasra 634 was signed by him as a witness at instance of one Charan Dass, at his shop itself and he had not gone to the office of Sub Registrar for the same. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I do not know. Que No.74 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW23 Ashwani Sharma that property bearing no. 45/2, Azad Nagar, Krishna Nagar was owned by his father in law Ram Nath Sharma after having purchased it from Sunny Kalra vide Power of Attorney dated 21.01.1998 Ex. PW23/A, Agreement to Sell dated 24.01.1998 Ex. PW23/B, Will dated 24.01.1998 Ex. PW23/C and receipt dated 24.01.1998 Ex. PW23/D, irrevocable General Power of Attorney dated 21.01.1998 Ex. PW23/E. These documents were executed by Sunny Kalra on the basis of agreement dated 07.04.1993 Ex. PW23/F executed in his favour by the previous owner. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I do not know. Que No.75 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW24 Jagmohan Aggarwal that property no. A45/2, East Azad Nagar, Shahadara was purchased by him and his brothers Anil and Sanjay alongwith their mother Smt. Ram Murti vide sale deeds Ex. PW24/A, Ex. PW24/B & Ex. PW24/C all dated 11.10.1993 executed by one Desh Raj as attorney of Abid Ali in their favour. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I do not know. Que No.76 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW2 Harbans Lal Sethi that property no. E7/A10, Krishna Nagar is a three storied building occupied by him and his brothers and is owned by his mother and that they never got this property valued from anyone at any point of time. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I do not know. Que No.77 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW36 Amit Talwar that he is residing in property no. E7/A10 known as Sethi Building, Krishna Nagar which was owned by his maternal grandfather and they never got this property valued at any point of time. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I do not know. Que No.78 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW25 Desh Raj that he is running a tent house by the name of M/s Khurana Tent House from a shop E7/A10, Sethi Building, Krishna Nagar. He deposed that this building belong to one Vidya Prakash Sethi and his son Harbans is looking after this property and no person by the name of Ram Narayan ever resided in this building. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I do not know. Que No.79 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW11 Sh. R.P.Gupta, the notary public that the signatures on encircled portion 'A' on affidavit Ex. PA of one Ram Narayan, are not his signatures as he had not attested this affidavit and that his specimen signatures Ex. PW11/A1 to A9 were obtained by CBI. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I do not know. Que No.80 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW8 Sh. Ravinder Bhatia, G.M., Canara Bank and PW9 Kalyan Singh, Manager, SBI, that both of them joined investigations with CBI on 30.05.2002 and on that day specimen signatures and handwriting of your coaccused Jiya Lal were taken on 30 sheets as Ex. PW8/1 to Ex. PW8/30 and specimen signatures of your coaccused R.K.Bhatia and handwriting was taken on 49 sheets Ex. PW8/31 to Ex. PW8/79. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I do not know. Que No.81 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW17 S.A.Bambari working with Bank of Baroda that, he joined investigations with Investigating Officer Inspector S.S.Atwal on 10.03.2000 and Investigating Officer in his presence had obtained specimen signatures of your coaccused Vijender Kumar on 7 sheets as Ex. PW17/1 to Ex. PW17/7. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I do not know. Que No.82 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW18 Sh. H.K.Srivastava working with Bank of Baroda that he had joined investigations with IO Inspector S.S.Atwal and in his presence IO had obtained specimen signatures of D.N.Goel Ex. PW18/1 to Ex. PW18/11 and that of your coaccused Jiya Lal as 'Ram Narayan' on Ex. PW18/12 to Ex. PW18/27. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I do not know. Que No.83 : It has come in evidence against you that IO
Inspector S.S.Atwal had also joined PW34 K.K.Khanna, Dy. Manager, SBI during investigations and specimen signatures of your coaccused Jiya Lal Ex. PW18/12 to Ex. PW18/27 were obtained in presence of PW34 and PW18. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I do not know. Que No.84 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW19 Sh. D.N.Bhatt and PW40 L.S.Rawat that they were working as Cargo Clearing Agents under the name of M/s Rawat Air Linkers and were functioning on the basis of authorization of M/s P.D. Eshwaran who was "Licensed Custom Clearing Agent" and on the basis of same PW40 used to get the custom clearance for the customers through his employee PW19 D.N.Bhatt for which they use to get commission from the airlines through which they used to send the consignment. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I do not know. Que No.85 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW19 & PW40 that vide G.R. Form Ex. PW19/1, Ex. PW19/2 both dated 23.05.1997, Ex. PW19/3, Ex. PW19/4 both dated 21.05.1997, Ex. PW19/5 dated 28.05.1997, Ex. PW19/6 dated 30.05.1997, Ex. PW19/7 dated 28.05.1997, Ex. PW19/8 dated 24.05.1997, Ex. PW19/9 dated 23.05.1997 and Ex. PW19/11 dated 24.05.1997 goods of the firm of your coaccused R.K.Bhatia ie. M/s USR Exports, were sent to Ms/ V.K.International and the destination was Moscow, whereas as per G.R.Form Ex. PW19/10 dated 26.05.1997, goods of the firm of your coaccused R.K.Bhatia ie. M/s USR Exports, were sent to M/s Turgeneva Cristina and destination was Tashkent, Uzbekistan and their corresponding shipping bills are Mark X to X6. What you have to say ?
Ans. : It is a matter of record. Q.86 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW22 Leonard D'Souza working as Accountant with GSA of Uzbekistan Airways that the firm of your co accused ie. M/s USR Exports had exported the consignment vide bill dated 26.05.1997 to Turgeneva Kristina Tashkent, Uzbekistan which is Ex. PW22/1, G.R. Form Ex. PW22/2 and shipping bill Ex. PW22/3. What you have to say ?
Ans. : It is a matter of record.
Que No.87 : It has come in evidence against you through deposition of PW10 Nand Kishore Gupta, Partner of M/s Union Roadways Corporation that he is in the business of transport and is transporting goods to various places and their firm is approved by Indian Banks Association and as such the employees of the bank can get reimbursement against the receipt issued by their firm for the goods booked with them for transportation. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I do not know. Que No.88 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW10 Nand Kishore Gupta that consignment note bearing no. 3919 dated 28.05.1997 for Rs.16,225/ and consignment note bearing no. 3920 dated 29.05.1997 for Rs. 28,425/ and corresponding cash receipts no. 7234 dated 28.05.1997 and 7235 dated 29.05.1997 Ex. PW10/1 to Ex. PW10/4 respectively were issued by his firm on his instructions at request of your coaccused A.M.Rai, whereas no goods were in fact, transported vide these consignment notes and no payment was received by PW10 from your coaccused A.M.Rai against the cash receipts Ex. PW10/3 and Ex. PW10/4. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I do not know. Que No.89 : It has come in evidence against you that
consignment note Ex. PW10/1 was prepared by PW30 Mohnan, an employee of PW10 at his instructions, whereas Ex. PW10/2 was prepared by PW35 Suresh Kumar, another employee of PW10 at his instructions and cash receipt Ex. PW10/3 and Ex. PW10/4 were also prepared by Suresh Kumar PW35 on instructions of PW10 Nand Kishore and after preparation, the same were handed over to PW10 from whom the same were collected by your coaccused R.K.Bhatia. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I do not know. Que No.90 : It has come in evidence against you that the
photocopies of Ex. PW10/1 to Ex. PW10/4 are Ex. PW30/A to Ex. PW30/D which as per deposition of PW30 and PW35 were issued by them on instructions of their employer mentioning date of 28.05.1997 and 29.05.1997 after the issuance of consignment notes Ex. PW10/5 and Ex. PW10/6 dated 06.06.1997 and 11.06.1997 & corresponding cash receipts Ex. PW10/7 and Ex. PW10/8 and that vide consignment notes Ex. PW10/1 and Ex. PW10/2 no goods were transported and against cash receipts Ex. PW10/3 and Ex. PW10/4 no amount was received by PW10 from your coaccused R.K.Bhatia or from your coaccused A.M.Rai. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I do not know. Que No.91 : It has come in evidence against you that IO
Inspector S.S.Atwal had taken those documents of M/s Union Roadways Corporation in possession from PW10 vide seizure memo dated 12.06.2000 Ex. PW10/9. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I do not know. Que No.92 : It has come in evidence against you through
deposition of PW37 Ripu Daman Sehgal that he had been working as accountant with the firm of your co accused R.K.Bhatia and IO Inspector S.S.Atwal had taken into possession certain documents from your office vide seizure memo Ex. PW37/A, which includes document Ex. PW30/A receipt of M/s Blue Dart Ex. PW37/B and a file Ex. PW37/C and another file Ex. PW37/E. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I do not know. Que No.93 : It has come in evidence against your co
accused R.K.Bhatia that PW37 his employee had identified his signatures on Ex. PW32/G13, Ex. PW15/A, Ex. PW21/2, Ex. PW15/A4 as well as on Ex. PW37/D1 to Ex. PW37/D9. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I do not know. Que No.94 : It has come in evidence against your co
accused R.K.Bhatia that PW37 his employee had further identified his signatures on Ex. PW15/A30, Ex. PW32/G20, Ex. PW15/A27, Ex. PW32/G24, Ex. PW32/G25, Ex. PW15/A10, Ex. PW15/A11, Ex. PW15/A12 to Ex. PW15/A21. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I do not know. Que No.95 : It has come in evidence against your co
accused R.K.Bhatia that his employee PW37 had further identified his signatures on Ex. PW32/G1, Ex. PW32/G21, Ex. PW37/D10, Ex. PW37/D11, Ex. PW37/D12, Ex. PW37/D13, Ex. PW32/F95, Ex. PW32/G28 to Ex. PW15/A40 and Ex. PW15/A41. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I do not know. Que No.96 : It has come in evidence against your co
accused R.K.Bhatia that his employee PW37 did identified his signatures on cheques Ex. PW32/F36, Ex. PW32/F52, Ex. PW32/F64, Ex. PW32/F79, Ex. PW32/F84, Ex. PW32/F85, Ex. PW32/F86, Ex. PW32/F48, Ex. PW32/F53, Ex. PW32/F54, Ex. PW32/F60 and Ex. PW32/A94. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I do not know. Que No.97 : It has come in evidence against you that IO
Inspector S.S.Atwal thereafter had sent the specimen signatures of your coaccused R.K.Bhatia and you accused Jiya Lal and coaccused Vijender Kumar and also that of R.P.Gupta and D.N.Goel alongwith the questioned documents to GEQD for expert opinion. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I do not know. Que No.98 : It has come in evidence against you that
pursuant to receipt of questioned, admitted and specimen signatures submitted by S.P., CBI, EOUII vide Memo dated 29.06.2000, the documents were examined by Sh.V.K.Khanna, Principal Scientific Officer with the help of Scientific aid who gave his report dated 27.12.2000 Ex. PW32/A and Ex. PW32/B. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I do not know.
Que No.99 : It has come in evidence against you that IO Inspector S.S.Atwal collected details of the bills purchased by the bank vide letter Ex.PW.39/M and further IO was informed about structure of Vijaya Bank along with details of the officers posted as various levels in different categories of branches vide letter Ex.PW.15/A46 and had also collected various circulars issued by Vijaya Bank from time to time for working of its officers vide letter Ex.PW.39/N. What you have to say?
Ans.: I do not know as I was transfered from the concerned branch.
Que No.100 : It has come in evidence against you that IO Inspector S.S.Atwal recorded statement of witnesses, collected documents including expert opinion Ex. PW32/A and Ex. PW32/B and thereafter he had approached the competent authorities for getting the necessary sanction for prosecution against you accused K.Vasanth Kumar Shetty, and other coaccused H.Balakrishna Shetty, H.Surendra Shetty and A.M.Rai. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I do not know. Que No.101 : It has come in evidence against you accused
Vasanth Kumar Shetty through deposition of PW28 Sh. K.Amarnath Shetty, G.M. (Personal) of Vijaya Bank that, he being competent authority to remove you from the services, after going through the report submitted by CBI including statement of witnesses and documents collected satisfied himself and then passed the sanction order Ex. PW28/A granting sanction for your prosecution. What you have to say ?
Ans. : It is incorrect. The sanction for my prosecution is invalid and a nullity in the eyes of law.
Que No.102 : It has come in evidence against your co accused H.Balakrishna Shetty and A.M.Rai through deposition of PW29 Sh.K.Jayakar Shetty, Deputy G.M (Personnel), Vijaya Bank, being competent authority to remove them from the services, after going through the report submitted before him by CBI including the statement of witnesses coupled with the documents satisfied himself that material is sufficient for grant of sanction for prosecution against both your coaccused, passed the sanction order dated 01.09.2001 Ex. PW29/A against your co accused H.Balakrishna Shetty and sanction order dated 10.09.2001 Ex. PW29/B against your coaccused A.M.Rai. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I do not know. Que No.103 : It has come in evidence against your co
accused H.Surendra Shetty through the deposition of PW31 Sh.Miachel Bastian posted as Executive Director of Vijaya Bank, being the competent authority to remove your co accused from the services, after going through the report received from CBI including the documentary evidence collected and statement of witnesses recorded satisfied himself that the same is sufficient for grant of sanction for prosecution of your coaccused and accordingly passed the sanction order Ex. PW31/A. What you have to say ?
Ans. : I do not know. Que No.104 : It has come in evidence against you that IO
Inspector S.S.Atwal on conclusion of investigations and after getting the necessary sanction orders from the competent authorities had filed the present charge sheet for your trial. What you have to say ?
Ans. : It is a matter of record. Que No.105 : Why this case against you ? Ans. : It is an unjustified and false case. Que No.106 : Why PW's have deposed against you ? Ans. : They have incorrectly and falsely deposed against me under the pressure of CBI. Que No.107 : Do you want to say anything else ? Ans. : Yes, I am innocent. I have not committed any offence
either individually, or inconjunction with any other accused persons. I have not been in conspiracy with any other accused. I have taken all decisions in relation to the banking transactions related to the above titled case, in accordance with the instructions and guidelines issued by the Head Office of the Bank and the RBI from time to time, and have kept in mind the prudential banking norms at all stages. I have discharged my duties honestly and with integrity at all times.
I further add that the account of M/s USR Exports has been settled under the one time settlement scheme (OTS) of the bank after the creditor party deposited a sum of Rs.44,12,536/ with the bank vide letter no. CV/RR/SS/G681 dated 30.06.2012, signed by General Manager (Credit RR) Head Office, Bangalore, Vijaya Bank. Que No.108 : Do you want to lead evidence in your defence ?
Ans. : Yes.
RO & AC {KANWAL JEET ARORA}
SPECIAL JUDGE : CBI (P.C.ACT)
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
29.01.2013
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx