Delhi District Court
Jbs Bedi vs State on 17 February, 2021
Case No. CR/501/19 JBS Bedi Vs State Case No. CR/551/19 Satinder Singh Vs. State FIR No. 569/2004 PS Connaught Place U/s 420/468/471/120B IPC 17.02.2021 ORDER
1. By way of present revision petition, the revisionist/accused JBS Bedi and Satinder Singh have challenged the impugned order on charge dated 25.05.2019 u/s 420/120B IPC passed by the trial court.
2. Brief facts as per chargesheet is that the present FIR is registered on the complaint dated 23.08.2004 of complainant Sh. V. P. Sharma in which he alleged that Sh. Kailash Gupta, Assistant General Manager, Sh. G.S. Rekhi (Chief Manager) and Kuldeep Singh (Senior Manager) have sanctioned a loan of approximately Rs. 1 crore to M/s North East Trading company through its proprietor Kailash Gupta (may be real or fictitious) on the basis of false, forged and impersonated documents submitted to the bank and accepted by bank officials. The documents are: projected and provisional balance sheet; Kailash Gupta created three guarantors whose fictitious property were pledged to bank namely Smt. Snehlata Bhalla, Pawan Kumar and Ved Kumar Sharma; Kailash Gupta also submitted the false and forged documents not pertaining to Ved Prakash Sharma i.e. Ration card, MCD property tax bill, photographs of different persons not matching with Sh. Ved Prakash Sharma and forged signatures of Ved Prakash Sharma. The bank officials allowed Kailash Gupta to loot the bank as no proper verification of proper person has been done. No legal opinion Case No. CR/501/19 Case No. CR/551/19 Page No. 1 of 12 JBS Bedi & Ors Vs State Satinder Singh Vs. State Date 17.02.2021 about the person and property was taken. No norms for advances have been followed.
3. Complainant V.P. Sharma received a notice from bank on 18.06.1998 that he had signed a guarantee on 13.11.1996 for Kailash Gupta by mortgaging the property which he never owned. After receiving the notice, complainant went to the bank and discussed the matter with Assistant General Manager informing that he do not own the property and not signed any documents in the bank and have no links whatsoever with Kailash Gupta. The records were brought then it was revealed on the file that photographs/signatures of the person in bank record do not match absolutely with him thereafter he also sent a registered letter to bank that property does not belong to him, and no guarantee has been signed by him on 13.11.1996 and that on that date, he was admitted to M.P. Heart Center for heart trouble. However, bank found still harassing him and there appears to be deep rooted conspiracy between accused Kailash Gupta in collusion with bank officials who sanctioned huge loan amount without verifying/visiting the locations and details furnished by borrower. He stated that he never stood guarantor for anyone. The matter is subjudice at DRT, Rajendra Place and out of four persons including the borrower and guarantors he is the only person who is appearing however have nothing to do with the offence. He had also informed to CMD of Punjab and Sind Bank, Secretary Banking Division and Ombutsman. Pursuant to the complaint, the FIR was registered on 11.09.2004 u/s 420/468/471 IPC.
4. During investigation, SI Gurmail Singh tried to seek relevant documents from bank however only some photocopies i.e. export import documents and FDRs were provided. Thereafter investigation was handed over to SI Kuman Kundan who served several notices to bank but bank officials not provided the original documents and stated that those documents were filed before DRT. The photocopies of account opening Case No. CR/501/19 Case No. CR/551/19 Page No. 2 of 12 JBS Bedi & Ors Vs State Satinder Singh Vs. State Date 17.02.2021 form, its annexure, legal opinion, stock inspection report, valuation reports, guarantee deeds were obtained. He conducted verification at the addresses of accused company and Kailash Gupta and joined the bank official who were instrumental in granting loan, namely accused Vipin Ghai (Desk officer), accused Satinder Singh (Sr. Manager) and accused JBS Bedi (Asstt. General Manager) who were found involved in accepting, processing and granting the loan to accused Kailash Gupta without proper verification. The further investigation was handed over to SI Jitender Singh on 17.01.2018 however he could not obtain original documents from bank. SI Rajiv Vimal carried out proceedings u/s 82/83 against accused Kailash Gupta who was declared PO on 20.10.2008. Thereafter investigation was handed over to SI Rajesh Maurya, present IO.
5. During investigation it is revealed that accused Kailash Gupta left Lajpat Nagar address one year prior and never resided at Defence Colony. Deputy Facility Manager of Prakash Deep building reported that no such company with the name of North East Trading company ever existed in the said building. The enquiries were also conducted from DGFT, Federation of Indian Export Organization, Export Credit Grantee Corporation. Some important original documents from Punjab and Sind Bank as well as Debt Recovery Tribunal were seized however original application for loan and credit facility, appraisal note, office note, account opening forms has not been provided.
6. Persons shown as vendors on sale deed namely Ran Singh, Naresh Tyagi admitted having signed the sale deed however expressed their inability to locate purchaser. The vendor Yashpal Singh denied execution of sale deed and the purchaser in the sale deed of Yashpal Singh Alagh is Sneh Lata who denied having signed it. The generators of stock inspection report, legal opinion and valuation report has also been joined who are of the opinion that proper verification has not been done by the bank staff while Case No. CR/501/19 Case No. CR/551/19 Page No. 3 of 12 JBS Bedi & Ors Vs State Satinder Singh Vs. State Date 17.02.2021 granting the loan. None of them could physically meet the borrower or locate the mortgaged properties. The valuer Kulwant Singh expired. The MCD tax receipt filed by the borrower or fake guarantor found to be forged. The questioned documents and specimen documents including that of Vipin Ghai sent to FSL. Another copy of account opening form of accused Kailash Gupta was seized from PNB however this was found different from the one existing on the file. Accused bank official could not explain the difference. The DRT case has been decided in favour of complainant and DRT also imposed cost on the bank.
7. The accused Vipin Ghai, the Desk Officer at the time of filing of application found to have prepared appraisal note, office note, sanction letter and processed/executed all annexures of loan applications. He filled up various proforma of accused Kailash Gupta and his fake guarantors and execute the same. He admits that accused Kailash Gupta and his fake guarantors executed the documents in front of him and he did not properly verify the documents and identity of people executing the same. Accused Satinder Singh, Sr Manager job was to supervise the desk officer Vipin Ghai and the documents being executed, prepared and processed by him. He was supposed to verify the genuineness of the firm and guarantors. The recommendation of sanction was made by him. Sh. JBS Bedi head of the Punjab and Sing bank at Sindia House sanctioned the loan/credit facility to Kailash Gupta and accepted the guarantees filed by him. He intentionally overlooked to follow the due procedure and omitted to comply established banking procedures of sanctioning loan / credit facility. He did not bother to physically verify the address and stock of the company or soundness of the standings. No ITR, etc were sought from the company in question. The accused bank officials sanctioned the loan facility in furtherance of criminal conspiracy and on completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed.
Case No. CR/501/19 Case No. CR/551/19 Page No. 4 of 12 JBS Bedi & Ors Vs State Satinder Singh Vs. State Date 17.02.2021
8. Brief averments as per revision petition filed are that the complainant V.P. Sharma alleged that bank has sanctioned the loan on 04.11.1996 however he had filed complaint on 26.05.2001 on which no action was taken. Thereafter, on second complaint, FIR was registered on 23.08.2004 and chargesheet was filed on 10.06.2009 after lapse of 13 years from the date of incident and petitioner herein retired on 31.10.2006. The FIR is barred by limitation. It is contended by complainant that he did not own any property however the property papers and report of advocate of bank namely Sh. Saiful Islam clearly mentions that owner is Ved Prakash Sharma. The accused Kailash Gupta never appeared before IO or before the court and declared PO. Entire investigation has been done on the basis of photocopies and no original have been placed on record. Bank was not made the party nor the bank raised any allegations of cheating. The official followed the procedure for granting loan by getting documents examined from Sh. Saiful Islam and Kulwant Singh, Government approved valuer. The bank did not incur any loss on the sanction of this loan as bank guarantee was never invoked moreover the party had released the import documents worth Rs. 258 lacs from its own resources, and value of property given by bank valuer's report was Rs. 87.12 lacs. Out of loan of Rs. 30 lacs sanctioned, Rs. 25 lacs were limit against letter of credit and Rs. 5 lacs against packing credit. On the date of filing of chargesheet, the bank had an FDR amounting Rs. 1.09 crores hence bank made a profit on transaction. No sanction was also obtained from the management of bank.
9. Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that the bank who is purportedly cheated is neither the complainant nor the victim, and in case the accused has committed any misuse of authority or illegal gratification by any employee of bank, the bank as recourse to filing a case under Prevention of Corruption Act and no other person can file any case in respect of cheating of bank. No sanction u/s 197 Cr.PC has been obtained Case No. CR/501/19 Case No. CR/551/19 Page No. 5 of 12 JBS Bedi & Ors Vs State Satinder Singh Vs. State Date 17.02.2021 for prosecution. The property papers seized during investigation clearly shows that complainant is a purchaser of the property which is mortgaged to the bank and the bank officials have properly appraised the proposal for granting loan to borrower after following the bank norms. The bank already have FDR of Rs. 85 lacs against the sanctioned loan of Rs. 35 lacs. The maturity value of FDRs was Rs. 1.09 crores as such the bank did not loose any amount from this transaction. The total loan sanctioned was CC limit Rs. 40 lacs against 25% margin bank guarantee. The report of advocates and valuer shows that borrower was genuine and the RBI code was also given to borrower. There is nothing in impugned order how offence u/s 420 IPC is made out against the present accused as borrower also not received any amount in excess of FDR. The sale deed showing complainant is the owner of property and Advocate Saiful Islam given legal opinion on this fact. Ld. Counsel submits that accused has followed all norms and no offence u/s 420 IPC is made out. Ld. Counsel submits that the matter is essentially of civil nature and has been given cloak of criminal offence (relied upon G. Sagarsuri Vs. State of UP 2000(2) SCC 636, Indian Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC India Ltd. AIR 2006 SC 2780, Heeralal Harilal Bhagwati Vs. CBI Crl. Appeal No. 676/2003 dated 02.05.2003 (SC)). Ld. Counsel also submits that no offence of cheating at all made out as no wrongful loss committed to the bank and furthermore the accused JBS Bedi is Assistant General Manager who is not vicariously liable for the act of desk officer, and he has to do his job on the papers put up before him and not to personally physically verify the property. The report of advocate Saiful Islam suggests that he had already verified the property, therefore, no offence is made out against this accused (relied upon Maqsood Syed Vs. State of Gujarat Crl. Appeal No. 1248/2007 dated 18.09.2007 and Hardya Rangan Vs. State of Bihar 313314/2000 dated 31.03.2000).
Case No. CR/501/19 Case No. CR/551/19 Page No. 6 of 12 JBS Bedi & Ors Vs State Satinder Singh Vs. State Date 17.02.2021
10. Ld. Counsel for accused Satinder Singh submitted that present accused is a retired bank official, and complied due procedure while sanctioning the loan. Ld. Counsel submits that there is no loss to bank as FDR of Rs. 78 lacs well above the sanctioned loan has been lying with the bank. Ld. Counsel submits that all the three bank officials i.e. JBS Bedi, Satinder Singh and Vipin Ghai were working as Assistant General Manager, Manager and Desk Officer in November 1996 when export facilities were sanctioned to firm Kailash Gupta who approached the bank for credit facility. The current account of the firm was first opened at Rajender Place and subsequently transferred to present branch on 24.04.1996. The transactions in the said accounts were satisfactory. The bank guarantee at 100% margin /FDR for a total amount of Rs. 77.78 lacs were also issued by bank. The accused approached the bank for credit facility. The Desk Officer has given proper justification for the limit applied and besides the aforesaid primary security, the accused also offered three guarantors and three collateral securities with clear title and substantial value. The valuation of said properties were done by Mr. Kulwant Singh, Valuer of bank panel and search report, and legal opinion conducted by advocate Saiful Islam of bank. The bankers deal with documents and not with the goods and after verification the loan was sanctioned. No wrongful loss is caused to the bank hence no offence u/s 420 IPC made out. The name of the present accused is not in the FIR. Furthermore the present accused has no authority to sanction the loan. All the formalities were completed while granting the loan. No offence under cheating made out therefore impugned order is liable to be set aside.
11. Ld. Addl. PP submits that bank officials sanctioned the loan to accused Kailash Gupta (PO) on fictitious property in which the complainant and others were shown as guarantor. The recovery proceedings were initiated by bank against VP Sharma, Pawan Kumar and Snehlata Bhalla Case No. CR/501/19 Case No. CR/551/19 Page No. 7 of 12 JBS Bedi & Ors Vs State Satinder Singh Vs. State Date 17.02.2021 being guarantors however the suit was decreed in favour of VP Sharma vindicating his version that he never signed the guarantors deed in question. The addresses of accused Kailash Gupta at Lajpat Nagar and Defence Colony visited where the owners revealed that the person named Kailash Gupta lived one year prior and then left and never lived at Defence Colony. The North East Trading company trading company of accused Kailash Gupta was never in the Prakash Deep Building. The persons shown as vendors on the sale deeds of mortgaged property admitted their signatures however expressed inability to locate the purchaser. The vendor Yashpal Singh stated that he never signed the sale deed. The witnesses over the sale deed of Rann Singh accepted his signatures but witnesses on sale deeds of Yashpal Singh Alag reportedly dead and witnesses on sale deed of Naresh Tyagi not traceable. The purchaser in the sale deed of Rann Singh is the complainant himself who has not purchased the said property. The purchaser in sale deed of Yashpal Singh Alag is Snehlata who also has denied to have signed it. The purchaser shown in sale deed of Naresh Tyagi is shown as Pawan Kumar who is not traceable. Sh. Pradeep Chawla, author of stock inspection report of North East Trading Company in his report clearly mentioned that physical inspection of company and stock was not facilitated by alleged company. S.K. Jain, valuer reported that properties in question could not be located. Advocate Saiful Islam who has given legal opinion in his statement u/s 161 stated that he never visited the said property and his job was to give legal opinion on language of sale deed and to verify from Sub Registrar whether the same are registered or not. The MCD property tax receipt filed by borrower or fake guarantors found forged one. FSL report of handwriting expert clearly mentioned that signatures etc on the documents of mortgaged property have been done by same person and loan was sanctioned without verifying the genuineness of documents therefore offences u/s 420/468/471 r/w section 120B IPC are clearly made out.
Case No. CR/501/19 Case No. CR/551/19 Page No. 8 of 12 JBS Bedi & Ors Vs State Satinder Singh Vs. State Date 17.02.2021 12. Arguments heard. Record perused.
13. It is settled law that for the purposes of framing of charge, the court needs to prima facie determine whether there exist sufficient material for commencement of trial and not to appreciate the probative value of material on record (relied upon Dr. Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh Crl. Appeal No. 1934/2019 dated 21.01.2020). The genesis of present case is that the complainant V.P. Sharma received the notice from Debt Recovery Tribunal regarding the liability as a guarantor to the loan of accused Kailash Gupta (PO) filed by Punjab and Sind Bank. Thereafter, the complainant made complaint before police and present FIR is registered. During investigation, it is revealed that at the time of granting of loan, accused Kailash Gupta created three guarantees in the names of Smt. Snehlata Bhalla, complainant Ved Prakash Sharma and Pawan Kumar. The fictitious properties were shown in the name of above guarantors. Various false and forged documents i.e. ration card, MCD property tax bill, photographs of fictitious persons were submitted with forged signatures. The vendors of sale deed of alleged mortgaged properties were examined. The purchaser in sale deed of Rann Singh is the complainant V.P. Sharma who stated that he has not purchased the said property. The purchaser in the sale deed of Yashpal Singh Alagh is Snehlata who also denied to have signed the same. The purchaser in the sale deed of Pawan Kumar is Naresh Tyagi who is not traceable. The MCD property tax receipts filed by the accused Kailash Gupta, borrower for fake guarantors were verified from MCD however found forged and fabricated. The signatures on documents of mortgaged property found to have been done by same person therefore prima facie it is clear that loan was granted on forged and fabricated papers.
14. Ld. Counsel for accused JBS Bedi primarily raised the plea that this accused is the sanctioning authority and has himself not to verify the property and he has relied upon the legal opinion of Saiful Islam and the Case No. CR/501/19 Case No. CR/551/19 Page No. 9 of 12 JBS Bedi & Ors Vs State Satinder Singh Vs. State Date 17.02.2021 valuation report by Kulwant Singh. Ld. Counsel submits that both the legal opinion as well as valuation report do not at all suggest that there is any doubt in the documents as submitted. However statement of Saiful Islam also recorded during investigation who clearly stated that he has not physically verified the properties in question and has given legal opinion on the basis of language of sale deed and verification from Sub Registrar office. Kuldeep Singh, Valuer already died and during investigation one S.K. Jain filed another valuation report stating that property could not be located and also found disputed one. Accused Vipin Ghai is the main desk officer with whom the documents were presented then the accused Satinder Singh, Senior manager who has to supervise the work of desk officer and accused JBS Bedi's role is to sanction the loan facility. All the accused are working in the same bank. The physical verification of property is duty of the bank employee however none of bank employee appears to have physically verified the properties in question. All property documents are found forged and fictitious.
15. Ld. Counsel submits that bank did not incur any loss on sanction as bank guarantee never invoked and out of the loan of Rs. 30 lacs sanctioned, Rs. 25 lacs were limit against letter of credit and Rs. 5 lacs against packing credit, and on the date of filing of chargesheet FDR amounting Rs. 1.09 crores of accused Kailash Gupta already with the bank therefore there is no question of any wrongful loss to the bank hence no offence of cheating is made out. The loan is sanctioned on the basis of forged and fabricated documents. The bank for recovery of amount also filed the suit before the DRT. Furthermore, as per chargesheet though the FDR is filed however it is not the case of prosecution that because of this FDR no loss was caused to the bank, and it is a matter of trial in present facts and circumstances.
16. Ld. Counsel submits that even otherwise, the complaint is not filed by the bank who is the main victim and neither the management has Case No. CR/501/19 Case No. CR/551/19 Page No. 10 of 12 JBS Bedi & Ors Vs State Satinder Singh Vs. State Date 17.02.2021 complained against the present official during investigation. Furthermore, no sanction is also taken which is required for prosecution. It is settled law that the court has to see whether offence is made out or not. It is immaterial who is the complainant in present facts and circumstances. The material on record categorically suggest that forged and fabricated documents were used in obtaining the loan and bank officials i.e. present accused persons have not granted the loan after physically verifying the said property. Though AGM rank officer is not required to himself physically verify the property however it is his duty to verify the fact that it was physically verified by the officer who granted loan i.e. accused Vipin Ghai and the supervisory officer accused Satinder Singh. The sanction to prosecute admittedly not obtained however in present facts and circumstances, the offence of conspiracy is clearly disclosed therefore at this stage, no benefit of non obtaining of sanction could be given to accused persons and it is a matter of trial.
17. Apex Court in case titled as Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Jagjit Singh Crl. Appeal No. 1580/13 dated 01.10.2013 held as under:
14. In the present case, the specific allegation made against the respondent accused is that he obtained the loan on the basis of forged document with the aid of officers of the Bank. On investigation, having found the ingredients of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property of the bank (Section 420 IPC) and dishonestly using as genuine a forged document (Section 471 IPC), charge sheet was submitted under Sections 420/471 IPC against the accused persons.
15. The debt which was due to the Bank was recovered by the Bank pursuant to an order passed by Debts Recovery Tribunal. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is a compromise between the offender and the victim. The offences when committed in relation with Banking activities including offences under Sections 420/471 IPC have harmful effect on the public and threaten the well being of the society. These offences fall under the category of offences involving moral turpitude committed by public servants while working in that capacity. Prima facie, one may state that the bank as the victim in Case No. CR/501/19 Case No. CR/551/19 Page No. 11 of 12 JBS Bedi & Ors Vs State Satinder Singh Vs. State Date 17.02.2021 such cases but, in fact, the society in general, including customers of the Bank is the sufferer. In the present case, there was neither an allegation regarding any abuse of process of any Court nor anything on record to suggest that the offenders were entitled to secure the order in the ends of justice.
18. The Apex court in this case categorically held that in bank fraud cases, the victims is society in general therefore the argument of the counsel that bank is not the victim or complainant is of no value. Even otherwise, when the loan is sanctioned on forged and fabricated documents, the offence stands committed merely from the fact that later on any payment made or any FDR is lying is no ground to discharge the accused at this stage. The record suggests prima facie commission of offence of forgery and utilization of forged documents however there is no finding in the impugned order on that aspect but as the order is not challenged by the State, therefore, I am not inclined to interfere for addition of any other offence to the charges framed by the trial court. However, in view of above discussion, I find no reason to interfere in the impugned order on charge u/s 420/120B IPC passed by trial court in present facts and circumstances hence, the present revision petitions stands dismissed.
19. It is clarified that nothing in this order shall prejudice the case on merits. Revision petitions disposed of accordingly.
20. Accused/revisionist JBS Bedi and Satinder Singh are directed to appear before the trial court on 25.02.2021.
21. Copy of the order alongwith TCR be sent bank to trial court. Copy of the order be given dasti.
22. File be consigned to record room. Order be uploaded on Delhi District Courts Website.
(Ajay Kumar Jain)
Spl. Judge, NDPS/N. Delhi
17.02.2021
Case No. CR/501/19 Case No. CR/551/19 Page No. 12 of 12
JBS Bedi & Ors Vs State Satinder Singh Vs. State Date 17.02.2021