Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Ashok Kumar Naz on 4 October, 2025
CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEETU NAGAR,
ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE-06,
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT,
NEW DELHI
COVER-SHEET
IN THE MATTER OF:
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
VS.
ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ANR.
The accused persons have been apprised about the Legal Aid
Facility and the details of legal aid facility which is as
under:-
DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY
(ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT)
FRONT OFFICE, GROUND FLOOR,
ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX, DELHI
PHONE NO. 9810420894
E-MAIL ADDRESS : [email protected]
Digitally
signed by
NEETU
(Neetu Nagar)
NEETU NAGAR
ACJM-06 RADC NAGAR Date:
2025.10.04
Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 1 of 77 17:04:28
+0530
CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEETU NAGAR,
ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE-06,
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT,
NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
VS.
ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ANR.
CNR No. : DLCT12-001016-2019
CASE No. : 471/2019
FIR No. : 4(A)/95-ACU-I/CBI
Under Section : 120-B/193/467/471 IPC
Name of Branch : CBI/ACU-I
Date of Commission of Offence : 1994-95
Name of the Complainant : M.S. Yadav, Chief
Vigilance Officer, Pyrites,
Phosphates & Chemicals
Ltd. A Govt. of India
Undertaking, 12-A, Sec-24
Noida (U.P.)
Name, Parentage and Address of : (i) Ashok Kumar Naz S/o
accused Persons Prof J.N. Kaul Naz,
R/o A-096, Assotech The
Nest, Crossing Republic,
Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh
(ii) Mustaq Ahmed,
S/o Mr. Ghulam Mohd,
R/o Peerbagh, Srinagar,
J&K.
NEETU
NAGAR
(Neetu Nagar)
ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed by
Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 2 of 77 NEETU NAGAR
Date: 2025.10.04
17:04:39 +0530
CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS
(iii) Ashok Khushu S/o
O.N. Khushu, Proprietor of
M/s. Shalimar International
R/o B-114, Hillway
Apartments, Vasant Vihar,
New Delhi.
*****
Offence complained of :120-B r/w 420, 467 and
471 IPC and 13 (2) r/w
13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988.
Date of institution of case : 18.11.1996
Plea of Accused : Not Guilty
Final Judgment : CONVICTED
Date of Judgment : 04.10.2025
Age of case : 28 years 10 months
16 days
*****
APPEARANCE
For the CBI :- Ms. Priya Gaur,
Learned PP for CBI.
For the accused persons:- Sh. Krishan Kumar,
Sh. S.P. Nangia,
Sh. Akshay Bhardwaj and
Sh. Shivam Bedi,
Learned Advocates.
*****
JUDGMENT
*****
1. Accused namely Ashok Kumar Naz, Mushtaq Ahmed and Ashok Khushu were sent by the CBI to face trial for commission NEETU NAGAR Digitally signed by NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) ACJM-06 RADC Date: 2025.10.04 17:04:53 +0530 Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 3 of 77 CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS of the offences punishable under Section 120-B/193/467/471 read with 467 IPC. It is pertinent to mention that proceedings against accused Ashok Khushu has already been abated vide order dated 18.10.2010 due to his death.
FACTS
2. Very succinctly, the case of the prosecution is that the accused persons namely Ashok Kumar Naz and Mushtaq Ahmed, both officials of Jammu and Kashmir Bank (J&K Bank), Karol Bagh, New Delhi entered into a criminal conspiracy with Ashok Khushu, Proprietor of M/s. Shalimar International, New Delhi for the purpose of cheating Pyrites Phosphates and Chemicals Ltd. (PPCL), a Government of India undertaking by abusing their official position as public servants. In furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy, the said bank officials dishonestly and fraudulently manipulated a Performance Guarantee (P.G.) Bond bearing No. KB/BG/94/014 dated 25.11.1994 of Rs. 29,40,000/- by inserting therein false terms and conditions for opening Letter of Credit (L/C) by PPCL in the name of supplier within 7 days i.e. on or before 2.12.1994 from the date of issuance of said P.G. Bond and thereby deprived PPCL from their claim of Rs. 29,40,000/- on account of the failure of M/s. Shalimar International, for fulfillment of the contract to supply Urea. Thus, the accused persons caused such huge undue pecuniary benefit to M/s. Shalimar International and wrongful loss to PPCL. On the basis of these allegations, present FIR was registered.
NEETU
NAGAR
Digitally signed by
NEETU NAGAR
(Neetu Nagar) Date: 2025.10.04
ACJM-06 RADC 17:04:58 +0530
Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 4 of 77
CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS
2.1 During the investigation, it transpired that PPCL was
authorized as co-canalizing agency by Government of India to import 1,00,000 MT of Urea in October, 1994. Accordingly, PPCL had informed several companies for submitting their offers to supply Urea. Ashok Khushu, proprietor of M/s. Shalimar International, submitted a spot offer on behalf of their principal supplier M/s. Overseas Trading Co. Tempole House, London on 22.11.1994 for supplying of 75,000 MT of Urea @ US $ 130 PMT FOB with supply schedule 37,500 MT per month to the PPCL and also agreed to provide 2% value of the contract as its Performance Guarantee and to execute a Performance Guarantee Bond (PG Bond) with renewal for a period of 12 months subject to confirmation of buyer and supplier.
2.2 Investigation revealed that a contract was prepared on 24.11.1994 duly signed by Sh. P.K. Awasthi, Executive Director (Marketing) of PPCL and Ashok Khushu of M/s. Shalimar International. The PG Bond from a Bank was to be submitted by Ashok Khushu to the PPCL by 29.11.1994 and on receipt of PG Bond, a Letter of Credit was to be opened by PPCL. On 24.11.1994, at the time of preparing the contract, a proforma of PG Bond was given by PPCL to Ashok Khushu for submitting the same through the bank which would stand as Guarantor. Accordingly, Ashok Khushu submitted PG Bond No. KB/BG/94/014 dated 25.11.1994, issued by J&K Bank, Karol Bagh, New Delhi on two pages for a value of Rs. 29,40,000/-
Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.10.04 (Neetu Nagar) 17:05:02 ACJM-06 RADC +0530 Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 5 of 77 CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS which was exactly as per their prescribed proforma and duly signed by Ashok Kumar Naz, Chief Manager and Mustaq Ahmed, Officer Gd.I (Advance) of J&K Bank, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The said PG Bond was given to Sh. V.P. Pancholi, Manager, PPCL by Ashok Khushu on 26.11.1994. On scrutiny of the PG Bond, it was found that there were several cuttings and overwriting thereon which were not initialed by the bank officials who had issued the said bond due to which same was not accepted by the officials of the PPCL and was returned back to Ashok Khushu with instructions that he should get a fresh PG Bond executed without any cuttings or overwriting immediately as the last date of submission of the PG Bond was 29.11.1994. 2.3 It transpired during the investigation that accused Ashok Khushu submitted a fresh PG Bond bearing the same number as KB/PG/94/014 dated 25.11.1994 on 29.11.1994 which was only in one page containing signatures of Ashok Kumar Naz and Mustaq Ahmed at its foot and on stamp paper of Rs. 50/-
containing the entire matter as per prescribed proforma supplied by the PPCL. This fresh PG Bond was examined by the officials of PPCL and it was found as per their prescribed proforma, therefore, it was accepted. As per the said PG Bond, the bank had made guarantee to give Rs. 29,40,000/- to the PPCL in case M/s. Shalimar International failed to perform its contractual obligation for supply of Urea. As per this PG Bond, the PPCL could have claimed its bond upto 25.01.1995.
NEETU
NAGAR
(Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed by
NEETU NAGAR
ACJM-06 RADC
Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 6 of 77 Date: 2025.10.04
17:05:06 +0530
CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS
2.4 It is further revealed that the purchaser PPCL opened L/C
in Central Bank of India at Nehru Place, New Delhi on 5.12.1994 requesting the Central Bank to open L/C in favour of supplier at Switzerland. The Central Bank of India, New Delhi after opening L/C in favour of the supplier had sent the message to its corresponding bank i.e. Union Bank, Switzerland to pass on the said L/C to the beneficiary M/s. Kylemore Financial Inc. The Union Bank of Switzerland replied that the beneficiary M/s. Kylemore Financial Inc. was not traceable at the given address. Then the matter was reported to the PPCL by the Central Bank of India, which contacted Ashok Khushu and had informed him that M/s. Kylemore Financial Inc. was not traceable. Ashok Khushu again advised the PPCL to send the L/C to the Bank of beneficiary i.e. M/s. Hottinger & Cie Banquie, Switzerland. Accordingly, PPCL requested the Central Bank of India, New Delhi to open the L/C through another bank M/s. Hottinger & Cie Banquie, Switzerland as advised by Ashok Khushu. The Central Bank of India opened fresh L/C with their correspondent bank in Switzerland i.e. Swiss Bank Corporation with instructions to pass on the L/C to beneficiary through Hottinger & Cie Banquie. On 04.01.1995, Swiss Bank Corporation, a corresponding bank of Central Bank of India informed Central Bank of India, Nehru Place, New Delhi that the beneficiary's bank Hottinger & Cie had refused to handle the said transaction since they had no relationship with the beneficiary. The Central NEETU (Neetu Nagar) NAGAR ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed by Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 7 of 77 NEETU NAGAR Date: 2025.10.04 17:05:10 +0530 CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS Bank of India conveyed the information to the PPCL that since the supplier was not traceable, therefore, no bank was ready to handle the L/C for the supplier. Since the Central Bank of India, Nehru Place, New Delhi had opened the L/C at the instance of PPCL, therefore, it had charged a sum of Rs. 3,36,538/- as bank charges from the PPCL, Noida for opening the aforesaid L/C. 2.5 It further transpired that when the L/Cs were not accepted by the banks of the supplier as suggested by accused Ashok Khushu and also up on their failure to supply the urea as per delivery schedule stipulated in the contract i.e. upto 23.01.1995, PPCL officials suspected foul play on behalf of the agent of supplier and wrote a letter to the J&K Bank on 23.01.1995 requesting them to encash the PG Bond of Rs. 29,40,000/-. The Chief Manager of J&K Bank Ashok Kumar Naz vide his letter dated 25.01.1995 refused to entertain the encashment of the PG Bond on the ground that the said PG bond was non-operative because it was valid only for seven days i.e. upto 02.12.1994 forwarding a photocopy of the PG Bond containing two sheets to the PPCL. It was the first time when PPCL came to know about the second page of the PG Bond.
2.6 It was also revealed during investigation that the photocopy of the PG Bond that had contained two pages was typed on the typewriter of accused Ashok Khushu and signed by Ashok Kumar Naz and Mushtaq Ahmed. The photocopies of the PG Bond given by Ashok Kumar Naz, enclosed with letter dated Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) NAGAR Date:
ACJM-06 RADC 2025.10.04
17:05:15
Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 8 of 77 +0530
CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS
25.01.1995 was the forged one and the second page of the said PG Bond was prepared by accused Ashok Kumar Naz and Mushtaq Ahmed in conspiracy with Ashok Khushu for the purpose of depriving PPCL from making claim of Rs. 29,40,000/- against the genuine PG Bond. 2.7 It also came during investigation that the supplier of Urea had already sold its company and was not in a position to supply the urea as mentioned in the contract in question. The agent accused Ashok Khushu was unable to perform the terms and conditions mentioned in the contract regarding supply of urea and he had totally failed to supply the same, therefore, the bank was bound to give the bond amount to the PPCL. The accused persons thus in conspiracy with each other dishonestly prepared the second page of the PG Bond subsequently by mentioning the terms and conditions as 7 days from the date of issuance of PG Bond which was a forged document for depriving PPCL of Rs. 29.40 Lacs.
2.8 It had also been revealed during investigation that accused Ashok Kumar Naz, Musthaq Ahmed and Ashok Khushu prepared a false ante-dated document i.e. letter dated 29.11.1994 to cover up the act of commission of offence that bank had issued NOPG spreading in two pages, whereas the bank had issued PG Bond in one page as mentioned in Bank's letter dated 30.11.1994.
3. After completion of the investigation, chargesheet was NEETU NAGAR Digitally signed by (Neetu Nagar) NEETU NAGAR ACJM-06 RADC Date: 2025.10.04 Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 9 of 77 17:05:20 +0530 CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS filed in the court under Section 120-B, 193, 467, 471 read with 467 IPC.
COGNIZANCE AND CHARGE
4. Cognizance was taken against all accused persons under section 120-B, 193, 467, 471, 467 and 471 IPC vide order dated 24.02.1997.
4.1 Copy of the chargesheet and the accompanied documents were supplied to accused persons free of cost under Section 207 Cr.P.C.
4.2 Finding a prima facie case, charge for commission of offence punishable under Section 120-B read with Section 467/471 IPC and section 467 and 471 IPC were framed against accused Ashok Kumar Naz and Mushtaq Ahmed on 03.04.2014 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
5. To prove its case, the prosecution examined total 19 witnesses and they are categorized for the sake of convenience as under:-
S.No Points Witnesses Proved During PW Name Trial
1. PWs who proved the PW 4 Mr. V.P. Pancholi transactions/ correspondence PW 5 Mr. K.C. Katta that occurred between accused persons and PPCL regarding PG PW6 Mr. C.P. Gupta Bond No. KB/BG/94/014 dated PW7 Mr. P.K. Awasthi 25.11.1994 for Rs 29,40,000/-
NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed by ACJM-06 RADC NEETU NAGAR Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 10 of 77 Date: 2025.10.04 17:05:24 +0530 CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS PW10 Mr. B.K. Kanda
2. PWs who proved the PW 11 Mr. Inder Pal transactions and correspondence Singh Oberoi between PPCL and Central PW 6 Mr. C.P. Gupta Bank of India to open the Letter of credit which occurred actual PW 7 Mr. P.K. Awasthi loss of Rs. Rs 3,36,538/- to PPCL.
3. PWs who proved the making of PW1 Mr. Ajeet Singh forged PG Bond PW16 Mr. Vijay Sharma PW17 Mr. Krishan Kumar Dahiya
4. PWs who proved the signatures PW2 Mr. Ravinder of accused persons Kumar Kharoo PW8 Mr. Dinesh Chand Lakhera PW 18 Mr. Satish Kumar Gupta
5. Scientific expert PW15 Mr. M.L. Sharma
6. Investigating Officer PW 14 Mr. M.S. Bisht
7. PWs of Speciman signatures PW 3 Mr. C.L. Sharma proceedings PW 9 Mr. B.C. Bhardwaj PW12 Mr. Punit Kumar Gargia PW 13 Mr. Harish Vij
8. Complainant PW 19 Mr. M.S. Yadav NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed by ACJM-06 RADC NEETU NAGAR Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 11 of 77 Date: 2025.10.04 17:05:28 +0530 CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS 5.1. The testimonies of prosecution witnesses are as follows:-
(i) PW-1 Ajeet Singh:- This witness was posted as Deputy General Manager, Law in Divisional Office, J&K Bank at Karol Bagh, New Delhi and was looking after the legal matters of the bank. He deposed that after issuance of Performance Guarantee, Naz contacted him and told him about the instrument. He deposed about the advise given by him to Naz after examining the instrument along with connected papers.
(ii) PW-2 Ravinder Kumar Kharoo:- This witness was Accounts Manager in J & K Bank, Karol Bagh Branch. He proved the letter (D-18) issued by him as per the instructions received from DSP CBI ACU-I vide Ex.PW2/A and (D20) i.e seizure memo vide Ex.PW2/B, letter dated 28.08.2006 (D-23) vide Ex.PW2/C and performance guarantee bond dated 25.11.1994 vide Ex.
PW2/D. He also identified the signatures of accused Ashok Kumar Naz and that of accused Mushtaq on Ex. PW2/D i.e. performance guarantee bond dated 25.11.1994. During his cross- examination, he also proved PG Bond Ex.PW2/D1 which was cancelled and returned.
(iii) PW-3 C.L Sharma:- He testified that the specimen signatures of accused Ashok Kumar Naz and Mushtaq Ahmed were taken in his presence on D-9 vide Ex.PW3/A.
(iv) PW-4 V.P. Pancholi:- This witness was Senior Manager in PPCL and was looking after imports of urea and other fertilizers. He deposed about the various correspondence that took place NEETU NAGAR Digitally signed by (Neetu Nagar) NEETU NAGAR ACJM-06 RADC Date: 2025.10.04 Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 12 of 77 17:05:35 +0530 CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS between PPCL and M/s. Shalimar International as well as J&K Bank and Central Bank. He testified that he was member of the purchase committee for the import of urea in PPCL. PPCL adopted the process of inviting limited tenders for import of urea on the basis of standard terms and conditions of import along with earnest money deposit and also required submission of performance guarantee bond for the performance of the contract. He further testified that M/s. Shalimar International supplied their offer for supply of Urea, accepting the standard terms and conditions of urea imports along with the earnest money deposit and the contract was signed after the approval of the purchase committee.
He deposed next that the contract was accepted by M/s. Shalimar International on behalf of their Overseas suppliers and submitted the required Performance Bank Guarantee Ex. PW2/D1 dated 25.11.1994 (in two pages) before PPCL which was returned to M/s. Shalimar International owing to objections raised by PPCL due to various cuttings and overwritings which were not authenticated by the issuing bank official. He further testified that M/s. Shalimar International submitted another Performance Bank Guarantee on 25.11.1994 typed only on one page dated 25.11.1994 as per the prescribed proforma of bank guarantee given in the contract. He identified the signatures of accused Ashok Khushu on D-3 (forwarding letter) Ex. PW4/A vide which Performance Guarantee Bond was submitted by M/s.
Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) ACJM-06 RADC NAGAR Date:
2025.10.04 Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 13 of 77 17:05:39 +0530 CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS Shalimar International on 29.11.1994 on single sheet. He deposed further that approval was sought from the competent authority for acceptance of performance guarantee bond vide D4. He further testified that Finance Department of PPCL established the Letter of Credit in favour of Overseas supplier of M/s. Shalimar International through PPCL banker i.e. Central Bank of India.
He proved Ex.PW4/C i.e. complaint filed by Sh. M.S. Yadav, Chief Vigilance Officer, PPCL on 22.06.1995 addressed to DIG-CBI and letter dated 28.02.1995 Ex.PW4/V vide which Chief Manager, J&K Bank informed him that performance bank guarantee issued on 25.11.1995 on behalf of M/s. Shalimar International was conditional one and became operative subject to establishment of acceptable Letter of Credit by PPCL favouring M/s. Overseas Trade Company within 7 days of the establishment of the said guarantee under advise to the bank. He further deposed that J&K Bank refused to honour the performance guarantee and did not pay the bank guarantee amount to PPCL. He next proved Ex.PW4/D i.e. letter dated 28.01.1995, addressed to Chief Manager J&K Bank vide which J&K Bank informed that the original bank guarantee furnished to PPCL was in one page only and did not contain any condition with regard to establishment of LC within 7 days. He further testified that on 31.01.1995, Chairman-cum-Managing Director of PPCL sent one letter dated 31.01.1995 vide Ex.PW4/E to Digitally signed by NEETU (Neetu Nagar) NEETU NAGAR ACJM-06 RADC NAGAR Date:
2025.10.04 Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 14 of 77 17:05:43 +0530 CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS Chairman J&K Sh. S.D. Singh. He also proved proforma for performance guarantee bond vide Ex.PW4/D which was part of contract, through which J&K Bank was informed by PPCL that bank guarantee in prescribed format was duly concluded on one page on judicial stamp paper of Rs. 50/-. He further deposed that second page was neither required nor there any indication of being a second page on the original one page PG Bond.
He further deposed that the proposal sheet approval dated 23.01.1995 from the competent authority was taken and granted and decision to encash the performance guarantee bond was taken after repeated failure of PPCL Banker to locate the beneficiaries proposed by M/s. Shalimar International and refusal of beneficiaries banker to accept the LCs as they were not traceable at the addresses given by M/s. Shalimar International.
He proved notesheet dated 10.01.1995 vide Ex.PW4/F through which soft probe of the principal supplier of M/s. Shalimar International i.e. M/s. Overseas Trade Company and beneficiary M/s. Kylemore Financial was proposed after permission from Shalimar International and confidential report of the Central Bank of India showed that principal supplier as well as the beneficiary were not traceable. He proved notesheet dated 10.01.1995 vide Ex.PW4/G through which PPCL expressed its inability to establish the LC fourth time after repeated failure to trace the beneficiary of M/s. Shalimar International and they accordingly decided to lodge the claim for the encashment of PG Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) NAGAR Date:
2025.10.04 ACJM-06 RADC 17:05:47 Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 15 of 77 +0530 CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS bond submitted by M/s. Shalimar International. He proved letter dated 09.01.1995 vide Ex.PW4/H through which PPCL requested to M/s. Shalimar International to submit particulars alongwith confirmation from the beneficiaries regarding the willingness to accept the LC failing which performance guarantee bond would be encashed by the PPCL, note-sheet dated 05.01.1995 vide Ex.PW4/I regarding amendment in LC vide which complete details of opening of LC on various occasions and refusal of the beneficiary bank to accept the LC was provided, letter dated 30.12.1994 on the letter head of PPCL vide Ex.PW4/J, letter dated 22.11.1994 vide Ex.PW4/K addressed to M/s. Shalimar International in response to their offer dated 22.11.1994 to extend the validity of offer till 30.11.1994.
He further deposed that Ex.PW4/L and PW4/M i.e. letters dated 11.11.1994 and 24.11.1994 respectively were addressed to CMD, PPCL by M/s. Shalimar International for the offer and confirmation of supply of 75,000 metric ton Urea. He prepared letter dated 24.11.1994 vide Ex.PW4/N vide which Executive Director (Marketing) PPCL delivered the contract number PPC/Uria924/Con13. He proved letter dated 28.11.1994 vide Ex.PW4/O addressed to P.K. Awasthi, Executive Director through fax from accused Ashok Khushu along with photocopy of performance guarantee bond dated 25.11.1994 in one page, letter dated 30.11.1994 vide Ex.PW4/P received from accused Ashok Khushu to PPCL confirming the submission of original Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) ACJM-06 RADC NAGAR Date:
2025.10.04 Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 16 of 77 17:05:51 +0530 CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS Performance Guarantee Bond on 29.11.1994, letter dated 20.12.1994 vide Ex.PW4/Q addressed to M/s. Shalimar International requesting them to furnish the complete banking detail of beneficiary and supplier detail for shipment of urea, note-sheet dated 23.12.1994 vide Ex.PW4/R through which it was proposed to open another LC in favour of principal supplier of M/s. Shalimar International extending the last date of shipment to 10.01.1995, letter dated 29.12.1994 vide Ex.PW4/S addressed to M/s. Shalimar International informing that Letter of Credit opened by Central Bank of India through Union Bank of Switzerland was cancelled as the beneficiary was not traceable, letter dated 25.01.1995 vide Ex.PW4/T from J&K Bank Limited addressed to PPCL expressing their inability to entertain encashment of Performance Bank Guarantee dated 25.11.1994, letter dated 28.01.1995 vide Ex.PW4/U addressed to Chief Manager, J&K Bank in response to their letter dated 25.01.1995 and letter dated 28.02.1995 received from Chief Manager J&K Bank in response to letter dated 28.01.1995 vide Ex.PW4/V. He further deposed that Mark A1 i.e. letter dated 21.06.1995 was written by Mr. A.P. Khandelwal, CMD, PPCL to Chairman of J&K Bank. He identified the PPCL rubber stamp in original vide Ex.PW4/W. He proved letter dated 30.11.1994 vide Ex.PW4/X which was received from J&K Bank addressed to PPCL confirming the issue of performance guarantee for Rs. 29.40 lacs in response to PPCL letter 29.11.1994, original copy NEETU (Neetu Nagar) NAGAR ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed by Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 17 of 77 NEETU NAGAR Date: 2025.10.04 17:05:55 +0530 CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS of contract dated 24.11.1994 accepted by the supplier M/s.
Shalimar International which included the proforma for performance guarantee bond vide Ex.PW4/Y and document dated 02.12.1994 (Note:- This document is exhibited on the file as Ex. PW11/B) submitted by PPCL to Central Bank of India, Nehru Place for opening of Letter of Credit in favour of overseas supplier of M/s. Shalimar International. Further, he deposed that letter dated 09.12.1994 vide Ex.PW4/Z was sent by Central Bank of India addressed to PPCL regarding confirmation of opening of letter of credit in favour of Overseas supplier of M/s. Shalimar International opened on 05.12.1994 and a copy of the same was forwarded by the bank to PPCL. He proved original letter dated 25.11.1994 vide Ex.PW4/Z1 sent by M/s. Shalimar International addressed to Chief Manager, J&K Bank returning the performance guarantee bond dated 25.11.1994 owing to cuttings and overwritings, letter dated 23.01.1995 vide Ex.PW4/Z2 sent by Manager (P&D), PPCL addressed to J&K Bank informing the failure of contractual obligations of M/s. Shalimar International and request to make payment of 29.40 lac against the performance guarantee and letter dated 28.01.1995 vide Ex.PW4/Z3 sent by Manager (P&D) PPCL addressed to J&K Bank. This witness further deposed during his cross-examination that first Letter of Credit was opened on 02.12.1999 by Central Bank of India vide tested Telex vide Ex. PW4/D-1.
(v) PW-5 K.C. Katta:- This witness was General Manager, Digitally signed by NEETU (Neetu Nagar) NEETU NAGAR ACJM-06 RADC NAGAR Date:
2025.10.04 Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 18 of 77 17:05:59 +0530 CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS PPCL, Noida, UP and was looking after the entire finance control of PPCL. He deposed that PPCL awarded a contract for import of urea to bidder M/s. Shalimar International which submitted performance bond at the initial stage with numerous cuttings/overwritings which was not accepted by PPCL. He deposed further that fresh performance guarantee bond consisting of one page was submitted by M/s. Shalimar International. He identified his signature on D-7 i.e. photocopy of letter dated 29.11.1994 marked as PW5/Mark A which was sent to Central Bank of India for providing the proof of funds and products' certificate. On seeing D-7 i.e. letter dated 09.12.1994 (PW5/Mark B), he deposed that he wrote the letter to M/s. Shalimar International that Union Bank of Switzerland could not provide the service of LC as the beneficiary was neither known nor could be traced by them and therefore, he was not in position to advise the LC. He proved Letter dated 14.12.1994 (D-7) marked as PW5/Mark C addressed to M/s. Shalimar International, letter dated 05.01.1995 vide Ex. PW5/A addressed to M/s. Shalimar International, letter dated 12.01.1995 (D-6) vide Ex.PW5/B addressed to Chief Manager, Central Bank of India to conduct a soft form about the parties from their bankers particularly with the reference of their capability to execute the order, their creditworthiness, etc., and letter dated 24.01.1995 (D-6) vide Ex.PW5/C1 addressed to General Manager, Central Bank of India and deposed that handwritten note from Z1 to Z2 and X1 to Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) NAGAR Date:
ACJM-06 RADC 2025.10.04
17:06:04
Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 19 of 77 +0530
CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS
X2 were not in his handwriting. He also proved letter dated 23.12.1994 vide Ex.PW5/C2 (Note:- same is exhibited as Ex.PW5/C1 on the document), addressed to Chief Manager, Central Bank of India. He further deposed that the handwritten note on Ex.PW5/C2 from X1 to X2 was not in his handwriting.
He also proved letter dated 21.01.1995 mentioned as 24.01.1995 on the document (D-14) vide Ex.PW5/C3 addressed to Chief Manager, Central Bank of India and original fax message dated 15.12.1994 (D-14) vide Ex.PW5/C4 addressed to M/s. Shalimar International, New Delhi. He further deposed that a committee was set up by PPCL for the purchase of urea and related matters and all the documents submitted by M/s. Shalimar International were examined by all the members of the committee and himself being one of the members of the said committee.
(vi) PW-6 C.P. Gupta:- This witness was working as Manager Finance in PPCL. He proved PG Bond dated 25.11.1994 vide Ex.PW2/A, note dated 29.11.1994 approval letter of V.P. Pancholi for the opening of letter of credit by the company vide Ex.PW4/B, letter dated 02.12.1994 (D-6) vide Ex.PW6/A addressed to Central Bank of India for issuance of Certificate for opening of LC, letter dated 08.12.1994 (D-7) vide Ex. PW6/A through which Deputy Manager, Finance was requested to keep the performance bond in safe custody and letter dated 29.11.1994 (D-24) vide Ex.PW6/A regarding the request to J & K Bank to confirm the issue of bank guarantee.
Digitally
signed by
NEETU
(Neetu Nagar) NEETU NAGAR
ACJM-06 RADC NAGAR Date:
2025.10.04
Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 20 of 77 17:06:09
+0530
CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS
(vii) PW-7 P.K. Awasthi:- This witness also worked in PPCL and was posted as Senior Agronomist. He deposed that letter 21.06.1995 mark PW4/A1 was written by CMD A.P. Khandelwal to Mr. S.D. Singh of J&K Bank regarding anomalies in the B.G. Bond No. KB/BG/94014 dated 25.11.1994. He further deposed that performance guarantee bond Ex. PW2/D1 contained in two pages had lot of cuttings and was submitted by M/s. Shalimar International for fulfilling supply of urea. Same was not accepted by PPCL owing to lot of cuttings and over writings and was not duly authenticated by the bank. He further deposed that M/s. Shalimar International submitted the bank guarantee containing one page Ex. PW2/D (Part of D-3) dated 25.11.1994 issued by J&K Bank. He deposed categorically that earlier performance guarantee was in two pages whereas second bank guarantee was of one page only as it did not contain the word 'continuation' in the performance guarantee at extreme right bottom of page. He deposed further that M/s. Shalimar failed to supply the urea against PPCL's order and therefore, PPCL took action to encash the bank guarantee owing to the failure to supply urea against PPCL's order and the said action was refused by the bank. Thereafter, the matter was dealt by PPCL Finance Department for necessary action. He wrote letter dated 22.11.1994 to M/s. Shalimar International vide Ex. PW4/A regarding the extension of validity of their offer from 22.11.1994 to 30.11.1994. He proved Ex. PW4/Y (D7), i.e. contract issued Digitally signed by NEETU (Neetu Nagar) NEETU NAGAR ACJM-06 RADC NAGAR Date:
2025.10.04 Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 21 of 77 17:06:18 +0530 CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS by PPCL to M/s. Overseas Trade Company Limited through their Indian agent M/s. Shalimar International, Ex.PW4/M i.e. letter dated 24.11.1994, written by him for placing the order for supply of 35,000 metric tons plus ten percent urea and containing acceptance of M/s. Shalimar International and letter dated 28.11.1994 vide Ex.PW7/A written by him regarding the amendment in contract dated 24.11.1994. He deposed that Mark PW7/A-1 was written by him regarding the request for amendment in Performance Guarantee Bond of Contract dated 24.11.1994 for supply of 35000 metric tons plus 10% as urea. He further deposed that Mark PW7/A-2 i.e. letter dated 09.12.1994 was sent to M/s. Shalimar International regarding non-accepting of loading rate of 1500 metric tons per Weather Working Day (WWD) instead of 6000 per WWD.
He further testified that the import of urea was done by PPCL with the approval of purchase committee consisting of Chairman, Managing Director, Executive Director (Marketing), Commercial Manager and Financial Advisor etc. He testified next that the orders were accepted by parties on spot subject to the fulfilling of terms and conditions laid down by PPCL for import of urea. He then deposed that M/s. Shalimar International on behalf of their supplier submitted their offer of supply of urea at the rate USD 130 per metric ton against which the order were placed but due to typographical mistake figure of USD 135 was mentioned in the order instead of USD 130 which was later Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) NAGAR Date:
ACJM-06 RADC 2025.10.04
17:06:23
Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 22 of 77 +0530
CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS
corrected by an amendment and the same was accepted by M/s. Shalimar International. He further testified that Ex. PW4/B i.e a file note dated 29.11.1994 pertaining to examination of one page performance guarantee bond was submitted by M/s. Shalimar International bearing his signatures and that of B.P. Pancholi and K.C. Katta.
(viii) PW-8 Dinesh Chand Lakhera:- This witness was working in Sew Engineering Pvt. Ltd whose directors were Ashok Khushu and Satbir Singh. He deposed that owner of M/s. Shalimar International and M/s. Sew Engineering Private Ltd. were both real brothers and their office phones were also same. He knew accused Ashok Khushu and identified his signatures on Ex.PW4/21(D2) (Note:- This document is exhibited as Ex.PW4/Z1), Ex.PW4/A(D3), MR1353/96, (Note:- This document is exhibited as Ex.PW16/A on the document), Ex.PW8/1 i.e. letter dated 13.01.1995, Ex.PW8/2 (Page no. 138 of D-7) i.e. letter dated 09.01.1995, Ex.PW4/P (Page no. 53 of D-
7), Ex. PW4/O (Page no. 44 of D-7), Ex. PW4/M (Page no. 14 of D-7), Ex. PW8/3 (Page no. 8 of D-7) and Ex. PW8/4 (Page no. 130 of D-7).
(ix) PW-9 B.C. Bhardwaj:- He deposed that on 22.05.1996, specimen signatures of accused Ashok Kumar Naz and accused Mushtaq Ahmed vide Ex. PW3/A (D9) were obtained in his presence.
(x) PW-10 B.K. Kanda:- This witness was also posted as NEETU (Neetu Nagar) NAGAR ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed by Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 23 of 77 NEETU NAGAR Date: 2025.10.04 17:06:27 +0530 CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS Assistant Manager (Finance) in PPCL in January, 1995. He also deposed that PPCL was appointed as a Canalizing Agent on behalf of Government for import of Urea around the year 1994. He proved the contract D-7 (Ex. PW4/Y) between PPCL and M/s. Overseas Trade Company through M/s. Shalimar International, the purchase order dated 24.11.1994 and prescribed format submitted by PPCL (already exhibited as PW4/N). He deposed that the representative of M/s. Shalimar International brought the bank guarantee Ex.PW2/D-1 for Rs. 29,40,000/- issued by J&K Bank dated 25.11.1994 but due to overwriting, cuttings, amendments and bank guarantee not duly authenticated by the bank official, same was not accepted. He further deposed that Mr. V.P. Pancholi also detected the mistake in the purchase order wherein the price was mentioned as US $135 per MT whereas it should be US $130 per MT. He further deposed that in the office of Mr. Katta, representative of M/s. Shalimar International was advised to amend the Promissory Guarantee Bond. He proved amendment dated 28.11.1994 already exhibited as Ex.PW7/A, fresh Bank Guarantee received by Commercial Department bearing Letter of Credit No. 947015 duly opened on 05.12.1994 from Central Bank of India, Nehru Place vide Ex.PW4/D1 and letter dated 09.12.1994 of Central Bank of India vide which bank intimated that they have received telex message from Union Bank of Switzerland that beneficiary M/s. Kylemore Financial Inc. was neither known nor could be traced out at the NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed by Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 24 of 77 NEETU NAGAR Date: 2025.10.04 17:06:31 +0530 CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS given address vide Ex.PW10/A. He proved letter dated 20.12.1994 vide Ex.PW10/B through which M/s. Shalimar International requested to send the Letter of Credit to the beneficiary bank i.e. Hottenger & Cie Banquiers Zurich, Letter of Credit dated 30.12.1994 bearing no. 947051A vide Ex.PW10/C which was issued by Central Bank of India and Telex Message vide Ex.PW10/D sent from Swiss Bank Corporation to Central Bank of India informing that Hottenger & Cie Banquiers, Zurich were not interested in handling the transaction as no relationship existed with the beneficiary. He deposed that Ex. PW2/D (part of D-3) was one page PG Bond as per the prescribed proforma of PPCL and there was no condition of opening of Letter of Credit within seven days from the date of execution of PG Bond. He deposed further that letter of confirmation was issued on P.G. bond in which there was no mention about the NOPG or any condition in PG Bond. He also proved letter dated 30.11.1992 D-7 (Mark-A) which was handed over by Ashok Kumar Naz, Chief Manager, J&K Bank to him.
(xi) PW-11 Indar Pal Singh Oberoi:- This witness was working in Central Bank of India, Nehru Place in the capacity of Deputy Chief Manager. He handed over certain documents pertaining to Central Bank of India, Nehru Place Branch vide Ex.PW11/A (D19) i.e. seizure memo bearing no. ADB/A 9(a)/1249 dated 02.02.1996 to CBI. He proved fax copy and the true translation of the same vide Ex. PW11/B and carbon copy of the debit Digitally signed by NEETU (Neetu Nagar) NEETU NAGAR ACJM-06 RADC NAGAR Date:
2025.10.04 Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 25 of 77 17:06:37 +0530 CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS voucher of Central Bank of India, branch Nehru Place, Delhi, dated 06.12.1994 (D27) vide Ex. PW11/C pertaining to recovery of an amount of Rs. 3,37,238/-.
(xii) PW-12 Punit Kumar Gargia:- This witness worked as a Regional Customer Engineering Manager in Network Ltd. which was engaged in manufacturing, sales and services of electronic typewriter. He deposed that IO had taken two specimen printouts of network laser net serial no. NS021741 through Daisy wheel No. 0504504 in his presence vide Ex. PW12/1 and Ex. PW12/2.
(xiii) PW-13 Harish Vij:- This witness worked as Area Manager, Services Department in Network limited and deposed similarly as PW12 and identified his signatures on Ex.PW12/1 and Ex. PW12/2.
(xiv) PW-14 M.S. Bisht:- He is the investigating officer of the present case and proved the steps of investigation. He deposed that investigation of RC4A 1995, ACU 1 was entrusted to him.
He collected relevant documents as per seizure memo and recorded the statement of witnesses as per the list of witnesses. He sent questioned documents, specimens handwritings and specimen of questioned typewriter to GEQD for opinion and submitted the chargesheet in the present case. He proved D-9 i.e. specimen initials/signatures of accused Ashok Kumar Naz and accused Mustaq Ahmed (Ex. PW3/A) and specimen printout of network electronic typewriter Ex.PW12/1, letter dated 24.05.1996 from SP/CBI addressed to GEQD, Shimla vide Ex.
Digitally
signed by
NEETU
(Neetu Nagar) NEETU NAGAR
ACJM-06 RADC NAGAR Date:
2025.10.04
Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 26 of 77 17:06:41
+0530
CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS
PW14/A, letter no. 1480 dated 29.03.1996 from SP/CBI vide Ex.PW14/B, D-16 i.e. letter 3977 dated 15.07.1996 vide Ex. PW14/C bearing signature of H.C. Singh, Assistant Director, Interpol, CBI, Ex. PW14/D i.e. receipt memo 03.01.1996, through which he seized one file dated 24.11.1994 from Vigilance Officer, PPCL, letter dated 06.12.1995 vide Ex.PW2/A, Ex. PW2/B (Seizure memo) dated 09.02.1996 regarding seizure of office copy of PG Bond, Ex.PW14/E (seizure memo dated 19.03.1996) in respect of register of stamp vendor Prem Kumari, Ex. PW14/F (seizure memo dated 27.08.1996) pertaining to file of M/s. Kylemore Financial Inc, letter dated 28.08.1996 relating to handing over of original account opening form of M/s. Shalimar International and M/s. Ladakh Engineers (Ex.PW2/C), Ex. PW14/G (receipt memo) dated 06.11.1996 in respect of file bearing No. S-270 of M/s. Shalimar International of Divisional Office of J&K Bank, Karol Bagh and Ex. PW14/H (FIR RC-4(A)/95-ACU(I). During his cross-examination, he deposed that he had seized Ex. PW14/M along with entire file as well as letter dated 24.11.1994 at page no. 114 of document D-24. This witness further proved letter dated 24.11.1994 sent by M/s. Shalimar International to Chief Manager, J&K Bank, Karol Bagh vide Ex. PW14/D1.
(xv) PW-15 M.L. Sharma GEQD, Shimla:- He is the expert witness who conducted examination of the documents along with Santok Singh. He proved letter no. CX-31/96/1013 of GEQD, Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) NAGAR Date:
ACJM-06 RADC 2025.10.04
17:06:47
Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 27 of 77 +0530
CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS
Govt. of India, Shimla dated 07.08.1996 alongwith opinion no. CX-31/96 vide Ex. PW15/A (D8). During his cross-examination, he proved D-10 Ex.PW14/A i.e. letter dated 24.05.1996 vide which the questioned documents were received by them from CBI.
(xvi) PW16 Vijay Sharma:- This witness was employee of Sew Shalimar Engineering Works Pvt Ltd. He proved counter guarantee Ex.PW16/A (D12) submitted by accused Ashok Khushu on Rs. 10/- stamp paper for Rs. 24,89,310/- dated 25.11.1994 pertaining to the request made to the bank for issuance of bank guarantee. He deposed that he typed variety of documents in the office of Ashok Khushu, when he was working there and deposed that Ex. PW 16/A was typed by him for M/s. Shalimar International on a stamp paper. He also typed the performance guarantee bond Ex.PW2/D from Ex. PW2/D1 on 26.11.1994.
(xvii) PW-17 Krishan Kumar Dahiya:- This witness was the Collector of Stamps with office at Tis Hazari Court, Delhi in the year 1994 and 1995. He deposed that he received one letter dated 25.04.1995 from M.S. Yadav, CVO, PPCL. He issued letter dated 03.05.1995 addressed to Mr. M.S. Yadav CVO, PPCL along with certified copies of register vide Ex. PW17/1 (colly) maintained by Smt. Prem Kumari along with attested copy of register pertaining to entry against Serial number 51651 on 26.11.1994 bearing value of Rs. 50/- to J.K. Ltd., Delhi. He Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) NAGAR Date:
ACJM-06 RADC 2025.10.04
17:06:51
Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 28 of 77 +0530
CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS
deposed that Ex. PW17/2 is the stamp paper register maintained by Prem Kumari bearing License number 157 and authenticated by his office on 09.11.1994. He identified the entry of 26.11.1994 when Smt. Prem Kumari, Stamp Vendor sold the stamp paper at serial number 51651 in favour of J.K. Ltd. He deposed that Ex. PW17/3 (already Ex. PW2/D) i.e. the performance guarantee bond dated 25.11.1994 (D-3) is having serial number 51651 at point Y. This witness further deposed that D-7 (Ex. PW19/B) i.e. letter dated 25.04.1995 was received by his office and a reply was sent by his office enclosing therein the photocopies of the register of concerned stamp vendors. (xviii) PW18 Satish Kumar Gupta:- This witness was the Cashier-cum-Clerk at Jammu & Kashmir Bank, Karol Bagh, Delhi along with accused Ashok Kumar Naz, Mushtaq Ahmed and Mr. Harcharan Singh. He correctly identified the signatures of accused Mushtaq Ahmad and accused Ashok Kumar Naz as he had worked with them and seen them writing and signing on various documents i.e. on Ex.PW18/1 (already Ex.PW2/D1), Ex. PW18/2 i.e. Performance Guarantee Bond dated 25.11.1994 (already Ex.PW2/D2) and Ex.PW18/3 i.e. Performance Guarantee Bond dated 25.11.1994. He also proved Ex.PW18/4 i.e. letter dated 06.06.1995, Ex. PW18/5 i.e. letter dated 18.04.1995, Ex. PW18/6 i.e. letter dated 15.04.1995, Ex. PW18/7 i.e. letter dated 21.03.1995 and Ex. PW18/8 i.e. letter dated 05.02.1995, all these letters are addressed to Chief Manager Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) NAGAR Date:
ACJM-06 RADC 2025.10.04
17:06:55
Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 29 of 77 +0530
CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS
Advances, CAD, Central Office, Srinagar, KMR. He also proved Ex.PW18/9 i.e. letter dated 25.01.1995 addressed to Pyrites Phosphates & Chemicals Ltd. and Ex. PW18/10 i.e. letter dated 24.01.1995 addressed to M/s. Shalimar International, which was also sent to Chief Manager Advances, New Delhi for information. He also proved Ex. PW18/11 i.e. letter dated 25.11.1995 and Ex. PW18/12 i.e. letter dated 24.11.1995, both letters addressed to Chief Manager Advances, Divisional Office, Delhi, Ex. PW18/13 i.e. credit report dated 25.11.1994 i.e. part of D-25, Mark PW18/A i.e. letter addressed to M/s. Pyrites Phosphates & Chemicals Ltd. mark PW18/B i.e. performance guarantee bond dated 25.11.1994 addressed to Chief Manager Advances, Divisional Office, Delhi, mark PW18/C i.e. letter addressed to M/s. Pyrites Phosphates & Chemicals Ltd, mark PW18/D i.e. photocopy of performance guarantee bond 25.11.1994, Ex.PW4/V i.e. letter dated 28.02.1995 addressed to Manager (P&D) M/s. Pyrites Phosphates & Chemicals Ltd., mark PW18/E i.e. photocopy of performance guarantee bond 25.11.1994, Ex.PW4/W i.e. letter dated 25.01.1995 addressed to M/s. Pyrites Phosphates & Chemicals Ltd., mark PW18/F i.e. photocopy of performance guarantee bond dated 25.11.1994, Ex.PW4/T i.e. letter dated 25.01.1995 addressed to M/s. Pyrites Phosphates & Chemicals Ltd., mark PW18/G i.e. photocopy of performance guarantee bond 25.11.1994, mark A dated 30.05.2011 i.e. photocopy of letter dated 30.11.1994 addressed to NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed by ACJM-06 RADC NEETU NAGAR Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 30 of 77 Date: 2025.10.04 17:06:59 +0530 CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS M/s. Pyrites Phosphates & Chemicals Ltd., mark PW18/H i.e. photocopy of performance guarantee bond 25.11.1994, Ex.PW4/X i.e. letter dated 30.11.1994 addressed to M/s. Pyrites Phosphates & Chemicals Ltd., mark PW18/K i.e. photocopy of performance guarantee bond 25.11.1994, Ex.PW18/14 i.e. letter dated 23/24.11.1994 addressed to Chairman-cum-Managing Director, M/s. Pyrites Phosphates & Chemicals Ltd. and Mark Ex.PW18/L i.e. letter dated 16.11.1994 addressed to M/s. Shalimar International, 107A, Thapar Chamber II, Opposite Kalindi Colony, Ring Road, New Delhi.
(xix) PW-19, M.S. Yadav:- This witness was posted as Chief Vigilance Officer of PPCL in the year 1995 and proved complaint dated 22.06.1995 vide Ex.PW19/A filed by him to DIG, CBI AC-I, New Delhi. He also identified his signature on letter dated 25.04.1995 (D-7) vide Ex. PW19/B addressed to Sh. K.K. Dahiya, Executive Magistrate and Collector of stamps.
5.2. After conclusion of the list of witnesses, the prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 21.04.2025. STATEMENTS OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 CRPC
6. Statement of accused Ashok Kumar Naz under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded vide order dated 20.05.2025 and that of accused Mushtaq Ahmed was recorded vide order dated 02.06.2025 wherein they denied all the allegations and wished to lead DE. It was stated in the statement by accused Mushtaq Ahmed that the Jammu & Kashmir Bank issued the bank Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) NAGAR Date:
ACJM-06 RADC 2025.10.04
17:07:03
Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 31 of 77 +0530
CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS
guarantee comprising of two pages which was handed over to Ashok Kuhshu for onward submission to PPCL. It was further submitted that the second page was concealed by PPCL to hide their mistake of not opening of letter of credit within seven days. It was further stated that internal enquiry was conducted by the bank in which no action was taken against him and there were no charges against him.
6.1 Similar statement was made by accused Ashok Kumar Naz. He also stated that internal enquiry was conducted by the bank in which no action was taken against him and he was exonerated from all the charges.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
7. The accused persons moved common application under Section 315 Cr.P.C. to examine themselves as defence witnesses which was allowed vide order dated 10.06.2025. 7.1. Accused Ashok Kumar Naz examined himself as DW-1. He deposed that he was posted as Chief Manager of J&K Bank, Karol Bagh Branch, New Delhi during the year 1994. On 14.11.1994, branch received a tested telex message vide mark DW1/A tested with Canara Bank from Bank of Austria, Vienna informing about having issued a Performance Bank Guarantee in favour of M/s. Shalimar International for an amount of USD 91875/-. Thereafter, the customer M/s. Shalimar International was accordingly advised. On 24.11.1994, Ashok Khushu requested to issue Bank Guarantee for rupees equivalent to Rs.
Digitally
signed by
NEETU
(Neetu Nagar) NEETU NAGAR
ACJM-06 RADC NAGAR Date:
2025.10.04
Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 32 of 77 17:07:08
+0530
CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS
29,40,000/-. After obtaining approval from DGM, Territorial, the bank guarantee was issued in favour of PPCL on 25.11.1994 as per the PPCL prescribed format. The said performance guarantee was got typed by Ashok Khushu, proprietor of M/s. Shalimar International as it was the normal practice that the customer would prepare the instruments as well as purchase the required non-judicial papers. On 26.11.1994, Ashok Khushu returned to their bank with the original bank guarantee dated 25.11.1994 as PPCL had refused to accept the same due to cuttings and overwriting and requested for issuance of guarantee afresh. He deposed categorically that foreign NOPG having condition of opening of of Letter of Credit within five working days was issued on the advise of DGM, Law, Mr. Ajeet Singh and he advised Ashok Khushu accordingly.
He testified further that Ashok Khushu came with the fresh instrument (NOPG in two pages) which was got prepared by him along with its photocopy as office copy. The fresh NOPG was issued on 26.11.1994 as of 25.11.1994 as the entry of the said bank guarantee was already controlled in the branch books of account on 25.11.1994 itself and it was already numbered and dated. The same was handed over to Khushu for onward submission to PPCL. Thereafter on 29.11.1994, Mr. Khushu came to the branch and informed that the said NOPG in two pages was submitted to PPCL and provided us an acknowledgment letter thereof. He has relied upon the Digitally signed by NEETU (Neetu Nagar) NEETU NAGAR ACJM-06 RADC NAGAR Date:
2025.10.04 Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 33 of 77 17:07:13 +0530 CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS acknowledgment letter dated 29.11.1994 as Ex.PW14/D1 (Ex. DW1/1). Thereafter, they did not receive any intimation of opening of FLC by PPCL in their branch. On 23.01.1995, PPCL chose to invoke the bank guarantee. Branch refused to accept the invocation of the said NOPG vide letter dated 25.01.1995 Ex.PW4/W (Ex.DW1/2) as PPCL did not open FLC within the prescribed period of seven days from the establishment of NOPG as per the condition of the said NOPG.
He testified further that it came to their knowledge that PPCL and M/s. Shalimar International in connivance with each other changed the beneficiaries several times as per their convenience which was not permissible as per the contract and even the said fact of changing the beneficiary/seller was not informed to the bank. This was done to shield PPCL officials handling this transaction as the beneficiary was known and declared in the original contract executed on 24.11.1994. He testified further that PPCL instead chose to falsely implicate the bank officials by concealing the existence of second page of NOPG dated 25.11.1994 containing the operating clauses for opening of FLC within seven days. The said contract dated 24.11.1994 entered between PPCL and M/s. Overseas Trade Company Limited (Seller) through M/s. Shalimar International Ex. PW4/Y was re-exhibited as Ex. DW1/3 and the said letter issued by PPCL in favour of M/s. Overseas Trade Company Limited through their Indian agent M/s. Shalimar International Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) NAGAR Date:
ACJM-06 RADC 2025.10.04
17:07:20
Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 34 of 77 +0530
CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS
dated 24.11.1994 Ex. PW4/M was re-exhibited as Ex. DW1/4.
He testified further that they had incorporated the operative clauses of opening the FLC within seven days of its establishment as per the instructions of DGM, Law Mr. Ajeet Singh and in accordance to their official duty. He testified next that PPCL also made a complaint to the Chairman of J&K Bank and Governor, Reserve Bank of India (RBI). J&K Bank's investigation and vigilance department conducted a thorough investigation in the matter and found no malafide against them. He deposed further that PPCL made false and concocted complaint against them by concealing the second page of NOPG dated 25.11.1994 containing operative clause for opening of FLC as they failed to comply with the same.
7.2 Accused Mushtaq Ahmed examined himself as DW2 and deposed on similar lines as DW1. He testified further that he was instead promoted four times and retired as Assistant General Manager/Scale-V Officer and held very important positions in the bank from time to time till his retirement. 7.3 The evidence on behalf of the accused persons was closed vide order dated 11.06.2025.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
8. I have heard learned PP for CBI and the learned Counsel for the accused persons. Written submissions were also filed on behalf of both the parties but contents thereof are not being reproduced here for the sake of brevity.
NEETU
NAGAR
(Neetu Nagar)
Digitally signed by
ACJM-06 RADC NEETU NAGAR
Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 35 of 77 Date: 2025.10.04
17:07:24 +0530
CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS
8.1. Learned PP for CBI has argued that prosecution has led sufficient evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. She submitted that the oral and documentary evidence in the present case is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused persons. Hence, the accused are liable to be convicted. She has relied on case laws:- (i) Badri Roy Versus State of Bihar AIR 1958 SC 953 (ii) Murarilal Vs. State of M.P. 1980 AIR 531, 1980 SCR (2) 249 (iii) A. Shankar v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2011 SC 2302 (iv) Suresh Budharmal Kalani v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1998 SC 3258 (v) Bank of India vs Yeturi Meredu Shankar Rao (1987 AIR (SC) 821) (vi) Inder Singh vs State Delhi Administration (1978 AIR SC 1091) (vii) State of West Bengal vs Orilal Jaiswal and others in (AIR 1994 SC 1418)
9. Per contra, it was argued on behalf of learned counsel of the accused persons that the principal allegation against the accused persons is the forgery of PG Bond No. KB/BG/94/014 dated 25.11.1994 causing wrongful loss to the complainant PPCL to the tune of Rs. 29,40,000/- but none of the witnesses uttered a single word that the said document has been forged much less by the accused persons. It was urged that first Performance Guarantee Bond (PG Bond) submitted by M/s. Shalimar International was returned by PPCL due to cuttings. Shalimar International then approached the J&K Bank and requested for issuance of fresh PG Bond. After examining the documents and discussion, PW-1 advised the accused persons that in order to secure the interest of the Bank, the PG Bond should be conditional who in turn advised Shalimar International to prepare Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) NAGAR Date:
ACJM-06 RADC 2025.10.04
17:07:29
Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 36 of 77 +0530
CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS
fresh PG Bond by incorporating the condition that "Further notwithstanding anything herein before our liability under this warranty will become operative only after the buyer establishes acceptable Letter of Credit in favor of seller within 7 days of establishment of Bond under advice to us..." Thereafter, Shalimar International prepared fresh PG Bond consisting of two pages by incorporating the above condition and submitted before the accused persons for issuance of fresh PG Bond along with photocopy of the same as office copy. It was thus argued that whatever act was done by accused persons was in discharge of their official duties and as per directions of PW1/DGM of J&K Bank and there was nothing wrong. Even if it is admitted for the sake of arguments (though not admitted) that PPCL received only one page PG Bond, even then prosecution has miserably failed to prove any conspiracy by the accused persons more so when PPCL had never dealt with J&K Bank Ltd. It was M/s. Shalimar, who received the NOPB from J&k Bank for its onward submission to PPCL against due acknowledgment. It was, therefore, urged that no overt act can be attributed to the accused persons because what document Shalimar submitted before PPCL did not concern the accused persons. 9.1. It was next contended on behalf of accused persons that the alleged actual loss is only Rs.3,36,538/- which was totally attributable to PPCL since as per their own letter dated 24.11.1994, only one transfer was permitted subject to NEETU (Neetu Nagar) NAGAR ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed by Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 37 of 77 NEETU NAGAR Date: 2025.10.04 17:07:33 +0530 CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS submission of details of Urea Manufacturer along with PG Bond but PPCL tried to open Letter of Credit on multiple occasions with different manufacturers which was not permissible. It was thus contended that loss, if any is attributable to PPCL, only. 9.2. Lastly, it was argued that the accused examined themselves and proved their defence. It was urged that the defence witness has to be given equal treatment with that of prosecution witnesses and their evidence cannot be termed as tainted one. Reliance was placed on case titled as Munshi Prasad & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar, 2002 (1) SCC 351 [2001 AIR (SC) 3031] wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that evidence tendered by the defence witnesses cannot always be termed to be a tainted one by reason of the factum of the witnesses being examined by the defence. The defence witnesses are entitled to equal respect and treatment as that of prosecution. It was thus prayed for acquittal of the accused persons. Ld. Counsel for accused persons has also relied upon case laws titled as (i) Thirunagalingam Vs. Lingesswaran & Anr. SLP (Civil) No. 17575 of 2023, decided on 13.05.2025 and (ii) Court On Its Own Motion Vs. State of NCT of Delhi 2024:DHC:4915-08.
ANALYSIS AND REASONING
10. Before we delve into the facts of the case, let us first see the relevant legal provisions.
CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY
11. Criminal conspiracy is defined in section 120 A IPC. Same Digitally signed by NEETU (Neetu Nagar) NEETU NAGAR ACJM-06 RADC NAGAR Date:
2025.10.04 Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 38 of 77 17:07:38 +0530 CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS reads as follows:-
"120A. Definition of criminal conspiracy.--
When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done,- (1) an illegal act, or (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy: Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.
Explanation.-- It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object."
12. Further, the principle contained in Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that once a conspiracy to commit an illegal act is proved, act of one conspirator becomes the act of the other.
13. In case titled as Mohammed Usman Mohammed Hussain Maniyar and others versus State of Maharashtra, (1981) Supreme Court Cases 443, it was observed as under:-
"For offence under section 120- B, the prosecution need not necessarily prove that the perpetrators expressly agreed to do or cause to be done the illegal act; the agreement may be proved by necessary implication."
(emphasis supplied)
14. In case titled as Shivnarayan Lakshminarayan Joshi and Others versus State of Maharashtra, (1980) 2 Supreme Court NEETU (Neetu Nagar) NAGAR ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed by NEETU NAGAR Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 39 of 77 Date: 2025.10.04 17:07:43 +0530 CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS cases 465, it was observed as follows:-
"a conspiracy is always hatched in secrecy and it is impossible to adduce direct evidence of the same. The offence can be only proved largely from the inference drawn from act or illegal omission committed by the conspirators in pursuance of a common design."
(emphasis supplied)
15. Similarly, in case titled as Sudhir Shantilal Mehta v. CBI, (2009) 8 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed the provision of criminal conspiracy and held that conspiracy ordinarily is hatched in secrecy. The court for the purpose of arriving at a finding as to whether the said offence has been committed or not may take into consideration the circumstantial evidence. While however doing so, it must bear in mind that meeting of the minds is essential; mere knowledge or discussion would not be.
16. Reliance can also be placed on case titled as Devender Kumar Singla v. Baldev Krishan Singla, (2005) 9 SCC 15, wherein it was observed that it is not necessary that a false pretence should be made in express words by the accused. It may be inferred from all the circumstances including the conduct of the accused in obtaining the property. In the true nature of things, it is not always possible to prove dishonest intention by any direct evidence. It can be proved by a number of circumstances from which a reasonable inference can be drawn.
17. Moving further, the term "forgery" is defined in Section Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) NAGAR Date:
2025.10.04 ACJM-06 RADC 17:07:48 Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 40 of 77 +0530 CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS 463 of IPC and same reads as follows:-
"463. Whoever makes any false documents with intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that the fraud may be committed, commits forgery."
18. Section 464 of IPC defining "making a false document" is extracted below :
"464. Making a false document.--A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record--- First.--Who dishonestly or fraudulently (a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document;
(b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record; (c) affixes any digital signature on any electronic record; (d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the digital signature, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or a part of document, electronic record or digital signature was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or Secondly.--Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with digital signature either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alternation; or Thirdly.--Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his digital signature on any electronic record Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) NAGAR Date:
ACJM-06 RADC 2025.10.04
Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 41 of 77 17:07:53
+0530
CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS
knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practised upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration.
xxxxxx"
19. An analysis of section 464 of IPC shows that it divides false documents into three categories as under:-
(i) The first is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently makes or executes a document with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by some other person, or by the authority of some other person, by whom or by whose authority he knows it was not made or executed.
(ii) The second is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document in any material part, without lawful authority, after it has been made or executed by either himself or any other person.
(iii) The third is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, execute or alter a document knowing that such person could not by reason of (a) unsoundness of mind;
or (b) intoxication; or (c) deception practised upon him, know the contents of the document or the nature of the alteration.
20. In short, a person is said to have made a `false document', if (i) he made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorised by someone else; or (ii) he altered or tampered a document; or (iii) he obtained a document by practicing deception, or from a person not in control of his senses.
Digitally
signed by
NEETU
NEETU NAGAR
(Neetu Nagar) NAGAR Date:
ACJM-06 RADC 2025.10.04
17:07:57
Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 42 of 77 +0530
CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS
21. The condition thus precedent for forgery is making a false document (or false electronic record or part thereof) which is the main ingredient of offence under Section 467 and 471 IPC. If what is executed is not a false document, there is no forgery.
22. Further, Section 24 of the Indian Penal Code defines "dishonestly" as whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing dishonestly. "Fraudulently" is defined in section 25 IPC.A person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise. The word "defraud" includes an element of deceit. Deceit is not an ingredient of the definition of the word "dishonestly" while it is an important ingredient of the definition of the word "fraudulently". The former involves a pecuniary or economic gain or loss while the latter by construction excludes that element. Further, the juxtaposition of the two expressions "dishonestly" and "fraudulently" used in the various sections of the Code indicates their close affinity and therefore the definition of one may give colour to the other.
23. It is now very well established that in all criminal cases, the prosecution has to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt through unimpeachable evidence.
24. Having discussed the relevant legal provisions and judicial pronouncements, let us appreciate the facts of the present case.
Digitally
signed by
NEETU
NEETU NAGAR
(Neetu Nagar) NAGAR Date:
2025.10.04
ACJM-06 RADC 17:08:01
Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 43 of 77 +0530
CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS
25. The points of determination in the present case are as fol- lows:-
(i) Whether the performance guarantee bond (Ex. PW18/3) (D-5) is a forged document or not?
(ii) If yes, whether the performance guarantee bond (Ex.PW18/3) has been forged by the accused persons in pursuance of conspir-
acy?
26. This court is therefore required to critically examine the evidence in the present case against the accused persons facing the trial.
27. It is the case of the prosecution that only one page typed performance guarantee bond dated 25.11.1994 Ex. PW2/D (Ex. PW18/2) as per the prescribed performa of bank guarantee given in the contract Ex.PW4/Y was handed over to PPCL on 29.11.1994 by accused Ashok Khushu, proprietor of M/s.Shali- mar International.Whereas, it is the defence of the accused per- sons that the performance guarantee bond given by them was Ex.PW18/3 which was not comprised of one page but two pages, hence it was defended that there is no forgery in question.
28. Perusal of the file shows that there are three performance guarantee bonds on record, two performance guarantee bond in original i.e. Ex.PW18/1 (Ex. PW2/D1) which was executed first in point of time admittedly and Ex. PW18/2 (Ex. PW2/D) and third one is stated to be office copy of performance guarantee bond (Ex. PW18/3) of accused persons as admitted by them. All Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) NAGAR Date:
2025.10.04 ACJM-06 RADC 17:08:06 +0530 Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 44 of 77 CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS the said performance guarantee bonds are bearing no. KB/BG/94- 014 dated 25.11.1994.
29. It is an admitted fact that the first performance guarantee bond Ex. PW2/D1 was issued at the request of accused Ashok Khushu on 24.11.1994 for Rs. 29,40,000/-. It is also admitted that the first performance guarantee bond Ex.PW2/D1 was got typed by accused Ashok Khushu. Admittedly, the said original guarantee bond dated 25.11.1994 Ex.PW2/D1 was not accepted by PPCL due to cuttings and overwriting and therefore, it was requested by PPCL for issuance of fresh guarantee.
30. A careful perusal of the performance guarantee bond Ex. PW18/1 (Ex. PW2/D1) comprised of two pages shows that same is bearing endorsement of "cancelled" on both the pages. The word "contd....2/-" has been reflected at the end of the first page on the right hand side corner and also carries endorsement regarding stamps on the back of first page dated 25.11.1994. The round stamps of "Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. Karol Bagh"
are appended at two points at first page on left side and the stamp "For the Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd, Manager, Karol Bagh, New Delhi" at four places (two on each page), admittedly, bearing the signatures of the accused persons. On the second page thereof, there is handwritten endorsement stating as under:-
"We may accede to the request of the Party and issue a fresh BG in lieu of the existing one. However the operative clause as contained in the foreign NOPG and Contract under be incorporated. Performance should also be got vetted by legal department party. Party be asked Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
(Neetu Nagar) 2025.10.04
17:08:10
ACJM-06 RADC +0530
Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 45 of 77
CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS
to make the guarantee instrument accordingly."
31. The objection was thus raised by the Legal Department of Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd. and same stands confirmed by the testimony of PW1.
32. The second original performance guarantee bond Ex. PW18/2 (Ex. PW2/D) similarly carries round stamp of "Jammu and Kashmir Bank, Karol Bagh" at three places and another stamp for the Jammu and Kashmir Bank at the extreme right hand corner bearing signature of the accused persons at point A and B. The said performance guarantee bond is on a stamp paper of Rs. 50/- comprised in only one page.
33. Clearly, the contents of the first performance guarantee bond Ex. PW2/D1 and performance guarantee bond Ex. PW2/D are similar i.e. there are only four similar paragraphs therein. The last para reads as follows:-
"...Notwithstanding anything contained herein before our liability under the guarantee is restricted to INR 29,40,000/- (Indian Rupees Twenty Nine Lac Forty Thousand Only) and shall remain in full force for two months only and shall cease on 25th January 1995 for all intents and purposes unless a demand or claim in writing is received by us within six months after the expiry of the above date i.e. on before 25th July 1995, all your rights under the guarantee shall be forfeited and we shall be discharged of all the liabilities there under."
34. Hence, from a careful perusal of the said two performance guarantee bonds, it has transpired that there was clear condition therein that the performance guarantee bond was valid till 25th NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed by ACJM-06 RADC NEETU NAGAR Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 46 of 77 Date: 2025.10.04 17:08:14 +0530 CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS January 1995.
35. The staff copy of bank guarantee bond (Ex.PW18/3), alleged to be forged has been seized from the Jammu and Kashmir Bank. Notably, the original of the said document was not not brought on record by the investigating officer. It has been deposed by the investigating officer PW17 during his cross- examination that he made efforts to seize original of conditional bank guarantee from the bank, but was unable to do so. Then he had voluntarily deposed that he had also examined the officers of PPCL and they told that they had not received any original conditional bank guarantee. However, he had not given any notice to any one directing them to produce the original conditional bank guarantee before him. It seems that the Investigating Officer had not conducted sufficient investigation in respect of seizing the original conditional bank guarantee from the bank or PPCL as rightly suggested by learned counsel of the accused persons. No notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C. has been given either to the J&K bank or the accused persons to bring on record the original conditional bank guarantee. Hence, the original performance guarantee bond whose alleged office copy is Ex. PW18/3 could never be brought on record. It is, therefore, now to be seen whether the same has caused a dent in the story of the prosecution. To my mind, non-production of the original has not caused any damage to the case of the prosecution as the said office copy admittedly carries the signatures of the accused Digitally signed by NEETU (Neetu Nagar) NEETU NAGAR ACJM-06 RADC NAGAR Date:
2025.10.04 Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 47 of 77 17:08:37 +0530 CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS persons as well as round stamps of the "Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. Karol Bagh" as well as stamps of Manager.
36. A perusal of the performance guarantee bond Ex. PW18/3 stated to be office copy of the original performance guarantee bond comprised in two pages shows that the said document is a suspicious document as clear from the GEQD opinion proved by the expert witness PW15 M.L. Sharma vide Ex.PW15/A. Same reads as follows:
"1. The documents of this case have been carefully and thoroughly examined.
2. The original figures '26' in the red enclosed portion marked Q1 have been altered to the existing writings reading 'dt 16' by addition of strokes.
3. The document containing the typewritings marked Q8 is the reproduction copy and the typewritings marked Q8 tally with the corresponding typewritings in the red enclosed portion similarly marked Q4.
4. The document bearing the markings Q5 to Q7 when compared inter se with the document bearing the markings Q8 to Q10, the following inconsistencies are observed :-
i) The tint and lustre of the ink of the signature in the red enclosed portion marked Q6 on page number 2 is different from the tint and lustre of the ink of the signature similarly stamped and marked Q9.
ii) The tint and lustre of the ink of the signature in the red enclosed portion marked Q7 on page number 2 is different from the tint and lustre of the ink of the signature in the red enclosed portion similarly stamped and marked Q10.
iii) The margins on the left as well as on the right hand sides of the typed matter on Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) NAGAR Date:
ACJM-06 RADC 2025.10.04
17:08:42
Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 48 of 77 +0530
CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS
the document bearing the markings Q5 to Q7 are different from the margins on the left as well as on the right hand sides on the document bearing the markings Q8 to Q10.
iv) The inter-para spacing of the typewritings in the red enclosed portion marked Q5 is different from that of the typewritings in the red enclosed portion stamped and marked Q8.
v) The red enclosed signature marked Q7 on page number 2 bears the figures of date whereas the corresponding signature in the red enclosed portion marked Q10 does not bear the figures of date.
vi) The type-face impressions of the letters 'E', 'm', 'w', 't', 'f' Parenthesis in the red enclosed typewritings marked Q5 do not tally with the corresponding type-face impressions of the typewritings in the red enclosed portion similarly marked Q8.
viii) The citation 'Continued on page 2' is absent at the bottom of the document bearing the markings Q8 to Q10 and the figure .....2....' indicating the page number should have been at the top of the document bearing the markings Q5 to Q7.
ix)The quality of the reproduction of the document bearing the markings Q5 to Q7 is different from that of the document bearing markings Q8 to Q10.
x) The signature in the red enclosed portion stamped and marked Q6 when compared inter se with the signature in the red enclosed portions similarly stamped and marked Q2 and Q9, the features such as careful joining and extension of the finish of the letter 'g'; hesitation and the extension in the underscoring; manner of execution of letter appearing as 'm'; movement of the initial characters; formation of the terminal characters and the nature of finish of letter h' show inconsistencies
xi) From the collective consideration of the aforesaid oddities, the document bearing the Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) NAGAR Date:
2025.10.04 ACJM-06 RADC 17:08:48 Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 49 of 77 +0530 CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS markings Q5 to Q7 does not appear to have been executed in the same sequence as the document bearing the markings Q8 to Q10.
5. The signatures in the enclosed portions stamped and marked Q2, Q9 and S3, S4 have been written by one and the same person.
6. The signatures in the enclosed portions stamped and marked Q-3, Q7, Q10 and Sl, S2 have been Q3, written by one and the same person.
7. The type-face design of the typewritings and in the enclosed portions Mark Q4, Q8 and S5, S6 tally on inter se comparison.
8. It has not been possible to express any definite opinion on rest of the items on the basis of material at hand. "
37. From a perusal of the expert opinion Ex.PW15/A, it can be concluded that Ex. PW18/3 stated to be office copy of original performance guarantee bond does not seem to be simply an office copy. Though it reproduces the contents of the first performance guarantee bond Ex.PW2/D1 on the first page exactly, but what is difference is the second page, which is alleged by the prosecution to be forged by the accused persons in order to give benefit to M/s. Shalimar International, whose proprietor was accused Ashok Kumar. Whereas, the version of the accused persons is that they provided the original performance guarantee bond comprising of two pages to Ashok Khushu and retained office copy Ex.PW18/3 with the J&K Bank.
38. The issue with the second page of Ex. PW18/3 is that it is in contradiction to the earlier performance guarantee bond which was valid till 25th January 1995, as it mentions that the said Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) ACJM-06 RADC NAGAR Date:
2025.10.04 Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 50 of 77 17:08:53 +0530 CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS performance guarantee bond (Ex. PW18/3) was valid only after the buyer establishes acceptable letter of credit in favour of the seller within 7 (seven) days of establishment of the said bond. It is further mentioned therein that"Unless written intimation regarding establishment of L/C is received by us within the period stipulated above on or before 2nd December, 1994, this bond will become infructuous and withdrawn relieving us from all our liabilities, whatsoever, and we shall be discharged of all the liability thereafter." Meaning, thereby that the validity of performance guarantee bond Ex. PW18/3 was till 2nd December 1994 only. The accused persons themselves admitted the execution of the performance guarantee bond Ex. PW18/3 dated 25.11.1994. The accused persons have already admitted that the said performance guarantee bond Ex. PW18/3 was the Office copy and they have also admitted their signatures thereon.
39. Notably, the shortcomings detailed in the expert opinion Ex.PW15/A is clearly manifest even to the naked eyes even if the expert opinion is totally ignored. Bare perusal of the said document Ex.PW18/3 makes it amply clear that the allegations levelled by the CBI against the accused persons are not baseless or groundless, so far as they pertained to the original second PG Bond Ex.PW2/D vis-a-vis its photocopy produced by the accused persons Ex. PW18/3. It is visible that in the original document Ex.PW2/D, the signatures of bank officials were overlapping the typed matter on the stamp paper. However, in the photocopy of Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) ACJM-06 RADC NAGAR Date:
2025.10.04 Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 51 of 77 17:09:06 +0530 CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS the same page, Ex.PW18/3 those signatures were comparatively well below the typed matter and secondly, whereas in the original stamp paper, the round seal of the bank covered last five lines of the matter printed over. But in the staff photocopy Ex.PW18/3 which also bears the original signatures and seal of the said bank, the said round seal covered only last line of the printed matter. Further, it is interesting to note that even on the photocopy of the performance guarantee bond Ex. PW18/3, the original stamps of the bank as well as original signatures of the accused persons appearing thereon are compared, it is manifest that the signatures have been put by the accused persons with two different pens and inks on both the pages of Ex.PW18/3. Had it been a case of the execution of the document Ex.PW18/3 running into two pages on the same day and point of time, then by no stretch of imagination it could have been presumed that the officials were required to sign two different pages with two different pens in two different inks. Further, the photocopy Ex.PW18/3 is containing date stipulation written on stamp paper of value of Rs.10/-, whereas as the date is not so mentioned on first page thereof. It is also interesting to see that in none of the pages of Performance Guarantee Bonds executed earlier, there appears to be a date written below/beneath the signatures of accused Ashok Kumar Naz but a date has been mentioned as 25.11.1994 on Ex.PW18/3 which is unprecedented. The said observations support the arguments of the prosecution that the said page (2) of Ex.PW18/3 Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) ACJM-06 RADC NAGAR Date:
2025.10.04 Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 52 of 77 17:09:20 +0530 CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS was created later on and was inserted as it is not mentioned on first page "cont..2/-" as done on the first performance guarantee bond Ex.PW2/D1. Further, the margins as well as spacing and the inter-spacing between paras of Ex. PW18/3 when compared with Ex.PW2/D seem to be different. It is thus crystal clear that the second page was not prepared at the same time else there would not have been so many inconsistencies as noted above.
40. The version of the prosecution is that the original performance guarantee bond given to PPCL is Ex.PW2/D which was having only one page and not two pages as alleged by the accused persons. Whereas, it has been alleged by the accused persons that the performance guarantee bond Ex. PW18/3 represents the actual situation and not the performance guarantee bond Ex. PW2/D which does not have the second page and that the second page was concealed by PPCL in collusion with the accused persons and seemingly, same was never handed over by accused Ashok Kushu to PPCL. It is, therefore, to be examined whether the performance guarantee bond Ex. PW18/3 comprising of second page was actually given by accused Ashok Khusu to PPCL or not.
41. All the witnesses working in PPCL i.e. PW 4 Mr. V.P. Pancholi, PW-5 Mr. K.C. Katta, PW-7 P.K. Awasthi and PW-10 B.K. Kanda have deposed in uniformity that they have received only one page performance guarantee bond dated 25.11.1994 Ex. PW2/D which was valid till 25th of January 1995. Other than the Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) ACJM-06 RADC NAGAR Date:
2025.10.04 Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 53 of 77 17:09:25 +0530 CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS consistent oral testimonies of the witnesses working in PPCL,same is also clear from the documentary evidence proved on record.
42. The most significant document is letter dated 30.11.1994, Ex. PW4/P where it has been given as a note that "PG in original stand submitted to you on 29th Nov, 1994". The said letter is written on the letterhead of Shalimar International for the purpose of making a request to send LC which must be divisible and two times transferable. Ex. PW4/B is letter dated 29.11.94 written on the letterhead of PPCL and signed by PW-4 V.P. Pancholi, Manager (P&D). It is mentioned therein that "The original performance guarantee bond no. KB/BG/94/014 dated 25.11.94 for Rs. 29,40,000/- is enclosed herewith for keeping the same in safe custody". Further, the Manager V.P. Pancholi requested to arrange to open letter of credit for US $ 4,550,000.00 in favour of M/s. Kylemore, Financial Inc. after getting approval of the competent authority. Meaning thereby that the original performance guarantee bond was received by PPCL from accused Ashok Khusu on 29.11.1994 and thereafter, same was approved by the officials of PPCL.
43. Ex.PW2/A is letter dated 06.12.1995 vide which the documents of Jammu and Kashmir Bank were handed by Ravinder Kharoo to the Investigating Officer. From a perusal of the seizure memo D-20 (Ex. PW2/B), it has transpired that the file of J&K Bank, Karol Bagh branch containing correspondence Digitally signed by NEETU (Neetu Nagar) NEETU NAGAR ACJM-06 RADC NAGAR Date:
2025.10.04 Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 54 of 77 17:09:33 +0530 CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS and office copy of performance guarantee bond were taken from Ravinder Kharoo by the Investigating Officer M.S. Bisht. Meaning thereby that the office copy of performance guarantee bond Ex. PW18/3, which is alleged to be forged has been taken from the records of the Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd.
44. Further, Ex.PW6/A is letter written by C.P. Gupta Manager Finance to the Manager, Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. for the purpose of confirmation regarding the performance guarantee bond from the said Bank. Letter dated 30.11.1994 (Ex. PW4/X) shows that it has been written by the Manager of Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. to M/s. PPCL with regard to confirmation of performance guarantee bond on behalf of their constituent M/s. Shalimar International. However, there is no mention with regard to the number of pages, thereon or any other details with regard to NOPG except for the factum of confirmation thereof.
45. Let us now see some important documents from the file pertaining to Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd (D-25). Letter dated 23/24.11.1994 Ex.PW18/14 is written to Chairman-cum- Managing director, PPCL by Chief Manger, Ashok of Jammu and Kashmir Bank and mentions as under:
"Kindly read the contents of our letter No. JKB/BG/94-442 dated 23.11.1994 as under
treating the said letter as cancel. Further to our letter No. KB/D/94-411 dated 17-11-1994 at the request of M/S Shalimar International 107-A, Thapar Chamber-II, Opp. Kalindi Colony, Ring Road, New Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) NAGAR Date:
2025.10.04
ACJM-06 RADC 17:09:38
Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 55 of 77 +0530
CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS
Delhi. We are pleased to advise you that the operative date of the above referred to PG has now been extended to 25-11-1994 from 18-11-1994. The original tested telex message has been forwarded to the beneficiaries for necessary action. The non operative performance guarantee can be given to you by M/S Shalimar International as and when the purchase order for Meter 37500 Tons on FOB basis is receivable by them, for which formal proposal is pending with us."
Meaning thereby that the performance guarantee bond was to be provided to PPCL by M/s. Shalimar International directly.
46. Perusal of letter dated 25.11.1994 Ex. PW18/11 shows that it is mentioned therein that "In view of the urgency for Issuance of Bank Guarantee which was to be issued by 25.11.94, a requirement under the Supply Contract for M/S. Shalimar International We have after seeking approval from DGM issued today the Bank Guarantee for Rs 29.40 lakhs On behalf of M/S Shalimar International Sole Proprietorship concern of Sh.Ashok Khushu in favour of M/s Pyrites, Phosphate and chemicals Limited. Bank commission and other expenses as per prescribed rates and cash margin as proposed have been recovered from the party." The said letter carries the signatures of both the accused persons and written to Chief Manager, Advances Department, Divisional Office Delhi. Notably, there is no mention if the guarantee bond issued was spreading in two pages. Ex.PW18/7 is letter dated 21.03.1995 written by Chief Manager Ashok, to Chief Manager Advances ,CAD Central Office, Srinagar wherein NEETU (Neetu Nagar) NAGAR ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed by NEETU NAGAR Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 56 of 77 Date: 2025.10.04 17:09:43 +0530 CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS the words "consisting of two pages" seem to be added later by accused Ashok at the time of signing.
47. Learned PP for CBI relied on fax message attached dated 25.11.1994 from General Manager (O) to Dy. General Manager (D) regarding issue of PG for Rs. 29,40,000/- favouring Pyrites Phosphates and Chemicals Ltd. on behalf of Shalimar International for six months valid upto 25.01.1995, sent by M.A. Wafai Dy. General Manager. She next placed heavy reliance on letter dated 29.12.1994 written to the Deputy General Manger, Divisional office, Delhi on the letter head of Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. by Manager,Central Advances Dept., Central Office, Rambagh Srinagar wherein it is mentioned as under:-
"Please refer to your FAX Message dated:
26.11.1994 regarding the above mentioned subject.In this context, we have to say that your action in having allowed the Branch Manager, B/O. Karol Bagh Delhi for issuance of Performance Bank Guarantee in favour of M/s Pyrites Phosphates and Chemicals Ltd. amounting Rs.29,40,000/=US 91875= on behalf of Shalimar International, Ring road, New Delhi for a period of six months valid upto 25.01.1995 is confirmed..." This document is also not prepared by CBI.
48. The fax message dated 25.11.1994 and letter dated 29.12.1994 makes it crystal clear that the validity of PG Bond was upto 25.01.1995 but these documents have remained unproved on record and therefore cannot be relied upon. Similarly, letter dated 29.11.1994 Mark 7/A1 proved by PW7 also clearly shows that it is mentioned therein that the validity of PG bond is up to 25 January 1995 with the claim period up to 25 Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) NAGAR Date:
2025.10.04 ACJM-06 RADC 17:09:50 Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 57 of 77 +0530 CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS July 1995. The same is written to M/s. Shalimar International by P.K. Awasthi Executive Director (Mktg.) of PPCL. But the original of this document was also not produced by CBI. However, non-proving of these documents have not caused much dent to the case of the prosecution taking into consideration Ex. PW6/A of D7 i.e. inter office memo dated 08.12.1994. It is mentioned therein that "Enclosed please find a Performance Guarantee Bond no. KB/BG/94-014 dated 25.11.94 in original for Rs.29,40,000.00 issued by J&K Bank, Karol Bagh on behalf of M/s. Shalimar International, as security against import of Urea, which may please be kept in your safe custody. Bank's confirmation letter no. 509 dated 30.11.94 is also enclosed." It is further mentioned therein that "copy to Manager (P&D), Noida for information. Please note that the above guarantee is due to expire on 25.1.1995."
49. From a perusal of the said memo Ex.PW6/A, it has become crystal clear that copy of the said memo was also sent to Manager (P&D), Noida, mentioning very clearly that the said guarantee was due to expire on 25.01.1995.
50. Hence, from a cumulative reading of the above mentioned documents accompanied with the consistent and cogent oral testimonies of the witnesses who worked in PPCL it has become manifest that the performance guarantee bond dated 25.11.94 Ex.PW2/D was submitted by accused Ashok Khushu with PPCL and was only comprised in one page. Same is further confirmed NEETU (Neetu Nagar) NAGAR ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed by Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 58 of 77 NEETU NAGAR Date: 2025.10.04 17:10:02 +0530 CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS by the fact that the contents of Ex.PW2/D1 and Ex. PW2/D are totally similar. The first performance guarantee bond Ex.PW2/D1 was in fact returned only for the reason that there were cuttings and writings therein not authenticated by the bank concerned.
There is no correspondence by virtue of which it can be deciphered that any change was desired by PPCL in their format in this particular case or was communicated to M/s. Shalimar International. It is rightly urged by learned PP on behalf of CBI that there was no requirement of adding any additional condition as incorporated in page number two of office copy of performance guarantee bond Ex.PW18/3.
51. Further, letter dated 09.12.1994 Ex. PW4/Z, from Central Bank issued to PPCL is with regard to opening of Letter of Credit dated 05.12.1994 in favour of M/s.Kylemore Financial Inc. It is also pertinent to note that the letter of credit was established twice, initially on 5.12.1994 and thereafter on 30.12.1994 as clear from letter dated 12.01.1995 Ex.PW5/B. Ex.PW4/Q is letter dated 20.12.1994 on letterhead of PPCL sent to M/s. Shalimar International. It is stated as under:-
"We fail to understand the confusion created regarding the beneficiary and their bank. Please note that during the discussion on 13.12.94 and also vide your letter dated 13.12.94 you had confirmed that the LC has been received by the beneficiary. Further, now vide your fax dated 16.12.94 you have informed that you are still negotiating with your principals and the beneficiary and will be giving the alternative bank of your beneficiary.
NEETU
NAGAR
(Neetu Nagar)
Digitally signed by
ACJM-06 RADC NEETU NAGAR
Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 59 of 77 Date: 2025.10.04
17:10:06 +0530
CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS
Please note that already there is considerable delay in execution of the contract and the vessel chartered for loading during laycan 20-25th Dec. 1994, in accordance with your confirmation, had to be cancelled because of your failure to submit the name, address and contact nos of the suppliers and other required details. In view of urgent requirement of Urea, we are unable to afford any further delay and we request you to now immediately submit the following at the earliest and latest by 1200 hrs IST on 21.12.1994..."
52. Hence, from the correspondence between M/s. Shalimar International and PPCL, it has transpired that Ashok Khushu never brought it to the attention of PPCL about the said additional conditions as provided in page no.2 of Ex.PW18/3 at the time of opening of letter of credit by PPCL. The letter for opening of letter of credit was sent for the first time by PPCL on 2.12.1994 and the same was issued on 09. 12. 1994 by Central Bank. If the version of the accused persons is believed that the performance guarantee bond was valid only till 02.12.1994 then the same had become inoperative by the time the first letter of credit was established but no objection has been raised by accused Ashok Khushu during the entire period which also leads to the conclusion that the performance guarantee bond was valid till 25.1.1995 else there was no reasons for Shalimar International to proceed further.
53. The accused persons while being examined as DW1 and DW2 deposed that Ashok Khushu came with a fresh instrument i.e. NOPG of two pages which was got prepared by him along Digitally signed by NEETU (Neetu Nagar) NEETU NAGAR ACJM-06 RADC NAGAR Date:
2025.10.04 Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 60 of 77 17:10:15 +0530 CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS with its photocopy as Office copy.
54. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the fresh NOPG was issued on 26.11.1994 bearing the date 25.11.1994.
55. Both the accused persons have admitted during their examination-in-chief that the condition was incorporated to make it a conditional bank guarantee on the basis of advice of DGM Law, Mr. Arijit Singh. They have deposed in common as under:-
"At that point of time, as per our branch's usual practice for all those customers who would return the original bank guarantee which was not accepted due to any reason by the beneficiaries. We would seek legal consultation with our legal department. This was done in this case as well. DGM, Law Mr. Ajeet Singh on perusing the papers advised that branch could have issued a conditional bank guarantee as it was issued against foreign NOPG which was having condition of opening of Letter of Credit within five working days. Beside this, the said condition was also prescribed in the letter issued on 24.11.1994 by PPCL to M/s. Overseas Trade Company Limited (Seller) through M/s. Shalimar International who was the authorized agent of Foreign Supplier Overseas Trade Company. Thus the DGM Law Mr. Ajeet Singh advised to incorporate the operative clause i.e. opening of FLC within seven days of its establishment in the said Bank Guarantee dated 25.11.1994. On 26.11.1994, Mr. Ashok Khushu was advised accordingly as per direction of DGM, Law Mr. Ajeet Singh to prepare a fresh bank guarantee along with the operating clauses for opening of Foreign Letter of Credit (FLC) within seven working days from the date of establishment."
56. This version of the accused persons also stands corroborated Digitally signed by NEETU (Neetu Nagar) NEETU NAGAR ACJM-06 RADC NAGAR Date:
2025.10.04 Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 61 of 77 17:10:19 +0530 CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS by the testimony of PW1, who has deposed as follows:
"After issuance of the PG Mr. Naz contacted me and told me that this is the instrument which after examining alongwith the connected papers I advised him that the PG in the form not to have been issued as it was required to be a conditional type of PG since it was supported by back to back Letter of Credit, accordingly they were asked to make suitable corrections in the PG protecting the interest of the bank so as to make it conditional and furnish to the beneficiary. Mr. Naz met me personally in the office regarding the said PG bond. Mr. Naz was the Branch Manager of Karol Bagh branch which was housed on the first floor and the Divisional Office was on the second floor. After examining all the documents in the file, particularly the contract agreement which was the genesis of the PG and the other connected papers, it was thought expedient to protect the interest of the bank and consequently Mr. Naz was advised to issue a conditional guarantee adding the condition contained in the back to back LC. Generally it is a practice in the banking industry that stamp papers are purchased by the borrower of the bank, though ordinarily they should be purchased by the person who is executing the same. Mr. Naz was advised personally in as much as certain corrections were also effected by me in the draft of the PG."
57. Moreover, Ex.PW18/8 is letter dated 05.02.1995 written by Chief Manager Ashok, to Chief Manager Advances ,CAD Central Office,Srinagar. It is mentioned therein that "..After obtaining Permission from DGM(D)( Action confirmed by you vide letter No.CAD/94-3179 dated 29.12.94), we issued the said performance guarantee on 25. 11.94, incorporating (Keeping in NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed by ACJM-06 RADC NEETU NAGAR Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 62 of 77 Date: 2025.10.04 17:10:24 +0530 CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS view the operative clause of foreign PG )a suitable clause in the BG-KB/BG/ 94-014 dt 25.11.94 and such a clause was incorporated on the page 2 of the guarantee instrument...". From this document also it is clear that the incorporation clause was added by accused Ashok on page 2 of the guarantee instrument. Same is also not denied by the accused. Ex.PW18/9 is letter dated 25.01.1995 vide which the Chief Manager, Ashok stated that the J&K bank cannot entertain request for encashing the bank guarantee and same was written to PPCL.
58. Thus, on a conjoint reading of the testimonies of DW1 and DW2, coupled with the testimony of PW1 and Ex. PW18/8, it has transpired that the necessary changes in the performance guarantee bond for making it conditional were added by accused persons and that the performance bank guarantee Ex. PW18/3 (D-5) was prepared by the accused Ashok Kushu on the advice of accused Ashok Kumar Naz who in turn acted on the advice of PW1. The accused persons and PW1 have stated in one voice that the condition was added in the PG Bond in order to protect the interest of the bank. PW1 has categorically deposed that he had advised Ashok Kumar Naz to issue a conditional guarantee, adding the condition contained in the back-to-back LC.Meaning thereby that the accused persons have duly admitted being party to the execution of the performance bank guarantee Ex. PW18/3 (D-5) thus revealing their meeting of minds. None of them have denied their signatures on the said performance guarantee bond Digitally signed by NEETU (Neetu Nagar) NEETU NAGAR ACJM-06 RADC NAGAR Date:
2025.10.04 Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 63 of 77 17:10:28 +0530 CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS Ex. PW18/3(D-5) comprised in two pages.
59. Much reliance was placed by learned counsel of accused persons on Ex. PW14/D1 (Ex. DW1/1) which is letter written by Ashok Khushu to Chief Manager, Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd, Karol Bagh branch stating therein that "Please refer to above NOPG issued by your branch in favour of Pyrites, Phosphates and Chemicals Limited (PPCL) on our behalf under contract number PPCL/urea 94/CON:
13 dated 24th November 1994 entered into between overseas Trade Company Limited through M/s. Shalimar International. This NOPG has been delivered to M/s. PPCL for opening of the acceptable letter of credit on sellers banking coordinates. The said NOPG has been sent with our forwarding letter to M/s. PPCL with the NOPG instrument spread over two pages."
60. It is vehemently argued on behalf of accused persons that this letter makes it clear that the performance guarantee bond was in two pages and copy thereof was also sent to PPCL.On the contrary, it was urged on behalf of the CBI that the said letter is manipulated as no copy was ever sent to PPCL. Perusal of Ex. PW-14/D1 re-exhibited as Ex. DW-1/1 dated 29.11.1994 shows that same was written on letterhead of Shalimar International to Chief Manager, Karol Bagh Branch, J&K Bank and it is mentioned therein copy to PPCL at the bottom of the letter dated 29.11.1994. Notably the words "Instrument spread over on two pages" do not seem to be written in continuity to the naked eyes and appears to be added later. It is pertinent to mention that the signature of accused Ashok Khushu has not been identified by NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed by ACJM-06 RADC NEETU NAGAR Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 64 of 77 Date: 2025.10.04 17:10:33 +0530 CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS any persons who worked with him. Hence, it could not be proved by the accused persons if the same bears the handwriting or signature of accused Ashok Khushu. The said document was neither put to PW8 Dinesh Kumar Lakhera nor to PW18 Satish Kumar Gupta by learned counsel of the accused persons during their cross-examination for the purpose of identification of signatures of accused Ashok Khushu thereon. Therefore, reliance placed by the accused persons on this document is misplaced.
61. The investigating officer PW14 deposed about this document stating that the said letter was between the two accused persons Ashok Khushu proprietor of M/s. Shalimar International and the accused bank official. He deposed further that the said letter has been prepared to manipulate the record subsequently. During interrogation, Ashok Khushu could not explain it properly. He testified that the investigation has confirmed that there was only one original PG bank guarantee prepared on the basis of performa guarantee given by the PPCL official. He has further testified that he did not remember whether it was mentioned in the disclosure statement of Ashok Khushu that he had manipulated Ex.PW14/D1.He testified further that he had enquired from the witnesses and came to know that copy of Ex.PW14/D1 was not received by them. He did not remember whether he had recorded statement of witnesses in that regard.
62. Pertinently, no witness from PPCL deposed about the existence of the said letter.The negative can not be proved.If such NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed by ACJM-06 RADC NEETU NAGAR Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 65 of 77 Date: 2025.10.04 17:10:37 +0530 CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS a letter was sent to the PPCL,then same would have been recovered from their records but was not so recovered and was actually recovered from the file of Jammu and Kashmir Bank.No suggestion with respect to the existence of this letter was given on behalf of the accused persons to any witnesses of PPCL.It seems that the said letter was kept only for the purpose of records by accused and was never sent to PPCL as rightly argued by learned PP for CBI.
63. The next contention on behalf of accused persons is that the accused persons neither gained a single penny from the alleged act nor they are the beneficiaries. To my mind, the said contention is meritless as even if for sake of arguments it is assumed that the accused person did not gain anything personally by virtue of the said act, the performance guarantee bond could not be encashed by PPCL which led to wrongful loss to it the tune of the amount of performance guarantee bond. Hence, it cannot be stated that no wrongful loss as such has been caused to the PPCL. In fact, the loss incurred of Rs. 3,36,538/- as bank charges in establishing letter of credit by PPCL was over and above the amount of performance guarantee bond.
64. It was next contended on behalf of accused persons that the LC could not be opened due to the own wrong doing of PPCL as they miserably failed to open the Letter of Credit within the specified period mentioned in fresh PG Bond for reasons best known to them. However, from the records, it is amply clear that NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed by ACJM-06 RADC NEETU NAGAR Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 66 of 77 Date: 2025.10.04 17:10:40 +0530 CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS letter of credit could not be opened due to fault on the part of M/s. Shalimar International. Hence, contention in this regard stands rejected.
65. It was strenuously contended by learned counsel of accused persons that there is an impregnable prosecution document i.e. letter dated 24.11.1994 of PPCL (Ex. PW-4/N re-exhibited as Ex. DW-1/4) sent to M/s. Overseas Trade Co. Ltd., London through Indian Agent M/s. Shalimar International, where there is a specific condition to open Letter of Credit within 5 working days. It was thus contended that the accused persons had not incorporated any new condition rather it was as per letter dated 24.11.1994 which unambiguously establishes that there was no wrong/ forgery committed by the accused persons as has been portrayed by the prosecution that 2nd page of PG Bond is forged, and same is also confirmed by PW-1/Ajeet Singh. It was also vehemently contended that it is beyond comprehension as to how PW-4 V.P. Pancholi is deposing that PPCL received only one page of PG Bond whereas on seeing the contents of the letter dated 24.11.1994 (Ex. PW4/N re-exhibited as Ex. DW-1/4) sent to M/s. Overseas Trade Co. Ltd., London through Indian Agent M/s. Shalimar International wherein the condition of "5 days" is clearly mentioned in condition 4 which establishes that this witness is not speaking the truth rather is covering up wrong doing by conniving with Shalimar International by concealing the 2nd page of fresh PG Bond.
Digitally
signed by
NEETU
NEETU NAGAR
(Neetu Nagar) NAGAR Date:
ACJM-06 RADC 2025.10.04
17:10:44
Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 67 of 77 +0530
CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS
66. Ex. PW4/N (Ex. DW1/4) is with regard to order for supply of 35,000+/-10% prilled urea (bulk). The contents thereof are being reproduced as follows:-
"Against your offer dated 22nd November, 1994 we hereby confirm the order for shipment of 35,000 +/- 10% prilled Urea (bulk) @ USD 135.00 per MT FOB any one Indian Port WCI/ECI.
We herewith enclose the duly signed contract No. PPC/UREA/94/CON/13/ dated 24th November, 1994, in duplicate subject to the following terms and conditions:-
1. One copy of the contract duly signed and stamped by your authorised representative on all the pages shall be returned to us latest by 14.00 Hrs. IST 29th November, 1994.
2. A Performance Guarantee Bond for 2% of the total contract value as per the prescribed format shall be submitted latest by 14.00 Hrs. IST 29th November, 1994.
3. The name and address of manufacturer alongwith the back-up letter bank coordinates and proof of stock and any such documents required for export to India from competent authority of country from where Urea is to be exported shall be submitted alongwith the P.G. Bond.
4. On receipt of the prescribed 2% P.G. Bond, PPCL shall arrange to open Letter of Credit within 5 working days.
5. Letter of credit shall be Non-transferable, however, on specific request one transfer in favour of Urea manufacturer can be permitted, for which required details shall be submitted alongwith P.G. Bond.
6. Please note that above said contract is valid for acceptance till 29th November, 1994 within which the same shall be returned duly signed as a token of acceptance alongwith 2% P.G. Bond and other required details.
NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed by ACJM-06 RADC NEETU NAGAR Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 68 of 77 Date: 2025.10.04 17:10:49 +0530 CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS
67. To my mind, contentions raised by learned counsel of accused persons in this regard are meritless as in that scenario also there was no requirement of adding seven days in the PG Bond Ex. PW18/3 and only five days should have been added as per Ex. PW4/N. The accused persons facing trial are not laymen but worked in bank where advantage of extra two days also could not have been incorporated as per the whim and fancies of the bank and its officials taking into consideration the fact that the atmosphere in the banks is very formal and the banking officials work in utmost professional manner.
68. Learned counsel on behalf of accused person next pointed out inconsistencies in the testimony of Investigating officer. He brought the attention of this court to the question which was put to PW-14/IO during his cross examination dated 18.08.2023 that "....Question: I put to you that the condition as stated in clause 4 of Ex. PW4/M was not put by the accused persons on their own in respect of conditional BG and it was prescribed by the PPCL itself..." The answer given by this witness is that "...Answer: The condition in Ex. PW4/M is not relevant to the condition placed in the PG bond page 2...". If condition on page 2 was not relevant to the condition placed the PG bond, then it was argued what investigation this witness had done. It was highlighted that Ex. PW4/M is letter dated 24.11.1995 issued by none other than PPCL/complainant to M/s. Overseas Trade Co. Ltd. London through Indian Agent M/s. Shalimar International wherein PPCL NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed by ACJM-06 RADC NEETU NAGAR Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 69 of 77 Date: 2025.10.04 17:10:53 +0530 CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS has bound itself to the condition of 2% and 5 days. The said argument is also having no substance as the present case is based primarily on documentary evidence which in this case are speaking clearly. The said inconsistence/contradictions in the testimony of the investigating officer are not fatal to the case of prosecution.
69. The next contention of learned counsel on behalf of accused persons is that PW-15/M.L. Sharma, Handwriting expert deposed that he was not aware as to what was the impression of seal on the sealed cover in which questioned documents were received by them. The sealed cover was not returned by them along with report Ex. PW-15/A (Colly). It was thus argued that sealed cover was not received by this witness hence, an inference can be drawn that the questioned documents were never sent in sealed cover. It was further contended that PW15 did not remember as to whether he had examined the ink, luster and tint of questioned handwriting of the alleged additional stroke and the existing digit. It was thus urged that possibility of planting questioned documents and manipulation of the documents with signatures of some other person by prosecution cannot be ruled out. It was highlighted that PW-15 in cross-examination could not tell as to what was the impression of the seal. It is submitted that alleged sealed cover in which questioned documents were sent to the Laboratory was not returned back along with report. Even the seal impression of the Laboratory in the report allegedly Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) NAGAR Date:
ACJM-06 RADC 2025.10.04
17:10:56
Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 70 of 77 +0530
CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS
sent in sealed cover, is not known to PW-15 which raises serious cynicism and hence possibility of tampering with these exhibits cannot be ruled out. To my mind, the said arguments of learned counsel of accused has not much bearing as even if expert opinion is not taken into consideration, the inconsistencies are writ large on the face of the document Ex. PW18/3.
70. The next contention of learned counsel of the accused persons is that PW-17 K.K. Dahiya, then Collector of Stamps admitted during his cross-examination that there is one another entry of Sr. No. 51651 on 28.11.1994, thus possibility of fabricating the register Ex. PW17/2 (Colly) cannot be ruled out since there are two entries of same Sr.No. 51651. To my mind, this anomaly in the register also is trivial and stands duly explained by PW17 during his cross-examination. Hence, the arguments of learned counsel of accused in this regard also stands rejected.
71. It was next highlighted by learned counsel of accused persons that the complainant/ PPCL filed an application with the prayer for bringing on record original complaint (Ex. PW19/A (Colly) bearing No. PPC/CVO/ Urea94/Cont. 13/2252 dated 22.06.1995. However, a perusal of order dated 03.03.2023 mentions that "An application seeking submission of D-1 i.e. original FIR No. RC-4 (A)/ 95-ACU (I) has been moved under the signatures of HIO/ Inspector KK Singh, CBI AC-I, New Delhi, duly forwarded by Ld. APP for the CBI. Heard, perused Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) NAGAR Date:
ACJM-06 RADC 2025.10.04
17:11:00
Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 71 of 77 +0530
CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS
and considered." It was contended that either the order dated 03.03.2023 is erroneous or the application is frivolous. In any case, as per the order only FIR was taken on record and not the original complaint. It was further argued that on perusal of photocopy of complaint dated 22.06.1995, it can be seen that the No. of complaint is PPC/CVO/Urea94/Cont.13 dated 22.06.2025 (document D-6/ Ex. PW-4/C Colly) whereas in the original complaint dated 22.06.1995 (Ex. PW-19/A Colly) filed in March, 2023 there is mention of "No.2252" after PPC/CVO/Urea94/Cont.13. It was pointed out that a perusal of photocopy of complaint shows that on the left hand side of the first page of complaint, there are no signatures or date of any officials of CBI whereas strangely enough in the original complaint filed in March, 2023 there are signatures of CBI official i.e. M.S. Bisht/IO of the case and also there are signatures of CBI officials with date 26.06.95. It was thus argued that the original complaint was manipulated and fabricated later on with signatures of CBI officials and date of 26.06.95 which was never there in the photocopy of complaint produced in court. Moreover, the original complaint has been in possession of PPCL/complainant for the last more than 30 years and there was no reason why the same was not filed with CBI earlier. Last but not the least, a perusal of the application for bringing on record the original complaint shows that there is absolutely no explanation whatsoever as to why the original complaint was not Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) NAGAR Date:
ACJM-06 RADC 2025.10.04
17:11:09
Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 72 of 77 +0530
CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS
filed earlier in absence of which the original complaint ought not to have been taken on record. To my mind, the said contentions of learned counsel for accused persons in this regard are also meritless as the same were not raised at the appropriate time. Moreover, the said order has never been challenged before the appellate forum. Furthermore, the witness PW 19, never deposed that the contents of the complaint are false or manipulated. Merely for the reason that the copy does not carry signatures of police official or the date, it cannot be deemed that the same is a forged document or tampered with as no such questions were put to PW19. Hence, the contentions in this regard totally stands rejected.
72. It was lastly contended on behalf of accused persons that PW-19 M.S. Yadav deposed that he did not remember anything due to lapse of time because he was suffering from dementia, but a perusal of his cross-examination shows that he has deposed in unequivocal terms about the facts in his knowledge thus, it was contended that his claim of dementia is absurd and unbelievable. It was vehemently argued that PW19 deposed during his cross- examination that he did not know what has been written in the complaint Ex. PW19/A (Colly) and if that be so, it is beyond one's imagination as to how he conducted vigilance inquiry on the complaint without knowing the facts/allegations. It was thus argued that PW19 has not conducted the inquiry in an impartial and fair manner rather acted at the behest of CBI in connivance Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) NAGAR Date:
ACJM-06 RADC 2025.10.04
Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 73 of 77 17:11:13
+0530
CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS
with PPCL. This contention has no bearing on the defence of the accused persons as PW-19 identified his signatures on the complaint Ex.PW19/A and same is also proved by the Investigating officer.
73. At this stage, it is important to discuss Section 106 of the Evidence Act which provides that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. The word "especially" means facts that are pre- eminently or exceptionally within the knowledge of the accused. The ordinary rule that applies to the criminal trials that the onus lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused is not in any way modified by the rule of facts embodied in Section 106 of the Evidence Act. Section 106 of the Evidence Act is an exception to Section 101 of the Evidence Act. Section 101 with its illustration(a) lays down the general rule that in a criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution and Section 106 is certainly not intended to relieve it of that duty. On the contrary, it is designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible or at any rate disproportionately difficult for the prosecution to establish the facts which are, "especially within the knowledge of the accused and which, he can prove without difficulty or inconvenience".
74. In Shambhu Nath Mehra v. The State of Ajmer reported in AIR 1956 SC 404, while considering the word "especially" employed in Section 106 of the Evidence Act it was observed as Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) ACJM-06 RADC NAGAR Date:
2025.10.04 Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 74 of 77 17:11:18 +0530 CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS under:-
"11. ... The word "especially" stresses that. It means facts that are pre-eminently or exceptionally within his knowledge. If the section were to be interpreted otherwise, it would lead to the very startling conclusion that in a murder case the burden lies on the accused to prove that he did not commit the murder because who could know better than he whether he did or did not. (emphasis supplied)
75. In Nagendra Sah v. State of Bihar reported in (2021) 10 SCC 725, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-
"22. Thus, Section 106 of the Evidence Act will apply to those cases where the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts which are within the special knowledge of the accused. When the accused fails to offer proper explanation about the existence of said other facts, the court can always draw an appropriate inference.
23. When a case is resting on circumstantial evidence, if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of burden placed on him by virtue of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, such a failure may provide an additional link to the chain of circumstances. In a case governed by circumstantial evidence, if the chain of circumstances which is required to be established by the prosecution is not established, the failure of the accused to discharge the burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act is not relevant at all. When the chain is not complete, falsity of the defence is no ground to convict the accused."
(Emphasis supplied) Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) NAGAR Date:
ACJM-06 RADC 2025.10.04
17:11:22
Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 75 of 77 +0530
CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS
76. It could not be explained why it is the version of the accused persons that they were provided with copy of performance guarantee bond by the accused Ashok Khushu. Surprisingly, the office copy of performance guarantee bond carries the stamps of the Jammu and Kashmir bank as well as the original signatures of accused persons in different inks. Manifestly, no explanation is forthcoming why different pens have been used by the accused persons on Ex.PW18/3 stated to be the office copy of the original performance guarantee bond. The accused persons failed to prove how their signatures are appended on the performance guarantee bond comprised in one page Ex.PW2/D. Moreover, the format accompanied with the contract Ex.PW4/Y of the performance guarantee bond also tallies with the earlier performance guarantee bond Ex. PW2/D1 as well as the performance guarantee bond Ex.PW2/D but not with office copy Ex.PW18/3.
77. Hence, the prosecution has been successful in proving that Ex.PW 18/3 is a Forged document and same has been prepared by accused Ashok Khushu and signed by accused persons. Furthermore, the said forged document has been used by the accused persons in pursuance of criminal conspiracy with each other and accused Ashok Khushu to cheat PPCL and in order to give benefit to the accused Ashok Khushu by refusing to encash the performance guarantee bond.
Digitally
signed by
NEETU
NEETU NAGAR
(Neetu Nagar) NAGAR Date:
2025.10.04
ACJM-06 RADC 17:11:26
Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 76 of 77 +0530
CBI 471/2019 CBI VS. ASHOK KUMAR NAZ & ORS
CONCLUSION
78. Therefore, upon a conspectus of the entire facts and circumstances and in view of the foregoing discussion, it is clear that the prosecution has successfully proved the commission of the alleged offence by the accused, beyond reasonable doubt. Accused namely Ashok Kumar Naz and Mushtaq Ahmed are thus held guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 120-B read with Section 467/471 and 467 and 471 IPC and are accordingly convicted for the same.
79. Copy of judgment be given to the accused persons free of cost.
Digitally
signed by
NEETU
Announced in the open
NEETU NAGAR
court today i.e. 04.10.2025 NAGAR Date:
2025.10.04
17:11:32
(This Judgment contains 77 pages +0530
signed by the undersigned)
(Neetu Nagar)
ACJM-06/RADC/New Dehi
04.10.2025
(Neetu Nagar)
ACJM-06 RADC
Delhi:04.10.2025 Page 77 of 77