Delhi District Court
Signatures To Arrive At Conclusion. In ... vs . Pankaj on 20 April, 2011
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRADEEP CHADDAH: SPECIAL JUDGE:
CBI01, CENTRAL DISTRICT. DELHI
CC No. 83/06 RC No. 2 to 5(A)/92
PS:CBI/SIUVIII, N.Delhi
Unique Case ID No. 02401R0001401994
Central Bureau of Investigation Versus
1. M/s Jain Decorators
L114, Shastri Nagar, New Delhi110 052.
2. Sh. Sumit Sen Jain S/o Late Ram Swaroop Jain
R/o 83, Sunder Park, Shastri Nagar, Near Khureje, Delhi.
3. M/s Dhiman Bros & Co (Regd),
A 684, Shastri Nagar, Delhi52
4. Sh. Kishan Dhiman S/o Late Lal Chand Dhiman
R/o A684, Shastri Nagar, Delhi52
Date of Institution of the case : 28.12.1993
Date on which judgment was reserved : 10.03.2011
Date of decision : 20.04.2011
J U D G M E N T
1. The present charge sheet pertaining to RC No. 2(A)/92 to 5(A)/92 was filed by CBI. In RC No. 2(A)/92 five persons namely R.K. Malhotra, M/s. Jain Decorators, S.S. Jain, M/s Dhiman Bros & Co. and Kishan Dhiman were placed in column No.1 while eight persons were placed in Col. No.2 namely O.P. Chopra, K.L. Chandana, M/s. Mehra Plastics, S.L. Mehra, M/s. Bitco Udyog, Suresh Kumar, M/s. Anil Plastics and Anil Kumar.
CC No. 83/06 pg 1 of 59
2
2. The allegations in RC No. 2(A)/92 against the accused persons were that accused persons with Sh. O.P. Chopra, the then Regional Manager, New Bank of India, Sh. R.K. Malhotra, then then branch Manager, New Bank of India Nangloi Branch, M/s Jain Decorators represented by Sh. S.S Jain, M/s Dhiman Bros & CO. represented by Sh. Kishan Dhiman entered into criminal conspiracy and in pursuance thereof submitted loan application dt.24.09.87 to New Bank of India, Nangloi for a term loan of Rs.3.66 Lacs for purchase of machinery and CC limit of Rs. 2.50 Lacs. Sh. S.S. Jain submitted forged documents and false information. Sh. O.P. Chopra sanctioned the loan on recommendation of branch manager Sh. R.K. Malhotra by abusing their official position. M/s Dhiman Bros. & Co. represented by Kishan Dhiman dishonestly and fraudulently withdrew term loan of Rs. 3.63 lacs without supplying any machinery. This was done on basis of false bills and receipts issued in favour of M/s Jain Decorators. The accused persons had thus caused wrongful gain to themselves and wrongful loss to the Bank.
3. Allegations in RC 3(A)/92 were that Mr. K.L. Chandna the then Regional Manager, New Bank of India and Mr. R.K. Malhotra, the then branch Manager, New Bank of India, Nangloi Branch during 1988 entered CC No. 83/06 pg 2 of 59 3 into criminal conspiracy with M/s. Mehra Plastics represented by Sh. S.L. Mehra, Sh. S.S. Jain and M/s Dhiman Bros & Co. represented by Sh. Kishan Dhiman. In pursuance thereof a term loan of Rs. 4 lacs, CC limit of Rs. 4 Lacs and BP Limits of Rs. 2 Lacs was sanctioned on basis of forged and fabricated documents. This sanction was in favour of M/s Mehra Plastics and it had violated norms and procedures of the Bank.
4. The allegations in RC 4(A)/92 were to the effect that the then Regional Manager, K.L. Chandna of New Bank of India entered into criminal conspiracy with Sh. R.K. Malhotra Branch Manager, New Bank of India, Nangloi branch and some private persons. In furtherance of the conspiracy fraudulently and dishonestly sanctioned term loan of Rs. 2.10 lacs, CC limit of Rs. 50,000/ and BP limit of Rs. 50,000/ to M/s Bitco Udyog on the basis of forged and fabricated documents.
5. The allegations in RC 5(A)/92 was that Sh. K.L. Chandana while functioning as Regional Manager, New Bank of India entered into criminal conspiracy with Sh. R.K. Malhotra branch manager, New Bank of India, Nangloi and some private persons. In pursuance of said conspiracy, he sanctioned term loan of RS. 4 lacs, CC limit of Rs. 2 lacs and BP limit of CC No. 83/06 pg 3 of 59 4 Rs. 2 lacs to M/s Anil Plastics a fictitious firm represented by Sh. Anil Kumar. This has been done on the basis of forged and fabricated documents and without following the bank's norms/procedures.
6. Investigations had disclosed that Sh. O.P. Chopra was Regional Manager of New Bank of India, Regional Office, New Delhi from 17.03.87 to March, 1988. Sh. K.L. Chandana took over as Regional Manager from April' 88 and remained in the seat till January' 89. Sh. R.K. Malhotra had been working as Branch Manager, New Bank of India during this period. Investigation further revealed that Sh. R.K. Malhotra entered into criminal conspiracy with Sh. S.S. Jain and Sri Krishan Dhiman partner of M/s Dhiman Bros & Co. during 1987 and 1988 with an object to cheat the bank and they committed some acts of omission and commission.
7. Sh. S. S. Jain had opened current account no. 1007 in the name of his firm M/s Jain Decorators, L114, Sashtri Nagar, New Delhi. Account was opened in Nangloi branch of New Bank of India.
8. Current A/c no. 1067 was opened in the name of M/s Dhiman Bros. & Co., A684 Sashtri Nagar on 29.12.87. The account was opened with New Bank of India, Nangloi. Though M/s Dhiman Bros. & Co. was a CC No. 83/06 pg 4 of 59 5 partnership firm, Sh. R.K. Malhotra allowed the account to be opened with a signature of only single partner namely Shri Krishan Dhiman.
9. Sh. S. S. Jain was proprietor of M/s Jain Decorator. He made an application dt. 24.09.87 for term loan of Rs. 3.63 lacs and CC limit of Rs. 2.50 lacs. Along with the application he had submitted forged and fabricated documents like Balance sheet for 2 years, Statement of Assets and Liabilities, rent receipts, quotations etc.. Sh. R.K. Malhotra did not follow the required procedure and did not verify the facts. He sent the loan proposal dt. 10.10.87 to Regional office. He did not conduct pre sanction inspection before recommending the loan proposal. He also did not examine details of collateral security submitted by Sh. S.S. Jain. It was found to be in the name of Monu Jain instead of Moti Ram. Sh. R.K. Malhotra also gave false information to regional office that Sh. S.S. Jain had made deposits of Rs. 10 lacs. The loan proposal was acted upon and term loan of Rs. 3.63 lacs and CC limit of Rs. 2.5 lacs was sanctioned to M/s Jain Decorators. The amount of Rs.3.63 Lacs which was sanctioned to M/s. Jain Decorators was credited in the account of Dhiman Bros. & Co. on 30.12.87 by pay order after term loan account of Jain Decorators was debited. Dhiman Bros & Co. did not actually supply machinery to Jain CC No. 83/06 pg 5 of 59 6 Decorators. It falsely issued a bill showing supply of machinery. Sh. Kishan Dhiman issued a cheque for Rs.3.63 Lacs on the same day. The cheque was drawn from the bank by Ramesh Jain brother of S.S. Jain. R.K. Malhotra, S.S. Jain and Srikishan Dhiman misutilized the sanction loan of Rs.3 .63 lacs. The amount was never paid back to the bank.
10. R.K. Malhotra permitted withdrawal of Rs.2.5 Lacs by S.S. Jain from CC a/c No.123 of Jain Decorators on 30.12.87 by one cheque bearing No. 976551 favouring his own self. As per procedure of the bank entire amount of CC limit cannot be allowed by way of self cheque.
11. Investigation further disclosed that in CC A/c. No.123 S.S. Jain after withdrawing a total amount issued cheques which were favouring his own self. They were allowed to be paid by Sh. R.K. Malhotra and the cheques totaled Rs.1,24,000/. The CC limit account exceeded the sanctioned limit on 20.4.88. SS Jain issued cheque No. 976559, 976561, 976562, 976563 which were allowed by R.K. Malhotra and the proceeds of the cheques were received by S.S. Jain. Proceeds of cheque NO. 976562 which was issued in favour of Sadar Glass work for Rs.60,000/ was received by R.K. Malhotra himself after he had signed as Ram Lal. R.K. Malhotra made a CC No. 83/06 pg 6 of 59 7 note on the ledger sheet that CC limit had been enhanced to Rs. 5 Lac from Rs.2.50 Lacs without getting any sanction from the competent authority. R.K. Malhotra and S.S. Jain therefore withdrew/misused the amount from the bank fraudulently. Further investigation has shown that S.S. Jain was actually residing at L97, Shastri Nagar but he gave false information that he was living at 7/7. Peeragarhi. R.K. Malhotra had recommended sanction of another term loan of Rs.1,47,000/ to Jain Decorators though performance of Jain Decorators was not satisfactory.
12. Further investigation disclosed that R.K. Malhtora in conspiracy with S S Jain has deceived a shoe mender namely S.L. Mehra on the pretext of providing him with non refundable loan of Rs.2500/ under new policy of the government to help poor people of society. R.K. Malhotra obtained SL Mehra's signature on various blank loan document, account opening form etc. R.K. Malhotra opened CA No.1192 with New Bank of India, Nangloi Branch in name of Mehra Plastic purported to be represented by S.L. Mehra. The address of the firm was 487/6, Peera Garhi and of S.L. Mehra 449/2, Peera Garhi Delhi. This account was got introduced by B.M. Chopra another customer of the bank. Further investigation disclosed that R.K Malhotra got filed in loan application dt. 1.9.88 in the name of Mehra Plastic CC No. 83/06 pg 7 of 59 8 for term loan of Rs.4 Lac CC limit Rs.4 Lac and BP limits Rs.2 Lac This was done after managing false papers like rent receipt of house No.487/6, no objection certificate from the landlord, quotations, evaluation report pertaining to the property offered for equitable mortgage and assets and liabilities of S.L Mehra. R.K. Malhotra prepared false credit report, false pre sanction inspection report to the effect that he had conducted inspection of the factory premises and the property offered as collateral security. The fact was that no such factory was ever in existence at the address given and owner of the property had also expired in April '86. R.K Malhotra sent the said reports to the regional office New Bank of India Delhi where it was processed. In reply to queries R.K Malhotra gave false information with the result term loan of Rs.4 Lacs CC limit of Rs.4 Lacs and BP limit of Rs.2 Lac was sanctioned to M/s. Mehra Plastic a fictitious firm. This was done by regional manager K.L. Chandana. RK Malhotra without complying with stipulation distributed the term loan by preparing pay order favouring Dhiman Bros. & Co. The pay order was deposited in C.A Account of M/s.Dhiman Bros. after debiting loan account of Mehra Plastics. The said amount of Rs.4 Lac was withdrawn by Sri Kishan Dhiman from account of M/s. Dhiman Bros. & Co. by issuing three cheques in name of three different persons. This he had done without supplying the required CC No. 83/06 pg 8 of 59 9 machinery to M/s. Mehra Plastics.
13. Further it was revealed that Sri Kishan Dhiman has conspired with RK Malhotra and submitted one forged bill No.402 dt.26.11.88 in name of M/s. Mehra Plastic giving address of the firm as 478/6, Peera Garhi and showing supply of the machinery.
14. In CC Limit A.C No. 158 of Mehra Plastics Cheque No. 977703 was prepared by S.S. Jain for Rs.60,000/ in favour of Gupta Plastics. It was allowed by R.K. Malhotra and the amount was received by S.S. Jain signing as Mohan Lal. Cheque No. 977705 for Rs.3 Lacs and Cheque No. 977702 for Rs.18000/ favouring Prabhu Singh and Ever Shine were issued and the proceeds of cheques were withdrawn. SS Jain had also signed as S.L. Mehra on one cheque.
15. R.K. Malhtora prepared cheque No. 977709 for Rs.15000/ in the name of Ram Prakash. He allowed payment and then signed as Ram Prakash and received the payment. He also received Rs.20000/ on basis of cheque No. 977707 after signing as Shyam Lal. He also prepared cheque No. 977706 for Rs.22000/ purportedly issued by S.L. Mehra. He CC No. 83/06 pg 9 of 59 10 received the amount after encashing the cheque through his brother V.K. Malhotra who signed as Ramesh. In this manner R.K. Malhotra and S.S. Jain misutilized the CC limits sanctioned to Mehra Plastic. R.K. Malhotra to keep CC account under CC limit showed purchase of B.Ps and credited the amount in the CC account and withdrew the proceeds by above cheques. All the purchased cheques were returned unpaid by the drawee bank. In this manner R.K Malhotra, S.S. Jain and Kirshan Dhiman misutilized the term loan CC limit and BP limit facilities which had been sanctioned in the name of fictitious firm Mehra Plastics.
16. Investigation also revealed that R.K. Malhotra got opened a CA No. 1168 in name of another fictitious firm Bitco Udyog. It was represented by Suresh Kumar a fictitious person. Without taking any introduction it showed address of the factory as L118 Shastri Nagar Delhi. The said property was under occupation of SS Jain who had taken it on rent from one Nihari Ram.
17. It has been alleged further that after opening the account Sh. R.K. Malhotra obtained loan application under signatures of one S. Kumar R/o. 7/6 Peeragarhi. S. Kumar was a fictitious person and even the address was fake. It was for term loan of Rs. 2.10 lacs, CC limit of Rs. 50,000/ and BP CC No. 83/06 pg 10 of 59 11 limit of Rs. 50,000/. It was arranged by S.S. Jain and he got prepared valuation of the property which was in the name of Shakuntala Devi situated at plot no. 782, Village Burari. The inspection was done done by Chaddha Associates on the pretext that Shakuntala Devi wanted to sell her property. R.K. Malhotra had prepared false presanction inspection report and sent them to Regional office. He also gave fake information to the Regional office that account of Bitco Udyog was introduced by Ashok Kumar Proprietor of Pure Food Products. Based on above, Regional Office sanctioned the loan and limits demanded. Regional office had mentioned stipulations which were to be followed but they were never followed by RK Malhotra.
18. Pay order no. 652/88 favouring Dhiman Bros & Co. for Rs. 2.10 lacs was prepared under signatures of RK Malhotra on 24.06.88 after term loan account of Bitco Udyog was debited and pay order was credited to the account of M/s Dhiman Bros. & Co. though no machinery had been supplied. RK Malhotra also prepared cheque no. 976408 dt. 28.06.88 for Rs. 2.8 lacs in favour of self on account of M/s Dhiman Bros. & Co. which had been signed by Krishan Dhiman. RK Malhotra took the cash by signing as Ramesh Kumar. Thus RK Malhotra and Krishan Dhiman had CC No. 83/06 pg 11 of 59 12 misutilized the term loan without machinery being supplied.
19. CC limit account no. 143 of Bitco Udyog was misutilized by SS Jain and RK Malhotra as cheque no. 574405 dt. 07.07.88 for Rs. 20,000/, cheque no. 574404 dt. 03.07.88 for RS. 11500/ purportedly issued by S. Kumar on this account filled in by S.S. Jain and their proceeds were received by S.S Jain signing as S.S. Jain and Ramesh. S.S. Jain had also obtained signatures of Sh. Harbans Lal by deception on cheque no. 574406. Cheque was for Rs. 27,000/.
20. Rs. 32,000/ was deposited on 29.09.88 in CC A/c no. 143 drawn on account of Bitco Udyog. It was deposited by S.S. Jain and payinslip was also filled in by him. Rs. 35,000/ was withdrawn by cheque no. 574408 by S.S. Jain from that account.
21. R.K. Malhotra also purchased three cheques issued by V.K. Plastics on 03.07.88 for Rs. 10,000/, on 28.07.88 for Rs. 29,050/ and on 01.8.88 for Rs. 28,000/ as bill purchases. The CC A/c of Bitco Udyog was credited and the cheques were dishonoured due to lack of funds. Proceeds of the documents were withdrawn from the CC A/c. Thus R.K. Malhotra and S.S. CC No. 83/06 pg 12 of 59 13 Jain misutilized the BP limit of Rs.50,000/ and CC limit of Rs.50,000/.
22. Investigation of RC no. 5/92 revealed that CA No. 1186 in the name of M/s Anil Plastic was opened in New Bank of India, Nangloi Branch. It indicated Anil Kumar as its Proprietor while address of the firm was 191, Gali no. 2, Padam Nagar, Delhi. S.S. Jain had introduced and the account was opened by R.K. Malhotra. Actually the firm was not in existence and Anil kumar was a fictitious person. S.S. Jain had filled the account opening form.
23. M/s Anil Plastic had moved an application seeking term loan of Rs. 4 lacs, CC limit of Rs. 2 lacs on 01.07.88. Without observing norms and procedures, R.K. Malhotra recommended sanction of the loan and CC limits. Regional office raised queries. R.K. Malhotra replied giving false information. Later on M/s Anil Plastic moved an application for bill purchase limit of Rs. 2 lac. RK Malhotra recommended it. Finally term loan of Rs. 4 lacs, CC limit of Rs. 2 lacs and B.P. Limit of Rs. 2 lacs was sanctioned by the Regional Office in favour of Anil Plastic. The investigation showed that the documents submitted were forged and the information given was not correct. R.K. Malhotra recommended sanction CC No. 83/06 pg 13 of 59 14 even though V.K. Plastic was functioning at the address which was shown by M/s Anil Plastic. V.K. Plastic belonged to V.K. Malhotra and D.K Malhotra who were brother and son of R.K. Malhotra.
24. R.K. Malhotra did not follow any stipulation made in the sanction letter. Pay order no. 829/88 dt. 16.09.88 for Rs. 4 lacs was credited in the account of M/s Dhiman Bros.& Co. by making corresponding debit in the term loan account of Anil Plastic. On the same day cheque no. 976710 for Rs. 2.5 lacs was withdrawn from the account by Mr. A. Kumar and Rs. 1.50 lacs was withdrawn on 29.09.88 vide cheque no. 976412. Thus the term loan amount was misutilized by R.K. Malhotra and Krishan Dhiman without supplying any machinery to M/s Anil Plastic. The fake bill was kept on the record to show supply of machinery. CC limit of Rs. 2 lacs of Anil Plastic was mis utilized by SS Jain and RK Malhotra. RK Malhotra himself received cash of Rs. 1.90 lacs vide cheque no. 577359 dt. 23.12.88. He had signed as Ramesh Kumar. S.S. Jain received Rs. 72,000/ vide cheque no. 577360 dt. 21.01.89. D.K. Malhotra S/o R.K. Malhotra received Rs. 50,000/ vide cheque no. 577353 dt. 30.09.88. The cheque was given to VK Malhotra and had been drawn by RK Malhotra in favour of M/s V.K. Plastic.
CC No. 83/06 pg 14 of 59
15
25. RK Malhotra also allowed and purchased cheque of Rs. 2 lacs as BP on the CC a/c. Cheque was received back unpaid. But at that time amount had been withdrawn vide cheque no. 577359. RK Malhotra purchased another cheque for Rs. 2 lacs on 16.07.89 and credited proceeds of the cheque in CC a/c. The amount was also withdrawn vide cheque no. 577363. The cheque purchased as BP was also returned unpaid. Thereafter RK Malhotra himself deposited Rs. 1.85 lacs in cash in CC limit A/c.
26. RK Malhotra and SS Jain mis utilized the CC limit of Rs. 2 lacs facility and BP limit of Rs. 2 lacs in the name of M/s Anil Plastic.
27. It was prayed that accused persons be summoned and tried under various provisions of Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption Act.
28. After accused persons put in appearance, they were provided with copies. After hearing submissions of the accused persons, my Ld. Predecessor framed the following charge against S.S. Jain and Krishan Dhiman:
"That both of you along with accused no. 1 R.K. Malhotra CC No. 83/06 pg 15 of 59 16 (now dead), who was Branch Manager of Nangloi Branch of New Bank of India during March, 1987 to July, 1989, entered into a criminal conspiracy at Delhi during the period of September, 1987 to July 1989 to defraud/cheat New Bank of India (Nangloi Branch, Delhi) of lacs of rupees by resorting to misrepresentation of facts, forgery of documents to be used for cheating the bank and misuse/abuse of authority as a public servant and by corrupt/illegal means by the deceased R.K. Malhotra for obtaining pecuniary advantage of himself and also for you accused Sumit Sen Jain and Kishan Dhiman by inducing the higher bank officers to sanction various credit facilities in the names of Jain Decorators, proprietorship firm of you, accused Sumit Sen Jain, and other fake firms by names of M/s Mehra plastics, Bitco Udyog and M/s Anil Plastics in pursuance of the agreement between you two and the deceased R.K. Malhotra which acts amount to offences punishable under sections 420/468/471 IPC and 5(2) r/w 5(1)
(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 corresponding to section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and thereby you committed an offence punishable under section 120B IPC, and within my cognizance;
SECONDLY That in pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy between you two and the deceased R.K. Malhotra you accused Sumit Sen Jain applied for cash credit facility upto Rs. 2.50 lacs and term loan of Rs. 3.63 lacs in the Nangloi Branch of New Bank of India in October, 1987 when deceased R.K. Malhotra was posted there as Branch CC No. 83/06 pg 16 of 59 17 Manager and those facilities were applied for by misrepresenting to the Bank that your firm M/s Jain Decorators had to purchase a machine from M/s Dhiman Bros. & Co. firm of accused Kishan Dhiman for Rs.
4,40,000/ while in fact no such transaction of sale purchase of machinery had to take place and you accused Kishan Dhiman gave a false invoice dated 2/8/87 of your said Firm in favour of Jain Decorators and a false receipt dated 7/8/87 for Rs. 1,15,000/ in favour of Jain Decorators as advance payment for supply of the machinery as shown in the said invoice dated 2/8/87 to give a colour of genuineness of the requirement of loan by S.S. Jain and those documents were submitted by S.S. Jain along with his loan application and other misrepresentations were also made by you accused S.S. Jain dishonestly and fraudulently in your loan application/project report including the fact that one Moti Ram had agreed to give guarantee for repayment of loan amount by mortgaging a property which he had already sold and also submitted forged rent receipt dated 10/10/87 purporting to have been issued by one Vidyawanti in respect of prop. No. L114, Shastri Nagar, Delhi showing S.S. Jain as her tenant therein and also one forged No Objection Certificate purporting to have been issued by Vidyawanti in respect of her said property giving no objection to S.S. Jain for using electricity connection installed in the said property and the deceased accused without complying with presanction formalities and verifying the documents submitted by S.S. Jain made his recommendation for sanction of credit CC No. 83/06 pg 17 of 59 18 facilities to Jain Decorators to the Regional Office misrepresenting that S.S. Jain had procured deposits of Rs. 10 lacs for the bank and in that manner higher authorities of the Bank were dishonestly and fraudulently induced into sanctioning the aforesaid credit facilities in faovur of Jain Decorators and after sanction of credit facilities without supply of any machinery to Jain Decorators M/s Dhiman Bros. & Co. received payment of Rs. 3.63 lacs on 30/12/87 from New Bank of India as supplier of the machinery by way of pay order which was issued by debiting the term loan account of Jain Decorators and on the same day i.e. 30/12/87 Kishan Dhiman withdrew that amount from account of his firm maintained in Nangloi Branch of New Bank of India in which pay said order was credited by issuing a bearer cheque in the name of brother of S.S. Jain and similarly the amount of cash credit limit of Rs. 2,50,000/ which was obtained for purchase of finished goods for the business of Jain Decorators was misutilised by you two and the deceased accused and in fact payments over and above the sanctioned limit were released from that account by the deceased accused and thereafter you all did not repay the money to the Bank and thereby Bank was cheated by you people of Rs. (sic.) and thus both of you committed the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC and within my cognizance;
THIRDLY That in pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy you accused S.S. Jain dishonestly and fraudulently submitted CC No. 83/06 pg 18 of 59 19 to New Bank of India, Nangloi Branch alongwith your loan application a rent receipt dated 10/10/87 purporting to have been issued by one Vidyawanti in respect of prop. no. L114, Shastri Nagar, Delhi showing S.S. Jain as her tenant therein and also one No Objection Certificate purporting to have been issued by Vidyawanti in respect of her said property knowing that both these documents were forged and you used them for cheating the said bank and thereby both of you two committed the offence punishable under Section 468/471 IPC and within my cognizance;
FOURTHLY That in pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy between you two and the deceased R.K. Malhotra current account was opened in the Nangloi branch of New Bank of India in the name of a nonexistent firm by the name of M/s. Bitco Udyog by you people and after opening of the said account and a term loan of rupees 2.50 lacs and cash credit limit of rupees fifty thousand and bill purchase limit of rupees fifty thousand was also applied for in the name of said bogus firm Bitco Udyog and along with the application for these credit facilities false documents were submitted fraudulently and dishonestly in order to induce the higher bank officials to sanction the aforesaid credit facilities and acting on misrepresentations made by you people and forged documents the regional office of the bank sanctioned the afore said credit facility on 23688 and thereafter the entire amount sanctioned was fully utilized and shared by you people by withdrawing the money by way of bearer cheques etc. and that amount was not repaid CC No. 83/06 pg 19 of 59 20 to the bank and thereby bank was cheated of lacs of rupees in that manner and you committed the offence punishable under section 420 IPC and within my cognizance;
FIFTHLY That in pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy between you two and the deceased R.K. Malhotra in order o facilitate sanction of credit facility in favour of bogus firm M/s Bitco Udyog as mentioned in charge fourthly a false invoice dated 22.6.88 and a false bill dated 22.06.88 of Dhiman Bros. & Co. showing delivery of machine to M/s. Bitco Udyog were submitted to the bank while in fact, no machinery was intended to be supplied by Dhiman Bros. & Co. nor in fact, it was supplied to M/s. Bitco Udyog knowing that the said bill and invoice were false and they were used for the purpose of cheating the bank and, thereby both of you committed the offences punishable under sections 468/471 IPC, and within my cognizance.
SIXTHLY That in pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy between you two and the deceased R.K. Malhotra a current account was opened in the Nangloi branch of New Bank of India in the name of a nonexistent firm by the name of M/s. Anil Plastics and after opening of the said account and a term loan of rupees four lacs and cash credit limit of rupees two lacs was also applied for in the name of said bogus firm Anil plastics and along with the application for these credit facilities false documents were submitted fraudulently and dishonestly in order to induce the higher bank officials to sanction the aforesaid credit facilities and CC No. 83/06 pg 20 of 59 21 acting on misrepresentations made by you people and forged documents the regional office of the bank sanctioned the aforesaid credit facility on 14988 and thereafter the entire amount sanctioned was fully utilised by you people and that amount was not repaid to the bank and thereby bank was cheated of lacs of rupees in that manner and you committed the offence punishable under section 420 IPC and within my cognizance;
SEVENTHLY That in pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy between you two and the deceased R.K. Malhotra in order to facilitate sanction of credit facility in favour of bogus firm M/s. Anil Plastics as mentioned in charge sixthly a false invoice dated 22688 and a false bill (undated) of Dhiman Bros. & Co. showing delivery of machine to M/s. Anil Plastics were submitted to the bank while in afct, no machinery was intended to be supplied by Dhiman Bros. & Co. nor in fact, it was supplied to M/s. Anil Plastics knowing that the said bill and invoice were false and they were used for the purpose of cheating the ban k and, thereby both of you committed the offences punishable under sections 468/471 IPC, and within my cognizance; EIGHTLY That in pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy between you two and the deceased R.K. Malhotra current account was opened in the Nangloi branch of New Bank of India in the name of a nonexistence firm by the name M/s. Mehra Plastics by you people and after opening of the said account and a term loan of rupees four lacs and cash credit CC No. 83/06 pg 21 of 59 22 limit of rupees two lacs and was also applied for in the name of said bogus firm Mehra Plastics and along with the application for these credit facilities false documents were submitted fraudulently and dishonestly in order to induce the higher bank officials to sanction the aforesaid credit facilities and acting on misrepresentations made by you people and forged documents the regional office of the bank sanctioned the aforesaid credit facility on 121188 and thereafter the en tire amount sanctioned was fully utilised and shared by you people by withdrawing the money by way of bearer cheques etc. and that amount was not repaid to the bank and thereby bank was cheated of lacs of rupees in that manner and you committed the offence punishable under section 420 IPC and within my cognizance;
NINTHLY That in pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy between you two and the deceased R.K. Malhotra along with the application for sanction of credit facilitate mentioned in charge no. 8 a false quotation dated 2988 of M/s. Dhiman Bros. & Co. for supply of machine, for purchase of which credit facility was applied for in the name of M/s. Mehra Plastics, to the said bogus firm M/s. Mehra Plastics was submitted knowing that the said quotation was a false quotation and no machine was actually to be supplied by Dhiman Bros. & Co. to M/s. Mehra Plastics and which was used for the purpose of cheating the bank and, thereby both of you committed the offences punishable under sections 468/471 IPC, and CC No. 83/06 pg 22 of 59 23 within my cognizance.
And, I hereby direct that both of you be tried by this court for the above said offences.?
29. Prosecution in support of its case examined fifteen witnesses in all excluding PW15 S.D. Awasthi who was dropped. After statement of the accused was recorded u/s. 313 he pleaded innocence and examined a witness in defence namely Mr. A.K. Ahluwalia.
30. PW1 examined by the prosecution was Ashok Kumar. He testified that he was running a Bakery shop at Bhooton Wali Gali, Nangloi. He had an account with New Bank of India, Nangloi. He further deposed that he had introduced account of M/s. Bitco Udyog at L118, Shastri Nagar, New Delhi. But the account opening form D54 which was MarkA did not contain his signatures.
31. The next witness to be examined was Narender Kumar. He testified that house No. L118, Shashtri Nagar belonged to his parents. It was let out by him to accused S.S. Jain Proprietor of M/s. Jain Decorators in 1982 at rent of Rs.725/ and S.S. Jain remained tenant in the house till 199091.
CC No. 83/06 pg 23 of 59
24
He categorically claimed that he had never let out the house to M/s. Bitco Udyog. Counterfoils of the rent receipts issued by him were collectively Ex. PW2/A. Counterfoil of the last rent receipt issued to Jain Decorators was for the period 01.01.89 to 31.03.89. Upon being crossexamined he claimed that Jain Decorators was engaged in business of glassware.
32. The third witness to be examined by the prosecution was Mr. S.N. Sharma. He deposed that property No. L97A Shastri Nagar measuring 100 sq. yards was purchased by his wife Uma Sharma from Mahender Kumar on 24.10.89. Property No. L97 was of 200 sq. yards. It was sub divided in three parts and one portion measuring 100 sq. yards was purchased by his wife. He had been shown photocopy of original sale deed which was in favour of Moti Ram Gupta. The said photocopy was MarkB. The witness claimed that subsequently he came to know that accused S.S. Jain had mortgaged the property which was in name of Moti Ram Gupta to New Bank of India, Nangloi after depositing the original sale deed. He made a categorical claim that he had never raised any loan by mortgaging the property or mortgaging the title deed.
33. The fourth witness to be examined was Mrs. Vidya Wati. She CC No. 83/06 pg 24 of 59 25 deposed that in 1997 she was residing in house No. L114, Shastri Nagar. She gave the house on rent to S.S. Jain who remained there till 1991. Rent receipt Ex.PW4/A did not contain her signatures. Similarly, no objection certificate Ex.PW4/B and another no objection certificate Ex.PW4/C did not contain her signatures. Upon being crossexamined she claimed that she did not know whether the said forged documents had been prepared by the accused R.K. Malhotra who was Manager of New Bank of India.
34. The next witness to be examined by CBI was Mr. B.D. Kalra. He deposed that he was posted in New Bank of India, Nangloi from 19861991. Accused R.K. Malhotra was the branch Manager till 1989. Vide application dt. 24.9.87 M/s Jain Decorators of L114, Shastri Nagar moved an application for term loan to the tune of Rs. 3. 63 lacs and and CC limit to the tune of Rs. 2.5 lacs. The said application was Ex. PW5/1. Accused S.S. Jain had also submitted statement of assets and liabilities of Moti Ram which was Ex. PW5/2 and his own assets and liabilities which was Ex. PW5/3. Accused S.S. Jain also submitted project report Ex. PW5/4 and Profit & Loss account for the year 31st March, 1987 which was Ex. PW5/5. Original balance sheet as on 31.7.87 was Ex. PW5/6 and Ex. PW5/7 was projected Trading and Profit & Loss account for the financial year ending CC No. 83/06 pg 25 of 59 26 31.3.88. All these documents contained signatures of accused S.S. Jain. He had also submitted quotation of Sardar Crockery house Ex. PW5/8 and Capital Crockery house Ex. PW5/9. PW5/10 was list of his customers. He then deposed about various other documents which had been submitted by accused S.S. Jain including no objection certificate for installation of electricity connection in house no. L114, Shastri Nagar. He further deposed that Sh. Prakash Gupta Chartered Accountant had prepared project report which was Ex. PW5/20 and had been submitted by accused S.S. Jain. After all the documents had been received inspection had been carried out by accused R.K. Malhotra who was then Branch Manager and inspection report was prepared by R.K. Chugh Asstt. Manager which was Ex. PW5/32. Accused R.K.Malhotra forwarded the loan proposal of M/s Jain Decorators to the Regional Office for sanction of the loan amount. The Regional office thereafter sanctioned term loan of Rs. 3.60 lacs and C.C. Limit of Rs. 2.5 lacs vide letter Ex. PW5/35. Accused R.K. Malhotra then gave permission for opening of the account. Accused S.S. Jain submitted a bill to the tune of Rs. 4,92,200/ raised by Diwan Bros & Co. for making payment. The said bill was Ex. PW5/37 ( in fact there is a typing error. The bill was not by Diwan Bros. & Co. but by Dhiman Bros. & Co. and is Ex. PW5/38). Accused R.K. Malhotra okeyed payment of cheques for various CC No. 83/06 pg 26 of 59 27 amounts. The same were Ex. PW5/38 to PW5/46. The witness further deposed that Regional office had made some queries which were replied to by the accused R.K. Malhotra. The said reply was Ex. PW5/48. Accused R.K. Malhotra had again recommended proposal of M/s Jain Decorators for sanctioning of the loan. Upon being cross examined, the witness admitted that accused S.S. Jain had not submitted any documents to him and he never dealt with any account of the accused.
35. Thereafter Mr. R. Madhavan entered the witness box. He deposed that from September 1987 to September 1993, he worked as Manager in the Vigilance Section of the bank. Complaint had been received in the vigilance department in respect of misuse of bank funds through loan and advance section in favour of M/s Jain Decorators and M/s Bitco Udhyog. He investigated the same and submitted his report which was Ex. PW6/A. During course of his enquiry he found that accused R.K. Malhotra had not signed loan proposal but had forwarded it to Regional office without making enquiries. M/s Jain Decorators had been doing business with State Bank of India and their dealings were not healthy. Upon visit to the premises at L114 Shastri Nagar, , he found that factory had been locked and the name was also not displayed. Further he deposed that Dhiman Brothers informed CC No. 83/06 pg 27 of 59 28 him that machinery had not been supplied by them though payment was received b y way of pay order by them. Moti Ram, guarantor could not be found at his address L97 Shastri Nagar. The property which had been mortgaged was reported to have been sold and party was allowed to withdraw entire amount of Rs. 2.5 lacs by self cheque which was against the banking system. Upon being cross examined, the witness claimed that he had visited the premises of M/s Jain Decorators in June/July 1989 and they were found locked. Even the name board had not been displayed. As per Ex. PW5/34 submitted by the bank, it had been claimed that property no. L97 Shashtri Nagar belong to Moti Ram and was being offered as collateral security. It was taken as collateral security but Moti Ram already had disposed off the property. Pay order for Rs. 3.63 lacs was issued in favour of Dhiman Bros. but he had no knowledge if R.K. Malhotra had opened account in the name of Dhiman Bros. and had transferred the money.
36. Thereafter Mr. A.K. Kohli entered the witness box as PW7. He deposed that accused S.S. Jain gave his specimen handwriting and signatures in his presence and he also signed them as a witness on documents Ex. PW7/1 to PW7/24.
CC No. 83/06 pg 28 of 59
29
37. CBI thereafter examined Mrs. Rakesh Kohli as PW8. She deposed that she was an officer in New Bank of India from February 1986 to June 1989. She used to scrutinize loan proposals received from Nangloi and other branches. Proposal of Jain Decorators was forwarded by the Branch Manager, Nangloi along with letter dt. 10.10.87 which was Ex.PW5/34. It was for sanction of term loan of Rs.3.63 Lacs and cash credit limit of Rs. 2.50 lacs for purchase of machinery, raw material and finished goods. Regional Manager Sh. O.P. Chopra marked the proposal to her for scrutiny. She claimed that she scrutinized the documents received along with loan proposal i.e. L14R in the name of Jain Decorators which was Ex.PW 8/1, L4A of Moti Ram which was Ex.PW8/2, L4A of Moti Ram which was Ex.PW8/2, L4A in the name of Jain Decorators was Ex.PW8/3. She then deposed about large number of documents which had been scrutinized by her. She claimed that she found that document L14R was unsigned. L4/A was undated and unsigned, date on the rent receipt had been altered, targeted sales were very optimistic and claims seemed to be lofty, the advance given to machinery supplier was not rationale, the requirement of working capital was not worked out satisfactorily. She then made a note regarding discrepancy found by her and the same was CC No. 83/06 pg 29 of 59 30 Ex.PW8/8. File was then forwarded to Manager Sh. S.C. Maheshwari who made observations in green ink. His signatures were on the observations Ex.PW8/9. The file was then put up before Dy. Chief Manager. A letter was forwarded to the Manager Nangloi Branch seeking information. The letter was Ex.PW8/10. In reply to the letter, the branch had sent a letter dt. 06.11.87. The said letter was Ex.PW8/11. She then scrutinized the documents and found five major discrepancies. Again the file was put up before Mr. S.C. Maheshwari. Mr. Maheshwari observed that the proposal should be declined. The file was put up to Dy. Chief Manager. It was discussed with the regional manager by Mr. Maheshwari. Again a letter was written to Branch Manager Nangloi branch pointing out discrepancies. The said letter was Ex.PW8/13. Reply was then received from Nangloi Branch which was Ex.PW8/14. She mentioned about the discrepancies found by her and put up before Dy. Chief Manager and Regional Manager. Thereafter, Nangloi Branch had forwarded two letters dt. 09.12.87 and 15.12.87 which were Ex.PW8/18 and Ex.PW5/48. Witness claimed that she again scrutinized the documents and found discrepancies. Another letter was received from the Branch Ex.PW5/49. Sh. O.P. Chopra ordered to put up the sanction note on urgent basis. She then put up sanction note sanctioning term loan of Rs.3.63 Lacs for purchase of new machinery, Rs.
CC No. 83/06 pg 30 of 59
31
4.84 Lacs and cash credit limit of Rs.2.50 Lacs for purchase of raw material and the said sanction note was Ex.PW5/35. Sh. O.P. Chopra had sanctioned various facilities mentioned in the note. Upon being cross examined she had admitted that PW7 Ashok Kohli was her husband. Her husband had accompanied her on her visit to CBI office. She claimed that she had not seen S.S. Jain because she was posted in regional office. She further admitted that when a file is received in the regional office, it is scrutinized by ScaleI officer. She further claimed that after going through documents, she writes her observations which were then seconded by her seniors.
38. Thereafter, Sh. R.K. Hazrati entered the witness box as PW9. He deposed that in 1993 he was Vigilance Manager in New Bank of India, Rajendra Place, New Delhi. On 11.6.93 he visited office of CBI and met investigation officer who introduced him to S.S. Jain. CBI took specimen signatures/writings of S.S. Jain from S25 to S35. He signed every sheet as a witness. The same were Ex.PW9/A. He then visited CBI office on 7.7.93 and met IO who introduced him to Ramesh Jain. Specimen signatures of Ramesh Jain were also taken in his presence on sheets S58 to S64. They were Ex.PW9/B and he signed as a witness on every sheet.
CC No. 83/06 pg 31 of 59
32
On 11.6.93 IO took the signatures/writings of R.K. Malhotra in his presence. They were S80 to S87. On 28.7.93 further specimen signatures/writings of R.K. Malhotra were taken on various sheets S88 to S110. The same were Ex.PW9/C. IO also obtained specimen signatures/writings of Shankar Lal on various sheets which were S147 to S168. They were Ex.PW9/D. Upon being crossexamined witness denied the suggestion that signatures of S.S. Jain were obtained under pressure.
39. CBI thereafter examined Rakesh Kumar Malhotra as PW10. Mr. Malhotra deposed that he was posted as Accountant in New Bank of India, Nangloi Branch from 1987 to 1991. At that time R.K. Malhotra (accused) was functioning as Branch Manager and he remained there till probably 1989. He was acquainted with writing and signatures of R.K. Malhotra (accused). The witness thereafter identified signatures of accused R.K. Malhotra the then branch manager on Ex.PW5/34, on letter Ex.PW8/11, on letter Ex.PW10/A, on letter Ex.PW8/17, on letter Ex.PW5/48, on letter Ex.PW5/49, on credit report of Jain Decorators Ex.PW5/33, on pre sanction inspection report of physical aspect of loan proposal of Jain Decorators Ex.PW5/32, on letter for extension of credit facility Ex.PW10/2, on loan proposal for enhancement of loan Ex.PW10/3, on credit report of S.S. Jain CC No. 83/06 pg 32 of 59 33 Ex.PW10/4, on credit report of Moti Ram guarantor Ex.PW10/5, on letter dt. 29.03.88 which was Ex.PW10/6, on inspection report dt.30.8.88 Ex.PW10/7, on inspection report dt. 10.07.88 Ex.PW10/8, on inspection report Ex.PW10/9, on loan proposal of Jain Decorators dt. 10.10.87 Ex.PW10/10. He further identified signatures of R.K. Malhotra (accused) on Ex.PW5/36 which was current account opening from and Ex.PW5/37which was specimen signatures card of Jain Decorators opened by S.S. Jain. Accused R.K. Malhotra had verified signatures of S.S. Jain. Another specimen card with account opening form was Ex.PW10/11. R.K.Malhotra (accused) had verified signatures of S.S. Jain on the said card and lastly he identified signatures and writings of R.K. Malhotra (accused) on cheques Ex.PW5/38 to Ex.PW5/46 issued by Jain Decorators. Accused R.K. Malhotra had written 'yes' on each cheque for payment. Upon being crossexamined the witness claimed that he had no knowledge that R.K. Malhotra (accused) had manipulated the bank record and that there was no involvement of S.S. Jain in the transaction.
40. Thereafter Sh. Mohinder Singh GEQD entered the witness box. He deposed that he had received documents for examination and opinion pertaining to this case. He then gave details of all the documents which had been sent for opinion. After examination of all the documents, he CC No. 83/06 pg 33 of 59 34 arrived at his conclusion and gave his opinion dt. 10.11.93. GEQD Santokh Singh had also independently examined the documents and had arrived at the same conclusion. The opinion was Ex.PW11/198. The detailed reasons were Ex.PW11/199. Upon being crossexamined, the witness claimed that specimen signatures of S.S. Jain were not obtained in his presence and so he could not testify as to who was the real writer.
41. Thereafter Mr. Satish Chawla was examined as PW12. Mr. Chawla deposed that he joined New Bank of India in 1973 and was posted as Manager in the regional office from 1985 to 1989. He deposed that when an application is received from borrower in the branch, it is sent to regional office. It is entered in the loan application register. the loan application is scrutinized in term of capital of the the borrower, capacity to repay and character of the borrower. Pre sanction report is submitted by the branch confirming about various securities including collateral security offered by the borrower. Pre sanction report is regarding information by the branch manager about assets and liabilities mentioned in the application. He further deposed that working capital loan is given in form of cash credit and bills. The limit is calculated as per permissible bank finance and term loan is given on basis of repayment capacity of the borrower. If loan is above CC No. 83/06 pg 34 of 59 35 Rs.1 Lac, then inspection is carried out once in a month.
42. Loan application of Jain Decorators which was Ex.PW8/1 was forwarded by Branch office Nangloi to regional office for sanction of term loan to the tune of Rs.3.63 Lacs and cash credit limit of Rs.2.50 Lacs with margin of 25%. Loan application was not signed by the manager. Loan application was accompanied by form L4A which was Ex.PW8/2. It was also not signed by the Manager. It was credit report of guarantor Moti Ram. Form L4A which was Ex.PW8/3 was of Jain Decorators which was also not signed by the Branch Manager. He further deposed about developments that had taken place in this case after loan proposal had been put forth. He deposed that sixteen observations were made and conveyed to branch manager Nangloi (accused R.K. Malhotra) vide letter Ex.PW8/10. Branch sent a reply Ex.PW8/11 but reply was improper and unsatisfactory. Again observations were made and conveyed to the branch. A vague reply was given by branch manager R.K. Malhotra (accused) on which Mrs. Rakesh Kohli made observations. Sh. S.C. Maheshwari Manager Loan also made a remark as to why the party wanted to avail loan from Nangloi Branch while its office was at Shastri Nagar and New Bank of India had a branch in Shastri Nagar also. He further deposed CC No. 83/06 pg 35 of 59 36 that accused R.K. Malhotra the then Manager had also sent a reply that party wanted to deposit Rs.10 Lacs from friends and family circle and further deposit of Rs.10 Lacs through own sources before 31.12.87. R.K. Malhotra (accused) manager requested regional office to sanction the proposal immediately. Despite various irregularities R.K. Malhotra (accused) was insisting upon early sanction. He further deposed that according to ledger sheet of Jain Decorators Ex.PW12/E most of the transactions were made by cash though cash credit limit was sanctioned for day to day transactions for purchase of raw material etc and cash transactions were allowed only for payment to be made to the labour. He also deposed that cash credit limit was enhanced from Rs.2.50 Lacs to Rs. 5 Lacs w.e.f 27.7.89 though there was no letter for enhancement on the record of regional office. Search report was given by adv. Mr. M.L. Jain was also not found on the file.
43. Upon being cross examined, he admitted that as per procedure branch manager was to sign loan application and if the loan application was not signed by the branch manager, action could be taken by higher authorities of the bank. He further submitted that the irregularities were mentioned in the letter written by Mrs. Rakesh Kohli and the then manager CC No. 83/06 pg 36 of 59 37 S.C. Maheshwari in the regional office. He admitted that the borrower did not appear before them nor he signed documents in their presence. The witness volunteered further that it was not required to be signed in their presence. They have to rely on the branch manager for this purpose. He denied the suggestion that the accused had been falsely implicated.
44. Thereafter, Sh. Prem Prakash entered the witness box as PW13. He deposed that he was staying at L117 Shastri Nagar for the last 2025 years. He knew accused S.S. Jain of Jain Decorators who lived in L97 Shastri Nagar. He claimed that R.K. Malhotra (accused) branch manager of New Bank of India, Nangloi branch frequently visited residence of S.S. Jain.
45. He deposed further that on 28.7.93 he went to CBI office. He gave specimen writing and signatures to IO. They were Ex. PW11/141 to Ex.PW11/149. He denied the suggestion in cross examination that R.K. Malhotra was not having visiting terms with S.S. Jain.
46. PW14 was Dr. Shyam Sunder Dhavan. He claimed that accused present in the court had his office at L118, Shastri Nagar. He used to CC No. 83/06 pg 37 of 59 38 meet the accused with regard to work of coordination in property brokerage. Cheque Ex.PW5/38, PW5/39, PW5/40, PW5/41, PW5/42, PW5/43 PW5/44, PW5/45 and PW5/46 contained signatures of the accused. Specimen signature card Ex.PW10/11 and Ex.PW5/35 and form for opening account Ex.PW5/36 also contained signatures of the accused.
47. The last witness to be examined by CBI was Inspector R.P. Roy. He deposed that after he joined SIUVIII Branch, the RCs were entrusted to him for investigation. He recorded statement of witnesses, collected relevant documents, obtained specimen handwriting samples of the accused and sent them to GEQD for comparison. He then filed charge sheet against the accused.
48. After closure of P.E, statement of accused S.S. Jain was recorded u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he denied the entire case of prosecution and claimed to be innocent. He claimed that he was an illiterate person. He never applied for loan. He had visited the bank for opening saving bank account. Accused R.K. Malhotra the then branch manager had taken his signatures on some fake documents and had misused the signatures for applying for loan. He examined A.K. Ahluwalia as his defence witness. Mr. CC No. 83/06 pg 38 of 59 39 Ahluwalia deposed that he was working in Punjab National Bank since December 1980. Bank had filed recovery suit against Jain Decorators. Recovery proceedings of Rs.50 Lacs + interest was pending before Debit Recovery Tribunal. S.S. Jain and Moti Ram were certificate debtor. The suit was filed in 1992 and suit amount was Rs.14.60 Lacs. No payment had been made on behalf of accused S.S. Jain on 2.11.07. However Rs. 6.50 Lacs was paid by Uma Rani and Kanti Devi on 2.11.07 to avoid auction of properties which they had purchased.
49. I have heard learned counsel for the accused and learned PP Mr. Praneet Sharma very extensively.
50. The first charge framed by my learned predecessor is that accused S.S. Jain conspired with accused Krishan Dhiman and R.K. Malhotra both of whom are now dead to cheat New Bank of India by misrepresentation of facts, forgery of documents by inducing senior bank officers to sanction various credit facilities to Jain Decorators, other fake firms like Mehra Plastics, Bitco Udyog and Anil Plastics.
51. PW1 examined by the CBI was Ashok Kumar. He deposed that he CC No. 83/06 pg 39 of 59 40 had introduced account of Bitco Udyog at L118 Shastri Nagar, New Delhi. D54 was the account opening form of Bitco Udyog. The address of Bitco Udyog given in the account opening form was L118 Shastri Nagar Delhi. It was subsequently exhibited as PW11/57. It bears signatures of the account holder Suresh Kumar at point Q22. Ex.PW11/56 is specimen signatures card of the account of Bitco Udyog. It contains specimen signatures of said Suresh Kumar. PW2 examined by the CBI was Narender Kumar. He had deposed that house No. L118 belonged to his father and it was let out by him to S.S. Jain proprietor of Jain Decorators in 1982. Jain remained in possession till 1991. He made categorical claim that house was never let out to Bitco Udyog. PW14 examined by the CBI was Dr. Shyam Sunder. He deposed that accused S.S. Jain had his office at L118 Shastri Nagar about 1520 years prior to date of deposition. So if Bitco Udyog never functioned at L118 Shastri Nagar, then it becomes crystal clear that fake firm namely Bitco Udyog was shown to be functioning at L118 Shastri Nagar. The report of handwriting expert does not give any definite opinion but the fact remains that property No. L118 Shastri Nagar Delhi was under tenancy of accused S.S. Jain. As per document Ex.PW11/57, the account of Bitco Udyog was opened in the year 1988. According to PW2 premises remained in possession of Jain Decorators CC No. 83/06 pg 40 of 59 41 from 1982 to 1991. So it becomes clear that S.S. Jain was in occupation of property No. L118 Shastri Nagar at the time account of Bitco Udyog was opened. Bitco Udyog was a fake firm. So it becomes amply clear that the account was opened only with the intention of cheating New Bank of India. The signatures on the account opening form and specimen card of so called Suresh Kumar are quite similar to specimen signatures obtained by the IO which are S44 and S45. Though PW11 GEQD Mohinder Singh admitted in his cross examination that specimen signatures of S.S. Jain were not taken in his presence, but a look at the signatures with questioned signatures makes it clear that S.S. Jain was author of the document. As per Section 73 of the Evidence Act, Court is competent to compare the signatures to arrive at conclusion. In Satish J. Shah vs. Pankaj Mashruwala: (1997) 2 Crimes 2003 Hon'ble Gujarat High Court held that under the law court has the power to compare signatures/ handwriting strengthening its finding based on other cogent material and evidence on record. S44 & S45 are specimen signatures of accused S.S. Jain . They have remarkable similarity to signatures on the account opening form and specimen signatures card of Bitco Udyog. Even PW13 Prem Prakash has deposed that accused R.K. Malhotra Branch Manager used to frequently visit house of accused S.S. Jain. In normal course branch managers do CC No. 83/06 pg 41 of 59 42 not frequently visit houses of their clients. Frequent visits indicate that they were in collusion with each other. So it stands established that accused S.S. Jain had signed as Suresh Kumar to open bank account No. 1988. So the charge of conspiracy between Manager R.K. Malhotra (now dead) and accused S.S. Jain to open account in the name of Bitco Udyog stands established. Case U/s 468 and 471 IPC is proved against accused S.S. Jain. He not only prepared forged documents but also used them to cheat New Bank of India.
52. The accused were also charged for conspiring to cheat New Bank of India by inducing senior bank officers to sanction credit facilities to Jain Decorators proprietor of which was S.S. Jain. CBI had examined PW2 Narender Kumar who had deposed that accused S.S. Jain proprietor of Jain Decorators was tenant in property No. L118 Shastri Nagar from 1982 to 199091. He also used to issue rent receipts to Jain Decorators. Those receipts were collectively exhibited as Ex.PW2/A. PW3 Vidyawati had deposed that she was owner of house no. L114 Shastri Nagar. In 1977 she had given the house on rent to S.S. Jain.
53. PW5 Mr. B.D. Kalra deposed that he joined New Bank of India CC No. 83/06 pg 42 of 59 43 Nangloi Branch. At that time, J.S. Verma was a branch Manager and thereafter accused R.K. Malhotra became Branch Manager. He remained there till 1989. Vide application dt. 24.09.87 Jain Decorators of L114, Shastri Nagar applied for term loan of Rs. 6.63 lacs and stock limit to the tune of 2.50 lacs. The application was signed by S.S. Jain. Alongwith the application, S.S. Jain had submitted assets and liabilities of Moti Ram and his ownself all these documents were Ex. PW5/1, PW5/2, & Pw5/3. He had also submitted project report Ex. PW5/4 and P&L account of the year dt. 31.03.87 Ex. PW5/5 and projected Trading and P&L account PW5/7 and host of other document. He had also submitted No Objection Certificate for installing of electric connection in L114 Shastri Nagar. The witness deposed further that after receipt of application and other documents, inspection was carried out by accused R.K. Malhotra and inspection report was prepared by R.K. Chugh which were Ex. PW5/32. R.K. Mahotra had sent credit report of Jain Decorators to Regional Office. He also forwarded loan proposal of Jain Decorators for sanctioning of the loan. Thereafter term loan and CC limits to the tune of Rs. 3.60 lacs and 2.5 lacs respectively were sanctioned. The witness deposed further that regional office vide letter dt. 8.12.87 has raised some queries on the loan proposal. R.K. Malhotra replied to them. He again recommended loan proposal to the CC No. 83/06 pg 43 of 59 44 regional office.
54. CBI also examined R. Mahadevan. He had investigated a complaint as he was posted in vigilance department of the bank regarding sanction of loan to Jain Decorators and Bitco Udyog. He gave a report which was Ex. PW6/A. He deposed that loan proposal and other documents were not signed by accused R.K. Malhotra and he had forwarded the proposal without making enquiries. Upon visit to the premises of the Jain decorators, he found the premises locked and even board of the firm was not displayed. He further deposed that upon enquiry he came to know that Dimman Brothers had not supplied any machinery though it had received payment. The property which was mortgaged had already been sold. The entire amount of Rs. 2.5 lacs was allowed to be withdrawn against norms of banking system. PW8 Rakesh Kohli had deposed that proposal of Jain Decorators was forwarded by Branch Manager. She had scrutinized the documents and found that document L14 are unsigned and undated. The date on rent receipt had been altered. The advance paid to the supplier of the machinery did not seem to be rationale. She made a note regarding discrepancies seen by her and letter was forwarded to accused R.K. Malhotra Branch Manager. She then spelt out the discrepancies noted by CC No. 83/06 pg 44 of 59 45 her. PW Rakesh Kumar Malhotra deposed that he was posted as Accountant in New Bank of India, Nangloi. At that time accused R.K. Malhotra was the branch manager. He identified signatures of accused R.K. Malhotra on letter Ex.PW8/11 and other documents. He deposed further that signatures of accused S.S. Jain were verified by accused R.K. Malhotra. PW Satish Chawla deposed about the normal procedures followed in a bank for grant of loan. He claimed that loan application which was form L14 was Ex.PW8/1. It was forwarded by the Nangloi Branch to Regional Office for sanction of term loan. The application was not signed by the manager. Similarly Ex.PW8/2 which was credit report on form No. L4A was also not dated or signed by the manager. It was pertaining to Moti Ram. Ex.PW8/3 which was credit report of Jain Decorators also was not dated or signed by the branch manager. Manager Loan Sh. S.C Maheshwari had raised a query as to why Jain Decorators wanted to avail loan from nangloi Branch though its office was located in Shastri Nagar and in Shastri Nagar there was a branch of New Bank of India. Accused R.K. Malhotra who was branch manager replied that party desire to make deposit of Rs. 10 Lacs and also assured further deposit of Rs.10 Lacs through their sources. Accused R.k. Malhotra requested regional office to sanction the proposal immediately. The witness further deposed that most CC No. 83/06 pg 45 of 59 46 of the transactions of Jain Decorators were made by cash whereas cash credit limit was sanctioned for day to day transaction for purchase of raw material etc. PW13 a neighbour of S.S. Jain deposed that accused R.K. Malhotra was frequent visitor to house of S.S. Jain.
55. Now all this clearly points out to collusion between S.S. Jain proprietor of Jain Decorators and branch manager accused R.K. Malhotra. In normal course branch manager has no business to frequently visit house of bank customer but here his frequent visits coupled with irregular manner in which application of Jain Decorators was processed and property of an outsider was fraudulently mortgaged and facilities granted indicate that indeed they had entered into criminal conspiracy to induce senior bank authorities to grant term loan and cash credit limit. Hence, it stands established that there was conspiracy between S.S. Jain and R.K. Malhotra for providing undeserved facilities to Jain Decorators.
56. However, I do not find material on record to establish that conspiracy was entered into between S.S. Jain regarding Mehra Plastics and Anil Plastics.
CC No. 83/06 pg 46 of 59
47
57. The other charge framed by my learned predecessor was to the effect that in pursuance of the conspiracy S.S. Jain applied for facilities and misrepresented that Jain Decorators had to purchase machineries from Dhiman Bros & Co. for Rs. 4.40 Lacs whereas no such transaction had taken place.
58. I have already held that conspiracy had been entered into between S.S. Jain of Jain Decorators and R.K. Malhotra to cheat New Bank of India. PW5 B.D. Kalra had deposed about the applications moved by accused S.S. Jain. The application was Ex.PW5/1. It was accompanied by statement of assets and liabilities of Moti Ram Ex.PW5/2 and statement of assets and liabilities of S.S. Jain himself Ex.PW5/3. He submitted a large number of other documents. The application was with an object to obtain finance to acquire machinery for modernization. The loan was sanctioned and S.S. Jain submitted a bill raised by Diwan Bros.& Co. Ex.PW5/38 ( The correct name of the company is Dhiman Brothers & Co. and exhibit is PW5/38 because Ex. PW5/37 is specimen signature card of New Bank of India ). PW6 Mr. Mahadevan who was from vigilance department of the bank had investigated the matter and submitted his report Ex. PW6/A. According to him, machinery had not been supplied by Dhiman brothers but CC No. 83/06 pg 47 of 59 48 payment was received by them. So it becomes clear that S.S. Jain had misrepresented to the bank that he had to purchase machinery from Dhiman bros costing Rs. 4,30,000/. It also becomes clear that Kishan Dhiman gave false invoice.
59. Further accused S.S. Jain was charged with making misrepresentations in his loan application/ project report and specially the averment that Moti Ram had agreed to give guarantee for repayment of his loan amount by mortgaging his property, though he had already sold it and further S.S. Jain had submitted forged rent receipt dt. 10.10.87 purporting to have been issued by Vidyawati in respect of property no. L114 Shastri Nagar and also filing No objection certificates purported to have been issued by Vidyawati. According to PW5 B.D. Kalra accused S.S, Jain had submitted Ex. PW5/2 which was statement of asset and liability of Moti Ram. If we take a look at Ex. PW5/2, we find that Moti Ram had claimed that he was owner of property L97 Shastri Nagar which was valued at Rs. 8,67,000/. CBI had examined PW3 S.N. Sharma who had deposed that property no. L97 Shastri Nagar was purchased by his wife Uma Sharma from Mahender Kumar for Rs. 1,90,000/. It was part of L97 Shastri Nagar which was a plot of 200 sq. yds. He had been shown photocopy of original CC No. 83/06 pg 48 of 59 49 sale deed in favour of Moti Ram Gupta dt. 25.07.1966. Lateron he came to know that accused S.S. Jain had mortgaged that property which was in name of Moti Ram Gupta to New Bank of India. In fact, Moti Ram Gupta had sold the property to Jai Bhagwan, Jai Bhagwan sold it to Monu Jain S/o accused S.S. Jain and Monu Jain sold the property to Mahender Kumar and Mahender Kumar sold it to his wife. He had never raised any loan by mortgaging his property. So it becomes very clear that after submitting statement of Moti Ram alleging himself to be owner of L97, Shastri Nagar, Monu son of the accused sold off the property to Uma Sharma W/o Sh. S.N. Sharma. Accused S.S. Jain even did not have the right to file Ex. PW5/2 which was statement of assets and liabilities of Moti Ram because Moti Ram already had sold off the property to Jai Bhagwan and Jai Bhagwan had sold it to Monu Jain. Moti Ram had nothing to do with the property L97, Shastri Nagar. So it stands established that accused S.S. Jain has made misrepresentation to the bank towards achieving the ends of conspiracy. Further PW Vidyawati made a categorical statement that receipts and no objection certificates had not been issued by her. In cross examination not even suggestion was given to her that they had been issued by her. She was merely asked as to whether these documents had been prepared by accused R.K. Malhotra to which she claimed that she CC No. 83/06 pg 49 of 59 50 had no knowledge. Nobody else other than the conspirators including S.S. Jain stood to gain by forging and using as genuine rent receipt and no objection certificate. Admittedly S.S. Jain was in already in possession. Pw Vidyawati had deposed in this Court on 10.01.2007. She also signed her deposition. I have myself compared signatures on the deposition with documents Ex. PW4/A, PW4/B & PW4/C. They are quite different than from the signature on the deposition. So it has to be S.S. Jain who had forged the documents and submitted to the bank. If we take a look at illustration
(i) to Section 415 IPC, it reads as under:
A sells and conveys an estate to B. A, knowing that in consequence of such sale he has no right to the property, sells or mortgages the same to Z, without disclosing the fact of the previous sale and conveyance to B, and receives the purchase or mortgage money from Z. A cheats.
In the case in hand, after allegedly mortgaging the property to the bank, son of the accused S.S. Jain sold it off to Mahender Kumar. This certainly would not have been without active connivance of the accused S.S. Jain. So that establishes case u/s 420 IPC against the accused S.S. Jain.
CC No. 83/06 pg 50 of 59
51
60. Further accused R.K. Malhotra (now dead) was alleged to have made recommendation for sanction of credit facilities by misrepresenting to the regional office that S.S. Jain had procured deposit of Rs. 10 lacs.
Reference to this charge was made by PW Satish Chawla. He deposed that deceased R.K. Malhotra insisted on early sanction and he informed the Regional Office that party had desired to submit deposit of Rs. 10 lacs from friends and family and had assured further deposit of Rs.10 lacs to our sources before 31.12.1987. The witness was cross examined, but not even suggestion was put to him regarding the offer of deposit of Rs. 10 lacs. So this allegation against the accused also stand established.
61. Further in the charge, it was alleged that without supplying any machinery to Jain Decorators, Dhiman Bros. had received payment of Rs. 3.63 lacs from New Bank of India by way of pay order and the amount was withdrawn on the same day by Kishan Dhiman. PW6 R. Mahadevan had conducted vigilance enquiry against Jain Decorators. He filed his report Ex. PW6/A. According to it, no machinery had been supplied to Jain Decorators and the amount had been fraudulently withdrawn. Mr. Mahadevan was working in the vigilance section of New Bank of India and had no personal Axe to grind against Jain Decorators and as such, we should not doubt his CC No. 83/06 pg 51 of 59 52 findings regarding fraud played on the bank by the accused persons on the pretext of supplying machinery by Dhiman Bros. to Jain Decorators.
62. The third charge framed against the accused persons was that accused S.S. Jain had dishonestly and fraudulently submitted to the bank rent receipt dt. 10.10.87 which was purported to have been issued by Vidyawati. Vidyawati had been examined as PW4 in the Court wherein she made categorical statement that she had not issued the said rent receipt. As I have earlier observed that she was not even given suggestion that rent receipt had been issued by her and he was making a false claim. A bare look at the alleged signatures of Vidyawati on receipt Ex. PW4/A would indicate that they are quite different from the signatures put by her on her deposition in the Court. Handwriting expert had also given his opinion that person who had written questioned handwriting Q186 which is receipt Ex. PW4/A had not written specimen writing S179 & S180. S179& S180 were that of PW Vidyawati. So it stands proved beyond all doubts that S.S. Jain had submitted a forged rent receipt of property no. L114 Shastri Nagar alongwith his loan proposal.
63. The next charge against the accused were that a current account CC No. 83/06 pg 52 of 59 53 was opened in the name of non existent firm Bitco Udhyog and term loan of 2.5 lacs and cash credit limit of Rs. 50,000/ and bill purchase limit of Rs. 50,000/ was applied and accused persons induced the higher bank officials to sanction the facilities which were also sanctioned.
64. I had already discussed this aspect earlier. PW Ashok Kumar had deposed that he had introduced account of Bitco Udyog at L118 Shastri Nagar, New Delhi. D54 was the account opening form of Bitco Udyog. The address of Bitco Udyog given in the account opening form was L118 Shastri Nagar Delhi. Document Ex. PW11/57 was the account opening form. It contained signatures of the account holder Suresh Kumar at point Q22. Ex.PW11/56 was specimen signatures card of the account holder of the account of Bitco Udyog. It carried specimen signatures of said Suresh Kumar proprietor of Bitco Udyog. CBI thereafter had examined Narender Kumar as PW2. He had deposed that house No. L118 belonged to his father and it was let out by him to S.S. Jain proprietor of Jain Decorators in 1982. He deposed further that Jain remained in possession till 1991. He made specific claim that house was never let out to Bitco Udyog. PW14 examined by the CBI was Dr. Shyam Sunder. He deposed that accused S.S. Jain had his office at L118 Shastri Nagar about 1520 years prior to CC No. 83/06 pg 53 of 59 54 date of deposition. It has been established that S.S. Jain was a tenant in the premises and Bitco Udyog never functioned at L118 Shashtri Nagar. So if Bitco Udyog never functioned at L118 Shastri Nagar, then it becomes crystal clear that a fake firm namely Bitco Udyog was created and it was shown to be functioning from L118 Shastri Nagar. As per account opening form, the account of Bitco Udyog was opened in the year 1988. According to PW2 Narender Kumar premises were in tenancy of Jain Decorators from 1982 to 1990/1991. So it becomes clear that S.S. Jain was in occupation of property No. L118 Shastri Nagar at the time account of Bitco Udyog was opened showing its address as L118, Shastri Nagar. Thus Bitco Udyog was a fake firm. So it also follows that the account was opened with an idea to cheat New Bank of India. Even the signatures on the account opening form Ex. PW11/57 and specimen card of so called Suresh Kumar are quite similar to specimen signatures obtained by the IO which are S44 and S45. According to Section 73 of the Evidence Act, Judge can compare the signatures to arrive at some conclusion. In Satish J. Shah vs. Pankaj Mashruwala: (1997) 2 Crimes 2003 Hon'ble Gujarat High Court held that under the law court has the power to compare signatures/ handwriting strengthening its finding based on other cogent material and evidence on record. IO had obtained specimen signatures of CC No. 83/06 pg 54 of 59 55 accused S.S. Jain. Two specimen signatures are S44 & S45 . These specimen signatures are quite similar to signatures of Suresh Kumar on the account opening form and specimen signatures card of Bitco Udyog. Further PW13 Prem Praksh in his testimony had claimed that accused R.K. Malhotra Branch Manager used to frequently visit house of accused S.S. Jain. Branch Managers do not frequently visit houses of their clients. Frequent visits certainly raise eyebrows which would indicate that their relations were more than mere banker and customer. So it is clear that accused S.S. Jain had signed as Suresh Kumar to open bank account No. 1988. So indeed an account was opened in the name of non existing firm Bitco Udyog.
65. The other charge against the accused was that after having opened an account in the name of fake firm Bitco Udyog, they got sanctioned credit facility and the amount sanctioned by the authorities was utilized and never repaid to the bank. Bank got cheated to tune of lakhs of rupees on this account. I have gone through testimony of the witnesses in the file. Only PW6 Sh. R. Mahadevan who had conducted vigilance enquiry deposed about it. Apart from report of the vigilance officer, there is nothing on record to substantiate the charge that credit facility was granted CC No. 83/06 pg 55 of 59 56 to Bitco Udyog and it was misutilized and never repaid. None of the witness examined by the prosecution deposed to this effect, hence this part of the charge stands not proved.
66. The next charge framed against the accused was that in pursuance of the conspiracy a false invoice dt. 22.6.88 and a false bill dt. 22.6.88 of Dhiman Bros. showing delivery of machinery to Bitco Udyog were submitted to the bank and infact no such machinery had been supplied and bank was cheated in this manner. PW6 Sh. Mahadevan, Vigilance officer of the bank had conducted investigation and had given his report Ex. PW6/A. In his report he had mentioned that credit facilities were sanctioned and payment had been released to Dhiman Bros. though they had not supplied any machinery to Bitco Udyog. Apart from this report of the vigilance officer, none of the other witness deposed in this regard. Thus, there is no material on basis of which Court should conclude that false bill and false invoice of Dhiman Bros. had been furnished and no machinery had been supplied to Bitco Udyog and bank has been cheated on this account. The charge of the CBI to this effect fails and I hold that prosecution has not been successful in establishing this averment.
CC No. 83/06 pg 56 of 59
57
67. The next charge against the accused persons was that in connivance with coaccused R.K. Malhotra current account was opened in the branch in the name of Anil Plastic and forged and fabricated documents were submitted. The higher bank authorities sanctioned the facilities. The amount was withdrawn and was never repaid to the bank. None of the witness supported this allegation of the prosecution, apart from the vigilance report submitted by PW6 Mr. Mahadevan. Thus, I do not find any material to convict the accused for this charge. Prosecution has failed to establish its case regarding cheating done in the name of Anil Plastic by the accused persons.
68. The next charge against the accused was that in connivance with R.K. Malhotra to facilitate sanction of credit facility to Anil Plastic false invoices and bill of Dhiman Bros. showing delivery of machine to Anil Plastic were submitted to the bank whereas no machine had been supplied. I have already observed above that no evidence in support of its case regarding Anil Plastic was lead by the CBI and so there is nothing to conclude that accused had submitted false invoices and bills showing delivery of machinery by Dhiman Bros. to Anil Plastic, so this charge also fails.
CC No. 83/06 pg 57 of 59
58
69. The next charge against the accused persons was that accused S.S. Jain, Kishan Dhiman (now dead) and R.K. Malhotra (now dead) had conspired and an account of a non existing firm Mehra Plastic was opened in Nangloi Branch of the bank and term loan of Rs. 4 lacs and cash credit limit of Rs. 2 lacs was applied. Forged and fabricated document was submitted to induce the bank officials to sanction the facilities and they were indeed sanctioned. The amount was withdrawn by way of bearer cheques and not repaid to the bank and the bank got cheated.
70. Further charge against the accused persons was that a false quotation of Dhiman Bros. to Mehra Plastic was submitted. The quotation was false. No machine was actually supplied and the bank got cheated. Prosecution had examined 16 witnesses. GEQD Mr. Mohinder Singh had given his report. According to it, the bill Ex. PW11/38 issued by Dhiman Bros. in favour of Mehra Plastic was in the handwriting of Kishan Dhiman. But there is nothing on the record to show that machinery was never supplied. Thus, the charge of conspiring to cheat New Bank of India, Nangloi branch by opening account in the name of fake firm Mehra Platics and misutilizing the credit facility stands failed.
CC No. 83/06 pg 58 of 59
59
71. To sum up, I hold that prosecution has been able to establish only few of the charges as detailed above. Its case regarding rest of the charges stands not proved as no evidence regarding them was led by prosecution. I therefore convict accused S.S. Jain for U/s 120B r/w 420, 468, 471 IPC also r/w 13(1)(d) punishable U/s 13(2) of the P.C. Act. and substantive offence u/s 420, 468 and 471 IPC.
72. The firm M/s Jain Decorators through S.S. Jain also stands convicted for having cheated New Bank of India, Nangloi Brach for its role in the entire conspiracy. In case titled as Standard Chartered Bank & Others Vs. Directorate of Enforcement: AIR 2005 Supreme Court 2622, it was held that companies can also be convicted for offences even if they carry mandatory sentence of imprisonment. It was held therein that Company cannot be sentenced to imprisonment but fine could be imposed on it. So accordingly M/s. Jain Decorators also stands convicted U/s 120B r/w 420, 468, 471 IPC also r/w. 13(1)(d) punishable U/s 13(2) of the P.C. Act. and substantive offence u/s 420, 468 and 471 IPC.
Announced in open Court ( PRADEEP CHADDAH )
on April 20, 2011 Special Judge:CBI01
Central District. Delhi
CC No. 83/06 pg 59 of 59
60
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRADEEP CHADDAH: SPECIAL
JUDGE: CBI01, CENTRAL DISTRICT. DELHI
CC No. 83/06 RC No. 2 to 5(A)/92
PS:CBI/SIUVIII, N.Delhi
Unique Case ID No. 02401R0001401994
Central Bureau of Investigation
Versus
1. M/s Jain Decorators
L114, Shastri Nagar, New Delhi110 052.
2. Sh. Sumit Sen Jain S/o Late Ram Swaroop Jain
R/o 83, Sunder Park, Shastri Nagar, Near Khureje, Delhi.
3. M/s Dhiman Bros & Co (Regd), A 684, Shastri Nagar, Delhi52
4. Sh. Kishan Dhiman S/o Late Lal Chand Dhiman R/o A684, Shastri Nagar, Delhi52 ORDER ON SENTENCE
1. This Court had vide its judgment dated 20.04.11 found the accused S.S. Jain and M/s Jain Decorators guilty 120B IPC r/w 420, 468, 471 IPC and also r/w Sec. 13(1) (d) punishable U/s 13(2) of the CC No. 83/06 pg 60 of 59 61 P.C. Act and substantive offence u/s 420 ,468 & 471 IPC.
2. I have heard Sh. Praneet Sharma Ld. PP and the accused in person, his daughter Pinki and wife Smt. Santosh at length.
3. Sh. Praneet Sharma, Ld. PP prayed for taking of strict view of the matter and granting of exemplary punishment to the accused. He further prayed that sentences which should be awarded to the accused should run consecutively. On the other hand, accused prayed for taking of lenient view. Ms. Pinki married daughter of the accused has informed that he is staying in a rented room for which her younger sister is paying monthly rent of Rs. 700/. They do not have means to pay fine and the accused is not working and is totally dependent on his daughter.
4. I have given my considered thought to the submissions made.
CC No. 83/06 pg 61 of 59
62
Accused is an elderly person aged 68 years and is also physically handicapped. He is unable to walk properly and as such, submissions made by Ms. Pinki should not be doubted. Accused has also been facing trial since long. Keeping in view the entire circumstances of the case, I sentence accused S.S. Jain to undergo R.I. for 1 year U/s. 120B IPC r/w 420, 468, 471 IPC and r/w 13(1)(d) punishable U/s 13(2) of the P.C. Act and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/, in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for one month. Further he is sentence to undergo RI for 1 year for substantive offence U/s 420, 468 and 471 IPC. In addition, he shall be paying fine of Rs. 5000/ . In event of failure to pay fine he shall be undergoing S.I. for 1 months. M/s Jain Decorators through S.S. Jain is directed to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/ U/s 120B IPC r/w 420, 468, 471 IPC and r/w 13(1)(d) punishable U/s 13(2) of the P.C. Act. It is further directed to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/ for substantive offence U/s CC No. 83/06 pg 62 of 59 63 420, 468, 471 IPC. In case of default in deposit of fine by M/s Jain Decorators, it be recovered in the manner as arrears of land revenue.
5. The request made by Learned PP to the effect that sentences be ordered to run consecutively is declined. All the sentences of convict shall run concurrently. He shall also be given benefits of period undergone as under trial (if any).
Announced in open Court
on April 28, 2011. ( PRADEEP CHADDAH )
Special Judge:CBI01
Central District. Delhi
CC No. 83/06 pg 63 of 59