Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma on 24 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SUNENA SHARMA
SPECIAL JUDGE : CBI-20 (PC ACT): ROUSE AVENUE
COURT : NEW DELHI
RC No. BD1/2013/E/0006 - CBI, BS&FC, Delhi
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16)
CNR No. DLCT11-000157-2019
Date of Institution : 17.07.2014
Final arguments concluded on : 27.11.2025
Judgment pronounced on : 24.12.2025
In the matter of:
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
5B, 3rd Floor, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi.
Versus
1. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma (A-1)
s/o Sh. Hari Shankar Dixit
40-Vigyan Lok Anand Vihar, Delhi
(declared PO vide order dated 30.10.2017)
2. Sh. Nrapendra Singh [email protected] (A-2)
s/o Late Binayak Singh
r/o C-618, Sarswati Vihar, Delhi-34.
3. Smt. Kulwinder Kaur Johar @ K.K.Johar (A-3)
w/o Sh. Harinder Pal Singh Johar
r/o JD-54C, Pitampura, Delhi-34.
4. Sh. Ranjiv Suneja (A-4)
s/o Sh. Ved Prakash
r/o B-52, Upper Ground Floor, Rama Park,
SUNENA Dwarka Mor, Delhi.
SHARMA
Digitally signed by
SUNENA SHARMA
Date: 2025.12.23
08:49:57 +0530 CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.1 Of 372
5. Sh. Rahul Sharma (A-5)
s/o Late Ravinath Sharma
r/o 699 A, Gali No.2, Ganesh Nagar-II
Shakarpur, Delhi-92.
6. Sh. Rajeev Sharma (A-6)
s/o Late Vijay Dayal Sharma
r/o 40, Vigyan Lok, Anand Vihar, Delhi-92.
INDEX
S. Particulars Page no.
No.
1. Factual Matrix 5 to 24
2. Framing of Charge 24 to 25
3. Prosecution Evidence 25 to 163
(i)Witnesses from Punjab National 32 to 69
Bank, Jorbagh Branch
(ii)Witness from other branches and 69 to 88
offices of PNB
(iii)Empaneled Valuer 88 to 89
(iv)Witnesses from other Banks 89 to 103
(other than PNB)
(v)Police Witnesses 103 to 111
(vi)Witnesses from Sub-Registrar 111 to 119
Office
(vii) Sanctioning Authority 120
(viii) Chartered Accountants/CMA 121 to 124
witnesses
(ix)Witnesses pertaining to KYC from 124 to 131
the office of Electoral
Registration Office,BSES,
DJB/Custom/Excise/Income
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.2 Of 372
Tax/Industries
(x)Witnesses of record 131 to132
(xi)Witnesses from CFSL 132 to 136
(xii)Witnesses pertaining to use of 136 to 152
forged documents/forgery of
title/identification documents
(xiii)Witnesses relating to dummy 153 to 161
bank accounts
(xiv)Witnesses to Specimen 161 to 163
signatures
4. Statement of Accused U/s 313 Cr. PC. 163 to 171
Defence plea of A-2 163 to 166
Defence plea of A-3 166 to 168
Defence plea of A-4 168 to 169
Defence plea of A-5 and A-6 169 to 171
5. Defence Evidence 171
6. Final Arguments 171 to 172
7. Prosecution Arguments 172 to 178
8. Defence Arguments. 178 to 192
Defence argument on behalf of 178 to 182
A-2
Defence arguments on behalf 182 to 189
of A-3 and A-4
Defence arguments on behalf 189 to 192
of A-5 and A-6
8. Discussion and Analysis of material 192 to 368
Qua accused N.S.Parihar (A-2) 200 to 253
Qua accused K.K.Johar (A-3) 253 to 329
and Ranjiv Suneja (A-4)
Qua accused Rahul Sharma 329 to 368
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.3 Of 372
(A-5) and Rajeev Sharma (A-6)
9. Final Conclusion 369 to 372
Judgment
1. This judgment shall dispose of the instant
case of bank fraud no. 63/2019 (old number 6669/16),
emanating from RC No. BD1/2013/E/0006/CBI/BS&FC,
registered on the complaint of the Chief Manager,
Punjab National Bank, Jor Bagh Branch Sh. C.P.Garg.
The case FIR/RC under section 120-B r/w Section
420/467/468/471 IPC was registered against Sanjeev
Dixit, proprietor of the borrower firm M/s Shankar
Metals, the guarantors Sanjay Sharma, proprietor of
M/s Super Machines and Smt. Indra Rani and some
unknown persons for committing a fraud upon the
lending bank and causing it wrongful loss to the tune of
Rs.4.0 crores.
1.01. During investigation, only one accused
Sanjeev Dixit (A-1) @ Sanjay Sharma (borrower) was
arrested by the CBI and after completing the
investigation against him, he was charge-sheeted
before the court on 17.07.2014. On 29.09.2015,
supplementary chargesheet was filed against 05 more
accused namely, Sh. N.S.Parihar (A-2) (empaneled
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.4 Of 372
lawyer), Smt. K.K.Johar (A-3) (public servant), Sh. Ranjiv
Suneja (A-4) (public servant), Sh. Rahul Sharma (A-5) and
Sh. Rajeev Sharma (A-6), who were arrayed as accused
no. 2 to 6 respectively. The record shows that during
proceedings of the case, Sanjeev Dixit A-1 absconded
from police custody and was later on declared as
proclaimed offender vide order dated 30.10.2017.
Factual Matrix
2. As per charge-sheet, on 02.03.2011, accused no.1
Sanjeev Dixit (A-1), S/o Hari Shankar Dixit, R/o 232,
Jagriti Enclave, having his office at 121, FIE, Patparganj
Industrial Area approached the Punjab National Bank,
Jorbagh Branch, New Delhi, for grant of credit facility
for the purpose of his business of manufacturing
sanitary goods. The bank, vide sanction letter dated
29.03.2011 granted the cash credit limit of Rs.400 lakh
and a Loan Account No. 0175008700000385 was
opened in the name of M/s. Shankar Metals,
proprietorship firm of Sanjeev Dixit. Besides executing
the loan documents, following four properties were
mortgaged with the bank as collateral security:-
(a) The guarantor Sh. Sanjay Sharma, proprietor of
M/s Super Machines R/o 17B, Shri Ram Nagar,
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.5 Of 372
Shahdara, Delhi mortgaged his immovable property
admeasuring 700 sq. yards situated at industrial plot
no. 25, Shyam Industrial Area, Village Banthla, Loni,
Ghaziabad, U.P by depositing the Sale Deed
purportedly executed in his favour by the erstwhile
owner Harbans Lal Sharma. The sale deed was
registered with the office of Sub-Registrar IV, Ghaziabad
on 04.06.2008.
(b) The guarantor Smt. Indra Rani W/o Yagya Dutt
Sharma, R/o 198/2, Gali No.11, Bhola Nath Nagar, Delhi
mortgaged her built up immovable property
admeasuring 65 sq. yards situated at No. 17B, Khasra
No. 423, Shri Ram Nagar, G T Road, Shahdara by
depositing a Sale Deed purportedly executed by Smt.
Simla Rani in her favour. The sale deed was registered
with the office of Sub-Registrar IV, Delhi on 04.10.1999.
(c) The borrower, Sanjeev Dixit mortgaged his
residential property admeasuring 341.40 sq. meters
C193, IIIrd Floor, Vivek Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi by
depositing a sale deed purportedly executed by R K
Manchanda in his favour, registered with the office of
Sub-Registrar VIII, Delhi on 31.01.2011.
(d) Sanjeev Dixit also mortgaged his industrial
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.6 Of 372
property no. 121, FIE, Patparganj Industrial Area,
Delhi-92 by depositing a Sale Deed purportedly
executed in his favour by Ramji Lal Chawla, registered
with Sub-Registrar VIII Delhi on 25.05.2011.
2.01. Sanjeev Dixit defaulted in repayment of loan.
The bank initiated action under SARFAESI Act, 2002 and
served notices to sell the above mentioned properties
through publication. During verification of the title
deeds of the above properties, following facts
emerged:-
(i) The title deeds of the property Plot no. 25,
Shyam Industrial Area, Loni, Ghaziabad were
forged and fabricated. On spot verification revealed
that notices of several other banks were pasted on
said property and the physical possession of the
property had already been taken by Syndicate
Bank, Nirman Vihar branch, Delhi against the loan
account of Shyam Enterprises. It was found that
multiple title deeds of said property were in
circulation and the property was also mortgaged
with the other banks.
(ii) The title deeds of the property no. 17B, Shri
Ram Nagar, G T Road, Shahdara were also found to
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.7 Of 372
be forged. Upon spot verification, the property was
found locked. Enquiry revealed that number of
notices were pasted on the property by several
other banks. It was found that multiple title deeds
of the property were in circulation and the property
was mortgaged with the other banks also.
(iii) Sale deed of property No. C193, III Floor, Vivek
Vihar, Phase-I was also forged and fabricated. On
spot verification revealed that the property
belonged to some other person.
(iv) The title deeds of the property no. 121, FIE,
Patparganj Industrial Area were found to be fake
and forged as no such property was registered with
the office of Sub-Registrar VIII at the given details.
On spot verification revealed that the said property
also belonged to some other person.
2.02 As per the terms of loan, Sanjeev Dixit was
bound to deposit the sale proceeds of the
hypothecated stock, which he failed to do and
misappropriated the funds. At the time of applying for
loan, Sanjeev Dixit had submitted various identification
and financial documents pertaining to himself, his firm
M/s. Shankar Metals and the guarantors. Investigation
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.8 Of 372
however, revealed that all the said documents were
false and fabricated. Following is the list of forged/false
documents, self attested copies of which were
submitted with the bank:-
(i) Voter ID card of Sanjeev Dixit, Smt. Indira
Rani and Sanjay Sharma.
(ii) PAN Cards of Sanjeev Dixit and Sanjay
Sharma.
(iii) Electricity and water bills in the name of
Sanjeev Dixit and Sanjay Sharma.
(iv) The Form No P2-000652 dated 28.02.2011,
purportedly issued by the office of
Commissioner of Industries, Government of
NCT of Delhi.
(v) TIN No. 07511326352 dated 07.05.2008
purportedly issued by Department of Trade
and Taxes, Govt. of NCT of Delhi in the name
of Shankar Metals.
(vi) Account statements of Account No.
2867201000038 purportedly in the name of
M/s Shankar Metals maintained with Canara
Bank, Rajinder Nagar, Ghaziabad, U.P.
(vii) Audit reports, profit and loss account,
balance sheets of M/s Shankar Metals for
the year 2008, 2009, 2010 purportedly
audited by Sukhdev Madnani, CA and for
the year 2011 purportedly audited by Prem
Mishra, CA.
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.9 Of 372
2.03 Investigation revealed that Sanjeev Dixit
(A-1) (PO) dishonestly concealed previous loans availed
by him from the other banks while applying for CC limit
from Punjab National Bank, Jor Bagh branch. In June,
2010, he had availed CC Limit of Rs.2.8 crores from
Allahabad Bank, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad, U.P as
proprietor of Golden Tap Sanitation which was declared
NPA. The bank had initiated recovery proceedings in
DRT and it was found that the property No. 232 Jagriti
Enclave which was mortgaged as collateral security was
not genuine. In October, 2010, he had availed a car loan
of Rs.37.5 lakh from Canara Bank, Karkardooma which
was also declared as NPA and the recovery suit was
pending in DRT-III. Investigation further revealed that
one Jitender Singh, who represented himself as Sanjay
Sharma and unknown lady who represented herself as
Smt. Indra Rani had stood guarantors in CC account of
M/s Shankar Metals.
2.04 Investigation also revealed that after
sanction of CC Limit, a false list of debtor firms of M/s
Shankar Metals was submitted by Sanjeev Dixit for
disbursement of loan amount. He diverted all the funds
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.10 Of 372
from the CC account of M/s Shankar Metals either by
cash withdrawal or by transferring the amount in the
other bank accounts of the firms which were either
owned by him or by his close relatives i.e. Rahul Sharma
(A-5), brother-in-law; Sandeep Jha, Associate; Sanjay
Sharma, guarantor; Sheetal Sharma, sister-in-law; Rajiv
Sharma (A-6), brother-in-law; Rajiv Katara, brother-in-
law; Rahul Mudgal, brother-in-law and Jitender Singh
who impersonated himself as Sanjay Sharma. To show
the business transactions in the CC account, he (Sanjeev
Dixit) fraudulently credited some amount in his
account.
2.05 The funds were diverted through bank
accounts of following entitles:-
(i) M/s Ganesh Enterprises in Canara Bank,
Karkardooma and PNB, Shahdara.
(ii) M/s Katara Metals, in Canara Bank, Karkardooma,
Delhi
(iii) M/s Paras Metals, in Allahabad Bank, Vasundhara,
Ghaziabad, U.P,
(iv) M/s Rajdhani Traders, in Canara Bank
Karkardooma.
2.06. Investigation revealed that the bank
accounts in the name of aforementioned entities were
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.11 Of 372
opened in the following banks on the basis of forged
documents:-
1. M/s Ganesh Enterprises in Canara Bank,
Karkardooma, Ms. Sheetal Sharma was mentioned
as proprietor but the photograph affixed thereon
was of Arti Sharma, sister-in-law of Sanjeev Dixit
bearing the address at 232 Jagriti Enclave, Delhi,
address of Sanjeev Dixit.2. In the account opening
form of M/s Ganesh Enterprises in Punjab National
Bank, Shahdara, Rajiv Sharma (A-6) was mentioned
as proprietor with address 17-B Shri Ram Nagar,
G.T Road, Shahdara i.e. the property which was
mortgaged as collateral security for CC Limit.
3. In account opening form of M/s Katara
Metals, in Canara Bank, Karkardooma, Delhi, Rajiv
Katara was mentioned as proprietor but the
photograph affixed thereon was of Rajiv Sharma
(A-6) with the address 232 Jagriti Enclave, Delhi.
4. In the account opening form of M/s Paras
Metals, in Allahabad Bank, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad,
U.P, Rahul Mudgal was mentioned as proprietor
but the photograph affixed thereon was of Rahul
Sharma (A-5) with the address 5/1234, Ground
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.12 Of 372
Floor Vasundhara, Ghaziabad UP, the property
which was mortgaged as collateral security with
the bank in the instant case.
5. In the account opening form of M/s Rajdhani
Traders, in Canara Bank Karkardooma, Jitender
Singh was mentioned as the proprietor but, this
person represented himself as Sanjay Sharma in
the instant case and stood guarantor and offered
his property bearing no. 25, Shyam Industrial Area,
Loni which was offered as collateral security with
the complainant bank.
2.07 Investigation further revealed that Sanjeev
Dixit had already offered the property no. C-193, IIIrd
Floor, Vivek Vihar as collateral security while availing CC
Limit of Rs.3.5 crores from Punjab National Bank, Nehru
Nagar, Ghaziabad, in favour of M/s Golden Tap
Industries on 26.05.2011 account of which had already
become NPA with Rs.3.59 crores as outstanding.
Sanjeev Dixit representing himself as Sanjay Sharma in
2008 had offered 25, Shyam Industrial Estate, Loni,
Ghaziabad as collateral security while availing CC Limit
of Rs.90 lakh from Syndicate Bank, Nirman Vihar, New
Delhi in favour of M/s Sree Sai Satyam Enterprises
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.13 Of 372
through its partners Sanjay Sharma @ Sanjeev Dixit,
Reena Sharma and Rajiv Sharma, account of which was
also declared as NPA with Rs.1.25 crores as
outstanding. The said property is presently in
possession of Syndicate Bank.
2.08 Investigation further revealed that Sanjeev
Dixit was involved in number of other cases registered
vide FIR No. 217/12, P.S Anand Vihar, Delhi, 260/13, PS
Anand Vihar, Delhi, 49/13, PS Vivek Vihar, Delhi, 86/13
P.S Preet Vihar, Delhi, RC No. 1202/013A00/3/2013 CBI
ACP Ghaziabad, 212/13 PS Kundli, Sonepat and 213/13
PS Kundli, Sonepat for defrauding the banks.
2.09 During investigation, the involvement of
panel advocate N. S. Parihar and the bank officials of
Punjab National Bank, Jor Bagh branch also emerged. It
was found that N S. Parihar, advocate, who was on the
panel of the bank, submitted a false verification report
(non encumbrance certificate) to the bank in respect of
immovable properties which were offered as collateral
securities by the accused Sanjeev Dixit. He deliberately
mentioned that Smt. Indra Rani has a clear, valid and
marketable title over the property which she offered as
collateral security. But, the investigation revealed that
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.14 Of 372
as per the Sub-Registrar office record, Smt. Indra Rani
had already sold the above property in the year 2003.
He did not report to the bank that the photographs of
the guarantor Smt. Indra Rani affixed on the
property/loan papers given to the bank were different
from that affixed in the record of the Sub-Registrar
office. In his Legal Search Report of property no. 121,
FIE, Patparganj Industrial Area vide dated 22.06.2011,
he dishonestly mentioned that Sanjeev Dixit had a clear,
valid and marketable title whereas, the investigation
revealed that the property was never owned by Sanjeev
Dixit as per the Sub-Registrar office record. Further N. S.
Parihar is also an accused alongwith Sanjeev Dixit in
other cases of bank fraud i.e. RC No.
1202/013A00/3/2013 CBI ACP Ghaziabad, 212/13 PS
Kundli, Sonepat and 213/13 PS Kundli, Sonepat.
2.10. Accused Ranjiv Suneja while functioning as
Senior Manager in the bank in conspiracy with Smt. K.
K. Johar and other accused persons dishonestly
appraised and recommended the limit of Rs.4 crores to
M/s Shankar Metals and same was dishonestly
sanctioned by Smt. K. K. Johar while she was working as
Chief Manager. As pe charge-sheet, the banking
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.15 Of 372
procedure was violated by them in the following
manner:-
(a) They did not verify the Voter I Cards and PAN
Cards of the borrower/Guarantors from the
website of the Chief Election Officer/Income Tax
Department.
(b) They did not collect and verify the
documents/certificates issued by the Government
Departments to ascertain the existence and
ownership of firms before opening the account.
(c) They did not verify the membership of the
Chartered Accountants from the website of ICAI.
(d) They did not verify the past conduct of the
borrower's account from the previous bank i.e.
Canara Bank, Karkardooma, Delhi.
(e) They did not ascertain the credit worthiness
of the firm/proprietor/guarantor from CIBIL
before sanctioning the loan. The credit
information report of M/s Shankar Metals from
CIBIL was dated 05.11.2011 while the loan was
sanctioned on 29.03.2011. No credit information
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.16 Of 372
reports in respect of guarantors were extracted
from CIBIL. Suspicious features in the CIBIL report
were deliberately overlooked by them as the
report dated 04.03.2011 of the accused Sanjeev
Dixit disclosed Enquiry about Auto Loan of
Rs.5,00,000/-, two more PAN i.e. AITPD0089M &
ASDPD7032N, two more Date of Birth i.e.
10.07.1973 and 01.01.1973 with the same Voter ID
Card No.DL/04/043/171289 and the same address
i.e. 232, Jagriti Enclave, Delhi.
(f) They did not communicate with the owners
of the mortgaged properties through registered
letters to confirm proof of residence and their
willingness to offer the properties as collateral
security. They did not obtain the certified copy of
the registered title deeds from the empaneled
lawyer to compare the contents, registration
particulars and photographs of the title deeds
with the original title deeds. Further, they did not
examine the change of title and opening of bank
account nor verified the antecedents of the
intending mortgagor to mitigate the chances of
impersonation.
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.17 Of 372
(g) They deliberately and dishonestly accepted
incomplete NEC/Legal Search Reports of the
properties at Loni, Ghaziabad and Vivek Vihar
Delhi, prepared by N. S. Parihar without obtaining
the certified copies of the title deeds from the
Sub-Registrar office. It was clearly mentioned in
the NEC/Legal Search Report that "Applied for
certified copy. Same is yet to be received."
(h) The valuation reports of three properties
were submitted by Naveen Kamboj, Approved
Valuer on 24.03.2011 and the report of property
No. 5/1234 (GF and FF), M11 Vasundhara
Ghaziabad was submitted by M. L. Nasa, Valuer on
13.05.2011 while the loan was sanctioned on
29.03.2011.
(i) Independent spot verification of the
firm/godown/showroom and residence of the
borrower and guarantor was not done to verify
the assets and liabilities shown and no report
regarding the ownership of the properties/past
conduct was collected. Investigation revealed that
the confidential report of Sanjeev Dixit and M/s
Shankar Metals were dishonestly prepared by
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.18 Of 372
them on 22.03.2011 without mentioning anything
in the column of "Enjoying facilities in other
banks" while in the CIBIL report of Sanjeev Dixit
dated 04.03.2011, inquiries about auto loan of
Rs.5.0 lakh was mentioned. It was mentioned in
the confidential report that the property at C-193
Vivek Vihar owned by Sanjeev Dixit was visited by
Smt. K. K. Johar on 08.03.2011 but, the Movement
Register of Punjab National Bank does not show
any entry of 08.03.2011.
(j) Confidential Report of Sanjay Sharma was
dishonestly prepared by them on 22.03.2011
mentioning his address as 414, Shakar Pur Delhi
but this premises was never visited by them as per
record/Movement Register. As per the CR,
property i.e. Plot No. 25, Shyam Industrial Estate
was visited by Smt. K. K. Johar on 08.03.2011 but
the Movement Register does not show any such
entry for 08.03.2011. In the report, it is mentioned
that Sanjeev Rana, Plot No. 56, Shyam Industrial
Estate, Loni has reported that Sanjay Sharma was
a reputed and honest but, during investigation,
Sanjeev Rana denied having said the same. In the
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.19 Of 372
report, it was mentioned that Mr Sharan Beer
Choudhary who had a business of batteries had
reported that Sanjay Sharma lived at 414 Shakar
Pur and had the means of about Rs.70-75 lakh
but, during investigation Sharan Beer Choudhary,
disclosed that no lady officer had ever come to
make any enquiry about Sanjay Sharma.
(k) Confidential report dated 22.03.2011 of the
guarantor Indra was dishonestly prepared
mentioning her address as 158/2, Gali No. 11,
Bhola Nath Nagar but, the record/movement
register shows that this premises was never
visited by them. As per the CR, property at 17B,
Shri Ram Nagar, G T Road, Shahdara was visited
by Smt. K. K. Johar on 08.03.2011 but, the
movement register does not show any such entry
for 08.03.2011. In the report, it is mentioned that
M/s Moolchand & Co. had reported that Smt.
Indra Rani was owing property worth of about
Rs.50 lakh. But, during investigation, the said
person Moolchand who lives in the locality of Smt.
Indra Rani disclosed that he did not have any firm
namely M/s Moolchand & Co. nor any officer from
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.20 Of 372
the bank ever came to him to enquire about Smt.
Indra Rani.
(l) Confidential report dated 22.03.2011 of
Rajesh Aggarwal, who purportedly sold out his
property at 5/1234, M11 Vasundhara, Ghaziabad
to Sanjeev Dixit was also prepared dishonestly
mentioning that Smt. K.K. Johar had visited said
property. But again, the movement register did
not show any such entry for 08.03.2011. The loan
was sanctioned without taking legal search report
of the above property from the empaneled lawyer
as the report is of 16.05.2011, whereas, the loan
was sanctioned on 29.03.2011.
(m) Inventory/stock statements were not
collected to check the security physically with the
books of the borrowers. As per DP register, stock
statement for the month of December, 2011 and
January, 2012 were not submitted by the borrower
and the stock was not inspected by the bank
officials for the period of May, 2011, October,
2011, December, 2011, January, 2012 and April
2012. As per stock statement as on 30.06.2011,
31.07.2011, 30.09.2011, 30.11.2011 and
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.21 Of 372
31.03.2012, the stock was claimed to be inspected
by Smt. K. K. Johar on 06.07.2011, 14.08.2011,
20.10.2011, 15.12.2011 and 17.04.2012
respectively but, the movement register did not
show the entries for these dates.
(n) The funds were deliberately and dishonestly
allowed to be diverted by them in the bank
accounts of the firms which were either owned by
accused Sanjeev Dixit or his close
relatives/associates who did not have any
business transactions with M/s Shankar Metals.
(o) As stated by Vijay Goel who prepared the
CMA/financial data for M/s Shankar Metals, Smt.
K. K. Johar was given one per cent of the loan
amount as bribe to sanction the loan.
(p) After the sanction of the loan, they
dishonestly replaced the collateral security i.e.
property no. 5/1234 (GF & FF), M-11, Vasundhara,
Ghaziabad U.P with the property No. 121, FIE,
Patparganj Industrial Area, Delhi on 25.06.2011,
without receiving the valuation report of the new
property.
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.22 Of 372
2.11. The internal concurrent audit conducted by
the bank dated 25.10.2013 also revealed that the bank
officials were liable for this fraud as the loan was
appraised, sanctioned and disbursed without following
the guidelines of the bank. Investigation further
revealed that Rahul Sharma (A-5) managed to open
bogus bank account in the name of M/s Paras Metals
and helped the accused Sanjeev Dixit (A-1) to divert the
funds from the loan account of M/s Shankar Metals in
the account of M/s Paras Metals. The CFSL report
confirmed that the signatures of Rahul Mudgal in the
account opening form were of Rahul Sharma. Similarly,
Rajiv Sharma (A-6) who had an account in the name of
M/s Ganesh Enterprises helped Sanjeev Dixit to divert
the funds from the loan account of M/s Shankar Metals
in the account of M/s Ganesh Enterprises.
2.12. Investigation revealed that as per the loan
documents, Sanjay Sharma was the guarantor of the
subject loan but on the loan documents, photograph of
Jitender Singh was pasted as Sanjay Sharma. Forged
Sale Deed of property no. 25, Shyam Industrial Area,
Loni, Ghaziabad was submitted on behalf of guarantor
as collateral security. Jitender Singh was the owner of
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.23 Of 372
the bank account in the name of M/s Rajdhani Traders
maintained in Canara Bank, Karkardooma through
which the funds were diverted from the loan account of
M/s Shankar Metals.
2.13. Investigation revealed that Smt. Indra Rani
was not the guarantor of this loan as the CFSL report
confirmed that the signatures on the loan documents
are not attributable to her and she had already sold the
property no. 17B, Shri Ram Nagar, G T Road, Shahdara
way back in the year 2003. As per the loan documents,
Smt. Indra Rani was the guarantor of this loan but the
photograph of some other lady was affixed as Smt
Indra Rani on the loan documents. Forged sale deed of
property no. 17B, Shri Ram Nagar, G T Road, Shahdara
was submitted on behalf of the guarantor as collateral
security to the bank.
Framing of Charge
3. Vide order on charge dated 26.09.2018, a formal
charge for the offence of conspiracy punishable under
Section 120-B r/w 419/420/467/468/471 IPC with
Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of corruption
Act, 1988 and substantive offence under Section 420
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.24 Of 372
IPC r/w 120B IPC was framed against all the accused
persons except accused Sanjeev Dixit, who was
declared P.O. vide order dated 30.10.2017. Besides that,
accused Kulwinder Kaur Johar @ K.K.Johar and Rajiv
Suneja were also charged for the offence under Section
13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of corruption Act, 1988,
while the accused Nrapendra Singh Parihar @
N.S.Parihar was charged for the offence punishable
under Section 468 IPC r/w 120-B IPC. All the accused
persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution evidence
4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined
78 witnesses and their examination-in-chief is succinctly
discussed herein below. All the witnesses were cross
examined by the Ld. Defence Counsels but, as and
when required, relevant part of their cross-examination
shall be referred in the later part of this judgment
starting under the heading "Discussion and Analysis of
material by the Court". For the sake of convenience,
witnesses have been categorized in following broad
categories:-
(i) Witnesses from Punjab National Bank, Jorbagh
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.25 Of 372
Branch
(ii) Witness from other branches and offices of PNB
(iii) Empaneled Valuer
(iv) Witnesses from other Banks (other than PNB)
(v) Police Witnesses
(vi) Witnesses from Sub-Registrar Office
(vii) Sanctioning Authority
(viii) Chartered Accountants/CMA witnesses
(ix) Witnesses pertaining to KYC from the office of
Electoral Registration Office, BSES,
DJB/Custom/Excise/Income Tax/Industries
(x) Witnesses of record
(xi) Witnesses from CFSL
(xii) Witnesses pertaining to use of forged
documents/forgery of title/identification
documents
(xiii) Witnesses relating to dummy bank accounts
(xiv) Witnesses to Specimen signatures
(i) Witnesses from Punjab National Bank, Jorbagh
Branch
1. Sh. Braj Kumar Jha, the then Manager, Punjab
National Bank, Jor Bagh Branch, New Delhi
(PW-10)
2. Sh. C.P. Garg, Retired Chief Manager, Punjab
National Bank, Ludhiana (PW-6) (the
complainant)
3. Sh. Prashant Mishra, the then Chief Manager,
Punjab National Bank, Jor Bagh, Delhi (PW-76)
(ii) Witness from other branches and offices of
PNB
4. Sh. Rajnish Nangia, Manager (since retired), Circle
Head, PNB, South, Delhi (PW-45)
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.26 Of 372
5. Sh. Arun Sharma, the then Sr. Manager, Circle
Office, PNB, Rajender Place, New Delhi
(PW-58)
6. Sh. Vipin Kumar Arora, Head Clerk, PNB,
Shahdara, Delhi (since retired) (PW-59)
7. Sh. Virender Kumar Dhar @ V.K. Dhar, Ex-Chief
Concurrent Auditor, PNB, BO IBB, Barakhamba
Road, New Delhi (PW-65)
8. Sh. Sadananda Sahoo, the then Dy. General
Manager, Vigilance Department, HO 7, Punjab
National Bank, Bhikaji, Cama Place, New Delhi
(PW-71)
(iii) Empaneled Valuer
9. Sh. Madan Lal Nasa @ M.L. Nasa, Government
Valuer, empanelled valuer with PNB at the
relevant time (PW- 64)
10. Sh. Naveen Kamboj, who had worked as Valuer for
Immovable Property for PNB (PW-78)
(iv) Witnesses from other Banks (other than PNB)
11. Sh. Indravadan Dhawan, Retire Manager, Canara
Bank, Rajinder Nagar, Ghaziabad, U.P (PW-11)
12. Sh. Ram Lagan Singh, Manager, PNB, Scope Tower,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi (since retired) (PW-52)
13. Sh. Roshan Lal, Manager, Canara Bank, 177, Saini
Enclave, Karkardooma, Delhi (since retired)
(PW-53)
14. Sh. Arunendra Pratap Singh @ A.P. Singh, Chief
Manager, Allahabad Bank, C-25, Sector-15,
Vasundhra, Ghaziabad, U.P. (PW-54)
15. Sh. Devendra Kumar Sharma @ D.K. Sharma,
Manager (retired), Syndicate Bank, ARMB, Dev
Nagar, Delhi (PW-56)
16. Sh. Mahabir Singh, Chief Manager, Allahabad
Bank, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad, UP (PW-62)
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.27 Of 372
17. Sh. Man Pal Singh @ M.P. Singh, the then Manager,
Canara Bank, Karkardooma Branch, Delhi (PW-67)
18. Sh. Sarvesh Kumar Dwivedi @ S.K. Dwivedi, Retd.
Sr. Manager, Allahabad Bank, Vasundhara,
Ghaziabd, UP (PW-70)
(v) Police Witnesses
19. ASI Fakhray Alam, North Zone, PCR, Delhi (PW-26)
20. Inspector Nirbhay Kumar, EOW, Mandir Marg, New
Delhi (PW-30)
21. SI Ram Shankar Pandit, P.S. Kalyan Puri, Delhi
Police
22. ASI Narender Kumar, PS Vivek Vihar, Delhi Police
(PW-33)
23. HC Dinesh, PS Nangloi, Delhi Police (PW-34)
24. SI Monu, Narcotic Cell, Shahdara, Delhi (PW-35)
25. SI Rajbir Singh, P.S. Kalindi Kunj, South-East
District, Delhi Police (PW-36)
26. Sh. Rajeev Kapoor, posted at PS Anand Vihar, Delhi
Police at the relevant time (PW-37)
27. Inspector Pradeep Kumar, Traffic Incharge, Jhajjar,
Haryana (PW-38)
28. Inspector Naval Marwa, CBI, ACB, Ghaziabad, U.P.
(PW-39)
29. Inspector Vishal, the IO of this case (PW-77)
(vi) Witnesses from Sub-Registrar Office
30. Sh. Naveen Kumar, the then Registration Clerk
from the office of Sub-Registrar-IV, Ghaziabad, UP
(PW-13).
31. Sh. Chander Mohan, Registration Clerk from the
office of Sub-Registrar-I, Ghaziabad, UP (PW-44).
32. Sh. Budh Prakash Gautam, LDC from the office of
Sub- Registrar-IV, Seelampur, Nand Nagri
Complex, Delhi (PW-46).
33. Sh. Manoj Kaushik, the then Sub-Registrar-IV A,
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.28 Of 372
Shahdara/Seemapuri, Delhi (PW-47).
34. Sh. Navin Kumar Sharma, Sub-Registrar VIII,
Geeta Colony, LM Bandh, DC Office Complex,
Shastri Nagar, New Delhi (PW-48).
35. Sh. Satinder Mohan, Section Officer, CM Office,
Delhi Secretariat, New Delhi, posted as Sub-
Registrar-VIII, Geeta Colony at the relevant time
(PW-49).
36. Sh. Avtar Singh, UDC, Irrigation Flood Control
Department, Shastri Nagar, Delhi, posted in the
office of Sub-Registrar Seelam Pur at the relevant
time (PW-50)
(vii) Sanctioning Authority
37. Sh. Anil Kumar Khosla, the then Dy. General
Manager (since retired), PNB-7, Bhikaji Cama
Place, New Delhi- 110067 (PW-73) [Sanctioning
Authority in respect of accused Ranjiv Suneja
(A-4)].
(viii) Chartered Accountants/CMA Data witnesses
38. Sh. Sukhdev Madnani (PW-7)
39. Smt. Prem Lata Mishra (PW-12)
40. Sh. Hardesh Kumar Jain @ H.K. Jain, the then Dy.
Secretary, Institute of Chartered Accountant of
India, Delhi (PW-72)
41. Sh. Vijay Kumar Goel, the then GM (Finance), MVL
Ltd.(PW-66)
(ix) Witnesses pertaining to KYC from the office of
Electoral Registration Offcie, BSES, DJB/
Custom/ Excise/ Income Tax/ Industries
42. Sh. I.A. Khan, Assistant Electoral Registration
Officer, Assembly Constituency-59, Vishwas
Nagar, UTCS Building, East Arjun Nagar, Shahdara,
Delhi (PW-1).
43. Sh. Sourav Banerjee Bandyopadhyay, Divisional
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.29 Of 372
Business Head, Office of BSES Yamuna Power Ltd.,
I.P. Extension, Patparganj, Delhi (PW-2).
44. Ms. Amita Sharma from the office of Zonal
Revenue Officer-IV, Yojna Vihar, Delhi Jal Board
(PW-3).
45. Sh. Bhagat Singh, the then Inspector, Office of
Commissioner of Industries, Govt. of NCT of
Delhi, Patparganj, Delhi (PW-4).
46. Sh. Lalit Mittal, ssistant Commissioner, Excise
Department, NCT, IP Estate, Delhi (PW-5).
47. Sh. Mantu Prasad, Sr. Manager, NSDL, Mumbai
(PW- 8).
48. Sh. Bishamber Nath, Assistant Commissioner,
Department of Sales & Taxes, Govt. of NCT of Delhi
(PW-9).
49. Ms. Priya Chaudhary, the then VAT Inspector,
Department of Trade & Taxes, Vayapar Bhawan, IP
Estate, New Delhi (PW-17)
(x) Witnesses of Record
50. Sh. Ravindra Kumar Malik, Assistant Ahlmad in the
Court of Sh. Dinesh Kumar, the then Ld. ACMM,
Karkardooma Court (PW-25).
51. Sh. Mahendra Maurya, JA/Ahlmad in the Court of
Ms. Ambika Singh, the then Ld. ACMM, Shahdara,
Delhi (PW-32)
(xi) Witnesses from CFSL
52. Sh. Anil Sharma, Sr. Scientific Officer, Grade-II
(Documents)-cum-Assist. Chemical Examiner, CFSL,
CBI, N.D. (PW-57)
53. Sh. Vijay Verma, the then Sr. Scientific Officer
Grade- II (documents)-cum-Assistant Chemical
Examiner, Block- IV, CGO Complex, Delhi (PW-75)
(xii) Witnesses pertaining to use of forged
documents/ forgery of documents
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.30 Of 372
54. Smt. Indra Rani (PW-14)
55. Sh. Harish Kumar (PW-15)
56. Sh. Kamal Singh Arya (PW-16)
57. Sh. Naresh Kumar Gupta (PW-51)
58. Sh. Sharanveer Singh (PW-60)
59. Sh. Mohan Kumar Aggarwal (PW-63)
60. Sh. Romit Manchanda (PW-68)
61. Sh. Pravesh Kumar Sharma (PW-69)
62. Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana (PW-74)
(xiii) Witnesses relating to dummy bank accounts
63. Sh. Vinod Kumar, Former Proprietor of M/s.
Mahaveera Enterprises (PW-18)
64. Sh. Ankit Gupta, Proprietor of M/s. Balaji
Sanitation (PW-19)
65. Sh. Radhey Shyam Gupta, Proprietor of M/s. King
Sanitation (PW-20)
66. Sh. Sandeep Tanwar, Proprietor of M/s. R.S.
Enterprises (PW-21)
67. Sh. Naresh Soni, Proprietor of M/s. Soni Sanitation
(PW-22)
68. Sh. Raman Sharma, Partner of M/s. Rohit
Sanitation (PW-23)
69. Sh. Ramesh Aggarwal, Proprietor of M/s. Aggarwal
Metals (PW-24)
70. Sh. Subhash Gupta, Proprietor of M/s. Super
Sanitary Store (PW-27)
71. Sh. Sunil Kumar Dhoot, Manager of M/s. Dhoot
Sanitation (PW-28)
72. Smt. Saloni Dhoot, Owner of M/s. Dhoot
Sanitation (PW-29)
(xiv) Witnesses to Specimen signatures
73. Sh. Iqbal Singh, CTOB, PNB, Jorbagh, Delhi (PW-40)
74. Sh. K.S. Mishra (since retired), the the Police
Constable, CBI, BS&FC, New Delhi (PW-41)
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.31 Of 372
75. Sh. Shambhu Nath Chaudhary, Manager, Punjab
National Bank, Finance Division, Sector-10,
Dwarka, New Delhi (PW-42)
76. Sh. Ram Kumar Gupta, Sr. Manager (retired),
Punjab National Bank, GT Road, Ghaziabad, UP
(PW-43)
77. Sh. Kewal Krishan, retired Officer, PNB, Jorbagh,
Delhi (PW-55)
78. Sh. Ravi Mehta, Computer Operator, PNB, Jorbagh,
New Delhi (PW-61)
5. Witnesses from Punjab National Bank
5.1.1 PW-10 Shri Braj Kumar Jha is the then
Manager in Punjab National Bank, Jorbagh Branch, New
Delhi. As per his version, he was posted at Jorbagh
Branch of PNB during the year 2010-2011. He joined the
investigation of the present case with CBI in the year
2014-2015. During investigation, he (PW-10) was shown
loan documents and account opening forms. PW-10
further deposed that vide account opening form
already exhibited as Ex.PW-6/D (D-5) submitted by M/s.
Shankar Metals, he had opened a current account
No.0175002100018768 for M/s. Shankar Metals on
11.03.2011. The form was signed by Sanjeev Dixit (since
P.O.), the proprietor of M/s. Shankar Metals and it bore
the signatures of Sanjeev Dixit at points "A-1" to "A-8"
and his (PW10's) signatures at points "B-1" to "B-4". At
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.32 Of 372
the time of opening of said account, he had taken the
photocopies of the PAN Card and Voter I Card of
Sanjeev Dixit and had verified the same from original.
He also took KYC documents i.e. photocopy of VAT
Certificate and photocopy of certificate from District
Industry Center of the proprietorship firm M/s. Shankar
Metals, after verifying it with their originals.
5.1.2 He further deposed that Sanjeev Dixit had
signed all the photocopies in his presence and he also
signed them after verifying said documents from the
originals produced before him. PW10 identified his
signatures and that of Sanjiv Dixit on the photocopies
of KYC documents. He also identified signatures of
Sanjeev Dixit on various other documents submitted by
him (A-1) at the time of cash credit facility. The list of all
such documents is as under:-
Exhibit Nature of document
Ex.PW-10/A The photocopy of PAN Card.
Ex.PW-10/B, Voter ID Card.
Ex.PW-10/C Photocopy of VAT Certificate.
Ex.PW-10/D Photocopy of certificate from District Industry
Center.
Ex.PW-10/E) CMA Data (part of credit appraisal).
(part of D-7)
(page 68 to 80)
Ex.PW-10/F (D-7 Audited balance sheet as on 31.03.2011.
colly) (page 82 to
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.33 Of 372
98),
Ex.PW-10/G Provisional profit and loss account and
(page 99 to 107) balance sheet as on 31.03.2011
(D-7)
Ex.PW-10/H Audited balance sheet as on 31.03.2008.
(pages 108 to
124) (D-7)
Ex.PW-10/I Audited balance sheet as on 31.03.2009.
(pages 125 to
138) (D-7)
Ex.PW-10/J Audited balance sheet as on 31.03.2010.
(page 139 to
152) (D-7)
Already Audited balance sheet as on 31.03.2011.
Ex.PW-6/K (page
153 to 166) (D-7)
Ex.PW-10/K Copy of draft rating / PNB Track dated
(page 167 to 09.03.2011.
171) (D-7)
5.1.3 PW-10 also identified the signatures of
accused Smt. K.K.Johar (A-3) and Rajiv Suneja (A-4) on
Credit Appraisal Note, Ex. PW6/N2 (D-8, page 200 to
209) and deposed that it also bears the signatures of
Sanjeev Dixit (A-1) at page nos. 205, 206, 208 and 209.
He also identified the signatures of Sanjeev Dixit on
loan documents Ex.PW6/O-2 (D-8 page 210), Ex.PW6/P-2
(D-8 page 211), Ex.PW6/Q-2 (D-8 page 212 and 213),
Ex.PW6/R-2 (D-8 page 214 to 216) and Ex.PW6/S-2 (D-8
page 217 to 219). He also identified signatures of
Sanjeev Dixit on the stock statement of M/s. Shankar
Metals dated 29.03.2011 Ex.PW6/U-2 (D-9 page 223 to
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.34 Of 372
225); dated 07.04.2011 of Ex.PW6/V-2 (D-9 page 226 to
228); dated 01.05.2011 of Ex.PW6/W-2 (D-9 page 229 to
231); dated 31.05.2011 Ex.PW6/X-2 (D-9 page 232 to
234); dated 30.06.2011 Ex.PW6/Y-2 (D-9 page 235 to
238) and dated 31.07.2011 Ex.PW6/Z-2 (D-9 page 239 to
242) at point A on all pages.
5.1.4 He further deposes that cheque bearing no.
075109 dated 05.03.2011 for an amount of Rs. 50,000/-
Ex.PW6/F (D-15) bears signatures of Sanjiv Dixit at point
A. Cheques already Ex.PW6/G1 to Ex. PW6/G-5 (D-17 to
D 21) are also bearing the signatures of Sanjiv Dixit at
point A. PW-10 also identified signatures of accused
Sanjeev Dixit on 47 cheques with RTGS pertaining to
various withdrawal transaction from CC account as
Ex.PW6/H2 (colly.) (D-24) to Ex.PW6/H48 (colly.) (D-70).
5.1.5 He also identified signatures of accused
persons namely Smt. K.K. Johar (A3) and Ranjiv Suneja
(A4) at points "A" and "B" respectively on the following
documents:-
Srl. No. Document Pages Exhibit
1. Confidential Report 1127-1136 Ex.PW6/S to
dated 22.03.2011 (D-106) Ex.PW-6/W
2. Legal compliance 1170-1171 Ex.PW6/C-1
Certificate (D-111)
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.35 Of 372
Srl. No. Document Pages Exhibit
3. Photocopy of title 184 to 2025 (part Ex.PW6/L-2
deed register of D-143)
5.1.6 Further, he identified signatures of accused
Smt. K.K. Johar (A3) at point "A" on following documents:-
Srl. No. Document Pages Exhibit
1. Proforma for 1355 (D-125) Ex.PW6/O-1
recording the value
of property
2. Proforma for 1356 (D-126) Ex.PW6/P-1
recording the value
of property
3. of M/s. Shankar 1357 (D-127) Ex.PW6/Q-1
Metals
4. Proforma for 1358 (D-128) Ex.PW6/R-1
recording the value
of property
5.1.7 PW-10 also identified signatures of accused
Sanjeev Dixit (A1) (since PO) at point "A" on Additional
information obtained from the borrower for CIBIL
purposes Ex.PW6/M; Computation of net worth of
Sanjiv Dixit Ex.PW6/S; Agreement for hypothecation
Ex.PW6/A-1 and Ex.PW6/B-1; Acknowledgment of title
deed Ex.PW6/G-1 and Ex.PW6/U-1; Property declaration
form Ex.PW6/V-1 to Ex.PW6/Y-1; stock statement
Ex.PW6/Z-1 and Ex.PW6/A-2 to Ex.PW6/H-2. PW-1 also
sought to prove the Request letter dated 11.03.2011
(D-4) Ex.PW-10/L for opening of current account in the
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.36 Of 372
name of M/s Shanker Metals.
5.2.1 PW-6 Sh. C.P. Garg, is Retired Chief Manager,
Punjab National Bank, Ludhiana, Punjab, who, at the
relevant time (from June 2012 to June 2014), was posted
in Punjab National Bank, Jor Bagh, New Delhi as Chief
Manager. He is the complainant in this case. As per his
deposition, this case pertains to the working capital
account of M/s. Shankar Metal of which Sanjiv Dixit was
the sole proprietor. He deposed that after the premises
of borrower Shankar Metal was visited, it was observed
that Sanjiv Dixit was not possessing the primary
security i.e. the stock at the given address. The inquiries
further revealed that borrower had availed loan from
various other banks also against same security
furnished for securing the subject loan. Thereafter, the
matter was brought to the notice of higher authorities.
The CC account was running irregular because of non-
deposit of sale proceeds in the account. The account
was later classified as NPA and recovery proceedings
were started and action under SARFAESI was also
initiated.
5.2.2 PW-6 further deposed that on a visit to 04
mortgaged properties located at Sham Industrial Area,
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.37 Of 372
Loni Ghaziabad; Sri Ram Nagar, Shahdara; Vivek Vihar
and 121, FF, Industrial Area Patparganj, it was found
that the said properties were not possessed by the
persons, who had mortgaged the same. When the
matter was referred to the higher authorities, he (PW6)
was directed to lodge a complaint against the related
parties with CBI. Thereafter, in the month of June, 2013,
he (PW-6) lodged the complaint with the CBI Ex.PW6/A
(D-1), against the borrower for filing fake and fabricated
title deeds to secure loan and regarding disposal of
stocks and non-deposit of the proceeds in their CC
Account. During investigation, relevant record was
requisitioned by the CBI which was handed over to
them by PW6. Through PW-6, CBI sought to prove the
following documents:-
Sl. No. Exhibit Nature of document
1. Ex.PW6/B Seizure memo dated 30.07.2013 vide which,
(D-6) PW6 handed over certain documents to CBI.
2. Ex.PW6/C Letter dated 10.12.2013 vide which, he
(D-3) handed over letter dated 11.03.2011
alongwith original account opening form of
current account no. 0175002100018768 (D-5).
3. Ex.PW6/D Account opening form of current account no.
(D-5) 017500210001 8768 (D-5).
4. Ex.PW6/E Letter dated 03.09.2013 vide which, he
(D-14) submitted cheque bearing No.075109 dated
05.03.2011 of Rs.50,000/-.
5. Ex.PW6/F Aforementioned cheque bearing no.075109.
(D-15
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.38 Of 372
6. Ex.PW6/G Letter dated 21.10.2013 (D-16) vide which, he
(D-16) handed over 5 cheques to the CBI.
7. Ex.PW6/G1 to Aforementioned 5 cheques.
G-5 (D-17 to
D-21)
8. Ex.PW6/H Letter dated 25.07.2013 vide which, he
(D-22) handed over statement of CC account and 47
cheques with RTGS pertaining to various
withdrawal transactions from the CC account.
9. Ex.PW6/H1 Aforesaid statement of CC account bearing
(D-23) (19 no. 0175008700000385.
pages)
5.2.3 PW6 also exhibited aforementioned 47
cheques with RTGS pertaining to various withdrawal
transactions from the CC account bearing
no.0175008700000385 and gave their details as under:-
Cheque Exhibit Dated Amount (in RTGS sent
no. Rs.) to/Cash
withdrawn
075103 Ex.PW6/H2 31.03.2011 32,65,820/- Katara Metals
(colly.) (D-24)
075104 Ex.PW6/H3 31.03.2011 27,10,715/- Shree Balaji
(colly.) (D-25) Enterprises
075106 Ex.PW6/H4 31.03.2011 26,15,000/- Sharp
(colly.) (D-26) Sanitation
075105 Ex.PW6/H5 31.03.2011 9,68,719/- Shree Sai
(colly.) (D-27) Shyam
Enterprises
075108 Ex.PW6/H6 02.04.2011 15,37,115/- Katara Metals
(colly.) (D-28)
075113 Ex.PW6/H7 06.04.2011 9,10,338/- Sharp
(colly.) (D-29) Sanitation
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.39 Of 372
075112 Ex.PW6/H8 06.04.2011 12,25,000/- Ashish
(colly.) (D-30) Enterprises
075117 Ex.PW6/H9 27.04.2011 25,75,185/- Katara Metals
(colly.) (D-31)
075116 Ex.PW6/H10 27.04.2011 9,00,000/- Cash
(colly.) (D-32) withdrawal
through
Sachin Mehra
075122 Ex.PW6/H11 05.05.2011 8,09,181/- Katara Metals
(colly.) (D-33)
075120 Ex.PW6/H12 05.05.2011 8,12,000/- Sree Balaji
(colly.) (D-34) Enterprises
075124 Ex.PW6/H13 06.05.2011 11,72,000/- APS Metals
(colly.) (D-35) Pvt. Ltd
075123 Ex.PW6/H14 06.05.2011 5,56,800/- Cash
(colly.) (D-36) withdrawal
through
Sachin Mehra
279114 Ex.PW6/H15 10.05.2011 5,50,000/- Cash
(colly.) (D-37) withdrawal
through
Sanjay
Sharma
279117 Ex.PW6/H16 12.05.2011 2,50,000/- Transfer to
(colly.) (D-38) own current
account
279121 Ex.PW6/H17 24.05.2011 11,71,600/- Future Tap
(colly.) (D-39) Sanitation
279119 Ex.PW6/H18 24.05.2011 9,68,086/- Sharp
(colly.) (D-40) Sanitation
279125 Ex.PW6/H19 27.05.2011 15,63,885/- Rajdhani
(colly.) (D-41) Traders
279126 Ex.PW6/H20 31.05.2011 12,73,000/- Sanya
(colly.) (D-42) Enterprises
545524 Ex.PW6/H21 03.08.2011 18,00,000/- Cash
(colly.) (D-43) withdrawal
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.40 Of 372
through
Sachin Mishra
279127 Ex.PW6/H22 01.06.2011 15,10,713/- Sai Trading
(colly.) (D-44) Corporation
545513 Ex.PW6/H23 29.06.2011 9,50,000/- Cash
(colly.) (D-45) withdrawal
through
Sachin Mishra
545519 Ex.PW6/H24 13.07.2011 3,50,000/- Cash
(colly.) (D-46) withdrawal
through
Rahul Sharma
545518 Ex.PW6/H25 13.07.2011 22,80,000/- Sai Trading
(colly.)(D-47) Corporation
545521 Ex.PW6/H26 18.07.2011 26,38,000/- Future Tap
(colly.) (D-48) Sanitation
545523 Ex.PW6/H27 03.08.2011 22,00,000/- Cash
(colly.) (D-49) withdrawal
through
Sanjeev Dixit
279124 Ex.PW6/H28 31.05.2011 9,50,000/- Cash
(colly.) (D-50) withdrawal
through
Rahul
545526 Ex.PW6/H29 11.08.2011 16,25,000/- Sree Balaji
(colly.) (D-51) Enterprises
545528 Ex.PW6/H30 23.08.2011 20,45,000/- Paras Metals
(colly.) (D-52)
545527 Ex.PW6/H31 23.08.2011 21,15,000/- Jagdamba
(colly.) (D-53) Metals
545529 Ex.PW6/H32 10.09.2011 17,98,600/- Paras Metals
(colly.) (D-54)
545537 Ex.PW6/H33 25.11.2011 12,50,000/- Katara Metals
(colly.) (D-55)
545540 Ex.PW6/H34 16.11.2011 9,88,000/- Ganesh
(colly.) (D-56) Enterprises
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.41 Of 372
545544 Ex.PW6/H35 29.11.2011 12,68,000/- Katara Metals
(colly.) (D-57)
545546 Ex.PW6/H36 30.11.2011 9,50,000/- Cash
(colly.) (D-58) withdrawal
through
Sanjay
545547 Ex.PW6/H37 13.12.2011 15,12,000/- Diya
(colly.) (D-59) Sanitation
India
545549 Ex.PW6/H38 21.12.2011 5,50,000/- Cash
(colly.) (D-60) withdrawal
through
Sanjay
Sharma
545551 Ex.PW6/H39 27.12.2011 9,38,045/- Sanya
(colly.) (D-61) Enterprises
545552 Ex.PW6/H40 27.12.2011 9,97,700/- Rajdhani
(colly.) (D-62) Traders
545553 Ex.PW6/H41 28.12.2011 15,22,600/- Sanya
(colly.) (D-63) Enterprises
545554 Ex.PW6/H42 29.12.2011 24,60,800/- Rajdhani
(colly.) (D-64) Traders
545555 Ex.PW6/H43 30.12.2011 21,15,065/- Sanya
(colly.) (D-65) Enterprises
545558 Ex.PW6/H44 18.01.2012 14,15,800/- Shri Balaji
(colly.) (D-66) Enterprises
545557 Ex.PW6/H45 18.01.2012 9,50,000/- Cash
(colly.) (D-67) withdrawal
through
Sanjay
Sharma
545560 Ex.PW6/H46 21.02.2012 9,50,000/- Cash
(colly.) (D-68) withdrawal
through
Sachin
545568 Ex.PW6/H47 11.04.2012 25,75,000/- Sanya
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.42 Of 372
(colly.) (D-69) Enterprises
545571 Ex.PW6/H48 29.05.2012 10,00,000/- Cash
(colly.) (D-70) withdrawal
through
Rahul
5.2.4 As deposed further by PW-6, M/s. Shankar
Metals was maintaining one Current Account bearing
no. 0175002100018768 and one Cash Credit Account
bearing no. 0175008700000385 with PNB, Jor Bagh
branch, New Delhi. As per his version, in order to open
an account in the bank, a customer is required to fill an
account opening form and the customer master form.
He is also required to submit proof of address and PAN
Card. In case of business concern, proof of business
entity and name of its proprietor was also required to
be verified from two documents registered with
government or any other agency. In the present case
also, current account was opened with account opening
form but the account opening form of Cash Credit
account was not available on record nor the
government documents as proof of firm and business
were on record.
5.2.5 PW-6 further deposed that he had handed
over eight files to CBI vide seizure memo Ex. PW 6/B
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.43 Of 372
(D-6), which consisted of loan application and
supporting documents, sanction note and loan
documents, stock statement and correspondences,
mortgage papers of properties furnished as equitable
security i.e. (1) Plot No. 25, Shyam Industrial Area VIII,
Banthala Pargana Loni, District Ghaziabad, U.P (Page 1
to Page 147), (2) 17-B, Shri Ram Nagar, G T Road,
Shahdara, Delhi (Page No. 1 to Page 83), (3) IP Industrial
Area FIE-121, Patparganj Industrial Area, New Delhi
(Page no. 1 to Page 68) and (4) C-193, III floor, Vivek
Vihar Phase-I, Delhi (Page No. 1 to Page 58), and also
the cheques and instructions to remit the amount to
different account from the account of M/s Shankar
Metals ( Page 1 to Page 81). He further deposed that
the request letter from the party for working capital
limits was Ex. PW 6/I (D-7) collectively (Page no. 1 to
Page no. 8) and loan application of bank was Ex.PW6/J
(D-7) collectively (Page no. 9 to Page no. 39).
5.2.6 He deposed that the certified copy of PAN
Card bearing No. BZYPS4132F in the name of Sanjay
Sharma S/o Janardhan Sharma is Ex. PW 6/L (D-7) and
the certification of said document was done by accused
no. 4/ Ranjiv Suneja, Senior Manager, who was working
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.44 Of 372
with him in the same branch at that time. Through
PW-6, prosecution seeks to prove the following
documents:-
Sr. No. Exhibit Nature of document
1. Ex. PW 6/M Original of additional information CIBIL
(D-103). of accused Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay
Sharma.
2. Ex. PW 6/N Original of additional information CIBIL
(D-103) of Indira Rani.
3. Ex. PW 6/O Consumer CIBIL report of accused
(D-104, Page no. Sanjeev Dixit as on 04.03.2011.
1118 to Page no.
1120).
4. Ex. PW 6/P Copy of the commercial CIBIL of M/s
(D-104, Page no. Shankar Metals as on 05.11.2012.
1122 to Page no.
1124).
5. Ex PW 6/Q Report of Equifax Company in respect
(D-105, Page no. of Sanjay Sharma dated 28.04.2011.
1125)
6. Ex PW 6/R (D-105, Report of Equifax Company in respect
Page no. 1126). of Indira Rani dated 28.04.2011.
7. Ex. PW 6/S Confidential report prepared by the bank
(D-106, Page no. dated 22.03.2011 in respect of M/s
1127 to Page no. Shankar Metals.
1128).
8. Ex. PW 6/T Confidential report prepared by the bank
(D-106, Page no. dated 22.03.2011 in respect of Sanjeev
1129 to Page no. Dixit.
1130).
9. Ex. PW 6/U Confidential report prepared by the bank
(D-106, Page no. dated 22.03.2011 in respect of Sanjay
1131 to Page no. Sharma.
1132).
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.45 Of 372
10. Ex. PW 6/V Confidential report prepared by the bank
(D-106, Page no. dated 22.03.2011 in respect of Indira
1133 to Page no. Rani.
1134).
11. Ex. PW 6/W Confidential report prepared by the bank
(D-106, Page no. dated 22.03.2011 in respect of Rajesh
1135 to Page no. Aggarwal.
1136).
12. Ex. PW 6/X Net-worth statement of Sanjay Sharma.
(D-107, Page No.
1137).
13. Ex. PW 6/Y Details of assets and liabilities of Sh.
(D-108, Page no. Sanjay Sharma.
1138).
14. Ex. PW 6/Z Details of assets and liabilities of Indira
(D-108, Page no. Rani.
1139).
15. Ex. PW 6/A1 Original copy of agreement for
(D-109, Page no. hypothecation of goods to secure a
1140 to page no. demand cash credit dated 30.03.2011
1154). executed by Sanjeev Dixit as proprietor
of M/s Shankar Metals.
16. Ex. PW 6/B1 Original copy of agreement for
(D-110, Page no. hypothecation of goods and book debts
1155 to Page no. to secure a demand cash credit dated
1169). 30.03.2011 executed by Sanjeev Dixit as
proprietor of M/s Shankar Metals.
17. Ex. PW 6/C1 Copy of legal compliance certificate in
(D-111, Page No. respect of M/s Shankar Metals.
1170 to Page no.
1171).
18. Ex. PW 6/D1 Copy of the original valuation report
(D-112 Page no. dated 24.03.2011 in respect of Plot no.
1172 to 1180). 25, Shyam Industrial Area VIII, Banthala
Pargana, Loni, District Ghaziabad, U.P
prepared by Naveen Kamboj &
Associates.
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.46 Of 372
19. Ex. PW 6/E1 Copy of the original valuation report
(D-113 Page no. dated 24.03.2011 in respect of 17-B, Shri
1181 to 1189). Ram Nagar, G T Road, Shahdara, Delhi
prepared by Naveen Kamboj &
Associates.
20. Ex. PW 6/F1 Copy of the original valuation report
(D-114 Page no. dated 24.03.2011 in respect of C-193, III
1190 to 1197). floor, Vivek Vihar Phase-I, Delhi prepared
by Naveen Kamboj & Associates.
21. Ex. PW 6/G1 Copy of the original valuation report
(D-115 Page no. dated 13.05.2011 in respect of House No.
1198 to 1209). 5/1234 ( M-11) Sector-5 Vasundhara
Ghaziabad prepared by Brig. M L Nasa
( Retd.).
22. Ex. PW 6/H1 Opinion on investigation of title in
( D-116 to D-117, respect of property/plot no. 25, Shyam
Page no. 1210 to Industrial Area VIII, Banthala Pargana,
Page no. 1227). Loni, District Ghaziabad, U.P dated
26.03.2011 given by panel advocate N. S.
Parihar.
23. Ex. PW 6/I1 Opinion on investigation of title in
(D-118, Page no. respect of property no. 17-B, Shri Ram
1253 to Page no. Nagar, G T Road, Shahdara, Delhi dated
1267). 26.03.2011 given by panel advocate N. S.
Parihar.
24. Ex. PW 6/J1 Opinion on investigation of title in
( D-119 to D-120, respect of property no. C-193, III floor,
Page no. 1268 to Vivek Vihar Phase-I, Delhi dated
Page no. 1284). 26.03.2011 given by panel advocate N. S.
Parihar.
25. Ex. PW 6/K1 Opinion on investigation of title in
(D-121, Page no. respect of property I.e House 5/1234
1285 to Page no. ( M-11), Vasundhara, Ghaziabad, U.P
1337). dated 16.05.2011 given by panel
advocate N. S. Parihar.
26. Ex. PW 6/L1 Opinion on investigation of title in
(D-122, Page no. respect of property no. IP Industrial Area
1338 to Page no. FIE-121, Patparganj Industrial Area, New
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.47 Of 372
1352). Delhi dated 22.06.2011 given by panel
advocate N. S. Parihar.
27. Ex. PW 6/M1 Affidavit dated 18.05.2011 of accused
(D-123, Page No. Sanjeev Dixit.
1353).
28. Ex.PW-6/N1 Copy of acknowledgment of title deed
(D-124 Page dated 28.06.2011.
No.1354).
29. Ex.PW-6/O1 The original copy of property visit cum
(D-125 Page valuation report dated 20.03.2011.
No.1355).
30. Ex.PW-6/P1 Original copy of property visit cum
(D-126 Page valuation report dated 20.03.2011.
No.1356).
31. Ex.PW-6/Q1 Original copy of property visit cum
(D-127 Page valuation report dated 20.03.2011.
No.1357).
32. Ex.PW-6/R1 Original copy of property visit cum
(D-128 Page valuation report dated 20.03.2011.
No.1358).
33. Ex.PW-6/S1 Copy of acknowledgment of title deed
(D-129 Page dated 18.05.2011.
No.1359).
34. Ex.PW-6/T1 Copy of acknowledgment of title deed
(D-130 Page dated 20.05.2011.
No.1360).
35. 6/U1 (D-131 Page Property declaration form in respect of
No.1361 to 1363). property No.1234/5 (M11, Vasundhra,
Ghaziabad) dated 18.05.2011.
36. Ex.PW-6/V1 Property declaration form in respect of
(D-132 Page property No.25 Shyam Industrial Area,
No.1364 to 1366). Loni Ghaziabad, dated Nil.
37. Ex.PW-6/W1 Property declaration form in respect of
(D-133 Page property No.17 B, Shri Ram Nagar,
No.1367 to 1369). Shahdara, Delhi, dated Nil.
38. Ex.PW-6/X1 Property declaration form in respect of
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.48 Of 372
(D-134 Page property No.C-193, Third Floor, Vivek
No.1370 to 1372). Vihar, Phase-I, New Delhi, dated Nil.
39. Ex.PW-6/Y1 Property declaration form in respect of
(D-135 Page property No. 121 FIE, Patparganj
No.1373 to 1375). Industrial Area, Delhi, dated 25.06.2011.
40. Ex.PW-6/Z1 Stock statement dated 31.08.2011.
(D-136 Page
No.1376 and
1377).
41. Ex.PW-6/A2 Stock statement dated 30.09.2011.
(D-136 Page
No.1378 and
1379).
42. Ex.PW-6/B2 Stock statement dated 31.10.2011.
(D-136 Page
No.1380 and
1381).
43. Ex.PW-6/C2 Stock statement dated 30.11.2011.
(D-136 Page
No.1382 and
1383).
44. Ex.PW-6/D2 Stock statement dated 29.02.2012.
(D-136 Page
No.1384 and
1385).
45. Ex.PW-6/E2 Stock statement dated 31.03.2012.
(D-136 Page
No.1386 and
1387).
46. Ex.PW-6/F2 Stock statement dated 30.04.2012.
(D-136 Page
No.1388 and
1389).
47. Ex.PW-6/G2 Stock statement dated 31.05.2012.
(D-136 Page
No.1390 and
1391).
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.49 Of 372
48. Ex.PW-6/H2 Stock statement dated 30.06.2012.
(D-136 Page
No.1392 and
1393).
49. Ex.PW-6/I-2 Certificate under Section 2A of the
((D-137 Page Banker Book Evidence Act, 1891 r/w
No.1394). Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act.
50. Ex.PW-6/J2 Letter dated 04.06.2014 vide which, he
(D-138 Page had handed over dispatch register from
No.1395). 21.07.2011 to 31.12.2011 to Sub
Inspector Central Bureau of
Investigation.
51. Ex.PW-6/K2 Dispatch register from 21.07.2011 to
(D-139 Page 31.12.2011.
Nos.1396 to
1594).
52. Mark H (D-140 Letter dated 21.08.2014 vide which, Shri
Page No.1595). Prashant Mishra, Chief Manager of the
bank, had handed over documents as
mentioned in the letter to Sub Inspector,
CBI.
53. Ex.PW-6/L2 Letter dated 13.06.2014 vide which, he
(D-143 Page had handed over photocopies of Title
No.1983 to Page Deed Registers from Page No.42 to Page
No. 2025). No.84 to Sub Inspector, CBI.
54. Ex.PW-6/M2 Letter dated 25.10.2013 vide which, he
(D-144 page had handed over copy of internal
No.2026 to 2059). department investigation conducted by
Shri V.K. Dhar to Sub Inspector, CBI.
55. Ex. PW 6/N2 (D-8, Credit Appraisal Format dated
Page no. 200 to 29.03.2011.
Page no. 209).
56. Ex. PW 6/O2 Acceptance of terms and conditions of
( D-8, Page no. loan dated 29.03.2011 signed by Sanjeev
210). Dixit.
57. Ex. PW 6/P2 ( D-8, Letter dated 30.03.2011 certifying
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.50 Of 372
Page no. 211). execution of documents out of free
consent and without any influence
signed by Sanjeev Dixit.
58. Ex. PW 6/Q2 The letter of undertaking for availment
( D-8, Page no. of CC Limit of Rs.4.0 crores against stocks
212 and Page no. signed by Sanjeev Dixit at Point A. The
213). letter is dated NIL.
59. Ex. PW 6/R2 (D-8, The agreement of guarantee dated
Page no. 214 to 30.03.2011 signed by Sanjeev Dixit (since
Page no. 216). P.O).
60. Ex. PW 6/S2 ( D-8, The agreement of guarantee dated
Page no. 217 to 30.03.2011 executed by Sanjay Sharma.
page no. 219).
61. Ex. PW 6/T2 ( D-8, The agreement of guarantee dated
Page no. 220 to 30.03.2011 executed by Indira Rani.
page no. 222).
62. Ex. PW 6/U2 (D-9, Stock statement dated 29.03.2011 of M/s
Page no. 223 to Shankar Metals.
Page no. 225).
63. Ex. PW 6/V2 (D-9, Stock statement dated 07.04.2011 of M/s
Page no. 226 to Shankar Metals.
Page no. 228).
64. Ex. PW 6/W2 (D-9, Stock statement dated 01.05.2011 of M/s
Page no. 229 to Shankar Metals.
Page no. 231).
65. Ex. PW 6/X2 (D-9, Stock statement dated 31.05.2011 of M/s
Page no. 232 to Shankar Metals.
Page no. 234).
66. Ex. PW 6/Y2 (D-9, Stock statement dated 30.06.2011 of M/s
Page no. 235 to Shankar Metals.
Page no. 238).
67. Ex. PW 6/Z2 (D-9, Stock statement dated 31.07.2011 of M/s
Page no. 239 to Shankar Metals.
Page no. 242).
68. Ex. PW 6/A3 Original title deed in respect of property
(D-10, Page no. no. 25, Shyam Industrial Area, Banthla,
243 to Page no. Loni, Ghaziabad, U.P.
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.51 Of 372
277)
69. Ex. PW 6/B3 Sale deed dated 07.02.1967 executed by
(D-10, Page no. M/s Shyam Land and Finance Co. New
278 to Page no. Delhi in favour of Harbans Lal Sharma.
280).
70. Ex. PW6/C3 (D-10, The request letter dated 02.04.2011 for
Page no. 281 acknowledgment of title deed by Sh.
Sanjay Sharma, proprietor of M/s Super
Machines.
71. Ex. PW 6/D3 Carbon copy of Letter of
(D-10, Page no. acknowledgment of title deed dated
282). 04.04.2011 sent to Sanjay Sharma.
72. Ex. PW 6/ E3 Original sale deed dated 24.09.1999
(D-11, Page no. executed by Smt. Shimla Rani in favour of
283 to Page no. Indira Rani in respect of property no. 17B
290). Shri Ram Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi.
73. Ex. PW 6/F3 GPA dated 05.12.1995 executed by
( D-11, page no. Dharam pal in favour of Shimla Rani.
294)
74. Ex. PW 6/G3 Irrevocable GPA dated 14.07.1992
(D-11, page no. executed by Dharampal Goel in favour of
296 to page no. Dharam Pal.
298).
75. Ex. PW 6/H3 Deed of Will dated 14.07.1992 executed
(D-11, page no. by Dharam Pal Goel.
299).
76. Ex. PW 6/I3 (D-11, GPA dated July, 1992 executed by
Page no. 300 to Dharam Pal Goel.
page no. 301).
77. Ex. PW 6/J3 Agreement to Sell dated July, 1992
( D-11, Page no. between Dharam Pal Goel and Sh.
302 to Page no. Dharampal.
303).
78. Ex. PW 6/K3 Affidavit of Sh. Dharampal Goel dated
(D-11, Page no. 14.07.1992.
304).
79. Ex. PW 6/L3 The receipt of Rs.1.50 lacs signed by
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.52 Of 372
(D-11, Page no. Dharam Pal Goel.
305).
80. Ex. PW 6/M3 The sale deed dated 15.12.1989 in
( D-11, Page no. respect of property no. 17B Shri Ram
306 to Page no. Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi executed by Smt.
309). Yogender Kaur in favour of Sh. Dharam
Pal Goel.
81. Ex. PW 6/N3 Carbon copy of acknowledgment of title
(D-11, Page no. deed issued on 04.04.2011 to Smt. Indira
310) Rani.
82. Ex. PW 6/O3 Request letter dated 02.04.2011 for
(D-11, Page no. acknowledgment of title deed from
311). Indira Rani.
83. Ex. PW 6/P3 The original Sale Deed dated 31.01.2011
(D-12, Page no. in respect of property no. C-193, III Floor,
312 to Page no. Vivek Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi in favour of
320). Sanjeev Dixit (since P.O).
84. Ex. PW 6/Q3 The Conveyance Deed dated 03.05.2001
(D-12, Page no. in favour of Sh. R. K. Manchanda
321 to Page no. executed by DDA.
324).
85. Ex. PW 6/R3 Perpetual Lease Deed dated 02.07.1969
(D-12, Page no. executed by DDA in favour of R. K.
325 to Page no. Manchanda.
328).
86. Ex. PW 6/S3 Carbon copy of acknowledgment of title
(D-12, Page no. deed dated 04.04.2011 issued to Sanjeev
329). Dixit.
87. Ex. PW 6/T3 Request letter dated 02.04.2011 from
(D-12, Page no. Sanjeev Dixit to acknowledge deposit of
330). title deed.
88. Ex. PW 6/U3 Original sale deed dated 25.05.2011 in
(D-13, Page no. respect of property no. 121 FIE
331 to page no. Patparganj Industrial Area, Delhi in
338). favour of Sanjeev Dixit ( since P.O) by
Ramji Lal Chawla.
89. Ex. PW 6/V3 Conveyance Deed dated 26.02.2001 in
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.53 Of 372
(D-13, Page no. favour of Ramji Lal Chawla.
339 to Page no.
344).
90. Ex. PW 6/W3 Perpetual Lease Deed dated 04.06.1991
(D-13, Page no. in favour of Ramji Lal Chawla executed
345 to Page no. by Deputy Secretary (Industry), Delhi
356). Administration.
91. Ex. PW 6/X3 Affidavit of Sanjeev Dixit (Since P.O) dated
(D-13, Page no. 25.06.2011.
357).
92. Ex. PW 6/Y3 Request letter dated 27.06.2011 of
(D-13, Page no. Sanjeev Dixit (since P.O) for
358). acknowledgment of title deed.
93. Ex. PW 6/Z3 Request letter dated 25.06.2011 from
(D-13, Page no. Sanjeev Dixit for substitution of property
359). of Vasundhara, Ghaziabad to 121 FIE
Patparganj, Delhi.
94. Ex. PW 6/A4 Office note with approval dated
(D-13, Page no. 25.06.2011 allowing substitution of
360). property.
5.2.7 PW-6 further deposed that loans were to be
disbursed on the basis of certain guidelines issued by
bank in the form of circulars and book of instructions. As
per these guidelines, certain precautions were to be
taken before and after sanction of loan which include
obtaining loan application, preparing confidential
reports, to refer CIBIL data base, conduct of account from
previous banker etc. PW6 deposed further that upon
finding deviations from bank guidelines in the grant of
subject loan, the bank decided to get special
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.54 Of 372
investigation done in the case. The investigation was
assigned to Sh. V.K. Dhar, who submitted his report to the
circle office of the bank. The report was processed by
Sh.Arun Sharma, Manager and Sh.Ajay Kumar Shukla,
Asstt. General Manager. The deviations from guidelines
were investigated by Sh. V.K. Dhar which were approved
by the circle office authority and same led to lodging of
complaint. PW6 referred to various circulars and
guidelines, which are sought to be proved as under:-
Sl. Exhibit Nature of document
No
1. Ex.PW6/B-4 Circular regarding verification of genuineness
(D149 page of voter's identity card/Pan card.
2375).
2. Ex.PW6/C-4 (D Inspection and audit division circular no.
148 pages 30/2010 dated 13.04.2010.
2262-2263).
3. Ex.PW6/D-4 L&A circular 40/2008 dated 18.03.2008.
(D148 page
2292).
4. Ex.PW6/E-4 (D Loans & Advances Circular 42 dated
148 page 2293). 20.03.2009.
5. Ex.PW6/F-4 (D Book of instructions - loans Chapter IX
148 page 2312 Confidential Report - past conduct with
to 2318). existing banks.
6. Ex.PW6/G-4 MISD circular no. 3/2011 dated 10.03.2011.
(D148 page
2306).
7. Ex.PW6/H-4 Loan and advances circular no. 56 dated 8th
(D-149 Page July 2000 pertaining to fraud by deposit of
2376 - 2377). fake title deeds of properties.
8. Ex.PW6/I-4 Law division circular no. 9/Law/2009 dated
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.55 Of 372
(D-148 page 27.08.2009 pertaining to investigation of title
2294 to 2297). and search report.
9. Ex.PW6/J-4 Loan & Advances circular no. 129 dated
(D-149 page 9.12.2010 pertaining to loan application and
2378 - 2380). proposals / Prevention of Frauds - use of
Middlemen/outside consultants.
10. Ex.PW6/K-4 The loans & Advances circular no. 12 dated
(D148 pages 05.02.2007 pertaining to policy on valuation of
2298 to 2305) properties - empanelment of valuers.
11. Ex.PW6/L-4 Chapter XI mortgages check list.
(D-148 page
2308 to 2318).
12. Ex.PW6/M-4 Loan and advances circular no. 58 pertaining
colly. (D-148 to control measures - pre sanction credit
pages 2319 to appraisal and post sanction follow up loan
2373). accounts.
13. Ex.PW6/N-4 The loan and advances circular no 83
(D-148 page pertaining to standardized credit appraisal
2264 - 2288). format.
14. Ex.PW6/O-4 Loans and advances circular no. 15 dated
(D-149 page 31.01.2011 pertaining to standardized credit
2381 to 2388) appraisal format for proposals upto Rs. 2
crore (for SME proposals upto Rs. 5 crore).
15. Ex.PW6/P-4 Loans and advances circular no. 134 dated
(D-149 page 27.10.2009 pertaining to loaning powers &
2389 to 2407). guidelines for exercising such powers at
various levels.
16. Ex.PW6/Q-4 (D Role of an auditor & objectives of concurrent
147 pages 2132 audit.
- 2135).
17. Ex.PW6/R-4 I&A circular no. 21 dated 13.04.2006
(D149 pages pertaining to Risk based internal audit of
2408 - 2416). branches (RBIA).
18. Ex.PW6/S-4 Staff movement register of Punjab National
(D141) Bank, Jor Bagh Branch.
19. Ex.PW6/T-4 Drawing power register of PNB Jor Bagh
(D-142). Branch page no. 92.
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.56 Of 372
5.2.8 PW-6 further deposed that genuineness of
voter card from Chief Election Commissioner website
and that of PAN card from Income Tax Department was
required to be done but no documents regarding any
such verification were found to be available on record,
which was in violation of Ex.PW6/B-4.
5.2.9 He further deposed that any two documents
pertaining to the identity and business of the
proprietary concern were required to be obtained
before opening current account but, in this case, no
such proof was placed on record, which was in violation
of Ex.PW6/C-4. The audited balance sheet submitted by
the party were to be verified from the website of CA
institute, proof of which was also not placed on record
and this was in violation of Ex.PW6/D-4 and Ex.PW6/E-4.
5.2.10 PW-6 further deposed that report from the
existing bankers of the borrower were required to be
obtained while compiling confidential report of
borrower and guarantor but, in the instant case, no
such report was found on record and this was in
violation of Ex.PW6/E-4. Further, the CIR from two
agencies was required to be extracted from their data
base but no CIR of the borrower was extracted from
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.57 Of 372
EQUIFAX/EXPERIAN data base nor CIR in respect of
guarantor was found on record and same was in
violation of Ex.PW6/G-4. Processing Officer Ranjiv
Suneja (A-4) was required to place the findings of
CIBIL/EQUIFAX/ EXPERIAN in the process note but, in
this case, it was not so done and this was also in
violation of Ex.PW6/G-4.
5.2.11 Further he deposes that title deeds deposited
to create equitable mortgage to secure the loan given
to the borrower are to be verified by Panel Advocate as
well as by the branch officers along with registered
letter to be issued in case the title deeds offered as
security are in the name of the third party. But in the
instant case, no such letter was found in record and it
was in violation of Ex.PW6/H-4.
5.2.12 PW-6 further deposed that as per guidelines,
proper record was required to be obtained for
distribution of legal work amongst the panel advocates
but no such records was placed on record. This was in
violation of Ex.PW6/I-4. Loan incharge Ranjiv Suneja
(A-4) was responsible to maintain record pertaining to
distribution of legal work amongst advocates and to
seek opinion of legal expert and architects for legal
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.58 Of 372
opinion and valuation of properties furnished for
mortgage in favour of the bank to secure the loan. In
this case, title deeds were found fake and fabricated.
He further deposed that when he personally visited the
mortgaged properties to take possession under
SARFAESI Act, none of said properties were found to be
occupied by the persons who purportedly mortgaged
them with bank claiming themselves to be the owners.
This was in violation of Ex.PW6/J-4.
5.2.13 He further deposed that the loan was
sanctioned on 29.03.2011 by Smt. K.K. Johar (A-3), the
then Branch Manager and recommended by Ranjiv
Suneja (A-4). Branch was required to obtain complete
legal opinion before creation of mortgage but in this
casc, compliance was not made. In respect of property
No. 25, Sham Industrial Estate, Village Banthala,
Ghaziabad and C-193, Vivek Vihar, Phase-I, Shahdara,
Delhi, N.S. Parihar (A-2) did not file certified copies of
the title deeds with his report dated 26.03.2011. Legal
report dated 22.06.2011 in respect of plot no. 121,
Industrial Area Patparganj was submitted late after
disbursement of loan and said property was substituted
against another property of Vasundara Enclave.
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.59 Of 372
5.2.14 PW-6 further deposed that as per law division
circular Ex.PW6/I-4 (D-148 page 2294), guidelines were
issued for seeking legal opinion in respect of title
search of the property offered for mortgage with the
Bank. Legal search of all the four properties in the
present case was done by N.S. Parihar(A-2), who was a
panel advocate of the bank. The reports in respect of
three mortgaged property i.e. Plot no. 25, Sham
Industrial Area, Bansala, Gaziabad [Ex.PW6/H-1 (D-116
page 1210 to 1227)], property no. 17B, Sri Ram Nagar,
Shahdara, Delhi (Ex.PW6/I-1 (D-118 page 1253 to 1267)]
and property no. C-193, Vivek Vihar, Phase I, Delhi
[Ex.PW6/J-1 (D-119 page 1268 to 1284)] were submitted
on 26.03.2011. While the report in respect of property
bearing no. H.No. 5/1234, M-11, Vasundara, Ghaziabad
[Ex.PW6/K-1 (D-121 page 1285 to 1338)] was submitted
on 16.05.2011. However, said property was later
released on 25.06.2011 and 4th property bearing no.
121, situated at F.I.E. Industrial Area, Patparganj,
Shahdara, Delhi, was got mortgaged in its place and
title search report x.PW6/L-1 (D-122 page 1338 to 1352)]
in respect of said property was submitted on
22.06.2011 by N.S. Parihar (A-2). The loan was
sanctioned to M/s Shankar Metals on 30.03.2011.
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.60 Of 372
Certified copy of title documents was not annexed with
search report Ex.PW6/H-1 and Ex.PW6/J-1 but despite
that, the same was accepted by the concerned officials
of the bank i.e. Smt. Kulwinder Kaur Johar (A-3) and
Ranjiv Suneja (A-4) and same was done against the
circular 9/LAW/2009 dated 27.08.2009 Ex.PW6/I-4
(D-148 page 2294 to 2297).
5.2.15 It was further deposed by PW-6 that the
procedure for valuation of the property was that the
valuer used to visit the property and give his opinion
regarding the value of the property and this was
prescribed vide loans and advances circular no. 12
dated 05.02.2007 Ex.PW6/K-4 (part of D148 page 2298
to 2305). The valuation report in the present case in
respect of three properties i.e. Plot no. 25, Sham
Industrial Estates and properties no. 17-B, Sri Ram
Nagar, Shahadra and C-193, Vivek Vihar, Phase I, Delhi
were given by Sh. Naveen Kamboj, official valuer of the
bank on 24.03.2011. The valuation report in respect of
4th property i.e. H.No. 5/1234, M-11, Vasundra
Ghaziabad was given by Sh. M.L. Nasa on 13.05.2011.
The loan was however, sanctioned on 29.03.2011,
before receipt of valuation report dated 13.05.2011 in
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.61 Of 372
respect of H.No. 5/1234, M-11, Vasundra Ghaziabad and
same was done in contravention of loans and advances
circular no. 12 dated 05.02.2007 Ex.PW6/K-4 (part of
D148 page 2298 to 2305).
5.2.16 Further, it was deposed by PW-6 that, as per
chapter 9 of Book of Instructions-Loans Ex.PW6/F-4
(part of D-148 page 2312 to 2318), the confidential
report of the borrower and the guarantor was to be
prepared by the bank official. This includes visiting the
property offered for mortgage by the proposed
borrower. The visit can be before or after receipt of the
documents of title search and valuation reports. After
the visit, the bank official concerned was required to
prepare a confidential report in specific format
provided in the instruction book itself. As per testimony
of PW-6, the confidential report is prepared prior to
sanction of loan. In the instant case, the confidential
report dated 22.03.2011 Ex.PW6/S (D-106 page 1127 to
1128) in respect of the subject loan was prepared by
Ranjiv Suneja (A-4) and Smt. K.K. Johar (A-3) and in
column no. III (b) of Ex.PW6/S - 'enjoying credit facility
with other bank' was left blank while as per the CIBIL
report of Shankar Metals, a loan of Rs. 5 lacs was
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.62 Of 372
reflected. He further deposed that a staff movement
register was maintained in the bank, which finds
mention of record of visits made by the staff members,
in course of their duties, outside the bank.
5.2.17 PW-6 further deposed that as per confidential
report Ex.PW6/S, in respect of M/s Shankar Metals,;
Ex.PW6/U (D-106 page 1131 to 1132) in respect of
guarantor Sanjay Sharma; Ex.PW6/U dated 22.03.2011
(D-106 page 1133 to 1134) in respect of gaurantor Indra
Rani and Ex.PW6/W (D-106 page 1135 to 1136) dated
22.03.2011 in respect of guarantor Rajesh Aggarwal,
which all were prepared by Ranjiv Suneja (A-4) and Smt.
K.K. Johar (A-3), the date of spot verification of all said
mortgaged properties was shown to be same i.e
08.03.2011, while as per the movement register,
Ex.PW6/S-4 (D141), there was no entry of spot
verification visit of 08.03.2011.
5.2.18 PW-6 further deposes that the loan and
advances circular no. 83 dated 06.07.2009 Ex.PW6/N-4
(part of D148 page 2264 to 2288) and loan and
advances circular no. 15 dated 31.01.2011 Ex.PW6/O-4
(Part of D-148 page 2381 to 2406) relates to prescribed
standard formats for credit appraisal to be prepared
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.63 Of 372
before sanction of loan. The credit appraisal report
Ex.PW6/N-2 (D-8 page 1 to 10) in respect of loan given
to M/s Shankar Metals was prepared by Ranjiv Suneja
(A-4) and the loan was sanctioned by Smt. K.K. Johar
(A-3). The credit appraisal note contains the inputs from
loan application, legal search, confidential report,
valuation of property etc. In the present case also,
credit appraisal was prepared and reflected the
deficiencies in the loan proposed, but despite these
deficiencies, the loan was sanctioned to M/s Shankar
Metals.
5.2.19 He further deposed that in the Loan and
Advances circular no. 134 dated 27.10.2009 Ex.PW6/P-4
(part of D-148 page 2389 to 2407), guidelines for
exercising loaning powers were given. All the guidelines
prescribed in this circular should have been followed
before sanctioning a loan. But, despite the deficiencies
as pointed out by PW6 in his above deposition, the loan
was sanctioned to M/s Shankar in violation of said
guidelines and circulars.
5.2.20 PW6 deposes further that the Loans and
Advances circular no. 58 dated 01.06.2006 Ex.PW6/M-4
(part of D-148 page 2319 to 2373) prescribes control
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.64 Of 372
measures to be followed by the bank before and after
sanction of loan. In the case of M/s Shankar Metals,
primary security was hypothecation of stock and book
debts and collateral security was equitable mortgage of
four properties. He further states that drawing power is
released as per stock and book debt holding of the
borrower periodically which may be monthly or
quarterly and in case of first release of loan, the stock
statement of that date/current date is taken. As per
Drawing Power register page 93 (D-142) already
Ex.PW6/T-4, first stock statement as on 31.03.2011 was
received on 18.04.2011 for a sum of Rs. 3,25,97,415/-
against which the drawing power was to be allowed
keeping margin of 25% while drawing power of Rs. 4
crore was allowed which was not permissible as per
terms of sanction.
5.2.21 He further deposed that the sanction of
Drawing Power was allowed by Mrs. K.K. Johar (A-3). As
per the terms of sanction of the loans, the monthly
stock statement was to be taken from M/s. Shankar
Metals but said schedule was also not followed in the
present case for the months of December, 2011 and
January, 2012. Further, there was no stock statement
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.65 Of 372
after 30.06.2012. As per PW6, after receipt of the stock
statement the bank officials pay visit for the spot
verification of the stock but, in the instant case,
Ex.PW6/T-4 reflects that no inspection was carried out
in the month of May, 2011, October, 2011 and April,
2012 as there are no corresponding entries of any such
visit in the movement register Ex.PW6/S-4 (D-141).
5.2.22 He further deposes that the stock statement
submitted by the party finds noting regarding the date
of the visit of the bank official on it. In the present case
though there is a noting regarding the visit on the stock
statements submitted by M/s. Shankar Metals but there
is no corresponding entry regarding it in the movement
register. Further as deposed by PW-6, the bank officials
who sanctioned the loan are also required to verify the
movement of funds to ensure that the loan amount is
utilized for the purpose for which it has been
sanctioned but in the present case despite diversion of
the loan amount the same was not reported by the
concerned bank officials. The diversion of the loan
amount can be seen from the fact that the payment
was not found to be made to sundry creditors as
reported by the borrower in his financial papers. As per
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.66 Of 372
movement register, Mrs. K.K. Johar (A-3) visited the
premises of M/s Shankar Metals at Loni Shahdara and
Patparganj only in the month of March, 2011 i.e. on
20.03.2011. Except that, there was no other visit made
by her in the month of March 2011.
5.2.23 He further deposed that in chapter 2 of Book
of Instructions Ex.PW6/Q (D-147 page 2132 to 2135),
roles of concurrent auditor were specified. Further, as
per circular no. 21/2006 of inspection and audit division
dated 13.04.2006, procedure of Risk Based Internal
Audit of Bank Branches are given. Concurrent auditor is
required to check bank transactions on daily basis for
the branch allotted to him. In the present case,
concurrent auditor Shri B.C. Katoch had given
comments/deficiencies in his report given in June, 2011
with respect to the subject loan. He had also given one
comment/deficiency in his quarterly report of March,
2011. The original report of March, 2011 given by Shri
B.C. Katoch is Mark PW-6/A (D-147 page 2147 to 2156)
and the original report of June, 2011 is Mark PW-6/B
(D-147 page 2157 to 2178) on record.
5.3.1 PW-76 Sh. Prashant Mishra, the then Chief
Manager, Punjab National Bank, Jor Bagh, Delhi
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.67 Of 372
deposed that vide his letter dated 21.08.2014 Mark H
(D-140), he had handed over certain documents
mentioned therein Ex.PW76/A (Part of D-140) to the IO.
He further deposed that the Movement Register and
D.P. Register, which he had handed over to the IO of the
case were Ex.PW6/S4 (D-141) and Ex.PW6/F4 (D-142)
respectively. Apart from said documents, he had also
handed over the documents as mentioned in
Ex.PW76/A. As deposed by him further, the documents
related to reimbursement of taxi fare by accused K.K.
Johar, the then Chief Manager, were not found on
record. Vide Seizure Memo dated 14.08.2015, he had
also handed over the documents/circulars to the IO as
mentioned therein and the said memo and documents
are Ex.PW76/B (Colly.) (D-149).
5.3.2 He further deposed that vide Seizure Memo
dated 15.05.2015, the documents mentioned therein,
which are Ex.PW76/C (Colly.) (D-150), were also handed
over by him to the IO and the said documents were
related to posting/tenure of Smt. K.K. Johar in Jorbagh
Branch, PNB. The documents related to tenure and
demotion of accused Ranjiv Suenja in Jorbagh Branch,
PNB and the documents related to tenure and
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.68 Of 372
retirement of Baldev Chand Katoch were also handed
over to the IO. He further deposed that there was no
letter on record issued by the Bank to Sh. N.S. Parihar
for conducting legal search of immovable properties
proposed in the account of M/s. Shanker Metals.
6. Witnesses from other branches and offices of
PNB
6.1.1 PW-45 Sh. Rajnish Nangia, Manager (since
retired), Circle Office, Punjab National Bank, South Delhi
deposed that he had joined the investigation of the
present case in November, 2013 and vide his letter
dated 13.11.2013 (D-145) Ex.PW45/A (Colly.) (pages
2060 to 2104), he handed over various documents to
the CBI such as (a) Law Division, Head Office Circular
No. 1/Law/2005 dt. 17.01.2005 containing previous
guidelines on empanelment of Advocates, (b) List of
advocates on approved Panel of South Delhi Circle prior
to 06.10.2012, where the name of Shri N.S. Parihar
appeared at Sr. No. 96 of the list, (c) List of advocates on
approved Panel of South Delhi Circle, post 06.10.2012,
where the name of N.S. Parihar was dropped from
active list, (d) Copies of letters dt. 09.06.2006 and
19.06.2006, conveying approval of Sh. N.S. Parihar, as
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.69 Of 372
approved advocate on Bank's panel w.e.f. 07.06.2006,
and his name appeared at serial no. 96, but as per
06.10 Para, his (N. S. Parihar's) name was dropped from
active list.
6.2.1. PW-58 Sh. Arun Sharma is the Retired officer
from Punjab National Bank. He deposed that he
remained posted in Circle office, PNB, Rajender Place
from December, 2009 till September, 2014. He was
conversant with the procedure of appraisal and
sanction of CC limit. PW-58 was posted as Senior
Manager at the relevant time in the said Circle Office.
His nature of work included (i) dealing with inspection
report and fraud; (ii) Processing and communication of
the said matter to the Head office; (iii) Rectification etc.
Vide the seizure memo dated 09.12.2013 Ex.PW58/A, he
had handed over to CBI certain circulars, instructions,
guidelines of bank issued by the Head Office from time
to time. All the circulars bearing his initials at point A
were exhibited as Ex. PW58/B (Colly) [(Part of the D-48)
(page 2258 to 2373]
6.2.2 Further as per her version, on one more
occasion, he had supplied some more documents vide
another seizure memo dated 26.12.2013 Ex. PW58/C.
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.70 Of 372
The rules and procedure as mentioned in the manual
along with audit reports were also supplied. The
document titled as 'Chapter I Objective of Inspection
and Audit' is Ex.PW58/A. He also identified his
signatures/initials at Point A on the following
documents:-
(i) Audit data for a period 01.01.2011 to 31.03.2011
already marked as Mark PW6/A [Ex.PW58/E (colly)
(Part of D-147)].
(ii) Audit data for the period 01.04.2011 to 30.06.2011
already marked as Mark PW6/B [Ex.PW58/F (colly)
(Part of D-147)].
(iii) Audit data for the period 01.07.2011 to 30.09.2011
Ex.PW58/G (colly) (Part of D-147).
(iv) Annual inspection report for the period
01.01.2011 to 31.12.2011 Ex. PW58/H (colly) [(Part
of D- 147) (page 2179 to 2240)].
(v) The audit data for the period 01.01.2012 to
31.03.2012 already marked as Mark PW6/DB
[Ex.PW58/I (colly) (Part of D-147)].
(v) Control Risk Format of Inspection Report Ex.
PW58/J (colly) (part of D-147).
6.2.3 With regard to requirement of Inspection
and Audit Division Circular No. 43/2010 (Ex. PW6/B4),
circular no. 30/10 dated 13.04.2010 (Ex. PW6/C4),
Circular no. 40/2008, dated 18.03.2008 and circular no.
42 dated 20.03.2009 (Ex. PW6/D4 and Ex. PW6/E4
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.71 Of 372
respectively), MISD circular no. 3/2011 dated 10.03.2021
(Ex. PW6/G4), his (PW58) testimony is more or less on
the lines of deposition of PW6 Sh. C. P. Garg and hence,
his (PW56) version to that extent is not elaborated for
brevity sake.
6.2.4 PW-58 further deposes that besides CIBIL
report, EQUIFAX or EXPERIAL reports are also obtained
and EQUIFAX and EXPERIAL are the names of
alternative independent agencies like CIBIL. He
deposed that this case, no other reports were
obtained/generated except the CIBIL report. He, on
being shown CIBIL report of Sanjeev Dixit dated
04.03.2011, deposed that there were three CIBIL
reports. In the first report, PAN Card number is
mentioned, however, there is no reference of Voter ID
Card or Passport number. In the second and third
report, there are references of KYC documents like PAN
Card and Voter ID Card and that there are differences in
the PAN number and date of birth in all the three
documents.
6.2.5 He further deposed that at page no. 1118,
the CIBIL report mentioned auto loan enquiry of Rs 5
lakhs. Certain queries should have been raised with
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.72 Of 372
regard to disbursement or rejection of the said loan
from the party but, there was no such record in this
regard. On seeing CIBIL report of M/s Shanker Metal
dated 05.11.2012 at page no. 1121 of Ex. PW6/O
(D-104), he deposed that in the present case the loan
was sanctioned on 29.03.2011 but said CIBIL report was
generated on 05.11.2012. The said report should have
been generated before sanction of loan as per rule.
Further no report was obtained of the alternate agency.
6.2.6 He further deposed that the report of
guarantor Sanjay Sharma, Ex. PW6/Q (D-105) EQUIFAX,
was taken on 28.04.2011. As per rules, the said report
should have been generated before sanctioning the
loan. Furthermore, no CIBIL report was generated in
this regard. The report Ex. PW6/R (D-105) EQUIFAX of
guarantor Indira Rani was also taken on 28.04.2011
after sanction of loan and no CIBIL report was
generated even in respect of said guarantor.
6.2.7 Rest of his deposition regarding advance
circular no. 56 dated 08.07.2000, Law Division circular
no. 9/2009 dated 27.08.2009 Ex.PW6/1U in context of
the search reports and the legal reports of the panel
lawyer N.S Parihar in respect of mortgaged properties,
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.73 Of 372
the guidelines contained in Loan & Advance Circular
No. 129 dated 09.12.2010, Ex. PW6/J4, Loan & Advance
Circular No. 12 dated 05.02.2007, Ex. PW6/K4 page no.
2298-2305) is on same lines as deposed by PW6.
6.2.8 PW-58 further deposed that the valuation
report dated 13.05.2011 (Ex. PW6/G1 D-115) in respect
of H. No. 5/1234, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad, was
submitted by Brigadier M.L. Nasa. In the loan account
of M/s Shanker Metal, the valuation report (Ex. PW6/G1)
was submitted on 13.05.2011 whereas, loan was
sanctioned on 29.03.2011. The branch officer should
have taken the valuation report of the all the properties
before disbursement of the loan. As per Chapter 9 of
Confidential Report, the CR should contain full and
reliable record of character business activity and credit
worthiness of all individual firms, corporate bodies who
are under any form of liability to the bank. As per
circular no. 58/2006 Ex. PW6/M4, incumbent while
giving loan proposal form should ensure that the
particulars furnished by borrower on the loan
application form have been duly verified and
discrepancies, if any, observed have been indicated in a
separate sheet attached to the loan proposal. The
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.74 Of 372
incumbent should keep a watch on operations in
borrower's account so that cases of diversion of funds,
if any, could be brought to the light at earliest
opportunity for taking coercive action.
6.2.9 It was further deposed by PW-58 that the
confidential report (CR) already Ex PW6/U (part of
D-106) was prepared by accused Ranjiv Suneja and K.K.
Johar on 22.03.2011. The address of Sanjay Sharma,
guarantor was shown as '414, Shakarpur, Delhi'. As per
the said CR, the property was shown to be visited by
K.K. Johar on 08.03.2011. As per record, there is no
reference to said visit to above premises by the bank
officials on given date. Further, there is no reference in
movement register regarding visit of the officials on
said date. Similarly, he deposed about confidential
report (CR) Ex PW6/S (part of D-106), Ex PW6/V (part of
D-106) dated 22.03.2011 prepared by accused Ranjiv
Suneja and K.K. Johar, saying that as per the said CR
reports, the property was shown to be visited by K.K.
Johar on 08.03.2011 but, there is no reference to even
visits on the given date in movement register.
6.2.10 He further deposed that as per CR, NEC of
the property to be mortgaged were shown to have
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.75 Of 372
been taken on date of CR whereas, as per record, the
NECs of the above properties were submitted by N.S.
Parihar on 26.03.2011. As per record, the NEC was
obtained after the preparation of CR meaning thereby,
that the CR was not prepared as per factual position.
Further that the CR of Sh. Rajesh Aggarwal dated
22.03.2011 already Ex. PW6/W (part of D-106), was
prepared by accused Ranjiv Suneja and K.K. Johar on
22.03.2011. The address of Sh. Rajesh Aggarwal,
guarantor is shown as '5/1234, M-11, Vasundhara,
Ghaziabad, UP'. In the CR, it is clearly mentioned that
the NEC report was yet to be received, which as per
record, was submitted on 16.05.2011 [Ex. PW6/K1
(D-121)].
6.2.11 PW-58 further deposed that the Loan and
Advance circular dated already Ex. PW6/M-4 (part of
D-148) and Loan & Advance circular of exhibited as
PW6/O-4 (part of D-149) were in respect of standard
appraisal format. As per CR of Sh. Rajesh Aggarwal, the
property bearing House No. 5/1234, M-11, Vasundhara,
Ghaziabad, UP was owned by Sh. Rajesh Aggarwal
whereas, as per the valuation report [already Ex.
PW6/G-1 (D-115)], the owner of the above property was
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.76 Of 372
Sanjeev Dixit. In appraisal note Ex. PW6/N2 (D-8),
against column no. 3 (b), there was a query i.e. whether
the borrower was in defaulter list. Against the said
column, the answer recorded by bank officials was 'NO.
AS PER CIBIL THE PARTY AS NOT ANY CREDIT FACILITY
IN THE PAST FROM ANY OF THE FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONS' whereas, as per CIBIL report [already
Ex. PW6/O (D-104)], there was inquiry of auto loan of Rs.
5 lakh, the witness PW-58 deposed.
6.2.12 He further deposed that as per CIBIL Report
(dated 04.03.2011) of accused Sanjeev Dixit Ex. PW6/O
(D-104), the PAN Number of accused Sanjeev Dixit (A-1)
was mentioned as AITPD889M, the date of birth as
10.7.1973, the Voter ID Card as DL/04/043/171289 and
the address was mentioned as 232, Jagriti Enclave.
Another CIBIL Report dated 04.03.2011, in respect of
same very accused Sanjeev Dixit (A-1) was at page no.
1120 having different PAN number as ASDPD7032N and
different date of birth was mentioned as 01.01.1973.
The Voter ID Card and the address are, however, the
same as DL/04/043/171289 and 232, Jagriti Enclave
respectively.
6.2.13 He further deposed that the Loan and
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.77 Of 372
Advance Circular No. 134 Ex. PW6/P4 (part of D-149)
was related to exercise of loaning power at various
levels and all the powers were to be exercised
judiciously in terms of and subject to guidelines given
in book of instructions, various operative circulars and
various schemes in operation. But, in this case, despite
several irregularities, loan was sanctioned and
disbursed. Further, as per loans and advances circular
no. 58/2006 on pre and post disbursal follow-up, all
favourable and adverse features should be specifically
mentioned in the proposal alongwith the comments
and justification for the proposed credit facility. But,
recommending and sanctioning authority did not
mention any deficiency in the proposal note. This
circular also stipulates that the incumbent should keep
a watch on the operation of borrower account so that
cases of diversion funds if any, should be brought to
light at the earliest. However, no such follow-up was
done and credit facilities were used for diversion of
funds. For calculating drawing power (DP) in the
account, borrower had to submit statement of stocks
and debtors and thereafter, inspection was required to
be done about the correctness of the statement for
calculating drawing power.
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.78 Of 372
6.2.14 Further, page no. 92 of DP register already
exhibited as Ex. PW6/T4 (D-142) was pertaining to M/s
Shankar Metals. As per said register, the first inventory
submitted by the borrower was amounting to Rs.
325.97 lakhs and maintaining a margin of 25% as per
terms of sanction, the DP should have been of Rs. 244
lakh. Whereas, the branch had released the DP as 400
lakhs. As per the DP Register Ex. PW6/T4, inventories
dated 31.5.2011, 31.10.2011 and 30.4.2012 were not
inspected and DP was released without inspection of
Inventories. For the month of December, 2011, January,
2012 and 31.7.2012 onwards, inventories were not
submitted. On 06.11.2012, visiting official had
mentioned in the register that no stock was found at
the given address. It was the duty of the Branch Official
to calculate the DP and release the same for further
operation in the account. Inventory of stock and
debtors had to be verified in rotation by the branch
officials.
6.2.15 Further, as deposed by PW-58, stock
statement dated 30.6.2011 Ex. PW6/X2 (part of D-9),
was inspected on 06.7.2011, stock statement dated
31.7.2011 Ex. PW6/Z2 (part of D-9) was inspected on
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.79 Of 372
14.8.2011, stock statement dated 30.9.2011 Ex. PW6/A2
(D-136) was inspected on 20.10.2011, stock statement
dated 30.11.2011 Ex. PW6/C2 (D-136) was inspected on
15.12.2011, but as per movement register Ex. PW6/S4
(D-141), there were no entries with regard to said
inspections. Further, there were no entries with regard
to inspection of stock statement dated 31.8.2011 Ex.
PW6/Z1 (D-136), stock statement dated 31.10.2011 Ex.
PW6/B2 (D-136), stock statement dated 29.02.2012 Ex.
PW6/D2 (D-136) and stock statement dated 31.3.2012
Ex. PW6/E2 (D-136), meaning thereby, that no
inspection was carried out to verify said stock
statements.
6.2.16 He further deposed that as per page no.
1389 of stock statement dated 30.4.2012 Ex. PW6/F2
(D-136); page no. 1391 of stock statement dated
31.5.2012 Ex. PW6/G2 (D-136)and page no. 1393 of
stock statement dated 30.6.2012 Ex. PW6/H2 (D-136),
the said stock statements were not inspected. The
incumbent/managers and loan officers were
responsible for monitoring the diversion of funds as the
loan amounts ought to be used for paying the amount
of the business transactions/for which purpose the loan
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.80 Of 372
was granted.
6.2.17 Further, as deposed by PW-58, Chapter-II,
role of Auditor and Objectives of Concurrent Audit Ex.
PW6/O (part of D-147) provides duties and
responsibilities of the Concurrent Auditor. The circular
no. 21/2006 towards Risk Base Internal Audit of
Branches dated 13.4.2006 Ex. PW6/R4 (part of D-149)
explains how the various risks are assessed and rating
of the branch is confirmed. He further deposed that as
per Quarterly Audit Report dated 31.3.2011 Ex. PW58/E
(part of D-147), the only irregularity pointed out by the
Auditor in the account of M/s Shankar Metal was that
documents were not filled, left blank and EM were not
credited.
6.2.18 PW-58 further deposed that irregularity
pointed out in Audit Report dated 30.6.2011 Ex. PW58/F
(part of D-147), which was a quarterly report, was
regarding BMs visit-cum-valuation report, certifying
valuation of IP being on record, lack of photographs of
the mortgaged property on record and mortgager's
signature on letter of intent. The only irregularity
pointed out in the Audit Report dated 30.9.2011 Ex.
PW58/G (part of D-147) reads as stocks are not being
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.81 Of 372
checked in rotation by different officials, stocks not
checked for the month of May,2011, June, 2011 and July,
2011. He further deposed that as per Annual Inspection
Report Ex. PW58/H (part of D-147), the concurrent
auditor had pointed out that risk rating was over due in
the account of M/s Shankar Metals.
6.2.19 It was further deposed by PW-58 after going
through Quarterly Audit Report for the period January,
2012 till 31.3.2012 Ex. PW58/I (Part of D-147), the
auditor had pointed out in the count of M/s Shankar
Metals that the account was running irregularity by 7.43
lakhs, sales were not being routed through the account,
sales were routed only for Rs. 596.67 lakhs against it's
projection of Rs. 3300 lakhs. The conduct of the account
was not satisfactory.
6.2.20 PW-58 further deposed that the Law Division
Circular No. 9/2009 was contained various
guidelines/instructions which were necessary to be
followed while submitting the search report and
carrying out title investigation. He deposes further that
in case of mortgages created/extended to secure fresh
facilities/enhancements, the non-encumbrance
certificate/search report needs to further
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.82 Of 372
obtained/updated. Original title deed should be
submitted by the mortgager for legal investigation and
in no case, advocate should give opinion on the basis of
photocopy/certified copy of the title deed. The original
title deed after legal opinion/NEC should come from the
advocate directly to the Bank and in no case, the
advocate should handover the same to the
mortgager/party. Certified copy of the title deed is to be
obtained from the concerned office of the Sub-
Registrar/Registrar of Insurances so as verify the
genuineness of the title deed submitted before the
Bank. The Branch Officer should also cross-check the
contents of the registration particulars and
photographs.
6.3.1 PW-59 Sh. Vipin Kumar Arora, Retd. Head
Clerk, Punjab National Bank, Shahdara, Delhi deposed
that vide letter dated 11.06.2015, he had handed over
three cheques dated 31.03.2011, 26.09.2011 and
26.09.2011 Ex.PW59/A (Colly.) (D-160) to CBI. He further
deposed that the letter dated 19.06.2015 was written by
him in his own handwriting (at point A) and it was
signed by Sh. P.K. Jain, Manager and he (PW-59) had
worked under him. Vide said letter, six cheques were
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.83 Of 372
handed over to the CBI officer. The said letter along
with six cheques is Ex.PW59/B (colly) (D-161). PW-59
also proved on record the Statement of Account for the
period w.e.f 01.01.2010 to 13.12.2012 of the account of
M/s. Ganesh Enterprises of proprietor Sh. Rajeev
Sharma along with supporting Certificate under Section
2A of the Bankers' Book of Evidence Act as Ex.PW 59/C
(colly) (part of D-161). PW-59 also deposed regarding
various debit and credit entries of said statement of
account.
6.4.1 PW-65, Sh. Virender Kumar Dhar @ V.K. Dhar,
is the Ex-Chief Concurrent Auditor, Punjab National
Bank, BO IBB, Barahkhamba Road, New Delhi. As per
his deposition, he remained posted at said branch for a
period of three years till he retired in Nov, 2013 as Chief
Concurrent Auditor. Further he deposed that he had
studied the file of the loan account of M/s. Shanker
Metals and given his report/observation after going
through the original record. He proved on record his
investigation report dated 29.10.2012 as Ex.PW65/A-
colly. (part of D-144). He deposed that as per his
investigation, Mrs. K. K. Johar (accused), the Chief
Manager, Sh. Ranjeev Suneja (accused), the
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.84 Of 372
Recommending Authority and Sh. B.C. Katoach, the Sr.
Concurrent Auditor were responsible for lapses and
short comings.
6.4.2 As per his (PW-65) version, if a person
applies for loan of Rs. 9 crores, the proposal should
have been submitted to the higher authorities above
the branch level but the subject proposal was never
sent to any higher authorities for which K.K. Johar and
accused Ranjeev Suneja were responsible. He deposed
that as per Confidential Report Ex.PW6/S (D-106), the
spot verification of M/s. Shanker Metals, Sanjeev Dixit,
Sanjay Sharma, Rajesh Aggarwal and Smt. Indra Rani
was done on 08.03.2011 but in the movement register
Ex.PW6/S-4 (D-141), there was no such entries of the
visit of 08.03.2011. As per the procedure, the NEC
report should have come before the date of
Confidential Report but in the instant case, the
Confidential Report was prepared on 22.03.2011 by
accused K. K. Johar, Incumbent Incharge and Sh.
Ranjeev Suneja, Credit Investigator whereas, the Non
Encumbrance Certificate (NEC) was given by accused
N.S. Parihar, Advocate on 26.03.2011. PW65 further
deposed that the Appraisal/Sanction Note was dated
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.85 Of 372
29.03.2011 whereas, the NEC in respect of property no.
4 (H.No. 5/1234, Vasundara, District Ghaziabad) was
dated 16.05.2011, which was done in violation of the
procedure.
6.4.3 As per his version, Ex.PW6/T-4 (D-142) is the
Drawing Power Register and it was maintained to note
the stock entries of the borrower. On the basis of the
total value of the stock, after deducting 25% margin,
the credit/loan can be given up to the remaining level of
75% of the total value. For making the entries of the
stock in the said Register, visit of the bank officials is
also essential. Whereas, there was no entry in the
aforementioned DP register of the verification date. As
per his version, entries are made firstly, when the stock
statement is received and secondly, when the same is
verified.
6.4.4 He deposed that the stock statement for the
month of March, 2011 was received on 18.04.2011, for
April, 2011 on 16.05.2011, for May, 2011 on 14.06.2011,
for June, 2011 on 08.07.2011, for July, 2011 on
12.08.2011, for August, 2011 on 09.09.2011, for
September, 2011 on 22.10.2011, for October, 2011 on
16.11.2011 and for November, 2011, it was received on
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.86 Of 372
13.12.2011. PW-65 further deposed that as per
Movement Register Ex.PW6/S-4 (D-141), there was no
entry of the visits of the bank officials in respect of
aforementioned stock statement as shown in DP
Register. The said visit was to be conducted at the unit
of the borrower.
6.5.1 PW-71 Sh. Sadananda Sahoo, is Retd.
General Manager, Vigilance Department, HO 7, Bhikaji
Cama Place, New Delhi-110607, through whom CBI
sought to prove the prosecution sanction granted for
prosecution of accused Ranjiv Suneja. As per his version
prosecution sanction Ex.PW71/A (Colly.) (D-174) (Court
File Part-IV) was accorded by Sh. Anil Kumar Khosla, the
then DGM, Punjab National Bank, Rajender Bhawan,
Rajendra Place, New Delhi, whose signature he
identified on said document at point A. He deposed that
he had remained posted in the Vigilance Department,
Punjab National Bank as DGM (Vigilance) from 2012 till
September 2015 and vide his letter dated 29.09.2015
addressed to DIG, CBI, BS&FC, at point A, he forwarded
said prosecution sanction of accused Ranjiv Suneja to
the CBI. He proved the aforementioned letter dated
29.09.2015 alongwith prosecution sanction as
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.87 Of 372
Ex.PW71/A (Colly.) (D-174) (Court File Part-IV).
7. Empaneled Valuer
7.1.1 PW-64 Sh. Madan Lal Nasa @ M.L. Nasa,
Government Valuer deposed that he was empaneled
valuer of PNB during the period from 2004 till 2014. He
identified his signature at Point A on letter dated
13.05.2011 addressed to Chief Manager, PNB, Jor Bagh
Branch, Ex.PW6/G-1-colly., (D-115). He further deposed
that the Valuation Report dated 13.05.2011 in respect of
residential building bearing H.No. 5/1234 (M-11)
Residential Colony, Sector 5, Vasundhara, Tehsil
Ghaziabad attached with the above said letter was
issued by him and bears his signature at point A on
each page [(part of Ex.PW6/G-1-colly (D-115)]. As per
Valuation Report, the market value of the said property
was Rs.2.13 crores and the realizable value of the
property was Rs. 1.70 crores as on the date of filing of
the said report.
7.2.1 PW-78 Sh. Naveen Kamboj deposed that he
had worked as valuer for immovable property in Punjab
National Bank from 2006 till he lost his vision in June
2020. During the aforementioned period, he had made
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.88 Of 372
valuation report in respect of one house in Shahdara
and one flat in Vivek Vihar, Delhi and one factory in
Loni, in respect of loan applied by one borrower Mr.
Dixit whose photographs were perhaps enclosed with
the valuation report. He did not remember the exact
address of the said properties due to long gap of time.
However, on account of loss of vision, PW78 was unable
to identify his reports. On account of complete loss of
vision, he could not identify any document or his
signature on any document. He deposed that in respect
of said properties, he had prepared a written report
duly signed by him and he had handed over the same
to the concerned branch.
8. Witnesses from other Banks (other than PNB)
8.1.1 PW-11 Sh. Indravadan Dhawan, Retired
Manager, Canara Bank, Rajinder Nagar, Ghaziabad. He
proved on record his written reply dated 11.12.2013 Ex.
PW11/A (colly)(D-78, Page- 499 to 505) vide which, he
provided CBI with the information pertaining to current
account no. 2867201000038. He deposed that said
current account no. 2867201000038 was in the name of
M/s Busicom System, which was opened on 08.04.1982
with the current account no. 89. As per their CBS
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.89 Of 372
System, the said account was migrated into new
account no. 2867201000038 in the year 2008. As per his
deposition, the said account was in the name of M/s
Busicom System through its proprietor Sh. Rakesh
Khullar and not in the name of M/s Shankar Metals.
8.2.1 PW-52 Sh. Ram Lagan Singh, earlier posted
as Manager in Punjab National Bank, Scope Tower,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi (since Retired) deposed that he had
joined PNB as Agricultural Officer on 07.01.1985. On
05.07.2011, he joined as Chief Manager, PNB, Branch
Shahadar and remained posted their till 02.06.2014.
Vide letter dated 23.12.2013 Ex.PW 52/A (D-89), he had
supplied the documents accompanying with the said
letter to CBI. The documents were (i) Original account
opening form (11 pages) Ex.PW 52/A (colly) (D-89); (ii)
KYC documents of (4 pages) Ex.PW 52/A (colly) (D-89);
and (iii) Statement of Account (21 pages) Ex.PW 52/A
(colly) (D-89), of the account of M/s. Ganesh Enterprises,
which was opened through its proprietor Sh. Rajeev
Sharma. The Statement of Account of M/s. Ganesh
Enterprises was certified by Sh. Sunil Khattar, Manager
in the said branch whose signature he identified at
point 'A' on each page and the said documents were
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.90 Of 372
also attested by him (PW-52) at point 'B' on each page.
He had also issued a certificate under Section 2A of the
Bankers Book of Evidence Act read with Section 65B of
Indian Evidence Act bearing his signature at point A, in
respect of said documents.
8.2.2 PW-52 further deposed that as per entry
made on 31.03.2011 in the aforesaid Statement of
Account, part of Ex. PW52/A an amount of Rs. 22 lakhs
was credited in said account from M/s. Shanker Metals.
On the same day, Rs. 6 lakhs was withdrawn by Sh.
Rajeev Sharma. As per entry made on 25.04.2011, an
amount of Rs. 5 lakhs was deposited in the said account
from M/s. Shanker Metals. On the same day, Rs. 4.5
lakhs was withdrawn by Sh. Rajeev Sharma.
8.2.3 As per entry made on 19.05.2011 in the
aforesaid Statement of Account, part of Ex. PW52/A an
amount of Rs. 8,65,000 was deposited in the said
account from M/s. Shanker Metals. On the same day,
Rs. 6.5 lakhs was transferred through RTGS in favour of
Sai Trading Corporation. Further, on the same day Rs. 2
lakhs was withdrawn by Sh. Rajeev Sharma in cash. As
per entry made on 13.06.2011, an amount of Rs.15
lakhs was deposited in the said account from M/s.
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.91 Of 372
Shanker Metals. On the same day, Rs. 5 lakhs was
withdrawn by Sh. Rajeev Sharma. Later on 22.06.2011
and 27.06.2011, he (Rajeev Sharma) had withdrawn
further amount of Rs. 5 lakhs and Rs. 1,50,000/-
respectively.
8.3.1 PW-53 Sh. Roshan Lal, the then Manager in
Canara Bank, 177, Saini Enclave, Karkardooma, Delhi
deposed that Ex.PW 53/A (colly.) was the statement of
account pertaining to the account no. 3333261000003
of M/s. Ganesh Enterprises-proprietor Sheetal Sharma
existing in Canara Bank, Karkardooma. On 16.11.2011,
Rs. 9,88,000/- were credited from Shankar Metals in the
said account. On 18.11.2011, Rs.10,18,000/- was
transferred to Jagdamba Metals through clearing from
the said account. On 06.06.2011, an amount of Rs.
8,41,000/- was credited in the said account through
clearing. On 07.06.2011, an amount of Rs. 3,50,000/-
was transferred to the said account through Sharp
Sanitation. On 13.06.2011, an amount of Rs. 5,23,000
was transferred through clearing but he did not know
to whom the said amount was transferred as the same
was not reflected in the said entry.
8.3.2 He further deposed that Ex.PW 53/A (colly.)
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.92 Of 372
also contained statement of A/c No. 3333201000039 of
M/s. Katara Metals -proprietor Rajeev Katara existing in
Canara Bank, Karkardooma. On 25.10.2011, an amount
of Rs. 12,50,000 was transferred in the said account
from Shanker Metals. On the same day i.e. on
25.10.2011, an amount of Rs. 12,50,000 was transferred
from the said account to Sharp Sanitation. On the same
day, an amount of Rs. 12,50,000 was cash withdrawn
from the account of Sharp Sanitation, which was
reflected from the separate statement of account of
Sharp Sanitation. On 27.04.2011, an amount of Rs.
25,75,185 was received from 232, Jagriti Enclave and on
the same day Rs. 9 lakhs were transferred to Sharp
Sanitation. On the same day, Rs. 9,50,000 was cash
withdrawn by Sh. Devender and on 29.04.2011, Rs. 7
lakhs was withdrawn in cash by Sh. Devender.
8.3.3 As deposed by PW-53, Ex.PW 53/A (colly.)
also contained statement of account of M/s. Rajdhani
Traders, proprietor Jitendra Singh, bearing A/c No.
3333201000074 existing in Canara Bank, Karkardooma.
On 27.12.2011, an amount of Rs. 9,97,700 was
transferred in the said account from Shanker Metals.
On the same day, an amount of Rs. 16,27,838 was
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.93 Of 372
received through RTGS in the above account but he was
not able to say from whom, the said amount was
received as there was no such entry. On 27.12.2011, an
amount of Rs.3 lakhs was transferred to Sh. Nitin from
the said account. On 28.12.2011, an amount of Rs. 20
lakhs was transferred from the above account to Sanya
Enterprises. On 30.12.2011, an amount of Rs. 24,60,000
was credited in the above said account of Rajdhani
Traders from Shanker Metals. On 31.12.2011, Rs.
5,91,000 was transferred to Sanya Enterprises from the
said account. On 31.12.2011, Rs. 21,36,000 was
transferred from Sanya Enterprises to Sharp Sanitation.
On the same day, Rs. 21,35,700 was transferred from
Sharp Sanitation to Shanker Metals. On 27.05.2011, Rs.
15,63,885 was received in the above account (M/s.
Rajdhani Traders) from 232, Jagriti Enclave. On
27.05.2011, Rs. 3,10,800 was transferred from the
above said account to Ganesh Enterprises. On
28.05.2011, Rs. 2,40,685 and Rs. 2,10,000 were
transferred to Ganesh Enterprises through clearing.
8.3.4 He further deposed that on 27.05.2011, Rs.
3,06,500 were transferred from above account
(Rajdhani Traders) vide cheque no. 318704 to Sai
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.94 Of 372
Trading Corporation. On 28.05.2011, Rs. 4,86,200 was
transferred from the above account (M/s. Rajdhani
Traders) to Sanya Enterprises. On 31.05.2011, an
amount of Rs.50,000 and Rs. 4,15,362 were transferred
from Sanya Enterprises through clearing. On
28.05.2011, Rs. 356000 was transferred from the above
account (M/s. Rajdhani Traders) to Diya Sanitation. On
31.05.2011, an amount of Rs.40,000 was transferred
from Diya Sanitation through clearing. PW53 also gave
Certificate u/s 2A of Bankers Book of Evidence Act read
with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act (Ex.PW53/B)
in respect of all the statement of accounts supplied by
him through Ex.PW53/A (Colly).
8.4.1 PW-54 Sh. Arunendra Pratap Singh @ A.P.
Singh, Chief Manager, Allahabad Bank, C-25, Sector-15,
Vasundhra, Gaziabad, U.P. deposed that he remained
posted at Vasundhara, Ghaziabad Branch of Allahabad
Bank from 2013 to 2015 as Chief Manager. During said
period, he handed over certain documents to CBI. Vide
letter dated 17.12.2013, Ex.PW54/A (D-90), he supplied
(i) Original certified account opening form of Future Tap
Sanitation of account no. 50031303100, (ii) Original
account opening form along with KYC documents of
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.95 Of 372
account no. 50070477091 of M/s Paras Metals and (iii)
Original account opening form along with KYC
documents of account no. 50070133956 of M/s
Jagdamba Metals.
8.4.2 PW-54, after seeing the account opening
form of CC/current account no. 50032673386 of Future
Tap Sanitation, he deposed that the said account was
opened on 01.06.2010 in their Vasundhara, Ghaziabad
Branch in the name of Future Tap Sanitation through
Sh. Sanjeev Dixit, proprietor, R/o 232, Jagriti Enclave,
New Delhi. The CC Limit was sanctioned for an amount
of Rs.2.80 crore. Sushil Kumar Sharma was the
guarantor of the said loan. The accused Sanjeev Dixit
had offered property bearing 232, Jagriti Enclave, New
Delhi as collateral security. The CC account became NPA
in the year 2012 due to non-payment of
amount/interest and the sanction limit was also
exceeded. After declaration of said CC account as NPA,
the bank had filed a suit before DRT and DRT found that
the title deed offered as collateral security i.e. 232,
Jagriti Enclave, New Delhi as defective and not
enforceable.
8.4.3 Further, after seeing loan account form
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.96 Of 372
along with KYC documents Ex.PW54/B (colly) (D-90),
PW-54 deposed that the said account opening form was
duly attested/certified by Senior Manager Sh. S.K.
Divedi and he identified his signature along with official
seal at point A on each page. The account statement of
Future Tap Sanitation in respect of account no.
50032673386 Ex.PW54/C, was stated to be bearing
signature of Sh. S.K. Dwivedi at point A on each page.
He further deposed that the account no. 50070477091
was opened in the name of Paras Metals through Sh.
Rahul Mudgal vide account opening form Ex.PW54/D,
along with KYC documents, which were certified by Sh.
S.K. Dwivedi, Sr. Manager. As per PW54, the statement
of said account no. 50070477091 Ex.PW54/E, was also
certified by Sh. S.K. Dwivedi, Senior Manager.
8.4.4 He further deposed that the account
no.50070133956 was opened in the name of Jagdamba
Metals through Sh. Sanjeev Dixit and the account
opening form Ex.PW54/F along with KYC documents
were also stated to be certified by Sh. S.K. Dwivedi, Sr.
Manager. The statement of said account Ex.PW54/G was
certified by Sh. S.K. Dwivedi, Senior Manager whose
signatures PW54 identified as he (PW54) had worked
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.97 Of 372
with him and had seen him writing during official
course of his duties. PW54 proved on record certificate
under Section 2A of the Bankers' Book of Evidence Act
read with Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act,
Ex.PW54/H, bearing his signature at Point A and
deposed that said certificate was issued by him in
respect of all the statement of accounts mentioned
above.
8.4.5 PW54 deposed that as per statement of
accounts, the following amounts were transferred from
the account of Shanker Metals-PNB in the following
accounts:
Number/ Owner Date of Cheque Amount Total
Name of of Transaction No. in Rs. Amount
Account Account
50070133956 Sanjeev 23.08.11 21,15,000 21,15,000
, M/s. Dixit
Jagdamba
Metals at
Allahabad
Bank,
Vasundhara
Ghaziabad
50032673386 Sanjeev 06.07.2011 545514 15,20,000 53,29,600
Future Tap Dixit and 26,38,000
Sanitation 19.07.2011
11,71,600
24.05.2011
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.98 Of 372
50070477091 Rahul 10.09.2011 17,98,600 38,43,600
M/s. Paras Mudgal 23.08.2011 20,45,000
Metals at
Allahabad
Bank,
Vasundhara,
Ghaziabad
(paid by
RTGS)
8.4.6 It was further deposed by PW-54 that as per
the bank transactions of Jagdamba Metals (account no.
50070133956), Proprietor Sh. Sanjeev Dixit at Allahabad
Bank, Ghaziabad, on 23.08.2011 an amount of Rs.
21,15,000 was received from Shanker Metals and Rs. 20
lakhs was cash withdrawn paid to Rahul on 28.08.2011.
The transaction of Future Tap Sanitation (account no.
50032573386) Proprietor, Sanjeev Dixit exists in
Allahabad Bank, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad. In this
account Rs. 15,20,000/- was credited from the account
of M/s. Shanker Metals on 06.07.2011 vide clearing
cheque no. 545514. On 08.07.2011 and 11.07.2011, Rs.
9,50,000 and Rs. 2 lakhs were respectively withdrawn in
cash. On 19.07.2011, Rs. 26,38,000 was credited in the
account of M/s. Future Tap Sanitation from the account
of M/s. Shanker Metals. On 20.07.2011 and 22.07.2011
Rs. 9,58,000 (paid to Sh. Sanjeev Kumar) and Rs.
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.99 Of 372
8,60,000 (paid to Sachin) were cash withdrawn. On
24.05.2011, Rs. 11,71,600 was credited in the account of
M/s. Future Tap Sanitation from the account of M/s.
Shanker Metals. On 26.05.2011, the amount Rs.
2,63,300/-, 2,64,800/-, Rs. 248500/- and Rs. 248500/-
were withdrawn through clearing.
8.4.7 PW-54 further deposed that the transaction
of M/s. Paras Metals (50070477091), Proprietor Sh.
Rahul Mudgal exists in Allahabad Bank, Vasundhara,
Ghaziabad. On 10.09.2011, Rs. 17,98,600 was credited
in the account of M/s. Paras Metal from the account of
M/s. Shanker Metals. On 12.09.2011 vide cheque no.
377712 Rs. 18,00,055 were transferred to Jagdamba
Metals through RTGS. On 23.08.2011, Rs. 20,45,000 was
credited in the account of M/s. Paras Metals from the
account of M/s. Shanker Metals. On 24.08.2011, vide
cheque no. 377705, Rs. 20 lakhs was cash withdrawn.
As per PW 54, the said transactions amount to diversion
of funds from the account of M/s. Shanker Metals.
8.5.1 PW-56, Sh. Devendra Kumar Sharma @ D.K.
Sharma is the Retd. Manager of Syndicate Bank, Mehra
Chamber, Desh Bandu Gupta Road, Dev Nagar, Delhi-05.
As per his version, during his tenure in said branch, a
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.100 Of 372
loan account of a firm M/s. Sai Shyam Enterprises
owned by Sanjay Sharma, was transferred to Mehra
Branch from Nirman Vihar Branch, who had already
filed a recovery proceedings in respect of said loan
before DRT. As a collateral security, the property
bearing no. 25, Shyam Industrial Area, Loni, Ghaziabad
was mortgaged with the bank by the borrowers and the
bank had taken physical possession of the said property
immediately after filing the said case/application in
DRT. The said property was sold by the DRT in 2016-
2017 and only part recovery of the due amount was
made.
8.6.1 PW-62 is Sh. Mahabir Singh, Chief Manager,
Allahabad Bank, C-25, Sector-15, Allahabad Bank,
Vasundhra, Gaziabad, U.P. (since retired). He deposed
that during his tenure in said branch, he had joined the
investigation of this case and vide letter dated
12.06.2015, he handed over certain cheques (image of
clearing cheques) and details of the payments with his
certificate under Section 2A of Bankers Book of
Evidence Act read with Section 65B of Indian Evidence
Act to the IO. The image copies of the clearing cheques
were certified by him and same bears his signature at
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.101 Of 372
point B on each image copy. PW62 proved on record
said documents as Ex.PW62/A (colly) (D-162). He had
also endorsed the table of transaction which had been
mentioned in the forwarding letter dated 12.06.2015
(part of Ex.PW62/A). He further deposed that Ex.PW54/A
i.e. statement of accounts of Future Tap Sanitation,
Paras Metals and Jagdamba Metals were issued by his
bank and the relevant entries of the said statements
had been mentioned in the aforesaid table.
8.7.1 PW-67 Sh. Man Pal Singh @ M.P. Singh, the
then Manager, Canara Bank, Karkardooma Branch,
Delhi-92. As per his version, he remained posted in the
Saini Enclave, Karkardooma Branch of Canara Bank
from 07.07.2014 till 04.04.2016 and during that period,
he had handed over certain documents to the CBI. He
proved on record the Production-cum-Seizure Memos
dated 10.06.2015 and 03.07.2015, vide which he had
handed over the documents mentioned therein to the
IO alongwith Certificate under Section 2A of Bankers
Books of Evidence Act read with Section 65-B of Indian
Evidence Act. He identified his signature and official
stamp at point A on the said memos as well as on the
annexed documents and exhibited them collectively as
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.102 Of 372
Ex.PW67/A (Colly.) (D-158) and Ex.PW67/B (Colly.)
(D-159) respectively. Rest of his deposition is on the
lines of deposition of PW-53 and hence, not repeated
herein for brevity sake.
8.8.1 PW-70 is Sh. Sarvesh Kumar Dwivedi @ S.K.
Dwivedi (PF No.8981) S/o Late Sh. L.N. Dwivedi, Retd. Sr.
Manager, Allahabad Bank, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad, U.P.
He deposed that in the year 2012, he remained posted
for 2½ months in Allahabad Bank, Vasundhara,
Ghaziabad Branch and during said period, he had
visited CBI Office at CGO Complex in connection off
investigation of this case. Upon being shown Specimen
Signature Memo dated 18.12.2013 of N.S.Parihar @
Nripender Singh Parihar (Ex.PW14/D) (Colly.) from page
2830 to 2833, he identified his signature at Point A on
each page on the said document Ex.PW70/A (Part of
D-165). As per his version, one person had signed in his
presence at Point B on each page but he did not know
that the name of said person was Nripender Singh
Parihar.
9. Police Witnesses
9.1.1 PW-26 to PW-39 are the police officers, who
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.103 Of 372
are the duty officer or the investigating officer of the
FIRs lodged against Sanjeev Dixit in connection with
various frauds played by him. Through said witnesses
the prosecution seeks to prove following FIRs of
cheating and forgery lodged against accused Sanjeev
Dixit (A-1) at various police stations in Delhi and NCR:
Sr. Name of the FIR no Police Exhibit no.
no. witness Station
1. PW-26 ASI Fakhray 86/2013 Preet Vihar Ex.PW25/A
Alam and PW-30
Inspector Nirbhay
Kumar
2. PW-31 SI Ram 217/2012 Anand Vihar Ex.PW31/A
Shankar Pandit
3. PW-33 ASI 217/12 Anand Vihar Ex.PW31/A
Narender Kumar
4. PW-34 HC Dinesh 260/13 Anand Vihar Ex.PW34/A
5. PW-35 SI Monu 49/13 Vivek Vihar Ex.PW35/A
and PW-36 Sh.
Rajbir Singh
6. PW-37 Sh. Rajeev 260/13 Anand Vihar Ex.PW34/A
Kumar
7. PW-38 Inspector 212/13 and Kundli, Ex.PW38/A
Pradeep Kumar 213/13 Haryana and
Ex.PW38/B
8. PW-39 Sh. Naval 03/2013 CBI, Ex. PW39/A
Marwa Ghaziabad
9.2.1 PW-77 Sh. Vishal, the then Inspector, CBI,
BSFC, Delhi is the IO of this case. He deposes that in the
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.104 Of 372
year 2013, Sh. A.K. Singh, the then SP, CBI, BSFC, Delhi
had entrusted him the investigation of this case bearing
No. RC 06/2013. This case was registered on the basis
of written complaint dated 19.06.2013 [(Ex.PW6/A (D-1)]
of Sh. C.P. Garg, Chief Manager, PNB, Jorbagh, Delhi.
The complaint was regarding the cheating and forgery
committed by accused in availing cash credit facility of
Rs.4 Crore and diversion of funds. In this matter, one
firm namely M/s. Shankar Metals through its proprietor
Sanjeev Dixit had applied for cash credit facility of Rs.4
Crore in PNB, Jorbagh, Delhi.
9.2.2 PW-77 further deposed that during
investigation of this case, it was revealed that accused
Sanjeev Dixit had submitted forged documents like KYC
documents, statements of accounts, balance-sheet, title
deeds of properties, which had been offered to bank as
collateral securities, with the conspiracy of other co-
accused and public servants. During investigation, he
(PW-77) also collected the questioned documents and
sent them to CFSL for expert opinion. Further that,
investigation revealed that accused public servants
namely Smt. K.K. Johar and Ranjeev Suneja and
empaneled Advocate under the conspiracy with
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.105 Of 372
accused Sanjeev Dixit and others had not verified the
forged documents submitted by the accused and
sanctioned the loan. After investigation, original
chargesheet was filed in 2014 against main accused
Sanjeev Dixit. CFSL report was filed in the form of
Supplementary Chargesheet-I in 2015. Thereafter, after
completion of investigation, Supplementary
Chargesheet-II was filed in 2015 against private
persons and public servants. The prosecution sanction
for accused K.K. Johar was not required as she had
been already dismissed from the service. While
prosecution sanction for accused public servant
accused Ranjeev Suneja was taken from the bank.
9.2.3 As deposed further by PW-77, the FIR dated
11.07.2013, Ex.PW77/A (Colly.) (D-2) bears signature of
Sh. A.K. Singh, the then SP, BSFC at Point A on each
page. He identified the signature of Sh. A.K. Singh as he
had worked under him and had seen him writing and
signing during the course of his official duties and that
was the same FIR, which was handed over to him
(PW-77) for investigation.
9.2.4 PW-77 further deposed that vide Letter
dated 10.12.2013 (Ex.PW6/C) (D-3), addressed to him
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.106 Of 372
witness, Sh. C.P. Garg, Chief Manager, PNB had handed
over the documents pertaining to bank account of M/s.
Shankar Metals, copy of DP Register and copy of
movement register and he (PW-77) had signed on
Ex.PW6/C at Point C as a token of receipt of documents.
The Account Opening Form alongwith KYC documents
of Account No. 0175002100018768 of M/s. Shankar
Metals (Ex.PW6/D) (D-5) was received from complainant
Sh. C.P. Garg, Chief Manager, PNB. He identified his
signature at Point B on Seizure Memo dated 30.07.2013
(Ex.PW6/B) (D-6) and deposed that vide said seizure
memo, total 8 files were received containing documents
regarding loan application, sanction note, stock
statements & correspondence, mortgage papers of
property i.e. Plot No.25, Shyam Industrial Area, Loni,
Ghaziabad; mortgage papers of property i.e. 17-B,
Shriram Nagar, G.T. Road, Shahdara, Delhi; mortgage
papers of property i.e. FIE-121, Patparganj Industrial
Area, New Delhi; mortgage papers of property i.e.
C-193, 3rd Floor, Vivek Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi and cheques
& instruments.
9.2.5 He further deposed that the credit appraisal
of M/s. Shankar Metals (Ex.PW6/N2) ( D-8) was signed
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.107 Of 372
by the bank official namely Ranjeev Suneja (accused) as
appraising authority and Ms. K.K. Johar (accused) as
sanctioning authority. The documents of property i.e.
Plot No.25, Shyam Industrial Area, Loni, Ghaziabad, UP
(Ex.PW6/A3) (D-10) were submitted by borrower to the
bank as collateral security. These documents were
received by him from the bank. Sale Deed dated
07.02.1967 (Ex.PW6/B3) (D-10) was submitted by
borrower to the bank as collateral security. Further, the
documents of property i.e. 17-B, Shriram Nagar,
Shahdara, Delhi (Ex.PW6/E3) (D-11) were submitted by
borrower to the bank as collateral security and these
documents were received by him from the bank.
9.2.6 As deposed by PW-77 further, the documents
of property i.e. C-193, 3rd Floor, Vivek Vihar, Phase-I,
Delhi (Ex.PW6/P3) (D-12) and FIE-121, Patparganj
Industrial Area, New Delhi (Ex.PW6/U3) (D-13) were
submitted by borrower to the bank as collateral security
and these documents were also received by him from
the bank. Vide letter dated 03.09.2013 (Ex.PW6/E)
(D-14), he had received one cheque bearing no. 075109
and other information regarding the transactions from
Sh. C.P. Garg. He had signed at Point B on the said letter
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.108 Of 372
as a token of receipt of cheque/information mentioned
therein. Vide letter dated 21.10.2013 (Ex.PW6/G) (D-16),
he had received five cheques and other information
regarding the transactions from Sh. C.P. Garg and had
signed at Point B on the said letter as a token of receipt
of cheques/information mentioned therein. Vide letter
dated 25.07.2011 (already Ex.PW6/H) (D-22), he had
received statement of account and cheques from Sh.
C.P. Garg, [Ex.PW6/H1 to Ex.PW6/H48 (D-23 to D-70)].
9.2.7 PW-77 referred to various documents
(already exhibited/proved through other witnesses)
from judicial record, which were collected/ seized/
received by him from different persons/entities during
the course investigation such as letter dated 01.01.2014
(D-71) from AERO, AC-59 (Vishwas Nagar) Ex. PW1/A,
letter dated 31.12.2013 (D-72) from AERO, AC-56 (Laxmi
Nagar) Ex. PW5/A, letter dated 21.02.2014 (D-73) Ex.
PW8/A, letter dated 02.01.2014 (D-74) Ex. PW2/A (colly),
letter dated 02.01.2014 (D-75) Ex. PW3/A (colly), letter
dated 01.01.2014 (D-76) Ex. PW4/A (colly), letter dated
02.01.2014 (D-77) Ex. PW9/A, letter dated 11.12.2013
(D-78) Ex. PW11/A (colly), letter dated 08.08.2013 (D-79)
Ex. PW13/A (colly). PW77 also identified his signatures
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.109 Of 372
on Production-cum-Seizure Memo dated 21.08.2013
(D-80) Ex.PW46/A (colly), dated 04.02.2014 (D-81)
Ex.PW15/A (colly). He also identified signature of
Inspector R.K.Rishi at point 'B' on memo dated
04.02.2014 (D-82) Ex.PW16/A (colly), as he had seen him
writing and signing during the course of his official
duties.
9.2.8 Similarly, he identified his signature at point
'B' on letter dated 07.01.2014 (D-83) Ex.PW48/A; on
production-cum-seizure Memo dated 24.02.2014 (D-84),
Ex. PW-77/B (colly); letter dated 07.01.2014 (D-85) Ex.
PW48/C; production-cum-seizure Memo dated
06.02.2014 (D-86) Ex.PW51/A (colly); letter dated
25.04.2014 (D-87) Ex. PW17/A (colly); letter dated
09.12.2013 (D-88) Ex. PW53/A (colly); letter dated
23.12.2013 (D-89) Ex. PW52/A (colly); letter dated
17.12.2013 (D-90) Ex. PW54/A (colly), He identified his
signature at Point B on the specimen signature and
handwriting of accused Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma,
Rahul Sharma, Arti Sharma and Rajeev Sharma (D-100)
Ex.PW40/A, Ex. PW-55/A, Ex.PW43/A and Ex. PW42/A
respectively. He deposed that he had taken the
specimen signatures of accused Sanjeev Dixit in the
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.110 Of 372
presence of independent witness and same were taken
with the permission of the court. He also identified
various other documents already exhibited/proved
through other prosecution witnesses. 9.2.9 PW-77
further deposes that the specimen signature and
handwriting of accused Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma
and Rajeev Sharma (D-170) bears his signature at points
'A' on each page. Specimen signature of Rajeev Sharma
is Ex.PW57/A. The abovesaid specimen signatures/hand
writings are Ex. PW77/E (colly). He had also taken
specimen signature of accused Rajeev Sharma Ex.
PW57/A (colly) in the presence of independent witness.
Vide letter dated 02.03.2015 (D-171) Ex.PW77/F, which
bears his signature at point 'A', he had received the
account opening form of accused Rajeev Sharma. He
further testified that after analyzing all the documents
collected during investigation and recording of
statement of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C, he
came to conclusion that there was sufficient evidence to
prosecute the accused persons and he filed
chargesheet before the Court.
10. Witnesses from Sub-Registrar Office
10.1.1 PW-13 Sh. Naveen Kumar is from the office
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.111 Of 372
of Stamp & Registration Department, Ghaziabad, UP. He
stated that he was called by the CBI in its office
alongwith certified copy of a document (sale-deed) in
respect of 17B, Shri Ram Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi
executed by Harbansh Lal Sharma in favor of M/s Super
Machine of Proprietor Sanjay Sharma which he took to
the office of the CBI alongwith covering letter
Ex.PW13/A (colly)(D-79 page 506 to 538). Further he
deposed that Sale deed (D-10 page 243 to 280)
Ex.PW6/A3 was the same document, which was shown
to him by the IO. He further deposed, after comparing
sale deed i.e. Ex.PW13/A (genuine sale deed) and
Ex.PW6/A3 (allegedly forged sale deed), the
photographs printed on the reverse of 2 nd page of sale
deed Ex.PW6/A3 and photographs printed on the
reverse of third page of certified copy of sale deed
Ex.PW13/A (of the purchaser) were found to be of two
different persons. The photographs pasted on the 5th
page of sale deed Ex.PW6/A3 and photographs printed
on the 5th page of certified copy of sale deed Ex.PW13/A
were also of two different persons. PW-13 further
deposed that PAN No. BZYPS4132F of purchaser
mentioned in Page no.5 of sale deed Ex.PW6/A3 and
PAN No.BUKPS2303D of purchaser mentioned in page
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.112 Of 372
no.5 of certified copy of sale deed Ex.PW13/A were also
different and that the certified copy submitted by him
with the IO was registered in his office.
10.2.1 PW-44, Sh. Chander Mohan, Registration
Clerk in the O/o Sub-Registrar-I, Ghaziabad, UP
deposed that Vide seizure memo dated 10.02.2014
(D-151), he had submitted certified copy of the deed of
property no. 25 Shyam Industrial Area, Banthala, Loni
Ghaziabad executed by Ms. Shiv Kumari Sharma D/o Lal
Chand Sharma in favour of Sh. Lal Chand Sharma S/o
B.R. Sharma. In their record, said deed was registered
as document no. 27, Bahi No. 4 Jild No. 145, page 52 to
55 dated 05.04.1965. He deposed further that sale deed
of property no. 25 Shyam Industrial Area, Banthala,
Loni Ghaziabad executed by M/s Sham Land & Finance
Co. New Delhi through its sole proprietor Sh.Lal Chand
Sharma S/o B.R. Sharma to Harvansh Lal Sharma S/o
Sh. Tirath Ram was registered as document no. 1517,
Bahi No. 1 Jild No. 1330, page 26 to 28 dated
12.04.1967, which is Ex.PW44/A colly (D-151) (Page 2541
to 2548). The certified copies of the abovementioned
properties bear the initial of Sh. Sanjay Srivastava, then
Sub-registrar at point B on each pages. The record of
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.113 Of 372
the above property belonging to period prior to
05.04.1965 was not available in the office of Sub-
registrar, Ghaziabad.
10.2.2 PW-44 further deposed that for inspection of
the record of the property registered with the registrar,
anyone could apply for inspection after depositing
inspection fee of Rs. 5/- per year. There was an
inspection register maintained by the office for the
purpose of inspection wherein all the record of
registration were available with details of property,
name of the seller and purchaser and registration
details. Anyone could obtain certified copy of the
property documents by providing details of the
property, name of seller and purchaser, registration
details and fee of Rs. 10/- upto 1000/- words and a
stamp paper of Rs. 10/-.
10.3.1 PW-46 Sh. Budh Prakash Gautam, LDC in the
office of Sub-Registrar-IV, Seelampur, Nand Nagri
Complex deposed that vide seizure memo dated
21.08.2013 (D-80), he handed over the certified copy of
the sale deed in respect of property No. 17-B, out of
khasra no. 423, Shri Ram Nagar, G.T. Road, Shahdara,
Delhi, executed by Smt. Simla Rani in favour of Smt.
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.114 Of 372
Indra Rani, which was exhibited as Ex.PW46/A (colly)
(D-80)(genuine sale deed). As per his version, the
certified copy was certified by Sub-Registrar Sh. B.L.
Bairwa. He further deposed that the photograph at
point A on sale deed dated 24.09.1999, Ex.PW6/E-3
(allegedly forged sale deed) bears photograph of
female other than the photograph of female available
at point A on certified copy of sale deed Ex.PW14/C
(allegedly forged sale deed). He further deposed that
letter dated 28.12.2013 (D-152) Ex.PW46/B bore the
signature of Sh. B.L. Bairwa at point A.
10.4.1 PW-47 Sh. Manoj Kaushik, the then Sub-
Registrar-IVA, Shahdara/Seemapuri, Delhi deposed that
while he was Sub-Registrar IV, Shahdara/Seemapuri he
had handed over certain documents to IO vide his letter
dated 20.12.2013. The certified copy of said property
documents were annexed with said letter dated
20.12.2013. The letter along with certified copy of the
property document in respect of property no. 17-B, Sri
Ram Nagar, G.T. Road, Shahdara, Delhi, have been
proved by PW47 as Ex.PW47/A colly (D-153) page 2570
to 2610). He further deposed that he had certified the
six sale deeds handed over vide said letter dated
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.115 Of 372
20.12.2013, after comparing the same with the office
copies of the Sale Deeds available in the office of Sub-
Registrar-IVA, Seemapuri.
10.5.1 PW-48 Sh. Navin Kumar Sharma, is the Sub-
Registrar VIII Geeta Colony, LM Bandh, DC Office
Complex, Shastri Nagar, New Delhi. As per his
deposition, vide letter dated 07.01.2014 [Ex. PW48/A
(D-83)], he had handed over certified copies of
Registered Deeds of the C-193, Vivek Vihar, Phase-I,
Delhi, Ex. PW48/B (colly.) (part of D-83) (pages 582 to
649), to IO Vishal. Vide another letter dated 07.01.2014,
Ex. PW48/C (D-85), he had handed over the certified
copy, Ex. PW48/D (colly.) (Part of D-85) (pages 697 to
724), of Sale Deed in respect of property no. 121FIE,
Patparganj, Industrial Area. He further deposed that as
per Ex. PW48/D, the property was owned by Nisha
Gupta (25% undivided share), Nirmal Gupta (25%
undivided share) and Krishna Devi (50% undivided
share). As per Agreement to Sell dated 29 th December,
2003 Sh. Satnam Singh (50% undivided share), Sh.
Jitender Singh Narula (25% undivided share) and Sh.
Inderjeet Singh Narula (25% undivided share) sold the
said property to Smt. Krishana Devi, Smt. Nirmal Gupta
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.116 Of 372
and Smt. Nisha Gupta vide registration no. 9316 dated
30.12.2003.
10.5.2 He deposed that the Sale Deed Ex. PW6/U3
(D-13), shown to him in respect of property no. 121FIE,
Patparganj, Industrial Area, was registered vide
registration no. 23451 dated 25.05.2011. But after
seeing office record, the Sale Deed dated 25.05.2011
bearing registration no. 23451 additional book no. 1
volume no. 4320 at page no. 102 to 109 (D-13) was
found to be not registered with the office of Sub-
Registrar VIII. He deposed that in fact at page no. 102
to 109 in Volume no. 4320 Book No. 1 of the office
record, produced by Sh. Pawan Chauhan, one sale deed
was registered which is dated 09.12.2009 having
registration no. 15379 and same was executed by
Archana Jain in favour of Sanjeev Dixit in respect of
property no. 232, Jagriti Enclave, Delhi-110092.
10.6.1 PW-49 Sh. Satinder Mohan is the Section
Officer, CM Office, Delhi Sachvalaya, New Delhi. He
deposed from 21.07.2015 to 31.10.2018, he was posted
as Sub-Registrar-VIII, Geeta Colony and during that
period the IO of the instant case had requested him for
information regarding property no.121, FIE, Patparganj
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.117 Of 372
Industrial Area. In response thereof, he vide his letter
Ex.PW49/A (D-155), handed over certified copy of Sale
Deed Ex.PW49/B (part of D-155), which was available at
the given particulars in the office record. Vide said
letter, he informed that said sale deed was lying
registered at registration number 15379 dated
09.12.2009 at Addl. Book number 1, Volume no. 4320,
at page no. 102 to 109, in respect of property no. 232,
Jagriti Enclave, Delhi 110 092 executed by Smt. Archana
Jain in favour of Sh. Sanjeev Dixit in respect of property
no. 232, Jagriti Enclave, Delhi 110 092.
10.6.2 He further deposed that the document
bearing registration no. 23451 in addl. Book no. 1
volume no. 4320, page no. 102 to 109 dated 25.05.2011,
was not found existing in their record. In the light of
said deposition, the 4th mortgaged property bearing no.
121, FIE, Patpartganj Industrial Area was not registered
at the given particulars and on page no. 102 to 109 of
Book no. 1 Volume no. 4320, sale deed of one another
property 232, Jagriti Enclave was lying registered at
Registration no. 23451 dated 25.05.2011.
10.7.1 PW-50 Sh. Avtar Singh, UDC, Irrigation Flood
Control Department, Shastri Nagar, Delhi 110 031
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.118 Of 372
deposed that he remained posted in the office of Sub-
Registrar Seelam Pur from 2014 to 2016 and during
said period, he had handed over certain documents to
the CBI. He further deposed that letter dated
01.08.2015 (D-156) Ex.PW50/A contained the
information regarding property no. 121 FIE, Patpatganj
Industrial Area, Delhi and the said letter was written by
Sh. Anup Kumar Verma, Sub-Registar IV, Seelampur
bearing signature of Sh. Anup Kumar Sharma at Point A
and vide another letter dated 01.08.2015 (D-157)
Ex.PW50/B written by Sh. Anup Kumar Verma, the
certified copy of lease deed of the the above property
Ex.PW50/C (colly.) (part of D-157), bearing his (PW-50's)
signature at point A and the signature of Sh. Anup
Kumar at point B, executed by the President of India in
favour of Ramji Lal Chawla vide registration number
1155, Book No. 1, Volume no. 2313, page no. 90 to 101
was supplied. As per PW-50 said deed was registered
on 04.06.1991 as per their record. He further deposed
that as per the details given in the said document
Ex.PW50/A, Volume no. 6434 did not exist in the record
of Sub-Registrar for the date 26.10.2001.
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.119 Of 372
11. Sanctioning Authority
11.1.1 PW-73 Sh. Anil Kumar Khosla, the then Dy.
General Manager (since retired) is the sanctioning
authority who accorded prosecution sanction in respect
of accused Ranjiv Suneja. As per his version, he was
promoted to the post of DGM in the year 2012 and
retired in 2019. Further that, Punjab National Bank,
DGM was the competent authority to remove the
officers upto the rank of Sr. Manager and when he was
posted as DGM, Zonal Officer, Rajendra Place, New
Delhi, during the year 2015, he had received a request
from the CBI for prosecution sanction against accused
Ranjiv Suneja. He had also received supporting
documents and statements of witnesses, etc. alongwith
the said request.
11.1.2 After going through the documents and
statements of witnesses, he accorded prosecution
sanction against accused Ranjiv Suneja being
competent authority to remove the officer. He identified
the prosecution sanction order dated 28.09.2015,
Ex.PW71/A (Colly.) (Part of D-174), in respect of accused
Ranjiv Suneja, Sr. Manager, PNB, Jorbagh Branch, Delhi,
bearing his signature at point B on each page.
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.120 Of 372
12. Chartered Accountants/CMA Data witnesses
12.1.1 PW-7 Sh. Sukhdev Madnani is the Chartered
Accountant, whose signatures were allegedly forged on
the audited balance sheets submitted by the borrower
with the bank. He deposed that he had been practicing
since 1989 and his membership number was 073569.
He had never done audit for M/s Shankar Metals. On
being shown the audited balance sheet of M/s Shankar
Metal as on 31.03.2008 Mark C (D-7) (Page no. 108 to
Page no. 124), the audited balance sheet as on
31.03.2009 Mark D (D-7) (Page no. 125 to Page no. 138)
and the audited balance sheet as on 31.03.2010 Mark E
(D-7) (Page no. 139 to Page no. 152), he deposed that
the the signatures as well as the stamp which were
affixed on said audit reports were not his and he had
never used the seal of that kind. Further that, he did not
know any person by the name of Sanjiv Dixit.
12.2.1 PW-12 Smt. Prem Lata Mishra is also a
Chartered Accountant. She deposed that she had been
practicing as a Chartered Accountant since 1995. In
connection with the present case, she had visited the
CBI Office, where she was shown some documents like
Audit Report, Profit & Loss Account of M/s Shankar
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.121 Of 372
Metals Mark 'A' (Part of D-7, Page- 82 to 98) and she had
informed CBI that said reports were not prepared by
her and they did neither bear her signatures nor seal
was of her firm namely "Prem Mishra & Co." As per her
testimony, the signature appearing at point 'A'
purported to be her's were forged signature. Similarly,
the seal projected to be of her firm was also forged one
and she did not know any person by the name of
Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma. As per her version, she
had given her specimen signatures Ex. PW-12/A (Page-
2810 to 2819, part of D-165) including her initials to the
IO, which she gave voluntarily.
12.3.1 PW-66 is Sh. Vijay Kumar Goel, who deposed
that he that he had done ICWA course in 1991, which
was also known as CMA. During 2014, he was working
as GM (Finance) in MVL Ltd., which was having offices in
Okhla and Gurugram. Sh. Prem Rishi was the
Chairman/CMD of said company and PW-66 was
looking after all the financial matters of the said
company including preparation of Project Report, CMA
Data etc. The CMA Data is required by the bank if one
apply for any financial assistance.
12.3.2 As per the version of PW-66, in the present
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.122 Of 372
case, he had prepared CMA Data on the basis of
information provided by the Borrower Sh. Sanjeev Dixit
and his firm M/s. Shankar Metals. The loan applied by
him was for Rs. 4 Crore in the PNB, Jor Bagh. He (PW-66)
had taken Rs. 1 Lakh as his charges from Sh. Sanjeev
Dixit for providing CMA Data. PW-66 testified that Sh.
Sanjeev Dixit had informed him that he would pay Rs. 4
Lakh to a bank official namely Ms. K.K. Johar. But, he did
not know whether Sanjeev Dixit had actually paid the
said amount or not.
12.3.3 He further deposed that in connection with
his work in MVL Ltd., he used to visit various banks. One
day, when he visited Allahabad Bank, he met there one
Mr. Gupta, who was known to him and used to provide
financial consultancy. He (Mr. Gupta) got him
introduced to Sh. Sanjeev Dixit and he (PW-66) also met
Ms. K.K. Johar in PNB, Regional Office, who asked him
(PW-66) that if there was any good proposal, the same
can be referred to their bank. Further, during
investigation of this case, his statement under section
164 Cr.PC Ex.PW66/A (Colly.) (D173) bearing his
signature and stamp of the Ld. MM, was also recorded
before Ld. MM Magistrate at Saket Court.
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.123 Of 372
12.4.1 PW-72 is Sh. Hardesh Kumar Jain @ H.K. Jain,
the then Dy. Secretary (since retired), Institute of
Chartered Accountant of India, Delhi. He had supplied
the information regarding verification of signatures of
Chartered Accountants i.e. CA Sukhdev Madani
(Membership No. 073569) and CA Prem Lata Mishra
(Membership No. 092733) to CBI vide his Letter dated
07.01.2014. He identified his signature on the
aforementioned letter dated 07.01.2014 at Point A on
each page and proved it alongwith annexed documents
as Ex.PW72/A (Colly.) (D-164).
13. Witnesses pertaining to KYC from the office of
Electoral Registration Office, BSES,
DJB/Custom/Excise/Income Tax/Industries.
13.1.1 PW-1, Sh. I.A. Khan is the then Assistant
Electoral Registration Officer, Assembly
Constituency-59, Vishwas Nagar, UTCS Building, East
Arjun Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi. As per his version, vide
letter dated 01.01.2014 bearing no.
F./AERO/AC-59/2014/1503 Ex. PW-1/A (D-71), he had
sent reply to the notice sent by CBI under Section 91
CrPC. He further deposed that as per their record,
neither the Voter I-Card bearing no. DL/04/043/171289,
[Page No. 23, part of D-5 (Mark PW-1/B)] in the name of
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.124 Of 372
Sanjeev Dixit S/o Hari Shankar Dixit R/o 232, Jagriti
Enclave, Delhi nor the Voter I-Card bearing no.
DL/04/044/045667 in the name of Indra Rani W/o Sh.
Yagya Dutt Sharma R/o 192/2, Gali No. 11, Bola Nath
Nagar, Delhi [(Page No. 198, part of D-7) Mark PW-1/C],
were issued by the Electoral Office and the abovesaid
number of the voter I-Cards also do not exist in the
Electoral Roll of AC-59, Vishwas Nagar, Assembly
Constituency.
13.2.1 PW-2 Sh. Sourav Bandyopadhyay is the
Divisional Business Head, BSES Yamuna Power Ltd.,
Sub-station no. 15, 9th Avenue, I.P. Extension,
Patparganj, Delhi. He deposed that vide letter
BM(D)JLM/2013-14/763 dated 02.01.2014 [Ex.PW2/A
colly. (page 487 to 490 D74)], he had informed CBI
about the electricity bill in respect of customer account
no. 100068412 and as per their record, the said account
was in the name of Ms. Archana Jain at 232, Jagriti
Enclave, Delhi and not in the name of Sanjeev Dixit. The
customer reference no. was 1210116661. He further
deposed that the bill Ex.PW2/B (D-7) was not issued by
their department and it was not a genuine bill.
13.3.1 PW-3 is Mrs. Amita Sharma, who deposes
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.125 Of 372
that in the year 2014, she was posted as Zonal Revenue
Officer-IV, Yojna Vihar in the office of Delhi Jal Board
and vide letter dated 02.01.2014, D-75 (Ex.PW3/A, Colly.)
(three pages), she had replied to the notice Section 91
Cr.P.C. Vide said letter, it was informed to CBI that as per
meter diary record, the water connection bearing no.
99123 was in the name of Smt. Archana Jain, 232, Jagriti
Enclave and not in the name of Mr. Sanjeev Dixit and as
per the record, copy of bill on page 3, submitted by
Sanjeev Dixit was not genuine.
13.4.1 PW-4 Sh. Bhagat Singh, the then Inspector in
the office of Commissioner of Industries, Govt. of NCT,
Udyog Sadan, Plot No.419, (Patparganj) deposed that in
the year 2014, he was posted as Inspector in the office
of Commissioner of Industry, Patparganj and Sh. R. K.
Saini was the Dy. Commissioner at that time. He
further deposed that vide letter dated 01.01.2014 (D-76)
(2 pages) issued under the signature of R. K. Saini, Dy.
Commissioner, it was informed that Acknowledgment -
II, Form P-II No.652 was issued to M/s Chhenna
Corporation, A-6, N.I.A Phase-II, New Delhi, on
15.03.2011 and not to M/s Shanker Metals.
13.5.1 PW-5 Sh. Lalit Mittal deposed that on
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.126 Of 372
25.02.2014, he was posted as Assistant Electoral
Registration Officer, Assembly Constituency, 58 Laxmi
Nagar and vide letter No. ERO/AC-58/2013/1441 dated
31.12.2013 Ex. PW5/A of the office of Electoral
Registration Officer Assembly Constituency 58 Laxmi
Nagar, he had informed CBI that the Voter I card in the
name of Sanjay Sharma bearing no. BQF3437881 (Ex.
PW5/B) did not exist in their office record.
13.6.1 PW-8 Sh. Mantu Prasad is the Assistant
Manager NSDL. As per his deposition, in December
2012, NSDL was divided in two companies namely NSDL
Depository Ltd. and NSDL e-Governance Infrastructure
Ltd. He was transferred to NSDL e-Governance
Infrastructure Ltd. which used to process PAN Cards on
behalf of Income Tax Department. Their agency had
engaged six more agencies all over India. He further
deposed that the applicant used to approach a
particular agency in his area and submit his application
form and the documents which were digitalized by the
said agency and the DATA so collected, used to be
forwarded to them and they were to collate the data
and send it to Income Tax Department which would
allocate a specific PAN number. Thereafter, on receipt of
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.127 Of 372
information regarding allocation of PAN number, their
agency i.e. the NSDL e-Governance Infrastructure Ltd.
used to prepare PAN Card and dispatch it to the
concerned applicant.
13.6.2 PW-8 further deposed that CBI had sought
information regarding three PAN numbers from the
Income Tax Department which in turn asked NSDL e-
Governance Infrastructure Ltd. to provide said
information to the CBI, and for said purpose, he (PW-8)
was deputed by the department to furnish the required
information. Accordingly, PW-8 vide letter no.
TIN/OPL/JG/2013-14/5359 dated 21.02.2014 Ex.PW8/A
(D-73), handed over certified copies of application
forms and supporting documents to the CBI. There
were in fact four applications against three PAN
numbers. He did not hand over certified copy of the
fourth application vide acknowledgment no.
070720300053675 (PAN No. ALTPD 3660M) as the
original could not be retrieved from the godown. He
had submitted said applications to the IO on 13th
September 2019 vide letter no. 3/TIN/OPS/AR/ 2019-
20/2796 after receiving summons from the Court. He
brought and produced the office copy of the letter as
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.128 Of 372
well as the original application [Ex.PW8/B colly (six
pages)].
13.6.3 PW-8 proved on record the following
documents:
Exhibit Nature of document
Ex.PW8/C Certified copy of acknowledgment of PAN
colly(four application (form 49A) as well as the form 49A and
pages) the photocopy of the voter I card of Sanjay Sharma,
which were submitted by him in respect of PAN
number BZYPS4132F
Ex.PW8/D Certified copy of acknowledgment in respect of
colly(six change request application for PAN number
pages). ALTPD3660M as well as the application submitted by
the applicant and the photocopy of the PAN card no.
ALTPD3660M and of the ration card and the
matriculation certificate of the applicant. The same
were submitted in respect of change of details of
PAN number ALTPD3660M
Ex.PW8/E colly Certified copy of acknowledgment of PAN
(four pages). application (form 49A) as well as the form 49A and
the photocopy of the employer certificate submitted
by Sanjeev Kumar Dixit. The same were submitted in
respect of PAN number AITPD0089M.
13.6.4 He further deposed that on comparing
document Ex.PW6/L (part of D-7 page 197) i.e. the PAN
card and application form in respect of PAN No.
BZYPS4132F, with Ex.PW8/C, the photograph and
parentage of the applicant was found different. The
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.129 Of 372
signatures on the PAN card and application were also
different. Further, on comparing document i.e.
photocopy of PAN card no. ALTPD3660M (page 22 part
of D-5/already Ex.PW6/D) with Ex.PW8/D, the
photograph and parentage of said applicant was also
found to be different and also the signatures on the
PAN card and application were different.
13.7.1 PW-9 Sh. Bishamber Nath is the Assistant
Commissioner (Ward - 83), Department Trade and
Taxes, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, IP Estate, New Delhi. He
deposed that he had joined Govt. of NCT of Delhi in
1995 as Grade - II Assistant and was transferred as
VATO (Value Added Tax Officer) in January/ February
2013. A letter was received from CBI in response to
which, he had submitted his reply vide letter bearing
reference no. 6074 dated 02.01.2014 written on behalf
of Value Added Tax Department, (Ward - 83), Ex.PW9/A
(D-77) and informed that TIN No. 07511326352 in the
name of M/s Shankar Metals did not exist in the record
of their department and hence, the said TIN number
was invalid and not genuine.
13.8.1 PW-17 Ms. Priya Chaudhary, the then VAT
Inspector, Department of Trade & Taxes, Vyapar
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.130 Of 372
Bhawan, IP Estate, New Delhi deposed that she had
joined the department of Trade and Taxes in the year
2014. She had visited the office of the CBI at CGO
Complex to submit certain papers as required by the
CBI officials in the present case. She had handed over
the letter dated 25.04.2014 sent by the L. R. Singh,
Assistant Commissioner (Vigilance), Ex. PW17/A(D-87)
alongwith TIN Numbers of firms with their complete
postal addresses details which are available on record
as Ex. PW17/B(D-87) (Colly.).
14. Witnesses of Record
14.1.1 PW-25 Sh. Ravindra Kumar Malik, Asstt.
Ahlmad, in the Court of Sh. Dinesh Kumar, the then Ld.
ACMM, East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi brought the
summoned record i.e. case file of case bearing FIR No.
86/2013 titled as 'State vs. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay
Sharma' P.S. Preet Vihar. He deposed that the original
file brought by him contained the copy of FIR bearing
no. 86/2013 P.S. Preet Vihar dated 28.02.2013
Ex.PW25/A (D-91 page 977 to 979). The said FIR was
registered against accused Sanjeev Dixit and the said
matter was listed for recording of evidence in
accordance with provisions of section 299 Cr.P.C as the
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.131 Of 372
accused Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma was P.O.
14.2.1 PW-32 Sh. Mahendra Maurya, JA/Ahlmad in
the Court of Ms. Ambika Singh, the then Ld. ACMM,
Shahdara, Delhi, had brought the summoned record i.e.
entire judicial file of case of FIR No. 217/2012 P.S. Anand
Vihar titled as State Vs. Sanjeev Dixit and another. He
deposed that the said file contained the original copy of
the FIR bearing no. 217/2012. The copy of the FIR
available in the judicial file of this case is the true copy
of the FIR brought by him in the judicial file of FIR
bearing no. 217/2012. The copy of FIR is already
Ex.PW31/A. As per his version, Accused Sanjeev Dixit @
Sanjay Sharma had been declared PO but, in said case
accused Rahul Sharma was however, facing trial.
15. Witnesses from CFSL
15.1.1 PW-57 Sh. Anil Sharma, the then Sr. Scientific
Officer, Gr. II (Documents)-cum-Astt. Chemical Examiner,
Govt. of India, CFSL, CBI, N.D. He deposed that vide CBI
letter No. 4025 RC.BD1/2013/E/0006/CBI/BS&FC/ND
dt.15.05.2014, letter No.10501RC.BD1/2013/E/0006/CBI/
BS & FC/ND dated 08.12.2014 and letter
No.1234RC.BD1/2013/E/0006/CBI/BS&FC/ND dated
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.132 Of 372
11.03.2015, the exhibits of this case were forwarded to
CFSL by CBI with details of the questioned and
specimen documents as well as the nature of
examination sought for. The witness PW57 proved the
aforementioned two letters dated 15.05.2014 and
08.12.2014 as Ex. PW57/A (colly) (D-98) and Ex. PW57/B
(Colly) (D-99) respectively.
15.1.2 He also proved on record the envelope
addressed to SP, CBI, EOU-V, New Delhi, his report
bearing no. CFSL-2014/D-726 dated 16.02.2015, the
covering letter addressed to SP, CBI, EOU-IV, New Delhi
as Ex. PW57/C(D-101), Ex. PW57/D and Ex.PW57/E (part
of D-101) respectively. He further deposed that the
documents of this case were scientifically examined and
compared with available scientific aids. After thorough
scientific examination and comparison, he prepared the
reports. In said report Ex. PW57/D, he had expressed
result of examination in para 07 (I to VIII) along with
detailed reasons in respect of the above documents.
Similarly, he proved his second report bearing no.
CFSL-2015/D-358 dated 22.05.2015 as Ex.PW57/F (part
of D-172), the covering letter, as Ex. PW57/G (D-172). In
said report Ex. PW57/F, he (PW-57) had expressed result
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.133 Of 372
of examination in para 07 (I) along with detailed
reasons in respect of the above documents.
15.1.3 As deposed further by PW-57, he identified
the questioned documents available on record as Q1 to
Q131. Out of the said documents, the documents from
Q1 to Q105 were already exhibited by other witness.
The questioned documents from Q106 to Q131 were
exhibited as Ex.PW57/H (colly) (part of D-90 and D-88).
Similarly, he deposed that the specimen documents are
available on the judicial file. The specimen documents
are S1 to S 105 and S 96/1 to S 105/1. The documents
from S1 to S95 were already exhibited by other witness.
The specimen documents from S96 to S105 and S96/1
to S105/1 were exhibited Ex.PW57/I (colly) [part of
D-170 (page 2893 to 2902)] through PW57. PW57 also
identified documents from S86-S95, though the same
were not having the CFSL stamp. He deposed that
stamp might have been left to be affixed by the staff
due to inadvertence. He also identified the admitted
documents A1 to A8 which were exhibited as Ex.PW57/J
(colly) part of D-171).
15.2.1 PW-75 Sh. Vijay Verma, the then Sr. Scientific
Officer Grade-II (Documents)-cum-Assistant Chemical
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.134 Of 372
Examiner, CFSL, Block-IV, CGO Complex, Delhi was
posted as Assistant Director & Scientist, CFSL, Delhi. He
deposed that the documents of this case were
forwarded by the then SP, CBI, BS & FC, New Delhi to
Director, CFSL, New Delhi vide Letter No. 255 dated
10.01.2014 Ex. PW75/A (colly) (D-163) in RC-
BDI-1/2013/E0006. Vide said letter, questioned
documents Q-1 to Q-113 and Specimen Handwriting
Mark S-1 to S-30 (S-1 to S-5 were purported to be of
Smt. Indira Rani; S-6 to S-15 that of Smt. Prem Lata
Mishra; S-16 to S-25 of Sh. Sukhdev Madnani; and S-26
to S-30 were purported to be of Sh. N.S. Parihar). He
deposed that the admitted signatures Mark A-1 to A-14
i.e A-1 to A-2 that of Smt. Prem Lata Mishra; A-3 & A-4
of Sh. Sukhdev Madnani; A-5 to A-14 of Smt. Indira Rani,
were also deposited.
15.2.2 He further deposed that he thoroughly and
carefully examined the documents of this case and
gave his opinion with detailed reason vide his report
bearing CFSL No. CFSL-2014/D-0063 dated 25.03.2014.
He duly proved on record the said report alongwith the
forwarding letter as Ex.PW75/B (Colly.) (D-166). Further
that, vide Letter No. 4026 dated 15.05.2014 in RC-
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.135 Of 372
BDI-1/2013/E0006, Ex.PW75/C (Colly.) (D-167), some
additional documents i.e. admittedly genuine
signatures Mark A-15 to A-31 of accused N.S.Parihar
were also deposited and in that respect, he gave his
opinion vide his report CFSL No. CFSL-2014/D-727 dated
29.05.2014. He proved the said report alongwith
forwarding letter as Ex.PW75/D (Colly.) (D-169).
16. Witnesses Pertaining to use of forged
documents/forgery of documents
16.1.1 PW-14 Smt. Indra Rani deposed that she had
never visited Punjab National Bank, Jor Bagh Branch
nor she stood as a guarantor of M/s Shankar Metal
through its proprietor Sh. Sanjeev Dixit. She did not
know Sh. Sanjeev Dixit or Sh. Sanjay Sharma. She had
visited the office of CBI in connection with the
investigation of present case. She further deposed that
the signature on the documents Ex.PW6/Y and
Ex.PW6/Z (D-108 page no.1138-1139), (the details of
personal assets and liabilities of said witness) at point A
on each document were not her signatures.
16.1.2 She further deposed that the particulars
mentioned in the photocopy of the voter I Card [Mark-
PW1/C (photocopy of voter I card of Indra Rani) are that
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.136 Of 372
of her but the photograph was not her and the
signatures at point A were also not her signature and
that she had lost her voter I card in the year 2013. But,
as per the court observation the photograph on the
Voter I Card appeared to be that of the witness only. For
future reference current photograph of the witness
after clicking the same from the mobile phone, was
ordered to be is retained in the court record and
Ahlmad was directed to place said photograph just next
after the photocopy of the voter I card Mark-PW1/C.
(Both the photos were compared at the time of
arguments, but they were found to be of different
person by the court)
16.1.3 PW-14 further deposed that signatures at
point A on Ex.PW6/T2 (Part of D-8, Page No.220 to 222)
on each page were not her signatures and the
photograph pasted at point B was also not of her.
Signatures at point A on Ex.PW6/W1 (D-133, Page
No.1367 to 1369) on each page were also denied by her
to be her signature as well as the photograph pasted at
point. Similarly, the signatures on Ex.PW6/C3 (Part of
D-11, Page No.281) and document Ex.PW6/O3 (Part of
D-11, Page No.311) at point A were also denied by
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.137 Of 372
PW-14 to be her signatures.
16.1.4 She further deposed that the Property
bearing No. 17B, Shriram Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi ad-
measuring 70-72 gaj was once owned by her and she
sold the said property in February 2013 to a lady. The
photograph printed on sale deed dated 04.10.1999 at
point A is her's and photocopy of signature appearing
at point B on each page was also her signature.
Certified copy of the sale deed was proved as
Ex.PW14/C (D-80, page no.541 to 548). PW-14 however,
categorically denied the photograph at Point A on sale
deed Ex.PW6/E3 (D-11, page no.283) to be her
photograph or the signature at point B on each page of
as her signature. As per her version, the photograph at
point C was perhaps of the lady from whom she had
purchased the property. She did not know whose
photograph was affixed at point A. As per her version,
the aforesaid property bearing No.17B, Shriram Nagar,
Shahdara, Delhi was purchased by her in the year 1999
and was sold in February 2003. She deposed that her
specimen signatures were obtained by the IO and same
were available on record as Ex.PW14/D (Colly) (D-165,
page no.2805-2809).
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.138 Of 372
16.2.1 PW-15 Sh. Harish Kumar S/o Sh. Ram Singh,
aged bout 55 years R/o H No.5, Type-IV, MDU Campus,
Rohtak, Haryana-12400, was the owner of property
bearing No.17B, Shri Ram Nagar, Shahadara, Delhi. He
deposed that he had purchased said property in
auction conducted by Punjab & Sindh Bank in the year
2013. He was called by CBI at its head quarter in
connection with the present case and he was asked to
submit document relating to aforementioned property.
He further deposed that the documents which he had
submitted with the CBI were described in the
production-cum-seizure memo and that the production-
cum-seizure memo and documents annexed thereto
are collectively exhibited as Ex.PW15/A (colly) (internal
page no. 549 to 565 of D-81).
16.3.1 PW-16 Sh. Kamal Singh Arya deposed that he
was having a house at 17B, Ground and First Floor, Sh.
Ram Nagar, Shahdra, Delhi. He and his son were the
joint owners of said property, which they had
purchased in the auction of the UCO Bank, Krishna
Nagar branch and had been in possession of the said
property since 2013 till date. He deposed further that
vide production-cum-seizure memo dated 04.02.2014
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.139 Of 372
Ex. PW16/A(D-82) (colly. Page 566 to 580), he had
supplied the chain of title documents of said property
to the IO of the case. Besides that, he also supplied
some other documents such as copy of sale certificate
given by UCO Bank, Krishna Nagar, Delhi, copy of E-
Auction bidding application, advertisement of UCO
bank regarding the sale of the said property and copy
of identity card issued by Dena Bank, to the IO.
16.4.1 PW-51 Sh.Naresh Kumar Gupta is the
businessman who used to deal in the business of coper
wire before 2018. Name of his late wife was Smt. Nisha
Gupta. He also handed over some documents to the
CBI. He deposed that the documents Ex. PW51/B (Colly)
were supplied by him to the CBI under his attestation
vide seizure memo Ex. PW51/A (D-86). As per his
version, initially his wife and two shareholders, namely,
Ms. Krishna Devi (50%) and Ms. Nirmala Devi (25%)
were the joint owners of the property no. 121, FIE,
Partparganj Industrial Area, Delhi in 2011. His wife was
having 25% share and she executed a power of attorney
in his favour and on the basis of the same, he became
the owner of 25% share of his wife.
16.4.2 He further deposed that vide Agreement to
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.140 Of 372
Sell dated 30.12.2003, Document No. 9316, Original
Bahi No. 01, Bahi Khand No. 1100, Page 140-153
registered in the office of Sub-Registrar-08, the previous
owners, namely, Sh. Satnam Singh, Sh. Jitender Singh
and Sh. Inderjeet Singh had sold or agreed to sell said
property in the joint name of his wife Nisha Gupta, Ms.
Krishna Devi and Ms. Nirmala Devi. He further deposed
that vide lease deed dated 03.01.2011, the
aforementioned property was let out to Future Tap
Sanitation through its Proprietor Sh. Sanjeev Dixit, who
had left the said property by the end of 2012. Upon
being shown sale deed Ex. PW6/U3 (D-13) dated
25.05.2011 with respect to property no. 121, FIE,
Partparganj Industrial Area, Delhi, he deposed that the
said document was a forged document. He deposed
that the photograph pasted on the said deed at
encircled point X is of Sh. Sanjeev Dixit but he did not
know the person whose photo was pasted at point 'Y'.
Similarly, he deposed that he did not know about the
agreement of guarantee Ex. PW6/X2 (part of D-8) dated
30.03.2011 and agreement of guarantee Ex. PW6/T2
(part of D-8) dated 30.03.2011 nor he could identify the
persons, whose photographs were pasted on them at
point 'X' and 'B'. He however, deposed that the
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.141 Of 372
photograph pasted on account opening form Ex.
PW6/D (D-5) was that of accused Sanjiv Dixit.
16.5.1 PW-60 Sh. Sharanveer Singh deposed that he
was a businessman by profession. He used to
manufacture plastic products/moldings and his factory
was situated in Loni, Ghaziabad. He knew Sh. Sanjeev
Singh Rana as he had worked with him in his factory. As
per version of PW-60, after leaving him, Sanjeev Singh
Rana had joined Sh. Sanjay Sharma but, he (PW-60) did
not know what work he (PW-60) had been doing there.
16.5.2 On seeing the photograph of the account
holder on Ex.PW6/D (D-5) i.e. Account Opening Form of
Sh. Sanjeev Dixit of M/s. Shankar Metals, PW-60
identified it to be Sh. Sanjay Sharma, who had got
married in his neighbourhood. He further deposed that
Ex.PW6/J (part of D-7), which was the application form
for credit facility of over Rs. 2 crores, also finds attached
photograph of said Sanjay Sharma encircled at point A.
He also identified photographs of Sanjay Sharma
encircled at Point A on Ex.PW6/M (part of D-103)
(Additional information to be obtained from
borrower/co-obligant). As per the court observation, all
the aforementioned documents Ex.PW6/D, Ex.PW6/J
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.142 Of 372
and Ex.PW6/M were in the name of Sh. Sanjeev Dixit.
16.6.1 PW-63 Sh. Mohan Kumar Aggarwal is the
Proprietor of M/s. Aggarwal Metals. He deposed that he
had a business of bathroom fitting in the name of M/s.
Aggarwal Metals at Chawri Bazar. He used to purchase
the products (taps etc.) from Parvesh and Panju in the
year around 2010. The bank account of his firm M/s.
Aggarwal Metals was situated at Canara Bank,
Govindpuri, Kalkaji. Earlier an account was also there in
PNB Bank, Alaknanada. He identified his signature on
Account Opening Form Ex.PW52/A of M/s. Ganesh
Enterprises (account no. 01250021007463), Proprietor
Sh. Rajeev Sharma at point A and deposed that he had
signed said account opening form as the same was
brought to him by Parvesh saying that he wanted to
open an account in the PNB, Chawri Bazar and at his
instance, he (PW63) signed on the said form which was
blank at that time and having no photograph. I never
stood introducer of M/s. Ganesh Enterprises (proprietor
Sh. Rajeev Sharma). He further deposed that Ex.PW52/A
was having a photograph of Sontu i.e. accused Rajeev
Sharma.
16.6.2 He even had not stood introducer for Rajeev
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.143 Of 372
Sharma @ Sontu. On seeing account opening form of
Sanya Enterprises (proprietor Sh. Sanjay Sharma)
Ex.PW53/A (colly), he deposed that the KYC documents
attached with the said account opening form i.e. PAN
card and Voter I-card were having photograph of Sh.
Parvesh. He did not know the persons whose
photographs were affixed on the account opening form
of Sai Trading Corporation (proprietor Sh. Rajeev Kumar
Manchanda) already part of Ex.PW53/A (colly) and the
account opening form of Rajdhani Traders (proprietor
Sh. Jitender Singh) part of Ex.PW53/A (colly). He further
deposed that the account opening form of Sharp
Sanitation (proprietor Sh. Sushil Kumar Sharma) part of
Ex.PW53/A (colly), was having the photograph of Vicky,
who used to accompany Parvesh and/or Panju.
16.7.1 PW-68 Sh. Romit Manchanda S/o Late Sh.
Rajinder Kumar Manchanda @ R.K. Manchanda
deposed that his father was the owner of the entire
property bearing No. C-193, Vivek Vihar, Phase-I. After
the death of his father in August 2011, the said
property was inherited by him and his mother. His
father had purchased the said property from DDA, long
years ago and he constructed a house on the same.
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.144 Of 372
During the year 2011, there were upper ground floor,
first floor, second floor and third floor in the said house.
16.7.2 He further deposed that his parents had
given the third floor of the said property on rent to Sh.
Rajiv Sharma and at that time, his brother-in-law Sh.
Sanjiv Dixit had also accompanied him (Rajiv Sharma)
and they had approached his parents through a
property dealer of D Block, Vivek Vihar. One day, one
official Sh. Vikarm, PNB, Dwarka Branch came to their
property and that time Rajiv Sharma was not present.
To their utter shock, the said official desired to meet Sh.
Sanjiv Dixit, who was shown as owner of the said
property and then PW68 informed the bank official that
he (Sanjiv Dixit) was not the owner of the said property
and that he had manipulated the documents.
16.7.3 He further deposed that he also came to
know that Sanjiv Dixit had taken loan of Rs. 40 lakhs
from PNB Housing Society, Dwarka and Rs. 3.5 crore
from PNB, Nehru Nagar, Ghaziabad and that Sanjiv Dixit
had misused the registered sale deed of their house by
manipulating the name of his father as Raj Manchanda
whereas, actual name of his father was Rajinder Kumar
Manchanda. When he visited PNB, Dwarka, on his
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.145 Of 372
insistence, one bank official had shown him the
documents on the basis of which loan was taken on
their property, then he (PW68) noticed that the
photograph pasted on the property documents (sale
deed) was not of his father but it was of some other
person. The purported signatures of his father were
also forged. He and his mother also submitted
complaints/letters to the said bank as well as concerned
Sub-Registrar Office. PW68 correctly identified accused
Rajiv Sharma in the court.
16.7.4 PW-68 further deposed that during
investigation, he was called at CBI office for certain
document and vide Seizure Memo dated 20.01.2014, he
handed over certain documents mentioned therein to
the CBI official. The said documents were handed over
to CBI official after he and his mother attested the
same and in this regard and they put their signatures at
Point A and B on each page. The Seizure Memo
alongwith above annexed documents is Ex.PW68/A
(Colly.) (D-154). He identified a photograph stapled on
the Will, which bears his signature, to be belonging to
his father Sh. R.K. Manchanda. He further deposed
originals of some of said documents were lost and in
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.146 Of 372
that regard, an NCR report was also lodged. He
identified his signature and that of his mother on said
complaint mentioned.
16.7.5 PW-68 further deposed that the mutation of
the aforesaid property was done in his and his mother's
name on 28.05.2012. As per perpetual lease, the
aforesaid property was allotted by DDA to his father on
02.07.1969 and as per conveyance deed, the said
property was got converted as freehold from DDA on
03.05.2001. He further deposed that he did not know
the person whose photograph was pasted at Point A on
the Sale Deed dated 13.01.2011 (already Ex.PW6/P3)
(D-12), who had been shown as 'R.K. Manchanda'. As
per his version, said sale deed is a forged document.
The second photograph pasted at Point B on the said
document is of Sh. Sanjiv Dixit and the signatures at
point X on each page of the said sale deed have been
shown to be in the name of his father but they are not
of his father. He further deposed that same
manipulation has been done on Conveyance Deed
dated 03.05.2001 (Ex.PW6/Q3) (part of D-12) by putting
forged signatures of his father at Point X and the fake
photograph at Point A purportedly belonging to his
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.147 Of 372
father on the said document. Further he deposed that
same manipulations had been done by putting forged
signatures at Point X of his father on the Perpetual
Lease dated 02.07.1969 (Ex.PW6/R3) (part of D-12).
16.8.1 PW-69 is Sh. Pravesh Kumar Sharma R/o
Village & Post Tigri, Distt. Baghpat, U.P. He deposed
that he used to work in the factory of Sh. Sanjay
Sharma at Vanthala, Ghaziabad, UP, where he worked
for around 4 years. The said factory was shifted to 121,
Patparganj, Delhi and it was later sealed by the bank.
He was being paid a salary of Rs.6000 per month by Sh.
Sanjay Sharma. Sh. Rajiv Sharma and Rahul Sharma
were the sons of his Bua and they also used to work at
the said factory of Sanjay Sharma.
16.8.2 PW-69 identified the photograph pasted at
Point 'A' on the Application Form for credit facility of
M/s. Shankar Metals (already Ex.PW6/J) to be of Sh.
Sanjay Sharma. (The said form was although in the
name of Sh. Sanjiv Dixit). He further deposed that he
did not know that Sh. Sanjay Sharma was also known by
the name of Sanjiv Dixit because, he (PW69) knew him
(Sanjay Sharma) by the name of Sanjay Sharma only.
Similarly, he deposed that the photograph pasted on
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.148 Of 372
the Agreement of Guarantee (Ex.PW6/S2) at Point X was
of Jeetu Singh, who also used to visit at the said factory
but he did not remember his complete name. (The said
form was although in the name of Sh. Sanjay Sharma).
He deposed that he also did not know that Sh. Sanjay
Sharma was known by the name of Jeetu as he (PW69)
knew him (Jeetu Singh) by the name of Jeetu Singh only.
PW69 did not know the name of the lady whose
photograph was pasted on Agreement of Guarantee
(Ex.PW6/T2) at point B.
16.8.3 PW-69 further deposed that the PAN Card
attached with Account Opening Form of M/s. Sanya
Enterprises, Proprietor Sanjay Sharma (Ex.PW53/A)
(Colly.) at Page 840, was showing his (PW69)
photograph but it was having address of someone else
and the signature on the same also did not belong to
him. As per the version of PW69, the said PAN card did
not belong to him. (The PAN card was in the name of
Sanjay Sharma). He had never opened any bank
account in Canara Bank, Karkardooma Branch. PW69
testified that Sanjay Sharma had taken his photograph
on the pretext that he would get a bank account
opened in his (PW-69's) name for credit of his salary
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.149 Of 372
amount. On Account Opening Form of M/s. Rajdhani
Traders, Proprietor Jitender Kumar Singh (already
Ex.PW53/A) (Colly.) at Page 854, PW69 identified the
photograph affixed on it to be of Jeetu Singh at Point A.
As per his version, Jitender Kumar Singh and Jeetu
Singh was one and the same person.
16.8.4 He further deposed that Account Opening
Form of M/s. Sharp Sanitation, Proprietor Sushil Kumar
Sharma (Ex.PW53/A) (Colly.) at Page 874, was having
photograph of Vicky Bhai at Point A and he knew him as
he used to visit the said factory and he knew him only
by the name of Vicky Bhai. Further, the document i.e.
additional information to extract the CIBIL (Ex.PW6/M)
was having a photograph of Sanjay Sharma (borrower
Sanjeev Dixit) at Point A and of Jeetu Singh @ Jitender
Kumar Singh at Point B. He knew the person whose
photograph was pasted at Point A as Sanjay Sharma
and the person whose photograph was at Point B as
Jeetu Singh @ Jitender Kumar Singh. The Account
Opening Form of M/s. Ganesh Enterprises (Ex.PW52/A)
(Colly.) was having photographs of Rajiv Sharma at
Point X (at Page 895) and Y (at Page 897), as per his
version.
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.150 Of 372
16.9.1 PW-74 Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana deposed that
in January 2012, he had joined the firm namely M/s.
Radha something at 121 Industrial Area, Patparganj,
Delhi of Sanjay Sharma, but he left the said firm in the
month of November 2012 because, he found the
activities of Sanjay Sharma suspicious as he was using
his business name just to take loan from the banks.
After seeing the Account Opening Form of M/s. Shankar
Metals Ex. PW6/D and the photograph annexed on it at
Point A, he stated that photograph was of his ex-
employer Sanjay Sharma. It was observed by the Court
that the photograph on the Account Opening Form was
purported to be of Sanjeev Dixit, who had opened his
account in Punjab National Bank, Jor Bagh Branch,
Delhi.
16.9.2 Further, on seeing Application Form for
credit facility of over Rs. 02 Crores Ex. PW6/J, he
deposed that the photograph at point A on the said
document (purported to be of Sanjeev Dixit, who had
filled up the said form to avail the credit facility), was
also of his ex-employer Sanjay Sharma. Similarly, on
seeing Sale-Deed Ex. PW6/P3, he deposed that the
photograph at Point B on the said Sale-Deed (purported
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.151 Of 372
to be of Sanjeev Dixit, who had executed the Sale-Deed
as a purchaser), was of his ex-employer Sanjay Sharma.
Similarly, he identified photograph at point on
additional information for extraction and submission of
CIBIL Ex. PW6/M (purported to be of Sanjay Dixit), was
of his ex-employer Sanjay Sharma.
16.9.3 PW74 further deposed that the photograph
at point X on Guarantee Agreement Ex. PW6/S2
(purported to be of Sanjay Sharma who executed said
Agreement of Guarantee) was that of one Jitender
Kumar, who had worked with him (PW-74) at M/s. Radha
owned by Sanjay Sharma. It was further deposed by
PW-74 that during his tenure in M/s. Radha, no official
from any bank had ever visited his work place to make
inquiries about Sanjay Sharma. He further deposed that
the confidential report dated 22.03.2011 Ex. PW6/U was
false as neither any inquiries were made by any bank
officials from him regarding his ex-employer Sanjay
Sharma @ Sanjeev Dixit nor he had ever given any
statement to the effect that he (Sanjay Sharma @
Sanjay Sharma) was an honest person or that he was
bearing a good reputation in market.
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.152 Of 372
17. Witnesses relating to dummy bank accounts
17.1.1 PW-18 Sh. Vinod Kumar, former proprietor of
M/s Mahavir Enterprises, who was doing the business
of food grains at G-8, Industrial Area, Mahavir Road,
Delhi deposed and his firm was also registered with the
Sale Tax Department, Government of Delhi. He
dissolved said firm 10-12 years ago due to slump in the
business. M/s Mahavir Enterprises had a current bank
account with Punjab National Bank, Lawrence Road
Branch. He was the authorized signatory of said current
bank account. He further deposed that he had no
business dealings with M/s. Shankar Metals and had
never dealt with metal business. He did not know any
person by the name of Sanjiv Dixit or Sanjay Sharma.
On being shown photographs pasted on loan
application form Ex PW6/J (D-7 page 36), Account
opening form Ex. PW6/D (D-5 page-19,20) and
Agreement of Guarantee Ex. PW6/S2 (D-8 page-217), he
deposed that he did not know the person whose
photographs were pasted on the said documents.
17.2.1 PW-19 Sh. Ankit Gupta, proprietor of M/s
Balaji Sanitation, who was in the business of trading of
tiles and sanitary fittings deposed that his firm was
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.153 Of 372
registered with the sale tax department having TIN
No.07140366085. His firm was running its business
from Bhogal. He used to purchase goods for onwards
trading from B. K. Sanitary, Bhogal, Balaji Self
Corporation, Mehrauli, Shreya Sanitary EmpEmpor,
Bhogal etc. His firm had a current account earlier with
UCO Bank, Bhogal and then with J&K Bank. He was the
authorized signatory of the said bank account. He
deposed that he had no business relation with the M/s
Shankar Metals nor did he know any such firm. He even
did not know any person by the name of Sanjiv Dixit or
Sanjay Sharma. On being shown photographs pasted
on loan application form Ex PW6/J (D-7 page 36),
Account opening form Ex. PW6/D (D-5 page-19,20) and
Agreement of Guarante Ex. PW6/S2 (D-8 page-217), he
deposed that he did not know the persons whose
photographs were pasted on the documents.
17.3.1 PW-20 Sh. Radhey Shyam Gupta, Proprietor
of M/s King Sanitation, who was also in the business of
Sanitary Goods deposed that he was running a
business in the name of M/s Kings Sanitation at 3279/2,
Gauri Shankar Market, Gali-People Mahadev, Hauz
Quazi, Delhi-06. His firm was registered in the year 1999
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.154 Of 372
with Sale Tax Department, Delhi. GST number of his
firm was 07AADPG22451Z5. Earlier his firm had Sale Tax
TIN number but he did not remember the TIN number.
His PAN number was AADPG2245G. He had current
account of his firm with Jammu and Kashmir Bank,
Chawari Bazar Branch and he was the authorized
signatory of the said account. He had never dealt with
any firm by the name of M/s Shankar Metals and did
not know any person by the name of Sanjay Sharma or
Sanjeev Dixit. On being shown photographs on Ex.
PW6/J, Ex. PW6/S2 and Ex. PW6/D, he also deposed that
he had never seen the man depicting in the photograph
nor had any business dealing with him.
17.4.1 PW-21 Sh. Sandeep Tanwar, Proprietor of
M/s. R. S. Enterprises deposed that he was running a
business of printing in the name of M/s R. S. Printer.
Earlier he was running the said business under the
name and style of M/s R. S. Enterprises from WZ-909/2,
Naraina Industrial Area. He was the proprietor of the
said firm. His said firm was shut down in the year 2004.
His firm R. S. Enterprises had bank account with Vijaya
Bank and his younger brother Sh. Kapil Tanwar was the
authorized signatory of the said bank account. He also
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.155 Of 372
deposed that his firm never had any business with any
firm by the name of M/s Shankar Metals as he used to
deal with the business of printing only and therefore,
he had no concern with metal work. He did not know
any person by the name of Sanjay Sharma or Sanjeev
Dixit. Similarly, he deposed that he had never seen the
man in the photograph nor had any business dealing
with the person depicted in photographs on Ex. PW6/J,
Ex. PW6/S2 and Ex. PW6/D.
17.5.1 PW-22 Sh. Naresh Soni, Proprietor of M/s
Soni Sanitation also deposed on the same lines. As per
his version, he was working in the business of Sanitary
Goods and was running his business in the name of M/s
Soni Sanitation at 3293/1, Itisha Market, Gali-People
Mahadev, Hauz Quazi, Delhi-06. He was the proprietor
of the said shop. His firm was registered in the year
1999 with Sale Tax Department, Delhi. Earlier, his firm
had Sale Tax TIN number i.e, 07200221619. The sanitary
goods in which he used to deal in, were purchased by
him from Chawari Bazar, Mangolpuri etc. Delhi. His PAN
was AUIPS7282G. He had current account of his firm
with HDFC Bank, Ajmeri Gate Branch and he was the
authorized signatory in the said account. He had never
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.156 Of 372
dealt with any firm by the name of M/s Shankar Metals
and did not know any person by the name of Sanjay
Sharma or Sanjeev Dixit. He further deposed that he
had never seen the man depicted in photographs on Ex.
PW6/J, Ex. PW6/S2 and Ex. PW6/ nor he ever had any
business dealing with said person.
17.6.1 PW-23 Sh. Raman Sharma, Partner of M/s
Rohit Sanitation deposed that he was running a
business of bathroom fittings in the name and style of
Rohit Sanitation from Pipal Mahadev, Hauz Qazi, Delhi.
Earlier his firm was a partnership firm comprising of
him and his mother however, presently it was a
proprietorship concern and he was the proprietor
thereof. His firm was registered with Sales Tax
department. He used to purchase goods from a local
market. His PAN was ASUPS4734P. His firm had a
current account with Oriental Bank of Commerce,
Chawari Bazar, Delhi. He was the signatory of the said
bank account. He further deposed that he had no
business relation/dealing with any firm by the name of
M/s Shankar Metals and did not know any person by
the name of Sanjeev Dixit or Sanjay Sharma. PW-23
further deposed that he did not know the man in the
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.157 Of 372
photographs affixed on Ex. PW6/S2. However, the man
seen in photographs on Ex. PW6/D and Ex. PW6/J was
Sanjay Sharma, who was his distant relative.
17.7.1 PW-24 Sh. Ramesh Aggarwal deposed that
he was running a business of Aluminum wire in the
name and style of M/s Aggarwal Metals from Narela
Industrial Complex Delhi. He was the proprietor of said
firm. His firm was registered with Sales Tax department
having TIN number 07760108985. He used to purchase
goods from Bharat Aluminum, National Aluminum,
Pushpanjali Enterprises and used to sell goods to Cable
Manufacturers like Suraj Cable and rivets to Hawkins
Cooker, Havel etc. His PAN was AADPA0399M. His firm
had a current account with State Bank of Hyderabad,
Shalimar Bagh Gali and thereafter, he had account with
ICICI bank, Shakti Nagar, Delhi. He was the signatory of
the said bank account. He never had any business
relation/dealing with any firm by the name of M/s
Shankar Metals nor did he know any person by the
name of Sanjeev Dixit or Sanjay Sharma. He further
deposed that he did not know the man seen in
photographs pasted on Ex. PW6/S2, Ex. PW6/D and Ex.
PW6/J.
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.158 Of 372
17.8.1 PW-27 Sh. Shubhash Gupta, Proprietor of
M/s Super Sanitary Store deposed that he was running
a business of Sanitary work in the name and style of
M/s. Super Sanitary Store from Peepal Mahadev, Hauz
Qazi, Delhi. He was the proprietor of said firm and it
was registered in the year 1999 with Sales Tax
department and it had TIN number 07690231389. He
used to purchase goods from King Sanitation, Sree
Ganesh Traders. My PAN is AAFPG4991D. His firm had a
current account with Jammu & Kashmir Bank, Chawri
Bazar, Delhi and he was the authorized signatory of the
said bank account. PW-27 further deposed that he had
no business relation/dealing with any firm by the name
of M/s Shankar Metals and did not know any person by
the name of Sanjeev Dixit or Sanjay Sharma. He also
deposed that he did not know the man seen in the
photographs pasted on Ex. PW6/S2, Ex. PW6/D and Ex.
PW6/J.
17.9.1 PW-28 Sh. Sunil Kumar Dhoot deposed that
he was running a business of Bathroom fittings in the
name and style of Dhoot Sanitation from Chawri Bazar.
His wife Saloni Dhoot was the owner and sole
proprietor of the above said firm and he was a Manager
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.159 Of 372
in the said firm. The firm was registered with Sales Tax
department in the year 2007. The goods for said firm
used to be purchased from Chawri Bazar and Shahdara
from Rohit Sanitation and Ravindra Metals. The PAN
number of his wife was AFXPD0468D. The firm had a
current account with ICICI Bank, Anand Vihar Branch
and his wife was the authorized signatory of the said
bank account. He further deposed that he had no
business relation/dealing with any firm by the name of
M/s Shankar Metals and did not know any person by
the name of Sanjeev Dixit though he did know one man
by the name of Sanjay Sharma. PW-28 also failed to
identify the man seen in the photographs on Ex.
PW6/S2. However, the man seen in both the
photographs on Ex. PW6/D at page no.19 and 20 was
Sanjay Sharma. The man seen in the photographs
pasted on Ex. PW6/J was also Sanjay Sharma, who was
probably the son-in-law of the owner of M/s Rohit
Sanitation.
17.10.1 PW-29 Smt. Saloni Dhoot, Proprietor of M/s
Dhoot Sanitation deposed that she was running a
business of bathroom fittings in the name and style of
Dhoot Sanitation from Chawri Bazar. Her firm was
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.160 Of 372
registered with Sales Tax department in the year 2007.
However, the firm used to be looked after by her
husband and she was only a house wife and did not
know about the business transactions.
18. Witnesses to specimen signatures
18.1.1 PW-40 Sh. Iqbal Singh S/o Sh. Nasib Singh is
also from Punjab National Bank, Jorbagh, Delhi. As per
his version, on 23.04.2014, he had visited Saket Court
where accused Sanjeev Dixit was produced before the
Court and his signatures were taken in his (PW-40's)
presence and he attested the same. He further deposed
that document (D-100) was containing the specimen
signature of accused Sanjeev Dixit and that of his
(PW-40's) signature at point A and said document was
exhibited as Ex. PW40/A (pages 1025 to 1054) (page
1061 to 1074).
18.2.1 PW-41 Sh. K.S. Mishra, Police Constable
(since retired), CBI, BS&FC, New Delhi deposed that on
23.04.2014, he had visited Saket Court where accused
Sanjeev Dixit was produced and with the permission
and order of the court, his signatures were taken on
document D-100 Ex. PW41/A (pages 1055 to 1059).
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.161 Of 372
18.3.1 PW-42 is Sh. Shambhu Nath Chaudhary,
Manager in Punjab National Bank, Finance Division,
Head Office Ground floor, West Wing Plot no. 4, Sector
10, Dwarka, New Delhi. As per his version, In the year
2014, he was posted in the Jor Bagh Branch of PNB as
Assistant and on 05.12.2014 and he had been deputed
by the bank to carry the loan file of Sanjeev Dixit to CBI
office and he accordingly, carried the same to CBI. At
the direction of CBI, he also witnessed the taking of
specimen signature of Rajeev Sharma. PW42 proved
said sheet on which specimen signatures of accused
Rajeev Sharma were taken as Ex.PW42/A (part of
D-100)(colly) (page 1100 to 1104). He also identified
accused Rajeev Sharma in the Court.
18.4.1 PW-43 Sh. Ram Kumar Gupta, Sr. Manager
(Retired) Punjab National Bank, G.T. Road, Ghaziabad,
UP is the witness to specimen signature of one lady Arti
Sharma @Sheetal and he proved the same on record as
Ex.PW43/A (colly.).
18.5.1 PW-55, Sh. Kewal Krishan, is the then Officer,
from PNB, Jorbagh, Delhi. He simply proved on record
specimen signature and handwriting memo of accused
Sh. Rahul Sharma as Ex.PW55/A (colly) and stated that
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.162 Of 372
the specimen signatures of said accused were taken in
his presence.
18.6.1 PW-61 is Sh. Ravi Mehta, Computer Operator,
PNB, Jorbagh, New Delhi, in whose presence the
specimen signatures of Smt. Indira Rani were taken.
PW61 identified the specimen signatures of Smt. Indira
Rani at the pages S-1 to S-5 and his own signatures at
point A on each page on Ex.PW14/D (Colly).
Statement of Accused U/s 313 CrPC
19. After conclusion of prosecution evidence,
statement of all the accused were recorded under
Section 313 CrPC wherein, all the incriminating
evidence was put to them, the same was however,
denied by them as wrong and incorrect. All the accused
pleaded their innocence and came up with the plea that
they have been falsely implicated in this case by CBI
after the prime accused Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma
(A-1), absconded from judicial custody. The accused
came up with different pleas to plead their innocence in
their respective statement under Section 313 Cr.PC.
Defence of Accused N.S.Parihar U/s 313 Cr.PC.
20. A-2 stated that he had no role in the
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.163 Of 372
processing/sanctioning/documentation/disbursement
and follow-up of loan. There were 5 immovable
properties proposed for mortgage for which the bank
asked him to render his opinion whether there was any
charge subsisting against said properties. The accused
did not dispute having filed the NEC and the certified
copies of the sale deeds of the said properties with the
bank but he came up with the plea that being a panel
advocate for the bank, he had applied for certified
copies of title deeds in the office of concerned Sub-
Registrar and after obtaining the same he compared
the certified copy so obtained with the original title
deed provided to him by the Bank and the same were
found to be same/similar. He accordingly, submitted his
opinion about the properties that they were free from
any encumbrances. A-2 further stated that out of the 5
properties, two properties were of Ghaziabad and as
per the procedure prevalent in the office of the Sub-
Registrar, Ghaziabad, said office itself gave the report to
the effect that said two properties were free from
encumbrances and reports so obtained from the
concerned Sub-Registrar were also duly submitted with
the bank.
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.164 Of 372
20.01 He stated further that in view of such
reports given by the Sub-Registrar office, Ghaziabad
and the certified copies obtained from the offices of
Sub Registrar, Ghaziabad and Delhi, A-2 had no reason
to suspect the genuineness of the title documents. The
report as well as certified copies were carrying the
stamps of Sub Registrar office and there was no reason
for him to doubt the genuineness of the same. Besides
that, the index register was also inspected from the
office of concerned Sub-Registrar and even as per said
register, no charge was found to be there on any of the
mortgaged properties.
20.02 As per statement of N.S.Parihar (A-2),
he had returned the original title deeds to the bank
after comparing the same with the certified copies
obtained from the concerned Sub-Registrar office. He
further stated that the search report submitted by him
was as per the bank's format and search was made for
the period of 13 years from the last transfer and there
is no material against him (A-2) except that his legal
search report turned out to be wrong. A-2 stated that
he cannot be blamed for the wrong reports or the
forged certified copies supplied to him by the office of
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.165 Of 372
concerned Sub-Registrars.
Defence of Accused K. K. Johar U/s 313 Cr.PC.
21. Accused K.K.Johar (A-3) came up with the
plea that due care and caution was taken by her both at
pre-sanction and post-sanction stage. The valuation
report from the empaneled advocate, who also verified
the possession of the owner (proposed guarantors) by
visiting the subject properties, were taken. Due
diligence of the ITR and the balance-sheets were got
done from bank approved CA J.C. Bhatia & Co. The
search report was submitted by the bank approved
advocate who also gave positive report on the title
document of the mortgaged properties thereby, giving
no reason to A-3 to raise any suspicion on the title
deeds or ownership of said properties.
21.01 She stated that the date of 22.3.2011 as
mentioned on the CR is the date when CR was started
to be prepared and as and when the information was
gathered from different sources, the same was entered
in the CR. Since many reports were to be procured and
processed for a loan proposal, the same could not have
be done in a single day. It was stated further that at the
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.166 Of 372
time of opening of current account no.
0175002100018768 of the borrower M/s Shanker
Metals, the KYC was done by the hall incharge/PW10
B.K.Jha and the basis of same very KYC, the cash credit
account of said firm was opened. As per CIBIL report of
Sanjeev Dixit (A-1), no credit facility was availed by him
in the past while the other agencies Equifax and
Expererian were not operational at the relevant time.
21.02 A-3 stated that sites of the properties were
visited on 20.03.2011, however, in the CIR, the date of
visit was incorrectly mentioned as 08.03.2011. Further
that since the collective value of three property
mortgaged by the borrower were found to be
insufficient to cover the proposed limit, the borrower
was asked to offer one more property 5/1234 M-11
Sector 5 Vasundhara, Ghaziabad. The said 4th property
was in the name of Mr. Rajesh Aggarwal but, later on
Sanjeev Dixit (A-1) purchased said property in his name
in May 2011.
21.03 As stated by A-3, there were no
mandatory guidelines for maintaining movement
register in the bank. Hence, if there is no entry in the
movement register it does not mean that no visit was
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.167 Of 372
made. Accused K.K.Johar (A-3) categorically denied the
allegations regarding diversion of funds saying that all
the transactions were made through banking channels
such as NEFT, RTGS and even the cash withdrawals
were done as per rules. Most of the payments made
were in favour of sundry creditors as per the
instructions of the borrower through banking channels.
A-3 categorically denied to have received any pecuniary
gain or benefit from the borrower or any other person
in connection with the alleged transaction and she
came up with the plea that the deposition of PW-66 is
mere hearsay evidence.
Defence of Accused Ranjiv Suneja U/s 313 Cr.PC.
22. A-4 came up with a categoric plea that the
duties regarding issuance of registered letter to the
mortgagor/3rd party as per the circular Ex. PW6/H4,
distribution of legal work among panel advocate was
not falling in his assigned areas of responsibilities. He
further pleaded that the appraisal note was prepared
by him and the branch manager Ms. K.K.Johar after
putting all the inputs taken from various sources and
same was correctly prepared by him to the best of his
knowledge, ability and experience and no deficiencies
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.168 Of 372
were ever pointed out by the concurrent auditor.
22.01 Ranjiv Suneja (A-4) categorically denied
that monitoring the diversion of funds was his
responsibility. A-4 stated that the report of V.K.Dhar
was biased and irregular as he overlooked and
inadequately addressed the distinct responsibilities of
the recommending authority and sanctioning authority.
Rest of the defence pleaded by A-4 is on the lines of the
plea taken by A-3.
Defence of Accused Rahul Sharma and Rajeev
Sharma U/s 313 Cr.PC.
23. The defence put forward by the said accused
was almost similar that Sanjeev Dixit was their cousin
brother and they both were working as his employees
and their job was to look after sale and marketing in
addition to collection of payments from his (A-1's)
debtors. They also used to deposit/withdraw the money
in/from the bank accounts of Sanjeev Dixit as per his
instructions but they were never the beneficiary for any
such transaction.
23.01 They categorically denied the forensic
reports wherein the signatures appearing on the
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.169 Of 372
account opening form of M/s Paras Metals attributed to
Rahul Sharma/A-5 and M/s Ganesh Enterprises
attributed to Rajeev Sharma/A-6 were found to be
matching with their respective specimen/admitted
signatures, as manipulated documents. They further
alleged that investigation was not fairly done by the IO
as the drawer's signatures appearing on the cheques
through which the money was allegedly transferred by
said accused from their aforementioned alleged bank
accounts to the dummy account allegedly operated by
Sanjeev Dixit (A-1) were never sent for comparison to
forensic expert.
23.02 They further pleaded that accused
Sanjeev Dixit (A-1) @ Sanjay Sharma had taken their
several photographs, PAN card, Voter Card etc. at the
time of their joining his firm. He had also obtained
their signature on several blank account opening forms
and blank papers on the pretext that he will get their
salary account opened in the bank and said account
shall also be used as PF Account and also for the
purpose of Life Insurance/term insurance/medical
Health Insurance. He (Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma)
however, misused the said documents and photographs
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.170 Of 372
for opening the aforementioned bank accounts, which
he used for siphoning off the loan amount.
Defence Evidence
24. In defence evidence, only accused Rahul
Sharma (A-5) examined two witnesses D5/W-1 and
D5/W2. Sh. Yogender Singh D5/W-1 is the Joint
Manager from Bank of Baroda, who has been examined
to prove that except the account in the Bank of Baroda,
Shakarpur, A-5 did not have any other bank account in
his name. Sh. Nitin Sharma D5/W2 is an ex-employee of
A-1. He has been examined to prove the fact that
Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma (A-1) used to get the
money withdrawn from his various bank accounts
through his employees, who after withdrawing the
amount used to hand over the same to him (A-1)
Final Arguments
25. Arguments were advanced at length by Ld.
Counsels Sh. Bharat Bhushan, Advocate for
N.S.Parihar/A-2, Advocate Sh. Dhanajay Puri for
K.K.Johar/A-3, Advocate Sh. Shri Singh for Ranjiv
Suneja/A-4, Advocate Sh Rajni Kant on behalf of Rahul
Sharma/A-5 and Rajeev Sharma/A-6. On behalf of CBI,
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.171 Of 372
the arguments were addressed by Ld. Sr. Public
Prosecutor Sh. Anurag Modi. Written submissions were
also filed on behalf of CBI as well as by the respective
defence counsels. I have given my thoughtful
consideration to the rival contentions raised from both
the sides and also carefully perused the entire record
including the written arguments and the supporting
judgments filed on record by the parties.
Prosecution Arguments
26. It was contended by Sh. Anurag Modi, Ld. Sr.
Public Prosecutor that by clinching and credible
evidence prosecution has been able to prove its case
against all the accused persons beyond all reasonable
doubt. It was submitted that at every stage of appraisal,
sanction and disbursement of loan, accused public
servants A-3 & A-4 had committed various acts and
omissions in complete violation of settled banking
norms, guideline and circulars and their said conduct is
clearly indicative of their dishonest intention as they
acted in concert with the other co-accused to achieve
the object of conspiracy to cheat and defraud the bank
by allowing the borrower to avail the cash facility on the
basis of series of forged and fabricated documents.
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.172 Of 372
26.01 It has been vehemently argued that it is
a classic case where not a single document filed by the
borrower in support of his loan proposal was genuine
as he used entire chain of forged and fabricated
documents starting from the documents of
identification, to the documents of financial credentials
and collateral security. It was further submitted that
during the appraisal and sanctioning process various
circumstances came to fore, which were sufficient to
raise a red flag for the incumbent incharge K.K.Johar
(A-3) and the loan officer Ranjiv Suneja (A-4) which they
deliberately overlooked/ignored as they omitted to
make any further inquiries to verify the genuineness of
the documents and creditworthiness of the borrower.
26.02 It was argued that said deliberate
omissions on their part is clearly reflective of the fact
that they were in conspiracy with the borrower and the
other co-accused and in furtherance of said conspiracy,
they cheated and defrauded the bank and they did so
by misusing their position as a public servant and
thereby, caused wrongful loss to the bank and
corresponding gain to the borrower/A-1.
26.03 As regard the involvement of the
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.173 Of 372
empaneled lawyer N.S.Parihar (A-2) in the alleged
conspiracy and forgery, it has been argued that the
investigation has revealed that the legal search report
filed by him was false and incorrect. The Non-
Encumbrance Certificates (NEC) and the certified copies
of the title deeds filed by him with the bank were also
forged and fabricated. One of the title deeds in respect
property bearing no.121,FIE, Patparganj Industrial Area
was found to be not even registered in the office of
concerned Sub-Registrar from where he (A-2) allegedly
obtained the certified copy of the said sale deed.
26.04 The certified copies of the remaining 3
properties i.e. (1) Industrial plot no. 25, Shyam
Industrial Area, Village Banthla, Loni, Ghaziabad, U.P.,
(2) Plot No. 17B, Khasra No.423, Shri Ram Nagar, G T
Road, Shahdara and (3) House No. C-193, IIIrd Floor,
Vivek Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi, were also found to be forged
as in respect of 1st and 2nd property, the photograph of
the purchaser on the genuine title deeds (obtained by
the IO from the concerned Sub-Registrar office during
investigation) were found to be different from the
photographs on the certified copies of the sale deeds
filed by said accused/A-2 with the bank. It was further
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.174 Of 372
submitted that since the certified copies filed by A-2
with the bank were similar and identical with the
original title deeds filed by the borrower/A-1 with the
bank, it is quite clear that A-1 & A-2 were in conspiracy
with each other and they knowingly filed said forged
title documents with the bank and since the public
servants A-3 and A-4 were also part of same conspiracy,
they also did not insist for filing of the certified copies
of the title deeds of all the four immovable properties
prior to sanction of loan nor did they seek opinion on
original title deeds because, there was no record
available with the bank to show that A-2 was ever
handed over the original title deeds, rather as per title
deed register Ex. PW6/L2 (D-143), the original title
deeds of the first three properties were filed on
30.03.2011 i.e after the sanction of loan.
26.05 It was submitted that during trial
various witnesses from the office of concerned Sub-
Registrar were examined by the prosecution and they
duly established the fact that the original title deeds
filed with the bank by the borrower/A-1 are forged and
fabricated documents and as a consequence, the
certified copies filed by the empaneled advocate/A-2,
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.175 Of 372
which are exactly similar to the original title deeds filed
by the borrower, are also forged and fabricated
documents. Besides that, prosecution has also
examined the actual owners/erstwhile owners of said
properties, who during their depositions before the
Court, disowned the photographs and the signatures of
the purported owners of said mortgaged properties on
the title deeds filed by the borrower/A-1. Ld. Sr. PP
argued that by their clinching testimonies, it has been
sufficiently established on record that the legal search
report/NEC/certified copies of sale deeds furnished by
N.S.Parihar (A-2) with the bank were all false, forged
and fabricated documents and coupled with various
other circumstances on record, the complicity of the
A-2 in the alleged offence of conspiracy and forgery has
been duly established by the prosecution.
26.06 It was contended that there is ample
evidence both documentary and verbal to establish the
fact that in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy
hatched with the borrower to cheat the bank, the
accused N.S.Parihar (A-2) knowing aided the borrower
Sanjeev Dixit (A-1) in sanction of the loan by furnishing
his positive legal opinion on the title documents of the
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.176 Of 372
collateral properties which, to his knowledge were
forged and fabricated. Both the NEC and certified
copies of the title documents filed by A-2 with bank in
support of his positive legal opinion on the title
documents, were fake, forged and fabricated.
26.07 Ld. Sr. PP further submitted that the
prosecution has also successfully established the
charges against the private persons i.e. Rahul Sharma
(A-5) and Rajeev Sharma (A-6), who were also the part of
said conspiracy from the very beginning as they not
only allowed their bank accounts opened in the name
of M/s Ganesh Enterprises and M/s Katara Metals, both
proprietorship firms of accused Rajeev Sharma and M/s
Paras Metals, proprietor Rahul Mudgil, to be used for
diversion of funds by the accused Sanjeev Dixit (A-1)
but, they also facilitated him (A-1) in forging of
documents. The trial has established on record that the
both the said accused were part of conspiracy from the
very beginning which is evident from the fact that in
2010, the accused Rajeev Sharma (A-6) had taken on
rent the property bearing no. C-193, IIIrd Floor, Vivek
Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi and in connivance with
borrower/A-1, he (A-6) facilitated him (A-1) in forging
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.177 Of 372
the sale deed of the same very property by using the
details of the owner from the rent deed of said property
and later on, said property was mortgaged with the
bank for availing the subject loan. Rahul Sharma also
stood witness to the forged sale deed, Ex. PW6/P3
(D-12), which is the sale deed of C-193, IIIrd Floor, Vivek
Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi, a property mortgaged with the
bank for the subject loan.
26.08 In order to substantiate above
arguments, Ld. Sr. PP has referred to the testimonies of
prosecution witnesses examined and the documents
proved through them. However, the details of said
arguments of the Ld. Sr. PP in the light of said
testimonies and documents shall be dealt with in the
later part of this judgment under the heading
"Discussion and Analysis of Material by the Court".
Defence Arguments for N.S.Parihar (A-2)
27. It was submitted by the Ld. Counsel Sh.
Bharat Bhushan for A-2 that as per prosecution case,
A-2 had conspired with the borrower A-1 and the public
servants A-3 and A-4 in defrauding the bank by
facilitating him in availing the cash credit facility to the
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.178 Of 372
tune of Rs.4 crore from the complainant bank and
under said conspiracy, A-2 furnished false legal opinion
and filed forged and fabricated certified copies of the
sale deeds of 4 immovable properties, which were
furnished as collateral security for the subject loan and
thereby, he helped and facilitated the borrower/A-1 in
defrauding and cheating the complainant bank.
27.01 It has been however, argued that A-2
N.S.Parihar had no role in the internal processing of the
loan or in analyzing the financial standing of the
borrower or in the examination of viability of the
project proposed by the borrower. A-2 being a panel
advocate was to merely give his legal opinion about the
title of the mortgaged properties. He was handed over
the title deeds of properties which were proposed for
mortgage by the borrower/guarantors, for seeking his
(A-2's) legal opinion regarding prior encumbrances if
any, on said properties.
27.02 Ld. Counsel argued that as per general
practice, the panel advocate would seek the certified
copies of the title deeds from the office of concerned
Sub-Registrar and verify whether the certified copies
obtained from Sub-Registrar office match with the
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.179 Of 372
originals deposited in the Bank. On the line of said
procedure and practice, A-2 N.S.Parihar applied for the
certified copies of aforementioned sale deeds and
obtained the same from the office of the concerned
Sub-Registrars and found them all matching with the
copies of original sale deeds as provided to him by the
bank and since said certified copies were having the
stamps of the office of the respective concerned Sub
Registrar, there was no reason for A-2 to doubt the
genuineness of said documents.
27.03 Ld. Counsel also contended that even
otherwise, mere his (A-2's) opinion could not have
caused the bank to sanction or disburse the loan to the
borrower because, the viability and suitability of any
loan proposal was required to be checked by the
incumbent bank officers by careful scrutiny and
verification of financial record, identification documents
and also by way of physical verification by visiting the
sites of the properties. Even Mr. C. P. Garg/PW-6
admitted in his cross examination that the panel
advocate had no role in the
processing/sanction/disbursement or follow-up of the
loan, he argued.
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.180 Of 372
27.04 It was vehemently contended that it is
nowhere the prosecution case that the stamps of the
concerned Sub Registrars appearing on certified copies
obtained by A-2 were different from the stamps used
by the office/s of concerned Sub Registrars. Even no
witness from Sub-Registrar offices examined in this
case, has come out with any such version in their
deposition before the court nor Ld. Sr. PP even asked
anything in this regard in their examination-in-chief.
Upon comparing and tallying the particulars of certified
copies of the sale deeds with the copies of original title
deeds submitted by the borrower/guarantor/s in the
Bank, no discrepancy or forgery was noticed by A-2.
Therefore, there was no reason for A-2 to suspect any
foul play either at the hands of the bank
officials/borrower/guarantors or at the end of office of
concerned Sub Registrar. The legal opinion(s) submitted
by A-2 were based on the materials which was made
available to him by the concerned Sub-Registrar offices
and hence, no fault can be attributed to A-2.
27.05 It was further argued that A-2 stood
already acquitted in other cases of bank fraud i.e. RC
No. 1202/013A00/3/2013 CBI ACP Ghaziabad and FIR
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.181 Of 372
nos. 212/13 and 213/13 PS Kundli, Sonepat, where
similar allegations were raised against him and no
appeal has been preferred against said judgments. In
view thereof, the prosecution argument that A-1 and
A-2 had close connection and connived together to
defraud various banks, is also liable to fail.
27.06 To buttress his above arguments, Ld.
Counsel has placed reliance on the following
judgments:-
(a) Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab And Anr. (2005) 6
SCC1.
(b) Pandurang Dattatraya Khandekar vs. Bar Council
of Maharashtra and ors (1984) 2 SCC 556.
(c) CBI, Hyderabad v. K.Narayana Rao, (2012) 9 SCC
512.
(d) Sudhir Kumar v. CBI, Manu/DE/0890/2023.
Defence arguments on behalf of accused Public
Servants Ms. K.K.Johar (A-3) and Sh.Rajiv Sunej (A-4)
28. As per record, the public servants K.K.Johar
(A-3) and Ranjiv Suneja (A-4) have been charged with
the offence of criminal conspiracy punishable under
Section 120-B r/w 420/467/468/471 IPC and substantive
offence of cheating under Section 420 r/w 120B and
criminal misconduct punishable under Section 13(2) r/w
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.182 Of 372
13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988. At the relevant time of grant of
subject loan, Smt.K.K.Johar (A-3) was working as Chief
Manager and Sh. Rajiv Suneja (A-4) as senior Manager
at Jor Bagh Branch of Punjab National Bank (lending
bank). On behalf of K.K.Johar (A-3) the arguments have
been addressed by Ld. counsel Sh. Dhananjay Puri and
Ld. Counsel Sh. Shri Singh argued on behalf of Ranjiv
Suneja (A-4). Since the allegations in the charge-sheet
against both these public servants are largely similar,
therefore, barring few points, on all other aspects,
almost similar arguments have been raised on their
behalf by their respective counsels.
28.01 It was contended that the prosecution
has miserably failed to prove the charges against A-3
and A-4 as no cogent evidence has been adduced on
record by the prosecution to prove the element of
conspiracy on the part of said accused or to show any
iota of material indicative of any dishonest intention on
their part or to show that they derived any pecuniary
benefit from the borrower/A-1 or any other co-accused
in connection with the alleged transaction. It is argued
that both the said accused had done their duties with
utmost diligence and care and indeed, they themselves
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.183 Of 372
are the victims of the fraud played by the borrower
Sanjeev Dixit (A-1), who used to fabricate the
documents so cleverly that none of the bank officials
could get any inkling of his fraudulent intention and
same is also evident from the fact that by using same
modus operandi, said accused (A-1) had cheated a
number of other banks and many FIRs have also been
lodged against him in that regard.
28.02. As already noted above most of the
allegations raised against the said accused (public
servants) are similar. As per prosecution case, they both
(A-3 and A-4) had acted in blatant violation of banking
norms, guidelines and circulars both at pre-sanction
and post-sanction stage and caused a huge loss to the
complainant bank. It is alleged that the fraudulent
activities were carried out by the borrower with active
connivance of public servants, who failed to exercise
mandatory due diligence, thereby, enabling
continuation of illegal credit withdrawals and
facilitating the criminal conspiracy. For the purpose of
clarity, the defence arguments raised on behalf of said
two accused have been noted under following heads:-
(i) Lack of verification of KYC document of the
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.184 Of 372
borrower.
(ii) Lack of verification of financial documents of the
borrower.
(iii) Incorrect Confidential Reports and lack of
verification from the previous banker
(iv) Discrepancies in CIR reports
(v) Discrepancies in the NEC/legal search report
(vi) Sanction of loan prior to submission of Valuation
report
(vii) Discrepancies regarding physical verification of
the collateral properties
(viii) Discrepancies regarding stock verification visits
(ix) Diversion of funds through dummy accounts
However, for brevity sake, elaborate
arguments on aforementioned points shall be
discussed with rebuttal arguments of Ld. Sr. PP in the
later part of this judgment under the heading
"Discussion and Analysis of Material by the Court".
28.03 Ld. Counsels for A-3 and A-4 have also
argued that the case of the prosecution suffers from
selective arraignment, rendering the investigation
arbitrary, incomplete and legally unsustainable. It was
argued that CBI has inexplicably and arbitrary picked
A-3 and A-4 for the prosecution, while the other
similarly placed officials have been given clean chit
most notably Sr. Concurrent officer B.C. Katoch, who
had a statutory responsibility to continuously audit,
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.185 Of 372
verify and flag irregularities in the loan accounts. It was
argued that such pick and choose prosecution is illegal
and entitles A-3 and A-4 to acquittal. Reliance in this
regard has been placed in judgment Ashok Kumar
Gupta vs. CBI Crl. MC 194/2019 decided by Hon'ble
Delhi High Court on 14.08.2025.
28.04 Ld. Counsels further submitted that
during the entire relevant period, Sh. B. C. Katoch had
real time oversight over KYC compliance with circulars
and audit norms and he used to prepare quarterly
concurrent audit reports but no major irregularities in
the account of M/s Shanker Metals were pointed out by
him and the minor deficiencies, which he pointed out in
the quarterly report were duly rectified and marked off.
Further, the very circular relied upon by the prosecution
regarding KYC compliance, imposes an obligation also
upon the concurrent auditor to flag any deficiency. Yet,
no KYC defect, procedural lapses or suspicion was ever
recorded in any of the audit reports filed by Sh.
B.C.Katoch. The very fact that the concurrent auditor
did not pick up on any error in the documentation
shows that the errors were do well hidden by the
borrower/A-1 that it escaped attention of even the
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.186 Of 372
seasoned concurrent auditor.
28.05 Even otherwise, the errors/lapses as
allegedly uncovered by the bank or CBI were so trivial
that they were either not noticed or recorded as
rectified without any further demurer. Further the
failure of the CBI to offer Sh. B.C.Katoch as a witness
during trial despite knowing his important role in the
present case, clearly shows that CBI is guilty of
withholding the best evidence from the court and for
this, an adverse inference is liable to the drawn against
CBI under Section 114(g) of Indian Evidence Act.
Reliance in this regard has been placed on the
judgment 'S.P.Bhatnagar v. State of Maharashtra
(1979) 1 SCC 535'.
28.06 It was further argued that as per
settled preposition of law, the circumstances from
which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully
proved and such circumstances, must be conclusive in
nature and there should be no gap left in the chain of
evidence. Further the proved circumstances must be
consistent with the hypothecation of the guilt of
accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence. It
was argued that CBI has alleged certain irregularities
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.187 Of 372
on the part of said accused for ignoring certain banking
norms, circulars and guidelines and departmental
orders. But, the prosecution has failed to establish any
criminality against said accused beyond the realm of
suspicion.
28.07 In addition to above common
arguments, one more contention was raised on behalf
of A-4 that he was not the sanctioning authority and
indeed the loan was sanctioned by his senior colleague
Smt. K.K.Johar, who at the relevant time was the Chief
Manager of Jor Bagh branch of PNB. Since both the said
accused were holding different positions in the bank,
therefore, on account of their distinct profile and
position in the branch, they were having different
official duties and obligations. But despite that, CBI has
failed to pinpoint their (A-3 and A-4) individual liabilities
in the process of sanction and disbursal of loan. Ld.
Counsel argued that almost all the allegations raised by
the CBI in the chargesheet are common to both A-3 and
A-4 and even during trial, CBI does not appear to have
come out with any breakup of their liability.
28.08 Per contra, it was argued on behalf of
A-3 that as per banking guidelines, it was the duty of
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.188 Of 372
loan incharge to appraise the proposal and verify all
documents submitted by the borrower. He had to
collect all the relevant required documents from the
borrower and once the loan in charge is satisfied with
the authenticity of the documents, he appraises the
loan application along with adverse and favorable
comments, if any, along with his recommendation to
sanction the loan. In this case, the loan in-charge did all
the formalities and put up the proposal for sanction.
Since, there were no adverse comments in the
proposal, the same was considered for sanction by A-3.
Arguments on behalf of Rahul Sharma (A-5) and
Rajeev Sharma (A-6)
29. On behalf of aforementioned accused, Ld.
Counsel Sh. Rajni Kant has raised multi-fold arguments.
It was submitted by the Ld. Counsel that borrower
Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjeev Sharma (A-1) was the cousin
brother of A-5 and A-6, and they both were working as
his employees and did not have any idea of the
fraudulent activities of said accused, who was
constantly indulging in defrauding various banks by
availing different loan facilities on the basis of forged
and fabricated documents.
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.189 Of 372
29.01 It was submitted that A-5 and A-6 are
indeed the victims of circumstances, as their
documents like PAN card and voter ID cards and
photographs, etc. were used by Sanjeev Dixit (A-1) for
opening fake accounts in their name, which he used for
diversion of funds, without any knowledge of said
accused. Further that, the investigation has been
carried out in most perfunctory and shoddy manner.
Because, as per prosecution's own case, Sanjeev Dixit
had also used many other bank account purportedly
opened in the name of his many other relatives, but IO
chose to array only A-5 & A-6, while no action was taken
against any other relative of Sanjiv Dixit/ A-1. In the first
chargesheet, only Sanjeev Dixit (A-1) was charge-
sheeted by the IO and it is only after A-1 absconded
from judicial custody, IO made A-5 and A-6 as
scapegoat and charge-sheeted them by way of
supplementary charge-sheet. But during trial, the
prosecution has miserably failed to bring home their
guilt as there is no concrete evidence to establish any
element of conspiracy on their part. Evidence is
completely lacking to show that said accused had any
knowledge about the existence of any such bank
accounts in their name.
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.190 Of 372
29.02 Ld. Counsel further argued that the
forensic reports wherein, positive opinion regarding
questioned signatures of A-5 and A-6 on the account
opening forms have been given are manipulated
reports. He further submitted that the purported
signatures of said accused appearing on the cheques
through which, the money was allegedly transferred
through RTGS from their said bank accounts to the
dummy accounts created/opened by Sanjeev Dixit/A-1,
were never sent by the IO for comparison with their
specimen signatures so as to establish any conspiracy
on their part.
29.03 Ld. Counsel has further argued that
accused Sanjeev Dixit (A-1) @ Sanjay Sharma had taken
several photographs, PAN card, Voter Card etc. of A-5
and A-6 at the time of their joining his (A-1) firm and he
also obtained their signature on several blank account
opening forms and blank papers on the pretext of
opening their salary accounts but, he misused said
documents and photographs for opening fake bank
accounts in their names, which he (A-1) used for
siphoning off the loan funds. In this regard, Ld. counsel
has also taken us through the testimonies of various
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.191 Of 372
prosecution and defence witnesses as well as to the
forensic reports of the handwriting experts but, we
shall be dealing with the said details in the later part of
this judgment.
Discussion and Analysis of material by the Court
30. It is one of the fundamental principles of
criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to
be innocent till he is proved to be guilty. It is equally
well settled that suspicion howsoever strong can never
take the place of proof. Thus the prosecution has to
establish all essential of charge framed to allay this
presumption of innocence. Evidence is the only way to
prove or disprove anything and oral testimony apart
from the documentary evidence are the ways through
which evidence is brought on record. In the instant
case, both oral and documentary evidence has been
adduced on record but, the prosecution case is
primarily based on documentary evidence. As per
record charges for the following offences have been
framed against the accused persons:
(i) Charge under section 120B r/w 419/420/467/468/471
IPC with section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.192 Of 372
Corruption Act, 1988 and substantive offence u/s 420
IPC r/w 120B IPC against all the accused persons (A-1 to
A-6).
(ii) Charge u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 against accused Kulwinder
Kaur Johar @ K. K. Johar (A-3) and Ranjiv Suneja (A-4)
(Public Servants).
(iii) charge u/s 468 IPC r/w 120B IPC against accused
Nrapendra Singh Parihar @ N. S. Parihar (A-2). (Panel
Advocate).
31. Since the charge of conspiracy has been
alleged against all the accused person therefore, before
referring to the evidence and the respective
contentions of the parties, I may first refer to the
important precedent relating to the offence of Criminal
Conspiracy. Criminal conspiracy has been defined
under Section 120 A IPC and its punishment is
prescribed under Section 120 B IPC. For the sake of
ready reference the provisions are reproduced as
under:-
120A. Definition of criminal conspiracy. When
two or more persons agree to do, or cause to
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.193 Of 372
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.
120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy.-(1)
Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to
commit an offence punishable with death,
[imprisonment for life] or rigorous
imprisonment for a term of two years or
upwards, shall, where no express provision is
made in this Code for the punishment of such a
conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as
if he had abetted such offence.
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy
other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an
offence punishable as aforesaid shall be
punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term not exceeding six months,
or with fine or with both.]"
Criminal Conspiracy
32. Pertinently, the offence of criminal
conspiracy to commit a crime is different offence from
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.194 Of 372
the crime that is the object of the conspiracy. Because,
the conspiracy precedes the commission of the crime
and is complete before the crime is attempted or
completed. The conspirators invariably deliberately
plan and act in secret over a period of time. It is not
necessary that each one of them must have actively
participated in the commission of the offence or was
involved in it from start to finish. What is important is
that they were involved in the conspiracy or in other
words, there is a combination by agreement, which may
be express or implied or in part implied. Reliance placed
on 'Firozuddin Basheeruddin and others vs. State of
Kerala, 2001 SCC (Crl) 1341'.
33. Criminal conspiracy is hatched to commit an
illegal act which is an offence punishable under law. It is
not essential that the accused person must do an overt
act, and mere agreement between two or more
persons to commit an illegal act is sufficient to
constitute the offence of criminal conspiracy. It is also
not necessary that the object of the conspiracy should
have been achieved for it to be considered as an
offence. Even if the conspiracy fails on account of
abandonment or detection before commission of
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.195 Of 372
offence, the very act of entering into an agreement by
the co-conspirators is itself an offence and punishable
under the law. However, it has to be kept in mind that
the standard of proof for the act of criminal conspiracy
is the same as that of any other criminal offence i.e.
beyond reasonable doubt. In the case of 'State (NCT of
Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, AIR 2005 SC 3820', it was held
that:"A few bits here and a few bits there on which the
prosecution relies cannot be held to be adequate for
connecting the accused in the offence of criminal
conspiracy".
34. The essential ingredients of the offence of
criminal conspiracy are: (i) an agreement between two
or more persons; (ii) the agreement must relate to
doing or causing to be done either (a) an illegal act; or
(b) an act which is not illegal in itself but is done by
illegal means. It is, therefore, plain that meeting of
minds of two or more persons for doing or causing to
be done an illegal act or an act by illegal means is sine
qua non of criminal conspiracy.
35. Here, I may also refer to the judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Sanjeev vs. State of Kerala
decided on 09.11.2023 in Criminal Appeal No. 1134 Of
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.196 Of 372
2011', wherein, Hon'ble Apex Court referred to its
previous judgment in 'State through Superintendent
of Police v. Nalini & Ors.6 (3-Judge Bench)', where the
ingredients to constitute a criminal conspiracy were
summarized as follows:
i. Conspiracy is when two or more persons agree to
do or cause to be done an illegal act or legal act
by illegal means.
ii. The offence of criminal conspiracy is an exception
to the general law, where intent alone does not
constitute crime. It is the intention to commit a
crime and join hands with persons having the
same intention.
iii. Conspiracy is hatched in private or in secrecy. It is
rarely possible to establish a conspiracy by direct
evidence. Usually, the existence of the conspiracy
and its objects have to be inferred from the
circumstances and the conduct of the accused.
iv. Where in pursuance of the agreement, the
conspirators commit offenses individually or
adopt illegal means to do a legal act that has a
nexus to the object of the conspiracy, all of them
will be liable for such offenses even if some of
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.197 Of 372
them have not actively participated in the
commission of those offenses.
36. In the case of State of Maharashtra & Ors. v.
Som Nath Thapa &Ors., (1996) 4 SCC 659', it was
observed that "for a person to conspire with another, he
must have knowledge of what the co-conspirators were
wanting to achieve and thereafter, having the intent to
further the illegal act takes recourse to a course of
conduct to achieve the illegal end or facilitate its
accomplishment."
37. It has never been easy to get direct evidence
for proving an offence under Section 120-A, which
defines criminal conspiracy. Considering this fact,
Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act comes into play.
This section can be divided into two parts; firstly where
there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more
persons have conspired to commit an offence or an
actionable wrong. Only when this condition precedent
is satisfied, the second part of the section comes into
operation i.e. anything said, done or written by any one
of such persons in reference to the common intention
after the time when such intention was first entertained
by any one of them is a relevant fact against each of the
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.198 Of 372
persons believed to be so conspiring as well for the
purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy.
38. It is therefore, necessary that a prima facie
case of conspiracy has to be established for application
of Section 10. The second part of section permits the
use of evidence which otherwise could not be used
against the accused person. 'Sardar Sardul Singh
Caveeshar v. State of Maharashtra (1964) 2 SCR 378',
is an authority on this issue.
39. The offence of criminal conspiracy has also
been dealt with in detail by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
'Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.); 17 (1988) 3 SCC
609', and it was observed as under:-
"275. Generally, a conspiracy is hatched in
secrecy and it may be difficult to adduce direct
evidence of the same. The prosecution will
often rely on evidence of acts of various
parties to infer that they were done
inreference to their common intention. The
prosecution will also more often rely upon
circumstantial evidence. The conspiracy can be
undoubtedly proved by such evidence direct or
circumstantial. But the court must enquire
whether the two persons are independently
pursuing the same end or they have come
together in the pursuit of the unlawful object.
The former does not render them
conspirators, but the latter does. It is however,
essential that the offence of conspiracy
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.199 Of 372
requires some kind of physical manifestation
of agreement. The express agreement,
however, need not be proved. Nor actual
meeting of two persons is necessary. Nor it is
necessary to prove the actual words of
communication ...."
Discussion and Analysis of material qua N.S.Parihar
(A-2)
40. The prosecution case alleged against A-2,
who at the relevant time was an empeneled lawyer for
Punjab National Bank is that, he entered into a criminal
conspiracy with the other co-accused with a common
object to defraud and cheat the complainant bank and
under said conspiracy, he induced the bank to grant the
cash credit facility to the tune of Rs. 4 Crores in favour
of the borrower by giving a false legal opinion/Non-
Encumbrance Certificates (NEC) to the bank and filing
forged and fabricated certified copies of the sale deeds
of the four immovable properties proposed to be
mortgaged by the borrower for the subject loan and by
doing so, A-2 caused wrongful loss to the lending bank
to the tune of Rs. 4 Cr and a corresponding gain to the
borrower A-1 (since PO).
40.01 The foremost contention raised by Sh.
C. Shekhar Malhotra, Ld. Counsel for N.S.Parihar (A-2) is
that, after N.S.Parihar (A-2) was handed over the
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.200 Of 372
registered sale deeds of the mortgaged properties by
the bank for seeking his legal opinion on the title of
said properties, he had inspected the records of the
concerned Sub-Registrar office, where said properties
were found to be duly registered exactly on the same
registration number, book number, volume number and
page number as reflected on the original sale deeds
supplied to him by the bank and therefore, there was
no occasion for N.S.Parihar (A-2) to raise any suspicion
on the genuineness of said documents. Further, on the
basis of the previous chain of documents, the title of
the mortgagors in the respective properties was found
to be clear.
40.02 Besides that, it was further contended
that A-2 had also applied for certified copies of the sale
deed of said properties in the office of concerned Sub-
Registrars and whatever copies he had received from
there, he handed over the same to the bank. Therefore,
forgery, if any, has been committed, the same has been
committed by the borrower (A-1) in connivance with the
officials of concerned Sub-Registrar office, from where
A-2 had obtained said copies upon deposit of requisite
fees. Since N.S.Parihar (A-2) remained completely
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.201 Of 372
unaware about said connivance of borrower with the
officials of Sub-Registrar office, no knowledge can be
attributed to A-2 regarding said documents being
forged.
40.03 I have considered the above
submissions of the Ld. Counsel Sh. C. Shekhar Malhotra
in the light of the material on record as well as the rival
contentions raised by Ld. Sr. PP. As per prosecution
case, the borrower Sanjeev Dixit (A-1) had approached
the complainant Bank, PNB, Jorbagh Branch for the
grant of cash credit facility for his proprietorship firm
on 02.03.2011 and vide sanction letter dated
29.03.2011, he was granted cash credit facility of Rs. 4
Crore against hypothecation of stocks/book Debts
subject to a margin of 25%. Besides primary security of
stocks/book debts, the loan was secured by personal
guarantees and collateral security by mortgage of
following 4 immovable properties:-
(1) 1st property was in the name of the
Guarantor Sanjay Sharma, proprietor of M/s Super
Machines, r/o 17B Shri Ram Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi,
who mortgaged his immovable property admeasuring
700 sq. Yards, Plot No. 25, Shyam Industrial Area,
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.202 Of 372
Village Banthla, Loni, Ghaziabad, U.P (hereinafter
also referred as 1st property) by depositing the original
Sale Deed Ex. 6/A3 (D-10) executed in his favour by
Harbans Lal Sharma, registered with the office of Sub-
Registrar-IV, Ghaziabad on 04.06.2008, along with
entire previous chain of documents.
(2) 2nd property was in the name of Guarantor
Smt. Indra Rani W/o Yagya Dutt Sharma, R/o 198/2, Gali
No. 1, Bhola Nath Nagar, Delhi, who mortgaged her
built up immovable property admeasuring 65 sq. yards
situated at No. 17B, Shri Ram Nagar, GT Road,
Shahdara, Delhi, (hereinafter also referred as 2nd
property) by depositing the Sale Deed Ex. PW6/E3
(D-11) executed in her favour by Smt. Simla Rani,
registered with the office of Sub-Registrar-IV, Delhi on
04.10.1999, with previous chain of documents.
(3) The 3rd and 4th properties were the
properties of the borrower Sanjeev Dixit (A-1) himself,
i.e. his residential property admeasuring 341.40 sq.
meters C-193, III Floor, Vivek Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi
(hereinafter also referred as 3rd property) in respect of
which a sale deed Ex. PW6/ P3 (D-12) executed in his
favour by R.K. Manchanda, registered on 31.01.2011
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.203 Of 372
with the office of Sub-Registrar-VIII, Delhi, was
deposited with the bank with previous chain of
documents and the other property was an industrial
property bearing no. 121 FIE, Patparganj Industrial
Area, Delhi, (hereinafter also referred as 4th property)
in respect of which, original sale deed Ex. PW6/U3
(D-13) executed by Ramji Lal Chawla, registered with
Sub-Registrar-VIII Delhi on 25.05.2011, was deposited
with the bank with previous chain of documents. It was
pertinent to note that 4th property was substituted at
the place of property number 5/1234, Vasundhara,
Ghaziabad, owned by one Rajesh Aggarwal, which was
initially proposed to be mortgaged with the bank.
40.04 Ld. Sr. PP submitted that as per the
evidence adduced on record all the aforementioned
sale deeds submitted by the borrower with the bank
were found to be forged and fabricated. Out of said 4
mortgaged properties, sale deeds of 1st property and
2nd property was though registered at the same
registration number, book number, volume number and
page number as mentioned on the original sale deeds
of said two properties submitted by A-1 but, upon their
comparison with the corresponding sale deeds of said
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.204 Of 372
two properties available in the concerned Sub-Registrar
offices, said sale deeds were found to be different.
Because, the photograph of the purchaser on said
forged sale deeds was found to be different from the
photograph of the purchaser appearing on the genuine
sale deeds available with concerned Sub-Registrar
office. It was submitted that the photographs of
purchasers appearing on the certified copies filed by
A-2 are similar to the photographs of the respective
purchasers on the forged sale deed of said properties
filed by the borrower/A-1.
40.05 In respect of 3rd property C-193, 3rd
floor, Vivek Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi, it was submitted that
as per the record of the concerned Sub-Registrar, the
sale deed of said property dated 31.01.2011 was
though found to be registered at the given particulars.
But, in the light of the testimony of PW-68/Romit
Manchanda, the said registered sale deed is also a
forged document. Ld Sr. PP submitted that as per the
version of said witness Romit Manchanda/PW-68 and
the documents produced by him, the said 3rd property
belonged to his father late Sh. R.K.Manchanda and after
his death, the same was inherited by his mother by
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.205 Of 372
virtue of his father's Will and a relinquishment deed
executed by him (Romit Manchanda) in favour of his
mother. As per his version, the said floor of the
property was never sold out by his parents and was still
in possession of Manchanda family till the date of his
deposition before the court. While investigation
revealed that no sale deed in respect of the 4th
property of 121 FIE, Patparganj Industrial Area, Delhi
was registered in the office of concerned Sub-Registrar
on the given particulars and in view thereof, the
defence arguments that sale deeds of all the 4
properties were registered with office of concerned
Sub- Registrar is absolutely wrong.
40.06 In this regard, attention of the court
has been drawn to the testimonies of PW 13, 44, 46 to
50, who are the witnesses from the concerned Sub
Registrar offices as well as other private persons
namely Romit Manchanda and Indira Rani, who were
examined as PW-68 and PW-14 respectively. The NEC
and the certified copies of sale deeds of
aforementioned 4 properties filed by A-2 with the bank,
are sought to have been proved through PW-6 Sh. C.P.
Garg.
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.206 Of 372
40.07 In order to correctly understand the
above submission of Ld. Sr.PP, the evidence of the
concerned witnesses from the Sub-Registrar Office is
required to be carefully perused. PW-13 Naveen Kumar
has been summoned from the Sub-Registrar office IV,
Ghaziabad. As per his deposition, upon a request from
CBI, he had handed over the certified copy of the sale
deed in respect of aforementioned 1st property i.e. Plot
No. 25, Shyam Industrial Area, Village Banthla, Loni,
Ghaziabad, U.P, which is available on record as part of
Ex. PW13/A (colly) (D-79) (genuine sale deed). As per
his version, the sale deed Ex. PW6/A3 (the sale deed
filed by the borrower with the bank D-10) was the
same document, which was shown to him by the IO
during investigation and after comparing the same (Ex.
PW6/A3) with the sale deed Ex. PW13/A, the
photograph of the purchaser affixed on the sale deed
Ex. PW6/A3 was found to be different from the
purchaser's photograph appearing on the document
Ex. PW13/A. I have carefully perused both the said
documents which showed that not only the purchaser's
photograph on said two documents is of different
persons but even the PAN card number of the
purchaser on said two documents are different. The
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.207 Of 372
PAN number of the purchaser on Ex. PW6/A3 is
BZYPS4132F while the PAN number of the purchaser on
Ex.PW13/A is BYKPS2303D.
40.08 I have also carefully perused and
compared said two documents i.e the Ex. PW13/A(D-29)
(the certified copy of genuine sale deed) and Ex.
PW6/A3 (forged sale deed furnished by the borrower in
the bank) with the certified copy of the sale deed of said
property deposited by A-2 with the bank, which is
available on record as D-117 (part of Ex. PW6/H1) (page
128)). The careful comparison of said three documents
shows that the photograph of the purchaser on the
genuine sale deed Ex. PW13/A (D-79) is of the borrower
Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma (A-1). Whereas, on the
forged sale deed Ex. PW6/A3 and certified copy of said
sale deed D-117 filed by A-2 (part of Ex. PW6/H1), the
guarantor Sanjay Sharma proprietor of M/s Super
Machine is shown to be purchaser/owner. While all
other details of said three documents appear to be
same.
40.09. Ld. Sr. PP has submitted that Sanjiv Dixit @
Sanjay Sharma was the owner of said property but, at
the time of applying the subject loan, the
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.208 Of 372
aforementioned property was already mortgaged with
some other bank against some other loan and
therefore, a forged sale deed was created with similar
details and particulars and only the photo of the owner,
who was Sanjay Sharma @ Sanjiv Dixit, was changed
with the photograph of one Jitendra Singh (since PO),
who impersonated himself as Sanjay Sharma one of the
guarantor herein. Ld PP also pointed out that said
photograph appearing on the forged sale deed Ex.
PW6/A3 has been identified to be of one Jitender @
Jeetu by PW-74 Sanjeev Singh Rana, who was also one
of the ex-employee of borrower Sanjeev Dixit (A-1).
Meaning thereby, that said person Jitendra @ Jeetu
impersonated himself as Sanjay Sharma (guarantor) at
the time of execution of the loan documents of the
subject loan.
40.10 From the testimony of the
aforementioned witness from the Sub-Registrar office
IV, Ghaziabad, it has been clearly established on record
that the sale deed of aforementioned property
furnished by the borrower i.e Ex. PW6/A3 (D-10) as well
as the certified copy Ex.PW6/A3 (part of Ex. PW6/H1)
[D-117 from page no.1218 to 1252], filed by A-2, which
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.209 Of 372
is the identical copy of Ex. PW6/A3 (D-10), both are
forged and fabricated documents.
40.11 In respect of the 2nd mortgaged
property bearing no. 17-B Shriram Nagar, Shahdara,
Delhi, the prosecution has examined two witnesses,
namely, PW-46 Budh Prakash Gautam and PW-47 Manoj
Kaushik, from Sub- Registrar office IV and IV A
respectively. As per PW 46, he had handed over certified
copy of sale deed dated 04.10.1999 Ex.PW46/A (Colly.)
(D-80) (also exhibited as Ex.PW14/C) of the
aforementioned property to the IO vide seizure memo
dated 21.08.2013 (D-80) (also part of Ex. PW46/A). As
said witness was not coming out with complete facts,
he was cross-examined by the Ld. PP and in his cross-
examination, he came out with the version that the
photograph of the purchaser appearing at point A on
the sale deed Ex.PW6/E3, which is the sale deed
furnished by the borrower with the bank, is of some
other female i.e. other than the female in purchaser's
photograph appearing on the certified copy of sale
deed Ex. 14/C (part of Ex. PW46/A-colly).
40.12 Perusal of the record shows that the
certified copy of the sale deed furnished by A-2 in
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.210 Of 372
respect of said 2nd mortgaged property is available on
record as part of Ex. PW6/I-1(D-118 page no. 1253 to
1267). Careful comparison of said document Ex.
PW6/I-1 with Ex. PW6/E3 (the sale deed deposited by
the borrower/A-1) shows that Ex. PW6/I-1 is the ditto
copy of Ex. PW6/E3. Even the photograph of purchaser
on both said two documents appears to be of same
person. However, said photograph of the purchaser
Indra Rani appearing on Ex. PW6/I-1 and Ex. PW6/E3 is
different from the purchaser's photograph appearing
on the certified copy of genuine sale deed Ex. PW14/C
(also part of Ex. PW46/A (Colly). The genuine certified
copy of the sale deed is sought to have been proved
through PW-14 and PW-46.
40.13 PW-14 is Indra Rani, who as per
prosecution case, was the actual owner of the
aforementioned property. She identified her signature
and the photograph on the genuine sale deed Ex.
PW14/C (part of Ex. PW46/A-colly) and disowned her
purported photograph and signatures on the forged
sale deeds Ex. PW6/I-1 (filed by A-1) and Ex. PW6/E3
(certified copy filed by A-2). As per her version, she had
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.211 Of 372
purchased the said property in the year 1999 and sold it
out in February 2003.
40.14 As per prosecution case, the purported
signatures of the purchaser Indra Rani appearing on Ex.
PW6/E3 were got compared with her (PW14's) specimen
signature Ex. PW14/D(colly)(D-165 at page no. 2805 to
2809) and in this regard, the forensic expert furnished
his report Ex. PW75/C (D-166) wherein, the questioned
signatures of Indra Rani and her specimen signatures
were found to be of different person and said report
has been duly proved on record by PW-75, Sh. Anil
Sharma.
40.15 It is pertinent to note that Non-
Encumbrance Certificates (NECs) in respect of 1st and 2nd
property i.e., D-116 at page no. 1210 and D118 at page
no. 1253 are both dated 26.03.2011. As per said NECs,
A-2 had verified, tallied and compared the title
documents furnished to him by the bank from the
record of the office of sub-registrar IV, Ghaziabad, UP
and Sub-Registrar IV Delhi respectively and as per the
search report annexed with his report, the inspection of
record for the period from 1999 to 24.03.2011, did not
disclose any encumbrance on the aforementioned
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.212 Of 372
properties. As per NEC (D-116) in respect of 1st
property, the certified copy of its sale deed had been
applied by A-2 but, it was not yet received meaning
thereby, that it was submitted with the bank
subsequent to filing of NEC. Whereas, as per NEC,
D-118 in respect of 2nd property, the certified copy was
already obtained and the registration particulars were
duly compared and were found to be similar.
40.16 In respect of the 3rd property bearing
No. C-193, 3rd Floor, Vivek Vihar, Phase I, Delhi, the
prosecution has examined PW-48 Sh. Naveen Kumar
Sharma from the Sub-Registrar office VIII, Delhi and
PW-68 Sh. Romit Manchanda son of the actual owner of
said property late Sh. R.K.Manchanda. As per the
version of PW-48, vide letter dated 07.01.2014 Ex. PW
48/A, he had handed over certified copies of the 08
registered sale deeds Ex. PW48/B (colly) pertaining to
different floors i.e. two sale deeds of upper ground
floor; three sale deeds of first floor; two sale deeds of
second floor and one sale deed of third floor of said
property no. C-193, Vivek Vihar, Phase-1 Delhi,
registered with the office of Sub-Registrar VIII, District
East. The details of said registered sale deeds, which
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.213 Of 372
were registered at different point of time, are given in
the tabular form in the letter of Sub-Registrar Ex.
PW48/A.
40.17 As per prosecution case, only the sale
deed of the 3rd floor bearing registration no. 1479 book
no. 1 vol no. 5213 page no. 117-127 dated 31.01.2011, is
relevant for the purpose of this case as the borrower
morgaged only the 3rd floor of the aforementioned
property with the lending bank. However, the
investigation revealed that the said registered sale deed
in respect of 3rd floor of said property which is part of
Ex. PW48/A (page no. 639 of D-83) purportedly executed
by R.K.Manchanda in favour of Sanjeev Dixit (A-1), is a
forged sale deed and same is evident from the
testimony of PW-68 Romit Manchanda S/o Late Sh.
R.K.Manchanda and the documents ( chain of title
documents ) provided by him.
40.18 As per PW68, his father R.K.Manchanda
(Rajender Kumar Manchanda), was the owner of the
entire property no. C-193, Vivek Vihar, Phase-1 Delhi,
which he had purchased from L&DO vide perpetual
lease deed dated 02.07.1969 and subsequently, a
conveyance deed was registered in his father's name by
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.214 Of 372
DDA on 03.05.2001. After the death of his (PW-68's)
father in the year 2011, (13.08.2011), the 3rd floor of said
property was inherited by his mother Mrs.Rajni
Manchanda by virtue of Will of his father (Rajender
Kumar Manchanda), which is part of Ex.PW77/B (Colly.)
(D-84). During the course of investigation of this case,
the copies of the genuine chain of title documents of
said property were seized from Mrs. Rajni Manchanda
and her son Romit Manchanda vide seizure memo Ex.
PW68/A (colly) (D-154) and Ex. PW77/B (colly)(D-84)
respectively.
40.19 As per the testimony of PW-68 Romit
Manchanda, the 3rd floor of the aforementioned
property was never sold either by his father or his
mother and same was in their possession even till the
date of his examination in the court. He (PW-68)
deposed that in the year 2010, the 3rd floor of said
property was however, rented out to one Rajeev Sharma
(A-6) vide a registered rent deed dated 25.10.2010, part
of Ex. PW 68/A (colly) (D-154 page no. 2633 to 2635) and
at the time, when 3rd floor was let out, Rajeev Sharma
(A-6) was also accompanied with his brother-in-law
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.215 Of 372
Sanjeev Dixit (A-1). PW-68 has correctly identified Rajeev
Sharma (A-6) in the court.
40.20 In his examination in chief, PW-68
further deposed that one day one official Vikram from
PNB Dwarka had come to their property and he wanted
to meet Sanjeev Dixit (A-1). To his (PW-68) utter
surprise, in PNB Dwarka, Sanjeev Dixit (A-1) was shown
to be the owner of said property. Upon knowing it,
PW-68 informed said official that Sanjeev Dixit was not
the owner of said property and that he (Sanjeev Dixit)
had manipulated the documents. As per PW-68,
Sanjeev Dixit (A-1) had taken a loan of Rs.48 lakh from
PNB, Dwarka and Rs. 3 crore from PNB, Nehru Nagar,
Ghaziabad against same property by forging the sale
deed and manipulating the name of his father as Raj
Manchanda.
40.21 PW-68 deposed that when he visited
PNB Dwarka, he was shown the documents on the basis
of which the loan was taken against their property and
at that time, PW-68 noticed that the photograph of the
erstwhile owner/seller pasted on the property
document (Sale deed) was not of his father but of some
other person. Further, the seller's signatures
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.216 Of 372
purportedly shown in his father's name were also
forged. PW-68 deposed further that in that regard, he
and his mother had also filed complaints/letters to said
bank as well as to the concerned Sub-Registrar office.
He also proved on record the seizure memo Ex. PW68/A
(colly) D-154) vide which, he had handed over the copy
of the original chain of documents i.e. the copy of Will,
copy of perpetual lease deed, conveyance deed, death
certificate of his father, mutation letter, voter ID card
and passport of his father R.K.Manchanda etc. to the IO.
40.22 The 4th property, which was mortgaged
with the bank for the subject loan is 121 FIE,
Patparganj Industrial Area, Delhi. The said property
was substituted at the place of property bearing no.
5/1234, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad, which was initially
mortgaged with the bank at the time of sanction of
loan. The property bearing no. 121 FIE, Patparganj
Industrial Area, Delhi was also claimed to be owned by
the borrower Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma (A-1).
40.23 As per prosecution case, the borrower
Sanjeev Dixit (A-1) deposited the original sale deed
pertaining to said property purportedly executed in his
favour by one Ramji Lal Chawla vide registration no.
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.217 Of 372
23451 in additional book no. 1 Vol. no. 4320 on page
no. 102 to 109 dated 25.05.2011, available on record as
Ex. PW6/U3 (D-13). However, as per the deposition of
PW-48 Sh. Naveen Kumar Sharma from the Sub-
Registrar office VIII, Delhi, no such sale deed was
registered at the given particulars as per their record.
In fact, at given page no. 102-109 vol. no. 4320 Book 1
of the office record, one sale deed dated 09.12.2009
having a different registration no. 15379, was lying
registered in respect of some other property no. 232,
Jagriti Enclave, and sale deed of said property is
available on record as Ex. PW49/B (D-155).
40.24 Upon careful comparison of the
certified copy of the sale deed filed by N.S.Parihar (A-2)
with his NEC dated 22.06.2011 Ex. PW 6/L1 (D-122) with
Ex. PW 6/U-3 (D-13), it was found to be the identical
copy of the sale deed Ex. PW6/U3 (D-13) submitted by
the borrower with the bank in respect of said property
bearing no. 121 FIE, Patparganj Industrial Area, Delhi,
and this clearly establishes that both the NEC and the
certified copy of sale deed filed by N.S.Parihar (A-2) in
respect of said 4th property were the forged
documents as no such property was actually registered
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.218 Of 372
with the office of concerned Sub-Registrar-VIII, at the
given particulars.
40.25 As per the NEC Ex. PW6/L1, of said 4 th
property, the search/inspection conducted by
N.S.Parihar (A-2) of record maintained at the office of
concerned Sub-Registrar for the period from 26.10.2001
to 21.06.2011, did not disclose any encumbrances on
said property. The NEC further says N.S.Parihar (A-2)
had verified, tallied and compared the chain of title
documents pertaining to aforementioned property
submitted with the bank from the record of office of
Sub-Registrar VIII, Delhi. However, in the light of the
deposition of PW-48, the above contents of NEC are
absolutely false as no such sale deed of said property
was registered in the office of Sub-Registrar VIII and in
that eventuality, there arises no question of accused A-2
having verified, tallied and compared the chain of title
documents from the record of concerned Sub-Registrar.
The certification given by N.S.Parihar (A-2) in the NEC to
the effect that registration particulars, the date and
page etc as shown in the sale deed filed by the
borrower and the contents thereof, tallied with the
information available in the records of office of Sub-
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.219 Of 372
Registrar are clearly false, wrong and incorrect. It is
pertinent to note that cross-examination of both the
said witness from Sub-Registrar office PW-48 and
PW-49 remained nil on behalf of all the accused
persons including N.S.Parihar (A-2) and as such, their
testimonies remained unrebutted.
40.26 As per the defence argument, a non-
encumbrance certificate (Form 29) (D-117 page 1217) in
respect of 1st property, was issued by the office of Sub-
Registrar IV Ghaziabad itself and therefore, there was
no reason for A-2 to doubt the genuineness of either
the certificate (NEC) i.e. Form no. 29 or the certified
copy of said sale deed obtaining from Sub-Registrar
office. He further submitted that with the NEC D-117,
the fees deposit receipt was also enclosed and the
same is bearing the stamp of the Sub-Registrar office
IV, Ghaziabad. Whereas, during examination of said
witness from the Sub-Registrar office IV, Ghaziabad
(PW-13), Ld. Sr. PP failed to show him (PW-13) any of
these documents nor he (Ld. Sr. PP) asked any question
from PW-13 regarding the purported stamp of the Sub-
Registrar office appearing on said documents.
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.220 Of 372
40.27 It has been vehemently argued on
behalf A-2 that considering the nature of charge framed
against the A-2, prosecution was required to prove not
only that the documents i.e NECs or the certified copies
of sale deeds filed by him (A-2) with the bank, were false
and fabricated but also that, it was he (A-2) who forged
said documents and that he did it knowingly with the
dishonest intention to cheat the bank. Whereas, Ld PP
failed to ask any question from any of the witnesses
examined from Sub-Registrar office to know if the
stamps of the office of concerned Sub-Registrar or
signatures of concerned Sub-Registrar or the dealing
clerk on the certified copies were genuine or forged. It
is however, pertinent to note herein that except the 1 st
property of 25, Shyam Industrial Area, Ghaziabad, all
other three mortgaged properties are situated in Delhi
and it is only in respect of 1st property of Ghaziabad, the
Non-Encumbrance Certificate (Form 29), purportedly
issued by the concerned Sub-Register office, was filed
by A-2 with the certified copy of sale deed of said 1st
property.
40.28 Ld Counsel for A-2 has further argued
that receipts of fee deposit issued by concerned Sub-
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.221 Of 372
Register offices against the payment of fees for the
certified copies of the sale deeds were also filed as a
proof that A-2 had obtained said certified
copies/reports from the office of concerned Sub-
Registrar. But despite that, none of the witnesses
examined from the office of concerned Sub-Registrar,
were shown said receipts so as to ask them to either
admit or deny the purported stamps of their respective
office of the concerned Sub-Registrar or the signatures
of concerned Sub-Registrars or dealing clerk, appearing
on the them.
40.29 It has been vehemently argued that in
absence of examination of said witnesses on above
important aspects, the prosecution has miserably failed
to prove that the certification of the office of concerned
Sub-Registrars on the certified copies of the sale deeds
filed by A-2 with the bank were forged or that A-2 had
any knowledge that said certified copies were forged.
But here also, I may note that, as per record, the fee
deposit receipt has been enclosed only with the
certified copy of the 3rd property C 193, 3rd floor, Vivek
Vihar, Phase-1, Delhi, while no such receipts were filed
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.222 Of 372
in respect of the certified copies of the other sale
deeds.
40.30. In respect of 1st property bearing no. 25,
Shyam Industrial Area/Estate, Banthala, Loni,
Ghaziabad, Ld. Counsel for A-2 has argued that upon
inspection of the record of said property in the office of
concerned Sub-Registrar, the sale deed executed by Sh.
Harbans Lal Sharma S/o Sh. Tirath Ram in favour of M/S
Super Machines through its Proprietor Sh. Sanjay
Sharma S/o Janardan Sharma, was found to be
registered as document no. 15582, Bahi No. 1 Jild
(Volume) No. 10581, page 67 to 134 dated 04.06.2008
and accordingly, the non-encumbrance certificate (Form
29), issued by Sub Registrar IV, Ghaziabad was obtained
and same was submitted with the Bank and the said
fact was duly mentioned by A-2 ANNEXURE-VA in his
Non Encumbrance Certificate (D-116) of A-2.
40.31 Ld. Counsel further argued that the
sale deed in respect of 3rd property bearing No. C-193,
3rd Floor, Vivek Vihar, Phase I, Delhi, executed by Sh.
R.K Manchanda S/O Late Sh. H.L. Manchanda in favour
of Sh. Sanjeev Dixit S/o Sh. Hari Shanker Dixit was
registered as document no. 1479, Book No. 1 Volume
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.223 Of 372
No. 5213, page 117 to 127 dated 31.01.2011, and said
particulars were found matching with the Certified
Copy (D-120) obtained from the Office of concerned
Sub-Registrar. Further, the registration details were
found matching with the details in the Index Register
and therefore, no knowledge can be attributed to A-2
that the certified copy obtained by him was of a forged
sale deed.
40.32 Ld. Counsel submitted that even the IO
in his deposition admitted that he did not investigate
into the aspect of the stamps of the offices of the
concerned Sub-Registrars on the certified copies of title
deeds submitted by A-2 with the bank. IO also admitted
that comparison of Original Title Deeds supplied by the
Bank with the Certified Copies obtained from the office
of concerned Sub-Registrar is one of the parameters for
comparison.
40.33 As already noted above, besides the
charge of cheating and criminal conspiracy, A-2 was
also charged for the offence of forgery for the purpose
of cheating punishable under Section 468 IPC read with
120-B IPC. The charge of forgery under Section 468 IPC
was framed against said accused to the effect that he in
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.224 Of 372
pursuance to the criminal conspiracy with co-accused
persons, submitted a false verification report to the
bank in respect of the immovable properties, which
were offered as collateral security by co-accused
Sanjeev Dixit (P.O.), which was used for the purpose of
cheating and thereby, he committed the offence under
Section 468 IPC read with 120-B IPC.
40.34 As per the material on record, the
documents D-116 (Ex.PW6/H1, Page no. 1210 to 1215),
D-118 (part of Ex.PW6/I-1 page no. 1259 to 1267),
D-119 (part of Ex.PW6/J-1 page no. 1275 to 1284) and
D-122 (part of Ex. PW 6/L1 page no. 1338 to 1352), are
the letters/certificates, which are the NECs furnished by
A-2 with the bank, were addressed to the Chief
Manager of the lending bank, wherein A-2 gave his
legal opinion on the investigation of title of the
properties proposed for mortgage with the bank.
Alongwith these letter/certificates three documents i.e.
special report, search report and chain of title were also
enclosed. In respect of 1st property of Ghaziabad an
additional document Form 29 (D-117) purportedly
issued by the office of Sub-Register-IV, Ghaziabad was
also filed, whereby, no encumbrance report with regard
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.225 Of 372
to said property was given under the signature and
stamp of said office. However, no such document Form
29 was filed by A-2 in respect of the other three
properties situated in Delhi.
40.35 In the charge of forgery framed against
A-2 under Section 468 read with 120-B IPC, the
reference to false verification report issued by A-2, has
been made in respect of aforementioned 4 certificates
D-116, D-118, D-119 and D-122 furnished by A-2 with
the bank. Except D-122, all other certificates are dated
26.03.2011, while D-122 is dated 22.06.2011. As per said
reports, the title of the aforementioned properties was
found to be clear on the basis of the record of the
concerned Sub-Registrar office including the Index
Register, Form No.29 (in respect of the 1st property of
Loni, Ghaziabad) and the certified copies of the sale
deeds obtained by A-2 from the office of the concerned
Sub-Registrars.
40.36 On meticulous examination of the
evidence adduced on record, more specifically the
testimonies of the witnesses from Sub-Registrar Offices
and that of PW-68/Romit Manchanda and PW-14 Smt.
Indra Rani, I am of the considered view that the
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.226 Of 372
prosecution has successfully established on record that
all the sale deeds filed by the borrower/A-1 with the
bank as well as the certified copies of said sale deeds
filed by A-2 in support of his legal search report are
forged, fabricated and bogus documents.
40.37 However, the question that comes up
for consideration is that whether the false opinion
given by A-2 in the aforementioned certificates D-116,
D-118, D-119 and D-122 or his act of filing certified
copies of bogus sale deeds, can make him liable for the
offence of forgery under Section 468 IPC. As per A-2,
his legal opinion contained in said certificates is based
on the record which was made available to him by the
office of concerned Sub-Registrar such as the index
register, Form No.29 and certified copies of said 4
properties and he had no knowledge that said
documents were forged.
40.38 On the sale deeds of 1st and 2nd
property, the photographs of the purchasers were
found to be different though the deeds were found to
be duly registered in the same names and at same
given particulars. While in respect of 4th property, no
such sale deed as filed by the borrower/A-1 with the
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.227 Of 372
bank, was found to be registered with the Sub-Registrar
office. In respect of 3rd property, though the sale deed
filed by the borrower was found to be actually
registered with the Sub-Registrar Office in the same
names and at same given particulars but, in the light of
testimony of Romit Manchanda/PW-68 and chain of
original title documents brought by him in respect of
said property, the sale deed of said property filed by the
borrower/A-1, was also found to be a fake and forged
document as both the photographs as well as the
signatures of the purported vendor/seller
R.K.Manchanda (since deceased) were disowned by his
son Romit Manchanda. As per his (Romit Manchanda)
version, the purported signature of his father on said
sale deed has been forged and even the photograph of
the seller was not of his father but of some other
person. Furthermore, the actual ownership and
possession of said property was still lying with the
Manchanda family.
40.39 In the light of the fact that with a
cogent and credible evidence, the prosecution has
clinchingly proved that all the sale deeds filed with the
bank by the borrower/A-1, are forged and fabricated, it
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.228 Of 372
also gets automatically proved that the certified copies
of the sale deeds filed by A-2, which are identical copies
of the sale deeds filed by the borrower, are also bogus
and fake documents. For proving the certified copies of
sale deeds filed by A-2 with the bank as forged and
bogus, there was no requirement for the prosecution to
prove the certification of the respective Sub-Registrar
offices appearing on said certified copies to be false
and fabricated unless, the prosecution attributes said
certification to A-2, which is not the case herein. In the
backdrop of said circumstances, I am of the considered
view that failure of the prosecution to put said certified
copies of sale deeds filed by A-2 with the bank to the
witnesses examined from the Sub-Registrar office or to
ask them any question regarding said copies, is not
fatal to the prosecution case.
40.40 In the instant case, except the sale
deed of 4th property 121, FIE Industrial Area,
Patparganj, Delhi, which was not at all registered with
the concerned Sub-Registrar, the sale deeds of all other
properties were duly registered in the office of the
concerned Sub-Registrar at the same particulars as
given in the sale deeds filed by the borrower/A-1 with
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.229 Of 372
the bank. However, the purchaser's photograph
appearing on the sale deeds of 1st and 2nd property
were found to be not matching with the purchaser's
photographs on respective sale deeds of said
properties registered with the office of Sub-Registrar.
Even the purported signatures of purchaser Indra Rani
on the sale deed of the 2nd property, filed by the
borrower have been proved to be forged. The sale deed
of 3rd mortgaged property was though duly registered
and was matching with the sale deed filed by the
borrower but, the prosecution, by a cogent and credible
evidence more specifically of PW68 Romit Manchanda,
has successfully proved on record that said sale deed
was never executed by the actual owner and that it was
also a forged document.
40.41 In the light of above discussed
evidence, the prosecution has successfully proved that
all the sale deeds filed by the borrower/A-1 are bogus
and forged documents and as a necessary
consequence, the certified copies of said very sale
deeds filed by A-2 are also bogus and forged. In such a
scenario, when A-2 has not denied that he had filed said
certified copies with the bank, the onus shifts upon him
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.230 Of 372
(A-2) to show that he received said certified copies via a
proper channel or from some authorised source so as
to deny his knowledge about said documents being
fake and forged. Whereas, in this regard, A-2 has
miserably failed to lead any evidence either positive
evidence by way of examining any witness in defence or
by eliciting some material in his support from the cross-
examination of the witnesses examined by the
prosecution. In the cross-examination, no suggestion
was put to the witnesses from the Sub-Registrar office
to claim that the aforementioned certified copies filed
by A-2 with the bank were the copies issued by the Sub-
Registrar office nor the alleged fee receipt was put to
the concerned witness to ask him if the same was
issued from their office. The cross-examination in this
regard becomes more important when one of the sale
deed in respect of property bearing no. 121, FIE,
Industrial Area, Patpatganj, Delhi filed by the borrower
(A-1) was found to be not even registered with the
office of concerned Sub-Registrar. Nothing was asked
on behalf of A-2 even from the witness of concerned
Sub-Registrar, who deposed that no such sale deed was
registered in their office in respect of said property at
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.231 Of 372
the given particulars. Not a suggestion was put to him
to controvert him on this point.
40.42 The next question which now falls for
consideration before this court is, whether merely by
proving that A-2 had knowingly filed the forged certified
copies of the aforementioned sale deeds will make him
liable for the offence of forgery under Section 468 IPC
and if not, whether even in absence of any charge of
Section 471 IPC, the court can still record conviction
under said section against A-2, for knowingly using a
forged document as genuine.
40.43 It was argued on behalf of prosecution
that even if the offence of forgery is not proven, a
conviction for the offence of Section 471 IPC can still be
obtained provided the prosecution is able to prove that
the accused used a forged document with a knowledge
that it was forged. This is stated to be so because, using
a forged document requires proving the use of the
document and knowledge that it was forged, while the
forgery requires proving the creation of the document
with an intent to cheat.
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.232 Of 372
40.44 Per-contra, the above argument has
been vehemently opposed by the defence counsel
appearing for A-2 by submitting that the offence under
Section 468 and 471 IPC are distinct offences as their
ingredients are completely different and therefore, in
absence of a specific charge of 471 IPC, no conviction
can be recorded by the court for said offence simply on
the basis of the evidence led for the offence of Section
468 IPC. It was argued that the benefit of Section 222
CrPC shall not be available to the prosecution for
seeking conviction for the said offence because, by
virtue of said provision of CrPC, the conviction only for
the minor offence can be recorded without the charge
of such offence being framed. Whereas, same is not the
position in the instant case because, ingredients of both
the offences are different and even the punishment
prescribed for both the said offences is same.
40.45 As per record, three charges have been
framed against A-2 in the instant case. The 1 st charge is
of criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120-B
read with Section 419/420/467/468/471 IPC and Section
13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) PC Act. The 2nd charge is
for the offence of cheating punishable under Section
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.233 Of 372
420 r/w 120-B IPC. The 3 rd charge framed against A-2 is
for the offence of forgery for the purpose of cheating
punishable under Section 468 IPC read with Section
120-B IPC.
40.46 For correct appreciation of the
aforementioned contentions raised by the parties, it is
important to first understand what constitutes the
offence of forgery for the purpose of cheating under
Section 468 IPC and the offence of using as genuine a
forged document under Section 471 IPC. Section 468
IPC reads as under:-
"468. Forgery for the purpose of
cheating.-Whoever commits forgery,
intending that the (document of electronic
record forged) shall be used for the purpose
of cheating, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to seven years, and
shall also be liable to fine."
Section 471 reads as under:-
"471. Using as genuine a forged document
or electronic record.- Whoever fraudulently
or dishonestly uses as genuine any
document or electronic record which he
knows or has reason to believe to be a
forged document or electronic record, shall
be punished in the same manner as if he
had forged such document or electronic
record."
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.234 Of 372
40.47 Forgery has been defined under
Section 463 IPC, which read as under:-
"463. Forgery.- Whoever makes any false
document or false electronic record or part
of a document or electronic record 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 any express or
implied contract, or with intent to commit
fraud or that fraud may be committed,
commits forgery"
40.48 Section 464 IPC provides an answer as
to when a false document could be said to have been
made for the purpose of committing an offence of
forgery under Section 463 IPC. In the matter of Md.
Ibrahim and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. (2009) 8
SCC 751, it was held that a person is said to have made
a false document if:-
(i) he made or executed a document
claiming to be someone else or authorized
by someone else; or
(ii) he altered or tampered a document;
(iii) he obtained a document by practicing
deception or from a person not in control of
his senses.
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.235 Of 372
40.49 The enunciation laid-down in the
aforementioned judgment was reiterated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Sheila Sebastian
Vs. R. Jawharaj and Ors. Criminal Appeal Nos. 359-
360 of 2010, decided on 11.05.2018, wherein it was
categorically held that a charge of forgery of the
document cannot be imposed on a person who is not
the maker of the same. It was observed that making of
a document is different than causing it to be made and
for constituting an offence under Section 464 IPC, it is
imperative that a false document is made and the
accused person is the maker of the same, otherwise,
the accused cannot be held liable for the offence of
forgery. For the purpose of clarity, the we may refer to
the relevant paras of the judgment which are as
follows:-
"25. Keeping in view the strict interpretation of
penal statute i.e., referring to rule of interpretation
wherein natural inferences are preferred, we
observe that a charge of forgery cannot be
imposed on a person who is not the maker of the
same. As held in plethora of cases, making of a
document is different than causing it to be made.
As Explanation 2 to Section 464 further clarifies
that, for constituting an offence under Section 464
it is imperative that a false document is made and
the accused person is the maker of the same,
otherwise the accused person is not liable for the
offence of forgery.
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors
Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.236 Of 372
26. The definition of "false document" is a part of
the definition of "forgery". Both must be read
together. 'Forgery' and 'Fraud' are essentially
matters of evidence which could be proved as a fact
by direct evidence or by inferences drawn from
proved facts. In the case in hand, there is no
finding recorded by the trial Court that the
respondents have made any false document or
part of the document/record to execute mortgage deed under the guise of that 'false document'. Hence, neither respondent no.1 nor respondent no.2 can be held as makers of the forged documents. It is the imposter who can be said to have made the false document by committing forgery. In such an event the trial court as well as appellate court misguided themselves by convicting the accused. Therefore, the High Court has rightly acquitted the accused based on the settled legal position and we find no reason to interfere with the same."
40.50 In this regard, it is also important to refer to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in "Vandana vs State Of Maharashtra in Crl. Appeal no. 3977 OF 2025(Spl. Leave Petition (crl.) No 9317 OF 2025) decided on 11 September, 2025" wherein, while dealing with the correctness and legality of the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court whereby, the judgment of conviction rendered by the Trial Court for the offence of Section 420 r/w 511 and Section 468 and 471 IPC was affirmed and the sentence imposed was modified, it was observed that to attract offence of CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.237 Of 372 Section 468 IPC, the prosecution must establish that the accused made a false document within the meaning of Section 464 IPC, with intent to cheat. Likewise, Section 471 IPC requires proof that the accused used a forged document as genuine, knowing or having reason to believe it to be forged at the time of its use. 40.51 Reverting back to the case in hand, I may note here that, it is nowhere the prosecution case either during the trial or even in the charge-sheet that A-2 is the maker of the forged sale deeds of the mortgaged properties filed by the borrower (A-1) with the bank or that it was he who forged the signatures or the stamps of certification appearing on the certified copies of said sale deeds filed by him (A-2) with the bank. Simply by proving that the sale deeds filed by the borrower/A-1 with the bank were forged and fabricated, the forgery in respect of the certified copies cannot be said to have been proved against A-2. Nor it is even the case of prosecution. For this reason, I am of the considered view that the charge of U/s 468 IPC against A-2 has not been correctly framed. Indeed, the charge should have been framed for the offence U/s 471 IPC. CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.238 Of 372 40.52 Now arises the question, whether in absence of any specific charge of Section 471 IPC, a conviction can be recorded for said offence, if the court finds sufficient evidence in that regard on record. While negating this question emphatically, the defence counsel has argued that since there was no charge of Section 471 IPC framed against A-2, there was no occasion for him to lead any evidence to prove the fact that A-2 did not have any knowledge that the certified copies filed by him with the bank were bogus or forged documents. Rather, in a criminal prosecution, the burden always lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused, which the prosecution in this case has miserably failed to discharge in respect of any of the alleged offences.
40.53 At the outset, I may note here that Section 468 IPC for which the charge was framed against A-2, pre-supposes the offence of cheating and same is also evident from the language of the charge of Section 468 IPC framed in the instant case. From the language of the charge framed under Section 468 r/w Section 120B IPC framed against A-2, it is clear that said charge was framed on account of A-2 having submitted CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.239 Of 372 false verification report (Non-Encumbrance Certificate) with the bank in respect of immovable properties offered as collateral securities and using it for the purpose of cheating. Further while framing the charge of Section 420 IPC, it was duly put to A-2 that he in conspiracy with the other accused persons dishonestly and fraudulently induced the bank to credit Cash Credit Facility in favour of co-accused Sanjeev Dixit i.e. the borrower/A-1 on the basis of forged documents and thereby, he cheated the bank. Hence, A-2 was well aware of the prosecution case and cannot plead any prejudice for lack of a separate charge of Section 471 IPC. Mere lack of charge for the offence of Section 471 IPC shall not absolve him (A-2) from his liability to discharge the onus of Section 106 Indian Evidence Act , especially, when prosecution has successfully proved on record that the certified copies of sale deeds filed by him (A-2) with the bank were bogus, forged and fake documents. In the light of Section 106 Indian Evidence Act, it became the boundened duty of the A-2 to prove that he received said certified copies through proper channel or from some authorized source. Whereas, A-2 failed to even put any suggestion in this regard to the witnesses examined by the prosecution from concerned CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.240 Of 372 Sub-Registrar offices nor he called any record from the concerned Sub-Registrar to prove that he had actually applied for the certified copies in their office at any point of time or had applied for the inspection of the record.
40.54 Here, I may also refer to the recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Nilesh Baburoa Gitte v. State of Maharashtra Crl. appeal no. 1471/2013 decided on 07.10.2025', wherein reiterating the age old principle that burden of proof always lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused, it also dealt with the issue as to under what circumstances, the onus shifts on accused under Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act. The Hon'ble Apex Court while referring to its previous decision in Shambhu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer 1956 AIR 404, observed as under :-
"43. From the above evidence, it could not said that the appellant owed an explanation for the cause of death of the deceased as nothing has been demonstrated by the prosecution to show that there was any fact about the alleged incident which was especially within the knowledge of the appellant. It is trite to recall the following memorable words of Vivian Bose, J. in Shambu Nath Mehra v. The State of Ajmer:-
"......in a criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution and Section 106 is certainly not intended CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.241 Of 372 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 facts which are "especially" within the knowledge of the accused and which he could prove without difficulty or inconvenience. 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."
40.55 In the instant case, when prosecution has sufficiently proved on record that both the original sale deeds of collateral securities filed by the borrower (A-1) as well as the certified copies of said very sale deeds filed by A-2, are forged and fabricated documents, it became incumbent upon A-2 to prove his lack of knowledge by proving that he had received certified copies from some authorized source as it was within his specific knowledge from where and from whom he had received said documents. It was incumbent upon him (A-2) to lead evidence in this regard and his failure to adduce any such evidence to support his plea of lack of knowledge, is liable to raise an adverse inference against him.
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.242 Of 372 40.56 The phrase 'For the purpose of cheating', used in Section 471 IPC means that it was done knowingly with fraudulent and dishonest intention to cause wrongful loss to the bank and wrongful gain to the borrower. The legal precedent regarding the offence of Section 120-B IPC has already been discussed in the preceding paras of this judgment. As regard the offence of Section 420 IPC, the essential ingredients of the offence of cheating were noted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment 'Mariam Fasihuddin vs State By Adugodi Police Station', Crl. Appeal no. 235 to 2024, decided on 17 September, 2021, wherein it was held that in order to attract the provision of Section 420 IPC, the prosecution has to prove not only the act of cheating but it also needs to prove that the act of cheating resulted into an inducement to deliver the property resulting in a loss to the person induced. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under :
"10. Section 420 IPC provides that whoever cheats and thereby, dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy, the whole or any part of valuable security, or anything, which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be liable to be CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.243 Of 372 punished for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. Further, Section 415 IPC distinctly defines the term 'cheating'. The provision elucidates that an act marked by fraudulent or dishonest intentions will be categorised as 'cheating' if it is intended to induce the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, causing damage or harm to that person.
11. It is thus paramount that in order to attract the provisions of Section 420 IPC, the prosecution has to not only prove that the accused has cheated someone but also that by doing so, he has dishonestly induced the person who is cheated to deliver property. There are, thus, three components of this offence, i.e. (i) the deception of any person, (ii) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any property to any person, and (iii) mens rea or dishonest intention of the accused at the time of making the inducement. There is no gainsaid that for the offence of cheating, fraudulent and dishonest intention must exist from the inception when the promise or representation was made.
12. It is well known that every deceitful act is not unlawful, just as not every unlawful act is deceitful. Some acts may be termed both as unlawful as well as deceitful, and such acts alone will fall within the purview of Section 420 IPC. It must also be understood that a statement of fact is deemed 'deceitful' when it is false, and is knowingly or recklessly made with the intent that it shall be acted upon by another person, resulting in damage or loss. 'Cheating' therefore, generally involves a preceding deceitful act that dishonestly induces a person to deliver any property or any part of a valuable security, prompting the induced person to undertake the said act, which they would not have done but for the inducement."
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.244 Of 372 40.57 For the purposes of proving dishonest intention, inducement, wrongful loss/gain, prosecution has already led ample evidence on record. In this regard, I may also refer to various discrepancies, which are clearly indicative of the fact that A-2 was the part of conspiracy from the very beginning and he had the knowledge regarding the falsity of the record/reports filed by him with the bank. The discrepancies brought on record are as follows :
1. As per the stamps appearing on the first page of D-120 (part of Ex.PW6/J-1), which is the certified copy of the sale deed in respect of property C-193, 3rd Floor, Vivek Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi, the date when the certified copy was applied and the date when it was received is shown to be 29.03.2011. Whereas, the receipt of fees payment for the certified copies enclosed with said document, the certified copy was applied on 24.03.2011 and the amount of fees deposited with Sub-Registrar office was Rs.1200/- Whereas, on the stamp appearing on the D-120, the fees paid for the certified copy is Rs.90/-. The explanation rendered by the defence that said discrepancies are merely typographical error is not convincing.
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.245 Of 372
2. Another discrepancy pointed out is regarding description of the subject property mentioned on the very first page of the sale deed Ex. PW 6/J-1 (D-120, page No. 1276) which is the certified copy of the sale deed filed by A-2 in respect of C-193, 3 rd Floor, Vivek Vihar, Delhi. On the aforementioned page of the said document, the description of the subject property is mentioned as "D-111, IIrd Floor, Vivek Vihar, Delhi", which is not matching with the property's description given either in the sale deed filed by the borrower with the bank Ex. PW 6/P-3 or with the sale deed available with the concerned Sub-Registrar office Ex. PW 48/A, where the description of the property is given as C-193, 3rd Floor, Vivek Vihar, Delhi.
3. Furthermore, on the very same page (D-120, page 1276) of the certified copy of said property filed by N.S. Parihar(A-2), against the photograph of Sanjeev Dixit, his age is mentioned as 36 whereas, on the corresponding page of other two documents Ex. PW6/P-3 (D-12) and Ex. PW48/A page 639, the age of the purported purchaser against his photo is mentioned as 37.
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.246 Of 372
4. The aforementioned discrepancy on the very first page of the certified copy filed by A-2 is noticeable on bare perusal of the document with naked eyes. Despite said apparent discrepancies in the documents, N.S. Parihar(A-2) did not point out said discrepancies to the bank. Instead, he filed a positive opinion on the title of the mortgaged properties offered for collateral security. Besides that, lack of any evidence from the defence side to show that said certified copies were obtained from some authorised source, lends support to the prosecution case that A-2 knowingly filed said forged documents with the bank to facilitate the sanction of loan facility in favour of the borrower. The said conduct of the A-2 itself establishes that he was part of conspiracy and he knowingly used the bogus and forged certified copies of the title deeds as genuine for inducing the bank to grant cash credit facility in favour of the borrower and thereby, he caused wrongful loss to the bank and wrongful gain to the borrower.
5. Involvement of A-2 in two more cases of bank fraud registered against Sanjeev Dixit (A-1) vide FIRs No. 212/2013 & 213/2013 of PS Kundali, Sonepat, Harayana is another peculiar factor that lends support to the CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.247 Of 372 prosecution case that A-2 was hand in glove with the borrower A-1. There were hundred of lawyers on the panel of PNB, but surprisingly, A-2 tendered legal opinion for A-1 not only in the present case but also in two more loans pertaining to aforementioned FIRs of Sonepat, Harayana. As per prosecution case, A-2 was chargesheeted in the said two FIRs on similar allegations of having filed false legal opinion with forged certified copies of the title documents of the immovable property proposed for mortgage by the borrower. Although in both said FIRs, A-2 is stated to have been already acquitted and certified copies of said judgment were also filed on record. But, I may note here that, acquittal in said cases will not help the accused because, said judgments are not binding on this court. Even otherwise, the those judgments were passed by the concerned court on basis of the evidence adduced in said cases. Perusal of the judgment dated 28.07.2023 in FIR No. 212/13, shows that in that case, the prosecution had not examined any witness from the sub registrar office. Whereas, in the instant case, prosecution has adduced ample evidence from the office of concerned Sub-Registrars to substantiate the charge of alleged offences.
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.248 Of 372 40.58 Pertinently, in a criminal trial, the primary purpose of framing of charge is to give the accused clear, unambiguous and precise notice of the accusation against him, allowing him to prepare a proper defence. It is a fundamental part of his right to a fair trial ensuring that the accused is fully informed of the specific allegations he needs to answer during trial. It is also a trite law that the court can convict an accused for lesser part of the charge as long as the evidence supports the conviction.
40.59 Having regard to the aforementioned position of law and the evidence adduced on record, I am of the considered view that there is no bar for this court to convict said accused (A-2) even for the offence of Section 471 IPC. As already noted above, A-2 has faced trial not only for the offence of criminal conspiracy, but also for the offence of cheating and forgery. Even the charge forgery under Section 468 IPC presupposes the offence of cheating and all along the trial, it has been the prosecution case that A-2 in conspiracy with the other co-accused, dishonestly and fraudulently induced the bank to grant cash credit facility in favour of the borrower/A-1 by filing of a false CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.249 Of 372 NEC and the certified copies of the bogus and forged sale deeds in support thereof.
40.60 Considering the above case of the prosecution, no prejudice has been caused to the A-2, even if, no charge for the offence of Section 471 IPC was separately framed. Considering the charge already framed against him (A-2) and keeping in view that prosecution has successfully proved on record that the certified copies of title deeds of all the 04 mortgaged properties filed by A-2 were fake, forged and bogus documents and so was his legal opinion (NEC) based on said documents, it was incumbent upon him (A-2) to prove that he did not have the knowledge that certified copies filed by him were forged and bogus documents, especially when one of the sale deed in respect of property no. 121, FIE, Patparganj Extension, Delhi, was found to be not even registered with the office of concerned Sub-Registrar. In the light of the fact that sale deed of said property was not even registered, it was within the exclusive knowledge of A-2 as to from where he received the certified copy of title documents of said property and who had handed over the said documents to him. However, A-2 has miserably failed to CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.250 Of 372 adduce any evidence to prove said fact and in this way, he remained unsuccessful in discharging the onus of Section 106 Indian Evidence Act, which had shifted upon him after the prosecution successfully proved on record that all the sale deeds filed by A-1 were forged and fabricated documents and the certified copies filed by A-2 were matching with said forged sale deeds. 40.61 A strong reliance has been place by Ld. Counsel of A-2 on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Narayan Rao (supra), to urge the point that mere wrong legal opinion rendered by empaneled lawyer can at most make him liable for gross negligence or professional misconduct, but he cannot be held liable for the offence of conspiracy, cheating or forgery, especially when there is no evidence of pecuniary benefit being derived by the empaneled advocate.
40.62 There is no dispute to the legal preposition laid down in the above referred judgment but, in the same very judgment Hon'ble Apex Court has also clarified that prosecuting authorities are free to proceed for criminal prosecution even against the empaneled advocates if there is some tangible evidence CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.251 Of 372 to link them with the other conspirators. I may note here that even this case is not the case of mere wrong legal opinion. There is sufficient material, already discussed in the preceding paras, which is indicative of a deep conspiracy and nexus between the borrower/A-1 and the empaneled lawyer/A-2.
40.63 In the light of the aforementioned discussion, I am of the considered view that with a cogent and credible evidence, prosecution has successfully proved on record that A-2 was in hand in glove with the borrower and the public servants and in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy hatched with the said co-accused, he knowingly and deliberately filed false NECs and certified copies of bogus, forged & fake title deeds as genuine with a dishonest intention to induce the complainant bank to grant credit facility in favour of the borrower/A-1 and thereby, he (A-2) caused wrongful loss to the bank and wrongful gain to the borrower. Accordingly, prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the charge for the offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120 IPC r/w section 419/420/467/468/471 IPC and section 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of PC, Act, 2002 as well as for the CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.252 Of 372 substantive offences under Section 420/471 IPC against accused N.S. Parihar (A-2). However, the charge for the offence punishable under Section 468 IPC has remained unestablished for lack of any evidence. Discussion and analysis pertaining to K. K.Johar (A-3) and Ranjiv Suneja (A-4)
41. The chargesheet inter-alia, contains the allegations against A-3 and A-4 that during relevant time in the year 2011, when A-3 was posted as Chief Manager and A-4 was the Senior Manager/Loan Officer in PNB Jor Bagh branch, they both abused their position as public servants by entering into a criminal conspiracy with the other co-accused to cheat and defraud the bank (PNB) and in furtherance of said conspiracy, A-4 dishonestly appraised and recommended the credit limit of Rs. 4 crore in favour of applicant borrower M/s Shankar Metals and A-3 dishonestly sanctioned it and induced the lending bank to release the loan funds in favour of the borrower and they also failed to monitor the end use of said funds and allowed its diversion through dummy accounts.
42. In the charge-sheet, IO has set out numerous lapses allegedly committed by said accused CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.253 Of 372 at different stages of appraisal, sanction and loan disbursal. The lapses are said to have been committed in blatant violation of accepted banking norms, circulars and guidelines, with a dishonest intention to cause wrongful loss to the bank and wrongful gain to the borrower. The alleged lapses in the form of various acts and omissions are required to be analysed in the light of evidence adduced on record in order to ascertain if they have been sufficiently proved on record and if so, whether said lapses were willful or gross enough to impute an element of mens rea on their part so as to bring their conduct within the meaning of 'Criminal Misconduct' as defined under Section 13 (1)
(d) of PC Act. Section 13 of PC Act as it existed prior to Amendment Act 1 of year 2014, reads as under:-
"13. Criminal misconduct by a public witness.
(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,--
(a) xxx xxx xxx
(b) xxx xxx xxx
(c) xxx xxx xxx
(d) if he,-- :-
(i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.254 Of 372
(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest; or"
Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Act reads as under :-
"(2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than one year but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine."
43. Section 13(2) of PC Act prescribes punishment when ingredients of offence under section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act are made out against the public servant. Criminal misconduct under Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, may lie in any of the three categories provided in sub clause(i),(ii),(iii) of Section 13 (1) (d) of PC Act. But, it is quite clear that the said three categories of clause (d) of Section 13(1), are independent, alternative and disjunctive and if the elements of any of the three sub-clauses of Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act are met, the same would be sufficient to constitute an offence of 'criminal misconduct" within the meaning of said provision. Thus, obtaining for himself or for any other person, any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage either by corrupt or illegal means CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.255 Of 372 or by abusing his official position by a public servant, in itself would amount to criminal misconduct under Section 13(1)(d)(i) & (ii) of the PC Act. While under Section 13(1)(d)(iii) of the PC Act, if a public servant, while he holds office, obtains for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest, it would also amount to criminal misconduct. The Division Bench of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Runu Ghosh Vs. CBI in Crl. Appeal No. 482/2002 (DoD : 21.12.2011) was pleased to observe that :
"74. Having now settled the true interpretation of whether the offence under Section 13(1) (d) (iii) requires proof of mens rea, it would now be vital to settle what really the prosecution would have to establish to say that the public servant‟s actions or decisions, which result in a third party obtaining a pecuniary advantage or valuable thing, without public interest. The expression "public interest" is known to law; at the same time its meaning is not rigid, and takes colour from the particular statute".
IIn a later decision, LIC of India vs Consumer Education & Research Centre (1995) 5 SCC 482, it was held that:
- public authorities or those whose acts bear insignia of public element, action to public duty or obligation are enjoined to act in a manner i.e. fair, just and equitable, after taking objectively all the relevant options--
Further in Noida Entrepreneurs Association v. Noida & Ors ., (2011) 6 SCC 508, in the light of provisions of Section 13 (1) (d), The court held that:
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.256 Of 372 The State or the public authority which holds the property for the public or which has been assigned the duty of grant of largesse, etc. acts as a trustee--
75. It would be profitable to emphasize that public servants are an entirely different class, and the level of trust reposed in them by the society is reflected in the high standards of behaviour and rectitude expected of them, both in the discharge of their duties, and otherwise.
xxxx
78. Therefore, when a public servant‟s decision exhibits complete and manifest disregard to public interest with the corresponding result of a third party obtaining pecuniary advantage or valuable thing, he is fastened with responsibility for "criminal misconduct" under Section 13(1) (d)
(iii). There is nothing reprehensible in this interpretation, because the "act" being "without public interest" is the key, the controlling expression, to this offence. If one contrasts this with "abuse" of office resulting in someone "obtaining" "pecuniary advantage or valuable thing", it is evident thatSection 13(1)(d) (ii) may or may not entail the act being without public interest. This offenceunder Section 13(1) (d) (iii) advisedly does not require proof of intent, or mens rea, because what Parliament intended was to punish public servants for acts which were without public interest. This kind of offence is similar to those intended to deal with other social evils, such as food and drug adulteration, (offences under Prevention of Food Adlteration Act, Section 13(1), Drugs & Cosmetics Act; Section 7(1) Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Section 25 Arms Act (1959), possession of explosives, air and water pollution, etc."
44. In order to invoke Clause (i) and Clause (ii) of Section 13(d) of the PC Act, the prosecution is bound to establish the dishonest intention on the part of the CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.257 Of 372 public servant. The word "Dishonestly" is defined under section 24 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 24 of Indian Penal Code stresses on the intention i.e. if a person with an intention to cause wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to other person then the said person is said to have done such act dishonesty. Section 23 of the IPC defines wrongful gain and wrongful loss.
45. In "C.K. Jaffer Sharief Vs. State", 2013 (1) SCC 205, it was observed that "dishonest intention is the gist of the offence under section 13(1)(d) and is in- implicit in the words used i.e. corrupt or illegal means and abuse of position as a public servant. A similar view was also expressed by Apex court in M. Narayanan Nambiar Vs. State of Kerala, AIR 1963 SC 1116 while considering the provisions of Section 5 of the 1947 Act.
46. In assessing the conduct of any public servant, his actions/omission or conduct is to be scrutinized to ascertain whether such conduct is actuated by any dishonest intention or not. The dishonest intention could be perceived directly or by way of different circumstances as put together by the prosecution in form of documentary or ocular evidence. CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.258 Of 372 The third part of Section 13(d) of the PC Act shall come into play when acts of accused A-3 & A-4 has assumed the trapping of criminal character by abuse of official position by a public servant contrary to the public interest. Let us now discuss one by one the alleged lapses, flaws and discrepancies, which said public servants A-3 and A-4 allegedly overlooked to facilitate grant of sanction of credit facility in favour of the borrower Sanjeev Dixit (A-1).
(i) Lack of proper KYC verification of the borrower
47. As per CBI's case, after finding various deviations from the bankings guidelines in appraisal, sanction and disbursal of the subject loan, the complainant bank conducted a special investigation through Chief Concurrent Auditor Sh. V. K. Dhar, who submitted his report to the Circle Office wherein he mentioned that no KYC was done in respect of the subject loan. The Ld. Counsels for A-3 & A-4 have raised an argument that the Concurrent Auditor ignored a very material fact that the borrower firm was already having a Current Account bearing no.
0175002100018768 in the Jor Bagh Branch of PNB and at the time of opening of said account, which was CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.259 Of 372 opened on 11.03.2011, the KYC of the borrower was already done and borrower firm was already given a customer ID number AG5006455. Therefore, when the Cash Credit Account of M/s Shankar Metals bearing no. 0175008700000385 was opened on 29.03.2011, no KYC was done as there was no requirement for fresh KYC of existing account holder.
47.01 In this regard, attention of this court was drawn to a document Customer Acceptance Policy Ex. PW-65/D4/1, which was shown to PW-65 during his cross-examination. It was argued that as per said document, the customer due diligence (CDD) procedure is required to be applied by the bank only at the time of giving unique customer identification code (UCIC) and in case, any KYC compliant customer of the bank desires to open another account with the same bank, there shall be no need of fresh CDD exercise. The Ld. Counsels vehemently contended that the lapses if any, happened in the verification of the KYC documents, the same occurred at the time of opening of current account, which was opened by Braj Kumar Jha (PW-10), upon whom the CBI failed to attach any culpability and instead of arraying him (PW-10) as an accused, he was CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.260 Of 372 examined as a witness to prove the discrepancies and flaws allegedly overlooked by the accused public servants at the time of grant of loan.
47.02 Ld. Counsels further argued that the allegation that there were no documents issued by the Govt. Department for identification of the borrower firm, is also apparently false especially in the light of testimony of PW-58 Arun Sharma, Circle Auditor of PNB where he admitted that photocopy of VAT certificate and District Industry Center Certificate Ex.PW10/C and Ex. PW10/D respectively, were available in the file of M/s Shanker Metals and that there was no rule in the circular/instructions to verify said document from the issuing authority and it was sufficient if the same are compared with the original documents.
47.03 Per contra, Ld. Sr. PP refuted above arguments by submitting that the KYC verification was required to be always done on the opening of any new account of the customer even if the borrower was already having existing account in the branch. It was argued that a separate account opening form was also required to be filled up for a new account. Whereas, in the instant case, there was no account opening form on CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.261 Of 372 the bank's record in respect of cash credit account of M/s Shankar Metals nor any fresh KYC was done, nor it was ensured that the KYC earlier done was conducted in accordance of the banking norms and guidelines. It was contended that the document Ex. PW65/D4/1 is just a pamphlet and it runs counter to the existing guidelines contained in the circular no. 43/2010 dated 08.06.2010 Ex. PW6/B4 (page no. 2375) (D-149) and circular no.30/2010 dated 13.04.2010 Ex. PW6/C4 (page 2262) (D-148), which were mandatorily required to be followed by the bank at the time of opening of any bank account.
47.04 Ld. Sr. PP further argued that the subject loan account was a Cash Credit Account where the borrower had approached for cash credit limit to the tune of Rs. 4 crores. Hence, the level of scrutiny required at the time of opening of such account was far higher than required at the time of opening of a current account, and the concerned bank officials, who remained involved in the process of appraisal, sanction and disbursal, cannot take refuge behind the plea that no KYC compliance was required for the existing customer.
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.262 Of 372 47.05 I have considered the above rival submissions of the parties in the light of the material placed on record. As per charge-sheet, following KYC documents were furnished by the borrower at the time of applying cash credit limit facility with the bank:-
(i) Voter ID Card No. DL/04/043/171289 dated 11.3.2006 in the name of Shri Sanjeev Dixit (Proprietor)
(ii) Voter ID Card No. DL/04/044/045667 dated 11.8.2002 in the name of Smt. Indira Rani (Guarantor)
(iii) Voter ID Card No. BQF3437881 dated 18.2.2002 in the name of Shri Sanjay Sharma (Guarantor)
(iv) PAN Card No.ALTPD3660M in the name of Shri Sanjeev Dixit and PAN Card No. BZYPS4132F in the name of Shri Sanjay Sharma
(v) Electricity Bills dated 24.01.2011 (Consumer Account No. 100068412) and Water Bill dated 29.01.2011 (Connection No. 99123) in the name of Shri Sanjeev Dixit r/o 232, Local Road, Jagriti Enclave, Shahadara, Delhi.
(vi) Form No.P-II-000652 dt. 28.02.2011 purportedly issued by office of Commissioner of Industries, Govt. of NCT Delhi in the name of M/s Shankar Metals
(vii) TIN No. 07511326352 dated 7.5.2008 purportedly issued by Department of Trade and Taxes, Govt. of NCT Delhi in the name of M/s. Shankar Metals CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.263 Of 372 47.06 However, during investigation, when the verification of said documents was carried out by the IO from the concerned issuing departments/authorities, all the said documents were found to be fake and bogus. During trial the falsity of aforementioned documents has been duly proved by the prosecution through PW-1 to PW-5, PW- 8, 9 and
17. The testimonies of said witnesses have already been referred in the preceding paras 13.1.1. to 13.8.1, and for the brevity sake not reproduced again. As per record, cross-examination of PW-2,PW-3,PW 4 and PW-5 remained nil and nothing material was asked in the cross-examination of PW-8, 9 and 17 to discredit or challenge their version.
47.07 Admittedly, at the time of opening of subject loan account (Cash Credit account) of M/s Shanker Metal, no account opening form of said CC account no. 0175008700000385 was filled up nor any KYC was done nor anything has been found in the file of the subject loan to show that any effort was made by the A-3 and A-4 in order to know, if the KYC earlier done at the time of opening of current account of said firm, was done in accordance with the banking norms, CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.264 Of 372 circulars and guidelines. One cannot ignore the fact that the financial stakes of the bank involved at the time of opening of current account or saving account of a customer are negligible whereas, the stakes involved at the time of granting a cash credit facility to the tune of Rs. 4 crores are much higher and it certainly requires the concerned bank officials to be more vigilant and to act with utmost caution and diligence and for said purpose proper scrutiny of each and every document is required to be done to verify the correctness of the borrower's claim and credentials. The loan sanctioned by the banks is a public money and therefore, utmost care and caution is expected from those dealing with said work to protect said money from falling into the hands of fraudulent, undeserving and unscrupulous customers.
47.08 Careful perusal of the testimony of PW-10 Shri Braj Kumar Jha, who at the relevant time was posted in Jor Bagh branch of Punjab National Bank, shows that vide account opening form Ex. PW6/D (part of D-5), a current account in the name of M/s Shankar Metals was opened in said branch on 11.03.2011 and a customer ID no. AG5006455 was given to said firm M/s CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.265 Of 372 Shankar Metals. As per his testimony, he had made the KYC verification simply by comparing the photocopy of the KYC documents such as PAN card, Voter ID card, VAT certificate and certificate from District Industry Centre of the proprietorship firm M/s Shankar Metals with the originals brought by the Proprietor Sanjeev Dixit.
47.09 On a court question put to him during his cross-examination, PW10 deposed that verification of the documents submitted by the customer is required to be done from the website and not by writing to individual departments and in usual course, the documents are required to be verified but, he did not recall whether or not he had verified the documents submitted by the borrower Sanjeev Dixit (since PO) at the time of opening of said current account. From the cross-examination conducted on behalf of A- 3 and A-4, it is evident that even the defence has not disputed that as per the Circular no. 43/2010 dated 08.06.2010l Ex.PW6/B4, the field staff was required to verify the genuineness of the KYC documents, such as voter ID card, PAN card from the website of the Chief Election Department/Income Tax Department. The question to CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.266 Of 372 this effect was put to PW-10 on behalf of said accused, to which PW10 replied that he did not recall if he had verified said documents. It is nowhere the defence plea that the A-3 & A-4 ever tried to verify from PW-10, who was present in the same branch at the relevant time that if, at the time of opening of Current account of M/s Shanker Metals, proper KYC compliance was made by him in accordance with banking guidelines and rules. 47.10 An argument has been raised on behalf of A-4 that being the Sr. manager/Loan officer, A-4 was not responsible for the KYC compliance because, as per bank Chapter 9 clause (xii) of Book of Instructions of loans ExPW6/F2 circulars, it was the sole the responsibility of the incumbent incharge, who in the instant case was the Branch Manager, Smt. K.K.Johar (A-3).
47.11 I have carefully perused the relevant clause (xii) of Chapter 9 of Book of Instructions of loans ExPW6/F2 which reads as under:-
"It is of paramount importance that confidential reports on borrowers should be compiled by branches and pay offices with the utmost possible accuracy. The incumbent Incharge may depute a member of the staff to CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.267 Of 372 assist him as credit reporter', but it must be clearly understood that the responsibility for the compilation and the authenticity of details given in the report is that of the Incumbent Incharge."
47.12 In the instant case, the confidential reports (CR) in respect of the borrower and the guarantors Ex. PW6/S, PW6/T and PW6/U (D-106) as well as the Credit Appraisal Format Ex. PW6/N2 (D-8) are being signed both by the Sr. Manager/Loan Incharge, Sh. Ranjiv Suneja/A-4, who was the appraising authority as well as by Incumbent Incharge/ Chief Manager Smt. K. K. Johar/A-3. As per the aforementioned clause (xii) of ExPW6/F2, while preparing the confidential reports, the Incumbent Incharge may depute some staff to assist him for collecting the confidential data but, it was made clear that the responsibility regarding authenticity of the details shall be that of the Incumbent Incharge. Considering the fact that both the Credit Appraisal Format as well as the confidential reports were being signed by the Incumbent Incharge/Chief Manager (A-3) and also by the Appraisal Authority/Sr. Manager (A-4), the responsibility of genuineness of the data mentioned therein has to be borne by both the said CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.268 Of 372 officials. This clause nowhere implies that Loan officer who prepares the loan appraisal and recommend it for sanction, shall not be responsible for the discrepancies in KYC compliance.
47.13 In my considered view, the job of loan appraisal is not a mechanical job and a great responsibility is attached to the same and that is why, it was assigned to A-4, who, at the relevant time was one of the senior most officers in the branch holding the rank of a Sr. Manager. The misleading information furnished by borrower as well as forgery of documents could be detected if proper exercise of KYC norms are carried out by the concerned officials. In the instant case, owing to various discrepancies, the loan proposal was not worth recommendation for sanction, rather for use of multiple PAN cards and date of birth by the same person, the matter was required to be probed and reported to police. In these circumstances, the conduct of A-4 in appraising the proposal and recommending it to be fit for grant of facility without making proper verification of the documents of borrower's identification, financial credentials and collateral securities, is a clear indication of deep conspiracy. CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.269 Of 372 47.14 At serial no.2(g) of loan appraisal form Ex. PW 6/N-2 (D-8 at page 200), which was being signed by both A-3 and A-4, it was noted that borrower's profile had been verified through CIBIL and no adverse feature had been observed. But, it is very pertinent to note that CIBIL inquiry had given multiple hits in respect of the name of Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjeev Kumar Dixit and said multiple profiles, Ex. PW6/O (D-104, page 187 to 189), were showing use of 3 different PAN numbers and dates of birth by the same customer. Furthermore, as per the borrower's claim his firm M/s Shanker metals was into business of manufacture and trading of bathroom fittings for last more than 10 years. Whereas, the CIBIL score of the borrower was shown as '-1' owing to an insufficient history of credit transactions, which was also indicative of borrower's lack of sufficient exposure to credit facilities.
47.15 But, despite aforementioned signals of potential risk owing to different PAN numbers and dates of birth depicted in CIBIL reports, no further inquries were made for checking the genuineness of borrower's credentials and the loan was recommended fit for grant of credit facility to the tune of Rs.4 crores. CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.270 Of 372 Further, the appraisal note has been signed by both the accused on 29.03.2011, whereas, as per the loan file, the CIBIL report in respect of M/s Shanker Metal is dated 05.11.2012, which again shows that no CIBIL report was generated in the name of the borrower firm at the time of sanction of loan. CIBIL report were generated only in the name of proprietor of the firm Sanjeev Dixit. Neither any CIBIL report in the name of the gaurantors nor in the name of the firm M/s Shanker Metals were generated. As is evident from record, the CIR in respect of guarantors only from Equifax were generated that too on 29.04.2011 i.e. much after the sanction of loan.
47.16 The applicability of Section 13(2) of the PC Act does not depend on the fact that the public servant should have obtained a valuable thing or a pecuniary advantage for himself. An offence under section 13 of the PC Act can be said to have been committed in terms of Sections 13(1)(d), when a public servant abuses his position and obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.271 Of 372 advantage without any public interest. Hence, it is not necessary that pecuniary advantage or a valuable thing has been procured by public servant for himself, it could be a third party. In order to bring home the charge under clause (iii) of 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, the prosecution is required to establish that public servant had acted without any public interest and no mens rea is required for bringing the conduct within the ambit of clause (iii) as held by Hon'ble High Court in Runu Ghosh (supra).
47.17 In assessing the conduct of a public servant, one of the test in judging the impugned action of a Public Servant is to see whether he had acted in total disregard to the public interest, the reference can be had to the work/industry of a public servant. When a court is seized of impugned action (s) of a public servant by exalting it to the status of a criminality, the nature and job of such a public servant is required to be understood. Banking Sector is a core service area sector servicing myriad group of persons from different sections of the society by making the requisite finance available to public at large. A banker earns money by providing services such as loan/credit facility to the CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.272 Of 372 needy persons and they also act as a custodian of the money infused in the banking system by persons from varied background.
47.18 To say that on account of deviation from banking norms, the grant of credit facility to a borrower was without public interest or there were elements of criminality, it would be incumbent upon the prosecution to bare to narrate the sequence of events, facts in the form of evidence both oral as well as documentary that credit facility was granted in utter negligent and careless manner and in total disregard to the accepting banking norms and the act of the public servant was so reckless that no prudent public servant could have performed the official act in such manner. The banking norms could be the settled banking practice or a code which suggest a particular task is to be performed in a particular manner and the variation in performance of such a task against the accepted norms would be one of the indices by which the conduct of a public servant is required to be adjudged. 47.19 Judging the conduct of a public servant for a task performed in variation to settled banking norms involves determining if the deviation was a CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.273 Of 372 bonafide error of judgment or the result of malafide intent, corruption, or gross negligence. Ultimately, a variation from norms is not automatically indicative of misconduct. The key is whether the official acted with integrity or in good faith, or with a corrupt or dishonest motive. No doubt that different guidelines are framed or had been reduced into a writing but still decision making has human imprint. The human imprint could be inspired by number of factors such as the perception of a public servant to different guidelines, different practices performed over a period of time, the target given to a bank officer/public servant to bring business to the bank by facilitating the grant of loan etc. and to ensure that his acts do not result in causing any loss to the bank.
47.20 In the instant case, what was most startling is that at the time of CIBIL inquiry, prima facie discrepancies were revealed in the CIBIL reports pertaining to borrower Sanjeev Dixit (A-1). As already noted above, upon an inquiry on the website Credit Information Bureau Limited (CIBIL), multiple files pertaining to same customer Sanjeev Dixit/ Sanjeev Kumar Dixit were opened wherein three different PAN CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.274 Of 372 numbers and different date of birth of Sanjeev Dixit/ Sanjeev Kumar Dixit were mentioned. In one file Ex. PW6/O (D-104; page 187), his date of birth was shown as 08.08.1973 and PAN card as ALTPD3660M. The said details are however, matching with the details in the additional information given by the borrower in D-103 Ex. PW6/M. But in another file (D-104 at page 188), the date of birth of Sanjeev Kumar Dixit was shown as 10.07.1973, while his PAN card was mentioned as AITPD0089M. In the third profile in the name Sanjeev Dixit on CIBIL (part of D-104, page 189), his date of birth was shown as 01.01.1973 and PAN card as ASDPD7032N. Pertinently, in all said profiles, the voter I-card of the customer as well as one of his addresses was same i.e DL/04/043/171289 and 232, Jagriti Enclave, Delhi respectively, which was a clear indication that same person had approached different banks with different forged identification details. 47.21 In view of the fact that in all the said profiles extracted from CIBIL, the Voter I card number and the address of the customer were same, it was quite evident that all said profiles were relating to the same person, who had been using different PAN card CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.275 Of 372 numbers and date of birth while dealings with different banks. Despite these apparent suspicious circumstances surfacing on record, no efforts were made by A-3 or A-4 to dig out the issue to know the reason of said discrepancies in the PAN card and date of birth details. The above discrepancies in the credentials of the same very customer in different CIBIL hits/reports were the clear red flags for A-3 & A-4 to get a fresh KYC conducted in accordance with banking norms, guidelines and circulars to rule out any possibility of fraud.
47.22 No effort was however, made to check the genuineness of the customer even from his previous banker Canara Bank, Rajinder Nagar, Ghaziabad, where A-1 was allegedly having a current account no. 2867201000038 in the name of his firm M/s Shankar Metals. As per record A-1 had filed the statement of account of said bank (D-7, page 9150), for the period w.e.f. 01.02.2010 to 31.03.2010. During trial, prosecution has duly established on record through deposition of PW11, that said statement of account filed by A-1 with the lending bank, was a forged document because, the given account number existed in the name CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.276 Of 372 of some different firm M/s Busicom, proprietor Sh. Rakesh Khullar. PW11 also filed account statement of said bank account for the period w.e.f. 01.01.2005 to 07.12.2013 showing nil transaction in said account during said period. A-3 & A-4, who being the custodian of public money were expected to act with utmost care and diligence but, to the contrary they acted with gross negligence and utter disregard to public interest and same led to huge losses to the bank and corresponding gain to the fraudulent customer.
47.23 The standard of diligence expected from A-3 & A-4 was simply of a prudent person not of any expert investigator. But unfortunately, A-3 and A-4, who were the senior officers of the bank holding positions of Chief Manager and Senior Manager failed to meet even that standard of prudence. For this blatant negligence on their part, the bank had to pay heavily and suffered a huge losses. Acts and omissions of such nature cannot be treated as mere irregularity by potraying them as non-deliberate or unintentional. In said backdrop of circumstances, the conduct of A-3 and A-4 in ignoring said palpable discrepancies in the CIBIL reports, and making no effort to dig out the issue of CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.277 Of 372 KYC documents from the concerned authorities appears to be deliberate and willful. It is rather clear indication of a deep conspiracy and dishonest intention to favour a fraudulent borrower/A-1.
(ii) Lack of verification regarding financial documents
48. As per prosecution case, A-3 and A-4 violated L&A circular no. 40 dated 18.03.2008 Ex.PW6/D4 and L&A Circular No.42 dated 20.03.2009 Ex.PW6/E4 (D-148, page no.2292 and 2293), as they failed to verify the genuineness of the audited balance sheets furnished by the borrower M/s Shanker Metals from the concerned Chartered Accountant nor did they make any verification from ICAI regarding the genuineness of the Chartered Accountants, who purportedly prepared and signed said balance sheets.
48.01 In this regard, a forceful contention has been raised by the defence that a pre-sanction due diligence was already got done through an empaneled Chartered Accountant firm Jagdish C Bhatia and Co., who submitted their report dated 04.03.2011 Mark PW6/DE under the signature of CA J.C. Bhatia wherein, the gross income and taxable income of the subject CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.278 Of 372 firm was duly verified and it was found to be correct. Furthermore, when during trial, said document Mark PW6/DE was shown to PW58 Sh. Arun Sharma, the Circle Auditor of PNB and to PW-65 Sh.V.K.Dhar, the Concurrent Auditor, they both deposed that they were never shown the said pre-sanction due diligence report. It was argued that their said version is indicative of the fact that investigation done by CBI was casual and perfunctory as the complete documents were not shown to the witnesses before examining them during the course of investigation.
48.02 It was further argued that verification of the financial documents by the empaneled charted accountant did not leave room for any doubt regarding genuineness of said documents and therefore, no need was felt by A-3 and A-4 to make any further verification from the regional office of ICAI. It was further argued that when a pre-sanction due diligence was already obtained from an empaneled agency, failure to verify the credentials of the CA from the office of ICAI can at the most be regarded as mere irregularity on the part of A-3 and A-4 but, no criminal culpability can be fixed upon them for said failure.
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.279 Of 372 48.03 Before reaching to any conclusion on the above arguments, I may first refer to the evidence adduced in this regard by the prosecution. As per record, prosecution has examined the Chartered Accountant PW-7 Sukhdev Madnani, who purportedly signed the audited balance sheet of M/s Shankar Metal Mark C, D & E (D-7) (Page no. 108 to Page no. 152), for the year 2008, 2009 and 2010 respectively. PW-7 however, deposed that he did not know any person by the name Sanjeev Dixit nor he certified said audited balance sheets of M/s Shanker Metals. He disowned his purported signature and also the purported stamp of his company appearing on said reports. In his cross- examination, he categorically denied that said audited balance sheets were prepared by him.
48.04 Likewise, PW-12 Smt. Prem Lata Mishra, Chartered Accountant denied having signed the audit report or Form no. 3 CD or the profit loss account statement of the year 2011 of M/s Shankar Metals Mark 'A' (Part of D-7, Page- 82 to 98). She also disowned her purported signature appearing on said documents as well as the purported seal of her company Prem Mishra and Company. Nothing was asked on behalf of CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.280 Of 372 A-3 and A-4 in cross examination of PW12 and the testimony to that extent remained unchallenged. 48.05 During investigation specimen signature of both the said witnesses were taken by the IO and were sent to CFSL for their comparison with the questioned signatures appearing on audited balance sheet report, Form no. 3 CD and the profit loss account statement. However, qua the questioned signature attributed to PW-7 Sukhdev Madnani and PW12 Prem Lata Mishra, no conclusive opinion appears to have been given by the forensic expert in his report, Ex. PW75/C (D-166).
48.06 In this regard, we may also refer to the relevant part of circular no. 40 dated 18.03.2008, Ex.PW6/D4, which reads as under :-
"2. Since, the reports submitted that while dealing with the reports submitted by CAs play a vital role for making credit decisions both at the pre-sanction appraisal and post sanction follow up stages, it is imperative that the reports should be correct and based upon the facts.
As such, it is advised that while dealing with the reports submitted by CAs, the genuineness of the signatures of CAs/or firm may be verified from the Regional Office of the ICAI under whose jurisdiction the CAs/firm in question falls to avoid any serious implications for the Bank due to such CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.281 Of 372 fake reports. Further in case false documents as aforesaid have been noticed, suitable action may be initiated against the parties involved such as filing of FIR etc under intimation to concerned CAs/firm CAs."
48.07 Likewise, circular no. 42 dated 20.03.2009 Ex.PW6/E4 also casts similar obligation upon the bank to verify the signatures of the CA appearing on the financial documents from the website of the ICAI and it also says that a confirmation should also be sought from the concerned CA/firms about the genuineness of their signature appearing on the financial documents submitted by the borrower with the bank.
48.08 As per the testimony of PW-72 Sh. Hardesh Kumar Jain @ H.K. Jain, he had supplied the information regarding verification of signatures of Chartered Accountants i.e. CA Sukhdev Madani (Membership No. 073569) and CA Prem Lata Mishra (Membership No. 092733) to CBI vide his Letter dated 07.01.2014, which he proved on record as Ex.PW72/A (Colly) (D-164). In view of said record although the membership number of both the said CAs are matching with the membership numbers mentioned in the financial documents. But, in CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.282 Of 372 the light of the testimony of PW7 and PW12, prosecution has sufficiently proved on record that the said financial documents were forged as they were neither prepared nor signed by said CAs. 48.09 As is evident from the language of the circular no. 42 dated 20.03.2009 Ex.PW6/E4, the purpose was to check the genuineness of the signature of CA or CA firms from the regional office of ICAI, and to also seek confirmation from the concerned CAs about the genuineness of their signatures so as to avoid any fake reports on the financial documents, which may have serious implications on the bank. A-3 & A-4, grossly violated said circulars as no such verification was done by them.
48.10. Here, we must also understand that the role of the empaneled Jagdish C. Bhatia, was not to check the genuineness of the maker of said documents but to check the correctness of data contained therein and same is also evident from the empaneled CA's report Mark PW6/DE (at page no. 173 and 174), which says that it was prepared simply on the assessment of the papers/documents, made available to the empaneled CA firm and on that basis, it was verified CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.283 Of 372 that the gross income and taxable income of the subject firm was correct. Hence, mere said due diligence report of empaneled advocate would not absolve A-3 & A-4 from their duty casted upon them by virtue of aforementioned circulars, to verify the genuineness of concerned CA, who purportedly prepared and signed the financial documents submitted by the borrower with the bank. 48.11 Whereas, in the instant case, neither any verification was done from the website of the institute nor from the concerned CAs/Firms by whom the aforementioned financial documents were purportedly prepared and signed. In the light of said circumstances, the defence plea regarding pre-santion due diligence of financial documents is of no help because, it will not absolve the bank officials A-3 and A-4 from their obligation to verify the genuineness of said documents in accordance with aforementioned circulars Ex. PW-6/D4 and Ex. PW 6/E4. The lack of inquiries into the genuineness of said documents assumes more importance in the light of the palpable discrepancies in the CIBIL report, as already discussed in the preceding paras.
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.284 Of 372
(iii) Incorrect Confidential Report (CR) regarding credit history/NECs and Lack of verification from the previous banker
49. It has been alleged in the chargesheet that credit history of the borrower was wrongly shown to be nil in the CR, despite the fact that as per CIBIL report of the borrower (A-1), there was a credit history of a vehicle loan of Rs. 5 lac. This argument has been strongly refuted by the defence by submitting that per the CIBIL report of accused Sanjeev Dixit dated 04.03.2011 Ex. PW6/O(D-104), the CIBIL score of Sanjeev Dixit was shown as '-1' owing to an insufficient history of credit transactions. The said report only lists a previous inquiry dated 05.02.0211 for an auto loan worth Rs. 5 lakh and thus, A-1 Sanjeev Dixit had no past credit history or conduct that could be verified or cross- checked. It was argued that a mere inquiry for vehicle loan cannot be termed as loan/liability in the account of A-1 and therefore, in the Confidential Report (CR) dated 22.03.2011 (Ex. PW6/X), it was correctly recorded that A-1 Sanjeev Dixit had 'Nil' facilities in other banks. Thus, the allegation that a false CR was prepared on this count is totally incorrect.
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.285 Of 372 49.01 As far as the 'Nil' credit history is concerned, I agree with the defence contention that an inquiry regarding vehicle loan cannot be treated as a credit facility availed by the borrower. As per CIBIL report only an inquiry regarding vehicle loan of Rs. 5 lakh was made but the credit score was shown as '-1' owing to the insufficient history of credit available on CIBIL. But, I may note here that the prosecution has alleged the discrepancies in the CR not only regarding the credit history of the borrower but also regarding Non Encumbrance Certificate of the empaneled lawyer N.S.Parihar (A-2).
49.02 As per Confidential Reports dated 22.03.2011 Ex PW6/S (D-106), Ex PW6/T and Ex PW6/U, NECs in respect of borrower's property C-193, 3 rd floor Vivek Vihar, Shahdara, Delhi, in respect of Guarantor Sanjay Sharma's property 25, Shayam Industrial Estate, Loni, Ghaziabad and in respect of property mortgaged by 2nd borrower Indra Rani, 17, Shriram Nagar, GT Road, Shahdara, had been already received from the empanelled lawyer. Whereas, as per the record, NECs of said properties were submitted with the bank only on 26.03.2011 i.e after the date of said CRs. While the NEC CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.286 Of 372 in respect of the 4th property 5/1234, (GF & FF), M-11, Vasundhra Distt. Ghaziabad, was submitted with the bank much after the sanction of loan. As per title deed register, Ex. PW6/L2 (D-143), the original title deeds of 1st, 2nd and 3rd property, proposed for mortgage were deposited in the bank on 30.03.2011, while in respect of 4th property, the title deeds were deposited only on 18.05.2011. But there is no explanation why the concerned bank officials A-3 and A-4 had shown tearing hurry in preparing the confidential report on 22.03.2011, when by that time, neither the NEC nor even the certified copies of the aforementioned mortgaged property were filed with the bank by the empaneled lawyer.
49.03 As per CIR, 4th mortgaged property bearing no. 5/1234. M-11, Vasundhra, Distt Ghaziabad, was of the guarantor Rajesh Aggarwal. But, by the time loan was sanctioned on 29.03.2011, neither any NEC nor the certified copies of title deeds of said property were received by the bank. Although said 4th property was subsequently substituted with another property claimed to be owned by the borrower himself i.e property bearing no. 121, FIE, Patparganj Extention but, CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.287 Of 372 as on date of grant of appraisal and sanction of loan, neither NEC nor the original nor even the certified of the sale deed of said property bearing no. 5/1234. M-11, Vasundhra, Distt Ghaziabad, was available with the bank. As per record, the NEC of 5/1234. M-11, Vasundhra, Distt Ghaziabad, was submitted with the bank by A-2 on 13.05.2011 i.e much after the sanction of credit facility. As per title deed register, Ex. PW6/L2 (D-143, page 200), the title deed of said property with the bank were filed on 18.05.2011. The title deed register, Ex. PW6/L2 shows that the title deeds of the substituted property i.e. 121, FIE Industrial Area, Patparganj Shahdra, New Delhi were deposited with the bank on 18.06.2011.
49.04 The explanation furnished by the defence that CR was started to have been prepared on 22.03.2011, but the entries in the CR reports were made on different dates as and when the information was received from different agencies/sources, seems to be only an afterthought and not convincing. The other flaw regarding lack of NEC of 4th mortgaged property is sought to be explained by saying that the credit limit only to the extent of being secured by three properties CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.288 Of 372 was released by the bank till the NEC of 4th property came to be filed by the A-2, also doesn't look very convincing.
49.05 It will not be out of place to mention here that as per Law Division Circular No. 9/LAW/2009 dated 27.08.2009 Ex PW6/I4 (D-148, Page 2294), on mortgage steps and precautions, legal opinion of the empaneled lawyer should be sought only on the original title deeds submitted by the borrower and a letter should be written to the advocate to collect the original title deeds for rendering his legal opinion and in no case, the advocate should give opinion on the basis of photocopies or certified copies of title deed. Whereas, as per acknowledgment receipts issued by the bank which are available on record as Ex PW6/C3 and ExPW6/D3, as well as the title register, the original title deeds of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd immovable properties were handed over to the bank on 30.03.2011 while in respect of 4th property mentioned in CR, it was deposited with bank on 18.05.2011 i.e. after the loan was sanctioned on 29.03.2025. This clearly shows that the legal opinion of the empaneled advocate was not based on original title documents.
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.289 Of 372 49.06 In the backdrop of said circumstances, it is not conceivable as to how NEC, with which the certified copies of title deeds of property obtained from concerned Sub-Registrar, has to be also filed by the empaneled advocate, were ready and available with bank on 22.03.2011, which is the date of aforementioned Confidential Reports (CR) or at any time before 30.03.2011. Assuming for the sake of argument that the NECs were filed with the bank prior to sanction of loan. But, in the light of the fact that title deeds of mortgaged properties were filed with the bank only on 30.03.2011 and 18.05.2011, alleged filing of NEC by A-2 on any date prior to 30.03.2011, would only mean that NEC/legal opinion were prepared by him on the basis of the photocopies of title deeds in defiance of circular Ex PW6/I4, which categorically provides that in no case, advocate will give opinion on the basis of photocopies or certified copies of title deeds. During investigation, no document was found available in the bank record regarding assignment of title deeds of subject properties proposed for mortgage to A-2 or regarding his (A-2) being handed over the title deeds of mortgaged properties or having returned the same to the bank with the certified copies of sale deeds of said CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.290 Of 372 properties, which he (A-2) claimed to have obtained from the offices of concerned Sub-Registrars. 49.07 Moreover, as already noted above, no inquiries were made from the previous banker Canara Bank, Rajinder Nagar, Ghaziabad, where borrower claimed to be having a current account in the name of his firm M/s Shankar Metals and also filed the statement of account of said bank account bearing no.2867201000038. During investigation, even said bank account statement was also found to be forged. In this regard prosecution examined PW11 Sh. Indravadan Dhawan from said bank and as per his version said account was not in the name of M/s Shankar Metals but in fact it was in the name of M/s. Busicom System through its proprietor Sh. Rakesh Khullar. Despite multiple hits of CIBIL reports (3 CIBIL reports) showing up on the bureau's site in the name of same person Sanjeev Dixit/ Sanjeev Kumar Dixit using same Voter ID and address but using three different PAN cards and three date of births, no efforts were made to check his credentials even from his previous banker.
(iv) Discrepancies in CIR reports CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.291 Of 372
50. As per CBI's case, in order to know the credit history/creditworthiness of the prospective borrower, besides the Credit Information Report (CIR) from CIBIL, the bank was required to obtain credit information of the prospective borrower and guarantor from two more agencies viz. M/s Equifax Credit Information Services Pvt. Limited and M/s Experian Credit Information Company of India (P) Ltd and in this regard, CBI has placed reliance on MISD (Management Information System Division) circular no. 03/2011 dated 10.03.2011 Ex. PW6/G4 (page 2306 to D-148) issued by PNB. 50.01 It is alleged that the public servants A-3 and A-4 have deliberately violated said circular as Credit Information Report (CIR) only of the borrower was taken from CIBIL but no CIRs in respect of guarantors were taken from CIBIL. It is further alleged that the CIR of guarantors from the Equifax was also extracted much later on 28.04.2011 whereas, the loan was sanctioned much prior on 29.03.2011. Further, no CIR was obtained from the third agency M/s Experian Credit Information Company of India (P) Ltd. 50.02 The defence argument in this regard is that the aforementioned circular Ex. PW6/G4, itself CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.292 Of 372 states that M/s Equifax Credit Information Services Pvt. Limited was yet to launch their commercial bureau, while M/s Experian Credit Information Company of India (P) Ltd was yet to launch the bureaus, and since the borrower in the instant case was a commercial entity, the information was not available regarding said firm on M/s Equifax Credit Information Services Pvt. Limited at the relevant time and the said position has been admitted even by the prosecution witness Mr.C.P.Garg (PW-6). In the backdrop of said circumstances, CIBIL report of borrower Sanjeev Dixit was sufficient to ascertain his creditworthiness. Whereas, there was no adverse remarks in the M/s EQUIFAX reports dated 28.04.2011, drawn for the guarantors Sanjay Sharma and Indra Rani Ex. PW6/Q and Ex. PW6/R respectively, as there credit history was also shown nil.
50.03 As regard the allegations that A-3 and A-4 dishonestly overlooked the suspicious nature of the CIBIL report of A-1 Sanjeev Dixit, containing multiple DOB and PAN numbers, it has been argued on behalf of A-4 that as per book of instructions-chapter IX:Confidential Reports Ex. PW6/F4 (at page 9.5 para xii), CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.293 Of 372 the responsibility for compilation and authenticity of the details in the confidential reports rests solely on the incumbent incharge i.e. upon A-3, who was the Chief Manager at the relevant time and in view thereof, A-4 cannot be held liable for the shortcomings in the CIRs of the borrower, as he was not the incumbent incharge. However, this argument has already been dealt with and rejected by this Court in the preceding paras 47.10 to 47.13.
50.04 By drawing attention to the circular no. MIS 3/11 dated 3.10.2011 Ex. PW6/G4, it has been urged on behalf of the prosecution that credit information report was required to be obtained not only with respect of borrower but also for the guarantors. Although it is true that as per said circular, no information was available regarding credit history of commercial entities with M/s Equifax Credit Information Service Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Experian Credit was yet to launch the bureaus. But, no explanation is forthcoming from A-3 and A-4 as to why CIR reports in respect of the guarantors were not generated from CIBIL. As per record, the CIR in respect of the guarantors from M/s Equifax was extracted on 28.04.2011. i.e much after the CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.294 Of 372 sanction of loan and there is no explanation why it was extracted so belatedly. Further, there is no explanation as to why the CIR even in respect of M/s Shankar Metals was generated so late. As per record, the Credit Information Report from CIBIL in respect of M/s Shankar Metals was generated on 05.11.2012 vide document Ex. PW6/P i.e much after the sanction of loan, which was sanctioned on 29.03.2011.
(v) Discrepancies in the NEC/legal search report :
51. It is alleged against A-3 and A-4 that they did not communicate with the owners of the collateral properties through registered letters in violation of Circular No. 56 dated 08.07.2000 Ex. PW6/H4 and further they dishonestly mentioned that legal search report/non-encumbrance certificate (NEC) of four collateral properties have been obtained whereas, NEC only of 03 collateral properties at Loni, Shahdra and Vivek Vihar was filed with the bank on 26.03.2011. Further, A-3 and A-4 deliberately accepted incomplete legal search reports submitted by A-2 in respect of two collateral properties of Loni and Vivek Vihar as the certified copies of the title deeds of said properties CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.295 Of 372 were not yet submitted by the empaneled lawyer/A-2 N.S.Parihar at the time of sanction of the loan. 51.01 Ld. Defence Counsels have argued that the Letter of Intent from the respective property owners, accompanied with acknowledgment letters, unequivocally demonstrate that the branch did establish communication with the owners of the collateral properties. I have carefully perused the acknowledgment of the receipt of title deeds, Ex. PW/6D3 , Ex. PW6/O3, Ex. PW6/S3 and Ex. PW6/T1, which are the letters dated 04.04.2011, written by the Manager, PNB, Jor Bagh Branch to the guarantors Sh. Sanjay Sharma (proprietor) M/s Super Machines and Ms. Indra Rani as well as to the borrower Sh. Sanjeev Dixit, vide which they were informed regarding receipt of title deeds of their respective properties offered for mortgaged with the bank. However, there is nothing on record to show that said letters were dispatched to the addresses by registered post or any other mode as no such proof of dispatch was found available in the loan file.
51.02 Although as per defence plea, initially only three immovable property were offered as CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.296 Of 372 collateral security. However, as per the Credit Appraisal Format dated 29.03.2011 (D-8) Ex. PW6/N2, which is being signed by both A-3 and A-4, four properties including the property no. 5/1234, M-11, Vasundra, District Ghaziabad, UP, were offered as collateral security. Though, the said 4th property of Vasundra, District Ghaziabad was subsequently released on 25.06.2011 after the borrower offered another substitute property 121, FIE, Patparganj Extension, Delhi but, there is no justification for not getting the legal search report / NEC in respect of said 4 th property of Vasundara, District Ghaziabad prior to sanction of loan. As per record, the NEC of said property was submitted with the bank on 18.05.2011. Hence, the defence plea that initially, only three properties were offered for mortgage, is found to be untrue and contrary to record.
51.03 Furthermore, as already noted above, there are violations of the banking norms which required the bank to seek legal opinion from the Panel Advocate only on the original title deeds whereas, as per record, the NEC in respect of first three properties was filed by the panel Lawyer prior to 26.03.2011. On CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.297 Of 372 the other hand, as per the Letter of Intent Ex. PW6/C3 and title deed register, Ex. PW6/L2 (D-143), the original title deeds of the first three properties were deposited with the bank on 30.03.2011, while that of 4th property, it was deposited on 18.05.2011. There is no iota of material to show that the panel lawyer was ever handed over the original title deeds of the collateral properties for seeking his legal opinion on the title documents. 51.04 Besides that, for reasons best known to A-3 and A-4, they failed to insist for filing of NECs and certified copies of the title deeds of all the immovable properties offered for mortgage before sanction of loan. As per record, certified copies of only two mortgage properties were received by the bank prior to sanction. As such the legal search process remained incomplete. A-3 & A-4 failed to verify the title documents at their end as by the time the loan was sanctioned on 29.03.2011, they neither had the original title deeds available with them nor they were provided certified copies of all of title deeds even by the panel lawyer A-2 prior to the date of sanction of the loan.
(vi) Sanction of loan prior to submission of Valuation report CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.298 Of 372
52. It is alleged that Valuation report of the property 5/1234, M-11, Vasundra, District Ghaziabad was submitted belatedly on 13.05.2011 i.e. after the sanction of loan, which was sanctioned on 29.03.2011. In this regard, the defence has come up with the plea that at the time of sanction, only three properties were mortgaged by the borrower and since the combined value of the said properties was found to be insufficient to maintain required security coverage, therefore, on the insistence of the bank, the 4th property 5/1234, M-11, Vasundra, District Ghaziabad was offered for mortgage which was subsequently substituted by another property of 121, FIE, Patparganj Extension, Delhi on 25.06.2011. Said argument is however, found contrary to record. As per the Confidential reports (D-106) dated 22.03.2011 as well as Credit Appraisal Format dated 29.03.2011 Ex PW6/N2, all four properties including the property no. 5/1234 (GF & FF), M-11, Vasundra, District Ghaziabad were proposed as collateral security by the borrower and the said property 5/1234 (GF & FF), M-11, Vasundra, District Ghaziabad was shown to be owned by Sh. Rajesh Aggarwal. In the circumstances, when four immovable properties were mortgaged by the borrower, there is no CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.299 Of 372 plausible reason for the bank to sanction the loan without calling the valuation report and NEC for all the 4 properties. The interest of the bank was compromised and put to risk by extending the loan facility to the borrower without first securing it through sufficient collateral securities.
52.01 An argument has been raised that no valuation report was required in respect of the property proposed for mortgaged if the same has been purchased within last one year and since the sale deed in respect of property no. 5/1234, M-11, Vasundhara, Distt. Ghaziabad, was executed on 11.05.2011, therefore, its valuation given in the sale deed itself was taken into consideration by the bank. But, pertinently, even the title deeds of said properties were not available with the bank at the time of sanction for knowing its valuation, as the sale deed itself was executed much after on 11.05.2011 and as per said deed, Sanjeev Dixit/A-1 himself is the owner of said property whereas, as per CIR, said property was owned by guarator Rajesh Aggarwal. Hence, said argument is also liable to be rejected.
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.300 Of 372
(vii) Discrepancies regarding physical verification of the collateral properties
53. As per Credit Report, A-3 visited all four collateral properties on 08.03.2011 whereas, there are no corresponding entries regarding any such visit of A-3 in the movement register prepared at the said branch of PNB. Furthermore, as per the 'Proforma for recording the valuation of the property' available on record as D-125 to D-127, the valuation in respect of 1st, 2nd and 3rd property offered for mortgage was made on 20.3.2011, whereas as per D-128, valuation of 4th propery 5/1234, M-11, Vasundra, District Ghaziabad was done on 18.05.2011 i.e after the sanction of loan. Furthermore, as per CR and Credit Appraisal Note, only GF & FF of said property was proposed for mortgage but, as per D-128, entire propery 5/1234, M-11, Vasundra, District Ghaziabad, is shown to have been mortgaged and owner of said property was shown to be Sanjeev Dixit instead of Rajesh Aggarwal who was shown to be owning said property as per CR dated 22.03.2011.
53.01 In this regard, it was contended on behalf of A-3 & A-4 that the spot verification was CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.301 Of 372 actually conducted on 20.03.2011 and the date of 08.03.2011 as mentioned in the CR dated 22.03.2011 (Ex. PW6/U) is nothing but a clerical error. It was argued that such clerical inaccuracies cannot invalidate otherwise fully-documented and corroborated inspections. The Credit Appraisal Format dated 29.03.2011 (Ex. PW6/N2, D-8, pp. 200-209) records the spot verification, corroborating the verification of all collateral properties by the Branch Head. 53.02 It was argued that the movement register itself contains an entry of 20.03.2011 corroborating the physical verification as recorded at Ex. PW6/S4 (D-141, p. 29) and it dispels any notion that no official movement occurred for the inspection. Spot verification of the first three collateral is further corroborated by the Proformas for Recording Value of Property Assessed by the Incumbent-In-Charge A-3 i.e. Ex. PW6/01, Ex. PW6/P1, and Ex. PW6/Q1 (D-126-127). These proformas reflect on-site assessment and could not have been prepared without physical inspection. 53.03 It was argued that the fourth property (Vasundhara Property), which was offered subsequently, was also physically inspected by the CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.302 Of 372 Branch Incumbent on 18.05.2011 as demonstrated in Ex. PW6/R1 (D-128). This further confirms that the officer consistently carried out all mandatory visits. It was argued on behalf of A-4 that the responsibility for conducting spot verifications of borrower premises and collateral properties rested exclusively with the Branch Incumbent (A3).
53.04 Ld. defence counsels drew attention to the deposition of PW6, where he is stated to have himself clarified in his Cross Examination dated 18.07.2019 that, the movement register is not a conclusive or mandatory record, stating: "Movement register may or may not have details of the person who has given instructions to a concerned official to go out of the bank premises... It depends upon the person who is making entry in the movement register." It was urged that the above deposition of PW6 negates the prosecution's attempt to treat absence or inconsistency of entries as evidence of non-visit.
53.05 Ld Counsels vehemently argued that in light of these multiple independent documentary corroborations Credit Appraisal, Movement Register, property valuation proformas, and spot-verification CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.303 Of 372 records, the allegation that property inspections were not conducted is wholly unfounded. Clerical error in the date in the CR cannot override the complete chain of evidence proving that the inspections took place. 53.06 I have considered the above submissions in the light of the material on record. Let's assume for the sake of argument that date of site visit 08.03.2011 as mentioned in CR report was merely a typographical error and properties were actually inspected on 20.03.2011, which is also shown as 'date of making valuation' in 'Proforma for recording the value of property' assessed by the incumbent Incharge' dated 20.03.2011 available on record as D-125 to D-127 in respect of 1st, 2nd and 3rd property. But, then arises another vital question as to how the Incumbent Incharge was able to record the the realisable value of said properties as assessed by the approved valuer, in said documents prepared by her on 20.03.2011. Whereas, as per valuation reports of said properties prepared by the approved valuer Sh. Naveen Kamboj, which are available on record as D-112, D-113 and D-114 all dated 24.03.2011, the said three properties were visited and valued by the approved borrower on CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.304 Of 372 the same date of his report i.e on 24.03.2011. In said circumstances, the act of A-3 in recording exactly same realisable value of the properties as assessed by the approved valuer on 24.03.2011, in the aforementioned proforma dated 20.03.2011 D-125 to D-127, raises a serious doubt even on the correctness of said very documents, which the defence seeks to rely to urge that sites were actually visited on 20.03.2011 and not on 08.03.2011.
53.07 Even the claim regarding spot verification of the mortgaged property of the guarantor Sanjay Sharma on 08.03.2011 by K.K.Johar/A-3, as reflected in the CR Ex. PW6/U, has been falsified by the witness PW-74 Sanjeev Singh Rana, who categorically denied that any inquires were made from him by any bank officials regarding his ex-employer Sanjay Sharma @ Sanjeev Dixit. As per his version, he never gave the statement to the effect that Sanjay Sharma was honest or was bearing good reputation in the market. He deposed that during his tenure, no official from any bank had ever visited at his work place at 121, Industrial Area, Patpar Ganj, Delhi to make any inquiry about Sanjay Sharma. In his cross-examination, he CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.305 Of 372 denied the suggestion that he had given any such statement to the bank officials as mentioned in the report Ex. PW6/U.
(viii) Discrepancies regarding stock verification visits
54. It is alleged against said accused that they failed to carry out physical verification of the stock by visiting the business site of the borrower and calculated the drawing power simply on the basis of periodic stock statements submitted by the borrower without any actual verification of the stock. 54.01 In this regard, we may refer to the testimony of PW6 Sh. C.P. Garg, who deposes that the Loans and Advances circular no. 58 dated 01.06.2006 Ex.PW6/M-4 (part of D-148 page 2319 to 2373) prescribes control measures to be followed by the bank before and after sanction of loan. In the case of M/s Shankar Metals, primary security was hypothecation of stock and book debts and collateral security was equitable mortgage of four properties. Further that the drawing power is released as per stock and book debt holding of the borrower periodically which may be monthly or quarterly and in case of first release of loan, CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.306 Of 372 the stock statement of that date/current date is taken. As per Drawing Power register page 93 (D-142) already Ex.PW6/T-4, first stock statement as on 31.03.2011 was received on 18.04.2011 for a sum of Rs. 3,25,97,415/- against which the drawing power was to be allowed keeping margin of 25% while drawing power of Rs. 4 crore was allowed which was not permissible as per terms of sanction.
54.02 He further deposes that the sanction of Drawing Power was allowed by Mrs. K.K. Johar (A-3). As per the terms of sanction of the loans, the monthly stock statement was to be taken from M/s. Shankar Metals but said schedule also not followed in the present case for the months of December, 2011 and January, 2012. Further, there was no stock statement after 30.06.2012. As per PW6, after receipt of the stock statement the bank officials pay visit for the spot verification of the stock but, in the instant case, Ex.PW6/T-4 reflects that no inspection was carried out in the month of May, 2011, October, 2011 and April, 2012 as there are no corresponding entries of any such visit in the movement register Ex.PW6/S-4 (D-141). CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.307 Of 372 54.03 He further deposes that the stock statement submitted by the party finds noting regarding the date of the visit of the bank official on it. In the present case though there is a noting regarding the visit on the stock statements submitted by M/s. Shankar Metals but there is no corresponding entry in the movement register.
54.04 As per the stock statement, Ex. PW6/Z1 (D-136) (statement as on 31.08.2011), the stock was inspected on 09.09.2011. As per Ex. PW6/A2 (statement as on 30.09.2011), the inspection was done on 20.10.2011. As per Ex. PW6/B2 (statement as on 31.10.2011), there is no date of inspection mentioned on the same. As per Ex. PW6/C2 (statement as on 30.11.2011), the date of inspection is shown to be 15.12.2011. As per stock statements Ex. PW6/D2 (as on 29.02.2012), Ex. PW6/E2 (as on 31.03.2012), Ex. PW6/F2 (as on 30.04.2012), Ex. PW6/G2 (as on 31.05.2012) and Ex. PW6/H2 (as on 30.06.2012), no date of inspection are mentioned on the stock statement. The date of inspection of the stock are though mentioned in the DP register, but there are no corresponding entries in the movement register. The said fact has been further CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.308 Of 372 corroborated by PW58, Sh. Arun Sharma, Sr. Manager in Circle Office of PNB, who also deposed that there were no entries in the movement register regarding said stock statement meaning thereby no physical inspection was carried out to verify the said stock statements.
54.05 Ld Counsel Shri Singh, appearing for A-4 argued that the allegation relating to non- inspection of stock and absence of corresponding entries in the movement register is wholly misplaced, as stock inspection was not the duty of A-4. He submitted that the responsibility for assigning and conducting stock inspections rested exclusively with the Branch Incumbent (A3), who supervised end-use verification and inspection activities at the branch and same is evident from FMR-1 Report dated 16.01.2013 prepared by PW6 (Mark PW6/DC), which expressly identifies A3 as the officer who carried out end-use verification of the loan account, including inspection of the first stock statement on 18.04.2011 (Item 12). The report does not attribute stock-inspection duties to A-4. 54.06 Besides that, it was argued on behalf of both the said accused that failure of the borrower (A-1) CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.309 Of 372 to furnish stock statements is a matter of contractual compliance for which the bank had adequate remedies such as imposition of penal interest and therefore, mere non-submission of stock statement or delay in filing the same by the borrower cannot be converted into an allegation of misconduct or conspiracy against the concerned public servant.
54.07 It was argued that as per the bank guidelines 7-15 days time is usually available to check the stock statement and in the instant case, the stock statements were checked by the staff available in the branch on rotation basis, without any delay and such staff used to put their signature on the statement itself against the column 'inspected on' wherein the date of inspection used to be written. Further as per DP register, loan incharge (A-4) had checked the stock statement and put his signature.
54.08 Considering the fact that the stock statement, Ex. PW6/H2, Ex. PW6/G2, Ex. PW6/D2, Ex. PW6/B2, Ex. PW6/A2 as well as Ex. PW6/Z2 are carrying the signatures of Ranjiv Suneja (A-4), A-4 cannot shy away his liability regarding verification of stock by saying that it was the responsibility of the Chief CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.310 Of 372 Manager (A-3) only. There was no material found available in the bank to show that any periodic physical inspection of the stock of M/s Shankar Metals was made by accused A-3 and A-4 or by any other staff deputed on their behalf, before calculating the drawing power. The irregularities with respect to stock statement were also recorded in the annual inspection report, Ex. PW58/H (part of D-147) as well as in quarterly Audit report dated 30.06.2011, Ex. PW58/G (part of D-147) and Ex. PW58/I (part of D-147), which is the quarterly report dated 31.05.2012. These reports have been also referred in the testimony of PW58, wherein he has deposed that stocks were not being checked in rotation by different officials and the stocks were not checked for the month of May, 2011, June, 2011 and July, 2011. Even the conduct of the subject account was found to be not satisfactory. 54.09 The above flaws in the bank record again raise a serious doubt on the conduct of the accused persons. As regard the delayed filing of stock statement, the perusal of the record shows that the branch had issued follow-up letters to the borrower regarding delayed stock statements for December 2011 CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.311 Of 372 and January 2012 (Mark PW6/A3-XI; Mark PWG/A3-X2; Mark PW65/D4), demonstrating that the branch took appropriate steps to obtain compliance whenever stock statements were not submitted on time.
(ix) Diversion of funds through dummy accounts
55. Prosecution has alleged that post-
sanction, there was no monitoring of end use of the loan funds released in the borrower's account. It is alleged that A-3 and A-4 deliberately and dishonestly allowed the diversion of loan funds to bank accounts of various firms who were not in the list of creditors. Further huge cash withdrawals were allowed from the account of borrowers M/s Shankar Metals without ensuring its use for authorized purposes and the same was in gross violation of the Circular No. 58/2006, Ex. PW6/M4 (part of D-148, page 2323), which casts an obligation on the incumbent for pre and post disbursal follow-up.
55.01 This allegation has been vehemently opposed by the defence counsels who submitted that throughout the relevant period, no diversion or misuse of funds was ever reported in any of the monthly, CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.312 Of 372 quarterly, or annual audits. The independent statutory audit reviews conducted by Concurrent Auditor B. C. Katoch consistently recorded compliance, as reflected in Audit Data Forms for 2011 i.e. Ex. PW58/E; Ex. PW58/F; Ex. PW58/G; Ex. PW58/H; Ex. PW58/I (D-147). These audits were independent, periodic and comprehensive, and none of them reported any diversion of funds or irregularity in the account operations.
55.02 For better appreciation of the above rival contentions of the parties, I deem it appropriate to refer to fund flow chart given in the charge-sheet which is as under:-
A/C No. of Owner of Date of Ch. No. Amount Total firms Account / transaction in Rs. Amount wherein cash (Rs.) amount withdraw was al by diverted / cash withdrawa l Rahul 31.05.2011 279124 950000 Sharma 13.07.2011 545519 350000 1300000 (brother-
in-law of
Sanjeev
Dixit)
Sachin 27.04.20211 75116 900000
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.313 Of 372 Mishra 06.05.2011 75123 556800 (Driver of 29.06.2011 545513 950000 Sanjeev 03.08.2011 545524 1800000 5156800 Dixit) 21.02.2012 545560 950000 Cash Sandeep 07.04.2011 75109 50000 50000 Withdrawal Jha (Associate of Sanjeev Dixit) Sanjay 10.05.2011 279114 550000 Sharma 21.12.2011 545549 550000 (Guaranto 18.01.2012 545557 950000 r of the 2050000 loan) 03.08.2011 545523 2200000 Sanjeev 30.11.2011 545546 950000 Dixit 29.05.2012 545571 1000000 4150000 (accused) A/C No. 333320100 0072 of M/s Sanjeev 13.12.2011 545547 1512000 1512000 Diya Dixit Sanitation (accused) exist in Canara Bank, Karkardum a, Delhi (paid by RTGS) A/C No. 500701339 23.08.2011 545527 2115000 2115000
56 of M/s Jagdamba Sanjeev Metalsexist Dixit in (accused) Allahabad Bank, Vasundhar a, Ghaziabad, CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.314 Of 372 UP (paid by RTGS) A/C No. 06.07.2011 545514 1520000 5329600 500326733 19.07.2011 545521 2638000 86 of M/s 24.05.2011 279121 1171600 Future Tap Sanjeev Sanitation Dixit exist in (accused) Allahabad Bank, Vasundhar a, Ghaziabad, UP (paid by RTGS) A/C No. 11.04.2012 2575000 333320100 31.05.2011 279126 1273000 0073 of M/s Sanjay 27.12.2011 545551 938045 Sanya Sharma 29.05.212 545568 2575000 Enterprises (Guaranto 31.12.2011 545555 2115065 exist in r of the 29.12.2011 545553 1522000 11520110 Canara loan) 25.11.2011 545542 522000 Bank, Karkar-
dooma, Delhi (paid by RTGS) A/C No. 21.04.2011 75110 685000 333326100 12.08.2011 545526 1625000 0006 of M/s Rahul 18.01.2012 545558 1760300 Shree Balaji Sharma 31.03.2011 75104 2031600 6913900 Enterprises (Brother- 05.05.2011 75120 812000 exist in in-law of Canara Sanjeev Bank, Dixit) Kakarduma Delhi, (paid by RTGS) A/C No. 10.06.2011 279130 55000 333326100 16.11.2011 545540 988000 0003 of M/s Sheetal 06.06.2011 279128 841000
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.315 Of 372 Ganesh Sharma Enterprises (Sister-in-
exist in law of Canara Sanjeev Bank, Dixit) Karkar- dooma, Delhi (paid by RTGS) A/C No. 31.03.2011 75101 2200000 012500210 25.04.2011 75115 500000 0707463 of Rajeev 19.05.2011 279118 865000 5065000 M/s Ganesh Sharma 13.06.2011 545512 1500000 Enterprises (brother- exist in in-law of PNB, Shri Sanjeev Ram Nagar, Dixit) Shahdara, Delhi (paid by RTGS) A/C No. 21.04.2011 75111 565000 333326100 29.11.2011 545544 1268000 0039 of M/s Rajeev 25.10.2011 545537 1250000 Katara Katara 02.04.2011 75108 1537115 Metals exist (brother- 31.03.2011 75103 3265820 in Canara in-law of 27.04.2011 75117 2575185 Bank,Karka Sanjeev 05.05.2011 75122 809181 13120906 rdoom, Dixit) 09.06.2011 279129 987170 Delhi (paid 30.05.2011 279123 863435 by RTGS) A/C No. 500704770 10.09.2011 545529 1798600 91 of M/s Rahul Paras Mudgal 3843600 Metals exist (brother- 23.08.2011 545528 2045000 in in-law of Allahabad Sanjeev Bank, Dixit) Vasundhra, Ghaziabad, UP (paid by
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.316 Of 372 RTGS) A/C No. 27.12.2011 545552 997700 333320100 Jitendra 30.12.2011 545554 2460000 0074 of M/s Singh who 27.05.2011 279125 1563885 5021585 Rajdhani imperson Traders ated exist in himself as Canara Sanjay Bank, Sharma Karkardoo ma, Delhi (paid by RTGS) Total 69032501 55.03 As is evident from the chart, huge money of more than Rs. 1 crore was withdrawn from the cash credit account of M/s Shankar Metals by cash withdrawals, some time in one go of Rs. 22 Lakhs, Rs. 18 Lakhs, Rs. 9 Lakhs and Rs. 9.5 Lakhs without ensuring its end use for authorized purpose. Even the name of the firms except that of M/s Katara Metals, M/s Ganesh Enterprises, M/s Future Tabs and M/s Jagdamba Metals, the name of all other firms through which the money was allegedly diverted such as M/s Rajdhani Traders, M/s Paras Metals, M/s Sanya Metals and M/s Shree Balaji, do not find mention in the list of creditors., which are part of document D-9 i.e. Ex. PW6/U2 at page 225, Ex. PW6/V2 at page 228, Ex. PW6/W2 at page 231, CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.317 Of 372 Ex. PW6/X2 at page 233, Ex. PW6/Y2 at page 238 and Ex. PW6/Z2 at page 242.
55.04 However, I agree with the defence contentions that monitoring of day-to-day utilization or diversion of the cash credit facility sanctioned to M/s Shankar Metals was the responsibility of A-3, who was the Incumbent Incharge and the same is evident from L&A Circular No. 58/2006 (Ex. PW6/M4, D-148, p. 2323), which says that the duty to track borrower operations, review account movements and detect possible diversion of funds lies exclusively with the Branch Incumbent. This position is further confirmed by PW58, who also stated in his deposition that the Incumbent should keep a watch on operations in borrower's account so that cases of diversion of funds, if any, could be brought to light at the earliest opportunity for taking coercive action.
55.05 However, before reaching to any conclusion for fixing the liability of alleged offences upon said accused A-3 and A-4, I deem it appropriate to also deal with the defence objection of prosecution being bad and biased on account of selective arraignment which is alleged to have been done on pick CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.318 Of 372 and choose basis. It has been vehemently argued that the prosecution suffers from selective arraignment, rendering the investigation arbitrary, incomplete, and legally unsustainable. The CBI has inexplicably and arbitrarily picked A-3 and A-4 for prosecution, while similarly placed officials have been held harmless most notably the Senior Concurrent Auditor, Sh. B. C. Katoch, who had statutory responsibility to continuously audit, verify, and flag irregularities in M/s Shankar Metals' loan account. It has been argued that in view of this selective, arbitrary and incomplete investigation, the prosecution case against public servant A-3 and A-4 stands fundamentally weakened.
55.06 It was argued that during the entire relevant period (2011-2012), the Senior Concurrent Auditor had real-time oversight over KYC compliance, loan documentation, monitoring of borrower operations, scrutiny of stock statements, compliance with circulars and audit norms. Four quarterly concurrent audit reports prepared during the exact period of the sanction and operation of the cash credit facility found no irregularities in the M/s Shankar Metals account. Despite his central statutory role, the CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.319 Of 372 CBI neither cited nor examined the concurrent auditor as a witness, nor arrayed him as an accused. 55.07 It was argued that the very fact that concurrent auditor didn't pick up on errors in documentation shows that the errors were well hidden by the main accused persons, so well-hidden that even seasoned concurrent auditors were unable to find fault with such documentation. Furthermore, the errors/lapses as allegedly uncovered by the Bank/CBI were so trivial that they were either not noticed or recorded as rectified without any further demur. The failure of the CBI to offer Concurrent Auditor, Sh. B.C. Katoch as a witness during trial despite knowing his role and importance to the present case makes it clear that the CBI made an attempt to suppress his testimony and therefore, an adverse inference against such conduct in terms of Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act, 1872 is liable to drawn.
55.08 I have duly considered the above submissions in the light of overall material which has come on record. However, before recording any finding in this regard, certain important aspects of this matter are required to be kept in mind. The uniqueness of this CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.320 Of 372 case is that, almost every document filed by the borrower in support of his creditworthiness for availing the loan facility was found to forged, fake and bogus. Be it a document of identification of borrower or the guarantors, financial documents relating to alleged business of the borrower firm, document of collateral securities, every single document was found to be forged and bogus.
55.09 Interestingly, at the very initial stage, when the bank was assessing the creditworthiness of borrower by extracting data pertaining to the borrower from CIBIL, there were enough indications raising a serious doubt on the credentials of the borrower making it direly necessary for the bank to do further probing in the matter. Despite that, said palpably apparent discrepancies in CIBIL reports were completely ignored by A-3 and A-4 and they went ahead with the appraisal and sanctioned the loan. 55.10 Now, what the prosecution wants to emphasis is that the said conduct of the accused public servants in ignoring the aforementioned discrepancies was not merely an irregularity or error of judgment, but it was a deliberate act/omission done in furtherance of CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.321 Of 372 the conspiracy hatched with the borrower to facilitate him to siphone off huge public money and for proving it, the prosecution is also relying upon many other lapses on the part of the said accused also at the post- sanction stage i.e. at the time of calculating the drawing power which was allegedly done without physical inspection of the stock and at the time of disbursal of the funds as it is alleged that said accused failed to monitor the end use of the funds and allowed its diversion through dummy accounts operated by the borrower and his family members. It is alleged that said lapses in the loaning process were deliberately committed so as to ensure that the object of conspiracy is swiftly achieved without any hindrance. 55.11 The impact of said post sanction flaws and lapses on the assessment of questioned conduct of said accused might not have been that grave, had there been no red flags at the outset appearing before these senior officers of the bank (A-3 & A-4), who were dealing with the subject loan proposal. But, their conduct in ignoring these glaring indication of fraud which were apparent on the face of it in the CIBIL reports of the borrower Sanjeev Dixit (A-1), and giving a CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.322 Of 372 clean chit to borrower's credentials by noting in the credit appraisal note that no adverse features were observed in borrower's profile, is bound to create a grave suspicion on their bonafides. This conduct of said accused is bound to bring their every subsequent action in relation to the subject loan under the radar of CBI during investigation and constant scrutiny of the court during trial.
55.12 As regards the defence objection relating to non arraignment of concurrent auditor Sh. B. C. Katoch is concerned, I may note that in the Audit Reports dated 30.06.2011 Ex. PW58/F, Audit Report dated 30.09.2011, Ex. PW58/G as well as Annual Inspection Report, Ex. PW58/H (D-47), he had specifically pointed out various shortcomings and flaws in relation to subject loan, which were subsequently rectified and marked off. Even otherwise, as per Chapter-I, para 2.3 of Objective of Inspection and Audit, which is available on records as Ex. PW58/D (D-47), the objective of inspection and audit is to support the bank management in identification, measurement, monitoring and mitigation of risks in the branch for maximizing development and achieving operational CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.323 Of 372 efficiencies and effectiveness. Para 2.2 of said document further says that the purpose of inspection and audit is not fault finding but fact finding, assessing level of risk and suggesting measures to mitigate risk in very high/high risk areas on priority.
55.13 The process of appraisal and sanction was within the domain of A-3 and A-4, who were under obligation to prepare the confidential reports containing full and reliable records of character, estimated means, business activities and credit worthiness of the borrower and guarantors. It is pertinent to mention here that, as per Chapter IX of Book of Instructions on Loan, Ex. PW6/F4, the confidential report data must remain in the personal custody of the Manager. In view thereof, the concurrent auditor Sh. B. C. Katoch cannot be expected to be privy to said apparent discrepancies which surfaced in the CIBIL reports, with which only A-3 and A-4 were dealing with.
55.14 Therefore, in my considered view the role of concurrent Auditor Sh. B. C. Katoch cannot be equated with the role of A-3 and A-4 especially, when the documents of appraisal and sanction were never CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.324 Of 372 signed by him nor said documents were ever placed before him for the purpose of vetting. Even otherwise, non arraignment of concurrent auditor cannot dilute the blatantly negligent actions and omissions on the part of A-3 and A-4, who were in immediate control of the entire process of appraisal, recommendation and sanction of loan. Further, the red flags in the CIBIL reports were also in the exclusive knowledge of A-3 and A-4 only because, the data relating to Credit Reports of the borrower was required to be kept confidential. 55.15 The argument as regard withholding of best evidence on account of said concurrent auditor being not cited as a witness is also bereft of merits as the prosecution case is largely based on the documentary evidence which was part of bank records. During investigation, said bank record was seized by the IO and same has been proved by the prosecution during trial by examining witnesses from the lending bank as well as from the other different banks. The complainant Sh. C. P. Garg, (PW-6), Sh. Arun Sharma, Sr. Manager Circle Office, PNB (PW-58), Sh. V. K. Dhar, the Ex-Chief Concurrent Auditor, PNB (PW-65) are some of the important witnesses through whom the relevant CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.325 Of 372 record pertaining to subject loan has been duly proved on record by the prosecution.
55.16 We cannot ignore the fact that at the time of granting/disbursing loan, a banker is required to act responsibly. Verification of identity and other credentials of the customer partakes the essential function of a banker. Consideration of any advisory opinion of the empaneled Advocate, Valuer, CA cannot substitute independent application of mind by the sanctioning authority, especially when major financial risks are involved. The public servants dealing with the appraisal and sanction of loan owe a duty to conduct proper verification of every document especially when such documents form the core basis for grant of credit facility or disbursal of loan. The failure of the bank officials accepting various documents without cross checking or verifying their genuineness certainly involves high risk of losing public money at the hands of unscrupulous customers.
55.17 In the light of the aforementioned parameters of the banking norms, the blatant attempt on the part of the defence Counsels to portray the aforementioned conduct of the accused public servants CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.326 Of 372 as mere irregularity by terming it as a normal human error cannot be accepted. Use of forged and fabricated documents for availing credit facilities are well known tricks in bank fraud cases and therefore, failure to exercise due precaution do constitute an act of abuse of official position to provide financial benefit to the individual availing said facilities and said acts in my considered view do fall within the ambit of Section 13(1)
(d)(i) and (ii).
55.18 In bank fraud cases, the courts have consistently emphasized the requirement for bank officials to exercise high standard of care, diligence and adherence to established procedures while sanctioning credit facility. It is often highlighted in various judgments of superior courts that bank officials act in a position of trust and are expected to perform their duties with the prudence of a responsible person. Failure to follow proper pre-sanction and post-sanction inquiries and due-diligence is often viewed as a serious lapse that may amount to criminal misconduct rather than mere commercial error.
55.19 In the instant case, the fraud could have been nipped in the bud had the public servants CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.327 Of 372 (A-3 and A-4) acted like a prudent person and tried to dig out the KYC issue after they noticed the discrepancies in the PAN card and date of birth details appearing in the CIBIL reports of the borrower Sanjeev Dixit (A-1). The said palpable discrepancies were the clear red flags of the potential risks for A-3 and A-4 to swing into action and to verify the genuineness of each and every document furnished by the borrower. However, failure on their part to make any such exercise is a clear departure from a prudent person's conduct and same is liable to shroud their conduct with the clouds of grave suspicion and compel us to conclude that there intentions were impregnated with malafides. 55.20 The above discrepancies in the CIBIL report were clear signals of the potential fraud, but despite that the said accused continued to flout the banking norms and guidelines at both pre and post sanction stage as no physical verification of the stock was done nor the monitoring of funds was done for ensuring the proper end use of the loan funds. The lapses committed by them at different stages of appraisal, sanction and disbursal have already been discussed in detail in the preceding paras of this CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.328 Of 372 judgment. The said conduct of A-3 and A-4 is clearly indicative of their connivance with the borrower (A-1) and the empaneled lawyer (A-2), with whom they entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat and defraud the bank. In furtherance of the said conspiracy, A-3 and A-4 allowed the use of forged documents, allowed diversion of funds and facilitated the borrower in availing the loan facility on the basis of forged documents and in siphoning off the loan amount by diverting it through dummy accounts.
55.21 In view of the aforementioned discussion, I feel no hesitation in concluding that prosecution has successfully proved all the alleged charges framed against A-3 and A-4 beyond reasonable doubt.
Discussion pertaining to Rahul Sharma (A-5) and Rajeev Sharma (A-6)
56. As per prosecution case, the borrower Sanjeev dixit (A-1), was sanctioned a working capital loan to the tune of Rs. 4 crores and he dishonestly diverted all the funds from cash credit account of his firm M/s Shankar Metals either by cash withdrawal or by transferring the amounts in other bank accounts of CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.329 Of 372 the firm, which were either owned by A-1 himself or by his close relatives. It is alleged that Sanjeev Dixit (A-1) fraudulently credited some amount in said CC account to show some business transactions but later on, he fraudulently diverted all the amount including the loan funds of Rs. 4 lakhs. The fund flow mentioned in para no. 55.01 may be referred herein.
57. As per the charge-sheet, the case projected against A-5 and A-6 is that they are the co-conspirators who were hand in glove with the prime accused Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and they facilitated him in siphoning off the loan funds by allowing it be diverted through their bank account from where it was either transferred to various dummy accounts opened and operated by the borrower in fake names or through cash withdrawal and in this way, they are alleged to have aided the borrower in cheating and defrauding the lending bank (PNB).
58. It has been alleged that in furtherance of said conspiracy, A-6 Rajeev Sharma opened two bank accounts, one in the name of M/s Ganesh Enterprises in Punjab National Bank, Scope Tower, Laxmi Nagar branch i.e. A/c No. 0125002100707463 (vide account CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.330 Of 372 opening form which is part of Ex. PW52/A (Colly.) (D-89) and another in the name of M/s Katara Metal in the Canara Bank, Karkardooma i.e. A/c No. 3333201000039 (vide account opening form which is part of Ex. PW53/A (Colly.) (D-88, page no. 865), showing himself to be the proprietor of both the said firms. In the account of M/s Katara Metals, A-6 used his name as Rajeev Katara.
59. Against accused Rahul Shama (A-5), it has been alleged that he projected himself as proprietor of M/s Paras Metals and opened a bank account in the name of said firm in Allahabad Bank, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad, U.P, i.e. A/c No. 50070477091 (vide account opening form which is part of Ex. PW54/D (Colly.) (D-90), where he (A-5) used his name as Rahul Mudgal.
60. Through aforementioned three bank accounts, A-5 and A-6 allegedly helped the borrower Sanjeev Dixit to siphon off the loan amount released in the account of M/s Shankar Metals. As per prosecution case, the loan funds released in the account of M/s Shankar Metals in PNB, Jor Bagh branch, were first transferred to the aforementioned bank accounts of said accused and from there, the money was withdrawn either through cash withdrawals or transferred through CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.331 Of 372 RTGS in the other bank accounts of Sanjeev Dixit, which he opened in fake names on the basis of forged documents. It has been alleged that most of the firms shown in the list of creditors such as M/s Future Tap Sanitation, M/s Jagdamba Metals and M/s Diya Sanitation, were owned either by Sanjeev Dixit himself or by his kith and kins and names of said two firms namely M/s Ganesh Enterprises and M/s Katara Metals also find mention in said lists of creditors filed with the bank.
61. It has been fervently argued on behalf of A-5 and A-6 that, the investigation conducted by CBI is completely lopsided because, despite the fact that A-5 and A-6 did not have any knowledge of the aforementioned accounts purportedly opened in their names, they have been arrayed as accused only because they are the relatives of Sanjeev Dixit (A-1). Ld counsel argued that it is an admitted position on record that the money from subject loan account of M/s Shanker Metals was also diverted through bank accounts of many other employees/relatives of Sanjeev Dixit (A-1), such as Parvesh Kumar Shama (PW-69), Sheetal Sharma, Arti Sharma, Sanjeev Singh Rana CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.332 Of 372 (PW-74), Sachin Sharma, Nitin Sharma (D-5/W2), Sushil Kumar Sharma and Kapil Sharma. But, inspite of the fact that they were also similarly situated, none of the said other employees have been arrayed as accused in the present case. Indeed, some of them have been examined as prosecution witnesses. Despite the fact that A-5 and A-6 were also not aware of any such bank accounts opened in their names, CBI still arrayed them (A-5 & A-6) as accused while a clean cheat was given to said other similarly situated persons.
62. It was further argued that as per prosecution's own case, Sanjeev Dixit (A-1) had opened multiple bank accounts in the name of various bogus firms. In some of the bank accounts, the purported account holders, who were his own kith and kins or employees, were impersonated and accounts were opened without their knowledge by using their photographs and documents, which he used to obtain from them on false pretext. It has been argued that using same modus operandi, the accused Sanjeev Dixit (A-1) had opened the bank accounts also in the name of M/s Ganesh Enterprises, M/s Katara Metal and M/s Paras Metals by misusing the photographs and the CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.333 Of 372 documents of the A-5 and A-6, which A-1 had taken from them on the pretext of opening their salary account.
63. Ld. Counsel Mr. Rajni Kant further raised the contention that even as per chargesheet, Sanjeev Dixit (A-1) has defrauded not only the complainant bank but he also played fraud on many other banks and in that regard, a number of FIRs have been lodged against him. Ld. Counsel has drawn attention to the testimony of PW35 and PW32, who had brought the judicial record of different FIR lodged against A-1. The Counsel argued that it is the prosecution's own case that Sanjeev Dixit (A-1) used to take properties on rent and by using the ownership details of said rented properties, he used to forge the title documents of said properties in his own name by showing some fictitious persons as vendors of said properties and later, he used said forged title deeds to secure loan from the banks. It was argued that by same modus operandi, A-1 forged the title deed also in respect of the mortgaged property, C-193 IIIrd Floor, Vivek Vihar, which was taken on rent by Rajeev Sharma (A-6), who was his cousin brother.
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.334 Of 372
64. He argued further that Sanjeev Dixit (A-1) was using his connections with the bank officials in opening fake bank accounts in the name of his employees and relatives, which is evident from the fact that in some of such bank accounts, even the photograph of the account holder was not found present on the Account Opening Form. For instance, on the account opening form of M/s Sanya Enterprises (D-88, page 840), no photograph of the account holder was found affixed. In said account opening form, Sanjay Sharma has been shown to be the proprietor of the said firm, but his photograph was not found stapled on the account opening form. Whereas, in the account of M/s Ganesh Enterprises in Canara Bank, Karkardooma, Sheetal Sharma, the wife of Sanjeev Dixit is shown to be the proprietor, but the photograph on said account opening form (D-88, page 827), is actually that of his sister-in-law Aarti Sharma. However, as per the forensic report, the purported signature of Sheetal Sharma on the specimen signature card (D-88, page 828) of said account, were found to be that of Sanjeev Dixit (A-1). He argued that said manipulations in the bank record could not have been possible without the connivance of the bank officials of the concerned bank. CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.335 Of 372
65. I have considered the above submission in the light of the evidence adduced on record. During trial, ample material has come on record to establish that the borrower Sanjeev Dixit/A-1 was a fraudster, imposter and a professional cheater who had cheated a number of banks by using chain of forged documents for availing huge credit facilities. He had been frequently indulging in opening fake bank accounts in the name of his kith and kins on the basis of forged and fabricated documents.
66. In this regard, we may refer to the testimony of the prosecution witness PW-69, Sh. Parvesh Kumar Sharma. As per his testimony, he had worked at the factory of Sanjay Sharma (Sanjeev Dixit/A-1) at Vanthala, Ghaziabad, UP where he had worked for about 04 years. Later on, said factory was shifted to another address at 121, Patparganj, Delhi. As per his testimony, Rajeev Sharma (A-6) and Rahul Sharma (A-5) were the cousin brothers of his employer Sanjay Sharma. The said witness (PW6) was shown the application of M/s Shankar Metals for credit facility, filed with complainant bank and on said form, he identified the photograph of accused Sanjeev Dixit (A-1) CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.336 Of 372 as that of Sanjay Sharma and deposed that he was not aware that Sanjay Sharma was also known by the name Sanjeev Dixit.
67. PW69 was also shown the PAN card and voter ID card attached with the account opening form of M/s Sanya Enterprises, proprietor Sanjay Sharma, Ex. PW53/A, where he identified the photograph in the PAN card and Voter ID card as his (PW69's) photo but, with an address of someone else. He deposed that the signatures appearing on the said account opening form did not belong to him and that he never opened any such account in Canara Bank, Karkardooma branch. He further deposed that Sanjay Sharma @ Sanjeev Dixit i.e. A-1 herein had taken his photograph on the pretext that he would get a bank account opened in his name for credit of his salary amount. Here, it is pertinent to note as per the opinion of handwriting expert PW57 at Sr. No. V of his report Ex. PW57/D (D-101), the specimen signatures of the proprietor Sanjay Sharma on the specimen signature card i.e. Q-120 and Q-121 (D-88, page 841), which is part of account opening form of M/s Sanya Enterprises, proprietor Sanjay Sharma Ex. CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.337 Of 372 PW53/A, were found to be matching with the specimen handwriting of Sanjeev Dixit (A-1).
68. The said witness PW69 was also shown the agreement of guarantee Ex. PW6/S2 and the photograph of the guarantor Sanjay Sharma on said document of the subject loan at point X. After seeing the said photograph, he deposed that said photograph was of one person Jeetu Singh and he did not know that Jeetu Singh was also known as Sanjay Sharma. During his examination in chief, PW69 was also shown the account opening form of M/s Rajdhani Traders, Proprietor Jitender Kumar Singh, part of Ex. PW53/A (Colly.) (D-88, page 854) and upon being shown the photograph affixed on said document, he identified the person in the photograph as Jeetu Singh. As per his version Jitender Kumar Singh and Jeetu Singh were one and the same person. Upon being shown the photograph affixed on the account opening form of M/s Sharp Sanitation, Proprietor Sunil Kumar Sharma, part of Ex. PW53/A (Colly.) (D-88, page 874), he identified the said photograph as that of one Vicky and deposed that he knew him (Vicky) as he used to visit the factory of his employer Sanjay Sharma (Sanjeev Dixit A-1). CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.338 Of 372
69. In the light of the forensic report Ex. PW57/D, coupled with the testimony of witness PW69, it is quite evident that Sanjeev Dixit (A-1) was rampantly indulging into fraudulent activities as he had opened various bank accounts in the name of different persons on the basis of forged and fabricated documents. Further that, Sanjeev Dixit (A-1), had been collecting photographs and documents of identification and address from his employees on the pretext of opening bank accounts in their name for crediting salary in their accounts but, he misused the said photographs and documents for opening bank accounts in the name of fake persons.
70. In this regard, we may also refer to the testimony of one more witness PW63 Mohan Kumar Aggarwal, the proprietor of M/s Aggarwal Metals. As per his testimony, he was into the business of bathroom fittings in the name of M/s Aggarwal Metals, at Chawri Bazar, Delhi and he used to purchase the taps from Pravesh and Panju in the year around 2010. As per prosecution case, PW63 was the introducer in the account opening form Ex. PW52/A (Colly.) (part of D-89, page no. 896) of M/s Ganesh Enterprises, proprietor CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.339 Of 372 Rajeev Sharma i.e. the alleged bank account attributed to Rajeev Sharma (A-6). Upon being shown said document from judicial file, he (PW63) identified his signature at point A on said account opening form and deposed that said form was signed by him at the request of Parvesh who wanted to open an account in PNB, Chawri Bazar, Delhi and at the time, when the said form was signed by him (PW63), it was blank and having no photograph on the same. He deposed that he never stood as introducer for M/s Ganesh Enterprises.
71. PW-70 also identified the photograph of the account holder (Rajeev Sharma) affixed on said form as that of one Sontu, but he said that he never stood surety even for Rajeev Sharma @ Sontu. On the KYC documents i.e. PAN Card and voter ID card attached with the account opening form of M/s Sanya Enterprises (part of Ex. PW53/A (Colly.), PW63 identified the photograph in said KYC documents as that of one Parvesh. He also identified the photograph on the account opening form of M/s Sharp Sanitation (proprietor Sh. Sunil Kumar Sharma), which is again the part of Ex. PW53/A (Colly.), and he identified the person CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.340 Of 372 in said photograph as one Vicky, and deposed that he (Vicky) used to accompany Parvesh and Panju.
72. Similar is the position in respect of the bank account opened in the name of M/s Sai Trading Corporation with Canara bank, Karkardooma with the proprietor name Rajeev Kumar Manchanda. The photograph appearing on the said account opening form, part of Ex. PW53/A (Colly.) (part of D-88, page 844) is of some unknown person as no witness appears to have been examined for identification of the photograph on said document. The record however reveals that the purported signatures Q-118 and Q-119 of Sh. Rajeev Kumar on the specimen signature card, have also been attributed to Sanjeev Dixit (A-1) vide GEQD report, Ex. PW57/D (D-101) and opinion given in that regard is at Sr. No. IV, page no. 5.
73. The attention of the Court was drawn to one more such account opened by Sanjeev Dixit (A-1) in the name of M/s Ganesh Enterprises showing Sheetal Sharma as proprietor of said firm. The said account was opened in the Canara Bank, Karkardooma Branch. Ld Sr. PP submitted that as per GEQD report, Ex. PW57/D (D-101), the purported signatures of Sheetal Sharma CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.341 Of 372 Q-126 and Q-127, on the specimen signature card of said account, have been attributed to the borrower Sanjeev Dixit (A-1).
74. In this regard, we may also refer to testimony of another important witness PW74 Sanjeev Singh Rana, who had also worked for about a year in the factory of Sanjeev Dixit (A-1) in the year 2012. He also identified the photograph on the account opening form of M/s Shankar Metal, in PNB, Jor Bagh branch, Ex. PW6/D (D-5), as that of his ex employer Sanjay Sharma. PW69 deposed that he left the job of Sanjeev Dixit (A-1) as he found his activities suspicious. As per his version, Sanjeev Dixit (A-1) had been using his business name just to take loans from the different banks.
75. The fraudulent activities of the borrower (A-1) are also writ large from the fact that he filed a false list of sundry debtors where M/s Mahavir Enterprises, M/s Balaji Sanitation, M/s King Sanitation, M/s R. S. Enterprises, M/s Soni Sanitation, M/s Rohit Sanitation, M/s Aggarwal Metals, M/s Super Sanitary Stores and M/s Dhoot Sanitation were shown to be the sundry debtors of M/s Shankar Metals, the borrower firm. During trial, prosecution has examined PW18, CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.342 Of 372 PW19, PW20, PW21, PW22, PW23, PW24, PW27, PW28 and PW29, who are the partners/proprietors of said firms and they all have denied that they ever transacted any business with M/s Shankar Metals at any point of time or that they had known any person with the name Sanjeev Dixit (A-1) whose photograph they were shown from the loan documents on court record during their examination in court.
76. In the light of plethora of evidence regarding fraudulent activities, the borrower (A-1) was indulging into, the possibility of accused no. 5 and 6 also falling prey to his (A-1's) fraudulent activities cannot be ruled out especially, when there is ample material on record to show that Sanjeev Dixit (A-1) had defrauded not only the complainant bank but also many other banks, from where he availed huge credit facilities against various immovable properties not belonging to him by creating forged and fabricated title deeds of said properties and also by opening number of dummy bank accounts in the name of his employees, friends and family members.
77. PW54 Sh. Arunendra Pratap Singh, Chief Manager, Allahabad Bank, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad, is CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.343 Of 372 also an important witness in this regard. As per his testimony, Sanjeev Dixit (A-1) had opened a current account no. 50032673386 in the name of M/s Future Tab Sanitation on 01.06.2010 by showing himself to be the proprietor of the said firm and he (A-1) got sanctioned CC limit for an amount of Rs. 2.80 Crores by offering his property bearing no. 232, Jagriti Enclave, New Delhi as collateral security. However, said account was later declared NPA and after the bank filed a suit before DRT, the title deeds of the aforementioned property were found to be defective and not enforceable.
78. On the same line prosecution has also examined one more witness PW56, Devender Kumar Sharma from Syndicate Bank. As per his version, Sanjeev Dixit (A-1) @ Sanjeev Sharma had defrauded the said bank also by taking a loan against the collateral security of property bearing no. 25, Shyam Industrial Area, Loni, Ghazibad and after said loan account was declared NPA, the said property was auctioned by the DRT and dues were recovered by the bank. The testimony of the said witness is however, not of much help because, neither he brought any document in CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.344 Of 372 connection with the facts deposed by him nor he was shown any document from the judicial file by the Prosecutor to connect his testimony with the loan allegedly taken from Syndicate bank.
79. Ld. Counsel for the accused raised a contention that due to deliberate lapses, perfunctory and shoddy investigation done by CBI, who seemed uninterested in pursuing the case to its logical conclusion, the justice has become a causality in the instant case and the same is evident from the fact that despite alleging conspiracy on the part of accused Rahul Sharma on account of his having stood as a witness to the forged sale deed, Ex. PW6/P-3 (D-12) purportedly executed in favour of accused Sanjeev Dixit (A-1) in respect of 3rd mortgaged property bearing no. C-193, IIIrd Floor, Vivek Vihar, Delhi, the purported signatures of Rahul Sharma (A-5) appearing on the last page of said sale deed were never sent to CFSL for comparison with his specimen signature taken during investigation. Even the signatures of Rajeev Katara, which are alleged to be the signatures of Rajeev Sharma (A-6) on the account opening form of M/s CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.345 Of 372 Katara Metals, were never sent to CFSL for the purpose of comparison.
80. During the course of argument, Ld. Sr. PP fairly conceded to the fact that the alleged signatures of Rajeev Sharma on account opening form of M/s Katara Metals which is available at page 865 of D-88, and that of Rahul Sharma on the alleged forged sale deed of C-193, 3rd Floor, Vivek Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi, Ex. PW6/P3 (D-12), which was used by Sanjeev Dixit (A-1) for securing the subject loan were never sent CFSL for forensic examination for getting them compared with the respective specimen signatures of said accused taken during investigation, by the IO. As per charge- sheet, only the purported signature of Rahul Sharma (A-5), who allegedly impersonated himself as Rahul Mudgal in the account opening form of M/s Paras Metals, Ex. PW54/D in Allahabad bank, Vasundhara Ghaziabad branch were sent to CFSL for forensic examination. As regard the other accused Rajeev Sharma (A-6), his purported signatures on the account opening form of only M/s Ganesh Enterprises, which are part of Ex. PW 52/A (colly) page 897 of D-89, were sent for forensic examination.
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.346 Of 372
81. Ld. Sr.PP fairly conceded that purported signature of said accused Rajeev Sharma (A-6) on account opening form of M/s Katara Metals were not sent to CFSL and there is no expert opinion on the handwriting of the signatures of purported account holder of said account. In view thereof, the only evidence the prosecution is left with for proving the allegations of diversion of funds against A-6, is the expert opinion on the signatures of the account holder of the bank account in the name of M/s Ganesh Enterprises proprietor Rajeev Sharma in PNB, Scope Tower, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi, allegedly attributed to said accused Rajeev Sharma (A-6), and against A-5, it is the expert opinion on the signatures of the account holder of the bank account in the name of M/s Paras Metals, Proprietor Rahul Mudgil in Allahabad bank, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad, UP, attributed to accused Rahul Sharma (A-5).
82. Through aforementioned two bank accounts, A-1 is alleged to have diverted the loan funds released in account of his firm M/s Shanker Metals. For ready reference, the fund flow through aforementioned two CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.347 Of 372 bank accounts in the name of M/s Ganesh Enterprises and M/s Paras Metals is given as under:-
M/s Paras Metals Date Cheque Amount Date Chequ Amount No. credited e No. transferred 23.08.11 545528 20,45,000/ 24.08.11 377705 20,00,000/- Cash
- Withdra wn 10.09.11 545529 17,98,600/ 12.09.11 377712 18,00,055/- M/s
- Jagdam ba Metals M/s Ganesh Enterprises (Rajeev Sharma) Date Cheque Amount Date Che Amount No. credited que transferr No. ed 31.03.11 75101 22,00,000/- 31.03.11 6,00,000/- Cash withdrawn by Rajeev Sharma 25.04.11 75115 5,00,000/- 25.04.11 4,50,000/- Cash withdrawn by Rajeev Sharma 19.05.11 279118 8,65,000/- 19.05.11 6,50,000/- Transferred to M/s Sai Trading Corporation 13.06.11 545512 15,00,000/- 13.06.11 5,00,000/- Cash withdrawn by Rajeev Sharma 22.06.11 5,00,000/- Cash CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.348 Of 372 withdrawn by Rajeev Sharma 27.06.11 1,50,000/- Cash withdrawn by Rajeev Sharma
83. As per prosecution case, Rahul Sharma (A-5), had impersonated himself as Rahul Mudgil in the account opening form of bank account no. 50070477091 in the name of M/s Paras Metals, proprietor Rahul Mudgil, Ex. PW54/D (D-90 page no.957-959). Ld. Sr. PP submitted that during investigation, the purported signature of Rahul Mudgil on specimen signature card, Ex. PW57/H, page no. 963 (part of D-90), were sent to CFSL for forensic examination and as per GEQD report, Ex. PW57/E, Sr. No. III, page no. 4, the said signatures Q-106 to Q-109 have been attributed to Rahul Sharma (A-5), by the handwriting expert.
84. The prosecution has sought to prove the documents relating to the aforementioned account of M/s Paras Metals attributed to accused Rahul Sharma (A-5) through PW54, Arunendra Pratap Singh. As per his testimony, he had worked in Vasundhara Ghazibad CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.349 Of 372 branch of Allahabad Bank from 2013 to 2015 as Chief Manager and during that period, vide his letter dated 17.12.2023 Ex. PW54/A (D-90, page 925), he had handed over certain documents to CBI during investigation of this case, including the account opening form along with KYC documents of the aforementioned account of M/s Paras Metals. As per the account opening form of M/s Paras Metals Ex. PW54/D (D-90, page 957 to 959), the said account was opened in July, 2011, meaning thereby that, said account was not opened during his (PW-54) tenure in said branch. In view thereof, there is no direct evidence to the effect that the said account was opened by Rahul Sharma (A-5). The only evidence relied upon by the prosecution to attribute said bank account to Rahul Sharma (A-5) is the forensic report, Ex.PW57/E (D-101, page 1105), wherein, the signatures of Rahul Mudgil appearing on the specimen signature card, Ex. PW57/H (D-90) were attributed to Rahul Sharma/A-5 as the same were found to be matching with his (A-5's) specimen signature taken by the IO during the course of investigation.
85. Before reaching to any conclusion, we may again refer to the testimony of PW54, wherein he has CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.350 Of 372 deposed that as per the statement of account of said firm M/s Paras Metals, on 10.09.2011, Rs. 17,98,600/- was credited in the account of M/s Paras Metals from the account of M/s Shankar Metals. On 12.09.2011, vide cheque no. 377712, Rs. 18,00,055/- were transferred to M/s Jagdamba Metals through RTGS. He deposed further that on 23.08.2011, again an amount of Rs. 20,45,000/- was credited in the account of M/s Paras Metals from the account of M/s Shankar Metals and on the very next day i.e. on 24.08.2011, an amount of Rs. 20 Lakhs was cash withdrawn vide cheque no. 377705.
86. From the aforementioned testimony of the witness PW54, it is clear that the amount of Rs. 20 Lakhs withdrawn in cash and amount of Rs. 18,00,055/- transferred in the account of M/s Jagdamba Metals were withdrawn/transferred vide two cheques issued from the account of M/s Paras Metals, which are available on records at page nos. 2791 and 2793 of D-162, Ex. PW62/A (Colly.). The said cheques were drawn by Rahul Mudgil, the proprietor of the said firm, from the account of M/s Paras Metals in Allahabad bank, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad branch. As per record, both the said cheques were self cheques. CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.351 Of 372
87. However, despite availability of said cheques bearing the signature of the drawer, the IO did not send them to CFSL for comparing the drawer's signature on said cheques with the specimen signature of A-5. The IO got compared only the alleged signatures of A-5 on the specimen signature card, Ex. PW57/H with the specimen signatures of said accused. For reason best known to the IO, he did not find it necessary to compare the signatures appearing on the aforementioned cheques vide which the money was allegedly withdrawn/transferred by A-5 from his purported account. On account of this omission on the part of IO, the prosecution lost the opportunity to establish that it was none else but A-5 only who was operating the said account. In my considered view by doing said exercise, the prosecution could have easily falsified the defence taken by said accused that he was never aware of existence of any such account or about the transaction occurring in said account.
88. In the circumstances of the case, when said accused (A-5) has all along taken the defence that he had never opened any such account or was not even aware of existence of any such account, it was CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.352 Of 372 incumbent upon the prosecution not only to prove that the account belonged to him (A-5) or was opened by him, but also that, it was A-5 who had been operating said account. As per prosecution case, the diversion through the account of M/s Paras Metals had taken place as the money was first received in said account from the subject loan account of M/s Shankar Metals and immediately thereafter, it was diverted by A-5 by cash withdrawal and RTGS transfer vide two cheques drawn by A-5 from the account of M/s Paras Metals. By proving that the handwriting in the signatures of purported drawer of said two cheques is that of A-5, the prosecution could have easily demolished the defence plea that said account was never operated by A-5. The prosecution could have easily done so by getting the signatures of the drawer on said two cheques i.e. cheque bearing no. 377705 for Rs. 20,00,000/- used for cash withdrawal and cheque bearing no. 377712 for Rs. 18,00,055/- used for RTGS transfer in the account of M/s Jagdamba Metals, compared with the specimen handwriting of said accused (A-5).
89. But admittedly, said cheques were never sent by the IO for forensic examination of the CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.353 Of 372 signatures of drawer appearing on said cheques. Said failure on the part of IO is a major flaw in the prosecution case and it would certainly amount to withholding the best evidence from the court for which an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against the prosecution. As already noted, even the alleged signature of Rahul Sharma (A-5) appearing on a forged sale deed, Ex. PW6/P3 (D-12) used by Sanjeev Dixit (A-1) for securing the subject loan, where he (A-5) allegedly stood as a witness to the execution of the said documents, were also never sent for forensic examination.
90. Thus, the opinion of the handwriting expert is the only evidence available with the prosecution to allege that the aforementioned account was used by A-5 for diversion of funds. However, as concluded in para no. 69, the possibility of Sanjeev Dixit (A-1) having opened said account by misusing the signatures, the photograph and the identification documents of the accused A-5, cannot be ruled out especially, when A-5 was also working with A-1 as his employee during the relevant period.
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.354 Of 372
91. Similar is the position even qua A-6 Rajeev Sharma, as he is also alleged to have facilitated the borrower A-1 in diverting the funds through his two bank accounts, one in the name of M/s Ganesh Enterprises in Punjab National Bank, SCOPE Tower, Laxmi Nagar i.e. A/c No. 0125002100707463 (vide account opening form which is part of Ex. PW52/A (Colly.) (D-89) and another in the name of M/s Katara Metal in the Canara Bank, Karkardooma i.e. A/c No. 3333201000039 (vide account opening form which is part of Ex. PW53/A (Colly.) (D-88, page no. 865), showing himself to be the proprietor of both the said firms. In the account of M/s Katara Metals, A-6 allegedly used his name as Rajeev Katara.
92. But as already noted above, the alleged signature of Rajeev Sharma/A-6 on account opening form of M/s Katara Metals were never sent to CFSL for forensic examination through handwriting expert. Hence, there is nothing on record to establish that the said bank account of M/s Katara Metals actually belonged to A-6. Even from the deposition of PW53, who is the witness from the concerned bank, it appears that he had joined the concerned branch of the Canara CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.355 Of 372 Bank in June, 2011 whereas, the said account in the name of M/s Katara Metals was opened on 15.09.2010, which is the date reflected on the account opening form and the specimen signature sheet of the said account available at page no. 865 to 866 of D-88.
93. I have carefully perused the account opening form, KYC documents and the statement of accounts of the aforementioned two firms. The documents pertaining to the account of M/s Ganesh Enterprises are sought to have been proved through PW52, Ram Lagan Singh. As per his testimony, he joined PNB branch, Shahdara as Chief Manager on 05.07.2011 and remained posted there till 02.06.2014 and during said tenure, he supplied certain documents to the CBI including the original account opening form, KYC document and statement of account of said account no. 0125002100707463 in the name of M/s Ganesh Enterprises, Proprietor, Rajeev Sharma (A-6), which are available on record as Ex. PW52/A (Colly.) (part of D-89).
94. The perusal of said documents shows that there are no signatures of the account holder on the account opening form (D-89, page no. 894) and it is only the Customer Master Form which bears the CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.356 Of 372 signatures of the account holder, Rajeev Sharma (A-6) (D-89, page nos. 895 to 898). From the date appearing on said documents, it appears that the said bank account was opened on 02.01.2010 i.e. much before PW52 joined the bank.
95. PW52, in the cross examination, PW52 categorically deposed that the said account was not opened in his presence nor he could tell whether the signature on the Customer Master Form at X and X-1 and specimen signature at (Q-102 to Q-105) and at point X-2 belonged to Rajeev Sharma (A-6). He deposed further that he did not supply the withdrawal sheet or the cheque through which said amounts were allegedly withdrawn by Rajeev Sharma (A-6). He volunteered to say that the same were tagged with the vouchers which were kept separately in the bank.
96. This version of the witness clearly shows that IO did not make any effort to collect the said withdrawal receipts on the cheques through which the amounts of Rs. 22 Lakhs on 31.03.2011, Rs. 4.5 Lakhs on 25.04.2011, Rs. 5 Lakhs on 22.06.2011 and Rs. 1.5 Lakhs on 27.06.2011 were allegedly withdrawn by Rajeev Sharma (A-6). The IO also did not collect the cheque CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.357 Of 372 vide which the amount of Rs. 6.5 Lakhs was allegedly transferred through RTGS in favour of M/s Sai Trading Corporation on 19.05.2011. Hence, even in respect of A-6, the opinion of the handwriting expert, is the only evidence adduced on record to prove that the said account belonged to A-6 or that A-6 opened that account. However, there is no evidence to show that it was A-6 only who was operating said account.
97. As per record, prosecution has examined Anil Sharma, Sr. Scientific Officer, CFSL, CBI, New Delhi for proving the forensic report pertaining to the alleged handwriting of Rajeev Sharma (A-6) on the questioned documents. As per his testimony, he received the details of the questioned and specimen documents from CBI vide two letters, Ex. PW57/A (D-98) and Ex. PW57/B (D-99) and after scientific examination and comparison of said signatures, he prepared two reports. Ex. PW57/E (D-101) is the first report and Ex. PW57/F (D-172) is the second report. At the last page of the first report, PW57 concluded that "questioned signature marked Q-102 to Q-105 when compared with the specimen signatures to marked S-56 to S-65 attributed to Rajeev Sharma, it has been felt necessary to have CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.358 Of 372 admittedly genuine signatures of the person so called Rajeev Sharma of the contemporary period as that of the questioned once for further scientific examinations and any opinion".
98. It is after said request for admitted signatures of A-6 was raised by the expert, the IO, vide his (IO) letter Ex. PW77/F (part of D-171), requisitioned the original account opening form, Customer Master Form with specimen signature sheet of the account holder and KYC documents of the account no. 400000100062306 in the name of Rajeev Sharma in PNB, Scope Tower, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. After receiving said documents from the concerned bank, IO handed over all the said documents to the handwriting expert for rendering opinion on the handwriting on the questioned signatures already sent to CFSL. The aforementioned documents of the account no. 400000100062306 in the name of Rajeev Sharma in PNB, Scope Tower, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi are available on record as Ex. PW57/J (Colly.). Perusal of the said documents shows that said account was opened on 21.05.2008.
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.359 Of 372
99. After receiving the aforementioned documents from the IO, PW57 gave the second opinion Ex. 57/F (D-172), wherein he opined that the handwriting evidence points to the writer of standard signature marked A-1 to A-8 (the alleged admitted signature of A-6 on the document Ex. PW57/J), S-56 to S-65 (specimen signature of A-6 taken by the IO), S-96/1 to S-105/1 (the signatures of A-6 appearing on the left bottom page of his specimen signature sheet, taken by the IO during investigation on 05.12.2014), attributed to Rajeev Sharma being the person responsible for writing the questioned signatures marked Q-102 to Q-105 (the questioned signatures on the account opening form of M/s Ganesh Enterprises).
100. On behalf of A-6, it has been vehemently argued that the opinion in the second report rendered by the expert on the basis of admitted signatures subsequently provided to him by the IO, cannot be relied upon because, neither the signatures A-1 to A-8 nor the signatures S-96/1 to S-105/1, are the admitted signatures of A-6 and even the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the said signatures are his (A-6's) admitted signatures. Furthermore, the expert CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.360 Of 372 had asked for admitted signatures of the contemporary period. Whereas, the alleged admitted signatures on the account opening form of the aforementioned account in PNB, Scope Tower, Laxmi Nagar are pertaining to the year 2008. Whereas, the alleged admitted signature on the specimen signature sheet i.e. (S-96/1 to S-105/1) are pertaining to the year 2014. The questioned signatures (Q-102 to Q-105) are however, pertaining to the year 2010.
101. It has been further argued that neither in the charge-sheet nor in the deposition recorded before the Court, IO is able to tell as to how he had come to the conclusion that the account opening form dated 21.05.2008 (D-171) pertained to A-6. Admittedly, A-6 had never admitted that he ever opened any bank account with Punjab National Bank, SCOPE Tower, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi or that the account opening form of any such bank account bears his signature nor the prosecution has examined any witness from the concerned bank PNB, SCOPE Tower, Laxmi Nagar, to prove the account opening form (D-171), Ex. PW57/J (Colly.) or to prove the fact that this account in said bank was opened or operated by Rajeev Sharma (A-6) CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.361 Of 372 or that at the time of opening of said account, his signatures were taken on the said account opening form or specimen signature card.
102. Ld. Sr. PP submitted that not only the aforementioned signatures on the account opening form were sent to the expert as admitted signature but also the signatures appended by the said accused/A-6) (S-96/1 to S-105/1) on his specimen signature sheet Ex. PW57/A (Colly). It was submitted that the said signature (S-96/1 to S-105/1) have been proved by the prosecution through independent witness PW-42 Shambhu Nath Chaudhary, who correctly identified the accused in the court and also deposed that the IO had taken the specimen signatures of A-6, in his presence.
103. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the above submissions in the light of the material on record. Admittedly, no opinion in respect of handwriting of A-6 qua the signatures on account opening form of M/s Ganesh Metals of account no. 0125002100707463 had been given by the handwriting expert in his first report, Ex. PW57/E (D-101). It is only in the second report, Ex. PW57/F (D-172), the expert came up with a positive opinion on the questioned signatures CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.362 Of 372 (Q-102 to Q-105) attributing them to A-6. From the perusal of the record, it appears that the expert witness PW57 was handed over two sets of signatures as admitted signature of A-6. The first set of signatures are A-1 to A-8, which are the signatures appearing on account opening form of account no.
4200000100062306 in the name of Rajeev Sharma (A-6) in Punjab National Bank, Scope Tower, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi available on record Ex. PW57/J (Colly.) (part of D-171, page nos. 2904 to 2909). The second set of signatures are S-96/1 to S-105/1, which are the signatures of A-6 appearing on the left side of the bottom of the specimen signature sheets available on record as Ex. PW57/A (Colly.) (part of D-171, page nos. 2893 to 2902).
104. However, there is no iota of material to prove that the signatures A-1 to A-8, with which the questioned signatures of A-6 were compared, are the admitted signatures of A-6. In his deposition, IO has failed to disclose as to how he reached to the conclusion that said signatures were the admitted signatures of A-6. Furthermore, for lack of any witness being examined in this regard from the aforementioned CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.363 Of 372 branch of PNB, Scope Tower, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi, where A-6 was allegedly maintaining said account, even the fact that A-6 had any such account in said bank also remained unestablished. There is no evidence on record to show that accused A-6 had ever admitted existence of any such account in his name or having opened any such account at any point of time.
105. The second set of signatures S-96/1 to S-105/1 are appearing on the specimen signatures sheet dated 05.12.2014. The said sheet of the specimen signature was prepared by the IO during the course of investigation and hence, the said signatures of the accused A-6, which were taken from him during investigation of this case, cannot be treated as his admitted signatures. Even otherwise, said signatures being taken in the year 2014, cannot be the signatures for contemporary period as asked by the expert. It is pertinent to note that the questioned signatures Q-102 to Q-105 are pertaining to period January 2010 and with the gap of 04 years, the aforementioned signatures S-96/1 to S-105/1, which appeared to have been taken in the year 2014, cannot be said to be the signatures of contemporary period.
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.364 Of 372
106. Even otherwise, as per settled position of law, an opinion of a handwriting expert is not a conclusive proof and it requires corroboration from other strong direct or circumstantial evidence. Since it is merely an opinion and not a fact, it needs supporting evidence to become truly persuasive in the court of law. Handwriting analysis being merely a science of comparison and opinion, it is not determinant like a DNA matching. Since experts can also make mistakes and the comparison process itself isn't foolproof, recording conviction solely on the basis of opinion of a handwriting expert is always considered risky.
107. In this regard, it would be apposite to refer the recent Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in 'C. Kamalakkannan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 INSC 309', wherein Hon'ble Apex Court also referred to its previous landmark judgment in 'Murari Lal Vs. State of M.P. 1980 AIR 537', where it had laid down the principles with regard to the extent to which the reliance can be placed on the evidence of a hand writing expert. In said judgment in C. Kamalakkannan (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court stressed that while expert opinions like handwriting analysis are relevant CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.365 Of 372 under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act but, it cannot be relied upon without the foundational evidence being first proved in accordance with law. In said case, the postal cover, allegedly bearing the handwriting of the appellant, upon which a positive opinion was rendered by the handwriting expert, was held to be not exhibited and proved in accordance with law and hence, the conviction based on the opinion of the hand writing expert linking the appellant to said postal cover was set aside by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
108. Even in the instant case, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that A-1 to A-8 or S-96/1 to S-105/1, are the admitted signatures of the contemporary period of A-6. Therefore, any opinion of the handwriting expert based on said signatures, which formed the foundational evidence for rendering said opinion, is liable to be rejected. As already noted above, the opinion rendered by the hand writing expert in his second report bearing no. CFSL-2015/D-358 dated 22.05.2015 as Ex.PW57/F (part of D-172), was the only evidence available with the prosecution against A-6 for proving the allegations of diversions of funds, but said evidence has also failed.
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.366 Of 372
109. The other circumstance upon which the prosecution is strongly harping upon to allege conspiracy on the part of A-6, is the presence of Sanjeev Dixit (A-1) with him (A-6) at the time when A-6 took the property bearing no. C-193, 3rd Floor, Vivek Vihar, Phase- I, Delhi on rent from Sh. R. K. Manchanda. As per prosecution case, the forged title deeds of said property were later used by A-1 with the lending bank because said property was mortgaged for the subject loan as collateral security.
110. However, in the light of the fact that the prosecution has failed to prove the allegation of diversion of funds against A-6, I am of the considered view that this single isolated circumstance regarding presence of A-1 with A-6 at the time of taking aforementioned property on rent, will not help the prosecution to built any such case of conspiracy. Even otherwise, A-1 was not only the employer of A-6, but he was also his cousin brother and considering said relation between them, their presence together at the time of taking aforementioned property on rent, cannot lead to any conclusion that they were in conspiracy with each other for the commission of alleged offences. CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.367 Of 372
111. Furthermore, the prosecution has miserably failed to adduce any iota of material to show that A-5 and A-6 ever received any pecuniary benefit from A-1 nor any money was recovered from their possession during the course of investigation. There is ample evidence on record to show that A-5 & A-6 were working as employees of A-1, who also happened to be their cousin brother and he (A-1) used to withdraw cash from his (A-1's) bank accounts through his employees. In such background of the case, mere establishing that on some occasions said accused A-5 and A-6 had withdrawn cash amounts from the account of Sanjeev Dixit, will not be sufficient to establish their complicity in this case. Though, the material on record is lacking even to prove that it were, A-5 and A-6 who had withdrawn said amounts because, except showing their names on some cash withdrawal vouchers, there is no other evidence to show that the said cash was actually withdrawn by A-5 and A-6 from the bank accounts of Sanjeev Dixit/A-1. In said background of circumstances, I feel no hesitation in holding that prosecution has miserably failed to prove the alleged charges of conspiracy, cheating or diversion of funds against the A-5 and A-6.
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.368 Of 372 Final conclusion
112. In the backdrop of aforementioned analysis and discussion of material, conclusions drawn by the court regarding its findings on the charges framed against the accused A-2 to A-6 can be summarized as under :-
Accused N.S.Parihar (A-2)
1. The prosecution has successfully proved on record the charges for the offence of criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120 IPC r/w 419/420/467/468/471 IPC and section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1) (d) of PC, Act, 2002 as well as for the substantive offences under Section 420 IPC r/w 120B IPC and Section 471 IPC against accused N.S.Parihar/A-2.
1.1 Accordingly, the accused N.S.Parihar (A-2) is convicted for the offence of criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120 IPC r/w 419/420/467/468/471 IPC and section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1) (d) of PC, Act, 2002. Accused N.S.Parihar (A-2) is also convicted for the substantive offences under Section 420 IPC r/w 120B IPC and Section 471 IPC. The prosecution CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.369 Of 372 has however, failed to prove the charge for the alleged offence of forgery punishable under Section 468 IPC against said accused. He is accordingly, acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 468 IPC for lack of evidence.
Accused K. K.Johar (A-3) and Accused Ranjiv Suneja (A-4)
2. The prosecution has successfully proved on record the charges for the offence of criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120 IPC r/w 419/420/467/468/471 IPC and section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1) (d) of PC, Act, 2002 against accused K.K.Johar/A-3 and accused Ranjiv Suneja (A-4). Besides that, the charges for the substantive offences of cheating punishable under Section 420 IPC r/w Section 120B IPC as well as for 'criminal misconduct' punishable under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) PC Act (as it existed prior to Amendment Act 1 of year 2014), have also been proved beyond reasonable doubt against both the said accused.
CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.370 Of 372 2.1 Accordingly, accused K.K.Johar/A-3 and Accused Ranjiv Suneja/A-4 are convicted for the offence of criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120 IPC r/w 419/420/467/468/471 IPC and section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1) (d) of PC, Act, 2002. Said accused A-3 and A-4 are also convicted for the substantive offences of cheating punishable under Section 420 IPC r/w 120B IPC as well as for 'criminal misconduct' punishable under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)
(d) PC Act (as it existed prior to Amendment Act 1 of year 2014).
Accused Rahul Sharma (A-5) and Accused Rajeev Sharma (A-6)
3. The prosecution has failed to prove the charges of any of the alleged offences against accused Rahul Sharma (A-5) and accused Rajeev Sharma (A-6).
3.1 Accordingly, accused Rahul Sharma (A-5) and Accused Rajeev Sharma (A-6) are acquitted for the alleged offences of conspiracy under Section 120 IPC r/w 419/420/467/468/471 IPC and section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1) (d) of PC, CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.371 Of 372 Act, 2002. They are also acquitted of the substantive offence under Section 420 IPC r/w 120B IPC.
113. The entire judicial record/file alongwith the judgment be send to the Successor Court.
Digitally signed by SUNENA Announced in the open court SUNENA SHARMA SHARMA Date:
on 24.12.2025 2025.12.23 08:50:10 +0530 (SUNENA SHARMA) Earlier posted as Special Judge:
CBI-20 (PC ACT): Rouse Avenue Court New Delhi Presently posted as District Judge (Commercial Court-04) South-East District : Saket Courts CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.372 Of 372