Delhi District Court
Rc No. 04(E)/2000/Cbi/Bs&Fc/N.D vs Genuine on 21 December, 2016
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. VRINDA KUMARI: SPECIAL
JUDGE (PC ACT), CBI03, SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET
COURT, NEW DELHI
CC No. 05/2012
RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D
U/s 120 B r/w Section 420, 467, 471 IPC
and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act.
Central Bureau of Investigation
Versus
A1 K.S. Chadha
S/o Late Sh. Inder Singh Chadha
Former Chief Manager,
Punjab & Sind Bank,
Kailash Colony, New Delhi
R/o EB28, Maya Enclave,
New Delhi. Accused no. 1
A2 Sh. Sanjeev Arora
S/o Sh. Jagdish Arora
Director, M/s Carda India Ltd.,
A82, Sector 4, NOIDA, U.P.,
R/o Tulip Coop.Hsg.Society
Bldg. no. 6, Flat no. 501,
Oshiwara, Andheri, Mumbai,
Permanent R/o D20, Sector26,
NOIDA. Accused no. 2
CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 1 of 126
RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D
2
A3 Vikram Arora
S/o Sh. Jagdish Arora
Director
M/s Carda India Ltd.,
A82, Sector 4, NOIDA, UP
Permanent R/o D20, Sector26,
NOIDA. Accused no. 3
A4 Carda India Ltd.,
A82, Sector4, NOIDA, UP. Accused no. 4
Date of FIR : 30.11.2000
Date of filing of Chargesheet : 29.11.2002
Arguments completed on : 17.12.2016
Date of judgment : 21.12.2016
JUDGMENT
Brief facts of the case:
1. Chargesheet was filed by CBI against accused K.S. Chadha (hereinafter referred as (A1), accused Sanjeev Arora (hereinafter referred as A2), accused Vikram Arora (hereinafter referred as A3) and Carda India Ltd (hereinafter referred as A4). The final report u/Sec. 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "Cr.PC") discloses that the present case was registered on CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 2 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 3 30.11.2000 on the basis of complaint dated 28.10.2000 of the Chief Vigilance Officer, Punjab & Sind Bank, New Delhi on the allegations that accused K.S. Chadha while functioning as Chief Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank, Kailash Colony Branch, New Delhi during the year 1996 98 entered into a criminal conspiracy with the directors of Carda India Ltd namely Sanjeev Arora and Vikram Arora with the object to defraud the bank in an illegal manner and in pursuance thereof accused K.S. Chadha, by exercising his discretionary powers, sanctioned pre shipment credit/postshipment credit limits in respect of 22 bills drawn by Carda India Ltd on M/s A1 Emera Electronics, EST, Dubai, its sister concern and the same were discounted which remained outstanding resulting in a liability of Rs.4.75 crores (approx.). Sh. Vikram Arora happens to be a director of M/s A1 Emera Electronics, Dubai also.
2. It has been alleged that Karam Tex India, a proprietary concern of Sanjeev Arora was also sanctioned pre shipment limit of Rs. 65.00 lacs on 20.12.1996 by K.S. Chadha and in pursuance of the said conspiracy, bills drawn by Karam Tex India on DA basis were also discounted in the account which remained outstanding CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 3 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 4 which resulted in a further liability of Rs. 79.94 lacks in the said account.
3. During the investigation, it was revealed that Punjab & Sind Bank vide their circular No. 1434 dated 28.10.1994 had prescribed the discretionary powers of Executives regarding sanction of credit facilities. As per the Circular, the Chief Manager in the year 1996 being a ScaleIV Officer was vested with discretionary powers of Packing Credit against LC with ECGC Guarantee upto Rs. 20.00 lacs, Bill Purchase against confirmed order with ECGC Guarantee upto Rs. 7.00 lacs, Bills drawn on Sight/DP is not covered by LC but covered under ECGC Guarantee upto Rs. 12.00 lacs, DA bills not covered by LC but covered under ECGC, upto Rs.6.00 lacs only. The discretionary powers in respect of negotiation of export bills under irrevocable Letter of Credit of foreign banks of repute was Rs. 2.00 crores to be granted strictly in conformity with the conditions of the LC and the pre and postshipment facilities were to be extended with overall ceiling of Rs.40.00 lacs in respect of a single borrower and Rs.50,000/ for clean advance both under single and double signatures.
CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 4 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 5
4. Investigation further revealed that the discounting of export bills can be undertaken by the Bank as per the sanctioned limit on the basis of the documents required for the exports. Such documents are GR Form duly endorsed by the Customs Department, Invoice of the Export Order, Packing List, Bill of Lading/Bill of Exchange and Insurance Policy. The exporter is also required to submit his buyerwise ECGC Policy in respect of the bills drawn on the buyer.
5. Investigation further revealed that Current A/C no. 3851 of Carda India Ltd was opened with Punjab & Sind Bank, Kailash Colony Branch, New Delhi on 28.01.1996 by accused Sanjeev Arora and Vikram Arora as its Directors which was allowed to be opened by the accused K.S. Chadha. The statement of account indicates that subsequent to26.04.1996, the account was maintained with debit balance and had a debit balance of Rs.52,51,123.00 as on 26.04.1999. There was no sanctioned OD limit in the account and the overdrawings in the account were dishonestly allowed by the accused K.S. Chadha in exercise of his discretionary powers on day to day bass by making endorsements to this effect on the cheque or in the Manager's Special Order Book. The CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 5 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 6 debit balances in the account uptill December, 1996 had exceeded Rs. 81.00 lacs, which used to be brought down towards the end of every month by presenting cheques in clearing which were returned unpaid in the first week of the following month. In this process on account of allowing of overdrawing in the account by the accused K.S. Chadha, the liability on 07.05.1999 in the account stood at Rs.1,77,25,663/.
6. Investigation further revealed that in the account of M/s Carda India Ltd during the period from 18.03.1996 to 25.02.1997, a large number of cheques for payments were passed by the accused K.S. Chadha in an illegal manner. To manipulate the debit balance in the account, a number of cheques were credited to the account which in a routine manner got bounced when sent for clearing. The cheques lodged in clearing pertain to the accounts of M/s Yogesh Trading Co., M/s Elekta Telecommunications and A.R. Garments maintained with Times Bank, Parliament Street Branch, New Delhi (now merged with HDFC Bank) which were also opened by Sanjeev Arora.
7. It was also revealed that another account no. 3954 of M/s Carda India Ltd (Clock Division) was opened by accused Sanjeev Arora in connivance with accused K.S. Chadha CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 6 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 7 with the sole intention to avoid detection of huge outstanding in account no. 3851. The account subsequent to 16.12.1996 was invariably maintained in debit balance with exception on account of receipt of funds by transfer and as a result, on 07.05.1999, there was a liability of Rs. 52,54,123.00 in the account which took place on account of passing of cheques for payment of accused K.S. Chadha in an illegal manner as no limit was sanctioned in this account.
8. It is alleged that in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy with the sole object of allowing further overdrafts to accused Sanjeev Arora, another account no. 3910 of M/s Karam Tex India, a proprietary concern of accused Sanjeev Arora was allowed to be opened by accused K.S. Chadha on 27.05.1996. The account subsequent to 27.06.1996 was invariably maintained in debit balance with exception on account of receipt of funds by transfer. As a result, on 07.05.1999, there was a liability of Rs.32,04,980.00 on account of passing of cheques by accused K.S. Chadha in an illegal manner though was no sanctioned limit in the account.
9. Investigation further revealed that in case credit balance sanctioned limit is not available in an account, the CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 7 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 8 computer system could not be operated further for debiting the account unless a command was given by the Chief Manager from the computer installed in his cabin in token of confirmation of his having allowed the advance/overdrawings. Secret code of the Chief Manager was only known to him and none else could have had access to the same. As such, all the overdrawings in the three aforesaid accounts had the approval of the accused K.S. Chadha who continuously remained posted and functioned as Chief Manager during the relevant period. Besides accused K.S. Chadha has also endorsed the cheques/Manager's Order Book in token of having allowed overdrawings in the said accounts.
10. Investigation further revealed that the accused K.S. Chadha manipulated the accounts of Carda India Ltd., during inspection of the branch on 20.03.1998 by falsely recording lodging of cheques totaling Rs. 73.50 lacs in the High Value Clearing Register. On account of this manipulation, credit entry was shown in the concerned account in respect of the cheques and the Inspection Officers of the Bank could not detect the huge overdrawings in the account. In doing so, the accused K.S. Chadha falsely used the password of Incharge, Clearing CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 8 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 9 Department of Punjab & Sind Bank, Kailash Colony Branch, New Delhi. Due to this manipulation, the Computer System of the branch indicated a debit balance of Rs.50.00 lacs and OD balance of Rs.50.89 lacs in the concerned account which were far below the actual outstandings.
11. Investigation further revealed that Demand Drafts for substantial amounts issued by debiting the account of Carda India Ltd and its group companies maintained with Punjab & Sind Bank, Kailash Colony Branch, New Delhi were credited to the accounts of the different companies maintained by accused Sanjeev Arora with the Times Bank, Parliament Street Branch, New Delhi from where cash withdrawals were made. The MDP statements (Manager Discretionary Powers) dated 07.08.1996 and 11.12.1996 show sanction of the facilities in the account of Carda India Ltd by accused K.S. Chadha. The MDP dated 11.12.1996 was for enhancement of POBLC/FOBP limit from Rs. 2.00 crores to Rs. 2.5 crores, the Packing Credit limit being Rs. 20.00 lacs in both the MDPs. The appraisal note dated 11.12.1996 for sanction of facilities to Carda India Ltd was also prepared by Sh. K.S. Chadha and second signature of Senior Manager (Advances) has CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 9 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 10 been found to be forged.
12. Investigation further revealed that as per procedure, the Bank maintains "Title Deed Register" in which entries are made on the day the security documents are tendered/hypothecated with the Bank. In the Title Deed Register of the Bank for the period from 1994 to 1999, entries have been made regarding lodging of documents in respect of the account of M/s Carda India Ltd on 14.09.1998 though the limits were sanctioned/released to M/s Carda India Ltd during 1996. In the statement of Manager's Discretionary Powers of Punjab & Sind Bank, Kailash Colony Branch, New Delhi for the period April'96, August'96, September'96 to December'96 and April'97 to April'98, nothing has been mentioned about the facilities provided to Carda India Ltd or M/s Karam Tex India by accused K.S. Chadha.
13. During investigation, Punjab & Sind Bank, Kailash Colony, New Delhi produced documents in respect of 10 bills of Carda India Ltd and one bill which was discounted in the account of M/s Karam Tex India and turned overdue. Carda India Ltd had opened its account with the branch but the company had never applied for sanction of facilities nor the same were sanctioned. Punjab & Sind CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 10 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 11 Bank, Kailash Colony Branch, New Delhi vide its letter dated 04.01.2001 confirmed the liabilities in the account as follows:
A) Carda India Ltd:
i) Packing Credit A/c : Rs. 8,03,325.00
ii) FOUBP (10 Export Bills
discounted) A/c : Rs. 2,36,55,382.00
iii) OD in Current A/c No.3851 : Rs. 1,77,25,663.00
iv) OD in Current A/c No. 3954 : Rs. 52,54,123.00
________________
Total: Rs. 4,74,38,493.00
==============
B) Karam Tex India
i) FOUBP (1 Export Bill
Discounted) A/c : Rs. 47,88,660.00
ii) OD in Current A/c : Rs. 32,04,980.00
______________
Rs. 79,93,640.00
============
14. Investigation further revealed that in the account of Carda India Ltd., no bill drawn against LC was presented for purchase. The bills presented were not covered by ECGC Policy/Insurance cover. In the matter of discounting of bills, the discrepancies found therein were pointed out to CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 11 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 12 K.S. Chadha but the same were discounted by him despite discrepancies.
15. It is further alleged that the following 10 bills purchased by K.S. Chadha in the account of Carda India Ltd and 1 bill in the account of M/s Karam Tex India were outstanding:
a) Bill No. EOBP47/P/363027/96 dated 13.11.1996 for Rs. 24,67,825/ in respect of liability for Rs.8,77,500/: This was a case of temporary accommodation, when no regular sanction/appraisal was on record and the bill exceeded discretionary powers of the Manager. ECGC Policy had not been submitted nor limit obtained by buyer. The Bill of Lading did not bear "Shipped on Board" clause.
b) Bill No. FOBP47/P/363029/96 dated 28.11.1996 in respect of GR Form no. AJ 624703 dated 07.11.1996 resulting in liabilities for Rs.
21,79,749/: In this case, the Bill of Lading No. DEL/DXB/229 was dated 20.11.1996, while in the case of the aforementioned bill purchased, the Bill of Lading no. was DEL/DXB/299 dated 04.11.1996. Obviously, the latter number of Bill of Lading is of an earlier date. Thus, the bill was discrepant.
CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 12 of 126
RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D
13
c) Bill no. FOBP47/P363030/96 in respect of GR
Form no. AJ624787 dated 21.11.1996 in respect of liabilities for Rs. 25,44,300/; and Bill no. FOBP47/P/363033/96 in respect of GR Form no. AJ 624797 dated 27.11.1996 in respect of liabilities for Rs. 25,44,300/: In these cases, the status report in respect of the foreign buyer was not available and the party i.e. exporter had not submitted ECGC Limit/Cover. Accordingly, there was no justification for the sanction.
d) Bill No. FOBP47/P/363034/96 in respect of GR Form No. AJ624798 dated 27.11.1996 in respect of liabilities for Rs. 25,51,507/: In this case also, the discrepancies and total outstanding in the account were pointed out and there was no justification for discounting of the bill.
e) Bill No. FOBP47/P/363037/96 in respect of GR Form No. AJ 624670 dated 13.12.1996 in respect of liabilities for Rs. 25,45,664/: In this case, no sanction Memo was on record. The bill was directly handled by accused K.S. Chadha who discounted the same despite discrepancies.
CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 13 of 126
RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D
14
f) Bill No. FOBP47/P/363001/97 in respect of GR
Form No. AJ 624671 dated 13.12.1996 in respect of liabilities for Rs. 25,37,216/: The bill was taken by accused K.S. Chadha without referring the matter to Incharge, Foreign Exchange Department as per the procedure and despite discrepancies.
g) Bill No. FOBP47/P/363002/97 in respect of GR Form No. AJ 624701 dated 12.12.1996 in respect of liabilities for Rs. 35,99,800/: This bill was discounted from time to time i.e. on 16.01.1997, 17.01.1997, 24.01.1997 and 30.01.1997 for value realized. The values realized could have been utilized towards liquidation of liabilities rather than treating the same as the basis for sanction of further facilities.
h) Bill No. FOBP47/P/363007/97 in respect of FR Form No. AJ 624637 dated 27.01.1997 in respect of liabilities for Rs. 25,40,032/: As per the sanction Memo, objections on the lines aforesaid were raised and instructions of the Branch Manager accused K.S. Chadha sought for, who allowed the same.
i) Bill No. FOBP47/P/363021/97 in respect of GR Form no. AJ 322867 dated 13.08.1997 in respect CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 14 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 15 of liabilities for Rs. 17,35,314/: The following discrepancies existed yet the bill was discounted:
i. Shipping on Board certificate required from the Shipping Company.
ii. RBI Code differ in GR. Party was asked to submit copy of new RBI Code no. but they did not submit.
iii. Value mentioned in Certificate of Origin required authentication.
iv. Bill of Exchange drawn in favour of drawee not bank.
v. Goods consigned directly to party.
16. Besides the aforesaid bills, Bill No. EOBP 47/P/363035/96 in respect of GR Form No. AJ 624667 & 624668 was purchased in the account of M/s Karam Tex India, in respect of which the outstanding liabilities are of Rs. 47,88,660/. It is in respect of export of Cotton Powerloom Men Shirts to M/s Gulf Wave Trading Est.
Dubai. This case was directly handled by accused K.S. Chadha. In this case also sanctioned limit, Insurance Policy, ECGC Policy, Status Report of the buyer were not available, despite the fact that the bill was discounted. The CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 15 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 16 documents regarding the abovenoted bills related to M/s Maltrans Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd and M/s Spoonbill Maritime Agency and investigation has revealed that none of the Bills of Lading in question was issued by them. As such the documents furnished to the Bank were false/forged documents.
17. Investigation further disclosed that against the Bills of Lading, debit notes and receipts as noted below, exports have been shown to have been made by Carda India Ltd, through M/s Confreight Shipping Agency:
Srl.No. Related Bill of Shipping Bill Debit Note Receipt No. Lading No. & No. & Date No. & Date & Date Date
01. HJSCDELI 11513 3176 3666 10138006 21.11.1996 09.12.1996 13.12.1996 05.12.1996
02. HJSCDELI 12275 3326 3874 10153003 13.12.1996 22.01.1997 31.01.1997 19.01.1997
03. HJSCDELI 11675 3223 3705 10143601 27.11.1996 19.12.1996 20.12.1996 10.12.1996
04. HJSCDELI 12327 3265 3812 10147706 16.12.1996 02.01.1997 16.01.1997 31.12.1996
05. HJSCDELI 12328 3264 As Above CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 16 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 17 Srl.No. Related Bill of Shipping Bill Debit Note Receipt No. Lading No. & No. & Date No. & Date & Date Date 10148404 16.12.1996 02.01.1997 31.12.1996
06. HJSCDELI 11121 3174 3640 10137604 08.11.1996 09.12.1996 11.12.1996 28.11.1996
07. HJSCDELI 10731 3175 3641 10126205 29.10.1996 09.12.1996 11.12.1996 24.11.1996
18. The investigation has disclosed that nonnegotiable copies of the original Bills of Lading recovered during the searches at the residential premises of Jagdish Arora father of accused Sanjeev Arora and Vikram Arora are genuine copies of Bills of Ladding issued by the company and it bears signature of B. Chandramohan of M/s Confreight Shipping Agency, Agents of M/s Hanjin Shipping Co. at Delhi. As per these Bills of Lading, the name of the exporter is Carda India Ltd., NOIDA, the notified party is M/s A1 Emera Electronics, Dubai, the consignee is to order, the forwarding agent is M/s RNC Freight Movers Pvt. Ltd and the consignment is Black & White TV Sets:
CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 17 of 126
RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D
18
Srl. Bill of Lading No. Date Signed GR No. No. of
No. by Original
B/L issued
01. HJSCDELI 10126205 24.11.1996 Self AJ 624780 3
02. HJSCDELI 10138006 05.12.1996 Self AJ 624787 3
03. HJSCDELI 10137604 28.11.1996 Self AJ 624703 3
04. HJSCDELI 10153003 19.01.1997 Self AJ 624701 3
05. HJSCDELI 10143601 10.12.1996 Self AJ 624797 3
06. HJSCDELI 10147706 31.12.1996 Self AJ 624670 3
07. HJSCDELI 10148404 31.12.1996 Self AJ 624671 3
19. The aforesaid Bills of Lading cover FOBP Nos.
47/P/363027/96, 47/P/363030/96, 47/P/363029/96, 47/P/363002/97, 47/P/363033/96, 47/P/363037/96 and 47/P/363001/97 were the subject matter of investigation and in respect of which the bank suffered wrongful loss.
20. It has been disclosed that the aforesaid consignments were shipped through M/s Confreight Shipping Agency, Agents M/s Hanjin Shipping Co. rather than M/s Maltrans Shipping Agency or M/s Spoonbill Maritime and the forged Bills of Lading of these companies were made available to the Bank. As per procedure, in case delivery of a consignment is not taken by the consignee is a reasonable time, their Principal/Agent at the Port of Discharge inform the Shipping Agent to take up the matter with the Skipper. In case of these consignments, CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 18 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 19 since M/s Confreight Shipping Agency had not received any such communication, they had reasons to believe that the delivery of the consignments has been duly taken by the consignee.
21. Investigation further revealed that accused Vikram Arora who was director of Carda India Ltd when the account was opened, thereafter shifted to Dubai and acquired financial interest in M/s A1 Emera Electronics. He is, thus, beneficiary of the consignments shipped to M/s A1 Emera Electronics, Dubai, bills of which were discounted by the Bank.
22. It is alleged that the accused K.S. Chadha while posted and functioning as Chief Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank, Kailash Colony Branch, New Delhi during the year 1996 98 entered into criminal conspiracy with Sanjeev Arora and Vikram Arora, Directors of Carda India Ltd and in pursuance thereof, the aforesaid accused persons and Carda India Ltd, cheated the Punjab & Sind Bank, Kailash Colony Branch, New Delhi to the tune of Rs. 5,54,32,133/ which includes an amount of Rs. 2,84,44,042/ relating to foreign bills discounted on the basis of forged documents and thus caused wrongful loss to Punjab & Sind Bank and corresponding gain to CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 19 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 20 themselves.
23. The aforesaid acts of omission and commission constitute offences punishable U/Sec. 120B IPC r/w Section 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and substantive offences thereunder against K.S. Chadha, former Chief Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank, Kailash Colony Branch, New Delhi, Sanjeev Arora and Vikram Arora both Directors of Carda India Ltd, OIDA and Carda India Ltd, NOIDA.
24. The Sanction Order in original accorded by Sh. N.S. Gujral, Chairman & Managing Director, Punjab & Sind Bank, New Delhi U/Sec. 19(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for the prosecution of K.S. Chadha.
CHARGE
25. Charge was framed against accused K.S. Chadha, Sanjeev Arora and Vikram Arora being directors of Carda India Ltd on 24.05.2005. Charge was framed against the accused company Carda India Limited through its Director Sanjeev Arora on 05.12.2005. Accused K.S. Chadha was charged with offence punishable U/Sec. 120B r/w Sec. 420 and 471 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 20 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 21 Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and substantive offences U/Sec. 420 IPC, 471 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Accused Sanjeev Arora and Vikram Arora were charged with offence punishable U/Sec. 120B r/w Sec. 420 and 471 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and substantive offences punishable U/Sec. 420 IPC and 471 IPC. Accused No. 4 company Carda India Limited was charged with offences punishable U/Sec. 420 IPC and Section 471 IPC. All the Accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
EVIDENCE
26. In order to prove its case prosecution examined 30 witnesses. The gist of statement of witnesses as under:
26.1 PW1 Sh. Rajesh Gupta was the Assistant Manager in Times Bank, Parliament Street during the relevant period.
The Times Bank later merged with the HDFC Bank in August, 2000. He has proved certain Cheque Return Memos issued by the Times Bank as Ex.PW1/A to Ex.PW1/R. He has deposed that all the concerned cheques were returned on the ground that the account had been CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 21 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 22 closed. He further stated that if an account holder closed his account, he had to deposit all the deliverables issued by the Bank and he could not issue any cheque. 26.2 PW2 is Sh. Satish Dutta who was the Accountant in M/s RNC Freight Movers till 1999. He identified accused no. 2 Sanjeev Arora and accused no. 3 Vikram Arora and stated that these directors of Carda India Limited having its factory at NOIDA used to approach M/s RNC Freight Movers for clearing and forwarding their consignments. The job of M/s RNC Freight Movers was to only forward the consignments and provide containers to the exporters. He also explained how Bill of Lading were issued by the shipping lines. He proved the Bill of Lading Register pertaining to the year 199697 as Ex.PW2/A. He also proved entries at points Ex.PW2/C to Ex.PW2/F in the register as the ones pertaining to Carda India Ltd vide which the containers were provided by M/s RNC Freight Movers to Carda India Ltd and consignments were shipped through Maltrans Shipping Agencies India (P) Ltd., All Cargo Movers (North) (P) Ltd., Hanjin Shipping Company Ltd., Medallion Shipping Agency and Transword Shipping Services (I)(P) Ltd. He also proved the Bills of Lading Ex.PW2/G1 to Ex.PW2/G7 related to CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 22 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 23 above said entries in the register in respect of Hanjin Shipping Company. He further showed how the bills Mark PW2/H1 to H3 and Mark PW2/H5 to H6 were forged and how the bill Ex.PW2/H4 had deficient details. 26.3 PW3 Sh. Shyam Lal Jain was Superintendent in the Custom Department from July, 1996 to July, 1997 at Inland Container Depot, Tughlakabad, New Delhi. He explained the procedure when a party desires to ship any consignment abroad. He proved various GR forms which were processed by him as Ex.PW3/A to Ex.PW3/I. 26.4 PW4 Sh. Venkatraman Sekar was Manager in Gulf Ocean Shipping Pvt. Ltd from 1992 to January, 2008. He stated that M/s Ocean Shipping Pvt. Ltd was the subagent for North India for M/s Maltrans Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd and M/s Spoonbill Maritime Agencies. They also carried out the work of shipping of cargo on behalf of these two companies in Delhi. He explained how they released the container for stuffing at Container Corporation of India, Tughlakabad or factory stuffing to the customer. He stated that after the stuffing of the container, the customer had to release the Bill of Lading from their office. During the relevant period, he used to sign all the Bills of Lading on behalf of M/s Maltrans Shipping Agencies Pvt. Ltd and CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 23 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 24 M/s Spoonbill Maritime Agencies. He also explained how the details of the Bills of Lading were entered in a register maintained companywise. He proved the Bill of Lading register in respect of M/s Maltrans Shipping Agencies as Ex.PW4/G. The Bill of Lading Register in respect of M/s Spoonbill Maritime Agencies (199697) is Ex.PW4/H. He also proved Bill of Lading dated 30.03.1996 in respect of shipment to Bahrain as Ex.PW4/J. He stated that same Bill of Lading could not be released to any other shipper in the same company. Similarly, the Bill of Lading Ex.PW4/K regarding shipment to Dubai could not have been released to any other shipper. He stated that the Bills of Lading Ex.PW4/A to Ex.PW4/F were not issued by his office and, therefore, they were not genuine. He stated that the documents Ex.PW4/L to Ex.PW4/X were not issued from his office. He proved the Bill of Lading Ex.PW4/Y, Ex.PW4/Z and Ex.PW4/1. During his cross examination, he explained that the Bills of Lading Ex.PW4/A to D were nonnegotiable Bills of Lading and were to be signed by an authorized person on behalf of M/s Maltrans Shipping Agencies and Spoonbill Maritime. He also explained that in such kinds of Bills of Lading, only initials were to be put and the initials on these BoLs CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 24 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 25 were not his or anyone.
26.5 PW5 Sh. Arvind Kumar Bhalla was posted as Officer in the Kailash Colony Branch of Punjab & Sind Bank from 1992 to 1998. He worked on current account, Outward Clearing and Bills Department. He stated that if the Chief Manager, ScaleIV exercised beyond his discretionary power, he was required to inform the Zonal office and to take permission as well. He also testified that accused no. 1 used his password unauthorizedly while dealing with high value cheques. He proved various Cheque Returning Sheets (Ex.PW5/A to Ex.PW5/Z and Ex.PW5/1 to Ex.PW5/12 and Ex.PW5/13). He also proved Credit Vouchers and Payin Slip/Clearing Vouchers (Ex.PW8/A5 to Ex.PW8/A13 and Ex.PW8/A18, Ex.PW8/A21 to Ex.PW8/A27 and Ex.PW8/A30 to Ex.PW8/A35, Ex.PW8/A40, Ex.PW8/A43, Ex.PW8/A 45, Ex.PW8/A46 and Ex.PW8/A48 to Ex.PW8/A50, Ex.PW8/B to Ex.PW8/B6 and Ex.PW8/B8 to Ex.PW8/B11, Ex.PW8/B14, Ex.PW8/B16, Ex.PW8/B 18, Ex.PW8/B19, Ex.PW8/B20 to Ex.PW8/B24, Ex.PW8/B26, Ex.PW8/B31, Ex.PW8/B32,Ex.PW8/B 42, Ex.PW8/B49, Ex.PW8/B52 to Ex.PW8/B55, Ex.PW8/J4 to Ex.PW8/J8, Ex.PW8/J12, Ex.PW8/L8 to CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 25 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 26 Ex.PW8/L9, Ex.PW8/L13, Ex.PW8/L15, Ex.PW8/L 29, Ex.PW8/L30, Ex.PW8/L43, Ex.PW8/L45, Ex.PW8/L47 and Ex.PW8/L48. He also proved the High Value Clearing Register and identified the entries in the hand of accused no. 1 K.S. Chadha as Ex.PW5/14. He proved his letter dated 20.03.1998 to accused no. 1 regarding the above said entries in the High Value Clearing Register as Ex.PW5/15. He also proved a receipt memo Ex.PW15/C. 26.6 PW6 Sh. Surinder Singh Chamak was Senior Manager/Vigilance Officer in the Head Office, Vigilance Department of Punjab & Sind Bank. His work was supervised by Chief Vigilance Officer of the Bank, Deputy General Manager and Assistant General Manager of the department. He also testified that if the Branch Manager exercised any discretion with respect to any account or facilities, the sanction for the same were to be recorded in the Register known as the Manager Discretionary Power Register. He also stated that such exercise of discretionary power was to be reported in the monthly statement to the Zonal Office. If any cheque was passed in the account beyond the sanctioned limit then the same was also required to be recorded in the Manager CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 26 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 27 Special Order Register. He also mentioned about his report dated 23.03.1998 submitted by him to the Assistant General Manager, Vigilance. He proved the five entries on page 42 of the Manager Special Order Register as Ex.PW6/A. The statement of current account sundry parties maintained in ordinary course of banking business is Ex.PW6/B. He also proved the sanction memos Ex.PW10/A and Ex.PW10/B. The Manager Special Order Book is Ex.PW6/B. His report dated 23.03.1998 is Ex.PW6/C. The five annexures of the report are Ex.PW6/C1 to Ex.PW6/C5. The statements of list of Cash Credit Accounts Credit balance, list of current accounts with negative balance are Ex.PW6/D. The Special Audit Report of Branch Office Kailash Colony, New Delhi dated 19.04.1999 is Ex.PW6/E. He also proved the statement of accounts no. 3851, 3954, 3910 as Ex.PW6/F, Ex.PW6/G and Ex.PW6/H. The file maintained in the Kailash Colony Branch in official course of business related to Carda India Pvt. Ltd for packing Credit advance is Ex.PW6/J. The letter dated 11.07.2001 vide which documents Ex.PW6/C to Ex.PW6/C5 were sent to CBI is Ex.PW6/K. He proved the documents such as shipping bills, statements of loan as Ex.PW6/L1 to Ex.PW6/L17.
CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 27 of 126
RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D
28
26.7 PW7 Sh. C.B. Chandermohan was the Assistant Manager,
Customer Service in M/s Confreight Shipping Agencies at Delhi. After explaining the basic procedure of releasing the B/L, he proved the photocopies of the original Bills of Lading Ex.PW2/G to Ex.PW2/G7. The debit notes annexued with these bills were also proved as Ex.PW7/A to Ex.PW7/G. The nonnegotiable copy of the Bills of Lading with the photocopies of the original bills are Ex.PW7/H to H2, Ex.PW7/I to I2, Ex.PW7/J to J2, Ex.PW7/K to K2, Ex.PW7/L to L2, Ex.PW7/M to M2, Ex.PW7/N to N2. Another original bill of lading is Ex.PW7/A. 26.8 PW8 is Sh. Ranjit H. Adwani who was the Clerkcum Cashier in the Kailash Colony Branch. He has proved the Credit Vouchers/Debit Vouchers Ex.PW8/A to Ex.PW8/A50, Ex.PW8/B to Ex.PW8/B68. He also proved the current account opening form of Karam Tex India as Ex.PW8/C. Intimation dated 20.12.1996 of sanction of loan of Rs. 65 lacs to Regional Manager as Ex.PW8/D. Account Opening Form of Carda India Pvt. Ltd is Ex.PW8/E. Extract of minutes of the meeting of Board of Directors of Carda India Pvt.Ltd is Ex.PW8/F. The Account Opening Form of the 2nd account of Carda CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 28 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 29 India Pvt. Ltd alongwith the Board Resolution are Ex.PW8/G and Ex.PW8/H. He also proved credit vouchers/draft issue vouchers/credit bill purchased vouchers Ex.PW8/J to Ex.PW8/J18. He also proved the credit vouchers/credit MC request slips Ex.PW8/K1 to Ex.PW8/K30. The draft requisition slips/MC request slips are Ex.PW8/L1 to Ex.PW8/L67.
26.9 PW9 is Sh. Charanjit Singh Bhatia who was Senior Manager in Punjab & Sind Bank, Kailash Colony Branch in May, 1994. He proved Appraisal notes of Carda India Ltd Ex.PW9/A and Ex.PW9/B respectively. He stated that the signatures at point B on Ex.PW9/A were not his signatures and someone had tried to forge his signatures. He also stated that he had already been transferred from the branch 10 months prior to the issue of Appraisal Note Ex.PW9/A. He was unable to identify the signatures affixed at point B (Senior Manager) in the Appraisal Note Ex.PW9/B. He also identified the signatures of accused no. 1 on the sanction of facilities to Carda (Ex.PW10/B). 26.10 PW10 Sh. Kuldeep Singh Kalsi is a retired bank officer who was posted in Punjab & Sind Bank, Kailash Colony Branch in 1996. Regarding opening of the Current Accounts and availing certain facilities, he advised the CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 29 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 30 Directors of Carda India to submit Audited Balance Sheet, Memorandum and Article of Association, Bank's Statement etc. However, they never came forth with the required documentation. He further testified that no regular proposal was prepared or submitted to him. He proved Sanction dated 07.08.1996 Ex.PW10/A, Sanction dated 11.12.1996 Ex.PW10/B. 26.11 PW11 is Smt. Meenu Peterson who Documentation Assistant in M/s Gulf Ocean Shipping Pvt. Ltd. during the relevant time. She explained how the Bills of Lading Ex.PW4/A to Ex.PW4/E were not issued by Gulf Ocean Shipping Pvt. Ltd. She also proved the Bills of Lading Registers for the year 199697 of Maltrans Shipping Line (Ex.PW4/G) and of Spoonmill Maritime (Ex.PW4/H). 26.12 PW12 is Sh. Ableshwar Singh Sachdeva who was posted as Manager in Punjab & Sind Bank, Kailash Colony Branch from 1994 to 2000. He deposed that the documents pertaining to the Collateral Securities were kept in the safe custody in the bank in Fire Proof Cabinet a key of which remained with him and the other key remained with the Chief Manager. He proved the relevant entry on Title Deed Register at page no. 18 Ex.PW12/A and at page no. 19 Ex.PW12/B. CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 30 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 31 26.13 PW13 is Sh. K.T. Selvan who was working with Container Corporation of India in different capacities from 1993 onwards. During the period 1996, he was working as Junior Executive at Inland Container Corporation Depot at Tughlakabad, Delhi. During the relevant period, he was the incharge of Export Documentation Cell relating to different shipping activities. He proved shipping Bill Mark PW13/A, document forwarding note issued U/Sec. 64 of Indian Railway Act, 1989 Mark PW13/B, another Forwarding Note Mark PW13/C, another forwarding note Mark PW13/D, another forwarding note Mark PW13/E, another forwarding note Mark PW13/F, D859 another forwarding note Mark PW13/G, D860 another forwarding note Mark PW13/H, D861 i.e. carbon copy of Inland Way Bill No. 629290 dated 23.12.1996 Ex.PW13/P1, D862 carbon copy of Inland Way Bill No. 629289 dated 23.12.1996 Ex.PW13/P2, D863 carbon copy of Inland Way Bill No. 626530 dated 02.12.1996 Ex.PW13/P3, D864 carbon copy of Inland Way Bill No. 624691 dated 15.11.1996 Ex.PW13/P4, D865 carbon copy of Inland Way Bill No. 625591 dated 23.11.1996 Ex.PW13/P5, D866 carbon copy of Inland Way Bill No. CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 31 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 32 623538 dated 05.11.1996 Ex.PW13/P6, D867 carbon copy of Inland Way Bill No. 631913 dated 10.01.1997 Ex.PW13/P7 and receipt memo dated 15.02.2001 (D0868) Ex.PW13/P8.
26.14 PW14 is Sh.G.P.S. Kohli who was working as Manager (Law) in the office of Assets Recovery Branch of Punjab & Sind Bank, from 1997 to 2003. He proved receipt memo dated 11.12.2000 Ex.PW14/A through which documents such as Appraisal Notes and application dated 03.09.1996 of Carda were handed over by him to CBI. 26.15 PW15 is Sh. A.S. Jolly. He was posted as Senior Manager in the Kailash Colony Branch from 1998 to 2004. He proved receipt memo dated 11.12.2000 Ex.PW15/A, seizure memo dated 03.05.2001 Ex.PW15/B, receipt memo dated 06.06.2001 Ex.PW15/C, receipt memo dated 10.07.2001 Ex.PW15/D, seizure memo dated 24.04.2001 Ex.PW15/E, seizure memo dated 22.01.2001 Ex.PW15/F, seizure memo dated 01.05.2001 (D845) Ex.PW15/G, seizure memo dated 30.03.2001 (D846) Ex.PW15/H, seizure memo dated 10.04.2001 (DS47) Ex.PW15/J, seizure memo 26.03.2001 Ex.PW15/K, seizure memo dated 28.03.2001 Ex.PW15/L and seizure memo dated 30.04.2001 Ex.PW15/M vide which various CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 32 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 33 documents of the bank were handed over to CBI. 26.16 PW16 is Sh. Ramesh Kumar Sareen who was Zonal Manager, Delhi Zone in Punjab & Sind Bank since 1996. The Kailash Colony Branch was under his administrative control. He explained the established practices and normal procedure in the Bank related to opening of current accounts at branch level and extending of facilities by the Bank. He also proved the ID Circular No. 1434 dated 28.10.1994 (Ex.PW6/DX) which relates to discretionary powers on advances. He also proved circular letter no. 42/96 dated 15.05.1996 as Ex.PW16/A (colly.) through which the discretionary powers on advances was revised. He also explained the procedure related to overdraft facility, discounting of bills, letter of credit and procedure of packing credit limit facilities.
26.17 PW18 is Sh. Sudhakar Kumble who was posted as Vijaya Bank, Regional Office, New Delhi on 28.09.2001 and he participated in the Search and Seizure proceedings at a residential premises at NOIDA. He proved search list Ex.PW18/A, the file of Bill of Lading Ex.PW18/B and another file of seized containing Bill of Lading Ex.PW18/C. CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 33 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 34 26.18 PW19 is Sh. Soumen Ghosh who was posted in UCO Bank. He proved his signatures as witness on the 30 pages of handwriting sheets of accused Vikram Arora Ex.PW19/A. 26.19 PW20 Sh. Jitender Kumar Dogra proved his signatures as witness on the specimen handwriting sheets running into 171 pages of Sh. Kuldeep Singh Chadha, Sanjeev Arora, Virender Rajora, Sushil Kapoor and Sh. Charanjeet Singh Bhatia Ex.PW20/A. 26.20 PW21 is Sh. N.S. Gujral who was Chairman and Managing Director, Punjab & Sind Bank, Head Office at New Delhi. He proved the sanction order on the judicial record dated 12.11.2002 Ex.PW21/A. 26.21 PW22 is Sh. Baljit Singh Dang who was posted as Head Cashier in Punjab & Sind Bank, Kailash Colony Branch till 30.08.1997. He proved D498 MDP Register w.e.f 06.04.1996 to 29.03.2000 of Punjab & Sind Bank Bank, Kailash Colony Branch as Ex.PW22/A. The relevant entry in the register is Ex.PW22/B1. He also proved the register Manager Special Book related to overdraft facilities as Ex.PW22/E. Manager Special Order Book related to overdrawings is Ex.PW6/B. He also proved the half yearly investment statements of the Branch as CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 34 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 35 Ex.PW22/G to Ex.PW22/G2. He also proved various cheques/pay orders from Ex.PW22/C to Ex.PW22/C11 and Ex.PW22/D1 to Ex.PW22/D41.
26.22 PW23 is Sh. Vareen Sharma who proved the seizure memo dated 02.03.2001 vide which the Bill of Lading Register of M/s RNC Freight Movers (Ex.PW2/A) was deposited with the CBI.
26.23 PW24 is Sh. Sanjay Berry who was posted as Bank Executive in HDFC Bank, Connaught Place in May, 2001. He proved the receipt memo dated 23.05.2001 (Ex.PW24/A) vide which various documents were handed over to CBI. He also proved the Account Opening Forms of M/s Yogesh Trading Company (Ex.PW24/B), M/s Elekta Telecommunications Limited (Ex.PW24/C) alongwith annexures. The resolution annexed with the Current Account Opening Form of M/s Yogesh Trading Company is Ex.PW24/C1. The Memorandum and Article of Association of Elekta Telecommunications is Ex.PW24/E. The Bank transaction list are Ex.PW24/D1 to Ex.PW24/D3. He also testified that the bank the Times was merged with the HDFC Bank in or around the year 19981999.
CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 35 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 36 26.24 PW25 is Sh. N.R.B. Patnaik who was the Chief Vigilance Officer in Punjab & Sind Bank in October, 2000. He proved his complaint dated 28.10.2000 against accused no. 1 and Carda India Ltd (accused no. 4) and their sister concerns as Ex.PW25/A. 26.25 PW26 is Sh. Virender Rajoura who worked as Accountant for about 45 years from 1996 onwards in Carda India Pvt. Ltd. He identified the signatures of accused Sanjeev Arora and Vikram Arora on various documents such as Account Opening Form (Ex.PW8/C, Ex.PW8/E and Ex.PW8/G), Board Resolution (Ex.PW8/F), Credit Vouchers and cheques. This witness, however, did not support the prosecution's case so far as the allegation of payment of bribe to accused no. 1 by accused no. 2 and 3 is concerned.
26.26 PW27 is Sh. M.C. Joshi, Assistant Director (Deputy GEQD). He proved the detailed GEQD report/opinion as Ex.PW27/H alongwith other related documents such as specimen signatures (Ex.PW20/A, Ex.PW27/C to Ex.PW27/G), letters of CBI Ex.PW27/A and Ex.PW27/B, forwarding letter vide which opinion was returned to the CBI Ex.PW27/J and detailed reasons of the opinion/GEQD report (Ex.PW27/K).
CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 36 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 37 26.27 PW28 is Sh. Satish Kumar Anand who was posted as Officer, International Banking Division (IBD) in Punjab & Sind Bank, Connaught Place, New Delhi from 1989 to 1991 and as Manager at Kailash Colony Branch of Punjab & Sind Bank from 1995 to 1998. At the branch, his duty was to look after the affairs of Foreign Exchange Department. He explained the procedures involved in discounting of bills against letter of credit and without letter of credit. He deposed that in the Foreign Exchange Department, he was assisted by Sh. Jasjit Singh, Clerk. He proved the Bills Purchase Register (1995 to March, 1997) as Ex.PW28/K. He also proved his objections on the sanction memos Ex.PW6/J, Ex.PW28/A1, Ex.PW28/A2, Ex.PW28/A3, Ex.PW28/A4, Ex.PW28/A5, Ex.PW28/E and Ex.PW28/G. He also proved the FOBP files related to the 11 discounted bills of lading. He also proved the Export Bill Register (19.05.1997 to 10.05.1999) as Ex.PW28/L. 26.28 PW29 is Sh. Bhupender Kumar is the Investigating Officer in the present case. He proved the FIR in the instant case as Ex.PW29/A. He identified the signatures of the then Addl. S.P., CBI Sh. N.K. Mukherjee on the FIR as well as on the chargesheet (Ex.PW29/B). He CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 37 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 38 explained the entire investigation conducted by him. He also proved the search list (Ex.PW18/A) regarding the search conducted at the residential premises of Sh. Jagdish Arora, father of accused no. 2 and 3. The documents seized including the Memorandum of Association of M/s Al Emera Electronics, Dubai (Mark PW29/X1). He also proved various receipt memos and seizure memos vide which several documents were received and seized. He also proved the questioned documents and specimen signatures and handwriting referred for GEQD opinion. He also proved the 7 genuine shipping bills seized from Sh. B.K. Anand, Inspector, Custom, ICD Tughlakabad vide which goods were exported to the respective buyers. These shipping bills alongwith their annexures are Ex.PW29/D1 to Ex.PW29/D7. He also deposed that he had seized statements of loan sanctioned under MDP for the month of May, 1996, June, 1996, January, 1997 to March, 1997. 26.29 PW30 is Sh. Satvir Singh who was posted as Dy. S.P., CBI, BS&FC Branch in May, 2001 after which he was promoted as Addl. S.P. in the same branch. He deposed that the search warrants issued by this Court were entrusted to him by the Investigating Officer of the case.
CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 38 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 39 He proved Ex.PW18/A which is the search list dated 28.09.2001 pertaining to the search at the residential premises of Sh. Jagdish Arora in NOIDA. He identified the signatures on this search list.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 313 CrPC
27. After prosecution evidence, statement of all the Accused persons were recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC. The entire incriminating evidence was put to all the Accused persons. They denied the incriminating evidence pertaining to their role in commission of offence and claimed their innocence.
27.1A1 K.S. Chadha explained: "The case was registered on basis of false and exaggerated submitted by N.R.B Patnaik PW25 on basis of his letter dated 28.10.2000 who even is not investigate the truthfulness of allegations at his own level. In the cross he had admitted that he did not draft the complaint D1 and the para 6 & 7 of letter D1 does not pertain to Kailash Colony Branch but to IBD Mumbai Branch and no case is registered against Chief Manager of that Branch. In para 4 it is falsely reported that 22 bills were purchased and outstanding whereas only 9 bills were outstanding of Carda India Ltd. In May 98 when I was CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 39 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 40 promoted as AGM on basis of good performance and posted at Mumbai Fort Branch. The bills and documents were in order and genuine and goods were exported to foreign buyers (AL EMARA Electronic Establishment) and payments were earlier received by bank in respect of 10 bills and the bank was financially benefitted. This however show good past track of party and reflecting that buyer is genuine. The delay in payment of bills was due to overall recession and quality dispute of goods as per party letter dated 13.8.98. D505. As per Bank rules & guidelines the export finance was fully covered by ECGC cover as well as by two properties mortgaged to bank along with hypothecation of goods and raw materials. The Bank filed suit for recovery of Bank dues on 26.04.1999. The case was decreed in Bank's favour and properties auctioned by DRT Recovery Officer. The Claim with ECGC was also lodged PW28/DW1 on 25.05.98. So there was no loss caused to the bank. All goods were exported to Al EMARA Electronic Establishment or not to Al Emara Electronic LLC ( Limited Liability Company ) All the documents were genuine as processing officer had never pointed out about non genuineness of any of bills. PW29 has also deposed on 28.07.14 that the bills are genuine. There was no criminal CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 40 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 41 conspiracy all transactions were made as per Bank's norms and rules. There was no favour to the coaccused. I also acted bonafidely as per bank system, norms and rules. No advance was allowed against cheques deposited in clearing and returned unpaid. Many of the important papers/reports such as RBI inspection report dated 20.08.98, Concurrent Audit report Charge filing papers with ROC for registration of charge on property in name of company, Copy of plaint dated 26.04.99 of filing of suit in DRT for recovery of Bank dues have not been collected seized by investigating officer to conceal the facts. Further PW29 in cross has deposed on 2.08.14 that no evidence was found to show any pecuniary benefit was taken by me (K.S. Chadha) so this is not a case of criminal suit but a case of civil suit which has already been filed on 26.04.99 for recovery of bank dues and was decreed in bank's favour and properties mortgaged auctioned by DRT recovery officer and amount adjusted against the outstanding dues".
27.2A2 Sanjeev Arora explained: "In this case all the export documents were in order, genuine and through them goods were exported to the foreign buyer and payments were earlier received by the bank. The export finance was CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 41 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 42 ensured by ECGS cover with property mortgage and hypothecation of raw materials. Therefore, there was no loss to the bank . In this case we had requested the bank for the post export finance i.e after exporting the goods from our own resources. Being the customer we approached the bank for the financial assistance in ordinary course of business in genuine manner and there was no intention to cause any loss to the bank. Almost entire dues pertaining to principal amounts of the bank has been realized from ECGC cover, mortgaged properties and hypothecated goods and no loss has been caused to the bank. There was no criminal conspiracy with any bank official".
27.3A3 Vikram Arora explained: "My forms were genuine. Goods were generally exported to foreign buyers and bill were genuine. Certain part payments were also received there against. Transaction was fully covered by policy ECGC and the bank also preferred the claim for that. There was no wrong committed from our side and bank did not suffer any financial loss of Principal amount. Collateral securities were given before sanctioning the loan/over dues and the said collateral securities/mortgage properties had been sold by bank in auction in the CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 42 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 43 proceedings and in pursuance to the orders of DRT to realize the outstanding amounts. There was no criminal intent or dishonest intention at any stage on our part. This is simple case of non receipt of payment of civil liability and that has been decided by DRT".
27.4On behalf of A4 Carda India, it was submitted: " In this case our company is genuine. The bills and documents were in order and genuine and goods were exported to foreign buyers (AL EMARA Electronic Establishment) and payments were earlier received by bank. The export finance was covered by ECGC cover with property mortgaged and hypothecation of goods and raw materials. There was no loss to the bank. In the case we had requested the bank for post export finance after exporting the goods from our own sources. Being the customer, we approached the bank for the financial assistance in ordinary course of business in genuine manner and there was no intention to cause any loss to the bank. Almost entire dues pertaining to principle amount of the bank has been realized from ECGC cover , auction of mortgaged properties and hypothecation of goods and raw materials and no loss has been caused to the bank. There was no criminal conspiracy with any bank officials. Cheques in CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 43 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 44 question were presented for clearing only in ordinary course of business without any request for purchase of cheques and therefore there could have been no question of loss to the bank against the cheques which were only for clearing. About 22 bills were submitted by the company to the bank but only 7 bills were purchased by the bank and the company had exported goods of a heavy amount more than the amount of said seven bills. All goods were exported to Al EMARA Electronic Establishment or not to Al Emara Electronic LLC ( Limited liability company).All the documents were genuine. The documents which were sent through foreign bank through our bankers i.e Punjab Sind Bank, Kailash Colony have not been collected by the said bank or Investigating officer to conceal the facts".
DEFENCE EVIDENCE:
28. Eight DWs were examined in defence:
28.1. DW1 is Sh. Ankur Gupta, Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank, Assets and Recovery BranchI, Rajindra Place, New Delhi. He was summoned by accused no. 1 K.S. Chadha.
He produced the summoned record. The copy of OA no. 165/99 titled as Punjab & Sind Bank vs. Carda India Ltd, Sanjeev Arora and Vikram Arora filed in Debt Recovery CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 44 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 45 Tribunal (DRT), Delhi is Ex.DW1/A. The final order dated 02.05.2001 passed by DRTI is Ex.DW1/B, copy of order dated 27.08.2012 in relation to this case is Ex.DW1/C. Vide the final order dated 02.05.2001, a decree of Rs.4,74,38,493/ was passed against the defendants jointly and severely and in favour of the applicant bank alongwith pendente lite and future interest @ 20.5% with quarterly rests as well as cost. As per the order dated 27.08.2012, an amount of Rs. 48.50 lacs was recovered by the Bank by way of auctioning of the mortgaged property and the remaining decretal amount was still due. The proceedings were adjourned sine die as the assets of the defendants were not traceable. 28.2. DW2 is Inderjeet Singh Sethi who was posted as AGM at Head Office, Vigilance Department, Punjab & Sind Bank, Rajindra Place, Delhi. He was summoned by accused no. 1 K.S. Chadha. He produced the file pertaining to the grant of sanction to prosecute accused no. 1 public servant. He proved the photocopy of the draft sanction order as Ex.DW2/A. 28.3. DW3 is Sh. Jasjeet Singh who was posted as Clerk in Punjab & Sind Bank, Kailash Colony Branch from 1995 to 1997. He was summoned by accused no. 1 K.S. CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 45 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 46 Chadha. He proved the entry on page 46 of the Bill Register related to export bill (Ex.PW28/K) pertaining to Carda India as Ex.DW3/A. He also referred to certain entries reflected on page no. 31, 32, 37, 39, 53, 55, 56, 58, 60 against which payments were received from Al Emara Electronics, Dubai. He also identified the signatures of accused K.S. Chadha on the documents pertaining to Form no. 8 of Companies Act, 1956 and register of charges pertaining to transaction related to Carda India Ltd (Ex.DW3/B).
28.4. DW4 is Sh. Manjit Singh, Chief Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank, Kailash Colony Branch. He was summoned by accused no. 1 K.S. Chadha. He produced the documents Ex.DW3/B. He also proved the two letters dated 14.12.1999 and September 27, 1999 forming part of the original file containing correspondence relating to the transaction of Carda India Ltd. These two letters are collectively Ex.DW4/A. He was, however, not able to produce the record pertaining to (i) Inspection Report dated 20.08.1998 by Sh. A.K. Goel, AGM, RBI, (ii) FDR proceed credit voucher dated 29.07.1998 of Karam Tex India and (iii) copies of concurrent audit report from March, 1996 to December, 1998 relating to Kailash CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 46 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 47 Colony Branch. He stated that these records were not traceable being old.
28.5. DW5 is Sh. Arvind Singh, Senior Manager, Zonal Office, Punjab & Sind Bank, Ashram Chowk. He was summoned by accused no. 1 K.S. Chadha. He stated that despite efforts the record pertaining to half yearly short inspection report of Kailash Colony Branch conducted by Zonal Office for the year March, 1996 to March, 1998 alongwith copies of concurrent audit report for the same period could not be traced out being old record. 28.6. DW6 is Sh. H.S. Shant who was posted as Chief Manager in the Kailash Colony Branch of Punjab & Sind Bank from 1998 to 2001. He was summoned by accused no. 1 K.S. Chadha. This witness had succeeded accused no. 1 as Chief Manager in the year 1998. He identified his signatures as well as signatures of AGM on the copy of the Civil Suit filed by the Bank in DRT (Ex.DW1A).
29. I have heard the ld. PP for CBI and Ld. Defence counsels for Accused persons. I have carefully perused the record. I have also considered the written submissions submitted by prosecution as well as accused.
CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 47 of 126
RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D
48
A BRIEF OUTLOOK
30. It is not disputed that Carda India Pvt. Ltd. is a company in existence and accused no. 2 and 3 namely, Sanjeev Arora and Vikram Arora are its Directors. Accused Sanjeev Arora is also the proprietor of Karam Tex India. Admission/denial of documents was conducted in the present case. The documents relating to the transactions in Punjab & Sind Bank have been admitted. Accused no. 2 and 3 did not admit the cheques issued from their accounts in the Times Bank. These cheques alongwith other documents not admitted have been dealt with according to the evidence led including the GEQD report.
31. The present case pertains specifically to unauthorized overdrawings from the three accounts in question by the accused no. 2,3 and 4 in conspiracy with Accused no. 1, extending of various facilities/limits to Accused no. 2,3 and 4 by Accused no. 1 in violation of Banking Guidelines and discounting of 11 forged Bills of Lading. While defrauding the Punjab & Sind Bank (complainant bank) in this manner, accused persons also used forged documents and committed forgery, manipulation, tampering of bank record. The evidence collected during CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 48 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 49 investigation also revealed 7 original Bills of Lading whose details were used to create 7 out of 11 false Bills of Lading. In other words, the goods were dispatched by accused no. 2,3 and 4 vide the original / genuine Bills of Lading to the drawees i.e. Al Emara and Gulf Waves. These accused then prepared false B/Ls using the details of the above said genuine bills and others for the purpose of cheating the Punjab & Sind Bank by presenting those false bills of ladings (11 in number) for discounting in connivance with accused no. 1. The witnesses from the subagents of shipping/carrier companies also testified that the 11 B/Ls were not issued by them.
32. Before discussing the points in issue , it is important to understand certain procedures which have been explained by a few witnesses.
Process of Opening a Current Account:
33. PW 16 Sh. Ramesh Kumar Sareen, the then Zonal Manager, Delhi Zone in Punjab & Sind Bank explained the procedure of opening a current account as follows:
"A company was required to submit its Memorandum and Articles of Association, copy of Registration Certificate with the Registrar of CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 49 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 50 Company, Copy of Resolution of the Boards of Directors of the company regarding authorisation for opening of the related account indicating the particulars of the person, authorised to open the account. In case of old established companies their balance sheet was also required to be obtained to know the financial position of the companies as well as their Directors. Account should have been properly introduced as per the guideline of the head office. Account should have been introduced by some respectable person, however bank Manager was also authorised to open the account".
Various Limits, Credit Facilities and Discretionary Powers:
34. PW16 explained as follows:
"So far as the extending of different limits or credit facilities to the constituent account holders, discretionary power was delegated to the different authorities in the bank by the Board of Directors of the bank for running the business smooth and effectively and this authorisation was required to be executed with due check and balances.
CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 50 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 51 Invariably the authority exercising discretion was required to escalate his discretion in any account to the higher authority at the very outset when the facility was sanctioned. On the last working Friday of every month the concerned authority was required to submit a consolidated statement of having exercised discretionary powers in respect of different accounts during the month to the higher authorities alongwith the material available in the light of discretion exercised which will include the application of party, appraisal of note of the branch ands other financial papers as made available by the party. At branch level a dispatch register is maintained which indicates the related sanctions having been sent to the concerned superior authority on the date of sanction. It also indicates particulars of contents of statement covering details of exercise of the discretionary power by the branch Manager.
If at any point of time account exceeds the discretionary power available to the Branch Manager, at first he has to forthwith stop exercise discretion and any further enhancement of the limit CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 51 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 52 cannot be sanctioned by the authority vested with the powers to sanction. In case Manager has to increase his discretion he is required immediately to take up the matter with his superior authority for ratification of his action. Till the action of manager in the matter of exceeding his discretion is not ratified by the competent authority the accountability will continue to lie with Branch Manager ands he cannot use his discretion in that particular account."
Sister Concerns:
35. In the cross examination, PW16 explained that by sister concerns, he meant that one or more Directors of one company were common in two or more companies. He further stated that it was correct that during the relevant periods, there was government policy to promote transaction to generate foreign currency. It was also correct that in order to encourage the foreign currency, the banks were slightly liberal in allowing the credit facilities.
Discounting of Bills
36. PW16 also explained the discounting of Bill on 19/04/14 in his examination in chief, which is as under:
CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 52 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 53 "The limit of bill discounting pertaining to this case was not set up by me and its file was never put up before me. In the cases of bill discounting party submits the documents of the orders alongwith other details and bank may allow the bill discounting as per the terms of the limit . Thereafter, the amount the is firstly credited and then debited in the account of the party. The bill is sent to the bank of the party which has placed the order. If the party made the payment, if the bank will receive the same and will made the entry accordingly in the account of the party concerned. In case the payment is not received within 30 days the red signal is marked and a letter is sent to the bank concerned. Accordingly, if payment is not received even after the notice , the bill is returned to the bank and the amount already paid by the bank against the bill discounting become outstanding against the party and accordingly a debit entry is made in the account. If the discounted bills of the particular party are not being paid and the payment is not received by the bank, in such cases though there is no bar for discounting of CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 53 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 54 other bills, but the Manager concerned should use his wisdom and discretion and generally further discounting of bills is not allowed in such cases. From time to time circulars are being issued by the bank in respect of the bill discounting'.
Packing Credit Limit Facility:
37. PW 16 also explained the procedure of Packing Credit limit facility in his examination in chief on 18/01/2014 which is as under:
"First of all the party approaches the bank manager for packing credit limit facility and discusses his case for the sanction. If the branch manager is prima faciely satisfied with the proposal, he asked the party to first open his current account. After opening of current account with proper introduction, the bank tries to verify the genuineness of the party and documents like financial status, reputation, statement of accounts, confidential reports, etc. For packing credit facility, export order of a foreign company is mandatory. The packing credit facilities is provided to the party to fulfilled the export order received from foreign company by the party. In CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 54 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 55 such cases, the bills are sent to the foreign party/its banker and the payment is received from the foreign party/its bank to adjust the loan amount, therefore, there is a factor of risk for the bank. To cover the said risk of the bank, party is instructed to submit collateral securities in the form of title deeds of immovable properties and the ECG cover from Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India. The expenses of ECG cover are incurred by the party. In some cases where the party has a very high reputation in the market and the buyer is a multinational company and the government of India is specifically encouraging the foreign exchange, the condition of collateral securities may be relaxed but the ECG cover is a mandatory condition. Powers for sanction of packing credit facilities are delegated from time to time by the office circulars in favour of bank officers of different scales. The officers of different scales are also provided indispensable requirements which are to be complied with by the bank officers of different scales while sanctioning packing credit facilities. After sanction of packing credit facilities, CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 55 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 56 the sanctioning authority is required to send the sanction order along with all the documents to the bank officer of the next superior scale for a confirmation. The officer of superior scale, after consideration of sanction order and the documents sent to him, may either confirm or may send back the matter to the officer concerned for query or modification etc. As far as my memory goes back, at that time I was posted as Zonal Officer and the file of packing credit facility of this case was never put up before me, therefore, I am not able to comment whether the above mentioned procedure was fully complied with in the present case. By next scale, I mean the next superior hierarchy/office".
Crystallization of Bill:
38. PW28 Sh. Satish Kumar Anand the then Manager at Kailash Colony Branch of Punjab & Sind Bank explained the meaning of term Crystalization of bill:
"When a discounting bill against LC or without LC it is purchased by the bank for a certain amount on the current rate of US Dollar on that day. Normally 30 days period is prescribed for CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 56 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 57 receipt of payment against the advance of discounting of bill and 30 days period against the due date is permitted by the bank for the said period. If the payment is received within the said prescribed period the matter is over. If the payment is not received in the said prescribed period of 30 days even after due date the discounting bill is crystalized which means that after crystalization of bill the payment shall be realized by the bank on the current rate of the US Dollar. The current rate of US Dollar may increase or decrease in the said process but the payment is realized by the bank on current rate of US Dollar and no benefit of the increase or decrease of US Dollar is given to the party. Even if the rate of the US Dollar is decreased the payment is received on the current rate of US Dollar by the bank and no benefit is given to the party. But if the rate of the US Dollar is increased against the Indian rupee/currency, then the difference is recovered from the party so that there may not be any loss to the bank. The process of crystalization of discounting of bills is CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 57 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 58 controlled by the Head Office, Foreign Exchange Department, of our bank in accordance of the guide lines of RBI. As per the current rate of US Dollar given by the head office and the instructions in respect of particular discounting of bill / advance the relevant entry is made in register like Ex.PW 28/K at the branch level under the supervision of branch level by the concerned official".
How Bill of Lading is Issued:
39. PW 4 Sh. Venkatraman Sekar, the then Manager in Gulf Ocean Shipping Pvt Ltd, the sub agent of Maltrans Shipping Agency and Spoonbill Maritime Agencies explained that once customer asked for container after agreeing to pay the charges, they released the container for stuffing at Container Corporation of India at Tughlakabad or factory stuffing as per requirement of the customer. After stuffing of the container, customer gets Bill of lading released from their office. After recovery of dues, the office signs and releases the B/L after proper check alongwith necessary supporting documents. Before issuing the B/Ls in aforesaid manner, particulars such as CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 58 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 59 B/L no. and other details are recorded in the registers maintained companywise.
40. The other terms often used in the present case are FOBP, FOBLC, MDP Register, ECGC and DA Bills. FOBP stands for Foreign Outward Bill Purchase. FOBLC stands for Foreign Outward Bill under Letter of Credit. MDP register stands for Manager's Discretionary Powers register. ECGC stands for Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India. DA Bill stands for Document Against Acceptance which involves deferred payment.
IMPROPER OPENING OF ACCOUNTS:
41. The case of the prosecution is that the two current accounts of the company Carda India Pvt. Ltd., bearing account nos. 3851 and 3954 as well as the current account of proprietorship concern M/s Karam Tex India bearing account no. 3910 were opened by the accused no. 1 K.S.Chadha without proper documentation in furtherance of the conspiracy with Accused no. 2,3 and 4 to cheat Punjab & Sind Bank, Kailash Colony Branch, New Delhi.
42. PW10 Sh. Kuldeep Singh Kalsi, the then Bank Officer, testified that in the beginning of 1996 the Directors of accused no. 4 company Carda India Pvt. Ltd., approached CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 59 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 60 the then Branch Manager (Accused no. 1) for opening the Bank account and availing some facilities. PW10 advised the accused no. 2 and 3 to submit Audited Balance Sheet, Memorandum and Article of Association, Bank Statement etc. He further testified that the two Directors never came forth with the required documentation and no regular proposal was prepared or submitted to him. The Account Opening Forms of A/c no. 3851, 3954 (of Carda India Pvt. Ltd) (Ex.PW8/E and Ex.PW8/G) and account no. 3910 of Karam Tex India, proprietorship concern of accused no. 2 Sanjeev Arora (Ex.PW8/C) are on record. These documents show that they are single page Current Account Opening Forms. The Application Forms related to Carda India Pvt. Ltd are blank on the rear side. There is no rear page in respect of the Account Opening Form of M/s Karam Tex. All the three Account Opening Forms show that these accounts were authorized to be opened by Accused no. 1. They also show that the required documents were not submitted by the applicants. The only document annexed with the Account Opening Forms of Carda India Pvt. Ltd are the resolutions of the Board of Directors authorizing accused Sanjeev Arora (in case of A/c No. 3954) and accused Sanjeev Arora and Vikram CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 60 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 61 Arora (in respect of A/c no. 3851) to open the accounts and to arrange with the Punjab & Sind Bank for advance to the company by way of loan and overdraft and to charge any of the company's property and securities therefor. The current accounts in the names of Carda India and Karam Tex, thus, were authorized to be opened by Accused no.1 without adopting necessary safeguards and without proper documentation.
GRANT OF CASH CREDIT LIMIT AND OVERDRAWING FACILITY
43. The allegation of the prosecution is that there was no application or any kind of form submitted by accused no. 2,3 and 4 with the Punjab & Sind Bank, Kailash Colony Branch for grant of Cash Credit Limit or Overdrawing Facility. Still these facilities were illegally extended to accused no. 4 company. Thus, at the time when overdrawings were made by accused no. 2,3 and 4 from the three accounts in question, there was no sanction order in this respect in favour of these accused. It is alleged that these sanction orders were created by accused no. 1 only later to cover up these illegal acts. Even otherwise, the accused no. 1 well exceeded his powers CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 61 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 62 while granting the Cash Credit Limit and Overdrawing Facility to accused no. 4 company. I shall deal with these contentions in two parts.
Discretionary Powers and Overdrawings Permitted
44. The 'Lending Powers Guidelines and Provisions' alongwith the revised Discretionary Powers Chart is on record as Ex.PW6/DX. I will first consider the chart related to 'Power to make loans and advances and to grant other facilities'. This chart provides that the maximum discretionary power available with the Chief Manager/Regional Manager for grant of Cash Credit / Overdraft / Loan was Rs.20 lacs at that time. Now, I will refer to the chart of the limits of discretionary powers in respect of certain limits. I first refer to 'Export (Pre Shipment)'. Under this head, the Regional Manager/Chief Manager can provide maximum packing credit of Rs.20 lacs in cases where there were Letter of Credit with ECGC guarantee. It is noted that in the instant case, there was no Letter of Credit of the foreign bank on record. Now I refer to 'Post Shipment' facilities'. It provides that against the DA Bills not covered by Letter of Credit but covered by ECGC guarantee, the maximum discretionary CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 62 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 63 power of Rs. 6 lacs was available to the Regional Manager/Chief Manager. The chart also mentions that the discretionary powers upto Rs. 2 crores was available with the Regional Manager/Chief Manager in respect of 'negotiation documentary export bills' under the irrevocable Letter of Credit of foreign Banks of repute strictly in conformity with the conditions of Letter of Credit (L/C). The guidelines also provide the extent upto which the sanctioned limits may be exceeded in case of emergent circumstances. It provides that Branch Incharge may exceed upto 5% of the sanctioned limit of Rs.1 lac whichever is lower. Similarly, the Regional Manager may exceed upto 10% of the sanctioned limit of Rs. 5 lacs whichever is lower. This provision applies in cases of secured advances. Thus, even a Regional Manager could not have exceeded the Cash Credit Limit of Rs. 22 lacs in the cases of emergency.
45. The statement of account of accused no. 4 company's current A/c no. 3851 (Ex.PW6/F) shows that as on 26.04.1999, there was an outstanding/debit balance of Rs.1,77,25,663/. Ex.PW6/G is the statement of accused no. 4 company's current account no. 3954 which shows that as on 26.04.1999, there was an outstanding/debit CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 63 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 64 balance of Rs. 52,54,123/. Ex.PW6/H is the statement of current account No. 3910 of M/s Karam Tex India. It shows that as on 26.04.1999, the outstanding/debit balance against this concern was Rs.32,04,980/. This proves that accused no. 2, 3 and 4 were permitted to overdraw such amounts from the above said three current accounts by accused no.1 which were well beyond the discretionary powers of Accused no. 1. It is also noted that the accused no.1 allowed discounting of bills to the tune of Rs 2.84 crores which was way beyond his discretionary powers. These discounted B/Ls were without any Letter of Credit.
46. Ld. counsel for accused no. 1 has referred to Clause 35 of the Lending PowersGuidelines and Provisions which provides as follows:
"35. For sanctioning authorities from CM/RM and above in case of group advances, total expansure would be twice the powers mentioned in each category of revised chart. For the purpose of loaning Powers, concerns shall be allied/associate of another, if any.
i) Two concerns have one or more common partners/proprietors, Guarantee, OR CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 64 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 65
ii) Any of the directors of the private limited company is director of another private limited company OR
iii) A limited company is subsidiary of another limited company or is closely held company with substantial interest, (I.e, more than 50% of the equity share capital of the company is owned by the another company}, OR
iv) The Partner/Proprietor of a firm is a director in a Pvt. Ltd. Company Inspite of the above broad based definitions of associate/allied concerns, if the sanctioning authority still feels that two firms/companies are suspected to be connected by not covered under the above definition, he should seek specific instructions from Head Office". The perusal of sanction orders of grant of facilities (Ex.PW10/A, Ex.PW10/B and Ex.PW8/D) do not indicate in any manner that it was a case of group advance or a case where clause 35 was applicable. The sanction facilities were accorded vide the above said orders independently of each other. Besides, the bills in the instant case were not covered by Letter of Credit.
CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 65 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 66 Even if twice the discretionary power permitted to a Chief Manager was considered , it would still be much less than the amount that was permitted to be overdrawn from the three accounts in question.
47. It is reiterated that the overdrawing of these accounts was being permitted even though there was neither any request of the accused no. 2,3 and 4 on record for grant of such facilities nor was there any sanction order sanctioning such facilities and to cover up these illegal acts, sanction orders were created later on. The issue of sanctioning orders and appraisal notes has been discussed separately below.
Sanctioning of Facilities Order and Appraisal Note:
48. It is alleged that the sanctioning of the facilities orders dated 07.08.1996 (Ex.PW10/A) and 11.12.1996 (Ex.PW10/B) in favour of Carda India Pvt. Ltd were falsely created later on by accused no. 1. For this purpose, the false appraisal notes Ex.PW9/B (undated) and Ex.PW9/A dated 11.12.1996 were also prepared. The GEQD report (Ex.PW27/H) proves that all these documents are in the handwriting of accused no. 1 K.S. Chadha and bear his signatures too.
CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 66 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 67
49. The Sanctioning Order dated 07.08.1996 (Ex.PW10/A) mentions 'FOBLC/FOBP 2.0 crores PC 20 lac' against 'amount of advance'. The Sanctioning Order dated 11.12.1996 (Ex.PW10/B) mentions 'FOBLC/FOBP for Rs.2.5 crores... PC 20 lacs...'. FOBLC stands for Foreign Outward Bill under Letter of Credit. Ex.PW8/D is the Sanction of facilities Order dated 20.12.1996 in favour of Karam Tex India vide which Post Shipment Bill Advance of Rs. 65 lacs was sanctioned. The GEQD report proves that this Sanction Order bears the signatures of Accused no. 1 at two places. It has already been discussed above that the accused no. 1, the then Chief Manager had no powers to sanction such limits/facilities in absence of any irrevocable Letter of Credit with ECGC guarantee.
50. The serial number of the Sanctioning Order dated 07.08.1996 is mentioned as 'MDP 30/96 dated 07.08.1996'.The serial number of Sanctioning Order dated 11.12.1996 is 'MDP 137/9697'. Now I will refer to the MDP register (Manager's Discretionary Powers Registers also known as Manager's Special Order Book) for the period from 01.04.1996 to 29.03.2000 (Ex.PW22/A).
CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 67 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 68
51. For the purpose of Sanctioning Order dated 11.12.1996, the MDP Register (Ex.PW22/A) is relevant. At page 14, there are two entries dated 11.12.1996. The prosecution has pointed out that MDP 137 was the serial number given to the Sanctioning Order of one M/s C&C Const. P. Ltd. which was later changed to 136 so that the already existent number 'MDP 137' could be used for creating the false Sanctioning Order dated 11.12.1996. The GEQD report shows that the complete entry dated 11.12.1996 with signatures in respect of Carda India Pvt. Ltd. was entered in the register by accused no. 1 himself in his own handwriting. The statement of loan sanctioned under MDP for the month of December, 1996 sent to the Zonal Office is Ex.PW6/L6. It mentions that the advance was sanctioned to M/s C&C Const. P. Ltd., under the MDP No. 137 dated 11.12.1996. In this statement, there is no entry dated 11.12.1996 regarding the advance to Carda India Pvt. Ltd. This establishes the case of the prosecution that not only was the Sanction Order dated 11.12.1996 (Ex.PW10/B) created later using an already existing MDP number but the accused no. 1, in furtherance of the conspiracy also tampered with the MDP register (Ex.PW22/A) to add a false entry in respect CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 68 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 69 of Carda India Pvt. Ltd and thus manipulated the record. Further, no information was sent to the Zonal Office as required. It clearly indicates mala fide on part of Accused no. 1 and establishes his active role in the conspiracy to cheat the Bank.
52. So far as Sanctioning Order dated 07.08.1996 (Ex.PW10/A) is concerned, its serial number is mentioned as MDP 30/96 dated 07.08.1996. There is no such entry dated 07.08.1996 bearing No. MDP 30/96 in the MDP register. I have also carefully perused the statements of loan sanctioned under MDP from the month of April, 1996 to April 1998 (Ex.PW6/L1 to Ex.PW6/L
17). There is no such entry as MDP 30/96 in respect of Carda India Pvt. Ltd. in these statements. Thus, the Sanctioning Order dated 07.08.1996 also was created later and zonal office had no information of the said order. Similarly, the entry related to the Sanctioning Order (Ex.PW8/D) dated 20.12.1996 in respect of Karam Tex India is conspicuously absent from the MDP register as well as the statements of loan sanctioned under MDP (Ex.PW6/L1 to Ex.PW6/L17).
53. Ex.PW9/A is the appraisal note in respect of Sanctioning Order dated 11.12.1996 prepared and signed by accused CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 69 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 70 no. 1. At point B on page 8 of this document, there are certain signatures against 'Senior Manager'. PW8 Sh. Ranjit H. Adwani, ClerkcumCashier in the Kailash Colony Branch of Punjab & Sind Bank and PW28 Sh. Satish Kumar Anand, the then Manager at the Kailash Colony Branch of Punjab & Sind Bank have testified that the signatures at point B appeared to be that of Sh. Charanjeet Singh Bhatia, the then Senior Manager of Punjab & Sind Bank, Kailash Colony Branch. Contrary to the contention of the accused, such testimony does not constitute a positive proof that these signatures were of Sh. C.S. Bhatia. GEQD could not give any opinion on these signatures. Sh. Charanjit Singh was summoned as PW9. He stated that these signatures were not his and that someone had tried to forge his signatures. In support of his testimony, he also stated that he was not posted in that branch at that time and had already been transferred about 10 months before. The accused persons have not challenged his testimony to this extent in the cross examination. In fact, in the cross examination, PW9 has deposed that he had been transferred to the Head Office, Punjab & Sind Bank. Thus, the testimony of PW9 that he was not posted in branch in December, 1996 remains CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 70 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 71 unchallenged. Accused no. 1 could not explain that if Sh. C.S. Bhatia was not even posted in the Branch, how did his signatures appear on this Appraisal Note. It proves the case of the prosecution that the signature at point B on the appraisal note (Ex.PW9/A) are forged ones. So far as the signatures of 'Senior Manager' at point B in Ex.PW9/B is concerned, it is not known as to whose signatures are these.
54. Thus, not only the appraisal notes but the Sanctioning Orders dated 07.08.1996 and 11.12.1996 also are falsely created documents. Accused no. 1 also sanctioned such limits which he did not have the authority to sanction. He also tampered with and manipulated the record such as the MDP Register.
CONTENTION OF ACCUSED REGARDING THE STATEMENTS OF LOAN SANCTIONED UNDER MDP
55. Ld. counsel for the accused has argued that the prosecution has erroneously relied upon statement of loan sanctioned under MDP for the month of December, 1996 as the same has neither been exhibited nor proved by any bank official or witness. There is no merit in this argument. The statements of loan sanctioned under MDP CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 71 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 72 for the month of April, 1996, August, 1996 to December, 1996 are Ex.PW6/L1 to Ex.PW6/L6. Except for the statement for the month of August, 1996 (Ex.PW6/L2), all the other statements bear the original signatures of accused K.S. Chadha alongwith the stamp of the bank. Ex.PW6/L6 is the statement for the month of December, 1996 and it shows that it is the office copy and bears stamp of the bank and signature of the accused in original. The GEQD report Ex.PW27/H has proved the authenticity of the signature of the accused no. 1 K.S. Chadha on these documents. The observations in the Special Audit Report (Ex.PW6/E) have been discussed separately.
56. The observations in Audit Report Ex.PW6/E, overwriting in the relevant MDP register at Srl. no. 137 pertaining to another company by the name of C&C Construction Limited and the statement Ex.PW6/L6 nullify the argument that not mentioning the sanction in favour of Carda India in the statement Ex.PW6/L6 was merely an error on part of the concerned clerk.
CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 72 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 73 TITLE DEEDS/COLLATERAL SECURITIES:
57. The appraisal notes and the Sanctioning Orders are dated 07.08.1996 and 11.12.1996. No Collateral Securities as required were taken by the accused no. 1 from accused no. 2,3 and 4 against sanction of loan / limits vide the above said Sanctioning Orders. It was only later in the year 1998 that the Title Deeds were taken on record to somehow cover up the illegal actions by Accused no. 1. Ex.PW12/A and Ex.PW12/B are the relevant entry nos. 68 and 69 in the Title Deeds Register for the period from June, 1994 to December, 2000. These entries show that the Title Deeds pledged in respect of PC Limit of Rs. 10 lacs and FOBP Limit of Rs. 2.50 crores were provided by Carda India Pvt. Ltd on 14.09.1998.
58. In his written statement U/Sec. 243(1) Cr.P.C, Accused no. 1 has explained: "The property papers mortgaged with the Bank were to be kept in Fire proof safe but as Sh. A.S. Sachdeva, custodian of keys of Fire Proof Safe was on leave, the documents were kept in Fire Proof cabinet alongwith other loan documents under the custody of Sh. S.K. Anand, Manager and remained there. They were kept in Fire Proof Safe when it was noticed at time of taking charge of documents by my successor Sh.
CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 73 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 74 Shant after my transfer". There is no evidence in support of his explanation. No suggestion in respect of such circumstance has been put to PW12 Sh. A.S. Sachdeva. No such suggestion has been put to PW28 Sh. S.K. Anand either. The Title Deed register is a strong piece of evidence showing that the Title Deeds were in fact deposited later on 14.09.1998.
HIGH DEBIT BALANCE IN THREE CURRENT ACCOUNTS AND MANIPULATIONS BY HIGH VALUE TRANSACTIONS:
59. Ex.PW6/F is the statement of account of Carda India Pvt.
Ltd., regarding current account no. 3851. Vide entry dated 20.03.1998, an amount of Rs. 73.50 lacs was shown to have been received in this account. On 23.03.1998, this entry was reversed. This statement of account shows several such high value entries credited into the account which were reversed later. Similarly, Ex.PW6/G is the statement of account of Carda India Pvt. Ltd in respect of current account no. 3954. On 20.03.1998 an amount of Rs. 35.50 lacs was credited to this account. It was later reversed on 23.03.1998. This statement of account also shows several such high value entries where the amounts received were reversed later. Similarly, there are high CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 74 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 75 value entries in the statement of A/c of Karam Tex India which were reversed later.
60. Now I will consider those high value cheques whose entries were reversed later. The 40 cheques including Ex.PW26/A to Ex.PW26/A3 are the ones credited in the 3 currents A/cs in question which were later reversed on account of return of these cheques unpaid either because of 'payment stopped' or 'Account closed'. Out of these, 24 high value cheques of the value ranging from Rs 14 lakh to Rs 52,00,500/ were issued by Yogesh Trading and Elekta Tele from their Times Bank (later merged into HDFC Bank) Accounts. Exh PW 24/B is the bank account opening form dt 12/11/1996 in respect of account no. 1010165636001 in Times Bank in the name of Yogesh Trading Company, proprietorship concern of Accused Sanjeev Arora. Exh PW24/C is the A/c opening form dt 18/09/1996 in respect of account no. 1010160222001 in the name of Elekta Telecom Ltd through its Director Accused Sanjeev Arora. Copy of resolution dt 12/09/1996 authorising 'Sanjeev Arora or Vikram Arora' to open the current account of Elekta Telecom Ltd with the Times Bank is also annexed.
CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 75 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 76
61. The cheeque return memos Ex.PW1/A to Ex.PW1/R show that the above said cheques issued from the Times Bank accounts of Yogesh Trading and Elekta Tele were returned unpaid owing to account being closed.
62. Thus, when the above mentioned cheques were issued by the above said company and the proprietorship concern of accused no. 2 and 3 in favour of Carda India and Karam Tex, Accused no. 2 & 3 knew that the cheques would not be honoured. Since 24 high value cheques were issued from the accounts of their company/concern in Times Bank and deposited in their accounts in the name of Carda India and Karam Tex in the Punjab & Sind Bank, Accused no. 2 and 3 cannot feign ignorance regarding these cheques. This establishes beyond any doubt that the sole purpose of issuing such high value cheques was to temporarily reduce the consistently high debit balance in the 3 bank accounts in question and avoid detection of overdrawings permitted by Accused no. 1 in gross violation of the banking guidelines and rules.
63. I shall now consider the letter Ex.PW5/15 of PW5 Sh.
A.K. Bhalla and endorsement of accused no. 1 on this letter to highlight the extra mile travelled by Accused no. 1 to favour the Accused no. 2 and 3 in furtherance of the CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 76 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 77 conspiracy. Ex.PW5/15 is the letter written by PW5 Sh. A.K. Bhalla, Officer in the Punjab & Sind Bank, Kailash Colony Branch to the then Chief Manageraccused no. 1 K.S. Chadha. The body of the letter reads as follows:
'I want to bring under your kind notice that on 20.03.1998 an entry amounting Rs.2.08 crores was made in imprest clg (GL head 471012) as debit transfer and credit of Rs.73,50,000 in CA 3851 Carda IndiaI and in CA No. 3945 Carda IndiaII for Rs.35,50,000/ and Rs.99,00,000/ in CA 3678 of Malibu estate Pvt. Ltd. These entries are done from terminal which is in your cabin and for these entries as first ID my password is used and IInd by your password for debit entries and for credit entries my password is used. These entries are done without my knowledge and I have not authorized these entries".
64. On this letter, accused no. 1 made the following endorsement in his own hand:
"These entries are in my knowledge and stand reversed. There is no financial loss to Bank or anybody. Change your password immediately".
CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 77 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 78
65. It has been argued on behalf of the accused no. 1 that as per bank procedure, high value clearing was time bound. The high value cheques received in the morning were sent in high value clearing to clearing department on the same day in the morning and credit afforded in the respective accounts. In case for any reason, the dealing clearing official was not present, it would be the responsibility of the Chief Manager to get this work done through any other official or do the same himself. It has been argued that on the relevant day i.e. 20.03.1998, Sh. A.K. Bhalla had come to the bank late. Therefore, he provided his password for clearance /authorization. It is further submitted that if the entries were made under the password of Chief Manager and if there was some error in making such entries, it could not be rectified. Therefore, first the password of the Junior Officer is used so that if there was any punching error, same could be rectified by using the password of the Chief Manager. However, the endorsement of accused no. 1 that has been reproduced above does not support these contentions.
66. The letter of PW5 reproduced above and the endorsement of accused no. 1 thereon proves that accused no. 1 blatantly disregarded the safeguards and established CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 78 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 79 guidelines to carry out such high value transactions single handedly whereas it involved two officers and for this purpose he did not even hesitate to use the password of PW5 Sh. A.K. Bhalla unauthorizedly.
BILLS OF LADING - FAKE Vs GENUINE
67. There are two sets of Bills of Lading on record. The first set comprises of 7 original B/Ls (Exh PW 7/H to Exh PW 7/N). The photocopies of these 7 B/Ls were also exhibited as Exh PW2/G1 to Exh PW2/G7. The second set of B/L is the subject matter of 11 FOBP files maintained by the Kailash Colony branch of Punjab & Sind Bank. Out of these 11 files, B/Ls are available only in 6 files. These 6 discounted bills are Exh PW4/A to Exh PW4/F. It is noted that the Bill of Lading bearing no. DEL/DXB/2107 in respect of file Ex.PW28/D was erroneously tagged in the office file Ex.PW28/H. Thus, there are 7 B/Ls available out of the 11 FOPB files. The first set comprises of 7 original B/Ls seized from the residence of Sh Jagdish Arora, father of Accused no. 2 &3. Case of the accused is that both the sets of B/Ls pertain to the same transaction. The witnesses, however, have proved the contrary.
CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 79 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 80
68. PW2 Sh Satish Dutta , Accountant in M/s RNC Freight Movers proved the relevant entries Exh PW2/DW1 to Exh PW2/D8 recorded in his own hand in the Bill of Lading Register pertaining to the year 199798 (Exh PW2/B.). These entries pertain to forwarding of the consignments of Carda India Pvt Ltd for which the containers were provided by M/s RNC Freight Movers and were shipped through Hanjin Shipping Company Limited vide the B/Ls Exh PW 7/H to Exh PW 7/N. He , thus , proved that B/Ls Exh PW7/H to Exh PW 7/N were the genuine bills.
69. PW2 also showed how the B/Ls that were discounted were forged bills. He referred to the discounted B/Ls Exh PW4/B dt 21/12/1996 & Exh PW 4/C dt 21/12/1996. The container numbers mentioned in these two B/Ls are same as those mentioned in B/Ls Exh PW7/N dt 31/12/1996 and Exh PW 7/K dt 31/12/1996. PW2 deposed that it was not possible that if a container was sent to Dubai on 21/12/1996, it could return to India (Delhi) on 31/12/1996 and again reloaded. It negates the contention of the accused that the original B/Ls recovered from the house of Sh Jagdish Arora pertained to the same shipment as the B/Ls submitted for discounting.
CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 80 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 81
70. PW2 also referred to the other discounted B/Ls to show how invoice numbers. and container numbers were not mentioned on them. The container number was mentioned only on the B/L Exh PW4/D. PW2 explained that container number was necessary to be mentioned in the B/Ls as this number proved that the consignment had been exported. There was no substantial challenge to the testimony of PW2.
71. The testimony of PW2 regarding discounted B/Ls Exh PW4/A to F being forged ones was further strengthened by PW 4 Sh Venkatraman Sekar, Manager, Gulf Ocean Shipping Pvt Ltd and PW 11 Ms Meenu Peterson, documentation assistant in Gulf Ocean Shipping Pvt Ltd. The company Gulf Ocean is subagent for North India for Maltrans Shipping Agency Pvt Ltd and Spoonbill Maritime Agencies. PW 4 and PW11 deposed that during 199697, PW 4 Sh. V. Sekar was the authorized signatory and the B/Ls Exh PW4/A to F did not bear his signatures. They also stated that any other official of Gulf Ocean too had not signed these B/Ls. They proved the Bill of lading registers for the year 199697 of Maltrans Shipping Agencies Pvt Ltd (Exh PW4/G) and of Spoonbill Maritime Agencies (Exh PW 4/H) maintained CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 81 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 82 by them in respect of the Bills of Lading issued from their office. There is no entry related to B/Ls Exh PW4/A to D in the register Exh PW4/G. Similarly, there was no entry in respect of B/Ls Exh PW 4/E & F in the register Exh PW 4/H. Both the PWs stood steadfast on their stand that the B/Ls Exh PW 4/A to F were not issued by them and were forged.
72. PW7 Sh CB Chandermohan was the Assistant Manager, Customer Service in Confreight Shipping Agency (CHA) at Delhi. He proved the original B/L including Exh PW7/H to Exh PW 7/ N alongwith their annexures.
73. On the other hand, the accused did not summon any record either from Gulf Ocean or from any other subagent, if any, of Maltrans Shipping Agencies or Spoonbill Maritime or from CHA to show that the B/L submitted by Accused no. 2,3 & 4 with the Bank for discounting were genuine ones. Thus, prosecution has proved beyond any doubt that the B/Ls Exh PW 7/H to N were the genuine ones and the ones submitted for discounting (Exh PW 4/A to Exh PW4/F)were the forged ones. It goes without saying that no goods were supplied against the fake B/Ls.
CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 82 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 83
74. The comparison between the genuine B/Ls and the forged ones would show that the details such as Shipping bill no., Container no. and GR no. of the genuine bills were used in the false B/Ls submitted for discounting. Before elucidating the features of the genuine and fake B/Ls by way of charts, it would be apt to also discuss that while processing the false B/Ls, several discrepancies were pointed out while the 11 FOBP files were being handled by PW28 Sh Satish Kumar Anand, Manager at the Bank and Sh Jasjit Singh, clerk. Accused no. 1 disregarded these objections and continued to direct purchasing of the fake B/Ls. The consolidated list of all the objections mentioned on the Sanction memos for Post shipment advance in the FOBP files is as follows:
i. Bill of exchange was drawn in favour of the drawee and not the bank.
ii. Goods were consigned directly to the party. iii. Indemnity and debit vouchers were not submitted.
iv. Packing list was not separately drawn. v. ECGC policy/limit on buyer not held/obtained. vi. Bill of Lading did not contain the requisite 'shipped on board' / 'clean on board' clause.
CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 83 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 84 vii.Status report of the buyer was not received. viii. Insurance cover note was not submitted/held. ix. The required ECGC exporters policy not submitted.
x. Copy of Bill of Lading not submitted with the bank for scrutiny.
xi. Status report on the buyer M/s AlEmera, Dubai not received from Habib Bank, Dubai. xii.No due dates of the bills already forwarded was conveyed by the foreign bank i.e. Habib Bank. xiii. Certificate of origin not submitted. xiv. Discount of one $ per TV Set allowed against amount given in order.
xv. Limit on buyer not held ( to be given by ECGC ).
Exporter Caution listed.
xvi. SB certificate required for shipping. xvii. RBI Code differ in GR. New RBI Code not submitted.
xviii. Value mentioned on c/o requires authentication.
75. I shall also reflect the objections taken in specific sanction memos alongwith the endorsements of Accused no. 1 in the charts below apart from other relevant details:
CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 84 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 85 DETAILS OF DISCOUNTED BILLS OF LADING(B/L) Srl FOBP NO. No. & Date of Shipping Carrie GR No. Contain Invoice Objections No issue of B/L Bill No. r mention er No. annexed in on the mentione ed on mention the FOBP sanction d on B/L B/L ed on file memo & B/L Endst.* of A1
1. 47/P/36302 DEL/DXB/ 299 10731 dt. IAL AJ 29/96 dt. Sanction 7/96 dt. 29.10.199 contain 624780 26.10.1996 memo for Office file 04.11.1996 6 er Ex.PW6/J post Ex.PW6/J (Ex.PW4/A) (Ex.PW3/ lying shipment A) (UK) advance Ltd for (Ex.PW6/ Maltra J) ns Objection Shippi No. v, ix, ng vi, vii, xiv Agenci Endst:B/L es be India purchased;
certain percentage be kept as margin.
2. 47/P/36302 DEL/BXB/ Shipping AJ 30/96 dt. Sanction 9/96 00229 dt. bill 624703 07.11.1996 memo for Office file 20.11.1996 (Ex.PW3/ (not post on record. (B/L not part of B) is part exhibited) shipment the office file; of the advance details taken office file. (Ex.PW28 from other /A1) documents in Objection the office file.) No. ix, v, CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 85 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 86 Srl FOBP NO. No. & Date of Shipping Carrie GR No. Contain Invoice Objections No issue of B/L Bill No. r mention er No. annexed in on the mentione ed on mention the FOBP sanction d on B/L B/L ed on file memo & B/L Endst.* of A1 vi, xi Endst: Bill be purchased;
party has applied for ECGC enhanceme nt.
3. 47/P/36303 DEL/DXB/002 Shipping AJ 31/96 dt. Sanction 0/96 11 dt. bill 624787 21.11.1996 memo for Office file 25.11.1996 (Ex.PW3/ dated (Ex.PW26/ post on record. (B/L not part of C) Is part 21.11.19 A39) shipment the office file; of the 96 advance details taken office file (Ex.PW28 from other /A2) documents in Objection the office file.) no. ix, v, vi, xi Endst: Bill be purchased;
party had applied for ECGC Limit for Rs.5 crores to be submitted by the end of next week;
Foreign
Bank be
CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 86 of 126
RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D
87
Srl FOBP NO. No. & Date of Shipping Carrie GR No. Contain Invoice Objections No issue of B/L Bill No. r mention er No. annexed in on the mentione ed on mention the FOBP sanction d on B/L B/L ed on file memo & B/L Endst.* of A1 again reminded about the status report;
15% margin be kept in FDR.
4. 47/P/36303 DEL/DXB/002 11675 dt. Pengui AJ 32/96 dt. Sanction 3/96 199 dt. 27.11.199 n 624797 27.11.1996 memo for Office file 30.11.1996 6 Shippi (Ex.PW26/ post on record. (Ex.PW4/E) (Ex.PW3/ ng A46) shipment D) Agenci advance es (for (Ex.PW28 Spoonb /A3) ill Objection Maritin no. v, vii, e ix, x Agenci Endst:
es (P) Party had
Ltd. applied for
ECGC
enhanceme
nt; B/L
received
might have
been sent
to Bank
with
collection
schedule;
party had
been asked
to provide
CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 87 of 126
RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D
88
Srl FOBP NO. No. & Date of Shipping Carrie GR No. Contain Invoice Objections No issue of B/L Bill No. r mention er No. annexed in on the mentione ed on mention the FOBP sanction d on B/L B/L ed on file memo & B/L Endst.* of A1 copy of B/L which was not on the record;
Bill be purchased.
5. 47/P/36303 DEL/DXB/002 Shipping AJ 33/96 dt. Sanction 4/96 200 bill 624798 27.11.1996 memo for Office file (B/L not part of (Ex.PW3/ dt. (Ex.PW26/ post on record. the office file; E) is part 27.11.19 A50) shipment details taken of the 96 advance from other office file. (Ex.PW28 documents in /A5) the office file.) Objection no. v, vi, vii, viii Endst:
Since realization of Rs.8 lacs had come on that day, FOBP of Rs. 8 lacs be allowed.
6. 47/P/36303 DEL/DXB/210 12327 dt. IAL AJ HJ CU 38/96 dt. No 7/96 2 dt. 16.12.199 contain 624670 7120588 13.12.1996 sanction Office file 21.12.1996 6 er Line 40 (not memo or is Ex.PW4/B EX.PW3/ (UK) exhibited objection Ex.PW28/ F. Ltd for separately) in the B Maltra office file.
ns
Shippi
CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 88 of 126
RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D
89
Srl FOBP NO. No. & Date of Shipping Carrie GR No. Contain Invoice Objections No issue of B/L Bill No. r mention er No. annexed in on the mentione ed on mention the FOBP sanction d on B/L B/L ed on file memo & B/L Endst.* of A1 ng Agenci es
7. 47/P/36300 DEL/DXB/210 12328 dt. IAL AJ KSCU 37/96 dt. No 1/97 1 dt. 16.12.199 contain 624671 4154440 13.12.1996 sanction Office file 21.12.1996 6 er Line 40 Ex.PW26/ memo or is Ex.PW4/C Ex.PW3/ (UK) A66 objection Ex.PW28/ G Ltd for in the C Maltra office file.
ns Shippi ng Agenci es
8.* 47/P/36300 DEL/DXB/210 Shipping AJ 35/96 dt. No * 2/97 7 dt. Bill is 624701 12.12.1996 sanction Office file 09.01.1997 annexed in Ex.PW26/ memo or is (B/L not part of FOBP file A72 objection Ex.PW28/ the office file; as in the D details taken Ex.PW3/ office file.
from other H
documents in
the office file.)
9. 47/P/36300 DEL/DXB/300 Shipping AJ 45 dated Sanction
7/97 2 dt. bill is 624637 27.01.1997 memo for
Office file 03.02.1997 annexed in Ex.PW26/ post
is (B/L not part of FOBP file A76 shipment
Ex.PW28/ the office file; as advance
F details taken Ex.PW3/I (Ex.PW28
from other /E)
documents in Objection
the office file.) no. v, xv,
vi, viii,
xiii, xi
CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 89 of 126
RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D
90
Srl FOBP NO. No. & Date of Shipping Carrie GR No. Contain Invoice Objections No issue of B/L Bill No. r mention er No. annexed in on the mentione ed on mention the FOBP sanction d on B/L B/L ed on file memo & B/L Endst.* of A1 Endst:
Purchase the bill.
10 47/P/36302 MUM/DUB/97 10008959 Babaji AP BLJU 9/9798 dt. Sanction
(i) 1/97 2323 dt. 32 dt. Shippi 322867 292347 13.08.1997 memo for Office file 26.08.1997 14.08.199 ng dt. 4 Not post is (Ex.PW4/D) 7 (in (UK) 13.08.19 separately shipment Ex.PW28/ (the rear side respect of Ltd. 97 exhibited. advance H with stamp of Wall For (Ex.PW28 Carda is Clocks) NLS /G) Ex.PW26/A Agenc Objection
85) y no. xvi, (India) xvii, xviii, Pvt. iv, ii, i, iii Ltd. It was also noted 'overdue and all bills are crystallized '.
Endst:
Document be purchased;
party to rectify defect;
ECGC be asked about approval;
payment of
overdue
CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 90 of 126
RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D
91
Srl FOBP NO. No. & Date of Shipping Carrie GR No. Contain Invoice Objections No issue of B/L Bill No. r mention er No. annexed in on the mentione ed on mention the FOBP sanction d on B/L B/L ed on file memo & B/L Endst.* of A1 bills has started.
ii) do DEL/DXB 12275 dt. IAL AJ 2107 dt. 13.02.199 contain 624701
09.01.1997 (in 6 er Line respect of (UK) Color TV Sets) Ltd for (the Maltra endorsement of ns Ex.PW4/D has Shippi been ng erroneously Agenci made on this es document) 11 47/P/36303 DXB/2001 dt. 12374, Middle AJ 14 dt. No 5/96 17.12.1996 12376 dt. East X 624668 12.12.1996 sanction Office file Ex.PW4/F. 16.12.199 Press & AJ Ex.PW26/ memo or Ex.PW28/ 6 Lines 624667 A91 & objection J (Karam Ex.PW26/ Inc. 15 dated in the Tex India) A88 and For 12.12.1996 office file.
Ex.PW26/ Spoonb Ex.PW26/
A87 ill A90.
Mariti
me
* Endst. refers to the endorsement of accused no.1 K.S.
Chadha on the objections recorded on the sanction memos.
** The B/L referred to at Srl no.8 ( Exh PW 28/D) has been found in the Office file of FOBP 47/P/363021/97( Exh PW 28/H).Perusal of CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 91 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 92 office files Exh PW28/D & Exh PW28/H shows that the B/L has been inadvertently placed in file office file Exh PW28/H whereas it is the subject matter of office file Exh PW/28/D. The details at srl no.10(ii) ,therefore, will be read as part of srl no.8.
ORIGINAL/GENUINE BILL OF LADINGS RECOVERED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF SH. JAGDISH ARORA, FATHER OF ACCUSED NO. 2 AND 3.
Sl. B/L No. & Carrier SB No. GR Containe Remarks
N date of issue No. r no.
O
1. Ex.PW7/H Hanjin 12275 dt. AJ TRLU SB & GR no.
HJSCDELI Shipping 13.12.199 62470 457425-7 used in FOBP
10153003 Company 6 1 47/P/363002/ 97
dt.19.01.199 Ltd. (for Exh PW28/D
7 Confreigh
t Shipping
Agencies
2. Ex.PW7/I -do- 111513 dt. AJ KSCU GR no. used in
HJSCDELI 21.11.199 62478 412430-1 FOBP
10138006 6 7 47/P/363030/ 96
dt.
05.12.1996
3. Ex.PW7/J -do- 11675 dt. AJ- HJCU SB & GR no.
HJSCDELI 27.11.199 62479 717186-2 used in FOBP
10143601 6 7 47/P/363033/ 96
dt.
10.12.1996
4. Ex.PW7/K -do- 12328 dt. AJ- KSCU SB,GR,Containe
HJSCDELI 16.12.199 62467 415444-0 r no. used in
10148404 6 1 FOBP
dt. 47/P/363001/97
31.12.1996 Exh PW28/C
5. -do- 10731 dt. AJ- HJCU
Ex.PW7/L 29.10.199 62478 721277-1 SB & GR no.
HJSCDELI 6 0 used in FOBP
10126205 47/P/363027/96
CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 92 of 126
RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D
93
Sl. B/L No. & Carrier SB No. GR Containe Remarks
N date of issue No. r no.
O
dt. Exh PW6/J
24.11.1996
6. Ex.PW7/M -do- 11121 dt. AJ- HJCU GR no. used in
HJSCDELI 08.11.199 62470 713411-2 FOBP no.
10137604 6 3 47/P/363029/96
dt.
28.11.1996
7. Ex.PW7/N -do- 12327 dt. AJ- HJCU SB,GR,Containe
HJSCDELI 16.12.199 62467 712058-8 r no. used in
10147706 dt. 6 0 FOBP
31.12.1996 47/P/363037/96
Exh PW28/B
76. It has been discussed above how prosecution has proved that the details of the genuine B/Ls by which consignments were dispatched to Al Emara, Dubai were used to create false B/Ls for the purpose of discounting.
CONTENTION OF ACCUSED REGARDING GENUINENESS OF THE B/Ls
77. The defense of the accused is that part payments in respect of B/Ls bearing numbers (i) DEL/DXB/299 dt 04/11/1996 (Exh PW4/A), (ii) DEL/BXB/00229 dt. 20/11/1996, (iii) DXB/2001 dt 17/12/1996 were received which show that these were genuine B/Ls. Reference has been made to the register Ex.PW28/K in which CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 93 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 94 particulars of crystallization of the B/Ls have been recorded.
78. At page 58 of Ex.PW28/K, entries regarding FOBP 47/C/363027/96 in respect of M/s Carda are mentioned. The entry is dated 13.11.1996. Amongst the particulars of shipping document, B/L No. DEL/DXB/299 dated 04.11.1996 is mentioned. In the column of 'Amount of the Bill in Foreign Currency' is mentioned as USD 70675. Thereafter, amounts of USD 2990, USD 9990 (on 15.09.1997) and USD 10990 (on 18.02.1998) have been shown as deducted. Certain deductions against the dates 18.09.1997, 15.09.1997, 17.02.1998 and 30.03.1998 have also been shown under the column 'Rupee equivalent'. There is also an endorsement 'Amt. sent to HOPEX as bill USD 70675 crystallized at 35.99 i.e. Rate Diff .11 i.e. Rs.777400'. The name and address of the drawee is Al Emera Electronics Est., PO Box 29516, Karama, Dubai.
79. At page 60 of this register, the entry is dated 28.11.1996.
This is in respect of FOBP 47/P/360029/96 of M/s Carda India Limited. It is noted that there is an overwriting in the FOBP number. The FOBP number 47/P/363029/96 was changed to 47/P/360029/96. FOBP No. 47/P/360029/96 is not related to the present controversy.
CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 94 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 95 Be that as it may, this entry also provides that exporters code no. is DC 003532 and IEC no. is 0595077067. These details are provided at page no. 58 as well. The B/L no. is DEL/DXB/0029 dated 20/11. It mentions that the amount of bill in Foreign Currency was USD 70675. An amount of USD 9990/ was deducted on 15/09. The bill was crystallized on 08.05.1997 at the exchanged rate of Rs.36.04 per US Dollar. The name and address of the drawee is Al Emera Electronics Est., PO Box 29516, Karama, Dubai.
80. At page 67 of this register, entry dated 20.12.1996 pertains to FOBP 47/P/363035/96. This is in respect of M/s Karam Tex India. The name and address of the drawee is Gulf Waves Trading Est. The B/L No. is mentioned as DXB/DXB/2001. The amount of the bill in Foreign Currency is mentioned as USD 176000. It shows a deduction of USD 7986 on 29.05.1997. A further deduction of USD 9986 has been shown. The bill was crystallized on 04.06.1997 at the exchanged rate of 35.98.
81. It is noteworthy that vide two of the abovesaid B/Ls, goods are shown to have been dispatched to Al Emera Electronics Est. P.O Box 29516, Karama, Dubai. This address is important to understand the connection CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 95 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 96 between accused Vikram Arora and Al Emara Electronics. For this I would refer to Memorandum of Association of Al Emara Electronics Company (LLC), Dubai.
82. Mark PW 29/X1 is Memorandum of Association of Al Emara Electronics Company (Limited Liability Company). This copy has been attested by Government of Dubai, Courts Department, Notary Public on 10.12.1997. It shows that vide an agreement entered into between the parties sometime in 1997, accused Vikram Arora became a partner in the Company with 49% of shares. The Memorandum explains that the term 'the partners' shall mean the parties to this Memorandum and any person or legal entity which became the holder of a share in the capital of the Company in accordance with the term of the Memorandum. This document has not been disputed. The only contention of the accused is that the drawee Al Emara Electronics Est. is different from Al Emara (LLC) and there is no connection between accused Vikram Arora and the drawee Al Emara Electronics Est. The perusal of the Memorandum of Association of Al Emara (LLC) shows the residential address of accused Vikram Arora as MatharalTayar Bldg. Flat no. 307, CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 96 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 97 Karama, P.O. Box 29516, Dubai, UAE. The address of the drawee Al Emara Electronics Est. is also P.O Box 29516, Karama, Dubai. Thus, there is a clear connection between the drawee company Al Emara Electronics Est. Dubai and Accused Vikram Arora which can not be ignored.
83. The register pertaining to crystallization of the B/Ls shows certain part payments having been received in respect of 3 B/Ls. These part payments are not substantial in view of the bill amounts. The register Exh PW 28/K does not specify from where were these part payments received or who made these payments. In this regard, testimony of PW16 Sh Ramesh Kumar Sareen, the then Zonal Manager, is vital. He explained during his cross examination that in discounting bills part payments are not received and either the full amount of the bill is received or the full amount of bill remains unpaid. This statement has not been disputed or rebutted by the accused. Such part payments, therefore, do not exonerate the charge that the 11 B/Ls were fake, specifically, in view of the connection between Accused Vikram Arora and Al Emara.
84. The accused have relied upon a letter of Emirates Bank CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 97 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 98 dated 24/12/1996 in respect of B/L dated DXB/2001. This letter is merely an acknowledgment of receipt of collection documents from Punjab & Sind Bank. The FOBP file bearing no. 47/P/363035/96 in respect of B/L bearing no. DXB/2001 dated 17.12.1996 (Ex.PW4/F) contains a telex message dated 21.02.2000 from Emirates Bank to Punjab & Sind Bank. In this telex message, the Emirates Bank has quoted its letter dated 15.09.1997 addressed to Kailash Colony Branch vide which it had informed as follows:
'Please be advised that the subject documents remained unaccepted/unpaid by drawees despite our periodical reminders, who infact had instructed us vide their letter dated 07.04.1997 to return the same to you (enclosed copy of their letter).' The Emirates Bank also informed that it had requested for disposal instructions from Punjab & Sind Bank but did not obtain any response until 27.04.1997 upon receiving which the Emirates Bank returned the full set of documents to Punjab & Sind Bank on 30.04.1997. This document demolishes the case of the accused that part payments were received through the Emirates Bank in CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 98 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 99 respect of the Bill of Lading DXB/2001 and that, therefore, this Bill of Lading was a genuine one.
85. The other document relied upon by accused is a letter dated Sept 28, 1997. It pertains to Bill no. P/363201/97 which is not one of the 11 Bills of Lading in question.
INSPECTION REPORT DATED 23.03.1998.
86. EX.PW6/D, an annexure of the Inspection Report dated 23.03.1998, has two kinds of lists. The relevant list is the list of Current Accounts with Negative Balances as on 20.03.1998 in the Kailash Colony branch of Punjab & Sind Bank. The relevant entries are as follows:
Lgr A/c A/c OD limit DP Limit Ledger Irregular Nature No. No. holder balance amount of name security 20 3851 Carda 50,00,000/- 50,00,000/- -50,89,519.58 89,519.58 BNK.
India DEP
Ltd OTHER
20 3910 Karam 0.00 0.00 -29,89,436.50 29,89,436.50 CLEAN
(Tex) OD
India
20 3954 Carda 0.00 0.00 -13,864.05 13,864.05 CLEAN
India OD
Ltd
(Clock
Divi.)
87. The above said document is part of the inspection report dated 23.03.1998 conducted by Sh. Surender Singh CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 99 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 100 Chamak (PW6), Vigilance Officer posted at the Vigilance Department of the Head Office of Punjab & Sind Bank.
He explained in his testimony that he had submitted his report on 23.03.1998 at 15:20 hrs. on the basis of the documents / statements taken from the Kailash Colony branch of the Bank.
88. In view of the inspection report Ex.PW6/C, I shall now consider the statements of account of Carda India, Carda India (Clock Divi.) and Karam Tex. The statement of account no. 3851 of Carda India Limited is Ex.PW6/F. It shows that on 20.03.1998, the amount of Rs. 73,50,000/ was credited in the account no. 3891. As a result of this credit, the debit balance of this account as on 20.03.1998 was reduced to Rs. 50,89,519.58 from the debit balance of Rs. 1.24 crores as on 02.03.1998. This credit entry of Rs. 73,50,000/ was reversed on 23.03.1998. At the time of inspection by the Vigilance Officer (PW6), he was provided with the data of the outstanding / debit amount as on 20.03.1998. The manner in which the entry of Rs. 73,50,000/ was credited to this account by accused no. 1 has already been discussed above.
89. I shall now consider statement of account no. 3954 of Carda India Ltd (Clock Divi) (Ex.PW6/G). The CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 100 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 101 outstanding debit balance as on 18.03.1998 in this current account was Rs.35,61,614.05. An amount of Rs.35,50,000/ was credited on 20.03.1998 in this account reducing the outstanding balance to Rs.11,614.05. This entry was later reversed on 23.03.1998. The manner in which the above said credit entry of Rs.35,50,000/ was made into this account has already been discussed above.
90. The sequence of events makes it clear that the credit of high value cheques in the above said two accounts on 20.03.1998 was done in order to temporarily reduce the high debit balance being maintained in these accounts and to avoid detection of unauthorized and excessive overdrawings from the above mentioned accounts, specially, during the inspection conducted on 23.03.1998.
91. The accused have also relied upon the report of the Vigilance Officer Ex.PW6/C alongwith the annexures Ex.PW6/C1 to Ex.PW6/C5 and Ex.PW6/D to support the contention of accused no. 1 that there was a sanction of OD Limit of Rs. 50,00,000/. The perusal of the report and its annexures shows that OD Limit of Rs. 50,00,000/ has been mentioned only against account no. 3851. PW6 has stated in his testimony that the security for limit of CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 101 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 102 Rs.50,00,000/ was bank deposit. The OD Limit has been mentioned as 0.00 in respect of accounts no. 3910 and 3954. It is noted that during cross examination, PW5 stated that the Chief Manager had the discretionary power for sanction of overdraft of Rs. 5 lacs. In every way, the accused no. 1 exceeded his discretionary powers to permit overdrawing from the three accounts in question.
SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT DATED APRIL 19, 1999
92. I shall now refer to the Special Audit Report of the Kailash Colony Branch of Punjab & Sind Bank dated April 19, 1999 (Ex.PW6/E). During the course of recording of evidence of PW6, an objection was raised by ld. Counsel for the accused that there was no certificate of Bankers' Book of Evidence Act in support of this Audit Report. The objection, however, was not allowed by the Court while observing that the witness had confirmed the authenticity of this Special Audit Report after going through the contents enumerated therein. This Audit Report pertains to advanced portfolio in respect of various companies starting from 05.04.1999.
93. Regarding Karam Tex India, proprietorship concern of accused Sanjeev Arora, it has been mentioned that it was CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 102 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 103 a sister concern of M/s Carda India Ltd where Sanjeev Arora was one of the Directors. It has been observed that this party was sanctioned post shipment advance of Rs.65,00,000/ with 25% margin as FDR and without guarantor. This sanctioned limit under MDP was beyond powers delegated vide ID Cir.No. 1434 dated 28.10.1994. It was also observed that this sanction was neither recorded in the MDP register nor was reported to Zonal Office. It was also observed that no action confirmation from the competent authority was on record. There was no primary / secondary/collateral security in the sanction. No regular appraisal was done. The party had been on SAL of ECGC since 15.11.1996 and necessary approval was not taken from ECGC. It was also observed that not only security documents in the account were incomplete but the bankers' opinion/NOC had not been taken from the previous banker i.e. Vysya Bank Limited, New Delhi.
94. Regarding M/s Carda India Limited, it was observed that two current accounts no. 3851 and 3954 were opened with the branch. Preshipment credit of Rs.20 lacs and postshipment credit of Rs. 200 lacs with collateral as mortgage of property No. A82, Sector4, NOIDA valued at Rs.57 lacs was sanctioned vide MDP sanction no.
CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 103 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 104 30/96 dated 07.08.1996 the entry of which was neither made in MDP register nor copy of the MDP statement for the month of December, 1996 was on the record of the branch. Further, the appraisal note on Form No. 241(R) was undated and incomplete in many respects. These limits were further enhanced vide MDP sanction no. 137/9697 dated 11.12.1996 to preshipment credit of Rs. 20 lacs and postshipment of credit of Rs. 250 lacs without mention of any second property in the enhancement. The previous banker's opinion, its NOC and permission from ECGC were not on record. All the transactions in these three accounts have been discussed in this Special Audit Report. These discrepancies can neither be termed as negligence nor errors of judgment nor a part of liberal approach.
WITHDRAWAL OF MONEY FROM THE THREE ACCOUNTS BY ACCUSED NO. 2 AND 3:
95. The money was released on account of discounting of bills in the two current accounts of Carda India and one current account of Karam Tex India. While these three current accounts were being overdrawn by accused no. 2 and 3, the amount released on account of discounting of bills was also withdrawn by them. Ex.AD/D-4 to CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 104 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 105 Ex.AD/D-214 are the admitted cheques. These cheques were admitted during the admission/denial of documents.
Accused Sanjeev Arora withdrew the above mentioned amounts from the three accounts vide his cheques Ex.AD/D-4 to Ex.AD/D-200 issued in favour of either himself or a third party. Accused Vikram Arora withdrew the amount vide his cheques Ex.AD/D-201 to Ex.AD/D-
214. All these cheques were processed by accused no. 1 K.S. Chadha.
96. The statements of account of all the three current accounts also show that large amounts were withdrawn in cash from 19.02.1996 to 25.02.1997. Apart from that, the statement of accounts also indicate that amounts ranging from Rs. 2 lacs to Rs. 10 lacs were transferred on atleast six occasions on 11.09.1996, 18.09.1996, 18.10.1996, 07.11.1996, 15.11.1996 and 11.12.1996 from the current account no. 3851 of Carda India to the current account No. 3910 of Karam Tex India. Such transfer of amount from one account to another was clearly an attempt to camouflage the cash drawing from the bank in connivance with accused K.S. Chadha.
SANCTION U/SEC. 19 OF THE PC ACT :
97. It is not disputed that Sh. N.S.Gujral who held the CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 105 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 106 position of Chairman and Managing Director, Punjab & Sind Bank, Head Office at New Delhi on 12.11.2002 was the competent authority to grant the sanction U/Sec. 19 of the PC Act in respect of the public servant accused K.S. Chadha. At the relevant time, he had the powers to remove accused no.1 from his services. He proved the sanction order dated 12.11.2002 as Ex.PW21/A. After narrating the allegations against accused no.1 public servant, Sh. N.S. Gujral noted that after fully and carefully examining the material before him including the statement of witnesses recorded U/Sec. 161 Cr.P.C during the investigation of the case, he considered that public servant Kuldeep Singh Chadha should be prosecuted in a Court of law of competent jurisdiction for the offences U/Sec. 120B r/w Section 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and section 13(2) r/w section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988 and substantive offences thereunder. He accordingly accorded sanction U/Sec. 19(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
98. During his cross examination, he explained that the sanction order was prepared in the office of CMD under the supervision of himself and thereafter he had signed the same. In the proceedings, he was assisted by Sh. P.S. CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 106 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 107 Sodhi, the Manager of CMD office of the Bank. From his cross examination, it appears that he was assisted by 34 persons in the proceedings. He has also admitted the suggestion of accused no. 1 during cross examination that a case had already been registered against him by the CBI and other bank officials and a company before the sanction order Ex.PW21/A was signed by him. On the date of his cross examination i.e. 06.01.2012, he was not able to recall whether or not he had gone through the FIR of the present case, who the complainant was and whether or not he had signed the chargesheet filed in the present case.
99. Accused no. 1 summoned the file pertaining to grant of sanction. This file was produced by DW2 Sh. Inderjeet Singh Sethi, AGM, Head Office, Vigilance Department of Punjab & Sind Bank. He testified that as per the record contained in the file, a letter was received from CBI alongwith confidential SP Report and other material with request to grant sanction for prosecution against public servant K.S. Chadha. He stated that the file did not contain any other office note. The file contained the sanction order dated 12.11.2002 granted by Sh. N.S. Gujral. He further testified that as per the record, the CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 107 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 108 sanction order was sent to CBI with a forwarding letter and an information was also sent to Ministry of Finance.
He stated that there was no document in the file to show that any opportunity of hearing was given by the sanctioning authority to the public servant before or after consideration of the request of CBI. A draft sanction order was also available on the office file. The copy of this draft order was taken on record as Ex.DW2/A. The summoned witness clarified that in the forwarding letter of CBI, nothing was mentioned about the draft sanctioned order. He also stated that in the office file, no other material sent by CBI except SP report was available. However, calendar of evidence containing the list of witnesses and documents and one statement of accused K.S. Chadha was available.
100. The above said testimony of DW2 shows that CBI had placed such material / documents before the competent authority Sh. N.S. Gujral on the basis of which he could make up his mind regarding according of sanction U/Sec. 19(1)(c) of the PC Act, 1988. The order of grant of sanction U/Sec. 19 of the PC Act is an administrative order and a prima facie satisfaction that a case under the PC Act made out against the public servant is required. It CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 108 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 109 does not require any inquiry to be conducted or granting any opportunity to the concerned public servant to explain his defence. There is nothing to suggest that the competent authority did not apply its mind before granting the sanction to prosecute.
101. Ld. counsel for the accused has relied upon judgment dated May 28, 2013 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Crl.Appeal No. 2345 of 2009 titled as 'State of Maharashtra through CBI vs. Mahesh G. Jain' to bring home the point that it is for the prosecution to adduce the evidence that the material was placed before the sanctioning authority and his satisfaction was arrived at upon perusal of the material placed before him. It has been discussed above that not only has PW21 Sh. N.S. Gujral mentioned in his sanction order the specific details of the allegations against the public servant but that he had also gone through the material placed before him by the CBI. The record produced by the summoned witness DW2 also proves that material was placed before PW21 in support of the request of CBI for grant of sanction. Thus, there is no doubt that the competent authority in the present case had satisfied itself that case for sanction was made out. In the above said judgment of Hon'ble CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 109 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 110 Supreme Court of India, it has been observed :
'The reasons ascribed by the ld. Trial Judge appear as if he is sitting in appeal over the order of sanction. True it is, grant of sanction is a sacrosanct and sacred act and is intended to provide a safeguard to the public servant against vexatious litigation but simultaneously when there is an order of sanction by the competent authority indicating application of mind, the same should not be lightly dealt with. The flimsy technicalities cannot be allowed to be tools in the hands of an accused. In the obtaining factual matrix, we must say without any iota of hesitation that the approach of the learned trial Judge as well as that of learned single Judge is wholly incorrect and does not deserve acceptance'.
102. Accused no. 1 has also relied upon the judgment dated November 22, 2013 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Crl.Appeal no. 1838 of 2013 titled as 'CBI vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal'. The perusal of this judgment shows that in this case, the covering letter of the draft sanctioned dated 24.05.2007 did not make it clear as to what had been sent to the sanctioning authority. In the covering CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 110 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 111 letter, it was mentioned that further list of witnesses and list of documents would be provided, if necessary. It was in these circumstances that Hon'ble Supreme of India observed that even on the date when the draft sanction was sent, the investigation was not complete. Further, the relevant material was not sent to the Vigilance Department of CBDT by CBI despite request. In the present case under consideration, however, the facts of the above said case law do not apply.
103. Reliance has also been placed by accused no. 1 on S.N. Bose vs. State of Bihar, 1968 AIR 1292 wherein it was observed that the rules did not establish that PW1 was competent to grant the sanction in question. This case law is not applicable to the present case as there is no challenge to PW21 Sh. N.S. Gujral, the then Chairman and Managing Director of Punjab & Sind Bank being the competent authority in respect of grant of sanction U/Sec. 19 of the PC Act.
104. Ld. counsel for the accused has also relied upon State vs. V. Devarajan, judgment dated 27.04.2007 of Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in Crl. Appeal no. 288 of 2001 and Diwan Chand vs. State, 1982 Cri.LJ 720 of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court. Both these CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 111 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 112 judgments are not applicable to the facts of the present case. In Devarajan's case, the competent authority had stated in his cross examination that he had accorded sanction on the basis of the report of the legal advisor but the said report was not available. In Diwan Chand's case, the draft was prepared by CBI and the General Manager had merely signed it even though it contained a completely irrelevant matter at the end of the sanction order.
105. Coming back to the case law State of Maharashtra through CBI vs. Mahesh G. Jain, (2014) ICS (Cri) 515, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India discussed various case laws and culled out following principles in respect of grant of sanction:
"13. From the aforesaid authorities the following principles can be culled out:
a) It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that the valid sanction has been granted by the sanctioning authority after being satisfied that a case for sanction has been made out.
b) The sanction order may expressly show that the sanctioning authority has perused the material placed before him and, after CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 112 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 113 consideration of the circumstances, has granted sanction for prosecution.
c) The prosecution may prove by adducing the evidence that the material was placed before the sanctioning authority and his satisfaction was arrived at upon perusal of the material placed before him.
d) Grant of sanction is only an administrative function and the sanctioning authority is required to prima facie reach the satisfaction that relevant facts would constitute the offence.
e) The adequacy of material placed before the sanctioning authority cannot be gone into by the court as it does not sit in appeal over the sanction order.
f) If the sanctioning authority has perused all the materials placed before him and some of them have not been proved that would not vitiate the order of sanction.
g) The order of sanction is a prerequisite as it is intended to provide a safeguard to public servant against frivolous and vexatious CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 113 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 114 litigants, but simultaneously an order of sanction should not be construed in a pedantic manner and there should not be a hyper technical approach to test its validity".
106. In the light of above discussion and in view of the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Mahesh G Jain's case, it is established that the sanction order (Ex.PW21/A) is valid sanction as envisaged U/Sec. 19 of the PC Act.
ISSUE OF SEPARATE SANCTION UNDER SECTION 197 CR.P.C
107. Ld. counsel for the accused has argued that even though the sanction U/Sec. 19 of the P.C Act was on record, the sanction U/Sec. 197 Cr.P.C in respect of the offences under the Indian Penal Code was also required. Reliance has been placed upon N.K. Ganguly vs. CBI, New Delhi, (2016) 2 SCC 143.
108. However , it has been held in 'K.Ch. Prasad vs Smt J.
Vanalatha Devi & Ors' , 1987 AIR 722 , (1987) 2 SCC 52 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India : " It is very clear from this provision that this Section ( section 197 CRPC ) is attracted only in cases where the public servant is such who is not removable from his office save by or with the CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 114 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 115 sanction of the Government. It is not disputed that the appellant is not holding a post where he could not be removed from service except by or with the sanction of the Government. In this view of the matter even if it is held that the appellant is a public servant still provisions of section 197 are not attracted at all."
109. In the abovementioned K. Ch. Prasad's case , the appellantaccused was a bank officer and it was contended by ld counsel for the appellantaccused that after nationalization, as the banks were nationalized, the appellant would fall within the definition of public servant and therefore section 197 would be attracted. It was also contended that although the appellant was removable by an authority which was not Government but the authority had been empowered under the regulations and these regulations had been framed with the sanction of the Government and under these circumstances therefore the view taken by the Courts below was not correct.
110. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India , however, rejected this contention holding that it did not mean that the appellant could not be removed from his service by anyone except the Government or with the sanction of the Government.
CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 115 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 116
111. The view of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in K. Ch.
Prasad's case is directly applicable to the present case as the public servant accused no. 1 K S Chadha was a Bank employee ( Chief Manager ) in the Punjab & Sind Bank.
112. Even otherwise, not only has the competent authority in the present case accorded the sanction to prosecute the accused no. 1 for the offences under the PC Act but also for the offences under the Indian Penal Code. Merely, because section 197 CrPC has not been mentioned in the body of the sanction order , it does not make it invalid.
CONSPIRACY
113. Ld. counsel for the accused has relied upon the following judgments:
(i) Nand Kumar Singh vs. State of Bihar, 1992 SCC (Cri) 538;
(ii) Sanjiv Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1999 Cri.LJ. 1138.
(iii) K.R. Puroshothaman vs. State of Kerala, 2005 (3) JCC 1847.
(iv) S. Arul Raja vs. State of Tamilnadu, (2010) 8 SCC 233.
(v) L.Chandraiah vs. State of A.P, AIR 2004 SC 252.
CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 116 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 117
114. I have considered the abovesaid case laws wherein it has been held that a meeting of minds to form a criminal conspiracy must be proved. To constitute a conspiracy, agreement between two or more persons for doing an illegal act, or an act by illegal means, is a sine qua non.
Although the agreement among the conspirators can be inferred by necessary implication, the inference can only be drawn on the parameters in the manner of proved facts, in the nature of circumstantial evidence. Whatever the incriminating circumstance, it must be clearly established by reliable evidence and they must form the full chain whereby a conclusion about the guilt of the accused can be safely drawn.
115. It is well settled that direct evidence of conspiracy is not forthcoming. The meeting of minds of the coconspirators can, however, be culled out from the circumstantial evidence.
116. It has been proved that while Accused no. 2 & 3 being the Directors of Accused no.4 company Carda India Pvt Ltd approached the Bank for opening the current accounts , they were asked to submit the required documents such as Audited Balance Sheet etc . They neither came forth with the required documentation nor regular proposal was submitted with the concerned bank officer (PW 10). Yet CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 117 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 118 Accused no. 1 authorised the opening of the three currents accounts in question. Despite their being no application on behalf of the Accused no. 2,3 & 4 for grant of various facilities such as Post shipping advance , packing credit, FOBP facilities, OD facilities etc , the Accused no. 1 permitted overdrawing facilities and various other facilities/limits to such an extent which was way beyond his discretionary powers. The Accused no. 2,3 & 4 not only massively overdrew the three current accounts but they also assisted accused no. 1 in his bid to avoid detection by issuing several high value cheques from such accounts which were already closed. The credit entries of such cheques temporarily reduced the high debit balance in the current accounts. The entries were later reversed on account of those cheques being returned unpaid. To cover up these illegal acts, accused no. 1 also created in his own hand false appraisal notes and used them to create sanctioning orders. He also tampered with the bank record like MDP register and entered details of false sanctioning order by using an already existing MDP no. in the register in his own hand and under his own signatures.
117. At the same time, the Accused no. 2,3 & 4 submitted forged B/Ls for discounting. Accused no.1 directed purchase of these B/Ls ignoring various objections CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 118 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 119 mentioned on the sanction memos for post shipment advance. Processing of all the cheques through which the money was withdrawn/overdrawn by Accused no. 2 & 3 from the three current accounts was authorised by Accused no. 1. The chain of events is complete and the conspiracy between all the accused persons to defraud the Bank using false / forged documents and by abuse of his position as public servant by accused no.1 for obtaining pecuniary advantage for accused no. 2,3 & 4 is established beyond any doubt.
HEARSAY EVIDENCE:
118. The complaint on the basis of which the FIR in the instant case was lodged is Ex.PW25/A. The complainant Sh. N.R.B. Patnaik, the then Chief Vigilance Officer, Punjab & Sind Bank testified that he had lodged this complaint on behalf of the Bank on the basis of the reports received by him pertaining to the allegations of irregular purchase of foreign bills, unauthorized extension of credit facilities beyond the discretionary powers of the Branch Manager, not reporting the said credit facilities to the Zonal Office and for causing undue losses to the Bank to the extent of approximately Rs. 5.50 crores. Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that no reports were annexued with CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 119 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 120 the complaint of the complainant, therefore, the complaint is at best a hearsay evidence.
119. The Court does not find any merit in this argument. The present case is based upon documentary evidence collected during investigation pursuant to lodging of the abovesaid complaint. The concept of hearsay evidence cannot be invoked in these circumstances. The case law relied upon by the accused Ravinder Kumar vs. State, (Crl.Appeal no. 31/1994 with Crl.Appeal no. 21/1994; judgment delivered on 03.07.2009) is not applicable to the present case as facts of that case are totally different.
OTHER ARGUMENTS:
120. Ld. counsel for the accused has relied upon Willie (William) Slaney vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1955 IND LAW SC 80 and has argued that the charge in the present case has not been properly framed which prejudices the entire trial. It has been argued that the charge does not contain specific allegations such as details of the overdraft, specific rules, details of the cheques etc. There are no merits in this argument as the allegations against the accused in brief and various sections of PC Act and IPC invoked against the accused CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 120 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 121 persons have been clearly specified. There is no requirement of mentioning each and every documentary evidence in the charge. The charge against the accused persons has been framed in accordance with Section 211 Cr.P.C.
121. It has also been argued that in the absence of proof of demand or request from the public servant for a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage , the offence under section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act can not be held to be established. Ld Counsel for the accused has relied upon the judgment dated 22/11/2013 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Crl MC 2384/2011 & Crl MA no. 8693/2011 titled as ' A K Ganju vs CBI'. I have perused the judgment carefully. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi also placed reliance on 'Subhash Parbat Sonvane vs State of Gujarat , (2002) 5 SCC 86' wherein it has been held that for convicting the person under section 13(1)(d) , there must be evidence on record that accused 'obtained' for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by either corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his position as a public servant or he obtained for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest. In the present case under CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 121 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 122 consideration, it has been established beyond doubt how accused no.1 abused his position as public servant to obtain pecuniary advantage for accused no. 2,3 & 4.
122. Regarding the argument that payment has been made by the accused no. 2,3 & 4 to the Bank pursuant to the order of Debt Recovery Tribunal , it has been held in CBI vs Jagjit Singh ( Crl Appeal no. 1580 of 2013 ; judgment dated 1st October 2013 ) by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that recovery of a debt which was due to the Bank can not be said to be a compromise between offender and the victim. Such recovery , therefore , will have no mitigating effect in the present case. It is also noted that out of the decretal amount of Rs 4,74,38,493/, an amount of Rs 48.50 lakh only was recovered.
123. Lastly, it has also been argued that a company can not be prosecuted and punished for criminal offences as a juristic person lacks mens rea. In the present case , the Accused no. 4 company has been charged with offences punishable u/s 420 IPC and 471 IPC. The issue raised by Ld Counsel for Accused has already been laid to rest by the Hon'ble Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India in 'Standard Chartered Bank vs Directorate of Enforcement, (2005) 4 SCC 530' and has been reiterated CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 122 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 123 in 'Iridium India Telecom Ltd vs Motorola Incorporated & Ors , (2011) 1 SCC 74'. Companies and corporate houses can not claim immunity from criminal prosecution on the ground that they are incapable of possessing necessary mens rea for commission of criminal offences. There is no dispute that a company is liable to be prosecuted and punished for criminal offences although the criminal act is committed through its agents.
CONCLUSION
124. Explanation to section 415 IPC provides that a dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section. Accused no. 1 in furtherance of conspiracy with Accused no 2,3 & 4 himself manipulated the Bank records to conceal such facts as would have dissuaded the Punjab & Sind Bank from extending various facilities and limits to Accused no. 2,3 and 4. By such concealments , he deceived the Punjab and Sind Bank and induced it to extend such facilities to Accused no. 2,3 and 4 which resulted in wrongful loss to the tune of Rs 5.54 crores to the Bank and corresponding gain to the Accused no. 2,3 and 4. The prosecution has also established beyond any doubt that the appraisal note Exh CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 123 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 124 PW 9/A was prepared by Accused no.1 in his own hand and signatures of Senior manager on this document were forged. The Accused no.1 used this document to prepare sanctioning order Exh PW 10/A knowing fully well that Exh PW 9/A was a false document. He also altered the entries dt 11/12/1996 in the MDP register. Accused no. 1 also abused his position as public servant and exceeded his discretionary powers in violation of various guidelines and circulars to obtain for Accused no.2,3 & 4 pecuniary advantage to the tune of Rs. 5.54 crores. He also authorized processing of cheques, cash withdrawls and money transfers to camouflage the illegal transactions.
125. Accused no. 2,3 & 4 used forged/false Bills of lading to cheat the complainant Bank in connivance with Accused no. 1. They also availed various facilities which they were not entitled to and in furtherance of conspiracy with Accused no. 1 , they issued various high value cheques from such accounts which were already closed and transferred amounts from one current account to the other to avoid detection and to camouflage the cash drawings. Because of their over drawings and discounting of forged bills of lading , the Bank suffered a wrongful loss of Rs 5.54 crores which resulted in corresponding wrongful CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 124 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 125 gain to Accused no. 2,3 & 4.
126. Thus, the accused no. 1 K S Chadha while posted and functioning as Chief Manager , Punjab and Sind Bank , Kailash Colony Branch , New Delhi during the year 199698 entered into criminal conspiracy with the Accused Sanjeev Arora and Vikram Arora being Directors of Accused no.4 Carda India Pvt Ltd and in pursuance thereof , the aforesaid accused persons and Carda India Ltd cheated the Punjab and Sind Bank , Kailash Colony Branch to the tune of Rs 5.54 crores which includes an amount of Rs 2.84 crores relating to foreign bills discounted on the basis of forged documents and thus caused wrongful loss to Punjab & Sind Bank and corresponding gain to themselves. They are, therefore , convicted as follows:
ACCUSED NO. 1 K S CHADHA :
He is convicted of:
(i) offence punishable u/sec 120B r/w section 420 IPC , section 471 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act,1988,
(ii) substantive offence punishable u/s 13(2) r/w section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act,1988,
(iii) substantive offence punishable u/s 420 IPC.
(iv) substantive offence punishable u/s 471 IPC.
ACCUSED NO. 2 SANJEEV ARORA CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 125 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D 126 He is convicted of:
(i) offence punishable u/sec 120B r/w section 420 IPC , section 471 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act,1988,
(ii) substantive offence punishable u/s 420 IPC,
(iii) substantive offence punishable u/s 471 IPC.
ACCUSED NO. 3 VIKRAM ARORA He is convicted of:
(i) offence punishable u/sec 120B r/w section 420 IPC , section 471 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act,1988,
(ii) substantive offence punishable u/s 420 IPC,
(iii) substantive offence punishable u/s 471 IPC.
ACCUSED NO. 4 CARDA INDIA PVT LTD It is convicted of:
(i) substantive offence punishable u/s 420 IPC,
(ii) substantive offence punishable u/s 471 IPC.
PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2016 (Vrinda Kumari) Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI3), South, Saket Court New Delhi CC No. 05/12 21.12.2016 126 of 126 RC No. 04(E)/2000/CBI/BS&FC/N.D