Delhi District Court
Central Bureau Of Investigation (Cbi) vs Sh. R. K. Kapoor (Expired) on 29 September, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. JITENDRA KUMAR MISHRA
SPECIAL JUDGE CBI (PC ACT)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : EAST DISTRICT
DELHI
AC No. 48/11
RC No. 34 (A)/99
CBI Case No (New).25/2016
CNR No. DLKA-01-000012-2002
IN THE MATTER OF :-
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
VERSUS
1 Sh. R. K. Kapoor (Expired)
S/o Late Sh. B. D. Kapoor,
Divisional Manager,
NIC Ltd. D.O.XV, New Delhi,
R/o 11-D, Bharat Apartment, Plot No.31,
I. P. Extension, Delhi-92 ....... A1
(Expired and proceedings against
him abated vide order dated 08.03.2016)
2 Sh. Bhupinder Singh (Approver)
S/o Sh. Baljeet Singh Tariyal,
Sr. Asstt, NIC ltd. D.O.XV, New Delhi.
R/o 184, Pandav Nagar, St.5, Delhi-91 ....... A2
3 Smt. Meenu Khanna @ Neenu Khanna,
W/o Sh. Arvind Khanna,
Prop. AT Random Fashions,
R/o A-104, Lok Vihar, Pitampura,
Delhi-34 ....... A3
CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 1 of 200
4 Sh. Devender Kumar Garg,
S/o Sh. R. S. Chananmal,
Prop. M/s Super Traders,
M/s Balaji Trading Co. M/s Davener Kumar,
R/o No. 491, Model Town (Urban Estate)
Bhatinda, Punjab.
Also At:
H. NO. 15/205, First Floor,
Malviya Nagar, New Delhi ....... A4
5 Sh. Arvind Khanna,
S/o Sh. K. M. Khanna,
Prop. M/s Laser Computers,
M/s Arvind Khanna, Surveyor,
R/o A-104, Lok Vihar, Pitampura,
Delhi-34. ....... A5
6 Sh. Adev Kumar Aggarwal,
S/o Sh. K. R. Aggarwal,
Prop. M/s Adev Kumar Aggarwal, Surveyor,
R/o 19416, St. 24, Bibi Walan Road,
Bhatinda, Punjab. ....... A6
7 Sh. Arvind Sharma,
S/o Sh. S. N. Sharma,
Prop. M/s Solar Enterprises,
M/s Truefit Exclusive, M/s Pooja International,
R/o GH-2/122-B, Ankur Enclave,
Paschim Vihar, Delhi
Also At:
Janta Flat No. 17, Opp. Dusshera Park,
Jwala Heri, Paschim Vihar,
New Delhi ....... A7
CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 2 of 200
8 Sh. Vijay Dayal,
S/o Sh. Padam Dayal,
Prop. M/s Vinayak Enterprises,
R/o C-2/159, West Enclave,
Pitampura, Delhi. ....... A8
9 Sh. Sanjay Verma,
S/o Sh. Om Prakash Verma,
Prop. M/s Satnam Enterprises,
R/o A-3/51, Sec.8, Rohini, Delhi-85 ....... A9
10 Sh. T. M. Khan,
S/o Sh. M. M. Khan,
Prop. M/s Traders and Recovery Consultants,
R/o No. 474, Street No.10, Sadar Bazar Cantt.,
Jabalpur.
Also At:
H. No. 1, Pankaj Vihar, Near
Aditya Parisar, New Ram Nagar,
Rampur, Jabalpur. ....... A10
11 Sh. Vijay Kumar Juneja,
S/o Late Sh. Vir Bhan (employee under
Sh. Arvind Khanna),
R/o A-26, (Back side) Saraswati Garden,
New Delhi. ....... A11
Date of institution: 02.01.2002
Date of judgment reserved: 04.06.2016
Date of judgment: 22.09.2016
CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 3 of 200
JUDGMENT
1 Facts of the case in brief are that A1 to A11 have been sent up for trial for commission of offences punishable under Section 120B read with Section 419/420/468/471/473/476 and 477A IPC and under Section 419/420/468/471/473/476/477A and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (c) and 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. 2 Allegations against the accused persons are that during the year 1997 - 1999, A1 and A2 were posted and functioning as Divisional Manager and Sr. Assistant respectively in National Insurance Co. Ltd. (NIC), DO XV, K. G. Marg, New Delhi. During the year 1998, A1 in connivance with A2 passed 10 fictitious marine claims submitted by A3 to A11 in gross violation of established norms. Out of these 10 claims, in nine claims, the claim number already allotted for the claim settlement of M/s SBCH were re-used. In another case, claim no. 98/334 was already found used in the claim settlement of M/s Srikrishna Paper Mills. Prosecution gave details of the fictitious claims passed by A1 and A2 in connivance and conspiracy with A3 to A11 in the charge sheet.
CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 4 of 200 3 It is further alleged that in claim no. 351500/98/57, A8 submitted this claim for fictitious firm M/s Vinayak Enterprises. A6 issued survey report dated 26.05.1998. A1 and A2 passed this claim for a sum of Rs. 2,72,000/-. The cheque was encashed through account no. 61154 and SBI, Jwalahari. This account was introduced by A7, owner of two fictitious firm M/s Solar Enterprises and M/s True Fit Exclusive Garments. A8 used the letter head of M/s Vinayak Enterprises for lodging a false claim.
4 It is further alleged by the prosecution that regarding claim no. 351500/98/34, again A8 got a claim for a sum of Rs. 2,62,245/- passed in connivance with other accused persons in the name of fictitious firm M/s Vinayak Enterprises in the similar manner.
It is further alleged that regarding claim no. 351500/97/717, A4 took the policy in the name of M/s Super Trader. He himself submitted the survey report by forging the letter head of Jitender Kumar, Surveyor and Loss Assessor and got issued a cheque for a sum of Rs. 2,93,095/-. A5 owner of another fictitious firm M/s Laser Computer introduced the account at Union Bank of India, Mangolpuri, CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 5 of 200 Delhi from where the cheque was got encashed.
5 It is further alleged that regarding claim no. 351500/98/278 again it is alleged that A4 took the policy in the name of M/s Balaji Trading Company. He submitted survey report in the letter head of M/s SBK Enterprises. The file was processed by A1 and A2 and a cheque for a sum of Rs.2,84,214/- was got encashed. Again A5 introduced the account. Firm M/s Balaji Traders, M/s Super Road Carrier and M/s Punjab Chemicals were found fictitious.
6 It is further alleged that regarding claim no. 351500/98/265, A5 took the policy in the name of M/s Laser Computers. The survey report was prepared by A4. Signatures of Sh. D. K. Chandel, Assistant Manager were found forged. The survery reports and recovery letters were found fictitious. A3 i.e. wife of A5 introduced the account claiming herself to be the owner of another fictitious firm M/s A. T. Random Fashions, Recovery agents.
CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 6 of 200 7 It is further alleged that regarding claim no. 351500/98/160, A5 took the policy in the name of fictitious firm M/s AT Random Fashions. He got a cheque for a sum of Rs.2,73,090/- issued in connivance with A1 and A2. The account no. 2523 belonging to A3 was used to get the amount withdrawn. The recovery agent certificate was issued by A7 on the letter head of fictitious firm. M/s Pooja Internationals, M/s AT Random Fashions was found a non-existent firm.
8 It is further alleged that regarding claim no. 351500/97/718, A5 took policy in the name of M/s AT Random Fashions. A5 submitted his claim on the basis of survey report in the letter head of A6 by forging his signatures and assessed the loss of Rs.1,43, 500/-. The cheque was encashed through A/c no. 2523 at Oriental Bank of Commerce, Sufdarjang Enclave, New Delhi. This account was introduced by A5. Cheque was signed by A3. The firm M/s AT Random Fashions, M/s Bright Garments, Abhar and M/s Assam Road lines were found fictitious.
CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 7 of 200 9 It is further alleged that regarding claim no. 351500/98/289, policy was taken in the name of M/s Satnam Impex. Claim was submitted on the letter head of M/s Satnam Impex by A9 as Sanjay Verma and the claim from was also signed by A11 as A9. A11 was an employee working under A7 who floated two fictitious firms i.e. M/s Solar Enterprises and M/s True Fit Exclusive Garments. Survey reported dated 18.08.1998 submitted in the name of A6 was found forged. The cheque for a sum of Rs.2,60,000/- was got encashed by A9 in the account no. 1516, Dena Bank, Pitampura and A11 forged the signature of A9. However, the amounts were withdrawn by A9 himself. The firms M/s Singh Automobiles, M/s Satnam Impex, M/s Indian Roadways were found fictitious firms.
10 It is further alleged that regarding claim no. 351500/98/334, the policy was taken in the name of M/s Solar Enterprises. Claim was submitted by A11 and he signed the letter as Sunil Batra. A7 submitted false report. The cheque for a sum of Rs. 1,97,000/- was encashed in the account no. 1336, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Paharganj which was opened by A7 in the name of fictitious firm. CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 8 of 200 11 It is further alleged that regarding claim no. 35100/98/719, A7 took the policy in the name of M/s True Fit Exclusive Garments. A8 himself signed the survey report. A cheque for a sum of Rs.2,13,200/- was issued and encashed by A7 and A5 introduced the account. M/s K. R. Golden Transport and Co. and M/s Saraswat Garments were found fictitious firm.
12 On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Court. Copies of documents were supplied to the accused persons in compliance with provisions of Section 207 Cr.PC.
Vide order dated 30.05.2005 passed by my Learned Predecessor, A2 was granted conditional pardon under Section 5 (2) of PC Act, 1988 read with Section 306 and 307 CrPC.
13 On 05.03.2016, it was informed to this Court that A1 died and copy of death certificate was filed. Same was supplied to the CBI. On 08.03.2016, it was informed to this Court that vide verification dated 07.03.2016 on behalf of CBI, death of A1 was verified. Thus proceedings of this case against A1 stands abated. CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 9 of 200 Charge 14 Charges were framed against the accused on 14.11.2008. Charges for the offence under Section 420 IPC read with Section 13 (1) (c) and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 framed against A1.
Charges for the offence under Section 120B read with Section 420/468/471/473/476 IPC and under Section 13 (1) (d) and 13 (1) (c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 framed against A1, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, A9, A10 and A11.
Charges for the offence under Section 120B read with Section 420/468/471/470/476 IPC read with Section 120B IPC framed against A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, A9, A10 and A11.
Prosecution evidence 15 In order to rove its case, prosecution examined following witnesses:-
PW1 - Sh. Bhupinder Singh Tarial
PW2 - Sh. H. S. Gangwal
CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 10 of 200
PW3 - Sh. Sanjay Shah
PW4 - Sh. G. S. Sethi
PW5 - Sh. Rajnish Sarbhai
PW6 - Sh. Dick Sarkes
PW7 - Sh. P. K. Gupta
PW8 - Sh. Suman Bakshi
PW9 - Sh. Avijit Parihar
PW10 - Sh. Munish Yadav
PW11 - Sh. Atish Pathak
PW12 - Sh. Davinder Pal Singh
PW13 - Sh. J. S. Mehra
PW14 - Sh. S.K. Chandel
PW15 - Sh. Jitender Kumar
PW16 - Sh. S. K. Kaushik
PW17 - Sh. L. K. Sehgal
PW18 - Sh. S. M. Sehgal
PW19 - Sh. Jagdish Singh Yadav
PW20 - Sh. Satish Kumar Duggal
PW21 - Sh. Ramesh Raj Bains
PW22 - Sh. Ved Prakash
PW23 - Sh. Jag Lal
PW24 - Sh. Sandeep Maheshwari
PW25 - Sh. K. Mahapatra
PW26 - Sh. P. K. Aggarwal
PW27 - Sh. Radha Krishna Dwivedi
PW28 - Sh. Gurcharan Singh
CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 11 of 200
PW29 - Sh. Amalendu Ray
PW30 - Sh. S. L. Mukhi
PW31 - Sh. Karam Chand
PW32 - Sh. S. Rout
PW33 - Sh. V. M. Mittal
PW34 - Ms. Neena
PW35 - Sh. A. K. Seth
PW36 - Sh. N. V. N. Krishnan
Prosecution evidence was concluded on 08.04.2016. Statement under Section 313 CrPC 16 Statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. of the accused persons recorded. In statement under Section 313 CrPC, accused persons denied all the incriminating material appearing in evidence against them and claimed innocence.
Defence Evidence 17 In his defence, A4 examined DW7 Gulshan Rai Kakkar. A5 examined DW1 Sh. Sunil Kumar, DW6 Sh. Devender Singh. A9 examined DW2 Sh. Prateek Gangwar, DW3 Sh. Arun Kumar, Sh. Susham Kumar Goyal, DW5 Sh. Gopal Kanwar and DW8 Sh. Jai CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 12 of 200 Prakash Mishra. Defence evidence was closed vide order dated 01.06.2016.
Appreciation of Evidence 18 PW1 Bhupinder Singh Tarial has deposed that during the period 1997 to 1999, he was posted as Sr. Assistant, Divisional Office- XV, National Insurance Co., New Delhi. Sh. Atish Pathak was Assistant Divisional Manager and Sh. R.K.Kapoor was Divisional Manager. In marine cargo insurance, if intimation is received regarding theft etc., ADM has power to approve the claim upto Rs.50,000/- and if the claim is upto Rs.3.00 lacs but above Rs.50,000/-, the power vested with Divisional Manager to approve the claim. During the particular period, PW1 had processed 10 claims and he issued the cover notes in all the 10 claims at the instance of A-1. He processed the claim file Ex.PW1/A (D-1) on the instructions of A-1 which bears his note at portion X-1 to X-2 on Ex PW1/A and his signatures at point 'A'. He further deposed that claim form no.026217 which is Ex.PW1/A-1 was submitted by M/s Vinayak Enterprises. Survey report Ex.PW1/A-2 was furnished by A-6 in duplicate along with survey fee bill Ex.PW1/A-3 in duplicate. After processing the claim and making the payments on the instructions of CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 13 of 200 A-1, M/s Tracer and Recovery Consultant had been appointed as recovery agent to recover the amount from the transporter. Vide receipt Ex.PW1/A-4, documents were received by the recovery agent. Marine claim form which was submitted by the party is Ex.PW1/A-5 and the claim bill and shortage intimations are Ex.PW1/A-6 and Ex PW1/A-7 respectively. Packing list is Ex.PW1/A-8. PW1 further deposed that he processed the aforesaid claim on the instruction of A-1 and this claim was processed by A-1 and in token of the approved A-1 put his signatures at point 'B' on Ex.PW1/A (D-1) i.e. claim no. 98/57. The payment of Rs.2,72,000/- was made to M/s Vinayak Enterprises vide cheque Ex.PW1/A-9 (D-117). The claim file no.98/34 Ex.PW1/B (File D-2) contains documents i.e. Marine Claim form Ex.PW1/B-1, intimation regarding short arrival of consignment from M/s Vinayak Enterprises Ex.PW1/B-2, shortage report Ex.PW1/B-3 of M/s Honey International, receipt of recovery agent Ex.PW1/B-4 and declarations forms 4 in numbers Ex.PW1/B-5 colly, the communication dated 04.05.1998 from M/s Vinayak Enterprises is Ex.PW1/B-6, Insurance premium receipt is Ex.PW1/B-7, Policy is Ex.PW1/B-8 and declaration made in Ex.PW1/B-9. This claim was submitted by M/s Vinayak CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 14 of 200 Enterprises and was processed by PW1 at the instance of A-1. The claim was approved for a sum of Rs.2,62,245/- and Ex.PW1/B-1 bears his note at portion X-1 to X-2 regarding processing the claim. It bears the signatures of PW1 at point 'A' and signatures of A-1 at point 'B'. Note regarding approval of the claim made by A-1 is at portion Y-1 to Y-2 . The payment for a sum of Rs.2,62,245/- was made by cheque Ex.PW1/B-10 in favour of M/s Vinayak Enterprises. It is further stated that he also processed claim file no.97/717 which is Ex.PW/C . It contained documents i.e. Marine Claim form Ex.PW1/C-1; intimation regarding damage condition of consignment from M/s Super Traders Ex.PW1/C-2; Survey report of Sh. Jatinder Kumar Ex.PW1/C-3, receipt of recovery agent Ex.PW1/C-4; cover note Ex.PW1/C-5 which was issued by PW1. This claim was submitted by M/s Super Traders and was processed by PW1 at the instance of A-1. It was approved for a sum of Rs.2,68,159/- and Ex.PW1/C bears the note of PW1. It bears the signatures of PW1 at point 'A' and signatures of A-1 at point 'B' and note regarding approval of the claim made by A-1 at point Y-1 to Y-2. The payment for a sum of Rs.2,68,159/- was made by cheque Ex.PW1/C-6 (D-119) in favour of M/s Super Traders. It is further CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 15 of 200 deposed by PW1 that he processed claim file no. 98/278 Ex.PW1/D (File D-4). It contained documents i.e. Marine claim form Ex.PW1/D-1, intimation regarding damage condition of consignment from M/s Bala Jee Trading Co. Ex.PW1/D-2, Survey report of M/s SBK Enterprises Ex.PW1/D-3, receipt of recovery agent Ex.PW1/D-4, Policy Ex.PW1/D- 5 was issued by PW1. The declarations made by the party are Ex.PW1/D-6 and Ex.PW1/D-7. Premium receipt is Ex.PW1/D-8. This claim was submitted by M/s Bala Jee Trading Company and was processed by PW1 at the instance of A-1. This claim was approved for a sum of Rs.2,84,214/- and Ex.PW1/D bears the note of PW1 at portion X-1 to X-2 regarding processing the claim. Ex.PW1/D bears the signatures of PW1 at point 'A' and signatures of A-1 at point 'B' and note regarding approval of the claim made by A-1 is at portion Y-1 to Y-2. The payment for a sum of Rs.2,83,214/- was made by cheque Ex.PW1/D-9 (D-120) in favour of M/s Bala Jee Trading Company. The disbursement voucher prepared by PW1 is Ex.PW1/D-10. A request for issuance of policy was made by M/s Bala Jee Trading Company vide communication Ex.PW1/D-11. PW1 has further stated that he processed the claim file no. 98/265 which is Ex.PW1/E (file D-5) which CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 16 of 200 contained documents i.e. Marine loss intimation received from NIC, Sangroor Ex.PW1/E-1, Survey report of A-4 is Ex.PW1/E-2, receipt of recovery agent of M/s Honey International is Ex.PW1/E-3, policy is Ex.PW1/E-4, premium receipt is Ex.PW1/E-5. This claim was submitted by M/s Laser Computers and was processed by PW1 at the instance of A-1. This claim was approved for a sum of Rs.2,81,500/-. Ex.PW1/E bears the note of PW1 at portion X-1 to X-2 regarding processing the claim. It bears the signatures of PW1 at point 'A' and signatures of A-1 at point 'B' and note regarding approval of the claim made by A-1 is at portion Y-1 to Y-2. The payment for a sum of Rs.2,81,500/- was made by cheque Ex.PW1/E-6 (D-121) in favour of M/s Laser Computers. Disbursement voucher was prepared by PW1 is Ex.PW1/E-7. A request for issuance of policy was made by M/s Laser Computers vide communication Ex.PW1/E-8. PW1 has further deposed that he also processed claim file no. 98/160 which is Ex.PW1/F (File D-6) which contains Marine claim form Ex.PW1/F-1, intimation regarding shortage/damaged condition of consignment was received telephonically and accordingly a note Ex.PW1/F-2 was prepared. Survey report alongwith its survey bill submitted by A-5 is CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 17 of 200 Ex.PW1/F-3 and Ex PW1/F-4 of M/s A. T. Random Fashions. This claim was approved for a sum of Rs.2,73,090 and Ex.PW1/F bears note of PW1 at portion X-1 to X-2 regarding processing the claim. It bears signatures of PW1 at point 'A'; signatures of A-1 at point 'B' and note regarding approval of the claim made by A-1 is at portion Y-1 to Y-2. The payments for a sum of Rs.2,73,090/- was made by cheque Ex.PW1/F-5 (D-122) in favour of M/s AT Random Fashions. Receipt from recovery agent is Ex.PW1/F-6. PW1 has further deposed that he processed claim file no. 97/718 which is Ex.PW1/G (File D-7) which contained Marine claim form Ex.PW1/G-1, intimation regarding claim from M/s AT Random Fashions Ex.PW1/G-2, Survey report of A-6 alongwith receipt are Ex.PW1/G-3 and Ex PW1/G-4, receipt from recovery agent is Ex.PW1/G-5, policy issued by PW1 is Ex.PW1/G-6. The declarations made by the party are Ex.PW1/G-7 and Ex PW1/G-8. Premium receipt is Ex.PW1/G-9. This claim was submitted by the party i.e. M/s AT Random Fashions and was processed by PW1 at the instance of A-1. The claim was approved for a sum of Rs.1,43,500/- and Ex.PW1/G bears the note of PW1 at portion X-1 to X-2 regarding processing the claim. It bears the signatures of PW1 at point 'A' and of CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 18 of 200 A-1 at point 'B' and note regarding approval made by A-1 is at portion Y-1 to Y-2. The payments for a sum of Rs.1,43,500/- was made by cheque Ex.PW1/G-10 (D-123) in favour of M/s AT Random Fashions. Disbursement voucher which was prepared by PW1 is Ex.PW1/G-11. A request for issuance of the policy was made by the party M/s AT Random Fashions vide communication Ex.PW1/G-12. PW1 has further deposed that he also processed the claim file no. 98/289 which is Ex.PW1/H(File D-8) which contained Marine claim form Ex.PW1/H-1, intimation regarding short delivery of consignment from M/s Satnam Impex Ex.PW1/H-2 in duplicate, Survey report alongwith receipt of A-6 colly. Ex.PW1/H-3, receipt of recovery agent Ex.PW1/H-4, policy issued by PW1 as Ex.PW1/H-5, premium receipt Ex.PW1/H-6. This claim was submitted by M/s Satnam Impex and processed by PW1 at the instance of A-1. The claim was approved for a sum of Rs.2,60,530/- and Ex.PW1/H bears the note of PW1 at portion X-1 to X-2 regarding processing the claim, bears signatures of PW1 at point A and of A-1 at point B and note regarding approval of the claim made by A-1 is at portion Y-1 to Y-2. The payment for a sum of Rs.2,60,000/- was made by cheque Ex.PW1/H-7 (D-124) in favour of M/s Satnam CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 19 of 200 Impex. A request for issuance of policy was made by M/s Satnam Impex vide communication Ex.PW1/H-8. It is further deposed by PW1 that he also processed claim file no. 98/334 which is Ex.PW1/J (File D-
9) which contained Marine claim form Ex.PW1/J-1, intimation regarding short delivery of consignment from M/s Solar Enterprises Ex.PW1/J-2, Survey report of M/s Pooja International Ex.PW1/J-3, receipt from recovery agent Ex.PW1/J-4, policy issued by PW1 as Ex.PW1/H-6, premium receipt Ex.PW1/J-6. This claim was submitted by M/s Solar Enterprises and processed by PW1 at the instance of A-1. The claim was approved for a sum of Rs.1,97,000/- and Ex.PW1/J bears the note of PW1 at portion X-1 to X-2 regarding processing the claim which bears signatures of PW1 at point 'A' and A-1 at point 'B' and note regarding approval of the claim made by A-1 is at portion Y-1 to Y-2. The payment for a sum of Rs.1,97,000/- was made by cheque Ex.PW1/J-7 (D-125) in favour of M/s Solar Enterprises. Ex.PW1/J-8 is the disbursement voucher was prepared by PW1. A request for issuance of policy was made by M/s Solar Enterprises vide communication Ex.PW1/J-9. PW1 has further deposed that he also processed claim file no. 98/719 which is Ex.PW1/K (File D-10). It CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 20 of 200 contained marine claim form Ex.PW1/K-1, intimation regarding short delivery of consignment from M/s True Fit Exclusive Garments Ex.PW1/K-2, Survey report of M/s Tracer & Recovery Consultant Ex.PW1/K-3, receipt of recovery agent Ex.PW1/K-4, policy issued by PW1 as Ex.PW1/K-5. Declarations made by the party is Ex.PW1/K-6 to Ex.PW1/K-13, premium receipts Ex.PW1/H-14 to K-16. This claim was submitted by M/s True Fit Exclusive Garments and was processed by PW1 at the instance of A-1. The claim was approved for a sum of Rs.2,13,200/- and Ex.PW1/K bears the note of PW1 at portion X-1 to X-2 regarding processing the claim, which bears signatures of PW1 at point 'A' and A-1 at point 'B' and note regarding approval of the claim made by A-1 is at portion Y-1 to Y-2. The payment for a sum of Rs.2,13,200/- was made by cheque Ex.PW1/K-17 (D-126) in favour of M/s True Fit Exclusive Garments. A request for issuance of policy was made by M/s True Fit Exclusive Garments vide communication Ex.PW1/K-18.
PW1 further deposed that the registers regarding claim intimation of Marine Cargo is Ex.PW1/L and that the claim numbers of some other customers/clients mentioned in this register were given to CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 21 of 200 the claims submitted by the accused persons. PW1 further deposed that he did so at the instance of A-1. The claim file is Ex.PW1/C , G & K were given claim number of M/s SBCH Ltd which were entered in the marine cargo intimation register Ex.PW1/L at the relevant page no.6 at point 'X', 'Y' and 'Z'. The claim file i.e. Ex.PW1/J, was given claim number of M/s SBCH Ltd. which was already entered in the Marine Cargo Intimation register Ex.PW1/L at page 22 at point 'X'. The claim file i.e. Ex.PW1/A, was given claim number of M/s SBCH Ltd which was already entered in Marine Cargo Intimation Register Ex.PW1/L at page no.12 at point 'X'. Similarly, PW1 has deposed about claim files i.e. Ex.PW1/F, D & E which were entered in Marine Cargo Intimation register Ex.PW1/L at page no.16 & 19 at point X respectively. PW1 has further similarly deposed about claim file i.e. Ex.PW1/H given claim no. of M/s Shri Krishna Paper Mills which was entered in Marine Cargo Register Ex.PW1/L at page no.20 at point 'X'. PW1 has further identified the Marine Cargo Claim Paid Recovery Register Ex.PW1/M which contained entries regarding payment of claims pertaining to M/s SBCH Ltd. and M/s Shri Krishna Paper Mills. He further deposed that the recoveries effected from the transporters CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 22 of 200 were also entered in the register Ex.PW1/M, again said, the entries regarding recovery were not made in this register and some other register known as Recovery Register was maintained.
PW1 has further deposed that he did not make any entry in respect of shortage of consignment vide Ex.PW1/A-6 and he also did not make any entry entry in respect of Marine Claim Form Ex.PW1/A-5 as he was asked by A-1, not to make any such entry in the Intimation register as the same might not come to the notice of Internal Auditors. PW1 has further stated that he also did not make any entry in respect of payment of claim vide cheque Ex.PW1/A-9 to M/s Vinayak Enterprises in claim paid register as PW1 was asked by A-1 to not to make any such entry in the intimation register as the same might not come to the notice of Internal Auditors. PW1 has further deposed that he did not make any entry in respect of intimation of shortage in consignment vide Ex.PW1/B-2 and PW1 also did not make any entry in respect of Marine Claim Form Ex.PW1/B-1 as PW1 was aksed by A-1 not to make any such entry in the Intimation Register as thet same might not come to the notice of Internal Auditors. PW1 also did not make any entry in respect of payment of claim vide cehque CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 23 of 200 Ex.PW1/B10 to M/s Vinayak Enterprises in Claim Paid Register as PW1 was asked by A-1 not to make any such entry in the Intimation register as the same might not come to the notice of Internal Auditors. On the similar ground, he also did not make any entry in respect of intimation of shortage in consignment vide Ex.PW1/C-2 and marine claim form Ex.PW1/C-1. He also did not make any entry in respect of payment of claim vide cheque Ex.PW1/C-6 to M/s Super Traders as he was asked by A-1 not to make any such entry as the same might not come to the notice of Internal Auditors. On the similar ground, he also did not make any entry in respect of intimation of shortage in consignment vide Ex.PW1/D-2 and marine claim form Ex.PW1/D-1. He also did not make any entry in respect of payment of claim vide cheque Ex.PW1/D-9 to M/s Balaji Trading as he was asked by A-1 not to make any such entry as the same might not come to the notice of Internal Auditors. Similarly, he did not make any such entry in the Intimation register and in the claim paid register regarding the payment vide cheques to different firms as PW1 was asked to do so by A-1 to avoid checking/detection by Internal Auditors.
PW1 has further deposed that after receiving telephonic CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 24 of 200 intimation regarding short/damaged condition of consignment of M/s AT Random Fashions in claim file Ex.PW1/F, A5 was appointed as a Surveyor by PW1 on the recommendation of A-1 though his name did not appear in the panel Ex.PW1/N. PW1 further deposed that all the 10 claim files were sent to A-1 as PW1 was asked by A-1 to send the said files to A-1 directly and not through ADM Mr. Atish Pathak. In some cases, they received demand draft in respect of recovery made from the transporters and he used to make the entries in the registers to that effect. PW1 has further deposed that A-7 used to have frequent visits to A-1. A-4 had visited A-1 once or twice. A-8 and A-11 employees of Pooja International and Honey International also sued to visit A-1 for recovery purpose and to collect documents. A-10 also used to visit A-1. So, far PW1 remembers, A7 was the owner of M/s Pooja International and Honey International. PW1 has further deposed that he has given statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C before Sh. Alok Aggarwal on 13.01.2005. The statement is Ex.PW1/O bears the signature of PW1 at point 'A'. PW1 has further deposed that he became approver in this case and application moved by him for granting conditional pardon is Ex.PW1/P. During cross examination on behalf of A-1, PW1 has CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 25 of 200 deposed that subject matter of present case is of the year 1999. At that time, next Superior Officer of PW1 was Sh. Atish Pathak, ADM. In the year 1996, CR of PW1 was written by Sh. Nathani who must be working as ADM Marine Department. His duty as Sr. Assistant includes under writing of insurance claim of the Marine department. At the relevant time, three different departments in the DO which are accounts department, Marine Department, motor and miscellaneous department. He admitted that there are different divisions in the Marine department, one is for the purpose of under writing and another for the purpose of processing marine claim. He further deposed that he used to take the work of Marine under writing department. He admitted that Marine under writing job was handled by Sh. Ravi Gulati. PW1 has further deposed that he used to handle the under writing job in the absence of Sh. Ravi Gulati. He further stated that he did not inform his next superior officer Mr. Pathak (ADM) about the fact that under instruction of A-1, PW1 was by passing Mr. Pathak in the process of these claims. He further stated that he did not lodge any complaint with any superior officer regarding A-1. He also did not lodge any complaint with vigilance department also. He came to know about the CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 26 of 200 irregularities in the passing of these claims when vigilance team raided their branch and pointed out these irregularities. He did not inform the officials of vigilance team about these irregularities as nobody asked him about it. PW1 has admitted that when he processed these 10 files, he did not notice any irregularities/short comings as the file contained all the relevant papers and documents. PW1 has further deposed that it was the duty of Sh. Ravi Gulati of Marine under writing department to issue cover notes. These cover notes are in the handwriting of PW1 but he did not recollect the name of the officer who had signed these cover notes. He admitted that he was aware about the rules of the company; that being an employee of the company, he had taken back the commissions of all these policies through agent namely Abhijeet Parihar, who is known to PW1. He denied the suggestion that he was running a benamee agency through Abhijeet Parihar as he being an employee of insurance company could not run the agency. He further deposed that he used to get commission of the business which he used to give to Abhijeet Parihar. PW1 admitted that Abhijeet Parihar is his relation and resides in the same colony. He further admitted that auditors used to verify the claims on the basis of claim disbursement CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 27 of 200 register. PW1 further admitted that auditors used to verify the other registers including claim intimation register and claim paid register. He admitted that when the accounts department verify the voucher of payment, only thereafter cheques were issued. Only the voucher used to be sent to accounts department and the file used to remain with him. PW1 has further admitted that at the relevant time, account department was computerized and under writing department was not computerized. He further admitted that all the relevant entries regarding claim paid were entered in the computer of accounts department and all the entries were also made in the claim disbursement register maintained by the accounts department. He admitted that all the particulars regarding claim number, policy number, name of the concerned parties, date of the claim paid were entered into the said register. Similarly, all these particulars were entered in the computerized record of the accounts branch. He further admitted that in the balance sheets also, all these entries contained in the disbursement register are reflected. He admitted that claim disbursement register and claim paid register are two different registers. He further admitted that against the same claim number, two CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 28 of 200 cheques cannot be issued processed and approved by accounts department as all the relevant entries of the said claim number had been entered into the computerized record as well as in the claim disbursement register. He further deposed that when there were instructions received from the senior officer i.e. A-1 in this case to use the same claim number for the settled claim, issuance of second cheque against the same claim number is possible.
PW1 has further deposed that the case was registered on the basis of complaint made by vigilance department. PW1 was made an approver after he made an application in the court. He has admitted that CBI considered PW1 as main accused alongwith A-1. He admitted that bulk of the cover notes, regarding which the present case has been filed, were prepared by PW1 in his own hand writing. He further admitted that all the 10 claim files were processed by PW1. He has further stated that it was not his job to collect the documents but it was the duty of PW1 to process the file. It is further stated that whenever any intimation of claim is received, it goes to Divisional Manager. It is the job of PW1 to make the entry in the claim intimation register. After claim is processed and paid, it is entered in claim paid CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 29 of 200 register. PW1 has further deposed that it was his duty to make an entry in the claim paid register and he had made entry in the claim intimation and claim paid register in his own handwriting. PW1 further admitted that all the ten claim files were processed by him but were not recommended by him. After processing, he has forwarded them to A-1 as he has requested PW1 to do so. In all the claim files, PW1 had written "Claim seems to be in order, may be settled for (sum)"(in different file different sums had been mentioned). A-1 then wrote "agreed as recommended". PW1 further admitted that after the case is processed by him, the payment is recommended. The senior officer to whom it is recommended then checks it before agreeing to it. PW1 has further admitted that all the ten files, the amount varies between Rs.50,000/- and Rs.3.00 lacs each which is in exclusive authority of DM. PW1 has further admitted that according to him there were no infirmity and all the claims were in order. PW1 has further stated that he processed between 70-80 claims in a month. He also admitted that all the ten cover notes were prepared by him in his own handwriting but it was not in connivance with Parihar. He himself stated that it was at the instance of A-1. He has further stated that in his statement u/s CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 30 of 200 164 Cr.P.C, he had mentioned the fact that cover notes were prepared by PW1 at the instance of A-1. He has further deposed that one cover note Ex.PW1/C-5 does not bear his initials or signatures. PW1 has further admitted that he has not mentioned or noted anywhere on Ex.PW1/C-5 in what capacity, he had prepared this cover note. The duty to prepare the cover note was that of underwriting department. Ex.PW1/F-2 of claim file no. 98/160 pertaining to M/s At Random Fashions is in the handwriting of PW1 which is to the fact that intimation was received At Random Fashion that consignment was received in short and damaged condition, A-5 had recommended for survey. He further admitted that it was in the handwriting of PW1 and bears his signatures also. PW1 has further deposed that he has not written in it that DM had received telephonic call or that he was preparing it on the instruction of A-1. DM called him in the chamber and asked him to prepare the note. The note prepared by PW1 is incorrect and was under pressure of DM. It was written on 19.06.98. PW1 never made any complaint to senior officer of the company till date that he was pressurized to prepare the false note. He did not even tell the ADM who used to sit in his office. He did not tell vigilance officer CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 31 of 200 also. He admitted that he did not disclose about it to anybody. He came to know on 05.02.99, the irregularities in 10 claim files. He did not complain about irregularity to any authority that he had been wrongly suspended. He did not make any representation and complaint to his senior that all the irregularities were at the instance of A-1. He has further admitted that at the time these ten files were prepared, the accounts department had been computerized. He has further admitted that at the last stage when cheque was to be prepared, the voucher was sent to accounts department which had been computerized. In accounts department, name of the party, policy number, amount etc was available. He further admitted that claim disbursement register maintained and all these entries were made in that register also. PW1 has further admitted that before the cheque is actually handed over entries are made in the marine claim paid register as well as claim disbursement register. Whenever cheque is delivered, entry is made in marine claim paid register. After going through ten files, PW1 pointed out disbursement vouchers are available in file no.98/265 Ex.PW1/E, No. 97/718 Ex.PW1/G, No. 98/717 Ex.PW1/C, No. 98/334 Ex.PW1/J, No. 98/278 Ex.PW1/D and No. 98/57 Ex.PW1/A. PW1 has further CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 32 of 200 deposed that he used to receive cheques of all other files processed by him but he did not receive the cheques of these ten files. He had made no complaint of anybody about non-receipt of cheques of all these files. but he did not send the cheques of tn files. All the vouchers bears his signatures at point 'A'. PW1 has further deposed that claim intimation register an claim paid register are kept in the department but not in the personal custody of any individual. They are kept lying on the tables in open. PW1 used to make entries in these two registers. Upon specific question, he has stated that his duties in Marine Claim Department involved to process the file, to send the file to department incharge after processing, to make entries in the claim paid register after necessary cheques were issued, to make entry in the claim intimation register whenever claim was lodged. PW1 used to process the claim file whenever received for settlement. He used to process claim recovery process. He has further admitted that he used to make entries in the claim paid register and claim intimation register correctly. He denied the suggestion that he has taken back the cash which was received by Sh. Abhijeet Parihar as insurance commission since 1995. PW1 further deposed that he received back cash only in CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 33 of 200 respect of commission of the ten policies involved in the present case. He further denied the suggestion that infact he used to use the name of Abhijeet only as front man but PW1 used to do all the dealings. He further admitted that he used to retain the photocopy of the record which was handed over to recovery agent for the purpose of recovery. He denied the suggestion that he falsely put blame on A-1 to save his own skin. He further admitted that when files pertaining to the claim was sent to superior officer for approval/settlement, the claim paid register and claim intimation register not used to accompany the files. He further admitted that claim intimation register and claim paid register remained in the custody of PW1 and not initials were used to be made by the superior officers. He used to make entries in claim paid register and claim intimation register in his own hand. He denied the suggestion that he has intentionally made the wrong entries and knowingly used the name of the big clients so that this irregularity cannot be detected easily. It was at the instance of A-1. On specific question, he further deposed that he has specifically stated in his statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C that these 10 entries were made at the instance of A-1 and regarding u/s 161 Cr.P.C, he will have to read his CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 34 of 200 statement. However, the court observed that in statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C, there is no such assertion made by the witness. He has further admitted that A-1 was having power of approval of claim upto Rs.3.00 lac as well as claims which are within the power of subordinate officer (less than Rs.3.00 lac). He does not know whether out of these ten claims, some claims were approved when subordinate officer was on leave.
During cross examination on behalf of A-9, PW1 has stated that before his statement u/s 164 Cr.PC, he was cautioned that he could be convicted on the basis of said statement. Despite the caution, he went ahead and made statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C on the basis of advise given by his cousin who is working in Ministry of Law. He denied the suggestion that he had testified u/s 164 Cr.P.C on the basis of advise given by his advocate. He admitted that in the present case no red-handed arrest was effected by CBI officials. A search and seizure was conducted at his premises. Nothing relating to the cases being presently adjudicated was taken into custody from his residence. He further admitted that job of preparation of cheques is of accounts department. The claim department prepares a disbursement voucher CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 35 of 200 which is at least in duplicate and send it to accounts department for preparation of cheques. PW1 admitted that accounts department retains the original disbursement voucher with itself. He admitted that disbursement register is different from claims paid register maintained by claims department. He further admitted that accounts department has an independent source of verifying the correct information recorded in the claim paid register which is in the form of claim disbursement register. He further admitted that during his tenure with the company, many times internal audit was conducted and audit team go through claim disbursement registers and rely upon them. He further admitted that figures of the claims department should be reflected in the corresponding figures of accounts department. PW1 has further admitted that underwriting departments in a divisional office which pertains to fire, motor, marine, miscellaneous have similar work which includes issuance of cover notes, policies, endorsements and maintenance of premium registers. Similarly in claims sections of fire, motor, marine, miscellaneous departments the job involves receipt of intimations, processing of claims, settlement and payment of claims. He further deposed that during 1997 to 1999 there were 30/35 CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 36 of 200 members in the office, PW1 had been a member of trade union and was also office bearer of the union before 1997. PW1 has further stated that he did not discuss with the Divisional Manager while processing all the claims which had been filed. He is aware about the method of claim processing and processed them accordingly. He has further admitted that A-1 had not instructed PW1 about these ten claims, then he would have processed them in routine manner. He further admitted that at the time when he processed these ten claims, then he did not know the parties were bogus. For the first time, he came to know that claims were bogus, when report of vigilance came. A-5 was a tracer and recovery agent who was on the penal of the company. He further admitted that normally the tracers and the recovery agents and also the other professionals come and see the D.M to solicit work for them. He further admitted that tracers and recovery agent and surveyors etc. come and report to Divisional Manager after they have attended to their respective assignments. He further admitted that Pooja International and Honey International of which A8 and A11 were employees were on the panel of the company. He admitted that the D.M has authority to allot work to A-8 and A-11. CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 37 of 200 He admitted that A-8 and A-11 had also been given several other files for recovery purposes. He denied the suggestion that there was nothing abnormal in allotting these 10 files to A-11 and A-8. He has further stated that cover note is an interim document given instantly to a customer when he wants to get his insurance done. He further stated that every policy carries serial number of the cover note which had been issued. He has further stated that there can be instance where without issuing cover note straightway policy is issued. Upon specific question, PW1 after going through the bunch of documents, come up with seven claim files Exhibited as Ex.PW1/D, Ex PW1/E, Ex PW1/F, Ex PW1/G, Ex PW1/H, Ex PW1/J and Ex PW1/K and stated that neither cover note is there nor there is any reference to any cover note. In file Ex.PW1/C there is no copy of cover note no. 016948 . The cover note Ex.PW1/C-5 was prepared by PW1 and signed by Sh. Atish Pathak, ADM. PW1 has further deposed that he has taken commission only of these ten cases from agent Abhijit Parihar and in no other case. He had not shared the said amount with A-1. PW1 offered to share the commission but A-1 told him to retain the entire money. He denied the suggestion that he made incorrect statement that he had issued ten CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 38 of 200 cover notes. After taking a look at the demand drafts deposited by A-7, he used to come to know that he had got the draft prepared from his own funds and the party had not got it prepared. He admitted that on the face of the draft there was nothing mentioned to indicate that the draft had been got prepared by A-7. PW1 has further deposed that he has no knowledge that there is any rule to the effect that if cash paid by the transporter then recovery agent cannot collect it. He has no knowledge whether recovery agents usually issue cheques from their own and deposit them. He denied the suggestion that he was threatened to be named principle accused if he did not co-operate. He has further stated that doubt had crept in the mind of PW1 when A-1 had asked him not to make entries in the register. A-1 told PW1 that it should not be detected by auditors as those were claims made by individual parties. PW1 had no option but to get satisfied with the explanation of A-1 as A-1 was senior officer. PW1 would have never signed had he known that they were forged claims. Ex.PW1/F-2 is in the handwriting of PW1. It carries recommendations that A-5 be appointed as Surveyor which is in the handwriting of PW1. PW1 has further deposed that A-5 was not eligible to be appointed as surveyor CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 39 of 200 on the basis of list issued by Delhi Regional Office. He denied the suggestion that on the recommendation of PW1, A-5 was appointed as surveyor by A-1. PW1 has further stated that after the claim is settled and letter of subrogation is collected from the claimant, the documents were handed over to recovery agent for recovery. In the office, A-1 was the only officer who used to appoint recovery agents. He used to hand over documents to recovery agents. PW1 has further deposed that whenever the documents were handed over, their copies were retained by the office. PW1 used to retain copies of documents before handing them over to recovery agents. PW1 has further deposed that in these ten files, he had not retained photocopies before handing them over to recovery agents. A-1 had assured him that recovery agent would get photocopies done and hand them over to PW1. PW1 has admitted that there is nothing wrong in these ten claims. Whatever is requirement of the file regarding papers, had been fulfilled. He denied the suggestion that PW1 had not shown due diligence while dealing with these ten claims. He further denied the suggestion that there were only minor discrepancies and after CBI enquiry started PW1 got nervous and shifted the blame to A-1.
CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 40 of 200
During cross examination on behalf of A-6 and A-10, PW1 has deposed that he he saw A-6 first time when he was in custody and never met him in the office. A-6 never submitted any report to PW1. The reports had been submitted in the office. PW1 further admitted that A-6 never submitted any report in the office. PW1 admitted that forged reports in the name of A-6 had been submitted in the office by someone else. A-10 never submitted any report to PW1. 19 PW2 is the officer from Dena Bank who has stated that in the year 1998, a current account was opened in the name of M/s Satnam Impex. Account opening form is Ex.PW2/A. Alongwith account opening form parties annexed a copy of Ration Card and a request letter for opening of account by the proprietor Sh Sanjay Verma (A9). Request letter is Ex.PW2/B and copy of ration card is Mark 'A'. After opening of account vide pay in slip Ex.PW2/C, a cheque for a sum of Rs.2,60,000/- Ex.PW1/H-7 was deposited in the said current account no. 1516 of M/s Satnam Impex. Cheque Ex.PW1/H-7 bears the stamp of their bank at portion X-1 to X-2. From the aforesaid account party issued 10 cheques which are Ex.PW2/C-1 to C-10. The copy of the CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 41 of 200 statement of account submitted by bank is Ex.PW2/D. Testimony of this witness remained unchallenged on behalf of all the accused except A-9. During cross examination on behalf of A-9, PW2 has stated that copy of the ration card was taken at the time of opening the account to verify the address given therein. He admitted that M/s Satnam Impex had given the address as C-9/34, Sector-8, Rohini. He has admitted that the customer who is to get his account open has to come personally in the bank.
20 PW3 has deposed that he introduced A-9 for opening the account no. 1516 in the name of M/s Satnam Impex which was opened in the year 1998. A-9 was proprietor of M/s Satnam Impex. A-9 came to PW3 through one of his friend and made a request for introduction accordingly. A-9 was introduced and PW3 put his signatures on account opening form Ex.PW2/A at point 'A' and 'B' and PW3 was holding current account no. 617 with the bank. The testimony of this witness remained unchallenged on behalf of all the accused, except A-
9. In cross examination on behalf of A-9, he has stated that he had never seen A-9 prior to opening of the account. He did not know A-9 CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 42 of 200 personally. PW3 has further deposed that he came to know about A-9 only when he had come along with his brother-in-law (sala) on the day of opening of account in the year 1998 or 1999. He denied the suggestion that A-9 never came to him or PW3 never introduced his account.
21 PW4 is the Manager in Punjab National Bank deposed that in the year 1998, one Sh. Ram Kumar made request for issuance of Banker's cheque/pay order in favour of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vide application Ex.PW4/A. Accordingly, pay order Ex.PW4/B was issued in favour of National Insurance Co.Ltd for Rs.18,200/- which bears the signatures of Sh M. N. Nangiya at point 'A' and signature of Sh. V.K.Hans at point 'B'. The testimony of this witness remained unchallenged on behalf of all the accused except A-1. During cross examination on behalf of A-1, PW4 has stated that he did not personally deal with document Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW4/B. He denied the suggestion that information provided by him is either incorrect or incomplete.
CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 43 of 200 22 PW5 from State Bank of India deposed that in the year 1998, one Ram Kumar made a request for issuance of banker's cheque/pay order in favour of National Insurance Company Ltd. vide application form Ex.PW5/A. Accordingly, pay order Ex.PW5/B was issued in favour of National Insurance Company Ltd for Rs.14,924/-. The testimony of this witness remained unchallenged on behalf of all the accused.
23 PW6 deposed that during the August 1996 to February 2000, he was running a business of washing garments at A-2/5, DDA Marble Market Complex, Kirti Nagar. The owner of the building was Sh. Gurcharan Singh. During the period, there was no firm by the name of M/s True Fit Exclusive Garments. He has seen the account opening form Ex.PW6/A, it does not contain his signatures. No firm in the name of True Fit Exclusive Garments was there in the address given in the account opening form Ex.PW6/A. He did not see the person whose photographs appears on Ex.PW6/A at the said premises during that period. During cross examination on behalf of A-6 and A-10, he has stated that he cannot say as to whose photographs it is on Ex.PW6/A. CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 44 of 200 He did not know the person who had submitted the account opening form Ex.PW6/A. The testimony of this witness remained unchallenged on behalf of rest of the accused.
24 PW7 deposed that during the year 1987 to 1993 he remained as Manager in Oriental Bank of Commerce, NDSE Part-I, New Delhi. A-5 had opened current account in the name of M/s Bit-Bite System as proprietor in Safdarjung Enclave branch of OBC. He identified the signatures of A-5 as proprietor of M/s Bit-Bite System on account opening form Ex.PW6/A which was opened at Kirti Nagar branch of OBC in the name of M/s True Fit Exclusive Garments. Ex.PW6/A bears the signature of PW7 and stamp at point 'A' and signatures of A-5 verified by PW7 at point 'B'. Similarly, he identified and verified the signatures of A-5 proprietor of M/s Bit-Bite System on account opening from of M/s Balaji Trading Company, the same is Ex.PW7/A which was opened in Patel Nagar Branch of OBC. Ex.PW7/A bears the signature of PW7 and stamp at point 'A' and signature of A-5 which were verified by him at point 'B'. He has further deposed that a current account was opened in the name of Ms/ At CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 45 of 200 Random Fashion by A3 as proprietor. The said account was introduced by A-5. The account opening form is Ex.PW7/B signed by PW7 at point 'A', A-3 Meenu Khanna at point B1, B2 and B3 and signatures of A-5 as introducer at point C. The photograph of A-5 was also stapled on Ex.PW7/B. Specimen signature card of A-3 with her photograph is Ex.PW.7/C. The cheques Ex.PW7/D-1, Ex.PW7/D-2, Ex.PW7/D-3, Ex.PW7/D-4 & Ex.PW7/D-5 bear initials of PW7 at point 'A' on the instructions to pay the concerned cheques against DD. The computerized statement of account of A/c no. 102523 (manually the account no. was given as 2523) of M/s At Random Fashion is Ex.PW7/E which runs into two pages and bears the signatures of Ms. Preeti Arora at point 'A'. PW7 has identified the signatures of Preeti Arora as he was posted at Regional Office of OBC and subsequently after his transfer Ms. Preeti Arora joined the branch of OBC at Safdarjung Enclave. PW7 further deposed that a current account was opened in the name of M/s Laser Computer by A-5 as proprietor. The said account was introduced by A-3, proprietor of M/s A. T. Random Fashions. Account opening form is Ex.PW7/F bears signatures of PW7 at points 'A' and 'B' and signatures of A-5 at C1 & C2 and signature of CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 46 of 200 A-3 at point 'D'. Photograph of A5 is also stapled on Ex.PW7/F. Specimen signature card of M/s Laser Computer bearing signatures of A-5 as its proprietor is Ex.PW7/G. He has seen cheques Ex.PW7/H-1 and Ex PW7/H-2 bear his initials at point 'A' on the instructions to pay the concerned cheques against DD. The computerized statement of account of A/c no. 102585 (manually the account number was given as 2585) of M/s Laser Computers is Ex.PW7/J which runs into two pages and bears the signatures of Ms. Preeti Arora at point 'A'. PW7 identified the signatures of Ms. Preeti Arora as he was posted at Regional office of OBC. During cross examination on behalf of A-1, he admitted that whatsoever he stated, he has stated so on the basis of the documents shown to him by the prosecution. He has no personal knowledge . Ms. Preeti Arora never worked with him at any point of time. However, he clarified that during the official work various correspondences bearing the signatures of Ms. Preeti Arora came to him. The testimony of this witness remained unchallenged on behalf of remaining accused. 25 PW8 Suman Bakshi has deposed that in 1997, he was posted as Manager OBC Bank, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi. Ex.PW6/A is an CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 47 of 200 account opening form of M/s True Fit Exclusive Garments bears his signatures at point 'C' vide which he verified the signature of Sh. P. K. Gupta, the then Manager, OBC, Safdarjung Enclave. Ex.PW6/A also bears the signature of Ms. Asha Bansal, the then Sr. Manager at point 'D'. PW1 identified the signatures of Ms. Asha Bansal as that time she was Operational Manager of the branch. The specimen signature card is Ex.PW8/A also bears signatures of Ms. Asha Bansal at point 'A'. During cross examination on behalf of A-1, he admitted that he has no personal knowledge of this case. He never dealt with the aforesaid account. The testimony of this witness remained unchallenged on behalf of remaining accused.
26 PW9 deposed that he has been working as LIC Agent since May, 1989. A-2 was resident of the same locality where he was residing and their offices were also located nearby K.G. Marg, New Delhi. In the year 1997, PW9 became the agent of National Insurance Company. PW9 did not insure or issue any insurance cover except one or two as thereafter he concentrated only in Life Insurance Business and Transport Business. He did not accept any cheque from CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 48 of 200 National Insurance Company on account of commission. He did not deposit any cheque in his account. During cross examination. With the permission of the court, Ld. Special PP cross examined PW9 and during cross examination, PW9 admitted that he had stated to CBI in his statement that A-2 had made him an agent in National Insurance Company. He further admitted that he had stated to CBI that the cheques received by him from National Insurance Company as commission used to be deposited in his bank account no. 19779, Bank of Baroda, K.G.Marg Brnach, New Delhi. He admitted that he had stated to CBI in his statement that the commission received by PW9 through cheques used to be returned by him to A-2 in cash. During cross examination on behalf of A-1 which was also adopted by A-4, A- 5 and A-11, PW9 has deposed that he fully understood the system of agency being practiced in insurance companies. He did not know if National Insurance Company used to issue monthly statement regarding the commission accrued. He did not make enquiry from A-2 regarding the details of the cheques issued for commission. He did not know the amount of the cheques deposited in his bank account as the cheques were not being deposited by him. He used to return the CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 49 of 200 money to A-2 on the basis of information given by him regarding deposits of cheques in his account. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing under fear and pressure of CBI. The testimony of this witness remain unchallenged on behalf of other accused. 27 PW10 deposed that he was doing the business of UPS and laptop parts at Nehru Place. He was owner of ground floor portion of the building located at 297 Masjid Moth, South Extension Part-II, New Delhi. He purchased the said premises in the year 1995 and sold the same after May/June, 1998. In the said premises, there was no firm with the name of M/s Super Traders. He never heard the name of this firm. No such firm was in existence there. During cross examination on behalf of A-1, which was adopted by A-4,, A-7, A-8 and A-11, it is deposed by PW10 that there were 2 or 3 cabins in the premises owned by him. He has further deposed that all the occupants in the said building were not known to him. He denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely that there was no firm by the name of M/s Super Traders in the said portion in his occupation. The testimony of this witness remain unchallenged on behalf of remaining accused persons. CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 50 of 200 28 PW-11 Sh. Atish Pathak has stated that during November, 1997, he was posted as Assistant Divisional Manager and looking after marine department and other jobs allotted to PW11 by the then Divisional Manager i.e. A-1. For marine underwriting, the parties used to come to their office or the business was collected by representative of the office. In case of claims, as soon as the claims were reported, the same were to be entered in the claim intimation register for registration which was done by PW1. After registration of the claims in the claim intimation register, necessary file was prepared by PW1 and surveyor was appointed by the competent authority which may be the Asstt. Divisional Manager restricted upto the Financial Authority and beyond that the surveyor was to be appointed by the Divisional Manager. The financial authority of the Astt.Divisional Manager was upto Rs.50,000/- and beyond that it was done by Divisional Manager. After processing the claim, the file was to be routed through Asstt. Divisional Manager who approved the claim upto his financial authority which was Rs.50,000/- at that time and claims which were beyond Rs.50,000/-, after the recommendation of the Asstt. Divisional CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 51 of 200 Manager, the claim was to be approved by the Divisional Manager upto his financial authority of Rs. 3 lacs at that time and beyond that the claim was to be approved by the Divisional Claims Committee. After payment of claim, if the claims were standard claims, the files were sent to recovery agents by PW1 for recovery from transporter and the maximum recovery amounts was 10 % of the claim paid. The recovery amount was paid by cheque by recovery agents. After the payment of the claim, the claims were entered in the Claim Paid Register and as soon as the claims were intimated, the claims alloted respective claim numbers and while making the entries in the claim paid register, this number was also entered along with other details. Claim file Ex.PW1/A, bearing claim no. 351500/98/57 was entered in claim intimation register Ex.PW1/L. It was observed by this court during evidence that at the relevant sr.no.57 Ex.PW1/L, the entry has been made of claim of one SBCH which entry has been struck off; claim file Ex.PW1/B for claim no. 351500/98/34 was not found entered in the claim intimation register Ex.PW1/L at the relevant sr.no.34, the entry in respect of M/s SBCH Ltd. had already been made; claim file Ex.PW1/C for claim no. 351500/97/717 was not found entered in the claim CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 52 of 200 intimation register Ex.PW1/L at the relevant sr.no.717, the entry in respect of M/s SBCH Ltd. had already been made; claim file Ex.PW1/D for claim no. 351500/98/278 was not found entered in the claim intimation register Ex.PW1/L at the relevant sr.no.278, the entry in respect of M/s SBCH Ltd. had already been made; claim file Ex.PW1/E for claim no. 351500/98/265 was not found entered in the claim intimation register Ex.PW1/L at the relevant sr.no.265, the entry in respect of M/s SBCH Ltd. had already been made; claim file Ex.PW1/F for claim no. 351500/98/160 was not found entered in the claim intimation register Ex.PW1/L at the relevant sr. no.160, the entry in respect of M/s SBCH Ltd. had already been made; claim file Ex.PW1/G for claim no. 351500/98/718 was not found entered in the claim intimation register Ex.PW1/L at the relevant sr.no.718, the entry in respect of M/s SBCH Ltd. had already been made; claim file Ex.PW1/H for claim no. 351500/98/289 was not found entered in the claim intimation register Ex.PW1/L at the relevant sr.no.289, the entry in respect of M/s Shri Krishana Paper Mills had already been made; file Ex.PW1/J for claim no. 351500/98/334 was not found entered in the claim intimation register Ex.PW1/L at the relevant sr. no.334, the entry CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 53 of 200 in respect of M/s SBCH Ltd. had already been made. PW11 has further stated that the claim file Ex.PW1/K for claim no. 351500/98/719 was not found entered in the claim intimation register Ex.PW1/L at the relevant sr.no.719, the entry in respect of M/s SBCH Ltd. had already been made and claim files Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW1/B, Ex.PW1/C, Ex.PW1/D, Ex.PW1/E, Ex.PW1/F, Ex.PW1/G, Ex.PW1/H, Ex.PW1/J and Ex.PW1/K were not routed through PW11. The claims were processed by PW1 and approved by A-1. He has further deposed that he did not recollect whether the files were placed before him or not but had the files would have been placed before him, definitely there would be his comments and observations thereon. The payment in respect of the aforesaid claim Ex.PW1/A was made by cheque to the concerned claimants. Vide cheque Ex.PW1/A-9, payment of Rs.2,72,000/- was made to claimant M/s Vinayak Enterprises from the account of NIC through cheque drawn on Syndicate Bank, KG Marg, New Delhi. He has further deposed that no entry in respect of the said cheque was found in claim paid register in the month of July, 1998. PW11 has further deposed that the payment in respect of the aforesaid claim Ex.PW1/B was made by cheque to the concerned claimants. Vide CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 54 of 200 cheque Ex.PW1/B-10, payment of Rs.2,62,245/- was made to claimant M/s Vinayak Enterprises from the account of NIC through cheque drawn on Syndicate Bank, KG Marg, New Delhi. He has further stated that no entry in respect of the said cheque was found in claim paid register in the month of August, 1998. PW11 has further deposed that the payment in respect of the aforesaid claim Ex.PW1/C was made by cheque to the concerned claimants. Vide cheque Ex.PW1/C-6, payment of Rs.2,68,159/- was made to claimant M/s Super Traders from the account of NIC through cheque drawn on Syndicate Bank, KG Marg, New Delhi. He has further deposed that at the relevant Sr. no. 97/717, entry in respect of claim made to M/s SBCH Ltd. PW11 has further deposed that the payment in respect of the aforesaid claim Ex.PW1/D was made by cheque to the concerned claimants. Vide cheque Ex.PW1/D-9, payment of Rs.2,84,214/- was made to claimant M/s Balaji Trading from the account of NIC through cheque drawn on Syndicate Bank, KG Marg, New Delhi. He has further deposed that SR. no.278 on Ex.PW1/M entry in respect of payment made to SCBH Ltd. For Rs.1,96,931 had already been made in claim paid register Ex.PW1/M. PW11 has further deposed that the payment in respect of CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 55 of 200 the aforesaid claim Ex.PW1/E was made by cheque to the concerned claimants. Vide cheque Ex.PW1/E-6, a payment of Rs.2,81,500/- was made to claimant M/s Laser Computers from the account of NIC through cheque drawn on Syndicate Bank, KG Marg, New Delhi. However, at the relevant Sr. no. 265 on Ex.PW1/M entry in respect of payment made to M/s SCBH Ltd. of Rs.2,53,570/- had already been made in claim paid register Ex.PW1/M in the month of September, 1998. PW11 has further deposed that the payment in respect of the aforesaid claim Ex.PW1/F was made by cheque to the concerned claimants. Vide cheque Ex.PW1/F-5, payment of Rs.2,73,090/- was made to claimant M/s A. T. Random Fashions from the account of NIC through cheque drawn on Syndicate Bank, KG Marg, New Delhi. However, at the relevant sr. no. 160 on Ex.PW1/M, entry in respect of the payment made to M/S SCBH Ltd. of Rs.93,784/- had already been made in claim paid register Ex.PW1/M in the month of Sept.1998. PW11 has further deposed that the payment in respect of the aforesaid claim Ex.PW1/H was made by cheque to the concerned claimants. Vide cheque Ex.PW1/H-7, payment of Rs.2,60,000/- was made to claimant M/s Satnam Impex from the account of NIC through cheque CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 56 of 200 drawn on Syndicate Bank, KG Marg, New Delhi. However, at the relevant Sr. no. 289 on Ex.PW1/M, entry in respect of "no claim" of M/s Shri Krishana Paper Mills had already been made in claim paid register Ex.PW1/M in the month of September, 1998. PW11 has further deposed that the payment in respect of the aforesaid claim Ex.PW1/J was made by cheque to the concerned claimants. Vide cheque Ex.PW1/J-7, payment of Rs.1,97,000/- was made to claimant M/s Solar Enterprises from the account of NIC through cheque drawn on Syndicate Bank, KG Marg, New Delhi. He has further stated that at the relevant Sr. no.334 on Ex.PW1/M, entry in respect of payment made to M/s SCBH Ltd. of Rs.1,97,000/- had already been made in claim paid register Ex.PW1/M in the month of Sept, 1998. PW11 has further deposed that the payment in respect of the aforesaid claim Ex.PW1/K was made by cheque to the concerned claimants. Vide cheque Ex.PW1/K-17, payment of Rs.2,13,200/- was made to claimant M/s True Fit Exclusives Garments from the account of NIC through cheque drawn on Syndicate Bank, KG Marg, New Delhi. However, at the relevant Sr.no.719, on Ex.PW1/M entry in respect of the payment made to M/s SCBH Ltd. of Rs.2,13,200/- had already been made in CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 57 of 200 claim paid register Ex.PW1/M in the month of March, 1998.
PW11 has further deposed after going through the record, the system for settling the marine claim prescribed by the company has not been followed. No intimation was recorded in the claim intimation register nor any proper entry was made in the Claim Paid register. Where ever the entries were made in claim paid register, in most of the cases, they relate to M/s SBCH and in one case it relates to M/s Shri Krishna Paper Mills where the original claim of M/s Shri Krishna was made 'No claim". In case of M/s SBCH, the paid claim figures were altered in few cases. The exact reasons for not following the rules cannot be explained by PW11 but may be to avoid auditors or vigilance department. Claim files Ex.PW1/A to J and Ex.PW1/K bears the signatures of PW1 at point 'A' and signatures of A-1 at point 'B' on all the files. These claims were processed by PW1 and approved and agreed by A-1 and the claim files have not been dealt or recommended by PW11. During cross examination on behalf of A-1, PW11 has deposed that at the most, he did not think the total number of claims reported were more than 400 per month at a time. It was not necessary for a superior officer to put his signatures on the Claim CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 58 of 200 Intimation Register. No other superior officer also put his signatures thereon. He admitted that the Claim Intimation Register was not sent to the superior officer along with file at the time of processing of the claim. PW11 has further admitted that as soon as the intimation of the claim was received in the office, it was used to be received by PW1. At the time of approval by the senior officer, he was required to see claim intimation letter, claim form, invoice, GR or LR (Lorry receipt). All the documents were required to be checked by PW1. Claim file Ex.PW1/A does not contain all the required documents. PW11 himself clarified that some of the documents have been taken away by the tracer/recovery agent. PW11 admitted that after processing of the claim, the documents were returned to tracer/recovery agent to effect recovery. PW11 further deposed that he did not remember that on 10 th March 1998 when claim no. 97/717 Ex.PW1/C pertaining to Super Trader was cleared, he was on leave. He did not remember that on 25th March 1998 when claim no. 98/719 Ex.PW1/K pertaining to True Fit Exclusive Garments was cleared, he was on leave. He did not remember that on 10th March 1998 when claim no. 98/57 Ex.PW1/A pertaining to Vinayak Enterprises was cleared, he was on leave. He did CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 59 of 200 not remember that on 09.07.1998 when claim no. 98/57 Ex.PW1/A pertaining to Vinayak Enterprises was cleared, he was on leave. He did not remember that on 05.08.98 when claim no. 98/34 Ex.PW1/B pertaining to Vinayak Enterprises was cleared, he was on leave. He did not remember that on 30.09.98 when claim no. 98/334 Ex.PW1/J pertaining to Solar Enterprises was cleared, he was on leave. He did not remember that on 01.09.1998 when claim no. 98/289 Ex.PW1/H pertaining to Satnam Impex and other claim no. 98/160 Ex.PW1/F pertaining to At Random Fashion were cleared, he was on leave. He did not remember that on 24.09.1998 when claim no. 98/265 Ex.PW1/E pertaining to Laser Computer and claim no. 98/278 Ex.PW1/D pertaining to Balaji Trading Company were cleared, he was on leave. PW1 has further deposed that he did not recollect if he was on leave for 7 days around 09.07.98, 9 days around 05.08.98, 20 days EL around 20.09.98 and again 20 days on EL around 24.09.98. PW11 further admitted that if he happened to be on leave during clearance of these files, these files must have gone to the superior officer i.e. A-1 in this case. Upon specific question, PW11 deposed that he did not recollect if he was on leave on all such dates then these 10 claims CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 60 of 200 have been processed, so, he could not say that the claims were passed by A-1. PW11 has further admitted that if the entries are made in disbursement register, files were returned to the Marine Department. He further admitted that disbursement statement is one of the most important document. He further admitted that company has promulgated a Claims Procedural Manual laying down rules to be followed in regard to procedure for claims. He admitted that the company has got a Marine Underwriting Manual laying down rules for underwriting of business. The company has an Accounts Manual for rules to be followed in Accounts Department. The company has a Personnel Manual for rules to be followed in personnel department. These rules/manuals are modified/updated through circulars issued from time to time. All these manuals are available with the company in published form. He admitted that non of these manual are part of judicial file. He admitted that company has a published and promulgated financial authority which contains limits and rules regarding financial powers to be exercised by every rank of the officers concerned. He admitted that the financial authority of officers of every rank has been mentioned and a superior officer may exercise the CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 61 of 200 authority of junior officer in case he is not available. He denied the suggestion that there is no such rule in the financial authority. He further admitted that there is no such rule in financial authority that officer can exercise his financial power only upon recommendations from officers junior to his rank. However, recommendation is being done to exercise checks and balances in the system. Even if recommendation is not there, the superior officer can approve the claim. He has further admitted that during internal audit and the concerned officials carry out a check whether the rules and regulations of the company are followed in the concerned offices. He has further admitted that for the purpose of their assigned duties, the internal audit department carries out physical check of the claims books, underwriting books, account books, personnel and assets record also. He has also stated that Underwriting means and implies receipt of insurance business/premium by the company. He further admitted that in regard to making of payments, all activities are undertaken by accounts department upon instructions received from respective other departments. He further admitted that when instructions are given to accounts department from claims department for payment of the claim, CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 62 of 200 it is done through a disbursement voucher duly authorized by an Officer of the Claim Department. He has further deposed that claim voucher is to be authorized only after that particular claim has been approved by the Competent Authority. He has further admitted that disbursement voucher is made in triplicate after the claim has been authorized by the competent authority. The said voucher is sent to accounts department for making cheque. The accounts department makes the cheque on the basis of information contained in the voucher. The details of the cheque is mentioned on the disbursement voucher. He admitted that original is retained by the Accounts Department and at least one copy is sent to the Claim Department which forms part of the claim file. He has further admitted Ex.PW1/E, Ex PW1/J, Ex PW1/C, Ex PW1/G and Ex PW1/D which are claim files, contained carbon copy of the claim disbursement voucher which have been made favouring the same party in whose name the claim file has been registered. Claim file Ex.PW1/H, Ex.PW1/F, Ex.PW1/B, Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW1/K did not contain copy of the concerned disbursement voucher. The CBI has had taken statement from him only once. He admitted that all claims forming part of present CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 63 of 200 proceedings were processed and recommended by PW1 and authorized by A-1. PW1 has further admitted that Claims Paid Register and Claim Disbursement register contain entries in regard to same claims and were made by account department. There is no system to reconcile the two registers if there was any discrepancy between two. He denied the suggestion that claim intimation register Ex.PW1/L has no material value, or that the omission/duplications would have been corrected in due course or that the claim intimation register has a limited worth as a numbering register and no more. He admitted that barring the subject 10 claims, he was associated with recommending/passing of all marine claims, then being handled by the department. He denied the suggestion that there was no material breach of any of the company's rules in processing/payment of subject claims.
During cross examination on behalf of A-6 and A-10, PW11 has stated that he cannot admit or deny that the survey reports Ex PW1/D, Ex PW1/G, Ex PW1/K and Ex PW1/H are false and frivolous.
During cross examination on behalf of A-9, PW11 has admitted that personal appearance of the applicant was required at the CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 64 of 200 time of submission of claim form. He admitted that any person authorized by the claimant could submit the claim form. He cannot admit or deny that document Ex.PW1/H-1 to Ex.PW1/H-8 are false and fabricated and these do not contain the signatures of A-9 as he had not processed the claim. PW1 has further deposed that after passing of the claim, the payment was made by cheque and cheque is given by hand or by post. He cannot admit or deny if any receipt was taken in this case at the time of handing over the cheque by hand. The cross examination conducted on behalf of A-1, has been adopted by A-1. Remaining accused have not challenged the testimony of PW11 during cross-examination.
29 PW12 has deposed that he was in the business of transport till 2005 and was owner of Tata truck bearing no. DL 1G 9012 which was used to carry goods from Delhi to Saharanpur, UP. As transporter, he never carried goods to Jammu as that was not his line. Moreover, the aforesaid vehicle no. DL -1G-9012 did not possess the permit to Jammu from the concerned transport authority. Neither Ex.PW1/B-3 nor GR no. 1091 nor challan no. 1719 was issued by his transport as CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 65 of 200 they never transported any good to Jammu. He never heard or dealt with M/s Vinayak Enterprises or M/s Honey International or M/s Pooja International. He never made any payment to National Insurance Company in lieu of any recovery in respect of Insurance as he never transported any goods to Jammu. Ex.PW1/B1 contains the details of the goods transported from Delhi to Jammu under GR no. 1091 dated 14.07.1998. The said GR was never issued by him as he did not transport the said consignments. The above mentioned truck bearing no. DL 1 G 9012 remain with his transport for about 7-8 years. This vehicle was sold and delivered to Mr. Shaffiq Ahlmed on 09.09.1998 and it was purchased by PW12 in the year 1992-93. During cross examination on behalf of A-1, PW12 has deposed that he used to run his transport business from Nabi Kareem with 3-4 staff members. He used to book material for transportation from Nabi Kareem and at no other place. He did not book any material for transportation from Delhi. He only used to receive the material from outside. He was examined by CBI earlier in regard to the present subject. He has admitted that he told to CBI that he used to transport material to Saharanpur only. He denied the suggestion that he was transporting goods to other places CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 66 of 200 including Jammu. He denied the suggestion that GR no. 1091 dated 14.01.1998 and challan no. 1719 were issued by his office. The cross examination conducted on behalf of A-1 has been adopted on behalf of A6 to A11. The testimony of this witness remain unchallenged on behalf of A-3 & A-5.
30 PW13 has deposed that he joined Punjabi Bagh branch of Oriental Bank of Commerce in the year 1994. As per account opening form Ex.PW13/1 (D-94), the account was opened on 19.02.1998 in the name of Solar Enterprises. The form bears the signatures of Ms. Sarita Chopra, Sr. Manager at point 'A'. PW13 identified the specimen signatures card as Ex.PW13/2, signed by Ms. Sarita Chopra at point 'A'. Pay-in-slip (D-95) is Ex.PW13/3 vide which a cheque (D-125) for a sum of Rs.1,97,000/- which is Ex.PW1/J-7 was deposited in the aforesaid bank account. On the reverse of Ex.PW1/J-7 seal of the bank appears. He has further deposed that cheque no. 097662 dated 31.10.1998 (D-96) was issued in favour of self, vide which a sum of Rs.80,000/- was withdrawn. This cheque is Ex.PW13/4 and it was passed by Sh. KK Goel, Manager of the bank whose signatures has CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 67 of 200 been identified by PW13 at point 'B'. He has further deposed that cheque no. 097663 dated 09.11.1998 (D-97) was issued in favour of A8 vide which a sum of Rs.75,000/- was withdrawn. This cheque is Ex.PW13/5 and it was passed by Sh. KK Goel, Manager of the bank whose signatures has been identified by PW13 at point 'B'. He has further deposed that cheque no. 097661 dated 31.11.1998 (D-98) was issued in favour of self, vide which a sum of Rs.40,000/- was withdrawn. This cheque is Ex.PW13/6 and it was passed by Sh. KK Goel, Manager of the bank whose signatures has been identified by PW13 at point 'B'. He has further stated that cheque no. 097664 dated 31.11.1998 (D-99) was issued in favour of self, vide which a sum of Rs.5824/- was withdrawn. This cheque is Ex.PW13/7 and it was passed by Sh. KK Goel, Manager of the bank whose signatures has been identified by PW13 at point 'B'. However, as per endorsement at point 'A' on the reverse of cheque, the said bank account stood closed. PW13 has further deposed that he had submitted a duly authenticated statement of account for the period 01.02.1998 to 30.06.1998 in respect of account no. CD-1336 to CBI. This statement of account is Ex.PW13/8 signed by PW13 at point 'A' and seal of the bank at point CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 68 of 200 'B'. He has also submitted a duly authenticated statement of account Ex.PW13/9 for the period 01.06.1998 to 03.04.1999 for the said account no. CD 1336. He also submitted statement of account for the period 1997-98 in respect of account no. 6498. The said statement is Ex.WP13/10 bears the signatures of Smt. Sarita Chopra, Bank Officer at point 'A' and seal of the Bank at point 'B'. During cross examination on behalf of all the accused, he has deposed that Ex.PW13/8 and Ex.PW13/9 bears his signatures. Ms. Sarita Chopra, has already retired. Proof of the address of account holder was taken in this case. Ex.PW13/8 and Ex.PW13/9 deal with various transactions including those pertaining to Ex.PW13/4 to Ex.PW13/7 and Ex.PW1/J-7. 31 PW14 deposed that during the year July 1996 to July, 2003, he was posted as Assistant Manager(Dy.Manager, Scale-III re- designated), National Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office Sangrur, Punjab. Ex.PW1/E-1 at point Q-12 does not bear his signatures and same appears to have been forged. PW14 has further deposed that he also write his name as Dr. S. K. Chandel and not Dr. Chandel as mentioned at point Q-12. Ex.PW1/E-1 was not written by him on CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 69 of 200 behalf of the branch mentioned therein. He has further stated that Ex.PW1/E-1 was not issued by his branch as the spellings appearing at point P-1 thereon are wrong. Even the code number of the branch mentioned at points P-2 & P-3 on Ex.PW1/-1 are also wrong. During cross examination on behalf of A-1, PW14 has deposed that all the letters issued by his branch, used to be mentioned in the despatch register. His statement was recorded by CBI. A-4 was not appointed as surveyor in the case mentioned in Ex.PW1/E-1 and the said fact was told to CBI officer. There was a claim intimation register being maintained in the office and the practice of writing name of the surveyor in the said register as a rule, started since the inception. He denied the suggestion that competent authority had appointed A-4 as surveyor as mentioned in Ex.PW1/E-1. He has further admitted that he used to appoint surveyors on losses so intimated but subject to financial authority. He further submitted that report submitted by surveyor were forwarded to respective underwriting office by post. He further admitted that there was no rule of the company requiring receiving Divisional Office to verify authenticity of either the survey report or the forwarding letter with the sending office. He has further CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 70 of 200 denied the suggestion that wrong code number used to be mentioned in all the letterheads of the company. He further denied the suggestion that spellings of the insurance used to be wrongly mentioned in all the letterheads of their company He further denied the suggestion that letter head used in Ex.PW1/E-1 is genuine. He has further deposed that his specimen signatures were obtained by CBI Officer. Ld. Counsel for A-3, A-5, A-7, A-8 and A-9 has conducted the similar cross examination of PW14 as conducted on behalf of A-1. During cross examination on behalf of A-4 & A-11, he has deposed that there was no system of circulation of specimen signatures of the Officers in their office. Ld. Counsel for A-5, A-7 and A-8 has conducted the same cross examination of PW14 as conducted on behalf of A-1. However, his testimony remained unchallenged on behalf of A-6 and A-10. 32 PW15 has deposed that he is diploma holder and in the year 1992, he obtained surveyor's licence. He looks after the survey work pertaining M/s New India Assurance Company, M/s National Insurance Company, M/s Oriental Insurance Company and M/s United India Insurance Company. Nature of claims comprise of Motor accident CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 71 of 200 claims, Misc. and Marine. Marine Insurance claims come once or twice in a year. The said claims relates to only Sangrur District. He did not know any person by the name of A-4 and A-6. Three letter heads used for Ex.PW1/C-3 show that they are photocopies of the own letter head of PW15 and pertained to his licence which expired in 1997 and someone after adding hyphen thereafter added the year 2002 at points A,B & C thereon. The reference number mention on the said photocopies at three places at points D,E & F were never used by him and he used to mention reference number "JAT/NAT". Further, on the said three photocopies of Ex.PW1/C-3 at points Q10, Q10/1 and Q10/2, the signatures appearing are not of PW15 and someone had forged the same. The stamp impressions appearing at points G, H & I on Ex.PW1/C-3 also do not pertain to the stamp used by PW15. Report Ex.PW1/C-3 was neither prepared nor submitted by him. He has further deposed that seal impression on receipt Ex.PW15/L which is on letterhead, at point 'K' is not of PW15. The letterhead used in Ex.PW15/L shows that it is a photocopy of his own letterhead and pertained to his licence which expired in 1997 and someone after adding hyphen thereafter added the year 2002 at point 'M' thereon. CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 72 of 200 The reference number mentioned on the said photocopy at one place at point 'N' was never used by him and he used to mention reference number "JAT/NAT". He did not receive any fees from M/s Super Traders mentioned in Ex.PW15/L. He has never heard of the names of M/s Bansal Brothers and M/s Super Road Carriers. During cross examination on behalf of A-1, PW15 has deposed that he maintains a yearly register wherein details of all reports pertaining to claims surveyed by him used to be mentioned. He receives survey fee by way of cheques but in respect of out of station claim, he receives in cash also. He did not maintain the books of accounts. He receives Form -16 and based thereon he filed his income tax return. Ex.PW1/C-3 and Ex.PW15/L are the photocopies of his previous letterheads which so apparent on a mere look thereof. Upon specific question, PW15 has deposed that it does not look so to him that letterheads used in Ex.PW1/C3 and Ex.PW15/L are printed and not photocopies. He has further deposed that he had given copies of the letterhead and specimen seal to CBI officers. He denied the suggestion that Ex.PW1/C-3 and Ex.PW15/L are genuine and were issued by PW15. During cross examination on behalf of A-4, A-7, A-11, PW15 has CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 73 of 200 deposed that signatures of the surveyor not circulated in the companies. Learned counsel for A5 cross-examined similarly to PW15. Testimony of this witness remain unchallenged on behalf of A3, A5 and A9.
33 PW16 is the Chief Manager of SBI at the relevant time. In March, 2001 he was posted as Chief Manager in Jwala Heri branch. He had written two letters in his own handwriting, dated 24 th March 2001 and 29th March, 2001 which were signed by him at point 'A'. Vide these letters, he handed over account opening forms and debit and credit vouchers to CBI. The letters are Ex.PW16/1 and Ex.PW16/2. Ex.PW16/3 is the current account opening form (D-11) of M/s Vinayak Enterprises which was handed over to CBI. Affidavit of Sh. Vijay Dayal (A8), proprietor of the said account holder is Ex.PW16/4. The introducer of the said account was Sh. A.K.Sharma (A7), proprietor of M/s Porcelain Trading Co. He also handed over the account opening form of M/s Porcelain Trading Co along with affidavit of A8 which are Ex.PW16/5 and Ex.PW16/6. Vide pay-in-slips (D-12, D-13), two cheques (D-117 & D-118) Ex.PW16/7 and Ex.PW16/8 were deposited CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 74 of 200 and the said two pay in slips are Ex.PW16/9 and Ex.PW16/10. Five cheques were issued by M/s Vinayak Enterprises and the same are Ex.PW16/11 to Ex.PW16/15. Copy of the statement of account, running into five sheets, pertaining to account of M/s Vinayak Enterprises is Ex.PW16/16. During cross examination on behalf of A-1, PW16 has deposed that there was no clerk by the name of S. K. Kaushik s/o Sh. J. P. Kaushik during his tenure in Jwala Heri branch. (PW16 himself is S. K. Kaushik s/o Sh J. P. Kaushik). He has further admitted that some of the documents mentioned in Ex.PW16/DA had been handed over by PW16 to CBI vide letters Ex.PW16/1 and Ex.PW16/2. He denied the suggestion that whatever documents were demanded by CBI were not handed over by PW16. Ld. Counsels for A- 3, A-4, A-5, A-7, A-8, A-9 and A-11 cross-examined similarly as on behalf of A-1. However, the testimony of this witness remained unchallenged on behalf of A-6 and A-10.
34 PW17 has deposed that during the year 1997 to May 2002, he was posted as Manager in Oriental Bank of Commerce, East Patel Nagar Branch, New Delhi. Ex.PW7/A bears the signatures of A-5, CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 75 of 200 Proprietor of M/s Bit Bite System, Account no. 2470 of Safdarjung Enclave Brnach at point 'B', duly attested by Sh. P. K. Gupta, Sr.Manager at point 'A'. The signatures of applicant/proprietor of M/s Balaji Trading Company's account holder alongwith impression of rubber stamp at portion encircled in red ink between points Q-23/17. The account opening was allowed by PW17 vide his signatures at point 'D' on first page on Ex.PW7/A. Third page also bears the signatures of A-4 alongwith impression of rubber stamp. The specimen signature card pertained to account no. 4787 bears the signatures of account holder at point 'A'. In Q23/18, specimen signature card is Ex.PW17/A which bears his self attested photograph of A-4, account holder at encircled portion at point 'B'. Ex.PW17/A also bears initials along with bank seal at point 'C'. Ex.PW17/B is pay-in-slip dated 10.10.1998 bearing signature of Sh. Anand Kumar, Officer of Bank at point 'A'. Vide Ex.PW17/B, cheque bearing no. 983913 dated 24.09.1998 for a sum of Rs.2,84,214/- was deposited in C.A. A/c no. 4787 in the name of M/s Balaji Trading Co. Ex.PW17/B also bears the signatures of A-4 at point 'B'. Cheque no. 983913 dated 24.09.98 for a sum of Rs.2,84,214/- which is Ex.PW1/D-9 was issued by National Insurance CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 76 of 200 Company in favour of M/s Balaji Trading Company. A-4 had issued four cheques dated 05.11.1998 for Rs.4,000/- dated 30.10.1998 for Rs.1,15,000/-, dated 24.10.1998 of Rs.1,50,000/- and dated 22.10.1998 for Rs.24,000/- in favour of 'Self' from relevant C.A.A/c no. 4787 of M/s Balaji Trading Company. Another cheque dated 28.09.1998 for Rs.24,950/- in favour of Ms. Pushpa Juneja was issued from the said account. All the said cheques bears the signatures of A-4 at point 'A and the same are Ex.PW17/C-1 to Ex.PW17/C-5 respectively. Ex.PW17/C-1 to C-3 and Ex.PW17/C-5 were passed by Mrs. Tapti Ghosh while Ex.PW17/C-4 was passed by Sh. Anand Kumar. He identified the signatures of Tapti Ghosh and Sh Anand Kumar. The certified copy of the statement of account, running into two sheets of account no. 4787 of M/s Balaji Trading Co. is Ex.PW17/D certified by Sh. Anand Kumar, Manager at point 'A'. During cross examination on behalf of A-1, PW17 has deposed that signatures of A- 5 has been attested by Sh. P.K.Gupta, Sr. Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Safdarjung Enclave branch where he had an account. Address of A-5 is mentioned in Ex.PW7/A. Ld. Counsels for A-3, A-4, A-5, A-7, A-9, A-11 has cross-examined similarly as cross-examination CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 77 of 200 on behalf of A1. However, testimony of this witness remained unchalleged on behalf of A-8 and A-10.
35 PW18 has deposed that between the year 1996 to 1998, he resided at Star Apartments, Sec.9, Rohini with his wife, son and daughter-in-law. He has further deposed that there was no firm in the name of M/s At Random Fashion as mentioned in Ex.PW1/G-1 and Ex.PW1/G-2 has ever existed at his address. He has two daughters and the elder one is A-3. He identified the photograph of his daughter A-3 at point B-1 to B-4 on Ex.PW7/B. He further identified the photograph of A-3 on Ex.PW7/C at point 'B to E'. He further identified the signature of his daughter A-3 at point 'B' on Ex.PW7/D-1 to Ex.PW7/D-5 at point 'B' . He further identified the signature of A-3 at point 'A' on Ex.PW18/1 to Ex.PW18/13 respectively. During cross examination on behalf of A-1, PW18 has deposed that during the year 1996 to 1998, his daughter A-3 and her husband A-5 used to reside at A-104, Lok Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi which is about 2-1/2 kms from the then his house at Star Apartment, Rohini. According to his knowledge, A-5 was doing his own business and A-3 was as housewife. He CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 78 of 200 admitted that A-3 and A-5 used to visit PW18 of and on at his address. He denied the suggestion that A-3 was doing some business. It is not in his knowledge if A-3 and A-5 had given their addresses as their business addresses. The testimony of this witness remain unchallenged on behalf of all the other accused. 36 PW19 has deposed that in the year 2007, he was posted as Head Clerk with State Transport Authority, Govt of NCT of Delhi. He handed over letter dated 06.02.2001 to Inspector, CBI and the same is Ex.PW19/1 which was signed by Sh. G. S. Chaturvedi, the then Joint Director, Vigilance & Operation at point 'A'. He further deposed that the name of owner of a particular vehicle can only be ascertained after taking out the registration file of said particular vehicle. The testimony of this witness remained unchallenged on behalf of all the accused.
37 PW20 deposed that he is the retired Sr.Branch Manger of United Bank of India. He handed over the account opening form (D-19) CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 79 of 200 in respect of account no. 28090 of M/s Super Traders, proprietor concern of A-4 alongwith other relevant documents i.e. specimen signature card, pay-in-slip, cheques, statement of accounts etc. The account opening form is Ex.PW20/1. The said account was opened on 16.12.1997 and was authenticated by Sh. K. C. Gupta, the then Branch Manager at point 'A'. Specimen card Ex.PW20/2 also bears the signatures of Sh K. C. Gupta at point 'A'. Vide pay-in-slip Ex.PW20/3, cheque Ex.PW1/C-6 was deposited in account no. 28090 on 11.03.1998. 15 cheques had been drawn on the aforesaid account, out of which 10 are in favour of different parties and remaining five are self drawn. The cheques are Ex.PW20/4 to Ex.PW20/18. The transactions duly shown in the statement of account, running into two pages is Ex.PW20/19 signed by Sh. K. C. Gupta at point 'A'. During cross examination on behalf of all the accused, he has deposed that at the time of handing over the aforesaid documents, his statement was recorded. He himself stated that there was a list of documents which was duly acknowledged by CBI. He denied the suggestion that documents were collected by CBI randomly, without acknowledgement. He has admitted that as a matter of rule, the bank CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 80 of 200 used to verify the address of the constituent and in the present case also similar procedure has been followed. He further deposed that the introduction of A-7 R/o A-104 Lok Vihar was accepted on the basis of his licence no. 46586 of surveyor issued by Insurance Company i.e. National Insurance company and United Insurance Company towards proof of identity. At the time of handing over the aforesaid documents including the aforesaid 15 cheques, he had seen the same. No enquiry was made by CBI regarding the 15 cheques. He was confronted with his statement Ex.PW20/DA where reference is made to only six cheques and not 15 cheques.
38 PW21 has deposed that from July 1997 to 2001, he was posted as Assistant Manager in Syndicate Bank, KG Marg branch, New Delhi. Vide letter dated 12.02.2001 Ex.PW21/1 signed by Sh Sridhar Jas, the then Chief Manager at point 'A', he had handed over eight original cheques as per the details mentioned to CBI. The said cheques were seized vide production cum seizure memo dated 12.02.2001 which is Ex.PW21/2 signed by PW21 at point 'A'. The said cheques are Ex.PW1/G-10, Ex.PW1/C-6, Ex.PW1/10(Ex.PW16/7), CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 81 of 200 Ex.PW1/H-7, Ex.PW1/F, Ex.PW1/E-6, Ex.PW1/D-9 and Ex.PW1/J-7. Later on, he handed over four cheques to CBI on 11.04.2001 vide production cum seizure memo Ex.PW21/3 signed by him at point 'A'. Out of the said four cheques, two cheques are already exhibited as Ex.PW1/K-17 and Ex.PW16/8 (PW1/A-9) were handed over vide production cum seizure memo Ex.PW21/3. During cross examination conducted on behalf of A-1, PW21 has deposed that he had not dealt with any of the cheques exhibited. Sh Shridhar Jas, whose signatures appears on Ex.PW21/1 at point 'A' retired as General Manager and is presently residing at Kolkata. His testimony remain unchalleged on behalf of remaining accused.
39 PW22 has deposed that in the year 2001, he was posted in Overseas Bank as messenger. The production cum seizure memo EX.PW22/A bears his signatures at point 'A'. Vide this documents, he had handed over two original instruments to CBI. During cross examination, on behalf of A-1, PW22 has admitted that when the instruments were delivered by him, there may be a possibility of the availability of number of Class-I officers in the bank. He denied the CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 82 of 200 suggestion that the instruments were delivered by PW22 to CBI without any authority. Ld. Counsel for A-3 and A-9 adopted the cross examination conducted the counsel for A-1. However, testimony of this witness remain unchallenged on behalf of A-4 to 8 and A-10 and A-11. 40 PW23 has deposed that in January 2001, he was posted in Dena Bank, Pitampura branch. He identified his signatures at point 'A' on Ex.PW23/A vide which he delivered three documents to CBI. During cross examination on behalf of A-1, he denied the suggestion that he handed over the documents without any authority in CBI office. Ld. Counsel for A-3, A-9 adopted the cross examination conducted by the counsel for A-1. However, testimony of this witness remain unchallenged on behalf of A-4 to A-8 and A-10 and A-11. 41 PW24 deposed that since 1992, he was running a business under the name and style of M/s Vinayak Enterprises at 1815, Third Floor, Bhagirath Palace, Delhi-06. The firm was running a bank account in Indian Overseas Bank, Model Town, Delhi and also at Corporation Bank, Chandani Chowk, Delhi. His business was a CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 83 of 200 proprietorship business and was operating bank accounts for the business. He had never claimed any insurance claim from any Insurance Company including National Insurance Company. He deposed that he knew A8 which is a friend of his younger brother. He identified a letter dated 01.06.1998 which is already Ex.PW1/A-6 (D1 at serial no. 12). The said letter was not written by him or by his firm M/s Vinayak Enterprises. He further identified a letter dated 25.05.1998 which is already Ex.PW1/A6 (D1 at serial no. 13) and same was also not written by him or by his firm M/s Vinayak Enterprises. He further identified a letter dated 04.05.1998 which is already Ex.PW1/B6 (D2 at serial no. 10) and same was not written by him or by his firm M/s Vinayak Enterprises. He further identified a letter dated 20.07.1998 which is already Ex.PW1/B2 (D2 at serial no. 1) and same was not written by him or by his firm M/s Vinayak Enterprises. PW24 further deposed that he had never got insured any consignment and A8 was a frequent visitor of his shop. Communications at point Q5/9 in Ex.PW1/B6, Q5/11 in Ex.PW1/B2, Q5/1 in Ex.PW1/A6 (D1 at serial no.
12) and Q5 (D1 at serial no. 13) were not even signed by PW24 anywhere on these letters. PW24 further deposed that there was no CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 84 of 200 Manager in his shop.
During cross examination on behalf of A1, PW24 deposed that the officials from Insurance Company and the IO from CBI had made enquiries from him and recorded statement. HE admitted that during enquiries on one occasion, a customer came to him reported about some material which was not sold by him and thereupon he came to know that A8 was doing business in the name of his firm. He confronted A8 and admitted to feel sorry. He further deposed that Ex. PW1/A6 (two letters) and document Ex.PW1/B2 and PW1/B6 are letterheads printed in the name of his firm by someone else. He further deposed that at Roop Nagar having same firm in the name of his firm i.e. M/s Vinayak Enterprises. He denied the suggetion that he was aware of the fact that A8 was doing his own business in the name and style of his firm. A8 has adopted the same cross examination as of A1. The rest of the accused persons have not challenged the testimony of this witness.
42 PW25 deposed that in the year 1999 he was Chief Vigilance Officer National Insurance Company Ltd on deputation from CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 85 of 200 LIC. He is aware of the contents of letter dated 21.5.1999 which bears his signature at point A and was addressed to Sh. H.C. Avasthi Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Branch, CBI, New Delhi. Same is Ex.PW25/1.
During cross examination on behalf of A1, PW25 deposed that he got two reports from vigilance officers at New Delhi dated 21.1.99 and 1.2.99 giving details of the ten false and fabricated marine claims settled by Delhi Divisional Office - 15 and contents of his letter Ex.PW25/1 have been derived from the above said two reports. He further deposed that after receipt of two reports he discussed the whole matter with the vigilance officers of New Delhi, his officers at head office, discussed with the legal department of the head office, discussed and placed a note to the Chairman cum Managing Director and took his written order to refer the matter to CBI for investigation. He had discussed the matter with Mr. A.K. Seth, A.K. Tiwari and Mr. A.L. Gambhir all vigilance officials of New Delhi. PW25 admitted that all 10 claim files belonging to marine insurance. He did not recommend a departmental inquiry for the ten claim files subject matter of complaint Ex.PW25/1. He denied the suggestion that his complaint CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 86 of 200 was false, motivated or vindictive in nature or that he had carried out no verification of any kind as to the contents of his complaint Ex.PW25/1 or that his complaint is made in a totally mechanical manner or that he was deposing falsely.
The rest of the accused have adopted the same cross examination of A1.
43 PW26 deposed that he had handed over the list of marine recovery agents in two pages which is Ex. PW26/1 and was prepared by his marine department. He further deposed that he handed over the list of approved emapanelled agents of DO15 provided by DO 15. Same is Ex. PW26/2. During cross examination on behalf of A1, PW26 deposed that he was posted in vigilence department DRO when he handed over the document Ex. PW26/1 and Ex PW26/2 to CBI. He denied the suggestion that Ex. PW26/1 and 26/2 are not truthful or are false. All other accused adopted the same cross examination of A1. 44 PW27 deposed that he joined service in the year 1963 in LIC and transferred to NIC sometime in 1976. He identified his initial at CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 87 of 200 the sanction order dated 27.9.2001 regarding sanction for prosecution of Sh. B.S. Tariyal the then Sr. Assistant DO-XV NIC, Delhi. The same is Ex. PW27/1 running into six pages and it bears his initials on the last page. He further stated that at that point of time he was Manager NIC, Regional Office No.1, and was competent to remove him from service and also competent to accord sanction for prosecution. He accorded sanction after going through all the points with regard to the complaints and also seeing in depth the details about the allegations. Thereafter, he reached logical conclusion that there were big lapses and wrong doings and decided to grant sanction for prosecution.
During cross-examination of A1 which was adopted by A3, A6, A9, A4 and A 10, PW27 admitted that sanction accorded in this case was in respect of misconduct regarding Marine Insurance. He had consulted personal working in marine department before granted the subject sanction. He has further admitted that sanction Order Ex.PW27/1 was drafted by the Vigilance Department. He denied the suggestion that no material in support of the sanction was presented to him or was seen by him. He further denied that the sanction granted by him was mechanical and without application of mind or that the CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 88 of 200 material was not sent to him by the Vigilance Department. The testimony of this witness remain unchallenged by A5 , A7, A8 and A11. 45 PW 28 deposed he had one plot bearing no. A-2/7, Kirti Nagar, DDA Market Complex, Delhi which he had sold about 4-5 years back. The plot was allotted to him by the DDA probably in the years of eighties 1980-82 in lieu of his property at Basai Darapur, Delhi. He had also paid about rupees one lac for the same. He started his motor workshop at plot bearing no. A-2/7, Kirti Nagar, DDA Market Complex, Delhi under the name and style of M/s Gurcharan Motors after its allotment and continued it for about 5-6 years and thereafter he started the business of marble at the said plot. The number of this plot A-2/7, Kirti Nagar, DDA Market Complex, Delhi was changed by DDA after he constructed one building over the said plot in the year 1987-88. PW28 had also rented out the first floor of the said premises to one Dik Sarkas also called Tinchu who did work of chemical washing jean pants and said tenant left the premises in around 2000. He did not remember if there was any property bearing No. A-2-5/1 in the vicinity. He knew one Arvind Sharma, employee of Syndicate bank, who used CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 89 of 200 to collect money from the shopkeepers in his vicinity for depositing the same with the bank. There was never any shop or business concern under the name and style of M/s True Fit Exclusive Garments in the said vicinity in the DDA market.
This witness was cross-examined by CBI wherein he deposed that after changing the number of his shop from 2/7 by DDA, the new number was A-2-5/I and that he had never rented out his above said shop to any Arvind Sharma at any point of time nor any business concern under the name and style of M/s True Fit Exclusive Garments ever came in existence in the aforesaid premises bearing no. A-2-5/I. PW28 deposed that Ex. PW 1/K (D-10), wherein Ex. PW 1/K5; Ex. PW 1/K 15; Ex. PW 1/18; Ex. PW 1/K6 to 1/K 13 bear the number of his premises no A-2-5/I, DDA Marble Complex, Kirti Nagar. However, the name of the addressee mentioned as M/s True Fit Exclusive Garments is wrong as no business concern ever existed in the said premises at any point of time. He admitted that in Ex. PW 6/A (D-100) photograph of Arvind Sharma (A7) has been stapled on its top left. He has further admitted that this document also bears the address of his premises number A-2-5/I, DDA Marble Complex, Kirti CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 90 of 200 Nagar. However, the name of the addressee mentioned as M/s True Fit Exclusive Garments is wrong as no business concern ever existed in the said premises at any point of time. He admitted that his statement under Sec. 161 CrPC was recorded by CBI on 15.03.2000. He admitted that all these facts narrated by him, were the part of said statement.
During cross-examination on behalf of A-1, A-4, A-7, A8 A10 & A11, PW28 deposed that he had not brought any document to show that he was the owner of the premises A-2/7 and later changed to A-2-5/I, DDA, Marble Complex, Kirti Nagar, Delhi at any point of time. The summons sent to him did not require him to carry any such document. Mr Dik Sarkas @ Tinchu was tenant regarding first floor of his premises and was doing the the business of chemical washing of jean pants and except that he was not running any other business there. He had stated so on the basis of his observations of his business. He never felt need to talk to Mr Dik Sarkas @ Tinchu as to whether he was running any other business from the said premises as he had been watching him daily. He denied the suggestion that A7 was running the business under the name and style of M/s True Fit CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 91 of 200 Exclusive Garments from the first floor of his premises in collaboration and on permission from said Mr Dik Sarkas. He did not know when the number of the premises stood changed. He denied the suggestion that he was not the owner of the premises bearing no. A-2/7 later changed to A-2-5/I at any point of time or for the said reason he had not brought any document to prove the said fact.
Testimony of this witness remained unchallenged on behalf of remaining accused persons.
46 PW29 is the witness regarding sanction of prosecution for A1 since A1 has already been died therefore this witness is not relevant now for disposal of the present case.
47 PW30 deposed that he was working as Director Truth Lab, Safdarjung Enclave and retired as Principal Scientific Officer from CFSL on 30.11.2005. Before joining the post of Principal Scientific Officer, he was working as Sr. Scientific Officer Grade-II and Grade-I in CFSL since January 1972. He was M.Sc. in Chemistry. Before being selected through UPSC for the post of Sr. Scientific Officer he had CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 92 of 200 received training in the examination of documents from Sh. S.K. Gupta then Incharge of Document Division and CFSL, New Delhi for two years. He had also received the training in the examination of printed matters from Indian Security Press, Nasik. He has also received the training to operate all the equipments being used in the examination of disputed documents as well as other branches of Forensic Science as CSIO Chandigarh. He was a co-author in number of papers in national and international forensic science journals. He had examined more than 5000 cases consisting of lacs of exhibits and appeared before more than 2000 Courts including High Courts through out India. In this case he had got an occasion to examine certain documents referred by SP CBI, New Delhi. The documents of this case were examined by him with the help of scientific equipments and after a thorough scientific examination he arrived at the following opinions:-
"1. Handwriting Evidence points to the writer of specimen writings, signatures and initials mark S1, S1/1 to S1/5, S2 and S2/1 to S2/8 on 15 sheets now Ex.PW30/1 (collectively) being the person responsible for writing the questioned writing marked Q1, already marked as X2 in Ex.PW1/A (D-1), Q1/1, Q1/3 to Q1/11 already marked as X2 in Ex.PW1/B to Ex.PW1/K and Q1/12 on Ex.PW1/K2 in file Ex.PW1/K (D-10), Q2, Q2/1 to Q2/12 in Ex.PW1/A to Ex.PW1/K and Q2/12 on Ex.PW1/K2 in file Ex.PW1/K. To arrive at this CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 93 of 200 opinion I had detailed my reasons in my report no. CFSL-2001/D-375 dated 19.4.2002 vide opinion no.1 at page no.1 to 3. As the details reasons are in my report the same may be read as part of my evidence.
2. Handwriting Evidence points to the writer of specimen writing marked S3, S3/1 to S3/5, S4, S4/1 to S4/5 on 12 sheets bearing no. 16 to 27 in file D-91 now Ex.PW30/2 (collectively), S8, S8/1 to S8/5 on 6 sheets bearing no. 44 to 49 in file D-91 now Ex.PW30/3 being the person responsible for writing the questioned writings marked Q3 at point B in file D- 1 already Ex.PW1/A, Q3/1, Q3/3, Q3/4, Q3/6 to Q3/11, Q3/13 in file D-2 to D-10 already Ex.PW1/B to Ex.PW1/K and Q3/14 on Ex.PW1/K2 in file D-10 already Ex.PW1/K, Q4, Q4/1 to Q4/7 in files D-3 to D- 8 and D-10 already Ex.PW1/C to Ex.PW1/H and Ex.PW1/K and Q4/8 on Ex.PW1/K2 in file D-10 Ex.PW1/K, Q8 marked B in file D-2 Ex.PW1/B, Q8/1 on Ex.PW1/B2 in file D-2, Q8/2 on Ex.PW1/F2 in file D-6 Ex.PW1/F and Q8/4 on Ex.PW1/J2 in file D-9 Ex.PW1/J. To arrive at this opinion I detailed my reasons in my report CFSL-2001/D-375 dated 19.4.2002 vide opinion no.2 at page no.4 to 6.
3. Handwriting Evidence points to the writer of specimen writings and signatures marked S5, S5/1 to S5/5 6 sheets from pages 28 to 33 in file D-91 now Ex.PW30/4 (collectively) being the person responsible for writing the questioned writings and signatures marked Q5 and Q5/1 both on two letters dated 25.5.98 and 1.6.98 both Ex.PW1/A6, Q5/2 at the back of Ex.PW1/A5, Q5/3 on Ex.PW1/A8, Q5/4 on Ex.PW1/A1 all in file Ex.PW1/A (D-1), Q5/6 to Q5/8 on 3 pages 14, 15 and 17 already Ex.PW1/B5 (collectively) , Q5/10 on Ex.PW1/9 , Q5/11 on Ex.PW1/B2 all in Ex.PW1/B (D-2), Q14/5 on Ex.PW1/K2 and Q14/6 on letter dated 25.2.98 now Ex.PW30/5 in file Ex.PW1/K (D-10), Q22 and Q22A , on Ex.PW16/3 (D-11), Q22/3 to Q22/5 on cheques D-CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 94 of 200
14 to D-16 already Ex.PW16/11 to Ex.PW16/13, Q29 on Ex.PW1/A5 in file Ex.PW1/A (D-1), Q29/1 to Q29/3 on 3 pages 14, 15 and 17 collectively Ex.PW1/B5 and Q29/4 on Ex.PW1/9 in file D-2 already Ex.PW1/B. To arrive at this opinion I had detailed my reasons in my report dated 19.4.2002 vide opinion no.3 at page no.6 to 9 as the detailed reasons are in my report the same may be read as part of my evidence.
4. Handwriting Evidence points to the writer of specimen signatures marked S7 and S7/1 to S7/5 pages 38 to 43 in file D-91 now Ex.PW30/6 (collectively) being the person responsible for writing the questioned signatures marked Q7 on Ex.PW1/A2, Q7/1 to Q7/4 on 4 sheets from page no.4 to 7 already Ex.PW1/A3 and Q7/5 and Q7/6 at pages 2 and 3 (copies of Ex.PW1/A3 at page 4) in file Ex.PW1/A (D-1). To arrive at this opinion I detailed my reasons in my report dated 19.4.2002 vide opinion no.4 at page no.9 and 10.
5. The authorship of the questioned signatures marked Q7/9 to Q7/13 in file D-8 already Ex.PW1/H could not be connected to the writer of specimen signatures marked S7, S7/1 to S7/5 already Ex.PW30/6 as the differences were observed in detailed execution of the strokes. The same opinion has already been given my me in my report at page no.10 vide opinion no.5.
6. Handwriting Evidence points to the writer of specimen signatures marked S9, S9/1 to S9/3 pages 50 to 53 on 4 sheets now Ex.PW30/7 being the person responsible for writing the questioned signatures marked Q9/5, Q9/5A (carbon signatures) on bill dated 23.9.98 of file D-9 Ex.PW1/J now Ex.PW30/8 , Q9/6 which is a covering letter to aforesaid bill now Ex.PW30/9, Q9/8 on Ex.PW13/1 (D-
94), Q9/9 on specimen card OBC already Ex.PW13/2, Q9/10 to Q9/13 on cheques D-96 to D-99 already Ex.PW13/4 to Ex.PW13/7, Q9/15 on account opening CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 95 of 200 form Ex.PW6/A (D-100) Q9/16 on specimen signature card Ex.PW8/A, Q9/17 to Q9/25 all cheques (D-102 to D-110) now collectively Ex.PW30/10. To arrive at this opinion I had detailed my reasons in my report vide opinion no.6 at page no. 10 and 11.
7. Handwriting Evidence points to the writer of specimen writings marked S23, S23/1 to S23/4 on 5 sheets Page 131 to 135 in file D-91 now Ex.PW30/11, S27 at page 152 now Ex.PW30/12, S30 and S30/1 to S30/5 on 6 sheets from page no.177 to 182 now Ex.PW30/13 (Collectively) being the person responsible for writing the questioned writings and signatures marked Q23 on D-19 Ex.PW20/1, Q23/1 on Ex.PW20/2, Q23/2 to Q23/16 on cheques Ex.PW20/4 to Ex.PW20/18 (D-21 to D-35) , Q23/17 on account opening form on Ex.PW7/A (D-36), Q23/18 specimen signature form Ex.PW17/A, Q23/19 to Q23/23 on cheques D-38 to D-42 Ex.PW17/C1 to Ex.PW17/C5, Q30 and Q30/1 on Ex.PW1/D1 in File D-4 Ex.PW1/D. To arrive at this opinion I had detailed my reasons in my report vide opinion no.7 at page no.11 to 14.
8. Handwriting Evidence points to the writer of specimen writings mark S11, S11/1 to S11/5 on 6 sheets from pages 65 to 70 in file D-91 now Ex.PW30/14, S15, S15/1 to S15/4 on 5 sheets from pages 87 to 91 in file D-91 now Ex.PW30/15, S16, S16/1 to S16/4 from pages 92 to 96, S17, S17/1 to S17/5 and S17/5A on pages 97 to 102 in file D-91 now Ex.PW30/16 being the person responsible for writing the questioned writings marked Q11 on Ex.PW1/E8 , Q11/1 on Ex.PW1/E1 at the back, Q15 on Ex.PW1/E1 both in file D-5 Ex.PW1/E, Q15/1 on Ex.PW1/F1 in file D-6 Ex.PW1/F, Q15/2 on Ex.PW1/G1 in file D-7 Ex.PW1/G, Q16/2 on account opening form D-43 Ex.PW7/F, Q16/3 on specimen signature form Ex.PW7/G, Q16/4 to Q16/14 all cheques from D-45 Ex.PW7/H1 and D-46 to D-55 Ex.PW30/17 (collectively), Q17/1 to Q17/5 on Ex.PW1/G7, CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 96 of 200 Ex.PW1/G8, Ex.PW1/G12, Ex.PW30/18 and Ex.PW1/G2 in file D-7 Ex.PW1/G. To arrive at this opinion I had detailed my reasons in my report dated 19.4.2002 vide opinion no.8 at page no. 14 to 17.
9. Handwriting Evidence points to the writer of specimen writings marked S-18, S-18/1 to S-18/5 on 6 sheets from page 103 to 108 now Ex.PW30/19 (collectively), S20, S20/1 to S20/5 on 6 sheets from page 114 to 119 Ex.PW30/20, S-28, S-28/1 to S-28/10 on 11 sheets pages 158 to 168 in file D-91 now Ex.PW30/21, S31, S31/1 to S31/4 on 5 sheets from page 183 to 187 now Ex.PW30/22 being the person responsible for writing the questioned writings marked Q20 at the back of Ex.PW1/J1, Q20/1 on Ex.PW1/J2 in file D-9 already Ex.PW1/J, Q28 on draft/MT application form of PNB dated 16.12.1998 already Ex.PW4/A (Part of D-113),Q31 on Ex.PW1/K6 , Q31/2 to Q31/6 on Ex.PW1/K8 to Ex.PW1/K12 and Q31/7 on Ex.PW30/23. All marine/inland transit proposals/declarations in file D-10 already Ex.PW1/K. To arrive at this opinion I had detailed my reasons in my report dated 19.4.2002 vide opinion no.9 at page no. 18 to 21.
10. Handwriting Evidence points to the writer of specimen signatures marked S-25, S25/1 to S-25/5 on 6 sheets pages 141 to 146 now Ex.PW30/24 being the person responsible for writing the questioned signatures Q25 on account opening form dated 12.8.98 of Dena Bank already Ex.PW2/A (D-90) , Q25/1 on terms and conditions of Dena Bank in D-91 now Ex. PW30/25, Q25/2 on undated letter addressed to Manager Dena Bank, Shiva Market by Satnam Impex D-93 already Ex.PW2/B, Q25/3 to Q25/12 on cheques D-80 to D-89 already Ex. PW2/C1 to Ex.PW2/C10. To arrive at this opinion I had detailed my reasons in my report dated 19.4.2002 vide opinion CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 97 of 200 no.10 at page no. 21 and 22.
The report number CFSL-2001/D-375 dated 19.4.2002 consists of 22 pages and bear his signatures on all the pages at point A and same is Ex.PW30/26. The same was got typed by his steno on his dictation and he has signed the same only after going through the same.
During cross examination on behalf of all the accused persons, PW30 deposed that documents of this case were not received personally and directly and were received by him from the Asst. who received the documents from the CBI. After preparing the report and getting it approved by the Sr. officers the report was sent to SP CBI. He had not observed any fundamental dissimilarity between the questioned and specimen writings/signatures. By fundamental dissimilarity he meant that the dissimilarity which cannot be accounted for in the available specimen writings or signatures or due to the natural variations. He denied the suggestion that there were dissimilarities between questioned writings and signatures or that he was trying to suppress it in pursuance to direction of CBI. The specimen writing /signatures examined by him bears his official stamp, CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 98 of 200 case number and the marking given by him on that document. He denied the suggestion that he knew that these documents have been changed by CBI for the purpose of the present prosecution. 48 PW31 deposed that he was running a printing press since 1983 at 21/23, Jwala Heri, New Delhi in the name and style of Sharma Printers. He was running my business from this address since beginning and address is unchanged till date. In the year 95-96 at first floor of the premises where he was running his press there was an office of Arvind Sharma in the name and style of M/s Puja Enterprises though he did not remember that if same was Puja Enterprises or Puja International whose proprietor was A-7. He deposed that Puja International used to ask him to print letterheads, bills etc of different firms. A7 used to supply the butter paper for the screen printing of the documents. He never undertook any government job except with the prior permission in writing of the concerned authority. In case of private parties they used to bring the originals of the documents and on having seen them he used to do the printing for them. He further stated that he knew A7 since 1992-93. During 1995-96 he was meeting him CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 99 of 200 almost daily. He was shown D-9 which is a file containing page no.14 of National Insurance Company Limited bearing Claim No. 351500/98/334. The same is already Ex.PW1/J. Page 14 is a letterhead of Solar Enterprises bearing address A-26, Saraswati garden (Backside), New Delhi dated 8.9.98. The letterhead on the top of this page was the material which was printed by PW31 in this page
14. Page no.14 is already Ex.PW1/J-9. He has been shown D-9 (file already Ex.PW1/J) which is a file containing page no.2 letterhead of Solar Enterprises dated 14.9.98 and same was printed by him and is Ex.PW1/J2. Again after seeing document D-9 a file containing page no.4 letterhead of Pooja International, GH- 2/122-B, Opposite Raksha Kunj, Ankur Apartment, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi dated nil and same was printed by him and is already Ex.PW30/9. I have been shown D-2 (file already Ex.PW1/B) which is a file containing page no.4 to 8 letterhead of Honey International, 26-A, Jwala Heri Market, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi and after seeing the he deposed that same was printed by him and is already Ex.PW1/B3 and Page no.4 to 7 are Ex.PW31/1 (collectively four pages). again after seeing D-10 (file already Ex.PW1/K) which is a file containing page no.1 letterhead of CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 100 of 200 True Fit Exclusive Garment, A-2 5/1, Kirti Nagar, DDA, Marble Complex, New Delhi dated 25.2.98 he stated that same was printed by him and is already Ex.PW30/5. PW31 further stated stated that after seeing D-10 which is a file containing page no.2 letterhead of True Fit Exclusive Garment, A-2 5/1, Kirti Nagar, DDA, Marble Complex, New Delhi dated 26.2.98 that same was printed by him and is already Ex.PW1/K2. PW31 after seeing D-10 (file already Ex.PW1/K) which is a file containing page no.10 form of Honey International , 26-A, Jwala Heri, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi dated 27.3.98 stated that same printed by him and is already Ex.PW1/K4. D-5 (file already Ex.PW1/E) is a file containing page no.9 form of Honey International 26-A, Jwala Heri, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi dated Nil. After seeing this document he stated that same was printed by him and is already Ex.PW1/E3. Ex.PW1/J is a file containing page no.5 to 7 letterhead of Pooja International GH-2/120B, Opposite Raksha Kunj, Ankur Apartment, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi dated Nil which was printed by PW31 and same is Ex. Ex.PW1/J3 and page no.5 and 6 are Ex.PW31/2 (collectively two pages). He deposed that he had printing the other letterheads of different private firms for PW7. CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 101 of 200
During cross examination on behalf of A1, PW31 deposed that Ex.PW30/5, Ex.PW1/K2 and Ex.PW1/J9 have been identified by him as these were printed by him and shown to him by the CBI in the course of the investigation and at that point of time it was a new matter and fresh to his knowledge. When the investigation in the matter begin since he was maintaining the records of last three years and was able to recognize these letterheads printed by him. The CBI did not seize any material from his during investigation in connection with these two documents. He denied the suggestion that these documents were not printed in his printing press. The testimony of this witness remain unchallanged on behalf of other accused persons. 49 PW32 deposed that in the year April 2001, he was working as Marketing Executive in All India Motor Transport Congress, 16A, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. M/s Super Road Carriers, M/s K. R. Golden Transport, Delhi Assam Roadlines, M/s Patiala Assam Roadways, M/s Bajaj Golden Road Carriers, M/s Indian Roadways and Singh Road Carriers were not a member of All India Motor Transport Congress, as per the record. The aforesaid information is based on records of All CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 102 of 200 India Motor Transport Congress pertaining to the period from 1997-98 & 1998-99.
During cross examination on behalf of A1, PW32 deposed that All India Motor is an association of transporters i.e. non- government association. He is not aware whether it is mandatory for every transporter to register with All India Motor Transport Congress as he was discharging the function of marketing only or that if any fees or subscription is chargeable from individual transporter registered with All India Motor Transport Congress. He further denied that he has taken the name of M/s Super Road Carriers, M/s K. R. Golden Transport, Delhi Assam Roadlines, M/s Patiala Assam Roadways, M/s Bajaj Golden Road Carriers, M/s Indian Roadways and Singh Road Carriers without referring the record and without any basis i.e. concocted by himself.
During cross examination on behalf of A7, PW32 deposed that he is not running any transport company and is not aware that how many transporters are functioning in Delhi city. He admitted that he was not aware about the business of transport.
CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 103 of 200
PW33 deposed that in the year 1999, he was posted as Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB, New Delhi. On 12.07.1999, he was entrusted an FIR by the then SP Sh. N. N. Singh and the said FIR is Ex PW33/1. He identified signatures of Sh. N. N. Singh at point A, as he had seen him writing and signing in the official course. After receipt of the said FIR, he started investigating the case. During investigation, he recorded the statement of various persons/prosecution witnesses of around about 15 to 20 under Section 161 CrPC. During investigation, he also collected specimen signatures of various persons/accused persons.
On seeing file D-91, from page 28 to 33 are the specimen signatures of A8. He collected the specimen signatures of A8 consisting of 6 pages in presence of one independent witness Sh. S. K. Gauba. He identified his signatures on each page at points A and pages are Ex PW30/4 (Pages 28 to 33).
On seeing file D-91, from page 34 to 37 are the specimen signatures of A10. He collected the specimen signatures of A10 consisting of 4 pages in presence of one independent witness Sh. S. K. Gauba. He identified his signatures on each page at points A and CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 104 of 200 pages are Ex PW33/2 (Pages 34 to 37).
On seeing file D-91, from page 38 to 43 are the specimen signatures of A6. He collected the specimen signatures of A6 consisting of 5 pages in presence of one independent witness Sh. S. K. Gauba. He identify his signatures on all the pages at points A and pages are Ex PW30/6 (Pages 38 to 43).
On seeing file D-91, from page 50 to 53 are the specimen signatures of A7. He collected the specimen signatures of A7 consisting of 4 pages in presence of one independent witness Sh. Chattar Singh. He identified his signatures on each page at points A and pages are already Ex PW30/7 (Pages 50 to 53).
On seeing file D-91, from page 54 to 59 are the specimen signatures of Sh. Jitender Kumar. He collected the specimen signatures of Sh. Jitender Kumar consisting of 6 pages in presence of one independent witness Sh. Sunit Sharma. PW33 identified his signatures on each page at points A and pages are Ex PW33/3 (Pages 54 to 59).
On seeing file D-91, from page 71 to 76 are the specimen signatures of Sh. S. K. Chandel. He collected the specimen signatures CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 105 of 200 of Sh. S. K. Chandel consisting of 6 pages in presence of one independent witness Sh. H. S. Ganjwal. PW33 identified his signatures on each page at points A and pages are Ex PW33/4 (Pages 71 to 76).
On seeing file D-91, from page 77 to 80 and 152 to 157 are the specimen signatures of A4. He collected the specimen signatures of A4 consisting of 10 pages in presence of one independent witness Sh. S. K. Gauba. PW33 identified his signatures on each page at points A and pages are Ex PW33/5 (Pages 77 to 80) and pages 152 to 157 are Ex PW30/12.
On seeing file D-91, from page 81 to 86 and 169 to 176 are the specimen signatures/specimen writings of A8. He collected the specimen signatures of A8 consisting of 14 pages in presence of one independent witness Sh. S. K. Gauba. PW33 identified his signatures on each page at points A and pages are Ex PW33/6 (Pages 81 to 86 and Pages 169 to 176).
PW33 collected the specimen signatures of A7 consisting of 2 pages in presence of one independent witness Sh. S. K. Gauba. PW33 identified his signatures at point A on each page Ex PW33/7 (2 CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 106 of 200 pages).
On seeing file D-91, from page 103 to 108 and 114 to 125 are the specimen signatures of Sh. K. V. Juneja. He collected the specimen signatures of Sh. K. V. Juneja consisting of 18 pages in presence of one independent witness Sh. Sandeep Kumar. PW33 identified his signatures on each page at points A and pages Ex PW30/19 (Pages 103 to 108) and pages 114 to 125 are Ex PW30/20 Thereafter, he was transferred in another branch and the said case was entrusted to Sh. Navneet Krishna, Inspector CBI, in the month of May, 2000. He handed over all the relevant documents/statements to the new IO as per directions of the then SP.
During cross-examination on behalf of A1, PW33 deposed that the specimen signatures and writings collected by him was done at the CBI office at New Delhi. He deposed that the independent witnesses for this purpose were arranged through the Duty Officer of CBI, ACB, New Delhi.
He denied the suggestion that he did not collect any specimen signatures or writings or the specimens signatures and writings exhibited were fabricated. He further denied the suggestion CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 107 of 200 that specimen signatures and writings were collected under threat, pressure and intimidation or that no independent witness was present during the said exercise.
He denied the suggestion that he had not recorded any statement under Section 161 CrPC or that the statements furnished with the charge sheet are imaginary and fabricated or that he had deposed falsely in pursuance to instructions of his department.
Remaining accused persons adopted the cross- examination conducted on behalf of A1. 50 PW34 is the wife of A7 deposed that her husband working
for National Insurance company was making recovery for the insurance company under the name and style of Pooja International in the year 1999. Her husband was arrested by CBI officials and he remained in custody for some months. Her husband was using a manual typewriter and a computer for the official purpose and some boys were engaged by her husband to operate the computer and typewriter. She further deposed that when her husband was in custody she sold the both computer and typewriter to one dealer as those were not in condition to be operated. The testimony of this witness remained unchallenged on CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 108 of 200 behalf of all the accused persons.
51 PW35 deposed that in the year July 1999, he was posted as Vigilance Officer at Delhi Regional Office-I of National Insurance Company Ltd. He remained posted as Vigilance Officer from January 1992 to March 2003. He handed over some claims files, surprised check report etc. through seizure memo dated 13.07.1999.
Ex PW35/1 is seizure memo dated 13.07.1999 through which Mr. V. M. Mittal, Inspector CBI/ACB, New Delhi seized the documents which is mentioned in seizure memo from serial no. 1 to 16. It bears his signatures at point 'A' on page no. 1 and 2 of seizure memo. PW35 also identified the signature of Mr. V.M. Mittal at point 'B' on page no. 2 of seizure memo. PW35 identified his signature as he signed before him during the handing over the documents through Ex PW35/1 D-119 (additional documents) is investigation report i.e. surprise check of DO XV in respect of marine claims dated 21.01.1999 bearing reference no. DXV/VIG/M/207 submitted to Chief Vigilance Officer at Head Office of National Insurance Company Ltd. at Calcutta. CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 109 of 200 The above mentioned report (D-119) is running into 11 sheets bearing signature of PW35 at point 'A' being a vigilance officer at page no. 11 and also bear his initials on page no 1 to 10 (D-119) at point 'A'. It also bears the signature of Mr. A.L. Gambhir, the then Administrative Officer in his department at point 'B' at page no. 11 and also bear his initials on page no 1 to 10 (D-119) at point 'B'. Signature of Mr. A.K. Tiwari, the then Administrative Officer at point 'C' at page no. 11 as identified by PW35 and also bear his initials on page no 1 to 10 (D-119) at point 'C'. PW35 identified the signatures of Mr. A.L. Gambhir and Mr. A.K. Tiwari as they worked with him and he has seen them signing and writing during official course of duties. The same is now Ex.PW35/2 (colly 11 sheets). The same is mentioned at serial no. 1 in Ex.PW35/1.
During investigation, it was found that all the marine claims in report were processed by Mr. B. S. Tarial, the then Sr. Assistant, DO.XV and were sanctioned by A-1. These claims have not entered into claim-paid register, claim intimation register and recovery register of the marine department of DO.XV.
D-120 (additional documents) is a further report of surprised check of DO.XV in respect of the marine claims dated CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 110 of 200 01.02.1999 bearing reference no. DXV/VIG/M/207 submitted to the Chief Vigilance Officer at Head Office of National Insurance Company Ltd. at Calcutta. This report (D-120) is running into 3 sheets and it bears signature of PW35 at point 'A' being a vigilance officer at page no. 3 and also bear his initials on page no 1 and 2 (D-120) at point 'A'. The same is now Ex.PW35/3 (colly 3 sheets). The same is mentioned at serial no. 2 in Ex.PW35/1.
D-5 (already Ex.PW1/E) which is claim file no.
351500/98/265 of M/s Laser Computer containing sheets 1 to 17 including photographs at page no. 2 to 7 as well as inside of the file cover mentioned by DO.XV of NIC negatives are stapled to page no.1. The same is mentioned at serial no.3 of Ex.PW35/1. All 17 pages bear initial of PW35 except page no.4 at point 'A-1'. Signature of Mr. B. S. Tarial at point 'A' already marked (Q-2/5) identified by PW35 and the signature of A1 at point 'B', already marked (Q-4/3). PW35 also identified the handwriting of A-1 already marked Y1 to Y2(Q-3/6).
D-6 (already Ex.PW1/F) is claim file no. 351500/98/160 of M/s AT Random Fashions mentioned by DO.XV of NIC. The same is mentioned at serial no.5 of Ex.PW35/1. All the pages bear initials of CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 111 of 200 PW35 at point 'A-1'. He also identified the signature of Mr. B. S. Tarial at point 'A', already marked (Q-2/6) and the signature of A-1 at point 'B', already marked (Q-4/4). He also identified the handwriting of A-1 already marked Y1 to Y2(Q-3/7).
D-7 (already Ex.PW1/G) is claim file no. 351500/97/718 of AT Random Fashions mentioned by DO.XV of NIC. The same is mentioned at serial no.7 of Ex.PW35/1. All the pages bear initials of PW35 at point 'A-1' except Ex.PW1/68 and Ex.PW30/18. He also identified the signature of Mr. B. S. Tarial at point 'A' (Q-2/8) and the signature of A-1 at point 'B' (Q-4/5). He identified the handwriting of A- 1 Mark Y1 to Y2(Q-3/9).
D-3 (already Ex.PW1/C) is claim file no. 351500/97/717 of Super Traders mentioned by DO.XV of NIC. The same is mentioned at serial no.8 of Ex.PW35/1. All the pages bear initials of PW35 at point 'A-1'. He also identified the signature of Mr. B. S. Tarial at point 'A' already marked (Q-2/3) and the signature of A-1 at point 'B' already marked (Q-4/1). He also identified the handwriting of A-1 already marked Y1 to Y2(Q-3/3).
D-4 (already Ex.PW1/D) is claim file no. 351500/98/278 of CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 112 of 200 Balaji Trading Company mentioned by DO.XV of NIC. The same is mentioned at serial no.9 of Ex.PW35/1. All the pages bear initials of PW35 at point 'A-1'. He also identified the signature of Mr. B. S. Tarial at point 'A' already marked (Q-2/4) and the signature of A-1 at point 'B' already marked (Q-4/2). He also identified the handwriting of A-1 already Marked Y1 to Y2(Q-3/4).
D-8 (already Ex.PW1/H) is claim file no. 351500/98/289 of Satnam Impex mentioned by DO.XV of NIC. The same is mentioned at serial no.11 of Ex.PW35/1. All the pages bear initials of PW35 at point 'A-1'. He also identified the signature of Mr. B. S. Tarial at point 'A' (Q-2/9) and the signature of A-1 at point 'B' (Q-4/6). He also identified the handwriting of A-1 mark Y1 to Y2(Q-3/10).
D-9 (already Ex.PW1/J) is claim file no. 351500/98/334 of Solar Enterprises mentioned by DO.XV of NIC. The same is mentioned at serial no.12 of Ex.PW35/1. All the pages bear initials of PW35 at point 'A-1'. He also identified the signature of Mr. B. S. Tarial at point 'A' already marked (Q-2/10) and the signature of A-1 at point 'B' already marked (Q-8/3). I also identify the handwriting of Mr. R. K. Kapoor (A-1) already Marked Y1 to Y2(Q-3/11).
CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 113 of 200
D-10 (already Ex.PW1/K) which is claim file no.
351500/98/719 of True Fit Exclusive Garments mentioned by DO.XV of NIC. The same is mentioned at serial no.13 of Ex.PW35/1. All the pages bear initials of PW35 at point 'A-1'. He also identified the signature of Mr. B. S. Tarial at point 'A' already marked (Q-2/11) and the signature of A-1 at point 'B' already marked (Q-4/7). He also identified the handwriting ofA-1 already Marked Y1 to Y2(Q-3/13).
D-1 (already Ex.PW1/A) is claim file no. 351500/98/57 of M/s Vinayak Enterprises mentioned by DO.XV of NIC. The same is mentioned at serial no.15 of Ex.PW35/1. All the pages bear initials of PW35 at point 'A-1'. He also identified the signature of Mr. B. S. Tarial at point 'A' already marked (Q-2) and the signature of A-1 at point 'C' already marked (Q-4). He also identified the handwriting of A-1 already marked at point 'B' (Q-3).
D-2 (already Ex.PW1/B) is claim file no. 351500/98/34 of M/s Vinayak Enterprises mentioned by DO.XV of NIC. The same is mentioned at serial no.16 of Ex.PW35/1. All the pages bear initials of PW35 at point 'A-1'. He also identified the signature of Mr. B. S. Tarial at point 'A' already marked (Q-2/1) and the signature of A-1 at point 'B' CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 114 of 200 already marked (Q-8). He also identified the handwriting of A-1 already marked Y1 to Y2(Q-3/1).
During the inquiry it was revealed that letter pad of Vinayak Enterprises has been misused in the case, as per the letter of Sh. Sandeep Maheshwari. Similarly the signature of surveyor have also been forged. Sh. S.K. Chandel, the then Assistant Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. also stated in his investigation that his signature have been forged in case of laser computer.
D-3 (Ex.PW1/C) is a claim file of Super Traders of claim no. 351500/97/717. Through this claim the company has paid Rs. 2,68,159/- to Super Traders which is mentioned in statement of account of Super Traders current account no. 28090 of Union Bank of India (D-19, already Ex.PW20/19).
D-9 (already Ex.PW1/J) which is a claim file of Solar Enterprises of claim no. 351500/98/334. Through this claim the company has paid Rs. 1,97,000/- to Solar Enterprises which is mentioned in statement of account of Solar Enterprises account no. 1336 of Oriental Bank of Commerce (D-94, already Ex.PW13/9).
D-1 & D-2 (already Ex.PW1/A & Ex.PW1/B) are the claim CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 115 of 200 files of Vinayak Enterprises of claim no. 351500/98/57 and 351500/98/34 respectively. Through these letters company had paid Rs. 2,72,000/- and Rs. 2.62,245/- to Vinayak Enterprises which are mentioned in statement of account of Vinayak Enterprises account no. 01050/061154 of State Bank of India (D-11, already Ex.PW16/16).
D-10 (already Ex.PW1/K) which is a claim file of True Fit Exclusive Garments of claim no. 351500/98/719. Through this claim the company has paid Rs. 2,13,200/- to True Fit Exclusive Garments which is mentioned in statement of account of True Fit Exclusive Garments account no. 6498 of Oriental Bank of Commerce (D-100, already Ex.PW13/10).
Testimony of this witness remain unchallenged on behalf of all the accused persons.
52 PW36 deposed that in the year 2000, he was inspector of police in CBI, ACB, New Delhi. The instant case was transferred to him from Sh. V. M. Mittal, Inspector for further investigation. This case was registered on the complaint of Sh. Mahapatra, CVO, NIC Ltd. alleging therein that A-1, the then Divisional Manager, Sh. B. S. Tarial, CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 116 of 200 Sr. Assistant both are from NIC Ltd. DO.XV, Delhi entered into criminal conspiracy with the private persons. In furtherance to the said conspiracy, passed ten fictitious marine claims.
During investigation PW36 examined the witnesses namely Sh. S. M. Sehgal, Sh. Sanjay Shah, Sh. J. S. Yadav, Sh. Sunil Sudan, Sh. S. K. Kaushik, Sh. S. Rout, Sh. Abijit Parihar, Sh. Devender Pal Singh, Sh. Ali Mohammed, Sh. Munish Yadav, Sh. Janak Khanna, Ms. Neena Sharma, Sh. Karam Chand Sharma, Sh. P. K. Agarwal, Sh. Raju, Sh. A. K. Tiwari and collected documents, obtained opinion from hand writing expert on questioned documents / writings / signatures and thereafter obtained sanction from the competent authority.
The investigation has revealed that A1 and Sh. B. S. Tarial deliberately processed the claims without involving other officials. In some cases, the insured himself was appointed as a surveyor, in some cases, they insured himself as recovery agents. In all the ten cases, the claim numbers used or pertaining to some other claims which were already settled. The investigation has established that in all the ten cases no consignment was issued and without dispatching the consignment, bogus claims were lodged by the private persons in CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 117 of 200 connivance with the said two public servants and thereafter these ten bogus claims were passed by the two public servants.
During investigation he also seized / received documents vide seizure memo dated 31.01.2001 which is already Ex.PW23/A. He has also received 8 original instruments from Syndicate Bank vide letter dated 12.02.2001 which is already Ex.PW21/1 mentioning therein the details of instruments. He also seized / received documents mentioned in the memo vide seizure memo dated 11.04.2001 which is already Ex.PW21/3, seizure memo dated 12.02.2001 which is already Ex.PW21/2, seizure memo dated 30.03.2001 which is already Ex.PW22/A. He also received a letter dated 24.06.2001 already Ex.PW16/1 from State Bank of India along with the credit voucher of the statement of accounts of the amounts exceeding Rs. 50,000/- with regard to the current account no. 61154 of M/s Vinayak Enterprises and current account no. 64014. He also received letter dated 29.03.2001 already Ex.PW16/2 from State Bank of India along with the account opening form of current account no. 61154 of M/s Vinayak Enterprises and current account no. 64014. He also received documents vide seizure memo dated 03.04.2001 from Prahlad Singh, CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 118 of 200 messenger SBI Jwalaheri which is now Ex.PW36/1. It bears signatures of PW36 at point 'A'. He also received documents vide seizure memo dated 26.03.1999 from Prahlad Singh, messenger SBI Jwalaheri which is now Ex.PW36/2.
He also received a list dated 13.06.2001 already Ex.PW26/2 containing the details of empaneled agents with National Insurance Company and the list of marine recovery agents which is already Ex.PW26/1. He also received a list from Sh. A. K. Tiwari branch manager, NIC Ltd., containing the details of all 10 claim files running into 8 pages and the same is now Ex.PW36/4.
During the investigation, He correctly recorded the statement of Sh. Abhijeet Parihar S/o Sh. D. S. Parihar on 08.05.2001. The same is now Ex PW36/3. After completion of investigation, and duly obtaining prosecution sanction. He filed the charge-sheet on 02.01.2002 and charge-sheet is running into 10 sheets. All the ten pages bear signatures of PW36 at point 'A'. The same is now Ex.PW36/5 (colly 10 sheets). The charge-sheet is also enclosed list of witnesses running into 2 sheets. It bears signature of PW36 at point 'A'. The same is now Ex.PW36/6 (colly 2 sheets). Calender of CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 119 of 200 Evidence (Documentary as well as Oral) running into 5 sheets. All the sheets bear signature of PW36 at point 'A'. The same is now Ex.PW36/7 (colly 5 sheets). I also filed additional documents / witnesses on 27.07.2002, the same is running into 4 sheets. All 4 pages bear my signature at point 'A'. The same is now Ex.PW36/8 (colly 4 sheets).
D-44 is credit voucher of OBC dated 25.09.1998 for amount of Rs. 2,81,500/-, the same is now Ex.PW36/9. The same was collected during the course of investigation.
D-57 is credit voucher of OBC dated 11.03.1998 for amount of Rs. 1,43,500/-, the same is Ex.PW36/10. The same was collected during the course of investigation.
D-58 is credit voucher of OBC dated 11.03.1998 for amount of Rs. 1,43,500/-. The same is Ex.PW36/11. The same was collected during the course of investigation.
D-101 is credit voucher of OBC dated 26.03.1998 for amount of Rs. 2,13,200/-, the same is Ex.PW36/12. The same was collected during the course of investigation.
D-112 is credit voucher of Syndicate Bank dated CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 120 of 200 21.12.1998 for amount of Rs. 12,035/-. The same is Ex.PW36/13. The same was collected during the course of investigation.
D-116 is credit voucher of OBC dated 17.12.1998 for amount of Rs. 11,128/-. The same is now Ex.PW36/14. The same was collected during the course of investigation.
D-130 (additional document - 14) is Statement of account of Syndicate Bank bearing account no. 1084 running into 6 sheets and was certified by Chief Manager, KG Marg, New Delhi. He identified his signature as he signed before PW36 at point 'A'. The same is now Ex.PW36/15 (colly 6 pages). The same was collected during the course of investigation.
D-113 is cheque of Syndicate Bank dated 21.12.1998 for a sum of Rs.12000/-. The same was collected during the course of investigation. Document is now Ex PW36/16.
D-127 is cheque of Oriental Bank of Commerce dated 17.01.1998 for a sum of Rs.11128/-. The same was collected during the course of investigation and is now Ex PW36/17.
During cross-examination on behalf of A9, PW36 stated that there was no specific order in respect of SP concerned under CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 121 of 200 Section 18 of PC Act authorizing him to collect evidence from bank. PW36 stated that thee was a written order from the SP to conduct investigation to the present case. He further deposed that he had interrogated A-9 during investigation but he did not remember as to how many time he was interrogated. He admitted that it was revealed to him during investigation that report of A6 and the report of M/s Tracer & Recovery Consultants, placed at page No. 9 to 14 in file Ex. PW1/H (D-8) were forged paper. It was also revealed to him that claim papers placed at page no. 1 to 4 in file Ex. PW1/H (D-8) were bearing forged signature of A-9. PW36 stated that he did not enquire as to and what account/head the payment was made to M/S HPMC Ltd. through cheque Ex. PW2/C1; to A. K. Umrail through cheque Ex. PW2/C2; to Manjeet Singh through cheque Ex. PW2/C3; to M/s National Insurance Company Ltd. through Cheque Ex. PW2/C4; A7 through cheque Ex. PW2/C6; Pushpa Juneja through cheque Ex. PW2/C7 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. through cheque Ex. PW2/C9. He admitted that he did not seek any opinion about hand writing of body of the cheques to the effect whether the hand writing of body of the cheques was also in the hand of A-9, except signature. He CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 122 of 200 admitted that all the above stated account payee cheques are bearing the details of the respective branches of the banks where these cheques were deposited. He admitted that he did not obtain any opinion from hand writing expert so as to find out whether the deposit receipt Ex. PW2/C (D-79) was filled up by A-9 or not.
He did not take any permission of court for obtaining specimen signature of A-9, already Ex. PW30/24. He clarified that since the accused had voluntarily tendered his specimen signatures so he did not take any permission.
He further deposed that no documentary evidence was found by him during investigation to prove that firm of A-9 M/s Satnam Impex was a fictitious firm. He clarified that since the accused did not produce any verifiable document in this regard. He denied the suggest that no such document was ever demanded by me from A-9 or that M/S Satnam Impex was an existing legal entity. He statement of account Ex. PW2/D is not attested as per Banker's Book of Evidence Act. He did not obtain any certificate under Section 65 B Evidence Act from the officer of the bank who handed over Ex. PW2/D to PW36.
He has further deposed that efforts were made by him CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 123 of 200 during investigation to trace out the transporter namely M/S Indian Roadways as mentioned at page 14 of file Ex. PW1/H. He denied the suggestion that it was revealed to him during investigation that A-9 was not aware about deposit of cheque of Rs. 2,60,000/- in his firm's account or about use of his ten cheques.
During cross-examination on behalf of A3, PW36 admitted that A-3 was not found signatory to any of the document in the respective claim files.
During cross-examination on behalf of A5, PW36 denied the suggestion that he did not conduct the investigation fairly or that A- 5 has been falsely implicated in this case.
Conclusion and findings 53 Before giving findings upon the claims submitted by accused persons, this Court observed that almost in all the claims there was no entry in the claim intimation register/claim register Ex PW1/L and Ex PW1/M; duplicate numbers were allotted to all the claims; original papers were allegedly handed over to the recovery CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 124 of 200 agents but surprisingly no photocopy of such documents have been retained in the file or mentioned by concerned surveyor regarding refer of such documents. Moreover, in all the claims complete address of the transporter has not been given. Further in all the claims complete address of the consignee has also not been given or the fake address has been given. Morevoer address of the claimants/ alleged consignee is either fake or they have given address of their own house.
Now, first of all, I will discuss the evidence in respect of A3 and A5 in the case.
A3 - Ms. Neenu Khanna and A5 - Arvind Khanna 54 Ex PW7/B which is account application form of current account in the name of M/s AT Random Fashions wherein business address is mentioned as A-104, Lok Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi-34. The applicants name is Ms. Neenu Khanna wherein there is her photograph at point A1 and address mentioned is similar to the address mentioned of A3 in her statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC. This is an account opening form of Oriental Bank of Commerce at Safdarjung Enclave. Ex PW7/C are the specimen signatures of A3 alongwith her CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 125 of 200 photograph.
Ex PW7/D1, Ex PW7/D2, Ex PW7/D3, Ex PW7/D4 & Ex PW7/D5 are cheuqes issued by A3 on behalf of M/s AT Random Fashions from the said account. Ex PW7/E is a statement of account issued for the said account of A3. During cross-examination of PW7, there is no challenge to these document proved by PW7. During her statement under Section 313 CrPC, when specific question was put to A3 then she simply stated that she does not know anything about any current account opened in the name of M/s AT Random Fashions. She further stated that wherever her husband told her to sign randomly, she signed on his asking.
Ex PW7/E is perused wherein there is credit and debit entries including entries of cheque and cash as well as withdrawal of the amount through self-cheque.
Ex PW7/F is application for opening current account of M/s Laser Computers where business address shown as A-104, Lok Vihar, Delhi. The account was introduced by A3. Statement under Section 313 CrPC of A3 is referred wherein address has been mentioned by A3 same as address of A5 is mentioned in Ex PW7/F. CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 126 of 200 Ex PW7/G is the specimen signatures of A5 as proprietor of Laser computers and Ex PW7/H1 is cheque drawn on same account i.e. Oriental Bank of Commerce at Safdurjung Enclave, Delhi.
Ex PW7/J is account statement of M/s Laser Computers. During cross-examination there is no challenge on behalf of A5 to these documents. When question put to A5 during his statement under Section 313 CrPC, then A5 admitted about the opening of the said account and he has not disputed other documents pertaining to the said account in his statement.
55 PW1 deposed that he processed claim file no. 97/718 which is Ex PW1/G where intimation regarding claim form for M/s AT Random Fashions is Ex PW1/G2.
Ex PW1/G2 is the letter head where the address mentioned as At Random Fashions, Star Apartments, Sector-IX, Rohini, Delhi. Same is the address.
PW18, who is father of A3 deposed that there was no such firm with the name of AT Random Fashions ever existed at the mentioned address. Moreover, in Ex PW1/G12 about cheque bearing CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 127 of 200 no. 573661 of OBC, Safdarjung Enclave is mentioned for receiving of premium issued by AT Random Fashions. In the letter there is no mention of payment of premium of Rs.3912/- but at the bottom below that, it is mentioned that premium is Rs.3912 and date 19.01.1998. When this document is perused alongwith Ex PW7/E then there is a cheque entry of Rs.3912 on 21.01.1998 for the said amount is reflected in Ex PW7/E. Thus said cheque was issued from the account of A3.
By the testimony of PW18 it comes out that there was no firm by the name of At Random Fashions ever existed at the address mentioned on Ex PW1/G, Ex PW1/G2 and Ex PW1/G12. PW 18 also identified photograph of A3 as well as her signatures. 56 In statement under Section 313 CrPC, A3 has admitted the correctness of deposition of PW18 regarding testimony of PW1. A3 claimed that she is a housewife and she never did any business of such kind.
Ex PW1/G10 is cheque bearing no. 982137 issued in favour of AT Random Fashions which has already been encashed as CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 128 of 200 reflected in Ex PW7/E. Ex PW1/F1 is Marine claim form of At Random Fashions. Ex PW1/F3 and Ex PW1/F4 are surveyor report submitted by A3. Ex PW1/F3 bearing signatures of A3 at Q16. Ex PW1/E is claim filed no. 98/265.
ExPW1/E1 is Marine Claim Form. Ex PW1/E4 is the policy and premium receipt is Ex PW1/E5. The claim was settled of Rs. 2,87,500/- and payment was made by a cheque Ex PW1/E6. The said cheque bearing no. 9893912 issued in favour of Laser Computers bearing no. 983912 drawn on Syndicate Bank for a sum of Rs. 2,21,500/- dated 24.09.1998. The amount credited into the account of Laser Computers Ex PW7/J on 26.09.1998. When specific question no. 10 was put to A5 then he has not disputed about this payment. He claimed ignorance to his statement of account Ex PW7/J but not disputed the same. PW1 further deposed that after receipt of telephonic intimation regarding short/damaged condition of consignment of M/s AT Random Fashions in claim file Ex PW1/F, A5 was appointed surveyor on the recommendation of A1 though his name did not appear in the panel Ex PW1/N. CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 129 of 200 Payment of Rs. 2,73,090/- was made by a cheque Ex PW1/F5 in favour of M/s AT Random Fashions. It is already proved that A3 was maintaining account being proprietor of M/s AT Random Fashions.
57 It is the claim of A3 that being housewife she was not in business of such kind. However, Ex PW7/E which is account statement of A3 is perused then on 11.03.1998 there is credit entry of Rs. 1,43,500/-. On 28.02.1998, in her account there was total balance of Rs. 509/- and on 11.03.1998 there was debit entry of Rs. 1,00,000/- from her account and thus in her account there was balance of Rs. 99,491/-. On the very same day i.e. 11.03.1998 there was credit entry of Rs. 1,43,500/- through a cheque Ex PW1/G10 issued by NIC. Thereafter, balance comes to Rs.44,009/-. On 12.03.1998, there is debit entry of Rs. 40,000/-. When A3 was not aware of about any such business, as alleged by her, then she is not able to explain about entries as observed by this Court when she was not aware about credit entry of Rs. 1,43,500/- through Ex PW1/G10, then how she could withdraw such huge amount from her account. Even if it is assumed CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 130 of 200 that it is her husband i.e. A5 who was responsible for such transactions, then it was onus upon her to lead evidence to prove her defence. However, no such defence has been brought by her to prove such defence. Therefore, her guilt is proved in the light of the above discussion.
PW7 deposed that A5 opened an account in the name of M/s Bit-Bite System as proprietor in Safdarjung Enclave Branch of Oriental Bank of Commerce. He proved Ex PW6/A. He verified signatures of A5 at point B on Ex PW6/A as well as on Ex PW7/A at point B. No such evidence has been disputed by A5 during cross- examination of PW7 who proved such evidence against him. Similarly, deposition made by PW8 and that evidence has also not been challenged on behalf of A3 and A5.
There is Ex PW1/F3 and Ex PW1/F4. This a surveyor fee bill dated 03.08.1998 which bears signatures of A5 for AT Random Fashions for which proprietor is A3 who is wife of A5. Therefore, A5 becomes surveyor, who issued short/damage surveyor.
When specific question put to A5 during statement under CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 131 of 200 Section 313 CrPC, then he simply stated that it is not correct. 58 In defence A5 brought DW1 which is a witness from Oriental Bank of Commerce who deposed that the record pertaining to account no. 9166 for the period from 13.10.1998 to 16.10.2004. He deposed that record prior to 13.10.98 has been destroyed as per rules and procedure of the bank. Thus testimony of this witness is not going to help either of the accused.
A5 also brought DW6, who proved Ex DW6/A whereby it is informed by Sh. Devender Singh, Director General of Foreign Trade that no firm as M/s AT Random Fashions has been issued license of export import. This defence of A5 is not going to help. Rather it is going against A3.
59 Written submissions were filed by A3 wherein she has accepted that she had opened account in the name of M/s AT Random Fashions on asking of her husband but she was totally unaware of the business of the firm. She further accepted that cheques were signed by her from the above cheques but on the asking of her husband. All CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 132 of 200 the proceeds of the cheques were being retained by him only. She has no role in the firms or claims.
A5 also filed written arguments wherein he claimed that prosecution has not been able to prove any guilt against him and thus he claimed acquittal from the charges.
60 Thus, it is proved that A3 was a proprietor of M/s AT Random Fashions and she opened bank account being proprietor of M/s AT Random Fashions with the wrong address i.e. address mentioned by her of her father. Similarly A5 is also proprietor of Laser Computers. Both the husband and wife submitted false claim with the insurance company. A5 shown himself as surveyor in the firm of his wife and submitted fake fee bill but there is no survey report by A3. Even during evidence he has not come with the defence to prove that he had submitted correct report.
A3 in Ex PW1/F1 has not disclosed the address of the transporter or complete particulars of the vehicle number by which goods were despatch. Similarly in Ex PW1/G1 also there is not mention of address of the transporter and complete particulars of the CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 133 of 200 vehicle.
Ex PW1/E1 is also silent about the name of the transporter or complete particulars of vehicle number. Simple GR No. 2380 dated 06.08.1998 has been mentioned. However, name of the transporter is not mentioned either in Ex PW1/E1 and Ex PW1/E8. Ex PW1/E2 mentions about Singh Roadways Lines. But where office of Singh Roadways Lines is situated, not explained. Surprisingly, in all the three claims nothing specifically mentioned that where the goods were damaged or lost.
Even in statement under Section 313 CrPC also both the accused do not come to disclose such facts and thus this Court is of the considered opinion that non-disclosure about such facts by the accused persons, is admission towards their guilt and Court can drawn presumption against guilt of the accused as despite opportunity given to disclose, nothing has been disclosed by A3 and A5. Moreover, despite opportunities no evidence has been brought by both the accused either to disclose or prove such facts.
61 Therefore in view of the above discussion, it is proved that CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 134 of 200 A3 and A5 have committed offence under Section 120 B IPC read with Section 420/468/471/473/476 IPC and Section 13 (1) (d) and 13 (1) (c) read with Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 420/468/471/473/476 IPC read with Section 120B IPC.
A4 - Devender Kumar Garg 62 Ex PW1/E2 is the report given by A4 for M/s Laser Computers wherein address of carrier mentioned as Singh Road Lines, who issued GR No. 2380 dated 06.08.1998.
PW14 deposed that at Ex PW1/E1 by which A4 was appointed as surveyor but signatures at point Q12 are not of PW12 and those signatures have been forged. He further deposed that he used to write his name as Dr. S.K Chandel and not as Dr. Chandel as mentioned at point Q12 at Ex. PW-1/E-1 not written by him on behalf of his branch as it was not issued by the branch as the spellings appearing at point P-1 thereon are wrong. At point P1 spelling instead of "insurance" word "insurancfe" has been written. He further deposed that code number of the branch at points P2 and P3 on Ex PW1/E1 was wrong.
CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 135 of 200
During cross-examination on behalf of A4 nothing has been challenged on behalf of A4. A suggestion has been given on behalf of A1 that the competent authority had appointed A4 as surveyor. However, said suggestion has been denied. But no challenge given to PW14 regarding the name of said competent authority.
A further suggestion was given on behalf of A1 that wrong code number or spelling of insurance used to be wrongly mentioned in all the letterheads of the company. To substantiate the challenge no other document has been brought and put to the witness where similar wrong spelling and wrong code has been mentioned in any other communication or by the branch or by any concerned official. Therefore, the very letter by which A4 was appointed as surveyor to investigate about the loss of claim submitted on behalf of M/s Laser Computers is forged document.
Ex PW1/E2 which is report prepared by A4 does not find reference mention at Ex PW1/E1. Moreover, the name of the transport mentioned as Singh Road Lines who issued GR No. 2380 dated 06.08.1998. PW32 deposed that M/s Singh Road Carriers were not a member of All India Motor Transport Congress. CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 136 of 200
During his statement under Section 313 CrPC, when question no. 10 put regarding Ex PW1/E4 then he has given evasive reply stating that he has no knowledge.
It is his defence that he was not part of any criminal conspiracy. In Ex PW1/E2, he has further mentioned that he inspected the damages at the premises of the insurer or consignee. The address mentioned as 7A, Civil Lines, Sangrur, Punjab. GR No. 2380 is dated 06.08.1998 does not form part of the survey report Ex PW1/E2.
PW15 deposed that in the year 1992, he obtained Survey license and working since 1993. He further deposed that he did not know any person by the name of D. K. Garg. In his statement under Section 313 CrPC, in reply to question no. 76, when this piece of evidence is put to A4, A4 has given evasive reply that he has no knowledge. Moreover, this piece of testimony also not challenged during cross-examination of PW15 by A4.
Further, PW22 proved Ex PW20/1 which is account opening form bearing signatures and photographs of A4 alongwith specimen signatures of A4. This is account opening form of M/s Super Traders wherein A4 opened this account as a proprietor of M/s CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 137 of 200 Super Traders.
Ex PW20/3 is pay-in-slip for cheuqe no. 982139. This is the same number of the cheque dated 10.03.1998 Ex PW1/C6 and cheque number is mentioned as 982139. The said cheuqe was credited into the account of M/s Super Traders on 16.03.1998 as per Ex PW20/1 and thereafter there are entries for withdrawal from this account. Therefore, A4 had deposited this cheque and thereafter he made withdrawals.
When specific questions no. 98 & 99 put to A4 regarding this piece of testimony, he admitted the correctness of such document and further stated that it was issued in normal trade transaction. Moreover, there is no challenge about such document during cross- examination of PW20 by A4. Rather in the cross-examination, it is deposed by PW20 that in this case the introduction by A5 (Arvind Khanna) resident of A-104, Lok Vihar, New Delhi was accepted on the basis of his license no. 46586 of Surveyor issued by the Insurance Company i.e. National Insurance, New India & United Insurance Company towards proof of identity.
Moreover in Ex PW1/C there is survey report Ex PW1/C3 CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 138 of 200 presented by one Jatinder Kumar who deposed as PW15 that the letter heads used in Ex PW1/C3 are photocopies of his letterheads and pertained to his license which expired in 1997 and someone there after added hyphen before added the year 2002 at points A, B & C thereon. He further deposed that reference number mentioned on the said photocopies at three places at points D, E & F were never used by him and he used to mention reference number "JAT/NAT". He further deposed that signatures at points Q10, Q10/1, 10/2 and 10/3 are not of him and someone had forged the same. He further deposed that report Ex PW1/C3 was neither prepared nor submitted by him.
During cross-examination, there is no challenge to the testimony of PW15 on behalf of A4 except suggestion that he has deposed falsely, which has been denied by PW15.
In reply to question no. 75, in his statement under Section 313 CrPC, it is the claim of A4 that PW15 was appointed as surveyor for damages suffered by his consignment. He further challenged the testimony of PW15 to the effect that PW15 does not know A4 and he is claiming that PW15 deposed falsely.
Moreover, in Ex PW1/E2 as well as address mentioned in CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 139 of 200 charge-sheet are same. Therefore, A4 was surveyor as well as proprietor of M/s Super Traders and submitted the claim by forging documents and to defraud the insurance company as he was aware about the working of insurance company while passing claims upon insurance policies of marine claims.
There is another file Ex PW1/D regarding M/s Balaji Trading Company.
PW7 proved Ex PW7/A which is account opening form of M/s Balaji Trading Company whereupon at point C2 there is photograph of A4. This forms bears signatures of A5 at point B and the testimony of this witness has not been challenged on behalf of A4. During his statement under Section 313 CrPC, he has not disputed the testimony of PW7 in this regard.
Ex PW1/D9 is the cheque issued for Rs.2,84,214/- dated 24.09.1998.
Ex PW1/D3 is survey report issued by M/s S. B. K. Enterprises. However, in the last page of survey report sent by A4, the same number is mentioned in Ex PW1/E2. Therefore, A4 became surveyor in his own case to assess the loss of his own firm of which he CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 140 of 200 has submitted the claim. He received the amount on account of survey fee, issued receipt thereof.
During cross-examination of PW1, there is no challenge on behalf of A4 about Ex PW1/D3 and receipt thereof and therefore, A4 operated two fictitious firms and during process of claim, he himself became surveyor to assess the loss of his own one firm on behalf of insurance company and submitted fake claim to claim amount for both the claims and thus guilty of offence. M/s Balaji Trading Company and M/s Super Traders, for both firms he opened accounts with the assistance of A5 as A5 introduced A4 for both accounts in bank.
In defence, A4 has brought DW7 who has deposed that he was doing transport business for the last 34-35 years with elder brother of A4. He deposed that he is not able to state that GR No. 11749 was issued by transport company or not because this matter is more than 17 years old. Testimony of this witness is not going to help A4 in any manner.
63 A4 has filed written arguments wherein he has claimed the prosecution has not been able to prove charge against him and thus he CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 141 of 200 claimed acquittal from all the charges.
64 In view of the above discussion, this Court comes to the conclusion that A4 has committed offence under Section 120 B IPC read with Section 420/468/471/473/476 IPC and Section 13 (1) (d) and 13 (1) (c) read with Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 420/468/471/473/476 IPC read with Section 120B IPC.
A6- Adev Kumar Aggarwal 65 In report Ex PW1/A2, the name and address of carrier is mentioned as M/s Patiala Assam Roadways who issued GR No. 721815 dated 18.05.1998 from Delhi to Samana.
PW32 deposed that there is no such transport by the name of M/s Patiala Assam Roadways, Delhi is member of All India Motor Transport Congress.
It is mentioned in Ex PW1/A2 that on receipt of intimation on phone to survey the damages and assess the loss, he visited the premises of insurer at Samana.
PW24 deposed that Ex PW1/A6 was never written by him CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 142 of 200 or his firm M/s Vinayak Enterprises. In Ex PW1/A6, the address mentioned is 1815, IIIrd Floor, Bhagirath Place, Delhi- 110006 and other address "Post Box No. 1646, Delhi-110006'. Similar address of the consignor is mentioned in Ex PW1/A2 at point (b) and the name of consignee is mentioned as M/s Aggarwal Electricals, Near Bus Stand, Samana. Specific address of M/s Aggarwal Electricals has not been mentioned in the report.
It is also mentioned in Ex PW1/A2 that inspection was carried at the address of transport company Samana. It is also mentioned at place of survey. However, no specific address of the transport company regarding place of survey has been mentioned. As per Ex PW30/6 and Ex PW30/26 where it is clearly opined by PW30 that questioned specimen signatures agrees with each other i.e. signatures mentioned in Ex PW1/A2 at point Q7/3, Q7/2, Q7/1 and Q7/7 are of A6. Thus document Ex PW1/A2 bears signatures of A6 is proved. It is also not mentioned who had intimated on phone to A6 to survey the damage and assess loss.
In reply to question no. 4, in his statement under Section 313 CrPC, A6 has stated that he has never surveyed the claim of M/s CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 143 of 200 Vinayak Enterprises nor filed any survey report, nor filed any survey fee bill to anybody. He further stated that Ex PW1/A2 and Ex PW1/A3 are forged and he has nothing to do with these documents. But the fact remains that Ex PW1/A2 has been prepared by A6 as opined in the light of testimony of PW30. Thus, it is defence of A6 that he has not prepared on Ex PW1/A2. He has further stated that he has never been appointed as surveyor in any of the cases mentioned.
Ex PW1/H3 which is survey report prepared by A6.
A6 is a surveyor and on the record there are three survey reports of A6. There is report Ex PW1/A2, another report Ex PW1/G4 and report Ex PW1/H3. However, all the reports have been denied by A6. When Ex PW30/26 is referred then expert has opined that Ex PW1/A2 has been prepared by A6 and his signatures appeared at Q7/3 and Q7/1. However no report has been given by PW30 regarding other two reports Ex PW1/G4 and Ex PW1/H3.
During cross-examination, PW36 himself stated that report of A4, Ex PW1/H is forged papers.
Thus ExPW1/A2 for which expert opined that it was prepared by A6. However, prosecution has not brought any other CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 144 of 200 evidence to bring home guilt of A6.
66 Here this Court refers Alamgir v. State (NCT Delhi) (2003) 1 SCC 21 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held in para 13 that "there is no rule of law, nor any rule of prudence which has crystalized into a rule of law that opinion-evidence of handwriting expert must never be acted upon, unless substantially corroborated. It is further held that since human judgment cannot be said to be totally infallible, due caution shall have to be exercised and the approach ought to be that of care and caution and it is only upon probe and examination the acceptability or creditworthy of the same depends.
In this case there is no other circumstance or circumstantial evidence brought by the prosecution to prove the guilt of A6 in the conspiracy committed in this case. Even no evidence has been brought whereby it is inferred by this Court that there was meeting of mind of A6 with other accused persons in such circumstances, this Court has to give benefit of doubt to A6 keeping in view the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in referred judgment.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Magan Bihari Lal v. State of CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 145 of 200 Punjab 1977 SCR (2) 1007, held that it is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert opinion without substantial corroboration. Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that this rule has been universally acted upon and it has almost become rule of law which has hled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Chandra v. State of UP AIR 1957 SC 361. 67 Learned Sr. PP relied upon Murari Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1980 AIR 531 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court observed:
".........In case where the reasons for the opinion are convincing and there is no reliable evidence throwing a doubt, the uncorroborated testimony of any hand-writing expert may be accepted. There cannot be any inflexible rule on a matter which, in the ultimate analysis, is no more than a question of testimonial weight. We have said so much because this is an argument frequently met with in subordinate courts and sentences torn out of context from the judgments of this Court are often flaunted."
In this judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where there is no reliable evidence throwing doubt, the uncorroborated testimony of the expert could be accepted. However, it is own witness of CBI i.e. PW1, who has deposed as:
"I saw Adev Aggarwal for the first time CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 146 of 200 when he was in custody. I never met him in the office. He never submitted any report to me. (Vol. The reports had been submitted in the office.) It is correct that he never submitted any report in the office.
Q. Forged reports in the name of Adev Aggarwal had been submitted in the office by someone else?
A. It is correct."
68 Then this Court is of the considered opinion that CBI is not able to prove guilt of A6 as this Court relied upon Magan Bihari Lal (Supra). Since doubt still persists despite receiving expert opinion about the role of A6 and therefore benefit of doubt has to be given to A6.
In such circumstances A6 is given benefit of doubt and is acquitted for all the charges against A6.
69 Written arguments were also filed on behalf of A6 which are also perused.
In view of the above discussion, A6 is acquitted of the charges farmed against him.
A7 - Arvind Sharma, A8 - Vijay Dayal and CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 147 of 200 A11- Vijay Kumar Juneja 70 PW7 deposed about Ex PW1/K and the claim was submitted by M/s True Fit Exclusive Garments and it was for a sum of Rs. 2,13,200/-. The payment was made by cheque Ex PW1/K17 in favour of M/s True Fit Exclusive Garments.
PW6 proved Ex PW6/A is account opening form of A7. It bears signatures of A7 at Q9/15 and photographs of A7. He further deposed that this document does not bear his signatures. The address mentioned at Ex PW6/A is A-2, 5/1, Kirti Nagar, DDA Marble Complex. He further deposed that he was running a business of Washing Garments at this address and there was no such firm by the name of M/s True Fit Exclusives Garments. He further deposed that no such person was seen by him whose photographs appears on Ex PW6/A. Testimony of this witness remain unchallenged on behalf of A7.
PW8 proved specimen signature card of A7 which is Ex PW8/A. Testimony of this witness remain unchallenged on behalf of A7.
PW13 proved another account opening form with Oriental Bank of Commerce in the name of M/s Solar Enterprises. The form is CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 148 of 200 Ex PW13/1. It bears signatures of A7 at point Q9/8 and photograph of A7. Introduction of this account was given by A5. Ex PW13/2 is the specimen signatures card bearing signatures and photograph of A7. Ex PW13/3 is pay-in-slip for a sum of Rs. 1,97,000/- for deposit of cheque. Ex PW13/4 is cheque no. 097662 dated 31.10.1998 in favour of A8, Ex PW13/5 is cheque no. 097663 dated 09.11.1998 in favour of A8, Ex PW13/6 is cheque no. 097661 dated 03.11.1998, Ex PW13/7 is cheque no. 097664 dated 30.11.1998 and Ex PW13/8 and Ex PW13/9 are statements of accounts. All these documents were proved by PW13 during his testimony.
PW16 proved account opening form/credit vouchers/cheques which are Ex PW16/3 in the name of A8 bearing photographs of A8 and seal of M/s Vinayak Enterprises and signatures of A8. He further proved Ex PW16/4 which is affidavit executed by A8. He further proved pay in slip Ex PW16/9 and cheques issued by A8 from Ex PW16/11 to Ex PW16/15, account statement Ex PW16/16 of A8, Ex PW1/A9 is cheque amount of Rs. 2,70, 000/-. The said amount was credited into the account of A8 on 14.07.98 vide cheuqe bearing no. 983157. Ex PW16/7 is the cheque dated 05.08.98 bearing no. CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 149 of 200 983424 and the said cheque was credited in the account of A8 on 10.08.98. Thus A8 was the beneficiary of both these cheques.
Ex PW1/A6 is intimation of shortage in consignment on behalf of M/s Vinayak Enterprises to National Insurance Co. Ltd. which bears signatures of proprietor at point Q5 in Ex PW1/A6. Claim bill of shortage of goods bears signatures of proprietor at point Q5/1.
Ex PW30/26 is perused wherein questioned documents were compared with specimen signatures S22, S22/1 to S22/4 and opinion has been given that sample signatures and questioned documents are agreed with each other. Similarly, Ex PW1/B2 which is letter dated 20.07.98 written on behalf of M/s Vinayak Enterprises for shortage of consignment at point Q5/1. Similarly, expert opinion has been given for this document also. Those cheques were credited into the account of A8 and expert opinion has also been received. Therefore, the claim was made on behalf of A8.
PW28 deposed that he was allotted plot by DDA bearing no. A-2/7, Kirti Nagar, DDA Market Complex, Delhi. He further deposed that no such property bearing no. A-2/5/1 was in the vicinity. He further deposed that he new A7, employee of Syndicate Bank, who CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 150 of 200 used to collect money from the shopkeepers in his vicinity for deposit the same with the bank. There was never any shop or business concern under the name and style of M/s True Fit Exclusives Garments. He further deposed that he never rented out his shop to any Arvind Sharma at any point of time or no such concern ever existed in the said premises.
During cross-examination, a suggestion was given on behalf of A7 that A7 was running the business under the name and style of M/s True Fit Exclusives Garments from the first floor of the premises in collaboration and on permission from said Mr. Dik Sarkes.
However, when Sh. Dik Sarkes appeared before this Court as PW6, no such challenge was given to PW6 by A7. He further deposed that Dik Sarkes was doing business of chemical washing of jeans pants and except that he was not running any other business there.
In Ex PW1/K there is letter Ex PW30/5 which is dated 25.02.1998 written to M/s K. R. Golden Transport Co. PW32 deposed that M/s K. R. Golden Transport Company was not a member of All India Motor Transport Congress.
CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 151 of 200
Similarly, PW32 deposed about M/s Balaji Road Carrier which is the name of the Transporter for carrying goods for M/s Solar Enterprises.
Ex PW1/J is file regarding claim by M/s Solar Enterprises. This file contains survey report by Pooja International. Three pages of this report do not bear signatures. However, there is a document Ex PW30/9 wherein there is signatures at point Q9/6. Ex PW30/26 is perused wherein it is stated that Q9/6 which is signatures on questioned document when compared with specimen signatures S-9, S9/1 to S9/3, it was opined by PW30 that these signatures are agreed with each other. Thus A7 who is proprietor of his firm had submitted investigation report himself for the claim filed by him. 71 There is another document Ex PW1/J1 which is marine claim form. It bears signatures of one Sunil Batra for M/s Solar Enterprises at Q20. Similarly signatures are there at Ex PW1/J2 at Q20/1. Ex PW30/26 whereupon both these signatures Q20 and Q20/1 compared with specimen signatures S-18, S-20/1 to S-20/5 then it was opined that specimen writing agrees with questioned writing. Thus it is CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 152 of 200 A11 Sh. Vijay Kumar Juneja signed as Sunil Batra on behalf of M/s Solar Enterprises and thus A11 and A7 both forged documents and submitted fake claim wherein A7 became investigator/surveyor for the claim submitted by him. Ex PW30/26 opined that Q14/6 and Q14/5 agreed with specimen writings of S5, S5/1 to S5/5. These are the signatures of A8. The documents which bears signatures of A8 is Ex PW1/K2 and Ex PW30/5.
Thus, in this claim also A7 instead to come forward himself, through A8 in collusion submitted a fake claim with insurance and payment was made vide cheque Ex PW1/J1 and Ex PW1/K17.
Ex PW1/K17 is the cheque no. 982292 dated 25.03.1998 for a sum of Rs.2,13,200/- and said cheque was credited in the account of M/s True Fit Exclusive Company as shown in Ex PW13/10. Similarly, cheque Ex PW1/J7 dated 30.09.1998 bearing no. 983948 was credited into the account of M/s Solar Enterprises on 08.10.1998. Thus both the accounts which were maintained by A7 were credited with the payment of those fake claims in which A7, A8 and A11 committed conspiracy for submitted fake claim with insurance company i.e. National Insurance Company and the amount was credited into the CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 153 of 200 account of A7. Moreover, it is already proved that these claims were not found entered into the claim intimation register Ex PW1/L and similar payments in respect of these claims had been shown in Ex PW1/M to be paid to M/s SCBH Ltd.
In his statement under Section 313 CrPC in reply to question no. 15, it is claimed by A7 that it was valid and truthful claim. Regarding testimony of PW6, it is stated by A7 that PW6 has deposed falsely. No such challenge was made on behalf of A7 during cross- examination of PW6. Similarly, testimony of PW8 not challenged by A8.
Similarly for testimony of PW11 no such challenge by A7stating that he has no knowledge, in his statement under Section 313 CrPC.
Similar replies have been given by A7 regarding the testimony of PW13. Further regarding testimony of PW28, he claimed that he deposed falsely. However, no explanation has been given but stated that his firm M/s True Fit Exclusive was operated from the said premises.
Similarly, when question was put regarding testimony of CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 154 of 200 PW30 to A7, then he also stated that conclusion about his hand-writing are not correct. However, during cross-examination of PW30, it is the case of A7 that documents were changed by CBI for the purpose of present prosecution.
It was further put on behalf of A7 that documents proved by PW30 as specimen were not the documents which were examined at the time of comparison but no challenge was given on behalf of A7 to PW30 that the conclusion of the PW30 about hand-writing of A7 are not correct.
Thus, he changed the entire defence in his statement under Section 313 CrPC.
Similar defence taken by A8 regarding testimony of PW13. However, no such case was put up during cross-examination of PW13 on behalf of A8 also. When similar question regarding file Ex PW1/J and documents contained therein put to A8 then he has given evasive reply that he has no knowledge.
When question no. 15 in statement under Section 313 CrPC put to A11 regarding Ex PW1/K, then he has also given evasive reply that he has no knowledge.
CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 155 of 200 72 A7 filed written arguments wherein A7 claimed that Sunil Batra was his employee working under the undersigned. No such person by the name of Sunil Batra brought by A7 to prove such contention. He also claimed that prosecution has failed to prove charges framed against him.
In written arguments submitted on behalf of A8, he has admitted that he has opened account in the name of M/s Vinayak Enterprises, letters of correspondence were being proved by him. It is claimed that consignments were sent by M/s Patiala Assam Roadways and M/s Balaji Golden Roadways.
PW32 deposed that there as no such transporter registered as M/s Patiala Assam Roadways with All India Motor Transport Congress. Similarly, he has also deposed that no transporter by the name of M/s Balaji Golden Roadway carrier is member of All India Motor Transport Congress.
Even in written arguments address of the transporter has not been given. No witness has been brought either of any transporter by A8.
Even in statement under Section 313 CrPC, he has not CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 156 of 200 stated about address of any of the transporter, when question no. 80 and 81 were put. Specific question put regarding Ex PW16/3 and Ex PW16/4, then he has given evasive reply that he has no knowledge.
When specific question no. 144 put to A8, during statement under Section 313 CrPC then he has given evasive reply that he has no knowledge.
In Ex PW1/B2, it is claimed that the consignment was sent to Jammu. In Ex PW1/B3 report of Honey International wherein truck number DL1G9012 (TATA 407) has been mentioned. However, PW12 deposed that he was the owner of truck bearing no. DL1G9012 which used to carry goods from Delhi to Saharanpur. He never carried goods to Jammu as it was not his line. He proved neither Ex PW1/B3 GR NO. 1091 nor challan no. 1719 were ever issued by him as they never transported any goods to Jammu. When specific question put to A8 regarding testimony of PW12 then evasive reply has been given that the said witness has deposed falsely at the instance of CBI. However, during cross-examination of PW12, A8 did not confront with any alleged GR issued by PW12 to substantiate the claim that this witness was brought by CBI for false deposition. Even no copy of said GR put CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 157 of 200 or filed by A8 to substantiate claim.
73 In written arguments filed on behalf of A11, he claimed that Sh. Sunil Batra was employee of Arvind Sharma. However he has not explained how he has come to know that Sunil Batra was employee of Arvind Sharma. Thus he was in conspiracy with A7 according to his own arguments. Moreover, no such person namely Sunil Batra was brought before the Court by A7 or A11. He also claimed that A9 was his distant relative and he had taken blank cheques from him for given security for loan but those cheques were misplaced. When these cheques were misplaced then how amount was debited from the account of A9 as it is already observed that amount received from insurance company have been encashed through those cheques allegedly missing. If those cheques were missing then who had taken that amount has not been explained. In view of the arguments raised by A9 and A11 either A11 or A9 was beneficiary of those cheques but it is not the case either of A11 and A9 that neither person was beneficiary of the said cheques. No report has been lodged before the police or bank regarding missing of those cheques as claimed by A11. CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 158 of 200 Thus, A11 is not able to prove his defence and therefore, it is proved that he was involved in the conspiracy alongwith other accused towards the commission of the crime in this case. 74 In view of the above discussion, this court comes to the conclusion that A7, A8 and A11 have committed offence under Section 120 B IPC read with Section 420/468/471/473/476 IPC and Section 13 (1) (d) and 13 (1) (c) read with Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 420/468/471/473/476 IPC read with Section 120B IPC.
A9- Sanjay Verma 75 PW1 deposed that Ex PW1/H which is file related for the claim of M/s Satnam Impex. It bears signatures of A1. It also bears signatures of A9 at point Q18 and Q18/1 in Ex PW1/H. Ex PW2/A is perused. It bears signatures and seal at point Q25 of M/s Satnam Impex and A9. It is also affixed with photograph.
Ex PW2/B is letter to the Manager. It bears signatures of A9 at point Q25 alongwith seal. Pay-in-slip is Ex PW2/C in the name CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 159 of 200 of M/s Satnam Impex. Ex P2/C1 bears signatures of A9 at Q25/3. It is a cheque. Ex PW2/C1, Ex PW2/C2 and Ex PW2/C3, all are cheques issued by A9 as proprietor of M/s Satnam Impex. Ex PW2/D is statement of account.
During cross-examination, it is admitted by PW2 that as per record M/s Satnam Impex had given the address as C-9/34, Sector-8, Rohini.
PW3 deposed that he introduced A9, who came to him through one of friend of PW3. During cross-examination, it is deposed by PW3 that he has never seen A9 prior to opening of the account.
Ex PW1/H3 mentions about name of the transporter by which goods were sent by M/s Satnam Impex, is M/s Indian Roadways.
PW32 deposed that M/s Indian Roadways was not a member of all India Motor Transport Congress as per record. Testimony of this witness is not challenged by A9. Moreover, no address of M/s Indian Roadways has been mentioned in the survey report.
In Ex PW1/H3, it is allegdly mentioned by A6 that he was CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 160 of 200 called at the premises of transporter officer Sangrur. However, no address of transporter has been mentioned. Name and address of consignee mentioned as Dhuri Gate, Sangrur. Again no complete and specific address has been provided of the consignee.
PW35 proved Ex PW35/2 wherein it is stated that when he visited the address of M/s Satnam Impex, there was one Satnam Travels operating from that address. He further deposed that when he reached Sangrur to locate M/s Singh Automobiles, Dhuri Gate and on enquiries from various persons in Dhuri Gate area of Sangrur, he could not find M/s Singh Automobiles.
When he met A6 then he denied about preparation of Ex PW1/H3. During cross-examination testimony of this witness has not been challenged by A9.
Thus, this is proved that claim submitted on behalf of M/s Satnam Impex is forged and fabricated claim. PW1 also proved Ex PW1/H7 which is a cheque of Rs.2,60,000/- was made in favour of M/s Satnam Impex.
Ex PW1/H7 is a cheque dated 01.09.1998 and when Ex PW2/D is perused than it is proved that this cheque was credited in the CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 161 of 200 account of M/s Satnam Impex on 04.09.1998.
During question no. 13 of statement of under Section 313 CrPC, A9 answered that he has not filed any claim on behalf of his firm.
During answer to question no. 26, the ownership of current account of his firm is not disputed being proprietor of M/s Satnam Impex. He stated that he did not know when and who had deposited cheque of Rs. 2,60,000/- in his firm's account without his knowledge. During testimony of PW2, no question has been put during cross- examination of PW2. Then reply given by A9 regarding claim on behalf of M/s Satnam Impex is itself proved that he not come with true facts, during his statement under Section 313 CrPC.
During answer to question 27 when testimony of PW3 put to A9, then he has not disputed about opening of account no. 1516 of Satnam Impex. Moreover, Ex PW2/D is again perused. Cheque was deposited on 04.09.1998 in the account of M/s Satnam Impex. The net amount was Rs.2,63,465/- on 04.09.1998. On 05.09.1998, there was withdrawal of Rs.55000/- and net amount remained in the said account was Rs.2,08,465/-. On the same day there was again CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 162 of 200 withdrawal of Rs.24000/- and thereafter net amount remained in the said account was Rs.1,84,465/-. Prior to 04.09.1998 there was opening balance in the month of September was Rs.3,465/- and on 05.09.1998 there are two withdrawals of Rs. 55,000/- and Rs.24,000/-. Thus, if he was not having knowledge about deposit of Rs.2,60,000/- then how he made two withdrawals amounting to Rs.79,000/- without having knowledge that credit of Rs. 2,60,000/- in his account. Thus, A9 was very well aware of the deposit of Rs.2,60,000/- and he was aware of the reason that he submitted claim of Rs.2,60,000/- as Ex PW1/H. DW2 is brought by A9. He is witness from Vijaya Bank, Kamla Nagar Branch, who proved KYC Ex DW2/B of one Sh. Ashok Kumar Umrail. However testimony of this witness is not going to help any of the accused.
Similarly, DW3 proved account opening form of A7 for account no. 4577 and proved Ex DW3/A. He further brought DW4 to prove Ex DW4/A (7 sheets).
A9 further brought DW5 to prove account opening form of account no. 1081 of M/s HPMC Ltd. and proved Ex DW5/A (6 sheets).
A9 further brought DW8 to prove account opening form of CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 163 of 200 Smt. Pushpa Juneja which is Ex PW8/A. This account was opened on 16.05.1997.
In his statement under Section 313 CrPC, it is defence of A9 that he is not beneficiary of the amount whatsoever. A11 was is distant relative, who had taken 10 blank signed cheques from him, under good faith for the purpose of giving as security in some loan matter and the cheques were lost by him as informed by Sh. Juneja to A9. It is his defence that he was not aware that somebody has deposited a cheque of Rs.2,60,000/- in his account. He was not regular visiter to the bank to enquire about the transaction in the firm's account. Those cheques were not in his hand-writing nor any payment was made by him through any of the cheque nor any cash amount was withdrawn by him.
This Court observed that onus was upon A9 to prove that those cheque were lost by Sh. Juneja or his signatures were forged. He has not called Sh. Juneja or anybody else to prove that those cheques were given by A9 for the purpose of giving as security in some loan matter. It is also not proved that those cheques were lost and if cheques were lost then definitely intimation should have been CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 164 of 200 given to the concerned police station but no such intimation has been brought. Even no letter is proved by which information may be given to bank about lost of cheque or cheque book. No such letter has been brought to prove any such intimation to the bank. Therefore, A9 is not able to prove his defence.
76 In written arguments, A9 raised similar arguments which have been submitted by him in his statement under Section 313 CrPC. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon judgments:-
1. Anvar P. V. v. P. K. Basheer and Ors. (2014) 10 Supreme Court Cases 473.
2. Rakesh Kumar v. State 2004 [1] JCC 110.
3. Anil Maheswari v. CBI Crl. A. 1455/12 decided by Hon'ble High Court on 28.05.2013.
4. State, Inspector of Police Vishakhapatnam v. Surya Sankaram Karri 2006 Cri. L. J. 4598.
5. Kailash Gour & Ors. v. State of Assam 2012 (1) LRC 81 (SC).CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 165 of 200
However, facts of this case are entirely different from the set of facts of the judgments referred. Moreover, it is also not explained by A9, if he had given cheque to A11 and thereafter allegedly misplaced then who was the beneficiary of these cheques. Thus, the Court has to draw the inference that those cheques were encashed by A9 only.
77 In view of the above discussion, this court comes to the conclusion that A9 has committed offence under Section 120 B IPC read with Section 420/468/471/473/476 IPC and Section 13 (1) (d) and 13 (1) (c) read with Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 420/468/471/473/476 IPC read with Section 120B IPC.
A10- T. M. Khan 78 To prove guilty of A10, prosecution proved Ex PW1/K3 upon which there is signatures of someone at Q14/3, Ex PW1/J4 bears signatures of someone at Q6/3 and on Ex PW1/D4 bears signatures of someone at Q6/1. However, expert opinion is silent about the questioned signatures. Except these three documents there is no CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 166 of 200 other evidence brought on record against A10 except PW1 who has deposed that A10 used to visit office of A1.
In his statement under Section 313 CrPC, A10 stated that he was recovery agent and somebody forged and fabricated and got printed his letter heads and other documents and fabricated and misused them for raising false claim. He has further stated that none of the documents bear his signatures and his initials and he has not at all concerned with the present case.
Written arguments filed on behalf of A10 are perused. 79 Learned Public Prosecutor during arguments is not able to refer any document or evidence against A10. However, there are documents on record which have been proved from M/s Tracer and Recovery Consultants. But it is the claim of A10 that he has not executed any of the such document or no such report was given by him. Moreover expert opinion is silent and no other evidence has brought to prove that these reports were given by A10. Therefore, A10 is entitled for acquittal as prosecution is not able to bring any evidence to prove the guilt of A10. Thus, A10 is acquitted of the charges framed against him by CBI.
Dictated and announced in (Jitendra Kumar Mishra) the open Court on 22.09.16 Special Judge, CBI (PC Act) East District, KKD Courts : Delhi CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 167 of 200 IN THE COURT OF SH. JITENDRA KUMAR MISHRA SPECIAL JUDGE CBI (PC ACT) KARKARDOOMA COURTS : EAST DISTRICT DELHI AC No. 48/11 RC No. 34 (A)/99 CBI Case No (New).25/2016 CNR No. DLKA-01-000012-2002 IN THE MATTER OF :-
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) VERSUS 1 Smt. Meenu Khanna @ Neenu Khanna, W/o Sh. Arvind Khanna, Prop. AT Random Fashions, R/o A-104, Lok Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi-34 ....... C3 2 Sh. Devender Kumar Garg, S/o Sh. R. S. Chananmal, Prop. M/s Super Traders, M/s Balaji Trading Co. M/s Davener Kumar, R/o No. 491, Model Town (Urban Estate) Bhatinda, Punjab.
Also At:
H. NO. 15/205, First Floor, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi ....... C4 3 Sh. Arvind Khanna, S/o Sh. K. M. Khanna, Prop. M/s Laser Computers, CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 168 of 200 M/s Arvind Khanna, Surveyor, R/o A-104, Lok Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi-34. ....... C5 4 Sh. Arvind Sharma, S/o Sh. S. N. Sharma, Prop. M/s Solar Enterprises, M/s Truefit Exclusive, M/s Pooja International, R/o GH-2/122-B, Ankur Enclave, Paschim Vihar, Delhi Also At:
Janta Flat No. 17, Opp. Dusshera Park, Jwala Heri, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi ....... C7 5 Sh. Vijay Dayal, S/o Sh. Padam Dayal, Prop. M/s Vinayak Enterprises, R/o C-2/159, West Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi. ....... C8 6 Sh. Sanjay Verma, S/o Sh. Om Prakash Verma, Prop. M/s Satnam Enterprises, R/o A-3/51, Sec.8, Rohini, Delhi-85 ....... C9 7 Sh. Vijay Kumar Juneja, S/o Late Sh. Vir Bhan (employee under Sh. Arvind Khanna), R/o A-26, (Back side) Saraswati Garden, New Delhi. ....... C11 CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 169 of 200 ORDER ON SENTENCE 1 Vide separate judgment dated 22.09.2016, C3, C4, C5, C7, C8, C9 and C11 were held guilty and convicted for offence punishable under Section 120 B IPC read with Section 420/468/471/473/476 IPC and Section 13 (1) (d) and 13 (1) (c) read with Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and for substantive offences under Section 420/468/471/470/476 IPC read with Section 120B IPC.
2 On 24.09.2016, arguments have already been advanced on behalf of both the parties for about 1 hour on the point of sentence and on the applications under Section 427 (1) CrPC filed on behalf of C4, C5, C7, C8 and C11 wherein it has been mentioned that C4, C5, C7, C8 and C11 are previous convicts which fact has not been disputed by learned Sr. PP. The said application has been disposed of vide separate order but the Court has to taken into consideration such fact of previous conviction while awarding sentence in the present case.
C3 - Neenu Khanna 3 Learned defence counsel submits that C3 is an educated CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 170 of 200 lady and is a Science Graduate in Science. He used to impart tuition of English to children for the last several years. She was having trust upon her husband, who has committed entire crime and she is innocent.
4 Learned Sr. PP submits that C3 is not a lady having rural background. She is an educated lady living in Delhi. She was aware about the consequences of all her action she had opened account in bank, upon introduction of her husband. For this purpose she must have visited the bank. She was issued cheque she was aware about nature of document which she had executed. She had opened a fictitious firm upon the address of her father and she was aware that this firm was only for the purpose to commit crime and for none-else. She has signed documents to submit forged claim and she was aware about all such documents. Moreover, it is not her case that she had ever resisted against such acts. No such evidence has been brought. It is also not her case that she ever questioned her husband about the nature of documents executed upon her signatures. It is further not her case that her husband despite her unwillingness executed those CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 171 of 200 documents.
5 Moreover, Learned PP further submits that Ex PW1/7 is account statement of C3 wherein it is proved that the transactions were not done for one or two days but for months altogether. Therefore, she was aware that account was opened for the purpose of conspiracy and in furtherance of that conspiracy she submitted false claim with the insurance company. It is not her case that she had not enjoyed the amount came out as fruits of the crime. He further submitted that total amount involved on her part which she has enjoyed as proceeds is Rs. 4,16,590/- in September 1998. He further submits that if the value of the money is to be taken after September 1998 till today then the amount must have fetched further amount by way of interest, if kept in FDR, then it would be around Rs. 25,00,000/- as on date. 6 I have considered the arguments and do not agree with the arguments raised by C3. In as much as, it cannot be believed that during entire sequence of crime, C3 was not aware about the nature of CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 172 of 200 transactions. In as much as she is an educated lady and was aware of the fact that such a huge amount was credited in her account for which she was issuing the cheques and big amount was debited from her bank account. Moreover, if it is to be believed upon her that these cheques were encashed upon her signatures by her husband then also it cannot be believed upon that she was informed by her husband about the withdrawal of money from her bank account and she was not aware about the fact of huge amount credited in her account. 7 During arguments, she has further argued that she was giving tuition to the students since the day of her marriage and till date. Therefore, she was aware about the commercial transactions and it was in her knowledge that the amount was not credited in her account out of money earned by her through tuitions but it was illegal and ill- gotten money. Therefore, arguments raised by learned counsel for C3 as well as C3 does not hold water and this Court agrees with learned Sr. PP for CBI that she was the part of the conspiracy. Moreover, she opened bank account in the name of M/s AT Random Fashions, being its proprietor. She filed claim and thereafter she got cheques which CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 173 of 200 were credited into her account. Therefore, in well planned manner, she committed conspiracy and she is not entitled to any leniency from the Court.
C5- Arvind Khanna 8 It is argued that C5 is 57 years old. He is having two children. His daughter is married and settled in USA. His son is perusing BBA. It is submitted by C5 that he used to impart tuition to the children.
9 Learned Sr. PP submits that C5 is not only involved in conspiracy by submitting forged and fabricated claim being proprietor of M/s Laser Computer but also his wife i.e. C3 who had put allegations that it was C5 who instigated her towards the crime. He was the person who introduced her to open the bank account and also other accused persons in this case. The amount of Rs.2,81,500/- was credited in his account but he was also involved in the crime being a conspirator and master mind of the entire conspiracy. He deserves maximum punishment.
CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 174 of 200 10 This Court considers the entire arguments raised on behalf of C5. During arguments, it is submitted by C5 that he is an Engineer. Therefore, he was intellectual and brain to understand the consequences of the acts done by him. He has also submitted fake survey report in other claims. He is the person who introduced the accounts of other co-convicts in this case. Therefore, he was active member to hatch conspiracy. It is further proved on record that C5 and C3 are living in posh area of Delhi i.e. at Lok Vihar , Pitampura. Thus both of them enjoyed living upon the proceeds of the crime and thus not entitled for any mercy. Therefore, C5 is not entitled for any leniency from the Court.
C4 - Devender Kumar Garg 11 It is argued on behalf of C4 that he is 68 years old. He is having two children. His son is in London and his daughter is in America. It is further submitted that he has faced trial for 15 years. It CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 175 of 200 is further submitted that he is a mechanical engineer. 12 Learned Sr. PP submits that C4 was the proprietor of two fake firms M/s Balaji Trading and M/s Super Traders. It is further submitted that he had opened bank accounts in the name of both the firm being the proprietor. It is further submitted that C4 was also acted as surveyor for M/s Super Trader and submitted the claim by forging documents and defrauded the insurance company. It is further argued that C4 was active member of the conspiracy.
13 This Court considered arguments raised on behalf the parties. C4 is also an Engineer and an intellectual person who has all the knowledge about the consequences of such acts. C4 is also living in the posh area i.e. Malviya Nagar. Thus he enjoyed living upon the proceeds of the crime and thus not entitled for any leniency. Therefore, he is not entitled for any leniency from the Court.
C7 - Arvind Sharma 14 It is argued that C7 is 61 years of age. It is submitted that CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 176 of 200 he is 12th passed. He is submitted that his son has done MBA (Marketing) but is unemployed. It is submitted that his wife is housewife. It is submitted that he is suffering from problem of blood pressure, sugar and heart ailments.
15 Learned Sr. PP submits that C7 being surveyor, prepared false survey report by Pooja International regarding M/s Solar Enterprise and for M/s Truefit Exclusive Company. It is further proved that C7 himself filed survey report for the claim filed by him with the insurance company with sole intention to extract money from the insurance company and amount of credited in the account of C7. It is further submitted he was one of the master mind of the conspiracy hatched among the convicts.
16 This Court considered the arguments raised on behalf of both the parties. It is submitted on behalf of C7 that he is living in janta flats and living life in penury. Therefore, Court shall consider all the facts and circumstances of the case and financial capacity of C7 but also considered the role played by C7 in crime while awarding the CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 177 of 200 sentence to C7.
C8 - Vijay Dayal 17 It is submitted that C8 is 46 years of age. He is having two children one daughter and one son. It is submitted that C8 is having education upto B. Com. It is further submitted that C8 is having ailing and aged mother who is totally dependent upon him. It is submitted that he is the sole bread earner for his family.
18 Learned Sr. PP submits that bank accounts were opened in the name of C8 for M/s Vinayak Enterprises. Further several documents were executed by or in the name of C8. It is further proved that amount of fake claims were credited into the accounts of C8. It is further argued that C8 being the conspirator having active role in the conspiracy.
19 However, this Court takes into consideration that he was involved with Arvind Sharma who has major role in the entire conspiracy.
CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 178 of 200 20 This Court considered the arguments raised on behalf of both the parties. Therefore, Court shall consider all the facts and circumstances of the case and the role played by C8 in commission of crime while awarding the sentence to C8.
C9 - Sanjay Verma 21 It is argued by Sh. Sanjay Gupta, counsel for C9 that C9 is 45 years old. He is B. Com (pass). He is having wife and one son and daughter. It is submitted that his mother and father are totally dependent upon him. He is the sole bread earner of the family. He runs small scale unit of sanitary items in partnership. He is earning only Rs. 25,000/- to Rs.30,000/- per month. It is further submitted that five lives are on stake, if he is given harsh punishment. It is submitted that C9 is not a previous convict and is not having previous criminal record. He has faced agony of trial for years. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon Rajeev Kumar Goyal @ Raj Kumar Goyal v. State through CBI Crl. A. No. 265 of 2008 decided on 08.08.2014.
CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 179 of 200 22 It is argued by learned Sr. PP that C9 was the proprietor of the M/s Satnam Impex. He has filed forged claim on behalf of M/s Satnam Impex and succeeded to procure illegal money from Insurance company. It is proved that a sum of Rs. 2,60,000/- credited in the account of C9 through this false and forged claim. 23 This Court considered the arguments raised on behalf of both the parties. Therefore, Court shall consider all the facts and circumstances of the case and the role played by C9 in commission of crime while awarding the sentence to C9.
C11 - Vijay Kumar Juneja 24 It is submitted that C11 is 67 years of age. He is having two children, both are married. It is submitted by C11 that he is suffering from piles problem.
25 It is argued by learned Sr. PP that it is proved that C11 was the beneficiary of the proceeds of the crime. It is further proved that CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 180 of 200 C11 signed as Sunil Batra on behalf of M/s Solar Enterprises and submitted forged documents and submitted fake claims wherein C7 became surveyor. It is further that C11 was the employee of the C7. 26 This Court considered the arguments raised on behalf of both the parties. Therefore, Court shall consider all the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that C11 was involved in the crime being employee of C7 and the role played by C11 in commission of crime while awarding the sentence to C11.
27 Learned Sr. PP for CBI further submits that convicts are educated persons. All of them are holding high educational qualifications and they are responsible people of the society. 28 Learned Sr. PP for CBI further submits that convicts have cheated the public institution. Therefore, he submits for rigorous maximum punishment for the convicts.
29 Learned Sr. PP for CBI further submits that if such people are allowed to go scot free or only awarded minimum sentences then CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 181 of 200 definitely it will convey wrong message to the society to the effect that nothing would happen if one does corruption.
30 Learned Sr. PP further submits that there is previous convictions of some of the convicts for the same kind of offences and thus all the convicts should be given maximum punishment as provided under statute.
31 Learned Sr. PP further claims cost of entire prosecution as per Section 357 (1)(a) of CrPC since the CBI has investigated the matter thoroughly and called witnesses from different parts of the country. He further submits that CBI has taken services for the purpose of investigation of best professionals and also hired best prosecutors to bring the guilt at home of the accused persons. He further submits that keeping in view all the facts of rising cost of transportation, communication and various other applicable methods for the purpose of investigation and to bring the witnesses before the Court from different parts of the country, it will compensate to some extent the expenses incurred in the prosecution of this case. CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 182 of 200 32 Learned Sr. PP for CBI further submits that loss suffered by the insurance company in the year 1998 should also be payable to the National Insurance Company after taking into account that with the passage of time interest @ 24% per annum should also be payable by the convicts.
33 Learned Sr. PP further submits that besides compensation as prayed hereinabove, accused persons should also be imposed highest fine. He further submits to impose Rs.60 lacs as fine. These people misused their education and worked to put obstructions against the growth of this country.
34 Learned Sr. PP for CBI submits that exemplary punishment should be awarded as it will give deterrent effect in the society. He further submits that in the catena of judgments, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that corruption should be dealt with iron hand and no leniency should be shown in corruption cases.
CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 183 of 200 35 Learned Sr. PP further submits that it was upon the convicts when they had committed crime and if they did not think for consequences then definitely they cannot claim leniency from this Court. He further submits that in catena of judgments Hon'ble Apex Court and other Courts, held that in the current scenario prevailing in the country, it is quite evident that the evil of corruption is eating into the vital of the social fabric and corroding the character of the nation, while eroding the confidence reposed by the society in the public servants.
36 Learned Sr. PP has relied upon State of Rajasthan v. Dhool Singh AIR 2004 SC 1264, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-
"The courts should bear in mind that there is a requirement in law that every conviction should be followed by an appropriate sentence within the period stipulated in law. Discretion in this regard is not absolute or whimsical. It is controlled by law and to some extent by judicial discretion, applicable to the facts of the case. Therefore, there is a need for the courts to apply its mind while imposing sentence."
CBI has further relied upon judgment Sevaka Perumal, etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1991 SC 1463, wherein Hon'ble CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 184 of 200 Supreme Court observed as under:-
"9. Therefore, undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine to public confidence in the efficacy of law and society could not long endure under serious threats. If he courts did not protect the injured, the injured would then resort to private vengeance. It is, therefore, the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed etc.
10. It is clear from the evidence that the accused indulged in illegal business of purchase and sale of ganja. They conspired to entice innocent boys from affluent families took them to far flung places where the dead body could not be identified. The letters were written to the parents purporting to be by the deceased to delude the parents that the missing boy would one day come home alive and that they would not give any report to the police and the crime would go undetected. For murder in a span of five years were committed for gain in cold blooded, premeditated and planned way. It is undoubted that if the trial relating to Athiappan murder had taken place and concluded earlier to the trial and conviction of other three murders are not relevant facts to be considered. But in this case the trial of the murder relating to Athiappan and Hariamachandran practically took place simultaneously by which date the appellants were convicted for the murder of Chellaurai and Christodas. Therefore, the reference of conviction and sentence by the Sessions Court to those two cases also are relevant facts. The deceased Harimachandran is no other than the nephew (elder sister's son) of A-1. This would establish his depravity and hardened criminality. No regard for precious lives of innocent young boys was shown. They adopted the crime of murder for gain as a means of living."
37 He further submits that as per judicial verdict pronounced CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 185 of 200 earlier in various cases that when the statutes provides maximum sentence, it is only for the talk purpose but it should be implemented. He further submits that if the Court is not going to pass maximum sentence, then there must be some strong reasons for not doing so by the Court. He further submits that if statutes provides maximum sentence then definitely maximum sentence should be awarded as there is no reason for non-awarding of maximum sentence. He strongly objects for any leniency towards the accused persons. 38 This Court considers rival contentions of both the parties. 39 In the case titled Mehkar Singh Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi 2011 (3) Crimes 94, (2011) ILR 4 Delhi 656 has held that :-
".......... There was no denial of the fact that the corruption by the public servants and particularly the law enforcers like the accused is an alarming menace to the society and which is spreading its tentacles in all walks of life. With regard to the quantum of sentence, nothing specific was pointed out by the learned defence counsel except for praying for leniency in view of the protracted pendency of the case. This was no ground to mitigate the gravity of the offence as per the catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and reference here can be made only to the case of State of A.P. Vs. V. Vasudeva Rao Manu/SC/0916/2003:CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 186 of 200
(2004) 9 SCC 319.
In the given factual matrix, I am not persuaded to impose the minimum sentence as prayed by the learned defence counsel. In the overall circumstances, while maintaining the conviction as awarded by the learned Special Judge, I am of the view that ends of justice would be met by sentencing the accused to two years of rigorous imprisonment on each count. Consequently, the order of sentence stands modified in the sense that the accused shall stand sentenced for two years rigorous imprisonment each under section 7 and also under Section 13(2). The rest of the order shall remain unchanged. Both sentences shall run concurrently. The period of imprisonment already undergone shall be set off. The accused shall be taken into custody to undergo the imprisonment as awarded. The appeal stands dismissed."
In the case titled Raj Kumar Vs. State of Delhi, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, 2015 IV AD (Delhi) 280 has held that :-
"..........So far as the sentence is concerned, the appellant as let off rather lightly by the learned Special Judge by awarding RI for one year with fine of Rs. 4,000/-, and on failure to pay the same, to undergo SI for four months for the offence under Section 7 of of the P.C. Act; and to further undergo RI for two years with fine of Rs. 6,000/- and on failure to pay the same, to undergo SI for six months for the commission of offence punishable under Section 13(1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the P.C. Act. The appellant, who as a Beat Constable, was found guilty of committing criminal misconduct by exploiting his authority to force the complainant to pay him bribe. An officer entrusted the task of protecting the law, blatantly breached the same. Looking to the rampant corruption prevalent in the society, the sentence should, and could, have been harsher. I am, therefore, not inclined to reduce the sentence awarded by the learned Special Judge. The appellant shall surrender forthwith and undergo the remaining sentence."CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 187 of 200
In the case titled State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Shambhu Dayal Nagar Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, 2007 (2) ACR 1428 (SC) has held that :-
".......... The corruption by public servants has become a gigantic problem. It has spread everywhere. No facet of public activity has been left unaffected by the stink of corruption. It has deep and pervasive impact on the functioning of the entire country. Large scale corruption retards the national building activities and everyone has to suffer on that count. As has been aptly observed in Swatantar Singh Vs. State of Haryana reported in MANU/SC/0510/1997, lymph nodes, the vital veins of the body politics social fabric of efficiency in public service would improve only when the public servant devotes his sincere attention and does the duty diligently, truthfully, honestly and devotes himself assiduously to the performance of the duties of his post. The reputation of corrupt would gather thick and untraceably clouds around the conduct of the officer and gain notoriety much faster than the smoke.
And also in para no. 19 held that :-
..... From the analysis of the above decisions and the concerned provisions with which we are concerned, the following principles emerge:
a) When the court issues notice confining to particular aspect/sentence, arguments will be heard only to that extent unless some extraordinary circumstance/material is shown to the Court for arguing the matter on all aspects.
b) Long delay in disposal of appeal or any other factor may not be a ground for reduction of sentence, particularly, when the statute prescribes minimum sentence. In other cases where no such minimum sentence is prescribed, it is open to the court to consider the delay and its effect and the ultimate decision.
1. In a case of corruption by public servant, quantum of amount is immaterial. Ultimately, it depends upon the conduct of the delinquent and the proof regarding demand and acceptance established by the prosecution.CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 188 of 200
d) Merely, because the delinquent lost his job due to conviction under the Act may not be a mitigating circumstance for reduction of sentence, particularly, when the Statute prescribes minimum sentence". In the case titled Shiv Nanda Sahay Srivastava Vs. The State of Bihar, Hon'ble High Court of Patna, 2011 (59) BLJR 124 has held that :-
" .......... when corruption was sought to be eliminated from the polity all possible stringent measures are to be adopted within the bounds of law. One such measure is to provide condign punishment. Parliament measured the parameters for such condign punishment and in that process wanted to fix a minimum sentence of imprisonment for giving deterrent impact on other public servants who are prone to corrupt deals. That was precisely the reason why the sentence was fixed as 7 years and directed that even if the said period of imprisonment need not be given the sentence shall not be less than the imprisonment for one year. Such a legislative insistence is reflection of Parliament's resolve to meet corruption cases with a very strong hand to given signals of deterrence as the most pivotal feature of sentencing of corrupt public servants. All public servants were warned through such a legislative measure that corrupt public servants have to face very serious consequences. If on the other hand any public servant is given the impression that if he succeeds in protracting the proceedings that would help him to have the advantage of getting a very light sentence even if the case ends in conviction, we are afraid its fallout would afford incentive to public servants who are susceptible to corruption to indulge in such nefarious practices with immunity. Increasing the fine after reducing the imprisonment to a nominal period can also defeat the purpose as the corrupt public servant could easily raise the fine amount through the same means."
In the case titled Soman Vs. State of Kerala, CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 189 of 200 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, (2013) 1 SCC 382 has held that :-
"..........1 Courts ought to base sentence decisions on various different rationales - moth prominent amongst which would be proportionality and deterrence.
2 The question of consequences of criminal action can be relevant from both a proportionality and deterrence standpoint.
3 In so far as proportionality is concerned, the sentence must be commensurate with the seriousness or gravity of the offence.
4 One of the factors relevant for judging seriousness of the offence is the consequences resulting from it.
5 Unintended consequences/harm may still be properly attributed to the offender if they were reasonably foreseeable."
In the case titled Mehkar A.B Bhaskara Rao Vs. Inspector of Police CBI, AIR 2011 SC 3845 Visakhapatnam, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has also relied upon the judgment titled as State of M.P Vs. Shambhu Dayal Nagar MANU/SC/8623/2006 (Supra).
In the case titled Manish Jalan Vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 2008 SC 3074, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, AIR 2011 SC 3845 has held that :-
12. .....In Hari Singh Vs. Manu/SC/0183/1988:
Sukhbir Singh and Ors. 1989 Cril. J. 116, while emphasizing the need for making liberal use of the provisions contain in Section 357 Cr.P.C. this court has observed thus:
It may be noted that this power of Courts to award compensation is not ancillary to other sentences but it is in addition thereto. This power was intended to do something to reassure the victim that he or she is not forgotten in the criminal justice system. It is a measure of responding appropriately to crime as well as of reconciling the victim with the offender. It is, CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 190 of 200 to some extent, a constructive approach to crimes. It is indeed as step forward in our criminal justice system.
However, in awarding compensation, it is necessary for the Court to decide if the case is a fit one in which compensation deserves to be awarded. If the Court is convinced that compensation should be paid, then quantum of compensation is to be determined by taking into consideration the nature of the crime, the injury suffered and the capacity of the convict to pay compensation etc. It goes without saying that the amount of compensation has to be reasonable, which the person concerned is able to pay. It the accused is not in a position to pay the compensation to the injured or his dependents to which they are held to be entitled to, there could be no reason for the Court to direct such compensation. In Sarwan Singh and Ors Vs. MANU/SC/0163/1978, State of Punjab : 1978 Cril. J 1598.
Very recently in Dilip S. Dahanukar Vs. MANU/SC/1803/2007 : Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd. and Anr. 2007 Crl. J. 2417 explaining the scope and the purpose of imposition of find and/or grant of compensation to a great extent must be considered having the relevant factors therefore in mind. It may be compensating the person in one way or the other. The amount of compensation sought to be imposed, thus, must be reasonable and not arbitrary. Before issuing a direction to pay compensation, the capacity of accused to pay the same must be judged. A fortiori, an enquiry in this behalf even in a summary way may be necessary. Some reasons, which may not be very elaborate, may also have to be assigned; the purpose being that whereas the power to impose fine is limited and direction to pay compensation can be made for one or the other factors enumerated out of the same; but Sub Section (3) of Section 357 does not impose any such limitation and thus, power thereunder should be exercised only in appropriate cases. Such a jurisdiction cannot be exercised at the whims and caprice of a judge."
In the case titled Rekha Sharma Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 218 (2015) DLT 1, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 191 of 200 held that :-
488. .......... The Supreme Court in its decision reported as (2013) 11 SCC 401, Jasvir Kaur Vs. State of Punjab expressed concern on the absence of a sentencing policy in the country and, therefore, cautioned the Courts to calibrate the punishment with due care and upon taking into account the relevant attending circumstances. The Supreme Court quoted with approval the luminous observations of English Judge Henry Alfred Mc Cardie which are reproduce hitherto-fore:
"....Trying a man is easy, as easy as falling off a log, compared with deciding what to do with him when he has been found guilty.
Chapter 19 of the Delhi High Court Rules deals with sentencing of offenders and throws insights on this aspect.
"1. The award of suitable sentence depends on a variety of considerations - The determination of appropriate punishment after the conviction of an offender is often a question of great difficulty and always requires careful consideration. The law prescribes the nature and the limit of the punishment permissible for an offence, but the Court has to determine in each case a sentence suited to the offence and the offender. The maximum punishment prescribed by the law for any offence is intended for the gravest of its kind and it is rarely necessary in practice to go up to the maximum. The measure of punishment in any particular instance depends upon a variety of considerations, such as the motive for the crime, its gravity, the character of the offender, his age, antecedents and other extenuating or aggravating circumstances, such as sudden temptation, previous convictions, and so forth, which have all to be carefully weighed by the Court in passing the sentence."
The facts of the present case as unfurled by the overwhelming evidence led by the prosecution at trial reveal a shocking and spine-chilling state if affairs prevalent in our country. An ingenious employment scam spanning across eighteen (18) districts of State of Haryana was given effect to by persons at the helm of power and the entire bureaucratic machinery fell prey to its satanic influence. Laudably, few individuals who CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 192 of 200 were examined at the trial were forthright in the hour of adversity and did not succumb to the pressures exerted upon them from all quarters. Some individuals, such as PW-14, Dhup Singh, were not even high ranking officers of th Civil Services, but mustered courage to successfully repel the pressure exerted upon them.
It is submitted that the authors of the present crime were essentially public servants; who were duty bound to preserve and uphold the dignity of law. Some had even been administered 'oath' in terms of the Constitution of India. Yet they chose to flagrantly violate the law, betraying the trust reposed in them by the citizens and the Constitution. The very nature of the present crime, its magnitude, ramifications, designed manner of execution and the deleterious impact on the society at large, warrants a strict view, lest, justice be rendered sterile.
Very recently the Supreme Court in its decision pronounced on 06.05.2014 in the case of Dr. Subramanian Swamy Vs. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, (2014) 8 SCC 682 while holding section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 to be ultravires took serious note of malaise of corruption in our country and pertinently observed :
"77 This court in Shobha Suresh Jumani, took judicial notice of the fact that because of the mad race of becoming rich and acquiring properties overnight, or because of the ostentatious or vulgar show of wealth by a few or because of change of environment in the society by adoption of materialistic approach, there is cancerous growth of corruption which has affected the moral standards of th people and all forms of governmental administration.
XXX XXX XXXX XXXX
XXX XXX XXXX XXXX
80 ...In the supplementing judgment,
A.K Ganguly, J. While concurring with the main
judgment delivered by G.S. Singhvi, J. observed:
"Today, corruption in our country not only poses a grave danger to the concept of constitutional governance. It also threatens the very foundation of the Indian democracy and the Rule of Law. The magnitude CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 193 of 200 of corruption in our public life is incompatible with the concept of a socialist secular democratic republic. It cannot be disputed that where corruption begins all rights end. Corruption devalues human rights, chokes development and undermines justice, liberty, equality, fraternity which are the core values in our Premabular vision. Therefore, the duty of the Court is that any anti- corruption law has to be interpreted and worked out in such a fashion as to strengthen the fight against corruption....."
81 In balakrishna Dattatrya Kumbhar, this Court observed that corruption was not only a punishable offence but also, "undermines human rights, indirectly violating them, and systematic corruption, is a human rights' violation in itself, as it leads to systematic economic crimes".
82 In R.A. Mehta, the two-Judge Bench of this Court made the following observations about corruption in the society:
"Corruption in a society is required to be detected and eradicated at the earliest as it shakes "the socio-economic-political system in anotherwise healthy, wealthy, effective and vibrating society". Liberty cannot last long unless the State is able to eradicate corruption from public life. Corruption is a bigger threat than external threat to the civil society as it corrodes the vitals of our polity and society. Corruption is instrumental in not proper implementation and enforcement of policies adopted by the Government. Thus, it is not merely a fringe issue but a subject-matter of grave concern and requires to be decisively dealt with."
83 ..... It was observed :
"Abuse of public office for private gain has grown in scope and scale and hit the nation badly. Corruption reduces revenue; it slows down economic activity and holds back economic growth. The biggest loss that may occur to the nation due to corruption is loss of confidence in the democracy and weakening of the rule of law.".......
In the celebrated words of Martin Luther King, Jr. ; "Morality cannot be legislated, but behaviour can be regulated. Judicial decrees may not change the heart, but they can restrain the heartless."
40 After considering rival contentions and law cited by CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 194 of 200 both the parties as well as case laws referred by this Court, this Court comes to the conclusion that long pendency of the trial or long time taken to conclude trial does not make a ground for mitigating sentence. Therefore, arguments raised by learned defence counsel to take lenient view due to such facts is not going to help all the convicts. 41 The Court has to consider important fact that all the accused persons in this case are educated persons. A person committed offence when having sense of judgment to differentiate between right or wrong, should be given harsher punishment. Court can take judicial notice of public behaviour that whenever a culprit committed crime on the road, the entire public catches the culprit and handled in such a way that half of the punishment got by that culprit on the road itself. But that culprit sometimes not-educated, some are educated or may have no education, may have no sense for right or wrong. This Court is of the considered opinion that these convicts have joined hands and hatched conspiracy to extract public money from National Insurance company.
CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 195 of 200 42 This Court agrees with the contention raised by the Ld. Sr. PP that in this country most of the people have made the way of corruption as their way of life style as it appears to them the easiest route to get early success and easy wealth. The corruption has spread to such an extent in the society that it becomes disease among professionals, medical professionals, educational professionals or even the custodian of the nation i.e. politician of this country. No corruption can take place until and unless the public opinion may give it sanctity. Sanctity only comes when it becomes the life style of the people of the country. Therefore, I do not find that any leniency can be granted as prayed by their respective counsels. But the court has to balance with the contentions raised by the convicts in view of their family circumstances and health.
43 Moreover, this Court further takes into consideration that National Insurance Company has been established to encourage and promote business to strengthen the economy of the country but in this case all the convicts have joined hands for diversion of funds which were to be used by National Insurance company for the help of CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 196 of 200 businessmen, suffered loss in their business.
44 This Court further refers observation made by Hon'ble High Court Crl (M) No.1333/2015 titled as CBI v. Kanhiya lal & Ors. In para no. 11 & 12 :-
"11. Ratio decidendi of all these cases is that the cases relating to Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be treated as ordinary cases, where sentence ought to be suspended just for the asking. In such cases, the complainant alone is not a victim, but the sufferer is the society at large, whose interest ought to be placed on the high pedestal and the offender treated on a stricter footing. In the case of State of M. P. and Ors. v. Ram Singh 2000 (1) JCC (SC) 299; 2000 SCC (Crl.) 886, the Supreme Court observed as below :-
"8. Corruption in a civilized society is a disease like cancer, which if not detected in time, is sure to malignancies (sic) the polity of the country leading to disastrous consequences. It is termed as a plague which is not only contagious but if not controlled spread like a fire in jungle. It is virus is compared with HIV leading to AIDS, being incurable. It has also been termed as royal thievery. The socio-political system exposed to such a dreaded communicable disease is like to crumble under its own weight. Corruption is opposed to democracy and social order, being not only anti people, but aimed and targeted against them. It affects the economy and destroys the cultural heritage. Unless nipped int the bud at the earliest. It is likely to cause turblence- shaking of the socio- economic-political system in an otherwise healthy, wealthy, effective and vibrating society."
12. In the current scenario prevailing in the country, it is quite evident that the evil of CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 197 of 200 corruption is eating into the vitals of the social fabric and corroding the character of the nation, while eroding the confidence reposed by the society in public servants. Hence, the Courts must show extra caution while suspending sentence in a case of corruption.
Further, even though the appellate court has ample powers and discretion to suspend the sentence, the said discretion has to be exercised judicially depending on the facts and circumstances of the each case."
45 Thus, this Court keeping in view all the facts and circumstances and health of the convicts, their age, their economic condition and responsibility towards their family and maintaining balance between reformative theory as argued by the Ld. Counsels for the Defence and arguments in favour of exemplary punishment to be awarded as argued by the Ld. Sr. PP, this court is of the considered opinion that the punishment should be given to all the accused persons as under :-
Convicts Offences Imprisonment Fine (in In default of Rs.) payment of fine
1. Smt. Neenu U/s 120B r/w Section 420/468 / RI for 4 years 5 lac 18 months Khanna (C3) 471/473/476 IPC and read with Section 13 (1) (d) and 13 (1) (C) read with Section 13 (2) of PC Act,1988 Section 420/468/471/470/476 IPC RI for 4 years 3 lac 18 months read with Section 120 B IPC
2. Sh. Devender U/s 120B r/w Section 420/468 / RI for 5 years 6 lac 21 months Kumar Garg (C4) 471/473/476 IPC and read with Section 13 (1) (d) and 13 (1) (C) read with Section 13 (2) of PC Act,1988 CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 198 of 200 Section 420/468/471/470/476 IPC RI for 5 years 4 lac 21 months read with Section 120 B IPC
3. Arvind Khanna U/s 120B r/w Section 420/468 / RI for 5 years 6 lac 21 months (C5) 471/473/476 IPC and read with Section 13 (1) (d) and 13 (1) (C) read with Section 13 (2) of PC Act,1988 Section 420/468/471/470/476 IPC RI for 5 years 4 lac 21 months read with Section 120 B IPC
4. Sh. Arvind U/s 120B r/w Section 420/468 / RI for 5 years 3 lac 21 months Sharma (C7) 471/473/476 IPC and read with Section 13 (1) (d) and 13 (1) (C) read with Section 13 (2) of PC Act,1988 Section 420/468/471/470/476 IPC RI for 5 years 3 lac 21 months read with Section 120 B IPC
5. Sh. Vijay Dayal U/s 120B r/w Section 420/468 / RI for 4 years 2 lac 12 months (C8) 471/473/476 IPC and read with Section 13 (1) (d) and 13 (1) (C) read with Section 13 (2) of PC Act,1988 Section 420/468/471/470/476 IPC RI for 4 years 2 lac 12 months read with Section 120 B IPC
6. Sh. Sanjay U/s 120B r/w Section 420/468 / RI for 4 years 1 lac 12 months Verma (C9) 471/473/476 IPC and read with Section 13 (1) (d) and 13 (1) (C) read with Section 13 (2) of PC Act,1988 Section 420/468/471/470/476 IPC RI for 4 years 1 lac 12 months read with Section 120 B IPC
7. Sh. Vijay U/s 120B r/w Section 420/468 / SI for 4 years 50,000/- 12 months Kumar Juneja 471/473/476 IPC and read with (C11 Section 13 (1) (d) and 13 (1) (C) read with Section 13 (2) of PC Act,1988 Section 420/468/471/470/476 IPC SI for 4 years 50,000/- 12 months read with Section 120 B IPC
46 C11 has been awarded simple imprisonment keeping in view of the fact that he is a senior citizen.
47 All the sentences shall run concurrently.
CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 199 of 200 48 Out of total fine collected, 25% be paid to the CBI towards litigation expenses and 75% be paid to the State.
49 Benefit of Section 428 CrPC, if any, be given to all the convicts. 50 All convicts have been supplied with copy of judgment and order on sentence separately free of cost.
51 File be consigned to Record Room.
Dictated and announced in the open Court on 28.09.2016.
( JITENDRA KUMAR MISHRA) SPECIAL JUDGE, CBI ( PC ACT) EAST DISTRICT KKD COURTS: DELHI CBI v. R. K. Kapoor & Ors. Page 200 of 200