Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Cbi Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors vs . on 6 June, 2014

   IN THE COURT OF SH.R.P.PANDEY : SPECIAL JUDGE­01 
               (PC ACT) CBI : ROHINI COURTS : DELHI



CBI CASE NO.73/08 & CBI CASE NO.07/11




CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CBI)

                   VS.

   1. E.Krishnamurthy (A­1)
      s/o Late Lakshminarayana
      the then Branch Manager
      Andhra Bank, Vishwas Nagar Branch,
      Shahdara, Delhi
      r/o Flat No.48, Ashirwad Apartments,
      I.P.Extension, Patparganj, Delhi­72

   2. Inder Kapoor (A­2)
      s/o Late Ram Dass Kapoor
      Prop. M/s Surabhi Chemicals
      Office cum residence at
      K­83, Shyam Nagar, New Delhi­18


CBI No.73/08                                           Page No.1 of 181
                      CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.
    3. Diljit Kapoor (A­3) (Proclaimed Offender)
      s/o Charanjeet Kapoor,
      Prop. M/s Meera Traders
      C­88, Mansa Ram Park, 
      New Delhi­59
      r/o 1­68A, Mohan Garden , 
      Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.

   4. Papinder Singh Handa (A­4)
      s/o Late Amar Singh Handa
      Prop.M/s Guru Nanak Mint Traders,
      897, Chawri Bazar, Delhi­6
      r/o ­E­259, East of Kailash,
      New Delhi

   5. Sangeet Kumar Mann (A­5)
      Son of Sh.Har Narain,
      Prop.M/s Suprabhat Chemicals, 
      A­49, Vikas Nagar,
      New Delhi­59

   6. Sh.Ratnakar Nama (A­6)
      son of Sh.N.Laxamiah,
      Architect and Govt.Registered
      Valuer on panel of Andhra Bank
      Office cum residence at D­90, Pushpanjali
      Enclave, Pitampura, New Delhi­34



CBI No.73/08                                          Page No.2 of 181
                     CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.
    7. Sh.Jitender Gupta  (A­7)
      s/o Sh.K.C.Gupta
      Govt. Approved Valuer
      on panel of Andhra Bank
      r/o C­80­1­264 of 1994, Ashirwad 
      Apartments, 74 IP Extension
      Near Patparganj Bus Depot,
      Delhi.

   8. Deepak Kumar (A­8) (since expired and proceedings abated)
      s/o Sh.Leela Dhar
      r/o­Flat NO.A­III, Plot No.A­54
      Shalimar Garden Extension­II
      Sahibabad (UP)



FIR NO.RC SI 8/2002/E/0002/CBI/SIU­VIII/N.DELHI

U/S 13 (2) R/W 13(1)(d) PC ACT, 1988




               Date of filing charge sheet  :       23.06.03

               Arguments concluded on         :     19.05.14

               Date of Judgment               :     31.05.14



CBI No.73/08                                               Page No.3 of 181
                        CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.
 CASE ID NO.02404R1000712003


Appearance:­      Sh.N.P.Srivastava, Public Prosecutor for CBI

                  Sh.Anand Mishra, counsel for accused No.1

                  Sh.S.K.Bhatnagar, counsel for accused No.2

                  Ms.Jagdeep Kaur, counsel for accused No.4

                  Sh.Rakesh Beniwal, counsel for accused No.5

                  Sh.J.R.Piryani, counsel for accused No.6

                  Sh.N.K.Sharma, counsel for accused No.7.




JUDGMENT:

­ 1.0 By this common Judgment I proceed to dispose of CC No.73/08 and CC No.07/11 arising out of RC SI 8/2002/E/0002/CBI/SIU­VIII/N Delhi which was registered by CBI CBI No.73/08 Page No.4 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

on 29.01.02 on complaint made by Mr.A.Muralidhar, Dy.General Manager, Andhra Bank, Zonal Office, New Delhi. 1.1 Briefly stated the facts in this case as revealed from FIR, are that accused E.Krishnamurthy was posted as Manager in Andhra Bank , Vishwas Nagar Branch, Shahdara, Delhi during the period from May, 2000 to June, 2001. It is alleged that during this period the said accused entered into a criminal conspiracy with Inder Kapoor, proprietor of M/s Surbhi Chemicals, Diljit Kapoor, proprietor of M/s Meera Traders, Papinder Singh Handa Proprietor of M/s Guru Nanak Mint Traders, Sangeet Kumar Mann, proprietor of M/s Suprabhat Chemicals and Jitender Gupta and Ratnakar Nama approved valuers on the panel of Andhra Bank to cheat Andhra Bank (hereinafter referred to as 'Bank') by CBI No.73/08 Page No.5 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

sanctioning credit facilities to the said proprietorship concern of Inder Kapoor, Diljit Kapoor, Papinder Singh Handa and Sangeet Kumar Mann to the extent of Rs.25 lacs each (Rs.one crore in all) without verifying the credentials of borrowers and on the basis of fake and forged documents including title deeds of collateral securities offered in mortgage by deposit of title deeds (for short 'equitable mortgage').

1.2 Accused Diljit Kapoor, proprietor of M/s Meera Traders opened a current account on 20.07.2000 with the said branch of the bank and applied for a cash credit limit of Rs.25 lacs for trading of menthol. Accused is said to have submitted fake and forged documents namely the financial statements for the years 1998­99, 1999­2000 of his firm M/s Meera Traders which were CBI No.73/08 Page No.6 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

dishonestly accepted by accused E.Krishnamurthy without any verification. The accused also dishonestly mortgaged property No.K­83, Sham Nagar, Delhi which had already been mortgaged with the Federal Bank.

1.3 The cash credit limit of Rs.25 lacs was sanctioned by E.Krishnamurthy on 20.07.2000 by unauthorizedly preparing appraisal report and without verifying the genuineness of the financial status. Accused Diljit Kapoor, dishonestly siphoned off the entire sanctioned limit through three accounts of co­conspirator Inder Kapoor by name of M/s Rashtriya Chemicals maintained at the Federal Bank Ltd., Karol Bagh, M/s Shree Maharaja Enterprises and M/s Surabhi Chemicals maintained at Bank of Punjab, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi and thereby caused a CBI No.73/08 Page No.7 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

pecuniary loss of Rs.28,75,912/­ to the said bank and corresponding gain to himself or others.

1.4 Moreover accused Diljit Kapoor dishonestly got prepared and submitted a fake title deed of property No.A­83, Sham Nagar. Accused E.Krishnamurthy did not insist for valuation of the said property through approved valuers of the bank and accepted it and also accepted the fake guarantor against the limit of Rs.25 lacs sanctioned to M/s Meera Traders. 1.5 Likewise, accused Inder Kapoor, proprietor of M/s Surbhi Chemicals, accused Papinder Singh proprietor of M/s Guru Nanak Mint Traders, Sangeet Kumar Mann proprietor of Suprabhat Chemicals also opened respective current accounts 2963 on CBI No.73/08 Page No.8 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

12.08.2000, 2974 on 04.09.2000 and 2997 on 17.10.2000 and applied for cash credit limits of Rs.25 lacs each for trading in menthol. They also submitted false/forged financial statements and accused E Krishnamurthy without verification prepared appraisal reports and sanctioned the said credit limits. Moreover, these accused persons namely Inder Kapoor, Sangeet Kumar Mann and Papinder Singh Handa siphoned off the amount to their credit limits and caused pecuniary loss of Rs.25,29,164/­, Rs.26,91,352 and Rs. 27,94,407/­ respectively to Andhra Bank and corresponding wrongful gain to themselves.

1.6 These accused persons also got prepared and submitted fake title deeds in respect of mortgaged properties and accused E Krishnamurthy accepted the false valuation reports CBI No.73/08 Page No.9 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

prepared by Ratnakar Nama and Jitender Gupta overvaluing the properties.

1.7 The charge was framed by the ld.predecessor of the court on 09.09.03 against accused E.Krishnamurthy (A.1), Inder Kapoor (A.2), Diljit Kapoor (A.3), Papinder Singh Handa (A.

4), Sangeet Kumar Maan (A.5), Ratnakar Nama (A.6) and Jitender Gupta (A.7) u/s 120B r/w section 420,468,471 IPC and u/s 13(2) r/w 13 (1)(d) of PC Act, besides charge for substantive offence u/s 13 (2) r/w 13 (1)(d) of PC Act against E.Krishnamurthy (A.1), u/s 420/34 IPC against A.1 to A.5, u/s 468 and 471 IPC against A.2 to A.5.

2.1 After filing the charge sheet, further investigation CBI No.73/08 Page No.10 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

u/s 173(8) Cr.PC was carried out against accused Deepak Kumar (accused since expired) in respect of his role in preparation of fake and forged title deeds mortgaged with the bank for obtaining various loan facilities. During interrogation Deepak Kumar admitted to have prepared a forged sale deed of property situated at C­88, Mansa Ram Park, New Delhi which was deposited in Andhra Bank, Vishwas Nagar , Delhi by accused Inder Kapoor for obtaining CC limit of Rs.25 lacs from the said bank. In the process of investigation, the specimen handwritings of accused Deepak Kumar was obtained and sent to GEQD for confirming the writings of said accused Deepak Kumar on questioned writings marked as Q.429 to Q.431 on sale deed. The evidence was also there that the stamp paper used for said sale deed was not sold by Delhi Treasury on 19.08.99.

CBI No.73/08 Page No.11 of 181

CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

2.2 Since the aforesaid acts committed by accused Deepak Kumar (A.8) constituted offences punishable u/s 120­B IPC and Section 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and u/s 13(2) r/w section 13 (1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 r/w 120­B IPC, accordingly charge was framed against him by the court vide order dated 02.08.06. As 16 prosecution witnesses were already examined by the court by that time, they were again summoned and examined and vide an order dated 17.11.06 the file of supplementary challan of accused Deepak Kumar (A.8) was tagged with main file.

2.3 Subsequently, accused Deepak Kumar expired on 08.06.12 when the case had reached the stage of statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.PC and accordingly proceedings against him CBI No.73/08 Page No.12 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

stood abated vide order dated 13.07.12.

2.4 While the case was still at the stage of PE, accused Diljit Kapoor (A.3) stopped appearing and absconded when the matter was fixed for PE on 01.08.11. As 56 prosecution witnesses were already examined by then, accordingly his trial was separated vide order dated 04.08.11 and his case was assigned CC No.07/11. Subsequently, after following due process, accused Diljit Kapoor was declared proclaimed offender vide order dated 19.12.11 and trial of CC No.07.11 was merged with CC No.73/08. 2.5 To prove the case prosecution examined total 60 prosecution witnesses, besides examining 16 witnesses twice on account of filing a supplementary charge sheet against CBI No.73/08 Page No.13 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

accused/Deepak Kumar (since expired). The entire incriminating evidence was put to accused persons u/s 313 Cr.PC which they denied and stated that they have been falsely implicated by CBI in this case.

2.6 I have heard ld.Public Prosecutor for CBI, learned counsel for accused persons and carefully considered the entire evidence/material on record.

SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION OF ACCUSED/E KRISHNAMURTHY (A­1) 3.1 Accused/E Krishnamurthy, the then Branch Manager, Andhra Bank, Vishwas Nagar Branch, is the only public servant who is charge sheeted in this case. The sanction for prosecution of accused/E Krishnamurthy u/s 19 of PC Act, 1988 CBI No.73/08 Page No.14 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

was accorded by Sh.S Surya Narayana, GM (Personnel), who was competent authority of his employer Bank, vide his order dated 06.06.03.

3.2 The sanctioning authority has been examined as PW­1 and he has proved sanction order for prosecution of accused/E Krishnamurthy (A­1) as Ex.PW­1/A. He was cross­ examined by ld.counsel for accused/E Krishnamurthy (A­1) and during his cross­examination he stood by his statement and the sanction order.

3.3 He admitted during his cross­examination that accused/E Krishnamurthy (A­1) had power to sanction limit upto Rs.30 lacs and the stocks under hypothecation were within the CBI No.73/08 Page No.15 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

parties control. He denied suggestion that he issued sanction order without going through the records of the respective parties to whom accused/E Krishnamurthy (A­1) had granted loan without following the procedure.

3.4 The ld.counel for accused/E Krishnamurthy (A­1) has submitted that PW­1 has stated in his examination in chief that accused/E Krishnamurthy (A­1) was involved in five cases of sanction of loan whereas there are only four cases which are the subject matter of the instant FIR and charge sheet and thus it shows that PW­1 had not applied his mind while according sanction for prosecution of E.Krishnamurthy in this case and the court should accept that the sanction for prosecution of accused/E Krishnamurthy (A­1) was without application of mind. CBI No.73/08 Page No.16 of 181

CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

3.5 Mere reading of sanction order discloses due application of mind by the sanctioning authority. Mere fact that the sanctioning authority (PW­1), during his examination­in­chief, had stated that accused/E Krishnamurthy (A­1) was involved in five cases, in stead of four cases in which he had actually sanctioned the loan, can not give rise to a conclusion that the sanction for prosecution was without due application of mind, as this deviation is not of material nature. Accordingly, I hold that the prosecution has successfully established that the sanction for prosecution of accused/E Krishnamurthy (A­1) u/s 19 of PC Act was duly accorded.

CBI No.73/08 Page No.17 of 181

CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

ROLE OF ACCUSED/E KRISHNAMURTHY (A­1) VIS­A­VIS OTHER ACCUSED PERSONS 4.1 FIR of the case was registered on the basis of complaint made by Sh.A Murlidhar, General Manager of the bank, who has been examined as PW­2. He has proved his complaint as Ex.PW­2/A (D­2) which is the basis of FIR of the case, Ex.PW­60/A­1 (D­1). He also proved his letter dated 06.12.2000 issued under his signature suspending powers of accused/E Krishnamurthy (A­1) as Ex.PW­2/B. 4.2 During his cross­examination by ld.counsel for accused/E Krishnamurthy (A­1), he deposed that in this case approved valuer of the bank had given valuation report and the title of the immovable properties mortgaged to the bank were verified CBI No.73/08 Page No.18 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

by approved lawyer of the bank. He has also admitted that accused/E Krishnamurthy (A­1) was doing normal banking business as Manager for about seven months even after withdrawal of his powers. He admitted a letter dated 03.01.01, Ex.PW­2/DA, which was issued to accused/E Krishnamurthy (A­1) commending for having reached quarterly target of performance. He however, denied suggestion that accused/E Krishnamurthy (A­1) had followed the procedure before sanctioning cash credit limits to the parties in question and did not commit any irregularity. 4.3 PW­7/Sh.Raj Kumar Khera is technical Officer of the bank, who has described the procedure to be followed by the manager before sanctioning of the loan. He deposed that on receipt of application for cash credit limit along with project report, CBI No.73/08 Page No.19 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

balance sheet, appraisal reports, ITRs, personal details, property statement and viability, the manager verifies the genuineness and correctness of the documents and satisfies himself about the potentional of the borrower and genuineness of documents. He stated that before sanctioning of the loan manager visits the unit and the securities and ensures the genuineness and value. He also deposed that in open cash credit limits heavy cash withdrawals are not allowed as it is only for sale and purchase of stocks. We will see how these systems and procedures have been by­passed by E­Krishnamurthy (A­1).

ACCOUNT - M/S SURBHI CHEMICALS­PROPRIETOR INDER KAPOOR (A­2) 4.4 Ex.P­1 (D­3, Page­14) is a request letter issued by accused/E Krishnamurthy (A­1) to Sh.A N Tiwari, Advocate written CBI No.73/08 Page No.20 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

by him on 10.08.2000 requiring him to give opinion at the earliest. The photocopies of property documents offered in mortgage of M/s Surbhi Chemicals were enclosed, the list of which is mentioned in the letter. The letter is admitted by accused/E Krishnamurthy (A­1).

4.5 Ex.P­2 (D­4) is the application of accused/Inder Kapoor (A­2) for opening bank account with Andhra Bank, BO­ Vishwas Nagar, which is admitted document. Application is made on 12.08.2000. PW­34/Sh.Rajesh Kumar, who had introduced account of accused/Inder Kapoor (A­2), has deposed that he is running a business in the name of Raja Hosiery Products and have OCC A/C No.112348 in Andhra Bank, Vishwas Nagar Branch since 1996. He said that in 2000, E. Krishnamurthy (A­1) was Branch CBI No.73/08 Page No.21 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

Manager and on his request he introduced account on the plea of E.Krishnamurthy that he knew him (accused­Inder Kapoor). He was not cross­examined by any accused, the effect is that his statement is be accepted in toto. Now, it was for accused/E Krishnamurthy (A­1) and accused/Inder Kapoor (A­2) to clarify as to how they knew each other before the date of opening of current account by accused/Inder Kapoor (A­2) on 12.05.2000 and what was the interest of accused/E.Krishnamurthy (A­1) in asking Rajesh Kumar to introduce accused/Inder Kapoor (A­2), when he did not know him at all. Their prior meeting of mind to hatch a conspiracy for cheating/defrauding the bank can be inferred from these facts.

4.6 Ex.P­3=Ex.PW­8/A (D­5) is the application of CBI No.73/08 Page No.22 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

advance made by accused/Inder Kapoor (A­2) to the bank as proprietor of M/s Surbhi Chemicals, K­83, Shyam Nagar, New Delhi, on 14.08.2000, requesting for a limit of Rs.25 lacs with primary security as stocks of menthol oil/powder/crystal and collateral security of his property no.C­88, Mansa Ram Park, New Delhi, ad­measuring 200 sq.yds in his name with guarantor as Papinder Singh Handa (A­4), resident of E­259, East of Kailash, New Delhi showing his net worth as Rs.2 crores. He had shown his turnover as Rs.50.19 lacs for year 1997­98, Rs.79.98 lacs for year 1998­99 and Rs.125.91 lacs for year 1999­2000. Profit for the same period has been shown as Rs.0.71 lacs, Rs.2.41 lacs and Rs. 2.09 lacs respectively. In the column of Income Tax/Sales Tax paid/due, he has mentioned NA. His application contains his signature at point A (Q­131) and signature of his co­ CBI No.73/08 Page No.23 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

obligant/guarantor (Papinder Singh Handa) at point B (Q­225). 4.7 He has given his property statement under his signature at point Q­132 on Ex.P­5 (Page 25 of Ex.D­5) with undertaking that there are no encumbrances and that he will not alienate or encumber any of his properties without discharging liability of advances which bank may make. He mentioned the detail of his immovable property as C­88, Mansa Ram Park, New Delhi ad­measuring 200 sq.yds, freehold constructed house with estimated value of Rs.40 lacs showing it as self acquired, with 'nil' encumbrance. Ex.P­5 is an admitted document of accused/Inder Kapoor (A­2) and not disputed by other accused persons. 4.8 Personal bio­data of accused/Inder Kapoor (A­2) CBI No.73/08 Page No.24 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

is Ex.P­6 (Page­26 of D­5).

4.9 Ex.PW­3/A (D­33 of D­5) is the audit report of balance sheet of M/s Surbhi Chemicals as on 31.03.98. The same is shown to has been given under the signature and seal of M/s R P Juneja & Company.

4.10 Sh.Ravi Juneja has been examined as PW­3, who has stated that he is Chartered Accountant and working as sole proprietor of M/s R P Juneja & Company since 1983. He stated that Sh.Vinod Gaba was also his partner since 01.04.97 till 30.11.02 and on being shown, Ex.PW­3/A i.e. audit report for financial year 1997­98 in respect of M/s Surbhi Chemicals furnished on letter head of M/s R P Juneja & Company, he said that it has not been CBI No.73/08 Page No.25 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

issued by his office and signature appearing at point A (Q­233) is not his signature.

4.11 He also deposed that Ex.P­1 to Ex.P­3 (also marked as Ex.P­8, P­9 and P­10 respectively, Page 34 to 36 of D­5) which are balance sheet, Profit & Loss Account, list of Sundry Creditors/Sundry Debtors as on 31.03.98, have not been signed by his office, although seal of M/s R P Juneja and Company is affixed about which also he said that the same is not of his firm. 4.12 Similarly, he has also proved that the audit report of M/s Surbhi Chemicals for the balance sheet of said firm as on 31.03.99 and Profit & Loss Account for the year ended on that date which is Ex.PW­3/B (Page­38 of D­5), do not bear his signature CBI No.73/08 Page No.26 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

and that the balance sheet and Profit & Loss Account, Ex.P­4 to Ex.P­6 do not bear his signature and the seal affixed on them, is not of his firm (Ex.P­4 and Ex.P­6 are also marked as P­11 and P­12 respectively).

4.13 He also proved that audit report in respect of balance sheet of M/s Surbhi Chemicals as on 31.03.2000 and Profit & Loss Account for the year ended on that date, Ex.PW­3/C has not been issued from his office and the signature and seal appearing thereon do not pertain to him and his firm. He also proved that the balance sheet and Profit & Loss account for that period, Ex.P­7 and Ex.P­8 also do not bear his signature and office seal (these are also marked as Ex.P­13 and P­14 as admitted document).

CBI No.73/08 Page No.27 of 181

CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

4.14 As all these audit reports, balance sheets and Profit and Loss accounts were admittedly submitted by accused/Inder Kapoor (A­2) as proprietor of M/s Surbhi Chemicals along with his application for loan, the only issue left was whether those were actually issued/audited by M/s R P Juneja & Company, Chartered Accountant. PW­3/Sh.Ravi Juneja has proved that neither he nor his firm had issued those audit reports and financial statements of M/s Surbhi Chemicals were also not authenticated by him/his firm. He stood by his testimony during his cross­ examination.

4.15 All these financial statements admitted by accused/Inder Kapoor (A­2) also bear his signature as proprietor of CBI No.73/08 Page No.28 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

M/s Surbhi Chemicals meaning thereby that he had forged and submitted to the bank these documents for inducing the bank to sanction and disburse loan to him, which were accepted by accused/E Krishnamurthy (A­1) without even a minimum verification. Only these documents are the basis of believing that accused/Inder Kapoor (A­2) was doing some business in the name of his firm which have turned out to be fake, hence the reasonable inference is that he was not doing any such business or at least his business was not of a magnitude which could entitle him for a credit limit of Rs.25 lacs, as sanctioned to him by accused/E Krishnamurthy (A­1).

4.16 Ex.P­15 and P­16 (Page­45 & 46 of D­5) are the provisional balance sheets and Profit & Loss Account of M/s Surbhi CBI No.73/08 Page No.29 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

Chemicals as on 30.06.2000 which were submitted by accused/Inder Kapoor (A­2) to the bank while seeking sanction of loan. Ex.P­17 is the list of sundry debtors and creditors for the same period. Ex.P­19 is the projected Profit & Loss account as on 31.03.01. Ex.P­20 is projected balance sheet as on 31.03.02 and Ex.P­21 is the projected Profit & Loss account as on 31.03.02 utilized by accused/Inder Kapoor (A­2) for seeking sanction of facilities from the bank. These all are admitted by accused/Inder Kapoor (A­2) bearing his signatures on them. As the basis for such projections are the financial statements shown audited by PW­3, which have been proved as false and fabricated, the falsehood of Ex.P­15 to P­21 becomes clear without any further evidence. 4.17 Once the prosecution had successfully CBI No.73/08 Page No.30 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

demonstrated that all these financial statements and audit reports were false, the burden had shifted on accused to rebut the same by producing its statements of bank accounts/books of accounts/ledger books/bill books/sales tax returns, etc which he failed to do.

4.18 The appraisal format for sanction of loan to M/s Surbhi Chemicals has been proved as Ex.PW­8/4=P­29 (D­13, Page 99 to 110). PW­8/Sh.R D Mehta has proved that this appraisal report is in the handwriting of accused/E Krishnamurthy (A­1). He has specifically deposed that he prepared office note, Ex.PW­1/DD (Page 111 to 113 of D­13) on the basis of appraisal report, Ex.PW­8/H over which accused/E Krishnamurthy (A­1) had sanctioned Rs.25 lacs at portion encircled as 'X' under his CBI No.73/08 Page No.31 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

signatures and issued sanction letter dated 18.08.2000 under his signature which is Ex.P­30=Ex.PW­8/J (D­4, Page­114). 4.19 He was not cross­examined by accused persons except on behalf of accused/Sangeet Kumar Mann (A­5). Thus, his testimony as it relates to remaining accounts has not been disputed. Under such circumstances, I do not find any force in the submissions of ld.counsel for accused/E Krishnamurthy (A­1) that the loan proposal was processed by Sh.R D Mehta and CBI has deliberately let him of and made him witness instead of accused. Sh.R D Mehta has stated that he had put up office note on the basis of appraisal report of accused/E Krishnamurthy (A­1) which has not been disputed by him (A­1), hence at this stage does not lie in his mouth to agitate that he had sanctioned the loan based on CBI No.73/08 Page No.32 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

recommendations of Sh.R D Mehta and seek acquittal on that basis.

4.20 Thereafter the documentation was done, Ex.P­31=PW=8/K (Page­115 of D­15) is demand promissory note executed by accused/Inder Kapoor (A­2) on behalf of his firm M/s Surbhi Chemicals on 18.08.2000, loan agreement is Ex.P­33=Ex.PW­8/M (D­17), hypothecation agreement is Ex.P­32=Ex.PW­8/L (D­16), stock statement is Ex.P­34=Ex.PW­8/N (D­18) dated 17.08.2000 showing stock of the firm at 6000 Kg of menthol oil with value of Rs.19.20 lacs which has been certified by accused/E Krishnamurthy (A­1) on behalf of bank and an undertaking in respect of the limit sanctioned is Ex.P­35=PW­8/O (D­19).

CBI No.73/08 Page No.33 of 181

CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

FRAUDULENT MORTGAGE OF PROPERTY TO SECURE LOAN OF ADVANCED TO ACCUSED/INDER KAPOOR (A­2) 5.1 One of the allegations against accused/Inder Kapoor (A­2) is that he dishonestly and fraudulently mortgaged a property situated at C­88, Mansa Ram Park, New Delhi on the basis of a fake title deed deposited by him with the bank to secure the credit limit sanctioned to him by the bank whereas it was already mortgaged to State Bank of Patiala (SBOP), Darya Ganj Branch in another loan sanctioned to M/s Samarth Traders of Diljit Kapoor (A­3) on 26.02.2000 in CC A/C No.01660004553. 5.2 The alleged fake title deed as deposited with bank by accused/Inder Kapoor (A­2) has been proved as Ex.PW­17/A CBI No.73/08 Page No.34 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

(Page­77 to 81 of D­12). The deposit of this sale deed is made along with other documents evidencing his title to the property vide form RF.255 of the bank, Ex.PW­8/G=Ex.P­28 (Page­73 of D­12). This form has been filled by accused/E Krishnamurthy (A­1) and signed by accused/Inder Kapoor (A­2) at points Q.163 and Q­164 which has been proved by PW­8/R D Mehta, who has not been suggested anything to the contrary by the defence. The signatures on this document have been admitted by accused/Inder Kapoor (A­2).

5.3 The sale deed, Ex.PW­17/A shows that the property bearing Plot No.88, ad­measuring 30X60 sq.yards, Block 'C', Mansa Ram Park, New Delhi, with free hold rights, has been sold to accused/Inder Kapoor (A­2) by his wife/Urmila Kapoor, on CBI No.73/08 Page No.35 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

19.08.99.

5.4 PW­17/Sh.Raj Kumar Arora after seeing the sale deed, Ex.PW­17/A said that it appears that Sh.Ashok Kumar, UDC, since expired, who was working as Treasurer in Treasury of Tis Hazari, has not signed the same at point 'A' on the back side of stamp paper, which is within the portion encircled as Q.429. 5.5 PW­39/Sh.H P Sharma has proved that the series of stamp paper no.00AAJ28962, on which Ex.PW­17/A, is shown executed was not operative during 17.06.99 to 28.09.99. 5.6 As per opinion of handwriting expert (Government Examiner of Questioned Documents), Ex.PW­29/14, person who CBI No.73/08 Page No.36 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

had written S­1 to S­123 (specimen handwriting of accused­ Deepak Kumar, since expired) also wrote in portions encircled as Q­429, Q­430 and Q­431, which are on blank spaces of seal purportedly affixed by treasury office while issuing the stamp paper and the registering authority on back side of stamp paper, on which sale deed is typed and show executed.

5.7 The certified copy of sale deed actually executed in respect of the same property between the same parties, as is actually registered with SRA, has been proved as Ex.PW­15/1 (D­199) by Sh.Jai Narain, who remained posted as Sub­Registrar­ II, Janakpuri. The same certified copy is also marked as A­11 for the purpose of examination by GEQD.

CBI No.73/08 Page No.37 of 181

CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

5.8 PW­16/Sh.Satish Kumar Goel, Chief Manager of SBOP has proved that M/s Samarth Traders, a firm of Diljeet Kapoor (A­3, declared PO) had applied for CC limit of Rs.15 lacs vide application Ex.P­169 with BO­Darya Ganj on 10.02.2000. He was sanctioned CC limit of Rs.5 lacs vide Ex.PW­16/D. Cash credit account of Diljit Kapoor was introduced by accused/Inder Kapoor (A­2) vide Ex.P­170. Ex.PW­16/D shows that sanction to accused/ Diljit Kapoor (A­3) by SBOP was on the condition of equitable mortgage of property in the name of Diljit Kapoor at C­88, Mansa Ram Park, New Delhi and extention of charge on equitable mortgage of property at K­83, Sham Nagar, New Delhi in the name of accused/Inder Kapoor (A­2) already mortgaged with SBOP in account M/s Surbhi Chemicals for limit of Rs.8 lacs. CBI No.73/08 Page No.38 of 181

CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

5.9 Ex.PW­16/E (Page 723 of D­219) is the letter of accused/Diljit Kapoor dated 23.03.2000 written to SBOP, Darya Ganj Branch confirming deposit of title deeds with SBOP with an intention to create equitable mortgage for securing CC limit of Rs.5 lacs sanctioned to him. Ex.P­202 (part of D­230 at P.887 to 894) is the copy of sale deed dated 28.10.99 vide which property bearing no.C­88, Mansa Ram Park, New Delhi is shown as sold by accused/Inder Kapoor (A­2) to Diljit Kapoor. This document is admitted by accused/Inder Kapoor (A­2). Thus, it has been established by the prosecution that accused/Inder Kapoor (A­2) ceased to have any right, title or interest in C­88, Mansa Ram Park, New Delhi after 28.10.99 when he transferred the same to Diljit Kapoor, yet he deposited a forged and fabricated sale deed purportedly executed by his wife/Smt.Urmil Kapoor in his favour to CBI No.73/08 Page No.39 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

secure the loan of Rs.25 lacs advanced to him by Andhra Bank. Thus, it is established that he forged the title deed, Ex.PW­17/A (D­12, Page­77 to 81) for the purpose of cheating and deposited the same with the bank to create an impression that the property was mortgaged to secure the CC limit of Rs.25 lacs sanctioned by the bank in his favour.

5.10 PW­19/Sh.Lok Nath Rai working in the office of Sub Registrar­II, Janakpuri, Delhi as record clerk after seeing the certified copy of sale deed, Ex.PW­15/1 and purported original, Ex.PW­5/A (Ex.PW­17/A, D­12) and comparing both of them, said that the said original is not as per the certified copy. He has not been cross­examined and hence his testimony not disputed that Ex.PW­17/A=Ex.PW­5/A (D­12 page 77 to 81) is not the title deed CBI No.73/08 Page No.40 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

which was registered with SRA.

5.11 PW­38/Sh.Nand Lal has also denied having signed as witness at point Q­416 at page no.5 of Ex.PW­17/A=Ex.Pw­5/A. The GEQD opinion, Ex.PW­29/13 (D­196 page no.561) based on specimen signature and writings of Sh.Nand Lal, Ex.PW­29/7 (S­94 to S­98) has also confirmed it. GEQD has also opined, vide the same report, Ex.PW­29/13, after comparing the admitted signatures and writings of Smt.Urmila Kapoor wife of accused/Inder Kapoor (A­2) from A­1 to A­4 (Ex.PW­29/9, 29/10 and 29/11) and specimen writings/signatures from S­63 to S­67 (Ex.PW­29/5) with signatures in her name at Q­391 to Q­397 on Ex.PW­17/A that she did not sign this sale deed. GEQD has compared Ex.PW­17/A (Q­426/1 to Q­426/5) with CBI No.73/08 Page No.41 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

Ex.PW­15/1 (A­11/1 to A­11/5) and opined that PW­15/1 is not the copy of Ex.PW­17/A. 5.12 PW­50/Sh.Prem Kumar Dabas, who worked as Sub Registrar­II from 31.05.99 to 02.09.02 has proved that he did not sign at Q­412, 413 and 414 on Ex.PW­17/A. This is also confirmed by GEQD opinion, Ex.PW­29/13 (D­196) based on comparison with his specimen signatures, Ex.PW­50/A to E (S­89 to S­93 in D­215). He has also not been cross­examined by accused persons and thus his testimony is not disputed. 5.13 Thus, the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubts that accused/Inder Kapoor (A­2) had deposited a fake sale deed purportedly shown executed by his wife in his CBI No.73/08 Page No.42 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

favour. Not only this, he had already transferred the said property of C­88, Mansa Ram Park to Diljit Kapoor vide sale deed, Ex.P­202 (D­230 at P­887 to 894) on 28.10.99 and thus he was aware that he had no right, title or interest in property bearing no. C­88, Mansa Ram Park, New Delhi as on 17.08.2000, the title deed of which he has shown deposited to create equitable mortgage vide his letter in form R.F.255 dated 18.08.2000, Ex.P­28=Ex.PW8/G (D­12, Page­73), as the same property was already transferred by him to accused/Diljit Kapoor (A­3). We have already seen that for securing loan to Diljit Kapoor, he (accused/Inder Kapoor (A­2)) had stood co­ obligant by extending equitable mortgage of his own property and thus he was well aware that the property which he had transferred to accused/Diljit Kapoor (A­3), has already been mortgaged to SBOP by accused/Diljit Kapoor (A­3). CBI No.73/08 Page No.43 of 181

CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

5.14 Ex.P­1 (D­3) is a letter written by accused/E Krishnamurthy (A­1) to Sh.A N Tiwari, Advocate on 10.08.2000 forwarding photocopies of the documents pertaining property of accused/Inder Kapoor (A­2) including the sale deed dated 19.08.99 and 19 other documents, requesting him for giving opinion at the earliest. This handwritten letter/document is admitted by accused/E Krishnamurthy (A­1) and, therefore, did not require any witness to prove the same.

5.15 It is significant to note that accused/Inder Kapoor (A­2) was not known to the bank as he opened his bank account with Bank's Vishwas nagar Branch on 12.08.2000 vide Ex.P­2 and applied for loan vide Ex.P­3=Ex.PW­8/A on 14.08.2000. This CBI No.73/08 Page No.44 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

shows prior meeting of mind between accused/E Krishnamurthy (A­1) and accused/Inder Kapoor (A­2) to infer hatching a conspiracy to get sanctioned loan in favour of accused/Inder Kapoor (A­2) by the bank.

5.16 It has been submitted by ld.Public Prosecutor that accused/E Krishnamurthy (A­1) had not visited the business premises of accused/Inder Kapoor (A­2) before sanction of credit facility. A pre­sanction/disbursement inspection report is admitted document, Ex.P­23=Ex.PW­8/B (D­7, Page­67). PW­9/Sh.R K Bansal has stated that accused/E Krishnamurthy (A­1) had not carried out pre­sanction inspection. When he was confronted with Ex.P­23 (D­7, Page­67), he said that it is a pre­sanction inspection report pertaining to M/s Surabhi Chemicals but at the same time he CBI No.73/08 Page No.45 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

volunteered that at the time of inspection, the manager did admit that there was no such inspection report and probably this report was prepared subsequent to his (PW­9) inspection of the branch. He denied a suggestion that accused/E Krishnamurthy (A­1) did not admit that there was no pre­sanction inspection report. 5.17 If we see the report Ex.P­23=P­58/B, we find that th it is dated 15.08.2000. The 15 August, being Independence day, is a National holiday, on which day, the Banks as well as other business establishments, except the emergency services, remain closed. This fact itself belies the stand of accused/E Krishnamurthy (A­1) that he had done pre­sanction inspection of the unit.

CBI No.73/08 Page No.46 of 181

CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

5.18 We have already seen how the forged audit reports, balance sheets and statements showing projected sales figures, etc., have been forged by accused/Inder Kapoor (A­2) and accepted by accused/E Krishnamurthy (A­1) without even a minimum verification or exercising least care and caution. 5.19 It has come in evidence of Sh.A N Tiwari (PW­28) that he was not provided with original documents for giving title search report which also show complicity of accused/E Krishnamurthy (A­1) in accepting the forged title deed for evincing equitable mortgage. All these facts indicate only towards a situation that the documents used for grant of sanction of limits were forged to the full knowledge of accused/E Krishnamurthy (A­1) who hastily accepted the same and sanctioned CC limit of CBI No.73/08 Page No.47 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

Rs.25 lacs to accused/Inder Kapoor (A­2) to cause wrongful loss to the bank and corresponding wrongful gain to accused/Inder Kapoor (A­2).

WITHDRAWL/SIPHONING OF FUNDS FROM A/C OF M/s SURBI CHEMICALS 6.1 It is alleged that the loan granted to accused was not utilized for the purpose for which it was sanctioned. Let us see how the funds sanctioned to M/s Surbhi Chemicals have been utilized. The date on which the sanction of CC limit of Rs.25 lacs was permitted by E.Krishnamurthy (A.1) to Inder Kapoor (A.2), Rs. 12.00 lacs were withdrawn in cash by him vide cheque Ex.P.117 favouring 'self' (D.120 page 476) and thereafter on 24.08.2000 Rs. 12.50 lacs were again withdrawn in cash by self drawn cheque CBI No.73/08 Page No.48 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

Ex.P.118 (D.21 page 477).

6.2 Permitting huge cash withdrawals from Cash Credit Limit account, soon after disbursement of loan is itself showing that Branch Manager E.Krishnamurthy (A.1) was in league with accused Inder Kapoor (A.2) due to which he did not ensure end use of the loan. It was against the practice and procedure as deposed by PW­7 (discussed earlier). It implies that he had knowledge that the funds are being misused/diverted because within one week almost entire limit i.e. upto Rs.24.50 lacs was utilized by withdrawing money in cash. Then thereafter accused Inder Kapoor (A.2) had withdrawn cash amount of Rs.4,85,000/­ on 04.10.2000 vide cheque Ex.P.125 (D.131 page 487). CBI No.73/08 Page No.49 of 181

CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

6.3 Not only this he got issued bankers' cheque in favour of Samarth Traders, whose proprietor was his nephew Diljit Kapoor (A­3) in the sum of Rs.3,30,000/­ on 01.09.2000 vide cheque Ex.PW.10/L (D.124 page 480) and Rs.3,70,000/­ on 16.09.2000 and Rs.3 lacs on 19.10.2000 vide cheque Ex.PW.10/O (D.134 page 490). Another banker's cheque of Rs.2,50,000/­ drawn on 07.09.2000 in favour of M/s Rashtriya Chemicals, of which he himself was owner, with same address bearing No.K­83, Shyam Nagar, was got issued from this account. The said cheque is Ex.PW.24/5 (D.127 page 483).

6.4 PW.26 Sh.C.M.Duggal, Senior Manager of Federal Bank, Karol Bagh has proved that Rashtriya Chemicals of accused Inder Kapoor (A.2) was banking with said bank from which CBI No.73/08 Page No.50 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

Inder Kapoor (A.2) had obtained cash credit facility of Rs.25 lacs in 1997 by offering property of Smt.Harbiji, bearing no.K­83, Shyam Nagar, New Delhi as collateral security. He also proved that demand draft of Rs.2,50,000/­ Ex.PW.24/5 was deposited in the account of Rashtriya Chemicals. Thus it is clear that accused Inder Kapoor was not doing any real business and he had siphoned of the funds from his CC limit account with the Bank, which was made possible by accused E.Krishnamurthy (A.1), who deliberately did not check huge cash withdrawals and diversion of funds from CC limit account of the firm by accused/Inder Kapoor (A­2). 6.5 It has been argued by Ld. Counsel for accused E.Krishnamurthy (A.1) that the officials who had passed the cheques of accused Inder Kapoor for withdrawing cash amount CBI No.73/08 Page No.51 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

from his CC Limit account, have not been made accused whereas accused E.Krishnamurthy has been charge sheeted even for the lapses of others. In fact accused E.Krishnamurthy was Branch Manager and sanctioning authority of the loan and it was his duty to ensure the end use of funds sanctioned by him. Rs.12 lacs out of total limit of Rs.25 lacs was withdrawn on the same date on which loan was sanctioned and disbursed. This gives rise to a reasonable inference that accused E.Krishnamurthy (A.1) had permitted huge cash withdrawals from CC Limit A/c without there being any actual business.

6.6 There is nothing on record to show that funds were actually utilized by accused Inder Kapoor (A.2) for business purpose when he had withdrawn huge cash on 18.08.2000 and CBI No.73/08 Page No.52 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

24.08.2000. Accused Inder Kapoor had submitted to the bank, bills/cash memos purportedly issued by M/s Gaurav Chemicals for selling mint oil to M/s Surbhi Chemicals for Rs.12,80,000/­ on 25.10.2000 (Ex.P.40) for Rs.16,25,000/­ on 15.11.2000 (Ex.P.41). Then there is bill/cash memo purportedly issued by M/s Surbhi Chemicals favouring M/s Gaurav Chemicals for sale of mint oil of Rs.2,07,000/­ to M/s Gaurav Chemicals (Ex.P.45). All these are admitted by him.

6.7 PW.37 Sh.Vishram Yadav has been examined in this respect who has stated that he is doing business of junk articles at A­93, Shyam Nagar, Vishnu Garden for last 17­18 years. He has deposed that he was earlier having a shop at K­50, Shyam Nagar, Vishnu Garden since 1996­97 and presently doing junk CBI No.73/08 Page No.53 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

business from A­93, Shyam Nagar, Vishnu Garden, but he has no business in the name of Gaurav Chemicals and never run any such business. He has stated that he knows accused Inder Kapoor who is his neighbour in house no.K­83, Shyam Nagar, Vishnu Garden. The address of witness Vishram Yadav is C­86, Madhu Vihar, Palam, New Delhi.

6.8 Ex.P.42 is the bill/cash memo for sale of mint oil of Rs.6,70,000/­ to M/s Yadav Menthol Traders by M/s Surbhi Chemicals and Ex.P.46 is another bill of Rs.10,20,000/­ for sale of mint to Yadav Minthol. In this respect also PW.37/Vishram Yadav has stated that he has no business in the name and style of M/s Yadav Menthol Traders at his address till date. This further strengthens the inference that accused Inder Kapoor was not doing CBI No.73/08 Page No.54 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

any actual business of sale purchase of mint oil and had produced forged bills/cash memos to the bank to show that he was actually doing the business of mint oil and thus continue the siphoning of funds.

6.9 Statement of account of M/s Surbhi Chemicals bearing A/c No.OCC 00112359 for the period 18.08.2000 to 15.10.01 has been proved as Ex.PW.8/T (D.35 P.143) . Statement of account shows that account was not regular on 29.09.2000 as the debit balance in the account on that date was Rs.25,39,778/­. But despite this fact accused E.Krishnamurthy (A.1) had acceded to the request of accused Inder Kapoor (A.2), made vide his application dated 04.10.2000, {Ex.PW.8/R (D.22)} for TOD (Temporary Over Draft) to the tune of Rs.5 lacs for two months. CBI No.73/08 Page No.55 of 181

CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

The amount was sanctioned by accused E.Krishnamurthy who signed the same after writing 'sanctioned' at point X.3. This document is also admitted by accused E.Krishnamurthy and th accused Inder Kapoor as Ex.P.38. On 4 October itself an amount of Rs.4,50,000/­ was withdrawn from this account by accused/Inder Kapoor (A­2) and the account was not regularized thereafter. 6.10 The report of Sh.R.K.Bansal has been admitted by accused E.Krishnamurthy as Ex.P.49 (D.35 page 140) vide which he had pointed out the deficit at Sr.No.4 stating that 'Rs.12 lacs paid in cash on 18.08.2000 i.e. on very day of sanction/release of limit. Rs.12.50 lacs paid in cash again on 24.08.2000 without ascertaining the purpose of these payments. Thereafter on 04.10.2000 Rs.4.85 lacs cash withdrawal allowed CBI No.73/08 Page No.56 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

and on the same day pay orders issued favouring Samarth Traders paid through Bank of Punjab Ltd., Rajouri Garden and M/s Rashtriya Chemicals paid through Federal Bank Ltd. The operations are not upto mark and do not reflect turnover and total debits have been Rs.42,67,259/­ as against total credit of Rs. 16,32,000/­ only. The excess drawings allowed without seeking confirmation from zonal office and that no records of stocks like purchase invoices and sale invoices etc. are made available for verification.' 6.11 PW.10 Sh. Darshan Singh Anand, Vice President of Bank of Punjab, Rajouri Garden branch, Delhi has proved that a current A/c No.110041601 was maintained by Shree Maharaja Enterprises under the proprietorship of Inder Kapoor (A.2). His CBI No.73/08 Page No.57 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

account opening form has been proved as Ex.P.188 (D.222 page

813). He proved that a current account No.11042245 was maintained in the name of Samarth Traders under the proprietorship of accused Diljit Kapoor (A.3) and the account opening form in this respect is Ex.P.189 (D.222 page 815). He has then proved that another account bearing No.11041603 was maintained in the name of M/s Dass Mint Traders under the proprietorship of accused Diljit Kapoor (A.3) and the account opening form in this respect is Ex.P.193 (D.222 page 820) and another account bearing No.110041007 was maintained in the name of M/s Surbhi Chemicals under the proprietorship of Inder Kapoor (A.2) and account opening form in this respect is Ex.P.196 (D.222 page 829). He also proved that account No.11041219 in the name of M/s Meera Traders, under the sole proprietorship of CBI No.73/08 Page No.58 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

accused Diljit Kapoor (A.3) was maintained with the bank vide account opening form, Ex.P.199 (D.222 page 830). The statements of account of these accounts have been proved by PW.10 as Ex.PW.10/C, Q, S, T, V and W, which show that proceeds of pay orders got issued from account of M/s Surbhi Chemicals with Vishwas Nagar Branch of Andhra Bank, were credited to these accounts and thus the amounts were siphoned from the loan account of accused persons sanctioned by Andhra Bank, Vishwas Nagar branch.

ACCOUNT OF M/s MEERA TRADERS­PROPRIETOR DILJIT KAPOOR (PO) 7.1 Loan application of M/s Meera Traders, a proprietorship concern of Diljit Kapoor (A­3) is admitted document, CBI No.73/08 Page No.59 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

marked as Ex.P­51 (D­39, Page­150) showing his business address as C­88, Mansa Ram Park, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi and his permanent address as K­83, Shyam Nagar, New Delhi. 7.2 It is significant to note that it was property no.C­88, Mansa Ram Park, Uttam Nagar which was taken as collateral security for securing loan of accused/Inder Kapoor (A­2) on the basis of false and fabricated title deed favouring accused/Inder Kapoor (A­2) (see discussion in para 5 supra). House No.K­83, Shyam Nagar is residential address of accused/Diljit Kapoor (A­3) which has been used by A­2/Inder Kapoor as business address of his firm­M/s Surbhi Chemicals, and it is this property which was mortgaged in this account for securing the loan sanctioned M/s Meera Traders. We will see how the CBI No.73/08 Page No.60 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

forged documents have been used as title deed of the property deposited with the bank for securing the loan. Ex.P­52 (D­39, Page­155) is another admitted document which is statement of movable and immovable properties and the only asset which is mentioned is, the capital investment of Rs.12 lacs in business. 7.3 Ex.P­53 is the statement of Assets & Liabilities of Smt.Harbiji purported to be the guarantor/co­obligant/mortgagor, in which she has mentioned that she is owner of property bearing municipal no.K­83, Shyam Nagar, New Delhi­18 with its market value as Rs.60 lacs. It is significant to note that in this statement, one Mr.Charanjit and accused/Inder Kapoor (A­2) are shown as sons of Mrs.Harbiji and accused/Diljit Kapoor (A­3) is shown as grandson.

CBI No.73/08 Page No.61 of 181

CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

7.4 Ex.P­54 (D­39, Page­157) is provisional balance sheet of M/s Meera Traders as on 30.06.2000, Ex.P­55 (D­39, Page­158) is provisional Profit & Loss account for the period 01.04.2000 to 30.06.2000, list of sundry debtors and sundry creditors is Ex.P­56. The projected balance sheet of M/s Meera Traders in tabulor form for the year ending as on 31.03.01 & 31.03.02 is Ex.P­57=AW­1/5 (D­39, Page­161). The projected Profit & Loss account for the same period is Ex.P­58. Proposal made by accused/Diljit Kapoor (A­3) is Ex.P­61 (D­39, Page­172). The projected Profit & Loss account for the year ending on 31.03.01 & 31.03.02 is Ex.P­63. The projected balance sheet for the same period is Ex.P­62. The audit report of the auditor­M/s R P Juneja & Company is Ex.PW­3/D along with annexed balance sheet as on CBI No.73/08 Page No.62 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

31.03.2000 is Ex.P­64 and Profit & Loss account as on 31.03.2000 as Ex.P­65 and list for sundry debtors and sundry creditors is Ex.P­66. The audit report of M/s Meera Traders for the period ending as on 31.03.99 is Ex.PW­3/E and annexed balance sheet as on 31.03.99 is Ex.P­67, Profit & Loss account for the same period is Ex.P­68 and list of sundry debtors and sundry creditors is Ex.P­69. As in respect of M/s Surbhi Chemicals, it has been deposed by PW­3/Sh.Ravi Juneja, Chartered Accountant that the audit report, Ex.PW­3/D and E, have not been issued by him and the signatures and seal affixed on the same do not pertain to him. Accordingly, these financial statements have been proved as false and fabricated.

7.5 Thus, accused/Diljit Kapoor (A­3) had used false CBI No.73/08 Page No.63 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

audit reports and statement of accounts to obtain the loan which was accepted by accused/E Krishnamurthy (A­1) without even a minimum verification, proving his indulgence. 7.6 Appraisal format in respect of M/s Meera Traders has been proved as Ex.PW­8/CC and in this respect PW­8 has stated that the same is in the handwriting of accused/E Krishnamurthy (A­1).

7.7 The office note which is Ex.P­74=Ex.PW­1/DC has been admitted by accused/E Krishnamurthy (A­1), on which he has sanctioned limit of Rs.25 lacs. PW­8/Sh.R D Mehta has proved in this respect that the appraisal report Ex.PW­1/DC (D­40, Page­199) bears his signature at point A, was written by him, on CBI No.73/08 Page No.64 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

the basis of appraisal report, Ex.PW­8/CC (D­40, Page­187) of accused/E Krishnamurthy (A­1). Manager's certificate about valuation of the property shown mortgaged in this case by Smt.Harbiji bearing municipal no.K­83, Shyam Nagar, New Delhi is Ex.P­75 (D­41, Page­202), vide which he has certified the approximate market value of the property at Rs.40 lacs without seeking verification report from an approved valuer of the Bank. This gives an impression that accused/E Krishnamurthy (A­1) had himself visited the house for ensuring the market value of the property as it is mentioned therein that he inspected the property and has assessed the market value thereof. Had he actually visited the property, he would have come to know that the documents which have been offered for deposit with the bank are fake documents and Smt.Harbiji did not offer any property for CBI No.73/08 Page No.65 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

securing loan to accused/Diljit Kapoor (A­3). Not obtaining valuation report of the property from approved panel valuer of the bank himself certifying the value of the property leads to an inference that E.Krishnamurthy (A­1) had done so in order to aid and abet accused/Diljit Kapoor (A­3) in obtaining loan on fake sale deed and a fake guarantor, namely, Mrs.Harbiji. 7.8 Ex.P­76=Ex.PW­8/FF (D­43, Page­210) is the application for opening current account given by accused/Diljit Kapoor (A­3) on behalf of his firm M/s Meera Traders. His declaration is Ex.P­77 (D­43, Page­211) and an undertaking required for opening current deposit account given by accused/Diljit Kapoor (A­3) on behalf of his firm is Ex.P­78 (D­42, Page­213). CBI No.73/08 Page No.66 of 181

CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

7.9 The sanction letter dated 20.07.2000 sanctioning the loan to M/s Meera Traders is Ex.P­79 (D­44). The demand promissory note executed by accused/Diljit Kapoor (A­3) on behalf of his firm M/s Meera Traders favouring bank for Rs.25 lacs is Ex.P­80 (D­45). Agreement for CC limit is Ex.PW­8/JJ=PW­1/8 (D­46). Borrower's statement of stocks under hypothecation as on 20.07.2000 is Ex.PW­8/KK (D­47)=Ex.P­82. Security for advances and loan purportedly executed by Smt.Harbiji along with accused/Diljit Kapoor (A­3) is Ex.PW­8/LL=PW­1/9 (D­48, Page­220). Undertaking executed by accused/Diljit Kapoor (A­3) along with purported signature of Smt.Harbiji is Ex.PW­1/14=PW­8/MM.

7.10 The letter of access executed by accused/Diljit CBI No.73/08 Page No.67 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

Kapoor (A­3) on behalf of his firm is Ex.P­85=PW­8/NN (D­50, Page­222). Legal opinion of Sh.A N Tiwari, Advocate along with other documents is Ex.PW­28/B (D­51, Page­223 to 231). 7.11 The certified sale deed of the property is Ex.AW­1/20. The original sale deed purported to be in favour of Smt.Harbiji as executed by Sh.Ranvir Singh and Ram Narain is Ex.AW­1/19=Mark F/B=Ex.PW­27/1 (D­42). In this respect PW­12/Attar Singh, the then Sub Registrar, Kashmere Gate has been examined, who has stated that the certified copy of sale deed, Ex.PW­12/A (D­200, Page­574) shows that the sale deed was executed on 17.12.70 by Sh.Ranvir Singh and Raghu Raj Singh in favour of Smt.Harbiji, which was issued by him to CBI. He was shown the sale deed which appearing to be original of the same, CBI No.73/08 Page No.68 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

on which Ex.PW­F/B is marked (D­42) and after seeing the same he has stated that this is not the original of the certified given by him as there are discrepancies.

7.12 PW­29/Dr.R Sharma has also proved that signatures at point Q­417 to Q­422 on Ex.PW­27/1=PW­1/19=Mark F/B (D­42) were not made by vendor/Ranvir Singh whose specimen signature are from S­99 to S­103, Ex.PW­29/8 (D­217). Opinion of GEQD is Ex.PW­29/13 (D­196).

7.13 PW­27/Ishwar Singh has deposed that Smt.Harbiji was his mother, who expired about 8 years ago. He said that he had purchased a plot in the name of his mother from Sh.Ram Narain at Khyala and sale deed in this respect was executed in the CBI No.73/08 Page No.69 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

office of Sub Registrar, Delhi (PW­27/1, D­42). He has deposed that this property was sold by his mother in the year 1986­87. It is worthwhile to mention that Mark F/B is the same document which is Ex.PW­27/1 and thus there is a contradiction between statement of PW­12/Attar Singh and PW­27/Ishwar Singh about its authenticity. Even if statement of Sh.Ishar Singh is to be believed that this sale deed is original sale deed, he has to be believed in toto. Thus his deposition that this property was sold by his mother way back in the year 1986­87, has also to be accepted. He also proved that the documents which are Ex.PW­8/EE, Ex.P­80, Ex.PW­8/LL, Ex.PW­8/MM and Ex.PW­27/2 do not bear signatures of his mother as his mother did not know writing Hindi and Gurmukhi languages.

CBI No.73/08 Page No.70 of 181

CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

7.14 He proved seizure memo, vide which documents were supplied to CBI as Ex.PW­27/3. He has submitted that photograph of his mother was given to CBI which is Ex.PW­27/4 and he also handed over the death certificate of his mother vide seizure memo dated 27.12.02, Ex.PW­27/B and the photocopy of death certificate is Ex.PW­27/6.

7.15 He has deposed that his mother never stood guarantor against any loan in Andhra Bank, Vishwas Nagar Branch, Delhi. He was not put any question in cross­examination and his cross­examination was treated as nil. The death certificate Ex.PW­27/6 (D­235, Page­923) shows date of death of Smt.Harbiji at her village in Distt.Baghpat on 01.09.2000. When the statement of PW­27 has not been controverted by accused/E Krishnamurthy CBI No.73/08 Page No.71 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

(A­1) or any other accused persons, then it stands proved that Smt.Harbiji had not executed any documents pertaining to the guarantee with the bank and that the property shown mortgaged to the bank to secure credit limit granted to M/s Meera Traders, was already sold by her in the year 1986­87. Hence no such property was available with her to mortgage the same with the bank for securing loan of accused/Diljit Kapoor (A­3). A­1/E Krishnamurthy or any other accused did not put photograph of Smt.Harbiji, Ex.PW­27/4 (D­234) to any of witness bank official, particularly PW­8/R D Mehta, that such lady as is shown in photograph, Ex.PW­27/4, had visited the bank to stand guarantee in loan sanctioned to A­3/Diljit Kapoor.

7.16 Not only this PW­26/C M Duggal, Chief Manager CBI No.73/08 Page No.72 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

of Federal Bank has also been examined, who stated that same property no.K­83, Shyam Nagar was mortgaged by accused/Inder Kapoor (A­2) as collateral security for securing loan in the name of his firm/Rashtriya Chemicals. He has also proved the documents pertaining to that loan of M/s Rashtriya Chemicals with Karol Bagh Branch of Federal Bank. The loan was obtained by accused/Inder Kapoor (A­2) from the said bank in 1999. He has proved documents in this respect from Ex.PW­26/6 to Ex.PW­26/16 which were handed over by him to IO of the case vide Ex.PW­26/1. 7.17 Thus, not only that Smt.Harbiji was not the owner of the said property at K­83, Shyam Nagar, New Delhi since 1986­87 but even that property was already mortgaged by co­ accused/Inder Kapoor (A­2) for securing a credit facility of Rs.25 CBI No.73/08 Page No.73 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

lacs from Federal Bank, Karol Bagh Branch. Thus, the proscution has established that accused/E Krishnamurthy did not call for a valuation report of K­83, Shyam Nagar before accepting the same in mortgage and accepted fake guarantee in the name of one Smt.Harbiji in collusion with accused/Diljit Kapoor and others. SIPHONING OF LOAN AMOUNT OF M/s MEERA TRADERS 8.1 The siphoning of funds from account of M/s Meera Traders of accused/Diljit Kapoor (A­3) is clear from the statement of account maintained with Andhra Bank, Vishwas Nagar Branch, which is Ex.PW­8/44 (D­70, Page­266) which show as to how the funds have been diverted from this account to other accounts of his co­accused as it has been proved that M/s Rashtriya Chemicals, M/s Surbhi Chemicals and M/s Shree CBI No.73/08 Page No.74 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

Maharaja Enterprises, all are firms of co­accused/Inder Kapoor (A­2). The various cheques through which bank drafts/pay order were got issued from the bank from loan A/C of M/s Meera Traders bearing No.112358 maintained with Andhra Bank is given as under:­ Sl. Cheque No., Amount Name of Firm Pay Order Amount (Rs.) No. Date and (Rs.) No. and Date Exhibit 01 502026 6,31,320/­ Rashtriya Chemicals 709792 6,30,000/­ (21.07.2000 21.07.2000 PW­24/1) 02 502028 6,61,320/­ Surbhi Chemicals 709800 6,60,000/­ (22.07.2000 24.07.2000 P­128) 03 502027 9,91,980/­ Maharaja Enterprises 709805 9,90,000/­ (22.07.2000 24.07.2000 P­132) 04 502029 2,00,400/­ Maharaja Enterprises 709827 2,00,000/­ (31.07.2000 31.07.2000 P­134) 05 502030 4,50,675/­ Maharaja Enterprises 709873 4,50,000/­ (12.08.2000 12.08.2000 P­136) 06 502033 2,50,375/­ Rashtriya Chemicals 709899 2,50,000/­ (18.08.2000 18.08.2000 P­138) CBI No.73/08 Page No.75 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

 07      502037        4,25,638/­ Maharaja Enterprises     710086        4,25,000/­
      (25.09.2000                                       25.09.2000
       PW­24/3)

08      502034        4,75,730/­ Maharaja Enterprises     710119        4,75,000/­
      (03.10.2000                                       03.10.2000
        P­142)

09      502038        5,01,000/­ Rashtriya Chemicals      710249        5,00,000/­
      (31.10.2000                                       31.10.2000
         P­144)




8.2                  All   the   transactions   have   been   proved   by 

PW­53/Vinay Mohan Kane.




8.3                  Proprietorship   firm   of   M/s   Shree   Maharaja 

Enterprises is of accused/Inder Kapoor (A­2) as per Ex.P­188 {D­222 (Page­813)}; M/s Samarth Traders is firm of accused/Diljit Kapoor (A­3) as proved by Ex.P­189 {D­222 (Page­815)}; M/s Dass Mint Traders is also firm of accused/Diljit Kapoor (A­3) as proved vide Ex.P­193 {D­222 (Page­820)}, M/s Surbhi Chemicals is firm of CBI No.73/08 Page No.76 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

Inder Kapoor (A­2) as proved vide Ex.P­196 {D­222 (Page­825)}, M/s Meera Traders is also firm of accused/Diljit Kapoor (A­3) as proved Ex.P­199 {D­222 (Page­830)}, all of them maintained with Bank of Punjab Limited, Rajouri Garden Branch, M/s Gagan Menthol is firm of accused/Papinder Singh Handa (A­4) as proved vide Ex.PW­13/A to 13/D {Page­846 to 850 (D­224)} as maintained with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Sant Nagar, New Delhi. 8.4 The statements of accounts of these firms have also been proved by CBI to show how the pay orders got issued by Inder Kapoor (A­2) and Diljit Kapoor (A­3) were encashed through these accounts and thereafter withdrawn in cash. Ex.PW­10/Q (D­222, Page­835) shows that in the account of M/s Surbhi Chemicals maintained with Bank of Punjab Limited, Rajouri Garden CBI No.73/08 Page No.77 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

Branch, the proceeds of pay order were cleared on 26.07.2000 and cash amount was withdrawn in the sum of Rs.6,61,590/­ on 10.08.2000 leaving zero balance in that account. Similar are the entries in Ex.PW­10/S and Ex.PW­10/N (D­222, Page­838 and 340) which is account of M/s Dass Mint, Ex.PW­10/W (Page­841 of D­222) which is account of M/s Samarth Traders and Ex.PW­10/C (Page­843 of D­222) which is account of M/s Shree Maharaja Enterprises all maintained with Bank of Punjab Limited, Rajouri Garden and Ex.PW­13/D (D­224, Page­848) of M/s Gagan Menthol Traders of accused/Papinder Singh Handa maintained with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Sant Nagar Branch.

8.5 Accused/Diljit Kapoor (A­3) placed with the bank the bills purportedly issued by different firms for sell/purchase of CBI No.73/08 Page No.78 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

menthol. Ex.P­92 and Ex.P­93 are the bills of M/s Laxmi Chemicals for Rs.25,60,000/­ (D­61, Page­256) and Rs.29,25,000/­ both dated 15.10.2000 and 10.11.2000 respectively (also marked as Ex.PW­5/A & B) which bills have been admitted by accused/Diljit Kapoor but when PW­25/Prem Parkash was examined, he has stated that he was running business of Mint oil in the name and style of M/s Laxmi Chemicals in the year 1988 and was in the said business upto 1994 operating from B­67, Anand Vihar, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. He has also stated that he knew accused/Inder Kapoor (A­2) and accused/Diljit Kapoor (A­3) who were residing at Vishnu Garden but he never dealt/sold Mint oil to M/s Meera Trades and never received any payment from said firm. After seeing the bills, Ex.P­92 and P­93, he stated that these do not bear his signature and not issued by him. He stood by his testimony in CBI No.73/08 Page No.79 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

his cross­examination by ld.counsel for accused/Inder Kapoor (A­2). Thus, it is also established that accused/Diljit Kapoor (A­3) was providing exorbitant fake bills to the bank for procurement of Mint oil by him which the bank was accepting without raising any querry or verification.

8.6 A letter of accused/Diljit Kapoor (A­3) of M/s Meera Traders written on 03.10.2000 is available as Ex.P­86=Ex.PW­8/OO=Ex.AW­1/12 (D­55, Page­253) showing that accused/Diljit Kapoor (A­3) had applied for TOD of Rs.5 lacs to the bank which was sanctioned by accused/E Krishnamurthy (A­1) by writing his remarks and putting his signatures at point Q­128. This document is also admitted by both accused persons (by A­1 and A­3). Sanction is dated 03.10.2000 itself and a D.P.Note of Rs.30 CBI No.73/08 Page No.80 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

lacs was also executed by accused/Diljit Kapoor (A­3) which is Ex.P­87 (D­56) dated 18.11.2000. Agreement of hypothecation is Ex.PW­8/QQ=Ex.AW­1/16=Ex.P­88 (D­57), security for advance loan is Ex.PW­8/RR (D­58, Page­89), undertaking is Ex.P­90=Ex.PW­8/SS (D­59), agreement of OCC against hypothecation is Ex.PW­8/TT=Ex.P­91 (D­60) which is for full amount of Rs.30 lacs i.e. after enhancement of Rs.5 lacs as TOD. 8.7 The statement of account, Ex.PW­8/44 (D­70) reveals that when TOD of Rs.5 lacs was sanctioned on 03.10.2000, the account was already overdrawn i.e. debit balance in the account was Rs.25,67,296/­ and after allowing of TOD the debit balance in the account reached Rs.30,43,026/­ and thereafter the account was never regularized and account remained overdrawn. CBI No.73/08 Page No.81 of 181

CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

ACCOUNT­M/s GURU NANAK MINT TRADERS- PROPRIETOR­ PAPINDER SINGH HANDA (A.4) 9.1 It is alleged that in furtherance of criminal conspiracy accused Papinder Singh Handa (A.4), proprietor of M/s Guru Nanak Mint Traders, 897, Chawri Bazar, Delhi opened a current account No.2974 on 04.09.2000 and applied for cash credit limit of Rs.25 lacs for trading in menthol. While submitting his loan application he had fraudulently submitted false documents i.e. financial statements of his firm for the years 1998­99 and 1999­2000 which were accepted by accused E.Krishnamurthy (A.1) without any verification and he initiated appraisal report about credit worthiness of the firm and sanctioned the cash credit limit of Rs.25 lacs.

CBI No.73/08 Page No.82 of 181

CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

9.2 Accused Papinder Singh Handa had allegedly mortgaged property situated at B­63, East of Kailash, New Delhi to secure the loan and had submitted forged and fake sale deed of the said property. As the zonal office of the bank found the property as disputed one and, therefore, on their instructions, another property situated at plot No.86, Jagat Puri, Shahadra was got equitably mortgaged to the bank by Papinder Singh Handa, the title deed of which was also fake and forged. Accused E.Krishnamurthy (A­1) did not deliberately insist for valuation of the said property through approved panel valuer of the bank and accepted a fake guarantee of Akramuddin shown as owner of the property.

CBI No.73/08 Page No.83 of 181

CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

9.3 After availing limit of Rs.25 lacs, accused Papinder Singh Handa had allegedly withdrawn sanctioned amount through the accounts namely M/s Samarth Traders and M/s Dass Mint of his co­conspirator accused Diljit Kapoor maintained at Bank of Punjab, Rajouri Garden, Delhi and also through his own account of M/s Gagan Menthol Traders maintained with Oriental Bank of Commerce, East of Kailash, New Delhi and thereby caused undue pecuniary loss to the bank to the tune of Rs.26,91,392/­ and corresponding gain to himself or others.

9.4 Not only this accused Papinder Singh Handa (A.

4) issued two cheques from his own account in the name and style of M/s Sidharth Chemicals at Punjab National Bank, Shukla Market, Sambhal favouring his own borrower's firm M/s Guru CBI No.73/08 Page No.84 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

Nanak Mint Traders for an amount of Rs.2,60,000/­ and to the proprietorship firm of accused Sangeet Kumar Mann (A.5) namely M/s Suprabhat Chemicals for an amount of Rs.2.85 lacs without any sufficient fund in his account at PNB, Sambhal which accused E.Krishnamurthy (A.1) had dishonestly purchased on 27.02.01 and 01.03.01 respectively without verifying the funds in the loan account of said party and credited to respective account of accused Papinder Singh Handa and Sangeet Kumar Mann without having power to purchase these cheques as his power had already been withdrawn by the bank vide order dated 06.12.2000 issued from the zonal office of the bank. Ultimately these two cheques were returned unpaid to the bank when presented for clearance which further caused a loss to the tune of Rs.5.45 lacs to the bank. CBI No.73/08 Page No.85 of 181

CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

9.5 PW­7/R K Khera has deposed that even after withdrawal of powers, Krishnamurthy (A­1) had purchased two cheques in account of M/s Gurunanak Mint Traders, as is shown at Point 'X1' of Ex.PW­7/B (Page 368 of D­93) for Rs.2.60 lacs dated 27.02.01 and another in account of M/s Suprabhat Chemicals as is shown at point 'X2' of Ex.PW­7/C (Page­462 of D­113) for Rs.2.85 lacs dated 01.03.01. PW­2/A Murlidhar who was DGM of Zonal Office has proved his letter dated 06.12.2000 to Krishnamurthy (A­1) suspending his financial powers as Ex.PW­2/B. Under such circumstances exercise of power to purchase clear cheques as aforesaid was clearly an abuse of his authority without any public interest, obviously for ulterior motive causing wrongful gain to accused persons and wrongful loss to his bank. CBI No.73/08 Page No.86 of 181

CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

9.6 Accused E.Krishnamurthy (A.1) was fully aware about accused Papinder Singh Handa (A.4) that he is guarantor for loan sanctioned to M/s Surbhi Chemicals of accused Inder Kapoor (A.2) but he dishonestly entertained and sanctioned CC limit of Rs. 25 lacs to M/s Guru Nanak Mint Traders of accused Papinder Singh Handa.

10.1 To prove the allegations, prosecution proved Ex.P. 105 = Ex.PW.8/CCC (D.74 page 299) which is account opening form of accused Papinder Singh Handa for A/c No.2974 dated 04.09.2000 in the name of M/s Guru Nanak Mint Traders. As regards introduction of accused Papinder Singh Handa PW.51 Sh.Suresh Chand Goel has been examined, who stated that he has running firm in the name of M/s Rishikesh Bombay Roadlines CBI No.73/08 Page No.87 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

and was having a loan account with Vishwas Nagar branch of Andhra Bank but he does not know Papinder Singh Handa or his firm M/s Guru Nanak Mint Traders. He deposed that account opening form Ex.PW.8/CCC = P.105 bears his signatures as introducer at point X and that he had introduced this account at the instance of Branch Manager E.Krishnamurthy (A.1) when he had gone to the bank. He also stated that at the time of introduction of this account even the account holder was not present there. He was not cross examined by any of the accused persons and thus his testimony is not challenged.

10.2 After the current account was opened by accused Papinder Singh Handa in the name of his firm M/s Guru Nanak Mint Traders, he applied for sanction of loan vide his application for CBI No.73/08 Page No.88 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

advance Ex.P.99 = Ex.PW.8/AAA (D.72 page 273). The application does not bear the date on which it has been made and in the application one Sh.Rakesh Kathuria has signed as co­ applicant/guarantor.

10.3 Ex.P.100 = P.88 (page 279) is the statement of property filed by Papinder Singh Handa (A.4) showing that he is owner of property No.E­259­A, East of Kailash, New Delhi. 10.4 Ex.P.86 (page 280 of D.72) is the letter of accused Papinder Singh Handa addressed to Branch Manager, Dena Bank, Nehru Place for certifying that he has closed his current account in the said bank and below it certificate of Dena Bank is appended. CBI No.73/08 Page No.89 of 181

CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

10.5 Ex.P.101 = P.87 is the projected balance sheet of M/s Guru Nanak Mint Traders as on 31.03.01 & 31.03.02. Ex.P. 102=P.88 is the projected profit and loss account for the same period. Ex.P.89 is the balance sheet of Guru Nanak Mint Traders as on 30.06.2000. Ex.P.90 is the profit and loss account of the firm for the same period.

10.6 Ex.P.91 to P.96 (page 285 to 290 of D.72) is the audited balance sheet of Guru Nanak Mint Traders and in this respect PW.46 Sh.Surinder Kumar Jain has stated that he conducted audit of the firm. He proved his handwriting and signature at point A on the documents Ex.P.91 to 96 made by him as Chartered Accountant.

CBI No.73/08 Page No.90 of 181

CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

10.7 He deposed that he had conducted aforesaid audit at the instance of accused Inder Kapoor (A­2) and Papinder Handa (A.4) who had contacted him through one Sh.Khurana and these audit reports were prepared on the basis of books of accounts which were produced before him by them. He has stated that he do not know as to who is proprietor of firm M/s Guru Nanak Mint Traders but Inder Kapoor told him that Papinder Singh Handa (A.4) is the proprietor of M/s Guru Nanak Mint Traders. 10.8 He was not cross examined and no suggestions were put by any of the accused persons. When his testimony is taken on face of it, his audit was only a paper work as he had been shown only the books and nothing else. Thus, his audit report does not vouch any actual business carried out by accused CBI No.73/08 Page No.91 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

Papinder Singh Handa.

10.9 Except for these documents there is no other document to satisfy the bank that accused Papinder Singh Handa was actually carrying out any business of mint oil or by the magnitude for which he had secured the credit limit from the bank. 10.10 Accused E.Krishnamurthy (A.1) did not carry out even minimum verification about the actual business of accused Papinder Singh Handa and also did not bother to note that accused Papinder Singh Handa already stood as co­applicant/guarantor for sanction of cash credit limit of finance to accused Inder Kapoor (A.

2) in account of M/s Surbhi Chemicals which was sanctioned only a month back i.e. 18.08.2000 and in this way the liability of accused CBI No.73/08 Page No.92 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

Papinder Singh Handa with the bank reached Rs.50 lacs (taken together with liabilities as guarantor for account of Surbhi Chemicals).

10.11 Nothing was mentioned by accused E.Krishnamurthy while granting sanction of limit to accused Papinder Singh Handa. He had not even prepare any appraisal report as is done by him in other cases. On the office note Ex.PW. 1/DA (D.79 page 316), which is dated 16.09.2000, he had not even written that he has sanctioned the loan. However, the sanction letter of M/s Guru Nanak Mint Traders, written by the bank on 16.09.2000, is Ex.P.110= PW.8/GGG (D.80 page 319). Accused E.Krishnamurthy has admitted his signatures thereon and as such the same is an admitted document. In this letter also he has not CBI No.73/08 Page No.93 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

mentioned that accused Papinder Singh Handa was also a guarantor in the loan account of M/s Surbhi Chemicals whereas he was well aware that Papinder Singh Handa stood guarantor in loan of M/s Surbhi Chemicals which was sanctioned only a month back. 11.1 After sanction of loan on 16.09.2000 vide Ex.PW. 8/GGG, the documents pertaining to loan were executed. Ex.PW. 8/HHH (D.81 page 320) is demand promissory note executed by accused Papinder Singh Handa as proprietor of M/s Guru Nanak Mint Traders. Ex.PW.8/JJJ (D.82 page 321) is the loan agreement dated 16.09.2000. It is significant to note that this agreement is pasted on a non judicial stamp paper of Rs.5/­ and the said stamp paper has been purchased on 21.09.2000 which is printed on the stamp of the stamp vendor affixed on the back side of the stamp CBI No.73/08 Page No.94 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

paper. Thus, it is quite clear that the agreement which was to be executed on 16.09.2000 was in fact executed some times on or after 21.09.2000 by back dating. It is, therefore, clear that loan was disbursed on 16.09.2000 i.e. before execution of loan agreement (Ex.PW­7/B, Page­368 of D­93).

11.2 The borrower's statement of stock is Ex.P.111= PW.8/KKK which is signed by E.Krishnamurthy as well as Papinder Singh Handa (A.4) showing that firm M/s Guru Nanak Mint Traders was having stock of Rs.55,18,000/­ as on 16.09.2000. Ex.PW. 8/LLL (D.83 page 327) is the security for advances and loan. The undertaking of accused Papinder Singh Handa executed on 16.09.2000 in favour of bank is Ex.PW.8/MMM (D.84). Agreement of Hypothecation executed by accused Papinder Singh Handa (A. CBI No.73/08 Page No.95 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

4) in favour of the bank is Ex.PW.8/NNN (D.85). 11.3 The letter of Sh.Rakesh Kathuria evidencing depositing of title deeds with the bank bearing date of 16.09.2000 is Ex.PW.8/OOO (D.86) in which he has also mentioned the list of documents of title deposited by him with the bank. It is worthwhile to note that he has mentioned that as on 15.09.2000, he had deposited with the bank these documents of title, whereas this kind of letter is written by the mortgagor to the bank after deposit of title deeds with intention to create security thereon and this letter is always written on some subsequent to the date on which mortgage has been created. There was no occasion for guarantor/Rakesh Kathuria depositing the title deeds with the bank on 15.09.2000 when the loan itself has been sanctioned on 16.09.2000 on the CBI No.73/08 Page No.96 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

terms and conditions, one of which was mortgage of property by Sh.Rakesh Kahturia for securing loan by accused Papinder Singh Handa.

11.4 The title deed deposited with the bank alongwith Ex.PW.8/OOO (D.86) has been marked as Mark F/A (P.333 to 337 of D.86). In this respect PW.11 Sh.S.D.Sharma, who was earlier working as Sub Registrar­V at INA , Vikas Sadan, Delhi, subsequently shifted to Mehrauli, Delhi, has proved that this sale deed is fake one as it is not registered in his office which is purportedly registered with registration No.7568 in additional book No.1 Vol. 8432 on page No.130­134 on 03.12.93. He has also proved his letter Ex.PW.11/A (D.229) in this respect vide which he had clarified the situation in respect of property bearing No.63, CBI No.73/08 Page No.97 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

Block B, East of Kailash, New Delhi.

11.5 PW.12 Sh.Attar Singh who was posted as Sub Registrar, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi has also proved that such registration particulars are not existing in his office. He proved his remarks in this respect at point B on letter Ex.PW.12/C (D.228). 11.6 Thereafter accused Papinder Singh Handa had offered collateral security which is plot of land and building at F­86, Jagat Puri, Delhi, in the name of Akrammuddin. The declaration of Sh.Akrammuddin is Ex.PW.8/PPP (D.89 page 356) which is dated 26.05.01. His letter dated 30.05.01 to the bank evidencing about the fact that he deposited the title documents on 29.05.01 is Ex.PW.8/QQQ (D.90). His sale deed in his favour dated 20.12.67 is CBI No.73/08 Page No.98 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

Ex.PW.20/A (page 358 to 360 of D.19). His affidavit is Ex.PW.21/B, his guarantee deed is Ex.PW.8/RRR (D.91 page 363). 11.7 In this respect Sh.Akrammuddin has been examined as PW.20 and he has stated that property No.F­86, Jagat Puri, Delhi was purchased by him in 1967 vide sale deed Ex.PW.20/A but that property was sold by him to one Sh.Kamalluddin in 1981 and the other portion to one Sh.Nazir Ahmad. IO of the case has collected photo copy of GPA and agreement to sell executed by Akrammuddin in favour of Kamalluddin vide his seizure memo Ex.PW.60/H (D.248 page 945). He has deposed that he do not know about Papinder Singh Handa or his firm Guru Nanak Mint Traders and as he never become guarantor of Papinder Singh Handa or his firm Guru Nanak Mint CBI No.73/08 Page No.99 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

Traders and he denied signature on the list of documents Ex.PW. 8/QQQ (wrongly typed as PW.8/GGG), affidavit Ex.PW.20/E and guarantee deed Ex.PW.8/RRR.

11.8 PW. Akrammuddin has not been cross examined by any of the accused persons and no question has been put to him. The property of Jagatpuri standing in the name of Mr.Akramuddin was not got valued from panel valuer of the bank. A natural inference would be that accused/E.Krishnamurthy (A­1) knew that if valuer is sent to the property he would come to know about its real owners/occupants. Thus, it is established that guarantee of Sh.Akramuddin was posed by accused Papinder Singh Handa in collusion with E.Krishnamurthy, who accepted the guarantee of Sh.Akrammuddin showing his forged signatures on CBI No.73/08 Page No.100 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

list of documents, affidavit and guarantee deed and that his previous sale deed of 1967, the property in which was already stood alienated to third parties in 1981 itself had been used been shown deposited by accused Papinder Singh Handa for securing the credit facility in collusion with accused E.Krishnamurthy (A.1). 12.1 It has been submitted by Ld. Public Prosecutor for CBI that no pre sanction inspection was done by accused E.Krishnamurthy of the application of accused Papinder Singh Handa's firm M/s Guru Nanak Mint Traders whereas ld. counsel for accused E.Krishnamurthy has submitted that the pre sanction report is already on record as Ex.PW.8/VVV. 12.2 PW.9 Sh.R.K.Bansal has been examined in this CBI No.73/08 Page No.101 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

respect who has stated that he had conducted inspection of M/s Guru Nanak Mint Traders account and during course of inspection carried out by him in Andhra Bank, Vishwas Nagar branch he observed following irregularities :­

1. Before sanctioning the loan facilities the Banker's report were not obtained by the Branch Manager.

2. The pre sanction inspection of the unit and mortgaged property was not carried out and no report was made available for verification.

3. Heavy amounts were allowed to be withdrawan without ensuring the endues of the funds.

4. I found the deficiency in the stock at the time of inspection. I cannot say about the deficiency of quantum in the stocks but the same is mentioned in detail in my report Ex.P.112 which bears my signature at point A and the initial at point B and the signature of Sh.E.Krishnamurthy at point C in respect of the conformation of the deficiency in the stocks. 12.3 He has stated that he also conducted the CBI No.73/08 Page No.102 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

inspection of M/s Suprabhat Chemicals and found the following deficiencies in the loan account of the firm:­

1. Some procedure of lapses were found by me including post sanction and pre sanction such as pre sanction inspection of the unit and the mortgaged property was not carried out by the Branch Manager.

2. Heavy cash withdrawals were allowed by the Branch Manager without ensuring their endues.

3. Proper books of accounts were not maintained by the firm like Stock Register, Sale and Purchase invoices to show the endues of the firm obtained from the Bank.

4. The payments were allowed to be made from the account of the firm to the account of Mira Traders and other firms of the same groups etc. 12.4 During his cross examination by Ld. counsel for accused E.Krishnamurthy, his attention was invited to Ex.PW. 8/BBB = P.104 and in this respect he has replied in similar way as CBI No.73/08 Page No.103 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

he had replied as to the inspection report of M/s Surbhi Chemicals Ex.P.23.

12.5 If we carefully see this report of E Krishnamurthy (A­1), Ex.PW.8/BBB=P.104, it is dated 03.09.2000 whereas the current account of accused M/s Guru Nanak Mint Traders was itself opened on 04.09.2000 as is apparent from Ex.PW.8/CCC = P.105 and loan was applied and sanctioned to him on 16.09.2000. Thus, clearly Ex.PW.8/BBB was manipulated by accused E.Krishnamurthy subsequently in his own handwriting and placed on record which could not be made available to PW.9 R.K.Bansal, when he had inspected the branch. Accused E.Krishnamurthy did not take care that the date which he is putting on his pre inspection report, was the date which was even prior to the opening of current CBI No.73/08 Page No.104 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

account by M/s Guru Nanak Mint Traders with the bank. 12.6 On the inspection report of Sh.R.K.bansal Ex.P. 112 (D.92) accused E.Krishnamurthy had admitted his own signatures at point B and the same has also proved by Sh.R.K.Bansal who signed it at point A. 12.7 Statement of account of M/s Guru Nanak Mint Traders is Ex.PW.7/B (D.93 page 368), which show as to how the funds were siphoned of from loan account maintained with Vishwas Nagar branch of Andhra Bank. The withdrawals with details of siphoned of funds is as under:­ CBI No.73/08 Page No.105 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

 Sr. Cheque   No.,date   and  Amount              Name of           Pay   order  Amount 
No. Exhibit                   (Rs.)                Firm            No.   and     (Rs.)
                                                                   date

01     504154 (21.09.2000        9,91,485/­ Smarth Traders           710069   9,90,000/­
       Ex.P.146 =Ex.PW.10/N)                                       21.09.2000

02     504156 (28.09.2000        6,80,000/­          Self              ­       6,80,000/­
       Ex.P.147

03     504157 (21.10.2000        3,85,000/­ Gagan       Menthol        ­       3,85,000/­
       Ex.PW.13/E                           Traders

04     504158 (09.11.2000        4,75,000/­ Gagan       Menthol        ­       4,75,000/­
       Ex.P.13/F                            Traders

05     504160 (05.12.2000        2,60,000/­ Gagan       Menthol        ­       2,60,000/­
       Ex.P.13/G                            Traders

06     504161(09.11.2000         2,35,470/­ Dass Mint Traders       710869     2,35,000/­
       Ex.P.10/R= Ex.P.148                                          27.02.01

07     504151(13.09.2000         2,00,000/­      Self cash             ­       2,00,000/­
       Ex.P.149




12.8                   It is significant to note that M/s Gagan Menthol is 

sole proprietorship firm of accused Papinder Singh Handa which maintains account No.8470 with Oriental Bank of Commerce (OBC) and its statement of account opening form (AOF) with specimen card has been proved vide Ex.PW.13/B & 13/C (P.849 & 850 of D.224) and statement of account of said account is Ex.PW. CBI No.73/08 Page No.106 of 181

CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

13/D (page 846 of D.224). This statement of account shows that pay orders which were got issued by accused Papinder Singh Handa from his account of Guru Nanak Mint Traders with Vishwas Nagar branch of Andhra Bank were encashed in his account at Oriental Bank of Commerce and the money was thereafter withdrawn.

12.9 The ld.counsel for accused/Papinder Singh Handa (A­4) has tendered in evidence a no dues certificate issued by the Bank as Ex.D­4/A, whereby it has been certified by the Bank that M/s Guru Nanak Mint Traders ­ Proprietor/Papinder Singh Handa has paid Rs.22 lacs as per compromise, towards full and final settlement of his liability in the account. Based on this payment she has submitted that accused/Papinder Singh Handa CBI No.73/08 Page No.107 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

(A­4) is liable to be acquitted. For this purpose, she has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nikhil Merchant Vs. CBI (SLP Crl.No.6355/2005) and judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Surender Kapoor Vs. State (Crl.MC No.1354/2007). These authorities are with respect to exercising of powers by Hon'ble Apex court and High Court which are not vested with this court. It is settled position of law that refund of cheated amount does not undo the offence and entitle the accused to an acquittal. At the best he can plead leniency in sentence on the ground of repayment of bank's money.

ACCOUNT ­ SUPRABHAT CHEMICALS ­ PROPRIETOR ACCUSED SANGEET KUMAR MANN (A­5) 13.1 It is alleged against accused Sangeet Kumar Mann proprietor of M/s Suprabhat Chemicals that he opened a CBI No.73/08 Page No.108 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

current account No.2977 with Vishwas Nagar branch of the Bank on 17.10.2000 and applied for OCC Limit of Rs.30 lacs for trading in menthol. He submitted false documents i.e. his financial statements, which were accepted by accused E.Krishnamurthy without any verification and without initiating appraisal report and verifying credit worthiness of accused Sangeet Kumar Mann. He sanctioned OCC Limit of Rs.25 lacs on 21.10.2000, which was siphoned of by accused Sangeet Kumar Mann through the accounts of M/s Samarth Traders of accused Diljit Kapoor (A­3) and M/s Shree Maharaja Enterprises of accused Inder Kapoor (A­2) maintained with Bank of Punjab, Rajouri Garden and thereby caused pecuniary loss of Rs.27.94 lacs to the bank and corresponding gain to himself and others.

CBI No.73/08 Page No.109 of 181

CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

13.2 Ex.PW.8/SSS (D.95 page 375) is the application for advance to M/s Suprabhat Chemicals which has been proved by PW.8 Sh.R.D.Mehta who has specifically deposed that application was signed by accused Sangeet Kumar Mann before him at point A and alongwith the application he had attached a copy of his ration card mark X, balance sheet as on 31.03.2000 Ex.PW.8/TTT under his signatures at point A, balance sheet as on 31.03.99 Ex.PW.8/UUU signed by accused Sangeet Kumar Mann at point A, property statement in respect of property at WZ­99, Village Jhatikara, New Delhi under his signatures as Ex.PW.8/VVV, property statement in respect of M/s Suprabhat Chemical as Ex.PW.8/WWW, provisional balance sheet as on 31.01.2000 signed by him as Ex.PW.8/XXX, projected balance sheet as on 31.03.01 & 31.03.02 of M/s Suprabhat Chmicals signed by Sangeet Kumar CBI No.73/08 Page No.110 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

Mann at point A as Ex.PW.8/YYY.

13.3 He also proved that vide application dated 18.10.2000 accused Sangeet Kumar Mann had requested to the bank for issuance of cheque book from his current account which is proved as Ex.PW.8/ZZZ. Besides, he proved form 3 CB/audit report in respect of Balance Sheet and Profit & Loss account of M/s Suprabhat Chemicals as on 31.03.2000 as Ex.PW.8/AAAA (Page­398 of D­95), Balance Sheet and Profit & Loss account as on 31.03.2000 of M/s Suprabhat Chemicals as Ex.PW.8/BBBB (page 399 & 400 of D.95), Copy of Income tax saral return form for the assessment year 2000­2001 as Ex.PW.8/CCCC (Page­401 of D­95), Form 3CB/audit report of the firm in respect of Balance Sheet and Profit & Loss of M/s Suprabhat Chemicals as on CBI No.73/08 Page No.111 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

31.03.99 is Ex.PW.8/DDDD (page 402 of D­95), Balance Sheet and Profit & Loss account as on 31.03.99 is Ex.PW.8/EEEE (Page­403 & 404 of D­95), Income tax saral return for the assessment year 1999­2000 is Ex.PW.8/FFFF (Page­405 of D­95), balance sheet as on 31.03.98 alongwith profit and loss account of the firm for the same period is Ex.PW.8/GGGG (Page­406 & 407 of D­95).

13.4 About audit reports PW­46/Sh.Satender Kumar Jain, Chartered Accountant has proved that the same bear his signatures at points 'A' and the Balance Sheets and Profit & Loss accounts also bear his signatures and writings at point 'A'. He said that these audit reports were prepared on the basis of books of accounts which were produced by Inder Kapoor (A­2) and Papinder CBI No.73/08 Page No.112 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

Singh Handa (A­4) and it was Inder Kapoor (A­2) who told him that Mr.Khurana is proprietor of M/s Suprabhat Chemicals and that he (PW­46) did not know Sangeet Kumar Mann (A­5). He was not cross­examined by accused.

13.5 A pre sanction/disbursement inspection report prepared by E.Krishnamurthy is Ex.P.113 (page 408 of D­96). 13.6 PW­8 deposed that accused Sangeet Kumar Mann had opened a current account in the name of M/s Suprabhat Chemicals as sole proprietor with address as A­49, Vikas Nagar, New Delhi and the permission for opening the account was given by E.Krishnamurthy (A­1) as Branch Manager and the said application for opening of account is Ex.P.114 (D­97, Page­410). CBI No.73/08 Page No.113 of 181

CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

The information sheet for current account is Ex.P.115. Form 60 under the Income Tax Act of M/s Suprabhat Chemicals is Ex.PW. 8/HHHH (Page­412 of D­97).

13.7 It is worthwhile to mention that account opening form of M/s Suprabhat Chemicals of accused Sangeet Kumar Mann Ex.P.114 has been introduced by accused Diljit Kapoor (A.3) being proprietor of M/s Meera Traders and he has admitted his signatures on the same. The opening of account has been ordered by E.Krishnamurthy (A.1). Similarly Ex.P.115 has also been signed by accused Diljit Kapoor (A­3), proprietor of M/s Meera Traders with address as C­88, Mansa Ram Park, Uttam Nagar, Delhi which is Ex.P.115 (page 411). Accordingly, account no.2997 in the name of M/s Suprabhat Chemical­proprietor/Sangeet Kumar Mann (A­5), CBI No.73/08 Page No.114 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

was opened.

13.8 The legal opinion given by Sh.A.N.Tiwari, Advocate is Ex.PW.28/D (D.98) vide which he has given legal search report in respect of property certifying that accused Sangeet Kumar Mann is absolute owner of free hold land admeasuring 900 sq.yards, Khasra No.84 situated at village Jhatikara, Delhi abadi known as old Lal Dora for village Jhatikara, New Delhi. There is no appraisal note in this case like it was prepared by accused/E Krishnamurthy (A­1) in case of A­2 and A­3. Ex.PW.1/DB is the photocopy of an office note (Page­431 to 433 of D­101). This note in original has been proved by PW­8 as Ex.P­113 (page 434 to 436 of D.101).

CBI No.73/08 Page No.115 of 181

CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

13.9 Sh.Mehta has deposed that E.Krishnamurthy being Branch Manager had sanctioned OCC Limit of Rs.25 lacs with the terms and conditions mentioned in letter Ex.P.113 (page No.436 of D.102 and he proved the writing and signatures of accused E.Krishnamurthy as Ex.PW.8/LLLL and his own signature at point 'A'. Ex.P.114 is the sanction letter issued by E.Krishnamurthy (A­1) to M/s Suprabhat Chemicals on 21.10.2000. 13.10 Ex.P.115 is the borrower's stock statement as on 19.10.2000 (D.105 page 439) certified by E.Krishnamurthy (A­1) as correct. Ex.PW.8/MMMM is the DP note executed by Sangeet Kumar Mann, proprietor of Suprabhat Chemicals for Rs.25 lacs in favour of the bank on 21.10.2000. Agreement for open cash credit in this respect is Ex.PW.8/NNNN (D.106, Page­440). Letter of CBI No.73/08 Page No.116 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

access is Ex.PW.8/OOOO (D.107) and security for advances and loan is Ex.PW.8/PPPP (D.108 page 446). The undertaking in respect of conditions of the finance is Ex.PW.8/QQQQ (D.109 page

447). Agreement of hypothecation executed by Sangeet Kumar Mann on behalf of M/s Suprabhat Chemicals is Ex.PW.8/RRRR (D.

110) and the list of documents deposited by accused Sangeet Kumar Mann for securing the credit limit sanctioned to him is Ex.PW.8/SSSS (Page­451 of D­111).

14.1 The sale deed deposited by accused/Sangeet Kumar Mann (A­5) with the bank for creating equitable mortgage of land measuring 900 sq.yards out of Khasra No.84 situated at village Jhatikara, Delhi is Ex.P.116 (Page­452 to 455 of D­111). This sale deed is admitted document of accused/Sangeet Kumar Mann CBI No.73/08 Page No.117 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

(A­5).

14.2 It has been submitted by his ld.counsel that Sh.Anil Kumar, who was vendor as per Ex.P­116, had in fact committed fraud, who had engaged a counsel for defending himself as also accused/Sangeet Kumar Mann and he admitted this document on behalf of accused/Sangeet Kumar Mann whereas no such land was transferred by Anil Kumar in his favour and only his photo and identity was used.

14.3 When a document has been admitted by accused through his pleader at the beginning of the trial, he can not be now permitted to plead that he is not signatory of the document at final stage. PW­33/Sh.M S Dagar, who had earlier worked as Sub CBI No.73/08 Page No.118 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

Registrar IX, Kapashera, New Delhi was shown sale deed, Ex.P­116 and after comparing the same with original record produced from Sub­Registrar IX, he said that Ex.P­116 is different. The photocopy of the sale deed as per record of SRA was retained and marked Ex.PW­33/A. Thus, it is established that the title deed, which is admitted document of accused/Sangeet Kumar Mann (A­5), is a fake document which has been used for the purpose of creating mortgage to secure release of loan. 14.4 It has been submitted by ld.counsel for accused/Sangeet Kumar Mann that the stamp paper on which this sale deed is typed is shown as purchased by Sh.Anil Kumar (Vendor) and, therefore, the court should accept that the sale deed was forged by Sh.Anil Kumar and that accused/Sangeet Kumar CBI No.73/08 Page No.119 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

Mann had no role.

14.5 It is admitted by PW­33/Sh.M S Dagar that the stamp paper is generally purchased by the vendee. But mere fact that in this case vendor had purchased the stamp papers on which the sale deed is made, does not ipso facto give rise to a conclusion that accused/Sangeet Kumar Mann was not involved in forgery of this sale deed, as he has admitted this document and the execution of other documents by him in respect of loan to M/s Suprabhat Chemicals, have been proved by PW­8/Sh.R D Mehta. The affidavit of accused Sangeet Kumar Mann is Ex.PW.8/TTTT (page 457 of D.111).

14.6 The inspection report of Sh.R.K.Bansal (PW­9) in CBI No.73/08 Page No.120 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

respect of Suprabhat Chemicals pointing out the deficiencies, is Ex.PW.9/A (D.112 page 459). In this report he had pointed out that the first debit is dated 21.10.2000 itself without mentioning any reason. On same date pay order of Rs.7.00 lacs favouring M/s Maharaja Enterprises, on 25.10.2000, pay order of Rs.9.90 lacs favouring M/s Samarth Traders and on 30.10.2000 pay order of RS. 5.00 lacs favouring M/s Maharaja Enterprises were got issued and thereafter no operation in the account is done and even the insurance premium paid, was not adjusted.

14.7 Statement of account of M/s Suprabhat Chemicals in respect of current account is Ex.PW.8/UUUU (D.113) and the statement of account of OCC A/c No.112371 is Ex.PW.7/C (page 462 of D.114). They show how the funds have been diverted CBI No.73/08 Page No.121 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

withdrawn without any actual business done by M/s Suprabhat Chemicals.

15.1 PW­42/Mr.Ajay Kumar has been shown as guarantor/co­obligant for loan to M/s Suprabhat Chemicals. The format of asset liability of guarantor, Ex.PW­8/WWW (D­95, Page­389) has been filled by E.Krishnamurthy (A­1) but Sh.Ajay Kumar has denied his signature thereon. Similarly, he denied his signature on Ex.PW­8/MMMM (D­104) and Ex.PW­8/QQQQ (D­109, Page­447). He specifically deposed that he never stood guarantor for any one and that he does not know any person by the name of Sangeet Kumar Mann (A­5). He was not cross­examined by accused/E Krishnamurthy (A­1) and Sangeet Kumar Mann (A­5) and not suggested to him that it was he who had signed as co­ CBI No.73/08 Page No.122 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

obligant/guarantor of loan to M/s Suprabhat Chemicals and thus it is admitted fact that he did not stand guarantor for Sangeet Kumar Mann (A­5) and E.Krishnamurthy (A­1) had manipulated him as guarantor to loan advanced by him to accused/Sangeet Kumar Mann (A­5).

15.2 Ex.PW.2/B (D.115 page 468) is the letter of zonal office of Andhra Bank, New Delhi dated 06.12.2000 vide which the discretionary powers of E.Krishnamurthy (A­1), then working as Branch Manager, Vishwas Nagar branch was suspended. It has been proved as Ex.PW.2/B (D.115) vide which it was directed that powers of Branch Manager are suspended for sanction of credit facilities (except the limits/loan on bank deposit or credit facilities backed by 100% cash margin) until further orders and also advising CBI No.73/08 Page No.123 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

Branch Manager not to disburse fresh advances even though they are sanctioned in his discretionary power and he was also directed to bring down liabilities in all accounts where there are irregularities/deficiencies. Procedure for maintenance and transfer of files under the revised system has been proved as Ex.PW. 8/VVVV.

15.3 PW.8/Sh.R D Mehta, who has proved all the loan documents, was not cross examined by any of the accused persons, except for accused Sangeet Kumar Mann (A­5) and during his cross examination he stated that accused Sangeet Kumar Mann had come to the Manager when he was present there. He also stated that the application was not recommended by him. He denied suggestion that accused Sangeet Kumar Mann CBI No.73/08 Page No.124 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

had never gone to bank for taking OCC Limit. He denied suggestion that accused Sangeet Kumar Mann had never signed on any of documents in his presence. Thus he stood by his testimony and there is no reason to disbelieve this witness who was having no motive why he would have deposed against accused Sangeet Kumar Mann (A­5).

16.1 The Address of M/s Suprabhat Chemicals has been mentioned as A­49, Vishwas Nagar, New Delhi­49 in Ex.PW­8/SSS (D­95, Page­375) and other documents. PW­59/Sh.B S Bisht, Inspector, CBI had gone to conduct search u/s 165 (1) Cr.PC in execution of search warrant, Ex.PW­59/A (D­239) at A­49, Vikas Nagar, New Delhi­59 and reported at point 'B' on the back of warrant that since address if false, therefore, CBI No.73/08 Page No.125 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

search warrant could not be executed. He is not corss­examined by any of the accused persons meaning thereby that it is not disputed. This fact is confirmed by area postman PW­31/Sh.Raja Ram Shah and PW­35/Sh.Ram Dutt Sharma.

16.2 PW­4/Sh.Satya Prakash, owner of H.No.A­49, Vikas Nagar, New Delhi has stated that he knows Sangeet Kumar Mann (A­5) as he was his (PW­4) tenant for 1 ½ year, who used to work as a security guard in Amber Restaurant and there had been no business in the name of style of M/s Suprabhat Chemicals in his house at the said address. He was also not cross­examined by any of the accused persons.

16.3 This not only reflects that no such firm as M/s CBI No.73/08 Page No.126 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

Suprabhat Chemicals ever functioned but also to the fact that accused/E Krishnamurthy (A­1) had given a false pre­ sanction/disbursement report dated 10.10.2000 which is Ex.P­113 (D­96, Page­408 & 409). He did not suggest to any of these witnesses that he had paid visit to the address of the firm for inspection and found such a firm existing and functioning. He has certified that the proprietor is running business from there since 3 years. Thus, he had falsified this report and it also strengthens the testimony of PW­9/Sh.R K Bansal, Inspector of the Bank that no such reports were available in the file when he had inspected the records of these accounts.

17.1 As per opinion of handwriting expert, Ex.PW­29/13 (Page61 and 62 of D­196), the person who wrote CBI No.73/08 Page No.127 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

specimen S­68 to 73, Ex.PW­29/6 (D­212) also wrote Q­304, Q­310 to 312, Q­315, Q­318 to 342, Q­344 to 349, Q­351 and Q­353. The specimen, Ex.PW­29/6 are that of accused/Sangeet Kumar Mann (A­5).

17.2 The different questioned writings on documents pertaining to M/s Suprabhat Chemicals are as under:­ Q.No. D.No. & Page No. Type of Document Exhibit No. 304 D­95 (Page­375 to 379) Application for advance for Suprabhat PW­8/SSS Chemicals, A­49, Vikas Nagar 310 D­95 (Page­388) Property Statement of Property PW­8/VVV No.WZ­99, Vill.Jhatikara 311 D­95 (Page­393) Provisional Balance sheet as on PW­8/XXX 31.08.2000 312 D­95 (Page­394) Provisional Profit & Loss Account as on ­­ 31.08.2000 315 D­95 (Page­397) Letter dated 18.10.2000 from Suprabhat PW­8/ZZZ to Bank issuacne of Cheque Book and transfer of Current Account to OCC 318 D­95 (Page­403) Balance sheet as on 31.03.99 PW­8/EEEE 319 D­95 (Page­404) Profit & Loss Account as on 31.03.99 ­­ CBI No.73/08 Page No.128 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

320 D­95 (Page­406) Balance sheet as on 31.03.98 PW­8/GGGG 321 D­95 (Page­407) Profit & Loss Account as on 31.03.99 Nil 322 D­104 (Page­438) Receipt of Rs.25,00,000/­ by Suprabhat PW­8/MMMM as on 21.10.2000 323 D­106 (Page­440) Agreement for open cash credit PW­8/NNNN 324 D­106 (Page­441) Page No.2 of above agreement ­­ 325 D­105 (Page­439) Borrower's statement Suprabhat P­115 326 D­106 (Page­442) Page No.3 of said agreement PW­8/NNNN 327 D­106 (Page­443) Page No.4 of said agreement 328 D­106 (Page­444) Page No.5 of said agreement 329 Security for Advances and Loans PW­8/PPPP D­108 (Page­446) Andhra Bank 330 331 Credit facilities Bank Right to Cancel PW­8/QQQQ D­109 (Page­447) 332 333 Agreement for Hypothecation between D­110 (Page­448 & 449) Andhra Bank and Suprabhat Chemicals Nil 334 335 336 D­110 (Page­450) Statement of Book Debts outstanding PW­8/RRRR as on 21.10.2000 337 338 D­107 (Page­445) Letter of Access PW­8/OOOO 339 D­111 (Page­451) Deposits of documents on 20.10.2000 PW­8/SSSS 340 341 Affidavit dated 18.10.2000 executed by PW­8/TTTT Sh.Sangeet Kumar Mann regarding 342 property Kh.No.84, Vill.Jhatikara 344 D­97 (Page­411) Proforma required for opening of P­115 current account Dt.16.10.2000 (Suprabhat) 345 D­97 (Page­412) Declaration who has no PAN PW­8/HHHH CBI No.73/08 Page No.129 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

346 D­97 (Page­413) Letter for proprietorship Nil 347 D­174 (Page­530) Cheque No.505901 Dt.21.10.2000 for P­150 Rs.3,00,000/­ from A/C 112997 Andhra Bank 348 D­175 (Page­531) Cheque No.505902 Dt.21.10.2000 for P­151 Rs.7,01,400/­ from A/C 112997 349 D­178 (Page­534) Cheque No.505903 Dt.23.10.2000 for P­153 Rs.9,91,980/­ from A/C 112997 351 D­181 (Page­537) Cheque No.505904 Dt.30.10.2000 for P­154 Rs.5,01,000/­ from A/C 112997 353 D­181 (Page­539) Cheque No.505905 Dt.01.03.2001 for P­156 Rs.2,75,000/­ from A/C 112997 17.3 It has been argued by ld.counsel for accused no.5 that the specimen handwriting and signatures were obtained from accused without permission of the court, hence the same can not be admitted into evidence and accordingly the opinion of GEQD based on the same in respect of questioned documents, can not be relied upon. In this respect, he has relied upon the judgment of the Full Bench of Hon'ble Delhi High Court delivered in Sapan Haldar Vs. State, 191 (2012) DLT 225 (FB), wherein the Hon'ble Delhi CBI No.73/08 Page No.130 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

High Court had laid down that an investigating officer, can not obtain handwriting sample or signature sample from a person accused of having committed an offence, which power was not available even to the courts prior to insertion of Section 311 A of Cr.PC and thus, in cases where the IO has obtained such samples without permission from the Magistrate the same was held to be inadmissible in evidence.

17.4 On the other hand, ld.Public Prosecutor has relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravinder Kumar Pal @ Dara Singh Vs. Republic of India, AIR 2011 SC 1436 and a recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2013 IX AD (SC) 581 (decided on 06.09.13). Ld.Public Prosecutor has drawn attention of the court CBI No.73/08 Page No.131 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

towards para no.27 of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar's case (supra), which is as under:­

27.It is settled legal proposition that even if a document is procured by improper or illegal means, there is no bar to its admissibility if it is relevant and its genuineness is proved. If the evidence is admissible, it does not matter how it has been obtained. However, as a matter of caution, the court in exercise of its discretion may disallow certain evidence in a criminal case if the strict rules of admissibility would operate unfairly against the accused. More so, the court must conclude that it is genuine and free from tampering or mutilation. This court repelled the contention that obtaining evidence illegally by using tape recordings or photographs offend Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution of India as acquiring the evidence by such methods was not the procedure established by law (Vide:Yusufalli Esmail Nagree Vs. The State of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 SC 147; Magraj Patodia Vs. R K Birla & Ors., 1970 (2) SCC 888; R M Malkani Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 157; Pooran Mal Vs. Director of Inspection, Income Tax, New Delhi & Ors, AIR 1974 SC 348 CBI No.73/08 Page No.132 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

and State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru, (2005) 11 SCC 600).

17.5 Even, if we do not read the opinion of handwriting expert, the direct evidence of PW­8/Sh.R D Mehta, as discussed above, is sufficient to hold that these documents were executed by accused/Sangeet Kumar Mann (A­5).

18.1 The fund released in account of M/s Suprabhat Chemicals bearing No.1129973 were diverted as is clear from Ex.PW.7/C (page 462 of D.113). From the statement of account it is clear that on the date of disbursement of loan i.e. 21.10.2000 accused had drawn Rs.3 lacs in cash and a pay order of Rs.7 lacs was got issued favouring Maharaja Trading through a cheque of Rs.7,01,400/­ debited in his account and then again on 23.10.2000 CBI No.73/08 Page No.133 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

he got issued a pay order in favour of Suprabhat Traders for Rs. 9,90,000/­ by issuing a cheque of Rs.9,91,980/­ on 23.10.2000. Again on 30.10.2000 he got issued pay order favouring Maharaja Enterprises for Rs.5 lacs by issuing a cheque of Rs.5,01,000/­. Then on 01.03.2000 he got issued a pay order in favour of M/s Samarth Traders for Rs.2,25,000/­ by issuing a cheque for Rs. 2,75,550/­.

18.2 PW.53 Sh.Vinay Mohan Kane has proved cheques issued from this account. The cheques are Ex.P.150, 151, 153, 154, 156. The pay order of Rs.7.00 lacs issued on the basis of Ex.P.151 has been proved as Ex.PW.10/B. Pay order of Rs.9.90 lacs issued on the basis of Ex.P.153 is Ex.PW.10/j and pay order of Rs.5.00 lacs issued on the basis of Ex.P.154 is Ex.P.155 & pay CBI No.73/08 Page No.134 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

order of Rs.2.75 lacs issued on the basis of Ex.P.156 is Ex.PW. 10/K. It is already discussed that proprietor of Maharaja Enterprises was accused Inder Kapoor (A­2) and proprietor of Samarth Trader was accused Diljit Kapoor (A­3) which goes to establish a common design of cheating the public money by accused Sangeet Kumar Mann with common intention of accused Inder Kapoor and Diljit Kapoor which was made possible by accused/E Krishnamurthy at the cost of the Bank. 18.3 Accused/Sangeet Kumar Mann also examined one defence witness D5W1/Sh.Pramod Tyagi to the effect that accused/Sangeet Kumar Mann (A­5) was employee of Sh.Anil Kumar Tyagi and that Sh.Anil Kumar Tyagi executed a false sale deed showing accused/Sangeet Kumar Mann (A­5) as vendee. CBI No.73/08 Page No.135 of 181

CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

Even if this testimony is lend credence, it does not upset the case of prosecution which is fully entrenched into the facts which have been proved beyond reasonable doubt, as discussed above. ROLE OF ACCUSED/RATNAKARNAMA (A­6) 19.1 Accused/Ratnakarnama (A­6)was on the panel of approved valuers of Andhra Bank and allegations against him is that he had over valued the property bearing no.C­88, Mansa Ram Park, New Delhi which was in collusion with other accused persons so as to facilitate grant of cash credit limit of Rs.25 lacs to accused/Inder Kapoor (A­2).

19.2 Ld.defence counsel for accused/Ratnakarnama (A­6) has submitted that no witness has deposed about any CBI No.73/08 Page No.136 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

connection of accused/Ratnakarnama (A­6) with other accused persons so as to hold him liable for criminal conspiracy. He has also submitted that valuation report of accused/Ratnakarnama (A­6) is of August, 2000 when there was no restriction for use of land, which subsequently came pursuant to the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court and, therefore, valuation of the property which took place in August, 2000, can not be compared with subsequent valuation report of the same property in year 2003 when restrictions imposed by the Hon'ble Supreme court on the use of land had come into force. He has further submitted that valuation report is only an opinion which is not binding on the bank authorities and it only helps the bank authorities to reach a fair realizable value of the property in the market at the relevant time. He has submitted that there is not even iota of incriminating CBI No.73/08 Page No.137 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

evidence against accused/Ratnakarnama (A­6) and that he is entitled for acquittal.

19.3 The relevant witnesses who highlight the role of accused/Ratnakarnama (A­6) are PW­2, PW­6, PW­22, PW­28, PW­36, PW­41, PW­58 and PW­60.

19.4 PW­2/A Murlidharan is the DGM of the bank, on whose complaint the present FIR was registered. It is worthwhile to mention that there is nothing in the testimony or complaint about over valuation of the property by accused/Ratnakarnama (A­6) and accused/Ratnakarnama (A­6) and they have not even been named in the complaint.

CBI No.73/08 Page No.138 of 181

CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

19.5 The testimony of PW­6/Anil Kumar Goel is of prime importance in deciding the role of accused/Ratnakarnama (A­6). He has proved his own valuation report of property no.C­88, Mansa Ram Park, New Delhi as Ex.PW­6/A showing value of the property at Rs.13.40 lacs. He was thoroughly cross­examined by ld.defence counsel for accused/Ratnakarnama (A­6) and during his cross­examination he deposed that he does not remember as to whether he was on the panel of Andhra Bank as approved valuer as on 30.11.02 and said that he can tell after perusal of the letter of the bank putting him on the panel of approved panel valuer. Then he was shown the list of approved valuers of the Andhra Bank upto 30.11.02 and after seeing the same he said that his name is not reflected in the said list which is Ex.PW­6/DA. CBI No.73/08 Page No.139 of 181

CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

19.6 He further said that there is no prescribed examination to qualify as approved valuer and he has not cleared any such examination. He admitted that the value of the property is subject to fluctuations and admitted that since the property was situated in 'lal dora' land, therefore, there were no restrictions of its user in year 2000 and after that Hon'ble Supreme Court had ordered the closure of non conforming activities/units in respect of all the properties situated in this area.

19.7 He also admitted that his assessment report was prepared after the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in this respect had come. He further admitted that the value of the property before imposition of the closure restrictions was much higher than to one which was prevalent when he prepared the CBI No.73/08 Page No.140 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

report.

19.8 He stated that C­88, Mansa Ram Park, New Delhi faces 25 ft. road and at the time when he inspected the said property, the road in front of the house was metallic and water and electricity was available in the property. He admitted that there is no specific formula to fix the value of the property. He admitted that value of the freehold property is more than the lease hold property and the property at Mansa Ram Park is freehold property. He stated that he can not say if valuation of the property is correctly disclosed by accused/Ratnakarnama (A­6). 19.9 Thus from the testimony of PW­6, who was engaged to assess the market value of C­88, Mansa Ram Park, CBI No.73/08 Page No.141 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

New Delhi, after registration of the case and during investigation, has agreed that the value of the property was more before the guidelines of Hon'ble Supreme Court imposting restrictions about conforming use of the land had come into force. On the basis of testimony of PW­6, it can not be said that the value of the property, as assessed by accused/Ratnakarnama (A­6) was not the actual market value of the property in August, 2000, when he had evaluated the property.

19.10 PW­22/M M Tyagi is Asstt.GM of the bank, who had forwarded the valuation report of Sh.Anil Kumar Goel to CBI with his letter. He stated that he had visited the property no.C­88, Mansa Ram Park, New Delhi with Sh.Anil Kumar Goel and, on enquiry from property dealers of the area, he agreed with the CBI No.73/08 Page No.142 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

valuation report submitted by Sh.Anil Kumar Goel. He stated that as per valuation report of accused/Ratnakarnama (A­6), Ex.P­36 (D­20), the value of the property has been shown as Rs.30.98 lacs in respect of property no.C­88, Mansa Ram Park, New Delhi whereas the valuation conducted by Sh.Anil Kumar Goel was Rs. 10.05 lacs (actual figure is Rs.13.40 lacs). 19.11 During his cross­examination by ld.counsel for accused/Ratnakarnama (A­6), he agreed that the land in question was measuring 200 sq.yds and ground floor & first floor of the property was constructed over it and then he again said that only ground floor was constructed. He stated that he has knowledge about the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court that after year 2000 all the non conforming activities in respect of the properties situated in CBI No.73/08 Page No.143 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

this area were closed and that Sh.Anil Kumar Goel has given his assessment report after directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court. He agreed that there was reasonably good metal road in front of C­88, Mansa Ram Park, New Delhi.

19.12 He stated that according to his knowledge Andhra Bank has never made adverse remarks against accused/Ratnakarnama (A­6) as a valuer of the bank. He agreed that he had not given any opinion in respect of accused/Ratnakarnama (A­6) about valuation report submitted by accused/Ratnakarnama (A­6). He also could not tell the reasons why the Zonal Office had asked for re­valuation of the property in question. He could not say that accused/Ratnakarnama (A­6) had given valuation report in respect of C­88, Mansa Ram Park, New CBI No.73/08 Page No.144 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

Delhi which was fair and correct according to his estimates. 19.13 Thus, it is seen that testimony of PW­22 that it also does not shake the valuation report of accused/Ratnakarnama (A­6).

19.14 PW­28/A N Tiwari is panel advocate of Andhra Bank, who had given title search report of C­88, Mansa Ram Park, New Delhi as Ex.PW­28/A. During his cross­examination he deposed that he could not find that the property no. C­88, Mansa Ram Park, New Delhi was already mortgaged to State Bank of Patiala, Darya Ganj Branch for another loan sanctioned to M/s Smarth Traders on 26.02.2000. He stated that only photocopies of the title deed was given to him and not the original deed and that CBI No.73/08 Page No.145 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

the original deed was never shown to him.

19.15 Thus, it is the case of CBI that C­88, Mansa Ram Park, New Delhi was in fact already mortgaged to State Bank of Patiala before the same was mortgaged to Andhra Bank in this case and that the title deed which was deposited with the bank in this case was a forged title deed which was purportedly executed by wife of accused/Inder Kapoor (A­2) only in order to avail the credit facilities on the basis of forged and fabricated collateral securities.

19.16 PW­36/M S N Sharma, who is law officer of the bank has deposed that it was the duty of advocate to verify the genuineness of title deed and apply for non­encumbrance CBI No.73/08 Page No.146 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

certificate and then certify the title deeds. 19.17 In this case it appears that the collateral security had fell on two counts i.e. the property was already mortgaged to another bank for another loan and secondly that the title deed which was deposited by the mortgagor in this case was a forged title deed. It is not the case here that on sale, the property could not fetch the required amount to satisfy the claim of the bank but in fact the property could not legally be taken over by the bank or decree for sale of the mortgaged property could not be obtained or executed due to deficiencies in the title of the mortgagor and not because of the defective valuation by accused/Ratnakarnama (A­6). Encumbrance was to be verified by advocate and perhaps due to the reason that earlier mortgage of the same property to CBI No.73/08 Page No.147 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

State Bank of Patiala was on the basis of deposit of title deeds of the property with the said bank, therefore, the encumbrance could not be reflected in the records office of Sub Registrar concerned, which only gets reflected in case of registered mortgages/encumbrances on the property.

19.18 PW­41/Pawan Goel, who is the property dealer, has deposed that the rate of land in Mansa Ram Park in the year 2000 was Rs.4,000/­ sq.yds and during his cross­examination he deposed that he had never seen C­88, Mansa Ram Park, New Delhi and was not aware about its location. Thus, his testimony is of no value to draw any conclusion about valuating of the property in question.

CBI No.73/08 Page No.148 of 181

CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

19.19 PW­58/J K Patel has deposed during his cross­ examination that manager takes his own decision regarding the valuation of the property and is not bound as to what value was recommended in the valuation report.

19.20 PW­60/Anand Swaroop, IO of the case has deposed during his cross­examination that opinion of Sh.Anil Kumar Goel had come after default was made by the party in payment and given during the investigation of the case. He agreed that he had knowledge that the documents of the property were fake and forged and that the property was already mortgaged with other bank prior to its mortgage with Andhra Bank. 19.21 Thus, it is quite clear from above evidence on CBI No.73/08 Page No.149 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

record that there is no convincing evidence that accused/Ratnakarnama (A­6) had given inflated valuation of the property bearing no.C­88, Mansa Ram Park, New Delhi or that he had conspired with any of the accused persons in giving his report to the bank. CBI has failed to prove its case against him, accordingly, he is liable to be acquitted.

ROLE OF ACCUSED/JITENDER GUPTA A­7) 20.1 As per the charge sheet allegations against accused/Jitender Gupta (A­7) are that he, in connivance with accused/E Krishnamurthy (A­1) and accused/Sangeet Kumar Mann (A­5), had dishonestly over valued the property mortgaged with the bank by accused/Sangeet Kumar Mann (A­5). Charge of criminal CBI No.73/08 Page No.150 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

conspiracy has been framed by the court against him also u/s 120B r/w section 420, 468, 471 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act along with other accused persons.

20.2 It is not the case of the prosecution that property in respect of which the valuation report has been given by accused/Jitender Gupta (A­7) is inexistent. The allegation is that he valued the property at Rs.22.50 lacs which was higher than its market price at that time. The valuation report is Ex.PW­8/JJJJ (D­100) which shows that the valuation has been done on 20.10.2000 in respect of plot ad­measuring 900 sq.yds situated at Kh.No.84, village Jhatikara, Delhi. The rate of land has been taken as Rs.2,500 sq.yds as its fair market value. CBI No.73/08 Page No.151 of 181

CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

20.3 Ld.counsel for accused/Jitender Gupta (A­7) has submitted that the report, Ex.PW­8/JJJJ was not given by accused/Jitender Gupta (A­7) and it has not been proved in accordance with law. He has submitted that GEQD opinion, Ex.PW­29/13 (D­195, Page­569) can not be relied upon as the same is based on the specimen writings (Ex.P­164, D­213) of accused/Jitender Gupta (A­7). For this purpose he has relied upon judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sapan Halder Vs. State, 191 (2012) DLT 225 (FB) (see discussion in para 17.3 and 17.4 supra).

20.4 But in this case, I find that for giving opinion, handwriting expert (GEQD) has not only relied upon specimen handwritings of accused/Jitender Gupta (A­7) but also his admitted CBI No.73/08 Page No.152 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

writings from A­5 to A­8 (Ex.P­157 and Ex.PW­56/A). These documents are admitted by accused/Jitender Gupta (A­7), besides having been proved by PW­56/T P S Menon.

20.5 It has been submitted by ld.counsel for accused/Jitender Gupta (A­7) that these writings can not be called as admitted writings of accused/Jitender Gupta (A­7). This argument does not hold any ground as the documents have been admitted by accused/Jitender Gupta (A­7) and moreover PW­56/T P S Menon has not been cross­examined by accused meaning thereby that he has not disputed any of the writings on Ex.P­157 and Ex.PW­56/A. Besides the opinion of handwriting expert, the valuation report of accused/Jitender Gupta (A­7) has been proved by PW­8/R D Mehta, Ex.PW­8/JJJJ, who has proved that the CBI No.73/08 Page No.153 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

valuation report in respect of Kh.No.84 was also available on file which was done by accused/Jitender Gupta (A­7). He was not cross­examined by accused/Jitender Gupta (A­7) and it was not put to him that this valuation was not given by accused/Jitender Gupta (A­7) and thus it does not lie in the mouth of accused/Jitender Gupta (A­7) to agitate at this stage that he has not given valuation report, Ex.PW­8/JJJJ.

20.6 Now, if we see the opinion report, Ex.PW­8/JJJJ (D­100), it per­se, does not disclose any illegality or irregularity and the market rate of land assessed at Rs.2,500/­ per sq.yds in year 2000 do not give an impression that it was so exorbitant a price of land in Delhi at that time that inference about malafide on the part of valuer can be inferred. Value of land has been disclosed on the CBI No.73/08 Page No.154 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

basis of market rate prevalent at that time. 20.7 In valuation report, accused/Jitender Gupta (A­7) has certified and made remark that he had recently carried out valuation for State Bank of India in the area and was well conversant with the prevailing prices there. 20.8 The basis of the prosecution for agitating that price of the land assessed by Jitender Gupta (A­7) was on high side, is the testimony of PW­6/Anil Kumar Goel, who has given a valuation report and deposed that the value of this property was at Rs.5.20 lacs, when he assessed it. Valuation report of Sh.Anil Kumar Goel in respect of this land is Ex.PW­6/C (D­236, Page­937). The date on which he carried out valuation is 30.01.03. CBI No.73/08 Page No.155 of 181

CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

He has taken the rate of land at Rs.400/­ sq.yds. He has taken the total market price of the land at Rs.3.60 lacs and the cost of construction of the structure on the land at Rs.1.60 lacs and in this way calculated the total market price of property at Rs.5.20 lacs, as on 30.01.03.

20.9 The other valuation report which the prosecution has relied upon is the valuation report of Sh.S D Gupta, who has been examined as PW­55. He has proved summary of his valuation report as Ex.PW­55/A and valuation report as Ex.PW­55/B and the separate summary of the valuiation report as Ex.PW­55/C. His valuation report is dated 04.08.2000. He has shown the market price of the land & building as Rs.16,21,600/­ as on 04.08.2000 by taking the market price of the land as Rs.14.40 CBI No.73/08 Page No.156 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

lacs and cost of construction as Rs.1,81,600/­. The land was valued on the request of the earlier owner of the land/Anil Tyagi but the purpose of valuation is not known. The report in respect of aforesaid plot of property is Ex.PW­55/F. He has taken the rate of land as Rs.1,600/­ per sq.yds.

20.10 If we compare valuation report, Ex.PW­55/F given by Sh.S Gupta and valuation report, Ex.PW­6/C of Sh.Anil Kumar Goel in the file of additional documents, we find that there is vast difference in the rate of land taken by both of them. It is also significant to note that the report of Sh.S D Gupta is dated 04.08.2000 i.e prior to the report of Sh.Anil Kumar Goel which is of dated 30.01.03.

CBI No.73/08 Page No.157 of 181

CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

20.11 It is common knowledge that the market rate of the land have been increasing from time to time and never decreased so sharply as reflected by Sh.Anil Kumar Goel. Report of Sh.Anil Kumar Goel was obtained in the circumstances when the fraud was already detected and in fact the bank had requested him to carry out the valuation of the same land.

20.12 Recovery of bank's dues had not failed because the property cold not fetch the price equal to outstanding amount of land granted to M/s Suprabhat Chemicals of accused/Sangeet Kumar Mann (A­5) but because of the fact that the title deed of accused/Sangeet Kumar Mann (A­5) was defective, due to which could not take over the land and sell the same. CBI No.73/08 Page No.158 of 181

CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

20.13 If we see the difference between the valuation report of Sh.S D Gupta made few months before the valuation done by accused/Jitender Gupta (A­7), there is difference of approximately Rs.6 lacs only and that there was huge variation between the valuation done by Sh.S D Gupta and Sh.Anil Kumar Goel. Merely because valuation done by Jitender Gupta (A­7) was slightly higher than the valuation as per the report of Sh.S D Gupta, it can not give rise to a conclusion that he was in league with accused/E Krishnamurthy (A­1) or accused/Sangeet Kumar Mann (A­5).

20.14 The ld.Public Prosecutor has submitted that whereas the Jhatikara property which was valuated by Jitender Gupta (A­7) was constructed on ground floor, accused did not CBI No.73/08 Page No.159 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

mention the construction or gave value of construction, which show that he had given valuation report without visiting the spot. In my view, not mentioning the construction on the plot of land does not give rise to any adverse inference, as it would be a far fetched inference to presume involvement of Jitender Gupta (A­7) in the present case, merely for the reason that while valuating the property he did not mention the construction and only valued the plot of land.

20.15 There is no other evidence on record to draw any inference of conspiracy on the part of accused/Jitender Gupta (A­7) along with other accused persons and when IO of the case was asked by ld.counsel for accused/Jitender Gupta (A­7) in his cross­ examination, as to whether he had been able to find any other CBI No.73/08 Page No.160 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

evidence except report, Ex.PW­8/JJJJ that accused was in connivance with accused/E Krishnamurthy (A­1) or any other co­ accused persons of the case, he said that he can not comment upon this as to whether there was any other evidence which was also available.

20.16 I have not been able to find out any other evidence to connect accused/Jitender Gupta (A­7), except the valuation report, which in my opinion does not lead to any inference that he had conspired with other accused persons in helping accused/Sangeet Kumar Mann (A­5) to obtain loan on the basis of collateral security which he had valued. He is accordingly liable to be acquitted.

CBI No.73/08 Page No.161 of 181

CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

21.1 Thus, it has been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt that accused/E.Krishnamurthy, Manager of Andhra Bank, Vishwas Nagar Branch, Delhi during year 2000­2001 entered into a criminal conspiracy with Inder Kapoor (A­2), Diljit Kapoor (A­3), Papinder Singh Handa (A­4) and Sangeet Kumar Mann (A­5) and thereby abused his official position as a public servant by granting cash credit facilities of Rs.25 lacs each to their proprietorship firms, besides permitting temporary over drawings of Rs.5 lacs each to firms of Inder Kapoor (A­2) and Diljit Kapoor (A­3) on the basis of fake/forged sale deeds of collateral securities, false financial statements and by accepting fake guarantors and also not secured end use of the funds so sanctioned, which were siphoned off. It was done pursuant to their common design and intention and thereby caused a pecuniary loss CBI No.73/08 Page No.162 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

to Andhra Bank of more than Rs.100 lacs and corresponding wrongful gain to accused/Inder Kapoor (A­2), Diljit Kapoor (A­3), Papinder Singh Handa (A­4) and Sangeet Kumar Mann (A­5). It is also proved that for this purpose, accused Inder Kapoor (A­2) and Sangeet Kumar Mann (A­5) had forged the bills, sale deeds, financial statements and accused/Inder Kapoor (A­2), Papinder Singh Handa (A­4) and Sangeet Kumar Mann (A­5) also used forged and fabricated documents for the purpose of obtaining cash credit limits from the bank.

21.2 In view of my above findings, I hold that accused/E Krishnamurthy (A­1), Inder Kapoor (A­2), Papinder Singh Handa (A­4) and Sangeet Kumar Mann (A­5) have been found guilty and convicted for offences punishable as under:­ CBI No.73/08 Page No.163 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

1. Accused/E Krishnamurthy (A­1), Inder Kapoor (A­2), Papinder Singh Handa (A­4) and Sangeet Kumar Mann (A­5) for offences punishable u/s 120B r/w 420/468/471 IPC and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act, 1988, besides for substantive offence u/s 420 r/w 34 IPC.

2. Accused/E Krishnamurthy (A­1) for substantive offence punishable u/s 13(2) r/w (13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988.

3. Accused/Inder Kapoor (A­2) and Sangeet Kumar Mann (A­5) for substantive offences punishable u/s 468 and 471 r/w 468 IPC.

4. Accused/Papinder Singh Handa (A­4) for substantive offence punishable u/s 471 r/w 468 IPC.

21.3 Accused/Diljit Kapoor is proclaimed offender. Hence no order is being passed qua him. Accused/Ratnakarnama (A­6) and Jitender Gupta (A­7) are acquitted of the offences charged against them. Their bail bonds are cancelled and previous CBI No.73/08 Page No.164 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

sureties are also discharged. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in the open                       (R P PANDEY)
Court on 31.05.2014                  Spl.Judge (PC ACT)­CBI­01
                                            Rohini Court:Delhi




CBI No.73/08                                           Page No.165 of 181
                      CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

IN THE COURT OF SH.R.P.PANDEY : SPECIAL JUDGE­01 (PC ACT) CBI : ROHINI COURTS : DELHI CBI CASE NO.73/08 & CBI CASE NO.07/11 CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CBI) VS.

1. E.Krishnamurthy (A­1) s/o Late Lakshminarayana the then Branch Manager Andhra Bank, Vishwas Nagar Branch, Shahdara, Delhi r/o Flat No.48, Ashirwad Apartments, I.P.Extension, Patparganj, Delhi­72

2. Inder Kapoor (A­2) s/o Late Ram Dass Kapoor Prop. M/s Surabhi Chemicals Office cum residence at K­83, Shyam Nagar, New Delhi­18 CBI No.73/08 Page No.166 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

3. Diljit Kapoor (A­3) (Proclaimed Offender) s/o Charanjeet Kapoor, Prop. M/s Meera Traders C­88, Mansa Ram Park, New Delhi­59 r/o 1­68A, Mohan Garden , Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.

4. Papinder Singh Handa (A­4) s/o Late Amar Singh Handa Prop.M/s Guru Nanak Mint Traders, 897, Chawri Bazar, Delhi­6 r/o ­E­259, East of Kailash, New Delhi

5. Sangeet Kumar Mann (A­5) Son of Sh.Har Narain, Prop.M/s Suprabhat Chemicals, A­49, Vikas Nagar, New Delhi­59

6. Sh.Ratnakar Nama (A­6) son of Sh.N.Laxamiah, Architect and Govt.Registered Valuer on panel of Andhra Bank Office cum residence at D­90, Pushpanjali Enclave, Pitampura, New Delhi­34 CBI No.73/08 Page No.167 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

7. Sh.Jitender Gupta (A­7) s/o Sh.K.C.Gupta Govt. Approved Valuer on panel of Andhra Bank r/o C­80­1­264 of 1994, Ashirwad Apartments, 74 IP Extension Near Patparganj Bus Depot, Delhi.

8. Deepak Kumar (A­8) (since expired and proceedings abated) s/o Sh.Leela Dhar r/o­Flat NO.A­III, Plot No.A­54 Shalimar Garden Extension­II Sahibabad (UP) FIR NO.RC SI 8/2002/E/0002/CBI/SIU­VIII/N.DELHI U/S 13 (2) R/W 13(1)(d) PC ACT, 1988 Date of filing charge sheet : 23.06.2003 Date of Judgment : 31.05.2014 Date of hearing on sentence : 06.06.2014 Date of order on sentence : 06.06.2014 CASE ID No. 02404R1000712003 CBI No.73/08 Page No.168 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

ORDER ON SENTENCE:­

1. Vide a judgment dated 31.05.14, accused persons have been convicted for offences punishable as under:­

(i) Accused/E Krishnamurthy (A­1), Inder Kapoor (A­2), Papinder Singh Handa (A­4) and Sangeet Kumar Mann (A­5) for offences punishable u/s 120B r/w 420/468/471 IPC and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act, 1988, besides for substantive offence u/s 420 r/w 34 IPC.

(ii) Accused/E Krishnamurthy (A­1) for substantive offence punishable u/s 13(2) r/w (13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988.

(iii) Accused/Inder Kapoor (A­2) and Sangeet Kumar Mann (A­5) for substantive offences punishable u/s 468 and 471 r/w 468 IPC.

(iv) Accused/Papinder Singh Handa (A­4) for substantive offence punishable u/s 471 r/w 468 IPC.

2. The offence of cheating u/s 420 IPC is punishable CBI No.73/08 Page No.169 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

with an imprisonment extendable upto 7 years and fine; the offence of forgery for the purpose of cheating u/s 468 IPC is punishable with imprisonment extendable upto 7 years and fine; the offence of using as genuine a forged document u/s 471 IPC r/w 468 IPC is punishable in the same manner as an offence u/s 468 IPC i.e. with an imprisonment extendable upto 7 years and fine and the offence of criminal misconduct by a public servant u/s 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 is punishable with a minimum imprisonment of one year extendable upto 7 years and fine. The punishment for offence u/s 120B IPC for commission of offences u/s 420, 468 and 471 r/w 468 IPC and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of PC Act is extendable upto the maximum punishment provided for those individual offences, like abetment.

CBI No.73/08 Page No.170 of 181

CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

3. I have heard Sh.N P Srivastava, Ld.Public Prosecutor for CBI and ld.counsels for convicts.

4. It has been urged by ld.Public Prosecutor that the convicts have cheated the public money to the extent of more than Rs.100 lacs and, therefore, liable to be punished most severely. He has also submitted that convict/E Krishnamurthy (A­1) has already been convicted in two other cases and hence exemplary punishment is required to be inflicted on him. As regards convict/Inder Kapoor (A­2), he has submitted that he was already convicted in one case of cheating by the court of ld.MM in a case which was investigated by EOW of Delhi Police. As regards other convicts, he has submitted that they have cheated the bank of more than Rs.25 lacs each on the basis of false and forged CBI No.73/08 Page No.171 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

documents, hence required to be punished with maximum sentence.

5. Ld.counsel for convict/E Krishnamurthy (A­1) has submitted that convict is aged about 61 years and retired from bank. He has submitted that his daughter is dependent upon him, who is studying and is of marriageable age. He has already suffered angina and has undergone stenting and angiography in March, 2012. He has also submitted that convict has undergone trial and has suffered some imprisonment also when he was arrested after registration of FIR. He has, therefore, prayed that a lenient view may be taken in awarding sentence.

6. Ld.counsel for convict/Inder Kapoor (A­2) has also CBI No.73/08 Page No.172 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

prayed for leniency on the ground that convict has no children and his wife is solely dependent upon him and no other person is there to attend her. He has submitted that convict is 62 years of age and has undergone trial for 10­12 years and the case in which he has already been convict by the court of ld.MM is under appeal.

7. Ld.counsel for convict/Papinder Singh Handa (A­4) has submitted that he is aged about 70 years and had remained in jail for about a month after registration of FIR. She has also submitted that no loss has been suffered by the bank due to acts of convict/Papinder Singh Handa (A­4) as he subsequently entered into compromise with the bank and re­paid Rs.22 lacs as settlement amount after compromise.

CBI No.73/08 Page No.173 of 181

CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

8. Ld.counsel for convict/Sangeet Kumar Mann (A­5) has submitted that he is aged about 38 years and has two minor children and his old age parents are also dependent upon him and this is his first offence in which he is ever involved and has prayed for taking a lenient view.

9. They have also submitted that convicts have undergone rigors of investigation and trial for about 10­12 years. They have, therefore, submitted that a lenient view may be taken and that convicts may be punished with minimum sentence prescribed under the law.

10. The convicts have cheated the Andhra Bank which is a public sector bank by using forged documents, bogus CBI No.73/08 Page No.174 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

sureties and forged title deeds. Convict/E Krishnamurthy abused his financial powers to extend undue pecuniary advantage to remaining convicts at the cost of public money and convict nos.2, 4 and 5 reaped the benefits of the fraud to the extent that their loan accounts were overdrawn by more than Rs.25 lacs each after siphoning off entire financial limits, without there being any actual business carried out by them.

11. After considering the rival contentions and keeping in mind the mitigating and aggravating circumstances, as discussed above, I sentence the convicts as under:­ E Krishnamurthy (A­1) is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for a period of 4 years with fine of Rs.10,000/­ for CBI No.73/08 Page No.175 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

offence committed by him u/s 420/34 IPC and in case of default in payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment (SI) for three months and RI for a period of 4 years with fine of Rs.10,000/­ for offence committed by him u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) and in case of default in payment of fine to further undergo SI for three months. Inder Kapoor (A­2) is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for a period of 4 years with fine of Rs.10,000/­ for offence committed by him u/s 420/34 IPC and in case of default in payment of fine to further undergo SI for three months; RI for a period of 3 years with fine of Rs.10,000/­ for offence committed by him u/s 468 IPC and in case of default in payment of fine to further undergo SI for three months; RI for a period of 3 years with fine of Rs.10,000/­ for offence committed by him u/s 471 r/w 468 IPC and CBI No.73/08 Page No.176 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

in case of default in payment of fine to further undergo SI for three months.

Papinder Singh Handa (A­4) is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for a period of 1 year with fine of Rs.10,000/­ for offence committed by him u/s 420/34 IPC and in case of default in payment of fine to further undergo SI for three months; RI for a period of 1 year with fine of Rs.10,000/­ for offence committed by him u/s 471 r/w 468 IPC and in case of default in payment of fine to further undergo SI for three months.

Sangeet Kumar Mann (A­5) is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for a period of 3 years with fine of Rs.10,000/­ for offence committed by him u/s 420/34 IPC and in case of default in CBI No.73/08 Page No.177 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

payment of fine to further undergo SI for three months; RI for a period of 3 years with fine of Rs.10,000/­ for offence committed by him u/s 468 IPC and in case of default in payment of fine to further undergo SI for three months; RI for a period of 3 years with fine of Rs.10,000/­ for offence committed by him u/s 471 r/w 468 IPC and in case of default in payment of fine to further undergo SI for three months.

12. All the convicts, except Papinder Singh Handa (A­4) are sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 3 years with fine of Rs.10,000/­each for offence of criminal conspiracy u/s120B r/w 420, 468, 471 r/w 468 IPC and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 and in case of default in payment of fine to further undergo SI for three months each.

CBI No.73/08 Page No.178 of 181

CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

13. Convict Papinder Singh Handa (A­4) is sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 1 year with fine of Rs.10,000/­for offence of criminal conspiracy u/s 120B r/w 420, 468, 471 r/w 468 IPC and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 and in case of default in payment of fine to further undergo SI for three months each.

14. All the sentences shall run concurrently.

15. A lenient view has been taken in respondent of convict/Papinder Singh Handa (A­4) and Sangeet Kumar Mann (A­5) as convict/Papinder Singh Handa has repaid the dues of the bank under compromise/settlement and convict/Sangeet Kumar Mann (A­5) is first offender, having no previous history of his CBI No.73/08 Page No.179 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

involvement in any other offence.

16. The convicts shall be entitled to the benefit of provisions of Section 428 Cr.PC.

17. Convicts/E Krishnamurthy (A­1) and Inder Kapoor (A­2) are taken into custody. Their bail bonds stand discharged.

18. At this stage, convict/Papinder Singh Handa (A­4) and Sangeet Kumar Mann (A­5) have moved bail application u/s 389 (3)(1) Cr.PC. Heard.

19. Taking into consideration the facts & circumstances of the case both the convicts, namely, CBI No.73/08 Page No.180 of 181 CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.

convict/Papinder Singh Handa (A­4) and Sangeet Kumar Mann (A­5) are admitted to bail on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/­ with one surety in the like amount for a period of one month.

20. A copy of this order be supplied to the convicts free of cost.

21. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in the open                      (R.P.PANDEY)
           th
Court on 6  June, 2014              SPECIAL JUDGE (CBI)­0I
                                     ROHINI COURTS:DELHI




CBI No.73/08                                          Page No.181 of 181
                     CBI Vs. E Krishnamurthy & Ors.