Jharkhand High Court
Birendra Kumar Alias Virender Kumar vs The Central Bureau Of Investigation on 18 November, 2017
Author: Anant Bijay Singh
Bench: Anant Bijay Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B. A. No. 1438 of 2017
Birendra Kumar @ Virendra Kumar ...... Petitioner
Versus
The Central Bureau of Investigation ...... Opposite Party
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH
For the Petitioner: Mr. Yogesh Modi, Advocate
For the C.B.I : Mr. Kailash Prasad Deo, S.C
C.A.V on: 06/11/2017 Pronounced on: 18/11/2017
1. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with R.C.
Case No. 12(S) of 2014EOWR for the offence initially registered under sections
120 (B), r/w 420, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of complaint
lodged by Shri Neeraj Raja Singh, Chief Manager, State Bank of India, SME
Branch, City Centre, SectorIV, Bokaro Steel City 827004 addressed to one S.K.
Khare, Superintendent of Police/ C.B.I, EOW, Ranchi alleging therein that:
(i.) That State Bank of India, SME Branch, Ranchi has given loan to M/s
Balaji Food and Masala Co. located at Hazaribagh, District Hazaribagh.
(ii) It is further alleged that the company was promoted by Sri Vivek
Pratap Singh, Uday Pratap Singh, and Sri Birendra Kumar and its banking
relationship with State Bank of India started at Commercial Branch, Bokaro
(SME Branch, Bokaro).
(iii) It is further alleged that the loan was sanctioned to the above named
unit on 20.08.2006 but subsequently, declared N.P.A on 28.11.2011 and since
there was no recovery in the loan account to the tune of Rs. 2.59 crores plus
accrued interest calculated till July, 2013 and as such the matter was transferred
to Stressed Assets Management Branch, Patna for hard recovery measures.
(iv) It is further alleged that the accounts of the Company having been
declared N.P.A and having been transferred to SAMB, Patna for hard recovery
SAMB, Patna proceeded further under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 as under:
Balaji Food & Masala CompanyPresent outstanding Rs. 2.59 crores.
2
Notice u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was issued on 27.12.2011 and
possession notice under section 13(4) was issued on 09.08.2012 and the sdame
was challenged by the unit for the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi in S.A. No.
95 of 2012.
(v) It is further alleged that due to intervention of Debts Recovery
Tribunal, Ranchi in th above case recovery was not proceeded but in the
meantime, N.P.A. Resolution Agent M/s Vision had taken possession of the land
and properties of the Company which were mortgaged to the State Bank of
India, M/s Vision advised vide its letter NO. VFBS/38/201213 dated
07.03.2013that few properties mortgaged to the Bank vide sale deed Nos. 10710 dated 09.10.2009, 10723 dated 10.10.2009, 11080 dated 26.10.2009,11081 dated 26.10.2009 and 12409 dated 20.11.2008 were found to be fake property and such could not be located and on such reporting by the agency M/s Vision, the matter was referred to by SAMB, Patna to local Head office, SBI, Patna for investigation. The DGM (Vigilance) ordered an investigation into the matter and they submitted their report on the mortgaged properties for M/s Balaji Food and Masala Co. as under;
M/s Balaji Food & Masala Company: The properties of this unit were mortgaged to the Bank by deposit of following sale deeds: Sale Deed No. 10710 dated 09.10.2009, Sale Deed No. 10723 dated 10.10.2009, Sale deed no. 11080 dated 26.10.2009, Sale deed no. 11081 dated 26.10.209, Sale Deed No. 12409 dated 20.11.2008 and all the above sale deeds represent fake properties as per legal opinion dated 05.10.2013 of Advocate Sri Rajendra Kumar Chopra and as per his opinion the mortgagor Sri Birendra Kumar neither has possession nor ownership.
(vi) It is further alleged that the Investigating Officer of the Bank has pointed out certain doubts on the integrity of the above Panel Advocates those 3 who have given their opinion and also on the Govt. approved Valuer who submitted the valuation report.
(vii) It is further alleged that it is apparent from the report that the property as mortgaged to the Bank against such public debt is fake and based on forged documents and as such big forgery has been committed by the Company and its promoters and a total amount of Rs. 2.59 crores plus interest has been misappropriated. On the basis. On the basis of these allegations the instant case has been instituted.
2. Pressing the anticipatory bail application, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that that the petitioner is innocent and he has committed no offence. Further, it has been submitted that it is not in dispute that the loan had been sanctioned to the company after the opinion of its advocate and the valuation done by the government approved valuer had been chosen by the bank itself.
3. Further, it has been submitted that the petitioner is an honest and sincere business. Reunka Group of companies has altogether 5 companies namely; (I) Renuka Polysacks Pvt. Ltd (ii) Renuka Industries Pvt. Ltd. (iii) Balaji Laminator Pvt. Ltd (iv) Shirdi Sai Technopack Pvt. Ltd (v) Balaji Food and Masala Co. It has been submitted that Renuka Group of Companies has five companies altogether is testamentary of the fat that the petitioner is sincere businessman and not a criminal/offender. With regard to the allegation regarding the alleged property being fake, the counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner wanted to purchase land and had started searching for that. In course of such search the petitioner came in contact with Mr. Devendra Prajapati, an advocate by profession he used to deal in land sale and purchase.
4. It is further submitted that in course of investigation no legal 4 evidence has been brought on record to show the complicity of the petitioner. The statements are in nature of conferssional statement and cannot be used against the petitioner. The said Devendra Prajapati, advocate, shown papers of land and the petitioner being satisfied purchased lands by terms of 13 registered sale deeds. After each registration of sale deed, the said Devendra Prajapati used to keep the sale deed and after completion of mutation and issuance of rent receipts used to return the sale deeds alongwith correction slips and rent receipts meaning thereby the land was made available by Devendra Prajapati who did the entire transaction, got the sale deed registered, he got the mutation done and he got the rent receipt issued.
5. Further, it has been submitted that the forgery committed by said Devendra Prajapati and his associates, the petitioner's partner filed complaint Case being C.C. Nos. 2279, 2280 & 2281 of 2014 respectively. The petitioner spent his hard earned money in purchasing the land and now facing the allegation that the sale deed is fake. Such being the situation, the petitioner himself is a victim and not an offender.
6. Further, it has been submitted that during course of investigation the petitioner has fully cooperated the C.B.I and he has appeared before the C.B.I as and when required and his statement has been recorded. Further, it has been submitted that police after completion of investigation submitted charge sheet under sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the I.P.C and under section 13(2) r/w section 13(1)(d) of the P.C Act and cognizance has been taken under the same sections, trial will take some time. So, considering all these facts, the petitioner deserves privilege of anticipatory bail.
7. On the other hand, learned standing counsel for the C.B.I opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and has submitted that investigation reveals that the accused partners namely Vivek Pratap Singh and Birendra Kumar 5 (petitionere) obtained loan on 20.11.2006 in the name of M/s Balaji Food & Masala Co. Hazaribagh, Jharkhand from the S.B.I, Commercial Branch, Sector IV, Bokaro Steel City. After sanction/disbursement of loan, it became irregular and subsequently declared N.P. A on 28.11.2011 with total loan amount amounting to Rs. 2.59 crores plus accrued interest calculated till July, 2013. Investigation revealed that M/s Balaji Food & Masala Co a notarized partnership firm of Vivek Pratap Singh and Birendra Kumar was sanctioned cash credit of Rs. 42 lakh, cash credit of Rs. 20 lakh and term loan of Rs. 13 lakh on 20.11.2006. Apart from hopothecation of inventory & recoverable, plant & machinery advance payments and other current assets as well fixed assets as primary security, the landed property of an area of 1 acre 87.5 decimals situated at Kachauri , Gaya Bihar) registered in the name of Vivek Singh vide sale deed no. 1400 dated 11.03.2006. The Government approved bank valuer, Dinesh Chand furnished the the valuation report on 30.10.2006 in respect of the said properties evaluating value of the properties Rs. 23.44 lac. He evaluated the property taking the Govt. rate of the properties Rs. 8800/ per decimal. Shri Subrato Sengupta, MERM, S.B.I, Commercial Branch, Bokaro assessed the proposal of loan and evaluated value of the proposed properties Rs. 28 lac.
8. Investigation of the case revealed that valuation of the aforesaid properties by Dinesh Chand was inflated and was very much high than the actual value. During investigation valuation report of SubRegistrar, Sherghati, Gaya Bihar disclosed Government rate of the properties aforesaid during the relevant period per decimal was Rs. 614 for single cropped land and Rs. 4744/ for the residential use of land. Investigation further disclosed that out of the total area of land mortgaged to the bank i.e. 1 acre 87.5 decimals, 1 acre 13.25 decimal of land are still single cropped and the rest are of residential use. As per the valuation of the SubRegistrar, the value of entire properties during the 6 relevant period taking the govt. value has been evaluated Rs. 4,44,428/ only. After sanction of credit facility Vivek Pratap Singh other then the transactions made on behalf of the firm from the cash credit account no. 300095317833 also paid considerable loan amount to M/s Subh Drishti Printing & Packaging Co and M/s Swastik Foods which were deposited in the account of units maintained at Indusind Branch, Bokaro.
Investigation revealed that the petitioner submitted fake and fabricated money receipts and invoice of M/s Dynamic Indian Packaging, Patna. He dishonestly got issued Demand draft of Rs. 6.50 lac in favour of M/s Dynamic Indian Packaging, Patna and made payment of Rs. 5 lac only against Rs. 6.50 lacs he claimed from the bank. Shri Dhairya Kumar, Proprietor of the firm disclosed that against receipt of rs. 6.50 lac from the petitioner he returned excess amount of Rs. 1.5 lac by two cheques of Canara Bank to M/s Balaji Food & Masala Co. He further disclosed that Birendra Kuamr, partner of the firm was asking to pay the excess amont of Rs. 1.5 alcs in cash which he denied and returned the said amount by cheque. Investigation further revealed that the excess amount of Rs. 1.5 lac which was returned to M/s Balaji Food & Masala Co by M/s Dynamic Indian Packaging was deposited into the parallel account of M/s Balaji Food & Masala Co. (A/c No. 0193N711080060) maintained at Indusind Bank, Hazaribagh and was being operated by the accused partners violating the terms and conditions by the loanee branch. Investigation further disclosed that the invoice of Bandana Enterprises submitted by the petitioner also found to be fake and fabricated as Shri Gulab Chand Kushwaha, Prop. Of M/s Bandana Enterprises, Faridabad informed that the invoice having Bill No. 27 shown to be issued was actually issued on 21.12.04 to M/s Faridabad Electrical Central, Krishna Place Ajronda, Faridabad. He provided photocopy of the said invoice by his firm. Investigation has further disclosed that payments made by 7 the petitioner to M/s Sub Dristhi Printing & Packagign, Julu Park, Hazribagh were fake payment.
Investigation further disclosed that the firm shown as proprietorship firm of the petitioner maintained account at Indusind Bank, Hazaribagh Branch was non existing firm. Investigation of the case revealed that payment made by the petitioner to M/s Swastik Foods were also fake payment. It revealed that the account was fake account having a/c no. 0193N72070060 maintained at Indusind bank, Hazaribagh. It has been further transpired that the account was opened as proprietorship firm of Ashutosh Kumar Singh by Vivek Pratap Singh, signing fake signature of Ashutosh Kumar Singh. The legal opinion on the landed property offered by Shri Birendra Kuamr was given by Shri Pande Ratneshwari Prasad, Panel advocate. He submitted his report on 20.12.2008 in the bank's prescribed format certifying title of the property in favour of mortgagor. He reported that his report is based on the documents referred to him by the bank in the report the panel advocate has also given remarks to Must ascertain the actual possession over the land while PSS. Further, the panel advocate also gave undertaking wherein he mentioned having made a search and scrutiny in the Land/Revenue records and did not find anything adverse.
Thus investigation established that Vivekp Pratap Singh and Birendra Kumar both partners of M/s Balaji Food & Masala Co. entered into criminal conspriacy with Pande Ratneshwari Prasad, Dinesh Chand, Parmeshwar Prajapati, Devnandan Prajapati @ Devendra Kumar, Md. Yusu and Subrato Senguta and pursuance thereof, they dishonestly and fraudulently sanctioned the credit facility of Rs. 75 lac against Cash Credit & Term Loan which was enhanced upto 112 lac on 31.03.2009 and subsequently enhanced upto 330 on 26.02.2010 on the basis of forged and fabricated documents from State Bank of India, Commercial Branch, Bokaro,. Thereby they dishonestly and fraudulently 8 in criminal conspiracy with each other fraudulently & dishonestly committed forgery for the purpose of cheating, used forged documents as genuine, mis utilized the loan amount thereby cheated the State Bank of India and thereby caused wrongful loss to the Bank to the tune of Rs. 2,58,27,073.00 and wrongful gain to themselves and others. So, considering the aforesaid facts, the petitioner does not deserve privilege of anticipatory bail.
9. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the C.B.I, material collected by the C.B.I against this petitioner, admittedly petitionerBirendra Kumar who is one of the copartners of Balaji Food Masala Company and on the basis of forged documents, he has taken bank loan which has now become about two crore and fifty nine lacs, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to this petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected.
(Anant Bijay Singh, J.) Satyarthi/