Cbi vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 1 Of 97 on 10 May, 2013

[Cites 38, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Cbi vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 1 Of 97 on 10 May, 2013

1
CBI Case No. 38/11

IN THE COURT OF SH. N. K. KAUSHIK
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT), CBI
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI

CBI Case No. : 38/11
RC No. : 4 (E)/2006/EOWI/ DLI

In the matter of :

CBI

versus

1. Sri Kant Chawla
S/o Shri Keemat Rai Chawla,
ExChief Manager, State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur,
Nangal Raya Branch, Jail Road, New Delhi,
R/o : Plot No.4, Road No.1,
Bhopal Pura, Udaipur - 313001, Rajasthan.

2. Shri Bhupinder Pal Singh Bakshi,
S/o Shri Jagmehar Singh Bakshi,
Director, M/s Pavi Overseas Pvt. Ltd.,
J12/22, Rajouri Garden,
Opposite IDBI Bank, New Delhi,
R/o : A1/268, Janak Puri, New Delhi.

3. Gurkaran Singh
S/o Shri Bhupinder Pal Singh Bakshi,
Director, M/s Pavi Overseas Pvt. Ltd.,
J12/22, Rajouri Garden,
Opposite IDBI Bank, New Delhi,
R/o : A1/268, Janak Puri, New Delhi.

4. Virender Kumar Syal
S/o Shri K. B. Rai,
M/s Davis Corenet Fashions Pvt. Ltd.,
M355, Guru Har Kishan Nagar,

CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 1 of 97
2
CBI Case No. 38/11

Paschim Vihar, New Delhi63.
R/o : M355, Guru Har Kishan Nagar,
Paschim Vihar, New Delhi63.

5. Sanjay Kumar Rathi
S/o late Shri Raghuvir Singh,
Advocate, Chamber No. 618B,
Patiala House Courts, New Delhi,
R/o : 133, Katwariya Sarai, New Delhi.

6. Ishleen Kaur
wife of Bhupender Pal Singh Bakshi,
Director, M/s Pavi Overseas Pvt. Ltd.
J12/22, Rajouri Garden,
Opposite IDBI Bank, New Delhi,
R/o A1/268 Janak Puri, New Delhi.
............ Convicts

Date of Institution : 21.05.2008
Date on which Judgment Pronounced : 3.5.2013
Date on which Order on Sentence announced : 10.5.2013

O R D E R O N S E N T E N C E

1. By this order, I shall dispose off the contentions, raised on behalf of the

parties, on the point of sentence.

2. In the present case, all the convicts, namely, Sri Kant Chawla (A1),

Bhupinder Pal Singh Bakshi (A2), Gurkaran Singh(A3), Virender Kumar

CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 2 of 97
3
CBI Case No. 38/11

Syal (A4), Sanjay Kumar Rathi (A5) and Ishleen Kaur (A6), have been

convicted for the offence punishable under sections 120B read with

sections 420, 419, 468, 471 IPC read with section 13 (2) and 13 (1) (d) of

the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Convict, Sri Kant Chawla (A1),

has been convicted, in addition, for the offence punishable under

section 13(2) read with section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988. Convicts, namely, Bhupinder Pal Singh Bakshi

(A2), Gurkaran Singh (A3) and Ishleen Kaur(A6), have been

convicted, in addition, for the offences punishable under sections 420

and 471 IPC. Convicts, namely, Virender Kumar Sayal (A4) and

Sanjay Kumar Rathi (A5), have been convicted, in addition, for the

offences punishable under section 420 IPC.

3. It has been strongly contended on behalf of the State by the Ld. Sr. PP

for the CBI that this is a corruption case, in which, the convicts have

been convicted, as they were operating as an organised racket and have

caused illegal huge pecuniary loss to the State Bank of Bikaner and

Jaipur, Govt. of India Undertaking. That they have cheated the said

bank and caused wrongful loss to the tune of Rs. 40.83 lakhs and Rs.

CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 3 of 97
4
CBI Case No. 38/11

12,54,202.79, when loan was fraudulently sanctioned. They have,

therefore, caused loss to the public exchequer of the said amount. It has

further been stated that the amount, to the extent to which the

Government has been cheated, was not a small amount as the case

pertains to the period prior to the year 2006, when it was a huge and fat

amount.

4. The State has further contended that the maximum prescribed

substantive punishment with fine be handed over to all the convicts, so

that enough and clear message goes to one and all and especially to the

potential offenders, who are in the waiting to commit such like frauds

so that the punishment act as a deterrence and the intent of the

legislature is fulfilled.

5. Convict, Sri Kant Chawla (A1), has prayed that a lenient view be taken

on the ground that there is no allegation against him that he has been

benefited even with single penny. That he has an old and ailing mother

of 80 years of age. That he is the only male member in the family to

support his wife and his son, who is bed ridden. That he, himself, has

also been afflicted with health problems. That he has faced long trial.

CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 4 of 97
5
CBI Case No. 38/11

6. Convicts, namely, Bhupinder Pal Singh Bakshi (A2), Gurkaran Singh

(A3) and Ishleen Kaur (A6), have submitted that they have already

deposited the outstanding amount and they have not been previously

convicted in any other case and prayed for probation. That benefit of

section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, be given to them and

that Section 18 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is not applicable in

their case. That a lenient view may be taken.

7. Convict, Virender Kumar Syal, too prayed for a lenient view stating that

he has a marriageable daughter of 21 years of age and two other

children. That he is ready to deposit the outstanding amount. That he

has not been previously convicted in any other case.

8. Convict Sanjay Kumar Rathi prayed that he is 46 years of age and is a

practicing lawyer for the last 21 years and is a responsible member of

Bar. That he is sole earning member of the family and that he has a

school going son and a daughter of marriageable age, who is pursuing

B. Sc. That no wrongful gain has been made by him and that he is not a

previous convict.

CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 5 of 97
6
CBI Case No. 38/11

9. The above said convicts have, thus, prayed for taking a lenient view.

They have further prayed for release on probation.

10. The contentions, raised by the the convicts, have met stiff and very

strong opposition on behalf of the State. It has been urged that convict,

Sri Kant Chawla, the then public servant, has been convicted, in as

many as three different cases as he had illegally and dishonestly

sanctioned loans/ Cash Credit Limits on the basis of false and

fraudulent documents in the year 2006, when it was quite a big sum. It

has, further, been stated on behalf of the State that being a public

servant at the relevant time, convict Sri Kant Chawla acted corruptly

with full vigour, in sanction of loan and, then in granting overdraft

withdrawal beyond his discretion, one after the other. It has, therefore,

been urged that this convict is a habitual offender and was the

Kingpin in defrauding the bank and deserves maximum punishment.

11. Regarding the convicts, Bhupinder Pal Singh Bakshi, Gurkaran Singh

and Ishleen Kaur, it is stated that they were the beneficiary of the

fraudulent loan amount. That they pocketed the loan money, in this

CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 6 of 97
7
CBI Case No. 38/11

case, to which they were not legally entitled to. They successfully

cheated the public sector bank i.e. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur,

Nagal Raya Branch, alongwith other convicts. That they are not entitled

to any mercy or compassion.

12. Similarly, it is stated that convict Sanjay Kumar Rathi is fully involved in

the conspiracy and that in pursuance to the systematic and well

planned conspiracy, he fabricated report and acted in connivance with

other convicts in this case to cheat the bank.

13. It is further urged on behalf of the State that most of the pleas taken by

the convicts are routine and stock pleas and in any case, in the case

under the Prevention of Corruption Act, these pleas taken are not

considered as mitigating circumstances. It has, therefore, been prayed

that exemplary punishment be awarded to the convicts herein.

14. On behalf of the CBI, following case law have been cited:
(i) State of Punjab Vs. Rakesh Kumar, AIR 2009 Supreme Court 391,
(ii) Bikram Dorjee Vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 2009 Supreme Court 2539
(iii) Ankush Maruti Shinde Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 Supreme
Court 2609

CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 7 of 97
8
CBI Case No. 38/11

(iv) Ammavasai Vs. Inspector of Police, Valliyanur, AIR 2000 SC 3644
(v) State of A. P. Vs. S. R. Rangadamappa, AIR 1982 SC 1492
(vi) State V A Parthiban, AIR 2007 Supreme Court 51,
(vii) State V Ratan Lal Arora, AIR 2004 Supreme Court 2364 &
(viii) Ram Narain Poply Vs. CBI, AIR 2003 Supreme Court 2748
(ix) State of J & K Vs. Vinay Nanda, AIR 2001 SC 611.

15. On behalf of the convicts, following case law have been cited:

(i) Isher Das Vs. State of Punjab , AIR, 1972 Supreme Court 1295

16. At the very outset, it is observed that there is no quarrel over the settled

propositions of law discussed in the aforesaid case law, cited by the

parties.

17. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case law, reported as Dr. Subramanyam
Swami Vs. Dr. Manmohan Singh, 2012, AIR(SC) page 1185, has observed
that :
"The magnitude of corruption in our public life is
incompatible with the concept of socialistic secular democratic
public. The duty of the Court is that any anti corruption law
has to be interpreted and worked out in such a fashion as to
strengthen to fight against corruption."

CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 8 of 97
9
CBI Case No. 38/11

18. It has further been observed in the same case that "In a situation where

two constructions are eminently reasonable, the Court has to accept the

one that seeks to eredicate corruption to the one which seeks to

perpetuate it."

19. It has been held in case reported as Narendra Champak Lal

Trivedi Vs. State of Gujrat, 2012 (7) SCC page 80 that: "Corruption

at any level does not deserve either sympathy or leniency."

20. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Vinod

Kumar, decided on, 18th May, 2012 (Criminal Appeal No. 1887) reiterated

the law laid down in State of J&K Vs. Vinay Nanda, AIR 2001 SC P 611,

and observed that superannuation of the convict and the pendency of

criminal trial for over a period of time cannot be treated a special

reason to reduce the sentence.

21. In the same appeal quoting 'M B Joshi Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR

2001 SC 147' the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that:

"It is the defect of the system that longevity of the cases tried
under the Prevention of Corruption Act is too lengthy. If that is
regarded as sufficient for reducing the sentence mandated by
the Parliament legislative exercise would stand defeated."

CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 9 of 97
10
CBI Case No. 38/11

22. It was observed by the Hon'ble High Court in the cases reported as Jai

Bhagwan Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2008 150 DLT 46 (Delhi) and

Ravinder Kumar Arora Vs. CBI Manu/DE/8816/2007 (Delhi) , that :

"It is a normal thing that 'trial' of the person is
considered a period of 'agony' undergone by him. But
we tend to forget the agony of the society and the
complainant who dared lodge the complaint. The
entire purpose of the legislature of sentencing the
offenders stands defeated and that is the one reason
that wages of corruption are considered more attractive
in this country. The person caught is not always a first
timer corrupt. He may have been indulging into
corrupt activities / practices for a long number of years.
It is to his advantage that the trial is prolonged. He
spends a fraction of amount, earned by corrupt practices
on litigation and professionals to see that ultimately he
makes Criminal Justice System a laughing stock. In
this process, the entire legislative purpose of punishing
a corrupt stands defeated.

23. It was further observed by the Hon'ble Court in the aforesaid case that

"Accused facing trial since long; amount allegedly

CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 10 of 97
11
CBI Case No. 38/11

misappropriated already been deposited; undergone
departmental punishment; only bread earner in
family; wife and three children's dependence on him
are the circumstance which do not constitute 'special
reasons'."

24. It was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported as

State of J & K Vs. Vinay Nanda, AIR 2001 SC P 611, that :

"Corruption at any level, by any person, of any
magnitude, is condemnable, which cannot be ignored
by the Judicial Courts, when proved. No leniency is
required to be shown in proved cases under the
Prevention of Corruption Act which itself treats the
offences under it of a special nature to be treated
differently than the general penal offences. The convicts
of the offences under the Act are to be dealt with heavy
hand and deterrant rod. No populous or sympathetic
approach is needed in such cases."

25. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported as State

of M. P. Vs. Shambhu Dayal Nagar, (2006) 8 SCC P 693, that :

"Corruption by public servant has become gigantic
problem. It has spread everywhere. No facet of public

CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 11 of 97
12
CBI Case No. 38/11

activity has been left unaffected by the stink of
corruption. Large scale corruption retards the nation
building activities and everyone has to suffer on that
count."

26. It was observed by the Hon'ble High Court in the case reported as
AIR 1961, Mysore P 49, that:
"Infliction of a lenient sentence will defeat the purpose
of the P. C. Act."

27. It was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case reported as
State of T. N Vs. Kaliaperumal, (2005) 12 SCC 473 and State Vs. Ratan
Lal Arora, (2004) 4 SCC 590 that :
"Section 18 of the Probation of Offenders Act specifically
bars the offence under PC Act from the purview of the
Act."

28. The convicts, therefore, cannot be enlarged on probation in this
case relating to serious offences.

29. It was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
reported as State of M. P. Vs. Ram Singh, AIR 2000 SC 870, that:

"Corruption in a civilised society is a disease like
cancer, which if not detected in time is sure to
maliganise the polity of the country leading to

CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 12 of 97
13
CBI Case No. 38/11

disastrous consequences. It is termed as plague which is
not only contagious but if not controlled spreads like a
fire in a jungle. Its virus is compared with HIV leading
to AIDS being incurable. The sociopolitical system
exposed to such a dreaded communicable disease is
likely to crumble under its own weight. Corruption is
opposed to democracy and social order, being not only
anti people, but aimed and targeted against them. It
affects the economy and destroys the cultural heritage."

30. Further, it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case law reported as Ankush Maruti Shinde Vs State of Maharashtra,

AIR 2009 SC 2609 that:

" The social impact of the crime e.g. where it relates to
offences against women, decoity, kidnapping,
misappropriation of public money, treason and other
offences involving moral turpitude or moral delinquency
which have great impact on social order, and public interest
cannot be lost sight of and per se require exemplary
treatment. Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence
would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the
public confidence in the efficacy of law and society could not
long endure under such serious threats."

31. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported as

CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 13 of 97
14
CBI Case No. 38/11

Mohd. A Hussain Vs. Asstt. Collector, Custom (Prevention)

Ahmedabad, AIR 1998 SC 2143, that :

"If a given transaction constitutes two offences under
two enactments generally, it is wrong to have
consecutive sentences. But this rule has no
application if the transaction relating to offences is not
the same or the facts constituting the two offences are
quite different. Sentencing judge should try to ensure
that the totality of the sentences is correct in the light of
all the circumstances of the case."
"In arriving at an appropriate sentence, the court
must consider, and some times reject, many factors.
The court must 'recognise, learn to control and
exclude' many diverse data. It is a balancing act and
tortuous process to ensure reasoned sentence."

32. It was further held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported as A.

B. Bhaskara Rao vs. Inspector of Police, CBI, Vishakapatnam, 2011(4)

RCR (Criminal) 290 (SC) that :

"in the case of corruption by public servant, long delay
in disposal, quantum of amount of bribe and that the
delinquent lost his job due to conviction etc., are not to
be taken as mitigating circumstances for reduction of
the sentence".

CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 14 of 97
15
CBI Case No. 38/11

33. In the case of Siddarama and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka, 2006 IV AD

(Cri.) (SC) 78, it was held that:

"undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would
do more harm to the justice system to undermine the
public confidence in the efficacy of law and society can
no longer endure under such serious threats. It is,
therefore, the duty of every court to award proper
sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and
the manner in which it was executed or committed etc."

34. It was further held in the case law reported as Kishan Dayal vs. State,

1958 Raj LW 596 that:

" A corrupt official is a menace to the society and far
from helping in the proper functioning of the
Government and implementing of the laws, brings the
Government and the society at large into disrepute. It is
through the agency of the public servants that the policy
of the Legislature as well as of the Government is
implemented. It is through the public servants that
crimes are detected and offenders are brought to book. It
is through strictly honest and incorruptible public
servants that the welfare of the society can be ensured. If
such public servants are open to corruption and coerce
the public into paying them illegal gratification, the

CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 15 of 97
16
CBI Case No. 38/11

whole structure of the society would be upset and the
policy of the Government and of the Legislature,
howsoever, beneficial it may be, would gravely suffer. A
public servant, therefore, once he is found to be guilty of
accepting or obtaining illegal gratification, deserves no
soft corner or indulgence from the Courts of Law."

35. It was held in the case reported as Madhukar Bhaskarrao Joshi vs. State

of Maharashtra, 2001 Cr. LJ 175(SC): that:

"When corruption was sought to be eliminated from the
polity all possible stringent measures are to be adopted
within the bounds of law. One such measure is to
provide condign punishment. Parliament measured the
parameters for such condign punishment and in that
process wanted to fix a minimum sentence of
imprisonment for giving deterrent impact on other
public servants who are prone to corrupt deals. That
was precisely the reason why the sentence was fixed as
seven years and directed that even if the said period of
imprisonment need not be given, the sentence shall not
be less than the imprisonment for one year. Such a
legislative insistence is reflection of Parliament's resolve
to meet corruption cases with very strong hand to give
signals of deterrence as the most pivotal feature of
sentencing of corrupt public servants. All public servants

CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 16 of 97
17
CBI Case No. 38/11

have to face very serious consequences. If on the other
hand any public servant is given the impression that if
he succeeds in protracting the proceedings that would
help him to have the advantage of getting a very light
sentence even if the case ends in conviction, its fallout
would afford incentive to public servants who were
susceptible to corruption to indulge in such nefarious
practices with immunity. Increasing the fine after
reducing the imprisonment to a nominal period can
also defeat the purpose as the corrupt public servants
could easily raise the fine amount through the same
means."

36. I have thoroughly and carefully considered the rival contentions. I have

also examined the asserted mitigating and aggravating circumstances,

pointed out by the parties. I am of the considered opinion that

considering all the aspects of the matter, the following sentence shall be

appropriate to meet the ends of justice :

(i) All the convicts herein are awarded sentence of two years

rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5000/ (Rupees Five Thousands

only), in default, one month simple imprisonment, each, for the

offence punishable under section 120B IPC.

CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 17 of 97
18
CBI Case No. 38/11

(ii) Convicts, namely, Bhupinder Pal Singh Bakshi (A2), Gurkaran

Singh(A3) and Ishleen Kaur (A6), who fraudulently cheated the State

Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, (however, after registration of this case had

paid to the bank outstanding amount) are sentenced to three years

rigorous imprisonment besides a fine of Rs. 10,000/ (Rupees Ten

Thousands only) each, in default, two months' simple imprisonment

for the offence punishable under section 420 IPC. For the offence

punishable under section 471 IPC, the convicts shall suffer sentence of

rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.10,000/

(Rupees Ten Thousands only), in default, two months simple

imprisonment.

(iii) Convict, Virender Kumar Syal (A4)(who paid nothing from out

of the wrongful gain of Rs.9 Lakhs made by him consequent upon

cheating), for the offence punishable under section 420 IPC, shall suffer

sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of

Rupees Ten lakhs, in default, one year simple imprisonment. From the

fine, if realized, Rs.9 lakhs be paid as compensation to the bank.

CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 18 of 97
19
CBI Case No. 38/11

(iv) Convict, Sanjay Kumar Rathi (A5), for the offence punishable

under section 420 IPC, shall suffer sentence of rigorous imprisonment

for three years and a fine of Rs.5,000/, in default, one month simple

imprisonment.

(v) Convict, Sri Kant Chawla (A1), who is a serial convict in three

cases, is hereby awarded a sentence of four years rigorous

imprisonment and a fine of Rs25,000/, in default, one year simple

imprisonment, for the offence punishable under section 13 (2) read

with section 13 (1) (d) of the the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

37. All the aforesaid sentences shall run concurrently.

38. Benefit of section 428 Cr.P.C. is extended to the convicts.

39. A copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given to all the

convicts, free of cost, forthwith.

40. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in the open court ( N. K. Kaushik )
on 10th May, 2013 Special Judge (PC Act) CBI
Dwarka Courts

CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 19 of 97
20
CBI Case No. 38/11

IN THE COURT OF SH. N. K. KAUSHIK
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT), CBI
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI

CBI Case No. : 38/11
RC No. : 4 (E)/2006/EOWI/ DLI

In the matter of :

CBI

versus

1. Sri Kant Chawla (A1),
S/o Shri Keemat Rai Chawla,
ExChief Manager, State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur,
Nangal Raya Branch, Jail Road, New Delhi,
R/o : Plot No.4, Road No.1,
Bhopal Pura, Udaipur313001, Rajasthan.

2. Shri Bhupinder Pal Singh Bakshi (A2),
S/o Shri Jagmehar Singh Bakshi,
Director, M/s Pavi Overseas Pvt. Ltd.,
J12/22, Rajouri Garden,
Opposite IDBI Bank, New Delhi,
R/o : A1/268, Janak Puri, New Delhi.

3. Gurkaran Singh (A3),
s/o Shri Bhupinder Pal Singh Bakshi,
Director, M/s Pavi Overseas Pvt. Ltd.,
J12/22, Rajouri Garden,
Opposite IDBI Bank, New Delhi,
R/o : A1/268, Janak Puri, New Delhi.

4. Virender Kumar Syal (A4),
S/o Shri K. B. Rai,
M/s Davis Corenet Fashions Pvt. Ltd.,
M355, Guru Har Kishan Nagar,
Paschim Vihar, New Delhi63.

CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 20 of 97
21
CBI Case No. 38/11

R/o : M355, Guru Har Kishan Nagar,
Paschim Vihar, New Delhi63.

5. Sanjay Kumar Rathi (A5),
S/o late Shri Raghuvir Singh,
R/o : 133, Katwariya Sarai, New Delhi.

6. Ishleen Kaur (A6),
wife of Bhupender Pal Singh Bakshi,
Director, M/s Pavi Overseas Pvt. Ltd.
J12/22, Rajouri Garden,
Opposite IDBI Bank, New Delhi,
R/o A1/268 Janak Puri, New Delhi.

7. Kishan Lal @ Gabbar @ Surjit Singh
(since P O) ............ Accused Persons

Date of Institution : 21.05.2008
Date on which Judgment Pronounced : 03.05.2013
Decision : Conviction

JUDGMENT

1. This is a banking fraud and corruption case, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, relating to fraudulent sanction of loan limit, based on forged and fabricated documents, impersonation of a guarantor and of abnormal over drawings in Cash Credit Accounts/Overdraft Accounts beyond the sanctioned limits, by the accused persons, in pursuance to an organised, systematic and well knit CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 21 of 97 22 CBI Case No. 38/11 criminal conspiracy by the accused persons, who all acted in unison to cheat the bank.

2. The brief facts of the case, as disclosed by the prosecution, are that the present case was registered on 30.11.2006 against the accused persons on the basis of a complaint made by Chief Vigilance Officer, Shri M. M. Lal, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "SBBJ"), Head Office, Tilak Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan. It is alleged by the prosecution that during the period w.e.f. 3.3.2004 to 24.2.2006, accused Sri Kant Chawla, the then Chief Manager(a public servant), SBBJ, Nangal Raya Branch, New Delhi, in collusion with co accused persons, dishonestly and fraudulently allowed over drawings in cash credit accounts/over draft accounts beyond the sanctioned limits. That he, beyond his discretionary powers, fraudulently purchased local and outstation cheques/bills without any sanctioned limits and did not report the said transactions to his Controlling Authority. It is also alleged that sale deeds of the properties, which were offered as collateral securities, were fake, fabricated & forged and, thus, he abused his official position as public servant and caused wrongful loss to the bank to the extent of Rs.40.83 lakhs and corresponding pecuniary wrongful CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 22 of 97 23 CBI Case No. 38/11 gain to the co accused persons/borrowers.

3. It is further alleged by the prosecution that accused borrowers namely, Bhupinder Pal Singh Bakshi, Smt. Ishleen Kaur and Gurkaran Singh (all the three of the same family) were the Directors of M/s Pavi Overseas Pvt. Ltd., J12/22, Rajouri Garden, Delhi, which was allegedly dealing in Gold, Silver, Stones and Jewellary. That on 03.03.2005, said company preferred a request for sanction of Cash Credit (Hypothecation) Limit of Rs.30 lakhs against stocks and book debts and offered the property situated at E184, Greater KailashI, New Delhi, as collateral security and accused Surjit Singh (since PO) shown as R/o 6A/54, WEA, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, was offered as guarantor to the said loan.

4. It is further alleged that the accused S. K. Chawla did not inspect the said property, offered as collateral securities, to assess the current marketable value of the said property, by flouting the norms and guidelines laid down by the Bank. That accused borrowers submitted the fake Audit Reports of their company i.e. M/s Pavi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. for the financial year 31.3.2003 and 31.3.2004, signed by one Shri Sanjay CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 23 of 97 24 CBI Case No. 38/11 Goel, partner of M/s Mittal & Goel Associates, Chartered Accountants, 103, Friends Complex, E7A, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi as one Shri Sanjay Jain, who was running his office at the aforesaid premises in the name of M/s Sanjay Ramesh Jain & Co, denied to have issued any such Audit Reports. He has further denied that any firm in the name of M/s Pavi Overseas or M/s Mittal & Goel Associates ever existed at the aforesaid address.

5. It is further alleged by the prosecution that accused Sanjay Kumar Rathi, who was an Advocate at Patiala House Court, New Delhi, submitted a NonEncumbrance Certificate regarding the property in question. That he dishonestly mentioned in his report dated 5.2.2005 (which was fabricated much prior to the date of loan application, dated 03.03.2005) that he has scrutinized the relevant documents and that the title of the property was clear and that the said property belonged to one Surjit Singh. However, the said Surjit Singh could not be traced at the given address. That accused Sanjay Kumar Rathi, submitted a false and fabricated non encumbrance certificate for, as on 5.2.2005, the said property did not belong to Surjit Singh and that the sale deed, in question was a forged document.

CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 24 of 97 25 CBI Case No. 38/11

6. It is further alleged that accused borrowers submitted fake copy of Income Tax Returns for the years 200405 and 200506 in the name of said Surjit Singh, as the said Returns were never submitted to Income Tax Department. Further that the PAN No. AFCPS8084F alloted to alleged Surjit Singh, which was submitted to the bank, was a forged document as, in fact, the said PAN No. was issued to some other Surjit Singh, who was resident of Mohali and who was an electrician in Public Health Division, Mohali, Punjab and had already retired from his services.

7. It is further alleged that Cash Credit Account No. 01600052200 in the name of M/s Pavi Overseas Pvt. Ltd., was opened by Shri Prem Raj Mawar, the then Dy. Manager of the bank and the said account was introduced by accused Virender Kumar Sayal. That the said loan proposal was processed by the accused Sri Kant Chawla, who sanctioned CC Limit of Rs.30 lakhs to the said company on 12.4.2005 under the "SBBJ Sulabh Vyapar Rin Yojna" and issued the Sanctioned Letter to M/s Pavi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. on 12.4.2005 itself, which was duly acknowledged by all Directors of the said company as well as by Surjit Singh as guarantor, in token of acceptance of terms and conditions of CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 25 of 97 26 CBI Case No. 38/11 the loan. That aforesaid amount of Rs.30 lakhs was released in the aforesaid account on 12.4.2005 and the account of the company remained overdrawn w.e.f. 15.7.2005 to 30.6.2006, however, this fact was dishonestly not reported to the controlling authority by accused Sri Kant Chawla. This was against the norms and the bank circular No. RE/RG /6/9697 dated 9.9.2000.

8. It is also alleged by the prosecution that the person, who impersonated himself as Surjit Singh, Guarantor to the account of M/s Pavi Overseas Pvt. Ltd., also submitted an application for sanction of loan of Rs.15 lakhs on 24.5.2005 against the same immovable property No.E184, Greater KailashI, New Delhi, which was already mortgaged with the bank as collateral security. Further that though Shri Yograj Bhatia, the then Manager of the bank, had processed and sanctioned the loan application of the impersonator accused Surjit Singh, but the same according to him was done only at the instructions of the accused Sri Kant Chawla.

9. Further, Shri Yog Raj Bhatia also stated that said Surjit Singh had appeared before him in the bank and signed the loan documents and he CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 26 of 97 27 CBI Case No. 38/11 opened his Saving Bank Account, which was introduced by the accused Gurkaran Singh. That it shows that accused borrowers arranged a person, who impersonated as Surjit Singh. That said Yog Raj Bhatia also confirmed the photograph affixed on the account opening form as the photograph of the person who visited the bank with accused borrowers and signed in his presence.

10. That a total amount of Rs.14 lakhs was withdrawn from the said account of accused, who impersonated as Surjit Singh, out of which an amount of Rs.5 lakhs was withdrawn by accused Gurkaran Singh on 25.5.2005 and the balance amount of Rs.9 lakhs was withdrawn by accused Virender Kumar Syal and the said account was declared NPA on 19.10.2006 and a total amount of Rs.12,54,202.79 was outstanding as on 31.1.2008.

11. It is alleged that all the accused persons entered into criminal conspiracy and dishonestly and fraudulently got sanctioned credit facilities to M/s Pavi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. on the basis of forged/false security documents and produced and accepted non existent person as guarantor. That accused Sri Kant Chawla allowed overdraft without CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 27 of 97 28 CBI Case No. 38/11 sanctioned limit and abused his official position by violating his discretionary powers and pecuniary wrongful loss to the bank to the extent of Rs.12,54,202.79 and corresponding pecuniary gain to the accused persons.

12. Thus, the case of the prosecution is that during the year 20042006, at Delhi and other places, all accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy by having agreed to do an illegal act i.e. to cheat the SBBJ, Nangal Raya Branch, New Delhi by fraudulently inducing it to disburse/sanction and obtain credit facilities in favour of M/s Pavi Overseas Pvt. Ltd., a company of Bhupinder Pal Singh Bakshi, Gurkaran Singh and Smt. Ishleen Kaur and also in the name of impersonator Surjit Singh to the extent of Rs.30 lakhs and Rs.15 lakhs respectively, in SBBJ Sulabh Vyapar Rin Yojna on the basis of fake/fabricated documents i.e. Sale Deed of property bearing No.184, Greater Kailash PartI, New Delhi, false Audit Reports, false Income Tax Returns for the years 20042005, 20052006, false PAN Card and false Legal Search Report, dated 5.2.2005, of accused Sanjay Kumar Rathi.

13. Further, accused Sri Kant Chawla dishonestly and fraudulently, CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 28 of 97 29 CBI Case No. 38/11 by abusing his official position as a public servant, sanctioned the credit facilities in favour of said M/s Pavi Overseas Pvt. Ltd., a company of borrower accused persons Bhupinder Pal Singh Bakshi, Gurkaran Singh and Smt. Ishleen Kaur and in the name of Surjit Singh to the extent of Rs.30 lakhs and Rs.15 lakhs, in SBBJ Sulabh Vyapar Rin Yojna, on the basis of fake/fabricated documents on 12.4.2005.

14. Further, accused Bhupinder Pal Singh Bakshi, Gurkaran Singh and Smt. Ishleen Kaur, all the Directors of M/s Pavi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. dishonestly and fraudulently in furtherance of criminal conspiracy obtained credit facilities for themselves and in favour of impersonator Surjeet Singh against the fake/fabricated documents i.e. Sale Deed of property bearing No.184, Greater Kailash PartI, New Delhi, false Audit Reports, false Income Tax Returns for the years 20042005, 20052006, false PAN Card and false Legal Search Report, dated 5.2.2005 of accused Sanjay Kumar Rathi.

15. Further accused Virender Kumar Sayal dishonestly and fraudulently withdrew Rs.9 lakhs from the said fake account opened by Surjit Singh (fake identity) and accused Sanjay Kumar Rathi dishonestly CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 29 of 97 30 CBI Case No. 38/11 and fraudulently prepared or got prepared false Legal Search Report dated 5.2.2005 in respect of Property No.184, Greater Kailash PartI, New Delhi, to facilitate M/s Pavi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. in obtaining fraudulently the credit facilities from the bank.

16. All the accused persons, namely, Sri Kant Chawla, Bhupinder Pal Singh Bakshi, Gurkaran Singh, Virender Kumar Sayal, Sanjay Kumar Rathi and Ishleen Kaur are, thus, alleged to have committed offences punishable, under section 120(B) IPC read with sections 420, 419, 468 & 471 IPC and section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

17. Further, during the above said period, at Delhi, and other places, accused Sri Kant Chawla, being a public servant in the capacity of Sr. Manager, SBBJ, Nangal Raya Branch, Delhi, by corrupt and illegal means or otherwise, abusing his official position, obtained pecuniary advantage by dishonestly and fraudulently sanctioning /disbursing credit facilities to said M/s Pavi Overseas Pvt. Ltd., a company of Bhupinder Pal Singh Bakshi, Gurkaran Singh and Smt. Ishleen Kaur and in the name of Surjit Singh to the extent of Rs.30 lakhs and Rs.15 lakhs, CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 30 of 97 31 CBI Case No. 38/11 in SBBJ Sulabh Vyapar Rin Yojna on the basis of fake/fabricated documents viz. Sale Deed of property bearing No.184, Greater Kailash PartI, New Delhi, false Audit Reports, false Income Tax Returns for the years 20042005, 20052006, false PAN Card and false Legal Search Report dated 5.2.2005 of coaccused Sanjay Kumar Rathi. The accused, thus, is alleged to have committed an offence punishable under section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

18. Further, during the aforesaid period at Delhi and other places, accused Bhupinder Pal Singh Bakshi, dishonestly and fraudulently induced the SBBJ, Nangal Raya Branch, Delhi and got sanctioned credit facilities in favour of said firm, M/s Pavi Overseas Pvt. Ltd., a company of Bhupinder Pal Singh Bakshi, Gurkaran Singh and Smt. Ishleen Kaur and in the name of Surjit Singh to the extent of Rs.30 lakhs and Rs.15 lakhs, in SBBJ Sulabh Vyapar Rin Yojna on the basis of fake/fabricated documents viz. Sale Deed of property bearing No.184, Greater Kailash PartI, New Delhi, false Audit Reports, false Income Tax Returns for the years 20042005, 20052006, false PAN Card and false Legal Search Report dated 5.2.2005 of coaccused Sanjay Kumar Rathi. Further, accused Bhupinder Pal Singh Bakshi, fraudulently and dishonestly, CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 31 of 97 32 CBI Case No. 38/11 knowing fully well, used the fake and fabricated documents viz. false Audit Reports, false balance sheets, false profit and loss account, false sale deed, etc. for sanction of credit facilities in favour of M/s Pavi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. to the extent of Rs.30 lakhs and in favour of Surjeet Singh Rs.15 lakhs and thus, accused Bhupinder Pal Singh Bakshi is alleged to have committed the offence, punishable under sections 420 and 471 IPC.

19. Further, during the aforesaid period at Delhi and other places, accused persons, namely, Gurkaran Singh & Ishleen Kaur, dishonestly and fraudulently induced the SBBJ, Nangal Raya Branch, Delhi and got sanctioned credit facilities in favour of said firm, M/s Pavi Overseas Pvt. Ltd., a company of Bhupinder Pal Singh Bakshi, Gurkaran Singh and Smt. Ishleen Kaur and in the name of Surjit Singh to the extent of Rs.30 lakhs and Rs.15 lakhs, in SBBJ Sulabh Vyapar Rin Yojna on the basis of fake/fabricated documents viz. Sale Deed of property bearing No.184, Greater Kailash PartI, New Delhi, false Audit Reports, false Income Tax Returns for the years 20042005, 20052006, false PAN Card and false Legal Search Report dated 5.2.2005 of coaccused Sanjay Kumar Rathi. Further, accused persons, Gurkaran Singh & Ishleen Kaur, fraudulently CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 32 of 97 33 CBI Case No. 38/11 and dishonestly, knowing fully well, used the fake and fabricated documents viz. false Audit Reports, false balance sheets, false profit and loss account, false sale deed, etc. for sanction of credit facilities in favour of M/s Pavi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. to the extent of Rs.30 lakhs and in favour of Surjeet Singh Rs.15 lakhs and thus, accused Gurkaran Singh & Ishleen Kaur are alleged to have committed the offence, punishable under sections 420 and 471 IPC.

20. Further, during the aforesaid period at Delhi, accused persons, namely, Virender Kumar Sayal & Sanjay Kumar Rathi, dishonestly and fraudulently induced the SBBJ, Nangal Raya Branch, Delhi for sanctioning credit facilities in favour of said firm, M/s Pavi Overseas Pvt. Ltd., a company of Bhupinder Pal Singh Bakshi, Gurkaran Singh and Smt. Ishleen Kaur and in the name of Surjit Singh to the extent of Rs.30 lakhs and Rs.15 lakhs, in SBBJ Sulabh Vyapar Rin Yojna on the basis of fake/fabricated documents viz. Sale Deed of property bearing No.184, Greater Kailash PartI, New Delhi, false Audit Reports, false Income Tax Returns for the years 20042005, 20052006, false PAN Card and false Legal Search Report dated 5.2.2005 of coaccused Sanjay Kumar Rathi and thus, accused Virender Kumar Sayal and Sanjay Kumar Rathi, are CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 33 of 97 34 CBI Case No. 38/11 alleged to have committed the offence, punishable under sections 420 IPC.

21. During the course of proceedings, accused Kishan Lal @ Gabar @ Surjit (who impersonated as guarantor Surjit Singh) was declared Proclaimed Offender vide order dated 11.3.2010.

22. Primafacie, charge under section 120B IPC read with sections 420, 419, 468 and 471 IPC read with sec. 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was made out, against all the accused persons, namely, Sri Kant Chawla, Bhupinder Pal Singh Bakshi, Gurkaran Singh, Virender Kumar Sayal, Sanjay Kumar Rathi and Ishleen Kaur and substantive offence under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in addition, against accused Sri Kant Chawla and under sections 420 & 471 IPC against accused Bhupinder Pal Singh Bakshi, Gurkaran Singh and Ishleen Kaur and under section 420 IPC against accused persons, namely, Virender Kumar Sayal & Sanjay Kumar Rathi were made out. CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 34 of 97 35 CBI Case No. 38/11

23. Charge, accordingly, was framed against all the accused persons to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

24. The prosecution, in order to substantiate its claim and contentions, examined as many as 21 witnesses, in all.

25. Thereafter, the accused persons were examined under section 313 Cr. P.C.

26. Adequate and sufficient opportunities were accorded to the accused persons but they chose not to lead any evidence in support of their defence.

27. The prosecution has contended that the case of the prosecution has been squarely proved beyond any pale of doubt, in view of several documents & circumstantial evidence that has appeared on record.

28. On behalf of the defence, on the other hand, it has been stated that the prosecution has failed to prove its case.

CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 35 of 97 36 CBI Case No. 38/11

29. The parties filed written submissions in addition to the oral arguments. The same are part of the record.

30. On behalf of the State, following case law have been cited : i. Kalicharan Mahapatra Vs. State of Orissa, 1998 SC 2595 ii. Jaswant Kawathekar Vs. Economic Offences Wing 1995 (3) Crimes 227 MP iii. B.S. Goraya Vs. UT of Chandigarh, AIR 2007 SC 3039 iv. Habibulla Khan Vs. State of Orissa AIR 1995 SC 1124 v. Veera Swami Vs. Union of India 1991 3 SCC 655 vi. Ronald Wood Mathams Vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1954 SC 455, vii.Harihar Prasad Vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1972 SC viii. Subair vs. State of Kerala, (2009) 6 SCC 587 ix. C.K. Damodaran Rang Nair vs. Government of India, (1997) 9 SCC 477 x. R. Venkata Krishnan Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, AIR 2010 SC 1812 xi. M. Narayanan Nambiar Vs. State of Kerala, 1963 AIR 1116.

31. The defence, on the other hand, has cited following case law reported as:

i. Sheetla Sahai & Ors Vs. State of MP, 2009(8) SCC 670 ii. A. Subair vs. State of Kerala, (2009) 6 SCC 587 iii. C.K. Damodaran Nair vs. Government of India, (1997) 9 SCC 477 iv. Kehar Singh and Ors Vs. State (Delhi Administration),{1988 (3) SCC 609 at 731} v. CBI Hydrabad Vs. K. Narayana Roo, JT 2012 (9) SC 359 vi. LIC of India and Anr Vs. Ram Pal Singh Bisen, 2010(3) JT 54.

CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 36 of 97 37 CBI Case No. 38/11

vii.CBI Hydrabad Vs. K. Narayana Rao, JT 2012 (9) SC 359 viii. Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab & Anr (2005) 6 SCC 1 ix. Pandurang Dattatraya Khandekar Vs. Bar Council of Maharashtra & Ors. (1984) 2 SCC 556

32. At the very outset, it is to be noted that there is no dispute over the propositions of law enunciated in the case law, cited by the parties. However, none of the case law help or support the accused persons, in any manner, whatsoever.

33. I have carefully gone through the entire relevant material appearing on record and have given considered thought to the same. I have also considered the rival arguments that have been advanced, at the bar. My findings are as under:

34. PW1Shri M M Lal, who was Chief Vigilance Officer in SBBJ, Head Office, Jaipur at the relevant time, deposed that during scrutinizing the accounts of Nangal Raya Branch, New Delhi, of SBBJ, it was found that certain over limits were granted to certain firm, which accused S. K. Chawla also confirmed. He further deposed that he directed Shri P. C. Yadav, Chief Manager (Vigilance) to conduct an investigation of the accounts in Nangal Raya Branch. The Chief Manager (Vigilance), Shri P. CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 37 of 97 38 CBI Case No. 38/11 S. Yadav, thereafter, submitted his report dated 10.5.2006, which has been proved as Ex.PW 1/A (copy). PW1M. M. Lal also deposed that after examination of the said report, he sent a written complaint dated 30.11.2006, by post, to SP, CBI, Economic Offence Wing, Lok Nayak Bhawan, New Delhi, requesting CBI to register and investigate the matter. He identified his signatures at point A on the said complaint, which has been proved as Ex. PW 1/B.

35. PW2Shri Ashok Kumar Garg deposed that he was Deputy Manager, SBBJ, Nangal Raya Branch, New Delhi at the relevant time and accused Sri Kant Chawla was the then Chief Manager of the said branch. He deposed that CC account No.01600052200 was opened vide account opening form dated 12.4.2005 in the name of M/s Pavi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. and the said Account Opening Form has been proved as Ex. PW2/A. He further deposed about the Statement of Account of Current Account /Cash Credit bearing No. 51025483648 & 01600052200 of M/s Pavi Overseas Pvt. Ltd., and proved the same as Ex.PW 2/B & Ex.PW 2/C.

36. PW 2 further deposed that the applicationcumappraisal form CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 38 of 97 39 CBI Case No. 38/11 of M/s Pavi Overseas Pvt. Ltd., which has been proved as Ex. PW 2/D, shows its office at J12/22, Rajauri Garden Opposite IDBI Bank, New Delhi and was duly signed by one of its Directors, accused Gurkaran Singh at point Q81 and was duly accepted by the accused Sri Kant Chawla. He further deposed that at page 7 of the said application, there is opinion report of Surjeet Singh, Guarantor, regarding worth of guarantor and net worth of guarantor furnishing the details of the property at H. No. E 184, G K. 1, New Delhi and its realizable value was shown as Rs.160.08 lakhs. The opinion report has been proved as Ex. PW 2/E.

37. PW2 further deposed about the Opinion Reports of other Directors, namely, accused Smt. Ishleen Kaur and Gurkaran of M/s Pavi Overseas Pvt.Ltd., regarding the worth of guarantor and net worth of guarantor, on which he identified the signatures of accused S. K. Chawla and proved both the Opinion Reports, as Ex. PW 2/F and Ex. PW 2/G, respectively.

38. PW2 further deposed that he handed over the original and certified copies of 47 documents in respect of M/s Pavi Overseas Pvt. CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 39 of 97 40 CBI Case No. 38/11 vide Seizure Memo dated 14.12.2006, which has been proved as Ex.PW 2/H. He also deposed that alongwith said seizure memo, Ex. PW 2/H, list of documents was attached on which he identified the signatures of Chief Manager, Raman Chaudhary, at point B and proved the said list as Ex. PW 2/J. He further deposed that all the Directors, namely, accused Bhupinder Pal Singh, Smt. Ishleen Kaur and Gurkaran Singh, signed the Agreement of Hypothecation of Goods and Assets at point Q138, point A and at point Q107, which the PW2 duly identified and proved the said Agreement as Ex.PW2/K. The stamp paper of Rs.100, which is part and parcel of SBBJ Form No.958 of M/s Pavi Overseas Pvt. Ltd., has been proved as Ex. PW 2/L.

39. PW 2 further deposed about the Sanction Letter of Cash Credit Hypothecation Limit of Rs.30 lakhs, which has been proved as Ex. PW2/M. He also deposed that loan was sanctioned with the terms of security of stock and book debts with current assets and on the equitable mortgage of H. No. E184, G. K. 1, New Delhi.

40. PW2 further deposed that the accused J. S. Chaney of Channey & CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 40 of 97 41 CBI Case No. 38/11 Associates submitted the Valuation Report, which has been proved as Ex. PW2/N, to the Chief Manager, SBBJ, regarding the valuation of the property No.E184, Greater KailashI, New Delhi and that he valued the property for Rs.1,63,08,000/(interestingly, the Investigation Officer did not investigate the role of the valuer in this case). He further deposed that in respect of the said loan, accused Sanjay Kumar Rathi, Advocate of Delhi High Court, filed the nonencumbrance certificate, which is Ex.PW 2/O, of the property No. 184, Greater Kailash I, New Delhi, allegedly belonging to one Surjit Singh s/o Karam Singh. PW2 also deposed that vide seizure memo dated 14.12.2006, he handed over to the CBI, the original sale deed, which has been proved as Ex.PW2/P, in respect of the property No. E/184, Greater Kailash1 New Delhi, which the borrowers had submitted to the bank. The testimony of this witness goes unchallenged and is uncontroverted on all material aspects. He has duly proved the report of accused Sanjay Kumar Rathi, an advocate on the panel of the bank and that all the pages of the report had his signatures. There has been no challenge to all this in the cross examination of this witness by accused Sanjay Kumar Rathi.

41. PW3Shri Yog Raj Bhatia was working as Manager Personal CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 41 of 97 42 CBI Case No. 38/11 during the relevant period in SBBJ, Nangal Raya Branch, New Delhi. In his testimony, he deposed that he had handed over the original Account Opening Form of SB A/c No.01190014322 of accused Surjeet Singh alongwith other documents vide Seizure Memo dated 20.9.2007, which has been proved as Ex.PW3/A. He also deposed about the letter of SBBJ dated 20.9.2007, Ex.PW3/B, which has been signed by Shri Raman Chaudhary, Chief Manager and about the original opening form of the aforesaid account of accused Surjit Singh, which has been proved as Ex. PW 3/C.

42. PW3 further deposed about the PAN CARD and Election Card of the coaccused Surjit Singh, which are Ex.PW3/D and Ex. PW3/E respectively and also deposed about the letter dated 26.2.2007, vide which above said documents were handed over to CBI. During his testimony, he identified the signatures of Shri Raman Chaudhary, Chief Manager, at point A on the said letter, which has been proved as Ex.PW3/F. He also identified the signatures of Shri Raman Chaudhary at points A and B on the document, which has been proved as Ex. PW3/G.

43. He further deposed that accused Surjeet Singh had applied for CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 42 of 97 43 CBI Case No. 38/11 loan against equitable mortgage vide application form, which has been filled in by PW3 and which has been proved as Ex.PW3/H, on which accused Surjeet Singh had affixed his photograph. PW3 further deposed that he prepared the arrangement letter and identified the signatures of accused Surjeet Singh at point A and B and that of the guarantor, accused Virender Kumar at point E and F on the same. The said Arrangement Letter has been proved as Ex. PW3/I. He further deposed that accused Virender Kumar executed a Deed of Guarantee, on which accused Virender Kumar signed at point A and B in his presence and affixed his photograph on the same. The said Deed of Guarantee has been duly proved as Ex. PW 3/J.

44. PW3 further deposed that accused Surjit Singh also executed an Agreement of Loan for Rs.15,00,000/ with the bank, which is Ex.PW3/K, by signing the same at point A to B. That accused Surjeet Singh also filed an an Affidavit, Ex.PW3/L and Insurance Indemnity, which has been proved as Ex. PW3/M. PW3 deposed that accused Surjeet Singh deposited a title deed relating to his property at E 184, Greater Kailash Part I, New Delhi and the same has been received in the CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 43 of 97 44 CBI Case No. 38/11 bank on 24.6.2005 vide letter, which has been proved as Ex.PW3/N. PW3 further deposed that he prepared the opinion report, which has been proved as Ex. PW3/O. PW3 further deposed that he visited the aforesaid property before sanctioning the said loan and proved his report as Ex.PW3/P. He also deposed that during the first visit for physical verification of the said property on 24.5.2005, accused Sri Kant Chawla was with him and he pointed out towards the said property but no person met them. He further deposed that he again visited the said property on 19.12.2005 after sanction of the loan and met the caretaker of the said property, who told him that owner of the property had gone out of state and thereafter, he did not visit the said property.

45. PW3 Yograj Bhatia, during his reexamination deposed about the Reporting Sheet, which has been proved as Ex. PW 3/Q.

46. PW4Shri Sanjay Rawat was working as UDC (Record Keeper) in the office of Sub Registrar V, Mehrauli, New Delhi. He deposed that he handed over to Inspector of Police, CBI, the certified copy of sale deed of property No. E 184, Greater KailashI, New Delhi, executed between Surjeet Singh and M/s Sky Line Promoters Pvt. Ltd, duly registered with CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 44 of 97 45 CBI Case No. 38/11 Sub Registrar vide registration No. 301 dated 23.2.1999, book No. 1, Vol. No. 1548, vide the seizure memo dated 28.7.2007, which has been proved as Ex. PW4/A. PW4 further deposed about the letter dated 27.2.2008, which has been proved as Ex.PW4/B, vide which he forwarded the certified copy of the sale deed, Ex. PW4/C, to Inspector, CBI. PW4 further deposed that he also forwarded the true copy of the Peshi Register for the relevant period from 20.3.1999 onwards, which has been proved as Ex.PW4/D. PW 4 further deposed about the procedure of registration of property documents, during his testimony.

47. PW5 - Shri G. L. Kanwar was Deputy Manager in Nangal Raya Branch of SBBJ at the relevant time. During his testimony, he deposed that he handed over several documents to CBI vide seizure memo dated 13.12.2007, which has been proved as Ex.PW5/A. He further deposed that vide this memo, Ex. PW5/A, he also provided three cheques, Ex. PW5/B, Ex.PW5/C, & Ex.PW5/D and statement of account No. 01190014322 of the accused Surjeet Singh, which is Ex.PW5/E and statement of account No.51025482941 of the accused Surjeet Singh, Ex.PW5/F and seven credit vouchers, which are Ex.PW5/G, Ex.PW5/H, CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 45 of 97 46 CBI Case No. 38/11 Ex.PW5/I, Ex.PW5/J, Ex.PW5/K, Ex.PW5/L, & Ex. PW 5/M.

48. PW5 further deposed that he handed over some more documents to the IO of the case, Inspector B. M. Pandit vide seizure memo dated 10.12.2007, which has been proved as Ex. PW5/N. He also deposed that he supplied to CBI the documents, which are Ex.PW5/O to Ex.PW5/L.

49. PW6Shri Raman Chaudhary was the successor of accused Sri Kant Chawla and was posted as Chief Manager of Nangal Raya Branch, New Delhi, from May 2006 to April, 2008. In his testimony, he deposed that M/s Pavi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. was sanctioned cash credit (Hypothecation) against the stock and book debts limit of Rs.30 lakhs under SBBJ Sulabh Vayapar Rin Yojna. He also deposed in detail about the procedure and guidelines, about the Sulabh Vyapar Yojna. He deposed about the rules and norms for advance of loan, Ex. PW3/G.

50. PW7Sushil Kumar Goyal, the then Assistant General ManagerI, deposed that he alongwith his Assistant, Shri Vijay Bhargav, visited the Nangal Raya Branch in January, 2006 and during inspection, observed CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 46 of 97 47 CBI Case No. 38/11 irregularities, which were mentioned in the Branch Visit Register, Ex.PW7/A, on page 33 of the said register, copy of which has been duly proved as Ex. PW 7/B.

51. PW7 further deposed that Shri J. L. Jain was deputed to look into the matter, who after visiting the branch, gave his report. He identified and proved the signatures of J. L Jain at point A on his report, which is Ex. PW7/C. He deposed that Shri P. S. Yadav from Vigilance Department, was deputed to look into the matter, who submitted his report, which has been proved as Ex. PW 7/D (copy).

52. PW 7 further deposed that accused S. K. Chawla sanctioned the loan to M/s Pavi Overseas vide document, which is Ex. PW7/E. He also deposed about the circular No.C&I/14/200304, issued on 24.9.2001, relating to "SBBJ Sulabh Vyapar Rin Yojna" for SIB & C&I customers and the same has been proved as Ex. PW7/F. PW 7 further deposed about the circular No. P/30/200203 dated 5.12.2002 and Circular No. P/44/200304 issued on 29.3.2004, relating to personal loan against the equitable mortgage, which are Ex.PW7/G & Ex. PW7/H. He has deposed that the overdrawal by the accused persons was more than CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 47 of 97 48 CBI Case No. 38/11 the limit, which the accused Sri Kant Chawla could not allow but allowed.

53. PW8 Prem Raj Mawar, who was posted as Deputy Manager in Nangal Raya branch of the said SBBJ, deposed that the loan proposal form of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, which has been proved as Ex. PW8/A, the same was partly filled up by accused S. K. Chawla and partly by him on the basis of balance sheet of the company and affidavits, etc., furnished by the borrower and guarantor. He deposed that on the said form, one of the Directors, Gurkaran, had signed in his presence at points A to B on page 4 of the above said document. He further deposed that he prepared the opinion report of the coaccused Bhupender Pal Singh, Ishleen Kaur and Gurkaran Singh (all of them the Directors), on the information furnished by borrowers and guarantor and the same was approved and signed by accused S. K. Chawla. He further deposed that the consent clause (Annexure1), which are Ex. PW8/B and Ex. PW8/C, was executed by the borrowers and on which accused Gurkaran Singh, Bhupinder Kaur and Ishleen Kaur signed at points A to B, C to D and at E to F, respectively.

CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 48 of 97 49 CBI Case No. 38/11

54. He further deposed that the letter regarding the grant of individual limits, was duly filled up by him and was signed by accused Gurkaran Singh at point A & B, by accused Bhupender Pal Singh at points C & D and by accused Ishleen Kaur at point E &F and also by accused S. K. Chawla at point G and H. The said letter has been proved as Ex. PW8/D. PW8 further deposed about the agreement of loan for overall limit, which has been signed by all the Directors ( i.e. A2, A3 & A6) of M/s Pavi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. and vide which the borrowers requested the bank to finance from time to time the sum not exceeding, in the aggregate, the sum of Rs.30 lakhs. The said agreement has been duly proved as Ex. PW8/E. He further deposed that he filled up the Deed of Guarantee for Overall Limit, which has been signed by accused Surjit Singh as Guarantor and by all the Directors ( i.e. A2, A3 & A6) in his presence and proved the said deed as Ex. PW8/F. This shows that the borrowers and the guarantor Surjit Singh (who impersonated as such) were all hand in glove with each other.

55. PW8 further deposed that an account was opened in the name of M/s Pavi Overseas Pvt. Ltd., A1/268, Janak Puri, New Delhi 58, vide Account Opening Form of the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, which CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 49 of 97 50 CBI Case No. 38/11 has been proved as Ex.PW8/G. He deposed that said form was dully signed by all the Directors ( i.e. A2, A3 & A6) of the company, namely, accused persons Bhupender Pal Singh, Smt. Ishleen Kaur and Gurkaran Singh at point A, B and C, respectively.

56. PW9Shri Sanjay Jain, who is Chartered Accountant and was running a firm in the name and style of M/s Sanjay Ramesh Jain and Company since 1993. He deposed that the Audit Reports, which are Ex.PW9/A and Ex.PW9/B, were not issued by him or by his firm. He further deposed that M/s Pavi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. had never been his client. He, thus, proved that accused Bhupender Pal Singh, Gurkaran Singh and Ishleen Kaur used forged, fabricated and fake audit reports showing his address falsely to induce the bank in question to sanction fraudulently the CC limit of Rs.30 lakhs in terms of the criminal conspiracy entered into with the other accused persons to cheat and defraud the bank.

57. PW 10 Shri Inderjit Singh, who was one of the Director of M/s Sky Line Promoters Pvt. Ltd., deposed that title deed, Ex.PW4/C was executed between his firm and Surjit Singh on 21.12.1998. He also CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 50 of 97 51 CBI Case No. 38/11 identified the photograph of Surjeet Singh as Vendor on the said sale deed at point A. He further deposed that the photographs, affixed at point A on Ex. PW3/H & on Ex. PW1/A, are not of actual Surjeet Singh. This witness, thus proved that fake and forged title deeds were produced and used to secure loan by the accused persons, fraudulently.

58. PW11 Shri Shivam Kumar was posted as Sr. Deputy Secretary in MC & MSS Department, Institute of Chartered Accountant of India in the year 2008. He deposed that he furnished several informations to Shri B. M. Pandit, IO of the case, vide letter dated 6.2.2008, which letter has been proved as Ex.PW11/A. He also deposed that M/s Goel Gupta and Associate, Delhi, was not registered with his Department. He further deposed that as per their record M/s Mittal & Goel Associates, Delhi, was also not registered with his Department and he furnished the informations to the IO, CBI, vide letter dated 4.2.2008, which has been proved as Ex.PW11/B.

59. PW12 Shri Niraj Nath was the Income Tax Officer from Ward No. 1(1), New Delhi at the relevant time, who deposed, during his testimony that he had furnished some details to Shri B. M. Pandit, IO of the case, CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 51 of 97 52 CBI Case No. 38/11 vide letter 28.9.2007, which has been proved as Ex.PW 12/A. He further deposed that Income Tax Returns at Sl. No.663729 dated 15.4.2004 and at Sl. No. 342694 dated 21.7.2004 were not, in fact, filed by Surjit Singh son of Karam Singh for the Assessment Year 20042005 and 20052006. The same were, therefore, fabricated and forged by the accused borrowers to cheat the bank.

60. PW13Shri Devendra Kumar, who was posted as Deputy Director (System) in the Income Tax Department during the relevant time, deposed that he had furnished some information to CBI vide letter dated 25.9.2007, which has been proved as Ex.PW13/A and also deposed that PAN number 'AGTPK9514G' and 'AFCPS8084F' were existing in PAN Data Base of the Department and the copies of the same have been proved as Ex.PW13/B & Ex.PW13/C.

61. PW14Shri Vijay Kumar, who was posted as Election Officer in the year 2008, deposed that he had forwarded required information to the IO, through a letter dated 2.4.2008, which has been proved as Ex.PW14/A. He further deposed that the said information was mentioned in the letter, Ex.PW14/B, on which he identified his CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 52 of 97 53 CBI Case No. 38/11 signatures at point B.

62. PW15Shri Suraj Mal Jain was Archivist in the Department of Delhi Archives in the year 2008. During his testimony, he deposed that he had handed over to CBI the original Sale Deed, Ex. PW 15/B, mentioned at Sl. No. 2 in seizure memo, Ex. PW15/A.

63. PW16Shri Govind Kishan Nirman, who was Deputy Manager in SBBJ, Nanagal Raya Branch from May 2004 to August/September, 2006, in his testimony, proved his statement recorded by CBI as Ex. PW16/A.

64. PW17Shri B. M. Pandit, Inspector, CBI, was the Investigation Officer of the present case. In his testimony, he deposed that the investigation of the present case was entrusted to him on 30.11.2006 and he proved the copy of the FIR in RC 04(E)/2006/EOW1/DLI as Ex. PW 17/A1. He deposed about the endorsement made by Shri D. K. Chaudhary, the then SP, at encircled portion 'X' on the complaint in the above said RC, which has been proved as Ex. PW17/A2. He further deposed that during the investigation, vide seizure memo dated 14.12.2006, Ex.PW2/H, he seized several documents, which have been CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 53 of 97 54 CBI Case No. 38/11 proved as Ex. PW17/A3 to Ex. PW 17/A24.

65. PW 17 further deposed that he received details about the bank account of Surjit Singh vide letter of the then Chief Manager of SBBJ dated 22.12.2007, which has been proved as Ex. PW17/A25. During his testimony, he further deposed about collection of several other documents from various Departments. He also deposed that he got marked the questioned documents with Q numbers and collected the specimen signatures and writings of the different persons including accused persons and got marked them with 'S' Numbers and also got forwarded the same to GEQD, Chandigarh, for expert opinion through a letter of DIG, A. K. Malhotra and proved the said letter as Ex.PW17/A26, the three annexures were proved as Ex. PW17/A27 to Ex.PW17/A29.

66. He further deposed that he got marked the questioned documents and sent the same to GEQD, Chandigarh, alongwith letter dated 3.3.2008, which has been proved as Ex.PW17/A30 and its annexure I, II, III and IV as Ex.PW17/A31 to Ex.PW17/A34, respectively. He also deposed that he received the opinion of the CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 54 of 97 55 CBI Case No. 38/11 handwriting expert, GEQD, Chandigarh, which has been proved as Ex.PW17/A35. The information obtained from Shri M. M. Lal, Chief Vigilance Officer, vide letter dated 3.5.2008, has been proved as Ex.PW17/A36.

67. PW17 further deposed that during investigation, he obtained the specimen signatures and handwritings of accused Bhupender Pal Singh on 13.12.2007 in the presence of one Shri Anil Kumar, which has been proved as Ex.PW17/A37 (colly). He further deposed that Inspector Ajit Singh, who was authorised by PW17, conducted search at the residence of accused Bhupinder Pal Singh Bakshi on 24.4.2007 and seized incriminating documents, vide search list dated 27.4.2007 and handed over the same to him. The said search list has been proved as Ex. PW17/A38 and the documents i.e. balance sheet as Ex.PW17/A39, Memorandum and Articles of Association of 'M/s Pavi Overseas Pvt Ltd.' as Ex. PW17/A40. He deposed that inspector Ajit also seized and handed over the documents, which have been proved as Ex.PW17/A41 & Ex. PW17/A42. He further deposed about the Circular No. REORG/6/9697 and copy of the Circular No. C & I/14/200304 dated 24.9.2003, collected from SBBJ, Nangal Raya Branch, New Delhi, which CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 55 of 97 56 CBI Case No. 38/11 have been proved as Ex.PW17/A43 & Ex. PW17/A44.

68. PW17 further deposed that he received the letter dated 9.2.2008, from SBBJ, which has been proved as Ex. PW17/A45. He further deposed that vide seizure memo dated 4.2.2008, he seized the documents mentioned therein from Gulzari Lal Kanwar, Assistant Manager, SBBJ, which has been proved as Ex.PW17/A46. He also proved the copy of the original cheque refer register as Ex.PW17/A47 and deposed that he seized the documents from Shri Vijay Kumar Gupta, Dy Manager, SBBJ, vide seizure memo, which has been proved as Ex. PW17/A48. He further seized 20 cheques (D 77 to D87) and Credit Voucher (D88), which are Ex. PW 17/A49 to Ex. PW 17/A69, vide memo Ex.PW17/A48.

69. The IO has further deposed about the investigation report dated 10.5.2006, submitted by Shri P. S. Yadav, Chief Manager (Vigilance) vide memo dated 9.5.2008, which has been proved as Ex.PW17/A70. PW 17 also deposed that vide seizure memo, Ex.PW17/A46, Special Hypothecation/ Inspection Register was seized, which has been proved CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 56 of 97 57 CBI Case No. 38/11 as Ex. PW17/A71 (copy).

70. PW 18 Shri Vijay Kumar, was UDC in Sales Tax Department at the relevant time. He, during his testimony, deposed about the house search of the accused Bhupinder Pal Singh by the CBI in his presence.

71. PW19 Anil Kumar, who was Officer in Oriental Bank of commerce, deposed during his examination, that in his presence, specimen signatures of accused Bhupinder Pal Singh was taken, thereby proving that what prosecution asserts in this regards is true.

72. PW20T. Joshi, who was Scientist B, in CFSL, Chandigarh, deposed about his opinion report and also the document in which reasons of his opinion are listed out. The same has been proved as Ex. PW 20/A.

73. PW21Raj Kumar Mittal, who was Legal Practitioner, deposed about the inspection of documents was conducted at the instance of the bank with concerned Sub Registrar office and proved his report as Ex.PW21/A. He also proved the bill presented to the bank, as Ex CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 57 of 97 58 CBI Case No. 38/11 PW21/B.

74. The prosecution evidence discussed herein above has, thus, established the case of the prosecution.

75. In this case, the allegation of the prosecution against all the accused persons are that they entered into criminal conspiracy to cheat the bank, by using forged and fabricated documents and that they did cheat the bank on the strength of forged and fabricated documents. That accused Sri Kant Chawla(A1) (a public servant), abused and misused his power and position, being the Chief Manager of the bank, in question, at the relevant time. The other accused persons too played their role actively and committed the alleged offences.

76. The defence led no evidence and in no manner, countered or contradicted the evidence that has been established by the prosecution, as against all the accused persons. The case of the prosecution, thus, stands fully established against all the accused persons in terms of the charge framed against each one of them.

CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 58 of 97 59 CBI Case No. 38/11

77. The striking and strong documentary and oral evidence proved on record by the prosecution fully contradicts the innocence of all the accused persons.

78. It is well settled that criminal conspiracy can be proved by the prosecution by leading the circumstantial evidence. The following case law illustrates this fully:

79. 'Conspiracies are not hatched in the open. The offence of conspiracy can always be proved by circumstantial evidence also' {2011(4) RCR (Criminal) P 84 SC}.

80. It may not be possible to prove the agreement between the conspirators by direct proof but the meeting of minds of the conspirators can very well be inferred from the circumstances proved by the prosecution. {State of Punjab vs. Jurnail Singh, 2011(3) RCR (Criminal) 244 (Punjab & Haryana) (DB)}.

81. 'Act or action of one of the accused can be used against the other accused in case of conspiracy by virtue of section 10 of the Evidence Act' CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 59 of 97 60 CBI Case No. 38/11 {Mohan Singh vs. State of Bihar 2011(4) RCR(Criminal) 84 SC}.

82. In the case law reported as Firozuddin Basheeruddin (2001) 7 SCC 596, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :

"All conspirators are liable for crimes committed in furtherance of the conspiracy by any member of the group, regardless of whether liability would be established by the law of complicity. The law punishes conduct that threatens to produce the harm, as well as conduct that has actually produced it. Conspirators may be tried and punished for both the conspiracy and the completed crime".

83. In the case law reported as Hashim (K) 2005 Cri LJ 143 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "for an offence punishable under section 120B, the prosecution need not necessarily prove that the perpetrators expressly agree do to or cause to be done illegal act; the agreement may be proved by necessary implication".

84. In the case law reported as (2001) 4 Crimes 247 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "to prove conspiracy, it is not necessary that there should be direct communication between each conspirer and every CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 60 of 97 61 CBI Case No. 38/11 other but the criminal design alleged must be common to all".

85. It has been held in the case law reported as Firozuddin Basheeruddin (2001) 7 SCC 596 that "the rationale of conspiracy is that the required objective manifestation of disposition to criminality is provided by the act of agreement. Conspiracy is a clandestine activity. Persons generally do not form illegal covenants openly. In the interest of security, a person may carry out his part of a conspiracy without even being informed of the identity of his coconspirators. An agreement of this kind can rarely be shown by direct proof, it must be inferred from circumstantial evidence of what lies in their minds".

86. It was further observed in the aforesaid judgment that "Regarding admissibility of evidence, loosened standards prevail in a conspiracy trial. Contrary to the usual rule, in conspiracy prosecutions, any declaration by one conspirator, made in furtherance of a conspiracy and during its pendency, is admissible against each coconspirator. Despite the unreliability of hearsay evidence, it is admissible in conspiracy prosecutions. Thus conspirators are liable on agency theory for statements of co conspirators, just as they are for the overt acts and crimes committed by their confrers".

CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 61 of 97 62 CBI Case No. 38/11

87. Against each of the accused persons overwhelming evidence has appeared on record and there is no manner of doubt that they have committed the alleged offences. At the cost of repetition, the striking evidence proved against each one of them is being reproduced hereunder.

88. Evidence against the accused (A1) Sri Kant Chawla

(i) Admittedly, he was the Chief Manager of SBBJ Nangal Raya Branch, New Delhi, during the period from 3.3.2004 to 24.2.2006. PW1- M. M. Lal has proved the complaint as Ex.PW1/B, duly signed by him and on the basis of which present case was registered. The report clearly brings out dishonest acts of commission and omission of accused (A1) and that the accused (A1) permitted dishonestly the overdrawings much beyond the sanctioned limit and beyond his discretion without any intimation or permission from the higher authorities in utter violation of the rules and guidelines of the bank to benefit, illegally, the accused borrowers, in pursuance to the criminal conspiracy.

(ii) In this case, M/s Pavi Overseas Pvt. Ltd., through its Directors, CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 62 of 97 63 CBI Case No. 38/11 had submitted their request for Cash Credit (Hypothecation) Limit of Rs.30 lakhs based on forged and fabricated documents, which were readily accepted, without any scrutiny and in pursuance to the criminal conspiracy and were used by the accusedA1 while sanctioning the loan facilities to the borrower accused persons. The Audit Reports did not contain the License Number of the concerned Chartered Accountant. PW9Sanjay Jain has categorically deposed that the firm of the Chartered Accountant named as M/s Mittal & Goel Associates, was not functioning at the address given in the Audit Reports, relied upon by the accused persons. He has also deposed that the same were not issued by him and that he did not know M/s Pavi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. All this clearly show that the said reports were forged and fabricated. Further, it has appeared on record in the prosecution's evidence that the said firm was not functioning at all during the relevant period.

(iii) Para 10 annexed to Circular, Ex.PW7/F, as Annexure1, pertaining to scheme for finance to retail and wholesale traders, namely, SBBJ Sulabh Vyapar Rin Yojna, provides that in case immovable property is offered as collateral security, Valuation Certificate was required to be obtained by the Branch Manager concerned and that besides the CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 63 of 97 64 CBI Case No. 38/11 reports, he was to make his own assessment about the prevailing market value based upon the inspection of the property coupled with local enquiries to ensure that the property is marketable. It was, therefore, incumbent upon the accused (A1) to make further independent assessment, which he intentionally and dishonestly avoided. On the contrary, he filed false opinion report without carrying out any local enquiry or visiting the property. Had he actually visited or inspected the property, he would have at once come to know that the property was purchased by M/s Sky Line Promoters Pvt. Ltd. long back and that they were in possession since 21.12.1998 and that accused Surjeet Singh (PO in this case) was not in possession thereof and the banking fraud of this case could be avoided.

(iv) Accused (A1) with dishonest intention did not verify the identity of the person, who was introduced as guarantor by the borrowers. According to the bank instructions and circulars, the guarantor was required to be the family member of the borrower. In this case, the guarantor, produced by the borrowers, impersonated as Surjeet Singh, R/o 6A/54, WEA, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, without furnishing any proof of his residential address. Accused(A1) did not obtain full details about CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 64 of 97 65 CBI Case No. 38/11 the guarantor and dishonestly left many vital columns of the prescribed proforma of 'opinion report' blank and thereby, using the same with malafide intention, sanctioned the loan based upon the false impersonation of the guarantor as Surjeet Singh. Admittedly, loan proposal of the borrowers, in this case, was evaluated by accused (A1) and he fraudulently sanctioned the CC limit of Rs.30 lakhs on 12.4.2005 to the borrowers, the accused persons in this case.

(v) Statements of Accounts like Ex.PW7/DX1 and Ex. PW7/DX2, clearly show how the accused (A1) allowed the borrowers to overdraw money from the bank without any authorization or permission from the higher authorities. Clearly, it was in utter violation of the circular, Ex. PW17/A44, dated 9.9.1996 as a dishonest act on the part of the accused (A1) in pursuance to the criminal conspiracy amongst the accused persons.

(vi) Accused (A1) dishonestly, in pursuance to the criminal conspiracy, accepted false and fabricated non encumbrance certificate and false legal search report of accused (A5), which was dated 05.02.05 and was shockingly and surprisingly made deceitfully available even prior to the CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 65 of 97 66 CBI Case No. 38/11 date of application, dated 03.03.2005, when the accused borrower approached the bank and without inspecting the property, offered as collateral security, the same was accepted as equitable mortgage.

(vii) PW3Yog Raj Bhatia has clearly deposed that under the instructions of accused (A1), he sanctioned the loan of Rs.15 lakhs in the Savings Bank Account of impersonated guarantor, accused Surjeet Singh (PO in this case) on 24.5.2005. The said loan was also against the equitable mortgage of the property in question, which was fraudulently offered by the borrowers i.e. accused persons in this case. The account in question became NonProductive Account (NPA) in the year 2006. Accused (A1) clearly allowed the impostor guarantor, accused Surjeet Singh (PO in this case), to sign the guarantee deed.

(viii) Accused (A1) dishonestly passed cheques, proved as Ex. PW 17/A49 to Ex. PW 17/A59, to the detriment of interest of the bank in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy to benefit the borrowers illegally. Accused (A1) also allowed purchase of the cheques, which is clear from the credit slip dated 8.7.2005, Ex.PW17/A60, bearing the initials of Accused (A1) and writing 'DN' by implying that the said cheque be CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 66 of 97 67 CBI Case No. 38/11 purchased. The cheque, Ex. PW 17/A61 to Ex. PW 17/A69 were also illegally and unauthorizedly passed on account of M/s Pavi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Ex. PW3/P, which is a PreSanctioned Survey Report, dated 24.5.2005, was, admittedly, signed by accused(A1). Accused (A1) readily accepted vague and false Valuation Report, Ex.PW2/N, which was fake and despite the fact that para 6 of the report in respect of the location, street and ward of the property was left blank by the valuer.

(ix) Ex.PW8/A (D17) is the application cum appraisal form, which was filed by accused Gurkaran Singh as one of the director on behalf of M/s Pavi Overseas Pvt. Ltd . Page 2 of the said form, contains valuation report of Rs.1,63,08,000/, based on receipt of report of M/s Chaney & Associates, dated 03.03.05. The application is also dated 03.03.05 and is signed by accused Gurkaran Singh on page 4 of the application. This clearly indicates that everything was cooked up on the date of presentation of the application, itself and accused (A1) instead of carrying out any verification, fraudulently, accepted the same as a correct valuation, at the very threshold.

(x) The same application shows that the search, dated 05.02.05 is CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 67 of 97 68 CBI Case No. 38/11 mentioned in different handwriting at page 6 than the other contents in the application. Either this was inserted subsequently, and in case, it existed at the time of presentation of the application, on the face of it, it ought to have surprised the accused no. 1 but since accused no. 1 was all out to translate into reality the criminal conspiracy already hatched amongst the accused persons, he took it as it is, dishonestly.

(xi) Appraisal note of Ex.PW8/A, is admittedly, signed by accused (A1) and on page 7 of the same, is the opinion report of the guarantor, duly signed by him. A bare perusal of this report shows that the columns relating to business and telephone number of the guarantor were left blank. The person having allegedly immovable property of more than Rs. 1.63 Crores cannot be presumed to be having no telephone number.

(xii) Further, it is not clear as to where from accused (A1) lifted the value of movable assets of Surjit Singh, which are mentioned as Rs.3.15 Lakhs as there was no material attached with the application, to support this.

(xiii) Further, stock statement, dated 11.04.05, signed by one of the CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 68 of 97 69 CBI Case No. 38/11 borrower, accused Gurkaran Singh, is blank with respect to description of goods and its quantity, only total value in rupees is mentioned. All this is at back of page 7 of Ex.PW8/A. This indicates that the parties were all out to cheat the bank, by adopting any flimsy or arbitrary or exaggerated value of the stock, without mentioning what the goods were or what was its quantity. Accused (A1), however, gladly accepted it for oblique motive.

(xiv) Further, in stock inspection report, which is duly signed by accused (A1) on 11.05.04, the date of inspection is blank, indicating that no inspection was carried out by accused (A1) and dishonestly he accepted whatever borrowers falsely stated in their application, in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy, hatched amongst the accused persons.

(xv) In the report, Ex.PW9/B, relied upon by the borrowers, there was no membership number of the Chartered Accountant, which has been shown and proved as forged and fabricated by PW9. Despite this deficiency, the same was relied upon readily by accused (A1). CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 69 of 97 70 CBI Case No. 38/11

89. It has been authoritatively held that :

"Manager of the Bank responsible for the sanction of a loan is much more responsible to sanction the loan and to see all documents complete and in order and that the same are valid. It is his responsibility to examine the complete record and then sanction the loan. If there is an allegation of grant of loan on the basis of forged/fabricated documents, it is not a case of mere negligence. It is a case of conspiracy."

{R.K. Tyagi vs. The ChairmancumManaging Director, 2011(7) RCR (Criminal) 2497 (Punjab & Haryana)relied upon}.

90. In 'Tara Chand Vyas vs. Chairman & Disciplinary Authority (1997) 4 SCC 565', the Hon'ble Apex Court observed 'The banking business and services were nationalized to achieve the objects of economic empowerment of weaker sections of the people as a part of social and economic justice. The nationalized banks, therefore, are the prime sources and pillars for establishment of socioeconomic justice for the weaker sections. The employees and officers working in the banks are not merely the trustees of the society, but also bear the responsibility and owe duty to the society for effectuation of socioeconomic empowerment. The banking business and services are vitally CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 70 of 97 71 CBI Case No. 38/11 affected by catastrophic corruption. It is required to eradicate corruption to properly channelize the use of public funds, the live wire for effectuation of socioeconomic justice in order to achieve the constitutional goal set in the preamble to the constitution and to see that the corruption conduct of the officers do not degenerate the efficiency of service leading to denationalization of the banking system.'

91. Evidence against the accused (A2) Bhupinder Pal Singh Bakshi

(i) Admittedly, he opened the CC Account in his capacity of Director alongwith other Directors of M/s Pavi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. on 12.4.2005. On 3.3.2005, request for sanctioning of loan was made by M/s Pavi Overseas Pvt. Ltd, while offering collateral security, the property in question shown to be standing in the name of one Surjeet Singh and said Surjeet Singh was offered as guarantor. It has been proved on record that someone had impersonated as the said Surjeet Singh and that the said Surjeet Singh was not member of his family and that he did not own the said property.

(ii) He has also submitted forged sale deed in respect of the property in CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 71 of 97 72 CBI Case No. 38/11 question. He submitted forged and fabricated Audit Reports and Income Tax Returns, forged PAN Card and Election ID in the name of guarantor, accused Sujeet Singh (PO in this case), which are established on record as Ex. PW17/A8 & Ex. PW 17/A6. Statement of PW9Sanjay Jain clearly shows that the Audits Reports, furnished by the accused (A2) were forged and fabricated. He has also submitted the copies of the forged Income Tax Returns for the year 200405 and 200506 in the name of Surjeet Singh, in as much as the information received from the Income Tax Department clearly indicate that the same were not filed in the said Income Tax Ward.

(iii) Accused(A2) alongwith other Directors fraudulently obtained the sanction of CC Limit of Rs.30 lakhs. The signatures of all the three borrowers, accused persons in this case, namely, A2, A3, and A6 and that of guarantor, who impersonated as Surjeet Singh, had been identified on various bank documents including Account Opening Form, Loan Agreement papers, Sanctioned Letter, Guarantee Deed, Application cumAppraisal form, forged balance sheets and forged Audit Reports, which have been proved as Ex.PW 8/G, Ex. PW2/A, Ex.PW8/B, Ex. PW8/C, Ex.PW 8/D, Ex. PW 8/E, Ex. PW 2/K, Ex. PW 2/L, Ex. PW 7/E & CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 72 of 97 73 CBI Case No. 38/11 Ex.PW2/M, Ex. PW 8/F, Ex. PW 2/D, Ex. PW 17/A3 & Ex. PW 17/A4, and Ex. PW 9/A, Ex. PW 9/B, respectively.

(iv) The statements of Account, Ex. PW 7/X1 and Ex. PW 7/X2, clearly show the overdrawn position. The cash was overdrawn by the borrowers, accused persons in this case, in collusion with accused (A1).

(v) Statement of PW14 Vijay Kumar show that photocopy of Election ID, submitted in the name of Surjeet Singh by the accused (A2), was a forged document as is indicated by the documents, Ex. PW 14/A and Ex. PW 14/B.

(vi) Statement of PWs Devender Kumar and Niraj Nath show that copy of PAN Card and ITRs submitted were forged documents as is indicated by the documents, Ex.PW13/A, Ex.PW13/B, Ex. PW13/C and Ex.PW12/A.

(vii) Statement of PW11 Shivam Kumar shows that documents, Ex. PW 11/B and Ex. PW 11/A indicate that no firm of Chartered CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 73 of 97 74 CBI Case No. 38/11 Accountants in the name of M/s Mittal & Goel Associates was registered with the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India during the relevant period. His statement coupled with deposition of PW Sanjay Jain clearly prove that accused (A2) alongwith other accused borrowers, used forged and fabricated Audit Reports.

(viii) Statement of Account, Ex.PW 7/DX1, clearly indicates overdrawn by the accused borrowers amount of more than 33 lakhs as against the sanctioned limit of Rs.30 lakhs.

(ix) Ex. PW14/B clearly prove that the name of purported Guarantor, Surjeet Singh, was not in the Electoral Roll for the period 1998 and 2002 to 2007. On the contrary, some Bhargava family was residing in the said property during the above said period.

(x) This accused (A2) alongwith accused (A3) and accused (A6) clearly defrauded the bank by producing fake guarantor alongwith forged and fabricated documents.

92. Evidence against the accused (A3) Gurkaran Singh

(i) Admittedly, he is son of accused (A2) and was one of the CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 74 of 97 75 CBI Case No. 38/11 Directors of M/s Pavi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. He introduced the savings bank account of purported guarantor, who impersonated as Surjeet Singh.

(ii) It is clear from the deposition of PW Inderjit Singh and the documents, collected from the Income Tax Authorities and Census Department that copy of PAN Card and forged Election ID was submitted by the borrowers/accused persons, including accused (A3) vide which guarantor impersonated as Surjeet Singh.

(iii) Accused (A3) falsely introduced an impostor, who impersonated as accused Surjeet Singh.

(iv) This accused consciously and actively connived with accused (A2) & other accused persons as his signatures appear, admittedly, on several documents mentioned above and duly proved on record.

(v) Further, as discussed above, he has received a sum of Rs.5 lakhs from the Savings Bank Account of Surjeet Singh on 25.5.2005 vide cheque. He has also deposited a sum of Rs.3,30,000/ in the said account, which was declared NPA on 19.10.2006 with an outstanding balance of CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 75 of 97 76 CBI Case No. 38/11 more than Rs.12 lakhs, which was never paid back to the bank in question.

(vi) There are loan documents, cheques and application for loan etc duly proved on record and showing his active involvement in the alleged crime.

93. Evidence against the accused (A4) - Virender Kumar Syal

(i) He introduced CC Account, proved as Ex. PW8/G & Ex. Ex.PW2/A, which was later on changed to another account w.e.f. 11.8.2005 of M/s Pavi Overseas Pvt. Ltd.

(ii) He identified the signatures of guarantor, who signed in the name of accused Surjeet Singh (PO in this case) on the bank documents. He has, thus, identified the impostor, who has impersonated as Surjeet Singh.

(iii) He stood guarantor in the personal loan account of impostor guarantor, who impersonated as Surjeet Singh in the Guarantee Deed. CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 76 of 97 77 CBI Case No. 38/11

(iv) He withdrew Rs.9 lakhs vide two cheques of Rs.5 lakhs and 4 lakhs respectively, drawn on the personal loan account of impostor guarantor, Surjeet Singh. He has, therefore, illegally enriched himself by a sum of Rs.9 lakhs.

(v) He was active participant along with other accused persons in the alleged offences.

(vi) The report of the GEQD Expert, proved on record, has also opined and confirmed his signatures on the aforesaid two cheques signed by accused Gurkaran Singh and on the back of each cheque, the accused (A4) signed while receiving the money in cash. This accused was, therefore, hand in glove with the other accused persons to cheat the bank in question.

94. All the accused persons thus cheated the bank using forged and fabricated documents. It has been held by our own High Court that 'where the accused obtained loan from the bank by producing forged documents, the method adopted by the accused to get the loan cannot be accepted as offences under section 420, 467, 468 CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 77 of 97 78 CBI Case No. 38/11 and 471 IPC are attracted {Hardayal Gumber vs. CBI, 2011 (9) AD (Delhi)}'.

95. In the case law reported as Devender Kumar Singla vs. Baldev Krishan Singla, 2004 Cri LJ 1774 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed the following points as essential ingredients to attract section 420 IPC:

1. Cheating;

2.Dishonest inducement to deliver property or to make, alter or destroy any valuable security or anything which is sealed or signed or is capable of being converted into a valuable security, and

3.Mens rea of the accused at the time of making the inducement. The making of a false representation is one of the ingredients for the offence of cheating under section 420."..

96. In the case law reported as AIR 2004 SC 3229, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :

"For an offence under section 471, one of the necessary ingredients is fraudulent and dishonest use of the document as genuine. The act need not be both dishonest and fraudulent".

97. Evidence against the accused (A5) - Sanjay Kumar Rathi .

(i) Accused (A5) gave false and fabricated NonEncumbrance certificate and false Opinion Report dated 05.02.2005 without any CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 78 of 97 79 CBI Case No. 38/11 reference from the bank, in pursuance to the criminal conspiracy with the borrowers and fake guarantor even prior to the date 03.03.05 when loan application was filed and the borrowers came for the first time to the bank, with mala fide intention in respect of the property No. E184, Greater Kailash, Part I, New Delhi, to cheat the bank in question in the matter of sanctioning of CC Limit of Rs.30 lakhs and Rs.15 lakhs.

(ii) The report given by him to the bank has been proved on record as Ex.PW2/O, which is dated 5.2.2005 in which he has certified that the property belongs to Surjeet Singh and that the title of the property was clear and marketable. It has been proved on record that property did not belong to Surjeet Singh and that someone has impersonated as Surjeet Singh. The said property was purchased by M/s Sky Line Promoters Pvt. Ltd. way back on 21.12.1998. The seller of the property had left for Bangkok after sale of the said property as is evident from the deposition of PW Inderjit Singh, Director of Sky Line Promoters Pvt. Ltd.

(iii) PW2, admittedly, a responsible bank official, has clearly proved the report of this accused, which is Ex.PW2/O and is dated 05.02.05, CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 79 of 97 80 CBI Case No. 38/11 consisting of seven pages and each page is signed by this accused. Admittedly, this report was mischievously relied upon by accused (A1) in pursuance to the criminal conspiracy, while sanctioning the loan, in this case, to the accused borrowers. This witness has further clearly deposed that accused (A5) was on the bank panel as an advocate. That being so, PW2 in the official course, was entitled to prove the signatures of the bank panel advocate, as signatures of the panel advocate are freely available in the bank. He has thus proved the signatures of accused (A5), on each page of the report, Ex.PW2/O. The evidence of PW2 on all these material aspects has been accepted by accused (A5) as it remained completely unchallenged and uncontroverted. It is trustworthy and reliable otherwise.

(iv) No suggestion was given to PW2 or any other prosecution witness that the aforesaid report was not submitted to the bank by accused (A5) or was not signed by him. Not even a remote suggestion was given that someone impersonated as advocate Sanjay Kumar Rathi and then presented the said report to the then Chief Manager accused (A1) to whom it was addressed.

CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 80 of 97 81 CBI Case No. 38/11

(v) Accused (A5) is an advocate by profession. He definitely came to know about the facts of the case when the present case was registered or in any case, when he appeared in the court as accused person and was charged. Even thereafter, admittedly, he has not initiated any action against the bank or any other person, stating that someone had forged and fabricated the report, Ex.PW2/O, on his letter head impersonating as advocate Sanjay Kumar Rathi, as it was a serious matter, in case, the report, Ex.PW2/O was not actually prepared and filed by him. Since he has not done all this, it has to be positively inferred that the report was prepared and filed by him and reached accused (A1) in pursuance to the criminal conspiracy. It is only subsequently, during the course of the trial, all of a sudden, he has taken a false stand and has attempted to disown his own report. This stand taken up by the accused, on the face of it, does not inspire any confidence and is required to be discarded under the circumstances proved on record.

(vi) Further, signatures appearing on all the seven pages of the report, Ex.PW2/O, if compared with a naked eye with the admissible signatures of this accused on judicial record like Vakalatnma and several applications moved by this very accused in the court especially, the CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 81 of 97 82 CBI Case No. 38/11 applications, dated 08.12.09 and 03.07.12 clearly demonstrate that Ex.PW2/O bears his signatures. The false stand taken by accused (A5), during the course of trial, further demonstrates his conduct that he has tried to conceal the truth even at a subsequent stage.

(vii) The report, Ex.PW2/O, is dated 05.02.05 whereas the application for loan in this case, was preferred by the borrower accused only on 03.03.05. This indicates that accused (A5) had already entered into criminal conspiracy with accused (A1), accused borrowers and the fake guarantor and had fabricated false and dishonest report, in collusion with the borrowers and the fake guarantor, Surjit Singh, much prior to the application for loan was moved in the bank, in this case. This clearly shows that he was acting actively as one of the important participant in the criminal conspiracy, hatched by the other accused persons right from the beginning.

(viii) The contents of the report, Ex.PW2/O show that the accused had relied upon the receipt of Sub Registrar's Office, dated 02.02.05, in which the inspection is shown to be for the period 1990 to 2005 only, whereas, in the report, Ex.PW2/O he has recited that he had CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 82 of 97 83 CBI Case No. 38/11 seen the documents, pertaining to the year 1963, onwards. This clearly shows that he had obtained the receipt of Sub Registrar only as a cover up whereas he had never inspected the true record or came to know about the true position. He dishonestly gave a false report in complicity with the other coaccused persons and has falsely justified that he had seen the record of 1963 also. In fact, he had falsely induced the bank to accept bogus title deeds and grant loan facilities to the borrower accused persons in pursuance to the criminal conspiracy already hatched amongst the accused persons.

(ix) AnnexureII of the report, Ex.PW2/O clearly shows that this accused (A5), on his own, has stated that all the original documents were shown to him by the party i.e. the borrower/guarantor. All these documents allegedly, pertained to the guarantor. In his report, he has also given full particulars of the borrowers and their residential address. All this shows that as on 05.02.2005, he was already in contact with the party i.e. the borrowers and guarantor.

(x) The contents of Ex.PW2/O thus fortify the fact that even prior to moving the application for loan to the bank on 03.03.05, accused (A5) CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 83 of 97 84 CBI Case No. 38/11 had already hatched conspiracy along with other acused persons to defraud the bank, by fabricating the forged and fabricated report without asking of the bank much prior and in any case, on 05.02.05. False and fabricated report, Ex.PW2/O was kept ready and was used by the accused persons for grant of loan, in this case. Accused (A5) was thus in active connivance with other accused persons.

(xi) In the report, Ex.PW2/O, accused (A5) has nowhere indicated any letter or reference number of the bank, showing very clearly that this report was prepared in pursuance to the criminal conspiracy amongst the accused persons, without any written requisition of the bank and was later on used by accused (A1), who sanctioned the loan. Had there been any assignment of job to submit search report to accused (A5), being on the panel of the bank, the same might have been forwarded to him through any official oral or written communication, reference of which was required to be given by accused (A5) in his report, Ex.PW2/O. When the same is not there, it speaks volume about the collusion amongst the accused persons to translate the criminal conspiracy into actual action, in a grossly illegal manner. The contents of the report, Ex.PW2/O clearly shows that accused (A5) was in active complicity with CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 84 of 97 85 CBI Case No. 38/11 the borrowers, guarantor and the Chief Manager(A1), who are all the accused persons, in this case.

(xii) There is another interesting aspect, mentioned in the report, Ex.PW2/O that accused (A5) has stated that the name of the mortgagor is recorded in the revenue and Municipal record, as owner. As a panel advocate giving merely the search report, he ought to have no occasion to see Municipal/revenue record. There is no whisper in the report that he actually visited any such authority or even was asked by the bank to do so. It is, therefore, apparent that this was recorded falsely at the instance of other co accused persons, especially, when the mortgagor, in this case, was impostor and who impersonated as Surjit Singh and used forged and fabricated title deeds.

(xiii) Accused (A5) admittedly did not charge any fees and there is no such evidence on record that the bank cleared any such claim of his. This was perhaps for the reason that he was benefited by the party and the report was being fabricated deceitfully. His conduct of taking a false defence during the course of proceedings, of disowning the report and the attending circumstances proved on record indicate that he was CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 85 of 97 86 CBI Case No. 38/11 hand in glove with other accused person while presenting the false report to the bank in advance to cheat the bank.

(xiv) Certified copy of relevant page of Peshi Register of the office of the Sub Registrar, Mehrauli, New Delhi, have been proved as Ex.PW4/D. There is a deposition of PW Sanjay Kumar, Sub Registrar, showing that the property in question was registered in the name of M/s Sky Line Promoters Pvt. Ltd. w.e.f. 21.12.1998 and that the same was not in the name of Surjeet Singh. The certified copy of the sale deed dated 21.12.1998 has been proved as Ex.PW4/C, which clearly shows that it was in the name of M/s Sky Line Promoters Pvt. Ltd. All these facts show that accused Sanjay Kumar Rathi without inspecting the record and in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy with other accused persons, fabricated false report for inducing the bank to get fraudulently the loan sanctioned to the accused persons in this case.

(xv) In cross examination of PW4, on behalf of accused (A5), a suggestion was given that 'only title of the parties was shown to accused Sanjay Kumar Rathi, when he inspected the peshi register, personally'. Giving this suggestion, indicates that it is the admitted case of this CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 86 of 97 87 CBI Case No. 38/11 accused that he did visit the Sub Registrar Office, pertaining to the property in this case. He has thus clearly taken a false stand subsequently, disowning the report, furnished by him. It is also not his case that he has filed some other report other than, Ex.PW2/O in the bank, in pursuance to his alleged visit to the Sub Registrar Office. This accused did not produce his office copies or record showing the reports submitted by him to the bank to come clean for obvious reason of concealing the truth. Under section 106 of the Evidence Act, he had burden to spell out the facts in his exclusive knowledge, which burden he has failed to discharge. PW4 has clearly proved that the sale deed mentioned and relied upon by the accused in his report, Ex.PW2/O, was fake and fabricated.

(xvi) PW8 Prem Raj Mawar has deposed that he had processed the case of loan, in this case and had gone through the search report. He has also deposed that it was prepared by the present accused, who was Advocate of the bank. No suggestion/question was put to him that Ex.PW2/O was not filed by accused (A5) or that it did not bear his signatures or that it had come to the bank, having been filed by someone else, who impersonated as Sanjay Kumar Rathi. None of these CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 87 of 97 88 CBI Case No. 38/11 suggestions were even remotely put to him, confirming the fact that Ex.PW2/O was filed or given by none other than accused (A5) himself. (xvii) PW10, Inderjeet Singh has proved the title deed, Ex.PW4/C and also his photo at pt. B and that of the seller at pt. A, which are quite different from that of the alleged guarantor, in this case, who impersonated as Surjit Singh and whose photos appear on Ex.PW3/H, Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW8/F. Cross examination of this witness by the Ld. Cousnel for accused (A5) do not bring anything to help him rather PW10 has reiterated and endorsed fully the stand of the prosecution. (xviii) PW17, has clearly proved that search report was provided to him by the bank, vide a seizure memo, which has been duly proved on record. No suggestion on behalf of accused (A5) was given to PW17, that he had obtained the report, Ex.PW2/O in any spurious manner from any other source.

(xix) PW21, an advocate, has proved his report, Ex.PW21/A, which was given to the bank, on the asking of the bank, clearly showing that the sale deed submitted by the borrower/guarantor, in this case, was fake and CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 88 of 97 89 CBI Case No. 38/11 forged and in this regard, a criminal case, bearing case FIR no. 573/05, dt. 27.09.05 was filed after carrying out investigation by the police Station of Mehrauli. There is nothing in cross examination of this witness, which supports the defence that sale deed examined and mentioned by accused (A5) in his report, was not forged or was a genuine sale deed. (xx) Admittedly, the report, Ex.PW2/O is on the letter head of accused (A5), containing his correct particulars of office address and telephone number etc. He has not questioned any of the contents of the letter head in the examination of any of the prosecution witnesses or that someone stole his letter heads and then misused the same to prepare, Ex.PW2/O.

98. The report of the Advocate accused (A5) under the circumstances shows his active participation in the plan to defraud the bank. It was held that 'Where element of deception existed from the very beginning, prima facie case against the accused of deception is made out {Vijaynatraj vs. State, 2011(4) MLJ(Criminal) 369}.'

99. The case law reported as CBI Hyderabad vs. K. Narayana Rao, JT CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 89 of 97 90 CBI Case No. 38/11 2012(9) SC 359 does not help the accused (A5) in view of the circumstances proved in this case that accused (A5) was connected with the other conspirator accused persons to defraud the bank. In this very case, Hon'ble Apex Court observed that ' It is made clear that if there is a link or evidence to connect the accused with other conspirators for causing loss to the institutions, undoubtedly, the prosecuting authorities are entitled to proceed under criminal prosecution".

100.Accused (A5) in this case was active participant in a plan to defraud the bank, in as much as, without any asking from the bank (as there is no mention in his report, Ex.PW2/O as to when and by what communication the bank asked him to give his legal opinion and what documents were given to him by the bank for opinion) he had fabricated the report on 05.02.05 almost one month prior to the application for loan being moved by the accused borrower. It was the alleged guarantor and borrowers who made available to him the forged title deeds (as is clear from his own report). The guarantor, in this case, was an impostor, who impersonated as Surjit Singh. Accused (A5) was, thus, in consciously immediate contact with the impersonator and accused borrowers. He did not charge the bank, admittedly, which leads to the inference that he CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 90 of 97 91 CBI Case No. 38/11 might have been benefited by the accused party and others.

101.It has been held that 'where element of deception existed from the beginning, case of deception made out against the accused. {2012(6) RCR (Criminal) 1553 (Madras)}.'

102.Evidence against the accused (A6) - Ishleen Kaur

(i) Admittedly, she is wife of accused (A2). She was, admittedly, Director of M/s Pavi Overseas Pvt. Ltd, at the relevant time. She had been consciously an active participant in entire operation, in as much as her photograph and signatures, admittedly, appear on the documents proved on record, like Agreement of Hypothecation of Goods and Assets, Agreement of Guarantee, Loan Agreements, sanctioned letter, etc., on which the photographs and signatures of other accused persons appear and duly stand proved on record.

(ii) Being Director of M/s Pavi Overseas Pvt. Ltd, she has been the beneficiary of the loan amount and overdrawn money fraudulently obtained from the bank.

CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 91 of 97 92 CBI Case No. 38/11

(iii) She is an active participant in relying upon fake and impersonated guarantor as everything was in her knowledge when along with others she appeared and signed the documents in the bank.

(iv) She along with other co accused borrowers presented forged and fabricated documents like Audit Reports, Income Tax Returns, PAN Card copy, etc to obtain the loan fraudulently.

(v) The evidence against other borrower accused persons i.e. accused (A2) and (A3) are also fully admissible against her.

(vi) There are umpteen number of documents, signed by accused Ishleen Kaur, where she signed in English language indicating that she had full knowledge of their contents, along with other borrowers and the impersonated fake guarantor.

(vii) Ex.PW17/A10, is the resolution of M/s Pavi Overseas Pvt Ltd, which is duly signed by her. She along with other borrowers and fake guarantor, Surjit Singh was thus fully conscious and she was actively participating in the fraud, being played with the bank, in this case. CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 92 of 97 93 CBI Case No. 38/11

103. It has been asserted by the defence during the course of arugments that there are defects in the investigation. It is true that the present case has not been very effectively and professionally investigated by the Investigating Officers for example role of valuer Sh. J.S. Chaney, Yog Raj Bhatia and Prem Raj Mawar was not intensly interrogated. Had it been investigated effectively much more could have come on the surface and much larger rackets could have been unearthed, regarding the fraud in the bank. However, so long as case of the prosecution on the basis of circumstances and documents, established and available on record is concerned, the defect, if any, in the investigation does not help the present accused persons at all.

104. It has been held that 'It would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect as to do so would tentamount to playing into the hands of the investigation officer if the investigation is designedly defective. The prosecution evidence is required to be examined 'de hors' such ommission to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not'.{Dayal Singh vs. State of Uttranchal, CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 93 of 97 94 CBI Case No. 38/11 2012 AIR(SC) 3046}.

105. It has been held that 'That there were lacunas in investigation does not mean that incriminating evidence, if any, appearing against accused persons has to be ignored'.{Tejpal vs. State, 2012(6) RCR Criminal 798 Delhi(DB)}

106. In the case law reported as State vs. Santosh Kumar Singh, 2006(4) Crimes 782 (Del), the Hon'ble High Court has held that 'Courts should not be influenced by suspicious roles played by the investigation officer during investigation and criminal justice should not be made a casualty for wrongs committed by investigation officers.'

107. In the case law reported as Dhanraj Singh 2004 Cri LJ 1807 (SC), it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that 'In the case of a defective investigation the court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence. But it would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect; to do so would tantamount to plying into the hands of the investigating officer if the investigation is designedly defectively. CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 94 of 97 95 CBI Case No. 38/11 The contaminated conduct of officials should not stand on the way of evaluating the evidence by the courts; otherwise the designed mischief would be perpetuated and justice would be denied to the complainant party. Then the faith and confidence of the people would be shaken not only in the law enforcing agency but also in the administration of justice'.

108. In the case law reported as 2007 Cri LJ 758(SC), it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that 'Defective investigation may discredit the prosecution, but prosecution evidence may not necessarily be discarded on the ground. If the evidence is otherwise reliable and trustworthy, the court may convict the accused.

Reminiscence of investigating officer will not ipso facto weaken the case of the prosecution'.

109. It stands proved on record, as discussed herein above, beyond any pale of doubt that all the accused persons joined altogether and entered into conspiracy to cheat the bank and did cheat the bank by using forged and fabricated documents. Accused Sri Kant Chawla, being a public servant at the relevant time criminally misconducted within the meaning of section 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 95 of 97 96 CBI Case No. 38/11

110. All the accused persons namely, Sri Kant Chawla (A1), Bhupinder Pal Singh Bakshi(A2), Gurkaran Singh (A3), Virender Kumar Syal(A4), Sanjay Kumar Rathi (A5) and Ishleen Kaur (A6), therefore, are squarely liable to be held guilty under section 120B IPC read with section 420, 419, 468, 471 read with section 13(2) and 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and are hereby convicted of the same.

111. Accused Bhupinder Pal Singh Bakshi(A2), Gurkaran Singh (A3) and Ishleen Kaur (A6) are further held guilty of the commission of offences under section 420 & 471 IPC and are accordingly convicted of the same.

112. Accused Virender Kumar Syal (A4) and Sanjay Kumar Rathi (A5) are further held guilty of the commission of offence under section 420 IPC and are accordingly convicted of the same.

113. Accused Sri Kant Chawla (A1) being public servant at the relevant time criminally misconducted and caused hefty illegal pecuniary gains to the accused persons and caused corresponding CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 96 of 97 97 CBI Case No. 38/11 illegal loss to the bank in question. He is, therefore, also liable to be held guilty of the offence punishable under section 13(2) read with section 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in addition. He is, accordingly, convicted under section 13(2) read with 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

114.All the accused persons are, accordingly, convicted.

115.Let the convicts be heard on the point of sentence, on 07.05.2013.

116.A copy of the judgment be sent to Director(CBI), who shall probe into the contaminated role of the IO, in this case of sparing/ignoring to intesly investigate the role of the valuer, J.S. Chaney, Sh. Yog Raj Bhatia and Sh. Prem Raj Mawar(both officers of the bank) in aiding and or abetting the offences in this case, under intimation to this court. Director (CBI) is further directed to get carried out intense and meaning full further investigation in terms of section 173(8) Cr.P.C and as per law, against the aforesaid three persons namely, J.S. Chaney, Yog Raj Bhatia and Prem Raj Mawar through a competent person.

Announced in the open court                                                   ( N. K. Kaushik )
on  03.05.2013                                                             Special Judge, PC Act CBI
                                                                         Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.

CBI vs Sri Kant Chawla  & Ors                                                                                                 Page 97 of  97

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi District Court

Cbi vs Sri Kant Chawla & Ors Page 1 Of 97 on 10 May, 2013