Delhi District Court
Cb I vs . 1 O P Bhatia S/O Sh. Chunni Lal Bhatia on 30 October, 2009
1
IN THE COURT OF V .K .MAHESHWARI
SPECIAL JUDGE: (P C Act)-03 CBI DELHI
Corruption Case No.121/93
CB I Vs. 1 O P Bhatia s/o Sh. Chunni Lal Bhatia
r/o 250-A,Pocket-I, Mayur Vihar-I, Delhi
2 Sanat Kapoor s/o Sh. Sudesh kapoor, r/o
H NO. 56, Sector-17, Gurgaon, Haryana.
Date of Institution 10.8.1993
R.C No. 2(S)/ 92/CBI/SCB/N.D dt. 1.1.1992
Under Section U/s 120 B r/w 477A IPC and Sec.13
( 2) r/w 13 (i) ( d) of P C Act, of
1988.
Arguments concluded
on 13.10.09
Date of order 31.10.09
JUDGMENT:
Facts of the Case Briefly the facts of this case according to prosecution are that accused O P Bhatia at the relevant time was Manager of Scale-II posted at New Bank of India, East of Kailash, New Delhi. Branch Manager, Scale -II as per rules had discretionary powers to sanction an advance against security of LIC Policy to the extent of Rs.50,000/- to a single party. However, the said discretionary powers of accused O P Bhatia had been withdrawn 1/43 2 vide Head Office Circular No. LD/116/89 dated 27.11.89 and the letter of Assistant General Manager, Regional Office, Delhi is No. ROD/I/2441 dated 1.12.9o. So all the discretionary powers of accused O P Bhatia for sanction of fresh credit facility except in respect of 5 exempted categories had been withdrawn and advances against LIC policy was not in the exempted categories.
2 According to prosecution accused O P Bhatia entered in a criminal conspiracy with accused Sanat Kapoor with the object to defraud the bank and advance him a sum of Rs.30,000/- by abusing his official position without obtaining collateral security. In furtherance of conspiracy, accused O P Bhatia abused his official position and sanctioned and disbursed the advance of Rs.30,000/- to accused Sanat Kapoor without obtaining any collateral security and without obtaining loan application or the request for the loan. No loan documents were taken from accused No.2. Accused O P Bhatia manipulated the ledger sheet of aforesaid term loan by overwriting and cutting in the column of securities from IVP i.e. Indra Vikas Patra to LIC Policies. Accused O P Bhatia altered that entry IVP to LIP because he had already sanctioned this loan without any security falsely showing pledge of IVP, but when suddenly relieved from duty on 11.5.90 from the branch and since he was not having IVP, so he changed the pledge of security from IVP to LIP in order to avoid detection of unauthorised sanction of loan. Thus he had falsely fabricated the account books of the bank. Accused O P Bhatia had written a false note that "not a fresh 2/43 3 advance, security changed, old a/cs. clubbed". But it was a fresh advance and there was no change of security or clubbing with the old accounts because had it been a change of security, then there was no question of disbursement of loan amount. Accused O P Bhatia has himself prepared/verified cash credit vouchers and wrote address in the ledger sheet in his own handwriting and disbursed the loan amount to accused Sanat Kapoor in a fraudulent manner.
CHARGE 3 Copies as required U/S 207 Cr P C supplied to accused. My Ld. Predecessor after hearing both the parties vide his order dt. 11.8.99 had framed a charge against the accused for the offences punishable U/s120 B IPC r/w Sections 477 A IPC & Sec. 13( 2) r/w 13 (1) ( d) of P C Act, of 1988 & substantive offence against accused O P Bhatia U/s 477 A IPC and Sec. 13( 2) r/w 13 (1) ( d) of P C Act, of 1988. Both the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. Hence, this trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE 4 Prosecution, in order to prove its case, has produced following witnesses:
5 PW1 Smt. Rama Madan has stated that in April-May, 1990 she was working as clerk cum typist with New Bank of India, 3/43 4 East of Kailash Branch, New Delhi, when O. P. Bhatia was the Manager. Her duties were to fill up various banking forms. She was familiar with the writing and signatures of O. P. Bhatia as she was working under him, the Voucher ExPW1/A is filled in the handwriting of O.P. Bhatia and bears his signatures and encircled writing A, B & C on EX.PW 1/B is also in handwriting of Sh. O. P. Bhatia.
6 PW2 Sh. Hari Dass has stated that in May 1990 he was working as Cashier with New Bank of India, Jangpura Ext., New Delhi. He has corroborated the statement of PW-1 and stated that voucher Ex.PW1/A and encircled writings A-C on EX.PW 1/B are in the handwriting of accused O. P. Bhatia.
7 PW3 Kewal Krishan Uppal has stated that from 1987 to 91 he was posted as accountant in New Bank of India, East of Kailash Branch, New Delhi, where O. P. Bhatia was the Manager during April-90. He is familiar with his handwriting and signatures. He has stated that as per procedure in case of advance of loan against LIC, amount of loan has to be credited in the loan account of the party concern and thereafter the party can withdraw the amount.
8 PW4 V P Gupta has stated that he was working as regional Manager, regional office, New Bank of India under which New Bank of India, East of Kailash Branch, New Delhi was 4/43 5 coming, where Sh. O. P. Bhatia was the Manager during April, 1990. He has stated that procedure for sanctioning loan against the security of LIC Policy is that party has to submit loan application alongwith the financial papers, mentioning the purpose for which the loan is to be raised, in case of LIC, party has to submit LIC policies and their values, premium receipts, credit investigation to be made in respect of financial asset and purpose of loan, if found viable, branch Manager can sanction the loan subject to his distinguish power. In case of LIC policies bonds are to be sent to insurance company for assignment in favour of bank, after receiving of assignment, documentation to be got done from the customer and thereafter loan will be released. He has also identified writing and signature of O.P. Bhatia on the documents in loan Ex.PW4/A. After going through the loan file, he has stated that loan application is not in the file, financial papers are not in the file, assessment and processing note is not in the file, credit processing note is not in the file, LIC policies are not in the file, latest premium paid receipts are not in the file, assignment letter is not in the file. File is incomplete and loan was sanctioned in an irregular manner.
9 PW5 Sh. R Mahadeven has stated that during the year 1990 he was Manager vigilance head office New Bank of India, Rajendera Place, New Delhi. He had conducted inquires in this case, on seeing file Ex.PW4/A, he has stated that Loan application was not obtained in this case; loan was sanctioned against the security of LIC policy but the details were not mentioned; even the LIC policy 5/43 6 register was not maintained; loan was paid in cash to Sh. Sanat Kapoor. LIC policies allegedly pledged with bank were not got assigned from LIC of India, there was no record that the LIC policies were ever received and sent to LIC of India for the purpose of registration of assignment.
10 PW6 Gurbax Singh has stated that he was working as head cashier in April 1990 east of Kailash Branch New Delhi where Sh. O. P. Bhatia was Manager. He has corroborated the statement of other witnesses and stated that voucher Ex.PW1/A is in the handwriting of O.P. Bhatia. He being cashier had made payment against this voucher to SH.O. P. BHATIA in his cabin.
11 PW7 Sh. A K Jain has stated that in May 1990 he was working as Manager New Bank of India, East of Kailash Branch, New Delhi. He had taken the charge from Sh. Ashok Singhal, thereafter some irregularities were noticed by him and reported to Head office. He has explained the procedure for sanctioning of loan in case of security of LIC Policies and stated that they keep on record the LIC Policies, Latest Premium receipts, sanction letter, documents execution letter. Policies were to be entered in LIC register, which is always available to show that these policies were pledged with the bank. In the loan file of Sanat Kapoor there is only payment voucher Ex.PW1/A and ledger Sheet Ex.PW-1/B, there is no other document. There is no LIC policy in the file.
6/43 712 PW8 Sh. R P Dngwal has stated that he was posted as an Accountant in New Bank of India, East of Kailash Branch, New Delhi, in April-May 90 where O.P. Bhatia was the Manager, on seeing loan file of Sanat Kapoor EX.PW 4/A he has stated that there are only two documents, one is cash voucher EX.PW 1/A and ledger sheet Ex.PW1/B. The voucher is for disbursement of Rs.30,000/- to Sh. Sanat Kapoor Accused.
13 PW9 Sh. Ashok Kumar Oberoi has Stated that in April, May, 1990 he was posted in Loan department as cashier cum clerk in New Bank of India, East of Kailash Branch, New Delhi, his duty was to fill up loan documents. He has also corroborated the statement of other witnesses regarding procedure of sanction of loan.
14 PW10 Sh. O N Tuli has stated that he was working as Chief Manager, New Bank of India, East of Kailash Branch, New Delhi from 25-5-92. He has proved the sanctioning of loan, corroborating the statement of other witnesses.
15 PW11 Sh. A K Singhal has stated that during the period from 1987 to 1991 he was posted as Assistant New Bank of India, East of Kailash Branch, New Delhi. In April, May, 1990 O.P. Bhatia was Manager in the said branch. Sh. O. P. Bhatia was relieved on 11-5-90, he had taken the documents and keys from him and delivered the documents and keys to Sh. A. K. Jain on 23- 7/43 8 05-90 when he had taken over the charge as Manager. He never opened the almirah in which the documents were kept during the period from 11-05-90 to 23-05-90.
16 PW12 Sh. O P Chopra has stated that during 1989 he was posted as AGM new bank of India Regional Office New Delhi in which New Bank of India, East of Kailash Branch, New Delhi was coming. He has corroborated the statements of other witnesses regarding the procedure for sanctioning loan against the securities of LIC policies. He has stated that file EX.PW-4/A is an incomplete file, having no LIC policy, which is the main security. Sh . Bhatia was not empowered to sanction the loan as he had suspended his discretionary powers. He had told the accused on telephone as well as by personally calling him in his office about this fact. He has also identified the signature of Sh. A.R. Sethi on Ex.PW14/A vide which the powers of sanctioning of loan were suspended by Head office.
17 PW13 Sh. R K Jain is handwriting expert who has proved the writing and signatures of O.P. Bhatia on the documents.
18 PW-14 Sh. Ajay Malhotra has stated that he was working with New Bank of India, East of Kailash Branch, New Delhi and proved Ex.PW14/A, the circular vide which Head Office New Bank of India, East of Kailash Branch, New Delhi had suspended the powers of sanction of loan, w.e.f 27-11-89.
8/43 919 PW15 Sh. Hari Kishan Jhand has proved the obtaining of specimen writings of Accused O.P. Bhatia.
20 PW17 Shri Radhey Shyam Kalra has stated that he had retired from LIC of India as Sr. Branch Manager, and has further stated that if someone takes a loan from any financial institution/bank against an LIC policy, the Original policy to be submitted to the Bank/Financial Institution by the person taking loan and the said document would be sent for assignment to the concerned branch under the cover of a notice which must have policy number. Policy number also to be mentioned by LIC branch in the letter vide which the document to be returned after endorsement of assignment.
21 PW18 Sh. A S Chhabra has stated that he was posted as Junior Manager -I, New Bank of India, East of Kailash Branch, New Delhi from July to December-1992 and was posted in loan department. He had prepared the balance position in the loan account of Sanat Kapoor.
22 PW19 Sh. Satyabir Singh has stated that investigation of this case was transferred to him from Inspector Jay Kumar, during the investigation, he had recorded the statements of witnesses, collected the documents and filed charge-sheet against O.P. Bhatia and Sanat Kapoor.
DEFENCE OF ACCUSED U/s 313 CR P C 9/43 10 23 After the closure of the prosecution evidence both the accused have been examined u'/s 313 Cr.PC. Accused O.P. Bhatia has stated that during April,, May, 1990 he was posted as Manager in erstwhile New Bank of India, New Bank of India, East of Kailash Branch, New Delhi now known as Punjab National Bank. He has sanctioned the loan in question. He has denied all other allegations made against him and refuted the evidence produced by prosecution against him. He has stated that loan was advanced as per rules after obtaining LIC policies which were on the bank record. He is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in this case as he was illegally arrested hence IO and SP, CBI/ACB apprehended that they will be held responsible for their illegal action, Hence, out of fear they had planted this case upon him by concealing the documents and fabricated the evidence.
24 Accused Sanat Kapoor has admitted that he had received a loan of Rs.30,000/- but he has denied that the loan was against non existing LIC policy. He had taken other loans from the branch against collateral security of a residential property in Vasant Kunj. He had paid all outstandings to the bank under a settlement long ago including Rs.30,000/-.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE 25 In his defence accused have examined seven witnesses.
10/43 1126 DW1 Sh. S K Pruthi has proved notice dt. 20.8.99 /Ex.DW1/1 issued by him on the instructions of his client PNB, Branch Office, Nehru Place, New Delhi to Sanat Kapoor and others, bearing his signatures at point A. DW2 Mohan Lal has proved certificate dt. 15.5.08 issued by A K Ralhan, GBPA No. 6636 Ex PW2/A bearing his signature at point A. He has also proved the certified copy of letter dt. 20.9.99 addressed to Sh. Sanat Kapoor Ex DW2/2. DW3 Sh. J K Khuller has proved letters Ex DW3/2 and Ex DW3/4. DW4 Sh. S K Setia has proved letter dt. 27.4.07 Ex DW4/1. DW5 Narsh Kumar Batra has stated that the summoned record is available in his branch. DW 6 Dharampal has proved the photocopy of statement of accused Ex DW6/A and No Due Certificate Ex DW6/B. DW7 Sh. B S Kataria has deposed that summoned record is not available in his office i.e. PNB, Nehru Place.
ARGUMENTS OF LD. S P P 27 Ld. SPP has argued that Sh. O. P. Bhatia (A-1) being a public servant while working in the capacity as Manager, New Bank of India, East of Kailash Branch, New Delhi on 3.5.90 entered in a criminal conspiracy with co-accused Sanat Kapoor and sanctioned and disbursed a loan of Rs.30000/- against the non-existing security of LIC Policies to accused Sanat Kapoor. It was mentioned in the ledger, advance against IVP, which entries were later on converted 11/43 12 to LIC by deleting the words IVP and substituting the same by LIC suggesting thereby that loan was advanced against LIC Policies, where as no LIC policy was taken on record.
28 Ld. SPP argued that it has been proved that O.P. Bhatia was scale-II Manager and his discretionary powers for sanction of loan during April-May, 1990 were only upto 50,000. He had no power to sanction loan on that day in view of Head Office circular dated 27-11-89 and regional office circular dated 01-12-89.
29 It is argued that it has also been proved that for sanctioning loan against the security of LIC Policy, the borrower had to make absolute assignment in favour of bank, surrender policy bond alongwith last premium paid receipt and give notice to LIC u/s 38 of Insurance Act, 1938. Bank had to send the notice and policy bond to LIC for registration of assignment in favour of the bank. LIC after registration had to return the policy bond to the bank and only then the loan can be sanctioned and disbursed. In case of default bank can encash the policy. Policy bond was to be returned and reassigned after liquidation of loan and not before that. Unique policy number to be mentioned in the notice under section 38 of Insurance Act as well as on the forwarding letter. Had there been any policy, the same would have been assigned in favour of the bank and mentioned in assignment register with LIC. In the absence of same conclusion can be drawn that no policy was placed on record at the time of sanction of this loan.
12/43 1330 It is argued that letter dated 12-06-91 i.e. marked 18DX- 2 is pertaining to cash credit limit and bill purchase limit of 3 lakhs and two lakhs respectively of Surender Earth Movers and not to term loan of 30,000/- sanctioned on 03-05-90 in favour of Sanat Kapoor. Similarly letter dated 7-8-91 i.e. 18DX has no reference of this letter addressed to M/s Surindra Earth Movers so this has no link with term loan of 30,000/-. Mark 18DX mentions credit advise for Rs.4,91,434/- and debit balance of Rs.4,19,683/- and FDRs amounting to Rs.4,72,718/-. However, there is no reference of term loan account of 30,000/- which is the subject matter of this case. In fact mark 18DX is pertaining to pronote account and the letter has also been addressed to M/s Surender Earth Movers and not to Sanat Kapoor. Letter marked 18 DX 1 which has been addressed to Sanat Kapoor, is for term loan account of Rs.30,000/- sanctioned on 3-5- 90 which is the subject matter of this case. This letter has no reference of LIC Policy. As such, the defence of accused is misleading and deflecting the course of justice. Repayment of loan by accused No.2 will not wash out the offence committed by both the accused. It is argued by Ld. SPP that in view of the submissions both the accused may be convicted.
ARGUMENTS OF A-1 31 It is argued on behalf of A-1 that initially RC 40 (A)/90 dated 06.09.2009 was registered by ACB/CBI, Delhi on 13/43 14 source information. During investigation of that case, accused O P Bhatia was granted anticipatory bail by the Court even though that order was served upon CBI but accused O P Bhatia was deliberately arrested by Inspector R S Jaggi on 25.9.90. Accused was malafidely arrested just to harass and humiliate. He was bailed out on 1.10.90. Thereafter, the case was transferred to SCB, Delhi which registered a fresh case vide RC 2(S)/92. Registration of fresh RC was illegal and arbitrary. During the investigation of RC 40 (A)/DLI, some documents were collected by IO but all those documents were not subsequently handed over to the IO of RC 2 (S)/92-SCB. Various documents including Document Index Register containing complete details of various LIC policies and connected documents, which were in favour of accused were deliberately concealed. Document Index Register has been deliberately concealed by the prosecution because it was an important defence document. No LIP register has been produced by the CBI during the trial. Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. D.Koli Vs. State of Maharashtra 2009 I AD (SC) 160 has held that prosecution cannot suppress any vital document from the court only because it would support the case of accused.
32 It is argued that O P Bhatia on 11.5.90 was asked to hand over the charge of the branch to next Senior Officer available vide letter No. AOO:PERS: 512. Accordingly, he had handed over the keys of his almirahas to Sh. A K Singhal. No handing over/taking over memo of the files was made at that time.
14/43 1533 It is argued that PW Sh. A K Jain has deposed in his cross examination that all loan documents, including the file of case in hand, were handed over to him by Sh. A K Singhal, which shows that after the departure of accused O P Bhatia his almirahas were opened and various files were taken out but O P Bhatia was not called in the branch to witness the same or for preparation of list relating to such files. It was a deliberate and calculated move on the part of bank management to falsely implicate Accused O P Bhatia in this case, who was the then Vice President of Officers Union of Bank.
34 It is argued that PW R P Dangwal in C C No.120/93 has deposed that when accused O P Bhatia was in custody of CBI, a bundle of files was recovered in the branch which shows that large number of files were available in the branch even after relieving of O P Bhatia.
35 It is argued that all the details relating to LIC policies pledged by the borrowers in various cases alongwith the connected papers were available in the document Index Register and LIC Register etc. in the branch but the same were deliberately withheld by the prosecution.
36 It is argued that loan against LIC polices was considered as secured advance. In all such loans necessary 15/43 16 applications were obtained from the borrowers. Notices for assignment etc. were also signed by the borrowers. Such loan could be paid in cash. In this case Borrower has admitted the receipt of loan by him.
37 It is argued that though the prosecution has alleged that Circular No. LD/Cr. No. 116/89 dt. 27.11.89 was issued by Sh. A R Sethi, G M putting restriction on the credit facility to be sanctioned by all functionaries of the bank was general circular addressed to all the branches. Its receipt in the East of Kailash Branch or by accused O P Bhatia has not been proved by the prosecution, hence the same cannot be read against accused O P Bhatia 38 It is argued that Sh. O P Chopra, the then AGM has stated about the letter dt. 1.12.89 issued by him regarding withdrawal of discretionary power of Branch Manager, O P Bhatia. According to him, he had personally and telephonically advised/informed accused O P Bhatia not to sanction any loan but he had not stated about his personally advising O P Bhatia in his statement recorded U/s 161 Cr PC. Dispatch of this letter has not been proved by the prosecution. Its receipt by accused O P Bhatia has also not been proved. Oral statement about telephonically advising/personally informing accused is a feeble evidence to be acted upon by the court, particularly when loan in question was sanctioned much after the issuing of purported letter. As per procedure fortnight statements were sent by the branch to the 16/43 17 Regional Office. Internal/external/statutory Auditors have periodically have inspected the branch and were in knowledge of sanction of loan in question by the accused. No lapse on the part of accused was pointed out by those inspecting officers.
39 According to prevalent procedure Bank Manager could have exceeded his powers but in all such cases the same was to be reflected in the statements sent to Senior Officers. It was accordingly done in this case also by accused O P Bhatia. Branch Manager, as an officer of the bank, can fill up the forms and even authenticate the cuttings. Conversion of IVP to LIP was duly authenticated by accused on ledger sheet in some cases. No adverse inference can be drawn against accused as he had authenticated the same. PW O P Chopra has stated that security in respect of any loan can be changed by the sanctioning authority or by the competent authority. Thus, accused could change the security if it was felt proper by him. Had there been no LIC policy and accused wanted to sanction the loan to the borrowers he could very well done so by sanctioning personal loans to them which did not require pledging of security. Many PWs have stated that loan were sanctioned by accused in an irregular manner. The alleged irregularities are curable, the Branch Manager could be proceeded departmentally for such lapses. Such irregularities cannot be termed as illegal, therefore, no criminal offence can be attributed to accused.
40 It is argued that PW R K Batra of LIC has stated in his 17/43 18 cross examination that assignment has to be executed by the person who takes the loan. The papers of assignment, policy bonds etc. were to be sent to LIC either by the assignor or by the assignee, therefore, the action of accused in giving the LIC polices and connected papers to the borrowers for assignment of policies was bonafide. In this case borrower has repaid the entire amount alongwith interest. Bank has not suffered any financial loss. It was only a civil/ commercial transaction. No criminal case made out against accused.
ARGUMENTS OF A-2 41 It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that a charge of criminal conspiracy punishable u/s 120 B r/w Sec. 477 A of IPC and U/s 13 (2) of P C Act has been framed against accused No.2 Sanat Kapoor. Prosecution has not produced any evidence to prove it against A-2. Prosecution has failed to establish any collusion between A-1 & A-2. Prosecution has also failed to prove any menserea in this regard. Section 477 A is not applicable to A-2 as neither he had excess to the account books of bank nor he was the employee of bank. Prosecution has failed to prove on record that A-2 was in league with A-1 at any point of time for forging the bank record. It is argued by Ld. Defence counsel that provision of Section 13 (2) of PC Act are not applicable to A-2. No witness of Prosecution has stated anything about any corrupt practice exercised 18/43 19 by A-2. It is argued that it is in evidence of prosecution itself that loan was sanctioned against LIP/LIC policies. It is argued that according to the evidence of prosecution LIP was on record upto the year 1999 i.e. issuing of legal notice dt. 20.8.99. It is also proved on record that A-2 was also having another account in the bank, in the name of Surinder Earth Movers, for which separate security by mortgaging a flat at Vasant Kunj was given. One Om Prakash also stood guarantor. Value of that property was more than three times, the value of cash credit and bill purchase limits were sanctioned.
42 It is argued that it has come on record that loan of Rs. 30,000/- was also sanctioned. It has been deposed by the witnesses that the same was irregularly sanctioned. Irregularity does not imply illegality. Irregularities if any, could have been subsequently cured by asking A-2 to make up the deficiency if any. But it has not been done till date.
43 It is argued that investigation in this case was casually carried out by the IO. The transaction between bank and A-2 was purely of civil nature. It was merely a civil dispute to which a colour of criminality had been given in order to falsely implicate an innocent customer of the bank. In these circumstances no criminal case is made out against the accused. Accused has settled the matter with the bank by paying entire due mount of Rs.14,50,000/-. Bank has also issued No Dues Certificate to A-2. It is argued that accused is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in this case, hence he 19/43 20 may be acquitted.
FACTUAL AND LEGAL ANALYSIS OF ARGUMENTS 44 It is admitted case of both the parties that accused O P Bhatia was posted as Manager, Scale II, in the erstwhile New Bank of India, East of Kailash Branch, New Delhi at the relevant time. Accused Sanat Kapoor had applied for a loan of Rs. 30,000/- against the security of LIC policies which was sanctioned by accused O P Bhatia on 3.5.90.
45 According to prosecution power of sanctioning of loan of accused O P Bhatia was withdrawn vide letter dt. 1.12.89 and vide circular dt. 27.11.89 Ex PW14/A. Thus, A-1 was not competent to grant any loan however, the fact of withdrawal of power has been denied by A-1. According to him, he had sanctioned this loan as per rules after keeping LIC Policies as security.
46 It is argued on behalf of A-1 that he had not received any such letter suspending his powers. PW12 O P Chopra has specifically deposed that he had suspended the discretionary powers of O P Bhatia vide letter dated 1.12.89. This letter was sent by regd post to the concerned branch, as per law, it can be presumed that a regd letter must have reached to its destination within 30 days. In this case loan was sanctioned by A-1 on 3.5.90 i e after about five 20/43 21 months of issuing of this letter. Even otherwise PW12 has categorically stated, as quoted below, that he had telephonically conveyed this fact to A-1. He had also conveyed it to A-1 by calling him personally. This witness has been cross examined at length, however nothing such has come on record to disbelieve him on this aspect.
47 PW12 Sh O P Chopra has specifically deposed that he had suspended the discretionary powers of O P Bhatia for sanctioning of loan and had conveyed it to him on telephone as well as by calling him personally and vide letter dt. 1.12.89 . In this regard, relevant portion of his statement is as under:
" I have seen file Ex PW1/A. It is totally incomplete and there is no LIC Policy in the file, which is the main security. Moreover, Mr. O P Bhatia was not empowered to sanction the loan. I had suspended the discretionary powers of accused O P Bhatia in the matter of issuing the LCs for sanctioning the loan on 1.12.89. I had told accused O P Bhatia on telephone as well as personally calling him about this fact. The security in respect of any loan can be changed by sanctioning authority or by any competent authority. "
He has further stated as follows:
"I have seen Circular Ex PW14/A (already proved by PW 14). The circular was issued by Sh. A R Sethi, General manager (Credit) of New Bank of India. I identify signatures of Mr. A R Sethi at point A on Ex PW14/A. I identify his signatures as I have seen him 21/43 22 signing and writing several times and have been receiving the letters signed by him in the ordinary course of my duties. Through in this circular certain restrictions were placed on credit facilities. I have seen the file Ex PW1/A. It does not contain loan application, financial papers, credit report of the party. LIC policy to be assigned to the party and sent to LIC of India, there is no notice of assignment of the policy, there is no letter from LIC of India, the last premium paid in respect of the policy. The ledger sheet shows that a sum of Rs.30,000/- was advanced to one Sanat Kapoor. The voucher has been prepared and signed by accused O P Bhatia, Manager of New Bank of India, East of Kailash Branch."
48 In this regard, PW5 Sh. R Mahadevan has stated as follows:
"The loan against security of pledge of LIC policies were sanctioned and released by Sh. O P Bhatia even after suspension of his loaning powers by the competent authority."
49 In these circumstances, this Court is of opinion that prosecution has proved the fact of suspension of discretionary power of A-1 of sanctioning of loan.
50 According to prosecution A-1 had sanctioned a loan of Rs.30,000/- in favour of A-2 against the security of non existing LIC policies. Initially he had written on Ex PW1/B "against pledging of IVP" but later on A-1 had converted it in "LIPs" by 22/43 23 cutting/ over writing and put his signatures underneath the same. No IVP or LIC policies were actually taken on record. This fact has been denied on behalf of A-1 and A-2. According to them loan was sanctioned as per rules after obtaining LIC policies.
51 PW5 R Mahadevan, who was posted as Manager Vigilance Section in the Head office of the then New Bank of India during the year 1990, has stated that he had conducted surprise check in the East of Kailash Branch in August 1990 and found various irregularities. Relevant portion of his statement in this regard is as under :
" I conducted surprise check in East of Kailash Branch in August 1990 . On the first day, I checked the loan sanctioned against securities of pledged of LIC policies in 45 cases."
He has further stated as follows:
" Mr O P Bhatia was the Manager of New Bank of India East of Kailash Branch New Delhi. I identify him who is present in Court today. Loan application form was not obtained in this case. Since the loan was sanctioned against the security of pledge of LIC policies the details of the same were not mentioned in the LIC policy register. Even the LIC policy was not maintained in the said branch. The LIC policy was not available in the loan file. In this file, loan was sanctioned against LIC policy on 3.5.90.23/43 24
Mr O P Bhatia was the Branch Manager at that time. Premium paid receipt were not available. The policies against which loan was given, are not on the record. Loan was sanctioned in this case for Rs.30,000/-. Loan was sanctioned and paid to Sh. Sanat Kapoor and amount was paid in cash. "
He has further stated as follows:
"The LIC policies reported to have been pledged with the bank in this case were not got registered and assigned with LIC of India. There was no record at the branch level to confirm that the LIC policies were ever received and sent to LIC of India for the purpose of registration and assignment."
52 In this regard PW 7 A K Jain has stated as follows:
"In the loan file of Sant Kapur there are only payment vouchers Ex PW1/A and ledger sheet Ex PW1/B and no other document is on the loan file. There is no LIC policy on the said file".
53 In this regard PW10 Sh. O N Tuli has stated as follows:
"I have seen ledger sheet Ex PW1/B of Sanat Kapur. The first entry of ledger sheet shows that party is on account of demand promissory note of date mentioned in ledger sheet. This is fresh advance.24/43 25
I have seen file ExPW4/A of Sanat Kapur. Except the cash payment voucher, no document for loan purposes is in the loan file ExPW4/A. Mr. O P Bhatia, accused present in court was the branch Manager at that time."
54 In this regard PW4 V P Gupta has stated as follows:
"After going through the file, the loan application is not in the file and financial papers are not in the file, assessment and processing note is not in the file, credit investigation report is not in the file, life policies are not in the file, life policies are not in the file and latest premium paid receipt is not in the file and assignment letter of LIC is not in the file. I have gone through the file and file is incomplete. In the above noted file, loan was sanctioned in irregular manner."
55 In this regard PW8 R P Dangwal has stated as follows:
" I have seen loan file Ex PW4/A of Sanat Kapoor. In this loan file, there are two documents; one is cash voucher Ex PW1/A and ledger sheet Ex PW1/B. This cash voucher is for disbursement of Rs.30,000/- to accused sanat Kapoor, whose signatures I identify at point A on Ex PW1A. I also identify the signatures of Sh. O P Bhatia, accused at point B. Ex PW1/B i e. ledger sheet pertains to accused Sanat Kapoor holder of account No.
53. In this ledger sheet, loan was shown against LIPs."25/43 26
56 In these circumstances this court is of opinion that prosecution has proved that A-1 had sanctioned the loan of Rs.30,000- in favour of A-2 against the non existing LIC policies/without obtaining the LI|C policies as security and without taking loan application and other documents executed from A-2.
57 According to procedure in case of advance of loan against LIC policies the amount of loan has to be credited in the account and cannot be paid in cash, but in this case amount was paid in cash to A-2 by A-1. Amount was received by A-1 himself and thereafter the same was given to A-2. In this regard PW3 Sh. Kewal Kishan Uppal has stated as follows:
"As per the procedure, in case of advance of loan against LIC policy, the amount of loan has to be credited in the loan account of party concerned. Thereafter, the party can withdraw said amount from his account. Ex PW1/A is only a debit voucher against the loan account."
58 In this regard PW6 Gurbux Singh has stated as follows:
"I have seen loan file of sanat Kapoor Ex PW4/A. File contains voucher Ex PW1/A, ledger sheet Ex PW1/B. Payment against this voucher was made by me to Mr. O P Bhatia in his cabin. Voucher bears signatures on the voucher relating to payment in cash. I identify the handwriting and signatures of Mr. O P Bhatia, as I have seen him writing and signing during the official course of 26/43 27 duty."
59 However, this witness, in his cross examination, in this regard has stated as follows:
"While making the payment, cashier is supposed to obtain the signature of the party as well as passing of the offer. The payment was made by me vide voucher Ex PW1/A. The signatures of the party have been obtained on the voucher. I have affixed the payment stamp on voucher. In this case, the payment was made in the cabin of manager, because token was not issued in this case. I made this payment in the cabin of manager i.e. accused O P Bhatia who handed over the payment to the party concerned."
60 It proves beyond reasonable doubts that A-1 and A- 2 were hands in gloves with each other in this conspiracy.
61 Ex PW1/B is the ledger sheets, of aforesaid loan account in the column of details of security, A-1 intially had written " pledge of dep. of IVP " showing that advance was made against the security of IVPs but later on he had altered it by cutting / over writing LIP's over IVP, and signed underneath the same, suggesting that loan was sanctioned against the security of LIC policy 62 It is argued on behalf of A-1 that being Manager he had power to change the security. He had also put his signatures on the cutting authenticating the same hence no adverse inference can be 27/43 28 drawn against him. There is no merit in this argument firstly because there is no evidence that A-1 had initially taken on record IVP before the sanctioning of loan, secondly A-1 has not mentioned any reason for change of security from IVP to LIP.
63 Here it is worth important to mention that five more cases are pending against A-1 in this Court beside the present one, all titled CBI Vs O P Bhatia, Vide CC No.115/93, 119/93, CC No.118/93, CC No.116/93 and CC No.120/93, having similar allegations. In all these cases A-1 had altered IVP to LIP by making cutting and over writing. There can be similar mistake in one case or two how in all these cases it has been done, has not been explained on behalf of A-1. In all these cases loan was sanctioned in first week of April 1990 to May 1990. This Court can take judicial notice of this fact. The sanctioning of loan in these cases in a short span of time also reflects menserea of abuse of official position of A-1 to favour private person.
64 There is no evidence that LIPs were obtained by A-1 . No unique Number of LIP has been mentioned . There is no reliable explanation on behalf of A-1, if the LIPs were taken why the same were not kept in the file after getting the same assigned from LIC office. A-1 was the Branch Manager, his duty was to maintained LIP Register and document index Register but he had not maintained the same as deposed by various witnesses.
28/43 2965 According to the accused LIPs had been deposited in the bank but there was not even a single LIP either available on the file or was in the bank assigned in favour of bank by borrower Sanat Kapoor or was sent for assignment to LIC Office or was received back from LIC office.
66 In case of loan against the security of LIPs borrower had to make an absolute assignment in favour of bank. He had to surrender the policy bond alongwith the last premium paid receipt and to give a notice to LIC U/s 38 of Insurance Act. Unique policies numbers were to be mentioned in the notice U/s 38 of Insurance Act as well as on the forwarding letter. Bank had to send the notice and policy bond to LIC for registration of assignment in favour of bank. LIC after registration of assignment had to return the policy bond to the bank, only then the loan can be sanctioned and disbursed, so that in case of default bank can encash the policy. Policy bond cannot be returned before the liquidation of loan but in this case loan had been disbursed without the compliance of all these conditions.
67 A-2 in his statement U/s 313 Cr PC has stated that he had received a loan of Rs.30,000/- but it is incorrect that loan was sanctioned against non existing LIC policies meaning thereby he had deposited the LIPs. Had any LIPs were taken on record the same should be available in the loan file. But no such LIPs are in the loan file as discussed above. Accused could have proved that he had purchased LIPs from LIC of India by summoning the relevant 29/43 30 record of his LIC policies, but he has not done so, for the reasons best known to him, though he had examined as many as seven defence witnesses from the bank. In these circumstances an adverse inference can also be drawn against A-2 that he was not having any LIC policy, then how can he deposit the same as security in the bank for taking loan in question.
68 It is argued on behalf of A-2 that he had applied for a loan which was sanctioned to him as per rules against the security of LIC policies pledged by him with the bank. He had executed various necessary documents . Prosecution has not produced any evidence to prove that there was agreement between A-1 and A-2 to conspire.
69 Conspiracy consists in a combination or agreement between two or more person do an unlawful act or to do a lawful act by unlawful mean. A conspiracy is an inference drawn from the circumstances. There cannot always be much direct evidence about it. Conspiracy can be inferred even from the circumstances giving rise to a conclusive or irresistible inference of an agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence. Since Conspiracy is often hatched up in utmost secrecy, it is most impossible to prove conspiracy by direct evidence. It has to be inferred from the acts, statements and conduct of parties to the conspiracy. Thus, if it is proved that the accused pursued, by their acts, the same object often by the same means, one performing 30/43 31 one part of the act and the other another part of the same act so as to complete it with a view to attainment of the object which they were pursuing, the court is at liberty to draw the inference that they conspired together to effect that object. Conspiracy has to be treated as a continuing offence and whosoever is a party to the conspiracy, during the period for which he is charged, is liable under this section.
70 It is not an ingredient of the offence under this section that all the parties should agree to do a single illegal act. It may comprise the commission of a number of acts. The entire agreement must be viewed as a whole and it has to be ascertain as to what in fact the conspirators intended to do or the object they want to achieve. It is not necessary that each member of conspiracy must know each other or all the details of the conspiracy. It is also not necessary that every conspirator must have taken place in each and every act done in pursuance of a conspiracy.
71 Though to establish the charge of conspiracy there must be agreement, there need not be proof of direct meeting or combination , nor need the parties be brought into each other's presence; the agreement may be inferred from the circumstances raising presumption of a common concerted plan to carry out the unlawful design. So again it is not necessary that all should have joined in the scheme from the first; those who come in at a later stage are equally guilty.
31/43 3272 Conspiracy hatched in secrecy and executed in darkness. In a case of conspiracy, it is not expected from the prosecution that it will produce evidence to show that conspirators executed agreement to commit crime before the witnesses to prove the existence of conspiracy. Conspirators take all precautions to keep their plan secret hence prosecution cannot produce direct evidence to prove agreement to commit conspiracy.
73 The agreement to conspire may be inferred from circumstances, which raised a presumption of a concerted plan to carryout an unlawful design / act . Conspiracy need not be established by proof which actually brings the party together; but may be shown like any other fact, by circumstantial evidence.
74 In Kher Singh Vs State AIR 1988 SC 1883 it is observed as follows:
" Generally, a conspiracy is hitched in secrecy and it may be difficult to adduce direct evidence of the same. The prosecution will often rely on th evidence of acts of various parties to infer that they were done in reference to their common intention. The prosecution will also more often rely upon the circumstantial evidence. The conspiracy can be undoubtedly proved by such evidence direct or circumstantial. But the Court must require whether the two persons are independently pursuing the same end 32/43 33 or they have come together to the pursuit of the unlawful object. The former does not render them conspirators, but the later does. It is however, essential that the offence of conspiracy required some kind of physical manifestation or agreement the express agreement however need not be proved. Nor mutual meetings of the two persons is necessary. Nor it is necessary to prove the actual words of communication. The evidence as to transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful design may be sufficient. Conspiracy can be proved by circumstances and other material."
75 It is also argued on behalf of both the accused that loan transaction was a civil transaction at the most leading to a breach of contract, no criminal offence made out against them.
76 The distinction between mere breach of contract and a criminal offence is a fine one. It depends upon the intention of the accused at the beginning which may be judged by his subsequent conduct also. Mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal offence, unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction i.e. the time when the offence is said to have been committed.
77 Criminal intention means the purpose or design of doing an act forbidden by the criminal law . Intention of the accused to produce a particular consequences shows his intention to do that act. An act is intentional if it exists in idea before it exists in 33/43 34 fact . Usually intention is inferred from the conduct of a person . As a General rule every sain man presumed to know the necessary or the natural and probable consequences of his acts, this presumption of law will prevail unless from a consideration of all the evidence the Court entertains a reasonable doubt whether such intention existed.
78 Intention is an internal state of mind. Sometime it may be expressed sometime it may be implied. Implied intention is to be inferred from the acts and conducts of the parties . Sometimes the intention is imputed from the act or the consequences. If a particular act has been done, the law will presume that the person doing it has the intention to do it without the enquiry as to whether actually he had the intention or not.
79 It can be well inferred from the evidence produced by the prosecution on the judicial file that A-1 and A-2 were involved in a criminal conspiracy and having dishonest intention from the very beginning. From the above discussion it is proved beyond reasonable doubts that a loan of Rs 30,000/- was sanctioned by A-1 in favour of A-2 against the security of non existing LIC policies. A-2 has stated in his statement U/s 313 Cr PC that loan was sanctioned to him against the security of LIC policies. A-2 in his defence can not prove even a single policy in his name.
80 A-2 could not prove even a single LIC policy 34/43 35 purchased by him. According to A-2 loan was sanction to him by A-1 against the security of LIC policies, how can it was possible when A-2 was not having even a single LIP. This very fact proves beyond reasonable doubt that A-1 and A-2 were involved in a criminal conspiracy with a dishonest / criminal intention from the very beginning i e at the time of sanctioning of loan in question.
81 It is also proved on the file beyond reasonable doubt that both the documents, with regard to sanctioning of this loan, were in the hand writing of A-1 and not in the hand writing of concerned clerks who were appointed for doing that job. It is argued that being Manager A-1 can fill up the documents. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case wherein A-1 had sanctioned loan against the security of non existing LIPs inspite of withdrawal of his discretionary powers to sanction a loan, the fact of executing both the documents by A-1 with regard to aforesaid loan also proves the existence of conspiracy between A-1 and A-2. These facts also proves beyond reasonable doubt that it was not merely a civil transaction resulting in the breach of contract but a criminal offence. It is also proved that A-1 being the Branch Manager had not maintained LIP Register and document index register and had sanctioned the loan in question without taking loan application and without getting the relevant documents executed from A-2.
82 It is argued on behalf of A-2 that he has compromised 35/43 36 the matter with the bank and had paid all the amount due towards him alongwith interest. Mere payment of loan amount with interest does not wash away the criminal offence committed by A-1 and A-
2. There is substantive evidence against both the accused that they were conspired with each other, in furtherance of criminal conspiracy A-1 had sanctioned loan of Rs.30,000/- in favour of A-2 by abusing his official position and by falsifying the bank record against the security of non existing LIC policies and A- 2 had also facilitated A-1 in this conspiracy as discussed above. A petition having Crl. M C No. 3054/2007, Crl. M A 10937/2007 titled Sanat Kapoor Vs. State (CBI) and Anr. has also been filed in the Hon'ble High Court by A-2 in which initially this court was directed not to announce final order, however it has been informed by Sh. Sandeep Chaudhary, Pairvi Officer of this case and A-2 that on 29.10.09 that interim order has been vacated, hence this court can announced the final order.
83 Hon'ble Supreme Court in Inspector of Police, CBI Vs B. Raja Gopal 2003 SCC- 1238 in this regard has held as follows:
" Criminal Procedure Code, 1973- S.482 - Quashing of criminal proceedings - Accused charged under Ss.420, 468, 471 IPC for defrauding bank- Merely for the reason that a compromise had been reached between the bank officials and the accused and accused paid the disputed amount found due to the bank, held , High Court was not justified in quashing the trial which had reached 36/43 37 almost the pen ultimate stage"
84 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Dhanpat Bothra Vs State of Delhi Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ans. 2008 IX AD ( Delhi) 495 has observed as follows:
" Merely because the accused has made good the complainant's loss after he was caught, does not automatically wipe out the offence committed- Existence of yet another FIR filed by an independent complainant- Within a period of seven days, two FIRs came to be lodged against the petitioner, with similar allegations, by different complainants with whom the petitioner was working on a commission basis- This raises more than a suspicion against the conduct of the petitioner- Also, both the FIRs are under investigation - Although dispute can be termed as, 'private' in nature but offences, which are non- compoundable, are treated as crimes against society and, therefore, normally the consent of the victim to compound those offences may not be of any use- Petition dismissed ."
85 Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Shyam Babu Gupta & Ans Vs State ( Govt of NCT) Delhi & Ans 2008 Crl L J 951 has observed as follows:
" Criminal P C ( 2 of 1974) S. 482 - Quashing of FIR- Petitioner alleged to have forcibly seized vehicles of complainant -37/43 38
Act of petitioner in illegally taking possession of three-wheeler was nothing but sheer display of muscle power which cannot be tolerated - It is an offence against society- Merely because parties have reached a settlement and money has been paid to complainant- Cannot be a ground for quashing FIR."
86 A-2 in order to prove that he had paid entire amount to the bank in terms of compromise he has summoned seven DWs. I have carefully gone through their statements as well as documents proved by them. Letter dt. 12.6.91 mark18 DX2 /Ex DW3/4 pertains to cash credit limit and bill purchase limit of Rs. 3 lacs and Rs.2 lacs respectively of Surendra Earth Movers. It does not pertain to the term loan of Rs.30,000/- dt. 3.5.90 sanctioned in favour of Sanat Kapoor. Letter dt. 7.8.91 mark 18 DX/ Ex DW3/2 has reference of M/s Surendra Earth Movers and has no reference of term loan of Rs.30,000/-. Letter dt. 11.11.92 marked 18 DX1/Ex DW3/3 has been addressed to Sanat Kapoor with regard to term loan of Rs.30,000/- according to which an amount of Rs.46,749/- was due towards A-2.
87 As per letter dt. 27.7.99 Ex DW4/2 an amount of Rs.40,593/- of Sanat Kapoor, of credit advance has been declared bad debt. PW4 Sh. S K Setia, Chief Manager, PNB in this regard in his cross examination has stated as follows:
"Ex DW4/1 has been issued by me on the request of Sanat Kapoor and I have not seen the request letter today in the court. A 38/43 39 loan was sanctioned in favour of Sanat Kapoor probably during the year 1990- and the said loan was written off hundred percent in the year 1999. I am stating so according to my memory. I know that the loan was sanctioned against the security of LIC policy. I cannot say whether any LIC policy was kept on record or not at the time of sanction of loan. This is a fact that whenever any loan is sanctioned against the security of LIC policy, the policy is assigned by LIC in favour of the bank. It is correct that policy bond remains in the bank till the liquidation of loan. This is a fact that the no. of LIC policy bond can be ascertained because same is computerised."
88 From the above discussion it is clear that accused A-2 had not repaid any amount qua the loan in question 89 It is correct that while deposing in the Court various witnesses have stated that loan was sanctioned irregularly. It is argued on behalf of accused hence there is no illegality committed by accused while sanctioning of loan in view of above statement of witnesses. It is argued that irregularity is curable. Bank should have taken steps to get the irregularity cured. There is no merits in this argument because witnesses are not legal expert, they hardly understand difference between irregularity and illegality. There is no estopple against statue . If a witness innocently has used a particular word while deposing in the Court without understanding the legal meaning of the same, accused cannot be allowed to take advantage of the ignorance of such witness. From the above 39/43 40 discussion of the facts of this case and the evidence produced by the prosecution it is well proved that both the accused in connivance and conspiracy with each other had obtained pecuniary advantage illegally and by corrupt means. Thus they cannot avoid the legal consequences only because the witnesses have used word irregularly.
90 Hon'ble Supreme Court in Inder Singh Vs State ( Delhi Administration) AIR 1978 Supreme Court 1091 has held as follows:
"Credibility of testimony, oral circumstantial depends considerably on a judicial evaluation of the totality, not isolated scrutiny. While it is necessary that proof beyond reasonable doubt should be adduced in all criminal cases, it is not necessary that it should be perfect, If a case is proved too perfectly, it is argued that it is artificial; if a case has some flaws, inevitable because human beings are prone to err, it is argued that it is too imperfect. One wonders whether in the meticulous hypersensitivity to eliminate a rare innocent from being punished, many guilty men must be callously allowed to escape. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a guideline, not a fetish and guilty man cannot get away with it because truth suffers some infirmity when projected through human processes. Judicial quest for perfect proof often accounts for police presentation of fool-proof concoction. Why 40/43 41 fake up? Because the Court asks for manufacture to make truth look true? No, we must be realistic".
91 Prevention of Corruption Act is a social legislation enacted with the object to curb illegal activities of public servants, in these circumstances according to the law of interpretation of Statute, its provision should be interpreted so as to achieve its object. Our Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Singh Vs. State of MP (2000) 5 Supreme Court Cases-88 has held as follows:
"Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Nature and interpretation of -Held is a social legislation to curb illegal activities of public servant and should be liberally construed so as to advance its object and not liberally in favour of the accused - interpretation of Statutes -Particular statutes or provisions - Penal statute - Social Legislation - Interpretation of".
92 Our Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Pohla Singh, 2003 (3) CCC 75 has held as follows:
"Appreciation of evidence - The prosecution is not supposed to meet every hypothetical question raised by the defence -If crime is to be punished in a glosseme way niceities must yield to realistic appraisal."
93 In case U/S 13 (1) (d) of P C Act 1988 prosecution has to prove that :
i) That accused should be a public servant.41/43 42
ii) That he should used some corrupt or illegal means or otherwise abused his position as a public servant,
iii) That the accused should have thereby obtained a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage.
iv) Such benefit for himself or for any other person.
94 In case U/S 477-A of IPC prosecution has to prove that :-
1 The person coming within its purview must be a clerk, an officer, or a servant, or acting in the capacity of a clerk, an officer, or a servant.
2 He must wilfully and with intent to defraud ----
i) destroy, alter, mutilate, or falsify, any book, electronic record, paper, writing, valuable security, or account which
(a)belongs to or is in the possession of his employer; or
(b)has been received by him for or on behalf of his employer;
ii) make or abet the making of any false entry in or omit or alter or abet the omission or alteration of any material particular from or in any such book, paper, writing, valuable security or account.
95 All that is necessary to bring a person within the purview of this section is that he would have altered or falsified any book or paper, etc., wilfully and with intent to defraud. If the intention with which a false document is made is to conceal a 42/43 43 fraudulent or dishonest act which had been previously committed, the intention cannot be other than an intention to defraud.
96 In view of above discussion it is proved beyond reasonable doubt from the evidence produced by the prosecution that accused O P Bhatia, who was working as Branch Manager Scale-II in the erstwhile New Bank of India, was a public servant, who by abusing his official position, in connivance and conspiracy, of his co-accused obtained pecuniary advantage illegally or by corrupt means to Sanat Kapoor, by illegally sanctioning loan of Rs.30,000/- against the security of non existing LIC policies by falsifying the bank record / account. Therefore accused O P Bhatia is convicted for the offences punishable U/s 13 (2) r/w 13 (1 )(d) of P C Act, 1988 and U/S 477 -A IPC and U/S 120-B of IPC and Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1 )(d) of P C Act and Section 477-A of IPC .
97 Accused Sanat Kapoor is convicted U/S 120-B of IPC r/w Section 13 (2), 13 (1 )(d) of P C Act, 1988 , U/S 477-A IPC.
Announced in open court on ( V. K. Maheshwari) this 31st day of October, 2009 SPECIAL JUDGE: (P C ACT)-03 CBI: DELHI 43/43 44 44/43