Delhi District Court
Cbi vs . (1) S.K. Pathrella on 8 August, 2018
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: SPECIAL JUDGE
(PC ACT): CBI01: CENTRAL DISTRICT:
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
CC No. 05/2017
CNR No. DLCT010000182000
Registration No. 532197/2016
CBI Vs. (1) S.K. Pathrella
S/o Late Mani Ram
Formerly Chief Manager,
Oriental Bank of Commerce,
New Friends Colony Branch,
New Delhi
R/o 16/11, Railway Colony,
Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi
(CONIVCTED)
(2) Pradeep Anand
S/o Sh. Malik B.R. Anand
Director M/s. True Fab (P) Ltd.
Plot No. 8,13/3, Milestone,
Mathura Road, Faridabad
Prop. M/s. Steel Samart (India)
Plot No. 8,13/3, Milestone,
Mathura Road, Faridabad
(CONIVCTED)
(3) S.K. Lakhina
S/o Sh. Dhaniram Lakhina
Ex. Dy. General Manager,
Oriental Bank of Commerce,
New Delhi (since retired)
R/o E97, Greater KailashI,
New Delhi
(ACQUITTED)
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 1 of 569
(4) Rajiv Anand
S/o Sh. K.L. Anand
Sales Manager,
M/s. True Fab (P) Ltd.
Plot No. 8,13/3, Milestone,
Mathura Road, Faridabad
R/o 261, Sector19, Faridabad.
(ACQUITTED)
(5) Vikram Arora
S/o Sh. Jagdish Raj Arora
R/o D20, Sector26, Noida,
U.P. 201301
(ACQUITTED)
(6) Shanti Lal Jain
S/o Late Nemi Chand Jain
R/o E5, Sagar Apartment,
Sati Jayamati Road,
Guwahati.
(DISCHARGED)
RC No. : 2 (E) / 1996
Police Station : CBI/ SIUX/ New Delhi
Under Sections : 120B r/w 409, 420, 468 & 471 IPC
13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Date of Institution: 31.10.2000
Judgment Reserved on: 30.07.2018
Judgment Pronounced on: 08.08.2018
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 2 of 569
JUDGMENT:
(1) The accused S.K. Pathrella, Pradeep Anand, S.K. Lakhina, Rajiv Anand, Vikram Arora and Shanti Lal Jain, were sent up to face trial for the offences under 120B r/w 409, 420, 468 & 471 IPC and 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and substantive offences thereof.
Brief Facts / Case of the prosecution:
(2) The present case was registered on 15.05.1996 in the SIU(X) Branch of CBI, New Delhi on the basis of a reliable information received from a source against Sh. S. K. Pathrella, the then Chief Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony; Sh. Pradeep Anand, Director of M/s True Fab (P) Ltd, and Prop. of M/s Steel Samrat (India) and M/s. Moonlight Engineers, Faridabad; Sh. Swaraj Chauhan, Prop. of M/s. Permanent Tools and Machines, Faridadabd and Sh. C. K Singh, Prop. of M/s. Suraksha Engineers and Steel Traders, Faridabad on the allegation that they entered into criminal conspiracy to cheat the Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony Branch, New Delhi and in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy they cheated the bank to the tune of Rs.1,77,28,238.58p. As per the allegations during the year 1994 onwards accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) while posted as Chief Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony, New Delhi was a party to the criminal conspiracy with accused Pradeep Anand (A2), Director of M/s. True Fab (F) Ltd. & Prop. of CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 3 of 569 M/s. Steel Samrat (India) and M/s. Moonlight Engineers, Shri Swaraj Chauhan, Prop. Of M/s. Permanent Tools & Machines, Shri C. K. Singh, Prop. Of M/s. Suraksha Engineers & Steel Traders and others and in pursuance of the said conspiracy S. K. Pathrella (A1) purchased bogus bills and Pradeep Anand, Swaraj Chauhan and C. K. Singh presented bogus bills at New Friends Colony Branch of Oriental Bank of Commerce for discount and they presented bogus bills drawn by them on various parties and S. K. Pathrella (A1) knowing that these bills are bogus and not supported by genuine trade transactions, discounted the same and credited the proceeds thereof in the respective accounts and allowed them to withdraw the amounts from the respective accounts. It is alleged that a few of these discounted bills were either not sent to the drawee banks for collection or were destroyed on their having been returned unpaid by the drawee bank as a result of which the Oriental Bank of Commerce suffered a financial loss of Rs.1,77,28,238.58P. (3) The investigations revealed that M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd.
had been maintaining a current Account No. CC1670 at Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony Branch, New Delhi since 05.11.1988 and on a proposal by Sh. Pradeep Anand, Director of M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd., Oriental Bank of Commerce/ Head Office had sanctioned certain credit facilities during the year 1990 which sanction was reviewed vide the RO Orders of 02.09.1993 which was valid upto 01.09.1994. The investigations further revealed that during the period 28.06.1994 to 07.10.95 S. K. Pathrella (A1), Pradeep CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 4 of 569 Anand (A2), S. K. Lakhina (A3), Rajiv Anand (A4), Vikram Arora (A5) and Shanti Lal Jain (A6) entered into/ were parties to criminal conspiracy with an object to cause wrongful gain to private parties and loss to the bank and in pursuance of same public servant S. K. Pathrella (A1) discounted various bills of Pradeep Anand (A2) which were bogus resulting in heavy loss to bank and gain to private parties. During investigation it was revealed that Pradeep Anand (A2), Director of M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. was managing its day to day affairs and he had two other Proprietorship firms namely M/s. Moonlight Engineers and M/s. Steel Samrat (India) and had been maintaining Current Account No. 2458 in the names of these firms in the Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony Branch in addition to the Cash Credit Account No. 1670 of M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. in the same branch. Sh. Pradeep Anand (A2) also floated two other bogus firms in the name of M/s. Permanent Tools & Machines and M/s. Suraksha Engineers and Steel Traders by showing his employees namely Sh. Swaraj Chauhan and Sh. C.K. Singh as the Proprietors of the said firms. He got Current Account No. 2815 & 2764 opened in the name of these two firms in the same branch of Oriental Bank of Commerce with the connivance of S.K. Pathrella (A1), the then Sr. Manager. During the above period 28.06.1994 to 07.10.1995 Pradeep Anand (A2) got as many as 110 bills discounted at the said branch of the bank in the name of these five firms. Further, out of 110 bills so discounted, the bank has not received any payment in respect of as many as 76 bills CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 5 of 569 amounting to Rs.1,99,72,468.25. In the said 76 bills which remained unpaid, Pradeep Anand (A2) with the assistance of his employees namely Rajiv Anand (A4) and others forged various documents like the Lorri Receipts of M/s. Ashok Transport of India, Faridabad Branch a nonexisting entity, bogus invoices/vouchers and submitted the same in the bank for getting the same discounted. It has been alleged that S. K. Pathrella (A1) and S.K. Lakhina (A3) conspired with Pradeep Anand (A2) for discounting these bills even when there were no sanctioned limits available at all to the companies/firms. Investigations revealed that out of these 110 bills, 34 bills had been either paid by the drawees or reversed by the Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony Branch, New Delhi and 76 bills remained unpaid. In all these bills including the ones which had been paid, the bogus receipts of M/s. Ashok Transport of India, Faridabad were annexed with the bills as proof of having dispatched the goods. It has been explained by the drawees that in respect of these 34 bills they have received the delivery of the goods against the bills but the drawees have been able to confirm as to whether the goods had been transported by M/s. Ashok Transport of India or any other transport agency/ individual transporters. Out of 26 discounted bills drawn by M/s. Steel Samrat (India) and drawn on ICCL, Jaipur, two bills have been paid by ICCL while 24 bills remained unpaid and the rest of the bills still remain pending and out of total of 110 bills only 36 bills along with enclosures were available and the remaining had either been destroyed or not available.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 6 of 569 (4) The case of the prosecution is that on 02.03.1995 Pradeep Anand (A2) presented 26 bills at Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony Branch, New Delhi for discount annexing consignment notes (LRs) of M/s. Ashok Transport of India, invoices and bill of exchange showing dispatch of goods to ICCL, though in fact he had not dispatched any goods under these bills. The said bills were drawn by M/s. Steel Samrat (India) Bombay on ICCL, Jaipur and on the receipt of these bills in the branch, entries were made in the Authority Register by Sh. Mahadev Prasad, Dealing Assistant and put up to S. K. Pathrella (A1) for orders. It is alleged that in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy S.K. Pathrella (A1) ordered for purchase of these bills and accordingly these bills were discounted / purchased after making necessary entries in the Bill purchase register and the proceeds of the discounted bills were credited in the Current Account of M/s Steel Samrat (India). From out of the proceeds of the discounted bills, Rs.14.5 lacs and Rs.5.5 lacs were transferred from the Current account of M/s. Steel Samrat (India) to the CC account of M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. on 2.03.1995 and 04.03.1995 respectively. The discounted bills were forwarded to State Bank of India, Jaipur for collection and the same remain unpaid except for two bills.
(5) Earlier S.K. Pathrella (A1) vide his letter dated 21.02.1995 had written to S.K. Lakhina (A3) for permission to purchase bills of M/s. Steel Samrat (India) and the same letter has been seen by S. K. Lakhina (A3) who passed necessary order thereon. The accused CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 7 of 569 S.K. Pathrella (A1) vide his letter dated 02.03.1995 intimated S. K. Lakhina (A3) about the discount of the said bills after obtaining telephonic permission from him. It is also the case of the prosecution that even when the bills were pending for payment the accused Pradeep Anand (A2) presented two bills on 14.3.95 and 16.3.95 drawn by M/s Moonlight Engineers on New World Traders, Bombay a fictitious firm which bills were entered in the Bills Purchase Register and Authority Register and the same were purchased by the branch as per orders of S.K. Pathrella (A1). It is alleged that accused Pradeep Anand (A2) presented two others bills on 30.3.95 and 3.5.95 respectively drawn on the said fictitious Bombay firm which were discounted by the branch as per orders of S.K. Pathrella (A1) and proceeds of all the said four bills were credited in the current account of M/s. Moonlight Engineers. It is the case of the prosecution that the proceeds of the discounted bills were utilized by Pradeep Anand (A
2) and the bills were forwarded to Vysya Bank, Bombay for collection but the same were not paid and returned unpaid to Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony Branch, New Delhi and thereafter the bills were destroyed on their receipt in the branch. (6) According to the persecution that on 25.3.1995 the accused Pradeep Anand (A2) presented twelve bills for discounting at Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony Branch, New Delhi annexing along with Consignment Notes (LRs) of M/s. Ashok Transport of India, Faridabad Branch, a nonexisting entity, Invoices and Bill of Exchange etc. showing dispatch of goods to IOCL, though CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 8 of 569 infact he had not dispatched any goods under these bills. The said bills were drawn by M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. on IOCL Jaipur and the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) ordered for purchase of these bills after recording that he had obtained necessary permission from S.K. Lakhina (A3) after which the bills were accordingly purchased and entered in the Bills Purchase Register and the proceeds thereof credited in the CC account of M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. which was standing overdrawn at Rs.43.37 lakhs as against lapsed sanctioned limit of Rs.20 lakhs. It is also the case of prosecution that the discounted bills were forwarded to SBI, Jaipur for collection which bills were remained unpaid and were accordingly returned unpaid to Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony Branch, New Delhi. The accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) had written a letter dated 27.3.1995 to S.K. Lakhina (A3) informing him about the discount of the above bills after obtaining his telephonic permission and S.K. Lakhina (A3) had seen this letter and confirmed his action. It is alleged that despite the above bills still outstanding, the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) in conspiracy with S.K. Lakhina (A3) and Pradeep Anand (A2) discounted a cheque bearing No.760725 dated 16.4.95 for Rs.20 lakhs issued by Shanti Lal Santosh Kumar (HUF) Karta Shanti Lal Jain (A6) drawn on PSB, Silchar Branch and presented by Pradeep Anand (A2). The accused Shanti Lal Jain (A
6) had issued a blank cheque bearing No.760725 under his signature and handed over the same to Sh. K.K. Sahni, Director of M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. even when the credit balance in his account at PSB, CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 9 of 569 Silchar Branch was not more than Rs.329.05p. It is alleged that the accused Pradeep Anand (A2) had obtained the said blank cheque from Sh. K.K. Sahni, filled up the same for Rs.20 lakhs in favour of his company M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. and presented the same at Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony Branch, New Delhi for discount upon which the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) and S.K. Lakhina (A3) despite having no authority to discount the same, discounted the said cheque and credited the proceeds thereof in the CC account No. 1670 of M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. and also allowed Pradeep Anand (A2) to withdraw the cheque proceeds from the CC account No.1670. The accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) reported to S.K. Lakhina (A3) vide his letter dated 17.4.95 about the discount of the above cheque by him after obtaining S.K. Lakhina's telephonic permission and the said cheque was returned unpaid by PSB, Silchar branch on 23.5.95 for want of sufficient funds in the account of Sh. Shanti Lal Jain.
(7) It is also the case of prosecution that accused Pradeep Anand (A2) again presented a bill dated 28.4.95 drawn by M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. on New World Trader, Bombay, a bogus firm and the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) in conspiracy with Pradeep Anand (A2) discounted the said bill knowing fully well that the bill was bogus and drawee was nonexisting and he had no power to discount the bill, proceeds of which bill was credited in the CC account of M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. and the amount was utilized by Pradeep Anand (A2). The accused Pradeep Anand (A2) presented seven bills drawn by CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 10 of 569 M/s Moonlight Engineers on Alliance Engineers and Fabricators, Bombay under LC No.126783/256 dated 15.5.95 purportedly issued by Canara Bank, Fort Branch, Bombay which bills were purchased by the branch as per orders of S.K. Pathrella (A1) and the proceeds of the discounted bills were credited in the current account of M/s Moonlight Engineers. a sum of Rs.29 lakhs out of Rs.29.96 lakhs being the bill proceeds was transferred to the CC account of M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. and the amount was utilized by Pradeep Anand (A2) but no such LC had been issued by Canara Bank, Fort Branch, Bombay. The said discounted bills were handed over to Sh. Rajiv Anand on 26.5.95 for dispatch through courier service as per orders of S.K. Patherella (A1) and Rajiv Anand (A4) without dispatching the documents obtained a courier receipt from World Pak Air Courier Service (India) Pvt. Ltd., Branch Office Faridabad and handed over the courier receipt to S.K. Pathrella (A1) as proof of dispatch. As per the allegations, in order to wipe out the part outstanding of these 7 bills, the accused Pradeep Anand (A2) in conspiracy with S.K. Pathrella (A1) obtained 3 LCs for Rs.5 lakhs each in favour of M/s Pramod Kumar & Sons, a nonexisting firm and the same were got discounted from Bank of Nova Scotia, B.K. Road, New Delhi and obtained a pay order which was again discounted by Pradeep Anand (A2) and a pay order was obtained by him which was deposited at Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony Branch, New Delhi and the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) knowing fully well that the payee of the said pay order issued by Vysya Bank, CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 11 of 569 Connaught Place, New Delhi was M/s Moonlight Engineers and the amount was utilized for wiping out the part out standings in respect of the above seven bills.
(8) It is further the case of the prosecution that on 08.06.1995 the CC Account No.1670 of M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. stood overdrawn at Rs.39.42 lacs as against lapsed sanction limit of Rs.20 lacs. It is alleged that the accused Pradeep Anand (A2) in conspiracy with S.K. Pathrella and S.K. Lakhina opened a Current Account No.2764 at Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony Branch, New Delhi in the name of bogus firm M/s Suraksha Engineers & Steel Traders floated by him in the name of his employee Sh. C.K. Singh and presented six bills drawn by M/s Suraksha Engineers & Steel Traders and drawn on nonexisting firm M/s New World Traders on which five bills had earlier been drawn by M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Moon Light Engineers which were discounted as per orders of S.K. Pathrella (A1) after having received permission from S.K. Lakhina (A3) despite dissenting note of the Chief Manager of the RO on the Branch proposal for grant of bill discounting facilities. The proceeds of the discounted bills were credited to the Current Account No.2764 of the said nonexisting firm and Rs.20 lacs out of the total proceeds was transferred from the current Account No.2764 of the said firm to the CC Account No.1670 of M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd.. It is also alleged that again on 11.9.1995, nine bogus bills drawn by the said firm on another nonexisting firm M/s. J.S. Supertech Engineers, Ahmadabad under bogus LC CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 12 of 569 purportedly issued by Canara Bank, Ahmadabad were presented at the Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony Br., New Delhi and the same were discounted as per the orders of S.K. Pathrella (A1) and proceeds of Rs.33.39 lacs were credited in the Current Account No.2764 of the said bogus firm and out of the said proceeds Rs.30 lacs was transferred from the current Account of the said firm to the CC Account No.1670 of M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd.. All these documents were handed over to Rajiv Anand (A4) on the orders of S.K. Pathrella (A1) for dispatch to the drawee through courier service and Rajiv Anand (A4) did not dispatch the same but only obtained a courier receipt from Ramex Express Courier Service whereas in fact the bills were not dispatched. It has been alleged that neither the drawee existed nor was the LC against which the bills were discounted, had been issued by Canara Bank, Ahmadabad.
(9) The case of the prosecution is also that a Current Account No.2815 was got opened by Pradeep Anand (A2) in the name of M/s Permanent Tools & Machines, a nonexisting Proprietorship firm of Sh. Swaraj Chauhan, employee of Pradeep Anand (A2) in conspiracy with S.K. Pathrella (A1) at Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony Branch, New Delhi on 31.7.1995 and four bills drawn by the said nonexisting firm on M/s Orient Heavy Engineering Corporation, Ahmadabad, a nonexisting firm were presented on 1.8.1995 for discount which were discounted as per the orders of S.K. Pathrella (A1) and the bill proceeds of Rs.14,90,963/ was CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 13 of 569 credited in the Current Account No.2815 of the said firm and the amounts were withdrawn in cash by Pradeep Anand (A2) and Rajiv Anand (A4) by means of cheque Nos.004101 dated 1.8.95 for Rs.8,00,000/, 004102 dated 4.8.95 for Rs.6,95,000/ and 004103 dated 14.9.95 for Rs.5000/ whereas the bills were not at all dispatched for payment. Further, as per the allegations, nine bogus bills were presented by Pradeep Anand (A2) in criminal conspiracy with S.K. Pathrella (A1) and S.K. Lakhina (A3) which were discounted on 4.7.95, 14.7.95, 29.8.95 and 7.10.95 as per the orders of S.K. Pathrella (A1) and the proceeds of the discounted bills were credited in the respective account of M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd., M/s Steel Samrat India and M/s Moon Light Engineers and the amounts were utilized by Pradeep Anand (A2). (10) It is further alleged that the accused Pradeep Anand (A2) in conspiracy with S.K. Pathrella (A1) and Vikram Arora (A5) presented a cheque bearing No.171024 dated 23.9.95 for Rs.3.10 lacs drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, NIT Branch, Faridabad issued by Carda India Electrical, a proprietorship concern of Vikram Arora (A5) and the accused Vikram Arora (A5) had issued the aforesaid cheque favouring M/s Steel Samrat (India) for Rs.3.10 lacs though there was a credit balance of Rs.2,054/ only in the Current Account No. 6089 of the said firm in the said bank as on 23.9.1995 and even subsequently there was a credit balance of Rs.944/ as on 5.10.1995 when the cheque was returned unpaid. As per the allegations, the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) without having CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 14 of 569 the authority discounted the aforesaid cheque and credited the proceeds to the current account No.2458 of M/s Steel Samrat (India) and the amount was utilized by Pradeep Anand (A2). It is further alleged that on 24.05.1995 the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) had obtained a DD bearing No. 494289 for Rs.11,500/ from Pradeep Anand (A2) for making payment to Ms. Sosama Thomas with whom he had developed very personal and intimate relationship. It is also alleged that the said DD was obtained as a consideration for official favour shown to Pradeep Anand (A2) from time to time and the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) had sent her from time to time Drafts/ cash to the extent of Rs.2.70 lacs by opening joint account at Corporation Bank, Friends Colony Branch, New Delhi and Corporation Bank, Trivendrum. The case of the prosecution is that the said amounts are obviously illgotten money obtained by S.K. Pathrella and besides S.K. Pathrella (A1) also received Rs.6 lacs in cash from Pradeep Anand (A2) vide self cheque No. 772754 dated 18.03.1995 which has been filled in by S.K. Pathrella (A1) and issued by Pradeep Anand drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony Branch, New Delhi account M/s Moon Light Engineers. It is further alleged that the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) had also obtained Rs.4 lacs from Pradeep Anand (A2) in the form of a pay order No. 452/95 dated 03.05.1995 issued from the account of M/s Moon Light Engineers to repay his old debts obtained from Sh. G.C. Luthra and CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 15 of 569 similarly, he had also obtained Rs.5.75 lacs from Pradeep Anand (A2) who had transferred the said amount from the account of M/s Moon Light Engineers to the current account of M/s Shiv Industrial Enterprises by cheque bearing No.772752 dated 15.03.1995 which amounts were paid by S.K. Pathrella (A1) as quidproquo by Pradeep Anand (A2) for discounting bogus bills submitted by him.
(11) The case of the prosecution is that the accused S.K. Lakhina (A3) had remitted a total amount of Rs.13.35 lacs in cash in the current account number of M/s Future Positive belonging to his sons Sh. Sandeep Lakhina, Sh. Akash Lakhina and Sh. Amber Lakhina during the period from 02.03.1994 to 16.08.1995, which remittances were from the illgot money received by him. It is further alleged that the Invoices, Lorry Receipts, Bill of Exchange and other documents submitted to the bank have been prepared by Pradeep Anand (A2) and his employees i.e. Sh. Rajiv Anand (A4), T.C. Bhardwaj, Suman Prakash, Nitin Saini, C.K. Singh and Swaraj Chauhan. As per the prosecution , the expert opinion of GEQD, Shimla confirms the authorship of the relevant documents by Pradeep Anand (A2), Rajiv Anand (A4) and Sh. T.C. Bhardwaj, Sh. Suman Prakash, Sh. Nitin Saini, Sh. C.K. Singh and Sh. Swaraj Chauhan. The GEQD, Shimla has also confirmed the signatures of Sh. Shanti Lal Jain and Sh. Vikram Arora on the cheque bearing Nos. 760725 and 171024 for Rs.20 lacs and Rs.3.10 lacs respectively. In so far as the allegations against Sh. C.K. Singh, Sh. Swaraj Chauhan, Sh. T.C. CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 16 of 569 Bhardwaj, Sh. Suman Prakash and Sh. Nitin Saini are concerned, it was found that they were petty employees acted at the instructions of Pradeep Anand (A2) and had no knowledge of the alleged criminal act done by Pradeep Anand (A2) and without knowing the consequences of their action, they had obliged Sh. Pradeep Anand by signing or writing papers like Account Opening Form, blank cheques and blank bills etc. (12) The case of the prosecution is that as a result of the criminal conspiracy on the part of S.K. Pathrella (A1), Pradeep Anand (A2), S.K. Lakhina (A3), Rajiv Anand (A4), Vikram Arora (A5) and Shanti Lal Jain (A6), the Oriental Bank of Commerce suffered financial losses Rs.80,87,304/ in respect of M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd., Rs.53,45,137/ in respect of M/s Moon Light Engineers, Rs.45,06,672/ in respect of M/s Suraksha Engineers & Steel Traders, Rs.33,43,178/ in respect of M/s Steel Samrat (India) and Rs.17,12,804/ in respect of M/s Permanent Tools & Machines totalling Rs.2,29,95,095/ as on 15.03.1996. According to the prosecution, the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1), Pradeep Anand (A2), S.K. Lakhina (A3), Rajiv Anand (A4), Vikram Arora (A5) and Shanti Lal Jain (A6) have committed offences punishable U/s 120B r/w 409, 420, 468 & 471 IPC and Section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act, 1988 and the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) and S.K. Lakhina (A3) have also committed substantive offences under Section 409 IPC and Section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act, 1988 whereas the accused Pradeep Anand (A2), Rajiv Anand (A4), CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 17 of 569 Vikram Arora (A5) and Shanti Lal Jain (A6) have committed substantive offences U/s 420, 468 and 471 IPC.
CHARGES :
(13) Perusal of the record shows that vide order dated 03.12.2005 the Ld. Predecessor of this Court had discharged the accused Shanti Lal Jain (A6), whereas charges under Sections 120 B read with Section 420, 468 and 471 Indian Penal Code and Section 13 (1) (d) punishable under Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act were settled against the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1), Pradeep Anand (A2), S.K. Lakhina (A3), Rajiv Anand (A4) and Vikram Arora (A5). Further, charge under Section 13 (1) (d) punishable under Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was settled against the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) and S.K. Lakhina (A3). Also, the charges under Sections 420, 468 and 471 Indian Penal Code were settled against the accused Pradeep Anand (A3), Rajiv Anand (A4) and Vikram Arora (A5). All the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
(14) Before coming to the testimonies of individual witnesses, the details of the witnesses examined by the prosecution as well as the defence and the documents relied upon by them are hereby put in a tabulated form as under:
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 18 of 569 List of Witnesses:
S. No. PW / DW Name of Witness Detail of Witness Prosecution Witnesses
1. PW1 Sh. K.L. Bhutani Official Witness AGM of Oriental Bank of Commerce
2. PW2 Sh. S.S. Mehra Official Witness GM (Inspection & Control), Oriental Bank of Commerce, Head Office, New Delhi
3. PW3 Smt. Rita Official Witness - Official of Oriental Chhabra Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony Branch, New Delhi
4. PW4 Sh. Yoginder Official Witness Officer in New Kumar Gupta Friends Colony branch of Oriental bank of Commerce
5. PW5 Sh. C.R. Sharma Official Witness Manager of Oriental Bank of Commerce
6. PW6 Sh. O.P. Mahajan Official Witness GM (Personnel) in Oriental Bank of Commerce
7. PW7 Sh. J.S. Sachdeva Official Witness Chief Manager, Regional Office, Oriental Bank of Commerce
8. PW8 Smt. Akhila Sinha Official Witness AGM of Oriental Bank of Commerce
9. PW9 Sh. R. Rajamohan Official Witness Branch Manager of Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony, New Delhi
10. PW10 Sh. Om Prakash Official Witness Peon with Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony, New Delhi
11. PW11 Sh. Tapan Kumar Official Witness DGM in Indian Oil Mondal Corporation Limited, Gujarat Refinery, Vadodara, Gujarat
12. PW12 Sh. S.S. Gupta Official Witness Special Assistant from Oriental Bank of Commerce
13. PW13 Sh. M.K. Sharma Official Witness Chief Manager of Oriental Bank of Commerce
14. PW14 Sh. Sanjay Kumar Official Witness Employee of Indian Sinha Oil Corporation CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 19 of 569 S. No. PW / DW Name of Witness Detail of Witness
15. PW15 Sh. Sandeep Official Witness Businessman Gupta
16. PW16 Smt. Sudha Official Witness Senior Manager with Sharma Oriental Bank of Commerce
17. PW17 Sh. Babu Lal Official Witness Businessman Munot
18. PW18 Sh. Shyam Official Witness Businessman Sridhar Shirgaonkar
19. PW19 Sh. Anil Kumar Official Witness Businessman Gupta
20. PW20 Smt. Saroj Rani Public Witness
21. PW21 Sh. Rohtash Public Witness Chauhan
22. PW22 Sh. Asha Ram Public Witness
23. PW23 Sh. B.S. Saxena Advocate by profession
24. PW24 Sh. Swaraj Public witness Small Time Contractor Chouhan
25. PW25 Sh. V.D. Chatwal Official Witness Assistant General Manager of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Head Office, Connaught Place, New Delhi
26. PW26 Sh. Kishan Lal Public witness Transporter by Kejriwal profession
27. PW27 Sh. Suman Official Witness Practicing Advocate Prakash Sharma
28. PW28 Sh. Kanti Prasad Official Witness Senior divisional Manager of National Insurance Company
29. PW29 Sh. Rishi Pal Official Witness employee of National Insurance Company Ltd
30. PW30 Sh. Radha Raman Official Witness Postman
31. PW31 Sh. Om Prakash Official Witness Postman Goel
32. PW32 Sh. Raghuvir Official Witness Postman Singh CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 20 of 569 S. No. PW / DW Name of Witness Detail of Witness
33. PW33 Sh. Nitin Saini Official Witness Businessman
34. PW34 Sh. T.C. Bhardwaj Official Witness Accountant in M/s.
True Fab Pvt. Ltd.
35. PW35 Sh. Mahesh Official Witness Senior Manager in Prasad Oriental Bank of Commerce
36. PW36 Sh. Pankaj Kumar Official Witness Senior Manager in Praveen Bank of Baroda
37. PW37 Sh. Vikram Official Witness General Manager in Kochar Oriental Bank of Commerce
38. PW38 Sh. Binay Kumar Official Witness Assistant General Gupta Manager of Oriental Bank of Commerce
39. PW39 Sh. Pradeep Official Witness Chief Manager of Kumar Malhan Oriental Bank of Commerce
40. PW40 Sh. K.D. Grover Official Witness Manager ScaleII in Oriental Bank of Commerce
41. PW41 Sh. R. C. Raheja Official Witness Assistant General Manager from Oriental Bank of Commerce
42. PW42 Sh. Balbir Singh Official Witness Manager of Oriental Godara Bank of Commerce
43. PW43 Sh. Rameshar Official witness Rameshwar Rana, Rana Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce
44. PW44 Sh. Prabir Official witness Special Assistant, Sutradhar Oriental Bank of Commerce, NFC Branch, New Delhi
45. PW45 Sh. Vijay Kumar Official witness Manager, Oriental Sehgal Bank of Commerce
46. PW46 Sh. V. K. Kamboj Official witness Chief Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Connaught Place Branch, New Delhi
47. PW47 Sh. Rajender Official witness Cashier, Greater Prasad Kailash Brnach, OBC
48. PW48 Mrs. Sosama Official witness Clerk, OBC Bank Thomas
49. PW49 Sh. Ashok Kumar Official witness Manager, Oriental Khanna Bank of Commerce, NFC Branch, New Delhi CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 21 of 569 S. No. PW / DW Name of Witness Detail of Witness
50. PW50 Smt. Geeta Official witness Officer, OBC, Nehru Tondon Place Branch, New Delhi
51. PW51 Smt. Poonam Official witness Officer, OBC Bank, Kang NFC Branch, New Delhi
52. PW52 Sh. Madhav Official witness Clerk, Oriental Bank Prasad of Commerce
53. PW53 Sh. P. C. Bahman Official witness Chief Manager, OBC, New Friends Colony Branch
54. PW54 Ms. Neelam Official witness Officer, Oriental Bank Chopra of Commerce
55. PW55 Sh. A. K. Sharma Official Witness Dy. Superintendent of Police, SIUX, CBI
56. PW56 Mrs. Madhu Official witness Officer, Oriental Bank Goswami of Commerce
57. PW57 Sh. Suresh Official witness Branch Manager, Kaushik Professional Courier
58. PW58 Sh. Kameshwar Official witness Material Manager, Prasad Mishra IOC Haldia, Distt. Midnapur
59. PW59 Sh. Subramaniam Official witness Senior Manager, Ravichandran Ashram Road, Ahemdabad Branch of Canara Bank
60. PW60 Sh. M. Annoji Official witness Senior Manager, Kinni Canara Bank, Fort Branch, Mumbai
61. PW61 Sh. R.K. Singh Official witness Chief Construction Manager, Indian Oil Corporation, Midnapur
62. PW62 Sh. S.R. Mikkili Official witness Branch Manager, Bank of India, Bazar Vatva, Ahmedabad
63. PW63 Sh. N. R. Udani Official witness Special Assistant, Canara Bank Jamnagar
64. PW64 Sh. K. Sarvottam Official witness Chief manager, Bank of India, D. N. Branch, Mumbai
65. PW65 Sh. S. V. Official witness Chief Manager, Bank Shalgaonkar of India, MG Road Branch, Mumbai
66. PW66 Sh. Deep Chand Official witness Chief Manager, Aggarwal Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Railway Road Branch, Gurgaon, CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 22 of 569 S. No. PW / DW Name of Witness Detail of Witness
67. PW67 Sh. Pankaj Kumar Official witness officer of the Bank of Praveen Baroda, Defence Colony Branch
68. PW68 Sh. P. D. Shenoy Official witness Branch Manager, Corporation Bank, NFC Branch
69. PW69 Sh. Milind Official witness Clerk in ISC Harendrarai Department of Jamnagar Branch of Pathak Canara Bank
70. PW70 Sh. H. H. M. Official witness Officer, Corporation Krishnamurthy Bank, NFC Branch
71. PW71 Sh. K. Vasudeva Official witness Branch, Manager, Nayak Corporation Bank, NFC Branch
72. PW72 Sh. Pradeep Ingle Official witness Officer, Corporation Bank, NFC Branch
73. PW73 Sh. Ramesh B. Official witness Officer, Canara Bank, Kankhara Jamnagar Branch
74. PW74 Sh. Virender Public witness Farmer at Shabuddin Pur, Distt. Muzaffarnagar (U.P.)
75. PW75 Sh. A. P. Singh Official witness Deputy S. P., CBI
76. PW76 Sh. Suresh Jaitely Official witness Special Assistant, Oriental Bank of Commerce
77. PW77 Sh. Harish Bhasin Official witness Proprietor of M/s Alpha Associates (Real Estates)
78. PW78 Sh. Mahender Official witness Officer, Oriental Bank Singh of Commerce, NFC Branch, New Delhi
79. PW79 Sh. Ashok Official witness Operation Officer in Bhatnagar Bank of Nova Scotia, New Delhi
80. PW80 Sh. Mukesh Gupta Official witness Owner JAYDEE Enterprises at Shop No. 28, Sector23 & 24, Faridabad
81. PW81 Sh. Yudhvir Singh Official witness Real Estate Business
82. PW82 Sh.Chandresh Official witness Production Officer, Kumar Saxena M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd.
83. PW83 Sh. Bhupender Official witness Publisher of Chaudhary Newspaper "Swatantra Vishwa Manav"
Faridabad CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 23 of 569 S. No. PW / DW Name of Witness Detail of Witness
84. PW84 Sh. Rajendra Official witness Officer in M/s Agra Sirpal Engineering Industries
85. PW85 Sh. Vinod Official witness Officer of M/s World Khurana Pak Air Courier Service India Pvt. Ltd.
86. PW86 Sh. Rakesh Kumar Official witness Assistant Engineer, Sharma Indian Oil Corporation
87. PW87 Sh. D. P. Dhingra Official witness Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce
88. PW88 Sh. Satish Dagar Official witness Inspector, CBI, SIUX Branch New Delhi
89. PW89 Sh. R. K. Kalra Official witness Chief Manager, OBC, Head Office, Inspection and Control Department, New Delhi
90. PW90 Sh. N. C. Sood Official witness Handwriting Expert Defence Witnesses:
91. D3W1 Sh. Rajesh Dahiya Official witness Manager, OBC, Gurgaon Haryana
92. D3W2 Sh. S. S. Official witness Chief Manager, OBC Shishodia
93. D3W1 Sh. Rajesh Dahiya Official witness Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gurugram, Haryana 94 DW4 Sh. Rajiv Anand Accused No. 4 himself.
List of Documents:
S. Exhibit No. Doc. Document Proved by No. No.
1. Ex.PW1/A D377 Circular dated 01.07.1991 PW1 Sh. K. L. Bhutani
2. Ex.PW1/A1 D377 Annexure of Circular dated PW1 Sh. K. L. 01.07.1991 Bhutani
3. Ex.PW3/11 to D555 Entries no. 1505 to 1522 in PW3 Rita 118 Malkhana Register Chhabra
4. Ex.PW3/A D555 Page 53 of D555 PW3 Rita Chhabra CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 24 of 569 S. Exhibit No. Doc. Document Proved by No. No.
5. Ex.PW3/2 D555 Entry for the Register PW3 Rita Chhabra
6. Ex.PW3/3 D555 Entry No. 1085 PW3 Rita Chhabra
7. Ex.PW3/4 D555 Entry No. 1302 of Bill No. PW3 Rita ST/60/95 Chhabra
8. Ex.PW3/5 D555 Entry No. 1773 of Bill no. PW3 Rita ST/19/95 Chhabra
9. Ex.PW3/6 D555 Entry No. 2152 of DD 5/95 PW3 Rita Chhabra
10. Ex.PW4/A D100 Endorsement on Form No. LD PW4 Yoginder 26 (Counter Guarantee form) Kumar Gupta
11. Ex.PW4/B D100 Specimen Signatures of DP PW4 Yoginder Dhingra Kumar Gupta
12. Ex.PW4/C D100 Account opening form of DP PW4 Yoginder Dhingra Kumar Gupta
13. Ex.PW4/D D351 Agreement regarding Bill PW4 Yoginder purchase/ Bill discounted Kumar Gupta
14. Ex.PW4/E D252 Signature on agreement PW4 Yoginder between Kapil Khanna and the Kumar Gupta Bank
15. Ex.PW4/F D284 Agreement regarding LD15, PW4 Yoginder Bill Purchase /Bill Discounting Kumar Gupta
16. Ex.PW4/G D285 Form LD28 PW4 Yoginder Kumar Gupta
17. Ex.PW4/H D286 Form LD28 agreement PW4 Yoginder between Pardeep Anand and Kumar Gupta OBC
18. Ex.PW4/I D194 Form LD9 dated 16.03.95 PW4 Yoginder agreement between M/s Moon Kumar Gupta Light Engineering and OBC CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 25 of 569 S. Exhibit No. Doc. Document Proved by No. No.
19. Ex.PW4/J D195 Form LD 15 agreement PW4 Yoginder regarding bill purchase Kumar Gupta between M/s Moon Light Engineer and OBC
20. Ex.PW4/K D196 Form LD28 dated 16.03.95 PW4 Yoginder agreement of Guarantee Kumar Gupta between Bimla Sherawat and OBC
21. Ex.PW4/L D305 Transfer credit voucher dated PW4 Yoginder 11.09.95 Kumar Gupta
22. Ex.PW6/A D4 Letter dated 16.10.93 PW6 O.P. Mahajan
23. Ex.PW6/B D4 Letter dated 19.05.94 PW6 O.P. Mahajan
24. Ex.PW6/C D4 Letter dated 10.06.94 PW6 O.P. Mahajan
25. Ex.PW6/D D4 Letter dated 20.06.94 PW6 O.P. Mahajan
26. Ex.PW6/E D4 Letter dated 16.12.94 PW6 O.P. Mahajan
27. Ex.PW6/F D4 Letter dated 31.12.94 PW6 O.P. Mahajan
28. Ex.PW7/1 D4 Letter to DGM Regional Office PW7 Sh. J. S. Sachdeva
29. Ex.PW7/A D4 Letter dated 11.10.94 PW7 Sh. J. S. Sachdeva
30. Ex.PW7/B D4 Letter dated 04.07.95 PW7 Sh. J. S. Sachdeva
31. Ex.PW7/C D4 Letter dated 01.11.1991 PW7 Sh. J. S. Sachdeva
32. Ex.PW7/D D128 Letter dated 24.03.95 PW7 Sh. J. S. Sachdeva
33. Ex.PW7/E D319 Letter dated 11.09.95 PW7 Sh. J. S. Sachdeva CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 26 of 569 S. Exhibit No. Doc. Document Proved by No. No.
34. Ex.PW7/F D320 Letter dated 14/10/1994 PW7 Sh. J. S. Sachdeva
35. Ex.PW7/G D4 Letter dated 09/11/1994 PW7 Sh. J. S. Sachdeva
36. Ex.PW8/A D3 letter on dated 14.09.90 PW8 Akhila Sinha
37. Ex.PW8/B D3 Letter dated 18.08.90 PW8 Akhila Sinha
38. Ex.PW8/C D4 Letter dated 02.09.93 PW8 Akhila Sinha
39. Ex.PW9/1 D4 Letter dated 12/13.04.93 PW9 R. Rajamohan
40. Ex.PW9//2 D4 Letter dated 24.09.93 PW9 R. Rajamohan
41. Ex.PW9/3 D4 Letter dated 22.03.93 PW9 R. Rajamohan
42. Ex.PW9/4 D4 Letter dated 05.10.93 PW9 R. Rajamohan
43. Ex.PW9/5 D4 Letter dated 16.10.93 PW9 R. Rajamohan
44. Ex.PW9/6 D4 Letter dated 27.10.93 PW9 R. Rajamohan
45. Ex.PW9/7 D4 Letter dated 13.01.94 PW9 R. Rajamohan
46. Ex.PW9/8 D4 Letter dated 03.03.94 PW9 R. Rajamohan
47. Ex.PW9/9 D4 Letter dated 30.03.94 PW9 R. Rajamohan
48. Ex.PW9/10 D4 Letter dated 16.11.93 PW9 R. Rajamohan
49. Ex.PW9/11 D4 Letter dated 27.10.93 PW9 R. Rajamohan
50. Ex.PW9/12 D4 Letter dated 27.01.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 27 of 569 S. Exhibit No. Doc. Document Proved by No. No.
51. Ex.PW9/13 D4 Letter dated 21.02.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
52. Ex.PW9/14 D4 Letter dated 08.03.93 PW9 R. Rajamohan
53. Ex.PW9/15 D4 Letter dated 27.03.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
54. Ex.PW9/16 D4 Letter dated 17.04.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
55. Ex.PW9/17 D4 Letter dated 26.04.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
56. Ex.PW9/18 D4 Letter dated 12.05.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
57. Ex.PW9/19 D4 Letter dated 23.05.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
58. Ex.PW9/20 D4 Letter dated 15.09.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
59. Ex.PW9/21 D359 Cheque dated 01.08.95 for Rs. PW9 R. 8 Lacs Rajamohan
60. Ex.PW9/22 D348 Introduction on form (Swaraj PW9 R. Chauhan) Rajamohan
61. Ex.PW9/22A D349 Specimen Signature of Swaraj PW9 R. Chauhan Rajamohan
62. Ex.PW9/23 D355 Loan application form of PW9 R. Permancht Tools & Machines. Rajamohan
63. Ex.PW9/24 D355 Annexure of Loan application PW9 R. form Rajamohan
64. Ex.PW9/25 D355 Annexure of Loan application PW9 R. form Rajamohan
65. Ex.PW9/26 D278 Application for opening of PW9 R. current account of Suraksha Rajamohan Engineering & Steel.
66. Ex.PW9/27 D309 Cheque No. 70377 dated PW9 R. 16.06.95 Rajamohan
67. Ex.PW9/28 D313 Cheque No. 695419 dated PW9 R. 12.09.95 Rajamohan CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 28 of 569 S. Exhibit No. Doc. Document Proved by No. No.
68. Ex.PW9/29 D314 Pay in slip PW9 R. Rajamohan
69. Ex.PW9/30 D97 Current Account opening form and introduction M/s Steel PW9 R. Samrat India. Rajamohan
70. Ex.PW9/31 D97 Specimen signature card - PW9 R. Owner of Steel Samrat India Rajamohan
71. Ex.PW9/32 D99 Letter dated 24.02.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
72. Ex.PW9/33 D99 Agreement for Cash Credit/Overdraft Form No. PW9 R. LD9 Rajamohan
73. Ex.PW9/34 D99 Agreement dated 24.02.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
74. Ex.PW9/35 D99 Application cum Authority PW9 R. letter for financial assistance Rajamohan
75. Ex.PW9/36 D99 Letter dated 24.02.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
76. Ex.PW9/37 D142 Letter dated 24.02.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
77. Ex.PW9/38 D103 Bill of Exchange dated PW9 R. 02.03.95 for Rs. 62,585.20 Rajamohan
78. Ex.PW9/39 D104 Bill of Exchange dated PW9 R. 02.03.95 for Rs. 33,952.80 Rajamohan
79. Ex.PW9/40 D105 Bill of Exchange dated PW9 R. 01.03.95 for Rs. 84036/ Rajamohan
80. Ex.PW9/41 D106 Bill of Exchange dated PW9 R. 01.03.95 for Rs. 1,09,115.20 Rajamohan
81. Ex.PW9/42 D107 Bill of Exchange dated PW9 R. 25.02.95 for Rs.78,180 Rajamohan
82. Ex.PW9/43 D108 Bill of Exchange dated PW9 R. 25.02.95 for 24,604.50/ Rajamohan
83. Ex.PW9/44 D109 Bill of Exchange dated PW9 R. 25.02.95 for Rs. 47,676.80 Rajamohan
84. Ex.PW9/45 D110 Bill of Exchange dated PW9 R. 01.03.95 for Rs. 84524.80 Rajamohan CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 29 of 569 S. Exhibit No. Doc. Document Proved by No. No.
85. Ex.PW9/46 D111 Bill of Exchange dated PW9 R. 28.02.95 for Rs. 61,100/ Rajamohan
86. Ex.PW9/47 D113 Bill of Exchange dated PW9 R. 25.02.95 for Rs. 82,306.40 Rajamohan
87. Ex.PW9/48 D114 Bill of Exchange dated PW9 R. 28.02.95 for Rs. 20,829.46 Rajamohan
88. Ex.PW9/49 D115 Bill of Exchange dated PW9 R. 25.02.95 for 1,28,686.94 Rajamohan
89. Ex.PW9/50 D117 Bill of Exchange dated PW9 R. 01.03.95 for Rs. 94094.60 Rajamohan
90. Ex.PW9/51 D121 Bill of Exchange dated PW9 R. 28.02.95 for Rs. 66,480.56/ Rajamohan
91. Ex.PW9/52 D117 Bill of Exchange dated PW9 R. 25.02.95 for 4479/ Rajamohan
92. Ex.PW9/53 D117 Bill of Exchange dated PW9 R. 25.02.95 for Rs.20,816.30 Rajamohan
93. Ex.PW9/54 D117 Bill of Exchange dated PW9 R. 01.03.95 for 3,684.80 Rajamohan
94. Ex.PW9/55 D119 Bill of Exchange dated PW9 R. 28.02.95 for 1,41,000/ Rajamohan
95. Ex.PW9/56 D120 Bill of Exchange dated PW9 R. 01.03.95 for Rs. 5,198.20 Rajamohan
96. Ex.PW9/57 D122 Bill of Exchange dated PW9 R. 01.03.95n for 1,29,550.80 Rajamohan
97. Ex.PW9/58 D123 Bill of Exchange dated PW9 R. 01.03.95 for Rs. 84036/ Rajamohan
98. Ex.PW9/59 D124 Bill of Exchange dated PW9 R. 28.02.95 for 1,672.26 Rajamohan
99. Ex.PW9/60 D126 Bill of Exchange dated PW9 R. 01.03.95 for Rs. 1,10,844.80 Rajamohan
100. Ex.PW9/61 D104 Invoice dated 08.02.95 issued PW9 R. by M/s Steel Samrat India Rajamohan
101. Ex.PW9/62 D107 Invoice dated 23.01.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 30 of 569 S. Exhibit No. Doc. Document Proved by No. No.
102. Ex.PW9/63 D108 Invoice dated 02.02.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
103. Ex.PW9/64 D109 Invoice dated 10.02.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
104. Ex.PW9/65 D111 Invoice dated 07.02.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
105. Ex.PW9/66 D112 Invoice dated 02.02.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
106. Ex.PW9/67 D113 Invoice dated 30.01.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
107. Ex.PW9/68 D114 Invoice dated 11.02.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
108. Ex.PW9/69 D115 Invoice dated 09.02.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
109. Ex.PW9/70 D121 Invoice dated 02.02.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
110. Ex.PW9/71 D116 Invoice dated 11.02.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
111. Ex.PW9/72 D119 Invoice dated 13.02.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
112. Ex.PW9/73 D124 Invoice dated 11.02.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
113. Ex.PW9/74 D4 Letter dated 12.05.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
114. Ex.PW9/75 D4 Letter dated 19.04.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
115. Ex.PW9/76 D4 Letter dated 20.04.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
116. Ex.PW9/77 D28 Cheque No. 813616 dated PW9 R. 23.06.94 Rajamohan
117. Ex.PW9/78 D29 Cheque No. 813621 dated PW9 R. 28.06.94 Rajamohan
118. Ex.PW9/79 D30 Cheque No. 813624 dated PW9 R. 01.07.94 Rajamohan CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 31 of 569 S. Exhibit No. Doc. Document Proved by No. No.
119. Ex.PW9/80 D31 Cheque No. 813626 dated PW9 R. 02.07.94 Rajamohan
120. Ex.PW9/81 D32 Cheque No. 813625 dated PW9 R. 02.07.94 Rajamohan
121. Ex.PW9/82 D34 Cheque No. 346651 dated PW9 R. 30.12.94 Rajamohan
122. Ex.PW9/83 D35 Cheque No. 346623 dated PW9 R. 30.12.94 Rajamohan
123. Ex.PW9/84 D35 Cheque No. 346622 dated PW9 R. 30.12.94 Rajamohan
124. Ex.PW9/85A D35 Cheque No. 346633 dated PW9 R. 30.12.94 Rajamohan
125. Ex.PW9/86A D35 Cheque No. 346640 dated PW9 R. 30.12.94 Rajamohan
126. Ex.PW9/87A D35 Cheque No. 346636 dated PW9 R. 30.12.94 Rajamohan
127. Ex.PW9/88A D35 Cheque No. 346641 dated PW9 R. 30.12.94 Rajamohan
128. Ex.PW9/89 D35 Cheque No. 346647 dated PW9 R. 30.12.94 Rajamohan
129. Ex.PW9/89A D35 Application for issuance of PW9 R. Demand Draft Rajamohan
130. Ex.PW9/89B D35 Copy of Draft PW9 R. Rajamohan
131. Ex.PW9/90` D35 Cheque No. 346648 PW9 R. Rajamohan
132. Ex.PW9/90A D35 Application for issuance of PW9 R. demand Draft Rajamohan
133. Ex.PW9/90B D35 Copy of Draft PW9 R. Rajamohan
134. Ex.PW9/91 D35 Cheque No. 346649 dated PW9 R. 30.12.94 Rajamohan
135. Ex.PW9/91A D35 Application for the issuance of PW9 R. the DD Rajamohan CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 32 of 569 S. Exhibit No. Doc. Document Proved by No. No.
136. Ex.PW9/91/B D35 Copy of Said Draft PW9 R. Rajamohan
137. Ex.PW9/92 D35 Cheque No. 346631 dated PW9 R. 30.12.94 Rajamohan
138. Ex.PW9/92A D35 Application for the issuance of PW9 R. DD Rajamohan
139. Ex.PW9/93 D35 Cheque No. 346630 dated PW9 R. 30.12.94 Rajamohan
140. Ex.PW9/93A D35 Application for issuance of pay PW9 R. order Rajamohan
141. Ex.PW9/94 D35 Cheque No. 346632 dated PW9 R. 30.12.94 Rajamohan
142. Ex.PW9/94A D35 Application for the issuance of PW9 R. pay order Rajamohan
143. Ex.PW9/95 D35 Cheque No. 346629 PW9 R. Rajamohan
144. Ex.PW9/95A D35 Application for the issuance of PW9 R. the Pay Order Rajamohan
145. Ex.PW9/96 D35 Cheque No. 346635 PW9 R. Rajamohan
146. Ex.PW9/96A D35 Application for the issuance of PW9 R. Pay Order Rajamohan
147. Ex.PW9/97 D35 Cheque No. 346645 dated PW9 R. 31.12.94 Rajamohan
148. Ex.PW9/97A D35 Application for the issuance of PW9 R. Pay order Rajamohan
149. Ex.PW9/98 D35 Cheque No. 346644 dated PW9 R. 30.12.94 Rajamohan
150. Ex.PW9/98A D35 Application for the issuance of PW9 R. pay order Rajamohan
151. Ex.PW9/99 D35 Cheque No. 346642 dated PW9 R. 30.12.94 Rajamohan
152. Ex.PW9/99A D35 Application for the issuance of PW9 R. pay order Rajamohan CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 33 of 569 S. Exhibit No. Doc. Document Proved by No. No.
153. Ex.PW9/100 D35 Cheque no. 346627 PW9 R. Rajamohan
154. Ex.PW9/100A D35 Application for the issuance of PW9 R. pay order Rajamohan
155. Ex.PW9/101 D35 Cheque No. 346628 dated PW9 R. 30.12.94 Rajamohan
156. Ex.PW9/101A D35 Application for the issuance of PW9 R. pay order Rajamohan
157. Ex.PW9/102 D35 Cheque No. 346643 PW9 R. Rajamohan
158. Ex.PW9/102A D35 Application for the issuance of PW9 R. pay order Rajamohan
159. Ex.PW9/103 D35 Cheque No. 346639 PW9 R. Rajamohan
160. Ex.PW9/103A D35 Application for the issuance of PW9 R. pay order Rajamohan
161. Ex.PW9/104 D35 Cheque No. 346638 PW9 R. Rajamohan
162. Ex.PW9/104A D35 Application for the issuance of PW9 R. pay order Rajamohan
163. Ex.PW9/105 D35 Cheque No. 346637 PW9 R. Rajamohan
164. Ex.PW9/105A D35 Application for the issuance of PW9 R. pay order Rajamohan
165. Ex.PW9/106 D35 Cheque No. 346634 PW9 R. Rajamohan
166. Ex.PW9/106A D35 Application for the issuance of PW9 R. pay order Rajamohan
167. Ex.PW9/107 D35 Cheque No. 346646 PW9 R. Rajamohan
168. Ex.PW9/107A D35 Application for the issuance of PW9 R. pay order Rajamohan
169. Ex.PW9/108 D36 Cheque No. 346625 PW9 R. Rajamohan CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 34 of 569 S. Exhibit No. Doc. Document Proved by No. No.
170. Ex.PW9/108A D36 Application for the issuance of PW9 R. pay order Rajamohan
171. Ex.PW9/109 D37 Cheque No. 346626 PW9 R. Rajamohan
172. Ex.PW9/109A D37 Application for the issuance of PW9 R. pay order Rajamohan
173. Ex.PW9/110 D38 Cheque No. 346652 PW9 R. Rajamohan
174. Ex.PW9/110A D38 Application for the issuance of PW9 R. pay order Rajamohan
175. Ex.PW9/111 D50 Cheque No. 070301 PW9 R. Rajamohan
176. Ex.PW9/111A D50 Application for the issuance of PW9 R. pay order Rajamohan
177. Ex.PW9/112 D52 Cheque No. 070302 PW9 R. Rajamohan
178. Ex.PW9/112A D53 Application for the issuance of PW9 R. pay order Rajamohan
179. Ex.PW9/113 D54 Cheque No. 347925 PW9 R. Rajamohan
180. Ex.PW9/113A D55 Application for the issuance of PW9 R. DD` Rajamohan
181. Ex.PW9/114 D56 Cheque No. 346678 PW9 R. Rajamohan
182. Ex.PW9/115 D57 Cheque No. 760725 PW9 R. Rajamohan
183. Ex.PW9/115A D58 Memos of unpaid with reason PW9 R. insufficient funds Rajamohan
184. Ex.PW9/115B. D58 Memos of unpaid with reason PW9 R. insufficient funds Rajamohan
185. Ex.PW9115C D58 Outward schedule for cheque PW9 R. no. 760725 dated 16.4.95 for Rajamohan Rs. 20,00000/.
186. Ex.PW9/115D D59 Pay in slip PW9 R. Rajamohan CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 35 of 569 S. Exhibit No. Doc. Document Proved by No. No.
187. Ex.PW9/115E D60 Debit Voucher dated 17.4.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
188. Ex.PW9/115F D58 Debit voucher dated 17.4.95 in PW9 R. respect of Kishori Lal Rajamohan
189. Ex.PW9/115G D58 Debit voucher dated 17.4.95 in PW9 R. respect of Jay Bee Lamination Rajamohan
190. Ex.PW9/115H D61 Credit voucher dated 17.4.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
191. Ex.PW9/115I D62 Debit voucher dated 17.4.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
192. Ex.PW9/115J D73 Debit voucher dated 23.5.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
193. Ex.PW9/115K D74 Credit voucher dated 23.5.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
194. Ex.PW9/115L D75 Credit voucher dated 23.5.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
195. Ex.PW9/116 D63 Debit voucher dated 15.4.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
196. Ex.PW9/116A D64 Credit voucher dated 15.4.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
197. Ex.PW9/116B D65 Commission receipt dated PW9 R. 17.4.95 Rajamohan
198. Ex.PW9/117 D66 Cheque No. 070311 dated PW9 R. 17.4.95 for Rs.50,100/ Rajamohan
199. Ex.PW9/117A D66 Pay order PW9 R. Rajamohan
200. Ex.PW9/118 D66 Cheque No. 070309 dated PW9 R. 17.4.95 Rajamohan
201. Ex.PW9/118A D66 Application for issuance of pay PW9 R. order dated 17.4.95 Rajamohan
202. Ex.PW9/119 D66 Cheque No. 070303 dated PW9 R. 8.4.95 Rajamohan
203. Ex.PW9/119A D66 Application for issuance of pay PW9 R. order dated 17.4.95. Rajamohan CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 36 of 569 S. Exhibit No. Doc. Document Proved by No. No.
204. Ex.PW9/120 D66 Cheque No. 070310 dated PW9 R. 17.4.95. Rajamohan
205. Ex.PW9/121 D67 Cheque No. 070306 dated PW9 R. 15.4.95. Rajamohan
206. Ex.PW9/122 D68 Cheque No. 070312 dated PW9 R. 17.04.95 Rajamohan
207. Ex.PW9/123 D69 Debit voucher dated 28.4.95. PW9 R. Rajamohan
208. Ex.PW9/123A D70 Credit voucher dated 28.4.95. PW9 R. & B Cheque No. 070323 dated Rajamohan 28.4.95
209. Ex.PW9/124 D72 Cheque No. 070323 dated PW9 R. 28.4.95 Rajamohan
210. Ex.PW9/125 D76 Cheque 070345 dated 24.5.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
211. Ex.PW9/125/A D76 Application for issuance of pay PW9 R. order dated 24.5.95 Rajamohan
212. Ex.PW9/125B D76 Office copy of DD no. 494289 PW9 R. Rajamohan
213. Ex.PW9/126 D80 Cheque no. 070346 dated PW9 R. dated 24.4.95 Rajamohan
214. Ex.PW9/126A D79 Issuance of pay order PW9 R. Rajamohan
215. Ex.PW9/127 D81 Debit voucher dated 29.8.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
216. Ex.PW9/127A D82 Credit voucher dated 29.8.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
217. Ex.PW9/127B D83 Credit voucher dated 29.8.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
218. Ex.PW9/128 D84 Cheque No.695412 dated PW9 R. 12.8.95 Rajamohan
219. Ex.PW9/129 D85 Cheque No. 695415 dated PW9 R. 28.8.95 Rajamohan
220. Ex.PW9/130 D86 Cheque no. 954564 dated PW9 R. dated 8.9.95 Rajamohan CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 37 of 569 S. Exhibit No. Doc. Document Proved by No. No.
221. Ex.PW9/130A D91 Pay in slip dated 9.9.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
222. Ex.PW9/130B D90 Outward schedule for cheque PW9 R. no. 954564 Rajamohan
223. Ex.PW9/130C D87 Debit voucher dated 9.9.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
224. Ex.PW9/130D D88 Credit voucher dated 9.9.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
225. Ex.PW9/130E D89 Debit voucher dated 9.9.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
226. Ex.PW9/130F D92 Letter of Syndicate Bank PW9 R. Rajamohan
227. Ex.PW9/130G D94 Return voucher dated 15.11.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
228. Ex.Pw9/130H D95 Credit voucher dated 15.11.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
229. Ex.Pw9/130I D96 Credit voucher dated 15.11.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
230. Ex.PW9/131 D93 Cheque No. 695417 dated PW9 R. 9.9.95 Rajamohan
231. Ex.PW9/132 D132 Cheque No. 863106 PW9 R. Rajamohan
232. Ex.PW9/132A D133 Issuance of CDR PW9 R. Rajamohan
233. Ex.PW9/133 D134 Cheque on dated 09.03.93 PW9 R. Rs.5,00,125/ Rajamohan
234. Ex.PW9/133A D135 Application form for issuance PW9 R. of pay order / DD dated 9.3.99 Rajamohan
235. Ex.PW9/134 D137 Cheque No. 863105 dated PW9 R. 28.02.95 Rajamohan
236. Ex.PW9/134A D136 Pay in Slip PW9 R. Rajamohan
237. Ex.PW9/135 D139 Cheque No. 863108 dated PW9 R. 04.03.95 Rajamohan CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 38 of 569 S. Exhibit No. Doc. Document Proved by No. No.
238. Ex.PW9/135A D138 Pay in slip in favour of M/s PW9 R. True Fab Pvt Ltd. Rajamohan
239. Ex.PW9/136 D140 Cheque No. 863109 dated PW9 R. 04.3.95 Rajamohan
240. Ex.Pw9/137 D142 Cheque no. 07017 dated PW9 R. 22.04.95 Rajamohan
241. Ex.PW9/137A D141 Pay in slip PW9 R. Rajamohan
242. Ex.PW9/138 D143 Cheque No. 863113 dated PW9 R. 01.05.95 Rajamohan
243. Ex.PW9/139 D144 Cheque No. 863114 dated PW9 R. 02.05.95 Rajamohan
244. Ex.PW9/140 D145 Cheque No. 070337 dated PW9 R. 15.05.95 Rajamohan
245. Ex.PW9/140A D146 Pay in slip PW9 R. Rajamohan
246. Ex.PW9/141 D147 Cheque No. 863115 dated PW9 R. 15.05.95 Rajamohan
247. Ex.PW9/141A D148 Application for issuance of DD PW9 R. Rajamohan
248. Ex.PW9/141B D149 Copy of Demand Draft PW9 R. Rajamohan
249. Ex.PW9/142 D169 Cheque no. 1409593 dated PW9 R. 13.6.95. Rajamohan
250. Ex.PW9/142A D150 Pay in slip dated 14.6.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
251. Ex.PW9/142B D167 Outward schedule for cheque PW9 R. no. 1409593 dated 13.6.95. Rajamohan
252. Ex.PW9/142C D150 Debit voucher dated 15.6.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
253. Ex.PW9/142D D151 Credit voucher dated 15.6.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
254. Ex.PW9/142E D152 Credit voucher dated 15.6.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 39 of 569 S. Exhibit No. Doc. Document Proved by No. No.
255. Ex.PW9/142F D168 Cheque return memo of cheque PW9 R. no. 1409593 dated 13.6.95 Rajamohan
256. Ex.PW9/142G D164 Debit Voucher dated 15.7.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
257. Ex.PW9/142H D165 Credit voucher dated 15.7.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
258. Ex.PW9/142I D166 Credit voucher dated 15.7.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
259. Ex.PW9/142J D167 Cheque returning form for Rs. PW9 R. 48000/. Rajamohan
260. Ex.PW9/143 D153 Cheque No. 863116 dated PW9 R. 27.05.95 Rajamohan
261. Ex.PW9/144 D154 Cheque No. 863117 dated PW9 R. 14.06.95 Rajamohan
262. Ex.PW9/145 D155 Cheque No. 863118 dated PW9 R. 15.06.95 Rajamohan
263. Ex.PW9/146 D156 Cheque No. 863120 dated PW9 R. 04.07.95 Rajamohan
264. Ex.PW9/146A D156 Application for issuance of pay PW9 R. order Rajamohan
265. Ex.PW9/147 D157 Cheque No. 863121 dated PW9 R. 04.07.95 Rajamohan
266. Ex.PW9/147A D157 Application for issuance of pay PW9 R. order Rajamohan
267. Ex.Pw9/148 D158 Cheque No. 863122 dated PW9 R. 04.07.95 Rajamohan
268. Ex.PW9/149 D162 Cheque No. 863124 dated PW9 R. 14.07.95 Rajamohan
269. Ex.PW9/149A D163 Application for issuance of PW9 R. Demand Draft Rajamohan
270. Ex.PW9/150 D174 Cheque No. 645504 dated PW9 R. 22.08.95 Rajamohan
271. Ex.PW9/151 D175 Cheque No. 645507 dated PW9 R. 29.08.95 Rajamohan CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 40 of 569 S. Exhibit No. Doc. Document Proved by No. No.
272. Ex.PW9/152 D180 Cheque No. 645511 dated PW9 R. 22.09.95 Rajamohan
273. Ex.PW9/153 D181 Pay in slip PW9 R. Rajamohan
274. Ex.PW9/153A D181 Pay in slip dated 23.9.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
275. Ex.PW9/153B D187 Outward schedule for cheque PW9 R. no. 171024 dated 23.9.95 Rajamohan
276. Ex.PW9/153C D182 Debit voucher dated 23.9.95. PW9 R. Rajamohan
277. Ex.PW9/153D D183 Credit voucher dated 23.9.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
278. Ex.PW9/153E D184 Credit voucher of commission PW9 R. dated 23.9.95 Rajamohan
279. Ex.PW9/153F D188 Cheque returned memo dated PW9 R. 5.10.95 Rajamohan
280. Ex.PW9/154 D185 Cheque No. 695447 dated PW9 R. 30.09.95 Rajamohan
281. Ex.PW9/154A D186 Pay in slip dated 30.9.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
282. Ex.PW9/155 D448 Letter dated 16.01.97 PW9 R. Rajamohan
283. Ex.PW9/156 D378 Letter dated 12.08.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
284. Ex.PW9/157 D380 Letter dated 04.08.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
285. Ex.PW9/158 D558 Letter dated 11.09.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
286. Ex.PW9/159 D316 Letter dated 16.05.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
287. Ex.PW9/160 D317 Letter dated 06.06.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
288. Ex.PW9/161 D318 Letter addressed to Chief PW9 R. Manager Rajamohan CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 41 of 569 S. Exhibit No. Doc. Document Proved by No. No.
289. Ex.PW9/162 D332 Letter dated 29.09.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
290. Ex.PW9/163 D421 Specimen signatures Card of PW9 R. opening saving bank Account Rajamohan
291. Ex.PW9/164 D422 Account opening form of Sonu PW9 R. and Swaraj dated 4.11.95. Rajamohan
292. Ex.PW9/165A D423 Cheque no. 930622 dated PW9 R. 27.2.96 of Citibank Rajamohan
293. Ex.PW9/165B D424 Cheque no. 971450 dated PW9 R. 28.12.95 LIC Rajamohan
294. Ex.PW9/165C D425 Cheque no. 9714142 dated PW9 R. 12.12.95 MTNL Rajamohan
295. Ex.PW9/165D D426 Cheque no. 971445 dated PW9 R. 18.12.95 MTNL Rajamohan
296. Ex.PW9/165E D427 Cheque no. 191453 dated PW9 R. 9.1.96 Countrywide Finance Rajamohan
297. Ex.PW9/165F D428 Cheque no. 971443 dated PW9 R. 12.12.95 South Delhi Society Rajamohan
298. Ex.PW9/165G D429 Cheque no. 971449 dated PW9 R. 28.12.95 of Citibank Divess Rajamohan Club
299. Ex.PW9/165H D430 Cheque no. 971448 dated PW9 R. 24.12.95 M/s JMC Travels Rajamohan
300. Ex.PW9/165I D431 Cheque no. 971446 dated PW9 R. 22.12.95 Devi Travels Pvt. Ltd. Rajamohan
301. Ex.PW9/165J D432 Cheque no. 971447 dated PW9 R. 22.12.95 M/s Cutvision Rajamohan Products Ltd.
302. Ex.PW9/165K D433 Cheque no. 971441 dated PW9 R. 5.12.95 Citibank Divess Club Rajamohan
303. Ex.PW9/165L D434 Cheque no. 930661 dated PW9 R. 19.12.96 MTNL Rajamohan
304. Ex.PW9/165M D435 Cheque no. 971452 dated PW9 R. 31.12.95 Citibank Preferred Rajamohan
305. Ex.PW9/165N D436 Cheque no. 971451 dated PW9 R. 31.12.95 Citibank Rajamohan CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 42 of 569 S. Exhibit No. Doc. Document Proved by No. No.
306. Ex.PW9/165O D437 Cheque no. 930666 dated PW9 R. 1.4.96 Citibank Divess Club Rajamohan
307. Ex.PW9/165P D438 Cheque no. 930665 dated PW9 R. 1.4.96 Citibank Preferred Rajamohan
308. Ex.PW9/165Q D439 Cheque no. 930664 dated PW9 R. 26.3.96 MTNL Rajamohan
309. Ex.PW9/165R D440 Cheque no. 971460 dated PW9 R. 1.2.96 Citibank Preferred Rajamohan
310. Ex.PW9/165S D441 Cheque no. 971456 dated PW9 R. 29.1.96 Citibank Divess Club Rajamohan
311. Ex.PW9/165T D442 Cheque no. 971455 dated PW9 R. 29.1.96 Citibank Divess Club Rajamohan
312. Ex.PW9/165U D443 Cheque no. 971457 dated PW9 R. 29.1.96 Citibank Rajamohan
313. Ex.PW9/165V D444 Cheque no. 930667 dated PW9 R. 2.5.96 self Sonu @ Suresh Rajamohan
314. Ex.PW9/165W D445 Cheque no. 971454 dated PW9 R. 30.1.96 Naval Public School Rajamohan
315. Ex.PW9/166 D190 Account opening form of M/s PW9 R. Moonlight Engineering Rajamohan
316. Ex.PW9/167 D192 Specimen signature card of PW9 R. proprietor of M/s Moonlight Rajamohan Engineering
317. Ex.PW9/168 D193 Sole proprietorship letter dated PW9 R. 16.3.95 Rajamohan
318. Ex.PW9/169 D197 Letter on the letter Head of M/s PW9 R. Moon Lights Engineers Rajamohan
319. Ex.PW9/170 D212 Cheque dated 18.03.95 for Rs. PW9 R. 6 Lacs Rajamohan
320. Ex.PW9/171 D213 Cheque dated 20.03.95 of Rs. PW9 R. 1,00,250/ Rajamohan
321. Ex.PW9/172 D214 Application form for the PW9 R. issuance of DD Rajamohan
322. Ex.PW9/173 D218 Cheque dated 20.03.95 of Rs. PW9 R. 20,000/ Rajamohan CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 43 of 569 S. Exhibit No. Doc. Document Proved by No. No.
323. Ex.PW9/174 D219 Cheque dated 21.03.95 of PW9 R. Rs.1000/ Rajamohan
324. Ex.PW9/175 D220 Cheque dated 20.03.95 of PW9 R. Rs.10,000/ Rajamohan
325. Ex.PW9/176 D221 Cheque dated 27.03.95 of PW9 R. Rs.2,00,500/ Rajamohan
326. Ex.PW9/177 D222 Application for issuance of DD PW9 R. Rajamohan
327. Ex.PW9/178 D224 Cheque dated 28.03.95 for PW9 R. Rs.60,000/ Rajamohan
328. Ex.PW9/179 D225 Pay in slip PW9 R. Rajamohan
329. Ex.PW9/180 D226 Cheque dated 26.03.95 of PW9 R. Rs.40000/ Rajamohan
330. Ex.PW9/181 D228 Cheque dated 28.03.95 of PW9 R. Rs.85000/ Rajamohan
331. Ex.PW9/182 D230 Cheque dated 28.03.95 of PW9 R. Rs.90,000/ Rajamohan
332. Ex.PW9/183 D232 Cheque dated 28.03.95 of PW9 R. Rs.95,000/ Rajamohan
333. Ex.PW9/184 D234 Cheque dated 27.03.95 of PW9 R. Rs.90000/ Rajamohan
334. Ex.PW9/185 D236 Cheque dated 30.03.95 of PW9 R. Rs.2,25000/ Rajamohan
335. Ex.PW9/186 D240 Cheque dated 30.03.95 of PW9 R. Rs.2,50000/ Rajamohan
336. Ex.PW9/187 D240 Pay in slip PW9 R. Rajamohan
337. Ex.PW9/188 D242 Cheque No. 03.05.95 of PW9 R. Rs.4,00100/ Rajamohan
338. Ex.PW9/189 D243 Application for issuance of pay PW9 R. order Rajamohan
339. Ex.PW9/190 D246 Cheque dated 04.05.95 PW9 R. Rs.20,000/ Rajamohan CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 44 of 569 S. Exhibit No. Doc. Document Proved by No. No.
340. Ex.PW9/191 D247 Cheque dated 08.05.95 of PW9 R. Rs.32000/ Rajamohan
341. Ex.PW9/192 D256 Cheque dated 25.05.95 of PW9 R. Rs.20,000/ Rajamohan
342. Ex.PW9/193 D260 Cheque dated 04.10.95 of PW9 R. Rs.1,25000/ Rajamohan
343. Ex.PW9/194 D261 Cheque dated 07.10.95 of PW9 R. Rs.80,080/ Rajamohan
344. Ex.PW9/195 D265 Pay in slip PW9 R. Rajamohan
345. Ex.Pw9/196 D268 Pay in slip PW9 R. Rajamohan
346. Ex.PW9/197 D269 Pay in slip PW9 R. Rajamohan
347. Ex.PW9/198 D271 Cheque dated 07.10.95 of PW9 R. Rs.50,050/ Rajamohan
348. Ex.PW9/199 D273 Cheque dated 07.10.95 of PW9 R. Rs.7,50,000/ Rajamohan
349. Ex.PWE9/200 D309 Cheque dated 11.09.95 for PW9 R. Rs.30 Lacs Rajamohan
350. Ex.PW9/201 D310 Pay in Slip PW9 R. Rajamohan
351. Ex.PW9/202 D321 Letter dated 18.09.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
352. Ex.PW9/203 D321 Application dated 18.09.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
353. Ex.PW9/204 D321 Application dated 18.09.95 for PW9 R. irrevocable inland letter of Rajamohan credit for Rs. 5 Lacs
354. Ex.PW9/205 D321 Application dated 18.09.95 or PW9 R. irrevocable inland letter of Rajamohan credit for Rs. 5 Lacs
355. Ex.PW9/206 D326 Letter dated PW9 R. Rajamohan
356. Ex.PW9/207 D327 Letter dated 28.09.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 45 of 569 S. Exhibit No. Doc. Document Proved by No. No.
357. Ex.PW9/208 D127 Letter dated 02.03.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
358. Ex.PW9/209A1 D170 Pay in slip dated 21.08.95 PW9 R. A4 173 Rajamohan
359. Ex.PW9/210A D176 Pay in slip dated 29.08.95, PW9 R. 1A4 Cheque of Rs.3,45000/, Rajamohan 179 Commission memo, Branch Vouchers
360. Ex.PW9/211 D393 Cheque dated 04.07.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
361. Ex.PW9/212 D395 Cheque dated 20.07.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
362. Ex.PW9/213 D398 Pay in slip PW9 R. Rajamohan
363. Ex.PW9/214 D4 Letter dated 01.11.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
364. Ex.PW9/215 D4 Letter dated 16.10.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
365. Ex.PW9/216 D4 Letter dated 16.10.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
366. Ex.PW9/217 D4 Letter dated 27.06.94 PW9 R. Rajamohan
367. Ex.PW9/218 D559 Letter dated 17.05.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
368. Ex.PW9/219 D559 Letter dated 12.5.1995 PW9 R. Rajamohan
369. Ex.PW9/220 D4 Letter dated 04.04.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
370. Ex.PW9/221 D559 Letter dated 14.03.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
371. Ex.PW9/222 D560 Letter dated 27.05.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
372. Ex.PW9/223 D560 Letter dated 29.05.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 46 of 569 S. Exhibit No. Doc. Document Proved by No. No.
373. Ex.PW9/224 D560 Letter dated 07.10.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
374. Ex.PW9/225A D205 Pay in slip PW9 R. Rajamohan
375. Ex.PW9/225B D206 Cheque No. 772752 dated PW9 R. 15.03.95 Rajamohan
376. Ex.PW9/226A D253 Pay in slip PW9 R. 1 226/6 D252 Pay in slip Rajamohan D251, Pay in slip D250, Pay in slip D249, Pay in slip D248 Pay in slip
377. Ex.PW9/227A D301 Debit voucher 21.07.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
378. Ex.PW227/A2 D302 Credit voucher dated 21.07.95 PW9 R. Rs. 3,26,832.48 Rajamohan
379. Ex.PW9/227/A3 D303 Credit voucher dated 21.07.95 PW9 R. Rs. 7065/ Rajamohan
380. Ex.PW9/228A1 D304 Credit voucher dated 11.09.95 PW9 R. Rs. 3339000/ Rajamohan
381. Ex.PW9/228A2 D305 Credit voucher dated 11.09.95 PW9 R. Rs. 2930422/ Rajamohan
382. Ex.PW9/228A3 D306 Credit voucher dated 11.09.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
383. Ex.PW9/228A4 D307 Credit voucher dated 11.09.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
384. Ex.PW9/228A5 D308 Credit voucher dated 11.09.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
385. Ex.PW9/229A D323 Credit voucher dated 11.09.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
386. Ex.PW9/230 D323 Irrevocable inland PW9 R. Rajamohan
387. Ex.PW9/231 D323 Letter for credit dated 22.9.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
388. Ex.PW9/232 D327 Receipt of goods dated 25.9.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 47 of 569 S. Exhibit No. Doc. Document Proved by No. No.
389. Ex.PW9/233 D328 Endorsement dated 28.9.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
390. Ex.PW9/234 D328 Receipt of goods dated 25.9.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
391. Ex.PW9/235 D328 Endorsement dated 28.9.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
392. Ex.PW9/236 D328 Receipt of goods PW9 R. Rajamohan
393. Ex.PW9/237 D328 Letter dated 25.09.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
394. Ex.PW9/238 D335 Pay in slip dated 30.09.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
395. Ex.PW9/239 D336 Debit voucher dated 30.09.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
396. Ex.PW9/240 D337 Credit voucher dated 30.09.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
397. Ex.PW9/241 D347 Letter dated 06.06.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
398. Ex.PW9/242 D347 Letter dated 15.05.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
399. Ex.PW9/243 D347 Loan application of Surakhsa PW9 R. Engineers & Steel Traders Rajamohan
400. Ex.PW9/244 D347 Credit Report of Surakhsa PW9 R. Engineers & Steel Traders Rajamohan
401. Ex.PW9/245 D1 Account opening form dated PW9 R. 05.12.87 Rajamohan
402. Ex.PW9/246 D1 Copy of Board Resolution PW9 R. Rajamohan
403. Ex.PW9/247 D1 Copy of Board resolution dated PW9 R. 02.12.98 Rajamohan
404. Ex.PW9/248 D2 Printed book of memorandum PW9 R. and Article of association Rajamohan
405. Ex.PW9/249 D6 Promissory Note of Rs. PW9 R. 700000/ dated 11.3.89 Rajamohan CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 48 of 569 S. Exhibit No. Doc. Document Proved by No. No.
406. Ex.PW9/250 D6 Letter of waiver dated 11.3.89 PW9 R. Rajamohan
407. Ex.PW9/251 D6 Letter of continuity dated PW9 R. 11.3.89 Rajamohan
408. Ex.PW9/252 D6 Agreement of over draft/ Cash PW9 R. Credit Rajamohan
409. Ex.PW9/253 D6 Document relation to PW9 R. hypothecation of goods Rajamohan
410. Ex.PW9/254 D6 Supplimental agreement dated PW9 R. 24.09.90 Rajamohan
411. Ex.PW9/255 D6 Supplimental agreement dated PW9 R. 14.01.93 Rajamohan
412. Ex.PW9/256 D6 Supplimental agreement dated PW9 R. 22.03.95 Rajamohan
413. Ex.PW9/257 D6 Letter of waiver dated 11.03.89 PW9 R. Rajamohan
414. Ex.PW9/258 D6 Continuity Letter dated PW9 R. 11.03.89 Rajamohan
415. Ex.PW9/259 D6 Promissory Note 11.03.89 PW9 R. Rajamohan
416. Ex.PW9/260 D6 Agreement dated 11.03.89 PW9 R. Rajamohan
417. Ex.PW9/261 D6 Hypothecation of Goods to PW9 R. secure a Demand cash Rajamohan Credit/overdraft
418. Ex.PW9/262 D6 Authority letter dated 24.02.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
419. Ex.PW9/263 D6 Undertaking dated 24.02.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
420. Ex.PW9/264 D6 Agreement dated 11.03.89 PW9 R. Rajamohan
421. Ex.PW9/265 D6 Promissory Note dated PW9 R. 24.09.90 Rajamohan
422. Ex.PW9/266 D6 Letter of waiver dated 24.09.90 PW9 R. Rajamohan CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 49 of 569 S. Exhibit No. Doc. Document Proved by No. No.
423. Ex.PW9/267 D6 Letter of continuity dated PW9 R. 24.9.90 Rajamohan
424. Ex.PW9/268 D6 Agreement of inland and PW9 R. Foreign Bill Rajamohan
425. Ex.PW9/269 D6 Agreement of Overdraft/ Cash PW9 R. credit dated 24.09.90 Rajamohan
426. Ex.PW9/270 D6 Promissory Note dated PW9 R. 24.09.90 Rajamohan
427. Ex.PW9/271 D6 Letter of Waiver dated PW9 R. 24.09.90 Rajamohan
428. Ex.PW9/272 D6 Letter of continuity dated PW9 R. 24.09.90 Rajamohan
429. Ex.PW9/273 D6 Agreement of Inland and PW9 R. Foreign Bills Rajamohan
430. Ex.PW9/274 D6 Agreement of overdraft /Cash PW9 R. Credit dated 24.09.90 Rajamohan
431. Ex.PW9/275 D6 Promissory Note dated PW9 R. 24.09.90 Rajamohan
432. Ex.PW9/276 D6 Letter of Waiver dated PW9 R. 24.09.90 Rajamohan
433. Ex.PW9/277 D6 Letter of Continuity dated PW9 R. 24.09.90 Rajamohan
434. Ex.PW9/278 D6 Agreement of over draft/ cash PW9 R. credit Rajamohan
435. Ex.PW9/279 D6 Letter dated 30.12.89 PW9 R. Rajamohan
436. Ex.PW9/280 D7 Agreement regarding bills PW9 R. purchased Rajamohan
437. Ex.PW9/281 D7 Agreement of Guarantee PW9 R. Rajamohan
438. Ex.PW9/282 D7 Agreement of Guarantee PW9 R. Rajamohan
439. Ex.PW9/283 D7 Agreement of Guarantee PW9 R. Rajamohan CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 50 of 569 S. Exhibit No. Doc. Document Proved by No. No.
440. Ex.PW9/284 D7 Agreement of Guarantee PW9 R. Rajamohan
441. Ex.PW9/285 D7 Memorandum of deposit of title PW9 R. deeds Rajamohan
442. Ex.PW9/286 D7 Memorandum of deposit of title PW9 R. deeds Rajamohan
443. Ex.PW9/287 D7 Copy of Board Resolution PW9 R. dated 11.07.91 Rajamohan
444. Ex.PW9/288 D13 Bill of exchange dated PW9 R. 24.03.95 Rajamohan
445. Ex.PW9/289 D14 Bill of exchange dated PW9 R. 24.03.95 Rajamohan
446. Ex.PW9/290 D14 Bill of exchange dated PW9 R. 01.03.95 Rajamohan
447. Ex.PW9/291 D15 Bill of Exchange dated PW9 R. 24.03.95 Rajamohan
448. Ex.PW9/292 D17 Bill of exchange dated PW9 R. 24.03.95 Rajamohan
449. Ex.PW9/293 D18 Bill of exchange dated PW9 R. 24.03.95 Rajamohan
450. Ex.PW9/294 D19 Bill of exchange dated PW9 R. 24.03.95 Rajamohan
451. Ex.PW9/295 D22 Bill of exchange dated PW9 R. 24.03.95 Rajamohan
452. Ex.PW9/296 D23 Bill of exchange dated PW9 R. 24.03.95 Rajamohan
453. Ex.PW9/297 D24 Bill of exchange dated PW9 R. 24.03.95 Rajamohan
454. Ex.PW9/298 D24 Bill of exchange dated PW9 R. 24.03.95 Rajamohan
455. Ex.PW9/299 D448 Account opening of Sonu @ PW9 R. Suresh Rajamohan
456. Ex.PW9/300 D448 Specimen signature card Sonu PW9 R. @ Suresh Rajamohan CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 51 of 569 S. Exhibit No. Doc. Document Proved by No. No.
457. Ex.PW9/301 D505 Demand draft issued from PW9 R. oriental bank of commerce Rajamohan New Friends colony for Rs.11,500/
458. Ex.PW9/302 D539 Bill of Exchange dated PW9 R. 28.02.95 Rajamohan
459. Ex.PW9/303 D539 Invoice dated 23.01.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
460. Ex.PW9/304 D540 Bill of Exchange date 28.02.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
461. Ex.PW9/305 D540 Invoice dated 06.02.95 PW9 R. Rajamohan
462. Ex.PW9/306 D560 Counter Guarantee PW9 R. Rajamohan
463. Ex.PW9/307 D560 Application cum Authority PW9 R. letter for financial assistance Rajamohan
464. Ex.PW9/308 D560 Letter for Guarantee/ co PW9 R. acceptance of bills under DPG Rajamohan Limit
465. Ex.PW9/309 D560 Counter Guarantee issued by PW9 R. M/s True Fab Pvt ltd Rajamohan
466. Ex.PW9/310 D560 Letter for Guarantee/ co PW9 R. acceptance of bills under DPG Rajamohan limit
467. Ex.PW9/311 D560 Application cum authority PW9 R. letter for financial assistance Rajamohan
468. Ex.PW9/312 D560 Counter Guarantee PW9 R. Rajamohan
469. Ex.PW9/313 D560 Request letter for Guarantee/ PW9 R. coacceptance of bills under Rajamohan DPG limit
470. Ex.PW9/314 D560 Application cum authority PW9 R. letter for financial assistance Rajamohan
471. Ex.PW9/315 D560 Request letter for guarantee/ PW9 R. coacceptance of bills under Rajamohan DPG limit CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 52 of 569 S. Exhibit No. Doc. Document Proved by No. No.
472. Ex.PW9/316 D560 Counter guarantee issued by PW9 R. M/s True Fab Pvt Ltd Rajamohan
473. Ex.PW9/317 D560 Application cum Authority PW9 R. letter for financial assistance Rajamohan
474. Ex.PW10/A D493 Application for issuance of PW10 Om Demand Draft dated 16.08.95 Prakash
475. Ex.PW10/B D481 Demand Draft for Rs. 10,000/ PW10 Om Prakash
476. Ex.PW11/1 D382 Purchase Order PW11 Tapan Kumar Mondal
477. Ex.PW12/A D274 Cheque for Rs. 3,50000/ dated PW12 S. S. 14.09.96 Gupta
478. Ex.PW12/B D276 Cheque for Rs. 2,25000/ dated PW12 S. S. 01.10.96 Gupta
479. Ex.PW12/C D275 Pay in slip PW12 S. S. Gupta
480. Ex.PW12/D D276 Pay in Slip PW12 S. S. Gupta
481. Ex.PW13/A D1 Letter dated 1.12.1988 PW13 M.K. Sharma
482. Ex.PW13/B D1 Letter dated 05.12.88 PW13 M.K. Sharma
483. Ex.PW13/C D1 Balance sheet as on 31.12.87 PW13 M.K. Sharma
484. Ex.PW13/D D1 Specimen signature card PW13 M.K. Sharma
485. Ex.PW13/E D529 Seizure memo PW13 M.K. Sharma
486. Ex.PW13/F D529 Seizure memo PW13 M.K. Sharma
487. Ex.PW16/A D399 TPOs application PW16 Rajender Prasad CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 53 of 569 S. Exhibit No. Doc. Document Proved by No. No.
488. Ex.PW16/B D400 TPOs application PW16 Rajender Prasad
489. Ex.PW16/C D401 TPOs application PW16 Rajender Prasad
490. Ex.PW16/D D414, TPOs issued against PW16 16F D415, application Rajender D416 Prasad
491. Ex.PW17/1 D379 Office carbon copy of the letter PW17 Babu dated 9.8.95 Lal Mannot
492. Ex.PW17/2 D381 Carbon copy of letter dated PW17 Babu 25.7.95 Lal Mannot
493. Ex.PW17/A3 D382 Purchase Order dated 23.12.94 PW17 Babu Lal Mannot
494. Ex.PW17/4 D382 Copy of invoice no. 1053 dated PW17 Babu 02.02.95 Lal Mannot
495. Ex.PW17/5 D382 Copy of invoice no. 1058 dated PW17 Babu 07.02.95 Lal Mannot
496. Ex.PW17/6 D382 Copy of invoice no. 1061 dated PW17 Babu 10.02.95 Lal Mannot
497. Ex.PW17/7 D382 Copy of invoice no. 1065 dated PW17 Babu 13.02.95 Lal Mannot
498. Ex.PW17/8 D382 Copies of invoice No. 1213 PW17 Babu dated 04.12.95 Lal Mannot
499. Ex.PW17/9 D382 Three copies of invoice no. PW17 Babu 1234 dated 04.02.95 Lal Mannot
500. Ex.PW17/10 D382 Copy of letter dated 27.6.95 PW17 Babu Lal Mannot
501. Ex.PW17/11 D105 Bill /Invoice dated 01.03.95 PW17 Babu Lal Mannot
502. Ex.PW17/12 D105 Bill /Invoice dated 01.03.95 PW17 Babu Lal Mannot
503. Ex.PW17/13 D106 Bill /Invoice dated 01.03.95 PW17 Babu Lal Mannot CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 54 of 569 S. Exhibit No. Doc. Document Proved by No. No.
504. Ex.PW17/14 D110 Bill /Invoice dated 01.03.95 PW17 Babu Lal Mannot
505. Ex.PW17/15 D117 Bill /Invoice dated 01.03.95 PW17 Babu Lal Mannot
506. Ex.PW17/16 D117 Bill /Invoice dated 01.03.95 PW17 Babu Lal Mannot
507. Ex.PW17/17 D120 Bill /Invoice dated 01.03.95 PW17 Babu Lal Mannot
508. Ex.PW17/18 D122 Bill /Invoice dated 01.03.95 PW17 Babu Lal Mannot
509. Ex.PW17/19 D123 Bill /Invoice dated 01.03.95 PW17 Babu Lal Mannot
510. Ex.PW17/20 D125 Bill /Invoice dated 01.03.95 PW17 Babu Lal Mannot
511. Ex.PW17/21 D126 Bill /Invoice dated 01.03.95 PW17 Babu Lal Mannot
512. Ex.PW17/22 D537 Bill dated 02.02.95 PW17 Babu Lal Mannot
513. Ex.PW17/23 D537 Bill dated 06.02.95 PW17 Babu Lal Mannot
514. Ex.PW17/24 D538 Letter dated 29.9.95 PW17 Babu Lal Mannot
515. Ex.PW17/24A D538 Invoice No. 1183 dated PW17 Babu D 27.09.95, photocopy of letter Lal Mannot receive from IOCL dated 26.09.95, Release Note/ Inspection certificate (Page 43034311)
516. Ex.PW17/25 D538 Carbon copy of bill No. 1213 PW17 Babu dated 04.12.95 Lal Mannot
517. Ex.PW17/26 D538 LR receipt of transporter PW17 Babu Lal Mannot
518. Ex.PW17/27 D538 Carbon copies of Bill No. 1214 PW17 Babu Lal Mannot
519. Ex.PW17/28 D538 LR receipt of transporter PW17 Babu Lal Mannot CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 55 of 569 S. Exhibit No. Doc. Document Proved by No. No.
520. Ex.PW17/29 D538 Carbon copies of bill No. 1215 PW17 Babu dated 05.12.95 Lal Mannot
521. Ex.PW17/30 D538 LR receipt of transporter PW17 Babu Lal Mannot
522. Ex.PW17/31 D538 Carbon copies of bill No. 1216 PW17 Babu dated 05.12.95 Lal Mannot
523. Ex.PW17/32 D538 LR receipt of transporter PW17 Babu Lal Mannot
524. Ex.PW17/33 D538 Carbon copy of bill No. 1241 PW17 Babu dated 19.01.96 Lal Mannot
525. Ex.PW17/34 D538 LR receipt of transporter PW17 Babu Lal Mannot
526. Ex.PW17/35 D541 Invoice No. 1183 dated PW17 Babu 27.09.95 Lal Mannot
527. Ex.PW17/36 D542 Letter dated 7.12.95 PW17 Babu Lal Mannot
528. Ex.PW17/36A D542 Invoice dated 4.12.95 PW17 Babu Lal Mannot
529. Ex.PW17/36B D542 Invoice dated 4.12.95 PW17 Babu Lal Mannot
530. Ex.PW17/36C D542 Invoice dated 5.12.95 PW17 Babu Lal Mannot
531. Ex.PW17/36D D542 Invoice dated 5.12.95 PW17 Babu Lal Mannot
532. Ex.PW17/36E D542 Invoice dated 11.12.95 PW17 Babu Lal Mannot
533. Ex.PW17/36F D542 Invoice dated 8.12.95 PW17 Babu Lal Mannot
534. Ex.PW17/36G D542 Invoice dated 5.12.95 PW17 Babu Lal Mannot
535. Ex.PW17/36H D542 Invoice dated 5.12.95 PW17 Babu Lal Mannot
536. Ex.PW17/36I D542 Invoice dated 19.1.96 PW17 Babu Lal Mannot CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 56 of 569 S. Exhibit No. Doc. Document Proved by No. No.
537. Ex.PW17/37 D542 Invoice dated 2.2.95 PW17 Babu Lal Mannot
538. Ex.PW17/38 D542 Invoice dated 7.2.95 PW17 Babu Lal Mannot
539. Ex.PW17/39 D542 Invoice dated 10.2.95 PW17 Babu Lal Mannot
540. Ex.PW17/40 D542 Invoice dated 13.2.95 PW17 Babu Lal Mannot
541. Ex.PW23/A Statem Statement u/s 161 Cr.PC B.S. PW23 B. S. ent Saxena Saxena
542. Ex.PW24/A D350 Signature PW24 Swaraj Chouhan
543. Ex.PW24/B1 D360 Cheque on dated 04.08.95 Rs. PW24 Swaraj 685000/ Chouhan
544. Ex.PW24/B2 D361 Cheque on dated 14.09.95 Rs. PW24 Swaraj 5000/ Chouhan
545. Ex.PW24/C1 D363, Pay in slips PW24 Swaraj C4 D364, Chouhan D366, D367
546. Ex.PW24/D D355 Letter dated 24.07.95 PW24 Swaraj Chouhan
547. Ex.PW24/E D355 Form of Agreement of PW24 Swaraj Guarantee Chouhan
548. Ex.PW27/1 D13 Transport Bilty on dated PW27 Suman 23.03.95 Prakash
549. Ex.PW27/2 D14 Transport bills on dated PW27 Suman 23.02.95 Prakash
550. Ex.PW27/3 D15 Transport bills on dated PW27 Suman 23.02.95 Prakash
551. Ex.PW27/4 D17 Transport bills on dated PW27 Suman 23.02.95 Prakash
552. Ex.PW27/5 D18 Transport bills on dated PW27 Suman 23.02.95 Prakash
553. Ex.PW27/6 D19 Transport bills on dated PW27 Suman 23.02.95 Prakash CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 57 of 569 S. Exhibit No. Doc. Document Proved by No. No.
554. Ex.PW27/7 D21 Transport bills on dated PW27 Suman 23.02.95 Prakash
555. Ex.PW27/8 D22 Transport bills on dated PW27 Suman 23.02.95 Prakash
556. Ex.PW27/9 D23 Transport bills on dated PW27 Suman 23.02.95 Prakash
557. Ex.PW27/10 D24 Transport bills on dated PW27 Suman 23.02.95 Prakash
558. Ex.PW27/11 D24 Transport bills on dated PW27 Suman 23.02.95 Prakash
559. Ex.PW27/12 D24 Transport bills on dated PW27 Suman 23.02.95 Prakash
560. Ex.PW27/13 D326 Transport bills on dated PW27 Suman 23.02.95 Prakash
561. Ex.PW27/14 D327 Transport bills on dated PW27 Suman 23.02.95 Prakash
562. Ex.PW27/15 D328 Transport bills on dated PW27 Suman 23.02.95 Prakash
563. Ex.PW27/16 D328 Consignment note PW27 Suman Prakash
564. Ex.PW28/A D508 Cover Note PW28 Kanti Prasad
565. Ex.PW28/A1 D508 Carbon copy of Bill No. 213 PW28 Kanti dated 25.09.95 Prasad
566. Ex.PW28/A2 D508 Carbon copy of Consignment PW28 Kanti Note Prasad
567. Ex.PW28/B D508 Carbon copy of cover Note No. PW28 Kanti 0033910 dated 25.09.95 Prasad
568. Ex.PW28/B1 D508 Bill No. 214 dated 25.09.95 PW28 Kanti Prasad
569. Ex.PW28/B2 D508 Consignment Note PW28 Kanti Prasad
570. Ex.PW28/C D508 Cover Note PW28 Kanti Prasad CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 58 of 569 S. Exhibit No. Doc. Document Proved by No. No.
571. Ex.PW28/C1 D508 Bill No. 212 dated 25.09.95 PW28 Kanti Prasad
572. Ex.PW28/C2 D508 Consignment Note PW28 Kanti Prasad
573. Ex.PW28/D D506 Premium collection receipt PW28 Kanti NO. 2375 dated 26.09.95 of Rs. Prasad 3590/
574. Ex.PW33/A D103 Consignment Note No. 3214 PW33 Nitin dated 8.2.95, Steel Samrat Saini India
575. Ex.PW33/B D104 Consignment Note No. 3368 PW33 Nitin dated 1.3.95, Steel Samrat Saini India
576. Ex.PW33/C D105 Consignment Note No. 3380 PW33 Nitin dated 1.3.95, Steel Samrat Saini India
577. Ex.PW33/D D105 Consignment Note dated PW33 Nitin 1.3.95, Steel Samrat India Saini
578. Ex.PW33/E D107 Consignment Note No. 3055 PW33 Nitin dated 23.1.95, Steel Samrat Saini India
579. Ex.PW33/F D108 Consignment Note No. 3224 PW33 Nitin dated 10.2.95, Steel Samrat Saini India
580. Ex.PW33/G D109 Consignment Note No. 3178 PW33 Nitin dated 2.2.95, Steel Samrat Saini India
581. Ex.PW3/H D110 Consignment Note No. 3370 PW33 Nitin dated 1.3.95, Steel Samrat Saini India
582. Ex.PW33/I D111 Consignment Note No. 3211 PW33 Nitin dated 7.2.95, Steel Samrat Saini India
583. Ex.PW33/J D112 Consignment Note No. 3186 PW33 Nitin dated 2.2.95, Steel Samrat Saini India CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 59 of 569 S. Exhibit No. Doc. Document Proved by No. No.
584. Ex.PW33/K D113 Consignment Note No. 3166 PW33 Nitin dated 30.1.95, Steel Samrat Saini India
585. Ex.PW33/L D114 Consignment Note dated PW33 Nitin 11.2.95, Steel Samrat India Saini
586. Ex.PW33/M D115 Consignment Note No. 3217 PW33 Nitin dated 9.2.95, Steel Samrat Saini India
587. Ex.PW33/N D118 Consignment Note No. 3371 PW33 Nitin dated 1.3.95, Steel Samrat Saini India
588. Ex.PW33/O D121 Consignment Note No. 3177 PW33 Nitin dated 2.2.95, Steel Samrat Saini India
589. Ex.PW33/P D116 Consignment Note No. 3222 PW33 Nitin dated 11.2.95, Steel Samrat Saini India
590. Ex.PW33/Q D117 Consignment Note No. 3309 PW33 Nitin dated 1.3.95, Steel Samrat Saini India
591. Ex.PW33/R D119 Consignment Note No. 3254 PW33 Nitin dated 13.2.95, Steel Samrat Saini India
592. Ex.PW33/S D120 Consignment Note dated PW33 Nitin 8.2.95, Steel Samrat India Saini
593. Ex.PW33/T D122 Consignment Note dated PW33 Nitin 1.3.95, Steel Samrat India Saini
594. Ex.PW33/U D123 Consignment Note No. 3376 PW33 Nitin dated 1.3.95, Steel Samrat Saini India
595. Ex.PW33/V D124 Consignment Note No. 3223 PW33 Nitin dated 11.2.95, Steel Samrat Saini India
596. Ex.PW33/W D125 Consignment Note dated PW33 Nitin 1.3.95, Steel Samrat India Saini CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 60 of 569 S. Exhibit No. Doc. Document Proved by No. No.
597. Ex.PW33/X D126 Consignment Note No. 3372 PW33 Nitin dated 1.3.95, Steel Samrat Saini India
598. Ex.PW33/Y D546 Letter dated 21.01.95 PW33 Nitin Saini
599. Ex.PW33/Z1 D546 Guarantee Certificate dated PW33 Nitin 29.12.94 Saini
600. Ex.PW33/Z2 D546 Guarantee Certificate dated PW33 Nitin 29.12.94 Saini
601. Ex.PW33/Z3 D546 Guarantee Certificate dated PW33 Nitin 29.12.94 Saini
602. Ex.PW33/Z4 D546 Guarantee Certificate dated PW33 Nitin 29.12.94 Saini
603. Ex.PW33/Z4 D546 Guarantee Certificate dated PW33 Nitin 29.12.94 Saini
604. Ex.PW33/Z5 D546 Guarantee Certificate dated PW33 Nitin 29.12.94 Saini
605. Ex.PW33/Z6 D546 Guarantee Certificate dated PW33 Nitin 29.12.94 Saini
606. Ex.PW33/Z7 D546 Guarantee Certificate dated PW33 Nitin 29.12.94 Saini
607. Ex.PW33/Z8 D546 Guarantee Certificate dated PW33 Nitin 29.12.94 Saini
608. Ex.PW33/Z9 D546 Guarantee Certificate dated PW33 Nitin 29.12.94 Saini
609. Ex.PW33/Z10 D546 Guarantee Certificate dated PW33 Nitin 29.12.94 Saini
610. Ex.PW33/Z11 D546 Guarantee Certificate dated PW33 Nitin 29.12.94 Saini
611. Ex.PW33/Z12 D546 Guarantee Certificate dated PW33 Nitin 29.12.94 Saini
612. Ex.PW33/Z13 D546 Guarantee Certificate dated PW33 Nitin 29.12.94 Saini
613. Ex.PW33/Z14 D546 Guarantee Certificate dated PW33 Nitin 29.12.94 Saini CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 61 of 569 S. Exhibit No. Doc. Document Proved by No. No.
614. Ex.PW33/Z15 D546 Guarantee Certificate dated PW33 Nitin 29.12.94 Saini
615. Ex.PW33/Z16 D546 Guarantee Certificate dated PW33 Nitin 29.12.94 Saini
616. Ex.PW33/Z17 D546 Guarantee Certificate dated PW33 Nitin 29.12.94 Saini
617. Ex.PW33/Z18 D546 Guarantee Certificate dated PW33 Nitin 29.12.94 Saini
618. Ex.PW33/Z19 D546 Guarantee Certificate dated PW33 Nitin 29.12.94 Saini
619. Ex.PW33/Z20 D546 Guarantee Certificate dated PW33 Nitin 29.12.94 Saini
620. Ex.PW33/Z21 D546 Guarantee Certificate dated PW33 Nitin 29.12.94 Saini
621. Ex.PW33/Z22 D546 Guarantee Certificate dated PW33 Nitin 29.12.94 Saini
622. Ex.PW33/Z23 D546 Guarantee Certificate dated PW33 Nitin 29.12.94 Saini
623. Ex.PW33/Z24 D546 Guarantee Certificate dated PW33 Nitin 29.12.94 Saini
624. Ex.PW33/Z25 D546 Guarantee Certificate dated PW33 Nitin 29.12.94 Saini
625. Ex.PW34/A D327 Letter dated 25.09.95 PW34 T. C. Bhardwaj
626. Ex.PW34/B D327 Receipt dated 25.09.95 from PW34 T. C. M/s Tarun Fab Pvt Ltd Bhardwaj
627. Ex.PW34/C D327 Carbon copy of invoice PW34 T. C. Bhardwaj
628. Ex.PW34/D D328 Bill of Exchange PW34 T. C. Bhardwaj
629. Ex.PW34/E D328 Letter dated 25.09.95 PW34 T. C. Bhardwaj
630. Ex.PW34/F D328 Letter dated 25.09.95 PW34 T. C. Bhardwaj CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 62 of 569 S. Exhibit No. Doc. Document Proved by No. No.
631. Ex.PW34/G D328 Carbon copy of Invoice PW34 T. C. Bhardwaj
632. Ex.PW34/H D100 Bill of Exchange dated PW34 T. C. D328 28.09.95 for Rs. 5 Lacs Bhardwaj
633. Ex.PW34/I D328 Confirmation letter of dispatch PW34 T. C. of material vide invoice No. Bhardwaj 212 dated 25.09.95
634. Ex.PW34/J D328 Receipt of Rs. 500 against PW34 T. C. Invoice No. 212 Bhardwaj
635. Ex.PW34/K D328 Carbon copy of Invoice No. PW34 T. C. 212 dated 25.09.95 Bhardwaj
636. Ex.PW38/A D556 Bill purchase Register of OBC PW38 Binay D334 Pay order on dated 30.09.95 Kumar Gupta for Rs. 14,34,705/
637. Ex.PW38/B D550 Authority Register vide entry PW38 Binay dated 07.10.95 at page No. 101 Kumar Gupta
638. Ex.PW38/C D548 Bill purchase Register PW38 Binay Kumar Gupta
639. Ex.PW38/D D549 Bill purchase register vide PW38 Binay entry dated 07.10.95 at page Kumar Gupta No. 70
640. Ex.PW38/E D263 Transfer debit voucher dated PW38 Binay 07.10.95 Rs. 8,96,894/ Kumar Gupta
641. Ex.PW38/F D264 Transfer debit voucher dated PW38 Binay 07.10.95 Rs. 8,92,369/ Kumar Gupta
642. Ex.PW38/G D552 DD register of Oriental Bank PW38 Binay of commerce Kumar Gupta
643. Ex.PW38/H D337 Transfer credit voucher dated PW38 Binay 30.09.95 for Rs. 4305/ Kumar Gupta
644. Ex.PW38/J D338 Transfer debit voucher dated PW38 Binay 30.09.95 for Rs. 1301276.60 Kumar Gupta
645. Ex.PW38/K D339 Transfer credit voucher dated PW38 Binay 30.09.95 for Rs. 60671/ Kumar Gupta
646. Ex.PW38/L D340 Transfer credit voucher dated PW38 Binay 30.09.95 for Rs. 1240605.60 Kumar Gupta CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 63 of 569 S. Exhibit No. Doc. Document Proved by No. No.
647. Ex.PW38/M D548 Bill purchase register II w.e.f. PW38 Binay 01.04.95 to 25.09.95 Kumar Gupta
648. Ex.PW38/N D550 Noting dated 29.08.95 PW38 Binay Kumar Gupta
649. Ex.PW39/1 D4 Letter dated 20.02.95 PW39 Pradeep Kumar
650. Ex.PW39/2 D4 Letter dated 26.02.95 PW39 Pradeep Kumar
651. Ex.PW39/3 D4 Letter dated 09.03.95 PW39 Pradeep Kumar
652. Ex.PW39/4 D4 Letter dated 29.08.95 PW39 Pradeep Kumar
653. Ex.PW39/5 D4 Office Note dated 24.10.95 PW39 Pradeep Kumar
654. Ex.PW39/6 D4 Letter dated 13.11.95 PW39 Pradeep Kumar
655. Ex.PW41/A D279 Specimen signature card of PW41 R. C. account of M/s Surakash Raheja Engineers and Steel Traders
656. Ex.PW41/B D201 Credit voucher regarding bill PW41 R. C. purchase No. Misc/59/95 Raheja
657. Ex.PW41/C D202 Debit voucher relating to bill PW41 R. C. purchase No. Misc./59/95 for Raheja Rs. 5,76,459.52
658. Ex.PW41/D D210 SlipIn pay PW41 R. C. Raheja
659. Ex.PW41/E D216 Cheque No. 054754 Rs. PW41 R. C. 20,00,000/ of Raheja
660. Ex.PW41/F D241 Cheque PW41 R. C. Raheja CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 64 of 569 S. Exhibit No. Doc. Document Proved by No. No.
661. Ex.PW 41/G D289 Cheque Rs. 20,00,000/ of PW41 R. C. Raheja
662. Ex.PW 41/H D303 Credit voucher of CA 2764 PW41 R. C. Raheja
663. Ex.PW 41/J D1 Letter of Board resolution PW41 R. C. Raheja
664. Ex.PW41/K D21 Signature of Pradeep Anand PW41 R. C. Raheja
665. Ex.PW41/L D24 Signature of Pradeep Anand PW41 R. C. Raheja
666. Ex.PW41/M D4 Letter dated 16.12.94 PW41 R. C. Raheja
667. Ex.PW41/N D4 Letter dated 06.07.95 PW41 R. C. Raheja
668. Ex.PW41/DA D4 Letter dated 04.05.95 PW41 R. C. Raheja
669. Ex.PW42/A D357 Credit Voucher for PW42 Balbir Rs.14,90,963/ Singh
670. Ex.PW42/B D358 Commission received on bill PW42 Balbir purchase for Rs.7865/ Singh
671. Ex.PW42/C D356 Debit voucher for PW42 Balbir Rs.17,38,828/ Singh
672. Ex.PW42/D D281 Transfer voucher PW42 Balbir Singh
673. Ex.PW42/E D282 Transfer Voucher PW42 Balbir Singh
674. Ex.PW42/F D159 Debit transfer voucher PW42 Balbir Singh
675. Ex.PW42/G D160 Credit Transfer Voucher PW42 Balbir Singh
676. Ex.PW42/H D161 Credit Transfer Voucher PW42 Balbir Singh
677. Ex.PW42/I D257 Debit Transfer Voucher PW42 Balbir Singh CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 65 of 569 S. Exhibit No. Doc. Document Proved by No. No.
678. Ex.PW42/J D258 Credit Transfer Voucher PW42 Balbir Singh
679. Ex.PW42/K D259 Credit Transfer Voucher PW42 Balbir Singh
680. Ex.PW42/L D280 Debit transfer voucher PW42 Balbir Singh
681. Ex.PW42/M D362 Carbon copies of outward PW42 Balbir schedule of bills Singh
682. Ex.PW42/M1 D365 Carbon copies of outward PW42 Balbir schedule of bills Singh
683. Ex.PW42/N D372 Carbon copies of outward PW42 Balbir schedule of bills Singh
684. Ex.PW42/N1 D373 Carbon copies of outward PW42 Balbir schedule of bills Singh
685. Ex.PW44/A D555 Dispatch Register for the PW44 Prabir period 02.01.95 to 28.12.95 Sutradhar page No.90
686. Ex.PW44/B D555 Courier Slip PW44 Prabir (Page Sutradhar
90)
687. Ex.PW44/C D255 Covering letter dated 26.05.95 PW44 Prabir Sutradhar
688. Ex.PW45/1 D13 Letter dated 11.09.95 PW45 Vijay Kumar
689. Ex.PW45/2 D13 Invoice No. 81 dated 23.02.95 PW45 Vijay Kumar
690. Ex.PW45/3 D14 Invoice No. 82 dated 23.02.95 PW45 Vijay Kumar
691. Ex.PW45/4 D17 Invoice No.83 PW45 Vijay Kumar
692. Ex.PW45/5 D18 Invoice No. 80 PW45 Vijay Kumar
693. Ex.PW45/6 D19 Invoice No. 84 PW45 Vijay Kumar
694. Ex.PW45/7 D21 Invoice No. 87 dated 23.03.95 PW45 Vijay Kumar CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 66 of 569 S. Exhibit No. Doc. Document Proved by No. No.
695. Ex.PW45/8 D22 Invoice No. 90 dated 23.03.95 PW45 Vijay Kumar
696. Ex.PW45/9 D24 Invoice No. 89 dated 23.03.95 PW45 Vijay Kumar
697. Ex.PW45/10 D24 Invoice No. 88 PW45 Vijay Kumar
698. Ex.PW45/11 D24 Invoice No. 91 dated 23.03.95 PW45 Vijay Kumar
699. Ex.PW45/12 D262 DD application form PW45 Vijay Kumar
700. Ex.PW45/13 D272 DD application form PW45 Vijay Kumar
701. Ex.PW48/1 D447 Pay in slip dated 04.11.95 PW48 Sosama 237 Thomas
702. Ex.PW48/2 D238 Pay in slip dated 01.12.95 PW48 Sosama Thomas
703. Ex.PW48/3 D547 Acknowledgement form of PW48 Sosama Thomas Sosama dated Thomas 05.10.60
704. Ex.PW48/4 D390 List of transport operators PW48 Sosama Thomas
705. Ex.PW48/4 D457 Endorsement on assesses copy PW48 Sosama Thomas
706. Ex.PW48/5 D457 Endorsement on assesses copy PW48 Sosama Thomas
707. Ex.PW48/6 D457 Acknowledgement form of PW48 Sosama Thomas Sosama dated Thomas 05.10.60
708. Ex.PW48/7 D461 Account opening form of PW48 Sosama account No. 19796 Thomas
709. Ex.PW48/8 D462 Statement of account PW48 Sosama Thomas
710. Ex.PW48/9 D463 Pay in slip dated 11.07.95 PW48 Sosama Thomas
711. Ex.PW48/10 D464 Pay in slip dated 21.07.95 PW48 Sosama Thomas CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 67 of 569 S. Exhibit No. Doc. Document Proved by No. No.
712. Ex.PW48/11 D465 Pay in slip dated 20.07.95 PW48 Sosama Thomas
713. Ex.PW48/12 D466 Pay in slip dated 10.08.95 PW48 Sosama Thomas
714. Ex.PW48/13 D467 Pay in slip dated 13.07.95 PW48 Sosama Thomas
715. Ex.PW48/14 D468 Pay in slip dated 10.08.95 PW48 Sosama Thomas
716. Ex.PW48/15 D469 Pay in slip dated 18.08.95 PW48 Sosama Thomas
717. Ex.PW48/16 D470 Pay in slip dated 16.09.95 PW48 Sosama Thomas
718. Ex.PW48/17 D471 Pay in slip dated 04.11.95 PW48 Sosama Thomas
719. Ex.PW48/18 D472 Debit voucher dated 03.12.96 PW48 Sosama Thomas
720. Ex.PW48/19 D473 Pay in slip dated 03.12.96 PW48 Sosama Thomas
721. Ex.PW48/20 D474 Pay in slip dated 02.03.96 PW48 Sosama Thomas
722. Ex.PW48/21 D475 Pay in slip dated 06.10.95 PW48 Sosama Thomas
723. Ex.PW48/22 D476 Cheque bearing No. 721439 PW48 Sosama dated 15.12.95 Thomas
724. Ex.PW48/23 D477 Demand draft PW48 Sosama Thomas
725. Ex.PW48/24 D484 Account opening form in the PW48 Sosama name of Jacquiline Thomas
726. Ex.PW48/25 D485 Seven demand Draft PW48 Sosama Thomas
727. Ex.PW48/26 D486 Pay in slip dated 15.12.95 PW48 Sosama Thomas
728. Ex.PW48/27 D487 Cheque bearing No. 828081 PW48 Sosama dated 24.01.97 Thomas CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 68 of 569 S. Exhibit No. Doc. Document Proved by No. No.
729. Ex.PW48/28 D488 Transaction in account No. PW48 Sosama 6180 Thomas
730. Ex.PW48/29 D489 Application for issuance of PW48 Sosama Demand draft dated 10.07.95 Thomas
731. Ex.PW48/30 D490 Application for issuance of PW48 Sosama Demand Draft dated 19.07.95 Thomas
732. Ex.PW48/31 D491 Application for issuance of PW48 Sosama Demand Draft dated 07.08.95 Thomas
733. Ex.PW48/32 D493 Application for issuance of PW48 Sosama Demand Draft dated 16.08.95 Thomas
734. Ex.PW48/33 D499 Cheque bearing No. 828071 PW48 Sosama dated 13.12.95 Thomas
735. Ex.PW48/34 D500 Withdrawal slip dated 08.04.96 PW48 Sosama Thomas
736. Ex.PW48/35 D501 Cheque bearing No. 828072 PW48 Sosama dated 28.05.96 Thomas
737. Ex.PW48/36 D502 Cheque bearing No. 82874 PW48 Sosama dated 29.07.96 Thomas
738. Ex.PW48/37 D503 Cheque bearing No. 82873 PW48 Sosama dated 27.07.96 Thomas
739. Ex.PW49/1 D237 Transfer voucher dated PW49 Ashok 30.03.95 Kumar Khanna
740. Ex.PW49/2 D238 Transfer voucher dated PW49 Ashok 30.03.95 Kumar Khanna
741. Ex.PW49/3 D239 Transfer voucher dated PW49 Ashok 30.03.95 Kumar Khanna
742. Ex.PW49/4 D390 List of Transport operators PW49 Ashok recommended by IBA as on Kumar 31.03.96 Khanna
743. Ex.PW49/5 D5 Debit voucher dated 26.05.95 PW49 Ashok Kumar Khanna CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 69 of 569 S. Exhibit No. Doc. Document Proved by No. No.
744. Ex.PW49/6 D102 Transfer voucher dated PW49 Ashok 02.03.95 Kumar Khanna
745. Ex.PW49/6 D130 Transfer voucher dated PW49 Ashok 02.03.95 Kumar Khanna
746. Ex.PW49/7 D131 Forwarding schedule dated PW49 Ashok 02.03.95 Kumar Khanna
747. Ex.PW49/8 D105 Bill forwarding schedule dated PW49 Ashok 02.03.95 Kumar Khanna
748. Ex.PW49/9 D106 Bill forwarding schedule dated PW49 Ashok 02.03.95 Kumar Khanna
749. Ex.PW49/10 D107 Bill forwarding schedule dated PW49 Ashok 02.03.95 Kumar Khanna
750. Ex.PW49/11 D108 Bill forwarding schedule dated PW49 Ashok 02.03.95 Kumar Khanna
751. Ex.PW49/12 D109 Bill forwarding schedule dated PW49 Ashok 02.03.95 Kumar Khanna
752. Ex.PW49/13 D110 Bill forwarding schedule dated PW49 Ashok 02.03.95 Kumar Khanna
753. Ex.PW49/14 D111 Bill forwarding schedule dated PW49 Ashok 02.03.95 Kumar Khanna
754. Ex.PW49/15 D112 Bill forwarding schedule dated PW49 Ashok 02.03.95 Kumar Khanna
755. Ex.PW49/16 D113 Bill forwarding schedule dated PW49 Ashok 02.03.95 Kumar Khanna CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 70 of 569 S. Exhibit No. Doc. Document Proved by No. No.
756. Ex.PW49/17 D114 Bill forwarding schedule dated PW49 Ashok 02.03.95 Kumar Khanna
757. Ex.PW49/18 D115 Bill forwarding schedule dated PW49 Ashok 02.03.95 Kumar Khanna
758. Ex.PW49/19 D116 Bill forwarding schedule dated PW49 Ashok 02.03.95 Kumar Khanna
759. Ex.PW49/20 D117 Bill forwarding schedule dated PW49 Ashok 02.03.95 Kumar Khanna
760. Ex.PW49/21 D118 Bill forwarding schedule dated PW49 Ashok 02.03.95 Kumar Khanna
761. Ex.PW49/22 D119 Bills forwarding schedule PW49 Ashok dated 02.03.95 Kumar Khanna
762. Ex.PW49/23 D120 Bill forwarding schedule dated PW49 Ashok 02.03.95 Kumar Khanna
763. Ex.PW49/24 D121 Bill forwarding schedule dated PW49 Ashok 02.03.95 Kumar Khanna
764. Ex.PW49/25 D122 Bill forwarding schedule dated PW49 Ashok 02.03.95 Kumar Khanna
765. Ex.PW49/26 D123 Bill forwarding schedule dated PW49 Ashok 02.03.95 Kumar Khanna
766. Ex.PW49/27 D124 Bill forwarding schedule dated PW49 Ashok 02.03.95 Kumar Khanna
767. Ex.PW49/28 D125 Bill forwarding schedule dated PW49 Ashok 02.03.95 Kumar Khanna CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 71 of 569 S. Exhibit No. Doc. Document Proved by No. No.
768. Ex.PW49/29 D126 Bill forwarding schedule dated PW49 Ashok 02.03.95 Kumar Khanna
769. Ex.PW49/30 D25 Debit transfer voucher dated PW49 Ashok 28.06.94 Kumar Khanna
770. Ex.PW49/31 D26 Transfer credit voucher dated PW49 Ashok 28.06.94 for Rs. 9,02,994.23 Kumar Khanna
771. Ex.PW49/32 D27 Credit transfer voucher dated PW49 Ashok 28.06.94 for Rs. 3616/ Kumar Khanna
772. Ex.PW49/33 D33 Credit Transfer voucher dated PW49 Ashok 31.12.94 for Rs. 28,30,004/ Kumar Khanna
773. Ex.PW49/34 D34 Cheque bearing No. 346651 PW49 Ashok dated 30.12.94 for Rs. 3 Lacs Kumar Khanna
774. Ex.PW49/35 D39 Debit transfer voucher dated PW49 Ashok 06.03.95 for rs. 6,11,131.16 Kumar Khanna
775. Ex.PW49/36 D40 Credit transfer voucher dated PW49 Ashok 06.03.95 for Rs.537242/16 Kumar Khanna
776. Ex.PW49/37 D41 Credit transfer voucher dated PW49 Ashok 06.03.95 for Rs. 73889/ Kumar Khanna
777. Ex.PW49/38 D42 Debit Transfer voucher dated PW49 Ashok 06.03.95 for Rs. 10.15,213.79 Kumar Khanna
778. Ex.PW49/39 D43 Credit transfer voucher dated PW49 Ashok 06.03.95 for Rs. 183632 Kumar Khanna
779. Ex.PW49/40 D44 Debit transfer voucher dated PW49 Ashok 27.03.95 Rs. 1935460/ Kumar Khanna CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 72 of 569 S. Exhibit No. Doc. Document Proved by No. No.
780. Ex.PW49/41 D45 Credit transfer voucher dated PW49 Ashok 27.03.95 1926655/ Kumar Khanna
781. Ex.PW49/42 D46 Credit transfer voucher dated PW49 Ashok 27.03.95 for Rs, 8805/ Kumar Khanna
782. Ex.PW49/43 D47 Debit transfer voucher dated PW49 Ashok 27.03.95 Rs, 421666.07 Kumar Khanna
783. Ex.PW49/44 D48 Credit transfer voucher dated PW49 Ashok 27.03.95 for Rs. 369368.07 Kumar Khanna
784. Ex.Pw49/45 D49 Credit transfer voucher dated PW49 Ashok 27.03.95 for Rs. 52,2989/ Kumar Khanna
785. Ex.PW49/46 D102 Outward bill schedule dated PW49 Ashok 02.03.95 Kumar Khanna
786. Ex.PW49/47 D104 Bill forwarding schedule dated PW49 Ashok 02.03.956 Kumar Khanna
787. Ex.PW49/48 D105 Bill forwarding schedule dated PW49 Ashok 02.03.95 Kumar Khanna
788. Ex.PW49/49 D106 Bill of exchange schedule PW49 Ashok dated 02.03.95 Kumar Khanna
789. Ex.PW49/50 D107 Bill forwarding schedule dated PW49 Ashok 02.03.95 Kumar Khanna
790. Ex.PW49/51 D108 Bill forwarding schedule dated PW49 Ashok 02.03.95 Kumar Khanna
791. Ex.PW49/52 D109 Bill forwarding schedule dated PW49 Ashok 02.03.95 Kumar Khanna CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 73 of 569 S. Exhibit No. Doc. Document Proved by No. No.
792. Ex.PW49/53 D110 Bill forwarding schedule dated PW49 Ashok 02.03.95 Kumar Khanna
793. Ex.PW49/54 D111 Bill forwarding schedule dated PW49 Ashok 02.03.95 Kumar Khanna
794. Ex.PW49/55 D112 Bill forwarding schedule dated PW49 Ashok 02.03.95 Kumar Khanna
795. Ex.PW49/56 D113 Bill forwarding schedule dated PW49 Ashok 02.03.95 Kumar Khanna
796. Ex.PW49/57 D114 Bill forwarding schedule dated PW49 Ashok 02.03.95 Kumar Khanna
797. Ex.PW49/58 D115 Bill forwarding schedule dated PW49 Ashok 02.03.95 Kumar Khanna
798. Ex.PW49/59 D116 Bill forwarding schedule dated PW49 Ashok 02.03.95 bill No. 1062 Kumar Khanna
799. Ex.PW49/60 D117 Bill forwarding schedule dated PW49 Ashok 02.03.95 bill No. 1205 Kumar Khanna .800 Ex.PW49/61 D118 Bill forwarding schedule dated PW49 Ashok 02.03.95 bill no. 1207 Kumar Khanna
801. Ex.PW49/62 D119 Bill forwarding schedule dated PW49 Ashok 02.03.95 bill no. 1065 Kumar Khanna
802. Ex.PW49/63 D120 Bill forwarding schedule dated PW49 Ashok 02.03.95 bill no. 1211 Kumar Khanna
803. Ex.PW49/64 D121 Bill forwarding schedule dated PW49 Ashok 02.03.95 1054 Kumar Khanna CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 74 of 569 S. Exhibit No. Doc. Document Proved by No. No.
804. Ex.PW49/65 D122 Bill forwarding schedule dated PW49 Ashok 02.03.95 bill no. 1209 Kumar Khanna
805. Ex.PW49/66 D123 Bill forwarding schedule dated PW49 Ashok 02.03.95 bill no. 1212 Kumar Khanna
806. Ex.PW49/67 D124 Bill forwarding schedule dated PW49 Ashok 02.03.95 bill no. 1063 Kumar Khanna
807. Ex.PW49/68 D125 Bill forwarding schedule dated PW49 Ashok 02.03.95 bill no. 1213 Kumar Khanna
808. Ex.PW49/69 D126 Bill forwarding schedule dated PW49 Ashok 02.03.95 bill no. 1208 Kumar Khanna
809. Ex.PW49/70 D129 Debit transfer voucher dated PW49 Ashok 02.03.95 for Rs. 2205083.22 Kumar Khanna
810. Ex.PW49/71 D130 Credit transfer voucher dated PW49 Ashok 02.03.95 Kumar Khanna
811. Ex.PW49/72 D131 Credit transfer voucher dated PW49 Ashok 02.03.95 Kumar Khanna
812. Ex.PW49/73 D449 Cheque No. 863114 dated PW49 Ashok 15.05.95 for Rs. 100200/ Kumar Khanna
813. Ex.PW49/74 D148 Draft application of OBC PW49 Ashok dated 15.05.95 Kumar Khanna
814. Ex.PW49/75 D171 Credit transfer voucher dated PW49 Ashok D172 22.08.95 for Rs. 510377/ Kumar Khanna
815. Ex.PW49/76 D173 Credit transfer voucher dated PW49 Ashok 22.08.95 for rs. 1546/ Kumar Khanna CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 75 of 569 S. Exhibit No. Doc. Document Proved by No. No.
816. Ex.PW49/77 D207 Debit transfer voucher dated PW49 Ashok 16.03.95 for Rs. 7,91,960/ Kumar Khanna
817. Ex.PW49/78 D208 Credit transfer voucher dated PW49 Ashok 16.03.95 for Rs. 788388/ Kumar Khanna
818. Ex.PW49/79 D238 Credit transfer voucher dated PW49 Ashok 30.03.95 for Rs. 8.16 Lac Kumar Khanna
819. Ex.PW49/80 D237 Debit transfer voucher dated PW49 Ashok 30.03.95 Kumar Khanna
820. Ex.PW49/81 D256 Cheque No. 873736 dated PW49 Ashok 25.05.95 for Rs. 20000/ Kumar Khanna
821. Ex.PW50/1 D402 Credit voucher dated 29.07.94 PW50 Geeta for Rs. 320000/ Tondon
822. Ex.PW50/2 D403 Credit Voucher dated 21.10.94 PW50 Geeta for Rs. 1.30,000/ Tondon
823. Ex.PW50/3 D404 Credit Voucher dated 09.11.94 PW50 Geeta for Rs. 50000/ Tondon
824. Ex.PW50/4 D405 Credit voucher dated 22.11.94 PW50 Geeta to Rs. 50000/ Tondon
825. Ex.PW50/5 D407 Credit voucher dated 30.11.94 PW50 Geeta Rs. 2,50000/ Tondon
826. Ex.PW51/1 D548 Bill purchase register for PW51 period from 01.04.95 to Poonam Kang 25.09.95
827. Ex.PW51/2 D548 Entry at page No. 37 PW51 Poonam Kang
828. Ex.PW51/3 D244 Credit Voucher dated 03.05.95 PW51 for Rs. 4,52,324 Poonam Kang
829. Ex.PW51/4 D245 Credit Voucher dated 03.05.95 PW51 to Rs. 1948/ Poonam Kang CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 76 of 569 S. Exhibit No. Doc. Document Proved by No. No.
830. Ex.PW51/5 D547 Bill purchase register for the PW51 period from 01.04.94 to Poonam Kang 31.03.95
831. Ex.PW51/6 D547 Entries for the purchase of bills PW51 No. 82/95 to 93/95 Poonam Kang
832. Ex.PW51/7 D550 Bill purchase register for the PW51 period from July 1993 Poonam Kang
833. Ex.PW51/8 D45 Entries dated 05.03.95 PW51 Poonam Kang
834. Ex.PW51/9 D45 Credit voucher dated 27.03.95 PW51 for Rs. 1926655/ Poonam Kang
835. Ex.PW51/10 D47 Debit voucher for Rs. PW51 4,21,666.05/ Poonam Kang
836. Ex.PW51/11 D12 Schedule of bills dated PW51 27.03.95 Poonam Kang
837. Ex.PW51/12 D16 Schedule of bills dated PW51 27.03.95 Poonam Kang
838. Ex.PW51/13 D20 Schedule of bills dated PW51 27.03.95 Poonam Kang
839. Ex.PW51/14 D24 Schedule of bills dated PW51 27.03.95 Poonam Kang
840. Ex.PW51/15 D44 Debit transfer voucher dated PW51 27.03.95 Poonam Kang
841. Ex.PW51/16 D45 Credit voucher dated 27.03.95 PW51 Poonam Kang
842. Ex.PW51/17 D46 Credit transfer voucher dated PW51 27.03.95 Poonam Kang
843. Ex.PW51/18 D47 Debit transfer voucher dated PW51 27.03.95 Poonam Kang
844. Ex.PW51/19 D48 Credit transfer voucher dated PW51 27.03.95 Poonam Kang
845. Ex.PW51/20 D49 Credit transfer voucher dated PW51 27.03.95 Poonam Kang
846. Ex.PW52/1 D203 Debit transfer voucher dated PW52 15.03.95 Madhav Prasad CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 77 of 569 S. Exhibit No. Doc. Document Proved by No. No.
847. Ex.PW52/2 D204 Credit transfer voucher dated PW52 15.03.95 Madhav Prasad
848. Ex.PW52/3 D208 Debit transfer voucher dated PW52 16.03.95 Madhav Prasad
849. Ex.PW52/4 D207 Credit transfer voucher dated PW52 16.03.95 Madhav Prasad
850. Ex.PW52/5 D209 Credit transfer voucher dated PW52 16.03.95 Madhav Prasad
851. Ex.PW52/6 D551 DD Register on dated 17.04.95 PW52 Madhav Prasad
852. Ex.PW53/1 D200 Photocopy of equitable PW53 P. C. mortgage register regarding Bahman Moonlight engineers
853. Ex.PW53/2 D191 Statement of account for PW53 P. C. account for account No.1598 Bahman
854. Ex.PW53/4 D376 Statement of account No. 2523 PW53 P. C. Bahman
855. Ex.PW53/5 D280 Statement of account No. 2764 PW53 P. C. Bahman
856. Ex.PW58/1 D266 Bills of OBC Bank PW58 Kameshwar Prasad
857. Ex.PW58/2 D267 Bills of OBC Bank PW58 Kameshwar Prasad
858. Ex.PW58/3 D270 Bills of OBC Bank PW58 Kameshwar Prasad
859. Ex.PW59/1 D315 Letter dated 20.08.96 PW59 Subram Ravichandran CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 78 of 569 S. Exhibit No. Doc. Document Proved by No. No.
860. Ex.PW60/1 D561 Letter dated 23.11.96 PW60 Annoji Kinni
861. Ex.PW62/1 D528 Letter dated 25.10.96 PW62 S. R. Mikalli
862. Ex.PW63/1 D374 Attested copy of ISC Register PW63 N. R. Udani
863. Ex.PW64/1 D525 Letter dated 22.09.97 PW64 K. Sarvottam
864. Ex.PW64/2 D525 Certified copy of inward bills PW64 K. for the period of 08.07.95 to Sarvottam 09.08.95
865. Ex.PW64/3 D524 Envelop Bank of India to S.P. PW64 K. CBI Sarvottam
866. Ex.PW64/A Nil Letter from the CBI PW64 K. Sarvottam
867. Ex.PW65/1 D524 Letter dated 22.09.97 PW65 S. V. Shalgaonkar
868. Ex.PW66/1 D452 Letter dated 19.04.99 PW66 Deep Chand Aggarwal
869. Ex.PW66/2 D452 Valuation report PW66 Deep Chand Aggarwal
870. Ex.PW67/1 D513 Letter dated 28.10.85 PW67 Pankaj Kumar
871. Ex.PW67/2 D513 Specimen signature card PW67 Pankaj Kumar
872. Ex.PW67/3 D513 Details for opening Non PW67 Pankaj Resident (External) saving Kumar Bank Account
873. Ex.PW67/4 D513 Statement of account PW67 Pankaj Kumar
874. Ex.PW67/5 D513 Attested copy of Loan PW67 Pankaj attestation form Kumar
875. Ex.PW67/6 D513 Copy of description PW67 Pankaj Kumar CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 79 of 569 S. Exhibit No. Doc. Document Proved by No. No.
876. Ex.PW67/7 D514 Statement of account PW67 Pankaj Kumar
877. Ex.PW67/8 D515 Cheque dated 01.11.95 bearing PW67 Pankaj No, 435 issued in favour of Kumar Alfa Associates by Deepak
878. Ex.PW67/9 D515 Slip on dated 311095 PW67 Pankaj Rs.1,50,000/ Kumar
879. Ex.PW68/1 D491 Application for issuance of PW68 P. D. Demand Draft dated 05.08.95 Sheney
880. Ex.PW68/2 D494 Application for issuance of PW68 P. D. Demand Draft Sheney
881. Ex.PW68/3 D495 Application for issuance of PW68 P. D. Demand Draft Sheney
882. Ex.PW69/1 D368 Reminder form No. 432 PW69 Milind Harendrarai Pathak
883. Ex.PW69/2 D369 Valued Post Letter PW69 Milind Harendrarai Pathak
884. Ex.PW69/3 D370 Receipt issued by Postal PW69 Milind Department Harendrarai Pathak
885. Ex.PW69/4 D371 Credit Slip PW69 Milind Harendrarai Pathak
886. Ex.PW72/1 D496 Branch advice date 01.12.95 PW72 for Rs. 500/ Pardeep Ingle
887. Ex.PW73/1 D375 Half yearly statement of bills PW73 Ramesh and entry pertaining to ISC B. Kankahara 229 and 230
888. Ex.PW73/2 D375 Entry pertaining to ISC 229 PW73 Ramesh and 230 B. Kankahara
889. Ex.PW73/3 D375 Entry pertaining to ISC 229 PW73 Ramesh and 230 B. Kankahara CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 80 of 569 S. Exhibit No. Doc. Document Proved by No. No.
890. Ex.PW75/1 D557 Specimen signature and PW75 A. P. writing of accused Singh
891. Ex.PW75/2 D557 Specimen signature and PW75 A. P. writing of Pradeep Anand Singh
892. Ex.PW75/3 D557 Specimen signature and PW75 A. P. writing of Pradeep Anand Singh
893. Ex.PW75/4 D557 Specimen signature and PW75 A. P. writing of Rajeev Anand Singh
894. Ex.PW75/5 D557 Specimen signature of T.C. PW75 A. P. Bhardwaj Singh
895. Ex.PW75/6 D557 Specimen signature of PW75 A. P. T.C.Bhardwaj Singh
896. Ex.PW75/7 D557 Specimen initials signature and PW75 A. P. writing of C. K. Saxena Singh
897. Ex.PW75/8 D557 Specimen initial signature and PW75 A. P. writing of Nitin Saini Singh
898. Ex.PW75/9 D557 Specimen initial signature and PW75 A. P. writing of Suman Prakash Singh
899. Ex.PW75/10 D557 Specimen initial signature and PW75 A. P. writing of T. C. Bhardwaj Singh
900. Ex.PW75/11 D557 Specimen initial signature and PW75 A. P. writing of Rajeev Anand Singh
901. Ex.PW75/12 Statem Statement of Om Prakash PW75 A. P. ent Singh
902. Ex.PW77/1 D516 Account opening form of PW77 Harish account No. 16383 Bhasin
903. Ex.PW77/2 D516 Specimen signature Card of PW77 Harish Deepak Rampal Bhasin
904. Ex.PW77/3 D516 Specimen signature card of PW77 Harish Ritu Rampal Bhasin
905. Ex.PW77/4 D519 Cheque Rs.1,50,000/ PW77 Harish Bhasin
906. Ex.PW77/5 D519 Specimen signature card PW77 Harish Bhasin CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 81 of 569 S. Exhibit No. Doc. Document Proved by No. No.
907. Ex.PW77/6 D519 Specimen signature card of PW77 Harish account in the name of Alpha Bhasin Associates bearing No. 2061
908. Ex.PW77/7 D520 Account opening form Harish PW77 Harish Bhasin Bhasin
909. Ex.PW77/8 D520 Account opening form of Ashok PW77 Harish Mattat Bhasin
910. Ex.PW77/9 D520 Specimen Card of Harish PW77 Harish Bhasin Bhasin
911. Ex.PW77/10 D520 Specimen signature Card PW77 Harish Ashok K. Matta Bhasin
912. Ex.PW78/1 D322 Letter of credit issued in the PW78 name of True Fab Pvt Ltd Mahender Singh
913. Ex.PW79/1 D329 Cheque no. 101741 for PW79 Ashok Rs.14,40,388.35p Bhatnagar
914. Ex.PW79/2 D329 Counter copy of said cheque PW79 Ashok No. 1440388 dated 30.09.95 Bhatnagar
915. Ex.PW79/3 D329 Debit Voucher dated 30.09.95 PW79 Ashok Bhatnagar
916. Ex.PW79/4 D329 Local Bills dated 29.09.95 PW79 Ashok Bhatnagar
917. Ex.PW80/1 D288 Sale deed dated 09.03.94 PW80 Mukesh Gupta
918. Ex.PW81/1 D198 Application dated 19.03.95 PW81 Yudhvir Singh
919. Ex.PW81/2 D198 Sale Deed dated 03.07.85 PW81 Yudhvir Singh
920. Ex.PW82/1 D300 Letter dated 21.07.95 PW82 Chandresh Kr. Saxena
921. Ex.PW82/2 D458 Mark Sheet of High School of PW82 Chandresh Kr. Chandresh Kr. Saxena CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 82 of 569 S. Exhibit No. Doc. Document Proved by No. No.
922. Ex.PW82/3 D459 Mark sheet of Chandersh Kr. PW82 MA (Pri MA (Final) Chandresh Kr. Saxena
923. Ex.PW84/A D354 Sale Deed dated 24.05.84 PW84 Rajendra Sirpal
924. Ex.PW85/1 D254 Courier receipt bearing No. PW85 Vinod 651166 dated 26.05.95 Khurana
925. Ex.PW86/1 D543 Letter of Indian oil PW86 Rakesh Corporation limited Kumar Sharma
926. Ex.PW86/2 D543 Letter of Indian oil PW86 Rakesh Corporation limited Kumar Sharma
927. Ex.PW86/3 D544 Letter of Indian oil PW86 Rakesh Corporation limited Kumar Sharma
928. Ex.PW87/1 D1 Letter dated 16.10.95 PW87 D. P. Dhingra
929. Ex.PW87/2 D1 Specimen signatures card on PW87 D. P. CC account No, 1670 Dhingra
930. Ex.PW87/3 D1 Specimen signature card on PW87 D. P. CC account Dhingra
931. Ex.PW87/4 D1 Specimen signature card on Q PW87 D. P. 613 Dhingra
932. Ex.PW87/5 D11 Letter of M/s True Fab Pvt Ltd PW87 D. P. Dhingra
933. Ex.PW87/6 D4 Letter dated 19.03.94 to Sr. PW87 D. P. Manager NFC New Delhi Dhingra
934. Ex.PW87/7 D4 Letter dated 10.06.94 PW87 D. P. Dhingra
935. Ex.PW87/8 D4 Letter dated 20.06.94 PW87 D. P. regarding position of account Dhingra
936. Ex.PW87/9 D4 Cheque No. 887591 dated PW87 D. P. 18.06.94 Dhingra CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 83 of 569 S. Exhibit No. Doc. Document Proved by No. No.
937. Ex.PW87/10 D4 Letter dated 15.08.94 PW87 D. P. Dhingra
938. Ex.PW87/11 D4 Letter dated 05.11.94 PW87 D. P. Dhingra
939. Ex.PW87/12 D4 Lotter along with photocopy of PW87 D. P. request dated 07.12.94 Dhingra
940. Ex.PW87/13 D4 Photocopy of order dated PW87 D. P. 06.12.94 Dhingra
941. Ex.PW87/14 D4 Letter dated 22.12.94 PW87 D. P. Dhingra
942. Ex.PW87/15 D4 Letter dated 13.01.95 PW87 D. P. Dhingra
943. Ex.PW87/16 D4 Letter dated 05.01.95 PW87 D. P. Dhingra
944. Ex.PW87/17 D4 Letter dated 21.02.95 PW87 D. P. Dhingra
945. Ex.PW87/18 D4 Request dated 08.03.95 PW87 D. P. Dhingra
946. Ex.PW87/19 D4 Letter dated 18.07.95 PW87 D. P. Dhingra
947. Ex.PW87/20 D4 Letter dated 15.09.95 PW87 D. P. Dhingra
948. Ex.PW87/21 D560 Loan file M/s True Fab Pvt Ltd PW87 D. P. Dhingra
949. Ex.PW87/22 D557 Specimen writing and PW87 D. P. signature sheet Dhingra
950. Ex.PW87/23 D557 Specimen signatures of Rajeev PW87 D. P. Anand Dhingra
951. Ex.PW87/24 D557 Specimen handwriting of Rajiv PW87 D. P. Anand Dhingra
952. Ex.PW88/1 Addl. FIR RC 2(E)/ 96 dated PW88 Satish Doc. 15.05.1996 Dagar
953. Ex.PW88/2 D557 Specimen writing signature of PW88 Satish Rajiv Anand Dagar CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 84 of 569 S. Exhibit No. Doc. Document Proved by No. No.
954. Ex.PW88/3 D557 Specimen writing signature of PW88 Satish Sanjev Arora Dagar
955. Ex.PW88/4 D557 Specimen writing signature of PW88 Satish Swaraj Chauhan Dagar
956. Ex.PW88/6 Addl. Seizure memo dated 18.09.96 PW88 Satish Doc. Dagar
957. Ex.PW88/7 Addl. Carbon copy of seizure memo PW88 Satish Doc. dated 02.09.96 Dagar
958. Ex.PW88/8 Addl. Seizure memo dated 19.09.97 PW88 Satish Doc. Dagar
959. Ex.PW88/9 Addl. Seizure memo dated 28.07.96 PW88 Satish Doc. Dagar
960. Ex.PW88/10 Addl. Carbon copy of seizure memo PW88 Satish Doc. dated 27.09.96 Dagar
961. Ex.PW88/11 Addl. Seizure memo dated 23.10.97 PW88 Satish Doc. Dagar
962. Ex.PW88/12 Addl. Carbon copy of seizure memo PW88 Satish Doc. dated 20.10.97 Dagar
963. Ex.PW88/13 Addl. Carbon copy of seizure memo PW88 Satish Doc. dated 04.09.97 Dagar
964. EX.PW88/14 Addl. Carbon copy of seizure memo PW88 Satish Doc. dated 04.09.97 Dagar
965. Ex.PW88/15 Addl. Carbon copy of seizure memo PW88 Satish Doc. dated 13.09.9 Dagar
966. Ex.PW88/16 Addl. Seizure memo dated 08.08/.96 PW88 Satish Doc. Dagar
967. Ex.PW88/17 Addl. Seizure memo dated 21.11.96 PW88 Satish Doc. Dagar
968. Ex.PW88/18 Addl. Photocopy of seizure memo PW88 Satish Doc. dated 20.03.97 Dagar
969. Ex.PW88/19 Addl. Carbon copy of seizure memo PW88 Satish Doc. dated 11.09.96 Dagar
970. Ex.PW88/20 Addl. Seizure memo dated 29.04.97 PW88 Satish Doc. Dagar CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 85 of 569 S. Exhibit No. Doc. Document Proved by No. No.
971. Ex.PW88/21 Addl. Typed carbon copy of seizure PW88 Satish Doc. memo dated 03.08.96 Dagar
972. Ex.PW88/22 Addl. Typed carbon copy of seizure PW88 Satish Doc. memo dated 13.08.96 Dagar
973. Ex.PW88/23 Addl. Seizure memo dated 01.08.96 PW88 Satish Doc. Dagar
974. Ex.PW88/24 561 Letter dated 8.12.1995 PW88 Satish Dagar
975. Ex.PW88/25 561 Letter dated 22.11.1995 PW88 Satish Dagar
976. Ex.PW88/26 D522 Letter dated 07.10.97 PW88 Satish Dagar
977. Ex.PW88/27 D523 Letter dated 24.09.97 PW88 Satish Dagar
978. Ex.PW88/28 D523 Certified true copy of bill PW88 Satish register Dagar
979. Ex.PW88/29 D526 Letter dated 14.02.097 PW88 Satish Dagar
980. Ex.PW88/30 D527 Letter dated 07.02.97 PW88 Satish Dagar
981. Ex.PW88/31 D527 Letter (Page 4239) PW88 Satish Dagar
982. Ex.PW88/32 Addl. Seizure memo dated 05.05.97 PW88 Satish Doc. Dagar
983. Ex.PW88/33 Addl. Carbon copy of seizure memo PW88 Satish Doc. dated 23.04.97 Dagar
984. Ex.PW88/34 Addl. Carbon copy of seizure memo PW88 Satish Doc. dated 05.05.97 Dagar
985. Ex.PW88/35 Addl. Carbon copy of seizure memo PW88 Satish Doc. dated 06.02.97 Dagar
986. Ex.PW88/36 Addl. Carbon copy of seizure memo PW88 Satish Doc. dated 16.09.96 Dagar
987. Ex.PW88/37 D199 Letter dated 04.04.97 PW88 Satish Dagar CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 86 of 569 S. Exhibit No. Doc. Document Proved by No. No.
988. Ex.PW88/38 D347 Letter dated 07.10.98 PW88 Satish Dagar
989. Ex.PW88/39 D347 Envelop PW88 Satish Dagar
990. Ex.PW88/40 Addl. Photocopy of search list dated PW88 Satish Doc. 26.07.96 of house of Pradeep Dagar Anand bearing No. 140 sector 16A Faridabad
991. Ex.PW88/41 Addl. Photocopy of search list dated PW88 Satish Doc. 26.07.96 of resident of Suresh Dagar Pathrella at D16/11 Railway Colony Sarojini Nagar New Delhi
992. Ex.PW88/42 Addl. Carbon copy of search list PW88 Satish Doc. dated 26.07.96 of office Dagar premises of M/s True Fab India Pvt Ltd Plot No. 8 13/3 Mathura road Faridabad
993. Ex.PW88/43 Addl. Photocopy of search list dated PW88 Satish Doc. 26.07.96 for the residential Dagar premises of Smt. Sheela Walia at C4/5 Safdarjung Development Area New Delhi
994. Ex.PW90/1 Addl. Letter dated 01.08.2000 PW90 N. C. Doc. Sood
995. Ex.PW90/2 D11 Letter for forging & pipe PW90 N. C. fittings division Sood
996. Ex.PW90/3 D11 Letter for Board resolution PW90 N. C. Sood
997. Ex.PW90/4 D290 Pay in slip dated 07.06.95 PW90 N. C. Sood
998. Ex.PW90/5 D311 Pay in slip dated 11.09.95 PW90 N. C. Sood
999. Ex.PW90/6 D392 Deposit slip of OBC bank PW90 N. C. Sood 1000. Ex.PW90/7 D392 Deposit slip of OBC bank PW90 N. C. Sood CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 87 of 569 S. Exhibit No. Doc. Document Proved by No. No. 1001. Ex.PW90/8 D553 Conclusion No. CX264/2000 PW90 N. C. dated 30.08.2000 Sood 1002. Ex.PW90/9 D553 CBI vide letter no. PW90 N. C. CX264/1912 dated 25.09.2000 Sood 1003. Ex.PW90/10 D553 Specimen Signatures of PW90 N. C. Subhashis Dey Sood 1004. Ex.PW90/11 D557 Specimen handwriting Suman PW90 N. C. Prakash Sood 1005. Ex.PW90/12 D557 Specimen handwriting Santosh PW90 N. C. Kumar Jain Sood 1006. Ex.PW90/13 D557 Specimen handwriting T. C. PW90 N. C. Bhardwaj Sood EVIDENCE:
(15) In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as many as Ninety Witnesses whereas the accused have examined as many as Four witnesses in their defence, which are put in a tabulated form as under:
Sr. Details of the Deposition of witness No. witness
1. Sh. K.L. Bhutani PW1 Sh. K.L. Bhutani was the AGM of Oriental Bank (PW1) of Commerce who has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he joined Oriental Bank of Commerce on 3.6.1974 and in December 1995 he was posted as Deputy Chief Manager in Industrial Loans Department in the head office of OBC.
2. That the different level of officers have different powers for sanction of loans which powers were revised in the year 1991 vide circular dated 1.07.1991 and the said circular continued to be in force till 08.08.1996 when this circular was handed over to the IO by him.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 88 of 569
3. That the power of the Chief Manager for sanction of loan to a single borrower / a group of borrowers was Rs.30 lacs excluding the advances secured against 100% margin as well as bill discounted against Lcs.
4. That the circular is Ex.PW1/A bearing the signatures of Sh. Surender Mohan, the then General Manager at that time, which signatures he duly identified having seen him signing in ordinary course of his duties.
5. That the annexure to the said circular is Ex.PW1/A.
6. That the circular and the annexure running into 10 pages is signed by him at point B on each page.
7. That the DGM had the power to sanction loan upto Rs. One Crore.
8. That if the branch Manager is to exceed the power, he has to seek the prior approval of the competent authority.
9. That in any exceptional circumstances, he could get telephonic approval from the higher authority in advance and get the ratification in writing from the higher authority.
In his crossexamination by the Ld. Counsels for the accused, the witness has deposed as under:
That he is not aware if the accused S.K. Pathrella had taken prior approval for sanction or not.
That he can neither admit nor deny that S.K. Pathrella had taken approval in each and every facility exceeding his power from the higher authority i.e. Regional Office in writing. That the bank has a system of reporting in STM 41 in regular and temporary advances where ever the powers are exceeded.
That he is not aware if in this particular branch there was a concurrent auditor or not. That if any facility exceeds the power of Regional office the approval is sought by the Zonal office.
That in normal course there is no direct correspondence between the branch and the CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 89 of 569 head office.
That if the facility granted is beyond the power of the regional office further correspondence with the head office shall be done only by the Regional office.
That he is not aware if the account in this particular case was in operation since 1985. That he has not dealt with the account subject matter of this case at any stage.
That whenever the Branch manager exceeds his power he has to obtain the approval in writing.
That mere sending of the statement STM 41 does not amount to the approval or ratification of the Regional Office.
2. Sh. S.S. Mehra PW2 Sh. S.S. Mehra was the then GM (Inspection & (PW2) Control), Oriental Bank of Commerce, Head Office, New Delhi who in his examination in chief has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he joined the Oriental Bank of Commerce in the year 1961 and in the year 1998 he was posted as GM (Inspection & Control), OBC, Head Office, New Delhi.
2. That an account can be opened only by proper introduction of the applicant and the introducer must be known to the bank.
3. That for opening a cash credit account, generally the bank should have relationship with the customer and they require various documents depending upon the constitution of the borrower.
4. That CC accounts can be opened only after due verification of the customer and if it is not done, then it is a serious irregularity.
5. That in case any credit facilities are to be extended to any person / firm holding any current account or any CC account they ask for the financial documents depending upon the constitution of the borrower.
6. That as a General Manager (Inspection & Control) his duties were to get the Branches of the Bank and Regional Offices of the Bank inspected, to find out if there is any irregularity which is to be rectified and to keep and observe CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 90 of 569 that the branches are functioning as per the norms and stipulation advised by the Bank to see that the functioning of the Bank is smooth and in order.
7. That if some client wants to avail credit facility from the Bank, the Incumbent Incharge of the branch has to see that the facility is as per the power given by the Bank and if it is beyond the power of the Branch, the proposal has to be sent to the Regional Office or Head Office in which the required powers are vested.
8. That for availing the credit facility, the firm has to submit documents as per the working of the firm regarding balance sheets, profit and loss and projections of the firm and this is as per the requirement of the Bank to see that the facility is required by the firm for productive purpose.
9. That bank permit Cash Credit Facility, term loan and advance against various securities like deposits, goods, shares and securities as per the established norms of the bank.
10. That sometime clean facility is also given by the Bank to respected and reputed customers.
11. That after getting the required documents of the firm regarding availing of the credit facility, the bank process the project on the basis of person, purpose, project, profit and how the repayment of the loan will be made by the customer.
12. That this process was done on the basis of the required papers submitted by the customers and if the proposal of the customer is within the power of Incumbent Incharge of the Branch, then he starts the process and takes the decision regarding approval of the proposal of the customer.
13. That if the proposal is beyond the power of the incumbent Incharge of the Branch, then Branch Manager will send it to the Regional Manager or to the Head Office as the case may be.
14. That in case if the proposal was within the power of Branch Manager, he will approve the same and disburse the facilities after which the CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 91 of 569 Branch Manager has to submit the information regarding the facilities given to the customer to the Regional Office or Head Office.
15. That if the proposal is beyond the limit of branch manager and sent to the Regional Office or Head office, then the regional Office or Head Office will scrutnize the proposal and sanction the facility accordingly.
16. That the Regional Office or Head office after sanctioning the proposal, will communicate to the concerned branch vide sanction order mentioning therein the terms and conditions of the sanction of the facility, otherwise it will inform the Branch that the proposal has been declined.
17. That after receiving the sanction order from Regional Office or Head office, the Branch manager after compliance of the terms and conditions as mentioned in the sanction order, by the customer and after taking the loan documents, the loan / facility is disbursed.
18. That Limit is a point up to which the facility is permitted or allowed to the customer.
19. That within the limit, the facility is to be provided to the customer and if the facility goes beyond the Limit then the account becomes irregular.
20. That Limit is mentioned in the sanction order and the Branch Manager ensures that the account of the customer shall remain within the sanctioned limit.
21. That when the facility is permitted to go beyond the Limit, it is overdrawing and generally the Branch Manager has no power to permit the overdrawing beyond the sanctioned limit.
22. That the Rules and Guidelines of the Bank of stipulated in the Book of Instruction and in the various Circulars issued by the bank from time to time.
23. That The Circular No. HO/Adv./28/9191/85 dated 01.07.1991 which is Ex.PW1/A (D337) is regarding the Revision and Discretionary Powers for loan and advance.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 92 of 569
24. That if the conditions of Ex.PW1/A are not complied with the credit facility provided amounts to be an irregularity and the said conditions can be revised by the Herd Office subject to prevailing circumstances.
25. That if the regular sanction limit expires, thereafter Regional Office has no authority to grant adhoc limit unless it is reviewed or permitted.
26. That if the party wants overdrawing then the party has to apply to the branch and then the Branch recommends the case to higher authority and overdrawing cannot be done by the branch without the sanction of the authority.
27. That as per the procedure, Inspector visits the branch for inspection every year and he has to see that nothing irregular exists in the Branch and in case of any irregularity, he has to submit the Inspection Report to the General Manager (Inspection).
28. That prior to giving the facility to the customer/ party/ firm, Officer from the branch i.e. Loan Officer or Branch Manager or they both inspect the unit and submit the report to the Branch Manager who prepares the loan proposal and submits the same to the Regional Office or Head Officer in whose power credit facility falls.
29. That the application for loan of the firm must be supported by Financial Reports of last three years, projections of the party, documents regarding need of the party and relevant papers regarding the facility being aspect for.
30. That the letter written to Deputy Manager, Regional Office, New Delhi by Senior Manage, Oriental Bank of Commerce, new Friends Colony, New Delhi regarding the case of M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. is Ex.PW9/1 (D4).
31. That another letter written to Deputy Manager, Regional Office, New Delhi by Senior Manage, Oriental Bank of Commerce, new Friends Colony, New Delhi regarding the case of M/s.
True Fab Pvt. Ltd. is Ex.PW9/1 (D4).
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 93 of 569
32. That he cannot identify the signatures at point A on Ex.PW9/9 (page 92 of D4) and on Ex.PW6/B (Page 93 of D4).
33. That he had worked as DGM from 1997 to 2000 in the Head Office of Oriental Bank of Commerce.
34. That the New Friends Colony Branch of Oriental Bank of Commerce was under the administrative control of regional office, New Delhi.
35. That he does not remember the powers of the Branch Manager and Regional Manager regarding the sanction of credit facilities in the year 199495.
36. That he also does not remember whether any DGM was posted in Regional office, New Delhi in the year 199495.
37. That he knew the accused S.K. Lakhina (accused correctly identified by the witness) who was perhaps posted as Regional Manager, New Delhi in the year 199495.
38. That he also knew the accused S.K. Pathrella (accused correctly identified by the witness) who was probably the Branch Manager at Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony, New Delhi during 199495.
39. That overdrawing in the account means exceeding the available credit balance but he does not remember the powers of branch Manager and Regional Office in respect of overdrawing facilities.
40. That the facility of overdrawing is generally given for a very short period i.e. one week approximately, unless it is sanctioned by the higher authorities.
41. That the date of validity is calculated from the date of overdrawing facility which is generally provided to the running account.
42. That the Health Code No.1 account is probably a good account.
43. That the allied sister concerns are those where the owner of the promoter or the partner is the same along with some other constituent.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 94 of 569
44. That the definition of the Sister Concern is defined in the Circular issued by the Head Office from time to time.
45. That the adhoc Limit Facility is granted to the customer in view of certain requirement arising out of business need at a point of time.
46. That if a credit facility has been sanctioned by Regional Office to any firm, then the Branch manager has no power to enhance or change the facility.
47. That if any change or enhancement is required, the Branch Manager shall goto the Regional office for change / amendment of the facility
48. That if the sanction period of credit facility provided to any firm has expired, then either the loan is recalled or further sanction is sought for and in case, sanction of credit facility has not been renewed, then the facility has to be recalled and the account is to be adjusted and no facility will be provided to the firm unless the facility is renewed.
49. That overdrawing of credit facility of the Bank officers is generally circulated by the Credit Administration during periodical intervals vide circulars.
50. That the letter Ex.PW6/B (Page 93 of D4) was written from Senior Manager of New Friends Colony, New Delhi, OBC branch to the Deputy General manager, Regional Office, New Delhi regarding the position of credit facility of M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd.
51. That the applicant has to furnish along with the loan application, financial papers like Balance Sheet, Profit & Loss Account, Trading Account, Projecting Figures etc. and these financial data are apprised at the Branch Level to ascertain the level of permissible finance which may be made to the applicant / borrower.
In his crossexamination by the Ld. Counsels for the accused, the witness has deposed as under:
That Ex.PW2/DA might have been circulated by his office to all the branches of the OBC CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 95 of 569 bank.
That the Chief Manager of the Branch can approach the DGM for enhancing the credit limit.
That it is the duty of the Loan Manager to prepare the document for enhancement proposal of the credit facility.
That the duty of the loan manager is to bring the financial status of the defaulter to the notice of the Incumbent Incharge and as per the manual, it is the Loan Manager who has to keep the safe custody of the documents in case of mortgage. However, the Manager as well as the Loan Manager are both responsible for the safe custody of the documents.
That in case of the loan facility, the debit voucher is first prepared by the Loan Manager and thereafter by the Senior Incumbent Officer of the branch only after which disbursement of the amount takes place.
That all the loan documents including the securities charged are maintained in the safe custody of the branch only.
That as per circular dated 01.07.1991 which is Ex.PW1/A (D337) containing the power chart, the discretion of the DGM was Rs. 1 Crore for a single entity and unlimited powers for bill purchases under LC.
That while working as the Head of the Inspection and Control Department at Head Office, no such reference has ever been made to him regarding any irregularity on the part of Accused No.3 S.K. Lakhina.
3. Smt. Rita Chhabra PW3 Smt. Rita Chhabra was an official of Oriental (PW3) Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony Branch, New Delhi and in his examination in chief she has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That she has worked in Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony branch w.e.f.
November 1986 to April 2003 and in the year 19951996 she was looking after the work of dispatch clerk.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 96 of 569
2. That as per the procedure a register was maintained for dispatch of dak in which she used to made entry by mentioning particular date, bill No., its destination etc.
3. That the entries w.e.f. Sr. No. 1505 to 1522 in the register D555 are in her hand which entries are Ex.PW3/1 to Ex.PW3/118.
4. That entry No. 1519 contains the fact that a bill had been dispatched to SBI Jaipur Cantt. Branch which bill was bearing No. TF82/95 to TF93/95 and also bear the entry regarding no. of register post.
5. That as per these entries the registered post was dispatched with dak stamp and the amount of dak stamp has been calculated for these dispatch as 185/ and the same has been authenticated by one of the office of the bank, namely Sh. Choudhary, who had initialed on Ex.PW3/A at point X to X.
6. That vide entry No. 2021 which is Ex.PW3/2, the bill no. BF/TF/1/95 of Rs.8,69,544/ was sent / dispatched to Vaisha Bank Ltd., Nariman Point, Mumbai.
7. That vide entry No. 1085 which is Ex.PW3/3, the bill no. SS/1/95 to SS/26/95 was sent / dispatched to SBI, Sindhi Colony Branch, Jaipur.
8. That vide entry No. 1302 which is Ex.PW3/4, the bill no. ST/60/95 was dispatched to Vijaya Bank Nariman Point Mumbai.
9. That vide entry No. 1773 which is Ex.PW3/5, the bills no. ST/19/95 and ST/64/95 were dispatched to Vaisha Bank Ltd., Nariman Point, Mumbai.
10. That vide entry No. 2152 which is Ex.PW3/6, the DD No. 5/95 of Rs.4,54,272/ was dispatched to Vaisha Bank Ltd., Nariman Point, Mumbai.
11. That although in this register dispatch was endorsed on 09.05.1995 but as per the entires of these register, all the dispatches were actually done on 15.05.1995.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 97 of 569 In her crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsels, the witness has deposed as under:
That she is not aware whether the branch where she was working, was of Extra Large Category.
She is not aware the category of their branch, however, it was head by Chief Manager. That the branch was having different sections like Loan Section & Advance Section, Bill Purchase Section, Recovery Section etc. She does not remember under which Manager she was working but the seal was inter changeable.
That she was handling centralized dispatch from the branch.
That she used to receive dak of bills from Bill Purchase Department and there was a box in which the entire dak of the branch was kept for dispatch.
That she did not issue any receipt with regard to receiving of dak from the concerned department.
That during her tenure she worked alone for dispatch.
That there was no person designated as Incharge of dispatch section, however, Mr. Choudhary used to inspect dispatch register at that relevant time.
4. Sh. Yoginder Kumar PW4 Yoginder Kumar Gupta was an Officer in New Gupta (PW4) Friends Colony branch of Oriental bank of Commerce and in his examination in chief he has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he was posted as an officer in New Friends Colony Branch of Oriental Bank of Commerce w.e.f. October 1994 to mid November 1995 and at that time Sh. Pathrella (accused correctly identified by the witness) was initially working as Branch Manager.
2. That he (witness) was assigned Loan Department, Document Section under Sh. D.P. Dhingra as Loan Manager.
3. That the Form No. LD26 which is a Counter Guarantee Form between Steel Samrat India CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 98 of 569 and the Bank which is Ex.PW4/A bearing the signatures of accused S.K. Pathrella at point A who had signed the same in token of agreeing into the agreement on behalf of the bank.
4. That in normal course when any officer signs on behalf of the bank, on an agreement like Ex.PW4/A, the other party has to sign the same at the same time.
5. That the said agreement bear the signatures of the party at point B to B.
6. That he does not remember the procedure of taking Counter Guarantee and also cannot tell as to what papers were obtained by the bank at the time of loaning to the party because he had not dealt with these papers.
7. That the document Ex.PW4/B bear the signatures of Sh. D.P. Dhingra at point A to A.
8. That he does not remember the procedure for furnishing bank guarantee as he had left the services of the bank in 2001.
9. That the Account Opening form which is Ex.PW4/C bear the signatures of S.K. Pathrella at point A in token of verification of introducer.
10. That the agreement regarding bill purchase / bill discounting (LD15) is Ex.PW4/D bearing the signatures of Sh. D.P. Dhingra at Point A.
11. That this agreement is between Kapil Khanna and the bank and also bears the signatures of Sh. D.P. Dhingra at point A on Ex.PW4/E.
12. That the agreement regarding LD15, Bill Purchase / Bill Discounting between M/s.
Suraksha Engineers and Steel Traders and OBC, New Friends Colony is Ex.PW4/F bearing the signatures of Sh. D.P. Dhingra at point A.
13. That the agreement of guarantee on Form LD 28 between OBC New friends Colony and Sunita for guarantor in the account of M/s. Suraksha Engineers & Steel Trades is Ex.PW4/G bearing the signatures of Sh. D.P. Dhingra at point A.
14. That the agreement (LD28) between Pradeep Anand and OBC for BP Limits of Rs.20 Lacs to CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 99 of 569 M/s. Sureksha Engineers & Steel Traders which is Ex.PW4/H bears the signatures of Sh. D.P. Dhingra at point A.
15. That LD9 dated 16.03.1995 is an CCOD agreement between M/s. Moon Light engineer and OBC which is Ex.PW4/I bearing the signatures of accused S.K. Pathrella at point A.
16. That LD15 dated 16.03.1995 is an agreement between M/s. Moon Light engineer and OBC regarding bill purchase which is Ex.PW4/J bearing the signatures of accused S.K. Pathrella at point A.
17. That LD28 dated 16.03.1995 is an agreement of Guarantee between Bimla Sehrawat and OBC, who stood guarantor for M/s. Moon Light Engineers, which is Ex.PW4/K bearing the signatures of accused S.K. Pathrella at point A.
18. That the transfer credit voucher dated 11.09.1995 for credit of Rs.29,30,422/ to the CA No. 2764 of M/s. Sureksha Engineers & Steel Traders on account bill purchased under LC from Sr. No. SE/1 to 9/95 is Ex.PW4/L which has authorized of S.K. Pathrella who has signed at point A, after which credit of the voucher amount to the account of M/s. Sureksha Engineers & Steel Traders.
19. That the agreements were executed after sanctioning of limit but before the releasing of limit amount as per procedure.
In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsels, the witness has deposed as under:
That Sh. D.P. Dhingra was the Manager / Incharge of Loan Department / documentation. That all the agreements referred by him in his examination in chief were not executed in his presence.
5. Sh. C.R. Sharma PW5 Sh. C.R. Sharma is the Manager of Oriental (PW5) Bank of Commerce who in his examination in chief has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he joined Oriental Bank of Commerce on 12.01.1978 as Manager and continued with the CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 100 of 569 bank till May 2000 when he was appointed as Executive Director in Andhra Bank in May 2000.
2. That Sh. S.K. Pathrela was posted as Manager Incharge of New Friends Colony but he does not remember the period.
3. That Sh. S.K. Lakhina was DGM Incharge of Delhi region and the New Friends Colony branch was under the control of Delhi RO.
4. That the powers of Chief Branch Manager is Rs.30 lacs including Sh. S.K. Pathrela for sanctioning of loan to individual and as group.
5. That the powers of Chief Branch Manager including Sh. S.K. Pathrela for sanctioning of loan to individual and as group, is Rs.30 lacs.
6. That any amount above the discretionary power vested in the branch, the Branch Manager has to refer the same to the next higher level i.e. Regional Office Delhi in the present case.
7. That a bank drat or government cheques purchase / discount of bills under LC beyond Rs.30 lacs were permitted to be allowed by the branch as per procedure laid down in the head office circular.
8. That to his knowledge the power of the then DGM was Rs. One Crore to individual party as well as a group of parties.
9. That the accused Sh. S.K. Lakhina was the DGM at that time who was vested with power of sanctioning advances under different heads to a party / allied sister concern group was upto Rs. One Crore.
10. That for any amount exceeding power of DGM, the matter was to be referred to next higher level authority i.e. Head Office in the present case.
11. That in case of any urgent circumstances facilities over and above the limit may be granted by DGM and his action need to be ratified by the next higher authority i.e. HO and ratification of his action was mandatory.
12. That the DGM was also authorized to allow upto 10% of the limits for a temporary period CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 101 of 569 of 90 days.
13. That there was a system in the bank that in case of any urgent circumstances, if facilities were to be allowed over and above the limits or even without any limits by way of telephonic sanction a register at the place from where the sanction is granted, was maintained keeping the detail of sanction and subsequently it was required to be regularized.
14. That regarding the telephonic permission from the competent authority at the regional office or at head office of the bank, whenever any verbal sanction is accorded / sought the branch allowing the facility on the basis of the verbal sanction shall obtain the ratification of his / her action for that purpose proper record is maintained both at the permitting authority as well as the branch where the advance is permitted and loan is disbursed after complying with the documentation requirement.
15. That there was a requirement to maintain a register at the office from where such verbal sanctions are accorded.
16. That this was as per the procedure laid down in the guidelines by way of various circulars issued by the head office time to time.
With the permission of the Court, leading questions were put to the witness, wherein he has deposed as under:
1. That he cannot tell without seeing the office memorandum dated 19.3.1996 as to whether it was issued by CMD and signed by him by way of which a committee was formed to look into the irregularity committed in the New Friends Colony Branch but he can say that there were investigations into the irregularities committed in the NFC branch though he is not sure if he was a member of the said committee or not.
In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsels That when the bill is returned unpaid, the further facilities are not required to be CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 102 of 569 permitted by the branch manager to the customer in order to safeguard the interest of the bank.
That in this regard an intimation is required to be given to the concerned party and there is no requirement to maintain a register of correspondence in this regard but a copy of the letter by which the party is intimated is retained on the file.
That after sanctioning of the loan, before disbursement the loan document required as per the procedures, sanction are to be completed in all respect.
That it may be LD28 Proforma prescribed in the book of the bank but he does not remember. That he does not remember about the details of the accounts pertaining to NFC branch of OBC which were the subject matter of inquiry / investigations.
That the documents pertaining to the sanction were obtained at the branch where original documents are held and a confirmation is sent to the sanctioning authority known as Branch Compliance Certificate (BCC).
That as per the procedure, Branch is the controller of all the loans and advances and required to maintain all documentation. That the loan proposals used to originate from the branch after the branch incumbent was satisfied with regard to credentials of the parties including KYC (know your customer) requirements.
That once the branch incumbent is aware of the fact that the account operation is not satisfactory, no further facilities, accommodation be permitted unless approval from the next higher authority is obtained. That there was a procedure that the regional head may extend the validity of existing sanction for a further period of days as per the policy.
That such validity is extended after the permission is sought from the branch incumbent.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 103 of 569 That the bills purchased under letter of credit established by other bank, the branch incumbent as well regional head has specific power to allow such facility over and above the sanction limits.
That as per the delegated authorities the regional head was permitted to allow credit facilities in genuine cases upto certain percentage or a limited period of time. That in the head office he himself was maintaining a register with regard to verbal sanction but he is not aware of the practice at the regional offices.
That whenever any authority permitting any verbal sanction, a ratification of action is required to be confirmed.
That as per the policy of the bank, a sister and allied concern are well defined.
That in case there are no common partners or guarantor, such entities are not treated as allied concerns.
6. Sh. O.P. Mahajan PW6 Sh. O.P. Mahajan was the then GM (Personnel) (PW6) in Oriental Bank of Commerce who has deposed about the banking procedures and has proved the various letters / communications of the bank which are Ex.PW9/1 (Page1 of D4), Ex.PW9/2 (Page 8 & 9 of D4), Ex.PW9/4 (Page 24 & 25 of D4), Ex.PW9/5 (D4), Ex.PW6/A (Page 59 & 60 of D4), Ex.PW9/6 (Page 63 to 66 of D4), Ex.PW9/7 (Page 68 of D4), Ex.PW9/8 (Page 84 & 85 of D4), Ex.PW9/9 (Page 92 of D4), Ex.PW6/B (Page 93 of D4), Ex.PW6/C (Page 97 of D4), Ex.PW6/D (Page 103 & 104 of D
4), Ex.PW9/217 (Page 105 of D4), Ex.PW9/12 (Page 169 & 170 of D4), Ex.PW9/13 (page no. 179 & 180 of D4), Ex.PW9/15 (Page 187 of D4), Ex.PW9/17 (Page 195 of D4), Ex.PW9/18 (Page 199 of D4), Ex.PW9/19 (Page 200 of D4), Ex.PW9/20 (Page 240 & 241 of D4), Ex.PW6/E (Page 121 to 124 of D4) and Ex.PW6/F (Page 123 of D4).
In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsels, the witness has deposed as under:
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 104 of 569 That he had personally not dealt with the account of M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. but he was a part of the internal investigation carried out by the bank relating to this account and they had found that there were unauthorized accommodations given to the party by the Branch Manager.
That New Friends colony Branch was a big branch under concurrent audit and there were different sections in the branch which were headed by Bank Officers / managers.
That there is a duty sheet prepared by the Chief Manager and all officers were under the supervision of the Chief Manager.
That he did not check the duty sheets of different sections / officers for the period from 1990 to 1995.
That every officer who is an Incharge of a Section, he has to perform the duties as per the various guidelines issued by the Bank and in accordance with the Bank's Manual of Instructions.
That normally the loan documents including securities relating to the loan are under the custody of Manager (Loans) and disbursement of loans is permitted by the Branch Manager, he could be the Chief Manager or Sr. manager within the sanctioned limit and the drawing power.
That the securities i.e. title deeds etc. are kept in the vault of the bank and the other documents like pronotes are kept in an almirah which usually remains in the cabin of the Branch manager.
That the loan documents are generally kept in the file cabinets and the keys of the vaults, almirah or the file cabinet could be with the Loan Manager or the Branch Incumbent could keep the keys of the same.
That he does not remember personally scrutinizing the documents of M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. and it was a team which was investigating the entire issue relating to the said account.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 105 of 569 That he is not aware as to when the account of M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. was opened with the bank.
That the dispatches were made from the Branch by post.
That he cannot identify the initials appearing on the letter Ex.PW9/74 but this appear to be a letter to the Regional office written in reply to the letter at page no. 195 Ex.PW9/17 dated 26.04.1995.
That reading of the above letter would show that the Regional Office had raised some objection as to the discounting of cheque. That the letter Ex.PW9/DX7 (page 201 of D
4) seems to be a reply to the letter Ex.PW9/19 wherein some objections have been raised by the Regional Office with regard to the discounting of cheque.
That he cannot identify the initials appearing on the letter Mark P9/M2 but it appears to be a letter to the Regional Office in continuation of its earlier reply Ex.PW9/19.
That he cannot identify the initials appearing on the letter Ex.PW9/X11 but it appears to be a reply to the letter Ex.PW9/2.
That he cannot identify the initials appearing on the letter dated 14.10.1993 (Page 26 of D4) Mark P6/1 but it appears to be a letter from Regional Office in response to the letter of the branch Ex.PW9/4.
That he cannot identify the initials appearing on the letter dated 16.11.1993 but it appears to be a letter from Regional Office in response to the letters of the branch at page No. 58 Ex.PW9/5, at page no. 60 Ex.PW6/A, at page no. 62 Ex.PW9/11 and at page no. 66 Ex.PW9/6.
That he cannot identify the initials appearing on the letter dated 11.03.1994 Mark P6/2 but the same appears to be a letter from Regional Office in response to the letter of the branch Ex.PW9/8.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 106 of 569 That he cannot identify the initials appearing on the letter Ex.PW9/DX5 (page no. 182 of D
4) but it seems to be a reply to the letter Ex.PW9/13.
That he cannot identify the initials appearing on the letter Ex.PW9/DX6 (page no.188 of D
4) but it seems to be a reply to the letter Ex.PW9/15.
That he cannot identify the initials appearing on the letter Mark P6/3 but it appears to be a reply to the letter Ex.PW6/F. That once the account is irregular and is marked for regularization or adjustment the branch manager should endeavor to regularize the account by restricting further withdrawals. That with regard to the recommendation of enhancement, depending upon the situation and the improvement if any, in the account recommendation for review of sanction and enhancement can be made and the appropriate sanctioning authority can decide the matter on merits.
That the alleged verbal sanction needs to be confirmed or denied in writing by the sanctioning authority and when it is not confirmed or denied in writing, it is not a sanction.
That depending upon the nature of loan and advances to be sanctioned, a party is required to submit financial statement of the party, income tax assessment order or returns, documents pertaining to the securities offered are required to be submitted by the borrower along with the bank prescribed loan application form.
That at the time of the release, no documents are required to be submitted but certain agreements are required to be signed by the party.
That the document part of D6 which is Ex.PW9/256 is a supplemental agreement for availing the cash credit limit which is signed by the party and it is a prescribed document of the bak which the party is required to execute.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 107 of 569 That the document Ex.PW9/281 (D7) is an agreement of guarantee dated 12.03.1995 signed between Pradeep Anand and the bank. That if the party has executed all the relevant documents, the bank is required to release the loan or advance to the party.
That he has identified the signatures of the author of the various documents but in so far as the contents of the documents, their authenticity and verification is concerned, the same can only be done by the author of the document.
That he does not recollect if Sh. S.K. Pathrela had worked directly under him at any point of time.
7. Sh. J.S. Sachdeva PW7 Sh. J.S. Sachdeva was the Chief Manager at (PW7) Regional Office, Oriental Bank of Commerce and has proved the various letters / communications.
He has identified his own handwriting as well as the handwritings/ signatures of S.K. Pathrella (A1) and S.K. Lakhina (A3) on the various documents including the letters and notings. He has proved the said documents which are Ex.PW8/C (page no. 106110 of D4), Ex.PW6/B (page no. 93 in D4), Ex.PW6/E (Page no. 121 in D4), Ex.PW7/A (page no. 111 in D
4), Ex.PW6/F (page no. 123 in D4), Ex.PW41/M (page no. 191 in D4), Ex.PW9/12 (page no. 169170 in D4), Ex.PW9/12, Ex.PW9/13 (page no. 179180 in D4), Ex.PW9/14 (page no. 184185 in D4), Ex.PW9/15 (page no. 187 of D4), Ex.PW9/DX6 (page No. 188 of D4), Ex.PW9/16 (page no. 189 in D4), Ex.PW9/75 (page no. 194 in D4), Ex.PW9/17 (page no. 195 in D4), Ex.PW9/74 (page no.196 in D
4), Ex.PW9/18 (page no. 199 in D4), Ex.PW9/19 (page no. 200 in D4), Ex.PW9/M2 (page no.202 in D4), Ex.PW7/B, Ex.PW9/20 (page no. 240241 in D
4), Ex.PW9/221 (page no.139 & 140 in D559), Ex.PW9/223 (page no.37 in no. D560), Ex.PW9/224 (page no. 41 in D560), Ex.PW7/C (page no. 281 to 283 in D4), Mark PW7/1 (page no. 284 and 285 in D
4), Ex.PW9/214 (page no. 286 to 288 in D4), CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 108 of 569 Ex.PW9/208 (D127 in D5), Ex.PW7/D (D128 in file D5), Ex.PW9/159 (D316 in File D6), Ex.PW9/16 (Page No. 189 of D4), Ex.PW9/160 (D317), Ex.PW7/E (D319), Ex.PW7/F (D320), Ex.PW7/G (page no.113 of D3), Ex.PW9/158 (page 112 of D
558), Ex.PW9/16 (page 189 of D4) and Ex.PW41/N (page 203 of D4).
In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsels, the witness has deposed as under:
That he had worked in the regional office of OBC Bank from 1989 till date of his superannuation i.e. 28.02.1999.
That he was looking after the Loan Sections of the different branches who were under the regional office.
That he was dealing with the correspondence regarding sanction of loan, bill discounting purchases of cheques, hundies etc. That the branches used to send the loan status report in prescribed performa to his regional office.
That the branch office used to take the permission for purchasing of bills/ purchasing of cheques and giving over draft to the parties on telephone from the regional head and later on used to send the letters of their telephone conversation to the regional office as a conformation in this regard.
That for the purpose of renewal of sanction of loan was pending with the regional office i.e. M/s True Feb Pvt. Ltd.
That the regional officer was competent within prescribed limits/ authorization by the head office to grant sanction with regard to the loans of the different parties to the branch office and also for over drafting and discounting of bills etc. That the regional office who had to take the decision regarding taking of legal action against the parties for non realization / discounting of bills.
That he had visited True Feb Pvt Ltd. and at the time of his visit at the factory, he had not CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 109 of 569 noticed anything wrong and it was running properly and was having sufficient stock. That the agreement is executed between the party and the bank after the sanction is accorded by the regional office in favour of the party.
That the agreement of guarantee is executed in the branch between the guarantor and the bank at the branch level.
That the agreement of guarantee is executed prior to the release of the funds / all working capitals by the branch.
That the proposals from the branch for grant / sanction of limit etc were processed by various officers at regional office of the bank. That this procedure was followed in all the accounts of the various parties as referred in his deposition.
That day to day transactions relating to loan accounts were monitored at the branch level by the branch manager and it was for the branch to ensure genuineness of the client and their business transactions.
That it was for the branch to control regularization of the accounts and not to allow withdrawals if the account was irregular and not to recommend further enhancement in the matter of accounts deposed by him.
That the entire Dak received at the regional office was marked to the respective department under his initials on the face of the letter for disposal by the concerned officials. That no sanction was granted in response to the letter dated 26.04.1995 which is Ex.PW9/17 (D195) but queries were raised by the regional office.
That the letter dated 26.05.12995 Ex.PW9/DX 7 has been issued under the signature of Sh. S. K. Lakhina (A3) at point A. That no sanction was granted in reference to letter dated 04.07.1995 Ex.PW7/B (D202). That no sanction was granted to the branch as per letter dated 11.09.1995 Ex.PW7/E and letter dated 14.10.1995 Ex.PW7/F. CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 110 of 569 That his deposition in chief is merely based on the documents shown to him by the prosecution.
8. Smt. Akhila Sinha PW8 Smt. Akhila Sinha was the AGM of Oriental (PW8) Bank of Commerce who in her examination in chief has deposed as under:
1. That she is posted as AGM, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Regional Office, Ghaziabad and during the period 1987 to 1994, she was posted as Officer in Scale II & III in the Regional Office, New Delhi and was looking after the loans department along with others.
2. That Sh. K.C. Mehra was posted as Chief Manager in the Regional Office at New Delhi and Sh. V.K. Malhotra was also posted in the Regional Office for a short period of time.
3. That Sh. S.C. Gupta was the Regional Head, New Delhi during the period from 1989 to 1981; Sh. J.S. Sachdeva was posted as Assistant Regional Manager in the Regional Office at New Delhi and Sh. S.K. Lakhina was posted as DGM in the Regional office and was the Regional Head.
4. That the New Friends Colony Branch of Oriental bank of Commerce comes under the Regional Office, New Delhi.
5. That the loan proposal is complied at the branch level on the basis of loan application / request received from the borrower after which it is sent to the Regional office or the Head Office depending upon the power of Branch manager.
6. That the proposal is scrutinized at the Regional Office or at the Head Office and after according the sanction the same is conveyed to the branch for disbursement of the loan.
7. That Cash Credit Limit is permitted as one of the working capital requirements and availing of this limit at the branch level is permitted strictly in adherence to drawing power of the borrower and is monitored by the branch.
8. That the borrower has to submit a stock statement to the branch every month depending upon periodicity mentioned according to the CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 111 of 569 limits and availment is permitted against paid stocks and taking out the margin contribution of the borrower as per sanction.
9. That availment of CC Limit is permitted by debiting cheques, pay orders etc. however it is not permitted in cash except in case of petty cash for paying salary, minor bills etc.
10. That the cheques etc. which are issued from CC account are for the procurement of raw material and allied materials for manufacturing purposes and not for any other use and it is the duty of the branch / Loans Officer to ensure that these requirements are duly complied with.
11. That the Drawing Power (DP) of borrower is fixed in an account by submissions of the stock statement every month against raw material, stock in process and finished goods after deducting the borrower's margin contribution.
12. That the Head Office Sanction dated 14.09.1990 which is Ex.PW8/A signed by Sh.
Vikram Kochar, Chief Manager (SSI) was directly sent to New Friends Colony, New Delhi thereby sanctioning the limits in favour of M/s. True Fabs Pvt. Ltd. as under:
1. CC (Hypothecation) limit of Rs.12 lacs with borrower's margin 25% against hypothecation of stock of raw material, stock in process, finished goods and sotres and spares.
2. Documentary Demand Bills Limit of Rs. 7 lacs sanctioned against security of Documentary Demand Bills with RRs (Railway Receipts)/ TRs (Transport Receipts) of approved transport companies covering consignment of goods manufactured by the unit.
3. Term Loan of Rs.22 lacs with an outstanding of Rs.17.72 lacs to be continued on existing terms and conditions.
4. UBD (Usance Bills Discounted) to Rs. 2 lacs against a security of Documentary Usance Bills with a maximum usance period of 60 days accompanied with RRs/ CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 112 of 569 TRs of approved transport companies covering consignment of goods manufactured by the borrower.
13. That all the above securities are primary securities in the account.
14. That the recommendations in respect of the above sanction were prepared by her on the basis of the proposal sent by New Friends Colony Branch, which are Ex.PW8/B.
15. That the terms and conditions of the above sanctioned limits are mentioned in the sanction letter Ex.PW8/A.
16. That these limits were sanctioned for a period of one year and the proposal for the renewal of these limits was not received for the years 1991 and 1992.
17. That vide Sanction Letter Ex.PW8/C bearing her signatures at point A, the sanction of following limits in favour of M/s. True Fab Pvt.
Ltd. was conveyed to the New Friends Colony branch:
1. CC Limit of Rs. 20 Lacs.
2. DDB of Rs. 15 Lacs.
3. LC of Rs. 15 Lacs.
4. Bank Guarantee of Rs. 6 Lacs.
18. That these limits were sanctioned by the then DGM Sh. S.K. Lakhina for a period of one year.
19. That the branch manager could accommodate a party temporarily as specified in the discretionary chart permitted by the Head Office.
20. That he does not remember as to what was provided in the discretionary chart but it could be 5 to 10% of the sanctioned limits subject to a maximum amount of availment as specified in the discretionary power chart.
21. That normally the temporary period for which such a discretion can be exercised is one month, however it keeps changing from time to time.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 113 of 569
22. That the realization of dues is the responsibility of the Branch Manager and the officials at the branch level shall ensure that the facilities are permitted only against genuine trade transactions.
In her crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsels, the witness has deposed as under:
That the sanction is permitted for a period of one year and may be reviewed for a maximum period of six months after which it depends whether permissions for availament have been permitted by the competent authority or not. That declaring the account as NPA depends on various factions and the Branch manager can declare an account as NPA if warranted, informing the Competent Authority in a case where the loan has been sanctioned by the HO/ RO.
That she is not aware if this account was being monitored by HO and RO both in the year 1991.
That she is not aware if during the period April 1990 to September 1993 the account was highly irregular and overdrawn.
That the sanctions of the Regional Office are based on the recommendations of the Branch manager who scrutinizes the account. That availment is permitted on the basis of primary securities and collateral securities in the account.
That it is the responsibility of the Branch to keep intact the securities attached to the account and the branch should adhere to the terms and conditions of the sanction. That it is the primary responsibility of the Branch Manager to control the day to day transactions and regularize the account.
9. Sh. R. Rajamohan PW9 Sh. R. Rajamohan was the Branch Manager of (PW9) Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony, New Delhi who in his examination in chief has proved the various documents including the letters / communications, cheques, payinslips, Bills of Exchange, invoices. The said documents are CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 114 of 569 Ex.PW9/1, Ex.PW9/2, Ex.PW9/3, Ex.PW9/4, Ex.PW9/5, Ex.PW9/6, Ex.PW9/7, Ex.PW9/8, Ex.PW9/9, Ex.PW9/10, Ex.PW9/11, Ex.PW9/12 (D 4, page 170), Ex.PW9/13 (D4, page 180), Ex.PW9/14 (D4, pages 184 & 185), Ex.PW9/15 (D4, page 187), Ex.PW9/16 (D4, page 189), Ex.PW9/17 (D4, page
195), Ex.PW9/18 (D4, page 199), Ex.PW9/19 (D4, page 200), Ex.PW9/20 (D4, pages 240 & 241), Ex.PW9/21 (D359), Ex.PW9/22 (D348), Ex.PW9/23, Ex.PW9/24, Ex.PW9/25, Ex.PW9/26, Ex.PW9/27, Ex.PW9/28, Ex.PW9/29, Ex.PW9/30, Ex.PW9/31, Ex.PW9/32, Ex.PW9/33, Ex.PW9/34, Ex.PW9/35, Ex.PW9/36, Ex.PW9/37, Ex.PW9/38 (D103), Ex.PW9/39, Ex.PW9/40, Ex.PW9/41, Ex.PW9/42, Ex.PW9/43, Ex.PW9/44, Ex.PW9/45, Ex.PW9/46, ExPW7/47, Ex.PW9/48, Ex.PW9/49, Ex.PW9/50, Ex.PW9/51, Ex.PW9/52, Ex.PW9/53, Ex.PW9/54, Ex.PW9/55, Ex.PW9/56, Ex.PW9/57, Ex.PW9/58, Ex.PW9/59, Ex.PW9/60, Ex.PW9/61, Ex.PW9/62, Ex.PW9/63, Ex.PW9/64, Ex.PW9/65, Ex.PW9/66, Ex.PW9/67, Ex.PW9/68, Ex.PW9/69, Ex.PW9/70, Ex.PW9/71, Ex.PW9/72, Ex.PW9/73, Ex.PW9/74 (D 4, page 196), Ex.PW9/75 (D4, page 194), Ex.PW9/76 (D4, page 193), Ex.PW9/77 (D28), Ex.PW9/78 (D
29), Ex.PW9/79 (D30), Ex.PW9/80 (D31), Ex.PW9/81 (D32), Ex.PW9/82 (D34), Ex.PW9/83 (D35), Ex.PW9/83A, Ex.PW9/84 (D35), Ex.PW9/84A, Ex.PW9/85 (D35), Ex.PW9/85A, Ex.PW9/86 (D35), Ex.PW9/86A, Ex.PW9/87 (D
35), Ex.PW9/87A, Ex.PW9/88 (D35), Ex.PW9/88A, Ex.PW9/89 (D35), Ex.PW9/89A, Ex.PW9/89B, Ex.PW9/90 (D35), Ex.PW9/90A, Ex.PW9/90B, Ex.PW9/91 (D35), Ex.PW9/91A, Ex.PW9/91B, Ex.PW9/92 (D35), Ex.PW9/92A, Ex.PW9/93 (D
35), Ex.PW9/93A, Ex.PW9/94 (D35), Ex.PW9/94A, Ex.PW9/95 (D35), Ex.PW9/95A, Ex.PW9/96 (D
35), Ex.PW9/96A, Ex.PW9/97 (D35), Ex.PW9/97 A, Ex.PW9/98 (D35), Ex.PW9/98A, Ex.PW9/99 (D35), Ex.PW9/99A, Ex.PW9/100 (D35), Ex.PW9/100A, Ex.PW9/101 (D35), Ex.PW9/101A, Ex.PW9/102 (D35), Ex.PW9/102A, Ex.PW9/103 CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 115 of 569 (D35), Ex.PW9/103A, Ex.PW9/104 (D35), Ex.PW9/104A. He has also proved the documents Ex.PW9/105 (D35), Ex.PW9/105A, Ex.PW9/106 (D35), Ex.PW9/106A, Ex.PW9/107 (D35), Ex.PW9/107A, Ex.PW9/108 (D36), Ex.PW9/108A, Ex.PW9/109 (D37), Ex.PW9/109A, Ex.PW9/110 (D38), Ex.PW9/110A, Ex.PW9/111 (D50), Ex.PW9/111A, Ex.PW9/112 (D52), Ex.PW9/112A, Ex.PW9/113 (D54), Ex.PW9/113A, Ex.PW9/114 (D56), Ex.PW9/115 (D57), Ex.PW9/116 (D58), Ex.PW9/115A, Ex.PW9/115B, Ex.PW9/115C, Ex.PW9/115D, Ex.PW9/115E, Ex.PW9/115F, Ex.PW9/115G, Ex.PW9/115H, Ex.PW9/115I, Ex.PW9/115J, Ex.PW9/115K, Ex.PW9/115L, Ex.PW9/116 (D63), Ex.PW9/116A, Ex.PW9/116B, Ex.PW9/117 (D66), Ex.PW9/117A, Ex.PW8/118 (D66), Ex.PW9/118A, Ex.PW9/119 (D66), Ex.PW9/119A, Ex.PW9/120 (D66), Ex.PW9/121 (D67), Ex.PW9/122 (D68), Ex.PW9/123 (D69), Ex.PW9/123A, Ex.PW9/123B, Ex.PW9/124 (D72), Ex.PW9/125 (D76), Ex.PW9/125A, Ex.PW9/125B, Ex.PW9/126 (D80), Ex.PW9/126A, Ex.PW9/127 (D81), Ex.PW9/127A, Ex.PW9/127B, Ex.PW9/128 (D84), Ex.PW9/129 (D85), Ex.PW9/130, Ex.PW9/130A, Ex.PW9/130B, Ex.PW9/130C, Ex.PW9/130D, Ex.PW9/130E, Ex.PW9/130F, Ex.PW9/130G, Ex.PW9/130H, Ex.PW9/130I, Ex.PW9/131 (D93), Ex.PW9/132 (D132), Ex.PW9/132A, Ex.PW9/133 (D134), Ex.PW9/133A, Ex.PW134 (D137), Ex.PW9/134A, Ex.PW9/135 (D139), Ex.PW9/135A, Ex.PW9/136 (D140), Ex.PW1/37 (D142), Ex.PW9/137A, Ex.PW9/138 (D143), Ex.PW9/139 (D144), Ex.PW9/140 (D145), Ex.PW9/140A, Ex.PW9/141 (D147), Ex.PW9/141A, Ex.PW9/141B, Ex.PW9/142, Ex.PW9/142A, Ex.PW9/142B, Ex.PW9/142C, Ex.PW9/142D, Ex.PW9/142E, Ex.PW9/142F, Ex.PW9/142G, Ex.PW9/142H, Ex.PW9/142I, Ex.PW9/142J, Ex.PW9/143 (D153), Ex.PW9/144 (D154), Ex.PW9/145 (D155), Ex.PW146 CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 116 of 569 (D156), Ex.PW9/146A, Ex.PW9/147 (D157), Ex.PW9/147A, Ex.PW9/148 (D158), Ex.PW9/149 (D162), Ex.PW9/149A, Ex.PW9/150 (D174), Ex.PW9/151 (D175), Ex.PW9/152 (D180), Ex.PW9/153, Ex.PW9/153A, Ex.PW9/153B, Ex.PW9/153C, Ex.PW9/153D, Ex.PW9/153E, Ex.PW9/153F, Ex.PW9/154 (D185), Ex.PW9/154/ A, Ex.PW9/155 (D488), Ex.PW9/156 (D378), Ex.PW9/157 (D380), Ex.PW9/158 (D558 at page no.112), Ex.PW9/159 (D316), Ex.PW9/160 (D317), Ex.PW9/161 (D318), Ex.PW9/162 (D332), Ex.PW9/163 (D421), Ex.PW9/164 (D422), Ex.PW9/165A to Ex.PW9/165W (D423 to D445), Ex.PW1/166 (D190), Ex.PW9/167 (D192), Ex.PW9/168 (D193), Ex.PW9/169 (D197), Ex.PW9/170 (D212), Ex.PW9/171 (D213), Ex.PW9/172 (D214), Ex.PW9/173 (D218), Ex.PW9/174 (D219), Ex.PW9/175 (D220), Ex.PW9/176 (D221), Ex.PW9/177 (D222), Ex.PW9/178 (D224), Ex.PW9/179 (D225), Ex.PW9/180 (D226), Ex.PW9/181 (D228), Ex.PW9/182 (D230), Ex.PW9/183, Ex.PW9/184 (D234), Ex.PW9/185 (D236), Ex.PW9/186 (D240), Ex.PW9/187 (D240), Mark PW9/M1 (D241), Ex.PW9/188 (D242), Ex.PW9/189 (D243), Ex.PW9/190 (D246), Ex.PW9/191 (D247), Ex.PW9/192 (D256), Ex.PW9/193 (D260), Ex.PW9/194 (D261), Mark PW9/M2 (D262), Ex.PW9/195 (D265), Ex.PW9/196 (D268), Ex.PW9/197 (D269), Mark PW9/M5, Ex.PW9/198 (D271), Mark PW9/M6 (D272), Ex.PW9/199 (D273) and Ex.PW9/200 (D309).
The witness has further proved the documents Ex.PW9/201 (D310), Ex.PW9/202 (D321), Ex.PW9/203 (D321), Ex.PW9/204 (D321), Ex.PW9/205 (D321), Ex.PW9/204A, Ex.PW9/205A, Ex.PW9/203A (D321), Ex.PW9/206 (D326), Ex.PW9/207 (D327), Ex.PW9/208 (D127), Ex.PW9/209/A1 to A4 (D170 to D173), Ex.PW9/210/A1 to A4 (D176 to D179), Ex.PW9/211 CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 117 of 569 (D393), Ex.PW9/212 (D395), Ex.PW9/213 (D398), Ex.PW9/214 (D4), Ex.PW9/215 (D4, pages 272 &
273), Ex.PW9/216 (D4 page 246), Ex.PW9/217 (D4 page 105), Ex.PW9/218 (D559, page 205), Ex.PW9/219 (D559 page 153), Ex.PW9/220 (D559 page 141), Ex.PW9/221 (D559 page 140), Ex.PW9/222 (D560, page 276), Ex.PW9/223 (D560, page 276), Ex.PW9/224 (D560, page 41), Ex.PW9/225A (D205), Ex.PW9/225B, Ex.PW9/226/A1 to Ex.PW9/226/A6, Ex.PW9/227 A1, Ex.PW9/227A2 (D302), Ex.PW9/227A3 (D
303), Ex.PW9/228A1 to A5 (D304 to D308), Mark P9/Z1 (D319), Ex.PW9/229 (D323 page no.223), Ex.PW9/230 (D323, page no.225), Ex.PW9/231 (D323 page no.227), Ex.PW9/232 (part of D327), Ex.PW9/233, Ex.PW9/234 (part of D328), Ex.PW9/235 (D328), Ex.PW9/236 (D328), Ex.PW9/237 (D328), Ex.PW9/238 (D335), Ex.PW9/239 (D336), Ex.PW9/240 (D337), Ex.PW9/241 (D347), Ex.PW9/242 (D347), Ex.PW9/243, Ex.PW9/244, Ex.PW9/245 (D1), Ex.PW9/246 (Part of D1), Ex.PW9/247 (part of D1), Ex.PW9/248 (D2), Ex.PW9/249 (D6), Ex.PW9/250 to Ex.PW9/279 (all part of D6), Ex.PW9/280 to Ex.PW9/288 ( all part of D7), Ex.PW9/289 (D14), Ex.PW9/290 (part of D14), Ex.PW9/291 (D15), Ex.PW9/292, Ex.PW9/293 (D18), Ex.PW9/294 (D19), Ex.PW9/295 (D22), Ex.PW9/296 (D23), Ex.PW9/297, Ex.PW9/298, Ex.PW9/299 (D488), Ex.PW9/300 (part of D488), Ex.PW9/301 (D505), Ex.PW9/302 (D539), Ex.PW9/303 (part of D539), Ex.PW9/304 (D540), Ex.PW9/305 (D540), Ex.PW9/306 (D560, pages 66 to 68), Ex.PW9/307 (D560 pages 69 to 70), Ex.PW9/308, Ex.PW9/309 (D560, pages 81 to 83), Ex.PW9/310 (D560, page 84), Ex.PW9/311 (D560 pages 85 and 86), Ex.PW9/312 (D560 pages 93 to 95), Ex.PW9/313 (D560 page 96), Ex.PW9/314 (D560 pages 97 to 98), Ex.PW9/315 (D560 page 110), Ex.PW9/316 (D560 pages 111 to
113) and Ex.PW9/317 (D560, pages 114 and 115), CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 118 of 569 In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsels, the witness has deposed on the following aspects:
That he retired from service in September, 2009 as Dy. General Manager.
That M/s. True Fabs Pvt. Ltd. had also taken term loans which had been repaid.
That after the said loans had been repaid the security value with the bank had increased. That the main loan in the case of M/s True Fabs Pvt. Ltd. was the working capital limits which included the cash credit limit and also bills limit and LC limit.
That the purpose of giving cash credit limit to M/s. True Fabs Pvt. Ltd. was to carry out day to day working of the unit.
That the sanction of the loan and credit facilities were conveyed to M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. by the Branch only and all the security documents had been obtained by the Branch only from the borrower which are the functions of the Branch and as such they are transacted only in the Branch.
That as per the sanction letter Ex.PW8/A (D3) the rate of interest was 5.50% above the bank rate or 15.50% per annum with quarterly rests meaning thereby the bank rate was 10% i.e. 10 + 5.50 = 15.50% and in case of irregularity the bank was entitled to charge 2% additional interest.
That as per the documents Ex.PW9/2, Ex.PW9/3, Ex.PW9/4 and Ex.PW9/5, the account of M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. had exceeded the limit because of negotiation of bills drawn under LC issued by the Branch and LC being the commitment on the part of the bank these bills had to be debited to the account on negotiations irrespective of whether there is balance or no balance in the account. That on the account becoming over drawn the penal interest of 2% would have been levied on the over drawn portion and as per the system in vogue in the Branch working this penal interest would have been automatically levied but this cannot be quantified from these documents.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 119 of 569 That the borrower is bound by the Rules of the bank once he becomes the borrower and he must follow the rules of the banking industry where when the LC facility is granted, accepted and signed the documents, it is the duty of the borrower to make the funds available in the account to debit the bills and in the absence of the balance the bank is fully authorised to debit his account and send the proceeds to the LC discounting bank.
That when the bill is debited in the absence of balance in the account, it is called Development of LC and the borrower is bound to regularise the account and as such no specific document is necessary authorising the bank to debit the cash credit account of the party.
That if a company becomes borrower of a bank, it is understood that it accepts the rules of the banking by signing the loan agreements and it is not specifically necessary to enter into an agreement to say that it was accepting the rules of the bank or not.
That when a person takes the benefit of LC facility, he is bound to know the due date of the bill and make the funds available on the due date, which facilitates business transactions and this facility is given to smoothen the business transactions and as such when a person take the benefit of this facility for running the business, he must be aware of the requirements of this facility being offered by banking industry as a whole to all the borrowers.
That LC limit should not be sanctioned alone and it should always be sanctioned along with Cash Credit Limit only.
That the last renewal of the limits was done in September 1993 which was valid upto September, 1994 and when the last renewal is done, the previous two renewals are automatically inclusive.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 120 of 569 That as per the letter dated 16.10.1993 Ex.PW9/5 (D4, page 58) the previous enhancements were done as per letter 14.9.1990, 17.7.1991, 3.5.1993 and on 2.9.1993.
That in case a sanction of limits is valid for one year, the enhancement would not come to an end immediately after the expiry of the period for which it was sanctioned, but it would continue for another period of six months during which the party would have a liberty to get it formally sanctioned/renewed from the appropriate authority.
That one has to understand commercial banking which is meant for financially assisting industrial units which create job opportunities and value to GDP of the country. That within this overall outlook of the bank M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. was a small scale industry which got the sanction limits with an understanding that the Company would utilize the limits for increasing its revenue and repay the bank.
That a good borrower should never question whether the operation of the account should be stopped rather the Company should feel that it has been given the status of valued client and it should maintain the goodwill and utilize the limits and also take steps to get it renewed within the time permissible by the bank. That the goodwill of the bank should be understood that it has given six months time only to facilitate in the midst of there busy schedule of factory working so it is expected that as a good borrower it should reciprocate the goodwill of the bank by timely repaying the dues after increasing their revenue for which the limits were sanctioned.
That during his tenure, M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. has generated sufficient revenue and repaid Rs.39.00 lacs approximately plus interest thereon as on March 1994 leaving behind a small portion of Rs.4.5 lacs to be repaid by the end of 30.4.1994 as per the phased repayment CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 121 of 569 program approved by the Sanctioning Authority Mr. S.K. Lakhina.
That he had only identified the signature of the author of the document Ex.PW9/12 and he has no personal knowledge about this document but from the contents of the document it can be said that the borrower had submitted with the Branch loan application form, Credit report of the Directors, copy of the orders in hand from few companies, the projected balance sheet for the next three years and the audited financial statement for 31.3.1994, which are the usual documents submitted for renewal of limits. That bank has prescribed formats for all documentation purposes which the branch takes in the normal routine manner and it also revalidates the validity for a further period of three years to take care of the fact that the loans outstanding do not become time barred. That besides taking the document relating to acknowledgement of debt by the party fresh documents are taken as before or as they were taken at the time when the limits was sanctioned initially but he cannot specifically say that during his tenure there had been only renewal of the limits of M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. without involving any enhancement and what matters is the last position of the account. That be it renewal or enhancement, the bank would not proceed on its own without a proper request from the party, though it may considering the record of the party give a period by six months as stated above for submitting a fresh application for renewal of the existing limit.
That the conduct of the account is also an important factor to be considered for the purposes of renewal because in case the account is not satisfactory, the renewal may not be done, even if the request is made and in fact the bank may recall the loan.
That may be the letters Ex.PW9/20, Ex.PW9/17, Ex.PW9/16, Ex.PW9/15 and CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 122 of 569 Ex.PW9/14 are in the hand writing of Sh. D.P Dhingra (Manager, Loans) or these documents may have been signed by Sh. Pathrella, but since he (witness) was not in the branch at that time, he is not in a position to say that if this account was being handled by Sh. D.P Dhingra or not.
That he has not compared the hand writing from any of the admitted documents of Sh. Pradeep Anand and he has said so only on the basis of his visual memory.
That it would be very difficult for him to say that at any particular point of time Sh. Pradeep Anand had written any document or letter in his presence but he was there in the Branch for a period of three and half years in which he had frequent interactions with Sh. Pradeep Anand and when he deposed in the Court about the handwriting of Sh. Pradeep Anand, it was on the basis of the documents which he came across during his tenure.
That similar is his answer with regard to the hand writings of Sh. Pradeep Anand on the documents Ex.PW9/23, Ex.PW9/24, Ex.PW9/25, Ex.PW4/H and all other documents on which he has identified the hand writing of Sh. Pradeep Anand.
That the introducer perse is not liable like a guarantor of the loan.
That as per Bill of Exchange dated 25.2.1995 Ex.PW9/38 (D103) it is drawn by M/s Steel Samrat India in favour of Oriental Bank of Commerce and the same is drawn on Indian Oil Corporation, Jaipur, the lorry receipt no. 3214 annexed with it shows that in it Oriental Bank of Commerce is the consignee.
That the bank is holder in due course till the amount is recovered, therefore, the name of the consignee has been mentioned as Oriental Bank of Commerce.
That the bank has recoursed only against the drawer of the bill i.e M/s Steel Samrat India and since the bank has purchased the bill for M/s Steel Samrat India, the bank has recourse CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 123 of 569 against M/s Steel Samrat India only for nonpayment of bill.
That the bank is only a facilitator of the banking transaction and is not a party to the transaction and the bank's money involved in it has to come either from the drawee i.e Indian Oil Corporation or from the drawer on whom the recourse of the bank is very much alive. That the returned original documents would be returned to the drawer on payment of the bill amount in which the bank has its stake and that is to say the original documents would be handed over to the drawer only when the amount involved is paid to the bank.
That the goods generally would be in the hands of the transporter who would release the goods only after the drawee making the payment to the banker and hand over the bills and in case the goods are delivered to the consignee they would come back to the consignor or he would take suitable instruction from the consignor with regard to the disposal of the goods. That whenever a bill is returned unpaid for any reason, the drawer of the bill made the payment to the bank and took back the documents for onward transaction.
That he has only identified the hand writing and signatures of Sh. Pradeep Anand on the document Ex.PW9/61 (D103) and he is not in a position to say as to whether in terms of this document goods had been despatched or not. That during his tenure at the branch the stocks available with M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. were sufficient to secure the balance payment in the CC Account after deducting the required margin (as per document Ex.PW9/5) and the outstanding balance was Rs.34.01 lacs as on 16.10.1993 against the value of stock worth Rs.52.27 lacs.
That during his tenure the two term loans for Rs.28 lacs had been repaid by M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. (document Ex.PW9/5) out of the revenue generated in their business.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 124 of 569 That the bank had not released the charge, but machineries worth about Rs.40 lacs had been kept as additional securities for the cash credit account meant for the working capital needs thereby improving the security aspect of the account.
That as per the letter Ex.PW9/20 the outstanding balance in the cash credit account was around Rs.27 lacs as stated above was secured by primary security of stocks worth Rs.78.72 lacs as on 31.7.1995 and on the back side of the cheque Ex.PW9/77 (D28) purpose of cash withdrawal is mentioned which is "for wages, diesel etc.". ' That similarly, on the back side of the cheques Ex.PW9/78 (D29), Ex.PW9/79 (D30), Ex.PW9/80 (D31), Ex.PW9/122 (D68) and Ex.PW9/124 (D75) drawn on self, the purpose of the cash withdrawal had been mentioned. That the cheque Ex.PW9/83 drawn in favour of the bank was for the purpose of issuance of pay order in favour of Mr. Rakesh Sindhwani. That similarly the cheques Ex.PW9/84, Ex.PW9/85, Ex.PW9/86, Ex.PW9/87, Ex.PW9/88, Ex.PW9/89, Ex.PW9/90, Ex.PW9/91, Ex.PW9/92, Ex.PW9/93, Ex.PW9/94, Ex.PW9/5, Ex.PW9/96, Ex.PW9/97, Ex.PW9/98, Ex.PW9/99, Ex.PW9/100, Ex.PW9/101, Ex.PW9/102, Ex.PW9/103, Ex.PW9/104, Ex.PW9/105, Ex.PW9/106, Ex.PW9/107 (all part of D35), Ex.PW9/113 (D54), Ex.PW9/114 (D56), Ex.PW9/115 (D57), Ex.PW9/117(part of D66), Ex.PW9/118 (part of D66), Ex.PW9/119 (part of D66), Ex.PW9/125 (D76) and Ex.PW9/126 (D80) had all been issued in favour of the bank for issuance of pay orders/drafts in favour of one party or the other.
That other than the pay orders/drafts issued in favour of Govt. Departments, he is not in a position to say as to whether the said remaining pay order/drafts were issued for CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 125 of 569 business purposes or not.
That in so far as the document Ex.PW9/115E (D60) is concerned he had not identified the signatures of any bank officer on this document and he had merely deposed about the transaction revealed by the voucher and that it was of the bank.
That in so far as the integrity of this document is concerned, he has nothing to say as this document is not of the period when he was in the Branch.
That similarly the documents Ex.PW9/115F to Ex.PW9/115I appear to be of the bank and he had merely deposed about what is stated therein.
That he will not be able to say as to the integrity of the document as they do not relate to his period of posting.
That document Ex.PW9/115F does not carry the name of M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. or its account number and the document Ex.PW9/115E also does not carry the name of M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. or its account number. That the document Ex.PW9/115G does not relate to M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. but on it the name of M/s Jay Bee Laminations is mentioned.
That the document Ex.PW9/115I does not bear either the name or account number of M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd.
That his statement with regard to the document Ex.PW9/116, 116A and 116B is on the basis of the documents themselves.
That since it is so stated in the vouchers that they relate to the honour of LC of United Western Bank Ltd. debited to M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. he does not recollect if he had been shown in the Court any bill etc. related to the said LC.
That for debiting the account of M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. there is no authorisation on the vouchers and as the documents have been shown to him there is no other authorisation attached alongwith it but apparently it is a CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 126 of 569 payment made for honouring the LC issued by United Western Bank and there is no separate authorisation required for debiting the account of the party for honouring LC commitments. That the payment of the bills under LC can be made by the bank only if the documents received alongwith the bills are strictly as per the terms of the LC.
That he cannot say just by looking at cheque Ex.PW9/125 and voucher Ex.PW9/125A that for what purpose the draft was got prepared as against the said cheque.
That it would not be possible for him to say that during his period there was any bank guarantee issued at the request of M/s Steel Samrat in favour of IOCL, Jaipur for participating in any bid.
That as per the document Ex.PW9/196 (D268) M/s Moon Light Engineers had delivered the bills for collection to OBC for Rs.3,00,040/ and similarly as per document Ex.PW9/197 (D269) M/s Moon Light Engineers had delivered the bills for collection to OBC for Rs.2,97,440/.
That as per these documents the bills were to be collected through State Bank of India, Midnapore.
That he does not remember what were the financial powers of the Chief Manager in the year 1995 of OBC, New Friends Colony Branch with regard to the sanctioning of loans. That the document Ex.PW9/22, relating to the opening of account of M/s Permanent Tools and Machines, bears the signatures of Sh. Pradeep Anand only as an Introducer. That in commercial bank the LC issuing bank has to honour the bills drawn under the LC as per the terms of the LC and usually payments are not denied by the LC opening bank, unless and until there is strong reason to deny the payment, such as fraud etc. That the monitoring is done by the Loans Manager and the status is put to the Branch CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 127 of 569 Manager.
That the disbursement is made as per the terms of the sanction and it is usually carries the joint signatures of Manager Loans and the Branch Manager.
That the Branch officials periodically visit the units of the borrower to check the correctness of stock statements, which is called post sanction visit.
That the concurrent auditor, Regional office functionaries, Inspection Department of the Bank, Bank Auditors, RBI Auditors also verify the stocks of the borrowers by making personal visits to the units of the borrowers, but these visits are sometime complementary in nature meaning thereby that if one auditor has visited the unit and prepared his report the other auditor may not visit the unit and adopt the report of the other auditor unless the time gap between the two visits is long.
That during his tenure, there had been no adverse report against M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. in regard to the fact that the stocks disclosed by it in its financial statements submitted to the bank did not match the report of the visiting bank officers / auditors.
That the account was getting overdrawn periodically due to development of the LC but subsequently M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. used to deposit the amount to reduce the over drawings due to which reason and also due to application of interest the CC limit gets overdrawn which was being monitored and status report was being sent to the Sanctioning Authority i.e. Sh. S.K. Lakhina, the then Dy. General Manager at that time.
That the status of account as on the date of reporting was shown in comparison to the previous status thereby showing the reduction in the outstanding balance from the previous dates and this is how the account was being monitored effectively and only Rs.4.50 lacs was remained to be recovered as on 1 st week of April, 1994.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 128 of 569 That while so reporting it was also recommended that in case M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. did not comply with the requirement of making the balance payment of Rs.4.50 lacs, recovery action should be initiated against them but M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. during his tenure did not give an opportunity to invoke his recommendations to take action against M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd.
That during his tenure also the bills to IOCL and other government buyers were delayed in payment, however, ultimately the same were paid (letter dated 05.02.1994 Ex.PW9/DX1 page No. 83 of D4).
That sometimes the payments of the bills were delayed but ultimately the payments were received as could be seen from the status of the account i.e. being reported to the Regional Office periodically.
That he had worked as Branch incumbent at New Friends Colony Branch for about four and a half years.
That he had handed over the charge to Sh. Raheja the second man in the Branch in the first week of April, 1994.
That he cannot tell from whom Mr. Pathrella had taken over the charge.
That M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. already had an account even before the accused S.K. Lakhina had joined the Regional Office for that matter this account was even in existence before he had joined New Friends Colony Branch. That except for minor deviations herein there which is quite natural, by and large the account of M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. was regular during his (witness's) tenure at the Branch. That before being promoted as Dy. General Manager posted at Regional office Delhi, the accused S.K. Lakhina was working as AGM. That during the period the accused S.K. Lakhina was his Boss for about three years, they had good smooth, systematic and ethical relationship.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 129 of 569 That while working as DGM at Regional Office, Delhi the accused S.K. Lakhina had about seventy branches of Delhi and New Delhi Division under his supervision.
That the operation of the accounts are monitored at the Branch level such as verification of all accounts, opening of loan and other accounts, daily cash and clearing transactions, handling securities and documents attached to the loans, control of securities of loans granted, verification of genuineness of the parties, their business requirements and genuineness of the trade transactions, which are all branch level functions.
That the Regional Office primarily has a supervisory role and it can only have a bird eye view of various branches under its supervision. That he had participated in the investigation of this case after being called by the CBI. That his statement dated 23.08.1999 was recorded by CBI which is Ex.PW9/DX2 wherein at portion X1 to X1 he had stated that the bills were purchased for M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. amounting to Rs.15,86,250/ on January, 1994.
That at portion X2 to X2 of his statement, it is recorded that out of the above bills which he had discounted the payment only in respect of two bills amounting to Rs.7.54 lacs was received by the branch after he was relieved from the branch and all other remaining bills had returned unpaid on 6.3.1995.
That at portion X3 to X3 of this statement, it is recorded that the further bills of the party had been discounted by his successor despite the fact that some of the bills as stated above had remained unpaid and Branch should not have discounted the said bills because the earlier bills were pending for payment.
That there was an instruction from the accused S.K. Lakhina that this account should be brought to order by 31.3.1994 and since the position of the account was improving as a CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 130 of 569 result of the gradual reduction of the outstanding balance on his recommendation the time was further extended to 31.4.1994. That at portion X4 to X4 of his statement, it was recorded that "Because the account was showing gradual reduction in the liability as per the repayment to the bank agreed to by the borrower there was no justification for the Branch Manager to increase the liability in the account of the borrower", which is reference to after he had left the Branch and it related to the period when Sh. Pathrella was the Branch incumbent.
That in his statement to CBI, as noted in the portion X5 to X5, he had stated that the next incumbent i.e Mr. Pathrella should have taken note of the return of the bills before discounting further bills, meaning thereby that further bills should not have been purchased as it resulted in the increase of the liability contrary to the instructions given by you for reducing the liability in this account by 30.4.1994.
That the next Incumbent should have continued the reducing of liability in this account as was being done by him, which fact is mentioned at portion X6 to X6 of his statement.
That after he had left the branch, he had no personal knowledge about the transactions being conducted in the said account of M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. and whatever he had stated in examination in chief with regard to the transactions which happened after he had left was on the basis of the documents which had been shown to him and on which he was asked to identify the signatures/hand writing of the Officers of the bank and also that of the borrower Sh. Pradeep Anand.
That the cause of action against M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. arose on 1.5.1994 had M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. not brought in the remaining portion of the required amount i.e. Rs.4.50 lacs CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 131 of 569 approx. to bring under the sanctioned limit as per approval of the accused S.K. Lakhina which was valid upto 30.4.1994.
That the letter dated 03.05.1993 which is Ex.PW9/DX3 (D4, page 2) bearing the initials of S.K. Lakhina advising the branch to regularize the account working within limits and DP.
That this letter was received during his tenure. That the primary responsibility related to the opening of the account and to ensure that all the compliances have been made before the account is opened, is of the branch.
That the day to day operations of an account are taken care of at the branch level and it is within the powers of the branch incumbent to restrict the overdrawings if the account is irregular.
That the safety and security of the documents is also the business of the branch incumbent. That the genuineness of the advance and the end use of the bank loan is to be ensured at the branch level.
That the question of recommendation for enhancement in M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. does not at all arise because the account was to be brought in line with the original sanctions by 30.4.1994, meaning thereby that since the account was not brought in line by 30.4.1994, therefore, further recommendations for enhancement could not have been made. That it was for the branch incumbent to ensure that the transactions in the account relate to genuine trade transactions and sometimes it may not be possible for the Branch Manager to detect that a particular transaction in the account relates to a genuine trade transaction or not because by and large a branch incumbent would go by the documents placed before him and he would go about dealing with the said documents in good faith.
That the Branch Incumbent would look at the documents to examine them from the angle as to whether they are genuine or not only if there CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 132 of 569 is sufficient ground to suspect anything in the documents.
That it is for the branch who can stop further drawings if the account is irregular. That in case if there is an advance attached with some security and it is for the branch to invoke/encash the security if the payment is not forthcoming.
That it would be highly objectionable in case the branch manager destroys the security in the form of documents given for security the repayment of advance given to a party. That during his tenure not even once the accused S.K. Lakhina had approached him (witness) for allowing a particular advance to a particular buyer or recommended loan to someone.
That vide letter dated Ex.PW9/10 he had written to the branch that he had not instructed the branch to reduce the account gradually from Rs.28 lacs to Rs.20 lacs.
That the letter dated 30.05.1994 which is Ex.PW9/DX4 (D4, page no.94) bears the initials of accused S.K. Lakhina at point A and vide this letter the branch was instructed to get the account regularized immediately. That letter dated 06.03.1995 which is Ex.PW9/DX5 (D4, pages no.181 & 182) bear the initials of accused S.K. Lakhina which was received from the Regional office addressed to the branch by which the branch was advised to get the account regularized immediately as it was running highly irregular.
That as per this letter the balance sheets of the party had been examined and it was observed that the party was facing losses and, therefore, it was demanded from the branch to provide fresh balance sheet and to increase the paid up capital but it does not relate to his tenure. That the letter dated 30.03.1995 which is Ex.PW9/DX6 (D4, page 188) bear the initials of accused S.K. Lakhina at point A, which letter was a reply from the Regional Office to the letter of the Branch dated CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 133 of 569 27.03.1995 Ex.PW9/15 and in the said reply there was an instruction given to the bank to get the CC account and also LC limit of the party i.e. M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. regularized. That he cannot identify the initials on letter Mark P9/M1 (D4, page No.190) but it seems to be initialed on behalf of the Dy. General Manager and according to this letter the Regional Office had asked for the details of the cheque purchased, namely, the drawer of the cheque.
That the letter Ex.PW9/17 is in response to the above letter from the Regional Office Mark P9/ M1 and in this reply the Branch had stated that the drawers name is not available.
That the office copy of the letter Ex.PW9/DX7 (D4, page No. 201) bear the initials of accused S.K. lakhina at point A and vide this letter the Branch was asked as to why the account of the party was running highly regular and as to why the party was being accommodate much beyond the sanctioned limit without taking approval from the appropriate authority.
That in the said letter there was also a direction to the Branch to accommodate the party strictly within the sanctioned limit. That he cannot identify the initials on the office copy of the letter Mark P9/M2 (D4, page No.202) but as per this letter it was pointed out that the branch was not submitting the desired information papers and the account was running highly irregular and it was also instructed that the credit facility given to the party be reassessed at the branch level and the specific recommendation for each facility be sent to the Regional Office.
That the office copy of the letter dated 07.10.1995 which is Ex.PW9/DX8 (D4, page No. 242 & 243) was sent from the Regional Office to the Branch bearing the initials of Sh. S.K. Lakhina at point A, which is in response to the letter of Branch dated 05.09.1995.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 134 of 569 That in this letter the branch has been questioned as to why the account has not been brought down to the sanctioned limit despite repeated reminders and it was also questioned as to why the party was being accommodated repeatedly over and above the sanctioned limit despite consistent irregularities committed in the account.
That as far as Chief Manager is concerned the Dy. General Manager is neither the appointed authority nor the disciplinary authority and in case any irregularity is found the Regional Office is always in a position to communicate with the Head Office.
That the agreements Ex.PW9/281 and Ex.PW9/282 bear the date of 22.03.1995 wherein the limits have been shown on the page No.2 but he (witness) is not privy to this agreement as this agreement was not executed during the period he was posted in the branch. That during his service, he had also allowed the purchase of the bills.
That he was never suspended, rather he was promoted upto the level of D.G.M. That he never dealt with the account of Kankheria Brothers at Ahmedabad Branch nor he remained under suspension for three years. That it would be difficult for him to say as to what were the sanctioned limits of M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. and what was the outstanding in each limit in September, 1989 but the account was perfectly in order and regular till he was relieved from the Branch in first week of April, 1994 by virtue of approval he had from the sanctioning authority Mr. Lakhina. That the account of M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. was perfectly in order and regular during his tenure.
That as per the Credit Report Ex.PW9/DX9 (D3, page No. 40), Rs.7.58 lacs shown here is not a liability but an asset of the party. That at point X1 of the above letter the assets of the party have been shown as Rs. 8.38 lacs CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 135 of 569 and if one looks on the back side of this page under the column liability at point X2 it would show that the liability of the party was only Rs.80,000/.
That the total liability was shown as Rs.7.58 lacs, which is actually shows the assets existing at that point of time after deducting Rs.80,000/ from the total assets shown at point X1 as Rs. 8.38 lacs.
That the account gets overdrawn due to various business transactions sometimes and all his actions were got confirmed and the account was perfectly in order during his tenure. That carbon copy of the letter Ex.PW9/DX10 (D3, page No. 327328) bear his original signature at point A and this letter only confirm the fact that he (witness) did bring to the notice of the authorities that the account was overdrawn and also the reason why this account was overdrawn and this practice is normal as a banking business.
That in the said letter he had clearly stated that what was over due and what is to be done, which activity is called monitoring of the account and the relevant figures are mentioned at points X1 to X2.
That the Branch Incumbent has only power to allow the limits to exceed by 10% but since it had exceeded his discretionary power it was only because of that it was brought to the notice of higher authorities.
That the DP shown in the letter is not actually a DP as for a term loan there is no drawing power it only comes with the CC account and the installments worth Rs. 5.08 lacs were over due, therefore, this figure has come. That the limit was Rs. 12 lacs here by mistake the DP has been mentioned as Rs. 12 lacs and as per the said letter the DP would work out to be Rs.14.45 lacs whereas the figure of Rs.18.8 lacs at point X2 pertains to the term loan showing the outstanding balance.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 136 of 569 That the fact that subsequently Regional Office has sanctioned a regular limits is in itself a fact that the above deemed irregularities were taken into account / regularized by virtue of subsequent correspondences.
That there is a sanction letter of September, 1993 from the Regional Office which means that the earlier position of the account have all been taken into account factored into while sanctioning this limit.
That upto 10% of the limits sanctioned he was in a position as the Branch Incumbent to accommodate the party without the prior approval of his Controlling Office i.e. Regional Office and as per the discretionary power upto 10% can be given in the normal course of business for genuine business purposes without seeking the approval of the Regional Office. That there were instances where the genuine business needs of the party had to be allowed for which necessary approvals had been obtained as and when the discretionary power upto 10% was exceeded.
That a detailed report on due diligence conducted on M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. has been exhibited before this Court which due diligence was necessitated because the account was getting frequently overdrawn due to genuine business requirements.
That the said report revealed:
1. M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. was new industrial unit at that time experiencing teething problems in the initial years.
2. It needed additional financial assistance to sustain its operations and there was revenue visibility to ensure repayment of the bank's finance.
3. Management accepted the report and renewed enhanced limits, the last such sanction being September, 1993.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 137 of 569
4. M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. did generate the revenue as anticipated which was utilized to repay the entire term loan of Rs. 29 lacs and Rs. 10 lacs in CC. Thus whatever excess was given had ultimately ended in generating excess revenue which was gone to repay the entire loan and the company had become debt free company.
That without involving any of the Branch officials from his Branch during his period; all genuine needs as alleged by him were being followed by writing letters to the Regional office under his handwriting and his signatures.
That New Friends Colony Branch being a large branch even at that time was having Bills Manager, Loan Officer, Documents Officer at the rank of Manager and Sr. Managers in order to assess and appraise the loan accounts at the Branch.
That the exhibits before the Court are sufficient to reveal the fact that there were enhancement letters, renewal letters in September, 1990, July, 1991 & May, 1993. That as a banker he can confidently say that the last sanction of September, 1993 is in itself inclusive of all the previous sanctions by way of chain of events that have been reported right from the year 1989, which events are factored into at the Regional office and hence, there was proper renewal and enhancement proposals earlier as well.
That the document Ex.PW9/5 (i.e. letter dated 16.10.1993) has all the details and is sufficient to show that there were renewals and enhancement duly approved by the Regional Office.
That as per Ex.PW8/A last sanction prior to 1991 was only for a period of one year and the final sanction of September, 1993 was CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 138 of 569 inclusive of all the previous sanctions. That he does not remember if Ex.PW8/C (D4, page 110) was the only sanction which came after 1991 and thereafter there was no sanction received in this form from the Regional Office. That in September, 1993 when the sanction was received as per Ex.PW8/ C even at that time and immediately thereafter account was running irregular.
That letter Ex.PW9/3 (page 13 of D4) was written by him (witness) specifically stating that the account has become irregular and he had pointed out in the letter as mentioned at point X that the CC limit had been exceeded by 50% of the sanctioned limit and had also given the detailed reasons therein. That the percentage of limit has no relevance here because the negotiations of bills under LC have to be debited to CC account irrespective of whether there is balance or no balance. That he had specifically given the reason in the portion X2 to X2 stating therein that the account has become irregular because of negotiations of bills received under LC issued by them as per sanctioned limit.
That vide letter Ex.PW9/DX11 (D4, page 10) bear the signatures of Sh. S.K. Lakhina at point A, the Regional Office had conveyed to the Branch that the reasons given by him in Ex.PW9/2 and Ex.PW9/3 were not relevant as noted in the portion X1 to X1 but the funds had to be provided by the borrower and this letter recognises the fact by stating the documents should be negotiated without devolving any liability on the bank and the undertaking to this effect be also obtained from the borrower. That it is in this context phased reduction of outstanding balances in CC account was approved by the Sanctioning Authority as already exhibited before this Court and the balances were coming down and only Rs. 4.5 lacs was to be recovered by 30.04.1994 as per the approval of the Sanctioning Authority Sh.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 139 of 569 S.K. Lakhina.
That it has to be understood from the contents of the letter Ex.PW9/4 which says that for the payment of Rs.40,000/ towards the wages of the labourers which as a banker must consider as otherwise the working would come to an end and the entire would be at stake and it is in this context the telephonic approval was taken from the Regional Office.
That the letter Ex.PW9/5 written by him to the Regional office shows that as on 16.10.1993 at the entry marked X1 there was an outstanding exceeding 70% of the sanctioned limit. However, as pointed in the earlier instance as referred to in letter Ex.PW9/4 dated 05.10.1993, it is also due to development of LC on which the Branch Manager does not have any control because the payment of the bills under LC have to be debited irrespective of whether there is balance or no balance. That this letter had also recognised some major break down in the factory and the same was reported to the Sanctioning Authority and later on as per the phased reduction programme, the borrower had reduced the balance as described above.
That after 05.10.1993 and on 16.10.1993 over drawings exceeded from 50% to 70% as communicated in his letter Ex.PW9/5 at Mark X1 and is so reflected there but it needs to be seen in a proper prospective.
That the banker is left with no other alternative but to debit the bills under LC because the account is under the sanctioned limit and the borrower had to provide the funds and hence the Branch Manager can only bring it to the notice of the higher authorities with the above said facts followed by action plan.
That the Branch Manager can declare an account to be NPA followed by intimation to Regional Office.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 140 of 569 That he had not prevented the Regional Office from taking any action against the party and he had had in the background which he had narrated only suggested that the party may be given time upto 15.11.1993 to regularize the account and thereafter suitable action may be taken.
That as a practical banker they can only monitor the account and as a part of monitoring the account the status of the account was continuously reported to Regional office and when a date is specified, it is urge of the banker to set the things right within the stipulated time.
That as per the portion X1 to X1 and X2 to X2 in Ex.PW9/7 the account even after 15.11.1993 had not been regularized and was continued to be overdrawn and he (witness) was seeking further telephonic confirmation with regard to purchase of bills beyond limit. That the said document explains in what circumstances the further extension was suggested for giving more time to the party for making the payment and also seeking the telephonic confirmation for purchase of bills as stated therein.
That during his tenure the account herein was not declared NPA.
That documentary bills are paid on demand whereas usance are paid after a specific period with a due date.
That the underlined business needs justify such purchases and naturally the Sanctioning Authority has to be reported.
That the bills returned or debited to CC Account and this is also one of the reasons for CC account becoming irregular on such occasions but the balances came down substantially because of the follow up action taken.
That the returning of the bills are not in the hands of the branch manager and hence in case the bill amount has not come from the drawee, it has to be recovered from the drawer CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 141 of 569 and he has recourse against his drawee. That it is the duty of the drawer to regularize the CC account once debited on return of the bills unpaid.
That the bill discounting limit of the party during his tenure was Rs.15 lacs.
That the letter dated 20.3.1991 Ex.PW9/DX10 was signed by him but the body of this letter is in the hand writing of perhaps Sh. D.P Dhingra, though he is not certain about it. That he had gone through the contents of the letter, which was also counter signed by the official of the Bank and, therefore, it was not necessary for him to have personally checked/verify every detail written therein before putting his signature on it.
That usually the Officers preparing the draft do put their initials in token of having gone through the record and prepare the draft before it is put for signatures to the Higher Officer.
That there is no initial on the first page of Ex.PW9/DX10, however on the second page the initials of an Officer is at point A but he cannot identify the initials of the Officer. That he cannot identify the hand writing of the person who had written the note in the portion X1 to X1 on Ex.PW9/DX10.
That note in the portion X1 to X1 Ex.PW9/DX 10 was approved by him and he had put his signatures at point B because he had approved the same.
That copy of the letter dated 9.3.1991 Ex.PW9/DX12 is his handwriting and it has also been signed by him at point A and the remarks in the portion X1 to X1 on page 1 of this letter are also in his handwriting. That this letter was written seeking confirmation from the Head Office giving therein all the reasons and the details of the account of M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd.
That this letter for confirmation was directly written to the Head Office as they were the CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 142 of 569 Sanctioning Authority at that time, the copy of this letter was also endorsed to the Regional Office for information.
That the Regional Office of its own was not competent to accord this confirmation as they were not the Sanctioning Authority. That he does not remember the limit which the Regional Office could accord at that time but the file was subsequently transferred to Regional Office and all the branch actions were confirmed by the Regional Manager under his Authority.
That as per the letter Ex.PW9/DX12 the limits exceeded by the party were more than 30% of the sanctioned limit whereas his power to exceed the limit of his own or Head Office Sanction was only 10% of the sanctioned limit.
That the purpose of informing Head Office and the Regional Office was necessitated because it exceeded the 10% and the exceeding of 10% was not within the controllable limit of the Branch Manager because of the reasons stated therein and the Branch had approval from the Sanctioning Authority i.e Regional Office. That the subject file was transferred to the Regional Office to be dealt under their powers vested with the Regional Office and there is approval Ex.PW9/9 dated 30.3.1994 which is inclusive of all the previous approvals and confirmations.
That the word "allowed" written by the Sanctioning Authority on the letter Ex.PW9/9 at point B is nothing but Sanction and it is the extension of earlier Sanction/Approval dated 16.11.1993 mentioned therein.
That with this final Sanction/ Approval dated 30.4.1994 all the earlier letters and approvals had become redundant because it is the final approval which matters.
That what is written in the portion X1 to X1 of Ex.PW9/9 is not in his handwriting and it seems to be in the handwriting of Sh. D.P. CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 143 of 569 Dhingra the then Loans Manager and it was reported that confirm their action in having extended upto 30.4.1994, which is in continuation of and reference to the earlier letter dated 16.11.1993 which has the approval for the phased reduction in the outstandings and this phased reduction was to be completed by 15.3.1994.
That since the party was reducing the outstanding balances as per the phased reduction approved by the Regional Office, this final extension of phased reduction was extended upto 30.4.1994 instead of earlier approval of 15.3.1994 and it is in this context that the date of 30.4.1994 has come in this letter.
That he had earlier deposed in this connection that the cause of action arose on 1.5.1994 precisely for the reason that as per the request made the account was to be brought in order by way of phased reduction by 30.4.1994. That the reduction was not to be done by him and it was to be done by the borrower for which the borrower had undertaken to do so and he has been reducing it but not strictly by the dead lines defined and in this connection the document Ex.PW9/4 may be referred to in which he (witness) as a Branch Manager withdrew the LC limit of Rs.15 lacs which was the main reason for the account getting irregular frequently on development of LCs. That this document clearly shows that apart from reduction of Rs.15 lacs he had also reduced the CC limit by Rs.3 lacs and it was in this background where the party was reducing the overdrawn limits consistently as a practical banker when the request was made by the party of further extending the dead line from 15.3.1994 to 30.4.1994, he had recommended and the same was approved by the Sanctioning Authority vide letter dated 30.3.1994 Ex.PW9/9.
That whatever he had stated in the letter dated 5.10.1993 Ex.PW9/4 was considered by the CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 144 of 569 Regional Office and it was only thereafter that the letter was written by the Regional office on 16.11.1993 Ex.PW9/10 wherein the specific conditions were laid down for the Bank to ensure that the party reduces its outstanding amount in a phased manner by specifying the amount as well as dead lines. That the party was reducing the balance though not strictly in accordance with the letter of the Regional Office Ex.PW9/10 and there was a case for extending the time period upto 30.4.1994 giving time to the party to reduce the balance.
That all his actions were within the parametres of banking practice which finally got the approval from the Sanctioning Authority on 30.3.1994.
That as per the Current Account Opening form of M/s Steel Samrat which is Ex.PW9/30 (D97), the account was opened on 27.1.1994 during his tenure and the account was duly introduced by the then existing account M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. and bear his (witness's) signatures at points A1 and A2.
That the said account was opened by him (witness) and since the account was duly introduced, the conditions of opening the account were met and, therefore, the account was opened.
That it is a proprietorship account and the proprietor of M/s Steel Samrat was one of the Directors of M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. namely Sh. Pradeep Anand.
That the account of M/s Steel Samrat and of M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. were being operated by Sh. Pradeep Anand who was competent to operate both the accounts as per the Banking rules.
That he does not remember if before opening the account of M/s Steel Samrat he checked the Balance sheets and also verified if they had account with any other bank previously or what CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 145 of 569 kind of business transactions they were having. That he would not be able to say anything about preparing any processing note before recommending/ allowing any sanction of limits to M/s Steel Samrat but at the time when he left the branch, there was nothing outstanding in respect of the account of M/s Steel Samrat. That the Specimen Signature Card Ex.PW9/31 relating to the account of M/s Steel Samrat bear his initials at points A2 to A4 and also at point X. That the document Ex.PW9/DX13 (D98) does not pertain to his period.
That he does not remember what were his powers as the Chief Manager to allow overdraft in a Current Account That the agreement for cash credit/overdraft related to the account of M/s Steel Samrat which is Ex.PW9/33 does not pertain to his period but the signatures appearing at point A6 and at point X are that of Sh. Pradeep Anand and that of Sh. D.P Dhingra respectively. That the Agreement regarding Bill Purchase related to the account of M/s Steel Samrat which is Ex.PW9/34 (D99) bears the signatures of Sh. Pradeep Anand at points A1 to A12.
That the Resolution of the Board of Directors dated 5.10.1993 which is Ex.PW9/DX14 (part of D1) whereby Sh. Pawan Sahni, Inducted Director was allowed to operate the account of M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. along with existing Director and first signature on all cheques will be of Sh. Pawan Sahni.
That as per mandate of this resolution and for allowing any cheque during your period first signature of Sh. Pawan Sahini was mandatory besides signature of some other Director but the mandate keeps on changing from time to time as per the business requirements of the company.
That he had not sought extension to stay in the Branch till the end of April, 1994 for the CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 146 of 569 purposes of regularising the Account. That the letter Ex.PW9/9 (page No. 92 of D4) bears his signatures wherein it is stated that he had sought phased reduction of the outstanding balance in the account of M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. by 30th April, 1994. That during his tenure the account was regular and as such there was no occasion for declaring the said account of M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. as NPA.
10. Sh. Om Prakash PW10 Sh. Om Prakash was working as Peon with (PW10) Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony, New Delhi who in his examination in chief has deposed as under:
1. That he is working as Peon with Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony, New Delhi.
2. That the accused Sh. S.K. Pathrella (correctly identified by the witness) was working as Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony in the year 1994.
3. That the document Ex.PW10/A (D493) bear his (witness's) signatures appearing at point A on the back side of this document.
4. That he had signed this document for getting a draft prepared and he instructed by Sh.
Pathrella to get the draft prepared and accordingly he had put his signatures on the said document in relation to getting the draft prepared at the Corporation Bank, New Friends Colony but he (S.K. Pathrella) had not given him any money and he had only asked him to get the draft from there.
5. That he is not aware who had paid for getting the said draft prepared and he had simply brought the draft and handed over to Sh. Pathrella.
6. That he had handed over the document Ex.PW10/A to the official of the Corporation Bank and had taken from him the draft in return.
7. That the draft of Rs.10,000/ of Corporation Bank must be the same draft, which was handed over to him by the officials of CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 147 of 569 Corporation Bank, which he had handed over to Sh. Pathrella which draft is Ex.PW10/B (D
481).
Since the witness was partially not supporting the case of prosecution, therefore, he was crossexamined by the Ld. PP for CBI wherein he has deposed as under:
That he has been working in Oriental Bank of Commerce since 1982.
That his statement was recorded by Sh. A.P. Singh, Dy. S.P. CBI which is Ex.PW10/PX1. That he has not stated in his statement to CBI at portion X1 to X1 that Sh. S.K. Pathrella on 16.08.1995 had given you Rs.10,000/ plus Rs.20/ as bank commission alongwith the application Ex.PW10/A and asked him to get the said draft prepared, accordingly, he had got the same prepared and handed over back to Sh. Pathrella.
That he was only asked to collect the draft from the Corporation Bank.
That the application Ex.PW10/A must have been filled at the time it was handed over to him and it was not handed over to him by Sh. Pathrella but was given to by the official at the Corporation bank who had asked him to put his signatures on its back side.
That the draft is handed over to the person who submits the application for the draft and shows the counter foil with regard to the deposit of money for the draft.
That the counter foil of the deposit of money was given to him by Sh. Pathrella which he had shown to the official of Corporation Bank and since he had shown the counter foil, therefore, the draft was handed over to him.
In his crossexamination by the Ld. Counsels for the accused, the witness has deposed as under:
That he has studied only upto 5 th / 6th standard and his job as a Peon was to serve tea etc. to his officers and to do also some work in the Hall of the Bank.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 148 of 569 That he has no knowledge about the fact as to where the documents etc. of the bank were kept.
11. Sh. Tapan Kumar PW11 Sh. Tapan Kumar Mondal is the DGM in Mondal (PW11) Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Gujarat Refinery, Vadodara, Gujarat who in his examination in chief has deposed as under:
1. That he is working with Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Gujarat Refinery, Vadodara, Gujarat as Dy. General Manager, Incharge (Project) and during the period from April, 1997 to March, 2007, he was posted at Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Haldia Refinery, Midnapore, West Bengal as Sr. Materials Manager / Chief Materials Manager.
2. That he does not recollect at this time any business firm by the name of M/s Moonlight Engineers which he may have came across during his service tenure.
3. That he does not recollect if at any point of time Indian Oil Corporation had placed any order with M/s Moonlight Engineers in the year 1995.
4. That he does not recollect but there was a query received from either the bank or from the Investigating Agency with regard to any order being placed by Halidia Refinery with M/s Moonlight Engineers in the year 1995 and after checking they did not find any orders placed on that party by IOCL, Haldia Refinery.
5. That the query raised was also as to whether any dispatch documents or invoices received by the Finance Department of Haldia Refinery from its banker, SBI for release of any payment against material supplied and it was also checked from Finance Department and found that no such document / invoices received by IOCL, Haldia Refinery from its bankers SBI towards any material supplied from M/s Moonlight Engineers, meaning thereby that there was no payment ever released to M/s Moonlight Engineers from IOCL.
6. That as per the laid down procedure, any order for materials supplied, orders were placed by Purchase Section of Materials Department CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 149 of 569 based on the requirement on different vendors / suppliers and one the materials are dispatched by the suppliers / vendors, the dispatch document including invoices, packing lists, transporter's freight invoice etc. are negotiated through its banker SBI, which in turn check the dispatch documents and forward the same to Finance Department of Halida Refinery for release of payment.
7. That after checking all the documents and purchase order, Finance Department advices its banker SBI for release of payment as per the purchase order terms and conditions.
8. That it would depend upon the terms and conditions of the purchase order as to whether the payment is to be released through bank or directly by the Refinery and in case of payment through bank, the dispatch document would be submitted with the bank directly at SBI, Haldia or with the supplier's bank at their place which in turn they would send the documents to SBI, Haldia and thereafter it would come to Haldia Refinery.
9. That in case of payment directly to be made by Halidia Refinery, the dispatch documents would be submitted directly to the Haldia Refinery and after checking the documents, the payments are released by Finance Department directly to the party.
10. That they had checked all the records of the year 1995 at the Haldia Refinery relating to all the purchase orders placed by Haldia Refinery for which dispatch documents were to be received either directly or through the SBI Haldia but they did not find any document relating to M/s Moonlight Engineers either with regard to placement of order on M/s Moonlight Engineers or receipt of any material from M/s Moonlight Engineers or the payment having made to M/s Moonlight Engineers.
11. That Haldia Refinery is located in East Midnapore in the State of West Bengal.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 150 of 569
12. That IOCL has four divisions, namely, Refineries, Pipeline, Marketing Division and R & D.
13. That the Regional Office of the Marketing Division, Eastern Region is located at Kolkatta.
In his crossexamination by the Ld. Counsel for the accused, the witness has deposed as under:
That in the year 199596 he was not posted in the Haldia Refinery and had joined the same in April, 1997.
That he was working in the Refinery Division at Haldia Refinery and had checked the record only with Haldia Refinery.
That there are many Departments within the Haldia Refinery and he was working in the Materials Department.
That the expansion, modification revamping projects etc. were done at various refineries time to time as required along with the plants repair and maintenance job but as far as the procurements were concerned at the Haldia Refinery for any project related work or other requirements, they were all placed through the Materials Department.
That he has not brought any record on the basis of which he has made the statement that he did not find in his records any document relating to placing of orders, receipt of material or payments being made to M/s Moon Light Engineers.
That he had not supplied any record to CBI and since there was no purchase order found relating to M/s Moon Light Engineers against which the payments could have been asked for, the same could not have been supplied to CBI. That he does not remember whether CBI had supplied him any copy of purchase order or the details of the bills drawn by M/s Moon Light Engineers on IOCL.
That the projects can be divided into two parts viz Big Projects and Smaller Projects and as far as the Big Projects are concerned, the CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 151 of 569 orders are generally placed from IOCL, Refinery Head Quarter, New Delhi office directly or through consultants whereas for Small Projects as well as for normal repair and maintenance job of Haldia Refinery, the orders are placed by Materials Department at Haldia. That in the Materials Department they had checked as to whether any order had been placed on M/s Moon Light Engineers and also whether any bills received by Finance Department of Haldia Refinery through bank for release of payments against the orders concerned but they could not find any records of placement of orders on M/s Moon Light Engineers or any payment released to them against the concerned purchase order. That they had checked record relating to all the purchase orders against which the supplies had been made and payments released and the record relating to the payment aspect had been checked from the Finance Department. That the supply orders in the similar fashion are also placed for the Refinery Division by the Head Office and other Zonal Offices of IOCL and Consultants appointed for the Project [as per document Mark P11/1 (D382)].
That he took over the charge from Mr. U.L. Dohare, Chief Materials Manager at Haldia Refinery in April, 1997.
That Sh. Dohare was transferred from Haldia Refinery to IOCL Headquarter, New Delhi and got retired from IOCL in the month of July, 2012.
That Mr. P.K Biswas was the Incharge of Haldia Refinery in 1997.
That he does not recollect now if the fax message was received by Sh. P.K Biswas directly or by him (witness).
That he does not remember whether he had sought any approval from Sr. Officers before checking the entire record of the Materials Department or Finance Department with reference to M/s Moon Light Engineers.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 152 of 569 That he was working as the Head of the Materials Department and was the custodian of all purchase orders placed on various parties. That he does not recollect the amount of time taken to go through the entire record. That he not given any written note to CBI as it was not asked for and had given the statement to the CBI.
That he does not recollect if he had also given any report to any Sr. Officer, but he was the Incharge of Materials Department.
That he does not remember the dates or the timings when he had checked the said record.
With the permission of the Court, the witness was re examined by the Ld. PP for CBI with regard to the Mark P11/1 (D382), wherein the witness has deposed as under:
That if an order like Mark P11/1 is placed relating to Haldia Refinery, a copy of the Purchase Order as well as the other documents like Dispatch Documents etc. are received by Haldia Refinery.
That if there is a supply made against any order like this, there will be an entry made to that effect in the records at Haldia Refinery. That if there is a payment made against such a supply, the payment though would be made from the Headquarter, if purchase order is placed from the Headquarter, but a debit note would be received at the Finance Department of Haldia Refinery.
In his further crossexamination bythe Ld. Defence Counsels, the witness has deposed as under:
That all the copies of Purchase Orders and Dispatch documents including invoices, inspection certificates, packing list, transporters freight receipt are all received by Materials Department, Haldia Refinery in case of placement of orders by Refinery Division Headquarters.
That he does not recollect if there was any written note received from the Finance CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 153 of 569 Department, but it was checked from the Finance Department whether any bills were received from bank for release of payment to M/s Moon Light Engineers against the concerned purchase order.
That he does not remember if the Finance Department had given anything in writing, but he had verbally discussed this matter with the Officers of the concerned Finance Department to check up as to whether payments had been made or not to M/s Moon Light Engineers. That at that time in 1997 when he was the Head of the Materials Department, he had approximately fifteen Officers working under him.
That the record was checked by the concerned Officers working under him, but being the Head of the Materials Department he was asked to give the statement to CBI and accordingly, being the Head of the Materials Department, he had given the statement to CBI. That he does not recollect if the officers working under him had put up any written note to him with regard to their having checked the record and found no purchase order related to M/s Moon Light Engineers.
That being in the Material Department, they do not interact directly with the bank, it is done by the Finance Department of the Haldia Refinery.
The witness was further crossexamined by the Ld. PP for the CBI, wherein the witness has deposed as under: That he had stated in his statement to the CBI Ex.PW11/PX1 that ".... pursuance to receipt of this fax message I had gone through the records relating to purchase of material from various parties and I did not find any record relating to receipt of materials from M/s Moon Light Engineers. I have also gone through the purchase order files and state that M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Haldia, Midnapur had not placed any order on M/s Moon Light Engineers during the year 1995, prior to that CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 154 of 569 or afterwards...". However, instead of the word 'I', he could have used the word 'we'. That as the Head of the Department, he was asked to give the statement and as such he had given the statement on behalf of the Department and he had not personally checked the record.
That the records which were checked were not only of the year 1995, but the records prior to 1995 and after 1995 also.
That he had make statement to CBI to the effect that "..... I have also checked up with Finance Department at Haldia Refinery and state that no intimation from SBI, Midnapur was received by us in 1995 regarding bills drawn by M/s Moon Light Engineers on Haldia Refinery...." at portion X2 to X2 of Ex.PW11/PX1, but it was checked by the officers working under him from the officers of Finance Department. That the Pipeline Division, Marketing Division and R & D Division are separate Divisions altogether and for procurement of any material for Haldia Refinery, purchase orders are placed by Haldia Refinery or Headquarter Delhi or Regional Office of Refinery Division whereas for the procurement of material relating to Pipeline Division, Marketing Division and R & D Division, they have separate Departments to take care of the same. That although there is a small establishment of Marketing Division as well as the Pipeline Division at Haldia, Midnapur, but Haldia Refinery does not place any order for them or vice versa.
That when he said Haldia, it means Midnapur also because Haldia comes under Midnapur District.
That he had make statement to CBI to the effect that "..... there are offices of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Pipeline and Marketing Division at Midnapur...." at portion X3 to X3 in Ex.PW11/PX1 but the offices of Pipeline and Marketing Division of IOCL are located at Haldia, District Midnapur adjacent to Haldia CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 155 of 569 Refinery. However, these offices are separate from Haldia Refinery.
That from the record checked it was found that no purchase orders were placed on M/s Moon Light Engineers, no supplies were received from M/s Moon Light Engineers and no intimation of bills was received from SBI pertaining to M/s Moon Light Engineers. That before he had made the statement to CBI the concerned record had been properly checked.
12. Sh. S.S. Gupta PW12 Sh. S.S. Gupta was the Special Assistant from (PW12) Oriental Bank of Commerce who in his examination in chief has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he had retired from Oriental Bank of Commerce in the year 2006 as Special Assistant and was lastly posted at NIT Branch, Faridabad where he had joined on 7.2.1972.
2. That during his tenure as an official of the bank, he was involved in union activities and was also its office bearer for about 89 years.
3. That he knew the accused Sh. S.K. Pathrella who was the Chief Manager in the Gurgaon Branch and had also served as Chief Manager at New Friends Colony Branch.
4. That he had had met Sh. Pathrella when he was posted at New Friends Colony and had made a request to have some business opened for his son Sandeep on which he had advised him to open a current account in New Friends Colony Branch and had assured him (witness) that he would get some work for his son by asking someone.
5. That he cannot tell about his son but he (witness) was not introduced to anyone by Sh. Pathrella.
6. That he knew both Vikram Arora and Sanjeev Arora who are brothers and has also met them a couple of times.
7. That he introduced to them by Sh. Pathrella who had introduced him by saying that he would get some business arranged for his son through them.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 156 of 569
8. That he does not remember the context but Sh.
Pathrella might have brought them to the NIT Branch, Faridabad when he was introduced to them.
9. That there was a cheque book issued to his son in respect of the current account opened at New Friends Colony Branch.
10. That the account was opened in the name of M/s Shiv Industrial Enterprise and the cheque book was collected from his son by Sh. Sanjeev Arora after getting the same signed by his son on the front and back side of the cheques.
11. That on the back side he had taken two signatures of his son and the cheques were got signed from his son by saying that it would not be possible for Sh. Sanjeev Arora to visit Faridabad quite often and, therefore, if they have the signed cheques by his son, they would be able to make the transactions at Delhi itself.
12. That he was not informed about any transaction which may have been conducted by Sh. Sanjeev Arora using the said cheques but he cannot tell about his son.
13. That he does not remember and also cannot say if they i.e. Sanjeev Arora and Vikram Arora had got any bill signed from his son but they used to come to get some papers signed.
14. That initially they had promised his son to give him some commission but they had not given any commission to him.
15. That he cannot say who was operating the Current Account of his son but any of the two may have been operating the said account.
16. That he cannot say for sure that his son was not operating the said account.
17. That he had heard about Sh. Pradeep Anand of M/s Moonlight Engineers but he does not know him.
18. That he had met Sh. Pradeep Anand with Sh. Sanjeev Arora.
19. That he does not know if there was any money transferred in the account of his son from M/s Moonlight Engineers but he was informed by his son that there was some over draft in his CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 157 of 569 account of about Rs. 45 lacs which his son had deposited in the account.
20. That he had heard that there was overdraft in the said account because of some bills being returned unpaid but he cannot say anything about the said bills.
21. That the document Ex.PW9/225A (D205) is the credit voucher dated 15.03.1995 for Rs.5,75,000/ bears the name of the firm of his son but it does not bear either his son or the signature of his son, which is also not filled either in his handwriting or in the handwriting of his son and he cannot identify the handwriting of the person who had filled the same.
22. That the cheque issued in favour of M/s Moonlight Engineers for Rs.3,50,000/ dated 14.09.1996 which is Ex.PW12/A (D274) bearing the signatures of his son at point X and is also in the handwriting of his son.
23. That the cheque issued in favour of M/s Moonlight Engineers for Rs.2,25,000/ dated 01.10.1996 which is Ex.PW12/B (D276) bears the signatures of his son at point X and is also in the handwriting of his son.
24. That he cannot say with certainty but it seems that the pay in slip Ex.PW12/C (D275) is in the handwriting of his son but it does not bear his signatures.
25. That the pay in slip Ex.PW12/D (D277) bears the signatures of his son at point X. Since the witness was resiling from his previous statement, therefore, he was crossexamined by the Ld. PP for the State wherein the witness has deposed on the following aspects:
That he had made a statement to CBI and it may be possible that Sh. Pathrella may have introduced his son to Sh. Sanjeev Arora and Sh. Vikram Arora at the time of opening the current account and he might have given the said statement, which is so recorded in the portion X1 to X1 of Ex.PW12/PX1.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 158 of 569 That at the time when the account was opened he was not present but he was present at the time when his son was introduced to Sh. Vikram Arora and Sh. Sanjeev Arora by Sh. S.K. Pathrella.
That he is not too sure but either Sh. Vikram Arora or Sh. Sanjeev Arora or Sh. S.K. Pathrella, anyone of them had advised his son to get a cheque book issued and to return the cheque book after signing the cheques. That Sh. Sanjeev Arora had come to their residence and had asked for signing the cheques and giving the cheque book to him as he has already stated above.
That he had stated to the CBI that his son used to sign certain bills / documents as he had been assured of some commission by Arora Brothers but they never gave him any commission at all, which fact is recorded at portion X2 to X2 of Ex.PW12/PX1.
That Aroraji had said that they will do work of "Bills" and whatever profit is earned from it, they would give some share of it to his son as a commission.
That most of the times it was only Sh. Sanjeev Arora who used to visit their residence or some time visit his branch to get the bills etc. signed from his son.
That he had make the statement to CBI that the transactions of credits and debits of his son's firm were being done by Arora Brothers, which fact is recorded at portion X3 to X3 of statement Ex.PW12/PX1.
That so far as he recollect, his son had not done any transaction in the said account and all the transactions in the said account were done by the Arora Brothers.
That he is not too sure and he cannot say if from the account of M/s Moonlight Engineers a sum of Rs.5,75,000/ had been deposited in the account of his son by transfer.
That he does not remember if he had made a statement to CBI that he came to know that Rs.5,75,000/ had been deposited in his son's CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 159 of 569 firm account at OBC, New Friends Colony Branch, New Delhi on 15.03.1995 on transfer from the current account of M/s Moonlight Engineers, which fact is recorded at portion X4 to X4 of statement Ex.PW12/PX1.
That the documents Ex.PW9/225A (D205) and Ex.PW9/225B (D206) show that Rs.5,75,000/ had been deposited in the account of his son by way of a cheque of M/s Moonlight Engineers.
That it appears from the document Ex.PW12/A and Ex.PW12/B that a sum of Rs.3,50,000/ and Rs.2,25,000/ had been paid back to M/s Moonlight Engineers by the said cheques from the account of his son but he will not be able to say that if his son had really got Rs.5,75,000/ from M/s Moonlight Engineers.
That he cannot say if his son had no knowledge about the fact that if in his account Rs.5,75,000/ had been deposited from the account of M/s Moonlight Engineers.
That he also cannot say if his son had no knowledge about the fact that in his account there were some transactions with M/s Moonlight Engineers.
That he is not sure but it might have so happened that there was an entry made in the account of his son of Rs.5,75,000/ from M/s Moonlight Engineers, therefore, he had to pay back the money by way of the said cheques though he had actually not received any money.
That he son knew nothing about these transactions and Sh. Pathrella, Arora Brothers & Sh. Pradeep Anand have been doing these transactions of their own.
In his crossexamination by the Ld. Counsel for the accused, the witness has deposed as under:
That he cannot say with certainty if Sh.
Parthrella was not a Chief Manager at Gurgaon at any time as it is an old matter. That he had met Sh. Pathrella at Gurgaon Branch of the Bank.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 160 of 569 That Sh.Pathrella had never remained posted at NIT Branch, Faridabad.
That he cannot say for sure if Sh. Pathrella had never visited the NIT Branch of the bank at Faridabad but he (Sh. Pathrella) may have visited the said branch sometime.
That he is not sure if he had visited the New Friends Colony Branch with his son at any time and most probably he had not visited the New Friends Colony Branch of the Bank with him.
That he has no idea who had introduced the account of M/s Shiv Industrial Enterprises, whose proprietor was his son Sandeep and he must have someone from the Branch itself. That he was not present at the time when the account of his son was opened.
That he might have made the request to Sh. Pathrella about 34 months before opening of the said account to help his son in the business. That he cannot say if someone else was also present when he had made such a request to Sh. Pathrella.
That at that time Sh. Pathrella had said that he would help his son and to begin with at least his son should open an account with the bank. That he must have met Sh. Pathrella after having made the said request but he cannot say as to how many times he had met him thereafter and after how much time. That his son must not have been with him at the time when he had met Sh. Pathrella.
That his son had already an account in the name of M/s Shiv Industrial Enterprise with the NIT Branch of Bank.
That initially the said account with the NIT Branch of the bank was a current account and later on it was converted into a CC account. That his son was enjoying credit limits with NIT Branch.
That the current account at the New Friends Colony Branch may have been opened with the introduction from the CC Account which his son was having with NIT Branch.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 161 of 569 That he had introduced his son to Sh. Pathrella before opening of the account.
That he does not recollect where he had introduced his son to Sh. Pathrella. That the CC limit which his son had with the NIT Branch related to the Steel business but not confined to steel business alone and he could use the limit for any of the purposes of the business.
That his son was in the business of steel trading and was not into any other business. That he does not remember as to where and when for the first time he was introduced to the Arora Brothers by Sh. Pathrella and he (witness) was however introduced to them before the opening of the account.
That he does not recollect now as to when and where if his son had been introduced to the Arora Brothers by Sh. Pathrella.
That he and his son might have met Sh. Pathrella together but he does not remember when and where.
That he also does not remember even the year when they had together met Sh. Pathrella but they must have met him before the opening of the account.
That there was no limit sanctioned to his son by Sh. Pathrella.
That the cheque book was issued to his son and he was not present when the said cheque book was issued to his son.
That he does not remember if before the opening of the current account at New Friends Colony Branch, it was verified that his son had another C.C account at NIT, Faridabad in the same name i.e M/s Shiv Industrial Enterprise. That he is not aware if it is mandatory that before a Current account is opened in a Branch, the bank where the current account is opened is to be informed of any other account which a party may be having in any other bank or branch.
That he is also not aware exactly since when his son was maintaining the account with NIT, CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 162 of 569 Faridabad Branch.
That his son had been in the business of steel trading for 57 years before he had opened the account in the year 1995 at New Friends Colony.
That he does not remember when but the said account of his son at New Friends Colony was closed within 57 months of the registration of this case but his account, however, at NIT, Faridabad branch is still in operation, although now it is not a C.C account and only a Current Account.
That his son is not enjoying any credit limit at this point of time with NIT, Branch but he is not very sure.
That his son had opened the account as he was informed by the Arora brothers that they would be transacting the business in the said account at New Friends Colony branch.
That Sh. Pathrella had not suggested to his son or to him with regard to the steel business as he was already in the steel business. That it is possible that he (witness) might not have been asked by Sh. Pathrella to open the account at New Friends Colony branch. That New Friends Colony Branch is a large branch and in a large branch the accounts are opened by the Jr. level Officers and not by the Chief Manager but it is also possible that in case the Chief Manager opens the accounts, the signatures of the junior Officers would not be necessary.
That the Account Opening Form is not filled by the concerned clerk, but by the applicant and it is possible that it may be verified by the Second man and it also be possible that the Account Opening Form may be first signed by the Chief Manager and subsequently the Manager second in line may be asked to put his signatures thereafter.
That he does not remember if in his statement to CBI, he had given the name of his son Sandeep or his firm M/s Shiv Industrial Enterprise. However, after going through the CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 163 of 569 statement Ex.PW12/PX1, it was found that the word "Sandeep" and the words "M/s Shiv Industrial Enterprise" have not been mentioned.
That in the statement there is no reference to "Steel Business" of his son.
That he had remained posted in the Sector 7, Faridabad Branch of the bank for a period of about one and a half to two years but he does not recollect the period in which he was posted in that branch.
That he has no idea if Sh. Pradeep Anand or his concerns were having any account in the said branch during the period he was posted there.
That he cannot say if his son was having a shop at B282,Nehru Ground, Faridabad and had been supplying the material to the concerns of Sh. Pradeep Anand namely M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Moon Light Engineers.
That he also cannot say about the number of the shop, but his son was having a shop at Nehru Ground, Faridabad and he has no idea if his son was supplying material to M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. or M/s Moon Light Engineers. That he has no idea if he had approached Sh.
Pradeep Anand for giving a big supply order to the concern of his son M/s Shiv Industrial Enterprise and for this purpose he had met him several times.
That it is not in his knowledge if M/s Moon Light Engineers on 15.3.1995 placed the order on M/s Shiv Industrial Enterprises of the supply of 100 tons of IS 2002 quality plates of 10 mm thickness @ Rs.11,500/ per ton, total price comes to Rs.11,50,000/ on the condition that the 50% of the amount which comes to Rs.5,75,000/ shall be paid on that very day and the balance 50% was payable within thirty days of making the supply.
That they had to make the payment to M/s Moonlight Engineers by two cheques because they were making some mischiefs with regard to the discounting of bills of their own as a CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 164 of 569 result of it the money had come into the account of his son, which they had to return by the said cheques.
That he has no idea if there had been any transaction between Sh. Sanjeev Arora or Sh. Vikram Arora or their concerns on the one hand and M/s Shiv Industrial Enterprise of his son on the other hand.
That it is not in his knowledge if Sh. Sanjeev Arora and Sh. Vikram Arora or any of their concerns had no account with New Friends Colony Branch of the bank.
That at the time of closure of the account, the account holder is required to deposit the cheque books with the bank.
That there are two situations, which arise, first, that the customer may himself return the cheque book and the second situation is where he may inform the bank that he had misplaced the cheque book.
That he cannot say as to how the account in the name of M/s Shiv Industrial Enterprise was closed at New Friends Colony Branch and, therefore, cannot say as to whether the cheque books had been deposited with the bank at the time of the closure of the account or not.
With the permission of the Court the witness was re examined by the Ld. PP for CBI wherein the witness has deposed that the account was opened in the New Friends Colony Branch on the advise of Sh. Pathrella.
13. Sh. M.K. Sharma PW13 Sh. M.K. Sharma was the Chief Manager of (PW13) Oriental Bank of Commerce who in his examination in chief has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he had retired from Oriental Bank of Commerce in November, 2009 as Chief Manager, Head Office, New Delhi and had served as Sr. Manager at New Friends Colony branch in the year 198889.
2. That he was the Branch Manager at that time and when he was serving in the Branch, one Sh. Goyal was also working in the Branch who was his Second Man.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 165 of 569
3. That the account in the name of M/s True Fabs Pvt. Ltd. was opened by Sh. Pradeep Anand, Sh. K.K Sahney and Major General O.P Sabharwal who were the Directors of the Company, vide document Ex.PW9/245 (D1).
4. That the letter Ex.PW13/A (part of D1) was written by M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. intimating the names of Directors of the Company to the Bank.
5. That this account was introduced by the Branch Manager of Sadar Bazaar Branch of Oriental Bank of Commerce namely Mr. Chhatwal, which introduction on document Ex.PW9/245 appear within the circle X1.
6. That as per the letter addressed to the Manager of Sadar Bazaar Branch by the Officer concerned, who had opened the account [Ex.PW9/13/B (part of D1)], there was a telephonic conversation which the Officer had with the Branch Manager, Sadar Bazaar confirming the introduction by the Manager of the Sadar Bazaar Branch.
7. That there was an application submitted on behalf of M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. with regard to the sanction of credit limits during his tenure and he had also recommended the same to the Regional Office.
8. That during his tenure he did not receive any Sanction letter with regard to the sanctioning of the said credit limit.
9. That after he had recommended the sanctioning of the credit limit, he was transferred to Azadpur Branch.
Since the witness was resiling from his previous statement, therefore, he was crossexamined by the Ld. PP for CBI wherein the witness has deposed as under:
1. That he does not recollect if CBI Investigating Officer had recorded his statement but he had visited the office of CBI and had taken some papers along with of Gurgaon Branch of the bank.
2. That even after going through the statement Mark P13/1, he does not recollect, if he had CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 166 of 569 given any such statement to CBI but the contents of this statement, appear to be correct.
3. That the hand writing and signatures appearing in the circle X1 in Ex.PW13/B could be of Sh. Goyal who was working under him as Hall Incharge, but he is not in a position to identify his hand writing.
4. That in relation to this account there was a confirmation sought from Sh. Chhatwal, Branch Manager of Sadar Bazaar Branch at that time.
5. That he had heard that Sh. Chhatwal was the relative of Sh. Pradeep Anand, but he is not sure about it.
6. That this communication must have been sent by Sh. Goyal as he was the Hall Incharge.
7. That the documents Ex.PW13/A, Ex.PW9/246, Ex.PW9/247, copy of Balance Sheet as on 31.12.1987 Ex.PW9/248 (Part of D1) and Specimen Signature Card (part of D1) were annexed to the Account Opening Form Ex.PW9/245 and were submitted as per the official requirement of the bank for opening of the account and these documents must have been taken by the Officer who had opened the account in the usual course of the business.
8. That the documents Ex.PW13/C and Ex.PW13/D were taken from the party in the usual course of the business for opening the account.
9. That as per the document Ex.PW9/246 Sh.
Pradeep Anand was authorised to open and operate the account on behalf of M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd.
10. That vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/F (D529) bearing his signatures at point A, he had submitted the documents to CBI which include a credit transfer voucher which is Ex.PW13/F. In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsels the witness has deposed on the following aspects:
That the account of M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. was not opened by him and he had personally not collected the documents related thereto.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 167 of 569 That it was the job of Sh. Goyal who was the Hall Incharge at that time and he was authorised under the rules and regulations of the bank to open a bank account.
That the application which was submitted on behalf of the above company was for credit limit.
That he does not remember the exact details of the said application and hence he cannot say if it was for term loan as well.
That before the application for credit limit was put up before him, it was processed by the Officer (Credit) along with his recommendations.
That he must have recommended the sanctioning of the limit only after he was satisfied about the proposed viability of the unit.
14. Sh. Sanjay Kumar PW14 Sh. Sanjay Kumar Sinha was an employee of Sinha (PW14) Indian Oil Corporation who in his examination in chief has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he is posted as Sr. Manager, in the Marketing Division, at Kochi, Kerala.
2. That he had also served as Dy. Manager (Materials), Eastern Region and was posted at Kolkata during the period from May, 1995 to April, 2000.
3. That as a Dy. Manager he was looking after the procurement of materials like pipes, flanges etc.
4. That they had approved list of parties and used to purchase the material through limited tender from the approved list of parties.
5. That in addition to it, they also used to float public tenders for the procurement of the material and for certain materials the list of parties was approved by the Head Office and for some by the Local Management.
6. That as far as the Material Department at Kolkata is concerned, during his tenure as Dy.
Manager, no material was purchased from M/s Moon Light Engineers.
7. That there was also no order placed on M/s Moon Light Engineers and there was also CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 168 of 569 never any supply received from M/s Moon Light Engineers or payment made to M/s Moon Light Engineers.
8. That there was no purchase made from M/s Moon Light Engineers related to the documents Ex.PW9/195 (D265), Mark PW9/M3 (D266), Mark PW9/M4 (D267), Ex.PW9/196 (D268), Ex.PW9/197 (D269) and Mark PW9/M5 (D270).
9. That had there been a purchase made, there must have been a purchase order reference number and signature of the Signing Authority of the Purchase Department.
10. That the record available with his Department was checked by him and it was found that there was no purchase order made on the party i.e M/s Moon Light Engineers relating to the documents shown to him.
11. That these documents also do not show as to what kind of material was to be supplied to IOCL by M/s Moon Light Engineers.
12. That as far as the Material Department is concerned, there was no purchase order made on M/s Moon Light Engineers and there was also no payment made to M/s Moon Light Engineers on any account either in respect of the document shown to him or otherwise.
13. That since there was no order placed on M/s Moon Light Engineers, there is no question of any supply being made by M/s Moon Light Engineers to them.
In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsels, the witness has deposed as under:
That Midnapur is a District where at Haldia they have Refinery and is entirely different Division from Marketing where he was posted. That he is not aware what establishment the Marketing Division had at Haldia, Midnapur in the year 1995.
That the above documents do not relate to the Material Department of Eastern Region, Kolkata.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 169 of 569 That the projects are handled by their Engineering Department, Kolkatta and not by Materials Department, Kolkatta and hence, he cannot say anything about the projects of the Marketing Division in progress in the year 1995 at Haldia, Midnapur or Hubli.
That he cannot say if the bills referred to in the above forwarding letters pertain to the supply order placed by the Engineering Department or the consultant of the project.
That from the documents Ex.PW9/195 (D265), Mark PW9/M3 (D266),Mark PW9/M4 (D267), Ex.PW9/196 (D268), Ex.PW9/197 (D269) and Mark PW9/M5 (D270) it cannot be made out to which Department/ Division of IOCL they relate to and against which supply order the bills referred therein were raised.
That there was no question of checking up with SBI, Midnapur as there is no reference to any purchase order in the said documents and there was no order placed as far as the Materials Department is concerned at Eastern Region, Kolkata.
That there were three Incharges during his five years of posting as the Dy. Manager.
That in the year 199597 Sh. D.P Chakrawarty was the Incharge of the Materials Department who was followed by Mr. A.K Chattopadhyay and then Mr. N. Kumar but it would be difficult for him to say who was the Incharge in 1998 and it must be either Sh. Chattopadhyaya or Sh. Kumar.
That Materials Department was a very small Department and there must have been not more than 56 persons posted in the Department including the staff and the Officers in the year 1998.
That one CBI Officer from CBI, Delhi had visited their office and inquired about M/s Moon Light Engineers and had also asked about the three orders placed on the said party and after checking their records, they confirmed that no orders had been placed on CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 170 of 569 the said party by the Materials Department, Kolkata.
That there was no written communication given to them by the CBI.
That they as a Department (i.e. all the staff members and the Officers who were involved in checking the record including him and his Boss) had checked the entire record before confirming that no order had been placed on M/s Moon Light Engineers.
That no office note was prepared in this regard and the CBI Officer had met his Boss who had called him and thereafter the entire process started.
That in the Department there is a purchase order register in which all the purchase orders are recorded sequentially and there is no question of any mismatch since it was checked personally by him.
That they did not check up with other Departments/Offices of Marketing who had the projects at Haldia, Midnapur/ Hubli before making the statement to CBI and they had confirmed the "not placing of orders" by the Materials Department, Kolkata on the basis of the records available in their office only. That the Materials Department at Kolkata used to maintain the list of approved Vendors but he did not supply the said list to CBI since CBI did not ask for it.
That all the purchase orders are guided by the terms and conditions and whatever is laid down in those documents is required to be followed.
That the documents referred to above had been shown to him by the CBI Officer who had come to him.
That the items like pipes and flanges are subject to excise duty.
That the purchase documents include the invoice giving details of the material supplied, insurance, transport receipt and excise duty certificate.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 171 of 569 That his statement was recorded by CBI at Kolkata, at his office and he was shown only the documents referred above and not any purchase documents or copies thereof relating to M/s Moon Light Engineers, at the time of recording of his statement.
That he did not write any letter to SBI in reference to the bills referred to in the above forwarding schedule since it was not pertaining to the Materials Department.
That he had not written any letter to SBI referring to the amounts of Rs.3 lacs, Rs.2,99,364/ and Rs.2,97,440/ connected with the three bills drawn by M/s Moonlight Engineers on IOCL, Midnapore seeking the confirmation about the bills having been received at their end referred to in the forwarding schedule of OBC.
15. Sh. Sandeep Gupta PW15 Sh. Sandeep Gupta is a Businessman who in (PW15) his examination in chief has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he is running a business of steel trading at Faridabad since 1992 under the name of M/s Shiv Industrial Enterprises and he is the proprietor of M/s Shiv Industrial Enterprises.
2. That in the year 1992 its address was, B282, Nehru Ground, Faridabad and the said firm was registered with Sales Tax Department.
3. That in the year 1992 he also had a bank account in the Oriental Bank of Commerce at Neelam Chowk, Faridabad Branch and also had a bank account in the name of the same firm at New Friends Colony Branch of Oriental Bank of Commerce.
4. That he is not aware the exact date, but this account at New Friends Colony Branch was opened by him sometime in the year 199495.
5. That the reason for opening the account at New Friends Colony Branch was that sometime they used to receive the cheques of the parties located in Delhi and this used to reduce the time in the realization of the said cheques.
6. That in case a cheque of a party located in Delhi having its account in Delhi was CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 172 of 569 deposited in the OBC branch at Faridabad, the clearing of such a cheque used to take 67 days.
7. That Sh. Pathrella (accused correctly identified by the witness) was the Branch Manager at New Friends Colony Branch when he had opened the said account and the said account was introduced by someone on the asking of Sh. Pathrella.
8. That he does not know the name of the said person who had introduced this account.
9. That after he had opened the said account at New Friends Colony, there was also a cheque book issued to him.
10. That he does not know any person by the name of Pradeep Anand or Companies/Firms by the name of M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd., M/s Moon light Engineers Permanent Tools and Machines, M/s Suraksha Engineering and Steel Traders and M/s Steel Samrat India.
11. That he knew Sh. Sanjeev Arora who was introduced to him by Sh. Pathrella at New Friends Colony branch on the pretext that Sh.
Sanjeev Arora was having a good business of electronic items and he could help him in establishing business of electronic items.
12. That he does not remember it precisely but the name of his firm was something like M/s Electra.
13. That in good faith on being asked by Sh. Pathrella, he had handed over the cheque book of the said account to Sh. Sanjeev Arora after its cheques being signed by him (witness) since Sh. Sanjeev Arora had informed him that he would himself take out the money from his above account in relation to the business, which they are going to have and for this purpose he (witness) would not have to come all the way from Faridabad to Delhi.
14. That he does not remember but one or two personal bills he had discounted in the said account.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 173 of 569
15. That he is not aware of any transaction in that account of Rs.5,75,000/ from the account of M/s Moon light Engineers on 18.3.1995 and he came to know of this transaction when it was brought to his notice by CBI during the course of the investigation.
16. That when he was informed about the same, he had stated to CBI that he had nothing to do with it.
17. That he had contacted the bank and had informed the Manager, whose name he does not know, about it that he did not know anything about the said entry.
18. That it was then suggested that he should pay back the said money to M/s Moon light Engineers.
19. That he had accordingly issued two cheques in the name of M/s Moon light Engineers for returning the said money.
20. That the cheques Ex.PW12/A to Ex.PW12/D (D274, D275, D276 & D277) are in his handwriting and also signed by him.
21. That he had deposited the said cheques vide the deposit slips Ex.PW12/C and Ex.PW12/D which are also in his handwriting and it was by these deposit slips, that he had deposited the money in the account of M/s Moon light Engineers.
22. That the said cheque book used to remain with Sh. Sanjeev Arora and he (Sanjeev Arora) was making the transactions in the said account using the cheques in the said cheque book but he has no knowledge as to how he (Sanjeev Arora) was making the said transactions by using the cheques signed by him.
23. That Sh. Vikram Arora is the brother of Sh. Sanjeev Arora who was also introduced to him with his brother by Sh. Pathrella.
24. That Sh. Vikram Arora had asked him to introduce his account which he wanted to open in the OBC, Neelam Chowk Branch at Faridabad and he had also asked him that he (witness) should allow him to use his business address for the purpose of opening the said CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 174 of 569 account as he wanted the said address for a short period of time so that he has an address available where his dak etc. could be delivered.
25. That the said address was B282, Nehru Ground, Faridabad.
26. That Sh. Vikram Arora did not have any address at Faridabad.
27. That he (witness) had not received any dak at the said address in the name of Sh. Vikram Arora.
28. That Sh. Vikram Arora was not carrying any business from the said address.
29. That the photocopy of Account Opening form Mark P15/1 (D562) bears his signature at point A as an Introducer for opening the account by Sh. Vikram Arora in the name of M/s Carda India and there is something also written thereafter "Carda India" which he cannot make out.
In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsels, the witness has deposed as under:
That his father Sh. S.S Gupta is a union leader in OBC at Faridabad and has now retired from service.
That his father was posted in the Neelam Chowk Branch of OBC at the time when his account in the name of M/s Shiv Industrial Enterprises was opened in the said branch and also when his account was opened at the New Friends Colony Branch.
That it is possible that he (father of the witness) may have got transferred in between some times.
That he cannot say as to where he was transferred from this branch and for what duration.
That M/s Shiv Industrial Enterprises was enjoying credit facilities at OBC, Neelam Chowk Branch.
That at that time when the credit facility were granted to him, his father was also posted in the said Branch.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 175 of 569 That he was introduced to Sh. Pathrella by his father.
That he had visited of his own to New Friends Colony branch for opening the account. That he does not remember if his father had given the introduction for the opening of the account at New Friends Colony Branch, which introduction was arranged by Sh. Pathrella. That he does not remember if Sh. Pathrella had himself introduced the account.
That he also does not remember the date or the month when he had visited the New Friends Colony Branch for opening the said account. That he had met Sh. Pathrella in his cabin in the branch.
That he cannot say as to how many times he had met Sh. Pathrella before the opening of the account and after the opening of the account. That in the bank the accounts are opened by the officers of the bank and in this case also the account was opened at the New Friends Colony Branch by the officers of the bank.
That he had filled the forms in the presence of Sh. Pathrella.
That he is not aware if his father had asked anyone in the branch to open the said account. That he is not aware if his father knew Sh. Sanjeev Arora.
That Sh. Vikram Arora had an account at Neelam Chowk Faridabad Branch of OBC. That the cheque book when he had handed over to Sh. Sanjeev Arora was not filled up and he had only signed the cheques.
That he must have been around 22 or 23 years of age when he had opened the account at the New Friends Colony Branch.
That he had introduced the account of accused Sh. Vikram Arora at Neelam Chowk Branch, OBC.
That he does not remember, if his father was also posted in the Neelam Chowk Branch of OBC when the said account was opened by Sh. Vikram Arora after being introduced by him.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 176 of 569 That in the year 1994 and 1995 he was staying at house no.341, Sector16, Faridabad. That he is not aware if his father was posted at Village Sihi, Sector7, Faridabad branch in the year 198788.
That he was dealing in iron and steel. That he and his father had never visited the factory of Pradeep Anand on 15.3.1995 and offered a very attractive discount and settled an order for supply of IS 2002 steel plates 10mm thick @ Rs.11,500/ per ton totalling Rs.11,50,000/ with 50% as advance payment. That he cannot explain that on the one hand he had stated that he had given a blank signed cheque book to Sh. Arora and on the other hand he stated that these two cheques Ex.PW12/A and Ex.PW12/B are written in his handwriting and signed by him, but it is possible that he might have may used a separate cheque book for issuing the said cheques or he might have taken out some cheques from blank signed cheque book which he had handed over to Sh. Sanjeev Arora. That he cannot say with certainty that some of the cheques out of the said cheque book may have been retained by him and some may have delivered to Sh. Arora after signing the same leaving them blank.
That although on the deposit slip Ex.PW9/225A (D205) the name of his firm is mentioned, but he does not remember if the account no.2523 was of his firm M/s Shiv Industrial Enterprises. However, the document is not filled in his handwriting. That in the normal course as per the practice of the bank one should get the credit on the same day if the cheque is of the same branch and it is subject to any objection which may be there as to the signatures etc. That he does not know either M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. , M/s Moon Light Engineers or Sh. Pradeep Anand.
That during the inquiry he was asked if he knew M/s Moon Light Engineers to which he CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 177 of 569 had denied and had also stated to CBI that he did not know Sh. Pradeep Anand or the said firm after which they asked him as to how the said money came into his account and therefore he had ultimately to pay back the said money, which came into his account.
16. Smt. Sudha Sharma PW16 Sh. Sudha Sharma was the Senior Manager (PW16) with Oriental Bank of Commerce who in her examination in chief has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That she is serving as Sr. Manager with Oriental Bank of Commernce and posted at Saket Branch.
2. That in the year 1996 she was posted at G.K. II Branch of the Bank as an Officer and at that time Sh. V.K. Kamboj was the Chief Manager.
3. That her duties as an Officer were to perform the duties as assigned by the Chief Manager and to pass the entries entered by clerical staff in the books of account.
4. That "TPO" stands for Transfer Payment Order which is an internal document by which one branch of the bank transfers the funds to the other Branch of the Bank.
5. That there is a form required to be filled in by the customer making a request for transferring funds from his one account in one branch to the other account in the other branch and considering the request of the customer, such a transfer payment order is issued by the Branch.
6. That before making a request the customer has to ensure that either he has sufficient funds in his account or he may on a particular day when he wants such a transfer to be made deposit the money in cash in the bank.
7. That thereafter this form has been filled up the customer carries the slip with the cash to the Cashier and deposits the same with the Cashier who thereafter puts an appropriate stamp on the form and also passes a cash entry in the computer or in the books if it is manual and puts his signature on the form, meaning thereby the cash has been deposited by the party in the bank.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 178 of 569
8. That the said form thereafter goes to the Passing Officer to check as to whether it has been properly stamped and signed by Cashier or he may even cross check it from the system.
9. That if there is a valued customer of the bank he may directly approach the Branch Manager for issuing the TPO.
10. That in that case even the Branch manager may help the customer in filling up the form or may himself fill up the form in his hand to help the customer and sign it, meaning thereby that it is as good as an order by the Branch Manager that the TPO has to be issued.
11. That in any case the cash is required to be deposited before the issuance of TPO.
12. That generally commission is charged but in the case of staff the bank may waive off the commission.
13. That sometime where there is a high profile customer, they may take permission in advance from the higher authorities for waiving off the commission and in those cases also the commission is waived off.
14. That the TPOs application which are Ex.PW16/A to Ex.PW16/C (D399, D400 and D401) were submitted on behalf of M/s Future Positives, which have been initialled by her at point A, meaning thereby that she had passed the entries from the cash book and it also means that the cash had already been received.
15. That these forms have been filled in the handwriting of Sh. Kamboj, the then Chief Manager of bank and also bears the initials of Sh. Rajender Prasad who was the Cashier of the bank at point B.
16. That at point X on Ex.PW16/A there is a note "at par" which means that as far as this application was concerned, there was no commission charged by the bank.
17. That this is in the handwriting of Sh. Kamboj who had also initialled.
18. That the TPOs issued against the above applications are Ex.PW16/D to Ex.PW16/F CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 179 of 569 (D414, D415 and D416).
19. That since this was an application form filled in by the Chief Manager himself so there was no questions raised about it but it would have been better if the name and address of the applicant had also been written on the same.
20. That she does not remember much about it but one Sh. S.K. Lakhina used to be the DGM at that time who used to visit the Branch quite often.
21. That usually one Senior officer like him would visit the branch he would meet the Chief Manager of the bank generally and not the other staff.
In her crossexamination by the Ld. Defence counsel, the witness has deposed on the following aspects:
That in normal circumstances in an application for the issuance of TPO it is mandatory that the particulars of the person submitting the application alongwith his address is required to be mentioned. However, sometimes in case of the staff filing such application or some high profile customers well known to the Bank even if such details are not filled in, the applications are entertained.
That it cannot be said by looking at the applications Ex.PW16/A to Ex.PW16/C that who had deposited the money with the bank for issuing the TPOs.
That once the Chief Manager filled the form in his handwriting, it could be presumed that all the necessary requirements have been met as they must have been ensured by the Chief Manager.
That she will not be able to say who was the person who had actually deposited the money with the bank for the issuance of TPO.
That the cash is received by the Cashier first and then it comes to Passing Officer and as one can see all the above applications have been duly initialled by the Cashier Sh. Rajender Prasad.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 180 of 569 That she knew DGM Sh. S.K. Lakhina as he used to visit the Branch for official inspection. That she is not aware that in this case it was Sh. Lakhina who had deposited the money for the issuance of the said TPOs.
17 Sh. Babu Lal Munot PW17 Sh. Babu Lal Munot was a Businessman who (PW17) in his examination in chief has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he is a businessman doing the business of pipe and pipe in the name and style of M/s.
Steel Samrat India having its address at 113/117, Gulab Mension, 3rd, Kumbarwada, Mumbai4, and factory at F4/6, MIDC, Boiser, District Thana, Mumbai, which he started in the year 1981.
2. That initially it was a partnership firm in the name of M/s. Steel Met Industries and later on in the year 1986, he had his own proprietorship firm by the name of M/s. Steel Samrat India.
3. That in the year 1986 M/s. Steel Samrat India had its office at 31, Dev Bhawan, Second Floor, First Carpenter Street, Mumbai4.
4. That sometime in the year 1991, it was shifted to 115, Durga Devi Road, Mumbai4 and again it was shifted to 113/117, 3rd Kumbarwada, Mumbai4 in the year 1993 and since then it is operating from the said office.
5. That this office is like his own property, but he pay rent for it to its owner by cheque.
6. That he does not recollect the name of the owner.
7. That in 1993, he had made supplies to Bombay Dying (Bombay), Bridge & Roof (Ootti, Tamilnadu), Sidharth Gautam (Faridabad), True Forge India Pvt. Ltd. (Faridabad) and to many others.
8. That he had made the supplies to IOCL in the year 1995.
9. That he knew Mr. Pradeep Anand (accused correctly identified by the witness) whom he had met sometime in 1994 when he used to make supplies to certain Companies located in Faridabad.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 181 of 569
10. That he (Pradeep Anand) was in the business of manufacturing pipe fittings in the name of M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. and had visited him at Bombay.
11. That in 1994 Sh. Pradeep Anand had visited him at his office in Bombay and had offered to give him his agency for Maharashtra and Gujrat and had also given him a letter to this effect which was agreed between them that on the orders for pipe fittings he would procure for him, he would give him commission of 6% and also 4% Sales Tax Chargeable under Central Sales Tax and there was an agreement also entered in this regard between them.
12. That from the IOCL for supplying the pipe fittings of size 1 inch X 12 inch he had received one order in the name of M/s. Steel Samrat India, Bombay and Sh. Pradeep Anand had also got one order for supplying the pipe fittings which were of the size about 12 inch in the name of M/s. True Fab Pvt Ltd.
13. That the order which he had received was in the range of Rs. 2425 lacs and the order which Sh. Pradeep Anand had received was in the range of Rs.51 lacs above and as per the agreement Sh. Pradeep Anand was to pay him 6% as the commission on both the orders.
14. That he was to also pay him 4% CST with regard to the supply which was to be made in the name of his firm i.e. M/s. Steel Samrat India, Bombay and the total supply whether it was in the name of his firm or in the name of the company of Sh. Pradeep Anand, the supply was to be made by the Company of Sh. Pradeep Anand i.e. M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd.
15. That with regard to the supply which was to be made in the name of M/s. Steel Samrat India, Bombay, Sh.Pradeep Anand was to inform him as soon as the material was ready with him and after getting the same inspected by the third party, he would send him a release note to him and on the basis of the said release note, he used to sent in the invoice for giving it to the transporter.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 182 of 569
16. That after getting the L.R. from the Transporter he was to sent the same to him and after receipt of the L.R., he was to raise the bill on IOCL as well as on its Bank which he used to get the payment into the account of M/s. Steel Samrat India, Bombay and after deducting his commission and 4% CST, he was to make the payment by cheque of the remaining amount of M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd.
17. That he was informed by Sh. Pradeep Anand that the material was ready with him and he should send him fifteen bills for being given to the transporter.
18. That he had accordingly sent fifteen bills to him but Sh. Pradeep Anand did not send the L.R. to him after showing the dispatch of material to IOCL.
19. That he had sent him number of letters asking him to sent the LR's to him but he (Pradeep Anand) did not send LR's to him.
20. That later he came to know from IOCL that no supplies had been made to IOCL by Sh. Pradeep Anand in the name of M/s. Steel Samrat India, Mumbai.
21. That Sh. Pradeep Anand had submitted a forged bill in the name of M/s. Steel Samrat India showing himself as the Proprietor and had got the same discounted from Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Delhi.
22. That he (witness) had written a letter to the Oriental Bank of Commerce informing that M/s. Steel Samrat India is a Mumbai based firm and there is no firm by the name of M/s. Steel Samrat India at Faridabad and that he had not authorized anyone to get his bills discounted.
23. That he had written 23 such letters in the form of reminders and received a reply from Oriental Bank of Commerce also.
24. That he had written in one of the letters that he would complaint to RBI about it.
25. That the bank had informed him that Sh. Pradeep Anand was the owner of M/s. Steel CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 183 of 569 Samrat India and he had also sent him a copy of such document.
26. That he was informed by one of the letters that it was a matter between him and Pradeep Anand.
27. That the Bank Manager also threatened him on phone that if he write such letters repeatedly, he would take action against him.
28. That after coming to know that no supplies had been made to IOCL, he had sent his Manager Sh. Vikas Jaswal to IOCL, New Delhi for getting the entire details about the supplies being made to IOCL in the name of M/s. Steel Samrat India and it was informed by IOCL to Sh. Vikas Jaswal that no supplies had been made to IOCL except for small quantity of supply made and it was also informed that the LRs submitted were fabricated and there were no such transporters in existence.
29. That after Vikas Jaswal had returned, he had written a letter informing the IOCL that all payments be sent which were in the name of M/s. Steel Samrat India at the Bombay office in Registered Cover and thereafter they had made the entire supply to IOCL as per the order which bills were also raised by them and they had also received the payment against them.
30. That the letter Ex.PW9/156 (D378) was written by the bank informing him with regard to the letter which he had written to the bank that it was a matter between him and Sh. Pradeep Anand and also advising him to directly take up this matter with Sh. Pradeep Anand without involving the bank.
31. That letter Ex.PW17/1 (D379) was written to the Bank from the side of M/s. Steel Samrat India bearing the signatures of Sh. Vikas Jaswal, Manager of M/s. Steel Samrat India at point A on which he had also put his signatures at point B at the time of supplying this documents to CBI and it was informed to the bank that the bill submitted to the bank by Sh.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 184 of 569 Pradeep Anand was bogus including the L.Rs and also informed that they had not authorized anyone to present their bills for discounting.
32. That the letter Ex.PW9/157 (D380) was received by them from Oriental Bank of Commerce informing that it was a matter between them and Pradeep Anand advising them to take up this matter directly with Sh. Pradeep Anand, which letter bears his signatures at point B at the time when he had delivered this letter to CBI.
33. That alongwith this letter the bank had also sent him a photocopy of letter submitted by Sh. Pradeep Anand to the Bank bearing his signatures at point A informing that Sh. Pradeep Anand was the proprietor of M/s. Steel Samrat India, Faridabad which document is part of Ex.PW9/157.
34. That he had supplied this document also to CBI and while doing so he had put his signatures on it at point B and alongwith the said letter the bank had also sent him a photocopy of letter written by Sh. Pradeep Anand to IOCL which bears his signatures at point B, which he had signed at the time of supplying this document to CBI which letter is also part of Ex.PW9/157.
35. That vide this letter Sh. Pradeep Anand had informed IOCL that M/s. Steel Samrat India had shifted to Delhi and Faridabad.
36. That vide letter Ex.PW17/2 (D381) the bank was informed that the documents submitted by Sh. Pradeep Anand were bogus.
37. That the order of Rs.51 lacs which M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. had got from IOCL is Ex.PW11/1 (D382) and the order which was received by them i.e. M/s. Steel Samrat India at the Bombay address is Ex.PW17/3 (D382).
38. That the copy of invoice no. 1053, dated 02.02.1995 which is Ex.PW17/4 (D382) was to Sh. Pradeep Anand for being supplied to the transporter for the purpose of dispatch of the material bearing his signatures at point A. CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 185 of 569
39. That copy of invoice no. 1058, dated 07.02.1995 which is Ex.PW17/5 (D382) was sent to Sh. Pradeep Anand for being supplied to the transporter for the purpose of dispatch of the material which invoice bears his signatures at point A.
40. That the copy of invoice no. 1061, dated 10.02.1995 which is Ex.PW17/6 (D382) was sent to Sh. Pradeep Anand for being supplied to the transporter for the purpose of dispatch of the material which bears his signatures at point A.
41. That copy of the invoice no. 1065, dated 13.02.1995 which is Ex.PW17/7 (D382) was sent to Sh. Pradeep Anand for being supplied to the transporter for the purpose of dispatch of the material which bears his signatures at point A.
42. That three copies of the invoice no.1213, dated 04.12.1995 are Ex.PW17/8 (D382) vide which he had himself sent material to IOCL which bears his signatures at point A.
43. That three copies of the invoice no.1234, dated 04.12.1995 are Ex.PW17/9 (D382) by which he had himself sent the material to IOCL which bears his signatures at point A.
44. That office copy of the letter which he had written to Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Delhi on 27.06.1995 which is Ex.PW17/10 (Part of D382) and vide this letter he had informed the bank that the bills submitted by Sh. Pradeep Anand for discounting were bogus.
45. That the document Ex.PW9/38 (D103) was submitted for discounting of bills in the name of M/s. Steel Samrat India by Sh. Pradeep Anand which was a bogus document.
46. That the document Ex.PW9/61 (D103) is a bogus bill submitted in the name of M/s. Steel Samrat India for discounting.
47. That in this bill through the address of office has been given was of Bombay and their CST number has also been used but in below there is a stamp which has been put showing the CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 186 of 569 address of Faridabad which is a bogus stamp and the signatures appearing over it are also bogus signatures.
48. That in their bills one would always find a line on the top "Subject to Bombay Jurisdiction" which is missing in this invoice which is a forged invoice.
49. That document part of D103 is the transport receipt is also bogus because they never had any transporter by the name of Ashok Transport of India and he had no connection with M/s. Ashok Transport of India.
50. That the document Ex.PW9/39 (D104) is a document submitting for bill discounting which bears the stamp of "Steel Samrat (India)" which is not their stamp.
51. That he never had any account with Oriental Bank of Commerce.
52. That the documents Ex.PW9/40 (part of D
105), Ex.PW9/41 (part of D5), Ex.PW9/42 (part of D107), Ex.PW9/43 (part of D108), Ex.PW9/44 (part of D109), Ex.PW9/45 (part of D110), Ex.PW9/46 (part of D111), Ex.PW9/52 (part of D112), Ex.PW9/47 (part of D113), Ex.PW9/48 (part of D114), Ex.PW9/49 (part of D115), Ex.PW9/53 (part of D116), Ex.PW9/50 (part of D117), Ex.PW9/54 (part of D117), Ex.PW9/55 (part of D119), Ex.PW9/56 (part of D120), Ex.PW9/51 (part of D121), Ex.PW9/57 (part of D122), Ex.PW9/58 (part of D123), Ex.PW9/59 (part of D124), Ex.PW9/60 (part of D126), Ex.PW9/302 (part of D539) and Ex.PW9/304 (part of D540) by which the bills were submitted for discounting, were not signed by him and the stamp impression of "Steel Samrat India" is not their stamp because they never had any such rubber stamp.
53. That the documents Ex.PW17/11 (Part of D
105), Ex.PW17/12 (part of D105), Ex.PW17/13 (part of D106), Ex.PW9/62 (part of D107), Ex.PW9/63 (part of D108), CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 187 of 569 Ex.PW9/64 (part of D109), Ex.PW9/65 (part of D111), Ex.PW9/66 (part of D112), Ex.PW9/67 (part of D113), Ex.PW9/68 (part of D114), Ex.PW9/69 (part of D115), Ex.PW9/71 (part of D116), Ex.PW17/15 (part of D117), Ex.PW17/16 (part of D117), Ex.PW9/72 (part of D119), Ex.PW17/17 (part of D120), Ex.PW9/70 (part of D121), Ex.PW17/18 (part of D122), Ex.PW17/19 (part of D123), Ex.PW9/73 (part of D124), Ex.PW17/20 (part of D125), Ex.PW17/21 (part of D126), Ex.PW9/303 (part of D539) and Ex.PW9/305 (part of D540) are their invoices which have been forged and not only the style of their invoices has been copied, but also their office address and the CST number which has been printed on it.
54. That in their bills on the top one would always find the line "Subject to Bombay Jurisdiction" which is missing herein and the stamp impression in the name of Steel Samrat (India) with Faridabad address is not their's which has also not been signed by anyone of their firm.
55. That document Ex.PW17/22 (D537) is a bill dated 02.02.1995 signed by Sh. Vikas Jaswal, their Manager at point A which was sent to Sh. Pradeep Anand for being supplied to the transporter for dispatching the goods to IOCL and get him the LR from him, which was to be sent to him thereafter for raising the bill on IOCL.
56. That document Ex.PW17/23 (Part of D537) is a bill dated 06.02.1995 signed by Sh. Vikas Jaswal, their Manager at point A which was sent to Sh. Pradeep Anand for being supplied to the transporter for dispatching the goods to IOCL and get him the LR from him, which was to be sent to him thereafter for raising the bill on IOCL.
57. That the document Ex.PW17/24 (D538) is a letter sent by them to State Bank of India, CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 188 of 569 Jaipur, Rajasthan for delivering the documents mentioned therein to IOCL, Salaya Mathura Pipe Line near Govt. Hospital, Chakshu which bears his signatures at point A showing that he had supplied the material to IOCL.
58. That the documents which he had sent with this letter are the invoice No. 1183 dated 27.09.1995 photocopy of letter received from IOCL dated 26.09.1995 by fax to him, Release note/Inspection Certificate by M/s. RITES, LR issued by Transport Corporation of India which are Ex.PW17/24A to 24D.
59. That document Ex.PW17/25 (Part of D538) are carbon copies of the bill No. 1213 dated 04.12.1995 in Triplicate, which were given to the Transport Company for delivering the goods to IOCL and the same bear his signatures at point A.
60. That the document Ex.PW17/26 (D538) is the LR receipt of the said transporter who had transported the goods.
61. That the document Ex.PW17/27 (Part of D
538) are the carbon copies of the bill no. 1214 dated 14.12.1995 in Triplicate, which were given to the Transport Company for delivering the goods to IOCL and the same bear his signature at point A.
62. That the document Ex.PW17/28 (Part of D
538) is the LR receipt of the said transporter who had transported the goods.
63. That document Ex.PW17/29 (Part of D538) are the carbon copies of the bill No. 1215 dated 05.12.1995 running into four pages in Triplicate, which were given to the Transport Company for delivering the goods to IOCL which bear his signature at point A.
64. That the document Ex.PW17/30 (Part of D
538) is the LR of the said transporter who had transported the goods.
65. That the document Ex.PW17/31 (Part of D
538) are carbon copies of the bill No. 1216 dated 05.12.1995, which was given to the Transport Company for delivering the goods to IOCL and the same bear his signature at point CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 189 of 569 A.
66. That the document Ex.PW17/32 (Part of D
538) is the LR receipt of the said transporter who had transported the goods.
67. That document Ex.PW17/33 (Part of D538) is the carbon copy of the bill No. 1241 dated 19.01.1996, which was given to the Transport Company for delivering the goods to IOCL and the same bear the signature of Sh. Vikas Jaswal at point A.
68. That the document Ex.PW17/34 (Part of D
538) is the LR receipt of the said transporter who had transported the goods.
69. That document Ex.PW17/35 (D541) is an invoice No. 1183 dated 27.09.1995 by which the matter was supplied to IOCL by them.
70. That document Ex.PW17/36 (D542) is a letter written to SBI, Jaipur informing therein about the documents be sent to the bank with regard to the delivery of the goods to IOCL which bears his signatures at point A and the documents sent alongwith this letter are Ex.PW17/36A to 36I.
71. That the documents four in number which are Ex.PW17/37 to Ex.PW17/40 (Part of D542) are the invoices which he had sent to Sh. Pradeep Anand for the purposes of delivering the same to the transporter and thereafter transmitting the LR to him.
In his crossexamination on behalf of accused, the witness has deposed as under : That before 1994, he had not made any supplies to IOCL (Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.).
That he had submitted tender documents for getting the supply order from IOCL and had submitted all the documents which were required to be submitted with the tender but he does not remember the details of the said tender.
That he does not remember if with the tender there was any requirement of submitting a bank guarantee of Rs. 1 lac.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 190 of 569 That he does not recollect if he had submitted such a bank guarantee or not.
That he is still submitting tenders to IOCL. That there was no bank guarantee given to M/s. Steel Samrat India whose proprietor was Sh. Pradeep Anand.
That he does not remember if there was any bank guarantee given alongwith the said tender which was issued by Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony, New Delhi. That he also does not remember if there was any Performance Guarantee submitted to IOCL after the awarding of the contract pursuant to the said tender.
That he is not aware if the Oriental bank of Commerce had issued the Bank Guarantee BG6/95 dated 07.03.1995 for Rs.2,46,856.30 as Performance Guarantee in favour of IOCl in the supply order no. PLM/2433/93BCPIND/58 dated 23.12.1994 or was submitted by Sh. Pradeep Anand to IOCL.
That as per the said agency which was given to him, he was to receive 6% Commission and 4% CST from Sh. Pradeep Anand.
That he has been awarded contracts by IOCL where he had not submitted the earnest money or performance guarantee.
That towards the performance guarantee 10% of the amount was deducted against the supplies made.
That he will not be able to give the details of supply orders having been given to him by IOCL.
That as per the agency i.e. the contract between him and Sh. Pradeep Anand, he was to submit the earnest money and also the performance guarantee, if at all required, though he cannot say if he had submitted the same or not.
That the document Ex.PW17/A3 (D382) was the supply order which was given by IOCL. That though it is mentioned in Clause No. 14 of the supply order that there was a requirement of Bank Guarantee of 10% of the supply order.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 191 of 569 That there was also a practice with IOCL where after the supply has been made, IOCL would deduct 10% of the bill and release the remaining amount.
That if such bank guarantees had been submitted, they were submitted to mislead the IOCL and commit fraud by submitting the bank guarantees in his name and also to take over his company which was in the name of M/s. Steel Samrat (India).
That Pradeep Anand had used his sales tax number to commit fraud with IOCL and also to commit fraud with the bank.
That the supply order Ex.PW17/A3 was received at his address.
That after he had received the said supply order, as per the terms of the agency, he had sent the supply order to Sh. Pradeep Anand. That where there is a formality of performance guarantee being executed, then as per the practice they IOCL also keep with them 10% of the bill amount.
That some of the terms and conditions mentioned in the purchase order Ex.PW17/A3 were changed subsequently.
That after the fraud had been committed by Sh. Pradeep Anand by forging documents and getting the same discounted, when he had come to know of it, he had informed IOCL and on the information given to him, they had extended the period of delivery of goods and after the period had been extended, he had made the supply to IOCL but he does not remember if there was any other term or condition had been changed. That he had not received any money from M/s. Steel Samrat (India) Faridabad and after he came to know that Pradeep Anand was trying to take over his company of the same name, he had made complaints to Bank, IOCL, RBI etc. That he is not aware if the Bank GuaranteeEx.PW4/B has been issued by the bank on Counter Guarantee Ex.PW4/A been furnished by Sh. Pradeep Anand as Proprietor CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 192 of 569 of M/s. Steel Samrat (India), Faridabad. That he does not remember the amount, but he had received money from him on account of material been supplied to him.
That he does not remember as to how much money he had received from Sh. Pradeep Anand on account of your Commission of 6% and CST of 4%.
That he had received Rs. 5 lacs from M/s. True Fab. Pvt. Ltd. in March, 1995 on account of raw material being supplied to M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. which was received by him through one DD in the name of M/s. Samrat Steel (India), Bombay but he cannot say that from which account the said draft was got made. That he had given the statement to CBI which is Ex.PW17/DX1 in which there is a reference of his receiving Rs. 11 lacs by way of two DDs, one of Rs. 5 lacs and other of Rs. 6 lacs and he remember only the receipt of DD of Rs. 5 lacs but he does not remember the other DD of Rs. 6 lacs having been received from him. That he recollects having returned Rs.3 lacs to him in cash as stated in the statement and he will to check the record to say if he had received a DD of Rs. 6 lacs from him.
That the figure of Rs.11,70,000/ appears to be the amount which was receivable as per the minutes of the meeting of 24.04.1995 and not the amount paid Rs.6.70 lacs was to be paid towards the transaction related to IOCL towards commission and CST charges and the remaining amount of Rs. 5 lacs was to be paid towards the material supplied.
That he does not remember having received any DD of Rs. One Lac vide DD No. 494133 dated 15.05.1995 which is Ex.PW9/141B. That whatever documents Inspector of CBI had asked for he had supplied but he does not remember specifically if the said documents had been supplied by him to CBI.
That he does not remember if there was any document prepared at the time of handing over Rs.3 lacs in cash to Sh. Pradeep Anand nor CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 193 of 569 does he recollect having supplied any document in that regard to CBI.
That he only remembers having received drafts of Rs. 5 lacs and Rs. 6 lacs but he is not aware from whose account the said drafts was got made and he had treated the said money to have been received from M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd.
That the invoices Ex.PW9/61, PW17/11, PW17/12, PW17/13, PW9/62, PW9/63, PW9/64, PW17/14, PW9/65, PW9/66, PW9/67, PW9/68, PW9/69, PW17/15, PW9/70, PW9/71, PW17/16, PW9/72, PW17/17, PW17/18, PW17/19, PW9/73, PW17/20, PW17/21 (D 104 to 126) though bear the address of M/s. Steel Samrat (India), Bombay but all these invoices are forged documents and are not the invoices of his firm and had been got printed by Sh. Pradeep Anand of his own.
That all the invoices bear the stamp of M/s.
Steel Samrat (India) where the address given is of Faridabad.
That all these bills were got discounted without his knowledge and without the material being supplied to IOCL by Sh. Pradeep Anand and it was he (witness) who had later on supplied the material to IOCL.
That the material was to be dispatched from Faridabad but factually it was not dispatched. That he had the agency of M/s. True Fab Pvt.
Ltd. and the goods to be supplied to IOCL were to be inspected by third party i.e. RITES after which the Release Note was to be sent to him and thereafter he was supposed to send the bill to Sh. Pradeep Anand for the dispatch of the goods but it was not done.
That he had given 1516 bills to Sh. Pradeep Anand for dispatch of goods and Sh. Pradeep Anand was supposed to send the documents to him alongwith LRs, which were then to be produced by him to IOCL but Pradeep Anand did not send the documents to him and got the same discounted at the bank and the complete material was not supplied.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 194 of 569 That he cannot produce the agency agreement he had with M/s. True Fab.
That there was no such agreement that Sh. Pradeep Anand was to float any Firm of the same name as M/s. Steel Samrat (India) for the purpose of availing the finances from the bank to meet the expenses.
That Pradeep Anand was to bear all the expenses for the manufacturing, supplying the goods and meeting all other expenses and it was also his responsibility to get the goods inspected.
That his contract was with M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd.
That he cannot identify the Bank Guarantee Ex.PW4/B (D100).
That the bank guarantee and the document alongwith Ex.PW4/A (D100) counter guarantee would show that the said bank guarantee had been issued on the representation of Sh. Pradeep Anand that he was the owner of M/s. Steel Samrat India Ltd. i.e. by using the name and address of his firm. That he does not remember if IOCL had made any complaint with regard to the Bank Guarantee to him since it is a very old matter. That he had made a complaint to the bank about Pradeep Anand having used the name of his firm and later on had also made a statement before the CBI with.
That the bank had informed him by a letter that as per their record Pradeep Anand was the owner of M/s. Steel Samrat India Ltd. which letter is Ex.PW9/156 (D378) written to him in response to his letter Ex.PW17/1 (D379). That he had also sent another letter which is Ex.PW17/2 (D381) in this regard.
That he had not taken any other action besides writing those letters to the bank and subsequently making statement to CBI. That there was no satisfaction on account of having received the said reply therefore, he had given the document to CBI and also statement to CBI.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 195 of 569 That he had not personally made any complaint to CBI.
That he had handed over those documents to CBI during the course of investigation carried out in this case and also made the statement when the inquiries were made from him during the investigation.
That in the drafts by which the said payments had been received it was not mentioned that it was being paid from the account of "M/s. Steel Samrat India" because this payment was made to him on account of the material he had supplied to M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. and also a payment of Rs.3 lacs paid in cash to Anil Kumar to M/s. Anil Metal Corporation, Mumbai on behalf of M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. That since it is a very old matter, he will not be able to produce the supply bills of material supplied or the cash voucher slip of payment and cash vouchers are retained for ten years. That he had not filed any case against Sh. Pradeep Anand for any recovery for any loss caused to him.
That he did not have any account with Oriental Bank of Commerce.
That the lorry receipts are made in the name of the bank if the documents are sent to the bank and in so far as he is concerned, he had taken the payments from IOCL in respect of the supplies which he had made.
That as far as the bills Ex.PW17/4 to Ex.PW17/7 are concerned, he will not be able to comment on it anything except that these bills bears his signatures.
That he had received the payments only against the supplies which had been made from Bombay and being an old matter he does not have any documents as such to show that. That the supplies were made through lorries which could be made by directly engaging a lorry or through some transporter.
That in so far as the issue of sending of goods through transporter is concerned, the LR number is mentioned on the invoice, but in case CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 196 of 569 the goods are directly sent through a lorry, mentioning the lorry number is not necessary. That as per Ex.PW17/A3 (Sr. No.11 and 12) the goods before being dispatched were required to be inspected by a third party inspection Agency M/s. RITES.
That after the inspection M/s. RITES was required to give Inspection Release Note after inspecting the material.
That being an old matter he cannot produce the Inspection Note of M/s. RITES in respect of the goods dispatched against those bills. That by seeing the address appearing on these Inspection Certificates, they appear to be the Inspection Certificates issued with regard to the goods dispatched from his factory which are Ex.PW17/DX2 and Ex.PW17/DX3.
That he can also identify the documents accompanying these Inspection Certificates Ex.PW17/DX2A collectively and Ex.PW17/DX3A collectively, respectively. That these inspection certificates relate to the bills Ex.PW17/8 and Ex.PW17/9.
That as per the purchase order Ex.PW17/A3 the payment was to be made against dispatch document through bank.
That as per this purchase order the supplier was to deposit a bank guarantee of 10% of the order value but it was not an essential requirement though it is mentioned in this document.
That though he was the Proprietor of M/s.
Steel Samrat India at Mumbai but he had never opened any account with OBC or taken any bank guarantee from OBC or submitted any documents with them.
That he had later on come to know that there was a bogus account opened in the name of M/s. Steel Samrat India at the said bank and had also pointed out this fact subsequently to the bank.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 197 of 569 That he had made a statement to CBI that there was a meeting between him and Pradeep Anand and in the undated minutes of the said meeting it was noted that he was to get a commission of 6% of the total value of the items supplied on behalf of M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Steel Samrat India, Bombay and this minutes of the meeting were produced by him to CBI for investigation. That he does not have a copy of the minutes. That though there was an agreement that he was to get 6% commission on the supplies made to IOCL but he was supposed to make the bills and the supplies were also supposed to be made by him after the manufactured goods were received by him from M/s. True Fab India India Ltd.
That he had also not given any authority to open an account in the name of M/s. Steel Samrat India showing Sh. Pradeep Anand as its Proprietor or use his sales tax number. That he does not remember as to he made statement to CBI that Pradeep Anand had made a supply of very small quantity of material on behalf of his firm.
That in the statement Ex.PW17/DX1 from X1 to X1 wherein it is recorded that on behalf of his firm a very small quantity of material had been supplied by Sh. Pradeep Anand, he had not made such statement.
That the said supply had been made in the name of his firm.
That bills Ex.PW17/22 (D537) and Ex.PW17/24A (D538) are his bills and the bill Ex.PW17/22 would show that the payment was made on 24.06.1995 but he cannot confirm the same because it appears from the accompanying LR, Mark P17/1 that the payment against this bill was given to the bank i.e. OBC, New Friends Colony.
That the LR number which is written on this bills is not in his handwriting and, therefore, he CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 198 of 569 will not be able to comment on it.
That bill Ex.PW17/1 is a typed document which bears the signatures of his staff, namely, Vikas Jaswal.
That the handwriting in the portion X1 to X1 where the LR number is written, is neither in his handwriting nor in the handwriting of Sh. Vikas Jaswal and one can also see that the pen used in the portion X1 to X1 is different from the signatures appearing on this document at point A. That the bill is of dated 02.02.1995 whereby the LR Mark P17/1 bears the date of 23.01.1995, which is not possible because the LR could have been prepared only after the bill and not before that.
That it a bogus document and accordingly the LR number mentioned in the bill Ex.PW17/22 in the portion X1 to X1 is also bogus and after such a long period of time he does not remember if he had received the payment against this bill.
That he does not remember if there had any copy of seizure memo supplied to him at the time of taking those documents from him but in any case he does not have any such memo in his possession.
That he has make statement to CBI that draft invoice was also to be sent to him by M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd., so that performa invoice could be prepared by his firm and forwarded to M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. as noted in potion X3 to X 3 of the statement Ex.PW17/DX1.
That they (M/s. True Fab) did not use his invoice but forged another invoice using the name of his firm and salestax number. That he had made the statement to CBI that first the inspection Release Note of RITES after the inspection of goods at Faridabad would be sent to him and thereafter he would sent the invoice to IOCL.
That those bills which he had sent to M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd., was kept by them and instead they had forged the bills and submitted to CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 199 of 569 Oriental Bank of Commerce.
That after the inspection certificate had been received by him from M/s. True Fab. Pvt. Ltd and he had sent to M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. 15 invoices.
That he will not be able to tell the approximate value of these invoices.
That although the dates on the said 15 bills were different but they all were sent on one day.
18 Sh. Shyam Sridhar PW18 Sh. Shyam Sridhar Shirgaonkar is a
Shirgaonkar (PW businessman who in his examination in chief deposed
18) on the following aspects:
1. That he is in the trading business of steel in the name of M/s. Manish Metal at Shop no. 10, 115, Durga Devi Street, Kumbawada, Mumbai 4 since last five years.
2. That he is the owner of shop no. 10, 115, Durga Devi Street, Kumbawada, Mumbai which he had purchased on 'Pagri' from Amrutlal Nanji Trust in the year 1989.
3. That during the period from 1990 to 1994 he let out the said sop to Sh. Babu Lal Ji Manoth on a monthly rent of Rs.2,000/.
4. That Sh. Babu Lal Manoth was also in the business of steel trading.
5. That he was running his business in the name of M/s. Steel Samrat India.
6. That he does not know any person by the name of Pradeep Anand.
7. That he never had any dealing with any person by the name of Sh. Pradeep Anand.
That this witness has not been cross examined by the accused persons.
19 Sh. Anil Kumar PW19 Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta is a businessman by Gupta (PW19) profession who has in his examination in chief deposed on the following aspects :
1. That he has a proprietorship firm by the name of M/s. Narain Industries at 16/3, Milestone, Mthura Road, Faridabad.
2. That he is running his business of Timber trading with saw mill under the said name CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 200 of 569 since 1973.
3. That earlier he was running this business in partnership with his father and since 2006, he is running it as a sole proprietorship firm.
4. That the property 16/3, Milestone, Mathura Road is their ancestral property.
5. That there was no other business being run from the said property except their own business in the name of M/s. Narain Industries.
6. That he had never let out this property to any one.
7. That he has never heard the name of any firm by the name of M/s. Permanent Tools & Machines and he had also never heard the name of any one by the name of Sh. Swaraj Chauhan running the business in the name of M/s. Permanent Tools & Machines.
8. That he does not know any person whose photograph appear on account opening form Ex.PW9/22 (D348).
9. That though the address which has been given on this account opening form is their address but this property was never let out or given to M/s. Permanent Tools & Machines by them as noted in this application.
In his crossexamination on behalf of accused, the witness has deposed as under : That in the year 19941995 their firm M/s.
Narain Industries was a partnership firm in which he and his father were the partners. That the name of his father is Late Sh. K.G. Gupta.
That Khasra number of their property 16/3 Milestone, Faridabad is 256/2.
That it must be measuring around 5000 sq. yards.
That their firm has an account in Oriental Bank of Commerce, Sector16, Faridabad. That they have this account from the very beginning.
That their land is located on the main road on the left side as they go from Delhi to Agra on Mathura Road.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 201 of 569 That there are many properties which have the same number 16/3 Milestone.
That across the road there is a cluster of 50 to 60 industrial units which is described as "Kharkhana Bagh".
20 Smt. Saroj Rani PW20 Smt. Saroj Rani is a Public Witness who has in (PW20) her examination in chief deposed on the following aspects :
1. That the property bearing no. B282, Nehru Ground, Faridabad was in her name at one point of time.
2. That she had sold the property long time back.
3. That she had never let out the said property on rent to anyone.
4. That this property used to remain vacant usually and sometimes it was also used for commercial purposes as and when required by the family.
5. That since it is an old matter and she was not residing or not using the said property, she cannot say that as to how many rooms were there in the said property.
6. That her husband Sh. R.S. Aggarwal used to look after this property.
7. That she does not know any person by the name of Sandeep Gupta son of Sh. S.S. Gupta.
8. That she also does not know any person by the name of Vikram Arora.
9. That she has never head the name of M/s. Carda (India) Electronics.
Since the witness was not supporting the case of the prosecution, therefore, she was crossexamined by the Ld. PP for CBI, wherein the witness has deposed as under: That no one from CBI had ever met her or recorded her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. That she has studied upto 10th standard. That though she can read but she has not brought her specks.
That she had not given any statement to the said inspector that Sh. Sandeep Gupta son of CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 202 of 569 Sh. S.S. Gupta was a tenant in one shop on the ground floor in the above property.
That her statement recorded which is Mark P 20 is not correct.
That she had not told anyone that any Sandeep Gupta was running a shop in the said property in the name and style of "Shiv Industrial Enterprises", dealing in iron and steel as read out to her from the statement Mark P20. That it is possible that her husband Sh. R.S. Aggarwal who was looking after the said property may have given the said property on rent to Sh. Sandeep Gupta but she does not know about it.
That she cannot identify the person (Vikram Arora) pointed out to her in the court. That she does not know if Sh. Vikram Arora could be there as a tenant in the property at any time.
The witness again said that he had never been a tenant in their property at any time.
In her crossexamination on behalf of accused, the witness has deposed as under : That her husband passed away in the year 2004.
That she does not know if any Sandeep Gupta had account in Oriental Bank of Commerce. That she will not be able to give the distance between the above property and their residence at Sector16 but it takes about 1415 minutes to reach the same in a car.
That she does not know if his husband had given a shop on rent to Sh. Sandeep Gupta. 21 Sh. Rohtash PW21 Sh. Rohtash Chauhan is a public witness who Chauhan (PW21) in his examination in chief has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he is working as a Guest Teacher in a school at Pondaary, Palwal.
2. That they are two brothers and the name of his brother is Swaraj Chauhan who is a Contractor by profession.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 203 of 569
3. That in the year 199495 Swaraj was studying and also working in a factory by the name of M/s. True Fab which was at Faridabad.
4. That he must be getting salary of about Rs.1200/to Rs.1,500/ approximately.
5. That he was not doing any other business.
6. That their financial position in 1994 in 1994 was Okay.
7. That they had a small piece of land of one and half acre.
8. That both of them must be earning around Rs.2,200/ or Rs.2,300/ per month besides the small income they had from their agricultural land.
9. That their father was not alive at that time.
10. That his bother got employment with M/s. True Fab through the reference of one T.C. Bhardwaj, who was known to his uncle (Mausa) Sh. Devi Ram.
11. That perhaps Sh. T.C. Bhardwaj was working in the accounts Department of M/s. True Fab.
12. That the photograph pasted on the account opening form Ex.PW9/22 (D348) is the photograph of his brother.
13. That he does not have any knowledge of Swaraj Chauhan having any account in his name or in any other name.
In his crossexamination on behalf of accused, the witness has deposed as under : That his brother Swaraj Chauhan at present is working as contractor in Palwal itself and is operating from his residence and does not have any separate office.
That Swaraj by nature was a hard working person and also ambitious.
That in 1994, he did not have any such desire of starting of his own business and was still studying at that time.
That in 1994 Swaraj was working full time with M/s. True Fab. and was also privately studying at that time.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 204 of 569 That he is not too sure perhaps in 1994 he had completed his plus two or he was still studying in plus two.
That in 1994 Swaraj was 21 years of age. 22 Sh. Asha Ram PW22 Sh. Asha Ram is a Public Witness who in his (PW22) examination in chief has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he is working as Sr. Assistant in the Irrigation Department of Government of U.P. and at present posted at Mathura.
2. That he knew Swaraj Chauhan since his birth because they are from the same village.
3. That he had heard that Sh. Swaraj Chauhan at present is doing some job of contractor.
4. That in 1994, he (Swaraj Chauhan) was working with a company in Faridabad but he does not remember the name of the said company.
5. That he has no personal knowledge as to what was the salary he was getting but he had heard that he was getting salary around Rs.1,000/ to Rs.1,200/.
6. That Swaraj came from a lower income group.
7. That they had a small land holding about one to one and half acres.
8. That he does not think he had the financial capability to do some independent work at that time.
9. That he had never heard that if he was running any factory of his own.
10. That the photograph pasted on the account opening form Ex.PW9/22 (D348) is the photograph of Sh. Swaraj Chauhan.
That this witness has not been cross examined by the accused persons.
23. Sh. B.S. Saxena PW23 Sh. B.S. Saxena is an Advocate by profession (PW23) who has in his examination in chief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he is practicing as an Advocate at District Court, Faridabad for the last about fifteen CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 205 of 569 years.
2. That from June, 1985 to July, 1995 he was working with M/s. Montari Industries Ltd. as Secretariat Supervisor.
3. That his job involved organizing the Board meetings of the company, issuance of shares and debentures of the Company and also writing letters/ correspondence with the shareholders on behalf of the company.
4. That before June 1985, he was working with M/s. True Forge Pvt. Ltd. having its office at 157, Sector25, Faridabad and was serving with the said company as an Accountant.
5. That he had worked with the said company for about a year.
6. That he knew a person by the name of Sh. Rajeev Anand who had worked with him for some time during the period he was employed with M/s. True Forge Pvt. Ltd.
7. That he (Rajeev Anand) was generally looking after purchase and marketing of the company.
8. That he did not have any interaction with Sh. Rajeev Anand after he had left Ms. True Forge Pvt. Ltd.
Since the witness was resiling from his previous statement, therefore he was crossexamined by the Ld. PP for CBI wherein the witness has deposed as under: That officials of CBI had met him long time back but he does not remember the year. That he does not remember what inquiries they had made from him and what information he had supplied to them.
That he also does not remember if his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded.
That he does not remember that Sh. A.P. Singh Dy. S.P., CBI had met him and recorded his statement on 04.02.1999 which is Mark P23/A. That he does not remember as to what statement he had given to CBI.
That he does not remember if Sh. Rajeev Anand had met him at his office when he was working CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 206 of 569 with M/s. Montari Industries Ltd. and had asked him to arrange for a courier receipt without sending any document/letter under the said receipt.
That in routine letters were received and dispatched from their company and in that connection various courier agencies used to visit their office, but he was not involved in the same since the receipts and dispatches were handled by the Dispatch Section of the Company.
That he does not remember if there was one representative named Rajesh Kumar who used to visit his Company from M/s. Remax Express Courier Services, 92, Nehru Place, New Delhi and he had introduced said Rajesh to Sh. Rajeev Anand.
That he does not remember if thereafter he had introduced Sh. Rajeev Anand with Sh. Rakesh Kumar, they had discussed the matter with regard to issuance of a courier receipt without having sent any letter or document.
This witness has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Counsels for the accused.
24. Sh. Swaraj PW24 Sh. Swaraj Chouhan is a Small Time Chouhan (PW24) Contractor who has in his examination in chief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he is a small time contractor and he run his business in his own name.
2. That he knew the persons by the name of Rajeev Anand and Pradeep Anand (accused correctly identified by the witness) because he had been working with them in the year 1995 96 at M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. at 13/3, Plot No.8, Mathura Road, Faridabad.
3. That his Mousa (Uncle) was working with one company by the name of M/s. Frick India and there was a person knowing to his Mousa by the name of Sh. T.C. Bhardwaj who was working with M/s. True Fab India.
4. That Sh. T.C. Bhardwaj had helped him in getting this job with M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 207 of 569
5. That he was getting Rs.1,500/ as the salary.
6. That his financial condition was not good at all when he was working with M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd.
7. That they had a small piece of land of one and a half acres and besides the said job he was not doing anything else.
8. That he had heard the name of the company M/s. Permanent Tools and Machines and he was informed by Sh. Pradeep Anand that they were starting this firm and he was asked to sign some papers related to the said firm.
9. That the Account Opening Form which is Ex.PW9/22 (D348) in the name of M/s. Permanent Tools & Machines bear his photograph and signatures but the document is not filled in his handwriting.
10. That this document is in the handwriting of Sh. Rajeev Anand.
11. That the signatures appearing at points A1 and A2 do not belong to him.
12. That he cannot say anything about the address 16/3, Mathura Road, Faridabad, mentioned on this document which is not his address.
13. That the residential address mentioned in the document261, Sector 19, Faridabad is the address of Sh. Rajeev Anand.
14. That he has no knowledge about M/s. Permanent Tools and Machines and he never had anything to do with it.
15. That he had put his signatures on the photograph after being asked by Sh. Pradeep Anand.
16. That the signatures card Ex.PW9/22A (part of D348) related to the above Account Opening Form, bear his photographs pasted on it and also has his signatures across the photograph which bears his signatures at point A1 to A4.
17. That the Sole Proprietorship Letter Ex.PW24/A (D350) related to the above account bears his signature at point A but the signature appearing at point B on this document are not his signatures.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 208 of 569
18. That there was a cheque book issued relating to the above account which cheque book was taken by Sh. Pradeep Anand.
19. That he had put his signatures on 23 cheques on being asked by Sh. Pradeep Anand, which cheques are Ex.PW24/B1 (D360) and Ex.PW24/B2 (D361) respectively.
20. That he had never visited the bank for any bank transaction.
21. That the cheques are not in his handwriting.
22. That the cheque Ex.PW24/B1 is in the handwriting of Sh. Rajeev Anand and the above cheques also bear the signatures at point X of Sh. Rajeev Anand on the back side.
23. That the cheque book which had been issued used to remain in possession of Sh. Pradeep Anand.
24. That the payinslips which are Ex.PW24/C1 to C4 (D363, D364, D366 and D367) bear his signatures at point A1 and A2 on the front and back side, but he had put his signatures on these documents on being asked by Sh. Pradeep Anand.
25. That these documents are not in his handwriting and he also cannot identify the handwriting of the person who had prepared these payinslips.
26. That he had put his signatures on those documents on their trust.
27. That document Ex.PW4/D (D351), L.D15 Oriental Bank of Commerce, bears his signature at points A1 to A26 and he put his signatures on being asked by Sh. Pradeep Anand.
28. That the document Ex.PW24/D (D355) bear his signature at point A and he has no knowledge about this document but put his signature on being asked by Sh. Pradeep Anand.
29. That the document Ex.PW9/23 (Part of D355) bears his signatures at points A1 to A4 but he does not know anything about this document and had signed it on being asked by Sh. Pradeep Anand and the columns in this CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 209 of 569 document are not in his handwriting and also he cannot identify the handwriting of the person who had written these details.
30. That he does not recollect any person by the name of Kapil Khanna.
31. That document Ex.PW9/25 (Part of D355) bear his signatures at points A1 and A2 and he had signed this document also on being asked by Sh. Pradeep Anand at his office and the details filled in this document are not in his handwriting and also does not know who had filled these details.
32. That document Ex.PW9/24 (Part of D355) does not bear his signature anywhere.
33. That document Ex.PW24/E (Part of D355) bears his signatures at points A1 to A3 and he had signed this document also on being asked by Sh. Pradeep Anand at his office but he cannot identify the signatures appearing on this document at point X1 to X3.
34. That he has no knowledge about the transaction in the said accounts and he was not involved in the operation of the said account nor he had visited the bank in relation to above document.
35. That he the financial position of his family was not sound and he had started working with M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. and he was assured that he would not be affected, if he put his signatures on these documents and on the assurance given by Sh. Pradeep Anand, he had put his signatures on the above documents in good faith.
In his crossexamination on behalf of accused, the witness has deposed as under : That at the time when he was working with M/s. True Fab, he had studied up to 12th standard, but later on he had acquired B.Com Degree sometime in 1999.
That he does not have any firm name of his business and was doing this business in his own name.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 210 of 569 That he operate from his residence and he does not have any separate office.
That he had worked with M/s. True Fab for about an year and half during 199596. That he was made the proprietor of M/s. Permanent Tools and Machines by Sh. Pradeep Anand.
That he does not know anything about the address 16/3, Mathura Road, Faridabad. That he had not given the address of 16/3, Mathura Road and whatever was done, it was done by Sh. Pradeep Anand.
That at the time he had put his signatures on the account opening form Ex.PW9/22 (D348), the Bank Manager was not present.
That he had put his signatures on the Account Opening Form and the Specimen Signatures Card not in any cabin but in the open working area.
That at the time he had put his signatures on the Account Opening Form, only Sh. Pradeep Anand and Sh. Rajeev Anand was present but he does not know about the other person. That the letter Mark P24/DA (D353) does not bear his signature.
That he had not taken any loan from the bank. That he does not know anything about the Letter of Guarantee and submission of documents with the bank as collateral security. That he had not taken any Fixed Deposit Receipt from the bank after depositing money with bank in the year 1995.
That he does not know if as on 19.09.1995 there was a balance of Rs.1,757/ lying in the account of M/s. Permanent Tools and Machines and there was no liability against M/s. Permanent Tools and Machines pending. That he had not submitted the documents Ex.PW9/23, Ex.PW9/24 and Ex.PW9/25 to the bank except that these documents bears his signatures.
That he does not remember when he had put his signatures on these documents.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 211 of 569 That he cannot say if at the time he had put his signatures at points A1 to A26, the stamp impression of M/s. Permanent Tools and Machines was already there.
That he does not remember if the documents Ex.PW9/23, Ex.PW9/24 and Ex.PW9/25 had already been filled in or they were blank before he had put his signatures on these documents. That he does not know if after he had put his signatures the Bank Manager Sh. D.P. Dhingra had also signed the same.
That he had not taken any guarantor alongwith him to the bank.
That he is not aware if there had been any case filed by the bank against him showing him as a proprietor of M/s. Permanent Tools and Machines.
That he had put his signature on the cheques referred to in his examination in chief. That he had not written any letter to the bank informing that he had not taken any loan from the bank.
That he can say with certainty that he had visited the bank once atleast, if he had visited the bank thereafter sometime he cannot say with certainty.
That when he had visited the bank, he had gone there and signed certain papers.
That the signatures appearing on the photograph on document Ex.PW9/22 are his signatures and the signatures however, appearing at points A1 and A2 on this document are not his signatures.
That he does not recollect if he put his signatures on his photograph after it had been pasted on this document or before.
That his statement was recorded by CBI which is Ex.PW24/DX1.
That he might have stated in his statement that his signatures were appearing at Points A1 and A2 on Ex.PW9/22 but at the time when his statement was recorded by CBI, he was very nervous.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 212 of 569 That he might have stated in his statement to CBI that the cheque book was issued to him by the bank, but he was very nervous at that time and he had never seen the cheque book. That he had told to CBI that he had signed certain cheques, but he had signed those cheques on being asked by Sh. Pradeep Anand.
25. Sh. V.D. Chatwal PW25 Sh. V.D. Chatwal was the Assistant General (PW25) Manager of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Head Office, Connaught Place, New Delhi who in his examination in chief deposed on the following aspects :
1. That he had retired on 31.01.2009 as Assistant General Manager from Oriental Bank of Commerce, Head Office, Connaught Place, New Delhi.
2. That during the period from 1986 to 1990 he was posted at the Sadar Bazar Branch of OBC as a Branch incumbent.
3. That Sh. Pradeep Anand had approached him for the attestation of his signatures as he wanted to open an account with the New Friends Colony Branch of OBC.
4. That he had attested his signatures as per the banking practice, since he was maintaining a current account of M/s. True Fab with their Branch.
5. That the document D1 Ex.PW9/245 is the same document by which he had attested the signatures of Sh. Pradeep Anand appearing at point A1.
6. That he had attested the signatures of Sh. Pradeep Anand as would appear in circle X1 in this document and his writing is at circle X1 in red bearing his signatures at point X. That this witness has not been cross examined by the accused persons.
26. Sh. Kishan Lal PW26 Sh. Kishan Lal Kejriwal is a Transporter by Kejriwal (PW26) profession who in his examination in chief has deposed on the following aspects :
1. That he is a transporter by profession and he is doing this business in the name of M/s. Ashok Transport of India having its office at 121, CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 213 of 569 Chittranjan Avenue, Kolkatta700073 which is a partnership firm and he is its Managing Partner.
2. That this firm came into existence in the year 1972 and he had branches in Kolkatta, Siliguri, Guwahati, Patna, Cuttak and Bombay but at present it has its branches only in Kolkatta and Siliguri.
3. That they do not have any branch anywhere in India.
4. That they also never had any branch anywhere India except the places stated above.
5. That it is a registered partnership firm which was registered in the year 1972 which is registered in Kolkatta and it has a registration number.
6. That it is one of the authorized transporter of India Bank Association, Bombay.
7. That the name of his firm appeared at serial no. 39 in the list Mark P26/A.
8. That they never had any branch in Faridabad or Delhi nor they had any agent either in Faridabad or in Delhi.
9. That he does not know any person by the name of Pradeep Anand.
10. That he does not remember ever having dealt with them or transported their goods.
11. That he also cannot say anything about the fact that who are the Director/Partners/Proprietors of the said firms.
12. That in the year 1998 one Inspector Sh. Komal Singh from CBI had visited them in Kolkatta and he had supplied to him a specimen copy of their consignment notes.
13. That he had supplied two sets of bank approved consignment notes of their firm i.e. M/s. Ashok Transporter of India which are collectively Ex.PW26/A (D391, running into twelve pages) to Inspector Sh. Komal Singh.
14. That the said consignment notes had never been provided to the above firms i.e. M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Moon Light Engineers, M/s. Steel Samrat (India), M/s. Suraksha Engineer & Steel Traders and M/s. Permanent Tools & CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 214 of 569 Machines.
15. That the consignment note Mark P26/B (Part of D13 at page 2) bear the name of their firm i.e. M/s. Ashok Transport of India but it is a forged document since it is not as per the Indian Bank Association approved consignment note which Ex.PW26/A (Collectively) and the same does not bear the handwriting or signatures of any of their staff.
16. That he can find a lot of difference between the consignment note they use i.e. Ex.PW26/A and this note Mark P26/B.
17. That on the reverse side of Ex.PW26/A names of their branches is required to be mentioned as per the IBA rules but on this consignment note Mark P26/B on the reverse side names of branch are not mentioned.
18. That on their consignment notes a lot of terms and conditions are mentioned which are missing on this forged consignment note.
19. That in all their consignment notes their registered office address i.e. 121, Chittranjan Avenue, Calcutta700073 would find a mention but in this consignment note this address is not there, but instead the address noted is "Burdwan Road, Siliguri, Darjeeling".
20. That in case of Indian Bank the address of the bank given is complete and not in short form.
21. That as per this document Mark P26/B the name of the consignor is given to be "M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd.
22. That document Mark P26/C (Part of D14 page 3), Mark P26/D (Part of D15 at page
11), Mark P26/E (part of D17 page 15), Mark P26/F (part of D18 page 18), Mark P 26/G (Part of D19 page 21), Mark P26/H (part of D21 page 26), Mark P26/I (Part of D22 page 29), Mark P26/J (Part of D23 page 32), Mark P26/K (Part of D24 page
35), Mark P26/L (Part of D24 page 41), Mark P26/M (Part of D24 page 38), Mark P CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 215 of 569 26/N (Part of D103 page 3), Mark P26/O (Part of D104 page 3), Mark P26/P (Part of D105 page 6), Mark P26/Q (Part of D106 page 3), Mark P26/R (Part of D107 page 5), Mark P26/S (part of D108 page 4), Mark P 26/T (part of D109 page 4), Mark P26/U (part of D110 page 5), Mark P26/V (part of D111 page 4), Mark P26/W (part of D112 page 4), Mark P26/X (part of D113), Mark P26/Y (part of D114), Mark P26/Z (part of D115), Mark P26/A1 (part of D118), Mark P26/A2 (part of D121), Mark P26/A3 (part of D116), Mark P26/A4 (part of D117), Mark P26/A5 (part of D119), Mark P26/A 6 (part of D120), Mark P26/A7 (D122), Mark P26/A8 (part of D123), Mark P26/A 9 (part of D124), Mark P26/A10 (part of D
125), Mark P26/A11 (part of D126), Mark P26/A12 (part of D326), Mark P26/A13 (part of D328) and Mark P26/A14 (D327) are the consignment notes which are all forged.
In his crossexamination on behalf of accused, the witness has deposed as under : That it is not in his knowledge if there are other firms also in India in the same business with the same name at different addresses. That he has brought alongwith him the documents to show that he is the Partner of M/s. Ashok Transport of India which copy of Deed of Partnership is Ex.PW26/DX1. That he has not brought alongwith him the Registration Certificate of this firm with the Registrar of Firms.
That there is no certificate as IBA Registration Certificate because they only allot a number. That he has not brought with him the letter by which the number had been allotted to their firm.
That at present he is one of the partners, the other partner are Sh. Sunil Kejriwal and Sanjiv Kejriwal i.e. his sons.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 216 of 569 That he is supervising the transportation, booking of the goods and financial aspect of the firm.
That at present his sons that is the other partner are looking after the marketing part of the business.
That during the period 1994 to 1996 they were the partners of the firm and the arrangement was the same.
That they had the staff employed at different branches.
That it will not be possible for him to give the details of all the customers but they always had an agreement with their customers for whom they used to transport the goods.
That the staff employed by them at various branches did not have the authority to book goods on behalf the firm and they would not book the goods unless they had their approval. That he can identify the signatures as well as the handwriting of his staff.
That in the year 1998 Inspector Komal Singh had visited them in Kolkatta alongwith some other officials and whatever documents they wanted he had supplied to them at Kolkatta. That his statement, however, was recorded in 1999 in Delhi, CBI office.
That the address which has been given on Mark P26/A (D390) is Ashok Transport of India, Burdawan Road, Siliguri, Darjeeling and the address given on Ex.PW26/A (D391) is 121, Chitranjan Avenue, Calcutta700073. That on the back side of consignment note, their address of Siliguri i.e. Burdawan Road, Siliguri, Phone 20920 has been mentioned. That there can be many transporters on Burdawan Road, Siliguri but he has not heard about them That it may be so that it is mentioned on Mark P26/C (D14) that the address given of M/s. Ashok Transport of India is "Burdawan Road, Siliguri, Darjeeling" with local address as "Ashok Transport of India 17/3, Mathura Road, Faridabad121007".
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 217 of 569 That on Mark P26/C and all such other documents which have been shown to him in crossexamination the address given is Burdawan Road, Siliguri, Darjeeling, the same address, which is mentioned in mark P26/A but he has already stated that on their consignment notes the address given is always of 121, Chitranjan Avenue, Calcutta. That there is lot of information supplied to IBA at the time of seeking its approval, which includes the addresses of the Branches at which the business is carried on.
That the IBA may give a Code number by referring to a particular branch and not necessarily in the name of every branch wherever it may be and it is the same number which is used for transporting the goods. That the Code No. PTA132 was their number, which he did not get renewed after 2003. That on the back side of Ex.PW26/A the address of Siliguri given is that of their branch office.
That the address given in documents Mark P 26/A of M/s. Ashok Transport of India is Burdawan Road, Siliguri, Darjeeling. That the document Mark P26/B to P26/A14 do not belong to them and at the same the number PTA132 used to belong to them. That they were generally not making the bookings of IBA and if he is not wrong they used to make more than one or two bookings in a month of IBA.
That the IBA allotment number must have been given to them sometime in 1972.
That from time to time they used to get revised instructions from IBA and once the revised instructions were received, they used to get the consignment notes afresh.
That the documents Mark P26/DX2 to DX6 are not their documents.
That they were never contacted by any bank or OBC in relation to the documents mark P26/B to P26/A14.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 218 of 569 That the bank would write letter to be addressed from where the consignment was booked and not to another address as the said documents would show that the said consignment was booked at Mathura Road, Faridabad and therefore, there was any letter to be written it would have been written at the said address.
That in case a transporter is IBA approved then on the consignment note IBA number would be necessarily mentioned.
That on the documents Mark P26/B to P 26/A14, the IBA number has been mentioned and the address given is "Burdawan Road, Siliguri".
There there is no hard and fast rule as to the time but the IBA approved list keeps changing over a period of time.
In his reexamination on behalf of Ld. PP for CBI, the witness has deposed that it is not in his knowledge that if there is any transporter by the name of Ashok Transport of India on Burdawan Road, Siliguri,
27. Sh. Suman Prakash PW27 Sh. Suman Prakash Sharma a Practicing Sharma (PW27) Advocate who was working as Accountant with M/s.
True Fab Pvt. Ltd., has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he is practicing as an Advocate at District Courts, Sector12, Faridabad, Haryana and in the year 1998, he was working with M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. as an Accountant.
2. That Mr. Pradeep Anand (accused correctly identified by the witness) was the Managing Director of the Company.
3. That the Transport Bilty Ex.PW27/1 (D13) was filled in his handwriting and he had filled this bilty on the instructions of Sh. Pradeep Anand.
4. That he is not aware of any Transport Company by the name of M/s. Ashoka Transport of India, Mathura Road, Faridabad.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 219 of 569
5. That he has also never visited their office and he also does not know whether such a firm exists or not.
6. That the Transport Bilties Ex.PW27/2 (part of D14), Ex.PW27/3 (D15), Ex.PW27/4 (D17), Ex.PW27/5 (D18), Ex.PW27/6 (D19), Ex.PW27/7 (D21), Ex.PW27/8 (D22), Ex.PW27/9 (D23), Ex.PW27/10, Ex.PW27/11 & Ex.PW27/12 (pages 4, 7 and 10 of D24), Ex.PW27/13 (D326), Ex.PW27/14 (D327) and Ex.PW27/15 (D328) are in his handwriting which he had filled on the instructions of Sh. Pradeep Anand.
7. That two applications submitted to the bank for the issuance of drafts in favour of 'M/s. Ram Sarup Chander Bhan' and 'M/s. Ram Bilas Narender Kumar' respectively on behalf of M/s.
True Fab Pvt. Ltd. are Ex.PW9/118A and Ex.PW9/119A (D66 page no.2 and 3), and he had filled these application forms on the instructions of Sh. Pradeep Anand.
8. That the documents Ex.PW9/38 (D103), Ex.PW9/39 (D104), Ex.PW9/40 (D105), Ex.PW9/41 (D106), Ex.PW9/42 (D107), Ex.PW9/43 (D108), Ex.PW9/44 (D109), Ex.PW9/45 (D110), Ex.PW9/46 (D111) and Ex.PW9/47 (D113) were filled in his handwriting on the instructions of Sh. Pradeep Anand but the amount or the date mentioned therein are not in his handwriting and the same bear the signatures of Sh. Pradeep Anand at point A.
9. That the consignment note Mark P26/V (D 111 page no.4) was filled in his handwriting which he had prepared on the instructions of Sh. Pradeep Anand.
10. That the Bills of Exchange Ex.PW9/47 (D113) and Ex.PW9/48 (D114) are in his handwriting except that the words 'Steel Samrat India 113/117' etc. in the portion X1 to X1 which are not in his handwriting and the amount mentioned in digit and also the date is not in his handwriting which details he had filled in CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 220 of 569 on the instructions of Sh. Pradeep Anand whose signatures are at point A.
11. That the Bills of Exchange Ex.PW9/49 (D
115), Ex.PW9/50 (D118), Ex.PW9/51 (D
121), Ex.PW9/52 (D112), Ex.PW9/53 (D
116), Ex.PW9/55 (D119), Ex.PW9/56 (D
120), Ex.PW9/57 (D122), Ex.PW9/58 (D
123), Ex.PW9/59 (D124), Ex.PW9/60 (D
126), Ex.PW9/302 (D539) and Ex.PW9/304 (D540) are in his handwriting but the amount mentioned in digit and also the date is not in his handwriting and the details therein he had filled in on the instructions of Sh. Pradeep Anand whose signatures are at point A.
12. That the photocopy of a consignment note which is Mark P27/A (D537, page no.8) is in his handwriting and the details therein he had filled in on the instructions of Sh. Pradeep Anand.
In his crossexamination on behalf of accused, the witness has deposed as under : That he had joined M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd.
Sometime in 199495.
That initially he was appointed as Assistant Account and later on he had started working as Accountant with the sister concern of M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. i.e. M/s. Pal Engineering Works. That his job included preparing the salary of workers, preparing the bills related to the sales and all other such jobs related to accounting. That he used to visit the bank rarely and it was most of the times either the Sr. Accountant or Mr. Pradeep Anand who used to visit the bank. That M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. was manufacturing pipes and fittings.
That all the sale invoices were made in accordance with contract purchase orders of the customers but sometimes the invoices were also made without the purchase orders. That simply the purchase order was mentioned on the invoices and in addition to it, the rates etc, would also be mentioned in the invoice according to the purchase order.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 221 of 569 That he cannot say anything about the document Ex.PW11/1 (D382) as it was not prepared by him.
That he cannot say anything about the documents Ex.PW9/38 (D103) and Ex.PW9/61 (Part of D104) and he was asked to fill in the details in document D103 and he had done the same. However, it may be so that the figure "62585.20" is also mentioned in document D104.
That he cannot say anything about the document Ex.PW17/11 (Part of D105) and he was asked to fill in the details in document part of D104 already Ex.PW9/39 and he had done the same. However, it may be so that the bill number mentioned on these documents is the same.
That as far as he is concerned, he had filled in the details in certain documents on the instructions of Sh. Pradeep Anand which he has already identified and there is nothing more to say about it as he has nothing to do with other documents.
That he will not be able to say as to how the goods were dispatched from the Company after manufacture and inspection since he was part of the accounts department.
That preparing the sales invoices was part of his job and he had made sale invoices only of M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. And M/s. Pal Engineering Works.
That once the bills were prepared they were sent to the Dispatch Department.
That he does not remember the names of the persons who were looking the Dispatch Department but there were one or two engineers who used to look after the Dispatch Department.
That he used to go to deposit the cheques sometimes, but the Sr. Accountant also used to go to deposit the cheques and sometimes he also used to go to bank to withdraw cash. However, he never used to go for depositing CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 222 of 569 the bills with the bank for purchase. That sometimes he used to go to get the drafts made.
That the document Ex.PW9/118A and Ex.PW9/119A (D66 at page no.2 & 3) are the printed applications of the bank for preparing the drafts which he had filled in his handwriting, but he cannot say that he had personally visited the bank thereafter for getting the drafts made.
That so far as he recollect M/s. Ram Saroop Chander Bhan and M/s. Ram Bilas Narender Kumar used to supply material i.e. pipes to M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd.
That purchasing such pipes was a routine because they were the material used for manufacturing the pipe fittings.
That Sh. Pradeep Anand was the Managing Director of the Company and all cheques used to be signed by him and most of the times he used to sign the documents to be submitted to the bank.
That the documents which have been shown to him were not routine part of the business. That Ex.PW9/38 (D103) is a Bill of Exchange filled in his handwriting which was not a routine document because as far as he is concerned, his job was only to maintain the accounts and not fill such documents. That by bank work he mean depositing of cheques and withdrawal of money and nothing more.
That most of the time it was the Sr. Accountant namely Sh. Trilok Chand Bhardwaj who was doing the other bank related works.
28. Sh. Kanti Prasad PW28 Sh. Kanti Prasad was the Senior divisional (PW28) Manager of National Insurance Company who in his examination in chief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he is working in National Insurance Company since April, 1987.
2. That in the year 1995, he was posted at Badarpur Branch situated at Sector37, Faridabad under Faridabad Division as CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 223 of 569 Branch Manager.
3. That the National Insurance Company deals in all types of General Insurance except Life Insurance.
4. That the document Ex.PW28/A (D508) is a carbon copy of Insurance Cover Note No. 0033908 dated 25.09.1995 in favour of Pramod Kumar & Sons, Plot No.6, Opposite Rice Mills Godown, Mundaka, New Delhi which bears his original initials at point A.
5. That the carbon copy of cash memo bill No. 213 of Pramod Kumar & Sons dated 25.09.1995 of Rs. 5 lacs and the carbon copy of consignment note of Ashok Transport of India vide which the consignment i.e. M.S. Pipe was sent by Pramod Kumar & Sons were received in his office for preparing the cover note Ex.PW28/A whereas the bill and consignment note are Ex.PW28/A1 and Ex.PW28/A2, respectively.
6. That the carbon copy of Insurance Cover Note No. 0033910 dated 25.09.1995 in favour of Pramod Kumar & Sons, Plot No.6, Opposite Rice Mills Godown, Mundaka, New Delhi is Ex.PW28/B (D508) bearing his original initials at point A.
7. That the carbon copy of cash memo bill No. 214 of Pramod Kumar & Sons dated 25.09.1995 of Rs. 5 lacs and the carbon copy of consignment note of Ashok Transport of India vide which the consignment i.e. M.S. Pipe was sent by Pramod Kumar & Sons, were received in his office for preparing the cover note Ex.PW28/B and the bill and consignment note are Ex.PW28/B1 and Ex.PW28/B2, respectively.
8. That the carbon copy of Insurance Cover Note No.0033909 dated 25.09.1995 in favour of Pramod Kumar & Sons, Plot No.6, Opposite Rice Mills Godown, Mundka, New Delhi is Ex.PW28/C (D507) bearing his initials at point A.
9. That the carbon copy of cash memo bill No. 212 of Pramod Kumar & Sons dated CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 224 of 569 25.09.1995 of Rs. 5 lacs and carbon copy of consignment note of Ashok Transport of India vide which the consignment i.e. M.S. Pipe was sent by Pramod Kumar & Sons, which were received in his office for preparing the cover note Ex.PW28/C and the bill and consignment note are Ex.PW28/C1 and Ex.PW28/C2, respectively.
10. That the carbon copy of premium collection receipt no. 2375 dated 26.09.1995 of Rs.3,590/ Ex.PW28/D (D506) bears his original initials at point A.
11. That the premium receipt amount was with regard to the cover notes Ex.PW28/A, Ex.PW28/B and Ex.PW28/C.
12. That the premium was paid through the cheque No. 645508 dated 25.09.1995 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony, New Delhi and the said receipt Ex.PW28/D and cover notes Ex.PW28/A to Ex.PW28/C were prepared by Sh. Rishi Pal, the then Assistant posted in the said Branch.
13. That as per practice the physical verification of the consignment is not done and this was not done in the present case.
In his crossexamination on behalf of accused, the witness has deposed as under : That he does not know by whom the consignment note i.e. Ex.PW28/B2 and bill Ex.PW28/B1 were produced in his Branch. That he does not even know if such person produced the documents referred above on behalf of Pramod Kumar & Sons or Ashok Transport of India.
That as a matter of practice either the consignee or the consignor do come for getting the insurance done.
That as a matter of practice the proposal is made by the consignor and the insurance is done without physical verification of the consignment which is done on the basis of the bills and the transport receipts produced.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 225 of 569 That in case of loss the insurance company is bound to pay the amount of the loss suffered. That on the basis of the entries in the bills and the transport receipts, the insurance cover is issued and both the documents reveals the nature of the goods and the value thereof. That in the year 1999, he was called to CBI office, Lodhi Road and he produced the documents referred above from office records but no seizure memo was prepared at that time. That no claim was lodged in their Branch in respect of the insurance cover referred above and it is not done when the goods are in transit. That the insurance is done on the basis of the value of the goods mentioned in the bill and any of the purchaser or the seller can get the insurance done.
That the procedure for the insurance of the goods in transit is done when somebody approaches them and provide information, documents and on that basis they calculate their premium and issued the insurance cover to the insured after the payment of the premium.
That in case if no claim is lodged, the presumption is that the goods have reached the destination safely.
29. Sh. Rishi Pal PW29 Sh. Rishi Pal was an employee of National (PW29) Insurance Company Ltd. who in his examination in chief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That presently he has his own business i.e. HPCL Petrol Pump.
2. That he had worked in National Insurance Company Ltd. From 1991 to November, 2012.
3. That in the year 1995, he was posted in the Branch at 642, Sector37, Faridabad of the said insurance company as Assistant.
4. That the receipt of premium of Rs.3590/ which is Ex.PW28/D (D506) was prepared by him in his own handwriting as per the instruction of the then Branch Manager Sh. Kanti Prasad which bears his signatures at point B. CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 226 of 569
5. That the cover note Ex.PW28/A (D508) was prepared by him in his own handwriting as per the instructions of the then Branch Manager Sh. Kanti Prasad.
6. That the cover note Ex.PW28/B (D508) was prepared by him in his own handwriting as per the instructions of the then Branch Manager Sh. Kanti Prasad.
7. That the cover note Ex.PW28/C (D508) was prepared by him in his own handwriting as per the instructions of the then Branch Manager Sh. Kanti Prasad.
In his crossexamination on behalf of accused, the witness has deposed as under : That he had prepared the cover notes referred above after seeing the documents i.e. bills and consignment notes attached with the said cover notes.
That he does not know and remember who was the consignor.
That as per record Pramod Kumar & Sons was the consignor and the consignee was M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad.
That no claim was lodged in respect of the insurance done in the present case.
That when no claim is lodged the presumption is that the goods have reached safely to the destination.
That in the year 1995 there were 67 employees in their Branch and no Valuer was posted in the Branch.
30. Sh. Radha Raman PW30 Sh. Radha Raman was the Postman who in his (PW30) examination in chief has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That in the year 1999, he was posted as Postman in Post Office, Sector16A, Faridabad where he remained posted there for about 30 years.
2. That his duty was to deliver the dak/post in Beat No. 12A which consisted of H.No. 16/6 to 15/7.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 227 of 569
3. That Milestone 16/3 Mathura Road, Faridabad was under his jurisdiction.
4. That there were two companies there, one was Narain Industries and Modern Food Industries.
5. That there was no such company in the name and style of M/s. Permanent Tools and Machines at 16/3 Milestone, Mathura Road, Faridabad.
In his crossexamination on behalf of accused, the witness has deposed as under : That 16/3 falls on left side while going from Delhi towards Faridabad.
That he cannot tell the area of 16/3 however, there are two companies, which have been referred above.
That he has not brought any register which shows the names, addresses of the companies etc, which were in his jurisdiction and the same is kept with Post Master.
That the area in the near side of Narain Industries is residential area of Section19. That in the compound of Narain Industries, there is one factory, namely, Gupta Industries and there is no other factory is there. That the area near the Modern Food Industries is residential area of Sector19 but the Modern Food Industries has since been closed. That he has no identity card with him as he has retired from the service.
That the parties/ firms which exists in the area of Post Office furnished their postal addresses to the concerned Post Office.
That he has not brought any list pertaining to the firms which exist in the Post Office, Sector 16A, Faridabad.
That there were total 12 Beat Postmen in Post Office, Sector16A during the period of 1996 97. That during his 30 years span of posting in Post Office, Sector16A, Faridabad many firms came in existence and were also closed or shifted.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 228 of 569 That he does not remember the details of such firms.
31. Sh. Om Prakash PW31 Sh. Om Prakash Goel was the Postman who in Goel (PW31) his examination in chief has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he is posted as Postman at Post Office, Sector16A, Faridabad for the last 2530 years.
2. That during the year 1996, he was posted as Area Postman in Sector16A, Faridabad and used to deliver dak.
3. That the area at 17/3, Mathura Road, Faridabad was under his jurisdiction those days.
4. That he did not hear about any Company, namely, M/s. Ashok Transport of India in his area nor he has seen the same.
5. That the exact Pin Code of the area of 17/3 Mathura Road, Faridabad was 121002.
6. That the area of Pin Code 121007 falls in 17/6.
Escorts Nagar, Post Office, Faridabad.
In his crossexamination on behalf of accused, the witness has deposed as under : That the Postal Index Number of every delivery office is different.
That he has not brought any list showing the Postal Index Number and the area thereof. That 17/3 is a Milestone address.
That he cannot tell the area of 17/3 Milestone and the office located therein.
That he cannot say if the Ashok Transport Company was located in the area of 17/3, Mathura Road, Faridabad.
That in the area of 17/3, Mathura Road, Faridabad there are about 1020 transport offices.
That he personally knew that there was no Ashok Transport Company India in his jurisdiction so there was no need to ask anyone about the existence of Ashok Transport Company India in his area.
That he has no idea if 17/3, Mathura Road, Faridabad falls on the sides of the road.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 229 of 569
32. Sh. Raghuvir Singh PW32 Sh. Raghuvir Singh was also a Postman who (PW32) in his examination in chief has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he has retired from the post of Postman in December, 2009.
2. That in the year 199495, he was posted at Amar Nagar Post Office, Faridabad.3. That he remained posted in Beat No. 28, 29, 30
and 31 of the said Post Office.
4. That apart from the said Beats, he never remained posted in any other Beat of the said Post Office.
5. That he does not remember whether plot no.
14/6, Milestone, Mathura Road, Faridabad, falls under above said Beats.
6. That there was no firm by the name of M/s. Permanent Tools and Machines in his area.
7. That he remained posted in the Amar Nagar Post Office from 1982 till his retirement.
Since the witness was resiling from his previous statement, therefore, he was crossexamined by the Ld. PP for CBI wherein the witness has deposed as under : That he was not interrogated by any CBI official.
That he cannot admit or deny that in the year 199495, he worked as Postman in Beat No.8. That there are 1516 factories at Plot no. 14/6 Milestone, Mathura Road, Faridabad. That he has not heard of any factory namely M/s. Permanent Tools & Machines at plot No. 14/6 Milestone, Mathura Road, Faridabad. That he might have worked as Postman temporarily for one or two days in Beat No.8. That this witness has not been cross examined by the accused persons.
33. Sh. Nitin Saini PW33 Sh. Nitin Saini a Businessman, had joined M/s. (PW33) True Fab Pvt. Ltd. at Plot No.8, 13/3, Mathura Road, Faridabad as Quality Control Engineer in the year 1992 and remained till 1996. He has proved having filledup the various consignment notes on the instructions of Pradeep Anand and the said documents CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 230 of 569 are Ex.PW33/A (Part of D2103), Ex.PW33/B (Part of D104), Ex.PW33/C (Part of D105), Ex.PW33/D (Part of D105), Ex.PW33/E (part of D107), Ex.PW33/F (Part of D108), Ex.PW33/G (Part of D
109), Ex.PW33/H (Part of D110), Ex.PW33/I (Part of D111), Ex.PW33/J (Part of D112), Ex.PW33/K (Part of D113), Ex.PW33/L (Part of D114), Ex.PW33/M (Part of D115), Ex.PW33/N (Part of D
118), Ex.PW33/O (Part of D121), Ex.PW33/P (Part of D116), Ex.PW33/Q (Part of D117), Ex.PW33/R (Part of D119), Ex.PW33/S (Part of D120), Ex.PW33/T (Part of D122), Ex.PW33/U (Part of D
123), Ex.PW33/V (Part of D124), Ex.PW33/W (Part of D125), Ex.PW33/X (Part of D126).
He has further proved that the letter dated 21.01.1995 Ex.PW33/Y (D546) written to Sr. Construction Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. pertains to the Inspection Certificates in respect of invoice number mentioned in the letter but the same was not prepared by him. He has also identified his signatures on the guarantee certificates dated 29.12.1994 which are Ex.PW33/Z1 (page 6 of D546); Ex.PW33/Z2 (page 9 of D546); Ex.PW33/Z3 (page 12 of D546); Ex.PW33/Z4 (page 15 of D546); Ex.PW33/Z5 (page 18 of D546); Ex.PW33/Z6 (page 21 of D
546); Ex.PW33/Z7 (page 24 of D546); Ex.PW33/Z 8 (page 29 of D546); Ex.PW33/Z9 (page 32 of D
546); Ex.PW33/Z10 (page 35 of D546); Ex.PW33/Z11 (page 38 of D546); Ex.PW33/Z12 (page 41 of D546); Ex.PW33/Z13 (page 44 of D
546); Ex.PW33/Z14 (page 47 of D546); Ex.PW33/Z15 (page 50 of D546); Ex.PW33/Z16 (page 53 of D546); Ex.PW33/Z17 (page 56 of D
546); Ex.PW33/Z18 (page 59 of D546); Ex.PW33/Z19 (page 64 of D546); Ex.PW33/Z20 (page 67 of D546); Ex.PW33/Z21 (page 71 of D
546); Ex.PW33/Z22 (page 74 of D546); Ex.PW33/Z23 (page 77 of D546); Ex.PW33/Z24 (page 80 of D546) and Ex.PW33/Z25 (page 83 of D
546).
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 231 of 569 He has specifically deposed that he is not aware about the Ashok Transport of India, Burdwan Road, Siliguri or about having its Branch at 17/3, Mathura Road, Faridabad and he has no personal knowledge about the consignment purported to be sent vide the above mentioned consignment notes nor has he knowledge about the dispatch of the consignment mentioned in the consignment notes.
In his crossexamination on behalf of accused, the witness has deposed as under : That he was posted as Quality Control Engineer and his duty was to check the quality of the production.
That in some cases, the inspection was conducted by third party.
That in this case, third party inspection was done by RITES.
That the inspection of material (document D 537 at page no.3 was referred) to be supplied was conducted by RITES, a Government India Enterprises and he cannot tell whether this inspection was conducted in his presence or not.
That besides him, Sh. C.K. Saxena and Sh.
Rajpal were also used to do the inspection. That except him no other person was designated as Quality Control Engineer. That all the inspection notes were note prepared in his presence and some were prepared in his presence and some were not prepared in his presence.
That he has not prepared the consignment notes Ex.PW33/A after seeing the purchase order and the same was prepared on the basis of Invoice Ex.PW9/61, on the instruction of Sh. Pradeep Anand, as his duty was not to prepared the consignment notes.
That the material which was manufactured in the company was inspected and thereafter document was prepared.
That the material which was manufactured was dispatched.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 232 of 569 That he cannot say whether the material manufactured in the company was dispatched through Samrat Steel Ltd.
That the dispatch work was looked after by accounts department comprising of Mr. Rajiv Anand, Sh. T.C. Bhardwaj and Sh. Rajpal. That he is not sure if all the items pertaining to True Fab invoices 63, 64, 15, 60, 61, 65, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 16, 57, 58, 59, 48, 56, 62, 12, 17, 13, 14, 54, 55 and 66 were got inspected in his presence.
That they used to offer part material quality and inspection release notes were issued for total quantity by RITES and only certain samples out of the product were checked and the certificate was issued in respect of the entire production.
That only some pieces were offered for inspection to RITES in his presence and RITES had issued inspection release note of all the pieces as per the purchase order.
That he was a fresher and his company was a private, so he was made to sign on the papers as per the desire of the owners of the company. That he did not disclose this fact either to the IO or to any other person but disclosed to the IO during investigation and not made any complaint anywhere in this regard.
That since 1992, he was looking after quality control of the goods manufactured in the company.
That he used to check the quality as per the order and specifications given by the buyers. That no stock register was maintained to inspect the goods produced.
That there used to be a register in which entry was made in respect of production but he has not produced any such register before the IO. That the dealing with the bank was done by Mr. Pradeep Anand, Mr. Rajeev and Mr. Bhardwaj, but he is not sure, if Mr. Bhardwaj used to deal with the bank.
That he was not dealing with the bank.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 233 of 569 That he (witness) was made the Director of M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. in the year 1996, 1997 or 1998.
That Sh. T.C. Bhardwaj and Sh. Rajeev used to prepare the bills which were to be submitted in the Bank.
That their company was having accounts department which was being headed by Sh. Bhardwaj and Sh. Rajeev Anand.
That he is aware that the bills which were to be submitted to the bank were being accompanied by all the requisite documents.
That he cannot tell whether these items were subject to excise or not.
That he is not aware whether these documents were being submitted to the bills department of the bank.
That he is also not aware who used to verify these documents submitted to the bank. That he has no knowledge about the bank procedure as he has never dealt about these documents with the bank.
34. Sh. T.C. Bhardwaj PW34 Sh. T.C. Bhardwaj was the Accountant in M/s. (PW34) True Fab Pvt. Ltd. who in his examination in chief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he is practicing lawyer in SalesTax.
2. That he had worked in M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd.
as an accountant and had joined the said company in April in the year 1990 and worked till March, 2001.
3. That Sh. Pradeep Anand was the Managing Director of this Company.
4. That he knew Ms. Shalini Anand and Sh. K.K. Sahani who were the Directors of M/s. True Fab. Pvt. Ltd.
5. That Ms. Shalini Anand is the wife of Sh.
Pradeep Anand and Sh. K.K. Sahni is also relative of the Pradeep Anand.
6. That the address of M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd.
was Plot No.8, 13/3, Mathura Road, Faridabad.
7. That he knew Sh. C.K. Saxena and Sh. Swaraj Chauhan as both of them were also working in CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 234 of 569 the said company.
8. There was also a company by the name of M/s. Moonlight Engineers which was a Proprietorship firm of Sh. Pradeep Anand.
9. That there was another firm by the name of M/s. Suraksha Engineers & Steel Traders, Sh. C.K. Saxena was the Proprietor of this firm which was not functioning.
10. That there was another firm by the name of M/s. Permanent Machine & Tools, whose proprietor was Sh. Swaraj Chauhan and this firm existed only on papers.
11. That he does not know the addresses of the aforesaid three firms.
12. That M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. was the only company which used to function at the address Plot No.8, 13/3, Mathura Road, Faridabad.
13. That the bill of exchange Ex.PW9/207 (D327) is in favour of M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. for the payment of Rs. Five Lacs against the invoice which bears his signatures as Pramod Kumar at points A1, A2 and A3.
14. That he has put these signatures on the asking of Sh. Pradeep Anand who was the Director of the company.
15. That the letter dated 25.09.1995 Ex.PW34/A (part of D327) on the letter head of Pramod Kumar & Sons vide invoice no. 213 dated 25.09.1995 to M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. bears his signatures as Pramod Kumar which he had on the asking of Sh. Pradeep Anand.
16. That the receipt on letter head of Pramod Kumar & Sons dated 25.09.1995 which is Ex.PW34/B (part of D327) is a receipt of Rs.500/ from True Fab Pvt. Ltd. against the full and final payment against invoice No. 213 dated 25.09.1995 which bears his signature as Pramod Kumar at point A.
17. That the invoice dated 25.09.1995 of Pramod Kumar & Sons which is Ex.PW9/232 (part of D327) bears his signatures as Pramod Kumar at point A which invoice is in favour of M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. for Rs.5,00,500/ pertaining CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 235 of 569 to the M.S. Pipe.
18. That the carbon copy of the invoice Ex.PW9/232 bears his signatures as Pramod Kumar at point A.
19. That he signed as Pramod Kumar on the above exhibits being the employee of Sh. Pradeep Anand and he signed the same on the instructions of Sh. Pradeep Anand.
20. That the Bill of Exchange dated 128.09.1995 for Rs. 5 lacs in favour of Bank of Nova Scotia is Ex.PW34/D (D328) has been drawn in connection with sales/ purchase of M/s. Pipe to M/s. True Fab Ltd. bearing his signatures as Pramod Kumar at point A1 and A2
21. That the letter dated 25.09.1995 Ex.PW34/E (part of D328) on the letter head of Pramod Kumar & Sons is a confirmation letter of dispatch of material vide invoice No. 214 dated 25.09.1995 to M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. and he put the signatures as Pramod Kumar at point A1 on the said letter.
22. That the letter dated 25.09.1995 on the letter of Pramod Kumar & Sons Ex.PW34/F (part of D328) is a receipt of Rs.500/ from M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. against full and final payment for invoice no. 214 and he put the signatures as Pramod Kumar at point A on this letter.
23. That the invoice dated 125.09.1995 of Pramod Kumar & Sons ExPW9/324 (part of D328) in favour of M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. for Rs.5,00,500/ pertaining to M.S. Pipe.
24. That the carbon copy of the invoice Ex.PW34/G bear his signatures as Pramod Kumar at point A on this Carbon Copy of the invoice.
25. That he signed as Pramod Kumar on the above exhibits being the employee of Sh. Pradeep Anand and he signed the same on the instructions of Sh. Pradeep Anand.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 236 of 569
26. That the bill of Exchange dated 28.09.1995 for Rs. 5 lacs in favour of Bank of Nova Scotia is Ex.PW34/H has been drawn in connection with Sales/purchase of M.S. Pipe to M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. and he put the signature as Pramod Kumar on this Bill of Exchange at points A1 and A2.
27. That the letter dated 25.09.1995 on the letter head of Pramod Kumar & Sons for Rs.500/ from M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. against the full and final payment for invoice no.212 and he put the signature as Pramod Kumar at point A on this letter which is Ex.PW34/J.
28. That the invoice No. 212 dated 25.09.1995 of Pramod Kumar & Sons in favour of M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. For Rs.5,00,500/ for M.S. Pipe is Ex.PW9/236 and he put the signature as Pramod Kumar at point A on this invoice.
29. That the carbon copy of Ex.PW34/K bear his signatures as Pramod Kumar at point A.
30. That he does not know the firm Pramod Kumar & Sons.
31. That the invoice and letter head of Pramod Kumar & Sons were lying in the company, namely, M/s. True Fab.
32. That he used to sit in the factory where the said documents were lying and the same were given to him by Sh. Pradeep Anand for typing the same and accordingly he has typed the same.
33. That the stamp of Pramod Kumar & Sons was also lying in their company but he is not aware with whom the said stamp was kept.
34. That he does not know who had put the stamp on the documents referred above.
35. That Sh. Pradeep Anand signed at point A on Ex.PW9/207 in token of having received the payment.
36. That he identified the signatures of Sh. Pradeep Anand at point B on Ex.PW9/232 and Ex.PW34/C in token for receiving the material.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 237 of 569
37. That he identified the signatures of Sh. Pradeep Anand at point A on Ex.PW34/D in token of having received the payment.
38. That he identified the signatures of Sh. Pradeep Anand at point B on Ex.PW9/234 and Ex.PW34/G in token for receiving the material.
39. That he identified the signatures of Sh. Pradeep Anand signed at point A on Ex.PW34/H in token of having received the payment.
40. That he identified the signatures of Sh. Pradeep Anand at point B on Ex.PW9/236 and Ex.PW34/K in token for receiving the material
41. That the words "material received" on Ex.PW9/232 at point X, at point C on Ex.PW34/C, at point X on Ex.PW9/234, at point C on Ex.PW34/K are in the handwriting of Pradeep Kumar which he duly identified as he worked with him in day to day transaction of the company.
42. That on the documents Ex.PW9/205 (D321) and Ex.PW9/206 (D321) he had put the signatures as Pramod Kumar at point A on the instructions of Sh. Pradeep Anand.
43. That on the purchase order for purchase of M.S. Pipe in the name of Pramod Kumar & Sons which is Ex.PW9/204A, he put the signatures as Pramod Kumar at point B on the instruction of Sh. Pradeep Anand.
44. That on the purchase order for purchase of M.S. Pipe in the name of Pramod Kumar & Sons which is Ex.PW9/205A he put the signatures as Pramod Kumar at point B on the instructions of Pradeep Anand.
45. That on the purchase order for purchase of M.S. Pipe in the name of Pramod Kumar & Sons which is Ex.PW9/203A he had put the signatures as Pramod Kumar at point B on the instructions of Sh. Pradeep Anand.
46. That the purchase orders were prepared in their company M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. and the seal of Pramod Kumar & Sons were also affixed on the said purchase orders in the CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 238 of 569 office of M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd.
In his crossexamination on behalf of accused, the witness has deposed as under : That he did his Law from Lucknow in the year 2001 and he is an enrolled Advocate.
That he was in permanent employment of M/s.
True Fab from 1990 to 1999 and his job was related to Accounts.
That he was not the Proprietor of Pramod Kumar & Sons.
That on Ex.PW34/D it is written "Accepted for payment and payable at New Delhi". That Pradeep Anand has accepted to make payment to Pramod K umar & Sons.
That no material was received in fact, only paper work was done.
That he does not know if any payment was made to Pramod Kumar & Sons through letter of credit.
That on Ex.PW9/207 (D327) "LC No. 008435/TF/1/95 dated 22.09.1995, LC No. 888436/TF/2/95 dated 22.09.1995 on Ex.PW34/D and LC No. 8884437/TF/3/95 opened by Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony Branch, New Delhi" all for release of payment and these exhibits bears his signatures as Pramod Kumar.
That there was no lock and key system where he used to sit in the factory of M/s. True Fab. That he used to leave his office after his duty, however, Pradeep Anand and other used to sit in the office after his leaving the office. That there were only two rooms in the factory of M/s. True Fab.
That he does not know if after the office hours both the said rooms were used to be locked and keys thereof were used to be kept by the Guard. That he does not know who was the store Keeper of the company at the relevant time. That there was no proper Store in their company.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 239 of 569 35 Sh. Mahesh Prasad PW35 Sh. Mahesh Prasad was the Senior Manager (PW35) in Oriental Bank of Commerce who has in his examination in chief deposed on the following aspects :
1. That in the year 1996, he was posted as Clerk in Greater KailashII Branch of Oriental Bank of Commerce.
2. That as Clerk his duty was to operate the pay orders, drafts, TPO's (Transfer Payment Orders) etc.
3. That there were many Managers in the Branch but he was associated with Sh. K.L. Malhotra.
4. That Sh. P.K. Munjal, was the Hall Incharge of the said Branch and perhaps he was of the rank of Sr. Manager.
5. That TPO for Rs.50,000/ for credit to the account of M/s. Future Positive Ex.PW16/D (D414) was prepared by him under his handwriting and the same bear the signatures of Sh. K.L. Malhotra at point A and signatures of Sh. P.K. Munjal at point B which signatures he can identify as he had worked under him.
6. That the TPO for Rs.50,000/ for credit to the account of M/s. Future Positive Ex.PW16/E (D415) was prepared by him under his handwriting and the said TPO bears the signatures of Sh. K.L. Malhotra at point A and the signatures of Sh. P.K. Munjual at point B and he can identify their signatures as he had worked under him.
7. That TPO for Rs.50,000/ for the credit to the account of M/s. Future Positive which is Ex.PW16/F (D416) bear the signatures of Sh. K.L. Malhotra at point A and the signatures of Sh. P.K. Munjual at point B.
8. That on the basis of application form dated 25.01.1996 for preparing the TPO which is Ex.PW16/E (D399), he had prepared the TPO but he does not remember who had passed the said application which bears the stamp of Cashier for receiving Rs.50,000/.
9. That on the basis of the application dated 27.01.1996 for preparing the TPO which is Ex.PW16/F (D400), he had prepared the said CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 240 of 569 TPO and the said application bears the stamp of the cashier for receiving Rs. 50,000/ but he does not remember who was the Cashier at that time.
10. That on the basis of application form dated 27.01.1996 for preparing the TPO which is Ex.PW16/D, he had prepared the said TPO on the basis of this application but he does not remember who had passed the said application which bears the stamp of Cashier for receiving Rs.50,000/ and he dies not remember who was the Cashier at that time.
11. That he knew Ms. Sudha Sharma who was posted in his Branch as an officer.
That this witness has not been cross examined by the accused persons.
36 Sh. Pankaj Kumar PW36 Sh. Pankaj Kumar Praveen was the Senior Praveen (PW36) Manager in Bank of Baroda who in his examination in chief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he is posted as Sr. Manager in Bank of Baroda at Zonal Internal Audit Division, Lucknow.
2. That he was posted as officer in Defence Colony Branch, Bank of Baroda, New Delhi during December, 1998 to November, 2000.
3. That during his posting at Defence Colony Branch, his duties were in Operation, Deposit, Advances etc. Further examination in chief of this witness was deferred and later on he was examined as PW67.
37. Sh. Vikram Kochar PW37 Sh. Vikram Kochar was the General Manager (PW37) in Oriental Bank of Commerce who in his examination in chief has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he has retired in the year 2010 from Oriental Bank of Commerce, Head Office as General Manager and he joined this bank in the year 1969.
2. That he was posted as Regional Manager in New Delhi Region in the year 1997.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 241 of 569
3. That he also worked in Small Scale Industries Cell, Head Office near about 10 years.
4. That for any loan the party should have an association with the bank in the shape of accounts with the bank.
5. That for any loan the party has to put a loan proposal to the Branch where the party has its account.
6. That the loan request of the party shall be scrutinized by the Loan Officer and the Branch Manager of Branch and after satisfied they will recommend to the respective sanctioning authority.
7. That the recommendation is made by Branch Manager, if the proposal falls beyond his powers and in case it falls within his powers he can sanction it.
8. That alongwith the loan application form party has to submit Balance Sheet of the company / Firm, Profit & Loss Account, Income Tax Returns for the last 3 years, credit reports of the partners/proprietors/directors and the projections of the working which they are doing or going to do.
9. That if the Branch Manager feels that there is need of any collateral security he can ask for the same.
10. That the collateral security can be in the shape of liquidity form, which can be FDR, cash etc. and immovable properties and can be machinery also.
11. That if the security is in the nature of immovable property, it should be valued by the approved valuer of the bank and there should be little clearance from the approved Advocate.
12. That a physical verification of the firm/company is made by the Branch either through some officer or Manager itself for ascertaining the genuineness of the firm or factory and address thereof.
13. That if the party proposing for loan is having its account in the same bank, then Branch knows about its credentials and it is having account in the some other bank then beyond the CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 242 of 569 power of Branch Manager then he sends his recommendation alongwith the loan application and all documents to the sanctioning authority.
14. That if the sanctioning authority is Head Office the proposal with recommendation will be sent to Head Office with a copy to the Regional Office for its recommendation to Head Office with a copy to the Regional Office for its recommendation to Head Office in case it is approved by Regional Office and if the sanctioning authority is Regional Office then proposal with recommendation will only be sent to the Regional Office.
15. That while recommending enhancement of the limit the Branch Manager should give confirmation that all formalities with regard to the sanction facilities has been complied with and there are no overdues in the account and the account is running regular.
16. That the margin money is like a security for the facility sanctioned to the party i.e. C.C. Hypothecation in which 25% margin of the stocks is also stipulated and in LC facility, margin money can be anything between 15 to even 100% depending upon the strength of the party.
17. That the letter dated 27.01.1995 Ex.PW9/12 was written to the Regional Manager, New Delhi from Chief Manager, Community Centre, New Friends Colony Branch, New Delhi for consideration of the request of the party.
18. That he cannot comment upon the violation of the rules as per letter referred above, however, he can tell about the irregularity as shown in the said letter which are mentioned in the letter.
19. That as per this letter the CC Limit was Rs.20 lacs whereas the outstanding was Rs.28.89, which shows that the C.C. account is irregular for an amount of Rs.8.89 lacs.
20. That similarly, document DD was Rs.20 lacs whereas the outstanding was Rs.45.42 lacs, which apparently shows that the outstanding CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 243 of 569 has exceeded by Rs.25.42 lacs.
21. That with regard to Guarantee Limit of Rs.6 lacs the outstanding was Rs. 14.33 lacs, which shows the excess guarantee of Rs.8.33 lacs issued in the account.
22. That L.C. Limit was within the limit and the term loan was outstanding of Rs. 0.73 lacs.
23. That he cannot comment upon it can be a regular or irregular.
24. That the letter dated 21.02.1995 which is Ex.PW9/13 (page no. 180 of D4) was written to the Regional Office for permission for a fresh guarantee of Rs.2.50 lacs and bill of Rs.19 Lacs to be purchased drawn on IOCL, which bear the signatures of Sh. S. K. Pathrella at points A and B.
25. That the letter dated 06.03.1995 which is Ex.PW9/DX5 (page 182 of D4) was written in the reply to the letter dated 21.02.1995 Ex.PW9/13 pointing out the irregularities in the account of M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. only why the facilities have been recommended when such irregularities exists.
26. That the Regional Office also sought additional Information mentioned in the letter.
27. That the letter dated 08.03.1995 which is Ex.PW9/14 (page 184185 of D4) bear the signatures of Sh. S.K. Pathrella at point A as Chief Manager and that of Sh. S.K. Lakhina at point C which letter was the fresh letter sent to Regional Office by the branch giving the current position of account as mentioned therein and requesting for considering of the limit already proposed and at the back (reverse) side of the said letter, there is a note at point mark X to X1 put up to the Chief Manager/ AGM/ Deputy General Manager recommending for sanction of the facilities with certain conditions and the same was approved by the DGM vide note encircled A with red ink bearing signatures of Sh. S.K. Lakhina (A3) at point E.
28. That at the time of incident, the system of telephonic permission was prevailing in the CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 244 of 569 bank for urgent requirement and for that record had to be maintained by way of register at Regional Office and confirmation sent in writing.
29. That in the aforementioned exhibited letters, nothing has been stated regarding telephonic permission if any.
In his crossexamination on behalf of accused, the witness has deposed as under : That after the loan/ working capital is sanctioned the party to execute certain documents which includes agreement of guarantee as prescribed in form LD28 prior to disbursement of the loan.
That he took over the charge of Regional Office, New Delhi after Mr. S.K. Lakhina had been transferred from the Regional office and it was after some gap.
That he is aware that a departmental enquiry was instituted against Sh S.K. Lakhina (A3) interalia pertaining to charges about the working of New Friends Colony Branch of Oriental Bank of Commerce and in the said enquiry, he was exonerated.
That the letter dated 19/22.01.2002 which is Ex.PW37/DX1 bears the signatures of Sh. Ashwani Gupta, General Manager, (Personal) at point A. That letter dated 15.10.1997 Ex.PW37/DX2 is the memorandum of charge while Ex.PW37/DX3 is the article of charge and Ex.PW37/DX4 is the statement of imputation of misconduct and he identified the signature of Sh. P. K. Sharma, GM (Personal) at point A on these documents.
That the letter dated 07.05.1999 Ex.PW37/DX 5 (colly, running into 7 pages) was written by the GM (DA) Sh. J. S. Tomar to Sh. S. K. Lakhina (A3) seeking his comments on the findings of Commissioner for Departmental Inquiries holding the changes as not proved which findings of the CDI are the part of the letter Ex.PW37/DX5.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 245 of 569 That primarily it is the responsibility of branch incumbent to assess and scrutinize the genuine requirement of the party and to verify scrutiny, safety and operation of loan accounts and to ensure that the account is operated within limit and not to allow overdrawing without permission from the sanctioning authority and stated that there was a system of recommending the facilities to the Regional Head through appropriate officers at the Regional Office.
That the No Dues Certificate dated 15.03.2002 in the account of M/s. Future Positive, New Delhi which is Ex.PW46/DX3 and the same was issued by AGM, Oriental Bank of Commerce for Overseas Branch, M33, M Block Market, Greater Kailash PartII, New Delhi.
That the document Ex.PW46/DX4 which is an Item No. F1 for the Management Committee of the Board held on 26.12.1995 permitting the settlement of account of M/s. Future Positive at Overseas, Nehru Place on the terms stated therein.
That the letter dated 09.03.1995 which is Ex.PW39/3 was sent to Chief Manager, NFC Branch of OBC conveying the same terms and conditions a were approved vide letter Ex.PW9/14.
That he cannot comment on the working of Regional Office prior to his taking over the charge as Regional Head, New Delhi.
That the letter dated 06.06.1995 which is Ex.PW9/161 (D318) was addressed to Chief Manager, NFC Branch of Oriental Bank of Commerce conveying one time sanction of documentary DD for Rs.20 lacs in favour of M/s Suraksha Engineers and Steel Traders on the terms and conditions stated therein. That the letter dated 14.10.1995 which is Ex.PW7/F (D320) was sent to Chief Manager, NFC Branch by AGM, Regional Office, New Delhi, and through this letter certain information had been sought and it does not CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 246 of 569 convey any sanction.
38. Sh. Vikram Kochar PW38 Sh. Binay Kumar Gupta was the Assistant (PW38) General Manager of Oriental Bank of Commerce who has proved having made various entires in the Bill Purchase Register of Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony Branch, New Delhi on the instruction. He has identified his own handwriting and signatures and also of Sh. Balbir Singh Godhara, the then Manager of the Branch and Sh. S. K. Pathrella was the Chief Manager and Incharge of the Branch.
He has proved the various documents i.e. entires in Bill Purchase Register, credit/ debit vouchers etc. which documents are Ex.PW38/A (D556), Ex.PW38/B (D550), Ex.PW38/C (D548), Ex.PW9/226A4 (D251), Ex.PW9/226A3 (D250), Ex.PW9/226A5 (D252), Ex.PW9/226A6, Ex.PW9/226A1, Ex.PW9/226A2 (D249), Ex.PW38/D (D549), Ex.PW38/E (D263), Ex.PW38/F (D264), Mark PW38/A (D334), Ex.PW9/238 (D335), Ex.PW9/239 (D336), Ex.PW38/G (D552), Ex.PW38/H (D337), Ex.PW38/J (D338), Ex.PW38/K (D339), Ex.PW38/L (D340), Ex.PW38/M (D458) Ex.PW38/N (D550), Ex.PW9/115 (D60), Ex.PW9/115H (D61), Ex.PW9/115I (D62), Ex.PW9/123 (D69), Ex.PW9/123A (D70), Ex.PW9/123B (D71), Ex.PW9/115J (D73), Ex.PW9/115K (D74), Ex.PW9/115L (D75), Ex.PW9/127 (D81), Ex.PW9/127A (D82), Ex.PW9/130C (D87), Ex.PW9/130D (D88), Ex.PW9/130E (D89), Ex.PW42/F (D159), Ex.PW42/G (D160), Ex.PW42/H (D161), Ex.PW42/G (D164), Ex.PW9/142H (D165), Ex.PW9/142I (D166), Ex.PW9/210A2 (D177), Ex.PW9/210A3 (D178), Ex.PW9/210A4 (D179), Ex.PW9/153C (D182), Ex.PW9/153D (D183), Ex.PW9/142C (D150), Ex.PW9/142D (D151), Ex.PW9/142E (D152), Ex.PW9/142J (D167), Ex.PW9/153E (D184), Ex.PW9/226A3 (D250), Ex.PW9/226A4 (D251), Ex.PW9/226A5 (D252), Ex.PW9/226A6 (D253), Ex.PW42/I (D257), CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 247 of 569 Ex.PW42/J (D258), Ex.PW42/K (D259), Ex.PW38/E (D263), Ex.PW38/F (D264), Ex.PW42/L (D220), Ex.PW38/J (D338), Ex.PW38/K (D339) and Ex.PW38/L (D340).
In his crossexamination on behalf of accused persons, the witness has deposed as under : That Sh. Balbir Singh was working in the Branch as Bill Manager.
That he was on probation and whatever work was assigned to him by Balir Singh Godara, he used to do.
That he cannot tell whether Sh. S.K. Patherella had instructed Sh. Balbir Singh or discount or to charge less interest on any amount. That he is not aware whether the same banking rule which were existence in the year 1995 are still in existence.
That he is not aware of the rule of purchase of bill under LC prevailing at that time he was under probation and new to bank.
That he does not recollect when he learnt the power of BP and LC of the branch incumbent as the circulars used to come from the corporate office to the branch and as the branch officials act accordingly.
That it never came to his notice any dereliction on the part of the Regional Office of sanctions during his tenure at New Friends Colony Branch, Delhi.
39 Sh. Pradeep Kumar PW39 Sh. Pradeep Kumar Malhan was the Chief Malhan (PW39) Manager of Oriental Bank of Commerce who in his examination in chief has deposed on the following aspects :
1. That he had retired as Chief Manger from Oriental Bank of Commerce in September 2013 and had joined OBC on 1974 as a clerk.
2. That in the year 1997, he had joined Connaught Place, New Delhi Branch and was posted in Regional Office, New Delhi, from April 90 to June, 1997.
3. That during his posting in Regional Office, he worked in different department including the CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 248 of 569 Loan Department and was working as Loan Officer.
4. That his duty as Loan Officer was to scrutinize the loan proposal received from the branches and also to attend the Dak received from various branches.
5. That after scrutiny of Proposals/ Dak, it was forwarded to the Assistant Regional Manager who in turn forwarded to the Chief Manager after which the Chief Manger finally submit to the Regional Head i.e. Deputy General Manager Sh. S.K. Lakhina.
6. That the letter dated 27.01.1995 was sent by Chief Manager, New Friends Colony Branch to the Regional Office is Ex.PW9/12 (D4, page
170) and the same was received in the Regional Office on 31.01.1995, with Dak No. 4805.
7. That all the letters addressed to Deputy General Manager were received in DGM Secretariat after which the letters were sent to the concerned department.
8. That the letter Ex.PW9/12 bears the initials of Sh. S.K. Lakhina at point C and the said letter was marked to Chief Manager (Loans).
9. That the said letter was supposed to come to him (witness) but it never reached to him.
10. That the credit proposal received from the Branches was entered at Sl. No. 43 of January, 1996 in Proposal Disposal Register and the entry would have been in January, 1995, but inadvertently, it has been written as January, 1996.
11. That the letter dated 21.02.1995 Ex.PW9/13 was sent by Chief Manager Sh. S.K. Pathrella of New Friends Colony, New Delhi Branch to the Deputy General Manager, Regional Office received on 23.02.1995 and same was marked by Sh. S.K. Lakhina to the Loan Department with his noting at point C and his initials at point D.
12. That vide this letter, the Branch Manager has recommended for fresh guarantee of Rs.2.5 lacs and Bill Purchase Limit of Rs.19 lacs CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 249 of 569 drawn on Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. in the account of M/s Steel Samrat, a newly opened firm.
13. That the Branch has also recommended for issue of Bank Guarantee of Rs. Ten Lacs favouring Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and also recommended for enhancement of Credit facilities.
14. That the letter dated 20.02.1995 bearing the signature of S.K. Pathrella at point A which is Ex.PW39/1 (D4 page 171).
15. That the letter dated 16.02.1995 bearing the signature of S.K. Pathrella at point A which is Ex.PW39/2 (D4 page 172).
16. That on the back side of the letter dated 08.03.1995 which is Ex.PW9/14 (D4, page
186) the portion X to X1 is in his handwriting bearing his signature at point H.
17. That the letter dated 09.03.1995 which is Ex.PW39/3 (D4 page 186) bear the signature of S.K. Lakhina at point A.
18. That the letter Ex.PW9/6 (D4 page 179) bears his noting at point X and signature at point F.
19. That the letter Ex.PW41/M (D4 page 191) at portion Y to Y1 is in his handwriting which bears his signature at point D.
20. That the letter Ex.PW9/17 (D4 page 195) bear his writing at point X and his signatures at point D.
21. That the letter Ex.PW9/18 (D4, page199) bear his writing at portion X and his signature at point C.
22. That the letter Ex.PW41/N (D4, page No.
203) bear his writing at portion X and his signatures at point D.
23. That the letter dated 29.08.1995 bears the signature of S.K. Lakhina at point A which is Ex.PW39/4 (D4, page 205).
24. That the office note dated 24.10.1995 which is Ex.PW39/5 is in his handwriting and bear his signatures on the last page 274 of (D4) at point A and noting at portion X to X1 is of Mr. Sachdeva and bear the signature of Mr. Sachdeva at point B and noting at point X to X CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 250 of 569 3 is of K.C. Mehra his signature at point C.
25. That the letter of the then Deputy General Manger S.K. Lakhina dated 01.11.1995 Ex.PW9/214 (Page288 of D4) which bears his noting and signatures at encircled portion X and noting of Renu Nagpal at potion X1 and of Sh. Sachdeva at portion X2.
26. That the letter dated 13.11.1995 bear his initials at point A which is Ex.PW39/6.
27. That he had worked with Renu Nagpal, Sh. Sachdeva, Sh. K.C. Mehra & S.K. Lakhina and aware about their signature and writings.
In his crossexamination on behalf of accused persons, the witness has deposed as under: That he was working under Sh. S.K. Lakhaina who was DGM of the Regional Office and he (witness) was looking after the loan department.
That apart from himself there are other persons also who were working in the loan department. That the letter were received in DGM office regarding over accommodation of the loans in the New Friends Colony Branch.
That they were general correspondence with dealt with other aspect as well.
That he is not aware of any STM41 Report as prescribed in the manual being sent from the Branch office to the Regional Office and he also cannot whether any copy is to be received at his office.
That he cannot tell because there is a different department of the same.
That he is not aware if M/s True Fab was having account in the NFC Branch before the responsibilities in the said branch were taken over by Sh. S.K. Pathrella.
That he does not recollect if he has ever written any letter to Sh. S.K. Pathrella regarding non accommodation of the over loan.
That while working at Regional office New Delhi, he was putting the matters of recommendation of advance/loans through three senior officer i.e. ARM, Chief Manager CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 251 of 569 and DGM and he used to reply to the branches on the basis of the comments of the respective dealing officials.
That it is the responsibility of the branch incumbent to ensure the genuineness of the document /trade transactions, cheques. That it is the duty of the branch to ensure the genuineness of the days to day transaction. That the document Ex. PW39/DX1 i.e. letter dated 04.05.1995 addressed to the Chief Manager, Branch office, New Friends Colony written by DGM, RO, New Delhi at point A bear the initials of DGM, RO.
That he was not aware about any irregularity of the Regional Office in sanctioning of the limits.
That he had not reported any irregularity to any authority as it is the job the competent authority to report about the irregularities. That the letter dated 24.08.1995 page1 to 46 of (D384) which is Ex.PW39/DX2 (Colly.) (pages 46 sheets), bear his initials at point A and the initials of A3 at point B. That Page 45 bears his noting and signatures at portion X and noting of Mr. Sachdeva X1 and Mr. Lakhina X2.
That the decision conveyed to the Branch vide letter dated 24.08.1995 Ex.PW39/DX2 was as per the notings Mark X, Xa and X2 at page 54, pages Nos. 8 to 45 bears the signatures at S.K. Pathrela.
That the letter dated 01.01.1996 addressed to the Chief Manager NFC Branch Ex.PW39/DX 3 (D384, page 48155) bear the signatures of Sh. K.C. Mehra, AGM at point A. 40 Sh. K.D. Grover PW40 Sh. K.D. Grover was the Manager ScaleII in (PW40) Oriental Bank of Commerce who in his examination in chief has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he had retired as Manager ScaleII from Oriental Bank of commerce in April, 2007 and joined this bank as a Clerk in the year 1973.
2. That he had joined the said Branch in November 1994 but he does not remember till CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 252 of 569 when he remained posted in the said branch.
3. That Sh. S.K. Pathrella was the Branch Manager during his posting in the said Branch.
That he have jointed the said branch in November, 1994. He does not remember till when he remained posted in the said Branch.
4. That the cheque (D175) does not bear his signature and he does not know whose signature are there on the said cheque since he had not dealt with the said cheque.
5. That on the Cheque (D185), he cannot identify the signatures of the person who had authorised this cheque nor can he identify the signatures of Sh. S.K. Pathrella who was the Branch Manager of his branch.
6. That the said cheque does not bear the signatures of Sh. S.K. Pathrella.
7. That he does not know Pradeep Anand and Rajeev Anand.
8. That the Cheques (D28), (D29), (D30) and (D31) do not bear the signatures of Sh. S.K. Pathrella nor he can tell by whom these cheques were passed.
Since the witness was resiling from his previous statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C, therefore he was cross examined by the Ld. PP for CBI wherein the witness has deposed as under: That he has been interrogated by some CBI officer in this case.
That he does not remember whether the cheques were shown to him by the CBI officer during investigation of the case.
That his statement was recorded by the CBI officer wherein he has stated that he has seen S.K. Pathrella writing and putting his signature but he does not remember if he had told the CBI officer that he can identify the signatures of Pradeep Anand, Director of Truefab Pvt. Ltd.
That he had not stated before the IO that he can identify the signatures of Rajeev Anand an employee of Pradeep Anand.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 253 of 569 That he cannot admit or deny if he has stated before the IO that he was able to identify the handwriting and signatures of Pradeep Anand and Rajeev Anand as he was familiar with the same. However, when confronted with portion A to A of Statement Mark PW40/A the above fact was found so recorded).
That he does not remember if the cheques referred above were shown to him by the IO during investigation. However, when confronted with portion A to A of Statement Mark PW40/A the above fact was found so recorded).
That he had not stated before the IO that when the cheque (D175) was presented balance of only Rs.2477.30 was in the account of M/s Steel Samrat India or that this was the reason the payment of this cheque was authorised by S.K. Pathrella. However, when confronted with portion B to B of Statement Mark PW40/B the above fact was found so recorded.
That he had not stated before the IO that the cheque was authorised by Sh. S.K. Pathrella or that it bears his signatures or that he has released the payment of this cheuqe thereafter. However, when confronted with portion C to C of statement Mark PW40/B the above fact was found so recorded.
That his statement was wrongly recorded in this regard.
That he had not stated before the IO that while releasing the payment of the cheuqe, he has compared the signatures of Pradeep Anand with his specimen signatures. However, when confronted with portion D to D of Statement Mark PW40/B the above fact was found so recorded.
That the cheque (D185) was not shown to him by the IO during the investigation and he had not told the IO that the said cheque bears the signatures of Pradeep Anand or that it was in favour of Steel Samrat India or that this cheque was authorised by Suresh Pathrella and bears his signatures or that thereafter he released the CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 254 of 569 payment of this cheuqe in favour of Steel Samrat India. However, when confronted with portion E to E of Statement Mark PW40/B the above fact was found so recorded.
That he cannot identify the signatures / initials of S.K. Pathrella on cheques D34 (colly.) D 36, D37, D38, D50, D52, D54, D56, D57 and D58.
That he does not remember if during investigation he had identified the signatures /initials of S.K. Pathrella on the said cheques.
This witness has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsels despite opportunity. 41 Sh. R. C. Raheja PW41 Sh. R.C. Raheja was the Assistant General (PW41) Manager of Oriental Bank of Commerce who was posted at New Friends Colony Branch from December, 1991 to July, 1995. He has proved his writings & signatures and that of the accused S.K. Pathrella and Pradeep Anand on various documents i.e. cheques, credit / debit vouchers etc. He has proved the said documents which are Ex.PW9/26 (D278), Ex.PW41/A (D279), Ex.PW41/B (D201), Ex.PW41/C (D202), Ex.PW9/280 (D7), Ex.PW9/77 (D28), Ex.PW9/78 (D29), Ex.PW9/79 (D30), Ex.PW9/80 (D31), Ex.PW9/82 (D34), Ex.PW9/83 (D35), Ex.PW9/84 (Part of D35), Ex.PW9/85 (Part of D35), Ex.PW9/86 (Part of D35), Ex.PW9/87 (part of D35), Ex.PW9/88 (part of D35), Ex.PW9/89 (part of D35), Ex.PW9/90 (part of D35), Ex.PW9/91 (part of D35), Ex.PW9/92 (part of D35), Ex.PW9/93 (part of D35), Ex.PW9/94 (part of D35), Ex.PW9/95 (part of D35), Ex.PW9/96 (part of D35), Ex.PW9/97(part of D35), Ex.PW9/98 (part of D35), Ex.PW9/99 (part of D35), Ex.PW9/100 (part of D35), Ex.PW9/101 (part of D
35), Ex.PW9/102 (part of D35), Ex.PW9/103 (part of D35), Ex.PW9/104 (part of D35), Ex.PW9/105 (part of D35), Ex.PW9/106 (part of D35), Ex.PW9/107 (part of D35), Ex.PW9/108 (D36), Ex.PW9/109 (D
37), Ex.PW9/110 (D38), Ex.PW9/111 (D50), CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 255 of 569 Ex.PW9/112 (D52), Ex.PW9/113 (D54), Ex.PW9/114 (D56), Ex.PW9/115 (D57), Ex.PW9/120 (D66), Ex.PW9/121 (D67), Ex.PW9/119 (part of D66), Ex.PW9/118 (part of D
66), Ex.PW9/122 (D68), Ex.PW9/124 (D72), Ex.PW9/126 (D76), Ex.PW9/127 (D80), Ex.PW9/128 (D84), Ex.PW9/129 (D85), Ex.PW9/131 (D93), Ex.PW9/130G (D94), Ex.PW9/132 (D132), Ex.PW9/133 (D134), Ex.PW9/134 (D137), Ex.PW9/135 (D139), Ex.PW9/136 (D140), Ex.PW9/137 (D142), Ex.PW9/138 (D143), Ex.PW9/139 (D144), Ex.PW9/140 (D145), Ex.PW9/141 (D147), Ex.PW9/143 (D153), Ex.PW9/144 (D154), Ex.PW9/145 (D155), Ex.PW9/146 (D156), Ex.PW9/146A (D146), Ex.PW9/147 (D157), Ex.PW9/147A (D156), Ex.PW9/148 (D158), Ex.PW9/149 (D162), Ex.PW9/209A1 (D170), Ex.PW9/150 (D174), Ex.PW9/151 (D175), Ex.PW9/210A1 (D176), Ex.PW9/152 (D180), Ex.PW9/153A (D181), Ex.PW9/154 (D185), Ex.PW4/K (D196), Ex.PW41/D (D210), Ex.PW9/170 (D212), Ex.PW9/171 (D213), Ex.PW9/172 (D214), Ex.PW41/E (D216), Ex.PW9/173 (D218), Ex.PW9/174 (D219), Ex.PW9/175 (D220), Ex.PW9/176 (D221), Ex.PW9/177 (D222), Ex.PW9/178 (D224), Ex.PW9/180 (D226), Ex.PW9/181 (D228), Ex.PW9/182 (D230), Ex.PW9/183 (D232), Ex.PW9/184 (D234), Ex.PW9/185 (D236), Ex.PW9/186 (D240), Ex.PW41/F (D241), Ex.PW9/188 (D242), Ex.PW9/189 (D243), Ex.PW9/190 (D246), Ex.PW9/191 (D247), Ex.PW9/226A2 (D249), Ex.PW9/226/A1, Ex.PW9/192 (D256), Ex.PW9/193 (D260), Ex.PW9/194 (D260), Ex.PW9/197 (D271), Ex.PW9/199 (D273) and Ex.PW41/G (D289).
He has further proved the documents Ex.PW41/H (part of D303), Ex.PW9/228/A1 (D304), Ex.PW4/L (D305), Ex.PW9/228A2, Ex.PW9/228A3 (D306), CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 256 of 569 Ex.PW9/228A5 (D307), Ex.PW9/27 (D309), Ex.PW9/200 (D309), Ex.PW9/28 (D317), Ex.PW9/159 (D316), Ex.PW9/161 (D318), Ex.PW9/202 (D321), Ex.PW9/229 (D323), Ex.PW9/230 (part of D323), Ex.PW9/231 (part of D
323), Ex.PW9/238 (D335), Ex.PW9/240 (D337), Ex.PW9/241, Ex.PW9/22 (D348), Ex.PW9/22A (part of D348), Ex.PW9/21 (D359), Ex.PW9/156 (D378), Ex.PW9/157 (D380), Ex.PW9/163 (D421), Ex.PW9/165C to Ex.PW9/165V (D425 to D445), Ex.PW9/301 (D505), Ex.PW9/208 (D127), Ex.PW38/B (D550), Ex.PW38/A (D556), Ex.PW13/A (D1), Ex.PW9/246 (part of D1), Ex.PW9/245 (part of D1), Ex.PW9/247 & Ex.PW9/DX14 (D1), Ex.PW41/J (D1), Ex.PW9/248 (D2), Ex.PW9/249 (D6), Ex.PW9/250 and Ex.PW9/251 (part of D6), Ex.PW9/252 (part of D6), Ex.PW9/253 (part of D6), Ex.PW9/254 (part of D6), Ex.PW9/255 (part of D6), Ex.PW9/256 (part of D6), Ex.PW9/257 & Ex.PW9/258 (part of D6), Ex.PW9/259 (Part of D6), Ex.PW9/260 (part of D6), Ex.PW9/261 (part of D6), Ex.PW9/262 & Ex.PW9/263 (part of D6), Ex.PW9/263, Ex.PW9/264 (part of D6), ExPW9/265 (part of D6), Ex.PW9/266 & Ex.PW9/267 (part of D6), Ex.PW9/268 (part of D
6), Ex.PW9/269 (part of D6), Ex.PW9/273 (part of D6), Ex.PW9/274 (part of D4), Ex.PW9/275 (part of D6), Ex.PW9/276 & Ex.PW9/277 (part of D6), Ex.PW9/279 (part of D6), Ex.PW9/280 (D7), Ex.PW9/281 (part of D7), Ex.PW9/285 (D8), Ex.PW9/286 (D9), Ex.PW9/287 (part of D9), Ex.PW9/287 (part of D9), Ex.PW9/288 (D13), Ex.PW9/289 & Ex.PW9/290 (D14), Ex.PW9/291 (D
15), Ex.PW9/292 (D17), Ex.PW9/293 (D18), Ex.PW9/294 (D19), Ex.PW4/1K (D21), Ex.PW9/295 (D22), Ex.PW9/296 (D23), Ex.PW41/L (D24), Ex.PW9/297 (page no.6 of D24), Ex.PW9/298 (page no.9 of D24), Ex.PW9/114 (D
56), Ex.PW9/115 (D57), Ex.PW9/115D (D59), Ex.PW9/117 to Ex.PW9/119 (D66), Ex.PW9/120 (part of D66), Ex.PW9/121 (D67), Ex.PW9/122 (D CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 257 of 569
68), Ex.PW9/124 (D72), Ex.PW9/125 (D76), Ex.PW9/125A (D77), Ex.PW9/126 (D80), Ex.PW9/128 (D84), Ex.PW9/129 (D85), Ex.PW9/130A (D80), Ex.PW9/131 (D93), Ex.PW9/30 (D97), Ex.PW9/31 (part of D97), Ex.PW9/32 (D99), Ex.PW9/33 (part of D99), Ex.PW9/34 (part of D99), Ex.PW9/35 (part of D99), Ex.PW9/36 & Ex.PW9/37 (part of D99), Ex.PW4/A (D100), Ex.PW9/38 (D103), Ex.PW9/166, Ex.PW9/167, Ex.PW9/168, Ex.PW5/1, Ex.PW4/J, Ex.PW9/195, Ex.PW4/H, Ex.PW9/28, Ex.PW9/207, Ex.PW9/236, Ex.PW9/235, Ex.PW9/237, Ex.PW9/238, Ex.PW9/22, Ex.PW9/22A, Ex.PW9/21, Ex.PW9/212, Ex.PW9/107, Ex.PW9/79, Ex.PW9/80, Ex.PW9/81, Ex.PW9/12, Ex.PW9/14, Ex.PW9/15 (Page 187 of D4), Ex.PW41/M (page 187 of D4), Ex.PW9/76 (page 193 of D4), Ex.PW9/75 (Page 194 of D4), Ex.PW9/17, Ex.PW9/18 (Page 199 of D4), Ex.PW9/19 (page no. 200 of D4), Ex.PW41/N (page no.203 of D4), Ex.PW9/20 and Ex.PW9/215.
In his crossexamination on behalf of accused, the witness has deposed as under: That day to day transactions of the Bank such as Debit and Credit Voucher, Pay in Slips, Pay Orders, Drafts, Draft Vouchers, Bills, were handled at the Branch level.
That the Regional Office is normally aware of all such transactions as these are controlled at Branch Level.
That scrutiny of Loan cases, visits to the Units, study of Balance Sheets, genuineness of the accounts, verification and safety of the loan cases is controlled at the Branch Level by the Loan Department of the Branch.
That safety and security of the advance is controlled at Branch Level.
That it is for the Branch to control and watch the transactions and recovery and not to allow irregular business and keep the accounts in limits and control.
That each and every advance over and above the discretionary power of incumbent Incharge CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 258 of 569 is reported to Regional Office for confirmation. That there is nothing wrong in sanctioning a secured limit of Twenty Lacs (one time only) which is backed by full security such as the documentary bills, equitable mortgage of property and the pledge of FDRs with other related conditions.
That he identified the signatures of Sh. S.K. Lakhina at point A on Ex.PW9/161 (D318). That the letter Mark PW9/Z1 (D319) was addressed to the Deputy General Manager, Regional Office, New Delhi but he cannot say if the said letter was put up before accused S.K. Lakhina.
That this is the Office copy of the Branch and not the original which was sent to the Regional Office.
That the letter Mark PW41/B has been sent by the Regional Office but he cannot say whether this letter was received by the Branch. That the perusal of Mark PW41/B shows that it is not a sanction and vide this letter certain queries have been raised.
That the documents Ex.PW9/203 (D321) and Ex.PW9/205 (D321) were dealt with by the Branch and it did not go to the Regional Office. That the noting on document Mark PW41/C (D322) is the Branch noting and the Regional Office has no knowledge about this.
That the document Ex.PW9/231 (D323) is a Branch document and the Regional Office is not aware of this document.
That the document Ex.PW41/DA (D324) is a Branch document and the Regional Office is not aware of this document.
That the document Ex.PW41/DB (D325) is a Branch document and the Regional Office is not aware of this document.
That the documents Ex.PW9/206 (D326), Ex.PW9/207 (part of D327) and Ex.PW34/B (part of D327) are Branch documents and the Regional Office is not aware of these documents.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 259 of 569 That the documents Ex.PW9/232, Ex.PW34/C, Ex.PW9/233, Ex.PW34/E, Ex.PW34/F, Ex.PW9/234, Ex.PW34/G, Ex.PW34/H, Ex.PW34/I, Ex.PW34/J, Ex.PW9/237, Ex.PW9/236 and Ex.PW34/K (part of D 327) are the Branch documents and were dealt by the Branch and not by the Regional Office. That any letter written to the Regional office for recommending or sanctioning facilities by the Branch does not mean sanction of the Regional office, unless specifically the sanction is obtained.
That as per document Ex.PW9/74 (D4 page no. 196) it was pointed out by the Regional Office that the Branch should not to allow overdrawing beyond the sanctioned limits. That he does not know whether document Mark PW41/DA (D4 Page 192) was received in the Branch or not.
That he cannot identify the signatures on document Mark PW41/DB (D128).
That all the notings on the register Ex.PW38/B pertained to the Branch and the Regional office has no role in this.
That all the information required to be submitted to the Regional Office for confirmation but he does not know whether any such information was sent to the Regional Office in this case.
That all the notings on the register Ex.PW38/A pertained to the Branch and the Regional office has no role in the same.
That his period of posting in the New Friends Colony Branch of Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Delhi, remained from December 1991 to July 1995.
That he remained posted as Second Hall Incharge of the said branch.
That in the absence of the Branch Incharge, he was performing all the duties except the loan. That he used to supervise Debit/ Credit vouchers being the Hall Incharge.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 260 of 569 That he used to sign Debit/ Credit Vouchers after getting satisfied with regard to the transaction.
That he is aware about the action confirmation procedure pertaining to the Branch. That those transactions which were within the powers of the Branch Manager; he used to do himself.
That other transactions exceeding his powers were used to be sent to the Regional Office. That he is not at all aware about the procedure pertaining to confirmation, approval or rejection of Telephonic Approval given by the Regional Office as well as about the guidelines issued by the Oriental Bank of Commerce and Central Vigilance Commission, in this regard. That he used to receive only Debit and Credit Vouchers from the concerned department and other connected documents annexed with the Bills Department.
That right from 1991 to the end of 1994; there were no complaints about the running of any of the accounts under reference.
That after the end of year 1994 to May 1995, these accounts were becoming little irregular in the availment of Credit Facilities. That except that there was no complaint which came to his knowledge during the period he remained in the said Branch.
That he left the New Friends Colony Branch and joined Extension Counter at Apollo Hospital.
That he has not visited the unit of Pradeep Anand i.e. M/s. True Fab & Ors.
That these accounts were in existence prior to his joining the branch.
That he has no idea about other accounts of Pradeep Anand.
42. Sh. Balbir Singh PW42 Sh. Balbir Singh Godara was the Manager of Godara (PW42) Oriental Bank of Commerce who has identified his handwriting / signatures on the various documents including the credit / debit voucher & entries on the bill purchase register.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 261 of 569 He has proved the documents Ex.PW42/A (D357), Ex.PW42/B (D358), Ex.PW42/C (D356), Ex.PW38/C (D548), Ex.PW42/D (D281), Ex.PW42/E (D282), Ex.PW38/B (D550), Ex.PW38/C, Ex.PW9/227A2 (D302), Ex.PW9/227 A3 (D303), Ex.PW9/116 (D60), Ex.PW9/115H (D
61), Ex.PW9/116I (D62), Ex.PW9/123 (D69), Ex.PW9/123A (D70), Ex.PW9/123B (D71), Ex.PW9/115J (D73), Ex.PW9/115K (D74), Ex.PW9/115L (D75), Ex.PW9/127 (D81), Ex.PW9/127A (D82), Ex.PW9/127B (D83), Ex.PW9/130C (D87), Ex.PW9/130D (D88), Ex.PW9/130E (D89), Ex.PW42/F (D159), Ex.PW42/G (D160), Ex.PW42/H (D161), Ex.PW9/142G (D164), Ex.PW9/142H (D165), Ex.PW9/142I (D166), Ex.PW9/210A2 (D177), Ex.PW9/210A3 (D178), Ex.PW9/210A4 (D179), Ex.PW9/153C (D182), Ex.PW9/142C (D150), Ex.PW9/142D (D151), Ex.PW9/142E (D152), Ex.PW9/142J (D167), Ex.PW9/153E (D184), Ex.PW9/226A3 (D250), Ex.PW9/226A4 (D251), Ex.PW9/226A5 (D252), Ex.PW9/226A6 (D253), Ex.PW42/I (D257), Ex.PW42/J (D258), Ex.PW42/K (D259), Ex.PW38/E (D263), Ex.PW38/F (D264), Ex.PW42/L (D280), Ex.PW9/227A1 (D301), Ex.PW9/239 (D336), Ex.PW9/240 (part of D337), Ex.PW38/K (D339), Ex.PW38/L (D340), Ex.PW42/M (D362), Ex.PW42MI (D365), Ex.PW42/N (D372), Ex.PW42/NI (D373) and Ex.PW38/D (D569).
In his crossexamination on behalf of accused, the witness has deposed as under : That he does not know exactly but he may be working in New Friends colony Branch as Manager Bills since 1992.
That he was Incharge of the Bills Department at New Friends Colony Branch.
That there were one or two officials under him, who were scrutinizing the bills and then put the same to him after which the bills were entered into register and sent to the outward branched CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 262 of 569 for collection.
That on all the credit and debit vouchers, his signatures were appended as Manager Bills and accordingly entries were made as authorizing officials.
That he does not remember whether there was any authority register being maintained at the branch but perhaps there was an authority register which was being maintained at the branch.
That in the authority register Ex.PW38/B (D
550) bills of all the parties in respect of which orders are required, are entered and discrepancy if any are pointed out.
That the account of True Fab was in operation prior to joining of A1 and the bills were being submitted by the party in the same form. That he (witness) had verbally stopped the accused S.K. Pathrella on a number of occasion from passing of Bills and cheques but never in writing in the register.
That he used to get the vouchers signed by the accused no.1 S.K. Pathrella as counter signatures.
That he used to only pass the voucher in routine in his official capacity and it was the authority of S.K. Pathrella to pass the same. That on every voucher the signatures of Chief Manager was not required and it is for that reason that the voucher do not bear his counter signatures.
That the procedure which was in existence prior to joining of S.K. Pathrella as Chief Manager was continuing even after his joining in so far as the signature on the vouchers are concerned.
That he does not remember as on date whether the same register which was in existence prior to the joining of S.K. Pathrella was continuing even after his joining.
That probably the authority register Ex.PW38/B (D550) is the register continuing from 1993 during the period of Raja Ram Mohan and also during the period of Sh. S.K. CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 263 of 569 Pathrella.
That with great difficulty, he could recognize his signatures on the register and the signatures of Raja Ram Mohan and of S.K. Pathrella.
That he does not remember whether the bills sent had been returned unpaid or not. That he used to give information in writing to the party in the event the bills were returned as unpaid but no separate register was being maintained in that regard.
That in case of unreturned bills, it might have been entered in the authority register i.e. Ex.PW38/B (D550).
That there is nothing in the authority register Ex.PW38/B (D550) to show the entry of any bills which have been returned unpaid. That he had not proposed any action in writing against the party in respect of bills if any, which have been returned unpaid but he might have stated orally.
That he does not remember anything about the bill purchase and bills discounted in respect of account.
That whatever letters and instructions were received from the Regional Office regarding the matters of bill purchase and other matters pertaining to loans and accounts etc. were directly received by the Hall Incharge whose name he dos not remember.
That such instructions were never shown to him or got noted from him.
That all the vouchers and the instructions on which he had identified the signatures have always remained and dealt with at the branch i.e. New Friends Colony of Oriental Bank of Commerce and they never referred to Regional Office.
43 Sh. Rameshar Rana PW43 Sh. Rameshwar Rana, Manager, Oriental (PW43) Bank of Commerce, has in his examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he joined the OBC as Clerk cum Cashier on 23.09.1983 and remained posted in New CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 264 of 569 Friends Colony Branch from August 1992 to August 1996 as AELPM Operator.
2. That when he joined the NFC Branch, Sh. R. Rajamohan was the Chief Manager of the Branch and after about one year, the accused S. K. Pathrella joined as Chief manager of the Branch (accused correctly identified by the witness in the court).
3. The he knew Sh. Rajeev Kapoor who was having his office in NFC and he used to deal in Shares and deposits in the various companies and was having current account as well as saving account in the said branch of NFC.
4. That he used to invest money in the name of his wife and used to purchase shares from Sh. Rajeev Kapoor.
5. That the current account of Sh. Rajeev Kapoor which was in the name of H. L. Kapoor Investment or something like that had become overdrawn to the tune of approximately Rs.4 lacs.
6. That Sh. S. K. Pathrella told him to adjust the said overdrawn account of Sh. Rajeev Kapoor by purchasing some cheque and thereafter, he brought a blank cheque from his brotherin law namely Virender Singh.
7. That the said cheque was drawn on Co operative Bank, Muzaffar Nagar and the same was signed by Sh. Virender Singh.
8. That he handed over the said cheque to S. K. Pathrella who had purchased the said cheque in one of the account of Sh. Pradeep Anand (accused correctly identified by the witness in the court).
9. That Pradeep Anand was having various accounts in their Branch and hence he (witness) is unable to tell in which account of Sh. Pradeep Anand the said cheque was purchased.
10. That after purchasing the said cheque, the amount of the cheque was credited to the account of Sh. Pradeep Anand, in which account the said cheque was purchased and thereafter Sh. Pradeep Anand had given him CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 265 of 569 Rs.4 lacs which he had deposited in the overdrawn account of Sh. Rajeev Kapoor in order to adjust the same.
Ld. PP, CBI with due permission of the court put leading question to the witness on which the witness has deposed that he cannot admit or deny whether the above referred cheque was purchased in the account of Sh. Pradeep Anand, which was in the name of M/s Steel Smart India.
During his crossexamination on behalf of the accused persons, the witness has deposed as follows:
That Sh. Pradeep Anand had nothing to do with Sh. Rajeev Kapoor, however, he cannot tell details of the cheque about which he referred to above.
That there was Cheque Purchase Department headed by an officer.
44 Sh. Prabir PW44 Sh. Prabir Sutradhar, Special Assistant, Sutradhar (PW44) Oriental Bank of Commerce, NFC Branch, New Delhi, has in his examination in chief deposed as under:
1. That during the year 1995 he was working as Special Assistant in Oriental Bank of Commerce at New Friends Colony Branch, New Delhi and his duties were to attend the work of dispatch section as well as the day book section.
2. That the dispatch register for the period 02.01.1995 to 28.12.1995 (D555) and page no. 90 of the same, contain the entry at S. No. 2309 at point X which is in his handwriting and the same is Ex.PW44/A.
3. That entry pertains to the State Bank of Patiala Sector 11, Faridabad, Haryana.
4. That S. K. Pathrella being the Chief Manager instructed him through intercom to hand over the bills to the peon of the bank so that Sh. Pathrella will himself courier it.
5. That he took the signature of the person on the dispatch registered and the said signature is at point Y and got it delivered to Sh. S. K. Pathrella and on the next day, he received the CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 266 of 569 courier slip from Sh. S. K. Pathrella which attached in the dispatch register which courier slip is Ex.PW44/B.
6. That as per the directions of S. K. Pathrella, the letter dated 26.05.1995 which is Ex.PW44/C (D255) was handed over to the peon who in turn delivered it to S. K. Pathrella wh oin turn courier the same. The said letter Ex.PW44/C bears his signatures at point X, that of Rajeev Anand at point Y in token of receipt document as mentioned in covering letter and the initials of S. K. Pathrella at point Z.
7. That M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. Faridabad was having a bank account in their bank.
During his crossexamination on behalf of the accused persons, the witness has deposed as under:
That he was the Incharge of Dispatch Section of the bank and was looking after functioning of the same, however, he cannot produce any letter of authorization by way of which he was deputed to work as an Incharge of the Dispatch Section.
That this is an internal office order of the branch. He is unable to tell the details of the order including the date and the number by way of which he was posted to work as Incharge of the dispatch section.
That he was never designated as an officer in NFC branch.
That the document Ex.PW44/A (D555) was maintained in his handwriting and all the entries on page no. 90 which is put to him, are of the same date and hence the date has not been repeated in the subsequent columns. That he had made no entry with regard to the oral instructions received by him from Sh. Pathrella / accused no. 1 on Ex.PW44/A and he had mentioned about the same in the covering letter Ex.PW44/C. He cannot tell whether the initials present at point Z belongs to Sh. Balbir Singh and not Sh. S. K. Pathrella.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 267 of 569 That the said initials at point Z can be of only one person out of the two i.e. the bills incharge Sh. Balbir Singh or the Chief of the branch / incumbent i.e. Sh. S. K. Pathrella.
That as on date, he cannot identify the signatures or initials of S. K. Pathrella since the issue relates to more thatn 20 years ago when he was just a disptach clerk.
That on the endorsement at point X on Ex.PW44/C there is no date or his signatures. That there is no process of verifictaion as to whether the communication dispatched had been received by the person to whom it was dispatched.
That there was no acknowledgment card with regard to the delivery of the communication to State Bank of Patiala, Faridabad Branch. That they were all working under S. K. Pathrella / accused no. 1 who was the branch head.
That he does not recollect if he had brought the instructions received from Sh. S. K. Pathrellato the knowledge of Sh. Balbir Singh. He still does not recollect whether Sh. Balbir Singh was his dispatch section incharge at the relevant time or he himself was the incharge of the dispatch section.
That the bills entry shown in Ex.PW44/A had not been dispatched by him personally. They were dispatched through the official channel i.e. courier by Sh. S. K. Pathrella and he cannot tell for sure to whom the initials on Ex.PW44/A encircled 'A' belong but either it must be of Rajiv Anand or Pradeep Anand, however, he is not sure.
That no date and time is written on Ex.PW44/A at point encircled A. The date mentioned on the top i.e. 26.5.1995 is the relevant date which is not mentioned against each entry but is mentioned on the date of the page.
That there are courier slips on other entries as well apart from the entry in question in the register.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 268 of 569 45 Sh. Vijay Kumar PW45 Sh. Vijay Kumar Sehgal was the Manager of Sehgal (PW45) Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony during the period 1991 to 1996. He has identified his own handwriting / signatures as well as the handwriting / signatures of S.K. Pathrella (A1), Pradeep Anand (A2) and Rajeev Anand (A4) on the various documents including cheques and various credit / debit vouchers i.e. Ex.PW9/21 (D359), Ex.PW24/B2 (D361), Ex.PW9/26 (D278), Ex.PW9/27 (D309), Ex.PW9/200 (part of D309), Ex.PW9/28 (part of D313), Ex.PW9/132 (part of D
132), Ex.PW9/137 (part of D142), Ex.PW9/140 (part of D145), Ex.PW9/144 (part of D154), Ex.PW9/145 (part of D155), Ex.PW9/146 (part of D156), Ex.PW9/147 (part of D157), Ex.PW9/148 (part of D
158), Ex.PW9/149 (part of D162), Ex.PW9/150 (part of D174), Ex.PW9/151 (part of D175), Ex.PW9/152 (D180), Ex.PW9/154 (D185), Ex.PW9/77 (D28), Ex.PW9/78 (D29), Ex.PW9/79 (D30), Ex.PW9/80 (D31), Ex.PW9/81 (D32), Ex.PW9/82 (D34), Ex.PW9/83 (part of D35), Ex.PW9/84 (part of D35), Ex.PW9/85 (part of D35), Ex.PW9/86 (part of D35), Ex.PW9/87 (part of D35), Ex.PW9/88 (part of D35), Ex.PW9/89 (part of D35), Ex.PW9/90 (part of D35), Ex.PW9/91 (part of D35), Ex.PW9/92 (part of D35), Ex.PW9/93 (part of D35), Ex.PW9/94 (part of D35), PW9/95 (part of D35), Ex.PW9/96 (part of D35), Ex.PW9/97 (part of D35), Ex.PW9/98 (part of D35), Ex.PW9/99 (part of D35), Ex.PW9/100 (part of D
35), Ex.PW9/101 (part of D35), Ex.PW9/102 (part of D35), Ex.PW9/103 (part of D35), Ex.PW9/104 (part of D35), Ex.PW9/105 (part of D35), Ex.PW9/106 (part of D35), Ex.PW9/107 (part of D35), Ex.PW9/108 (part of D36), Ex.PW9/109 (part of D
37), Ex.PW9/110 (part of D38), Ex.PW9/111 (part of D50), Ex.PW9/112 (part of D52), Ex.PW9/113 (part of D54), Ex.PW9/114 (part of D56), Ex.PW9/115 (part of D57), Ex.PW9/117 (part of D66), Ex.PW9/118 (part of D66), Ex.PW9/119 (part of D
66), Ex.PW9/120 (part of D66), Ex.PW9/121 (part of D67), Ex.PW9/122 (part of D68), Ex.PW9/124 (part of D72), Ex.PW9/125 (part of D76), Ex.PW9/126 CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 269 of 569 (part of D83), Ex.PW9/128 (D84), Ex.PW9/129 (D
85), Ex.PW9/131 (part of D93).
He has further proved the documents Ex.PW38/K (D
339), Ex.PW38/L (D340), Ex.PW38/J (D338), Ex.PW9/240 (D337), Ex.PW9/229 to Ex.PW9/231 (D323), Ex.PW9/206 (D326), Ex.PW9/207 (D327), Ex.PW9/233 (D328), Ex.PW9/226A1 (D248), Ex.PW9/226A2 (D249), Ex.PW9/226A3 (D250), Ex.PW9/226A4 (D251), Ex.PW9/226A5 (D252), Ex.PW9/226A6 (D253), Ex.PW41/B (D201), Ex.PW9/199 (D273), Ex.PW38/F (D264), Ex.PW9/144 (D154), Ex.PW9/145 (D155), Ex.PW9/146 (D156), Ex.PW9/147 (D157), Ex.PW9/148 (D158), Ex.PW9/149 (D162), Ex.PW9/149A (D163), Ex.PW9/150 (D174), Ex.PW9/151 (D175), Ex.PW9/193 (D260), Ex.PW9/194 (D261), Ex.PW9/198 (D271), Ex.PW9/199 (D273), Ex.PW9/26 (D278), Ex.PW9/21 (D359), Ex.PW24/B1 (D360), Ex.PW24/B2 (D361), Ex.PW9/137 (D142), Ex.PW9/140 (D145), Ex.PW9/144 (D154), Ex.PW9/145 (D155), Ex.PW9/29 (D314), Ex.PW9/115D (D59), Ex.PW9/130A (D86) Ex.PW9/245, Ex.PW9/246, Ex.PW9/247, Ex.PW9/DX14, Ex.PW41/J, Ex.PW13/A, Ex.PW13/B, Ex.PW13/C and Ex.PW9/248 (D1).
He has also identified the signatures of Pradeep Anand on Ex.PW9/249 to Ex.PW9/287, Ex.PW45/A (D10), Ex.PW45/B (D11), Ex.PW54/C (Part of D
11), Ex.PW9/288, Ex.PW9/289, Ex.PW9/290, Ex.PW9/291, Ex.PW9/291, Ex.PW9/293, Ex.PW9/294, Ex.PW41/K, Ex.PW9/295, Ex.PW9/296, Ex.PW41/L, Ex.PW9/297, Ex.PW9/298, Ex.PW9/30 (D97), Ex.PW9/31, Ex.PW9/32 (part of D99), Ex.PW9/33 (part of D99), Ex.PW9/34 (part of D99), Ex.PW9/35 (part of D99), Ex.PW9/36 (part of D99), Ex.PW9/37 (part of D99), Ex.PW4/A (D100), Ex.PW9/38 (D103), Ex.PW9/39 (D103), Ex.PW9/40 (D103), Ex.PW9/41 (D103), Ex.PW9/42 (D103), Ex.PW9/43 (D103), Ex.PW9/44 (D103), Ex.PW9/45 CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 270 of 569 (D103), Ex.PW9/46 (D103), Ex.PW9/47 (D103), Ex.PW9/48 (D103), Ex.PW9/49 (D103), Ex.PW9/50 (D103), Ex.PW9/51 (D103), Ex.PW9/52 (D112), Ex.PW9/53 (D116), Ex.PW9/54 (D117), Ex.PW9/55 (D119), Ex.PW9/56 (D120), Ex.PW9/57 (D122), Ex.PW9/58 (D123), Ex.PW9/59 (D124), Ex.PW9/60 (D126), Ex.PW9/61, Ex.PW9/62, Ex.PW9/63, Ex.PW9/64, Ex.PW9/65, Ex.PW9/66, Ex.PW9/67, Ex.PW9/68, Ex.PW9/69, Ex.PW9/70, Ex.PW9/71, Ex.PW9/72, Ex.PW9/73, Ex.PW9/209, Ex.PW9/210, Ex.PW9/153A, Ex.PW9/187, Ex.PW9/196 (D268) & Ex.PW9/197 (D269), Ex.PW9/166 (D190), Ex.PW4/H (D286), Ex.PW9/202 (D321), Ex.PW9/168 (D193), Ex.PW4/I (D194), Ex.PW4/J (D195), Ex.PW4/K (D196), Ex.PW9/169 (D197), Ex.PW41/DA (D324), Ex.PW9/207 (part of D327), Ex.PW9/232 (part of D327), Ex.PW34/C (part of D
327), Ex.PW9/234 (part of D327), Ex.PW34/G (part of D327), Ex.PW34/H (part of D327), Ex.PW9/236 (part of D327), Ex.PW34/K (part of D327), Ex.PW34/D (part of D327), Ex.PW9/237 (part of D
327), Ex.PW9/238 (D335), Ex.PW9/115D (D59), Ex.PW9/22 (D348), Ex.PW9/211 (D393), Ex.PW9/212 (D395), Ex.PW9/117 to Ex.PW9/126, Ex.PW9/128, Ex.PW9/129, Ex.PW9/131, Ex.PW9/132 (D132), Ex.PW9/133 (D134), Ex.PW9/134 (D137), Ex.PW9/135 (D139), Ex.PW9/136 (D140), Ex.PW9/137 (D142), Ex.PW9/138 (D143), Ex.PW9/139 (D144), Ex.PW9/132 (D132) to Ex.PW9/126, Ex.PW9/128, Ex.PW9/129, Ex.PW9/131, Ex.PW9/302 (D539), Ex.PW9/303 (D539), Ex.PW9/304 (D540), Ex.PW9/305 (D540), Ex.PW9/146 (D156), Ex.PW9/147 (D157), Ex.PW9/148 (D158), Ex.PW9/149 (D162), Ex.PW9/150 (D174), Ex.PW9/151 (D175), Ex.PW9/152 (D180), Ex.PW9/154 (D185), Ex.PW9/27 (D309), Ex.PW9/28 (D313), Ex.PW9/27 (D309), Ex.PW9/225B (D206), Ex.PW9/170 (D212), Ex.PW9/171 (D213), Ex.PW9/173 (D218), Ex.PW9/174 (D219), Ex.PW9/175 (D220), CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 271 of 569 Ex.PW9/176 (D221), Ex.PW9/178 (D224), Ex.PW9/180 (D226), Ex.PW9/181 (D228), Ex.PW9/182 (D230), Ex.PW9/183 (D232), Ex.PW9/184 (D234), Ex.PW9/185 (D236), Ex.PW9/186 (D240), Ex.PW9/188 (D242), Ex.PW9/190 (D246), Ex.PW9/191 (D247), Ex.PW9/192 (D256), Ex.PW9/193 (D260), Ex.PW9/194 (D261), Ex.PW9/198 (D271), Ex.PW9/199 (D273), Ex.PW9/227A1 (D301), Ex.PW9/228A1 (D304), Ex.PW41/D (D210), Ex.PW9/159 (D316), Ex.PW9/160 (D317), Ex.PW45/1 (D319), Ex.PW9/203, Ex.PW9/204, Ex.PW9/205, Ex.PW9/239 (D336), Ex.PW9/240 (D
337), Ex.PW9/156 (D378), Ex.PW9/157 (D380), Ex.PW9/14 (page 185 of D4), Ex.PW9/15 (page 187 of D4), Ex.PW9/16 (page 189 of D4), Ex.PW9/76 (page 193 of D4), Ex.PW9/75 (page 194 of D4), Ex.PW9/17 (page 195 of D4), Ex.PW9/18 (page 199 of D4), Ex.PW9/19 (page 200 of D4), Ex.PW41/N (page 203 of D4), Ex.PW9/20 (page 241 of D4), Ex.PW9/215 (page 273 of D4), Ex.PW9/216 (page 246 of D4), Ex.PW9/221 (page 139 and 140 of D4), Ex.PW9/218 (page 205 of D559), Ex.PW9/224 (page 41 of D560), Ex.PW38/B (D550), Ex.PW45/1 (D
13), Ex.PW45/3 (D13), Ex.PW45/4 (D13), Ex.PW45/5 (D13), Ex.PW45/6 (D13), Ex.PW45/7 (D13), Ex.PW45/8 (D13), Ex.PW45/8 (D13), Ex.PW45/9 (D13), Ex.PW45/10 (D13), Ex.PW45/11 (D13), Ex.PW9/146A (D156), Ex.PW9/147 (D
157), Ex.PW45/12 (D262), Ex.PW45/13 (D272), Ex.PW9/149A (D163), Ex.PW9/195 (D265), Ex.PW9/196 (D268) and Ex.PW9/197 (D269).
During his cross examination on behalf of the accused persons, the witness has deposed as under:
That he was the Manager for the current account maintained in the OBC Bank, New Friends Colony, New Delhi and he remained in this branch from 1991 to 1996.
That Ms. Indu Ghai, Poonam was the clerks who were working under him.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 272 of 569 That he does not remember the month in which Mr. S. K. Pathrella left the branch but it was in the year 1995 but it may be that he joined the aforesaid branch in the year 1994.
That he had to pass debit and credit vouchers and cash vouchers and used to sign the vouchers after the money credited in the said account.
That the bills were purchased by the bills department and thereafter the vouchers were sent to the clerk and he posts the transactions in the current respective accounts and thereafter, the voucher was passed by him. That the banks gives loan to the customers and different types of loans have been prescribed in the book issued by the bank.
That his duties involved passing of the vouchers sent by the bills department after checking the same to be of the respective account.
That his role was only confined to the credit voucher and remaining all the bills relating to the bills department were passed by Mr. Pathrella or by the concerned officer. That the document (D316) Ex.PW9/159 i.e. letter dated 16.05.1995 written by the Chief Manager, New Friends Colony Branch to the DGM, RO, New Delhi and reply thereto, vide letter dated 06.06.1995 addressed to Chief Manager, New Friends Colony Ex.PW9/161 and asked to state if he is aware of the said transactions. These do not concern him and were dealt by the Chief Manager.
That during his tenure at New Friends Colony Branch, he did not come across any irregularity and illegality attributable to regional office, New Delhi.
46 Sh. V. K. Kamboj PW46 Sh. V. K. Kamboj, Chief Manager, Oriental (PW46) Bank of Commerce, Connaught Place Branch, New Delhi, has in his examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That in February1999 he was posted as Chief Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 273 of 569 Cannaught Place Branch and S. K. Lakhina was the Deputy General Manager at Head Officer New Delhi, however, he knew him prior to this as he was the Regional Manager.
2. That the document D415 Ex.PW16/E is transfer payment order from one branch to another branch.
3. That TPO prepared after preparation of application form D399 Ex.PW16/A which bears his initials at encircle 'B"and the said form was filled up by him in his handwriting for preparation of TPO Ex.PW16/E for an amount of Rs.50,000/.
4. That for preparation of TPO Ex.PW16/E Sh. S. K. Lakhina A3 had come to him and handed over cash to him for preparation of this TPO.
5. That the document Ex.D414 Ex.PW16/D is the transfer payment order from one branch to another branch and it was prepared after preparing the application form D401 Ex.PW16/C and this form was filled up by him in his handwriting for preparation of TPO Ex.PW16/D for an amount of Rs.50,000/. For preparation of TPO, Ex.PW16/D S. K. Lakhina (A3) had come to him and handed over cash to him for preparation of this TPO.
6. That the document D402 pertains to Nehru Place branch and as such, he cannot identify the handwriting.
7. That the document D416 Ex.PW16/F is transfer payment order from one branch to another branch and was prepared after preparation of application form D400 Ex.PW16/B, and this form was filled up by him in his handwriting for preparation of said TPO Ex.PW16/F for an amount of Rs.50,000. For preparation of TPO Ex.PW16/F S. K. Lakhina had come to him and handed over cash to him for preparation of this TPO.
8. That the amount through these three TPOs will be credited to the account of M/s Future Positive having its account in Nehru Place branch of Oriental Bank of Commerce.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 274 of 569 In his crossexamination on behalf of the accused persons, the witness has deposed as under: That as and when a letter received from Regional Officer to the branch office it is entered into the receipt register of the branch which is maintained in all the branches of the banks.
That he was posted at G.K. 2 Branch of Oriental Bank of Commerce for 51 months during the period from May, 1993 to August 1997.
that he served in Oriental Bank of Commerce for about 40 years and had joined as Clerk in the year 1972 and in 1978 hew was promoted as Officer.
That he cannot give the exact details of his tenure and posting in different branches / offices.
That he was posted in branches, Regional Office and Head office of the bank.
That in Head Office he was posted in Accounts Department, Rural Development Department and Credit Department.
That in Regional Office the hierarchy changes from time to time.
That normal hierarchy is Regional Head followed by the Chief Managers and then Senior Managers under whom the various officials are posted.
That he was posted as Regional Head at three Regional Offices i.e. Agra, Calcutta and Hyderabad.
That it is mandatory for the Regional Head to pass orders to assign duties to various officers posted under him in the Region.
That various departments put up the notes through the hierarchy to the Regional Head. That he was aware of the Oriental Bank of Commerce (Officers) Service Regulations, 1982; Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1982, Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1982. That he is aware of the provision contained in Regulation3 of OBC, Officer Employees CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 275 of 569 (Conduct) Regulations 1982 which prescribes "Every Officer Employee shall, at all times take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interests of the bank and discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and do nothing which is unbecoming of an officer employee"
That he does not recollect that he had ever reported any act of misconduct or an act prejudicial to the interest of the bank of any of the officers during his posting at GK 2 Branch. That he is not aware whether the account of M/s Future Positive was an NPA account in which account S. K. Lakhina, A3 had advised him to deposit the various amounts through TPOs.
That S. K. Lakhina had come to him and gave him cash to issue pay order favouring M/s Future Positive payable at Nehru Place branch.
That the letter dated 22.02.2002 of branch office GK 2 (OBC) addressed to the G.M. Regional Office, New Delhi (Settlement of M/s Future Positive) which is now Ex.PW46/DX1 its enclosure letter dated 12.01.1996 issued by Nehru Place branch of OBC addressed to M/s Future Positive which is Ex.PW46/DX2; no dues certificate dated 15.03.2002 issued by GK 2 branch of OBC which is Ex.PW46/DX3, copy of board notice of OBC dated 21.12.1995 put before the board on 26.12.1995 approving the settlement of the NPA account of M/s Future Positive which is Ex.PW46/DX4 . He is not aware of these documents as these have not been issued during his tenure at GK 2 Branch of OBC.
That D4192 (Mark 41/DA), D4196 (Ex.PW9/74), D201 (PW9/DX7) and D4202 (Ex.PW7/B) are the letters / documents do not pertain to him and he cannot say about the contents of all these letters / documents. That he does not remember if there was any irregularity or illegality in the amounts being deposited to settle a NPA account by the CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 276 of 569 guarantor.
47 Sh. Rajender Prasad PW47 Sh. Rajender Prasad, Cashier, Greater Kailash (PW47) Brnach, OBC, has in his examinationinchief deposed s follows:
1. That he had joined the OBC in 1982 and since then he had worked in different capacities till his retirement in June, 2017.
2. That he worked as cashier in Greater Kailash Branch PartII branch of OBC from 19852002 and from 2015 till his retirement.
3. That TPO application dated 25.01.1996 Ex.PW16/A (D399) bears his signatures at point B.
4. That TPO application dated 27.01.1996 Ex.PW16/B (D400) bears his signatures at point B.
5. That TPO application dated 27.01.1996 Ex.PW16/C (D401) bears his signatures at point B.
6. That vide the above TPO applications, it is requested to credit the payment in favour of M/s Future Positive and vide TPO Ex.PW16/D Ex.PW16/F and Ex.PW16/F the payment was credited to the account of M/s Future Positive at the Overseas Nehru Place Branch of OBC.
7. That for issuing these TPOs the Bank had not charged commission, Smt. Sudha Sharma was the officer of the bank with whom he had worked and identify her signature at point A on the Ex.PW16/A, Ex.PW16/B and Ex.PW16/C. This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused persons.
48 Mrs. Sosama PW48 Mrs. Sosama Thomas, Clerk, OBC Bank, has Thomas (PW48) in her examinationinchief deposed as under:
1. That she had joined OBC as Clerk in 1985 and thereafter worked in different capacities.
2. That in the year 199394, S. K. Pathrella (A1) got transferred to New Railway Road Brach of OBC Gurgaon, where she was working as Clerk at that time.
3. That she does not remember investing in Ghaziabad for the society. There was no talk CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 277 of 569 with S. K. Pathrlla for investing.
4. That she got transferred to OBC Branch, MG Road, Trivendaram in the year 1995 from Sector 17 Branch of OBC, Gurgaon.
5. That she had taken all her households goods to Trivendaram and there was nothing left at Delhi.
6. That she had not booked any flat in her name at Trivendaram.
7. That Sh. Jacob Mathai is her uncle.
8. That she does not know Pradeep Anand (A2) and she had not taken any money from him.
9. That the document Ex.PW9/163 bears her signatures at point B and the signature of S. K. Pathrella at point A on the Identification Cum Specimen Thumb Impression Signature Card.
10. That the document Ex.PW9/164 bears her signatures at point C1 and D and the signatures of S. K. Pathrella at point A and B. Her photograph is also on the said document at point E and the photograph of S. K. Pathrella at point C.
11. That for opening account no. 1025, the initial payment of Rs. Lac was not made by him and does not know who has made the payment.
12. That the account no. 1205 was opened in the NFC branch of the Corporation Bank.
13. That on 4.11.1995, when this account was opened, he had not visited the corporation bank at NFC Colony.
14. That she does not know who had submitted that account opening form in the bank.
15. That there was no purpose of opening the account. She is unable to tell why this joint account was opened.
16. That the pay in slip dated 4.11.1995 Ex.PW48/1 bears the initials of S. K. Pathrella at point A.
17. That she is unable to identify the signatures and handwriting of the depositor on the pay in slip dated 22.12.1995 and 22.4.1996.
18. That the pay in slip dated 1.12.1995 bears the signatures of S. K. Pathrella at point A and CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 278 of 569 same is Ex.PW48/2.
19. That the documents i.e. cheques Ex.PW9/165A (D423) Ex.PW9/165W (D445) bear the signatures of S. K. Pathrella at point A1.
20. That she is not aware about the transaction conducted in account no. 1025 (D451) i.e. Statement of accounts of account no. 1025.
21. That she had maintained salary account in OBC, Trivendaram and the statement of account may be D445.
22. That the Assessee's copy Ex.PW48/3 to Ex.PW48/5 (D457) bears her signatures at Points A and also admits the contents in the form. However, she does not know who had filled up these Assessee copies.
23. That she identifies her signatures at Point A and the contents thereof in the form i.e. the document D457 (Page 8 to 10).
24. That the copy of the account opening form of account no. 19796 bears her signatures at point A. She also admits the contents of the form which are in her own handwriting and is Ex.PW48/7. This account was maintained in the Canara Bank, Trivandram Puthenchanthai.
25. That the transactions shown in the statement of account were conducted by her and the same is Ex.PW48/8.
26. That the pay in slips dated 11.7.95 which is Ex.PW48/9 (D463); dated 21.7.95 which is Ex.PW48/10 (D464); dated 20.7.95 which is Ex.PW48/11 (D465); dated 10.8.95 which is Ex.PW48/12 (D466); dated 13.7.95 which is Ex.PW48/13 (D467); dated 10.8.95 which is Ex.PW48/14 (D468); dated 18.8.95 which is Ex.PW48/15 (D469) dated 16.9.95 which is Ex.PW48/16 (D470); dated 4.11.95 which is Ex.PW48/17 (D471) and dated 21.7.95 which is Ex.PW48/18 (D472) bear her handwriting at encircled portion at Point A.
27. That the pay in slip dated 3.12.96 (which is Ex.PW48/19 for the identification) (D473) is not in her handwriting and the pay in slip is the internal transfer of funds as mentioned in the CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 279 of 569 voucher.
28. That the pay in slip dated 2.3.96 which is Ex.PW48/20 (D474) bears her handwriting at encircled portion at Point A.
29. That the pay in slip dated 6.10.95 which is Ex.PW48/21 (D475) bears her handwriting at encircled portion at Point A.
30. That she identifies her handwriting and signatures at Point A in the document D476 Ex.PW48/22 i.e. cheque no. 721439 dated 15.12.95 in favour of S. K. Pathrella.
31. That the document D477 to D483 and D485 i.e. Demand Draft were received by her which were issued from NFC branch of Corporation bank and all these demand drafts were encashed by her in her account maintained in Canara Bank, Trivandaram. The demand drafts are Ex.PW48/23 (D477 to D483) and Ex.PW48/25 (D485) respectively.
32. That the account opening form of her daughter namely Jacquiline bears her signatures at point A and the said form is Ex.PW48/24 (D484).
33. That the pay in slip dated 15.12.95 which is Ex.PW48/26 (D486) bears her handwriting at encircled portion at Point A.
34. That the cheque bearing no. 828081 dated 24.1.97 which is Ex.PW48/27 (D487) bears her handwriting at encircled portion at Point A.
35. That the document D488 i.e. account opening form dated 1.12.95 for account no. 6180 maintained in Corporation Bank, Trivendaram Ex.PW9/299 bears her signatures at point C and signatures of S. K. Pathrella at point A. she also identifies her photograph at point Y and that of S. K. Pathrella at point X. She further identifies her signatures on identification cum specimen thumb impression / signature card Ex.PW9/300 at point B and signatures of S. K. Pathrella at point A.
36. That the document D488 i.e. application for closure of SB A/c No. 6180 dated 16.1.1997 Ex.PW9/155 bears her signatures at Point A CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 280 of 569 and that of S. K. Pathrella at point A.
37. That all the transactions in the account no.
6180 maintained in corporation bank, Trivendaraum were made by her. The said statement of account D488 is Ex.PW48/28.
38. That the application for issuance of demand draft dated 10.07.95 bears the signatures of S. K. Pathrella at point A and the same is Ex.PW48/29 (D489).
39. That she cannot say with surety that the signatures on application for issuance of demand draft dated 19.7.95 Ex.PW48/30 D 490 are of S. K. Pathrella.
40. That she cannot identify the handwriting on the document D491 i.e. application for issuance of demand draft dated 5.8.95.
41. That the application for issuance of demand draft dated 7.8.95 Ex.PW48/31 (D492) bears the signatures of S. K. Pathrella in the circled portion but cannot identify the signatures at point A.
42. That the application for issuance of demand draft dated 16.8.95 Ex.PW48/32 (D493) bears the handwriting of S. K. Pathrella (A1) in the circled portion however, she is unable to identify the signatures at point A.
43. That the cheque bearing no. 828071 dated 13.12.95 (D499) Ex.PW48/33 bears her handwriting and signatures at point A.
44. That the withdrawal slip dated 8.4.96 (D500) Ex.PW48/34 bears her handwriting and signatures at point A.
45. That the cheque bearing no. 828072 dated 28.5.96 (D501) Ex.PW48/35 bears her handwriting and signatures at point A.
46. That the cheque bearing no. 828074 dated 29.7.96 (D502) Ex.PW48/36 bears her handwriting and signatures at point A.
47. That the cheque bearing no. 828073 dated 27.7.96 (D503) Ex.PW48/37 bears her handwriting and signatures at point A.
48. That she is unable to identify the handwriting in the encircled portion at Q254 on the CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 281 of 569 cheque bearing no. 070345 dated 24.5.95 (D
76) Ex.PW9/125.
49. That the demand draft no. 494289 Ex.PW9/3012 (D505) was encashed by her.
Since the witness was resiling from her statement under Section 161 Cr.PC, Ld. PP, CBI, with due permission of the court, cross examined the witness wherein the witness has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That there was no business or other transaction between her and S. K. Pathrella (A1).
2. That she had opened two joint accounts with S. K. Pathrella.
3. That she had received the draft bearing no.
494289 of Rs.11,500/ which was given to her by S. K. Pathrella and not by Pradeep Anand.
During her crossexamination on behalf of the accused persons, the witness has deposed as under: That she does not recollect as to how many accounts she was holding in the year 1994 to 1998.
That as far as she knows, she was holding saving bank accounts in three banks i.e. Oriental Bank of Commerce, Kottayam (Kerala), South Extension, New Delhi and Sohna Road, Gurgaon and Corporation Bank, New Friends Colony Branch and Trivendaram. That she was not having any account in Oriental Bank of Commerce, NFC Branch, New Delhi.
That she was having joint account with S. K. Pathrella at Corporation Bank, NFC Branch and Trivendrum Branch Kerala, however, she does not remember whether S. K. Pathrella was the second account holder along with her in the joint account.
That as per the account opening form Ex.PW9/164 (D422) as well as specimen signature card Ex.PW9/163 (D421) she is the first name account holder in account no. 1025 with Corporation Bank, NFC, New Delhi.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 282 of 569 That as per the account opening form Ex.PW9/299 (D488) as well as specimen signature card Ex.PW9/300 (D488) she is the first name account holder in account no. 6180 with Corporation Bank, Trivendrum, Kerala. That for the purses of taking into account interest, assessee's assessment and credit as well as transaction in the account; all amounts belongs to the account holder named first. That at the time of opening the account, it is necessary for the account holder to visit the bank branch where the account to be opened. That in the aforesaid joint accounts, operation of account was either or surviver.
That she is responsible for the interest paid in the above said joint accounts.
That she is not aware of the transactions made in the above said joint account in the Corporation Bank, NFC, New Delhi branch. That she is not aware that the account bearing no. 1025 was operational from the year 1995 2000.
That she does not recollect when the said account was closed. However, in order to close the account signatures of both the joint account holder is required.
That she does not recollect whether she had not taken this account into her assessment even from the date of the opening of account till its closure.
That she also does not recollect the period as to since when the account no. 1025 was closed. That she had never objected to any transaction in the joint account no. 1025, as she was not aware of any transaction made in the said account.
That she should have been aware about all the transactions in the said joint account no. 1025 being the first holder of account as she is responsible for the same being the first holder. That her salary account was in her single name at OBC, Trivendrum Branch.
That she does not remember in which year she had become an Income Tax assessee.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 283 of 569 That she has two PAN numbers i.e. ACEPT 0523 D and ACFPT 0966 P, however, she is not aware in which year these PAN numbers were issued.
That she had received notice regarding closure of her first PAN Card and issuance of Second PAN Card and that the PAN Card were not in operation simultaneously.
That the bank use to issue form 16A showing deduction of tax from her income, however, she does not remember that whether she used to file her own tax return as an assessee with the income tax department.
That the document D457 Ex.PW48/4 is the acknowledgment of assessment witness identifies her income tax returns filed for the year 199798.
That her residential address at that time was C193, Nirman Vihar, New Delhi however, in the assessment return she had given the residential address as C193, Nirman Vihar, New Delhi.
That her PAN No. at that time was ACEPT0523D.
That her account bearing no. 19796 was in her single name at Canara Bank Trivandrum and she had issued the cheque on 15.12.1995 in favour of Sh. Suresh Kumar.
That the said cheque was paid at Trivandrum in the account of Suresh Kumar (D476) Ex.PW48/22.
That Sh. S.K. Pathrella did not have joint account with her in Canara Bank at Trivandrum.
That the document D476 Ex.PW48/22 has not been credited to the joint account of Soma and Suresh.
That account payee cheque cannot be paid over the counter and has to go first to the account. That he does not remember that in which account number payment of (D476) i.e. Ex.PW48/22 has been made.
That she had only two joint account with A1 and both these accounts were only with CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 284 of 569 Corporation Bank.
That she understand the difference between the cheque and the draft. Cheque is drawn by the drawer holding the cheque whereas in the case of draft payment is assured by the bank and signed by the bank officials.
That joint account at Corporation Bank Trivandrum with even i.e. S.K. Pathrella was bearing account no. 6180.
That vide (D504) demand draft has been made in her favour and the said amount has been encashed by her.
That vide (D505) i.e. Ex.PW9/301 payment of the said draft drawn in his favour has been encashed on 05.06.1995.
That on the draft bearing no. 494289 dated 25.05.1995 two bank officials have put their signatures as bank officer on the draft and at Mark A one of the signatory holding PA No. 2071.
That Sh. S.K. Pathrella has not made the draft in her favour but as bank official have put his signatures as one of the officials besides another official on (D505).
That she had got the payment of the said draft in her account which was received on 05.06.1995.
That as far as, she knows it was the money of S.K. Pathrella, however, she does not have any documentary proof in this regard. That she had also been charge sheeted by the Oriental Bank of Commerce and the reason is due to non reporting to the head office with regard to the amount deposited in her account. That she does not know that Sh. S.K. Pathrella has not been ever charge sheeted in the disciplinary proceeding by the Head Office of the bank.
That she knew Mr. Jacob Mathai who is her maternal uncle and used to live at N88, Panchsheel Park, Delhi and never helped her in disposing of any of her articles etc. or ever helped her in any manner.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 285 of 569 That her statement was recorded by the CBI officials and she had spoken a lie before investigating officer in recording her statement that her uncle Jacob Mathai helped her financially and also helped in getting her transferred to Trivandrum at the Oriental Bank of Commerce.
That (again said) she had not spoken about her transfer to Jacob Mathai.
That it is also lie about the friendship of Rampal with her uncle Sh. Mathai and she had never told and given this statement about friendship of Rampal with her uncle Sh. Jacob Mathai.
That the CBI officials have recorded of its own about monetary help given to her as well as friendship of Rampal, NRI with her uncle Sh. Jacob Mathai.
That her uncle Jacob Mathai remained in India at New Delhi upto 199596 and she is in touch with her uncle Jacob Mathai who is presently residing at North Carolina, USA.
That she has one daughter namely Jacquiline and her investment with her daughter are her personal investment from her own funds. That she had not made any enquiry from Mr. Pradeep of True Fab. Pvt. Ltd. in this regard. 49 Sh. Ashok Kumar PW49 Sh. Ashok Kumar Khanna was the Manager of Khanna (PW49) Oriental Bank of Commerce, NFC Branch, New Delhi who has identified his own handwritings / signatures as well as the handwriting and signatures of S.K. Pathrella (A1), Pradeep Anand (A2) and Rajeev Anand (A4) on the various documents including cheques, forwarding schedule bills, credit/ debit vouchers.
He has proved the said documents which are Ex.PW45/1 (D13), Ex.PW45/3 (D13), Ex.PW45/4 (D13), Ex.PW45/5 (D13), Ex.PW45/6 (D13), Ex.PW45/7 (D13), Ex.PW45/8 (D13), Ex.PW45/8 (D13), Ex.PW45/9 (D13), Ex.PW45/10 (D13), Ex.PW45/11 (D13), Ex.PW9/77, Ex.PW9/78, Ex.PW9/79, Ex.PW9/80, Ex.PW9/114, Ex.PW9/129, CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 286 of 569 Ex.PW9/142B (D167), Ex.PW9/142F (D168), Ex.PW9/77 (D28), Ex.PW9/78 (D29), Ex.PW9/79 (D30), Ex.PW9/80 (D31), Ex.PW9/81 (D32), Ex.PW9/82 (D34), Ex.PW9/83 (D35), Ex.PW9/111 (D50), Ex.PW9/112 (D52), Ex.PW9/113 (D54), Ex.PW9/114 (D56), Ex.PW9/115 (D57), Ex.PW9/115 (D59), Ex.PW9/116 (D63), Ex.PW9/120 (D66), Ex.PW9/121 (D67), Ex.PW9/119 (D66), Ex.PW9/117 (D66), Ex.PW9/118 (D66), Ex.PW9/112 (D68), Ex.PW9/124 (D72), Ex.PW9/115J (D73), Ex.PW9/125 (D76), Ex.PW9/126 (D80), Ex.PW9/128 (D84), Ex.PW9/129 (D85), Ex.PW9/130A (D86), Ex.PW9/131 (D93), Ex.PW9/130G (D94), Ex.PW4/B (D100), Ex.PW9/132 (D132), Ex.PW9/134 (D137), Ex.PW9/135 (D139), Ex.PW9/136 (D140), Ex.PW9/137 (D142), Ex.PW9/138 (D143), Ex.PW9/139 (D144), Ex.PW9/140 (D145), Ex.PW9/141 (D147), Ex.PW9/143 (D153), Ex.PW9/144 (D154), Ex.PW9/145 (D155), Ex.PW9/146 (D156), Ex.PW9/147 (D157), Ex.PW9/148 (D158), Ex.PW9/149 (D162), Ex.PW9/209 (D170), Ex.PW9/150 (D174), Ex.PW9/151 (D175), Ex.PW9/210A1 (D176), Ex.PW9/152 (D180), Ex.PW9/153A (D181), Ex.PW9/154 (D185), Ex.PW9/154A (D186), Ex.PW41/D (D210), Ex.PW9/170 (D212), Ex.PW38/C (D548), Ex.PW38/B (D550), Ex.PW9/38 to Ex.PW9/60 (D103 to D126), Ex.PW33/A to Ex.PW33/V, Ex.PW11/1 (D382), Ex.PW49/1 (D237), Ex.PW49/2 (D238), Ex.PW49/3 (D239), Ex.PW49/4 (D390), Ex.PW9/226A1 (D
248), Ex.PW49/5 (D5), Ex.PW9/226A1 (D248), Ex.PW49/5 (D5), Ex.PW49/6 (D130), Ex.PW9/134 (D137), Ex.PW9/135 (D139), Ex.PW9/134A, Ex.PW9/135A, Ex.PW49/7 (D104), Ex. PW49/8 (D
105), Ex.PW49/9 (D106), Ex.PW49/10 (D107), Ex.PW49/11 (D108), Ex.PW49/12 (D109), Ex.PW49/13 (D110), Ex.PW49/14 (D111), Ex.PW49/15 (D112), Ex.PW49/16 (D113), CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 287 of 569 Ex.PW49/17 (D114), Ex.PW49/18 (D115), Ex.PW49/19 (D116), Ex.PW49/20 (D117), Ex.PW49/21 (D118), Ex.PW49/22 (D119), Ex.PW49/23 (D120), Ex.PW49/24 (D121), Ex.PW49/25 (D122), Ex.PW49/26 (D123), Ex.PW49/27 (D124), Ex.PW49/28 (D125), Ex.PW49/29 (D126), Ex.PW49/30 (D25), Ex.PW49/31 (D26), Ex.PW39/32 (D27), Ex.PW49/33 (D33), Ex.PW49/34 (D34), Ex.PW49/35 (D39), Ex.PW49/36 (D40), Ex.PW49/37 (D41), Ex.PW49/38 (D42), Ex.PW49/39 (D43), Ex.PW49/40 (D44), Ex.PW49/41 (D45), Ex.PW49/42 (D46), Ex.PW49/43 (D47), Ex.PW49/44 (D48), Ex.PW49/45 (D49), Ex.PW49/46 (D102), Ex.PW49/47 (D104), Ex.PW49/48 (D105), Ex.PW49/49 (D106), Ex.PW49/50 (D107), Ex.PW49/51 (D108), Ex.PW49/52 (D109), Ex.PW49/53 (D110), Ex.PW49/54 (D111), Ex.PW49/55 (D112), Ex.PW49/56 (D113), Ex.PW49/57 (D114), Ex.PW49/58 (D115), Ex.PW49/59 (D116), Ex.PW49/60 (D117), Ex.PW49/61 (D118), Ex.PW49/62 (D119), Ex.PW49/63 (D120), Ex.PW49/64 (D121), Ex.PW49/65 (D122), Ex.PW49/66 (D123), Ex.PW49/67 (D124), Ex.PW49/68 (D125), Ex.PW49/69 (D126), Ex.PW49/70 (D129), Ex.PW49/71 (D130), Ex.PW49/72 (D131), Ex.PW49/73 (D147), Ex.PW49/74 (D148), Ex.PW9/143 (D153), Ex.PW49/75 (D171), Ex.PW49/75 (D172), Ex.PW49/76 (D173), Ex.PW49/77 (D207), Ex.PW49/78 (D208), Ex.PW49/79 (D238), Ex.PW49/80 (D237), Ex.PW49/81 (D256), Ex.PW17/22 (part of D537), Ex.PW49/82, Ex.PW17/23 (part of D537), Ex.PW49/83, Ex.PW9/61, Ex.PW17/11, Ex.PW17/12, Ex.PW17/13, Ex.PW9/62, Ex.PW9/63, Ex.PW9/64, ExPW17/14, Ex.PW9/65, Ex.PW9/66, Ex.PW9/67, Ex.PW9/68, Ex.PW9/69, ExPW17/15, Ex.PW9/70, Ex.PW9/71, Ex.PW17/16, Ex.PW9/72, Ex.PW17/17, Ex.PW17/18, Ex.PW17/19, Ex.PW9/73, Ex.PW17/20, CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 288 of 569 Ex.PW17/21, Ex.PW38/C, Ex.PW9/302 (D539), Ex.PW9/304 (D540), Ex.PW9/38 (D103), Ex.PW9/39 (D103), Ex.PW9/40 (D103), Ex.PW9/41 (D103), Ex.PW9/42 (D103), Ex.PW9/43 (D103), Ex.PW9/44 (D103), Ex.PW9/45 (D103), Ex.PW9/46 (D103), Ex.PW9/47 (D103), Ex.PW9/48 (D103), Ex.PW9/49 (D103), Ex.PW9/50 (D103), Ex.PW9/51 (D103), Ex.PW9/52, Ex.PW9/53, Ex.PW9/54, Ex.PW9/55 (D119), Ex.PW9/56 (D120), Ex.PW9/57 (D122), Ex.PW9/58 (D123), Ex.PW9/59 (D124) and Ex.PW9/60 (D126).
During his crossexamination on behalf of the accused persons, the witness has deposed as under: That he remained in the New Friends Colony Branch of OBC Bank from 1991 to 1997.
That he was Incharge of the bills section and his duty was to verify the bills which were purchased by the bank.
That when the bill is presented to him and the bill is in the sanction limit, he used to give the bill to his clerk for entry in the bill purchase register.
That if the amount of the bill is beyond the limits, he used to verify the bills whether there accompanied with the contract RR, and transport receipt (bilty), Insurance, Inspection report and thereafter, they consider about the purchasing of the bill if all these things are in order and he is satisfied he will purchase the bill if it is within the limit and in case it is beyond limit then the matter was placed before the Chief Manager of the branch.
That it has never come to his knowledge that any document was purchased was not accompanied by the complete documents i.e. above said documents, contract, insurance, RR, Transport receipt, inspection report etc. That all the bill purchased by him or recommended by him were in proper order and no discrepancy was ever noted.
That in case, any bill is returned the same was intimated to the party by post or in case the CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 289 of 569 party is available in person they used to obtain their signatures on the register maintained in the office.
That he cannot say if the bills are returned with whom the goods will remain.
That in case, there is a delay caused by the collecting bank of the amount they used to debit the money in the parties account. That he never noticed any discrepancy in bills discounted by him during his stay in the above branch.
That the document bearing no. D383 dated 09.11.1995, which is a letter written by the Indian Oil Corporation to the collecting bank (SBI) in which they informed that the documents could not be retired due to some unavoidable circumstances and requested the collecting bank to hold this document, is not in his knowledge.
That he does not know whether the documents were called back by the OBC without considering the request as stated above. That he cannot say if the documents were dealt by him after receiving the documents back from the collecting bank i.e. SBI Jaipur. 50 Smt. Geeta Tondon PW50 Smt. Geeta Tondon, Officer, OBC, Nehru (PW50) Place Branch, New Delhi, has in his examinationin chief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That she was posted in Nehru Place Branch of OBC in the year 1994 as SA and thereafter she got promoted as Officer in the same branch and in the year 1994 she was passing officer in the branch.
2. That D402 i.e. Credit Voucher dated 29.07.1994 of Future Positive amounting to Rs.3,20,000/ bears her initials at point A and the same is Ex.PW50/1.
3. That D403 i.e. Credit Voucher dated 21.10.1994 of Future Positive amounting to Rs.1,30,000/ bears her initials at point A and the same is Ex.PW50/2.
4. That D404 i.e. Credit Voucher dated 09.11.1994 of Future Positive amounting to CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 290 of 569 Rs.50,000/ bears her initials at point A and the same is Ex.PW50/3.
5. That D405 i.e. Credit Voucher dated 22.11.1994 of Future Positive amounting to Rs.50,000/ bears her initials at point A and the same is Ex.PW50/4.
6. That D407 i.e. Credit Voucher dated 30.11.1994 of Future Positive amounting to Rs.2,50,000/ bears her initials at point A and the same is Ex.PW50/5.
7. That vide these credit vouchers, amounts were credited in the account of Future Positive.
During cross examination on behalf of the accused persons, the witness has deposed as under: That the transactions mentioned by him in his statement above are the routine transactions in the account of M/s Future Positive by the partners of the said company.
That he does not remember if the said party had been sanctioned limit to the tune of Rs. 27.5 lakhs.
That he has no knowledge about the loan documents as he never posted in the loan department of the bank.
That he had never seen any Board note in his entire carrier and he even does not know what is Board.
That he does not know who had signed document Ex.PW46/DX2 (Colly.) but he identifies the document to be of Nehru Place Branch of Oriental Bank of Commerce. That he had been transferred from the branch and not aware about the contents of the Ex.PW46/DX2 (Colly).
That he also does not remember when he was transferred form Nehru Place Branch. That he has never ever seen the service rules of OBC pertaining to OBC (Officer) Service Regulations, 1982, Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1982, Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal), Regulations, 1982.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 291 of 569 That every officer employee is provided with the copy of the above referred Service Regulations of OBC but the above Service Regulations was not provided to him on his promotions.
That he was promoted in the officer cadre in the year 1994.
That he is aware of the rule which requires "Every Officer Employee Shall, at all times take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interests of the bank and discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and do nothing which is unbecoming of an officer employee" (Regulations 3 (1). That he did not observe any irregularity or illegality in the above said voucher pertaining to the account of M/s Future Positive. That he cannot recognize the signatures of Sh. S. K. Lakhina (A3).
That his promotion letter may have been issued under the signatures of his regional head at New Delhi but he cannot remember who was his regional head at that time.
That he has worked through out his carrier in New Delhi Region.
That he remembers that Mr. S. D. Malhotra, Mr. Lamba whose name he does not fully remember, Mr. S. K. Lakhina, were his regional heads from time to time and he also does not recollect the remaining regional heads.
51 Smt. Poonam Kang PW51 Smt. Poonam Kang, Officer, OBC Bank, NFC (PW51) Branch, New Delhi, has in her examination in chief deposed as under:
1. That she had joined the OBC bank in the year 1979 as Clerk and promoted as officer in year 1998 and was posted in NFC Branch from 1983 to 1997 as Clerk.
2. That the bill purchase register for the period from 01.04.1995 to 25.09.1995 (D548) and authority register Ex.PW38/B.
3. That the said register was maintained in the regular course of the bank and the same is CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 292 of 569 Ex.PW51/1 (D548).
4. That page no. 37 showing the bill purchased in the account of M/s Moon Light Engineer Pvt. Ltd. bears the entry at point X (encircled) which is in his handwriting and as per this entry, the bill no. 5/95 amounting to Rs.4,54,272/
5. That the entry dated 23.05.1995 at page no. 61 of the Ex.PW38/B i.e. authority register, is in her handwriting.
6. That the entires are pertaining to purchase of bills amount to Rs.4,54,272/ and the entry is Ex.PW51/2.
7. That he cannot identify the signatures and the handwriting at point A3 and A4 who had written purchase the bill.
8. That the entry in the authority register may have been authorized by the then Manager of the Branch.
9. That Sh. S. K. Pathrella was the Branch incumbent during the tenure of his posting but
10. That he is unable to say about the posting of Sh. Balbir Singh Godara.
11. That the credit voucher dated 03.05.1995 in favour of Moon Light Engineer for the purpose of bill no. 5/95 amount to Rs. 4,52,324/ is in her handwriting and the same is Ex.PW51/3 (D244).
12. That credit voucher dated 3.5.1995 (D245) Ex.PW51/4 amounting to Rs.1948/ is in her handwriting and is pertaining to commission charge by the bank for the purpose of bill no. 5/95 amounting to Rs.4,54,324/.
13. That the bill purchase register for the period from 01.04.1994 to 31.03.1995 (D547) Ex.PW51/5 was maintained in the routine course of the bank.
14. That Sh. Mahadev Prashad was posted in the NFC Branch as Clerk. She has identifies the handwriting and signatures of Mahadev Prashad on entires for the purchase of bills no. 82/95 to 93/95 (Page 4 of bill purchase register) which entries are Ex.PW51/6.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 293 of 569
15. That bill purchase register (D550) Ex.PW51/7 for the period July 1993 (Page 1 to 108) is maintained in the regular course of the bank and Page no. 54 of the same bears the handwriting of Sh. Mahadev Prashad, Clerk.
16. That the entries dated 25.03.1995 at point A on page no. 54 now Ex.PW51/8 and the remark in blue ink at encircled portion B are in the handwriting and initials of S. K. Pathrella (A
1).
17. That the credit voucher (D45) for Rs.19,26,655/ dated 27.03.1995 credit to the CC account no. 1670 of M/s TFP Ltd. being proceeds of the bills of 12 bills as mentioned in Ex.PW51/8.
18. That the said voucher is in the handwriting of Mahadev Prashad and is now Ex.PW51/9 (D
45).
19. That debit voucher for Rs.4,21,666.05/ dated 27.03.1995 (D47) Ex.PW51/10 on account of returning of four bills of M/s TFP Ltd. And deputed to the account on 27.03.1995. The said voucher is in the handwriting of Mahadev Prashad.
20. That schedule of bills dated 27.03.1995 Ex.PW51/11 (D12), dated 27.03.1995 Ex.PW51/12 (D16), dated 27.03.1995 Ex.PW51/13 (D20) and dated 27.03.1995 Ex.PW51/14 (D24) bear her signatures at point A.
21. That debit transfer voucher dated 27.03.1995 (D44) Ex.PW51/15 is in the handwriting of Mahadev Prashad and it bears her signatures at point A.
22. That credit transfer voucher dated 27.03.1995 (D45) Ex.PW51/16 is in her handwriting and it bears her signatures at point A.
23. That credit transfer voucher dated 27.03.1995 (D46) Ex.PW51/17 is in her handwriting and it bears her signatures at point A.
24. That credit transfer voucher dated 27.03.1995 (D47) Ex.PW51/18 is in her handwriting and it bears her signatures at point A. CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 294 of 569
25. That credit transfer voucher dated 27.03.1995 (D48) Ex.PW51/19 is in her handwriting and it bears her signatures at point A.
26. That credit transfer voucher dated 27.03.1995 (D49) Ex.PW51/20 is in her handwriting and it bears her signatures at point A.
27. That the cheque dated 22.04.1994 amounting to Rs.6,05,000/ of OBC, NFC branch by M/s TFP Ltd. Current account No. 1670 in favour of M/s Steel Samrat India and it bears her signatures at point C on Ex.PW9/137 (D152).
28. That the cheque dated 15.05.1995 issued by True Feb Pvt. Ltd. in favour of M/s Steel Samrat Indian amount to Rs.1,01,000/ bears her signatures at point D and the same is Ex.PW9/140 (D145).
29. That the credit pay slip of OBC, NFC Branch dated 15.03.1995 amounting to Rs.1,01,000/ bears her signatures at point A on the Ex.PW1/140A (D146).
30. That cheque dated 12.09.1995 issued True Feb Pvt. Ltd. In favour o M/s Surakhsha Engineers and Steel Traders amounting to Rs.1,10,000/ is Ex.PW9/28 and bears her signatures at point C (D313).
31. That the pay in slip Ex.PW9/29 amounting to Rs.1,10000/ bears her signatures at point A (D314).
32. That Ex.PW51/2 bears her handwriting and signatures at point A4.
In her crossexamination on behalf of the accused persons, the witness has deposed as under: That she is not acquainted with the procedure of the original office.
That during her posting in the NFC branch, she was working as reliever and handled payments and receipts.
That all the documents which she has mentioned in her examination in chief, always remained in the NFC branch and were never referred to Regional Office New Delhi and the same pertained to the routine working of the CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 295 of 569 branch.
That during her tenure in the NFC branch, she had never noticed any action confirmation in respect of the above transaction mentioned in her examination in chief.
That she has no personal knowledge of the facts of the case and deposed on the basis of official record and the documents shown to her.
That she had never seen the correspondences between the branch office and the regional office i.e. Ex.PW9/159 (D316), Ex.PW9/160 (D317), Ex.PW9/161 (D318), Mark PW41/A, Ex.PW7/E (D319) and Ex.PW7/F (D320) during her entire tenure at NFC Branch and she has been shown these documents for the first time in the court.
That she was working as a Clerk in the NFC Branch till 1997 and does not remember the name of Officer Incharge of the Loan Department in the branch.
That she cannot say the bills which were purchased by the bank have been realized or not as on date.
That she has deposed on the basis of the entries made at the relevant point of time in the year 1995.
That she has seen the bill purchase register D 550 in entry Ex.PW51/2 with regard to Moon Light Engineering dated 03.05.1995 but she is unable to say if the bill has been realized or has been returned to the party, as there is no such remarks made.
That she does not recollect how many Managers were there in the branch under whom she had worked in the said branch. That in the entries Ex.PW51/6 in Register D 547 which are in the handwriting of Mahadev Prasad, the full particulars of the SBI branch Jaipur to whom the Indian Oil Corporation bills were sent for collecting the amount. That she also cannot say as to whether the amount was realized qua these bills or not or were returned to the party.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 296 of 569 That she cannot tell the name of the officer or the Manager in whose charge the file of contract on the basis of which the bills are discounted was maintained.
That she never seen the document Ex.PW11/1 (D382) during his posting at the NFC branch and he has seen the said document in the court. That he has no knowledge with regard to purchase of bills or discounting of bills. That she was simply making the entries in the register and she has no personal knowledge of the present case.
That the letter dated 09.11.1995 (D383) was sent by the Indian Oil Company to the collecting bank and negotiating bank to the effect that the document could not be retired due to some difficulty and unavoidable circumstances and which will be retired later on.
That she does not know anything about the said letter.
That she had not given any information to Moon Light Engineering and True Fab Pvt. Ltd. Regarding return of documents, realization of documents or delay of discounting the bills.
52 Sh. Madhav Prasad PW52 Sh. Madhav Prasad was the Clerk, Oriental (PW52) Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony, New Delhi who has identified his own handwritings / signatures as well as the handwritings / signatures of Sh. A.K. Khanna (another official of the bank) and that of Sh. S.K. Pathrella on the various documents including Bill Purchase Register, DD Register, Credit / Debit Vouchers etc. He has proved the said documents which are Ex.PW38/C (D548), Ex.PW51/7 (D550), Ex.PW41/B (D201), Ex.PW41/C (D202), Ex.PW52/1 (D203), Ex.PW52/2 (D204), Ex.PW52/3 (D208), Ex.PW52/4 (D207), Ex.PW52/5 (D209), Ex.PW48/2, Ex.PW48/3, Ex.PW48/1, Ex.PW52/6 (D
551), Ex.PW9/115 (D58), Ex.PW9/115D (D59), Ex.PW9/115E (D60), Ex.PW9/115C (D58), CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 297 of 569 Ex.PW9/115H (D61), Ex.PW9/115I (D62), Ex.PW9/115J (D73), Ex.PWQ9/115K (D74), Ex.PW9/115L (D75), Ex.PW49/35 (D39), Ex.PW49/36 (D40), Ex.PW49/37 (D41), Ex.PW49/36 (D40), Ex.PW49/39 (D43), Ex.PW51/16 to Ex.PW51/20, Ex.PW49/30 (D25), Ex.PW49/31 (D26), Ex.PW39/32 (D27), Ex.PW49/33 (D33), Ex.PW49/35 (D39), Ex.PW49/36 (D40), Ex.PW49/37 (D41), Ex.PW49/38 (D42), Ex.PW49/39 (D43), Ex.PW49/40 (D44), Ex.PW49/41 (D45), Ex.PW49/42 (D46), Ex.PW49/43 (D47), Ex.PW49/44 (D48), Ex.PW49/45 (D49), Ex.PW49/46 (D102), Ex.PW49/47 (D104), Ex.PW49/48 (D105), Ex.PW49/49 (D106), Ex.PW49/50 (D107), Ex.PW49/51 (D108), Ex.PW49/52 (D109), Ex.PW49/53 (D110), Ex.PW49/54 (D111), Ex.PW49/55 (D112), Ex.PW49/56 (D113), Ex.PW49/57 (D114), Ex.PW49/58 (D115), Ex.PW49/59 (D116), Ex.PW49/60 (D117), Ex.PW49/61 (D118), Ex.PW49/62 (D119), Ex.PW49/63 (D120), Ex.PW49/64 (D121), Ex.PW49/65 (D122), Ex.PW49/66 (D123), Ex.PW49/67 (D124), Ex.PW49/68 (D125), Ex.PW49/69 (D126), Ex.PW49/70 (D129), Ex.PW49/71 (D130), Ex.PW49/72 (D131), Ex.PW49/75 (D171), Ex.PW49/75 (D172), Ex.PW49/76 (D173), Ex.PW49/77 (D207), Ex.PW49/78 (D208), Ex.PW49/79 (D238) and Ex.PW49/80 (D237).
During his cross examination on behalf of the accused persons, the witness has deposed as under:
That they had received the payment of the bills mentioned at page no.33 Ex.PW38/C. Again said, he cannot say that the payment may have come or may not have come.
That he cannot tell after seeing the whole register Ex.PW38/C (D548) as to which payment was not received against the bills sent for collection. There is no remarks to this effect in this register.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 298 of 569 That no one has pointed out his mistake in any documents, prepared by him, mentioned in his above statement.
53 Sh. P. C. Bahman PW53 Sh. P. C. Bahman, Chief Manager, OBC, New (PW53) Friends Colony Branch has in his examination in chief deposed as under:
1. That he joined the OBC, New Friends Colony Branch as Chief Manager on 15.11.1995 and took over charge from Sh. S. K. Pathrella.
2. That he know the procedure regarding mortgage of property for advancing of loan. First of all, the valuation of the property is done and the property is also verified through valuer and thereafter, legal opinion is obtained from the advocate for judging the suitability of the property to be mortgaged.
3. That if the opinion is found OK than the property is accepted for mortgage against loan to be advanced.
4. That thereafter, the mortgage documents i.e. a letter of memorandum of deposit of title deeds are executed by the loanee and thereafter, the documents i.e. title deeds are entered in equitable mortgage register maintained at the branch. The entry made in this register are signed by Branch Manager and two other witnesses.
5. That in case, the loan of the borrower is adjusted then the title deed deposited by the loanee are returned to the borrower.
6. That he had handed over the documents to the IO Mr. S. Dagar from CBI as he requested/demanded the documents pertaining to these case to him as well as from higher authorities.
7. That the statement of account 1670 of M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. is Ex.PW48/5 (running into 27 pages) upon which he had put the certification stamp along with his signature at point already A. The certification is under Banker's Book of Evidence Act.
8. That the statement of account for account No. 2458 of Steel Samrat (India) Ex.PW9/DX13 (running into 11 pages) and he had put the CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 299 of 569 certification stamp along with his signature at point already A. The certification is under Banker's Book of Evidence Act.
9. That the photocopy of equitable mortgage register (running into 2 pages) regarding Moonlight Engineers and the same is Ex.PW53/1. That he had put the certification stamp alongwith his signature at point already A. The certification is under Banker's Book of Evidence Act.
10. That he also handed over the statement of account for account No. 1598 of Moonlight Engineer is now Ex.PW53/2 (D91) (running into 17 pages). He had put the certification stamp along with his signature at point already A. The certification is under Banker's Book of Evidence Act.
11. That he had also handed over the statement of account for account No. 2523 of Shiv Industrial Enterprises Ex.PW53/4 (running into 8 pages). He had put the certification stamp along with his signature at point already A. The certification is under Banker's Book of Evidence Act.
12. That he had also handed over the statement of account for account No. 2764 of Suraksha Engineer and Steel Ex.PW53/5 (running into 5 pages). He had put the certification stamp along with his signature at point already A. The certification is under Banker's Book of Evidence Act.
During his crossexamination on behalf of the accused persons, the witness has deposed as under: That the branch was under the concurrent audit of the auditor.
That he does not remember that whether STM 32 (Statement number 32) and STM41 were being sent to the controlling office by the branch i.e. Regional Office. However, at present he does not remember the number of the STM.
That he had not dealt with the account after joining at New Friends Colony Branch on CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 300 of 569 15.11.1995.
That he had only forwarded the documents available at that time to the controlling office and investigating agency from branch level. That he has no personal knowledge about the account.
That he does not know if there was any discrepancy when he took over the charge from S.K. Pathrella (A1).
That he submitted some reports regarding the discrepancies but he does not remember the details now.
That he remained posted in New Friends Colony Branch from 15.11.1995 to 2000. That letter dated 26.04.1995 Ex.PW9/17 (D
195) written by the erstwhile Chief Manager Mr. S.K. Pathrella to DGM, Regional Office, New Delhi and affirm that the discrepancy related to the account of M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd.
That after taking over the charge at New Friends Colony Branch, he did not see (D196) Ex.PW9/74 i.e. letter dated 12.05.1995 written by the DGM, RO, New Delhi to the Chief Manager, BO, New Friends Colony, New Delhi.
That after his joining in the New Friends Colony Branch, investigations were held into the matter of accounts that had gone bad during the period of Sh. S.K. Pathrella. That he was only asked as to in whose tenure the loan accounts had gone bad in New Friends Colony Branch.
That he had informed that the same had gone bad during the working of S.K. Pathrella. That some loan accounts at branch office New Friends Colony which were not in order were reported to the higher authorities and record pertaining to those bad accounts was also handed over to the investigating CBI team. That the CBI team handed over the seizure memo in respect of the documents seized which have been placed on branch record.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 301 of 569 That is deposing on the basis of record because the incident of accounts having gone bad was prior to his posting at New Friends Colony Branch.
That he does not recollect if he had informed the party in writing about the return of the document from the collecting bank of the recipient party i.e. Indian Oil Corporation from SBI, Jaipur. The same is a matter of record. Again said, he had informed the party telephonically and also during the visit of the owner to the branch.
That he had not mentioned this fact regarding the telephonic information in any of the records.
That affidavits dated 15.01.1998 and 17.11.1997 before the DRT by the defence counsel and after seeing the same he responds that it is correct that Ex.PW53/DX1 and Ex.PW53/DX2 are his affidavits filed before the DRT. He had filed the same in his official capacity as the head of the branch That he does not recollect that if after his joining in the branch on 15.11.1995 he had asked the Jaipur Branch of SBI to return the documents of IOC and other parties.
That he does not remember when the operation of the account of M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. and other parties were stopped by him and the same is a matter of record. That he never dealt with the document Ex.PW9/284 and hence, he cannot tell whether the credit facility, bill purchase, letter of credit and bank guarantee, amount has been mentioned in this document.
That there was no overdraft in the accounts as stated by him earlier.
54 Ms. Neelam Chopra PW54 Ms. Neelam Chopra, Officer, Oriental Bank of (PW54) Commerce, has in her examinationinchief deposed as under:
1. That she had joined Oriental Bank of Commerce in the year 1979 and posted in CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 302 of 569 Nehru Place Branch.
2. That she was posted in New Friends Colony Branch of Oriental Bank of Commerce in the year 1991 and remained there till April 1996.
3. That she has seen the document i.e. the credit voucher dated 14.03.1995 which is Ex.PW41/B (D201) for crediting the amount of Rs.5,76,459.52 which bears her initials at point B and signatures of Sh. D. P. Raheja at point A.
4. That she has seen the document i.e. the debit voucher dated 14.03.1995 which is Ex.PW41/C (D202) for debiting the amount of Rs.5,76,459.52 from bill purchase to BP No. Misc. 59/95 which bears signatures of Sh. D. P. Raheja at point A.
5. That she has seen the document i.e. the debit voucher dated 15.03.1995 which is Ex.PW52/1 (D203) for debiting the amount of Rs.2,605/ from the current account no. 1598 of M/s Moonlight Engineers for the bill purchase which bears signatures of Sh. D. P. Raheja at already point A. During her crossexamination on behalf of the accused persons, the witness has deposed as under:
That the document Ex.PW41/B, Ex.PW41/C and Ex.PW51/1 were not prepared by her. That she has never corelated the figure against which she have put her initials, without seeing any other document.
That she used to sign only on the basis of the signatures appended on the documents, by the authorizing officer.
That in the month of March 1995 Sh. Raheja, Sh. Khanna and Mr. Dhingra were working as Officers.
That she cannot tell as to who was the Senior Manager (Loan), Sr. Manager (Purchase of documents), Sr. Manager (for giving credit facility in the current account).
That she was looking after the current accounts maintained in the branch.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 303 of 569 That no discrepancy was ever noticed by her or brought to her notice during her tenure in the above said branch.
55 Sh. A. K. Sharma PW55 Sh. A. K. Sharma, Dy. Superintendent of (PW55) Police, SIUX, CBI, has in his examinationinchief deposed as under:
1. That during the year 2000, he was posted as Dy. Superintendent of Police in SIUX, CBI, New Delhi. The present case was earlier investigated by DSP Sh. A.P. Singh who was transferred to ACB, CBI, New Delhi and he was given all the documents and statements of witnesses.
2. That since the accused S.K. Pathrella was terminated from his services, hence no sanction was obtained.
3. That after going through the records and the statements of the witnesses, he prepared the charge sheet along with the list of documents relied upon and the statements of relevant witnesses recorded by the earlier IO and filed the same before the Court.
During his crossexamination on behalf of the accused persons, the witness has that the entire investigations have been conducted by Inspector Sh. S. Dagar and DSP Sh. A.P. Singh and he has simply prepared the charge sheet and filed the same after approval from the competent authority.
56 Mrs. Madhu PW56 Mrs. Madhu Goswami, Officer, Oriental Bank Goswami (PW56) of Commerce, has in his examinationinchief deposed as under:
1. That she had joined the Oriental Bank of Commerce in the year 1971 and remained posted at New Friends Colony New Delhi Branch of the bank from July 1995 but she does not exactly remember since till what time she remained posted there.
2. That courier receipt bearing no. 4325139 which is Ex.PW53/1 (D295) bears her initials and seal of the bank at point A. She had gone through the receipt and the same was received from Vyasya Bank, Bombay. Vide this courier CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 304 of 569 she had received the letter dated 08.11.1996 Ex.PW53/2 (D296).
3. That Letter of Credit bearing no. 008435 which is Ex.PW9/229 (D323) it bears her signatures at point C.
4. That Letter of Credit bearing no. 008436 is Ex.PW9/230 (D323) and it bears her signatures at point C.
5. That Letter of Credit bearing no. 008437 is Ex.PW9/231 (D323) and it bears her signatures at point C.
6. That she had signed these Letter of Credits in token of having attested the signatures of Manager Sh. D. P. Dhingra and she identifies the signatures of Sh. D. P. Dhingra at points A and signatures of Sh. S. K. Pathrella (A1) at points B on the above said LCs Ex.PW9/229 to Ex.PW9/231.
During her cross examination on behalf of the accused persons, the witness has deposed as under: That when she was posted in Oriental Bank of commerce, NFC Branch, Sh. D. P. Dhingra was also working as Manager (Loan) in the same branch and was looking after the work of advances.
That when a person approaches the bank for a loan, he can approach the Branch Manager. That a duty was assigned to Sh. D. P. Dhingra to look into the authenticities of documents on the basis of which a loan was given to the parties.
That although she was a Manager in the said branch but she does not know the year and time when she acted as a Senior Manager earlier to her appointment as a Senior Manager. When she joined the above said branch the present is prior to that period.
That as a Hall Incharge she was to look after the routine work of the branch i.e. the assigning the duties in place of staff on leave, to check attendance register.
That the Supervisor who was appointed in absence of Sh. Dhingra was the authorizing CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 305 of 569 officer will work on his seat and the vouchers prepared in respect of loans was to be passed by the Branch Manager.
That during her tenure no discrepancy was brought to her notice with regard to the purchase of bill and disbursement of loan. When the present incident took place in the branch, she was not posted there.
That on 22.09.1995 she had verified the signatures of Sh. D. P. Dhingra and her signatures appears at point C which were appended by her on Letter of Credits Ex.PW9/229 to Ex.PW9/231.
That the signatures of Sh. D. P. Dhingra were verified because his P. A. Number was not mentioned.
That on 22.09.1995 she was in the branch. That if a discounted bill is returned unpaid by the collecting bank, the unpaid will be sent to the concerned department for necessary action. That in case of unpaid bill the concerned department has to bring it to the notice of the Branch Manager. She am not aware if this is required to be done in writing.
57 Sh. Suresh Kaushik PW57 Sh. Suresh Kaushik, Branch Manager, (PW57) Professional Courier, has in his examinationinchief deposed as under:
1. That from 1992, he was working with "The Professional Courier" and its office was at first floor Ganga Hirija Niwas, Aakash Talkies Lane, near BST Pepot, Kurla "W Bombay".
2. That he was appointed as Branch Manager and he had recruited local office boys to work as filed staff to collect packets / documents from the office of the customer and also to make the deliveries of the packet received for delivery in the area i.e. Faridabad area.
3. That at the time of booking documents a consignment note was prepared in triplicate which gives details regarding the sender name and address and description of documents, consignee's name and address, the weight of the packet and charges were also mentioned in the given to the customer who books the CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 306 of 569 documents and signed b one of the field staff who had accepted the documents.
4. That there were number of companies / firms who are their regular customers and documents were accepted from them on credit basis and payment were received from such companies/ firms on monthly basis and all the bookings made by them were entered into booking ledger maintained in the branch.
This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused persons despite opportunity. 58 Sh. Kameshwar PW58 Sh. Kameshwar Prasad Mishra, Material Prasad Mishra Manager, IOC Haldia, Distt. Midnapur, West (PW58) Bengal, has in his examinationinchief deposed as under:
1. That during the year 199596, he was working as Material Manager in IOC Haldia, Distt. Midnapur, West Bengal and his his routine duty was of purchasing for IOC Haldia and he had been looking after stores.
2. That at that time, the material was purchased through approved vendors via tendering.
3. That the vendors are approved by vendor approval committee after they confirming the credential of the vendor on the basis of technical and financial capability.
4. That for purchasing of technical item, first of all a purchase committee is to be formed which seeks the court from 23 vendors from the open market and thereafter, places orders with one of those vendors.
5. That for the purpose of technical purchases the specifications of the same are provided by the user indenter from the concerned department.
6. That he has seen the three bills Ex.PW9/195 (D265), Ex.PW58/1 (D266), Ex.PW58/2 (D
267), Ex.PW9/196 (D268) & Ex.PW9/197 (D
269) and Ex.PW58/3 (D270) and he can say that the company Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Haldia Refinery did not place any order to M/s. Moon Light Engineers Faridabad because in all the orders which were placed the name of CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 307 of 569 the company was mentioned as Haldia Refinery, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Midnapur whereas in the present document the address mentioned is Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Midnapur.
7. That at relevant time, the department was maintaining a list of approved vendors which more than about 2,000 names but he does not recollect if the name of the firm there in the approved vendors list or not.
On request of Ld. P.P., the Prosecution was permitted to put leading question to the witness on the aspect of the name of the firm in the approved vendors list and the witness has deposed that the CBI officials have come to his office and had interrogated him and his statement was recorded on 16.05.1998 which is Ex.PW58/PX1 in which he had stated that the name of the firm did not figure in the list of approved vendors.
During his crossexamination on behalf of the accused persons, the witness has deposed as under: That he is aware that Indian Oil Corporation has also an office Midnapur, West Bengal. That he did not check up the record relating to placing of the orders to Moonlight Firm at Midnapur Office.
That the statement which he had made with regard to non placing of the order only relates to Haldia Refinery and he cannot give any information with regard to Midnapur Office. 59 Sh. Subramaniam PW59 Sh. Subramaniam Ravichandran, Senior Ravichandran Manager, Ashram Road, Ahmadabad Branch of (PW59) Canara Bank, has in his examinationinchief, deposed as under:
1. That in the year 1996, he was posted in Ashram Road, Ahmadabad Branch of Canara Bank as Sr. Manager.
2. That the letter dated 20.08.1996 Ex.PW59/1 (D315) bears his signature at point A and vide this letter he had informed Inspector, CBI that M/s J. S. Supertech Engineers, Ahmadabad had CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 308 of 569 no account with the Branch and branch had not opened any LC No. 00516/95 dated 09.06.1995 for the said firm.
During his crossexamination on behalf of the accused persons, the witness has deposed as under: That the matter in the subject of the letter Ex.PW59/1 referring to the letter dated 19.08.1996 received from the CBI.
That after receipt of the letter referred in Ex.PW59/1, he got verified the records of the bank and had replied accordingly.
That he was not aware about this matter prior to receipt of letter from CBI.
60 Sh. M. Annoji Kinni PW60 Sh. M. Annoji Kinni, Senior Manager, Canara (PW60) Bank, Fort Branch, Mumbai, has in his examination inchief deposed as under:
1. That during the year 1994 to 1997, he was working as Sr. Manager, Canara Bank, Fort Branch, Mumbai.
2. That the letter dated 23.11.1996 Ex.PW60/1 (D561) addressed to CBI, bears his signatures at point A and also bears initials of Sh. K. D. Nayak, the dealing Manager.
3. That vide this letter thier bank has provided the information regarding M/s. Alliance Engineers and Fabricators as the company was not customer of their bank and not maintaining any account in the said branch.
During his crossexamination on behalf of the accused persons, the witness has deposed as under: That they had four to five branches in Fort, Mumbai at the relevant time.
That their branch was the Warden House Branch at P. M. Road, Mumbai.
That the letter written by Oriental Bank of Commerce was written to Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Fort Bankbay, Bombay and not to Warden House, P.M. Road, Mumbai.
That he is unable to identify the signatures on Ex.PW60/DX1 at point encircled A. CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 309 of 569 That No LC relating to bills drawn on M/s Alliance Engineers and Fabricators, Bombay, was shown to him.
That in the letter Ex.PW60/1 he have mentioned that there was no LC bearing no. 126783/256 dated 15.05.1995 in favour of M/s Alliance Engineers and Fabricators as party was not having any account with the branch. 61 Sh. R. K. Singh PW61 Sh. R. K. Singh, Chief Construction Manager, (PW61) Indian Oil Corporation, Midnapur, West Bengal, has in his examinationinchief deposed as under:
1. That during the year mid 1996, he was posted as Chief Construction Manager in Indian Oil Corporation, Pipeline Division, SDM complex, Khanjan Chak, Haldia, Distt. Midnapur, West Bengal.
2. That at that time, they were looking after Haldia Barauni crude oil pipeline which was for the purposes of transfer of crude oil from Haldia to Barauni.
3. That he was posted at Haldia in the mid of 1996 and it was prior to that only that the office had been set up.
4. That prior to the setting up of their office and also thereafter, the purchases for the material in the department used to be made by IOCL Pipeline Division, Head Office, Noida by the materials department.
5. That in case of any requisition at their end, they use to write to the Head Office at Noida.
6. That from this department they required mainly two types of material required i.e. pipes and all items required for installation i.e. Telecommunication system, SCADA System, electrical, Mechanical like pumping units, fittings like equal T, reducers, flanges, Valves, various sizes of studs and bolts etc.
7. That for the purchase of these items the project group at the Head Office at Noida used to prepare a list of items to be procured by the materials departments at head office only and thereafter by tendering process the purchases used to be made and the items used to be delivered at their site.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 310 of 569
8. That he has seen the three bills which are Ex.PW9/195 (D265), Ex.PW58/1 (D266) , Ex.PW58/2 (D267), Ex.PW9/196 (D268) & Ex.PW9/197 (D269) and Ex.PW58/3 (D
270), and he can say that the company Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Pipeline Division did not place any order to M/s. Moon Light Engineers Faridabad because in all the orders which were placed the name of the company was mentioned as Pipeline Division, Noida, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Midnapur whereas in the present document the address mentioned is Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Midnapur On request of the Sr. Public Prosecutor, leading question was permitted to be asked on the point of date on which the pipeline division came into existence and the witness has replied that he does not remember if the pipeline department of the IOCL came into existence on 12.01.1996.
During his crossexamination on behalf of the accused persons, the witness has deposed that the orders used to be placed from the Noida Office and he cannot tell the details of the any orders placed by the Noida Office.
62 Sh. S. R. Mikkili PW62 Sh. S. R. Mikkili, Branch Manager, Bank of (PW62) India, Bazar Vatva, Ahmedabad, has in his examinationinchief deposed as under:
1. That during the February, 1996 to April, 1997, he was working as Branch Manager, Bank of India Vatva Branch, Bazar Vatva, Ahmedabad. Whenever the bills are received in their branch first of all they are entered into inward bill collection register maintained in the branch and thereafter the procedure of the bank is followed.
2. That the letter dated 25.10.1996 of their bank which is Ex.PW62/1 (D528) bears his signatures at point A and vide this letter thier branch had intimated the required information which was sought by CBI regarding outward Bill No. MISC/34/95 and MISC/35/95 both dated 14.08.1995 and MISC/36/95 and CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 311 of 569 MISC/37/95 both dated 17.08.95.
3. That their branch intimated to CBI that the M/s. Orient Heavy Engg. Corporation were not maintaining any account in their bank branch and no such bill were received by their bank from OBC, New Friends Colony, Delhi.
During his crossexamination on behalf of the accused persons, the witness has deposed as under" That the Inward Bill Collection Register is maintained in the branch, however, he does not remember the name of the person.
That he had not made any endorsement in the register that he had checked the same before sending the reply Ex.PW62/1.
That the register which was checked by him is not in front of him at present.
63 Sh. N. R. Udani PW63 Sh. N. R. Udani, Special Assistant, Canara (PW63) Bank Jamnagar, has in his examinationinchief deposed as under:
1. That during the year 1992 to July 1995 he was posted as Special Assistant in Jamnagar branch of Canara Bank.
2. That the attested copy of ISC Register of the branch which is Ex.PW63/1 (D374) bear his initials at points A and B and the entry relating to ISC No. 229 and 230 dated 08.07.1995 are in the handwriting of Sh. R. B. Kankhara who working as Clerk in the above said branch under him.
During his crossexamination on behalf of the accused persons, the witness has deposed as under: That bills are inward bills drawn on their branch and after the bills are checked then they are entered in the inward register which is Ex.PW63/1 and accordingly these bills were entered.
That the payment of these bills were to be made within a period as per the instructions from the bank i.e. within 30 days.
That as per the procedure, in case the payment is not received within 30 days, the bills were to CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 312 of 569 be returned as per instructions mentioned at portion encircled C i.e. by VPL (Value Paid Registered Post).
That these bills were not sent by Registered post but by ordinary post and they were sent by VPL and only the intimation was sent by ordinary post.
That as on date he cannot produce any document to show dispatch by VPL. He is retired these document must be with the bank. That he had not given any documents to CBI which show the dispatch by VPL. It is the job of the Manager, he must have done it.
That only the extract of the register returning the bills is available but not the bills. The relevant entries made regarding return of the bills on Ex.PW63/1 at encircled portion C in due course.
This witness has not been crossexamined on behalf of the accused persons despite opportunity. 64 Sh. K. Sarvottam PW64 Sh. K. Sarvottam, Chief manager, Bank of (PW64) India, D. N. Branch, Mumbai, has in his examination inchief deposed as under:
1. That during the year 1997, he was working as Chief Manager, Bank of India D.N. Road Branch, Mumbai.
2. That he has seen the letter dated 22.09.1997 which bears his signatures at point A and the same is Ex.PW64/1.
3. That the said letter was addressed to Inspector CBI and was sent in reply to their letter as mentioned in the letter Ex.PW64/1 and vide this letter, he had provided the information regarding the account of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd.
4. That M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. did not maintain in their branch and also sent the certified copy of inward bills registered for the period 08.07.1995 to 09.08.1995, the certified copy bears his signatures along with his official stamp of attestation at Point A on all pages which is Ex.PW64/2.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 313 of 569 During his crossexamination on behalf of the accused persons, the witness has deposed that : That the Inward Bill Collection Register is maintained in the branch, however, he does not remember the name of the person.
That he had not made any endorsement in the register that he had checked the same before sending the reply Ex.PW62/1.
That the envelope in which the letter and the certified copy of the above document was sent is also on record and the same is Ex.PW63/3. That he had not checked the register in which entries made when a mail / letter is received from outside.
That he had only checked the bill register maintained in the office. The mail is first entered in the register in which all the letter are entered.
That he does not remember how he had received the letter from the CBI which he has mentioned in Ex.PW64/A in portion mark A to A. The letter was sent by post.
That the envelope Ex.PW64/3 does not bear any postal stamp or postal stamp. It was put another envelope and that has not been shown to him and had also not on record.
This witness was not crossexamined on behalf of the accused persons despite opportunity. 65 Sh. S. V. PW65 Sh. S. V. Shalgaonkar, Chief Manager, Bank Shalgaonkar of India, MG Road Branch, Mumbai, has in his (PW65) examinationinchief deposed as under:
1. That during the year 1997, he was working as Chief Manager in Bank of India, MG Road Branch, Mumbai.
2. That the letter dated 22.09.1997 Ex.PW65/1 (D524) bears his signatures at point A and vide this letter he had provided the requisite information as mentioned in the letter i.e. M/s. Bharat Pumps Compressor Ltd. was not maintaining any account in their bank branch i.e. Mumbai (Main) Branch, Mahatama Gandhi Road, Mumbai and also no bills drawn by M/s.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 314 of 569 Steel Samrat (I) on M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. have not been received by their branch.
During his crossexamination on behalf of the accused persons, the witness has deposed as under: That he does not know whether the branch was maintaining inward and outward dispatch register when he was working in the branch. That he does not know how he received the letter of the CBI as mentioned in the letter Ex.PW65/1 in portion Mark 'A to A' he cannot tell how he had sent the reply to the said letter although the letter has been sent to CBI office, Delhi.
That the envelope does not contain any postal stamp of the Bombay Office and Delhi Office of postal authorities.
That he cannot say which documents were consulted by him before giving the reply Ex.PW65/A. 66 Sh. Deep Chand PW66 Sh. Deep Chand Aggarwal, Chief Manager, Aggarwal (PW66) Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Railway Road Branch, Gurgaon, has in his examinationinchief deposed as under:
1. That during the year 199899, he was working as Chief Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Railway Road Branch, Gurgoan and was overall incharge of the bank.
2. That for grant of advances the customer has to offer collateral Security in the shape of any property to be got valued by bank's approved valuer, thereafter, the property is mortgaged in favour of the bank and the relevant entries are recorded in the mortgaged register maintained in the branch.
3. That the third party can also give guarantee and offer the property to the bank on behalf of the borrower.
4. That it depends upon the discretion of the sanctioning authority as to how much loan is to be sanctioned against the mortgaged property.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 315 of 569
5. That the letter dated 19.04.1999 along with the valuation report dated 16.04.1999 of approved valuer Sh. R. L. Piplani who had submitted the report in respect of the property in Khasra No. 501, Vill. Khandsa belong to Mrs. Bimla Sehrawat, W/o Yudhir Singh.
6. That the letter bears his signatures at point A and the same is Ex.PW66/1 (D452) and the valuation report is Ex.PW66/2 (part of D452).
7. That the said letter was written by him in response to the letter of CBI mentioned therein requesting for getting valuation of the above said property.
During his crossexamination on behalf of the accused persons, the witness has deposed as under: That he does not remember if he had sent the report of the advocate who has submitted as to whether the property is free from all encumbrances or not.
That he does not if the documents of property were kept against the equitable mortgaged or registered mortgaged.
That a loan manager post exists in the branch who is responsible for keeping the property documents which has been mortgaged with the bank.
That before sending the reply he had not consulted the loan manager.
That the letter does not bear any dispatch number although a dispatch inward and outward register is maintained in the branch. That there is no endorsement on the letter regarding receiving of the same. The signatures at B is not of their officer. He is unable to tell that whose signatures are present at point A. This witness was not cross examined on behalf of the accused persons despite opportunity. 67 Sh. Pankaj Kumar PW67 Sh. Pankaj Kumar Praveen, officer of the Praveen (PW67) Bank of Baroda, Defence Colony Branch, has in his examinationinchief deposed as under: CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 316 of 569
1. That during the year 199899 he was working as officer of the Bank of Baroda, Defence Colony Branch in Operation Department Section of branch.
2. That the letter dated 28.10.1985 Ex.PW67/1(D515) of Deepak Rampal was written by him in reference to the NRE account no. 9022 by which he handed over the account opening card which his fresh signatures duly attested by the Manager, Bank of Baroda, Deira, Dubai. The specimen signature card is Ex.PW67/2(D516)
3. That the form containing the details for opening NonResident (External) Savings Bank Account is Ex.PW67/3 (page 11 of D513)
4. That statement of account Ex.PW67/4 (D513) of LABOD Account against FDR of Rs.1,00,000/ bears seal of the bank and the signatures are of the bank official but he cannot identify as to whose initials are they.
5. That the attested copy of Loan Attestation form (LDOC1) which is Ex.PW67/5(part of D513).
6. That Ex.PW67/6 (colly. running into 17 number of pages) (D513) and Ex.PW67/7 (colly, running into 14 number of pages) (D
514) and he identifies the seal of Bank of Baroda, Defence Colony, New Delhi and signatures / initials of Smt. Anjali Sabharwal who had worked with him in the branch at the relevant period i.e. in the year 19981999.
7. That the cheque dated 1.11.1995 bearing no. 435 issued in favour of Alfa Associates by Deepak Rampal for amount Rs. 1.5 lacs Ex.PW67/8 (D515) which was credited on the account of the said company on 3.11.1995 as per the clearing stamp at the reverse of the cheque at point X1.
8. That the credit voucher for crediting Rs.1.5 Lacs in account no. 9022 of Mr. Deepak Rampal the amount of the said voucher was credited in S/B account No. 9022 of Deepak Ram Pal.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 317 of 569 This witness was not cross examined on behalf of the accused persons despite opportunity in this regard. 68 Sh. P. D. Shenoy PW68 Sh. P. D. Shenoy, Branch Manager, (PW68) Corporation Bank, NFC Branch, has in his examinationinchief deposed as under:
1. That in the year 1999, he was working as Branch Manager, Corporation Bank, New Friends Colony Branch, New Delhi.
2. That on the request of IO the case, he had handed over the documents to IO.
3. That Ex.PW48/29 (D489), Ex.PW48/30 (D
490), Ex.PW48/31 (D492), Ex.PW10/A (D
493), the document Ex.PW68/1 (D491), Ex.PW68/2 (D494) and Ex.PW68/3 (D495) are all D.D. applications in favour of SOMA drawn on Trivendrum Branch and the address of applicant is mentioned as S. Pathrella, OBC.
4. That he had also handed over seven (7) drafts which Ex.PW48/23 (Colly) in favour of the above Payee.
In his crossexamination on behalf of the accused persons, the witness has deposed as under: That he does not identify the signatures of the applicant i.e. DD Application Ex.PW48/29 (D
489), Ex.PW48/30 (D490), Ex.PW48/31 (D
492), Ex.PW10/A (D493), the document now Ex.PW68/1 (D491), Ex.PW68/2 (D494) and Ex.PW68/3 (D495).
That different address of applicant have been mentioned on the application form i.e. Ex.PW48/29 (D489), Ex.PW48/30 (D490), Ex.PW48/31 (D492), Ex.PW10/A (D493), the document now Ex.PW68/1 (D491), Ex.PW68/2 (D494) and Ex.PW68/3 (D495). That he had only handed over the applications in respect of the above draft but he cannot say that who has made these applications for draft in favour of the beneficiary i.e. SOMA. That these applications even do not pertain to his period as he had joined the branch in June, 1999.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 318 of 569 69 Sh. Milind PW69 Sh. Milind Harendrarai Pathak, Clerk in ISC Harendrarai Pathak Department of Jamnagar Branch of Canara Bank, (PW69) has in his examinationinchief deposed as under:
1. That in the year 1993 he was posted as clerk in ISC Department of Jamnagar Branch of Canara Bank.
2. That ISC Register (Inward Sights for Collection) of the branch and after seeing the same the witness identified the entries at encircled portion C in Ex.PW63/1 regarding return of the bills at S. No. 229 and 230 in to ISC Register to be in his handwriting.
3. That these two bills were received by the branch from Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony for collection from Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Jamnagar.
4. That these bills were received on 08.07.1995 and accordingly intimation was sent to IOC but no response was received from IOC.
5. That Ex.PW24/C3 (D366) is the covering letter received in Canara Bank, Jamnagar Branch.
6. That Ex.PW24/C4 (D367) is the covering letter received in Canara Bank, Jamnagar Branch.
7. That D368 is the Reminder Form No. 432Ex.PW69/1 (D368) which is in his handwriting and the same was sent to the party i.e. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Jamnanagar.
8. That the address particulars provided by the party i.e. IOC are not complete and the reminder form was returned to the Jamnagar Branch of Canara Bank.
9. That D369 is the VPL (Valued Post Letter) Ex.PW69/2 (D369) which is in his handwriting and the same was sent back to Oriental Bank Of commerce, New Friends Colony, Delhi regarding ISC entry No. 229 and 230.
10. That D370 and is the Receipt issued by the Postal Department regarding the registered letter which receipt is Ex.PW69/3 (D370) and relevant entry was made at encircled portion A CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 319 of 569 on Ex.PW69/2(D370).
11. That D371 is credit slip Ex.PW69/4 (D371) which is in handwriting of Sh. R. B. Kankhara pertaining to deposit of Rs.1,350/ received in cash and description of which is at encircled portion A on the said documents.
12. That the initials at point B are of Sh. Ghanshyam Odharia (since expired) who worked with him in the said branch and he is aware about his initials and writings.
13. That Ex.PW42/N (D372) and Ex.PW42/N1 (D373) are the covering letters sent along with the bills.
14. That Ex.PW63/1 (D374) bears his handwriting and signatures at encircled portion C.
15. That the party had not responded inspite of the reminders sent by their branch and even had not retired the bills and the bills were returned on 01.09.1995 after charging Rs.1,350/ as commission and VPL charges.
In his crossexamination on behalf of the accused persons, the witness has deposed as under: That document Ex.PW42/N is not accompanied with the original RR / TR Number but only bears the number at point encircled portion B on the said document.
That the bills of the True Fab Pvt. Ltd. is not accompanied with Ex.PW42/N. That he cannot tell as to what was the address of Indian Oil Corporation written of the RR and covering letter of the company. He had not personally verified the reasons.
That there is no remark of the post office regarding return of the documents. The letter which they had sent for the collection of bills to the Indian Oil Corporation is not on the record.
That a simple letter was sent to Indian Oil Corporation which on prescribed format of Canara Bank but not through registered post. That the bill of the party was sent to OBC along with Transport Receipt Oriental Bank of CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 320 of 569 Commerce, New Delhi is not on record. That the Canara bank had forwarded the letter to retire the bills to the Indian Oil Company which returned undelivered and thereafter bills were sent to OBC i.e. sender bank.
That the word "redirect" is written on Ex.PW69/1 which is not signed by its author. That the letter which they had sent for the first time is not in record.
That he is not sure whether the covering letters were received by the Indian Oil Corporation or not. They never sent bills to the party i.e. IOC. That the copy of the bill of the party is not on record. It was sent to OBC.
That the complete set vide which they had returned the documents to OBC is not on the file.
That the documents sent to OBC through VPL and receipt of the same is on record as Ex.PW69/3.
That he cannot say after seeing the Ex.PW69/3 as to which document was returned to OBC. Whatever is on the register was sent to the OBC.
That the bills were sent to the IOC on the same day on which the covering letter were prepared.
That they do not keep the duplicate copy of the letter which letter was sent to the party i.e. IOC.
70 Sh. H. H. M. PW70 Sh. H. H. M. Krishnamurthy, Officer, Krishnamurthy Corporation Bank, NFC Branch, has in his (PW70) examinationinchief deposed as under:
1. That during the year 199598, he was working as Officer in Corporation Bank, New Friends Colony Branch, New Delhi and as an officer, he used to authorize the DD applications filed by the customer.
2. That the DD application Ex.PW68/1 (D491), Ex.PW48/31 (D492) and Ex.PW68/2 (D494) bears his signatures on the said exhibits as passing officer.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 321 of 569
3. That on the Ex.PW68/1, the address of the applicant is written as Pathrella, OBC and on Ex.PW48/31 as Suresh, 16/11, Railway Colony and there is no address on Ex.PW68/2.
4. That the corresponding DD's prepared and delivered to the payee are containing in Ex.PW48/23 (Colly) as (D479, D482).
In his crossexamination on behalf of the accused persons, the witness has deposed as under: That they do not identify the identity of the person making the draft as well as presenting the application for making the draft. That they also do not identify and verified identity of the beneficiary while making the draft.
That as passing officer, he only looks into the commission paid to the bank for the purposes of making the draft/DD as well as the amount and the name written on the application of the beneficiary which should tally with the DD issued by them.
71 Sh. K. Vasudeva PW71 Sh. K. Vasudeva Nayak, Branch, Manager, Nayak (PW71) Corporation Bank, NFC Branch, has in his examinationinchief deposed as under:
1. That During the period 199496, he was working as Branch Manager, Corporation Bank, New Friends Colony Branch, New Delhi.
2. That the DD applications Ex.PW68/1 at points Mark X1, Mark X2 and Mark X3.
Ex.PW68/2 Mark X1, Mark X2 and Mark X 3, Ex.PW68/3 Mark X1, Mark X2 and Mark X3 and Ex.PW48/29 Mark X1 bear his writings in the red ink in the said exhibits on the mark points.
In his crossexamination on behalf of the accused persons, the witness has deposed as under: That he cannot say as to who had come to get the said DD's prepared as referred in the applications Ex.PW68/1, Ex.PW68/2 and Ex.PW68/3.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 322 of 569 That they also do not identify the beneficiary in whose favour the DD's have been made. 72 Sh. Pradeep Ingle PW72 Sh. Pradeep Ingle, Officer, Corporation Bank, (PW72) NFC Branch, has in his examinationinchief deposed as under:
1. That during the year 1994 to 1998, he was working as officer Corporation Bank, New Friends Colony Branch, New Delhi.
2. That as an officer, he used to authorize vouchers and DD applications and other related work as assigned to him by the bank.
3. That the branch advice dated 01.12.1995 for Rs. 500/ which was authorized by him and his signatures are at point A on the said advice for opening new SB Joint Account of Soma and Suresh at Trivendrum the same is now Ex.PW72/1.
4. That the DD applications Ex.PW48/29, Ex.PW48/30, Ex.PW48/31, Ex.PW10/A, Ex.PW68/3 all bears his signatures at point B authorizing/passing officer.
5. That the draft containing in Ex.PW48/23 (Colly) as (D483), the said draft has been issued under him signatures at point A.
6. That the draft containing in the same Ex.PW48/23 (Colly) as (D477, D478, D480 and D481) were issued by Sh. K.V. Nayak under his signatures which he identifies at point A as he has worked with him.
7. That the draft D479 and D482 were issued by H.M. Krishanamurthy under his signatures at point A and he identifies his signatures as he had worked with him.
During his crossexamination on behalf of the accused persons, the witness has deposed as under: That they did not obtain the identity of the person who deposited the cash for opening of account at Trivendrum Branch.
That he also does not know and cannot identify the persons in whose name the account was got opened.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 323 of 569 That there is no bar on opening more than one account by a person either sole operation or in joint operation.
That he cannot say if either of the account holder (in whose name the above account was opened) ever came to operate the account. 73 Sh. Ramesh B. PW73 Sh. Ramesh B. Kankhara, Officer, Canara Kankhara (PW73) Bank, Jamnagar Branch, has in his examinationin chief deposed as under:
1. That in the year 1974 he was posted to Jamnagar Branch of Canara Bank and remained there till 2011.
2. That the entry at S.No.229 and 230 in ISC Register which is Ex.PW63/1 (D374) are both in his handwriting.
3. That D375 is the half yearly statement of the bills and the entry pertaining to ISC 229 and 230 is point X is in his handwriting and all the entries in the said register are in his handwriting and the said statement is Ex.PW73/1 (D375).
4. That on page No. 2(i) D375 the entry pertaining to ISC 229 and 230 is point X1 is in his handwriting and all the entries are in the said register are in his handwriting and the said statement is Ex.PW73/2 (D375).
5. That the page No. 2 of D375 the entry pertaining to ISC 229 and 230 is point X2 is in his handwriting and all the entries are in the said register are in his handwriting and the said statement is Ex.PW73/3 (D375).
6. That he had put the rubber stamp of Canara Bank Jamnagar at encircled portion C and "229" on the document Ex.PW42/N (D372) and is written by him.
7. That he had put the rubber stamp of Canara Bank Jamnagar at encircled portion B and "230" on the document Ex.PW42/N1 (D373) and is written by him.
During his crossexamination on behalf of the accused persons, the witness has deposed as under:
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 324 of 569 That an Inward and Outward registers are maintained in their office in which entries are made and local entries were made in peon book.
That he cannot say whether the Ex.PW42/N and Ex.PW42/N1 were sent by local peon by entering in the Peon Book.
That there is no dispatch number for sending this bills i.e. Ex.PW42/N and Ex.PW42/N1 to Indian Oil Corporation which is at portion E to E on both the exhibited documents.
That only "by Courier" is written on both the bills which are relates to the OBC who had sent the bills for discounting to Canara Bank and below the entry in blank ink made by Mr. M.H. Pathak regarding return of these bills. That no. 229 and 230 are the S. Number of Inward Sight for Collection (ISC) Register. That against entry at S. No. 965 (Mark X) Ex.PW73/1 it is nowhere written that the documents are returned.
74 Sh. Virender PW74 Sh. Virender, Farmer at Shabuddin Pur, Distt.
(PW74) Muzaffarnagar (U.P.), has in his examinationinchief deposed as under:
1. That he is a farmer at Shabuddin Pur, Distt. Muzaffarnagar (U.P.). and he knew Rameshwar Rana who is his brotherinlaw.
2. That in the year 1995, Rameshwar Rana came to him and ask to him to give a cheque as he was requiring Rs.5,000/ to Rs.10,000/ for his some work and he gave him a blank cheque signed by him.
3. That he has no connection with Steel Samrat (India), even he does not know any person connected to this company.
4. That cheque dated 13.06.1995 which is Ex.PW9/142 bears his signatures at point A as he has issued the same to his brotherinlaw but the writings at point X1, X2 and X3 do not belong to him.
5. That after two month of the issuing the cheque his brother in law talked to him on telephone and he told him that he has given the said CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 325 of 569 cheque to Steel Samrat India for Rs. 4,80,000/ and he also ask to get stop the payment of the cheque.
6. That he did so and the cheque was returned by the bank.
During his crossexamination on behalf of the accused persons, the witness has deposed as under: That his brotherinlaw Rameshwar Rana was a clerk in OBC Bank but he does not recollect the branch.
That he had handed over the cheque to his brotherinlaw namely Rameshwar Rana. That he does not know anything about the transaction which took place with regard to the above cheque.
75 Sh. A. P. Singh PW75 Sh. A. P. Singh, Sy. S. P. CBI, has in his (PW75) examinationinchief deposed as under:
1. That he was working as Dy. S. P., CBI and worked in the SIUX, CBI, New Delhi during 1998 to mid 2000. This case RC2(E)/1996 Registered on 15.05.1996.
2. That the investigation of the present case was entrusted to him by the then SP Sh. K. N. Tiwari from Sh. S. Dagar earlier IO of the case on 04.02.1998 and thereafter he had gone through papers / documents of the case collected by the earlier IO and also discussed the case with him.
3. That he took up further investigations of the case and collected several documents through various seizure memos and letters from various banks and other authorities.
4. That he also obtained the specimen signatures / writings of various persons including accused persons.
5. That he also examined the various witnesses and recorded statements of relevant witnesses and handed over the case with all case documents etc. to Sh. A. K. Sharma, the then DSP for further action, as per the orders of the then S. P. in view of his transfer from CBI, SIUX to CBI, ACB, Delhi.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 326 of 569
6. That the specimen signatures and writings of accused Pradeep Anand Mark S1 to Mark S 135 now Ex.PW75/1 (colly) (D557) were taken by him in presence of independent witness namely Laxmi Narayan which bears his signatures at point A and that of accused Pradeep Anand at point B and the signatures of witness Laxmi Narayan Sabharwal at point C.
7. That the specimen signatures and writings of accused Pradeep Anand Mark S410 to Mark S500 now Ex.PW75/2 (colly) (D557) were taken by him in presence of independent witness namely J. K. Saxena which bears his signatures at point A and that of accused Pradeep Anand at point B and the signatures of witness J. K. Saxena at point C.
8. That the specimen signatures and writings of accused Pradeep Anand Mark S501 to Mark S669 now Ex.PW75/3 (colly) (D557) were taken by him in presence of independent witness namely J. K. Saxena which bears his signatures at point A and that of accused Pradeep Anand at point B and the signatures of witness J. K. Saxena at point C.
9. That the specimen initials / signatures and writings of accused Rajeev Anand Mark S136 to Mark S235 now Ex.PW75/4 (colly) (D557) were taken by him in presence of two independent witnesses one namely Sh. Dhingra and Sh. J. K. Saxena which bears his signatures at point A and that of accused Rajeev Anand at point B and the signatures of witnesses at point C and D.
10. That the specimen initials / signatures and writings of T. C. Bhardwaj Mark S236 to Mark S292 now Ex.PW75/5 (colly) (D557) were taken by him in presence of independent witness namely A. K. Khanna and the name of other witness he does not recollect now which bears his signatures at point A and that of T. C. Bhardwaj at point B and the signatures of witnesses at points C and D. CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 327 of 569
11. That the specimen initials / signatures and writings of T. C. Bhardwaj Mark S351 to Mark S409 now Ex.PW75/6 (colly) (D557) were taken by him in presence of independent witness namely Sh. Dhingra which bears his signatures at point A and that of T. C. Bhardwaj at point B and the signatures of witness Sh. Dhingra at point C.
12. That the specimen initials / signatures and writings of C. K. Saxena Mark S670 to Mark S710 now Ex.PW75/7 (colly) (D557) were taken by him in presence of independent witnesses namely Sh. Dhingra and Sh. J. K. Saxena which bears his signatures at point A and that of C. K. Saxena at point B and the signatures of witnesses at points C and D.
13. That the specimen initials / signatures and writings of Nitin Saini Mark S731 to Mark S 950 Ex.PW75/8 (colly) (D557) were taken by him in presence of witness Sh. J. K. Saxena which bears his signatures at point A and that of Nitin Saini at point B and the signatures of witness at point C.
14. That the specimen initials / signatures and writings of Suman Prakash Mark S951 to Mark S1047B Ex.PW75/9 (colly) (D557) were taken by him in presence of independent witness namely J. K. Saxena which bears his signatures at point A and that of Suman Prakash at point B and the signatures of witness at point C.
15. That the specimen initials / signatures and writings of T. C. Bhardwaj Mark S1048 to Mark S1132 now Ex.PW75/10 (colly) (D557) were taken by him in presence of independent witness namely J. K. Saxena which bears his signatures at point A and that of T. C. Bhardwaj at point B and the signatures of witness at point C.
16. That the specimen initials / signatures and writings of accused Rajeev Anand Mark S 1148 to Mark S1175 now Ex.PW75/11(colly) (D557) were taken by him in presence of CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 328 of 569 independent witness namely J. K. Saxena which bears his signatures at point A and that of Rajeev Anand at point B and the signatures of witness at point C.
17. That he had examined and recorded statement of Sh. Om Prakash which is Ex.PW10/PX1; Sh. S. S. Gupta which is Ex.PW12/PX1; Sh. Om Prakash which is Mark P13/1 which is now Ex.PW75/12; Sh. R. Raja Mohan which is Ex.PW9/DX2; Sh. K. D. Grover which is Mark PW40/A and Mark PW40/B and both statements are now Ex.PW75/13(colly) and he had recorded truly and correctly whatever the witness had stated before him and also read over and explained the same to the witnesses.
18. That he had also collected documents vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/E and the same bears his signatures at point B and that of Sh. M. K. Sharma at point A which he identifies as he signed before him.
During his crossexamination on behalf of the accused persons, the witness has deposed as under: That he had carried out the investigation relating to the present case from Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony Branch. That the scope of his investigations was for the period 1998 till mid 2000.
That he had called the accused No.3 S. K. Lakhina for purpose of inquiry in present case. That he had also recorded the statement of accused no.3 S. K. Lakhina.
That he had not prepared the final charge sheet and hence he is not aware whether statement of accused no.3 S. K. Lakhina forms a part of the charge sheet or not.
That even otherwise he is an accused he does not think his statement requires to be made a part of the charge sheet.
That he is not aware if any regular departmental enquiry was instituted against accused no.3 S. K. Lakhina or that the same was conducted by Commissioner for Departmental Enquiries appointed by the CVC CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 329 of 569 or that if he was exonerated in the same in relations to the charges against NFC branch of OBC.
That he had collected sufficient material against accused no.3 S. K. Lakhina during the course of investigations.
That he is aware that accused No.1 i.e. S. K. Pathrella and accused no.3 i.e. S. K. Lakhina were Government Servants.
That he did not move any application before the competent authority seeking sanction to prosecute them.
That when he received the file from his predecessor, he did not find any such application moved by him to the competent authority seeking permission / sanction to prosecute the accused no.1 and 3.
That he is not aware of this fact that accused no.3 S. K. Lakhina had suspended the discretionary power of accused No.1 S. K. Pathrella in October 1995.
That he is aware of the Departmental Enquiry against Ms. Sosma Thomas but he had not collected the details of the same including her reply given to the department. He had examined her.
That he cannot tell if she has given a contradictory version in the departmental enquiry to what she had stated during the investigations.
That as of now he cannot give the details of the papers on which accused Rajeev Anand had signed and for which his specimen signatures were taken for comparison.
That he had allegedly signed many papers and hence his specimen signatures were required for confirmation.
That the CFSL record had not been received during his tenure and hence he cannot tell whether the questioned signatures tallied with the specimen signatures. He had never examined accused Vikram Arora.
That had made efforts, but he did not join the investigations because he was absconding.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 330 of 569 That he cannot tell if accused Vikram Arora had joined the investigations in the year1997. He took over the investigations in the year 1998.
That he cannot admit or deny the facts if there was only one cheque business transaction of Vikram Arora with M/s True Fab / associate firms and no other transaction.
That part investigations carried out by him revealed more transactions but he cannot specify those transactions as the investigation at the relevant time were not completed with regard to the same and were handed over later to the subsequent IO.
76 Sh. Suresh Jaitely PW76 Sh. Suresh Jaitely, Special Assistant, Oriental (PW76) Bank of Commerce, has in his crossexamination deposed as under:
1. That he had joined the Oriental Bank of Commerce as Special Assistant and in December, 1993 he was working in the clearing department of the South Extention, PartI Branch, New Delhi.
2. That as a Clearing Assistant, his duties were to receive instruments for clearing from various customers / branches of OBC.
3. That after receipt of the instruments, the same were sent to Service Branch, Karol Bagh, New Delhi from where these instruments were sent for clearing to RBI.
4. That he had prepared the clearing voucher dated 30.12.1993 for Rs.5 lacs showing the proceeds credited to the Branch Office, Gurgaon on account of Canara Bank Cheque No. 561327, Delhi.
This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused despite opportunity.
77 Sh. Harish Bashin PW77 Sh. Harish Bashin, Proprietor of M/s Alpha (PW77) Associates (Real Estates), has in his examinationin chief deposed as under:
1. That he is the proprietor of M/s. Alpha Associates which dealt in real estate business and he is in real estate business since 1982 CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 331 of 569
2. That he knew Sh. Deepak Rampal who is no more having expired about 56 years ago. Sh. Deepak Rampal was into business of Garments in Dubai and he had met him through a common friend namely Mr. Rajender Singhal.
3. That cheque bearing no. 000435 Ex.PW67/8 for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/ bears the signatures of Late Sh. Deepak Rampal at point A which he identifies having seen him writing and signing on a number of occasions when he met him being his closed friend.
4. That Account Opening Form of account no. 16383 in the name of Deepak Rampal Ex.PW77/1 bears the signatures of Sh. Deepak Rampal at point A and his own signatures at point B. He also identifies the signatures at point A on the specimen signature card vide Ex.PW77/2.
5. That he identifies the signatures of Smt. Ritu Rampal on specimen signature card vide Ex.PW77/3 as she had put her signatures on Ex.PW77/3 in his presence.
6. That he also identifies the signatures of Sh. Ashok Kumar Matta, his colleague and authorized signatory of Alpha Associates on Ex.PW77/4 at point encircled A having seen him writing and signing on many occasions.
7. That he further identifies his signatures on his specimen signature card vide Ex.PW77/5 at point encircled 'A'.
8. That he also identifies his signatures on various points encircled A on specimen signatures card of account in the name of Alpha Associates bearing no. 2061 which is Ex.PW77/6, Account Opening Form which is Ex.PW77/7, Account opening form of Ashok Mattat which is Ex.PW77/8, his specimen signature card is Ex.PW77/9, specimen signature card of Ashok K. Matta is Ex.PW77/10.
During his crossexamination on behalf of the accused persons, the witness has deposed that he is not aware CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 332 of 569 of the transactions done by Late Sh. Deepak Rampal with third parties.
78 Sh. Mahender Singh PW78 Sh. Mahender Singh, Officer, Oriental Bank (PW78) of Commerce, NFC Branch, New Delhi, has in his examination in chief deposed as under:
1. That he had worked in New Friends Colony Branch of Oriental Bank of Commerce from 1992 to 1998.
2. That he knew Sh. S.K. Pathrella who was the then Branch Manager of the said branch.
3. That Ex.PW9/205 (D321) and the witness states that this is Letter of Credit issued in the name of True Fab Pvt. Ltd. for Rs. 5 lacs.
4. That Mark41/C (D22) is in his handwriting (blue ink) which is Ex.PW78/1 and Sh. S.K. Pathrella had put his note and initials at points A, B & C on Ex.PW78/1.
During his crossexamination on behalf of the accused, the witness has deposed as under: That he does not remember if True Fab was having a fixed deposit of Rs. 15.69 lacs at that time.
That he is short of memory and for same he is taking medicines.
That Mr. Pathrella used to sign in his presence. 79 Sh. Ashok PW79 Sh. Ashok Bhatnagar, Operation Officer in Bhatnagar (PW79) Bank of Nova Scotia, New Delhi, has in his examinationinchief deposed as under:
1. That in the year 1994, he was working as Operational Officer in Bank of Nova Scotia, New Delhi Branch and in the year 1996 he got promoted to the Post of Administration Manager in the same branch of the said bank.
2. That he had handed over certain documents to CBI and as far as he remember, he had handed over the cheque and other documents from Bank of Nova Scotia to the CBI.
3. That D329 is the cheque which he had handed over to CBI from the record of the bank which bears his signatures at point A and the same is Ex.PW79/1.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 333 of 569
4. That the counter copy of the said cheque also bears his signature at point A which is Ex.PW79/2 (D329).
5. That he also identifies his signatures at point A on debit voucher for discounting of bills under LC dated 30.09.1995 Ex.PW79/3 (colly) (three sheets) for issuance of three LC's.
6. That the Local bill discounting bearing deal ticket no. 6371 Ex.PW79/4 was prepared for internal record of the bank and discounting the bills of M/s. Pramod Kumar & Sons which bears the signatures of Ashish Mohini, then Operations Officer at point A who worked with him in the said bank and he is aware about his signatures.
7. That the letter dated 29.09.1995 Ex.PW9/162, received from the Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony, acknowledging their acceptance under letter of credit bearing Nos. 008437, 008435 & 008436 a/c dated 22.09.95 for Rs. 5 Lacs each (total Rs. 15 lacs) this step was taken to ascertain the genuineness of the transaction and for ensuring irrevocable commitment of payment under LC on due date.
8. That after receipt of acceptance under LC thier bank had discounted the bills and issued Banker's Cheque Ex.PW79/1 and payments of the discounted bills were received by their branch on due dates.
During his crossexamination on behalf of the accused persons, the witness has deposed as under: That the LC was issued by OBC Bank and was in favour of M/s. Pramod Kumar & Sons. That the LC was discounted by M/s. Pramod Kumar & Sons from Scotia Bank.
80 Sh. Mukesh Gupta PW80 Sh. Mukesh Gupta, Owner JAYDEE (PW80) Enterprises at Shop No. 28, Sector23 & 24, Faridabad, has in his examinationinchief deposed as under:
1. That he is into the business of Electrical Items in the name and style JAYDEE Enterprises at Shop No. 28, Sector23 & 24 dividing main CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 334 of 569 road, Faridabad since 1990.
2. That he knew as he used to supply electrical items to him during the period 199293.
3. That he (Sh. Pradeep Anand) was running a factory in the name and style M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. and in the year 199495 he asked Pradeep Anand for a loan from OBC bank as he was having good relations with the bank officials.
4. That for the said purpose he asked him to provide the papers of any immovable property and hence he provided the original registry of property i.e. his above said shop to accused Pradeep Anand which was in the name of his wife Late Smt. Sunita Rani which was purchased in the march 1994 from Mrs. Nalini Ahuja.
5. That he had visited alongwith Pradeep Anand to the Oriental Bank of Commerce, NFC Branch, New Delhi for the purpose of loan and there he submitted the original registry papers of his shop.
6. That there one account was also opened in the name of M/s Jaydee Enterprises. Later on he could not get any loan from OBC bank and his original registry was never returned back by the bankers on one pretext or the other.
7. That he had also inquired from Pradeep Anand with regard to original registry papers of his shop and he used to tell him that his work will be done and documents are not returned till date.
8. That after five or six months of the said incident, he received a notice in the name of his wife from CBI and he alongwith his wife visited CBI office two times and met there with one Mr. Dagar and after one year he again visited CBI office and met Sh. A. P. Singh and there specimen signatures and handwriting of his wife were taken by the CBI.
9. That the sale deed dated 09.03.1994 which is Ex.PW80/1 (D288) was executed by Smt. Nalini Ahuja in favour of his wife Smt. Sunita Rani (now expired on 26.04.2009) and he had CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 335 of 569 submitted the before the aforesaid bank for the purpose of loan.
During his crossexamination on behalf of the accused persons, the witness has deposed as under: That he had approached the bank for a loan for his business purposes.
That he was introduced to Mr. Dhingra, the loan sanctioning incharge by Sh. Pradeep Anand (A2).
That he had spoken to Mr. Dhingra but it is wrong to suggest that Sh. Dhingra had asked him to show the documents relating to immovable property.
That this talk between Pradeep Anand and Mr. Dhingra had already taken place and he straight away furnished the documents of the property to Mr. Dhingra.
That when he handed over the documents to Mr. Dhingra, he did not ask him to sign any document.
That Sh. Dhingra had confirmed to his these documents had been taken relating to the loan which he was taking for his business. That Mr. Dhingra neither sanctioned the loan nor returned his documents.
That he had approached Mr. Dhingra once for return of the said documents but he asked him come after some days as his loan proceedings were under progress.
That his documents are still with the bank. He had not received them back till date. 81 Sh. Yudhvir Singh PW81 Sh. Yudhvir Singh, Real Estate Business, has (PW81) in his examinationinchief deposed as under:
1. That he is in the real estate business since 15 20 years in Gurgaon, Sector37.
2. That he knew Sh. Ashok Sharma since 1978 who is from his native village Khansa.
3. That Sh. Ashok Kumar was cashier in OBC who had introduced Suresh Pathrella to him.
4. That in order to open soap factory in Gurgoan, he had discussed the matter with Suresh Pathrella who was posted as Branch Manager, New Friends Colony and he was running his CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 336 of 569 office from Mahipal Pur.
5. That Sh. Suresh Pathrella had inquired from him whether he had any place in Delhi to open an office.
6. That thereafter, he opened the office at Mahipal Pur. Again said, he had already opened the office at Mahipal Pur.
7. That he was asked that if he had any place/office in Delhi then he can obtain the loan from the bank.
8. That Sh. Dev Kumar was his "Sadu" (Co brother) who had expired lived in Mahipal Pur, Mehrouli Road, New Delhi.
9. That he had taken the shop from his said co brother in rent basis to open the office.
10. That the name of his soap factory was M/s. Balaji Soap Factory.
11. That he had applied for credit limit of Rs. 5 lacs which was sanctioned in favour of said soap factory.
12. That he does not know Sanjeev Arora nor does he aware whether Sh. Sanjeev Arora had deposited any amount in the account of M/s. Balaji Soap Factory.
Since the witness was resiling from his previous statement recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C., he was cross examined by Ld. PP, CBI after due permission of the court: That he was called by the CBI and he had gone to their office to join investigations. That Smt. Bimla Sehrawat is his wife. That he does not know any S.S. Gupta but he had heard that he is a leader of the union of Oriental Bank of Commerce.
That he does not remember the account number of M/s. Balaji Soap Factory of which he is the proprietor.
That he had been filing the income tax return of this factory. He had closed this factory within one year of its coming into existence. That he did not get this factory registered in the Department of Factories.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 337 of 569 That the factory was operating from Prabhu Sadan, Village Khandsa Gurgoan.
That the size of the premises from which the factory was operating was 50 X 100 sq. feet which was a hall with an additional open area. That this was his own plot in the name of his wife.
That there were four persons working in the factory.
That he had not given the details of the labour to the Labour Department. He had got this firm registered with the Shop & Establishment Act. That he had requested the bank to give the loan for the factory and not for the shop.
That there was no shop at the spot and he used to take the raw material from some shops in Fetehpuri, Delhi.
That they were cash purchases from the shops selling chemicals whose receipt he cannot produce today nor he had handed over to the CBI.
That the raw material used for manufacturer of soap is Caustic Soda, Arandi Oil alongwith three or four other things details of which he cannot tell.
That Sh. S.K. Pathrella had taken 2 or 3 blank cheques signed by him and thereafter he did not know what he did with the same. That CBI had interrogated him and asked him from where the money in his account had come but he told that it was not his money and he did not know.
That application dated 19.03.1995 Ex.PW81/1 and Ex.PW4/K bears the signatures of his wife at point A which he identifies.
That the sale deed Ex.PW81/2 bears his signatures at point A, seller namely Range Lal, Bhim Singh and Fateh Singh at points B, C and D. That he did not present this document to Sh. S.K. Pathrella (A1) for purposes of loan and Sh. S.K. Pathrella had come to his house and taken this document on the pretext that the amount of his loan was more than 5 lacs which CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 338 of 569 required additional documents for security and obtained his signatures on blank papers. That he had never distributed Rs. 7.5 lacs between S.K. Pathrella and S.S. Gupta and had only given blank cheques to S.K. Pathrella.
During his crossexamination on behalf of the accused persons, the witness has deposed as under: That he had studied upto inter.
That he know Ashok Sharma who is from his village and is his neighbour.
That he is cashier in the bank.
That he is aware that he was also a union leader.
That he is not aware if Ashok Sharma was also known to S.S. Gupta. He only came to know this fact after he was interrogated with the CBI. That he did not make any complaint to any authority that he had given blank cheques to Sh. S.K. Pathrella. There was no need as the same was given in good faith.
That he knew Sh. S.K. Pathrella through his neighbour Ashok Sharma.
That he had informed the Ashok Sharma about this fact that S.K. Pathrella had taken blank cheques from him.
That he did not go to the bank of Sh. S.K. Pathrella with Ashok Sharma to complaint about the money transaction in his account. That he was not aware of any financial transaction from his bank except when the CBI told him about the same.
That he had handed over the blank cheques to Mr. S.K. Pathrella at his office.
That he did not ask Mr. Pathrella about what happened to his blank cheques.
That he had himself gone to his officce and delivered the same to Sh. S.K. Pathrella personally.
That he did not issue any notice to S.K. Pathrella regarding the blank cheques. That he came to his house and took his signatures personally.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 339 of 569 That Ex.PW81/1 signed by his wife and at that time this form was blank.
That his wife has not come to Delhi nor seen the face of the bank in Delhi.
That he had only applied for a loan of Rs. 5 lacs and Sh. Pathrella later on insisted for Rs. 7.5 lacs and asked him to furnish another registry.
That he had have adjusted the loan at the instance of CBI and settled the amount with the bank.
82 Sh.Chandresh PW82 Sh.Chandresh Kumar Saxena, Production Kumar Saxena Officer, M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd., has in his (PW82) examinationinchief deposed as under:
1. That in the year 1994 he was working as Production Supervisor in M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. situated at plot no.8, 13/3, Mathura Road, Delhi and running high pressure pipe fittings.
2. That Sh. Pradeep Anand was the Director of M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. (witness correctly identifies the accused Pradeep Anand in the court).
3. That mostly M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. used to supply the manufactured items to the Government Department like IOCL and BHEL.
4. That the account opening form bearing no. 2764 Ex.PW9/26(D278) is in the name of Suraksha Engineers and Steel Traders having address given in the account opening form at mark Q588B encircled in red.
5. That the photograph on account opening form at point Y is his photograph.
6. That the signatures in Hindi at point encircled in red at points B1, B2 and on the photograph are not his signatures mine and he was forced to put the signature in a manner as dictated by Sh. Pradeep Anand.
7. That the writings "SURAKSHA ENGINEERS AND STEEL TRADERS" at point mark A to A 1 is of Pradeep Anand and the writings at points B to B1 and D to D1 are his writings and the same also bears the signatures as CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 340 of 569 introducer at point C.
8. That the specimen signature card Ex.PW41/A (D279) bears his photograph at point Y and the signatures which he had put on the specimen signature card from points A1 to A 6 was done in the manner on asking of Pradeep Anand.
9. That the letter dated 21.07.1995 Ex.PW82/1(D300) bears his signatures at point A encircled in red as Q601 and he had made his signatures in the manner as asked by Sh. Pradeep Anand.
10. That the writings mark Q600 is of Rajeev Anand.
11. That the firm M/s Suraksha Engineers and Steel Traders was nonexisting firm and was only on the papers.
12. That he personally had not made any transaction on behalf of this firm or from the account of the firm.
13. That the mark sheet of his High School Examination is Ex.PW82/2 (D458), the mark sheet of M. A. (First and Second year) is Ex.PW82/3 (D459) and Ex.PW82/4 (D460) are respectively, and as per these certificates his name during his school time was Chandresh Kumar Singh however he is Saxena by Caste and his name was given by his father.
14. That the specimen initials / signatures and writings Mark S670 to Mark S710 Ex.PW75/7 (colly (D557) are his signatures and were taken by IO in presence of independent witnesses namely Sh. Dhingra and Sh. J. K. Saxena which bears his signatures at point B on all the pages.
During his crossexamination on behalf of the accused persons, the witness has deposed as under: That he had joined the company M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. in the year 1994 and worked there till 1999. They used to deal with the raw material for making the pipes.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 341 of 569 That nowadays he is running his own business under the name and style of M/s Super Enterprises at G52, SGM Nagar, Faridabad, Haryana which a Hardware shop.
That he also used to do the work of insurance. That he is a qualified person and studied upto Master in Arts (MA).
That he had not made any complaint to any authority till date regarding obtaining his signatures under pressure or made him to sign on the above said exhibit documents shown to him today in the court.
That his real name is what is mentioned in his above said certificate.
That he had not given anything / publication in the newspaper regarding change of his name. 83 Sh. Bhupender PW83 Sh. Bhupender Chaudhary, Publisher of Chaudhary (PW83) Newspaper "Swatantra Vishwa Manav" Faridabad, has in his examinationinchief deposed as under:
1. That he is a Journalist by profession and in the year 1995 he publishing his own Dialy Newspaper in the name "Swatantra Vishwa Manav" from Faridabad.
2. That he knew Sh. Rajiv Anand who was his neighbour residing at 2172, Sec. 28 Faridabad, Haryana.
3. That he also knew Sh. Vinod Khurana as he is his cousin brother and he introduced him to Sh. Rajiv Anand.
4. That at that time his cousin brother was agent of M/s World Pack Courier Services Ltd., near Neelam Flyover Fridabad.
5. That in the month of September 1995 his cousin brother informed him that Sh. Rajiv Anand had promised to return him the original courier receipt since he had taken back the documents which he booked through the abovesaid courier company.
6. That his cousin brother wanted from him to insist upon Sh. Rajiv Anand to get the said receipt back.
7. That in this regard he contacted Rajiv Anand several times but he did not handed over the said receipt and lastly told that the said receipt CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 342 of 569 could not be located. (witness has correctly identifies Rajiv Anand in the court.
During his crossexamination on behalf of the accused persons, the witness has deposed as under: That he had not written any letter in this regard regarding return of the receipt which he had requested to Sh. Rajiv Anand. He insisted orally to return the said receipt to his cousin several.
That his brother has never shown him the copy of the courier maintained in his brother's office nor he has given him the receipt number of the courier.
That the incident was of the year 199596. That he had not met Rajiv Anand after the year 199899 i.e. after the left of the premises no. 2172. He was his neighbour and has left the said premises.
That today (i.e. day of his deposition in the Court) morning he told his brother namely Vinod Khurana and reminded him that Rajiv Anand was his neighbour who was staying next door and pointed out the same to him outside the court.
84 Sh. Rajendra Sirpal PW84 Sh. Rajendra Sirpal, Officer in M/s Agra (PW84) Engineering Industries, has in his examinationin chief deposed as under:
1. That he knew Pradeep Anand as Director of M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. situated at Faridabad as the younger brother Sh. Sandeep Anand of Sh. Pradeep Anand worked under him in M/s. Agra Engineering Industries a unit of M/s. Jay Engineering Ltd. at Agra during the year 1985 88.
2. That Sh. Sandeep Anand was working as Sr. Commercial Executive and was reporting to him.
3. That in the year 1990, he left his job and later on he met Sandeep Anand who introduced him to his brother Pradeep Anand.
4. That in Village Ankhir, Tehsil Ballabhgarh, Haryana he had purchased some land.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 343 of 569
5. That he does not remember as to from whom he had purchased the said land.
6. That he does not know any person by the name Hukum Chand, P.C. Yadav and Kapil Khanna.
Since the witness has been resiling from his statement recorded by the IO under Section 161 C.PC, with the permission of the court the witness was cross examined on behalf of Prosecution and the witness has deposed as under: That the IO of the case had visited his residence to record his statement.
That he presume that the IO of the case had read over his statement recorded by him. That as the matter is 25 years old, he cannot say if he had accepted his statement before the IO to be correct.
That at that time when his statement was recorded by the IO, he remembered that to whom he had sold the above said land.
That he had handed over all the title documents to the purchaser of the land.
That he had never authorized anybody including Kapil Khanna to offer his land as security in any bank.
That Sh. Sandeep Anand had told him that his brother Sh. Pradeep Anand had expressed his interest to purchase the above said property from him and he had given the old sale deed to Sh. Sandeep Anand.
That he does not remember that one of the document was the sale deed which was in favour of Kapil Khanna alongwith other documents.
That the documents were taken for verification of the land records pertaining to the above said property from the concerned authority i.e. Patwari's Office.
That after some time, he asked Sandeep Anand / Pradeep Anand to return his documents sale deed and after some reminders after two or three months Sandeep Anand returned the documents to him.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 344 of 569 That he does not remember whether Sandeep Anand told him that the sale deed has been misplaced by his brother Pradeep Anand. That he does not recall the title document i.e. Sale Deed dated 24.05.1984 (D354) which is now Mark PW84/A. That the statement U/s 161 Cr. P.C. recorded by the IO and after seen the same, he admits the same as recorded by the IO and the said statement is now Ex.PW84/PX1 That he had read over the portion X1 to X2 of the statement Ex.PW84/PX1 and after seeing the same witness states that he does not remember the facts mentioned in the said portion.
That he has admitted the portion X3 to X4 of the statement Ex.PW84/PX1 and he does not remember the facts mention at portion X5 to X6 of the statement Ex.PW84/PX1.
This witness has not been crossexamined on behalf of the accused persons despite opportunity. 85 Sh. Vinod Khurana PW85 Sh. Vinod Khurana, Officer of M/s World Pak (PW85) Air Courier Service India Pvt. Ltd., has in his examinationinchief deposed as under:
1. That in the year 1995, he was working as agent of M/s. World Pak Air Courier Service India Pvt. Ltd. The head office of the said company was at Mysore and northern India office at East of Kailash, New Delhi and he was dealing with that office.
2. That as agent, his work was to book the parcel / documents presented by the parties and to issue the receipt to the party concerned.
3. That the receipts were prepared in four copies i.e. one plus three and the original receipt used to be given to the consigner and the second copy to be attached with the parcel/document which was known as POD which is to be signed by the consignee on the delivery of the parcel / documents and the third copy used to sent the same at the office at New Delhi which was known as manifest and the fourth copy was CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 345 of 569 retained in office record of the agency.
4. That the courier receipt bearing no. 651166 dated 26.05.1995 was issued by his agency and is in his handwriting bearing his signatures at point A and the same is Ex.PW85/A (D254).
5. That he knew Rajiv Anand who was employee of M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. The documents were booked by Sh. Rajiv Anand who came to their office in the evening of 26.05.1995 at that time the load was already dispatched, which information was given to him.
6. That Sh. Rajiv Anand then asked him to sent the documents on the next date but the said documents could not be delivered as nobody came to fetch the same and also gave the reference of his cousin Sh. Bhupender Chaudhary as he was his neighbour.
7. That the consignment was just an envelope having not more than one or two papers inside.
8. That the booked documents were retained on the said date.
9. On the next day, Rajiv Anand came to him in the morning and ask him to cancel the booking and accordingly, he cancelled the booking and handed over the envelope to him but he did not return the first copy to him as the token of having cancelled the booking and of having received back the documents.
In his cross examination on behalf of the accused persons, the witness has deposed as under: That the Ex.PW85/1 is the copy which is given to the consignor and the third copy was required to go alongwith the total load recorded in the manifest. However, since the load was not sent, the third copy could not be sent. The fourth copy remains in their office. That he could not get the signatures of Rajiv Anand done on the fourth copy as the token of return of documents.
That he (Rajeev Anand) had given him the reference of his brother Bhupender Chaudhary and had promised to return the first copy and trusting him he did not take his signatures on CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 346 of 569 the fourth copy as a token of his having received the documents.
That he had no endorsement of Rajiv Anand having received back the original documents. That it was in good faith as he had undertaken to return the first copy and had given the reference of his cousin brother.
That he did not send any intimation to the Head Office at Nehru Place since the documents had never been dispatched and hence, there was no manifest and therefore no requirement of any such information to be given.
That he also did not write any letter to Rajiv Anand for return of the original copy. That her brother had pointed out Rajiv Anand to him in the court. He otherwise knew him and could identify him.
86 Sh. Rakesh Kumar PW86 Sh. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Assistant Sharma (PW86) Engineer, Indian Oil Corporation, has in his examinationinchief deposed as under:
1. That he had worked in Indian Oil Corporation as Asstt. Engineer and retired in the year 2012 at General Manager.
2. That the head office of the pipeline division of Indian Oil Corporation is situated at A1, Udyog Marg, Sector1, Noida.
3. That the work assigned to lay cross country petroleum product and crude oil pipelines through refineries.
4. That the remained posted as Chief Material Manager at Jaipur, VCPPL (Viramgam Chaksu and Panipat Pipeline).
5. That the concept/proposal of the any project is conceived at Noida Office which does detailed Engineering of the Project and placement of the purchase order for supply of the material required for the project.
6. That there was an approved vendor list from whom the company could purchase the material for the project, however, in case depending of the high value of the project, purchasing of the material are placed through Press Tender.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 347 of 569
7. That in case of limited tender enquiry quotation are sought from the approved vendor list and after Techno Commercial Qualification and placed the purchase order to the lower rate tender.
8. That all the material are purchased is to be inspected by third party Inspection Agency such as RITES and M/s. DNB etc
9. That the inspection report are also submitted by the agency to Pipeline Division Head Office at Noida and accordingly the head office issues the clearance dispatch to the concerned supplier.
10. That the clearance dispatch documents are forwarded to supplier and the copy of the same are also forwarded to concerned field office of project. In this case at Jaipur.
11. That thereafter the supplier prepared dispatch documents for the material which include invoice, third party inspection certificate, Test Certificate and RR/Lorry Receipt.
12. That there were 14 consignees of VCPPL where material were received for the respective stations of the constructions.
13. That all the above said documents i.e. dispatch documents are submitted to their bank by the supplier for collection and thereafter, the supplier's bank submits to buyer bank i.e. SBI at Jaipur for discounting of the bills and the SBI at Jaipur would intimate receipt of the documents to IOCL.
14. That consequently, supplier sent the advance copy of the dispatch document to the field office, Jaipur.
15. That the field office basing on the advance copy process the payment and submit to their bank with cheque and the payment is released by the buyer's bank.
16. That after release of the payment the SBI handed over the original documents to IOCL.
17. That the Jaipur Office forwarded lorry receipt to the respective consignee to take the delivery of consignment from the transporter.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 348 of 569
18. That after receiving the material the reconciliation statement of the material receipt.
19. That 90% payment would be released against dispatch document and balance 10% payment would be released after receipt of the material at site.
20. That in case the material received is not as per the purchase order then the Performance Bank Guarantee amounting 10% of the Purchase Order Value is submitted that the recovery is made from supplier/ or by encashment of performance Bank Guarantee.
21. That purchase order dated 23.12.1994 which is Ex.P11/1 was placed on M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. Faridabad for supply of material amount Rs. 51,18,730/ and the another purchase order dated 23.12.1994 which is Ex.PW17/A3 was placed on M/s. Steel Samrat Bombay for amounting of Rs.24,68,563/.
22. That their division was facing the problems with M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. as it was not supplying full material and the material was also inferior quality therefore, the amount of purchase was reduced from Rs.51,18,730/ to Rs.46,83,370/ and further it was reduced to Rs.33,24,020/ as after giving the ultimatum to the party on 15.01.1996 for supply of goods.
23. That bill no. 1214 dated 01.03.95 Ex.PW17/12 and the lorry receipt Ex.PW33/4 was not received in his office at Jaipur for payment that was the different document.
24. That the name of the Transporter Ashok Transport of India is based in Faridabad whereas the invoice which their division has processed was based on Mumbai Transporter.
25. That bill no. 1065 dated 13.02.1995 Ex.PW9/72 was not received in his office at Jaipur for payment and that was the different bill because the signatory of the bill is different however, the date and amount of the bill is same.
26. That bill no. 1053 dated 30.01.95 Ex.PW9/67 (D113) and the lorry receipt Ex.PW33/K (D
113) was not received in his office at Jaipur for CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 349 of 569 payment that was the different bill because the date of the bill which their office has processed is 02.02.1995 and the amount of Rs.57,200/.
27. That the name of the Transporter Ashok Transport of India is based in Faridabad whereas the invoice which their division has processed was based on Mumbai Transporter.
28. That bill no. 1058 dated 07.02.95 Ex.PW9/65 (D111) was not received in his office at Jaipur for payment and that was the different bill because the amount of bill date which was processed by them was amounting to Rs.36,400/ whereas the date is same i.e. 07.02.1995.
29. That bill no. 1061 dated 10.02.95 Ex.PW9/64 (D109) was not received in his office at Jaipur for payment and that was the different bill because the amount of bill date which was processed by them was amounting to Rs.1,96,352/ whereas the date is same i.e. 10.02.1995.
30. That bill no. 1213 dated 01.03.95 Ex.PW17/20 (D125) and the lorry receipt Ex.PW33/W (D
125) was not received in his office at Jaipur for payment that was the different bill because the date of the bill which their office has processed is 04.02.95 and the amount of Rs.1,48,608.72 where the date and amount both are different from their processed bill.
31. That the name of the Transporter Ashok Transport of India is based in Faridabad whereas the invoice which their division has processed was based on Mumbai Transporter.
32. That bill Ex.PW17/36A and Ex.PW17/36B, Ex.PW17/37, Ex.PW17/38, Ex.PW17/39, Ex.PW17/40 which were processed in their office and taken by the CBI which are genuine bill which contains the initials of recipient official along with the official stamp of IOCL of Noida.
33. That the letter dated 13.05.95 and 06.04.1995 which bear his signatures at point A and the same are now Ex.PW86/2 and Ex.PW86/3.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 350 of 569
34. That the documents Ex.PW9/61, Ex.PW33/A, Ex.PW17/11, Ex.PW17/12, Ex.PW33/C, Ex.PW17/13, Ex.PW9/62, Ex.PW33/E, Ex.PW9/63, Ex.PW9/64, Ex.PW17/14, Ex.PW9/65, Ex.PW9/66, Ex.PW9/67, Ex.PW9/68, Ex.PW9/69, Ex.PW17/15, Ex.PW9/70, Ex.PW9/71, Ex.PW17/16, Ex.PW9/72, Ex.PW17/17, Ex.PW17/18, Ex.PW17/19, Ex.PW9/73, Ex.PW17/20 and Ex.PW17/21 which are relating to Steel Samrat (India) Mumbai and these bills were never received by their office and processed for payment.
35. That the invoices Ex.PW45/2 to Ex.PW45/11 which relate to True Fab Pvt. Ltd. and were never received by their office at Jaipur for payment.
During his crossexamination on behalf of the accused persons, the witness has deposed as under: That earnest money guarantee is invited when a tender is flotted by the IOC but he is not dealing with that.
That similarly, a performance guarantee is also furnished by the supplier before the executing of the contract order.
That the portion Mark A to A is given in Ex.PW11/A which contains the terms and conditions of the contract and also the places where the goods are to be supplied and similarly it contains that third party inspection is done before sending the material at site. That Ex.P4/B (D100) is the security deposit has been furnished from OBC, New Friends Colony Branch, Delhi.
That Ex.PW17/4, Ex.PW17/5, Ex.PW17/6, Ex.PW17/7 does not bear the lorry receipt number. It is a invoice which is not annexed with any lorry receipt.
That these bills / invoices are from Steel Samrat (India) Bombay and on these bills, the payment has been made by IOC although they are not having any lorry receipt number, third CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 351 of 569 party inspection which is approved of dispatch of goods at the site.
That without these documents the goods cannot be dispatched and accepted on the site. That letter dated 09.11.95 which is Ex.PW86/DA had been written by Indian Oil Company directed the State Bank of India Jaipur.
That the IOC could not retire (collects the documents on payment) documents and also hold this document.
That he does not remember that if the bills Ex.PW17/4, Ex.PW17/5, Ex.PW17/6 & Ex.PW17/17 were processed without lorry receipt number is not there which clarifies that the goods have been given to the transporter and on the basis of lorry receipt Indian Oil Corporation can get the goods released from the transporter.
That pursuant to their request, the documents were held by the bank under the exception of receipt of the material but ultimately when the material was not received and even the advance copy of the dispatched documents was not received by the IOC, they requested the bank to return the documents.
That the goods would be released after the release of the documents by the collecting bank upon which IOC is to make the payment. That in the present case, no advance copy of the dispatched document was received in the second transaction.
That he is not aware if the bank had acceded to their request of holding the documents sent by OBC Bank Delhi or not.
That he is unable to tell whether the goods were dispatched from Bombay or Faridabad. In so far as the Steel Samrat is concerned, it is the Mumbai based company.
This witness has not been crossexamined on behalf of the accused persons despite opportunity.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 352 of 569 87 Sh. D. P. Dhingra PW87 Sh. D. P. Dhingra was the Manager of (PW87) Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony, New Delhi.
He has identified the signatures of Sh. R. Raja Mohan the then Sr. Manager, that of Sh. S.K. Pathrella (A1) and that of Pradeep Anand (A2) on the various documents i.e. the letters/ communications etc. which are Ex.PW13/A (D1), Ex.PW87/1 (page 245 and 244 of D1), Ex.PW9/245 (D1), Ex.PW9/247, Ex.PW9/246 (D4), Ex.PW9/DX14, Ex.PW41/J, Ex.PW9/248 (D2), Ex.PW87/2 (page 76 of D1), Ex.PW87/3 (page 78 of D1), Ex.PW87/4 (D1), Ex.PW9/249 (page No. 1 of D6), Ex.PW9/250 (page No. 2 of D6), Ex.PW9/251 (page No. 3 of D6), Ex.PW9/252 (page No. 4 to 6 of D6), Ex.PW9/253 (page No. 7 to 11 of D6), Ex.PW9/252 (page No. 4 to 6 of D6), Ex.PW87/5 (pages 1 to 3 of D11), Ex.PW9/5 (page 58 of 53 of D4), Ex.PW6/A (page 60 to 59 of D4), Ex.PW6/A, Ex.PW9/5, Ex.PW87/6 (page 91 of D4), Ex.PW6/B (page 93 of D4), Ex.PW9/DX4 (page 94 of D4), Ex.PW6/B, Ex.PW87/7 (page 9596 of D4), Ex.PW6/C (page 97 of D4), Ex.PW87/7, Ex.PW6/D (page 104 of D4), Ex.PW87/8 (page 101 to 102 of D4), Ex.PW87/9 (page 100 of D4), Ex.PW87/10 (D4), Ex.PW6/D (D
4), Ex.PW9/217 (D4), Ex.PW8/C (page 110 of D4), Ex.PW87/11 (page 112 of D4), Ex.PW7/G (page 113 of D4), Ex.PW6/E (page 121 of D4), Ex.PW87/12 (page 120 of D4), Ex.PW87/13 (page 119 to 115 of D4), Ex.PW87/14 (page 122 of D4), Ex.PW87/14, Ex.PW6/F (page 123 of D4), Ex.PW87/15 (page 124 of D4), Ex.PW9/12 (page 170 to page 125 of D4), Ex.PW87/16 (pages 168 to 125 of D4), Ex.PW39/1 (page no.171 of D4), Ex.PW39/2 (page no.172 of D
4), Ex.PW9/13 (page 180 of D4), Ex.PW87/17 (D4), Ex.PW9/DX5 (page 82 of D4), Ex.PW9/14 (pages 184 and 185 of D4), Ex.PW87/18 (page 183 of D4), Ex.PW9/14, Ex.PW9/14, Ex.PW39/3, Ex.PW9/15 (page 183 of D4), Ex.PW9/DX6 (page 188 of D4), Ex.PW9/16 (page 189 of D4), Ex.PW7/DX1 (page 190 of D4), Ex.PW41/M (page 191 of D4), CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 353 of 569 Ex.PW39/DX1 (Page 192 of D4), Ex.PW9/76 (page 193 of D4), Ex.PW9/75 (page 194 of D
4),Ex.PW9/17 (page195 of D4), Ex.PW9/18 (Page 199 of D4), Ex.PW9/DX5, Ex.PW9/18 (Page 199 of D4), Ex.PW9/19 (page 200 of D4), Ex.PW9/19 (page 200 of D4), Ex.PW9/DX7 (page No. 201 of D
4), Ex.PW7/B, Ex.PW41/N (page 203 of D4), Ex.PW87/19 (page 204 of D4), Ex.PW39/4 (page 205 of D4), Ex.PW9/20 (page 240241 of D4), Ex.PW87/20 (pages 239 to 206 of D4), Ex.PW9/DX 8 (page 243242 of D4), Ex.PW9/216 (page 246 of D
4), Ex.PW9/215 (pages 272273 of D4), Ex.PW9/215 (page 272273 of D4), Ex.PW87/21 (pages 1 to 179 D560), Ex.PW87/22 (D557), Ex.PW75/4 (S136 to S150 in the file D557), Ex.PW87/23 (D557), Ex.PW75/6 (S351 to S409 in the file D557), Ex.PW88/3 (S21 to S31 in D557), Ex.PW75/7 (S 670 to S710 in D557), Ex.PW87/24 (S1176 to S 1370 in D557) and Ex.PW87/25 (S1001 to S1047B the file D557).
During his crossexamination on behalf of the accused persons, the witness has deposed as under: That he is not aware that Sh. S. K. Lakhina, the then DGM, Regional Office, New Delhi had issued circulars / letters / instructions from time to time, to safeguard bank's interest while dealing with loans and advances and also totally dispensing with the practice of verbal permission.
That the circular letter dated 07.05.1991, 22.07.1992, 30.10.1993, 01.11.1993, 03.11.1993 and 05.11.1993 which are Ex.PW87/DX1 (colly, 10 pages) bears the signature impressions on all the above photocopies of above mentioned circular / letters.
That before recommending any sanction or discounting any bills / cheques etc. it is the prime duty of the branch incumbent to study, scrutinize and ensure the genuineness of the document and the same pertains to genuine trade transactions and that it would be safe to CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 354 of 569 allow advance against the same.
That the account of M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. was running irregular and Regional Office had issued the instructions to complete the papers to reassess the account by raising certain queries.
That vide Ex.PW9/74 Regional Office had sought the explanation of the branch for over drawing in the account of M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd., beyond the sanctioned limit.
That the overdrawings in the CC account was being done at the branch level i.e. the branch Manager, without any intervening instructions from the higher authority, as is evident from Ex.PW9/75 and Ex.PW9/17.
That Branch was replying to the queries of Regional Office and viceversa.
That the powers of the branch incumbent were suspended by the Regional Head i.e. Accused No.3 S. K. Lakhina in September 1995. That vide Ex.PW9/221 (page 140 of D4) two bills amounting to total Rs.13,68,419.52p were discounted without any prior sanction from Regional Office and vide Ex.PW9/220 (page 141 of D4) the DGM, Regional Office, New Delhi did not confirm the request for confirmation and rather advised to inform as to why the complete proposal was not sent to Regional Office before permitting the facility. That the DGM at Regional Office had unlimited powers for discounting of bills under Letter of Credit.
That the Regional Office through accused no.3 S. K. Lakhina, in all the correspondences, has advised the branch to get the accounts regularized.
That all the correspondences reflects banking transactions. He cannot say if the transactions in the account of M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd., were genuine.
That he was working in this branch since 1991 prior to joining of Sh. S. K. Pathrella in this branch who joined the branch in April 1994.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 355 of 569 That account of M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. Was in operation even prior to his joining of the branch i.e. perhaps year 198788.
That M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. was enjoying the credit facility prior to his joining in the branch. That New Friends Colony branch of Oriental Bank of Commerce was categorized as a large branch headed by Chief Manager and was also having concurrent auditor.
That the concurrent auditor used to do day to day monitoring of the branch.
That concurrent auditor is appointed by the Head Office and any deviation and discrepancies in the operation of the branch functioning is reported by him in any particular account to the head office as well as Regional Office.
That STM41 i.e. the daily discretionary power exercise by the branch manager is also reported to the controlling office i.e. higher office which scrutinizes and gives instructions to the branch immediately.
That he is not aware about the CVC Notification Ex.PW2/DA. That there was a procedure for obtaining telephonic permission and instructions from the higher competent authorities in the bank and incumbent used to receive such instructions and he is aware that telephonic approvals were being given by the competent higher authorities.
That there were different departments headed by the Manager which were dealing with operation of the accounts like Bill Purchase, Cash Credit Limits, LCs, which were scrutinized by them.
That the bank only deals with the documents and not with the goods.
That the Bill Manager scrutinizes and looks into the documents annexed with the bills. That in case of any discrepancy in documents; bill manger points out specifically in the bill purchase register by putting it to the branch incumbent.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 356 of 569 That in case the account is being operated within the limits; then bill manager even does not refer it to the branch incumbent except to put it that bills are being purchased. That True Fab Pvt. Ltd. was a company registered under the Companies Act 1956 having separate legal entity and there were four Directors of the company.
That the charge on the assets of the company is required to be registered with the ROC. That the company operates the account through authorized signatory as per the board resolution and the account with regard to the credit facilities was being operated in the branch since 1988.
That on joining by Sh. S.K Pathrella; he had informed the higher authorities regarding overdrawing in the account of True Fab Pvt. Ltd.
That he was looking after the account of M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. to whom credit facilities were granted besides other account to whom the credit facilities were granted by New Friends Colony branch.
That he never asked the accused S.K Pathrella to stop the over accommodation. He is the authority and he could not have asked him to do so.
That it was fully within his jurisdiction to function within his financial limits and not grant over accommodation.
That account with regard to True Fab Pvt. Ltd. was already over accommodated prior to the joining of S.K Pathrella.
That the account is declared NPA as per the existing directions of the RBI.
That even the officer who was the predecessor of S.K Pathrella had not declared the account of True Fab as NPA.
That in their system, no note is required to be put up to the Chief Manager for declaring the account as NPA and hence as a Credit Manager he did not put up any such note to the accused no. 1 S.K Pathrella. It is automatic CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 357 of 569 upon the expiry of the period declared by the RBI.
That in the year 1995 there were no directions of the RBI with regard to the 90 days period for declaring the account NPA.
That he does not recollect whether in the year 1995 it was mandatory to inform the customer regarding the account having become irregular.
That in the year 1994 neither the concurrent auditor nor the statutory auditor had declared the account as irregular and it was done in the year 1995 after SeptemberOctober. That the account of M/s. True Fab was collaterally secured besides being principally secured.
That letter of credits in the year 1995 were governed by UCPC (uniform customs and practices for documentary credits1993), which is Ex.PW87/DX1.
That as per Article 15 of UCPC which deals with the declaimer of effectiveness of documents the "Banks assumes no liability or responsibility for the form, sufficiency, accuracy, genuineness, falsification or legal effect of any document (s) are for the general and/are particular conditions stipulated in the document (s) or superimposed thereon; nor do they assume any liability or responsibility for the description, quantity, weight, quality, condition, packing, delivery, value or existence of the goods represented by any document(s), or for the good faith or acts and / or commissions, solvency, performance or standing of the consignors, the carriers, the forwarders, the consignees or the insurers of the goods, or any other person whomsoever." That the bank deals only with the documents and not with goods/services.
That all loan documents were in order since the credit facilities were granted in the account of True Fab Pvt. Ltd. in 1998 and this register is maintained in the branch.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 358 of 569 That Ex.PW81/1 (D198) is in his handwriting but has not been taken by him. This blank document was given by S.K Pathrella and was afterwards filled by him on the direction of S.K Pathrella.
That he is only saying it on the basis of his memory but he had not recorded this fact anywhere.
That as per D7 Ex.PW9/281, the sanctioned limit of M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. was Rs.51 lacs, bill purchased was Rs.15 lacs, Letter of credit was Rs.15 lacs and Bank guarantee was Rs.6 lacs.
That he has seen Ex.PW48/5 and state that interest and penal interest have been charged in every quarter of the year and all the installments have been paid within the time. That he had filed affidavits before the Debt Recovery Tribunal in OA No. 342/96, the certified copy of which is Ex.PW87/DX2 in OA No. 322/96, which is Ex.PW87/DX3 and in OA No. 349/1996 which is Ex.PW87/DX4. That as per Ex.PW48/5, statement of account (page 23), the balance outstanding amount as on 22.11.1995 was Rs.34,51,907.93/. That the limit of the account was upto Rs.51 lacs as on March 1995.
That he does not remember what was the limit in the month of November 1995, on which date, the operation of the account was stopped. That he does not remember now if the limit of the account was Rs.51 lacs in November 1995. That he does not recollect now if any letter of reduction of limit was intimated to M/s True Fab Pvt Ldt.
That as a Credit Manager, he used to process the loan applications and assess the requirement of the parties and do the correspondence and put up the loan file for sanction or for information.
That he was dealing in limits of cash credit, over draft, bill purchase and cheque purchase.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 359 of 569 That at the time there was a Manager (bill purchase) and Manager (Branch Operation). That the second key Manager was the Manager Branch Operation.
That he does not remember if the intimation regarding return of bills was ever given to the parties. He was not dealing with the bills. That whenever the bills are returned, the branch debit the amount along with the interest to the operational account of the concerned parties.
That the then Manager before stopping the operation of the account of the party has never consulted him.
88 Sh. Satish Dagar PW88 Sh. Satish Dagar, Inspector, CBI, SIUX (PW88) Branch New Delhi, has in his examinationinchief deposed as under:
1. That in the year 1996, he was posted as Inspector in CBI SIUX Branch, New Delhi.
2. That the FIR of the present case was entrusted to him for investigation by the then SP Sh. S.K. Chaudhary.
3. That the FIR dated 15.05.1996 bears the signatures of Sh. S. K. Chaudhary, SP on each and every page of the FIR which is Ex.PW88/1 (Colly).
4. That during the investigation, he had collected documents from different banks, organizations and recorded statement relating to the documents collected by him.
5. That he was assisted by Inspector Komal Singh, Inspector Roby Jawahar and Inspector Ajay Kumar during the investigation and they had also carried out investigation as per the work assigned by him to them.
6. That the statements recorded by him were as per the version of the witness without any alteration / addition and the same were shown to the witnesses after the recording of the statement was completed.
7. That the documents were seized by him through seizure memos and copy of the seizure memo's were given to the witnesses who had handed over the documents.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 360 of 569
8. That during investigation, he had also obtained specimen signatures of some of the persons connected with the investigation.
9. That the specimen signatures / initials / handwriting of Rajiv Anand from S151 to S 169 which he took in presence of independent witness namely Sh. H. L. Sharma, Officer of SBI vide Ex.PW88/2 (Colly) wherein he identifies his own signatures on all the sheets at point A and that of H.L. Sharma at point B as he has signed in his presence.
10. That the specimen writings / signatures of Sanjeev Arora are from S21 to S31 Ex.PW88/3 (Colly). The said specimens were taken by Inspector Ajay Kumar on his directions and he identifies his signatures at point A on all the sheets.
11. That the specimen signatures / initials / handwriting of Swaraj Chauhan from S711 to S730 which he took in presence of independent witness namely Sh. H.L. Sharma, Officer of SBI vide Ex.PW88/4 (Colly) wherein he identify his own signatures on all the sheets at point A and that of H.L. Sharma at point B as he has signed in his presence.
12. That he had recorded the statements of the witnesses amongst others namely Rajender Sripal vide Ex.PW84/PX1, Saroj Rani vide Mark P20 now Ex.PW88/5,T.K. Mondal vide Ex.PW11/PX1 and K.D. Grover vide Ex.PW75/13 all bearing his signatures at point encircled X.
13. That he had recorded whatever had been stated by the above witness truly and correctly and also read over and explained the statements to them.
14. That he has seized various documents vide seizure memo dated 18.09.1996 which is Ex.PW88/6, seizure memo dated 02.09.1996 which is Ex.PW88/7, seizure memo dated 19.09.1997 which is Ex.PW88/8, seizure memo dated 28.07.1996 which is Ex.PW88/9 (running into 08 pages), seizure memo dated CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 361 of 569 27.09.1996 which is Ex.PW88/10, seizure memo dated 23.10.1997 which is Ex.PW88/11, seizure memo dated 20.10.1997, seizure memo dated 04.09.1997 which is Ex.PW88/13, seizure memo dated 04.09.1997 which is Ex.PW88/14, seizure memo dated 13.09.1996 which is Ex.PW88/15, seizure memo dated 08.08.1996 which is Ex.PW88/16, seizure memo dated 21.11.1996 which is Ex.PW88/17 (two pages), seizure memo dated 20.03.1997 which is Ex.PW88/18, seizure memo dated 11.09.1996 which is Ex.PW88/19, seizure memo dated 29.04.1997 which is Ex.PW88/20, seizure memo dated 03.08.1996 which is Ex.PW88/21, seizure memo dated 13.08.1996 which is Ex.PW88/22 (running into two pages), seizure memo dated 01.08.1996 which is Ex.PW88/23 (running into 51 pages), seizure memo dated 05.05.1997 which is Ex.PW88/32, seizure memo dated 23.04.1997 which is Ex.PW88/33, seizure memo dated 05.05.1997 which is Ex.PW88/34, seizure memo dated 06.02.1997 which is Ex.PW88/35 and seizure memo dated 16.09.1996 which is Ex.PW88/36.
15. That during investigations he has also received various documents i.e. letter dated 23.11.1996 Ex.PW60/1 along with the documents Ex.PW60/DX1, Ex.PW88/24, Ex.PW88/25, letter dated 07.10.1997 Ex.PW88/26 (D522), letter dated 24.09.1997 Ex.PW88/27 (D523) along with certified true copy of the bill register (2 sheets) which is Ex.PW88/28 (D
523), letter dated 22.09.1997 Ex.PW65/1 (D
524), another letter dated 22.09.1997 Ex.PW64/1 (D525) along with the documents Ex.PW64/2, letter dated 14.02.1997 which is Ex.PW88/29 (D526), letter dated 07.02.1997 which is Ex.PW88/30 (three pages) and its enclosures Ex.PW88/31 (three sheets) (D527), letter dated 25.10.1996 which is Ex.PW62/1 (D258), letter dated 04.04.1997 Ex.PW88/37 CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 362 of 569 (D299), letter dated 20.08.1996 Ex.PW59/1 (D315), letter dated 07.10.1998 Ex. PW88/38 (D347) and Ex.PW88/39.
16. That photocopy of the search list dated 26.07.1996 Ex.PW88/40 for search of the house no. 140, Sector 16A, Faridabad which was the residence of Sh. Pradeep Anand, bear his signatures on the same at point A, that of Sh. S.C. Dandriyal, Inspector at point B and the three witnesses at point C, D & E.
17. That vide search list dated 26.07.1996 which is Ex.PW88/41 search of the residence of Sh. Suresh Pathrella at D16/11, Railway Colony, Sarojni Nagar, New Delhi was carried out by Inspector Ajay Kumar on his endorsement of the search warrant in his name.
18. That vide search list dated 26.07.1996 carbon copy of which is Ex. PW88/42, search of the office premises of M/s True Fab India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 8, 13/3, Mathura Road, Faridabad, (running into 9 pages) was carried out by Inspector P. Mukherjee on his endorsement of the search warrant in his name.
19. That vide search list dated 26.07.1996 photocopy of which is Ex.PW88/43 (running into 2 sheets), search of the residential premises of Smt. Sheela Walia at C4/5, Safdarjung Development Area, New Delhi was carried out under Section 165 Cr.PC by Inspector Ajay Kumar on his authorization.
20. That during the time when he had conducted the investigation, evidence had come on record that Suresh Pathrella as Chief Manager was authorized to sanction credit limits up to a maximum of Rs. 30 lakhs to a group concern.
21. That evidence had also come on record that Swaraj Chauhan, who had opened the account of M/s Permanent Machine Tools with address as 16/3, Mathura Road, Faridabad was an employee of Pradeep Anand.
22. That the firm had given false address while opening the account which was confirmed by the owner of the premises 16/3, Mathura Road, Faridabad. Similarly, evidence had also come CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 363 of 569 that G.K. Singh proprietor of M/s Suraksha Engineers & Steel Traders was also an employee of Pradeep Anand namely C.K. Saxena.
23. That the evidence had also come that Bharat Pumps and Compressors, Ahmedabad was not having any account any Canara Bank.
Similarly, M/s New World Traders, Bombay bills drawn on which discounted in the account of Moonlight Traders was also not having any account in Vysya Bank Bombay.
24. That similarly, M/s Alliance Engineers & Fabricators Bills drawn on which were discounted in the account of Moonlight Engineers was also not having any account in Canara Bank, Bombay.
25. That some of the bills were drawn on IOCL, Midnapore and evidence had come that they had not placed any order on M/s Moonlight Engineers. Evidence had also come that IOC, Jaipur had also not retired the bills discounted in the account of Steel Samart India as the advance copy of documents had not been submitted to them.
26. That some of the bills were shown to have withdrawn on the basis of L/Cs issued by Canara Bank at Bombay and Ahmedabad. However, the investigation with those branches had established that these branches had not issued any L/Cs.
27. That the evidence had also come on record that M/s Orient Heavy Engineering Corporation, Ahemdabad was also non existing company as it was not found at the addresses mentioned on the bills discounted in the account of M/s Permanent Tools & Mahcines. That bank of India Ahmedabad had also confirmed that the said concern did not have any account with them.
28. That during investigation, evidence had also come on record that some bills were drawn and discounted on M/s J.S Supertech at Mumbai. This concern was also found not having account in the bank to which the bills were sent CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 364 of 569 for collection.
29. That the investigation was not completed when the case with him.
30. That on account of his transfer to a different branch, the case was transferred to different IO.
During his crossexamination on behalf of the accused persons, the witness has deposed as under: That so far as the letter Ex.PW88/27 is concerned the same was received by hand but he had not made any endorsement on the same with regard to it. He is not required to make any endorsement to this effect.
That he does not recollect the name of the person who had handed over this letter Ex.PW88/27 to him. He thinks it was the Chief Manager of the Bank because it is signed by him.
That as far as he recollects the letter Ex.PW65/1 was handed over to him personally when he had gone to Mumbai for investigation. That there is no endorsement on the letter it was given by hand. It is not required and the same is his answer for the Ex.PW64/1, Ex.PW88/29, Ex.PW88/30 and Ex.PW62/1. That as per the search list attendance register of True Fab Pvt. Ltd. was not seized. However, both C.K. Saxena and Swaraj Chauhan had disclosed during investigation that they were employed by Pradeep Anand in his company True Fab Pvt. Ltd.
That during search documents like staff salary voucher book to confirm their employment was seized which are documents are a part of the seizure memo Ex.PW88/42 at Serial No. 24. That he had gone through the record and there is no wage voucher pertaining to C.K. Saxena, Swaraj Chauhan to show employee of Pradeep Anand.
That during investigation both of them had admitted their being employee and the said fact was also confirmed by Pradeep Anand himself.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 365 of 569 That there was no reason to disbelieve them in this regard.
That he is relying on this statement of the above person which were recorded by him under Section 161 Cr.PC.
That as per his knowledge normally a bill received by the bank should be sent to the bank in which the other party is having an account but he is having no knowledge if there is any bar to sending the bill for collection to any other bank.
That he had ascertained the procedure for discounting / sending for bills for collection during the relevant service from the officers of Oriental Bank of Commerce who were examined by him.
That he does not remember if any books of OBC were looked into by him regarding the above procedure for purchase / discounting of bills of L/Cs.
That he had gone personally to Vyasya Bank, at Ahemdabad.
That the branch as far as he remember was Vatva Branch. This address was taken on the basis the bills sent for collection by OBC, New Friends Colony, Branch.
That he has seen the register D549 as per which, the address of Vyasya Bank, Nariman Point, Bombay.
That after seeing the register D549 at page 66 the address of "Vyasya Bombay" complete address is not there.
That the second entry is on the same page at serial no. 5/95 where it is mentioned as Vyasya Bank, Nariman Point, Bombay.
That he cannot say without seeing the letter of Vyasya Bank as to which branch he had made the inquiry.
That he has now seen the said letter Ex. PW88/37 (D299) and state that the said letter written by the Chief Manager of Vyasya Bank Ltd., Nariman Point.
That they have mentioned that these bills were returned to OBC, New Friends Colony without CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 366 of 569 realization of the payment.
That it has been mentioned in point A to A Ex. PW88/37 that this letter has been written as per the direction of Sh. S. Dagar.
That the entries relating to bills purchased under L/C in the account of Suraksha Engineers & Steel at page 33 of D556 Ex.PW38/F relating to J.S. Supertech Engineers mentions that the same were purchased under L/C no. 00516/95 of Canara Bank, Ashram Road, Ahemdabad.
That the L/C mentioned above was not available in the records of OBC, New Friends Colony Branch and therefore, he could not tally the address of the bank on the L/C. Canara Bank, Ashram Road Branch vide letter Ex.PW59/1 (D315) had confirmed that no such L/C was opened by them and M/s J.S Supertech Engineers was not having any account with them.
That he had confirmed from Sh. S. Ravi Chandran, Senior Manager of Ashram Road Branch that there was only one branch designated as Ashram Road Marg.
That he had not filed the chargesheet in this case and the entire investigation was not carried out by him.
That he does not remember he had carried out investigation qua the bills mentioned in Annexure A to the report under Section 173 Cr.PC.
That he had not applied for prosecution sanction in respect of Suresh Pathrella. Since the investigation had not been completed till it was with him, there was no occasion to make such request.
That the present case had been registered on the source information. He had only received the FIR after its registration and it is mentioned on the FIR that it was registered on source information.
That till the time investigation remained with him, he had not investigated the details of the account from the date of its inception i.e. since CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 367 of 569 1988 till the period mentioned in the FIR. That the bills under investigation by him are mentioned in the FIR and he confined his investigation only to the same.
That as far as he remember the bills were for the period 1995 only and hence the initial investigation were for the period 1995. However, he had collected the files relating to the account available with the bank. That he does not recollect if the files also reflected the details relating to the period 1988 onwards. The bills were the major issue and he had started his investigation on the said bills. That the account of M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd., was the company's account.
That so far as he recollect, there were two Directors of the company i.e. M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd.
That in so far as he recollects, Sh. Pradeep Anand and one Mr. Sahni were the Directors but he does not remember the initials of Mr. Sahni.
That he cannot tell if there were four Directors namely Sh. Pradeep Anand, Sh. R. N. Sahni, Sh. Pankaj Sahni and Sh. Sandeep Anand. That apart from Sh. Pradeep Anand, he had also spoken to Mr. Sahni but not to the other Directors.
That he had recorded the statement of Mr. Sahni. He cannot tell whether the statement of Mr. Sahni has been filed or not.
That he had not prepared and filed the charge sheet.
That he cannot tell whether as per the charge sheet, the company M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. has been made an accused as the same is a matter of record.
That he does not recollect the status of the account of M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. when he started the investigation of this case. That he does not recollect whether the account of M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd., was principally and collaterally secured.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 368 of 569 That when he initiated the investigation he only confined himself to the issue of bills and hence cannot tell about the status of the various credit facilities granted to M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd.
That he is aware of the various banking procedures relating to the bill transactions. That the bills which were under investigation were mainly documentary bills and also under L.C., i.e. some of the bills were against documents whereas other bills were under L.C. for the purpose of discounting of the bills, the requirement of availability of documents along with the bills was discussed with the witnesses of the concerned bank and the statements of the witnesses of the banks were recorded in this regard.
That he cannot tell the exact procedure relating to the requirement of the documents along with the bills. In so far as he recollects, invoice, giving description of the material sent, details of the party, Lorry Receipt(LR) / Railway Receipt (RR) showing dispatch of material are required to be submitted to the bank. That he cannot off handedly show any bill to the court which was not accompanied with these documents.
That the investigation revealed that all the bills against the private parties at various places were against non existent firms, so much so that some of the bills had been taken back by the accused persons from the bank after they were discounted and were destroyed.
That the officers of the bank responsible for the safe custody of these bills are the officers who were responsible for handling them from time to time which include the branch manager, bills officer and the dispatch clerk and vice versa with the branch which receives the bills. That he does not remember whether Balbir Singh Godara was the Bills Manager and whether he was responsible for the safe custody CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 369 of 569 of the bills during the relevant period. That during the time he handled the investigation, he did not investigate with regard to the officer responsible for the safe custody of these bills and made no communication to the Head Office in this respect. The investigation had not been completed till then.
That the investigation remained with him for the period 15.05.1996 till October 1997. That he had completed the investigation of the bills from the place where they were sent for collection.
That his investigation had revealed that the bills had been taken by the accused from NFC Branch only after they were discounted and destroyed thereafter.
That he can say that the accused had destroyed the said bills on the basis of his investigation from BPLC register where the entries relating to the withdrawal of the bills have been mentioned.
That at page 33 and 34 of the Ex.PW38/A at the questioned portion, the accused Rajeev Anand had acknowledged the receipt of the bills drawn on J. S. Supertech Engineers, Ahmedabad after they were discounted by accused Suresh Pathrella.
That during investigation Rajeev Anand had disclosed that the bills were given to him as per directions of Suresh Pathrella and after taking them back to the factory premises, he had destroyed them as directed by Pradeep Anand. That Canara Bank, Ashram Road Branch, Ahmedabad also confirmed that these bills had not been received by them for collection of payment.
That he cannot tell in whose custody the bill register used to remain at the relevant time and whether it remained in the possession of Sh. Balbir Singh Godara or not.
That he also cannot confirm if the entries of the bill register Ex.PW38/A are not in the handwriting of S. K. Pathrella. However, he CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 370 of 569 had examined the person who had made these entries Ex.PW38/F. That he cannot tell if he had never confronted Balbir Singh Godara with the entries Ex.PW38/F in the register Ex.PW38/A and had only examined the person who had made the entries.
That he does not know whether at the relevant period there were two branches of Canara Bank on Ashram Road, Ahmedabad.
That there was only one designated Ashram Road Branch at the relevant time.
That he does not recollect the exact location of the Ashram Road branch where he had gone since it is an old matter of 1995.
That he did not collect the details of the natures of duties of each officer of NFC Branch from the Head office at Delhi.
That he only collected the details of the financial limits by examining a witness from the Head Office.
That he did not collect any duty chart from the Head office but he does not recollect if he had collected the same from the branch office or not. The same is a matter of record.
That the opening of the account can be initiated by anyone in the branch including a clerk but it has to be finally authorized by the branch manager.
That he does not recollect whether he had collected the details of the general powers of the Manager, Chief Manager, Sr. Manager of the bank of the NFC Branch.
That he does not remember how many Managers and Sr. Managers were there at the relevant time in the NFC Branch.
That he did not carry out the physical verification of the stock of M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. at any point of time.
That the Chief Manager had the financial powers to sanction the limit upto Rs.30 Lacs which financial limit of Rs.30 Lacs was confined to group company.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 371 of 569 That he did not obtain any written documentation in this regard and had examined the relevant witness from Head Office or Regional Office of the bank in this regard.
That the account of M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. was a group account alongwith M/s Moonlight Engineers and M/s Steel Samrat.
That he had not collected any document from the bank to show that it was a group account. That the witness from the bank had been examined in this regard who had deposed that it was group account.
That he is not aware if the bank had treated the same as individual account filed separate recovery suits for each account of these companies and proprietorship account. That he is not aware if the accused S. K. Pathrella has not been issued any charge sheet from the bank.
That S.K. Pathrella was a public servant at that time and since he had not filed the charge sheet, hence he cannot tell whether any sanction for prosecuting S. K. Pathrella was obtained by the CBI before filing the charge sheet or not.
That he did not apply to any authority to obtain the sanction to prosecute S. K. Pathrella. That the investigation were still going and were not been completed, hence there was no reason for him to make such application.
That during the time the investigation remained with him, he did not examine the auditor or concurrent auditor of the branch.
That he had personally seen them in the factory of M./s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. on the day of the search and even the employer had admitted their employment.
That final charge sheet had not been prepared by him where the decision to make the branch incumbent Suresh Pathrella as an accused was taken and hence this question is irrelevant qua him.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 372 of 569 That he does not recollect as to where accused S. K. Lakhina was posted when he started investigation in the present case.
That he know that he was in service in Oriental Bank of Commerce and was thus a public servant.
That he is not aware if accused S. K. Lakhina was issued a charge sheet by the bank in the present matter and the Commissioner for Departmental Inquiries of CVC had conducted any inquiry and exonerated him.
That he does not recollect having seized any circular file from the NFC Branch pertaining to instructions from Regional Office or Head office.
That he had seized large number of records from the branch through seizure memos and if any such file was seized, it would be reflected in the seizure memos.
That the investigation relating to the acts of accused S.K. Lakhina had not been investigated by him till the case remained with him.
That he had recorded statement of Sh. S. K. Lakhina once during which he had admitted that Suresh Pathrella used to come to his house alongwith Pradeep Anand whenever new limits were to be sanctioned. On his specific query, he had stated that he had never stopped Pradeep Anand from coming to his house. That accused Vikram Arora had joined the investigation before him in the present case during 1997 but he does not remember the exact dates.
That one cheque of Carda (India) Electric was purchased in the account of M/s Steel Samrat India of Pradeep Anand in Oriental Bank of Commerce, NFC, New Delhi and Carda (India) Electric was proprietary concern of Accused Vikram Arora.
That he is not aware about the purpose for which this cheque was given by accused Vikram Arora to Pradeep Anand but this cheque was sent for collection to Oriental Bank CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 373 of 569 of Commerce, NIT Faridabad and the same was returned unpaid due to insufficient funds in the account of M/s Carda (India) Electric. That accused Vikram Arora was not named in the FIR of the instant case.
89 Sh. R. K. Kalra PW89 Sh. R. K. Kalra, Chief Manager, OBC, Head (PW89) Office, Inspection and Control Department, New Delhi, has in his examinationinchief deposed as under:
1. That during the year 19911998, he was working as Chief Manager (Oriental Bank of Commerce), Head Office in Inspection & control Department, New Delhi and his duties were to conduct inspections, investigations, inquiries into complaints / allegations at the branch level and to submit report to General Manager (I&C), HO for initiating necessary action as per rules.
2. That during the month of September - October 1995, he was directed by the General Manager (I&C), HO to conduct investigation into various accounts maintained at Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony, New Delhi.
3. That thereafter he conducted investigation at New Friends Colony Branch of the bank and submitted his report dated 11.11.1995 to Sh. Atam Prakash, the then General Manager (I&C), HO.
4. That during the investigations whatever irregularities which he found, the same were recorded in his report.
5. That in the account of M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd.
and its associates concerns, he found that Sh. S.K. Pathrella, the then branch manager was allowing Credit Facilities such as bill purchase facilities, cheque purchase facilities etc. much more than the sanctioned limits/ delegated powers to him.
During his cross examination on behalf of the accused persons, the witness has deposed as under: That he is not aware if Sh. S.K. Pathrella was never charge sheeted on the basis of his investigation report.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 374 of 569 That he is also not aware if Sh. S.K. Lakhina was exonerated by CVC after he was charge sheeted on the basis of his report.
90 Sh. N. C. Sood PW90 Sh. N. C. Sood, Handwriting Expert, has in his (PW90) examinationinchief deposed as under:
1. That he is M.Sc. in Chemistry and LLB and he received training in handwriting identification, detection of forgery and other allied subject in the Government of India Laboratory, Shimla.
2. That he had examined large number of documents and have expressed opinion on them.
3. That he had appeared as an Expert witness in various courts of law throughout the country.
4. That he had been in this profession for the last about 41 years.
5. That the documents of this case were received in his laboratory from S.P. CBI/SPE/SIUX, New Delhi vide letter no. DPS, A2000/3413/3/2(E)/96SIUX dated 01.08.2000 which letter is now Ex.PW90/1.
6. That the documents consisted of questioned writings marked Q1 and Q2 on Ex.PW9/245, Q3 on Ex.PW9/246, Q4 on Ex.PW13/A, Q5 on Ex.PW9/247, Q6A, Q6B, Q7A and Q7B on Ex.PW87/4, Q8 on Ex.PW4/DX14, Q9 on Ex.PW41/J, Q10 to Q12 on Ex.PW9/248, Q13 and Q14 on Ex.PW9/249, Q15 on Ex.PW9/250, Q16 on Ex.PW9/251, Q17 to Q22 on Ex.PW9/252, Q23 to Q35 on Ex.PW9/253, Q36 to Q39 on Ex.PW9/254, Q40 to Q43 on Ex.PW9/255, Q44 to Q48 and Q44A on Ex.PW9/256, Q49 on Ex.PW9/257, Q50 on Ex.PW9/258, Q51 and Q51A on Ex.PW9/259, Q52 to Q58 on Ex.PW9/260, Q59 to Q63 on Ex.PW9/261, Q64 to Q66 on Ex.PW9/264, Q67 and Q68 on Ex.PW9/262, Q69 to Q71 on Ex.PW9/263, Q72 and Q73 on Ex.PW9/265, Q74 on Ex.PW9/266, Q75 on Ex.PW9/267, Q76 to Q82 on Ex.PW9/268, Q83 to Q85 on Ex.PW9/269, Q86, Q86A, Q86B and Q CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 375 of 569 86C on Ex.PW9/271, Q88 on Ex.PW9/272, Q89 to Q95 on Ex.PW9/273, Q96 to Q98 on Ex.PW9/274, Q99 and Q99Aon Ex.PW9/275, Q100 on Ex.PW9/276, Q101 on Ex.PW9/277, Q102 to Q104 on Ex.PW9/278, Q105 and Q105A on Ex.PW9/279, Q106 to Q112 on Ex.PW9/280, Q113 to Q117 on Ex.PW9/281, Q118 on Ex.PW9/282, Q119 on Ex.PW9/286, Q120 on Ex.PW9/287, Q121 on Ex.PW90/2, Q122 and Q122A on Ex.PW90/3, Q123 and Q124 on Ex.PW9/288, Q125 and Q126 on Ex.PW27/1, Q127 and Q128 on Ex.PW45/2, Q129 and Q130 on Ex.PW9/289, Q131 on Ex.PW9/290, Q132 and Q133 on Ex.PW27/2, Q134 and Q135 on Ex.PW45/3, Q136 and Q137 on Ex.PW9/291, Q138 and Q139 on Ex.PW27/3, Q140 and Q141 on Ex.PW9/292, Q142 and Q143 on Ex.PW27/4, Q144 and Q145 on Ex.PW45/4, Q146 and Q147 on Ex.PW9/293, Q138 and Q139 on Ex.PW27/3, Q148 and Q149 on Ex.PW27/5, Q150 and Q151 on Ex.PW45/5, Q152 and Q153 on Ex.PW9/294, Q154 and Q155 on Ex.PW27/6, Q156 and Q157 on Ex.PW45/6, Q158 and Q159 on Ex.PW41/K, Q160 and Q161 on Ex.PW27/7, Q162 and Q163 on Ex.PW45/7, Q164 and Q165 on Ex.PW9/295, Q166 and Q167 on Ex.PW27/8, Q168 and Q169 on Ex.PW45/8, Q170 and Q171 on Ex.PW9/296, Q172 and Q173 on Ex.PW27/9, Q174 and Q175 on Ex.PW45/8, Q176 and Q177 on Ex.PW41/L, Q178 and Q179 on Ex.PW27/10, Q180 and Q181 on Ex.PW45/9, Q182 and Q183 on Ex.PW9/298, Q184 and Q185 on Ex.PW27/12, Q186 and Q187 on Ex.PW45/11, Q188 and Q189 on Ex.PW9/297, Q190 and Q191 on Ex.PW27/11, Q192 and Q139 on Ex.PW45/10, Q194 and Q195 on CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 376 of 569 Ex.PW9/111, Q196 and Q197 on Ex.PW9/111A, Q198 and Q199 on Ex.PW9/112A, Q200 to Q202 and Q202A on Ex.PW9/112, Q203 and Q204 on Ex.PW9/113A, Q205 to Q208 on Ex.PW9/113, Q209 to Q211 on Ex.PW9/114, Q212 to Q214, Q214A and Q214B on Ex.PW9/115, Q215 and Q216 on Ex.PW9/115, Q216A, Q217 to Q219 on Ex.PW9/115D, Q220 to Q224 on Ex.PW9/117, Q225 to Q229 on Ex.PW9/118, Q230 to Q235 on Ex.PW9/119, Q236 to Q 239 on Ex.PW9/120, Q240 to Q242 on Ex.PW9/121, Q243 to Q245 on Ex.PW9/122, Q246 to Q248 on Ex.PW9/124, Q250 to Q 254 on Ex.PW9/125, Q255 and Q256 on Ex.PW9/125A, Q257 on Ex.PW9/126A, Q 258 to Q261 on Ex.PW9/126, Q262 to Q 263, Q263A and Q263B on Ex.PW9/128, Q 264 to Q266 and Q266A on Ex.PW9/129, Q 267 and Q268 on Ex.PW9/130A, Q269 on Ex.PW9/130, Q270 to Q272 and Q272A on Ex.PW9/131, Q273 to Q275 and Q274A, Q 274B on Ex.PW9/30, Q276 and Q276A to Q 276D on Ex.PW9/31, Q277 on Ex.PW9/32, Q278 to Q283 and Q291 on Ex.PW9/33, Q 284 to Q290 and Q288A on Ex.PW9/34, Q 292 to Q295 on Ex.PW9/35, Q296 on Ex.PW9/37, Q297 on Ex.PW9/36, Q298 to Q302 and Q299A on Ex.PW4/A, Q303 and Q304 on Ex.PW9/61, Q305 and Q306 on Ex.PW33/A, Q307 on Ex.PW9/39, Q308 and Q309 on Ex.PW17/11, Q310 to Q312 on Ex.PW33/8, Q313 on Ex.PW9/40, Q314 and Q315 on Ex.PW17/12, Q316 and Q317 on Ex.PW33/C, Q318, Q326 & Q327 on Ex.PW9/62, Q319 on Ex.PW9/41, Q320 & 321 on Ex.PW17/13, Q322 on Ex.PW17/13, Q323 & 324 on Ex.PW26/Q, Q325 on Ex. PW9/42, Q326 and 327 on Ex.PW9/62, Q 328 and 329 on Ex.PW33/E, Q330 on CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 377 of 569 Ex.PW9/43, Q331 and 332 on Ex.PW9/63, Q 333 & 334 on Ex.PW33/G, Q335 on Ex.PW9/44, Q336 & 337 on Ex.PW9/64, Q 338 on Ex.PW33/F, Q340 on Ex.PW9/45, Q 341 & 342 on Ex.PW17/14, Q343 & 344 on Ex.PW33/H, Q345 on Ex.PW9/46, Q346 & 347 on Ex.PW9/65, Q348 & 349 on Ex.PW33/1, Q350 on Ex.PW9/52, Q351 & 352 on Ex.PW9/66, Q353 & 354 on Ex.PW33/J, Q355 on Ex.PW9/47, Q356 & 357 on Ex.PW9/67, Q358 & 359 on Ex.PW33/K, Q360 on Ex.PW9/48, Q361 & 362 on Ex.PW9/68, Q363 & 364 on Ex.PW33/L, Q365 on Ex.PW9/49, Q366 & 367 on Ex.PW9/69, Q368 and 369 on Ex.PW33/14, Q370 on Ex.PW9/53, Q371 & 372 on Ex.PW9/71, Q373 and 374 on Ex.PW33/P, Q375 on Ex.PW9/54, Q376 and 377 on Ex.PW17/16, Q378 & 379 on Ex.PW33/Q, Q380 Ex.PW9/50, Q381 & 382 on Ex.PW17/15, Q383 & 384 on Ex.PW33/N, Q385 on Ex.PW9/55, Q386 and 387 on Ex.PW33/R, Q388 & 389 on Ex.PW9/72, Q 390 on Ex.PW9/56, Q391 & 392 on Ex.PW17/17, Q393 and 394 on Ex.PW33/S, Q395 on Ex.PW9/51, Q396 and 397 on Ex.PW9/70, Q398 & 399 on Ex.PW33/O, Q 400 on Ex.PW9/57, Q401 & 402 on Ex.PW33/T, Q403 and 404 on Ex.PW17/18, Q405 and 406 on Ex.PW9/58, Q406 and 407 on Ex.PW17/19, Q408 and 409 on Ex.PW33/U, Q410 on Ex.PW9/59, Q411 & 412 on Ex.PW9/73, Q413 on Ex.PW33/U, Q 414 & 415 on Ex.PW17/20, Q416 & 417 on Ex.PW33/W, Q418 on Ex.PW9/60, Q419 & 420 on Ex.PW17/21, Q421 & 422 on Ex.PW33/X, Q423, 424 and 425 on Ex.PW9/132, Q426 to 429 on Ex.PW9/133, Q430 on Ex.PW9/A33A, Q431 and 432 on Ex.PW9/134, Q433 & 434 on Ex.PW9/135A, Q435 and 436 on Ex.PW9/135, Q437 to 439 CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 378 of 569 and 439A on Ex.PW9/136, Q440 and 441 on Ex.PW9/137A, Q442 & 443 on Ex.PW9/137, Q444 to 447 on Ex.PW9/138, Q448 to 450 on Ex.PW9/139, Q451 to 453 on Ex.PW9/140, Q454 on Ex.PW9/140A, Q455 to 458 on Ex.PW9/141, Q459 on Ex.PW9/141A, Q460 & 460A on Ex.PW9/143, Q461 & 462 on Ex.PW9/144, Q463 to 466 on Ex.PW9/145, Q467 to 470 on Ex.PW9/146, Q471 on Ex.PW9/146A, Q 472 on Ex.PW9/147A, Q473 & 474 on Ex.PW9/147, Q477 to 480 on E.xPW9/148, Q481 & 482 on Ex.PW9/149, Q483 on Ex.PW9/142, Q484 to 487 on Ex.PW9/150, Q488 to 491 on Ex.PW9/151, Q492 & 493 on Ex.PW9/210A1, Q494 to 496 & 496A on Ex.PW9/152, Q497 & 498 on Ex.PW9/154A, Q499 & 500 on Ex.PW9/154, Q501 & 502 on Ex.PW9/153, Q503 to 506 on Ex.PW9/166, Q506A to 506D on Ex.PW9/167, Q507 on Ex.PW9/168, Q508 to 513 on Ex.PW4/I, Q514 to 522 on Ex.PW4/J, Q524 and 525 on Ex.PW9/169, Q526 and 527 on Ex.PW9/225B, Q528 & 528A on Ex.PW9/170, Q529, 530, 530A and 530B on Ex.PW9/171, Q531 and 532 on Ex.PW9/172, Q533, 533A & 534 on Ex.PW9/173, Q535 & 535A on ExpW9/174, Q536, 536A, 563B and 537 on Ex.PW9/175, Q538, 438A, 538 B, 538C and 539 on Ex.PW9/176, Q540 & 541 on Ex.PW9/177, Q542, 543 and 543A on Ex.PW9/178, Q544 & 545 on Ex.PW9/179, Q546 and 547 on Ex.PW9/180, Q548 & 549 on Ex.PW9/181, Q550 & 551 on Ex.PW9/182, Q552 & 553 on Ex.PW9/183, Q554 & 555 on Ex.PW9/184, Q556 to 558A and 556A on Ex.PW9/185, Q559, 559A, 559B, 559C and 560 on Ex.PW9/186, Q561 & 562 on Ex.PW9/187, Q563, 563A and 564 on Ex.PW9/188, Q565 and 566 on Ex.PW9/189, Q567, 568, 571 and CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 379 of 569 572 on Ex.PW9/190, Q569, 570 and 573 on Ex.PW9/191, Q574 to 576 on Ex.PW44/C, Q 577 to 577A and 577B on Ex.PW9/192, Q 577, 578, 578A and 579 on Ex.PW9/193, Q 581, 581A and 582 on Ex.PW9/194, Q580 on Ex.PW45/12, Q581B on Ex.PW9/195, Q 581C on Ex.PW9/196, Q581D on Ex.PW9/197, Q583, 583A and 584 on Ex.PW9/198, Q584A on Ex.PW45/B, Q585, 585A, 586 and 586A on Ex.PW9/199, Q587, 587A, 588, 588A and 588B on Ex.PW9/26, Q588C & 588D on Ex.PW41/A, Q588G to 588M on Ex.PW4/F, Q589 to 594 on Ex.PW4/H, Q595 to 597 on Ex.PW41/G, Q 598 & 599 on Ex.PW90/4, Q600 & 601 on Ex.PW82/1, Q602 & 603 on Ex.PW9/27, Q 604 to 606 on Ex.PW9/200, Q607 on Ex.PW9/201, Q608 & 609 on Ex.90/5, Q610 on Ex.PW9/29, Q611 & 612 on Ex.PW9/28, Q613 & 614 on Ex.PW9/202, Q615, 617, 618, 619 to 624, 635 and 635A on Ex.PW9/203, Q625, 627, 629, 630 and 638 on Ex.PW9/204, Q631 on Ex.PW9/204A, Q632 on Ex.PW9/205A, Q633 on Ex.PW9/203A, Q634, 636, 637 to 641 & 638A on Ex.PW9/205, Q656 on Ex.PW27/13, Q681 on Ex.PW27/14, Q644 to 647 on Ex.PW9/207, Q648 on Ex.PW34/A, Q649 on Ex.PW34/B, Q650 to 652 on Ex.PW9/232, Q 653 to 655 on Ex.PW34/C, Q657 to 659 on Ex.PW9/233, Q660 on Ex.PW34/E, Q661 on Ex.PW34/F, Q662 to 664 on Ex.PW9/234, Q 665 to 667 on Ex.PW34/G, Q669 to 671 on Ex.PW34/H, Q672 on Ex.PW34/I, Q672A on Ex.PW34/J, Q673 and 674 on Ex.PW9/237, Q675 to 677 on Ex.PW9/236, Q678 to 680 on Ex.PW34/K, Q682 and 683 on Ex.PW9/288, Q684 & 685 on Ex.PW9/241, Q686 and 687 on Ex.PW9/242, Q668 on Ex.PW27/15, Q688 & 689 on Ex.PW9/243, Q690 & 691 on Ex.PW9/244, CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 380 of 569 Q692 to 698 on Ex.PW9/22, Q699, 699A to 699C on Ex.PW9/22A, Q700 & 701 on Ex.PW24/A, Q702 to 710 on Ex.PW4/D, Q 711 on Ex.PW24/D, Q712 to 715 on Ex.PW9/23, Q716 on Ex.PW9/24, Q717 & 718 on Ex.PW9/25, Q719 to 724 on Ex.PW24/E, Q725 to 728 on Ex.PW9/21, Q 729 to 733 on Ex.PW24/B1, Q734 to 737 on Ex.PW24/B2, Q738 and 739 on Ex.PW24/C1, Q740 & 741 on Ex.PW24/C2, Q742 on Ex.PW24/C3, Q743 & 744 on Ex.PE24/C4, Q745 on Ex.PW90/6, Q746 and 747 on Ex.PW9/211, Q748 on Ex.PW90/7, Q749 to 751 on Ex.PW9/212, Q752 & 753 on Ex.PW9/213 AND Q754 on Ex.PW44/A (Pg. 90 of D555).
7. That the specimen handwriting of Sh. Pradeep Anand were marked as S1 to S135 on Ex.PW75/1 (Collectively), S410 to S500 on Ex.PW75/2 (colly.), S501 to S669, S599/1 & S657/1 on Ex.PW75/3 (colly)
8. That the specimen handwriting of Sh. Rajiv Anand were marked as S136 to S150 on Ex.PW75/4 (Collectively), S151 to 217 on Ex.PW88/2 (collectively), S218 to 235 on Ex.PW87/23, S1148 to S1175 on Ex.PW75/11 (colly), S1176 to 1246, S1248 to S1358, S1360 to S1364, S1202A, S1311 A & 1321 A on Ex.PW87/24 (Colly.).
9. That the specimen handwriting of Sh. T. S. Bhardwaj were marked as S236 to S291 on Ex.PW75/5 collectively, S351 to S409 on Ex.PW75/6 (colly.), S1048 to 1132 on Ex.PW75/10 colly., S1365 to 1370 on now Ex.PW90/13 (colly.).
10. That the specimen handwriting of Sh. Suman Prakash were marked as S292 to S350 on Ex.PW90/11 (colly.), S951 to S1047, 1047A and 1047B on Ex.PW75/9.
11. That the specimen handwriting of Sh. C. K. Singh were marked as S670 to S710 on CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 381 of 569 Ex.PW75/7.
12. That the specimen handwriting of Sh. Swaraj Chauhan was marked as S711 to S730 on Ex.PW88/4 (Colly.)
13. That the specimen handwriting of Sh. Nitin Saini were marked as S731 to S950, S747/1, 748/1, 753/1 to 756/1 on Ex.PW75/8.
14. That Specimen handwriting of Sh. Santosh Kumar Jain were marked as S1133 to S1138 and 1140 to 1147 on Ex. PW90/12 (Colly.).
15. That after careful examination he came to the conclusion no. CX264/2000 dated 30.08.2000 which is Ex.PW90/8 which is on three sheets and all three sheets bears his signatures at point A.
16. That is this opinion also bears the signatures of Sh. L. Nato Singh the then Asstt. Govt. Examiner of questioned documents who had also independently and separately examined the documents and came to the same conclusion and his signatures are present on the Ex.PW90/8 at point B which he identifies as he worked with him and he had seen him in the act of writing and signing.
17. That the documents were returned to the CBI vide letter no. CX 264/2000 /1912 dated 25.9.2000 which is Ex.PW90/9 bearing the signatures of Sh. Subhashis Dey the then Govt. Examiner (now expired) at point A.
18. That the reasons for his opinion is Ex.PW90/10 which are on 9 sheets and bear his signatures at point A and it may be read as part of his statement.
During his crossexamination on behalf of the accused persons, the witness has deposed as under: That he has not mentioned the type of instruments / tools used for examination in his report.
That he has mentioned that scientific aids available with the government examiners of questioned documents were used.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 382 of 569 That the specimen signatures were not taken in his presence nor the questioned documents and specimen signatures were sent along with any court order.
That it possible that either an initial or limited handwriting can be copied. They give opinion on initials or limited handwriting when they find that they are freely written and show individual characteristics otherwise they do not express opinion on the same.
That when they do not give any opinion, it means the data available was not sufficient to formulate an opinion.
Defence Witnesses:
91 Sh. Rajesh Dahiya D3W1 Sh. Rajesh Dahiya was the Manager, Oriental (D3W1) Bank of Commerce, Gurgaon Haryana who has in his examinationinchief deposed as under:
1. That he had joined the bank in the year 2016 as Manager and at present he is posted at Head Office Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gurgaon, Haryana.
2. That letter dated 19/22.01.2002 is of the then General Manager (Personnel) Disciplinary Authority and addressed to Sh. S. K. Lakhina, copy of said letter is on record as Ex.PW37/DX1 (Ex.D3W1/1).
During his crossexamination on behalf of the Prosecution / CBI, the witness has deposed that he has not seen the original copy of the letter Ex.D3W1/1 and he is not the executant of the said letter nor he is aware of the contents and correctness of the said letter.
92 Sh. S.S. Sisodia D3W2 Sh. S.S. Sisodia was the Chief Manager, (D3W2) Oriental Bank of Commerce who has in his examinationinchief deposed as under:
1. That he is retired as Chief Manager from Oriental Bank of Commerce and he remained posted in Inspection and Control Department from the year 1993 to 2000 and was looking after the Fraud Cell of the Department.
2. That he was Director on Board as an Officer Director from 2011 to 2013.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 383 of 569
3. That he was very closely associated with the investigations of branch office of New Friends Colony, Delhi during his posting at I&C Department.
4. That he was attached with Sh. O. P. Mahajan who was second in command in Inspection and Control Department of the bank as he was working in Fraud Cell, they used to discuss modus operandi of frauds and how to control them so that it should not be repeated in future.
5. That when information of some unauthorized business at NFC Branch of the bank came to I&C Department, the department deputed on Senior Manager, Sh. B. R. Kalra to inspect the branch.
6. That when Sh. B. R. Kalra submitted his report of findings of unauthorized business, Sh. O. P. Mahajan asked him to accompany him to NFC Branch to find out the factual lapses committed at the branch.
7. That thereafter, a team was formed to re examine the lapses or unauthorized act of branch official.
8. That on one day during normal course of working he was sitting with Sh. O. P. Mahajan, then Sh. Atam Prakash, Head of I & C Department gave one letter written by Sh. S. K. Lakhina, the then Regional Head, New Delhi, to Sh. Mahahan in his presence.
9. That as he was also working in Fraud Cell, Sh.
Mahajan showed him the letter which was regarding unauthorized working at NFC Branch of the bank and recommending removal of the branch incumbent Sh. S. K. Pathrella.
10. That he identifies the signature of Sh. S. K. Lakhina at point X of the letter dated 13.06.1995 which is Ex.D3W2/1.
11. That during the inspection it was observed that as if there was some loose control of the NFC branch of the bank and thereafter inspection of Regional Office was carried out to find out the working of the Regional office and there it was revealed that Regional Office was strictly working as per instructions issued by Head CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 384 of 569 Office from time to time and there was no lapse on part of the working of Regional Office and particularly the Credit Department of Regional Office where a team of Officials was formed to analyze the credit proposals received from the branches and to place their finding before Regional Head for sanction.
12. That when they visited NFC Branch of the bank, at first instance they asked to produce the circulars' file and they found that the circular file is properly kept.
13. That there was no procedure at that time for telephonic sanction and it was reiterated that there should be no sanction granted on the telephonic / verbal instructions.
14. That he identifies the circulars / circular letters Ex.PW87/DX1 (colly, running into 10 pages) whereby Regional Head Sh. S. K. Lakhina had issued instructions that "oral or telephonic instructions should be avoided and proper record maintained. Obtaining of telephonic / temporary sanction from the Regional Head should be invariably avoided"
During his crossexamination on behalf of the Prosecution / CBI, the witness has deposed as under: That he cannot tell the exact date of inspection of NFC Branch of the bank but the inspection was conducted in 1995.
That he has not seen the report submitted by Sh. B. R. Kalra.
That they had conducted the inspection regarding the tenure of Sh. S. K. Pathrella in the branch.
That he has not brought the letter Ex.D3W2/1 and the same has been produced before him in the court today itself by A3.
That they have not come across any letter from Regional Office, New Delhi confirming telephonic / verbal sanction of the branch.
During his crossexamination on behalf of the accused, the witness has deposed as under: CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 385 of 569 That during the period 19932000 he was posted as officer to Manager and Sr. Manager in the scale of I, II and III.
That he was in the rank of ScaleI in the year 1993 and remained as scale - I officer upto the year 1998 when he was promoted to ScaleII. That in the year 1995 there were three senior officers above him of the ScaleII to ScaleIV. That Sh. S. K. Pathrella was the Chief Manager in NFC Branch of the bank in ScaleIV and was senior to him in the year 1995.
That in the year 1995 he was not competent to have investigated a ScaleIV officer of his own as he was junior to him.
That in the present case, he was not alone and was along with Sh. O. P. Mahajan who was ScaleV officer at that time.
That he cannot produce any office order authorizing him to be associated with Sh. O. P. Mahajan for investigating Sh. S. K. Pathrella. That he had joined Sh. O. P. Mahajan on his oral instructions.
That he does not recollect the date when he had gone to NFC Branch of the bank.
That it was probably in the month of June 1995 or it could be June 1996.
That he has not submitted any separate report with regard to the investigation.
That he has also not signed any investigation report prepared by Sh. O. P. Mahajan.
That there were many other ScaleII, ScaleIII and ScaleIV officers in the Head Office other than himself.
That he has not signed any report relating to unauthorized business of NFC branch nor he has brought the same to the court. There is no such report.
That Sh. O.P. Mahajan was under the General Manager Sh. Atam Prakash and he thinks he was a scaleV or may be a ScaleVI officer. That he has not brought any letter to the court which was shown to him by Mr. O. P. Mahajan relating to unauthorized working of NFC branch and recommending removal of Sh. S. K. CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 386 of 569 Pathrella nor he can produce the same in the court.
That he was never deputed with regard to the working of the Regional office and he cannot say about it but he has seen the report pertaining to the working of the Regional office.
That he has not brought that report to the court.
That A3 S. K. Lakhina was charge sheeted with regard to functioning of four branches i.e. Saket, Mahipalpur, Vasant Vihar and New Friends Colony. Vol. He was exonerated. That S. K. Pathrella was not charge sheeted for NFC Branch.
That he was not charge sheeted because before that action was taken against him for unauthorized functioning of Rewari and Gurugram Main Branch but he is not sure about the action taken.
That most of the circulars issued by the Head Office were in his knowledge.
That circular letter Ex.PW87/DX1 had been issued by the accused S. K. Lakhina himself but it is wrong to say that he was not authorized to issue this circular as it was based upon the circular issued by the Head Office.
That as per CVC Manual Ex.PW2/DA in case if the ratification decision on telephonic instruction is not rejected within 15 days then it is deemed to be approved.
That this circular was only to control the exceptional practice relating to telephonic instructions.
That he has not checked the records of S. K. Lakhina's office at Regional office and therefore he cannot say anything about telephonic / temporary sanctions from the Regional Head.
93 Sh. Rajesh Dahiya D3W1 Sh. Rajesh Dahiya, Manager was the Oriental (D3W1) Bank of Commerce, Gurugram, Haryana who has in his examinationinchief deposed as under: CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 387 of 569
1. That he had joined the bank in the year 2016 as Manager and at present he is posted at Head Office, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gurugram, Haryana.
2. That the letter dated 19/22.01.2002 is of the then General Manager (Personnel), Disciplinary Authority and addressed to Sh. S. K. Lakhina, copy of which letter is on record as Ex.PW37/DX1 (Ex.D3W1/1).
3. That the other summoned record could not be traced as the matter is very old.
During his crossexamination on behalf of the Ld. P. P., CBI, ACB, the witness has deposed that he has not seen the original copy of the letter Ex.D3W1/1 and he is not the executant of the said letter nor he is aware of the contents and correctness of the said letter. 94 Rajiv Anand D4W1 Rajiv Anand is the accused no.4 who has in his (D4W1) examination in chief has deposed that vide document Ex.PW85/1 (D254) he had delivered the documents to the Courier Company in a sealed envelope and the Courier Company issued the receipt acknowledging the document delivered to it vide Ex.PW85/1. He has further deposed that the Courier Company never delivered the document back to him and the receipt has been deposited by him with the Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony, New Delhi.
In his crossexamination by the Ld. PP for CBI, the witness has denied the various suggestions put to him.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED:
(16) After completion of prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein all the incriminating material was put to them, which they have denied. (17) In so far as the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) is concerned, he has outrightly denied the charges against him and has stated that there is no irregularity or illegality committed by him at any point of CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 388 of 569 time. According to him, all the acts performed by him were in accordance with the existing rules and has pointed that during the relevant period i.e. 16.05.1994 to 25.10.1995, Sh. Balbir Singh Godara, Manager was the Incharge of Dispatch Section and Smt. Reeta Chhabra (PW3) was posted as Dispatch Clerk under the supervision of Sh. Balbir Singh Godara and bills mentioned in the various entries had been sent to the various branches for collection after observing mandatory formalities. He has further stated that CBI has falsely implicated him without taking any sanction from the competent authority of the bank and violated the legislative mandate as drafted in Subsection (1) of Section 197 Cr.P.C. as admittedly there is no such sanction to prosecute him. He has further stated that he had the powers to sanction loan upto Rs.30 lacs in each account which are not specifically designated as group accounts and which do not have common balance sheets and scrutinization of the bills were done by large number of officers including Chaudhary Balbir Singh Godara, two clerks and one Daftri whereas he alone has been malafidely booked. The accused has further pointed out all transactions in the STM 41 i.e. during the day pertaining to overdraft, bill purchase, cheques discounted or any kind of loan released to the party had been conveyed to the Controlling Authority. (18) In so far as the accused Pradeep Anand (A2) is concerned, he has also denied the allegations made against him. He has stated that he is the First Generation Entrepreneur and a Director in Company True Fab Pvt Ltd, Proprietor M/s Moonlight Engineers CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 389 of 569 and M/s Steel Samrat (India) based in Faridabad, Haryana. According to him, he was into the business of manufacturing High Pressure Pipe Fittings, Forgings, Boiler Parts with main customers as IOCL, NTPC, BHEL, NFL, Reliance, Binny, Esser etc. and all the items manufactured were preinspected by independent Third Party Inspection Agency like Lloyds, DNV, BV, RITES, EIL, PDIL, IBR etc. The accused Pradeep Anand has further stated that in order to avail the First Loan, M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. had provided following Securities:
1. Security of Machinery = 29.48 lacs
2. Equitable Mortgage Factory land(1989 value) 35.06 lacs
3. Equitable Mortgage of 2½ storey house at Karol Bagh 16.05lacs.
4. Security of AWHO Flat at Noida = 8.00 Lacs
5. Stock & Finish Goods = 12.00 Lacs
6. Personal Guarantee of all the Directors (19) The accused Pradeep Anand has further stated that his sales/ capital had increased during the year 1990 to 1993 and there was regular repayment of loan with a comfortable debt equity ratio at 0.28 : 1. He has also stated that in order to speedily recover the advances for purchase of raw material and other factory expenses, bills were purchased by Oriental Bank of Commerce and proceeds were transferred to company's CC (Cash Credit) account. According to the accused, all the securities furnished by M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 390 of 569 and its Directors are genuine and the bank had no grievance with regard to the same and the value of security was always more than four times when compared to loans and advances given in all accounts. He has admitted that he had opened a Proprietorship firm M/s. Moonlight Engineers in the year 1991 and also opened another Proprietorship firm Steel Samrat (India) on 27.01.1994 primarily to execute orders bagged by Steel Samrat (India) based in Bombay owned by Sh. Babulal Munot and also admitted having got one Earnest Money Bank Guarantee and sent to Sh. Babulal Munot for submitted a tender with IOCL. He has further stated that the bills raised by Steel Samrat (India) Faridabad and lying with Oriental Bank of Commerce New Friends Colony, are as under:
1. Bill no. 1053 dated 30/01/1995 (D113)
2. Bill no. 1058 dated 07/02/1995 (D111)
3. Bill no. 1065 dated 13/02/1995 (D119)
4. Bill no. 1061 dated 10/02/1995 (D109) (20) According to the accused Pradeep Anand, the payment taken by Sh Babulal Munot without supplying any material from Bombay, are as under:
1. Bill no. 1053 dated 02/02/1995 (D542)
2. Bill no. 1058 dated 07/02/1995 (D542)
3. Bill no. 1065 dated 10/02/1995 (D542)
4. Bill No. 1061 dated 13/02/1995 (D542) CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 391 of 569 (21) The accused Pradeep Anand has further stated that he had bagged order's in proprietorship concern M/s Moonlight Engineers & after getting Working Capital Facilities sanctioned for which Gurgaon property was mortgaged, Bills were discounted which had Lorry receipt along with Third Party Inspection Release Notes. He has further stated that the Oriental Bank of Commerce collected the amount but the same was not credited and till date no details of the same have been furnished by the bank. He has also stated that the Bank has also filed recovery cases in DRT against all five firms and its officers have stated on affidavit that all firms have been sanctioned loans and Working Capital Facilities (all 5 are individual cases).
According to the accused, M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. had been dispatching the goods through one of its transporter i.e. Ashok Transport of India since 1988 and the lorry receipts are all true and genuine documents.
(22) The accused S.K. Lakhina (A3) has denied all the allegations against him and has claimed that none of the witnesses have deposed against him except D.P. Dhingra (PW87) and J.S. Sachdeva (PW7) who have tried to mislead the Court by giving incomplete information. He has admitted the standing instructions issued to all the branches which is Ex.PW/87DX1 (Colly) 10 pages which has been duly admitted by Sh. D.P. Dhingra (PW87). According to the accused S.K. Lakhina, there had never been any allegations against him at any point of time and he had raised from a junior level by way of his hard work and honesty. In so far as the CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 392 of 569 allegations of verbal sanction of loan is concerned, he had denied having given any such oral sanction and has placed his reliance upon the various guidelines and conditions which are required to be complied with by the Branch Incumbent, requiring a written approval in case of any telephonic sanction in order to ensure safety and security and genuineness of the transactions. According to the accused, the control over the securities charged in favour of the Bank, daily transactions of withdrawal and genuineness of the advance, was always the responsibility of the Branch incumbent and his team and in fact the security documents always remain with the branch. According to the accused, if the loan under the above said sanction with such strong security stipulations goes bad, it is either because of faulty bills and documents or false / bogus transactions or misuse of funds which has to be ensured and controlled at the branch level. He has further stated that since the daytoday transactions are controlled at the branch level, for the safety and security of advance, it is the responsibility of the Branch incumbent and his team of officials posted under him. He has further stated that the IOs have failed to interact with the concerned Inquiry Authority (Mr. C.J. Mathew, Commissioner for Departmental Inquiries), General Managers at Head office at the relevant time namely Dr. Surinder Mohan and Mr. P.K. Sharma who were fully aware of the fact that the action in the matter of the affairs of New Friends Colony Branch of Oriental Bank of Commerce, was initiated at the instance of A3. According to the accused S.K. Lakhina (A3), it was he who took the initiative by writing a confidential D.O. letter to the GM Personnel at Head Office CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 393 of 569 requesting for immediate inspection, to remove S.K. Pathrella (A1) from the branch and to provide a substitute pursuant to which the long awaited investigations were initiated, powers of the branch incumbent were suspended, he was removed from the branch and finally dismissed from service after issuing of charge sheet for the similar charges of irregularities pertaining to his previous postings at Rewari and Gurgaon branches of Oriental Bank of Commerce i.e. for the acts committed almost 2 to 5 years before his transfer to Delhi Region (New Friends Colony branch). He has stated that this fact depicting the crucial delay in initiating action by the Head Office is to be borne in mind while viewing the delay involved in initiating action in the present case as well despite timely reporting by the Regional Head to the Head office. The accused S. K. Lakhina has further stated that the General Manager (Personnel) at head office Mr. Atul Gautam, who was posted subsequent to the above GMs, and was fully aware of the facts pertaining to the exoneration of A3 by the CVC into the same very allegations pertaining to the New Friends Colony branch and could have brought the true facts before the Court, was though listed as prosecution witness, summoned to appear and also did appear in the court to depose in person in the second week of December 2017 but was surprisingly given up on the pretext of being not relevant. (23) With regard to the allegations pertaining to transgression of powers of DGM to sanction loans, the accused S.K. Lakhina (A3) has stated that in his official capacity as Regional Head, he was vested with the loaning powers upto INR 1 crore with 10% increase for a single borrower or group borrower with single entity. Further, CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 394 of 569 for borrowers with separate constitution of Proprietors or partners, he had again additional powers of INR 1 crore for different entities. According to him, besides this, the Regional Head had unlimited powers for purchase of bills under the Letters of Credits of reputed banks for all the borrowers. However, in order to maintain absolute transparency and with the object of involving and grooming the juniors down the line, a team/committee of responsible officers of the rank of Senior Manager, Chief Manager, Assistant General Manager and the Dy. General Manager was formed which evaluated each and every case as received from various branches with Recommendations of the Branch Manager and thus the committee would grant sanctions after examining the viability of the loans/advances by way of proper sanction letters while stipulating conditions to ensure to safeguard Bank's interest keeping in view of the recommendations of the committee and also of the branch incumbent concerned. He has further stated that backing of the permission by way of proper written sanction order was a sinequa non for every such loan/advance and it is primarily the duty of the branch incumbent to invariably obtain a proper sanction letter from Regional Office in the similar format as is evident in document Ex.PW9/161 (D318). According to the accused, in the absence of the said written sanction, any oral permission is of no significance which fact is explicitly clear from the repeated instructions issued vide various Circular letters to all the branches of the Region which are Ex.PW/87DX1 (Colly) and hence, in the absence of any such sanction letter, the alleged telephonic CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 395 of 569 communications can in no way be taken as permission under the rules. He has further stated that this fact is further substantiated from the replies to all such letters, where the action has not been confirmed and the branch has rather been asked to provide relevant information with the obvious object of being considered by the Regional Office. He has also stated that he had never ever transgressed his powers for granting loans in his entire service career. He has further stated that it is primarily the duty of the branch incumbent to obtain a proper/formal sanction letter from Regional Office. According to the accused, no specific name, date and time of the impugned / purported telephonic permission has been stated or even mentioned by any witness at any stage during the trial and as such, the same being unspecific and unable to relate to/ show as to whether the same pertains to him (accused S.K. Lakhina A3) or any other official of the committee constituted for the purpose at Regional Office New Delhi. The accused has further stated that the actual amount sanctioned by the committee at Regional Office under its powers in the account of M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. is well below Rs.72 lacs and as such, the very basis of the present trial against him (A3), is based on highly misconstrued and vague ideas. He has also stated that since the Regional Head was vested with ample powers to grant loans including unlimited powers under BP under LC, there was no occasion or reason to exceed his powers. The accused has further stated that the final outstanding amount cannot in any manner be taken to include such major portion of the advances allowed by the branch incumbent either under his discretionary powers or without CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 396 of 569 any sanction of the Regional Office Committee. The accused S.K. Lakhina has also stated that the Regional Office had been asking for details with regard to the account of M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. (as pointed out by him in his statement) and on coming to know of the lapses, they had immediately issued the necessary communications and reminders to the New Friends Colony branch. (24) According to the accused S.K. Lakhina (A3) the Regional Office could obviously, never ever have allowed/ given this permission as there was already a stipulation of "One Time Sanction"
in the said account, as conveyed vide Regional Office letter D318 of 06.06.95 Ex.PW9/161 for the account of M/s. Suraksha Engineers and while the Regional Office officials were already startled with the above shocking action of branch and were vigorously following up about the fate of the earlier bogus bills discounted and thus, even all the subsequent events to allege telephonic permissions are not tenable and vehemently denied. He has stated that the Regional Office can't be saddled with the responsibility of the branch which was required to ensure the genuineness of the bills under L/C before releasing any funds.
(25) With regard to the charge of depositing cash in the account of his sons business account of export of garments are concerned, the accused S.K. Lakhina has stated that the charge is ambiguous, unspecific (without any specific details), vexatious and based on mere whims and fancies. According to him the prosecution has deliberately tried to mislead this Court and presented only a solitary witness to CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 397 of 569 mislead the Court as the fact of the matter is that, he was not aware of anything other than the act of depositing of the said sum in the NPA account of M/s. Future Positive. The accused has stated that the same is obviously intended to raise suspicion against him and in order to further conceal the true and material facts, the prosecution has also deliberately avoided to produce the crucial witness Mr. Atul Gautam (General Manager Personnel) and was capable of deposing the true and material facts pertaining to the said transactions being bonafide and under the tacit approval/ instructions of the Board of Directors of the Bank vide a duly passed board resolution, but the prosecution has tried to mislead the Hon'ble Court by deliberately dropping the said crucial witness to conceal material facts. According to the accused, he (A3) and his father stood guarantors in the account of a firm namely M/s Future Positive being managed by his son (who is an MBA in two fields) and his partner (s), involved in garment export business to the US in 19941995 and the said business did well in the first year and he exported goods worth US$ 185101.03 (around INR 1 crore), however, the goods rejected or surplus of export material has to be always sold in cash in the local market. He has further stated that the business was being conducted independently by them and he had nothing to do in the matter i.e. all the business transactions were done by them/firm and he was nowhere involved in any manner and all their transactions were of normal business nature. He has also stated that in the early 1996, because of the nonpayment of the bills by the foreign buyers, the account became NPA with the bank from where the said Firm had been duly sanctioned limit of INR 27.50 CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 398 of 569 lakhs by the Head Office of the Bank and there was a liability towards the bank to the tune of about INR 28 lakhs and being the guarantors in the said account, he (accused S. K. Lakhina) and his father intervened to repay the dues of the Bank by advising the firm to wind up the business, sell the stock in hand and the property to repay the entire liability of the bank. According to him, the Bank's Board of Directors at the Head Office approved the settlement proposal moved by the concerned branch on 26.12.95 even before the account could be declared NPA in the year 1996 and the bank approved the settlement proposal as per their letter dated 12.01.96 and as per the terms of settlement, INR 10 lakhs was to be deposited with the bank within one month i.e. January 1996. According to the accused after having obtained due approval from the highest authority (Board of Directors), the account was liquidated. According to him, in order to avoid failure of commitment with the bank, he personally ensured to collect the sale proceeds of the rejection lot of garments (sold out on different occasions) and personally visited branch office Greater Kailash to deposit the said amount through four TPO's for INR 50,000/ each on 25.01.96 and 27.01.96 totalling INR 2 lakhs were deposited back into the NPA account thus fulfilling the first phase of the approved settlement terms. He has further stated that in the second phase the balance payment was to be made in two years @ INR 25,000/ per month from his wife's income and the rest from his retirement dues such as provident fund, gratuity, leave encashment, pension, etc. as by that time, he had retired from the bank and all his retirement dues were adjusted towards the settlement of the NPA CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 399 of 569 account. He has also stated that finally a nodues certificate dated 15.03.2002 was taken from the bank as having settled the bank liability Ex.PW46/DX3 and after the dissolution of the said firm, his sons took up jobs and are in private employments ever since. He has further stated that the said four TPOs aggregating to INR 2.00 Lacs (obtained from the sale proceeds of the rejection lot of garments) and deposited to honour the approved settlement proposal (duly complied in his capacity as a responsible guarantor), have been misconstrued as the "illgotten money". According to the accused, he never ever backed out of his commitment as a guarantor and took all steps to safeguard Bank's interest even at his personal cost and consequences by obtaining due permission to repay the entire outstanding amount by selling off the property, paid regular instalments for two years from the salary of his wife and also sacrificed all his retirement dues including the gratuity earned for entire 40 years service, provident fund and pension commutation only to be accused as a cheat. (26) The accused S.K. Lakhina (A3) has placed his reliance upon the report of the Disciplinary Authority in the inquiry and leading to its conclusion which are Ex.PW37/DX1, Ex.PW37/DX1, Ex.PW37/DX2 and Ex.PW37/DX3. The accused has stated that after having put in a clean and unblamished, meritorious service record of 40 years, he retired at the age of 60 years but unfortunately for the last 20 years he has been facing this case traveling all the way from Gurgaon (where he live) by metro train every fortnight or month just for the reason that he was the Head of Regional Office and this CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 400 of 569 New Friends Colony branch was under him where S.K. Pathrella (A
1) was the branch incumbent. He has further stated that now at the age of 80 years, he is weak, can barely walk properly, eye sight has deteriorated to a great extent and major organs are giving up. The accused S.K. Lakhina (A3) has examined three witnesses in his defence.
(27) In so far as the accused Rajiv Anand (A4) is concerned, he has stated that it is incorrect that B.S. Saxena had worked with him in M/s. True Forge Pvt. Ltd. as he had left the said company prior to his joining as he joined True Forge Pvt. Ltd. in the year 1986 and Mr. B.S. Saxena was working with M/s. Montari Industries Ltd. During June, 1985 to July, 1995. According to him, he had filled the account opening form of M/s. Permanent Tools & Machines in his handwriting on the directions of Pradeep Anand as he was his employee. He has stated that he has been falsely implicated and there is no evidence against him and he has not committed any offence as charged. According to him he was the employee of Pradeep Anand and he did what he directed him and he has not done anything which is illegal. The accused Rajiv Anand (A4) has examined himself as his sole defence witness as D4W1.
(28) In so far as the accused Vikram Arora (A5) is concerned, he has in his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. According to him he had given only one check in pursuance to a business transaction and he is not even aware if Sh. Pradeep Anand has purchase the cheque from CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 401 of 569 the bank. He has stated that due to non receipts of goods, the cheque had bounced. He further stated that he had told Mr. Pradeep Anand not to put cheque without his knowledge and place the cheque for encashment only after sending the goods to him but he had not delivered the goods to him nor he returned the cheque to him even on asking several times. He has stated that Sh. Pradeep Anand did not deliver the goods nor the bills and due to this reason he did not deposit the cheque amount in his account and number of times he had requested him to return the cheque to him and he placed the cheque for encashment without his knowledge. He has further stated that he came to know about the purchase of cheque only during the investigation of the present case.
ARGUMENTS:
(29) I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor for the CBI and the Ld. Defence Counsels. I have also considered the written memorandum of arguments filed by the prosecution as well as the accused which are briefly culled out as under.
Arguments on behalf of the prosecution / CBI: (30) Sh. Praneet Sharma, Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor for the CBI has argued that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons. He has argued that during the period 28.06.1994 to 07.10.1995 the accused S.K. CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 402 of 569 Pathrella (A1) the then Chief Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Delhi; Pradeep Anand (A2) Director of M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd.
and Proprietor of M/s. Steel Samrat (India) and M/s. Moon Light Engineers, Faridabad; S.K. Lakhina (A3), the then DGM, Oriental Bank of Commerce; Rajiv Anand (A4) and Vikram Arora (A5) with Shanti Lan Jain (Discharged) entered into a criminal conspiracy with an object to cause wrongful gain to private parties and loss to the bank. He has argued that in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy, the public servant S.K. Pathrella (A1) discounted various bogus bills of Pradeep Anand (A2) and credited the proceeds thereof in respective accounts and allowed them to withdraw the amount from their respective accounts. He has further argued that a few of these discounted bills were either not sent to the drawee bank for collections or were destroyed as they were returned unpaid by the drawee bank and as a result of this criminal conspiracy, the Oriental Bank of Commerce had suffered financial loss of Rs.1,77,28,238.58p. (31) It is argued by the Ld. Sr. PP for CBI that the fact of loan being availed by the accused Pradeep Anand from the Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Delhi has been duly proved by the prosecution witnesses namely Smt. Akhila Sinha (PW8), R. Raja Mohan (PW9), Babu Lal Munot (PW17), Swaraj Chauhan (PW24), Sh. Suman Prakash Sharma (PW27) and Sh. Nitin Sahni (PW33). He has pointed out that the presentation of 26 bills by the accused Pradeep Anand (A2) discounted by the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) with the approval of accused S.K. Lakhina (A3) has been duly proved by the witnesses Yogender Kumar Gupta (PW4), R. Raja Mohan (PW9) and CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 403 of 569 Ashok Kumar Khanna (PW49). It is argued that the presentation of four bills by Pradeep Anand (A2) on 14.03.1995, 16.03.1995, 30.03.1995 and 03.05.1995 of M/s. Moon Light Pvt. Ltd. has been proved by Rita Chabra (PW3), R.C. Raheja (PW41) and Satish Dagar (PW88). He has also pointed out that the presentation of 12 bills no. 80/95 to 91/95 for discounting on behalf of M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. drawn on IOCL Jaipur has been proved by witnesses R. Raja Mohan (PW9), R.C. Raheja (PW41) and Poonam Kang (PW51). It is also submitted that the witness Binay Kumar Gupta (PW38) and Annoji Kinni (PW60) have proved the presentation of seven bills bearing No. 1/95 to 7/95 by accused Pradeep Anand whereas the witness R. Raja Mohan (PW9) has proved the presentation of nine bills bearing No. Se/1/95 to 9/95 by M/s. Suraksha Engineering and Steel Traders. He has further argued that the prosecution witness Swaraj Chauhan (PW24) has proved the discounting of seven bills in favour of non existing firm M/s. Pramod Kumar & Sons and the witness Babu Lal Munot (PW17) who was having business of pipes and pipe fittings in the name and style of M/s. Steel Samrat India at F4/6, MIDC, Boisar, Mumbai has proved the forgery of lorry receipts (LRs). Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor has further argued that the transporter Kishan Lal Kejriwal (PW26) has proved that the various consignment notes are forged documents which fact has been duly corroborated by Nitin Saini (PW33). He has also argued that the prosecution has been able to prove that the various bills of IOCL/ invoices/ Transporter's Receipts were forged. In so far as the firms M/s. Suraksha Engineers & Steel Traders and M/s. Permanent Tools & Machines at 16/3, Mile CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 404 of 569 Stone, Mathura Road, Faridabad is concerned, Ld. Sr. PP for CBI has pointed out that the witnesses Anil Kumar Gupta (PW19), Rohtash Chauhan (PW21), Asha Ram (PW22), Swaraj Chauhan (PW24), Radhey Shyam (PW30), Om Prakash Goel (PW31) and T.C. Bhardwaj (PW34) have proved that they said firms are nonexisting firms. He has further argued that the witnesses Sanjay Krishna Sinha (PW14), R.K. Singh (PW61) and Rakesh Kumar Sharma (PW86) have proved the denial of Indian Oil Corporation regarding placing of orders for purchase of material from M/s. Moonlight Engineers. Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI has argued that the various prosecution witnesses have proved the various allegations against the accused persons and the Scientific Evidence corroborates the version of the prosecution.
Arguments on behalf of the accused:
(32) In so far as the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) is concerned, Sh. R.K. Dhawan Advocate has vehemently argued that in the absence of previous sanction against the accused, the entire trial including taking of cognizance and framing of charges, is illegal. He has argued that neither there is any dereliction of duties on the part of the accused nor he failed to perform his official duties as Chief Manager of the Bank and hence the competent authority has neither given any sanction to prosecute nor has ever served any chargesheet or memo with regard to the operation of any of the accounts. It is submitted that being a public servant the accused S.K. Pathrella has acted within the mandate of Banking Regulations, practice and directions issued by the bank from time to time. Ld. Counsel has CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 405 of 569 further argued that none of the prosecution witness has stated that the bills were forged documents. It is pointed out that the bills which were purchased, were accompanied by invoice, bill of exchange, bank approved transport receipt, Siliguri, Darjling whose PTA Code No. 132 was printed and through whom each and every time delivery of transportation took place. He has further argued that none of the officials have ever reported about the bills being forged and false allegations were made that the returned bills were destroyed by the accused S.K. Pathrella. Ld. Counsel has also argued that the prosecution has not examined any witness pertaining to PTA Code 132 from the IBA nor any bank official has been examined to prove that circular bearing No. hi/L/ADV/8/9697/39 (D390) is bogus. He has further argued that even prior to the joining of accused no.1, bills were being discounted and the transport receipt used to be of approved Ashoka Transport, Silchar which finds a mention in Oriental Bank of Commerce Circular and was having a branch office at Faridabad. Ld. Counsel has further argued that the testimony of Sosama Thomas (PW48) does not inspire any confidence as she was having many accounts in three banks at different places. It is pointed out that the testimony of A.P. Singh (PW75) would reveal that he was aware of the Departmental Enquiry against Sosama Thomas (PW48) but he did not collect the details of the said enquiry including her reply given to the bank. He has also argued that the CBI has not examined G.C. Luthra about whom it has been alleged that the accused S.K. Pathrella had obtained Rs. 4 lacs by way of Pay order to pay his old debts to G.C. Luthra and the accused S.K. Pathrealla has CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 406 of 569 nothing to do with Shiv Industrial Engineers, Faridabad whose cheque has been cited which were business transactions between Accused No.2 Pradeep Anand and Shiv Industrial Engineers. He has also argued that no incriminating evidence has come on record to prove and establish any illegality / irregularity in purchase / discounting of the cheque of Rs.20 lacs and the drawer of the said cheque i.e. Shanti Lal Jain has already been discharged by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court. It is submitted that the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) has been falsely implicated in the present case. (33) Sh. U.K. Sharma Advocate for the accused Pradeep Anand (A2) has vehemently argued that the accused no.2 has been maintaining the accounts with the Oriental Bank of Commerce since 1984 onwards and has been availing the various facilities from the bank since 1988. He has further argued that none of the prosecution witnesses have stated that the bills produced by A2 were bogus and none of the company to whom the bills were sent for collection have reported that the bills are bogus. He has also argued that none of the bill has been returned unpaid but in fact the bills were called back by the Manager in the year November 1995 without any intimation to A
2. Ld. Counsel has pointed out that the bank has filed a suit against the accused no.2 on 23.06.1996 for recovery of money along with interest and in the affidavit of bank officials filed in the said suit it has nowhere mentioned that the bills purchased / discounted were bogus bills and the bills which were duly purchased, were entered in the bill purchase register, were sent for collection to the concerned parties CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 407 of 569 through their collecting bank. It is further argued that the bank had filed a Civil Suit in DRT, Delhi in the year 1996 wherein Sh. D.P. Dhingra (PW87) had filed an affidavit on 15.01.1998 (i.e. prior to the filing of present challan) and there was nothing incriminating in the said affidavit. He has also argued that the prosecution has done tainted investigations and deliberately withheld these documents as the same goes in favour of the accused. In so far as the allegations regarding presentation and discounting of 110 bills on behalf of five firms i.e. True Fab Pvt. Ltd.; Moon Light Engineers; Steel Samrat (India); M/s. Permanent Tools & Machines and M/s. Suraksha Engineers & Steel Traders are concerned, Ld. Counsel has pointed out that out of 100 bills, payment against 34 bills were received by the bank and out of 76 bills, 37 bills were sent for collection by the Oriental Bank of Commerce to SBI Jaipur. It is argued that the payment of these bills were delayed on account of some difficulty as per IOC and in this regard IOC had written a letter to the SBI Bank on 09.11.1995 vide document (D383). In so far as the allegation that the accused no.2 produced bogus lorry receipt of Ashoka Transport of India is concerned, it is argued by the Ld. Counsel that the witness Kishan Lal Kezriwal (PW26) has proved the list of transporters / operators (Ex.PW26/A) recommended by the IBA to Member Banks issued by the Oriental Bank of Commerce vide its circular No. HO/L/AD/V/8/96/9739 wherein the name of Ashoka Transport Co.
Burdwan Road, Siliguri appeared at Sl. No. 39 but the prosecution deliberately did not produce the landlord of the said premises and CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 408 of 569 rather produced another document showing Ashoka Transport of India from Kolkata. Ld. Counsel has further argued that merely by filling the amount in the cheque by the Branch manager or any other bank official on confirmation of cash with the bank, cannot be presumed that accused no.1 and accused no.2 hatched a conspiracy and no negative inference can be drawn by a person of ordinary prudence. It is further argued that there is no corelation between the two amounts i.e. Rs.1,77,28,238.58p and Rs.2,29,95,095/ and it is a cooked up story by CBI which has failed to bring on record a single complaint from the Bank or any of its officials pertaining of their losing the money due to fraud. It is also argued that the bank has not informed to the accused no.2 regarding return of the bills and the payment received by it after stoppage of the operation of the account of the firm of accused no.2. It is further argued that no evidence has come on record to show that the accused no.2 has made any false documents and cheated the bank nor there is any evidence that the accused no.2 got any wrongful gain for himself. (34) In so far as the accused S.K. Lakhina (A3) is concerned, Sh. T.R. Arora Advocate has argued that it is evident from the various prosecution documents including the sanction letters that out of Rs.70 lacs advanced to M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd., the Regional office sanctioned only 50 lacs with Rs.20 lacs were on account of unauthorized discounting of cheque by the Branch incumbent without obtaining any sanction for the same and it was the main cause of action for reporting the matter to Head Office / Inspection & Control CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 409 of 569 Department by the accused vide letter dated 13.06.1995 which is Ex.D3W2/1. He has further argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home any iota of truth in its allegations against the accused S.K. Lakhina who has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Ld. Counsel has pointed out that the present proceedings are to be looked into from the object of the Service rules applicable to officer employees of Oriental Bank of Commerce i.e. Oriental Bank of Commerce (Officer Employees) Discipline & Appeal Regulation 1982 coupled with mandatory instructions and byelaws governing vigilance angle cases in banks as issued through repeated circulars, guidelines, CVC Manual and as also laid down under the "Special Chapter on Vigilance Management in Banks". He has further argued that the prosecution has deliberately omitted to quantify any loss caused to the bank and has left the same to be guessed during the trial, while the fact is that there has been no loss caused to the bank since as against the total amount of around Rs.95.04 lacs advanced by the New Friends Colony Branch of Oriental Bank of Commerce, a sum of Rs.1.65 Crores is due and recoverable which has never been written off as loss and rather recovery proceedings are still subjudice before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and there is sufficient security charged in favour of the bank to recover the said amount. It is further argued by the Ld. Counsel for A3 that the prosecution has not obtained the mandatory sanction for prosecution and none of the Investigating Officers have examined the role of Regional Office. It is pointed out that an inquiry CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 410 of 569 was conducted by the CVC through its Commissioner for Departmental Inquiries into the same very case pertaining to this branch of New Friends Colony, New Delhi and the CVC absolved A 3 on merits, which letter of exoneration are Ex.PW37/DX1 to Ex.PW37/DX5. Ld. Counsel has further argued that the Regional Head cannot be held accountable for the dereliction of duties of his subordinates at various branches located at over 70 locations. He has also argued that none of the prosecution has testified against the accused S.K. Lakhina (A3). He has pointed out that the only sanction letter produced by the prosecution i.e. Regional Office letter dated 06.06.1995 is Ex.PW9/161 (D318) which stipulates that the said permission for discounting was for one time discounting of documentary bills limit for Rs.20 lacs and also stipulates to ensure backing of additional security of pledge of FDR and equitable mortgage of property worth Rs. 33 Lacs. Ld. Counsel has placed his reliance upon the testimony of D.P. Dhingra (PW87) who has admitted that overdrawings in the accounts was being done at the branch level i.e. the Branch Manager and the Regional Office through the accused S.K. Lakhina in all the correspondence has advised the branch to get the accounts regularized and it is this which rules out the remotest possibility of connivance between A3 and any other co accused or the main accused S.K. Pathrella (A1). In so far as the alleged verbal permissions are concerned, it is argued by the Ld. Counsel that it has come on record that the accused S.K. Lakhina (A
3) had discouraged and rather dispensed with the practice of verbal CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 411 of 569 sanctions and had issued repeated circulars to the branches from the Regional Office that verbal permissions would not be recognized. (35) Sh. U.K. Sharma Advocate for the accused Rajiv Anand (A4) has argued that the accused no.4 was the employee of accused no.2 and was in Sales Department. It is argued that the testimony of Prabir Sutradhar (PW44) shows that the bank used to send the documents through courier service also. It is further argued that there was no instructions written in the dispatch register regarding handing over the document to accused no.4 and this has been a usual practice of sending the documents through courier service not by the officials of the Bank but by the customers. Ld. Counsel has further argued that the prosecution could not produce any incriminating evidence against the accused no.4 and the prosecution has not been able to prove the charges against the accused no.4. (36) In so far as the accused Vikram Arora (A5) is concerned, he has argued that none of the prosecution witness has stated that the cheque issued in favour of M/s. Steel Samrat was in fact issued for the purposes of discounting only. He has also argued that there is no evidence to prove the fact that the firm of the accused no.5 was not a genuine firm or that the accused was not dealing with trading matters. He has further argued that the cheque in question was issued for certain business transaction which fact has not been rebutted by any of the witnesses including all three Investigating Officers. He has also argued that the allegations against him are on better footing in comparison of the accused Shanti Lal Jain (A6, since discharged) CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 412 of 569 and hence, he may be acquitted in the present case.
ALLEGATIONS AND EVIDENCE:
(37) Coming first to the various allegations made against the accused and the evidence adduced thereof.
ALLEGATIONS:
(38) The case of the prosecution is that during the year 1994 onwards all the accused i.e. S.K. Pathrella (A1) the then Chief Manager of Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony, Delhi;
Pradeep Anand (A2) Director of M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. and Proprietor of M/s. Steel Samrat (India) and M/s. Moonlight Engineers; S.K. Lakhina (A3) the then Deputy General Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce; Rajiv Anand (A4) an employee of Pradeep Anand and Vikram Arora (A5) entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat Oriental Bank of Commerce. Pursuant to the said criminal conspiracy the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) while posted as Chief Manager of Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony, Delhi purchased bogus bills presented by accused Pradeep Anand (A
2) the director of M/s. True Fab Pvt Ltd. and Proprietor of M/s. Steel Samrat (India) and M/s. Moonlight Engineers which were drawn on various parties at the said branch of the bank for discount knowingly by the accused that the same were bogus and not supported by genuine trade transactions, discounted the same and credited the proceeds thereof in the respective accounts and allowed them to CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 413 of 569 withdraw the amount from their respective accounts. A few of these discounted bills were either not sent to the drawee banks for collections or were destroyed as they were returned unpaid by the drawee bank and as a result of the aforesaid criminal conspiracy the Oriental Bank of Commerce suffered financial losses to the tune of Rs.1,77,28,238.58p.
(39) As per the allegations, the accused Pradeep Anand (A2) presented seven bills drawn on his firms, which were purchased by the branch as per orders of S.K. Pathrella (A1) and proceedings of the discounted bills were credited in the various firms of Pradeep Anand (A2). These bills were handed over by S.K. Pathrella (A1) to Rajiv Anand (A4) on 26.05.1995 for dispatch through courier service as per orders of accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) and the accused Rajiv Anand (A4) without dispatching the documents obtained a courier receipt from World Pak Air Courier Service (India) (P) Ltd. and Remex Express Courier Service and handed over the receipt to accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) as proof of dispatch. It has been alleged that the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) and S.K. Lakhina (A3) conspired with Pradeep Anand (A2) for discounting these bills even when there were no sanction limits available at all to the companies after 01.09.1994. Further, as per the allegations, S.K. Lakhina (A3) had remitted a total amount of Rs.13.35 lacs in cash in the current account of M/s. Future Positive belonging to his sons Sandeep Lakhina, Akash Lakhina and Amber Lakhina during the period 02.03.1994 to 16.08.1995.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 414 of 569 (40) The case of the prosecution is that the sanction limits in favour of M/s. True Fab (P) Ltd. were valid upto 01.09.1994 vide orders of Regional Office dated 02.09.1993 and vested with S.K. Lakhina (A3) who was working as Deputy General manager of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Regional Office but the same were not revalidated after 01.09.1994. However, during the period 28.06.1994 to 07.10.1995 the accused Pradeep Anand (A2) got as many as 110 bills discounted from New Friends Colony, Delhi. The accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) used to inform S.K. Lakhina (A3) on telephone as per banking procedure and also sent intimation in writing. However, the discounting of bills was never stopped and all these bills were presented by Pradeep Anand (A2) in the name of his bogus firms and were accompanied with bogus lorry receipts of Ashok Transport of India. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused Pradeep Anand (A2) in conspiracy with the coaccused presented a cheque bearing No. 171024 dated 23.09.1995 for Rs.3.10 lacs drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, NIIT Branch, Faridabad which cheque was issued by Carda Electricals, a Proprietorship concern of Vikram Arora who had issued the said cheque in favour of M/s. Steel Samrat though there was a credit balance of Rs.2,054/ only in the current account no. 6089 of the said firm in the said bank as on 23.09.1995 and even subsequently there was a credit balance of Rs.944/ as on 05.10.1995 when the cheque was returned unpaid, the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) without having the authority, discounted the said cheque and credited the proceeds to the Current Account No. 2458 of CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 415 of 569 M/s. Steel Samrat (I) which amount was utilized by Pradeep Anand (A2).
(41) Further, as per the allegations on 24.05.1995 the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) had obtained a DD for Rs.11,500/ from the accused Pradeep Anand (A2) for making payment to Ms. Sosama Thomas with whom he (S.K. Pathrella) had developed very personal and intimate relationship. This DD was obtained as a consideration for official favour shown to Pradeep Anand (A2) from time to time and the accused S.K. Pathrella (A2) had sent her drafts / cash to the extent of Rs.2.70 lacs by opening joint account at Corporation Bank, Trivendrum which amounts were the illgotten money obtained by S.K. Pathrella. It has been alleged that the accused S.K. Pathrella (A
1) also received Rs.6 lacs in cash from Pradeep Anand (A2) vide cheque no. 772754 dated 18.03.1995 which cheque was issued by Pradeep Anand (A2) from the account of M/s. Moonlight Engineers. Further, as per the allegations the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) also obtained Rs.4 lacs from accused Pradeep Anand (A2) in the form of a Pay Order no. 452/95 dated 03.05.1994 issued from the account of M/s. Moonlight Engineers to repay his old debts obtained from Sh. G.C. Luthra. It has also been alleged that the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) also obtained Rs.5.75 lacs from Pradeep Anand who had transferred the said amount from the account of M/s. Moonlight Engineers to the current account of M/s. Shiv Industrial Engineers vide cheque No. 772752 dated 15.03.1995 which amounts were paid by S.K. Pathrella as quidproquo by Pradeep Anand (A2) for discounting bogus bills submitted by him. As per the allegations, out CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 416 of 569 of 100 bills presented by Pradeep Anand (A2) and purchased by S.K. Pathrella (A1), only 34 bills were paid whereas 76 bills remained unpaid and hence the bank had suffered a loss of Rs.1,77,28,238.58p on account of non payment towards these bills. (42) It is also the case of the prosecution that as a result of such conspiracy, the Oriental Bank of Commerce suffered financial losses of Rs.80,87,304/ in respect of M/s. True Fab (Pvt.) Ltd.; Rs.53,45,137/ in respect of M/s. Moonlight Engineers; Rs.45,06,672/ in respect of M/s. Suraksha Engineers & Steel Traders; Rs.33,43,778/ in respect of M/s. Steel Samrat (I) and Rs.12,12,804/ in respect of M/s. Permanent Tools & Machines i.e. Totaling Rs.2,29,95,095/ as on 15.03.1996. It has been alleged that the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) being public servant while functioning as Chief Manager of Oriental Bank of Commerce, by corrupt or illegal means and by abusing his official position, sanctioned various credit facilities obtained by various factories and caused heavy loss to the bank whereas the accused S.K. Lakhina (A
3) being a public servant while functioning as Deputy General Manager by way of misrepresentation of facts, submitted bogus documents which caused wrongful loss to the bank. Further, the accused Pradeep Anand (A2), Rajiv Anand (A4) and Vikram Arora (A5) fraudulently and dishonestly and by adopting cheating methods and utilizing the documents as genuine in the aforesaid manner. In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as many as 90 witnesses.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 417 of 569 (43) I have gone through the testimonies of the various witnesses and the documents on record and at the very Outset, I may observe that in so far as the accused Sh. S. K. Pathrella (A1) is concerned, he was the then Chief Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony. The accused Pradeep Anand (A
2) was the Director of M/s True Fab (P) Ltd, and Prop. of M/s Steel Samrat (India) and M/s. Moonlight Engineers, Faridabad. Further, Pradeep Anand (A2) was also instrumental in opening two firms by the name of M/s. Permanent Tools and Machines operating from 16/3, Mathura Road, Faridabad with Sh. Swaraj Chauhan an employee of Pradeep Anand (A2) as its Proprietor and by the name of M/s. Suraksha Engineers and Steel Traders operating from Plot No.7, DLF Industrial Area, PhaseII, Faridabad with Sh. C. K Singh an employee of Pradeep Anand (A2) as its Proprietor. Sh. S.K. Lakhina (A3) was the Deputy General Manager, Regional Office of Oriental Bank of Commerce. The accused Rajiv Anand (A4) was an employee of Pradeep Anand working with M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. and Vikram Arora (A5) is the Proprietor of M/s. Carda Electricals India Pvt. Ltd. who had one time dealing with M/s. Steel Samrat India.
(44) Now coming to the gist of the allegations made by the prosecution, I may note that initially at the time of commencement of the investigations the allegations made were as under:
A) S.K. Pathrella (A1), Pradeep Anand (A2), Swaraj Chauhan (accused not sent up for trial and kept in column no.2 and CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 418 of 569 examined by the prosecution as their witness) and C.K. Singh (accused not sent up for trial and kept in column no.2 and examined by the prosecution as their witness) entered into criminal conspiracy to cheat the Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony Branch, New Delhi and in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy they cheated the bank to the tune of Rs.1,77,28,238.58p. B) That during the year 1994 onwards accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) while posted as Chief Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony, New Delhi was a party to the criminal conspiracy with accused Pradeep Anand (A
2), Director of M/s. True Fab (F) Ltd. & Prop. of M/s. Steel Samrat (India) and M/s. Moonlight Engineers, Shri Swaraj Chauhan, Prop. Of M/s. Permanent Tools & Machines, Shri C. K. Singh, Prop. Of M/s. Suraksha Engineers & Steel Traders and others and in pursuance of the said conspiracy S. K. Pathrella (A1) purchased bogus bills. C) That Pradeep Anand, Swaraj Chauhan and C. K. Singh presented bogus bills at New Friends Colony Branch of Oriental Bank of Commerce for discount and they presented bogus bills drawn by them on various parties. D) That S. K. Pathrella (A1) knowing that these bills are bogus and not supported by genuine trade transactions, discounted the same and credited the proceeds thereof in their respective accounts and allowed them to withdraw the CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 419 of 569 amounts from the respective accounts. E) That a few of these discounted bills were either not sent to the drawee banks for collection or were destroyed on their having been returned unpaid by the drawee bank as a result of which the Oriental Bank of Commerce suffered a financial loss of Rs.1,77,28,238.58P.
(45) However, after the investigations it was concluded that during the period 28.06.1994 to 07.10.95 S.K. Pathrella (A1), Pradeep Anand (A2), S.K. Lakhina (A3), Rajiv Anand (A4), Vikram Arora (A5) and Shanti Lal Jain (A6) entered into/ were parties to criminal conspiracy with an object to cause wrongful gain to private parties and loss to the bank and in pursuance of same public servant S. K. Pathrella (A1) discounted various bills of Pradeep Anand (A2) which were bogus resulting in heavy loss to bank and gain to private parties.
(46) I have considered the rival contentions and the voluminous evidence brought on record. In order to prove the allegations relating to the offences of Cheating (Section 420 IPC), Forgery (Section 468 & 471 IPC) and Conspiracy (Section 120B IPC) thereof and also with regard to the allegations of abuse of official position by corrupt or illegal means and by way of misrepresentation of facts and causing wrongful loss to the bank by public servants for which the provisions of Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 have been invoked, the prosecution has CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 420 of 569 examined as many as Ninety witnesses to substantiate their case against the accused whereas on the other hand, it is only the accused S.K. Lakhina (A3) who has examined three witnesses in his defence and the accused Rajiv Anand (A4) has examined himself as his own witness.
(47) In order to prove / disprove the various charges against the accused persons, heavy reliance is placed upon the details of the various banking transactions conducted, the bills discounted by the Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony Branch, Cash Credit Agreements, Agreements of Bill Purchase, Letters of Credit, Agreements of Guarantee, Service Rules applicable to the officer employees of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Mandatory Instructions and bylaws governing banks, various circulars, guidelines, CVC Manual (Special Chapter on Vigilance Management in Banks) and other service rules.
(48) The entire case is based upon the various transactions reflected in Annexure A to Annexure J of the chargesheet which are detailed as under:
ANNEXURE A S. Bill Amount Drawn by Drawn on Date of Date of Remarks No. No. (Rs.) (M/s) (M/s) Presentation Discount
1. 48/94 98,148.96 True Fab Binny 28.06.94 28.06.94 Bills not Pvt. Ltd. Ltd. available
2. 49/94 35,259.40 True Fab Binny 28.06.94 28.06.94 Bills not Pvt. Ltd. Ltd. available
3. 50/94 9,752.00 True Fab Binny 28.06.94 28.06.94 Bills not Pvt. Ltd. Ltd. available CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 421 of 569
4. 51/94 8,398.35 True Fab Binny 28.06.94 28.06.94 Bills not Pvt. Ltd. Ltd. available
5. 52/94 21,84,093.36 True Fab Binny 28.06.94 28.06.94 Bills not Pvt. Ltd. Ltd. available
6. 53/94 42,378.96 True Fab Binny 28.06.94 28.06.94 Bills not Pvt. Ltd. Ltd. available
7. 54/94 4,94,863 True Fab Binny 28.06.94 28.06.94 Bills not Pvt. Ltd. Ltd. available ANNEXURE B S. Bill Amount Drawn by Drawn on Date of Date of Remarks No. No. (Rs.) (M/s) (M/s) Presentation Discount
1. 55/94 38,778.00 True Fab IOCL 31.12.94 31.12.94 Bills not Pvt. Ltd. JAIPUR available
2. 56/94 94,000.00 True Fab IOCL 31.12.94 31.12.94 Bills not Pvt. Ltd. JAIPUR available
3. 57/94 1,39,120.00 True Fab IOCL 31.12.94 31.12.94 Bills not Pvt. Ltd. JAIPUR available
4. 58/94 2,76,642.00 True Fab IOCL 31.12.94 31.12.94 Bills not Pvt. Ltd. JAIPUR available
5. 59/94 52,170.00 True Fab IOCL 31.12.94 31.12.94 Bills not Pvt. Ltd. JAIPUR available
6. 60/94 53,580.00 True Fab IOCL 31.12.94 31.12.94 Bills not Pvt. Ltd. JAIPUR available
7. 61/94 1,56,510.00 True Fab IOCL 31.12.94 31.12.94 Bills not Pvt. Ltd. JAIPUR available
8. 62/94 34,780.00 True Fab IOCL 31.12.94 31.12.94 Bills not Pvt. Ltd. JAIPUR available
9. 63/94 94,000.00 True Fab IOCL 31.12.94 31.12.94 Bills not Pvt. Ltd. JAIPUR available
10. 64/94 1,97,400.00 True Fab IOCL 31.12.94 31.12.94 Bills not Pvt. Ltd. JAIPUR available
11. 65/94 94,000.00 True Fab IOCL 31.12.94 31.12.94 Bills not Pvt. Ltd. JAIPUR available
12. 66/94 1,07,160.00 True Fab IOCL 31.12.94 31.12.94 Bills not Pvt. Ltd. JAIPUR available
13. 67/94 94,000.00 True Fab IOCL 31.12.94 31.12.94 Bills not Pvt. Ltd. JAIPUR available CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 422 of 569
14. 68/94 75,200.00 True Fab IOCL 31.12.94 31.12.94 Bills not Pvt. Ltd. JAIPUR available
15. 69/94 1,50,400.00 True Fab IOCL 31.12.94 31.12.94 Bills not Pvt. Ltd. JAIPUR available
16. 70/94 1,97,400.00 True Fab IOCL 31.12.94 31.12.94 Bills not Pvt. Ltd. JAIPUR available
17. 71/94 96,820.00 True Fab IOCL 31.12.94 31.12.94 Bills not Pvt. Ltd. JAIPUR available
18. 72/94 2,56,620.00 True Fab IOCL 31.12.94 31.12.94 Bills not Pvt. Ltd. JAIPUR available
19. 73/94 53,580.00 True Fab IOCL 31.12.94 31.12.94 Bills not Pvt. Ltd. JAIPUR available
20. 74/94 1,39,120.00 True Fab IOCL 31.12.94 31.12.94 Bills not Pvt. Ltd. JAIPUR available
21. 75/94 94,000.00 True Fab IOCL 31.12.94 31.12.94 Bills not Pvt. Ltd. JAIPUR available
22. 76/94 48,410.00 True Fab IOCL 31.12.94 31.12.94 Bills not Pvt. Ltd. JAIPUR available
23. 77/94 94,000.00 True Fab IOCL 31.12.94 31.12.94 Bills not Pvt. Ltd. JAIPUR available
24. 78/94 94,000.00 True Fab IOCL 31.12.94 31.12.94 Bills not Pvt. Ltd. JAIPUR available
25. 79/94 1,12,800.00 True Fab IOCL 31.12.94 31.12.94 Bills not Pvt. Ltd. JAIPUR available ANNEXURE C S. Bill Amount Drawn by Drawn on Date of Date of Remarks No. No. (Rs.) (M/s) (M/s) Presentation Discount
1. 1/95 62,585.20 Steel Samrat IOCL 02.03.95 02.03.95 Bills (India) JAIPUR available
2. 2/95 33,952.80 Steel Samrat IOCL 02.03.95 02.03.95 Bills (India) JAIPUR available
3. 3/95 84,036.00 Steel Samrat IOCL 02.03.95 02.03.95 Bills (India) JAIPUR available
4. 4/95 1,09,115.20 Steel Samrat IOCL 02.03.95 02.03.95 Bills (India) JAIPUR available
5. 5/95 78,180.74 Steel Samrat IOCL 02.03.95 02.03.95 Bills (India) JAIPUR available CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 423 of 569
6. 6/95 24,604.50 Steel Samrat IOCL 02.03.95 02.03.95 Bills (India) JAIPUR available
7. 7/95 47,676.80 Steel Samrat IOCL 02.03.95 02.03.95 Bills (India) JAIPUR available
8. 8/95 84,529.80 Steel Samrat IOCL 02.03.95 02.03.95 Bills (India) JAIPUR available
9. 9/95 61,100.00 Steel Samrat IOCL 02.03.95 02.03.95 Bills (India) JAIPUR available
10. 10/95 4,479.10 Steel Samrat IOCL 02.03.95 02.03.95 Bills (India) JAIPUR available
11. 11/95 82,306.40 Steel Samrat IOCL 02.03.95 02.03.95 Bills (India) JAIPUR available
12. 12/95 20,829.46 Steel Samrat IOCL 02.03.95 02.03.95 Bills (India) JAIPUR available
13. 13/95 1,28,686.00 Steel Samrat IOCL 02.03.95 02.03.95 Bills (India) JAIPUR available
14. 14/95 20,816.30 Steel Samrat IOCL 02.03.95 02.03.95 Bills (India) JAIPUR available
15. 15/95 3,684.80 Steel Samrat IOCL 02.03.95 02.03.95 Bills (India) JAIPUR available
16. 16/95 94,084.60 Steel Samrat IOCL 02.03.95 02.03.95 Bills (India) JAIPUR available
17. 17/95 5,16,769.70 Steel Samrat IOCL 02.03.95 02.03.95 Bills (India) JAIPUR available
18. 18/95 1,41,000.00 Steel Samrat IOCL 02.03.95 02.03.95 Bills (India) JAIPUR available
19. 19/95 2,01,690.16 Steel Samrat IOCL 02.03.95 02.03.95 Bills (India) JAIPUR available
20. 20/95 5,198.20 Steel Samrat IOCL 02.03.95 02.03.95 Bills (India) JAIPUR available
21. 21/95 66,480.56 Steel Samrat IOCL 02.03.95 02.03.95 Bills (India) JAIPUR available
22. 22/95 1,29,550.80 Steel Samrat IOCL 02.03.95 02.03.95 Bills (India) JAIPUR available
23. 23/95 1,10,844.80 Steel Samrat IOCL 02.03.95 02.03.95 Bills (India) JAIPUR available
24. 24/95 84,036.00 Steel Samrat IOCL 02.03.95 02.03.95 Bills (India) JAIPUR available
25. 25/95 1,672.26 Steel Samrat IOCL 02.03.95 02.03.95 Bills (India) JAIPUR available CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 424 of 569
26. 26/95 7,172.20 Steel Samrat IOCL 02.03.95 02.03.95 Bills (India) JAIPUR available ANNEXURE D S. Bill Amount Drawn by Drawn on Date of Date of Remarks No. No. (Rs.) (M/s) (M/s) Presentation Discount
1. 82/95 1,63,560.00 True Fab IOCL 25.03.95 27.03.95 Bills Pvt. Ltd. JAIPUR available
2. 83/95 1,36,300.00 True Fab IOCL 25.03.95 27.03.95 Bills Pvt. Ltd. JAIPUR available
3. 84/95 1,49,930.00 True Fab IOCL 25.03.95 27.03.95 Bills Pvt. Ltd. JAIPUR available
4. 85/95 1,49,930.00 True Fab IOCL 25.03.95 27.03.95 Bills Pvt. Ltd. JAIPUR available
5. 86/95 1,63,560.00 True Fab IOCL 25.03.95 27.03.95 Bills Pvt. Ltd. JAIPUR available
6. 87/95 1,49,930.00 True Fab IOCL 25.03.95 27.03.95 Bills Pvt. Ltd. JAIPUR available
7. 88/95 1,63,560.00 True Fab IOCL 25.03.95 27.03.95 Bills Pvt. Ltd. JAIPUR available
8. 89/95 1,63,560.00 True Fab IOCL 25.03.95 27.03.95 Bills Pvt. Ltd. JAIPUR available
9. 90/95 1,77,190.00 True Fab IOCL 25.03.95 27.03.95 Bills Pvt. Ltd. JAIPUR available
10. 91/95 1,77,190.00 True Fab IOCL 25.03.95 27.03.95 Bills Pvt. Ltd. JAIPUR available
11. 92/95 1,63,560.00 True Fab IOCL 25.03.95 27.03.95 Bills Pvt. Ltd. JAIPUR available
12. 93/95 1,77,190.00 True Fab IOCL 25.03.95 27.03.95 Bills Pvt. Ltd. JAIPUR available ANNEXURE E S. Bill Amount Drawn by Drawn on Date of Date of Remarks No. No. (Rs.) (M/s) (M/s) Presentation Discount
1. Misc. 5,76,459.52 Moon New 14.03.95 14.03.95 Bills Not 59/95 Light World available Engineers Traders, Bombay CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 425 of 569
2. Misc. 7,91,960.00 Moon New 16.03.95 16.03.95 Bills Not 60/95 Light World available Engineers Traders, Bombay
3. Misc. 8,18,688.00 Moon New 30.03.95 30.03.95 Bills Not 64/95 Light World available Engineers Traders, Bombay
4. Misc. 4,54,272.00 Moon New 03.05.95 03.05.95 Bills Not 5/95 Light World available Engineers Traders, Bombay
5. ML/ 3,99,921.60 Moon Alliance & 26.05.95 26.05.95 Bills Not 1/95 Light Engineers available Engineers Fabricators Bombay
6. 2/95 4,31,215.20 Moon Alliance & 26.05.95 26.05.95 Bills Not Light Engineers available Engineers Fabricators Bombay
7. 3/95 4,09,468.80 Moon Alliance & 26.05.95 26.05.95 Bills Not Light Engineers available Engineers Fabricators Bombay
8. 4/95 4,47,657.60 Moon Alliance & 26.05.95 26.05.95 Bills Not Light Engineers available Engineers Fabricators Bombay
9. 5/95 4,12,651.40 Moon Alliance & 26.05.95 26.05.95 Bills Not Light Engineers available Engineers Fabricators Bombay
10. 6/95 4,56,674.40 Moon Alliance & 26.05.95 26.05.95 Bills Not Light Engineers available Engineers Fabricators Bombay
11. 7/95 4,39,171.20 Moon Alliance & 26.05.95 26.05.95 Bills Not Light Engineers available Engineers Fabricators Bombay
12. Misc. 3,00,090.00 Moon IOCL 07.10.95 07.10.95 Bills Not 75/95 Light Midnapore available Engineers CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 426 of 569
13. 76/95 2,99,364.00 Moon IOCL 07.10.95 07.10.95 Bills Not Light Midnapore available Engineers
14. 77/95 2,97,440.00 Moon IOCL 07.10.95 07.10.95 Bills Not Light Midnapore available Engineers ANNEXURE F S. Bill Amount Drawn by Drawn on Date of Date of Remarks No. No. (Rs.) (M/s) (M/s) Presentation Discount
1. 1/95 8,69,544.00 True Fab New 28.04.95 28.04.95 Bills Not Pvt. Ltd. World available Traders, Bombay
2. 2/95 2,78,200.00 True Fab IOCL, 04.07.95 04.07.95 Bills Not Pvt. Ltd. Jamnagar available
3. 3/95 2,45,128.00 True Fab IOCL, 04.07.95 04.07.95 Bills Not Pvt. Ltd. Jamnagar available
4. 4/95 6,51,128.16 True Fab IOCL 29.08.95 29.08.95 Bills Not Pvt. Ltd. Jaipur available
5. 5/95 1,78,064.00 True Fab IOCL 29.08.95 29.08.95 Bills Not Pvt. Ltd. Jaipur available ANNEXURE G S. Bill Amount Drawn by Drawn on Date of Date of Remarks No. No. (Rs.) (M/s) (M/s) Presentation Discount
1. Misc. 3,26,832.48 Suraksha New 08.06.95 08.06.95 Bills Not 18/95 Eng. & World available Steel Traders, Traders Bombay
2. 19/95 3,39,402.96 Suraksha New 08.06.95 08.06.95 Bills Not Eng. & World available Steel Traders, Traders Bombay
3. 20/95 3,58,258.68 Suraksha New 08.06.95 08.06.95 Bills Not Eng. & World available Steel Traders, Traders Bombay CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 427 of 569
4. 21/95 3,68,734.08 Suraksha New 08.06.95 08.06.95 Bills Not Eng. & World available Steel Traders, Traders Bombay
5. 22/95 3,62,867.85 Suraksha New 08.06.95 08.06.95 Bills Not Eng. & World available Steel Traders, Traders Bombay
6. 23/95 3,56,163.60 Suraksha New 08.06.95 08.06.95 Bills Not Eng. & World available Steel Traders, Traders Bombay
7. SE 3,75,637.50 Suraksha J. S. Super 11.09.95 11.09.95 Bills Not 1/95 Eng. & Tech Eng. available Steel Traders
8. 2/95 3,75,637.50 Suraksha J. S. Super 11.09.95 11.09.95 Bills Not Eng. & Tech Eng. available Steel Traders
9. 3/95 3,75,637.50 Suraksha J. S. Super 11.09.95 11.09.95 Bills Not Eng. & Tech Eng. available Steel Traders
10. 4/95 3,15,637.00 Suraksha J. S. Super 11.09.95 11.09.95 Bills Not Eng. & Tech Eng. available Steel Traders
11. 5/95 3,75,637.50 Suraksha J. S. Super 11.09.95 11.09.95 Bills Not Eng. & Tech Eng. available Steel Traders
12. 6/95 3,75,637.50 Suraksha J. S. Super 11.09.95 11.09.95 Bills Not Eng. & Tech Eng. available Steel Traders
13. 7/95 3,75,637.50 Suraksha J. S. Super 11.09.95 11.09.95 Bills Not Eng. & Tech Eng. available Steel Traders
14. 8/95 3,75,637.50 Suraksha J. S. Super 11.09.95 11.09.95 Bills Not Eng. & Tech Eng. available Steel Traders CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 428 of 569
15. 9/95 3,33,900.00 Suraksha J. S. Super 11.09.95 11.09.95 Bills Not Eng. & Tech Eng. available Steel Traders ANNEXURE H S. Bill Amount Drawn by Drawn on Date of Date of Remarks No. No. (Rs.) (M/s) (M/s) Presentation Discount
1. S/27/95 2,91,200.00 Steel Bharat 14.07.95 14.07.95 Bills Not Samrat Pumps & available (India ) Compressors Ltd.
2. S/28/95 3,12,000.00 Steel Bharat 14.07.95 14.07.95 Bills Not Samrat Pumps & available (India ) Compressors Ltd.
ANNEXURE I S. Bill No. Amount Drawn by Drawn on Date of Date of Remarks No. (Rs.) (M/s) (M/s) Presentation Discount
1. M/33/95 4,45,536.00 Permanent Orient Heavy 01.08.95 01.08.95 Bills Not Tools and Engg. available Machines Corporation, Ahmedabad
2. M/34/95 4,39,348.00 Permanent Orient Heavy 01.08.95 01.08.95 Bills Not Tools and Engg. available Machines Corporation, Ahmedabad
3. M/35/95 4,33,160.00 Permanent Orient Heavy 01.08.95 01.08.95 Bills Not Tools and Engg. available Machines Corporation, Ahmedabad
4. M/36/95 4,20,784.00 Permanent Orient Heavy 01.08.95 01.08.95 Bills Not Tools and Engg. available Machines Corporation, Ahmedabad CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 429 of 569 ANNEXURE J S. Cheque Amount Name of Bank on Date of Date of Issued by Remarks No. No. (Rs.) Payee which Cheque Discount Drawn
1. 760725 20,00,000 True Fab Punjab & 16.4.95 17.4.95 Shantilal Cheque Pvt. Ltd. Sind Bank Santosh available Silchar Kumar HUF
2. 171024 3,10,000 SS (I) Oriental 23.9.95 Carda Cheque Bank of India available Commerce, Electrical NIT Branch, Faridabad EVIDENCE RELATING TO VARIOUS TRANSACTIONS:
(49) Now I proceed to discuss the evidence which has come on record, relating to the above transactions of loan availed, submission of discounting of bills by the accused Pradeep Anand (A2) in his capacity as Director of M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. (Cash Credit Account No. 1670 at Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony Branch) and also as Proprietor of M/s. Moonlight Engineers and M/s.
Steel Samrat India having common account no. 2458 at Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony branch and the discounting / purchasing of bills submitted by him and its approval by the bank.
(A) Loan availed by the accused Pradeep Anand (A2) from Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony branch - Proved:
(50) Coming first to the evidence which has come on record relating to the loan availed by the accused Pradeep Anand (A2) from CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 430 of 569 Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony branch. The witnesses Sh. Babu Lal Munot (PW17), Suman Prakash Sharma, Advocate (PW27) and Nitin Sahni (PW33) have proved that accused Pradeep Anand was the Director of M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd., a proprietorship concern dealing in plastic pipes. Further, the True Fab Pvt. Ltd. was maintaining a current account bearing no.1670 at New Friends Colony Branch of Oriental Bank of Commerce at New Delhi since 1988. Further, Smt. Akhila Sinha (PW8) has proved the limits sanctioned to M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. vide sanction letter dated 14.09.1990 Ex.PW8/A (D3 page 258), proposal/recommendation of the branch Ex.PW8/B (D3 page 255) and communication of the sanction to the branch vide Ex.PW8/C (D4 page 110). The limits which were sanctioned on 14.09.1990 were CC limits (C ) Rs. 20 Lacs, BP Rs. 15 Lacs, BG Rs. 6 Lacs, LC Rs. 15 Lacs. These limits were till 01.09.1994. Also, the witness R. Raja Mohan (PW9) has proved that accused Pradeep Anand was also proprietor of M/s Moonlight Engineers and M/s Steel Samrat India and maintaining current account no. 2458 in the name of these firms in the Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony Branch in addition to the Cash Credit Account No. 1670 of M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. in the same branch. He has proved the account opening form Ex.PW9/166 (D
97) in respect of M/s Moonlight Engineers Pvt. Ltd. and Ex.PW9/30 (D190) in respect of M/s Steel Samrat India Ltd. Further, he has also proved that C. K. Singh was the proprietor of the firm M/s Suraksha Engineers and Steel Traders and it was introduced by accused CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 431 of 569 Pradeep Anand (A2) vide account opening form Ex.PW9/26 (D
278). I may also observe that Swaraj Chauhan (PW28) who was initially shown as an accused in column no.2, has been examined as a witness and has proved that accused Pradeep Anand has opened a firm in his name in the name and style of M/s Permanent Tools and Machines having current account no. 2815 which was introduced by accused Pradeep Anand vide account opening form Ex.PW9/122 (D348) (None of the accused including the accused Pradeep Anand have disputed the above aspects).
(51) I hereby hold that the prosecution has proved that the accused Pradeep Anand (A2) Director of M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. With Cash Credit Account No. 1670, was also have two Proprietorship firms namely M/s. Moonlight Engineers and M/s. Steel Samrat India both having Current Account No. 2458.
(B) Submission of Twenty Six (26) number of bills by the accused Pradeep Anand (A2) and their discounting by the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) and alleged grant of approval by the accused S.K. Lakhina (A3) Proved:
(52) With regard to the submission of Twenty Six (26) number of bills by the accused Pradeep Anand (A2) and their discounting by the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) and alleged grant of approval by the accused S.K. Lakhina (A3), the witness Ashok Kumar Khanna (PW49), Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 432 of 569 has proved that the bill bearing no.1/1995 to 26/1995 (26 bills Ex.PW49/6 to Ex.PW49/25 available bills on record) were presented by accused Pradeep Anand on 02.03.1995 drawn by M/s.
Steel Samrat India Ltd. and drawn on Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Jaipur (IOCL, Jaipur) which was discounted by accused S.K. Pathrella on 02.03.1995 vide vouchers Ex.PW49/6 for all bills totalling a sum of Rs.22,05,083.32. Further, the witness Mahadev Prasad (PW52) has proved that on receipt of these bills, the entries were made in authority register Ex.PW38/B (D550) at page no.49 dated 02.03.1995 and put up to S.K. Pathrella for orders against this entry on which the accused S.K. Pathrella ordered the purchase of the said bills and after order of purchasing of these bills the entries were made in bill purchase register at page no. 120 at Ex.PW51/5 (D547) and after discounting of bills, the proceeds of amount of Rs.14.5 Lacs and Rs.5.5 Lacs vide vouchers Ex.PW9/134A (D136) and vide voucher of Rs.5.5 Lacs Ex.PW9/135A(D138) and amount was credited in the CC account of M/s. True Fab India Ltd. on 02.03.1995 vide cheque Ex.PW9/134 (D137) and Ex.PW9/135 (D139) and 03.03.1995 respectively. The said bills returned by SBI, Jaipur on 19.03.1996 vide memo (D101). The witness R. Rajamohan (PW9) has proved the letter dated 21.02.1995 Ex.PW9/13 (D4 page no.180) written by the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) to the accused S.K. Lakhina (A3) DGM, Regional Office duly received by him on 23.02.1995 and marked by accused S. K. Lakhina vide his noting at point C of this letter vide which the branch had recommended for CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 433 of 569 fresh guarantee of Rs.2.5 Lacs and bill purchase limit of Rs.19 Lacs drawn on Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. in the account of M/s Steel Samrat, which was a newly opened firm. He has also proved that the branch had also recommended for issuance of bank guarantee of Rs.10 Lacs alongwith recommendation for enhancement of Credit facilities and that the letter dated 27.01.1995 Ex.PW9/12 was written to the Regional Manager, New Delhi and Chief Manager, Community Centre, New Friends Colony Branch, New Delhi for consideration of the request of the party and had pointed out that the irregularity was shown in the above letter to the extent that the C.C. Limit was Rs.20 lacs whereas the outstanding was Rs. 28.89 lacs, showing that the C.C. account was irregular for a sum of Rs. 8.89 lacs and similarly, DD was for Rs. 20 Lacs whereas the outstanding was Rs. 45.42 lacs, which shows that the outstanding has exceeded by 25.42 lacs and further that with regard to guarantee Limit of Rs. 6 Lacs the outstanding was Rs. 14.33 lacs, which shows the excess guarantee of Rs. 8.33 lacs issued in the account and L.C. (Letter of Credit) Limit is within the limit and Term Loan was outstanding of Rs. 0.73 lacs. Similarly, Yogender Kumar Gupta (PW4) an officer posted at the New Friends Colony Branch of Oriental Bank of Commerce from October 1994 to mid November 1995, has proved that the accused S. K. Pathrella was initially working as Branch Manager and he (Yogender Kumar Gupta) was assigned loan department, document section under Sh. D. P. Dhingra and that he had worked under accused S.K. Pathrella and had seen accused S. K. Pathrella signing CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 434 of 569 and hence, he has proved the form LD26 Ex.PW4/A i.e. the counter guarantee form qua the agreement between Steel Samrat and the bank had been signed by accused S. K. Pathrella and signatures of the other party and he had identified signatures of Sh. D. P. Dhingra at point A to A on document Ex.PW4/B. Here, I may observe that neither the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) nor Pradeep Anand (A2) nor the accused S.K. Lakhina (A3) have disputed the documents as aforesaid.
(53) I hereby hold that the prosecution has proved the aspect of submission of twenty six bills by Pradeep Anand (A2) and their discounting by S.K. Pathrella (A1) but has not been able to prove that the said discounting was with prior approval of the accused S.K. Lakhina (A3).
(C) Transaction relating to four bills of M/s. Moonlight Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Presented by Pradeep Anand on 14.03.1995, 16.03.1995, 30.03.1995 and 03.05.1995 - Proved:
(54) In so far as the four bills of M/s. Moonlight Engineers Pvt.
Ltd. presented by Pradeep Anand on 14.03.1995, 16.03.1995, 30.03.1995 and 03.05.1995, the said transaction has been proved by R.C. Raheja (PW41) who has proved that the bill bearing no. 59/95 dated 14.03.1995 for a sum of Rs.5,76,459.52 and the bill bearing no. 60/95 dated 16.03.1995 for a sum of Rs.7,91,960.00, the bills bearing no. 64/95 dated 30.03.1995 for a sum of Rs.8,18,688/ and bill CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 435 of 569 bearing no. 5/95 dated 03.05.1995 for a sum of Rs.4,54,272/ all bills drawn by M/s. Moonlight Engineers Pvt. Ltd. and drawn on New World Traders Bombay which was a fictitious firm an aspect which has been proved by Satish Dagar (PW88). The case of the prosecution is that all bills are not available on record since they have either been destroyed or not received back. Smt. Poonam Kang (PW51) has proved that these four bills as noted above were submitted by the accused Pradeep Anand and was ordered to be purchased by accused S.K. Pathrella vide entry dated 03.05.1995 Ex.PW51/2 (D550) reflecting at page no. 61 of Ex.PW38/D and after order of purchase the bill was purchased vide entry Ex.PW38/D (D549 page no.66 on respective dates) in bills purchase register. The witness R.C. Raheja (PW41) has further proved vide vouchers Ex.PW41/B and Ex.PW41/C a sum of Rs.7,91,960/ was credited in the account of M/s. Moonlight Engineers. Further, the witness Mahadev Prasad (PW52) has proved that vide vouchers Ex.PW52/4 and Ex.PW52/5 (D207 to D209) a sum of Rs.5,76,459.52 was credited in the account of M/s. Moonlight Engineers Pvt. Ltd.. Also, the witness Smt. Sosama Thomas (PW48) has proved that vide vouchers Ex.PW48/1 and Ex.PW48/2 a sum of Rs.8,18,688/ was credited in the account of M/s. Moonlight Engineers Pvt. Ltd. and the witness Ms. Poonam Kang (PW51) has proved that vide vouchers Ex.PW51/3 and Ex.PW51/4 a sum of Rs.4,54,272/ was credited in the account CA No. 1598 of M/s. Moonlight Engineers Pvt. Ltd.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 436 of 569 Further, Ms. Rita Chabbra (PW3) has proved that these four bills were forwarded to Vysya Bank, Bombay for collection vide entry 1302 pertaining to bill no. 59/95; vide entry 2152 pertaining to bill no. 5/95, entry no.1773 pertaining to bill no.64/95 and vide entry 1352 for bill 60/95.
(55) Hence, in view of the above I hereby hold that the prosecution has successfully proved that the accused Pradeep Anand (A2) had presented to the bank (Oriental Bank of Commerce) four bills of M/s. Moon Light Engineers Pvt. Ltd. on 14.03.1995, 16.03.1995, 30.03.1995 and 03.05.1995 which bills were discounted by the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1).
(D) Presentation of twelve bills bearing No. 80/95 to 91/95 dated 25.04.1995 on behalf of M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. Drawn on IOCL, Jaipur Proved:
(56) With regard to the presentation of twelve bills bearing No. 80/95 to 91/95 dated 25.04.1995 on behalf of M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd.
Drawn on IOCL, Jaipur, the witness R. Rajamohan (PW9) who was an officer from Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony branch has proved that bills bearing no. 80/95 to 91/95 which are Ex.PW9/288 to Ex.PW9/298, Ex.PW41/K, Ex.PW51/14 (D13 to D24) all dated 25.03.1995 drawn by M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. and drawn on IOCL, Jaipur for total amount of Rs.19,35,460/ were presented by the accused Pradeep Anand (A2) alongwith consignment notes Ex.PW33/A to Ex.PW33/X of Ashoka CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 437 of 569 Transport of India, Faridabad which was a non existing transport company, invoices and bill of exchange showing fraudulent dispatch of goods to IOCL. Further, the witnesses R. Raja Mohan (PW9), R.C. Raheja (PW41) and Poonam Kang (PW51) have proved the authorization for purchase of bills vide entry regarding the authorization of purchase of the bills by accused S.K. Pathrella vide entry Ex.PW51/8 at page no.54 of authority register Ex.PW38/B (D
550). Ms. Poonam Kang (PW51) has also proved the entry Ex.PW51/6 dated 25.03.1995 at page no.4 of Bill Purchase Register Ex.PW51/5 and the total amount of the bills i.e. Rs.19.35.460/ was credited in the CC account No. 1670 of M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. She has further proved that the credit voucher of Rs.19,26,655/ dated 27.3.1995 Ex.PW51/9 credited to the CC account no. 1670 of M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. being proceeds of 12 bills mentioned in Ex.PW51/8 which are in the handwriting of Mahadev Prasad (PW52) and the debit vouchers for Rs.4,21,666.05 dated 27.3.1995 Ex.PW51/10 (D47) on account of returning of four bills of M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. are also in the handwriting of Mahadev Prasad (PW52). [Here, I may note that after the purchase of the bills, the above bills were sent to SBI Jaipur for collection vide entry no. 1519 dated 28.03.1995 on page no.53, Ex.P3/ 11 (D555)]. Further, R. Raja Mohan (PW9) has stated that vide letter dated 27.03.1995 Ex.PW9/15 (page 183 of D4) written by accused S.K. Pathrella, he had mentioned regarding the telephonic permission given by accused CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 438 of 569 S.K. Lakhina, the then DGM who affirmed the same vide his noting at portion B and signatures at point C. (However, I note that there is no specific affirmation by accused S.K. Lakhina for which such an inference is being drawn. In fact the record reveals that S.K. Lakhina had only signed the noting in routine). He has further proved that vide letter dated 30.03.1995 Ex.PW9/DX6 (page 188 of D4) of the DGM accused S.K. Lakhina had confirmed the action of purchasing the bills of Rs.24.38 Lacs against the regular sanctioned limit of Rs.15 Lacs. [However, I may note that this confirmation was conditional and only subject to regularization of the account by Pradeep Anand (A2)].
(57) I, therefore, hold that the prosecution has proved that the accused Pradeep Anand (A1) had presented twelve bills bearing No. 80/95 to 91/95 dated 25.04.1995 on behalf of M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. drawn on IOCL, Jaipur which bills were ordered to be purchased by the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1).
(E) Presentation of bills bearing No. 1/95 to 5/95 dated 28.04.1995 and 04.07.1995 (two bills) and dated 29.08.1995 (two bills) Proved:
(58) In so far as the presentation of bills bearing No. 1/95 to 5/95 dated 28.04.1995 and 04.07.1995 (two bills) and dated 29.08.1995 (two bills) is concerned, the witness R. Raja Mohan (PW9) has proved that the bill bearing no. 1/95 dated 28.04.1995 for CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 439 of 569 a sum of Rs.8,69,544/ which was drawn by True Fab Pvt. Ltd. and drawn on New World Traders Bombay, a fictitious firm, was presented by accused Pradeep Anand (A2) and was ordered to be purchase by accused S.K. Pathrella on which the branch had purchased these bills as per the entry dated 28.04.1995 at page no.3 of purchase bill register Ex.PW38/C (D548). He has further proved that vide debit voucher dated 28.04.1995 Ex.PW9/123(D69), an instrument was purchased of Rs.8,69,544/ and the amount was credited vide credit voucher Ex.PW9/123A to the account of M/s True Fabs Pvt. Ltd.
(59) In the light of the aforesaid discussion, I hereby hold that the prosecution has successfully proved the presentation of bills bearing No. 1/95 to 5/95 dated 28.04.1995 and 04.07.1995 (two bills) and dated 29.08.1995 (two bills) by the accused Pradeep Anand (A2) which were purchased by the bank as per the orders of S.K. Pathrella (A1).
(F) Presentation of Seven Bills bearing No. 1/95 to 7/95 all dated 26.05.1995 by accused Pradeep Anand (A2) Proved:
(60) With regard to the presentation of Seven Bills bearing No. 1/95 to 7/95 all dated 26.05.1995 by accused Pradeep Anand (A2), according to the prosecution the said bills (Total amount Rs.29,96,760/) under Letter of Credit bearing no. 126783/256 dated 15.05.1995 issued by Canara Bank, Fort Branch, Bombay, were CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 440 of 569 presented by accused Pradeep Anand drawn by Moonlight Engineer and drawn on Alliance and Engineers Fabricators, Mumbai and these bills were ordered to be purchased by accused S. K. Pathrella on 26.05.1995 vide entry dated 26.05.1995 at page no.66 of Ex.PW51/7 (D550) of the authority register. The witness Binay Kumar Gupta (PW38) has proved that after authorization by the accused S.K. Pathrella, the branch purchased the bill vide entry at Page no.35 of BPLC register Ex.PW38/A (D556) and a sum of Rs.29,00,000/ were credited / transferred to the account no. 1670 of M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. vide vouchers Ex.PW9/226 A1 to Ex.PW9/226 A4.
Further, the official from Canara Bank namely Annoji Kinni (PW60) has proved that vide letter Ex.PW60/1, LC was not issued by Canara Bank, Fort Branch, Bombay.
(61) I, therefore, hold that the prosecution has proved the presentation of Seven Bills bearing No. 1/95 to 7/95 all dated 26.05.1995 by accused Pradeep Anand (A2) which were ordered to be purchased by accused S.K. Pathrella (A1).
(G) Presentation of Nine Bills bearing no. SE/1/95 to 9/95 all dated 11.09.1995 by M/s Suraksha Engineering and Steel Traders Proved:
(62) Coming next to the aspect of presentation of Nine Bills bearing no. SE/1/95 to 9/95 all dated 11.09.1995 by M/s Suraksha CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 441 of 569 Engineering and Steel Traders, the witness R. Rajamohan (PW9) has proved that the bills no. SE/1/95 to 9/95 all dated 11.09.1995 by M/s Suraksha Engineering and Steel Traders (totaling amount of Rs.
33.39 lacs) discounted by S.K. Pathrella vide entry Ex.PW38/F at page no.33 and 34 of Ex.PW38/A (BPLC Register) (D556) and proceeds were credited in the CA No.2764 of J.S. Supertech Engineers vide voucher Ex.PW9/228A1 (D304) . He has also proved that the proceeds of Rs.30,00,000/ from this account was transferred from the account of M/s Suraksha Engineers and Steel Traders to the account of M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. vide cheque Ex.PW9/200 (D309)by accused Pradeep Anand (A2).
(63) In the light of the above discussion, I hereby hold that the prosecution has successfully proved the presentation of Nine Bills bearing no. SE/1/95 to 9/95 all dated 11.09.1995 of M/s. Suraksha Engineering and Steel Traders by the accused Pradeep Anand (A2) and the discounting of the same by S.K. Pathrella (A1) which was credited to account of J.S. Supertech Engineers, a non existing firm as proved by witness S.R. Chandran (PW59) from Canara Bank, Ashram Road, Ahmadabad. He has also proved that M/s. J.S. Supertech Engineers has no account with Canara Bank, Ashram Road, Ahmadabad and no Letter of Credit No. 00516/95 dated 09.06.1995 was opened on behalf of J.S. Supertech Engineers.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 442 of 569 (H) Discounting of Seven Bills on account of three LCs of Rs.5 Lacs each in favour of Non existing firm M/s Pramod Kumar and Sons Proved:
(64) In so far as the discounting of the Seven Bills on account of three Letters of Credit of Rs.5 Lacs each in favour of Nonexisting firm M/s Pramod Kumar and Sons is concerned, the witness Swaraj Chauhan (PW24) has proved the impersonation of Pramod Kumar at the instance of the accused Pradeep Anand (A2) and has also proved that the bill of exchange Ex.PW9/207 drawn on letter head of Pramod Kumar and Sons in favour of M/s. True Fab Pvt.
Ltd., for payment of Rs.5 Lacs against invoice and the signatures at point A1, A2 and A3 and signatures on letter dated 25.09.1995 Ex.PW34/A (part of D327) and on the letter head of Pramod Kumar and Sons, were put by him as "Pramod Kumar" which he had done on the asking of accused Pradeep Anand (A2) who was the Director of the company. He has also proved that the receipt dated 25.09.1995 Ex.PW34/B (part of D327) for Rs.500/ was issued on letter head of Pramod Kumar and Sons from M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd., against the invoice No.213 dated 25.09.1995 and he put signatures as "Pramod Kumar" at point A on the said receipt on the instructions of accused Pradeep Anand. The witness has further proved that the invoice dated 25.09.1995 of Pramod Kumar and Sons Ex.PW9/232 in favour of M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd., for Rs.5,00,500/ pertaining to M.S. Pipe, bears his signatures as "Pramod Kumar" at CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 443 of 569 point A. He has further proved that invoice Ex.PW34/C is the carbon copy of Ex.PW9/232 and he put signatures as "Pramod Kumar" at point A on Ex.PW34/C on the instructions of accused Pradeep Anand. The witness Swaraj Chauhan (PW24) has further proved that the bill of exchange dated 28.09.1995 Ex.PW9/233 for Rs.5 Lacs in favour of Bank of Nova Scotia in connection of sale purchase of M.S. Pipe to M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd., bear his signatures as "Pramod Kumar" on Ex.PW9/233 at points A1 and A2 on Ex.PW34/D. He has also proved that letter dated 25.09.1995 Ex.PW34/E (part of D
328) regarding dispatch of material vide invoice No.214 dated 25.09.1995 to M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd., was signed by him as "Pramod Kumar" at point A - 1 on the instructions of accused Pradeep Anand. He has also proved that the letter dated 25.09.1995 Ex.PW34/F on the letter head of Pramod Kumar and Sons regarding receipt of Rs.500/ from M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd., against full and final payment of invoice No. 214 and he put signatures on the said letter at point A as "Pramod Kumar" on Ex.PW34/F on the instructions of accused Pradeep Anand. The witness has also proved that the invoice dated 25.09.1995 Ex.PW9/234 (D328) of Pramod Kumar and Sons in favour of M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. for Rs.5,00,500/ pertaining to M.S. Pipe wherein he put signatures as "Pramod Kumar" at point A and also put signatures on carbon copy Ex.PW34/G of the document Ex.PW9/234 on the instructions of accused Pradeep Anand. He has also proved that on the bill of exchange dated 28.09.1995 CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 444 of 569 Ex.PW9/235 (Ex.PW34/H) for Rs.5,00,000/ in favour of Bank of Nova Scotia which was drawn in connection with sale / purchase of M. S. Pipe to M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd., he had put his signatures as "Pramod Kumar" on the asking of accused Pradeep Anand. He has further proved that on the letter dated 25.09.1995 Ex.PW34/I on the letter head of Pramod Kumar and Sons regarding dispatch of material vide invoice no. 212 dated 25.09.1995 to M/s True Fab Pvt Ltd., he had put signatures as "Pramod Kumar" regarding receipt of Rs.500/ from M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. on the instructions of accused Pradeep Anand. The witness has also proved that on the invoice number 212 dated 25.09.1995 Ex.PW9/236 of Pramod Kumar and Sons in favour of M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. for Rs.5,00,500/ for M. S. Pipe, he put signatures as "Pramod Kumar" on the instructions of accused Pradeep Anand (A2). The witness Swaraj Chauhan (PW24) has specifically stated that he does not know the firm Pramod Kumar and Sons and the invoice and letter head of Pramod Kumar and Sons were lying in M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. where he used to sit in the factory and the same were given to him by accused Pradeep Anand (A2) for typing and according to the instruction of accused Pradeep Anand (A
2), he had typed the same. He has also proved that stamp of "Pramod Kumar and Sons" was lying in M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. He has also proved that Ex.PW9/207, Ex.PW34/D and Ex.PW34/H were signed by accused Pradeep Anand (A2) in token of having received the payment and Ex.PW9/232, Ex.PW34/C, Ex.PW9/234, Ex.PW34/G, Ex.PW9/236 and Ex.PW34/K were signed by accused Pradeep CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 445 of 569 Anand (A2) as a token of having received the material. The witness Swaraj Chauhan (PW24) has further proved that words "material received" on Ex.PW9/232 at point X, at point C on Ex.PW34/C, at point X on Ex.PW9/234, at point C on Ex.PW34/G, at point X on Ex.PW9/236 and at point C on Ex.PW34/K are in the handwriting of accused Pradeep Anand (A2) whose signatures are also at points A 1 to A15 on Ex.PW9/205 (D321). The witness Swaraj Chauhan has also proved that he had put his signatures as "Pramod Kumar" at point A on Ex.PW9/206, at point B. He has identified the signatures of accused Pradeep Anand on purchase orders Ex.PW9/204A, Ex.PW9/205A and Ex.PW9/203A. He has further proved that the said purchase orders were prepared in company M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. and seal of Pramod Kumar and Sons was also affixed on the said purchase orders in the office of M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. (65) The testimony of Swaraj Chauhan (PW24) finds due corroboration from the testimony of T.C. Bhardwaj (PW34) who has confirmed that the letter heads used to remain with Pradeep Anand (A2) and that the contents were got typed by him on the directions of Pradeep Anand (A2) and duly signed by Swaraj Chauhan (PW24) by impersonating himself as Pramod Kumar. (66) In the light of the above, I hereby hold that the prosecution has successfully proved the aspect of bogus purchase orders of the non existing firm Pramod Kumar & Sons created by Pradeep Anand (A2) where his employee Swaraj Chauhan impersonated CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 446 of 569 himself and signed as "Pramod Kumar" and the accused Pradeep Anand (A2) himself had written the words "material received"
despite the fact that no actual transaction of sale / purchase had taken place. Therefore, the aspect of cheating by way of impersonation at the instance of accused Pradeep Anand (A2) and discounting of all these seven bills by S.K. Pathrella (A1) on account of three Letters of Credit of Rs.5 lacs each in favour of a nonexisting firm M/s. Pramod Kumar & Sons duly created by accused Pradeep Anand (A
2), stands proved.
(I) Forgery of Lorry Receipts (LRs) Proved:
(67) With regard to the allegations relating to forgery of various documents including the Lorry Receipts (LRs). In this regard the witness Sh. Babu Lal Munot (PW17) who is a businessman having business of pipes and pipe fittings in the name and style of M/s Steel Samrat India and factory at F4/6, MIDC, Boisar, District Thana, Mumbai and then shifted to 115, Durga Devi Road, Mumbai4 and in 1993 to 113/117, Gulab MansionIII, Kumbarwada, Mumbai4, has proved that during the year 19931995 beside IOCL, Bombay Dyeing (Bombay), Bridge & Roof, Ootti, Tamilnadu), Sidharth Gautam, Faridabad etc. were his major clients. He has further proved that he knows accused Pradeep Anand and in the year 1994 he made supplies to companies of accused Pradeep Anand and that the entries pertaining to 9 bills on page no. 33 and 34 of Ex.PW38/A are in his handwriting which were approved by accused S.K. Pathrella for the CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 447 of 569 purchase of bills in the account of M/s. Surakasha Engineer and Steel Traders and were drawn in favour of M/s., J.S. Supertech Engineers, Ahmedabad and these bills were drawn under Letter of Credit No. 00516/95 dated 09.06.1995 of Canara Bank, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad and his noting in this regard is at point X and initials of accused S.K. Pathrella against the entries of said nine bills at portion Y to Y and he had handed over the vouchers pertaining to these entries to Sh. B.S. Godhara. He has proved that the accused Pradeep Anand was having a business of manufacturing of pipe fittings which he was conducting under the name and style of M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. in the year 1994 accused Pradeep Anand (A2) had visited his office at Bombay and offered him his agency for Maharashtra and Gujrat to that effect accused Pradeep Anand (A2) had also given him a letter and agreed to given the witness commission of 6% and also sale tax chargeable under Sales Tax Act.
He has further proved that he had received order for supply of five fittings of size 1 inches x 12 inches in the name of M/s Steel Samrat India (Bombay) and accused Pradeep Anand had also got one order for supply of pipe fittings of size above 12 inches in the name of M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. He has also proved that the order which he had received was in the range of Rs.24 to Rs.25 Lacs and the order which was received by accused Pradeep Anand (A2) was of more than Rs.51 Lacs and that as per the agreement, accused Pradeep Anand (A
2) was to pay him 6% as commission on both the orders and 4% CST with regard to supply in the name of firm M/s Steel Samrat (Bombay) CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 448 of 569 and all the supplies whether in the name of firm of the witness or in the name of company of accused Pradeep Anand (A2) was to be made by the company of accused Pradeep Anand (A2) i.e. M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. He has further proved that with regard to supply which was to be made in the name of M/s Steel Samrat India, Bombay, accused Pradeep Anand (A2) was to inform him when material was ready with him and after inspection by the third party, the accused Pradeep Anand (A2) will send him a release note. Thereafter he (witness) used to send his invoice for giving it to the transporter and after getting the Lorry Receipts from the transporter, he i.e. witness was to raise the bill on Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. as well as on its bank. He has also proved that he used to get the payment in the account of M/s Steel Samrat India, Bombay and after deducting his commissions and 4% CST he was to make the payment by cheque of the remaining amount to M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. (68) The witness Babu Lal Munot (PW17) has proved that he was informed by accused Pradeep Anand (A2) that material was ready with him and that he i.e. witness should send him 15 bills for giving to the transporter and therefore, he sent 15 bills to accused Pradeep Anand (A2) but he had not sent him Lorry Receipts showing the dispatch of material to IOCL. The witness Babu Lal Munot (PW17) has also proved that he sent number of letters / reminders to accused Pradeep Anand (A2) asking to send him Lorry Receipts but accused Pradeep Anand (A2) did not send him Lorry Receipts and later on he came to know from IOCL that no supplies were made to IOCL by accused Pradeep Anand (A2) in the name of M/s Steel CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 449 of 569 Samrat India, Bombay and accused Pradeep Anand (A2) had submitted forged bills in the name of M/s Steel Samrat India, Mumbai showing himself as proprietor and got the bills discounted from Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Delhi and also informed the New Friends Colony branch of the bank vide letters Ex.PW17/1 (D379) & letter Ex.PW17/2 (D381) that his firm had placed the order on M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. for supply of fittings to M/s IOCL vide their PO No. PLM/2433/93/VCPIND/58 dated 23.12.1994 and M/s True Fab i.e firm of accused Pradeep Anand (A2) made forged bills including L.Rs and he had not authorized accused Pradeep Anand to present the bills of his firm M/s Steel Samrat India, Bombay for discounting. (69) The witness Babu Lal Munot (PW17) has further proved having written a letter/reminders to Oriental Bank of Commerce informing therein that M/s Steel Samrat India is a Mumbai based firm and there is no firm by the name M/s Steel Samrat India at Faridabad and he had not authorized anyone to get his (proprietor of M/s Steel Samrat India) bills discounted and that he received a reply from Oriental Bank of Commerce and he had written one of the letter that he would complaint to RBI about it and accused S.K Pathrella (A1) vide letter Ex.PW9/156 (D378) had advised him to take up the matter directly with accused Pradeep Anand (A2) without involving the bank to avoid any legal complication. He has also proved that the then Bank Manager i.e accused S.K Pathrella (A1) had threatened him on telephone that if he writes such letters repeatedly, he (Bank CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 450 of 569 Manager) would complain against him. [Here, I may note that this conduct of the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) proves the existence of criminal conspiracy between him and accused Pradeep Anand (A2)]. (70) Sh. Babu Lal Munot (PW17) has also proved that when he came to know that no supplies were made to IOCL, he had sent his Manager Vikas Jaswal to IOCL, New Delhi for getting the entire details of the supplies made to IOCL in the name of M/s Steel Samrat India on which IOCL had informed that no supplies made to IOCL except for small quantity of supplies. IOCL also confirmed that Lorry Receipts submitted were fabricated and there was no such transporters in existence. Thereafter, he had written a letter to IOCL informing that all payments be sent in the name of M/s Steel Samrat India at Bombay Office in registered cover and thereafter, all the supplies were made to IOCL as per the order and bills were raised by his firm and payments were received against them. The witness Babu Lal Munot (PW17) has further proved that vide purchase order dated 23.12.1994 Ex.P11/1 (D382) M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. had got orders of Rs.51 lacs for supply of material and for providing services and also received orders vide purchase order dated 23.12.1994 Ex.PW17/A3 (D382) and Ex.PW17/4 (D382) is the copy of invoice no. 1053 dated 2.2.1995, Ex.PW17/5 (D382) is the copy of invoice no. 1058 dated 7.2.1995, Ex.PW17/6 (D382) is the copy of invoice no. 1061 dated 10.2.1995, Ex.PW17/7 (D382) is the copy of invoice no. 1065 dated 13.2.1995, which he had sent to accused Pradeep Anand (A2) for supplying the same to the CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 451 of 569 transporter for purpose of dispatch of material and he had himself sent the material to IOCL vide Ex.PW17/8 (D382) which is the copy of invoice no. 1213 dated 4.12.1995 and Ex.PW17/9 (D382) is the copy of invoice no. 1234 dated 4.12.1995. He has also proved having written letter dated 27.6.1995 Ex.PW17/10 (D382) to Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony Branch, New Delhi whereby he had informed the branch regarding the discounting of cheque by the said branch in his name and alleged that bank in connivance with accused discounted the bogus bills and GRs of bogus transporter M/s Ashok Transport of India presented by accused Pradeep Anand (A2) in the bank for discounting. The witness had also mentioned in Ex.PW17/10 that he had placed order on True Fab Pvt. Ltd. for supply of fittings to M/s IOCL vide their PO number PLM 2433 / 93 VCPIND/58 dated 23.12.1994 and M/s True Fab had forged the bills and GRs and discounted with the bank Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony branch and required the reply of the bank vide his letter Ex.PW17/10 regarding discounting of bills without ascertaining their authenticity.
(71) Further, the witness Kishan Lal Kejriwal (PW26) has proved that he was a transporter by profession in the name M/s. Ashok Transport of India having its office at 121, Chiranjan Avenue, Kolkatta700073 which was a registered partnership firm and he was its managing partner having its branches only in Kolkatta, Siliguri, CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 452 of 569 Guwahati, Patna, Kattak and Bombay earlier and thereafter it had only two branches at Kolkatta and Siliguri. He has further proved that the said firm was one of the authorized transporter of Indian Bank Association Bombay and in (D390) Mark P26A name of his firm appearing at serial no. 39. He has also proved that his firm M/s. Ashok Transport of India never had any branch/ agent in Faridabad or Delhi and that the accused Pradeep Anand (A2) was not known to him and he had never dealt with the company M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Moon Light Engineers, M/s. Steel Samrat (India), M/s. Suraksha Engineers & Steel Traders and M/s. Permanent Tools & Machines and he is also not aware about the fact as to who were the Directors/ Partners/ Proprietors of the said firms. He has also proved that the consignment note Mark P 26/B is completely forged document and not as per Indian Bank Association and also does not bear the handwriting or signature of his staff and on the back side of Mark P26/B name of branches of his firm are not mentioned; the terms and conditions, address of registered office at 121, Chittranjan Avenue, Kolkatta700073 not mentioned instead the address noted is Burdwan Road, Siliguri, Darjiling. He has further proved that in case of Indian Bank Association approved transporter, consignee was always the bank and address of the bank is given in complete and not in short form and it would never be written as "Oriental Bank of Commerce" and the consignor name was given as M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd., and similarly the other consignment notes Mark P26/C (D15 page 11), Mark P CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 453 of 569 26/D (D15 page11), Mark P26/E (D17 page15), Mark P26/F (D18 page18), Mark P26/G (D19 page 21), Mark P26/H (D21 page26), Mark P26/I (D22 page29), Mark P26/J (D23 page
32), Mark P26/K (D24 page35), Mark P26/L (D24 page41), Mark P26/M (D24 page38), Mark P26/N (D103 page3), Mark P26/O (D104 page3), Mark P26/P (D105 page6), Mark P 26/Q (D106 page3), Mark P26/R (D107 page5), Mark P26/S (D108 page4), Mark P26/T (D109 page4), Mark P26/U (D 110 page5), Mark P26/V (D111 page4), Mark P26/W (D112 page4), Mark P26/X (D113), Mark P26/Y (D114), Mark P 26/Z (D115), Mark P26/A1 (D118), Mark P26/A2 (D121), Mark P26/A3 (D116), Mark P26/A4 (D117), Mark P26/A5 (D119), Mark P26/A6 (D120), Mark P26/A7 (D122), Mark P26/A8 (D123), Mark P26/A9 (D124), Mark P26/A10 (D
125), Mark P26/A11 (D126), Mark P26/A12 (D326), Mark P 26/A13 (D328) and Mark P26/A14 (D327) are completely forged documents, which fact has also been proved by Nitin Saini (PW33).
(72) Further, Sh. Suman Prakash Sharma Advocate (PW27) who was working with M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. in the year 1998 as an Accountant, has proved that the accused Pradeep Anand (A2) was the Managing Director of the said company and he (witness) had prepared the Transport Receipts/ Bilties Ex.PW27/1 (D13), Ex.PW27/2 (D14), Ex.PW27/3 (D15), Ex.PW27/4 (D17), CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 454 of 569 Ex.PW27/5 (D18, Ex.PW27/6 (D19), Ex.PW27/7 (D21), Ex.PW27/8 (D22), Ex.PW27/9 (D23), Ex.PW27/10 (D24 page
4), Ex.PW27/11 (D24 page7), Ex.PW27/12 (D24 page10), Ex.PW27/13 (D326), Ex.PW27/14 (D327), Ex.PW27/15 (D328) and Ex.PW27/16 (D329) on the instructions of accused Pradeep Anand (A2). He has further proved having filled the applications Ex.PW9/118A (D66 page2) and Ex.PW9/119A (D66 page3) submitted to the bank for issuance of draft in favour of M/s. Ram Swaroop Chander Bhan and M/s. Ram Vilas Narender Kumar respectively on behalf of M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd., which he had filled on the instruction of accused Pradeep Anand (A2). He has also proved having filled the documents Ex.PW9/38 (D103), Ex.PW9/39 (D104), Ex.PW9/40 (D105), Ex.PW9/41 (D106), Ex.PW9/42 (D
107), Ex.PW9/43 (D108), Ex.PW9/44 (D109, Ex.PW9/45 (D110) and Ex.PW9/46 (D111) on the instructions of accused Pradeep Anand. The witness has also proved that the consignment note Ex.PW27/16 (D111 page4) was filled by him on the instructions of accused Pradeep Anand (A2). He has also proved that the bills of exchange Ex.PW9/47 (D113) and Ex.PW9/48 (D114) were prepared by him except the words "Steel Samrat India113/117" in portion X1 to X1; Bill of Exchange Ex.PW9/49 (D115) which were filled by him on the instructions of accused Pradeep Anand who has also signed the same. He has also proved that he had filled the bill of exchange, signed by the accused Pradeep Anand on CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 455 of 569 Ex.PW9/50 (D118), Ex.PW9/53 (D116), Ex.PW9/56 (D120), Ex.PW9/57 (D122), Ex.PW9/58 (D123), Ex.PW9/59 (D124), Ex.PW9/60 (D126), Ex.PW9/302 (D539) and Ex.PW9/304 (D
540) except that the amount mentioned in digit and date are not in his handwriting. He has further proved that in documents Ex.PW9/51 (D121), Ex.PW9/52 (D112) and Ex.PW9/55 (D119) only portion X1 to X1 is in his handwriting. He has also identified the signatures of Nitin Saini (PW33) accused Pradeep Anand at point A on Ex.PW9/51 and has proved that consignment note Mark P27/A was filled by him on the instructions of accused Pradeep Anand.
(73) Similarly, Sh Nitin Saini (PW33) has proved that he had worked with M/s. True Fab Ltd. at plot no.8, 13/3, Mathura Road, Faridabad and that M/s. Pal Engineering Works was a sister concern of M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. and accused Pradeep Anand was then Managing Director of M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. He has further proved that the consignment notes Ex.PW33/A (D103), Ex.PW33/B (D104), Ex.PW33/C (D105), Ex.PW33/D (D105), Ex.PW33/E (D107), Ex.PW33/F (D108), Ex.PW33/G (D109), Ex.PW33/H (D110), Ex.PW33/I (D111), Ex.PW33/J (D112), Ex.PW33/K (D
113), Ex.PW33/L (D114), Ex.PW33/M (D1 PW33 Nitin Saini
15), Ex.PW33/N (D118), Ex.PW33/O (D121), Ex.PW33/P (D
116), Ex.PW33/Q (D117), Ex.PW33/R (D119), Ex.PW33/S (D
120), Ex.PW33/T (D122), Ex.PW33/U (D123), Ex.PW33/V (D CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 456 of 569
124), Ex.PW33/W (D125), and Ex.PW33/X (D126) of Ashok Transport of India, Burdwan Road, Siliguri, Darjeeling filled by him in his own handwriting and bear his signature at point A and the said consignment note of five fittings from Faridabad to Karnal. He further proved that the said consignment note was given to him by accused Pradeep Anand and directed him to fill the same and details were also provided by accused Pradeep Anand.
(74) Hence, in the light of the above evidence which has come on record particularly in the light of the testimonies of Babu Lal Munot (PW17), K.K. Kejriwal (PW26), Suman Prakash Sharma (PW27) and Nitin Saini (PW33), I hereby hold that the prosecution has successfully proved the forgery and fabrication of the Lorry Receipts, Purchase Orders and Consignment Notes at the instance of the accused Pradeep Anand (A2) of which the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) was aware and when the same was brought to his notice, he (S.K. Pathrella) rather threatened the witness Babu Lal Munot (PW17) with a complaint against him, a fact which Babu Lal Munot (PW17) has brought on record when he communicated the Oriental Bank of Commerce with regard to the same. In fact, the conduct of the accused S.K. Pathrella in turning a blind eye to the complaints being given to him by Babu Lal Munot (PW17) regarding the false documents being submitted to the bank by Pradeep Anand (A2) and rather issuing threats to Babu Lal Munot nor to write letter so the bank regarding the same, confirms the existence of a conspiracy CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 457 of 569 between S.K. Pathrella (A1) and Pradeep Anand (A2) since any other person under the given circumstances would have taken due care and caused an inquiry into such allegations which S.K. Pathrella did not do.
(J) Bogus bills of IOCL / invoices / Transporter's Receipt - Proved:
(75) In so far as the aspect of bogus bills of IOCL, Invoices and Transporter's Receipts furnished by the accused Pradeep Anand for discounting of bills is concerned, the witness Babu Lal Munot (PW17) has proved that the accused Pradeep Anand (A2) vide Ex.PW9/38 had submitted bills for discounting which were in the name of M/s Steel Samrat India which are bogus documents. He has proved that the office address of M/s Steel Samrat India is not mentioned but CST number had been used of the witness showing the address of the firm of Faridabad. He has also proved that the rubber stamp put on Ex.PW9/61 is not of his firm as he had not established his firm at Faridabad and it is a bogus stamp with bogus signatures as in his all the invoices on the top it is written "subject to Bombay jurisdiction" which is missing in Ex.PW9/61 which is forged invoice.
He has further proved that transport receipt of Ashok Transport of India annexed with Ex.PW9/61 is bogus and he never presented any bill for discounting in Oriental Bank of Commerce and he had no account with Oriental Bank of Commerce. He has proved that the accused Pradeep Anand (A2) had raised the bills Ex.PW9/39 (D CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 458 of 569
104), Ex.PW9/40 (D105), Ex.PW17/11 (D105), Ex.PW17/12 (D
105), Ex.PW17/13 (D106), Ex.PW9/41 (D106), Ex.PW9/42 (D
107), Ex.PW9/62 (D107), Ex.PW9/43 (D108), Ex.PW9/63 (D
108), Ex.PW9/44 (D109), Ex.PW9/64 (D109), Ex.PW9/45 (D
110), Ex.PW17/14 (D110), Ex.PW9/46 (D111), Ex.PW9/65 (D
111), Ex.PW9/52 (D112), Ex.PW9/66 (D112), Ex.PW9/47 (D
113), Ex.PW9/67 (D113), Ex.PW9/48 (D114), Ex.PW9/68 (D
114), Ex.PW9/49 (D115), Ex.PW9/69 (D115), Ex.PW9/53 (D
116), Ex.PW9/71 (D116), Ex.PW9/50 (D117), Ex.PW17/15 (D
117), Ex.PW9/54 (D117), Ex.PW17/16 (D117), Ex.PW9/55 (D
119), Ex.PW9/72 (D119), Ex.PW9/56 (D120), Ex.PW17/17 (D
120), Ex.PW9/51 (D121), Ex.PW9/70 (D121), Ex.PW9/57 (D
122), Ex.PW17/18 (D122), Ex.PW9/58 (D123), Ex.PW17/19 (D
123), Ex.PW9/59 (D124), Ex.PW9/73 (D124), Ex.PW17/20 (D
125), Ex.PW9/60 (D126), Ex.PW17/21 (D126), Ex.PW9/41 (D
106), Ex.PW9/302 (D539), Ex.PW9/303 (D539) and Ex.PW9/304 (D540) under his signatures for discounting by putting the stamp of Steel Samrat India which is not stamp of firm of witness Babu Lal Munot and he had never presented any such bills to Oriental Bank of Commerce for discounting as he had no account with Oriental Bank of Commerce. He further proved that he never used any such rubber stamp in the name of his firm and bills of his firm were either not signed or were signed by the accused Pradeep Anand (A2) who had nothing to do with M/s Steel Samrat (India) Bombay CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 459 of 569 business.
(76) He has also proved that the bill dated 02.02.1995 Ex.PW17/22 (D537) was signed by his Manager Vikas Jaswal and sent to accused Pradeep Anand (A2) for supply the same to the transporter for dispatching the goods to IOCL and get the lorry receipts from the transporter and sent the same to the him(witness) for raising the bills on IOCL. He has further proved that the bill dated 06.02.1995 Ex.PW17/23 (D537) was signed by his manager Vikas Jaswal and sent to accused Pradeep Anand (A2) for supply the same to the transporter for dispatching the goods to IOCL and get the lorry receipts from the transporter and sent the same to the him(witness) for raising the bills on IOCL. He has also proved that he had sent a letter Ex.PW17/24 (D538) to SBI, Jaipur for delivering the documents mentioned therein to IOCL, Salaya, Mathura Pipe Line, near Government Hospital, Chakshu and said letter Ex.PW17/24 (D538) was sent along with documents i.e. invoice number 1183 dated 27.09.1995 and photocopy of fax letter dated 26.09.1995 received from IOCL, release note / inspection certificate by M/s RITES and LRs issued by Transport Corporation of India Ex.PW17/24A to Ex.PW17/24D. (77) He has also proved that the Bill No.1213 dated 04.12.1995 Ex.PW17/25 (D538) & lorry receipt Ex.PW17/26; the bill no. 1214 dated 04.12.1995 Ex.PW17/27 (D538) & lorry receipt Ex.PW17/28(D538); the bill no. 1215 dated 05.12.1995 Ex.PW17/29 & Lorry Receipt Ex.PW17/30 (D538), the bill no.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 460 of 569 1216 dated 05.12.1995 Ex.PW17/31 and Lorry Receipt Ex.PW17/32 (D538); the bill no. 1241 dated 19.01.1996 Ex.PW17/33 and Lorry Receipt Ex.PW17/34 (D538) belong to his firm and the lorry receipts were issued by the transporter who had transported the goods, these bills were given to the transport company for delivering the goods to IOCL. He has further proved that vide invoice no. 1183 dated 27.09.1995 Ex.PW17/35 (D541) the material was supplied to IOCL by M/s Steel Samrat India, Bombay and also that he had sent letter Ex.PW17/36(D542) along with document Ex.PW17/36A to Ex.PW217/36I to SBI Jaipur informing the said bank regarding the delivery of goods to IOCL. He has also proved that the invoices Ex.PW17/37 to Ex.PW17/40 (D542) were sent by him to accused Pradeep Anand for delivering the same to the transporter and transmit him the lorry receipt issued by the transporter which was never done by the accused Pradeep Anand (A2). (78) Hence, in view of the above discussion, I hereby hold that the prosecution has been able to successfully prove that the accused Pradeep Anand (A2) had got prepared fake bills Ex.PW9/39 (D
104), Ex.PW9/40 (D105), Ex.PW17/11 (D105), Ex.PW17/12 (D
105), Ex.PW17/13 (D106), Ex.PW9/41 (D106), Ex.PW9/42 (D
107), Ex.PW9/62 (D107), Ex.PW9/43 (D108), Ex.PW9/63 (D
108), Ex.PW9/44 (D109), Ex.PW9/64 (D109), Ex.PW9/45 (D
110), Ex.PW17/14 (D110), Ex.PW9/46 (D111), Ex.PW9/65 (D
111), Ex.PW9/52 (D112), Ex.PW9/66 (D112), Ex.PW9/47 (D CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 461 of 569
113), Ex.PW9/67 (D113), Ex.PW9/48 (D114), Ex.PW9/68 (D
114), Ex.PW9/49 (D115), Ex.PW9/69 (D115), Ex.PW9/53 (D
116), Ex.PW9/71 (D116), Ex.PW9/50 (D117), Ex.PW17/15 (D
117), Ex.PW9/54 (D117), Ex.PW17/16 (D117), Ex.PW9/55 (D
119), Ex.PW9/72 (D119), Ex.PW9/56 (D120), Ex.PW17/17 (D
120), Ex.PW9/51 (D121), Ex.PW9/70 (D121), Ex.PW9/57 (D
122), Ex.PW17/18 (D122), Ex.PW9/58 (D123), Ex.PW17/19 (D
123), Ex.PW9/59 (D124), Ex.PW9/73 (D124), Ex.PW17/20 (D
125), Ex.PW9/60 (D126), Ex.PW17/21 (D126), Ex.PW9/41 (D
106), Ex.PW9/302 (D539), Ex.PW9/303 (D539) and Ex.PW9/304 (D540) under his signatures by putting the stamp of Steel Samrat India which was not the stamp of the firm of Babu Lal Munot and used them by presenting the same at Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony branch to S.K. Pathrella (A1) for discounting which were then discounted by the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1).
(K) Nonexistence of firms M/s Suraksha Engineers and Steel Traders & M/s Permanent Tools and Machines at 16/3, Miles Stone, Mathura Road, Faridabad - Proved:
(79) With regard to the aspect of non existing firms M/s.
Suraksha Engineers and Steel Traders & M/s. Permanent Tools and Machines, the witness Sh. R.C. Raheja (PW41) has proved that he was posted as Hall Incharge at New Friends Colony Branch of Oriental Bank of Commerce from December 1991 to July 1995 and CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 462 of 569 accused S.K. Pathrella was the then Branch Manager of the branch. He has further proved that M/s Suraksha Engineers and Steel Traders with its proprietor Sh. C.K. Singh was having account no. 2764 as per Ex.PW9/26 and its introducer was the accused Pradeep Anand (A2) Director of M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. having CC account no. 1670 and Current Account no. 1598 as reflected in specimen signature card Ex.PW41/A(D279) of account of M/s Suraksha Engineers and Steel Traders. (80) He has further proved that accused S.K. Lakhina vide sanction letter dated 06.06.1995 Ex.PW9/161 communicated to the Chief Manager, New Friends Colony branch of Oriental Bank of Commerce as DGM, Regional Office; permitting the branch to discount demand bills amount to Rs.20 Lacs on behalf of M/s. Surakasha Engineer and Steel Traders which was subject to the condition of regularization of the account. The witness has also proved that the Sh. C.K. Singh, the proprietor of the firm had issued cheque no. 640752 Ex.PW41/G (D289) for Rs.20 Lacs in favour of M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. and cheque no. 637002 Ex.PW9/200 (D309) for Rs.30 Lacs of M/s Suraksha Engineers and Steel Traders in favour of M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd.
(81) Regarding the firm M/s. Permanent Tools and Machines prosecution had examined Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta (PW19) who has proved that he had a proprietorship firm by the name M/s Narayan Industries at 16/3, Mile Stone, Mathura Road, Faridabad from where CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 463 of 569 he was running his own business of Timber Trading with Saw Mill under the same name since 1973. He has proved that he had never let out the said property to anyone and had not heard the name of any firm by the name M/s Permanent Tools and Machines and also had not heard the name of any person by name Sh. Swaraj Chauhan running the business in the name of M/s Permanent Tools and Machines. He has further proved that the address given in the account opening form Ex.PW9/22 (D348) is of his said property which he had never let out to M/s Permanent Tool and Machines. (82) On this point, prosecution further examined Sh. Rohtash Chauhan (PW21) who has proved that his brother namely Swaraj Chauhan was contractor by profession and in the year 19941995 Swaraj Chauhan was studying and was also working with M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. At Faridabad and getting salary of Rs.1,200/ to 1,500/. He has further proved that his brother Swaraj Chauhan was employed in M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. with the reference of T. C. Bhardwaj who was working in accounts Department of M/s True Fab. He has proved that photograph pasted on account opening form Ex.PW9/22 (D348) is of his brother Swaraj Chauhan. Similarly, Sh. Asha Ram (PW22) has proved that he knew Swaraj Chauhan who was a Contractor by profession and was getting salary around Rs. 1,000/ to Rs. 1,200/ from a company at Faridabad in 1994. He has proved that Swaraj Chauhan belonged to low income group and was having small land holding of about one and a half acres and was not in capacity to do some independent work at that time and he never heard if Swaraj CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 464 of 569 Chauhan was running any factory of his own. He has identified photograph of Swaraj Chauhan on account opening form Ex.PW9/22 (D348). Further, Sh. Swaraj Chauhan (PW24) himself has proved that he was a small time contractor and had also worked with M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. at 13/3, Plot No.8, Mathura Road, Faridabad in the year 199596 and knew accused Rajeev Anand and accused Pradeep Anand. He further proved that he got employment in M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd., on monthly salary of Rs. 1,500/, through his "Mousa" namely T.C. Bhardwaj who was also working with the said firm and that his financial condition was not good when he was working with M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd., and beside that job he had nothing to do anything else. He has further proved that he had heard the name M/s. Permanent Tools and Machines and he was informed by accused Pradeep Anand that they were starting this firm and he was asked to sign some papers related to said firm. He has proved the account opening form Ex.PW9/22 (D348) opened in the name of M/s. Permanent Tools and Machines and proved that the said account opening form is in the handwriting of accused Rajeev Anand and signatures at point A1 and A2 are not his signatures and address 16/3, Mathura Road, Faridabad mentioned in the account opening form Ex.PW9/22 is not his address and residential address in the account opening form 261, Sector19, Faridabad is of accused Rajeev Anand and his signatures at point A1 to A4 on specimen signature card Ex.PW9/22A(D348) and CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 465 of 569 also proved that he had nothing to do with M/s. Permanent Tool and Machines and he put his signatures on his photograph pasted on account opening form after being asked by accused Pradeep Anand to do so. He has proved that the sole proprietorship letter Ex.PW24/A (D350) bears his signatures at point 'A' and signature at point 'B' are not his signatures. He further proved that cheque book issued relating to the said account of M/s. Permanent Tool and Machines taken by accused Pradeep Anand and he had put his signatures at point A1 and A2 on cheques Ex.PW24/B1 (D360) and Ex.PW24/B2 (D361) on being asked by accused Pradeep Anand. He had also proved that he had never visited the bank for any transaction and the above cheques are not in his handwriting and cheque Ex.PW24/B1 is in the handwriting of accused Rajeev Anand and also bears the signatures of Rajeev Anand at point 'X' on the backside of Ex.PW24/B1. Further, Sh. Radhey Raman (PW30) has proved that in the year 1999 he was posted as postman in post office Sector16, Faridabad for about 30 years and his duties were to deliver dak/post in Beat no. 12A which consisted of house no. 16/6 to 15/7 and milestone 16/3, Mathura Road, Faridabad was under his jurisdiction and there was no company in the name and style of M/s. Permanent Tools and Machines at 16/3 Milestone, Mathura Road, Faridabad. Similarly, Sh. Om Prakash Goel (PW31) a Postman at post office 16A, Faridabad for about 30 years with duties to deliver the dak, has proved that the area 17/3, Mathura CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 466 of 569 Road, Faridabad was under his jurisdiction and he had never heard about any company namely M/s. Ashok Transport of India in his jurisdiction. He also proved that exact pin code of the area 17/3 Mathura Road, Faridabad was 121002 and the pin code 121007 is of 17/6 Escorts Nagar, Post Office Faridabad. Further, Sh. T.C. Bhardwaj (PW34) a practicing lawyer in Sales Tax, has proved that he was known to M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.8, 13/3, Mathura Road, Faridabad since he had worked in the said firm as an Accountant from 1990 to March, 2001 where the accused Pradeep Anand (A2) was the Managing Director of the said company. He had further proved that he know Mrs. Shalini Anand W/o accused Pradeep Anand and K.K. Sahani (relative of accused Pradeep Anand) who were the Directors of above mentioned firm. He also proved that C.K. Saxena and Sh. Swaraj Chauhan were also known to him who were working in the above mentioned company. The witness Swaraj Chauhan (PW24) has proved that he was an employee of Pradeep Anand and on the asking of Pradeep Anand, he had opened the Current Account No.2815 in the name of M/s. Permanent Tools & Machines on 21.07.1995, vide the current account opening form Ex.PW4/C which was authorized by accused S.K. Pathrella and was introduced by accused Pradeep Anand vide introduction Ex.PW9/22.
(83) The witness R. Rajamohan (PW9) who is a banker has proved that a loan application form Ex.PW9/23 alongwith annexure Ex.PW9/24 and Ex.PW9/25 was submitted on behalf of M/s.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 467 of 569 Permanent Tools & Machines for documentary DD Loan of Rs. 20 Lacs by accused Pradeep Anand under his signatures. (84) Similarly, Balbir Singh Godara (PW42), Officer from Oriental Bank of Commerce has proved that the bill bearing Misc. No. 33/ 95 to 36/95 (bill were not available with the bank as either they were destroyed) for a sum of Rs.4,45,536/, Rs.4,39,348/, Rs.4,33,160/, Rs.4,20,784/ totaling amount of Rs.17,38,828/ drawn on Orient Heavy Engineering Corporation, Ahmedabad, which was a non existing firm [as proved by Sh. S.K. Mikily (PW62) who has also proved the letter of Bank Ex.PW62/1 (D528) to the extent that Orient Heavy Engineering Corporation was not maintaining any account with the bank and that the bank has never received bills from Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony Branch, Delhi] were submitted by accused Pradeep Anand on 01.08.1995 and was ordered to be purchased by S.K. Pathrella vide entry dated 01.08.1995 at page no.79 of Ex.PW38/B (authority register D
550). He has further proved that the said bills were purchased by the branch vide entry dated 01.08.1995 at Page no.43 Ex.PW38/E (D548) of bill purchase register Ex.PW38/C and vide bill purchase voucher Ex.PW42/C (D356) dated 01.08.1995 and the payment of amount of Rs.14,90,963/ has been transferred/credited vide voucher Ex.PW42/A (D357) in the account no. 2815 of M/s. Permanent Machines & Tools. He has also proved that vide self cheque Ex.PW9/21 an amount of Rs.8 lacs, vide Ex.PW24/B1 an CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 468 of 569 amount of Rs.6.85 lacs and vide Ex.PW24/B2 an amount of Rs.5,000/ (D359 to D361) which cheques were issued by Swaraj Chauhan as proprietor of the firm, were withdrawn by Pradeep Anand (A2).
(85) In the light of the above evidence, I hereby hold that the prosecution has been able to successfully prove that the firms M/s. Suraksha Engineers & Steel Traders and M/s. Permanent Tools & Machines were nonexisting firms with no transactions and were the creation of Pradeep Anand (A2) only to give effect to his criminal conspiracy with S.K. Pathrella (A1).
(L) Denial by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. regarding placing of orders for purchase of material from M/s. Moonlight Engineers - Proved:
(86) Now coming to the denial by the Indian Oil Corporation regarding placing of orders for purchase of material from M/s. Moonlight Engineers, the witness Sh. Sanjay Krishna Sinha (PW14) has proved that he was posted as Deputy Manager Materials IOCL at Kolkatta and was looking after the procurement of materials like pipes, flanges etc. He has further proved that the company had approved list of parties and used to purchase the material through limited tender from the approved list of parties and that in addition to it the company also used to flat public tenders for the procurement of the material and for certain material the list of parties was approved by the Head Office and for some by the Local Management. He has CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 469 of 569 further proved that no order was ever placed or no material has been purchased by material department of Indian Oil Corporation at Kolkatta from M/s Moonlight Engineers and no supply was received from M/s Moonlight Engineers or no payment was made to M/s Moonlight Engineers by IOCL.
Similarly, R.K. Singh (PW61) has proved that IOCL Pipeline Division did not place any order to M/s. Moonlight Engineers, Faridabad which fact has also been corroborated by Kameshwar Prasad Mishra (PW58) who has clarified that the firm M/s. Moonlight Engineers, Faridabad did not figure in the list of approved vendors. Further, Sh. Rakesh Kumar Sharma (PW86) an Asstt. Engineer with Indian Oil Corporation and retired in the year 2012 as General Manager, has proved that the head office of the pipeline division of Indian Oil Corporation is situated at A1, Udyog Marg, Sector1, Noida. He has proved that the work assigned to lay cross country petroleum product and crude oil pipelines through refineries and he remained posted as Chief Material Manager at Jaipur, VCPPL (ViramgamChaksu and Panipat Pipeline). He has proved that the purchase order dated 23.12.1994 Ex.P11/1 was placed on M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. Faridabad for supply of material amounting to Rs.51,18,730/ and the another purchase order dated 23.12.1994 Ex.PW17/A3 was placed on M/s. Steel Samrat Bombay for a sum of Rs.24,68,563/. According to him, his division was facing the problems with M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. as it was not supplying full CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 470 of 569 material and the material was also inferior quality and therefore, the amount of purchase was reduced from Rs.51,18,730/ to Rs.46,83,370/ and further it was reduced to 33,24,020/ after giving the ultimatum to the party on 15.01.1996 for supply of goods. He has proved that the Bill No. 1214 dated 01.03.95 Ex.PW17/12 and the Lorry Receipt Ex.PW33/4 were not received in his office at Jaipur for payment and the lorry receipts were different documents than the documents received in his office, the name of the Transporter Ashok Transport of India is based in Faridabad whereas the invoice which their division has processed was based in Mumbai Transporter. He has further proved that the Bill No. 1065 dated 13.02.1995 Ex.PW9/72 was never received in his office at Jaipur for payment and that it was the different bill because the signatory of the bill is different however, the date and amount of the bill was same. He has also proved that the bill no. 1053 dated 30.01.95 Ex.PW9/67 (D113) and the lorry receipt Ex.PW33/K (D113) were never received in his office at Jaipur for payment and that it was the different bill because the date of the bill which his office had processed is dated 02.02.1995 and the amount was of Rs.57,200/, the name of the Transporter Ashok Transport of India is based in Faridabad whereas the invoice which his division has processed was of a Mumbai based Transporter. The witness has also proved that the bill no. 1058 dated 07.02.95 Ex.PW9/65 (D111) was not received in his office at Jaipur for payment and that was the different bill because the amount of bill and date which was processed by his office was CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 471 of 569 amounting to Rs.36,400/ whereas the date was same i.e. 07.02.1995. According to him, the bill no. 1061 dated 10.02.95 Ex.PW9/64 (D
109) was not received in his office at Jaipur for payment and that was the different bill because the amount of bill and date which was processed by his office was amounting to Rs.1,96,352/ whereas the date was same i.e. 10.02.1995. He has also proved that the bill no. 1213 dated 01.03.95 Ex.PW17/20 (D125) and the lorry receipt Ex.PW33/W (D125) were not received in his office at Jaipur for payment and it was the different bill because the date of the bill which his office had processed was 04.02.95 and the amount was Rs.1,48,608.72 whereas the date and amount both were different from bill processed in his office and also the name of the Transporter Ashok Transport of India is based in Faridabad whereas in the invoice which his division has processed, was of a Mumbai based Transporter. He has further proved that the bills Ex.PW17/36A and Ex.PW17/36B, Ex.PW17/37, Ex.PW17/38, Ex.PW17/39, Ex.PW17/40 which were processed in his office and were taken by the CBI, are genuine bills and contains the initials of recipient officials alongwith the official stamp of IOCL of Noida and he had identified his signatures on the letters dated 13.05.95 and 06.04.1995 Ex.PW86/2 and Ex.PW86/3. He has further proved that the documents Ex.PW9/61, Ex.PW33/A, Ex.PW17/11, Ex.PW17/12, Ex.PW33/C, Ex.PW17/13, Ex.PW9/62, Ex.PW33/E, Ex.PW9/63, Ex.PW9/64, Ex.PW17/14, Ex.PW9/65, Ex.PW9/66, Ex.PW9/67, Ex.PW9/68, Ex.PW9/69, Ex.PW17/15, Ex.PW9/70, Ex.PW9/71, CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 472 of 569 Ex.PW17/16, Ex.PW9/72, Ex.PW17/17, Ex.PW17/18, Ex.PW17/19, Ex.PW9/73, Ex.PW17/20 and Ex.PW17/21 relating to Steel Samrat (India) Mumbai, were never received by his office and processed for payment and that the invoices Ex.PW45/2 to Ex.PW45/11 related to M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. were never received by his office at Jaipur for payment.
(87) Hence, in the light of the aforesaid discussion, it stands established that the IOCL had never placed any order for purchase of material from M/s. Moonlight Engineers and accordingly the bills as discussed herein above were forged and fabricated documents.
OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS:
(88) I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Learned Senior Public Prosecutor for CBI and the Learned Defence Counsels. I have also considered the written memorandum of arguments filed by the prosecution as well as the defence, the evidence on record and the various authorities. My observations and findings follow.
Observations relating to transactions shown in AnnexureA to Annexure J:
(89) In the light of the evidence which has come on record as proved by the prosecution, as discussed herein above, my detailed CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 473 of 569 observations with regard to the various transactions as reflected in Annexures A to Annexure J are as under:
ANNEXURE - A (Serial No. 1 to 7) M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd.
CC Account No. 1670 Purchase of Bills Nos. 48/94 to 54/94 dated 28.6.1994: (90) It is not disputed that M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. was maintaining the cash credit account bearing no. 1670 at Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony, New Delhi. On behalf of True Fab Pvt. Ltd. Accused Pradeep Anand presented 7 bills vide nos.
48/94 to 54/94 to be drawn on Binni Ltd. Madras and BHEL Hyderabad on 28.6.1994 as reflected vide entry dated 28.6.1994 at page 02 of bill purchase register Ex.PW51/5 (D547). The total amount of bills was Rs.9,06,610.23 and at the time of purchase of these bills the total outstanding against True Fab Pvt. Ltd. was Rs.16,63,397.83 against the total limit of Rs. 15 lacs sanctioned by the bank for the bill purchase. Thus limit was exceeded by Rs.10,70,008.06 despite this fact accused S.K. Pathrella had purchased these bills which was not in his power. However, accused S.K. Pathrella, sought confirmation of his action vide his letter dated 27.06.94 Ex.PW9/217 (D04), (Pg.105) from Regional Office, but no reply/no confirmation was ever received from the Regional Office. (91) After purchase of the bills the amount was debited from the bill purchase account of the bank vide single voucher Ex.PW49/30 CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 474 of 569 (D25) and credited in the account bearing no. 1670 of True Fab Pvt. Ltd. vide single voucher Ex.PW49/31 (D26).
(92) The accused Pradeep Anand utilized the money by withdrawing cash of Rs.50,000/ on 29.6.1994 vide cheque Ex.PW9/78, Rs.35,000/ on 01.07.1994 vide cheque Ex.PW9/79 and Rs.1,35,000/ on 2.7.1994 vide cheque Ex.PW9/80 as reflected in the statement of account of M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. bearing no. 1670 Ex.PW49/5 D5.
(93) The amount of these bills remained unpaid and the amount of these bills were recovered on 27.3.1995 from the account of True Fab Pvt. Ltd. is reflected in statement of account Ex.PW49/5. The amount of bills of BHEL remained unpaid and it was recovered on 6.3.1995 from the account of M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. as reflected from statement of account Ex.PW49/5. (94) I may observe that though it is the case of the prosecution that the accused S.K. Pathrella exceeded his power and violated the bank circular Ex.PW1/A1 in order to facilitate the accused Pradeep Anand for Rs.9,06,610.23 and the accused Pradeep Anand utilized the bank funds for nine months from 28.06.1994 to 26.03.1995 and that the accused S.K. Pathrella in conspiracy with the accused Pradeep Anand provided public / bank money for his private use, yet I may observe that the Investigating Officer has not included this amount in the loss caused to the bank in view of its recovery on 06.03.1995 from the account of M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. and I CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 475 of 569 hereby hold that since the investigating agency and the prosecution themselves have not raised any specific dispute with regard to the above transactions, therefore the above transaction cannot be read against the accused.
ANNEXURE - B (Serial No. 1 to 25) M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd.
CC Account No. 1670 Purchase of Bills dated 31.12.1994:
(95) The accused Pardeep Anand, presented twenty five bills on 31.12.94 as reflected vide entry at page no. 42 of Authority register Ex.PW51/7 (D550) and these bills authorized by SK Pathrella, to purchase vide order 31.12.94 available in his handwriting against the above said entry of the bills in the authority register Ex.PW51/7(D550). By the time the sanctioned limit of the firm True Fab Pvt. Ltd. had expired on 01.09.94 and thereafter no limit was available with the company/firm. Accused SK Pathrella knowingly authorized the above bills for purchase despite the fact that no limit was available with the company/firm. The accused S.K. Pathrella, sought confirmation of action vide his letter dated. 31.12.94/01.01.95 Ex.PW56/F(D4, page no. 123). By the date the outstanding of the bills purchased was Rs.1738192.02 despite the fact that the sanctioned limit had also expired on 01.09.94. By purchase of these bills amounting Rs. 28.44 lacs, the total outstanding balance became Rs.4582632.02 as on 31.12.94 as reflected from the entry Ex.PW51/5 CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 476 of 569 (D547, Page no.3 & 4). According to the accused S.K. Pathrella, he had written to the accused S K Lakhina, DGM, Regional Office and sought confirmation about the alleged telephonic permission.
However, I may note that on 13.01.95 the accused S K Lakhina, has written a letter Ex.PW87/15(D04, page no. 124) and vide this letter accused SK Lakhina asked him to ensure the regularization of the account which was never done.
(96) I may note that after the purchase order of the bills, the total amount of the bills was debited from bills purchase account of the bank and Rs.2830004.00 was credited in the account bearing no. 1670 of M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. vide single voucher Ex.PW49/33(D
33). The entry dated 31.12.94 to this fact is also available in the statement of account Ex.PW49/5(D5). (97) The accused Pardeep Anand, had withdrawn the cash amount of Rs.30,0000/ on the very same day that is 31.12.1994 vide cheque no. 346651 dated. 30.12.94 Ex.PW9/82(D34) and had transferred the amount of Rs.3,10,000/ on 02.01.95 to his own proprietorship concern M/s. Moonlight Engineers having account no. 1598 as reflect from the debit entry dated 02.01.95 from the statement of account no. 1670 Ex.PW49/5(D5) and corresponding credit entry dt. 02.01.95 as reflected in statement of account no. 1598 Ex.PW53/2(D191). This cash withdrawal and entry regarding transfer of amount was without any trade between the two firms. This proves the misutilization of the amount for private use as it was not used for purpose which was credited in the account of the firm CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 477 of 569 M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. On the face of it, the accused SK Pathrella, did not ensure the end use of the cash withdrawal and allowed withdrawal of the amount.
(98) The amount of these bills was received from drawee IOCL, Jaipur through its banker SBI, Sindhi Colony Jaipur on 20.02.95 as reflected vide entry at page no. 04 of bills purchase register Ex.PW51/5(D547).
(99) Though it is the case of the prosecution that the accused SK Pathrella (A1) in pursuance to the conspiracy with accused Pradeep Anand (A2) had purchased the bills without any authority or no limit being available to the True Fab Pvt. Ltd. in violation banking rules, yet I may observe that the Investigating Officer has not included this amount in the loss caused to the bank in view of its recovery from the account of M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. on 20.02.1995. (100) Further, in so far as the accused S.K. Lakhina (A3) is concerned, I may note that he has in his defence has been most consistent and he has crossexamined the witnesses of the prosecution on this aspect and has further in his statement affirmed that he had been repeatedly telling the accused S.K. Pathrella in writing to first regularize the account of the firm M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. only after which his action can be confirmed. Therefore, in the light of the above, I hereby hold that since the investigating agency and the prosecution themselves have not raised any specific dispute with regard to the above transactions, hence the same cannot be read against the accused.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 478 of 569 ANNEXURE - C (Serial No. 1 to 26) M/s. Steel Samrat India Current Account No. 2458 Purchase of Bills bearing Nos. SS 1/95 to SS 26/95 all dated 02.03.1995:
(101) It is not disputed that the accused Pradeep Anand presented the above bills on 02.03.1995 as reflected from the entry at page no.
49 of authority Register Ex.PW38/B (D550) and against this entry, the accused S.K. Pathrella has permitted the purchase of bills. These bills were also entered in the bill purchase register while entry at page no. 120 of bill purchase register Ex.PW51/5(D547). (102) After the purchase of the bills, a sum of Rs.22,05,083.32 was debited from the bill purchase account of the bank vide voucher Ex.PW49/70 (D129) and a sum of Rs.21,94,953.32 was credited vide voucher Ex.PW49/6 (D130) in the account of M/s Steel Samrat (India) a Proprietorship concern of accused Pradeep Anand as reflected in the statement of account Ex.PW9/DX13 (D98). (103) In fact the amount of these bills has been utilized by the accused Pradeep Anand (A2) by way of transfer on 02.03.95 vide cheque No. 863105 dated 28.2.95 Ex.PW9/134 (D137) for a sum of Rs.14.50 lacs in favour of M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. [the deposit slip of cheque is Ex.PW9/134A (D136)] and further transferred on 04.03.95 vide cheque No.863108 dated 04.3.95 Ex.PW9/135 (D139) for a sum of Rs.5.50 lacs in favour of M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. [the deposit slip of cheque is Ex.PW9/135A (D138)]. In fact, the CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 479 of 569 corresponding entry of the said transaction is available at statement of account of Steel Samrat (India) as reflected in the statement of account Ex.PW9/DX13 (D98) and corresponding entry in statement of account Ex.PW49/5 (D5) of M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. These 24 bills were returned by SBI, Sindhi Colony, Jaipur with remarks "payment not forthcoming" by return memo dated 19.3.96. (104) Hence, it stands established that the accused Pradeep Anand (A2) and accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) dishonestly and fraudulently presented and purchased the bills unauthorizedly knowing that the bills would not be returned and thereby cheated the bank and caused loss to it.
ANNEXURE - D (Serial No. 1 to 12) M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd.
CC Account No. 1670 Purchase of 12 Bills bearing nos. 82/95 to 93/95 dated 25.03.1995:
(105) It is not disputed that the accused Pardeep Anand (A2) presented twelve bills bearing no. 82/95 to 93/95 Ex.PW45/2 to Ex.PW45/13 (D13 to 24) on 25.03.95 as reflected from the entry at page no. 54 of Authority Register Ex.PW38/B (D550). Accused SK Pathrella had permitted the purchase of the bills on 25.03.95 as reflected from the order in his hand writing, against the entry of the bills in the Authority Register. Thereafter the bills where purchased by debiting bill purchase account of the bank, the entry dated 27.03.95 available at page no. 3 of the bills purchase register Ex.PW38/C (D548).
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 480 of 569 (106) The accused S.K. Pathrella was aware about the instructions from the Regional Office by the accused S.K. Lakhina (A4) that the account of M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. be first regularized as no limit was available with the company/firm and the account was overdrawn with a total outstanding of Rs.5,01,621.67 in the account but he still purchased the bills just to facilitate the accused Pardeep Anand to raise the fund for his own use. I note that the accused S.K. Pathrella had written a letter dated 27.03.95 Ex.PW9/15 (D4 page no. 187) for confirmation of his action for purchase of the bills wherein he had sought telephonic permission from accused S.K. Lakhina and also intimated the outstanding amount Rs. 24.38 lacs and again in reply to this letter, accused SK Pathrella, wrote a letter dated 30.03.95 Ex.PW9/DX6 (D4 page no.188) but the accused S.K. Lakhina conveyed the action confirmation in having permitted bills discounting facility to the extent the Rs.24.38 lacs only against the regular sanctioned limit of Rs.15 lacs. (107) The amount of total of the bill purchased for Rs.19,26,655/ was credited in the account of M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. vide single credit voucher dated 27.03.95 Ex.PW51/16 (D45) and the corresponding entry is also available in statement of account M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. Ex.PW49/5(D5).
(108) Further, the accused Pardeep Anand has also misutilized the amount of bills purchased by transferring Rs.2,00,000/ to group account of M/s. Moonlight Engineers vide cheque no. 070302 Ex.PW9/112 (D52) and Ex.PW9/112A (D53). The bills of M/s.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 481 of 569 Binny Ltd. purchased on 28.06.94 (bill no. 48/94 to 52/94) were reversed/paid by M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. with interest amounting to Rs.4,21,666.07 on 27.03.95 vide debit voucher Ex.PW51/18 (D47) and credit voucher for Rs.3,69,368.07 (total bill amount) Ex.PW51/19 (D48). The accused Pardeep Anand, also withdrew the cash of Rs.3,00,000/ on 28.03.95 vide cheque no. 347923 Ex.PW9/115(D57). The said bills were dispatched to SBI, Sindhi Colony, Jaipur, the banker of drawee IOCL, Jaipur for collection of payment vide dispatch entry Ex. P3/11(D555) in dispatch register maintained by the Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony, New Delhi.
(109) These bills were returned unpaid from the drawee's banker SBI, Sindhi Colony, Jaipur, vide return memo dated 19.03.96 (D101) with reason "payment not forthcoming" which returned bills are available on record and have not been disputed by any of the accused. It is writ large that the accused S.K. Pathrella, did not ensure the recovery of the payment from the account M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. despite the return of the bills and as a consequent the bank suffered a loss in the shape of amount of the bill and the interest thereon. Here, I may observe that the payment of four bills i.e. 87/95 (Ex.PW45/8), 90/95 (Ex.PW45/11), 91/95 (Ex.PW45/12) and 93/95 (Ex.PW45/13) have been received back (not disputed) as evident from the Bill Purchase Register Ex.PW38/C which amount of Rs.6,81500/ is liable to be deducted (Rs.19,26,655/ minus Rs.6,81,500/ = Rs.12,45,155/).
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 482 of 569 (110) I hereby hold that it is this which establishes a clear meeting of mind and existence of a criminal conspiracy between the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) and Pradeep Anand (A2) since despite the sanctioned limit having expired and no limit being available with M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd., the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) despite the advise of S.K. Lakhina (A3) had been continuously purchasing the bills without adjusting the previous outstanding amount of the firm.
ANNEXURE - E (Serial No.1) M/s. Moonlight Engineers Current Account No. 2458 Purchase of Bill No. Misc. 59/95 dated 14.3.1995:
(111) It is an admitted case that the accused Pradeep Anand presented this bill as reflected vide the entry at Page No. 97 of Bill Purchase Register Ex.PW38/C (D547). There is no entry in the authority register of this bill and the accused S.K. Pathrella had purchased this bill. After the purchase of this bill, a sum of the bill of Rs.5,76,459.52 was debited from bill purchase account of the bank and the amount of Rs.5,76,459.52 was credited vide voucher Ex.PW41/C (D202) in the account of M/s. Moonlight Engineers.
The corresponding entry dated 14.3.1995 is also reflected in statement of account of the said firm Ex.PW53/2 (D191). (112) The said bill was dispatched to Vysya Bank, Nariman Point, Mumbai for collection of payment as reflected vide entry at S. No. 1302 dated 15.3.1995 Ex.P3/4.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 483 of 569 (113) The proceeds of these bills was utilized by accused Pradeep Anand by transferring Rs.5,75,000/ vide cheque no.772752 dated 15.3.1995 Ex.PW9/225B to Shiv Industrial Enterprises without any genuine trade transaction. The corresponding entry 15.3.1995 in statement of account Ex.PW53/2.
(114) The Investigating Officer Inspector Satish Dagar (PW88) has proved the seizure memo Ex.PW88/17 in respect of various communications of the drawee's bank i.e. Vysya Bank to the Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony which confirms that the drawee i.e. M/s. New World Trader is not its client and the bills were returned to the drawer's bank i.e. Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony, New Delhi, vide letter dated 27.3.1995 (D345). Along with the said communication, the Investigating Officer had also seized the certified photocopy of outward dispatch register (D
346) containing the entry at S. No. 1249 at page no. 143 whereby the bills were returned to the drawer's bank i.e. Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony, New Delhi. There is a presumption of correctness of these communications made in regular course of business which documents, even otherwise, have not been disputed by the accused.
(115) The testimony of witness Sandeep Gupta (PW15) is most relevant who has stated that his father had been an employee of Oriental Bank of Commerce and known to S.K. Pathrella (A1) and it was at the instance of S.K. Pathrella (A1) that an account in the name of M/s. Shiv Industrial Enterprises was opened at Oriental Bank CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 484 of 569 of Commerce, New Friends Colony and he had handed over signed cheques to S.K. Pathrella (A1) who had promised him business from Pradeep Anand (A2), a fact which stands confirmed in view of the transactions between the proprietorship firm of Pradeep Anand (A2) and Shiv Industrial Enterprises without any proof of formal business between the two. In fact, the witness Sandeep Gupta has clarified that he did not know Pradeep Anand (A1) and it was only S.K. Pathrella (A1) who had introduced him to Pradeep Anand (A2). (116) Hence, in view of my aforesaid discussion, I hereby hold that the aspect of conspiracy and prior meeting of mind between S.K. Pathrella (A1) and Pradeep Anand (A2) stands established. It further stands established that the accused Pradeep Anand (A2) dishonestly presented this bill for utilization of amount and transfer to Shiv Industrial Enterprises at the instance of the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) to benefit Pradeep Anand (A2) by inducing Sandeep Gupta (PW15) and promising him business from Pradeep Anand (A
2) and the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) purchased this bill without any authority thereby cheated the bank by utilization of the public money into private used and caused loss to the bank.
ANNEXURE - E (Serial No.2) M/s. Moonlight Engineers Current Account No. 2458 Purchase of Bill No. Misc. 60/95 dated 16.3.1995:
(117) It is an admitted case that the accused Pradeep Anand (A2) presented this bill as reflected vide the entry at Page No. 51 of authority Register Ex.PW38/B (D550) and against this entry, the CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 485 of 569 accused S. K. Pathrella had permitted to purchase this bill. This bill was entered in Bill Purchase Register Ex.PW38/C (D547) vide entry at Page No. 97. After the purchase of this bill, the amount of the bill Rs.7,91,960/ was debited from bill purchase account of the bank vide debit voucher Ex.PW52/4 (D207) and a sum of Rs.7,88,388/ was credited in the account vide voucher Ex.PW52/3 (D208) in the account of M/s. Moonlight Engineers. The corresponding entry dated
16.3.1995 is also reflected in statement of account of the said firm Ex.PW53/2 (D191). The said bill was dispatched to drawee's bank Vysya Bank, Nariman Point, Mumbai for collection of payment as reflected vide entry at S. No. 1352 at page no. 48 dated 18.3.1995 Ex.P3/4.
(118) The Investigating Officer Inspector Satish Dagar (PW88) has proved the seizure memo Ex.PW88/17 in respect of various communications of the drawee's bank i.e. Vysya Bank to the Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony which confirms that the drawee i.e. M/s. New World Trader is not its client and the bills were returned to the drawer's bank i.e. Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony, New Delhi, vide letter dated 27.3.1995 (D345). Along with the said communication, the Investigating Officer had also seized the certified photocopy of outward dispatch register (D
346) containing the entry at S. No. 1249 at page no. 143 whereby the bills were returned to the drawer's bank i.e. Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony, New Delhi. There is a presumption of correctness of these communications made in regular course of CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 486 of 569 business which documents, even otherwise, have not been disputed by the accused.
(119) The proceeds of these bills was utilized by accused Pradeep Anand by withdrawing cash Rs.6,00,000/ vide cheque no. 772754 dated 18.3.1995 Ex.PW9/170 to self. The corresponding entry 18.3.1995 in statement of account is Ex.PW53/2. (120) The payment of this bill was received by Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony Branch New Delhi, on 30.9.1995 as reflected from the entry in column "date of realization" at page 66 of Ex.PW38/D (D549). The corresponding credit voucher dated 30.9.1995 is Ex.PW42/K (D259) vide which the bill of amount was credited in the bill purchase account of the bank. (121) Therefore, it stands established that the accused Pradeep Anand (A2) dishonestly presented this bill for utilization of amount to transfer to Shiv Industrial Enterprises and the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) purchased this bill without any authority thereby cheated the bank by utilization of the public money into private used and caused loss to the bank.
ANNEXURE - E (Serial No.3) M/s. Moonlight Engineers Current Account No. 2458 Purchase of Bill No. Misc. 64/95 dated 30.3.1995:
(122) It is an admitted case that the accused Pradeep Anand (A2) presented this bill as reflected vide the entry Ex.PW51/2 at Page No. CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 487 of 569 61 of authority Register Ex.PW38/B (D550) and against this entry, the accused S. K. Pathrella had permitted to purchase this bill. This bill was entered in Bill Purchase Register Ex.PW38/C (D547) vide entry at Page No. 98. After the purchase of this bill, the amount of the bill i.e. Rs.8,18,688/ was debited from bill purchase account of the bank vide debit voucher Ex.PW48/1 (D237) and a sum of Rs.8,16,178/ was credited in the account vide voucher Ex.PW48/2 (D238) in the account of Moonlight Engineers. The corresponding entry dated 30.3.1995 is also reflected in statement of account of the said firm Ex.PW53/2 (D191). There is no dispatch entry regarding this bill in the dispatch register.
(123) The Investigating Officer Inspector Satish Dagar (PW88) has proved the seizure memo Ex.PW88/17 in respect of various communications of the drawee's bank i.e. Vysya Bank to the Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony which confirms that the drawee i.e. M/s. New World Trader is not its client and the bills were returned to the drawer's bank i.e. Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony, New Delhi, vide letter dated 27.3.1995 (D345). Along with the said communication, the Investigating Officer had also seized the certified photocopy of outward dispatch register (D346) containing the entry at S. No. 1249 at page no. 143 whereby the bills were returned to the drawer's bank i.e. Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony, New Delhi.
There is a presumption of correctness of these communications made in regular course of business which documents, even otherwise, have CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 488 of 569 not been disputed by the accused.
(124) The proceeds of this bill was utilized by accused Pradeep Anand by withdrawing cash Rs.2,25,000/ vide cheque no. 772768 dated 30.3.1995 Ex.PW9/185 (D236) to self and Rs.2,50,000/ vide cheque no. 772769 dated 30.3.1995 Ex.PW9/186 (D240) to self. The corresponding entry 30.3.1995 in statement of account is Ex.PW53/2 (D191).
(125) Therefore, it stands established that the accused Pradeep Anand (A2) had dishonestly presented the bill and accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) in conspiracy with Pradeep Anand (A2) purchased the bill unauthorizedly and intentionally did not made any entry in the bill dispatch register thereby cheated the bank and caused loss to the bank.
ANNEXURE - E (Serial No.4) M/s. Moonlight Engineers Current Account No. 2458 Purchase of Bill No. Misc. 5/95 dated 3.5.1995:
(126) It is not disputed that the accused Pradeep Anand presented this bill as reflected vide the entry Ex.PW51/2 at Page No. 61 of authority Register Ex.PW38/B (D550) and against this entry, the accused S. K. Pathrella had permitted to purchase this bill. This bill was entered in Bill Purchase Register Ex.PW51/1 (D548) vide entry at Page No. 39. After the purchase of this bill, the amount of the bill Rs.4,54,272/ was debited from bill purchase account of the bank and CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 489 of 569 a sum of Rs.4,52,324/ was credited in the account vide voucher Ex.PW51/3 (D244) in the account of M/s. Moonlight Engineers.
The corresponding entry dated 3.5.1995 is also reflected in statement of account of the said firm Ex.PW53/2 (D191). (127) The said bill was dispatched to Vysya Bank, Nariman Point, Mumbai for collection of payment as reflected vide entry Ex.PW3/6 at S. No. 2152 at page no.79 dated 9.5.1995. (128) The Investigating Officer Inspector Satish Dagar (PW88) has proved the seizure memo Ex.PW88/17 in respect of various communications of the drawee's bank i.e. Vysya Bank to the Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony which confirms that the drawee i.e. M/s. New World Trader is not its client and the bills were returned to the drawer's bank i.e. Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony, New Delhi, vide letter dated 27.3.1995 (D345). Along with the said communication, the Investigating Officer had also seized the certified photocopy of outward dispatch register (D
346) containing the entry at S. No. 1249 at page no. 143 whereby the bills were returned to the drawer's bank i.e. Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony, New Delhi. There is a presumption of correctness of these communications made in regular course of business which documents, even otherwise, have not been disputed by the accused.
(129) The proceeds of this bill were utilized by accused Pradeep Anand by preparing a bank draft against cheque no. 772777 dated 3.5.1995 Ex.PW9/188 (D242) issued in favour of Oriental CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 490 of 569 Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony, New Delhi for preparing a bank draft in the name of Gyan Chand Luthra for Rs.4,00,000/, which application form for preparing the draft is Ex.PW9/189 (D243) and the corresponding debit entry 3.5.1995 in statement of account is Ex.PW53/2 (D191). (130) Hence, it stands established that the accused Pradeep Anand (A2) had dishonestly presented the bill and accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) in conspiracy with Pradeep Anand (A2) purchased the bill unauthorizedly and intentionally did not made any entry in the bill dispatch register thereby cheated the bank and caused loss to the bank.
ANNEXURE - E (Serial No.5 to 11) M/s. Moonlight Engineers Current Account No. 2458 Purchase of Bill No. ML 1/95 to 7/95 all dated 26.5.1995 under fake LC's bearing No. 126783/256 dated 15.05.1995:
(131) It is an admitted case that the accused Pradeep Anand presented these bill as reflected vide the entry at Page No. 66 of authority Register Ex.PW38/B (D550) and against this entry, the accused S. K. Pathrella had permitted to purchase these bills. These bills were entered in Bill Purchase Register Ex.PW51/1 (D548) vide entry at Page No. 39. After the purchase of these bills, the amount of the bills i.e. Rs.29,96,760/ was debited from bill purchase account of the bank vide voucher Ex.PW9/226A3 (D250) and a sum of Rs.29,20,875/ was credited in the account vide voucher CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 491 of 569 Ex.PW9/226 A4 (D251) in the account of Moonlight Engineers.
The corresponding entry dated 26.5.1995 is also reflected in statement of account of the said firm Ex.PW53/2 (D191). These bills were handed over to accused Rajiv Anand vide letter dated 26.5.1995 Ex.PW44/3 (D255) under the instructions of accused S.K. Pathrella. (132) The accused Pradeep Anand used the courier receipt which he had got obtained through his employee Rajiv Anand (A4) from the World Pak Air Courier Services. Further, the witness M.A. Kinni (PW60), Sr. Manager from Canara Bank, Warden House, P.M. Road, Fort Mumbai Branch has proved that the Letter of Credit No. 126783/256 dated 15.05.1995 in favour of M/s. Alliance Engineers & Fabricators was never issued by the Canara Bank and also proved that the above said firm was not having any account with the bank and also not received any bill from Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony Branch, New Delhi. In this regard, he has proved his letter Ex.PW60/1 (D561).
(133) The Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony Branch, New Delhi wrote a reminder letter dated 22.11.1995 Ex.PW88/25 and letter 08.12.1995 Ex.PW88/24 regarding the bill payment to the Branch Manager Canara Bank, Fort Mumbai and in response to these letters, the Canara Bank, Fort Mumbai replied vide letter dated 14.12.1995 Ex.PW60/DX1 informed that the letters do not pertain to the said branch.
(134) The proceeds of this bill was utilized by accused Pradeep Anand (A2) by transfer in the account bearing no.1670 of M/s. True CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 492 of 569 Fab Pvt. Ltd. a sum of Rs.29 lacs vide debit transfer voucher Ex.PW9/226A1 (D248) and corresponding transfer credit voucher Ex.PW9/226A2 (D249). The corresponding debit entry 26.5.1995 in statement of account Ex.PW53/2 (D191). The payment of these bills were never received as the LC and bills are proved fake. (135) Hence, in the light of the above discussion, I hereby hold that this transaction was totally fake and the Letter of Credit referred in letter Ex.PW44/C by accused S.K. Pathrella was never issued by Canara Bank. It further stands established that the accused Pradeep Anand (A2) in connivance with the accused S.K. Pathrella (A3) had illegally utilized the proceeds of the bill to his private use.
ANNEXURE - E (Serial No.12 to 14) M/s. Moonlight Engineers Current Account No. 2458 Purchase of Bill No. Misc. 75/95 to 77/95 all dated 07.10.1995:
(136) It is an admitted case that the accused Pradeep Anand (A2) presented the above mentioned bills vide pay in slip Ex.PW9/195 (D
265), Ex.PW9/196 (D268) and Ex.PW9/197 (D269) as reflected vide the entry at Page No. 101 of authority Register Ex.PW38/B (D
550). Against this entry, the accused S. K. Pathrella had permitted to purchase this bill. This bill was entered in Bill Purchase Register Ex.PW38/C (D547) vide entry at Page No. 70. After the purchase of this bill, the amount of the bill Rs.8,96,894/ was debited from bill purchase account of the bank vide debit voucher Ex.PW38/E (D263) CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 493 of 569 and the amount of Rs.8,92,369/ credited in the account vide voucher Ex.PW38/F (D264) in the account of Moonlight Engineers. The corresponding entry dated 07.10.1995 is also reflected in statement of account of the said firm Ex.PW53/2 (D191). These bills were drawn on SBI, Midnapur as the party M/s. Moonlight Engineers has referred the drawees banker as SBI, Midnapur. I may note that there is no dispatch entry regarding these bills in the dispatch register of the relevant period.
(137) The accused Pradeep Anand utilized the amount of these bills by withdrawing a sum of Rs.7,50,000/ in cash vide cheque no.
647056 dated 07.10.1995 Ex.PW9/199 (D273). This transaction also reflects in the statement of account of M/s. Moonlight Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Ex.PW53/2 (D191).
(138) The witness K.P. Mishra (PW58) from IOCL Haldia, Midnapur has proved that no order was ever placed by IOCL, Midnapur to the firm M/s. Moonlight Engineers Pvt. Ltd. which fact is also corroborated from the letter dated 07.10.1995 Ex.PW88/38 of State Bank of India, Midnapur, that the bills were never received by SBI, Midnapur.
(139) Hence, I hereby hold that it stands established that the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) and Pradeep Anand (A2) in conspiracy with each other, dishonestly and fraudulently presented and purchased the bills without any genuine trade under fake order of IOCL and thereby cheated the bank and caused loss to it.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 494 of 569 ANNEXURE - F (Serial No.1) M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd.
CC Account No. 1670 Purchase of bill no. 1/95 on 28.04.95 drawn on M/s. New World Traders:
(140) It is not disputed that the accused Pardeep Anand (A2) had presented the bill no. 1/95 dated 28.04.95 to the bank as reflected from the entry at page no. 3 of bill purchase register Ex.PW51/1 (D
548) for a sum of Rs.8,69,544/. The accused SK Pathrella, knowingly that there were instructions from the Regional Office to the effect that the account of the True Fab Pvt. Ltd. be first regularized as no limit was available with the company/ firm since the account was overdrawn with a total outstanding of Rs.20,67,713/, further purchased the bills just to facilitate/favour the accused Pardeep Anand to raise the fund for private use. The amount of this bill was credited in the account of M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. vide credit voucher Ex.PW9/123A(D70). The accused Pradeep Anand withdrew the amount of Rs.1 lacs vide Cheque No.70325 on 4.5.95 against the expired sanction since 1.9.94 in Cash Credit account No. 1670 of M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. Ex.PW49/5 (D5).
(141) This bill was dispatched to Vyshya Bank, Nariman point, Mumbai vider entry S. No. 2021 dated 29.04.95 at page no.74 Ex.PW3/2 (D555) of dispatch register for collection of payment.
The said bank had specifically intimated to the Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friend Colony, vide letter dated 14.07.95 Ex.PW88/7 (D292 to 299) that the firm M/s. New World Trader CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 495 of 569 Bombay was not it's client. The intimation regarding bills received from Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony, New Delhi for payment were sent to M/s. New World Traders, but this intimation has been return back with endorsement that no such address of firm found.From this letter, it stands established that this bill was bogus. The accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) in conspiracy with accused Pardeep Anand (A2), purchased this bill and facilitated the accused Pardeep Anand to use the bank fund for his private purposes.
ANNEXURE - F (Serial No.2 & 3) M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd.
CC Account No. 1670 The 02 bills purchase bearing No.2/95 & 3/95 both dated 04.07.95 (142) It is not disputed that the accused Pardeep Anand, presented the bill no. 2/95 and 3/95 dated 04.07.95 to the bank as reflected from the entry at page no.3 of bill purchase register Ex.PW51/1 (D548) for a sum of Rs.5,23,328/. The bill was purchased by the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) despite knowing that there were the instructions from the Regional Office that the account of the True Fab Pvt. Ltd. be first regularized as no limit was available with the company/firm since the account was overdrawn and there was a total outstanding of Rs.28,11,729.60. The accused SK Pathrella had purchased these bills despite the instructions from the Regional Office, only to facilitate the accused Pardeep Anand to raise the fund for private use.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 496 of 569 (143) The proceeds of this bill amounting to Rs.5,20946.00 were credited to the account of M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. as reflected in statement of account Ex.PW49/5 (D5). (144) The accused Pradeep Anand then withdrew a sum of Rs. One lac vide cheque No. 694503 on 5.7.95 against the expired sanction since 1.9.94 in Cash Credit account No. 1670 of M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. [Ex.PW49/5 (D5)].
(145) Thereafter this bill was dispatched to Canara Bank, Jamnagar, Gujrat vide entry S. No. 3005 dated 06.07.95 at page no. 120 Ex.P3/2 (D555) of dispatch register for collection of payment. From the documents Ex.PW69/1 (D368), Ex.PW69/2 (D369), Ex. PW63/1 (D374) and Ex. PW73/1 (D375/3), it stands proved that the bills were returned unpaid as the drawee IOCL, Jamnagar did not retire the bills as the material was not supplied by M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd.
(146) It is proved from above that these bills were bogus. The accused SK Pathrella, in conspiracy with accused Pardeep Anand, purchased this bill and facilitated the accused Pardeep Anand, to use the bank fund for his private purposes.
ANNEXURE - F (Serial No.4 & 5) M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd.
CC Account No. 1670 Purchase of two bills bearing nos. 4/95 & 5/95 dated 29.08.95 (147) It is not disputed that the accused Pardeep Anand presented CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 497 of 569 bills no. 4/95 and 5/95 dated 29.08.95 to the bank as reflected from the entry at page no.3 of bill purchase register Ex.PW51/1 (D548) for a sum of Rs.8,29,192.16p and debit to bill purchase account of Oriental Bank of Commerce vide Ex.PW9/127 (D81). The bill was purchased by the accused S.K. Pathrella knowing that there was instruction from the Regional Office that the account of True Fab Pvt. Ltd. be first regularized as no limit was available with the company/ firm since the account was overdrawn with total outstanding of Rs.33,35,057.60. Despite the same, the accused S.K. Pathrella further purchased the bills inspite of the instructions from the Regional Office the account just to facilitate the accused Pardeep Anand to raise the fund for private use.
(148) The proceeds of this bill amounting Rs.8,25,433.16 was credited vide credit voucher Ex.PW9/127A (D82) in the account of M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. as reflected in statement of account Ex.PW49/5 (D5).
(149) The accused Pradeep Anand was allowed to withdraw an amount of Rs. Four lacs vide Cheque No. 694515 on 28.04.95 against the expired sanction since 1.9.94 in Cash Credit account No. 1670 of M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. Ex.PW49/5 (D5).
(150) This bill was dispatched to SBI, Sindhi Colony Branch, Jaipur vide entry No.455 at page No. 30 (D554) dated 29.08.95 of dispatch register for collection of payment. Though, there is dispatch CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 498 of 569 entry but there is no entry of payment or return of bills from the drawee's bank.
(151) Hence, it stands established that these bills were bogus and that the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) in conspiracy with accused Pardeep Anand (A2), purchased this bill and facilitated the accused Pardeep Anand to use the bank fund for his private purposes causing a loss to the Bank.
ANNEXURE - G (Serial No.1 to 6) M/s. Suraksha Engineers Current Account No. 2764 Purchase of Bills bearing No. Misc. 18/95 to 23/95 all dated 08.06.1995:
(152) It is not disputed that the accused Pradeep Anand had presented the above bills on 08.06.1995 as reflected from the entry at page no. 69 of authority Register Ex.PW38/B (D550). Against this entry, the accused S.K. Pathrella has permitted purchase of the bills which bills were also entered in the bill purchase register while entry at page no. 41 of bill purchase register no.2 (D548). (153) After the purchase of the bills, a sum of Rs.21,12,259.65 was debited from the bill purchase account of the bank vide voucher Ex.PW42/L (D280) and a sum of Rs.21,01,644.65 was credited vide voucher Ex.PW42/D (D281) in the account of M/s Surakasha Engineers & Steel Traders a proprietorship concern of C.K. Singh an employee of accused Pradeep Anand, as reflected in the statement CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 499 of 569 of account Ex.PW53/5 (D280).
(154) The amount of these bills was utilized by accused Pradeep Anand by way of transfer on 8.6.95 vide cheque No. 640752 dated 07.06.95 Ex.PW41/G (D289). for amount of Rs.20 lacs in favour of M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. The deposit slip of cheque is Ex.PW90/4 (D
290) and the corresponding entry of the the said transaction is available at statement of account of M/s Surakasha Engineers & Steel Traders as reflected in the statement of account Ex.PW53/5 (D280) and corresponding entry in statement of account Ex.PW49/5 (D5) of M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd.
(155) These bills were sent to the Vysya Bank, Nariman Point, Bombay for collection of payment, the bills were drawn on New World Traders as reflected vide entry at serial No. 2624 at page no. 104 of dispatch register No.1.
(156) The Investigating Officer Inspector Satish Dagar (PW88) has proved the seizure memo Ex.PW88/17 in respect of various communications of the drawee's bank i.e. Vysya Bank to the Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony which confirms that the drawee i.e. M/s. New World Trader is not its client and the bills were returned to the drawer's bank i.e. Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony, New Delhi, vide letter dated 27.3.1995 (D345). Along with the said communication, the Investigating Officer had also seized the certified photocopy of outward dispatch register (D346) containing the entry at S. No. 1249 at page no. 143 whereby the bills were returned to the drawer's bank CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 500 of 569 i.e. Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony, New Delhi. There is a presumption of correctness of these communications made in regular course of business which documents, even otherwise, have not been disputed by the accused.
(157) It therefore stands established that the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) in conspiracy with accused Pradeep Anand (A2) dishonestly and fraudulently purchased these bogus bills knowingly and utilized the bank fund to private use and caused loss to the bank.
ANNEXURE - G (Serial No.7 to 15) M/s. Suraksha Engineers Current Account No. 2764 Purchase of Bill No. SE1/95 to 9/95 all dated 11.09.1995 under fake Letters of Credit bearing No.00516/95 dated 09.06.1995 : (158) It is not disputed that the accused Pradeep Anand had presented the above bills on 11.09.1995 as reflected from the entry Ex.PW38/F at page no.3334 of BPLC Register Ex.PW38/A (D
556). These bills were also entered into the Authority Register Ex.PW38/B (D550) vide entry at page No.91 against which entry the accused S.K. Pathrella had permitted the purchase of these bills. The bills were also entered in the bill purchase register while entry at page no. 41 of bill purchase register no.2 (D548). (159) After the purchase of the bills, a sum of Rs.33,39,000/ was debited from the bill purchase account of the bank vide voucher Ex.PW228A1(D304) and a sum of Rs.29,30,422/ was credited vide voucher Ex.PW9/228A2 (also Ex.PW4/L) (D281) to the CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 501 of 569 account of M/s Surakasha Engineers & Steel Traders as reflected in the statement of account Ex.PW53/5 (D280). (160) The amount of these bills was utilized by accused Pradeep Anand by way of transfer on 11.9.95 vide cheque No. 637002 dated 11.9.95 Ex.PW9/200 (D309) for a sum of Rs.30 lacs in favour of M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. The deposit slip of cheque is Ex.PW9/201 (D310) and the corresponding entry of the said transaction is available at statement of account of M/s Surakasha Engineers & Steel Traders as reflected in the statement of account Ex.PW53/5 (D280) and corresponding entry in statement of account Ex.PW49/5 (D5) of M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. In fact, there is no dispatch entry in the dispatch register.
(161) The witness Sh. S.R. Chandran (PW59) from Canara Bank, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad has proved that the firm M/s J.S Supertech Engineers, Ahmedabad has no account with the Canara Bank, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. He has also proved that no Letter of Credit bearing No. 00516/95 dated 9.6.95 was opened on behalf of J.S. Supertech Engineers. In this regard, he has also proved the letter dated 20.8.96 which is Ex.PW59/1 (D315). (162) Hence, it stands established that the payment of these bills was never received as the Letter of Credit and bills were fake. The accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) did not confirm the issuance of Letters of Credit from the issuing branch of the Canara Bank, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad before purchase of bills under Letter of Credit as a result CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 502 of 569 of which the bank suffered a loss of Rs.33,39,000/.
ANNEXURE - H (Serial No.1 & 2) M/s. Steel Samrat India Current Account No. 2458 Purchase of Bills bearing Nos. S/27/95 to S/28/95 all dated 14.07.1995:
(163) It is not disputed that the accused Pradeep Anand (A2) had presented the bills on 14.07.1995 as reflected from the entry at page no. 74 of authority Register Ex.PW38/B (D550) and against this entry, the accused S.K. Pathrella has permitted to purchase the bills.
The bills were also entered in the bill purchase register while entry at page no. 134 of bill purchase register Ex.PW51/1 (D548). (164) After the purchase of the bills, a sum of Rs.6,03,200/ was debited from the bill purchase account of the bank vide voucher Ex.PW42/F (D159) and a sum of Rs.6,00,462/ was credited vide voucher Ex.PW42/H (D161) in the account of M/s Steel Samrat (India) as reflected in the statement of account Ex.PW9/DX13 (D
98).
(165) The amount of these bills was utilized by accused Pradeep Anand for reversal of cheque purchase DD No.352/95 dated 15.6.95 Ex.PW9/142 (D169) and a sum of Rs.4.80 lacs vide debit transfer voucher for Rs.4,87,746/ dated 15.07.95 Ex.PW9/142G (D164) and the corresponding credit transfer voucher which is Ex.PW9/142 H (D165).
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 503 of 569 (166) The bills were shown to be dispatched vide courier receipt No. 08400 dated 14.7.95 to Manager, Bank of India, Fort, Mumbai for collection of payment which is pasted on page No.34 of Bill Purchase Register Ex.PW38/C (D548). The Bank of India, Fort, Mumbai had replied vide letter Ex.PW64/1 (D525), letter Ex.PW65/1 (D524), letter Ex.PW88/27 (D523) that they have not received the bills and that the firm M/s Bharat Pumps & Compressor Ltd., Bombay was not maintaining any account with the bank branch. (167) Hence, it stands established that the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) in conspiracy with accused Pradeep Anand (A2) dishonestly and fraudulently purchased these bogus bills knowingly and utilized the bank fund for private use and caused loss to the bank.
ANNEXURE - I (Serial No.1 to 4) M/s. Permanent Tools Current Account No. 2815 Purchase of bills bearing Nos. M/33/95 to M/36/96 all dated 01.08.1995:
(168) It is not disputed that the accused Pradeep Anand had presented the above bills through Swaraj Chauhan (PW24) the Proprietor of M/s. Permanent Tools & Machines and an employee of the accused Pradeep Anand, vide deposit payinslip of outstation bills Ex.PW24/C1 to C14 (D363, D364, D366 & D367). The presentation of the bill is also reflected from the entry dated 01.08.1995 at page no. 79 in authority register Ex.PW38/B (D550) and against this entry, the accused S.K. Pathrella had permitted the CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 504 of 569 purchase of these bills. The purchase of bills also reflected from the entry Ex.PW38/E at page no. 43 in bill purchase register Ex.PW51/1 (D548).
(169) The amount of these bills i.e. Rs.17,38,828/ was debited from the bill purchase account vide debit voucher Ex.PW42/C (D
356) and a sum of Rs.14,90,963/ was credited in the account of M/s. Permanent Tools & Machines a Proprietorship concern of the accused Pradeep Anand vide vouchers Ex.PW42/A (D357).
(170) The accused Pradeep Anand thereafter utilized this amount by withdrawing the amount in cash by self cheques Ex.PW9/21 (D
359) for a sum of Rs.8 lacs on 01.06.95, cheque Ex.PW24/B1 (D
360) for a sum of Rs.6.85 lacs on 04.08.95 through his employee accused Rajiv Anand, which is also reflected from statement of account of firm M/s. Permanent Tools & Machines and all these cheques were authorized to be passed by accused S.K. Pathrella and the accused Pradeep Anand totally utilized Rs.14.85 lacs.
(171) Further, there is no dispatch entry in the dispatch register maintained by the Branch Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony, New Delhi. No payment of these bills was received and the reason for non payment was explained by S.R. Mikili (PW62) vide letter dated 25.10.1996 Ex.PW62/1 (D528) which confirms that M/s. Orient Heavy Electric Corporation, Ahmedabad was not maintaining the account with its banker and also these bills were never received from the Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony, New CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 505 of 569 Delhi.
(172) Hence, it stands established that the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) in conspiracy with accused Pradeep Anand (A2) dishonestly and fraudulently purchased these bogus bills knowingly and utilized the bank fund for private use and caused loss to the bank.
ANNEXURE - J (Serial No.1) M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd.
CC Account No. 1670 The purchase of cheque bearing no. 760725 dated 16.04.1995:
(173) It is not disputed that the accused Pradeep Anand (A2) had presented a cheque dated 16.04.1995 for Rs.20,00,000/ Ex.PW9/115 (D58) of Punjab and Sindh Bank, Silchar, issued by M/s Shanti Lal Santosh Kumar (HUF) for purchase. The accused S. K. Pathrella on 17.4.1995 permitted to purchase this cheque as reflected from the entry at Page No. 59 of authority register Ex.PW38/B (D550). The said cheque was purchased by the bank which is reflected from the entry dated 17.4.1995 at S. No. 79 on page no. 9 of DD register Ex.PW52/6 (D551).
(174) The amount of this cheque was debited from the DD account of the bank vide voucher Ex.PW9/115E and it was credited in the account no. 1670 of M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. Vide credit voucher Ex.PW9/115H (D61).
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 506 of 569 (175) From the voucher Ex.PW9/115 (D58) the said cheque was sent for collection of payment to Punjab and Sindh Bank Silchar, Assam but the cheque was returned on 10.5.1995 by the PSB Silchar, Assam with the reason "insufficient funds" as reflected from the memo.
(176) It stands established that the accused Pradeep Anand (A
2) utilized this amount of cheque for one month and further that the accused S.K. Pathrella was not having authority to purchase this cheque of Rs.20,00,000/ as it was beyond his competence as per circular Ex.PW1/A (D377) which provides that the competence of Chief Manager of large branch was Rs.15 lacs only. (177) It also stands established that the accused Pradeep Anand (A2) dishonestly procure the cheque Ex.PW9/115 (D58) from the discharged accused Shanti Lal (A6) and the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) in connivance with the accused Pradeep Anand (A2) purchased the said cheque and unauthorizedly permitted to utilize the public / bank fund for private use and cheated the bank.
ANNEXURE - J (Serial No.2) M/s. Steel Samrat India Ltd.
Current Account No. 2458 Purchase of cheque bearing no. 171024 dated 23.09.1995:
(178) It is not disputed that the accused Pradeep Anand (A2) had presented the cheque dated 23.09.1995 for Rs.3,10,000/ Ex.PW9/153 (D189) of Oriental Bank of Commerce NIT Faridabad CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 507 of 569 Branch issued by M/s Carda India Electrical for purchase and the accused S.K. Pathrella on 23.9.1995 permitted the purchase of this cheque as reflected from the entry at S. No. 1042/95 Page No. 75 of DD register Ex.PW52/6 (D551).
(179) The amount of this cheque was debited from the DD account of the bank vide debit voucher Ex.PW9/153C (D182) and it was credited in the account no. 2458 of M/s Steel Samrat (India) a Proprietorship concern of the accused Pradeep Anand (A2) vide credit voucher Ex.PW9/153 (D183).
(180) The said cheque was sent to Oriental Bank of Commerce, NIT Branch, Faridabad as reflected from Ex.PW9/153B which was returned back on 05.10.1995 as unpaid with remarks of the bank "Referred to Drawer" as reflected in memo Ex.PW9/153F (D188). (181) The accused Pradeep Anand utilized this amount for 55 days and the amount of this cheque was recovered on 17.11.1995 alongwith interest amounting to Rs.3,19,810/ as reflected in the statement of account of Steel Samrat (India) Ex.PW9/DX13 (D98, page no.9) and credited in DD account of Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony, New Delhi. (182) Therefore, I hold that since the investigating agency itself has not raised any specific dispute with regard to the above transactions the amount having been recovered, hence the same cannot be read against the accused.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 508 of 569 FINDINGS AGAINST THE VARIOUS ACCUSED:
(183) In the light of the discussion of the evidence on record as aforesaid, my observations and findings with regard to the charges against the various accused are as under:
Registration of FIR: Proved (184) The case of the prosecution is that the present case was registered on 15.05.1996 in the SIU (X) Branch of CBI, New Delhi on the basis of a reliable information received from a source against Sh. S.K. Pathrella (A1), the then Chief Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony; Sh. Pradeep Anand (A2), Director of M/s True Fab (P) Ltd, and Prop. of M/s Steel Samrat (India) and M/s. Moonlight Engineers, Faridabad; Sh. Swaraj Chauhan, Prop.
of M/s. Permanent Tools and Machines, Faridadabd and Sh. C.K. Singh, Prop. of M/s. Suraksha Engineers and Steel Traders, Faridabad on the allegation that they entered into criminal conspiracy to cheat the Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony Branch, New Delhi and in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy they cheated the bank to the tune of Rs.1,77,28,238.58p. (185) In this regard, the prosecution has placed its reliance upon the testimony of Satish Dagar (PW88) the then Inspector, CBI who has proved the FIR which is Ex.PW88/1. He has specifically deposed that the FIR of the present case was entrusted to him for investigation by the then SP Sh. S.K. Chaudhary and the FIR dated 15.05.1996 which is Ex.PW88/1 bear the signatures of Sh. S.K. CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 509 of 569 Chaudhary, SP on each and every page of the FIR which aspect has not been disputed by the accused and hence stands established.
No Sanction to prosecute the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) and S.K. Lakhina (A3) required:
(186) It is an admitted case that the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) and S.K. Lakhina (A3) were both public servants at the time of the alleged transactions. The accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) was employed at Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony branch, New Delhi in his capacity as Chief Manager. The accused S.K. Lakhina (A3) was the Deputy General Manager, Regional Office of Oriental Bank of Commerce.
(187) According to the accused, it was necessary for the CBI, under the given circumstances, to have obtained sanction to prosecute them both under Section 197 Cr.P.C. as well as under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and without the said sanction, they cannot be prosecuted for any of the offences i.e. either under the Indian Penal Code or under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. (188) I have considered the arguments advanced before me and I may observe that in so far as the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) is concerned, at the time of filing of the charge sheet and taking of cognizance on 23.11.2000, he had already been terminated from the services of the bank and hence, under these circumstances, no sanction is required. Further, in so far as the accused S.K. Lakhina CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 510 of 569 (A3) is concerned, admittedly a departmental inquiry was initiated against him and at the time of filing of the charge sheet and taking of cognizance, he was no longer in services of the bank having been retired on 31.12.1997.
(189) This being the background, the issue raised by the accused with regard to the non grant of sanction is devoid of any merit and I hold that no sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is required.
(190) Further, in so far as the sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C.
is concerned, both the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) and S.K. Lakhina (A3) were bank officials and the protection by way of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is not applicable to the officers of Government Companies or the public undertakings. (Ref.: Hadi Raja Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., Crl. Appeal No. 449/87 decided on 28.04.1998).
Scientific/ Forensic Evidence: Proved (191) In order to prove its case the prosecution has placed their reliance upon the report of the Handwriting Expert Sh. N.C. Sood (PW90) who has proved having examined the questioned documents received by him from CBI vide communication Ex.PW90/1 containing the various questioned handwriting of accused Pradeep Anand (A2) & Rajiv Anand (A4) and also of the witnesses T.C. Bhardwaj, Suman Prakash Sharma, C.K. Singh, Swaraj Chauhan, Nitin Saini and Santosh Kumar. In his opinion / report Ex.PW90/8 he has proved the handwriting of the said persons which find due CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 511 of 569 corroboration from the version of the various witnesses. The various documents subjected to the expert examination are marked Q1 and Q2 on Ex.PW9/245, Q3 on Ex.PW9/246, Q4 on Ex.PW13/A, Q 5 on Ex.PW9/247, Q6A, Q6B, Q7A and Q7B on Ex.PW87/4, Q8 on Ex.PW4/DX14, Q9 on Ex.PW41/J, Q10 to Q12 on Ex.PW9/248, Q13 & Q14 on Ex.PW9/249, Q15 on Ex.PW9/250, Q16 on Ex.PW9/251, Q17 to Q22 on Ex.PW9/252, Q23 to Q35 on Ex.PW9/253, Q36 to Q39 on Ex.PW9/254, Q40 to Q43 on Ex.PW9/255, Q44 to Q48 and Q44A on Ex.PW9/256, Q49 on Ex.PW9/257, Q50 on Ex.PW9/258, Q51 and Q51A on Ex.PW9/259, Q52 to Q58 on Ex.PW9/260, Q59 to Q63 on Ex.PW9/261, Q64 to Q66 on Ex.PW9/264, Q67 and Q68 on Ex.PW9/262, Q69 to Q71 on Ex.PW9/263, Q72 and Q73 on Ex.PW9/265, Q74 on Ex.PW9/266, Q75 on Ex.PW9/267, Q76 to Q82 on Ex.PW9/268, Q83 to Q85 on Ex.PW9/269, Q86, Q 86A, Q86B and Q86C on Ex.PW9/271, Q88 on Ex.PW9/272, Q 89 to Q95 on Ex.PW9/273, Q96 to Q98 on Ex.PW9/274, Q99 and Q99Aon Ex.PW9/275, Q100 on Ex.PW9/276, Q101 on Ex.PW9/277, Q102 to Q104 on Ex.PW9/278, Q105 and Q105A on Ex.PW9/279, Q106 to Q112 on Ex.PW9/280, Q113 to Q117 on Ex.PW9/281, Q118 on Ex.PW9/282, Q119 on Ex.PW9/286, Q120 on Ex.PW9/287, Q121 on Ex.PW90/2, Q122 and Q122A on Ex.PW90/3, Q123 and Q124 on Ex.PW9/288, Q125 and Q 126 on Ex.PW27/1, Q127 and Q128 on Ex.PW45/2, Q129 and CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 512 of 569 Q130 on Ex.PW9/289, Q131 on Ex.PW9/290, Q132 and Q133 on Ex.PW27/2, Q134 and Q135 on Ex.PW45/3, Q136 and Q 137 on Ex.PW9/291, Q138 and Q139 on Ex.PW27/3, Q140 and Q141 on Ex.PW9/292, Q142 and Q143 on Ex.PW27/4, Q144 and Q145 on Ex.PW45/4, Q146 and Q147 on Ex.PW9/293, Q 138 and Q139 on Ex.PW27/3, Q148 and Q149 on Ex.PW27/5, Q150 and Q151 on Ex.PW45/5, Q152 and Q153 on Ex.PW9/294, Q154 and Q155 on Ex.PW27/6, Q156 and Q157 on Ex.PW45/6, Q158 and Q159 on Ex.PW41/K, Q160 and Q 161 on Ex.PW27/7, Q162 and Q163 on Ex.PW45/7, Q164 and Q165 on Ex.PW9/295, Q166 and Q167 on Ex.PW27/8, Q168 and Q169 on Ex.PW45/8, Q170 and Q171 on Ex.PW9/296, Q 172 and Q173 on Ex.PW27/9, Q174 and Q175 on Ex.PW45/8, Q176 and Q177 on Ex.PW41/L, Q178 and Q179 on Ex.PW27/10, Q180 and Q181 on Ex.PW45/9, Q182 and Q183 on Ex.PW9/298, Q184 and Q185 on Ex.PW27/12, Q186 and Q 187 on Ex.PW45/11, Q188 and Q189 on Ex.PW9/297, Q190 and Q191 on Ex.PW27/11, Q192 and Q139 on Ex.PW45/10, Q194 and Q195 on Ex.PW9/111, Q196 and Q197 on Ex.PW9/111A, Q198 and Q199 on Ex.PW9/112A, Q200 to Q202 and Q202A on Ex.PW9/112, Q203 and Q204 on Ex.PW9/113A, Q205 to Q 208 on Ex.PW9/113, Q209 to Q211 on Ex.PW9/114, Q212 to Q 214, Q214A and Q214B on Ex.PW9/115, Q215 and Q216 on Ex.PW9/115, Q216A, Q217 to Q219 on Ex.PW9/115D, Q220 to CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 513 of 569 Q224 on Ex.PW9/117, Q225 to Q229 on Ex.PW9/118, Q230 to Q235 on Ex.PW9/119, Q236 to Q239 on Ex.PW9/120, Q240 to Q242 on Ex.PW9/121, Q243 to Q245 on Ex.PW9/122, Q246 to Q248 on Ex.PW9/124, Q250 to Q254 on Ex.PW9/125, Q255 and Q256 on Ex.PW9/125A, Q257 on Ex.PW9/126A, Q258 to Q261 on Ex.PW9/126, Q262 to Q263, Q263A and Q263B on Ex.PW9/128, Q264 to Q266 and Q266A on Ex.PW9/129, Q267 and Q268 on Ex.PW9/130A, Q269 on Ex.PW9/130, Q270 to Q 272 and Q272A on Ex.PW9/131, Q273 to Q275 and Q274A, Q 274B on Ex.PW9/30, Q276 and Q276A to Q276D on Ex.PW9/31, Q277 on Ex.PW9/32, Q278 to Q283 and Q291 on Ex.PW9/33, Q284 to Q290 and Q288A on Ex.PW9/34, Q292 to Q295 on Ex.PW9/35, Q296 on Ex.PW9/37, Q297 on Ex.PW9/36, Q298 to Q302 and Q299A on Ex.PW4/A, Q303 and Q304 on Ex.PW9/61, Q305 and Q306 on Ex.PW33/A, Q 307 on Ex.PW9/39, Q308 and Q309 on Ex.PW17/11, Q310 to Q 312 on Ex.PW33/8, Q313 on Ex.PW9/40, Q314 and Q315 on Ex.PW17/12, Q316 and Q317 on Ex.PW33/C, Q318, Q326 & Q327 on Ex.PW9/62, Q319 on Ex.PW9/41, Q320 & 321 on Ex.PW17/13, Q322 on Ex.PW17/13, Q323 & 324 on Ex.PW26/Q, Q325 on Ex. PW9/42, Q326 and 327 on Ex.PW9/62, Q328 and 329 on Ex.PW33/E, Q330 on Ex.PW9/43, Q331 and 332 on Ex.PW9/63, Q333 & 334 on Ex.PW33/G, Q335 on Ex.PW9/44, Q336 & 337 on Ex.PW9/64, Q338 on Ex.PW33/F, Q340 on CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 514 of 569 Ex.PW9/45, Q341 & 342 on Ex.PW17/14, Q343 & 344 on Ex.PW33/H, Q345 on Ex.PW9/46, Q346 & 347 on Ex.PW9/65, Q348 & 349 on Ex.PW33/1, Q350 on Ex.PW9/52, Q351 & 352 on Ex.PW9/66, Q353 & 354 on Ex.PW33/J, Q355 on Ex.PW9/47, Q356 & 357 on Ex.PW9/67, Q358 & 359 on Ex.PW33/K, Q360 on Ex.PW9/48, Q361 & 362 on Ex.PW9/68, Q363 & 364 on Ex.PW33/L, Q365 on Ex.PW9/49, Q366 & 367 on Ex.PW9/69, Q368 and 369 on Ex.PW33/14, Q370 on Ex.PW9/53, Q371 & 372 on Ex.PW9/71, Q373 and 374 on Ex.PW33/P, Q375 on Ex.PW9/54, Q376 and 377 on Ex.PW17/16, Q378 & 379 on Ex.PW33/Q, Q380 Ex.PW9/50, Q 381 & 382 on Ex.PW17/15, Q383 & 384 on Ex.PW33/N, Q385 on Ex.PW9/55, Q386 and 387 on Ex.PW33/R, Q388 & 389 on Ex.PW9/72, Q390 on Ex.PW9/56, Q391 & 392 on Ex.PW17/17, Q393 and 394 on Ex.PW33/S, Q395 on Ex.PW9/51, Q396 and 397 on Ex.PW9/70, Q398 & 399 on Ex.PW33/O, Q400 on Ex.PW9/57, Q401 & 402 on Ex.PW33/T, Q403 and 404 on Ex.PW17/18, Q405 and 406 on Ex.PW9/58, Q406 and 407 on Ex.PW17/19, Q408 and 409 on Ex.PW33/U, Q410 on Ex.PW9/59, Q411 & 412 on Ex.PW9/73, Q413 on Ex.PW33/U, Q414 & 415 on Ex.PW17/20, Q416 & 417 on Ex.PW33/W, Q 418 on Ex.PW9/60, Q419 & 420 on Ex.PW17/21, Q421 & 422 on Ex.PW33/X, Q423, 424 and 425 on Ex.PW9/132, Q426 to 429 on Ex.PW9/133, Q430 on Ex.PW9/A33A, Q431 and 432 on CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 515 of 569 Ex.PW9/134, Q433 & 434 on Ex.PW9/135A, Q435 and 436 on Ex.PW9/135, Q437 to 439 and 439A on Ex.PW9/136, Q440 and 441 on Ex.PW9/137A, Q442 & 443 on Ex.PW9/137, Q444 to 447 on Ex.PW9/138, Q448 to 450 on Ex.PW9/139, Q451 to 453 on Ex.PW9/140, Q454 on Ex.PW9/140A, Q455 to 458 on Ex.PW9/141, Q459 on Ex.PW9/141A, Q460 & 460A on Ex.PW9/143, Q461 & 462 on Ex.PW9/144, Q463 to 466 on Ex.PW9/145, Q467 to 470 on Ex.PW9/146, Q471 on Ex.PW9/146A, Q472 on Ex.PW9/147A, Q473 & 474 on Ex.PW9/147, Q477 to 480 on E.xPW9/148, Q481 & 482 on Ex.PW9/149, Q483 on Ex.PW9/142, Q484 to 487 on Ex.PW9/150, Q488 to 491 on Ex.PW9/151, Q492 & 493 on Ex.PW9/210A1, Q494 to 496 & 496A on Ex.PW9/152, Q497 & 498 on Ex.PW9/154A, Q499 & 500 on Ex.PW9/154, Q501 & 502 on Ex.PW9/153, Q503 to 506 on Ex.PW9/166, Q506A to 506D on Ex.PW9/167, Q507 on Ex.PW9/168, Q508 to 513 on Ex.PW4/I, Q514 to 522 on Ex.PW4/J, Q524 and 525 on Ex.PW9/169, Q526 and 527 on Ex.PW9/225B, Q528 & 528A on Ex.PW9/170, Q529, 530, 530A and 530B on Ex.PW9/171, Q 531 and 532 on Ex.PW9/172, Q533, 533A & 534 on Ex.PW9/173, Q535 & 535A on ExpW9/174, Q536, 536A, 563B and 537 on Ex.PW9/175, Q538, 438A, 538B, 538C and 539 on Ex.PW9/176, Q540 & 541 on Ex.PW9/177, Q542, 543 and 543A on Ex.PW9/178, Q544 & 545 on Ex.PW9/179, Q546 and 547 on CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 516 of 569 Ex.PW9/180, Q548 & 549 on Ex.PW9/181, Q550 & 551 on Ex.PW9/182, Q552 & 553 on Ex.PW9/183, Q554 & 555 on Ex.PW9/184, Q556 to 558A and 556A on Ex.PW9/185, Q559, 559A, 559B, 559C and 560 on Ex.PW9/186, Q561 & 562 on Ex.PW9/187, Q563, 563A and 564 on Ex.PW9/188, Q565 and 566 on Ex.PW9/189, Q567, 568, 571 and 572 on Ex.PW9/190, Q 569, 570 and 573 on Ex.PW9/191, Q574 to 576 on Ex.PW44/C, Q 577 to 577A and 577B on Ex.PW9/192, Q577, 578, 578A and 579 on Ex.PW9/193, Q581, 581A and 582 on Ex.PW9/194, Q580 on Ex.PW45/12, Q581B on Ex.PW9/195, Q581C on Ex.PW9/196, Q581D on Ex.PW9/197, Q583, 583A and 584 on Ex.PW9/198, Q584A on Ex.PW45/B, Q585, 585A, 586 and 586 A on Ex.PW9/199, Q587, 587A, 588, 588A and 588B on Ex.PW9/26, Q588C & 588D on Ex.PW41/A, Q588G to 588M on Ex.PW4/F, Q589 to 594 on Ex.PW4/H, Q595 to 597 on Ex.PW41/G, Q598 & 599 on Ex.PW90/4, Q600 & 601 on Ex.PW82/1, Q602 & 603 on Ex.PW9/27, Q604 to 606 on Ex.PW9/200, Q607 on Ex.PW9/201, Q608 & 609 on Ex.90/5, Q 610 on Ex.PW9/29, Q611 & 612 on Ex.PW9/28, Q613 & 614 on Ex.PW9/202, Q615, 617, 618, 619 to 624, 635 and 635A on Ex.PW9/203, Q625, 627, 629, 630 and 638 on Ex.PW9/204, Q631 on Ex.PW9/204A, Q632 on Ex.PW9/205A, Q633 on Ex.PW9/203A, Q634, 636, 637 to 641 & 638A on Ex.PW9/205, Q656 on Ex.PW27/13, Q681 on Ex.PW27/14, Q644 to 647 on CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 517 of 569 Ex.PW9/207, Q648 on Ex.PW34/A, Q649 on Ex.PW34/B, Q650 to 652 on Ex.PW9/232, Q653 to 655 on Ex.PW34/C, Q657 to 659 on Ex.PW9/233, Q660 on Ex.PW34/E, Q661 on Ex.PW34/F, Q 662 to 664 on Ex.PW9/234, Q665 to 667 on Ex.PW34/G, Q669 to 671 on Ex.PW34/H, Q672 on Ex.PW34/I, Q672A on Ex.PW34/J, Q673 and 674 on Ex.PW9/237, Q675 to 677 on Ex.PW9/236, Q678 to 680 on Ex.PW34/K, Q682 and 683 on Ex.PW9/288, Q684 & 685 on Ex.PW9/241, Q686 and 687 on Ex.PW9/242, Q668 on Ex.PW27/15, Q688 & 689 on Ex.PW9/243, Q690 & 691 on Ex.PW9/244, Q692 to 698 on Ex.PW9/22, Q699, 699A to 699C on Ex.PW9/22A, Q700 & 701 on Ex.PW24/A, Q702 to 710 on Ex.PW4/D, Q711 on Ex.PW24/D, Q712 to 715 on Ex.PW9/23, Q716 on Ex.PW9/24, Q717 & 718 on Ex.PW9/25, Q719 to 724 on Ex.PW24/E, Q725 to 728 on Ex.PW9/21, Q729 to 733 on Ex.PW24/B1, Q734 to 737 on Ex.PW24/B2, Q738 and 739 on Ex.PW24/C1, Q740 & 741 on Ex.PW24/C2, Q742 on Ex.PW24/C3, Q743 & 744 on Ex.PE24/C4, Q745 on Ex.PW90/6, Q746 and 747 on Ex.PW9/211, Q748 on Ex.PW90/7, Q749 to 751 on Ex.PW9/212, Q752 & 753 on Ex.PW9/213 and Q754 on Ex.PW44/A (page 90 of D555). The witness N.C. Sood (PW90) has proved that the said documents were received in the lab for expert opinion along with the specimen handwriting of accused Pradeep Anand which were marked as S1 to S135 on Ex.PW75/1 (Collectively), S410 to S CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 518 of 569 500 on Ex.PW75/2 (colly.), S501 to S669, S599/1 & S657/1 on Ex.PW75/3 (colly); specimen handwriting of Sh. Rajiv Anand which were marked as S136 to S150 on Ex.PW75/4 (Collectively), S151 to 217 on Ex.PW88/2 (collectively), S218 to 235 on Ex.PW87/23, S1148 to S1175 on Ex.PW75/11 (colly), S1176 to 1246, S1248 to S1358, S1360 to S1364, S1202A, S1311 A & 1321 A on Ex.PW87/24 (Colly.); specimen handwriting of Sh. T. C. Bhardwaj which were marked as S236 to S291 on Ex.PW75/5 collectively, S351 to S409 on Ex.PW75/6 (colly.), S1048 to 1132 on Ex.PW75/10 colly. S1365 to 1370 on now Ex.PW90/13 (colly.); Specimen handwriting of Sh. Suman Prakash were marked as S292 to S350 on Ex.PW90/11 (colly.), S951 to S1047, 1047A and 1047B on Ex.PW75/9; the specimen handwriting of Sh. C. K. Singh which were marked as S670 to S710 on Ex.PW75/7; specimen handwriting of Sh. Swaraj Chauhan was marked as S711 to S730 on Ex.PW88/4 (Colly.); specimen handwriting of Sh. Nitin Saini which were marked as S731 to S950, S747/1, 748/1, 753/1 to 756/1 on Ex.PW75/8 and specimen handwriting of Sh. Santosh Kumar Jain which were marked as S1133 to S1138 and 1140 to 1147 on Ex. PW90/12 (Colly.). He has thereafter proved having given his opinion which is Ex.PW90/A. (192) I may observe that the report of handwriting expert finds due corroboration from the version given by the various witnesses in their oral testimonies and none of the accused have either disputed CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 519 of 569 their handwriting and signatures on the above documents ore rebutted the same.
Charges against the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) and Pradeep Anand (A2): Proved (193) In so far as the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) and Pradeep Anand (A2) are concerned, their allegations are taken up together for discussing the evidence being common and the allegations of conspiracy to commit cheating, forgery and use of forged documents being intricately connected to each other. (194) The case of the prosecution is that the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) while posted as Chief Manager of Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony Branch, New Delhi hatched a conspiracy with the accused Pradeep Anand (A2), S.K. Lakhina (A
3), Rajiv Anand (A4) and Vikram Arora (A5) and in furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) purchased bogus bills presented by Pradeep Anand (A2) for discounting. The accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) knowing that the bills were bogus and not supported by genuine trade transaction, discounted the bills and credited the proceeds thereof in respective accounts and allowed the withdrawal of money from the said accounts. It has been alleged that a few of these discounted bills were either not sent to the drawee banks for collections or were destroyed as they were returned unpaid by the bank and as a result of the said criminal conspiracy the Oriental Bank of Commerce suffered a CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 520 of 569 financial loss of Rs.1,84,99,007.30p (earlier Rs.1,77,28,238.58p as per the chargesheet).
(195) Further, as per the allegations on 24.05.1995 the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) had obtained a DD bearing no. 494289 for Rs.11,500/ from Pradeep Anand (A2) for making payment to Miss Sosama Thomas with whom he had developed very personal and intimate relationship. It is alleged that this was obtained as a consideration for official favour shown to Pradeep Anand from time to time and the accused S.K. Pathrella had sent her from time to time Drafts / cash to the extent of Rs.2.70 Lacs by opening joint account at Corporation Bank, New Friends Colony Branch New Delhi and Corporation Bank, Trivendrum. According to the prosecution the amounts were the illgot money obtained by S.K. Pathrella (A1) who has also received Rs.6 Lacs in cash from Pradeep Anand vide self cheque no. 772754 dated 18,03.1995 which has been filled in by S.K. Pathrella and issued by Pradeep Anand drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony, New Delhi account of M/s. Moon Light Engineers. Further, it has been alleged that the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) had also obtained Rs.4 Lacs from Pradeep Anand in the form of a pay order No. 452/95 dated 03.05.1995 issued from the account of M/s Moon Light Engineers to repay his old debts obtained from Sh. G.C. Luthra.
(196) In so far as the accused Pradeep Anand (A2) is concerned, the case of the prosecution is that he was the Director of M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd., had two other Proprietorship firms namely CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 521 of 569 M/s. Moon Light Engineers and Steel Samrat India and was maintaining the current account no. 2458 in the names of these firms in Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony Branch in addition to the cash credit account no. 1670 of M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. As per the allegations, the accused Pradeep Anand (A2) floated two bogus firms by the name of M/s. Permanent Tools & Machines and M/s. Suraksha Engineers and Traders by showing his employees Swaraj Chauhan and C.K. Singh (both not chargesheeted, being put in Column No.2 and examined as prosecution witnesses) as the Proprietors of the said firms and in connivance with S.K. Pathrella (A1), the accused Pradeep Anand (A2) had opened two current accounts no. 2815 and 2764 in the name of these two firms in the same branch. It has been alleged that from the period 28.04.1996 to 07.10.1995 the accused Pradeep Anand (A2) got more than 110 bills discounted at the said branch in the name of these five firms and out of 110 bills so discounted, the bank has not received the payment in respect of 76 bills amounting to Rs.1,84,99,007.30p were remained unpaid. It has been further alleged that the accused Pradeep Anand (A2) in furtherance of criminal conspiracy with the accused Rajiv Anand (A4) and others, forged various documents like lorry receipts, prepared bogus invoices / vouchers of nonexisting Transport Company namely M/s. Ashok Transport of India, Faridabad Branch and submitted the same in the bank for getting the same discounted. As per the allegations, the accused S.K. Pathrella and Pradeep Anand conspired for discounting these bills even when there was no sanction CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 522 of 569 limit available to these companies / firms. (197) Ld. Counsel for the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) has argued that the accused being a public servant had acted within the mandate of the Banking Regulations, practice and directions issued by the Bank from time to time and CBI has falsely implicated the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) without taking previous sanction for prosecution from the competent authority and thereby violated the statutory mandate as contained in subsection 1 of Section 197 of Cr.P.C. and Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which debars a court from taking cognizance of an offence punishable under Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption Act against a public servant. He has argued that neither there is any dereliction of duty on the part of accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) nor he failed to perform his official duties as Chief Manager of the Bank. It is further argued that none of the witnesses examined by the prosecution has deposed that the bills were forged documents and the accounts were overdrawn even at the time of joining of accused S.K. Pathrella which position has been explained by letters written by the accused S.K. Pathrella immediately on his joining. Ld. Counsel has also argued that the bills which were purchased, were accompanied by invoice, bill of exchange, bank approved transport receipt, Siliguri, Darjling whose PTA code No. 132 was printed and through whom each and every time delivery of transportation took place (D319) and the bills were drawn on government departments i.e. IOCL and BHEL. Ld. Counsel has pointed out that the prosecution has not examined any CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 523 of 569 witness pertaining to PTCA Code 132 from the IBA. It is further argued that no charge with regard to the destruction of the bills by accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) has been framed nor there is any nexus between the allegations alleged and the proof submitted by the prosecution. It is also argued that all the bills were backed by Performance Guarantee meaning thereby that in the event of non purchase by the bank and in the event of branch incumbent decline to purchase / discount the bills, then the fall out will be invocation of Bank Guarantee. In so far as the allegations with regard to the relations of accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) with Ms. Susoma Thomas are concerned, it is argued that she has admitted in her cross examination that there was no business or transactions between her and S.K. Pathrella (A1) and has also admitted having received a draft bearing no. 494289 of Rs.11,500/ but has denied that it was given to her by Pradeep Anand (A2). Ld. Counsel has further argued that in order to falsely implicate the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1), the story of quidproquo has been falsely planted. It is argued that even otherwise, the testimony of Ms. Susoma Thomas does not inspire confidence as she has herself admitted that she was having many accounts in three banks at three places and had two PAN cards and also admitted having filled up wrong PAN numbers for the year 199798. According to the Ld. Counsel for the accused Ms. Susoma Thomas had lied that she had a joint account with S.K. Pathrella (A
1) at Canara Bank, Trivandrum but admitted that she had only two accounts with S.K. Pathrella (A1) which were in the Corporation Bank. It is pointed that she has also admitted that S.K. Pathrella (A CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 524 of 569
1) did not make any draft in her favour but had put his signatures as one of the official. It is pointed that the CBI has deliberately not examined G.C. Luthra to prove the allegations of S.K. Pathrella (A1) having obtained Rs.4 lacs by way of pay order. Ld. Counsel for the accused has placed his reliance upon the following authorities:
1. Nand Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar reported in 1992 Supp (2) Supreme Court Cases 111
2. V.Y. Jose and Another Vs. State of Gujrat and Another reported in (2009) 3 Supreme Court Cases 78.
3. R. Kalyani Vs. Janak C. Mehta and Others reported in (2009) 1 Supreme Court Cases 516.
4. Ravichandran Vs. State of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Madras reported in (2010) 11 Supreme Court Cases 120
5. C.K. Jaffer Sharief Vs. State (Through CBI) reported in (2013) 1 Supreme Court Cases 205.
(198) Ld. Counsel for the accused Pradeep Anand (A2) has placed his reliance upon the testimonies of Tapan Kumar Modal (PW11), Sanjay Krishna Sinha (PW14), Kameshwar Prashad Mishra (PW58) R.K. Singh (PW61) and Rakesh Kumar Sharma (PW86) and has argued that in so far as the alleged three bogus bills drawn on IOCL Midnapore (AnnexureE of the charge sheet) are concerned, the orders were placed on Moonlight Engineers from other office of IOCL instead of IOCL Midnapore, West Bengal and hence their testimonies cannot be relied upon. Here, I may note that in order to confirm the same and to demolish the case of the prosecution, no witness has been examined by the accused in his defence. Further, in so far as the two alleged bogus bills drawn on IOCL Jamnagar and CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 525 of 569 two bills of IOCL Jaipur (AnnexureF of the chargesheet) are concerned, Ld. Counsel has pointed out that there is a covering letter of bills of Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony which is also endorsed by Canara Bank, Jamnagar. It is pointed out that CBI has failed to investigate the trail of the bills after receipt of the same at Canara Bank Jamnagar and if the bills had come back unpaid, who was the person who had received the returned bills and the fate of the bills should have been investigated, which has not been done. With regard to bills at serial no.4 and 5 of Annexure F drawn on IOCL Jaipur, it is argued that the Oriental Bank of Commerce had been dispatching the bills to different outstation and recorded wrong address in its records as it is clear that IOCL Jaipur was dealing with "Viramgum Chaksu Panipat Pipiline Project" and not the "KBPL Project" (Kandla Bathinda Pipe Line). However, I may note that despite having raised an issue, no witness has been examined by the accused in this regard.
(199) With regard to two alleged bogus bills drawn on M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors (AnnexureH of the charge sheet) is concerned, Ld. Counsel has argued that the documents were sent for realization by Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony to drawee's banker i.e. Bank of India, Fort, Bombay and despite the fact that the bills were drawn on M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., the CBI has chosen to produce the witnesses from Bank of India, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Bombay. However, I may note that in order to prove that the bills were not bogus and the bills did exist, the CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 526 of 569 accused has not examined any witness in his defence. (200) It is also argued that approximately Rs.30 lacs were received in various accounts of Pradeep Anand (A2) in Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony branch after the registration of FIR and before filing of the charge sheet which amount was received from the various parties who had business dealings with Pradeep Anand (A2) between July 1996 and December 1997 and this fact has been deliberately concealed by P.C. Bhaman (PW53) who had also chosen to initiate recovery proceedings against the firms of Pradeep Anand (A2) and had not adhered to banking norms. (201) Ld. Sr. PP for CBI has argued that the amount already received before the filing of the chargesheet, has been duly adjusted by the Investigating Officer. In fact, the Ld. Sr. PP for CBI has fairly conceded that this Court may grant the benefit to the accused with regard to the said transactions. He has further pointed out that the Ld. Bench of DRT has ruled the companies against the accused Pradeep Anand (A2).
(202) I have considered the rival contentions. At the very Outset I may observe that the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) was the Chief Manager of Oriental Bank of Commerce during the period 28.06.1994 to 07.10.1995. It is also not disputed that during his tenure as Chief Manager at New Friends Colony he had discounted almost 110 bills relating to the various companies of Pradeep Anand (A2) i.e. M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd.; M/s. Moonlight Engineers, M/s. Steel Samrat India Ltd.; M/s. Permanent Tools & Machines and M/s.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 527 of 569 Suraksha Engineers and Steel Traders. For the sake of convenience the various firms relating to accused Pradeep Anand (A2) are reflected in the following Chart A:
(203) Secondly it is also not disputed that during this period the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) who was the Chief Manager of Oriental CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 528 of 569 Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony had purchased almost 110 bills of the various companies / firms with which the accused Pradeep Anand (A2) had been associated in one form or the other which funds had been then transferred to the companies of Pradeep Anand (A1) and utilized by him in his private capacity. For the sake of convenience, the various firms relating Pradeep Anand (A2) and their transactions with Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony where the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) was the Chief Manager, are reflected in Chart B as under:
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 529 of 569 (204) Thirdly, the prosecution has successfully proved that various Bills of Exchange, Invoices, Purchase Orders, Letters of Credit, Lorry Receipts / Consignment Notes were prepared / got prepared by Pradeep Anand (A2) and despite the repeated advices of the Regional Office to visit the unit of Pradeep Anand (A2) and to ensure that the accounts are regularized before discounting any bill, the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) did not comply with the same. (205) Fourthly, the active connivance between the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) and Pradeep Anand (A2) stands confirmed from the fact that Babu Lal Munot (PW17), the Proprietor of Steel Samrat Bombay on having come to know that Pradeep Anand (A2) had floated another company by the same name based at Faridabad and had got certain bills discounted from Oriental Bank of Commerce by committing forgery, had written to the Oriental Bank of Commerce informing that he would make a complaint to the RBI when the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) vide letter Ex.PW9/156 (D378) advised him (Babu Lal Munot) to directly take up the matter with Pradeep Anand without involving the bank and also threatened him telephonically that in case if he writes such letter then he would make a complaint against him. It is this conduct of S.K. Pathrella (A1) which indicates and confirms the existence of criminal conspiracy between him and the accused Pradeep Anand (A2). (206) Fifthly, the close association between the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) and Pradeep Anand (A2) is confirmed by the witness Sandeep Gupta (PW15) whose father was a colleague of S.K. CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 530 of 569 Pathrella in Oriental Bank of Commerce and Sandeep Gupta had opened an account in the name of Shiv Industrial Enterprises on the asking of S.K. Pathrella (A1) at Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony on the assurance that he would get business for Sandeep Gupta (PW15) from Pradeep Anand (A2) and it is in this background that S.K. Pathrella (A1) had obtained certain blank signed cheques from Sandeep Gupta (PW15) which were utilized for certain transactions between non trading Proprietorship concern of Pradeep Anand (A2) i.e. M/s. Moonlight Engineers and M/s. Shiv Industrial Enterprises.
(207) Sixthly, I further observe that the allegations of prior meeting of mind between the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) and Pradeep Anand (A2) are also reflective from the modusopendai adopted by them when Pradeep Anand (A2) had been creating various bogus documents and presenting them to S.K. Pathrella (A1) who on the basis of the said documents without any independent verification and confirmation, despite repeated advices and also complaints (reference is made to the testimony of Babu Lal Munot - PW17), had proceeded to discount the various bills and purchased the various bills and in realizing the amount to the various firms of Pradeep Anand (A2).
(208) Seventhly, the evidence on record as discussed herein above confirms that the following firms / companies of Pradeep Anand (A2) through which transactions had been conducted between the Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony where the CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 531 of 569 accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) was the chief Manager, were either non existing or created by using deceptively similar names only for purposes of carrying out various transactions. The details of the said non existing firms are as under:
Sr. No. NonExisting / NonTrading Company/firm
1. New World Traders, Bombay
2. Orient Heavy Engineering Corporation, Ahmedabad
3. Bharat Pumps and Compressors
4. Alliance & Engineers Fabricators, Mumbai
5. J. S. Supertech Engineers
6. M/s Pramod Kumar & Sons.
7. M/s Steel Samrat (India ) Faridabad
8. M/s Ashok Transport of India, Faridabad (209) Eighthly, the details of the various bogus documents prepared / got prepared by accused Pradeep Anand (A2) with the intention to induce Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony to discount/ purchase the bills of his firms, which documents were fraudulently / dishonestly and knowingly used as genuine for purposes of cheating, are as under:
Sl. Bogus documents prepared / got prepared Forged documents which No. by accused Pradeep Anand with the has been fraudulently / intention to induce Oriental Bank of dishonestly and Commerce, New Friends Colony to knowingly used as discount/ purchase the bills of his firms genuine for purposes of (offence under Section 420/ 468 IPC) cheating (offence under Section 471 IPC)
1. 1. Bill of Exchange of Pramod Kumar These forged documents & Sons Ex.PW9/207. have been used alongwith
2. Bill of Exchange dated 28.9.95 of seven bills on account of Pramod Kumar & Sons Three Letters of Credit of CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 532 of 569 Ex.PW9/233 Rs.5.00 lacs.
3. Letter dated 25.9.95 Ex.PW34/A on letter head of Pramod Kumar & Sons.
4. Receipt dated 25.9.95 Ex.PW34/ B of Rs.500/ on letter head of Pramod Kumar & Sons.
5. Carbon copy Ex.PW34/C of Invoice dated 25.9.95 Ex.PW9/232 of Pramod Kumar & Sons.
6. Invoice dated 25.9.95 Ex.PW9/232 of Pramod Kumar & Sons.
7. Letter dated 25.9.95 Ex.PW34/E to M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. regarding dispatch of M.S Pipes.
8. Letter dated 25.9.95 Ex.PW34/F on letter head of Pramod Kumar & Sons.
9. Invoice dated 25.9.95 Ex.PW9/234 of Pramod Kumar & Sons in favour of M/s TFPL for supply of M.S.Pipes.
10. Bill of Exchange dated 28.9.95 of Pramod Kumar & Sons Ex.PW9/235 in favour of Bank of Nova Scotia drawn in connection with sale/purchase of M.S.Pipes to M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd.
11. Bill of Exchange dated 28.9.95 of Pramod Kumar & Sons Ex.PW34/H
12. Letter dated 25.9.95 Ex.PW34/I to M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. regarding supply of M.S Pipes.
13. Invoice dated 25.9.95 Ex.PW34/K of Pramod Kumar & Sons in favour of M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. for supply of M.S. Pipes.
14. Invoice dated 25.9.95 Ex.PW9/236 of Pramod Kumar & Sons in favour of M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. for supply of M.S. Pipes.
15. Purchase order Ex.PW9/206.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 533 of 569
16. Lorry Receipts / consignment note of nonexisting transporter M/s Ashok transport of India, Ex.PW27/13, Ex.PW27/14
2. 1. Bills of exchange Ex.PW9/38 to Accused Pradeep Anand Ex.PW9/60 submitted / used these
2. Lorry Receipts/ consignment note of forged documents as nonexisting transporter M/s Ashok genuine in connivance transport of India, Ex.PW35/A to with accused S. K. Ex.PW35/X. Pathrella who dishonestly
3. Invoices Ex.PW9/61 to Ex.PW9/73 and fraudulently purchased these bills.and Ex.PW17/11 to Ex.PW17/21
3. 1. Bill of exchange Ex.PW9/288 to Accused Pradeep Anand Ex.PW9/298, Ex.PW41/L submitted / used these
2. Lorry Receipts/ consignment note forged documents as of nonexisting transporter M/s genuine in connivance Ashok transport of India, with accused S. K. Ex.PW27/1 to Ex.PW27/12. Pathrella who dishonestly
3. Invoices Ex.PW45/1 to and fraudulently purchased Ex.PW45/11. these bills.
(210) Lastly, the prosecution has been able to successfully prove that two joint accounts of A.K. Pathrella (A1) and Susoma Thomas (PW48) were existing; one at Corporation Bank, New Friends Colony (Account Opening Form Ex.PW9/164) and another at Corporation Bank, Trivendrum (Account Opening Form Ex.PW9/299) as proved by R. Rajamohan (PW9). The fact that the said accounts belonged to the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) and Susoma Thomas (PW48) is borne out from the above account opening forms which bear their photographs. The witness R. Rajamohan (PW9) has proved that an application for closure of the account at Trivendrum was filed both by Susoma Thomas (PW48) and S.K. Pathrella (A1) vide application Ex.PW9/155 which was allowed on 21.07.1997. Further, the CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 534 of 569 statement of account of the joint account at Trivendrum which is Ex.PW48/28 has been proved by Susoma Thomas (PW48) confirms the transaction between both the joint accounts of Corporation Banks at New Friends Colony Branch and Trivendrum Branch. Further, the Demand Draft bearing No. 492489 had been prepared by S.K. Pathrella (A1) and Susoma Thomas (PW48) has denied that it was handed over to her by Pradeep Anand (A2). This cannot be a mere coincidence that the DD had been prepared in the very same branch of Oriental Bank of Commerce where S.K. Pathrella (A1) was posted and the explanation that he had signed the said DD in his capacity as bank official does not hold any merit. Hence, I hold that the allegation with regard to the amount being paid by Pradeep Anand (A2) to S.K. Pathrella (A1) which was deposited with Susoma Thomas (PW48) as quidproquo for the various jobs done by him for Pradeep Anand (A2), stands established. (211) In so far as the accused Pradeep Anand (A2) is concerned, he was the person who had prepared / got prepared the various documents as discussed herein, which were fake which he presented to S.K. Pathrella (A1) Chief Manager of Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony branch in pursuance to the criminal conspiracy and caused loss to the bank to the tune of Rs.1,99,72,467.30p (of which a sum of Rs.14,73,460/ has been recovered and Rs.1,84,99,007.30p still remains). (212) The evidence on record which confirms the aforesaid conclusions are reflected in the various transactions (Annexure A to CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 535 of 569 Annexure J of the charge sheet) conducted by the different firms related to Pradeep Anand (A2) with the Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony where the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) was the Chief Manager which have been duly proved by the prosecution, for the sake of convenience, are culled out in form of Flow Charts No.1 to 9 as under:
Transaction dated 02.03.1995 (Flow Chart No.1):
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 536 of 569 Transaction dated 14.03.1995, 16.03.1995, 30.03.1995 and 03.05.1995 (Flow Chart No.2):
Transaction dated 25.03.1995 (Flow Chart No.3):
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 537 of 569 Transaction dated 16.04.1995 (Flow Chart No.4):
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 538 of 569 Transaction dated 28.04.1995 (Flow Chart No.5):
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 539 of 569 Transaction dated 08.06.1995 (Flow Chart No.6):
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 540 of 569 Transaction dated 01.08.1995 (Flow Chart No.7):
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 541 of 569 Transactions dated 23.09.1995 (Flow Chart No.8):
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 542 of 569 Transactions dated 24.05.1995 (Flow Chart No.9):
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 543 of 569 (213) From the evidence on record as discussed herein above, it stands established that during the year 1994 onwards till October 1995 the accused i.e. S.K. Pathrella (A1) was the Chief Manager of Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony, Delhi while Pradeep Anand (A2) was Director of M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. and Proprietor of M/s. Steel Samrat (India) and M/s. Moonlight Engineers. It further stands established that the accused Pradeep Anand (A2) presented seven bills drawn on his firms which were purchased by the Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony as per orders of S.K. Pathrella (A1) and proceeds of the discounted bills were credited in the various firms of Pradeep Anand (A2). All these bills were discounted by the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) even when there were no sanction limits available at all to the companies after 01.09.1994. It also stands established that the accused Pradeep Anand (A2) prepared / got prepared various Lorry Receipts, Consignment Notes, Bills, Invoices, Letters of Credit etc. which he had submitted to the Oriental Bank of Commerce with S.K. Pathrella (A1) for purposes of discounting / purchase of the bills. It further stands established that after presentation of all the above said bills, the said documents were discounted by the accused S.K. Pathrella (A
1) on the basis of these bogus documents i.e. Lorry Receipts from Ashok Transport, Consignment Notes, Bills, Invoices, Letters of Credit etc. from the various nonexisting firms i.e. New World Traders, Bombay; Orient Heavy Engineering Corporation, Ahmedabad; Bharat Pumps and Compressors; Alliance & Engineers Fabricators, Mumbai; J. S. Supertech Engineers; M/s Pramod Kumar CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 544 of 569 & Sons; M/s Steel Samrat (India) Faridabad and M/s Ashok Transport of India, Faridabad. It also stands established that the accused Pradeep Anand (A2) had fraudulently and dishonestly used these documents as genuine by presenting the same at Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony which were then discounted by S.K. Pathrella (A1) despite having knowledge of the same and despite repeated advises by the Regional Office and information regarding impersonation and forgery having been given Babu Lal Munot (PW17) to this effect and this has also been done despite the fact sanction limits in favour of M/s. True Fab (P) Ltd. were valid upto 01.09.1994.
(214) It further stands established that during the period 28.06.1994 to 07.10.1995 the accused Pradeep Anand (A2) got as many as 110 bills discounted from New Friends Colony, Delhi, out of which only 34 bills were paid and 76 bills remained unpaid on account of which the bank had suffered loss of Rs.1,84,99,007.30p. It also stands established that the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) being public servant while functioning as Chief Manager of Oriental Bank of Commerce, by corrupt or illegal means and by abusing his official position, sanctioned various credit facilities obtained by various factories and caused heavy loss to the bank.
(215) In the light of my aforesaid discussion, I hereby hold that in so far as the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) is concerned, he is held guilty for the offence under Sections 120B read with Section 420, 468, 471 IPC and Section 13 (1) (d) punishable under Section 13 CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 545 of 569 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Further, he at the relevant point of time was discharging public duties and had misused his official position and hence he is held guilty of the offence under Section 13 (1) (d) punishable under Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. (216) Further, the accused Pradeep Anand (A2) is held guilty of the offence under Section 120B read with Section 420, 468,471 IPC and Section 13 (1) (d) punishable under Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He is also held guilty of the offence under Sections 420, 468 and 471 Indian Penal Code.
Charges against the accused S.K. Lakhina (A3): Not proved (217) In so far as the accused S.K. Lakhina (A3) is concerned, he was the then Deputy General Manager in the Regional Office of Oriental Bank of Commerce. As per the allegations, certain limits had been sanctioned in favour of M/s. True Fab (P) Ltd. vide orders of Regional Office dated 02.09.1993 and were valid upto 01.09.1999 which authority to sanction limits for purchase of bills etc. vested in accused S.K. Lakhina (A3). The case of the prosecution is that no limits had been sanctioned after 01.09.1994, however, during the period 28.06.1994 to 07.10.1995, the accused Pradeep Anand (A2) got as many as 110 bills discounted from New Friends Colony branch of Oriental Bank of Commerce where the accused S.K. Pathrella (A CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 546 of 569
1) was working as Chief Manager who used to inform the accused S.K. Lakhina (A3) on telephone and also sent intimation in writing. Further, it has been alleged that the accused S.K. Lakhina (A3) had remitted a total amount of Rs.13.35 lacs in cash to the current account of M/s. Future Positive belonging to his sons namely Sandeep Lakhina, Akash Lakhina and Amber Lakhina during the period 02.03.1994 to 16.08.1995 which remittances were from the illgotten money received by him. In order to prove its case against the accused S.K. Lakhina (A3), the prosecution has placed its reliance upon the testimonies of J.S. Sachdeva (PW7), R. Raja Mohan (PW9), Smt. Sudha Sharma (PW16) and Smt. Geeta Tandon (PW50) and the various documents proved by them.
(218) On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the accused S.K. Lakhina (A3) has argued that the various documents of the prosecution including the sanction letter, show that out of Rs. 70 lacs advanced to M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd., the Regional Office had only sanctioned Rs.50 lacs while Rs.20 lacs were on account of unauthorized discounting of cheque by the branch incumbent without obtaining any sanction for the same, which was the main cause of action for reporting the matter to the Head Office / Inspection & Control Department by the accused S.K. Lakhina (A3) vide letter dated 13.06.1995 which is Ex.D3W2/1. It is further argued that the advances in the account of M/s. Moon Light Engineers and Steel Samrat were never allowed by the Regional Office which fact is evident from the Regional Office letters dated 04.04.1995 which is CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 547 of 569 Ex.PW9/220 (D559), letter dated 24.03.1995 Ex.PW7/D (D5) and letter dated 07.10.1995 which is Ex.PW9/DX8. It is further argued that out of Rs. 44.41 lacs sanctioned to M/s. Suraksha Engineers and Steel, the sanction from Regional Office is for Rs. 20 lacs only vide letter dated 06.06.1995 which is Ex.PW9/161 (D318) with strict stipulations of equitable mortgage of properties and there is no sanction from Regional Office as confirmed by J.S. Sachdeva (PW7) and Vikram Kochhar (PW37). In so far as the outstanding amount of Rs.16.87 lacs in respect of M/s. Paramount Tools & Machines is concerned, the same did not require to be referred to Regional office as the same was within the powers of Branch Incumbent and was never sanctioned by the Regional Office. It is further argued that none of the Investigating Officer has stated to have undertaken any investigations against the accused S.K. Lakhina (A3) and the prosecution has failed to consider that the role and responsibility of the Regional Head is limited to ensure to recommend / stipulate the terms of sanction and it is not within his purview to sit in judgment over the authenticity or of the basis of the recommendations of the branch incumbent or deficiencies. Ld. Counsel for the accused S.K. Pathrella (A3) has placed his reliance upon the testimony of D.P. Dhingra (PW87) who has admitted that the Regional Office through the accused S.K. Lakhina, in all the correspondences, has advised the branch to get the accounts regularized. In so far as the allegation of depositing cash in the account of M/s. Future Positive is concerned, Ld. Counsel has argued that the said allegation is ambiguous, non CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 548 of 569 specific and based on mere whims and fancies. (219) I have considered the rival contentions. At the very Outset I may observe that it has been duly admitted by the prosecution that he was the Regional Head / Deputy General Manager of the Oriental Bank of Commerce at the relevant time. (220) Secondly, it is evident from the record that out of Rs.70 lacs advanced to M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd., the Regional Office had only sanctioned Rs.50 lacs while Rs.20 lacs were on account of unauthorized discounting of cheque by the Branch Incumbent without obtaining any sanction for the same and it was the accused S.K. Lakhina (A3) who vide letter dated 13.06.1995 which is Ex.D3W2/1 had reported the matter to the Head Office / Inspection & Control Department regarding the unauthorized discounting of cheques by accused S.K. Pathrella (A1).
(221) Thirdly, it is also evident from the evidence on record in the form of letters dated 04.04.1995 which is Ex.PW9/220 (D559), letter dated 24.03.1995 Ex.PW7/D (D5) and letter dated 07.10.1995 which is Ex.PW9/DX8 that advances in the account of M/s. Moonlight Engineers and M/s. Steel Samrat were never allowed by the Regional Office headed by S.K. Pathrella (A3). (222) Fourthly, it is also evident that out of Rs.44.41 lacs sanctioned to M/s. Suraksha Engineers and Steel Traders, the sanction from Regional Office was for Rs.20 lacs only as evident from the letter dated 06.06.1995 which is Ex.PW9/161 (D318) which was subject to strict stipulations of equitable mortgage of properties and CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 549 of 569 there has been no sanction from the Regional Office, a fact which has been confirmed by J.S. Sachdeva (PW7) and Vikram Kochhar (PW37).
(223) Fifthly, in so far as the outstanding amount of Rs.16.87 lacs in respect of M/s. Paramount Tools & Machines is concerned, the same was not required to be referred to Regional Office as the same was within the powers of Branch Incumbent and was never sanctioned by the Regional Office.
(224) Sixthly, the evidence on record suggests that most of the letters which had been sent by accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) to the Regional Office, were not exclusively dealt with by the accused S.K. Lakhina (A3) but rather by other officers including P.K. Malkhan and also K.C. Mehra. In fact the various notings by P.K. Malkhan confirm that he had specifically highlighted this fact that the account was highly irregular and the Branch Manager should inform them about the proposal. It is apparent from the contents of the said letter (Ex.PW9/15) that the accused S.K. Lakhina (A3) had been specifically putting a note that "...against sanctioned limit of Rs.20 lacs we have permitted the discounting of bills of IOCL upto Rs.24.38 lacs with the condition that the account will be got regularized...." and thereafter the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) had never informed the position of the account of M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. In fact, in one of the communication Ex.PW9/17 the Regional Office had specifically mentioned that the "..... Branch Manager should confirm that all the terms and conditions of the sanction were CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 550 of 569 duly complied with and should send them the copy of the report of visit to the unit....", which had been duly approved by the accused S.K. Lakhina (A3).
(225) Seventhly, it is also evident from the noting on the communication Ex.PW9/19 that the Regional Office i.e. accused S.K. Lakhina (A3), on the notings made by Sh. P.K. Malhan regarding various lapses being committed by S.K. Pathrella (A1), had directed his office to fetch the reply to the various queries being made by them and assess the fresh requirement sent by the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1). In fact, in one of the communication by S.K. Pathrella (A1) wherein he had mentioned that he had obtained telephonic permission, the said letter was duly processed by the Regional Office and a noting had been made to the effect that the ".... Branch Manager should quote the authority under whose permission the bills had been discounted....". Further, perusal of the Ex.PW9/159 which is a letter written by S.K. Pathrella (A1) to S.K. Lakhina (A
3), shows that the accused S.K. Lakhina (A3) had specifically sought information as mentioned at serial no. 1 to 10 of the said letter from the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1). In fact, the accused S.K. Lakhina (A3) in his communication to the Head Office had specifically mentioned that the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) had himself allowed the operation of the account of M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. Much beyond the limit against the lapsed sanction and the account got regularized number of times after which the Branch had allowed over accommodation and on one or two occasions the CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 551 of 569 Branch had obtained permission to issue Bank Guarantee beyond the sanctioned limit but with proper margin and collateral security. The accused S.K. Lakhina (A3) had in the letter Ex.PW9/214 specifically written that neither there was any proposal nor any permission was granted for adhoc facility in reference to the account of M/s. Steel Samrat India. He further mentioned that the branch was in a habit of allowing discounting etc. without permission and subsequently intimating the higher authorities through statements. Hence, it is clear from the aforesaid that the conspiracy and connivance so attributed to the accused S.K. Lakhina (A3) is neither reflected nor borne out from the said documents on which the prosecution is placing its reliance. (226) Eighthly, coming now to the allegations with regard to the remittance of Rs.13.35 lacs to the Current Account of M/s. Future Positive belonging to his sons namely Sandeep Lakhina, Akash Lakhina and Amber Lakhina during the period 02.03.1994 to 16.08.1995. I may observe that with regard to the said remittances there is no evidence to even remotely confirm that it was a quidpro quo for the unauthorized advances given to the various firms of Pradeep Anand (A2).
(227) Lastly, it is not disputed that a departmental inquiry had been initiated against him the accused S.K. Lakhina (A3) on the basis of the report of CVC on identical allegations wherein he had been honorably exonerated vide order of the competent authority dated 05.04.1999 which is Ex.PW87/DX5 and hence by application CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 552 of 569 of ratio in the case of Radhey Shyam Kejriwal Vs. State of West Bengal & Anr. in Crl. Appeal No. 1097 of 2003 decided on 18.02.2011 the proceedings against the accused S.K. Lakhina (A3) should have been withdrawn by the prosecution, which was never done.
(228) In the light of my aforesaid discussion, I hereby hold that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges against the accused S.K. Lakhina (A3) beyond reasonable doubt for which benefit of doubt is given to him.
Charges against the accused Rajiv Anand (A4): Not Proved (229) It is not disputed that the accused Rajiv Anand (A4) was working with M/s. True Fab (P) Ltd. and was the employee of Pradeep Anand (A2). As per the allegations, Pradeep Anand (A2) the Director of M/s. True Fab (P) Ltd. and Proprietor of M/s. Steel Samrat (India) and M/s. Moonlight Engineers, Faridabad presented seven bills drawn on his firms which were purchased by the Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony branch as per orders of S.K. Pathrella (A1) and proceeds of the discounted bills were credited in the various firms of Pradeep Anand (A2). It is alleged that these bills were handed over by S.K. Pathrella (A1) to Rajiv Anand (A4) on 26.05.1995 for dispatch through courier service as per orders of accused S.K. Pathrella (A4) and the accused Rajiv Anand (A4) without dispatching the documents obtained a courier receipt from CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 553 of 569 World Pal Air Courier Service (India) (P) Ltd. and Remex Express Courier Service and handed over the receipt to S.K. Pathrella (A1) as proof of dispatch. According to the prosecution, the accused Rajiv Anand (A4) along with accused S.K. Pathrella (A1), Pradeep Anand (A2) and S.K. Lakhina (A3) hatched a criminal conspiracy for discounting these bills even when there was no sanction limits available at all to the companies after 01.09.1994. It is further alleged that the accused Rajiv Anand (A4) presented the cheque bearing no. 171024 dated 23.09.1995 for a sum of Rs.3,10,000/ issued by Vikram Arora (A5) proprietor of Carda Electricals, in conspiracy with the accused Pradeep Anand (A2), S.K. Pathrella (A1) and S.K. Lakhina (A3).
(230) In order to prove its case against the accused Rajiv Anand (A4), the prosecution has placed its reliance upon the testimony of Prabir Sutradhar (PW44) who has proved that the accused Rajiv Anand had received seven bills as detailed in the letter dated 26.05.1995 Ex.PW44/C under his receipt and on instructions of accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) vide entry at Sr. No. 2309 Ex.PW44/A pertaining to State Bank of Patiala Sector11 Faridabad, Haryana, he had handed over the bills to the peon of the bank who handed over the same to accused S.K. Pathrella and on the next day, he received the courier slip Ex.PW44/B from accused S.K. Pathrella. According to the prosecution the said witness has further proved that on instructions of accused S.K. Pathrella he had handed over the communication dated 26.05.1995 Ex.PW44/C to the peon of the CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 554 of 569 Courier Company who in turn courier the same and the same was received by accused Rajiv Anand vide Ex.PW44/C (D255). The prosecution has also placed its reliance upon the testimonies of Bhupender Choudhary (PW83) a Journalist by profession and Vinod Khurana (PW85) the agent of M/s. World Pak Courier Service India Pvt. Ltd. It is argued that the witness Bhupender Choudhary (PW83) knew accused Rajiv Anand who was his neighbour and also Vinod Khurana (PW85) as he was his cousin brother. Vinod Khurana (PW85) has proved that the courier receipt Ex.PW85/A (D254) was issued by his agency on 26.05.1995 against the document mentioned therein. He also knew accused Rajiv Anand who was an employee of M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. and who booked the documents on 26.05.1995 in the evening. According to the witness, at that time, the load had already been dispatched and this information was given to accused Rajiv Anand who then asked him to sent these documents on the next day but the said documents could not be delivered as nobody came to fetch the same. It is argued that the witness Vinod Khurana (PW85) has proved that the consignment was just an envelope not having more than one or two paper inside and the booked documents were retained on the said date i.e. 26.05.1995 and on next day accused Rajiv Anand came to him in the morning of 27.05.1995 and asked to cancel the booking and accordingly booking was cancelled by him. He also proved that he did not return the first copy issued to him as the token of having cancelled the booking and of having received back the documents. Further, the witness CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 555 of 569 Bhupender Choudhary (PW83) has proved that his cousin brother Vinod Khurana (PW85) had discussed the matter regarding non returning of original courier receipt to him by accused Rajiv Anand and even he insisted to accused Rajiv Anand who was his neighbour, to return the same but the accused Rajiv Anand did not handover the said receipt to the courier company and told that the said receipt could not be located.
(231) In so far as the allegation that the accused Rajiv Anand has presented a cheque bearing No. 171024 dated 23.09.1995 issued by Vikram Arora (A5) is concerned, the prosecution has placed his reliance upon the testimony of R. Rajamohan (PW9) who has proved that the cheque Ex.PW9/153 (D189) for a sum of Rs.3,10,000/ issued by Carda (India) Electronics was presented by Steel Samrat India Ltd. drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, NIT, Faridabad, which cheque was presented by accused Pradeep Anand and it was discounted by accused S.K. Pathrella even when he has no authority to discount the said cheque and credited the amount in the current account no. 2458 of M/s. Steel Samrat India to give undue benefits to his coaccused Pradeep Anand in furtherance of criminal conspiracy despite the fact that the of account of Carda (India) Electronics bearing no. 6089 was having balance of Rs. 2,054/ as on 23.09.1995 and the said cheque was returned unpaid. It is argued that invoice No.81 dated 23.02.1995 which is Ex.PW45/1 (D13), invoice No.82 which is Ex.PW45/3 (D13), invoice no.83 which is Ex.PW45/4 (D13), invoice No.80 which is Ex.PW45/5 (D13), CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 556 of 569 invoice no.84 which is Ex.PW45/6 (D13), invoice no.87 dated 23.03.1995 which is Ex.PW45/7 (D13), invoice no.90 dated 23.03.1995 which is Ex.PW45/8 (D13), invoice no.86 dated 23.03.1995 which is Ex.PW45/8 (D13), invoice no.89 dated 23.03.1995 which is Ex.PW45/9 (D13), invoice no.88 dated 23.03.1995 which is Ex.PW45/10 (D13) invoice no.91 dated 23.03.1995 Ex.PW45/11 (D13) all bear the signatures of accused Rajiv Anand (A4) as authorized signatory of M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd. It is further argued that the witness Ashok Kumar Khanna (PW49) has identified the signatures of accused Rajiv Anand on the backside of cheques Ex.PW9/77, Ex.PW9/78, Ex.PW9/79, Ex.PW9/80, Ex.PW9/114 and Ex.PW9/129 at points encircled C as authorized signatory of M/s True Fab Pvt. Ltd.
(232) On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the allegations levelled against the accused Rajiv Anand (A4) are non specific and vague in nature. It is submited that the accused Rajiv Anand (A4) used to obey the orders of Pradeep Anand (A2) being his employee in Sales Department of M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. which was a small scale unit and at time the employees were to perform multifarious tasks and duties. It is further argued that the accused Rajiv Anand (A4) had withdrawn the money and handed over the same in the company. It is also argued that the alleged invoices were filled up/ prepared by the accused Rajiv Anand (A4) under the instructions of his employer and he had not gained any benefit for himself nor caused any loss to the bank.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 557 of 569 (233) I have considered the rival contentions and at the very Outset I may observe that it is not disputed that the accused Rajiv Anand (A4) was an employee of Pradeep Anand (A2) being sales Manager in the Sales Department of M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. (234) Secondly, I note that the prosecution has placed its reliance upon the testimony of Prabir Suttradhar (PW44) who has proved an entry against serial no. 2309 pertaining to the State Bank of Patiala, Sector11, Faridabad, Haryana and the name of Rajiv Anand has been shown against this entry. In this regard, I may observe that the said entry was relating to State Bank of Patiala and no document of Pradeep Anand (A2) was discounted by the Oriental Bank of Commerce pertaining to any transaction with State bank of Patiala, Faridabad, Haryana as a collecting bank and therefore, it cannot be linked with Rajiv Anand (A4) who was an employee of Pradeep Anand (A2). Hence, the argument of the accused that the said entry pertains to some other document, raises reasonable doubts in the mind of the Court which the prosecution has not been able to dispel. (235) Thirdly, in so far as the allegations made by Ashok Kumar Khanna (PW49) to the effect that accused Rajiv Anand (A4) had signed on the back side of the cheques Ex.PW9/77, Ex.PW9/78, Ex.PW9/79, Ex.PW9/80, Ex.PW9/114 & Ex.PW9/129 is concerned, it is not denied by the accused Rajiv Anand (A4) that he had received the payments against the cheques presented by him but he has clarified that the amount was received on behalf of accused Pradeep Anand (A2). It is an admitted case of the prosecution that CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 558 of 569 said cheques were issued from the CC accounts of Pradeep Anand (A2) and as pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for the accused that perusal of the said cheques confirm that the purpose of the withdrawal of amount which has been written on the backside of each cheque i.e. Ex.PW9/77 (for wages, diesel etc.), Ex.PW9/78 (for diesel, oil, job work), Ex.PW9/79 (for job work, payments and petty expenses) and Ex.PW9/80 (for salary, welding electrods, LDO etc.). Hence, it is writ large that the accused Rajiv Anand (A4) had only discharged his duties as an employee as instructed to do by the accused Pradeep Anand (A2) and had withdrawn the money which he claims he had handed over to the company of Pradeep Anand. The prosecution on their part have failed to prove that the same were withdrawn by Rajiv Anand (A4) despite being aware of the conspiracy. In fact, the meeting of mind in relation to the conspiracy to commit the main offence is totally missing and hence, no criminal liability can be fastened on him.
(236) Lastly, I may observe that the accused Rajiv Anand (A4) had been the employee of Pradeep Anand (A2) and had been putting his signatures on the various documents in a routine manner as per the instructions and directions issued by the accused Pradeep Anand (A
2), a fact which has emerged from the record. I have also noted that in respect of the similar allegations, the prosecution has chosen not to chargesheet Swaraj Chauhan, the Proprietor of M/s. Permanent Tools & Machines; C.K. Singh Proprietor of M/s. Suraksha Engineers and Steel Traders, both employees of Pradeep Anand (A2) who were CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 559 of 569 operating two different firms as proxy's; T.C. Bhardwaj, Suman Prakash Sharma and Nitin Saini who have all been cited as witnesses. In fact, to be very fair, on the same analogy the accused Rajiv Anand (A4) should have been cited as a witness rather than an accused. It is not disputed that the cheques had been issued from the CC account of Pradeep Anand (A2) many of whom mentioned the purposes of withdrawal at their back. It is further not disputed by the prosecution that Rajiv Anand (A4) had only been discharging his duties while withdrawing the amount and handing over the same to the companies and there are no allegations of his being the beneficiary. Rather, the evidence on record confirms that beneficiary of all the acts and omissions so attributed to him was Pradeep Anand (A2) and none else. This being the background, I hereby hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove the allegations against the accused Rajiv Anand (A4) beyond reasonable doubt and hence benefit of doubt is given to him.
Charges against the accused Vikram Arora (A5): Not Proved (237) The case of the prosecution is that the accused Vikram Arora (A5) the Proprietor of Carda Electricals (India) Pvt. Ltd. had issued a cheque bearing no. 171024 dated 23.09.1995 for a sum of Rs.3,10,000/ drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, NIIT Branch, Faridabad in favour of M/s. Steel Samrat India in furtherance of criminal conspiracy even when the credit balance in the current CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 560 of 569 account no. 6089 was Rs.2,054/. The cheque was returned unpaid and accused S.K. Pathrella without any authority discounted the cheque in the current account no. 2458 of M/s. Steel Samrat India Pvt. Ltd. to give undue benefit to accused Pradeep Anand. (238) In order to prove the allegations against the accused Vikram Arora (A5), the prosecution has placed its reliance upon R. Raja Mohan (PW9) who has proved the cheque Ex.PW9/153 (D189) and deposed that cheque was credited in the current account no. 2458 of M/s. Steel Samrat India, a proprietorship concern of accused Pradeep Anand and hence, the discounting of cheque by accused S.K. Pathrella resulted into undue benefit to his coaccused Pradeep Anand, which was done in furtherance of criminal conspiracy merely to provide the funds illegally, without the credit facility in the said account of accused Pradeep Anand in his capacity as the Proprietor of M/s. Steel Samrat India Pvt. Ltd.
(239) On the other hand, the accused Vikram Arora (A5) has argued that although the prosecution has examined various witnesses, yet none of them stated a single word that the cheque issued in favour of M/s. Steel Samrat was in fact issued for purposes of discounting only.
(240) I have considered the rival contentions. I may observe that the accused Vikram Arora (A5) has admitted having issued the cheque in question for certain business transaction, which fact has not been rebutted by any of the witnesses including all the three Investigating Officers. There is no evidence on record to prove that CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 561 of 569 the accused Vikram Arora (A5) was aware of the fact that M/s. Steel Samrat was a non existing firm and was not dealing with trading matters or was not manufacturing steel made items. None of the investigating officers of the present case, have stated or alleged that the cheque in question was issued under conspiracy for discounting only. In fact the IO Sh. A.P. Singh (PW75) was unable to admit or deny the fact if there was only one cheque business transaction of Vikram Arora with M/s. True Fab or its associate firms. (241) I may further note that the Investigating Agency had also chargesheeted one Shanti Lal Jain (A6) on similar allegations. It was alleged that Shanti Lal Jain (A6) had issued a blank cheque bearing No. 760725 dated 16.04.1995 to Sh. K.K. Sahni, Director of M/s. True Fab (P) Ltd. when the balance in account was not more than Rs.329.50p after which the accused Pradeep Anand (A2) took the cheque from Sh. K.K. Sahni, filled and the same for Rs. 20 lacs and presented the same at Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony Branch, New Delhi for discounting, which cheque was returned unpaid. The Ld. Predecessor of this Court had vide a detailed order dated 03.12.2005 discharged the accused Shanti Lal Jain (A6), which order has now become final as the same having not been challenged by the CBI till date. I may observe that the allegations against the accused Vikram Arora (A5) are on better footing in comparison of accused Shanti Lal Jain that he has issued a cheque for Rs.3,10,000/ in favour of firm M/s. Steel Samrat for purchase of goods being manufactured by the said firm. It is a normal practice in the business to issue a post dated cheque in favour of the CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 562 of 569 supplier firm to ensure the supply of goods. The accused Vikram Arora (A5) has not disputed, rather admitted, having issued the cheque in question for a business transaction. The prosecution has not been able to bring on record any material to show that the cheque in question was issued pursuant to a conspiracy for discounting or that Vikram Arora was aware of the fact that M/s. Steel Samrat was a non trading company of accused Pradeep Anand. In fact the IO Sh. Satish Dagar (PW88) has specifically deposed that he was not aware about the purpose for which the cheque was given by Vikram Arora (A5) to accused Pradeep Anand (A2). There is no material on record to show any meeting of mind between Vikram Arora (A5) and the other accused.
(242) It is also evident from the record that the amount of Rs.3,10,000/ along with interest (total Rs.3,19,810) was recovered on 17.11.1995 and hence in the absence of proof of any prior meeting of mind, the prosecution has not specifically disputed the transaction qua him.
(243) This being the background, I hereby hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against the accused Vikram Arora (A5) beyond reasonable doubt.
FINAL CONCLUSIONS:
(244) In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharastra, AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Apex Court has laid down the tests which are prerequisites before conviction should be recorded, CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 563 of 569 which are as under:
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established;
2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
3. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;
4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
(245) Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, it stands established that accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) was the then Chief Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony; the accused Pradeep Anand (A2) was the Director of M/s True Fab (P) Ltd, and Prop. of M/s Steel Samrat (India) and M/s. Moonlight Engineers, Faridabad; the accused S.K. Pathrella (A
3) was the then Deputy General Manager of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Regional Office; Rajiv Anand (A4) was an employee of Pradeep Anand and Vikram Arora (A5) was the Proprietor of M/s. Carda India Electrical. On the basis of the testimonies of the various prosecution witnesses and the documents on record, the following aspects stand established:
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 564 of 569 That the accused Pradeep Anand (A2) Director of M/s. True Fab Pvt. Ltd. with Cash Credit Account No. 1670, was also having two Proprietorship firms namely M/s. Moonlight Engineers and M/s. Steel Samrat India both having Current Account No. 2458.
That the accused Pradeep Anand (A2) also had two accounts opened in respect of two firms i.e. M/s. Permanent Tools & Machines showing Sh. Swaraj Chauhan his employee as its Proprietor and of M/s. Suraksha Engineers & Steel Traders showing Sh. C.K. Singh, his employee, as its Proprietor.
That during the year 1994 onwards pursuant to a criminal conspiracy the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) while posted as Chief Manager of Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony, Delhi purchased bogus bills presented by accused Pradeep Anand (A2) in respect of his various firms which were shown to be drawn on various parties on the basis of fake and bogus documents (i.e. Lorry Receipts, Consignment Notes, Purchase Orders, Invoices, Bills, Letters of Credit etc.) at the said branch of the bank for discount knowingly that the same were bogus and not supported by genuine trade transactions, discounted the same and credited the proceeds thereof in the respective accounts and allowed their withdrawal from their respective accounts.
That many of these discounted bills were either not sent to the CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 565 of 569 drawee banks for collections or were presumably destroyed as they were returned unpaid by the drawee bank and as a result of the aforesaid criminal conspiracy the Oriental Bank of Commerce suffered financial losses to the tune of Rs.1,84,99,007.30p.
That as per the modusoperandi the accused Pradeep Anand (A2) pursuant to the conspiracy with S.K. Pathrella (A1), presented these bills drawn on his firms, which were purchased by the branch as per orders of S.K. Pathrella (A1) and proceedings of the discounted bills were credited in the various firms of Pradeep Anand (A2). The discounting of these bills were done by S.K. Pathrella (A1) even when there was no sanction limits available at all to the companies after 01.09.1994.
That during the period 28.06.1994 to 07.10.1995 the accused Pradeep Anand (A2) got as many as 110 bills discounted from New Friends Colony, Delhi and all these bills were presented by Pradeep Anand (A2) in the name of bogus firms and were accompanied with bogus lorry receipts of Ashok Transport of India to fake trading whereas there was none.
That out of 110 bills presented by Pradeep Anand (A2) and purchased by S.K. Pathrella (A1), only 34 bills were paid whereas 76 bills remained unpaid.
That on 24.05.1995 the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) had CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 566 of 569 obtained a DD for Rs.11,500/ from the accused Pradeep Anand (A2) for making payment to Ms. Sosama Thomas with whom he (S.K. Pathrella) had developed very personal and intimate relationship, which DD was obtained as quidproquo for official favour shown to Pradeep Anand (A2) .
That the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) being public servant while functioning as Chief Manager of Oriental Bank of Commerce, by corrupt or illegal means and by abusing his official position, had sanctioned various credit facilities obtained by various factories and caused heavy loss to the bank to the tune of Rs.1,84,99,007.30p.
(246) In the present case the prosecution has successfully proved the manner in which the offence has been committed, the preparation and use of bogus documents causing loss to the Public Exchequer to the tune of Rs.1,84,99,007.30p. There is nothing which could shatter the veracity of the prosecution witnesses or falsify the claim of the prosecution. All the prosecution witnesses have materially supported the prosecution case and their testimonies do not suffer from any infirmity, inconsistency or contradiction and find due corroboration from the documentary material on record. The prosecution has been able to built up a continuous link and it has been established that the accused Pradeep Anand (A2) had got prepared forged and fabricated bills, invoices, consignment notes, purchase orders, letters of credit etc. and dishonestly and fraudulently presented the same to the CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 567 of 569 Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony, New Delhi and S.K. Pathrella (A1) discounted the said documents knowingly them to be bogus and knowing that the bills would not be returned and thereby cheated the bank and caused loss to it approximately to the tune of Rs.1,84,99,007.30p.
(247) I therefore hold the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) guilty for the offence under Sections 120B read with Section 420, 468, 471 IPC and also Section 120B IPC read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and also for the substantive offence under Section 13 (1) (d) punishable under Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
(248) Further, the accused Pradeep Anand (A2) is held guilty of the offence under Section 120B read with Section 420, 468,471 IPC and Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He is also held guilty of the substantive offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 Indian Penal Code.
(249) Both the accused S.K. Pathrella (A1) and Pradeep Anand (A2) are accordingly convicted.
(250) In so far as the accused S.K. Lakhina (A3), Rajiv Anand (A4) and Vikram Arora (A5) are concerned, I hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against them beyond reasonable doubt and hence benefit of doubt is given to them and they are acquitted of the charges alleged.
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 568 of 569 (251) Be listed for arguments on sentence qua the convicts S.K. Pathrella (A1) and Pradeep Anand (A2) on 09.08.2018.
Digitally signed KAMINI by KAMINI LAU
LAU Date: 2018.08.08
19:47:59 +0530
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 08.08.2018 Special Judge (PC Act), CBI01,
Central District, Delhi
CBI Vs. S.K. Pathrela Etc., RC No. 2(E)/1996, Dated 08.08.2018 Page No. 569 of 569