Bangalore District Court
Cbi Acb Blr vs A1 K.S. Srinivasan on 27 April, 2026
KABC010005582017
IN THE COURT OF XXI ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AND PRINCIPAL SPECIAL JUDGE
FOR CBI CASES, BENGALURU [CCH-4]
PRESENT: SRI.MANJUNATH SANGRESHI
B.A.LL.B [HONS.]
XXI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge and
Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases
[CCH-4] Bengaluru.
DATED THIS 27TH DAY OF APRIL 2026
Spl.C.C.No.16/2017
Complainant : Central Bureau of Investigation
Anti-Corruption Branch,
Bengaluru.
[By Senior Public Prosecutor]
V/S.
Accused 1: Sri.K.S.Srinivasan
S/o.Late.K.S.Swaminathan
Aged about 57 years
The then Chief Manager,
I Line, Indian Overseas Bank,
IOB BSK II Stage,
Bengaluru.
R/o: A-2, 602, Ganga Block,
National Games Village,
Koramangala, Bengaluru.
2 Spl.CC.16/2017
2: Sri. B.N. Muralidharan,
S/o Late Narayana Iyengar,
Aged about 62 years,
The then Asst. Manager,
IOB BSK II Stage,
Banashankari Branch,
Bengaluru.
Superannuated as Manager on
31.8.2014 from IOB,
Bannergatta Road Branch,
Bengaluru.
R/o: 106, 14th Main,
24th Cross, 3rd Block East,
Jayanagar,
Bengaluru-560011.
3: Sri. V.N.Gururaja Rao,
S/o.Sri.T.S.Raghavendra Rao,
Aged about 61 years
The then Manager,
IOB BSK II Stage,
Banashankari Branch,
Bengaluru.
Superannuated on 31.3.2015.
R/o: 395, 18th Main, 1st Floor,
Narayan Doodakallasandra,
Bengaluru-560062.
4: Smt. Valli K.S.,
W/o.Sri.H.N.Ravi Kumar,
Aged about 61 years,
The then Manager,
IOB BSK II Stage,
Banashankari Branch,
Bengaluru.
Superannuated on 31.9.2015
from IOB, Banashankari II Stage
3 Spl.CC.16/2017
Branch, Bengaluru.
R/o: Shubananda, 3rd Cross,
Kempegowda Main Road,
Near Kaliveera High School,
Udayagiri Extension,
Hassan - 573 201.
5: Sri. Umesh Gurjar,
S/o Sri. Sakaram Gurjar,
Aged about 45 years,
Working as Middleman.
R/o: 770, Kaveri Niwas,
14th Cross, J.P. Nagar, 1st Cross,
Bengaluru - 560 078.
6: Sri.Jitendra Bhandari,
S/o.Late Misrimalji Bhandari,
Aged about 42 years,
Prop.of M/s.Maxtel Enterprises,
No.16, Yadav Complex,
B.M.Galli, A.M.Lane Cross,
Chickpet,
Bengaluru-560 053.
R/o: 301, ETA Garden,
Magadi Road,
Bengaluru-560 053.
7: Sri. Lalit Kumar Bhandari,
S/o Misrimalji Bhandari,
Aged about 44 years,
Prop.of M.M.Sales Corporation,
No.08, Ground Floor,
Yadav Complex, B.M.Galli,
A.M.Lane Cross, Chickpet,
Bengaluru-560 053.
R/o: No.1, 2nd Floor,
4 Spl.CC.16/2017
24th Cross, Durgani Niwas,
Kilari Road,
Bengaluru - 560 053.
8: Smt. Anita Devi Bhandari,
W/o.Sri.Lalitkumari Bhandari,
Aged about 43 years,
Prop. M/s.G M Enterprises,
No.18, 1st Floor, A.M. Lane,
B.M.Galli, Chickpet Cross,
Bengaluru- 560 0053.
R/o: No.1, 2nd Floor,
24th Cross, Durgani Niwas,
Kilari Road,
Bengaluru - 560 053.
9: Sri. Ganesh G,
S/o Late H. Gurunath,
Aged about 41 years,
Proprietor,
M/s. G.Hanumanthappa & Sons
No.A-39, Singana Agrahara,
Hoskur Road Cross, Hosur Road,
Bengaluru-560 061.
R/o: No.11, 8th Cross,
N.R. Colony,
Bengaluru - 560 019.
10: Sri.G.Subramaniyam,
S/o.Late.H.Gurunath,
Aged about 39 years,
Proprietor of M/s. NET 27
Technologies, No.221,
2nd Floor, 9th Main, 5th Block,
Jayanagar, Bengaluru.
R/o:11, 8th Cross,
5 Spl.CC.16/2017
N.R. Colony,
Bengaluru - 560 019.
11: Sri. M. Kumaraswamy Raju,
S/o.Late.Durai Swamy Raju,
Aged about 56 years,
Proprietor of M/s. Sri. Sai Rice
Traders', No.2287, 4th Cross,
Annapoorneswari Nagar,
Nagarabhavi, Bengaluru-560 061.
R/o: #179, 3rd Cross, 4th Main,
NGEF Layout, RMV 2nd Stage,
Sanjay Nagar,
Bengaluru - 560 094.
12: Smt. Geetha R,
W/o.S.Sri.nivas,
Aged about 37 years,
Prop. M/s. Sri. Annapoorneswari
Rice Traders, No.287, 4 th Main,
4th Cross, Nagarabhavi,
Bengaluru-560 061 and
Grade 'D' Employee of Karnataka
Vidhyuth Karkhane Limited,
Mysore Road, Bengaluru.
R/o: #17, 1st Main,
4th Cross, Lakkanna Layout,
Mariyappana Palya,
Bengaluru - 560 056.
13: Sri. Ravindra,
S/o. Sri.Ningrajan Gowda,
Aged about 38 years,
Proprietor of
M/s. Veerabhadreshwara Stores,
No.27, Ittamadu Main Road,
6 Spl.CC.16/2017
Banashankari 3rd Stage,
Bengaluru-560 085.
R/o: No.22, Bhayravanagara,
Dubasipalya,
Bengaluru - 560 059.
14: Smt. Mangala Gowramma,
W/o.Sri.V.K.Ramalingegowda,
Aged about 47 years,
Prop. M/s. SLN Glass Plywoods &
Hardware, No.46, 4th Cross,
Jai Maruthinagar,
Nandini Layout,
Bengaluru-560 096.
R/o: House No.675,
4th Cross, H.M. Nayak Road,
Jayamaruthi Nagar,
Ward No.12,
Bengaluru - 560 096.
15: Sri. Mallesh,
S/o.Sri.Halage Gowda,
Aged about 38 years,
Prop.M/s. Veeresh Provision Stores,
No.6, 80 feet Road,
KHB Colony, Kengeri Upanagar,
Bengaluru-560 060.
R/o: No.31, Nagadevanahalli,
Post : Jnanabharathi,
Bengaluru - 560 056.
16: Late R. Mohan Naidu
[Since dead, not charge sheeted].
17: Sri.N.Srirama,
[Abated as dead]
7 Spl.CC.16/2017
18: Smt. Priya Chiplunkar,
W/o.Sri.Umesh Gurjar,
Aged about 32 years,
Housewife, No.770,
Kaveri Niwas, 14th Cross,
J.P. Nagar, 1st Cross,
Bengaluru-560 078.
[A1 by Sri.Vishnu Murthy Adv.; A2 to
A4 by Sri.R.Vidyasagar Adv.; Accused
No.5 & 18 by Sri.S.V.Wadawadagi Adv.;
A6, A7 & A8 by Sri.Narayanaswamy
K.L. Adv.; A9 & A10 by
Sri.K.R.Anilkumar Adv.; A11 by
Sri.A.Somaraju Adv.; A12 to A15 by
Sri.M.Y.Lokesha Adv.]
Particulars regarding date of commission of offence, report
of offence, arrest of accused & Etc,.
Date of commission of 2012 to 2014
offence
Date of report of offence 07.01.2016
Date of arrest of accused Not arrested.
Date of release of accused --
on bail
Total period of custody --
Name of the complainant Sri. P.V.Venkateswaran,
S/o. Sri.P.V.Vaidyanathan,
Chief Regional Manager,
Indian Overseas Bank,
Regional Office,
Chennai.
Date of commencement of 16.10.2018
recording evidence
Date of closing of evidence 15.12.2022
Charge-sheeted offences Sec.120-B and Secs.420,
468, 471 read with Sec.120-
B of IPC and Sec.13(2) read
8 Spl.CC.16/2017
with Sec.13(1)(d) of
Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988.
Opinion of the Judge As per Final Order
JUDGMENT
The Inspector of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation ['CBI' in short], Anti Corruption Bureau ['ACB' in short] Bengaluru, has submitted charge sheet against accused No.1 to 15, 17 and 18 alleging the commission of offences punishable U/Sec.120-B r/w. Sec.420, 468, 471 of IPC and Sec.13(2) r/w. Sec.13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ['PC Act' in short].
The brief facts of the prosecution case;
2. The CBI, ACB, Bengaluru, registered a FIR in their Crime No.RC1A/2016 against accused No.1 Sri.K.S.Srinivasan, then Chief Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Banashankari II Stage Branch, Bengaluru and 17 others for the offences punishable U/Sec.120-B r/w. Sec.420, 468, 471 of IPC and U/Sec. 13(2) r/w. Sec.13(1)
(d) of PC Act,1988, based on the complaint dated:07.01.2016 lodged by one Sri. P.V.Venkateswaran, then Chief Regional Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, 9 Spl.CC.16/2017 Regional Office, Chennai; alleging that, accused No.1 to 4 who are the public servants, while working at Indian Overseas Bank, Banashankari II Stage Branch, Bengaluru, have entered into a criminal conspiracy with other accused No.5 to 18 and other unknown borrowers/ persons during the period from 2012 to 2014 at Bengaluru and other places in the matter of sanctioning and disbursing of loan under Easy Trade Finance Scheme of Indian Overseas Bank, on the basis of false and fabricated documents with a dishonest intention to cheat the Indian Overseas Bank and thereby caused wrongful loss of more than Rs.3.86 crores to the bank and corresponding wrongful gains to themselves. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a Charge-Sheet against the accused No.1 to 15, 17 and 18 for the offences punishable U/Sec.120-B r/w. Sec.420, 468 and 471 of IPC and U/Sec.13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988.
3. After submitting Charge-Sheet, this court had taken cognizance of the offences against accused Nos.1 to 15, 17 and 18 for the offences punishable U/Sec.120B 10 Spl.CC.16/2017 r/w.420, 468 and 471 of IPC and cognizance is also taken for the offence punishable U/Sec.13(2) r/w.13(1)(d) of PC Act against accused Nos.1 to 4. Summons were issued to the accused. After service of summons, accused Nos.1 to 15, 17 and 18 appeared before the court through their respective counsel and they were enlarged on bail.
4. After hearing both side regarding framing of charge, the charges were framed against the accused Nos.1 to 15, 17 and 18 for the offences punishable U/Sec.120B r/w.420, 468 and 471 of IPC and U/Sec. 13(2) r/w.13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988. After framing of charges, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. Since accused No.16-Sri.R.Mohan Naidu was reported as dead, hence he was not Charge-Sheeted by the I.O. and as accused No.17-Sri.N.Srirama was dead after framing the charge, hence case against him is abated.
6. In order to prove the case against accused persons, the prosecution has examined 54 witnesses as 11 Spl.CC.16/2017 per PW.1 to PW.54 and also got marked documents as per Ex.P1 to P.396. That documents as per Ex.D1 to D.6 are got marked on behalf of the accused. After closing the prosecution side evidence, the statement of accused persons was recorded as provided under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused have denied the incriminating circumstances found in the prosecution evidence. After recording the statement U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 has filed written statement U/Sec.313(5) of Cr.P.C.
7. The learned counsel for the accused No.9 and 10 has filed written notes of arguments.
8. Heard both side. Perused all the records.
9. For disposal of instant case, the points that would arise for my consideration are as under;
1. Whether the sanction obtained U/Sec.19 of PC Act to prosecute the accused No.1 for the alleged offences, is valid one and in accordance with law ?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, accused No.1-K.S.Srinivasan, being a Chief Manager I Line; accused No.2- B.N.Muralidharan, being a Manager; accused No.3- 12 Spl.CC.16/2017 V.N.Gururaja Rao, being a Manager; and accused No.4-Smt.Valli K.S., being an Assistant Manager, all are public servants worked in Indian Overseas Bank, at Banashankari II Stage Branch, Bengaluru at relevant period of time, have entered into criminal conspiracy with the accused No.5 to 18, by abusing their official position, sanctioned the credit facilities as over draft under "Easy Trade Finance" scheme to the accused No.6 to 17 by violating the bank procedure and norms and without ascertaining the credibility of the borrowers, without considering KYC norms, without conducting pre and post sanction inspections for confirming the existence of the units/firms and knowing fully well that the documents submitted by the other accused were forged and fabricated, with dishonest intention to cheat the Indian Overseas Bank, have allowed the said accused borrowers to siphon off the loan amount, without doing any business activities, and thereby they by their criminal act, have caused wrongful loss to the tune of Rs.3.86 crores to the Indian Overseas Bank and corresponding wrongful gain for themselves and other accused and thereby accused No.1 to 15 and 18 have committed an offence of conspiracy punishable under Section 120- B of IPC ?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, the accused No.1 to 4, being the Officers in different capacity in Indian Overseas 13 Spl.CC.16/2017 Bank at Banashankari II Stage Branch, Bengaluru, in furtherance of criminal conspiracy with the accused No.5 to 18, have sanctioned 12 loans to the accused borrowers by violating the bank procedures, such as without complying KYC rules and norms, without ascertaining the credibility of the borrowers, without conducting pre & post sanction inspection for confirming the existence of units or firms, and knowing fully well that the documents submitted by the accused/borrowers were forged and fabricated, with a dishonest intention to cheat the bank, allowed the accused/borrowers to siphon off the sanctioned loan amount without doing business activity and without ensuring the end use of funds and thereby all the accused with a criminal intention to cheat the bank have caused wrongful loss to the bank to the tune of Rs.3.86 crores and thereby accused No.1 to 15 and 18 have committed an offence punishable U/Sec.420 read with Sec.120-B of IPC ?
4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, the accused No.6 to 15 in collusion with accused No.1 to 4 and accused No.5 and 18 and in furtherance of criminal conspiracy, have submitted false, fake and forged documents with a malafide intention to cheat the bank and to cause wrongful loss to the tune of Rs.3.86 crores to the bank and making wrongful gain for themselves and others; and thereby the accused No.6 to 15 have 14 Spl.CC.16/2017 committed an offence of forgery for the purpose of cheating punishable U/Sec. 468 r/w Sec.120-B of IPC ?
5. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, the accused No.1 to 4, being public servants working as Officers at different levels in the Indian Overseas Bank at relevant period of time by colluding with the accused No.6 to 17 and in furtherance of criminal conspiracy, have availed the loan under the 'Easy Trade Finance Scheme' by submitting fake and forged documents to the bank, knowing fully well that the said documents are forged documents and used the same as genuine documents, and caused wrongful loss to the tune of Rs.3.86 crores to the bank and wrongful gain for themselves and others, and thereby accused No.6 to 15 have committed offence punishable U/Sec. 471 r/w Sec.468 of IPC ?
6. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, the accused No.1 to 4, being the public servants, worked as Managers at different levels in the said bank during the said relevant period of time, have without complying the KYC norms, without verifying the credibility of the accused/borrowers, without ascertaining the signature of the accused No.5 and 18, without making pre-inspection and post-inspection, without ascertaining the documents submitted by the other 15 Spl.CC.16/2017 accused which are fake and forged documents, without verifying the VAT returns and cross checking the credibility of the status of Units/Firms of the accused borrowers, have sanctioned the loans under the "Easy Trade Finance" scheme to the said accused and allowed them to siphon off the said loan to the tune of Rs.3.86 crores, without ensuring the end use of loan proceeds and thereby committed offence of criminal misconduct punishable U/Sec.13(2) r/w. Sec.13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ?
7. What order ?
10. My findings to the above stated points are as as under;
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative Point No.2 : In the Affirmative, in respect of accused No.1, 5 to 15 and 18;
and in the Negative in respect of Accused No.2 to 4.
Point No.3 : In the Affirmative, in respect of accused No.1, 5 to 15 and 18; and in the Negative in respect of Accused No.2 to 4.
Point No.4 : In the Affirmative Point No.5 : In the Affirmative Point No.6 : In the Negative Point No.7 : As per the final order for the following;
16 Spl.CC.16/2017 REASONS
11. Point No.1: This point is with regard to the sanction granted to prosecute the accused No.1-Sri. K.S.Srinivasan. The accused No.1 was a public servant worked as Chief Manager I Line in Indian Overseas Bank ['IOB' for short], at Banashankari II Stage Branch, Bengaluru, during the time of commission of charge sheeted offences; hence, in order to prosecute him for the charge-sheeted offences, it is necessary for the prosecution to obtain sanction from the concerned competent authority as provided U/Sec.19 of PC Act. That under Section 19 of PC Act, Sanction is to be given by the Government or the authority which would be competent to remove the public servant from his office.
12. Admittedly, the accused No.1-K.S.Srinivasan, during the significant point of time i.e. from 08.12.2011 to 22.07.2013, worked as Chief Manager I Line in Indian Overseas Bank, at Banashankari II Stage Branch, Bengaluru. As per evidence on record, the designation and employment of accused No.1 in the Indian Overseas 17 Spl.CC.16/2017 Bank are not in dispute. As such, the accused No.1, being a public servant, during the relevant period of time, as defined U/Sec.2 of the PC Act, falls under the ambit of Section 19 of the PC Act. Thus, a valid sanction is pre- requisite to launch prosecution against him, for the offences punishable U/Sec.120-B and 420 of IPC and U/Sec.13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act.
13. In the case on hand, the sanction order has been marked as per Ex.P365. That the sanction as per Ex.P365 has been granted by one Smt.Radha Venkata Krishnan, then General Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Head Office Chennai. She has been examined in the case as PW.48. According to PW.48, the Banashankari II Stage Branch of Indian Overseas Bank, Bengaluru comes under the Administrative control of Indian Overseas Bank, Head Office, Chennai and Chief Managers of Indian Overseas Bank fall under Scale IV Officer Grade. Further, according to PW.48, in case of any officer of the rank of Scale IV commits any criminal misconduct with regard to Bank Financial Activities, the Board of Management of IOB, Chennai would delegate the powers for according 18 Spl.CC.16/2017 sanction and also for removal of officer of Scale IV from service.
14. It is undisputed fact that, during the significant point of time i.e. from 08.12.2011 to 22.07.2013, accused No.1-K.S.Srinivasan was working as Chief Manager I Line in Indian Overseas Bank, at Banashankari II Stage Branch, Bengaluru; therefore, PW.48-Smt.Radha Venkata Krishnan, who being the General Manager, IOB, Head Office Chennai, had the delegated powers to accord sanction to launch criminal prosecution against accused No.1, who comes under the control of PW.48; as such PW.48 is the competent authority to remove accused No.1 from his service acting under delegated powers, and accordingly she has accorded sanction against accused No.1.
15. At this juncture, it is apt to appreciate the evidence of PW.48 and the contents of Ex.P365-Sanction order, in order to know whether PW.48 had applied her mind to the material or documents placed before her or not, while granting the sanction to prosecute the accused No.1. In her evidence, PW.48 has deposed that, she was 19 Spl.CC.16/2017 holding office of General Manager Cadre, so she was competent enough to delegated with powers to accord sanction to launch criminal prosecution against accused No.1 and also to remove him from service. She has further deposed that, in the instant case, CBI, Bengaluru sought prosecution sanction against accused No.1 during the year 2016; they had furnished copies of FIR, Statements of witnesses and also all relevant documents. That after verifying all the records furnished and going through the evidence collected by the CBI, and after herself found involvement of accused No.1 in the commission of offences, therefore on 25.11.2016 she accorded prosecution sanction against accused No.1 to initiate criminal proceedings against him. This witness has identified her sanction order marked at Ex.P365 and she also identified her signature found in Ex.P365 as per Ex.P365(a).
16. The learned counsel for the accused No.1 has cross examined this witness. In his cross examination, PW.48 stated that, before issuing Ex.P365, she intensively considered the report submitted by the 20 Spl.CC.16/2017 Department with regard to the alleged fraud committed by accused No.1 and she also made detailed reference in Ex.P365 about departmental enquiry held against accused No.1. She further deposed that, Ex.P365 is issued by her totally based on the report submitted by Bank Vigilance Department and also on the evidence collected by the CBI. Further, she denied a suggestion to the effect that, draft sanction order was prepared by their Bank Vigilance Department and she signed it without applying her mind and without referring to original records. Thus, nothing worth has been elicited from the mouth of PW.48, so as to show that her sanction is not in accordance with law.
17. The learned counsel for the accused No.1 has argued that sanction order issued by PW.48 under Section 19 of the PC Act is not a valid sanction and it is not in accordance with law. However, except arguing that sanction order is not in accordance with law, the learned counsel has not demonstrated before this court as to how the sanction order is not valid one and not in accordance with law.
21 Spl.CC.16/2017
18. In case of State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu reported in (2005) 11 SCC 600, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, "The grant of sanction is an executive act and validity thereof cannot be decided in the light principles applied to quasi judicial order. There are four tests to be applied while dealing with validity of sanction order; Firstly, the sanction order has been passed by competent authority; Secondly, all the relevant evidence, both against and in favour of the accused, should be placed before sanctioning authority; Thirdly, Sanctioning Authority should have applied its mind to conclude that the accused should be prosecuted; Fourthly, the application of mind should be objective and impartial and not at the behest of any other authority. In case, after going through all the relevant evidence, a prima facie case is made out against the accused, the sanctioning authority can grant sanction."
19. Further, in the case of CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Agarwal reported in 2014 (84) ACC 252 [Crl.A.No.1838/2013], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that, 22 Spl.CC.16/2017 "...........Therefore, the order of sanction must ex facie disclose that the sanctioning authority had considered the evidence and other material placed before it. In every individual case, the prosecution has to establish and satisfy the court by leading evidence that those facts were placed before the sanctioning authority and the authority had applied its mind on the same. If the sanction order on its face indicates that all relevant material i.e. FIR, disclose statements, recovery memos and other material on record were placed before the sanctioning authority and if it is further discernible from the recital of sanction order that the sanctioning authority perused all the material, an inference may be drawn that the sanction had been granted in accordance with law."
20. Further more, in the case of State of Maharashtra V/s. Mahesh G. Jain, reported in (2013) 8 SCC 119, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that;
"Grant of sanction U/Sec.19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act-1988 for prosecution is administrative function and only prima facie satisfaction of the sanctioning authority is needed".
23 Spl.CC.16/2017
21. Thus, in the background of principles laid down in the above cited decisions, when we examine the prosecution case on the point of sanction, it would go to show that, the prosecution has satisfied this court by leading evidence on sanction order that PW.48 is the competent authority to accord sanction and said sanctioning authority had applied its mind on the materials produced by the CBI/prosecution. That PW.48, who is author of Ex.P365-Sanction Order, has specifically deposed that after verifying all the records furnished and going through the evidence collected by the CBI, and after herself found involvement of accused No.1 in the commission of offences; accordingly, she accorded prosecution sanction against accused No.1 to initiate criminal proceedings against him. Thus, it is clear that, PW.48 has gone through all the records placed before her and thereby she applied her mind to the materials produced by the CBI/prosecution. Further, on perusal of contents of Ex.P365 i.e. sanction order which runs into 11 pages, it is seen that, PW.48 has gone through all the 24 Spl.CC.16/2017 records and recorded her reasons for according the sanction for prosecuting the accused No.1.
22. Thus, on mindful reading of evidence of PW.48 and contents of Sanction order marked at Ex.P365, it is very clear that the sanctioning authority has considered all the relevant materials and after having satisfied as to prima-facie case made out against the accused No.1 for prosecuting him; accordingly, PW.48 has issued sanction order marked at Ex.P365. Hence, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has proved that sanction accorded by the PW.48 to prosecute accused No.1 with regard to the offences charged against him, is valid one and in accordance with law. Accordingly, I answered the Point No.1 in the Affirmative.
23. Sanction in respect of Accused No.2 to 4:-
Since accused No.2-Sri.B.N.Muralidharan, Accused No.3- Sri.V.N.Gururraja Rao and accused No.4-Smt.Valli K.S., who being the public servants, all worked as Managers at relevant point of time in Indian Overseas Bank, Banashankari II Stage Branch Bengaluru, were retired from the service before taking the cognizance of the 25 Spl.CC.16/2017 charge sheeted offences; hence, no sanction for prosecution is required U/Sec.19 of PC Act, 1988, as per dictum laid down in the case of State of Kerala Vs. V.Padmanabham Nair (1999) 5 SCC 690, wherein it is held that, 'a person who ceased to be a public servant on the date when the court took cognizance, no sanction under section 19 of PC Act is required'.
24. Points No.2 to 6: As these points are interconnected and inter-related; hence, they are taken together for common discussion in order avoid repetition of facts.
25. It is the very case of prosecution that, the accused No.1 to 4, who being the public servants, while working in Indian Overseas Bank, at Banashankari II Stage Branch, Bengaluru, at relevant point of time, have entered into a criminal conspiracy with accused No.5 to 18 during the period from 2012 to 2014 in respect of sanctioning and disbursing of loan under 'Easy Trade Finance Scheme' of Indian Overseas Bank, on the basis of false and fabricated documents with a dishonest intention to cheat the Indian Overseas Bank and thereby 26 Spl.CC.16/2017 caused wrongful loss of more than Rs.3.86 crores to the Bank and corresponding wrongful gains to themselves and thereby the accused No.1 to 15, 17 and 18 have committed the offences punishable U/Sec.120-B r/w. Sec.420, 468 and 471 of IPC and U/Sec.13(2) r/w. 13(1)
(d) of PC Act, 1988.
Charge against accused No.1 to 4:
26. It is the very allegation against accused No.1 to 4 that, they being the public servants as Managers/Chief Manager of Banashankari II Stage Branch of Indian Overseas Bank, Bengaluru, have entered into criminal conspiracy with accused No.5, a Middleman and accused No.18, who is wife of accused No.5, sanctioned 12 loans to accused No.6 to 17, in collusion with each other, under 'Easy Trade Finance' scheme relying on forged and fabricated documents without pre-sanction and post-sanction inspection and by violating the Bank norms with dishonest intention to cheat the Indian Overseas Bank and further, in furtherance of such criminal conspiracy, the loan amount so sanctioned was siphoned off/diverted by the accused 27 Spl.CC.16/2017 No.6 to 17 for the purpose other than for which the loans were sanctioned and caused wrongful loss to the Indian Overseas Bank to the tune of Rs.3.86 Crores and thereby they obtained pecuniary advantage by corrupt and illegal means. Accordingly, the charges U/Sec.120-B and 420 of IPC and U/Sec.13(2) read with Sec.13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act-1988, have been framed against these accused No.1 to 4.
Charge against accused No.5 and 18:
27. It is the allegation of prosecution against accused No.5 and 18 that, the accused No.5-Umesh Gurjar, a private individual, acted as a Middleman between the accused No.1 and other accused/borrowers in sanctioning the loan. It is alleged that, accused No.5 mobilized and brought accused No.6 to 17/borrowers and introduced them to the Bank, assisted and facilitated them in getting the loan from Indian Overseas Bank, by colluding with accused No.1 to 4. It is the allegation against accused No.18-Smt.Priya Chiplunkar that, she being the wife of accused No.5, has facilitated for floating the fund from the Borrowers' Bank Accounts to her Bank 28 Spl.CC.16/2017 account which was maintained with Indian Overseas Bank and thereby she also became part of criminal conspiracy and committed the offence of cheating. Accordingly, the charges U/Sec.120-B and Sec.420 of IPC have been framed against accused No.5 and 18.
Charge against accused No.6 to 15 & 17:
28. The accused No.6 to 17 are the 12 borrowers.
It is the very case of prosecution against them that, accused No.6-Jitendra Bhandari, the Proprietor of M/s.Maxtel Enterprises; accused No.7-Lalit Kumar Bhandari, the Proprietor of M/s. M.M.Sales Corporation; accused No.8-Smt.Anita Devi Bhandari, the Proprietress of M/s. G.M.Enterprises; accused No.9-Ganesh G., the Proprietor of M/s. G.Hanumantappa and Sons; accused No.10-G.Subramaniyam, the Proprietor of M/s. NET 27 Technologies; accused No.11-M.Kumarswamy Raju, the Proprietor of M/s. Sri Sai Rice Traders; accused No.12- Smt.Geeta R., the Proprietress of M/s. Sri.Annapoorneshwari Rice Traders; accused No.13- Ravindra, the Proprietor of M/s.Veerabhadreshwar Stores; accused No.14-Smt.Mangala Gowramma, the 29 Spl.CC.16/2017 Proprietress of M/s. SLN Glass Plywood & Hardwares; accused No.15-Mallesh, the Proprietor of M/s.Veeresh Provision Stores; accused No.16-R.Mohan Naidu [Dead], the Proprietor of M/s.Venkateshwara Hardware & Plumbing; and accused No.17-N.Srirama [Abated], the Proprietor of M/s. Banashankari Interior Works, with dishonest intention and in conspiracy with accused No.1 to 4, 5 and 18, have fraudulently and dishonestly opened accounts with Indian Overseas Bank at Banashankari II stage Branch, Bengaluru and applied for over draft loans in the name of their respective proprietorship firms/enterprises by submitting forged and fabricated financial documents such as IT Returns, Provisional Balance Sheets, Profit and Loss Account Etc., and got sanctioned the loans from the Bank by using above said documents as genuine and after sanction of said loans, the above said accused/borrowers were siphoned off the loan proceeds for the purpose other than for which said loans were sanctioned and thereby said accused/borrowers caused wrongful loss to the Bank to tune of Rs.3.86 Crores and corresponding wrongful gain 30 Spl.CC.16/2017 to themselves. Accordingly, the charges U/Sec.120-B, 420, 468 & 471 of IPC have been framed against accused No.6 to 15 and 17.
29. Now, let me examine and appreciate the prosecution evidence, both oral as well as documentary, in order to arrive at conclusion whether the prosecution has proved that the accused No.1 to 15 and 18 have committed the charged offences, beyond reasonable doubt.
30. CW.1-Sri.P.V.Venkateshwaran, the then Chief Regional Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Regional Office, Bengaluru, is the person who has set the criminal law into motion by lodging a written complaint against the accused. He has been examined in the case as PW.4. His written complaint dated:20.05.2016 lodged before CBI Bengaluru, is marked as Ex.P20. According to this witness, the Internal Investigation Report of the Bank revealed that, during 2011 to 2013, the Branch Manager of Banashankari II Stage Branch had committed financial and procedural irregularities while granting loans under Easy Trade Finance to the customers/borrowers. He 31 Spl.CC.16/2017 further deposes that, on the basis of Internal Investigation Report, he was able to find out that funds were diverted for other purposes deviating from the purpose for which fund was allotted and causing loss to the Bank; as such, on the basis of vigilance report and after verifying the records, he lodged a written complaint before the CBI, as per Ex.P20. Though this witness was cross examined by the counsels for the accused No.1 to 4, nothing worth has been elicited.
31. The prosecution has examined CW.2-Sri.Ved Prakash Mishra, the then Assistant General Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Vigilance Department, Central Office, Chennai, as PW.5. His evidence, in his examination-in-chief, would go to show that, during the month of April-2015, Deputy General Manager, Vigilance, Chennai, instructed him to conduct an internal investigation with regard to irregularities committed by the officers of Banashankari II Stage Branch, particularly by accused No.1, then Chief Manager during the period from 2012 to 2015. Accordingly, he visited the Branch, inspected the records and during that period, accused 32 Spl.CC.16/2017 No.1 was Manager and granted loans under Easy Trade Finance Scheme [ETF Scheme] and accused No.4 was also working as a Bank Official in the same branch. He verified the loan files of 12 borrowers as per Ex.P3 to Ex.P14 which were sanctioned by the accused No.1 during his tenure.
32. It is the further evidence of PW.5 that, he found material irregularities committed by the officials while granting loans under ETF scheme. According to this witness, 12 loans granted under ETF scheme were not in accordance with rules of Bank and grave irregularities were committed by Bank officials while granting said loans under said scheme. Further, according to the evidence of this witness, as per the ETF scheme mortgaging of properties of borrower is must; the mortgage property margin value was found to be not proportionate consisting with the loan sanction to the borrowers; under ETF scheme, loan was to be granted to borrowers who were in the retail trade business, however in the instant case, some of the borrowers were not engaged in retail trade business, some of borrowers were 33 Spl.CC.16/2017 found to be engaged in wholesale business, were also granted loan. As per the requirement of scheme, all borrowers should be granted benefits who are in the business and the grant should be utilized for the same purpose for which it was granted. It is his further evidence that, in some cases 2 nd line Officers were not involved in the processing and appraisal report.
33. It is the further evidence of PW.5 that, under ETF Scheme, the Manager while granting loan had to consider the audited balance sheet of preceding two years along with value added tax returns of the borrower and as per rules, the loan granted under ETF scheme required to be granted after obtaining the pre-sanction inspection of the unit to be conducted by Branch Manager or authorized person. Under the scheme even after post sanction inspection report is received, the Manager had to verify the utilization of the loan granted to the borrowers under the scheme or not.
34. It is the further evidence of PW.5 that, on verification of loan documents of 12 borrowers, he was able to find out that one middleman by name Sri.Umesh 34 Spl.CC.16/2017 Gurjar [i.e. accused No.5] was also involved in getting the loans to accused/borrowers under the ETF Scheme. Further, in order to verify the irregularities, he visited the business units like M/s.Maxtel Enterprises, M/s.M.M Sales Corporation and M/s.G.M Enterprises along with accused No.1, the Branch Manager and on verification, it was found that no such units were functioning in the said premises; he also enquired the local people of the business locality but could not received their co- operation but was able to find a board written as Maxtel Enterprises in a corner. Further, he deposed that, in order to find out the irregularities, he enquired one Chartered Accountant of M/s. Maregowda & company who informed him that he has not audited the accounts of M/s.Veeresh Provisional Store; further, he enquired about the business of borrower-Hanumanthappa who was stated to be fruits agent and it was disclosed that proprietor of M/S. G.Hanumanthappa & sons was running fruit business for which ETF scheme is not applicable and it is also seen that, part of the loan 35 Spl.CC.16/2017 proceeds were utilized for the purpose of purchasing demand draft in the name of Sub-registrar.
35. It is the further evidence of PW.5 that, another loan was advanced to proprietor of M/s.NET 27 Technologies, who was brother of proprietor of M/s. Hanumanthappa & Sons and it was noticed that M/s. NET 27 Technologies company was dealing in software development and nature of the loan should be granted by the Manager with the approval of screening committee of Central office which was beyond the discretion of the Manager of the Branch and it was also seen that part of loan proceeds was transferred into the account of accused No.5 and his wife accused No.18. Therefore, after noting all these irregularities and illegalities in his Vigilance Report, he submitted said report to DGM (SR) Indian Overseas Bank, Central Office, Vigilance Department, Chennai on 16.04.2015 as per Ex.P22.
36. In order to prove its case, the Prosecution has further examined CW.14-Sri.H.S.Seetharam as PW.13. He served as a Senior Manager in Indian Overseas Bank, Regional Office, Bengaluru during the period from June-
36 Spl.CC.16/2017 2012 to July-2013. During his examination-in-chief, this PW.13 has identified Ex.P3 to P14, which are the 12 loan files pertaining to accused No.6 to 17 and deposed that, he found discrepancies pertaining to the loan accounts of 12 firms/enterprises belonging to accused No.6 to 17 such as (i) Pre-Sanction and Post-Sanction inspection was not conducted by the Branch Manager for the purpose of end use; (ii) the Bank Manager had not verified the Genuineness of the Financial Papers and I.T. documents submitted by the borrower; (iii) earlier Banker's Details have not been obtained; (iv) CIBIL report of the borrower was not obtained by the Manager; (v) turn over given by the borrower was not cross verified with the financial papers/ Chartered Accountants; (vi) Branch Manager had not sanctioned the loan which follows into the set norms of the scheme; (vii) the Bank Manager was not competent to sanction limit/Loan; and (viii) Housing Loan details of the Guarantor was not furnished and further Insurance details of house property taken as security was not furnished.
37 Spl.CC.16/2017
37. It is the further evidence of PW.13 that, the Branch Manager i.e. accused No.1 and second line officers have processed and sanctioned the loans without conducting spot inspection before sanctioning loan, Credit Officer has not collected previous loan account details/report of borrowers and cross checked the turn over; the loans under ETF Scheme did not cover wholesale dealers & Software companies and further, Chief Manager has not cross checked the VAT returns of the borrowers and not verified IT returns, genuineness of Balance sheets of firms submitted by Chartered Accountant; and accused No.1-Srinivasa, the then Bank Manager of Banashankari Branch had prepared all the office notes and sanctioned the loans to the borrower/accused. Thus, from the very evidence of PW.4, 5 and 13, is is seen that there were irregularities committed in sanctioning the loans to accused No.6 to 17 and causing huge loss to the Bank.
38. It is the further prosecution case that, the accused No.6 to 17/borrowers in collusion with other accused/public servants submitted forged and fabricated 38 Spl.CC.16/2017 financial documents such IT Returns, Profit and loss Account and Etc., and they also submitted forged Balance Sheets purported to be signed and issued by Sri.Senthil Kumar R.K, the Partner of M/s.Ramesh Subramanian & Associates; Sri.C.Rama Mohan, the Partner of M/s.Mohan & Narayan, Bengaluru; Sri.Ramesh of M/s.R.V.Associates, Bengaluru and Sri.Janakiram, Partner of M/s.Janakiram & Associates, to Indian Overseas Bank, Banshankari II Stage Branch, Bengaluru and availed loans in a fraudulent manner. Investigation has further disclosed that the said documents are not issued by the said chartered accountants and the same are forged.
39. It is the further case of prosecution that, in furtherance to criminal conspiracy, accused No.5-Umesh Gurjarand his wife accused No.18-Smt.Priya Chiplunkar in collusion with accused No.1 to 4 and other accused/borrowers managed to open the accounts in the name of accused/borrowers, mobilized and submitted the forged and fabricated financial documents, managed to get the loan sanctioned in the names of 39 Spl.CC.16/2017 accused/borrowers based on the said forged and fabricated documents, and also in the names of non- existing firms/units. Further, in furtherance to said conspiracy, they have also managed to siphon off the loan proceeds through their accounts held with Indian Overseas Bank, BSK II Stage Branch, Bengaluru. Regarding Charges leveled against Accused No.6 to 15:
40. It is the further case of prosecution that, in pursuance of criminal conspiracy with accused 1 to 4, 5 and 18, the accused No.6-Sri.Jitendra Bhandari, the Proprietor of M/s. Maxtel Enterprises fraudulently and dishonestly opened an account with Indian Overseas Bank, Banashankari 2nd Stage Branch, Bengaluru and applied for Over Draft loan of Rs.100 Lakhs in the name of his firm and submitted forged and fabricated document such as IT Return, Provisional Balance Sheets, Profit and loss Account and Etc., and got sanctioned the loan. Further, the accused No.6-Jitendra Bhandari has also not submitted VAT returns along with the loan application. After the sanction of the credit facility to the account of accused No.6, the loan proceeds were 40 Spl.CC.16/2017 siphoned off by way of cash withdrawals and transfers which are not related to the business transactions of firm of accused No.6.
41. In order to prove that accused No.6 had submitted fake and fabricated financial documents, the prosecution has examined PW14-Sri.C.Rama Mohan, a Chartered Accountant, whose firm name is M/s.Mohan and Narayan. According to him, his firm never assessed or audited balance sheets or IT returns of M/s.Maxtel Enterprises of accused No.6. During his evidence before the court, after verifying the loan file of accused No.6 marked at Ex.P3, the witness deposes that, though the IT Returns, Form No.3CB & 3CD, Balance Sheets or Profit and Loss Account pertaining to M/s.Maxtel Enterprises for the Assessment Years-2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012- 13, bear the seal of their firm name as 'Mohan & Narayan', but it does not belong to their firm nor said seal is affixed by their firm. This witness further deposes that, the signatures seen in the said documents, said to be of their firm, are not belonged to them. He further specifically deposes that, the rubber stamp impressions 41 Spl.CC.16/2017 seen on the records of Ex.P3 do not belong to their firm nor the signatures put therein are signed by him or his partner of the firm.
42. Further, PW.33-Sri.M.K.Venkatesh, the then Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department, Bengaluru has deposed that, on verification of information available in their system portal, it is found that, accused No.6 had submitted his IT Returns only for the assessment year 2010-11 and not filed his IT Returns for assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13. Further, as per evidence of this witness, the accused No.6 has shown his Gross Income as Rs.9,86,587/- for AY 2010-11 as per Ex.P3(f); whereas, as per screenshot of IT Returns available in Ex.P55, the gross income of accused No.6 is declared as Rs.2,08,920/-, which is not genuine as it is not available in the system portal of their office for the relevant year. Further, this witness has specifically deposed that, copies of IT Returnes for the AY 2011-12 and 2012-13 available in Ex.P3(f) produced by the accused No.6-Jitendra Bhandari are not genuine since the same are not available in their system portal. Though the learned 42 Spl.CC.16/2017 counsel for the accused No.6 has cross examined this witness but nothing contrary has been elicited.
43. Further, in order to show that, the accused has shown wrong address while opening an account in Indian Overseas Bank, at Banashankari II stage Branch, the prosecution has examined PW.39-Smt.Ratnavathi, a Commercial Tax Officer; who, after perusing the account opening form available in Ex.P3, deposed that, A/c. No.129802000001722 of M/s.Maxtel Enterprises of accused No.6 was opened on 03.05.2012 showing the address of his enterprises as No.16, 1 st Floor, Yadav Complex, B.M.Galli, A.M.Lane Cross, Chickpet, Bangalore; but as per their record, the said firm of accused No.6 was allotted with TIN 29030796026 and the address shown was as 'No.18, 1st Floor, Yadav Complex, B.M.Galli, A.M.Lane Cross, Chickpet, Bangalore'; however, as per request letter dated:16.10.2008 of the Proprietor, the address of said firm was changed to No.1/3, Srinidhi Complex, BM Lane, A.M.Lane, Chickpet Cross, Bangalore-53, and since then the existence of said firm is at changed address only and as per their records, 43 Spl.CC.16/2017 M/s.Maxtel Enterprises was not located at No.16, 1 st Floor, Yadav Complex, B.M.Galli, A.M.Lane Cross, Chickpet, Bangalore-53. Thus, it is very clear that, in order to obtain loan in a fraudulent manner this accused No.6 has shown wrong address. That accused No.6 has not cross examined this witness; therefore, the testimony of the witness is unrebutted.
44. Further, it is the case of prosecution against accused No.7-Sri.Lalit Kumar Bhandari that, he being the Proprietor of M/s. M.M. Sales Corporation, fraudulently and dishonestly opened a current account with the Branch in the name of his firm-M/s. M.M. Sales Corporation and applied for Over Draft loan of Rs.100 Lakhs by submitting forged and fabricated financial documents such as IT Return, Provisional Balance Sheets, Profit and loss Account and Etc., and got sanctioned the loan.
45. In order to prove the charges against accused N.7, the prosecution has examined PW14-Sri.C.Rama Mohan, a Chartered Accountant, whose firm name is M/s.Mohan and Narayan. According to him, his firm 44 Spl.CC.16/2017 never assessed or audited balance sheets or IT returns of M/s. M. M. Sales Corporation of accused No.7. After verifying the loan file of accused No.7 marked at Ex.P4, the witness deposes that, though the IT Returns along with copies of Form No.3CB & 3CD, Balance Sheets or Profit and Loss Account pertaining to M/s. M.M. Sales Corporation, for the Assessment Years-2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 bear the seal of their firm name as 'Mohan & Narayan', but it does not belong to their firm nor said seal is affixed by their firm. This witness further deposes that, the signatures seen in the said documents, said to be of their firm, are not belonged to them. He further specifically deposes that, the rubber stamp impressions seen on the records of Ex.P4 do not belong to their firm nor the signatures put therein are signed by him or his partner of the firm and their firm never dealt with any business for assessment of Tax with firm of accused No.7.
46. Further, PW.32-Smt.Geetha Kumari, the then Income Tax Officer has deposed that, on verification of information available in their system portal, she was not 45 Spl.CC.16/2017 able to find any submission of IT returns by Lalit Kumar Bhandari [i.e. accused No.7] for AY 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14. Further, as per evidence of this witness, as per their data, assessee i.e. the accused No.7 has not filed his IT Returns for the AY 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13; hence, copies of IT Returns submitted for the AY 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 available in Ex.P4(f) are genuine as they are not available in their system portal. During her cross, nothing worth has been elicited by the accused No.7.
47. Further, in order to show that, the accused has shown wrong address while opening account in Indian Overseas Bank, at Banashankari II stage Branch, the prosecution has examined PW.39-Smt.Ratnavathi, a Commercial Tax Officer; who, after perusing the account opening form available in Ex.P4, deposed that, A/c. No.129802000001723 of M/s.M.M.Sales Corporation is pertaining to accused No.7 and as per Commercial Tax Office records, the address of firm of accused No.7 is mentioned as No.8, 1st Floor, Yadav Complex, B.M.Galli, A.M.Lane, Chickpet, Bangalore-53; however, VAT returns 46 Spl.CC.16/2017 filed for the period of April 2012 and May 2012, which were submitted along with loan application by M/s.M.M.Sales Corporation, are not matching with the data available with Commercial Tax Dept., therefore the documents submitted relating to VAT returns are seen to be not genuine. That accused No.7 has not cross examined this witness; therefore, the testimony of the witness is unrebutted.
48. Further, it is the case of prosecution that, in pursuance of criminal conspiracy, accused No.8- Smt.Anita Devi Bhandari, the Proprietress of M/s.G.M.Enterprises has fraudulently and dishonestly opened a current account with the Bank and applied for Over Draft loan of Rs.100 Lakhs by submitting forged and fabricated financial documents such as IT Return, Provisional Balance Sheets, Profit and loss Account and Etc., and got sanctioned the loan.
49. In order to prove the charges against accused N.8, the prosecution has examined PW14-Sri.C.Rama Mohan, a Chartered Accountant, whose firm name is M/s.Mohan and Narayan. According to him, his firm 47 Spl.CC.16/2017 never assessed or audited balance sheets or IT returns of M/s.G.M.Enterprises of accused No.8. After verifying the loan file of accused No.8 marked at Ex.P5, the witness deposes that, though the IT Returns along with copies of Form No.3CB & 3CD, Balance Sheets or Profit and Loss Account pertaining to M/s. G.M. Enterprises, for the Assessment Years-2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 bear the seal of their firm name as 'Mohan & Narayan', but it does not belong to their firm nor said seal is affixed by their firm. This witness further deposes that, the signatures seen in the said documents, said to be of their firm, are not belonged to them. He further specifically deposes that, the rubber stamp impressions seen on the records of Ex.P5 do not belong to their firm nor the signatures put therein are signed by him or his partner of the firm and their firm never dealt with any business for assessment of Tax with firm of accused No.8.
50. Further, PW.33-Sri.M.K.Venkatesh, the then Income Tax Officer has deposed that, accused No.8-Anita Devi Bhandari of M/s.G.M.Enterprises submitted IT Returns for the AY 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 as 48 Spl.CC.16/2017 found in EX.P5 as per Ex.P5(g) is not matching with the information available in their office system portal and data available in Ex.P5(g) document is not correct. Further, as per evidence of this witness, the accused No.8 has shown her Gross Income as Rs.9,94,712/- for AY 2010-11 as per Ex.P3(f); whereas, as per screenshot of IT Returns available in Ex.P55, the gross income of accused No.6 is declared as Rs.4,15,180/-. Further, as per screenshot of IT Returns available in Ex.P55, the income declared by accused No.8 for AY 2012-13 is Rs.1,51,050/-; whereas, as per copy of IT Returns for the AY 2012-13 which is available in Ex.P5(g), the income is shown as Rs.14,11,953/- by the accused No.8 to the Bank. During his cross nothing worth has been elicited by the accused No.8.
51. Further, the prosecution has examined PW.39- Smt.Ratnavathi, a Commercial Tax Officer; who, after perusing the account opening form available in Ex.P5, deposed that, A/c. No.129802000001733 of M/s.G.M.Enterprises and said account was opened on 14.08.2012 by Smt.Anita Devi Bhandari and as per their 49 Spl.CC.16/2017 records, accused No.8 had started her business from 26.09.2012 onwards. That accused No.8 has not cross examined this witness; therefore, the testimony of the witness is unrebutted.
52. Further, as per evidence of PW.28-Mahesh H.M., who carries Electrical Business in the name of M/s.Darshan Enterprises deposed that, during 2013-14 he was purchasing Electrical Materials from M/s.G.M.Enterprises and during his visit to M/s. G.M.Enterprises, he met Lalit Bhandari [i.e. accused No.6] and he requested him to identify him for opening of an account in Indian Overseas Bank, Banashankari II Stage Branch, Bangalore; accordingly, he agreed and signed as an introducer for opening of bank account. But he deposed that, he personally does not know a woman called Smt.Anita Devi Bhandari, in whose name the Bank Account is opened.
53. Further, it is the case of prosecution that, in pursuance of criminal conspiracy, the accused No.9- Sri.Ganesh G, the Proprietor of M/s. G.Hanumanthappa & Sons, has fraudulently and dishonestly opened a 50 Spl.CC.16/2017 current account with the Bank in the name of his firm- M/s. G.Hanumanthappa & Sons and applied for Over Draft loan of Rs.98 Lakhs by submitting forged and fabricated financial documents such as IT Return, Provisional Balance Sheets, Profit and loss Account and Etc., and got sanctioned the loan.
54. In order to prove that accused No.9-Ganesh has submitted fake and fabricated financial documents while obtaining loan, the prosecution has examined PW.9-Sri.R.K.Senthil Kumar, Chartered Accountant, who was partner in M/s.Rammesh Subramanian & associates from 2003 to 2009, has deposed that Copies of IT Returns, Form No.3CB & 3CD, Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss Account, for the AY 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 pertaining to M/s.Hanumanthappa & Sons which are available in Ex.P6, are all bear rubber stamp seal of their firm 'Partner, Senthil Umar R.K., M.No.029870 of M/s. Rammesh Subramanian & Associates, Chartered Accountants'. But the signatures seen in the said documents are not belonged to him and theseal affixed with rubber stamp on Ex.P6 does not 51 Spl.CC.16/2017 belong to their firm and their firm never dealt with any business with M/s.Hanumanthappa & Sons.
55. PW.38-Smt.Sundari V Naik, the then Income Tax Officer who deposed that, the IT returns documents found in Ex.P6 for the AY 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 which were submitted to Bank by the accused No.9- Ganesh are not genuine and as per their Office Data Portal, accused No.9-Ganesh, the proprietor of M/s.Hanumantappa & Sons had not filed his IT returns for any assessment years as referred above. In this regard, he submitted a letter as per Ex.P60. That accused No.9 has not cross examined this witness; therefore, the testimony of the witness is unrebutted.
56. It is the further case of prosecution that, in pursuance of criminal conspiracy, accused No.10- Sri.Subramanyam G, the Proprietor of M/s.NET 27 Technologies, has fraudulently and dishonestly opened a current account on 02.08.2012 with Indian Ovrseas Bank, BSK 2nd Stage Branch, Bengaluru in the name of his firm-M/s.NET 27 Technologies and applied for Over Draft loan of Rs.49 Lakhs by submitting forged and 52 Spl.CC.16/2017 fabricated financial documents such as IT Retum, Provisional Balance Sheets, Profit and loss Account, and VAT certificate and Etc., and got sanctioned the loan.
57. In order to show that the accused No.10 has furnished wrong address, the prosecution has examined PW.12-Arvind Naidu, who is Managing Director of a company named as M/s.Caritor Solutions (India) Pvt., has deposed that accused No.10-G.Subramanyam was working in his company as a consultant Project Manager during the period from October 2011 to September 2014. After perusing the loan file of accused No.10 marked at Ex.P7, the witness deposed that the Ex.P7 discloses the address of firm of accused No.10 as No.221, 2 nd Floor, 9th Main, Jayanagar 5th Block, Bengaluru and during 2012, the company of the witness was working in the said address only. Thus, it is very clear that accused No.10 has shown wrong address.
58. Further, PW.9-Sri.R.K.Senthil Kumar, Chartered Accountant, deposed that Copies of IT Returns, Form No.3CB & 3CD, Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss Account, for the AY 2010-11, 2011-12 and 53 Spl.CC.16/2017 2012-13 pertaining to M/s.NET 27 Technologies which are available in Ex.P7, are all bear rubber stamp seal as 'Partner, Senthil Umar R.K., M.No.029870 of M/s. Rammesh Subramanian & Associates, Chartered Accountants'. But the signatures seen in the said documents are not belonged to him and the seal affixed with rubber stamp on Ex.P7 does not belong to their firm and their firm never dealt with any business with M/s.Hanumanthappa & Sons.
59. Further, in order to prove that accused No.10- Ganesh has submitted fake and fabricated financial documents while obtaining loan, the prosecution has examined PW.38-Smt.Sundari V Naik, the then Income Tax Officer who deposed that, the IT returns documents found in Ex.P7 for the AY 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 which were submitted to Bank by the accused No.10- G.Subramanyam are not genuine and as per their Office Data Portal, accused No.10, the proprietor of M/s.NET 27 Technologies had not filed his IT returns for any assessment years as referred above. In this regard, he submitted a letter as per Ex.P61. That accused No.10 has 54 Spl.CC.16/2017 not cross examined this witness; therefore, the testimony of the witness is unrebutted.
60. PW.43-Raghunatha Gowda M.S., the then Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, deposed that, on verification of office records, the TIN No.29870815214 shown to be allotted to the firm of accused No.10 namely M/s.NET 27 Technologies, said TIN number file was not existing in the of office records of their Dept., and after verifying the status with respect of name of dealer of M/s.NET 27 Technologies, it is noticed that said dealer is not in existence[Ex.P75]. That accused No.10 has not cross examined this witness; therefore, the testimony of the witness is unrebutted.
61. Further, it is the case of prosecution that, in pursuance of criminal conspiracy, accused No.11- Sri.M.Kumaraswamy Raju, the Proprietor of M/s.Sri.Sai Rice Traders has fraudulently and dishonestly opened an account with Indian Overseas Bank, BSK 2 nd Stage Branch, Bengaluru and applied for Over Draft loan of Rs.70 Lakhs in the name of his firm-M/s.Sri.Sai Rice Traders by submitting forged and fabricated financial 55 Spl.CC.16/2017 documents such as IT Return, Provisional Balance Sheets, Profit and loss Account and Etc., and got sanctioned the loan.
62. PW.9-Sri.R.K.Senthil Kumar, Chartered Accountant, has deposed that Copies of IT Returns, Form No.3CB & 3CD, Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss Account, for the AY 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 pertaining to M/s. Sri Sai Rice Traders which are available in Ex.P8, are all bear rubber stamp seal as 'Partner, Senthil Umar R.K., M.No.029870 of M/s. Rammesh Subramanian & Associates, Chartered Accountants'. But the signatures seen in the said documents are not belonged to him and the seal affixed with rubber stamp on Ex.P8 does not belong to their firm and their firm never dealt with any business with firm M/s.Sri Sai Rice Traders.
63. PW.30-Sri.E.Jayaraj, the then Income Tax Officer, has deposed that, relating to IT returns submitted for the AY 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 pertaining to Sri.Kumaraswamy Raju, the Proprietor of M/s. Sri Sai Rice Traders, he verified IT 56 Spl.CC.16/2017 return particulars of his office system portal and submitted a report to Addl.Commissioner, Income Tax stating that Sri.Kumaraswamy Raju, the Proprietor of M/s. Sri Sai Rice Traders has not submitted any IT returns for the AY 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-
14. [Ex.P53]. Thus, it is clear that, the accused No.11 has submitted fake and fabricated IT returns with intention to cheat the Bank.
64. It is the further case of prosecution that, in pursuance of criminal conspiracy, the accused No.12- Smt.Geetha R, the Proprietress of M/s.Sri. Annapoorneswari Rice Traders has fraudulently and dishonestly opened an account with Indian Overseas Bank, BSK 2nd Stage Branch, Bengaluru and applied for Over Draft loan of Rs.18.50 Lakhs in the name of her firm-M/s.Sri. Annapoorneswari Rice Traders by submitting forged and fabricated financial documents such as IT Return, Provisional Balance Sheets, Profit and loss Account and Etc., and got sanctioned the loan.
65. PW.9-Sri.R.K.Senthil Kumar, Chartered Accountant, deposed that Copies of IT Returns, Form 57 Spl.CC.16/2017 No.3CB & 3CD, Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss Account, for the AY 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 pertaining to M/s. Annapoorneshwari Rice Traders which are available in Ex.P9, are all bear rubber stamp seal as 'Partner, Senthil Umar R.K., M.No.029870 of M/s. Rammesh Subramanian & Associates, Chartered Accountants'. But the signatures seen in the said documents are not belonged to him and the seal affixed with rubber stamp on Ex.P9 does not belong to their firm and their firm never dealt with any business with firm M/s. Annapoorneshwari Rice Traders.
66. PW.39-Smt.Shanthi V., the then Income Tax Officer deposed that, during the course of enquiry before I.O., she stated that the IT returns for the AY 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 submitted accused No.12-Smt.Geetha R., the Proprietress of M/s.Annapoorneshwari Rice Traders to Indian Overseas Bank are not genuine and are not found available in their IT Office Data Portal as accused No.12 has not filed her IT returns particulars for any of the assessment years. In this regard, she submitted a letter marked at Ex.P58. According to this 58 Spl.CC.16/2017 witness, since assessee [i.e. accused No.12] has not filed any returns, therefore IT returns for AY 2010-11, 2011- 12 & 2012-13 submitted to the Bank are fake and fabricated. Nothing worth has been elicited from the mouth of this witness by the accused No.12 during the cross examination.
67. It is the further case of prosecution that, in pursuance of criminal conspiracy, the accused No.13- Sri. Ravindra, the Proprietor of M/s.Veerabhadreshwara Stores, has fraudulently and dishonestly opened an account with Indian Overseas Bank, BSK 2nd Stage Branch, Bengaluru and applied for Over Draft loan of Rs.46.50 Lakhs in the name of his firm-M/s. Veerabhadreshwara Stores by submitting forged and fabricated financial documents such as IT Return, Provisional Balance Sheets, Profit and loss Account and Etc., and got sanctioned the loan.
68. In support of allegations made against, the prosecution has examined PW.23-Sri.Shankar K.S., and he deposed that, he is the sole proprietor of M/s Veerabhadreshwara Provisions Store and he also 59 Spl.CC.16/2017 obtained VAT registration certificate in the name of said proprietary concern. This witness peruses the Account Opening Form and its enclosures along with copy of VAT registration certificate No.24589563481, which are available in Ex.P10 and deposes that it is in the name of Ravindra, Proprietor, M/s Veerabhadreshwara Provisions Store and loan account is maintained in the name of M/s Veerabhadreshwara Provisions Store with Indian Overseas Bank. The witness further deposes that, accused No.13-Ravindra was in habit of purchasing provision items regularly from his shop from 2004 to 2008 and he was also running Chicken Kabab Stall, which was near to my shop. After seeing Ex.P10-loan file of accused No.13, this witness deposes that his proprietary concern namely M/s.Veerabhadreshwara Provisions Store and VAT registration Certificate stands in his name and the same has been misused by accused No.13-Ravindra by affixing his photograph on Ex.P10 to open an account in the Bank and thereafter, he came to know that accused No.13 has opened a fake account in his business name by providing his business address and 60 Spl.CC.16/2017 his VAT registration number. He further deposed that, he never opened any account in Indian Overseas Bank, at Banashankari II Stage Branch, Bengaluru in the name of his firm M/s.Veerabhadreshwara Provisions Store. Except denial in his cross examination, nothing worth has been elicited so as to disbelieve his testimony.
69. PW.37-D.A.Shailaja, the then Income Tax Officer, has deposed that, during the course of enquiry before I.O., she stated that the IT returns for the AY 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 submitted by accused No.13- Sri.Ravindra, the Proprietor of M/s.Veerabhadreshwara Stores to Indian Overseas Bank are not genuine and are not found available in their IT Office Data Portal as accused No.13 had not filed his IT returns particulars for any of the assessment years. In this regard, he submitted a letter marked at Ex.P59. According to this witness, since assessee [i.e. accused No.13] has not filed any returns, therefore IT returns for AY 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 submitted to the Bank appear to have been fabricated for the purpose of availing loan from the Bank. Nothing worth has been elicited from the mouth of this 61 Spl.CC.16/2017 witness by the accused No.13 during the cross examination.
70. It is the further case of prosecution that, in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy, accused No.14- Smt.Mangala Gowramma, the Proprietress of M/s.SLN Glass Plywood & Hardwares has fraudulently and dishonestly opened an account with Indian Overseas Bank, BSK 2nd Stage Branch, Bengaluru and applied for Over Draft loan of Rs.49 Lakhs in the name of her firm- M/s.SLN Glass Plywood & Hardwares by submitting forged and fabricated financial documents such as IT Return, Provisional Balance Sheets, Profit and loss Account and Etc., and got sanctioned the loan.
71. PW.1-Sri.K.S.Janakiraman, who is the proprietor of M/s.S.Janakiraman and Company, has deposed that, he never audited the books of accounts of M/s S.L.N Glass Plywood and Hardwares Firm at any time, he also not submitted any I.T.Returns of the said firm at any time and he has not had any dealing with the said firm at any time. He further deposed that, about 2 years back, CBI Officer has shown him balance-sheet of 62 Spl.CC.16/2017 M/s S.L.N Glass Plywood and Hardwares Firm for the year ending on 31.3.2013 along with other records and asked him to identify the rubber stamps affixed on the said statements and signatures found thereon. This witness told the CBI officers that, he has not at all audited or signed or affixed the rubber stamp by name Janakiraman and Associates, Chartered Accountants, Bengaluru on the said statement shown to him by the CBI officers. Further, this witness was shown a bunch of papers consisting of copies of IT Returns, copies of Form No.3CB and 3CD, Annexure-I, Profit and Loss Account and Balance Sheet for the assessment years 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13. After perusing the said documents, this witness deposed that the said documents did not bear his signatures, and rubber seal affixed on the said documents as 'Janakiraman and Associates' Chartered Accountants, is not belonging to his Firm and said documents did not bear his membership number.
72. PW.29-Sri.C.B.Prabanna Gowda, the then Income Tax Officer, has deposed that, relating to Income 63 Spl.CC.16/2017 Tax returns submitted for the assessment years 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 pertaining to M/s. SLN Glass Plywood and Hardware belonging to Smt. Mangala Gowramma, she verified the IT return particulars in their office system portal and submitted a report as per Ex.P52 stating that Smt.Mangala, the Proprietress of M/s.SLN Glass Plywood and Hardware has not submitted any IT returns for the year 2010-11 and 2012-13. The witness further deposed that, as per Ex.P52 and office system portal, the Income of assessee is shown as Rs.1,99,160/-, for which Rs. 1,000/- is paid as tax in respect of IT Returns filed for the year AY 2011-12; however, copy of IT Return for the year AY 2011-12 in Ex.P1 submitted by accused No.14 along with Ex.P11-Loan Papers discloses Income as Rs.8,23,250/- and tax paid is shown as Rs. 1,00,914/-, which is not consistent with IT Return files maintained in the system of their Office pertaining to accused No.14-Smt.Mangala.
73. It is the further case of prosecution that, in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy with other accused, the accused No.15-Sri.Mallesh, the Proprietor of 64 Spl.CC.16/2017 M/s.Veeresh Provision Stores, has fraudulently and dishonestly opened an account with Indian Overseas Bank, BSK 2nd Stage Branch, Bengaluru and applied for Over Draft loan of Rs.29 Lakhs in the name of his firm- M/s.Veeresh Provision Stores by submitting forged and fabricated financial documents such as IT Return, Provisional Balance Sheets, Profit and loss Account and Etc., and got sanctioned the loan.
74. PW.9-Sri.R.K.Senthil Kumar, Chartered Accountant, deposed that Copies of IT Returns, Form No.3CB & 3CD, Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss Account, for the AY 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 pertaining to M/s. Veeresh Provision Stores which are available in Ex.P12, are all bear rubber stamp seal as 'Partner, Senthil Umar R.K., M.No.029870 of M/s. Rammesh Subramanian & Associates, Chartered Accountants'. But the signatures seen in the said documents are not belonged to him and the seal affixed with rubber stamp on Ex.P12 does not belong to their firm and their firm never dealt with any business with firm M/s. Veeresh Provision Stores.
65 Spl.CC.16/2017
75. PW.35-Smt.Sandhya Anil, the then Income Tax officer, has deposed that, during the course of enquiry, the I.O./CBI had confronted her with IT Returns available in Ex.P12 for the assessment years 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 pertaining to accused No.15-Sri. Mallesh, the Proprietor of M/s.Veeresh Provisions Stor; and on verification of the records she stated before the I.O. that the said IT Returns submitted to avail the loan were not genuine and they were was not found available in their Office Data Portal as accused No.15-Sri.Mallesh, the Proprietor of M/s.Veeresh Provisions Stores has not filed his IT Returns particulars for any of the assessment years. In this regard, he submitted letter along with screenshot copy of document relating to non availability of information of non filing of IT Returns in e-filing portal, as per Ex.P57.
76. Further, PW.46-Sri.Nataraj J.S., a messenger of Indian Overseas Bank, Banashankari II Stage Branch, is a witness to proceedings/Mahazars drawn during the inspection of various firms of accused borrowers. He is a witness to Ex.P82 and Ex.P341. According to this 66 Spl.CC.16/2017 witness, in the month of August 2016, he along PW.51- R.K.Shivanna, Inspector of Police, CBI and team proceeded to Nandini layout, Nagarabhavi, Kengeri, Ittamadu Main Road, Banashankari II Stage and J.P.Nagar 5th Block for the inspection of various business units like M/s.SLN Glass, Plywood & Hardware, M/s.Annapoorneshwari Rice Traders, M/s.Veeresh Provisions Store, M/s.NET 27 Technologies and M/s.Veerabhadreshwara Stores and found that business of the said units/stores were closed and no business was run in the said firms in the premises of above said firms. This witness further deposed that a Panchanama was prepared, in that regard as per Ex.P82. Further, as per evidence of PW51, another proceedings/Mahazar was conducted as per Ex.P341 with regard to physical verification of existence of firms of borrower/accused at above mentioned places. The proceedings conducted as per Ex.P82 and Ex.P341 support the evidence of PW.46 and PW.51.
77. Thus, from the above evidence of prosecution witnesses, it is convincingly proved that, the accused 67 Spl.CC.16/2017 No.6 to 15, in pursuance of criminal conspiracy submitted forged and fabricated financial documents to the Banshankari II Stage Branch of Indian Overseas Bank, Bengaluru and shown them as genuine and also submitted wrong addresses of their firms, obtained the loans in their firms' names and thereby cheated the Indian Overseas Bank and thereby, they committed the offences punishable U/Sec.120-B, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC.
Regarding Charges leveled against Accused No.1:
78. Now, coming to the charges levelled against accused No.1-K.S.Srinivasan, as per complaint marked at Ex.P20, it is specifically alleged that, accused No.1-
Srinivasan, during his tenure as Chief Manager of Banashankari II Stage Branch, had sanctioned loans under 'Easy Trade Finance' scheme to accused No.6 to 18 and fraud was detected in all 12 loans and there were serious irregularities came to light in appraisal, sanction and release of said loans.
79. It is pertinent to note here that, the Internal Investigation Report marked at Ex.P22 and the 68 Spl.CC.16/2017 complaint-Ex.P20, which has been lodged based on Investigation Report-Ex.P22, are pointing towards the irregularities committed by the accused No.1-Srinivasan, in particular, in the matter of appraisal, sanction and disbursement of loans granted to the accused No.6 to 17. It is alleged that, the accounts of borrowers/accused No.6, 7, 9, 11 and 12 were introduced by an existing customer of the Branch i.e. one Sri.M.R.Arun Kumar, the Proprietor of M/s Ramya Enterprises on the behest of accused No.5-Umesh Gurjar. Further, the account of borrower/accused No.13 was introduced by M/s.Banashankari Interior Works of accused No.17, who is also borrower/accused and the accounts of M/s.SLN Glass Plywood & Hardwares of accused No.14 & M/s.Banshankari Interior Works of accused No.17 were not introduced by anyone; despite that, accused No.1 had permitted to open the said accounts of accused No.14 and 17.
80. The evidence on record further shows that, the Branch has not conducted Pre-sanction Inspection of Unit/Firms of accused/borrowers which is mandatory, 69 Spl.CC.16/2017 before sanctioning the loans; further, signatures of introducers of some of the loan accounts of accused/borrowers were not verified; and certificates from second line managers of the branch on proper execution of documents were not obtained. Despite that, the accused No.1-K.S.Srinivasan, the then Chief Manager of the Branch had permitted to open the account without complying with KYC Norms and sanctioned CC limit of Rs.100 lakhs under "Easy Trade Finance" to M/s.Maxtel Enterprises of accused No.6 [Loan A/c No.129802000001722] on 01.08.2012; further sanctioned CC limit of Rs.100 lakhs each to M/s.M.S.Sales Corporation of accused No.7 [Loan A/c No.129802000001723] and M/s.G.M.Enterprises of accused No.8 [Loan A/c No.129802000001723], under "Easy Trade Finance" on 01.08.2012. Further, on 18.06.2012, the accused No.1 sanctioned CC limit of Rs.98 lakhs to M/s.G.Hanumantappa & Sons of accused No.9 [Loan A/c No.129802000001721]; further, on 08.08.2012, he sanctioned CC limit of Rs.49 lakhs to M/s.NET Technologies of accused No.10 [Loan A/c 70 Spl.CC.16/2017 No.129802000001731]; further, on 01.08.2012, he sanctioned CC limit of Rs.70 lakhs to M/s.Sri Sai Rice Traders of accused No.11 [Loan A/c No.129802000001730]; further, on 27.09.2012, he sanctioned CC limit of Rs.70 lakhs to M/s.Annapoorneshwari Rice Traders of accused No.12 [Loan A/c No.129802000001741]; further, on 07.05.2013, he sanctioned CC limit of Rs.46.50 lakhs to M/s.Veeranhadreshwara Stores of accused No.13 [Loan A/c No.129802000001756]; further, on 31.01.2013, he sanctioned CC limit of Rs.49 lakhs to M/s.SLN Glass Plywood & Hardwares of accused No.14 [Loan A/c No.129802000001750]; further, on 16.10.2012, he sanctioned CC limit of Rs.29 lakhs to M/s.Veeresh Provision Stores of accused No.15 [Loan A/c No.129802000001745]; further, on 18.08.2012, he sanctioned CC limit of Rs.73 lakhs to M/s.Venkateshwara Hardware & Plumbing of accused No.16 [Loan A/c No.129802000001734]; and further, on 18.04.2013, he sanctioned CC limit of Rs.98 lakhs to 71 Spl.CC.16/2017 M/s.Banashankari Interior Works of accused No.17 [Loan A/c No.129802000001732].
81. Further, the evidence on record shows that, though the accused No.6/borrower is not eligible to avail loan under "Easy Trade Finance" as he himself declared in the account opening form that he is engaged in "Distributor & Stockist" business, which does not fall under ETF scheme of the bank; but the loan was sanctioned without confirming the eligibility of accused No.6-Jitendra Bhandari. Further, accused No.1 has sanctioned loan to M/s.M.M.Sales Corporation of accused No.7, though said firm was not eligible borrower as the borrower himself declared in his account opening form that he is the Distributor, which is not eligible under Easy Trade Finance scheme. Further, the firm of accused No.8 was not eligible for loan as the accused No.8/borrower herself declared in her account opening form that she is engaged in electrical distribution which is not eligible under ETF Scheme. Further, accused No.1 had also sanctioned loan to M/s.G.Hanumanthappa & Sons of accused No.9, though said borrower/firm was not 72 Spl.CC.16/2017 eligible borrower as borrower/accused No.9 himself declared that he is a commission agent in fruit market, which is not trader and not eligible for loan under ETF Scheme. So also, accused No.1 had sanctioned loan to M/s.NET 27 Technologies of accused No.10, engaged in software development business which is not eligible for loan under ETF Scheme.
82. It is also seen from the evidence on record that, in many of the cases, the accused/borrowers have not submitted VAT returns to cross check the turnover of the firms mentioned in the fake and fabricated financial balance sheets submitted to the Bank. Further, in respect of loan of few firms such as firms of accused No.6 and 7, the appraisal note dated:01.08.2012 was done by accused No.1-K.S. Srinivasan, without involving credit officer/second line manager of the branch. Moreover, the IT returns and other documents of the firms of all accused/borrowers submitted to the bank are fake, fabricated and forged financial documents and the same were used as genuine.
73 Spl.CC.16/2017
83. It is also on record that, the accused No.1- Chief Manager had sanctioned Rs.100 Lakhs to the firm of accused No.8 on 01.08.2012 as per Ex.P5(e), which is prior to opening of current account with Branch as current account was opened on 13/14.08.2012 as per Ex.P5. Thus, it is very clear that, the loan was sanctioned to a non-existing customer prior to opening the current account with the Branch.
84. It is pertinent to note that, some of firms of accused were not at all existed in their given addresses. The firm M/s.Sri. Veerabadhreswara Stores of accused No.13 was not existing in the given address i.e. at No.27, Ittamdu Main Road, Ittamadu, BSK 3 rd Stage, Bengaluru-560085. Further, in case of M/s.Veeresh Provision Stores, the said firm was not existing in the given address i.e. at No.6, 80 Feet Road, KHB Colony, Kengeri Upanagar, Bengaluru-560060. Further, the firm M/s.SLN Glass Plywood & Hardwares of accused No.14 was not existing in the given address i.e. at No.46, 4 th Cross, Jai Maruthi Nagar, Nandini Layout, Bengaluru- 560096. In this regard, Pre and Post-sanction inspection 74 Spl.CC.16/2017 of the unit/firms was not done by the Branch to confirm the existence and functioning of said firms of accused No.13 to 15.
85. Further, the evidence on record discloses that, as many as 4 to 5 accounts of accused/borrowers were introduced by one existing customer i.e. PW.24 at the behest of accused No.5, though said introducer was not personally known to said accused/borrowers; further, in respect of firms of Accused No.14 and 17, the account was not introduced by anybody which is mandatory; and even in respect of some firms of accused, the signatures of introducer were not verified by the Branch. Despite that, accused No.1-K.S.Srinivasan had permitted to open said account without properly complying with KYC norms. Further, in respect of accused No.14, as per guidelines, the Branch has failed to obtain the Credit Report on the borrower from Karnataka State Co- operative Apex Bank Ltd., with whom accused No.14 had prior banking transactions.
86. The evidence on record further discloses that, after the sanction of the credit facilities to the firms of 75 Spl.CC.16/2017 accused No.1 to 17, the accused No.1-Sri.K.S.Srinivasan has not conducted Post-sanction inspection of the units/firms to ensure proper end use of the loan proceeds and the loan amount was allowed to be siphoned off by way of cash withdrawal and transfers which are not related to the business transactions of firms of accused/borrowers.
87. Thus, it is convincingly proved by the prosecution that, in furtherance of criminal conspiracy, the accused No.1-K.S.Srinivasan, in collusion with accused No.5 and 18; and accused No.6 to 15, has sanctioned 12 loans to accused No.6 to 17 under 'Easy Trade Finance' Scheme by violating the rules and regulations of the Bank, without ascertaining the credibility of borrowers, without conducting Pre & Post sanction inspections for confirming the existence of the units/firms and knowing fully well that the financial documents submitted were forged and fabricated, with dishonest intention to cheat the Indian Overseas Bank, and also allowed to siphon off the loan amounts without ensuring the end use of the funds. Accordingly, this court 76 Spl.CC.16/2017 holds that, the prosecution has proved that accused No.1 has committed the offences punishable U/Sec.120-B and Sec.420 read with Sec.120-B of IPC.
88. So far as charge leveled against accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Sec.13(2) read with Sec.13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is concerned, the prosecution has failed to prove with cogent evidence that the accused No.1 has obtained pecuniary advantage either from accused No.5 and 18 or from accused No.6 to 15. In fact, during his cross examination, the Investigating Officer-PW.54, has admitted that 'the investigation has not revealed any incriminating material to show that accused No.1 has received any illegal gratification'. It is the first and foremost burden on the prosecution that, accused No.1, being a Public Servant, has obtained a pecuniary advantage for sanctioning of loan to accused No.6 to 15 by corrupt or illegal means and by abusing his position as loan sanctioning authority/Chief Manager of the Branch. In the case of A. Subair Vs. State of Kerala reported in 2009 Cr.L.J.3450, it is held that:
77 Spl.CC.16/2017 "The legal position is no more res integra that primary requisite of an offence under Section 13 (1) (d) of the Act is proof of demand or request for valuable thing or pecuniary advantage from the public servant.
In other words, in the absence of proof of demand or request from the public servant for a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage, the offence under Section 13 (1) (d) cannot be held to be established."
89. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with provision under Sec.5(1)(d) of PC Act, 1947 [akin to Sec.13(1) (d) of PC Act, 1988] in the case of S.P.Bhatnagar and another vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 1979 SC 826, held as under:
"The abuse of position in order to come within the mischief of S.5 (1)(d) must necessarily be dishonest so that it may be proved that the Accused caused deliberate loss to the department. It is for the prosecution to prove affirmatively that the Accused by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his position obtained any pecuniary advantage for some other person".
78 Spl.CC.16/2017
90. However, in the case on hand, the prosecution has failed in establishing that accused No.1, being a public servant, has obtained pecuniary advantage by illegal or corrupt means from accused No.6 to 15 by misusing his official position and thereby committed criminal misconduct punishable U/Sec.13(2) read with Sec.13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Regarding Charges leveled against Accused No.2 to 4:
91. So far accused No.2 to 4 are concerned, there is no evidence at all to prove that they, being the public servants, also participated in criminal conspiracy in collusion with accused No.1, 5 and 6 to 15 in the matter of sanctioning the loans to accused No.6 to 15 in a fraudulent manner and thereby, they cheated the Indian Overseas Bank and caused loss to the Bank.
92. It is true that, it has come in the chief evidence of PW.2 that, the accused No.2-Muralidharan B.N., the Second Line Manager has accepted the loan documents of accused No.6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15 and 16 after verifying the same and loans to firms of said accused were sanctioned by accused No.1. Further, it has 79 Spl.CC.16/2017 also come in the chief evidence of PW.2 that, the accused No.3-V.N.Gururajarao, the Manager has accepted the loan documents of accused No.14 after verifying the same and loan to firm of said accused No.14 was sanctioned by accused No.1. Further, PW.2 has deposed in his examination-in-chief that, accused No.4-Smt.Valli.K.S., the Manager has accepted the loan documents of accused No.13 and 17 after verifying the same and loan to firms of said accused No.13 and 17 was sanctioned by accused No.1.
93. However, there is no written work order produced by the prosecution to show that the accused No.2 to 4 are the second line managers, who were allotted to job of verifying the loan documents and submit before the Branch Manager. In fact, during his cross examination done by the learned counsel for the accused No.2 to 4, PW.2 has stated that, no distinct written order passed by the Chief Manager-accused No.1 categorizing the duties Addl. Managers for looking after advancing loan section and crediting loan section. Further, for the Question, 'On verifying Ex.P3 to P14, you cannot say that 80 Spl.CC.16/2017 accused No.2 to 4 have verified the loan applications and credit sanction advance records ?', posed by the learned counsel for the accused No.2 to 4, PW.2 has answered that, 'I have only identified the signatures of officers and managers'. Thus, it means that, even PW.2 is not clear enough and specific in stating that accused No.2 to 4 are the officers who were entrusted with the work of verification of loan documents. Moreover, there is no materials to show whether Investigating Officer has collected office orders of then Chief Manager of the Branch deputing accused No.2 to 4 to work as Second Line Managers during the process of 12 loans granted to the accused No.6 to 17 under 'Easy Trade Finance' scheme.
94. Further, as per Ex.D3, which is portion of statement of PW.3-Sri.Vasantha Kumar, 'the Second Line Manager provides certificates to the Branch Manager stating that all documents and mortgage are perfect.' However, in his examination-in-chief, PW.3 has deposed that, he found some irregularities with respect to loan documents marked at Ex.P3 to P14 that 81 Spl.CC.16/2017 accused No.1 has not obtained certificates issued by second line officers/managers with regard to proper execution of all documents submitted by the borrowers. That means, there is no material to suggest that accused No.2 to 4 were the second line managers/officers, who were processed and verified the loan documents of accused/borrowers and issued certificates to the Branch Manager-accused No.1, in that regard. Moreover, during his cross examination done by the counsel for the accused No.2 to 4, it is admitted by PW.3 that, as per circular, without obtaining a certificate of loan document, if the loan amount is disbursed, then the First Line Manager [i.e. Chief Manager of the Branch] is solely responsible for the documentation; in other words, the Second Line Manager is not responsible for documentation of loan disbursed. Added to this, PW.5 has deposed in his chief evidence that, in some cases [i.e. pertaining to loans of accused No.6 to 17], second line officers were not involved in processing and appraisal report.
82 Spl.CC.16/2017
95. Thus, from the evidence of PW.2, PW.3 and PW.5, it is clear that, there is no cogent evidence produced by the prosecution to suggest that the accused No.2 to 4 are only the officers who were worked as second line managers during the time of process and sanction of loans to accused No.6 to 17 and in case, they worked as second line managers, then there should have been certificates issued by them for having verified the loan documents; but as per evidence of PW.3, the accused No.1 has not obtained said certificates from second line managers.
96. Further, it is very important to note here that, during his entire chief evidence, PW.3 never taken the names of accused No.2 to 4 in attributing irregularities against them, which were committed in sanctioning loans to accused No.6 to 17. His chief evidence points out towards the irregularities committed by accused No.1.
97. Further, PW.28-Sri.Prasad A.V., then Senior Manager in Indian Overseas Bank and also was an assistant General secretary of IOB Officers Association, has deposed that, at that time, accused No.4-Smt.Valli 83 Spl.CC.16/2017 K.S., was Assistant Manager of Banashankari 2 nd Stage Branch, who telephoned him and informed him about submitting of some statement of accounts every month to Regional Office and she had been asked to sign some of the monthly statement papers by then Chief Manager accused No.1-Srinivasan; so he went and met her personally in the Branch and she was not ready to sign the monthly statement papers, the reason being that, she was not aware of the transactions and he told her that he will discuss with the higher authorities; and in the meanwhile, within 24 hours, the Manager-accused No.1 had received his transfer order and he was shifted to a different Branch. Thus, this piece of evidence of PW.28 shows that accused No.1 had much interest in sanctioning the loans to accused No.6 to 17.
98. The evidence of PW.13 also pointed towards the overt act committed by accused No.1. That PW.13 was worked as Senior Manager in Indian Overseas Bank at Regional Office, Bengaluru from June 2012 to July 2013 and was also looking after the credit monitoring of Banashankari II Stage Branch along with other branches 84 Spl.CC.16/2017 of Bangalore Region. As per evidence of PW.13, the accused No.1 had prepared all the office notes and sanctioned the loans to accused/borrowers. In his cross, PW.13 stated that all the loan sanctioned by the branch Manager shall be forwarded to him with CAF-I Form and admitted that, in the CAF-I Form, the signatures of accused No.2 to 4 were not found. He, after seeing Ex.P3 to 14, further stated that they do not bear any mark of CAF-I document.
99. Further, the Investigating officer-PW.54, during his cross examination, at one stretch, has admitted suggestions to the effect that, the accused No.2 to 4 have worked in Indian Overseas Bank, Banashankari II Stage Branch at different point of time and they had not been deputed during their tenure in the Branch to look after the advance section. But the very next moment, the I.O. has denied the suggestion that, accused No.2 to 4 were not the second line managers for the advance section of the Branch. Thus, the I.O. himself is not clear in stating whether accused No.2 to 4 were worked in the advance section as second line managers during relevant 85 Spl.CC.16/2017 point of time. It shows that, the I.O. has not collected cogent evidence to show that the accused No.2 to 4 have worked as Second Line Managers in the Branch and who only dealt with verification work of loan documents of accused No.6 to 17.
100. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that, the prosecution has not produced cogent and sufficient evidence to prove that accused No.2 to 4 have also involved in the criminal conspiracy with other accused and played an active role in sanctioning the loans to accused No.6 to 17 under ETF Scheme in a fraudulent manner and obtained pecuniary advantage from borrowers/accused and thereby cheated the Bank. Regarding Charges leveled against Accused No.5 and 18:
101. So far as charges levelled against accused No.5 and 18 are concerned, the learned Public Prosecutor has argued that, accused No.5-Umesh Gurjar is the key person and mediator between accused No.1 and other accused and he arranged all the forged and fabricated financial documents to get the loans from the Bank, in favour of accused No.6 to 17. He further argued that, 86 Spl.CC.16/2017 accused No.18-Smt.Priya Chiplunkar, she being the wife of accused No.5, has facilitated for floating the funds from the Borrowers' Bank Accounts to her Bank account which was maintained with Indian Overseas Bank and thereby she also became part of criminal conspiracy and committed the offence of cheating.
102. In order to prove the unholy link between accused No.1 and 5, the prosecution has examined PW.10-Sri.H.V.Nagarajarao. He is the Panel Advocate of Indian Overseas Bank. He deposed that, as per verbal request of then Chief Manager-Sri.Srinivas [i.e. accused No.1] of Banashankari II Stage Branch, he submitted his legal opinions marked as per Ex.P3(d) pertaining to the firm of accused No.6; as per Ex.P4(d) of accused No.7; as per Ex.P5(d) of accused No.8; as per Ex.P6(e) of accused No.9; as per Ex.P7(d) of accused No.10; as per Ex.P8(e) of accused No.11; as per Ex.P9(e) of accused No.12; as per Ex.P10(d) of accused No.13; as per Ex.P12(e) of accused No.15; and as per Ex.P13(d) of accused No.16.
103. PW.10 further specifically deposed that, legal opinion documents were brought and produced by the 87 Spl.CC.16/2017 accused No.5-Umesh Gurjar. The witness further deposed that, in the year 2012, said Umesh Gurjar approached him stating that he is a chartered accountant and referred by accused No.1-Chief Manager, but he declined to entertain him; therefore, he went back to Banashankari II Stage Branch and made a call to his mobile phone and handed it over to accused No.1 who confirmed that his address was given to said Umesh Gurjar by him and asked him to give his legal opinion on the basis of records brought by said Umesh Gurjar. Though this witness has been cross examined by the counsel for accused No.1, but there is no any single suggestion put to the witness to the effect that, accused No.1 did not send legal opinion documents with accused No.5 or accused No.1 never spoke with the witness through the mobile phone of accused No.5, asking him to give his legal opinion on the basis of records brought by Umesh Gurjar. Thus, the link between accused No.1 and 5 as deposed by the witness is not at all denied by the accused No.1.
88 Spl.CC.16/2017
104. Further, during the cross examination of PW.10, the learned counsel for the accused No.5 has posed a question to the witness, as under:
Question: Whether accused No.5 had come to your office with loan papers filed before the Bank along with covering letters addressed to you by the Bank's authorized person ?
The answer to the above question by the witness is as under;
Answer: On 1st occasion A.5 had come with loan papers. I refused to examine the documents as he was stranger to the loan transaction. Then I received a call from A.1-Br.
Manager who informed me that A.5 is authorized person from the Bank who submits loan documents for legal opinion. Later, A.5 came again with covering letters addressed by the Bank's authorized persons.
Thus, from the very question of learned counsel for the accused No.5 and answer given to the said question, again confirms the relationship of accused No.5 with accused No.1. The very testimony of PW.10 discloses that accused No.5 has acted as middleman between accused 89 Spl.CC.16/2017 No.1 and accused No.6 to 17, in getting loans to accused/borrowers in fraudulent manner.
105. As per evidence of PW.24, he knows accused No.5-Umesh Gurjar. He was holding an account in Banashankari II Stage Branch in the name of M/s.Ramya Enterprises. That accused No.5 had requested him to identify him and others to open accounts in the Bank; and accordingly, he agreed to identify accused No.5 and few others to open bank account. His evidence further goes to show that, he has introduced accused No.6, 7, 9, 11, 12 and 16 for opening of accounts in the Branch at the behest of accused No.5. In his cross examination, he denied a suggestion that the accused No.5 never requested him to identify the accused persons to open the accounts. Except this denial, there is no worth has been elicited from the mouth of PW.24 so as to disbelieve his testimony. Thus, from the very evidence of PW.24, it is clear that, accused No.5 had played a specific role, at the beginning itself, in getting loans to accused/borrowers fraudulently.
90 Spl.CC.16/2017
106. Further, the account of accused No.18, who is wife of accused No.5, was used for diversion of funds and several amounts have been transferred to the accounts of accused No.5 and 18 from the loan proceeds sanctioned by the Branch to the firms/units of accused No.6 to 17. As per Internal Investigation Report marked at Ex.P22, a total amount of Rs.58 Lakhs was credited to accused No.18-Smt.Priya Chiplunkar [SB A/c.No.12551, maintained with Banashankari II Stage Branch] from the various loan proceeds.
107. During the cross of PW.54-Investigating Officer, it is suggested by the counsel for the accused No.5 that, 'the transactions of borrowers in the present case with accused No.5 are not pertaining to this case but with respect to some other business'; for which, PW.54 has denied the same. However, except this plain suggestion, the accused No.5 has not demonstrated before this court with cogent documents that said transactions with accused/borrowers are pertaining to some other business. Even in his statement U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., there is no any explanation from accused No.5 91 Spl.CC.16/2017 regarding the financial transactions between himself and accused/borrowers except answering as 'False'. With respect to accused No.18, the counsel put a suggestion to PW.54 to the effect that, 'no such transactions were routed through the account of accused No.18'; for which, PW.54 has denied the same. Even the accused No.18 has failed show for what purpose she has received several amounts to her account form the accused/borrowers, as canvassed by the prosecution. Even in her statement U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. also, there is no any explanation regarding transfer of various amounts to her account by the accused/borrowers, except answering as 'False'.
108. Thus, this court is of the opinion that, the prosecution has proved the charges against accused No.5 beyond reasonable doubt that, the accused No.5-Umesh Gurjar, acted as a Middleman between the accused No.1 and other accused/borrowers with respect to sanction of loan and he mobilized and brought accused No.6 to 17/borrowers and introduced them to the Bank, assisted and facilitated them in getting the loan from Indian Overseas Bank by arranging fake and fabricated financial 92 Spl.CC.16/2017 documents, by colluding with accused No.1. It is also proved that the accused No.18-Smt.Priya Chiplunkar, being the wife of accused No.5, has facilitated for floating the various funds from the accused/borrowers' Bank Accounts to her Bank account which was maintained with Indian Overseas Bank and thereby she also became part of criminal conspiracy and committed the offence of cheating and thereby the accused No.5 and 18 have committed the offences punishable U/Sec.120-B and Sec.420 of IPC.
109. It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the accused No.1 that, the loan to the concerned borrowers was granted as per banking norms and procedures, after getting legal opinion and valuers reports and as such, there is no personal interest of accused No.1 in sanctioning loans to accused/borrowers. That out of total 12 loans, 6 loans were already repaid by the concerned borrowers to the Bank. He never obtained any pecuniary advantage from any of the accused by misusing his official position. That there is sufficient security for recovery of loans so sanctioned, as all loans 93 Spl.CC.16/2017 were secured loans. That he had not entertained any middlemen in granting loans in question including Umesh Gujjar as alleged by the prosecution. That the prosecution has not proved that accused No.1, in pursuance of criminal conspiracy with other accused, has sanctioned the loans to accused/borrowers in a fraudulent manner, as alleged by the prosecution. Accordingly, the learned counsel prayed for acquittal of accused No.1.
110. It is true that, all the loans availed by the accused/borrowers were secured loans and Panel Advocates and Panel Valuers of the Bank have also given positive reports regarding title and valuation of properties. But it is the proven fact that the accused/borrowers have submitted fake and financial documents to the Bank and succeeded in getting the loans. The accused No.1, being the Chief Manager of the Branch, had to be diligent in processing the loan files of accused/borrowers. But the evidence of prosecution shows that accused No.1 himself has colluded with accused No.5 and other accused and sanctioned the 94 Spl.CC.16/2017 loans in a fraudulent manner, causing loss to the Bank. Therefore, it is not mere a question of secured loans, but it is the way the accused were granted loans under ETF Scheme and what documents submitted by them to the Bank. Therefore, the fact that loans granted were secured loans, does not diminish the criminal intent of the accused who have played fraud by conspiring with each other, causing loss of Rs.3.86 Crores to Indian Overseas Bank, Banashankari II Stage Branch, Bengaluru.
111. With regard to offence of criminal conspiracy, there are circumstances which connect the accused No.1 with accused No.5 and accused No.6 to 15 in sanctioning the loans to accused/borrowers in conspiracy with dishonest intention. The accused No.1, being the head of branch, ought to have diligent in sanctioning the loans. The prosecution evidence, as appreciated by this court, unequivocally pointing towards the accused No.1 that he has sanctioned 12 loans to accused/borrowers in gross violation of Bank procedure, circulars, rules and regulations. Therefore, it cannot be said the prosecution 95 Spl.CC.16/2017 has not proved criminal conspiracy by the accused No.1 with other accused.
112. It is the contention of learned counsels for the accused No.6 to 8, 11 and 14 that, the accused No 6 to 8, 11 and 14 have already cleared their loan amounts and even the Bank has issued formal acknowledgment to that effect; therefore, once the entire loan amount was repaid by the the accused No 6 to 8, 11 and 14, then there is no criminality attributed against them.
113. However, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor for the CBI, has vehemently argued that, merely because loans were repaid by the accused, their criminal liability cannot be brushed away as it is proved that accused have obtained loans in a fraudulent manner. He further argued that, the accused No.6 to 8, 11 and 14 cannot escape from their criminality merely on the ground that they have already paid their loans.
114. In the case of PARBATBHAI AAHIR @ PARBATBHAI BHIMSINHBHAI KARMUR AND ORS. VS. STATE OF GUJARAT & Another, reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641, the Hon'ble Apex Court headed by the Bench of 96 Spl.CC.16/2017 Three Hon'ble Judges, has laid down certain proposition with respect to power of High Court U/Sec.482 of Cr.P.C., in quashing criminal proceedings upon settlement of disputes. In Paragraph No.15, the Hon'ble Court has laid down certain propositions. The relevant propositions No.
(vii), (ix) and (x) of Paragraph No.15 of the said judgment are as under:
(viii) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute;
(ix) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and
(x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and (ix) above.
Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The 97 Spl.CC.16/2017 High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance.
115. Thus, under proposition No.(x) of Paragraph No.15 of its judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court has specifically held that, economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants and thereby laid down a principle that criminal proceedings involving serious economic offences cannot be quashed upon settlement held between the Bank and accused.
116. Further, in the above referred case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has also made reference of its earlier two judgments passed in the cases of State of Maharashtra v Vikram Anantrai Doshi and Central Bureau of Investigation v Maninder Singh, at Paragraphs No.12 and 13.
98 Spl.CC.16/2017 "12. In State of Maharashtra v Vikram Anantrai Doshi, a bench of two learned Judges of this Court explained the earlier decisions and the principles which must govern in deciding whether a criminal proceeding involving a non-compoundable offence should be quashed. In that case, the respondents were alleged to have obtained Letters of Credit from a bank in favour of fictitious entities. The charge-sheet involved offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, and 471 read with Section 120-B of the Penal Code. Bogus beneficiary companies were alleged to have got them discounted by attaching fabricated bills. Mr Justice Dipak Misra (as the learned Chief Justice then was) emphasised that the case involved an allegation of forgery; hence the court was not dealing with a simple case where "the accused had borrowed money from a bank, to divert it elsewhere". The court held that the manner in which Letters of Credit were issued and funds were siphoned off had a foundation in criminal law:
"... availing of money from a nationalized bank in the manner, as alleged by the investigating agency, vividly exposits fiscal impurity and, in a way, financial fraud. The modus operandi as narrated in the charge-sheet cannot be put in the compartment of an individual or personal wrong. It is a social wrong and it has immense societal impact. It is an accepted principle of handling of finance that whenever there is manipulation and cleverly conceived contrivance to avail of these kind of benefits it cannot be regarded as a case having overwhelmingly and predominatingly of civil character. The ultimate victim is the collective. It creates a hazard in the financial interest of the society. The gravity of the offence creates a dent in the economic spine of the nation."
99 Spl.CC.16/2017 The judgment of the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings was hence set aside by this Court.
13. The same principle was followed in Central Bureau of Investigation v Maninder Singh by a bench of two learned Judges of this Court. In that case, the High Court had, in the exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 quashed proceedings under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 120-B of the Penal Code. While allowing the appeal filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation Mr Justice Dipak Misra (as the learned Chief Justice then was) observed that the case involved allegations of forgery of documents to embezzle the funds of the bank. In such a situation, the fact that the dispute had been settled with the bank would not justify a recourse to the power under Section 482:
"...In economic offences Court must not only keep in view that money has been paid to the bank which has been defrauded but also the society at large. It is not a case of simple assault or a theft of a trivial amount; but the offence with which we are concerned is well planned and was committed with a deliberate design with an eye of personal profit regardless of consequence to the society at large. To quash the proceeding merely on the ground that the accused has settled the amount with the bank would be a misplaced sympathy. If the prosecution against the economic offenders are not allowed to continue, the entire community is aggrieved."
100 Spl.CC.16/2017
117. The case on hand also involves the allegations of criminal conspiracy, submitting fake and fabricated documents to the Bank, getting loans in a fraudulent manner and cheating by the accused/borrowers in mis- utilizing the loan proceeds. After sanction of loans, the manner in which loan proceeds were siphoned off, which clearly shows a foundation for criminal action against the accused herein. Therefore, the modus operandi of the accused as demonstrated by the prosecution before this court in getting the loans in a fraudulent manner and thereafter, siphoning off the loan proceeds and later, settling the dues, cannot be treated as a matter of civil nature.
118. It is important to note here that, the offences which are committed in relation with the Banking transactions have a harmful effect on the public at large and public exchequer which weakens the very economic discipline of the country. Therefore, the criminality done by the accused cannot be washed away merely on the ground that loans availed by the accused No.6 to 8, 11 and 14 are already cleared.
101 Spl.CC.16/2017
119. Thus, the prosecution has proved with cogent evidence that, the accused No.6 to 15, who in the name of different proprietary concerns, some of them were even not existing, have opened accounts in Indian Overseas Bank, Banashankari II Stage Branch, Bengaluru and applied loan under 'Easy Trade Finance' Scheme by submitting fake and fabricated financial documents which were arranged by accused No.5, a middleman and availed loans in a fraudulent manner in collusion with accused No.1-Chief Manager of the Bank and after sanction of loan, the loan proceeds were mis-utilized by accused No.6 to 15 and also several amounts have been transferred to the accounts of accused No.5 and 18.
120. Therefore, I hold that the prosecution has established beyond all reasonable doubt that, accused No.1, 5 to 15 and 18 have committed the offences of criminal conspiracy, cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of funds, forging the documents for the purpose of cheating and using the same as genuine documents, which are punishable U/Secs.120-B, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC. However, the prosecution has failed in proving the 102 Spl.CC.16/2017 charges leveled against accused No.2 to 4, beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I answered the Point No.2 in the Affirmative in respect of accused No.1, 5 to 15 and 18; and in the Negative in respect of Accused No.2 to 4; further, I answered the Point No.3 in the Affirmative in respect of accused No.1, 5 to 15 and 18; and in the Negative in respect of Accused No.2 to 4; further, I answered the Points No.4 and 5 in the Affirmative; and Point No.6 in the Negative.
121. Point No.7: In the light of above discussion, I proceed to pass following:
ORDER Acting U/Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C., the Accused No.1 is acquitted for the offences punishable U/Sec.13(2) r/w. Sec.13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Further, acting U/Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C., the Accused No.2 to 4 are acquitted for the offences punishable U/Secs.120-B & 420 of IPC and U/Sec.13(2) r/w. Sec.13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
103 Spl.CC.16/2017 Acting U/Sec.235(2) of Cr.P.C., the Accused No.1, 5 to 15 and 18 are convicted for the offence punishable U/Sec.120-B of IPC.
Further, acting U/Sec.235(2) of Cr.P.C., the Accused No.1, 5 to 15 and 18 are convicted for the offence punishable U/Sec.420 read with Sec.120-B of IPC.
Further, acting U/Sec.235(2) of Cr.P.C., the Accused No.6 to 15 are convicted for the offence punishable U/Sec.468 of IPC.
Further, acting U/Sec.235(2) of Cr.P.C., the Accused No.6 to 15 are convicted for the offence punishable U/Sec.471 r/w. Sec.468 of IPC.
The bail bonds of accused and that of sureties are hereby stand discharged. [Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I directly on the computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 27th day of April 2026]. .
[Manjunath Sangreshi] XXI Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge & Prl.Special Judge for CBI Cases Bengaluru.
104 Spl.CC.16/2017 ORDER ON SENTENCE In the instant case, the Accused No.1, 5 to 15 and 18 are convicted for the offences punishable U/Sec.120-B and Sec.420 of IPC; and further, the Accused No.6 to 15 are convicted for the offences punishable U/Sec.468 & 471 of IPC.
2. Heard the accused persons and their respective learned counsels and also Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor, regarding sentence.
3. The learned counsel for the accused No.1 submitted that accused No.1 has rendered flawless service in Indian Overseas Bank and he got appreciated for his service and awarded. Now, he is retired from the service. He is senior citizen suffering from age old ailments and his wife is also suffering from ailments. Hence, it is prayed for leniency in imposing sentence against him.
4. The learned counsel for the accused No.5 and 18 submitted that the offences for which the accused No.5 and 18 are convicted are not of serious nature and not punishable with any capital punishment. That 105 Spl.CC.16/2017 accused No.5 and 18 are husband and wife and if they are sent to jail, then their children will be thrown to the street. Hence, it is prayed to impose minimum sentence against the accused No.5 and 18 by taking lenient view.
5. The learned counsel for accused No.6 to 8 submitted that accused No.6 to 8 have already closed their loan accounts by paying entire loan amount. The respective families of accused No.6 to 8 are entirely depending on accused No.6 to 8. Further, it is submitted that, the accused No.7 is paralyzed person; hence, considering the same, it is prayed to take the lenient view while sentencing them.
6. The learned counsel for the accused No.9 and 10 submitted that the accused No.9 and 10 are having small children and they are only the earning members of their respective families and they have to look after their families. Hence, it is prayed to take lenient view while sentencing them.
7. The learned counsel for the accused No.11 submitted that the accused No.11 has already cleared his loan dues and he is a senior citizen and suffering from 106 Spl.CC.16/2017 age old ailments; hence, it is prayed to take lenient view while sentencing him.
8. Further, the learned counsel for the accused No.12 to 15 has submitted that the accused 12 to 15 are suffering from age related ailments and they are having their respective families to look after. Further, accused No.14 has already cleared her loan dues. Hence, it is prayed to pass minimum sentence against them.
9. The Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor has submitted that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. The offences committed by the accused require stringent approach and no lenient view could be taken in their favour as the accused have committed economic offences affecting the very economic system of the country. As accused persons have committed offences of cheating, forgery and fraud involving public money; therefore, the sentence to be imposed shall send a message to the society and it shall be proportionate to the offences committed by the accused. Accordingly, it is prayed to impose maximum sentence and fine.
107 Spl.CC.16/2017
10. In the case of RAJIV Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [AIR 1996 SC 787] it has been held that, it is the nature and gravity of the Crime but not the Criminal, which is germane for consideration to impose appropriate sentence in a Criminal Trial.
11. Having regard to the nature of offences committed by the accused, the benefit under Probation of Offenders Act cannot be given to the accused.
12. Considering all the contentions urged by the accused and their learned counsels, and also considering the age factor and health status of few accused, it is proper to take some lenient view in the facts and circumstances of the present case while imposing sentence against all the accused. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following;
ORDER Acting U/Sec.235(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1, 5 to 15 and 18 are sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 2 Years and shall pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- [Rupees Fifty Thousand Only] each, for the offence punishable U/Sec.120-B of IPC; and in 108 Spl.CC.16/2017 default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 Months.
Further, the accused No.1, 5 to 15 and 18 are sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 2 Years and shall pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- [Rupees Fifty Thousand Only] each, for the offence punishable U/Sec.420 r/w. Sec.120-B of IPC; and in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 Months.
Further, the accused No.6 to 15 are sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 2 Years and shall pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- [Rupees Fifty Thousand Only] each, for the offence punishable U/Sec.468 of IPC; and in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 Months.
Further, the accused No.6 to 15 are sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 2 Years and shall pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- [Rupees Fifty Thousand Only] each, for the offence punishable U/Sec.471 r/w. Sec.468 of IPC; and in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 Months.
109 Spl.CC.16/2017 All the sentences of imprisonment imposed against accused No.1, 5 to 15 and 18 shall run concurrently.
The accused No.1, 5 to 15 and 18 are entitled for set-off, if any, as contemplated U/Sec.428 of Cr.P.C.
Office to supply free copy of the judgment to the convicted accused.
[Manjunath Sangreshi] XXI Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge & Prl.Special Judge for CBI Cases Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
PW-1: Sri. S.Janakiraman PW-2: Smt.Susila Srinivasan PW-3: Sri. C.S.Vasantha Kumar PW-4: Sri. P.V.Venkateswaran PW-5: Sri. Veed Prakash Mishra PW-6: Sri. B.M.Basavaraju PW-7: Sri. Danardan Rout PW-8: Sri. B.N.Narasimha Murthy PW-9: Sri. R.K.Senthil Kumar PW-10: Sri. H.V.Nagaraja Rao PW-11: Sri. Deepak PW-12: Sri. Arvind Naidu PW-13: Sri. H.S.Seetharam PW-14: Sri. C.Rama Mohan PW-15: Sri. N.Venkatesh PW-16: Sri. Nagaraj M.O
110 Spl.CC.16/2017 PW-17: Sri. Prasanth Kumar PW-18: Sri. Shivanna P PW-19: Sri. Rajashekar N PW-20: Sri. Shankar A PW-21: Sri. Kalyan Kumar S PW-22: Sri. Ramesh R PW-23: Sri. Shankar K.S PW-24: Sri. M.R.Arun Kumar PW-25: Sri. Shailesh Kumar Sharma PW-26: Sri. Mahesh H.M PW-27: Sri. S.H.Shivaprasad PW-28: Sri. Prasad A.V. PW-29: Sri. C.B.Prabanna Gowda PW-30: Sri. E. Jayaraj PW-31: Smt. Elizabeth Shaji PW-32: Smt. Geetha Kumari PW-33: Sri. M.K.Venkatesh PW-34: Sri. M.S.Ramarao PW-35: Smt. Sandhya Anil PW-36: Smt. Shanthi V. PW-37: Smt. D.A.Shailaja PW-38: Smt. Sundari V. Naik PW-39: Smt. Rathnavathi PW-40: Smt. S.Rugmani PW-41: Sri. Venkatesh S. Tapas PW-42: Smt. Rekha S.T. PW-43: Sri. Raghunatha Gowda M.S PW-44: Sri. Shankaranarayanan PW-45: Sri. Guruprasad D.N PW-46: Sri. Nataraj J.S PW-47: Sri. Pramodkumar Singhal PW-48: Smt. Radha Venkata Krishnan PW-49: Sri. P.Ravindra Naidu PW-50: Sri. Pankaj Mohan PW-51: Sri. R.K.Shivanna PW-52: Dr.Sri.A.Subramanyeshwara Rao PW-53: Sri. Satish Gupta PW-54: Sri. Rakesh Ranjan 111 Spl.CC.16/2017 LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED BY THE PROSECUTION:
Exhibit Description Number Ex.P.1 One bunch of paper consisting copy of IT (D.96) returns, copies of Form No.3 CR, Annexure-I,
Profit and loss account and Balance Sheet (64 sheets) Ex.P.2 Specimen signature of Sri. S. Janakiraman (D.602) (12 sheets) Ex.P.3 Original Loan documents of M/s Maxtel (D.3 to D14) Enterprises, with KYC document; Statement of Accounts, Legal Opinion, Valuation Report, 3 Photographs, Copy of the IT returns. (102 Sheets) Ex.P. 3(a) Signature of the Accused No.1 on the last sheet of sanction advice.
Ex.P.3 (b) Signature of the Accused No.2 on the first page of sanction advice Ex.P.3(c) Valuation report dated 16.07.2012 issued by Sri. B.M. Basavaraju Ex.P.3(d) Legal Opinion dated 22.05.2012 Ex.P.3(e) Office note dated 01.08.2012 Ex.P.3(f) P & L A/c, Balance sheet, IT returns etc of M/sMaxtel Enterprises Ex.P.3(f-1) Purported signature and seal in Ex.P.3(f) Ex.P.3(g) Signature of PW - 24.
Ex.P.4 Original Loan documents of M.M. Sales (D.15 to 26) Corporation Enterprises, with KYC document, Statement of Accounts, Legal Opinion, Valuation Report, 3 Photographs, Copy of the IT returns (116 sheets) Ex.P. 4(a) Signature of the Accused No.1 on the last sheet of sanction advice.
Ex.P. 4(b) Signature of the Accused No.2 on the first (D.24) page of sanction advice.
Ex.P.4(c) Valuation report dated 16.07.2012 issued by Sri. B.M. Basavaraju 112 Spl.CC.16/2017 Ex.P.4(d) Legal Opinion dated 22.05.2012 Ex.P.4(e) Office note dated 01.08.2012 Ex.P.4(f) P & L A/c, Balance sheet, IT returns etc of M/s M.M Sales Corporation Ex.P.4(f-1) Purported signature and seal in Ex.P.4(f) Ex.P. 4(g) Signature of PW - 24.
Ex.P.5 Original Loan documents of M/s G.M (D.27 to Enterprises, with KYC document; Statement D.38) of Accounts, Legal Opinion, Valuation Report, 3 Photographs, Copy of the IT returns (110 Sheets) Ex.P.5 (a) Signature of the Accused No.1 on the last sheet of sanction advice.
Ex.P 5 (b) Signature of the Accused No.2 on the first page of sanction advice Ex.P.5(c) Valuation report dated 16.07.2012 issued by Sri. B.M. Basavaraju Ex.P.5(d) Legal Opinion dated 22.05.2012 Ex.P.5(e) Office note dated 01.08.2012 Ex.P.5(f) P & L A/c, Balance sheet, IT returns etc of M/s G.M. Enterprises Ex.P.5(f-1) Purported signature and seal in Ex.P.5(f) Ex.P.5(g) Signature of PW - 26 Ex.P.6 Original Loan documents of M/s G. (D.39 to 49) Hanumanthappa and Sons with KYC document; Statement of Accounts, Legal Opinion, Valuation Report, Photographs, Copy of the IT returns (143 Sheets) Ex.P.6(a) Signature of the Accused No.1 on the last sheet of sanction advice.
Ex.P.6(b) Signature of the Accused No.2 on the first page of sanction advice Ex.P. 6(c) P & L A/c, Balance sheet, IT returns etc of M/s Hanumanthappa & sons Ex.P. 6(d) Legal Opinion dated 22.05.2012 Ex.P. 6(e) Office note dated 19.06.2012 Ex.P. 6(f) Valuation report dated 04.06.2012 given by PW.15 Ex.P.6(f-1) Signature of PW.15 Ex.P.6(g) Signature of PW - 24 113 Spl.CC.16/2017 Ex.P.7 Original Loan documents of M/s NET 27 (D.50 to 60) Technologies, with KYC document; Statement of Accounts, Legal Opinion, Valuation Report, Photographs, Copy of the IT returns (127 Sheets) Ex.P.7(a) Signature of the Accused No.1 on the last sheet of sanction advice.
Ex.P. 7 (b) Signature of the Accused No.2 on the first page of sanction advice Ex.P.7(c) P & L A/c, Balance sheet, IT returns etc of M/s NET 27 Technologies Ex.P.7(d) Legal Opinion dated 22.05.2012 Ex.P.7(e) Office note dated 02.08.2012 Ex.P.8 Original Loan documents of M/s Sri. Sai Rice (D.61 to 71) Traders, with KYC document; Statement of Accounts, Legal Opinion, Valuation Report, Photographs, Copy of the IT returns (100 Sheets) Ex.P.8(a) Signature of the Accused No.1 on the last sheet of sanction advice.
Ex.P.8(b) Signature of the Accused No.2 on the first page of sanction advice Ex.P.8(c) Valuation report issued by Sri. B.M. Basavaraju Ex.P.8(d) P & L A/c, Balance sheet, IT returns etc of M/s Sri.sai Rice Traders Ex.P.8(e) Legal Opinion dated 10.05.2012 Ex.P.8(f) Office note dated 01.08.2012 Ex.P. 8(g) Signature of PW - 24 Ex.P.9 Original Loan documents of M/s Annapoorneshwari Rice Traders, with KYC document; Statement of Accounts, Legal Opinion, Valuation Report, Photographs, Copy of the IT returns (129 Sheets) Ex.P.9(a) Signature of the Accused No.1 on the last sheet of sanction advice.
Ex.P.9(b) Signature of the Accused No.2 on the first page of sanction advice Ex.P.9(c) Valuation report dated 29.07.2012 issued by 114 Spl.CC.16/2017 Sri. B.M. Basavaraju Ex.P.9(d) P & L A/c, Balance sheet, IT returns etc of M/s Annapurneshwari Rice Traders Ex.P.9(e) Legal Opinion dated 02.08.2012 Ex.P.9(f) Office note dated 27.09.2012 Ex.P. 9(g) Singature of PW - 24 issued by Sri.B.M.Basavaraju.
Ex.P.10 Original Loan documents of M/s (D.83 to 92) Veerabhadreshwara Stores, with KYC document; Statement of Accounts, Legal Opinion, Valuation Report, Photographs, Copy of the IT returns (124 Sheets) Ex.P.10(a) Signature of the Accused No.1 on the last sheet of sanction advice.
Ex.P.10(b) Signature of the Accused No.4 on the first page of sanction advice Ex.P.10(c) Valuation report dated 25.04.2013 issued by Sri. B.M. Basavaraju Ex.P.10(d) Legal Opinion dated 18.12.2012 given by PW.10 Ex.P.10(e) Office note dated 07.05.2013 Ex.P.11 Original Loan documents of M/s S.L.N Glass (D.93 to 95, Plywood and Hardware, with KYC document; 97 to 101) Statement of Accounts, Legal Opinion, Valuation Report, Photographs, Copy of the IT returns (59 Sheets) Ex.P.11(a) Signature of the Accused No.1 on the last sheet of sanction advice.
Ex.P. 11(b) Signature of the Accused No.3 on the first page of sanction advice Ex.P. 11(c) Valuation report dated 30.10.2012 issued by Sri. B.M. Basavaraju Ex.P.11(d) Office note dated 31.01.2013 Ex.P.12 Original Loan documents of M/s Veeresh (D.102 to Provision Stores, with KYC document;
112) Statement of Accounts, Legal Opinion, Valuation Report, Photographs, Copy of the IT returns (118 Sheets) Ex.P.12(a) Signature of the Accused No.1 on the last 115 Spl.CC.16/2017 sheet of sanction advice.
Ex.P.12(b) Signature of the Accused No.2 on the first page of sanction advice Ex.P.12(c) Valuation report dated 12.09.2012 issued by Sri. B.M. Basavaraju Ex.P.12(d) P & L A/c, Balance sheet, IT returns etc of M/sVeeresh Provisions Stores Ex.P.12(e) Legal Opinion dated 14.08.2012 given by PW.10 Ex.P.12(f) Office note dated 16.10.2012 Ex.P.13 Original Loan documents of M/s Sri. (D.113 to Venkatesjwara Hardware and Plumbing with
121) KYC document; Statement of Accounts, Legal Opinion, Valuation Report, Photographs, Copy of the IT returns (73 Sheets) Ex.P.13(a) Signature of the Accused No.1 on the last sheet of sanction advice.
Ex.P. 13(b) Signature of the Accused No.2 on the first page of sanction advice Ex.P. 13(c) P & L A/c, Balance sheet, IT returns etc of M/s Sri. Venkateshwara Hardware and Plumbing Ex.P. 13(d) Valuation report dated 09.08.2012 Ex.P.13 (e) Office note dtd 18.08.2012 Ex.P. 13(f) Signature of PW - 24 Ex.P.14 Original Loan documents of M/s (D.122 to Banashankari Interior Works, with KYC
131) document; Statement of Accounts, Legal Opinion, Valuation Report, Photographs, Copy of the IT returns ( Sheets) Ex.P.14(a) Signature of the Accused No.1 on the last sheet of sanction advice.
Ex.P.14(b) Signature of the Accused No.4 on the first page of sanction advice Ex.P.14(c) Valuation report dated 26.11.2012 issued by Sri. B.M. Basavaraju Ex.P.14(d) P & L A/c, Balance sheet, IT returns etc of M/s Banashankari Interior Works Ex.P.14(e) Legal Scrutiny report dated 09.11.2012 issued by Sri. Deepak Panel advocate 116 Spl.CC.16/2017 Ex.P.14(f) Office note dtd 18.04.2013 Ex.P.15 Copy of Master Circular related to "Easy Trade Finance Scheme" dated 21.08.2008 (4 Sheets) Ex.P.16 Copy of Modification with regard to "Easy Trade Finance Scheme" dated 21.09.2007 ( 3 sheets) Ex.P.17 Copy of New Product Development Easy Trade Finance Hassle Free Finance to Traders dated 15.09.2005 (3 Sheets) Ex.P.18 Copy of Revision of Delegated Powers dated 29.04.2011 (5 sheets) Ex.P.19 Copy of Revision of Delegated Powers dated 26.04.2013 (5 sheets) Ex.P. 20 Original Complaint dtd07.01.2016 Ex.P.20(a) Signature of PW.4 Ex.P.21 Letter dated 20.05.2016 of PW.4 forwarding Ex.P.15 to 19 with 65-B Certificate (4 sheets) Ex.P.21(a) Signature of PW.4 Ex.P. 22 Original Internal Investigation Report dtd 16.04.2015 conducted by PW.5 (110 sheets) Ex.P.22(a) Signature of PW.5 Ex.P.23 Production memo dated 25.08.2016 Ex.P.23(a) Signature of PW.7 Ex.P.23(b) Signature of PW.51 Ex.P.24 Covering letter dated 22.08.2016 of Punjab National Bank to CBI (1 sheet) Ex.P.25 Original Current a/c Opening Form of M/s Maxtel Enterprises along with KYC document (8 sheets) Ex.P.26 Covering letter dated 17.05.2017 of Punjab National Bank to CBI along with Statement of account I/r/o M/s Maxtel Enterprises with certificates (19 sheets) 117 Spl.CC.16/2017 Ex.P.27 Production memo dated 30.08.2016 Ex.P.27(a) Signature of PW.7 Ex.P.27(b) Signature of PW.51 Ex.P.28 Covering letter dated 29.08.2016 of Punjab National Bank to CBI (1 sheet) Ex.P.29 Original a/c Opening Form of M/s G.M Enterprises along with KYC documents (10 sheets) Ex.P.30 Original a/c Opening Form of M/s M.M. Sales Corporation along with KYC documents (9 sheets) Ex.P.31 Statement of account i/r/o Call of a/c of M/s G.M Enterprises with certificates issued by PNB (48 sheets) Ex.P.32 Statement of account i/r/o M/s M.M. Sales Corporation with certificates issued by PNB (26 sheets) Ex.P.33 Production memo dated 23.08.2016 Ex.P.33(a) Signature of PW.8 Ex.P.33(b) Signature of PW.51 Ex.P.34 Covering letter dated 23.08.2016 of Appex Bank to CBI (1 sheet) Ex.P.34(a) Signature of the Manager Ex.P.35 Original a/c Opening Form of M/s S.L.M Glass, Plywood and Hardware along with KYC documents (8 sheets) Ex.P.36 Statement of account i/r/o M/s S.L.N Glass, Plywood and Hardware along with certificates issued by Appex Bank (9 sheets) Ex.P.37 26 sheets containing Specimen writings/ signatures of Sri. R.K. Senthil Kumar ( S115 to S131) Ex.P.37(a) Regular Signatures of Sri. R.K Senthil Kumar (9 sheets) S132 to S140 118 Spl.CC.16/2017 Ex.P.38 Specimen Writings /Signatures of Sri. C. Ramamohan (23 sheets) Ex.P.38(a) Specimen writings of Sri. Ramamohan in 16 sheets Ex.P.38(b) Genuine Signatures of Sri. Ramamohan in 7 sheets Ex.P.38(c) Signature of PW.51 Ex.P.39 IOB cheque dated 13.08.2013 for Rs.3,00,000/- issued in favour of PW.17 Ex.P.39(a) Signature of PW.17.
Ex.P.40 IOB cheque dated 25.02.2014 for Rs.80,000/-
issued in favour of PW.16
Ex.P.40(a) Signature of PW.16.
Ex.P.41 IOB cheque dated 01.06.2013 for Rs.50,000/-
issued in favour of PW.17
Ex.P.41(a) Signature of PW.17.
Ex.P.42 IOB cheque dated 17.07.2013 for Rs.3 Lakhs
issued in favour of PW.19
Ex.P.42(a) Signature of PW.21 with mobile number
Ex.P.43 IOB cheque dated 06.09.2012 for Rs.50,000
issued in favour of Shankara.A
Ex.P.43(a) Signature of PW.20 with mobile number
Ex.P.44 IOB self cheque dated 22.09.2012 for Rs.3
Lakhs issued by M/s M.M Sales Corporation Ex.P.44(a) Signature of PW.21 with mobile number Ex.P.45 IOB cheque dated 24.08.2012 for Rs.1 Lakhs issued in favour of Ramesh.R Ex.P.45(a) Signature of PW.22 Ex.P.46 Receipt Memo dated: 24-10-2016 Ex.P.46(a) Signature of PW - 27 Ex.P.47 Letter dated: 20-10-2016 of Senior Sub-
Registrar, Shanthinagar, Blr Ex.P.48 8 Challans produced through Ex.P. 47 Ex.P.49 True Copy of Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds Ex.P.50 & True copies of Sale Deeds produced under 119 Spl.CC.16/2017 Ex.P.51 Ex.P. 47 Ex.P.52 Letter dated: 26-08-2016 of ITO, Ward 6(2)(3), Blr with annexures (13 sheets) Ex.P.52(a) Signature of PW-29 Ex.P.53 Letter dated: 06-09-2016 of PW -30 with 4 screenshots.
Ex.P.53(a) Signature of PW-30 Ex.P.54 Letter dated: 26-08-2016 of PW -31 along with copies of ITR(4) taken from IT website portal (34 sheets) Ex.P.54(a) Signature of PW-31 Ex.P.55 Letter dated: 17-08-2016 of Sri. Narender Singh, ITO (HQ-2), Blr with 19 screen shots. Ex.P.55(a) Signature of PW-33 Ex.P.56 Computer printout of IT Returns of R. Mohan Naidu for the AY 2010-11 to 2013-14 (20 Sheets) Ex.P.56(a) Signature of PW-34 Ex.P.57 Letter dated: 14-09-2016 of PW -35 with 1 screenshots.
Ex.P.57(a) Signature of PW-35 Ex.P.58 Letter dated: 08-09-2016 of PW -36 to Additional CIT.
Ex.P.58(a) Signature of PW-36 Ex.P.59 Letter dated: 22-08-2016 of PW -37 to Additional CIT.
Ex.P.59(a) Signature of PW-37 Ex.P.60 Letter dated: 26-08-2016 of PW -38 to Principal Chief, CIT Ex.P.60(a) Signature of PW-38 Ex.P.61 Letter dated: 26-08-2016 of PW -38 to Principal Chief, CIT Ex.P.61(a) Signature of PW-38 Ex.P.62 Audit reports for the month June-2012 to May 2013 with Covering letters and certificates 120 Spl.CC.16/2017 Ex.P.63 Receipt Memo dated 25.08.2016 Ex.P.63(a) Signature of PW.41 Ex.P.63(b) Signature of PW.51 Ex.P.64 Circular No.EST/108/95-96/dtd 23.08.1995 reg- role functions of officer employees at differed hierarchical placements in operation Ex.P.65 Circular No. Misc/316/2008-09 dtd 19.12.2008 reg- joint responsibility for loans and advances Ex.P.66 Receipt Memo dated 29.08.2016 Ex.P.66(a) Signature of PW.41 Ex.P.66(b) Signature of PW.51 Ex.P.67 Book of Instructions volume-II relating to advances of IOB Ex.P.68 Letter dated 29.08.2016 of IOB R.O,B'Luru to CBI Ex.P.69 Service particulars of B.N Muralidharan Ex.P.70 Service particulars of V.N. Gururaja Rao Ex.P.71 Service particulars of Smt. Valli K.S Ex.P.72 Service particulars of Srinivasan K.S Ex.P.73 Covering letter dated 24.08.2016 of ACCT to CBI Ex.P.73(a) Signature of PW.42 Ex.P.74 Attested copies of VAT Registration Certificates etc of Sri. B.S. Veeresh, Proprietor of Veeresh Provision Stores Ex.P.75 Covering letter dated 18.08.2016 of ACCT to CBI Ex.P.75(a) Signature of PW.42 Ex.P.76 Specimen writings/ Signatures of Sri. G. Ganesh taken on 19.10.2016 (10 Sheets) Ex.P.76(a) Signature of PW.44 Ex.P.77 Specimen writings/ Signatures of Sri. M. Kumaraswamy Raju taken on 23.09.2016 (10 Sheets) 121 Spl.CC.16/2017 Ex.P.77(a) Signature of PW.44 Ex.P.78 Specimen writings/ Signatures of Smt. R. Geetha taken on 23.09.2016 (10 Sheets) Ex.P.78(a) Signature of PW.44 Ex.P.79 Specimen writings/ Signatures of Smt. Mangala Boraya taken on 23.09.2016 (10 Sheets) Ex.P.79(a) Signature of PW.44 Ex.P.80 Specimen writings/ Signatures of Sri. N.Sri.rama taken on 23.09.2016 (10 Sheets) S-81 to 90 Ex.P.80(a) Signature of PW.44 Ex.P.81 Specimen writings/ Signatures of Sri. N. Sri.rama taken on 23.09.2016 (6 Sheets) S-
153 to 158
Ex.P.81(a) Signature of PW.44
Ex.P.82 Mahazar Dtd.
Ex.P.82(a) Signature of PW.46
Ex.P.82(b) Signature of PW.51
Ex.P.83 Four photographs taken at the time of
preparing Ex.P. 82.
Ex.P.83(a) to Photographs
(c)
Ex.P.83{1}, Signature of PW.46
83{a-1} 83{b-
1} and
83{c-1}
Ex.P.84 Production memo dtd. 02-06-2016.
Ex.P.84(a) Signature of PW.47
Ex.P.84(b) Signature of PW.51
Ex.P.85 Debit voucher dtd. 28-09-2012 for Rs.
18,00,000/- and corresponding credit voucher.
Ex.P.86 Cheque dtd. 09-10-2012 for Rs. 3,00,000/-.
issued in favor of S. Sri.nivas.
122 Spl.CC.16/2017 Ex.P.87 Cheque dtd. 16-10-2012 for Rs. 55,000/-.
issued in favor of Mallesh Ex.P.88 Cheque dtd. 18-10-2012 for Rs. 1,50,000/-.
issued in favor of S. Sri.nivas.
Ex.P.89 Cheque dtd. 22-10-2012 for Rs. 1,00,000/-.
issued in favor of Chandrakanth.
Ex.P.90 Cheque dtd. 31-10-2012 for Rs. 50,000/-.
issued in favor of Mahesh.
Ex.P.91 Credit voucher dtd. 31-10-2012 for Rs. 7.5 lakhs by S. Sri.nivas.
Ex.P.92 Cheque dtd. 18-10-2012 for Rs. 55,000/-.
issued in favor of S. Sri.nivas.
Ex.P.93 Cheque dtd. 16-11-2012 for Rs. 2,00,000/-.
issued in favor of S. Sri.nivas.
Ex.P.94 Cheque dtd. 22-11-2012 for Rs. 4,00,000/-.
issued in favor of Rajesh.B.K. Ex.P.95 Cheque dtd. 10-12-2012 for Rs. 50,000/-.
issued in favor of S. Sri.nivas.
Ex.P.96 Debit voucher dtd. 18-12-2012 for Rs. 2.25 lakhs.
Ex.P.97 Cheque dtd. 24-12-2012 for Rs. 2.5 laksh issued in favor of N. Avinash.
Ex.P.98 Debit voucher dtd. 26-12-2012 for Rs. 1 lakh. Ex.P.99 Credit voucher dtd. 11-01-2013 for Rs. 3 lakh.
Ex.P.100 Credit voucher dtd. 11-01-2013 for Rs. 2 lakh.
Ex.P.101 Cheque dtd. 15-01-2013 for Rs. 70,000/-
issued in favor of S. Sri.nivas.
Ex.P.102 Credit voucher dtd. 22-01-2013 for Rs. 2.4 lakh Ex.P.103 Credit voucher dtd. 29-01-2013 for Rs. 3.1 lakh.
Ex.P.104 Cheque dtd. 27-02-2013 for Rs. 80,000/-
123 Spl.CC.16/2017 issued in favor of S. Sri.nivas.
Ex.P.105 Cheque dtd. 23-01-2013 for Rs. 4.70 lakhs issued in favor of Boregouda.
Ex.P.106 Cheque dtd. 08-02-2013 for Rs. 3.30 lakhs issued in favor of S. Sri.nivas.
Ex.P.107 Credit voucher dtd. 14-02-2013 for Rs. 5.5 lakh.
Ex.P.108 Cheque dtd. 14-02-2013 for Rs. 90,000/-
issued in favor of Ganesh.
Ex.P.109 Credit voucher dtd. 16-02-2013 for Rs. 2.2 lakh.
Ex.P.110 Credit voucher dtd. 18-02-2013 for Rs. 60 thousand.
Ex.P.111 Credit voucher dtd. 16-02-2013 for Rs. 2.2 lakh.
Ex.P.112 Cheque dtd. 06-03-2013 for Rs. 9.5 lakhs issued in favor of Ganesh.
Ex.P.113 Credit voucher dtd. 06-03-2013 for Rs. 2 lakh.
Ex.P.114 Credit voucher dtd. 14-03-2013 for Rs. 9.7 lakh.
Ex.P.115 Cheque dtd. 30-03-2013 for Rs. 4 lakhs issued in favor of Dhanvantri Medical Stores. Ex.P.116 Cheque dtd. 30-03-2013 for Rs. 50,000/-
issued in favor of S.Sri.nivas.
Ex.P.117 Cheque dtd. 08-05-2013 for Rs. 70,000/-
issued in favor of S. Sri.nivas.
Ex.P.118 Credit voucher dtd. 15-05-2013 for Rs. 2.25 lakh.
Ex.P.119 Cheque dtd. 15-05-2013 for Rs. 1.24 lakhs issued in favor of Dhanvantri Medical Stores. Ex.P.120 Cheque dtd. 19-05-2013 for Rs. 2.7 lakhs issued in favor of S.R. Motors.
Ex.P.121 Cheque dtd. 20-05-2013 for Rs. 50,000/-
124 Spl.CC.16/2017 issued in favor of S.Sri.nivas.
Ex.P.122 R.T.G.S. transfer voucher dtd. 25-05- 2013 for Rs. 9.80 lakhs.
Ex.P.123 Cheque dtd. 28-05-2013 for Rs. 1,00,000/-
issued in favor of A. Muniraj.
Ex.P.124 Cheque dtd. 31-05-2013 for Rs. 50,000/-
issued in favor of S.Sri.nivas.
Ex.P.125 Cheque dtd. 05-06-2013 for Rs. 5 lakhs issued in favor of S.Sri.nivas.
Ex.P.126 Cheque dtd. 07-06-2013 for Rs. 1 lakh issued in favor of S.Sri.nivas.
Ex.P.127 Cheque dtd. 11-06-2013 for Rs. 95,000/-
issued in favor of S.Sri.nivas.
Ex.P.128 Cheque dtd. 14-06-2013 for Rs. 50,000/-
issued in favor of S.Sri.nivas.
Ex.P.129 Cheque dtd. 21-06-2013 for Rs. 2.56 lakhs issued in favor of Santhosh Kumar.
Ex.P.130 Cheque dtd. 09-07-2013 for Rs. 1.20 lakhs issued in favor of S.Sri.nivas.
Ex.P.131 Cheque dtd. 11-07-2013 for Rs. 50,000/-
issued in favor of Smt. Triveni.
Ex.P.132 Cheque dtd. 12-07-2013 for Rs. 1.00 lakhs issued in favor of Pandurangan.
Ex.P.133 Cheque dtd. 29-07-2013 for Rs. 50,000/-
issued in favor of S.Sri.nivas.
Ex.P.134 Statement of account for the period 01-01- 2012 to 16-01-2016 in respect of account No. .........1741 of Sri. Annapoorneshwari Rice Traders along with 65-B certificate. Ex.P.135 Self cheque dtd. 05-06-2012 for Rs. 80,000/- Ex.P.136 Self cheque dtd. 08-06-2012 for Rs. 90,000/- Ex.P.137 Yourself cheque dtd. 21-06-2012 for Rs.
30,00,061/- along with R.T.G.S. application for transfer of amount to the account of R. N. Lokesh.
125 Spl.CC.16/2017 Ex.P.138 Self cheque dtd. 22-06-2012 for Rs. 13 lakhs. Ex.P.139 Self cheque dtd. 25-06-2012 for Rs. 14 lakhs. Ex.P.140 Yourself cheque dtd. 25-06-2012 for Rs.
02,72,606/-.
Ex.P.141 Yourself cheque dtd. 25-06-2012 for Rs.
35,96,055/-.
Ex.P.142 Self cheque dtd. 23-06-2012 for Rs. 2 lakhs. Ex.P.143 Yourself cheque dtd. 25-06-2012 for Rs.
02,39,203/-.
Ex.P.144 Cheque dtd. 20-09-2012 for Rs. 2 lakhs issued in favour of Priyadarshini.
Ex.P.145 Self cheque dtd. 22-09-2012 for Rs. 6 lakhs. Ex.P.146 Credit voucher dtd. 28-09-2012 for Rs. 1 lakh Ex.P.147 Credit voucher dtd. 31-01-2013 for Rs. 2 lakh Ex.P.148 Credit voucher dtd. 06-02-2013 for Rs. 1.47 lakh Ex.P.149 Credit voucher dtd. 28-06-2013 for Rs. 1.15 lakh Ex.P.150 Debit voucher dtd. 19-06-2015 for Rs.
1,50,005/- for obtaining DD in favour of Registrar, D.R.T. Ex.P.151 Statement of account for the period 01-01- 2012 to 16-01-2016 in respect of account No. .........1721 of G. Hanumanthappa and sons along with 65-B certificate.
Ex.P.152 Self cheque dtd. 08-08-2012 for Rs. 6 lakhs. Ex.P.153 Cheque dtd. 10-08-2012 for Rs. 1 lakhs issued in favour of S.V. Subramanya. Ex.P.154 Cheque dtd. 11-08-2012 for Rs. 50,000/-. Ex.P.155 Yourself cheque dtd. 11-08-2012 for Rs. 3.4 lakhs.
Ex.P.156 Cheque dtd. 11-08-2012 for Rs. 50,000/-
issued in favour of Smt. Priya Chiplunkar.
126 Spl.CC.16/2017 Ex.P.157 Self cheque dtd. 14-08-2012 for Rs. 50,000/-. Ex.P.158 Self cheque dtd. 17-08-2012 for Rs. 3 lakhs. Ex.P.159 Yourself cheque dtd. 21-08-2012 for Rs. 3 lakhs for R.T.G.S. Ex.P.160 Self cheque dtd. 21-08-2012 for Rs. 3 lakhs. Ex.P.161 Yourself cheque dtd. 21-08-2012 for Rs. 4 lakhs for R.T.G.S. Ex.P.162 Cheque dtd. 28-08-2012 for Rs. 2 lakhs issued in favour of Swamy Narayana.
Ex.P.163 Self cheque dtd. 29-08-2012 for Rs. 1 lakh. Ex.P.164 Cheque dtd. 30-08-2012 for Rs. 1 lakhs issued in favour of Umesh Gurjar Ex.P.165 Cheque dtd. 31-08-2012 for Rs. 2 lakhs issued in favour of Umesh Gurjar Ex.P.166 Self cheque dtd. 31-08-2012 for Rs. 2 lakhs. Ex.P.167 Cheque dtd. 06-09-2012 for Rs. 1.78 lakhs issued in favour of Umesh.
Ex.P.168 Self cheque dtd. 07-09-2012 for Rs. 2 lakhs. Ex.P.169 Self cheque dtd. 24-09-2012 for Rs. 1 lakh. Ex.P.170 Self cheque dtd. 28-09-2012 for Rs. 1.5 lakhs.
Ex.P.171 Transfer credit voucher dtd. 28-06-2013 for Rs. 63,000/-
Ex.P.172 Statement of account for the period 01-01- 2012 to 16-01-2016 in respect of account No. .........1731 of NET -27 Technology along with 65-B certificate.
Ex.P.173 Cheque dtd. 19-10-2012 for Rs. 1.5 lakhs issued in favour of Raveendra.
Ex.P.174 Cheque dtd. 20-10-2012 for Rs. 1 lakh issued in favour of Nanjundegouda.
Ex.P.175 Cheque dtd. 28-10-2012 for Rs. 1 lakh issued in favour of Manjunath.
127 Spl.CC.16/2017 Ex.P.176 Self cheque dtd. 31-10-2012 for Rs. 2.3 lakhs.
Ex.P.177 Statement of account for the period 01-01- 2012 to 16-01-2016 in respect of account No. .........1745 of Veeresh Provision Stores along with 65-B certificate.
Ex.P.178 Self cheque dtd. 06-08-2012 for Rs. 1.5 lakhs.
Ex.P.179 Self cheque dtd. 10-08-2012 for Rs. 2 lakhs. Ex.P.180 Yourself Cheque dtd. 11-06-2013 for Rs.
3,00,030/- lakhs for transfer of amount through R.T.G.S. Ex.P.181 Yourself Cheque dtd. 10-06-2013 for Rs.
3,00,030/- lakhs for transfer of amount through R.T.G.S. to the account of K.Suresh. Ex.P.182 R.T.G.S. for dtd. 11-06-2013 for transfer of amount to Smt. Usha.K. Ex.P.183 Statement of account for the period 01-01- 2012 to 21-03-2016 in respect of account No. .........1730 of Sri. Sai Rice Traders along with 65-B certificate.
Ex.P.184 Cheque dtd. 02-02-2013 for Rs. 50,000/-
issued in favour of Timmarayagouda. Ex.P.185 Cheque dtd. 05-02-2013 for Rs. 9.5 lakh issued in favour of Timmarayagouda. Ex.P.186 Cheque dtd. 05-02-2013 for Rs. 4 lakh issued in favour of S. Sri.nivas.
Ex.P.187 Cheque dtd. 07-02-2013 for Rs. 3 lakh issued in favour of Balaji. N. Ex.P.188 Cheque dtd. 08-02-2013 for Rs. 5 lakh issued in favour of Timmarayagouda.
Ex.P.189 Cheque dtd. 09-02-2013 for Rs. 1 lakh issued in favour of Bapuji.
Ex.P.190 Cheque dtd. 13-02-2013 for Rs. 1 lakh issued in favour of Jagadish. T.R. 128 Spl.CC.16/2017 Ex.P.191 Cheque dtd. 14-02-2013 for Rs. 3 lakh issued in favour of Shaik Mujeebulla .
Ex.P.192 Cheque dtd. 15-05-2013 for Rs. 80,000/-
issued in favour of Ganesh.
Ex.P.193 Cheque dtd. 15-02-2013 for Rs. 1 lakh issued in favour of Kaluram.
Ex.P.194 Cheque dtd. 19-02-2013 for Rs. 2 lakh issued in favour of Timmarayagouda.
Ex.P.195 Statement of account for the period 01-01- 2012 to 16-01-2016 in respect of account No. .........1750 of M/S S.L.N. Glass, Plywood and Harware along with 65-B certificate. Ex.P.196 Cheque dtd. 19-02-2013 for Rs. 2 lakh issued in favour of Timmarayagouda.
Ex.P.197 Self cheque dtd. 10-05-2013 for Rs. 8 lakhs. Ex.P.198 Self cheque dtd. 15-05-2013 for Rs. 5 lakhs. Ex.P.199 Cheque dtd. 22-05-2013 for Rs. 2.3 lakh issued in favour of Madan. G. Ex.P.200 Cheque dtd. 22-05-2013 for Rs. 80,000/-
issued in favour of Raghavendra.
Ex.P.201 Cheque dtd. 26-05-2013 for Rs. 2.5 lakh issued in favour of Ravi.
Ex.P.202 Cheque dtd. 16-06-2013 for Rs. 2 lakh issued in favour of Ravi.
Ex.P.203 Statement of account for the period 01-01- 2012 to 16-01-2016 in respect of account No. .........1756 of Veerabhadreshwar Stores along with 65-B certificate.
Ex.P.204 Self cheque dtd. 24-08-2012 for Rs. 50,000/-. Ex.P.205 Self cheque dtd. 29-11-2012 for Rs.
80,000/-.
Ex.P.206 Transfer credit voucher dtd. 10-12- 2012 for Rs. 2.65 lakhs.
Ex.P.207 Self cheque dtd. 19-02-2013 for Rs. 50,000/-
129 Spl.CC.16/2017 Ex.P.208 Cheque dtd. 05-03-2013 for Rs. 80,000/-
issued in favour of Chandrappa.
Ex.P.209 Self cheque dtd. 27-04-2013 for Rs. 5 lakhs. Ex.P.210 Self cheque dtd. 27-04-2013 for Rs. 9 lakhs. Ex.P.211 Cheque dtd. 29-04-2013 for Rs. 5 lakhs issued in favour of Ramu.B. Ex.P.212 Cheque dtd. 29-04-2013 for Rs. 1 lakh issued in favour of Chandrashekhar.
Ex.P.213 Yourself cheque dtd. 29-04-2013 for Rs.
22,00,060/- for transfer of amount to the account of Mahesh Agencies through R.T.G.S. Ex.P.214 Cheque dtd. 30-04-2013 for Rs. 6.5 lakh issued in favour of Mahesh.S. Ex.P.215 Cheque dtd. 30-04-2013 for Rs. 7 lakh issued in favour of Mahesh.S. Ex.P.216 Cheque dtd. 06-05-2013 for Rs. 3.5 lakh issued in favour of Umesh Gurjar.
Ex.P.217 Self cheque dtd. 09-05-2013 for Rs. 1 lakh. Ex.P.218 Self cheque dtd. 14-05-2013 for Rs. 1 lakh. Ex.P.219 Cheque dtd. 17-05-2013 for Rs. 2 lakh issued in favour of Janardhan.
Ex.P.220 Cheque dtd. 20-05-2013 for Rs. 50,000/-
issued in favour of Shashikanth.G. Ex.P.221 Cheque dtd. 23-05-2013 for Rs. 5 lakhs issued in favour of Tilak.S. Ex.P.222 Cheque dtd. 03-06-2013 for Rs. 50,000/-
issued in favour of Shashikanth.G. Ex.P.223 Cheque dtd. 26-06-2013 for Rs. 80,000/-
issued in favour of Narasimhamurthy. Ex.P.224 Cheque dtd. 15-07-2013 for Rs. 1 lakh issued in favour of Shashikanth.G. Ex.P.225 Cheque dtd. 24-07-2013 for Rs. 50,000/-
issued in favour of Shashikanth.G. Ex.P.226 Cheque dtd. 29-07-2013 for Rs. 50,000/-
130 Spl.CC.16/2017 issued in favour of Chandrappa.S. Ex.P.227 Cheque dtd. 12-08-2013 for Rs. 2.5 lakh issued in favour of Shashikanth.G. Ex.P.228 Cheque dtd. 28-08-2013 for Rs. 2 lakhs issued in favour of Shashikanth.G. Ex.P.229 Cheque dtd. 12-09-2013 for Rs. 1 lakh issued in favour of N. Ramachandra.
Ex.P.230 Cheque dtd. 20-09-2013 for Rs. 1 lakh issued in favour of Shashikanth.G. Ex.P.231 Cheque dtd. 29-09-2013 for Rs. 1.5 lakh issued in favour of Mahesh.S. Ex.P.232 Cheque dtd. 03-10-2013 for Rs. 50,000/-
issued in favour of N. Ramachandra.
Ex.P.233 Cheque dtd. 01-10-2013 for Rs. 50,000/-
issued in favour of Narashimhamurthy. Ex.P.234 Transfer credit voucher dtd. 11-10- 2013 for Rs. 1 lakh.
Ex.P.235 Cheque dtd. 17-10-2013 for Rs. 1 lakh issued in favour of Manjunath.N. Ex.P.236 Cheque dtd. 21-10-2013 for Rs. 4 lakh issued in favour of Murthy.
Ex.P.237 Cheque dtd. 23-10-2013 for Rs. 1.5 lakh issued in favour of N. Nagarajappa.
Ex.P.238 Transfer credit voucher dtd. 24-10- 2013 for Rs. 6 lakhs.
Ex.P.239 Cheque dtd. 26-10-2013 for Rs. 90,000/-
issued in favour of S.B. Rajanna.
Ex.P.240 Cheque dtd. 31-10-2013 for Rs. 2.5 lakh issued in favour of Mahesh.S. Ex.P.241 Cheque dtd. 31-10-2013 for Rs. 1 lakh issued in favour of Shashikanth.G. Ex.P.242 Cheque dtd. 16-11-2013 for Rs. 1 lakh issued in favour of Manjunath.
Ex.P.243 Cheque dtd. 21-11-2013 for Rs. 1 lakh issued 131 Spl.CC.16/2017 in favour of Venkatesh.
Ex.P.244 Cheque dtd. 28-11-2013 for Rs. 50,000/-
issued in favour of Shashikanth.G. Ex.P.245 Cheque dtd. 30-11-2013 for Rs. 50,000/-
issued in favour of Shivakumar. S.P. Ex.P.246 Cheque dtd. 17-12-2013 for Rs. 1 lakh issued in favour of Shashikanth.G. Ex.P.247 Cheque dtd. 27-12-2013 for Rs. 50,000/-
issued in favour of Santhoshkumar.M. Ex.P.248 Cheque dtd. 30-12-2013 for Rs. 1 lakh issued in favour of S. Kiran.
Ex.P.249 Cheque dtd. 28-01-2014 for Rs. 1 lakh issued in favour of Mahesh.S. Ex.P.250 Cheque dtd. 29-01-2014 for Rs. 1 lakh issued in favour of Sri.kanth.
Ex.P.251 Cheque dtd. 06-03-2014 for Rs. 1.4 lakh issued in favour of Shivakumar.
Ex.P.252 Cheque dtd. 04-03-2014 for Rs. 1 lakh issued in favour of Yogesh.
Ex.P.253 Transfer credit voucher dtd. 21-03- 2014 for Rs. 1.5 lakhs.
Ex.P.254 Statement of account for the period 01-01- 2012 to 27-01-2016 in respect of account No. .........1732 of Veerabhadreshwar Stores along with 65-B certificate.
Ex.P.255 Self cheque dtd. 25-08-2012 for Rs. 4 lakhs. Ex.P.256 Cheque dtd 24-08-2012 for Rs.70,000 issued in favour of S. Sri.nivas Ex.P.257 Self cheque dtd. 04-09-2012 for Rs. 2 lakhs. Ex.P.258 Self cheque dtd. 06-09-2012 for Rs. 2 lakhs. Ex.P.259 Cheque dtd. 22-10-2012 for Rs.7.5 lakh issued in favour of R. Mohan Naidu.
Ex.P.260 Cheque dtd. 22-10-2012 for Rs.6 lakh issued in favour of R. Mohan Naidu.
132 Spl.CC.16/2017 Ex.P.261 Cheque dtd. 22-10-2012 for Rs.6 lakh issued in favour of R. Mohan Naidu.
Ex.P.262 Cheque dtd. 08-12-2012 for Rs.50,000/-
issued in favour of R. Mohan Naidu..
Ex.P.263 Credit RTGS Voucher dated 08.12.2012 for Rs.4,99,900/-
Ex.P.264 Cheque dtd. 10-12-2012 for Rs.8 lakh issued in favour of R. Mohan Naidu.
Ex.P.265 Cheque dtd. 10-12-2012 for Rs.8 lakh issued in favour of R. Mohan Naidu.
Ex.P.266 Yourself cheque dtd. 10-12-2012 for Rs.2, 31, 529/-.
Ex.P.267 Cheque dtd. 17-12-2012 for Rs. 50,000 issued in favour of R. Mohan Naidu Ex.P.268 Cheque dtd. 02-01-2013 for Rs. 60,000 issued in favour of R. Mohan Naidu.
Ex.P.269 Cheque dtd. 12-01-2013 for Rs.50,000/-
issued in favour of R. Mohan Naidu Ex.P.270 Yourself cheque dtd. 18-01-2013 for Rs.50,140/- for DD favouring R. Mohan Naidu Ex.P.271 Cheque dtd 04-02-2013 for Rs.50,000/-
issued in favour of R. Mohan Naidu Ex.P.272 Cheque dtd. 22-02-2013 for Rs.1 lakh issued in favour of R. Mohan Naidu Ex.P.273 Cheque dtd. 27-02-2013 for Rs. 1 lakh issued in favour of R. Mohan Naidu.
Ex.P.274 Self cheque dtd. 19-03-2013 for Rs. 50,000/-. Ex.P.275 Transfer Credit Voucher dated 22.03.2013 for Rs. 2.7 Lakhs Ex.P.276 Self cheque dtd. 23-03-2013 for Rs. 50,000/- Ex.P.277 Self cheque dtd. 06-04-2013 for Rs. 60,000/- Ex.P.278 Self cheque dtd. 06-05-2013 for Rs. 70,000/- Ex.P.279 Cheque dtd. 15-05-2013 for Rs. 1.1 lakhs 133 Spl.CC.16/2017 issued in favour of R. Mohan Naidu Ex.P.280 Cheque dtd. 31-05-2013 for Rs.4 lakh issued in favour of Umesh Gurjar.
Ex.P.281 Cheque dtd 10-06-2013 for Rs.2.4 lakh issued in favour of R. Mohan Naidu Ex.P.282 Cheque dtd. 12-07-2013 for Rs. 50,000/-
issued in favour of R. Mohan Naidu Ex.P.283 Cheque dtd Cheque dtd. 04-03-2014 for Rs. 1 lakh issued in favour of Yogesh. 2-08-2013 for Rs. 1.5 lakh issued in favour of Shekar Ex.P.284 Cheque dtd. 03-08-2013 for Rs.70,000/-
issued in favour of R.Mohan Naidu Ex.P.285 Cheque dtd 06-08-2013 for Rs. 50,000 issued in favour of Shankar Ex.P.286 Cheque dtd. 10-08-2013 for Rs.1.1 lakh issued in favour of R. Mohan Naidu Ex.P.287 Credit RTGS Voucher dated 31.10.2013 for Rs.40,00,000/-
Ex.P.288 Statement of account for the period 01-01- 2012 to 01-06-2016 in respect of account No. .........1734 of Venkateshwara Hardware and Plumbing along with 65-B certificate. Ex.P.289 Self cheque dtd. 18-09-2012 for Rs.
7,50,000/-.
Ex.P.290 Self cheque dtd. 18-09-2012 for Rs.
7,50,000/-.
Ex.P.291 Yourself cheque dtd. 20-09-2012 for Rs.
25,61,588/-.
Ex.P.292 Yourself cheque dtd. 20-09-2012 for Rs.25,23,528/-.
Ex.P.293 Yourself Cheque dtd 26-09-2012 for Rs.13,00,058/-.
Ex.P.294 Yourself cheque dtd. 27-09-2012 for Rs.
12,00,058/-.
Ex.P.295 RTGS Credit Voucher dtd 01-10-2012 for 134 Spl.CC.16/2017 Rs.12,00,058/-.
Ex.P.296 RTGS Credit Voucher dtd 03-10-2012 for Rs.13,00,000/-.
Ex.P.297 Self cheque dtd. 04-10-2012 for Rs.
1,75,000/-.
Ex.P.298 Yourself cheque dtd. 08-10-2012 for Rs.20,00,058/- for transfer of amount to the account of Swarnagiri Insulations along with RTGS Voucher / application Ex.P.299 Self cheque dtd. 13-10-2012 for Rs. 2.75/-
Lakhs Ex.P.300 Yourself cheque dtd. 21-10-2013 for Rs.
5,93,246/-.
Ex.P.301 Self cheque dtd. 25-10-2012 for Rs.
3,00,000/-.
Ex.P.302 Self cheque dtd. 07-11-2012 for Rs.
3,00,000/-.
Ex.P.303 Yourself cheque dtd. 07-11-2012 for Rs.18,00,000/- for transfer of amount to the account of Paruma Electrik Pvt. Ltd along with RTGS Voucher / application Ex.P.304 Yourself cheque dtd. 07-11-2012 for Rs.
20,00,058/- for transfer of amount to the account of Paruma Electrik Pvt. Ltd along with RTGS Voucher / application Ex.P.305 I.O.B., B.S.K. 2nd stage branch self cheque dtd. 09-11-2012 for Rs. 2,00,000/-
Ex.P.306 I.O.B., credit voucher dtd. 22-11- 2012 showing three amount received by R.T.G.S. Ex.P.307 I.O.B., B.S.K. 2nd stage branch self cheque dtd. 24-11-2012 for Rs. 3,50,000/-
Ex.P.308 I.O.B., credit voucher dtd. 27-11- 2012 showing three amount received by R.T.G.S. 135 Spl.CC.16/2017 Ex.P.309 I.O.B., credit voucher dtd. 19-12- 2012 showing three amount received by R.T.G.S. Ex.P.310 I.O.B., B.S.K. 2nd stage branch yourself cheque dtd. 21-12-2012 for Rs. 10,00,058/- Ex.P.311 I.O.B., credit voucher dtd. 29-12-
2012 showing two amount received by
R.T.G.S.
Ex.P.312 I.O.B., B.S.K. 2nd stage branch self cheque dtd. 31-12-2012 for Rs. 1,00,000/-
Ex.P.313 I.O.B., B.S.K. 2nd stage branch cheque dtd.
31-12-2012 for Rs. 2,00,000/- favoring Maxtel Enterprises.
Ex.P.314 I.O.B., B.S.K. 2nd stage branch cheque dtd.
31-12-2012 for Rs. 90,000/- favoring M.M. Sales Corporation.
Ex.P.315 I.O.B., B.S.K. 2nd stage branch self cheque dtd. 05-03-2013 for Rs. 3,75,000/-
Ex.P.316 I.O.B., credit voucher dtd. 20-03- 2012 showing three amount received by R.T.G.S. Ex.P.317 I.O.B., B.S.K. 2nd stage branch yourself cheque dtd. 21-03-2013 for Rs. 10,08,537/- along with R.T.G.S. application.
Ex.P.318 I.O.B., B.S.K. 2nd stage branch yourself cheque dtd. 27-03-2013 for Rs. 09,68,867/- Ex.P.319 I.O.B., credit voucher dtd. 19-04- 2013 showing Rs. 5,00,000/- received by R.T.G.S. Ex.P.320 I.O.B., B.S.K. 2nd stage branch self cheque dtd. 19-04-2015 for Rs. 5,00,000/-
Ex.P.321 I.O.B., credit voucher dtd. 03-05- 2013 showing three amount received by R.T.G.S. Ex.P.322 I.O.B., credit voucher dtd. 30-05- 2013 showing Rs. 1,50,000/- received 136 Spl.CC.16/2017 through cheque of Panjab and Sindh Bank. Ex.P.323 I.O.B., B.S.K. 2nd stage branch yourself cheque dtd. 06-06-2013 for Rs. 2,40,058/- along with R.T.G.S. application.
Ex.P.324 I.O.B., credit voucher dtd. 26-06- 2013 showing Rs. 1,00,000/- received through cheque of Panjab and Sindh Bank. Ex.P.325 I.O.B., credit voucher dtd. 30-08- 2013 showing Rs. 1,15,000/- received through cheque of Panjab and Sindh Bank. Ex.P.326 I.O.B., credit voucher dtd. 21-09- 2013 showing Rs. 2,25,000/- received through cheque of Panjab and Sindh Bank. Ex.P.327 I.O.B., credit voucher dtd. 03-10- 2013 showing Rs. 7,00,000/- received through cheque of I.O.B. Ex.P.328 I.O.B., credit voucher dtd. 31-10- 2013 showing Rs. 1,15,000/- received through cheque of I.O.B. Ex.P.329 I.O.B., credit voucher dtd. 28-03- 2014 showing two amount received through R.T.G.S. Ex.P.330 I.O.B., credit voucher dtd. 28-04- 2014 for Rs. 1,00,000/- received through cheque of Panjab and Sindh Bank.
Ex.P.331 I.O.B., credit voucher dtd. 29-11- 2014 for Rs. 1,25,000/- .
Ex.P.332 I.O.B., credit voucher dtd. 09-12- 2014 for Rs. 1,25,000/- .
Ex.P.333 I.O.B., Debit voucher dtd. 18-05- 2016 for Rs. 5,35,000/-
Ex.P.348 Statement of account I/R/O. Account No. .....1733 of G.M. Enterprises along with certificate U/sec. 65-B of I.E. Act. Ex.P.335 One bunch containing I.O.B. Cheques and Challans. {D-391 to 427} 137 Spl.CC.16/2017 Ex.P.336 Statement of account in respect of Account No. ........1722 of M/S Maxtel Enterprises along with certificate U/sec. 65-B of I.E. Act. Ex.P.337 One bunch containing I.O.B. Cheques and Challans. {D-428 to 430, 432 to 477} Ex.P.338 Statement of account in respect of Account No. ........1723 of M/S M.M. Sales Corporation along with certificate U/sec. 65-B of I.E. Act. Ex.P.339 I.O.B., B.S.K 2 nd stage branch letter dtd. 30- 05-2016 to the CBI along with C.I.B.I.L reports of 12 firms. (28 Sheets) P.339(a) Signature of PW-47 Ex.P. 340 Attested copies of transfer orders etc. of accused No. 1 to 3. (8 Sheets) P.340(a) Signature of PW-47 Ex.P.341 Proceedings dtd. 01-08-2016 along with 3 photos. (7 Sheets) P.341(a) Signature of PW-47 P.341(b) Photograph in which board of 4C Drug Safety Services is seen.
P.341(b-1) Signature of PW-47 P.341(c) Photograph in which vacant site is seen. P.341(c-1) Signature of PW-47 P. 341(d) Photograph in which two closed shops are seen.
P.341(d-1) Signature of PW-47 P.341(e) Signature of PW.51 Ex.P.342 I.O.B., B.S.K 2 nd stage branch letter dtd. 02-
08-2016 to the CBI regarding submission of statement of accounts P.342(a) Signature of PW-47 Ex.P.343 Statement of account I/R/O. Account No. .....1721 of M/S. G. Hanumanthappa and Sons along with certificate U/sec. 65-B of I.E. Act.
P.343(a) Signature of PW-47
Ex.P.344 Statement of account I/R/O. Account No.
138 Spl.CC.16/2017
.....1730 of Sri. Sai Rice Traders along with certificate U/sec. 65-B of I.E. Act.
P.344(a) Signature of PW-47 Ex.P.345 Statement of account I/R/O. Account No.
.....1731 of N.E.T. 27 Technology along with certificate U/sec. 65-B of I.E. Act.
P.345(a) Signature of PW-47 Ex.P.346 Statement of account I/R/O. Account No.
.....1732 of Sri. Banashankari Interior Works along with certificate U/sec. 65-B of I.E. Act.
P.346(a) Signature of PW-47 Ex.P.347 Statement of account I/R/O. Account No.
.....1741 of Sri. Annapoorneshwari Rice Traders along with certificate U/sec. 65-B of I.E. Act.
P.347(a) Signature of PW-47 Ex.P.348 Statement of account I/R/O. Account No.
.....1745 of Veeresh Provision Store along with certificate U/sec. 65-B of I.E. Act.
P.348(a) Signature of PW-47 Ex.P.349 Statement of account I/R/O. Account No.
.....1750 of M/S. SLN Glass , Plywood and Hardware along with certificate U/sec. 65-B of I.E. Act.
P.349(a) Signature of PW-47 Ex.P.350 Statement of account I/R/O. Account No.
.....1756 of Veerabhadreshwar Stores along with certificate U/sec. 65-B of I.E. Act.
P.350(a) Signature of PW-47 Ex.P. 351 I.O.B., B.S.K 2 nd stage branch letter dtd. 02-
08-2016 to the CBI along with copy of death certificate of Sri. R. Mohan Naidu P.351(a) Signature of PW-47 Ex.P. 352 Receipt memo dtd. 25-08-2016 P. 352(a) Signature of PW-47 P. 352(b) Signature of PW.51 Ex.P. 353 I.O.B. B.S.K. 2nd stage branch cheque referred 139 Spl.CC.16/2017 register from 27-01-2012 to 16-11-2012 Ex.P. 354 I.O.B. B.S.K. 2nd stage branch cheque referred register from 16-11-2012 to 25-01-2014 Ex.P. 355 I.O.B., B.S.K 2 nd stage branch letter dtd. 02- 08-2016 to the CBI along with statement of account of 04 firms. (37 Sheets) P.355(a) Signature of PW-47 Ex.P. 356 Receipt memo dtd. 14-09-2016 P. 356(a) Signature of PW-47 P. 356(b) Signature of PW.51 Ex.P. 357 Attested copies of submission of credit proposal in new board note format. (20 Sheet) P.357(a) Signature of PW-47 Ex.P. 358 One bunch containing D.D. application and cheques {D-527 to 542} Ex.P. 359 One bunch containing Challans and one cheque {D-543 to 552} Ex.P. 360 One bunch containing two D.D. applications and cheque {D-553 to 555} Ex.P. 361 One bunch containing D.D. applications and cheques {D-556 to 560} Ex.P. 362 One bunch containing D.D. applications and one cheque {D-561 to 564} Ex.P. 363 I.O.B., B.S.K 2 nd stage branch statements showing credit limits sanctioned under manager's discretion. (13 Sheets) P.363(a) Signature of PW-47 Ex.P. 364 I.O.B., B.S.K 2 nd stage branch letter dtd. 06- 10-2016 to the CBI along with valuation reports of 12 firms. (57 Sheets) P.364(a) Signature of PW-47 Ex.P. 365 Original sanction order dt.25.11.2006 issued by PW.48.
Ex.P. 365(a) Signature of PW.48 Ex.P. 366 Hand writing Expert's opinion dt.27.7.2017 140 Spl.CC.16/2017 Ex.P. 366(a) Signature of PW.50 Ex.P. 367 Reasons for opinion Ex.P. 367(a) Signature of PW.50 Ex.P. 368 Original FIR Ex.P. 369 Receipt Memo dt.27.4.2016 Ex.P. 369(a) Signature of PW.51 Ex.P. 370 Receipt Memo dt.10.5.2016 Ex.P. 370(a) Signature of PW.51 Ex.P. 371 Letter dt.12.8.2016 from the Joint Director, CA Institute Chennai to CBI giving addresses of Chartered Accountants.
Ex.P. 372 Specimen Signatures of Jtendra Bhandari (10 sheets) Ex.P. 372(a) Signature of PW.28 Ex.P. 373 Specimen signature of G. Subramanyam in 10 sheets Ex.P. 373(a) Signature of PW.28 Ex.P. 374 10 sheets containing specimen signatures of Smt. Anita Devi Bhandari (S.21 to 30) Ex.P. 374(a) Signature of PW.53 in the 1st page. Ex.P. 375 10 sheets containing specimen signatures of Lalit Kumar Bhandari (S.11 to S.20) Ex.P. 375(a) Signature of PW.53 in the 1st Page. Ex.P. 376 Letter of Indian Overseas Bank dt.15.9.2016 Signature of PW.44 Ex.P. 377 One DD for Rs.1,96,000/- dt.10.12.2012 Ex.P. 378 One DD for Rs.35,000/- dt.10.12.2012 Ex.P. 379 One DD for Rs.7,300/- dt.18.8.2012 Ex.P. 380 One DD for Rs.7,300/- dt.21.8.2012 Ex.P. 381 One DD for Rs.7,300/- dt.21.8.2012 Ex.P. 382 One DD for Rs.15,200/- dt.18.1.2013 Ex.P. 383 One DD for Rs.1,15,360/- dt.25.6.2012 Ex.P. 384 One DD for Rs.1,15,360/- dt.25.6.2012 141 Spl.CC.16/2017 Ex.P. 385 One DD for Rs.20,600/- dt.25.6.2012 Ex.P. 386 One DD for Rs.20,600/- dt.25.6.2012 Ex.P. 387 to One DD for Rs.9,00,000/- dt.25.6.2012 389 Ex.P. 390 One DD for Rs.8,88,000/- dt.25.6.2012 Ex.P. 391, One DD for Rs.4,900/- dt.7.8.2012 392 Ex.P. 393 Receipt Memo dt.25.10.2016 Ex.P. 394 Documents (5 sheets) file pertaining to G.M.Enterprises.
Ex.P. 395 VAT 1 documents of Lalith Kumar Bhandari M/s. M.M.Sales Corporation File (12 sheets) Ex.P. 396 One file of M/s. Maxtel Enterprises VAT-7 FORM documents / Maxtel Enterprises (39 sheets) LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE SIDE:
Exhibit Number Description Ex.D1 to D6 Relevant portions of statement of CW.5/PW.3 recorded U/Sec.161 of Cr.P.C.
[Manjunath Sangreshi] XXI Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge & Prl.Special Judge for CBI Cases Bengaluru.
***** MANJUNATH SANGRESHI Digitally signed by MANJUNATH SANGRESHI Date: 2026.04.29 17:42:29 +0530