Delhi District Court
Rc No. 3(A)/98 Cc Nos.63/11, 91/11 & ... vs . Praveen Kumar Gupta 1/ 63 on 5 November, 2011
IN THE COURT OF ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
SPECIAL JUDGE (CBI-08)
TIS HAZARI COURTS , DELHI
CC No.: 63/11 (old CC no. 89/01)
91/11 (old CC no. 90/01)
89/11 (old CC no. 93/01)
RC No. : 3(A)/98
PS : CBI/ACU/New Delhi
CBI
Vs.
Praveen Kr. Gupta
S/o Sh. Rameshwar Dayal Gupta
R/o 9713F, Gali Neem Wali
Nawab Ganj, Delhi-06 ........Accused
Date of FIR 16.07.1998
Date of filing chargesheet 04.07.2000
Arguments heard on 05.11.2011
Judgement passed on 05.11.2011
Case more than 10 years old
JUDGEMENT
1. FIRST INFORMATION REPORT A complaint dated 16.07.98 was lodged by Sh. S.K. Abrol, (PW-1) Divisional Manager, Vigilance, Syndicate Bank regarding the fraud committed in Stock Invest Accounts at Asaf Ali Road Branch of Syndicate Bank, Delhi. It was alleged in complaint RC no. 3(A)/98 CC Nos.63/11, 91/11 & 89/11 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta 1/ 63 that accused Praveen Kumar Gupta (Clerk) was handling the work relating to Stock Invest Department since the inception of this scheme in June, 1992 till around 05.08.1997 though he was officially entrusted with the work in Stock Invest Department only for a brief period on two occasions. Further accused had opened nine stock invest accounts in his 'name' / 'family members and friends' at the branch and also merged six stock invest accounts with some other stock invest accounts against the rules of the scheme and operated these merged accounts. Also a large number of 'Stock Invest' were issued in accounts although they had very meager nominal credit balances. It was further alleged that 418 Stock Invest instruments were in unauthorised possession of accused Praveen Kumar Gupta which were surrendered by him to the Chief Manager on 02.08.97, when the fraud came to light. Accused Praveen Kumar Gupta is alleged to have resorted to manipulation / falsification of bank records and paid inflated interest on surrendered stock invests / outstanding credit balances in stock invest accounts and the siphoned off amount was suspected to be around 37.12 lacs. Aspersions were also cast on Smt. Sneh Gupta, who was the Supervisory Officer in the Stock Invest Department during the period 01.08.92 to 07.06.97, for failing to take due care and caution.
It may be appropriate to mention at this stage itself that though Sneh Gupta was named in the FIR but after investigation, the prosecution came to the conclusion in the chargesheet that RC no. 3(A)/98 CC Nos.63/11, 91/11 & 89/11 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta 2/ 63 there was insufficient evidence against Smt. Sneh Gupta and the offence was committed by Praveen Gupta by fraudulently or dishonestly getting her signatures. As such, her name was kept in column no.2 and was also cited as witness by the prosecution.
2. BACKGROUND FACTS As per case of prosecution, accused Praveen Gupta, opened a Saving Bank Account no. 26472 in the name of his mother Rama Rani Gupta and brother Pramod Kumar Gupta. However this account was not signed by either Smt. Rama Rani Gupta or Pramod Kumar Gupta and their signatures were forged on 'account opening form' and 'specimen signature cards'. Subsequently, accused Praveen Gupta and his wife Rajni Gupta also joined the above SB Account and thus account became 'joint account' of 4 persons i.e. Praveen Gupta, his wife Rajni Gupta and containing forged signatures of Rama Rani Gupta and brother Pramod Kumar Gupta.
Investigation further revealed that a 'Stock Invest Account no. 310' was also opened in the bank in the name of Smt. Rama Rani Gupta (mother of accused) and Sh. Pramod Kumar Gupta (brother of accused Praveen Gupta) but the account opening forms were not available in the bank. Further Smt. Rama Rani Gupta (mother of accused) and Pramod Kumar Gupta (brother of accused) had no knowledge about such SI Account no.
RC no. 3(A)/98 CC Nos.63/11, 91/11 & 89/11 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta 3/ 63 310 and this account was also fictitious which was being operated by accused Praveen Gupta.
3. BRIEF DETAILS OF 10 CHARGESHEETS FILED AGAINST ACCUSED At this stage, it may also be appropriate to mention that in respect of the fraud committed by the accused in respect of stock invest instruments, 10 separate chargesheets were filed by the prosecution. Further, common witnesses and documents have been relied in the cases. Vide order dated 28.05.2004 passed by the Ld. Predecessor, the 10 chargesheets were clubbed in four separate sets of cases. The first set of cases consists of CC no. 89/01 (new CC no. 63/11), 90/01 (new CC no.91/11) and 93/01 (new CC no.89/11). The second set of cases consists of CC no. 98/01 (new CC no.90/11), 91/01 (new CC no.66/11) and 94/01 (new CC no.65/11). The third set consists of CC no. 96/01 (new CC no.67/11), 95/01 (new CC no.64/11) and 97/01 (new CC no. 88/11). The fourth set consisted of CC no. 92/01. The evidence was further directed to be recorded in CC no. 89/01 (new CC no. 63/11), 98/01 (new CC no.90/11), 96/01 (new CC no.67/11) and 92/01.
4. CHARGE AGAINST THE ACCUSED The charge and facts in respective CC no. 89/01 (new CC no. 63/11), 90/01 (new CC no. 91/11) and 93/01 (89/11) are RC no. 3(A)/98 CC Nos.63/11, 91/11 & 89/11 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta 4/ 63 herein referred in brief for appreciation of facts in all the three cases to be disposed by this common judgement.
(a) In CC no. 63/11, the accused was charged for theft of stock investment no. 514128 which had already been encashed on 01.04.97 u/s 381 IPC. Further, the accused dishonestly induced the bank to credit Rs. 28,234/- to the joint saving bank account no. 26472 in name of Smt. Rama Rani Gupta (mother of accused) and Pramod Kumar Gupta (brother of accused) by re-submitting the stock instrument no. 514128 on 26.04.97, 30.04.97, 02.05.97 though the same had already been encashed on 01.04.97 and was charged u/s 420 IPC. The accused was further charged for falsification of accounts u/s 477-A IPC and for criminal misconduct by public servant u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988.
(b) In CC no. 91/11 the accused was charged for theft of stock investment no. 514176 which had already been encashed on 04.04.1997 u/s 381 IPC. Further, the accused dishonestly induced the bank to credit Rs. 25,683/- to the joint saving bank account no. 26472 in name of Smt. Rama Rani Gupta (mother of accused) and Pramod Kumar Gupta (brother of accused) by re-submitting the stock instrument no.514176 on 30.04.1997, 02.05.1997 and 08.05.1997 though the same had already been encashed on 04.04.1997 and was charged u/s 420 RC no. 3(A)/98 CC Nos.63/11, 91/11 & 89/11 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta 5/ 63 IPC. The accused was further charged for forging signature of Pramod Kumar Gupta in Stock Invest instrument 514176 for purpose of cheating u/s 468 IPC. The accused was also charged for fraudulently using as genuine Stock Invest instrument no. 514176 alongwith debit slips, credit slips and interest on debit slips as genuine u/s 471 IPC. The accused was further charged for falsification of accounts u/s 477-A IPC and for criminal misconduct by public servant u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988.
(c) In CC no. 89/11 the accused was charged for theft of stock investment no. 514472 which had already been encashed on 25.04.1997 u/s 381 IPC. Further, the accused dishonestly induced the bank to credit Rs. 52,106/- to the joint saving bank account no. 26472 in name of Smt. Rama Rani Gupta (mother of accused) and Pramod Kumar Gupta (brother of accused) by re-submitting the stock instrument no. 514472 on 06.05.1997, 14.05.1997 and 12.06.1997 though the same had already been encashed on 25.04.1997 and was charged u/s 420 IPC. The accused was also charged for fraudulently using as genuine Stock Invest instrument no. 514472 alongwith debit slips, credit slips and interest on debit slips as genuine u/s 471 IPC. The accused was further charged for falsification of accounts u/s 477-A IPC and for criminal misconduct by public servant u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988.
RC no. 3(A)/98 CC Nos.63/11, 91/11 & 89/11 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta 6/ 63
5. BRIEF REFERENCE TO THE WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE PROSECUTION AND THE EVIDENCE LED ON RECORD Accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial. Prosecution in support of its case examined 19 witnesses namely.
PW-1 Sh. Sudarshan Kumar Abrol, Regional Manager, Syndicate Bank, Pune, PW-2 Sh. Mohender Pal Singh, PW-3 Sh. P. Rangnath Prabhu, (Retd.), Chief Manager, PW-4 Ms. Madhu Bansal, Asstt. Manager, Syndicate Bank, PW-5 Sh. Prem Nath Malhotra, Chief Manager, Syndicate Bank, PW-6 Sh. Pramod Kumar Gupta (brother of accused Praveen Kumar Gupta), PW-7 Smt. Rajni Gupta, wife of accused Praveen Kumar Gupta, PW-8 Smt. Rama Rani Gupta (mother of accused Praveen Kumar Gupta), PW-9 Smt. Jahanara, PW-10 Sh. Arman-Ullah-Qureshi, PW-11 Sh. Basant Kumar, PW-12 Sh. Jaswant Singh Bhagi, PW-13 Dr. Swaraj Garg (sister of accused Praveen Kumar Gupta), PW-14 Dr. P.D. Garg, PW-15 Mrs. Sneh Gupta, PW-16 Sh. K.V. Sheshagiri, PW-17 Dr. Ravindra Sharma, PW-18 Sh. V.M. Holla, PW-19 Sh. J.S. Emmanuel.
6. PW-1 Sh. Sudarshan Kumar Abrol, PW-2 Sh.
Mohender Pal, PW-3 Sh. P. Rangnath Prabhu, PW-4 Ms. Madhu Bansal, PW-5 Sh. Prem Nath Arora, PW-12 Sh. Jaswant Singh Bhagi, PW-15 Ms. Sneh Gupta, PW-16 Sh. K.V. Sheshagiri and RC no. 3(A)/98 CC Nos.63/11, 91/11 & 89/11 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta 7/ 63 PW-18 Sh. V.M. Holla are the witnesses from the bank and deposed regarding the operation of the stock invest scheme and also proved various entries and other documents relating to the transactions in question.
PW-1 Sh. Sudarshan Kumar Abrol was working in the Vigilance Department of Syndicate Bank and had conducted the investigation at Asaf Ali Road Branch of Syndicate Bank after the irregularities were detected. He stated that Praveen Kumar Gupta was working as clerk at Asaf Ali Branch and was handling stock invest department work, even though officially he was entrusted with this work for short durations. Further accused Praveen Kumar Gupta had opened about 9 stock invest accounts and about 11 saving bank and overdraft accounts in his name and in the names of his close family members. The transactions running into thousands in number and of several lakhs were put through these accounts which were apparently looking to be quite disproportionate to the known sources of income of Praveen Kumar Gupta. It was also revealed that against one credit entry of a particular stock invest account there used to be multiple debits and at all times interest was also being paid. In the process Praveen Kumar Gupta was having huge financial benefits at the cost of bank for himself and for close family members. He further proved the complaint lodged with CBI, New Delhi Ex.PW1/A original of which is placed in old CC no. 92/01 in which the accused was convicted and copies in the remaining nine files. He further stated that all transactions were authorized by concerned officer Sneh Gupta and departmental action was initiated against both Praveen Kumar Gupta and Sneh Gupta. He further proved the seizure memo Ex.PW1/B (D-63) vide which the documents were seized by CBI (original filed in old CC no. 92/01 and copies placed in remaining 9 files). He further stated that copies of documents relating to proceedings of departmental action against Praveen Kumar Gupta and Sneh Gupta were handed over vide letter dated 03.12.1998 and the same were collectively exhibited as Ex.PW1/C. The certified copies of circulars relating to stock invest scheme of the bank handed over vide letter dated 17.06.99 were proved as Ex.PW1/D. RC no. 3(A)/98 CC Nos.63/11, 91/11 & 89/11 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta 8/ 63 PW-2 Sh. Mohender Pal during the period 01.01.97 to 01.06.97 was posted as Clerk in the Deposit Section of Syndicate Bank and proved various documents and entries. He proved letter dated 25.09.1999 (Ex.PW2/A) issued by Chief Manager vide which he was posted in Deposit Section for the above period. He further stated that the main function of Deposit Section was to receive deposits from the customer against receipts and other departments attached with Deposit Section like stock invest, cumulative deposit department, issuing of DD and pay orders etc. Further he was posted in stock invest section but never worked there. He further deposed that since the beginning of stock invest department, Sh. Praveen Kumar Gupta was working and handling the section and proved the stock invest register maintained in the bank by the accused (Ex.PW2/B). He proved the various entries made by the accused in the register as detailed in the examination and after seeing the entire register Ex.PW2/B deposed that he could say that almost all the entries in the register are in handwriting of accused P.K. Gupta which used to be intialled by the concerned officer. He further stated that documents D-3 to D-39 were prepared by accused Praveen Kumar Gupta and signed by concerned officer and the same were further exhibited as Ex.PW2/C-1 to Ex.PW2/C-34. The original of the said documents are placed in old CC no. 89/01. He also proved documents Ex.PW2/D-1 to Ex.PW2/D-14, the original of which are placed in CC no. 90/01 and stated that the same were in handwriting of P.K. Gupta. He also proved 36 documents (33 in original) and 3 photocopies placed in CC no. 93/01 as Ex.PW E-1 to Ex.PW E-36 and stated that the same were in handwriting of accused. The 47 documents (36 in original and 11 photocopies in CC no. 94/01) were proved as Ex.PW2/F-1 to Ex.PW2/F-47 and stated to be in handwriting of accused. The 41 documents (40 in original and 1 photocopy in CC no. 98/01) were proved as Ex.PW2/G-1 to Ex.PW2/G-41 and stated to be in handwriting of accused. The 35 documents (21 in original and 14 photocopies in CC no. 91/01) were proved as Ex.PW2/H-1 to Ex.PW2/H-35 and stated to be in handwriting of accused. The 49 documents (17 in original and 32 photocopies in CC no. 96/01) were proved as Ex.PW2/J-1 to Ex.PW2/J-49 and stated to be in handwriting of accused. The 49 documents (1 in original and 48 photocopies in CC no. 95/01) RC no. 3(A)/98 CC Nos.63/11, 91/11 & 89/11 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta 9/ 63 were proved as Ex.PW2/K-1 to Ex.PW2/K-49 and stated to be in handwriting of accused. The 31 documents (30 in original and 1 photocopy in CC no. 97/01) were proved as Ex.PW2/L-1 to Ex.PW2/L-31 and stated to be in handwriting of accused. The 32 documents (all in original in CC no. 92/01) were proved as Ex.PW2/M-1 to Ex.PW2/M-32 and stated to be in handwriting of accused.
PW-3 Sh. P. Rangnath Prabhu was the Chief Manager of Syndicate Bank, Asaf Ali Branch during 1997 and deposed regarding the procedure relating to Stock Invest Department and handing over of 418 stock invest instruments by accused. He further proved various documents seized by CBI. He stated that the bank had stock invest scheme for the customers who desired to stock in the primary stock market. The procedure was that the customer would submit an application form alongwith a cheque for the required amount and a credit slip for stock invest and submit it to Term Deposit Clerk. After verification, the clerk will submit it to Saving Bank Department who will pass the cheque and the officer concerned, after verifying the cheque and signing the credit slip, will release the slip to the stock invest department. The clerk in stock invest department will enter the slip in the stock invest register and prepare a stock invest instrument for the relative amount. The officer in stock invest department will check the entries and sign the instrument and the instrument is delivered to the customer. The procedure in case shares are not allotted to the customer is that the customer will present the instrument to the bank and request for refund. In case instrument is not found, he can claim it under indemnity letter. On receipt of this, the stock invest clerk will prepare the debit slip for the said amount. He will enter it in the ledger and for the same amount, credit slip is prepared for the customer's saving bank account These entries will be checked by the concerned officer and the amount is credited to saving bank account. The customer can debit the instrument only once to the stock invest account. He further stated that on 30.07.97, Mr. Holla, Officer, Stock Invest Department informed that he had noticed some irregularities in the stock invest amount and after verification he alongwith Mr. Holla were convinced of the irregularities. Further on 01.08.97 he alongwith another officer Mr. Chandermohan called upon accused at his residence and during discussion RC no. 3(A)/98 CC Nos.63/11, 91/11 & 89/11 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta 10/ 63 accused agreed having done some false entries and accepted use of some unused stock invest instruments in his possession. Accused further handed over more than 200 stock invest instruments on that day and subsequently altogether 418 stock investments were surrendered at the branch alongwith letter. The letter alongwith list of unused instruments were proved as Ex.PW3/A (colly) and the list of 418 stock investment instruments was proved as Ex.PW3/B. The matter was stated to have been further reported to higher authority i.e. General Manager, Zonal Office vide letter Ex.PW3/C. He further proved the documents handed over to CBI vide letter Ex.PW3/D, Ex.PW2/A, Ex.PW3/F. PW-4 Ms. Madhu Bansal also worked in Syndicate Bank, Asaf Ali Branch during 1991-1998 and deposed regarding the procedure followed in the bank regarding stock invest instruments and also proved various documents relating to the transactions. PW-4 Ms. Madhu Bansal stated that she has worked about 08-09 months in the Stocks Department in the year 1994 and at the aforesaid time, Rekha Gupta and Praveen Gupta had worked in the said section. She further explained the procedure for debiting the SI account and stated that the customer had to fill up a form for opening stock investment account. Thereafter it was the choice of the customer either to deposit a cheque from his saving account or deposit by debit slip or by cash. The customer was required to write on the back of the debit slip to debit the account for rupees so and so and thereafter sign it. The saving account was accordingly debited and she used to sign on debit and credit scheme slip. After entering in transfer scroll the credit slip would go to SI account and debit slip would come back to her. Thereafter SI slip would go to SI department and the slip would be entered by SI clerk in SI ledger. Then officer would authenticate all the entries. After the entry it was the duty of the officer to pass the slips after checking whether stock leaf is in proper order or not. After preparation of stock investment instrument and authorised by officer it was delivered to the customer for obtaining signature at the back of the credit slip of stock investment. If the SI instrument remained unutilised, then the customer had to give indemnity bond and also sign on the back of debit slip and thereafter the RC no. 3(A)/98 CC Nos.63/11, 91/11 & 89/11 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta 11/ 63 instrument was cancelled and the amount was credited in the savings account of customer. However if the SI instrument was less than Rs.10,000/-, the indemnity bond was not necessary. Further when the SI instrument was presented for cancellation, the SI clerk calculated the interest and prepared the debit slip to debit the SI account and credit slip for crediting the same in his account. Also on the SI slip "cancelled" was written with date and it was signed by the officer. Further it was also rounded in the ledger. She further proved the certified copy of statement of savings bank account no. 26472 (Ex.PW4/A) placed in CC no. 92/01 with photocopies in other cases. She further identified the debit slip Ex.PW2/C-13 raised by accused for issuing stock invest instruments and also stated that instruments which were debited on 02.05.97 are mentioned on page no. 104 of Ex.PW2/B and which also included the SI instrument no. 514128. She further clarified that this instrument could not have been debited twice i.e. on 26.04.97 or 02.05.97. She further identified the debit slip of saving bank account no. 264712 (Ex.PW2/M-13) credit slip Ex.PW2/M-17, stock investment debit slip (Ex.PW2/M-2) by which stock investment account no. 310 and other accounts were debited and also identified the other entries made by the accused as detailed in the statement. She also identified Ex.PW2/M-9 by which SB account no. 26472 was credited in handwriting of accused Praveen Kumar Gupta, debit slip Ex.PW2/M-3, debit slip Ex.PW2/M-6, credit slip Ex.PW2/M-10, debit slip Ex.PW2/M-4, debit slip Ex.PW2/M-15 for savings bank account no. 26472 for Rs. 26,500/-. Similarly she also identified debit slip Ex.PW2/M-5 in handwriting of accused whereby he debited stock investment account no. 310. She further stated that accused Praveen Kumar Gupta debited interest of Rs. 2,415/- as per document Ex.PW2/M-8 and on the reverse the accused had shown interest debited from stock investment account no. 310 as Rs. 1543/- instead of 579. She also deposed that credit slip dated 29.03.97 Ex.PW2/M-12 was prepared by accused to credit Rs. 27543/- but the amount was not correctly debited by accused and he had in fact debited excess amount of interest and this was the modus operandi of the accused in all other instruments.
PW-5 Sh. Prem Nath Malhotra ,Chief Manager, Syndicate RC no. 3(A)/98 CC Nos.63/11, 91/11 & 89/11 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta 12/ 63 Bank deposed that he was posted as Senior Manager in Syndicate Bank, Asaf Ali Road Branch in May - June, 1999 and came to know about the stock investment case. Further he produced certain bank records vide letter dated 18.10.1999 (Ex.PW5/A). He further stated that Sr. Manager and Cash Officer are jointly custodian of security items like cash, cheque books, stock invest etc and also proved the copy of stock invest register of special and security items (D-47) duly certified by him (Ex.PW5/B). He also proved the copy and office order book (D-48) (Ex.PW5/C), circular (D-46) (Ex.PW5/D) issued by the Planning Department.
PW-12 Sh. Jaswant Singh Bhagi was posted as clerk in the Asaf Ali Road Branch, Syndicate Bank in 1995. He also deposed regarding the procedure followed for stock invest account and proved various documents relating to the transactions.
PW-15 Ms. Sneh Gupta was posted during the period 1992-1997 as Astt. Manager in Stock Invest Department and was Supervisory Officer and proved the various entries and documents relating to transactions as relied by the prosecution. She is the star witness of the prosecution since she worked as Supervisory Officer and the accused had worked under her. She stated that after receiving stock investment, she used to entrust the instruments to the concerned clerk. She further stated that the accused re-circulated the used instruments many times. She also clarified that where the Stock Investment is issued and when the particular Stock Investment is debited, it should be rounded of at the place of issued and initialed by officer. She further stated that she could not put initials with date in the entry of issuance of the particular Stock Invest Instruments since the scheme was new and she was ignorant and also trusted the accused. Further she could not check properly for the reasons that they belong to staff members and she was busy in other work and was overloaded. She also explained that the instrument was re-circulated because he did not initial with date as it was removed from the employer's custody.
PW-16 Sh. K.V. Sheshagiri was posted in the branch as Sr. Manager during the period June 1995 to July 1995. He stated that after some RC no. 3(A)/98 CC Nos.63/11, 91/11 & 89/11 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta 13/ 63 irregularities were noticed in Stock Invest operations, the accused was called and he accepted that he had committed some irregularities and also produced some Stock Invest Instruments which he was holding at that time as per list Ex.PW3/B. He also further explained the irregularities with respect to Stock Invest instruments and stated that accused instead of surrendering the instruments, used to debit on debit slips. He further stated that general ledger is maintained to know the correct balance in a particular head of account and balancing register is maintained to know the balance in individual account. He also clarified during cross-examination that security instrument remains under the lock and key of the concerned officer and is a security item.
PW-18 Sh. V.M. Holla was posted at Asaf Ali Road Branch from 11.06.97 to 31.7.1999 and deposed regarding the procedure related to stock invest account. He also proved various documents relating to the transactions relied by the prosecution. He also stated that after giving the debit for first time, any further debit on the same Stock Instrument and interest thereon is fraudulent. He further stated that in July 1997, on finding discrepancy he verified accounts of Praveen Kumar Gupta and brought the same to notice of senior functionaries. He further stated that on scrutiny it was found that Praveen Kumar Gupta was making fraudulent multiple debits of SI and also taking interest. He also clarified that Praveen Kumar Gupta used to round of the SI number on the date when it was issued but did not put the date of cancellation and it was easy for him to represent. He also proved the various debit / credit slips and the entries made in various transactions.
7. PW-6 Sh. Pramod Kumar Gupta, brother of accused, PW-7 Smt. Rajni Gupta (wife of accused), PW-8 Smt. Rama Rani Gupta (mother of accused), PW-9 Jahan Ara, PW-10 Armanullah Quereshi, PW-13 Dr. Swaraj Garg (sister of accused), PW-14 Dr. P.D. Garg (brother-in-law of accused) are the witnesses in whose name the various accounts were opened in the Syndicate Bank, RC no. 3(A)/98 CC Nos.63/11, 91/11 & 89/11 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta 14/ 63 Asaf Ali Road Branch and are alleged to have been operated by the accused.
(I) PW-6 Sh. Pramod Kumar Gupta stated that accused Praveen Kumar Gupta is his real brother. He further stated that he had only gone to the bank for opening the account and signed the account opening form. He used to only sign but account was operated by his brother who was working in the branch and also identified the application dated 25.11.1992 for stock invest account 228 Ex.PW6/A bearing his signatures at point A. He further stated that specimen signature card Ex.PW6/B had been signed by him. However he denied his signatures on D-37 Mark PW6/A. He further admitted his signatures on letter (D-55) Ex.PW6/C but stated that it was not in his handwriting. He also deposed that cheque book and passbook of his account were collected by his brother which used to remain in the almirah and he used to sign the cheque whenever requested. He further stated that he could not admit or deny if the signature on account opening form Ex.PW6/D were in his hand. This witness was cross-examined by Ld. PP for CBI and denied the suggestion that he had wrongly identified his signatures on the documents which were not signed by him.
(ii) PW-7 Smt. Rajni Gupta (wife of accused) also did not support the prosecution and was cross-examined by Ld. PP for CBI.
(iii) PW-8 Smt. Rama Rani Gupta (mother of accused) also did not support the case of prosecution and was cross-examined by Ld. PP for CBI. She stated that she had opened an account no. 25895 at Syndicate Bank, Asaf Ali Road Branch and identified her signatures on account opening form Ex.PW8/A, specimen signature card (Ex.D-38) Ex.PW8/B and on specimen signature card of account no. 26472 Ex.PW8/D alongwith account opening form Ex.PW6/D. She denied the suggestion that she had made a statement to the IO RC no. 3(A)/98 CC Nos.63/11, 91/11 & 89/11 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta 15/ 63 denying her signatures on all the above documents.
(iv) PW-9 Smt. Jahan Ara was also cross-examined on behalf of Ld. PP for CBI as she did not support the case of prosecution. She stated that she did not know about any stock investment transaction conducted by her in Syndicate Bank, Asaf Ali Road Branch. She further identified her signatures on SI application form Ex.PW9/A in chargesheet no.8 and specimen signature card Ex.PW9/B. She further stated that she could not say if she had signed the document D-31 and denied having known the accused. During cross- examination, she denied having made a statement to CBI admitting her signatures on D-31.
(v) PW-10 Sh. Armanullah Quereshi stated that he knew the accused and was having the salary account in the Syndicate Bank, Asaf Ali Road Branch. He further identified his signatures on account opening form Ex.PW10/A, specimen signature card Ex.PW10/B. He further stated that subsequently his wife joined as joint holder of this account and identified her signature on Ex.PW9/A. He further identified his signatures on SI account opening form (D-62) Ex.PW10/C which was filled by accused Praveen Kumar Gupta . He further stated that he did not give any money to accused for purchasing share or for stock investment and he used to withdraw the salary received in the account. He further stated that accused had conducted share transactions from his account and after the cases, he was informed about the share transactions by the Manager and had closed the same as advised the Manager. He further denied his signatures on document D-30 and stated that share transactions were not to his knowledge.
(vi)PW-13 Dr. Swaraj Garg stated that accused Praveen Kumar is her brother. She further identified the application form Ex.PW13/A vide RC no. 3(A)/98 CC Nos.63/11, 91/11 & 89/11 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta 16/ 63 which the account had been opened and also identified her signatures. She further stated that her brother Praveen Kumar was operating the account after getting her signatures on documents and she did not visit the bank. She also identified the application form for opening Stock Invest Account Ex.PW13/B and also identified her signatures. She further stated that she became joint holder of the account alongwith her mother and brother and made a request vide letter Ex.PW13/C. This witness was cross-examined by Ld. PP and denied the suggestion by the prosecution that the letter of request Ex.PW13/C and Ex.PW2/L-1 had not been signed by her.
(vii) PW-14 Dr. P.D. Garg stated that accused Praveen Kumar is brother of his wife. He further stated that specimen signature card pertaining to account no. 25895 Ex.PW14/A was signed by his wife. He further stated that he had opened Stock Invest account in Syndicate Bank and accused was conducting transactions on his behalf. This witness was also cross-examined on behalf of prosecution and he denied the suggestion that Ex.PW14/A i.e. the specimen signature card was not signed by his wife.
8. PW-11 Sh. Basant Kumar stated that specimen signature of Praveen Kumar Gupta were taken in his presence and identified his signatures on document D-76 Ex.PW11/A which also contained the specimen signature of accused. He also identified specimen signature of accused taken on 17.01.2000 on D-78, 79, 80, 81, 82 (in chargesheet no. 1) (Ex.PW11/B to F). Similarly he identified his signatures on Ex.PW11/G, Ex.PW11/H, Ex.PW11/J and Ex.PW6/E.
9. PW-17 Dr. Ravinder Sharma, Assistant Government Examiner proved his opinion Ex.PW17/A with respect to the handwriting on the documents forwarded for examination by CBI.
RC no. 3(A)/98 CC Nos.63/11, 91/11 & 89/11 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta 17/ 63 PW-19 Sh. J.S. Emanuel (IO) deposed regarding the conduct of investigation and proved various documents as relied by prosecution.
10. STAND OF ACCUSED IN STATEMENT U/S 313 Cr.PC and DEFENCE EVIDENCE Accused in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. admitted that he was entrusted with work of Stock Invest Department and had handled work pertaining there to. He further submitted that the 9 Stock Invest account and 11 Saving Bank and Overdraft accounts were opened in his name and in the name of close family members. He further took a stand that entries in Stock Invest accounts were made under guidance of superiors and it was checked by them and further denied having made any financial benefit out of the transactions. He further submitted that he had been falsely implicated in this case since he had pointed out the irregularities in the bank.
Accused further led evidence of DW-1 Sh. Prabhat Verma, Sr. Manager, Syndicate Bank and also examined himself as DW-2.
DW-1 Sh. Prabhat Verma produced the Stock Invest issue / paid register for the period 08.10.1993 to 09.03.1996 as desired by accused. He further stated that balancing book from 01.01.1993 to 01.08.1997 were not available. He further proved letter dated 07.08.1997 specifying the persons who were posted in Stock Invest Department Ex.DW1/B. He also produced the Office Order Book for the period 07.01.1995 till 31.05.2002 which reflected the orders issued in the bank for the working of officials posted in various departments.
RC no. 3(A)/98 CC Nos.63/11, 91/11 & 89/11 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta 18/ 63 He also stated that the sub-day book of the Stock Invest Department from 01.01.1993 to 01.08.1997 was not traceable. The photocopy of bank circulars pertaining to Stock Invest Scheme dated 01.10.1994, 01.12.1992, 14.08.1992 and 05.06.1992 were further collectively proved as Ex.DW1/E. DW-2 Praveen Kumar Gupta (accused) proved the copy of letter of appointment and confirmation letter Ex.DW2/1 and Ex.DW2/2. He further stated that he was officially entrusted work of Stock Invest Department from 01.12.1995 to 30.06.1996 and from 02.06.1997 to 06.08.1997. He further detailed the procedure for issue of Stock Invest Instrument. He further stated that the Stock Invest account was in four names ie. Rama Rani Gupta, Rajni Gupta, Praveen Gupta and P.K. Gupta. Further his mother was residing with his brother Pramod Kumar Gupta at Tri Nagar while he was residing at Nawab Ganj. He also stated that the account opening form of account no. 26472 at the time of opening was signed by his mother Smt. Rama Rani Gupta and his brother P.K. Gupta. He further stated that no complaint was ever made by any joint account holder in case the account had been wrongly operated. He further filed the certified copy of Stock Invest account no. 310 (2 pages - Ex.DW2/3) and photocopy of balancing or Stock Invest Head at Asaf Ali Road branch D-1901, dated 25.09.2007 (Mark DB). He further claimed that Stock Invest Account was debited irregularly after seven months of payment without the physical presentation of original Stock Invest Instrument and without informing the other joint account holders. He also stated that there had been no loss to the bank in any manner and no instrument was used actually for multiple debit. He further claimed that he was working on another seat in the bank but was deputed to maintain the registers and the case had been wrongly instituted against him though he had pointed out the irregularities relating to Stock Invest Instruments.
11. SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED AND LD. PP FOR CBI I have heard counsel for accused and Ld. PP for CBI RC no. 3(A)/98 CC Nos.63/11, 91/11 & 89/11 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta 19/ 63 and perused the record. Counsel for accused has assailed the case of prosecution on various grounds.
Accused claimed that he was not working in the Stock Invest department and further disputed the credit entries with respect to respective stock invest instruments alleged to have been encashed repeatedly. Counsel for accused further contended that accused was working in the Clearing Section of the Branch and was only preparing the statement / credit / debit slips as per the calculations made by the concerned officials posted in the stock invest department and had no occasion to check or re- calculate the calculations made by the concerned official in stock invest department. It was also urged that the entire work in the stock invest department was under the supervision of the senior officers and he had been made a scapegoat though the work was checked by the concerned officers. It was also contended that the concerned debit and credit slips were never in his possession in the bank and any error in calculations cannot be attributed to him. It was further urged that though another officer Smt. Sneh Gupta and others were accused by CBI in the initial complaint but no investigation had been conducted qua their role by CBI. It was further submitted that the bank had failed to produce the balancing book maintained by the bank which could reflect that the balance was reconciled for any particular day. Counsel for accused also relied upon photocopy of judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal no. 1477 of 2004 Mir Nagvi Askari RC no. 3(A)/98 CC Nos.63/11, 91/11 & 89/11 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta 20/ 63 Versus CBI decided on 07.08.2009.
On the other hand, Ld. PP for CBI relied upon testimony of witnesses and the circumstances as proved in evidence. He also submitted that the accused being in dominion over the Stock Invest instruments wrongly credited the same Stock Invest instrument repeatedly and also wrongly enhanced the interest or the amount to be credited on any particular day.
12. REFERENCE TO CC NO. 92/01(OLD) WHEREIN ACCUSED STANDS CONVICTED IN ONE OF THE CHARGESHEETS.
It may be pointed out that the accused stands convicted u/s 420, 468, 471, 477-A IPC and 13(1)(d) r/w Sec 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 vide judgement dated 13.08.2010 passed by Sh. P.K. Saxena, Spl. Judge, CBI in CC no. 92/01 (old) out of the 10 chargesheets filed against the accused. In the aforesaid case the accused obtained refund of Rs. 9,000/- with interest in respect of stock invest instrument Ex.PW2/M-1 (no. 514050 dated 15.01.97) and re-submitted the same on 12.03.97, 18.03.97, 29.03.97. The proceeds were credited in SB account no. 26472.
RC no. 3(A)/98 CC Nos.63/11, 91/11 & 89/11 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta 21/ 63
13. Public servant and sanction u/s 19 PC Act, 1988 There appears to be no dispute to the fact that the accused is a "public servant' within meaning of Section 2(C) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 at the time of commission of offence since the accused was working as clerk in Syndicate Bank, Asaf Ali Road Branch, Delhi. The same has been duly proved in the deposition of PW-1 Sudershan Lal, Regional Manager, Syndicate Bank as well as is also admitted by the accused.
It has also been pointed out by the prosecution that the accused was dismissed from service before the filing of chargesheet which is admitted by the accused. However it is submitted on behalf of accused that the fact of dismissal has not been proved by leading evidence on record. It may be noticed that the fact of dismissal is not disputed by accused and neither any evidence to the contrary has been led on record by the accused. Even the witnesses do not appear to have been cross- examined to suggest that the accused had not been dismissed from service. In the facts and circumstances, since the accused stood dismissed from service, there does not exist any necessity for obtaining the sanction u/s 19 of the PC Act, 1988.
14. STOCK INVEST SCHEME At this stage itself a brief reference may be made to the 'Stock RC no. 3(A)/98 CC Nos.63/11, 91/11 & 89/11 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta 22/ 63 Invest Scheme' to understand the nature of fraud. The scheme of 'Stock Invest' was introduced in the year 1992 in the Syndicate Bank and under the scheme, customers who wanted to purchase shares from some public limited company were required to make payment through Stock Invest (SI) instrument to the company in place of a draft or cheque. The stock invest instrument was treated as 'fixed deposit receipt' and an interest upto 4 months or 'date of payment', which ever was earlier, was paid to the SI account holders on the face value of SI instruments. The customer was also required to open a savings bank account in the bank. Further the customer desirous to purchase shares, was required to submit an application to the SI clerk to get debited the amount in his SB Account and transfer the same to the stock invest account for the issuance of stock invest (SI) instruments. Further debit and credit slips were prepared by the SI clerk and accordingly saving bank clerk debited the amounts and forwarded the corresponding credit slip alongwith debit slips to the stock invest section. In the stock invest section, the dealing clerk entered the amount in stock invest amount ledger, and gave date and prepared stock invest instrument and put up the same to the Asst. Manager in-charge of the SI section who scrutinized the entries made in the SI Account ledger, SI instrument and credit slip and if found correct, passed the SI Account entries, credit slips and also the SI instrument for issuance. Then the dealing clerk issued the SI instrument in favour of company which sold the share/debenture as per request RC no. 3(A)/98 CC Nos.63/11, 91/11 & 89/11 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta 23/ 63 made by the customer. He also took signatures of the customer (SI account holder) on the SI instrument itself at the time of issuing SI and handed over the same to SI Account Holder. If the SI Account holder was not allotted shares by the payee company, then the SI instrument was sent back to the SI Account holder who presented the same to the bank for payment and the amount of the SI instrument and interest thereon was transferred to the saving bank account of the customer.
15. FORGERY OF ACCOUNT OPENING FORM As per case of prosecution, investigation revealed that accused Praveen Gupta had opened Saving Bank account no. 26472 in the name of his mother Rama Rani Gupta and brother Pramod Kumar Gupta. It is alleged that the account was not signed either by Rama Rani Gupta or Pramod Kumar Gupta and their signatures were forged on account opening form in specimen signature cards. Further subsequently Praveen Gupta and his wife Rajni Gupta joined the above Saving Bank account and as such the account being joint in respect of four persons namely Praveen Gupta, his wife Rajni Gupta, his mother Rama Rani Gupta and brother Pramod Kumar Gupta. The Stock Invest Account no. 310 is also stated to have been opened in the name of Rama Rani Gupta (Mother of accused) and Pramod Kumar Gupta (brother of accused) by Praveen Gupta. However the account opening form in respect of the same is stated to be not RC no. 3(A)/98 CC Nos.63/11, 91/11 & 89/11 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta 24/ 63 available in the bank. The prosecution also claims the said account to be fictitious as the same was being operated by accused Praveen Gupta.
16. The fact whether the said account was fictitiously opened by accused Praveen Gupta is sought to be proved by the prosecution by reference to the opinion (Ex.PW17/A) of the Handwriting Expert (PW-17 Dr. Ravinder Sharma) obtained with respect to the signatures appearing on account opening form Ex.PW6/D (D-42) at point Q-139.
17. On Ex.PW6/D (D-42) questioned signatures of PW6 Pramod Kumar Gupta are Q 139. According to deposition of PW17 Dr. Ravindra Sharma, the said Q 139 were written by one and the same person whose specimen signatures were S-1 to S-10, S-71 to S-160 and A1 to A7. Further signatures at Q-139 appearing on Ex.PW6/D (42) did not tally and match with specimen signatures S 31 to S 40 of PW6 Pramod Kumar Gupta, brother of the accused. The aforesaid evidence remained unchallenged and uncontroverted as the witness was not even suggested in case the opinion was incorrect. There is no reason to doubt the opinion given by PW-17. PW-6 Pramod Kumar Gupta and PW-8 Smt. Rama Rani Gupta obviously turned hostile being the relations of the accused. So, it stands proved on record that, on Ex.PW6/D (D42) Account opening form pertaining to Saving RC no. 3(A)/98 CC Nos.63/11, 91/11 & 89/11 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta 25/ 63 Bank Account No. 26472, accused forged signatures of his brother Sh. Pramod Kumar Gupta (PW-6) at point A for the purpose of cheating. The said document is a valuable security within the meaning of Section 467 IPC. At this stage, it is important to note that PW6 Pramod Kumar Gupta brother of the accused and one of the joint account holder in his cross-examination stated that since he used to remain busy as a contractor, his brother i.e. the accused used to operate his account. Hence, accused is liable for commission of an offence under Section 468 IPC.
18. It may be noticed that the accused has been convicted u/s 468 IPC for forging of account opening form referred to above in CC no. 92/01(old) decided by Sh. P.K. Saxena, Special Judge, CBI vide judgement dated 13.08.2010. In view of conviction of accused on aforesaid count in CC no. 92/01 (old) referred to above, the accused is not to be convicted on the same count in all the other remaining chargesheets for forging of the same account opening form.
19. TRANSACTIONS IN PRESENT CASES (CC NO.
63/11, 91/11 AND 89/11) I now deal with the respective cases with respect to individual stock instruments which were fraudulently repeatedly RC no. 3(A)/98 CC Nos.63/11, 91/11 & 89/11 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta 26/ 63 encashed by accused. It may be pointed out that the case against the accused is based on documentary evidence consisting of statement of Savings Bank account no. 26472 (Ex.PW4/A i.e. document 36) and stock invest register (Ex.PW2/B) in respect of stock invest account no. 310 and credit and debit slips made by the accused for debiting and crediting the SB account no. 26472. The entries in stock invest register (Ex.PW2/B) show the dates on which the respective SI instrument was repeatedly encashed by accused by fraudulent representation. The statement of SB account no. 26472 further reflects the corresponding credit entries in Saving bank account made after encashing of the stock invest instruments.
It may be appropriate to mention that apart from repeatedly encashing the particular stock invest instrument the accused in course of the entries also wrongly enhanced the interest or the total amount to be credited.
To understand the mode by which the fraud was committed it may be noticed that the debit entries in the Stock Invest account on encashment of SI instrument were made by way of debit slips. On certain occasions, more than one debit slips were prepared for debiting of amount towards the Stock Invest instruments and the interest separately. Similarly it is pertinent to observe that in some of the debit slips the amount was consolidated towards different Stock Invest accounts operated by accused and the bifurcated amount has to be taken into account RC no. 3(A)/98 CC Nos.63/11, 91/11 & 89/11 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta 27/ 63 for conciliation of debit and credit entries in the Stock Invest Register (Ex.PW2/B). Further the amount was credited in SB A/c 26472 (Ex.PW4/A) vide separate credit slips and even the amount in the same was inflated in some of the entries.
It may also be observed that both the Stock Invest Register (Ex.PW2/B) and statement of SB account Ex.PW4/A along with debit and credit slips have been duly proved on record by the witnesses. The fraud perpetrated by the accused is proved by the mere analysis of the entries in Stock Invest Register Ex.PW2/B and statement of SB account no. 26472 proved by the witnesses.
To assess the evidence on record adduced by the prosecution, it may also be appropriate to refer to statement of Smt. Madhu Bansal who worked in Syndicate Bank, Asaf Ali Road Branch, during 1991 to 1998 and was also posted in the Stock Invest Department for about 08-09 months in the year 1994. She stated that Praveen Gupta had worked in the section at that time and she could identify his handwriting. She also detailed the procedure followed in the Stock Invest Department which need not be reiterated. PW4 Smt. Madhu Bansal, further proved the certified copy of statement of account of savings bank account no. 26472 as Ex.PW4/A (D-36). The certificate affixed on the other side pertaining to each page thereof shows that it has also been certified under the Banker's Book of Evidence Act, 1891. The said document has remained uncontroverted on record and as per this RC no. 3(A)/98 CC Nos.63/11, 91/11 & 89/11 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta 28/ 63 statement of account Ex.PW4/A (D-36), savings bank account no. 26472 was initially opened on 11.10.1993 in the names of Ms. Rama Gupta and P.K. Gupta.
It may be noticed that PW-2 Mahender Pal who was posted as Clerk in the same branch identified the handwriting and signature of accused and also proved the Stock Invest Register maintained in the bank by the accused (Ex.PW2/B). He further identified the entries made on the various pages alongwith other documents to be in the handwriting of accused. There has been no effective cross-examination to doubt the veracity of statement of PW-2 or to presume that the entries were not made by the accused.
So far as the fraudulent repeated encashment of the same Stock Invest Instrument is concerned, the statement of PW-15 Smt. Sneh Gupta, who was the Supervisory Officer, under whom the accused was working is relevant. She clarified that the Stock Invest Instruments were entrusted to the accused and the same were re-circulated many times as she could not put initials with date in the entry of issuance of that particular Stock Invest Instrument. She duly explained that since the scheme was new, she was ignorant and also trusted the accused that he would put the date and round of the same. Further she could not check the same being overloaded and having been assigned with other RC no. 3(A)/98 CC Nos.63/11, 91/11 & 89/11 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta 29/ 63 work. She also duly proved the various debit and credit entries relating to various transactions alongwith the Stock Invest Instruments. This witness was only briefly cross-examined and no contradiction striking to the root of the case has been brought on record to doubt her veracity. In fact the accused was able to illegally represent and encash the same Stock Invest Instruments since the procedure was not strictly followed in accordance with rules. The supervisory or the senior staff members have been negligent but it appears that only the accused was beneficiary of the transactions. It was also deposed by PW-1 Sh. Sudershan Kumar Abrol, Divisional Manager that during enquiry, Sneh Gupta or the Manager were not found to be beneficiaries of the transactions.
There is no iota of doubt that the instrument could be debited only once as also clarified by PW-3 Sh. P. Ranganath Prabhu but was repeatedly wrongly encashed by accused. It may also be noticed that PW-2 Mahender Pal proved the fact that the entries in the Stock Invest Register Ex.PW2/B were made by the accused and since the accused himself was making the entries in the Stock Invest Register as well as the Stock Invest Instruments were got cleared by him, the fraud could not be detected in normal course. Even in the aforesaid context, PW-4 Smt. Madhu Bansal also clarified that accused was well versed with Stock Investment and used to do the work of Stock Investment and RC no. 3(A)/98 CC Nos.63/11, 91/11 & 89/11 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta 30/ 63 debiting of interest himself. She also explained if the wrong amount of interest is debited and the amount is not reflected because of making equal entry in the transfer scroll, the same could not be detected by the Passing Officer.
20. CC no. 63/11.
Now the transactions relating to the specific Stock Invest instrument along with corresponding entries may be dealt to confirm if the fraud stands proved on record.
The prosecution relies upon the following facts and circumstances against the accused as revealed in investigation.
(i) No application was available for making Stock Invest instrument but it was revealed that SI instrument no. 514128 dated 10.02.97 for Rs. 5000/- was prepared by accused Praveen Gupta in favour of M/s Sanghi Hire Purchase Limited.
Ist Encashment
(ii) That said Stock investment instrument no. 514128 dated 10.02.1997 was sent to M/s Sanghi Hire Purchase Ltd. but the said company did not sell shares and returned the SI Instrument. The SI Instrument was presented in the SI Account no. 310 for transfer of its amount and interest accrued thereon to SB Account no. 26472. No application for transfer was available on this account. It is alleged that the said SI Account no. 310 on 01.04.1997 was being dealt with by accused Praveen Gupta and he transferred SI instrument amount of Rs. 5000/- and interest Rs. 56/- to SB Account no. 26472 alongwith the amount of other cancelled SI instruments without getting them initialed and dated by Smt. RC no. 3(A)/98 CC Nos.63/11, 91/11 & 89/11 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta 31/ 63 Sneh Gupta, Astt. Manager in charge of SI selection in token of the payment/cancellation of the SI instrument no. 514128.
Further, although the principal and interest of the cancelled 10 SIs was Rs. 31577/- but accused fraudulently and dishonestly inflated the amount of Rs. 31577/- to Rs. 37695/- and credited the same in the said saving bank account no. 26472 on 1.4.97. Thus herein he inflated Rs. 6118/- dishonestly and it was the first debit of SI instrument no. 514128 dt. 10.02.97.
(iii) Second fraudulent multiple debit of SI no. 514128 That on 26.4.97 again Praveen Gupta dishonestly or fraudulently utilised the said SI instrument no. 514128 and got it passed by Smt. Sneh gupta, Asstt. Manager without getting it again initialed and dated by Smt. Sneh gupta, Asstt. Manager, I/charge of SI section in token of payment/cancellation of the SI instrument no. 514128. Accused also falsified the stock invest account no. 310 dated 26.4.97 (page no. 102 and 103) It is further alleged that accused transferred the amount of SI instrument no. 514128 amount Rs. 5000/- and interest accrued thereon as Rs. 56/- to SB account no. 26472 alongwith the amount of other 3 cancelled SI instruments on 26.4.97 where he fraudulently inflated interest to the tune of Rs. 595/-. Thus fraud of Rs. 5651/- was done by Praveen Gupta by falsifying SI ledger.
(iv) That on 26.4.97, the amount and interest of 4 cancelled SI instruments came to Rs. 19056/- whereas accused fraudulently and dishonestly prepared the credit slip of Rs. 20015/- by falsifying interest on deposit slip (IOD) and deposited the same amount in SB account no. 26472.
RC no. 3(A)/98 CC Nos.63/11, 91/11 & 89/11 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta 32/ 63
(v) Third fraudulent multiple debit of SI no. 514128 That accused Praveen Gupta fraudulently/dishonestly utilised the said stock invest instrument no. 514128 dated 10.2.97 on 30.4.97 third time by entering the same in the SI ledger account no. 310 (page -103) alongwith other 5 cancelled SI instruments and got the same passed by Sneh Gupta, Asstt. Manger without getting the instrument initialled and dated in token of payment /cancellation of the SI no. 514128 on 30.4.97. Again adopting same modus operandi, Praveen Gupta transferred Rs. 8312/- fraudulently towards SB account no. 26472 alongwith the amount of interest of the 6 SI instruments i.e. Rs. 28182/- instead of Rs. 24967/- because he fraudulently inflated interest on deposit slip by Rs. 1215/- and inflated consolidated debit slip by Rs. 2000/-. Thus he utilised Rs. 8312 in the second instance by purchasing SI instrument of Rs. 28,000/- by transferring the said amount from SB A/c no. 26472/- to SI A/c no. 310 and kept the SI instrument in his custody.
(vi) Fourth fraudulent multiple debit of SI No. 514128
That again on 02.05.97, accused Praveen Gupta
fraudulently/dishonestly utilised the same SI instrument No. 514128 dated 10.2.97 by making false entry in SI ledger Account no.310 on 02.5.97 (at page no.104) alongwith other 4 SI instruments and got the same fraudulently passed by Asstt. Manager Sneh Gupta without getting the instrument initialed and dated in token of payment/cancellation of the SI no. 514128 on 02.05.97. Again adopting the same modus operandi Praveen Gupta transferred Rs. 8153/- fraudulently towards SB Account no. 26472 alongwith the SI RC no. 3(A)/98 CC Nos.63/11, 91/11 & 89/11 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta 33/ 63 amount and interest of other 4 SI instrument i.e. Rs. 28613/- instead of Rs. 2557/- because he fraudulently inflated interest on deposit slip (IOD) and consolidated debit slip amount by Rs. 3056/-. Thus in the third instance he cheated Syndicate Bank to the tune of Rs. 8153/-.
(vii) That Praveen Gupta defrauded the total amount of Rs. 28234/- in the above said 3 instances by falsifying the stock invest ledger account and instrument, debit slip, credit slip and also forged signatures of his mother Smt. Rama Rani Gupta on account opening form and specimen signature card of SB A/c no. 26472 and utilised the above document having knowledge that the same are forged document.
(viii) That accused Praveen Gupta fraudlently and dishonestly utilised the same SI no. 514128 more than 3 times (i.e. 11 times causing loss of total Rs. 89,445/-) but due to provision of Section 219(1) Cr.P.C. 1973, only three instances have been taken on investigation. The fraud of this SI no. 514128 was stopped when the SI was signed by V.M. Holla, Astt. Manager on 16.06.97.
21. To comprehend the dates alongwith the amount encashed by the accused with respect to stock invest no. 514128 involved in the present case, the same be reproduced by graphical presentation. The same also reflects the amount fraudulently encashed by the accused with respect to the said stock invest instrument on different dates.
FIR NO. RC 3 (A)/98-ACU-VIII STOCK INVEST (SI) NO. 514128. CC No. 63/2011 RC no. 3(A)/98 CC Nos.63/11, 91/11 & 89/11 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta 34/ 63 ISSUED ON 10.02.1997 FOR RS. 5000/- TO SHRI PRAVEEN GUPTA Issuan Date of SI SB Fraudulent Fraudulent Fraudulent Total Utilization ce of issuance A/C A/C Multiple excess excess IOD ( Fraudulent first & No. No. debit debit slip Interest on amount debit Multiple Amount amount deposit) & debits Amount Fraud Multipl e debits of the SI (1) (2) -3 (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Issuan 10.02.97 ... ----- ..... ...... ....... ....... ..... ce Ist 01.04.97 310 26472 ..... ...... 0+6118 6,118 ...... 2nd 26.04.97 310 26472 5000/- ----- 56+595 5,651 Rs.20250/-
in SI A/c No. 310 & 309 3rd 30.04.97 310 26472 5,000/- 2,000/- 97+1215 8,312 Rs.28000/-
in SI A/c No. 310 4th 02.05.97 310 26472 5,000/- ------ 97+3056 8,153 Rs.20,000/-
in SI A/c No. 310 & Cash W/D Rs.
8500/-
15,000/- 2,000 250+10984 28,234 Rs.68,250/-
TRANSACTION IF PROVED AND CORROBORATED BY
EVIDENCE ON RECORD
22. The aforesaid instrument may be scrutinised with reference to evidence led on record. The evidence reveals that there was no loss to the bank so far as the first encashment of Stock Invest Instrument for Rs. 5,000/- alongwith interest is concerned. However the fraudulent gain of Rs. 6,118/- was made by inflating the amount. The same is proved by the prosecution with reference to entries made in Stock Invest Account 310 RC no. 3(A)/98 CC Nos.63/11, 91/11 & 89/11 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta 35/ 63 Ex.PW2/B and statement of saving bank account Ex.PW4/A alongwith debit and credit slips made by the accused for aforesaid purpose which have been duly proved by the witnesses. The accused inflated the amount to be credited for the transactions made on 01.04.97 with respect to Stock Account 310 by Rs. 6,118/- which is revealed on mere perusal of the statement of account which has been proved on record. The credit slip Ex.PW2/C-8 for amount of Rs. 37,695/- does not reconcile with the corresponding entries of debit in the Stock Invest Register Ex.PW2/B wherein the correct amount comes to Rs. 31,150/- plus interest of Rs. 427/- (ie Rs.31,577/-). The incorrect crediting of the account has not been explained by the accused by which wrongful gain was made by the accused.
The second encashment of the same SI instrument and thereby wrongful gain by the accused is proved with reference to the entries dated 26.04.1997 made in the Stock Invest Register Ex.PW2/B and the statement of saving bank account 26472 (Ex.PW4/A) alongwith debit slip Ex.PW2/C-3, Ex.PW2/C-6 and credit slip Ex.PW2/C-9 prepared by the accused. The offence stands proved the moment the Stock Invest Instrument was again encashed as per entry dated 26.04.1997 in Stock Invest Register Ex.PW2/B and the amount was credited in the Saving Bank account 26472. To reconcile the entries, it needs to be noticed that a consolidated debit slip Ex.PW2/C-3 was prepared by RC no. 3(A)/98 CC Nos.63/11, 91/11 & 89/11 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta 36/ 63 accused for debiting the amount towards three stock invest accounts no. 309, 310, 268 for Rs. 35000/-. Out of the same, the debit amount towards for Stock Invest Account no. 310 was for Rs. 19,000/. Similarly another debit slip towards interest (Ex.PW2/C-6) was prepared for debiting account no. 309, 310 and 268 for Rs. 1,771/- out of which the interest towards Stock Invest Account 310 was for Rs. 420/- as indicated on the reverse of the slip. It may be further noticed that the accused instead of crediting amount of Rs. 19,000/- plus 1,771/- referred to above as per debit slips PW2/C-6 and PW2/C-3 in fact credited an amount of Rs. 20,015/- as per credit slip Ex.PW2/C-9. The wrongful encashment and gain was thus again made by accused which has been duly proved on record.
The third multiple encashment and wrongful gain by the accused is again proved with reference to the entries dated 30.04.1997 made in the same Stock Invest Register Ex.PW2/B and the statement of saving bank account 26472 (Ex.PW4/A) alongwith debit slip Ex.PW2/C-4 prepared by the accused. The offence stood committed the moment the Stock Invest Instrument was again encashed as per entry dated 30.04.1997 in Stock Invest Register Ex.PW2/B and the amount was credited in the Saving Bank account 26472. To reconcile the entries, it needs to be noticed that a consolidated debit slip for Rs. 62,000/- was prepared for debiting Stock Invest Account no. 268, 309 and 310;
RC no. 3(A)/98 CC Nos.63/11, 91/11 & 89/11 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta 37/ 63 out of which amount of Rs. 35,500/- was towards Stock Invest Account no. 310. On perusal of Stock Invest Register Ex.PW2/B, the amount to be debited for transactions on said date in fact comes to Rs. 24,500/- towards all the entries alongwith interest of Rs. 467 which makes the total amount to be debited as Rs. 24, 967/-. However the accused actually credited an amount of Rs. 28,182/- as per entries in statement of saving bank account (Ex.PW4/A) on 30.04.1997. The wrongful gain was accordingly made by accused by virtue of repeated encashment of same stock instrument and further by inflating the amount to be actually debited.
The fourth multiple encashment of instrument no. 514128 was made on 02.05.1997 and the corresponding entry was accordingly made in the stock invest account Ex.PW2/B. The debit slip Ex.PW2/C-5 was prepared for 3 different stock investment accounts 309, 268 and 310 for Rs. 51650. Out of the same, the debit for account no. 310 was shown as 27,000/-. The credit slip Ex.PW2C/11 for saving bank account was further prepared for sum of Rs. 28,613/- though the actual amount to be debited in respect of the stock invest instruments on 2/5/97 came to Rs. 25,557/- as shown in stock invest account 310 (Ex.PW2/B). As such, the accused again encashed the same stock invest instrument no. 514128 alongwith interest and also enhanced the entire amount by Rs. 3,056/-as detailed above. The fraudulent RC no. 3(A)/98 CC Nos.63/11, 91/11 & 89/11 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta 38/ 63 multiple encashment by the accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
23. CC no. 91/11The prosecution relies upon the following facts and circumstances against the accused as revealed in investigation in CC no. 91/11.
(i) That accused Praveen Gupta prepared SI instrument no. 514176 dated 13.2.97 for Rs. 5000/- in favour of M/s Sanghi Hire Purchase Limited on behalf of his brother Pramod Kumar Gupta containing his forged signatures.
(ii) The said Stock Invest instrument was sent to M/s Sanghi Hire Purchase Ltd. but the said company did not sell share to Pramod Kumar Gupta and returned the SI instrument. The SI instrument was presented in the SI Account no. 310 on 04.04.97 for transfer of its amount and interest accrued thereon in SB Account No., 26472. No application for transfer is available on this account. Since the said SI Account no. 310 was being dealt with by Praveen Gupta, he transferred SI instrument amount of Rs. 5000/- and interest of Rs. 55/- to SB Account no. 26472 alongwith the amount of other cancelled SI instruments without getting them initialed and dated by Smt. Sneh Gupta, Asstt. Manager Incharge of SI section in token of the payment/cancellation of the SI instrument no. 514176. The principle in interest of the cancelled 3 SIs was Rs. 12891/- which he credited in the said Saving account no. 26472 on 04.04.1997 RC no. 3(A)/98 CC Nos.63/11, 91/11 & 89/11 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta 39/ 63
(iii) Second fraudulent multiple debit of SI no. 514176 That on 30.04.97 Praveen Gupta dishonestly or fraudulently again utilised the said SI instrument no. 514176 by mixing it with other SI instruments and fraudulently and dishonestly got it passed by Smt. Sneh Gupta, Asstt. Manager without getting it again initialled and dated by Smt. Sneh Gupta, Astt. Manager, Incharge of SI section in token of payment/cancellation of the SI instrument no. 514176. He also falsified the stock invest account no. 310 ledger dated 30.04.97 (page no. 103) and transferred the amount of SI instrument no. 514176 of Rs. 5,000/- and interest accrued thereon as Rs. 94/- to SB account no. 26472 alongwith the amount of other 6 cancelled SI instruments on 30.04.97 where he fraudulently inflated interest on deposit slip to the tune of Rs. 1215/- and inflated the consolidated debit slip by Rs. 2,000/-. Thus the total fraud of Rs. 8,309/- was done by Praveen Gupta by falsifying the record.
(iv) That on 30.04.97, the amount and interest of 7 cancelled SI instruments comes to Rs. 24967/- whereas he fraudulently and dishonestly prepared the credit slip of Rs. 28182/- by falsifying interest on deposit slip (IOD) and consolidated debit slip amount and deposited the same amount in SB account no. 26472.
(v) Third instance of fraudulent multiple debit of SI no.
514176 That accused Praveen Gupta fraudulently/dishonestly again utilised the said stock invest instrument no. 514176 dated 13.02.97 on 02.05.97 for third time by entering the same in the SI ledger account no. 310 (page-104) alongwith other 4 cancelled SI instruments and got the same passed by Smt. Sneh Gupta, Asstt. Manager without getting the instrument initialled and dated in RC no. 3(A)/98 CC Nos.63/11, 91/11 & 89/11 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta 40/ 63 token of payment/cancellation of the SI no. 514176 on 02.5.97. Again adopting same modus operandi, Praveen Gupta transferred Rs. 8150/- fraudulently towards SB account no. 26472 alongwith the amount of interest of other 4 SI instruments i.e. Rs. 28613/- instead of Rs. 25557/- because he fraudulently inflated interest on deposit slip and consolidated debit slip by Rs. 3056/-.
(vi) Fourth fraudulent multiple debit of SI no. 514176 That again on 08.05.97, accused Praveen Gupta fraudulently/dishonestly utilised the same SI instrument no. 514176 dated 13.02.97 by making false entry in SI ledger account no. 310 on 08.05.97 (at page no. 105) alongwith other 6 SI instruments and got the same fraudulently passed by Asstt. Manager Smt. Sneh Gupta without getting the instrument initialled and dated in token of payment/cancellation of the SI no. 514176 on 08.05.97. Again adopting the same modus operandi, Praveen Gupta transferred Rs. 9224/- fraudulently towards SB Account no. 26472 alongwith the SI amount and interest of other 6 SI instruments i.e. Rs. 35891/- instead of Rs. 31667/- because he fraudulently inflated interest on deposit (IOD) slip by Rs. 1224/- and consolidated debit slip amount by Rs. 3000/-. Thus in the third instance also he utilised Rs. 9224/-.
(vii) That Praveen Gupta defrauded the total amount of Rs. 25683/- in the above said 3 instances by falsifying the stock invest ledger account, instrument, debit slip, credit slip.
24. The factual position as per case of prosecution may be graphically represented for understanding as under.
RC no. 3(A)/98 CC Nos.63/11, 91/11 & 89/11 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta 41/ 63 FIR NO. RC 3 (A)/98ACUVIII STOCK INVEST (SI) NO. 514176. CC No. 91/2011 ISSUED ON 13.02.1997 FOR RS. 5000/ TO SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR GUPTA Issuance of Date of SI A/C SB Fraudule Fraudulent Fraudulent Total Utilization first debit issuance No. A/C nt excess excess IOD Fraudulent & Fraud & No. Multiple debit slip ( Interest on amount Multiple Multiple debit amount deposit) debits of debits Amount Amount the SI (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Issuance 13.02.97 310 26472 ..... ...... ....... ....... ..... Ist 04.04.97 310 26472 ..... ...... ....... ...... ...... 2nd 30.04.97 310 26472 5000/- 2,000/- 94+1215 8,309 Rs.28000/- in SI A/c No. 310 3rd 02.05.97 310 26472 5,000/- ........ 94+3056 8,150 Rs.20000/- in SI A/c No. 310 & Cash w/d RS.
8500/-
4th 08.05.97 310 26472 5,000/- 3,000/- 0+1224 9,224 Rs.32500/--
in SI A/c No. 310 & 238 Cash W/d Rs.
3400/-
15,000/- 5,000 188+5495 25,683 TRANSACTION IF PROVED AND CORROBORATED BY EVIDENCE ON RECORD
25. The aforesaid SI instrument may be scrutinised with reference to evidence led on record. The stock invest number 514176 (Ex. PW-2/D-1) was issued in favour of Pramod Kumar Gupta for sum of Rs.5,000/- on 13.02.97. The signatures at Q-121 of Pramod Kumar Gupta were forged and not signed by him as opined by PW-17 Ravinder Kumar (Ex. PW-17/A). The aforesaid evidence has remained unchallenged and uncontroverted as the witness was not even suggested if the opinion was incorrect.
RC no. 3(A)/98 CC Nos.63/11, 91/11 & 89/11 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta 42/ 63 There is no reason to doubt the opinion given by PW17. It may also be observed that PW6 Pramod Kumar Gupta turned hostile obviously being the relation of accused. There is no iota of doubt that the signatures of Pramod Kumar Gupta were forged on the said instrument. The accused also used the instrument for fraudulent encashment repeatedly and also falsely prepared the debit and credit slips as discussed herein after.
The said stock invest was encashed by accused on 04.04.1997 for the first time. There was no wrongful gain till the stage of first encashment.
The said Stock Invest instrument was again fraudulently encashed on 30.04.1997 for the second time as per debit entry against instrument No. 514176 in Ex. PW-2/B ( Stock Invest A/c
310). The consolidated debit slip Ex.PW2/D-3 for the same was made for sum of Rs.62,000/- which included the amount of Rs. 33,500/- in respect of stock A/c No. 310 and the balance amount related to other stock invest account no. 268 & 309 for sum of Rs. 17250/- and Rs. 9250/- respectively. However as per the entries made in Ex.PW2/B the total amount actually came to Rs.24,500/- plus interest of Rs.467/- but was wrongly inflated by accused as Rs.33,500/- in the debit slip. However, the accused finally made the corresponding credit entry in Saving A/c 26472 (Ex.PW-4/B) only for sum of Rs. 28,182/- instead of Rs.24,967/-. The accused RC no. 3(A)/98 CC Nos.63/11, 91/11 & 89/11 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta 43/ 63 as such wrongly encashed the amount by multiple crediting of same SI instrument.
The third encashment of the same instrument was made on 02.05.97. The stock invest account Ex. PW-2/B was debited for sum of Rs.25,000/- plus interest of Rs.557/-. The consolidated debit slips Ex.PW-2/D-4 for sum of Rs.51650/-and Ex. PW-2/D-7 showing the interest as Rs.2962/- were prepared by accused. The debit slip Ex. PW-2/D-4 for Rs. 51650/- shows amount of Rs.27,000/- towards account No. 310 and further amount of Rs.17,000/- and Rs. 7650/- for stock invest account No. 268 and 309 respectively. It may be pointed out that the actual amount of Rs.25,000/- for transactions on 02.05.1997 was inflated to Rs.27,000/- in the debit slip towards SI account 310. Further the interest in Ex. PW-2/D-7 was shown in respect of account No. 309, 268 & 310 for sum of Rs. 2962/-. Out of the same amount of Rs. 1613/- was interest towards SI account 310. However, the actual interest as per stock invest account Ex. PW-2/B came to Rs.557/- and the same was inflated to Rs.1613/- in the debit slip Ex. PW-2/D-7. The corresponding entry for credit in the saving bank account Ex.PW4/A was made by accused for sum of Rs. 28,613/- as per credit slip Ex.PW2/D-11. It may be pointed out that mere perusal of the SI account 310 and S/B account Ex.PW4/A along with debit and credit slips referred to above reveal that apart from encashing the amount of Rs.5,000/- plus interest of Rs.97/- the accused enhanced the total amount of Rs.25,557/- to Rs.
RC no. 3(A)/98 CC Nos.63/11, 91/11 & 89/11 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta 44/ 63 28,613/-. Thus accused wrongly gained an amount of Rs.5,000/- plus Rs.94/- interest and an amount of Rs.3056/-.
The fourth illegal encashment of same SI was made by accused on 08.05.97 as per debit entry against instrument No. 514176 in Ex. PW-2/B ( Stock invest A/c 310). The debit slip (Ex.PW2/D-5) for the same was made for sum of Rs.60,000/- showing consolidated amount for debit towards stock invest account 309, 268 & 310 for Rs. 8500/-, Rs. 17500/-, & Rs. 34000/- respectively. Another consolidated debit slip (Ex. PW-2/D-8) dated 08.05.97 towards interest for sum of Rs. 3265/- was made for debiting the stock invest account No. 309, 268 & 310. The same reflected on the back side the detail of the interest amount for stock invest account No. 310 as Rs.1891/-. It may be pointed out that the amount of Rs.31000/- which was the total debit amount towards stock invest account No. 310 against entry dated 08.05.97 was inflated to Rs.34000/- and further the interest amount of Rs. 667/- for entry dated 08.05.97 was inflated to Rs. 1,891/-. These debit entries included the amount of Rs.5000/- along with interest for stock invest instrument 514176. The amount of Rs. 35,891/- was further credited as per credit slip Ex.PW2/D-11 to the saving account 26472 (Ex. PW-4/A) on 08.05.97 (i.e. Rs.34000/- as per debit slip dated 08.05.97 (Ex. PW-2/D-5) and Rs.1891/- as per the other debit slip dated 08.05.97. The fraudulent multiple encashment by the accused is proved beyond reasonable doubt by the entries proved on record.
RC no. 3(A)/98 CC Nos.63/11, 91/11 & 89/11 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta 45/ 63 26. CC no. 89/11 The prosecution relies upon the following facts and circumstances against the accused as revealed in investigation in CC no. 89/11.
No application is available for making Stock Invest instrument. The SI instrument No. 514472 dated 18.03.97 for Rs.
15,000/ was prepared by accused Praveen Gupta in favour of M/s HUDCO on behalf of Praveen Gupta himself.
The said Stock Instrument was sent to M/s HUDCO but the said company did not sell share to Praveen Gupta and returned the SI instrument. Further the SI instrument for the first time was presented in the SI account No. 310 for transfer of its amount and interest accrued thereon to SB Account No. 26472 on 25.04.97. No application for transfer is available on this account. Since the said SI Account No. 310 was being dealt with by Sh. Praveen Gupta, he transferred SI instrument amount Rs.15000/ and interest Rs. 94/ to SB Account No. 26472 as Rs. 15094/ without getting it initialed and dated by Smt. Sneh Gupta, Asstt. Manager in charge of SI Section in token of the payment /cancellation of the SI instrument No. 514472. It was the first debit of SI instrument No. 514472.
Second fraudulent multiple debit of SI No. 514472.
RC no. 3(A)/98 CC Nos.63/11, 91/11 & 89/11 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta 46/ 63 That on 06.05.97 again Sh. Praveen Gupta dishonestly or fraudulently utilized the said SI instrument No. 514472 and got it passed by Smt. Sneh Gupta, Asstt. Manager without getting it again initialed and dated by Smt. Sneh Gupta, Asstt. Manager, I/charge of SI Section in token of payment/cancellation of the SI instrument No. 514472. He also falsified the stock invest Account No. 310 ledger dated 06.05.97 ( Page No. 105) . He transferred SI instrument No. 514472 for amount Rs.15,000/ and interest accrued thereon as Rs.164/ to SB account No. 26472 along with the amount of other 6 cancelled SI instruments on 06.05.97 where he fraudulently inflated interest on deposit slip to the tune of Rs.
1207/ and inflated the consolidated debit slip to the tune of Rs.
1207/ and inflated the consolidated debit slip by Rs.2000/. Thus the total fraud of Rs.18,371/ was done by Sh. Praveen Gupta by falsifying SI ledger.
That on 06.05.97, the amount and interest of 7 cancelled SI instruments comes to Rs.34312/ whereas he fraudulently and dishonestly prepared the credit slip of Rs.37519/ by falsifying interest on deposit slip (IOD) and consolidated debit slip amount and deposited the same amount in SB account No. 26472.
Third fraudulent multiple debit of SI No. 514472 That accused Praveen Gupta fraudulently/dishonestly RC no. 3(A)/98 CC Nos.63/11, 91/11 & 89/11 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta 47/ 63 utilized the said stock invest instrument No. 514472 dated 18397 on 14.05.97 for third time by entering the same in the SI ledger Account No. 310 ( Page108) along with other 5 cancelled SI instruments and got the same passed by Smt. Sneh Gupta, Asstt.
Manager without getting the instrument intialled and dated in token of payment/cancellation of the SI No. 514472 on 14.05.97.
Again adopting same modus operandi, Sh. Praveen Gupta transferred Rs.18452/ fraudulently towards SB Account No. 26472 along with the amount of interest of other 5 SI instruments, i.e. Rs.39098/ instead of Rs.35810/ because he fraudulently inflated interest on deposit ( IOD) slip by Rs.1288/ and consolidated debit slip by Rs.2000/.
Fourth fraudulent multiple debit of SI No. 514472.
That again on 12.06.97, accused Praveen Gupta fraudulently/dishonestly utilized the same SI instrument No. 514472 dated 18.03.97 by making false entry in SI ledger account No. 310 on 12.06.97 ( at page No. 143) along with other 5 SI instruments and got the same fraudulently passed by Asstt.
Manager Smt. Sneh Gupta without getting the instrument initialled and dated in token of payment /cancellation of the SI No. 514472 on 12.06.97. Again adopting the same modus oprandi Sh. Praveen Gupta transferred Rs. 15283/ fraudulently towards SB Account No. 26472 along with the SI amount and interest of other 5 SI RC no. 3(A)/98 CC Nos.63/11, 91/11 & 89/11 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta 48/ 63 instrument i.e. Rs. 46363/.
That Sh. Praveen Gupta defrauded the total amount of Rs.
52106/ in the above said 3 instances by falsifying the stock invest ledger account, SI instrument, debit slip and credit slip.
27. The factual position as per case of prosecution may be graphically represented for understanding as under.
FIR NO. RC 3 (A)/98ACUVIII STOCK INVEST (SI) NO. 514472. CC No. 89/2011 ISSUED ON 18.03.1997 FOR RS. 15000/ TO SHRI PRAVEEN GUPTA Issuance Date of SI A/C SB A/C Fraudulent Fraudulent Fraudulent Total Utilization of first issuance & No. No. Multiple excess excess Fraudulent debit & Multiple debit debit slip IOD amount Fraud debits Amount amount ( Interest Multiple on debits of deposit) the SI Amount (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Issuance 18.03.97 ...... 26472 ..... ...... ....... ....... ..... Ist 25.04.97 310 26472 ..... ...... ...... ...... ......
RC no. 3(A)/98 CC Nos.63/11, 91/11 & 89/11 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta 49/ 63 2nd 06.05.97 310 26472 15000/- 2,000/- 164+1207 18371 Rs.35,500/-
in SI A/c 310 & Rs.
1500/- SI A/c No. 238 & Cash W/d Rs.
500/-
3rd 14.05.97 310 26472 15,000/- 2,000/- 164+1288 18452 Rs.35,000 in SI A/c No. 310, Rs.2,000/-
in SI A/c No. 238 & Cash W/d Rs.2300/-
4th 12.06.97 310 26472 15000 ------ 283+000 15283 Rs.45000/-
in SI A/c
No.310
45,000/- 4,000 611+2495 52106/- ------
TRANSACTION IF PROVED AND CORROBORATED BY EVIDENCE ON RECORD
28. The aforesaid SI Instrument may be scrutinized with reference to evidence led on record. The stock invest number 514472(Ex. PW-2/E-23) was issued in favour of Praveen Gupta for sum of Rs.15,000/- on 18.03.97. The said stock invest was encashed by accused on 25.04.1997 for the first time. There was no wrongful gain till the stage of first encashment.
The said instrument was again illegally encashed on 06.05.1997 for the second time as per debit entry against instrument No. 514472 in Ex. PW-2/B ( Stock Invest A/c 310) for sum of Rs.15,000/- along with interest of Rs.162/-. The debit slip Ex. PW-2/E-1 for the same was made for consolidated sum of Rs. 60,0,50/- which included amount of Rs.35,650/-to be credited in RC no. 3(A)/98 CC Nos.63/11, 91/11 & 89/11 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta 50/ 63 respect of stock A/c No. 310 and the balance amount related to other stock invest account no. 268 & 309 for sum of Rs.7500/- and Rs. 16,900/- respectively. Another debit slip (Ex. PW-2/E-4) towards interest was made for sum of Rs.3138/- towads stock invest account No. 268, 309 & 310. The amount debited towards interest for stock invest A/c No. 310 was reflected as Rs.1869/- instead of actual amount of Rs.662/-. The accused further made corresponding credit entry into Saving A/c 26472 (Ex.PW-4/A)for sum of Rs. 37,519/- as per credit slip Ex. PW-2/E-8( i.e. Rs. 35,650/-(Ex. PW-2/E-1) + Rs.1869/- (Ex.PW-2/E-4)). It may be pointed out that the aforesaid encashment for the second time as per debit and credit entries included the sum of Rs.15,000/- towards stock invest No. 514472. It may also be noticed on perusal of Ex.PW2/B that the actual amount of debit for transaction on 06.05.2007 as per stock invest account came to Rs.33,650/- but the same was enhanced to Rs.35,650/- as per debit slip Ex. PW-2/E-1 and also the amount towards the interest was inflated from Rs.662/- to Rs.1869/- (Ex. PW-2/E-4). The accused as such fraudulently credited the amount against same SI instrument and further inflated the amount.
The third encashment on the same instrument was made on 14.05.97. The stock invest account Ex. PW-2/B was debited for stock invest instrument 514472 for sum of Rs.15,000/- plus interest of Rs.164/-. The debit slip for the amount to be debited on 14.05.97 has not been brought to my notice by the RC no. 3(A)/98 CC Nos.63/11, 91/11 & 89/11 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta 51/ 63 prosecution but the total amount debited in stock invest account 310 is shown as Rs.35,300/- (towards all the transactions commenced on 14.05.1997 apart from interest of Rs. 510/-). The credit slip Ex.PW2/E-9 for crediting the amount in saving account No. 26472 was made by the accused for Rs.39,0,98/- thereby inflating the amount from Rs.35,300/- plus interest of Rs.510/- debited in the stock invest account 310 ( Ex. PW-2/B). The accused as such not only encashed the stock invest instrument number 514472 for the third time but also inflated the amount as explained above.
The fourth encashment of same Stock Invest instrument was made by accused on 12.06.97 as per debit entry against instrument No. 514472 in Ex. PW-2/B ( Stock invest A/c
310). The debit slip (Ex.PW2/E-2) was made by the accused for sum of Rs.45,250/- towards all the transactions commenced on 12.06.1997 in stock invest account 310. The said amount was credited along with interest of Rs. 1113/- in saving bank account No. 26472 as per credit slip Ex. PW-2/E-10 for Rs. 46,363/-. The fraudulent multiple encashment of same SI instrument and wrongful gain is proved by the entries detailed above beyond reasonable doubt.
29. OFFENCE U/S 420 IPC The Stock Invest Account 310 Ex.PW2/B was maintained by the accused and the entries therein have been RC no. 3(A)/98 CC Nos.63/11, 91/11 & 89/11 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta 52/ 63 made by him as deposed by the witnesses. The moment the Stock Invest Instrument which was encashed was represented again fraudulently for encashment the offence stood concluded. The evidence on record as discussed in preceding paras clearly reveals that the accused reused the Stock Invest Instrument for repeated encashment by wrongly making the debit slips and debiting the Stock Invest Account 310. Further the credit slip was wrongly prepared for crediting the saving bank account 26472 and the entries to this effect were further made. The said amount was also further again utilised by the accused as revealed from the entries contained in the saving bank account 26472 Ex.PW4/A. The contention raised by the accused that some of the transactions have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt in the absence of corresponding debit slip with respect to Stock Invest Account 310 or the credit slip towards saving bank account no. 26472 is devoid of merit since the corresponding entries of debit of Stock Invest Account 310 and credit entries in saving bank account 26472 have been duly proved on record and there does not appear to be any reason to doubt the same. There is no explanation by the accused as to how the encashed Stock Invest Instrument could be represented for encashment. The offence stood completed immediately as soon as the amount was wrongly debited in Stock Invest Account against the already encashed respective Stock Invest Instrument and credited in the savings bank account 26472. The debit and credit slips corroborate the RC no. 3(A)/98 CC Nos.63/11, 91/11 & 89/11 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta 53/ 63 entries made in Ex.PW2/B and Ex.PW4/A which even otherwise have been proved on record. In view of above, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused wrongly encashed the respective Stock Invest Instruments repeatedly and thereby cheated the bank. Accused accordingly convicted for offence u/s 420 IPC in CC no. 63/11, 91/11 and 89/11.
30. OFFENCE COMMITTED BY ACCUSED ON THE PROVED FACTS UNDER PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988.
Relevant portion of Section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which provides for criminal misconduct by a public servant reads as under:
"13.Criminal misconduct by a public servant.
(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,-
[...]
(c) If he dishonestly or fraudulently
misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use any property entrusted to him or under his control as a public servant or allows any other person so to do; or
(d) If he, -[...]
(ii) By abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or [...](2) Any public servant who commits criminal RC no. 3(A)/98 CC Nos.63/11, 91/11 & 89/11 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta 54/ 63 misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than one year but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine."
The accused in the present case was deputed to work in the said department and had dominion over the Stock Invest instruments. The accused also wrongly made entries in the Stock Invest account maintained in the bank in the official course of its business for purpose of encashment same SI instrument. The accused on the face of record misused his position for fraudulently encashing the Stock Invest instruments which had already been encashed and further made incorrect entries in the Stock Invest account for wrongly gaining the amount. The same was further correspondingly credited in the respective Savings Bank account. The accused instead of ensuring that the funds of the public were not misappropriated, himself resorted to misappropriate the same by fraudulent multifold encashment of the same instrument. It is therefore beyond purview of doubt that accused being a public servant is guilty of offence u/s 13(1)(d) r/w Sec 13(1)(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for which he has been charged.
31. OFFENCES RELATING TO FALSE DOCUMENTS AND FALSIFICATION OF ACCOUNTS The accused has been charged for offences u/s 477-A IPC (falsification of accounts) in all the three cases. Accused has RC no. 3(A)/98 CC Nos.63/11, 91/11 & 89/11 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta 55/ 63 also been charged u/s 468 IPC in CC no. 91/11 and also u/s 471 IPC in CC no. 91/11 and 89/11. Section 468 deals with forgery for purpose of cheating and Section 471 deals with using as genuine a forged document which a person known or has reasons to believe to be forged. It may also be appropriate to mention that Section 463 defines forgery and deals with making of false documents which is further define in Section 464 IPC. The opinion of Handwriting Expert PW-17 Sh. Ravinder Kumar proves the fact that accused forged the signature of Pramod Kumar Gupta on Stock Invest instrument 514176 in CC no. 91/11 as discussed in preceding paras. The SI instrument is a valuable security and forgery had been done for purpose of cheating and as such accused is liable to convicted u/s 468 IPC. The accused further prepared and used the various debit slips and credit slips for wrongly crediting the amount with respect to Stock Invest instrument 514472 and 514176 knowing that the same had been prepared for illegally crediting the amount and thereby is liable to be convicted under Sec 471 IPC.
Sec 477-A IPC deals with falsification of accounts and may be reproduced.
"477A, Falsification of accounts.- Whoever, being a clerk, officer or servant, or employed or acting in the capacity of a clerk, officer or servant, willfully, and with intent to defraud, destroys, alters, mutilates or falsifies any book, electronic record, paper, writing], valuable security or account which belongs to or is in the RC no. 3(A)/98 CC Nos.63/11, 91/11 & 89/11 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta 56/ 63 possession of his employer, or has been received by him for or on behalf of his employer, or willfully, and with intent to defraud, makes or abets the making of any false entry in, or omits or alters or abets the omission or alteration of any material particular of any material particular form or in, any such book, electronic record, paper, writing], valuable security or account, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both. Explanation-It shall be sufficient in any charge under this section to allege a general intent to defraud without naming any particular person intended to be defraud without naming any particular person intended to be defrauded or specifying any particular sum of money intended to be the subject of the fraud, or any particular day on which the offence was committed."
The evidence also clearly points out in all the three cases the accused wrongly prepared the various debit slips for debiting Stock Invest Account 310 in respect of respective Stock Invest Instruments and further prepared the credit slips for crediting the amount illegally which was not due in saving bank account no. 26472. The said debit and credit slips were dishonestly prepared for wrongful gain to the accused and causing loss to the bank. The accused also intentionally made fraudulent entries for purpose of multiple encashment of the same stock instrument in Stock Invest account Ex.PW2/B and thereby committed offence punishable u/s 477-A IPC. The accused is RC no. 3(A)/98 CC Nos.63/11, 91/11 & 89/11 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta 57/ 63 accordingly convicted u/s 477-A in all the cases.
32. At this stage it may also be appropriate to deal with the allegations against the accused with respect to theft of respective stock instruments which have been repeatedly represented for encashment. Since as per testimony of PW-15 Smt. Sneh Gupta, the instruments were entrusted with the accused himself, there does not appear to be any question of commission of theft if the accused himself was in possession of the said stock invest instruments. The accused is accordingly acquitted of offence u/s 381 IPC.
33. For the foregoing reasons the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and accused is accordingly convicted for commission of offences under Sections 420, 477 A IPC & 13 (1) (d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in CC no. 63/11, 91/11 and 89/11. The accused also stands convicted for offence u/s Section468 IPC in CC no. 91/11. The accused is also convicted for offence u/s Section 471 in CC no. 91/11 and 89/11.
Announced in the (Anoop Kumar. Mendiratta) open Court on Special Judge(PC Act) 05.11.2011 (CBI)-8, Central District, THC, Delhi.
RC no. 3(A)/98 CC Nos.63/11, 91/11 & 89/11 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta 58/ 63 RC no. 3(A)/98 CC Nos.63/11, 91/11 & 89/11 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta 59/ 63 IN THE COURT OF ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA SPECIAL JUDGE (CBI-08), PC ACT, CENTRAL DISTT.
TIS HAZARI COURTS , DELHI CC Nos.:63/11 (old CC no. 89/01) 91/11 (old CC no. 90/01) 89/11 (old CC no. 93/01) RC No. : 3(A)/98 PS : CBI/ACU/New Delhi CBI Vs. Praveen Kr. Gupta S/o Sh. Rameshwar Dayal Gupta R/o 9713F, Gali Neem Wali Nawab Ganj, Delhi-06 ........Accused Date of FIR 16.07.1998 Date of filing chargesheet 04.07.2000 Judgement passed on 05.11.2011 Order on sentence 15.11.2011 CASE MORE THAN 10 YEARS OLD.
1. The accused has been convicted vide judgment dated 05.11.2011 for commission of offences U/s 420,477 (A) IPC & Section 13 (1)(d) r/w Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 in all the three cases (CC no. 63/11, 91/11 and 89/11). Accused has RC no. 3(A)/98 CC Nos.63/11, 91/11 & 89/11 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta 60/ 63 further been convicted u/s 468 IPC in CC no. 91/11 and u/s 471 IPC in CC no. 91/11 and 89/11.
2. I have heard Ld. PP for CBI & accused on point of sentence.
Accused submits that he is aged about 55 years and has already been dismissed from service. It is further submitted that family of the accused has also suffered immensely on account of his dismissal and has been financially ruined. It is further urged that accused is also suffering from medical ailments and has been facing trial for the last 13 years. A prayer is accordingly made for lenient view in the matter.
On the other hand Ld. PP for CBI contends that deterrent sentence be passed.
3. Accused was an employee of Syndicate Bank and indulged in preparation of false documents and fabrication of accounts for illegal gains. Accused resorted to fraudulent multiple crediting of the same stock invest instruments and also breached the trust of other employees posted in the same section. The acts of the accused posed a fundamental threat to the viability of the organization itself and also adversely affected the service career of the co-employees who endorsed or signed the banking documents presented by accused in trust and good faith, in official course of banking. The same also resulted in significant RC no. 3(A)/98 CC Nos.63/11, 91/11 & 89/11 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta 61/ 63 loss to the exchequer by the time the fraud was detected. The instances unearthed during investigation only appear to be the tip of the iceburg although the embezzled amount may be much more as observed during investigation. In the facts and circumstances a deterrent sentence is called to curb the menace of corruption by way of criminal misconduct and cheating resorted by accused.
4. The case also calls for appropriate guidelines and counter measures to be taken by the Bank to confront such situations wherein the key employees maintaining the accounts are themselves the beneficiary of the schemes floated by the bank. The mode adopted by the accused for fraudulent multiple encashing of the same instrument despite maintenance of balancing book in the bank, calls for deeper analysis as the same could not have been possible but for want of complete lack of supervision or abdication of duties by senior officials.
In view of above, appropriate guidelines need to be formulated by Governor RBI to be followed by all the Banks which may work as bench mark to check the commission of frauds in similar schemes. It is necessary to ensure proper conciliation and accountability of banking transactions by the employees in such schemes. A copy of judgment and order be also forwarded to the Governor, RBI for compliance.
5. I am of the considered view that interest of justice would RC no. 3(A)/98 CC Nos.63/11, 91/11 & 89/11 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta 62/ 63 be fully met if convict shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years in respect of offence under Section 420 IPC and shall also pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- in each of the 3 cases. In default of payment of fine accused shall undergo SI for 2 months. In respect of offence under Section 477 A IPC, convict shall undergo R.I. for 3 years and shall pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in each of the three cases and in default of payment to undergo S.I. for 2 months. Lastly, in respect of offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 convict shall undergo R.I. for 3 years and shall pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in each of the three cases and in default of payment to undergo S.I. for 2 months. As far as offence under Section 468 IPC is concerned, convict shall undergo R.I. for 3 years and shall pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in CC no. 91/11 and in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for 2 months. In respect of offence under Section 471 IPC convict shall undergo R.I. for 2 years and shall pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in CC no. 91/11 and 89/11 and in default thereof S.I. for 2 months. The said sentences shall run concurrently. Convict shall be entitled to benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C.. Copy of judgement alongwith order on sentence be provided to convict free of cost.
Announced in the open court (A.K. Mendiratta) today, i..e on 15.11.2011 Special Judge (CBI-08), PC Act Central Distt., Delhi. 15.11.2011 RC no. 3(A)/98 CC Nos.63/11, 91/11 & 89/11 CBI Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta 63/ 63