Delhi District Court
1. Mir Nagvi Askari vs . Cbi - Iv (2009) on 20 August, 2014
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. N. K. SHARMA, SPECIAL JUDGE,
(PC ACT)-02, (CBI), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
RC No.25(A)/2005
CBI / ACB / NEW DELHI
CC No.16/06
ID No.02401R1020742006
CBI
VS
SANGEETA BHAT,
D/O SH. P.S. RAINA,
R/O C-673, SUSHANT LOK,
GURGAON, HARYANA.
DATE OF INSTITUTION :31.10.2006.
DATE OF ARGUMENTS :30.07.2014.
DATE OF JUDGMENT :12.08.2014.
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose off the CBI criminal case referred to herein above filed by the CBI on 31.10.2006.
1 of 100 2
2. Briefly stated, relevant facts for the disposal of the case are that the instant case was registered on 04.05.2005 against Smt. Sangeeta Bhat, the then Chief Manager, SMGS-IV and Sh. D.K. Sharma, Proprietor of (i) M/s. D.K. Enterprises, (ii) M/s. Aryan Sales Corporation and Smt. Premlata W/o Sh. D.K. Sharma, Proprietor of M/s. Bharat Sales on the basis of written complaint dated 26.04.2005 received from Sh. M.M. Lal, CVO State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Head Office, Jaipur.
3. It has been alleged that Smt. Sangeeta Bhat, Officer in SMGS- IV, the then Chief Manager, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur of New Rohtak Road Branch, New Delhi during the period March 2003 to June 2004 had shown undue favour to private persons, namely Sh. D.K. Sharma Proprietor of M/s. D.K. Enterprises and M/s. Aryan Sales Corporation and Smt. Prem Lata W/o Sh. D. K. Sharma Proprietor of M/s. Bharat Sales, all located at 313/B, Inderlok, Delhi-110035 by permitting indiscriminate 2 of 100 3 purchase of clean cheques / DD under Demand purchase facility and drawings against clearing / clean overdrafts, Smt. Sangeeta Bhat frequently exceeded her delegated powers as Chief Manager. She also permitted cash withdrawals even without sufficient balances in these accounts and thereby caused wrongful loss to the bank to the tune of Rs. 35 lacs and the corresponding wrongful gain to the accused D.K. Sharma and others.
4. It has been further alleged that two firms viz. M/s.
D.K. Enterprises and M/s. Bharat Sales are maintaining Current Deposit Accounts bearing No. 24576 and 24764 which were opened on 12.04.2002 and 27.05.2003 respectively in the branch and were permitted purchase of cheques lodged in local clearing, initially on 28.03.2003 and 02.06.2003 respectively and thereafter, on regular basis till 25.08.2003 without setting / fixing up regular limits.
5. Investigation further revealed that when the amount of unauthorized clean overdrafts, which was 3 of 100 4 permitted earlier by Smt. Sangeeta Bhat to the tune of Rs. 8,96,639=90 and Rs.8,39,399=15 in the Current Deposit Account No. 24576 and 24764 of M/s. D.K. Enterprises and M/s Bharat Sales Corporation was not recovered, she in collusion and criminal conspiracy with the party opened an another Current Deposit Account No. 24891 on 22.03.2004 in the name of M/s. Aryan Sales Corporation and allowed overdrawing on 27.03.2004 and purchase of cheques / DD lodged in local clearing on regular basis from 25.04.2004 onwards without assessing the sanctioning limit for the same. Smt. Sangeeta Bhat used to maintain a Kuchcha Register in her own custody for recording the demand purchase transaction pertaining to this account.
6. Investigation further revealed that despite frequent instructions / advises from the Controlling Authority to discontinue the said malpractices and to set up regular limits in the accounts in which requests for clean overdrafts / overstepping in the sanctioned limits were 4 of 100 5 frequent. Smt. Sangeeta Bhat transgressed / overstepped her delegated powers which ultimately resulted in creation of clean overdrafts to the tune of Rs.13,58,192=02, Rs. 17,04,221=19 and Rs.21,85,686=68 as on 07.01.2004, 10.02.2004 and 08.06.2004 in the Current Deposit Accounts of M/s. D.K. Enterprises, M/s. Bharat Sales and M/s. Aryan Sales Corporation respectively.
7. It has been further alleged that on 05.06.2004 the day on which the suspect officer Smt. Sangeeta Bhat was relieved from her duties in the Branch cash withdrawals to the extent of Rs.15 lacs were permitted by her to M/s. Aryan Sales Corporation creating an unauthorized clean overdraft as per details given hereunder:
S.NO. CHEQUE DATE AMOUNT (Rs.) AMOUNT PAID ON NO.
1. 208959 05.06.2004 5 lacs 05.06.2004
2. 208960 - do - 5 lacs - do -
3. 208961 - do - 5 lacs - do -
8. Investigation further revealed that the present 5 of 100 6 outstanding in the Current Deposit Accounts of M/s. D.K. Enterprises, M/s. Bharat Sales and M/s Aryan Sales Corporation as on 16.03.2005 are Rs.8,96,640/-, Rs. 8,41,893/- and Rs.17,11,625/- respectively. Thus, a wrongful loss to the tune of Rs.35 lacs has been caused to the Bank and corresponding gain to the accused private persons.
9. Investigation further revealed that it is an established practice in the bank of generating income by purchasing clean cheques / DD under demand purchase facility and drawing against clearing. The conditions laid down are that the party from whom the cheques / drafts are going to be purchased should be maintaining a current / savings account in the Branch. In case of cheques purchasing either cheques payable to the account holder or cheques payable to another party but who has endorsed on the reverse of the cheques authorizing payment to be account holder and duly acknowledged by the account 6 of 100 7 holder are allowed. In the case of the latter, the signature of payee should be there. Demand drafts are also purchased by the bank and such instruments of DDs / cheques come under unsecured advances.
10. Investigation further revealed that the precaution taken by the bank is to ensure the standing of the party on whose behalf the bank is purchasing the cheques / drafts or permitting the clearing, proper introduction of account by persons maintaining current accounts in the same branch, credit worthiness, past records of the account holder and sufficient security and balance in the accounts etc. are much. Cheques are generally purchased after preparing a report about the status / profile of the account holder known as skeleton / opinion report compiled by the bank. There is a limit based on their financial data and requirements and a suitable security documents are also to be obtained and every such exercise of power need to be got noted from the higher authority. The details of cheque purchased are to be 7 of 100 8 entered in the prescribed register. Cheques should be branded with the banks crossing seal and then sent to the drawee bank through their bank for realisation and in case any of the cheque returned unpaid, this is also to be reported to the zonal office and in cases where limit is not set up, individual cheques are to be referred to Chief Manager who can authorize the same up to their power only and the same procedure is to be followed as above. Bank prescribed charges are to be recovered. It should also be ensured that purchasing relates to genuine trade transaction of the borrower and it should not be merely an accommodation bill. The liability of the borrower should be aggregate and should be monitored after entering the same into liability register. As per banks instructions, purchase of local cheques is not to be encouraged. However, in case a genuine requirement of certain persons say pensioners or like dependents upon genuine trade transaction in exceptional circumstances local cheques can be purchased 8 of 100 9 after satisfying about the drawee and also compiling skeleton report and reporting to the next higher authority.
11. Investigation further revealed that Smt. Sangeeta Bhat was working as Manager (Scale-III) in the Bank earlier and was promoted to Chief Manager (SMGS-IV) and had powers of allowing overdrawing and purchase of cheques / DDs lodge in the local clearing without assessing and sanctioning limit. She being Chief Manager (SMGS-IV) is empowered for clean overdrafts upto Rs.3 lacs and cheques purchase of limit is Rs.6 lacs.
12. Investigation further revealed that the Current Debit Account 4471 of Sh. Devender Kumar S/o Sh. J.N. Sharma, R/o 9937, Sarai Rohilla, New Rohtak Road, Delhi was introduced by another current account holder and opened by the orders of Sh. R.K. Sharma, the then Branch Manager on 31.07.2001. The other current account no. 4576 of M/s. D.K. Enterprises of Sh. Devender Sharma was introduced by Devender Sharma himself being holder of 9 of 100 10 current A/c No. 4471 and opened duly approved by Sh. R.K. Sharma, the then Branch Manager on 20.04.2002. Sh. Devender Sharma was not performing any business but he was simply discounting drafts / cheques to other persons on commission basis and the same were being deposited in his current accounts or being purchased in demand purchase system by the bank. Sh. D.K. Sharma and Smt. Prem Lata have since expired.
13. Investigation further revealed that the statement of A/c No. 4576 of M/s. D.K. Enterprises reveals that demand purchase entry started from 28.03.2003 and was allowed on a regular basis by the Branch Manager. The account was overdrawn with a debit balance of Rs.8,96,639=90 on 28.02.2005 and the balance was transferred to protest bill account. It is found that even though there is no sufficient fund / balance the payment were ordered on the cheque itself by Smt. Sangeeta Bhat, the then Chief Manager.
14. Investigation further revealed that the account no.
10 of 100 11 24764 in the name of M/s. Bharat Sales of Smt. Prem Lata W/o Sh. D.K. Sharma was opened on 27.05.2003 with due permission of the Branch Manager Smt. Sangeeta Bhat. The said account was introduced by Sh. D.K. Sharma, Proprietor of M/s. D.K. Enterprises, account no. 24576. On 04.06.2003 a cheque / draft was purchased first time in this account and thereafter it was continued. The account was overdrawn for the first time on 13.06.2003 and ultimately there was an overdrawal of Rs.8,41,893=15 on 29.03.2005 which was transferred to protest bill account. Smt. Sangeeta Bhat, the then Chief Manager allowed payment of the cheques even though there was no balance by writing instructions on the cheques. The AGM directed to restrict transaction in the above accounts not to purchase cheques / drafts (locally) and not to allow any payment from these accounts and to recover outstanding. This was inspite of strict instructions of the AGM to discontinue the said malpractice in the accounts of Sh. Devender Sharma, Smt. 11 of 100 12 Sangeeta Bhat, the then Chief Manager conspired with Sh. Sharma to open another current account in the name of M/s. Aryan Sales Corporation on 22.03.2004 introduced by Sh. D.K. Sharma as he was also the proprietor of M/s D.K. Enterprises. The new account was opened by operator Sh. Moti Lal and was authorized operation by Sh. R.N. Goel, Dy. Manager on being instructed by Smt. Sangeeta Bhat.
15. Investigation further revealed that before opening the account of M/s. Aryan Sales Corporation Smt. Sangeeta Bhat reportedly called a staff meeting in the branch and conveyed to staff that this is being opened for the recovery of the account of M/s. D.K. Enterprises and M/s. Bharat Sales and that she would be purchasing drafts and some of the amount would be recovered against demand purchase and rest paid to party on daily basis. The account of M/s. Aryan Sales Corporation was opened on 22.03.2004 with a cash deposit of Rs.5,000/- and thereafter transaction started on 24.03.2004 and it was found that there is an overdrawl 12 of 100 13 of account was overdrawn of Rs.89,000/- in the account. This account was permitted over-drawing upto Rs.90,000/- against STDR security (Time Deposit) as on 25.03.2004.
16. Investigation further disclosed that the cheques purchase / draft purchase on the account started for the first time on 05.04.2004 and thereafter purchasing of drafts / cheques were continued. Investigation reveals that the entry dated 26.04.2004 for Rs.1,90,000/- in the account of M/s. Aryan Sales Corporation has been credited by debiting the demand purchase account. The party was allowed to withdraw the amount cash from account on same date prior credit given in account. The reversal of demand purchase entry in this case has been done by recovering the amount from current account on 29.04.2004. As per OCS report dated 26.04.2004 to 29.04.2004 no instrument for Rs. 1,90,000/- has been tendered by Sh. D.K. Sharma. The voucher was posted on 29.04.2004 by Smt. Sangeeta Bhat. It shows the malafide intention of Smt. Sangeeta Bhat to 13 of 100 14 cheat the bank as the voucher of Rs.1,90,000/- was not found in bank record.
17. During investigation, the three cheques dated 05.06.2004 each of Rs. 5 lacs were ordered to pay by Smt. Sangeeta Bhat but no demand purchase was at the branch on that day. Investigation has also revealed that on 05.06.2004 in the evening when at the closure of daily transaction for the day and while searching the report of limit excess by Sh. R.N. Goel, Dy. Manager, it was observed that the account of M/s. Aryan Sales Corporation was unexpected overdrawn upto Rs.17,52,812=68. Then he reported to Smt. Sangeeta Bhat about limit excess report. She responded that the instrument regarding demand purchase were with her and would be deposited on Monday to regularize the position of the account and there was nothing to worry about it.
18. Investigation further revealed that on 07.06.2004 Smt. Sangeeta Bhat posted some entries in the computer 14 of 100 15 system herself regarding demand purchase of M/s. Aryan Sales Corporation. As Sh. R.N. Goel, Dy. Manager could not clear the entries and asked about the demand purchase instrument of 05.06.2004, she could not give any satisfactory response. Sh. Goel informed to Sh. Sayeed, Concurrent Auditor and in the meantime it came to know that she was to be relieved on 05.06.2004. The matter was reported to the Zonal Office and internal investigation by the bank started by deputing Sh. Rakesh Arora, Chief Manager, Advances, Zonal Office.
19. During internal investigation on 07.06.2004, it reveals that Sh. Rakesh Arora advised to prepare a debit voucher for Rs.4,85,814/- to debit the account of M/s Aryan Sales Corporation and debit voucher for Rs.27,028/- to debit account No. 99064/01 branch outward clearing suspense account and a credit voucher for Rs.5,12,842/- for credit of demand purchase account as there was outstanding DN of dated 03.06.2004 identified by Sh. Rakesh Arora that only 15 of 100 16 Rs. 27,028/- were available against Rs.5,12,842/- of demand purchase. This shortfall indicates that on 03.06.2004 credit was given to M/s. Aryan Sales Corporation by Smt. Sangeeta Bhat (A-2) without taking sufficient draft / cheques for demand purchase. On 28.02.2005, there was an overdrawn amount Rs. 1,71,1625=29 in the account of M/s. Aryan Sales Corporation which was transferred to protested bill account.
20. Investigation further revealed that in case of Aryan Sales Corporation, Smt. Sangeeta Bhat, the Chief Manager of the branch maintained a Kuchha register in which details were not entered as per details in banks prescribed register for demand purchase. She herself released concerned vouchers regarding demand purchase of Aryan Sales Corporation and sometimes she also posted the vouchers in computer system even there was sufficient computer operators were available in the branch.
21. Investigation further revealed that Sh. Kirpal Dutt 16 of 100 17 Sanguri, Dy. Manager, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, New Rohtak Road Branch, New Delhi has stated that in the past on various dates excess credit was given to account of M/s. Aryan Sales Corporation by debit of demand purchase account. When the account of M/s. Aryan Sales Corporation got sick then all demand purchase entries related to the account were checked and finally to adjust the demand purchase entries the account M/s. Aryan Sales Corporation was debited and related entry of demand purchase was credited for the amount of Rs.4,85,814/-.
22. Investigation further revealed that Sh. N.M. Jain, Assistant General Manager, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Zonal Office stated that he has visited the branch in every 3-4 months as a periodical visits. During his visit, he observed that Smt. Sangeeta Bhat used to purchase cheques / drafts in favour of M/s. D.K. Enterprises and M/s. Bharat Sales Corporation and were allowing withdrawal against uncleared effects, resultantly the clean overdrafts 17 of 100 18 were appeared in both the accounts as the facility was on perennial basis. There is a branch visit book in which comments and instructions of Sh. Jain to Smt. Bhat are given in details, which has been proved by Sh. Jain.
23. Investigation further revealed that on 20.11.2002, Sh. N.M. Jain visited the branch and he advised Smt. Bhat, Chief Manager specifically to stop allowing over stepping in sanctioned limit / clean overdraft in various accounts which should be stopped forthwith and regular limit should be sanctioned in case of regular requirements. He also observed that the branch was not submitting compliance report on previous report advised to the Branch.
24. Investigation further revealed that in branch visit book on 23.01.2003, 25.07.2003 and 22.12.2003, despite repeated instructions Branch Manager was still allowing in clean overdraft which could jeopardize banks interest even there is no sanctity of sanctioned limit in cash credit limit and frequent overstepping being permitted without obtaining 18 of 100 19 prior approval from the Competent Authority. He advised her to stop the practice and set up a regular limit for the party.
25. Investigation further revealed that Sh. N.M. Jain on 11.02.2004, visited the branch and observed various serious irregularities in several accounts. Therefore, a separate letter to Smt. Sangeeta Bhat, Branch Manager on dated 12.02.2004 calling explanations about the irregularities in various advance accounts which include M/s. D.K. Enterprises, M/s. Bharat Sales and M/s. Aryan Sales also sent and advised her not to allow any clean overdraft within or above discretionary powers without any specific approval.
26. Investigation further revealed that on 08.06.2004, as per deliberations with the Concurrent Auditor of the Branch and Chief Manager (Advances), Region-I, Secretariat Zonal Office deputed to the branch on 07.06.2004 to verify and find the position. Sh. Arora, Chief 19 of 100 20 Manager (Advances) observed that prescribed system and procedure have been flouted despite repeated verbal and written instructions from Controlling Authority from time to time. She had been frequently permitting clean overdraft in accounts much beyond her delegated powers allowing overdraft against uncleared effects and purchase of local cheques / demand draft etc.
27. Investigation further revealed that thus, instead of following the instructions of superior officer Smt. Bhat with an intention to unduly accommodate and opened current account in favour of M/s. Aryan Sales Corporation wherein Sh. Devender Sharma is the Proprietor who happens to be the proprietor of M/s. D.K. Enterprises and husband of Smt. Prem Lata, Proprietor of M/s. Bharat Sales in which Branch Manager has already allowed overdraft of substantial amount.
28. Investigation further revealed that Smt. Sangeeta Bhat allowed clean overdraft of Rs. 15 lacs on 05.06.2004, 20 of 100 21 the day on which she was relieved from the Branch in the account of M/s. Aryan Sales Corporation without any security documents and thus there is an outstanding of Rs. 22.38 lacs in the account. Taking into account, the current outstanding in three accounts of M/s. D.K. Enterprises, M/s. Bharat Sales and M/s. Aryan Sales Corporation, bank has exposed to likely loss of Rs.39.54 lacs on 08.06.2004 which on scrutiny comes down to Rs.34,47,644=34.
29. Investigation further revealed that in most of the cases the cheques submitted for cash withdrawal by Sh. D.K. Sharma were returned by Sh. Moti Lal, the dealing clerk as there was no sufficient fund. However on the cheques Sh. D.K. Sharma managed to get the cheques cleared through Smt. Sangeeta Bhat, Chief Manager who instructed / ordered on the cheques itself to allow for payments. After that the cheques were posted by computer operator, Sh. K.D. Sanguri or Sh. R.N. Goel, officers who authorized the cheques for payment in computerized ledger 21 of 100 22 and finally Sh. R.N. Mishra, the paying cashier released / made the payments to the bearer of the cheque which happen to be Sh. D.K. Sharma on various occasions. The concerned officials have been examined to prove the transaction. The procedure of cheque purchase have been explained by Sh. S.K. Goel, AGM. Sh. N.M. Jain, AGM who inspected the branch on various occasion have admitted his writings in the visit book which mentions details of irregularities and instructions given to Smt. Sangeeta Bhat which was violated willfully. The signatures / writings of Smt. Sangeeta Bhat have been proved by Sh. Goel and other officer of the bank who were working under her. The investigation has thus established that Smt. Sangeeta Bhat by exceeding her delegated financial power, by ignoring instructions of her superior officers and fully knowing the consequences colluded with and caused gain to Sh. D.K. Sharma (since expired) and his firms to the tune of Rs. 35 lacs and corresponding loss to the bank. The details of 22 of 100 23 quantum of loss during the period 23.03.2003 to 05.06.2004 are as follows:-
S.NO. NAME OF THE FIRM ACCOUNT NO. LAST DEBIT BALANCE / OVERDRAWL
1. M/s. D.K. Enterprises 24576 Rs.8,96,639=90 as on 28.02.2005
2. M/s. Bharat Sales 24764 Rs.8,39,399=15 as on 14.10.2004
3. M/s. Aryan Sales 24891 Rs.17,11,625=29 as on Corporation 28.02.2005 Total Rs.34,47,664=34
30. Investigation further revealed that Smt. Sangeeta Bhat was the concerned Branch Manager. She has allowed payment without balance and overdrawing of various amounts to Sh. D.K. Sharma (since expired) in his firms on various occasions. She allowed demand purchase of cheques and drafts exceeding her power of Rs.6 lacs. She did not ensure security and safety of and compromised with the interest of the bank. She did not report non payment of cheques purchased and overdrawing to her Controlling
23 of 100 24 Authority. She was allowing overdrawing on a regular basis. She maintained a Kuccha Register instead of prescribed register for demand purchase in her own custody and kept on continuing her irregular activities of overdrawing and cheque purchasing. She did not ensure to obtain guarantee and security for demand purchases and clean over draft. Thus, she is fully responsible for defrauding the bank to the tune of Rs.34,47,664=34.
31. The bank has conducted a Departmental Enquiry and has given a punishment of compulsory retiring her from service, as such sanction for prosecution is not required as she is no longer in service.
32. Investigation further revealed that Sh. Devender Kumar Sharma, Proprietor of M/s. D.K. Enterprises and M/s. Aryan Sales Corporation and Smt. Prem Lata, Proprietor of M/s. Bharat Sales were the main beneficiaries who have cheated the bank with conspiracy with Smt. Sangeeta Bhat, the then Chief Manager of the branch. But both of them 24 of 100 25 have expired and the three firms namely M/s. D.K. Enterprises, M/s. Aryan Sales Corporation and M/s. Bharat Sales owned by them have no other nominee as such they are not sent for prosecution.
33. After taking cognizance, accused Sangeeta Bhat was summoned to appear in the court and on her appearance, she was supplied with the copies of the documents.
34. After hearing the arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for accused Sangeeta Bhat and after going through the record, my Ld. Predecessor vide his separate order dated 04.11.2008 has framed the charges for the offence punishable u/s 120-B r/w Section 420 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against accused Sangeeta Bhat and charges also for Substantive offence punishable U/s 420 IPC and U/s 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against accused Sangeeta Bhat, which are as follows :-
25 of 100 26 That during the period March, 2003 to June, 2004 at Delhi, you were posted and working as Chief Manager, SBBJ, New Rohtak Road Branch, New Delhi entered into a criminal conspiracy with your co-accused Devender Kumar Sharma and Smt. Prem Lata (Now both expired) with the object to cheat State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and in pursuance of said criminal conspiracy, you dishonestly allowed opening of account no. 24764 by your co-accused Smt. Prem Lata w/o Devender Kumar Sharma in the name of M/s. Bharat Sales under her Proprietorship on 27.05.2003 and account no. CD - 24891 by Devender Kumar Sharma in the name of his proprietary firm M/s.
Aryan Sales Corporation on 22.03.2004 though the earlier accounts of the same party i.e. Account no. 4576 of Devender Kumar Sharma in the name of M/s. D.K. Enterprises and account no. 24764 in the 26 of 100 27 name of M/s. Bharat Sales were overdrawn and substantial amounts were overdue. You Smt. Sangeeta Bhat also dishonestly purchased cheques submitted by your co-accused Devender Kumar Sharma and Smt. Prem Lata (now both expired) by exceeding your financial power and also by floating the instructions of bank and its Senior Officers. You also did not obtain guarantee and security for demand purchase and clean overdraft. You also did not record entries of purchase of cheques / drafts in the prescribed register but dishonestly maintained an illegal kucha register and kept the same in your custody. You also did not report about non-payment of cheques and about overdrawing to your Controlling Authority. You also dishonestly allowed clean overdraft of Rs. 15 lacs on 05.06.2004 in the account of M/s. Aryan Sales under proprietorship 27 of 100 28 of Devender Kumar Sharma by purchasing 3 cheques of Rs. 5 lacs each, without taking any security documents and despite that there was huge outstanding amount in the said account. You, thereby alongwith your co-accused Devender Kumar Sharma and Smt. Prem Lata (now both expired) cheated State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur to the tune of Rs.34,47,664=34 in criminal conspiracy with them and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 120B IPC r/w section 420IPC and section 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 within my cognizance.
Secondly, that during the aforesaid period and place, you along with your co-accused Devender Kumar Sharma and Smt. Prem Lata (now both expired) dishonestly and fraudulently induced State Bank of Jaipur and Bikaner, to deliver you 28 of 100 29 and your co-accused Rs.34,47,664=34 which was the property of the said bank and thereby you committed an offence punishable u/s 420 IPC within my cognizance.
Thirdly, that during the aforesaid period and place, you while working as Chief Manager, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing your official position obtained pecuniary advantage of Rs. 34,47,664=34 for yourself and for your co-accused and thereby you committed an offence punishable u/s 13 (2)r/w Section 13 (1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 within my cognizance.
35. Accused Sangeeta Bhat pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
36. In support of its case, CBI has examined 19 witnesses which are as follows:-
PW-1 :- Sh. N. M. Jain, Assistant General 29 of 100 30 Manager, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Head Office Choura Rasta, Jaipur, Rajasthan has deposed that during the year 2003 and 2004 he was posted and working as Assistant General Manager with State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Regional Office - I, New Delhi. He has identified his handwriting and signature on the Branch Visit Book (D-9) Ex. PW-1/A, on notings Ex. PW-1/A-1 to Ex. PW-1/A-8, on letter dated 12.02.2004 Ex. PW-1/A-9, on letter dated 01.06.2004 Ex. PW-1/A-10. He has also identified the letter dated 11.07.2006 Ex.
PW-1/A-11, signed by Sh. S.K. Goel, Assistant General Manager.
PW-2 :- Sh. R.N. Goel, Manager (Personnel Banking), State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Kirti Nagar Branch, New Delhi has deposed that during the period from November 2002 to July 2004 he remained posted as Deputy Manager in New Rohtak Road Branch of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur. He has identified accused Sangeeta Bhat before the Court. He has 30 of 100 31 identified the signatures of accused Sangeeta Bhat on the Current Account Opening Form pertaining to Account No. 24891 Ex. P-1, on the Current Account Opening Form pertaining to Account No. 4471 Ex. P-2, on the Current Account Opening Form pertaining to Account No. 4576 Ex. P-3, on the Current Account Opening Form pertaining to Account No. 24764 Ex. P-4. He has also identified the endorsement made by accused Sangeeta Bhat alongwith her initials on the cheques pertaining to account no. 24891 Ex. PW-2/A-1 to Ex. PW-2/A-216, on the cheques pertaining to account no. 24764 Ex. PW-2/B-1 to Ex. PW-2/B-126, on the cheques pertaining to account no. 24576 Ex. PW-2/C-1 to Ex. PW-2/C-111. He has also identified the certified copy of Statement of account no. 24764 in the name of M/s Bharat Sales Ex. PW-2/D issued by New Rohtak Road Branch of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur pertaining to the period from 27.05.2003 to 30.06.2005. He has identified the handwriting of accused Sangeeta Bhat on the Kuccha Register Ex. PW-8/A. He 31 of 100 32 has also identified the statement of account pertaining to M/s. Aryan Sales Corporation Ex. PW-8/DA, the statement of account pertaining to M/s. D.K. Enterprises Ex. PW- 2/E, the statement of account pertaining to M/s. Bharat Sales Ex. PW-2/D. PW-3 :- Sh. Jasvinder Singh, Proprietor of M/s. Ever Bright Electro Platers. He has deposed that he was having account no. 3930 in the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, New Rohtak Road Branch, New Delhi and he was the Introducer of account no.4471 in the name of Devender Kumar, he has identified his signatures on the Account Opening Form Ex. P-2 pertaining to account no.4471.
PW-4 :- Sh. Moti Lal has deposed that he remained posted as Computer Operator in the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, New Rohtak Road Branch, New Delhi w.e.f. 1990 to 2006. He has identified accused Sangeeta Bhat before the Court. He has identified his initials as well as 32 of 100 33 signature of accused Sangeeta Bhat on the Account Opening Form Ex. P-1 pertaining to A/c. No. 24891. He has also identified his initials on the cheques Ex. PW-2/B-3, Ex. PW-2/B-5, Ex. PW-2/B-9, Ex. PW-2/B-11 to Ex. PW-2/B-18, Ex. PW-2/B-26, Ex. PW-2/B-29, Ex. PW-2/B-33 to Ex. PW-2/B-35, Ex. PW-2/B-37, Ex. PW-2/B-61, Ex. PW-2/B-70, Ex. PW-2/B-71, Ex. PW-2/B-75 to Ex. PW-2/B-77, Ex. PW-2/B-79, Ex.
PW-2/B-80, Ex. PW-2/B-82, Ex. PW-2/B-85 to Ex. PW-2/B-90, Ex. PW-2/B-94, Ex. PW-2/B-96 to Ex. PW-2/B-98, Ex. PW-2/B-102, Ex. PW-2/B-103, Ex. PW-2/B-107, Ex. PW-2/B-108, Ex. PW-2/B-114, Ex. PW-2/B-115, Ex.
PW-2/B-118, Ex. PW-2/B-123, Ex. PW-2/B-125. He has also identified the endorsement "Please Pay" of accused Sangeeta Bhat alongwith her initials on the cheques Ex. PW-2/B-1 to Ex. PW-2/B-125, pertaining to account no. 24764 of M/s. Bharat Sales.
PW-4 has further identified his initials on the cheques Ex. PW-2/C-20, Ex. PW-2/C-23, Ex.
33 of 100 34 PW-2/C-27, Ex. PW-2/C-65, Ex. PW-2/C-70, Ex. PW-2/C-76 to Ex. PW-2/C-81, Ex. PW-2/C-83, Ex. PW-2/C-84, Ex. PW-2/C-86, Ex. PW-2/C-87, Ex. PW-2/C-89, Ex. PW-2/C-90, Ex. PW-2/C-95 to Ex. PW-2/C-101, Ex. PW-2/C-103, Ex. PW-2/C-105 to Ex. PW-2/C-107. He has also identified the endorsement "Please Pay" of accused Sangeeta Bhat alongwith her initials on the cheques Ex. PW-2/C-1 to Ex. PW-2/C-111, pertaining to account no.24576 of M/s. D. K. Enterprises.
PW-4 has identified his initials on the cheques Ex. PW-2/A-1 to Ex. PW-2/A-6, Ex. PW-2/A-11 to Ex. PW-2/A-15, Ex. PW-2/A-17, Ex. PW-2/A-18, Ex. PW-2/A-21, Ex. PW-2/A-22, Ex. PW-2/A-24 to Ex. PW-2/A-26, Ex. PW-2/A-29 to Ex. PW-2/A-32, Ex. PW-2/A-36, Ex. PW-2/A-37, Ex. PW-2/A-40, Ex. PW-2/A-41, Ex. PW-2/A-44 to Ex. PW-2/A-49, Ex. PW-2/A-51, Ex. PW-2/A-52, Ex. PW-2/A-54, Ex. PW-2/A-55, Ex. PW-2/A-61, Ex. PW-2/A-62, Ex. PW-2/A-63, Ex. PW-2/A-68, Ex. PW-2/A-71, Ex. PW-2/A-73, Ex. PW-2/A-80, 34 of 100 35 Ex. PW-2/A-81, Ex. PW-2/A-84, Ex. PW-2/A-85, Ex. PW-2/A-87, Ex. PW-2/A-91, Ex. PW-2/A-93 to Ex. PW-2/A-95, Ex. PW-2/A-99 to Ex. PW-2/A-106, Ex. PW-2/A-111, Ex. PW-2/A-112, Ex. PW-2/A-116, Ex. PW-2/A-118, Ex.
PW-2/A-122 to Ex. PW-2/A-137, Ex.
PW-2/A-167, Ex. PW-2/A-168, Ex. PW-2/A-178 to Ex. PW-2/A-184, Ex. PW-2/A-189 to Ex.
PW-2/A-191, Ex. PW-2/A-193 to Ex. PW-2/A-195, Ex. PW-2/A-198 to Ex.
PW-2/A-204, Ex. PW-2/A-206, Ex. PW-2/A-211, Ex. PW-2/A-214 and Ex. PW-2/A-216. He has also identified the endorsement "Please Pay" of accused Sangeeta Bhat alongwith her initials on the cheques Ex. PW-2/A-1 to Ex. PW-2/A-216, pertaining to account no.24891 of M/s. Aryan Sales Corporation.
PW-5 :- Sh. Virender Dutt Tiwari, Section Officer, Bureau of Indian Standard, Vinod Nagar, Near Patparganj, New Delhi, has deposed that he was working as Assistant in BIS in the year 2006. He has correctly identified accused 35 of 100 36 Sangeeta Bhat before the Court. He has identified his signatures on the Specimen Sheets S-39 to S-82 i.e. Ex. PW-5/A-1 to Ex.
PW-5/A-43.
PW-6 :- Sh. S.K. Goel, Deputy General Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Zonal Office, Lodhi Road, New Delhi has deposed that during February 2006 he was working as Assistant General Manager - I, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur. He has identified the Register Ex. PW-1/A wherein he has further identified the remarks Ex. PW-1/A-3 to A-8 made by the Controlling Authority namely Sh. N.M. Jain. PW-7 :- Sh. S.A. Syed, retired from SBBJ, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi has deposed that he remained in service as Concurrent Auditor in State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, New Rohtak Road Branch, Delhi w.e.f. 19.08.2002 to 31.08.2004. He has identified the forwarding letter Ex. PW-7/A of the Assistant General Manager. He has further identified his initials on 36 of 100 37 the Monthly Concurrent Audit Reports for the months of February 2004 Ex. PW-7/B, for the month of January 2004 Ex. PW-7/C, for the month of June 2003 Ex. PW-7/D, for the month of October 2002 Ex. PW-7/E, for the month of May 2003 Ex. PW-7/F, photocopies of Monthly Concurrent Audit Report for the month of March 2003 Ex. PW-7/G, for the month of April 2004 Ex. PW-7/H, for the month of June 2004 Ex. PW-7/J (objected to).
PW-8 :- Sh. Rakesh Kumar Arora, Assistant General Manager, Regional Office, Chandigarh has deposed that during the period 2004 he was posted as Chief Manager (Advances), Regional Office-1, Zonal Office, Delhi. He has identified accused Sangeeta Bhat before the Court. He has also identified the Kaccha Register maintained by accused Sangeeta Bhat Ex. PW-8/A PW-9 :- Sh. Rakesh Chand Bhargav, Deputy Manager, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, ITS 37 of 100 38 Department, Head Office, Tilak Marg, Jaipur has deposed that he remained posted in State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, New Rohtak Road Branch, Delhi as Assistant Manager from August 1998 to May 2002. He has identified the signatures of Sh. R.K. Sharma, the then Branch Manager on the Account Opening Form Ex. P-2 pertaining to account no. 4471 in the name of Devender Kumar. He has further identified the signatures of Sh. Devender Sharma Account Holder of Account no. 4576 in the name of M/s. D.K. Enterprises on the Account Opening Form Ex. P-3.
PW-10 :- Sh. Ishwar Lal Tekwani, Manager, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Centralized Pension Processing Centre, 2nd Floor, SMS Highway, Jaipur has deposed that he was posted as Deputy Manager on deputation w.e.f. 01.06.2004 at New Rohtak Road Branch of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur at Delhi. He has identified his signatures on the Seizure Memo Ex. PW-10/A, Ex. PW-10/B, Ex. PW-10/C, 38 of 100 39 Ex. PW-10/D, Ex. PW-10/E. He has further identified the Branch Visiting Book Register Ex. PW-1/A which used to remain in the possession of accused Sangeeta Bhat. He has also identified the handwriting of accused Sangeeta Bhat on he Kaccha Register Ex. PW-8/A. He has identified his stamp and initials on the Statement of Account of M/s. D.K. Enterprises Ex. PW-10/F (also Ex. PW-2/E), on the Statement of Account of M/s. Aryan Sales Corporation Ex. PW-8/DA. He has also identified the endorsement "Please Pay" made by accused Sangeeta Bhat alongwith her initials on the Cheques Ex. PW-2/A-1 to Ex. PW-2/A-3. He has also identified his initials on the certified copies of Statement of Account of Devender Kumar Ex. PW-10/G and statement of account of Demand Purchase Account Ex. PW-10/H. PW-11 :- Sh. Kripal Dutt Sanguri S/o Late Sh. Prem Ballabh Sanguri, r/o villae Bichli Gauja Kali, Opposite ITI Bareily Road, Haldwani, District Nainital, Uttarakhand.
39 of 100 40 PW-12 :- Sh. S.P. Sharma, (retired Chief Manager SBBJ, Connaught Place New Delhi) S/o Late Sh. Babu Lal Sharma, R/o 5-B, Bank Colony, Geeta Enclave, Mathura, U.P. PW-13 :- Ms. Sheenu Dinesh W/o Sh.
Dinesh Singh, Branch Manager, SBBJ, Shahjahanpur, District Alwar, Rajasthan.
PW-14 :- Sh. M.M. Lal (retd.) S/o Sh.
Munshi Ram Chhabra, R/o Flat No. 702, Kairav, Great Eastern Links, Ram Mandir Road, Goregaon (West), Mumbai.
PW-15 :- Sh. Mahender Kumar Saini S/o Sh. Karan Singh Saini, R/o House No. 183, Azadpur Village, Delhi.
PW-16 :- Inspector Sanjay Dhall, National Investigation Agency, New Delhi has deposed that on 06.05.2005, he was posted as Inspector of Police in Anti Corruption Branch, CBI, New 40 of 100 41 Delhi. He has identified his signatures on the Search cum Seizure Memo Ex. PW-16/A and Ex. PW-16/B. PW-17 :- Inspector Shiv Kumar, Income Tax Department, Circle-26(1), New Delhi has deposed that during May, 2005, he was posted as Senior, Tax Assistant in Income Tax Department, Ward 6(4), New Delhi. He has identified his signatures on the Search Cum Seizure Memos Ex. PW-16/A and Ex. PW-16/B. PW- 18 :- Ms. Inspector Shahnaz Khan, Special Crime-III, CBI, New Delhi, IO of the present case. She has identified the signature of Sh.N. M. Singh, the then SP, CBI, ACB, New Delhi on the FIR Ex. PW-18/A and letter Ex. PW-18/H. She has identified her signatures on the Seizure Memo Ex. PW-18/B, Production cum Seizure memo dated 6.6.2005 Ex. PW-18/C, Production cum Seizure memo dated 25.7.2005 Ex. PW-18/D, Production cum Seizure memo dated 25.7.2005 Ex. PW-18/E, Production cum 41 of 100 42 Seizure memo dated 27.10.2005 Ex. PW-18/F, Production cum Seizure memo dated 4.8.2005 Ex. PW-10/A and Production cum Seizure Memo dated 14.11.2005 Ex. PW-10/B. She has also identified the letter dated 12.11.2005 (D-19) Ex. PW-18/G, the inspection report Ex. PW-18/J (Colly.), Production cum Seizure memo dated 19.6.2006 (D-22) Ex. PW-10/C, Production cum Seizure memo dated 17.7.2006 (D-22) Ex. PW-10/D, the original Day Books dated 26.4.2004 Ex. PW-18/K and dated 29.4.2004 Ex. PW-18/L, Production cum Seizure memo dated 17.8.2006 (D-23) Ex. PW-10/E, letter dated 17.8.2006 Ex. PW-18/M. She has further deposed that vide letter Ex. PW-18/M, Chief Manager had forwarded DP Note signed by deceased accused Prem Lata Ex. PW-18/M-1, DP Note delivery letter Ex. PW-18/M-2 signed by deceased accused Prem Lata, letter of waiver Ex. PW-18/M-3 signed by deceased accused Prem Lata. She has further deposed that the undated letter regarding temporary overdraft in CA no.24764 addressed to branch manager 42 of 100 43 SBBJ , New Rohtak Road, New Delhi signed by deceased accused Prem Lata which is Ex. PW-18/M-4, DP Note (individual) signed by accused deceased D. K. Sharma already Ex. PW1/DA, Undated DP Note Delivery Letter already Ex. PW1/DB signed by accused deceased D. K. Sharma , letter of waiver already Ex. PW1/DC signed by accused deceased D. K. Sharma, Balance Confirmation Letter signed by accused deceased D. K. Sharma already Ex. PW1/DD, Undated letter Ex. PW-18/M-5 regarding Temporary Overdraft in CA no. 4576 signed by accused deceased D. K. Sharma, Undated Term Deposit Delivery letter Ex.PW18/M-6 signed by accused deceased D. K. Sharma, Undated and unfilled but signed Application Ex.PW18/M-7 for Advance Against Term Deposit signed by accused deceased D. K. Sharma at point A and sanctioned by accused Sangeeta Bhat at point B, Undated and unfilled Form of Agreement Ex. PW-18/M-8 (running into 4 pages) and each page is signed by accused deceased D. K. Sharma at point A. 43 of 100 44 Undated and unfilled DP Note (individual) Ex. PW-1/DE of M/s Aryan Sales Corporation signed by accused deceased D. K. Sharma at point A. Undated and unfilled DP Note Delivery Letter Ex. PW-1/DF of M/s Aryan Sales Corporation signed by accused deceased D. K. Sharma at point A and Undated and unfilled Letter of Waiver of M/s Aryan Sales Corporation Ex. PW-1/DG signed by accused deceased D. K. Sharma at point A. Undated and unfilled Letter of Continuity of M/s Aryan Sales Corporation Ex. PW-1/DH signed by accused deceased D. K. Sharma at point A. Undated and unfilled Balance Confirmation Letter of M/s Aryan Sales Corporation Ex. PW-1/DJ signed by accused deceased D. K. Sharma at point A. Certified copy of Punishment Order dated 18.04.2006 Ex. PW-18/N-1 (running into nine pages) against accused Sangeeta Bhat was received vide letter dated 02.11.2006 of Assistant General Manager (Vigilance) addressed to Sh. N. M. Singh, SP, CBI/ACB, New Delhi was received in CBI office and was marked to her by SP N.M. Singh vide 44 of 100 45 his endorsement and signature at point A on the left margin of the letter Ex. PW-18/N-2. Inspector Shahnaz Khan has further deposed that she had also collected charges / lapses observed in the conduct of current and credit cash accounts at the branch issued by Assistant General Manager to accused Sangeeta Bhat, Ex. PW-1/A-9 (running into four pages and annexures running into three pages) and the same was duly received by accused Sangeeta Bhat vide her endorsement and signatures at point B at page 4 of Ex. PW-1/A-9 (D-25). She had also collected reply dated 18.12.2002 Ex. P-6 (D-26) submitted by accused Sangeeta Bhat which is addressed to Assistant General Manager. She had also collected letter dated 06.08.2003 Ex. PW-19/B, signed by accused Sangeeta Bhat which is addressed to Sh. R.N. Sharma in which accused has admitted that in some cases overdrafts are allowed beyond discretionary powers which has been stopped forthwith.
45 of 100 46 PW-18 has further deposed that she had also collected letter dated 19.02.2004 Ex. P-7 signed by accused Sangeeta Bhat, which is addressed to Assistant General Manager regarding overdrafts in current accounts. She had also collected letter dated 16.04.2004 Ex. P-8 (running into two pages) signed by accused Sangeeta Bhat, which is addressed to Assistant General Manager regarding overdrafts in current accounts and in which accused Sangeeta Bhat has admitted that all the accounts / overdrafts as on 12.02.2004 had been adjusted except the accounts of M/s D.K. Enterprises and M/s Bharat Sales.
PW-18 has also deposed that she had also collected letter dated 28.08.2003, already Ex. P-9 signed by accused Sangeeta Bhat at point Q-1037 and addressed to Assistant General Manager regarding concurrent Audit Report dated 30.06.2003 (running into two pages) in which at Serial no. 7 and 8 it has been admitted by her that efforts for recovery in NPA accounts 46 of 100 47 (Non- Performing Accounts) and Probable NPA Accounts had been stepped up and matter was taken up with the borrowers of irregular term loan accounts for recovery of over due installments. She had also collected letter dated 07.06.2003, already Ex. P-10 signed by accused Sangeeta Bhat at point Q-1039 and addressed to Assistant General Manager regarding compliance of Audit Report dated 31.03.2003. PW-18 has deposed that during the course of investigation, she had collected Specimen writing / signatures of accused Sangeeta Bhat marked S-1 to S-38, already Ex. PW-19/D1 to Ex. PW-19/D-38 and S-39 to S-82, already Ex. PW-5/A-1 to PW-5/A-43. She had forwarded the Specimen Writings of accused Sangeeta Bhat alongwith incriminating documents Q-8 to Q-429, Q430 to Q-681, Q-805 to Q-1026, Q-1026 A to Q-1039, Q-1040 to Q-1064 and Specimen Handwriting of accused Sangeeta Bhat S-1 to S-82 to The Director, GEQD Shimla (H.P) through letter dated 20.07.2006 Ex. PW-19/A 47 of 100 48 (D-27) (running into 7 pages) and she has identified the signatures of Sh. N.M. Singh, SP, CBI/ACB, New Delhi. In reply to the said letter, SP, CBI/ACB, New Delhi, she had received opinion / report no. CX-375/2006 Ex. PW-18/P from GEQD (Govt. Examiner of Questioned Documents), Directorate of Forensic Sciences, Shimla (running into 11 pages) (D-28), which was marked by Sh. N.M. Singh, SP, CBI/ACB, New Delhi to her vide his endorsement. Inspector Shahnaz Khan has deposed that during the course of investigation she had also collected Death Certificate Ex. PW-18/Q of accused Devender Sharma (since deceased) issued by Sub-Registrar, Birth and Death, MCD, Rohini Zone. She had recorded the statements of Prosecution witnesses. After analyzing the oral and documentary evidence collected by her during investigation, she was satisfied that accused Sangeeta Bhat has committed offences U/s 120B IPC R/w Section 13(2) 13 (1) (d) of PC Act, 1988 for causing undue favour and 48 of 100 49 pecuniary benefit to the tune of Rs.
34,47,664=32 to the accused Devender Kumar Sharma (since deceased) and Smt. Prem Lata (since deceased) W/o Late. Sh. Devender Kumar Sharma and corresponding wrongful loss to State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur.
PW-18 has deposed that she filed the Charge Sheet against accused Sangeeta Bhat on 31.10.2006. As accused Sangeeta Bhat was awarded a Punishment of compulsory retirement from her service, she did not obtained Sanction for her Prosecution u/s 19 of the PC Act, 1988. PW-19 :- Dr. B. A. Vaid, GEQD (Shimla), Himachal Pradesh has deposed that the documents of this case were received in the laboratory from the SP, CBI, ACB, New Delhi vide letter Ex. PW-19/A. He has identified his report Ex. PW-19/E.
37. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused Sangeeta Bhat under Section 313 49 of 100 50 Cr. P.C was recorded.
38. Accused Sangeeta Bhat has not led defence evidence. Therefore, the case was fixed for final arguments. I have heard final arguments of Sh. J. S. Wadia, Learned PP for CBI and Dr. Anurag Kumar Aggarwal, Advocate, Ld. Counsel for accused Sangeeta Bhat and perused the record.
39. Ld. PP for the CBI has argued that the prosecution has proved its case that accused Sangeeta Bhat being public servant while posted as Chief Manager, SMGS-IV at State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, New Rohtak Road Branch, New Delhi during the period March, 2003 to June 2004 entered into a criminal conspiracy with co-accused persons namely D. K. Sharma (since deceased) Proprietor of M/S. D. K. Enterprises and M/S. Aryan Sales Corporation and Smt. Prem Lata (since deceased) Proprietor of M/S. Bharat Sales Corporation and have cheated the Bank to the tune of approximately Rs.35 lacs by permitting 50 of 100 51 indiscriminate purchase of clean cheques / demand drafts under Demand Purchase Facility and Drawing against clearing.
40. Ld. PP has further argued that accused Sangeeta Bhat has caused a wrongful loss to the Bank to the tune of approximately Rs.35 lacs and the corresponding wrong full gain to the accused D. K. Sharma (since deceased) and Smt. Prem Lata(since deceased).
41. It has been also argued by the Ld. PP that accused Sangeeta Bhat while posted as Chief Manager, SMGS-IV at State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, New Rohtak Road Branch, New Delhi during the period March, 2003 to June 2004 had abused her position as Public Servant and caused pecuniary gain to the tune of Rs.35 lacs approximately to the accused D. K. Sharma (since deceased) and Smt. Prem Lata (since deceased).
42. It has been further argued that Prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts against accused 51 of 100 52 Sangeeta Bhat, hence she may be convicted. Ld. PP has placed reliance on the following citations :-
1. MIR NAGVI ASKARI VS. CBI - IV (2009) CCR 146 SC.
2. LAXMI NARAYAN JOSHI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, AIR 1980 SC 439.
3. SHIV NARAIN VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, 1980 CRLJ SC 388.
4. V.C. SHUKLA VS. STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION), AIR 1980 SC 1982.
5. MOHD. USMAN MOHD. HUSSAIN VS.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AIR 1981 SC 588.
43. It has been argued by Dr. Anurag Kumar Aggarwal, Advocate, Ld. Counsel for accused Sangeeta Bhat that she has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further argued that the Prosecution has failed to bring any iota of evidence to show the criminal conspiracy between accused Sangeeta Bhat and Sh.
52 of 100 53 Devender Kumar Sharma (since deceased) and Smt. Prem Lata (since deceased).
44. It has been further argued by the Ld. Defence Counsel that in order to prove criminal conspiracy, complainant has to prove that accused had fraudulently intention at the time of making false representation. The dishonest intention to deceive the bank should be proved from day one.
45. He has further argued that in order to prove a case of cheating, the inducement and deception is required to be proved by the Prosecution. The dishonest intention should have been from the time of making inducement.
46. Ld. Defence counsel has argued that accused Sangeeta Bhat has not exceeded her delegated powers and acted dishonestly and the credit facilities were extended to the accused persons in the best interest of the Banking norms and practices. He has placed reliance on the following citations :-
53 of 100 54
1. S.V.L. MURTHY VS. STATE (2009) 6 SUPREME COURT CASES 77.
2. A. SUBAIR VS. STATE OF KERALA (2009) 6 SUPREME COURT CASES 587.
3. V.P. SHRIVASTAVA VS. INDIAN EXPLOSIVES LIMITED AND OTHERS (2010) 10 SUPREME COURT CASES 361.
4. HRIDAYA RANAJAN PRASAD VERMA AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER (2000) 4 SUPREME COURT CASES 168.
5. S.W. PALANIKAR AND OTHERS VS.
STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER (2002) 1 SUPREME COURT CASES 241.
6. STATE OF PUNJAB VS. MADAN MOHAN LAL VERMA (2013) 14 SUPREME COURT CASES 153.
7. RAM NARAIN POPLI VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (2003) 3 SUPREME COURT CASES 641.
8. MOHAMMED IBRAHIM AND OTHERS VS.
STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER (2009) 8 SUPREME COURT CASES 751.
54 of 100 55 CONSPIRACY, CHEATING & CRIMINAL MISCONDUCT
47. Before adverting to the discussion of this case, it would be useful to have a look upon the relevant provisions of law. Charges against accused Sangeeta Bhat were framed for the trial of offences punishable u/s 120-B r/w Section 420 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Substantive charges for the offence punishable U/s 420 IPC and U/s 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was also framed against accused Sangeeta Bhat, which are reproduced as under:-
Section 120-A defines "Criminal Conspiracy", which reads as under:-
"120-A. Definition of criminal conspiracy - When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done -
(1) an illegal act, or (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, 55 of 100 56 such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy.
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof. Explanation - It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object."
48. As per definition of criminal conspiracy U/s 120-A of Indian Penal Code when two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done, (a) an illegal act; or (b) an act, which is not illegal by illegal means, such agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy. The essence of offence of conspiracy is the fact of combination by agreement. The agreement may be express or implied, or in part express and in part implied. The conspiracy arises and the offence is committed as soon as the agreement is made; and the offence continues to be committed so long as the 56 of 100 57 combination persists, that is until the conspiratorial agreement is terminated by completion of its performance or by abandonment or frustration. The gist of offence of conspiracy is an agreement to break the law. In considering the question of criminal conspiracy, it is not always possible to give affirmative evidence about the date of formation of conspiracy, about the persons who took part in the formation of conspiracy, about the object which the conspirators set before themselves as the object of conspiracy and about the manner in which the object of conspiracy was to be carried out. All this necessarily a matter of inference. The essence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act. Such an agreement can be proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence or by both. It is not necessary that there should be express proof of the agreement, far from the acts and conduct of the parties, the agreement can be inferred.
49. On the point of criminal conspiracy, it has been 57 of 100 58 held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shiv Narayan Laxmi Narayan Joshi Vs State of Maharashtra, AIR 1980 SC 439, that a conspiracy is always hatched in secrecy and it is impossible to adduce direct evidence of the same. The offence can be only proved largely from inference drawn from acts or illegal omissions committed by the conspirators in pursuance of a common design.
50. The agreement to conspire may be inferred from circumstances, which raised a presumption of a concerted plan to carry out an unlawful design. A conspiracy need not be established by proof which actually brings the party together; but may be shown like any other fact, by circumstantial evidence.
51. In Kehar Singh and Others Vs State, AIR 1988 SC 1883, it is observed:
"Generally, a conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and it may be difficult to adduce direct evidence of the same. The prosecution will often rely on 58 of 100 59 the evidence of acts of various parties to infer that they were done in reference to their common intention. The prosecution will also more often rely upon the circumstantial evidence. The conspiracy can be undoubtedly proved by such evidence direct or circumstantial. But the Court must require whether the two persons are independently pursuing the same end or they have come together to the pursuit of the unlawful object. The former does not render them conspirators, but the later does. It is however, essential that the offence of conspiracy required some kind of physical manifestation or agreement the express agreement however need not be proved. Nor mutual meetings of the two persons is necessary. Nor it is necessary to prove the actual words of communication. The evidence as to transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful design may be sufficient."
"420 - Cheating and Dishonestly inducing delivery of property - Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived 59 of 100 60 to deliver any property any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which he signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
"13. Criminal Misconduct by a Public Servant.
(1) A Public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct;
(a) to (c) .......... (d) if he, -
(i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or 60 of 100 61 pecuniary advantage without any public interest; or ***** (2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less then one year but which may extend to 7 years and shall also be liable to fine."
52. On bare reading of the above provisions, it is clear that in order to bring home the charge under Section 120-B of IPC, the prosecution is required to prove that accused Sangeeta Bhat in connivance with co-accused persons namely Sh. D. K. Sharma (since deceased) and Smt. Prem Lata Sharma (since deceased) has caused the wrongful loss to the Bank to the tune of Rs.35 lacs. A conspiracy need not be established by proof which actually brings the party together, but may be shown like any other fact, by circumstantial evidence.
53. It is also clear that in order to establish the guilt of 61 of 100 62 the accused under Section 13(2) read with Section 13 (1)
(d) of the PC Act, 1988 also, the Prosecution is required to establish that the accused by corrupt or illegal means or by using her official position, obtained advantage or a valuable thing for herself or for any other person.
54. The instant case was registered on 04.05.2005 on the complaint of Sh. M.M. Lal S/o Sh. Munshi Ram, CVO, SBBJ, HQ, Jaipur, who has been examined as PW-14 before the Court. It has been mentioned in the complaint that Smt. Sangeeta Bhat, Officer in SMGS-IV, the then Chief Manager of New Rohtak Road Branch, New Delhi during the period March 2003 to June 2004 had shown undue favour to private persons namely, Sh. D.K. Sharma, Proprietor of M/s. D.K. Enterprises and M/s. Aryan Sales Corp. and Smt. Prem Lata W/o Sh. D.K. Sharma, Proprietor of M/s. Bharat Sales, all located at 313/B, Inderlok, Delhi- 110035 by permitting indiscriminate purchase of clean cheques / DD under Demand purchase facility and drawings 62 of 100 63 against clearing.
55. It has been further mentioned in the complaint that Smt. Sangeeta Bhat frequently also exceeded her delegated powers as Chief Manager. She permitted cash withdrawals even without sufficient balances in these accounts, thereby caused wrongful gain to the accused D.K. Sharma and others.
56. It has been also mentioned in the complaint that the two firms viz. M/s. D.K. Enterprises and M/s. Bharat Sales were maintaining Current Deposit Accounts bearing No. 24576 and 24764 which were opened on 12.04.2002 and 27.05.2003 respectively in the branch and were permitted purchase of cheques lodged in local clearing, initially on 28.03.2003 and 02.06.2003, respectively and thereafter, on regular basis till 25.08.2003 without setting / fixing up regular limits.
57. It has been further mentioned in the complaint that when the amount of unauthorized clean overdrafts, which 63 of 100 64 was permitted earlier by Smt. Sangeeta Bhat to the tune of Rs.8,96,639=90 and Rs.8,39,399=15 in the Current Deposit Account No. 24576 and 24764 of M/s. D.K. Enterprises and M/s. Bharat Sales Corporation respectively were not recovered, she in collusion and criminal conspiracy with the party opened an another Current Deposit Account No. 24891 on 22.03.2004 in the name of M/s. Aryan Sales Corporation and allowed overdrawing on 27.03.2004 and purchase of cheques / DD lodged in local clearing on regular basis from 25.04.2004 onwards without assessing and sanctioning limit for the same. Smt. Sangeeta Bhat used to maintain a kuccha register in her own custody for recording the demand purchase transactions pertaining to this account.
58. It has been further mentioned in the complaint that despite frequent instructions / advices from the Controlling Authority to discontinue the said malpractices and to set up regular limits, in the accounts in which requests for clean 64 of 100 65 overdrafts / overstepping in the sanctioned limits were frequent, Smt. Sangeeta Bhat transgressed /overstepped her delegated powers which ultimately resulted in creation of clean overdrafts to the tune of Rs.13,58,192=02, Rs. 17,04,221=19 and Rs.21,85,686=68 as on 07.01.2004, 10.02.2004 and 08.06.2004 in the Current Deposit Accounts of M/s. D.K. Enterprises, M/s. Bharat Sales and M/s. Aryan Sales Corporation respectively.
59. It has been alleged that Smt. Sangeeta Bhat did not report the above transaction to the Controlling Authority, which she was supposed to do under prescribed procedure. She even went to extent of accepting blank documents such as Demand Promissory Note, Delivery Letter, Letter of waiver and letter Continuity containing only the signature of proprietors of the firms and in the above mentioned accounts viz. M/s. D. K. Enterprises, M/s. Bharat Sales and M/s. Aryan Sales Corporation, no primary / collateral security was obtained by her.
65 of 100 66
60. It has been further alleged that on 05.06.2004, the day on which Smt. Sangeeta Bhat was relieved from her duties in the Branch, cash withdrawal to the extent of R.15 lacs were permitted by her to M/s. Aryan Sales Corporation creating an unauthorized clean overdraft as per details given here under:-
S. NO. CHEQUE DATE AMOUNT AMOUNT
NO. (Rs.) PAID ON
1. 208959 05.06.2004 5 lacs 05.06.2004
2. 208960 - do - 5 lacs - do -
3. 208961 - do - 5 lacs - do -
61. The present outstanding in the Current Deposit Accounts of M/s. D. K. Enterprises, M/s. Bharat Sales and M/s. Aryan Sales Corporation as on 16.03.2005 are Rs. 8,96,640/-, Rs.8,41,893/- and Rs.17,11,625/- respectively.
62. It is an admitted fact that account no. 24576 was opened in the name of M/s. D. K. Enterprises on 12.04.2002 vide Account Opening Form Ex. P-3 (D-5) under the Proprietorship of accused Devender Kumar Sharma. This 66 of 100 67 document Ex. P-3 was admitted by the accused Sangeeta Bhat herself during the Admission / Denial of Documents under Section 294 of Cr. P. C.
63. It is also an admitted fact that account no. 24764 was opened in the name of M/s. Bharat Sales on 27.05.2003 vide Account Opening Form Ex. P-4 (D-6) under the the Proprietorship of Mrs. Prem Lata on the introduction of accused Devender Kumar Sharma, Proprietor of M/s. D. K. Enterprises. This document Ex. P-4 was admitted by the accused Sangeeta Bhat herself during the Admission / Denial of Documents under Section 294 of Cr. P. C.
64. It is further an admitted fact that account no. 24891 was opened in the name of M/s. Aryan Sales Corporation on 22.03.2004 vide Account Opening Form Ex. P-1 (D-3) under the the Proprietorship of accused Devender Kumar Sharma, Proprietor of M/s. D. K. Enterprises. This document Ex. P-1 was admitted by the accused Sangeeta Bhat herself during the Admission / Denial of Documents under Section 294 of 67 of 100 68 Cr. P. C.
65. I have gone through the Statement of accounts of M/s. D. K. Enterprises, M/s. Bharat Sales and M/s. Aryan Sales Corporation.
66. Perusal of the statement of account no. 24576 of M/s. D. K. Enterprises Ex. PW-2/E, shows that on the following dates the debit balance of the current account was exceeded more than Rs.3 lacs:-
S.NO. DATE BALANCE OUTSTANDING
(DEBIT)
01. 26.04.2003 Rs.4,44,978=83
02. 30.04.2003 Rs.3,90,456=48
03. 23.06.2003 Rs.3,08,796=24
04. 16.09.2003 Rs.6,84,366=43
05. 18.09.2003 Rs.4,20,096=43
06. 20.09.2003 Rs.3,62,138=43
07. 22.09.2003 Rs.5,62,138=43
08. 25.09.2003 Rs.4,37,138=43
09. 27.09.2003 Rs.4,67,158=43
10. 03.10.2003 Rs.5,94,419=99
11. 08.10.2003 Rs.5,44,419=99
12. 09.10.2003 Rs.5,44,361=99
68 of 100
69
13. 13.10.2003 Rs.4,94,361=99
14. 16.10.2003 Rs.4,94,361=99
15. 20.10.2003 Rs.4,94,361=99
16. 21.10.2003 Rs.8,94,361=99
17. 23.10.2003 Rs.8,94,361=99
18. 28.10.2003 Rs.6,54,361=99
19. 29.10.2003 Rs.4,54,361=99
20. 01.11.2003 Rs.5,31,673=32
21. 03.11.2003 Rs.3,31,673=32
22. 05.11.2003 Rs.9,01,673=32
23. 06.11.2003 Rs.6,51,673=32
24. 07.11.2003 Rs.8,71,673=32
25. 10.11.2003 Rs.6,23,715=32
26. 11.11.2003 Rs.8,73,715=32
27. 13.11.2003 Rs.8,73,715=32
28. 14.11.2003 Rs.8,33,715=32
29. 15.11.2003 Rs.8,33,715=32
30. 17.11.2003 Rs.8,33,715=32
31. 19.11.2003 Rs.10,33,715=32
32. 20.11.2003 Rs.10,33,715=32
33. 21.11.2003 Rs.8,33,915=32
34. 24.11.2003 Rs.8,33,915=32
35. 25.11.2003 Rs.8,33,915=32
36. 27.11.2003 Rs.4,33,915=32
37. 02.12.2003 Rs.4,43,419=40
38. 03.12.2003 Rs.11,43,419=40
69 of 100
70
39. 04.12.2003 Rs.9,43,419=40
40. 05.12.2003 Rs.8,43,419=40
41. 08.12.2003 Rs.8,43,419=40
42. 09.12.2003 Rs.12,45,461=40
43. 11.12.2003 Rs.8,45,461=40
44. 12.12.2003 Rs.9,45,461=40
45. 15.12.2003 Rs.5,45,796=40
46. 17.12.2003 Rs.9,45,796=40
47. 18.12.2003 Rs.5,45,796=40
48. 19.12.2003 Rs.7,45,796=40
49. 20.12.2003 Rs.9,15,796=40
50. 23.12.2003 Rs.9,85,796=40
51. 24.12.2003 Rs.9,85,796=40
52. 27.12.2003 Rs.12,55,796=40
53. 29.12.2003 Rs.12,55,796=40
54. 30.12.2003 Rs.8,55,796=40
55. 01.01.2004 Rs.3,98,192=02
56. 02.01.2004 Rs.5,98,192=02
57. 05.01.2004 Rs.6,98,192=02
58. 06.01.2004 Rs.5,98,192=02
59. 07.01.2004 Rs.13,58,192=02
60. 08.01.2004 Rs.4,00,234=02
61. 09.01.2004 Rs.12,30,234=02
62. 10.01.2004 Rs.4,30,234=02
63. 12.01.2004 Rs.12,40,234=02
64. 13.01.2004 Rs.4,30,234=02
70 of 100
71
65. 14.01.2004 Rs.12,15,234=02
66. 15.01.2004 Rs.11,90,234=02
67. 16.01.2004 Rs.11,90,234=02
68. 17.01.2004 Rs.11,90,234=02
69. 19.01.2004 Rs.7,90,234=02
70. 21.01.2004 Rs.6,70,234=02
71. 22.01.2004 Rs.10,70,234=02
72. 23.01.2004 Rs.6,70,234=02
73. 24.01.2004 Rs.8,70,234=02
74. 27.01.2004 Rs.9,50,234=02
75. 28.01.2004 Rs.6,65,234=02
76. 29.01.2004 Rs.6,15,234=02
77. 03.02.2004 Rs.4,35,674=57
78. 04.02.2004 Rs.5,35,674=57
79. 06.02.2004 Rs.5,35,674=57
80. 07.02.2004 Rs.8,85,674=57
81. 09.02.2004 Rs.12,37,716=57
82. 10.02.2004 Rs.10,37,716=57
83. 11.02.2004 Rs.9,37,716=57
84. 13.02.2004 Rs.9,37,716=57
85. 01.03.2004 Rs.9,47,609=55
86. 09.03.2004 Rs.9,47,629=55
87. 18.03.2004 Rs.9,47,629=55
88. 24.03.2004 Rs.9,37,736=57
89. 31.03.2004 Rs.9,57,614=92
90. 13.04.2004 Rs.9,57,634=92
71 of 100
72
91. 30.04.2004 Rs.9,70,428=38
92. 06.05.2004 Rs.9,65,428=38
93. 07.05.2004 Rs.9,60,428=38
94. 08.05.2004 Rs.9,50,428=38
95. 11.05.2004 Rs.9,40,428=38
96. 12.05.2004 Rs.9,30,428=38
97. 13.05.2004 Rs.9,20,428=38
98. 14.05.2004 Rs.9,10,428=38
99. 15.05.2004 Rs.9,00,428=38
100. 31.05.2004 Rs.8,86,439=77
101. 30.06.2004 Rs.8,96,639=90
(RELIEVED ON 05.06.2004)
67. From the above, it is clear that accused Sangeeta Bhat had allowed clean overdrafts exceeding her delegated powers of Rs. 3 lacs in the account of M/s. D. K. Enterprises.
68. I have also gone through the statement of account No. 24764 of M/s. Bharat Sales Ex. PW-2/D, which shows that on the following dates the debit balance of the current account was exceeded more than Rs.3 lacs:-
72 of 100 73 S.NO. DATE BALANCE OUTSTANDING (DEBIT)
01. 28.08.2003 Rs.4,96,051=77
02. 10.09.2003 Rs.3,54,030=52
03. 18.09.2003 Rs.3,04,030=52
04. 19.09.2003 Rs.4,04,030=52
05. 23.09.2003 Rs.4,54,030=52
06. 24.09.2003 Rs.3,29,030=52
07. 25.09.2003 Rs.3,29,030=52
08. 27.09.2003 Rs.5,99,050=52
09. 01.10.2003 Rs.5,01,963=31
10. 15.10.2003 Rs.4,22,963=31
11. 17.10.2003 Rs.4,22,963=31
12. 20.10.2003 Rs.4,22,963=31
13. 23.10.2003 Rs.4,22,963=31
14. 01.11.2003 Rs.4,02,414=01
15. 05.11.2003 Rs.8,02,414=01
16. 06.11.2003 Rs.6,52,414=01
17. 07.11.2003 Rs.8,02,414=01
18. 10.11.2003 Rs.6,52,414=01
19. 11.11.2003 Rs.8,02,414=01
20. 13.11.2003 Rs.4,02,414=01
21. 14.11.2003 Rs.4,02,414=01
22. 15.11.2003 Rs.8,02,414=01
23. 17.11.2003 Rs.8,02,414=01
24. 18.11.2003 Rs.4,02,414=01 73 of 100 74
25. 22.11.2003 Rs.6,02,414=01
26. 24.11.2003 Rs.4,02,414=01
27. 27.11.2003 Rs.4,02,414=01
28. 02.12.2003 Rs.4,07,084=09
29. 03.12.2003 Rs.5,07,084=09
30. 04.12.2003 Rs.4,07,084=09
31. 08.12.2003 Rs.4,07,084=09
32. 09.12.2003 Rs.7,07,084=09
33. 10.12.2003 Rs.6,07,084=09
34. 12.12.2003 Rs.5,07,084=09
35. 13.12.2003 Rs.5,07,084=09
36. 15.12.2003 Rs.5,07,084=09
37. 16.12.2003 Rs.5,09,084=09
38. 17.12.2003 Rs.9,09,084=09
39. 18.12.2003 Rs.6,09,084=09
40. 20.12.2003 Rs.5,09,084=09
41. 23.12.2003 Rs.4,09,084=09
42. 24.12.2003 Rs.4,09,084=09
43. 27.12.2003 Rs.5,09,124=09
44. 29.12.2003 Rs.5,09,204=09
45. 02.01.2004 Rs.4,99,623=52
46. 03.01.2004 Rs.9,39,623=52
47. 05.01.2004 Rs.6,39,623=52
48. 06.01.2004 Rs.7,99,623=52
49. 07.01.2004 Rs.6,99,623=52
50. 08.01.2004 Rs.12,99,623=52 74 of 100 75
51. 09.01.2004 Rs.5,29,623=52
52. 10.01.2004 Rs.19,69,623=52
53. 12.01.2004 Rs.10,89,623=52
54. 13.01.2004 Rs.18,79,623=52
55. 14.01.2004 Rs.10,39,623=52
56. 15.01.2004 Rs.10,09,623=52
57. 16.01.2004 Rs.9,59,623=52
58. 17.01.2004 Rs.10,24,623=52
59. 19.01.2004 Rs.12,24,623=52
60. 20.01.2004 Rs.11,24,623=52
61. 21.01.2004 Rs.13,44,623=52
62. 22.01.2004 Rs.12,94,623=52
63. 23.01.2004 Rs.11,69,623=52
64. 24.01.2004 Rs.15,29,623=52
65. 27.01.2004 Rs.8,14,623=52
66. 28.01.2004 Rs.13,44,623=52
67. 29.01.2004 Rs.10,24,823=52
68. 03.02.2004 Rs.19,99,221=19
69. 04.02.2004 Rs.16,84,221=19
70. 05.02.2004 Rs.17,84,221=19
71. 06.02.2004 Rs.16,29,221=19
72. 07.02.2004 Rs.14,04,221=19
73. 09.02.2004 Rs.14,34,221=19
74. 10.02.2004 Rs.17,04,221=19
75. 11.02.2004 Rs.17,04,221=19
76. 12.02.2004 Rs.5,34,221=19 75 of 100 76
77. 13.02.2004 Rs.14,34,221=19
78. 14.02.2004 Rs.14,34,281=19
79. 18.02.2004 Rs.13,04,281=19
80. 01.03.2004 Rs.13,20,412=99
81. 06.03.2004 Rs.12,60,412=99
82. 08.03.2004 Rs.13,20,412=99
83. 10.03.2004 Rs.13,20,432=99
84. 13.03.2004 Rs.12,40,432=99
85. 15.03.2004 Rs.13,20,432=99
86. 18.03.2004 Rs.13,20,432=99
87. 23.03.2004 Rs.12,40,432=99
88. 24.03.2004 Rs.13,02,301=19
89. 25.03.2004 Rs.13,00,301=19
90. 26.03.2004 Rs.12,98,301=19
91. 27.03.2004 Rs.12,95,301=19
92. 29.03.2004 Rs.12,93,801=19
93. 31.03.2004 Rs.13,23,363=51
94. 05.04.2004 Rs.13,18,363=51
95. 06.04.2004 Rs.13,14,363=51
96. 12.04.2004 Rs.13,07,363=51
97. 23.04.2004 Rs.13,02,363=51
98. 30.04.2004 Rs.12,70,411=14
99. 07.05.2004 Rs.12,15,411=14
100. 14.05.2004 Rs.11,85,411=14
101. 21.05.2004 Rs.10,85,411=14
102. 27.05.2004 Rs.9,90,411=14 76 of 100 77
103. 01.06.2004 Rs.9,19,013=26
104. 05.06.2004 Rs.8,29,113=26 (RELIEVED ON 05.06.2004)
69. From the above, it is clear that accused Sangeeta Bhat had allowed clean overdrafts exceeding her delegated powers of Rs. 3 lacs in the account of M/s. Bharat Sales.
70. Moreover, perusal of the account no.24891 of M/s. Aryan Sales Corporation shows that on the following dates the debit balance of the current account was exceeded more than Rs.3 lacs:-
S.NO. DATE BALANCE OUTSTANDING (DEBIT)
01. 06.04.2004 Rs.3,76,166=08
02. 23.04.2004 Rs.3,53,210=08
03. 05.05.2004 Rs.3,01,832=56
04. 06.05.2004 Rs.3,39,318=56
05. 07.05.2004 Rs.3,98,982=56
06. 08.05.2004 Rs.3,42,969=56
07. 05.06.2004 Rs.17,52,812=68 (RELIVED ON 05.06.2004) 77 of 100 78
71. From the above, it is clear that accused Sangeeta Bhat had allowed clean overdrafts exceeding her delegated powers of Rs. 3 lacs in the account of M/s. Aryan Sales Corporation.
72. The testimony of PW-2 R. N. Goel also corroborates the fact that accused Sangeeta Bhat had shown undue favour to accused D. K. Sharma (since deceased) and accused Prem Lata (since deceased).
73. PW-2 R. N. Goel has deposed that he remained posted in New Rohtak Road Branch of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur as Deputy Manager during the period from November, 2002 to July, 2004 and the accused Sangeeta Bhat was the Branch Manger during the said period i.e. from 2002 to June, 2004.
74. PW-2 has further deposed that the financial powers of accused Sangeeta Bhat as Branch Manager during her tenure, in respect of cheque purchase were to 78 of 100 79 the tune of Rs.6 lacs only and in respect of clean overdraft to the tune of Rs.3 lacs only.
75. PW-2 has deposed that if the Branch Manager exceeds his powers, he is supposed to intimate the Head Office / Regional Office of the Bank. If a cheque or draft is purchased by the Branch Manager, value of the instrument is to be seen and not the balance in the account, but the instrument i.e. cheque or draft should be before the Branch Manager. But in case of clean overdraft, the balance in the account has to be seen to show that as to what was the outstanding amount against the party. It has to be seen that the account is not overdrawn.
76. PW-2 has also deposed that he was verbally directed by the accused Sangeeta Bhat to purchase the cheques of the party in the accounts of accused D. K. Sharma (since deceased) and Smt. Prem Lata (since deceased) while he was working as Deputy Manager in Rohtak Road Branch. He has further deposed that before 79 of 100 80 purchase of cheque, the Branch Manager is to ensure that the limit of the party does not exceed the sanction limit and beyond her powers of Rs.6 lacs.
77. PW-2 R. N. Goel has deposed after seeing the cheques Ex. PW-2/A1 to Ex. PW-2/A216 pertaining to account no. 24891 in the name of M/s. Aryan Sales Corporation, that all the cheques bears the endorsement and initial of accused Sangeeta Bhat for making payment. He has also identified the signatures of accused Devender Kumar Sharma on all the cheques, as he had seen his signatures in ordinary course of banking business.
78. After seeing the cheques Ex. PW-2/B1 to Ex. PW-2/B126 pertaining to account no. 24764 in the name of M/s. Bharat Sales, that all the cheques bears the endorsement and signatures of accused Sangeeta Bhat for making payment. He has also identified the signatures of accused Prem Lata on all the cheques, as he had seen her signatures in ordinary course of banking business.
80 of 100 81
79. PW-2 R. N. Goel has deposed after seeing the cheques Ex. PW-2/C1 to Ex. PW-2/C111 pertaining to account no. 24576 in the name of M/s. D. K. Enterprises, that all the cheques bears the endorsement and signatures of accused Sangeeta Bhat for making payment. He has also identified the signatures of accused Devender Kumar Sharma on all the cheques.
80. PW-2 R. N. Goel after seeing the Certified copy of statement of account no. 24764 in the name of M/s. Bharat Sales Ex. PW-2/D has deposed that the same was issued by New Rohtak Road Branch of State Bank of Bikaner and this statement is certified under Banker's Books Evidence Act. This statement pertain to period from 27.05.2003 to 30.06.2005. This account was overdrawn from 26.07.2003 to 05.02.2004 and a sum of Rs.14,04,221=19 was last overdrawn on 05.02.2004 and during this period whenever the cheque was purchased in this account, it was already overdrawn. He has further deposed that accused 81 of 100 82 Sangeeta Bhat used to purchase the cheques during this period in this account. He has also deposed that the debit balance of this firm is Rs.8,41,893=15.
81. PW-2 R.N. Goel after seeing the Bank account Statement of M/S. D. K. Enterprises Ex. PW-2/E (running into 14 pages), has deposed that on the last page, there is a debit balance of Rs.8,96,639=90.
82. After seeing the statement of account pertaining to M/S. Aryan Sales Corporation Ex. PW-8/DA, has deposed that the debit balance of this firm was Rs.17,11,625=29.
83. PW-2 R. N. Goel has deposed that on 05.06.2004 about 15 lacs consisting of three cheques of Rs.5 lacs each were paid without sufficient balance in the account of M/s. Aryan Sales. When in the evening of the day report (EOD), he found that the account has been overdrawn with Rs.15 lacs, apart from pending balance of Rs.2 lacs and there should not have been overdraft of Rs.17 lacs from the account of M/s. Aryan Sales, then he inquired from accused 82 of 100 83 Sangeeta Bhat about this position. On this she told him that she was having demand draft of similar amount and she would come day after tomorrow i.e. on 07.06.2004 and she would purchase the demand draft and credit in the account of M/s. Aryan Sales.
84. PW-2 has further deposed that when she came demand drafts were not purchased and she told him to pass the entries and should send the vouchers but he never received the vouchers. At that time, PW-7 Sh. S. Syed was posted as Concurrent Auditor in the same branch and he told him that accused Sangeeta Bhat was already transferred on 05.06.2004 and she should not have been present in the bank now. PW-7 Sh. Syed further told him that he was going to Regional Office in this regard and instructed him not to pass any entry because she was already transferred.
85. PW-2 R.N. Goel has deposed that thereafter PW-8 Rakesh Kumar Arora, the then Chief Manager visited the 83 of 100 84 Branch and investigated the matter.
86. PW-8 Rakesh Kumar Arora has deposed that during the period 2004, he was posted as Chief Manager (Advances), Regional Office-1, Delhi Zonal Office, Delhi and accused Sangeeta Bhat was the Branch Manager at New Rohtak Road Branch, New Delhi. He has further deposed that since she was posted as Branch Manager, she was responsible for all the affairs, growth, recovery, customer service, branch administration etc. Accused Sangeeta Bhat was relieved from New Rohtak Road Branch on 05.06.2004 but on 07.06.2004 the Regional Office received information that she was still sitting in the office. Then, on the instructions of his immediate boss PW-1 N. M. Jain, he visited New Rohtak Road Branch and found that she was sitting in the office and computer was on.
87. PW-8 immediately informed his immediate Boss and instructed accused Sangeeta Bhat to shut down the computer which she did. Thereafter, she was making some 84 of 100 85 calls to accused D. K. Sharma and was asking to send the drafts.
88. PW-1 N. M. Jain has deposed that during the year 2003-2004, he was posted and working as Assistant General Manager with State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Regional Office-1, New Delhi and at that time he was supervising and controlling branches of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur situated in New Delhi. Therefore, New Rohtak Road Branch of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur was also supervised and controlled by him.
89. PW-1 has further deposed that during the year 2002-2003 upto June 2004, accused Sangeeta Bhat was the Branch Manager of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur at New Rohtak Road Branch and there was system according to which he was required to visit all the branches in New Delhi quarterly and he used to visit all the branches in New Delhi including New Rohtak Road Branch and record his observation in the Visitor's Register maintained in every 85 of 100 86 branch.
90. PW-1 after seeing the Branch Visit Book (D-9) Ex. PW-1/A of New Rohtak Road Branch of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, has identified his handwriting and signatures on the notings Ex. PW-1/A1 to Ex. PW-1/A8. He has further deposed that accused Sangeeta Bhat has also noted all the aforesaid notings on the date of notings itself. He has also identified the signatures of accused Sangeeta Bhat on all the aforesaid notings which she put in his presence.
91. PW-1 has further deposed that during his visit, he found that the accused was allowing overdrafts i.e. overdrawings in so many current accounts without informing the Controlling Office and some of the overdrafts were beyond her financial power. He has also deposed that her financial power for permitting clean overdrafts were upto Rs. 3 lacs and overdraft / overdrawing against cheque purchasing were upto Rs.6 lacs only.
86 of 100 87
92. PW-1 N. M. Jain has deposed that vide his noting Ex. PW-1/A7, the explanation of the accused Sangeeta Bhat was sought for allowing overdraft against cheques in violation of her powers. He has issued a letter Ex. PW-1/A9 dated 12.02.2004 (D-25) to the accused. He has also identified her signatures on receipt of the letter Ex. PW-1/A9. He has further deposed that the accused was asked to explain about irregularities committed by her and he has mentioned in detail all the irregularities in all the notings while granting financial facilities to M/s. Aryan Sales Corporation, M/S. D. K. Enterprises and M/s. Bharat Sales.
93. PW-1 N. M. Jain has also deposed that on 05.06.2004, he was informed by concurrent auditor of that branch that further clean overdraft of Rs.15 lacs was permitted by the accused to M/s. Aryan Sales Corporation. After seeing the letter dated 01.06.2004 Ex. PW-1/A10, PW-1 has deposed that the said letter was issued to accused Sangeeta Bhat by post asking her that she has 87 of 100 88 deliberately violated his direction and instruction. She was also directed to recover the amount from several parties to whom she has allowed financial facilities.
94. PW-1 has also deposed that the bank has not sanctioned any financial facility to M/s. Aryan Sales Corporation, M/S. Bharat Sales and M/s. D. K. Enterprises by the Head Office or Regional Office of the Bank.
95. PW-7 S. A. Syed has deposed that he remained in service of SBBJ, New Rohtak Road Branch since 19.08.2002 to 31.08.2004. As Concurrent Auditor, his duties were to look after the adherence of system and procedure of the Bank for which he was conducting audit of the Branch.
96. He has further deposed that the monthly report was always sent to DGM, Delhi Zone. He has identified his handwriting and signatures on Monthly Concurrent Audit Reports for the month of February ending on 29.02.2004 Ex. PW-7/B, January, 2004 Ex. PW-7/C, June 2003 Ex.
88 of 100 89 PW-7/D, and May, 2003 Ex. PW-7/F.
97. PW-10 Ishwar Lal Tekwani has deposed that he was posted as Deputy Manager on deputation with effect from 01.06.2004 at New Rohtak Road Branch at Delhi of SBBJ and at that time, accused Sangeeta Bhat was Chief Manager of the said Branch.
98. He has further deposed that on 05.06.2004, in the account of M/s. Aryan Sales Corporation, three cheques bearing no. 208959 Ex. PW-2/A1, 208960 Ex. PW-2/A2 and 208961 Ex. PW-2/A3 of Rs. 5 lacs each was paid in cash to Sh. Devender Kumar, Proprietor of the firm and this payment was allowed by accused Sangeeta Bhat, the then Chief Manager of the Branch by writing on the cheques "Please Pay" with her initial and the DN Purchase was not realized throughout the day on 05.06.2004 for the aforesaid account of M/s. Aryan Sales Corporation. The said account was lying overdrawn on 05.06.2004 for Rs.17,52,812=00.
99. It is aptly clear from from the statement of 89 of 100 90 accounts of M/S. D. K. Enterprises, M/s. Bharat Sales and M/s. Aryan Sales Corporation coupled with the testimonies of PW-1 N. M. Jain, PW-2 R. N. Goel, PW-7 S. A. Syed, PW-8 Rakesh Kumar Arora and PW-10 Ishwar Lal Tekwani, that accused Sangeeta Bhat had shown undue favour to private persons namely Sh. D. K. Sharma (since deceased), Proprietor of M/s. D. K. Enterprises and M/s. Aryan Sales Corporation and Smt. Prem Lata (since deceased), Proprietor of M/s. Bharat Sales, by permitting indiscriminate purchase of clean cheques / DD under Demand purchase facility and drawings against clearing / clean overdrafts with the object to cheat State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and accused Sangeeta Bhat had also dishonestly purchased cheques submitted by her co-accused Devender Kumar Sharma (since deceased)and Smt. Prem Lata (since deceased) by exceeding her financial power and also by floating the instructions of Bank and its Senior Officer.
100. I have also gone through the noting Ex. PW-1/A7 90 of 100 91 dated 22.12.2003 made by PW-1 N. M. Jain in Visit Book Ex. PW-1/A (D-9), who had given his observation that the Branch Manager is still not able to come out with the practice of allowing clean OD frequently in so many accounts, which is a matter of grave concern. Branch should confirm within a week by DO letter that all clean overdraft had been adjusted and should refrain in future. This practice should be stopped forthwith and submitted her explanation for not following zonal office instructions If the regular overdraft is required in any of the account, a regular limit should be set up.
101. Thereafter, from the observations of noting Ex. PW-1/A7 dated 2.12.2003, an explanation was sought from the accused Sangeeta Bhat about the irregularities in various advance accounts as well as permission of clean overdrafts in current accounts much beyond her discretionary powers in the account of M/s. D. K. Enterprises and M/s. Bharat Sales getting stuck up involving 91 of 100 92 a sum of Rs.10.38 lacs and Rs.17.04 lacs respectively, vide letter dated 12.02.2004 Ex. PW-1/A9 (D-25).
102. Accused Sangeeta Bhat had filed the reply dated 16.04.2004 to the letter Ex. PW-1/A9. It has been mentioned in the reply Ex. P-8 that no clean overdrats are being permitted. All the A/Cs O/S as on 12.02.2004 have been adjusted except the following A/cs :-
(1) M/s. D. K. Enterprises.
(2) Bharat Sales.
103. It has been further mentioned in the reply Ex. P-8 that she sought six months time to liquidate the clean overdrafts O/S in the A/Cs of D. K. Enterprises and Bharat Sales. It has been further mentioned that Local cheques are not being purchased now.
104. I have also gone through the letter dated 01.06.2004 Ex. PW-1/A10, which was sent to the accused Sangeeta Bhat by post asking her that she has deliberately violated the directions and stringent instructions issued to 92 of 100 93 her vide letter Ex. PW-1/A9. It has been further mentioned in the letter Ex. PW-1/A10 that the practice of permitting overdrafts / overdrawings beyond sanctioned limits was being permitted by her despite the specific confirmation that no clean overdrafts are being permitted vide her reply Ex. P-8 in response to letter Ex. PW-1/A9.
105. I have also gone through Concurrent Audit Reports. Perusal of concurrent Audit Report for the month of February ending on 29.02.2004 Ex. PW-7/B shows that in column (D) of Prescribed Performa titled as ADVANCES, there is a sub column (i) in which it is mentioned "Whether loans and advances sanctioned properly after due scrutiny and at appropriate level?". It had been observed by the Concurrent Auditor PW-7 that " Yes. Except clean OD / Overstepping limit."
106. In sub column (ii), it is mentioned "Whether sanctioned in accordance with delegated authority?". It had been observed by the Concurrent Auditor PW-7 that "Yes.
93 of 100 94 Except clean OD beyond powers."
107. In sub column (iii), it is mentioned "Whether prescribed security documents properly and correctly executed?". It had been observed by the Concurrent Auditor PW-7 that "No security documents in clean OD."
108. PW-7 has enclosed the list of firms in which Clean Overdrafts remained pending. After perusal of the same, it reveals that although regular overdrafts limits have not been fixed in the accounts of M/s. D. K. Enterprises and M/s. Bharat Sales, yet clean cash withdrawal were allowed daily in their accounts inspite of the fact that account of M/s. D. K. Enterprises was showing Debit Balance of Rs.9,37,716=57 and account of M/s. Bharat Sales was showing Debit Balance of Rs.13,04,281=19.
109. PW-7 Concurrent Auditor has also given his observation to the effect that information for allowing clean OD was not advised to Controller for noting. Despite Branch visit report by AGM-1, clean OD not controlled.
94 of 100 95
110. Perusal of concurrent Audit Report for the month of January, 2004 Ex. PW-7/C shows that in column (D) of Prescribed Performa titled as ADVANCES, there is a sub column (ii), in which it is mentioned "Whether sanctioned in accordance with delegated authority?". It had been observed by the Concurrent Auditor PW-7 that "Yes. Except clean OD. No control return submitted."
111. In sub column (iii) in Ex. PW-7/C, it is mentioned "Whether prescribed security documents properly and correctly executed?". It had been observed by the Concurrent Auditor PW-7 that "Yes. Except clean OD."
112. There is another column (I) on the prescribed Performa, titled as Any other irregularities / findings not covered above. It has been observed by PW-7 Concurrent Auditor that "cheques cash clearing paid creating overdraft beyond limit / DP not reflected in "Refer Register". Sanction / review on passing each instrument of such cheques not reflected in separate kachha register for Audit."
95 of 100 96
113. PW-7 has enclosed the list titled as "Excess drawings allowed in January, 2004". After perusal of the same, it reveals that although regular overdrafts limits have not been fixed in the accounts of M/s. D. K. Enterprises and M/s. Bharat Sales, yet there was outstanding of Rs. 8,70,234=00 and 15,29,623=52 respectively. It has been further observed by him in the remarks column that in the account of M/s. D. K. Enterprises, Rs.5 lacs cash was paid on 05.01.2004 beyond discretionary power. No control return was submitted. Rs.9 lacs was paid in cash on 07.01.2004, Rs.8.30 lacs was paid in cash on 09.01.2004 and Rs.7.85 lacs was paid in cash on 14.01.2004.
114. It has been also observed by him in the remarks column that in the account of M/s. Bharat Sales that beyond discretionary powers, cash withdrawal were allowed and no control returns were submitted to the Controlling Authority and daily OD was allowed in cash.
115. PW-7 Concurrent Auditor has also given his 96 of 100 97 observation to the effect that Branch had paid clearing cheques / cash cheques beyond limit or without limit to the valued customers. Separate request letters of such accommodations need to be obtained from customers to safeguard bank interest. He had further observed "please get confirmation from her authority in separate kuchha register in cash such cheque is paid by segmental head or keep control return for audit.
116. In sub column (iii) of Column D of Monthly Report of Concurrent Auditor Ex. PW-7/D, it is mentioned "Whether prescribed security documents properly and correctly executed?". It had been observed by the Concurrent Auditor PW-7 that "Yes. Except clean OD."
117. From the above, it is clear that despite the directions given by her Senior Officers, accused Sangeeta Bhat dishonestly allowed clean overdrafts of Rs.15 lacs on 05.06.2004 in the account of M/s. Aryan Sales under Proprietorship of Sh. Devender Kumar Sharma (since 97 of 100 98 deceased) by purchasing three cheques of Rs. 5 lacs each, without taking any security documents and despite the fact that there was huge outstanding amount in the accounts of M/s. D. K. Enterprises and M/s. Bharat Sales.
118. Even accused Sangeeta Bhat already have the knowledge regarding the huge outstanding amount i. e. Rs. 8,96,639=90 and Rs.8,41,893=15 respectively in the account of M/s. D. K. Enterprises and M/s. Bharat Sales but despite this fact, she had allowed to pay Rs.15 lacs to Devender Kumar Sharma (since deceased) by making the endorsement "Please Pay" on three cheques of Rs.5 lacs each from the account of M/s. Aryan Sales.
119. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I am of the opinion that the Prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond reasonable doubts that accused Sangeeta Bhat in conspiracy with her co-accused persons namely Devender Kumar Sharma (since deceased) and Smt. Prem Lata (since deceased) cheated the State Bank of Bikaner 98 of 100 99 and Jaipur to the tune of Rs.34,47,664=34 and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 120B read with Section 420 of IPC and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of PC Act, 1988. Hence, accused Sangeeta Bhat is held guilty and convicted for the same.
120. Prosecution has also succeeded in proving its case beyond reasonable doubts that accused Sangeeta Bhat alongwith her co-accused persons namely Devender Kumar Sharma (since deceased) and Smt. Prem Lata (since deceased) dishonestly and fraudulently induced State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and delivered the amount of Rs. 34,47,664=34 to her co- accused persons namely accused Devender Kumar Sharma (since deceased) and accused Smt. Prem Lata (since deceased), which was the property of the said Bank and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. Hence, accused Sangeeta Bhat is held guilty and convicted for the same.
121. Prosecution has further succeeded in proving its 99 of 100 100 case beyond reasonable doubts that accused Sangeeta Bhat while working as Chief Manager in SBBJ by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing her official position obtained pecuniary advantage of Rs.34,47,664=34 to her co- accused persons namely Devender Kumar Sharma (since deceased) and Smt. Prem Lata (since deceased) and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of PC Act, 1988. Hence, accused Sangeeta Bhat is held guilty and convicted for the same.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY I.E ON 12.08.2014.
(N. K. SHARMA) SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) CBI:02 DELHI.
100 of 100 101 IN THE COURT OF SH. N. K. SHARMA, SPECIAL JUDGE, (PC ACT)-02, (CBI), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI. RC No.25(A)/2005 CBI / ACB / NEW DELHI CC No.16/06 ID No.02401R1020742006 CBI VS SANGEETA BHAT, D/O SH. P.S. RAINA, R/O C-673, SUSHANT LOK, GURGAON, HARYANA.
DATE OF INSTITUTION :31.10.2006.
DATE OF ARGUMENTS :30.07.2014.
DATE OF JUDGMENT :12.08.2014.
ORDER ON SENTENCE :20.08.2014.
ORDER ON SENTENCE
1. Vide my separate judgment announced on 12.08.2014, accused Sangeeta Bhat has been held guilty for the offence 101 of 100 102 punishable under Section 120-B read with Section 420 of IPC and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of PC Act, 1988.
2. Accused Sangeeta Bhat has also been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC.
3. Accused Sangeeta Bhat has further been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of PC Act, 1988.
4. It has been submitted by Dr. Anurag Kumar Aggarwal, Learned counsel for convict Sangeeta Bhat that she is not a previous convict. She is the first time Offender. She is facing agony of this trial since 2006. She is the only Bread earner of her family. There is no other person except her to look after her husband and 79 years old aged mother-in-law.
5. It has been further submitted by Ld. Defence Counsel that her husband is suffering from very high diabetic due to which his vision became zero. She has also to look after her 79 years old aged mother-in-law, who is a cancer patient. She has two unmarried son. Out of them, one is in USA for studying and 102 of 100 103 second is in Noida Hostel for studying.
6. It has been further submitted that Bank had already given a punishment of Compulsory retiring her from Service. It is prayed that in these circumstances, a lenient view may be taken against her.
7. It has been argued by Sh. J. S. Wadia, Learned PP for CBI that no leniency be shown to the Convict in awarding the sentence as it will be undesirable and will also be against public interest. It has been argued by the Ld. PP that Convict Sangeeta Bhat entered into criminal conspiracy with her co- accused persons namely accused D. K. Sharma (since deceased) and Smt. Prem Lata (since decased).
8. Ld. PP has further argued that convict Sangeeta Bhat is involved in a serious corruption case being public servant and being the Chief Manager of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, New Rohtak Road Branch cheated the Bank to the tune of Rs. 34,47,664=34. He has also argued that convict Sangeeta Bhat has abused her official position being public servant.
103 of 100 104
9. It has been prayed by the learned PP that she should be awarded severe punishment and heavy fine may also be imposed.
10. I have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the Convict and the Prosecution.
11. The Apex Court in para 7 of the judgment reported as State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ram Singh, 2000(1) RCR (Criminal) 784 expressed its concern about corruption by observing as under:-
"Corruption in a civilised society is a disease like cancer, which if not detected in time is sure to maliganise the policy of country leading to disastrous consequences. It is termed as plague which is not only contagious but if not controlled spreads like a fire in a jungle. Its virus is compared with HIV leading to AIDS, being incurable. It has also been termed as Royal thievery. The socio-political system exposed to such a dreaded communicable disease is likely to crumble under its own weight. Corruption is 104 of 100 105 opposed to democracy and social order, being not only anti-people, but aimed and targeted against them. It affects the economy and destroys the cultural heritage. Unless nipped in the bud at the earliest, it is likely to cause turbulence shaking of the socio economic political system in an otherwise healthy, wealthy, effective and vibrating society."
12. In a case reported as State of UP Vs Shri Kishan, 2005 I AD (SC) 180, their Lordships laid down the following guidelines on the subject in para 8 as under:-
"Imposition of sentence without considering its effect on the social order in many cases may be in reality a futile exercise. The social impact of the crime, e.g. Where it relates to offences against women, dacoity, kidnapping, misappropriation of public money, treason and other offences involving moral turpitude or moral delinquency which have great impact on social order and public interest, cannot be lost sight of and perse require exemplary treatment. Any liberal attitude by imposing meager sentences or taking too 105 of 100 106 sympathetic view merely on account of lapse of time in respect of such offences will be result- wise counter productive in the long run and against societal interest which needs to be cared for and strengthened by string of deterrence inbuilt in the sentencing system".
13. Their Lordships in para 9 of the judgment further observed as under:
"The Court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against the individual victim but also against the society to which the criminal and victim belong. The punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality with which the crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting public abhorrence and it should "respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminal."
14. In a case reported as State of Karnataka Vs. Puttaraja, 2003 X AD(SC) 464, their Lordships in para 7 of the 106 of 100 107 judgment observed as under:
"Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law and society could not long endure under such serious threats. It is, therefore, the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed etc. This position was illuminatingly stated by this Court in Sevaka Perumal etc. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1991 SC 1463.
15. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that if following sentences in this case are awarded, it shall serve the ends of justice.
16. Sentences to convict Sangeeta Bhat:-
For the offence punishable under Section 120-B of IPC read with Section 420 of IPC and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of PC Act, 1988, Convict Sangeeta Bhat is sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 2 years alongwith a
107 of 100 108 fine of Rs.50,000/-(Rs. Fifty Thousands Only) and in default of payment of fine, she shall undergo S. I. for a further period of six months.
For the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC, Convict Sangeeta Bhat is sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 3 years alongwith a fine of Rs. 50,000/-(Rs. Fifty Thousands Only) and in default of payment of fine, she shall undergo S. I. for a further period of six months.
For offence punishable under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of PC Act, 1988, Convict Sangeeta Bhat is sentenced to undergo R. I. for a period of 3 years alongwith a fine of Rs.50,000/-(Rs. Fifty Thousands Only) and in default of payment of fine, she shall undergo S. I. for a further period of six months.
17. It is further directed that all the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. Benefit of Section 428 Cr. P. C. be also given to the convict Sangeeta Bhat.
108 of 100 109
18. A copy of Judgment and this order on sentence be given to the convict Sangeeta Bhat free of cost. File be consigned to Record Room.
(N. K. SHARMA) SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT)(CBI):02 DELHI/20.08.2014.
109 of 100 110 CC NO. 16/06 CBI VS. SANGEETA BHAT 20.08.2014 Present:- Sh. J. S. Wadia, Ld. PP for CBI.
Convict Sangeeta Bhat is present with counsel Dr. Anurag Kumar Aggarwal, Advocate.
Vide my order on the point of sentence on the separate sheets, following sentences in this case are awarded :-
For the offence punishable under Section 120-B of IPC read with Section 420 of IPC and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of PC Act, 1988, Convict Sangeeta Bhat is sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 2 years alongwith a fine of Rs.50,000/-(Rs. Fifty Thousands Only) and in default of payment of fine, she shall undergo S. I. for a further period of six months.
For the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC, Convict Sangeeta Bhat is sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 3 years alongwith a fine of Rs. 50,000/-(Rs. Fifty 110 of 100 111 Thousands Only) and in default of payment of fine, she shall undergo S. I. for a further period of six months.
For offence punishable under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of PC Act, 1988, Convict Sangeeta Bhat is sentenced to undergo R. I. for a period of 3 years alongwith a fine of Rs.50,000/-(Rs. Fifty Thousands Only) and in default of payment of fine, she shall undergo S. I. for a further period of six months.
It is further directed that all the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. Benefit of Section 428 Cr. P. C. be also given to the convict Sangeeta Bhat.
A copy of Judgment and this order on sentence be given to the convict Sangeeta Bhat free of cost.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(N. K. SHARMA) SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT)(CBI):02 DELHI/20.08.2014.
111 of 100 112 RC No.25(A)/2005 CBI / ACB / NEW DELHI CC No.16/06 20.08.2014 File taken up on the applications under Section 389 of Cr. P. C. moved by learned counsel for Convict Sangeeta Bhat for suspension of sentences.
Present:- Sh. J. S. Wadia, Ld. PP for CBI.
Convict Sangeeta Bhat is present with counsel Dr. Anurag Kumar Aggarwal, Advocate.
Heard. Convict Sangeeta Bhat remained on bail during the trial of this case and she has not misused the liberty of the bail and attended the court on each date of hearing. This fact is also not disputed by the Ld. PP.
Convict Sangeeta Bhat is directed to furnish the Bail Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount.
Bail Bond with one surety has been furnished by Convict Sangeeta Bhat and the same is accepted upto 19th October, 2014.
Surety Rajender Bhat has produced Original FDR bearing no. 691708 dated 13.08.2014. Same be returned back 112 of 100 113 after making the endorsement on it.
Surety Sh. Rajender Bhat has also filed the photocopy of Aadhar Card.
A copy of this order be given dasti to the convict Sangeeta Bhat.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(N. K. SHARMA) SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT)(CBI):02 DELHI/20.08.2014.
113 of 100